Maliha,
this does point to an interesting question. I would, however,
claim that space syntax as _theory_ has a lot to contribute to
design, also in the "generative phase", while the specific
softwares may have less.
First, the generative phase is inherently analytic, just as the
analytic phase is inherently generative (the first performs site
and problem analysis indirectly by suggesting solutions (Sanford
Anderson, Lundequist, etc.) that indirectly prioritize the issues
and show what might be, the second because your future generative
solutions will depend on your analytic focus, method, and
techniques (see Châtelet for graphs, or Kenneth Knoespel
regarding space syntax specifically). This means that what we set
out to solve and what means we have at our hands are important in
the generative phase no matter how free we might wish to think us
to be (although one can argue that there is no "right"
prioritisation, it is always there). Intuitive design work isn't
"free" in the ideal sense, but dependent on [a lot of things
including experience, knowledge, values, and perceptions].
Second, if we extract the theoretical configurative and
performative knowledge space syntax has generated it can
participate in generative phases, and contirbute to them, as one
part, and to focus on certain questions. Things like distances,
centrality, periphery, separation, connection, series, narratives
and so on can from many points of view be worked with via space
syntax thinking. Unfortunately, this tends to require a deeper
understanding of the theory than much analytic work, since it
requires transformation of analytic models to principles or
factors of design work. (One could discuss this as early-stage
shifts between generative and predictive phases, but this misses
the point).
Eisenman could be used as an example of someone successfully
using theoretical frameworks to guide generation of architecture.
One could argue that his geometrical rulesets have no foundation,
but they still _work in the generative phase_. Similarly, space
syntax could. But this is still touching on the surface of how
theory contributes in generative stages of design. Let's stick to
it for a moment, though:
For instance when you are working with spatial distributions in
your designs (which is what you do as an architect, to a large
degrees), there are SPS models that could support your work.
When working with strategies of spatial aggregation (adding
spaces to spaces) there are excellent chapters in the Social
Logig of Space for how simple social conditions can lead to
complex aggregated forms. Further reading could be on emergence
(Like Steven Johnsons "Emergence"), and emergent design. When
working with strategies of spatial subdivision you could look at
"the laws of the field" in Space is the Machine to get an
understanding of what kind of distance- and configurative effects
different kinds of solutions give. There are also papers from
Istanbul (I'm sorry, I don't have the papers here now) that
discuss distance-effects of various small changes of spatial
systems/house plans (Ruth Conroy-Dalton and others, I think).
Add to that an understanding of what creates perceived or
experienced distances, centrality, movement flows and so on,
_these factors can be employed in the generative phase_, but with
great care. Again, we _always_ as architect make assumptions and
use what knowledge we have when designing, choosing what goes
over what, and so on. The less you wish to work with emergent
social performatives and/or function, the less _maybe_ space
syntax can contribute.
These two factors, transforming configurative ideas into
operative generative tools (which to a large degree has to be
done constantly and anew for each new project), and accepting the
interconnection between generative and analytic phases (such as
analysis by design) are key issues to understand, which are
worked with in design theory and constantly happen in
architectural practice. (From construction to ventilation to use
to materials to sunlight to experiences to reference objects to
models and ideals to values to tradition et cetera - and perhaps
this points to the issue at hand, to use space syntax in early
stages of design one has to find the ways in which it can work
less as a technique and more similar to all the other knowledge
we make use of _when we generate ideas and solutions_.) And, of
course, the simple thing of giving spatial configuration higher
priority in the design process due to its proved impact on
performative outcomes has effects of its own on what you design.
I'm saying this partly from my own experience in architectural
design, and would suggest your could for instance begin your
thinking around the j-graph and its possibilities. Then there is
further leads in axial lines and isovists to how to create
differentiation in depth and public/private spheres. The point
remains, however that if your interest is in the earlier stages
of design then you will want to understand space syntax spatial
theory rather than analytic techniques (if they can be separated,
which they can).
Sophia is right, however; for this to be possible you need a wide
reading and an open mind that it won't (can't and shouldn't) be
the only thing you work with. I think it requires a wider reading
to even be possible to make the transformation into generative
ideas fruitful.
