Space is the machine Bill Hillier - UCL Discovery

Space is the machineBill Hillier

SinceThe social logic of spacewaspublishedin1984,BillHillierandhiscolleaguesatUniversityCollegeLondonhavebeenconductingresearchonhowspacefeaturesintheformandfunctioningofbuildingsandcities.Akeyoutcomeistheconceptof‘spatialconfiguration’—meaningrelationswhichtakeaccountofotherrelationsinacomplex.Newtechniqueshavebeendevelopedandappliedtoawiderangeofarchitecturalandurbanproblems.Theaimofthisbookistoassemblesomeofthisworkandshowhowitleadsthewaytoanewtypeoftheoryofarchitecture:an‘analytic’theoryinwhichunderstandinganddesignadvancetogether.Thesuccessofconfigurationalideasinbringingtolightthespatiallogicofbuildingsandcitiessuggeststhatitmightbepossibletoextendtheseideastootherareasofthehumanscienceswhereproblemsofconfigurationandpatternarecritical.

Space is the machineBill Hillier

A configurational theory of architecture

Hardback and paperback editions first published in the United Kingdom in 1996 and 1999, respectively, by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

This electronic edition published in 2007 by:

Space Syntax4 Huguenot Place, Heneage StreetLondon E1 5LNUnited Kingdom

www.spacesyntax.com

Copyright © Bill Hillier 2004, 2007

ISBN 978-0-9556224-0-3

Layout and designby Christian AltmannSet in Haas Unica

‘Ahouseisamachineforlivingin…’Le Corbusier (1923)‘ButIthoughtthatallthatfunctionalstuffhadbeenrefuted.Buildingsaren’tmachines.’ Student

‘Youhaven’tunderstood.Thebuildingisn’tthemachine.Spaceisthemachine.’Nick Dalton, Computer Programmer at University College London (1994)

Contents Spaceisthemachine|BillHillier SpaceSyntax

Prefacetothee-edition v Acknowlegdements xii Introduction 1

Part one Theoretical preliminariesChapterone Whatarchitectureaddstobuilding 10Chaptertwo Theneedforananalytictheoryofarchitecture 39Chapterthree Non-discursivetechnique 65

Part two Non-discursive regularitiesChapterfour Citiesasmovmenteconomies 111Chapterfive Canarchitecturecausesocialmalaise? 138Chaptersix Timeasanaspectofspace 171Chapterseven Visiblecolleges 190

Part three The laws of the fieldChaptereight Isarchitectureanarscombinatoria? 216Chapternine Thefundamentalcity 262

Part four Theoretical synthesesChapterten Spaceisthemachine 288Chaptereleven Thereasoningart 314

Index 344

Contents

Preface to the e-edition Spaceisthemachine|BillHillier SpaceSyntax

Space is the Machine wasfirstpublishedin1996byCambridgeUniversityPress.ThebookbuiltonthetheoryofsocietyandspacesetoutinThe Social Logic of Space (CambridgeUniversityPress1984),tooutlineaconfigurationaltheoryofarchitectureandurbanism.Unfortunately,althoughThe Social Logic of Space isstillinprintafter23years,whentheinitialprint-runofSpace is the Machine wasexhausted,thenumberofcolourplatesforbadtheuseofthecheapreprintingtechnologythatwouldhavemadeasuccessionofreprintseconomicallyviable.So,althoughthebookwassellingwellatthetime,itfelloutofprint.Asdemandforthebookhascontinued,forseveralyearscopiesofthebookhaveeitherbeenimpossibletofindorprohibitivelyexpensive. IamnowimmenselypleasedthatSpaceSyntaxLimited,withsupportfromUniversityCollegeLondon(UCL),havedecidedtorectifythissituationbycreatinganewe-editionofthebookandmakingitavailableforfreeontheweb.IamparticularlygratefultoTimStonorfortheinitialdecisiontofundtheproject,toTim,ChrisStutzandShinichiIidafororganizingandmanagingtheprojectandactingaseffectiveeditorsofthenewedition,andtoLauraVaughanandSuzanneTonkinofUCLfortheirencouragementthroughouttheprocess.ThanksandappreciationarealsoduetoChristianAltmannforthenewdesignofthepublication;toRodrigoMoraforpreparingelectronicimagesfromtheoriginalartworks;toMarcoGandini,JosephLaycock,SachaTan,andSaussanKhalilforproofreading;toMollyHallforcreatinganewindex;andtoChristianBerosforimagemanipulationandcreationofthewebdistributionpagesforthee-edition. LookingbackonSpace is the Machine,asonThe Social Logic of Space,Ifindmyselfpleasantlysurprisedthatthefoundationssetoutthereforthe‘spacesyntax’approachtohumanspatialphenomenastillseemrobust.Atthesametime,thedevelopmentsinthesubjectsince1996havebeensubstantial,notleastthroughtheinaugurationofthebi-annualspacesyntaxsymposiain1997(originallythebrainchildofMarkDavidMajor).Thesehavecreatedaresourceofseveralhundredpapersondevelopingthetheory,methodologyandapplicationsofthespacesyntaxapproachandnowconstituteoneofitsmostimportantresources.Tomepersonally,itismostgratifyingthatasetofideascreatedbyasmallgroupofpeopleworkingtogetheratUCLinthenineteenseventieshasnowfloweredintoalargeandcoherentbodyofworkbelongingtoaworld-wideresearchcommunity. Attheriskofbeingunfairtoothers,however,itdoesseemtomethatcertaincontributionstothetheoryandmethodofspacesyntaxhavebeensosignificantastodeservereviewinthisprefacetowhatisnowaneleven-year-oldtext.Forexample,onthetheoreticalfoundationsofspacesyntax,thethreepaperspublishedbyJohnPeponisandhiscolleaguesoftheGeorgiaInstituteofTechnologyinAtlantainEnvironment and Planning B in1997and1998(Peponisetal1997,Peponisetal1998a,b)onthegeometricalfoundationsseemsofpermanentsignificance,asdothetwopapersofMikeBattyofCASAatUCL(Batty2004a,b)onthegraphtheoretic

Preface to the e-editionv


foundations.Iwouldalsohopethatmyownattemptstoshowthattheeffectsonambientspaceoftheplacingandshapingofphysicalobjectsaresystematicandcanbemathematicallyexpressedwillprovesimilarlyrobust.Theimportanceoftheseeffectsbothfortheunderstandingofurbanform(Hillier2002),andhumanspatialcognition(Hillier2007)will,Ihope,leadtoamoreunifiedunderstandingofthelinkbetweenthesetworealms. Onthemethodologicalside,therehasbeenaremarkableflourishingofnewsyntacticmethodsfrommanysourcesandlocations.FromUCL,themostsignificantofthesehavebeenthe‘syntacticising’ofvisibilitygraphanalysisbyAlasdairTurnerinhisDepthmapsoftware(Turner&Penn1999,Turneretal2001)andthedevelopmentofsegmentbasedaxialanalysiswithangular,metricandtopologicalweightings,initiallythroughthepioneeringworkofShinichiIidaandhisSegmensoftwarewithsubsequentimplementationinDepthmap.Itwasthesemorecomplexanddisaggregatedformsoflineanalysisthatallowedustoshownotonlythathumanmovementwasspatiallyguidedbygeometricalandtopologicalratherthanmetricfactorsbutalsotoclarifywhyapowerfulimpactofspacestructureonmovementwastobemathematicallyexpected(Hillier&Iida2005).OtherkeymethodologicaldevelopmentsincludethepioneeringworkofDaltononangularanalysis(Dalton2001),nowavailableintheWebMapandWebMapatHomesoftware;theworkofFigueiredoandAmorimoftheUniversityofPernambucoinBrazilon‘continuitylines’intheMindwalksoftware(Figueiredo&Amorim2005),whichextendlinesbydiscountingangularchangesbelowacertainthreshold;andtheSpatialistsoftwaredevelopmentbyPeponisandhiscolleaguesinconnectionwiththethreepapersreferredtoabove.Othersignificantsoftwaredevelopmentsfocusonlinkingspacetootherurbanfactorssuchaslandusepatternsanddensities,notablythePlaceSyntaxsoftwarefromMarcusandhiscolleaguesattheRoyalCollegeofTechnologyinStockholm,SequencesoftwaredevelopedbyStegenatARSISinBrussels,andtheConfeegosoftwarepioneeredbyStutz,Gil,FriedrichandKlaasmeyerforSpaceSyntaxLimited. Inthemoresubstantiveareasoftheory,myownresearchhasexploredtheinter-relationsofspace,movementatdifferentscalesandlandusepatterns,anditcannowarguablybeseentobepointinginthedirectionofadesign-level(meaningpreciseenoughfortheideastobeusableindesign)theoryofcitiesasself-organisingsystems.Thetheoryisintwoparts:ontheonehand,atheoryofhowthespatialformofcitiesisshapedbyspatiallawslinkingtheemergenceofcharacteristicallyurbanspacepatternstocognitiveaswellastosocialandeconomicfactors;ontheother,atheoryofhowtheemergentpatternsofspaceshapemovement,andthroughthisshapelandusepatterns,leadingthroughfeedbackandmultipliereffects,tothegenericformofthecityasaforegroundnetworkoflinkedcentresatallscalessetintoabackgroundnetworkoflargelyresidentialspace.Criticaltotheemergenceofthistheorywasthepaper“Centrality

Preface to the e-editionvi


asaprocess”(Hillier1999)whichshowedhowlocalprocesseswithanessentiallymetricnaturecombinedwiththelargerscalegeometricandtopologicalpropertiesofthespatialnetworktocreatetheprocessesbywhichcentresandsub-centresemergeinthenetworkthroughthelogicofthenetworkitself-thougheachisofcoursealsoaffectedbyitsrelationtoothers. Takentogetherthesedevelopmentsinspacesyntaxsuggestthatitoffersapowerfulcomplementtotraditionalmethodsformodellingcities,notleasttransportmodellingmethods.Thesehaveconceptualfoundationsquitedifferentfromsyntacticmodelsandseektoexplaindifferentthings,buttheycouldbebroughtintoasymbioticrelationwithsyntacticmodelstothebenefitofboth.Akeyresearchpriorityintheimmediatefuturewillbetoexploretheirinter-relations.Infact,followingthepioneeringworkofPennontheconfigurationalanalysisofvehicularmovement(Pennetall1998)workbyChiaradia,RafordandothersinSpaceSyntaxLimitedhasalreadysuggestedthatconfiguationalfactorscancontributeinsightsintootherkindsofmovementnetworks,includingcycles,buses,andovergroundandundergroundrailnetworks. Oneaspectofthedeepeningrelationbetweenspacesyntaxandthewiderspatialresearchcommunityhasbeenthedebateastohowfarspacesyntax’sbasictenets,suchastherepresentationofcitiesaslinenetworksandthesettingasideofEuclideanmetricfactorsatthelargerspatialscaleinfavouroftopologicaland/orgeometricones,aretheoreticallyvalidandmethodologicallyviable.Fromthesyntacticpoint,certainpointsofcriticism,suchasthataxialmapsare‘subjective’andmeasuresshouldbemetricised,seemtohavebeenanswered.Turneretal(2005)haveshowedthatleastlinegraphs(allowingrandomselectionamongsyntacticallyequivalentlines)arerigorouslydefinedandindeedareobjectsofgreattheoreticalinterestinthemselves,asisshownbyrecentworksuggestingtheyhavefractalproperties(Carvalho&Penn2004).Likewisethecriticismthatsyntaxdisregardsmetricinformationhasbeenansweredbyshowingclearlythatintermsoffunctionalitythisisascaleissue.Asshownin(Hillier1999)referredtoabove,atasufficientlylocalisedscalespaceworksinametricway,perhapsreflectingthescaleuptowhichpeoplecanmakereasonablyaccuratejudgementaboutdistanceincomplexspaces,soanaccountofthemetricpropertiesofspaceisnecessarytoafunctionallysensitiveandpredictiveanalysisofspaceatthislevel.Butatthenon-locallevel,itseemsthatthefunctionalityofspacereflectspeople’suseofageometricalpictureofthenetworkconnectivityratherthanametricpictureinnavigatingtheurbangrid,andatthisscaleintroducingmetricweightingintothemeasuresispositivelymisleading(Hillieretal2007). Thestudyofspacewithinbuildingsusingspacesyntaxmethodshasalsomuchadvancedsince1996,notleastofcoursethroughthepublicationofJulienneHanson’sDecoding Homes and Houses (1999),thethirdofthesyntaxbooksfromCambridgeUniversityPress.AlsonotablehasbeentheworkofPenn

Preface to the e-editionvii


andhiscolleaguesonspatialformandfunctionincomplexbuildings,inparticulartheinfluentialworkonspatialdesignandinnovationinworkenvironments.Althoughnotstrictlywithinthesyntaxcontext,thehighlyoriginalworkofSteadman(Steadman1998,2001)ontheenumerationofbuiltformsthroughaclarificationofgeometric,constructionalandenvironmentalconstraintsbothanswersquestionsaboutenumerabilityraisedinSpace is the Machine,andoffersaplatformforanewapproachtospatialenumerabilitywhichcouldandshouldbetakenupwithinthesyntaxcommunity. Againstthebackgroundofthesetheoreticalandmethodologicaldevelopments,andcross-disciplinaryexchanges,spacesyntaxresearchisnowbecomingmuchmoreinterdisciplinary.FollowingaspecialissueofEnvironment and Behaviourin2003editedbyRuthConroyDaltonandCraigZimringbringingtogetherpapersonspacesyntaxandcognitionfromthe2001AtlantaSymposium,the2006conferenceonSpatialCognitionattheUniversityofBremenorganisedawell-attendedalldayworkshoponspacesyntax.Thelinkbetweenspacesyntaxandcognitivestudiesisnowbecomingawell-establishedbranchofsyntaxresearch.AtthesametimethepioneeringworkofLauraVaughanandhercolleaguesistakingsyntaxinthedirectionofagreaterengagementwithsocialstudies,andaspecialissueofProgress in Planningwillshortlyappearontheuseofspacesyntaxinthestudyofspaceasadimensionofsocialsegregationandexclusion(Vaughan(ed.)2007). Overall,spacesyntaxisbecomingaflourishingparadigmforspatialstudies,increasinglywellintegratedwithotherapproachesandincreasinglyexpandingitsscopeandscaleofinvestigation.Buttherealtestoftheoryandmethodisapplicationintherealworldofprojectsanddevelopment.HerethecontributionofSpaceSyntaxLimitedcannotbeoverestimated.SinceitsfoundationasanactivecompanyofferingspatialdesignandspatialplanningconsultancyundertheleadershipofTimStonor,ithastestedthetheoryandtechnologyonawiderangeofprojects,manyofthemhighprofile.TherearenowasignificantnumberofprojectsinwhichSpaceSyntaxhasexertedakeyspatialdesigninfluence,includingofcourseintheredesignofTrafalgarSquare(withNormanFoster)andNottingham’sOldMarketSquare(withGustafsonPorter),arguablythetwomostfamoussquaresintheUK,bothnowfunctioninginanewandhighlysuccessfulwayfollowingtheirrespectivere-designs.OtherupandrunningprojectsincludetheBrindleyPlacedevelopmentinBirmingham,ExchangeSquareandFleetPlaceinLondon,andofcoursetheMillenniumBridge,whereSpaceSyntaxshowednotonlyhowwellthebridgewouldbeusedbutalsohowstrongandbeneficialitslongtermeffectswouldbeontheareasonbothsidesoftheriver.Equallyinterestingtospacesyntaxarecaseswhereaspectsofspacesyntaxadvicewasnotfollowed,sinceineachcaseproblemshaveappearedthatwereclearlyforeseenbysyntaxatthedesignstage.

Preface to the e-editionviii


Carefullyandresponsiblyused,itisclearthatsyntaxworksasadesignandplanningtool.Oneconsequenceofitssuccessinrelativelysmall-scaledesignandplanningproblemsisthatsyntaxisnowincreasinglybeingusedasthefoundationforthespace-basedmaster-planningofwholepartsofcitiesorevenofwholecities,andsoineffectasanewwayofmodellingcities.Itisincreasinglywellunderstoodthatasyntacticmodelofacityhastwogreatadvantagesasacomplementtoanorthodoxmodel.First,asyntacticmodelallowsthedesignerorplannertoworkacrossallurbanscalesusingthesamemodel,sothatoneformofanalysiswillidentifythelargescalemovementnetworksanditslanduseeffects,whileanotherwillsimilarlyidentifymicro-scalefeaturesandlandusepotentialsofthelocalurbangrid.Second,exactlythesamemodelthatisusedinresearchmodetoinvestigateandunderstandhowthecityisworkingnowcanbeusedindesignandplanningmodetosimulatethelikelyeffectsofdifferentdesignandplanningstrategiesandschemes,allowingtherapidexplorationofthelongtermconsequencesofdifferentstrategies. SpaceSyntaxLimitedalsoconstitutesanexperimentinhowtherelationsbetweenauniversityandaspin-outcompanycanbeorganised.AlthoughSpaceSyntaxLimitedcarriesoutitsownresearch,itmaintainsaverycloserelationtotheuniversityresearchdepartment,feedingproblemsintoitandtestingnewideasandnewtechnologies.Collaborationisbothatthestrategicresearchlevel,butalsoreachesdowntothelevelofindividualprojectswherenecessary.Theexperienceofaworkingcollaborationbetweentheuniversityandthecompanyhasconvincedusallthatinthisfieldeventhemostbasicresearchcannotbeseparatedfromthedemandsandquestionsraisedbypractice.Manytheoreticaldevelopmentshavebeensparkedbyquestionsraisedbyprojects,andatthesametimeprojectshaveprovidedasuperbearlytestinggroundforturningresearchideasintoworkableandproventechnologies.ThefactthatitisSpaceSyntaxLimitedwhichisnowre-publishingoneofthebasictheoreticaltextsofspacesyntaxisanemblemoftheclosenesswithwhichtheoryandpractice,andtheuniversityandthecommercialworld,havedevelopedcollaborativelyoverthepastdecade.

bhJune6th2007

Preface to the e-editionix


References

Batty,M.(2004)ANewTheoryofSpaceSyntax,WorkingPaper75,CentreforAdvancedSpatialAnalysis,UCL,London:availablefromWWWathttp://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/working_papers/paper75.pdfBatty,M.(2004)DistanceinSpaceSyntax,WorkingPaper80,CentreforAdvancedSpatialAnalysis,UCL,London:availablefromWWWathttp://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/working_papers/paper80.pdf Carvalho,R.,Penn,A.(2004)“Scalinganduniversalityinthemicro-structureofurbanspace.”PhysicaA332539-547.Dalton,N.(2001)“FractionalconfigurationanalysisandasolutiontotheManhattanProblem.”Proceedingsofthe3rdInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium,GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology,Atlanta,GA,7-11May2001.Figueiredo,L.,Amorim,L.(2005)“Continuitylinesintheaxialsystem.”Proceedingsofthe5thInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium,TechnischeUniversiteitDelft,theNetherlands,13-17June2005.HansonJ(1999)Decoding Homes and HousesCambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.Hillier,B.(1999)“Centralityasaprocess:accountingforattractioninequalitiesindeformedgrids.”Urban Design International 4107-127.Hillier,B.(2002)“Atheoryofthecityasobject.”Urban Design International 7153-179.Hillier,B.,Iida,S.(2005)“Networkandpsychologicaleffectsinurbanmovement.”InCohn,A.G.,Mark,D.M.(eds)Spatial Information Theory: COSIT 2005,LectureNotesinComputerSciencenumber3693,475-490,Springer-Verlag,Berlin.Hillier,B.(2007)“Studyingcitiestolearnaboutminds:howgeometricintuitionsshapeurbanspaceandmakeitwork.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (forthcoming).Hillier,B.,Turner,A.,Yang,T.,Park,H.T.(2007)“Metricandtopo-geometricpropertiesofurbanstreetnetworks:someconvergences,divergencesandnewresults”Proceedingsofthe6thInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium,ITU,Istanbul,Turkey,12-15June2007.

Preface to the e-editionx


Preface to the e-editionxi

Penn,A.,Hillier,B.,Banister,D.,Xu,J.(1998)“Configurationalmodellingofurbanmovementnetworks”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2559-84.Penn,A.andDesyllas,J.andVaughan,L.(1999)“Thespaceofinnovation:interactionandcommunicationintheworkenvironment”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,26(2)193-218Peponis,J.,Wineman,J.,Rashid,M.,Kim,S.H.,Bafna,S.(1997)“Onthedescriptionofshapeandspatialconfigurationinsidebuildings:convexpartitionsandtheirlocalproperties.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24(5)761-781.

Peponis,J.,Wineman,J.,Bafna,S.,Rashid,M.,Kim,S.H.(1998)“Onthegenerationoflinearrepresentationsofspatialconfiguration.”EnvironmentandPlanningB:PlanningandDesign25(4)559-576.

Peponis,J.,Wineman,J.,Rashid,M.,Bafna,S.,Kim,S.H.(1998)“Describingplanconfigurationaccordingtothecovisibilityofsurfaces.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25(5)693-708.

Steadman,J.P.(2001)“Everybuiltformhasanumber.”Proceedingsofthe3rd

InternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium,GeorgiaInstituteofTechnology,Atlanta,GA,7-11May2001.

Steadman,J.P.(1998)“Sketchforanarchetypalbuilding.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25th Anniversary Issue,92-105.

Turner,A.,Penn,A.(1999)“Makingisovistssyntactic:isovistintegrationanalysis.”Proceedingsofthe2ndInternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium,UniversidadedeBrasília,Brasilia,Brazil,29March–2April1999.

Turner,A.,Doxa,M.,O’Sullivan,D.,Penn,A.(2001)“Fromisoviststovisibilitygraphs:amethodologyfortheanalysisofarchitecturalspace.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28(1)103-121.

Turner,A.,Penn,A.,Hillier,B.(2005)“Analgorithmicdefinitionoftheaxialmap.”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32(3)425-444.Vaughan,L.(ed.)(2007)ProgressinPlanning(TheSpatialSyntaxofUrbanSegregation)67(4)(inpress).

Acknowlegdements Spaceisthemachine|BillHillier SpaceSyntax

Acknowledgementsandthanksareduefirsttothemanyfriendsandcolleagueswhohave,overtheyears,madeanenormouscontributiontotheideasandresearchsetoutinthisbook,mostnotablyDr.JulienneHanson,AlanPennandDr.JohnPeponis,eachofwhosecontributionshasbeentoolargeanddiversetoacknowledgeindetail;toNick‘Sheep’Daltonforthetitleofthebook,andalsoforthebrilliantsoftwareonwhichmuchoftheresearchisfounded,theoutwardandvisiblesignofwhichisinthePlatesinthebook;toMarkDavidMajorformastermindingthegradualandpainfulevolutionofthetextandillustrations;toMyrto-Gabriella(Petunia)Exacoustouforreading,criticisingandhelpingmesubstantiallyimprovethefinaldraft;toProfessorPatO’Sullivan,HeadoftheBartlett,forasixmonthssabbaticalin1992,whenIsaidIwouldfinishbutheknewIwouldn’t;totheEngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncilforcontinuedresearchfunding;tothemanycontributorstotheresearch,andespeciallyTimStonor,KayvanKarimi,BeatrizdeCampos,XuJianming,GordonBrown,JohnMiller,TadGrajewski,LenaTsoskounoglou,LauraVaughan,MartinedeMaesseneer,GuidoStegenandChangHuaYoo(whodrewthefirstversionofthemapofLondon);totheMScanddoctoralstudentsoftheBartlettSchoolofGraduateStudieswhocontinuetogivesomuchintellectualbuzztothedepartment;toProfessorsPhilipSteadman,TomMarkusandMikeBattyforsustainedintellectualsupportovertheyears;toStuartLiptonandhisteamatStanhopePropertiesPlcforprovidinguswithsomanyopportunitiestoapplyourresearchonrealdevelopmentanddesignprojects,andtolearnsomuchfromthem,andalsotoGordonGrahamoftheLondonRegenerationConsortium,theSouthBankEmployersGroup,ChesterfieldPropertiesPlc,OveArupandPartners,andPeterPalumbo;tothemanypublicbodieswhohaveinvitedustocontributetotheirworkthroughappliedresearch,includingNationalHealthServiceEstates,BritishRailways,BritishAirways,Powergen,theDepartmentofEducationandScience,TechnicalAidforNottinghamCommunities,theLondonBoroughsofCroydonandCamden,andtheTateGallery;tothemanyarchitecturalpracticeswhohaveinvitedustoworkwiththemontheirprojects,butmostespeciallySirNormanFosterandPartners,theRichardRogersPartnership,TerryFarrellandCompany,Skidmore,OwingsandMerrill,NicholasGrimshawandPartners,BennettsAssociates,SWArchitects,andAvantiArchitects;toProfessorSheilaHillierandMarthaHillierfortoleratinganobsessivelap-topperinthehouseforlongerthanwasreasonable;toKate,CharlotteandBenHillierforcontinuingtobethegoodfriendsandsupportersofapreoccupiedandinconsideratefather;tothethiefwhotookallcopiesofthedraftofthefirstfourchaptersfrommyhomewhenstealingmycomputer,thussavingmefromprematurepublication;toRoseShawe-Taylor,KarlHowe,EmmaSmith,SusanBeerandJosieDixonofCambridgeUniversityPress;andfinallytoUCLforcontinuingtobethemosttolerantandsupportiveofUniversities.

Acknowlegdementsxii

Introduction

Spaceisthemachine|BillHillier SpaceSyntax

Introduction�

In1984,inThe Social Logic of Space,writtenincollaborationwithJulienneHansonandpublishedbyCambridgeUniversityPress,Isetoutanewtheoryofspaceasanaspectofsociallife.Sincethenthetheoryhasdevelopedintoanextensiveresearchprogrammeintothespatialnatureandfunctioningofbuildingsandcities,intocomputersoftwarelinking‘spacesyntax’analytictoolswithgraphicalrepresentationandoutputforresearchersanddesigners,andintoanexpandingrangeofapplicationsinarchitecturalandurbandesign.Duringthistime,alargenumberofarticles,reportsandfeatureshaveappeared,theseshavebeenwritteninmanyuniversitiesusingthetheoryandmethodsof‘spacesyntax’,andresearchhasbeeninitiatedinmanypartsoftheworldintoareasasdiverseastheanalysisofarchaeologicalremainsandthedesignofhospitals. Duringthistime,manytheoreticaladvanceshavealsobeenmade,ofteninsymbiosiswiththedevelopmentofnewtechniquesforthecomputerrepresentationandanalysisofspace.Onekeyoutcomeoftheseadvancesisthattheconceptof‘configuration’hasmovedtocentrestage.Configurationmeans,putsimply,relationstakingintoaccountotherrelations.Thetechniquesof‘configurationalanalysis’-ofwhichthevarious‘spacesyntax’techniquesareexemplars-thathavebeenbuiltfromthisideahavemadeitpossibletobringtheelusive‘patternaspect’ofthingsinarchitectureandurbandesignintothelightofday,andtogivequantitativeexpressiontotheage-oldideathatitis‘howthingsareputtogether’thatmatters. Thishasinturnledtoacleararticulationofaphilosophyofdesign.Architecturalandurbandesign,bothintheirformalandspatialaspects,areseenasfundamentallyconfigurationalinthatthewaythepartsareputtogethertoformthewholeismoreimportantthananyofthepartstakeninisolation.Theconfigurationaltechniquesdevelopedforresearchcan,infact,justaseasilybeturnedroundandusedtosupportexperimentationandsimulationindesign.Inlinkingtheoreticalresearchtodesigninthisway,wearefollowingahistoricaltraditioninarchitecturaltheorywhichhasbothattemptedtosubjectthepatternaspectofthingsinarchitecturetorationalanalysis,andtotesttheseanalysesbyembodyingtheminrealdesigns.Thedifferencenowisonlythattheadventofcomputersallowsustobringamuchgreatdegreeofrigourandtestingtotheoreticalideas. Theaimofthisbookistobringtogethersomeoftheserecentdevelopmentsinapplyingconfigurationalanalysistoissuesofarchitecturalandurbantheoryintoasinglevolume.Thesurprisingsuccessofconfigurationalideasincapturingtheinnerlogicofatleastsomeaspectsoftheformandfunctioningofbuiltenvironments,suggeststhatitmightinduecoursebeusefultoextendtheseideastootherareaswheresimilarproblemsofdescribingandquantifyingconfigurationseemtobecentral,includingsomeaspectsofcognitivepsychology,butalsoperhapssociologyitself.Atpresentweareencouragedbythecurrentinterestintheseideasacrossarangeofdisciplinesand,justasthelastdecadehasbeendevotedtothedevelopmentandtestingoftechniquesofconfigurational

�

Introduction


Introduction2

analysiswithinarchitectureandurbandesign,sowehopethatthecomingdecadewillseecollaborationsamongstdisciplineswhereconfigurationisidentifiedasasignificantproblem,andwheresomedevelopmentoftheconfigurationalmethodologycouldconceivablyplayausefulrole. Theimmediatecontextofthebookisthechangingtheoreticaldebatewithinandaroundarchitecture.Lookingback,itiseasytoseethatinspiteoftheattentionpaidtotheoryinarchitectureinthetwentiethcentury,andinspiteofthegreatinfluencethattheorieshavehadonourbuiltenvironment,architecturaltheoriesinthelastdecadeshaveingeneralsufferedfromtwodebilitatingweaknesses.First,mosthavebeenstronglynormative,andweaklyanalytic,inthattheyhavebeentoomuchconcernedtotelldesignershowbuildingsandenvironmentsshouldbe,andtoolittleconcernedwithhowtheyactuallyare.Asaresult,theoriesofarchitecturehaveinfluencedourbuiltenvironmentenormously,sometimesforgood,sometimesforill,buttheyhavedonelittletoadvanceourunderstandingofarchitecture. Second,therehasbeenanexplosionofthehistorictendencytoformarchitecturaltheoriesoutofideasandconceptsborrowedfromotherdisciplines.Asaresult,architecturaldiscoursehasbeendominatedbyaseriesofborrowings,firstfromengineeringandbiology,thenfrompsychologyandthesocialsciences,thenfromlinguisticsandsemiology,andmostrecentlyofallfromliterarytheory.Eachofthesehashadthemeritthatitallowedarchitecturetobecomepartofwiderintellectualdebate.Buttherehasbeenaprice,inthatverylittleattentionhasbeengiventotheinternaldevelopmentofarchitectureasadiscipline.Throughthisturningaway,architecturehasincreasinglyignoredthelessonswaitingtobelearnedfromtheintensivestudyofexperimentaltwentieth-centuryarchitecture,andacquiredwhatnowamountstoahiddenhistoryinwhichkeyaspectsofrecentarchitecturalrealityhavebeensuppressedasthoughtheyweretoopainfultotalkabout. Theaimofthisbookistobegintheprocessofremedyingthisbiastowardsoverlynormativetheoriesbasedonconceptborrowingfromotherdisciplines,byinitiatingthesearchforagenuinelyanalyticandinternaltheoryofarchitecture,thatis,onebasedonthedirectstudyofbuildingsandbuiltenvironments,andguidedbyconceptsformedoutofthenecessitiesofthisstudy.Theguidingbeliefisthatwhatweneedattheendofthetwentiethcenturyisabetteranddeeperunderstandingofthephenomenonofarchitectureandhowitaffectspeople’slives,andhowthisrelatestoinnovativepossibilityinarchitecture,andthecentralroleofthearchitecturalimagination. Thisbookisthereforeconcernedwithwhatbuildingsandcitiesarelike,whytheyareastheyare,howtheywork,howtheycomeaboutthroughdesign,andhowtheymightbedifferent.Theword‘theory’isusednotinthecommonarchitecturalsenseofseekingsomesetofruleswhich,iffollowed,willguaranteearchitecturalsuccess,butinthephilosophicalandscientificsensethattheoriesaretheabstractionsthroughwhichweunderstandtheworld.Anarchitecturaltheory,asweseeit,shoulddeepenourgraspofarchitecturalphenomena,andonlysubsequentlyandwithgreatmodesty,suggestpossibleprinciplesonwhich

Introduction


Introduction3

tobasespeculationandinnovationindesign.Suchatheoryisanalyticbeforeitisnormative.Itsprimaryroleistoenquireintothepuzzlethatweseeandexperiencearchitecture,butwedonotunderstandwhatweseeandexperience.Howeverstronglywemayfeelthatarchitecturemaybewrongorright,werarelyunderstandthearchitecturalgroundsonwhichsuchjudgmentsaremade.Thisbookthereforeseeksanunderstandingofthetheoreticalcontentofarchitecture. Thebookisinfourparts.Thefirst,‘Theoretical Preliminaries’,dealswiththemostbasicofallquestionswhicharchitecturaltheorytriestoanswer:whatisarchitecture,andwhataretheories,thattheycanbeneededinarchitecture?Inthefirstchapter,‘Whatarchitectureaddstobuilding’,thekeyconceptsofthebookaresetoutonthewaytoadefinitionofarchitecture.Theargumentisthatinadditiontofunctioningasbodilyprotection,buildingsoperatesociallyintwoways:theyconstitutethesocialorganisationofeverydaylifeasthespatialconfigurationsofspaceinwhichweliveandmove,andrepresentsocialorganisationasphysicalconfigurationsofformsandelementsthatwesee.Bothsocialdimensionsofbuildingarethereforeconfigurationalinnature,anditisthehabitofthehumanmindtohandleconfigurationunconsciouslyandintuitively,inmuchthesamewayaswehandlethegrammaticalandsemanticstructuresofalanguageintuitively.Ourmindsareveryeffectiveinhandlingconfigurationinthisway,butbecausewedoworkthisway,wefinditverydifficulttoanalyseandtalkrationallyabouttheconfigurationalaspectsofthings.Configurationisingeneral‘non-discursive’,meaningthatwedonotknowhowtotalkaboutitanddonotingeneraltalkaboutitevenwhenwearemostactivelyusingit.Invernacularbuildings,theconfigurational,ornon-discursive,aspectsofspaceandformarehandledexactlylikethegrammaroflanguage,thatis,asanimplicationofthemanipulationofthesurfaceelements,orwordsandgroupsofwordsinthelanguagecase,buildingelementsandgeometricalcoordinationsinbuilding.Inthevernaculartheactofbuildingreproducesculturalgivenspatialandformalpatterns.Thisiswhyitseldomseems‘wrong’.Architecture,incontrast,isthetakingintoconscious,reflectivethoughtofthesenon-discursiveandconfigurationalaspectsofspaceandform,leadingtotheexerciseofchoicewithinawidefieldofpossibility,ratherthanthereduplicationofthepatternsspecifictoaculture.Architectureis,inessence,theapplicationofspeculativeandabstractthoughttothenon-discursiveaspectsofbuilding,andbecauseitisso,itisalsoitsapplicationtothesocialandculturalcontentsofbuilding. Chapter2,‘Theneedforananalytictheoryofarchitecture’,thentakesthisargumentintoarchitecturaltheory.Architecturaltheoriesareessentiallyattemptstosubjectthenon-discursiveaspectsofspaceandformtorationalanalysis,andtoestablishprinciplestoguidedesigninthefieldofchoice,principleswhicharenowneededasculturalguidanceisnolongerautomaticasitisinavernaculartradition.Architecturaltheoriesarebothanalyticinthattheyalwaysdependonconjecturesaboutwhathumanbeingsarelike,buttheyarealsonormative,andsayhowtheworldshouldberathermorestronglythantheysayhowitis.Thismeansthatarchitecturecanbeinnovativeandexperimentalthroughtheagencyoftheories,but

Introduction


Introduction4

itcanalsobewrong.Becausetheoriescanbewrong,architectsneedtobeabletoevaluatehowgoodtheirtheoriesareinpractice,sincetherepetitionoftheoreticalerror-asinmuchofthemodernisthousingprogramme-willinevitablyleadtothecurtailmentofarchitecturalfreedom.Theconsequenceofthisistheneedforatrulyanalytictheoryofarchitecture,thatis,onewhichpermitstheinvestigationofthenon-discursivewithoutbiastowardsoneorotherspecificnon-discursivestyle. Chapter3,‘Non-discursivetechnique’,outlinestheprimerequirementforpermittingarchitectstobeginthistheoreticallearning:theneedforneutraltechniquesforthedescriptionandanalysisofthenon-discursiveaspectsofspaceandform,thatis,techniquesthatarenotsimplyexpressionsofpartisanshipforaparticulartypeofconfiguration,asmostarchitecturaltheorieshavebeeninthepast.Thechapternotesacriticaldifferencebetweenregularitiesandtheories.Regularitiesarerepeatedphenomena,eitherintheformofapparenttypingorapparentconsistenciesinthetimeorderinwhicheventsoccur.Regularitiesarepatternsinsurfacephenomena.Theoriesareattemptstomodeltheunderlyingprocessesthatproduceregularities.Everysciencetheorisesonthebasisofitsregularities.Socialsciencestendtobeweaknotbecausetheylacktheoriesbutbecausetheylackregularitieswhichtheoriescanseektoexplainandwhichthereforeoffertheprimetestoftheories.Thefirsttaskinthequestforananalytictheoryofarchitectureisthereforetoseekregularities.Thefirstpurposeof‘non-discursivetechnique’istopursuethistask. PartIIofthebook,‘Non-discursive Regularities’,thensetsoutanumberofstudiesinwhichregularitiesintherelationbetweenspatialconfigurationandtheobservedfunctioningofbuiltenvironmentshavebeenestablishedusing‘non-discursivetechniques’ofanalysistocontrolthearchitecturalvariables.Chapter4,‘Citiesasmovementeconomies’reportsafundamentalresearchfinding:thatmovementintheurbangridis,otherthingsbeingequal,generatedbytheconfigurationofthegriditself.Thisfindingallowscompletelynewinsightsintothestructureofurbangrids,andthewaythesestructuresrelatetourbanfunctioning.Therelationbetweengridandmovementinfactunderliesmanyotheraspectsofurbanform:thedistributionoflanduses,suchasretailandresidence,thespatialpatterningofcrime,theevolutionofdifferentdensitiesandeventhepart-wholestructureofcities.Theinfluenceofthefundamentalgrid-movementrelationissopervasivethatcitiesareconceptualisedinthechapteras‘movementeconomies’,inwhichthestructuringofmovementbythegridleads,throughmultipliereffects,todensepatternsofmixeduseencounterthatcharacterisethespatiallysuccessfulcity. Chapter5,‘Canarchitecturecausesocialmalaise?’thendiscusseshowthiscangowrong.Focussingonspecificstudiesofhousingestatesusingconfigurationalanalysiscoupledtointensiveobservationaswellassocialdataitisshownhowtheoverlycomplexandpoorlystructuredinternalspaceofmanyhousingestates,includinglow-riseestates,leadstoimpoverishmentofthe‘virtualcommunity’—thatis,thesystemofnaturalco-presenceandco-awarenesscreatedbyspatialdesignandrealisedthroughmovement-andthisinturnleadstoanti-

Introduction


Introduction5

socialusesofspace,whicharethefirststageindeclinetowardsthe‘sinkestate’.Becausetheroleofspaceinthisprocessistocreateadisorderlyandunsafepatternofspaceuse,andthisisthenperceivedandexperienced,itispossibletoconceptualisehowarchitectureworksalongsidesocialprocessestocreatesocialdecline.Inasense,thecreationofdisorderlyspaceusethroughmaladroitspacedesigncreatesthefirstsymptomsofdecline,evenbeforeanyrealdeclinehasoccurred.Inasensethen,itisargued,wefindthatthesymptomshelptobringaboutthedisease. Chapter6,‘Timeasanaspectofspace’thenconsidersanotherfundamentaldifferencebetweenurbanforms:thatbetweencitieswhichservetheneedsofproduction,distributionandtrade,andthosewhichservetheneedsofsocialreproduction,thatisofgovernment,majorsocialinstitutionsandbureaucracies.Aseriesof‘strangetowns’areexamined,anditisshownhowintheirspatialproperties,theyareinmanysensestheoppositetothe‘normal’townsconsideredinChapter5.Thedetailedspatialmechanismsofthesetownsareexamined,anda‘genotype’proposed.Anexplanationisthensuggestedastowhy‘citiesofsocialreproduction’tendtoconstructthesedistinctivetypesofspatialpatterns. Chapter7,‘VisibleColleges’,thenturnstotheinteriorsofbuildings.Itbeginsbysettingoutageneraltheoryofspaceinbuildings,takingintoaccounttheresultsofsettlementanalysis,andthenhighlightsaseriesofstudiesofbuildings.Akeydistinctionismadebetween‘longandshortmodels’,thatis,betweencaseswherespaceisstronglygovernedbyrules,andthereforeactstoconservegivensocialstatusesandrelationshipsandcaseswherespaceactstogeneraterelationsoverandabovethosegivenbythesocialsituation.Theconceptoflongandshortmodelspermitssocialrelationsandspatialconfigurationtobeconceptualisedinananalogousway.Aritualisalongmodelsocialevent,sinceallthathappensisgovernedbyrules,andaritualtypicallygeneratesaprecisesystemofspatialrelationshipsandmovementsthroughtime,thatis,aspatial‘longmodel’.Apartyisashortmodelevent,sinceitsobjectistogeneratenewrelationshipsbyshufflingtheminspace,andthismeansthatrulesmustbeminimisedbyusingaspatial‘shortmodel’.Inalongmodelsituationspaceisadaptedtosupporttherules,andbehaviouralrulesmustalsosupportit.Inashortmodelsituation,spaceevolvestostructure,andoftentomaximise,encounterdensity. PartIIIofthebook,‘The Laws of the Field’,thenusesthesenotedregularitiestoreconsiderthemostfundamentalquestionofallinarchitecturaltheory:howisthevastfieldofpossiblespatialcomplexesconstrainedtocreatethosethatareactuallyfoundasbuildings?First,inChapterEight,‘Isarchitectureanarscombinatoria?’,ageneraltheoryof‘partitioning’isproposed,inwhichitisshownthatlocalphysicalchangesinaspatialsystemalwayshavemoreorlessglobalconfigurationaleffects.Itisthelawsgoverningthispassageformlocalphysicalmovestoglobalspatialeffectsthatarethespatiallawsthatunderliebuilding.Theselocal-to-globalspatiallawsarelinkedtotheevolutionofrealbuildingsthroughwhatwillbecalled‘genericfunction’,bywhichismeantthe

Introduction


Introduction6

spatialimplicationsofthemostfundamentalaspectsofhumanuseofspace,thatis,thefactofoccupationandthefactofmovement.Atthisgenericlevel,functionimposesrestraintsonwhatisspatiallyviable,andthisisresponsibleforwhatallbuildingshaveincommonasspatialdesigns.Genericfunctionisthe‘firstfilter’betweenthefieldofpossibilityandarchitecturalactuality.Thesecondfilteristhentheculturalorprogrammaticrequirementofthattypeofbuilding.Thethirdfilteristheidiosyncrasiesofstructureandexpressionthatthendistinguishthatbuildingfromallothers.Thepassagefromthepossibletotherealpassesthroughthesethreefilters,andwithoutanunderstandingofeachwecannotdeciphertheform-functionrelation.Mostofall,withoutaknowledgeofgenericfunctionanditsspatialimplicationswecannotunderstandthatwhatallbuildingshaveincommonintheirspatialstructuresisalreadyprofoundlyinfluencedbyhumanfunctioninginspace. InChapter9,‘Thefundamentalcity’,thetheoryofgenericfunctionandthethreefiltersisappliedtocitiestoshowhowmuchofthegrowthofsettlementsisgovernedbythesebasiclaws.Anewcomputermodellingtechniqueof‘alllineanalysis’,whichbeginsbyconceptualisingvacantspaceasaninfinitelydensematrixoflines,containingallpossiblestructures,isusedtoshowhowtheobservableregularitiesinurbanformsfromthemostlocaltothemostglobalcanbeseentobeproductsofthesameunderlyingprocesses.Afundamentalsettlementprocessisproposed,ofwhichparticularculturaltypesareparameterisations.Finally,itisshownhowthefundamentalsettlementprocessisessentiallyrealisedthroughasmallnumberofspatialideaswhichhaveanessentiallygeometricalnature. PartIVofthebook,‘Theoretical Syntheses’,thenbeginstodrawtogethersomeofthequestionsraisedinPartI,theregularitiesshowninPartIIandthelawsproposedinPartIII,tosuggesthowthetwocentralproblemsinarchitecturaltheory,namelytheform-functionproblemandtheform-meaningproblem,canbereconceptualised.Chapter10,‘Spaceisthemachine’,reviewstheform-functiontheoryinarchitectureandattemptstoestablishapathologyofitsformulation:howitcametobesetupinsuchawaythatitcouldnotbesolved.Itthenproposeshowtheconfigurationparadigmpermitsareformulation,throughwhichwecannotonlymakesenseoftherelationbetweenformandfunctioninbuildings,butalsowecanmakesenseofhowandwhybuildings,inapowerfulsenseare‘socialobjects’andinfactplayapowerfulroleintherealisationandsustainingofhumansociety.Finally,inChapter11,‘Thereasoningart’,thenotionofconfigurationisappliedtothestudyofwhatarchitectsdo,thatis,design.Previousmodelsofthedesignprocessarereviewed,anditisshownthatwithoutknowledgeofconfigurationandtheconceptofthenon-discursive,wecannotunderstandtheinternalitiesofthedesignprocess.Anewknowledge-basedmodelofdesignisproposed,withconfigurationatitscentre.Itisarguedfromthisthatbecausedesignisaconfigurationalprocess,andbecauseitisthecharacteristicofconfigurationthatlocalchangesmakeglobaldifferences,designisnecessarilyatopdownprocess.Thisdoesnotmeanthatitcannotbeanalysed,orsupportedbyresearch.Itshowshoweverthatonlyconfigurationallybiasedknowledgecanreallysupportthedesign

Introduction


Introduction7

process,andthis,essentially,istheoreticalknowledge.Itfollowsfromthisthatattemptstosupportdesignersbybuildingmethodsandsystemsforbottomupconstructionofdesignsmusteventuallyfailasexplanatorysystems.Theycanservetocreatespecificarchitecturalidentities,butnottoadvancegeneralarchitecturalunderstanding. Inpursuingananalyticratherthananormativetheoryofarchitecture,thebookmightbethoughtbysometohavepretensionstomaketheartofarchitectureintoascience.Thisisnotwhatisintended.Oneeffectofabetterscientificunderstandingofarchitectureistoshowthatalthougharchitectureasaphenomenoniscapableofconsiderablescientificunderstanding,thisdoesnotmeanthatasapracticearchitectureisnotanart.Onthecontrary,itshowsquiteclearlywhyitisanartandwhatthenatureandlimitsofthatartare.Architectureisanartbecause,althoughinkeyrespectsitsformscanbeanalysedandunderstoodbyscientificmeans,itsformscanonlybeprescribedbyscientificmeansinaveryrestrictedsense.Architectureislawgovernedbutitisnotdeterminate.Whatisgovernedbythelawsisnottheformofindividualbuildingsbutthefieldofpossibilitywithinwhichthechoiceofformismade.Thismeansthattheimpactoftheselawsonthepassagefromproblemstatementtosolutionisnotdirectbutindirect.Itliesdeepinthespatialandphysicalformsofbuildings,intheirgenotypes,nottheirphenotypes. Architectureisthereforenotpartart,andpartscience,inthesensethatithasbothtechnicalandaestheticaspects,butisbothartandscienceinthesensethatitrequiresboththeprocessesofabstractionbywhichweknowscienceandtheprocessesofconcretionbywhichweknowart.Thearchitectasscientistandastheoristseekstoestablishthelawsofthespatialandformalmaterialswithwhichthearchitectasartistthencomposes.Thegreaterscientificcontentofarchitectureoverartissimplyafunctionofthefargreatercomplexityoftherawmaterialsofspaceandform,andtheirfargreaterreverberationsforotheraspectsoflife,thananymaterialsthatanartistuses.Itisthefactthatthearchitectdesignswiththespatialstuffoflivingthatbuildsthescienceofarchitectureintotheartofarchitecture. Itmayseemcurioustoarguethatthequestforascientificunderstandingofarchitecturedoesnotleadtotheconclusionthatarchitectureisascience,butneverthelessitisthecase.Inthelastanalysis,architecturaltheoryisamatterofunderstandingarchitectureasasystemofpossibilities,andhowthesearerestrictedbylawswhichlinkthissystemofpossibilitiestothespatialpotentialitiesofhumanlife.Atthislevel,andperhapsonlyatthislevel,architectureisanalogoustolanguage.Languageisoftennaïvelyconceptualisedasasetofwordsandmeanings,setoutinadictionary,andsyntacticrulesbywhichtheymaybecombinedintomeaningfulsentences,setoutingrammars.Thisisnotwhatlanguageis,andthelawsthatgovernlanguagearenotofthiskind.Thiscanbeseenfromthesimplefactthatifwetakethewordsofthedictionaryandcombinethemingrammaticallycorrectsentences,virtuallyallareutterlymeaninglessanddonotcountaslegitimatesentences.Thestructuresoflanguagearethelaws

Introduction


Introduction8

whichrestrictthecombinatorialpossibilitiesofwords,andthroughtheserestrictionsconstructthesayableandthemeaningful.Thelawsoflanguagedonotthereforetelluswhattosay,butprescribethestructureandlimitsofthesayable.Itiswithintheselimitsthatweuselanguageastheprimemeanstoourindividualityandcreativity. Inthissensearchitecturedoesresemblelanguage.Thelawsofthefieldofarchitecturedonottelldesignerswhattodo.Byrestrictingandstructuringthefieldofcombinatorialpossibility,theyprescribethelimitswithinwhicharchitectureispossible.Aswithlanguage,whatisleftfromthisrestrictivestructuringisrichbeyondimagination.Evenso,withouttheselawsbuildingswouldnotbehumanproducts,anymorethanmeaninglessbutsyntacticallycorrectconcatenationsofwordsarehumansentences. Thecaseforatheoreticalunderstandingofarchitecturethenrestseventuallynotonaspirationtophilosophicalorscientificstatus,butonthenatureofarchitectureitself.Thefoundationalpropositionofthebookisthatarchitectureisaninherentlytheoreticalsubject.Theveryactofbuildingraisesissuesabouttherelationsoftheformofthematerialworldandthewayinwhichweliveinitwhich(asanyarchaeologistknowswhohastriedtopuzzleoutaculturefrommaterialremains)areunavoidablybothphilosophicalandscientific.Architectureisthemosteveryday,themostenveloping,thelargestandthemostculturallydeterminedhumanartefact.Theactofbuildingimpliesthetransmissionofculturalconventionsansweringthesequestionsthroughcustomandhabit.Architectureistheirrenderingexplicit,andtheirtransmutationintoarealmofinnovationand,atitsbest,ofart.Inasense,architectureisabstractthoughtappliedtobuilding,eventhereforeinasensetheoryappliedtobuilding.Thisiswhy,intheend,architecturemusthaveanalytictheories.

Part one


Part oneTheoretical preliminaries

Defining architectureWhatisarchitecture?Onethingisclear:ifthewordistoserveausefulpurposewemustbeabletodistinguisharchitecturefrombuilding.Sincebuildingisthemorebasicterm,itfollowsthatwemustsayinwhatsensearchitectureismorethanbuilding.Theessenceofourdefinitionmustsaywhatarchitectureaddstobuilding. Thecommonest‘additive’theoryisthatarchitectureaddsarttobuilding.Inthisanalysis,buildingisanessentiallypracticalandfunctionalactivityontowhicharchitecturesuperimposesanartisticpreoccupationwhich,whilerespectingthepracticalandfunctional,isrestrictedbyneither.Theextremeversionofthisviewisthatarchitectureistheadditiontobuildingofthepracticallyuselessandfunctionallyunnecessary.1Themorecommonisthatbuildersmakebuildingswhilearchitectsaddstyle. Fromthepointofviewoffindingwhatpeople‘reallymean’whentheysay‘architecture’,thereareseriousproblemswiththeseviews.Themostobviousisthatitdefinesarchitectureintermsofwhatisnormallythoughtofasitsdegeneration,thatis,thatarchitectureisnomorethantheadditionofasurfaceappearancetobuilding.Evenifwetaketheviewthatthisiswhatarchitecturehasbecome,itissurelyunacceptableasadefinitionofwhatitshouldbe.Architectsbelieve,andclientsonthewholebuy,theideathatarchitectureisawayofbeingconcernedwiththewholebuilding,andameansofengagingthedeepestaspectsofwhatabuildingis.Ifarchitectureisdefinedasanadd-onwhichignoresthemainsubstanceofbuilding,thenarchitecturewouldbeanadditiontobuilding,butwouldnotbemorethanbuilding.Onthecontrary,itwouldbeconsiderablyless.Ifweaccusearchitectureofbeingnomorethanthis,weimplythatarchitectureoughttobemuchmore.Wearethereforebacktothebeginninginourpursuitofadefinition. Anequallydifficultproblemwiththisviewisthatitisveryhardtofindexamplesofbuildingwithapurelypracticalandfunctionalaim.Whereverwefindbuilding,wetendtofindapreoccupationwithstyleandexpression,howevermodest.Someofthemoststrikinginstancesofthishavecomefromourgrowingawarenessofbuildingbytechnologicallysimplesocieties,wherewedonotfindthatsimplicityoftechniqueisassociatedwithsimplicityofculturalintentortheeliminationofthepreoccupationwithstyle.Onthecontrary,wefindthatthroughtheidiosyncrasiesofstyle,buildingandsettlementformbecomesoneoftheprimary—thoughmostpuzzlingandvariable—expressionsofculture.2Thetermthatexpressesthisdiscovery.‘architecturewithoutarchitects’confirmstheexistenceofarchitectureassomethingoverandabovebuilding,eventhoughatthesametimeitaffirmstheabsenceofarchitects.3

ItistheawarenessoftheculturalrichnessofeverydaybuildingthatleadRogerScruton,inhisThe Aesthetics of Architecturetotrytosolvethedefinitionproblemforarchitecturebyarguingthatsinceallbuildingsharesapreoccupationwiththeaestheticandthemeaningful,allbuildingshouldbeseenasarchitecture.4Scrutonseekstoreintegratearchitecturewiththewholeofbuilding.Inhisview,allthatweeverfindinarchitectureisfound,atleastinembryonicform,intheeveryday

The visual impression, the image produced by differences of light and colour, is primary in our perception of a building. We empirically reinterpret this image into a conception of corporeality, and this defines the form of the space within…Once we have reinterpreted the optical image into a conception of space enclosed by mass, we read its purpose from its spatial form. We thus grasp…its content, its meaning. Paul Frankl

What architecture adds to buildingChapter one

Theoretical preliminaries

Spaceisthemachine|BillHillier SpaceSyntax�0

What architecture adds to building��


Spaceisthemachine|BillHillier

SpaceSyntax

vernacularinwhichmostofusparticipatethroughoureverydaylives.Thus:‘Evenwhenarchitectshaveadefinite“aesthetic”purpose,itmaynotbemorethanthedesirethattheirworkshould“lookright”injustthewaythattablesandchairs,thelayofplacesatatable,thefoldsinanapkin,anarrangementofbooks,may“lookright”toacasualobserver.’Thisleadshimtoadefinition:‘Architectureisprimarilyavernacularart:itexistsfirstandforemostasaprocessofarrangementinwhicheverynormalman[sic]mayparticipate.’5

Thedifficultywiththisdefinitionisthatitleadstoexactlythewrongkindofdistinctionbetween,forexample,thecarefulformalandspatialrulesthatgovernedtheEnglishsuburbanhouseasbuiltendlesslyandrepetitiouslybetweenthewarsbyspeculativebuilders,andtheworksof,say,PalladioorLeCorbusier.TheworkofbothofthesearchitectsischaracterisedbyradicalinnovationinexactlythoseareasofformalandspatialorganisationwhereaccordingtoScruton’sdefinition,thereshouldbeapreoccupationwithculturalcontinuityandreduplication.ItwouldseemtofollowthatScruton’sdefinitionofarchitecturewouldcoverthefamiliarEnglishspecbuilders’vernacularmoreeasilythanitwouldtheworksofmajorarchitecturalinnovators. Whileitmaybereasonable,then,toprefertheEnglishinter-warvernaculartotheworksofPalladioandLeCorbusier,itdoesnotseemlikelythatadefinitionoftheordinaryuseofthewordarchitectureliesinthisdirection.Onthecontrary,Scruton’sdefinitionseemstoleadusexactlythewrongway.Architectureseemstobeexactlynotthispreoccupationwithculturalcontinuity,butapreferenceforinnovation.FarfromusingthisasabasisforadefinitionthenScruton’spreoccupationwiththevernacularseemstoaccomplishtheopposite.Ittellsusmorehowtodistinguisheverydaybuildingfromthemoreambitiousaspirationsofwhatwecallarchitecture.

Is architecture a thing or an activity?Inwhatdirectionshouldwelookthenforadefinitionofarchitectureasmorethanbuilding?Reflectingonthecommonmeaningsoftheword,wefindlittlehelpandmoredifficulties.Theword‘architecture’seemstomeanbothathingandanactivity.Ontheonehanditseemstoimplybuildingswithcertain‘architectural’attributesimposedonthem.Ontheother,itseemstodescribewhatarchitectsdo,acertainwayofgoingabouttheprocessofmakingbuildings.Thisdoublemeaningraisesseriousproblemsforadefinitionofarchitecture.If‘architecture’meansbothattributesofthingsandattributesofactivities,thenwhich‘reallyis’architecture’?Thedefinitionsurelycannotencompassboth.Propertiesofthingsseemtoexistregardlessoftheactivitythatcreatesthem,andactivitiesarewhattheyareregardlessoftheirproduct.Isarchitecture,then,‘essentially’athingoranactivity?Itmust,itseems,beoneortheother. However,whenwetryeachdefinitioninisolationwequicklyrunintoparadoxes.Letusexperimentfirstwiththeideathatarchitectureisessentiallyathing;thatis,certainattributesfoundinsome,butnotall,buildings.Ifthatiswhatarchitecture‘essentially’is,thenitwouldfollowthatacopyofabuildingwhich

What architecture adds to building�2



SpaceSyntax

possessesthearchitecturalattributeswillalsobearchitecture,toexactlythesamedegreeandinthesamewayastheoriginalbuilding.Butwebaulkatthisidea.Copiesofarchitecturalbuildingsseemnotthemselvestobearchitecture,butwhatwehavenamedthemas,thatis,copiesofarchitecture.Certainlywewouldnotnormallyexpecttowinanarchitecturalprizewithadeliberatecopy.Onthecontrary,wewouldexpecttobedisqualified,oratleastridiculed. Whatthenismissinginthecopy?Bydefinition,itcannotbepropertiesofthebuildingsincetheseareidenticalinbothcases.Thedisqualifyingfactormustlieintheactofcopying.Theactofcopyingsomehowmakesabuildingwitharchitecturalattributesnolonger,initself,architecture.Thismeansthatwhatismissinginthecopyisnottodowiththebuildingbuttodowiththeprocessthatcreatedthebuilding.Copyingisthereforeinsomecrucialsensenot‘architectural’.Evenifwestartfromthepropositionthatarchitectureisattributesofbuilding,andthereforeinsomesense,‘intheobject’,theproblemofthecopyshowsthatafterallarchitectureimpliesacertainkindofactivity,onewhichismissingintheactofcopying. Whatthenismissingintheactofcopying?Itcanonlybethatwhichcopyingdenies,thatis,theintentiontocreate,ratherthansimplytoreproduce,architecture.Withoutthisintention,itseems,abuildingcannotbearchitecture.Soletuscallthisthe‘creativeintention’andtrytomakeitthefocusofadefinitionofarchitecture.Wemayexperimentwiththeideaasbefore.Thistime,lettherebeanambitiousbuttalentlessarchitectwhointendsashardaspossibletomakearchitecture.Istheproductofthisintentionautomaticallyarchitecture?Whetheritisornotdependsonwhetheritispossibletoapprovetheintentionasarchitecturalbutdisqualifytheresult.Infactthisisaverycommonformforarchitecturaljudgmentstotake.Theproductsofaspiringarchitectsareoftenjudgedbytheirpeerstohavefailedinexactlythisway.Ajurymaylegitimatelysay:‘Weunderstandyourintentionbutdonotthinkyouhavesucceeded.’Howaresuchjudgmentsmade?Clearlythereisonlyoneanswer:byreferencetotheobjectiveattributesoftheproposedbuildingsthatourwould-bearchitecthasdesigned. Itseemsthenthenormaluseofwordsandcommonpracticehasledusinacircle.Creativeintentionfailsasadefinitionofarchitecturebyreferencetopositiveattributesofthings,justaspositiveattributesofthingspreviouslyfailedbyreferencetointentions.Yetarchitectureseemsatthesametimetomeanboth.Itseemsitcanonlybethattheideaofarchitectureisatonceathingandanactivity,certainattributesofbuildingsandacertainwayofarrivingatthem.Productandprocessarenot,itseems,independent.Injudgingarchitecturewenoteboththeattributesofthethingandtheintellectualprocessbywhichthethingisarrivedat. Thismayseematfirstsightratherodd.Itviolatesthecommonconceptionthatattributesofthingsareindependentoftheprocessesthatputthemthere.Butitdoesreflecthowpeopletalkaboutarchitecture.Architecturaltalk,whetherbylaypeopleorbycritics,typicallymixescommentonproductwithcommentonprocess.Forexample,wehear:‘Thisisaningenioussolutiontotheproblemof…’,or‘Thisisacleverdetail’,or‘Thisspatialorganisationisboldlyconceived’,‘Ilikethewaythe




SpaceSyntax

architecthas…’,andsoon.Eachoftheseisatoneandthesametimeacommentontheobjectiveattributesofthebuildingandacommentonthecreativeintellectualprocessthatgaverisetoit.Inspiteoftheunlikelihoodofproductandprocesssomehowbeinginterdependentintheideaofarchitecture,thisdoesseemtobeexactlythecase.Indescribingourexperienceofarchitecturewedescribenotonlytheattributesofthings,butalsotheintellectualprocessesofwhichthethingisamanifestation.Onlywiththesimultaneouspresenceofbothdoweacknowledgearchitecture. Thereis,itseems,someinconsistencybetweenournormalwayofreasoningaboutthingsandthewaywetalk,reasonablyandreasoningly,aboutarchitecture.Wemightevensaythattheideaofarchitectureexhibitssomeconfusionbetweensubjectsandobjects,sincethejudgmentthatabuildingisarchitectureseemsatoneandthesametimetodependontheattributesofthe‘objective’thingandonattributesofthe‘subjective’processthatgivesrisetothething.Itmightbereasonabletoexpect,then,thatfurtheranalysiswouldshowthatthisstrangenessintheideaofarchitecturewaspathologicalandthat,withamorecarefuldefinition,productandprocess,andobjectandsubject,couldandshouldbeseparated. Infact,wewillfindthecontrary.Asweproceedwithourexplorationofwhatarchitectureisandwhatitaddstobuildingwewillfindthattheinseparabilityofproductsandprocessesandofsubjectandobjectsistheessenceofwhatarchitectureis.Itisourintellectualexpectationsthatitshouldbeotherwisewhichareatfault.Architectureisatonceproductandprocess,atonceattributeofthingsandattributeofactivity,sothatweactuallysee,orthinkwesee,bothwhenweseeandnamearchitecture. Howdoesthisapparentinterdependenceofproductandprocessthenariseasarchitecturefromtheactofmakingabuilding?Tounderstandthiswemustfirstknowwhatbuilding,theallegedlylesseractivity,is,andwemustunderstanditbothasproductandasprocess.Onlythiswillallowustoseewhatisdistinctiveaboutarchitecture,andhowthisdistinctivenessinvolvesbothproductandprocess.Toallowthistobecomefullyclear,theargumentthatfollowswillbetakenintwostages.firstwewilllookatbuildingasaproduct,inordertoaskwhatitisaboutthebuildingasproductthatarchitecturetakesholdofandaddssomethingto.Thenwewilllookatbuildingasaprocess,inordertoaskhowtheprocessofarchitecture,asaddingsomethingtobuilding,isdifferent.

So what is a building?Thequestion‘whatisabuilding?’tendstoprovoketwokindsofsimplification.Thefirstisthatbecausebuildingsarepurposefulobjectswecansaywhattheyarebysayingwhattheirpurposeis.Thesecondisthattheremustbesomesimpleprimordialpurposewhichwastheoriginalreasonforbuildingsandthereforeconstitutesakindofcontinuingessenceofbuilding.Thefirstsimplificationisalogicalerror,thesecondahistoricalone.Bothfindtheircommonest,butnotonly,expressioninsuchideasasthatbuildingsareessentially‘shelter’.




SpaceSyntax

Bothsimplificationsarisebecausepurposesareseentobeanteriortoobjectsandthereforeinsomesenseexplanatoryofthem.Butlogically,functionaldefinitionsareabsurd.Indefiningbuildingintermsofafunction,ratherthananobject,nodistinctionismadebetweenbuildingsasobjectsandotherentitieswhichalsocanordoprovidethatfunction,asforexampletrees,tents,cavesandparasolsalsoprovideshelter.Functionaldefinitionsarealsodishonest.Onewhodefinesabuildingasashelterhasapictureofabuildinginmind,butonewhichisimplicitratherthanexplicit,sothattheimprecisionofthedefinitionisneverrevealedtothedefiner.Ifwesay‘abuildingisashelter’wementallyseeabuildingandconceiveofitfunctioningasashelter,sothatthefunctionseemsto‘explain’theobject.Functionaldefinitionsonlyappeartoworkbecausetheyconcealanimplicitideaoftheobject.Thispreventstheimprecisionofthedefinitionfrombeingapparenttothedefiner.Evenifthefunctionwerethoughttobeuniquetotheobject,thedefinitionofanobjectthroughitsfunctionwouldneverbesatisfactorysincewecouldneverbesureeitherthatthisfunctionisnecessarilyuniquetothisobject,orthatthisistheonly‘essential’functionofthisobject. Historicallyinfactalltheevidenceisthatneitheristhecase.Ifweconsiderthephenomenonofbuildingevenintheearliestandsimplestsocieties,oneofthemoststrikingthingsthatwefindisthatbuildingsarenormallymultifunctional:theyprovideshelterfromtheelements,theyprovidesomekindofspatialschemefororderingsocialrelationsandactivities,theyprovideaframeworkforthearrangementofobjects,theyprovideadiversityofinternalandexternalopportunitiesforaestheticandculturalexpression,andsoon.Ontheevidencewehave,itisdifficulttofindhistoricaloranthropologicalgroundsforbelievingthatbuildingsarenotintheirverynaturemultifunctional. Noristhereanyreasonwhyweshouldexpectthemtobe.Inspiteofthepersistenceoftheabsurdbeliefthathumankindlivedincavesuntilneolithictimes(beginningabout10–12,000yearsago),andthenusedthecaveasthemodelforthebuilding,6thereisevidencethathumanbeingshavecreatedrecognisablebuildingsforaverylongtime,perhapsaslongasatleastthreehundredthousandyears.7Wedonotknowhowtheantiquityofbuildingcompareswiththatoflanguage,butitisclearthattheevolutionaryhistoryofeachisverylong,andthatconjecturalhistoricalontologiesareequallyirrelevanttobothintryingtounderstandthecomplexnatureofeitherassocialandculturalphenomenon.Thespeculationthatbuildingsaresomehow‘explained’bybeingdefinedasshelters,becauseweimaginethattheremusthavebeenatimewhenthiswasallthatbuildingwas,isaboutasusefulinunderstandingthesocialandculturalcomplexitiesofbuildingastheideathatlanguagebeganwithpointingandgruntingistotheoriesofthestructureandfunctioningoflanguage. Butitisnotonlytimethathasgivenbuildingstheirvarietyofculturalexpression.Thenatureofthebuildingasanobjectitselfhascomplexitieswhichinthemselvesnaturallytendtomultifunctionalityanddiversityofculturalexpression.Itisonlybyunderstandingthecomplexnatureofthebuildingasobjectthatwe




SpaceSyntax

canbegintounderstanditsnaturaltendencytomultifunctionality.Atthemostelementarylevel,abuildingisaconstructionofphysicalelementsormaterialsintoamoreorlessstableform,asaresultofwhichaspaceiscreatedwhichisdistinctfromtheambientspace.Attheveryleastthen,abuildingisbothaphysicalandaspatialtransformationofthesituationthatexistedbeforethebuildingwasbuilt.Eachaspectofthistransformation,thephysicalandthespatial,alreadyhas,asweshallsee,asocialvalue,andprovidesopportunityforthefurtherelaborationofthisvalue,inthatthephysicalformofthebuildingmaybegivenfurtherculturalsignificancebytheshapinganddecorationofelements,andthespatialformmaybemademorecomplex,byconceptualorphysicaldistinctions,toprovideaspatialpatterningofactivitiesandrelationships. However,eveninthemostprimitive,unelaboratedstate,theeffectofthiselementarytransformationofmaterialandspaceonhumanbeings—thatis,its‘functional’effect—iscomplex.Part,butonlypart,ofthiscomplexityisthefunctionaleffectthatthe‘shelter’theoristshavenoted,namelythephysicaleffectthatbodiesareprotectedfromambientelementsthatintheabsenceofthebuildingmightbeexperiencedashostile.Theseelementsincludeinclementweatherconditions,hostilespeciesorunwelcomeconspecifics.Whenwesaythatabuildingisa‘shelter’,wemeanthatitisakindofprotectionforthebody.Tobeaprotectiveshelterabuildingmustcreateaprotectedspacethroughastableconstruction.Whatisprotectiveisthephysicalformofthebuilding.Whatisprotectedisthespace.Buildingshaveabodilyfunction,broadandnon-specific,butclassifiableasbodily,asaresultofwhichthebuildinghasspaceabletocontainbodies,andcertainphysicalpropertiesthroughwhichbodiesareprotected. However,eventhesimplestbodilyactofmakingashelterismorecomplexthanmightappearatfirstsight.Toencloseaspacebyaconstructioncreatesnotonlyaphysicaldistinctiononthesurfaceoftheearth,butalsoalogical,orcategoricdistinction.Weacknowledgethisthroughtermslike‘inside’and‘outside’.Thesearerelationalnotionswithanessentiallylogicalnature,notsimplephysicalfacts.Theyariseasakindof‘logicalemergence’fromthemoreelementaryphysicalfactofmakingaboundary.Therelationalityofthese‘logicalemergents’canbedemonstratedbysimplypointingtotheinterdependenceof‘inside’and‘outside’.Oneimpliestheother,andwecannotcreateaspaceinsidewithoutalsomakingaspaceoutside.Logicalitycanbedemonstratedbydirectanalogy.Thephysicalprocessofdrawingaboundaryisanalogoustonamingacategory,sincewhenwedosowealsobyimplicationnameallthatisnotthatcategory,thatis,weimplythecomplementofthatcategory,inthesamesensethatwhenwenamethespaceinsidewealsoimplyallthespacethatisoutside.Inthatsensethespaceoutsideisthecomplementofthespaceinside.LogiciansconfirmthisanalogybydrawingVenndiagrams,thatrepresentconceptsasallthatfallswithinthespaceofacircle,anexactlyanalogouslogicalgesturetothecreationofaboundaryinrealspace. AsRussellhaspointedout,8relations,especiallyspatialrelations,areverypuzzlingentities.Theyseemtoexist‘objectively’,inthesense(tousetheexample




SpaceSyntax

givenbyRussell)that‘EdinburghistothenorthofLondon’,butwecannotpointdirectlytotherelationinthewaythatwecantootherentitieswhichseemto‘reallyexist’.Wemustaccept,Russellargues,that‘therelation,likethetermsitrelates,isnotdependentonthought,butbelongstotheindependentworldwhichthoughtapprehends,butdoesnotcreate’.Wemustthenaccept,hecontinues,thatarelation‘isneitherinspacenorintime,neithermaterialnormental,yetitissomething’. The‘objectivity’ofrelations,andofthemorecomplexrelationalschemeswecall‘configurations’,willbeacontinuingthemeinthisbook.However,evenatthesimplestlevelofthecreationofaboundarybythesimplestactofbuilding,mattersareyetmorecomplex.Thelogicaldistinctionsmadebydrawingboundariesarealsosociologicaldistinctions,inthatthedistinctionbetweeninsideandoutsideismadebyasocialbeing,whosepowertomakethisdistinctionbecomesrecognisednotonlyinthephysicalmakingoftheboundaryandthecreationoftheprotectedspacebutalsointhelogicalconsequencesthatarisefromthatdistinction.Thisisbestexpressedasaright.Thedrawingofaboundaryestablishesnotonlyaphysicalseparateness,butalsothesocialseparatenessofadomain—theprotectedspace—identifiedwithanindividualorcollectivity,whichcreatesandclaimsspecialrightsinthatdomain.Thelogicaldistinctionandthesociologicaldistinctioninthatsenseemergefromtheactofmakingasheltereveniftheyarenotintended.Theprimaryactofbuilding,wemightsay,isalreadycomplexinthatminds,andevensocialrelations,areengagedbybodilytransformations. Asisthecasewiththelogicalcomplexity,thesociologicalcomplexityimpliedbytheboundaryisinitsverynaturerelational.Indeed,itisthelogicoftherelationalcomplexthatgivesrisetothesociologicaldistinctionsthroughwhichbuildingfirstbeginstoreflectandinterveneinsocialrelations.Itisthisessentialrelationalityofformandofspacewhichisappropriatedintheprocessesbywhichbuildingsaretransformedfrombodilyobjectstosocialandculturalobjects.Thefundamentalrelationalcomplexofformandspacecreatedbytheactofmakingthesimplestbuiltobjectistheseedofallfuturerelationalpropertiesofspacesthroughwhichbuildingsbecomefullysocialobjects. Abuildingthenbecomessociallysignificantoverandaboveitsbodilyfunctionsintwoways:firstbyelaboratingspacesintosociallyworkablepatternstogenerateandconstrainsomesociallysanctioned—andthereforenormative—patternofencounterandavoidance;andsecondbyelaboratingphysicalformsandsurfacesintopatternsthroughwhichculturallyoraestheticallysanctionedidentitiesareexpressed.Thefundamentaldualityofformandspacethatwenotedinthemostelementaryformsofthebuildingthuscontinuesintoitscomplexforms.Bytheelaborationofspace,asocialdomainisconstitutedasalivedmilieu.Bytheelaborationofformasocialdomainisrepresentedassignificantidentitiesandencounters.Inbothsenses,buildingscreatemorecomplexpatternsfromthebasicbodilystuffofformandspace.Itisthroughthesepatternsthatbuildingsacquiretheirpotentialatoncetoconstituteandrepresent—andthusintimetoappearastheveryfoundationof—oursocialandculturalexistence.




SpaceSyntax

Wemaysummarisewhatwehavesaidaboutthenatureofbuildingsasobjectsinadiagramwhichwewillusefromnowonasakindoffundamentaldiagramofthebuildingasobject,(seefig.1.1).Theessenceofthediagramisthatabuildingevenatthemostbasiclevelembodiestwodualities,onebetweenphysicalformandspatialformandtheotherbetweenbodilyfunctionandsocio-culturalfunction.Thelinkbetweenthetwoisthatthesocio-culturalfunctionarisesfromthewaysinwhichformsandspacesareelaboratedintopatterns,or,aswewillinduecoursedescribethem,intoconfigurations.Wemustnowlookmorecarefullyatwhatwemeanbytheelaborationofformandspaceintoconfiguration,sincethiswillbethekeytoourargumentnotonlyaboutthenatureofbuildings,butalso,induecourse,tohowarchitecturearisesfrombuilding. Letusbeginwithasimpleandfamiliarcaseoftheelaborationofthephysicalformofthebuilding:thedoriccolumn.Whenwelookatadoriccolumn,weseeaplinth,apedestal,ashaft,acapital,andsoon,thatis,weseeaconstruction.Theelementsrestoneupontheother,andtheirrelationtoeachothertakesadvantageofanddependsonthenaturallawofgravity.Butthisisnotallthatwesee.Therelationsoftheelementsofacolumngovernedbythelawofgravitywouldholdregardlessofthe‘doricness’oftheelements.If,forexample,weweretoreplacethedoriccapitalwithanioniancapital,theeffectontheconstructionwouldbenegligible,buttheeffectonthe‘doricness’oftheensemblewouldbedevastating. Sowhatisdoricness?Clearlyitisnotatypeofconstruction,sincewemaysubstitutenon-doricelementsintheensemblewithoutconstructionalpenalty.Wemustacknowledgethatdoricnessisnottheninitselfasetofphysicalrelations,althoughitdependsonthem.Doricnessisaschemeinwhichelementswithcertainkindsofelaborationare‘above’and‘below’othersinacertainrelationalsequencewhichemergesfromconstructionbutisnotgivenbyconstruction.Onthecontrary,thenotionof‘above’andbelow’aswefindthemindoricnessseemtobe‘logicalemergents’fromtheactofconstructioninexactlythesamesensethat‘inside’and‘outside’werelogicalemergentsfromthephysicalconstructionofaboundary.Doricnessisthenalogicalconstruction,onebuiltonthebackofaphysicalconstructionbutalogicalconstructionnonetheless.Throughthelogical

Figure 1.1




SpaceSyntax

doricnessoftheensemble,wemaysaythatwemovefromthesimplevisualityofthephysicallyinterdependentsystem,toentertherealmoftheintelligible.Doricnessisaconfigurationofpropertiesthatweunderstand,overandabovewhatweseeasphysicalinterdependencies,aformofrelationalelaborationtosomethingwhichexistsinphysicalform,butwhichthroughthiselaborationstandsclearofitsphysicality.Thisprocessofmovingfromthevisibletotheintelligibleis,wewillseeinduecourse,verybasictoourexperiencebothofbuildingandofarchitecture,and,evenmoreso,tothedifferencebetweenoneandtheother. Spatialpatternsinbuildingsalsoariseaselaborationsonprimitivelogicalemergentsfromthephysicalactofbuilding.Aswithdoricness,theydependonbutcannotbeexplainedbynaturallaw(asmanyhavetriedtodobyappealtobiological‘imperatives’suchas‘territoriality’).Theoriginsofrelationalschemesofspaceliesomewherebetweentheorderingcapacitiesofthemindandthespatialorderinginherentinthewaysinwhichsocialrelationshipsarerealisedinspace.Withspace,aswithform,wethereforefindasplitinbuildingbetweenabodilynature,albeitwitharudimentaryrelationalnature,andamoreelaboratedconfigurationalnaturewhichrelatestomindsandsocialexperienceratherthantobodiesandindividualexperience.Thepassagefromthesimplespacetoaconfigurationofspaceisalsothepassagefromthevisibletotheintelligible. Spaceis,however,amoreinherentlydifficulttopicthanphysicalform,fortworeasons.First,spaceisvacancyratherthanthing,soevenitsbodilynatureisnotobvious,andcannotbetakenforgrantedinthewaythatwethinkwecantakeobjectsforgranted.(SeeChapter10forafurtherdiscussionofthisassumption.)Second,relatedspaces,almostbydefinition,cannotbeseenallatonce,butrequiremovementfromonetoothertoexperiencethewhole.Thisistosaythatrelationalityinspaceisrarelyaccessibletousasasingleexperience.Wemustthereforedigressforamomenttotalkaboutspaceasaphenomenon,andhowwecanovercomethedifficultiesthatexistintalkingaboutit.Wewilltakethisintwostages.First,wewilltalkabouttheproblemofhowfarspacecanbeseenasanobjective,independent‘thing-in-itself’.Wemustdothisbecausethereisgreatconfusionaboutthestatusofspaceandhowfaritcanberegardedasanindependententityratherthansimplyasaby-productof,say,thearrangementofphysicalthings.Second,wewilltalkaboutspaceasconfiguration,sinceitisasconfigurationthatithasitsmostpowerfulandindependenteffectsonthewaybuildingsandbuiltenvironmentsareformedandhowtheyfunctionfortheirpurposes.




SpaceSyntax

About spaceItisfarfromobviousthatspaceis,insomeimportantsense,anobjectivepropertyofbuildings,describableindependentlyofthebuildingasaphysicalthing.Mostofourcommonnotionsofspacedonotdealwithspaceasanentityinitselfbuttieitinsomewaytoentitiesthatarenotspace.Forexample,evenamongstthosewithainterestinthefield,theideaof‘space’willusuallybetranscribedasthe‘useofspace’,the‘perceptionofspace’,the‘productionofspace’oras‘conceptsofspace’.Inallthesecommonexpressions,theideaofspaceisgivensignificancebylinkingitdirectlytohumanbehaviourorintentionality.Commonspatialconceptsfromthesocialsciencessuchas‘personalspace’and‘humanterritoriality’alsotiespacetothehumanagent,anddonotacknowledgeitsexistenceindependentlyofthehumanagent.Inarchitecture,whereconceptsofspacearesometimesunlinkedfromdirecthumanagency,throughnotionssuchas‘spatialhierarchy’and‘spatialscale’westillfindthatspaceisrarelydescribedinafullyindependentway.Theconceptof‘spatialenclosure’forexample,whichdescribesspacebyreferencetothephysicalformsthatdefineitratherthanasathinginitself,isthecommonestarchitecturalwayofdescribingspace. Alltheseconceptsconfirmthedifficultyofconceptualisingspaceasathinginitself.Onoccasion,thisdifficultyfindsanextremeexpression.Forexample,RogerScrutonbelievesthattheideaofspaceisacategorymistakemadebypretentiousarchitects,whohavefailedtounderstandthatspaceisnotathinginitself,butmerelytheobversesideofthephysicalobject,thevacancyleftoverbythebuilding.ForScruton,itisself-evidentthatspaceinafieldandinacathedralarethesamethingexceptinsofarastheinteriorbuiltsurfacesofthecathedralmakeitappearthattheinteriorspacehasdistinctivepropertiesofitsown.Alltalkaboutspaceiserror,heargues,becauseitcanbereducedtotalkaboutbuildingsasphysicalthings.9

Infact,evenatapracticallevel,thisisabizarreview.Spaceis,quitesimply,whatweuseinbuildings.Itisalsowhatwesell.Nodeveloperofferstorentwalls.Wallsmakethespace,andcostthemoney,butspaceistherentablecommodity.WhythenisScrutonembarrassedbytheconceptofspace?LetmesuggestthatScrutonismakinganeducatederror,onethathewouldnothavemadeifhehadnotbeensodeeplyimbuedwiththewesternphilosophicaltraditioninwhichhehasearnedhisliving—andtowhich,incidentally,hehaswrittenanoutstandingintroduction.10

Thedominantviewofspaceinwesternculturehasbeenonewemightlooselycallthe‘Galilean-Cartesian’.ThisviewarisesfromaschemeofreasoningfirstsetoutinfullclaritybyDescartes.11Theprimarypropertiesofphysicalobjectsare,heargued,their‘extension’,thatis,theirmeasurablepropertieslikelength,breadthandwidth.Becauseextensioncanbequantifiedbymeasuringdeviceswhichdonotdependonhumanagency,extensionscanbeseenastheindubitablyobjectivepropertiesofthings,unlike‘secondary’propertieslike‘green’or‘nice’whichseemtodependinsomewayoninteractionwithobservers. Nowifextensionistheprimarypropertyofobjects,thenitisashortstep

What architecture adds to building20



SpaceSyntax

toseeitalsoastheprimarypropertyofthespacewithinwhichobjectssit.AsDescartessays:‘Afterexaminationweshallfindthatthereisnothingremainingintheideaofbodyexceptingthatitisextendedinlength,breadthanddepth;andthisiscomprisedinourideaofspace,notonlyofthatwhichisfullofbody,butalsothatwhichiscalledavacuum.’12Inotherwords,whenwetaketheobjectawayfromitsspaceitsextensionisstillpresentasanattributeofspace.Spaceisthereforegeneralisedextension,orextensionwithoutobjects.Descartesagain:‘Inspace…weattributetoextensionagenericunity,sothatafterhavingremovedfromacertainspacethebodywhichoccupiedit,wedonotsupposewehavealsoremovedtheextensionofthatspace.’13

Followingthisreasoning,spacecomestobeseenasthegeneralabstractframeworkofextensionagainstwhichthepropertiesofobjectsaredefined,ametricbackgroundtothematerialobjectsthatoccupyspace.Thisviewofspaceseemstomostofusquitenatural,nomorethananextrapolationofcommonsense.Unfortunately,onceweseespaceinthisway,wearedoomednottounderstandhowitplaysaroleinhumanaffairs.Culturallyandsocially,spaceisneversimplytheinertbackgroundofourmaterialexistence.Itisakeyaspectofhowsocietiesandculturesareconstitutedintherealworld,and,throughthisconstitution,structuredforusas‘objective’realities.Spaceismorethananeutralframeworkforsocialandculturalforms.Itisbuiltintothoseveryforms.Humanbehaviourdoesnotsimplyhappeninspace.Ithasitsownspatialforms.Encountering,congregating,avoiding,interacting,dwelling,teaching,eating,conferringarenotjustactivitiesthathappeninspace.Inthemselvestheyconstitutespatialpatterns. Itisbecausethisissothatspatialorganisationthroughbuildingsandbuiltenvironmentsbecomesoneoftheprinciplewaysinwhichcultureismaderealforusinthematerialworld,anditisbecausethisissothatbuildingscan,andnormallydo,carrysocialideaswithintheirspatialforms.Tosaythisdoesnotimplydeterminismbetweenspacetosociety,simplythatspaceisalwayslikelytobestructuredinthespatialimageofasocialprocessofsomekind.Thequestionis:howexactlydoesthishappen,andwhatarethesestructureslike?

Space as configurationOnethingisclear.Encountering,congregating,avoiding,interacting,dwelling,conferringarenotattributesofindividuals,butpatterns,orconfigurations,formedbygroupsorcollectionsofpeople.Theydependonanengineeredpatternofco-presence,andindeedco-absence.Veryfewofthepurposesforwhichwebuildbuildingsandenvironmentsarenot‘peopleconfigurations’inthissense.Weshouldthereforeinprincipleexpectthattherelationbetweenpeopleandspace,ifthereisone,willbefoundattheleveloftheconfigurationofspaceratherthantheindividualspace.Thisisconfirmedbycommonsense.Individualspacesplacelittlelimitonhumanactivity,exceptforthoseofsizeandperhapsshape.Inmostreasonablespaces,mosthumanactivitiescanbecarriedout.Buttherelationbetweenspaceandsocialexistencedoesnotlieattheleveloftheindividualspace,orindividualactivity.

What architecture adds to building2�



SpaceSyntax

Figure1.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

depth

0

1

2

3

4

depth

c.

b.

a.

d.

Figure 1.2




SpaceSyntax

Itliesintherelationsbetweenconfigurationsofpeopleandconfigurationsofspace. Totakethefirststepstowardsunderstandinghowthishappens,wemustunderstandhow,inprinciple,aconfigurationofspacecanbeinfluencedby,orinfluence,aconfigurationofpeople.Letusthereforeconsidersomesimplehypotheticalexamples.Thetwonotional‘courtyard’buildingsoffigure1.2aandbshowinthefirstcolumninblack,inthenormalway,thepatternofphysicalelementsofthebuildings.Thecorrespondingfiguresinthesecondcolumnthenshowinblackthecorrespondingpatternofspatialelements.Thebasicphysicalstructuresandcelldivisionsofthetwo‘buildings’arethesame,andeachhasthesamepatternofadjacenciesbetweencellsandthesamenumberofinternalandexternalopenings.Allthatdiffersisthelocationofcellentrances.Butthisisenoughtoensurethatfromthepointofviewofhowacollectionofindividualscouldusethespace,thespatialpatterns,or‘configurations’,areaboutasdifferentastheycouldbe.Thepatternofpermeabilitycreatedbythedispositionofentrancesisthecriticalthing.Seenthisway,onelayoutisanearperfectsinglesequence,withaminimalbranchattheend.Theotherisbranchedeverywhereaboutthestrongcentralspaces. Nowthepatternofpermeabilitywouldmakerelativelylittledifferencetothebuildingstructurallyorclimatically,thatis,tothebodilyaspectofbuildings,especiallyifweassumesimilarpatternsofexternalfenestration,andinsertwindowswherevertheotherhadentrancesontothecourtyard.Butitwouldmakeadramaticdifferencetohowthelayoutwouldworkas,say,adomesticinterior.Forexample,itisverydifficultformorethanonepersontouseasinglesequenceofspaces.Itofferslittleinthewayofcommunityorprivacy,butmuchinthewayofpotentialintrusion.Thebranchedpattern,ontheotherhand,offersadefinitesetofpotentialrelationsbetweencommunityandprivacy,andmanymoreresourcesagainstintrusion. Thesedifferencesareinherentinthespacepatterns,andwouldapplytowholeclassesofhumanactivitypatterns.Inthemselvesthespatiallayoutsofferarangeoflimitationsandpotentialities.Theysuggestthepossibilitythatarchitecturalspacemightbesubjecttolimitinglaws,notofadeterministickind,butsuchastosetmorphologicalboundswithinwhichtherelationsbetweenformandfunctioninbuildingsareworkedout. WewillseefromChapter3onwardsthatitisbyexpressingthesepatternpropertiesinanumericalwaythatwecanfindclearrelationsbetweenspacepatternsandhowcollectionsofpeopleusethem.However,beforeweembarkonnumbers,thereisavisuallyusefulwayofcapturingsomeofthekeydifferencesbetweenthetwospatialpatterns.Thisisadevicewecallajustifiedgraph,orj-graph.Inthisweimaginethatweareinaspacewhichwecalltherootorbaseofthegraph,andrepresentthisasacirclewithacrossinscribed.Then,representingspacesascircles,andrelationsofaccessaslinesconnectingthem,wealignimmediatelyabovetherootallspaceswhicharedirectlyconnectedtotheroot,anddrawintheconnections.Thesearethespacesat‘depthone’fromtheroot.Thenanequaldistanceabovethe‘depthone’rowwealignthespacesthatconnectdirectlytofirstrowspaces,formingthelineof‘depthtwo’spaces,and




SpaceSyntax

connectthesetothedepthonespaces,andsoon.Sometimeswewillhavetodrawratherlongandcircuitouslinestolinkspacesatdifferentlevels,butthisdoesnotmatter.Itisthefactofconnectionthatmatters.Thelawsofgraphsguaranteethatifthelayoutisallatonelevelthenwecanmakealltherequiredconnectionsbydrawinglinesconnectingthespaceswithoutcrossingotherlines.14

Theresultingj-graphisapictureofthe‘depth’ofallspacesinapatternfromaparticularpointinit.Thethirdcolumninfigure1.2aandbshowsj-graphsforthecorrespondingspatialstructures,drawnusingtheexteriorspaceasroot.Wecanimmediatelyseethatthefirstisa‘deeptree’form,andtheseconda‘shallowtree’form.By‘tree’wemeanthatthereisonelinklessthanthenumberofcellslinked,andthattherearethereforenoringsofcirculationinthegraph.Alltrees,eventwoasdifferentasinthetwointhefigures,sharethecharacteristicthatthereisonlyoneroutefromeachspacetoeachotherspace—apropertythatishighlyrelevanttohowbuildinglayoutsfunction.However,where‘rings’arefound,thejustifiedgraphmakesthemasclearasthe‘depth’properties,showingtheminaverysimpleandclearwayaswhattheyare,thatis,alternativeroutechoicesfromonepartofthepatterntoanother.Theseriesoffiguresinfigure1.2cshowsahypotheticalcase,basedonthesamebasic‘building’asthepreviousfigures. Wedonothavetojustifythegraphusingtheoutsidespaceasroot.Thisisonlyoneway—thoughasingularlyusefulway—oflookingatabuilding.Wecanofcoursejustifythegraphfromanyspacewithinit,andthiswilltelluswhatlayoutislikefromthepointofviewofthatspace,takingintoaccountbothdepthandringproperties.Whenwedothiswediscoverafactaboutthespatiallayoutsofbuildingsandsettlementsthatissofundamentalthatitisprobablyinitselfthekeytomostaspectsofhumanspatialorganisation.Thisisthesimplefactthatapatternofspacenotonlylooksdifferentbutactuallyisdifferentwhenjustifiedfromthepointofviewofitsdifferentconstituentelements.Thethreenotionalj-graphsshowninfigure1.2dappearverydifferentfromeachother,butallthreeareinfactthesamegraphjustifiedfromthepointofviewofdifferentconstituentspaces.Thedepthandringpropertiescouldhardlyappearmoredifferentiftheyweredifferentconfigurations.Itisthroughthecreationanddistributionofsuchdifferencesthatspacebecomessuchapowerfulrawmaterialforthetransmissionofculturethroughbuildingsandsettlementforms,andalsoapotentmeansofarchitecturaldiscoveryandcreation.Letusseehow.

