Less perspective please, a bit more actuality.
Yes Alan's paper is about dense built area, inner London. Yet, Mike, we like to see your numbers, because if there is a better and simpler way of doing it we like to take it on, so far the "New Space Syntax" is a lot about virtuality. I like the can do approach, but beyond the can do there is the put up.
In the Nantes data set most of the counts are on segment that are not what one would call a street, unless it is a very poetic way of calling the M25, or for example the M40 and the road beyond the M25. Density most of the time does not exist on these segments. In Nantes, the counts are spread over an area of 100km2, not quite a small area. We used the counts that are used for transportation model. So it is probably all down to correlation techniques then.
I agree we need a new urban morphology but it does not look like the last 50 years one is the one. About metric distance, universal distance, geometry and Space Syntax there are quite a bit to read too. It is the unknown that explain the known and not the other way around. Newton does not explain relativity. But Newton sits pretty in relativity theory. So Mike you wish may come true.
_______________________________
Alain Chiaradia
Associate Director
SPACE SYNTAX
_______________________________
|