>This might well end in a good theme for a yeshivah....
cheers, Vini!


 This discussion might sound a little passé now, but let
me
> share some thoughts: the problem of how to define an axial
> space or differentiate streets from other spatial features
> seems to be (also) a linguistic problem, certainly a
> problem where gaps between ‘epistemology’ and
‘reality’
> become an issue. Let me explain this: from an
> epistemological perspective, the problem of finding a
> clear definition of  "street" means finding names or a
> linguistic (or mathematical) conception – and exactly
here
> lies some form of dilemma: naming and conceptualising mean
> imposing discontinuities on reality, since names and
> concepts operate to address entities (more than relations)
> , i.e. they are cognitive operations designed to find
> elements within a “reality” where most elements or
“parts”
> are not clearly identifiable – they have no boundaries
or
> have boundaries which are in fact difficult to draw. As we
> know, they are frequently (or perhaps always) caught in
> networks of relationships; things whose very existence is
> produced
>  through relations; and things whose names (or the acts of
> naming) are produced through relations (or reminding
> Saussure, through systems of difference from other names).
> Conceptualising means detaching the thing from the network
> of relationships which gives existence
>  and sense to it; or at best it means illuminating only
> certain sets of relationships among a number of relations
> which we actually might never know – which cannot be
> grasped by a particular epistemology or conceptual scheme.
> The problem of finding/imposing boundaries through a
> precise definition is especially true in the case of
> streets – things whose existence is defined by its very
> continuity and merging into ‘similar’ entities (the
open
> spaces between architectural objects and boundaries). For
> instance, there’s the street/square distinction already
> mentioned, where ‘streets’ seem to relate to a
dominant
> axiality (in turn apparently related to movement between
> buildings), while ‘squares’ would relate to a dominant
> convexity (related to occupation). However, there are
> “spaces in between” where neither axiality  nor
convexity
> are clear; spaces therefore with no names or clear
> definitions. This is where we stand: we’re trying to
find
> a clear (epistemological) definition to something which by
> (ontological) d efinition has none. This observation
> implies that the very search for a definition is, of
> course, a reduction – an unavoidable epistemological
> reduction. So perhaps we should not remain so
> uncomfortable with the ambiguities of the word "street" or
> of the attempt to define “street” or its translation
into
> systems of axial lines – for the ambiguities and
> difficulties are in fact due to ontological ambiguities
> and continuities. Clear definitions, apparently, can only
> either remain an impossible aim, or be dependent on a
> theoretically pre-defined object domain (or context) where
> the definition attains sense (and only there it may attain
> sense).  Perhaps a way to solve or avoid these
> epistemological problems would be through definitions
> closer to the practical role of things (say, streets) to
> people? Vini Netto Unisinos - Brasil----- Original Message
> ----From: Romulo Krafta <[log in to unmask]>To:
> [log in to unmask]: Wednesday, 6 June, 2007
> 12:52:35 PMSubject: Re: What is a street?as designers work
> goes towards particularization (I mean to create unique
> places), they're more like deifying things don't they.
> anyway, designers are usually bad theorizers because
> (quoting Martial Echenique) 'they do not see the cities as
> they are, they see them as they should be'; it is very
> unlike a good theory arising from a bad description, not
> to mention the particularization issue that also cooperate
> to make theories look like
> ideologies._____________________________ROMULO
> KRAFTAUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul -
> BrasilDepartamento de UrbanismoTel: +(0)51 3308 3550,
> cell: +(0)51 99882153  ----- Original Message ----- From:
> Alan Penn To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday,
> June 05, 2007 9:22 AMSubject: Re: What is a street?Ah, but
> as designers isn’t that exactly what we need to do? To
> reify our slices, I  mean.We theorise (slice) and then we
> build based on those theories – then (to mix metaphors)
> the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and our theory
> stands or falls depending on whether the building works  J
> [Alan Penn]  Street is a category/name given by the city
> council, completely arbitrary. One could talk about public
> space, which is the part of the globe surface not taken
> away by private properties. Considering that cities are
> not walled anymore, one could argue how to differentiate a
> ‘general’ public space from a ‘urban’ one, which
must be
> object of a convention, or agreement on where to cut it
> off. Leaving the general public space aside, the urban
> space is continuous, what leads to another convention on
> how to separate it into pieces. Urban public space
> disaggregation is also arbitrary, it admits many different
> criteria, depending upon what one is looking for (the
> description of the system components is already part of
> model definition, isn’t). One could say that before any
> utilitarian criterion is taken, some spatial and formal
> aspects could be considered. The main spatial and formal
> features of the open urban space are ends, corners,
> geometric and typological variations. Old
>  fashion morphologists would choose typological features,
> shape grammar men would pick geometrical objects, syntax
> people would also go for geometry defining convex and
> axial, new syntax followers would choose corners and ends,
