Dear All,

It has been very interesting to read the various ideas on theory and practice in Space Syntax - it has taken me quite a while, and there is still plenty I have not read on the new website.  I would like to thank David Seamon in particular for articles he sent me related to phenomenology and space syntax.  I feel that there is an important question here concerning the relation of behaviour to experience.

Göran made an interesting point about  ‘. . . Space syntax as a "language" for spatial issues’.   Perhaps this is the heart of “What Space Syntax is“ ; a way of understanding and talking about aspects of space that seem important.   The question then is , What is important?  and for me the experience of place is important. 
The studies which I have seen seem to concentrate on behaviourist analysis of large-scale urban areas, whereas most of my design time is concerned with subjectivist ideas at a smaller scale. To split this question into two, I wonder how Space syntax can be used as a way of describing the way spaces are experienced? , and how the Methodology can be applied at the 10m scale rather than the 1000m scale?   To take an extreme case - is the method any use in explaining why a particular sculpture by Barbara Hepworth, with its various concavities and openings,  has a different character to another similar sculpture?

Experience:  The analysis of Space Syntax is often related to potential behaviour - of the ‘virtual community’.  I have never been clear whether this is because of physical controls on behaviour, because of knowledge of overall layout which affects wayfinding, or concepts of social indications of territory (“retrieved rules”)   Or is it experiential - do individuals come to a street and think “ this can’t be a through-road” (as shown in ‘Responsive Environments” Bentley, Alcock et al)

In other words. is an axial map a description of pathways or of sightlines?  eg. How does a sightline down a street and across a canal affect behaviour?  It allows wayfinding to a distant location but denies direct access.  What affect does a glass screen have? or a railing across a public square?  surely the room in a National Trust house with a rope half-way across is still experienced as a single convex space, even though people behave as if one side were inaccessible.

I wonder if this is connected with the density of people being considered.  U can well understand that the probabilistic behaviour of crowds can be matched to Syntax measures, but I deal with places used by 2 or 3 people per hour who are familiar with the building.  I would imagine that their behaviour is affected more by what they know can be done in that place, and how they feel about performing those actions in that place rather than another.

My experience of design is that the practical problems of building s (their ‘instrumental’ function)  is usually a solvable problem.  It is not always easy, but we know how to describe the problems and their possible solutions, so we can discuss, compromise and invent.  It is the question of ‘what places will be like’ that is ill-defined; we have no good way of describing it  (and it is important:  more buildings are demolished because of neglect and abuse than because of constructional failure or absolute obsolescence)  Space Syntax seems to offer a unique contribution, by finding ways of describing attributes of space that have previously been unconscious, I wonder if anyone has ever applied them to questions such as why people enjoy sitting in alcoves off a main room, or why deep splayed reveals have a particular effect on a room (two of Alexander’s “Patterns”).  
When we look at ideas such as ‘an entrance porch with a restricted view of a half-hidden garden’ (in ‘A timeless way) we seem to have an entirely spatial arrangement of enclosure, sightlines and pathways - can this phenomenon be described by space syntax?  John Peponis’s E-partition and S-partition seem to be relevant.  I have not fully got to grips with the Spatialist website, but it would seem that the ‘isovist’ from within and alcove is different from that outside.  Does this adequately describe the uniquely ‘alcove-ish’ experience?  What about changes in ceiling height - I have not seen any space syntax analysis of the vertical dimension, does it exist?

Again I feel I am speaking from a position of ignorance to this list of experts, so forgive me if these questions are naive, but it would be interesting to hear any comments.

Best wishes

Tom.
-------------------
Thomas Everest Dine RIBA
Chassay+Last Architects
Berkley Works
Berkley Grove
Primrose Hill
London NW1 8XY
England
[log in to unmask]
-------------------




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%