Yodan,
I like the food analogy and agree on its relevance. Amongst the conundra it sets are how come different food cultures emerge so differently with respect certain classes of food. For some the idea of raw fish, rotting shark, Stilton cheese or a durian fruit or stinky tofu are that these are delicacies, for others they are treated with repugnance. Some say that if the potato were discovered today it would have trouble gaining approval for human consumption, meanwhile in Japan the blowfish is a delicacy despite the real risks involved. At the same time alcohol is both a major health concern and a central part of many food cultures. For my part, it is interesting to visit different parts of the world and to try their foods and to work (both intellectually and with the tastes and textures on your tongue) to try to understand these. This is much like the experience of visiting cities and buildings and trying to internalise through actually ‘living them’ the logic of how they are put together and how they work. This is of course central to what space syntax does and certainly isn’t in any sense threatening.
The part that I worry about is that there should be a single thing that is ‘beauty’ and that everything else is ‘ugly’ and so the people who say that they like something that isn’t in the Christopher Alexander 'book of beautiful things’ is wrong. I visited La Tourette last summer, by chance, it happened to be on the road we were driving along, and so we stopped and went around. Modernist but stunningly beautiful. Tel Aviv, Asmara, Brasilia, all with beautiful modernist architecture.
In a recent paper Scott Turner and I develop an idea of the aesthetic as that which suits the organism and acts as the tendency towards which we act on our environment. Scott’s field is termites and their nests, which he explains are an extension of the super organism to create a physiologically attractive environment, this helps optimise the environment for termite ‘well being’. We suggest that humans developed their environments to optimise social wellbeing, connectedness and innovation. This notion of the aesthetic as a tendency towards novelty and appeal provides a direction of travel in a dynamic multi individual society of builders. The paper is here:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/1753/20180253
Alan
> On 23 Jul 2018, at 11:42, Yodan Rofe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello Alan,
> It would be silly to deny personal taste, as well as cultural and fashionable preferences. However, you can look at it a little bit like food. Certainly there is much personal and cultural variety, but certain things are downright dangerous, and even edible things can turn out to be harmful to personal or societal health over certain quantitites, or over a long period, so the band of what is healthful for human beings is large, but it's much smaller than all possible things that could be eaten. Why would it be any different for buildings? Why is the assumption that with the built environment anything goes?
> Recent research in cognitive psychology shows that much of our perception and cognition is sub-conscious, and affects our feelings directly, without passing through the filters of consciousness - it has a significant influence on our psychological and physical health, and yet we assume that it's completely arbitrary, why?
> Finally, the process of building involves thousands of decisions, often taken collectively. If we assume, or take as our aim that different configurations will have a better or worse impact on the sense of well-being of people in what we design and build, we can discuss this, and we can evaluate alternatives along this parameter - we can also use several techniques to find out what different people feel - why is this threatening?
>
> Yodan
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:41 PM Yodan Rofe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Alan,
> It would be silly to deny personal taste, as well as cultural and fashionable preferences. However, you can look at it a little bit like food. Certainly there is much personal and cultural variety, but certain things are downright dangerous, and even edible things can turn out to be harmful to personal or societal health over certain quantitites, or over a long period, so the band of what is healthful for human beings is large, but it's much smaller than all possible things that could be eaten. Why would it be any different for buildings? Why is the assumption that with the built environment anything goes?
> Recent research in cognitive psychology shows that much of our perception and cognition is sub-conscious, and affects our feelings directly, without passing through the filters of consciousness - it has a significant influence on our psychological and physical health, and yet we assume that it's completely arbitrary, why?
> Finally, the process of building involves thousands of decisions, often taken collectively. If we assume, or take as our aim that different configurations will have a better or worse impact on the sense of well-being of people in what we design and build, we can discuss this, and we can evaluate alternatives along this parameter - we can also use several techniques to find out what different people feel - why is this threatening?
