Hi Kerstin
I think VGA is much convenience in smaller places (inside buildings) and small urban spaces, rather than using axial lines, as from your both two images, I might say that the VGA is more accurate than the axial one.
Regards
Nabil Mohareb
----- Original Message -----
From: Kerstin Sailer <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:57 pm
Subject: Re: [SPACESYNTAX] what is the real life meaning of an axial topology in office buildings?
> Hi Lucas,
>
> thanks for your reply (and also Alasdair, thanks for the papers, I
> will
> certainly have a look at them).
>
> Actually I do agree that axial lines in general operate similarly
> to
> lines of sight. However, I have got one example where my
> visibility
> graph highlights slightly different areas as best integrated than
> the
> axial topology.
> I have uploaded both images onto the internet (for those of you
> who are
> interested in this discussion to have a closer look):
> http://www.kerstinsailer.de/upload/example_axial.jpg
> http://www.kerstinsailer.de/upload/example_visibility.jpg
>
> Note the difference especially on the top floor.
>
> And if I argue that axial lines operate somewhat similar to a
> visibility
> graph, then why bother discussing both models? (as I do not write
> a PhD
> that purely discusses syntactical specifities).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kerstin
>
>
>
> Lucas Figueiredo wrote:
> > Hi Kerstin,
> >
> > In this specific case - a building -, in which lines are in the plan
> > and cover small distances, you can consider the axial map as a
> > simplification of the visibility graph, as axial lines can be
> roughly> lines of sight. Just imagine that a 'change of direction'
> in the axial
> > map is like a change of direction in the visibility graph. If
> you put
> > both models side by side, you will notice that the most integrated
> > lines cross the most 'visible' points in the visibility graph.
> >
> > So, the axial line is something like tracing a line over visibility
> > points and assigning the 'average visibility' of the points to the
> > line. It sounds weird but it works for most measures for visibility
> > graphs.
> >
> > Sheep has done some work using overlapping shapes, which would
> be an
> > intermediate between both. I tested another day to cross the axial
> > lines over convex spaces, something that has been done before
> but for
> > some reason did not turn to be popular, and the effects are similar.
> >
> > Note that in urban areas axial lines are NOT always lines of sight
> > (hilly areas, very long lines, for instance). The literature is
> quite> misleading in this aspect.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Lucas Figueiredo
> >
> > 2008/7/22 Kerstin Sailer <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> for my PhD I am comparing eight different office buildings of
> knowledge>> intensive work (university, research institute, media
> companies), but I am
> >> struggling to come up with a real life meaning of axial topology.
> >>
> >> I want to use different syntactical models to compare my buildings:
> >> 1) a visual graph analysis (Depthmap) based on visibility (i.e.
> excluding>> furniture and glass walls);
> >> 2) VGA based on accessibility (i.e. including all furniture,
> glass walls,
> >> etc.);
> >> 3) metric distances based on a segment model;
> >> 4) axial topology based on an axial line model;
> >>
> >> While I find it quite logical to attach the first three
> categories to real
> >> life (visibility tells me what people in an office can see;
> accessibility>> tells me how people can reach every corner of the
> building; and metric
> >> distances tells me about the cost of moving around in the
> building), axial
> >> topology seems more difficult.
> >>
> >> Any ideas anyone?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Kerstin
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kerstin Sailer | 8 Park Avenue North | London N8 7RT | UK
> >> mobile: +44 77 83404773 | ICQ # 194141160
> >>
> >> www.kerstinsailer.de
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kerstin Sailer | 8 Park Avenue North | London N8 7RT | UK
> mobile: +44 77 83404773 | ICQ # 194141160
>
> www.kerstinsailer.de
>
>
|