It is good to be reminded once again that space syntax is primarily a
structuralist enterprise. Going back a long way in time on the list, I
talked of the need for space syntax to "throw off its structuralist
prentensions". It seems to me that our current direction is addressing
this issue, particularly with the papers Bill recommends (his fourth
symposium papers, and the Environment and Behavior special issue).
However, if we are to address the experiential with what is essentially
a positivist technique, we have to be extremely careful. We are in
danger, as I've recently argued in EPB (see link below), of applying a
reductionist formal mathematical description in order to 'explain'
multilayered sociospatial phenomena. Seen from a phenomenolgical
perspective, we are in danger of making the naive assumption that our
abstraction of space actually leads to the experience of it. As is of
course obvious to us all, Jane Jacob's street ballet is not simply a
matter of the configuration, but a dynamics within space, of the linked
human-spatial experience. Thus, I believe we have to move our space
syntax onwards, to address (particularly) *how* the configuration is
related to the interaction within it -- that is, to look at the
dynamical process within architecture. Although this is all half-formed
(and I'm very wary of posting it in when I am fully aware that I need to
study Prof Seamon's texts in detail), I would appreciate feedback from
people on the list as I'm coming to trying to put together my PhD at
this moment!
Analysing the Visual Dynamics of Space is here:
http://www.envplan.com/epb/abstracts/b30/b12962.html
(subscription required for full paper)
Although I misspelt pretensions, the email of the 'restructuralism' is
here:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0102&L=spacesyntax&P=R605&I=-1
Some notes:
1. The Goedel theorem point, as I later noted, is a "facetious
alliteration", but the pretext is good (it's also quite deliberately
taking a different angle on post-structuralism), but I need to clarify
it (I failed in the Analysing the Visual Dynamics paper, and the
reviewers rightly told me to ditch it, so the final lacks the final
theoretical discussion).
2. When I wrote my "Is air a fluid? (No)" I was thinking of the perfect
gas assumption typically made in building flow CFD analysis -- as Tom
Dine pointed out, of course air is a fluild.
David Seamon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Some members might be interested in a review of Bill Hillier’s SPACE
> IS THE MACHINE, which I recently wrote for ENVIRONMENTAL AND
> ARCHITECTURAL PHENOMENOLOGY:
>
> http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/Hillier_machine.htm
>
> An earlier phenomenological commentary I wrote on space syntax is
> available at:
>
> http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon/hillier93.htm
>
> I recently completed a book chapter comparing and contrasting urban
> place making as presented in the work of Hillier, Christopher
> Alexander, and Daniel Kemmis. I’ll gladly forward a digital version if
> anyone is interested.
>
> I appreciate the discussion on this list serve.
>
> Dr. David Seamon
>
> Architecture Department, Kansas State University
>
> 211 Seaton Hall
>
> Manhattan, KS 66506-2901
>
> 785-532-1121
>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon <http://www.arch.ksu.edu/seamon>
>
|