Formally defining configurationFirstweneedtobringalittlemoreformalityintothedefinitionof‘configuration’.Liketheword‘pattern’(whichwedonotusebecauseitimpliesmoreregularitythanwewillfindinmostspatialarrangements),configurationseemstobeaconceptaddressedtothewholeofacomplexratherthantoitsparts.Intuitively,itseemstomeanasetofrelationshipsamongthingsallofwhichinterdependinanoverallstructureofsomekind.Thereisawayofformalisingthisideathatisassimpleasitisnecessary.Ifwedefinespatialrelationsasexistingwhenthereisanytypeoflink—sayadjacencyorpermeability—betweentwospaces,then




SpaceSyntax

configurationexistswhenrelationsbetweentwospacesarechangedaccordingtohowwerelateoneorother,orboth,toatleastoneotherspace. Thisratheroddsoundingdefinitioncanbeexplainedthroughasimplegraphicexample.Figure1.3ashowsacelldividedbyapartitionintotwo,sub-cellaandsub-cellb,withadoorcreatingarelationofpermeabilitybetweenthetwo.Itisclearthattherelationisformally‘symmetrical’inthesensethatcellaistocellbasbistoa.Thesamewouldbetrueoftwocellswhichwereadjacentandthereforeintherelationofneighbourtoeachother.Ifaisb’sneighbour,thenbmustalsobea’sneighbour.This‘symmetry’,whichfollowsthealgebraicratherthanthegeometricaldefinition,isclearlyanobjectivepropertyoftherelationofaandbanddoesnotdependonhowwechoosetoseetherelation. Nowconsiderfigures1.3bandcinwhichwehaveaddedrelationstoathirdspace,c(whichisinfacttheoutsidespace),butinadifferentwaysothatin1.3bbothaandbaredirectlypermeabletoc,whereasin1.3c,onlyaisdirectlypermeabletoc.Thismeansthatin1.3cwemustpassthroughatogettobfromc,whereasin1.3bwecangoeitherway.In1.3ctherefore,aandbaredifferentwithrespecttoc.Wemustpassthroughatogettobfromc,butwedonotneedtopassthroughbtogettoafromc.Withrespecttoc,therelationhasbecomeasymmetrical.Inotherwords,therelationbetweenaandbhasbeenredefinedbytherelationeachhastoathirdspace.Thisisaconfigurationaldifference.Configurationisasetofinterdependentrelationsinwhicheachisdeterminedbyitsrelationtoalltheothers. Wecanshowsuchconfigurationaldifferencesratherneatly,andclarifytheirnature,byusingthej-graph,asinfigure1.3dande,correspondingto1.3band1.3crespectively.Comparedto1.3a,spacesbandcin1.3ehaveacquired‘depth’with

a b

c

Figure 1.3

c

a b

a b

c

a

b

c

a b

c.b.a.

e.d.

2 2

2

3

2

3

Figure 1.3




SpaceSyntax

respecttoeachother,inthattheirrelationisnowindirectandonlyexistsbyvirtueofa.Thenumbersadjacenttoeachspaceinthej-graphindexthisbyshowingthetotaldepthofeachspacefromtheothertwo.Incontrast,1.3dhasacquireda‘ring’thatlinksallthreespaces,meaningthateachhasachoiceofroutetoeachoftheothers.Thegraphof1.3disidenticalwhenseenfromeachofitsspaces,whilein1.3e,bandcareidentical,butaisdifferent.

Society in the form of the objectNowletususethisconceptofconfiguration,anditskeyspatialdimensionsofdepthandrings,totrytodetectthepresenceofculturalandsocialideasinthespatialformsofbuildings.Figures1.4a,bandcshow,ontheleft,theground-floorplansofthreeFrenchhouses,andtotheirimmediateright,theirj-graphsdrawninitiallyfromtheoutside,treatingitasasinglespace,thentotherightagainthreefurtherj-graphsjustifiedfromthreedifferentinternalspaces.15Lookingatthej-graphsdrawnfromtheoutside,wecanseethatinspiteofthegeometricaldifferencesinthehousestherearestrongsimilaritiesintheconfigurations.Thiscanbeseenmosteasilybyconcentratingonthespacemarkedsc,orsallecommune,whichisthemaineverydaylivingspace,inwhichcookingalsooccursandeverydayvisitorsarereceived.Ineachcase,wecanseethatthesallecommuneliesonallnon-trivialrings(atrivialringisonewhichlinksthesamepairofspacestwice),linksdirectlytoanexteriorspace—thatis,itisatdepthoneinthecomplex—andactsasalinkbetweenthelivingspacesandvariousspacesassociatedwithdomesticworkcarriedoutbywomen. Thesallecommunealsohasamorefundamentalproperty,onewhicharisesfromitsrelationtothespatialconfigurationofthehouseasawhole.Ifwecountthenumberofspaceswemustpassthroughtogofromthesallecommunetoallotherspaces,wefindthatitcomestoatotalwhichislessthanforanyotherspace—thatis,ithaslessdepththananyotherspaceinthecomplex.Thegeneralformofthismeasure16iscalledintegration,andcanbeappliedtoanyspaceinanyconfiguration:thelessdepthfromthecomplexasawhole,themoreintegratingthespace,andviceversa.Thismeansthateveryspaceinthethreecomplexescanbeassignedan‘integrationvalue’.17

Nowoncewehavedonethiswecanaskquestionsabouthowthedifferentfunctionsinthehouseare‘spatialised’,thatis,howtheyareembeddedintheoverallspatialconfiguration.Whenwedothis,wefindthatitisverycommonthatdifferentfunctionsarespatialisedindifferentways,andthatthiscanoftenbeexpressedclearlythrough‘integration’analysis.InthethreeFrenchhouses,forexample,wefindthatthereisacertainorderofintegrationamongthespaceswheredifferentfunctionsarecarriedout,alwayswiththesallecommuneasthemostintegrated,ascanbeseeninthej-graphsbesideeachplan.Ifallthefunctionsofthethreehousesaresetoutinorderoftheintegrationvaluesofthespacesinwhichtheyoccur,beginningwiththemostintegratedspace,wecanreadthis,fromlefttoright,as:thesallecommuneismoreintegrated(i.e.haslessdepthtoallotherspaces)than




SpaceSyntax

Figure 1.4




SpaceSyntax

thecorridor,whichismoreintegratedthantheexterior,andsoon.Totheextentthattherearecommonalitiesinthesequenceofinequalities,thenwecansaythatthereisacommonpatterntothewayinwhichdifferentfunctionsarespatialisedinthehouse.Wecallsuchcommonpatterns‘inequalitygenotypes’,becausetheyrefernottothesurfaceappearancesofformsbuttodeepstructuresunderlyingspatialconfigurationsandtheirrelationtolivingpatterns.18

Theseresultsflowfromananalysisofspace-to-spacepermeability.Butwhatabouttherelationofvisibility,whichpassesthroughspaces?Thethreerowsoffiguresontherightinfigure1.4(lowerpanel)showallthespacethatcanbeseenwiththedoorsopenfromadiamond-shapedspacewithineachsallecommuneandoneotherspace,drawnbyjoiningthecentrepointsofeachwallofaroom,andthuscoveringhalfofthespaceintheroom.Theideaofthediamondshapeisthatspaceuse(inmostwesterncultures)isnormallyconcentratedwithinthisdiamondshape,thecornerscommonlybeingreservedforobjects.Thediagramsshowthatineachcasethesallecommunehasafarmorepowerfulvisualfieldthanthesalle.Inotherwords,thespatialandfunctionaldifferencesbetweenspacesthatwefindthroughtheanalysisofpermeabilityinthehousesalsoappearintheanalysisofvisibility.Thesevisibilitydifferencescanalsoformthebasisforquantitativeandstatisticalanalysis. Thistypeofmethodallowsustoretrievefromhouseplansconfigurationalpropertiesthatrelatedirectlytothesocialandculturalfunctioningofthehouse.Inotherwords,throughspatialconfigurationculturallydeterminedpatternsareembeddedinthematerialandspatial‘objectivity’ofbuildings.Bytheanalysisofspacesandfunctionsintermsoftheirconfigurationalrelationswithinthehouse,andthesearchforcommonpatternsacrosssamples,wecanseehowbuildingscantransmitcommonculturaltendenciesthroughspatialform.Wemustnowaskhowandwhythisisthecase,andwhatfollowsfromit?

The non-discursivity of configuration: ideas we think of and ideas we think withTheanswerwilltakeustothecentreofourargument:thenon-discursivityofconfiguration.Non-discursivitymeansthatwedonotknowhowtotalkaboutit.Thedifficultyoftalkingaboutspatialorformalconfigurationsinarchitecturehasalwaysseemedaratherperipheralproblemtoarchitecturaltheory.Isuggestitisthecentralproblem,andpartofamuchmoregeneralprobleminhumanaffairs. Letusbegintoexploretheintuitiveaspectsoftheideaofconfigurationalittlefurther.Considerthefourgroupsofelementsinfigure1.5.Eachgroupisadifferentsetof‘things’,butplacedinmoreorlessthesameoverall‘configuration’.Thehumanmindhasnodifficultyinseeingthattheconfigurationsarethesame,inspiteofthedifferencesintheconstituent‘things’,andthisshowsthatweeasilyrecogniseaconfiguration,evenwherewehavenowayofgivingitanameandthusassigningittoacategory—althoughwemighttrytodosobymakinganalogieswithconfigurationsforwhichnamesarealreadyathand,suchas‘L-shaped’,or‘star-shaped’.However,thefactthatourmindsrecognisedconfigurationsasbeingthesameevenwhenthereisnonameathandtolinkthemshowsthatourability




SpaceSyntax

torecogniseandunderstandconfigurationispriortotheassignmentofnames. Configurationseemsinfacttobewhatthehumanmindisgoodatintuitively,butbadatanalytically.Weeasilyrecogniseconfigurationwithoutconsciousthought,andjustaseasilyuseconfigurationsineverydaylifewithoutthinkingofthem,butwedonotknowwhatitiswerecogniseandwearenotconsciousofwhatitisweuseandhowweuseit.Wehavenolanguagefordescribingconfigurations,thatis,wehavenomeansofsayingwhatitisweknow.Thisproblemisparticularlysalientinbuildingsandarchitecture,becausebothhavetheeffectofimposingspatialandformalconfigurationontheworldinwhichwelive.Buttheproblemisnotconfinedtoarchitecture.Onthecontraryitappearstobepresenttosomedegreeinmostculturalandsocialbehaviours.Inusinglanguage,forexample,weareawareofwordsandbelievethatinspeakingandhearingwearehandlingwords.However,languageonlyworksbecauseweareabletousetheconfigurationalaspectsoflanguage,thatis,thesyntacticandsemanticruleswhichgovernhowwordsaretobeassembledintomeaningfulcomplexes,inawaywhichmakestheiroperationautomaticandunconscious.Inlanguagewecanthereforedistinguishideaswethinkof,thatis,thewordsandwhattheyrepresent,andideaswethinkwith,thatis,syntacticandsemanticruleswhichgovernhowwedeploywordstocreatemeaning.Thewordswethinkofseemtouslikethings,andareatthelevelofconsciousthought.Thehiddenstructureswethinkwithhavethenatureofconfigurationalrules,inthattheytellushowthingsaretobeassembled,andworkbelowthelevelofconsciousness.This‘unconsciousconfigurationality’seemstoprevailinallareaswhereweuserulesystemstobehaveinwayswhicharerecognisableassocial.Behaviourattable,ortheplayingofgames,appeartousasspatio-temporalevents,buttheyaregivenorderandpurposebytheunderlying

Figure 1.5




SpaceSyntax

configurational‘ideas-to-think-with’throughwhichtheseeventsaregenerated.Weacknowledgetheimportanceofthisunseenconfigurationalitylabellingitasaformofknowledge.Wetalkabout‘knowinghowtobehave’,or‘knowingalanguage’. Wecancallthiskindofknowledge‘socialknowledge’,andnotethatitspurposeistocreate,orderandmakeintelligiblethespatio-temporaleventsthroughwhichwerecognisethepresenceofcultureineverydaylife.Wemustofcoursetakecaretodistinguishsocialknowledgefromformsofknowledgewhichwelearninschoolsanduniversitieswhosepurposeistounderstandtheworldratherthantobehaveinit,andwhichwemightthereforecallanalytic,orscientificknowledge.Initself(thoughnotnecessarilyinitsconsequences)analyticknowledgeleavestheworldasitis,sinceitspurposeistounderstand.Analyticknowledgeisknowledgewherewelearntheabstractprinciplesthroughwhichspatio-temporalphenomenaarerelated—wemightsaythe‘configurationality’—consciously.Weareawareoftheprinciplesbothwhenweacquireandwhenweusetheknowledge.Asaresult,throughtheintermediaryoftheabstract,wegrasptheconcrete.Insocialknowledge,incontrast,knowledgeofabstractconfigurationalityisacquiredthroughtheprocessofcreatingandexperiencingspatio-temporalevents.Socialknowledgeworkspreciselybecausetheabstractprinciplesthroughwhichspatio-temporalphenomenaarebroughttogetherintomeaningfulpatternsareburiedbeneathhabitsofdoing,andneverneedbebroughttoconsciousattention.19

Inspiteofthesefunctionaldifferences,socialknowledgeandanalyticknowledgearemadeupofthesameelements:ontheonehand,thereisknowledgeofspatio-temporalphenomena,ontheother,thereareabstract‘configurational’structuresthatlinkthemtogether.Butwhereasinsocialknowledgetheabstractideasareheldsteadyasideastothinkwithinordertocreatespatio-temporaleventsintherealworld,sothattheabstractideasbecomethenormativebasesofbehaviour,inscientificknowledge,anattemptismadetoholdspatio-temporalphenomenasteadyinordertobringtheabstractstructuresthroughwhichweinterpretthemtothesurfaceinordertoexaminethemcriticallyand,ifnecessary,toreconstitutethem. Thiscanbeusefullyclarifiedbyadiagram,seefigure1.6.Thedifferencebetweenthetwoformsofknowledgeliesessentiallyinthedegreetowhichabstractideasareatthelevelofconsciousthoughtandthereforeatrisk.Thewholepurposeofscienceistoputtheabstract‘ideaswethinkwith’inmakingsenseofspatio-temporaleventsatrisk.Insocialknowledge,thewholepurposeofthe‘knowledge’wouldbeputatriskbybringingthemtoconsciousthoughtsincetheirfunctionistobeusednormativelytocreatesociety.However,itisclearlyapossibilitythattheabstractstructuresofsocialknowledgecould,aswithscience,themselvesbecometheobjectofconsciousthought.This,inanutshell,istheprogrammeof‘structuralism’.Theessenceofthestructuralistmethodistoask:canwebuildamodeloftheabstractprinciplesofasystem(e.g.language)that‘generates’allandonlythespatio-temporaleventsthatcanlegitimatelyhappen?Suchamodelwouldbeatheoryofthesystem.Itwould,forexample,‘explain’ourintuitivesense




SpaceSyntax

thatsomestringsofwordsaremeaningfulsentencesandothers—most—arenot.Structuralismisratherliketakingtheoutputofacomputerasthephenomenatobeexplained,andtryingtofindoutwhatprogrammecouldgenerateallandonlythesephenomena.Structuralismisanenquiryintotheunconsciousconfigurationalbasesofsocialknowledge,thatis,itisaninquiryintothenon-discursivedimensionsofsocialandculturalbehaviour.

Building as the transmission of culture through artefactsThespatialandformalpatternsthatarecreatedthroughbuildingsandsettlementsareclassicinstancesoftheproblemofnon-discursivity,bothinthesenseoftheconfigurationalnatureofideaswethinkwithincreatingandusingspace,andinthesenseoftheroletheseplayinsocialknowledge.Ashasalreadybeenindicated,oneofthemostpervasiveexamplesofthisisthedwelling.Domesticspacevariesinthedegreetowhichitissubjecttosocialknowledge,butitisnotuncommonforittobepatternedaccordingtocodesofconsiderableintricacywhichgovernwhatspacesthereare,howtheyarelabelled,howboundedtheyare,howtheyareconnectedandsequenced,whichactivitiesgotogetherinthemandwhichareseparated,whatindividualsorcategoriesofpersonshavewhatkindsofrightsinthem,howtheyaredecorated,whatkindsofobjectsshouldbedisplayedinthemandhow,andsoon.Thesepatternsvaryfromoneculturalgrouptoanother,butinvariablywehandledomesticspacepatternswithoutthinkingofthemandevenwithoutbeingawareofthemuntiltheyarechallenged.Ingeneral,weonlybecomeawareofthedegreeofpatterninginourownculturewhenweencounteranotherformofpatterninginanotherculture. Butdomesticspaceisonlythemostintensiveandcomplexinstanceofamoregeneralisedphenomenon.Buildingsandsettlementsofallkinds,andatalllevels,aresignificantlyunderpinnedbyconfigurationalnon-discursivity.Itisthroughthisthatbuildings—andindeedbuiltenvironmentsofallkinds—becomepartofwhatMargaretMeadcalled‘thetransmissionofculturethroughartefacts’.20Thistransmissionoccurslargelythroughtheconfigurationalaspectsofspaceandforminthoseenvironments.Forexample,wethinkconsciouslyofbuildingsasphysicalorspatialobjectsandwethinkoftheirpartsasphysicalorspatialparts,likecolumnsorrooms.Butwethinkof‘buildings’aswholeentitiesthroughtheunconsciousintermediaryofconfiguration,inthatwhenwethinkofaparticular

abstractprinciples spacial-temporalevents socialknowledge codes,rules speech,socialbehaviour, ideastothink spaces,ideastothink analyticknowledge theories,hypotheses ‘facts’,phenomena paradigms

Figure 1.6

What architecture adds to building3�



SpaceSyntax

kindofbuilding,weareconsciousnotonlyofanimageofanobject,butatthesametimeofthecomplexofspatialrelationsthatsuchabuildingentails.Asspace—andalsoasmeaningfulforms—buildingsareconfigurational,andbecausetheyareconfigurationaltheirmostimportantsocialandculturalpropertiesarenon-discursive.Itisthroughnon-discursivitythatthesocialnatureofbuildingsistransmitted,becauseitisthroughconfigurationthattherawmaterialsofspaceandformaregivensocialmeaning.Thesocialstuffofbuildings,wemaysay,istheconfigurationalstuff,bothinthesensethatbuildingsareconfigurationsofspacedesignedtoorderinspaceatleastsomeaspectsofsocialrelationships,andinthesensethatitisthroughthecreationofsomekindofconfigurationintheformofthebuildingthatsomethinglikeacultural‘meaning’istransmitted.

Building as processHowthencanthishelpusmakethedistinctionbetweenarchitectureandbuilding?Wenoteofcoursethatwenowbeginnotfromthenotionthatbuildingspriortoarchitectureareonlypracticalandfunctionalobjects,butfromthepropositionthatpriortoarchitecturebuildingsarealreadycomplexinstancesofthetransmissionofculturethroughartefacts.Thisdoesnotmeanofcoursethatbuildingsofthesametypeandculturewillbeidenticalwitheachother.Onthecontrary,itiscommonforvernaculararchitecturestoexhibitprodigiousvarietyatthelevelofindividualcases,somuchsothatthegroundsforbelievingthatthecasesconstituteinstancesofacommonvernacularstyle,eitherinformorspace,canbequitehardtopindown. Thecrucialstepinarrivingatourdefinitionofarchitectureistounderstandfirsthowthevernacularbuildersucceedsinmakingabuildingasacomplexrelationalstructurethroughwhichcultureistransmitted,whileatthesametimecreatingwhatwilloftenbeauniqueindividualbuilding.Wedonothavetolookfarfortheanswer.Thiscombinationofcommonstructureandsurfacevarietyisexactlywhatwefindwheresocialknowledgeisinoperationintheforminwhichwehavejustdescribedit:complexconfigurationalideasatthenon-discursivelevelguidethewaysinwhichwehandlespatio-temporalthingsatthesurfacelevel,andasaresultconfigurationalideasarerealisedintherealworld.Inbuildingterms,themanipulationofthespatialandformalelementswhichmakeupthebuildingwill,ifcarriedoutwithinthescopeofnon-discursiveconfigurationalideastothinkwith,whichgovernkeyaspectsoftheirformalandspatialarrangement,leadtoexactlythecombinationofunderlyingcommonstructureandsurfacevarietythatcharacterisesvernaculararchitecturesingeneral. Tounderstandhowthishappensinparticularcases,wecandrawontheremarkableworkofHenryGlassie.21GlassieproposesthatweadaptfromNoamChomsky’sstudiesoflanguageaconceptwhichhecalls‘architecturalcompetence.’‘Architecturalcompetence’isasetoftechnological,geometricalandmanipulativeskillsrelatingformtouse,whichconstitute‘anaccountnotofhowahouseismade,butofhowahouseisthought…setoutlikeaprogramme…aschemeanalogoustoagrammar,thatwillconsistofanoutlineofrulesetsinterruptedbyprosyexegesis’.




SpaceSyntax

Theanalogywithlanguageisapposite.Itsuggeststhattherulesetsthevernaculardesignerusesaretacitandtakenforgrantedinthesamewayastherulesetsthatgoverntheuseoflanguage.Theyareideasthedesignerthinkswithratherthanof.Theythereforehaveacertaindegreeofabstractionfromthematerialrealitytheyhelptocreate.Theyspecifynotthespecificbutthegeneric,sothatthevernaculardesignermayusetherulesasthebasisofacertainrestrainedcreativityininterpretingtherulesinnovelways. NowtheimplicationofGlassie’sideaisthat‘architecturalcompetence’providesasetofnormativerulesabouthowbuildingshouldbedone,sothatavernacularbuildingreproducesaknownandsociallyacceptedpattern.Thehousebuiltbyabuildersharingthecultureofacommunitycomesoutrightbecauseitdrawsonthenormativerulesthatdefinethearchitecturalcompetenceofthecommunity.Inthiswaybuildingsbecomeanaturalpartof‘thetransmissionofculturebyartefacts’.Throughdistinctivewaysofbuilding,aspectsofthesocialknowledgedistinctiveofacommunityarereproduced.Thusthephysicalactofbuilding,throughasystemofwelldefinedinstrumentalities,becomesthemeansbywhichthenon-discursivepatternswecallculturearetransmittedintoandthroughthematerialandspatialformsofbuildings.Thenon-discursiveaspectsofbuildingaretransmittedexactlyaswewouldexpectthemtobe:asunconsciouspatternimplicationsofthemanipulationofthings.

So what is architecture?Tounderstandbuilding,then,wemustunderstanditbothasaproductandasaprocess.Havingdonethis,wecanreturntoouroriginalquestion:whatisitthatarchitectureaddstobuilding?Byunpackingtheculturalandcognitivecomplexityofbuilding,itwillturnoutthatweareatlastinsightofananswer.Whateverarchitectureis,itmustinsomesensegobeyondtheprocessbywhichtheculturallysanctionednon-discursivitiesareembeddedinthespatialandphysicalformsofbuildings.Inwhatsense,then,isitpossibleto‘gobeyond’suchaprocess? Theanswerisnowvirtuallyimpliedintheformofthequestion.Architecturebeginswhentheconfigurationalaspectsofformandspace,throughwhichbuildingsbecomeculturalandsocialobjects,aretreatednotasunconsciousrulestobefollowed,butareraisedtothelevelofconscious,comparativethought,andinthiswaymadepartoftheobjectofcreativeattention.Architecturecomesintoexistence,wemaysay,asaresultofakindofintellectualprise de conscience:webuild,butnotasculturalautomata,reproducingthespatialandphysicalformsofourculture,butasconscioushumanbeingscriticallyawareoftheculturalrelativityofbuiltformsandspatialforms.Webuild,thatis,awareofintellectualchoice,andwethereforebuildwithreason,givingreasonsforthesechoices.Whereasinthevernacularthenon-discursiveaspectsofarchitecturearenormativeandhandledautonomically,inarchitecturethesecontentsbecometheobjectofreflectiveandcreativethought.Thedesignerisineffectaconfigurationalthinker.Theobjectofarchitecturalattentionispreciselytheconfigurationalideastothinkwiththatinthevernaculargovern




SpaceSyntax

configurationaloutcomes.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthedesignerdoesnotthinkofobjects.Itmeansthatatthesametimethedesignerthinksofconfiguration. Theessenceofarchitectureliesthereforeinbuildingnotbyreferencetoculturallyboundcompetences,andthewayinwhichtheyguidethenon-discursivecontentsofbuildingsthroughprogrammesofsocialknowledgespecifictooneculture,butbyreferencetoawould-beuniversalisticcompetencearrivedatthroughthegeneralcomparativestudyofformsaimedatprincipleratherthanculturalidiosyncrasy,and,throughthis,atinnovationratherthanculturalreduplication.Itiswhenweseeinthenon-discursivecontentsofbuildingsevidenceofthisconcernfortheabstractcomparabilityofformsandfunctionsthatbuildingistranscendedandarchitectureisnamed.Thisiswhythenotionofarchitectureseemstocontainwithinitselfaspectsofboththeproductwhichiscreatedandoftheintellectualprocessthroughwhichthiscreationoccurs. Architectureexists,wemightsay,wherewenoteasapropertyofthingsevidencenotonlyofacertainkindofsystematicintent—toborrowanexcellentphraseproposedbyacolleagueinreviewingthearchaeologicalrecordforthebeginningofarchitecture22—inthedomainofnon-discursivity,butofsomethingliketheoreticalintentinthatdomain.Inakeysensearchitecturetranscendsbuildinginthesamewaythatsciencetranscendsthepracticalcraftsofmakinganddoing.Itintroducesintothecreationofbuildingsanabstractconcernforarchitecturalpossibilitythroughtheprincipledunderstandingofformandfunction.Theinnovativeimperativeinarchitectureisthereforeinthenatureofthesubject.Weshouldnomorecriticisearchitectsfortheirpenchanttowardsinnovationthanweshouldscientists.Inbothcasesitfollowsfromthesociallegitimationswhichgiveeachitsnameandidentity.Botharchitectureandscienceusethegroundoftheoreticalunderstandingtomovefrompastsolutionstofuturepossibility,thelatterinthedirectionofnewtheoreticalconstructs,theformerinthedirectionofnewrealities.Thejudgmentwemakethatabuildingisarchitectureariseswhentheevidenceofsystematicintentisevidenceofintellectualchoiceanddecisionexercisedinafieldofknowledgeofpossibilitythatgoesbeyondcultureintoprinciple.Inthissense,architectureisaformofpracticerecognisableinitsproduct.Thejudgmentwemakethatabuildingisarchitecturecomeswhenweseeevidenceinthebuildingbothofsystematicintentwhichrequirestheabstractandcomparativemanipulationofformwithinthegeneralrealmofarchitecturalpossibility,andthatthisexplorationandthisexerciseofintellectualchoicehasbeensuccessfullyaccomplished. Architectureisthusbothathingandanactivity.Intheformofthethingwedetectevidenceofasystematicintentofthearchitecturalkind.Fromthebuiltevidencewecanjudgeboththatabuildingisintendedtobearchitectureand,ifwearesoinclined,thatitisarchitecture.Weseenowwhythedefinitionofarchitectureissodifficult.Becauseitisthetakingholdofthenon-discursivecontentsofbuildingbyabstract,universalisticthought,itisatonceanintentionalmentalactandapropertyweseeinthings.Itisbecauseweseeinthingstheobjectivisedrecordofsuchthoughtthatwenametheresultarchitecture.




SpaceSyntax

Itisclearfromthisanalysisthatarchitecturedoesnotdependonarchitects,butcanexistwithinthecontextofwhatwewouldnormallycallthevernacular.Totheextentthatthevernacularshowsevidenceofreflectivethoughtandinnovationatthelevelofthegenotype,thenthatisevidenceofthekindofthoughtwecallarchitecturalwithinthevernacular.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheinnovativeproductionofbuildingswhicharephenotypicallyindividualwithinavernacularshouldbethoughtofasarchitecture.Suchphenotypicalvarietyisnormalastheproductofculturallyconstrainednon-discursivecodes.Itisonlywhentheinnovation,andthereforethereflectivethought,changesthecodethatunderliestheproductionofphenotypesthatwedetectthepresenceofabstractandcomparative—andthereforearchitectural—thoughtwithintheconfinesofvernaculartradition.Itisthereforeperhapsattimesofthegreatestchangethatwebecomeawareofthistypeofthoughtinvernaculartraditions,thatis,whenanewvernaculariscomingintoexistence.Thisiswhythedemarcationbetweenthevernacularandarchitectureconstantlyshifts.Thereproductionofexistingforms,vernacularorotherwise,isnotarchitecturebecausethatrequiresnoexerciseofabstractcomparativethought,buttheexploitationofvernacularformsinthecreationofnewformscanbearchitecture. Architectureexiststhentothedegreethatthereisgenotypicalinventioninthenon-discursive,thatis,inventionwiththerulesthatgovernthevariabilitythatispossiblewithinastyle.Thepreconditionforsuchinventionisanawarenessofpossibilitieswhicharenotcontainedincontemporaryculturalknowingbutwhichareatthesametimewithinthelawsofwhatisarchitecturallypossible.Architectureischaracterisedthereforebyapreoccupationwithnon-discursivemeansratherthannon-discursiveends.Thisisnottheoutcomeofaperverserefusaltounderstandtheculturalnatureofbuilding,butatakingholdofthisveryfactasapotentialitytoexploretheinterfacebetweenhumanlifeanditsspatialandphysicalmilieu.Intheactofarchitecturalcreation,theconfigurationalpotentialitiesofspaceandformaretherawmaterialswithwhichthecreatorworks. Likeanycreativeartist,therefore,thearchitectmustseektolearn,throughintellectualinquiry,thelimitsandpotentialitiesoftheserawmaterials.Intheabsenceofsuchinquiry,therearemanifestandimmediatedangers.Inthevernacularthepatternofformandthepatternofspacewhichgivethebuildingitssocialcharacterarerecreatedthroughthemanipulationandassemblingofobjects.Wecansaythenthattheform,thespatialpatternandthefunctionalpattern—theform-functionrelation,inshort—areknowninadvanceandneedonlyberecreated.Becausearchitectureofitsnatureunlinksthepatternaspectsofthebuildingfromtheirdependenceonsocialknowledge,theseaspectsofthebuilding—andabovealltheirrelationtosocialoutcomes—becomeuncertain. Inarchitecturethen,becausethesecrucialrelationsbetweennon-discursiveformsandoutcomesarenotknowninadvance,architecturehastorecreateinanew,moregeneralisedform,theknowledgeconditionsthatprevailinthevernacular.Becausearchitectureisacreativeact,theremustbesomethingintheplaceofthesocialknowledgestructureasideastothinkwith.Sincearchitectureisbased




SpaceSyntax

onthegeneralcomparabilityofpossibleforms,thisknowledgecannotsimplyencompassparticularcases.Itmustencompasstherangeofpossiblecasesandifpossiblecasesingeneral.Thereisonlyonetermforsuchknowledge.Itistheoreticalknowledge.Wewillseeinthenextchapterthatallarchitecturaltheoriesareattemptstosupplyprincipledknowledgeofthenon-discursive,thatis,torenderthenon-discursivediscursiveinawaythatmakesitaccessibletoreason.Intheabsenceofsuchknowledge,architecturecanbe,asthetwentiethcenturyhasseen,adangerousart. Thepassagefrombuildingtoarchitectureissummarisedinfigure1.7.Theimplicationofthisisthat,althoughweknowthedifferencebetweenarchitectureandbuilding,thereisnohardandfastlinetobedrawn.Eithercanbecometheotheratanymoment.Takingabroaderviewwhichencompassesboth,wecansaythatintheevolutionofbuildingwenotetwowaysinwhichthingsaredone:inobediencetoatradition,orinpursuitofinnovation.Buildingcontainsarchitecturetothedegreethatthereisnon-discursiveinvention,andarchitecturebecomesbuildingtothedegreethatthereisnot.Vernacularinnovationisthereforeincludedwithinarchitecture,butthereduplicationofvernacularformsisnot.Architectureisthereforenotsimplywhatisdonebuthowitisdone. Thebringingofthenon-discursive,configurationdimensionofbuiltformfromculturalreproductiontoreflectiveawarenessandabstractexplorationofpossibilityisatonceapassagefromthenormativetotheanalyticandfromtheculture-boundtotheuniversal,thelattermeaningthatallpossibilitiesareopenratherthansimplythepermutationsandphenotypicalinnovationsthataresanctionedbythevernacular.Thepassageisalsoonewhichtransformstheideaofknowledgefromculturalprincipletotheoreticalabstraction. Inastrongsense,then,architecturerequirestheory.Ifitdoesnothavetheoreticalknowledge,thenitwillcontinuetodependonsocialknowledge.Worse,thereiseverypossibilitythatarchitecturecancometobebasedonsocialknowledgemasqueradingastheoreticalknowledge,whichwillbeallthemoredangerousbecausearchitectureoperatesintherealmsofthenon-discursivethroughwhichsocietyistransmittedthroughbuilding.23Architectureisthereforepermanentlyenjoinedtotheoreticaldebate.Itisinitsnaturethatitshouldbeso.Inthatitistheapplicationofreflectiveabstractthoughttothenon-discursivedimensionsofbuilding,andinthatitisthroughthesedimensionsthatoursocialandculturalnaturesareinevitablyengaged,architectureistheoryappliedtobuilding.Inthenextchapterwewillthereforeconsiderwhatwemeanbytheoryinarchitecture.




SpaceSyntax

NotesJ.Ruskin:Seven Lamps of Architecture,London1849,chap.1.Theliteratureonvernaculararchitectureascultureisnowextensive,andgrowingrapidly.AmongtheseminaltextsofferingwidecoverageareRudovsky’sArchitecture Without Architects,1964;PaulOliver’sShelter and Society,Barrie&Rockliff,TheCressetPress,1969anditsfollow-upShelter in Africa,Barrie&Jenkins,London,1971;AmosRapoport’sHouse Form and Culture,PrenticeHall,1969;LabellePrussin’sclassicreviewofthecontrastingvernacularswithinaregion,Architecture in Northern Ghana,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1969;SusanDenyer’sAfricanTraditionalArchitecture,Heineman,1978;andKajAndersen’sAfricanTraditionalArchitecture,OxfordUniversityPress,1977;inadditiontoearlieranthropologicalclassicssuchasC.DaryllForde’sHabitat, Economy and Society,Methuen,1934.Studiesofspecificculturesarenowtoonumeroustomention,asarethemuchlarge-numberoftextswhichhavenowdealtwiththearchitectureofparticularculturesandregions,butwhicharenotyetavailableinEnglish.Amongrecentstudiesofthevernacular,themostimportanttomymind—andbyfarthemostinfluentialinthistext—hasbeentheworkofHenryGlassie,andinparticularhisFolk Housing in Middle Virginia,UniversityofTennesseePress,1975,referencestowhich,explicitandimplicit,recurthroughoutthistext.Thesamehasoftenbeensaidof‘industrial’architecture.J.M.Richards,forexample,inhisAn Introduction to Modern Architecture,Penguin,1940,describes

Figure 1.7

12

3




SpaceSyntax

ThomasTelford’sStKatharine’sDockas‘Typicalofthesimplebutnobleengineer’sarchitectureofhistime’.RogerScruton,The Aesthetics of Architecture,.Methuen,1977.Ibid.,p.16.ForarecentrestatementofthisbeliefseeS.Gardiner,The Evolution of the House,Paladin,1976.Seeforexampleprehistoricalsectionsofthemostrecent(nineteenth)editionofSirBanisterfletcher’sA History of Architecture (editedbyProfessorJohnMusgrove)writtenbymycolleagueDrJulienneHanson.Itisacommentonarchitecturalhistorythatitisonlyveryrecentlythatthetrueantiquityofbuildinghasbeenreflectedinthehistoriesofworldarchitecture.SomeofDrHanson’ssourcesareinthemselvesremarkabletextswhichifbetterknownwouldentirelychangepopularconceptionofthehistorynotonlyofbuildingbutalsoofhumansociety.ThekeytextsaregiveninDrHanson’sbibliography,butIwouldsuggesttheremarkableR.G.Klein,Ice Age Hunters of the Ukraine,ChicagoandLondon,1973asagoodstartingpoint.B.Russell,The Problems of Philosophy,HomeUniversityLibrary,1912,OxfordUniversityPresspaperback,1959;Chapter9‘Theworldofuniversals’.R.A.Scruton,The Aesthetics of Architecture,p.43etseq.R.A.Scruton,A Short History of Modern Philosophy: from Descartes to Wittgenstein,ARKPaperbacks,1984.R.Descartes,The Principles of Philosophy,Part2,PrincipleXinThe Philosophical Works of Descartes,CambridgeUniversityPress,vol.1,p.259.Descartes,PrincipleXI,p.259.Descartes,PrincipleX,p.259.Graphswhichhavethispropertyarecalled‘planar’graphs.Anyspatiallayoutononelevel,consideredasagraphofthepermeabilityrelations,isboundtobeplanar.TheseexamplesaretakenfromastudyofseventeenhousesinNormandycarriedoutfortheCentreNationaledeRechercheScientifique,andpublishedas‘Ideasareinthings’inEnvironment and Planning B, Planning and Design 1987,vol.14,pp.363–85.ThisarticlethenformedoneofthebasicsourcesforamuchmoreextendedtreatmentinJ.Cuisenier,La Maison Rustique: logique social et composition architecturale,PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,1991.The‘normalisation’formulafortakingtheeffectofthenumberelementsinthegraphoutofthetotaldepthcalculationfromanelementis2(md–1)/k–2,wheremdisthemeandepthofotherelementsfromtherootelement,andkisthenumberofelements.ThereisadiscussionofthismeasureinP.Steadman,Architectural Morphology,Pion,1983,p.217.ThemeasurewasfirstpublishedinHillieretal.,‘SpaceSyntax:anewurbanperspective’intheArchitect’s Journal,no48,vol.178,30.11.83.ThereisanextensivediscussionofitstheoreticalfoundationsandwhyitissoimportantinspaceinHillierandHanson,The Social Logic of Space,CambridgeUniversityPress,1984.Themeasuretheoreticallyeliminatestheeffectofthenumbersofelementsinthesystem.However,inarchitecturalandurbanrealitythereisanadditionalproblem:bothbuildingsandsettlements,forpracticalandempirical

456

7

8

910

11

121314

15

16




SpaceSyntax

reasons(aswillbefullydiscussedinChapter9)tendtobecomerelativelylessdeepastheygrow.Asecond,‘empirical’normalisationformulaisthereforerequiredtotakeaccountofthis.SuchaformulaissetoutinThe Social Logic of Space,whichhasprovedrobustinuse,buthasbeenextensivelydiscussed,forexampleinJ.Teklenberg,H.Timmermans&A.vanWagenberg,‘Spacesyntax:standardisedintegrationmeasuresandsomesimulations’,Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design,vol.20,1993,pp.347–57.SeealsoM.Kruger,‘Onnodeandaxialgridmaps:distancemeasuresandrelatedtopics’,paperfortheEuropeanConferenceontheRepresentationandManagementofUrbanChange,Cambridge,September1989,UnitforArchitecturalStudies,UniversityCollegeLondon.Thereisafurthermeasurecalled‘differencefactor’,whichexpresseshowstrongthesedifferencesare,setoutin‘Ideasareinthings’,citedinnote15above.Itshouldbenotedthattheargumentinthepaperfromwhichtheseexamplesaretaken,‘Ideasareinthings’isagreatdealmorecomplexthanthatpresentedheretoillustratethetechnique.Infact,itwasproposedthattwofundamentaltypologicaltendencieswouldbeidentifiedwithinthesample,whichweremoretodowithdiffer-encesintherelationsofthesexesthananythingelse.AnewversionofthispaperwillbepublishedinJ.Hanson,The Social Logic of Houses,forthcomingfromCambridgeUniversityPress.TheseissuesaredealtwithatgreaterlengthandforaslightlydifferentpurposeinChapter7.MargaretMead,Continuities in Cultural Evolution,YaleUniversityPress,1964,Chapter5.Forexample,HenryGlassie,Folk Housing in Middle Virginia.J.Hanson,writtenfortheintendedEncyclopaedia of Architecture,McGraw-Hill,NewYork,butnotyetpublished.Wewillseeinlaterchapters,andparticularlyinChapters6and11,exactlyhowthiscanoccurandwhatitsconsequencesare.

17

18

19

20

2122

23

The need for an analytic theory of architecture

Chapter two



SpaceSyntax

Do architects need theories?Inthepreviouschapter,architecturewasdefinedasthetakingintoreflectivethoughtofthenon-discursive,orconfigurational,aspectsofspaceandforminbuildings.Invernaculartraditions,theseaspectsaregovernedbythetakenforgrantedideas to thinkwithofaculture.Inarchitecture,ideas to think withbecomeideas to think of.Spatialandformalconfigurationinbuildingsceasestobeamatterofculturalreproductionandbecomesamatterofspeculativeandimaginativeenquiry. Itfollowsfromthisdefinitionthatarchitectureisanaspiration,notagiven.Tobringtoconsciousthoughttheprinciplesthatunderliethespatialandformalpatternsthattransmitculturethroughbuildings,andtoformulatepossiblealternativesthatworkasthough they were culture—sincearchitecturemustbeanadditiontoculturenotsimplyaremovalofit—isanintellectualaswellasacreativetask.Itrequiresnotonlytheconceptualisationofpatternandconfiguration invacuo,butalsocomparativeknowledgeandreflectivethought.Thisiswhyarchitectureisareflectiveaswellasanimaginativeproject,onewhichseekstoreplace—oratleasttoaddto—thesocialknowledgecontentofbuildingwithanenquiryintoprincipleandpossibility. Architecturaltheoryistheultimateaimofthisreflection.Anarchitecturaltheoryisanattempttorenderoneorotherofthenon-discursivedimensionsofarchitecturediscursive,bydescribinginconcepts,wordsornumberswhattheconfigurationalaspectsofformorspaceinbuildingsarelike,andhowtheycontributetothepurposesofbuilding.Inasense,theorybeginsatthemomentarchitecturebegins,thatis,whenspatialandformalconfigurationinbuildings,andtheirexperientialandfunctionalimplications,arenolongergiventhroughatraditionofsocialknowledgetransmittedthroughtheactofbuildingitself.Assoonasbuildingmovesfreefromthesafeconfinesofculturalprogramming,somethinglikeatheoryofarchitectureisneededtosupportthecreativeactbyproposingamoregeneralunderstandingofthespatialandformalorganisationofbuildingsthanisavailablewithinthelimitsofasingleculture. Thisisnottosaythatcreativearchitecturedependsontheory.Itdoesnot.Butinthatarchitectureistheapplicationofspeculativeabstractthoughttothematerialworldinwhichwelive,thereflectiveaspectsofarchitecturalenquiryleadtotheformulationifnotoftheorythenatleastoftheory-likeideas.Theneedfortheorybecomesgreaterasarchitectureadvances.Theoryismostrequiredwhenarchitecturebecomestrulyitself,thatis,whenitbecomesthefreeexplorationofformalandspatialpossibilityinthesatisfactionofthehumanneedforbuildings. However,thefactthattheoryisaninevitableaspectofarchitecturedoesnotmeanthatalltheorieswillhaveapositiveeffectonarchitecture.Onthecontrary,thedependenceofarchitectureontheoreticalideascreatesanewtypeofrisk:thattheoriesmaybewrong,maybedisastrouslywrong.Themuchdiscussed‘failure’ofmodernisminarchitectureisseenasatleastthefailureofatheory—themostambitiousandcomprehensiveeverproposed—andevenbysomeasthefailureoftheveryideaofatheoryofarchitecture.

39


40



SpaceSyntax

Asaresult,inthelatetwentiethcenturyanumberofnewquestionsareposedabouttheoriesofarchitecturewhicharealsoquestionsaboutarchitectureitself.Doesarchitecturereallyneedtheories,oraretheyjustapretentiousadjuncttoanessentiallypracticalactivity?Ifarchitecturedoesneedtheories,thenwhataretheylike?Aretheylikescientifictheories?Oraretheyaspecialkindoftheoryadaptedforarchitecturalpurposes?Ifarchitecturaltheoriescanbewrong,andhaveapparentlyadverseconsequences,thencantheyalsoberight?Howcanwesetaboutmakingarchitecturaltheoriesbetter?Andmostdifficultofall:howcanarchitectureasacreativeartbereconciledtothedisciplinesoftheory?Arethetwonotopposedtoeachother,inthatbettertheoriesmustleadinevitablytotheeliminationofarchitecturalfreedom. Theanswerproposedinthischapteristhatonceweacceptthattheobjectofarchitecturaltheoryisthenon-discursive—thatis,theconfigurational—contentofspaceandforminbuildingsandbuiltenvironments,thentheoriescanonlybedevelopedbylearningtostudybuildingsandbuiltenvironmentsasnon-discursive objects.Tohaveatheoryofnon-discursivityinarchitectureingeneralwemustfirstbuildacorpusofknowledgeaboutthenon-discursivecontentsofarchitectureasaphenomenon.Thisofcourserunscountertomostcurrenteffortsinarchitecturaltheory,whichseektobuildtheoryeitherthroughtheborrowingofconceptsfromotherfields,orthroughintrospectionandspeculation. However,theproductofthefirst-handstudyofnon-discursivityinbuildingsandbuiltenvironmentswillleadtoanewkindoftheory:ananalytictheoryofarchitecture,thatis,onewhichseekstounderstandarchitectureasaphenomenon,beforeitseekstoguidethedesigner.Ananalytictheoryofarchitectureis,itwillbeargued,thenecessarycorollaryofarchitecturalautonomy.Withouttheprotectionofananalytictheory,architectureisinevitablysubjecttomoreandmoreexternallyimposedrestrictionsthatsubstitutesocialideologyforarchitecturalcreativity.Analytictheoryisnecessaryinordertoretaintheautonomyofcreativeinnovationonwhichtheadvanceofarchitecturedepends.

Are architectural theories just precepts for builders?Beforewecanembarkonthetaskofbuildingananalytictheoryofarchitecture,however,wemustfirstexploretheideaoftheoryinarchitecturealittletopreventourenquirybeingobscuredbysomeofthemorecommonmisconceptions.Architecturaltheoriesdotakeaverydistinctiveform,butallisnotasitseemsatfirstsight,anditisimportantthatwedonotallowappearancestodisguisetheirtruenatureandpurposes. Wemayusefullybeginbyexaminingtheviewsofawell-knowncriticofarchitecturaltheories.Inhis1977polemicagainstarchitecturalmodernismanditsintellectualfashions,The Aesthetics of Architecture1RogerScrutonisdismissiveoftheveryideaofatheoryofarchitecture:‘Architecturaltheory’,hesaysinafootnote,is‘usuallythegestureofapracticalman,unusedtowords’.Elsewherehegoesfurther.Thereisnotandcannotbeatheoryofarchitecture.Whathasbeencalled


4�



SpaceSyntax

architecturaltheoryaremerely‘…precepts…which…guidethebuilder’.Whilesuchpreceptscanbeusefulcanons,theycanneveramounttoarealtheory,becausetheycannotbeuniversal,anditisonlywiththeclaimtouniversalitythattheoryarises.2

Atfirstsight,Scrutonseemstoberight.Forthemostpart—modernismisoneofthefewexceptions—weassociatetheoriesofarchitecturewithindividualarchitects.WhenwethinkofPalladio’sorLeCorbusier’stheoryofarchitecturewetakeittomeansomethingliketheintellectualgroundofastyle,thegenericprinciplesunderlyinganapproachtodesign.Itseemsselfevidentthatnosuchprinciplescouldeverbeuniversal.Theideaevenleadstoparadox.Auniversalformulaforarchitecturewould,iffollowed,renderarchitecturethesameandunchanging,andthereforeultimatelydull. Butdoestheoryinarchitecturereallyonlymeanaformulaforarchitecturalsuccess?Ascientistwouldfindthisastrangeuseoftheword‘theory’.Forascientistatheoryisarationalconstructintendedtocapturethelawfulnessofhowtheworldis,notasetofguidelinesastohowitshould be.Scientifictheorieshelpusactontheworld,butonlybecausetheyhavefirstdescribedtheworldindependentlyofanyviewofhowitshouldbe.Theessenceofscienceisthatitstheoriesareanalytic,notnormativeinintent.Theydescribehowtheworldis,notprescribehowitoughttobe. Mightwethensuggestthatthisisexactlythedifferencebetweenarchitecturalandscientifictheories,namelythatscientifictheoriesareanalytic,andaboutunderstandinghowthingsare,whereasarchitecturaltheoriesarenormative,andabouttellinguswhattodo?Thereseemstobesometruthinthis.Itisreasonabletosaythatarchitectureisabouthowtheworldshouldberatherthanhowitis,andthatitstheoriesshouldthereforetendtoexpressaspirationsratherthanrealities.Infact,oncloserexamination,itturnsoutthatthisisnotandcanneverbethecase.Admittedly,architecturaltheoriesarenormallypresentedinnormativeform,butatadeeperleveltheyarenolessanalyticthanscientifictheories. Takeforexample,twotheorieswhichareaboutasfarapartastheycouldbeinfocusandcontent,Alberti’stheoryofproportion,3andOscarNewman’stheoryof‘defensiblespace’.4Botharepresentedaspreceptsforsuccessfuldesign,inthatbothauthors’booksareaimedprimarilyatguidingthearchitecturalpractitionerindesign,ratherthanexplainingthenatureofarchitecturalexperienceasexperienced,asScruton’sbookis.Butifwereadthetextscarefully,wefindthatthisisnotalltheyare.Ineachcase,thenormativecontentoftheworkrestsonclear,ifbroad,analyticfoundations.Alberti’stheoryofproportionrestsonthePythagoreannotionofmathematicalforminnature,5andthecoincidenceitassertsbetweentheprinciplesofnaturalformandthepowersofthemind,asevidencedbytherelationshipbetweenoursenseofharmonyinmusicandthesimplenumericalratiosonwhichthoseharmoniesarebased.Ifarchitecturefollowsthemathematicalprinciplesfoundinnature,Albertiargues,thenitcannothelpreproducingtheintelligibilityandharmonythatwefindinnaturalforms.Similarly,Newman’s‘defensiblespace’theoryrestsonthetheoryof‘humanterritoriality’,bywhichgenetictendenciesincertainspeciestodefendterritoryagainstothersofthespecies,aregeneralisedtohumanbeings,both


42



SpaceSyntax

asindividualsand—mistakenlyinmyview—asgroups.If,Newmanargues,architectsdesignspaceinconformitywith‘territorial’principles,thenitwillbefollowingbiologicaldrivesbuiltintousbynature.6

Itisnotablethatinbothofthesetheories,theprinciplesfordesignaresaidtobebasedonprinciplestobefoundinnature.Inaverystrongsense,then,inbothcasesthenormativecontentofthetheorydependsontheanalytic.Onreflection,itmustbesotosomedegreeinallcases.Anytheoryabouthowweshouldacttoproduceacertainoutcomeintheworldmustlogicallydependonsomepriorconceptionofhowtheworldisandhowitwillrespondtoourmanipulations.Carefulexaminationwillshowthatthisisalwaysthecasewitharchitecturaltheories.Weinvariablyfindthatthepreceptsaboutwhatdesignersshoulddoaresetinapriorframeworkwhichdescribeshowtheworldis.Sometimesthisframeworkisexplicitlysetout,andrestsonaspecificscientificorquasi-scientificfoundation,asinthetwocaseswehaveinstanced.Sometimesitismuchmoreimplicit,reflectingnomorethanacurrentlyfashionablewayoflookingattheworld,asforexamplemanyrecenttheorieshaverestedonthefashionableassumptionthat‘everythingisalanguage’sothatdesignerscanandshoulddesignfollowingtheprinciplesoflinguistictheoriesinmakingtheirbuildings‘meaningful’. Althoughpresentednormatively,then,architecturaltheoriesmusthaveagreatdealofanalyticcontent,whetherthisisexplicitorimplicit.Inpointoffact,facedwithanarchitecturaltheory,ourfirstreactionwouldusuallybetotreatitexactlyaswewouldascientifictheory.Offeredageneralpropositiononwhichtobasearchitecturalpreceptsfordesign—sayapropositionaboutthepsychologicalimpactofacertainproportionalsystemsorthebehaviouraleffectsofacertainkindofspatialorganisation—ourfirstreactionwouldbetoquestionthegeneralproposition,oratleasttosubjectittotestbyareviewofcases.Weusuallyfindquitequicklythatwould-begeneralpropositionsrunfoulofcasesknowntous,whichwetheninstanceascounter-examplestothetheory.Inotherwords,wetreatanarchitecturaltheoryverymuchinthesamewayaswewouldtreatascientifictheory:thatis,wetreatitasananalytictheorybytryingtofindcounter-exampleswhichwouldrefuteitsgenerality.Evenwhenitsurvives,wewouldbeinclinedtotreatitwithcontinuingscepticismasatbestaprovisionalgeneralisation,whichwecanmakeuseofuntilabetteronecomesalong. Itisamistake,then,totreatarchitecturaltheoriessimplyasnormativeprecepts,asScrutondoes.Architecturaltheoriesarenotandcannotbesimplynormative,butareatleastanalytic-normativecomplexes,inwhichthenormativeisconstructedonthebasisoftheanalytic.Itfollowsthatproperlytheoreticalcontentofarchitecturaltheoriesisspecifiedbytheanalytic.Iftheanalytictheoryiswrong,thenthelikelihoodisthatthebuildingwillnotrealiseitsintention.Architecturaltheories,wemightsay,areabouthowtheworldshouldbe,butonlyinthelightofhowitisbelievedtobe.


43



SpaceSyntax

Theories in designWhyshouldarchitecturaltheoriestakethisdistinctiveformofcombiningpropositionsabouthowtheworldshouldbewithpropositionsabouthowitisbelievedtobe?Theansweristobefoundinthenatureofwhatarchitectsdo,thatis,design.Throughitsnatureasanactivity,designraisesissuestowhicharchitecturaltheoristsproposesolutionsintheformofanalytic-normativecomplexesoftheoreticalideas.Tounderstandwhythisisso,wemustunderstandalittleaboutdesign. Designisofcourseonlyapartoftheprotractedprocessesbywhichbuildingscomeintoexistence.The‘buildingprocess’involvesformulatinganeedforapossiblebuilding,conceptualisingwhatitmightbelike,initiatingaprocessofresourcing,negotiatingandorganising,creatingsomekindofrepresentation,orseriesofrepresentationsofincreasingrefinement,ofwhatthebuildingwillbelike,thenconstructing,fitting,operationalising,andfinallyoccupyingthecompletedbuilding.Vernacularbuildingisofcoursealesscomplexprocess.Butifthecircumstancesexistinwhich‘design’isafunction,thenthecorollaryisthatthismorecomplexbuildingprocess,orsomethingapproximatingtoit,alsoexists.Designdoesnotexistasafunctionindependentofthislargerprocess.Onthecontrary,itimpliesit. Howthendowedefinedesignwithinthisprocess?First,wenotethatitisonlyattheendoftheprocessthattheobjectoftheprocess—anoccupiedbuilding—exists.Formostofitsduration,theprocessisorganisedaroundasurrogateforthebuildingintheformofanabstractideaorrepresentationwhichcontinuallychangesitsform.Itbeginsasanideaforthebuilding,thenbecomesanideaofthebuilding,thenamoreformalisedconcept,thenaseriesofmoreandmorerefinedrepresentations,thenasetofinstructionsandfinallyabuilding.Forthemostpart,thecomplexprocessofbuildingtakesplacearoundthisshifting,clarifying,graduallymaterialisingidea. Theprocessofseeking,fixing,andrepresentingarealisableconceptofabuildingfromanideaforabuildingisdesign.Designiswhatarchitectsdo,thoughitisnotalltheydo,andnotonlyarchitectsdoit.Butitisdesignthatkeepswhatarchitectsdo—whetherornotitisarchitectsthatdoit—fixedintheprocessofcreatingbuildings.Therehastobeacontroloftheprocessofsearchingout,conceptualising,andrepresentingthesurrogatebuildingthroughtheprocess.Letuscallthisthe‘designfunction’,sothatwecanseethatitisindependentofwhoactuallycarriesitout. Thedesignfunctionexistswithinthebuildingprocessforonefundamentalreason:becauseatallstagesoftheprocess—thoughwithdifferingdegreesofaccuracy—thepropertiesandperformanceofthebuildingasitwillbewhenbuiltmustbeforeseeninadvance,thatis,theymustbeknowablefromthesurrogate.Withoutthisforesight,thecommitmentsofresourcesnecessaryateachstageoftheprocesscannotbemadewithconfidence.Thedesignfunctionisessentiallyamatterofstage-managingaconstantlychangingrepresentationofwhatwilleventuallybeabuilding,sothatatallstagesoftheprocessthereisinviewaproposalforanobject


44



SpaceSyntax

thatdoesnotyetexist,andwhichisprobablyunique—sinceifitwereacopytherewouldbenoneedfordesign—butwhosetechnical,spatial,functionalandaestheticpropertiesifandwhenbuiltare,asfaraspossible,predictableinadvance. Thedesignfunctioninthebuildingprocessthereforeinvolvesontheonehandsearchingoutandcreatingarepresentationofapossiblesolutionforthedesignprobleminhand,andontheotherthepredictionoftheperformanceofthebuildingwhenbuiltfromtherepresentation.Theactivitiesthatmakeupthedesignprocessreflectthisduality.Designessentiallyisacyclicprocessofgeneratingpossibledesignproposals,thenselectingandrefiningthembytestingthemagainsttheobjectivesthebuildingmustsatisfy—tobebeautiful,tobecheap,tobeostentatious,torepresentanidea,torepayinvestment,tofunctionforanorganisationbyprovidingadequateandwell-orderedaccommodation,andsoon.7Thesetwobasicaspectstothedesignprocesscanbecalledthecreativephasesandthepredictivephases.Inthecreativephasestheobjectistocreatepossibledesignproposals.Inthepredictivephases,theobjectistoforeseehowproposalswillworktosatisfytheobjectives. Onceweunderstandthecreative-predictivenatureofthedesignprocess,thenitiseasytoseehowthenormativeandanalyticaspectsoftheoriescanusefullycontributetotheprocess.Theoriescanbeused,andoftenareused,tacitlyorexplicitly,intwoquitedistinctmodesinthedesignprocess:asaidstothecreativeprocessofarrivingatadesign;andasaidstotheanalyticprocessofpredictinghowaparticulardesignwillworkandbeexperienced.Oftenofcoursethesetwoaspectswillbeconflatedinaundifferentiatedthoughtprocess.Thenormativeaspectsofatheorytellsthedesignerwheretosearchforcandidatesolutionsinthecreativephases,theanalyticaspectshowthesolutionwillwork.Forexample,ifyouareaPalladian,theninthecreativephasesofdesignyousearchforaformalandspatialsolutionwithPalladianproperties—acertainrangeofenvelopegeometries,certainsymmetriesofplanandfaçade,certainkindsofdetailing,andsoon—confidentthatifyouproceedinaPalladianmannerthenyoucanpredictaPalladianoutcome.IfyouareaNewmanite,thenyousearchforformalandspatialsolutionswithacertainlayeringofspatialhierarchies,certainpossibilitiesofsurveillance,theavoidanceofcertainformalthemesandsoon,againconfidentthatbyproceedingthiswayasafeenvironmentwillresult.Theorythusstructuresthesearchforapossibledesigninasolutionspacethatmightotherwisebebothvastandunstructured,anditdoessoinawaythatgivesthedesignerconfidence—whichmayofcoursebequitemisplaced—thatthenatureandpropertiesoftheeventualbuildingcanbeknownfromthetheory. Theuseoftheoryisofcourseonlyonewayofstructuringthedesignprocess.Infactfewdesignersclaimtocreatedesignsfromtheory,andmanywouldgooutoftheirwaytodenyit.Butthisdoesnotmeanthattheydonotdesignundertheinfluenceoftheory.Muchuseoftheoreticalideasinarchitectureistacitratherthanexplicit.Thisisnotduetomalignintentonthepartofdesigners,butmuchmoretodowiththeneedfortheoryindesign,howeverlittlethisisrecognised.


45



SpaceSyntax

Consider,forexample,theproblemofprediction.Havingcreatedacandidatedesign,thedesignernowhasthetaskofforeseeinghowthe‘unknownnon-discursivities’offormandspacethatwillbecreatedbythedesignwillworkandbeexperiencedwhenbuilt.Logicallythereareonlytwopossiblebasesforsuchprediction:knownprecedentandtheoreticalprinciple.Predictionbyprecedentmeanspredictionbyreferencetoknowncasesthatalreadyexist.Predictionbyprinciplemeanspredictionbyreferencetothegeneralityofknowncases.Bothareessentiallyclaimsbasedonexperience,buttheformerisspecific,andthelattergeneral. Predictionfromprecedentraisestwoproblems.Theideaofarchitectureincludestheideathatthebuildingtobecreatedwillnotsimplybeacopyofonewhichexists.Thismeansthatprecedentcannotbeusedlockstockandbarrelforthewholebuilding.Precedentcanthereforeonlybeusedpiecemealforaspectsorpartsofthebuilding.Sinceformallyandspatiallybuildingsarecomplexconfigurations,andnotsimplyassemblagesofparts,itcanneverbeclearthatthenewembeddingofaprecedentattributeorpartwillnotworkdifferentlyinthecontextofthenewwhole.Theuseofprecedentindesignisnecessary,sinceitbringsinconcreteevidenceinsupportofprediction,butitisneversufficient,becauseeachnewsynthesisrecontextualiseseachaspectofprecedent.Theuseofprecedentthereforenecessarilyinvolvesinterpretation. Thepressureondesignerstoworkatleastinpartfromknowledgeoftheoreticalprincipleisthereforeintense.Theapparentadvantagetothearchitectofworkingwithinaparticulartheorybecomesthesolutiontothepredictionproblemappearsalreadytobecontainedwithinthetheory.Thenormativetheoreticalconceptsthatguidethegenerationofacandidatedesignalsotaketheformofanalyticconceptswhichindicatethatifthedesignerfollowsthepreceptsofthetheory,thenitistobeexpectedthatthedesignwillworkinthewaythearchitectintends.Theanalyticfoundationsofthenormativetheoryreturnatthepredictivestagestoappeartoguaranteearchitecturalsuccess.Thisiswhyarchitecturaltheoriestaketheformofnormative-analyticcomplexes.Theyfulfilthetwoprimaryneedsofthedesignprocesswithasinglesetofpropositions. However,itisclearthattheseadvantageswillonlyexisttotheextentthatthetheory’sanalyticfoundationsarenotillusory.Iftheydonotofferarealisticpictureofhowtheworldworks,thenitislikelythatthedesigner’spredictionswillreferonlytoanillusoryreality.Apoorlyfoundedanalytictheorywillnotinhibitthedesignerinthecreativephasesofdesign,butitwouldleadhimorhertolookinthewrongplace.Itwouldalsomeanthatthedesigner’spredictionswouldbeunlikelytobesupportedbyeventswhenthebuildingisbuilt.Thisiswhybadtheoriesaresodangerousinarchitecture.8Theymakedesignappeartobemucheasier,whileatthesametimemakingitmuchlesslikelytobesuccessful.This,inthelastanalysis,iswhyarchitectsneedanalyticallywellfoundedtheories. However,thisisnotthesameastosaythatarchitectssimplyneedscientifictheoriestoguidethemindesign.Thedualuseoftheoryinarchitecturebothtogeneratedesignsandtopredicttheirperformancepermitsustointroduceavery


46



SpaceSyntax

importantcomparison:betweentheoriesinartandtheoriesinscience,andtoarguethatarchitectureneedstheoriesbothinthesensethatthewordisusedinartandinthesensethatthewordisusedinscience. Theoriesinartarenotanalytic-normativecomplexesofthekindwetypicallyfindinarchitecture.Theyareprimarilyaboutsupportingthecreativeprocess,thatis,theyareinessenceaboutpossibility.Theoriesinartexpandtherealmofthepossible,bydefininganewwaytoartorevenbydefininganewformofart.Thereneedinprinciplebenoconstraintsonwhattypeoftheoriesareused.Theroleofatheoryinartisnottoclaimauniversalart,ortosetuponeformofartassuperiortoanother,buttoopenuponemorepossiblekindofart.Theoryinartisthenessentiallygenerative.Itdoesnothavetotakemuchaccountoffunctionalorexperientialconsequences.Itusesabstractthoughtonlytogeneratenewpossibilitiesinartthathadnotbeenseenbefore. Ifarchitectureweresimplyanart,itwouldneedtheoriesonlyinthesensethatpaintersorsculptorshavetheories:thatis,asspeculativeextensionsoftherealmoftheartisticallypossible.Itisclearthatarchitectureasarthasandneedsthiskindoftheory.Butthisisnotallithasandneeds.Thedifferencebetweenarchitectureandartisthatwhenanartistworks,heorsheworksdirectlywiththematerialthatwilleventuallyformtheartobject—thestone,thepaintandsoon.Whattheartistmakesistheworkofart.Architectureisdifferent.Anarchitectdoesnotworkonabuilding,butarepresentationofabuildingwecalladesign.Adesignisnotsimplyapictureofabuilding,butapictureofapotentialobjectandofapotentialsocialobject—thatis,anobjectthatistobeexperienced,understoodandusedbypeople.Adesignisthereforenotonlyapredictionofanobject,ratherthananobjectitself,but,howeverfunctionallynon-specificitclaimstobe,apredictionofpeopleinrelationtobuilding.Thisiswhereanalytictheoriesareneeded,andanalytictheoriesareanalogoustoscientifictheories.Theoriesinsciencearesetsofgeneral,abstractideasthroughwhichweunderstandandinterpretthematerialphenomenatheworldofferstoourexperience.Theydealwithhowtheworldis,nothowitmightbe.Becausearchitectureiscreativeitrequirestheoriesofpossibilityinthesensethattheyexistinart.Butbecausearchitectureisalsopredictive,itneedsanalytictheoriesofactualityaswellastheoriesofpossibility. Itisthisdoublenaturethatmakesarchitecturaltheoriesunique.Theyrequireatoncetohavethegenerativepoweroftheoriesinartandatthesametimetheanalyticpoweroftheoriesinscience.Thefirstdealswiththeworldasitmightbe,thesecondwiththeworldasitis.Thequestionthenis:howmaytherebetheoriesofarchitecturewhichareatoncecreativeandanalytic.Oneaspectoftheanswerturnsouttobesimple:goodanalytictheoriesarealreadylikelytobealsogoodtheoriesofpossibility.Theentireusefulnessofscientifictheoriesintheirapplicationsinscienceandtechnologyisinfactfoundedonthesimplebutunobviousfact:thatanalytictheoriesdonotsimplydescribetheworldasitis,butalsodescribethelimitsofhowitcanbe.Scientifictheoriesarearrivedatthroughtheexaminationoftheworldasitis.Butitisexactlythetheoreticalunderstandingoftheworldasitisthatopensup


47



SpaceSyntax

wholerealmsofnewpossibilitythatdonotyetexist. Itisthisfundamentallinkbetweenactualityandpossibilitythatopensthewaytoananalytictheoryofarchitecture.Butbeforeweexploreit,wemustfirstlookalittlemorecarefullyatarchitecturaltheoriestoseehowtheyarestructured,andwhy,andhowtheymighteventuallymoveinthedirectionofbecomingmoreanalytic.

The problem of architectural theoryThemostcommonproblemwitharchitecturaltheoriesisthattheyhavetoooftenbeenstronglynormativeandweaklyanalytic,thatis,ithasbeentooeasytousethemtogeneratedesigns,buttheyaretooweakinpredictingwhatthesedesignswillbelikewhenbuilt.Thetheoriesofmodernismwere,forexample,quiteeasytofollowingeneratingdesignstosatisfynormativelystatedobjectives.Theproblemwasthatthearchitecturalmeansproposedwerenotthemeansrequiredtoachievethoseobjectives.Thetheorieswereweaklyanalytic.Theydidnotdealwiththeworldasitactuallyis.Thenormativedominatedtheanalytic. Exactlyhownormativelystrongbutanalyticallyweakarchitecturaltheoriesareheldinplacecanbeseenbytakingonemorestepindisaggregatingwhatarchitecturaltheoriesarelikeandhowtheywork.Forexample,lookingalittlemorecloselyatourtwoexemplarsofarchitecturaltheories—theAlbertianandtheNewmanite—wefindbothhavetwoquitedistinctcomponents:oneintherealmofbroadintention,tellingarchitectswhattheyshouldaimtoachievethrougharchitecture,andoneintherealmofwhatwemightcallarchitecturaltechnique,tellingarchitectshowtorealisethatintention.Alberti’stheory,forexample,tellsarchitectsthatinordertodesignbuildingsthatpeoplewillexperienceasharmonious,theyshouldaimtoreflectintheirbuildingsthemathematicalorderfoundinnature.Hethengoesontoofferamethodforcalculatingproportionstoserveasatechniqueforrealisingthisaiminarchitecturalterms.9Newmantellsarchitectstheyshouldaimtodesignspacesbeyondthedwellingsothatinhabitantsmayidentifywiththemandcontrolthem,thenspecifieshierarchicaltechniquesofspaceorganisationinordertorealisethis.Wemightcallthesethebroadandnarrowpropositionsaboutarchitecturecontainedinatypicalarchitecturaltheory.Thebroadproposition,orintention,setsagoalwhilethenarrowproposition,orarchitecturaltechnique,proposesawayofdesigningthroughwhichtheintendedeffectwillberealised. Onedifferencebetweenthebroadandnarrowpropositionsliesinwhattheyengage.Thebroadpropositionengagesaworldofideaswhichmaybeverylargeinitsscopeandmaycontainmuchthatispoorlydefinedandlittleunderstood.Thenarrowproposition,ontheotherhand,engagestherealitiesofarchitecturaldesignandexperience.Ifingeneraltheoriesareabstractpropositionswhichengagetherealworldofexperience,thenthebroadandnarrowpropositionsofarchitecturaltheoriesoccupyoppositeendsofthespectrumcoveredbytheories.Thebroadpropositionsareintherealmofphilosophicalabstraction,wherethetheoryengagesthevastworldofideasandpresuppositions,implicitandexplicit,whicheventuallyrestsnowherebutintheevolutionofhumanminds.Thenarrowpropositionsarein


48



SpaceSyntax

therealmofdirectexperienceoftheworldwheretheoriesengagetheminutiaeofeverydayexperience. Broadpropositionandnarrowpropositionalsodifferintheirintendeduniversality.Broadpropositionsareintendedtobeuniversalisticinthattheyattempttosaythingsaboutarchitecturewhichareheldtobegenerallytrue,andtosayitinsuchabroadwayastoallowittobetrueinquitedifferentarchitecturalcircumstances.Butitisclearthatweshouldnotregardthenarrowpropositionsasuniversalistic.10Forthemostpartthenarrowpropositionsareofferedaspossibletechniquesforrealisinganabstractlystatedaim,nottheonlysuchtechniques.Onreflection,againthismustbeso.Thenarrowpropositionsofanarchitecturaltheoryaretechniquesforbridgingbetweentheabstractandtheconcrete.Onlyanabstractioncanbegeneral.Weshouldnotmistakeatechniqueforrealisingananalyticabstractionfortheabstractionitself. Nowconsiderthesebroadandnarrowpropositionsinrelationtowhatisrequiredoftheoryinthetwophasesofdesign,thatis,inthefirstphase,ideasaboutpossibleformsand,inthesecondphase,ideasabouttherelationsbetweenformsandperformanceoutcomes.Bothofthetheorieswehavebeenconsideringappeartosupplybothneeds.Ideasofpossibleformsarecontainedinthenarrowpropositions,thatis,theconstructivetechniquesthroughwhichthetheoristadvisesthedesignertogoaboutdesigntoensuresuccess.InthecaseofAlberti’stheory,thismeansthesystemsofworkedoutproportionswhichguidethedesignerinsettingupthebuildingasaphysicalform.InNewman’scase,thismeansthediagramsofspatialhierarchywhichthedesignercanfollowinsettingupthespatialdesign.Ideasoftherelationbetweenformandfunctionaloutcomearethenexpressedatthemorephilosophicallevelofthebroadpropositions.InAlberti’scase,thismeansthebroadpropositions,basedontheanalogywithmusic,aboutthehumanexperienceofvisualharmony.11InNewman’scase,itmeansthebroadpropositionsabout‘humanterritoriality’anditsspatialimplications.12Inotherwords,inbothcases,itisthehighlyspecificnarrowpropositionswhichguidethecreativeprocessofdesign,andtheverygeneralisedbroadpropositionswhichguidethedesignerinpredictingfunctionaleffectfromformalconfiguration. Nowtheproblemwithmostarchitecturaltheoriesisthatthisisexactlytheoppositeofwhatisrequiredforarchitecturewhichiscreativelyinnovativeandfunctionallysuccessful.Inthegenerativephaseofdesign,whatisneededifarchitecturalcreativityistobemaximisedisideasaboutformalandspatialconfigurationwhichareasunspecificaspossibleaboutspecificsolutions,inordertoleavethesolutionspaceasopenaspossibletocreativeinvention.Inthepredictivephases,whatisneededisprecisionaboutspecificformssincewhatisatissueisthepredictionofthefunctionaloutcomeofthisorthatrealdesign.Inthegenerativephases,wherewhatisrequiredareabstractorgenotypicalideaswhichopenuprealmsofpossibilityjustastheoriesdoinart,architecturaltheoriesofthistypeofferarathernarrowrangeofsolutiontypeswhichareessentiallynomorethanasetofabstractexemplarstofollow—particularsystemsofnumerical


49



SpaceSyntax

proportionsinonecase,particulardiagramsofhierarchicalspatialrelationsintheother.Thenwheninthepredictivephasesofdesignthedesignerneedsamuchgreaterdegreeofanalyticprecisioninordertoforeseehowthisorthatinnovativeformwillworkfunctionallyorexperientially,allthatthetheoriesofferisthevagueanalyticgeneralisationsofthebroadpropositions. Inotherwords,architecturaltheoriesofthistypeareover-specificwheretheyshouldbepermissiveandvaguewheretheyshouldbeprecise.Thedesignerisgivenconcretemodelstofollowwhenheorsheneedsconstructivecreativeideastosearchthesolutionspace,andvacuousabstractionswhenheorsheoughttobegiventechniquestopredicttheperformanceofparticulardesigns.Thisis,inanutshell,theproblemwithmostarchitecturaltheories,andthisishow,inrealdesign,thenormativeaspectsoftheorycometodominatetheanalytic.Whatisneededaretheorieswiththereverseproperties,thatis,theoriesthatareasnon-specificaspossibletoparticularsolutionsinthegenerativephasesofdesigninordertoleavethesolutionfieldaslargeanddenseaspossible,andasspecificandrigorousaspossibleinthepredictivephasesinordertobeabletodealpredictivelywithunknownformswheretheneedforeffectivepredictionisgreatest.Theimplicationofthisisthatweneedafullyfledgedanalytictheorywhichwouldofferabstractunderstandingratherthanspecificmodelsinthecreativephasesofdesign,andphenotypicalprecisionratherthanvaguegeneralisationsatthetestingstages.

What exactly, are theories?Howshouldwegoaboutsettingupsuchatheory?Thefirststepmustbetomakesureweunderstandexactlywhatananalytictheoryis.Thisturnsouttobenotaseasyaslookingthewordupinadictionary.Fewwordsareinfactmoreambiguousintheiroriginsthan‘theory’.InitsancientGreekorigins,theverbtheoreeinmeanstobeaspectator,andtheproductsofthisspeculativeactivity,theoremata,were,notsurprisingly,speculations.ForBacontheoriesweresimplyerrors,the‘receivedsystemsofphilosophyanddoctrine’,tobereplacedinduecoursebysomethingaltogetherbetter.13Thismeaningisstillreflectedineverydayuse.Incommonusage,theoriesarespeculations,oflesserstatusthanfacts,atbestatemporaryfixuntilthefactsareknown.Afictionaldetectivewithapremature‘theory’aboutacasewillalmostcertainlybeshowntobewrong.Theexpression‘onlyatheory’clearlyexpectstheorynottobeeventuallysupportedby‘facts’,buttobereplacedbyfacts.Inthesesenses,theoriesembodyirremediableuncertainties,andappeartoconstituteaformofthoughtwhoseobjectistoreplaceitselfwitha-theoretical,andthereforesecure,knowledge.Incompletecontrast,inmodernsciencetheword‘theory’todaystandsforthedeepestlevelofunderstandingofphenomena.Successfultheoriesinareaswherenonehadpreviouslyprevailed,likeevolutiontheory,arethemostepochmakingofintellectualevents.Conflictsbetweenrivaltheoriesof,say,theoriginsoftheuniverseorthenatureofmatter,conductedontheobscurebattlefieldsofmacroandmicrophenomena,areamongtheepicsofthelatetwentieth-centurythought. Sowhatthenis‘theory’,thatitcanbesubjecttosucharangeofinterpretationsandambiguities?Thesourceofthisambiguityliesofcoursenot


50



SpaceSyntax

inthevagariesofetymologicalhistorybutinthenatureoftheoriesthemselves.Theoriesarefoundintherealmofspeculativethought,becausetheyareatroot,speculations.Theyarenotinthemselves,forexample,statementsaboutobservablephenomena,norevenstatementsabouttheregularitiesthataretobefoundinobservablephenomena.Theyarepropositionsabouthypotheticalprocesseswhichmightberesponsiblefortheregularitiesweseeinphenomena.Assuchtheyhaveanecessarilyabstractnature,andarepurelyconceptualentities.Youcannotseeatheory,onlyitsconsequences,soyoucannotverifyatheory,onlyphenomenathatareconsistentwithit.Whenwetestatheorywedonotsimplylookatthetheorytoseeifallthepartsareinworkingorderandproperlyrelated,thoughwedoalsodothis.Wecheckthetheorybyseeinghowfarthephenomenaavailableintherealworldareconsistentwiththetheory,andpreferablywithnoother.Tocheckatheory,ineffect,welookawayfromthetheory.Theoriesareinthemselvesunobservableandunexperiencable,andthisiswhyintheendeventhebestandthemostdurableremaininsomesensespeculative. Butevenwhenweaccepttheabstractandspeculativenatureoftheories,wehavenotyetexhaustedtheapparentindeterminacyoftheidea.Nosetofconceptswhichbecomepartofatheorycanexistinisolation.Onthecontrary,conceptscanonlyexistaspartofconceptualschemesthroughwhichweinterpretourexperienceoftheworldandturninformationintoknowledge.Noconceptorsetofconceptscanexistinavacuum.Eachmustbeembeddedinabroaderrangeofpropositionsorassumptionsaboutwhattheworldislikeandhowitworks.ThesebroaderframeworkshavebeenknownasparadigmssinceThomasKuhnfirstdrewattentiontotheirexistence.14

Withallthisindeterminacyinwhatwemeanbytheory,howisitthattheycanbesoimportantandsouseful.Toanswerthiswemustunderstandthecircumstancesinwhichtheoriesariseandwhatpurposestheyserve.Theorisationbeginswhenwenoteacertaintypeofphenomenonandmakeacertaintypeofpresupposition.Thephenomenonwenoteisthatofsurfaceregularityintheworldasweexperienceit.Thepresuppositionwemakeisthatsurface regularityimpliesunderlying invarianceintheprocessesthatgiverisetothephenomenawesee. Thefirstofthese—thenotingofregularities—theorisationshareswithlanguage.Thefactthatlanguagehaswordsforclassesofthingsratherthansimplyforindividualthingsassumesthatweknowthedifferencebetweenorderandchaos,thatis,thatwecandiscernintheobjectiveworld‘structuralstabilities’15whicharesufficientlywelldefinedandrepetitioustosupporttheassignmentofnames.Thesenamesare,asphilosophershaveendlesslynoted,abstracttermsforclassesintheguiseofnamesforthings,withtheconsequencethatevensuchasimpleapparentlyconcreteactofpointingatathingandnamingitdependsonthepriorexistencenotonlyoftheabstractuniversalconstitutedbythatclassname,butalsooftheschemeofsuchabstractionsofwhichthatparticularabstractionformsapart.Theseschemes,aswehaveknownsincedeSaussure,16differfromonelanguagetoanothersothatwearecompelledtoacknowledgethatnamesarenot


5�



SpaceSyntax

neutral,simplehandlesonthings,butconceptualinstrumentsbywhichwecreateanorganisedpictureoftheworld.Namescreateunderstanding,anditisagainstthebackgroundoftheorganisedpictureoftheworldalreadygiventousbylanguageandculturethattheorisationbegins. Theorybeginsinthesameplaceaslanguagewherewenote,inthefluxofexperience,regularities,butaddsafurtherpresupposition:thatsinceregularityisunlikelytobetheproductofchance,theremustbesomekindofordernotonlyintheregularphenomenathatweobservebutalsointheprocessesthatgiverisetothephenomena.Whyweshouldmakethispresuppositionisnotclear.Butitseemsplausiblethatjustaslanguageseemsintimatelyboundupwithhowwecognisetheworldsotheorisationisboundupwithhowweactintheworld.When,forexample,westrikestonestomakesparksandthenfire,thesequenceofeventsfromonetotheotherisnotinscribedonthesurfaceofthingsbutimpliessomeinteriorprocesswhichissetinmotionbyouractions.Justastheworldrespondstoouractionsonitbyproducingregularities,sowepresupposethattheexistenceofregularitieswhichdonotresultfromouractionsmustbetheresultofinvariantprocessesanalogoustoouractions.Ifthenlanguagearisesfromourbeingintheworldandneedingtoknowitsobjectivepersistences,sotheorisationseemstoarisefromouractingintheworldandontheworldandneedingtoknowtheinteriorprocessesbywhichoutcomereliablyfollowsfromaction. Wethusseethatregularitiesarethestartingpointoftheory,buttheyarenotthetheoryitself.Regularitiesinitiatetheprocessoftheorisationsinceweinferfromtheexistenceofregularitiesthattheremustbesomeinvariantstructureinwhateverprocessitisthatproducesthesesurfaceregularities.Theoriesareconcernedwiththenatureofthatprocess,morepreciselytheyareattemptstomodeltheinvariantstructureofprocesseswhicharethoughttoexistfortheretobesurfaceregularities.Atheory,then,isnotalistofregularities.Regularitiesarewhattheoryseekstoexplain,butarenotinthemselvestheory.Theyinitiatethesearchfortheorybutarenotandcannotbeitsendpoint.Atheorywhichseeksto‘explain’regularitiesisanentityofanaltogetherdifferentkindfromalistofregularities. Moreover,althoughtheorisationmovesonfromlanguagebyseekingtoidentifythehiddenprocessesthatgiverisetosurfaceregularities,itdoesnotbegininaconceptualorlinguisticvoid.Itbeginsintheonlyplaceitcan,intheevolutionofthoughtandlanguage,andtheirrelationtothespace-timephenomenathatweexperience‘withouttrying’.Becausethoughtandlanguagealreadygiveusapictureoftheworldwhich,atsomelevelatleast,seemstoreflectitsorderandthereforetoexplainit,wearecompelledtoacknowledgethatwhenwebegintheprocessoftheorisationwearealreadyinpossessionofaviewoftheworldwhichinmanywaysisverylikeatheory,inthatitmakestheworldseemamoreorlesscoherentandorganisedplace.Thedifferenceisthatthetheory-likeunderstandingweacquirefromcultureandlanguagereflectsnotaninteriororderwhichgivesrisetothesurfaceregularitiesbutanorderinthosesurfaceregularitiesthemselves.Whenforexamplelanguagetellsusthat‘thesunrises’,itreflectstheregularities


52



SpaceSyntax

thatwenoteonthesurfaceofthings,notahiddenprocesswhichgivesrisetothissurfaceregularity.Wemightusefullythenthinkofsucheverydayconstructionsas‘theoryintheweaksense’.Analytic,orscientifictheories,are‘theoriesinthestrongsense’.Theyaimatagreatertruthbecausetheyseeknottobringordertosurfaceregularitiesbuttoshowhowthosesurfaceregularitiesarisefrominvariantnecessitiesburieddeepinthenatureofthings.

Formally defining simple regularitiesBecausesurfaceregularitiesaretheobjectoftheory,thefirststepintheorisationistoformalisetheidea.Infact,thereisabeautifullysimplewaytoextracttheideaofregularityfromphenomenaandrepresentitaspureregularity,independentoftheoverallqualitativenatureofthings.Theideaisthatoftranslatingthepropertiesofobjectsintheworldasweseetheminrealspaceintoanabstractspacewhichallowsustobequiteclearaboutwhatthesepropertiesare.Thisisdonebythefamiliartechniqueofreplacingthespacewithinwhichtheobjectexistswithanabstractco-ordinatesysteminwhichtheaxesrepresentthosepropertiesoftheobjectthatseemtobeofinterestasregularities.Thusoneco-ordinatemightrepresenttheheightoftheobject,anotherthelengthandanotherthebreadth.Wemaythenrepresentanyobjectwhichhasthesepropertiesasasinglepointinthe‘propertyspace’. Oncewecanrepresentthepropertiesofanobjectasapointinapropertyspaceratherthanasthatsetofactualpropertiesinrealspace,wecaneasilyrepresentexactlywhatwemeanbyaregularityasfarasthesepropertiesareconcerned.Forexample,totheextentthatthingsarecomparabletoeachotherinmorethatonepropertyinthepropertyspace,thepointsrepresentingtheminthepropertyspacewillclusterinaparticularregionofthespace.Clustersinthepropertyspacegiveaformalmeaningtotheideaofatypeorclassofthings,insofarasthosepropertiesareconcerned.Ifthingswhenrepresentedaspointsinthepropertyspacearerandomlydistributedthroughoutthespace,thatis,iftherearenoclusters,thenwewouldsayeitherthattherewerenotypes,butonlyindividuals,orthatwehadselectedthewrongpropertiesforanalysis.Ifontheotherhandweseeclusters,weinferthatthingstendtofallintotypes,bywhichwemeanthatvariationononepropertytendstobeassociatedwithvariationonatleastoneother,orperhapsmanyothers.Thisisshowngraphicallyinthetoptwodiagramsoffigure2.1.Wemayequallyusethepropertyspacetoformalisetheideathattheregularityweseeliesnotinapparentclassesortypesofthingsbutsequencesofstatesofthings.Inthiscaseweask:whenanentitychangesononedimension,doesitchangeinanyother?Ititdoes,thentheregularitywillshowitselfasaregularpatterninthedistributionofentitiesinthepropertyspace.Thisisshowninthebottomtwodiagramsinfigure2.1.Whenweseesuchapattern,wewouldinferthatsomeprocessifnotofcauseandeffectthenatleastofregularco-variationwasinoperation,sinceeachtimeonevariablewaschangedachangeinanothervariableregularlyappeared.


