It is indeed an interesting discussion but I think we have been here before
many times now. I think the "visual structure" of a space only dictates the
"visual accessibility" of a space. In my humble opinion, SS is only about
that. I was asked some time ago to think of some relevance of SS to prison
designs. Prison is a good example to draw a contrast between "visual
accessibility" and "complete accessibility". In order to create a secure
prison, a designer has to think of both "visual accessibility" and "physical
accessibility". The prison walls are made 60 feets high for a reason because
I don't think a 2D line is going to pose a real obstacle. However, "visual
accessibility" can also be used to create the notion of prison i.e solitude
and behaviour control. The classical examples being the panopticon and
isolation rooms. Suffice to say that a "complete accessibility" assessment
would require a multitude of "accessibility indicators". Again, dare I
suggest (and I do that with great hope) that SS researchers are not taking
the next step in developing SS. I would compare conventional SS as Newton
Laws of gravity, nice and simple and works well for regional levels, however
the workings of real spaces (and their influence on people) would perhaps
require a probability-based, chaotic, random, non-physical (i.e. sound,
colour, 3D, Metric (amongst many others, characterisation of space.
To that effect, I have started a personal project on mapping SS measures in
3D for some well-known buildings. The output would be just a colourful
"Atlas of Nice Buildings" and their "SS signatures". If you have a VRML (in
VRML 2.0 format) of a famous building and would like to have it analysed
then write to me off-list. DO NOT SEND ME THE VRML ON EMAIL AS IT WILL BLOCK
MY EMAIL ACCOUNT.
Sanjay.
|