Tom 

Can you elaborate on what would be needed to be a social theory of
space?

"Space syntax does not seem to be a social science of space
There is no theoretical mechanism to show that the two have a causal
link?"

Is not mobility a fundamental part of being social? 

Have you read the report by the Social Exclusion Unit and the role of
mobility... they may beg to differ.

________________________________________

Alain 
________________________________________


-----Original Message-----
From: tom lists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 03 July 2006 11:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Space Syntax & Eisenman's syntactic investigation on
building form

Dear Daisy & all

I think Alain is right to say that most practising
architects have a very restricted knowledge of
architectural theory.  But to put it the other way
around, a lot of young architects leave university and
are disappointed to find no way of applying the
theories they have learned in Architecture School.  

Alan may be being over-generous in saying that the
'more reflexive or perhaps socially constructed'
theories are 'a crucial part of training the
practitioner.'  There is a lot of vague thinking in
the field of architecture and always has been, which
is of very little use to most architects going about
their business of getting new buildings to be good
places to live in.

One of the attractions of space syntax for me is its
applicability to the real world, in particular the way
it links physical facts about the shape of buildings
and social facts about how people use them, and by
implication the way people experience using them.

Whenever someone talks to you about an 'architectural
theory' you could try asking them how you can use
their theory to improve a particular design for a
building, so that it will work better as a place for
people to live in.  Then ask what features you can
measure in existing buildings to test how they measure
up on this particular scale of goodness-for-living-in.


Unfortunately, the other person may reply that space
syntax is not an 'architectural theory' at all,
because, despite its measurable features and
applicability to social phenomena, there is no
theoretical mechanism to show that the two have a
causal link.  Didem says that 'the theory is
difficult,' but I am not sure it exists as such. 
Space syntax does not seem to be a social science of
space yet - but it could be, couldn't it?

regards,  Tom

--- Xiaoling Dai <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
> 


		
___________________________________________________________ 
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address
from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html