53



SpaceSyntaxFigure 2.1

Figure 2.1


54



SpaceSyntax

Wemightthenreasonablysaythatquestionsabouttypes,thatis,aboutsimilaritiesanddifferences,arequestionsoftheform:doentitiesclusterinparticularregionsofthepropertyspace?;whilequestionsaboutcauseandeffectareoftheform:whenentitiesmoveinonedimensionofthepropertyspacedotheymoveinanother?17Bothofthesedescribetheapparentregularitiesofsurfacephenomena,thatis,theappearanceoftypesandtheappearanceofcauseandeffect,inanabstractway.Thepropertyspaceisameansofcontrollingtheattributesthataretobeaccountedforinthepatternofsimilaritiesanddifferences.Wheretherealobjectispresent,allitspropertiesaremanifest.Inthepropertyspace,onlyselectedpropertiesarepresent.Ofcourse,everythingdependsonourselectingtherightpropertiesforthepropertyspaceinthefirstplace.Forthisreasonwecanneverbesurefromtheabsenceofaregularitythatnoregularitiesarepresentinthesephenomena. Butevenifwegothroughalongprocessofexperimentingwithdifferentpropertiesuntilweeventuallyfindtheclustersorcovariationsthatindicatethepresenceofregularities,itwillalwaysstillbethesurfacephenomenathatarerepresentedregardlessofthedegreeofabstraction.Wearestillseeingthesurfaceofthings,thatis,apparentregularitiesofthingsaspresentedtoourexperience.Wearenotseeingthetheorythatpurportstoaccountforthoseregularities,thatis,wearenotseeingthemodelofthestructuresoftheprocesswhichmightaccountfortheseregularities.Whatwearedoingisrecordingphenomenainsuchawayastobeabletoseeclearlywhatwemeanbyregularities,bytranslatingpropertiesintothedimensionsofacoordinatespaceandlocatingobjectsaspointswithinthisspacesothatonlytheregularpropertiesarerepresentedinwhatwesee.Thisbothseemstobeandisafundamentalway—maybethefundamentalway—ofrigorouslyrecordingsimilaritiesanddifferences,andconstantassociationsbetweenthings,withinanobjectiveandindependentframework. Themeaningofthewordtheorycanthenbemadeprecise.Aswehavesaid,justasthe a priori givenforthenotingofregularitiesisthatweknowthedifferencebetweenorderandrandomness,the a priori givenfortakingthisintotheorisationisthatregularityonthesurfaceimpliessomesystemicprocessbelowthesurface,suchthatthestructureofthatsystemisinsomesenseinvariant.Atheoryisanattempttomodeltheseinvariantsinasystemofinterdependentconcepts.Atheoryisamodelbecauseitdealswiththewayinwhichthingsmustbeinterrelatedinordertoproducethesurfacephenomena,andabstractbecauseitrepresentsthesystembysomemeansotherthanthatofthesystemitself.Atheoryisamodel,butnotinthesensethataphysicalmodelisamodel,thatis,asmallcopyofthethingitself,butinthecontrarysenseofamodeltakingasabstractaformaspossible,uncommittedtoanyparticularkindofrepresentationorembodiment.Initspurestform,atheoryisakindofabstractmachine,sinceitisanattempttocreateanabstractrepresentationoftheworkingofprocesseswhichgiverisetowhatwesee. Nowtheenormouspoweroftheoriesarisesfromoneveryspecificpropertyofsuch‘abstractmachines’,apropertywehavealreadytouchedupon.Becausetheoriesareabstractworkingmodelsofprocesseswhichgiverisetotheactual,


55



SpaceSyntax

theyalsogiveabasisforconjecturingaboutthepossible.Theoriesineffectallowustogobeyondtheaccumulatedexperienceofrealityandconjecturepossiblestatesofrealitythatarecompatiblewiththemodel.Itisthislinkbetweentheactualandthepossiblethatmakestheoriessousefulforprediction.To‘apply’atheoryisessentiallytoposethequestion:iswhatisproposedapossiblecase? Itistoolimitingthentocalltheories‘explanations’ofhowtheworldis.Atheorydefinestheinvariantsthatunderliemanydifferentstatesofreality.Itisinprincipleunlikelythatallpossiblestatesofaparticularsetofphenomenaalreadyexistorarealreadyknown.Itislikelythenthatthetheorywillalsopredictpossiblestatesthatdonotexistbutcouldaccordingtothemodel.Itisthispropertyaboveallothersthatimpartstotheoryitsimmensepowerasatoolofthoughtandasanagentofhumancreativity,andalsoitspracticalusefulness.However,itisclearthatthesevirtueswillariseonlytothedegreethatthetheorycapturesinvariantsthatreallyare‘outthere’.Buthowcanthisbe?Howcananabstractioncapturewhatisreally‘outthere’.Totakethisnextstep,wemustknowalittlemoreabouthowtheoriesareputtogether,howtheywork,andwhattheyaremadeof.

What are theories made of?Thefirstthingwemustnoteisthattheoriesaremadeofconcepts,usuallyintheformofasystemofinterdependentconceptswithtwoformsofexpression:words,andformalexpression,usuallymathematical.Sinceeverydaylifeandlanguageisalsorunonconceptswemustknowthedifferencebetweenascientificconceptandanunscientificone.Whatthenisthedifference?Wecandonobetterthantodiscusstheconceptsonwhichbothlanguageandscienceseemtobefounded,thatis,thedifferencebetweenorderandrandomness. Orderandrandomnessarebothconceptswhichhaveapowerfulintuitivemeaning.Bothareverybroadindeedintheirapplication,somuchsothatitisveryhardtopindownwhatthetwotermsmeanwithanyrealclarity.Bothterms,andevenmorethewaytheyarerelated,expresscomplexintuitionsaboutthewaytheworldis.Eachtermcanbeusedinawiderangeofsituations,andthemeaningonlybecomesclearenoughtofeelunderstoodinthespokenorwrittencontext.Thisiscommonenough.Theintuitiveconceptsthatpervadeandgivesensetoourlanguageshavethisrichnessandimprecision,sotheycanbeusedinagreatvarietyofsituations,andindeeditisonlyinthecontextinwhichaconceptisusedthatitsmeaningbecomesunambiguous. Inscience,itisexactlythisrichnessandimprecisionthatisrestricted.Scientificconcepts,althoughexpressedinlanguage,aremuchnarrowerintheirpotentialapplicationthannormallinguisticconcepts.Buttheyarealsomoresystemic,inthattheycompressandexpressmoreinterrelationshipsbetweenconcepts.Theyexpressmoreconnectionbetweenthings,butatthecostofanarrowingoftherangeofapplication.Theconceptof‘entropy’isagoodexampleofthisbecauseitrelatesbothorderandchaosinasystemicway,andindoingsorestrictstherangeofapplicationofthenewsyntheticconcepttothosesituations


56



SpaceSyntax

wherepreciselythesesystemicrelationshold.Thedegreeofentropyinasystemdescribesthatsystem’spositioninacontinuumfromordertochaos.Likemanyscientificconceptsofgreatprofundityandgeneralityitcanbeexplainedsimply,thoughnotthroughwordsbutthroughasimplemodel.18Imaginetwojars,aandb,withacontaining100ballsnumbered1–100,andbempty,andsomesystemforselectingarandomnumberbetween1and100—say,apointeronaspindlewhichcanbespunsothatitlandswithequallikelihoodonthenumberssetoutinacircle.Spinthepointerandwhenthepointrestsonanumber,findtheballwiththatnumberandtransferitfromwhicheverjaritisintotheotherone.Thenrepeatthisoperationasmanytimesasnecessary.Whathappens?Intuitively—andcorrectly—wesaythattheprocesswillsettledowntoabouthalftheballsineachjar.Why?Theanswertellsuswhatentropyisandhowitcanbemeasured.Thefirsttimethepointerselectsanumber,theprobabilitythattheballselectedwillgofromatobis1,thatis,itiscertain,becausealltheballsareina.Thesecondtime,thereisonechancein100thatthesingleballinbwillreturntoa,but99chancesoutof100,thatis,aprobabilityof.99,thatanotherballwillgofromatob.Thenexttimethereisonechancein50thatoneoftheballsinbwillreturntoa,but98chancesoutof100thatanotherballwillgofromatob.Clearly,astheprocessgoeson,thechancesofballsgoingbackfrombtoagraduallyincreaseandthechancesofballsgoingfromatobdiminishcorrespondingly. Whenabouthalftheballsareineachjar,theprobabilitiesareaboutequal,sothesystemtendstosettledowntosmallvariationsaboutthisstate.Toseewhythishappensletusdefineamicrostateofthesystemasaparticulardistributionofindividualballsinjarsandamacrostateasaparticularnumberofballsineachjar.Thereare,clearly,only200possiblemicrostatesofthesystemforthemacrostateinwhichoneballisinonejarandtherestareintheother,thatis,oneforeachofthehundredballsineachjar.Forthemacrostatewithtwoballsinonejarand98intheotherthereareallpossiblecombinationoftwoballsforeachjar,thatis,200×200.Forthemacrostatewiththreeinoneand97intheotherthereareallcombinationsofthreeballs.Inotherwords,thenumberofmicrostatesforthemacrostateismaximisedwhenthelargestpossiblenumberareintheleastfulljar—thatis,whenhalftheballsareineach—becausebeyondthatpointtherewillbefewerballsintheotherjarandeverythinghappensinreverse. Thisiswhythesystemtendstothehalfandhalfstate.Therearefarmoremicrostatescorrespondingtothehalfandhalf(ornearhalfandhalf)macrostatesthanforthoseinwhichafewballsareinonejarandmanyintheother.Inotherwordsallthesystemdoesistotendtoitsmostprobablestate.Thisisalsothedefinitionofthestateofmaximumentropy.Entropyismaximalinasystemwhenthesystemisinoneofthemacrostatesforwhichtherearethelargestnumberofmicrostates.Anexampleofthis,iswheretwogasesareeachrandomlydistributedinacontainer,withoutregionswhereoneorothergaspredominates.Therearefarmoremicrostateswithrandomdistributionthanmicrostateswithconcentrationsofoneorothergasinacertainregion.Ourmodelofjarsandballsisthenastatistical


57



SpaceSyntax

representationofthemixingoftwogasesinaclosedcompartment—orforthegradualheatdeathoftheuniverseastheuniversetendsfromitscurrentimprobablestatetoitsmostprobablestate,thatis,oneinwhichheatismoreorlessevenlydispersedthroughouttheuniverse.19

Inotherwords,entropyrelatesthenotionsoforderandchaosintoasingleconcept,butatthesametimegivesitamuchmorepreciseandlimitedreferencetotheworld.However,italsodoessomethingelseofnolessimportance.Itpermitstheconcepttobecapturedinaformalmathematicalexpressionaswellasthroughwords.Itisthroughthisformalexpressionthatthelinkbetweentheconceptandtheobservableworldismade.Thistwo-wayemancipationofconcepts,ontheonehandreorganisingconceptsintomoreprecisesystemsofinterdependenceandontheotherrelatingthemtotherealworldbyassociatingthemwithformalexpressionsistheessenceofwhattheoriesare. Theoriesarethereforemadeoftwothings:wordsandformalexpressions.Butbothrepresentconcepts.Atheoryisasystemofconceptswithonetypeofexpression,theverbal,whichlinkstheconceptsbackintoourunderstanding,necessarilywithsomeimprecision;andanother,mathematicalformwhichlinkstheconceptsforwardintophenomena,necessarilywithgreatexactness.Theoriesthuslinkourunderstandingtotheworld,connectedtoourunderstandingbylinguisticconceptsandconnectedtophenomenabyformalexpressionscorrespondingtotheconcepts. Thistwo-wayrelationusinglanguageandformalismtolinkconceptstoourunderstandingontheonehandandtotherealworldontheotheristheheartofwhattheoriesare.Wemayclarifyallthesecomplexrelationsinadiagram,seefigure2.2.Thisfigureshowsnotonlyhowtheoriesintervenebetweenlanguageandtheworld,butalsohowsciencerelatestophilosophy,whichoverlapswithscienceinpartofthisoverallscheme.Theoverallformofthediagramsetstheevolutionoflanguageandideasontheleftandthephenomenaofspace-timeontheright.Theoriesareinthecentre,definedasarelationbetweenasystemofconceptsandasystemofformalexpressionswhichlookstwoways:throughtheconceptsitlooks

Figure 2.2

Figure 2.2


58



SpaceSyntax

backfirstintothebroaderconceptualschemeswecallparadigms,thenintotheevolvingstructureoflanguageandideaswhicharebothaninevitablecontextandaninevitableconstraintontheorisation;andthroughtheformalismitlooksforwardtowardstheregularitiesinspace-timephenomenawhichtheoriesseektoaccountfor,andthenonwardsintothegeneralforegroundofspace-timephenomenawhichdonotformpartoftheregularitiesbutwhichmayatanystagearbitrarilyengagethetheorybyofferingphenomenawhichareinconsistentwiththe‘abstractmachine’forgeneratingphenomenaproposedbythetheory. Theearliestancestorsofwhatwewouldrecogniseas‘scientific’theories,suchasthoseofthePythagoreanswhoaresaidtohavefirstnotedtherelationbetweennumericalratiosandformsoccurringinnature,areprobablybestseenasparadigmsratherthanasfullyfledgedtheories,althoughintheirpreoccupationwiththerelationbetweenspace-timeregularitiesandformalexpressiontheycertainlyprefiguretheoriesinthemodernsense.20Pythagoreanism(asweearliernotedasinfluencingAlberti)isageneralisationofasingleconceptwhichgeneratedawayoflookingattheworldonthebasisofafewresults.Thisislegitimatelyaprecursortotheorybutnotinitselfwhatweoughttobecallingatheory.Howevertheattractionofsuchover-generalisationremains,asisseenintheprevalenceofvariantsonPythagoreanisminthemysticalsubstitutesfortheorywhichhavecontinuedtooccupythefringesofarchitecturalthoughtthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.21

Theoriesinthescientificsenseareonestepinfrombothparadigmsontheonesideandregularitiesontheotherinthattheyarecomposedofconceptswhicharefocusedandrelatedtoeachothertoformasystem,withpreciserelationsbetweeneachconceptandformaltechniquesorexpressionswhichareusedtocheckhowfartheregularitiesimpliedbythesystemofconceptsaredetectableinspacetimephenomena.Scientifictheoriesthusrequirethreerelationstobeparticularlystrong:therelationsamongconceptswhichformtheconceptualsystem;therelationsbetweenconceptsandformaltechniquesofmeasurement;andtherelationsbetweentheseformaltechniquesandspace-timephenomena.Intermsofthediagram,wemaysaythenthatscienceneedstobestrongfromthe‘conceptsystem’inthedirectionofphenomena. Scienceis,andmustexpecttobe,weakerintheotherdirection,thatis,inthepassagebackthroughparadigmsintothemoregeneralevolutionofideas.Thistendstobegroundoccupiedbyphilosophy.Philosophyoverlapswithscienceinbeinginterestedintheories,andrelatingthembacktobroaderfamiliesofconcepts22rightthroughtothosethatprevailineverydaylifeandsocialpractices,23butdoesnotnormallypreoccupyitselfwiththerigoroustestingoftheoriesagainstrealspace-timephenomena.Scienceandphilosophyarerivalsintherealmoftheory,butonlybecausetheirpreoccupationsreachoutfromtheoryincontrarydirectionswiththeeffectthatbetweenthemscienceandphilosophycoverthegroundthatneedstobeoccupiedbytheoreticalthought.However,itisbecausesciencemovesfromconceptstophenomenathatitstheorieseventuallycometohaveapuzzlingstatus,becausetheintuitivesensethatthey‘explain’thingscomes


59



SpaceSyntax

fromtherelationbetweentheconceptsthatmakeupthetheoryandthesensewehavefromeverydaylanguagethatourideas‘explain’theworld.Scientifictheoriesareinthissensepsychologicallystrongestwheretheyareinfactweakest,thatis,wheretheconceptsthatformthetheoryrelatebackintothebroaderconceptualsystemswhichinformeverydaylife.24

Towards an analytic theory of architectureGiventhesedefinitions,howthencantherebeananalytictheoryofarchitecture?first,letusbecompletelyclearaboutonething.Iftherearenoobjectiveregularitiesintherealworldofarchitecturalformandspace,linkingtheconfigurationalaspectsofformandspacewithbehaviouralandexperientialoutcomes,thentherearenogroundswhatsoeverforseekingtobuildananalytictheory.Theneedforandthepossibilityofananalytictheorybothstandorfallwiththeexistenceofsuch‘non-discursiveregularities’. Thismeansthattobuildananalytictheory,non-discursiveregularitiesmustfirstbeinvestigatedand,iftheyexist,broughttolight.Howcanthisbedone?Wemayfirstrecallthatanarchitecturaltheoryisanattempttorenderoneorotherofthenon-discursiveaspectsofarchitecturediscursive,bydescribingnon-discursivityinconcepts,wordsandnumbers.Wemaysaythatanarchitecturaltheoryseekstocreatea‘non-discursivetechnique’,thatis,atechniqueforhandlingthosemattersofpatternandconfigurationofformandspacethatwefindithardtotalkabout.Inresearchtermswecouldsaythatanarchitecturaltheory,atleastinthe‘narrow’aspectsthroughwhichitdescribesandprescribesdesigndecisions,isanattempttocontrolthearchitecturalvariable. Now,aswehaveseen,architecturaltheoriesinthepasthavetendedtobestronglynormativeandweaklyanalytic,becausethenon-discursivetechniquesproposedareonlyabletodescribecertainkindsofconfiguration.Thisiswhyinapplicationtheyarepartisanforthatkindofconfiguration.Forexample,ifanon-discursivetechniquedescribessystemsofproportionintermsofnumericalorgeometricratios,itisunlikelytobeabletodealwithconfigurationswhichlacksuchproportionality.Itwillonlydescribethosecaseswheretheseproportionshold.Inanyattempttoapplysuchpartisantechniquesgenerally,theyaremorelikelythereforetoactasdistortingmirrorsthanadiscoveryofnewregularities.Likewise,ifournon-discursivetechniqueisasystemofdiagramsexpressingspatialhierarchy,itisunlikelythatthosetechniquescanbeusefullyappliedtothevastrangeofcaseswheresuchclearhierarchisationisnotfound.Itfollowsagainthatsuchatechniquewillbeuselessforinvestigatingspatialpatternsingeneral. Wecansaythenthatanon-discursivetechniquewhichispartisanfor—usuallybecauseitisaproductofapreferencefor—oneparticularkindofnon-discursivity,willnotbeusableasananalytictool,andcannotthereforebeusedforthediscoveryofnon-discursiveregularities.Thisdeficiency,however,doespointusinthedirectionofwhatisneeded.Tobringtolightnon-discursiveregularities,weneednon-discursivetechniquesforthedescriptionofeitherspatialpatterns


60



SpaceSyntax

orformalpatterns(orconceivablyboth)whichareuncommittedtoanyparticulartypeofspatialorformalconfigurationorpattern,andwhicharecapableofgeneralapplicationtodescribeallpossibletypesofpattern.Forexample,itoughttobeabletohandlespatialpatternsorbuiltformpatternswhichlackgeometricregularityaswellasthosewhichhaveit.Unlessthiscanbedonewithrigourtherethereislittlehopethattheoreticalpropositionsinarchitecturecaneverbeanalyticinthesensethatwerequirethemtobe. Thenextchapterofthisbookwillintroducesuchasetofnon-discursivetechniquesfortheanalysisofconfiguration,firstdevelopedinspatialformas‘spacesyntax’,butnowbeingbroadenedtocoverotheraspectsofconfiguration.Thesetechniqueshavebeenusedoverseveralyearsfortwoprinciplepurposes,firsttodiscoverhowfaritwaspossibletobringtolightandsubjecttorigorouscomparativeanalysestheconfigurationalaspectsofspaceandforminbuildingthroughwhichcultureistransmitted,andsecond,throughthesecomparativestudiestodevelopacorpusofmaterialwhichwouldpermitthegradualdevelopmentofageneraltheoryofarchitecturalpossibility.Theremainderofthisbookisessentiallyanaccountoftheprogressthathassofarbeenmadeinthisproject. Aswewillsee,whatwediscoverthroughapplyingthesetechniquestotheanalysisofspatialandformalpatternsinarchitecture,wherevertheyarefoundandwhatevertheirembodimentineitherbuildingsorurbansystems,areinvariantsinpatternswhichlienotonthesurfaceofthingsbutwhichareburiedinthenatureofconfigurationsthemselves.Theseinvariantswecanthinkofasdeepstructuresorgenotypes.Eachculturalmanifestationthroughbuilding,whetherasabuilding‘type’foraparticularpurpose,oraparticulararchitecturalethosorimprintingofcultureonbuilding,doessothroughsuchgenotypes.Forexample,seenassystemsoforganisedspace,itturnsoutthattownsandcitieshavedeepstructureswhichvarywithculture.Likewise,seenasorganisedspaces,buildingsfordifferentfunctionpurposesalsohavedeepstructuresorgenotypes.Thesegenotypesare—orembody—culturalortypologicalinvariants.Thesearenotofcoursegenerallaws.Theyareatbestthe‘coveringlaws’ofcultures.Therearethegenotypicalinvariantsbywhicheachsocietyandeachfunctioninsocietyseekstoexpressitselfthrougharchitecture. However,aswebuildourcorpusofgenotypeswegraduallybegintoseethatthereisanotherlevelofinvariance:therearegenotypesofthegenotypes.Belowthelevelofculturalvariationinarchitecturethereexistinvariantsacrossculturesandtypes.These‘genotypesofgenotypes’arenotthecoveringlawsofculturesbuttheinvariantlawsthatbindhumankindingeneraltoitsartificialmaterialworld.Theyaretheabstractrawmaterialoutofwhichallconfigurationalpossibilityinspaceandforminthebuiltworldareconstructed.Itisatthislevelofinvariance—andonlyatthislevel—thatwecanbuildagenuineanalytictheory.ThesepossibilitieswillbedealtwithinChapters8and9.


6�



SpaceSyntax

Architecture as art and as scienceIfthistheoreticalprojectiseventuallytosucceed—anditisbeyondthescopeofanysinglebooktodomorethantakeafewfalteringstepstowardssuchatheory—thenitisclearthatsuchatheorywouldliberateratherthanconstraindesign.Atroot,theneedforarchitecturaltheoryarisesfromtheneedtoformulateprinciplesfromtheexperienceofhavingbuilttoinformandguideusonhowwemightbuild.Thisdynamicbetweentheactualandpossibleistheessenceofarchitecturaltheorising.Architecturaltheoryarisesfromthefactthatarchitectscanneitherforgetthearchitecturaltradition,norrepeatit.Inarchitecture,theoryisnotsimplyameanstofixapictureoftheworldinacertainform.Itisalsothemeansbywhichformisdestabilisedandanewfutureisconceived.Architectureprogressesbyincorporatingitsreflectiononthepastintoanabstractframeofpossibility.Thisframeistheory.Withoutit,historicalthoughtissterile,andcanonlyleadtoimitationofthepast.Throughtheintermediaryoftheory,reflectiononthepastbecomespossiblefuture.Historyconstrains,buttheoryliberates,andthemoregeneralthetheory,thegreatertheliberation. Doesthismeanthenthatthelinebetweenarchitectureasscienceandarchitectureasartneedstoberedrawnclosertoscience?Idonotbelieveso.WecancallonthebeautifulideasofErnstCassirerontherelationbetweenartandscience.25‘Languageandscience’,hewrites,‘arethetwomainprocessesbywhichweascertainanddetermineourconceptsoftheexternalworld.Wemustclassifyoursenseperceptionsandbringthemundergeneralnotionsandgeneralrulesinordertogivethemanobjectivemeaning.Suchclassificationistheresultofapersistentefforttowardssimplification.Theworkofartinlikemannerimpliessuchanactofcondensationandconcentration…Butinthetwocasesthereisadifferenceofstress.Languageandscienceareabbreviationsofreality;artisanintensificationofreality.Languageandsciencedependononeandthesameprocessofabstraction;artmaybedescribedasacontinuousprocessofconcretion…artdoesnotadmitof…conceptualsimplificationanddeductivegeneralisation.Itdoesnotinquireintothequalitiesorcausesofthings;itgivestheintuitionoftheformofthings…Theartistisjustasmuchthediscovereroftheformsofnatureasthescientististhediscovereroffactsornaturallaws.’ Thoseofuswhobelievethatscienceisonthewholeagoodthing,acceptthatscienceisinonesenseanimpoverishment—thoughinothersanenhancement—ofourexperienceoftheworldinthatitcannotcopewiththedensityofsituationalexperience.Ithastobeso.Itisnotinthenatureofsciencetoseektoexplaintherichnessofparticularrealities,sincetheseare,aswholes,invariablysodiverseastobebeyondtheusefulgraspoftheoreticalsimplifications.Whatscienceisaboutisthedimensionsofstructureandorderthatunderliecomplexity.Heretheabstractsimplificationsofsciencecanbethemostpowerfulsourceofgreaterinsight.Everymomentofourexperienceisdenseand,assuch,unanalysableasacompleteexperience.Butthisdoesnotmeantosaythatsomeofitsconstituentdimensionsarenotanalysable,andthatdeeperinsightmaynotbegainedfromsuchanalysis.


62



SpaceSyntax

Thisdistinctioniscrucialtoourunderstandingofarchitecture.Thatarchitecturalrealitiesaredenseand,aswholes,unanalysabledoesnotmeantosaythattheroleofspatialconfiguration(forexample)inarchitecturalrealitiescannotbeanalysedandevengeneralised.Theideathatscienceistoberejectedbecauseitdoesnotgiveanaccountoftherichnessofexperienceisapersistentbutelementaryerror.Sciencegivesusquiteadifferentkindofexperienceofreality,onethatispartialandanalyticratherthanwholeandintuitive.Assuchitisinitselfthatitisvaluable.Itneedstobeacceptedorrejectedonitsownterms,notintermsofitsfailuretobelikelifeorlikeart. Itisinanycaseclearthatthedependenceofarchitectureontheories,covertorexplicit,doesnotdiminishitsparticipationinCassirer’sdefinitionofart.Thisistruebothinthesensethatarchitectureis,likeart,acontinuousprocessofconcretion,andalsointhesensethat,likeart,‘itsaspectsareinnumerable’.Buttherearealsodifferences.Thething‘whoseaspectsareinnumerable’isnotarepresentationbutareality,andaveryspecialkindofreality,onethroughwhichourformsofsocialbeingaretransformedandputatrisk.Thepervasiveinvolvementoftheoryinarchitecture,andthefactthatarchitecture’s‘continuousconcretion’involvesoursocialexistence,definesthepeculiarstatusandnatureof‘systematicintentofthearchitecturalkind’:architectureistheoreticalconcretion.Architectsareenjoinedbothtocreatethenew,sincethatisthenatureoftheirtask,butalsotorenderthetheoriesthattietheircreationtooursocialexistencebetterandclearer.Itisthisthatmakesarchitecturedistinctandunique.Itisasimpossibletoreducearchitecturetotheoryasitistoeliminatetheoryfromit. Architectureisthusbothartandsciencenotinthatithasbothtechnicalandaestheticaspectsbutinthatitrequiresboththeprocessesofabstractionbywhichweknowscienceandtheprocessesofconcretionbywhichweknowart.Thedifficultyandthegloryofarchitecturelieintherealisationofboth:inthecreationofatheoreticalrealmthroughbuilding,andinthecreationofanexperiencedreality‘whoseaspectsareinnumerable’.Thisisthedifficultyofarchitectureandthisiswhyweacclaimit. NotesRogerScruton,The Aesthetics of Architecture,Methuen,1977.Ibid.,p.4.L.B.Alberti,De Re Aedificatoria,1486;translationreferredto:Rykwertetal.(1988), MITPress,1991.O.Newman,Defensible Space;ArchitecturalPress,1972.Alberti,Chapter9.Newman,pp.3–9.HowthishappensasacognitiveprocessisthesubjectofChapter11:‘Thereasoningart’.Chapter11includesacasestudyinthedangersofbadtheory.Alberti,forexample,Book9.

123

4567

89


63



SpaceSyntax

Scruton’sfundamentalerroristoconfusethesetwoaspects,andineffectto believethatthenarrowpropositionsofarchitecturaltheoryareintendedto beuniversalistic.SeeScruton,The Aesthetics of Architecture,p.4.Alberti,Book9.Newman,pp.3–9.F.Bacon,The New Organon (1620),BobbsMerrill,1960,AphorismsBook1,Aphorismcxv,p.105.T.Kuhn,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,UniversityofChicagoPress,1962.TouseReneThom’sadmirableexpressionforwhatweobserve—seeStructural Stability and Morphogenesis,Benjamin,NewYork,1975—originallyinFrench,1972,asStabilite Structurelle et Morphogenese.Seeforexamplep.320.F.DeSaussure,(originallyinFrench1915)versionusedCourse in General Linguistics,McGrawHill,1966,translatedbyC.BallyandA.SechahayewithA.Riedlinger-seeforexamplepp.103–12.Theseexamplesofcoursedealwithlinearvariation,butthebasicargumentsalsoapplytonon-linearvariation.Thismodel,the‘Ehrenfestgame’,istakenfromM.KacandS.Ulam,Mathematics and Logic,PelicanBooks,1971,p.168.OriginallyPraeger,1968.ForafurtherdiscussionseeH.Reichenbach,The Direction of Time,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1971,particularlyChapter4.SeeK.PopperK,Conjectures and Refutations,RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1963,Chapter5:‘Backtothepresocratics’.SeeforexampleM.GhykaM,Geometrical Composition and Design,Tiranti,London,1956.ForexampleintheworkofAlexanderKoyre,e.g.Metaphysics and Measurement, ChapmanandHall,1968(originallyinFrench)andNewtonian Studies,Chapman andHall,1965orGeorgesCanguilheme.g.La Connaissance de la Vie,Librairie PhilosophiqueJ.Vrin,Paris,1971.AspioneeredintheworkofMichelFoucault.Inthepast,thishasledtoaquiterapidpermeationbynewscientificconceptsoftheconceptualschemesofeverydaylife,bringingchangesinconsciousnesswhichmayseementirelyprogressive,asforexamplewiththetheoriesofNewtonorDarwin.Itmayindeedbethelossofthisillusorystrengththathasboughtaboutmuchofthealienationfromscienceinthelatetwentiethcentury.Assciencehasprogressedfartherintomicroandmacrophenomenaanddiscoveredpatternswhichareutterlyremotefromeverydayintuitiontheconceptsthatmakeupscientifictheoriesbecomesostrangethattheycannotevenbeformulatedsoastointerfaceeffectivelywiththeestablishedconceptualsystemoflinguisticnormality.Thishashappenedwithquantumtheory.Butwhathashappenedwithquantumtheoryconfirmsourmodelassetoutinthediagram:scienceintervenesthroughformalismsbetweenconceptsandphenomena.Itisnopartofitsfunctionoritsmoralitythattheseconceptsshould‘fallwithinthelightedcircleofintuition’(touseHermanWeyl’sadmirablephrase—seehisPhilosophy of Mathematics and Natural

10

111213

1415

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324


64



SpaceSyntax

Science,Atheneum,NewYork,1963,p.66)andsobetranslatableintotheavailableconceptsofeverydaylifeandlanguage.Thereisnogreaterarrogancethanthatweshouldexpectthemtobe,exceptperhapsthebeliefthattheworlditselfinitsdeepestoperationsshouldconformitselftotheapparatusofourintuitions.ErnstCassirer,An Essay on Man,YaleUniversityPress,1944.Editionused:BantamMatrix,1970.Chapter9,‘Onart’,pp.152–88.

25

Non–discursive techniqueChapter three



SpaceSyntax

Object artefacts and abstract artefactsOneofthedurableintellectualachievementsofthetwentiethcenturyhasbeentoinitiatethescientificstudyofhumanartefacts.Atfirstsight,suchastudymightseemparadoxical.Mostartefactsarephysicalobjectsthatadaptnaturallawstohumanpurposes.Tomakeanobjectforapurposesurelypresupposesthatweunderstandit.Buttwenty-fiveyearsago,HerbertSimon,inhisThe Sciences of the Artificial,showedthatthiswasfarfromthewholestory.1Eveniftheobjectswemakearenotpuzzlinginthemselves,theyaresowhenseeninthecontextoftheramifyingeffectsoftheirdispersionthroughoutoursocio-technicalecosystem.Hewasthinking,amongstotherthings,ofcomputers.Itwouldbeasenlightening,heargued,tohaveanaturalhistoryofcomputersinourincreasinglyartificialworld,asofanynaturalphenomenon.Empiricalsciencesofartefactswerethereforenotonlyapossibility,butanecessity. Butobjectartefactsareonlythelesseraspectofthepuzzleoftheartificial.Therealsoexistsaclassofartefactswhicharenolessdramaticintheirimpactonhumanlife,butwhicharealsopuzzlinginthemselvespreciselybecausetheyarenotobjects,but,onthecontrary,seemtotakeaprimarilyabstractform.Languageistheparadigmcase.Languageseemstoexistinanobjectivesense,sinceitliesoutsideindividualsandbelongstoacommunity.Butwecannotfindlanguageinanyregionofspace-time.Languageseemsreal,butitlackslocation.Itthusseemsbothrealandabstractatthesametime.Otherartefactswhichsharesomeoftheattributesoflanguage,suchascultures,socialinstitutions,andeven,somewouldargue,societyitself,allseemtoraisethiscentralpuzzleofbeing,itseems,‘abstractartefacts’. Itcannotofcoursebesaidthat‘abstractartefacts’arenotmanifestedinspace-time.Theyappearintheformoflinguisticacts,socialbehaviours,culturalpractices,andsoon.Butthesespace-timeappearancesarenottheartefactitself,onlyitsmomentaryandfragmentaryrealisations.Weapprehendspeech,asdeSaussurewouldsay,butnotlanguage.2Inthesameway,weseesocialbehaviours,butweneverseesocialinstitutions,andweseeculturaleventsbutweneverseecultures.Yetinallthesecases,thespace-timeeventsthatwewitnessseemtobegovernedintheirformbytheabstract,unrealisableartefactsthatwegiveanameto.Thematerialworldprovidesthemilieuwithinwhichtheabstractartefactisrealised,buttheserealisationsaredispersedandincomplete.Theexistenceoflanguages,socialinstitutionsandculturescanbeinferredfromspace-timeeventsbutnotseeninthem. Inspiteofthisstrangemodeofexistence,abstractartefactsseemtobethestuffofwhichsocietyismade.Wecannotconceivewhatasocietywouldbelikeifdeprivedofitslanguages,itscharacteristicsocialbehaviours,itsculturalformsanditsinstitutions.Itisnotclearthatanythingwouldbeleftwhichwecouldreasonablycall‘society’.Wemayconjecture,perhaps,thatabstractartefactsarethewaytheyarepreciselybecausetheirpurposeistogenerateandgoverndispersedevents,andthroughthistoconvertadispersedcollectivityofspeakers,behavioursorsocialactorsintosomesemblanceofasystem.Themultipositionalityofthespace-time

‘Environments are invisible. Their...ground rules...evade easy perception.’ Marshall McLuhan

65

Non–discursive technique66



SpaceSyntax

realisationofabstractartefactsseemstobeanessentialpartofhowtheywork. However,tosaythisistorestatetheproblem,nottosolveit.Infact,inspiteoftheirapparentoddity,abstractartefactsposemanyofthepuzzleswhichscienceseekstoexplainfornaturalsystems.Forexample,theyseemablebothtoreproducethemselvesovertime,andalsotoundergomorphogenesis,thoughwhetherthisisbyaconstantorsuddenprocessisentirelyobscure.Ifabstractartefactshavesuchproperties,thenitwouldseemtofollowthattheymustthereforehavesomekindofinternalprinciplesorlawswhichgiverisetostabilityandchange,asdonaturalsystems.3Yetwhatevertheselawsarelike,theymustalsopassthroughthehumanmind,sinceitisonlythroughhumanmentalactivitythattheselfreproductionandmorphogenesisofthesesystemsoccurs.Itseemsinconceivable,therefore,thatthelawswhichgoverntheformsofabstractartefactsaresimilarto,orevencommensurablewith,thelawsthatgovernnaturalsystems.Atthesametime,suchlawsmustbepartofnature,sincetheycannotbeotherwise.Theymustreflectsomepotentialitieswithinnature. Inviewofalltheseapparentparadoxes,itwasthegreatmeritofLévi-Straussandotherpioneersofthestudyofabstractartefactstohavebothidentifiedthekeyinsightnecessaryfortheirstudy,andtohavepointedtoapossiblemethodologyforresearch.4Theinsightwastohaveseenthedependenceoftheconcreteontheabstractinsystemslikelanguageandculture,asclearlyasPlatooncenoteditforthenaturalworld.5Now,asthen,thisfundamentalinsightprovidesthestartingpointandinitialstanceforthesettingupofsciences.Themethodologywasthat,aswithnaturalsystems,wewouldexpecttofindcluestothenatureoftheseorganisinglawsbystudyingtheregularitiesthatabstractartefactsgenerateinspace-time,thatis,inspeech,behaviour,culturalpracticesandinstitutionalforms.Accordingly,themovementcalledstructuralismaimedtoassignabstractformalmodelswiththestructureandvarietymanifestedinthespace-timeoutputofsuchsystems-observedspeech,socialbehaviour,organisationaldynamicsandsoon-andthroughthistoaccountnotonlyfortheinternalsystemnessofsuchphenomena,butalsotoshowhowthehumanmindwascapableofholdingandcreativelytransformingsuchpowerfullystructuredinformation.Inthissense,structuralismwasnomoreorlessthanorthodoxsciencerewrittenforthestudyofabstractartefacts.6

Thisresearchstrategyreflectsthefundamentalfactthatabstractartefactsmanifestthemselvestousintwoways:throughthespace-timeeventstheygenerate;andthroughtheconfigurationalpatternswhichseemtosupportthemandwhichenableusbothtogenerateandinterpretthem.Thesetwowaysinwhichweexperienceabstractartefactsareboundtogetherbythefactthatinusingconfigurationalstructurestogeneratespace-timeeventswealsoprojecttheseconfigurationalstructuresintospace-timeandindoingsohelptotransmitthemintothefuture.Thisdoubletakebetweentheconsciousmanipulationofspace-timeeventsandthetransmissionofconfigurationalstructureisthedefiningcharacteristicoftheabstractartefactandthereasonitisabletobethestuffof




SpaceSyntax

society.Bydeployingobjectsandcreatingspace-timeeventswenecessarilytransmitstructures,andthroughthemtheabstractartefactswhichholdsocietytogetherasacommunicativesystem.Theobjectofstructuralismistocapturethedynamicsoftheseprocesses. Formalmethodswerethereforecriticaltostructuralism.However,asHeisenbergonceremarked:‘Ourscientificworkinphysicsconsistsinaskingquestionsaboutnatureinthelanguagethatwepossessandtryingtogetananswerfromexperimentbythemeansthatareatourdisposal.’7Thisissurelytrueofallscientificenquiry.Unfortunately,itseemstopointdirectlytothefailureofstructuralismtodeliveronitspromises.Examiningthespace-timeregularitiesofthephenomenageneratedbyabstractartefacts,wecannotfailtonoteoneoverwhelmingconsistency;thattheyseemtobegovernedbypatternlawsofsomekind.Thewordsthatmakeupspeechandthebehavioursthatseemsocialareallmanifestedinspace-timeassequencesordispositionsofapparentelementswhoseinterdependenciesseemtobemultiplex,andirreducibletosimplerulesofcombination.Forexample,tosay,asChomskydid,8thatsentences,whichappeartobesequencesofwords,cannotbegeneratedbyaleft-rightgrammar,isaconfigurationalproposition.Somedegreeofsyncreticco-presenceofmanyrelationsisinvolvedwhosenaturecannotbereducedtoanadditivelistofpairwiserelations.Thisistosaythatthelawsgoverningabstractartefactsseemtobeconfigurationalinsomethinglikethesensewehavedefineditinthepreviouschapters. Itisinthisrespectthatstructuralismseemstohavelackedmethodology.Itsformaltechniquesdidnottrytodrivestraighttotheproblemofconfiguration,butconfinedthemselvestothemoreelementaryaspectsoflogicandsettheory,thosebranchesofmathematics,thatis,thatsoughttoaxiomatisethethinkingprocessesofminds,ratherthantomodelrealworldcomplexity.9Consequently,justasthe‘languages’availableforPlatoinhistimewereinadequateforhisvisionofnature,10sothetoolspickedupinthemid-twentiethcenturybystructuralismweretoofrailforthevisionofartificialphenomenathathadinitiatedtheirsearch.Thephenomenathatstructuralistanalysissoughttoexplainwereinthemainconfigurational,buttheformaltechniquesthroughwhichinvestigatorssoughttodemonstratethisrarelywere.

Built environments as artefactsThepurposesofthisdigressionintoabstractartefactsaretwofold:first,todrawattentiontocertainpropertiesofbuiltenvironmentsthatmightotherwisebemissed;second,topointtocertainadvantagesofthebuiltenvironmentinprovidingaplatformfortakingontheproblemofconfigurationinanewway.First,however,wemustunderstandtheverypeculiarstatusofbuiltenvironmentsasartefacts. Builtenvironmentsappeartousascollectionsofobjectartefacts,thatis,ofbuildings,andassuchsubjecttoordinaryphysicallaws,anddeservingofSimonianenquiry.Butthatisnotallthattheyare.AswenotedinChapter1,intermsofspatialandformalorganisation,builtenvironmentsarealsoconfigurationalentities,whoseformsarenotgivenbynaturallaws.Ifwewishtoconsiderbuiltenvironmentsasorganisedsystems,thentheirprimarynatureisconfigurational,




SpaceSyntax

principallybecauseitisthroughspatialconfigurationthatthesocialpurposesforwhichthebuiltenvironmentiscreatedareexpressed.Thecollectionsofobjectartefactsinspace-timethatwesee,arethenameansthroughwhichsociallymeaningfulconfigurationalentitiesarerealised.Inotherwords,inspiteofappearances,builtenvironmentspossessakeypropertyofabstractartefacts.Itsobjectsaremoredurablethan,say,thespokenwordsofalanguage,ortherule-influencedindividualbehavioursthatmakeupasocialevent,buttheyareofthesamekind.Theyarespace-timemanifestationsofconfigurationalideaswhichalsohaveanabstractform.Thebuiltenvironmentisonlythemostdurableofthespace-timemanifestationsofthehumanpredilectionforconfiguration.Thishasanepistemologicalconsequence.Weshouldnotexpectthebuiltenvironmentmerelytobethematerialbackdroptoindividualandsocialbehaviour,asitisoftentakentobe.Itisasocialbehaviour,justastheuseoflanguageisasocialbehaviourandnotjustameanstosocialbehaviour.Wecannotthereforeregardthebuiltenvironmentasmerelyaninertthing,andseektounderstanditwithoutunderstandingthe‘sociallogic’ofitsgeneration. Butjustaswecannottreatabuiltenvironmentasathing,wecannomoretreatitasthoughitwerenomorethanalanguage.Thebuiltenvironmentis,apartfromsocietyitself,thelargestandmostcomplexartefactthathumanbeingsmake.Itscomplexityanditsscaleemergetogether,because,likesociety,abuiltenvironmentisnotsomuchathingasaprocessofspatio-temporalaggregationsubjecttocontinualchangeandcarriedoutbyinnumerableagenciesoveralongperiodoftime.Althoughtheseprocessesofaggregationmaybelocallycharacterisedbythesamekindofautonomicrulefollowingaswefindforindividualactsofbuilding,thereareothernolessfundamentalattributesthatmakethebuiltenvironmentaspecialcase. Themostobvious,andthemostimportant,isthatthespatio-temporaloutputsofbuiltenvironmentprocessesarenotephemerallikethoseoflanguageorsocialbehaviour.Theyarelong-lasting,andtheyaggregatebyoccupyingaparticularregionofspaceforalongtime.Thismeansthatoverandabovethinkingofbuiltenvironmentsastheproductsofabstractrulesystems,wemustalsorecognisethattheyhaveanaggregativedynamicwhichistosomeextentindependentoftheserulesystems,although,aswewillsee,itisrarelyquiteoutoftheircontrol.Theseaggregativeprocesseshavequitedistinctiveproperties.Spatio-temporaladditionstoasystemusuallyoccurlocally,butthedynamicsofthesystemtendtoworkatthemoreglobalaggregativelevels.11Complexityarisesinpartfromtherecursiveapplication,inincreasinglycomplexaggregations,ofruleswhichmayinitiallybesimple,butthemselvesmaybetransformedbytheevolvingcontextinwhichtheyareapplied.Alocallydrivenaggregativeprocessoftenproducesaglobalstatewhichisnotunderstood12butwhichneedstobeunderstoodinorderforthelocallydrivenprocesstobeeffective.Thisistheessentialnatureofthelargeaggregatesofbuildingswhichformmostbuiltenvironments.




SpaceSyntax

Thiscomplex,processualaetiologyisthemainreasonwhybuiltenvironmentshaveprovedsoresistanttoorthodoxattemptstomodeltheirstructuremathematically.Buildingsandcitiesarenotcrystallineobjects,unfoldingundertheinfluenceonlyoflawsofgrowth.Theelementaryspatialgestuariesofhumankindanditsculturesmayconstructlocalelementalconfigurations,butthesethenoperateaslocalorderingswithingrowthprocessesandactasconstraintsonthe‘natural’evolutionofglobalpatterns.Architecturaland,evenmoreso,urbanformsoccurattheinterfacebetweennaturalprocessesandhumaninterventions.Humanactionsrestrictandstructurethenaturalgrowthprocesses,sothattheycannotbeunderstoodwithoutinsightintobothindividually,andintotherelationsbetweenthetwo.Theinterventionofthemindintheevolvingcomplexitymustbeunderstood,butsomustitslimitations. Thebuiltenvironmentmaythenbethemostobviousofobjects,andtheonethatformsourfamiliarmilieu,butatthesametimeitsinnerlogicandstructureisasinaccessibletousasanythinginnature.However,ithasonegreatadvantageasanobjectofstudy.Itsveryscale,manifestnessandslowrateofchangeofferitupastheparadigmcaseforconfigurationalinvestigation.Theessenceoftheproblemistocapturethelocal-to-globaldynamicsofarchitecturalandurbansystems,thatis,toshowhowtheelementarygenerators,whichexpressthehumanabilitytocogniseandstructureanimmediatespatialreality,unfoldintotheramifiedcomplexitiesoflarge-scalesystems. Inthis,methodologicaldifficultiesarecentral.Theaimofamethodmustbetocapturethelocalorelementalordering,theemergenceofglobalcomplexity,andhowbothrelatetothehumanmind.Foranyofthese,themanifestproblemofconfigurationmustbetackledheadon,andmustbeapproachedfirstandforemostasanempiricalproblem.Ifthespace-timeproductsofabstractartefactsareheldtogetherbyconfiguration,thenconfigurationcanbefoundbyexaminingthem.Thecorpusofconfigurationsthatcanbebuiltthroughthestudyofrealcasesmustbesomeindicatorofwherewemightseekfortheconfigurationalinvariantsofbuiltenvironmentprocesses.Forthistask,theveryscale,relativestabilityandavailabilityofbuiltenvironmentsmakethemtheidealvehicleforanenquiry.Allweneedaretechniquesthatpermittheextractionofconfigurationfromitsspace-timeembodiments-thatis,non-discursivetechnique.

Simplicity as a means to complexityTheconfigurationalformalismsproposedhereasthebasisfornon-discursivetechniqueareinsomewaysmuchsimplerthanothersproposedforthesimilarclassesofphenomenaoverthelasttwentyyears.13Yettheyhaveprovedthemostpowerfulindetectingformalandfunctionalregularitiesinrealsystems.Thereareprobablythreereasonsforthis.First,thequantitativemethodsproposedaredirectedstraightattheproblemofconfiguration,thatis,theproblemofunderstandingthesimultaneouseffectsofawholecomplexofentitiesoneachotherthroughtheirpatternofrelationships.Lackofattentiontothiscentralproblemistheprime




SpaceSyntax

reasonwhypastformalismoftenseemedtooffermathematicalsophisticationoutofproportiontotheempiricalresultsachieved.Withconfigurationalanalysisitistheotherwayround.Exceedinglysimplequantitativetechniqueshaveledtoadisproportionatesuccessinfindingsignificantformalandform-functionalregularities.Configuration,asdefinedbelow,seemstobeatleastoneofthethingsthatarchitecturalandurbanpatternsareabout. Second,inconfigurationalanalysis,asmuchtheoreticalattentionhasbeengiventotherepresentationofthespatialorformalsystemthatistobeanalysedastothemethodofquantification.Aswewillsee,thisquitenormallygivesrisetoawholefamilyofrepresentationsofthesamespatialsystem,eachonerelevanttosomeaspectofitsfunctioning.Itisalsonormaltocombinerepresentations,literallybylayingonerepresentationontopoftheotherandtreatingtheresultingconnectionsasrealconnectionsinthesystem.Throughthis,wefindthatpairsoreventriplesofrepresentationstakentogetheryieldformallyorfunctionallyinformativeresults.Intermsofresearchstrategy,thismeanstryingtorepresentspaceintermsofthetypeoffunctioninwhichweareinterested.Forexample,simplelinestructuresdrawnthroughspaces,temporarilydiscountingotherproperties,haveprovedsufficient(aswewillseeinthenextchapter)toaccountformanyaspectsofmovementwithinbuildingsandurbanareas. Third,andsynthesisingtheprevioustwo,muchattentionhasbeengiventothegraphicrepresentationoftheresultsofmathematicalanalysis,sothattheformalstructuresidentifiedinspatialorformalcomplexescanbeintuitivelyseenandunderstoodwithouttheintermediaryofmathematicalformalism.Thismeansthatmuchcanbeunderstoodbythosewhosetemperamentsleadthemtopreferagraphicalratherthanamathematicalunderstanding.Byrepresentingmathematicalresultsgraphically,alevelofcommunicationispossiblethatpermitslargenumbersofpeopletobeinterestedandknowledgeablewhowouldotherwisefallatthefirstfenceofmathematicalanalysis.Inparalleltothisgraphicalrepresentationofresults,usuallydrawnbycomputer,thereisaparallelemphasisintheinitialstagesofinvestigationtothedrawingofspatialorformalideasbyinvestigatorsandbystudentsasaconstantadjunctto,andcheckon,formalanalysis. Noapologyisthenofferedforthesimplicityofsomeofthenotionspresentedhere.Othershavediscussedsomeofthesepropertiesbuthavenotbeenmindedtoexploretheirfullempiricalortheoreticalrelevance,orhowtheymightbefittedintotheoverallform-functionpicture.Perhapsonereasonforresearcherstomisskeyrelationswhile‘goingclose’,hasbeenwhatwewouldseeasanoverarchingandinsomewaysprematureconcernwithdesignattheexpenseoftheempiricalinvestigationofbuildings.The‘spacesyntax’researchatUCLhasbeendrivenbyaremarkofLionelMarch’s:‘Theonlythingyoucanapplyisagoodtheory.’14Anotherpossiblereasonwhyformalexplorationhasmissedtheoreticalinsighthasbeenthefrequentlackofacloseenoughrelationbetweenmathematicalandempiricalaspectsoftheproblemsposedbyrealbuildingsandcities.Incontrast,thetechniquesofspatialrepresentationandquantificationproposedhere

Non–discursive technique7�



SpaceSyntax

areessentiallysurvivorsofanintensiveprogrammeofempiricalinvestigationspreadoverthebestpartoftwodecadesinwhichformalquestionshavebeenexploredinparalleltotheempiricalpuzzlesposedbyarchitecturalandurbanrealities.WehavealreadydiscussedtheideaofconfigurationatsomelengthinChapter1.Nowweneedtodefineitformally,andtoshowsomeofitspowertosaysimplethingsaboutspaceandform.Itshouldbenotedthatwhatfollowsisnotamethodologicalcookbook,butatheoreticalexplorationoftheideaofconfiguration.Atthisstage,theexamplesgivenareillustrationsofideas,notworkedexamplesofanalysis.Casestudieswillcomeinensuingchapters.Therelationofthischaptertothosethatfollowisthatofaquarry,whichfuturechaptersreturntotopickuponeofthepossibilitiessetouthere,andrefineitforthepurposesofthatchapter.Thischaptershowsthebasesandconnectionofthewholefamilyofmethods.

Defining configurationLetusbeginbydefiningexactlywhatwemeanbyconfiguration,usinganexampledirectlyanalogoustofigure1.3inChapter1,buttakingaslightlydifferentform.WemayrecallthatinChapter1,asimplerelationwasdefinedasarelation-say,adjacencyorpermeability-betweenanypairofelementsinacomplex.Aconfigurationalrelationwasthendefinedasarelationinsofarasitisaffected

bythesimultaneousco-presenceofatleastathirdelement,andpossiblyallotherelements,inacomplex.Infigure3.1i,forexample,aandbaretwocubesstandingonasurface.In3.1ii,thecubesarebroughttogetherfullfacewisetomakeaconjointobject.Therelationofaandbissymmetricalinthatabeing

Figure 3.1

a b a

b

a b a

b

i ii iii

iiii

a b a ba

b

c c2

3 3

2

2 2

3

2

3

v vii

c

td = 8 td = 6 td = 8

22

18

16

16

18

22

28

28 23

17

15

15

17

21

27

23

24

18

14

14

16

20

26

20

25

19

15

13

15

19

25

19

td = 168 td = 158 td = 152 td = 150

Figure 3.2

a b

a b

c

vi

Figure 3.1




SpaceSyntax

the(contiguous)neighbourofbimpliesthatbisthe(contiguous)neighbourofa.Onecouldequallysay,thoughwithlessobviousness,thatin3.1iaandbwerenon-contiguousneighbours,andwerethereforesymmetricalinthissense.Eitherway,therelationofthetworemainssymmetrical,andinfactthisisimplicitinthe‘neighbour’relation.In3.1iii,theconjointobjectformedbyaandbin3.1iiistakenandrestedononeofitsends,withoutchangingtherelationofatob.Butbnowappearstobe‘above’a,andtherelationof‘beingabove’,unlikethatof‘beingtheneighbourof’isnotsymmetricalbutasymmetrical:bbeingaboveaimpliesthataisnotaboveb. Howhasthishappened?Thetemptationistosaythatrelationslike‘above’and‘below’dependonanexogenousframeofreference,like‘east’and‘west’,or‘up’and‘down’.Infact,whathashappenedcanbesaidmoresimply,asshownin3.1iiii.Thesurfaceonwhichthecubesstand-say,thesurfaceoftheearth-wasnotreferredtoindescribingtherelationbetweenaandbin3.1iandii.Itshouldhavebeen,hadwewantedtoforeseetheeffectsofstandingtheconjointobjectonitsend.Letuscallitc.In3.1ii,therelationofbothaandb,takenseparately,tothethirdobject,c,isalsosymmetrical,asistheirrelationtoeachother.So,incidentally,istherelationoftheconjointobjectformedbyaandbtothethirdobject.Theseareallsimplerelations.Butwecanalsosaysomethingmorecomplex:thatin3.1ii,a andbaresymmetricalwithrespecttoc,aswellaswithrespecttoeachother.Thisisaconfigurationalstatement,sinceitdescribesasimplespatialrelationintermsofatleastathird.Whathappensin3.1iiiisnowclear.Althoughaandbremainsymmetricalwithrespecttoeachother,theyarenolongersymmetricalwithrespecttoc.Onthecontrary,theyareasymmetricalwithrespecttoc.Thedifferencebetween3.1iiandiiiisthenaconfigurationaldifference.Therelationofaandbtoeachotherischangedifweaddthe‘withrespectto’clausewhichembedsthetwocubesinalargercomplexwhichincludesc. Thesituationisclarifiedbythejustifiedgraphs(orj-graphs:graphsinwhichnodesarealignedabovearootaccordingtotheir‘depth’fromtheroot—see

Figure 3.1

a b a

b

a b a

b

i ii iii

iiii

a b a ba

b

c c2

3 3

2

2 2

3

2

3

v vii

c

td = 8 td = 6 td = 8

22

18

16

16

18

22

28

28 23

17

15

15

17

21

27

23

24

18

14

14

16

20

26

20

25

19

15

13

15

19

25

19

td = 168 td = 158 td = 152 td = 150

Figure 3.2

a b

a b

c

vi

Figure 3.2




SpaceSyntax

Chapter1)oftheconfigurationsshownin3.1v,viandvii.Ineach,thebottomnodeistheearth,andisinscribedwithacrosstoindicatethatitistheroot.In3.1v,aandbareeachindependentlyconnectedasneighbourstotheearth.In3.1vi,therelationofneighbourbetweenaandbisadded.In3.1vii,therelationbetweenbandc,theearth,isbrokencreatinga‘twodeep’relationbetweenbandc.Onemaynotethatthisset-upalreadyexistsin3.1vbetweenthetwonon-contiguouscubeswithrespecttotheearth.Inthissense,3.1viirecreatesagraphwhichalreadyexistsinv.Thisisalsoshowninthenumbersattachedtoeachofthenodesofthegraph,whichindicatethesumof‘depth’fromthatnodetotheothernodesinthesystem.Thetotaldepthof3.1vandviiistherefore8,whilethatofviis6.Wemightsay,then,thatthedistributionsoftotaldepthsandtheiroverallsumdescribeatleastsomeconfigurationalcharacteristicsofthesecompositeobjects. Nowletusexplorethissimpletechniquealittlefurtherbyexaminingfigure3.2,aseriesofsimplefigurescomposedofsquarecellsjoinedtogetherthroughtheirfaces(butnottheircorners)with‘totaldepths’foreachcelltoallothersinscribedineachcell,andthesumsofthesetotaldepthsforeachfigurebelowthefigure.Thefiguresareallcomposedofsevenidenticallyrelatedcells,plusaneighthwhichisjoinedtotheoriginalblockofseveninitiallyatthetopendintheleftmostfigure,thenprogressivelymorecentrallyfromlefttoright.Therearetwoprincipaleffectsfromchangingthepositionofthissingleelement.First,thetotaldepthvaluesandtheirdistributionsallchange.Second,thesumsoftotaldepthforeachfigurechange,reducingfromlefttorightastheeighthelementmovestoamorecentrallocation.Theeffects,however,arequitecomplex.Thisisnotofcoursesurprising,butitillustratestwokeyprinciplesofconfigurationalanalysis.First,changingoneelementinaconfigurationcanchangetheconfigurationalpropertiesofmanyothers,andperhapsallothersinacomplex.Second,theoverallcharacteristicsofacomplexcanbechangedbychangingasingleelement,thatis,changesdonotsomehowcancelouttheirrelationstodifferentelementsandleavetheoverallpropertiesinvariant.Onthecontrary,virtuallyanychangetoelementsthatisnotsimplyasymmetricalchange,willaltertheoverallpropertiesoftheconfiguration.Wewillseeinduecoursethatconfigurationalchangesofthiskind,evensmallones,playavitalroleintheformandfunctioningofbuildingsandbuiltenvironments.

Shapes as configurationsAnotherwayofsayingthis,isthatdifferentarrangementsofthesamenumbersofelementswillhavedifferentconfigurationalproperties.Forexample,figure3.3isasetofrearrangementsofthesameeightsquarecellsthatweconsideredinfigure3.2,againwith‘totaldepths’inscribedineachcell,butalsowithanumberofothersimpleproperties,includingthetotaldepth,setoutclosetothefigure:tdistotaldepth,dbaristheaverageforeachcell,sdisthestandarddeviation, dfisthe‘differencefactor’indicatingthedegreeofdifferencebetweentheminimum,maximumandmeandepthineachcomplex(Hillieretal.1987a),andt/tisthenumberofdifferentdepthvaluesoverthenumberofcells.




SpaceSyntax

Intreatingshapesasconfigurationsinthissense,thatis,ascompositesmadeupofstandardisedelements,weareineffecttreatingashapeasagraph,thatis,asapurelyrelationalcomplexofsomekindinwhichwetemporarilyignoreotherattributesoftheelementsandtheirrelations.Itisclearthatsuchdescriptionsareverymuchlessthanafulldescriptionoftheshape.Formanyshapeproperties,andformanyofthepurposesforwhichwemightseektounderstandshape,aconfigurationaldescriptionofthiskindwouldbequiteinadequateorinappropriate.Butthereisonesenseinwhichtheconfigurationalstructureoftheshapeisauniquelypowerfulproperty,andgivesinsightsintopropertiesofspatialandformalshapeswhichareincreasinglymanifestingthemselvesasthemostfundamental,especiallyinstudiesofarchitecturalandurbanobjects.Thispropertyisthatgraphsofshapesandspatiallayoutsaresignificantlydifferentwhenseenfromdifferentpointsofviewwithinthegraph.Thiscanbedemonstratedvisuallybyusingthej-graph.Bydrawingj-graphsfromallnodesinashape,then,wecanpicturesomequitedeeppropertiesofshapes. Forexample,ahighlyinterestingpropertyofshapesisthenumberofdifferentj-graphstheyhave,andhowstrongthedifferencesare.Forexample,figure3.4showsalldifferentj-graphsforaselectionoftheshapesinfigure3.3.Thenumbervariesfrom3to6.Thereasonforthisisthatifwefindthatthej-graphsfromtwonodesareidentical,thenthismeansthatfromthesetwopointsofview,theshapehasastructuralidentity,whichweintuitivelycallsymmetry.Thisiswhyintheshapesinfigure3.4,thesmallerthenumberofdifferentj-graphsasaproportionofthetotalnumberofj-graphs(thatis,thenumberofelementsinthegraph)thenthemoretheshapesappearregularbecausetherearemoresymmetriesintheshape.Thisistheratiogivenast/t(typesovertotal)infigure3.3.Thisaspectofthestructureofthegraphthusseemstoreflectoursensethatshapescanberegularorirregulartodifferentdegrees. Thisanalogycanbemademoreprecise.Infact,thesymmetrypropertiesofshapescanbeexactlytranslatedasconfigurationalproperties.Mathematically,symmetryisdefinedintermsofinvarianceundertransformation.IntheirbookFearful Symmetry,IanStewartandMartinGolubitskyillustratesthiswithsingularclarity.‘Toamathematician’theyargue,‘anobjectpossessessymmetryifitretainsitsformaftersometransformation.’15Theyillustratethiswithadiagramshowingthesymmetriesofthesquare,asinfigure3.5,inwhich‘atypicalpointintheplaneismappedintoeightdifferentimagesbythe…eightrigidmotionsthatleavethesquareinvariant’.Thinkingofsymmetriesintermsofpointsinashapeisusefulconfigurationally,sincewemayimmediatelyaskwhatwillbethecharacteristicsofj-graphsdrawnfromeachofthepoints.Itisimmediatelyclearthatthej-graphsdrawnfromeachofStewart’spointswillbeidentical,andthatthiswouldalsobethecaseforanyothercomparablesetofpointswhichStewarthadselected.Itisalsoclearthatonceapointhasbeenselectedtherewillonlybesevenotherpointsintheshapefromwhichj-graphswillbeidentical.Theprincipleisinfactverysimple:inashape,everysymmetrywillcreateexactlyonepointfromwhichthej-graphis




SpaceSyntax

td=168d=21sd=4.58i=.667df=.937t/t=.5

td=128d=16sd=0i=.429df=1t/t=.125

td=148d=18.5sd=3.577i=.524df=.959t/t=.375

td=142d=17.75sd=3.73i=.512df=.913t/t=.5

td=128d=16sd=3.46i=.429df=.908t/t=.25

td=144d=18sd=4i=.524df=.908t/t=.75

td=142d=17.75sd=3.6i=.512df=.935t/t=.75

td=152d=19sd=i=.571df=t/t=.75

td=120d=15sd=3i=.381df=.949t/t=.375

td=118d=14.75sd=2.72i=.369df=.940t/t=.5

td=124d=15.5sd=3.12i=.405df=.923t/t=.625

td=108d=13.5sd=.194i=.310df=.956t/t=.5

28 22 18 16 16 18 22 2828 21 15 13 13 17 23

21

19

16 16 16

28

19 13 13 15 19 25

12 16 22

16 12 12

18 14 14

16 14 14

16 12 12

14 12 14

14 12 14

20 14 14 16 20 26

16 14 14 16

22

2222

22

19

19

10 14 201420

16

14

20

18

14

24

22 16

14 16

16

22

18

24

20

20

15 13 15

13 11 13

19 19

16 16 16

16 16 16

Figure 3.3

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Figure 3.3




SpaceSyntax

isomorphic.Ineffect,j-graphisomorphismisatestforsymmetry.Thej-graphallowsustolookatsymmetryasaninternalproperty,incontrasttothemoreexternalviewpresupposedbythe‘invarianceundermotion’definition.Inasense,theinvarianceundermotionexistsbecausetherearedifferentpointswithintheshapefromwhichtheshapeisidentical.Wemightsaythatinashapewithsymmetrytherearepointswithintheshapewithidentityofpositionalinformationinrelationtotheobjectasawhole,andthisisdemonstratedbyj-graphisomorphism.

Universal distancesThedistributionsofdepthsthatareshownthroughthej-graphs,andwhichunderliebotharchitecturalandgeometricaleffects-areinfactthemostfundamentalideainquantifyingtheconfigurationpropertiesofspatialorformalcomplexes.Theideafirstmadeitsappearanceintheliteratureofappliedgraphtheoryin1959whenHararyappliedittosociometryunderthenameof‘status’.‘Status’isdefinedbyBuckleyandHarary16thus:‘Thestatuss(v)ofanodevin

Figure 3.4

20 14 10 14 20

16

14

20

15 13 15

13 11 13

19 19

16 14 14 16

22

22

22

22

15 13 13 17 23

21

21

19

20 16 14 10

19 15 13 11

23 21 17 131519

Figure 3.5. The eight images of a point under the symmetries of the square. Theoriginal point is in the shaded triangle: small squares indicate transformations used.

22 16 14

Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5Figure 3.4

20 14 10 14 20

16

14

20

15 13 15

13 11 13

19 19

16 14 14 16

22

22

22

22

15 13 13 17 23

21

21

19

20 16 14 10

19 15 13 11

23 21 17 131519

Figure 3.5. The eight images of a point under the symmetries of the square. Theoriginal point is in the shaded triangle: small squares indicate transformations used.

22 16 14




SpaceSyntax

G(agraph)isthesumofdistancesfromvtoeachothernodeinG’,distancemeaningthefewestnumberofnodesinterveningbetweenonenodeandanother.Theproblemwithstatusdefinedinthiswayas‘totaldepth’isthatthevaluewillbeverysubstantiallyaffectedbythenumberofnodesinthegraph.Accordingly,asdiscussedinChapter1,anormalisationformulawasproposedinThe Social Logic of Space17whicheliminatesthebiasduetothenumberofnodesinthegraph.Withthisnormalisation,numericalvaluescanbeassignedexpressing‘totaldepth’independentlyofthesizeofthesystem.ThisnormalisationformulawasdiscussedandclarifiedbySteadmaninArchitectural Morphology18Wewillcallthesenormalisedvaluesi-values,toexpresstheideaofthedegreeof‘integration’ofanelementinacomplex,whichwebelievethesevaluesexpress. Theneedforthenormalisationformulaandtheintuitionoftheformitmighttakeinfactcamefromusingthejustifiedrepresentationofthegraph,orj-graph.Simplyasaconsistentlyusedrepresentation,thej-graphmakesthestructureofgraphs,andmoreimportantlythedifferencesintheirstructures,extraordinarilyclear.However,byrepresentingtheminastandardformat,italsomakescleartheneedforcomparativenumericalanalysisandhowitmightbedone.Forexample,itisimmediatelyclearwhatgraphwillbemaximallyandwhatminimallydeep.Itisasimplematterfromtheretofindthenormalisation.Thefactthatnoonefoundthisusefulexpressionbefore,whenitopensupwholenewvistasfortheempiricalanalysisandcomparisonofforms,ispresumablybecausenoonesaweitheritsnecessityorpossibility. However,althoughthei-valueformulaallowsthetheoreticaleliminationoftheeffectsofthesizeofthesystem,itdoesnotdealwiththefactthat,empirically,architecturalandurbanspatialcomplexesuseonlyasmallproportionofthosetheoreticallypossible,andthisproportionshrinksasthesizeofthesystemgrows.TheseeffectsarediscussedinfullinChapter9,andinfactbecomethebasisofafulltheoryofurbanspatialform.Asecond,empiricalnormalisationformulawasthereforeintroducedtocopewiththisempiricalfact.19Thesecondformulaisanempiricalapproximationwithsometheoreticaljustification(thatitapproximatesanormaldistributionofdepthvaluesfromanynodeinagraph)andassuchitlackselegance.Howeveritsrobustnesshasbeendemonstratedinlargenumbersofempiricalstudiesovertheyears,duringwhichtimenoneedhasarisentocallitintoquestion.20Nodoubt,asstudiesadvance,itwillbepossibletoeliminatethissecondnormalisationformulaandreplaceitwithanexpressionwithmoretheoreticalelegance.Inthemeantime,‘integration’willrefertotheoutcomesofbothnormalisations,unless‘total’depth’(status,withnonormalisation)or‘i-value’(statuswiththefirst,theoreticalnormalisationforsize)arespecified.Allthesetermsaredifferentwaysofreferringtothesamequantity. Whyhasthisquantityprovedsofundamentalintheempiricalstudyofspatialandformalconfigurations?Itispossiblethatitssimplicityconcealsaveryfundamentaltheoreticalproperty:thatitisessentiallyageneralisationoftheideaofdistance.Ourcommonconceptofdistanceisthatofaspecificnumberofmetric




SpaceSyntax

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

26000

16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 30000 32000 34000

Manhattan 32 x 32

met

ric23

x32

y = .797x - 311.417, R-squared: .998

10 cm

10.0499 cm

10.198 cm

10.4403 cm

10.7703 cm

11.1804 cm

11.6619 cm

12.2066 cm

12.8063 cm

13.4537 cm

14.1422 cm

Figure 3.6

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Manhattan distance

met

ricdi

stan

ce

y = .683x + 83.787, R-squared: .952

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Manhattan distance

Man

hatta

n-m

etric

y = .317x - 83.787, R-squared: .81

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 30000 32000 34000

Manhattan 32 x 32

Man

hatta

n-m

etric

32x

32

y = .203x + 311.417, R-squared: .972

Figure 3.7

a.

c.

b.

d.

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

26000

16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 30000 32000 34000

Manhattan 32 x 32

met

ric23

x32

y = .797x - 311.417, R-squared: .998

10 cm

10.0499 cm

10.198 cm

10.4403 cm

10.7703 cm

11.1804 cm

11.6619 cm

12.2066 cm

12.8063 cm

13.4537 cm

14.1422 cm

Figure 3.6

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Manhattan distance

met

ricdi

stan

ce

y = .683x + 83.787, R-squared: .952

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Manhattan distance

Man

hatta

n-m

etric

y = .317x - 83.787, R-squared: .81

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 30000 32000 34000

Manhattan 32 x 32

Man

hatta

n-m

etric

32x

32

y = .203x + 311.417, R-squared: .972

Figure 3.7

a.

c.

b.

d.




SpaceSyntax

unitsbetweenonepointandanotherwithinsomesystemofspatialreference.Wecancallthisaspecificdistance.Totaldepthsumsallspecificdistancesfromanodetoallothers.Wemaythereforethinkofitasa‘universaldistance’fromthatnode.Ifspecificdistanceisaboutthemetricpropertiesofshapesandcomplexes,universaldistancesseemtobethekeytoconfigurationalproperties.Universaldistanceseemstobeageneralisationoftheideaofdepththatpermitsconfigurationtobecomethecentralfocusofanalysis. Itmaybeobjectedthatsuchaconceptofuniversaldistancehasonlybeenmadepossiblethroughanunacceptablesimplificationoftheideaofashapetothatofagraph,ratherthananinfinitesetofpoints.Thisisadifficulty,butitseemsthatitmightnotbeasgreatasitmightatfirstappear.Ifweconsiderasquareshapemadeupofsquarecells,andthereforerepresentableasagraph,asinfigure3.6,andmeasuredistancesfromandtothecentroidofeachcell,itisclearthatgraphdistanceswillapproximatemetricdistancesonlywhentheyareorthogonallyrelated.Onthediagonal,metricdistanceswillbeeithershorterorlongerthangraphdistances,dependingonwhetherornotweconnectthegraphdiagonallyacrosscellcorners,oronlyallowjoinsthroughthefaces.Ifcornerlinksarenotallowed,thengraphdistanceswillben+m(or‘Manhattan’distances,byanalogywiththeManhattangrid)wheremisthehorizontaldistanceandntheverticaldistance,whilethemetric(or‘asthecrowflies’)distancewillbethesquarerootofmsquared+nsquared.Thiswillbemaximalbetweenoppositetopandbottomcorners.Ifdiagonallinkstoadjacentnodesareallowed,thenthedistancebetweenoppositetopandbottomcornerswillbemorn,whicheveristhegreater,whichequallymisrepresentsthemetricdistance.Ifweplotgraphdistanceagainstmetricspecificdistancesinsuchasystemwewillfindthatnotonlyarethedifferencessubstantial,butalsothattheyvaryindifferentpartsofthesystem.Inotherwords,graphandmetricspecificdistancesarenotlinearlyrelated,sowecannotuseoneasaproxyfortheother.Figure3.7aisaplotofmetricspecificdistanceagainstgraph(Manhattan)specificdistancefor1000randomlyselectedpairofpointsina100×100squarecellarrangementofthetypeshowninthepreviousfigure,andfigure3.7bplotsthedifferencebetweenmetricandgraphspecificdistanceontheverticalaxisforincreasinggraphdistanceonthehorizontalaxis. However,ifwesubstituteuniversalforspecificdistances,andcarryoutthesameanalysis,thisproblemissignificantlydiminished.Figure3.7cshowsgraph(Manhattan)againstmetricuniversaldistancesforallnodesina32×32(i.e.1024cells)squarecellcomplex,andfigure3.7dplotsgraphdistanceagainstthedifferencebetweenmetricandgraphdistances.Althoughthevaluesarestillexactlyasdifferentoverall,theyarenowmoreorlesslinearlyrelated,sothatitismuchmorereasonabletouseoneasaproxyfortheother.Thisfortunatefactpermitsafarmoreflexibleuseofgraphbasedmeasureofconfigurationthanwouldotherwisebethecase.Aswewillsee,suchmattersasshapeandscale,areaanddistancecanallbebrought,asapproximationsatleast,withinthescopeoftheconfigurationalmethod.Allwillbeinsomesensetheoutcomeofseeinga




SpaceSyntax

complexofrelatedelementsasasetofj-graphs.Thej-graphineffectredefinestheelementofacomplexintermsofitsrelationtoallotherelementsinthecomplex.Summingthepropertiesofj-graphstoexpresspropertiesofthewholecomplexmeanssummingthedifferentpointsofviewfromwhichthecomplexcanbeseeninternally.Theeventualjustificationofthisformalismisthatarchitecturalandurbansystemsareexactlythiskindofcomplex.Theyareglobalsystemswhosestructure,functioningandgrowthdynamicsaremanufacturedoutoftheinnumerabledifferentpointsofviewfromwhichtheycanbeseen.

Regular shapes as configurationsNowletustaketheideaalittlefurther,andclosertoeverydayexperience.Itisclearthatanyshapecanberepresentedasaregularlyconstructedmeshofcellularelements,ortessellation,providedwecanscalethemeshasfinelyasweneed.Thiscanthenbetreatedasagraph,andthusexpressedasapatternofuniversalgraphdistances.Bydescribingsimpleeverydayshapesinthisway,itturnsoutthatwecancaptureimportantaspectsofhowtheyfitintoeverydaylivingpatterns. Suppose,forexample,wecreatean(approximately)circulartessellationofarbitrarilysmallsquarecells,asinfigure3.8a.Wemaycalculatethemeandepthofeachcellfromallothers,andexpresstheresultsinadistributionofdotdensitiesforthesquareelementsinwhichthehigherdensities,ordarkercolours,standforgreaterintegration-thatis,lessdepth—gradedthroughtolightestcoloursfortheleast

a. b.

d.

e.

c.

Figure 3.8




SpaceSyntax

integration,orgreatestdepth.Itisclearthatthecentrehasthehighestintegration,andthatintegrationreducesevenlyinconcentricringsaroundthecentre.Inaperfectcircle,alledgelocationswillhaveanidenticaldegreeofintegration.Ifwethenconsiderthesquaretessellationinfigure3.8cwefindthatthepatternofintegrationnotonlyrunsfromcentretoedge,butalsofromthecentreoftheedgetothecorners.Thesquareformisthusmorecomplexthanthecircularforminasimple,butcriticalway.Wemaysaythatinthesquareform,the‘centralintegration’effectoccurstwice:onceintheglobalstructurefromcentretoedge,andoncemorelocallyoneachsideoftheform.Wecanalsoeasilycalculatethatthesquareformislessintegrated-thatis,hasgreateraverageuniversaldistancespertessellationelement-thanthecircularform. Asweelongatethesquareintoarectangle,asinfigure3.8d,theoverallformisevenlessintegrated,andthepropertiesfirstfoundinthesquarebecomemoreexaggerated.Theglobalstructureoftheformisnowagroupofintegratedcentralsquares,whichincludessomeonorneartheperipheryoftheobject,withthetwo‘ends’substantiallylessintegratedthanotherparts.Eachsidehasacentraldistributionofintegration,butoneinwhichthelongsideshavemuchgreaterdifferentiationthantheshortsides,andcorrespondincreasinglytotheglobalstructureofthetessellationasweelongateit.Inthelimitingrectangulartessellation,thesinglesequenceofsquares,thenthelocalandtheglobalstructuresareallidentical,asinfigure3.8e. Wemaysummarisethisbysayingthatwhilealltheseformsaregloballystructuredfromcentretoedge,inthecircularformthelocalorlateralstructureisuniform,inthesquareformthelateralstructureismaximallydifferentfromtheglobalstructure,whileintherectangularformthelocallateralstructuretendstobecometheglobalstructureasweelongateit,untilthelimitingformofthesinglesequenceisreachedwhenthetwostructuresbecomeidentical.Thecorrespondencebetweenthese‘structures’ofshapesandthewaysinwhichshapeisexploitedforsocialpurposesineverydaylifeisintriguing.Forexample,onsquarediningtablesthecentresideismoreadvantageousthancornerlocations,becauseitisamoreintegratedlocation.Similarly,theEnglishprimeministersitsinthecentreofthelongsideofabroadrectangulartable,maximisingthisadvantageinintegration.Incontrast,wherestatusratherthaninteractionistheissue,caricaturedukesandduchessessitatoppositeendsofalongtable,maximisingproxemicsegregationbutalsosurveillance,whilestudentsandmonksclassicallysitonthesidesofalongthin‘refectory’tablewithnooneattheends,thusmakingallbutlocalisedconversationsdifficult.Thepoliticsoflandholdingknightswithaperipatetickingsittingataroundtableareequallymanifest,asaretheendlesspoliticaldebatesovertheshapesofconferencetablesandparliamentchambers.Thewaysinwhichshapesareexploitedandusedallfollowthepatternofintegrationinsomeway,thoughwithoppositetendenciesdependingonwhetherinteractivestatusorsymbolicstatusismorecritical.




SpaceSyntax

Plans as shaped spaceNowletusconsiderthemorecomplexcaseofthehouseplan.Inthesequenceofplansinfigure3.9iisaslightlysimplifiedversionoftheplanofoneofthefarmhousesinruralFrancethatwereconsideredinChapter1.Thesallecommuneistheeverydayspacewherecooking,eatingandthereceptionofeverydayvisitorstakeplace.Thegrandesalleisaspaceformoreformalreceptionofguests.Theworkspacestotherightareadairy,washingroomandstorage,allassociatedwiththefemaleroleinthehouse,thebureauistheofficeoftheprincipalmaleoccupant,andthesalleisanindeterminatespace,perhapsfunctionallyassociatedwiththebureau.Whatdoesitmeantoanalysethisplanasashape? Aplanis,first,ashape,whichcanberepresentedasatessellation,see3.9ii.Forconvenienceandspeedofanalysisweusearatherlargeelement,andtreatthresholdsassingleelements.Thisleadstosomeunrealisminwallthickness,butthisdoesnotaffecttheanalysis.Thetessellationmaybeanalysedintoapatternofuniversaldistances.Sincethisreflectsthedistributionofcentralityintheshape,inthiselongatedplantheleastuniversaldistances-showndarkest-arefoundinthefrontcorridorbetweenthelargespacemid-right-thesallecommune-andthemainentrancemid-leftasin3.9iii. Themetricdistributionofuniversaldistancesrepresentsthedegreetowhichphysicaleffortmustbemadetomovefromonepartoftheshapetoanother.Ifwecomparetheplanshapetoasquareshapewiththesamenumberofelementswehaveasimpleindexoftheoverallmetricintegrationoftheshape.Inthiscase,themeanuniversaldistanceofcellsintheshapeis10.3whereasforanequivalentsquareitwouldbe4.9.Dividingtheformerintothelatter,wefindthatourshapehas2.1timestheuniversaldistanceofanequivalentlysizedsquare,indicatingthatabouttwiceasmucheffortmustbemadetomovearoundthisplanasinanequivalentsquare.Wemaythinkofthereciprocalofthisnumberasindexingthedegreetowhichashapegetstowardsbeingasquare.Inthiscasethevalueis.462.Thedegreeanddistributionofuniversaldistancesthusindexessomethinglikethephysicaleconomyoftheshape,thehumancounterparttowhichistheamountofphysiologicaleffortneededtoovercomeuniversaldistances.Wemayperhapsthinkofthiswayoflookingattheplanasitsbodilyorphysiologicalstructure.Itrepresentstheinertiaaparticularshapeofferstothehumanbodyoccupyingit. However,aswesawinChapter1,theplanisalsoanarrangementofconvexelements,thatis,rooms,corridors,halls,andsoon.Wecanrepresentitassuch,again,byusingsingleelementthresholds,asin3.9iiii.Againweanalysethisforitspatternofintegration,thistimetreatingtheconvexelementsaselements,andthereforeignoringactualdistancesandsizes,giving3.9v.Nowofcourse,aswasshowninChapter1,thestrongestintegratoristhesallecommune.Thoughthecolourcodingmakesitlookthesameasthecorridor,theintegrationvalueofthespace(.197,usingthei-valueformula)isalittlestronger(thatis,hasloweruniversaldistance)thanthecorridor(.205).Thismeansthatintermsofconvexasopposedtometricorganisation,thefocusofintegrationhasbeendisplacedfromthegeometric




SpaceSyntax

Figure 3.9

xi.

gr andsalle

gr andsalle

sallecommune

mainentr ance

cor r idor vestibule

workspaces

sallebur eau

i.

ii .

iii.

iiii.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii.

ix.

x.

xii.

xiii.

xiiii.

xv.




SpaceSyntax

centreintooneofthefunctionspaces.Thedistributionsurvivesifweaddfourlinearstripsaroundtheplantorepresenttheoutsideworld(sincetherelationtotheoutsideisoftenacriticalaspectofdomesticspaceorganisation),andreanalyseforintegration(3.9viandvii).Theoffsetsallecommunespaceisstillstrongerthanthecentralcorridorelement.

Wenowoverlaytheconvexelementsonthetessellationshape,connectingeachtoallthetessellationsquaresthatlieimmediatelyunderit,andre-analysethetwolayersasasinglesystem,sothateachconvexelementisaffectedbythenumberoftessellationelementsitisdirectlyconnectedto,andeachtessellationelementisaffectedbythelinksmadetoothertessellationelementsthroughthepatternofconvexelements.Notsurprisingly,wefindthateachlayerhasaffectedthedistributionofuniversaldistancesintheother.Figures3.9viiiandixshoweachlayerofthetwo-layersystemseparately.3.9viii,theconvexlayerofthetwo-levelanalysis,showsthatcomparedto3.9v,thelargespaceontheleft,the‘best’room,hasbecomerelativelymore‘integrated’thantheworkspacesontherightandtheoffice.Thisisaneffectofscale.Thefactthatthemuchlargerconvexareaofthe‘best’roomoverlaysfarmoretessellationsquaresthanthesmallworkroomshastheeffectofdrawingintegrationtowardsthe‘best’roomindirectproportiontoitsmetricscale,andconverselyforthesmallrooms.Ineffect,theconvexlayerofthetwo-levelsystemshowshowthepatternofintegrationoftheconvexelementsisaffectedbytheirarea,asmeasuredbythenumberofuniformtessellationelementseachoverlays.Thiseffectisclarifiedinfigure3.9ixthetessellationlayerofthetwo-layersystem.Comparingthistofigure3.9iii,weseethattheoverlayingofthelargerconvexelementonthetessellationsquareswithinthe‘best’roomhastheeffectofmakingthemmoreintegratedandmoreuniform.Theseresultsshowthatmetricscale,shape,andspatialconfigurationcanallbeexpressedinthecommonlanguageofuniversaldistances,orintegration,inlayeredspatialrepresentationconsideredasunifiedsystems. Wemaytakethisalittlefurther.Anotherpotential‘layer’intheplanisthesystemoflinesofsightlinkingtheconvexelementstogetherthroughthedoorways,assumingforthispurposethattheyareopen.Wecanrepresentthislayerbydrawingaxial‘strips’correspondingtolinesofsightasinfigure3.9xandanalyseitspatternofintegration,figure3.9xi.Wefindthatthefront‘axis’passingthroughthesallecommune,thesalleandthecorridorisnowthemostintegratingelementbutthemainentrancefront-backlinemid-leftandthesallecommunefront-backlinemid-rightarealmostasstrong. Wemaythensuperimposethelinearelementsontheconvexelementsandreanalysetheseasasingletwo-levelsysteminwhichthelineelementsarealldirectlyconnectedtotheconvexelementsthatlieimmediatelyunderthem.Theeffectofthissimultaneousanalysisofthetwolayerswillbetoshowhowintegrationissharedbetweenconvexandlinearelements.Wefindthatthefrontcorridorisstillstrongest,followedbythefront-backlinethroughthesallecommune,followedcloselybyboth




SpaceSyntax

thefrontbacklinethroughthemainentranceandbytheconvexspaceofthesallecommuneitself.Theseresultscanbeshownbykeepingthelineandconvexsystemtogether,asinfigure3.9xii,butalsobyshowingthemseparatelyforgreaterclarity. Finallywecanassembleallthreelayersintoasinglesysteminwhichbothconvexandlineelementsaredirectlyconnectedtoallthetessellationelementsthatlieimmediatelyunderthem.Wethenanalyseandprintoutthethreelayersseparately,firstthetessellationlayer,figure3.9xiii,thentheconvexlayer,figure3.9xiiii,andfinallythelinelayer,figure3.9xv.Thefinalpatternemergingfromthethree-layeranalysisisthatthe‘frontaxis’linkingthroughallthefrontspaceisthestrongestintegrator,followedbythesallecommune,thegrandesalle,thelinetothebackthroughthesallecommuneandthemainentrancelineandthesecondaryentranceline. ComparedtothepurelyconvexanalysisoutlinedinChapter1,then,anumberofnewsubtletieshavebeenadded.Forexample,ithasbecomeclearthatthepotentiallineofsightlinkingroomsthroughthecorridoratthefrontofthehouseisamorecriticalelementthanappearedintheearlieranalysis,andineffectimpartstothehouseafront-backorganisationthathadnotemergedfromtheearlieranalysis.Also,wecanseethattherelationbetweenwhatwemightcallthe‘energyeconomy’ofthehouseplan,thatis,theamountofeffortneededtogofromonelocationtoanotherasshowninthemetrictessellation,andthehigher-levelorganisationisquitesubtle.Ineffect,convexspaceintegrationforthemajorspacesisdisplacedfromthemetriccentreofgravity,andthedegreeofdisplacementistosomeextentcompensatedbysize.Thusthegrandesalleismoredisplacedthanthesallecommune,butcompensatesforthisgreaterdisplacementbyitsgreatersize.Multi-layeredanalysissuggeststhenthatweshouldnotseeasystemofspaceasonething.Aspatiallayoutisashapewhichcontainsmanyconfigurationalpotentials,eachofwhichseemstorelatetoadifferentaspectoffunction.Thesepotentialsmaybetreatedasindependentsystemsofspacebychoosingtoanalysethelayoutonthebasisofoneparticularrepresentationratherthananother,ortheymaybetreatedinselectivecombinations,orevenaltogether.Italldependsonwhatwearetryingtofindout.

Façades as configurationsIfthedistributionofthevariouslayersofintegrationinashaperelatestothewaysinwhichweuseshapes,thenanintriguingpossibilitymightbethatitcouldalsobeimplicatedinhowweunderstandshapes.Forexample,buildingfaçadesseenasshapesseemcapableofbeing‘understood’ascommunicatorsofinformationinsomesense.Couldconfigurationbeinvolvedinthistypeofapparentcommunication? Considerinaveryelementarywayhowwerecogniseobjects.Thetoprowoffigure3.10showsthreefigureswhichareconstructedbyarrangingthirtysquareelementsindifferentways.Recognisingthesefiguresseemstohappenintwostages.Inthefirststage,weidentifyadistinctshape,differentfromothers.Inthesecondweassignthatshapetoacategorybygivingitaname.Infigure3.10aandb,wesee




SpaceSyntax

twoshapes.Weeasilyrecognisethedifferencebetweenthetwoshapes,thatis,wereadilymakeapureconfigurationaldistinctionbetweenthetwoobjects.Butwehavenocategorytowhichwecanassigneitherobject.Theprocessofobjectrecognitionisthereforeendedatthefirststage.Infigure3.10cwealsoseeashape,butthistimeweconjectureacategory:theshapelookslikeanover-regularisedhumanoid,soweconjectureitismeanttobeeitherarobot,acaricaturehuman,orperhapsatoy.Ofcourse,thefiguredoesnotreallybearmuchresemblancetoahumanbeingorhumanoid.Theevidenceonwhichourcategoryconjectureisbasedis,tosaytheleast,flimsy.Howeverthenatureoftheevidenceisinteresting.Itseemstobeconfigurational.Figures3.10a,bandcarenomorethanoutlinesproducedbyrearranging30squarecellsintodifferentconfigurations.Wehave,itseems,aclearabilitytodistinguishpureshapesorconfigurationfromeachother,priortoanyintuitionofthecategoryofthingtowhichtheconfigurationmightbelong. Wecancallthefirstthesyntacticstageofobjectrecognition,andthesecondthesemanticstage.Thesecondstagehasbeenextensivelydealtwithbyphilosophersandothers,butwhataboutthefirst,‘syntactic’stage,onlynowbeinginvestigatedbycognitivepsychologists?21Whatdoesitmeantorecogniseaconfiguration?Oneapproachtothisistoreversethequestionandaskwhatpropertiesconfigurationshavethatmightallowthemtoberecognised.Suppose,forexample,weanalysetheconfigurationsasdistributionsoftotaldepthvaluesasinthesecondrowoffigure3.10. Thisgivesusseveralkindsofusefulinformationabouttheconfiguration.First,thereisthedistributionofintegrationineachform,asshownbythedark-to-lightpattern.Thiscanbethoughtofasastructurewithintheshape.Second,therearetheintegrationcharacteristicsoftheformasawhole,asindexedbythemeandepth(md)valuesandtheirstandarddeviation(sd)asshownbeneatheachform.Forcomparison,themeandepthandstandarddeviationforasixbyfiverectangle(thatis,aregularformwiththesamenumberofelementsandapproximatingasquareascloselyaspossible)isalsonoted.Weseethat3.10cismoreintegratedthan3.10a,whichismoreintegratedthan3.10b,andthatallarelessintegratedthanthesixbyfiverectangle.Standarddeviationsfollowasimilarpattern.Thesedepthvaluesseemtocorrespondtocertainintuitionswehaveabouttheforms,asdothestandarddeviations,whichshowsthat3.10bhasgreatervariationinthemeandepthsofindividualelementsthan3.10a,whichhasmorethan3.10c,andallhavemorethanthesixbyfiverectangle. However,thereisanotherintuitionwhichisnotexpressedinthesemeasures.Itisobviousthat3.10cismore‘symmetric’thaneither3.10aor3.10b,sinceithasthepropertyofbilateralsymmetry,oneofthecommonestandmosteasilyrecognisabletypesofsymmetryfoundinartefactsorinnature.However,whilefigures3.10aand3.10bbothlackformalsymmetries,theydonotseemtobeentirelyequivalentfromthispointofview.Insomesense,figure3.10aseemstobeclosertosymmetricorganisationthan3.10b.Thereisapossiblequantificationforthisproperty.Toexplain




SpaceSyntax

Figure 3.10

md 4.073 sd .926md 4.609 sd 1.259

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Observations

6x5r

ecta

ngl e

6x5rectangle

Fig1a

Fig1c Fig1bL ine C har t for columns: X 1 … X 4

a:si= 21/30 = .7; b:si = 26/30 = .867; c:si =11/30 = .3676x5 rectanglesi = 9/30 = .3

md 5.604 sd 1.389

6x5 rectangle: md 3.554 sd .543

a. b. c.




