Please read 'Normalising least angle choice in Depthmap and how it opens up new perspectives on the global and local analysis of city space (which has an integration dimension) in Joss and attached. With normalised choice you can compare streets (or segment or areas) in one city with  streets, segments or areas in another. It is routinely done on projects now. - Bill



-----Original Message-----

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of SUBSCRIBE SPACESYNTAX Anonymous

Sent: 31 August 2016 10:06

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [SPACESYNTAX] The unit of integration



Hi,



Thanks for these insightful comments. 

Two more questions:



1- As Prof Jiang said: "Given the fact that it is a relative order, it is not good idea to put one street's integration in one city in comparison with another street's integration in another city. Such a comparison is meaningless. In other words, the ranking order makes a good sense only for streets within a same city."

I'm wondering whether we could compare the integration of a street at 1 KM radius in a city with the integration of another street at 1 KM radius in another city? Conceptually, I don't see any problem, because we limit our analysis to a specific metric value 1KM (so we shouldn't face any 'edge effect'). Any more elaboration on this? My concern would be if space syntax measures are not successful in comparing different cities/form; then they may get criticism that they are 'too' context-specefic.

2- On the application of space syntax, I've got the impression (may be wrong) that in the 'existing well-established neighbourhoods', space syntax could be a more useful tool for 'small interventions' . By small interventions, I mean, relocating some small shops, or removing some cul-de-sacs, or even help to locate a new park. While, it could be a tool for 'more radical interventions/changes' for the 'new developments' (to evaluate their plans before they were built). My questions: (a) whether this assumption is correct? (b) if this is correct, then how we could address this comment: "We have only few new developments (maybe less than 5% in the world). The urban form has been already built in many cities. So, how a tool like space syntax which is more efficient for new development, can be advertised as a useful tool for the existing neighbourhoods'. It seems to me that space syntax has been mainly (only) concerned with visual (isoviet analysis) at the neighbourhood scale in the context of existing neighbourhoods.



Anyway, as an academic person, I appreciate and use the concept/method of space syntax in my research. However, as we care about the science (not an architecture/urban design company), we need to be more 'picky' on 'why' we use a method and 'how' such a method may be helpful for the built environment interventions/changes (especially after almost 30 years since it's been invented). 



Thanks,