I didnt really mean that :-) you might care to take a look at:
Penn, Alan and Mottram, Chiron and Fatah gen. Schieck, Ava and Wittkämper,
Michael and Störring, Moritz and Romell, Odd and Strothmann, Andreas and
Aish, Francis (2004) Augmented reality meeting table: a novel multi-user
interface for architectural design. In: van Leeuwen, J.P. and Timmermans,
H.J.P., (eds). 7th International Conference on Design & Decision Support
Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning 2004. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Eindhoven, pp. 213-220.
Available at:
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00000125/
Alan Penn
Professor of Architectural and Urban Computing
The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
+44 (0)20 7679 5919
[log in to unmask]
www.vr.ucl.ac.uk
www.spacesyntax.org
> Subject: Re: I need advice please
>
> Dear Ben, Tom, and Alan,
>
> I hope I did not bring genetic algorithms across as something designers
> need
> to be afraid of. My point was just that it is possible to generate with
> configurational rules instead of bottom-up rules. For us, their purpose is
> more to give you examples of what a set of parameters CAN mean in terms of
> spatial layout, than to tell you what it MUST mean. This is of interest to
> check assumptions about what morphological features syntactic parameters
> are
> related to. If you analyse examples, you can find correlations, but you
> can
> not necessarily tell whether the parameters you examine are constitutive
> for
> the morphology, or whether they could also take on completely different
> forms, depending on other factors.
>
> In fact, I see this automatic generation relatively removed from a design
> tool. What you propose, Tom, sounds better - actually, to integrate Space
> Syntax derived visualisation in CAD is what we would like to go for as a
> next step. Maybe, though, it's a bit rushing forward to ask for an index
> of
> attractiveness to sit out on a sunny day. What would be interesting is an
> in-between step, a visualisation that allows you to follow what changes of
> intervisibility, spatial integration, etc, your changes in a plan produce.
>
> What effects these have on complex concepts like pleasantness is something
> that, at this stage, is a matter of your interpretation, although it may
> be
> informed interpretation. The strength of VGA and Space Syntax is that they
> make it possible to visualise properties of space that are not
> interpretation, but quite objectively there. The not-so-objective (or
> maybe
> more the empirical) part is with what functions or likely human behaviours
> you associate these properties.
>
> I agree that a visualisation of these may enter the risk of being seen as
> something more objective than it can be. However it would be a nice tool
> to
> try out different mappings of relationships (maybe they don't have to be
> fixed but could be set while visualising with all sorts of sliders etc..).
> I think this could start at the more fundamental level of syntactic
> properties visualised parallely to drawing. This would not tell you what
> to
> do really, but it could help link your designer's intuition about design
> interventions and what you think they will cause in terms of use, to what
> is
> going on at the syntactic level of space - in order to inform your
> interpretation of Syntax parameters, in an additional way to empirical
> research.
>
> By the way, I do not know if you had a chance to see the paper by Felix
> Kabo
> for SSS5 on architectural programming, it might be of interest here. His
> approach, as far as I can give an account of it, is one that tries to
> inform
> you about the syntactical properties of interconnections in your design
> while you program it. How these properties are evaluated is not fixed; in
> his example they are rather used to compare the design to empirically
> found
> examples.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Joerg
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Alan Penn
> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:53 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: I need advice please
> >
> > I agree with all of this. Visualisation is a key component of both
> science
> > and design, and if I am pushed I say that this is one of the key ways in
> > which syntax analysis relates to design practice.
> >
> > One way of thinking abut this is via Ian Hacking's description of the
> role
> > of 'creating phenomena' in science - by which he meant the use of
> > representations or experiments to 'show new things' that then become the
> > subject for theorising. Another is via Donald Schoen's view of sketching
> > in
> > architectural design as a part of 'reflection in action' - where the
> > designer uses sketches and sketch models so that they have something to
> > think with. In both cases we work with visualisations and
> representations
> > as
> > a part of a kind of 'externalised cognitive equipment' to support our
> > creative activity. The fact that we 'externalise' in this way also opens
> > up
> > the possibility of social discourse - representations and visualisations
> > become the thing around which discussion can take place.
> >
> > Having said that, the mapping between an analysis - which can be
> > visualised
> > - and some kind of human behavioural outcome, is only as good as its
> > empirical support is strong. For 'simple' behaviours - how populations
> > move
> > through spatial systems on average - this may be relatively
> > straightforward.
> > For more complex behaviours (eg. Where they choose to stop, where crime
> > takes place etc.) this can become difficult and so hedged about by
> caveats
> > that its use in design may be limited. The risk in automating this kind
> of
> > visualisation to my mind is that it can take on a status beyond its
> > empirical support - just because it looks good and looks 'scientific'.
> It
> > would be rather nice if there was a way of visualising both the
> prediction
> > and its level of support at the same time - perhaps fog could descend
> and
> > obscure poorly substantiated results?
> >
> > A final point. The idea of working back from a desired result to the
> > morphology of a design that would produce it is far from simple. This
> kind
> > of thing is being done in the design of turbine blades to achieve
> specific
> > air flow characteristics - however in comparison to human systems these
> > are
> > remarkably simple and well understood systems. And even for fluid
> dynamics
> > this kind of thing is right on the edge of what is achievable. I suspect
> > that human designers are safe from genetic algorithms for some time yet.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
> > > Behalf Of tom lists
> > > Sent: 28 July 2005 13:34
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: I need advice please
> > >
> > > Dear Jörg
> > >
> > > Your genetic algorithm sounds interesting – although I
> > > understand what you say about the many other
> > > constraints on design. I sometimes wonder if there is
> > > any choice at all after the regulations have been met.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is why it sounds good to have a tool to provide a
> > > visual interpretation of morphology with respect to
> > > interaction. I can imagine this might be like
> > > parametric design in CAD, where physical boundaries
> > > are allowed a range of dimensions within which they
> > > can vary, and related elements move in response
> > > according to rules. If this were linked to
> > > predictions about human interaction, perhaps using VGA
> > > as you say, it could give responsive feedback to the
> > > designer.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, there might be a representation half
> > > way between the graph and the plan, laying out the
> > > sizes and relationships between spaces without fully
> > > defining boundaries. This might help in the earlier
> > > stages of design – I presented a possible outline for
> > > such a process to SSS4 two years ago.
> > >
> > > Even then, the question is, ‘What have you actually
> > > visualized?’ With VGA it would be fair to say that
> > > you can visualize the pattern of co-visibility, but
> > > what does this tell us about human behaviour? I know
> > > there are 'correlations’, but does it really show you
> > > which pieces of space constitute a place which will
> > > attract people to sit out on a sunny day? And which
> > > will be safe from crime through natural surveillance?
> > > What are the behavioural parameters controlled by
> > > morphology, which directly link to parametric
> > > boundaries?
> > >
> > > It would be nice to imagine dragging a boundary line
> > > on CAD and seeing colours change indicating changes in
> > > security surveillance, habitability for gathering,
> > > busy-ness of routes-through, etc.. . . Perhaps Ben
> > > will develop something like this?
> > >
> > > Regards, Tom
> > >
> > > Thomas Everest-Dine
> > > Architect, London
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
>
> --
> Joerg Kraemer, Jan-Oliver Kunze
> Technische Universitaet Berlin
> Ackerstrasse 71-76, Raum 438, 13355 Berlin, Germany +49 30 31472748
> [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
|