SpaceSyntax

it,wemustconsiderthewholeideaofsymmetryfromaconfigurationalpointofview.Wehavealreadyseenthatpuresymmetriesinshapescouldbeinterpretedasconfigurationalproperties,namelyj-graphisomorphisms.Fromanarchitecturalpointofview,itisveryusefultoformulatepropertiesofsymmetryinthisway,since,unlikethenormal‘invarianceundermotion’definitionsofsymmetry,itopensthewaytoweakerdefinitionsofsymmetry,andpermitsanaccountofintuitivelyimportantarchitecturalpropertieswhichapproachsymmetrybutcannotbesoformallydefined.Forexample,wecanspecifyidentityofpositionalinformationwithrespectnottothewholeobjectbuttoaregionwithintheobject,thatis,localratherthanglobalj-graphisomorphism,anddiscusstherelationbetweenlocalandglobalj-graphisomorphism.Buildingsarefulloflocalsymmetries—theformofawindow,orofaparticularmasswithinacomplex—whichsometimesareandsometimesarenotreflectedinaglobalsymmetry.Therelationbetweenlocalandglobalsymmetryseemsanaturalwaytoexpressthis. Mostsignificantly,wecanspecifysimilarity,ratherthanidentity,ofpositionalinformation,anddosoinapreciseway.Forexample,j-graphisomorphismmeansthatj-graphssharenotonlythesamenumberofelementsandthesametotaldepth,butalsothesamenumberofelementsateachlevelofthej-graphandthesameconnectionsbetweenelements.Onewayofweakeningthispropertywouldbetomaintainallpropertiesexcepttherequirementthattheconnectionsbeidentical.Anotherwouldbetovarythenumberateachlevel(fromwhichitfollowsthatconnectionswouldbedifferent)buttomaintainthetotaldepththesame.22

Thesecondoftheseseemsparticularlyinteresting,sinceitoffersapossibleformalisationofthepropertyof‘balanced’asymmetryoftendiscussedintheliteratureintheformalpropertiesofarchitecture.23Forexample,infigure3.11weloadasimplelinearshapewithtwosetsoffourbytwocells,onehorizontal,theothervertical,buteachjoinedtoexactlytwocellsinthebasicform.Althoughthetwoendshapescreatedaredifferent,andinthemselveshavedifferentdistributionsoftotaldepthvalues(ori-values),allthevaluesinthebottomtworowsarepairedinthateachcellhasexactlyoneothercellwhichis‘symmetrically’locatedandhasthesamei-value.Thisi-valueequalityseemstogivearatherprecisemeaningtotheideaof‘balancedasymmetry’. Wemayapplythisanalysistothethreeshapesshowninfigure3.10.Thethirdrowshowseachshapewithcellswithequali-valuesmarkedwiththesamenumber,fromthemosttotheleastintegrating.Weseethat3.10ahasfarmoreequali-valuesthan3.10b.Also,in3.10atheequalvaluesreachwellintotheintegrationcoreoftheshape,whereasin3.10btheyaredistinctlyperipheral.Bothoftheseproperties,aswellasthedegreeofintegration,canberepresentedthroughasimplestatisticaldevice:thelinechartshowninthefinalrowof3.10.Hereeachshapeisrepresentedbyaseriesofi-values,plottedfrommosttoleastintegrated(shownasleasttomostdepth),togetherwithaseriesrepresentingthesixbyfiverectangle(shownascircles)toprovideabaselineforcomparison:3.10a




SpaceSyntax

isrepresentedasdiamonds,3.10bastriangles,and3.10cassquares.Evidently,theoveralldegreeofintegrationisindexedbythelocationoftheseriesontheverticalaxis.Thustherectangleisthemostintegrated,3.10cnext,then3.10aandfinally3.10b.Also,theshapesdivergeastheymovefromintegratedtosegregatedelements,sothatthemostintegratedelementsineachshapearemuchclosertogetherthantheleast.Thelinechartsalsoshowthedegreeof‘balancedasymmetry’intheshapebyaligningelementswiththesamei-valuenexttoeachothertoformahorizontalline.Theratioofthetotalnumberofelementstothenumberofelementsthatformpartofsuchlineswillindexthedegreeofbalancedasymmetryintheshape.Thesimplestindexisthenumberofi-valuesoverthenumberofelements.Identicali-valueswillincludeboththoseresultingfromperfectsymmetryasshownbyisomorphicj-graphs,andthosethatonlysharethesametotaldepth.Thissummaryfiguremaythenbethoughtofasabroad‘symmetryindex’.Sivaluesfor3.10a,bandcarebelowthelinechart. Integrationanalysisofshapes,then,permitsustoretrievesomeusefuldescriptionsofshapepropertiesinaconsistentway,thoughwithoutanypretencethatthisisafullaccountofthoseproperties.Oneareawherethisapproachisuseful,however,isinconsideringbuildingsasshapes.Thekeypointhereisthatbuildingsarenotpureshapes,inthegeometricsenseoffree-standingformsinauniformcontext,butorientedshapes,inthesensethattheyareorientedtoandawayfromthegroundonwhichtheystand.Ifwetakethissimplefactintoaccountinanalysingbuildingfaçadesasshapesthenweeasilyfindsomeverysuggestiveresults.Thiscanbedemonstratedbysimplystandingshapesonaline,whichwewillcallthe‘earthline’.Thethreefiguresoffigure3.12arethesquareandrectangularformsshownearlierwithearthlinesadded.Inthecaseoftherectangularform,theearthlineisaddedtwice,oncetocreateashapehorizontallyalignedtotheearthandoncetocreateashapeverticallyaligned. Thefirsteffectthatmustbenotedisthatinthecaseofthesquare,addingtheearthlinehastheeffectofreducingtheoriginaleightsymmetriesofthesquaretoasimplebilateralsymmetry.Thiscanbeseenvisuallyifwecomparethe

Figure 3.11




SpaceSyntax

shadingpatternsofthesquarewithanearthlinetotheoriginalsquareform.Theconcentricpatternisstillquitemarked,butnowanadditionalbilaterallysymmetricpatternisdetectable.Thiseffectresults,ofcourse,fromtheearthline,asitwere,drawingintegrationdowntowardsitself.Thisconfirmsintuition.Itisclearthatwedonotregardasquareçashavingthesymmetriesofafree-standinggeometricalsquare.Weseeitasaformanchoredtotheearthandhavingleft-rightsymmetry,butnottop-bottomsymmetry.Indeedthelanguageinwhichwedescribetheform-topandbottom,leftandright,showswhichrelationsweseeassymmetricalandwhichasymmetrical. The‘bilateraleffect’oftheearthlineisfarmoremarkedinasquareformthaninanelongatedform,whetherweelongatetheformhorizontallyorvertically.Intheverticalform,theeffectoftheearthlineistomakeintegrationrunfromthebottomoftheformtosegregationatthetop.Thisobliteratesanysenseofabilateralsymmetriceffectintheshadingpattern,andsubstitutesadifferentiationfrombottomtotop.Addinganearthlinetoahorizontallyelongatedform,weagainfindthebilateraleffectisbarelynoticeableintheshadingpattern,andinsteadthereisatendencytoformbroadlayersintheform,butwithmuchweakerdifferentiationfrombottomtotop. Intermsofintegrationandsymmetryindexthedifferencesbetweenthe

verticalandhorizontalformsarealsostriking.Theverticalform,becauseofthegreaterdistanceofmostelementsfromtheearthlineandthefactthatfarfewerconnectdirectlytoit,isalmostassegregatedastheelongatedformwithouttheearthline.Inthehorizontalform,however,mostelementsarenowclosertotheearthline,withmanyactuallytouchingit,andtheeffectisthattheshapehasnowbecomemuchmoreintegratedthanthesquareform,theoppositeofthecasewithouttheearthline.

.178 .477 .124 29/65=.446 .095 20/65=.308

Figure 3.12




SpaceSyntax

Whenweconsiderthesymmetryindextheeffectsarenolessstriking.Whereasintheoriginalshapes,thesquareformhadmore‘symmetry’thantheelongatedform,theadditionoftheearthlinehasoppositeeffectsontheverticalandhorizontalforms.Theverticalformhaslesssymmetrythanthesquareform,becausefewerelementsareonthesamelevel,whilethehorizontalformhassubstantiallymore,forthecontraryreason.Again,thereisacommon-sensereasonfortheseeffects.Theadditionofanearthlinetoaverticalformconvertsapatternofintegrationthatintheoriginalformwentfromcentretoedgetoonethatalsonowgoesfromtheearthline—which,asitwere,nowanchorstheform—upwardsthroughtheform,frommoreintegrationatthebottom,closesttotheearthline,toleastatthetop,farthestfromtheearthline.Theverticalformineffectnowrunsverticallyfromintegrationtosegregation.Inthehorizontalform,ontheotherhand,insofaraselementsarehorizontallyrelated,theywilltendtobecomemoresimilartoeachother,byvirtueoftheirclosenesstotheearthline.Thiscorrespondstotheintuitionthatthemoreshapesarealignedalongasurface,themoreequaltheybecome.Incontrast,theverticaldimensionstressesdifference,inthattherelationsofaboveandbelowareasymmetrical.Horizontality,wemaysay,equalisesandintegrates,whileverticalitysegregatesanddifferentiates. Theanalysisoffaçadesaslayersisalsosuggestive.Forexample,ifwetakeasimplifiedrepresentationofaclassicalfaçade,wecanrepresentitfirstasashape,thatis,asametrictessellation,then,bydrawingthedominantelementsinthefaçade,asapatternofconvexelements.Byanalysingeachseparately,asinfigure3.13aandb,weseethattheshape,asrepresentedbythetessellationshowsacentralisedpatternofintegrationfocussedabove,andrunningdowninto,thecentralcolumn,givingthedistributionastronglyverticalemphasis.Incontrast,theconvexanalysisfocussesintegrationonthefrieze,creatingahorizontalemphasis.Onemightconjecturethatinlookingatafaçadeweseeashape,andourviewofthatshapeisthenmodifiedbythelarger-scaleorganisationofelementsimposedonthatshape. Thesecentralisedverticalandlinearhorizontalstructureswhicharerevealedbytheanalysisare,takenseparately,amongthecommonest-perhapsthecommonest-formalthemeswhichbuildersanddesignershavecreatedinwholeclassesofbuildingfaçadesacrossmanycultures.Thefactthatanalysis‘discovers’thesestructuresseems,atleast,aremarkableconfirmationofintuition.Theanalysisperhapssuggeststhatonereasonwhytheclassicalfaçadehasoften,fromLaugieronwards24beenarguedtoconstituteafundamentalmodeoffaçadeorganisation,isexactlybecausethroughitsshapeandconvexorganisationitbothexpressesandcreatesatensionbetweenthetwomostfundamentalmodesoffaçadeorganisation.Ifthiswerethecase,thenitwouldsuggestthatwhatthehumanmind‘reads’whenitlooksattheformofabuildingis,oratleastincludes,thepatternofintegrationatmorethanonelevel,andtheinterrelationsbetweenthelevels.




SpaceSyntax

Urban space as layers: the problem of intelligibilityWhateverthecasewithfaçades,oneareawheresubstantialempiricalresearchhasestablishedtheneedtoconsiderlayersofconfigurationalpotential,andtheirinter-relations,isurbanspace.Consider,forexample,thetwohypotheticalurbanlayoutsinfigure3.14aandb.Thetwolayoutsarecomposedofthesame‘blocks’or‘islands’ofbuildings.Inthefirstcase,theyarearrangedinawaywhichhasacertaindegreeofirregularity,butlooksmoreorless‘urban’,inthatthepatternofspacecreatedbythearrangementoftheblocks—andthisisallthaturbanspaceessentiallyis—seemstohavetherightkindsofspacesintherightkindsofrelations,andasaresultappears‘intelligible’asan‘urban’system.Inthesecondlayout,allthe‘blocks’arethesamebuteachhasbeenmovedslightlywiththeeffectthatthesystemofspaceseemsmuchless‘urban’,andmuchlesseasily‘intelligible’.Itisclearthatanyusefulanalysisofurbanspacemusteithercapturetheseintuitionsorshowwhytheyareillusory.Itwillturnoutthattheyarenotillusoryatall,andthattheyarisefromwell-definedrelationsamongstthedifferentspatialpotentialsthatmakeupthelayout.25

Inonesense,bothlayoutsrepresentthecommonesttypeofurbanspacestructure.Wecancallitthe‘deformedgrid’,becausewhilemadeupofoutwardfacingislandsofbuildingseachsurroundedonallsidesbycontinuousspaceinthemannerofaregulargrid,thestructureofthatspaceisdeformedintwoways:itislinearly,oraxiallydeformed,inthatlinesofsightandaccessdonotcontinuerightthroughthegridfromonesidetotheother,astheywouldinaperfectlyregulargrid,butcontinuallystrikethesurfacesofthebuildingblocksandchangedirectionasaresult;secondlyitisconvexlydeformedinthattwo-dimensionalspacescontinuouslyvaryintheirdimensionsandshape,makingapatternofwiderandnarrowerspaces.Thevisibilityfieldatanypointinthespaceforsomeonemoving

a. b.

Figure 3.13




SpaceSyntax

inthegridwillbemadeupofbothkindsofelement.Wherevertheobserveris,therewillalwaysbealocalconvexelementofsomekind,inwhicheverypointisvisiblefromeveryotherpoint,plustheshapemadebyalllinesofsightandaccesspassingthroughthepoint.Theeasiestwaytodescribethedifferencesbetweenthetwolayoutsintuitivelyistosaythatamovingobserverineitherlayoutwouldexperiencecontinuouschangesinthevisibilityfield,butthatthekindsofvisibilityfieldexperiencedinthefirstarequitedifferenttothoseinthesecond.Theapparentdifferencesinintelligibilityinthetwolayoutswillturnouttoberelatedtotheseformaldifferencesinthesuccessionofvisibilityfields.Wecanbuildupananalysisofthetwolayoutsbyinvestigatingthesedifferentpotentials.First,wewillconsiderthe‘overlapping’convexelementsthataredefinedbythesurfaceofthisblock.26Hereconvexelementsaredefinedbyreferencetothesurfaceofeachblock,eachofwhichdefinesitsmaximalconvexfield.Thesefieldswillinevitablyoverlap,andwheretheydo,theareaofoverlapwillitselfformasmallerconvexelementfromwhichbothoverlappingconvexspaceswillbefullyvisible,thatis,willbeconvex,althoughthesespacesarenotconvextoeachother.Thesamewillbetruewhenfurtheroverlappingspacesareadded.Certainsmallspaceswillindeedbeconvextoasubstantialnumberofconvexspacesbecauseallthosespacesoverlapinthatarea.Suchareaswillasaresulthavelargevisibilityfields,whereasareaswherethereisnooverlapwilltendtohavemuchsmallervisibilityfields.Overlappingconvexelementsarevirtuallyimpossibletointuit,becausetheoverlappingissodifficulttorepresent.Computeranalysisisthereforerequired. Letuslookfirstatthepatternofoverlappingconvexspacesgeneratedinourtwolayouts.Figures3.14candd,aretheresultoftheanalysisoftheopen-spacestructureofthetwolayouts.Thecomputerhasfirstdrawnalltheoverlappingconvexelementsdefinedbythefacesofeach‘block’andthencarriedoutan‘integration’analysisofthepattern,withintegrationtosegregationshownfromdark-to-light,asbefore.Inthefirst‘urban’layout,thedarkestspacesoftheresulting‘integrationcore’(theshapemadebythedarkestareas)crosseachotherintheinformal‘marketsquare’,anddarkspaceslinkthemarketsquaretowardstheedgeofthe‘town’.Inthesecond,thereisnolongerastrongfocusofintegrationlinkinga‘square’totheedgesofthesystemand,ineffect,theintegrationcorehasbecomediffused.Infact,themostintegratingspacesarenowfoundattheedge,andnolongergettotheheartofthesystem.Onaverage,thelayoutasawholeismuchless‘integrated’thanthefirst,thatis,ithasmuchgreatertotaldepthfromallspacestoallothers. Inotherwords,themarginalrearrangementoftheurbanblocksfromthefirsttothesecondlayoutresultinginaspatialstructurewhichisquitedifferentbothinthedistributionandinthedegreeofintegration.Intuitively,wemightsuspectthattheedge-to-centreintegrationcorestructureofthefirstlayouthasmuchtodowiththeoverallsenseofurbanintelligibility,anditslossinthesecondlayout.Intelligibilityisachallengingpropertyinanurbansystem.Sincebydefinitionurbanspaceatgroundlevelcannotbeseenandexperiencedallatonce,butrequirestheobservertomovearoundthesystembuildingupapictureofitpiecebypiece,wemight




SpaceSyntax

suspectthatintelligibilityhassomethingtodowiththewayinwhichapictureofthewholeurbansystemcanbebuiltupfromitsparts,andmorespecifically,frommovingaroundfromoneparttoanother. Thereisinfactasimpleandpowerfulwayinwhichwecanrepresentexactlythisproperty.Itisillustratedinthetwo‘scattergrams’infigures3.14eandf,correspondingtothetwolayouts.Eachpointinthescatterrepresentsoneoftheoverlappingconvexspacesinthefigureabove.Thelocationofthepointontheverticalaxisisgivenbythenumberofotherconvexspacesthatspaceoverlapswith,thatis,the‘connectivity’ofthespacewithotherspaces,andonthehorizontalaxisbythe‘integration’valueofthespace,thatis,its‘depth’fromallothers.Now‘connectivity’isclearlyapropertythatcanbeseenfromeachspace,inthatwhereveroneisinthespaceonecanseehowmanyneighbouringspacesitconnectsto.Integration,ontheotherhand,cannotbeseenfromaspace,sinceitsumsupthedepthofthatspacefromallothers,mostofwhichcannotbeseenfromthatspace.Thepropertyof‘intelligibility’inadeformedgridmeansthedegreetowhichwhatwecanseefromthespacesthatmakeupthesystem-thatis,howmanyotherspacesareconnectedto-isagoodguidetowhatwecannotsee,thatis,theintegrationofeachspaceintothesystemasawhole.Anintelligiblesystemisoneinwhichwell-connectedspacesalsotendtobewell-integratedspaces.Anunintelligiblesystemisonewherewell-connectedspacesarenotwellintegrated,sothatwhatwecanseeoftheirconnectionsmisleadsusaboutthestatusofthatspaceinthesystemasawhole. Wecanreadthedegreeofintelligibilitybylookingattheshapeofthescatter.Ifthepoints(representingthespaces)formastraightlinerisingat45percentfrombottomlefttotopright,thenitwouldmeanthateverytimeaspacewasalittlemoreconnected,thenitwouldalsobecomealittlemoreintegrated-thatistosay,therewouldbeaperfect‘correlation’betweenwhatyoucanseeandwhatyoucan’tsee.Thesystemwouldthenbeperfectlyintelligible.Infigure3.14e,thepointsdonotformaperfectline,buttheydoformatightscatteraroundthe‘regressionline’,whichisevidenceofastrongdegreeofcorrelation,andthereforegoodintelligibility.Infigure3.14fwefindthatthepointshavebecomediffusedwellawayfromanyline,andnolongerformatightfitaboutthe‘regressionline’.Thismeansthatconnectivityisnolongeragoodguidetointegrationandthereforeaswemovearoundthesystemwewillgetverypoorinformationaboutthelayoutasawholefromwhatweseelocally.Thisagreesremarkablywellwithourintuitionofwhatitwouldbeliketomovearoundthis‘labyrinthian’layout.27

Nowletusexplorethetwolayoutsinmoredetail.Infigure3.14gandh,wehaveselectedapointinthe‘square’intheanalysisofthefirstlayout,anddrawnalltheoverlappingconvexelementsthatincludethispoint.Thescatterthenselectsthesespacesinthescattergrambymakingthemcolouredandlarger.Wecanseethatthespacesthatoverlapatthispointareamongthebestconnectedandmostintegratedinthelayoutandthatthepointsalsoformareasonablelinearscatterinthemselves,meaningthatforthesespacesmorevisibleconnectivitymeansmore




SpaceSyntax

Figure 3.14a Figure 3.14b

Figure 3.14c Figure 3.14d

Figure 3.14e Figure 3.14f




SpaceSyntax

Figure 3.14l Figure 3.14m

Figure 3.14j Figure 3.14k

Figure 3.14g Figure 3.14h




SpaceSyntax

integration.Boththeshapemadebythesetofspaces,reachingoutfromthesquareinseveraldirectionstowardstheedgeofthesystem,andthescattergrampropertiesconfirmthatthispointinthe‘square’spacehasahigh‘strategic’valueinthelayoutasawhole.Ifwetrytodothesameforpointsinthesecondlayout,asinfigure3.14jandk,wefindthatthepointsareburiedinthescatterandhavenospecialstrategicvalue.Byexperimentallyclickingonaseriesofpoints,andcheckingboththevisualfieldsandthescattergrams,onecanestablishthattherearenocomparablestrategicpointsfromwhichaseriesofkeyspatialelementsinthelayoutcanbeseen. Wemayalsoexperimentwiththeeffectsofchangestothelayout.Suppose,forexample,wedecidethatthecurrent‘marketsquare’,althoughstrategicallyplaced,istoosmallandthatitshouldthereforebemovedelsewhereinordertoenlargeit.Infigure3.14landm,theoldmarketsquarehasbeenbuiltoverandanew,largersquarehasbeencreatedtowardsthetopleftofthelayout.Thelayouthasbeenanalysedandtheconvexelementsoverlappinginthenewsquarepickedout.Inspiteofitssize,thenewsquarehaspoorintegration,anditsoverlapping

Figure 3.14q Figure 3.14r

Figure 3.14n Figure 3.14p




SpaceSyntax

spacesoccupyapoorpositioninthescatter.Themostintegratedspacesremainthosepointingintotheoldmarketsquare.Inotherwords,thespatialconfigurationasawholecontinuesto‘pointto’theoldsquare.Animportantconclusionfromthis,amplyconfirmedbytheexaminationofrealtownplans,isthatasquareismorethanalocalelement.Howitisembeddedintheconfigurationasawholeisequally,ifnotmore,important.Ifweweretoseektoexploitthisbyexpandingtheoldmarketsquarebyremovingadjacentblocks,wewouldfindthesquarebecomesmuchmoredominant,andthatthelargestspacewithinthesquare(i.e.asopposedtothoseenteringandleavingwhicharenormallymoredominant)isnowitselfthesecondmostintegratedspace.Inotherwords,wewouldbegintoshifttheemphasisofintegrationfromlinearelementstotheopenspaceitself.Again,thiswoulddistorttheessentialnatureoflayout.Thesize,location,andembeddingofmajoropenspacesareallformallyconfirmedasaspectsofwhatweintuitivelyreadastheurbannatureofthelayout. Convexelementsarenot,ofcourse,themost‘global’spatialelementsinalayout,anddonotexhaustallrelationshipsofvisibilityandpermeability.Theselimitsarefoundbylookingnotattwo-dimensionalconvexelements,butatone-dimensionallineelements.Inadeformedgrid,theelementsmostspatiallyextendedlinearlywillbethesetofstraightlinesthataretangenttotheverticesofblocksofbuildings.Relationsbetweenpairsoftheseverticesineffectdefinethelimitsofvisibilityfrompointswithinthesystem.Thiscanbeexploredthrough‘axial’or‘allline’analysis,andinfigure3.14n-rwherethecomputerhasfoundandcarriedoutanintegrationanalysisofallthelineelementstangentialtoblockvertices.Wefindthattheintelligibilityofthesystemseenaxiallyisbetterthanseenconvexly,becauselinesaremore‘global’spatialelementsthanconvexelements,inthattheyexplorethefulllimitsofvisibilityandpermeabilitywithinthelayout.Linesthereforemaketherelationbetweenthelocalspatialelementandtheglobalpatternofspacelookasgoodaspossible.Thedifferencesbetweenthetwolayoutsthatwefoundthroughtheoverlappingconvexanalysisarehowevermoreorlessreproducedintheall-lineanalysis.Thisagreementbetweenthetwokindsofanalysisisitselfasignificantpropertyofthelayouts. Fromthepointofviewofhowlayoutswork,bothtypesofanalysisareimportant.Movement,forexample,canbepredictedfromastrippeddownversionoftheaxialanalysisinwhichonlythelongestandfewestlinesneededtocoverthewholesystemformthelinematrix.Similarly,manyaspectsof‘static’urbanbehaviours,especiallytheinformaluseofopenspaces,exploitthetwo-dimensional‘visibilityfield’propertiesofspace,withthehighestlevelsofusenormallyadjacenttothemoststrategicspaces.

Designing with configurational modelsBecausethesetechniquesallowustodealgraphicallywiththenumericalpropertiesofspatiallayouts,wecanalsousethemcreativelyindesign,bringinginmuchnewknowledgeaboutspaceandfunctionaswedoso.Forexample,extensiveresearchhasshown28thatpatternsofmovementinurbanareasarestronglypredictedbythe




SpaceSyntax

distributionofintegrationinasimplelinerepresentationofthestreetgrid.Byusingconfigurationalanalysistechniquesinsimulationmode,wecanexploitboththisknowledge,andthepotentialforconfigurationalanalysistogiveinsightintopossibleurbanpatternsthatwillnotbeatallcleartointuition.Thispotentialhasnowbeenexploitedinalargenumberofurbandesignprojects,ofteninvolvingthemodellingofwholecitiesinordertosimulatetheeffectsofnewdesigns.29

Todemonstratetheessentialsofthetechnique,asimplifiedhypotheticalmodelwillsuffice.Thetopleftfigureoffigure3.15isananalysedaxialmap(thelongestandfewestlinesthatcoverthestreetgrid)ofasmallareaaroundahypotheticalredevelopmentsite,withintegrationfromdarktolightasbefore,with,toitsright,thescattergramofitsintelligibility,showingaweaklyintelligiblesystem.Wecanexperimentbyasking,whatwouldhappenif,forexample,weimposedaregulargridonthesitewithouttakingtoomuchaccountofthesurroundingstructure,asthesecond-rowfigureandscatter.Weseethatinspiteofthegeometricregularity,ourlackofconcernfortheglobalpatternhasleftuswitharatheruniformlysegregatedspacepatternwithinthesite,withtoopoorarelationtothesurroundingareas.Asaconsequence,weseefromthescatterthattheareaasawholehasbecomeevenmoreunintelligible. Supposewethengotheotherway,andtrytodesignthesitebyextendingstronglines,andlinkingthemtoothers,asinthethirdrowfigureandscatter.Theresultisanintegratingsite,andgoodintelligibility.Thespatialstructureinthesitealsohasagoodrangeofintegratedandsegregatedspaceincloseproximitytoeachother.Aswewillseeinlaterchaptersthisisanimportanturbanproperty(seeChapters4and5.)Thisisasimpleexample,butitshowstheabilityofconfigurationalanalysisnotonlytoaidthedesigners’intuitioninthinkingaboutpatterns,andinparticularintryingtounderstandthepatternconsequencesofindividualdesignmoves,butalsoitsabilitytopermitthedesignertothinkmoreeffectivelyabouttherelationofnewandexistingpatterns,andingeneralabouttherelationofpartsandwholesincities. Wemayagainillustratethisbyasimplifiedsimulation.Plate1istheaxialmapofahypotheticalurbansystemwithwell-definedsub-areas.Researchhasshownthatthecriticalthingabouturbansub-areasishowtheirinternalstructuresrelatetothelarger-scalesysteminwhichtheyareembedded.Thebestwaytobringthisoutistoanalysethesystemforitsintegrationattwolevels.Firstwedoordinaryintegration,whichcountshowdeeporshalloweachlineinisfromeveryotherline.Secondwecounthowdeeporshalloweachlineinisfromalllinesuptothreestepsaway.Thelatterwecallradius-3integration,sinceitlooksateachlineuptoaradiusof3.Theformerwecancallradius-nintegration.Radius-3integrationpresentsalocalisedpictureofintegration,andwecanthereforethinkofitalsoaslocalintegration,whileradius-nintegrationpresentsapictureofintegrationatthelargestscale,andwecanthereforecallitglobalintegration. Wewillseeinduecoursethatlocalintegrationinurbansystemsisthebestpredictorofsmaller-scalemovement-thatusuallymeanspedestrianmovement

Non–discursive technique�00



SpaceSyntaxFigure 3.15

a

b

c

Figure 3.15

Non–discursive technique�0�



SpaceSyntax

becausepedestriantripstendtobeshorterandreadthegridinarelativelylocalisedway-whileglobalintegrationisthebestpredictoroflarger-scalemovement,includingsomevehicularmovement,becausepeopleonlongertripswilltendtoreadthegridinamoreglobalisedway.Inhistoricalcities,aswillbeshown,therelationshipbetweenthesetwolevelsofintegrationhasbeenacriticaldeterminantofthepart-wholestructureofcities,becauseitgovernsthedegreeofnaturalinterfacetherewouldnaturallybebetweenmorelocal,andthereforemoreinternalmovement,andmoreglobalandthereforemorein-outmovementandthroughmovement. Someofthedifferenteffectsonthisrelationshipthatdifferenttypesoflocalareadesignwillhavecanbeshownbyhighlightingtheareasinscattergramsofthewholesystemandexaminingthescatteroflocalagainstglobalintegration.Theareashowninthebottomrow,forexample,isaclassicallystructuredareaforaEuropeancity,withstronglinesinalldirectionsfromedgetocentre,withalessintegratedstructureoflinesrelatedbothtothisinternalcoreandtotheoutside.Thisensuresthatthosemovingintheareawillbeconsciousofboththelocalandglobalscalesofspaceastheymovearound,andtherewillbeagoodinterfacebetweenlocalandglobalmovement.Thescatterformedbythesub-areasisshowntotheright.Thepointsoftheareaformagoodlinearscatter,showingthatlocalintegrationisagoodpredictorofglobalintegration,andcrosstheregressionlineforurbanareaasawholeatasteeperangle,showingthatthereisastrongerdegreeoflocalintegrationforthedegreeofglobalintegration.Alineonthecoreofthewholesettlementwill,incontrast,lieatthetopendofthemainregressionline.Thisshowshowsubtlyurbanareascreateasenseoflocalstructurewithoutlosingtouchwiththelarger-scalestructureofthesystem.(SeeChapter4foranexaminationofrealcases). Theareashownimmediatelyabove,inthesecondfrombottomrow,istypicalofthelayoutswetendtofindinhousingestates,withfewconnectionstotheedgeandlittlerelationbetweentheedgetocentrestructureandtheinternalstructureofthelayout.Thistypeoflayoutisinvariablyshownasaseriesoflayersintheredpointscatterwithvirtuallynocorrelationbetweenlocalandglobalintegration.Suchlayoutsinvariablyfreezeallournaturalmovementandbecomestructurallysegregatedlumpsintheurbanfabric.30Theareasinthetoptworowsshowothervariationsonlocalareastructure,oneproducingeffectsrathersimilartothoseintheexperimentalgridinthedesignexperimentoffigure3.16,whiletheotherisarandomscatteroflines,showingthatinspiteoftheapparentinformalityofmuchgoodurbandesign,randomlinessimplydonotworkexceptbychance.

Future urban models: intelligent analogues of citiesInadditiontotheirroleindesign,configurationalmodelsarenowbeingdevelopedasabasisforresearchingintothemultidimensionaldynamicsofcities.Consider,forexample,oneofthebroadestandleasttractableofissuesfacingthebuiltenvironmentindustry:thatoftheeconomic,socialandenvironmental‘sustainability’ofcities.Eventomonitoreffectivelyandcomparecitiesonsustainabilitycriteria,




SpaceSyntax

whatevertheymightturnouttobe,wemustbringdataonthephysicalandenvironmentalperformanceofcitiestogetherwithdataontheireconomicandsocialperformance,andtorelatebothtosomekindofdescriptionofthecity.Forexample,energyconsumptionandpollutionproductiondepend,amongotherfactors,onsettlementpatterns.Shouldsettlementsbedenseorsparse,nucleatedordispersed,monocentricorpolycentric,oramixofalltypes?Forresearchtogiveananswer,measurementdataonenvironmentalperformance,anddataontheimplicationsofdifferentbehaviouralassumptions(forexampleaboutthedistributionofworkandhome)and‘knock-on’effectssuchastheeconomic,socialandculturalconsequencesofspatialaggregationanddisaggregationpolicies,mustberelatedtodescriptionsofthephysicalandspatialformofcitieswhichreflecttherangeofvariationfoundintherealworld. Toworktowardsatheoreticalmodelofhowthismightbedone,wemaybeginwiththepurely‘configurational’modelswehavepresented,andshowhowotherkeyspatialattributessuchasmetricdistance,area,density,plotratios,shape,politicalboundaries,andsooncanbeexpressedwithintheconfigurationalmodelbyusingtheideaofintegrating‘layered’representationsofspaceintoasinglesystem.Forthepurposesofillustrationwewillagainusenotional,simplifiedexamples.First,werepresentastreetnetworkasaseriesoflinesorstrips,andanalysetheirpatternofintegration,asinfigure3.16aandb.Inthisanalysis,noaccounthasyetbeentakenofmetricdistance.However,insomecircumstancesatleast,thisseemslikelytobeanimportantvariable.Wecansupplythisbyselectinganarbitrarymodule-sayaten-metresquare—andlinkingmodulesintothepatternofthegridandanalysingthisasatessellationshape,asinfigure3.16c.Onitsown,thisisnotofgreatinterest,sinceitinevitablyreflectsthepatternofmetriccentralityinthegrid,asinfigure3.16d,butifwesuperimposethelinenetworkontothemetricmodularsystemandanalysethetwolayersasasinglesystem,thentheeffectistoweighteachlinewithanumberofmodulesdirectlyrelatedtoitslength.Theoutcomeofthis‘lengthweighted’integrationanalysisisshownatbothlevelsofthecombinedanalysis:intermsofthemodularunitsinfigure3.16e,andintermsofthe‘linesuperstructure’ofstripsinfigure3.16f.Thestriplevelismuchthesameaspreviously,butthemodularelementsshowaninteresting-andverylifelike-localisedstructureinwhichgreaterintegrationisconcentratedatthe‘streetintersections’,withlessintegratedmodulesinthecentresoflinksawayfromtheintersections.Thisimmediatelyenablesustocaptureanewandfunctionallysignificantaspectofspaceorganisationinarepresentation. Therelationshipbetweenmetricareaandconfigurationcanbedealtwithinananalogouswaybyunderlayingconvexelementswithatwo-dimensionalmodularlayer,asinfigure3.17a-f.Ina–cweseehowasimplesysteminwhichfourconvexspacesofequalsizeandshapeandtheconnectionsbetweenthemarerepresentedasalayerofmodularelementswithfourconvexelementsandfourstripsfortheconnectionsuperimposed.Thetwo-layersystemisthenanalysed.Whetherwelookattheresultwiththeconvexlayeruppermostorthemodularlayer,theresultswill




SpaceSyntax

a. b.

c. d.

e. f.

Figure 3.16




SpaceSyntax

beasymmetricaldistributionofintegrationdominatedbythestrips.Infigure3.17d–fwegivetheconvexelementsdifferentareasandunderlaymodularelementsaccordingly,sothateachisnowweightedbythenumberofmodularelementsitoverlays.Analysisseparatelythentogethershowsthatintegrationisdrawnintotheconvexelementsaccordingtotheirarea.Notehoweverthattheintegrationofthetwosmallerconvexareas(onthetop)areinthe‘wrong’order.Thisisbecausetheoneontheleftisclosertothelargest-scaleconvexarea(bottomleft)andthisaffectsitsownintegrationwithrespecttotherestofthesystem.Thustheresultsshowacombinationofconfigurationaleffectsandmetricareaeffects.Fromthiswecanseethatifwemakealargeandsmallsquareconfigurationallyequivalentinanurbansystemthenthelargesquarewillintegratemore.Metricarea,itturnsoutislikedistance,apropertycapableofexpressionasanaspectofconfiguration.Wemaysimulatetheeffectofplotratiosanddensitiesbyequallysimplemeans.Forexample,ifwewishtoattachabuildingwithagivennumberoffloorstoastreetnetwork,allweneedtodoisattachaconvexspacethesizeofthegroundareaofthebuildingtotheappropriatepositioninthestreetsystem,thenoverlayonthataconvexelementforeachfloor,makingsurethateachelementabovethegroundisdetachedfromthestreetandonlyconnectedthroughthegroundlayerasitwouldbeinreallife.Thiswillnotappearvisuallyasathree-dimensionalstructure,butitwillexactlyrepresenttheadditionofabovegroundfloorspacetotheurbansystem. Wemaynowbuildamodelofanurbansysteminthefollowingway.First,wedividethecityupintoanarbitrarynumberofareasandrepresentthemasnon-contiguouspolygons.Thesemaybeassmalloraslargeasweneed,accordingtothelevelofresolutionrequiredbytheresearchquestion.Thepolygonsmaybebasedonpoliticalboundaries,likewards,administrativeboundarieslikeenumerationdistricts,segmentsdefinedbyanarbitrarilyfinegrid,ortheymaybedefinedbyobjectivemorphologicalpropertiesofthebuiltenvironment.Thesepolygonsrepresentingareasarethefundamentalunitsofanalysisforthetechnique. Figure3.18ashowsourimaginarysimplifiedcaseinwhichthestreetnetworkofthecity(orpart-city)issuperimposedonthepatchworkofpolygonssothateachpolygonislinkedintotheurbansystembyallthestreetsorpart-streetsthatpassthroughitoralongsideit.Thistwo-levelspatialsystemisanalysed‘configurationally’tofindthepatternofintegrationinthewholesystem.Evidently,thestreetpatternwilltendtodominatetheareapolygonssimplybecausethestreetsareconnectors.However,thestreetsystemcanthenbe‘peeledoff’thepolygons,asinfigure3.18b,leavingapatternofpolygonswiththeirspatialcharacteristicsinrelationtothecityareaaroundthem,andtothecitysystemasawhole,recordedasasetofnumbers. Thisbasicprocessoflinkingareastogetherbythestreetnetworkinasingleconfigurationalmodelisthebasisofwhatwecallan‘intelligenturbananalogue’model.Oncethisisestablished,wecanthencomplicatethemodelinallthewayswehavedescribedpreviously.Forexample,wecanunderlaythestreetnetworkwithmetricmodulessothattheanalysisofthestreetsystemtakesdistancesintoaccount.Wecanunderlaythepolygonswithmetricmodulessothatthemetricarea




SpaceSyntax

f.

d. e.

c.b.a.

Figure 3.17




SpaceSyntax

ofapolygonistakenintoaccount.Wecanalso,ifwewish,superimposelayersonthepolygonsrepresentingoffthegroundfloorspace. Thereisalsoaneasywayoffurtherdisaggregatinganymodelfromthelevelofresolutionoriginallyselected.Eachoftheoriginalareapolygonscanbeitselfsubdividedintomuchsmallerpolygonsandanalysedasbefore.Thismorelocalisedanalysiswillgiveamuchricheranddenserpictureofthedetailedcharacteristicsofthearea.Thesemaythenbefedintoalarger-scalemodelasmoredetailedenvironmentaldescriptors.Thereisnoreasoninfactwhybothlevelsofthemodelshouldnotbeanalysedasasinglesystem.Theprincipalbarrierwouldbecomputingtime.Inourexperienceaddinganewleveloffinestructuretoanexistingmodelleavesthelarger-scalepicturemoreorlessintactprovidedthatthedisaggregationisdoneuniformlyandisnotconfinedtoparticularregions. Attheotherendofthescale,wemayalsoderivenewmeasuresofthemostmacro-propertiesofthecitysystem,suchasshape,andshapeloadedwithdifferentdensitiesindifferentregions.Thiscanbedonebysimplylinkingtheareapolygonstogetherandanalysingthedistributionofintegrationinthesystemwithoutthesuperimposedstreetsystem.Shapewillbeindexedbythedegreeanddistributionofintegration,andcanbeshownbothbydirectgraphicalrepresentationofthecitysystem,orbystatisticalrepresentationssuchasfrequencydistributions,orsimplybynumbers.Theeffectsofweightingshapesbyloadingdifferentregionswithhigherdensitiescanbeexploredbysimplyoverlayingthespacesrepresentingtheadditionaldensitiesontotherelevantpolygonsofthecontiguouspolygonsystem,thenproceedingasbefore.Byvaryingthepatternanddensityofcentreswecanexploretheireffectsontotaldistancetravelled,otherthingsbeingequal,indifferentkindsofthree-dimensionalurbansystem.Theeffectsofothernearbysettlementscanalsobeinvestigatedbysimplyaddingthemasextensionstothemodel. Thenumericaldataresultingfromtheanalysisoftheurbansystemcanthenbeusedinanumberofways.First,mostobviously,theparametricdescriptorsforthepolygonsresultingfromanalysis,reflectingastheydothepositionandconfigurationofeach‘finiteelement’inthecitysystemasawhole,thenbecometheframeforotherkindsofdatawhichcanbeassignedasdescriptorstothepolygons.Thiscanbedonewithanyfunctionalvariablethatcanbenumericallyindexedforthatareasuchaspopulationdensities,pollutionlevels,trafficmovement,pedestrianmovement,unemploymentrates,crimerates,counciltaxbanding,andsoon.Becausespatialandotherdescriptorsarenowallinnumericalform,simplestatisticalanalysescanbegintorevealpatterns.Second,thedistributionofanypropertymayberepresentedgraphicallyintheurbansystemasavisualdistributionofthatpropertyinthecitysystem.Thismeans,inpractice,thatallthevisualisingandcartographicalpotentialsthathavebeendevelopedinthepastfewyearsthrough‘geographicinformationsystems’canbeinterfacedwith,andpotentiallybroughtwithinthescopeof,ananalyticmodelwithprovenabilitytolinkmorphologicalandfunctionalpropertiesofbuiltenvironmentsystems,hopefullyinamorepredictiveway. Layeredmodelsarethefutureofconfigurationalmodellingofspace.




SpaceSyntax

b.

a.

Figure 3.18




SpaceSyntax

Thesenewtechniquesarisefromtheresultsofresearchoverseveralyearsinwhichvarioustypesofconfigurationalmodellinghavebeenusedfirsttoidentifynon-discursiveregularitiesinthewaysinwhicharchitecturalandurbansystemsareputtogetherspatiallyandidentifythe‘genotypes’ofspatialform;secondtocorrelatethesenon-discursiveregularitieswithaspectsofhowhumanbeingscanbeobservedtofunctioninspace;andthird,tobegintobuildfromtheseregularitiesapictureofhighergeneralityofhowspatialsystemsingeneralareputtogetherandfunctioninresponsetothedemandsthathumanbeingsandtheircollectivitiesmakeofthem.Inthenextchapterweintroducethemostfundamentalofallcorrelateswithspatialconfiguration:humanmovement.NotesH.SimonH,The Sciences of the Artificial,MIT,1969.F.DeSaussureF,Course in General Linguistics,McGrawHill,1966translatedbyC.BallyandA.SechahayewithA.RiedlingerSeepp.9–15(originallyinFrench1915).IthasofcoursebecomefashionabletofollowthelaterWittgenstein’sPhilosophical Investigations (BasilBlackwell1953;Editionused1968)anddenyanysystemicpropertiestosuchthingsaslanguages,andseeinthemonlyshiftingcontingencies.Forexample:‘Insteadofproducingsomethingcommontoallthatwecalllanguage,Iamsayingthatthesephenomenahavenoonethingincommonwhichmakesususethesamewordforall,buttheyareallrelatedtoeachotherinmanydifferentways.Anditisbecauseofthisrelationship,ortheserelationships,thatwecallthemall“language”.’—Wittgenstein,para65.Or:‘Languageisalabyrinthofpaths.Youapproachfromonesideandknowyourwayabout;youapproachthesameplacefromanothersideandnolongerknowyourwayabout’—Wittgenstein,para203.Theuseoftheurbananalogyisinteresting.Aswewillseeinlaterchapters,thisistheonetypeofartefactwhereitcanbeshownquiteclearlythatWittgensteinwaswrong.Thecleareststatementisstillprobablythe‘Overture’toClaudeLévi-Strauss’sThe Raw and the Cooked,JonathonCape,London1970,originallyinFrenchasThe Cru et le Cuit,Plon,1964.Plato,The Republic,forexampleVI,509–11,pp.744–7inPlato,The Collected Dialogues,eds.E.HamiltonandH.CairnsH,PrincetonUniversityPress,BollingenSeries,1961.Seealsoed.F.M.Cornford,The Republic of Plato,OxfordUniversityPress,1941,pp.216–21.Fortheclearestformulation,seeR.Thom,‘StructuralismandBiology’,ined.C.H.Waddington,Theoretical Biology 4,EdinburghUniversityPress,1972,pp.68–82.W.Heisenberg,Physics and Philosophy GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1959p.57.N.Chomsky,Syntactic Structures,Mouton,TheHague,1957.Thereareimportantexceptionstothis,forexampleLévi-Strauss’sattempt,incollaborationwithAndreWeil,tomodelcertainmarriagesystemsasAbeliangroups.SeeLévi-Strauss,The Elementary Structures of Kinship,Eyre&Spottiswoode,1969,pp.221–9.OriginallyinFrenchasLesStructuresElementaire de la Parente,Mouton,1949.

12

3

4

5

6

789




SpaceSyntax

Forexample,hisingeniousattempttomodeltheelementarypropertiesofmatterthroughthefiveregularsolidsintheTimaeus.SeePlato,Timaeus 33etseq.p.1165inThe Collected Dialogues (seenote5above)ThisprocessisthesubjectofChapter9.Asdescribed,forexample,inChapter2ofThe Social Logic of Space.Foralucidsummary,seeP.Steadman,Architectural Morphology,Pion,1983.L.March,Inconversation.I.StewartandM.Golubitsky,Fearful Symmetry,Penguin,1993,p229.F.BuckleyandF.Harary,Distance in Graphs,AddisonWesley,1990,p.42.B.HillierandJ.Hanson,The Social Logic of Space,CambridgeUniversityPress,1984,p108.Seealsonote16inChapter1.Steadman,p.217.Hillier&Hanson,pp.109–13.However,seethereferencesinnote16ofChapter1.Forexample,I.Biederman,‘Higherlevelvision’,ineds.D.Oshersonetal.,Visual Cognition and Action,MITPress,1990.ForadiscussionofsomeofthesevariationsfromthepointofviewofgraphtheoryseeBuckleyandHarary,Distance in Graphs,pp.179–85.Forexample,P.Tabor,‘Fearfulsymmetry’,Architectural Review,May1982.AbbeMarc-AntoineLaugier,Essai sur l’architecture,Paris1755.SeeHillier&Hanson,The Logic of Space,p90.ItshouldbenotedattheoutsetthattheseoverlappingconvexelementsareunliketheconvexelementsdescribedinThe Social Logic of Space,whichwerenotallowedtooverlap.SeeHillier&Hanson,pp.97–8.Itisexactlythispropertythatlabyrinthsexploit.Ateverypointthespaceyouseegivesnoinformation—ormisleadinginformation—aboutthestructureofthelabyrinthasawhole.Ingeneral—thoughnotinvariably—agoodurbanformdoesexactlytheopposite.SeeChapter4.AlsoB.Hillieretal.,‘Naturalmovement:orconfigurationandattractioninurbanpedestrianmovement,Environment & Planning B, Planning & Design,vol.20,1993.As,forexample,inthecaseofthenewShanghaiCentralBusinessDistrictonwhichwecollaboratedwithSirRichardRogersandPartners,ortheoriginalplanfortheKings’CrossRailwaysLands,LondonwithSirNormanFosterandPartners.SeeforexampleB.Hillier,‘SpecificallyArchitecturalTheory’,HarvardArchitecturalReview,vol.9,1993.AlsopublishedasB.Hillier,‘Specificallyarchitecturalknowledge’,Nordic Journal of Architectural Research,2,1993.TheproblemsgeneratedbythistypeoflayoutareexaminedindetailinChapter5.

10

11121314151617

18192021

22

23242526

27

28

29

30

Part two


Part twoNon-discursive regularities

Cities as movement economiesChapter four

Non–discursive regularities


The physical city and the functional cityItisatruismtosaythathowwedesigncitiesdependsonhowweunderstandthem.Inthelatetwentiethcentury,thistruismhasadisquietingforce.Citiesarethelargestandmostcomplexartefactsthathumankindmakes.Wehavelearnedlongandhardlessonsabouthowwecandamagethembyinsensitiveinterventions.Butthegrowthofknowledgelimpspainfullyalongthroughaprocessoftrialanderrorinwhichtheslowtimescaleofoureffortsandtheevenslowertimescaleofourunderstanding,makeitalmostimpossibletomaintainthecontinuityofexperienceandstudywhichwemighthope,intime,wouldgiverisetoadeeper,moretheoreticalunderstandingofcities. Evenso,adeepertheoreticalunderstandingiswhatweneed.Weareatajuncturewherefundamentalquestionsaboutthefutureofourcities—shouldsettlementsbedenseorsparse,nucleatedordispersed,monocentricorpolycentric,oramixofalltypes?—havebeenraisedbytheissueofsustainability.1Itiswidelyacknowledgedthattomakecitiessustainablewemustbasedecisionsaboutthemonamoresecureunderstandingofthemthanwehavenow.Whatisuncleariswhatwemeanbyabetterunderstanding.Physically,citiesarestocksofbuildingslinkedbyspaceandinfrastructure.Functionally,theysupporteconomic,social,culturalandenvironmentalprocesses.Ineffect,theyaremeans-endssystemsinwhichthemeansarephysicalandtheendsfunctional.Ourmostcriticalareaofignoranceisabouttherelationofmeanstoends,thatis,ofthephysicalcitytothefunctionalcity.Thefactthatsustainabilityisaboutendsandthecontrolslargelyaboutmeanshasexposedourignoranceinthiscriticalarea. Onereasonforthisignoranceisthecompartmentalisationthathasdevelopedoverthepastquartercenturyamongthedisciplinesconcernedwiththecity.Thereisnowadeepsplitbetweenthosewhoarepreoccupiedwithanalysisandcontrolofthesocialandeconomicprocesseswhichanimatethecity,andwhoforthemostpartcallthemselvesplanners,andthoseconcernedwithphysicalandspatialsynthesisinthecity,whocallthemselvesurbandesigners.Thissplitisnow,ineffect,asplitbetweenunderstandinganddesign,betweenthoughtandaction. Fromthepointofviewofourabilitytoactonthecity,therearetwoconsequences.Thefirstisaform-functiongap:thosewhoanalyseurbanfunctioncannotconceptualisedesign,whilethosewhocanconceptualisedesignguessaboutfunction.Thesecondisascalegap.Planningbeginswiththeregion,dealsreasonablywiththe‘functionalcity’,thatis,thecityandits‘dependences’(astheFrenchsayofoutlyingbuildings)butbarelygetstotheurbanareainwhichwelive.Urbandesignbeginswithagroupofbuildings,getstotheurbanarea,buthesitatesatthewholecityforfearofrepeatingtheerrorsofthepastwhenwholecitydesignmeantover-orderlytownswhichneverquitebecameplaces.Neitherappliesitselftoourneedtounderstandthecityasaspatialandfunctionalwhole. Oneeffectofthisdisciplinaryapartheidhasbeenacompletefailuretocometotermsconceptuallywithwhatseemsatfirsttobethesimplestthingaboutthecity:thefactthatitisalarge,apparentlycomplexphysicalandspatialobject,one

The human understanding is of its own nature prone to suppose the existence of more order and regularity in the world than it finds. Francis Bacon, Aphorism XLV, p. 50

An axis is perhaps the first human manifestation; it is the means of every human act. The toddling child moves along an axis, the man striving in the tempest of life traces for himself an axis. The axis is the regulator of architecture. Le Corbusier, ‘Vers une Architecture’

111

Cities as movement economies112



SpaceSyntax

whichisatoncearecordofthefunctionalprocesseswhichhistoricallycreatedit,andatthesametimethestrongestconstraintonfuturedevelopment.Mostattemptstousecomputerstomodelthewaysinwhichcitieswork,forexample,havedealtwiththephysicalaspectsofthecityonlyatthegrossestlevel,farabovethelevelatwhichmostinterventionsaremade.Sincetheaimofanurbanmodelistotrytobringthestructuralanddynamiccomplexitiesofcitiesasmeans-endssystemswithinthescopeofreasoneddecision-makingaboutphysicalandspatialinterventions,thishasbeenacriticalweakness.2

Thefactthatthephysicalcityhasprovedmostdifficulttomodeleffectivelyisprobablyduetotwothings.First,thephysicalandspatialstructureofcitiesappears,forthemostpart,tobetheratherdisorderlyoutcomeofalonghistoryofsmall-scale,incrementalchanges,whichaccumulateovertimetoproducepatternswithneithergeometricalnorfunctionalsimplicity.Untilrecently,thetypesofpatternthatresultfromthesequasi-organicprocesseshavenotseemedtractabletoanyobviousmethodofanalysis.Consequentlytheywereneglected.Second,theincrementalprocessesbywhicheconomicandsocialprocessescreatethecity’sphysicalandspatialpatternsseeminthemselvestobequitecomplex,involvingfeedbackandmultipliereffects,andinteractionbetweendifferentscales.Processesofurbangrowthandchangeseemtoexhibitboth‘emergence’,bywhichunforeseenmacrochangesresultfromaseriesofmicro-changes,andthecontraryeffect,bywhichmacrochangesproduceunforeseeneffectsatthemicroscale.Again,untilrecently,therehavenotbeenobviouswaysofmodellingsuchprocesses. Theapparentintractabilityofthecityasaphysicalandspatialobjectafflictsthesynthesistsasmuchastheanalysts.Ifwelooktourbandesignersforananalysisoftheobjectoftheirdesignattention,wefindmuchmoralearnestnessaboutsuchmattersasthecreationof‘places’asrichandcomplexasthosefoundintraditionalcities,butlittleanalyticendeavourtounderstandhowthephysicalandfunctionalcitiesofthepastgaverisetosuch‘places’.Thecurrentpreoccupationwith‘place’seemsnomorethanthemostrecentversionoftheurbandesigner’spreferenceforthelocalandapparentlytractableattheexpenseoftheglobalandintractableincities.However,bothpracticalexperienceandresearchsuggestthatthepreoccupationwithlocalplacegetsprioritiesinthewrongorder.Placesarenotlocalthings.Theyaremomentsinlarge-scalethings,thelarge-scalethingswecallcities.Placesdonotmakecities.Itiscitiesthatmakeplaces.Thedistinctionisvital.Wecannotmakeplaceswithoutunderstandingcities.Onceagainwefindourselvesneeding,aboveall,anunderstandingofthecityasafunctioningphysicalandspatialobject.

Multifunctionality and the part-whole problemWhereshouldwethenfindastartingpointforaninquiryintotheformandfunctioningofcities,inthehopeoffoundingatheoryofcitiesasmeans-endssystems?Insituationswherenewtheoriesareneeded,thereisausefulrule.Ateverystageinthedevelopmentofourunderstandingofphenomena,wealreadyhaveinourminds




SpaceSyntax

someconceptualschemethroughwhichweinterpretandinterrelatethephenomenathatwesee.3Usuallythereareirritatinganomaliesandproblemsattheedgesoftheseconceptualschemes.Theruleisthatinsteadofkeepingtheseproblemsattheedgeofourfieldofvision,andacceptingthemasanomalities,weshouldbringthemcentrestageandmakethemourstartingpoint.Weshould,ineffect,startfromwhatwecannotexplainratherthanwhatwethinkwecan. Therearetwosuchgreatanomaliesinourcurrentwaysofseeingcities.Thefirstistheproblemofmultifunctionality.Everyaspectofthespatialandphysicalconfigurationofthecityformseemstohavetoworkinmanydifferentways—climatically,economically,socially,aesthetically,andsoon—withtheadditionaldifficultythatformchangesonlyslowlywhilefunctionchangesrapidly.Thesecondisthepart-wholeproblem,orassomemightprefer,theplace-cityproblem,thatis,thefactthatinmostcitiesmadeupofpartswithastrongsenseoflocalplaceitisalmostimpossibletomakeaclearmorphologicaldistinctionbetweenonepartandanother,atleastnotatthelevelatwhichitcouldinformdesign. Ifthetheorysetoutinthischapterisanywherenearright,thenitwillbecomeclearthatthesetwoissuesarerathermorethancloselyrelated:theyreallyarethesameproblem,becauseallfunctionsrelatetotheformofthecitythroughtwogenericfunctionalfactors:howweasindividualsfindthecityintelligible,andhowwemovearoundinit.Thesegenericfactorsaresopowerfulthatallotheraspectsoffunctionpassthroughthemandinfluencetheurbanformthroughthem.Theyaresobecauseincities,asinbuildings,therelationshipbetweenformandfunctionpassesthroughspace.Howweorganisespaceintoconfigurationisthekeybothtotheformsofthecity,andhowhumanbeingsfunctionincities. Thetheorytobesetoutinthischapterisbasedononecentralproposition:thatthefundamentalcorrelateofthespatialconfigurationismovement.Thisisthecasebothintermsofthedeterminationofspatialform,inthatmovementlargelydictatestheconfiguringofspaceinthecity,andintermsoftheeffectsofspatialform,inthatmovementislargelydeterminedbyspatialconfiguration.Theprincipalgeneratorofthetheorysetouthereisthediscovery,throughrecentresearch,thatthestructureoftheurbangridconsideredpurelyasaspatialconfiguration,isitselfthemostpowerfulsingledeterminantofurbanmovement,bothpedestrianandvehicular.Becausethisrelationisfundamentalandlawful,ithasalreadybeenapowerfulforceinshapingourhistoricallyevolvedcities,byitseffectonland-usepatterns,buildingdensities,themixingofusesinurbanareasandthepart-wholestructureofthecity.4

Theresultnowavailablesuggeststhatsocio-economicforcesshapethecityprimarilythroughtherelationsbetweenmovementandthestructureoftheurbangrid.Wellfunctioningcitiescantherefore,itwillbesuggested,bethoughtofas‘movementeconomies’.Bythisitismeantthatthereciprocaleffectsofspaceandmovementoneachother(andnot,forexample,aestheticorsymbolicintentions),andthemultipliereffectsonboththatarisefrompatternsoflanduseandbuildingdensities,whicharethemselvesinfluencedbythespace-movementrelation,that




SpaceSyntax

givecitiestheircharacteristicstructures,andgiverisetothesensethateverythingisworkingtogethertocreatethespecialkindsofwell-beingandexcitementthatweassociatewithcitiesattheirbest. Itwillbesuggestedasaconsequenceoftheseargumentsthatourviewofthecityintherecentpasthasbeenafflictedbyconceptionsofspacewhichareatoncetoostaticandtoolocalised.Weneedtoreplacethesewithconceptswhicharedynamicandglobal.Bothcanbeachievedthroughtheconfigurationalmodellingofspace,usingthepoweritgivesusbothtocapturethecomplexitiesofurbanform,andbringtheseanalysestobearondesign.

Form and function in space are not independentWemustbeginbymakingafewbasicobservationsaboutspaceanditsrelationtofunction.Wetendtothinkoftheformandfunctionofspaceastwoquiteindependentthings.Spaceisashape,andfunctioniswhatwedoinit.Setupthisway,itishardtoseewhythereshouldbeanyrelationbetweenthetwo,andevenhardertoseehowanyrelationcouldbeanecessaryone. Butifwethinkalittlemorecarefullyabouthowhumanbeingsoperateinspace,wefindeverywhereakindofnaturalgeometrytowhatpeopledoinspace.Consider,forexample,figure4.1.Atthemostelementarylevel,peoplemoveinlines,andtendtoapproximatelinesinmorecomplexroutes,asinfigure4.1a.Thenifan

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1




SpaceSyntax

individualstopstotalktoagroupofpeople,thegroupwillcollectivelydefineaspace(4.1b)inwhichallthepeoplethefirstpersoncanseecanseeeachother,andthisisamathematicaldefinitionofconvexityinspace,exceptthatamathematicianwouldsaypointsratherthanpeople.Themorecomplexshapeoffigure4.1cdefinesallthepointsinspace,andthereforethepotentialpeople,thatcanbeseenbyanyofthepeopleintheconvexspacewhocanalsoseeeachother.Wecallthistypeofirregular,butwelldefined,shapea‘convexisovist’.Suchshapesvaryaswemoveaboutincities,andthereforedefineakeyaspectofourspatialexperienceofthem. Therearerelationships,then,betweentheformaldescribabilityofspaceandhowpeopleuseit.Theseelementaryrelationshipsbetweentheformofspaceanditsusesuggestthattheproperwaytoformulatetherelationistosaythatspaceisgiventousasasetofpotentials,andthatweexploitthesepotentialsasindividualsandcollectivitiesinusingspace.Itisthisthatmakestherelationbetweenspaceandfunctionanalysable,andtosomeextentpredictable.Bydividingupurban

Figure 4.2a (top left)PlanofRome,Italy

Figure 4.2b (top right)AxialmapofRome,Italy

Figure 4.2c (right)IsovistmapofRome,Italy




SpaceSyntax

space,whichisnecessarilycontinuous,indifferentformalwayswearelikelytobedividingitupaccordingtosomeaspectofhowhumanbeingsfunction. Consider,forexample,figure4.2awhichistheplanofRome,inwhichthecustomaryrepresentationwiththebuildingsinblackandthespacewhitehasbeenreversedtodrawattentiontothefactthatitistheblackstructureofspacethatisourfocusofconcern.5Figure4.2bisthenonepossiblestructurewithinfigure4.2,thefewestandlongestlinesthatcovertheopenspaceofRome,andthereforeformitspotentialroutematrix.figure4.2cisanothersuchstructure:alltheconvexelementswecallpublicopenspacestogetherwiththeirisovists.Bydefinition,thisincludesallthelinesthatpassthroughthespacesandrelatethemintheurbanstructureasawhole.Notehowtheylinkuptoformglobalclusters.WeimmediatelyseehowmistakenwewouldbetoseeRomansquaresaslocalelements.Theisovistsshowtheyalsoformaglobalpattern. Allthesewaysoflookingatspacecanbeseenaslayersofspatialstructuring,co-existingwithinthesameplan,eachwithitsowncontributiontointelligibilityandfunction.Aspatiallayoutcanthusbeseenasofferingdifferentfunctionalpotentials.Whatisitliketomovearoundinit?Doesithavepotentialtogenerateinteraction?Canstrangersunderstandit?andsoon.Allthesequestionsareabouttherelationshipofspaceasformalpotentialstodifferentaspectsoffunction.Alayoutcanthusberepresentedasadifferentkindofspatialsystemaccordingtowhataspectsoffunctionweareinterestedin.

The shape of space in the City of LondonLetusnowlookinmoredetailatacasethatismuchclosertohome:theCityofLondon,fornobetterreasonthanthatithasbeenasoftencriticisedas‘haphazard’aspraisedas‘organic’—butneverexplainedproperly.Theplanofthe‘squaremile’(infactitisneithersquarenoramile)isshowninfigure4.3ausingtheblackonwhiteconventiontoemphasisethatitisspacewearelookingat.Figure4.3bhomesinononeoftheallegedly‘labyrinthian’backareasoftheCitybetweenCornhillandLombardStreet,takenfromtheRocquemapof1746.Wesayallegedlybecausealthoughitlookssoinplan,itdoesnotseemintheleastlabyrinthiantothepersonmovingatgroundlevel.Onthecontrary,itseemshighlyintelligible.Howdoesthishappen?Thetechniqueissimple.Thespacestructureisadmittedlyhighlybrokenupinto‘convex’spaces—buttherearealwayslineswhichlinktheconvexspacestogether,usuallyseveralatatime.Sometimestheline‘justabout’getsthroughthespacesformedbythebuildings,sometimesmoreeasily.Butbecausepeoplemoveinlines,andneedtounderstandlinesinordertoknowwheretheycango,thismeansthatthespacestructureiseasilyintelligiblefromthepointofviewofmovement. Infact,thepatternisslightlysubtler.Thereisforthemostparta‘two-linelogic’inthatifyoupassdownalinethatyoucanseefromthemaingrid,thenextlinewilltakeyoueitheroutofthebackareaagainortosomesignificantspatialevent—sayalargerpieceofspaceorasignificantbuilding—withinthebackarea.Thismeansthatwhereveryougo,thereisusuallyapointfromwhichyoucansee




SpaceSyntax

Figure 4.3aBlackandwhiteillustrationofthepublicopenspaceoftheCityofLondonasitistoday

Figure 4.3bClose-upoftheone-andtwo-dimensionalspacestructureoftheareabetweenCornhillandLombardStreetin1677.

Figure 4.3cAxialmapoftheCityofLondonasitistoday




SpaceSyntax

whereyouhavecomefromandwhereyournextpointofaimmightbe.Thisistheoppositeoflabyrinthian.Asobservationwillconfirm,theeffectofthisspatialtechniqueisthatthebackareasbecomenormallyandnaturallyusedformovementaspartoftheurbanspacepattern.Thereisnoinhibitionorsenseofterritorialintrusionintheseareas. Thistwo-linelogicisnottheonlyconstantpropertyofthesesmall-scalecomplexes.Wealsofindthatnearlyeveryconvexelement,includingthenarrowonesthatenterthebackareas,aswellasthefatteroneswefindwithintheareas,hasbuildingentrancesopeningontoit.Inthecity,afascinatingculturalpracticehasaugmentedthis:evenininclementweather,doorstobuildingstendtobeleftopen,oftenshowingtotheoutsideworldonewayupstairsordownandanotherintotheground-evelpremises. Theeffectoftheseapparentrulesabouthowbuildingsrelatetoopenspaceistocreatetwo‘interfaces’.first,thereisacloserelationbetweenthosewithinthebuilding,andthoseoutside.Second,thereisanaturalminglingbetweenthosewhoareusingthespaceoutsidethebuildings,andthosewhoarepassingthrough.Thereisnosenseoflackofprivacyorintrusion.Noristhereanypressuretointeract,thoughthisisavailableifrequired.Allwehaveisarelationofco-presencebetweengroupsdoingdifferentthings.Suchco-presenceseemsunforced,evenrelaxed.Itistheproductofatwo-wayrelationfromtheconvexspatialelement:oneintothebuilding,theothertothelargerscalethroughthelinestructure.Thelargerandsmallerscalesofaspaceareheldtogetherbythisspatialtechnique. Nowletuszoomouttothelargerscale.Figure4.3cisan‘axialmap’oftheCityasawhole,thatis,theleastsetofstraightlinesthatpassthroughalltheopenspaceinfigure4.3a.Thefirstthingweseewhenlookingatthelargerscale—thatisatthelongerlines—isthatthetendencyoflinesto‘justabout’passthroughconvexspaceisstillthere.Itisjustpossible,inspiteofthesinuouscurvesofthebuildings,toseedownLombardStreetfromoneendtotheother,anditisjustaboutpossibletoseefromtheBankinterchangethroughthewholeofCornhillintoLeadenhallStreetasfarasBilliterStreet.Inbothcasesthelineendsbystrikingthefaçadeofabuildingataveryopenangle,andfromthisitseemsnaturaltoinfercontinuationofpotentialmovementinthatgeneraldirection. Theseimprobablyextended‘justabout’linescreateanothereffectwhichonemustsearchalittletofind,andperhapsgobacktotheoldmaptoverify.ItisthatifoneentersanyoftheoldCitygatesandproceedsfollowingonlyarulethatrequiresyoutotakethelongestlineavailableatanytime(withoutgoingbackonyourself)thenineachcasefromsomewhereonthesecondlinealineopensupfromwhichtheBankinterchange,theoldcentreoftheCity,canbeseen.Again,wefindasimpletwo-linelogicunderlyingapparentcomplexity,andagainweneedhavenodoubtaboutitsfunctionalimplication.Itaccessesthestrangertotheheartofthecity.Anautomatoncouldfindthecentre—soastrangercould. However,whenwecomparethetwolevelsatwhichwefindthistwo-linelogic,thereisageometricdifferencewhichwecansummariseinasimpleprinciple:




SpaceSyntax

thelongerthelinethemorelikelyitistostrikeabuildingfaçadeatanopenangle,theshortertheline,themorelikelyitistostrikeabuildingatarightangle.Thisisexactlytheoppositeofthecurrentratherpompousurbanfashiontoendmajoraxesatrightanglesonmajorbuildingfaçades.Historicallythisusuallyoccurswhereurbanspaceistakenoverforthesymbolicexpressionofpower,whereastheCity’surbanspacestructureisaboutthemovementrequiredtocreateadenseencounterfield.Theright-anglerelationoffaçadetolineisusedintheCityto,asitwere,illuminatethesmaller-scaleandspatiallymorecomplexareas,andtomakethemvisiblefromthelarger-scalegrid.ThuswebegintoseenotonlythatthereisaninteriorlogictotheCity’sapparentlydisorderlygrid,butthatthisinnerlogicisfundamentallyaboutmovement,andthepotentialthatmovementgivesforcreatingco-presence.Weseethatmanyofthepropertiesofurbanspacethatwevalueaestheticallyareaproductofthisfunctionalshapingofspace. TheseconsistenciesinspatialpatterningshowhowtheCityisputtogetherlocally,andhowitthereforeworksasaseriesofexperiences.ButtheCityalsoacquiresaglobalform.Tounderstandthis,andwhyitisimportant,wemustbegintoformaliseourunderstandingalittle.ItwillturnoutthatthelinepatternoftheCityisthemostimportanttoitsglobalstructure,andwemustthereforebeginbyexaminingthisifwewishtomovethefocusofouranalysisfromthelocaltotheglobal.Wemaybeginbyasimpleobservation:thattogofromanylinetoanyotheronemustpassthroughacertainnumberofinterveninglines(unlessofcoursetheoriginlinedirectlyintersectsthedestinationline).Eachlinethushasacertainminimumline‘depth’fromanother,whichisnotnecessarilyafunctionofdistance.Itfollowsthateachlinehasaminimumaverageline‘depth’fromallotherlinesinthesystem.Becauselineswillalwaysbeshallowfromsomelinesanddeepfromothers,onemightexpectthatthiswouldaverageitselfout.Thesurprisingthingisthatitdoesnot.Therearesubstantialdifferencesinthemeandepthoflinesfromallothers,anditisthesedifferencesthatgoverntheinfluenceofthegridonmovementinthesystem:roughly,thelessdepthtoallotherlines,themoremovement;themoredepth,theless. TheseconfigurationalpicturesoftheCityfromthepointofviewofitsconstituentlinescanbemeasuredexactlythroughthemeasureof‘integration’(SeeChapters1and3.)The‘integrationvalue’ofeachlinereflectsitsmeanlinear‘depth’fromallotherlinesinthesystem.Wecanthenmaptheseintegrationvaluesfromredthroughpurple,andproduceaglobalintegrationmapofthewholeofacity,asinplate2a.Wecanalsoproduceanotherhighlyinformativemap,oneinwhichwecalculateintegrationonlyuptothreelinesawayfromeachlineineverydirection,andwhichwethereforecall‘localintegration’,orradius-3integration,incontrastto‘global’orradius-nintegration.(plate2b) Integrationvaluesinlinemapsareofgreatimportanceinunderstandinghowurbansystemsfunctionbecauseitturnsoutthathowmuchmovementpassesdowneachlineisverystronglyinfluencedbyits‘integrationvalue’calculatedinthisway,thatis,byhowthelineispositionedwithrespecttothesystemasawhole.6Infactitisslightlymoresubtleanddependsonthetypicallengthofjourneys.




SpaceSyntax

Pedestriandensitiesonlinesinlocalareascanusuallybebestpredictedbycalculatingintegrationforthesystemoflinesuptothreelinesawayfromeachline(radius-3integration),whilecarsonlarger-scaleroutes(thoughnotinlocalareas,whereradius-3isthebestpredictor)dependonhigherradiusintegrationbecausecarjourneysareonthewholelongerandmotoriststhereforereadthematrixofpossibleroutesaccordingtoalarger-scalelogicthanpedestrians.7

The principle of natural movementThisrelationshipbetweenthestructureoftheurbangridandmovementdensitiesalonglinescanbecalledtheprincipleof‘naturalmovement’.Naturalmovementistheproportionofmovementoneachlinethatisdeterminedbythestructureoftheurbangriditselfratherthanbythepresenceofspecificattractorsormagnets.Thisisnotinitiallyobvious,butonreflectiondoesseemnatural.Inalargeandwelldevelopedurbangridpeoplemoveinlines,butstartandfinisheverywhere.Wecannoteasilyconceiveofanurbanstructureascomplexasthecityintermsofspecificgeneratorsandattractors,orevenoriginsanddestinations,butwedonotneedtobecausethecityisastructureinwhichoriginsanddestinationstendtobediffusedeverywhere,thoughwithobviousbiasestowardhigherdensityareasandmajortrafficinterchanges.Somovementtendstobebroadlyfromeverywheretoeverywhereelse.Totheextentthatthisisthecaseinmostcities,thestructureofthegriditselfaccountsformuchofthevariationinmovementdensities. Weshouldthenexpectthatthedistributionofcoloursinaxialmapswillforeshadowdensitiesofmovingpeople.Becausethecoloursarereallyroughindexesofprecisenumericalvalues,thispropositioncanofcoursebetestedbyselectingareasandcorrelatingmovementratesagainstintegrationvalues.However,becausemovementalongaparticularlineisinfluencedinthemainbyitspositioninthelarger-scaleurbangrid,wemusttakecaretoincludeenoughofthewholeurbangridinouranalysistoensurethateachlineintheareawearestudyingisembeddedinalltheurbanstructurethatmayinfluenceitsmovement.Wecannotthendobetterthantobeginwiththewholeofanurbansystem,oratleastaverymuchlarge-partofitinordertoensurethatourstudyareaissufficientlywellembedded. InordertoanalyseanareaininnerLondon,then,webeginwithanaxialrepresentationoftheverylargepartofLondonshowninfigure4.4,whichcoverstheareaapproximatelywithintheNorthandSouthCircularRoads.Plate2c–eisthenaseriesofanalysesofintegrationatdifferentradii.Plate2cistheradius-nanalysis,andassuchshowsthemostglobalstructureofLondon,withastrongedge-to-centrepatterncentredonOxfordStreet,whichisthemostintegratedline.Plate2distheradius-3analysis,whichhighlightsamuchmorelocalisedstructure,includingmostlocalshoppingstreets,butalsopicksoutOxfordStreetasthedominantintegrator.ThisimpliesthatOxfordStreetisnotonlythestrongestglobalintegratorinLondonasawhole,butalsothestrongestlocalintegratorofitssurroundingarea.Plate2eisthenaradius-10(orradius-radius)analysis,meaningthattheintegrationanalysisissetatthemeandepthofthewholesystemfromthemainintegrator,




SpaceSyntax

Figure 4.4AxialmapofGreaterLondonwithintheNorthandSouthCircularroads

whichinthiscaseis10.Theeffectofsettingtheradiusofanalysisatthatofthemainintegratoristhateachlineisanalysedatthesameradiuswhichisatthesametimethemaximumradiuspossiblewithoutdifferencesinradiusbetweenlines.Theeffectofaradius-radiusanalysisistomaximisetheglobalityoftheanalysiswithoutinducing‘edgeeffect’,thatis,thetendencyfortheedgesofspatialsystemtobedifferentfrominteriorareabecausetheyareclosetotheedge.Takentogether,thefiguresshowsaremarkablytrue-to-lifefunctionalpictureofLondonasawhole,highlightingallthemaininandoutroutesandshoppinghighstreets. Thereasonthataspatialanalysiscangivesuchatrue-to-lifefunctionalpictureisduetothepowerfulinfluencethatnaturalmovement—thetendencyofthestructureofthegriditselftobethemaininfluenceonthepatternofmovement—hasontheevolutionoftheurbanpatternanditsdistributionoflanduses.Totestthisproperlywemusttranslatebackfromgraphicstonumbers.Figure4.5aselectsasmallareawithinthesystem,moreorlessco-terminouswiththenamedareaofBarnsbury,andassignsprecise‘integrationvalues’toeachline.Figure4.5bthenindexesobservedmovementratesofadultpedestriansoneachlinesegment




SpaceSyntax

Figure 4.5aTheintegrationvalueofeachaxiallineinBarnsbury

104

88

114

144

134161

169

42

58

4141

15

49

1910

54

150 90 86 71 57 7271

52

7571

79

21 30

4

123 103 70 63 72 7958 61 101

5027 38

7127 46

16

152 131122

210

19373

67

372

446

417

288

257

230

35

46

33 21

48 29

41

48

50

107

53

58

57

61

19

6

6

13

18

1

18 26

24

41

80

103

88

103

107

117

113

136

139

55

92

116

19

30

2930

49

13

6

741

51

163

168

133

142

149

121

125

127

213

236

62

b. Average number of pedestrians per hourfor all periods.

1.505

1.336

1.581

1.422

1.358

1.605

1.425

1.2171.271

1.1671.167

1.357

1.499

1.2001.200

1.277

1.284

1.2231.010

1.150

1.333

1.231

1.445

1.238

1.209

1.232

1.4121.238

1.275

1.430

1.1501.011

1.150 1.276

1.3471.160

1.040

1.384

1.187

1.304

1.1831.307

1.219

1.505

1.4281.219

1.215

1.061

1.215

1.2151.062

1.160

1.218

1.2781.182 1.279

1.202 1.302

1.195

1.1941.194

1.1611.161

1.199

1.440

1.393

1.176

1.194

a. The integration value of each axial linein Barnsbury.

Figure 4.5

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4RA3(2)

Sqrt

ofA

vPe

d

y = 2.033x - 2.729, R-squared: .734

c. RRA=3 v, Pedestrian Movement inBarnsbury

d. Plot of burglaries in Barnsbury.

