On 02/04/07, Κωνσταντίνος Ιωαννίδης <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> And on the other hand, the continuity maps, the segmental analyses and all
> these improved versions of the traditional axial map give me the impression
> that in the end we are going to come up with a topographical map as the
> ultimate tool for syntactical analysis. I am not joking. I really do not
> want to provoke but I often feel that improving the axial map is like
> rediscovering the real map – with its curves, its metric distances, its
> density or even its land uses.

This is not a provocation. In my new paper I described continuity maps
as a simplification of the hierarchy of streets, the same one the
transportation engineers talk about every day.
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00002694/

This relation between the "real" hierarchy and the topological one,
and between "left and right" and "change of direction" was is a bit
hidden in the axial map, due to the fragmentation of streets into
axial lines and the use of integration as the main measure.

This "hierarchy of streets" is much more clear in continuity or segment maps.

Remember that, even the such techniques seem to be a "sofisticate
method to explain the obvious", the obvious also need scientific
explanation.

These techiques shed light to the role of space (in terms of urban
morphology) in the urban system, something ignored before, and are
able (I hope), after extensing use in real cases, to forecast
potential in non-existing designs (although I am not the biggest fan
of the current correlation approach).

Alternatively, we can draw a perspective full of people to show that
our design "will" work or write a computer model where the agents do
whatever we want them to do, I mean, where they generate a
"self-organising" result that shows the future.

Every approach has its holes, do not worry.

Best Regards,
-- 
Lucas Figueiredo

Mindwalk
http://www.mindwalk.com.br