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


>On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:45:05 +0000, Alasdair Turner
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Jake,
>>
>>We were discussing "what makes a tool a space syntax tool", not
>"what is
>>space syntax".
>
>
>Is it realy possible to answer the one without tackling the other?
>
>regards,  Tom
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I am sure Bill will answer, but space syntax itself has never been
>defined
>>in terms of the tools it uses.  The theory to attempts to understand
>the
>>links between society and spatial configuration, at whatever level, be
>it
>>of village settlements, the layout of a tribespeople's hut, or an entire
>>city.  The findings of space syntax researchers have been that these
>links
>>tend to be made through the relationships of 'spaces' to each other,
>and
>>hence a space syntax tool is one, as Bill says, which regards the
>>'extrinsic' measures of relationships between spatial entities (as he
>says,
>>isovists, points, etc).
>>
>>As for Braaksma and Cook: no, this is not space syntax.  Why not?
>Because
>>it regards the relationship of the built elements, not the configuration
>of
>>space.  For this reason, other graphing representations, though
>clearly
>>related, are not space syntax (for example, de Floriani et al mapping
>>visibility graphs of transmitters, and so on).
>>
>>I have added a paragraph on the visibility graph analysis page at
>UCL on
>>this:
>>
>>http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/research/vga/
>>
>>Jake Desyllas wrote:
>>&gt;
>>&gt; Professor Bill Hillier wrote:
>>&gt;
>>&gt; &gt;Dear Jake - Space syntax is the application of
>'configurational' measures
>>&gt; &gt;to spatial systems represented as sets of discrete
>geometrical elements,
>>&gt; &gt;whether points, lines, convex elements, isovists, or
>whatever.
>>&gt; &gt;'Configurational' means 'extrinsic' measures of the relations
>between each
>>&gt; &gt;geometrical element and all others, or well-defind subsets
>of them. So
>>&gt; &gt;Benedicts isovists are not space syntax, but Depthmap is.
>This is the idea
>>&gt; &gt;set out in 'The Social Logic of Space' and it seems to cover
>the ground. -
>>&gt; &gt;Bill
>>&gt; &gt;
>>&gt; &gt;
>>&gt;
>>&gt; Dear Bill,
>>&gt;
>>&gt; Thanks for this, it is a very clear and useful definition. However,
>do
>>&gt; you think it might become a bit limiting to define the research in
>terms
>>&gt; of the tools being used, rather than the social questions that are
>of
>>&gt; interest? Isn t there some shared research field that both
>Benedikt s
>>&gt; work and your work might be said to contribute to?
>>&gt;
>>&gt; By the way, what do you think about Braaksma and Cook s work
>on
>>&gt; visibility graphs? Would you say that it is part of space syntax
>>&gt; research or would you call it something else?
>>&gt;
>>&gt; Kind regards,
>>&gt;
>>&gt; Jake
>>&gt;
>>&gt; --
>>&gt;
>>&gt; Dr. Jake Desyllas
>>&gt; Partner
>>&gt; Intelligent Space Partnership
>>&gt; 81 Rivington Street
>>&gt; London
>>&gt; EC2A 3AY
>>&gt; t: 020 7739 9729
>>&gt; f: 020 7739 9547
>>&gt; e: [log in to unmask]
>>&gt; w: http://www.intelligentspace.com
>>&gt;
>>&gt; The information in this e-mail and any attachment is confidential.
>It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not a named
>recipient please notify the sender immediately and then delete it
>without disclosing the contents to another person or taking copies.
>>
>>--
>>Alasdair Turner
>>Lecturer in Architectural Computing
>>Bartlett School of Graduate Studies                    tel +44 20 7679 1806
>>UCL  Gower Street  London  WC1E 6BT                    fax +44 20 7813
>2843
>>
>>This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright
>protected.
>>If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this
>communication is
>>strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing,
>nothing
>>stated in this communication shall be legally binding.