>
> Yodan
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:17 AM Harun Ekinoğlu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Just like Jacobs did in “Death and Life..” in 60s, Alexander as well leaves an open door for his claims onwholeness in the “Nature of Order” strongly encouraging the development of new scientific methods to test and benefit his theories/claims in spatial analysis and/or design development...
>
> Although Alexander masterly distilled and elaborately articulated the psychological reasoning behind the figurative expressions of those qualities of “wholeness” that evokes a feeling of beauty and inner connections, this is still his biggest gift to the researchers, I believe.... need for asking questions and finding new quantifiable ways to answer those questions that are dancing in the both sides of qualitative and quantitative spatial contexts..
>
> Reading this e-mail flood, I wanted to share that this was actually the main question in my PhD research that I worked to develop an analytical approach to run a computational tool for mathematical measuring of complex spatial layouts. I used Information Entropy to measure the degrees of uncertainty in space systems in several levels which can be translated to wholeness precisely referring to completeness of space systems as a spatial quality..
>
> In a study we conducted recently, for ten different case areas with distinctly different spatial complexities and layout characteristics, architects and urban designers didn’t have a common sense about which one has the highest level or wholeness. For so many reasons psychologically or unconsciously, no matter architects or simple people walking down the street, we are biased. - biased on culture, ideology, religion, and etc. about the notion of wholeness or beauty as a spatial quality. Pattern recognition in human mind doesn’t work as the way it works in computer vision. We have a lot of filters that we even can’t name.. This is the biggest struggle about wholeness or beauty which doesn’t really mean anything commonly precise but so many different things..and vice versa..and this is what makes it hard when we have to talk about it objectively.. We shared a case study in SSS11 with S. Kubat. It should be accessible.
>
> Best,
> Harun
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 23:46 Bin Jiang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> According to our research, the mirror of the self test is a reliable instrument for humans to capture wholeness. Unlike many psychological tests which seek inter-subjective agreement on something, the mirror of the self test is to seek the existence wholeness, so it is objective judgement about beauty or life or wholeness: http://hig.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A805296&dswid=3430
>
> We are conducting more human tests, and put them in comparison with calculated degree of beauty through the mathematical model of beauty (the beautimeter):
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272159333_Wholeness_as_a_Hierarchical_Graph_to_Capture_the_Nature_of_Space
>
> I believe that neuroscience will be able to offer more neuroscientific evidence to support the existence of wholeness. Also I believe the existence of wholeness can be reasoned by common sense, as we argued in this paper:
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230802698_The_Image_of_the_City_Out_of_the_Underlying_Scaling_of_City_Artifacts_or_Locations
> Thanks and cheers.
>
> Bin
> On 7/22/2018 9:32 PM, Armir Ferati wrote:
>> Exactly, Alexander by "beauty" means beauty.
>>
>> But about the "mirror of self test"... the only part of Alexander's extraordinary work that troubles me.
>>
>> Alexander, Salingaros, etc., find that our ideas about beauty are derived from nature and deeply embedded in us - part of our evolution. Every single person would find a tree as beautiful. This means it's in our subconscious. Our subconscious (which according to recent studies plays a major role in our everyday lives and decision making) is also shaped from our immediate surrounding ( nature or built environment - maybe the locality principle).
>>
>> On the other hand the Mirror of self test or "the enlightenment " is supposed to be fully conscious process ( even if it means digging deeper into our subconscious). Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> People (or clients , not architects) mostly don't really have the tools or the time to achieve such an "enlightenment". And usually they are the ones who decide ( if we can call it a decision) for what they like or not and build according to their ideas about (in this case) beauty.
>>
>> I am afraid that a process of brainwashing (just as Alexander describes architects as brainwashed under the influence of those - isms especially modernism) is necessary in order to find a certain thing or object or whatever as beautiful.
>>
>> Should the first impression be minimized? Either you like it or not (and the majority of people agree if something is beautiful or not).
>>
>> Maybe neuroscience (in near or distance future) would help on this matter, by detecting the reaction of the brain while being exposed to certain external objects or images. We already know that a certain part of the brain reacts on pleasure and beauty is one of them (Semir Zeki has some interesting research on neuroscience and art).
