Daisy

These two papers exist in electronic format I am forwarding them to you.

To add to Didem input there is quite developed new social research field around a comprehensive notion of environment spatial accessibility. The UK is probably leading that field beside the fairly new sociology of mobility (John Urry). Mobility is a fundamental of human existence, as much than occupation.

See for example Westminster University (Karen Lucas - Running on empty) and the UK Department for Transport accessibility planning knowledge base or the UK DCLG's guidance on urban design (by design and safer places, etc). 
One way or another all of them discuss the design of environment attributes that are known to affect people path selection behaviour. There are quite wide ranges from the aesthetics to the more mundane aspects (e.g. demographics, tiredness or fear of crime) that can be discussed in many ways for each one or in term of their respective interactions.

On the mobility side, they are a lot out there in architecture that is implicit and relate to the environment attributes that affect people route choice preference or path selection behaviour. Usually it won't be stated that way but with a bit of careful inspection they do: from Timée discussion of Chora, to Alberti spacing (distance) etc. 

Being an architect, a funny thing to say, is that very few architects do know well enough the whole range of history of theories of their own field. Thus as much as going out and about other fields yes get acquainted to the range of your own field too you will surprised on how much the questions remain and the answer change, yet space is a fairly new concern about a bit more than 100 years old.

There are quite interesting cultural difference between the west and the east to explore too, for example the Ma concept from Japan or Ma from Korea are the nearest to what I would identify as something framing space syntax concerns.

Having trawled around a lot, I will say this with caution because in this vast world it is difficult to ascertain what one does not know, there are several Space Syntax innovations, and one of them is that the intrinsic geometry of the environment is certainly one of these attributes affecting people. That is good news for designer yet this is only one of many aspects of what design has to address.

Two last points: do not forget Julienne points, that if analysis can aim for objectivity, design is certainly always political. Political decision making is sometimes willingly ignoring knowledge because it has to prioritise between conflicting demands and so may have to prioritise a different set for a particular outcome at one point in time. Some politician would rather make that decision knowingly while other rather prefers not to know. 
Politics is not just for politician, they are a lot of political designer around... and during the design process they are a lot of political decisions being made by ignorance and/or knowingly.

To get a bit beyond Schon, about social construction there is a little book by Ian Hacking called: the social construction of what? It is a very good book to dispute science as a mean of intervening in the world divorced from the social and the political. In addition, it is helpful to rebut social science inabilities to see science as something different from just conventions, and certainly both help the conversations.

To get back to the core of your question - On generative syntax or strategy with the advent of computer there is new range of generative syntax see John Fraser's evolutionary architecture, or the smart geometry group (Alan is listed there), etc. and there are aplenty other around. 

________________________________________

Alain 
________________________________________


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Penn 
Sent: 30 June 2006 10:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Space Syntax & Eisenman's syntactic investigation on building form

Daisy,

I think that for some of these at least you need to go right back to the
earliest papers: How is Design Possible? and Knowledge and Design. These
really form the theoretical basis for the whole research programme that has
followed, and were written in the 1970's at the time that subjects such as
'semiotics' were first fashionable in architectural discussion (perhaps what
we are seeing now is kind of retro chic?). I also think that they help in
relating the space syntax approach to the concerns of practicing designers
by distinguishing between those aspects of practice that must of necessity
be open to objective study and those that are more reflexive or perhaps
socially constructed. 

In my view much of the discourse in architectural education is about the
latter since it forms a crucial part of training the practitioner. It is
also the part which it is most difficult to communicate in language, hence
the often confusing and subjectively defined use of words, the apparent
swings in fashion, and the appeal of authors who write poetic treatises that
can be interpreted as supporting ones' subjective world view. 

Most of space syntax is about the former, and this has resulted in the
invention of a terminology to describe those aspects of the 'non-discursive'
which seem regular enough to be described as 'knowledge' (in something like
the scientific sense). The problem here is that this becomes impenetrable
jargon to those who are not from the field, and who do not understand the
theories and definitions. 

All this can make communication seem hard. I'd also suggest reading Donald
Schon on the Reflective Practitioner. Once you can see how your own
knowledge fits with what others are doing it makes conversations possible...

