 |
 |
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 12:45:11 +0300, Yodan Rofe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Oh really? Well, I didn't say you would recover cities "as we know them". I said that a city could be defined by population density and you would need to decide on a threshold. Localized population peaks (like the villages you mention) are obviously not a city. Of course, you wouldn't recover the boundaries of those italian cities you mention, but that seems only natural to me. Just because you can't define a street, dosen't mean you can't define anything else ;) All the best, Rui > >You can have villages with very high population densities (if you take into >account only their built up areas), on the other hand cities in Italy >include in their jurisdiction area all the agricultural land surrounding >them, so their density (if calculated across the whole territory is rather >low). > >And what would that threshold be? Is it Phoenix with less than 4 units to >the acre? How many places there are with a higher density that we would >never imagine calling cities? > >I find it strange that people who are dealing with complex phenomena are >trying to reduce aspects of it to clear cut definitions. I think Stephen's >approach is correct. A street is a complex entity that emerges from its >position within the urban context, its boundary conditions, its patterns of >use and the way it is conceived by the people using it - it's rather useless >to try to reduce it to a one line definition. > >An axial line is a much more precise concept, but then it describes only one >aspect of streets. > >Yodan > > >On 6/3/07, Rui Carvalho <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Hello Stephen, >> >> It seems to me that a city can be defined by population density? It is no >> longer a city below a certain population density threshold? >> >> Surely we'd have to agree on the threshold value (which is an arbitrary >> parameter), but at least there is only one arbitrary parameter to agree >> on, so it doesn't seem too problematic to me? >> > > >now a street... >> >> Rui >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:20:39 +0100, Stephen Marshall <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >I still think it all depends on the purpose of >> >what you are analysing, and the conclusions you >> >intend to draw from the analysis. >> > >> >You could define and analyse >> >- the public street network (as defined legally) >> >- this may include 'fat' named spaces such as >> >squares - for example in UK traffic regulation >> >orders would typically include a combination of >> >the named street/square and the physical extent >> >(e.g. running from a to b) where the entity so defined need not be >> linear; >> >- all private networks that are publicly >> >accessible (with all the ramps and yards and royal parks) >> >- all the private sections that are not publicly accessible; >> >and >> >- all named streets / addresses (including courtyards, housing estates, >> etc.) >> >- all axial lines >> >- all numbered roads, etc. >> >...and measure properties of each of these >> >netowrks individually and in combination and get >> >different numbers, that will tell you different things. >> > >> >The problem of comparability of networks across >> >cultures would seem no more or less difficult >> >than the problem of comparing anything, for >> >example, cities. (If comparing London Paris >> >Brasilia, etc., how do you decide what to count as consituting the >> city?). >> > >> >(What is a city?) >> > >> >stephen >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >At 12:12 02/06/2007, you wrote: >> >>We should not be interested in the LEGAL STATUS >> >>of places but whether or not there is actual >> >>PRIVATE PHYSICAL CONTROL over their access at >> >>any time. If there is, sorry, they are out of >> >>the analysis AS PUBLIC PLACES, no matter that >> >>thousands of people love to interact WITHIN >> >>shopping centres or any other kind of >> >>"non-places" (Auge) - very typical of present day societies by the way. >> >> >> >>If encounters in a particular society happen >> >>predominantly in private spaces, this is indeed >> >>a cultural trait that has to be taken into >> >>account, but this is another matter altogether, >> >>it has nothing to do with the study of the >> >>structure of the public realm, and the study of the street belongs here. >> >> >> >>Sorry, syntax again... >> >> >> >>Fred >> >> >> >> >> >>Frederico de Holanda >> >> >> >>Cond. Vivendas Colorado 1, Mod. J, Casa 1 >> >>73070-015 Brasília DF >> >>Brasil >> >> >> >>Fone / Phone: (0xx61) 34859641 / +556134859641 >> >>Celular / Mobile: (0xx61) 99861724 / +556199861724 >> >>----- Original Message ----- >> >>From: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>Rui Carvalho >> >>To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >> >>Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:36 AM >> >>Subject: Re: What is a street? >> >> >> >>On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 12:00:52 -0300, Frederico de >> >>Holanda <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >In making axial maps, we use a very simple and unambiguous procedure >> to >> >>identify a STREET - and plot it in the axial map: it must be PUBLIC, i.e >> . >> >>there are no obstacles (any sort of PHYSICAL control) preventing people >> >>from accessing it from urban space at large. >> >> > >> >> >"Streets" in CLOSED condominiums are ignored and are NOT ploted in the >> >> >axial map - no matter how large the condominiums are (and they can be >> >> >quite large in Brazilian cities). And we did not need "semantics" to >> it - >> >> >this is pure syntax... After all, concerning streets, we are studying >> the >> >> >structure of the PUBLIC OPEN URBAN SPACE, aren't we?... >> >> >> >>Well I thought you were studying the space where social interaction can >> >>happen (the social logic of ...?)... and in the UK that does not need to >> >>be public? The parks in London, for example, aren't they owned by the >> >>Royal family? Aren't they private? What about the square around Abbey in >> >>Euston Rd? Great (private) place to eat your lunch if you work in the >> >>area... BTW, I've had great social interaction on the ramp of Torrington >> >>Plc... >> >> >> >>The point here is that the concept of public or private is cultural: >> what >> >>is considered private in one country may not be private in another. So >> >>looks like you DO need semantic information after all... >> >> >> >>Try again ;) >> >> >> >>Rui >> >> >> >> > >> >> >If we are to consider "private streets" I suggest we add to the axial >> map >> >>of London the axial map of the internal spaces of the British Museum, >> the >> >>Tate Gallery, The Royal Festival Hall, the residential towers in the >> >>Barbican... >> >> > >> >> >Fred >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Frederico de Holanda >> >> > >> >> >Cond. Vivendas Colorado 1, Mod. J, Casa 1 >> >> >73070-015 Brasília DF >> >> >Brasil >> >> > >> >> >Fone / Phone: (0xx61) 34859641 / +556134859641 >> >> >Celular / Mobile: (0xx61) 99861724 / +556199861724 >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > From: Lucas Figueiredo >> >> > To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask] >> >> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 9:17 AM >> >> > Subject: Re: What is a street? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 01/06/07, Hoon Park >> >> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> > > So, if applying this 'rule' and rephrasing my question, can we say >> >>that a >> >> > > little droop in the lower-tail of an observed degree distribution >> may >> >> > > reflect the incompleteness of the data in keeping a consistent >> mapping >> >> > > resolution? Or consequently, if continuity aggregation, or any >> other, >> >> > > makes the power-law hold better, can we say it is therefore a >> better >> >>way >> >> > > of representing a street network? Or else, is a 'street' perhaps >> any >> >> > > linear aggregation of spaces that entails a power-law degree >> >>distribution >> >> > > at the higher-order level? >> >> > >> >> > It can reflect both things. The experiment is not independent from >> the >> >> > scientist. The lower-tails may be a problem with the data or just >> the >> >> > real phenomenon, why discard this hyphotesis? On the other hand, the >> >> > scientist may be well 'tweaking' the aggregation process, not to >> >> > 'observe' the phenomenon, but to 'create' it. >> >> > >> >> > Apparently, as scientists does not care anymore to explain what they >> >> > are assuming before the experiments, being allowed even to ignore >> the >> >> > existence of whole fields such as space syntax, it is difficult to >> >> > judge what is the phenomenon and what is simple play with different >> >> > methods that will generate the phenomenon. >> >> > >> >> > Are we observing things or simulating things? >> >> > >> >> > Are we starting from questions or from answers? >> >> > >> >> > Best Regards, >> >> > >> >> > Lucas Figueiredo >> >> > >> >> >> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos >> /lucasfigueiredo/ >> >> > >> >> > Mindwalk >> >> > <http://www.mindwalk.com.br>http://www.mindwalk.com.br >> >> > >> >> > __________ Informação do NOD32 2304 (20070601) __________ >> >> > >> >> > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo NOD32 Sistema Antivírus >> >> > <http://www.nod32.com.br>http://www.nod32.com.br >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>__________ Informação do NOD32 2305 (20070601) __________ >> >> >> >>Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo NOD32 Sistema Antivírus >> >><http://www.nod32.com.br>http://www.nod32.com.br >> > >> >