>>
>> Armir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my BlackBerry - the most secure mobile device
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: July 22, 2018 20:40
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Facade analysis
>>
>> Actually Alan it's not at all like physicists using words with a specific changed meaning. Alexander means Beauty in the sense of that quality which we can all identify, and tends to last beyond changes of taste and style. It's also connected to what he calls "wholeness" and the quality of "life". This is a later formualtion to what he called in Timeless Way of Building the quality without a name. The hypothesis is that contrary to common belief, this quality is discernable by people, and that there is a large degree of agreement across cultures in evaluating it. It's good that Bin is finally testing out this hypothesis.
>>
>> Yodan
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:36 PM Yodan Rofe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Actually Alan it's not at all like physicists using words with a specific changed meaning. Alexander means Beauty in the sense of that quality which we can all identify, and tends to last beyond changes of taste and style. It's also connected to what he calls "wholeness" and the quality of "life". This is a later formualtion to what he called in Timeless Way of Building the quality without a name. The hypothesis is that contrary to common belief, this quality is discernable by people, and that there is a large degree of agreement across cultures in evaluating it. It's good that Bin is finally testing out this hypothesis.
>>
>> Yodan
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:06 PM Penn, Alan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Ok that must be a bit like physicists using words like ‘charm’ and ‘beauty’ to mean something quite specific about quarks, and never intended to be thought to be related to their everyday meaning.
>>
>> I had not heard understood this is what Alexander was doing.
>>
>> That is fine, just slightly confusing.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 22 Jul 2018, at 18:12, Bin Jiang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Alexander's configuration theory is NOT a social theory, but part of
>> > complexity theory, which aims not only for understanding complexity, but
>> > also for making and remaking complex or living structures:
>> > http://www.katarxis3.com/SCIENTIFIC%20INTRODUCTION.pdf
>> >
>> > More beautiful or better is in terms of not only how it looks, but also
>> > how it works. This is the uniqueness of Alexander's theory, based on
>> > which a new Master program was established: https://buildingbeauty.org/
>> >
>> > Thanks and cheers.
>> >
>> > Bin
>> >> On 7/22/2018 6:58 PM, Penn, Alan wrote:
>> >> I really worry about any social theory that says some artefact is objectively ‘better’ or ‘more beautiful’ than another. ‘Better‘ for what? ‘More beautiful’ in whose eyes? I am happy that something may hold more information or may be simpler, or more complex, more or less intelligible or interesting, but ‘better’ ? This use of words casts doubt on the theory itself and the theorist.
>> >>
>> >> Alan
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>
>> >>> On 22 Jul 2018, at 17:00, Bin Jiang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> As far as I see, one of the theory's limits is that it is unable to say
>> >>> which facade is objectively better than another, or alternatively, which
>> >>> facade has a higher degree of goodness objectively.
>> >>>
>> >>> Christopher Alexander developed a configurational theory - in The
>> >>> Nature of Order - that is based on a mathematically defined wholeness.
>> >>> It is able to objectively judge which facade is better than another, or
>> >>> which facade is more life, or more beautiful, or more whole than
>> >>> another. We are currently running a project - namely FACADE - with which
>> >>> we are testing with human subjects, which of two facades (their pictures
>> >>> actually) has a higher degree of goodness. This is the so called the
>> >>> mirror-of-the-self experiment, developed by Alexander. In this project,
>> >>> we will also compute the degree of goodness for many pairs of facades,
>> >>> in order to compare to the results of the mirror of the self experiment.
>> >>> The computational experiment is based on the following papers:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312332540_Geographic_Space_as_a_Living_Structure_for_Predicting_Human_Activities_Using_Big_Data
>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305638074_A_Topological_Representation_for_Taking_Cities_as_a_Coherent_Whole
>> >>>
>> >>> I shall keep you updated with the progress of this FACADE project.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks and cheers.
