On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:45:11 +0300, Yodan Rofe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Oh really?

Well, I didn't say you would recover cities "as we know them". I said that
a city could be defined by population density and you would need to decide
on a threshold.

Localized population peaks (like the villages you mention) are obviously
not a city. Of course, you wouldn't recover the boundaries of those
italian cities you mention, but that seems only natural to me.

Just because you can't define a street, dosen't mean you can't define
anything else ;)


All the best,
Rui


>
>You can have villages with very high population densities (if you take
into
>account only their built up areas), on the other hand cities in Italy
>include in their jurisdiction area all the agricultural land surrounding
>them, so their density (if calculated across the whole territory is rather
>low).
>
>And what would that threshold be? Is it Phoenix with less than 4 units to
>the acre? How many places there are with a higher density that we would
>never imagine calling cities?
>
>I find it strange that people who are dealing with complex phenomena are
>trying to reduce aspects of it to clear cut definitions. I think Stephen's
>approach is correct. A street is a complex entity that emerges from its
>position within the urban context, its boundary conditions, its patterns
of
>use and the way it is conceived by the people using it - it's rather
useless
>to try to reduce it to a one line definition.
>
>An axial line is a much more precise concept, but then it describes only
one
>aspect of streets.
>
>Yodan
>
>
>On 6/3/07, Rui Carvalho <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> It seems to me that a city can be defined by population density? It is
no
>> longer a city below a certain population density threshold?
>>
>> Surely we'd have to agree on the threshold value (which is an arbitrary
>> parameter), but at least there is only one arbitrary parameter to agree
>> on, so it doesn't seem too problematic to me?
>>
>
>
>now a street...
>>
>> Rui
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:20:39 +0100, Stephen Marshall
<[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I still think it all depends on the purpose of
>> >what you are analysing, and the conclusions you
>> >intend to draw from the analysis.
>> >
>> >You could define and analyse
>> >- the public street network (as defined legally)
>> >- this may include 'fat' named spaces such as
>> >squares - for example in UK traffic regulation
>> >orders would typically include a combination of
>> >the named street/square and the physical extent
>> >(e.g. running from a to b) where the entity so defined need not be
>> linear;
>> >- all private networks that are publicly
>> >accessible (with all the ramps and yards and royal parks)
>> >- all the private sections that are not publicly accessible;
>> >and
>> >- all named streets / addresses (including courtyards, housing estates,
>> etc.)
>> >- all axial lines
>> >- all numbered roads, etc.
>> >...and measure properties of each of these
>> >netowrks individually and in combination and get
>> >different numbers, that will tell you different things.
>> >
>> >The problem of comparability of networks across
>> >cultures would seem no more or less difficult
>> >than the problem of comparing anything, for
>> >example, cities. (If comparing London Paris
>> >Brasilia, etc., how do you decide what to count as consituting the
>> city?).
>> >
>> >(What is a city?)
>> >
>> >stephen
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >At 12:12 02/06/2007, you wrote:
>> >>We should not be interested in the LEGAL STATUS
>> >>of places but whether or not there is actual
>> >>PRIVATE PHYSICAL CONTROL over their access at
>> >>any time. If there is, sorry, they are out of
>> >>the analysis AS PUBLIC PLACES, no matter that
>> >>thousands of people love to interact WITHIN
>> >>shopping centres or any other kind of
>> >>"non-places" (Auge) - very typical of present day societies by the
way.
>> >>
>> >>If encounters in a particular society happen
>> >>predominantly in private spaces, this is indeed
>> >>a cultural trait that has to be taken into
>> >>account, but this is another matter altogether,
>> >>it has nothing to do with the study of the
>> >>structure of the public realm, and the study of the street belongs
here.
>> >>
>> >>Sorry, syntax again...
>> >>
>> >>Fred
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Frederico de Holanda
>> >>
>> >>Cond. Vivendas Colorado 1, Mod. J, Casa 1
>> >>73070-015 Brasília DF
>> >>Brasil
>> >>
>> >>Fone / Phone: (0xx61) 34859641 / +556134859641
>> >>Celular / Mobile: (0xx61) 99861724 / +556199861724
>> >>----- Original Message -----
>> >>From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>Rui Carvalho
>> >>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>> >>Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:36 AM
