Bill
It's been a very long time since we communicated, and I've never previously
contributed to this list - I've been lurking for ages, and reading it with
great interest and admiration, but I'm essentially a spectator nowadays on
the sidelines of this area of work.
But I'm seriously puzzled and disconcerted by the brief historical note that
you offer in the email below.
As I recall, when I worked with you and Adrian Leaman (in the supportive
presence of Professor John Musgrove) 30 years ago at UCL to create a new MSc
in Advanced Architectural Studies and to write and submit [in 1974] the
first successful bid to the Science Research Council (as was) for the
programme of research that we called Space Syntax, ideas about morphology
and morphogenesis were absolutely central to our deliberations. And those
ideas, put together over the preceding 3 years or so, most emphatically did
already draw on theoretical and mathematical biology, self-organising
systems and artificial intelligence.
Your own early published papers eg in Transactions of the Bartlett Society,
themselves make that lineage absolutely clear.
One of my contributions was to bring to bear the literature on the
mathematical modelling of growth and form, both in its application to
biological systems and in its application to 'complex buildings' (as the
module that I ran on the MSc from 1974 to the early 80s was entitled). Among
the many strands of theoretical-mathematical biology and biophysics that we
spent much time on, I recall Waddington's epigenetic landscapes and
chreodes, Rene Thom's 7 catastrophes, Howard Pattee's analysis of
hierarchical structures, Lindenmayer's 'L-systems' for the modelling of
self-organising growth, Stanislav Ulam on self-assembly in cellular systems,
HA Simon's 'Architecture of Complexity' and 'Sciences of the Artificial' -
to mention but a few.
As you know I had myself previously tried in the early 60s to use the newly
emerging techniques of mathematical morphology and morphogenesis in my work
as a DPhil student in the Medical Research Council Cell Metabolism Research
Unit at Oxford University (where I was on the receiving end of severe
discouragement from senior biomedical scientists); and I'd subsequently
tried to use these ideas again when I worked for the Medical Architecture
Research Unit 1971-74, eg in the planning of hospitals, health centres etc
(where again such morphological approaches were received less favourably
than 'general systems' ideas). But although I moved away from UCL and from
space syntax, I've always supposed that SS [at its best] is a prime example
of just the kind of non-linear, discrete generative modelling that some of
the pioneers of biomathematics and AI/artificial life had envisioned.
I would even go so far as to say that SS is a more authentic specimen of
that kind of science than are some of the faddish outbreaks of
post-chaos-theory 'complex systems' modelling - which have not (in my
opinion) grasped the significance of the distinctively linguistic
(discursive, syntactical) agenda that Thom, Lindenmayer, Pattee and others
sketched for the new generative and relational biology. That's another
story; but I would have thought that all those generations of students from
UCL from 3 and 2 decades ago whose studies of built environment were
seriously interrupted by the back-breaking reading lists that you and I gave
them on the mathematical biology of morphogenesis might actually have cause
to be very grateful that there was indeed already a fruitful convergence of
concepts in those early years, one that still deserves to be pursued further
in many new directions.
You say "But there are of course parallels, and there is a great deal of
interaction now".
I can't think that you really mean to disown the unique (and exceptionally
interesting) origins of space syntax.
Alan
Alan Beattie
Professor of Public Health and Health Education, St Martin's College
Lancaster
MA Tutor and PhD Supervisor, Institute for Health Research, Lancaster
University
Member, Complexity Network, Institute for Advanced Study in the Social &
Management Sciences, Lancaster
-----Original Message-----
From: Professor Bill Hillier [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 30 January 2004 16:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: self organisation & morphogenesis and the structure of
human sett lements
Dear Anthony - Not really - it very much came out of problems in trying to
understand architecture. But there are of course parallels, and there is a
good deal of interaction now. People like Alasdair Turner in the research
group here came from artificial intelligence, and Rui Carvalho is a
mathematical physicist. So convergence, yes, very much so, but less so in
origins. The origins are really set out in the Introduction to 'The Social
Logic of Space'. And by the way, you might look at the second chapter there
where we first tried look at generative processes which led to the kinds of
spatial patterning you find in settlement - what I call in the Atlanta
paper the 'basic generative process': it produces the topology but not the
geometry of the city. It was the kinds of restrictions on otherwise random
generative processes that seemed to be needed to describe the range of
spatial variation found in real settlements that were the sources of the
ideas that became space synyax as an analytic tool. - Bill
>Dear Bill - Was the development of space syntax theory done in parallel to
>the development of theories of self organisation and emergence in biology,
>physics, mathematics and artificial intelligence? If it was, then an
>interesting convergence of ideas could be taking place.