104

88

114

144

134161

169

42

58

4141

15

49

1910

54

150 90 86 71 57 7271

52

7571

79

21 30

4

123 103 70 63 72 7958 61 101

5027 38

7127 46

16

152 131122

210

19373

67

372

446

417

288

257

230

35

46

33 21

48 29

41

48

50

107

53

58

57

61

19

6

6

13

18

1

18 26

24

41

80

103

88

103

107

117

113

136

139

55

92

116

19

30

2930

49

13

6

741

51

163

168

133

142

149

121

125

127

213

236

62


1.505

1.336

1.581

1.422

1.358

1.605

1.425

1.2171.271

1.1671.167

1.357

1.499

1.2001.200

1.277

1.284

1.2231.010

1.150

1.333

1.231

1.445

1.238

1.209

1.232

1.4121.238

1.275

1.430

1.1501.011

1.150 1.276

1.3471.160

1.040

1.384

1.187

1.304

1.1831.307

1.219

1.505

1.4281.219

1.215

1.061

1.215

1.2151.062

1.160

1.218

1.2781.182 1.279

1.202 1.302

1.195

1.1941.194

1.1611.161

1.199

1.440

1.393

1.176

1.194


Figure 4.5

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4RA3(2)

Sqrt

ofA

vPe

d

y = 2.033x - 2.729, R-squared: .734



Figure 4.5bAveragenumberofpedestriansperhourforallperiods

Figure 4.5cRRA=3V,pedestrianmovementinBarnsbury

Figure 4.5dPlotofburglariesinBarnsbury

104

88

114

144

134161

169

42

58

4141

15

49

1910

54

150 90 86 71 57 7271

52

7571

79

21 30

4

123 103 70 63 72 7958 61 101

5027 38

7127 46

16

152 131122

210

19373

67

372

446

417

288

257

230

35

46

33 21

48 29

41

48

50

107

53

58

57

61

19

6

6

13

18

1

18 26

24

41

80

103

88

103

107

117

113

136

139

55

92

116

19

30

2930

49

13

6

741

51

163

168

133

142

149

121

125

127

213

236

62


1.505

1.336

1.581

1.422

1.358

1.605

1.425

1.2171.271

1.1671.167

1.357

1.499

1.2001.200

1.277

1.284

1.2231.010

1.150

1.333

1.231

1.445

1.238

1.209

1.232

1.4121.238

1.275

1.430

1.1501.011

1.150 1.276

1.3471.160

1.040

1.384

1.187

1.304

1.1831.307

1.219

1.505

1.4281.219

1.215

1.061

1.215

1.2151.062

1.160

1.218

1.2781.182 1.279

1.202 1.302

1.195

1.1941.194

1.1611.161

1.199

1.440

1.393

1.176

1.194


Figure 4.5

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4RA3(2)

Sqrt

ofA

vPe

d

y = 2.033x - 2.729, R-squared: .734



104

88

114

144

134161

169

42

58

4141

15

49

1910

54

150 90 86 71 57 7271

52

7571

79

21 30

4

123 103 70 63 72 7958 61 101

5027 38

7127 46

16

152 131122

210

19373

67

372

446

417

288

257

230

35

46

33 21

48 29

41

48

50

107

53

58

57

61

19

6

6

13

18

1

18 26

24

41

80

103

88

103

107

117

113

136

139

55

92

116

19

30

2930

49

13

6

741

51

163

168

133

142

149

121

125

127

213

236

62


1.505

1.336

1.581

1.422

1.358

1.605

1.425

1.2171.271

1.1671.167

1.357

1.499

1.2001.200

1.277

1.284

1.2231.010

1.150

1.333

1.231

1.445

1.238

1.209

1.232

1.4121.238

1.275

1.430

1.1501.011

1.150 1.276

1.3471.160

1.040

1.384

1.187

1.304

1.1831.307

1.219

1.505

1.4281.219

1.215

1.061

1.215

1.2151.062

1.160

1.218

1.2781.182 1.279

1.202 1.302

1.195

1.1941.194

1.1611.161

1.199

1.440

1.393

1.176

1.194


Figure 4.5

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4RA3(2)

Sqrt

ofA

vPe

d

y = 2.033x - 2.729, R-squared: .734






SpaceSyntax

throughouttheworkingday.8Figure4.5cisascattergramplottingpedestrianmovementratesagainstradius-3integration.TheR-squaredvalueshowsthataboutthree-quartersofthedifferencesbetweenlinesegmentsintheirmovementratesareduetotheirconfigurationalpositioninthelarger-scalegrid.Note,bytheway,thatwearestillcalculatingintegrationwithrespecttoamuchlargersystemthanshowninfigure4.5a.Movementisnotonlylargelydeterminedbyconfiguration,butalsobyconfigurationonafairlylargescale. Readerscanconsultpublishedtextsfordetailedresults,butsimilarresultshavebeenachievedacrossagreatrangeofstudies,andevenbetter—thoughslightlydifferent—resultshavebeenfoundfromstudiesrelatingvehicularmovementtospatialconfiguration.9Thesestudiesshowthatthedistributionofpedestrianmovementintheurbangridistoaconsiderableextentdeterminedbyspatialconfiguration,withtheactuallevelsalsostronglyinfluencedbyareabuildingdensities(thoughtheeffectsofbuildingdensityarenotingeneralfoundattheleveloftheindividualline),whilevehicularmovementisstronglyinfluencedbyspatialintegrationinassociationwithnetroadwidth,thatis,thewidthoftheroadlessthepermittedcarparking.Inthecaseofvehicularmovementthesecondvariable,netroadwidth,doesinfluencemovementonaline-by-linebasisandplaysamoresignificantpartinthelargerscaleroadnetwork.10

Wemayinvestigateanotherkeycomponentofsuccessfulurbanism,theinformaluseofopenspacesforstoppingandtakingpleasure,byusingasimilartechnique.Figure4.6isa‘convexisovist’representationoftheCityofLondon’sfew,ratherinformalopenspaces,whichvaryremarkablyintheirdegreeofinformaluse.AttemptstoaccountforthepatternofwellandpoorlyusedspacesintheCityintermsofcommonlycanvassedexplanationshavebeensingularlyunsuccessful.Forexample,somespaceshemmedinbytrafficareseveraltimesbetterusedthanadjacentspaceswithouttraffic,exposedspacesoftenperformbetterthanspaceswithgoodenclosure,someofthemostsuccessfulspacesareintheshadowoftallbuildings,andsoon.Theonlyvariablethatcorrelatesconsistentlywiththedegreeofobservedinformalspacesis,infact,ameasureofthe‘Romanproperty’,notedinfigure4.2c,whichwecallthethe‘strategicvalue’oftheisovist.Thisiscalculatedbysummingtheintegrationvaluesofallthelineswhichpassthroughthebodyofthespace(asopposedtoskirtingitsedges).Thismakesintuitivesense.Theprimaryactivityofthosewhostoptositinurbanspacesseemstobetowatchotherspassby.Forthis,strategicspaceswithareascloseto,butnotactuallylyingon,themainlinesofmovementareoptimal.Themainfaultinmostofthemodernopenspaceswehaveobserved(withthemostnotableexceptionofBroadgate,whichhasthemostsuccessfulspacesintheCityofLondon)isthatthedesignershavegiventoomuchattentiontolocalenclosureofthespace,andtoolittletostrategicvisualfields—yetanotherinstanceofanoverlylocalisedviewofspace.Thegeneralruleseemstobethataspacemustnotbetooenclosedforitssize.Thevisibilityfieldmustbescaledupinproportiontothescaleofthespace. Oncewehavethetrickofcorrelatingnumbersindexingobservedfunction




SpaceSyntax

withnumbersindexingspatialpatternswecanextendittoanythingthatcanberepresentedasanumberandlocatedinspace.Whenwedoso,itturnsoutthateverythingseemstorelatetospace,andthereforetomovementinsomeway:retail,buildingdensities,indeedmosttypesoflanduseseemtohavesomespatiallogicwhichcanbeexpressedasastatisticalrelationbetweenspatialandfunctionalmeasures.Evencrimecanbespatiallycorrelated.Figure4.5dplotsburglarieswithinatwelve-monthperiodintheBarnsburyarea.Visually,itlooksasthoughtheremaybesomeeffectfromconfiguration,inthatthedensestconcentrationsseemtobeinlessintegratedlocations,whilesomeofthemoreintegratinglinesarerelativelyfree.Isthistrue?Byassigningeachdwellingtheintegrationvalueofthelineonwhichitopenswecanaskifburgleddwellingsaresignificantlymoresegregatedorintegratedthanunburgleddwellings.Itturnsoutthatburgleddwellingsaresignificantlymoresegregatedonaveragethanunburgleddwellings. Nowletuslookatotheraspectsofhowthingsaredistributedintheurbangrid.Take,forexample,thewell-knownBoothmapofLondon,partofwhichisshowninplate3,inwhichsocio-economicclassesareplottedfromgoldforthebestoff(therearenoneinthepartofLondonshown),throughredformerchantgradehouses,thenthroughpinktogreyandblackforthepoorest.Themostintegratedstreetsarelinedwithred,andasyoumoveintothelessimportant,andlessintegratingstreets,thegradeofhousingfallsoff,leavingthepoorestmostsegregatedareas.ThereisalsoasubtlerorganisationconcealedintheBoothmap,onewhichprovidesanimportantcluetooneofthehiddensecretsofurbanspace:howdifferentusesandeconomicclassesaremixedinthesameareabyusingaprinciplethatcanbe

Figure 4.6ConvexisovistsfromeightcityofLondonsquares




SpaceSyntax

summarisedas‘marginalseparationbylinearintegration’.Ifwelookcarefullywecanseethatdifferentgradesofhousing—andinothersituationswewillfinddifferentlanduses—mayoftenbeincloseproximitybutseparatedeffectivelybybeingondifferentalignments,oftenaspartofthesameurbanblock.Thefundamentallanduseelementisnotthezoneoreventheurbanblockbuttheline:landuseschangesslowlyasyouprogressalongparticularlinesofmovement,butcanchangequitesharplywithninety-degreeturnsontodifferentalignments.Sinceweknowthatthepatternofalignmentsisthefundamentaldeterminantofmovement,wecanbegintoseethatthestructureoftheurbangrid,thedistributionoflanduses,andbuiltformdensitiesareinthehistoricallyevolvingcityboundupwitheachotherinadynamicprocesscentredontherelationofthegridstructuretomovement. Whichthenisprimary?Letusarguethisthroughthespatialdistributionofretail,thecommonestnon-residentiallanduse.Wemayalreadyhavebeensuspectedofhavingconfusedtheeffectsofspatialconfigurationonmovementwiththeeffectofshops.Arenottheshopsthemainattractorsofmovement?Anddotheynotlieonthemainintegrators?Thisisofcoursetrue.Butitdoesnotunderminewhatisbeingsaidaboutthestructureofthegridastheprimedeterminantofmovement.Onthecontraryitmakestheargumentfarmorepowerful.Boththeshopsandthepeoplearefoundonmainintegrators,butthequestionis:whyaretheshopsthere?Thepresenceofshopscanattractpeoplebuttheycannotchangetheintegrationvalueofaline,sincethisispurelyaspatialmeasureofthepositionofthelineinthegrid.Itcanonlybethattheshopswereselectivelylocatedonintegratinglines,andthismustbebecausetheyarethelineswhichnaturallycarrythemostmovement.So,farfromexplainingawaytherelationbetweengridstructureandmovementbypointingtotheshops,wehaveexplainedthelocationoftheshopsbypointingtotherelationbetweengridandmovement.11

Nowofcourseinasensetosaythisistosaytheobvious.Everyretailerknowsthatyoushouldputtheshopwherepeoplearegoingtobeanyway,anditisnosurpriseifwefindthatthestructureoftheurbangridinfluencesatleastsomelandusesasitevolves.Itwouldbesurprisingifitwerenotthecase.However,alittlemorethanthisisbeingclaimed.Itisbeingsuggestedthatthereisanunderlyingprinciplewhich,otherthingsbeingequal,relatesgridstructuretomovementpatternnotonlyonthemainlinesinandoutofacity,butalsointhefinestructure,andthroughthisgivesrisetoawholemultiplicityofinter-relationshipsbetweengridstructure,landuses,densities,andeventhesenseofurbanwell-beingandfear.Multiplier effects and the movement economyWecanpursuethisbythinkingcarefullyaboutwhatitwouldtaketoproducethisdegreeofagreementbetweengridstructure,movement,landusesanddensities.Wefindourselvesunavoidablyledtowardsatheoryofthegeneralformationofthecitythroughthefunctionalshapingofitsspacebymovement.Letusbeginbythinkingaboutthat.Anurbansystem,bydefinition,isonewhichhasatleastsomeoriginsanddestinationsmoreorlesseverywhere.Everytripinanurbansystemhas




SpaceSyntax

threeelements:anorigin,adestination,andtheseriesofspacesthatarepassedthroughonthewayfromonetotheother.Wecanthinkofpassagethroughthesespacesastheby-productofgoingfromatob.Wealreadyknowthatthisby-product,whentakenattheaggregatelevel,isdeterminedbythestructureofthegrid,evenifthelocationofallthea’sandb’sisnot. Locationinthegridthereforehasacrucialeffect.Iteitherincreasesordiminishesthedegreetowhichmovementby-productisavailableaspotentialcontact.Aswesawinthecoloured-upmaps,thisappliesnotonlytoindividuallines,buttothegroupsoflinesthatmakeuplocalareas.Thustherewillbemoreintegratingandlessintegratingareas,dependingonhowtheinternalstructureoftheareaismarriedintothelarger-scalestructureofthegrid,andthiswillmeanalsoareaswithmoreby-productandareaswithless. Nowifcitiesare,astheywerealwayssaidtobe,‘mechanismsforgeneratingcontact’,thenthismeansthatsomelocationshavemorepotentialthanothersbecausetheyhavemoreby-productandthiswilldependonthestructureofthegridandhowtheyrelatetoit.Suchlocationswillthereforetendtohavehigherdensitiesofdevelopmenttotakeadvantageofthis,andhigherdensitieswillinturnhaveamultipliereffect.Thiswillinturnattractnewbuildingsanduses,totakeadvantageofthemultipliereffect.Itisthispositivefeedbackloopbuiltonafoundationoftherelationbetweenthegridstructureandmovementthisgivesrisetotheurbanbuzz,whichweprefertoberomanticormysticalabout,butwhicharisesfromtheco-incidenceincertainlocationsoflargenumbersofdifferentactivitiesinvolvingpeoplegoingabouttheirbusinessindifferentways.Suchsituationsinvariablyarisethroughmultipliereffectsgeneratedfromthebasicrelationbetweenspacestructureandmovement,andultimatelythisdependsonthestructureoftheurbangriditself.Inotherwords,howtheurbansystemisputtogetherspatiallyisthesourceofeverythingelse. Wemayillustratethisnegativelythroughanotoriouscasewheretheurbanbuzzdoesnotoccur,inspiteoftheco-existenceinasmallareaofmanymajorfunctions.TheexampleistheareaoftheSouthBankculturalcentreinLondon,where,withinafewhundredmetrescanbefoundEurope’slargestandmostdiverseculturalcomplex,amajorinternationalrailwayterminus,extensiveofficedevelopment,significantresidentialdevelopmentandafamousriversidewalk.Whydoallthesefacilitiesnotaddupintoanurbanareawiththequalitiescalledforbythesehigh-levelfacilities?Itcanonlybethewayitisputtogether.Thisisindeedthecase.Ourstudieshaveshownthateachofthevariousconstituenciesofspaceusers—travellers,residents,officeworkers,tourists,concert-goersandgalleryvisitorsallusespaceinadifferentwayand,asitwere,movethroughthearealargelyonseperateroutespassingeachotherlikeshipsinthenight.Itisthefailureoftheconfigurationofspacetobringthesedifferentconstituenciesintopatternsofmovementandspaceusewhereallareprioritisingthesamespace,thatdeprivetheareaofthemultipliereffectsthatoccurwhendifferentconstituenciesofspaceuseallsparkoffeachother. Iftheseargumentsareright,itmeansthatalltheprimaryelementsof




SpaceSyntax

urbanform,thatis,thestructureoftheurbangrid,thedistributionoflandusesandtheassignmentofdevelopmentdensitiesareboundtogetherinthehistoricalcitybytheprinciplethatrelatesthestructureoftheurbangridtotheby-productofmovement.Itmeansthatundercertainconditionsofdensityandintegrationofthegridstructurethingscanhappenthatwillnothappenelsewhere.Movementissocentraltothisprocessthatweshouldforthwithceasetoseecitiesasbeingmadeupoffixedelementsandmovementelementsandinsteadseethephysicalandspatialstructureasbeingbounduptocreatewhatwehavecalledthe‘movementeconomy’,inwhichtheusefulnessoftheby-productofmovementiseverywheremaximisedbyintegrationinordertomaximisethemultipliereffectswhicharetherootsourceofthelifeofcities. Urbanity,wesuggest,isnotsomysterious.Goodspaceisusedspace.Mosturbanspaceuseismovement.Mostmovementisthroughmovement,thatis,theby-productofhowthegridoffersroutesfromeverywheretoeverywhereelse.Mostinformalspaceuseisalsomovementrelated,asisthesenseandfactofurbansafety.Landusesandbuildingdensityfollowmovementinthegrid,bothadaptingtoandmultiplyingitseffects.Theurbanbuzz,orthelackofitwhenitsuitsus,isthecombinationofthese,andthefundamentaldeterminantisthestructureofthegriditself.Theurbangridthroughitsinfluenceonthemovementeconomyisthefundamentalsourceofthemultifunctionalitythatgiveslifetocities.Parts and wholesWecanalsoshowhowthemovementeconomycreatesthepart-wholestructureofcities.Wehavealreadynotedthatmovementoccursatdifferentscales:somelocalisedandsomemoreglobalised.Longjourneyswilltendtonaturallyprioritisespaceswhicharegloballymoreintegrated,morelocaljourneysthosewhicharemorelocallyintegrated.Thespacesystemisliterallyread—andreadable—atadifferentscale.Sincedifferentradiiofintegrationreflectdifferentscalesoftheurbansystem,itwillturnoutthatthekeytounderstandingpartsandwholeisunderstandingtherelationsbetweenthedifferentradiiofintegration. Consider,forexample,therelationbetweentheCityofLondonandLondonasawhole.Figure4.7aisacloseupoftheaxialmapoftheCityofLondonincontext.Figure4.7bisascattergramplottingeachlineintheLondonaxialmapasawholeasapointlocatedaccordingtoitsdegreeofglobal(radius-n)integrationonthehorizontalaxisanditsdegreeoflocal(radius-3)integrationontheverticalaxis.ThedarkpointsarethelineswhichmakeuptheCityofLondon.Thedarkpointsformagoodlinearscatterabouttheirown(invisible)regressionline,andcrossthemainregressionlineatasteeperangle.Thelinearityimpliesagoodrelationbetweenlocalandglobalintegration,thesteeperslopeacrosstheregressionlineimpliesthatthemostintegratedlineswithinthecity,whicharethelinesfromtheoutsidetowardsthecentre,aremorelocallythangloballyintegrated.Theirlocalintegrationis,asitwere,intensifiedfortheirdegreeofglobalintegration.Repeatingthisexperimentwithallofthewell-knownnamedLondonareas,suchasSoho,




SpaceSyntax

a. City of London within the context of Greater London

b. Scatter of the City of London within the context of Greater London

Slope =2.5448

Intercept 0.3738

R^2 =0.1656

Integration(3)

Mean =0.7743

Integration1.317 2

Mean =2.3443

Integration

Integration(3)

7.8712

Figure 4.7

Figure 4.7aCityofLondonwithinthecontextofGreaterLondon

a. City of London within the context of Greater London

b. Scatter of the City of London within the context of Greater London

Slope =2.5448

Intercept 0.3738

R^2 =0.1656

Integration(3)

Mean =0.7743

Integration1.317 2

Mean =2.3443

Integration

Integration(3)

7.8712

Figure 4.7

Figure 4.7bScatteroftheCityofLondonwithinthecontextofGreaterLondon




SpaceSyntax

c. Leadenhall Market, City of London

Slope =2.3193

Intercept -1.3280

R^2 =0.6749

Integration(3)

Mean =2.6095

Integration

Mean =1.6977

Integration(3)

Integration

6.2490

3.0287

d. Scatter(in black dots) of Leadenhall Market within thecontext of the City of London

Figure 4.7

Leadenhall Market

Leadenhall Street

Gra

cech

urch

Stre

et

Figure 4.7cLeadenhallMarket,CityofLondon

c. Leadenhall Market, City of London

Slope =2.3193

Intercept -1.3280

R^2 =0.6749

Integration(3)

Mean =2.6095

Integration

Mean =1.6977

Integration(3)

Integration

6.2490

3.0287

d. Scatter(in black dots) of Leadenhall Market within thecontext of the City of London

Figure 4.7

Leadenhall Market

Leadenhall Street

Gra

cech

urch

Stre

et

Figure 4.7dScatter(inblackdots)ofLeadenhallMarketwithinthecontextoftheCityofLondon




SpaceSyntax

CoventGarden,Bloomsbury,andevenBarnsbury—yieldthiskindofscatter.Inotherwords,therelationofpartandwholeintheaxialmapismadeupatleastinpartoftherelationbetweenlocalandglobalintegration.Thereasonthisissoisthateachlocalareahasitsheartlinkedtothesupergridlinesthatsurrounditbystrongintegrators.Theseformanedge-to-centrestructureinalldirections,andtheless-integratedareasarewithintheintersticesformedbythestructure.Thestronglocalintegratorswhichdefinetheslopeofthedarkpointsforthelocalareaareinvariablytheseedge-to-centrelines.12

Remarkably,wefindexactlythesamephenomenonamuchsmallerscale,forexamplewithintheCityofLondon.Figure4.7chomesinontheLeadenhallMarketarea,andfigure4.7dshowstheCityscatterwiththeLeadenhallMarketareaasthedarkpoints.Onceagainwefindthelocalareaeffect.Theeffectofthisisthatasyoumovedownthesupergridlines—GracechurchStreetorLeadenhallStreet—thenLeadenhallMarketisavailableasawell-structuredlocalintensificationofthegrid,itselflaidoutinmuchthesamewayasthetownislaidout.Onceyouarenearitintheadjacentstreets,itbecomesapowerfulattractor. Wecandrawasimpleconclusionfromtheseresults,onewhichIbelieveagreeswithintuition:thatthemorethesetofdarkpointsformsalinecrossingtheregressionlinesforthewholecitybuttendingtogreatersteepness,thereismorethatislocalintegrationthanglobal,thenthemorethesub-areaisdistinctive;whilethemorethedarkpointslieontheCityregressionlines,themoretheyaresimplysetsofsmallerspacesrelatedtothemaingrid,butnotformingadistinctivesub-areaawayfromit.Thisdepends,however,onthedarkpointsthemselvesformingagoodline,sincewithoutthatwedonothaveagoodintegrationinterface—thatis,agoodrelationbetweenthedifferentscalesofmovement—inthefirstplace,regardlessofwhereitisinrelationtothemainCity.Itdependsalsoonthedarkpointsincludingpointswellupthescaleofintegration.Aclutchofpointsbottomleftwillbeverysegregated,andnotfunctionasasub-area.(Chapter5dealswiththisproblemindetail.) Wehavefoundanobjectivespatialmeaning,itseems,totheareaswenameasareas,andinsuchawayastohaveagoodideaofthefunctionalgeneratorsoftheirdistinctiveurbanpatterns.Wehaveakeytohowatleastsomecitiescanbeputtogetherascitiesofpartswithoutlosingthesenseofthewhole.Historically,itseems,citiesexploitedmovementconstructivelytocreatedense,butvariable,encounterzonestobecomewhatmadethemuseful:tobe‘mechanismsforgeneratingcontact’.Howtheydidthiswasbyusingspacetogeneratemultipliereffectsontherelationbetweenmovementandencounter.Thiswasachievedbyquiteprecisespatialtechniques,appliednowthisway,nowthat(forexample,inArabiccitieswefindaquitedifferentdevelopmentofthesameunderlyinglaws),butalwayshavingtheeffectofcreatingwell-definedrelationshipsbetweendifferentlevelsofmovement:betweenthemovementwithinbuildingsandthemovementonthestreet,betweenlocalisedmovementinlessimportantstreetsandthemoreglobalisedpatternofmovement,andbetweenthemovementofinhabitantsandthemovementofstrangersenteringandleavingthecity.Inasense,citieswereconstructedtobe,inthewordsofDrJohn




SpaceSyntax

Peponis,13interfacesbetweenscalesofmovement. Theinterfacebetweendifferentradiiofintegrationwasthespatialmeanstothefunctionalend.Itcreatedacloserelationbetweenmorelocalisedandmoreglobalisedmovement.Itisthereforethekeytothelocalby-producteffect,andthemeanstocreatelocaladvantagefromglobalmovement.Thespatialtechniquebywhichthiswasdonewastomaintainanumberofspatialinterfaces:betweenbuildingentrancesandallspaces,atwhateverscale;betweensmallerspacesandthelargerurbanscalethroughtherelationbetweentheconvexandlinearstructures;andbetweendifferentscalesofthelinearstructure,especiallybetweenpartsandthewhole.DisurbanismTheurbanmovementeconomy,arisingfromthemultipliereffectofspace,dependsoncertainconditions:acertainsize,acertaindensity,acertaindistributionoflanduses,aspecifictypeofgridthatmaintainstheinterfacebetweenlocalandglobal,andsoon.Oncethisisspelledout,itiseasytoseehowthoroughlysomeofourrecenteffortshavedisruptedit,somuchsothatwemustthinkofmanydevelopmentsofrecentyearsasexerciseinthespatialtechniquesofdisurbanism.‘Disurbanism’isintendedtoconveythereverseoftheurbanspatialtechniqueswehaveidentified:thebreakingoftherelationbetweenbuildingsandpublicspace;thebreakingoftherelationbetweenscalesofmovement;andthebreakingoftheinterfacebetweeninhabitantandstranger. Consider,forexample,theintegrationmapofanareaaroundBarnsbury,whichincludesthreehousingestatesaroundtheKing’sCrossrailwaylandssite(theemptyarea),asinfigure4.8aTheestatesareeasytopickout:theyaremorecomplexandatasmallerspatialscalethanthesurroundingstreet-basedareas,andeachismarkedbyitsdensityoflightshaded,thatissegregated,lines.Ifwetrytoplottheseestatesasdarkpointscattersoflocalagainstglobalintegration,asin4.8b,canddthenwefindthatineachcasetheestatescatterformsaseriesoflayers,eachdistributedinamoreorlessverticalpattern.Thisphenomenonwillbedealtwithindetailinthenextchapter.Herewenotethreeconsequencesofthistypeofspatialdesign.First,theestateissubstantiallymoresegregatedthantherestoftheurbansurfaceand,whatismoreproblematic,segregatedasalump.Goodurbanspacehassegregatedlines,buttheyareclosetointegratedlines,sothatthereisagoodmixofintegratedandsegregatedlineslocally.Second,thereisapoorrelationbetweenlocalandglobalintegration,thatmeansaveryunclearrelationbetweenthelocalandglobalstructure.Third,thescatterdoesnotcrossthelinetocreateawell-structuredlocalintensificationofthegrid. Whatthismeansinfunctionaltermsisthatallinterfacesarebroken:betweenbuildingandpublicspace;betweenlocalisedandlesslocalisedmovement;andbetweeninhabitantandstranger.Ofcourselifeispossibleinsuchplace.Butthereisnowevidencetosuggestthatweoughttobemorepessimistic.Effortstotracethepaththatsuchdesignscanhaveoveralongperiodonthetypeoflifethat




SpaceSyntax

Figure 4.8. Global integration map of Kings Cross with three housing estates picked out in black and the scatters (in black dots)of the three housing estates within their larger context.

Slope =1.9946

Intercept -0.4712

R^2 =0.6422

Integration(3)

Mean =2.0450

Integration

Mean =1.2615

Integration(3)

Integration

3.7976

2.0875

b.

c.

d.

a.

Slope =1.9946

Intercept -0.4712

R^2 =0.6422

Integration(3)

Mean =2.0450

Integration

Mean =1.2615

Integration(3)

Integration

3.7976

2.0875

Slope =1.9946

Intercept -0.4712

R^2 =0.6422

Integration(3)

Mean =2.0450

Integration

Mean =1.2615

Integration(3)

Integration

3.7976

2.0875

Figure 4.8GlobalintegrationmapofKing’sCrosswiththreehousingestatespickedoutinblackandthescatters(inblackdots)ofthethreehousingestateswithintheirlargercontext.




SpaceSyntax

Figure 4.8GlobalintegrationmapofKing’sCrosswiththreehousingestatespickedoutinblackandthescatters(inblackdots)ofthethreehousingestateswithintheirlargercontext.

Figure 4.8. Global integration map of Kings Cross with three housing estates picked out in black and the scatters (in black dots)of the three housing estates within their larger context.

Slope =1.9946

Intercept -0.4712

R^2 =0.6422

Integration(3)

Mean =2.0450

Integration

Mean =1.2615

Integration(3)

Integration

3.7976

2.0875

b.

c.

d.

a.

Slope =1.9946

Intercept -0.4712

R^2 =0.6422

Integration(3)

Mean =2.0450

Integration

Mean =1.2615

Integration(3)

Integration

3.7976

2.0875

Slope =1.9946

Intercept -0.4712

R^2 =0.6422

Integration(3)

Mean =2.0450

Integration

Mean =1.2615

Integration(3)

Integration

3.7976

2.0875




SpaceSyntax

goesoninthemsuggestthatthereisapatternoflong-termdevelopmentinwhichspatialdesignscreateseriouslacunasinnaturalmovement,whichthenattractanti-socialusesandbehaviours.AswewillseeinChapter5,inextremecases,wherethelacunasofnaturalmovementaretheintegrationcoreoftheestateitself,thenthesituationmaybecomepathological. These‘disurban’placesarisefromapoorlystructuredlocalconfigurationofspaceasaconsequenceofwhichthemainelementsofthemovementeconomyarelost.Asimilarpatternoflosscanalsoarisethroughdispersion.Ifwemovefromanurbansystemthatisdenseandnucleatedtoonethatisdispersedandfragmentary,itisobviousthatthemeanlengthofjourneyswill,otherthingsbeingequal,increase.Itislessobvious,butequallytrue,thattheby-producteffectwillalsobediminished.Asdispersionincreases,itbecomeslessandlesslikelythatconnectedlocationswillbenefitfromtheby-productofmovement.Ineffect,asdispersionincreases,themovementsystembecomesmorelikeapureorigin-destinationsystem.Insteadofonejourneyaccomplishinganumberofpurposes,morejourneys,eachoneaccomplishingfewerpurposes,mustbemadetoattainthesamegoals.Thesearethebasicreasonswhypeopletravelfartherinthecountry,andwhymostofthisextratravelisinprivatecars.14

Asimilareffectcanariseeveninacomparativelydenseurbansystemthroughanurbandesignpolicyofreplacingcontinuousurbanstructurewithspecialisedenclaves.Thiswillalsotendtoeliminateby-product.Enclavesare,almostbydefinition,destinationswhicharenotavailablefornaturalmovement.Theyformdiscontinuitiesintheurbangrid.Becausethisissotheyareinmanywayscomparableintheireffectstothephysicaldispersion,andsimilarlydisruptiveofthemovementeconomy.Anytendencyinanurbanstructuretowards‘precinctisation’mustalsobeatendencytoalesseningoftheusefulby-product,andthereforeofthemultipliereffectonwhichurbanvibrancydepends. Theseargumentssuggestthattheculturallysanctionedvaluesthatareembeddedinattitudestowardsurbandesign,thatuntilquiterecentlyweretakenforgranted—loweringdensitieswhereverpossible,breakingupurbancontinuityintowell-definedandspecialisedenclaves,reducingspatialscale,separatingandrestrictingdifferentformsofmovement,evenrestrictingtheabilitytostoptravellersfrommovingandtakingadvantageoftheby-producteffect—arefundamentallyinimicaltothenaturalfunctioningofthecityanditsmovementeconomy.Itisnotdensitythatunderminesthesenseofwell-beingandsafetyinurbanspaces,butsparseness,notlargespatialscale,butitsinsensitivereduction,notlackoforderbutitssuperficialimposition,notthe‘unplannedchaos’ofthedeformedgrid,butitsplannedfragmentation.Withoutanunderstandingofthespatialandfunctionalnatureofthecityasawhole,weareindangerofeliminatingallthepropertiesofdensity,goodspatialscale,controlledjuxtapositionofuses,continuity,andintegrationoftheurbangridonwhichthewell-orderingandwell-functioningofthecitydepends.




SpaceSyntax

Reflections on the origins of urbanism and the transformation of the cityTheseconclusionscanonlyreinforcethethoughtwithwhichwebegan:ourinterventionsinthecitycanonlybebasedonourunderstandingofthecity.Wherethisunderstandingisdeficient,theeffectscanbedestructive,andthiswillbemorethecasetothedegreethatthisfalseunderstandingisheldinplacebyavaluesystem.Thevaluesystemaccordingtowhichwehavebeentransformingourcitiesovermuchofthepastcenturyhasalwaysappearedasakindofurbanrationality,butitwasneverbasedonthestudyofthecity.Wherethendiditcomefrom? Letusfirstreflectalittleonthenatureandoriginsofcities,whywehavethemandwhatmadethempossible.Towns,asphysicalobjects,areclearlyspecialisedformsofspatialengineeringwhichpermitlargenumbersofpeopletoliveindenseconcentrationswithoutgettingoneachothers’nerves,andminimisetheeffortandenergyneededforface-to-facecontactwitheachotherandwiththeprovidersofneeds.Towns,wesuggest,wereinfactmadefunctionallypossibleinthefirstinstancebyatransmutationinthewayenergyflowedthroughsociety.ItismosteasilyexplainedthroughthegeographerRichardWagner’sdistinctionbetweentwokindsofenergy-relatedartefact:implementswhichtransmitoracceleratekineticenergy,andfacilitieswhichstoreuppotentialenergyandslowdownitstransfer.15Forexample,aflintknifeisanimplement,whereasadamisafacility.Whateverelsemadetownspossible,thereisnodoubtthattheywereusuallymarkedbyaradicalincreaseinfacilities,mostespeciallyirrigationsystemsandfoodstoragefacilities. Whatmadetownspossiblesociallywasaninventionwearesofamiliarwiththatwetendtotakeitforgrantedandforgetitisthere:theurbangrid.Theurbangridistheorganisationofgroupsofcontiguousbuildingsinoutward-facing,fairlyregularclumps,amongstwhichisdefinedacontinuoussystemofspaceintheformofintersectingrings,withagreaterorlesserdegreeofoverallregularity.Urbangridswereneverinevitable.Infact,thearchaeologicalrecordrevealsmanyproto-townswithquitedifferentmorphologies. Theurbangridwas,however,thefirstpowerfultheoremofurbanspatialengineering.Itscrucialcharacteristicisthatitisitselfafacility—onethattakesthepotentialmovementofthesystemandmakesitasefficientandusefulaspossible.Thegridisthemeansbywhichthetownbecomesa‘mechanismforgeneratingcontact’,anditdoesthisbyensuringthatorigin-destinationtripstakeonepastoutward-facingbuildingblocksen route.Thatis,theyallowtheby-producteffecttomaximisecontactoverandabovethatforwhichtripsareoriginallyintended. Inthenineteenthcentury,however,undertheimpactofindustrialisationandrapidurbanexpansion,twothingshappened.First,tocopewithsheerscale,theurbanspatialgridwasthoughtofasmoreofanimplementthanafacility.Thatis,itwasseenasameanstoacceleratemovementinordertoovercomesize.Alongsidethisitwasenvisagedasasetofpoint-to-pointoriginsanddestinations,ratherthanasan‘allpointstoallpoints’grid,whichistheproductofanurbanmovementeconomy. Second,thecitybegantobeseennotasagrid-basedcivilisation,butastheoverheatedepicentreoffocalmovementintoandoutofthecity,andassuchthemost




SpaceSyntax

undesirableoflocations.Asocialproblemwasseeninthedisorderlyaccumulation,inandaroundcitycentres,ofpeoplebroughtintoservethenewformsofproduction.Bigbecamesynonymouswithbad,anddensitybecamesynonymouswithmoraldepravityandpoliticaldisorder.Itwasthisthatgaverisetomuchofthevaluesystemofnineteenth-centuryurbanplanning,aswellasthethemoreextremeproposalsforthedispersionandruralisationofthecityanditspopulation. Unfortunately,muchofthisnineteenth-centuryvaluesystemsurvivedintothetwentiethcentury,notsomuchintheformofconsciouslyexpressedbeliefsandpolicyobjectivesasinassumptionsastowhatconstitutedthegoodcity.Formuchofthetwentiethcentury,nineteenth-centuryanti-urbanismprovidedtheparadigmforurbandesignandplanning.Itwouldbegoodtobelievethatthishasnowchanged,andthatcitiesareagainbeingtakenseriously.Butthisisnotthenatureofhumanbeliefswhentheybecomeembeddedininstitutionalformsandstructures.Manyaspectsofthenineteenth-centuryurbanparadigmhavenotyetbeendismantled,andarestilltobefoundenshrinedinsucheverydaypoliciestowardsdensity,innovelwaysofbreakingupurbancontinuityintowell-definedandspecialisedenclaves,incontinuingtoreducespatialscale,andinseparatingandrestrictingdifferentformsofmovement.Theserelicsofanoutdatedparadigmdonotderivefromanunderstandingofcities.Onthecontrary,theythreatenthenaturalfunctioningandsustainabilityofthecity. NotesThebestrecentreviewoftheseissuesisS.Owens,‘Land-useplanningforenergyefficiency’,inApplied Energy,43,1–3,Specialissueontherationaluseofenergyinurbanregenerationeds.R.Hackett&J.Bindon,ElsevierAppliedScience,1992;animportantsourceonsettlementformsonwhichshedrawsisP.Rickaby,‘Sixsettlementpatternscompared’,Environment & Planning B, Planning & Design,14,1987,pp.193–223;significantrecentcontributionsincludeD.Banister,‘Energyuse,transportandsettlementpatterns’,ined.M.Breheny,Sustainable Development and Urban Form,Pion,1992,andP.Hall,Squaringthecircle;canweresolvetheClarkianparadox?’Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design,21,1994,pp.79–94.ForadiscussionseeM.Batty,‘Urbanmodellingandplanning:reflections,retrodictionsandprescriptions’,inB.Macmillan,ed.,Remodelling Geography,BasilBlackwell,Oxford,1989,pp.147–169.SeealsoM.BattyandP.Longley,FractalCities,AcademicPress,London,1994.B.Hillieretal.,‘Naturalmovement:orconfigurationandattractioninurbanpedestrianmovement’,Environment & Planning B, Planning & Design,vol.20,1993;andA.Penn&N.Dalton,‘Thearchitectureofsociety:stochasticsimulationofurbanmovement’,ineds.N.Gilbert&J.Doran,Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena,UCLPress,1994,pp.85–125.Inthissense,itisaninstanceofwhatIanHackingcalls‘thecreationofphenomena’,whichthenleadstotheevolutionoftheory—I.Hacking,Representing and Intervening,CambridgeUniversityPress,1983Chapter13,‘Thecreationofphenomena’,pp.220–32.

1

2

3

4




SpaceSyntax

ThefiguresaretakenfromacasestudycarriedoutbyMariosPelekanoswhileastudentontheMScinAdvancedArchitecturalStudiesintheBartlettSchoolofGraduateStudies,UCL,in1989.B.Hillier,etal.,‘Naturalmovement’.A.Penn.etal.,‘Configurationalmodellingofurbanmovementnetworks’,1995.Submittedforpublication,butcurrentlyavailablefromtheBartlettSchoolofGraduateStudies.Inthisstudy,eachlinesegmentwasobservedintotalforabout50minutes,spreadduringfivedifferenttimeperiods:8–10am,10–12noon,12–2pm,2–4pmand4–6pm.Thedataisthereforeofveryhighquality.Experimentshaveshownhowever,thatcomparativelyshortperiodsofobservationcanbesufficientwheretherearereasonablenumbersofpeopletobeobserved.Insparseenvironments,moreprotractedobservationsarerequired.SeeforexampleA.Penn&B.Hillier,‘Configurationalmodelling’(see7).Penn&Hillier(see7).ThisissueisdiscussedingreaterdetailinHillieretal.1993,‘Naturalmovement’(see3).Thisstructurehasalsobeenfoundinsmalltownsandcalleda‘deformedwheel’,sincethereisalwaysasemigrid,orhub,oflinesnearthecentre,strongintegratorswhichlinkthissemi-gridtotheedges,likespokes,andsomeedgelinesarealsointegrated,formingapartialrim.Thisstructureisusuallythemainpublicspacestructure,whilelessintegratedresidentialareasformintheintersticesformbythewheel.SeeB.HillierB,Thearchitectureoftheurbanobject,Ekistics —Specialissueonspacesyntaxresearch,vol.56,no.334/5,1989.DrJohnPeponisoftheGeorgiaInstituteofTechnologyandthePolytechnicUniversityofAthens,inconversation.SeeforexampleDepartmentofTransport,NationalTransportSurvey:1978/79Report,HMSO,Norwich,1983,Table10.4,p.71.(SeealsoNTS:1975/76Report,Table3.17,p.37.)R.Wagner,TheHumanUseoftheEarth,NewYork,Chapter6,forafurtherdiscussionseeK.Flannery,TheoriginsofthevillageasasettlementtypeinMesoamericaandtheNearEast:acomparativestudy’,ineds.P.Uckoetal.,Man, settlement and urbanism,Duckworth,1972pp.23–53.

5

67

8

91011

12

13

14

15

Can architecture cause social malaise?

Chapter five



SpaceSyntax

Architectural determinism as a mind-body problemThereisawidespreadbeliefthatarchitecturecancausesocialmalaise,eitherbydirectlybringingaboutanti-socialbehaviour,orbyinducingstressanddepressioninindividuals,orbycreatingvulnerabilitytocrime.1Infact,littleisknownabouttheseeffects.Wecannotevenbesureifanyofthemgenuinelyexist.Thelong-termandlarge-scalestudiesthatwouldbenecessarytosettlethequestionshavenotbeendone.Asaresult,althoughtheseeffectsarewidelybelievedin,theyareequallywidelydiscountedasincredible,eitheroncommonsensegrounds—howcouldbuildingpossiblyhavesuchfar-reachingeffectonpeople’sminds—ormethodologicalgrounds—howcanthevastvarietyoffactorsthatcanaffectsocialmalaisebesortedoutonefromtheotherwhentheyareallsoinextricablybounduptogetherinthelivesoftheallegedvictimsofbaddesign. Fromaresearchpointofview,therearegoodgroundsforscepticism,atleastonthebasisofcurrentevidence.Thereisaproblemofmethodinestablishinganykindoflinkbetweenarchitectureandsocialoutcomes,whichstudieshavenotusuallyconvincinglybroached.Housingisinvariablyasocialprocessaswellasaphysicalproduct.Bothmarketsandbureaucraciesassignpoorpeopletopoorhousing,makingbadhousingadependentvariableinaprocessofsocialdisadvantagement.Howthencanweeverhopetoextractanyeffectstheremaybefromarchitectureasanindependentvariable,whenthesocialprocessinwhicharchitectureisembeddedisalreadylikelytobeoperatingwitharchitectureasadependentvariable?Inshort,ifwedofindbaddesignassociatedwithsocialdisadvantagement,howcanweeverbesurethattheformerisdetermining—orevencontributingto—thelatter,whenthebroadersocialprocessislikelyalreadytohavebroughtabouttheassociationofboth?Sinceallwecanstudyarerealcases,andeveryestateorhousingareaselectedforstudywillalreadybeacontinuingsocialprocess,itisnotclearhowthisdifficultycaneverbecircumvented. Ifthiswerenotenough,thereisaseconddifficulty,nolessfundamental,buttheoretical—evenphilosophical—ratherthanmethodological.Buildingisthecreationofaphysicalandspatialmilieu.Ifwearetobelievethatthisphysicalmilieucansomehowinvadepeople’smindsandhaveeffectsthatarestrongandsystematicenoughtoinfluencebehaviour,thenwemusthavesomeconceptionofaplausiblechainofsensorialormentaleventsthroughwhichthiscouldcomeabout.Therearenocrediblemodelsforsuchmechanisms.Evenforindividuals,itishardtoconceiveofaprocessbywhichsucheffectscouldoccur.Theideathattheycanbeextendedtothelevelofwholecommunities,isfranklyincredible. Infact,theveryideaof‘architecturaldeterminism’—thatbuildingscanhavesystematiceffectsonhumanbehaviour,individuallyorcollectively—seemstoleaddirectlyintothequagmireofmind–bodyproblemswhichhaveplaguedphilosophyforcenturies.Whetherweconceptualisemindsasimmaterialentitiesorasphysicalbrainstates,itisequallydifficulttoseehowphysicalobjectslikebuildingscouldaffectmindsinsuchaswayastoproducedurableandsystematicbehaviouraleffects.Withoutsomeconceptionofhowsuchchainsofeventsmightcomeabout,

138


139



SpaceSyntax

itisdifficulttoseehowresearchcanproceed. Thetwodifficultiestakentogether—themethodologicalandthetheoretical—combinetomakearchitecturaldeterminismasurprisinglydeepandcomplexissue.However,itishardtoseehowitcanbeavoided.Toargueinprincipleagainstanykindofarchitecturaldeterminism,thatis,anykindofpositiveornegativeeffectsofarchitecture,leadstotheoddpropositionthatitdoesnotmatteratallhowenvironmentsaredesigned,sincetheyarebehaviourallyneutral.Thispropositionseemsevenlesscrediblethanarchitecturaldeterminism.Weare,itseems,caughtbetweentwocontraryandmutuallyexclusivepossibilities,eachofwhichseemsasunlikelyastheother.Asaresult,architecturaldeterminismseemsmoreparadoxicalthanproblematic,inthesensethattheseratherabstrusedifficultiesstandinthewayofaclearproblemidentificationthatwouldallowresearchtoproceed. Fortunately,whenhumanthoughtfindsitselfinsuchsituations,thereisalwaysasimplethirdpossibility:thattheproblemhasbeensetupinthewrongway.Itisthroughthisthirdpossibilitythatbothoftheseapparentdifficultieswillbeaddressedinthischapter.Thereare,itwillbeargued,perfectlycrediblemechanismsbywhicharchitecturecangetintoheadsandcomeoutasindividualbehaviourandequallycrediblemechanismsforgeneralisingthesetoeffectsoncommunities.Moreover,insettingthesemechanismsoutwithcare,wecanalsoshowhowtheeffectsofarchitecturecanbeextricatedfromthoseofthesocialdisadvantagementprocess.Inotherwords,themethodologicalandtheoreticalproblemscanbesolvedtogetherbecausetheystandorfalltogether.Thetwocanbereformulated,andconvertedfromaforminwhichneithercanbesolvedintooneinwhichbothare,ifnotobviouslysolvable,thenatleasttractabletosystematicenquiry.A careful look at methodologyTheargumentbeginswithmethodology.Wemustfirstbealittlecleareraboutthemethodologicaldifficultiesthatstudiesoftheeffectsofarchitectureonpeoplehavealwaysencountered.Strangely,perhaps,thekeydifficultyhasnotsomuchbeenoneofinvestigatingwhatgoesoninhumanminds.Architecturalandsocialpsychologistshavegenerallybeenquiteadeptatthis.Thedifficultyhasbeenoneofcontrollingthearchitecturalvariable,thatis,ofarrivingatdescriptionsofthedifferencesbetweenonebuiltenvironmentandanotherthataresufficientlypreciseandconsistenttopermitcorrelationwithattitudinalorbehaviouralvariables.Moststudieshavesoughttosolvethisproblembyphysicaldescriptorsatathegrossleveloftheestateorblock—sizeofestate,numbersofstoriesperblock,numberofentrances,existenceofwalkways,andsoon.Unfortunately,itisexactlyatthisgrosslevelthatthesocialprocessofdisadvantagementislikelytobemostactive.Theonlylevelatwhichitmightbebeexpectedtobelessactivewouldbeatthemuchsmallerscaleofthedifferenttypesoflocationwithintheestate—thissectionofwalkway,thiscul-de-sac,thiscourtyard,andsoon.However,thetypeofdescriptorsthathavebeenuseddonoteasilypermitsuchdisaggregationinasystematicway.Itispartlyasaresultofthefailuretocontrolthearchitectural


140



SpaceSyntax

variablewithsufficientprecisionthatmanysuggestiveresultsapparentlylinkingarchitecturetosocialdisadvantagement,arechallenged.Thegrosslevelatwhichthearchitecturalvariablesarehandledmakesiteasy—andproper—toarguethatstudieshavefailedtodistinguisharchitecturaleffectsfromsocialprocesseffectsconvincingly,becauseitisexactlyatthisgrosslevelthatthesocialprocessesaremostmanifestandeasiesttopointto.2

Thisproblemcanbesolved,ifatall,onlybytreatingboththearchitecturalandsocialvariablesatamuchfinerlevelofresolution,sothattheunitsofanalysisare,atmost,smallgroupsofhouseholds—wecancallthemlocationgroups—whicharesufficientlylargesothatindividualvariationisnotdominant,butnotsolargethatsocialprocessdifferencesbetweenonelocationgroupandanotherarelikelytobedominant.Ifitisthecasethatbureaucraticallocationprocessesandmarketforcesaliketendtoworkmostvirulentlyatthegrosserlevelsofthebadarea;thenotoriousestate,ortheunpopularblock,thenwemayreasonablyexpectthemtobemuchlessobtrusiveatthelevelofthenumeroussmallgroupsofhouseholdswhichwillbefoundoneveryestateorineveryarea. Itisexactlythisfinerlevelofresolutionofbotharchitecturalandsocialdatathatcanbeachievedandmadesystematicbyusingconfigurationalmodellingofspace,asthebasicmeansforcontrollingthearchitecturalvariable.Thisallowsparametricdescriptorsofspacestobeassignedatwhateverlevelofresolutionwechoose.Wehavealreadyseenthatconfigurationalpropertiesofspacesarecrucialtothewaysinwhichspace‘works’atthelevelofpatternsofmovement,andtheknock-oneffectsthesehaveovertimeonotheraspectsofurbanformwhicharesensitivetomovement,suchasthedistributionofcertaintypesoflanduse,suchasretail,andsometypesofcrime,aswellasthefearofcrime.InthestudiesshowninChapter4,theabilitytocontrolthearchitecturalvariableparametricallythroughspatialmodellingallowedustodistinguishtheeffectsofspatialconfigurationsonbehaviouralvariablessuchasmovementratesfromotherpossibleexplanationsofthesamephenomena.Itwassimplyamatterofdoingtheanalysiscarefully.Architecture and the virtual communityFromthepointofviewofourpresentinterestinsocialmalaise,however,theregularitiesbetweenspaceandmovementthatwehavenotedareatarather‘lowlevel’,inthesensethatalthoughtheyareclearly‘systemeffects’fromarchitecturaldesigntopatternsofbehaviouramongstcollectionsofpeople,itisnotclearthattheyhaveimplicationsfortheformingofcommunities,whichare‘highlevel’inthesensethattheyinvolvemoreorlesscomplexstructuresofinteractionsandrelationshipsamongstcollectionsofpeople.However,inthepreviouschapterwewereabletolookoutwardsfromtheselow-levelsystemeffectsandfindthattheywererelatedtomanyotherkeyfeaturesofurbanstructure,suchastheevolutionoftheurbangrid,landusedistributionsandbuildingdensities.Inotherwords,atthelevelofthecityasacomplexphysicalandspatialstructurewewereabletofindawayfromlow-levelregularitieslinkingspaceandmovementtosomequitehigh-level


141



SpaceSyntax

effectsonthestructureandfunctioningofthecityasawhole. Inwhatfollows,theargumentwillbetakeninthecontrarydirection,andwewilllookforthepossibleimplicationsoftheselow-levelsystemeffectsonthemicrostructureoftheurbanspatialenvironment,thatis,theimmediatespatialmilieuinwhichmanypeopleliveoutmuchoftheireverydaylives.Thebasisoftheargumentissimple.Spatialconfigurationinfluencespatternsofmovementinspace,andmovementisbyfarthedominantformofspaceuse.Throughitseffectsonmovement,spatialconfigurationtendsnaturallytodefinecertainpatternsofco-presenceandthereforeco-awarenessamongsttheindividualslivinginandpassingthroughanarea.Co-presentindividualsmaynotknoweachother,orevenacknowledgeeachother,butitwillbearguedthatthisdoesnotmeantosaythatco-presenceisnotasocialfactandasocialresource.Co-presentpeoplearenotacommunity,buttheyarepartoftherawmaterialforcommunity,whichmayinduecoursebecomeactivated,andcanbeactivatedifitbecomesnecessary.However,evenwithoutconversionintointeraction,patternsofco-presenceareapsychologicalresource,preciselybecauseco-presenceistheprimitiveformofourawarenessofothers.Patternsofco-presenceandco-awarenessarethedistinctiveproductofspatialdesign,andconstitute,itwillbeargued,theprimeconstituentsofwhatwillbecallthe‘virtualcommunity’.The‘virtualcommunity’inagivenareaisnomorenorlessthanthepatternofnaturalco-presencebroughtaboutthroughtheinfluenceofspatialdesignonmovementandotherrelatedaspectsofspaceuse. Becausevirtualcommunitiesarenomorethanphysicaldistributionsofpeopleinspace,carefulobservationcantellusagreatdealaboutthem.First,virtualcommunitieshavecertainobviouspropertiessuchasdensity,butalsolessobviouspropertiessuchasacertainstructure,thatis,acertainpatternofco-presencebetweenpeopleofdifferentcategoriesandusingspacefordifferentpurposes;forexampleinhabitantsandstrangers,menandwomen,adultsandchildren,andsoon.Second,itiseasytoestablishthatthedensityandstructureofvirtualcommunitiesisobservablyquitedifferentinmosthousingestatescomparedwithstreet-basedurbanareas,andseemstobecomemoresoinquitesystematicwaysashousingestatesbecome‘worse’.Third,thereseemtobeclearassociationsbetweenthenatureofvirtualcommunitiesindifferenttypesofenvironmentandkeyoutcomevariables:howmuchvandalismandwhereitoccurs,wherecrimesoccur,whereanti-socialusesofspacedevelop,andsoon. Throughitslow-leveleffectsonpatternsofmovement,itwillbearguedthattherearealsohigh-levelimplicationsforspaceatthemicro-levelwhichcomeaboutthroughthecreation—orelimination—byspatialdesignofthepatternsofnaturalco-presenceandco-awarenessofindividualsthatmakeupvirtualcommunities.Whateverthelong-termeffectsofarchitectureare,itwillbeproposedthattheypassthroughthiscentralfact,thatarchitecture,throughthedesignofspace,createsavirtualcommunitywithacertainstructureandacertaindensity.Thisiswhatarchitecturedoesandcanbeseentodo,anditmaybeallthatarchitecturedoes.Ifspaceisdesignedwrongly,thennaturalpatternsofsocialco-presenceinspaceare


142



SpaceSyntax

notachieved.Insuchcircumstances,spaceisatbestempty,atworstabusedandasourceoffear.Iftoomuchspaceinthelocalmilieuislikethis,everydayexperienceofothersisanexperienceofadisordered‘virtualcommunity’.Itisthisthatlinksarchitecturetosocialmalaise.Theinterveningvariablesbetweenarchitectureandbehaviourare,ineffect,thedesignofspaceandtheconsequentuseofspace. Inthischapteritwillbearguedthatthroughconfigurationalanalysisofspace,coupledtocarefulobservationoftheuseofspace,wecanisolatecertainsuggestiveregularitiesinthestructureofvirtualcommunities,andshowthatthesedifferencesaretheoutcomeofdifferencesinthearchitecturaldesignofspace.Co-presenceandco-awarenessarethereforethethekeyoperationconcepts,andthevirtualcommunitythekeytheoreticalconcept.Thesedifferences,itwillbeargued,arebothsystematiceffectsofthedesignofspatialconfiguration,andalsofarmoreimportanttothelong-termdevelopmentofthespatialcommunitythanhashithertobeenrealised,notleastbecausesocialscientistshavenormallyseensocialinteractionastheelementarysocialunit,andco-presenceasmerelypriortosocialinteraction.However,thepatternofco-presencedoesresultlargelyfromdesignanditsanalysisthereforeoffersthemostpromisingpathfromarchitecturetoitssocialeffects.The formula for urban safetyWemaybeginbyconsideringtheresultsinthelastchapteralittlemorecarefullyfromthepointofviewofthemicro-structuresoflocalspace.FromhourlyratesofpedestrianmovementintheareashowninthestudyofBarnsburyinChapter4,wecanworkouttheratesofmovementperminute,whichisaboutthetimeittakestowalk100metresatnormalspeed.Wecanthentaketheaveragelinelength,andworkouttheprobabilitiesofco-presenceinspaceforindividualsmovingaroundthearea.Thecomparativelylongaveragelengthoflines,coupledwiththefactthattheaveragemovementrateisaround2.6adultsperminuteinthisarea,meansthatonaverageanindividualwillbeinvisualcontactwithatleastoneotherpersonmoreorlessconstantly.Infact,formostofthetime,awalkingindividualislikelytobeinvisualcontactwithmorethanoneotherperson.Themeritsofthiscombinationofnumbersandlengthoflinesofsightareobvious.Itprovidesthemovingindividualnotonlywiththesecurityofmoreorlessconstantvisualcontactwithmorethanoneotherperson,butalsowithsufficientwarningofencountertotakeevasiveactionifnecessary.Theinterfacewithothersisbothdenseandtosomeextentcontrollablebytheindividual. NowconsidertheparallelsituationinoneofthenearbyhousingestatesshowninChapter4.Herethemeanencounterrateintheestateinterioris.272,anorderofmagnitudelessthaninthestreetarea,eventhoughthestreetssurroundingtheestateapproximatetheratesinthestreetarea.Itisalsothecasethatthemeanlengthofsightlineswithintheestateisagreatdealshorterthaninthestreetarea.Fromthesetwopiecesofinformationwemayeasilycalculatethatanindividualwalkingintheinterioroftheestatewillbeontheirownformostofthetime.Thesparsityofencounters,coupledwiththeshortnessofsightline,alsomeansthat


143



SpaceSyntax

mostencounters,whentheyoccur,willberelativelysudden,withlittletimetoevaluatethecomingencounterandtakeappropriateaction. Intheseconditions,individualbehaviourchanges.Wemayillustratethiswithathoughtexperiment.Imagineanindividual,X,livinginanordinarystreet.Itismidday.Xcomesoutofhisorherfrontdoor.Astrangerisabouttopassbythedoor.Anotherisslightlyfartheraway,butwillalsopassthedoorshortly.Athirdispassingintheoppositedirectionontheothersideoftheroad.Inthesecircumstances,thepresenceofstrangersseemsnatural.Xevenfindsitreassuring.CertainlyXdoesnotapproachthepersonpassingthedoorandaskwhatheorsheisdoinghere.IfXdidthis,otherswouldthinkX’sbehaviourodd,eventhreatening.Unlesstherewerespecialcircumstances,someonemightevensendforthepoliceifXpersisted. NowconsiderY,wholivesonashortupper-levelwalkwayremotefromthepublicstreetwithinahousingestate.LikeX,Ycomesoutofhisorherfrontdoor,andlooksdownthewalkway.SuddenlyastrangerappearsroundthecornerinexactlythesamepositionrelativetoY’sdoorwayasinthepreviouscasethestrangerwastoX’s.Duetothelocalstructureofthespace,ofcourse,itisverylikelythatnooneelseispresent.UnlikeX,Yisnervous,andprobablydoesoneoftwothings:eitherheorshegoesbackinsidethehouse,ifthatiseasiest,orifnotasksthestrangerifheorshelost.Theencounteristense.Bothpartiesarenervous.Yisbeing‘territorial’,defendinglocalspace,andthestrangerisbeingaskedforhisorhercredentials. Nowthecuriousthingisthatintheprevailingspatialcircumstances,Y’sbehaviour,which,ifithadoccurredonthestreet,wouldhaveseemedbizarre,seemsnormal,evenvirtuous.Indifferentenvironmentalconditions,itseems,notonlydowefinddifferentbehaviours,butdifferentlegitimationsofbehaviour.Whatisexpectedinonecircumstanceisreadasbizarreinanother.Sowhatexactlyhaschanged?Thereseemtobetwopossibilities.First,theoverallcharacteristicsofthespatialconfiguration—nottheimmediatespacewhichismoreorlessthesame—ofwhichthespaceYwasinisaparthaschanged,comparedwithX’s.Second,Y’sexpectationofthepresenceofpeoplehaschanged. Thesetwochangesarestrictlyrelatedtoeachother.Changesinconfigurationproduce,quitesystematically,differentnaturalpatternsofpresenceandco-presenceofpeople.Peopleknowthisandmakeinferencesaboutpeoplefromtheconfigurationoftheenvironment.Anenvironment’sconfigurationthereforecreatesapatternofnormalexpectationaboutpeople.Theseexpectationsguideourbehaviour.Wheretheyareviolated,weareuncomfortable,andbehaveaccordingly.Whatisenvironmentallynormalinonecircumstanceisunexpectedinanother.Thisisbothanobjectivefactofenvironmentalfunctioning,andasubjectivefactof‘descriptionretrieval’,3thatis,ofthementalprocessesbywhichwereadobjectivecircumstancesandmakeinferencesfromthem. Thebehaviouraldifferencewehavenotedisthereforeenvironmentallyinduced,notdirectly,butviatherelationbetweenconfigurationalfactsandconfigurationalexpectations.Oneeffectofthisisthatitcaninduceenvironmentalfear,oftentoagreaterdegreethanisjustifiedbythefactsofcrime,because


144



SpaceSyntax

Figure 5.1aFiguregroundofspaceofthehousingestate.

Figure 5.1b. Global integraton of housing estate within its urban context.

Figure 5.1bGlobalintegrationofhousingestatewithinitsurbancontext.


145



SpaceSyntax

ittakestheformofaninferencefromenvironmentratherthanfromanactualpresenceofpeople.Itistheseinferencesfromthestructureofspacetothepatternofprobableco-presencethatinfluencesbehaviourandarealsoresponsibleforthehighlevelsoffearthatprevailinmanyhousingestates.Thisisthefundamentalreasonthattheurbannormalityofstreet-basedsystemsusuallyseemsrelativelysaferthanmosthousingestates. Letusthenreflectonhowthereductionofthemeanencounterratebyanorderofmagnitudeinthehousingestatewhencomparedwiththestreet-basedsystemactuallyoccurs.Figure5.1ashowsablackonwhiteofthespaceofthehousingestateinquestionwithinitsurbancontext,andfigure5.1bshowsitsglobalintegrationintoitsurbancontext.Therearetwoaspectstotheanswer.Thefirstisthatthecomplexityanddown-scalingofthespatialdesignoftheestateensuresthatnaturalmovementisvirtuallyeliminated.Thesimplestwaytoshowthisissimplytocorrelatemovementwithaxialdepthfromtheoutsideintotheestate.Figure5.1cisthescattergram.4Thisfalloffofmovementfromtheedgeoftheestatetowardstheinterioriscommontothemajorityofhousingestates,mostofwhichdown-scaleanddestructureestatespaceinasimilarway.Itisnoteworthythatin

Figure 5.1c

Figure 5.1d


146



SpaceSyntax

thiscase,asinothercases,themovementpatterndirectlyreflectsthelayeredlocalspatialsystemshowninfigure4.8inChapter4. Thesecondreasonhastodowiththenumberanddistributionofdwellingentrances.Inthisestate,asinmostothers,entrancesonlyoccuroncertainlines,andmostofthesearerelativelydeepfromtheoutside.Eachlinewillhaveperhapstenortwelvedwellingsopeningontoit,anditwillbeconnectedtotheoutsidenotbyotherlineswithdwellingsopeningontothem,butingeneralbylineswithoutdwellings.Inotherwords,evenlineswithdwellingswillonlyhavethemovementonthemgeneratedbythedwellingsthemselves.Supposetherearetwoadultsperdwellingandeachmakes,say,tobegenerous,fourmovementsaday.Thismeanslessthantenperhour,oraboutoneeveryfiveminutes—thatis,theobservedencounterrate.Sincetheresidentiallinesarerelativelyshort,theprobabilityofencounteronanytriponthatlinewillbenomorethantenpercent.Inotherwords,theencounterratesontheestate,withalltheirimplicationforthegenerationoffearandnervousbehaviours,areimplicitinthedesign. Wecannowseethattheformulaforurbansafetymustdepend,forsimplenumericalreasons,onthepresenceofstrangersaswellasinhabitants,andisthereforealittlemorecomplexthan‘defensiblespace’.Weneedtoreplaceastaticconceptionofspacebyamovement-basedone.Themainideabehinddefensiblespacewasthatinhabitantswhowerestaticandintheirdwellingshadtobeputintoaposition,bydesign,tohavenaturalsurveillanceofthespacesleadingtotheirdoorsinordertoseeanddeterpotentialwrongdoers,whowerestrangersandmoving.Ourresultssuggestthatwhatreallyhappensisthatthenaturalmovementofmovingstrangersmaintainsnaturalsurveillanceonspace,whilethestaticinhabitants,throughtheirdwellingentrancesandwindows,maintainnaturalsurveillanceofmovingstrangers.Thisformulaclearlydependsonthespatialconfigurationcreatingastrongprobabilisticinterfacebetweeninhabitantsandstrangers.Inshort,itisthemixofinhabitantsandstrangersinspacethatisthesourceofsafety.Environmentswilltendtolackofsafetyandenvironmentalfeartotheextentthattheyseparatethetwo.Putmoresuccinctly,theformulaforurbansafetyisacertainaspectofthestructureofthevirtualcommunity—thatis,thepatternofprobabilisticinterfaces—createdbyspatialdesign.Social structures of space and the L-shaped problemNowtheheartofmyargumentisthatthroughmorecomplexeffectsonvirtualcommunities,thesestillratherlow-leveleffectsofspacereachmuchfurtherintooursociallivesthanwerealise.Theycancreateorfailtocreatecertainsubtleandcomplexsystemeffects,whicharesosuggestivethatwemighteventhinkofthemasthe‘socialstructures’ofspace—thoughatsomeriskofcriticismfromsocialscientistswouldnotthinkoftheseeffectsassocialatall.Thesesocialstructuresofspacearesimplygeneralisationsoftheideaswehavesofardevelopedonhowspaceinterfacesinhabitantsandstrangerstodifferentcategoriesofpeople,ingeneral:menandwomen,adultsandchildren,theyoungandtheold,andsoon.


147



SpaceSyntax

These‘multipleinterfaces’inspacecanbeobjectivisedbyusing,asbefore,thesimplestatisticaltechniqueofthescattergram,thoughnowwewillbemoreinterestedinthevisualpatternofthescatterthanincorrelationcoefficients.Figures5.2aand5.2barescattergramsinwhichinsteadofsettingfunctionalagainstspatialparameters,wesettwofunctionalparametersagainsteachother,inthiscasethemovementofmenagainstthemovementofwomen.Bycheckingtheaxesfortheaveragedegreetowhicheachspaceisusedbyeachcategory,wecanworkouttheprobabilityofco-presenceineachspace.Thecorrelationco-efficientthusindexessomethinglikeaprobabilisticinterfacebetweentwodifferentcategoriesofpeople. NowthepointofthepairofscattergramsisthatthefirstrepresentsthesituationinthestreetpatternareashowninChapter4,whichisnearthehousingestateunderconsideration,whilethesecondshowsthesituationwithinthehousingestate.Itiseasytoseethatthe‘probabilisticinterface’betweenmenandwomenismuchstrongerinthestreetareathanwithintheestate.Inthestreetarea,thelinearityofthescattershowsthatmenandwomenareusingspacemoreorlessinthesameway,andaremoreorlessequallylikelytobeco-presentinallspace.Therearenospacesinwhichmenaremorelikelytobepresentthanwomen,andvice versa.Withintheestate,thesituationisquitechanged.Theirregularityofthescattershowsthatmanyspacesprioritisedbymenarepoorlyusedbywomen,andvice versa. Byusingthissimpletechniquetoexploreinterfacesbetweendifferentcategoriesofpeopleusingspace,wecanshowthatordinaryurbanspace,eveninpredominatelyresidentialareas,ischaracterisedbymultipleinterfaces:betweeninhabitantandstranger,betweenmenandwomen,betweenoldandyoungandbetweenadultsandchildren.Wecanbeconfidentthatthesemultipleinterfacesareproducedbyspatialdesign,becausetheyareessentiallyaproductofthenaturalmovementpatternswhichwehavealreadyshownarepredominantlyproducedbythestructureoftheurbangrid.Thisissuchaconsistentphenomenon,thatitisdifficulttoseeitaspurposelessoraccidental.Infact,themorewefindoutabouthowspaceworkssociallyandeconomically,themorethesemultipleinterfacepatternsseemimplicatedinallthegoodthingsandthelossofmultipleinterfacesinallthebad. Oneofthemostcriticaloftheseinterfaces—becauseitmaybeimplicatedinsocialisation—isthatbetweenadultsandchildren.Figure5.2cistheinterfacebetweenmovingadultsand‘static’children(i.e.thosewhoaremoreorlessstayinginthesamespace)intheurbanareasandfigure5.2dthesameforthehousingestate.Thescatterfortheurbanareaisfarfromperfect,butitshowsunambiguouslythatmovingadultsandchildrenarepresentinspacesinafairlyconstantratio,withadultsoutnumberingchildrenbyatleastfivetoone,andmorecommonlytentoone.Whereverthereisachildoragroupofchildren,therearealsolikelytobesignificantlymoreadultsinthespace.Thisisnotdeterministic,butitisapowerfulenoughprobabilisticregularityinthesystemtobeafairlyreliableexperientialproperty. Withintheestate,thescattersshowadramaticallydifferentpicture.TheL-shapedscattershowsthatadultsandchildrenarecompletelyoutofsynchronisation


148



SpaceSyntax

witheachother.Thisisnotarandomrelation,butahighlystructurednon-relation.Spacesprioritisedbyadultsareingeneralnotwellusedbychildrenandspacesprioritisedbychildrenareusuallypoorlyusedbyadultsformovement.Thismeansthattheprobabilisticinterfacebetweenthetwocategoriesisverypoorindeed.ThisiswhywecallthistheL-shapedproblem.L-shapeddistributionsmeanrupturedinterfacesbetweendifferentkindsofpeople.ThemorethescattermovesfromalinearscattertoanL-shape,thelessthereisanaturalprobabilisticinterfacebetweenthosecategoriesofpeoplethroughtheeffectsofthespacepatternoneverydaymovement. Thiseffectmayalsobeshowngraphicallyintheplan.Figures5.3aand5.3bplotthepresenceofadultsandchildrenrespectivelyintheplanofthehousingestatebyrecordingonedotperindividualpresentduringanaverageten-minutetimeperiodduringtheworkingday—hencethename‘tenminute’maps.Foradultsthepatternisclear.Movementdensitiesfalloffrapidlywithlineardepthintothe

Figure 5.2aStreetpattern

Figure 5.2bStreetpattern


149



SpaceSyntax

estate,sothatinthedeepestlinestowardsthecentreoftheestate,thereisverylittlemovementindeed.Inparticular,thenorth-southlineswheremostdwellingentrancesarelocatedhaveverylowratesofmovement.Thechildren’stenminutemapisquitedifferent.Themainconcentrationsofchildrenareinexactlythenorthtosouthlinesthataresopoorlyusedforadultmovement.Infact,theyoungerchildrenusetheconstituted(withdwellingentrances)north-southspacesoffthemaineast-westaxis,whileteenagers,especiallyboys,usethemoreintegrated,largelyunconstitutedspacesontheupperlevelsjustofftheintegrationcore.Ingeneral,weseethatchildrentendtooccupyspaceswithlowadultmovementonestepawayfromthenaturalmovementspaces(suchastheyare). Thepatternbecomesclearifweplotthepresenceofchildrenagainstlineardepthfromtheoutsideoftheestate,asinfigure5.1d.Thepeakisnotneartheedgeaswithadultsbutagooddealdeeper.Thiscanbecheckednumericallybyfirst

Figure 5.2cStreetpattern

Figure 5.2dStreetpattern


150



SpaceSyntax

Figure 5.3aA‘tenminute’mapplottingnumbersofadultsonaroutewitheachdotrepresentingoneadultpertenminuteperiod.

Figure 5.3bA‘tenminute’mapplottingnumbersofchildrenonaroutewitheachdotrepresentingonechildpertenminuteperiod.


151



SpaceSyntax

calculatingthemeanaxialdepthofadultsfromoutsidetheestate,whichis.563,andthenchildrenwhichis.953.Wecanthenrecalculatesubtractingoneaxialstepperobservedchild.Thisyields.459,whichismoreorlessthesameasforadults.Inotherwordschildrenareonaverageonestepdeeperthanadults.Becausetheeffectofspatialcomplexityonsuchestatesissuchthateveryaxialstepintotheestatemeansgreatersegregationfromthesurroundingareaasawholethis

meansthatchildrenare,onaverage,alittlelessintegratedthanadults,butaboutasintegratedastheycouldbewithoutoccupyingthenaturalmovementspacesmostusedbyadults.Theyareineffectasintegratedastheycanbewithoutbeingwhereadultsare.Thisiswhatwesensemovingabouttheestate.Weareveryawareofchildren,butwearenotamongthem.Again,bycheckingthesamedistributionsacrosshousingestates,wefindthatthisisafairlygeneralpattern.Childrendonotseekoutsegregatedspaces.Theyseekoutthemostintegratedspacesthatarenotusedbyadultsfornaturalmovement.Thelossofinterfacebetweenadultsandchildrenineffectdependsontheavailabilityofsuchspaces.Inurbanstreetsystems,suchspacesdonotexistbecauseallspacesareusedtoagreaterorlesserextentforadultmovement. Thisisnottheendofthematter.Ifwelookattheactualcountsofchildreninthevariousspacesoftheurbanstreetareaandtheestatethenwefindaveryhighdegreeofdiffusionamongthechildrenintheurbanarea.Thiscanbeseeninfigure5.4whichplotsthenumbersofchildrenfoundineachspacefromthemosttotheleastwithcirclesrepresentingthepatternintheurbanarea,anddotsforthehousingestate.Intheurbanarea,therearenosignificantconcentrations,andveryfewspacesarewithoutchildrenaltogether.Numerically,therearenospaceswithoutadultsandonly11percentofspaceswithoutchildren.Inthehousingestate,incontrast,childrenaremuchmoreconcentrated.41percentofthespaceshavenochildrenandthemuchhigheroverallaveragenumberofchildrenareconcentrated

Figure 5.4


152



SpaceSyntax

inaverymuchsmallerproportionofthespaces,withsomeverylargepeaks,somuchsothatsomespacesaredominatedbychildrenorteenagers.Aswehaveseen,thesespacesarelacunasinthemovementsystemforsmallerchildrenandlacunasinthemovementandrelated-to-entrancessystemforolderkids.Inotherwords,wecanseeclearlythatchildrenontheestatespendmoretimeawayfromadultsandinlargergroupsinspaceswhichtheycontrolbyoccupyingthemunchallenged.Wemightdescribesuchaprocessasemergent,orprobabilistic,territorialisation,andnotethatitisasystemeffect;theoutcomeofapatternofspaceuse,ratherthantheproductofahypotheticalinnerdriveinindividuals.Atpresent,wecanonlyspeculateontheeffectsofthesespatialregularitiesonthelong-termsocialisationofchildrenintotheadultworld.Atthisstage,wecanonlynotethatchildrenspendlongertimesinlargergroups,wellawayfromnaturalsurveillancebyadults.Notsurprisinglyperhapsthesepatternshavealsobeencorrelatedwithpatternsofpettycrimeandvandalism.5

Moreworryingly,observationsofother‘interfaces’,admittedlylessrigorousthantheonereportedabove,havesuggestedthatother,moreobviouslyanti-socialusesofspacealsofollowsimilarpatterns,inthattheseusestendtoconcentratenotonthemostintegratedlinesofnaturalmovement,noronthemostsegregatedlines,butonthemostintegratedlinesavailablethatarenotdominatedbynaturalmovement.Anti-socialusesofspaceseemtoseekoutthemostintegratedspacesavailableafterthosetakenupbynaturalmovement.

Other estatesWhatisclearisthegeneralityofthelossofinterfacesandtherelationofthistothedegreeofintegrationofanestate.ThesefindingsareduetotheworkofadoctoralstudentintheBartlett,XuJianming.Hestudiedtenhousingestates,includingtheoneabove,selectedtocoverarangeofmorphologicaltypesandhistoricalperiodssincethesecondworldwar.Hedivideshistypesintothreemainhistoricalphases.Hisearlyperiodcoversthetypicalmixedhigh-andlow-riseestatesoftheearlymodernpost-warperiod,hissecondthe‘streetsintheair’phase,whendesigners,followingthecriticismofearlymodernsolutionsbyTeam10andothers,soughttorecreateabovethegroundthespaceandspaceusetypescharacteristicoftraditionalstreets,andhisthirdtheneo-vernacularphase,whendesignersretreatedfromabove-groundsolutionsandtriedtorecreatetraditionalspaceatgroundlevel,thoughusuallywithover-complex,labyrinthiandesignsimitatingimaginarysmalltownandvillagespacetypes. Thefullrangeofthisstillincompletestudywillnotbereviewedhere.However,aspartofhisresearchXuobservedspaceuseandmovementpatterns,andplottedscattergramsofinterfacesbetweenallmajorconstituenciesofspaceusers.Theresultsarequiteremarkable,fromtwopointsofview.First,theL-shapedscatterforthemovingadultstostaticchildrenrelationishighlygeneral,thoughoccurringtoadifferentdegree,asshownintheseriesofscattersforthegroundlevelofestatesinfigure5.5.Second,thedegreetowhichtheL-shapedscatterispresent,asindicated


153



SpaceSyntax

Figure 5.5


154



SpaceSyntax

byapoorercorrelationcoefficient(theeffectcanalsobecheckedvisually),isstronglycorrelatedwiththedegreeofinternalintegrationoftheestate,thatis,notwithitsdegreeofintegrationintothesurroundingarea,butwiththedegreeofintegrationoftheinternalstructure,asshowninfigure5.6a.TheL-shapedfactorwasalsocorrelatedagainsttheaverage‘feelgood’rankoftheestates,anadmittedlydubiousmeasureobtainedbyaskingresearchersfamiliarwithalltheestatestorankthemin‘feelgood’order.Thecorrelationisstrong,asinfigure5.6b,anddoescorrelatewellwithcommonreactiontotheestatesnotedbyobservers. Evenmoreremarkably,inanotherstudyoftheKing’sCrossarea6inwhichsevenhousingareasandthreehousingestateswerestudied,again(includingthepresentestate),adultmovementagainststaticchildrenwasplottedseparatelyforallstreetareasandestates.Theresultsareshowninthescattergramsinfigures5.6cand5.d.Nothingcouldmoregraphicallyexpresshowdramaticallytheinterfacebetweenadultsandchildrenchangesfromordinarystreetstohousingestates.Withoutexception,thespacesintheestateshaveconcentrationsofchildrenwheretherearefewadults,whileinstreetsthisisneverthecase. Citizens and space explorersHowcanwegeneralisetheseresults?Theevidencesuggeststhattheusersofspacenaturallytendtodividethemselvesintotwokinds:ordinarycitizens,whousespaceasaneverydayinstrumenttogoabouttheirbusiness;andspaceexplorers,likechildren,

Figure 5.6


155



SpaceSyntax

whoarenotsointentoneverydaygoals,andwhosespatialpurposesareessentiallyaboutdiscoveringthepotentialofspace—justaschildren’sgameslikehideandseekexplorepotentialsofspace.7Nowinordinaryurbanspacechildrenareconstrainedbythespatialpatterntousespaceinwayswhichisnottoodissimilartothatofadults.Theresimplyisnootherspaceavailable,exceptspacespeciallyprovidedlikeparksandplaygrounds,andsochildreninthestreetstendtoremainwithinthescopeofthemultipleinterfaces.Whenpresentedwithexplorationopportunities,however,childrenquicklyfindthelacunasinthenaturalmovementsystem,creatingprobabilisticgroupterritorieswhichthenattractothers,andthisusuallyoccursinthemostintegratinglacunasinthenaturalmovementsystem. Childrenarenottheonlyspaceexplorers.Junkiesandmethsheadsarealsospaceexplorers,asintheirwayaremuggersandburglars.Junkiesandmethsheads,however,likechildren,aresocialspaceexplorers,andusespacetocreateandformlocalisedsocialsolidarities.Isuggestthatallsocialspaceexplorerstendtofollowthesameprincipleofoccupyingthemostintegratinglacunasavailableinthenaturalmovementsystem.Onanadmittedlyalltoocursoryexaminationofevidenceitmayevenbeconjecturedthatitiswherethedesignofspaceissuchthatthelacunasinthenaturalmovementsystemoccurinthelocalintegrationcoreitselfthatanexplosivepotentialiscreated.Inspiteoftheirhugedifferencesinspatialgeometryanddensity,fromasyntacticpointofviewboththeBroadwaterFarmestateinnorthLondonandtheBlackbirdLeysestateinex-urbanOxford,bothlociofnotorious,andnotoriouslysuddenriots,sharethisstructuralfeatureincommon. Itseemsacharacteristicofsuchspacestructuresthatwhennaturalmovementretreatsfromtheintegrationcore,asitdoesinbothaftertheclosingofshops,thentheintegrationcorebecomesdominatednotbymultipleinterfaces,butbyitsopposite:thedominationofspaceusebyasinglecategoryofuser,inthesecasesteenageboysandyouths.Itisinsuchcasesthatconfrontationsseemtodevelopwhicheasilyturnintoworsedisorder.Thisisnottosayofcoursethatspatialdesigncausestheeventualexplosionintoriot.Itdoesnot.Butitdoesseemlikelythatbadlydesignedspacecancreateapathologyinthewaysinwhichspaceisused,whicharandomsparkmaythenignite.Spacedoesnotdirectevents,butitdoesshapepossibility.Weshouldperhapsbenomoresurprisedattheformanti-socialeventstakeinBlackbirdLeysorBroadwaterFarmthanweshouldbesurprisedifpeoplewindsurfonopenwaterorskateboardundertheSouthBankwalkways. Themorecommonoutcomeofsuchunwelcomeeffectsofspatialdesignishoweverchronicratherthanacute.Thepatternofspaceuseinitselfcreatesunease,untidinessandinduecoursefear,butnotriot.Wedonotthenneedtoinvokethedeficienciesofstateeducation,orthewelfarestate,orthedeclineinfamilylifetounderstandthesephenomena.Theycanbeproducedamongordinaryfamiliesprovidedtheyliveinextraordinaryspatialconditions.Theyaresystematicproductsofthepatternofspaceusearisinginspecificspatialconditions.


156



SpaceSyntax

Distinguishing social from architectural effectsBeforedrawingtoomanyprematureconclusions,letuslookagainattheoriginalhousingestatefromthepointofviewofdistinguishingtheeffectsofarchitecturefromthoseofsocialprocesses.Wemaydothisbecauseitisoneofthefewcaseswherewehavenotonlyspatialandspaceusedata,aswehaveseen,butalsoextensivesocialdatagainedfromastudy8carriedoutbyothersandaimedatdiagnosingthecauseoftheestate’sapparentprecipitatedeclinefromwonderestateto‘problemestate’inalittleoverfouryears. Theestateisavisuallystriking,allwhiteandlowrise,thelastthrow,ithasbeensaid,oftheCamdenschoolofmodernism.Itopenedin1983topraisenotonlyfromcriticsbutalsofromthenewresidents,80percentofwhomapprovedthehyper-modernwhitearchitecture,usingwordsfrom‘palace,paradise,fantastic’to‘modern,clean,bright’.Lessthanfiveyearslater,thesocialsurveycommissionedunderurgentpressurefromlocalpolicereports,reportedthat‘71percent(ofresidents)givedescriptionsoftheestateinnegativeterms,oftenwithamenacingelement:prison,concentrationcamp,forbiddencity,criminaldreamland,batteryfarm,mentalinstitutioninsouthernSpain…’Howhadsuchachangeinreportedattitudescomeabout?9

Infact,acloserexaminationoftheevidence10showedthatonethingthathadhappenedwasthatthosewhohadinterpretedtheevidenceprovidedbythesocialsurveyhadindulgedinacertainamountof‘architecturallicence’.Mostofthenegativecommentsabouttheestateturnedouttobeabout‘rubbishanddirt’andothermanagementfailures,andonlyabout30percenthadmadenegativecommentsonthearchitecturalappearanceoftheestate,andoftheseonlyasmallminoritywereasreadilyheadlinableastheonesquoted.69percentinfactapprovedtheappearanceoftheirdwelling,andopinionwasaboutevenlydividedontheappearanceoftheestateasawhole.Itseemsinfactamatterofsomeresearchinterestthatthosewhowerecommissionedtosurveysocialbreakdownonanestatereportedexactlythat,withallthetrimmings,evenwherethedatadidnotsupportit.Itwillbesuggestedshortlythatthistendencytooverstatementmayitselfbenosmallaspectoftheprocessesbywhichestatestigmatisationanddegenerationtypicallyoccurs. Acarefulreanalysisofthesurveydata,coupledwiththeresultsofthespatialanalyticandspace-usestudy,infactshowedamuchmoreinstructivestory.Figure5.7aisamatrixshowingthecorrelationofvariousattitudesontheestatedistributedaccordingtosmall‘locationgroups’definedbythelinesthatmakeupthesyntacticanalysis.Thereareinfacttwoquiteseparateclustersofattitudes.Negativeattitudestotheestatesuchas‘notlikingtheestate’formedadominantcluster,whichwemightcallthe‘affect’cluster.Butthesedonotcorrelatewithotherattitudeswherewemightexpectacorrelation,suchasfeelingunsafe,orfearofcrime.Theseformaquiteseparatecluster.Factorslikefindingtheestatefriendlywerenotcorrelatedwitheithermajorcluster,butonlywithhavingchildren,norwas‘beingonthetransferlist’,whichcorrelatesonlywithnothavingwantedtocometotheestateinthefirstplace.


157



SpaceSyntax

The‘affect’variableswerenotonthewholewellcorrelatedwithspatialvariablessuchasintegrationordepthintheestate,butthe‘fearandcrime’clusterweresocorrelated,moststronglywithdepthfromtheoutsidewhich,becauseco-presencefallswithdepth,istheprimedeterminantofthestructureofthevirtualcommunity.The‘fearandcrime’clusterwerealsocorrelatedstronglywith‘findingchildrenaproblem’,whichwasitselfcorrelatedwithdepthintheestate,asshowninfigure5.7b.Incontrasttothe‘fearandcrime’cluster,the‘affect’clusterwasspatiallydistributed,butnotaccordingtointegrationordepthintheestate.Infactitshowedamostcuriousdistribution.Ifthisgroupofattitudesamonglocationgroupswasplottedfromwesttoeastintheplan,thatis,accordingtotheorderofbuildingtheblockson

Figure 5.7a

Figure 5.7b


158



SpaceSyntax

theestate,thentheresultisalwaystheinvertedU-shapedistributionshowninfigure5.8.Examinationofthedateshowsthatthiscloselyfollowsthechangingpoliciespursuedbythelocalauthorityasbuildingprogressedontheestate. Thiscanbeshownmostclearlybyconsideringthe‘affect’clusterofattitudesalongsidetwoothervariableswithwhichtheyalsocluster,namelythesubjectiveperceptionofovercrowdingandtheobjectivecalculationofthenumberofpeopleperbedroominthedwellingmakingupeachlocationgroup.Infact,thesetwolattervariablescorrelatesoexactlythatwemaytreatthemasone.Asfigure5.7ashows,bothsubjectiveandobjectiveovercrowdingincreaseaseachblockisbuiltsuccessively,andbotharecorrelatedexactlywithattitudes.Theagreementbetweensubjectiveandobjectivefactorsshowsinfactthatasbuildingprogressed,thesame-sizeddwellingswerebeingallocatedtolargerfamilies,clearlyreflectingthepressuresonthelocalauthoritytorespondtohousingneedsfirstandforemost.Afterfirstphasewascomplete,the‘affect’clusterofattitudesbeginstopickup,followingtheU-shapedcurveshowninfigure5.8,andinfactfollowingtheeliminationoffurtherovercrowdingontheestatebybuildingflatsandsinglepersonaccommodation,ratherthanhousesforfamilies. Inshort,theconcentrationofnegativeattitudestotheestateinthecentralareasoftheestateisclearlyrelatedtoincreasingovercrowding(bothrealandperceived)aslargerfamilieswhodidn’tasktocometotheestatewereallocatedtothesame-sizedhouses.Infact,inthiscaseweareabletodistinguishtheeffectsofthesocialprocessfromtheeffectsofspatialdesign.Thesocialprocess—thatis,thechangingallocationpolicieswhichsentlargerandmoresingle-parentfamiliestothesame-sizedhousesastheestateprogressed—governsthedominantnegativeattitudecluster,butnotfearandcrime,whicharelargelydeterminedbythepatterningofspace,anditsconsequenteffectsonthepatternofco-presenceandco-awareness.

Figure 5.8


159



SpaceSyntax

Thecontrastbetweenthetwodominantattitudeclustersisthenmoststriking.Onegroup,whichislessspatialinthattherewouldbenoobviousgroundsforexpectingtheseattitudestocorrelatewithspace,butwhichdoexpressthemostgeneralstatedattitudes,areclearlytheoutcomeofthesocialprocess.Theothergroup,whichwewouldexpecttobecorrelatedwithspacebecausefearandcrimearespatiallylocatedevents,arecorrelatedwithspace,andinthewaywewouldexpect.Attitudestochildrenarealsocritical.Thatspatialfactorsareimplicatedinfindingchildrenaproblemlendsfurthersupporttothepossibilitythatthespatialdesignoftheestateandtheobjectivefactsofco-presence,thatis,thedramaticreductioninnaturalco-presenceandtheeliminationofsocialinterfaceswithdepthintheestate,arerelatedtothisattitudecluster.Otherstudiessuggestthatingeneralthisisthecase.Environmentalfearisinthemainaneffectofthede-structuringofthevirtualcommunity.Suchfearisaninferenceaboutpeopledrawnfromthestructureofspace.Fear,itseems,canbedesignedintoestates,butonlythroughtheeffectsofspatialconfigurationonthevirtualcommunity.Are the symptoms then the causes?Wemaytheninthiscasebefairlyclearabouttherespectiverolesofspaceandsocialprocessinestatedegeneration.Howcanthetwobefittedtogether?Itmaybequitesimple.First,theeffectsofspatialdesignarebothsystematicandquicktooperate.Becausetheyaresystematicproductsofdesign,wemustaccordthemsomeindependenceandprobablysomelogicalpriorityintheprocess.Wedonotrequireapathologicalcommunitytocreateapathologicaluseofspace.Itarisesfromconsistentandpredictablepatternsofbehaviourinparticularspatialcircumstances.However,wemustalsorememberthatthepathologyofspaceproducedbydesigniscomplexandsocialinnature,renderingmanypatternsofspatialrelationshipabnormal.Putsimply,wecansaythatspatialdesign,operatingindependently,cancreatesymptoms—thatis,theexternalmanifestationofwhatappearstobeadisorder. Whatcouldbemorenaturalthanthatpeopleshouldinferthediseasefromthesymptoms—infer,thatis,apathologicalcommunityfromtheappearancesofpathologyintheuse,andsubsequentabuse,ofspace.Nowtheheartofmyargumentisthatsuchinferences,thoughasnaturalasinferringinternaldiseasefromsurfacesymptoms,areusuallyillegitimate.Thesymptomsweseeareapathologicalproductofaninnovativeandpoorlyunderstoodspatialdesign.Unfortunately,theycanalltooeasilyappeartobesignsofanunderlyingdisorderinthecommunityitself.Inmostcases,theseinferencesareprobablyaninsulttocommunitieswhoarestrugglingagainsttheodds.Evenso,sometimestheinferencewillalsobemadebythecommunityitself,aswellasbyoutsiders.Aprocessofsocialdemonisationcanbegin,instigatedbythespatialprocess. Thepeoplemostlikelytoinferapathologicalcommunityfrompathologicalappearancesarethosewithresponsibilityforcontrollingtheestate:localauthorityestatemanagers,socialworkers,thepolice,andsoon.Ifanestatebeginstoacquireabadnamewithanyorallofthese,thenitisverylikelythatthisinitself


160



SpaceSyntax

willinitiate,engage,accelerateorevenprecipitatethepoliciesandsignsoftheunpopular,thensink,estate:allocationofproblemfamilies,increased,thoughprobablysporadic,policeattention,publicexpressionsofconcern,andsoon.Onemustask:whenthemanagersinthelocalauthoritybegantoassignunwilling‘problemfamilies’totheMaidenLaneestateinsignificantnumbers,didtheybelievethattheywereassigningthemtothepristineparadiseofthefirstoccupantsoftheestate,ortoanestatethatwasalreadyacquiringadubiousreputation?Ifthelatterwasthecasetoanysignificantextent,thenitseemslikelythattheappearanceofspatiallydeterminedsymptomsmightactuallyhelptoactivatetheverysocialprocessesoflabellingandsocialstigmatisationwhichwillinduecourseensurethatthepathologyofthecommunityontheestatedoeseventuallycometopass.Toassignthesociallyweakanddisadvantagedtoplaceswherethevisualsignsofdisorderarealreadypresent,isafurthereventconfirmingtheinferencesthatpeoplearealreadymakingfromthevisiblesignsofdisorder. Theapparentdecayoftheestate,wemightsuggest,initiatesaprocessofstigmatisationwhichisthenmultipliedbytheactualassignmentofproblemfamilies.Theoretically,thisimpliesthatinanon-trivialsensethesymptomscausethedisease.Theoutwardandvisiblesignsofpathologyarethepreconditionsandperhapssometimestheinitiatorsofthesocialprocessofdegeneration.Ifthisisrightthenwemustconcludethatarchitectureshouldbeseenmoreasasetofpreconditionsinwhichsocialprocessescantriggersocialpathology,thanafullyfledgedcauseofsocialpathologyinitself.Butneverthelesstheindependenteffectsofarchitecturearepowerful,predictable,logicallyprior—andremediable.Probablytheydon’tworkwithoutthesocialprocess.Butwithoutarchitecturaleffects,perhaps,thesocialprocesswilltendlesstopathology.Spatialdesign,wemaysuggest,lowersthethresholdsofsocialpathology. Wemayreasonablyinferfromthisthattheorderinganduseofspaceisthelinkingmechanismbetweenbuildingsandsocialeffects.Theuseofspaceisdeterminedbytheorderingofspacetoafargreaterextentthanhasbeenrealised,andspaceuseismorecomplexthanhasbeenrealised,embodyingsubtlesocialpatternswhichbecomeapervasivefeatureoftheexperienceofothersineverydaylife.Througharchitecturaldesign,theuseofspacecaneitherdevelopinawell-orderedway,orinapathologicalway.Whereitispathologicalthenittendstobecomeimplicatedin,andeventosparkoff,thesocialprocessbywhichestatesdegenerate.Assuch,spaceisneithernecessaryorsufficientforsocialdecline,butitisisneverthelessfrequentlyastrongcontributingorinitiatingmechanism.Architectural determinism and the virtual communityIfthesoleeffectofspatialdesignistocreatesomekindof—virtuousorpathological—virtualcommunity,thenitseemsthatthiswouldbeenoughtoaccountforalltheapparenteffectsofarchitecturaldeterminism.Attheveryleast,wenolongerhaveaproblemwithacrediblemechanismbywhicharchitectureandsocietymightingeneralberelated.Alltherelationsbetweenspaceandsocietythatwehavenoted

Plate 1

Plate 1161



SpaceSyntax

Slope =1.7617

Intercept -0.2041

R^2 =0.6945

Integration(3)

Mean =2.3507

Integration

Mean =1.4502

Integration(3)

Integration

4.0463

2.4292

Slope =1.7617

Intercept -0.2041

R^2 =0.6945

Integration(3)

Mean =2.3507

Integration

Mean =1.4502

Integration(3)

Integration

4.0463

2.4292

Slope =1.7617

Intercept -0.2041

R^2 =0.6945

Integration(3)

Mean =2.3507

Integration

Mean =1.4502

Integration(3)

Integration

4.0463

2.4292

Global Integration Local Integration

Slope =1.7617

Intercept -0.2041

R^2 =0.6945

Integration(3)

Mean =2.3507

Integration

Mean =1.4502

Integration(3)

Integration

4.0463

2.4292

Plate 1.

aDistributionofglobalintegration(Radius=n)intheCityofLondon

Plate 2162



SpaceSyntax

bDistributionoflocalintegration(Radius=3)intheCityofLondon

cGlobalintegration(Radius=n)ofGreaterLondon

dLocalintegration(Radius=3)ofGreaterLondon

eRadius–Radiusintegration(Radius=10)ofGreaterLondon

Plate 3163



SpaceSyntax

Plate 3 (continued)164



SpaceSyntax

Plate 4165



SpaceSyntax

Plate 5166



SpaceSyntax

Plate 6167



SpaceSyntax

Plate 7168



SpaceSyntax

aRadius–radiusintegrationmap(radius=12)ofShiraz,Iranin1920

bShiraz,Iran(1920)integration,Radius=6withscattersoftwolocalareaswhicharepickedoutinwhite.

bScatterofareaone(inreddots)

bScatterofareaone(inreddots)


169



SpaceSyntax

asregularitiesseemtopassthroughthisbasicfact.Thisdoesnotmeanthatspaceisadeterminantofsociety,thoughitcouldcometothat.Avirtualcommunityistheproductofspaceandisanasyetunrealisedcommunity,thatis,ithasnotyetbecomethefieldofencounterandinteractionwhichmostsocialscientistswouldtakeasthemostelementaryofsocialphenomena.Becauseitispriortointeraction,thevirtualcommunityfallsoutsidewhatsocialscientistshaveconceptualisedassociety. However,therearenowstronggroundsforbelievingthatthevirtualcommunity,andhowitisstructured,maybeafarmoresignificantsocialresourcethanhasbeenrealiseduntilnow.Thefirstsetofreasonsstemfromtheeffectsofspatialdesignonthestructureanddensityofthevirtualcommunitywhichseemtobeinvolvedinthepathologyofspatialcommunities.Theseeffectsarepowerfulnotbecausespaceisastrongdeterminantofsocietybutbecausespaceanditseffectsonthevirtualcommunityarepervasiveandinsistent.Intheirverynaturetheyareneverabsent.Theycometobebuiltintotheverydetailedpatternsofeverydaylifesothatalthoughtheyarerarelyobtrusive,theyareneverabsent. Inthelastanalysis,then,alloftheapparenteffectsofarchitectureonsocialoutcomesseemtopassthroughtherelationofspatialconfigurationandnaturalco-presence.Thisisperhapsbecausemovementisnotsimplytheunintendedby-productofspatialorganisationbutitsveryreasonforexistence.Byitspowertogeneratemovement,spatialdesigncreatesafundamentalpatternofco-presenceandco-awareness,andthereforepotentialencounteramongstpeoplethatisthemostrudimentaryformofourawarenessofothers.Aswehaveshown,virtualcommunitieshaveacertaindensityandstructure,andaremadeupofprobabilisticinterfacesbetweenmanydifferenttypesofperson:inhabitantsandstrangers,relativeinhabitantsandrelativestrangers,menandwomen,oldandyoung,adultsandchildren,andsoon. Spatialdesigncanchangethestructureofthesepatternsofco-awareness,andleadtosuchpathologicalphenomenaastheradicalreductioninthedensityofthevirtualcommunitysothatpeopleliveinspacewhichmakesthemawareofalmostnoone(earlierwecalledthisthe‘perpetualnight’syndrome,sinceinsomehousingestatesawarenessofothersduringthedaywaslittlebetterthannormalresidentialareasduringthenight),andwhichchangesthestructureofpatternsofco-presenceandco-awareness,leadingtofear,thedominationofsomespacesbysinglecategoriesofuserandtheemptyingoutofotherspaces.Thelong-termeffectsofthese‘socialstructuresofspace’areperhapsthekeytothespatialpathologyofcommunities.Weseenowalsothattheywereallchangesinthestructureofthevirtualcommunity.


170



SpaceSyntax

NotesForarecentreviewseeH.Freeman,Mental Health and the Environment,ChurchillLivingstone,1984.Thetwobestknownstudies,OscarNewman’sDefensible Space,ArchitecturalPress,1972andAliceColeman’s‘Utopia on Trial’,Shipman,1984havebothbeencriticisedonthesegrounds.B.Hillier&J.Hanson,The Social Logic of Space,cup,1984.Themovementpatterncorrelatesstronglywithintegration,butonlywhentheestateisembeddedinthelargerscalesurroundingareaandintegrationvalueswithintheestatearereadfromthewholesystem.Withspatialdesignsofthetypefoundonthisestate,thishastheeffectthatintegrationvaluesfalloffwithdepthintotheestate,asshownbythelayersinthedarkpointscatter.Ifanalysedonitsownasanisolatedsystem,thecorrelationbetweenintegrationandmovementispoor.Alltheseeffectsarecommonforhousingestates.Hillieretal.,The Pattern of Crime on a South London Estate,UnitforArchitecturalStudies,ucl,1990.ReportedinHillieretal.,1993,referredinChapter4.SeeThe Social Logic of Space Chapter1.SeeHuntThompsonAssociates,MaidenLane:Feasibility Study for the London Borough of Camden,1988.HuntThompson.B.Hillieretal.,Maiden Lane: a second opinion, UnitforArchitecturalStudies,1990.