>> >>Subject: Re: What is a street?
>> >>
>> >>On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:00:52 -0300, Frederico de
>> >>Holanda <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In making axial maps, we use a very simple and unambiguous procedure
>> to
>> >>identify a STREET - and plot it in the axial map: it must be PUBLIC,
i.e
>> .
>> >>there are no obstacles (any sort of PHYSICAL control) preventing
people
>> >>from accessing it from urban space at large.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Streets" in CLOSED condominiums are ignored and are NOT ploted in
the
>> >> >axial map - no matter how large the condominiums are (and they can
be
>> >> >quite large in Brazilian cities). And we did not need "semantics" to
>> it -
>> >> >this is pure syntax... After all, concerning streets, we are
studying
>> the
>> >> >structure of the PUBLIC OPEN URBAN SPACE, aren't we?...
>> >>
>> >>Well I thought you were studying the space where social interaction
can
>> >>happen (the social logic of ...?)... and in the UK that does not need
to
>> >>be public? The parks in London, for example, aren't they owned by the
>> >>Royal family? Aren't they private? What about the square around Abbey
in
>> >>Euston Rd? Great (private) place to eat your lunch if you work in the
>> >>area... BTW, I've had great social interaction on the ramp of
Torrington
>> >>Plc...
>> >>
>> >>The point here is that the concept of public or private is cultural:
>> what
>> >>is considered private in one country may not be private in another. So
>> >>looks like you DO need semantic information after all...
>> >>
>> >>Try again ;)
>> >>
>> >>Rui
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >If we are to consider "private streets" I suggest we add to the
axial
>> map
>> >>of London the axial map of the internal spaces of the British Museum,
>> the
>> >>Tate Gallery, The Royal Festival Hall, the residential towers in the
>> >>Barbican...
>> >> >
>> >> >Fred
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Frederico de Holanda
>> >> >
>> >> >Cond. Vivendas Colorado 1, Mod. J, Casa 1
>> >> >73070-015 Brasília DF
>> >> >Brasil
>> >> >
>> >> >Fone / Phone: (0xx61) 34859641 / +556134859641
>> >> >Celular / Mobile: (0xx61) 99861724 / +556199861724
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: Lucas Figueiredo
>> >> > To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>> >> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 9:17 AM
>> >> > Subject: Re: What is a street?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 01/06/07, Hoon Park
>> >> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >> > > So, if applying this 'rule' and rephrasing my question, can we
say
>> >>that a
>> >> > > little droop in the lower-tail of an observed degree
distribution
>> may
>> >> > > reflect the incompleteness of the data in keeping a consistent
>> mapping
>> >> > > resolution? Or consequently, if continuity aggregation, or any
>> other,
>> >> > > makes the power-law hold better, can we say it is therefore a
>> better
>> >>way
>> >> > > of representing a street network? Or else, is a 'street' perhaps
>> any
>> >> > > linear aggregation of spaces that entails a power-law degree
>> >>distribution
>> >> > > at the higher-order level?
>> >> >
>> >> > It can reflect both things. The experiment is not independent from
>> the
>> >> > scientist. The lower-tails may be a problem with the data or just
>> the
>> >> > real phenomenon, why discard this hyphotesis? On the other hand,
the
>> >> > scientist may be well 'tweaking' the aggregation process, not to
>> >> > 'observe' the phenomenon, but to 'create' it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Apparently, as scientists does not care anymore to explain what
they
>> >> > are assuming before the experiments, being allowed even to ignore
>> the
>> >> > existence of whole fields such as space syntax, it is difficult to
>> >> > judge what is the phenomenon and what is simple play with
different
>> >> > methods that will generate the phenomenon.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are we observing things or simulating things?
>> >> >
>> >> > Are we starting from questions or from answers?
>> >> >
>> >> > Best Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Lucas Figueiredo
>> >> >
>> >>
>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos
>> /lucasfigueiredo/
>> >> >
>> >> > Mindwalk
>> >> > <http://www.mindwalk.com.br>http://www.mindwalk.com.br
>> >> >
>> >> > __________ Informação do NOD32 2304 (20070601) __________
>> >> >
>> >> > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo NOD32 Sistema Antivírus
>> >> > <http://www.nod32.com.br>http://www.nod32.com.br
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>__________ Informação do NOD32 2305 (20070601) __________
>> >>
>> >>Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo NOD32 Sistema Antivírus
>> >><http://www.nod32.com.br>http://www.nod32.com.br
>> >
>>
>