>
>Anthony
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Professor Bill Hillier [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:25 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: self organisation & morphogenesis and the structure of
>> human sett lements
>>
>> Dear Anthony - There are quite a few papers in the Space Syntax Symposia
>> Proceeedings which address thes issues, though not always under the title
>> of 'self-organising systems'. But in a sense, a good deal of the space
>> syntax stuff about cities is about self-organisation, though it doesn't
>> call itself that. It's about how multi-agent distributed processes spread
>> over decades or centuries create well-formed emergent patterns with both
>> invariants and differences. So in a sense, it's a theory of the 'organic'
>> city. You should browse the web-sites for the last two symposia
>>
>> As far as the things I have written myslf are concerned, a key recent
text
>> is my first paper to the Third Symposium called 'A theory of the city as
>> object' http://undertow.arch.gatech.edu/homepages/3sss/ which tries to
>> give
>> some account of how the spatial patterns formed by the aggregation of
>> buildings acquire certain kind of emergent structure. This builds on
>> earlier papers which describe between them how emergent space structure
in
>> cities shapes the processes of movement, land use patterns and centre and
>> sub-centre formation in cities. The sequence of papers is:
>>
>> Hillier B et al (1993) Natural movement: or configuration and attraction
>> in
>> urban pedestrian movement - Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design
>> 20,
>> 29-66
>>
>> Hillier B (1996) - Cities as movement economies in Urban Design
>> International Vol 1 No 1 pp49-60 E & F.N.Spon. Also Chapter 4 of Space is
>> the Machine.
>>
>> Hillier B (2000) Centrality as a process: accounting for attraction
>> inequalities in deformed grids Urban Design International, 3/4, 107-127
>>
>> Hillier B (2002) A theory of the city as object: how the social
>> construction of urban space is mediated by spatial laws Urban Design
>> International 7, 153-159)
>>
>> Also relevant are
>>
>> Hillier B et al (2000) Self-generated neighbourhood consolidation in
>> informal settlements (with Margarita Greene and Jake Desyllas) Urban
>> Design
>> International ISSN 1357 5317 vol 5 no 2 61-96
>>
>> Hillier B (1999) The hidden geometry of deformed grids: or, why space
>> syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn't Environment and
>> Planning
>> B: Planning & Design, 26, 169-191
>>
>> Self-orgnaisation issues are also dealt with in in different way in my
two
>> paper to the Fourth Symposium:
>>
>> Hillier B (2003a) The architectures of seeing and going Paper to the
>> Fourth
>> Space Synyax Symposium, London, June 2003.
>>
>> Hillier B (2003b) The knowledge that shapes the city Paper to the Fourth
>> Space Syntax Symposium, London, June 2003
>>
>> both of which can be downloaded from www.spacesyntax.net or
>> www.spacesyntax.org/
>>
>> - Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> >I am studying how the theories of self organisation & morphogenesis
could
>> >help our understanding of the structure of human settlements. Obviously,
>> >space syntax theories would be useful in this regard. Has any research
>> been
>> >done in this area.
>> >
>> >Anthony
>> >
>> >----wrtmail--%3423wrt%----
>
>----wrtmail--%3423wrt%----
***** CONFIDENTIALITY & SECURITY DISCLAIMER *****
Please note the contents of this e-mail do not necessarily represent the
policies or views of St Martins College. This e-mail message and any
attachments may contain confidential information and should only be accessed
by the intended recipient. If they have come to you in error please advise
the sender by replying to this email and copy your reply to
[log in to unmask] In this circumstance you must not disclose, copy,
distribute, use or rely on this email and you should permanently delete it.
Security Warning: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the
knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communications medium.
It is advised that you understand and observe this lack of security when
emailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and
attachments are free from any virus, we cannot accept responsibility for
email once it has left us. You should ensure that you have a suitable anti
virus system in place and check the email upon receipt.
|