1

2

34

5

678

910

Time as an aspect of spaceChapter six



SpaceSyntax

Strange townsLetusfirstestablishthephenomenonwhichwewilladdressinthischapter:thephenomenonof‘strangetowns’—townsthatseemtocontradictalltheorthodoxiesfortheconstructionofurbanformssetoutinChapter4.Here,townsandcitiesweredefinedasvariationsoncertaincommonthemes.Buildingsarearrangedinoutwardfacingblockssothatbuildingentrancescontinuouslyopentothespaceofpublicaccess.Thespaceofpublicaccessisarrangedinaseriesofintersectingringswhichareregularisedbyagreaterorlesserdegreeoflinearisationofspacetoformthe—moreorlessdeformed—gridofthetown.Throughthislinearisationthelarger-scalestructureofthetownismadeintelligiblebothtotheperipateticindividualmovingaboutwithinthetownandtothestrangerarrivingatitsedges.Thelinearstructurelinksthebuildingentrancesdirectlytoapatternofspacewhichalsolinkscloselytotheedgesofthetown.Theeffectofthiscontrolofthelinearorganisationofspaceistocreateastructureinthe‘axialmap’ofthetown,thatis,adistributionoflocalandglobal‘integration’,whichbecomesthemostpowerfulfunctionalmechanismdrivingfirstthepatternofmovementand,throughthis,thedistributionoflanduses,buildingdensitiesandlarger-scalespatialandphysicalelementssuchasopenspacesandlandmarks.Theessenceofurbanformisthatitisspatiallystructuredandfunctionallydriven.Betweenstructureandfunctionisthenotionofintelligibility,definedasthedegreetowhichwhatcanbeseenandexperiencedlocallyinthesystemallowsthelarge-scalesystemtobelearntwithoutconsciouseffort.Structure,intelligibilityandfunctionpermitustoseethetownassocialprocess,andthefundamentalelementinallthreeisthelinearspatialelement,oraxis. Strangetownsaretowns—andproto-townsinthearchaeologicalandanthropologicalrecord—whichappeartofloutalltheseprinciples.Historicalexamplesfrompre-ColumbianAmericaincludeTeotihuacan,figure6.1a,andTikal,figure6.1b,andmodernexampleswouldincludeBrasiliafigure6.1c.Howshouldweseektounderstandthesetowns,morphologically,functionallyandasexpressionsofsocialprocesses?First,wemustaddressthequestionofhowweshoulddescribethematthesamelevelaswehavedescribedmoreorthodoxtowns.Onlywhenweunderstandexactlyhowtheyaredifferentcanwehopetofindananswertothequestionastowhyaretheydifferent—insomewaysalmosttheinverse,onesuspects—ofthetownswearefamiliarwith. Theanswerwill,Isuggest,tellussomethingquitefundamentalaboutthepotentialofspacetoexpresshumanintentionsandtorelatetosocialforms.Thisinturnwillsuggestamorefamiliardistinction:betweentownswhichactascentresfortheprocessesbywhichsocietyproducesitsexistencebymaking,distributingandexchanginggoods,andthosewhichactascentresforgoverninginstitutions,regulatingbureaucraciesanddominantceremonialforms,andthroughwhichsocietyreproducesitsessentialstructures.Justastheaxialstructureisthekeytounderstandingthefirst,morecommontypeoftown,soinquiteanothersense,itisalsokeytounderstandingthesecondtype—thestrangetown.Letusthenbeginwithsomethoughtsabouttheaxis.

How can space be ideological?Frederic Jameson

171

Time as an aspect of space172



SpaceSyntax

Figure 6.1a




SpaceSyntax

Figure 6.1b

Tikal

Figure 6.1c

Brasilia




SpaceSyntax

The axis as symbol and as instrumentIncommonurbanspace,themostfamiliarpropertyoftheaxisisthatitusuallypassesthroughaseriesofconvexspaces.Thisisthemeansbywhichtownscreateamoreglobalawarenessoftheurbanformintheperipateticobserverthanisavailablefromtheconvexorganisation.Weassociatethispropertythereforewiththepracticalitiesofunderstandingtownswellenoughtomovearoundthemeffectively.Paradoxically,analmostidenticaldescriptioncanbegiventotheuseoftheaxisinquitedifferentcircumstances:toexpresstherelationbetweenthesacredandtheprofaneinreligiousbuildings.Forexample,figure6.2showsthreeancientEgyptiantemples,fromacollectionillustratedinBanisterFletcher.1Ineachcase,asintheothersintheBanisterFletcherset,thereligiousepicentreofthebuildingsisinthedeepestspace,thatis,atthelimitofasequenceofboundaries.Ineachcasealsothereisasingledirectlineofsightpassingthrougheachboundaryandlinkingtheinnermostsacredspacetothemostpublicspaceoftheentrance.InThe Social Logic of Space itwasnotedthatthesamephenomenoncommoninEuropeanchurchesandcathedralscanalsobedetectedinsuchanarcanetypeastheAshanti‘abosomfie’.2

Whensuchcommonthemesaredetectedwemightofcoursebeattractedbyadiffusionistexplanation.Inthiscase,itisbarelyconceivablethatdiffusioncouldmakelinksacrosssuchvasttractsofspaceandtime.The‘genotype’inquestionarises,surely,fromthediscoveryofthesamepotentialsinspacetosolveacertainkindofcommonlyoccurringarchitecturalproblem:howtocombinetheneedforthesacredtobeseparatedfromtheeverydaybyspatialdepth,asitalwaysseemstobe,withtheneedtomakethisdepthvisibleandthereforeintelligibletothepeopletowhomthesacrednessisaddressed,thatis,the‘congregation’ofthatparticularsacredness.Thefactthatitiscommonpracticeforthisdistantvisibilitytobereplacedbyconcealmentatcertaintimesoftheritualcalendarsupportsthisanalysis.

Figure 6.2




SpaceSyntax

Whatthendoprofaneurbanspaces,inwhichlinespassthroughaseriesofspacestoguidemovementandtomakethemintelligible,haveincommonwithsacredspaceswherethesameaxialdeviceisusedtoexpressthesacred?Arethespatialphenomenareallythesameanddependententirelyonthecontextfortheirinterpretation?Oraretheyinsomemoresubtlesensedistinctspatialphenomena?Inonesense,theyareofcoursethesamephenomenon.Whatweseeinbothcasesisacertainpotentialinspace,thepotentialtouselinesofsighttoovercomethephysicalseparationofmetricortopologicaldistance.Itisthesamephenomenoninthatoneofthetwomostfundamentalofallspatialdevicesisbeingusedtoovercomewhatwemightcallthemetriclimitsofourpresenceinspace.Ifourvisualpresencewaslimitedtoourmetricpresence,thenthereisnodoubttownsandbuildingswouldnotbeastheyare.Theyareastheyarebecausewecanusetheconvexandaxialsuperstructurestoprovidevisualextensionstoourmetricpresence,andthroughthemmakeavailablelocationstowhichwemightwishtogo.Convexandaxialstructures,builtonthebasisofthemetricgeometryofspace,arethefundamentalmeansthroughwhichwemakethestructureofspaceintelligible,andprettywelltheonlymeans.Wecanhardlybesurprisedwhensimilarelementarystrategiesaredeployedindifferentcultures. However,althoughthetwotypesofcase—theurbanandthesacred—areusingthesamepotentialinthisrespect,inmostotherrespectstheyarequitedifferent.Oneisenclosed,theotheropen.Inonethelineofsightstrikesthebuildingatanopenangle,suggestingcontinuity,intheotheratarightanglesuggestingthatthelinestopsatthatpoint.Inonethelinemakesusawareofawholeseriesofpotentials,spaceaswellasbuildings;intheotheritseemstopointtoonethingonly.Inonethereisnorelationbetweenanyorderpresentinthefaçadesofthebuildingandtheshapeofthespacedefinedbythefaçade;intheotherthereisoftenaclearrelationbetweenthebilateralsymmetryofthelineandthebilateralsymmetryofthesacredobject.Thesedistinctionsshowthatthesamespatialdeviceisonlybeingusedinaverylimitedsense.Ifweviewthewhole‘configuration’ofthesituation,thenitisclearthatcertaincommonelementsarebeingembeddedinquitedifferentconfigurations.Thesamesyntacticelements,wemightsay,arebeingusedindifferentcontexts.Wemustthenexpectthemtoexpressdifferentmeanings.Symbolic axiality in urbanismNowconsiderthefirstofourstrangetowns,Teotihuacan.Ifonethinksaboutitsplaninrelationtothetypesofaxialorganisationfoundinordinarytowns,thenitseemsinmostrespectstobeexactlytheopposite.Inspiteofthefactthatthereisanunderlyinggeometricalorganisationintheplan—accordingtoarchaeologists,thereisa57-metregridunderlyingtheblockstructure—thereisanalmostcompleteabsenceofthetypesofimprobablyextendedaxialitythatisthenorminmosttowns.Intheevolutionofthetownplan,itisclearthat,inmostpartsofthetown,noattentionatallisgiventoextendingaxialitymuchbeyondtheindividualblock-compound.Thesameistrueoftheconvexorganisation,andoftherelation




SpaceSyntax

betweentheconvexandaxialorganisation. However,thereisaxialityintheplanofTeotihuacan:thesingleaxispassingalmostfromonesideofthetowncentretotheother,anddirectlylinkingtheGreatCompound-CitadelcomplexwiththePyramidoftheMoon.Axiality,whichisagenericanddiffusedpropertyinmosttowns,ishereconcentratedintoasingleaxis.Atthesametime,thespacethroughwhichtheaxispassesisexpandedlaterallyandmoreorlessuniformlytocreateanelongatedconvexstripmoreorlessaslongastheaxis. Butinspiteofitsdominance,themainaxishasverylittlerelationtotherestoftheaxialorganisationoftheplan.Thelineismoreorlessisolated.Itgathersnosignificantlaterals.Itconnectstonosignificantcontinuities.Itisonitsown,theonlycaseofsignificantaxisintheplan.Similarly,ithasnorelationtobuildingentrances.Theedificeswithwhichitislinedarenotbuildings,butforthemostpartinteriorlessmonuments.Notasingleoneofthelargenumberofcompoundsopensontothemainaxis.Allentrancesare,asitwere,axiallyconcealedinthelabyrinthiancomplexityofthebulkoftheplan. IfweweretocomparethistotheplanofBrasiliainfigure6.1c,wewouldfindcertainstrikingsimilarities.BrasiliahasnoformalorgeometricalresemblancetoTeotihuacan,yetinmanyrespectsthegenotypicalresemblanceisconsiderable.Ittoohasasingledominantaxis,onewhichdoesnotorganisetheplanbyconnectingtosignificantlaterals(apartfromthe‘roadaxes’)orcontinuities,onewhichhasnoeverydaybuildingsopeningontoit,andonewhichdoesnotlinkedgetosyntacticcentrebutisend-stoppedneartheedgeofthetown,havingpassingthroughalmostitsentirelength.TherestoftheplanisnotasaxiallycomplexasTeoti-huacanbutitiscomplexinawayquiteunlikemosttraditionaltowns.Nowconsiderthethirdcase,theproto-townofTikal,figure6.1b,amajorcentreoftheancientMaya.Inthistownwediscernnoglobalspatialorganisationatallapartfromthe‘causeways’linkingthevariouspartsoftheceremonialcomplextogether.Thereisofcoursealocallogicgoverningtheaggregationofbuiltformsattheverylocalisedlevel.Butthisservestopointoutthecompletelackofglobalconcerninhowtheseelementsarearrangedonthelargerscale.Some comparisons and consistenciesHowcanwegiveatheoreticalexplanationofthesestrangephenomena?First,wemustnoteoneobviouscommonality.Allthreeofourstrangetownsarecentreswhichareinsomewayconcernedwithsocialreproduction.Teotihuacanisdominatedbysymbolicmonumentsandceremonialbuildings,whileitsdomesticarrangementsappeartobegearedtoaquitesubstantialpriestlycaste.Brasiliaisapurpose-builtcentreofgovernment,intendedtoexpressthestructureandcontinuityofBrazil.Tikalisdescribedbyarchaeologistsasa‘ceremonialcentre’—thoughonewhoseroleinthefunctioningofitsparentsocietyremainslargelymysterious. Spatially,however,thethreetownsappearremarkablyheterogeneous.Theyseemtohaveincommononlythattheylackthespatialpropertiescommontomostnormaltowns.Howeverifwelookalittlemorecarefullywewillfindthatthereisa




SpaceSyntax

certainconsistencyandevenacertainstructureinthesedifferences,onewhichwhenexplicatedwillbeseentohaveasnaturalarelationtothespatialrequirementofsocialreproductionasthespatialthemesofnormaltownsdototheneedsofproduction.Socialreproduction,wemightsay,requiressymbolicformsofspace,socialproductioninstrumentalformsofspace.Bothexpressthemselvesfundamentallythroughhowtheaxisishandled.Theaxiscanbesymbol,oritcanbeinstrument.Thekeytostrangetownsistheconversionoftheaxisfrominstrumenttosymbol. Howisthisdone?Andarethereinvariantsinthewayinwhichsymbolicaxialityisusedtoexpressthevariousaspectsofsocialreproduction?Letusexplorethisfirstbylookingcarefullyatsomemorefamiliar,closertohomeexamples.Figure6.3aisthegroundplanoftheCityofLondonasitwasaroundtheyear1800.3Themostobviousthingonewouldnoticeaboutitincomparisonwithsomeofthepreviousexamplesisitslackofanyunderlyinggeometry.Ifisirregular,thenitissoinquiteadifferentwaytoTeotihuacan.Fromthepointofviewofsymbolicaxiality,thereseemstobelittletospeakof.ThefaçadeofStPaul’sCathedral,closetothewesternedgeoftheCity,doeshaveatentativevisuallinkinthedirectionofFleetStreet,awayfromthemainbodyoftheCity,butitishalf-heartedcomparedwithwhatwehaveseen. Onreflection,wemighttaketheviewthatitistheverylackofaxiallinesstrikingthefaçadesofmajorbuildingsatanythinglikearightanglewhichisratherpuzzling.StPaul’sisacaseinpoint.Apartfromitsvagueaxialgesturetowardsthewest,thecathedralisaxiallydisconnectedfromthesurroundingcityinallotherdirections—apropertywhichmanyplannersandurbandesignershaveidentifiedasadeficiencyandsoughttorectifyby‘openingupviewstoStPaul’s’,asthoughtheaxialdisconnectionofthecathedralwereanerrorofhistory.Infact,intheCityshownbythe1800mapnotonlythefaçadesbutalsothedomeofStPaul’saremoreorlessinvisibleatgroundlevelfromanywhereintheCity.Suchconsistenciesareunlikelytohappenbychance.TheaxialandvisualisolationofStPaul’sseems,primafacie,tobeastructuralpropertyoftheCityplan. ThegroupofmajorbuildingsinthecentreoftheCity,theRoyalExchange,theMansionHouseandtheBankofEngland,whicharetheonlyfree-standingbuildingsintheCity,areequallydistinctiveintheirlackofright-anglerelationstomajoraxes.Themostprominentofthese,theRoyalExchange,inspiteofitslocationatthegeometricheartoftheCitywhereseveralstronglinesintersect,doesnotstopanyoftheselines.Onthecontrary,thelinesslipbyleavingthebuildingalmostunnoticed.TheBankofEnglandisevenmoreaxiallyobscured.EventhemoreprominentMansionHouseisneatlyavoidedbythemeshoflinesintersectingdirectlyinfrontofitsportico.Moreremarkably,inthemodernplanaftertheVictorianmodificationstothestreetstructureofthecityincreasedthenumberoflinesmeetingatthispointfromfourtoseven,4allsevenmajoraxesavoidend-stoppingthemselvesonanyofthemajorbuildingfaçades(seefigures4.3aandc).Again,thiscanhardlybeaccidental.Onthecontrary,toassemblesomanyaxesandsomanyfaçadeswithoutanythingremotelyresemblingaright-anglerelationbetween




SpaceSyntax

façadeandlineisasignificantfeatofspatialengineering. Equallypuzzlingistheconsistencywithwhichwefindthatminorpublicbuildings,suchasthemanyguildbuildings,areunobtrusiveintheaxialstructureoftheplan.TakeforexampletheApothecariesHall,markedinblackinthesouth-eastcorneroffigure6.3a.NotonlyisitlocatedinaspatiallysegregatedpartoftheCity,but,alsoitsaxialrelationtothestreetissounobtrusiveastoleadtheexploringvisitortobetakenbysurprisewhenhediscoversthebeautifulcourtthatintervenesbetweenthebuildingandtheoutsideworld.Whyissomuchsymbolicexpenseinarchitectureinvestedinspaceswhicharealmostinvisiblefromthepublicdomain,especiallyasitisinthesehighlylocalisedspacesthatonedoesafterallfindtheright-anglerelationbetweenfaçadeandaxiswhichseemstobeahallmarkofsymbolicaxiality?Itseemsthatsymbolicaxialityisonlyappliedonthemostlocalisedlevel,remotefromthemainaxeswherepubliclifetakesplace,andconfinedtoout-of-the-waycornersintheurbancomplex. Afterprolongedinspection,anexceptiontothisrulecanbefound,thoughitisfarfromobvious.ThefaçadeoftheGuildhall(tobefoundjustsouth-eastoftheright-angleoftheindentonthenorthboundary)has,inspiteofbeingburieddeepinthebacklandsofanurbanblockwelltothenorthoftheCity,amoreorlessrightangleaxiallinelinkingitsfaçadedirectlytotheriversidearea,perhapseventotheriveritself,thoughitishardtobesureifthiswasactuallythecaseatthetime.Thereasonwhythisishardtodecideliesintheextraordinarynatureoftheline.SeveraltimesonitsroutefromtheGuildhallbuildingtothe‘Vintner’sQuay’,whichliesatthepointwherethelineappearstostriketheriver,thelinejustmanagestosqueezethrough,pastbuildingswhichwouldbreakthelineiftheyprotrudedevenashortdistancefurther.Suchaseriesofnarrowescapes,again,canhardlybeanaccident.Butwhyshouldsuchlengthinalinebeachievedsounobtrusively,asthoughthelinehadtoexistbutnotreallybenoticeable? Onceseen,theGuildhalllinelooksasthoughitmightactuallybethelongestaxiallineintheCity,untilwenoticethatitintersectswithUpperThamesStreetjustshortoftheriver,whichturnsouttobesubstantiallylonger.Againourideasabouturbannormalityarethwarted,becausethislinecombinesconsiderablelengthwithsurprisingnarrowness.Itisofcoursethelinethatinearliertimeslinkedallthequaystogether.Wemightthenexpectthatitwouldfollowthelineoftheriver.Butitdoesnot.Therivercurves,butthelinedoesnot.Hereaselsewhereitdoesnotappearpossibletoexplainaxialstructurethrougheitherofthecommonexplanationsofsymbolisationortopography. WhatthenaretheaxialpropertiesoftheCityofLondon?Is,forexample,thepropertyof‘just–about’axialitythatwenotedfortheGuildhallline(andwhichwasdiscussedinChapter4)exceptional,orisitthegeneralrule?Wehaveonlytolookcarefullyatthemainandsecondarystreetstructurestoseethatthispropertyispresenttoaquiteremarkabledegree.Take,forexample,thelinethatgoesfromPoultry(attheeasternendofCheapside)tohalfwaydownLeadenhallStreetintheeastpartoftheplan,skimmingthesurfacesofbuildingsbothtothesouthandto




SpaceSyntax

thenorthofthelineasitgoes.OrthelinethatlinksthelowerendofBishopsgatetoitswidermarketareainthesouth.OrthelinethatlinksSmithfieldtoLudgateHill.OrthenarrowalleylinethatlinksBirchingLanethetheinterioroftheblockboundedbyCornwallandGraceChurchStreet.‘Justabout’axialityis,itseems,aconsistentpropertyofthespatialstructureoftheCityatseveralscalelevels.Nordoesitquiteendthere.Wherewedonotfind‘just-about’lineslinkingkeyplaces,thenweoftenfindthattherearetwo‘just-about’linesmakingthelink.Thisisparticularlytrueinthesmaller-scalebackareasandthesystemofallegedly‘labyrinthian’backalleys,whichforthisreasonarenotinfactlabyrinthianatall.This‘two-step’logicof‘just-about’axiallinesimpartsanaturalintelligibilitytotheseseeminglycomplexsub-areas. Thesocialreasoningbehindthis‘two-step,just-about’axiallogicisnothardtoconjecture.Ithasthesimpleeffectthatwhenyouaregoingfromone‘place’—beitaslightlylargerspace,oramajorline,orakeybuilding—toanother,thenthereisalwayslikelytobeifnotapointfromwhichbothoriginanddestinationcanbeseenthenatleastasectionoflinefromwhichbotharevisible.Sincewecanalsoseethateachlinepassesthroughaseriesofconvexspaces,andthateachconvexspace,howeversmall,willusuallyhavebuildingentrancesopeningontoit,5wecanseethattheaxialorganisationandconvexorganisationofspacecombinewiththelocationofbuildingentrancestocreateaconsistenttypeofpatternyieldingbothintelligibilityandorderoutofwhatmightotherwiseseemaformlessaggregationofbuildings. Onceweseethis,thenitiseasytoseethattheCityhaseverywhereifnotatwo-stepaxiallogicthenatleastafew-stepaxiallogic.Axialorganisationisconsistentlyusedtomakelarger-scalelinksfromoneplacetoanotherthantheapparentirregularityoftheplanwouldinitiallysuggest.Axialityisused,wemightsay,coupledtotheconvexandbuildingentrancepropertieswehavenoted,asthegeneralmeanstoprovidelarger-scaleintelligibilityandspatialorientationinasystemthatappearsfromotherpointsofviewtoberatherfreelygrowing.‘Just-about’axialityistheproductofthisminimalistapproachtototheproblemofglobalforminurbanlayouts.Evenmorestrikingly,itisthemeansoflinkingthelocal‘place’totheglobalstructureandthroughthisofachievingthatcompressionofscales—thesenseofbeinginalocallyidentifiable‘place’andpartofamuchlarger‘city’atoneandthesametimeandbythesamespatialmeans—whichisthedistinctiveexcellenceofgoodurbandesign. ButthisaxialcompressionofscalesgoesbeyondthecreationofinternalcoherenceinthespaceoftheCity.Itisalsothemeansbywhichinteriorandexterior,heartandperiphery,arebroughtintoadirectrelation.Distancefromedgetocentreis,asitwere,obliteratedbytherepetitionofthe‘fewstep’trickonthefatterspacesthatdefinethethemajorroutesintoandthroughtheCity—Cheapside,Bishopsgate,AldgateHighStreet,GraceChurchStreet,andsoon.Itisnotablethattheseedge-to-centrefatterspacesdonot,aswehavealreadynoted,containthelongestlinesintheCity.Intelligibilitythroughaxialityisnotsimplyamatteroflength.Thesefatterspacesbytheirveryamplitudelendemphasistothemarginalaxialdisplacementandtheshadingofbuildingsurfaceswhichisthearchitecturalessenceofthetwosteplogic




SpaceSyntax

andthemeansbywhichtheabstractprincipleofaxialconnectionisconvertedintoastyleinthearchitectureofurbanity.TheselargerspacesstandforthisstylebecauseitexemplifiesitmostclearlyintheoverallstructureoftheCity. AswesawinChapter4,itisalsothisprofoundarchitectureunderlyingtheplanthatcreatesthepatternofnaturalmovementinthecity.Andofcoursethisisthekeytoitslogic.Spaceinthecityisaboutmovement.Itdoesnotseektoexpresstherelationsofmajorbuildingstoeachother.Itseekstominimisetheeffectofbuildings,eventhelargestandmostpublic,onthepatternofmovementonwhichthelifeofthecityasacentreofbusinessalwayscruciallydepended.Inthecitythereforespaceisfundamentallyinstrumental,andtheaxisitsprimaryinstrument.Itssymbolicandideologicalroleissubordinated—thoughnevereliminated—bythedominanceofthepractical.Theaxisis—canbe—bothsymbolandinstrument.Here,itisprimarilyinstrument. Doesthismeanthenthataxialityisdoomedtotheambiguitythatrenderssomuchofarchitectureopaquetoanalysis.Idonotbelieveso.Theambiguityisastructuredambiguityandthearchitecturalconditionsinwhichaxialitytakesonapredominantlysymbolicorinstrumentalformare,Isuggest,quitestrictlydefined.Tounderstandthis,wemustlookcloselynotonlyattheaxialityofspaceitself,butatthebuildingsandtheirfaçadeswhichare,inthelastanalysis,theonlymeansbywhichthesespatialdifferencesarecreated. ConsiderforexampleLondon’sothercity,thecentreofgovernmentinWestminster,againasitwasaround1800beforetheVictorian‘modern-isation’oftheplan(seefigure6.3b).Atfirstsight,theplanappearsratherlessirregularthantheCityofLondon,largelyduetoasenseofgreaterrectilinearityunderlyingtheblockstructure.Thisshouldnot,however,leadustomisreaditsaxialstructure.Ifwelookforlonglines,thenthereturnouttoberelativelyfew,andtheirextensionseemsmuchlesspronouncedthanintheCityofLondon.Lookingmoreclosely,weseethatmorelinksjustfailtobeaxiallydirect,andinmanycasesthisappearstobedirectlyrelatedtothegreaterrectilinearityoftheplan.InretrospectwecanseethatthegreatergeometricdeformityoftheCityofLondonplangaveagreatersinuousnesstothespacewhichinturngaverisetogreaterratherthanlessaxialextension.InWestminster,linesareonthewholeshorterthanintheCity.Thisallbuteliminatesanysenseofatwo-steplogic,andthisinturnincreasesthesensethatthepartsofWestminsteraremoreseparatedfromeachother.Thiscanbeconfirmedbyan‘integration’analysis,whichshowsthatWestminsterisinfactsubstantiallylessintegratedthantheCityofLondon. Thelongerlinesthatwedofindare,however,veryinteresting.Oneofthem,TothillStreet,isboththemostintegratedlineinWestminsterandthelinewhichstrikesthemainfaçadeoftheAbbey,albeitslightlyoffcentre.Itisalso,inthesensethatwascommonintheCityofLondon,a‘just-about’line.Another‘justabout’line,KingStreet,strikesthenorthernfaçadeoftheAbbey,thistimefullcentre.ThislineisnotanintegratorwithinWestminster,butitisacriticalintegratoroftheWestminsterstreetpatterntotheareastothenorthandeast.Inotherwords,the




SpaceSyntax

Abbey,insteadofbeingaxiallycutofffromthemainCityaswasthecaseintheCityofLondon,actsasakindofpivotforthemostimportantinternallineandthemostimportantinternal-to-externallineinWestminster.Neitherlineslipspastthefaçade.Eachisfullyend-stopped.TheAbbeyliterallyholdsthestructuretogetherbyoccupyingitskeysyntacticlocation,whilealsoofcoursecreatingadisjunctionfromapurelyspatialpointofview.Themajorbuildinghas,itseems,intervenedintheurbanstructureinadramaticway. Nowthisaxialdisjunctionbymeansofmajorpublicbuildingsisanarchitecturalcommonplace,butitsveryobviousnessshouldremindusthatitisexactlywhatdidnothappenintheCityofLondon.Thedominantaxialstructurewas‘constituted’notbythefaçadesofmajorbuildingsbutconsistentlybythefaçadesoftheeverydaybuildings,which,whereverpossible,openeddirectlyontotheaxes.Wheremajorpublicbuildingsoccurredtheyweretreatednodifferentlyfromthepointofviewoftheaxialstructure.EventhefamousCitychurchesreceivednospecialtreatment,butareembeddedintheurbanfabricandrelatedtotheaxialstructureinexactlythesamewayastheeverydaybuildings.The

Figure 6.3a




SpaceSyntax

global,few-steplogicoftheCityofLondoniscreatedalmostexclusivelybythearrangementandorientationoftheordinarybuildings.Responsibilityforthespacestructureisasitwere‘distributed’—anddistributedmoreorlessequally—amongstthelargestpossiblenumberofbuildings.Wheremajorbuildingsreceivedspecialaxialtreatment,itwasusuallytoburythemunobtrusivelyintheurbanfabric.InWestminsterthepublicbuildingsaremuchmoreobtrusive,inspiteoftheoverallreductioninspatialscaleandaxialintegration.

Figure 6.3b




SpaceSyntax

Buttheydonotyetdominatetheurbanstructureinthesensewefindin,say,eighteenth-centurydowntownVersailles,showninfigure6.4.Herewefindthreepowerfulaxesstrikingthepalaceheadon,oneatrightangles,twoataboutforty-fivedegrees.AllthereforeleadessentiallynowherebutthePalace.Intermsofnaturalmovement,thePalaceactsasanegativeattractor.Theeffectofthisisimmeasurablyincreasedbytwofurtherspatialdevices.First,thewidthanduniformityofthespacesthroughwhichthemajoraxespass,sothataxialityisquitethecontraryto‘justabout’.Axialityisequaleverywhereinthespace.Second,theeverydaybuildings—thinkingofthesemainlyintermsoftheirsizeandlargernumbers—areunlinkedasfaraspossiblefromthemajoraxes.Followingthislogictoitsextreme,ofcourse,weendupwithaspacestructureinwhichonlythepublicbuildingsandmonumentsconstitutethemajoraxialstructure,whileeverydaybuildingsareremovedasfaraspossible.WeareineffectbackinTeotihuacan. ThisformulationevenhelpsustobegintomakesenseofTikal(figure6.1b)surelyoneofthestrangestproto-urbanobjectsintherecord.Thiswecannowseetobeanextremecaseofsuchaspatiallogic.Allthatcanbetermedaglobalurban

Figure 6.4




SpaceSyntax

structureliesinthecomplexofcausewaysandceremonialcentresthatlieattheheartofthearea.Thescatterofeverydaybuildingsisdistributed,apparentlyrandomly,inandaroundthisglobalcomplex.Theyhavenoconsistentspatialrelationtothecomplex(apartfromaconsistentrandomness),norelationtoeachother,andaboveallnorelationtoasystemofspacewhichmightbegintoconstituteanoverallurbanstructure.Thedisjunctionoftheceremonialandtheeveryday,andofthelocalandtheglobal,isinthiscaseaboutascompleteasitcouldbe. Wemaythenattempttosummarisethecomplexofpropertiesthatseemtobeassociatedwiththeaxisassymbolratherthanasinstrument.Thereseemtobefourheadings:first,thedegreetowhichaxialityis‘just-about’ratherthanfilledoutintocontinuouslyfatspaces;second,thedegreetowhichthereisafew-steplogicthroughoutthesystemratherthanaone-steplogicinsomepartscombinedwithamany-steplogicinothers;third,thedegreetowhichstrongandweakaxialityisrelatedtotheentrancesofbuildings,everydayorpublic;andfourth,theanglesofincidenceofaxiallinesonbuildingfaçades,varyingfromstrikingfullontoglancingoff. Letmefirstsuggestthatthereseemstobearigoroussociallogictothesespatialchoices.Thissociallogicshowsitselfinthewaysinwhichwefindthesepropertiesconcatenatedinrealcases.Forexample,theCityofLondoncombined‘just-about’axialityeverywhere,withfew-step(rarelyone-step)logic,constitutionofspacebyeverydaybuildingsandglancingoffanglesofincidenceofaxiallinesonfaçades.ThisistheoppositeoftheTeotihuacanorVersailleskindinwhichfatnessismadegreaterandevenedoutalongthelengthoftheaxis,one-steplogicforpublicbuildingsandmany-steplogicforeverydaybuildings,constitutionofmajoraxesbymajorbuildingsandeliminationofeverydaybuildings,andanglesofincidencewhichareusuallyorthogonal,bothcreatingthelarge-scaleone-steplogicandthesmall-scalemany-steplogic.Wethusfindanaturaltendencyforgreatergeometryintheplan—presumablyimplyingapowerabletoconceiveofaformallatone—tobeassociatedwithlessintegrationofspaceandagreatertendencytowardsthesymbolisationoftheaxis. Weeasilyassociatethefirsttypeofconcatenationwithinstrumentalaxialityandthroughthiswithurbansituationsinwhichtheexigenciesofproductionanddistributionarethedominantsocialrequirements.Thelatterconcatenationisjustaseasilyassociatedwithwhatwemaycallsymbolicaxialitywhichprevailswherebureaucraciesorreligioushierarchies,withtheirprimaryconcernforsymbolicexpressionratherthanmovementandcommunication,arethedominantforcesshapingspace,thatis,wheretheneedsofsocialreproductionaredominantovertheneedsofsocialproduction.Itisthroughtheuseoftheaxisassymbolthatformsofsocialpowermostnaturallyexpressthemselvesthroughdominationoftheurbanlandscape.Thisisfundamentallywhywehavetwotypesofcity:thecommontypeofworkingcity,andthemoreexceptionaltypeofcityspecialisedbytheneedtoreproducetheformalstructureofasociety.




SpaceSyntax

Time as an aspect of spaceButwhythesespatialformsratherthanothers?Toanswerthiswemustbuildasmallarmouryofconcepts.InThe Social Logic of Space6itwassuggestedthattheconceptoftimeisuseful,evennecessary,tothedescriptionofspace.Twoconceptsweresuggested.Thedescriptionofaspacewasthesetofrelations—oraswewouldsaynow,theconfiguration—inwhichthatspacewasembedded,thatis,whichdescribedhowthatspacefittedintoacomplexofspace:itsrelationstobuildingentrances,itsconvexstructure,thelinesthatpassthroughit,itsconvexisovist,andsoon.Thesynchronyofthatspacewasthenthequantityofspaceinvestedinthatdescription.Theseconceptswerearesponsetotheproblemoffindingawayofsayinghowtwoidenticalspaceswithdifferentnamedfunctionsmightbeformallydifferentfromeachother.Themotivatingcasewasapairofhypotheticalspaces,identicalinshapeandsize,butoneamilitaryparadeground,theotheramarketplace.Arethespacesthesameotherthaninhowtheyareused? Theanswerproposedwasthatthespaceshaveidenticalsynchrony—theyhavethesameareainthesameshape—butdifferentdescriptions—thatis,theidenticalspacesareembeddedinquitedifferentsyntacticcontexts.Theparadegroundhasthespatialrelationsofamilitarycamp,thatis,itisrelatedtocertainmilitarybuildingswhicharelikelytobefreestandingandhaveacertaingeometricallayoutreflectingmilitarystatuses,andrelationstocampentrancesandceremonialroutes,symbolicobjectslikeflagpoles,andsoon.Themarkethasthespatialrelationsofacertainlocationinastreetcomplexandthebuildingswhichconstituteit.Thedescriptionofthespaceisitssocialidentity.Thesynchrony,orquantityofspaceinvestedinthatdescription,isthedegreeofemphasisaccordedtothatdescriptioninthecomplex.Synchrony,wemaysaysimply,reinforcesdescription.Thesynchronyoftheparadegroundandmarketplacemaybeidentical,butthedescriptionsaredifferent.Thereforeadifferentdescriptionisbeingemphasised.Thereforethespacesaredifferent. Intuitively,itseemsreasonabletousetheterm‘synchrony’todescribemetricscaleinspace,sincewemustusemovement,whichoccupiestime,toovercomespace,andsincevisibilitysubstitutesformovementinthissense,expandingspacemetricallybringsmoreofitintoasinglespace-timeframe.Underlyingthisthereisamodelofspaceinwhichspaceisseenandunderstoodbyahumansubjectwhoisessentiallyperipatetic.Anyspatialcomplexisasystemwhichcanonlybeseenonepartatatimeandwhichrequiresmovementtoseeandunderstandasawhole.Totheperipateticsubject,tosaythatspatialrelationsaresynchronisedistosaythattheyaresimultaneouslypresenttotheperipateticobserverwithinthesamespace-timeframe.Thereforethefactofprogressivelymovingthroughaspatialcomplexsuchasatownorbuildingsuccessivelysynchronisesdifferentsub-complexesofspatialrelations.Inthesesub-complexes,thelargertheconvexspaceorthelongertheaxialspacethenthestrongerthissynchronisingeffectwillbe.Hencesynchronyasthedescriptorofthequantityofcontinuousspacewithinwhichthesamerelationsprevail.




SpaceSyntax

Nowconsideranotherdistinction,duetoacolleagueofmine,7betweenstructureandorder.Spatialcomplexesareintelligibletousintwoways:asartefactswemoveaboutin,andlearntounderstandbylivingin;andasoverallrationalconcepts,whichcanbegraspedallatonce,andwhichoftenhaveageometricalorsimplerelationalnature.Thefirstwemaycallstructure;thesecondorder.Townplansmakethedistinctionparticularlyclear.Idealtownsaredominatedbyrationalorder,andcanbegraspedasasingleconcept.Mostrealtownplans,however,lacksuchsimplicities.Theyappearirregular,almostdisordered—thoughtheyarenotsowhenweliveinthemandmovearoundthem.Onthecontrary,itistheorderedtownthatisusuallyconfusing‘ontheground’.Realtowns,aswehaveseen,have‘structure’whichwediscoverbylivingandmoving,butnotanobviousrational‘order’. Nowconsiderthisdefinitionintermsofthetimeconceptswehaveintroducedinrelationtotwotownplans.Onethe‘ideal’townplanofPalmanova,showninfigure6.5,andthe‘organic’layoutoftheplanshowninfigure4.3a.Theidealtowncanbegraspedasapatternall at once,orsynchronously,providedweareinapositiontoseeitallatonce,asweareifweconsideritasaplanonthepageorfromtheair.Thereasonitcanbegraspedallatonceisnotsomuchbecauseithasaregulargeometry,butforasimplerandmorebasicreason:itismadeupofsimilar partsin

Figure 6.5




SpaceSyntax

similar relations.Suchcompositionsimmediatelyrevealtheirnaturebecausethemindeasilygraspstherepetitivityoftheelementsandrelationsthatmakeuptheform.Itisthispropertyofbeingmadeupofsimilarpartsinsimilarrelationswecallorder.Wetendtoassociateitwiththeconstructiveactivityofthehumanmind.Orderisfundamentallyrational.Itcanbegraspedallatoncebecauseitisimposedallatonce. The‘organic’townhasnosuchorder.Elementscanscarcelybeidentified,letalonerepetitiveelements.Thesameistrueofrelations.Verylittlerepetitioncanbeidentified,ifany.However,wenowknowthatsuch‘organic’townshavepowerfulspatialpatterningwhichappearstooriginateinfunction.Forexample,thedistributionofintegrationintheaxialmapdefinesan‘integrationcore’whichgeneratesnotonlyamovementpatternbutalsoadistributionoflandusessuchasshopsandresidenceswhicharesensitivetomovement.Wecancallsuchpatternsstructures,andcontrastthemwithordersbecausetheyhavequitedifferent,almostcontrary,properties.Structurescannotbeseenallatonce,noraretheyimposedallatoncebyminds.Theyareasynchronousbothintheirgenesisandinthewayweexperiencethem.Theyarisefromalivedprocess,andareintelligiblethroughtheprocessesoflivinginthetown,and,mostespecially,bytheprocessofmovement.Withoutmovement,anasynchronoussystemcannotbeseen,letaloneunderstood. Itisanempiricalfactthat,regardlessoftheirrelativeprevalenceingeographicalorplanningtexts,byfarthegreatmajorityoftownsandcitiesinhumanhistorydisplaymorestructurethanorder.Thereasonsarenothardtofind.Forthemostpart,townsariseforessentiallyfunctionalreasons,and,naturallyenough,evolveaccordingtoafunctionallogic.However,ifweconsideranotheraspectofurbanintelligibility,thatis,theformalconfigurationofbuiltforms,andespeciallyoftheirfaçades,thenwefindthat,intriguingly,mattersaremoreorlessreversed.Façadestypicallydisplayagooddealoforder,andanythingwemightcallstructurebyanalogytothesemi-regularpatternsoftheorganictownisrare,ifitcanbeidentifiedatall.Thereisasimplereasonforthis,centredabouttherelationsbetweenspace,formandtime.Unlikeurbanspacestructures,whichareasynchronousbecausetheyrequirethepassageoftimerequiredformovementinordertoseethempiecebypiece,buildingfaçadesare,intheirverynature,synchronous.Theyareintendedtobereadandunderstoodallatonce.Theythereforedonotrequiretimefortheirunderstanding.Order,wemightsuggest,isasprevalentoverstructureinbuiltformsasstructureisprevalentoverorderinspace.Inbothconcepts,bothkindsofcaseexist,butorderisnaturaltoformbecauseitisintendedtobyreadsynchronouslyjustasstructureisnaturaltospacebecauseofitsessentiallyasynchronousnature. Howforms,andespeciallyfaçades,relatetospaceisthenlikelytobeofinterest.Letusthenconsiderspacefromthepointofviewofthefaçadesofbuildings.Itisclearthateveryfaçadewillbepartlyvisiblefromcertainpointsinurbanspaceandwhollyvisiblefromothers.Bothsetsofpointsformashape,definedbyallthatcanbeseenfromthefaçade.Wecandrawbothshapes,andcallthefirstthe‘part-façadeisovist’andthesecondthe‘full-façadeisovist’.To




SpaceSyntax

drawthemwefirstprojecteachvertexofthefaçadeasfaraspossibleinalldirectionsfromwhichanypartofthefaçadecanbeseen.Thecombinationoftheshapessweptoutbythetwoverticesisthenthepart-façadeisovist,andtheirintersectionisthefull-façadeisovist.Figure6.6showsahypotheticalcase,inwhichthepart-façadeisovistislightlyshadedandthefull-façadeisovistdarklyshaded.Evidently,thefull-façadeisovistwillbetheregionofspacefromwhichthefaçadeissynchronouslyvisiblefortheperipateticobserver. Nowletusconsidertheeffectsonfaçadeisovistsofdifferentkindsofaxiality.FirstletuslookattheCityofLondonagain,butthistimefromthepointofviewofitsfaçadeisovists.Twopointscanbemade.Theguildbuildingsareavailabletothestreetfromrathershortisovists,usuallyendinginrightangles,andalsousuallyendinginanenclosedspace.Interestingly,theonlyexceptiontotheshortlineruleistheGuildhall,andherethelongaxisalsoendsinanenclosedspace,suggestingsomeconsistencyintheruleforthattypeofbuilding.Publicbuildingsareingeneralonlarger-scalespaces,buthaveveryrestrictedisovistswhichwecanforthemostpartonlyseesideways,andwitharelativelysmall-scaleisovist.Thisisparticularlytrueofthethreemajorbuildingsattheheartofthecity:theMansionHouse,theBankofEnglandandtheRoyalExchange.Majorbuildingsdonotseemtooccuratthepointswheremajoraxesstrikewholebuildingfaçades. Thisquasi-concealingofthepublicbuildingshasthreemarkedeffects.First,thedegreetowhichtheirviewsareaxiallysynchronisedisveryrestricted.Onecomesacrossthemrathersuddenly.Second,oneusuallyapproachesthematananglesothatwhateverorderispresentonthefaçadeisobscuredbyperspective.Third,andperhapsmostimportant,theeffectofapproachingthebuildingsidewaysisthatwhatoneseeschangesquiterapidlyasonefirstarrivesatthebuildingandthenproceedsbeyondit.Onemightsaythattheeffectofthistypeoffaçadeisovististhatfromthepointofviewofmovement,theorderinthefaçadeofthebuildingisneverfreeze-framed,butisconstantlyshiftedanddistorted.

Figure 6.6Façadeisovist




SpaceSyntax

Nowconsiderhowthecontrarycanbeachieved.Themosteffectivemeanswouldbeasinglelong‘tunnel’isoviststrikingthebuildingatarightangle.Thiswouldmeanthatthelongerthistunnelisovist,themoreprotractedthetimeduringwhich,forthemovingobserver,thefaçadeofthebuildingwouldbefreeze-framed,andthemoreinvariantwouldbeanysymmetrythatfaçadepossessed.Byplacinganobservermovingthroughspaceontheaxisofsymmetryofthebuildingfaçade,andextendingthespatialaxisasfaraspossibleawayfromthebuildingatarightangle,thepresenceofthesymbolicbuildingsbecomesmorepervasiveandmoreinvariant.Themoreconvextheaxis,then,themoreinvariantwouldbethiseffectthroughouttheregionpassedthroughbytheline. Wecanalsorelatethistotheglobalurbanstructurebybringingintegrationintothepicture.Themoreintegratingthe‘symbolicaxis’,themorewhateverisfreeze-framedbythelinewouldbedominantintheurbanstructure.Theeffectofconvertingspacefrominstrumenttosymbolwouldbeamplifiedbythefactthatalarge-scaleobjectatrightangletoakeyaxiswillactasanegativeattractorintheurbanform,thatis,whateveritsdegreeofintegration,naturalmovementrateswillfallawayinthedirectionofthenegativeattractor,thoughthismayofcoursebecompensatedbythenumbersofpeopleattractedtothebuildingforotherreasons.Inshort,thelogicofthesymbolicaxisisinitswayasconsistentasthatoftheinstrumental.Itsobjectisnottoorganiseapatternofmovementandthroughthistogenerateencounter,buttousethepotentialofurbanspaceforanotherkindofemphasis:thecommunicationthroughoutspaceofthesymbolicimportanceofcertainbuildingsorlocations.Theroleofthesymbolicaxistendstobefocussedincertainlocationsratherthandiffusedthroughouttheform,butitsroleincreatingtheoverallurbanstructureisnolesspowerful. WecanseethenthatTeotihuacanisbuiltaccordingtoa‘formula’nolessthanthecityofLondon,buttheformulaisdifferent.Inspiteofinitialdoubts,itsinternallogic,andpresumablyitssociallogic,arejustasconsistent.JustasLondonistheexpressionofonekindofsociallogic,soourstrangetownsareconsistentexpressionsofanother.

NotesBanisterFletcher’sA History of Architecture (editedbyProfessorJohnMusgrove),ButterworthLondon,1987.Hillier&Hanson,1984,Chapter5.TheplanisbyHorwood.SeeFigure4.3ainChapter4.SeeThe Social Logic of Space,Chapter3.Hillier&Hanson,Chapter3,pp.95–7.J.Hanson,Orderandstructureinurbandesign:theplansfortherebuildingofLondonaftertheGreatFireof1666’,Ekistics,SpecialIssueonspacesyntaxresearch,vol.56,no.334/5,1989.

1

234567

Visible collegesChapter seven



SpaceSyntax

The problem of space according to Lévi StraussThepreviouschaptershavestudiedurbanspace,thespacethatis,formedbytherelationsamongstbuildings.Butwhatofthebuildinginterior?Howfarcanthetechniquesusedandthelessonslearnedinthestudyofurbanspaceinformstudiesoftheinteriorsofbuildingsmorecomplexthanthehouse,wherebydefinition,amorestructuredorganisationthananurbancommunityisatwork?Itturnsoutthattostudytheserelationswemustbuildamorecomplexmodelofwhatweareseeking,onewhichtakesintoaccounthowstructuredanorganisationis,andhowitisstructured.Oncewedothis,wefindthatmanyoftheprincipleslearnedcanbeappliedtothecomplexbuildinginterior.Acrucialcaseistheresearchlaboratory,whereuntilquiterecently,spatialgroupdynamicswerethoughttobeentirelyabsent.1Tobeginourtaskofbuildingamorecomplexmodel,wemustlookintosomeanthropologicalideasaboutspace.

In1953,Lévi-Straussformulatedtheproblemofspaceasfollows:IthasbeenDurkheim’sandMauss’sgreatmerittocallattentionforthefirsttimetothevariablepropertiesofspacewhichshouldbeconsideredinordertounderstandproperlythestructureofseveralprimitivesocieties…[But]therehavebeenpracticallynoattemptstocorrelatethespatialconfigurationswiththeformalpropertiesoftheotheraspectsofsociallife.Thisismuchtoberegretted,sinceinmanypartsoftheworldthereisanobviousrelationshipbetweenthesocialstructureandthespatialstructureofsettlements,villagesandcamps…Thesefewexamples(campsofPlainsIndians,GevillagesinBrazil,andpueblos)arenotintendedtoprovethatspatialconfigurationisthemirrorimageofsocialorganizationbuttocallattentiontothefactthat,whileamongnumerouspeoplesitwouldbeextremelydifficulttodiscoveranysuchrelation,amongothers(whomustaccordinglyhavesomethingincommon)theexistenceofarelationisevident,thoughunclear,andinathirdgroupspatialconfigurationseemstobealmostaprojectiverepresentationofthesocialstructure.Buteventhemoststrikingcasescallforcriticalstudy;forexample,thiswriterhasattemptedtodemonstratethat,amongtheBororo,spatialconfigurationreflectsnotthetrue,unconscioussocialorganizationbutamodelexistingconsciouslyinthenativemind,thoughitsnatureisentirelyillusoryandevencontradictorytoreality.2

Alittlelaterheadds:

Problemsofthiskind(whichareraisednotonlybytheconsiderationofrelativelydurablespatialconfigurationsbutalsoinregardtorecurrenttemporaryones,suchasthoseshownindance,ritual,etc.)offeranopportunitytostudysocialandmentalprocessesthroughobjectiveandcrystallizedexternalprojectionsofthem.3

190

Visible colleges191



SpaceSyntax

Itmayseemnaturalthata‘structuralist’ofLévi-Strauss’stripewouldseethespatialformsofsettlementsas‘projections’or‘reflections’of‘mentalprocesses’andbepuzzledwhenhefindsitinsomecasesandnotinothers.Butwefindacuriousblindnessinhisview.AshortwhilepreviouslyinthesamepaperLévi-Strausshadproposedafundamentaldistinctionintheanalysisofsocialstructurebetweenwhathecalls‘mechanical’and‘statistical’models.4Inamechanicalmodel,accordingtoLévi-Strauss,theelementsofthemodelare‘onthesamescaleasthephenomena’theyaccountfor.Inastatisticalmodeltheelementsofthemodelare‘onadifferentscale’fromthephenomena. Lévi-Straussillustratesthedifferencethroughmarriagelawsin‘primitive’andmodernsocieties.Inprimitivesocieties,thelawsofmarriagecanoftenbe‘expressedinmodelscallingforactualgroupingoftheindividualsaccordingtokinorclan’.Individualsarethuscategorisedandbroughtintowell-definedrelationshipswithindividualsinothercategories.Thisdegreeofdeterminationischaracteristicofamechanicalmodel.Modernsocieties,incontrast,specifynosuchassignmentofindividualstocategories,andthereforenosuchrelationstoothercategories.Instead,‘typesofmarriagearedeterminedonlybythesizeofprimaryandsecondarygroups’.Amodeloftheinvariantsofsuchasystemcouldthereforedetermineonlyaveragevalues,orthresholds,andthereforeconstituteastatisticalmodel. Whatwefindcuriousisthatinusingsuchtermsas‘projection’and‘reflection’toformulatetheproblemofspace,Lévi-Straussseemstobetakingforgrantedthatspatialphenomenawillbeonthesamescaleasthementalprocessesthat(soheimagines)mustgovernthem,andthereforebeexpressiblethroughamechanicalmodel.Itisfarfromobviousthatthisshouldbeso.Onthecontrary,everydayexperiencesuggeststhatitisrarelyso,andthatspacemorecommonlypossessestheattributesofLévi-Strauss’statisticalmodel.ThedifferencesbetweenthetypeofspatialmechanicalmodelsLévi-StrausshasinmindforsuchcasesasthecircularvillagesoftheGeIndiansofBrazilandthetypeofspacecharacteristicofmoderncitiesseemstohavemuchincommonwiththedifferenceshehasalreadynotedbetweentypesofmarriagesystems.Modernurbanspaceisforthemostpartinterchangeableandlackswell-definedcorrespondencesbetweensocialcategoriesandspatialdomains.Insofarassuchdistinctionsexist,theyappeartobeexactlyofastatisticalkindandaregeneratedbyaprocessofsocialactionratherthansimplyreflectingamentalprocess.Consideringthefullrangeofcaseswithwhichethnographyandeverydaylifepresentsus,infact,spaceseemstobevaryonacontinuumwithmechanicalandstatisticalmodelsasitspoles. ThereasonforLévi-Strauss‘unexpectedconceptualblindnessisperhapsthathelacksanyconceptofwhatastatisticalmodelofspacewouldlooklike.TheneedtoformulatesuchamodelunderliestheattemptedresolutionofLévi-StraussprobleminThe Social Logic of Space.5Inthattextitisarguedthatleavingasideissuesofsheerscale,whicharethemselvesmorphologicallysignificant,theinvestmentsocietiesmakeinspacevariesalongthreefundamentaldimensions:thedegreetowhichspaceisstructuredatall,thedegreetowhichspaceisassigned

Visible colleges192



SpaceSyntax

specificsocialmeanings,andthetypeofconfigurationused.Acrosstherangeofknownsocieties,thefirstgivesacontinuumfromnon-ordertoorder;thesecondgivesacontinuumfromnon-meaningtomeaning;andthethirdgivesfundamentaldifferencesinactualspatialformacrossarangeofspatialvariables.6

Morphogenetic modelsTheonlytypeofmodelthatmightsucceedinshowingafieldofphenomenawiththesedimensionsofvariabilitytobea‘systemoftransformations’(touseafavouriteexpressionofLévi-Strauss)is,itwasarguedinThe Social Logic of Space,amodelinwhichrulesareconceivedofnotasmentalentitiesproducingprojectionsorreflectionsofthemselvesintherealworld,butasrestrictionimposedonanotherwiserandomgenerativeprocess—say,acellaggregationmodel,oramodelgeneratingrelationshipsinagraph.Insuchamodel,rulesandrandomnesscaninteracttoproducenotonlyknownoutcomes,butalsonewoutcomesormorphogenesis.Caseswereshowninwhichamorphogenicmodelbasedoncellaggregationsrandomisedapartfrompurelylocalrules(i.e.specifyingonlyrelationsofcellstoanimmediateneighbor)wasabletogenerate—andbydirectinferenceto‘explain’somethingabout—commonglobaltopologicalpropertiesofgroupsofapparentlyrandomsettlementforms.7

Butcomputerexperimentationhasshownthatsuchmorphogenesisoccursonlywheretherulesrestrictingtherandomprocessarefew,andlocalintheirscope.Themoretherulesbecometoomanyortooglobal(i.e.specifyingrelationsbeyondthosewithimmediateneighbors—forexamplebyrequiringlinesofsightcoveringgroupsofacertainsize)-themorethegenerativeprocesswilltendtoproducereflectionsorprojectionsofthoserules.Morphogenesisinsuchsystemsrequires,itseems,theco-presenceofrandomnessandrulesrestrictingthatrandomness. Suchco-presencecanariseonlytotheextentthatthenumberofpossiblerelationsthatcellscanenterintoinanaggregationprocessissignificantlymorethanthosespecifiedbyrules.Thehighertheproportionofpossiblespatialrelationsspecifiedbytherules,andthemoreglobalthoserules,thelesstheprocesshasmorphogeneticpotential,andthemoreitwillconservetheformgivenbytherules.Conversely,thelowertheproportionofpossiblerelationsspecifiedbyrules,thegreaterthemorphologicalpotential.Moresuccinctly,wecansaythatshortdescriptions,or‘shortmodels’aswehavecometocallthem,insertedinrandomprocessestendtomorphogenesis,whilelongdescriptions,or‘longmodels’,tendtoconserve. Wealsofindthattheshorterthemodelthelargertheequivalenceclassofglobalformsthatcanresult,andthemoretheseformswill,whilesharing‘genotypical’similarities,beindividuallydifferent.Thelongerthedescriptionrequired,thesmallertheequivalenceclassandthemoreindividualswillresembleoneanother.Inotherwords,shortmodelstendtoindividuationaswellasmorphogenesis,whereaslongmodelstendtoconformityaswellasconservation. Afurtherrefinementofthistheoreticalmodelcanincorporateanothersignificantdimension:thatofsocialmeaning.Inwhathasbeendescribedsofar,it

Visible colleges193



SpaceSyntax

hasbeenassumedthattheelementsofagenerativeprocessareinterchangeableanddonothaveindividualidentities.Ifwenowassignindividualidentities—orevengroupidentities—toindividualcells,andassignindividualsorcategoriestospecificrelationswithotherindividualsorcategorieswithinthesystem,thenthedescriptionrequiredtorestrictrandomnessisstillfurtherlengthened,sincerelationsbetweenspecificelementsorgroupsofelementsneedtobespecified—thoughthistimebytrans-spatialorconceptualratherthanpurelyspatialrules. Thisismosteconomicallyconceivedofastheimpositionof‘non-interchangeability’ontheelementsofthegenerativeprocess.Whileappearinginitiallytobetheadditionofentitiesofanentirelydifferentkind—thoseassociatedwithsocial‘meaning’—theconceptofnon-interchangeabilityshowsthatthesecanbebroughtwithinthetheoreticalscopeoflongandshortmodels.Thelimitingcaseofsuchanon-interchangeablesystemisoneinwhicheverycellhasaspecifiedrelationtoallothersinthesystem.ThislimitseemstobeapproachedinthefamouscaseoftheBororovillageused(thoughnotoriginated)byLévi-Strauss.8

Thecontinuumoflongandshortmodelsis,webelieve,thegeneralformofLévi-Strauss’distinctionbetweenmechanical(long)andstatistical(short)models.Unifyingbothintoasingleschemeofthings,oneisabletoseethatthestatisticalandthemechanical,whileappearingtocharacterisequitedifferentresearchapproachestohumanaffairs(inthatsociologytendstothestatisticalwhileanthropologytendstothemechanical),areinfactaspectsofanunderlyingcontinuumofpossibilitythatrunsrightthroughhumanaffairsinallsocieties. Simpleexamplescanbesetwithinthemodelandclarified.Forexample,aritualisasetofbehavioursinwhichallsequencesandallrelationsarespecifiedbyrules—thatis,itisalong-modelevent.Ofitsnature,aritualeliminatestherandom.Itsobjectistoconserveandre-expressitsform.Aparty,ontheotherhand,whileitmaybecasuallydescribedasasocialritual,isashort-modelevent.Itsobjectismorphogenetic:thegenerationofnewrelationalpatternsbymaximisingtherandomnessofencounterthroughspatialproximityandmovement. Nottheleastinterestingpropertyoflongandshortmodelsforourpresentpurposesisthattheyappeartogivegoodcharacterisationofbothspatialpatternsandtypesofhumanencounter(encounterbeingthespatialrealisationofthesocial),sothatonecanbegintoseepossiblegenericrelationshipsamongthem.Shortmodels,itseems,requirespacetobecompressedbecausetheydependontherandomgenerationofevents,andthisbecomesmoredifficulttothedegreethatdistancehastobeovercome.Longmodelsontheotherhandtendtobeusedtoovercomedistanceandtomakerelationshipsthatarenotgivenautomaticallyinthelocalspatialzone.Societiestypicallyuseceremoniesandritualtoovercomespatialseparationandreinforcerelationshipsthatarenotnaturallymadeintheeverydayspatialdomain.Informality,incontrast,isassociatedexactlywiththelocalspatialzoneandishardertoretainatadistance.Greaterspace,asMaryDouglasonceobserved,meansmoreformality.9

Lookedatthisway,onecanseethatsocietyactuallyhasacertainrudimentary

Visible colleges194



SpaceSyntax

‘spatiallogic’builtintoit,whichlinksthefrequencyofencounterswiththetypeofencounters.Bythesamelogic,thetypingofencountersbetweenshortandlongmodelsgeneratesaneedtopatternthelocalspatialdomaintostructuretherangeofencountertypes.Inthisway,spaceasaphysicalarrangementbeginstoacquireasociallogic. Thisreformulationoftheproblemofspaceleadstoaresearchprogrammeinwhichtheobjectofinvestigationishowthetwomorphologiesofspaceandencounterarepatterned.Researchcanthusproceedwithoutanypresumptionofdeterminism.Ifsocialencountershavetheirownspatiallogicandspacehasitsownsociallogic,andthetaskofresearchistounderstandhowtheyrelatemorphologically,thenthenaïveparadigmofcauseandeffectbetweenenvironmentandbehaviourcanbeavoided.Indeedonecanseethattheterm‘environment’usedinthiscontextisindangerofitselfsettingupthisfalseparadigmoftheproblemitseekstoaddress,10sinceitpresupposesanambientcircumstancewithsomespecificinfluentialrelationtothebehavioursitcircumscribes.Thisparadigmisunrealistic,andithasbeencriticisedatlengthelsewhere.Evensoitisworthutteringawordofwarningthatthefallaciesofwhathasbeencalledthe‘manenvironmentparadigm’canalsobepresentinthenotionofthe‘setting’.11

Thesetheoreticalideashavebeensetoutatsomelengthbecausewebelievethattheanalysisoftherelationshipbetween‘thespatialsettingandtheproductionandreproductionofknowledge’12canproceedeffectivelyonlywithinthistypeoftheoreticalframework.Itisthistheoreticalframeworkthatthemethodologyof‘spacesyntax’seekstoconvertintoaprogrammeofempiricalinvestigation,byfirstinvestigatingspaceasapatterninitself,thenanalysingitsrelationshiptothedistributionofcategoriesandlabels(non-interchangeabilities),thensystematicallyobservingitsuse. Beforeexplainingsomethingofthemethodandthemodellingconceptsitgivesriseto,however,somecarefuldistinctionsmustfirstbeintroducedaboutthewayweusetheword‘knowledge’,sincethesehaveadirectbearingonhowthereproductionandproductionofknowledgerelatestospace.

Ideas we think with and ideas we think ofTostudyspaceandknowledge,wemustbeginbymakingafundamentaldistinctionbetweentwoeverydaysensesoftheword‘knowledge’.Thefirstiswhenwetalkofknowingalanguage,orknowinghowtobehave,orknowinghowtoplaybackgammon.Thesecondisknowingprojectivegeometry,orknowinghowtomakeengineeringcalculations,orknowingthetableofelements. Knowinginthefirstsensemeansknowingasetofrulesthatallowustoactsociallyinwell-definedways:speaking,listening,attendingadinnerparty,playingbackgammon,andsoon.Knowinginthissensemeansknowingsomethingabstractinordertobeabletodo,orrelateto,somethingconcrete.Knowledgeofabstractionsisusedtogenerateconcretephenomena.LetuscallthiskindofknowledgeknowledgeA,orsocial knowledge,sinceitisclearthattheubiquityof

Visible colleges195



SpaceSyntax

knowledgeAisoneofthethingsthatmakesocietyrun. KnowledgeAhasseveralimportantcharacteristics.first,wetendtouseitautonomically.Wearenotawareofitwhenweuseit,inthesensethatwhenwearespeakingsentences,thelastthingwewishtogiveattentiontoisourknowledgeoftherulesoflanguage.Therulesoflanguageare ideas we think with,whereastheconceptsweformthroughlanguageare,forthemostpart,ideas we think of.Itisnecessarilyso.Tobeeffectiveasspeakers,wemusttakeitforgrantedthatweknow,andothersshare,therulesoflanguage. Second,inspiteoftheevidentlyabstractnatureofsuchknowledge,wenormallyacquireitbydoing,ratherthanbybeingexplicitlytaught.Aswelearnwordsandsentences,wearenotawarewearelearningabstractrules.Onthecontrary,whatwearelearningseemsfragmentaryandpractical.Nevertheless,aslinguistshavesooftennoted,suchknowledgemustbeabstractinformsinceitallowsustobehaveinnovelwaysinnewsituations—thefamiliar‘rule-governedcreativity’. Third,weshouldnotethatknowledgeAworkssoeffectivelyassocialknowledgepreciselybecauseabstractprinciplesareburiedbeneathhabitsofdoing.Becausetheyaresoburied,webecomeunconsciousofthem,andbecauseweareunconsciouswealsobecameunawarethattheyexist.Ideaswethinkwithareeverywhere,butwedonotexperiencethem;theystructureourthoughtsandactions,butwehaveforgottentheirexistence.Thetrickofculture,itmightbeobserved,liesinthiswayofmakingtheartificialappearnatural. Knowledge B,incontrast,isknowledgewherewelearntheabstractprinciplesconsciouslyandareprimarilyawareoftheprinciplesbothwhenweacquireandwhenweusetheknowledge.Thuswelearnandholdprojectivegeometry,orhowanengineworks,orthetableofelements,insuchawaythatabstractprinciplesandconcretephenomenaseemtobeaspectsofeachother.Wemightverylooselycallthisscientific knowledge,makingtheonlycriterionforthistermthefactthatprinciplesaswellascasesareexplicitandcanbewrittendowninbooksandtaughtasaspectsofeachother. NowitisunimportanttoourargumentthatthereisnocleardemarcationbetweenknowledgeAandknowledgeB.Onthecontrary,thelackofclarityastowhatbelongswhereisoftenanimportantdebate.Forexample,inthefieldofspacethereisatheorycalledterritoriality,whichclaimsscientificstatus.WebelievethistheorynotonlytobewrongbutalsotobeknowledgeAmasqueradingasknowledgeB.Thatis,webelieveittobeinthemainaprojectionintoaquasi-scientificlanguageofnormativebeliefsandpracticesthataredeeplyingrainedinmodernWesternsociety—ideasthathaveindeedbecomeideaswethinkwithinarchitecture(Hillier1988)andnowneedthereinforcementofscientificstatus. ThereasonweneedthedistinctionbetweenknowledgeAandknowledgeBforourpurposeshereisthatallhumanspatialorganisationinvolvessomedegreeofknowledgeA.HowmuchknowledgeAisinvolvedisindexedbythelengthofthemodelthatstructuresspace.Butitisnotaone-wayprocessinwhichspacereflectsknowledgeA.Inshort-modelsituations,spacecanalsobegenerativeofknowledgeA.

Visible colleges196



SpaceSyntax

Examplesofthisrangeofpossibilitiesaregiveninthenextsection.However,knowledgeAisnotourprinciplesubjecthere.WeareinterestedinspaceandknowledgeB,triviallyinitsreproduction,non-triviallyinitsproduction.TheessenceofouransweristhattheconditionsfortheproductionofknowledgeBarelikelytoexisttotheextentthatknowledgeAisabsentinspatialcomplexes,andthattheshort-modelconditionsthatpermitthegenerationofknowledgeAalsohaveabearingonthegenerationofknowledgeB. ThisdoesnotmeanthattheabsenceofknowledgeAinspacewillalwaysleadtotheproductionofknowledgeB,orthatknowledgeBcanbeproducedonlywhenknowledgeAisabsent.WhatitmeansisthatintheabsenceofknowledgeAthespatialconditionsexistforallkindsofgeneration—newrelationships,newideas,newproducts,andevenknowledge—justasinthepresenceofknowledgeA,thespatialconditionsexistforallkindsofconservation—ofrolesandpositions,ofsocialpraxesandrituals,ofstatusesandidentities. Morebriefly,thepropositionputforwardinthispaperisthatbuildings,whichinsofarastheyarepurposefulobjectsareorganizersofspace,canactineitheraconservativeoragenerativemode.Theplaceofthespatialreproductionofknowledgeliesintheconservativemode.Theplaceofthespatialproductionofknowledgeliesinthegenerativemode.Whatthismeansinpracticemaysurprisetheproponentsofscientificsolitude.Space and knowledge ATheargumentcanbemademorepreciselybyillustratingthepresenceofknowledgeAinsomesimpleexamplesofdomesticspace.Socialknowledgeisbuiltintodomesticspaceinmanyways,butoneofthemostimportantisthroughconfiguration—thatis,throughtheactuallayoutoftheplan. Akeysyntacticmeasureofconfigurationisintegration.Thisisinitiallyapurelyspatialmeasure,butitgivesaconfigurationalanalysisoffunctionasonesimplylooksattheintegrationvaluesofthespacesinwhichfunctionsarelocated.Assoonaswecanidentifycommonpatternsinthedegreeofintegrationofdifferentfunctionsorlabelsinasampleofdwellings,thenitisclearthatwearedealingquiteobjectively(i.e.intermsofthepropertiesofobjects)withculturalgenotypesacquiringaspatialdimension—thatis,withsocialknowledgetakingonaspatialform. InChapter1thisnotionwasillustratedbythreeexamples.Theorderofintegrationofthedifferentfunctionswassimilarinallthreecases.Inotherwords,thewayinwhichspacesarecategorisedaccordingtothewaysinwhichculturearrangesactivities—whatgoeswithwhat,whatisseparatedfromwhat,whatmustbeadjacentandwhatseparate,andsoon—findsarepeatedform.Thiswesawasoneofthe‘deepstructures’oftheconfiguration.Wecalledthiskindofconfigurationalrepetitionacrossasamplean‘inequalitygenotype’,sinceitisanabstractunderlyingculturalform,assumingmanydifferentphysicalmanifestations,andexpressingitselfthroughintegrationalinequalitiesinthewaysthatdifferentfunctionsfeatureinthedomestic-spaceculture.

Visible colleges197



SpaceSyntax

ThiswouldseemtobeaclearcasewhereknowledgeAisembeddedinspatialconfiguration.Itcouldevenbesaidthatthespatialconfigurationconstitutesratherthanrepresentssocialknowables.Itbelongsinthedomain—largelyunconscious,becausehabitual—ofthelivedpatternofeverydaylife,ratherthanintherepresentationofthesepatternsthroughsymbols. Thelistofinvariantsinaninequalitygenotypecanbeextendedbyanalysingmoresubtlespatialproperties,suchastherelationbetweenpermeabilityandvisibilityamongthespaces.Themorethelistcanbeextendedandremaininvariant—orapproximatelyso—acrossasample,themoreitcanbesaidthatthegenotypeisalongmodeloraLévi-Straussianmechanicalmodel.InthecaseoftheFrenchfarmhouses,thegenotypeisfarfrombeingamechanicalmodel.Thereismuchthatvaries,apparentlyrandomly,amongthehouses,ensuringthateachretainsitsindividualspatialcharacter. Setintothegeneraltheoreticalschemeweareproposing,wemightsaythatthelistofinvariantsoverthelistofpossibleinvariantsacrossthesamplewouldbethelengthofthemodel.Forourpresentpurposes,wewillnotpursueprecisemeasurementtoofar,sincetoshowthepossibilityinprincipleissufficient.Butitcaneasilybeseenthatamorestereotypedhousingtype—saytheEnglishsuburbanhouse,wheremostspatialandfunctionrulesareinvariantacrossverylargesamples—willhaveamuchlongermodelthantheFrenchfarmhouses,wheremuchindividuationstillprevailsoveranunderlyinggenotypicalpattern.13Wecanalsosay,therefore,thatthelengthofthemodelsindexestothedegreetowhichthehouses,throughtheirconfiguration,reproduceknowledgeA.EnglishsuburbanhousesreproducemoresocialknowledgethandotheFrenchruralexamples.Strong and weak programsLetusnowconsidertwomorecomplexexamples,whichtakethemodeltoitsextremes.Todothisweneedtoinvokemovement.Inarchitecturalterms,movementisaverydullwordforaverycriticalphenomenon.Althoughweareaccustomedtotakingastaticviewofbuildingsbybeingconcernedprimarilywiththeaestheticsoftheirfaçades,thereisnodoubtthatfromthepointofviewspace,buildingsarefundamentallyaboutmovement,andhowitisgeneratedandcontrolled.Thetypeof‘inequalitygenotype’justdiscussedmaybepresentin,say,afactory(throughthedifferentdegreeofintegrationofmanagers,foremen,supervisors,workers,differentdepartments,andsoon,14butitisrathershadowyandfarfrombeingthemostimportantfeatureofthespatiallayoutanditsdynamics.Tounderstandthesemorecomplexsituationswemustinternalisetheideaofmovementintoourtheoreticalmodel. Letusbeginwithanexampleofwhatwecalla’‘strong-programme’building.Theprogrammeofabuildingisnottheorganisationithouses.Anorganisation,bydefinition,isalistofrolesandstatusesthathasnonecessaryrelationtoaformofspace,anditsdescription—althoughnotnecessarilyhowitfunctions—wouldbethesameregardlessofitsspatialconfiguration.Wemustgiveuptheideathatitistheorganisationthatisreflectedinthelayout(anotherLévi-

Visible colleges198



SpaceSyntax

Straussiancaseofamechanicalexpectationthatisusuallyunfulfilled)andlookforsomeaspectoftheorganisationthatdoeshavesomekindofspatialdimension. ‘Programme’isthenamewegivetothespatialdimensionsofanorganisation,andthekeyelementinanyprogrammeistheinterface,orinterfaces,thatthebuildingexiststoconstruct.An‘interface’isaspatialrelationbetweenoramongtwobroadcategoriesofpersons(orobjectsrepresentingpersons)thateverybuildingdefines:inhabitants,orthosewhosesocialidentityas individualsisembeddedinthespatiallayoutandwhothereforehavesomedegreeofcontrolofspace;andvisitors,wholackcontrol,whoseidentitiesinthebuildingsarecollective,usuallytemporary,andsubordinatedtothoseoftheinhabitants.Thusteachers,doctors,priests,andhouseholdersareinhabitants,whilepupils,patients,congregations,anddomesticvisitorsarevisitors.Aninterfaceinabuildingisaspatialabstractionassociatedwithafunctionalidea.Itcanvaryinitsform—think,forexample,ofthemanywaysinwhichtheinterfacebetweenteachersandpupilsinaschoolcanbearranged—butthebuildingdoeshavetoconstructitskeyinterfacesinsomeformorother.Thenotionofinterfacethusextractsfromtheideaoforganizationthespatialdimensionsthatmustberealizedinsomewayinthespatialformofthebuilding. Astrongprogrammeexistsinabuildingwhentheinterfaceorinterfacesconstructedbythebuildinghavea long model.Takeacourtoflaw,forexample,whichhasprobablythemostcomplexstrong-programinterfaceofanymajorWesternbuildingtype.Thecomplexityoftheprogrammearisesfromthefactthattherearenumerousdifferentcategoriesofpersonswhomustallbebroughtintothesameinterfacespaceinwell-definedrelations.Thelengthofthemodelarisesfromthefactthatspatialconfigurationmustensurethateachoftheseinterfaceshappensinexactlytherightway,andthatallotherpossibleencountersareexcluded. Theinterfaceinacourtoflawis,ofcourse,staticand‘synchronised’—meaningthatallpartiesarebroughtintothesamespace-timeframe.Butthewaytheinterfaceisbroughtabouthastodowithmovement.Thecourtoflawhasasmanyentrancesascategoriesofparticipant,andallentranceshavethepropertyofnon-interchangeability.Usuallyeachindependententranceisassociatedwithanindependentroute,oratleastwitharoutethatintersectsonlyminimallywithothers.Eachcategoryislikelyalsotohaveanindependentoriginanddestinationinandaroundthecourtroomspace. Theessentialcharacteristicofthecourtoflaw,consideredasasystemofmovementandstasis,isthateverythingthathappensisprogrammedinadvanceinordertostructuretheinterfacesthatmustoccurandinhibitallothers.Movementisthusconstructedbytheprogramme,andtheroleofspatialconfigurationisprimarilytopermitthenecessarymovementsandinhibitothers.Astrong-programmebuildingisoneinwhichitisnotthelayoutthatgeneratesthemovementpatternbuttheprogrammeoperatingwithinthelayout.Intermsofthemodel,itcanbesaidthatthewholespacestructureforstasisandmovementiscontrolledbyknowledgeA:itsaimistoreinforcecertaincategoricidentitiesandcreatestronglycontrolled

Visible colleges199



SpaceSyntax

interfacesbetweenthem. Nowletusconsideracontrarycase:theweak-programbuilding.Figure7.1ashowstheeditorialfloorofaleadingLondondailynewspaper.Impressionistically,itistheoppositeofthecourtroom.Itappearstobeahiveofactivity,withahighdegreeofapparentlyrandommovementandstaticencounter.Ifwenowanalysethespacestructureusingtheaxialconvention(inwhichthelongestandfewestlinesofsightandaccessaredrawnthroughalltheopenspace),thenanalyseitsintegrationpattern,wefindthatithasanintegrationcore(the10percentmostintegratinglines)ofatypefamiliarfromsyntacticstudiesofurbangrids(figure7.1b):asemigridneartheheartofthesystemlinkstostrongperipherallinesbyaseriesofroutes,keepingitshallowfromtheoutsideaswellasacrossitswidth.Ifwecarefullyobservethepatternofmovementandstasis,wefindthatintegrationvaluesofaxiallinesarepowerfulpredictorsofthedegreetowhichspacewillbeused(figure7.1c).Weseeherewhatwebelievetobeageneralprinciple:astheprogramofthebuildingbecomesweakerandmovestowardanall-play-allinterface,thedistribution

Figure 7.1aTheeditorialfloorofaleadingLondondailynewspaper,includingthemainitemsoffurnitureandequipment.

Visible colleges200



SpaceSyntax

Figure 7.1bTheaxialintegrationmapoftheopenspacestructureoftheeditorialfloor.

Figure 7.1cScattergramshowingthecorrelationbetweentheintegrationvalueofaspaceonthehorizontalaxisandtheobserveddensityofspaceuseontheverticalaxisaveragedovertwentyobservationsatdifferenttimesoftheday.Theoutlyingpoint(highestuse)isthephotocopyspace.Thedegreetowhichitisremovedfromtheregressionlineoftheremainderofthepointsindicatesthedegreetowhichitattractsuseduetoitsfunctionratherthantoitsspaciallocation.Thisshowshowitispossibletodetectthe“magnet”effectoffacilitiesagainstthebackgroundoftheusepatternofthespacialmilieu,r=.83,p<.001.

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Visible colleges201



SpaceSyntax

ofspaceuseandmovementisdefinedlessbytheprogramandmorebythestructureofthelayoutitself.Thisisbecausethehighnumberoforigin/destinationpairscoupledtotheintegratednatureofthelayoutmeansthattheby-productofmovement—movingthroughinterveningspaces—reflectsthepatternofroutesfromallpointstoallotherpoints.Inthiswaytheeditorialfloorcomestoresembleanurbansystem,wheremovementandspaceusealsohaveaweakprogramme.Inthiscasewecansaythatthegridisbehavinggeneratively:itisoptimisingandstructuringadenseandrandompatternofencounter,ratherthansimplyrestrictingittoreflectapre-existingsocialknowledgepattern. Theoreticallyitcanbesaidthattheeditorialfloorisashort-modelsetup;andthroughitsintegratinglayout,itsdensityofmovement,anditsstructuringoftheby-productofmovement,itisgeneratingnewencounterpatterns—thatis,itisactingmorphogeneticallyatthelevelofsocialencounter.Itscontentofsocialknowledgeandnon-interchangeabilityisweakandeverchanging.Thefunctionofspaceistobecreativebyfacilitatingandextendingthenetworkofunprogrammedencountersnecessarytotheefficientrunningofanewspaper.Spaceinthissenseisgenerative,orcreativeofknowledgeA.Itisgeneratingnewpatternsofsocialrelationship,whichmightnotexistoutsidethespatialmilieu. ThissameconstructcanbeappliedtothetypeofsocialstructuredescribedbyknowledgeA.Whenwelookforsocialstructureinanorganisationoneofthefirstthingswepickonasanindicatoristhedivisionoflabour,andimportantforourpurposeshere,themoreobviousthedivisionoflabour,themorestronglyweconsideranorganisationtobestructured.Inthissensewecanconsiderasocialstructureintermsofthelengthofthemodelneededtodescribeitsdivisionoflabour.Theshorterthemodel,themorethesocialstructurerequiredtocarryoutactualtaskswillbegeneratedthroughchangingday-to-dayneeds.Thelongerthemodel,themorethedivisionoflabouritselfwillservetoreproducethestatusquo.InrelationtoknowledgeA,therefore,bothspatialstructureandtheorganisationdivisionoflabourcanactineitheraconservative(reproductive)orgenerative(productive)mode,andbyandlargethiswillbedeterminedbythelengthofthemodelgoverningthedegreeofrandomnessinthesystem.Strong and weak ties, local and global networksButwhatabouttheproductionofknowledgeB—thekeyquestion?Canspaceinfluencetheadvanceofscience?Heretherearenoanswers,buttherearesuggestivestudies.Beforedescribingthem,wewouldliketopresenttwopiecesofresearchthat,whilenotconcernedwithspace,haveabearingonthematter. ThefirstistheseminalworkofTomAllen15oncommunicationandinnovationinR&Dorganisationsinengineering.Toquotehisownsummary:

Despitethehopesofbrainstormingenthusiastsandotherproponentsofgroupapproachestoproblemsolving,thelevelofinteractionwithintheprojectgroupsshowsnorelationtoproblem-solvingperformance.Thedatatothispointlendoverwhelmingsupporttothecontentionthatimproved

Visible colleges202



SpaceSyntax

communicationamonggroupswithinthelaboratorywillincreaseR&Deffectiveness.IncreasedcommunicationbetweenR&Dgroupswasineverycasestronglyrelatedtoprojectperformance.Moreover,itappearsthatinteractionoutsidetheprojectismostimportant.Oncomplexprojects,theinnerteamcannotsustainitselfandworkeffectivelywithoutconstantlyimportingnewinformationfromtheoutsideworld…suchinformationisbestobtainedfromcolleagueswithintheorganization…Inaddition,highperformersconsultedwithanywherebetweentwoandnineorganizationalcolleagues,whereaslowperformerscontactedoneortwocolleaguesatmost.(pp.122–3)16

ThesecondpieceofresearchisGranovetter’sworkonstrongandweakties,presentedunderthetitle‘thestrengthofweakties’.17Theargumentisthatanyindividualhasaclosenetworkofstrongties—thatis,friendswhotendtoknowoneanother—andamorediffusednetworkofweakties—thatis,acquaintanceswhonormallydonotknowoneanother.Weaktiesthusactasbridgesbetweenlocalisedclumpsofstrongtiesandholdthelargersystemtogether.Thewrongbalancecanbedisadvantageous.Forexample:

Individualswithfewweaktieswillbedeprivedofinformationfromdistantpartsofthesocialsystemandwillbeconfinedtotheprovincialnewsandviewsoftheirclosefriends.Thiswillnotonlyinsulatethemfromthelatestideasandfashions,butmayalsoputthematadisadvantagedpositioninthelabormarket…Furthermore,suchindividualsmaybedifficulttoorganizeorintegrateintopoliticallybasedmovementsofanykind,sincemembershipinmovementsorgoal-orientedorganizationstypicallyresultsfrombeingrecruitedbyfriends.(p.106)18

Granovetter’sworkfocussesprimarilyonsocialnetworksinthebroadercommunity,buthealsoreviewsworkontheroleofweaktiesinschoolsbyKarweitetal.19,andinachildren’spsychiatrichospitalbyBlau.20

AlthoughGranovetter’sworkrefersinthemaintothegenerationofknowledgeA,whileAllen’sreferstothegenerationofknowledgeB,thetwoargumentsaresimilar,inthatbothcastdoubtonthelong-assumedbenefitsofspatialandsociallocalism(smallcommunities,smallorganisations,smallgroupsofneighbours)andpointtotheneedforamoreglobalviewofnetworks.Ihaveputforwardsimilarargumentsabouturbanspace.21Recentarchitecturalandurbantheoryhasbeendominatedbysocialassumptionsofthebenefitsofsmall-scalecommunities,andspatialassumptionsofthebenefitsoflocalised‘enclosure’and‘identification’.Theeffectofboth,however,seemstobetofragmenttheurbanspacestructureintooverlocalisedzonesthatbecomeemptyofnaturalmovementthroughtheirlackofglobalintegration,andoftenshowsignsofphysicalandsocialdegenerationinacomparativelyshorttime. Allouranalyticstudiesofthestructureandfunctioningofurbanspace

Visible colleges203



SpaceSyntax

suggestthatitistheglobalscalethatiscritical,whethertothestructuringofco-presencethroughmovement,thesenseofsafety,thedevelopmentofsocialnetworks,orthedistributionofcrime.Thelocalsenseofplacearisesnotfromtheexistenceofsegregatedlocalzones,butfromdifferenttypesofdeformityintheglobalgrid.Thesameappliestosocialnetworks.Goodurbannetworksarenotself-containedgroupsbutdistributionsofprobabilitieswithinalarger,continuoussystem.Thekeyto‘urbanity’,wehaveconcluded,liesinthewaythelocalandglobalscalesofspaceandnetworksrelatetoeachother. Allofthesesuggestthatwhatisneededisatheoryofspaceinwhichtherelationsbetweenlocalandglobalscalesandthedialecticofstrongandweaktiesandofstructureandrandomness(throughlongandshortmodels)allinteract.Becauseanyspatialstructurehasthecapabilitytogeneratepatternsofco-presencethroughmovement,italsohasthepotentialtogenerateties.Spatiallygeneratedtieswillclearlyinthefirstinstancebeweakties.Themorelocalisedthetie,themoreonemightexpectspacetohavethepotentialtohelpturnaweaktieintoastrongtie.Indeed,inthelocalspatialmilieu,onemightwellexpectthespatialstrategiesofindividualstobeconcernedwiththeavoidanceoftheoverstrengtheningofties—inmuchthesamewayastherearespecialformsofsocialandspatialbehaviourtoresistthespatialpressuretomakerelationswithone’sneighboursstrongerthaniscomfortable.Theabilityofspacetogenerateweaktieslies,wesuspect,inthemiddlegroundbetweentheimmediateneighbouringgroupandthelarger-scaletrans-spatialnetworkthatismoreorlessindependentofspace.Probabilistic inequality genotypes in two research laboratoriesWecannowlookatcases.Figure7.2aistheopenspacestructureofLabXandfigure7.2bthesameforLabY.LabXwasconstructedintwophasesaccordingtoasingleplanningsystem,buttheLabYbuildingisdividedintothe‘oldbuilding’(horizontalintheplan)andtherecentlyadded‘newbuilding’(verticalintheplan). BothLabXandLabYbelongtowell-knownorganisations,buteachhasadistinctiveresearchstyleandmanagementstructure.LabXisthelabofalarge,well-establishedpubliccharityspecificallyconcernedwithacertainrangeofdiseases.Itsdirectorsetsupandfunds(accordingtoreputation,oftenlavishly)teamsledbyeminentresearchleaders,whosetaskistopursuespecificgoalslaiddownbythecharity.Theresearchprogrammeisthusgearedtospecificmedicalandtherapeuticgoals.LabYisorientedmoretotheacademicproductionofknowledgeandhasalessgoal-directed,moreindividuallyentrepreneurialformoforganisation;itsmembersforthemostpartdefinetheirownresearchprograms.Botharehighlysuccessful,butintermsoftop-levelperformance(asmeasuredby,forexample,thenumberofNobelprizes)thereislittledoubtthatLabYwouldhavetocountasthehigherflier. Whatfigures7.2aandbshowisausefulwayofrepresentingthedifferenceinthespatiallayoutofthetwolabs.Ineachfigure,allthe’freespace’—thatis,thespaceinwhichpeoplecanworkandmovefreely—iscolouredblack.Thisshowsthatinspiteofthebasiccellularformofeachbuilding,therearefundamental

Visible colleges204



SpaceSyntax

Figure 7.2aTheopenspacestructureofLabX

Figure 7.2bTheopenspacestructureofLabY

Visible colleges205



SpaceSyntax

Figure 7.2cTheaxialintegrationmapofLabX.Theaxialmappassesthefewestandlongeststraightlinesofaccessthroughthefreefloorspace.

Figure 7.2dTheaxialintegrationmapofLabY.

Visible colleges206



SpaceSyntax

configurationaldifferencesbetweenthespatiallayoutsofthenewandoldpartsofLabY,andbetweenLabXandtheoldpartofLabY.Inthelattercase,thedifferenceshavearisenfromaprotractedprocessofspatialmutationandadaptation. ThemostimportantconfigurationaldifferencebetweenLabXandtheoldpartofLabYisthatwhilebothhavecreatedinternalpermeabilitiesbetweengroupsofcells,linksaredeep(onthewindowside)inLabXandshallow(onthecorridorside)inLabY.ThenewpartofLabY,however,seemstocombinepropertiesofboth.Thesedifferencesareshownmoreclearlyinthe‘axial’mapsofeachlab,giveninfigures7.2cand7.2d,showingthedifferencesinthelocationoftheintercelllinks.Therearenodiscoverabletechnologicalreasonsforthisdifference.Howeveritisrepeatedonotherfloorsofthesamebuildings.Evenmorestrikingly,inanewbuildinghousingnewlabsofbothorganisations,thefloorlayoutsadoptedbyeachshowexactlythesametypeofdifferentiation. TherealsoseemtobefundamentaldifferencesinthespaceusepatternsofLabXandtheoldpartofLabY.TheoldpartofLabYseemstothecausalobservertobeahiveofactivity,whereasthenewpartandLabXseemtobescarcelyoccupiedatalluntiloneleavesthecorridorandentersthelabitself.Thisinitialimpressionseemstobecontradictedbytheactualdensitiesofuse.Intermsofnumberofpersonsdividedbythefulllabarea,orthequantityoffreefloorarea(thetotalareaminusthatoccupiedbybenchesandequipment)peroccupant,averagedensitiesarealmostidenticalinthetwolayouts. However,thepatternofuseisquitedifferent,ineachcasefollowingthepatternofspatialadaptation.ThemostobviousdifferenceisthatLabYhasspaceuseandmovementratesinthemaincorridoraboutfivetimesashighasthoseinLabX,withasubstantialcomponentofinteractionbetweentwoormorepeopleoccurringinthecorridor. Wecanmakethepatterndifferencesclearbydividingactivitiesintofourbroadkinds:contemplativeactivities(suchassitting,writing),practicalactivities(suchasworkingatthebench,whichusuallyinvolvesacertaindegreeoflocalmovement),interactiveactivities(suchasconversingortakingpartindiscussions)andnon-localmovement(i.e.movementthatisbasicallylinearandonalargerscaleratherthandescribingalocalconvexfigure,aswouldusuallybethecaseformovementinvolvedinworkingatalabbench).Wewilldescribeanactivityasoccurringdeepinthelabinsofarasitoccurstowardthewindowsideofthelabandawayfromthecorridor,andshallowinsofarasitoccurstowardthecorridorside.Obviouslysincebothbuildingsarecorridor-based,mostnon-localmovementwillbeintheshallowestspace—thatis,thecorridoritself. InLabX,contemplativeactivityconcentratesdeepinthelab,bythewindows(almostneverintheofficesprovidedforthis!),practicalactivitiesareusuallyspreadoverthefulldepthofthelab,andinteractiveactivitiesconcentrateintheregionoftheaxiallineslinkingthelabbaystogether(seetable7.1).Theselinksoccurdeepinthelab,whichmeansthatinteractiontendstooccurinthesameareasascontemplativeactivities,closetolocalmovementbutmaximallyfarfromnon-localmovement.

