Dear Karen,
Lucas makes a good point. There is a complex set of relations
between configuration and use in terms of moving and static
people, and there are many factors of configurative kind
affecting static people, although 'static' seems to be more
problematic to treat as one kind of behaviour than movement -
some forms are rather directly dependent on movement flow and
some seem to be more independent (pausing for coffee on the way
vs. a big soccer game). Some static behaviour is also built on
"happening where everyone is" (i.e. "social centrality").
I did discuss this somewhat at length in my thesis as I so
clearly observed the phenomenon around things that were used with
the purpose of being attractors "pulling customers to
departments" that didn't work - like a cafe in Debenhams that was
almost always full yet had no statistical impact on the amount of
browsers -or- movers in the departments on the way there. I also
try to begin building a discussion of how the relative amounts of
'passers by' vs 'static', and how these groups are set relative
one another, affects what social character the space has. Again
I'm not alone in writing about this but it is one of the main
foci in there.
It's in chapters 9 and 10 I think. Can't remember how much of it
made it into and been further evolved in papers that have been
published (and then in English) right of the bat, but some has.
It is available in fulltext at
http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:11792/FULLTEXT01
Again I'd also suggest Polly's papers, I don't directly remember
which but there is a good discussion about it in (at least) one
of them, or perhaps Huang Hsu's from the 3d symposium. For
'static' people, you might also want to look into work on
offices (steen, markhede, peponis, sailer, penn, shpuza, etc.).
They could probably tell more themselves on where they write
about it.
Best
/dk
2009/11/5 Karen Martin <[log in to unmask]>:
> > As I understand, the numbers for static people
> > weren't included in the calculations later on in the paper.
Have figures for
> > static people been used for any kind of analysis in Space
Syntax, or was it
> > discovered that static-ness played an insignificant part in
understanding
> > spatial configuration and use?
The number of static people may depend on several additional factors,
such as attractors (a shop, etc.) or the simple existence of
amenities, such as a shadow or a place to sit. In other words,
whether
or not people stops in a place will depend on factors beyond
configuration.
This does not necessarily mean that we should ignore configuration.
Eventually the potential created by a good design in terms of moment
can only be materialised if such factors are also there, but it would
be a waste to place such factors in the wrong location. This is the
secret of using such techniques to evaluate plans and design schemes.
The colourful maps and intriguing pedestrian analysis mean nothing
without good architecture / planning to back them. One thing
complements the other.
On the subject of static people, I think there a few comments on the
classic study of Tate:
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/932/
Best Regards,
******************************************
Daniel Koch
Architect | Researcher | Teacher
KTH School of Architecture, Sweden
+46 8-790 79 79; www.arch.kth.se/sad
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
|