Dear Daniel Koch
 

First of all, thank you  for the attempt to answer, or at least get involved in my PhD research problems. Unfortunately the only reply I received to my inquiry for Space Syntax community was yours.

In my research I’m  seeking the answer to How far will it be possible to stimulate higher education institutions to promote and foster informal learning environments and experiences to their students? We refer to new approaches to learning and teaching beyond the typical structure of fixed duration classes with breaks in between, in a way to facilitate student-centred and collaborative learning, as a decentralized process that takes place anytime, anywhere, like in architecture learning.

The main research question is on how the configurative properties of learning settings influence the users' experience of space, generate interaction and facilitate their capacity to acquire and share knowledge.

The case studies focused on this research are the schools of architecture: Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade do Porto -, designed by Alvaro Siza Vieira; the Colégio das Artes do Departamento de Arquitectura da Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbra building; and the School of Architecture of Departamento Autónomo de Arquitectura da Universidade do Minho designed by Fernando Távora and Bernardo Távora.

The research is focused on social interactive spaces in university building and investigates how these spaces are correlated to the importance of space codes in architecture teaching and learning.

 

It is argued that spatial configuration has the potential to influence the space use of learners and teachers and regulate the ways in which knowledge is shared and were learning takes place, beyond the classroom. I believe that the type of rules space inflicts on users (learners) constitutes one of the keys to how the socio-informal activities may arise in schools of architecture. The answer to this question requires the development of a space-use analysis model capable of a systematic, objective and non-arbitrary description.

 

This research is focused not only in formal  learning activities, but mainly on temporary "learning events" like informal knowledge-sharing scenarios that take place in the architecture schools , aiming at evaluating the capacity of space to support, promote and enhance social and informational interface.

the "third learning" space concept, 

 

Regarding the questions about the Space Syntax analysis tool that I use the software Depthmap seek to understand whether the visual integration of spaces relates to fact that students' remain in certain spaces for exchange of knowledge, study and socialization, I am particularly interested commun spaces and public spaces that usually are understood as spaces for passage or connection between other academic spaces. I’m Seeking to prove that those spaces have a very important role in the learning spaces of the schools of Architecture (which are my case study )  systematically  Students end up staying on those spaces, electing  them from other group of spaces, like the classrooms of library.

I believe that among the common spaces and particularly within the set of the circulation spaces ( atriums ans corridors) the ones that  are selected to be constituted as studing / learning / socialization spaces, are those that meet certain physical conditions for students to remain there , but essentially those that best relate with all the space system ( in tearms fo axiality and mobility ) .

 

We seek to understand the relationship between the school of architectues system space ( topological aspects and  configurational ) and the usages /ownership of particular spaces in learning architecture activities. In the background we seek to " define / establish a spatial hierarchy in which the indicator is the use of space in learning activities of architecture .

 

 My concern about the possibility of analyzing the different dimensions of visibility is related to the aspect the permanence. The space configuration (convex, isovist field/vga analysis) encourage students to choose some particular type of spaces, that traditionally were not designs to be study spaces?

I belive one of the aspects is the axiality integration , and visual control integration , the spaces where students can better see ( visual Analisys) who passes by ( convex analysis),  who are in the space or in the neighbor spaces….

So the research  includes both  analysis  convex and visibility method.

Later we chose randomly a set 1/3 of the less integrated spaces 1/3 of the medium integrated spaces and 1/3 of the more  integrated spaces to set a sample of spaces to observe. Later, also according to randomly a set of days for  observations , we collect information about how students use of these spaces identifying the users class (students, teachers, others) and  kind of activity (activities related to simple socialization,  Informal learning / socialization, formal learning). Later we will cross the observed information with axial and visibility measures for verify whether ther is a relationship between them.

My corrent main doubts are concernd with VGA analysis tha I find to be more difficult to solve problems like  multilevel spaces with fields of view beteewn them. 

Best regards
Andrea de Pera Vieira

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Daniel Koch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Andrea,

 I am unsure if you received a reply to your inquiry, none reached the list at least?

 Unfortunately, the answer to your question is another question: what is it you try to analyse? (Or: for what purpose are you doing the isovist analysis?). This question is important for both Convex Space analysis and VGA, although usually convex space analysis operates on the scale of 'architecture' (built boundaries), whereas VGA is used on more different levels of resolution.

But let me first ask for clarification:
Convex space analysis, axial analysis, and isovist field/vga analysis are three different modes of analysis. In your question, you seem to mix the convex space and isovist field analysis. The Isovist field does not require polyogns, and definitely not convex polygons - whereas the convex space analysis is based on convex polygons (or, convex boundary-shapes).

You can analyse visibility (what you can see) and permeability (where you can walk) relations in all three models, although axial lines are commonly used for permeability only, convex spaces mostly for permeability but sometimes for visibility, and vga for both (although terminology need to be cleaned up here).

So, are you seeking to do Convex Space analysis AND VGA analysis, or are the questions regarding VGA?

Best wishes
Daniel

__________________
Daniel Koch
PhD | Researcher | Teacher
Director of Research Studies
KTH School of Architecture
100 44 Stockholm, Sweden 
www.arch.kth.se 

On 2014-02-12 18:41, Andrea Vieira wrote:

Dear space syntax community

 

I am writing you to ask for some help for trying to clarify some questions on​

​ ​

 spatial analysis 

​regarding fields of view, making use of Depthmap software. 

It seems to me 

​that, based on the documents consulted about the software, all spaces should be convex polygonal spaces. 

1 - How to consider in multilevel spaces fields of view studies spaces that have visibility with spaces in lower levels or higher levels (such as a mezzanine space) 
In the particular case 

​I've ​

 met this difficulty in

1a) in the space of FAUP library. (Fig. 1a) we should consider the upper space, as a single convex space without barriers? How to analyse a visual control between spaces at different levels?

<Mail Attachment.jpeg><Mail Attachment.jpeg> 

​fig1a​

 

1b 

​i​

 ) space cloister 

​and the circulation areas in ground floor ​

 ( 

​Fig. ​

 1b) 

​  should we consider galleries and the empty central place as a as a single square  convex space without barriers?

1bii) 

space cloister 

​and the circulation areas in first floor ​

 ( 

​Fig. ​

 1b)​   should 

​we ​

 consider galleries and the empty central place as a as a single square convex space without barriers?

<Mail Attachment.jpeg>

2)

2) Wen we are studing a spoace considering isovist fieds of view in a building should we consider the windows as visual permeability between spaces? 
If a physical space is defined by a totally transparent barrier, such as in fig 2a

​should ​

 all space atrium and secretary be considered as a single convex space for fields of view analisys, but for axial analisys the spaces should 

​they ​

 be considered as 2 separated convex spaces? 
<Mail Attachment.png> 

​fig2a​

 

2 

​b)  Fig 2b

In Carlos Ramos Pavilion in FAUP,:

i)               how to consider the visual continuity between all spaces on the same level,

ii)              ii) how to consider the visual continuity between spaces different levels, such as in the groud floor and the first level

<Mail Attachment.jpeg>fig2b

3) If a physical space is defined by a barrier with a high that does not interrupt the visual permeability. Like situation of the service desks in departments, or handrails, which forms a physical barrier to mobility but as physical elements with an approximate 90cm height they does not constitute visual barriers for users. Fig

​3​

<Mail Attachment.png> 

​fig3​

 

4) situations ramps / stairs that high should we consider cutting visual permeability between  floors, the same as we consider 

​when we represent the space in plans (~1,1 m)?

<Mail Attachment.jpeg> 

​fig4​

 

​
thanks in advance

-- 
Andrea Pera Vieira

-- 
Andrea Pera Vieira