>> >>>
>> >>> Bin
>> >>>> On 7/22/2018 3:23 PM, Psarra, Sophia wrote:
>> >>>> Dear all
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bill's work that Alan and Ruth refer to has been published in a thematic issue of JOSS, which was dedicated to space syntax and design (annotated by the editor's comments).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bill elaborates on some of the ideas that Alan mentions in this paper, using analysis of facades. I attach the paper here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This issue (Vol. 2 no 2 Dec. 2011) contains other interesting papers in the field of space syntax, formal analysis and design.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://joss.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/journal/index.php/joss/issue/view/4
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sophia
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> SOPHIA PSARRA DipArch, MSc, PhD
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The Bartlett School of Architecture
>> >>>> Faculty of the Built Environment
>> >>>> University College London (UCL)
>> >>>> 22 Gordon Street
>> >>>> London, WC1H 0QB
>> >>>> United Kingdom
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Web: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/dr-sophia-psarra
>> >>>> Blog: https://con-figurations.com/
>> >>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SophiaPsarra
>> >>>> Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/bartlettarchucl
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The Venice Variations (2018), London: UCL Press (free PDF download)
>> >>>> http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10047544/1/The-Venice-Variations.pdf
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Architecture and Narrative (2009), London: Routledge
>> >>>> http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415343763/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 22/07/2018, 12:27, "[log in to unmask] on behalf of Ruth Dalton" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have a copy of the paper Alan, but it’s the ‘lost’ chapter of space is the machine that never made it into the final publication and so have never been in the public realm!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I could scan it with bill’s permission.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regards Ruth
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ___________________________
>> >>>> Professor Ruth Conroy Dalton
>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > On 22 Jul 2018, at 12:23, Penn, Alan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Thanks Reem!
>> >>>> > clearly, on re-reading I have conflated the paper and some of Bill’s lectures on the subject that developed on from this - glueing and binding and the sociological argument…
>> >>>> > Alan
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> On 22 Jul 2018, at 12:05, Reem Zako <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> I have a digital copy of "Quite unlike the pleasures of scratching” and attaching it, but not quite sure of publication year thus the 19xx
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Reem
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> ########################################################################
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>>> >> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>> On 22 Jul 2018, at 11:46, Penn, Alan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Two thoughts:
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Bill wrote a paper about this under the title “Quite unlike the pleasures of scratching”, but for the life of me I cant see where it is and don’t have a copy. It applies very fundamental configurational analysis to different things one can do with a facade. Essentially, ‘gluing’ or ‘binding’. The former where an element is used to create a logical relationship between other elements, as in for example bilateral symmetry around a single central axis, elaborated and made more unlikely (therefore intentional) by increased detail. The latter where a single element is used to group together a number of similar sub elements - the cornice for example above repeated elements of fenestration. Bill’s main insight here was that these kinds of configurational possibility seem to map onto the social structures of organisations and institutions, and so give information about the likely social structures of those that built them. A dominant logical elaboration of a single axis indicating a hierarchical social structure of a single ideology; a repetition of similar units unified by a single facade plain or a unifying cornice line suggesting a mechanical solidarity. The cathedral and the monastery were examples. There was much more - it was an elegant argument.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Second, Juval Portugali’s work on this issue. A whole information based theory.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Alan
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>> On 22 Jul 2018, at 10:23, Armir Ferati <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> Dear all,
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> Anything on Facade analysis (configurational approach)?