Alan


> Dear Tom /Alain and others,
> 
> 
> 
> Tom - thanks a lot for your reply and detailed reference. The questions I
> raised about Eisenman and Space syntax is not so academic in some sense.
> As I was in the Space Syntax London research community, I should be aware
> of the huge difference between them.
> 
> 
> 
> But the underlay reason I raised the question is that - why Space Syntax
> theory has so less interaction with other architecture theories?
> 
> 
> 
> I am now doing research in architecture department where people talks more
> about theories with key words such as semiotics, phenomenology, place,
> critical regionalism, tectonic, unfolding. Frankly speaking, I feel a bit
> lonely taken a space syntax point of view here. I even feel that I have
> much common language with people who are from planning school. But anyway,
> space syntax was initiated from architecture field!
> 
> 
> 
> It's curious that the term "space" we talked here is quite different from
> the space architects' mind - the 3 dimensional space. (I know we got
> advance on 3-d space, but still not deep enough.) And also the word
> "syntactic" we used is different from Eisenman's mind. It's not a good
> thing for doing research! It will add difficult for people outside space
> syntax community to understand SS. I hope there could be some good papers
> define these terms clearly. And there need to be papers clarify/compare
> the difference between space syntax thinking from the thinking of Rossi's
> typology, phenomenology (such as Bill had did is SSS5), New Urbanism etc.
> This will ease the way for people outside a lot. Also, this is significant
> for populating Space Syntax theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Alain - I appreciate your idea of generative syntax and performative
> syntax. Although understand only a half about how to make the practice.
> Maybe you can consider to write a paper on these ideas and even do some
> design to illustrate? You know this kind of paper can only be done by a
> person who is familiar with both design and Space syntax theory. : ) And
> as I understand, this part of knowledge is the essential bridge by which
> space syntax can assist design more efficiently.
> 
> 
> 
> Daisy Xiaoling Dai
> 
> Ph.D. Candidate
> Architecture Department
> Tongji University, Shanghai, China
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alain Chiaradia" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Space Syntax & Eisenman's syntactic investigation on building
> form
> 
> 
> Dear Daisy
> 
> This is a design process question:
> To put it in one sentence: one is a generative syntax, the other one is
> performative.
> 
> As a designer one should be conversant in both.
> 
> Using software
> The performative indicator may or may not be inbuilt into the generative
> syntax because the generative grammar however extensive would be
> nevertheless incomplete. So you may use performative indicator into your
> generative syntax then still allow for randomisation, and reapply
> performative analysis to gather the good one.
> 
> Creative designer are often very good at the generative but not very good
> at the performative. The best designer can do both. Nothing said that both
> should be done at the same time.
> 
> ___________________________________________
> 
> Alain Chiaradia      GradDipl (AA) Arch dplg
> Director
> 
> SPACE SYNTAX
> ___________________________________________
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom lists [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 28 June 2006 12:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Space Syntax & Eisenman's syntactic investigation on building
> form
> 
> Dear Daisy
> 
> I would suggest that Eisenman's 'syntax' is a fairly
> simple question of rules about how shapes can fit
> together, with the complexity in the reasoning behind
> why that might have cultural significance.
> 
> Space syntax seems to me to have more complexity built
> into the rules.  As you say, Eisenman is configuring
> shapes, but space syntax is looking at the
> configuration of spaces from a particular point of
> view.
> 
> In space syntax, one can have different places, which
> have buildings of different shapes, but have identical
> properties under a configurational analysis because
> the _significant_ features are the same.  This is part
> of the power of the analysis, that it can find common
> factors in apparently different situations, and thus
> can show where differences are significant, or are
> not.
> 
> So what aspects of space does SS measure?   I would
> say that it measures those features which are critical
> to human interaction - features that can prevent
> people in one area from seeing people in other areas,
> and/or prevent them moving to meet each other.
> 
> To borrow a phrase from Gibson, it measures the
> 'affordance' of space, not the shape of space.
> 
> (where 'affordance' is taken to mean the perceivable
> possibilities of action - see Gibson, J.J. (1979). The
> Ecological Approach to Visual Perception)
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Another important point is that SS is not limited to
> _whether_ one location can be seen from another (for
> instance), but extends analysis to the number of
> 'steps' between distant spaces. This allows SS to ask
> 'how much affordance' is provided, which is likely to
> be important in relation to social phenomena.  In more
> recent variants this includes fractions of steps,
> which seem to me to be significant on the
> architectural scale.
> 
> But exactly what is being afforded, and even whether
> it is always the same thing, seems to be a matter for
> debate.  And the important question of how the
> affordance of some rather specific human actions
> relates to interesting social consequences seems to be
> a matter of some sensitivity in the research
> community.
> 
> I should point out that I am not a member of that
> research community, and have only tried to make sense
> of SS in terms of my practice of architecture.  I am
> aware that even the guarded views expressed above my
> be controversial, someone may wish to put me right?
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> My knowledge of Eisenman's work is also limited, but
> what strikes me is his approach involves finding ways
> of inhibiting people in their daily lives, in contrast
> with SS which tries to assist the successful
> functioning of daily events.  I seem to remember
> reading Eisenman replying to an angry client that "If
> he wanted a house to live in, he should not have
> commissioned an Eisenman building," which would
> suggest he is producing art, and not architecture.
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> You might want to check out some work by Sophia
> Psarra, who looks at applying SS procedures to the
> shape building plans.  The following link points you
> in the direction of her papers on this matter -
> http://sitemaker.umich.edu/spsarra/analysis_of_space_and_form
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tom Dine
> Chassay+Last Architects
> London
> 
> 
> --- dai Xiaoling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I am currently writing an essay about the different
> meaning of "syntax" in Eisenman's housing projects and
> Space Syntax theory.
> . . . .
> 
> 4.Also, it seems that the syntax Eisenman talks about
> is a bit different from SS's conception. Eisenman
> focus on the rule of generation and transformation. SS
> seems focus on the deep structure. Comments?
> 
> 5.I remember in Hillier's lecture, he once talked to
> us the potential that syntactic approach may one day
> be applied to analyze elevations of building. As
> Eisenman already made a step using syntactic idea to
> generate form. Should we learn from him and can we
> learn from him?
> 
> Sincerely!
> 
> Daisy Xiaoling Dai
> 
> Ph.D. Candidate
> 
> Architecture Department
> 
> Tongji University, Shanghai, China
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use"
> - The Wall Street Journal
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html