Tom,
Just a brief point. Axial lines don't generally "pass down the centre of
streets". The longest lines passing through space tend to be diagonals
defined by corners of buildings. This is one of the intriguing things
about axial maps - they follow directly from the geometry of built form,
but describe the connections offered by open space. As you correctly say
this is important because lines in open space offer vision and access
between people and so are inherently social. But we should not forget
that it is the relative placement of building blocks that defines the
pattern of space, and that placement is essentially geometric. Ie.
architecture matters socially.
Alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On
> Behalf Of Tom Dine
> Sent: 09 February 2004 23:54
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Shape Syntax
>
> Dear Bill
>
> I think people like me get misled by the idea that you are measuring
> the 'geometry' of a place. Axial lines, convex spaces and isovists
> measure the geometry of co-visibility. The geometry of streets and
> buildings has only a limiting effect on this, it is not the relevant
> geometry. If an axial line passes along the middle of a street it
doesn't
> matter what the facades are like.
>
> To go back to your succinct definition of space syntax as "Extrinsic
> measures of relations between geometrical elements", wouldn't it be
> more exact to say that a space syntax tool is 'Any method that makes
> extrinsic measurements of co-visibility and/or co-accessibility.'
>
> The only physical facts we need to know about a place are the limits
it
> sets on co-visibility or co-accessibility. Co-visibility and
> co-accessibility are the two independent variables on which we
> suppose certain social phenomena to be dependant, and you have
> found the link to be in the pattern of configuration as shown by the
> j-graph.
>
> I don't see why it is necessary to talk in such an abstract way about
> "Spatial elements which, prima facie, seem to have some degree of
> embedding in or relation to human behaviour" when you are actually
> working with concrete facts about whether a person in one location
> can see a person in another location. This is an inherently social
fact,
> with an overwhelmingly strong relation to human behaviour. It
> sometimes seems as if you don't see what a powerful case you have.
>
> Of course other investigations of configuration are interesting as
well.
> Sanjay's suggestion of another name for other tools might help define
> another distinct field of study. In fact, the significant difference
> seems
> to be that space syntax deals with the potential spatial relations
> between people within a space, whereas other methods measure
> spatial relations within shapes or between people and shapes.
> Wouldn't you call this Shape Syntax?
>
> And then you open up a possible whole new world of purely Social
> Syntax . . . !
>
> Regards, Tom
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:31:49 +0000, Professor Bill Hillier
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Dear Jake - I agree with both Alasdair and Tom (and also with Alan's
> latest
> >whch I ave just seen). Space Syntax is a research programme with a
> >particular theoretical approach, not just a set of tools. But there
is a
> >link. The theoretical approach is based on two key ideas which are
> >reflected in - in fact the very basis of - the tools. One idea is
that
> of
> >representing space in terms of spatial elements which, prima facie,
> seemm
> >to have some degree of embedding in or relation to human
> behaviour e.g
> >movement is linear both itself in a local sense, but also in the
sense
> that
> >in navigating, say, an street network, we try to approximate a line
> between
> >where we think the destination is in relation to the origin - so
> movement
> >from one to the other is likely to reflect how we conceptualise the
> pattern
> >of lines available between the two. I discussed this a way of knowing
> urban
> >systems in my second paper to the fourth symposium, and it seems
> likely
> >that non-linear information is not involved in this picture. Likewise
> human
> >interaction in real space is normally convex, so again behaviour has
> a
> >geometrical implication. Again, our visual experience at any moment
> is
> >something like a directed isovist. So in all these senses spatial
> elements
> >in space syntax embody some degree of functional potentiality. One
> task of
> >the researcher is to decide what representation is most likely to
> capture
> >the logic, spatial and functional, of the system being investigated.
> This
> >is not to ignore geometry, as some of our critics argue, but, on the
> >contrary, to try to embed the natural geometry of human behaviour in
> formal
> >spatial analysis. It may even me that one reason space syntax
> seems to work
> >is that the 'natural geometry' of human behaviour is, as one would
> expect,
> >already built into the systems of space we are studying, both at the
> level
> >of the space and the level of the configuration.
> >
> >The second idea is to use graphs to assign values to spatial
> element
> >(defined as above) which reflect their relations to some or all other
> >elements in the system. This idea is embodied in the j-graph, which
> seems
> >to me central to both the theory and methods of space syntax.
> >Conceptualising elements in a system in terms of the shape of their
> >relations to all or some others is perhaps the paradigm element in
> space
> >syntax. We can see a system, for example, not just as 'elements and
> >relations', but as its set of j-graphs, so that the system is in
effect
> >made up of the points from which the whole system can be viewed.
> This
> >immediately shows, for example, that systems of space have a
> different
> >shape when considered from different points within them, even
> though they
> >are the same system. I haves suggested that it might be useful to
> see other
> >kinds of system in this way, such a social systems (see for example
> my
> >'Society seen through the prism of space' at the Atlanta Symposium).
> >
> >It may be worth adding that in most space syntax studies the other
> elements
> >are of the same kind, but not necessarily so. For example, as you
will
> >remember, in our early studies of the Tate, we tried different ways
of
> >representing space, but found that by far the most successful in
> predicting
> >movement was using convex elements linked by lines - which of
> course is
> >what the Tate feels like to a visitor. But whatever spatial elements
we
> >use, syntax focuses, as Alasdair says, on the extrinsic rather than
> >intrinsic attributes of spaces, that is on their external embedding
in
> the
> >system as a whole rather than their intrinsic properties - though you
> can,
> >by using points as your elements, apply extrinsic measures to
> 'intrinsic'
> >properties of spatial elements such as shape (see for example the
> same
> >paper referred above).
> >
> >These are the defining characteristics of all of the techniques of
> spatial
> >analysis that have been developed by space syntax and and I am not
> aware of
> >other methods of spatial analysis which set out deliberately to
> combine
> >these two ideas. In doing so, space syntax is in a sense trying to
> create
> >methdods of analysis which, while being formal and rigorous,
> embody the
> >human subject in a sense that even some phenomenologists
> approve of (for
> >example Seaman). - Bill
> >
> >
|