 |
 |
Sanjay, So long as space syntax sees itself as essentially an analytic and explanatory science I don't think that it will feel particularly challenged by transport modeling. Considered in these terms of explanatory power space syntax can be taken as appearing somewhat more powerful: fewer variables are needed to explain more of the variance, and there is a distinct reduction in the need to calibrate using the determined variables. In the real world space syntax analysis and transport models are entirely complementary tools suited to their specific purposes. There is no real competition either intellectual or practical there. Just choose the better tool for your purposes. Alan > -----Original Message----- > > > I think Mike's paper and Shinichi's work suggests that to some degree the > concept of transport network planning, which is a different and well > established discipline, has strong (and perhaps inevitable) links with > conventional space syntax research. In addition transport planning based > research appears to be a somewhat more developed version of the Space > syntax research as it generally includes parameters other than space (i.e. > network) such as traffic (i.e. whether road, rail etc.) load, road types, > nature of transport, gravity models and many others into account during > modelling while space syntax, in my view, starts and ends with generation > of mostly "topological" (i.e. not neccessarily real) networks and > characterising them using graph measures. > > Perhaps, I am actually wondering whether this overlap enpowers or > challenges the methodology of conventional space syntax techniques.