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:
>>
>> Professor Bill Hillier wrote:
>>
>> >Dear Jake - Space syntax is the application of
'configurational' measures
>> >to spatial systems represented as sets of discrete
geometrical elements,
>> >whether points, lines, convex elements, isovists, or
whatever.
>> >'Configurational' means 'extrinsic' measures of the relations
between each
>> >geometrical element and all others, or well-defind subsets
of them. So
>> >Benedicts isovists are not space syntax, but Depthmap is.
This is the idea
>> >set out in 'The Social Logic of Space' and it seems to cover
the ground. -
>> >Bill
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Dear Bill,
>>
>> Thanks for this, it is a very clear and useful definition. However,
do
>> you think it might become a bit limiting to define the research in
terms
>> of the tools being used, rather than the social questions that are
of
>> interest? Isn t there some shared research field that both
Benedikt s
>> work and your work might be said to contribute to?
>>
>> By the way, what do you think about Braaksma and Cook s work
on
>> visibility graphs? Would you say that it is part of space syntax
>> research or would you call it something else?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jake
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dr. Jake Desyllas
>> Partner
>> Intelligent Space Partnership
>> 81 Rivington Street
>> London
>> EC2A 3AY
>> t: 020 7739 9729
>> f: 020 7739 9547
>> e: [log in to unmask]
>> w: http://www.intelligentspace.com
>>
>> 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.
|