Alasdair,

I'm not sure what you mean when you speak of moving "our space

syntax onwards, to address (particularly) *how* the configuration is

related to the interaction within it -- that is, to look at the

dynamical process within architecture."

If you mean a thorough descriptive picture of the workings of different "street ballets" in different places and cultures, I would agree, though, as a phenomenologist, I would argue that any underlying commonalities--e.g., the automatic presence of safe street, the remarkable serendipity of the lived structure and resulting encounters, etc--are most significant because they point toward the lived mutuality of people and place, physical and human worlds. (In other words, I am much less interested in cultural and social differences, though, clearly there could be a phenomenology of such if one were interested).

Ultimately, my major concern is the understanding and making of environmental wholes, which in turn should lead to vibrant places and a powerful sense of place. Clearly, the unself-conscious lived dynamics of co-presence, co-awareness, and interpersonal encounter that is the foundation of space syntax is not the only ingredient of successful urban places, but I agree with Hillier in his conclusion that they are the essential foundation and that if that foundation is lacking, the place will be much less than it might be otherwise.

For a thorough picture of other ingredients contributing to successful urban place making, I still think that Bentley et al.'s RESPONSIVE ENVIRONMENTS is one of the best points of guidance.

Dr. David Seamon

Architecture Department, Kansas State University

211 Seaton Hall

Manhattan, KS 66506-2901