Dear Colleagues,
I am writing something and I stuck in an important question. Space
Syntax has been born as 'descriptive theory', supporting the theory of
the social logic of space.
Axial lines and convex polygons were proposed to describe space in one
and two dimensions. Decomposing a continuous system of open spaces
into recognisable objects and establishing their elementary relations
(Hillier and Hanson 1984, p52).
On the other hand, 'Generalisation' is a process of attenuating a
spatial patterns while retaining its most important characteristics. I
thought that generalisation requires a previous description, but
apparently some authors believe that generalisation itself is a tool
for describing and analysing cities - therefore there is no necessity
to mention space syntax.
If this is correct, another consequence is that 'continuity lines' are
undertood as a result of generalisation process, therefore they could
not ever be proposed as an 'descriptive entity' as I have done, based
on axial lines.
I used to undertand that generalisation could be used to formalise the
creation of 'descriptive entities' for space syntax techniques. On the
other hand, space syntax techniques could be used help generalisation,
as pointed by WA Mackaness in the past, or Robert Thomson recently.
I might be wrong. Is space syntax a subcase of generalisation?
Any thoughts?
Best Regards,
--
Lucas Figueiredo
Mindwalk
http://www.mindwalk.com.br
|