> transporters would prefer links, and lately, cells, which
> are portions of links, big enough to accommodate a car and
> two rear and front buffers. Planners would take a rather
> different approach, defining public space as an abstract
> link between two zones centroids, usually expressed by a
> distance or time or cost. By the way, all those different
> bits above seem to be, in fact just one step towards a
> more abstract representation, such as steps, yards,
> seconds, dollars, etc, except, perhaps the old fashioned
> types which are still represented by icons. It seems that
> the only people who apparently do not need to disaggregate
> urban open space are the economists, happy with a
> continuously variant distance from the CBD.  The rule
> seems to be: first define
>  your theory, then your model and then the most convenient
> way to slice public space into pieces….in order to get
> your results right.Ah, and do not fall the temptation to
> reify your slices._____________________________ROMULO
> KRAFTAUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul -
> BrasilDepartamento de UrbanismoTel: +(0)51 3308 3550,
> cell: +(0)51 99882153  ----- Original Message ----- From:
> Professor Bill Hillier To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:58 AMSubject: Re: What is a
> street? Rui, the basic idea of space syntax from the start
> was to replace common verbal characterizations of urban
> space - such as 'street', 'square', 'public', 'private',
> 'hierarchy', 'territory' and so in - with numerical
> descriptions that could be tested against functional
> observation. So space syntax is exactly that area of
> research into spatial morphology that does not use these
> terms, except perhaps to ask what common spatial terms
> mean numerically in different cultures. It is hard to
> believe that after all thi s time that you do not know
> this. - BillAt 09:54 05/06/2007, you wrote:Is a square
> another of those ill defined entities that space syntax
> researchers work with?Do you need four edges to have a
> square? Can a square be round?Comments welcome as
> usual!!!Rui________________________________________Rui
> Carvalhohttp://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/rui/Senior Research
> FellowCentre for Advanced Spatial AnalysisUniversity
> College London1-19 Torrington PlaceGower Street  London
> WC1E 6BT , U.K.On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:27:33 +0530, Nena
> Zutshi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:>Dear Ruth,>>The
> difference between a street & square....maybe a street has
> two>interactive edges while a square has four??>Sometimes
> a street is defined within a plaza/s quare on the basis
> of>function,which is why some squares that are "too big"
> lie vacant in bits and>"organic" streets are defined
> within.>>>Nena Singh>PGCert AAS> India>>On 6/1/07, Alan
> Penn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:>>>> The route down the ramp
> at Torrington Place seems to me to be relatively>>
> unproblematic. If you are mapping 'private space' (within
> an individual>> building curtilage) it should be there as
> it provides real access to the>> back door and the way
> into CASA. The more problematic street segments on>> OS>>
> Mastermap are the very short bits that go round traffic
> bollards in the>> middle of roads and at junctions -
> perhaps it is these that give rise to>> the>> curve at the
> tail of the distribution? Sticking to geometry based>>
> definitions seems to me to be much simpler than semantic
> or heuristic>> definitions for this kind of thing.>>>>>>
> Alan>>>> >>> > Lucas>> >>> > A question: If we include,
> following 'TeleAtlas' for instance, to map>> such>> >
> countless bits of space as 'The ramp to the car par k at
> 1-19 Torrington>> > Plc' or 'The entrance to the emergency
> services at UCH' into a street>> > network, could it
> change its degree distribution from a 'log-normal' to>> >
> a 'power-law'? If so, can we really claim that the degree
> distribution>> of>> > street networks does not follow a
> power law but a log-normal?>> >>> > Regards,>> > Hoon>>
> >>> >>> > >On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:24:49 +0100, Lucas
> Figueiredo>> > ><[log in to unmask]> wrote:>> > >>>
> > >>On 31/05/07, Rui Carvalho <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:>> > >>> Pitty no one knows what a street is...>> >
> >>>> > >>Certainly it is not a segment (or route) between
> two junctions.>> > >>Otherwise we would have things like "
> Oxford Street sector A, B, C" an d>> > >>so on...>> > >>>
> > >The ramp to the car park at 1-19 Torrington Plc. This
> comes in GPS car>> > >navigation systems as a decision
> point? is it a street?>> > >>> > >The entrance to the
> emergency services at UCH (that's UCL Hospital for>> >
> non>> > >Londoners). Is it a street?>> > >>> > >This
> question appears when you process data from services
> like>> TeleAtlas>> > ->> > >the most accurate data
> available on street networks...>> > >>> > >Looks like Alan
> should organize that 'mass observation' on what a>>
> street>> > >is after all...>> > >>> > >Comments welcome!>>
> > >>> > >Rui>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>Regards,>> > >>>> >
> >>Lucas Figueiredo>> > >>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/>> > >>>> >
> >>Mindwalk>> > >> http://www.mindwalk.com.br>> >>>
>
>=========================================================
> ===============>>>>>>-->Nena
Singh Zutshi>Architect>1806
> ,Sector 17,Gurgaon-122001.>
> __________________________________________________________
> _ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've develop
> ed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
> http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Benamy Turkienicz
Tel/Fax     +55 51 33083906
    Cel     +55 51 84229627