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>>> >>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >>>> >>>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> ########################################################################
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>>> >>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> ########################################################################
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>>> >> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >>>> >> <19xx_Hillier_PleasureScratching.pdf>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > ########################################################################
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>>> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >>>> This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Any use, disclosure or reproduction without the sender’s explicit consent is unauthorised and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error, please notify Northumbria University immediately and permanently delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the University. Northumbria University email is provided by Microsoft Office365 and is hosted within the EEA, although some information may be replicated globally for backup purposes. The University cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and/or amended.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ########################################################################
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ########################################################################
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> Bin Jiang
>> >>> Division of GIScience
>> >>> Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development
>> >>> University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden
>> >>> Phone: +46-26-64 8901 Fax: +46-26-64 8758
>> >>> Email: [log in to unmask] Web: http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/
>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>> Associate Editor: Cartographica
>> >>> BinsArXiv: http://arxiv.org/a/jiang_b_1
>> >>> Axwoman: http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/axwoman/
>> >>> Geomatics: http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/geomaticsprogram/
>> >>> RG: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bin_Jiang3
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [Högskolan i Gävle]
>> >>>
>> >>> Högskolan i Gävle, 801 76 Gävle • 026 64 85 00 • www.hig.se<http://www.hig.se>
>> >>>
>> >>> För en hållbar livsmiljö för människan
>> >>>
>> >>> University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden • +46 (0) 26 64 85 00 •www.hig.se<http://www.hig.se>
>> >>>
>> >>> ########################################################################
>> >>>
>> >>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >> ########################################################################
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> >> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > Bin Jiang
>> > Division of GIScience
>> > Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development
>> > University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden
>> > Phone: +46-26-64 8901 Fax: +46-26-64 8758
>> > Email: [log in to unmask] Web: http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/
>> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Associate Editor: Cartographica
>> > BinsArXiv: http://arxiv.org/a/jiang_b_1
>> > Axwoman: http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/axwoman/
>> > Geomatics: http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/geomaticsprogram/
>> > RG: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bin_Jiang3
>> >
>> >
>> > [Högskolan i Gävle]
>> >
>> > Högskolan i Gävle, 801 76 Gävle • 026 64 85 00 • www.hig.se<http://www.hig.se>
>> >
>> > För en hållbar livsmiljö för människan
>> >
>> > University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden • +46 (0) 26 64 85 00 •www.hig.se<http://www.hig.se>
>> >
>> > ########################################################################
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>>
>> ########################################################################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>>
>>
>> --
>> Yodan Rofè, Senior Lecturer, Urban Planning and Design [log in to unmask]
>> Chair, "Bona Terra" Department of Man in the Desert, Switzerland Institute for Dryland Environmental and Energy Research and Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
>> Tel: +972-8-6596884 | Fax: +972-8-6596881 | Cell: +972-54-4641088 | Skype: yodan_rofe
>> Please don't print this email unless you really need to
>> Personal academic webpage
>> Academia.edu profile ResearchGate profile
>>
>> --
>> https://www.google.com/+YodanRofe
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>>
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Bin Jiang
> Division of GIScience
> Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development
> University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden
> Phone: +46-26-64 8901 Fax: +46-26-64 8758
> Email:
> [log in to unmask] Web: http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Associate Editor: Cartographica
> BinsArXiv:
> http://arxiv.org/a/jiang_b_1
>
> Axwoman:
> http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/axwoman/
>
> Geomatics:
> http://giscience.hig.se/binjiang/geomaticsprogram/
>
> RG:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bin_Jiang3
>
>
>
>
> Högskolan i Gävle, 801 76 Gävle • 026 64 85 00 • www.hig.se
>
> För en hållbar livsmiljö för människan
>
> University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden • +46 (0) 26 64 85 00 • www.hig.se
>
> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>
> --
>
> Harun Ekinoğlu (Ph.D.)
> Lands. Architect & Urban Designer
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>
>
>
> --
> Yodan Rofè, Senior Lecturer, Urban Planning and Design [log in to unmask]
> Chair, "Bona Terra" Department of Man in the Desert, Switzerland Institute for Dryland Environmental and Energy Research and Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
> Tel: +972-8-6596884 | Fax: +972-8-6596881 | Cell: +972-54-4641088 | Skype: yodan_rofe
> Please don't print this email unless you really need to
> Personal academic webpage
> Academia.edu profile ResearchGate profile
>
> --
> https://www.google.com/+YodanRofe
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
>
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the SPACESYNTAX list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=SPACESYNTAX&A=1
|