To try to sum it up: we need to figure out what parts, and how,
the knowledge gathered in space syntax research can be transformed
into useful intuitive knowledge in the design phase. It _is_
possible,
if we accept that intuition is by and large knowledge-based (whether
that knowledge is "correct" or not), and that this phase, and the
role of sps in it, will always be a matter of choice. The long mail
is just to raise the issue that we shouldn't dismiss the idea of
space syntax in generative phases.
_Because it is already there_. And if we don't take that seriously
it might do damage, especially if it is used wrong. If we do,
however, it can contribute to architectural design.
There is still fairly little written on this, unfortunately, but
we are hoping for more to be submitted to our theme "Architectural
Research and Architectural Design" for the 7th International
Space Syntax Symposium. ;)
/dk
******************************************
Daniel Koch
Ph.D. | Architect | Teacher
KTH School of Architecture, Sweden
+46 8-790 79 79; www.arch.kth.se/sad
Quoting Sophia Psarra <[log in to unmask]>
Dear Maliha,
Your problem raises serious theoretical issues regarding Space
Syntax and its contribution to design. For a good theoretical
discussion on these issues see the second chapter of "Space is
the Machine": "The Need for an Analytic Theory of Architecture".
As Hillier argues in this chapter, there are generative theories
in art and analytic theories in science. Space Syntax is useful
less in the generative stages of design, where ideas should be as
innovative as possible, and mainly at the predictive phases,
where analytic precision is needed to predict how an innovative
design can function successfully. So, Alan is right in suggesting
you start using your intuition and employ Space Syntax to test
your design proposals at a later stage.
For a better understanding of innovative design, see the the
first chapter of "Space is the Machine": "What Architecture Adds
to Building".The main core of the argument there is that
Architecture moves beyond cultural reproduction into the realm of
possibility and principled understanding. The designer uses
abstract comparative knowldge from a wide range of buildings and
forms aiming at genotypical innovation rather than reduplication.
So, you need to explore a number of precedents and familiarize
yourself with the history and theory of museum forms and museum
spaces. The Space Syntax references provided by other members of
this list can assist you in understanding how museums are
functioning in terms of movement, visibility, and organization of
content at the analytic level, but for the generative phases of
your design you need some additional literature:
1. Newhouse, V., (1998), Towards A New Museum, New York:
Monacelli Press
2. Newhouse, V., (2005), Art and the Power of Placement, New
York: The Monacelli Press.
3. Staniszewski, M. A., (1998), The Power of Display, Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Regarding ideas and inspiration associated with the generative
phases of the design, these can come from a number of sources:
the content to be housed in the museum, the site, the urban
context, the wider cultural/political messages of the museum,
landscape, etc.
Space Syntax has a role to play regarding the factors of site,
landscape or urban context, and the way in which you can achieve
a successful integration of your building and its main points of
entry with the urban area. For an imaginative response though,
you need wide reading, and an engagement with as many aspects of
the design as possible (not simply the functional ones).
Best regards
Sophia Psarra
Associate Professor
Taubman College of Architecture+Urban Planning
University of Michigan
2000 Bonisteel Boulevard
Ann Arbor
Michigan 48109-2069
USA
Tel: 734-615-7249
Fax: 734-763-2223
Quoting Maliha Sultan <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear All,
>
> I am a student at the Mackintosh School. For my final project I
am using
> depthmap study to help me design a art gallery/museum. The
project is a
> refurbishment of a building, so I have run the Depthmap
analysis on the
> existing building, namely Isovist Analysis, VGA, Axial Lines
Analysis, and
> also the Agent Analysis. I am struggling to figure how these
will help me in
> my design, using 3d visualization tools.
>
> Also, is there a specific data, given somewhere which i could
use for the
> agent analysis, like "Field of views" (bins), "Steps taken
before turning".
> I wish to use the agent analysis to guide me to design the
space according
> to the movement of people within a space.
>
> Can anyone please help!!!
>
> Cheers
> Maliha
>
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
|