Visible colleges207



SpaceSyntax

InLabY,contemplativeactivitiesagainoccurdeepinthelabbythewindows,practicalactivitiestendtoconcentratetowardthecenterandshallowareas,andinteractiveactivitiesconcentratestronglyintheshallowareasclosetothecorridor—asinthepreviouscase,huggingtheaxiallinelinkingthelabbaystogether(seetable7.1).Thismeansthatinteractionoccursbothclosetolocalmovementwithinthelab,asinthepreviouscase,andclosetonon-localmovementinthecorridors,whereasignificantdegreeofinteractionalsooccurs. Putsimply(andinevitablysimplifyingtherealsituationsomewhat),wecansaythatinLabY,contemplativeactivitiesaredeeperthanpracticalactivities,whileinteractionisshallowandclosetonon-localmovement.Usingthesymbol‘<’tomean‘shallowerthan’wecansaythatinLabY:movement < interaction < practical < contemplative.InLabX,bothcontemplativeactivitiesandinteractionaredeeperthanwork,andremotefromnon-localmovement,sowecansaythatinLabX:movement < practical < interaction = contemplative. Table7.1belowgivesthemeandistance(inmetres)ofeachoftheactivitytypesfromthelocalintercelllinksineachbuilding.Sincethedistanceisthemeanofalargenumberofobservationsofindividualworkers,itprovidesa‘statistical’pictureofactivityinthetwobuildings.Thispictureshowsthatinteractionstaysclosetotheintercelllinksinbothbuildings,butthatthisleadstoitsbeingclosetoglobalmovementinLabYandremovedfromitinLabX.

Table 7.1 Movement Interactive Practical ContemplativeLabX 4.9 .93 2.85 1.09LabY 1.3 1.17 1.41 2.03Theseformulaesummarisingthespatialdynamicsofeachorganisationresem-blethe‘inequalitygenotypes’notedindomesticspace.Butwhereasthedomesticinequalitieswereanassociationoffunctionlabelswithintegrationvalues,andwerethereforemorelikeaLévi-Straussianmechanicalmodel,inthecaseoflabstheinequalitiesarepurelyprobabilistic,representingactivitytypesratherthansocialcategories,andthereforeresembleaLévi-Straussianstatisticalmodel. Wemightcalltheseformualeexpressingdifferentialspatialdynamics‘probabilisticinequalitygenotypes’andnotethatwhilebothareshort-modeltheyaffectthedynamicsoftheorganisationdifferently.InLabX,theprobabilisticinequalitieswouldseemtoworktoreinforcelocaltiesandmakethemstronger,thusreinforcingthelocalgroupattheexpenseofthelargergroup.InLabYtheinequalitiesseemtoactmoretocreateweaktiesatthelargerscaleandlinkthelocalgrouptoalarger-scalelevelofbetween-groupcontact. Wecannotyetdemonstratethatthesehaveeffectsonresearchproductivity.Whatwecansayisthatthepatternexists,givingrisetoamorphologicalconceptofworkorganisationsassomethinglike‘space-usetypes’,withsuggestiverelationsbothtoorganisationalobjectivesandalsotothetheoriesofAllenandGranovetter.

Visible colleges208



SpaceSyntax

Intermsoftheorganisationalnatureandobjectivesofeachlab,itwouldseemtobeamatterofhowtheboundariesofknowledgearetobedrawninspace—thatis,howthereproductionofknowledgeistobeorganisedinsupportoftheproductionofknowledge.InLabX,theobjectivesarefocussedanddefinedforthegroupbytheorganisationasawhole.Thespatialstructureofthelabandthespatialdynamicswithinitthusbothmirrorthisstructureandworktoconcentratetheeffortsofalocal,organisationallydeterminedunit.InLabY,themorefluidorganisation,basedmoreonindividualinitiativethanongroupobjectives(althoughdefinedbyacommonalityofacademicinterests),hascreatedanintensivelyinteractivespatialmilieuatthescaleofthefloorasawhole.Inbothcases,specificformsofsocialityarebuiltintotheworkprocessitself,ratherthanbeingsimplyaddedonbyspecial-eventsocialising—suchasgoingtosharedcoffeelocationsorhavingjointseminars(althoughthesealsooccur). Sofarastheproductionofscientificknowledge—thatis,knowledgeB—isconcerned,wemightproposethatthetwoformsofspatiallayouthaveradicallydifferentimplications.WhereasthestatisticaleffectofthelayoutinLabXhasledtotheseparationofinteractionwithinalabfromlarge-scalemovementbetweenlabs,intheoldbuildingofLabYthetwoarebroughtintocloseprobabilisticcontact.However,theexistingstateofknowledgeBisdefinedtosomedegreebytheorganisationaldivisionsintodifferentresearchgroupsstudyingparticulardefinedareasandphysicalscalesofscience.InthecaseofLabXitistemptingtosuggestthatthepredominantspatialmilieuleadstothereinforcementoftheselocal,pre-existingboundariesofknowledge.IntheoldbuildingofLabY,however,thetendencywouldbetobreaktheexistingboundariesthroughtherandomactionofthespatialmilieuatthelarge—betweenexistingboundaries—level. Moregenerally—morespeculatively—wemightsuggestthatwhileorganisationsalwaystendtolocalism,thestatisticaltendencyofthebuildingwillbeeithertoreinforcethisortoweakenitsboundaries.Everythingdependsonthelevelatwhichthespatialstructureofthebuildingintroducesrandomnessintotheencounterfield.Ourinstinctistosuggestthatthemorefundamentaltheresearch,themoreitwilldependontheglobalisingofthegenerativemodel.Incontrasttoorganisedevents,weaktiesgeneratedbybuildingsmaybecriticalbecausetheytendtobewithpeoplethatonedoesnotknowoneneedstotalkto.Theyare,then,morelikelytobreaktheboundariesoftheexistingstateofknowledgerepresentedbyindividualresearchprojects,organisationalsubdivisions,andlocalism. WemightsuggestthatthemorphogenesisofknowledgeB—likeallmorphogenesis—requiresrandomness.HowcanrandomnessbeinsertedintotheprocessbywhichknowledgeBisgenerated?Obviously,sincescienceisdonebyhumanbeings,itmustbebyrandomisingtheknowledgeAinputs.Itisatthislevel,itseems,thatabuildingcanoperatetogenerateorconserve.SpaceismorphogeneticofknowledgeBpreciselybecauseitcanrandomiseknowledgeA.

Visible colleges209



SpaceSyntax

Synthesis: creating phenomena and visible collegesThereisadebateastowhetherbasicscienceisanindividualoracollectiveactivity.Theevidencewearefinding(andwhichwehavepresentedonlyasexamples)isthatitishowtheonerelatestotheotherthatiscritical,atleastasfarasthestudyofspaceisconcerned.Space,wewouldsuggest,articulatesexactlythisdoubleneedfortheindividualandthecollectiveaspectsofresearch:howtocombinetheprotectionofthesolitarywiththenaturalgenerationofmorerandomisedco-presencewithothers—theneedforwhichseemstogrowthemoretheobjectivesofresearchareunknown. Butitisnotjustthatthenatureofscientificworkrequiresthiskindofsocialisation.Thereissomethingelse,wesuggest,intrinsictothenatureofscientificresearchthatgivesitaspecialdynamic.Itiscustomarytoseescienceasadialecticbetweentheoryandexperiment,with(psychologicallyincompatible)theoreticiansworkinginonecornerandexperimentersinanother.UndertheinfluenceofsuchtheoristsasPopperandLakatos,thelatetwentiethcenturyhasbeenpreoccupiedwiththeory(correctinganearlyfailuretounderstandthedeepdependenceofphenomenaontheory),seeingexperimentincreasinglyasnomorethantheservantoftheory. Hacking(1983)disagrees,andseesexperimentandtheoryasboundupinaquitedifferentway.‘Oneroleofexperiments’,hewrites,‘issoneglectedthatwelackanameforit.Icallitthecreationofphenomena.Traditionallyscientistsaresaidtoexplainthephenomenatheydiscoverinnature.Isaytheyoftencreatethephenomenawhichthenbecomethecentrepiecesoftheory’(p.220).22Phenomena,accordingtoHacking,arenotthesensedataofphenomenalism.Scienceisnotmadeofsuch.Phenomena,forscientists,aresignificantregularitiesthatareusefultospeculation. Phenomenaarethereforenot‘plentifulinnature,summerblack-berriesjustthereforthepicking’.Onthecontrary,theyarerare.‘Why’,Hackingasks,‘didoldscienceoneverycontinentbegin,itseems,withthestars?Becauseonlytheskiesaffordsomephenomenaondisplay,withmanymorethatcanbeobtainedbycarefulobservationandcollation.Onlytheplanets,andmoredistantbodies,havetherightcombinationofcomplexregularityagainstabackgroundofchaos’(p.227).23Becausephenomenaaresorare,theyhavetobecreated.Thisiswhythecreationofsignificantphenomenaplayssuchacentralroleintheadvanceoftheory. Hacking,likemostpeopleinthephilosophyofscience,isworkingonbigscience.Wearenotphilosophersofscienceandcannotofferusefulcommentonhispropositionsatthatlevel.Butwecanapplyhisstricturestoourownsituation.Speakingasresearcherswhoaretryingtorunalabsetupinasoftscience,weknowthatthecreationofphenomenaisthecenterofwhatwedo,eventhoughweseeourobjectivesasthecreationoftheory.Globalspatialcomplexeswithwell-definedmorphologicalproperties,generatedbyacomputeronarestrictedrandomprocess,arecreatedphenomena.Soareinequalitygenotypes,integrationcores,andscattergramsshowingcorrelationsbetweenintegrationvaluesandobservedmovementorcrimefrequencies.

Visible colleges210



SpaceSyntax

Ofcourse,muchofourdiscussionistheoretical.Buttheoreticaldebatecentresoncreatedphenomena,anditiscreatedphenomenathatcontinuallydestroyandgeneratetheory.Theoreticaldebatesurvivesdistance.Thecreationofphenomenaishardertoshareatadistance.Itisnotbecauseonediscussestheoriesbutbecauseonecreatesphenomenathatpeoplecannotbeabsentforlongwithoutbeginningtolosetouch.Thecreationofphenomena,itseems,ismorespatialthanistheory.Wesuspectitmayalsounderliethemorelocalisedspatialdynamicsofthelaboratory.‘What’ssogreataboutscience?Hackingasks.Hethensuggestsitisbecausescienceis‘acollaborationbetweendifferentkindsofpeople:thespeculators,thecalculators,andtheexperimenters’.‘Socialscientists’,headds,

don’tlackexperiment;theydon’tlackcalculation;theydon’tlackspeculation;theylackthecollaborationofallthree.Nor,Isuspect,willtheycollaborateuntiltheyhaverealtheoreticalentitiesaboutwhichtospeculate—notjustpostulated‘constructs’and‘concepts’,butentitieswecanuse,entitieswhicharepartofthedeliberatecreationofstablenewphenomena.24

Thelocusofthiscollaborationis,wesuggest,theresearchlab.Alabiswherethoughtfulspeculatorsareclosetothecreationofphenomena.Tobeabsentfromthelabisnottobeunabletotheorise,butitisnottoknowquicklyenoughorpreciselyenoughwhattotheoriseabout.Thisisnotofcoursetosaythatthecollaborationbetweentheoryandthecreationofphenomenacannotproceedatadistance.Onthecontrary,itisobviousthatitoftendoes.Butwhatsciencecannotdowithout,wesuggest,istheexistenceoflab-likesituationssomewhere,wherethecreationofphenomenaandspeculation—andprobablycalculationtoo,ifourexperienceisanythingtogoby—feedoffeachother. Suchvisible colleges are,wesuspect,thepreconditionfortheexistenceofscience’subiquitousinvisible colleges.Wheretheyoccur,aspatialdynamicwillbesetup,whichwillmeanthat,forawhileatleast,agoodplacewillexistinwhichsciencecanhappen.Thatgoodplaceis,probably,agenerativebuilding.OnlywhensuchconcreterealitiesexistsomewherewithintheabstractrealmoftheinvisiblecollegecanthatpeculiarformofmorphogenesisthatwehavecalledthecreationofknowledgeBbecomeacollectivephenomenon.AppendixThefullstudyoflaboratories,ofwhichtheresultsreportedinthischapterwereapreliminary,eventuallyproducedanevenmorestrikingspatialoutcome.ThedesignofthestudywasinformedbysomeoftheresultsfromAllen’sstudy25offactorsinfluencingsuccessininnovation.InpairedstudiesofdefenceresearchprojectsintheUSAwhereroutinelytwoindependentteamsarecommissionedwiththesamebriefandtheperformanceoftheirdesignsolutiontested,Allenstudiedtheinformationandcommunicationnetworksusedbythesuccessfulteamsinarrivingatinnovativesolutions.Themostimportantcontactsfromthepointofviewofinnovativeproblemsolvingwerenotthosewithintheprojectteam,butthose

Visible colleges211



SpaceSyntax

betweenpeopleworkingonentirelydifferentprojects.Itwasconjecturedthatitwastheserelationsbetweengroupsthatmightbeaffectedbybuildingdesign. Themainphaseofresearchwhichfollowedthepilotstudythereforetookasampleoftwenty-fourbuildingfloorsinsevensitesindifferentpartsoftheUnitedKingdom.Thesamplespannedpublic,privateanduniversitysectors,andcoveredarangeofscientificdisciplines.Allthelaboratoriesselectedwereconsidered’good’withintheirfield.Thestudyitselfaddressedawiderangeofspatialandenvironmentalissues,andincludeddetailedsurveysofspatialandequipmentprovision,observationsofspace-usepatternsandaquestionnairesurveytodeterminethestrengthofcommunicationnetworks.Thequestionnairelistedbynameall,oralargesample,ofthepeoplewhoworkedinthesurveyarea.Respondentswereaskedtoscoreonafive-pointscalethefrequencywithwhichtheyhadcontactwitheachindividualnameonthelist.Theywerealsoaskedwhetherornottheyfoundthatpersonusefulintheirwork.Althoughthequestionnaireswereconfidentialtheywerenotanonymous,sinceweneededtoknowforeachrespondentwhichcontactswerewithintheirresearchgroupandwhichwerebetweengroups.Weexpectedthatwithintheresearchgroupeveryonewouldknoweveryoneelse,seethemdaily,andfindthemusefulintheirwork,andthisturnedouttobethecase,withoutvariationattributabletospatialstructuring. Betweengroupcontacts,however,wethoughtmightshowspatialvariation.Toinvestigatethiswelookedatthedatanotfromthepointofviewofeachindividual,butcountinghowofteneachnameonthelistwascitedbyeveryotherrespondent.Theintentionofthis‘reversedcitation’methodwastoeliminatepossibleeffectsfromdifferentinterpretationsofthequestionsbydifferentrespondents.Eachnameonthelisthadanequalchanceofbeingcitedbyeachrespondent.Usingthismethodtoinvestigatebetweengroupcontacts,thefindingswereinteresting.Forexample,respondentswhowerefoundmostusefuloutsidetheirownresearchgroupswereneitherthemostorleastfrequentlyseen.Usefulnessandfrequencyofcontactwereclearlynotthesamething. Butthemoststrikingfindingswerespatial.First,themeanrateofinter-groupcontactsoneachfloorcorrelatedwiththemeandegreeofspatialintegrationofthefloorconsideredasaspatialcomplexonitsown,ratherthanintermsofitsembeddinginthewholebuilding.Theratesof‘useful’contacts,ontheotherhand,werestronglyrelatedtobuildingintegrationforthefloorsconsideredintermsoftheirembeddinginthewholebuilding.Morespatiallyintegratedbuildings,itseemed,increasedthelevelofusefulwork-relatedinter-groupcommunicationthatAllenhadfoundtobesoimportantforinnovation.Inotherwords,localintegrationpredictednetworkdensity,butglobalintegrationpredictednetworkusefulness.Astillmoresignificantfindingresultedfromrelatingthelocalandglobalmeasurestogether.Themoreglobalintegration—whichwemightexpecttobelessthanfloorintegration,duetotheeffectofverticaldivisionsordivisionofthebuildingintozonesfollowingtheenvelopedshape—approachedlocalintegration,thebettertheratioofusefultoallcontacts.

Visible colleges212



SpaceSyntax

Thesearestrongfindingsandsuggestthatspatialconfigurationinlaboratorybuildingscanaffectpatternsofcommunicationamongstresearchers.However,itdoesraiseaquestionregardingtheprecisemechanismthatcouldgiverisetotheseeffects.LighthasrecentlybeencastonthisthroughtheworkofPaulDrewandAlanBackhouseattheUniversityofYork.26Inastudyoflargeopen-planprofessionaldesignofficestheyusedcarefulobservationsandvideorecordingstolookatthebehaviourofworkersengagedinwork-relatedinteraction.Theyfoundthatwhenanindividualisathisworkstationheisusuallyregardedbyothersasengagedinworkandshouldnotbedisturbed.However,shouldthatindividualleavehisworkstationtomovetosomeotherarea,whetherornotthatmovementisdictatedbytheneedsofwork,heisregardedas‘free’andsoavailablefor‘recruitment’intointeraction.Theywrite:

Inplottingthemovementsofindividualswhenawayfromtheirworkstations,wefoundamarkedlyhighincidenceof‘re-routings’—caseswhereapersonnotablydeviatedfromhisrouteofpriorintentionatthebehestofanother,orinordertorecruitanotherpersonintointeraction.Asanindividualmovedintothevicinityofa‘significant’other,hewouldbe(a)engagedor‘recruited’,(b)histaskorientationwouldbealteredfromtheplannedtothecontingent,and(c)hispriortaskwouldbecomerelegatedtobecomeatask‘pending’attention.Theevidenceforthiswasfoundinthehighincidenceofindividualsrespondingtoverbalandnon-verbalrecruitments,andalteringtheirintendedcourseofactiontoaccommodatesuchrecruitment.Interestingly,notonlydoestherecruitedundergoatask-reorientation,buttherecruitermustalsochangehistaskashecannothaveplannedorexpectedtheappearanceoftherecruited.Inthissenseacleardivisionisapparentbetweentheorganisationofplannedimmediateworkandtheunplanned,contingentachievement.Assuchtheaccomplishmentof‘work’isoftenacontingentandunplannedprocess.(pp.16–17)27

Thismicro-scalemechanismsuggeststhatmovementinbuildingsmaybemoreintimatelyinvolvedintheworkprocessthanhashithertobeenrecognisedorallowedfor.If,asBackhouseandDrewsuggest,acertainproportionofwork-relatedinteractionarisesinthis‘contingent’andunplannedmanner,thenprovidingtheopportunityformovementandrecruitment,andtherecruitmentwhichresults,maybethekeytomaximisingwork-relatedcommunication.Themodelhasotherattractiveproperties.Tothedegreethatmovementtakespeoplefromonepartoftheorganisationpastworkstationsofpeoplefromotherpartsoftheorganisation,theopportunityforrecruitmentwillservetocreatecontactsbetweenorganisationalsegments.IfasAllenhassuggested,thesearetheimportantcontactsfromthepointofviewofinnovativeproblemsolving,wecanbegintoimaginethewaythatthismightwork. Wecanalsoimaginewhatwillhappenifwesetouttodesignourbuildingsandorganisationssimplywithefficiencyinmind.Letusassumethatthestateofknowledgeinthetaskareacoveredbyanorganisationisbroadlyunderstoodby

Visible colleges213



SpaceSyntax

managementandthatpainshavebeentakentostructuretheorganisationinarelativelyrationalway.Itfollowsthatgroupswithintheorganisationwillreflectthecurrentunderstandingandexistingstateofknowledgeofthetaskarea.Peoplewhothisunderstandinggivesustobelieveneedtointeractoftenwillbelocatedwithinagroup,thosebetweenwhomthereseemstobenorationalneedforcommunicationmaybeseparated.Stepsmayevenbetakenintheinterestsoforganisational‘efficiency’tominimisetheintrusionofunrelatedgroupsoneachotherandtominimisetheneedformovementonthepartofstaffbymakingsurethatallfacilitiesrequiredforworkareconvenientlylocatedneartoeachgroup.Thesewouldseemtobereasonablestepstotakeinordertoproducearationalandefficientbuildingplan. Whatwouldbetheeffectofsuchaplanontheprogressofthestateofknowledgeintheorganisation?Byandlargetheexistingstateofknowledgeinafieldisaprettygoodstartingpointforproblemsolving,butslowlyitwouldbecomeapparentthatotherorganisationsweremakingtheinnovativebreakthroughs.Thesebreakthroughsaresorareinanycasethattheirlackmayneverbenoticed.Thesolutionstoproblemsinthe‘efficient’organisationwouldlargelybeproducedasaresultofthepeopleputtogetherforthatpurposebytheorganisationonthebasisofcurrentknowledge,andbecausetheopportunitytointeractwithpeopleoutsidethatdefinitionofknowledgewouldbereducedintheinterestsofefficiency,theboundariesofknowledgewouldseldombechallengedorbroken. Inthissense,organisationalefficiencyandtrueinnovationmaysometimesruncountertoeachother.Innovationrequiresprobabilisticinteractionandtheopportunitytorecruitprovidedbybringingthelarger-scalemovementstructureclosertotheworkstation.Moreoveritrequiresthatthelarger-scalemovementtakespeoplewithknowledgeinonefieldpastpeoplewithproblemstosolveinanother.Inthiswayitseemspossiblethatspatialconfigurationofbuildingsandthedispositionoftheorganisationsthatinhibitthemareactivelyinvolvedintheevolutionoftheboundariesofscientificknowledgeitself. NotesNuffieldDivisionforArchitecturalResearch,The Design of Research Laboratories,ReportofastudysponsoredbytheNuffieldFoundation,OxfordUniversityPress,1961.C.Lévi-Strauss,‘SocialStructure’reprintedinStructural Anthropology.AnchorBooks,1967,pp282–5.Ibid.,p285.Ibid.,pp.275–6.BIllHillierandJulienneHanson,The Social Logic of Space,CambridgeUniversityPress,1984.Ibid.,p5.Ibid.,pp.55–63.Seealso:BillHillier,‘Thenatureoftheartificial:thecontingentandthenecessaryinspatialforminarchitecture’fromGeoforum,16(3),1985,pp.163–78.C.Lévi-Strauss,The Raw and the Cooked,HarperBooks,1964.MaryDouglas,NaturalSymbols,PelicanBooks,1973.

1

2

345

67

89

Visible colleges214



SpaceSyntax

BillHillier,andJulienneHanson,‘Asecondparadigm’,Architecture and Behaviour,3(3),1987,pp.197–203andHillierandHanson,The Social Logic of Space.BillHillier,andA.Leaman,‘Theman-environmentparadigmanditsparadoxes’,ArchitecturalDesign,August1973,pp.507–11.Ibid.JulienneHanson,andBillHillier,‘Domesticspaceorganisation’,Architecture and Behaviour,2(1),1982,pp.5–25.SeealsoB.Hillier,J.HansonandH.Graham,‘Ideasareinthings’,Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,vol.14,1987,pp.363–85.SeePeponis,J.‘TheSpatialCultureofFactories’Ph.D.thesis,UniversityCollegeLondon,1983.T.Allen,Managing the Flow of Technology,MITPress,1977.Ibid.,pp.122–23.M.Granovetter,‘ThestrengthofweaktiesfromSocial Structure and Network Analysis,editedbyP.V.MarsdenandN.Lin,SagePublications,1982,pp.101–30.Ibid.,pp.106.N.Karweit,S.HansellandM.Ricks,The Conditions for Peer Associations in Schools,ReportNo.282,CenterforSocialOrganizationofSchools,JohnHopkinsUniversity,1979.J.Blau,‘Whenweaktiesarestructured’,Unpublished,DepartmentofSociology,suny,Buffalo,NewYork,1980.BillHillier,‘Againstenclosure’,Rehumanising Housing,editedbyN.Teymour,T.MarkusandT.Woolley.Butterworths,1988.IanHacking,Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science,CambridgeUniversityPress,1983,p220.Ibid.,p227.Ibid.,p249.Allen,Managing the Flow of Technology.BackhouseA.andDrewP.,‘Thedesignimplicationsofsocialinteractioninaworkplacesetting’,Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,1990.BackhouseandDrew,‘Designimplications’,pp.16–17.

10

11

1213

14

151617

1819

20

21

22

23242526

27

Part three


Part threeThe laws of the field

Is architecture an ars combinatoria?Chapter eight

The laws of the field


Despite the merits of rectangular dissections as models of smaller plans, there is an increasing proportion of ‘theoretical possibilities’ for larger dissections which nevertheless become rather unlike the plans of buildings, and hence begin to lose their practical interest. Such dissections consist, certainly, of rectangular components corresponding to rooms, packed together in different configurations. But these configurations are not at all probable architecturally, in ways which are hard to pinpoint precisely, but are no less real for that. It is something to do with such facts as that real buildings tend to have limited depth, because of the needs of daylighting and natural ventilation, so that when large they become organised into regular patterns of wings and courts. Or that rooms are set along relatively simple and coherent circulations systems consisting of a few branching corridors which extend along the buildings’ whole length. There are many dissections which are made up, by contrast, of a deep maze like agglomeration of overlapping rectangles, many of them completely internal and through which any linking pattern of circulation routes would be circuitous and confusing. If we could capture properties like these in explicit geometrical measures, then we might be able to limit the study of dissections, for example, to a much reduced class of arrangements which would all be ‘building-like’ in some well defined sense. Steadman, 1983 The deepest root of the trouble lies elsewhere: a field of possibilities open into infinity has been mistaken for a closed realm of things existing in themselvesHerman Weyl

Endless corridors and infinite courtsNoideainthetheoryofarchitectureismoreseductivethanthatarchitectureisanars combinatoria—acombinatorialart:theideathatthewholefieldofarchitecturalpossibilitymightbemadetransparentbyidentifyingasetofbasicelementsandasetofrulesforcombiningthemsothattheapplicationofonetotheotherwouldgeneratethearchitecturalformswhichexist,andopenuppossibilitiesthatmightexistandbeconsistentwiththosethatdo.Byshowingarchitecturalformstobeasystemoftransformationsinthisway,theelementsandruleswouldbeheldtobeatheoryofarchitecturalform—thesystemofinvariantsthatunderliethevarietytobefoundintherealworld.Thebest-knownstatementofthishopeisthatofWilliamLethabywhenhecallsfor‘atruescienceofarchitecture,asortofarchitecturalbiologywhichshallinvestigatetheunitcellandallpossibilitiesofcombination’.1

Atfirstsight,thisseemspromising.Mostbuildingsseemtobemadeupfromarathersmalllistofspatialelementssuchasrooms,courtsandcorridors,whichvaryinsizeandshapebutwhichareusuallyfoundinfairlyfamiliararrangements:corridorshaveroomsoffthem,courtshaveroomsaroundthem,roomsmayconnectonlywiththeseormayalsoconnectdirectlytoeachothertoformsequences,andsoon.Similarly,theaggregatesofbuildingswecallvillages,townsandcitiesseemtobeconstructedfromasimilarlysmallandgeometricallywell-definedlexiconofstreets,alleys,squares,andsoon.Withsuchanencouragingstart,wemighthopewithalittlementalefforttoarriveatanenumerationofthecombinatoricpossibilitiesintheformofalistofelementsandthepossiblerelationshipstheycanenterintosothatwecanbuildareasonedpictureofthepassagefromthesimplestandsmallestcasestothelargestandmostcomplex. Unfortunately,suchoptimismrarelysurvivestheexaminationofrealcases.If,forexample,weconsiderthecross-nationalandcross-temporalsampleof177buildingplansbroughttogetherinMartinHellick’s‘Varieties of Human Habitation’,2wemaywellfeelinclinedtoconfirmataverybroadlevel—andwithgreatgeometricvariation—theideathattherearecertainrecurrentspatialtypessuchasrooms,courtsandcorridors,butwealsonotetheprodigiousvariationsofoveralllayoutwhichseemtobeconsistentwitheach.Thehistoricalrecordofactualbuildingsandhowtheyhaveevolvedsuggeststhatmostbuildingsaremorphologicallyunique,anditisfarfromobvioushowanycombinatorialapproachcouldreducethemtoalistoftypes. Evenifweisolatetheproblemofspatialrelationsfromthatofshapeandsizeby,forexample,analysingplansasgraphs,thenwestillfindcornucopianvarietyratherthansimpletypology.Forexample,arecentstudyofover500Englishvernacularhousesbuiltbetween1843and1930revealsexactlysixpairsofduplicategraphs,eventhoughthesamplewastakenfromasinglecountryduringaperiodwheresometypologicalcontinuitycouldbeexpected.3Plansseemtobeindividual,oftenwithfamilyresemblancesorcommonlocalconfigurations,butrarelyconsistentenoughorclearenoughtosuggestasimpledivisionintotypes. Theoreticalinvestigationsofarchitecturalpossibilityhaveledtoaneven

216

Is architecture an ars combinatoria?217



SpaceSyntax

greaterpessimism.Forexample,studieswhichhaveattemptedtoenumeratearchitecturalpossibility,evenwithinartificiallyconstrainedsystemssuchasthedissectionofrectanglesintopatternsofroomadjacencies,4haveinvariablyshownthatatanearlystageintheenumerationthenumberofpossibilitiesquicklyoutstripsthenumberofconceivablecases,andacombinatorialexplosionofsuchviolenceisencounteredastoexcludeanypracticalpossibilityofcontinuingfromsmallertolargersystems.ThusSteadmanconcludesinhisreviewofmodernattemptsatthesystematicenumerationofbuildingplansthat‘…forvaluesofn(thenumberofcellsinarectangular“dissection”)muchgreaterthan10,theextentofcombinatorialvarietybecomessogreatthatacompleteenumerationisoflittlepracticalpurpose;andindeedthatforvaluesofnnotmuchlargerthanthis,enumerationitselfbecomesapracticalimpossibility’.5

Thereareinfactstronga priorigroundsforSteadman’scaution.Althoughbycircumscribingwhatwemeanbyabuildinginunlifelikeways,forexample,bydealingonlywithrectangularenvelopes,orbystandardisingthesizeandshapeofspaces,onecanplacelimitsoncombinatorialpossibilitytothepointwherewecaninprinciplecountnumbersofpossiblearrangements,howeverlarge,themoreconstraintsoneplacesonthecombinatoricsystem,thelessweseemabletoaccountforthevarietywhichactuallyexists.Butifwerelaxtheseconstraints,itisfarfromobviousthatthereareanynumericallimitsatallonarchitecturalpossibility.Forexample,ifwerequireallcellstobethesamesizethennocellcanbeadjacenttomorethansixothers.Butifweallowcellstovaryinsizeandshapeasmuchasnecessary,thenwemayconstructacorridorsothatarbitrarilymanycellsaredirectlyadjacenttoit,oracourtsothatarbitrarilymanycellsarearoundit.Endlesscorridorsandinfinitecourtsmustsurelyleadustoabandonsimplecellularenumerationasaroutetoacombinatorictheoryofspatialpossibilityinarchitecture.P-complexes in a-complexesThereisinanycaseafurtherprofoundproblemintheunderstandingofbuildingsascellulardissectionsoraggregations.Anarrangementofadjacentcells,whetherarrivedatbyaggregationorsubdivision,isnotabuildinguntilapatternofpermeabilityfromonecelltotheotheriscreatedwithinit.Forexample,figure8.1ashowsasingleadjacencycomplex,whichwemaycallana-complex,inwhichfigures8.1band8.1cinscribedifferentpermeabilitycomplexes,orp-complexes.Forclarity,thep-complexesofbandcarealsoshownasgraphsin8.1dande. Evidently,thetwowillbespatiallyverydifferentbuildings,eventhoughthea–complexesareidenticalandeachp-complexhasexactlythesamenumberofopenandclosedpartitions.Overandabovethequestionthen,ofhowmanya-complexesthereare,wemustthereforealsoaskhowmanyp-complexesarepossiblewithinagivena-complex.Wethenfindasecondcombinatorialexplosionwithinthefirst:ofpossiblep-complexeswithinagivena-complex.Althoughana-complexwhosegraphisatree(seeChapter1)canonlyhaveonesinglep-structureinscribedwithinit(andthenonlyifwedisregardconnectionstotheoutside)assoonasthisconstraintisrelaxedwebegintofindthesecondcombinatorialexplosion:thatof




SpaceSyntax

b.

h.

a. c.

Figure 8.1

d. e.

f. g.

Figure 8.1




SpaceSyntax

thepossiblep-complexeswithineacha-complex. Suppose,forexample,thatwestartwithaversionofthe6×6a-complexshowninfigure8.1a,inwhicheachcellisdemarcatedfromitsneighbourbyatwo-thirdspartitionwithacentraldoorway,asinfigure8.1fandg.Obviously,everytimeweclose—orsubsequentlyopen—adoorwaywewillchangethespatialpatternofthep-complex.Thequestionis,howmanywaysarethereofinscribingdifferentp-complexesinthisa-complexbyclosingandopeningdoors?Wemayworkitoutbysimplecombinatorialprocedure.Firstwenotethataregularn×madjacencycomplexwillalwayshave(m(n–1)+(n(m–1))internalpartitionsbetweencells,giving(6(6–1)+(6(6–1))=60inthiscase.Thismeansthatthefirsttimeweselectadoortoclosewewillbemakingachoiceoutof60possibilities.Thesecondwillbeoutof59,sothereare609,or3540possibilitiesforthefirsttwodoors.Howeverhalfofthesewillbeduplicates,sincetheydifferonlyintheorderinwhichthedoorwayswereopened,soweneedtodivideourtotalbythenumberofwaysthereareofsequencingtwoeventsi.e.60×59/1×2,or1770.Thethirddoorwaywillbechosenoutof58remainingpossibilities,sotherewillbe60×59×58or205320possiblecombinationsofthree,butthenumberofduplicatesofeachwillalsoincreasetothenumberofdifferentwaysthereareoforderingthreeevents,thatis1×2×3(=6),sothetotalofdifferentcombinationsforthreedoorwaysis60×59×58/1×2×3or34220. Thetotalnumberofcombinationsforndoorways,willthenbe60×59×58…×(60–n)/1×2×3×…×n,oringeneral,n(n–1)(n–2)...(n–m)/m!Inotherwordsthenumberofduplicatesincreasesfactoriallyrisingfrom1,whilethenumberoftotalpossibilitiesismultipliedbyonelesseachtime.Thismeansthatassoonasmreachesn/2,thenthenumberbeginstodiminishbyexactlythesamenumberthatitpreviouslyexpanded.Thenumbersineffectpasseachotherhalfway,sothattherearethemaximumnumberofdifferentwaysofarranging30partitionsin60possiblelocations,butthisnumberdiminishesto1bythetimeweareopeningthe60thdoorway,justasitwaswhenweopenedthefirstdoorway.Thesecalculationsreflectasimpleintuitivefact,thatoncewehaveplacedhalfthepartitions,thenwhatwearereallychoosingfromthenoniswhichtoleaveopen,asmallernumberthanthepartitionswehavesofarplaced.Whenwehaveplaced59partitions,thereisonlyonelocationinwhichwecanplacethe60th,andthisiswhyifwecarryoutthecalculationatthispointitwillgiveavalueof1. Whatexactlyarethenumberswearetalkingabout?Theprocedurewehaveoutlinedcaninfactbeexpressedmoresimplyinawell-knowncombinatorialformulawhichcanbeappliedinanysituationwhereweareassigningagivennumberofentitiestoagivennumberofpossibleassignments.Ifthenumberofdoorwaysisd,andthenumberofpartitionsp,thentheformulap!/d!(p–d)!willgiveusthenumberofpossibilitieswhichwehavejustworkedout.Withp=60,thehighestvaluethattheformulacanyieldwillbewhendishalfthepossiblenumber,thatis60/2×30,andtheresultofthecalculation60!/(30!(60—30)!)is118,264,581,600,000,000(ahundredandeighteenthousandtrillion).Thesecondhighestvalue,114,449,595,100,000,000,willbewhendis29or31,thenext,103,719,935,500,000,000,whendis28or32,andsoon,




SpaceSyntax

andthelowest,1,whendis0or60,andthesecondlowest,60,whendis1or59.Thesekindsofnumbersofpossibilities,thoughquitemodestbycombinatoricstandards,arealmostimpossibletograsp.Togiveanintuitiveideaofthescaleofpossibilitieswearedealingwithinthemodestcomplex,wemightperhapscompareourmaximumnumberofpossiblep-graphsforthiscomparativelysmalla-graphwithanother18-digitnumber:thenumberofsecondsbelievedtohavepassedsincethebigbang(provideditoccurred15billionyearsago),thatisabout441,504,000,000,000,000.Thismeansthatifacomputerhadbegunatthemomentofthebigbangtodrawupallthesepossibleconfigurationsofdoorwaysforthisonemodestadjacencycomplex,thenitwouldhavehadtoworkatanaverageofoneeveryfoursecondstobefinishingnow.IfweprintedouttheresultsonA4sheets,andsetthemsidebyside,theywouldreachfromEarthtotheneareststarandback,or141,255timestothesunandback,orjustshortofabilliontimesroundtheworld. Thereareanumberofwaysofreducingthesevastnumbers.Forexample,eachp-complexwillhaveasmanyduplicatesastherearesymmetriesinthesystem.Wecanthereforereduceallourtotalsbythisfactor.Wemayalsodecidethatweareonlyinterestedinthosep-complexeswhichformasinglebuilding,thatisacomplexinwhicheachcellisaccessiblefromallotherswithoutgoingoutsidethebuilding.Themaximumnumberofdoorsthatcanbeclosedwithoutnecessarilysplittingthecomplexintotwoormoresub-complexeswillalwaysbe(n-1)(m-1),or25inthiscase.Nowayisknownofcalculatinghowmanyofthep-complexeswith25orlesspartitionswillbesinglebuildings,but,inanycase,therealismofthisrestrictionisdoubtfulbecausewehavenotsofartakenanyaccountofpermeabilitytotheexterioroftheform,andinanycase,acomplexsplitintotwoisstillabuildingcomplexandmaybefoundinreality. Moresubstantively,wemightexploretheeffectsonimposingSteadman’s‘lightandair’restrictionsontheform.Herewefindtheyarefarlesspowerfulthanwemightthinkinrestrictingp-complexes.Forexample,wemayapproximateaforminwhicheachcellhasdirectaccesstolightandairbymakinganinternalcourtyardasinfigure8.1hgiveortakealittleshiftingofpartitionstoallowtheinnercornercellsdirectaccesstothecourtyard.Combinatorially,thishastheeffectofreducingthenumberofinternalpartitionsby4to56,andthemaximumnumberthatmaybeclosedwithoutsplittingthebuildingby1to24.Thenumberofp-complexesthatcanbeinscribedwithinthea-complexisthereforestillinthethousandsoftrillions. Wewillfindthisisgenerallythecase.Theimpositionoftherequirementthateachcellshouldhavedirectaccesstooutsidelightandairmakesrelativelylittleimpactonthenumberofp-complexesthatarepossible,themoresosincedirectaccesstoexternallightandairwillalsomeananextrapossiblepermeabilityinthesystemwhichwehavenotsofartakenaccountof.Itisclearthatalthoughlightandairareinevitablypowerfulfactorsininfluencingthea-complex,theyplacerelativelylittlerestrictiononthepossiblep-complexes.Wemightevenventureageneralisation.‘Bodily’factorslikelightandairhavetheireffectonbuildingsbyinfluencingthea-complex,butdonotaffectthep-complexwhichisdetermined,




SpaceSyntax

aswehaveseeninpreviouschapters,andaswewillseemoregenerallybelow,largelybythepsycho-socialfactorswhichgovernspatialconfiguration. Ifweseebuildings,aswemust,asbothphysicalandspatialforms,thatisasa-complexeswithp-complexesinscribedwithinthem,thenwemustconcludethatbuildingsasacombinatorialsystemtaketheformofonecombinatorialexplosionwithinanotherwithneitherbeingusefullycountableexceptundertheimpositionofhighlyartificialconstraints.Isthecombinatoricquestionaboutarchitecturethenmisconceived?Ifitis,howthenshouldweaccountforthefactthattheredoseemtoberatherfewbasicwaysoforderingspaceinbuildings.Whatwemustdo,Isuggest,isrephrasethequestion.Architectureisnotacombinatorialsystemtout courtanymorethanalanguageisacombinatorialsystemmadeupofwordsandrulesofcombination.Inlanguage,most—almostallincombinatorialterms—ofthegrammaticallycorrectsequencesofwordsofalanguagehavenomeaning,andarenotinthatsenselegitimatesentencesinthelanguage.Itishow(andwhy)thesecombinatoricpossibilitiesarerestrictedthatisthestructureofthelanguage.Sowitharchitecture.Mostcombinatorialpossibilitiesarenotbuildings.Thequestioniswhynot?Howisthecombinatorialfieldrestrictedandstructuredsoastogiverisetotheformsthatexistandothersthatmightlegitimatelyexist?Itisthisthatwillbethetheoryofarchitecturalform—thelawsthatrestrictandstructurethefieldofpossibility,notthecombinatoriallawsofpossibilitythemselves. Howthenshouldweseektounderstandtheserestrictionsthatstructurethefieldofarchitecturalpossibility?Thereareanumberofimportantclues.First,astheresultsreportedinChapter4–8show,theconfigurationalpropertiesofspace,thatisofthep-complex,arethemostpowerfullinksbetweentheformsofbuiltenvironmentsandhowtheyfunction.Itisareasonableconjecturefromtheseresults,andtheirgenerality,that,intheevolutionoftheformsofbuildings,factorsaffectedthep-complexmaydominatethoseaffectingthea-complex.Bodilyfactorsaffectingthea-complexmaycreatecertainlimitswithinwhichp-complexesevolve,butbuildingsareeventuallystructuredbyfactorswhichaffecttheevolutionofthep-complex,becauseitisthep-complexthatrelatestothefunctionaldifferencesbetweenkindsofbuildings. Second,thepropertiesofp-complexesthatinfluenceandareinfluencedbyfunctiontendtobeglobal,oratleastgloballyrelated,configurationalproperties,suchasintegration,thatis,propertieswhichreflecttherelationsofeachspacetomany,evenall,others.Forexample,theaveragequantityofmovementalongaparticularlineisdeterminednotsomuchbythelocalpropertiesofthatspacethroughwhichthelinepassesconsideredasanelementinisolation,butbyhowthatlineispositionedinrelationtotheglobalpatternofspacecreatedbythestreetsystemofwhichitisapart(seeChapter4).Ingeneralwemaysaythatconfigurationtakespriorityovertheintrinsicpropertiesofthespatialelementinrelatingformtofunction. Theseconclusionsmaybedrawnasgeneralisationsfromthestudyofarangeofdifferenttypesofbuildingandsettlement.However,thereisafurther,moregeneral,conclusionthatmaybedrawnfromthesestudieswhichhasadirect




SpaceSyntax

andpowerfulbearingonourpresentconcerns.Ifweconsidertherangeofcasesstudiedasinstancesofrealp-complexeswithinthetotalrealmofthepossible,wefindthatascomplexesbecomelargertheyoccupyasmallerandsmallerpartofthetotalrangeofpossibilityfromthepointofviewofthetotalspatialintegrationofthecomplex,crowdingmoreandmoreattheintegratingendofpossibilityascomplexesgrow.Forexample,therecentdoctoralstudyofover500Englishhousesfromthemidninteenthtoearlytwentiethcenturyalreadyreferredto6withameansizeof23.6cells,hasfoundmostofthehousesliewithinthemostintegrating30percentoftherangeofpossibilityandallwithin50percent.Analysisoflargenumbersofbuildingsoveranumberofyearssuggestthatataround150cells,virtuallyallbuildingswillbewithintheshallowest20percentoftherangeofpossibility,andmostmuchbelowit,at300cells,nearlyallwillbewithinthebottom10percent,andataround500mostwillbewithinthebottom5percent.Itisclearthatasbuildingsgrow,theyuselessandlessoftherangeofpossiblep-complexes.Thesameistrueofaxialmapsofsettlements.7

Inshort,themostsignificantpropertiesofp-complexesseemtoberelatedtothedegreeanddistributionofspatialintegration—thatis,thetopologicaldepthofeachspacefromallothers—inthecomplex.Itfollowsthatifwecanunderstandtheoreticallyhowthesecharacteristicpropertiesofintegrationarecreated,thenwewillhavemadesomesignificantprogresstowardsunderstandinghowarchitecturalpossibilitybecomesarchitecturalactuality.Howthendoesintegrationariseinap-complexindifferentdegreesandwithdifferentdistributions?Thesimplefactisthatthepropertiesofanyp-complex,howeverlarge,areconstructedonlybywayofalargenumberoflocalisedphysicaldecisions:theplacingofpartitions,theopeningofdoors,thealignmentofboundaries,andsoon.Whatweneedtounderstandinthefirstinstanceishowtheglobalconfigurationalpropertiesofp-complexesspaceareaffectedbythesevarioustypesoflocalphysicalchange.Itwillturnoutthatthecriticalmatteristhateverylocalphysicalmoveinarchitecturehaswell-definedglobalspatialeffectsinthep-complex,includingeffectsonthepatternandquantityofintegration.Itisthesystematicnatureoftheseeffectsbywhichlocalphysicalmovesleadtoglobalspatialeffectsthatarethekeytohowcombinatorialpossibilityinarchitectureisrestrictedtothearchitecturallyprobable,sincetheseareineffectthelawsbywhichthepatternanddegreeofintegrationinacomplexisconstructed. Onceweunderstandthesystematicnatureoftheselaws,wewillbeledtodoubttheusefulness,andeventhevalidityofthecombinatorialtheoryofarchitectureintwoquitefundamentalways.First,wewilldoubttheusefulnessoftheideaofspatial‘elements’,becauseeachapparentspatialelementacquiresitsmostsignificantpropertiesfromitsconfigurationalrelationsratherthanfromitsintrinsicproperties.Evenapparentlyintrinsicpropertiessuchassize,shapeanddegreeofboundednesswillbeshowntobefundamentallyconfigurationalpropertieswithglobalimplicationsforthep-complexasawhole.Ineffect,wewillfindthatconfigurationisdominantovertheelementtothepointwherewemustconcludethattheideaofanelementismoremisleadingthanitisuseful.8Spatialelements,wewillshow,are




SpaceSyntax

properlyseennotasfree-standing‘elements’,withintrinsicproperties,waitingtobebroughtintocombinationwithotherstocreatecomplexesofsuchproperties,butaslocalspatialstrategiestocreateglobalconfigurationaleffectsaccordingtowell-definedlawsbywhichlocalmovesinduceglobalchangesinspatialconfigurations. Thesecondsourceofdoubtwillfollowfromthefirst:itisnotcombinatoricsper sewhichcreatecomplexesbutthelocaltogloballawswhichrestrictcombinatoricsfromthevastfieldofarchitecturalpossibilitytocertainwell-definedpathwaysofarchitecturalprobability.Thetheoryweareseekingliesnotinunderstandingeitherthetheoreticallypossibleortherealinisolation,butinunderstandinghowthetheoreticallypossiblebecomesthereal.Wewillsuggestthatthepassagefrompossibilitytoactualityisgovernedbylawsofaveryspecifickind,namelylawswhichgoverntherelationbetweenspatialconfigurationandwhatIwillcall‘genericfunction’.Genericfunctionrefersnottothedifferentactivitiesthatpeoplecarryoutinbuildingsorthedifferentfunctionalprogrammesthatbuildingofdifferentkindsaccommodate,buttoaspectsofhumanoccupancyofbuildingsthatarepriortoanyofthese:thattooccupyspacemeanstobeawareoftherelationshipsofspacetoothers,thattooccupyabuildingmeanstomoveaboutinit,andtomoveaboutinabuildingdependsonbeingabletoretainanintelligiblepictureofit.Intelligibilityandfunctionalitydefinedasformalpropertiesofspatialcomplexesarethekey‘genericfunctions’,andassuchthekeystructureswhichrestrictthefieldofcombinatorialpossibilityandgiverisetothearchitecturallyreal.The construction of integrationLetusbeginwithfigure8.1f,a6×6half-partitioneda-complexwithanisomorphicp-complexinscribedwithinit,thatis,allpartitionsarepermeable.Whatweareinterestedinishowthekeyglobalconfigurationalpropertyofintegrationisaffectedbyclosingandopeningthecentralsectionsofthepartitions.Tomaketheprocessastransparentaspossible,insteadofusingi-values,wewillusethetotaldepthcountsfromeachcellfromwhichthei-valueiscalculated.Half-partitionsmaybeturnedintofullpartitionsbyadding‘bars’,inwhichcasethecellseithersidebecomeseparatedfromeachother,withoutdirectconnection.Half-partitionscanalsobeeliminated,inwhichcasethetwocellsbecomeasinglespace.Ifallpartitionstoacellarebarred,thenthatcellbecomesablockinthesystem. NowaswealreadyknowfromtheanalysisofshapeinChapter3,thep-complexoffigure8.1fwillalreadyhaveadistributionofi-values,whichwecanshowinfigure8.2aastotaldepthvalues,thatis,thetotaldepthofeachcellfromalltheothers,withthesum,5040,shownbelowthefigure.Itisimportantforouranalysisthatweunderstandexactlyhowthesedifferencesarise,sinceallisnotquiteasitseems.Wewill,itturnsout,needtomakeadistinctionbetweentheshapeofthecomplexandtheboundaryofthecomplex.Atfirstsight,itisclearthatthedifferencesbetweenthecellsareduetotherelationofthecelltotheboundaryofthecomplex.Cornercellshavemostdepth,centreedgeratherless,thenlesstowardsthecentre.Ifwechangetheshapeoftheaggregate,sayintoa12x3rectangle,asinfigure8.2bthenalltheindividualcelltotaldepthswillchange,aswillthetotaldepthforthe




SpaceSyntax

aggregateasawhole(6330)reflectingthechangingrelationsofcellstotheboundary.However,ifweeliminatetheboundarybywrappingeitherofthetwoaggregatesfirstroundacylindersothatleftjoinedtoright,andthenintoatorussothattopjoinedtobottom,thenthetotaldepthsforallcellsineachaggregatewouldbethesame,sincestartingfromeachandcountingoutwardsuntilwehavecoveredallthecells,wewillneverencounteraboundaryandsowillfindthesamepatternofdepthfromeachcell.Thetotaldepthsofthecellswouldinfactbeequaltotheminimumdepthofthecellsintheboundedaggregate,thatisthegroupoffouratthecentreofthesquareform,whosevalueis108,andthepairatthecentreoftherectangularform,whosedepthis132.However,thisimpliesthatinspiteoftheremovaloftheboundaries,thesedifferencesbetweenthesquareandrectangularshapesstillsurvive.Thesedifferencesintotaldepthvaluesareitseemstheproductoftheshapeoftheaggregatebutnotofitsboundary. Thiscanbedemonstratedbyasimplethoughtexperiment.Takeacellularaggregate,saythesixbysixsquareandwrapitontoatorus,thusremovingtheboundary.Selectany‘root’cellandconstructajustifiedgraph—thatisagraphinwhichlevelsofdepthofnodesfromaninitialnodearealignedaboveaselectedroot

Figure 8.2

Figure 8.3

Figure 8.2

72

12

48

24

0

36

80

48

80

24

40

12

40

12

52

24

76

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

90

102

0

1272 48

60 36

30

18

18

6

144

222

234

132

144204 180

192 168

162

150

150

138

234 204 180 162 150 144

132

144 150

138

150

162

150

162

180

168

180

204

192

204

222

234

234

180

156

144

156

132

120

144

120

108

180

180

180

156

144

156

144

156

144120 108

132 120

156 144

144

120

108

108

120

144

156

132

120

120

132

156

total depth = 5040

c.

a. b.

d.

total depth = 6330

a. b.




SpaceSyntax

nodeinaseriesoflayersrepresentingdepth—inwhichallcellssharingadoorwaywiththerootarethefirstlayer,allthosesharingadoorwaytoafirstlayercellarethesecondlayer,andsoon.Whenthegraphreachesanycelladjacenttotheboundaryintheoriginalboundedaggregateintheplane,anynext,deepercellwithwhichacellinthejustifiedgraphsharesadoorwaywillalreadybeinanotherbranchofthegraph.Thusthejustifiedgraphfindsthelimitsoftheoriginalshapeoftheaggregate,eventhoughtheboundaryhasbeeneliminatedbywrappingonthetorus. Itfollowsthattheuniformdepthvaluethatwillbefoundinanyshapeonatoruswillreflecttheshapeandwillbeequaltotheminimumdepthoftheoriginalaggregateintheplane.Thiswillbe108forthesquareformand132fortherectangle.Adepthof108percell(threetimesthenumberofcellsinthecomplex)canthereforebesaidtobethedepthduetothesquareformhavingasquareshapeand132thedepthduetotherectangularformhavingarectangularshape.Whendealingwithastandardshapethereforewemay,ifwewish,eliminatethisamountofdepthfromeachcell,anddealonlywiththedepthduetotheboundary.Theseremainingdepthsareshownforthe6x6squareandthe12×3rectangleinfigures8.2candd.Theseboundaryrelateddepthsareduetothefactthattheaggregateboundaryisbarredfromitssurroundingregion.Ifweweretoopenallcellstotheoutsidebyopeningtheboundary,andtreatingtheoutsideregionasanelementinthesystemtobeincludedindepthcalculations,thenclearlythedepthvalueswouldallchange,particularlyifwecountedtheouterregionasasinglespace,inwhichcasecellsclosetotheboundarywouldhavelessdepththancellsatthecentre.Thisalertsustothefactthatinconsideringthebarring—thatistheconversionofhalfpartitionsintofullpartitions—inacellularaggregate,theboundaryisitselfaninitialpartitioning,andlikeanyotherpartitioningithaseffectsonthedistributionof

depthintheaggregate.Bearingthisinmind,wemaynowreturntotheplane,andholdshapeandboundarysteadybyconsideringonlythesquareform,inordertoexplorethedeptheffectsofaddingfurtherbarringswithintheaggregate.

Figure 8.3

Figure 8.2

72

12

48

24

0

36

80

48

80

24

40

12

40

12

52

24

76

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

90

102

0

1272 48

60 36

30

18

18

6

144

222

234

132

144204 180

192 168

162

150

150

138

234 204 180 162 150 144

132

144 150

138

150

162

150

162

180

168

180

204

192

204

222

234

234

180

156

144

156

132

120

144

120

108

180

180

180

156

144

156

144

156

144120 108

132 120

156 144

144

120

108

108

120

144

156

132

120

120

132

156

total depth = 5040

c.

a. b.

d.

total depth = 6330

a. b.

Figure 8.3




SpaceSyntax

Itisobviousthatfurtherinternalbarringwillincreasethetotaldepthforatleastsomecells,sinceitwillhavetheeffectofmakingcertaintripsfromcelltocelllonger.Itisperhapslessobviousthatthequantity,aswellasthedistribution,ofextradepthcreatedbybarswillvarywiththelocationofthebarinrelationtotheboundary.Forexample,ifweplaceabarintheleftmosthorizontallocationinthetoplineofcellsinfigure8.1,asinfigure8.3a,thetotaldepthintheaggregatewillbeincreasedfrom5040to5060,anadditional20stepsofdepth,whileifweplacethebaronetotheright,asinfigure8.3b,thentheincreaseintotaldepthwillbefrom5040to5072,anadditional32steps. Howdoesthishappen?First,allthe‘depthgain’infigures8.3aandbisonthelineinwhichthebarislocated.Onreflection,thismustbethecase.Depthgainhappenswhenashortestroutefromonecelltoanotherrequiresadetourtoanadjacentline.Evidently,anyotherdestinationonthatadjacentlineoronanyotherlinewillnotrequireanymodificationtotheshortestpath,unlessthatlineisitselfbarred.Depthgainforsinglebarmustthenbeconfinedtothelineonwhichthebaroccurs.Butplacingthebaratdifferentpointsonthelinechangesthepatternofdepthgainforthecellsalongtheline.Eachcellgainsdepthequaltotwicethenumberofcellsfromwhichitislinearlybarred,becauseeachtripfromacelltosuchcellsrequiresatwo-celldetourviaanadjacentline.Evidentlythiswillbetwoway,andthesumofdepthsonthetwosidesofasinglebarwillthusalwaysbethesame.Itfollowsthatthedepthgainvaluesofindividualcellswillbecomemoresimilartoeachotherasthebarmovesfromedgetocentre,becomingidenticalwhenthebariscentral.Italsofollowsthatthetotaldepthgainfromabarwillbemaximisedwhenthebarisatornearthecentreoftheline,andwillbeminimisedattheedge.Thisisillustratedforedgetocentrebarsona6-celllineinfigure8.4a,bc,andd. Thefactthatanedgelocationforapartitionminimisesdepthgainbutmaximisesthedifferencesbetweencells,whileacentrallocationmaximisesdepthgainbutminimisesdifferences,isahighlysignificantproperty.Itmeansthatdecisionsaboutwheretoplaceabar,orblockadoorway,haveimplicationsforthesystembeyondtheimmediateregionofthebar.Ifwedefinea‘localphysicaldecision’asadecisionaboutaparticularbarwithinasystem,anda‘globalspatialeffect’astheoutcomeofthatdecisionforthesystemasawhole,itisclearthatlocaldecisionsdohavequitesystematicglobaleffects.Inthesecases,thesystematiceffectsfollowwhatwemightcallthe‘principleofcentrality’. Itmightbeusefultothinkofsuch‘local-to-global’effectsas‘designprinciples’,thatis,asrulesfromwhichwecanforecasttheglobaleffectofalocalbarringdecisionbyrecognisingwhatkindofbarringwearemaking.Inthiscasethedesignprinciplesaretwo:thatthedepthgainfromabarisminimisedwhenthebarisplacedattheedgeandmaximisedwhenplacedatthecentre;andthatedgebarsmakeforgreaterdepthgaindifferencesbetweensomecellsandothers,whilecentralpartitionsequalisedepthgain. Similarprinciplesgovernlocal-to-globaleffectswhenweaddasecondbarindifferentlocationsasinfigure8.4e-j.Depthgainsforeachcellareequalto




SpaceSyntax

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

0 0 0 0 0 0

36 12 0 0 12 36

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

10 2 2 2 2 2

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

8 8 4 4 4 4

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

6 6 6 6 6 6

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

c. depth gain total = 32

a.

d. depth gain total = 36

b. depth gain total = 20

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

10 10 4 4 4 4

36 12 0 0 12 36

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

10 8 8 6 6 6

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

8 8 10 6 6 6

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

10 6 6 6 8 8

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

g. depth gain total = 44 h. depth gain total = 44

f. depth gain total =44

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

10 4 4 4 4 10

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

8 8 8 8 8 8

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

i. depth gain total = 36 j. depth gain total = 48

e. depth gain total = 36

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

10 10 10 6 6 6

36 12 0 0 12 36

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

10 10 8 8 8 8

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

10 10 6 6 6 10

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

10 8 8 8 8 10

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

m. depth gain total = 48 n. depth gain total = 52

l. depth gain total = 52

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

10 10 8 8 10 10

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

82

48

50

24

38

12

38

12

50

24

74

48

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

10 10 10 10 10 10

36 12 0 0 12 36

36 12 0 0 12 36

48 24 12 12 24 48

72 48 36 36 48 72

o. depth gain total = 56 p. depth gain total = 60

Figure 8.4

k. depth gain total = 48

Figure 8.4




SpaceSyntax

twicethenumberofcellsonthefarsideofthenearestbar.Foreachcell,barsotherthanthenearestoneithersidedonotaffectdepthsinceonceadetourtoanadjacentlinehasbeenmade,thenitcanbecontinuedwithoutfurtherdetourtoreachothercellsontheoriginalline,providedofcoursethereisnobarontheadjacentline(seebelow).Figure8.4k–pthenshowsthatdeptheffectsofthreetofivebarsaregovernedinthesameway,endingwiththefullybarredlineinwhicheachcellgainsdepthequaltotwicethenumberofothercellsintheline.Theseexamplesillustrateasecondprinciple:thatoncealineisbarred,thendepthgainfromthenextbarwillbeminimisedbyplacingitwithintheshortestremaininglineofcells,andmaximisedbyplacingitinthelongest.Wecancallthisthe‘principleofextension’:barringlongerlinescreatesmoredepthgainthanbarringshorterlines.Withineachline,ofcourse,theprincipleofcentralitycontinuestohold,andthedistributionofdepthgainsinthevariouscasesinfigure8.4followthesebothintheprincipleofextensionandtheprincipleofcentrality.Thustakingfigures8.4gandj,eachhasabarinthesecondpositioninfromtheleft,butgthenhasitssecondbarimmediatelyadjacentinthethirdpositioninfromtheleft,whilejhasitssecondbartwopositionsaway,equidistantfromtherightboundaryofthecomplex.Thisiswhyghaslessdepthgainthanjinspiteofitssecondbarbeinginamorecentrallocationinthecomplexasawhole,because,giventhefirstbar,whatcountsisthepositionofthenextbarinthelongestremaininglines,andinjthebarisplacedcentrallyonthatline.Thisshowsanimportantimplicationoftheprinciplesofcentralityandextension:whenappliedtogethertomaximisedepthgain,theygenerateanevendistributionofbars,inwhicheachbarisasfaraspossiblefromallothers;whileifappliedtominimisedepthgain,barsbecomesclusteredascloseaspossibletoeachotheralonglines. Supposenowthatinsteadoflocatingthesecondbaronthesamelinewelocateitonanadjacentline.Figure8.5a–jshowsthesequenceofpossibilitiesforthelocationofthesecondbar,omitting,forthetimebeing(butseebelow)thecasewherewejoinbarscontiguouslyinaline.Whenbarredlinesareadjacent,thenforeachline,thedepthgainisgreaterthanforeachbaralone,buttheeffectdisappearswhenthetwobarredlinesarenotadjacent,asinthefinaltwocases,kandl.Theeffectisidenticalifthetwobarsareonadjacentlinesawayfromtheedge.Theseeffectsarebestaccountedforbyseeingeachbarringoftwoadjacentlinesasdividingthepairoflinesintoan‘innerzone’,wherethereisonlyonebartocircumventineachdirection,andtwo‘outerzones’fromwhichtwobarsmustbecircumventedtogofromonetotheother.Theconjointeffectisentirelyduetotheouterzones,inthattogofromoneouterzonetotheother,thereisafurtherbartocircumventonceadetourtotheadjacentlineistakentocircumventthefirstbar.Depthgainforacellisthereforeequaltotwicethenumberofcellsthatliebeyondbarsoneitherline.Thusthevalueoftwelveintheleftmostexampleinthetoprowistheproductoftwicethefivecellsonthefarsideofthebarinthetoprow,plustwicethesinglecellonthefarsideonceyoumovefromthetoptothesecondrow.Similarly,thetotaldepthoftwoforeachofthecellstotherightofthebarinthetop




SpaceSyntax

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

12 2

36

12

0 0 12

36

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

14

104

2

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

16

6 6 8 8 8

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

18

8 8 6 6 6

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

c. depth gain total = 68 d. depth gain total = 68

b. depth gain total = 60

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

10 10 4 4 4 4

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

12 12 4 4 4 4

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

e. depth gain total = 60 f. depth gain total = 80

a. depth gain total = 44

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

14 14

106 6 6

36

12

0 0 12

36

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

18

8 8

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

2 2

66 6

16

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

108 8 8

14 14

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72


h. depth gain total = 68

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

10 2 2 2 2 2

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

12

24

48

72

48

36

36

48

72

8248

5024

3812

3812

5024

7448

36

12

0 0 12

36

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

72

48

36

10

36

12

0 0 12

36

48

24

12

72

48

36

k. depth gain total = 40 l. depth gain total = 56

g. depth gain total = 92

Figure8.5

1222

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

10444

2 2 2 2

6

2 2 2 2 2

6

4 444 4

142 2 2 2 2 1 2 124 4 4 4

10 10

4 4 4 4 6 6 66

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2

10 10 6 66

4 4 4 4

10 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

6 666 66

14 14

2 2 2 2 216

6 6 6

24

14 14

2 2 2 2 2

6 6 66 6

6 66 12 12 12

12 12 12

4 4 4 4

n. depth gain total = 124m. depth gain total = 140

Figure 8.5

Figure 8.5




SpaceSyntax

rowreflectsthefactthatonlyonecellisonthefarsideofthebarinthetoprow,andnoneareinthesecondrow.Thiscalculationofdepthgainwillworkforanynumberofrowsofcells,providingthatthebarsarenon-contiguous.Non-contiguityofbarsmeansthatthereisalwaysa‘waythrough’forashortestpath. Ifwethenaddathird(non-contiguous)baronathirdline,thentherearetwoalternativepossibilities.Ifthethreebarsareinechelon,asinfigure8.5m,then‘outerzone’cellsonallthreelineswillgaindepthadditivelyequaltotwicethenumberofcellsinalltheoppositeouterzones.Thisisbecausewhenthebarsareinechelon,theneverydetourtoanadjacentbarredlinemeansthatthebaronthatlineisstillbeyondwhereyouareonthatline,soafurtherdetourisnecessary.Innerzonecellsgainonlytwicethenumberofcellsintheouterzonesoftheirownlines. Ifthebarsarenotinechelon,asinfigure8.5n,thenthegainwillonlybeasfromapairofadjacentlinessincethebaronthecentrallinemustbesoplacedastoallowa‘waythrough’.Thecentrallinewill,however,gaindepthfromitsrelationtobothadjacentlines,andcanbecountedfirstinapairwithone,thenwiththeother.Iffournon-contiguousbarsareonfouradjacentlines,thenthedepthgainisaccordingtowhethertriosoflinesareinechelonornot,andsoon.Iftherearetwoormorebarsonthesameline,thenthecalculationswillbeaccordingtotheformulaalreadyoutlined.Ifoneoftheadjacentlinesisanedgeline,thenlikewise,thiscanbecalculatedaccordingtotheformulaalreadyexplained. Thesearethepossiblenon-contiguousbarringsonthesamegeneralalignment(i.einthiscaseallarehorizontal).Whatabouttheadditionofasecond(ormore)non-contiguousbarontheorthogonalalignment,asinfigure8.6a?Wealreadyknowtheeffectofthesecondbaronitsownline.Doesithaveaneffectonthelineofthefirstbar?Theansweristhatisdoesnotandcannot,provideditisnon-contiguous,becausewhileitisnon-contiguoustherewillalwaysbea‘waythrough’forshortestpathsfromcellsonotheralignments.Depthgainresultingfromabaronacertainalignmentcanneverbeincreasedbyabarorthogonaltothatalignment,whilethebarsarenon-contiguous. Whatthenaretheeffectsofcontiguousbars?Therearetwokinds:linearlycontiguousbars,inwhichtwoormorepartitionsformasinglecontinuousline;andorthogonallycontiguousbars,inwhichtwoormorebarsformaright-angleconnection.Withineachwecandistinguishcontiguousbarswhichlinkwithanotherbaratoneend,andthosewhichlinkatbothends.Firstletuslookattherightangle,orL-shaped,caseforthesingleconnectedbar.Figures8.6b–eshowthedepthgainpatternforthesimplestcase,atwobarL-shape,locatedatfourdifferentpositions.Thefirstthingwenoteisthatinallcasesthedepthgainson‘eitherside’oftheLareintotalequal,thoughverydifferentlydistributed.In8.6b,wheretheLfacesintothetopleftcorner,thedepthgainformsaveryhighpeakwithintheL,whichismadeupoftwoelements:first,thedepthgainsalongeachofthelinesofcellspartitionedbythebar,ofthekindwehaveseenalready;andsecondbytheconjointeffectofthetwobarsformingtheL,increatinga‘shadow’ofcells,eachwithadepthgainof2,whichmirrortheLshapeontheoutsidediagonaltoit.This




SpaceSyntax

isaphenomenonwehavenotseebefore,sincewithnon-contiguousbarsalldepthgainscanbeaccountedforbytheeffectsofindividualbars. AstheL-shapedbarismovedfromtoplefttowardsthebottomright,whilemaintainingitsorientation,asin8.6c,dande,wefindthatalthoughtheindividualeffectsofeachoftheconstituentbarsmakinguptheLremainsconsistentwiththeeffectssofarnoted,theconjoint‘shadow’effectdiminishes,becausethereislessandlessscopeforthe‘shadow’astheLmovestowardsthebottomrightandtheLshapefollows,ratherthaninverts,theLformedbythecorneroftheouterboundary.WeseethenthatinthiscasetheeffectofmovingtheLfromthecentretowardsthecornerwillbetodiminishdepthgain,asexpected,astheLmovestowardsacornerfromwhichtheLfacesoutwards,buttoincreaseitastheLmovestowardsFigure 8.6

Figure 8.6

b. depth gain total = 128 c. depth gain total = 108

d. depth gain total = 80 e. depth gain total = 44

2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2

4 4 4 4

4

4

4

4

48

8

8

2

2

2 2

2

2 2

2

2

6

6

66 6 6 6

6

6

6

30

2

2 2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2 2 2 2 6 10

10

4

4

4

4 4 4 16 8 8

8

8

10

2

2 12 2 2 2

2

2

2

2

a.

12

f. depth gain total = 516

12

12

12

121212

12

12

12

48

72 48

42

16 16 16

16

16

1610

10

101010

10

10 10

10

g. depth gain total = 144 h. depth gain total = 96


2

2

44 4

4

4

4 2

2

22

2

22

2

2

2

2

2

42

22 2 2 2

4 4 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

22

2

2

72

2

2

2

222

222

4

4

4

48

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

222

48

22 2 2 2

22 2 2 2

2

2

2

2

2

2




SpaceSyntax

acornerwheretheLfacesinwardstowardsthecorner. Atfirstsight,thisseemstocontradicttheprinciplethatedgepartitionscauselessdepthgainandcentralpartitionsmore.Infact,whatwehaveisastrongerinstanceoftheeffectnotedinfigure8.4a,wherethemostperipherallylocatedpartitioncreatedtheleastdepthgainoverallbutthegreatestdepthgainforthesinglecell.Thedepthgainwasfocused,asitwere,inasinglecell.In8.6b,thedepthgainisevenmorepowerfullyfocussedinasinglecell,bothbecauseitfocussesboththegainfromthetwobarsmakinguptheL,butalsofromthe‘shadow’.Inotherwordswhatcountsasthe‘otherside’ofthepartitionisexpandedbyformingcontiguouspartitionintoan‘enclosure’.Enclosure,wemightsay,means‘enclosurewithrespecttowhat’.Thegreaterthearea‘withrespecttowhich’an‘inside’regionisenclosed,thenthegreatertheenclosureeffectbythefocussingofdepthgain.Thisis,ineffect,ageneralisationofthe‘principleofextension’bywhichgreateroveralldepthgainarisesfromthegreaterscopeoftheeffectofthepartition.Infigure8.6b,thisextensiononthe‘otherside’oftheenclosureincludestheareabetweenthetwoalignmentsaffectedbythepartition,andthisincreasesitsextension. ThiseffectwillincreaseifweaddnewcontiguousbarstotheoriginalL-shape.Figure8.6fforexampleshowsthedepthgainpatternforanL-shapewhosearmsaretwiceaslongasinthepreviousfigure.ThedepthgainpatternissimilartothatforsingleL-shapes,butevenmoreextreme.Figures8.6g–jbreakthisdownbytakingeachofthecellsontheopensideofthebarringandshowingtheshadowduetothatcell.Thisiscalculatedbytakingeachopensidecellinturnandcalculatingthedetourvalueforeachshadowcell.Theshadowshowninfigure8.6fevidently,isthesumofthesesub-shadowsoffigure8.6g–k,plusthoseofthefourcellsonthe‘open’sideoftheL(whicharenotshown). Nextconsiderthelinearcontiguityofbars.Figure8.7a–gshowsaseriesofcasesinwhichbarsarefirstextendedlinearlytodoubleunitlengthandmovedacrossfromedgetocentre,andthentripleunitlength.DepthgainsarelargereventhanforL-shapedbars,andtherateofgainincreases,notonlyasthelineofbarsismovedfromedgetocentre,butalso,evenmoredramatically,asthenumberofbarsformedintoacontinuouslineisincreased.Forexample,thedepthgainfromasingleedgebaris20,risingto36asthebarmovestothecentre,butifweexpandthebarlinearlytoapair,thegainis180andifweaddathirdthenthegainis504.Thisreflectsasimplefactthattodetourroundonebar—sayanedgebar—toacellthatwasinitiallyadjacentrequiresa2celldetour.However,ifasecondbarisaddedinline,thenthedetourwillbe5cells,andifathirdisadded,thedetourwillbe7cells,andsoon.Thecontiguouslineofbarsisthemosteffectivewayofincreasingdepthinthesystem,firstbecauseitisthemosteconomicalwayofconstructinganobjectrequiringthelongestdetourfromcellsoneithersidetotheotherandsecondbecausethelongerthebarthemoreithastheeffectofincreasingthenumberofcellsoneithersideofit,thatis,ithastheeffectofbarringthewholeaggregate.Evidently,this‘wholeobjectbarring’willhavemoredepthgaintothedegreethatthe




SpaceSyntax

24 18 18 18 18 18

16

18

12 12 12 12

30

20

6 6 66 6

4

12 12 12

12 124 4 4 4

24

16

12

8 8 8 8

b. depth gain total = 160a. depth gain total = 100 c c. depth gain total = 180

60

50

30

12 12 1212 12

10 10 10 10 10

6 6 66 6

48 48

4040

24 24 12 12 1212

24 24 2424

20 20 2020

18 18 18 18 1818

30

36

30

36

30

36

30

36

30

36

30

36

d. depth gain total = 280 f. depth gain total = 504e. depth gain total = 448

h. depth gain total = 124

10

2

6

6

38

6

44

8

8

2

2 2

10

2 2

2 2

2 2

4

i. depth gain total = 200

4

18

16

18 24

8

20

4

16

8

8 8

8 8

8

8

4

4

44

16 16 16 16

12 12 12 1224 24

j. depth gain total = 336

16 16 16 16

24 24

32 32

Figure 8.7

g. depth gain total = 1980

90 90

8484

72 72 72 72 7272

90 90 9090

84 84 8484

30 30 30 30 30 30

54 54 54 54 54 54

Figure 8.7




SpaceSyntax

objectisbarredintotwoequalnumbersofcells.Thusinfigure8.7gthelongcentralbarcomesascloseaspossibletodividingthewholeobjectintotwoequalparts.Figure8.7h–jthendemonstratestheeffectoflinearityonthreecontiguousbars.Inallthree,atleasttwobarsarelocatedinthesecondpositionfromtheedge.In8.7h,thebarsareformedintoaU-shapegivingatotaldepthgainof124,28morethanwouldbegainedbythelinesindependentlyiftheywerenon-contiguous,andwithaverystrongpeakinsidetheenclosure.Infigure8.7i,whichisathree-barL-shape,thetotaldepthgainis200,104morethanthelineswouldhaveindependently,andwithalessstrongpeakwithintheenclosure.In8.7j,thetotalgainis336,240morethanforthelinesindependently,andwithamuchmoreevenspreadofvalues,withoutanysinglepeak.Thesedifferencesthusarisesimplyfromtheshapeformedbythethreecontiguouslines.Theprincipleisthatthemorewecoilupbars,andcreateaconcentratedpeakofdepthgainwithinthecoiledupbars,thenthelesstheoveralldepthgain.Depthgaininthewholesystemismaximisedwhenbarsaremaximallyuncoiledandconstructamaximallylinear‘island’ofbars.SincetheU-shapeof8.7happroximatesa‘room’,wecansaythatthemostintegrationefficientwayofarrangingthreecontiguousbarsistoformtheminto‘rooms’.Such‘rooms’willnotonlyhavetheleastdepthgaineffectonthespatialcomplex,butwillalsomaximisethedifferencebetweenthedepth-gainofasinglespace(i.e.the‘room’)andthatintheotherspacesofthesystem.Thisisthephenomenonwefirstnotedforedgepartitionsinfigure8.4. Nowifwereflectonfigure8.7j,wecanseethatallthedepthgainapartfromthatduetotheindividualbarsistothecentralbarandtothefactthatitconnectstwowaystoformthelineofthree.Thismeansthatifwestartfromasituationinwhichwehavethetwoouterbars,thentheadditionofthesinglebarconnectingthetwoouterbarsintoalineinitselfaddsadepthgainof272.Thisdoubleconnectingofbarstoformalineisthemostpowerfulpossiblemoveincreatingadditionaldepth,notleastbecauseitmustnecessarilyhavetheeffectofeliminatingaringfromthesystem. Wemaysummarisealltheseeffectsintermsoffourbroadprinciplesgoverningthedepthgaineffectsofbars:theprincipleofcentrality:morecentrallyplacedbarscreatemoredepthgainthanperipherallyplacedbars;theprincipleofextension:themoreextendedthesystembywhichwedefinecentrality(i.e.thelengthoflinesorthogonaltothebar)thenthegreaterthedepthgainfromthebar;theprincipleofcontiguity:contiguousbarscreatemoredepthgainthannon-contiguousbarsorblocks;andtheprincipleoflinearity:linearlyarrangedcontiguousbarscreatemoredepthgainthancoiledorpartiallycoiledbars.Allfourprinciplesgovernlocal-to-globaleffectsinthateachindividuallocalphysicalmovehasquitespecificglobaleffectsonthespatialconfigurationasawhole.Atthesametimetheseeffectsaredependentonthenumberanddispositionofbarsandblocksthatalreadyexistinthesystem.Thefourprinciplesallowustokeeptrackofthecomplexinter-relationshipsbetweenwhatisalreadyinthesystemandtheglobalconsequencesofnewmoves.Wemaythereforeexpecttobeabletoconstructprocessesinwhichdifferentsequencesofbarringmoveswillgiverisetodifferentglobalconfigurationalproperties.




SpaceSyntax

Elementary objects as configurational strategiesWewillseeshortlythatthisisthecase.Butfirstwemustshowthatthesameprinciplesthatgoverntheopeningandclosingofpartitions,alsogovernallothertypesofspatialmoveswhichaffectintegrationsuchasthecreatingofcorridors,courtsorwells,andevenchangesintheshapeoftheenvelopeofthecomplex.Letusfirstconsiderwells.Wellsarezoneswithinacomplexwhichareinaccessiblefromthecomplexandthereforenotpartofthespatialstructureofthecomplex.Theyactineffectasblocksinthesystemofpermeability.Wewillseethattheeffectsofblocksofdifferentshapesandindifferentlocationshaveconfigurationaleffectsonthewholesystemwhichfollowexactlythesameprinciplesasthoseforbars. First,letusconceptualiseblocksintermsofthebarringsystemwehavesofardiscussed.Ablockisanarrangementofbarswehavesofardisallowed,thatis,anarrangementoffourormorebarsinsuchawayastoformacomplete

Figure 8.8

d. depth gain total = 128 e. depth gain total = 96

f. depth gain total =484 g. depth gain total = 420

2

4

22

22

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

8

2

2

216

8

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8

8 8 4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

1212

12

12

24 24

24 24 24

24 24

24 24 24

2

1616

3636

36 36

161616

32

32

48

48

20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

a. depth gain total = 32 c. depth gain total = 48b. depth gain total = 40

20

18

2

2

2

2

2 2 2 2

8

8 4 4 4

8

66

2

2

2

2

44 4

4

4

4

66

6

6

Figure 8.8




SpaceSyntax

enclosure,sothatoneormorespacesiscompletelyseparatedfromtherestofthespatialsystem,andeffectivelyeliminatedfromit.Ablockisineffecttheeliminationofoneormorecellsfromthespatialsystem.Threepossiblecasesofsinglecelleliminationareshowninfigure8.8a,bandcwiththeresultingdepthgains.Becausetheblockbarslinesintwodirectionsallthathappensisthatthepatternofdepthgainresultingfromtheblocksfollowstheedgetocentrerules,asforbars.Therewillnot,forexample,alsobe‘shadow’effects,aswithL-shapedbars,becausetherelationbetweentheenclosedspaceandthoseontheothersideoftheL-shape,whichcreatedthe‘shadow’hasbeeneliminatedbythecompleteclosingoffoftheblock.Wemustnoteofcoursethatthedepthgainsfiguresarelessthanforasimplebarring,butthisissimplybecauseonecellhasbeeneliminatedfromthesystem.Wemayifwewishcorrectthisbysubstitutingi-valuesfordepthgains,sincetheseadjustdepthaccordingtothetotalnumberofcellsinthesystem,butatthisstageitissimplertosimplyrecordthedepthgainsandnotetheeffectoftheeliminationofacell. Figure8.8d–gthenshowsfourpossibleshapesandlocationsforblocksoffourcells,togetherwiththedepthgainsforeachcellandthetotaldepthgainindicatedbottomrightofthecomplex.Aswewouldexpectfromthestudyofbars,thecompact2×2blockhasmuchlessdepthgainthaneitherofthelinear4×1forms,andthelinearformshavehigherdepthgainsincentrallocationsthanperipherallocations(aswouldcompactblocks).Wemaynotethat,aswemayinferfrombars,thedepthgaineffectsfromchangesofshapearemuchgreaterthanthosefromchangesoflocation.Butalsoofcoursethelocationaleffectsofhighdepthgainshapes—thatislinearshapes—aremuchgreaterthanthelocationaleffectsoflowdepthgain—orcompact—shapes. Itisclearthatinthiswaywecancalculatethedepthgaineffectofanyinternalblockofanyshapeandthatitwillalwaysfollowthegeneralprincipleswehaveestablishedforbars.However,thereisanotherimportantconsequenceofthis,namelythatwecanalsomakeparallelcalculationforblocksplacedattheedgeofthecomplex.Thereasonthisisimportantisthatsuchperipherallylocatedblocksarenot‘wells’whichbydefinitionareinternaltothecomplex,butchangesintheshapeoftheenvelopeofthecomplex.Itisclearfromthisthatwemaytreatchangesintheexternalshapeofthecomplexinexactlythesamewayasinterior‘holes’withinthecomplex.Sincewehavealreadyshownthatsuch‘holes’arespecialcasesofbarring,thenthereisaremarkableunificationhere.Fromthepointofviewoftheconstructionofintegration—whichwealreadyknowtobethechiefspatialcorrelateoffunctionwithinthecomplex—itseemsthatpartitionswithinthecomplexarethesamekindofthingaschangestotheshapeofthecomplex,whethertheseareinternal,aswithwells,orexternal,aswithchangesintheenvelopeshape. Wewillnowshowthatthecreationoflargerspaceswithinacomplexsuchascourtsandcorridorscanalsobebroughtwithinthescopeofthissynthesisandbeshowntobethesamekindofphenomenonandsubjecttothesamelaws.First,wemustconceptualisewhatwemeanbythecreationoflargerspacesintermsof




SpaceSyntax

abarringprocess.Largeropenspacesinthecomplexarecreatedbyeliminatingtheexistingtwo-thirdspartitionsinsteadofcompletingthepartition,andineffectturntwoneighbouringspacesintowhatwouldthenbeidentifiedasasinglespace.Figure8.9a–ddoesthissoastosubstituteopenspacesfortheblocksshowninthepreviouscases,andgivestheconsequentdepthloss(thatis,integrationgain)foreachcell.Thedepthlossforthelargerspaceiscalculatedbysubstitutingthenewvalueforthewholespaceforeachofthevaluesintheoriginalformandaddingthemtogether.Totaldepthlossforeachformisshownbelowthefigure. Thefirstpointtobenotedisthatthedepthlossforashapeofagivensizeisaconstant,regardlessoflocationintheconfiguration.Thisisbecausefromthepointofviewofthelargespace,theeffectofsubstitutingasinglespacefortwoormorespacesistochangetherelationsofthosespaceswitheachother—thatistoeliminateacertainnumberofstepsofdepth—butnottochangetherelationsofthosespacestothelargersystem.However,althoughthedepthlossforthelargerspaceisconstant,itseffectsontherestofthesystemarenot.Infacttheyvaryinexactlytheoppositewaytotheblocks.Whereasperipherallylocatedblocksaddlessdepthtothesystemthancentrallyplacedblocks,peripherallyplacedopenspaceseliminatelessdepththancentrallyplacedspaces;andalineararrangement

Figure 8.9

a. depth loss total = -808 b. depth loss total = -622

c. depth loss total = -1174 d. depth loss total = -1008

2

4

22

22

-13

-12

-11

2

2

2

2

2

2-20

-18-17

-24

-25

-16

-19

-18

-17

-18

-12

-19

-13

-17

-11

-29-39

-39

-29

-30 -33

-16 -15 -14

-25 -20 -19-47

-21-26

-23-22

-29 -32

-41

-39

-31

-19 -12 -11 -10

-9

-18

-8

-11

-7

-10

-6

-9

-144

-24

-25

-17

-24

-24

-25

-25

-25 -25

-24 -24

-18-17

-16 -17

-25

-25

-17

-16

-24

-24

-17

-16

-18

-17

-18

-17

-144

-5-6 -4

-4-5 -3

-3-4 -2

-17

-15

-14

-17 -15 -14-34

-192 -192-16 -15 -14-23-22

-20-30 -33 -21-26

-25 -20 -19-47-29 -32

-47

-31 -9 -8 -7 -6

-41 -19 -12 -11 -10

-39 -18 -11 -10 -9-47

Figure 8.9




SpaceSyntax

ofcellsintoasinglespacehasagreaterdepthloss(moreintegrating)effectthanasquarearrangement,andthiseffectisgreaterwhenthelinearspaceisplacedcentrallythanwhenitisplacedperipherally. Thefirstfourcomplexesoffigure8.10showthesamecasesbutmarkingeachspacewithitstotaldepthfromtherestofthesystemratherthanitsdepthloss.Herewhatwenoteisthatidenticallargerspacesindifferentlocationswillhavedifferenttotaldepthsreflectingtheirlocationinthecomplex.Itisonlythedepthlossfrommakingtwoormorespacesintoonethatisidentical,notthedepthvaluesofthelocationofthesespacesinthecomplex.Thuswecanseethatacentrallyplacedopen‘square’ismoreintegrating(i.e.haslesstotaldepth)initselfthanaperipherallyplacedone,andthatalinearformwillbemoreintegratingthanacompactform.Theseeffectsareofcourseexactlytheinverseofthoseofblocks,andwemaythereforesaythattheyaregovernedbythesamelaws.Inthetwofinalexamplesinfigure8.10thefouropencellsarearrangedastwotwo-cellspacesratherthanasinglefour-cellspaceandshowanotherinverseprinciple:thatcontiguouslyjoinedspaceswillalwayscreatemoreintegrationthanacomparablenumberofdiscretespaces.

Figure 8.10

Figure 8.10

total depth = 3600

108

123

6

38 4

87

108

102

144 123

87

110

89110 24

8

20

133 87

4

89112

112 115 124 145

91 94 103 124106 24

91 88 97 118

127

24

106 32

98

93

93 102 123

109134

120

122

6128

95

97

105

127

4

134

156 134

109

124

103

125

total depth = 3430 total depth = 3558

total depth = 3702 total depth = 4092 total depth = 4110

72

84

66 78

99 99

98102

108 87

123 87102

108144 123

87

108

87

108

102

123

87

87

102

123

108

123

144

108

123

144

89110

89112

110133 87

105 118 139

84 97 118

84 93 114

84 93 114

84 97 118

105 118 139

99

91 88 97 118106

91 94 103 124106

112 115 124 145127 99

93124

134 109 103

156 134 125

93

103

125

93

103

125

134

109

109

134

134

156

124

124

134

156

126152 122 124 146

97

95

105

127

108

106

116

138

130

128

138

160

100

110

132

124

134

156

126

93

102

123

109

107

115

125

146

107 115 125 146

87 96 117

87

96

117

90

150

108

129

129

120

120

99

99




SpaceSyntax

Thusthefourprinciplesofcentrality,extension,contiguityandlinearitywhichgovernedthedepthgaineffectsofbarsandblocksalsogovernthedeptheffectsontheglobalsystemofcreatinglargeropenspaces,thoughinthecontrarydirection.Morecentralityforlargerspacesmeansmoreintegration,moreextendedlinesfromlargerspacesmeansmoreintegration,morecontinuityoflargerspacesmeansmoreintegrationandmorelinearityoflargerspacesmeansmoreintegration.Ausefulbonusisthatinthecaseoflargerspaceswecanactuallyseethattheeffectsarenotwithinthespacesthemselvesbutaretodowiththeeffectofthespacesontheremainderofthesystem. Wecannowdrawasignificantconclusion.Notonlypartitions,internalwallsandexternalshapechangesbutalsoroomsandlargerlinearorcompactopenspacessuchascorridorsandcourtshaveallbeenshowntobedescribableinthesameformaltermsandthereforetobe,inausefulsense,thesamekindofthing.Thishastheimportantimplicationthatwewillalwaysbeabletocalculatetheeffectsofanyspatialmoveinanysysteminaconsistentway,andindeedtobeabletopredictitsgeneraleffectsfromknowledgeofprinciple.Thisallowsustomovefromastaticanalysisoftheglobalimplicationsoflocalchangesinsystemtothestudyofdynamicspatialprocessesinwhicheachlocalmoveseeks,forexample,tomaximiseorminimiseoneorothertypeofoutcome.Whenwedothiswewillfindoutthatboththelocalconfigurationswecallelementsandtheglobalpatternsofthespatialcomplexasawholearebestseenasemergentphenomenafromtheconsistentapplicationofcertaintypesofspatialmove.Wewillcallthesedynamicexperiments‘barringprocesses’.Barring processesForexample,wemayexplorebarringprocesseswhichoperateinaconsistentway,saytomaximiseorminimisedepthgain,andseewhatkindofcellularconfigurationsresult.Inmakingtheseexperimentalsimulations,itisclearthatwearenotimaginingthatwearesimulatingaprocessofbuildingthatcouldeverhaveoccurred.Itisunrealistictoimaginethatabuilderwouldknowinadvancethedepthgainconsequencesofdifferenttypesofbarring.However,itisentirelypossiblethatwithinabuildingtradition,aseriesofexperimentsincreatingcellulararrangementswouldleadtoaformoflearningofexactlythekindweareinterestedin:thatcertaintypesoflocalmovewillhaveglobalconsequencesforthepatternasawholewhichareeitherfunctionallybeneficialornot.Wemaythenimaginethatourexperimentsareconcernednotwithsimulatingaone-offprocessofbuildingaparticularbuilding,butoftryingtocapturetheevolutionarylogicofatrial-and-errorprocessofgraduallylearningtheglobalconsequencesofdifferenttypesoflocalbarringmoves.Inthissense,ourexperimentsareabouthowdesignprinciplesmightbelearntratherthanhowparticularbuildingsmightbebuilt. Firstsomedefinitions.Wedefineabarringmoveastheplacingofasinglebarwhoseonlyknown(or,ontheevolutionaryscale,discovered)consequenceisitsdepthgainforthesystemasawhole.Abarringmanoeuvreisthenaplanned




SpaceSyntax

seriesoftwoormoremoveswherethedepthgaineffectofthewholeseriesistakenintoaccount,ratherthansimplytheindividualmoves.Manoeuvresmaybe2-deep,3-deep,andsoonaccordingtothenumberofmovestheycontain.Movesarebydefinition1-deepmanoeuvres.Amovemaybemadeintheknowledgethatonemoveeliminatesmoreofacertaintypeofpossibilitythananother.Forexample,abarplacedawayfromtheboundaryeliminatestwopossiblelocationsfornon-contiguousbars,whereasabarcontiguouswiththeboundaryeliminatesonlyone.Thisisimportant,sincethelocationofonebarwilloftenaffectwherethenextcango,anditwillturnoutthatinsomeprocessesinthe6x6complexnon-edgebarsexhaustnon-contiguousbarswithinaboutfourteensteps,whereaswithedgebarsitistwenty,andthismakesasignificantdifferencetoaprocess.Weallowthisknowledgewithinmoves,becauseitcanbeseenimmediatelyandlocallyasaconsequenceofthemove,providedtheprinciplesareunderstood. Bothmovesandmanoeuvresthushaveforesightaboutdepthgain,butonlymanoeuvreshaveforesightaboutfuturemoves.Arandombarringprocessisoneinwhichbarringmovesaremadeindependentlyofeachotherandwithoutregardfordepthgainoranyotherconsequence.Wemightsaythenthatindescribingmovesandmanoeuvreswearedescribingthedegreetowhichaprocessisgovernedbyforethought.Attheoppositeextremefromtherandomprocess,itfollows,therewillbetheprocessgovernedbyann-deepmanoeuvre,wherenisthenumberofbarlocationsavailable,meaningthatthewholesetofbarsisthoughtoutinadvance,

Figure 8.11

1

2

3

4

5 6 9 8 7

121110

13

15 14

18

16 17

19 21 20

242223

a. b.

c. d.

