Dear Rui - and this is the apologetic reply I sent ! Alan was
absolutely right, and the Bartlett Transactions paper was one of the
key embodiments of this. But as space space syntax developed its own
methods and theories, it did tend to become separated, and I remember
Mike was one of the people who suggested we needed to integrate back
into this mainstream. I think he was right about this, but also that
the methodological and theoretical departtures of space syntax also
have value, and can contribute back to the mainstream. I'm trying to
write something about this now, hopefully before the Fifth Symposium,
in a paper I'm calling 'Between social physics and phenomenology',
addressing some of the issues raised in particular my Mike and David
Seamon. - Bill
Dear Alan - How nice to hear from you ! You are absolutely right of
course - and I had completely forgotten about the Transactions paper.
Worse, I had a temporary amnesia over the four volumes of
Waddington's 'Theoretical Biology' series, which were of course
hugely influential. What I perhaps should have said was that as space
syntax developed it tended to relate less - and certainly less than
it should - to the later developments in these fields, and become
more concerned perhaps with internal development. I'm quite sure its
time to turn it round !
By the way, I think I'm right in saying that you invented the term
'space syntax', although I had used the idea of syntax before in
talking abhout space, for example in 'The architecture of
architecture', I think you actually coined the term ?
- Bill
>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.
|
