Tom,
On 6 Jul 2006, at 14:10, tom lists wrote:

> Alan
>
> I think we can be comfortable enough with the idea of
> affordance, so long as we don’t confuse it with
> determinism.   Affording activity and experience is
> all an architect can ever do, and this does not
> diminish the work.    The point is that architects
> often think they are making places suitable for
> certain activities, and find that they just don’t work
> that way.  We need some practical help.  Brian
> Lawson’s book ‘The Language of Space’ makes some
> interesting comments on places where people choose to
> sit, and places designed for sitting down.

This sounds interesting. I have not come across this book before.

Has anyone done any work on which types of configurations of streets  
seem to promote street activity (other than pedestrian flows)? For  
example where you might expect to find concentrations of pavement  
cafés? I am also pondering whether there is a connection between  
street configuration and the concentration of pubs, bars, restaurants  
and entertainment facilities that have grown up within those streets  
(perhaps there isn't?).

> So far, the messages for designers which I have taken
> are
> 1)  Try to connect up new paths with existing
> 2)  Try to keep longest possible sight-lines
> 3)  Keep a clear distinction between active,
> concentrated public spaces and secure private spaces.

This is interesting. I have been looking at the redevelopment  
proposals for Bracknell Town Centre, based on a masterplan on which  
Space Syntax Ltd were consultants, and I am puzzled by some aspects  
(based on my understanding of Space Syntax, such as it is)

1. suggests that streets should connect with each other (commonsense  
I thought), and not that streets should be left "hanging" at one end  
with nothing to connect to (as in the Bracknell plans)

2. suggests that streets should be aligned so as to form connections  
and, possibly a continuation of axial lines from one end to the  
other, and that, in the pedestrianised area of a town centre for  
example, "inside" streets should be continuations of "outside" streets.

3. suggests that there is a spatial distinction between the townscape  
in main streets and squares and side streets. Whatever exists in  
Bracknell on this front is being removed in the new plan, and all  
streets are being given fairly equal weighting (in addition, the main  
public square is to be eradicated). However, I do have a slight  
problem with this message, in that is assumes wider streets are  
busier streets, which is not always borne out in some city centres  
such as Nottingham, where intense pedestrian flows are forced down a  
couple of narrow streets through the middle of the city centre (on  
the Broadmarsh-Victoria axis)

In addition, on a practical level, there is a tension between "line  
of sight" and "straight lines". I note that in many historic city  
centres (and indeed even in some New Towns like Bracknell) there  
seems to be no necessity in having continuous "straight lines" in  
order to maintain intelligibility, as long as there is a clear "line  
of sight" from one junction/node to the next. Again, looking at  
Bracknell, there is seemingly unnecessary artificial straightening of  
streets, even the High Street, which has had its line for about 900  
years, is deemed to be "not quite straight enough".

Also, these suggestions seem to favour grid patterns, where axial map  
seems to favour radial plans to some extent, especially when you  
centre an axial map on somewhere like the main crossroads (Bank) in  
the City of London or Leicester's Clock Tower.

-- 
Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD