Dear Daisy

I would suggest that Eisenman's 'syntax' is a fairly
simple question of rules about how shapes can fit
together, with the complexity in the reasoning behind
why that might have cultural significance.

Space syntax seems to me to have more complexity built
into the rules.  As you say, Eisenman is configuring
shapes, but space syntax is looking at the
configuration of spaces from a particular point of
view.

In space syntax, one can have different places, which
have buildings of different shapes, but have identical
properties under a configurational analysis because
the _significant_ features are the same.  This is part
of the power of the analysis, that it can find common
factors in apparently different situations, and thus
can show where differences are significant, or are
not.

So what aspects of space does SS measure?   I would
say that it measures those features which are critical
to human interaction – features that can prevent
people in one area from seeing people in other areas,
and/or prevent them moving to meet each other.  

To borrow a phrase from Gibson, it measures the
‘affordance’ of space, not the shape of space. 

(where ‘affordance’ is taken to mean the perceivable
possibilities of action – see Gibson, J.J. (1979). The
Ecological Approach to Visual Perception)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - 

Another important point is that SS is not limited to
_whether_ one location can be seen from another (for
instance), but extends analysis to the number of
‘steps’ between distant spaces. This allows SS to ask
‘how much affordance’ is provided, which is likely to
be important in relation to social phenomena.  In more
recent variants this includes fractions of steps,
which seem to me to be significant on the
architectural scale.  

But exactly what is being afforded, and even whether
it is always the same thing, seems to be a matter for
debate.  And the important question of how the
affordance of some rather specific human actions
relates to interesting social consequences seems to be
a matter of some sensitivity in the research
community.

I should point out that I am not a member of that
research community, and have only tried to make sense
of SS in terms of my practice of architecture.  I am
aware that even the guarded views expressed above my
be controversial, someone may wish to put me right?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -

My knowledge of Eisenman’s work is also limited, but
what strikes me is his approach involves finding ways
of inhibiting people in their daily lives, in contrast
with SS which tries to assist the successful
functioning of daily events.  I seem to remember
reading Eisenman replying to an angry client that "If
he wanted a house to live in, he should not have
commissioned an Eisenman building," which would
suggest he is producing art, and not architecture.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -

You might want to check out some work by Sophia
Psarra, who looks at applying SS procedures to the
shape building plans.  The following link points you
in the direction of her papers on this matter -  
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/spsarra/analysis_of_space_and_form


Regards, 

Tom Dine
Chassay+Last Architects
London
 

--- dai Xiaoling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear All, 

I am currently writing an essay about the different
meaning of "syntax" in Eisenman's housing projects and
Space Syntax theory. 
. . . .

4.Also, it seems that the syntax Eisenman talks about
is a bit different from SS's conception. Eisenman
focus on the rule of generation and transformation. SS
seems focus on the deep structure. Comments? 

5.I remember in Hillier's lecture, he once talked to
us the potential that syntactic approach may one day
be applied to analyze elevations of building. As
Eisenman already made a step using syntactic idea to
generate form. Should we learn from him and can we
learn from him? 

Sincerely! 

Daisy Xiaoling Dai 

Ph.D. Candidate 

Architecture Department

Tongji University, Shanghai, China







		
___________________________________________________________ 
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html