Hi Sheep

You say you ‘feel we have under played the  analysis
of building recently’

But there seems to be a lot of work at the building
level, judging from the papers in the symposia.  I
haven’t read as many as I would like,  but they seem
to use the ideas of space syntax in an anthropological
way. These analyse space in order to illuminate the
human events taking place, whereas the architect is
looking from the other side, asking what demands a
human event would make on the space.   

As Alasdair says, this is only to talk about the
spatial component of a complex issue, but this is the
architects’ part in making it easy for certain
activities to take place, or at least to make them
possible!  Here there is the question of
generalisation that I mentioned before.  Ethnographic
studies may be made in order to pick out
particularities of a social / ethnic group, perhaps
comparing the genotypes of particular houses for
significant differences. To design a space we need the
other side of the coin – the genotype of the activity,
to which the space must be suited.

To continue the example of the ‘pavement café’, the
seating area often has barriers of some sort, so the
tables are slightly separated from the pavement, or
the tables are densely packed to make a functional
barrier.  People going past this barrier join a group
– not in the sense of a ‘social group’, but in the
functional sense of being occupants, implicitly
joining the other occupants, being noticed even if not
acknowledged, expected to take part in the designated
activity but perhaps defying expectations.  

People who go on through to the café behind enter a
different spatially defined ‘group’, and when people
go on behind the counter or kitchen door they a become
part of a third ‘group’.   The exact nature of each
activity may be defined by semiotics, or by signs, or
by bouncers to enforce the rules.  But the human
situation is clear from the spatial configuration. 

Perhaps you meet large client practices because they
work on a more geographic scale.  For my work, the way
people can occupy a place has more relevance than
analysis of traffic. I don’t know if there is any
research on such spatially defined groups?  The most
relevant thing I have found is Barker’s work on
‘Standing patterns of behaviour’, but this seems
uninterested in the physical constraints of space.

What makes a space able to function as a single place,
defining a functional group?  Has any work has been
done on this?  I guess it will involve more local
factors about the enclosure of space. I suppose the
‘Convex Space’ is the prototype, but in ambiguous,
semi-public spaces, there may be an interesting
problem in finding what level of fragmentation of
space is possible before it disrupts the functioning
of a particular sort of human group.  For instance, a
market can clearly retain its identity as a place in a
much more fragmented space than can a business
meeting, regardless of absolute size.  

It seems to me that this sort of analysis lies between
the descriptive and the normative – it is explanatory.
 As you say, we don’t need a pattern book to tell us
what we SHOULD do, we need to be advised that IF we
make this pattern of space, then THESE patterns of
behaviour will be facilitated / inhibited.  Just the
way the urban-scale analysis explains the likely
effect on pedestrian traffic. 

Regards,  Tom

--- sheep dalton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Tom I think your right on a number of fronts - I 
> also personally feel we have under played the 
> analysis of building recently, to the extent 
> where new list joins might think that space 
> syntax is nothing but urban science/geography. 
> I've done some interesting new work I hope to put 
> in as a paper to the next syntax symposium on 
> this.
> 
> >  >We need some practical help... Perhaps I 
> >should read ‘the book’ again, or perhaps
> Space Syntax needs some sort of outreach program.
> 
> I personally agree with this.  I think the 
> argument is generally that Syntax is a 
> descriptive not a normative  ie it describes 
> things as they are but has nothing to say about 
> what they should be. Think Darwinian laws 
> describe evolution but that doesn't mean that we 
> have to enforce survival of the fittest as a 
> social philosophy, Newtonian Laws describe how 
> things move but this doesn't say that things 
> should move or where they move too. You might 
> want to argue that Space Syntax Ltd and the 
> Masters Couse is also outreach of a sort.
> 
> Normative aside there must be ways around this 
> with out getting to pattern bookish.
> 
> I've often thought it would be good to have some 
> public critiques of projects. This might be good 
> for projects involved and useful in razing the 
> visibility and applicability of the techniques. 
> I guess this wouldn't be space syntax on the 
> basis that the critique would have to come from 
> some clear starting point - stainability 
> walkablity is good, or numbers of strangers 
> passing by reduces crime or strangers are bad 
> keep them out, what ever. Given this you could do 
> the analytic work and come up with some kind of 
> result. But it wouldn't be Space syntax just 
> Manifesto X using Space syntax methods.
> 
> http://www.newurbanist.com/ I notice has a number 
> of site plans and it would be good to be able to 
> say 'this is going to form the kind movement 
> patterns the 13 new urbanist principles would 
> require'. Which would be good but slightly unfair 
> after a lot of people pick on new urbanists while 
> leaving the old-urbanists designing sprawling 
> gated communities alone because they don't have 
> any formal ideals or principles.
> 
> I think the other outreach I would like to see 
> would be Syntax the coffee table book ( like the 
> Atlas of Cyberspace).
> 
> The kind of thing beloved of the AA book shop. 
> I've imagined it as a large format one double 
> page per project/city/building with the Axial map 
> as the primary visual element together with some 
> explanative texts explaining what makes that 
> city/analysis unique/interesting. For example 
> Kingscross a) before b) with the three competing 
> designs (SOM,Fosters..) explaining what kind of 
> expected pedestrian outcomes would emerge from 
> each project. Then maps from around the world 
> showing the cultural patterns emerging - I've 
> seen some wonderful axial maps of Brazilian 
> cities recently, not to mention some gorgeous 
> Islamic cites and some cool historic maps.  There 
> could be some nice shots of London and some 
> examples showing housing estates. As Bill often 
> says of the axial map might not be good 
> philosophy but it is good art.
> 
> I guess the reason for the coffee table book has 
> always been as the resource for teaching Space 
> syntax outside the Bartlett. When I've done guest 
> lectures I've often gone on to opening up cities 
> on demand from my portable fragment of the urban 
> database. When people/students can see places 
> they are familiar with then they can begin to 
> break free of the red good, blue bad mentality.
> 
> 
> Finally I think the problem is the current 
> separation between my self as a researcher and 
> the smaller practice. Space syntax ltd handles 
> the bigger clients and I don't get to hear much 
> about what,who and how they do (other researchers 
> mileage may vary). Perhaps (just perhaps) Space 
> Syntax Ltd should restart the public seminars 
> again but this time also offer a kind of 'master 
> class' or open session. The principle being that 
> architects and designers come in with smaller 
> scale designs real or imagined,have them quickly 
> analyzed (in advance) and then publicly 
> dissected. Perhaps from this it might be possible 
> to find common problems,mistakes, solutions but 
> not a style which would form the basis for the 
> kind of book I think you want.
> 
> 
> sheep
> 
> 


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html