Figure 8.11




SpaceSyntax

andeachtakesintoaccounttheknownfuturepositionsofallothers. Letusnowconsiderdifferenttypesofbarringprocess.Figure8.11a–dsetsoutabarringprocessof24bars,numberedinorderofplacementinwhicheachmoveisdesignedtomaximisedepthgain.Wechoose24because25isthemaximumthatcanbeplacedwithoutdividingtheaggregateintodiscontinuouszones(thatis,ineffect,intotwobuildings),andonelessmeansthatone‘ring’willremaininthecirculationsystem(thatis,onecycleinitsgraph),sothatifthereisaprocesswhichmaximisessomepropertyofthisringthenwemightfindoutwhatitis.Barsarenumberedinorderofplacing,andwewillnowreviewthisordering. Tomaximisedepthgain,ourfirstbar—bar1—mustbeplacedexactlytobisectalineofcells.Itdoesnotmatterwhichweselect,sincetheeffectofallsuchbisectionswillbeequivalent.Butbar2musttakeintoaccountthelocationofthefirst,sincedepthgainwillbemaximalonlyifitislinearlycontiguouswithit.Thesameprinciplegovernsthelocationofthebars3,4and5.Afterfivemovesthereforewemusthavealongcentralbarreachingtooneedge,andwehaveinfactcreatedtheformshownin8.7g,whichisthemostdepthgainefficientwayofusingfewestbarsto‘nearlydivide’theaggregateintotwo.Thuswehavearrivedatasignificantglobaloutcomefortheobjectasawhole,eventhoughwehaveateachstageonlyfollowedapurelylocalrule.Althoughindividualmoveshadacertaindegreeofchoice,theconfigurationaloutcomeasawhole,wecansee,wasquitedeterministic. Sincethenextmovecannotcontinueonthecentralbarlinewithoutcuttingtheaggregateintotwo,wemustlookaroundforthenextdepthmaximisingmove.Weknowwemustbisectthelongestsequenceofcells,andifpossibleourbarmustbecontiguouswithbarsalreadyplaced.Toidentifythelongestsequence,wemustrecognisethatthebarringsofarhaseffectivelychangedtheshapeofthecomplex.Wecould,forexample,cutthecomplexdownthelineofthecentralpartitionandtreatitalmostastwocomplexes.Asaresult,thereisnowalongestsequenceofcellsrunningaroundbothsidesofthecentralpartitionwhichdoesnotformasingleline,butitdoesconstitutethelongestsequenceofshortestavailableroutesinthecomplex.Itisbypartitioningthislineclosetoitscentrethatwewillmaximisedepthgain,thatmeansplacingthebaratrightanglestothepartitioninglineatitsbaseinoneofthetwopossiblelocations.Thenextbarmustthentakeaccountofwhichhasbeenselected,andinfactextendthatbar.Thenexttwomustrepeatthesamemoveontheotherside,thustakingusuptheninthbarinthefigure.Thesameprinciplecanthenbeappliedtothenextsequenceofbars,andinfactallwemustdotocompletetheprocessistocontinueapplyingthesameprincipleinnewsituationsastheyarisefromthebarringprocess.Bybar24,thepatternisasshowninthefinalforminfigure8.11d. Lookingatthefinalform,wefirstconfirmthatoncea25thbarisaddednofurtherbarcouldbeaddedwithoutsplittingtheaggregateintotwo.Wealsonotethattheconfigurationofspacecreatedbythebarringis,exceptingthesmallringthatwouldbeeliminatedbybar25,asingle‘unilinear’sequenceofcells,thatis,theformwiththemaximumpossibledepthfromallpointstoallothers.Bymaximising




SpaceSyntax

depthgainateverystageoftheprocesswearrive,perhapsnotsurprisingly,ataformwhichgloballymaximisesdepthgain.Wealsonote,thatbyapplyingsimplerulestothebarringprocess,wehaveconvertedaprocesswhichtheoreticallycouldleadtoanastronomicalnumberofpossibleglobalforms,toonewhichleadsalmostdeterministicallytoaspecificform. Figure8.12a–dnowillustratesthecontraryprocessinwhicheachmoveminimisesdepthgain,againwithnumberingintheorderofthemoves.Bar1mustbeattheedgeofalineofcells,andtominimisethelossofnon-contiguousbarlocationsitshouldalsobeononeoftheoutermostlinesofcells.Oncewehavebar1,thefollowingmovestominimisedepthgainmustcontinuetobarthealreadybarredline,sincethislineisnowshorterthananyotherline,andtodosoeachtimeasclosetotheedgeoftheremainingcellsequenceaspossible.Asbefore,then,bars1—5areforced,andleadtoaveryspecificoverallpattern.Asimilarprocedureisthenforcedonotheredgelines,obviouslyomittingbarswhichwouldformarightanglewithexistingbars,sincethiswouldsplitthesystemintotwo.Bars1–16thereforecontinuethisprocessuntilthepossibilitiesareexhausted. Thenextmovemustbenon-contiguousandmustbeasneartheedgeaspossible.Severalidenticalpossibilitiesexist,soweselect17.18and19must

Figure 8.12

1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8

9

101112

16

15 17 18

14

13

21 19

2324

20 22

a. b.

c. d.

Figure 8.12




SpaceSyntax

continuetobarthesameline,leavingonlyoneoftwopossibleidenticalfurthernon-contiguousmoves.Weselect20.Nownomorenon-contiguousmovesareavailable,sowemustselectcontiguousmoveswiththeleastdepthgain.Thebestturnsouttobethatrebarringthealreadybarredlineonwhich20lieshastheleastdepthgain,inspiteofthefactthatitcreatesathree-sidedenclosure.Butthenextmovecannotcreatethesamepatterntotheright,sincethiswillalsocreateadoublelineblockaswellasathree-sidedenclosure.Barringtheopenlineat22haslessdepthgainthanbarringtheadjacentlinetotheright,atwhichpoint23becomesoptimal.Thefinalbarmustthenbeononeoffivestillopenlines,thefourcomprisingthe‘ring’,andtheonepassingthroughthecentre.Cuttingtheringcreatesmuchmoredepthgainthancuttingthecentreline,becauseitcreatesablockinthesystemthatisfourcellsdeepfromtheboundary.Ofthepossiblelocationsonthecentreline,thecentrallocationhaslessdepthgainbecausethelocationonetotherightcreatesatwo-deepenclosure,whichcreatesmoreextradepththanthedifferencebetweenthecentreandone-from-centrelocation. Thedepthminimisingprocesshasthusgivenrisetoaformwhichisasstrikingasthedepthmaximisingprocess:aringofopencellsaccessingouterandinnergroupsofone-deepcells.Wehaveonlytoconvertthedoorsintheringtofullwidthpermeabilitiestocreateafundamentalbuildingform:theringcorridoraccessingseparate‘rooms’oneitherside.Thishashappenedbecausethedepthgainminimisingstrategytendstotwokindsoflinearity:alinearityindividinglinesofcellsupintoseparatesinglecells;andalinearityincreatingtheopencellsequencesthatprovideaccesstothesecells.AficionadosofOckam’srazorwillnotethatboththesecontraryeffectsfollowfromthesinglerulethatbarsshouldalwaysbeplacedsoastobartheshortestlineofcellsavailableasneartheedgeaspossible.Thismeansthatoncealinehasbeendivided,thenitminimisesdepthgaintodivideitagain,since,otherthingsbeingequal,theremainderofanalreadybarredlinewillalwaysbeshorterthananunbarredline.Figures8.13aandbshowtypicalformsfromthetwoprocesses,togetherwithdepthvaluesforeachcell.Infact,thetwoformsshowninFigures8.1bandc.Thetotaldepthfortheneardepthmaximisingprocessis15320whilethatforthedepthminimisingprocessislittlemorethanathirdasmuchat5824.Thesedifferencesareallthemoreremarkableinviewofthefactthateachformhasexactlythesamenumberofpartitions.Theonlydifferenceisthewaythepartitionsarearranged. Butinspiteoftheirdifferences,eachoftheformsgeneratedseemsinitswayquitefundamental.Thedepthmaximisingformisclosetobeingaunilinearsequence,thatistheformwiththemaximumpossibledepthfromallcells.Thedepthminimisingformapproximatesifnotabush,thenatleastabushlikearrangementbuiltonaring.Wehavearrivedattheseformsbyconstrainingthecombinatorialprocessdowncertainpathwaysbysomequitesimplerules.Thesehavecreatedwelldefinedoutcomesthroughmorphologicalprocesseswhichareobjectiveinthesensethatalthoughtheselectionandimplementationofrulesisahumandecision,thelocaltoglobalmorphologicaleffectsoftheserules,




SpaceSyntax

Figure 8.13

total depth = 15284 total depth = 5824

200 168 166 166 168 200

166 134 132 132 134 166

170 136 166 166 136 170

170 136 170 170 136 170

170 138 140 140 138 172

204 172 174 174 170 204

560 592 626 536 532 564

530 502 476 502 534

410 430 452 430 410

392 376 362 376 392

332 340 350 340 332

326 322 320 322 326

476

452

362

350

320

1 5 2 2 5 1

5 10 7 7 10 5

1 6 2 2 6 1

2 7 2 2 7 2

5 10 6 6 10 5

1 5 1 1 5 1

3 2 2 2 3 3

3 2 3 3 3

3 2 3 2 3

3 2 3 2 3

3 2 3 2 3

6 5 5 5 6

3

3

3

3

5

Figure 8.13

a. b.

c. d.




SpaceSyntax

whetherfortheindividualmoveintheprocessortheaccumulativeresult,isquiteindependentofhumandecision.Theeventualglobalpatternofspace‘emerges’fromthelocalisedstep-by-stepprocess.Atthesametime,processeswhoserulesaresimilar‘converge’onparticularglobaltypeswhichmayvaryindetailbutatleastsomeofwhosemostgeneralpropertieswillbeinvariant—thetendencytoformlongsequenceswithfewbranches,thetendencytogenerateone-deepdeadendspaces,thetendencytoformsmallerorlargerringsandsoon. Thiscombinationofemergenceandconvergenceisimmenselysuggestive.Itappearstoofferanaturalsolutiontotheapparentparadoxwenotedatthestartofthischapter:thatinspiteofthevastnessofthecombinatorialfield,intuitionsuggestedrelativelyfewwaysofdesigningspace.Wemaynowreformulatethisparadoxasatentativeconclusion:consistentlyappliedandsimplerulesarisingfromwhatisandisnotanintelligibleandfunctionallyusefulspatialmovecreatewell-definedpathwaysthroughthecombinatorialfieldwhichconvergeoncertainwell-definedglobalspatialtypes.Theselawsof‘emergence-convergence’seemtobethesourceofstructureinthefieldofarchitecturalpossibility.Whatthenaretheselawsabout?IproposetheyareaboutwhatIcalled‘genericfunction’,thatispropertiesofspatialarrangementswhichall,oratleastmost,‘well-formed’buildingsandbuiltenvironmentshaveincommon,becausetheyarisenotfromspecificfunctionalrequirement,thatis,specificformsofoccupationandspecificpatternsofmovementbutfromwhatmakesitpossibleforacomplextosupportanycomplexofoccupationoranypatternofmovement.The theory of generic function: intelligibility and functionalityThefirstaspectofgenericfunctionreflectsthepropertyof‘intelligibility’whichSteadmansuggestsmightbeoneofthecriticalfactorsrestrictingarchitecturalpossibility.InChapter4wesuggestedthattheintelligibilityofaformcanbemeasuredbyanalysingtherelationbetweenhowacomplexcanbeseenfromitspartsandwhatitislikeinanoverallpattern,thatis,asadistributionofintegration.Thiswasexpressedbyascattergramshowingthedegreeofcorrelationbetweentheconnectivityofaline,whichisalocalpropertyofthelineandcanbeseenfromtheline,andintegration,whichisaglobalpropertyrelatingthelinetothesystemasawholeandwhichcannotthereforebeseenfromtheline.Howmightthisconceptrelatetotheconstructionofspatialpatternsbyphysicalmoves?Visibilityisinfactinterestingsinceitbehavesinasimilarwaytodepthunderpartitioning.Forlinearcellsequencestheeffectofbarsonvisibilityexactlymirrorsdepthgain,thoughinareversedirection:visibilitylostfromabarisexactlyhalfthedepthgainfromthesamebar,andasthebarmovesfromedgetocentrethetotalvisibilityalongthelinedecreases,whileatthesametimethevisibilityvalueofcellsalongthatlinebecomemorehomogeneous,eventuallybecomingthesamewithacentralbar. Inourtwocomplexesthen,letusdefinevisibilityverysimplyasthenumberofcellsthatcanbeseenfromthecentreofeachcell.Thesevisibilityvaluesaresetoutforourtwodepthmaximisingandminimisingcomplexesinfigures8.13candd.




SpaceSyntax

Figure 8.14




SpaceSyntax

Thesevisibilityvaluesandtheirmeanindexthevisualconnectivityofthecomplex.Wemayalsoexpressthesebydrawinganaxialmapofthefewestlinesthatpassthroughallthecells.Wecanseehowmanycellseachlinepassesthrough,andhowthisdiffersfromonecomplextoanother.Wecanifwewishexpressthisinasummarywaybyworkingouttheratioofthemeansdepthsforeachcellandthemeanvisibilityofeachcell.Forthedepthminimisingform,themeandepthfromcellsis5.3,andthemeanvisibilityis3.9.Wemightcallthisa.74visibilitytodepthratio.Inthedepthmaximisingform,themeandepthis11.9whilethemeanvisibilityis2.8,avisibilityratioof.24,aboutathirdthatofthedepthminimisingform.Thisseemstoagreequitewellwithintuition. Thisshowshowthevisibilityanddepthpropertiesofthecomplexrelatetoeachother.However,wemaylearnmorebycorrelatingthepermeabledepthfiguresforcellswiththeirvisibilityfiguresandexpressingtherelationinascattergram.Thebetterthevaluescorrelate,themorewecansaythatwhatyoucanseefromtheconstituentcellsofthesystemisagoodguidetotheglobalpatternofdepthinthecomplexwhichcannotbeseenfromacell,butwhichmustbelearnt.Thecorrelationthusexpressestheintelligibilityofthecomplex.Figures8.14aandbarethescattersandcorrelationcoefficientsforourtwocases,showingthatthedepthminimisingformisfarmoreintelligiblethanthedepthmaximisingform.Thisformallyconfirmsourintuitionthatthedepthmaximisingformishardtounderstand,inspiteofbeingasinglesequence,becausethesequenceiscoiledupandtheinformationavailablefromitsconstituentcellsistoopoorandundifferentiatedtogivemuchguidanceaboutthestructureofthecomplexasawholefromitsparts.Theoppositeisthecaseinthedepthminimisingcomplex.Onreflection,wecanseethatthiswillalwaystendtobethecasewithdepthmaximisingprocessessincethepartitioningmovesthatmaximisedeptharealsothosewhichalsomaximallyrestrictvisibility. Therearetherefore,asSteadmansuggests,fundamentalreasonstodowiththenatureofhumancognitionandthenatureofspatialcomplexeswhichwillbiastheselectionofspatialformsawayfromdepthmaximisingprocessesandinthedirectionofdepthminimisingprocesses.Throughthisobjective—inthesensethatwehavemeasuredasapropertyofobjectsratherthanasapropertyofminds—propertyofintelligibilitythenwecanseeoneaspectofgenericfunctionstructuringthepathwaysfromcombinatorialpossibilitytothearchitecturallyreal. Thereare,however,furtherreasonswhydepthminimisingformswillbepreferredtodepthmaximisingformswhichhavetodowithfunctionality.Functionalitywedefineastheabilityofacomplextoaccommodatefunctionsingeneral,andthereforepotentiallyarangeofdifferentfunctions,ratherthananyspecificfunction.Intuitively,deeptree-likeformssuchasthedepthmaximisingformseemfunctionallyinflexibleandunsuitedtomosttypesoffunctionalpatternwhilethedepthminimisingformseemstobeflexibleandsuitedtoaratherlargenumberofpossiblefunctions.Canthisbeformalised?




SpaceSyntax

Itisusefultobeginbyconsideringinasgenericawayaspossiblethetypesofhumanbehaviourthatoccurinbuildings.Wemaydothisbestbyconsideringnotthepurposeormeaningofanactivitybutsimplyitsphysicalandspatialmanifestation,thatis,whatcanactuallybeobservedabouthumanactivityby,say,anextra-terrestrialwhohadnoideawhatwasgoingonandcouldonlyrecordobservations.Generically,suchanobserverwouldconclude,twokindsofthinghappeninspace:occupationandmovement.Occupationmeanstheuseofspaceforactivitieswhichareatleastpartlyandoftenlargelystatic,suchasconversing,meeting,reading,eatingorsleeping,oratmostinvolvemovementwhich,whentracedoveraperiod,remainslocalisedwithintheoccupiedspace,suchascookingorworkingatalaboratorybench,asshowninfigure8.15. Movementwecandefinenotasthesmalllocalmovementsthatmaybeassociatedwithsomeformsofoccupation,andthereforetobeseenasaspectsofoccupation,butmovementbetweenspacesofoccupation,ormovementinandoutofacomplexofsuchspaces.Movementisprimarilyabouttherelationsbetweenspacesratherthanthespacesthemselves,incontrasttooccupationwhichmakesuseofthespacesthemselves.Wecanseethisasascaledifference.Occupationusesthelocalpropertiesofspecificspaces,movementthemoreglobalpropertiesofthepatternofspaces. Thereisalsoadifferencebetweenoccupationandmovementinthespatialformeachtakes.Becausespatialoccupationisstatic,orinvolvesonlylocalised

Figure 8.15 (above)Locallyconvexmovement;whensmallmovementsintersectandformalocalconvexregion.Locally convex movement;

when small movements intersectand form a local convex region.

Globally linear movement;when large scale movementforms strings or rings of lines.

Figure 8.15

Figure 8.14

a. b.

Figure 8.15 (below)Globallylinearmovement;whenlargescalemovementformsstringsorringsoflines.




SpaceSyntax

movement,therequirementthatitplacesonspaceisbroadlyspeakingconvex,evenwhenthisinvolveslocalisedmovementwithinthespace.Inparticular,anyactivitythatinvolvestheinteractionorco-presenceofseveralpeopleisbydefinitionlikelytobeconvex,sinceitisonlyinaconvexspacethateachpersoncanbeawareofalltheothers.Movement,ontheotherhand,isessentiallylinear,andtherequirementthatitplacesonspaceisconsequentlylinear,atleastwhenseenlocallyinitsrelationtooccupation.Theremustbeclearandrelativelyunimpededlinesthroughspacesifmovementistobeintelligibleandefficient. Occupationandmovementthenmakerequirementsofspacethatarefundamentallydifferentfromeachotherinthatoneisconvexandtheotherlinear.Becausethisissothereisanextradifficultyincombiningoccupationandmovementinthesamespace.Therewillalways,ofcourse,bepracticalorculturalreasonswhydifferentformsofoccupationcannotbeputinthesamespace—interference,scalingofspaces,privacyneeds,andsoon—inspiteofthefactthateachisconvexandinprinciplecouldbespatiallyjuxtaposedtoothers.Buttoassemblemovementandformsofoccupationinthesamespaceisinprinciplemoredifficultbecause,overandabovefunctionalinterference,occupationandmovementhavefundamentally

differentspatialshapes.Theinterferenceeffectfromoccupationtooccupationandfrommovementtomovementwillbeofadifferentkindtothatfromoccupationtomovementbecausethespatialrequirementsaremoredifficulttoreconcile. Becausethisisso,itiscommontofindthattherelationbetweenmovementandoccupationinspatialcomplexesisoftenoneofadjacencyratherthanoverlap,whetherthisoccursinspaceswhicharefullyopen(asforexamplewhenwehavebothlinesofmovementandstaticoccupationinapublicsquare),orfullyclosed,aswhenwehaveroomsadjacenttocorridors,oroneisopenandtheotherclosed,aswhenhousesalignstreets.Ineachcase,thelinearityrequiredformovementis

Figure 8.16

Figure 8.17

a. b. c.

a

c d

c

b

a

c

c c

d

d

5

2 3

6

9

11

10

7 8

4

1

1

2 6

5 7

8 4

3

ba

a. b.

1

2

3

4

5

b = 1082

a = 1102

6

7

8

Figure 8.16




SpaceSyntax

achievedbydesigningmovementtooccurinspaceswhichpassimmediatelybyratherthanthroughoccupationspaces. Nowletusconsiderthetypesofspacethatareavailabletomeettherequirementsofoccupationandmovement.Firstwemustconsiderthemostbasictopologicalpropertiesasembodiedinthegraphofacomplex,sinceevenatthisleveltopologicallydifferenttypesofspacehavequitedifferentpotentialsforoccupationandmovement.Letusfirstconsider,afamiliargraph,asshownin8.16a,bandc. Inthisgraph,asinothers,thespacesthatmakeupthegraphcanbedividedintofourtopologicaltypes.First,therearespaceswithasinglelink.Thesearebydefinitiondead-endspacesthroughwhichnomovementispossibletootherspaces.Suchspaceshavemovementonlytoandfromthemselves,andarethereforeintheirtopologicalnatureoccupation-onlyspaces.Examplesaremarked‘a’infigure8.16a.Thelinkfromone-connectedspacestotherestofthegraphisnecessarilyacutlink,meaningthatitseliminationmustsplitthegraphintotwo,inthiscasethespacewhoselinkhasbeencutandtherestofthegraph.Becausethecutlinkonlyservesasinglespace,theeffectofcuttingmakeslittledifferencetotheremainderofthecomplexbeyondminorreductionsinthedepthoftherestofthecomplexfollowingtheeliminationofaspace. Second,therearespaceswithmorethanonelinkbutwhichformpartofaconnectedsub-complexinwhichthenumberoflinksisonelessthanthenumberofspaces,thatis,acomplexwhichhasthetopologicalformofatree.Suchspacescannotinthemselvesbedeadendspaces,butmustbeonthewayto(andbackfrom)atleastonedeadendspace.Alllinkstospacesinsuchcomplexes,regardlessofthenumberoflinkstoeachspace,arealso‘cutlinks’inthattheeliminationofanyonelinkhastheeffectofsplittingoneormorespacesfromtherestofthecomplex.Suchspacesaremarked‘b’infigure8.16a.Aconsequenceofthedefinitionisthatthereisinanysuchsub-complex(orcomplex)exactlyoneroutefromeachspacetoeveryotherspace,howeverlargethesub-complexandhoweveritisdefined.Thisimpliesthatmovementthrougheachconstituentspacewillonlybetoorfromaspecificspaceorseriesofspaces.Thisinturnimpliesthatmovementfromoriginstodestinationswhichnecessarilypassthroughab-typespacemustalsoreturntotheoriginthroughthesamespace. Third,therearespaceswithmorethanonelinkwhichformpartofaconnectedsub-complexwhichcontainsneithertypeanortypebspaces,andinwhichthereareexactlythesamenumberoflinksasspaces.Suchspacesaremarkedcinfigure8.16a.Thedefinitionmeansthatc-typespacesmustlieonasinglering(thoughnotallspacesontheringwillbec-type)sothatcuttingalinktoac-typespacewillautomaticallyreducetheringtooneormoretrees.Movementfromac-typespacethroughaneighbourneednotreturnthroughthesameneighbourbutmustreturnthroughexactlyoneotherneighbour. Finallytherearespaceswithmorethantwolinksandwhichformpartofcomplexeswhichcontainneithera-norb-typespaces,andwhichthereforemustcontainatleasttworingswhichhaveatleastonespaceincommon.Suchspaces




SpaceSyntax

mustlieonmorethanonering,andarelabelled‘d’infigure8.16a.Movementfromd-typespacesthroughaneighbourhasthechoiceofreturningbywayofmorethanoneotherneighbour. Wemayalsodefinesubcomplexesofthea-,b-,c-ord-typeasthespaceofthattypeplusallthespacesbyreferencetowhichitisdefinedasaspaceofthattype,eventhoughsomeofthosespacesmaybelongalsotoothersubcomplexes.(Inotherwords,asubcomplexofagiventypeisacomplexcontainingatleastonespaceofthattype.)Lookingatnumberedspacesinfigure8.16b,wecanthensaythatspaces5and11area-typespaces,andthatthesub-complexformedbyspaces2and5andthatformedby9and11canbethoughtofasa-typesubcomplexes.Space9isab-typespace,andthatthesubcomplexformedbyspaces6,9and11canbeseenasab-typesub-complex.Spaces2,6,7,8and10arec-typespacesandeachmaybeseenasformingpartofalocalring,orc-typecomplex:thus2and6arepartofthec-typesubcomplexformedbyspaces1,2,6and3,and7,8and10arepartofthec-typecomplexformedbyspaces3,7,10,8and4.Space3and4ared-typespacesandarepartofthed-typesubcomplexformedbyspaces1,2,3,4,6,7,8and10.Spacesare,ineffect,unambiguouslydefinedbytheirplaceinacomplex,butthisdoesnotmeanthatspacesthatcontributetothatdefinitiondonotformpartofothercomplexes.Forexample,ana-spacemaybepartofab-complex,orac-spacemaybepartofad-complexwithoutineithercasecompromisingitsuniqueidentityasana-orc-typespace. Therearesimpleandfundamentalrelationshipsbetweentheseelementarytopologiesandthedepthminimisingandmaximisingprocesses.Adepthminimisingprocesswillinitsnaturetendfirsttoleavelonglinesofspacesunimpededandtopreservetheirconnectiontootherlonglines,andsecondtocoilcontiguousbarsupintosmall,one-deep‘rooms’.Thisisillustratedinfigure8.17awherethefirsteightbarscuttheshortestlines,tocreateroomsateitherendandpotentialroomsinthecentre.Thedottedbarsmarked‘a’and‘b’representtwopossiblechoicesatthispoint,andthefigureontherightsideshowsthetotaldepthinthesystemaftereach.Theanalysisshowsthatthetwoone-deeproomsaddfarlessdepththanonetwo-deepcomplex,ineffectbecausethetwo-deepcomplexiscreatedbyfivecontiguousbars,whereastheone-deepspacesareeachcreatedbythreecontiguousbars.Thedepthminimisingprocessthustendstocreatea-typespaceslinkedbyglobalc-andd-typecomplexes,aswasthecaseinthe6x6examplein

Figure 8.16

Figure 8.17

a. b. c.

a

c d

c

b

a

c

c c

d

d

5

2 3

6

9

11

10

7 8

4

1

1

2 6

5 7

8 4

3

ba

a. b.

1

2

3

4

5

b = 1082

a = 1102

6

7

8

Figure 8.17




SpaceSyntax

figure8.13b.Incontrast,thedepthmaximisingprocess,asshowninfigure8.17bforexample,willbycontiguouslybarringthelongestavailablelines,createb-typespacesandthereforesequencesratherthana-typespaces,andlocalisec-andd-complexesattheearliestpossiblestageofgeneration,andwithaconfigurationinwhichtherearefewa-typespaces,andtheseattheendoflongsequences,withanyringsinthesystemhighlylocalised. Inotherwordsdepthminimisingprocesseswilltendlocallytoa-typecomplexesandgloballytod-typecomplexes(infigure8.13bitisonlythefinal24thbarthatreducesastrongglobald-complextoaglobalc-complex),whiledepthmaximisingprocesseswilltendgloballytob-typecomplexesandlocallytosmallresidualc-typecomplexes.Thisisinstructivebecauseittellsushowtheseelementaryconfigurationsarerelatedtotheproductofthefunctionallycriticalpropertyofintegrationinspatialcomplexes.Essentially,a-andd-typespacescreateintegration,whileb-andc-typespacescreatesegregation.Inotherwords,segregationinacomplexiscreatedalmostentirelybythesequencingofspaces.Sincethisisnotobvious,itisworthillustrating.Infigure8.18forexample,intheleftcolumn,weincreasethesizeoftheringfrom8to12spacesandthei-valueincreases(i.e.becomeslessintegrated)from.4285forthe8-ringto.4545fortheFigure 8.18

Figure 8.18

.4285 .2381 .1621

.2490.3714

mean: .4285

mean: .3048 m ean: .2200

.4545 .2410

.3281

....

.

.2201

.1630

mean: .4545

mean: .2848mean: .2011




SpaceSyntax

12-ring.Inthesecondcolumn,weaddasinglea-typespacetoeachc-typespace.Bothcomplexesbecomeonaveragemoreintegrated,butthe12-ringcomplexbelowbecomesrelativelymoreintegratedat.2848thanthe8-ringcomplexaboveat.3048.Infact,theringspacesinthe12-ringcomplexareslightlylessintegratedat.2410thanthoseofthe8-ringcomplexat.2381,butthea-typespaceofthe12-ringcomplexaremarkedlymoreintegratedat.3281thanthoseofthe8-ringcomplexat.3714.Intherightcolumn,welinktwoa-spacestoeachc-spaceandthepatternbecomesevenmoremarked.The12-ringcomplexisnowmoreintegratedat.2011thanthe8-ringcomplexat.2200,withringspacesat.1630comparedto.1621,buta-spacesat.2201comparedto.2490. Wenowhaveamoreorlesscompleteaccountoftherelationbetweengenerativeprocesses,thecreationofdifferenttypesoflocalandglobalspacecomplexes,andtheconstructionofpatternsofintegration.Wecannowformulatethequestionatthecentreofourargument:whataretheimplicationsofthesespatialvariationsforoccupationandmovement,thatis,forthegenericfunctioningofspatialcomplexes?Inexploringthis,weshouldbearinmindoneofthemajorfindingsoftheresearchreportedinChapters5to8:thatthemoremovementinacomplexisfromallpartstoallotherparts,thenthemorethepatternofmovementinacomplexwilltendtofollowthepatternofintegration. Firstwemustnotethateachofthetypesofspacewehaveidentified,andthetypeofcomplexitcharacterises,hasgenericallydifferentimplicationsforspaceoccupationandmovement.Aswehavealreadyindicated,a-typespacesdonothavethroughmovementatallandthereforedoraisetheissueofrelatingoccupationtomovement(otherthanmovementtoandfromthespaceitself).b-typespacesraisethepossibilityofthroughmovementbutalsocontrolitstrongly,bothbecauseeachroutethroughab-typespaceisuniqueandalsobecausereturnmovementmustpassthroughthesamespace.c-typespacesalsoraisethepossibilityofthroughmovementwhilealsoconstrainingittospecificsequencesofspaces,thoughwithoutthesamerequirementforthereturnjourney.d-typespacepermitsmovement,butwithmuchlessbuilt-incontrolbecausethereisalwayschoiceofroutesinbothdirections. Itisclearthenthatb-typeandtoalesserextentc-typespaceshaveamuchmoredeterminativerelationtomovementthaneithera-typeord-typespaces.Whilethea-typedoesnotallowforthroughmovement,andthed-typeallowschoiceofmovement,theb-typeandthec-typepermitbutatthesametimeconstrainitbyrequiringittopassthroughspecificsequencesofspaces.Theb-typeisthemostconstraining.Foranytripfromanorigintoadestination,everyb-spaceoffersexactlyonewayinandonewayoutofeachspaceandeverytripinab-complexmustpassbothwaysthroughexactlythesamesequenceofspaces.Asimilar,thoughweaker,effectisfoundforc-spacesandc-complexes,becausealthoughattheleveloftheringasawholetherewillbeachoiceofonedirectionoranother,tripsoncebegunmustuseasinglesequenceofspaces,andthetripthereforeresemblesab-trip,thoughwithouttherequirementthatthereturnjourneyrepeatthesamesequenceinreverse.Thiseffectarisesfromthesimplefactthatb-andc-type




SpaceSyntax

spacesarefromthepointofviewofanytripthatpassesthroughthem,effectivelytwo-connected,andtwoisthesmallestnumberthatallowsentrytoaspaceinonedirectionandegressinanother.Itisthisessentialtwo-connectednessfromthepointofviewoftrips,thatgivesbandc-spacestheirdistinctivecharacteristicofbothpermittingandconstrainingmovement. Nowthismeansthatb-andc-typespacesraiseissuesfortherelationbetweenoccupationandmovementwhicharenotraisedeitherbyone-connectedormorethantwo-connectedspace,inthattheyrequiretheresolutionoftherelationbetweenoccupationandthroughmovementwithineachconvexspace.Thishasapowerfuleffectontheusabilityofspacesandspacecomplexesofthiskind.Ingeneral,itcanonlyoccurwherethesequencingofspacesreflectsaparallelfunctionalsequencingofoccupationzones,andmovementis,asitwere,internalisedintothefunctionalcomplexandmadepartofitsoperation. Forexamplemanytypesofreligiousbuildinguseexactlythisspatialpropertytocreateasequenceofspacesfromtheleasttothemostsacred,eachspacehavingdifferentoccupationalcharacteristics.Morecommonly,wefindthephenomenonoftheante-room,forexamplewhereaseniorpersoninanorganisationplacesasubordinateinaspacewhichcontrolsaccesstotheoffice.Indomesticspace,suchinterdependenciesarequitecommon.Indeed,thedomesticdwellingmayoftenbecharacterisedasapatternofsuchinterdependencies.Figure8.16,forexample,hasamaximallysimpleb-complex(spaces6,9and11)associatedwithmaleworkingactivityandanearmaximallysimplec-complex(spaces3,7,10,8and4)associatedwithfemaleworkingactivity,aswellasamaximallysimplea-complex(spaces2and5)associatedwithformalreceptionandadominantd-typespace(space3—thesallecommune)inwhichalleverydaylivingfunctions,includinginformalreception,areconcentratedandwhichholdsthewholecomplextogether.Itisnotablethatifthisspace(space3)isremovedfromthecomplex,asinfigure8.16c,thewholecomplexisreducedtoasinglesequencewithasingleone-deepbranch.9

Ingeneralwecansaythatthesequencingofspacesnormallyoccurswhen(andperhapsonlywhen)thereareculturallyorpracticallysanctionedfunctionalinterdependenciesbetweenoccupationzoneswhichrequiremovementtobeanessentialaspectoftheseinterdependenciesandthereforetobeinternalisedintoalocalfunctionalcomplexofspaces.10Suchinterdependenciesarecomparativelyrareand,becausetheyareso,wheretheydooccurtheytendtobehighlylocalised.Therearesimplecombinatorialreasonsforthis.Ifinterdependencyrequiringinternalisationofmovementintoafunctionalcomplexisunusualforpairsofoccupationtypes,itisevenmoreunusualfortriples,evenmoreforquadruples,andsoon.Thisiswhyittendstoremainlocalised. Itfollowsthatwhereasinsmallbuildings,suchfunctionallyinterdependentcomplexescanformasignificantproportionofthecomplex,oreventhewholecomplex,asbuildingsgrowlargeandacquiremoreandmoreoccupationspaces,thosethathavethenecessaryinterdependenciesthatrequirespatialsequencingwillbecomeadiminishingproportionofthewhole.Asbuildingsgrowthereforemoreandmoreofthemovementwillnotbeofthekindwhichisinternaltothefunctioning




SpaceSyntax

ofalocalsubcomplexbutwilloccurbetweensubcomplexeswhicharefunctionallymuchmoreindependentofeachother. Thismeansthatmovementwillbeless‘programmed’,thatis,anecessaryaspectofinterdependentfunctions,andmorecontingent,or‘unprogrammed’.11Itfollowsthatthepatternofmovementwillfollowfromtwothings:firstfromthewayinwhichthevariousoccupationspacesaredisposedinthespatialcomplex,coupledtothedegreetowhicheachactsasanoriginandadestinationformovementbetweenoccupationspaces;second,fromhowthisdispositionrelatestothespatialconfigurationofthecomplexitself.Themoremovementoccursmoreorlessrandomlyfromalllocations(orevenallpartsofthecomplex)toallothers,thenthemoreitwillapproximatetheconditionsthatgiveriseto‘naturalmovement’,thatismovementthroughspacesgeneratedbytheconfigurationofspaceitself,andthemoremovementwillthenfollowthepatternofintegrationofthebuilding.Themorethisoccurs,themoremovementwillbefunctionallyneutralised,thatis,itwillnotbeanintrinsicaspectoflocalfunctionalcomplexesdeterminedbythefunctionalprogrammeofthebuildingbutasaglobalemergentphenomenongeneratedbythestructureofspaceinthebuildingandthedispositionofoccupationspaceswithinit. Neutralisedmovementwillthentendtofollowtheconfigurationaltopologiesthatgeneratethepatternofintegrationinabuilding.a-spacewillhavenomovementotherthanthatstartingandfinishinginthem;b-spacewillhavemovementonlytothespacestowhichtheycontrolbothaccessandegress;c-spaceswillhavemovementtospacestowhichtheycontroleitheraccessoregress;whiled-spaceswillbenaturalattractorsofmovement.Itfollowsthatjustasa-spacesarethemostsuitedforoccupationbecausetheyareleastsuitedformovement,sod-spacesaretheleastsuitedforoccupation,becausetheyarethemostsuitedtomovement,especiallywherethismovementisfromalllocationstoallotherlocationsinthecomplex. Itfollowsthatagrowingspatialcomplexwillneedadecreasingproportionofb-andc-complexessincethesewillonlybeneededforlocalfunctionallyinter-dependentgroupsofoccupationspaces,andagrowingproportionofa-typeandd-typecomplexes.Insuchcomplexestherewillbeanaturalspecialisationofspacesintoa-complexesforoccupationandd-complexesformovement,andthereforeanequallynaturaltendencytowardstheadjacencyrelationforoccupationandmovement. Aswehaveseen,itisexactlysuchcomplexesthataregeneratedbydepthminimisingprocesses.Suchcomplexesalsohaveotheradvantages.First,becausethemixofa-typeandd-typecomplexesisinitsnaturethemostintegrated,thenjourneysfromallspacestoallotherswillbeonaveragetopologically(andinfactmetrically)shorterthanforanyothertypeofcomplex.Second,suchcomplexesmaximisethenumberofa-spacesforoccupationwhileminimisingthenumberofspacesinthed-complexformovement,thusmakingtherelationofoccupationandmovementaseffort-efficientaspossible.Third,themorethisisthecase,themoremovementfromspecificoriginstospecificdestinationsinthecomplexwilloverlapandcreateaglobalpatternofco-presenceandco-awarenessofthosewhoarenotbroughttogetherinthelocalfunctionalsubcomplexesofthebuilding.In




SpaceSyntax

otherwords,themovementpatternbringstogetherinspacewhattheoccupationalrequirementofthecomplexdivides.Thisreflectsthebasicfactthatwhereastheoverlapofoccupationtypeinthesamespaceislikelytocauseinterferencefromonetotheother,theoverlapofmovementinsituationswheremovementisfunctionallyneutralisedcreatesanemergentformofspatialuse—co-presencethroughmovement—whichisessentiallyallofthesametype.Overlapisthereforenotlikelytobereadasinterference.Onthecontrary,itislikelytobereadasabenefit. Itistheninthenatureofthingsthatspatialcomplexesofthistypewilltendtobecomedominantasbuildingsgrowinscaleandoccupationalcomplexity.Thistypeofconfigurationarisesfromgenericfunction,thatis,fromthefactofoccupationandthefactofmovement,priortoanyconsiderationofthespecificfunctionstobeaccommodatedinthebuilding.Weonlyneedtoaddthelargeropenspacesandlongerlinearspacesinthed-complexinaccordancewiththeprincipleswehaveestablishedtooptimisetherelationbetweenoccupationandmovementinthecomplexes.So, is architecture an ars combinatoria?Wehavenowansweredthequestionaskedatthebeginningofthechapter,andembodiedinthetwoprefatoryquotes.Notheoryofarchitectureasanars combinatoriaofelementsandrelationsisusefulbecause,aswithlanguage,itishowcombinatorialpossibilityisrestrictedthatgivesrisebothtothe‘structureofthelanguage’andtothe‘elements’ofwhichthelanguageiscomposed.Thevastmajorityofcombinatorialpossibilitiesareasirrelevanttothatlanguageasrandomsequencesofwordsaretonaturallanguage.Thestructureofthelanguage,whicheliminatesmostpossibilities,arisesnotfrombasicrulesforcombiningbasicelements,butfromlocaltogloballawsfromphysicalmovestospatialconfiguration,whichgiveriseatoneleveltothelocalstabilitieswecallelementsandatanothertothehigherorderpatternsthatcharacterisethegeneralspatialformsofbuildings. Theeffectsofunderstandinghowrestrictionsoncombinatorialpossibilitycreatethe‘languageofspace’aretwo.First,weseethattherearenotinanyusefulsensebasicelements.Elementsarisefromlocalspatialstrategiesthatrealise—andmustthenbetakenasintendingtorealise—particularlocaltoglobalspatialends.Allaredescribableasspatialphenomenaemergentfromtheconsistentapplicationofrulesgoverningeitherthecompletionorremovalofasingletypeoffundamentalspatio-physicalelement:thepermeablepartition.Itistherecordofthisconsistentapplicationthatweseewhenwenamealocalconfigurationasacertainkindofelement.Ifwerandomlypartitionacomplex,asinthefourexamplesinfigure8.19,wedonotfindsuchconsistencies,andwearenotthereforeinclinedtoidentifyelements.Weshouldproperlysee‘elements’as‘genotypes’,thatis,systemsofinformationalabstractionsgoverningobjectswhosephenotypesareendlesslyvaried.Itisonlyinthiswaythatwecanreconciletheideaofawell-formed‘element’withthefactthatsuchelementsarisefromandaregivenbyconfigurationalrelations,notonlythosewhichgeneratetheirintrinsicform,butalsothosewhichdefinetheirembeddinginthesystemasawhole.Inonesensewemightsay




SpaceSyntax

thatwehavereducedtheapparentfundamentalelementsofspatialcomplexestosomethingmoreelementary:asmallfamilyoflocalphysicalmoveswhichbyfollowingdifferentrulesproducespatialeffectsinthecomplex.Butinamoreimportantsense,wehavedissolvedtheelementintotwosetsofconfigurationallaws:thelawsthatgeneratetheelementitself,andthosethatgeneratetheimpactoftheelementonthecomplexasawhole. Second,weseethatitisnotusefultothinkofglobalpatternsasarisingsimplyfromrelationsamongelements.Inaspatialconfiguration,everylocalmovehasitsownconfigurationaleffect,anditisthenaturallawsthatgoverntheselocaltoglobaleffectsthatgovernglobalconfiguration.Itfollowsthatitisknowledgeoftheselawsthatwerequireforatheoryofspace,notknowledgeofcombinatorialpossibility.Itistheselawsthatgiverisetoboththelocalconfigurationaltypeswearetemptedtocallelementsandtotheglobalconfigurationalpatternsthatcommonlycharacterisebuildingsasawhole.Wecanthussolvetheapparentparadoxofvastcombinatorialpossibilityandafewbasicpatterntypes.Itisthenaturallocaltogloballawsrestrictingpossibilitythatleadspacetoconvergeonthepatterntypesthatwefind. Thepreciseformoftheselawsgoverningtherelationbetweenpossible

Figure 8.19

Figure 8.19




SpaceSyntax

spatialconfigurationandgenericfunctionliesinthefactthatindividual,localiseddesignmoves—saymakingapartition,oreliminatingadoorway—haveglobalconfigurationaleffects,thatis,effectsontheoverallpatternofspace.Theseglobalpatterneffectsoflocalmovesaresystematic,sothatdifferenttypesofmove,carriedoutconsistently,willgiverisetoverydifferentconfigurationaleffects.Theselocaltogloballawsareindependentofhumanvolition,andassuchmustberegardedasmoreakintonaturallawsthancontingentmattersofhumanexistence.Thisdoesnotimplythattherelationshipofhumanbeingstospaceisgovernedbynaturallaws,butitdoesmeanthatthepassagefromthepossibletotheactualpassesthrough—andhashistoricallypassedthrough—naturallawswhichmediatetherelationshipofhumanbeingstospace.Thebuiltformsthatactuallyexist,andhaveexisted,arenot,astheyareoftentakentobe,simplysubsetsofthepossible,butvariableexpressionsofthelawsthatgovernthetransitionfromthepossibletothereal.Theselaws,andtheirrelationtogenericfunction,arethereforethetrueconstraintsonspatialpossibilityinarchitectureandurbandesign,andatheoryofspacemustbeanaccountoftheselaws. Doesthismeanweshouldabandoncombinatoricsaltogether?Weshouldnot.Combinatoricpossibilityistheframeworkwithinwhicharchitecturalactualityexists,andtheproperformofatheoryisonethatdescribeshowpossibilitybecomesactuality.Wearenowinapositiontosuggestthegeneralframeworkforsuchatheory.Thehugenumberofpossiblespatialarrangements,wesuggest,passthroughaseriesofthreefiltersbeforetheybecomerealbuildings.Thefiltersoperateatdifferentlevels,butallhavetodowiththehumanpurposesforwhichwemakebuildings;thatis,thesefiltersarefunctionalfiltersofpossibleforms.Thefirstfilteristhemostgeneral:thatofgenericfunction,aswehavedescribedabove.Thisgovernsthepropertieswhichallspatialarrangementsmusthaveinordertobeusableandintelligibletohumanbeingsatall,thatis,inorderforhumanbeingstobeabletooccupyspace,tomoveaboutbetweenspacesandtofindbuildingsintelligible.Thesecondfilteristhefilterofculturalintent.Thisreferstothewayinwhichbuildingstendtoformculturallydefinedtypessothatbuildingswhichperformthesameculturallydefinedfunctioninaspecifictimeandspacetendtohaveatleastsomecommonspatialproperties.Wemaycallthisfilterthatoftheculturalgenotype.Thethirdfilteristhelevelofthespecificbuilding,wherethoseaspectswhicharenotspecifiedbytheculturalgenotypecanvaryeitherinastructuredorrandomway,givingrisetoindividualdifferencesinbuildings.Thesethreefunctionalfiltersarenotindependentofeachother,butworkinsuccession.Forexample,alllevel-twoculturalgenotypesworkwithinthelimitssetbythegenericfunctionfilteroflevel-one.Similarly,level-threefiltersworkwithintheconstraintssetatlevel-two. Thereis,however,afurtherreasonwhyweshouldnotabandoncombinatorics.Althoughwehaveshowninthischapterthatthecombinatorialstudyofformalandspatialpossibilityinarchitecturecannotinitselfleadtothetheoryofarchitecturalpossibility,thisdoesnotendthematter.Althoughthetheoretical




SpaceSyntax

spaceofbuildingsisonlyapartofthetheoreticalspaceofspatialcombinatorics,itneverthelessisapartofthatfield,andassuchitmustobeysitslaws.Ifthisisthecase,thenwefindthathavingeliminatedcombinatoricsasatheoryofarchitecture,wemustre-admititasmeta-theory. Letusarguefromapreciseexample.InChapter2,wediscussedathoughtexperimentcalledthe‘Ehrenfestgame’asamodelfortheconceptofentropy.Inthisexperiment,100numberedballsplacedinonejareventuallygetmoreorlessevenlydistributedbetweentwojarsifwerandomlyselectanumberandtransferthecorrespondingballfromwhicheverjaritisintotheother.Thishappensbecausethehalfandhalfstateisthemostprobablestatebecausetherearefarmoremicrostates,thatis,actualdistributionsofthenumberedballs,correspondingtothehalfandhalfmacrostate(thatistheactualnumberofballsineach)thantomacrostatesinwhichtheballsareunevenlydistributed.Theshiftingprobabilitiesofthisprocessgiveaninsightintotheformalnatureof‘entropy’. Nowthepointofthe‘Ehrenfestgame’isthatitisausefulanalogueforthephysicalnotionof‘entropy’,asfoundforexampleinmixinggases.ItisrelevanttoourargumentbecausewecanusetheEhrenfestmodeltoexplorearandompartitioningprocess,andindoingsolearnimportantlessonsaboutpartitioningingeneral.Allweneeddoissetupaprocessforrandomlypartitioningourspatialcomplexbynumberingour60partitionsinthe6×6complexandsettinguptherandomselectortoselectanumberbetween1and60.Wethenspinthepointertoselectnumbersinsuccession,andeachtimeanumberisselectedgotothepartitionwiththatnumberandchangeitsstate;thatis,openadoorwayinapartitionwithoutone,andcloseitoffifithasone.Whathappens?Intuitionsaysthattheprocesswilleventuallysettledowntoastateinwhichabouthalfthepartitionshavedoorwaysandhalfdonot,andthatthisisthereforethemostprobablestate.Wealreadyknowthatthisisthestatewheretherearethemaximumpossiblenumberofdifferentarrangements. Wemayshowthis,andunderstanditsrelevance,bythinkingthroughcarefullywhatwillhappeninourrandomprocess.Thefirsttimeanumberisselected,theprobabilityofopeningadoorwayratherthanclosingoneis60/60,or1,meaningcertainty.Thesecondtime,thereisa1/60chanceofclosingthesamedoorwehavejustopened(a.0167probability)anda59/60chanceofopeninganother(a.9833probability).Thethirdtime,thereisa2/58chanceofclosingoneofthedoorswehavejustopened(ora.0345probability),anda58/60chanceofopeninganother(a.9667probability).Evidentlyasweprogress,thechancesofclosingadoorratherthanopeninganotherbegintoapproacheachotheruntilwhenwehave30doorwaysopenand30partitionsclosed,thechancesareexactlyequal.Openingandclosingdoorsaretherefore‘equiprobable’. Inotherwords,wehavethesametypeofcombinatoricsforapartitioningprocessaswedoforanEhrenfestgame,andthereforefortheconceptofentropy.Thisconclusionhascleararchitecturalimplications.Forexample,itexplainsthat,aswehavealreadynoted,therearefarmorepartitioningstatesforabouthalfthe




SpaceSyntax

numberofpossiblepartitionsthanthereareforsmallerorlargernumbers.Thereisthenagreaterrangeofstatesforpartitioningclosetothemaximumforasinglecomplex(asinthedepthmaximisinganddepthminimisingexamples)anditisalsointhisregionthatsmallchangestoapartitioninghavethemaximumeffectonthedistributionofintegration,asforexamplemovingasinglepartitiontocutalargering.Thereareawholefamilyofsuchandsimilarquestionswhicharisefromthebasiccombinatoricsofspace,eventhoughbuildingsoccupyonlyasmallpartofthecombinatorialrange. Thelawsofspatialcombinatoricsarenotthereforethespatialtheoryofarchitecturebuttheydogovernitandconstitutethemeta-structurewithinwhichthetheoreticalspaceofrealarchitecturalpossibilityexists.Spatialcombinatoricsisthereforethemeta-theoryofarchitecturalspace,notitstheory.Therelationshipisexactlyanalogoustothatbetweenthemathematicsof‘informationtheory’andthescienceoflinguistics.Themathematicaltheoryofcommunicationisnotitselfthetheoryoflanguage,butitisthemeta-theoryforthetheoryoflanguage,becauseitistheframeworkofgenerallawswithinwhichlinguisticlawscomeintoexistence.Aswithlanguage,mathematicallawsofcombinatoricsareeverywherepresentinarchitecturalpossibilitybecausetheyaretheframeworkforthatsystemofpossibility.Theyneedthereforetobeunderstoodasapervasive,containingframeworkforthetheoryofarchitecturalspace. Inthenextchapterwewillseethatthereisamuchmorepervasivesenseinwhichcombinatoricsisthemeta-theoryofarchitecturalpossibility,thatis,whenwecometostudynotthediscretesetsofpossibilitieswhichwehaveconsideredsofar,butwhenwelookataggregativeprocessesofthekindsthatprevailinurbansystemsofallkinds,andinbuildingcomplexesastheybecomelarge.Herewewillseethat,asdiscussedbrieflyinChapter8,combinatorialprobabilityactuallyplaysaconstructiveroleinarchitecturalmorphogenesis. NotesW.R.Lethaby,Architecture,HomeUniversityLibrary,London1912.M.Hellick,Varieties of Human Habitation;1970E.Trigueiro,‘Change and Continuity in Domestic Space Design: a comparative study of houses in 19th and early 20th century houses in Britain and Brazil’,PhDthesis,ucl1994AsreviewedinP.Steadman,Architectural Morphology,Pion1983,Chapter8andAppendix.P.Steadman,p171.Trigueiro,‘Changeandcontinuity’.Theseproportionsareestimatedfromtheresultsyieldedbythe‘secondnormalisation’tolargenumbersofcases.Itmustbestressedthattheyareatthisstageonlytentativeapproximations.Thegeneralpoint,however,seemssecure.Anexactlyanalogousconclusionaboutthenatureof‘elements’inlanguageisreachedbydeSaussureinCourse in General Linguistics,McGrawHill,1966(originallyinFrench,1915).Forexample:‘Languagedoesnotofferitselfasaset

123

4

567

8




SpaceSyntax

ofpre-delimitedsignstobestudiedaccordingtotheirmeaningandarrangement’,p.104;‘Wearetemptedtothinksoifwestartfromthenotionthattheunitstobeisolatedarewords…theconcreteunitmustbesoughtnotintheword,butelsewhere’,p.105;and‘Language,inamannerofspeaking,isatypeofalgebraconsistingsolelyofcomplexterms…languageisaformnotasubstance…allourincorrectwaysofnamingthingsthatpertaintolanguagestemfromtheinvoluntarysuppositionthatthelinguisticphenomenonmusthavesubstance’,p.122.Inotherwords,eachkindofoccupationischaracterisedbyadistinctivelocalconfiguration,dependentfortheirintegrationintoasinglecomplexonthespatio-functionallycentralsallecommune.Itisthefactofbeinganassemblageofdifferentlocalsub-complexesintoasingleconfigurationthatmakesthedwellingdistinctiveasabuildingtype.Thedwellingisnot,asitisoftentakentobe,thesimplestbuilding.Onthecontrary,seenasanintricatepatternoffunctionalinterdependenciesmappedintospace,itmaywellbethemostcomplex.Inbuildingswheretheorganisationofaspecificpatternofmovementisadominantfunctionalrequirementwecanexpectspacetobedominatedbysequencing.Forexample,galleriesandexhibitioncomplexes,whicharedesignedexplicitlytomovepeoplethroughthecomplexsothatallspacescanbetraversedwithouttoomuchrepetition,normallyhaveahighproportionofc-typesequencedspaces,givingtheirjustifiedgraphsthedistinctiveformofanumberofdeep,intersectingrings.Thisisnot,however,aclearcase.Ifweexaminethefunctionalmicrostructureofgalleryspaceswefindthatthelinesofglobalmovementpassthroughthesequencedspaceinsuchawayastoleavetheviewingzonesfreeforonlylocalconvexmovement.Locallyatleast,therelationofconvexandlinearzonesisoneofadjacencyratherthantrueinterpenetration.Or,asdiscussedinChapter7,willfollowlongorshortmodels.

9

10

11

The fundamental cityChapter nine



SpaceSyntax

Cities as things made of spaceInthepreviouschapteritwassuggestedthattherelationbetweenhumanbeingsandspacewas,atadeeplevel,governedbytwokindsoflaw:lawsofspatialemergence,bywhichthelarger-scaleconfigurationalpropertiesofspacefollowedasanecessaryconsequencefromdifferentkindsoflocalphysicalintervention;andlawsof‘genericfunction’,bywhichconstraintswereplacedonspacebythemostgenericaspectsofhumanactivity,suchasthesimplefactsofoccupyingspaceandmovingbetweenspaces.Inthischapterwearguethat,toasignificantextent,thespatialformsofcitiesareexpressionsoftheselaws,andthatifwewishtounderstandthemwemustlearntoseethemas‘thingsmadeofspace’,governedbyspatiallawswhoseeffectsbutnotwhosenaturecanbeguidedbyhumanagency.Oneimplicationofthisargumentwillbethattwentieth-centurydesign(asdicussedinChapter5)hasoftenusedspatialconceptsforurbanandhousingareaswhichfalloutsidethescopeoftheselaws,creatingspacewhichlackstheelementarypatterningwhichtheselawshavenormallyimposed,insomeshapeorform,inthepast.If,asisarguedhere,suchlawsexist,thenitwillbenecessarytorevisecurrentconceptsofthewell-orderedcitybackinthedirectionimpliedbytheselaws. Thereare,however,obviousobjectionstotheideathaturbanformsevolveaccordingtogenerallaws.Themostobviousisthatcitiesareindividuals,andthatthisisbecausetheformstheytakeareinfluencedbyfactorswhicharequitespecifictothetimeandplaceinwhichtheygrow—localtopographicalfactssuchasharbours,riversandhills,particularhistoricaleventssuchastradingdevelopments,populationmovementsandconquestsandbypre-existingcontextualconditions,suchasrouteintersectionsandtheexistenceofexploitableresources.Eachtypeofinfluencemightbeexpectedtohavegenericallysimilareffectsonurbanform,buttakentogetheritishighlyunlikelythatanytwocitieswouldrepeatthesamegroupingorsequencingofinfluences.Thesefactors,then,inspiteofinitiallysuggestingbasesforcomparison,tendmakeeachcityunique.Andthis,ofcourse,ishowweexperiencethem. Asecondobjectionisslightlylessobvious,andalittlecontradictorytothefirst,sinceitistypological.Thespatialandphysicaldevelopmentofcitiesis—quiteproperly—heldtobeareflectionofthesocialandeconomicprocesseswhichprovidethereasonsfortheirexistence.Differencesintheseprocessesarelikelytogiverisetodifferencesintypebetweencities.WesawaclearinstanceofthisinthetypologicalcontrastdrawninChapter6betweencitiesofproductionandcitiesofsocialreproduction.Differencesinspatialandphysicalformwerethereshowntobereflectionsofdifferencesintheessentialfunctionsofthosecities.Similarly,differencesinthephysicalandspatialformofcities,say,tothenorthandsouthoftheMediterranean,aremanifestlyconnectedinsomewaytothesocialandculturalidiosyncrasiesoftheEuropeanandIslamictraditions.Itseemsthentobespecificsocial,economicandculturalprocesses,ratherthangenericspatiallaws,thatarethedrivingforcesonurbanform.

In dilating my surface I increased the possibilities of contact between me and the outside of me that was so precious, but as the zones of my body soaked in marine solution were extended, my volume also increased at the same time, and a more and more voluminous region within me became unreachable by the elements outside, it became arid, dull and the weight of this dry and torpid thickness I carried within me was the only shadow on my happiness — so perhaps I could say that I’m better off now than I was then, now that the layers of our former surface, then stretched on the outside, have been turned inside out like a glove, now that all the outside has turned inward, and enters and pervades us through filiform ramifications…(Italo Calvino, Blood, Sea)

262

The fundamental city263



SpaceSyntax

Bothobjectionsseemwell-founded.Seeninoneway,citiesareindividuals;seeninanotheranother,theyseemtobetypes.Howcanthesefactsbereconciledtotheideathatgeneralspatiallawsmightplayaroleintheirspatialevolution?Infact,thereisnoincompatibility.Itissimplyamatterofthelevelatwhichwearetalking.Theinfluenceofspatiallawsoncitiesoperatesnotattheleveloftheindividualityofthecity,noronthetypologyofthecity,butatthedeeperlevelofwhatallindividualcitiesandtypesofcityhaveincommon,thatis,what,spatially,makesacityacity.Assettlementsevolveunderdifferentsocialandtopographicalconditions,theytendtoconserve,inspiteoftheinfluenceofthesedifferences,certainpropertiesofspatialconfiguration‘nearlyinvariant’.By‘nearlyinvariant’,wesimplymeanthattheconfigurationalpropertieswefindfallwithinaverynarrowbandofcombinatorialpossibility.Withoutknowledgeofthese‘nearinvariants’wecannoteasilyunderstandwhatcitiesareinprinciple,beforeweconsiderthemastypesorasindividuals. Whatarethese‘nearinvariants’?Letusbeginbylookingatapairofillustrativeaxialmaps:plate2c-e,whichispartofLondonasitisnow,andplate7,whichisthecentralpartofShiraz,inIran,asitwaspriortotwentieth-centurymodernisation.Thegridshavecleardifferencesincharacter.LinestructuresaremorecomplexinShiraz,andareinfactmuchlessintegratedandintelligible.Ifweweretoexaminetherelationoflinestoconvexelements,wewouldfindthatinLondonlinestendtopassthroughmoreconvexspacesthatinShiraz.Lookingattheintegrationcorestructures,wealsofinddifferences.Althoughatradius-n(notshowninthecaseofShiraz),bothhavestronglycentralisedcores,linkingcentretowardsedge,atradius-radius,Londonhasa‘covering’core,linkingcentretoedgeinthewaycharacteristicofEuropeancities,whileinShiraztheradius-radiuscoreismarkedlyregionalised.Thesedifferencesingridstructureareassociatedwithwell-knownbehaviouraldifferences,forexample,inthewaysinwhichinhabitantsrelatetostrangersandmentowomeninIslamicascomparedtoEuropeancities.Wecancalltheseassociationsofurbanformsandsocialbehaviour‘spatialcultures’,andnotethatoneofthemaintasksofatheoryofurbanformwouldbetoexplicatethem. However,ascanbeseenfromthetwoplates,underlyingthemanifestspatialdifferenceswealsofindmuchcommongroundintheurbangrids.Forexample,inbothcases,thespacesformedbythebuildingstendtobeimprobablylinearisedinatleastthreesenses.Atthesmallestscale,wefindthatbuildingsareplacednexttoandoppositeeachothertoformspaceswhichstresslinearityratherthan,forexample,enclosure.Second,ataslightlylesslocallevel,linesofsightandaccessthroughthespacesformedbybuildingstendtobecomeextendedintootherspacestoadegreethatisunlikelytohaveoccurredbychance.Third,wefindthatsome,butonlysome,ofthelinearspacesareprioritisedtoformlargerscalelinearcontinuitiesintheurbangrids,creatingamoreglobalmovementpotential.Thesepropertiesarepresentinthetwocasestodifferentdegrees,buttheyareneverthelesspresentinbothcases.Theywillbefoundtobepresentinsomedegreeinmostsettlements. Atamoreglobalscale,wealsofindcommonalitiesacrossthetwocases,




SpaceSyntax

whicharealso‘nearinvariants’insettlementsingeneral.Twoofthemostnotablearethatinbothcaseswewillfindawellformedlocalareastructureofsomekindcoexistingwithastrongglobalstructure.Bothlevelsofstructurearedifferentinthetwocases,buteachcasedoeshavebothlevelsofstructure,andthiswewillfindisgenerallythecaseincities.Atthemostgeneralleveloftheoverallshapeofcities,wealsofind‘nearinvariants’.Oneofthemostsignificantisthatcities,astheygrow,tendtofilloutinalldirectionstoformmoreorlesscompactshapes,evenincaseswheretheyarelinearintheearlystages.The‘deformedgrid’,withallthepropertieswehavejustdescribed,seemstobetheaptesttermtosummarisethese,andother,‘nearinvariants’ofcities,because,howevermuchurbanspaceisarticulatedandbrokenup,buildingsarestillingeneralaggregatedintooutwardsfacingislandstodefineintersectingringsofspace,whichthenbecomeimprobablylinearisedtogiverisetothelocalareaandglobalstructuresthatarefoundbyconfigurationalanalysis. Thesecommonalities,itwillbeargued,arisefromwhatspatialcultureshaveincommon,thatis,fromwhatinthepreviouschapterwascalledgenericfunction.This,itwillberecalled,referrednottothedifferentactivitiesthatpeoplecarryoutinspace,buttoaspectsofhumanoccupancyofspacethatarepriortoanyofthese:thattooccupyspacemeanstobeawareoftherelationshipsofaspacetoothers,thattooccupyaspatialcomplexmeanstomoveaboutinit,andtomoveaboutdependsonbeingabletoretainanintelligiblepictureofthecomplex. Intelligibilityandfunctionality,definedasformalpropertiesofspatialcomplexes,arethekeysto‘genericfunction’.Inthecaseofsettlements,genericfunctionrefersnottothespecificitiesofdifferentcultural,socialandeconomicforms,buttowhattheseformshaveincommonwhenseenfromaspatialpointofview.Thedeepinvariantstructureofurbangridsisgenerated,itwillbeargued,fromgenericfunctioncreatingemergentinvariants,whilethetypologicaldifferencesarisefromcultural,socialandeconomicdifferences,andindividualitiesfromtopographicalandhistoricalspecificities.Ineffect,itisproposedthatthereexistsafundamentalsettlementprocess,whichismoreorlessinvariantacrosscultures,andthatspatialculturesareparameterisationsofthisprocessby,forexample,creatingdifferentdegreesandpatternsofintegrationandintelligibility,anddifferentdegreesoflocalandglobalorganisationtotheoverallform.Ourtaskhereistoshowwhatthisfundamentalsettlementprocessisandhowitisaproductofgenericfunctionandthelawsofspatialemergence. Beforeweembarkonthis,wemustfirstbeclearwhatexactlyitisweareseekingtoexplain.Itisclearthatwhensettlementsaresmall,theycantakeagreatvarietyofforms.Itisalsoclearthatthroughouthistorywefindquiteradicalexperimentsinurbanform,forexample,thecitieswhichweexaminedinChapter6.However,ascitiesbecomelarge,thesepeculiaritiestendtobeeliminated,andgridsbecomemuchmorelikeeachotherincertainways.Whatweareseekingtoidentifyherearetheinvariantsintheprocessesbywhichlargecitiestendtogrow—thatis,totrytodescribethemainlinesofurbanevolution.‘Strange’citiesexist,andforawhileevengrowquitelarge,buttheyareessentiallydeadendsinurbanevolution.




SpaceSyntax

Theirprinciplesoforganisationdonotsupportalargesuccessorfamilyofcasesandtypesacrosstherangeofurbanscales. Becausetheyoperateataverydeeplevelandgovernthecommonstructureofcities,itmightbethoughtthatthefundamentalcityistoogeneralisedtobeofrealinterest.Thisisnotthecase.Theinfluenceofspatiallawsoncitiesispervasiveaswellasdeep.Iteffectsthelevelatwhichweseeandexperiencecities,aswellasattheleveloftheirdeepstructures.Inordertounderstandindividualcitiesandtypesofcitiesatanylevelwemustfirstunderstandexactlywhatitisthatthesegenerallawshavecontributedtotheirform.Ifwethinkofcitiesasaggregatesofcellularelements—buildings—linkedbyspace,theninthelanguageofthepreviouschapter,spatiallawsarethe‘firstfilter’betweentheboundlessmorphologicalpossibilityforsuchaggregatesandthepropertiesofthevanishinglysmallsubsetwecallcities.Socialandeconomicprocessesarethenthesecondfilter,guidingthebasicpathsofevolutionthiswayorthattogiverisetorecognisabletypes.Specificlocalconditionsintimeandspacearethenthethirdfilterthroughwhichthecityacquiresitseventualindividuality. Ourtaskinunderstandingthefundamentalcityisthentoanswertwoquestions:howandwhyshouldtheseparticularinvariantsemergefromaspatialprocessofgeneration?Andwhataspectsofthesocialandfunctionalprocessesthatdrivesettlementformationguidegrowingcitiesalongthesepathways?Theanswertobothquestionswillbeessentiallythosewehavediscussedinthepreviouschapter:lawsofspatialimplicationfromlocalphysicalmovestooverallspatialpatternincellularaggregates—forsuchcitiesare—thesebeingdrivenby‘genericfunction’,inconjunction,ofcourse,withprevailingsocio-economicandtopographicalfactors.Two paradoxesHowthenandwhyshouldthese‘nearinvariants’emergeinaprocessofsuccessivelyplacingbuiltformsinagrowingaggregate?First,wemustbeawarethataggregativeprocessesarethemselvessubjecttocertainlawsof‘emergence’,whicharenotinsignificantforurbangrowth.Forexample,arandomlygrowingaggregatewill,iffreefromconstraints,tendtowardsacircularformasitbecomeslarge,simplybecausethisismoreprobablethananyotherform.1Thisisrelevanttourbangrowthbecauseacircularshapeisalsothemostintegratingshape,andthismeansthattotheextentthattripsarefromallpontstoallothers,thenmeantriplengthwillbeminimisedinacircularform—thatis,oddly,intheformthatgrowsmostrandomly. Such‘lawsofemergence’areimportanttourbangrowth.Butfarmoreimportantisthefactthatsomeofthemostelementarylawsofthiskindaffecturbangrowthnotsimplybybeingemergentpropertiesofthegrowingsystem,butbyimposingconflictingtensionsonthesystem.Theresolutionofthesethenbecomestheprimedeterminantofthepathwayofthesystem.Thelawsofemergenceoperate,ineffect,asparadoxeswhichmustberesolvedbythegrowthprocess.Therearetwosuchparadoxes.Thefirstcanbecalledtheparadoxofcentrality,thesecondtheparadoxofvisibility.




SpaceSyntax

Theparadoxofcentralitytakesthefollowingform.Inacircular—thatis,mostprobable—aggregate,integrationrunsfromcentretoedge,withthegreatestintegrationinthecentre,andtheleastattheedge.Thisprioritisesthecentrefromthepointofviewofknowneffectsofintegrationonthefunctioningofaspatialsystem.Forexample,moremovementalongshortestpathswillpassthroughthecentralareathananywhereelse,ifmovementisfromallpointstoallotherpoints,oriforiginsanddestinationsarerandomised. However,allthisisonlythecaseifweconsidertheurbansystemonitsown,intermsofitsinteriorrelations.Assoonasweconsideritsexternalrelations,saytoothersettlementsintheregion,orevensimplytothespaceoutsidethesystem,thenthecentretoedgedistributionofintegrationnolongerapplies.Infact,themoreintegratingtheform—thatisthemoreitapproximatesthecircularform—thenthemoreitsmostintegratedinternalzoneismaximallysegregatedfromtheexternalworld,and,bydefinition,fromanyotheraggregatesthataretobefoundinthevicinityofthesystem.Inotherwords,maximisinginternalintegrationalsomaximisesexternalsegregation.Thisisthe‘paradoxofcentrality’. Conversely,aswemovefromacircularformtowardsthemostlinearform,thatisthesinglelineofcells,ortheleastprobableshapeinagrowingaggregate,thenwefindthatthemostlinearform,whichistheleastintegratedinitself,isthemostintegratedtotheoutsideortoothersystemsintheregion,sinceeachofitsconstituentcellsisbydefinitiondirectlyadjacenttothespaceoutsidetheform.Inshort,thecircularformistheleastintegrativewiththespaceoutsidetheformforthesamereasonthatitisthemostinternallyintegrative:ithastheleastperipheralcellsforthemaximuminteriorcells.Theconverseistrueforthemaximallylinearformwhichhasthemostperipheralcellsagainstinternalcells. Growingurbansystemsmustrespondtotheparadoxofcentrality,becauseithasthesimpleconsequencethatifyoutrytomaximiseinternalintegrationthenyouloseexternalintegrationandviceversa,andurbanformsseemtoneedbothinternalandexternalintegration.Thetensionbetweeninternalandexternalintegrationleadssettlementstoevolveinwayswhichovercomethecentralityparadox.Forexample,thetendencyforagrowingurbansystemtoincreasethelengthofcertainedge-to-centrelinesinproportiontothegrowthofthesystemisoneresponsetothis.Exactlywhythisshouldbethecaseleadsdirectlytooursecondparadox,whichwewillcalltheparadoxofvisibility,althoughthisdoesnotquiteexpressitscomplexnature,sinceitarisesfromdifferencesbetweenthemetricandvisiblepropertiesofspace. Thevisibilityparadoxcanbeexplainedverysimply.Ifwearrangeelementsinasingleline,asinfigure9.1aandb(thecorrespondinggraph),wemaximisethemetricormodulardepththatthoseelementscanhavefromeachotherinanycontiguousarrangement.Themoreelementswesoarrange,thegreaterthedepth,andtheworsethemetrictripefficiencyoftheformifmovementistobefromallpointstoallothers.Butifweareinterestednotinmovement,butinvisibility,thenwefindthecontraryeffect.Suppose,forexample,wesuperimposealine,




SpaceSyntax

a.

2.02

2.04

2.06

2.08

2.1

2.12

2.14

2.16

2.18

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10B -shaperatio

mea

ndep

th

y = -.015x + 2.173, R -squar ed: .994

e.

c.

b.

d.

Figure 9.1




SpaceSyntax

representingalineofsight,onourlineararrangementofelements,asinfigure9.1candd.Thevisible(asopposedtometric)integrationoftheformisthenmaximisedbecauseallcellsarecoveredbyasingleline.Inthegraph,thismeansallotherelementsareconnectedtothegraphelementrepresentingtheline.Inotherwords,thearrangementofelementsinwhichmetricsegregationismaximised,thatis,thelinearshape,isalsothearrangementinwhichvisualintegrationismaximised.Foralinearshapewithoutalineofvisibility,meandepthincreaseswiththenumberofcells,butwiththesuperimpositionofthelinethen,howeverlongthelineofcells,themaximumdepthinthesystemwillbe2,andinfactthemeandepthofanexpandingsequencemustconvergeonalimitof2. Inanimportantsense,then,thevisualintegrationofashapebehavesintheoppositewaytothemetricintegration.Thiswillalsoapplytogridsmadeupofelementsandsuperimposedlines.Holdingthenumberofelementssteadyat36,andarrangingthemtobecoveredfirstbya6×6gridoflines,then9×4,then12×3andfinally18×2,wefindthemeandepthofthesystemdecreaseswithelongation.Wecansaythenthatvisualintegrationincreaseswithincreaseintheblockshaperatio,thatis,theratioofthelongtotheshortside,asinthefiguresandscattergraminfigure9.1e.Thisistheoppositeoftheeffectofelongationonashapeonitsown,withoutsuperimposedlines. Inotherwords,whenconsideredaselementsinavisibilityfieldtheprimitiveelementsrepresentinglocationsintheformhavethecontraryintegrationbehaviourtothesameelementsconsideredasasystemofmetricdistances.Iflinesaresuperimposedongridsofelements,thenthemoreelongatedthegrid,themoreintegrating;theoppositeofthecaseforarrangementswithoutsuperimposedlines.Thelinearform,whichfromametricpointofview,andthereforefromthepointofviewofmovementconsideredasenergyexpenditure,istheleastintegratedform,isvisuallythemostintegratedform.Theimplicationisobvious,butfundamental.Ifwearrangeaseriesof,say,urbanareasinalinewemaximisethemeantriplengthatthesametimeaswemaximisevisibility.Thesameprinciplegovernstheprogressiveelongationofgrids. Urbanformmustthenovercometwoparadoxes.First,itmustcreateexternalintegrationforthesakeofrelationstotheoutsideworld,aswellasinternalintegration,forthesakeofrelationsamongstlocationswithin,eventhoughthesepropertiesaretheoreticallyopposedtoeachother.Wemayaddthaturbanformmustacheivethisatwhateverleveltheparadoxmightbecomeproblematic.Thatislikelytoincludeatleastalocalandagloballevel.Second,itmustpursuebothcompactnessandlinearity,theformerforthesakeoftripefficiency,thelatterforthesakeofvisibilityandintelligibility.Thecharacteristic‘nearinvariants’ofurbangridsthatwehavenotedare,itwillbeargued,essentiallyresponses,atdifferentlevels,tothesetwoparadoxes. Howthendoesurbanformresolvetheseparadoxes?Itisproposedherethattwoparadoxessetthequestionstowhichthestructuredgrid,whether‘deformed’or‘interrupted’,giveustheanswer.2Astructuredgridisoneinwhichintegrationandintelligibilityarearrangedinapatternofsomekind,which




SpaceSyntax

supportsfunctionalityandintelligibility.Essentially,linesandareasareprioritisedforintegrationandintelligibilitytovaryingdegreesinordertocreateasystemofdifferentiation,anditisthisdifferentiationthatwecallstructureinthesystem.Thisiswhyintegrationcoresandareascattersaresuchfundamentalfunctionalpropertiesinurbansystems.Theyreflecttheprocessofconstructingadifferentiatedstructureinthesystem.Thedistributionofintegrationinanurbansystem,togetherwithitsassociatedbuiltformandlandusepatterns,isnotastaticpictureofthecurrentstateofthesystem,butakindofstructuralrecordofthehistoricalevolutionofthesystem.The‘structuralinertia’imposedbythisevolvedstructureisofcoursealsotheprimeconstraintonthefutureevolutionofthesystem. Thetaskisthentoshowhowurbanformcomesaboutinsuchawayastoresolvethetwoparadoxes,thatis,toshowhowthestructuredurbangridisdiscoverableasanemergentpatternthroughthepursuitofmoreelementarypropertiesofspacearisingfromthedispositionofbuildings.Thisposesamethodologicaldifficulty.Allthespatialanalyseswehavemadeinthisbooksofarareanalysesofexistingcomplexsystems,thatis,systemsthathavealreadyevolvedoralreadybeenconstructed.Thequestionwehaveposedabouturbanformisabouttheconstructionofsystems,thatis,howsystemsevolveandgrowinwhatisinitiallyavoid.Thespatialvoidseemstobestructureless.Howthencanweconceptualiseandanalyseaggregativeprocesseswhichareinitiatedandevolvedinaspatialvoid? Theanswerissimple,andwillleadusintonewtheoreticalterritory.Spaceisnotastructurelessvoid.Weonlybelieveitisbyusinganimplicitanalogywithphysicalsystems.Whatwecallstructureinaphysicalsystem,whetherartificialornatural,hastobecreatedbyputtingelementstogetherinsomeway.Spaceisnotlikethis.Initsrawstate,spacealreadycontainsallspatialstructuresthatcouldeverexistinthatspace.Itisinthissensethatspaceistheoppositeof‘things’.Thingsonlyhavetheirownproperties.Spacehasallpossibleproperties.Whenweinterveneinaspacebytheplacingofphysicalobjectswedonotcreatespatialstructure,buteliminateit.Toplaceanobjectinspacemeansthatcertainlinesofvisibilityandmovementwhichwerepreviouslyavailablearenolongeravailable.Whenwetalkofastructuredgridinacity,broughtaboutbytheplacingofbuiltforms,thisgridalreadyexisted,inco-existencewithallotherpossiblestructures,withinthe‘substrate’space(thatis,thespacepriortoourinterventioninit)nowoccupiedbythecity,beforethecitycameintoexistence.Thespatialsystemwecallthegridwasnotcreatedbytheplacingofbuiltforms.Otherswereeliminated.Thegridwasconstructedinanimportantsensenegatively.Itwasnotassembledinitself.Itsexistencewasdrawnattentiontoandhighlightedbytheeliminationofother‘virtual’structures. Thisviewofspaceisastruepracticallyasitisphilosophically.Adancesketchesoutapossiblestructureofspacewithinaninfinitesetofpossibilities.Thedanceisanexploration—acelebrationperhaps—oftheinfinitestructurabilityofspace.Anyopenspaceisaspaceinwhichnopossibilitieshaveyetbeeneliminated,andeveryopenspaceiscontinuallystructuredandrestructuredbythehumanactivitythattakesplaceinit.Ifwedonotconceptualisespaceinthis




SpaceSyntax

waywehavenowayofreconcilinghumanfreedomandthehumanstructuringofspace.Humanactivityisneveractuallystructuredbyspace.Instructuringspacebyphysicalobjectswesuggestpossibilitiesbyeliminatingothers.Butthespacesintheintersticesofphysicalformsarestill‘open’.Withintheselimits,theinfinitestructurabilityofspacestillprevails.Inourcellswemaydance.All-line visibility mapsInordertounderstandhowtheplacingofphysicalobjectsinasubstratespacecreatesspatialstructurebyelimination,wemusthaveaformalconceptionofthesubstratespaceascontainingallpossibilitiespriortoourinterventioninit.Inviewofthe‘unreasonableeffectiveness’ofline-basedanalysesinunderstandingthespacestructureofcities,supposethenthatweregardthesubstrateasamatrixofinfinitelydenselinesofarbitrary(orinfinite)lengthinalldirections,andcallitthe‘linesubstrate’.Anobjectplacedina‘linesubstrate’willblocksomelinesandleaveothersintact,andthiswillhavetheeffectofcreatingsomedegreeofstructureinthelinesubstrate. Howcanweidentifyandmeasurethestructureinthelinesubstrateproducedbyanobject?Clearly,wecannotatthisstageusethe‘axialmaps’,whichhaveprovedsousefulinanalysingthestructureofrealcities,sincewecannotyetdrawthem.Asingleobjectplacedinalinesubstratewillhaveinfinitelymanylinesincidenttoit,andalsoinfinitelymanylinestangenttoit,aswellasinfinitelymanyotherlinesinitsimmediatevicinity.Suchinfinitelinematricesdonotatfirstseemtobeusefullyanalysable. However,thereisawaywecanproceedwhichseemstoleadtoafundamentaldescriptionofobjectsandsetsofobjectsintermsoftheirstructuringeffectonthelinesubstrate.Withinthesetoflineswhichpassintheregionofanobject—letusthinkofitasasimplebuilding—therewillbeasubsetwhichareascloseaspossibletotheobjectbutwhichareunaffectedbyit.Thesewillbethelinesthataretangenttotheverticesoftheobject,includingthosethatliealonganystraightsurfaces.Aslightlysmallersubsetwillbethosethataretangenttoexactlyonevertexofanobject.Thiswilleliminatethosethatactuallyliealongaface,sincesuchalinewouldnecessarilybetangenttotwovertices,oneateachendoftheface,butincludethosewhichareasclosetothefaceaswewish—inpracticalcomputingterms,ascloseasasinglepixel. Definedthisway,eachvertexstillhasainfinitesetoflinestangenttoit,whichwecanthinkofasforminganopenfanshapearoundthatvertex.Theselinesetshavetheusefulpropertyofdefiningthelimitsoftheobjectinthesubstrate—exactlyifweusethelargersubset,towithinonepixelifweusethesmallersubset—withoutmakinguseeitherofthelinesincidenttotheobjectorthoseintheregionwhicharenottangenttoavertex.Thetangentsubsetis,inausefulsense,awell-definedsetoflinesselected,andinthatsensegenerated,bythepresenceoftheobject.Wehaveatleastsimplifiedthesituationalittle.




SpaceSyntax

However,assoonasweaddasecondobjectinthevicinityofthefirst,wecandefineanewsubset:thatofthelinesthataretangenttoatleastonevertexineachobject.Byfindingeachlinetangenttoavertexononeobjectwhichisalsotangenttoavertexoftheother,thencontinuingthatlinetillitisstoppedbybeingincidenteithertoafurtherobjectortoanyboundarywhichwedecidetoplacearoundtheregion,wedefineexactlythekindoflinematrixthatwasdemonstratedinChapter3.Thesetoflinesisineffectmadeupofalllinesdrawntangenttoverticesthatcan‘see’eachother,andthereforehaveastraightlinedrawntangenttothem.Wemaycallthisthe‘all-linemap’generatedjointlybytheverticesofthetwoobjectsthatcanseeeachother.Likeanyotherconnectedlinematrix,such‘all-linemaps’canbesubjecttointegrationanalysis.Ifwedoso,wefindthatanysetofobjectswillcreatesomekindofstructure. Wecannowusethisasageneralmethodforanalysingtheeffectsofobjectsplacedinalinesubstrate,byfindingalllinestangenttotheverticesthatcanseeeachotherforallobjectsinthesubstrate,thensubjectingtheresultingall-linemapofthoseobjectstointegrationanalysis.Todothiswemustdefineaboundarytothesystem.Tolimittheeffectoftheboundaryontheanalysiswecanallowthesubstratetoadaptitsshapetoformamoreorlessregularenvelopearoundthegroupofobjects.Byproceedinginthisway,astructureofintegrationiscreatedinthelinesubstratewhichreflectstheshapesandpositionsoftheobjectswehaveplacedinthesubstratewithrespecttoeachother.Forexample,inplate3a,wehavefoundtheall-linemapcreatedbyanumberofobjectsandthenitspatternofintegration.Itisreasonabletothinkofthisasananalysisofthefieldofvisibilitycreatedbytheplacedobjects,sinceeverylinedefinesalimitofvisibilitycreatedconjointlybyapairofverticesfromapairofobjects. Theseanalysedvisibilitymapsarequiteremarkableentities,andappeartosynthesiseaspectsofconfigurationalanalysiswhichhadpreviouslyseemedtobequiteindependentofeachother.Forexample,itisclearthat,bydefinition,axialmapsaresubsetsofthelinesthatmakeupthe‘all-line’visibilitymap.Visibilitymaps,wemaysay,‘contain’axialmaps.Itfollowsthattheywillalsocontainsomeaccountoftheglobalstructureofapatternofspaceinaconfigurationbecauseaxialmapsdo.Weshallseeshortlythatthisisthecase. However,wealsofindthatvisibilitymapsreproducesomeaspectsoftheanalysisofshapessetoutinChapter3.Forexample,ifweconstructaregularfive-by-fivegridofblocks,andcarryoutanall-lineanalysis,wefindthatwhereasasimpleaxialmapwouldgiveeachlinethesameintegrationvalue(becauseallareequallyconnectedtoexactlyhalfofthetotal)theintegrationstructureintheall-lineanalysisdistributesintegrationfromedgetocentre.Thisisshowninplate3b.Thecentralbiasintheintegrationcorearisesbecauseinadditiontotheglobalstructureoflines,aswouldbefoundintheaxialmapofthegrid,therearealsoeverywherealargenumberoflinesofeverylengthspecifiedbypairsofverticeswhichcanseeeachother,includingalargenumberoflinesonlyalittlelongerthantheblocksofbuiltform.Thisdensematrixofshortlinesactsasthroughitwereatessellation,




SpaceSyntax

andnotonlydistributesintegrationfromedgetocentreintheshortlines,butalsonecessarilytransmitsthisbiastothelongerlines.Inotherwords,theall-lineintegrationanalysisreproducesboththeglobalstructureoftheformthroughitslonglineswhichareequivalenttotheaxialmap,butalsoreflectsthelocalstructureoftheshapeaswouldbefoundinthetessellation. All-linevisibilitymapsalsoreproducesomeoftheconjointeffectsoftessellationspluslinesnotedinfigure9.1.Forexample,ifwetake36blocksandarrangethem6×6,9×4,12×3and18×2(callingtheratiooflengthtobreadththe‘blockshaperatio’)anduseeachtogenerateall-linevisibilityanalyses,wefindthatasthearrangementelongatesmeandepthdiminishes.Ifwemaintainthenumberofblocksconstant,themeandepthintheall-linemapisminimisedbyreducingthe‘pile’(thatis,thenumberoflinesofblocksinthearrangement):a2-pilearrangementofcellshaslessdepthintheall-linemapthana3-pilearrangement,whichhaslessdepththana4-pilearrangement,andsoonuptosquareness.Greaterelongationmeansgreaterintegration. Oncloserexamination,the‘2-pile’grid,asinstancedinthe18x2gridoffigure9.1,turnsouttobeevenmoreinteresting.If,insteadofmaintainingthenumberofblocksconstantandrearrangingthemwithdifferent‘pile’(thatisintothe4pile9×4,the3pile12×3andsoon),wemaintainpileconstantandincreasethenumberofblocks,thenwefindthatmeandepthincreaseswithincreasingnumbersofblocks,butwithdifferentcurvesfordifferentpiles.Forexample,figure9.2aandbshowrespectivelythegrowthcurvesformeandepthin1-pileand4-pilearrangementswithincreasingnumbersofblocks,andthereforeincreasingblockshaperatio.Experimentationwithlargersystemssofarsuggeststhatmeandepthcontinuestoincreasewith1-pileand4-pile,atleastuptothescalesofareasonablecitysystem.Figure9.2c,however,showsaquitedifferentbehaviourfor2-pilesystems.Intheearlystagesofgrowth,meandepthrisesrapidly,andcontinues,slowingrapidlyupto18blocks(2×9).With20(2×10)ormoreblocks,meandepththenbeginstodecrease,andcontinuestodecreaseasblocksareadded,atleastuptothenormallimitsofurbanpossibility.Thereasonwhy2-pilesystems,andonly2-pilesystems,behaveinthisuniquewayisassimpleasitisfundamental.Rememberingthatblockswhicharealigneddonotseeeachotherthroughinterveningblocks(becauselinestangenttoverticesdonotincludethosethataretangenttotwoverticesonthesameblock,thatislineswhichlieflatonthefaceofablockareexcluded),the2-pilesystemistheonlysysteminwhichallblocksseemorethanhalfoftheotherblocks.Inallothercases,blockswhicharenotonthesamealignmentinterferewiththemutualvisibilityofatleastsomeoftheblocks.As2-pilesystemsgrow,therefore,theprivilegedvisibilityoverallotherarrangementsincreases. 2-pilesystemsthereforehaveauniquetheoreticalstatusamongblockarrangementsasfarasthedegreeofintegrationintheall-linemapisconcerned.Weshouldnotthenbesurprisedthatitcorrespondstooneoftheprimaryspatialtypes—perhapstheprimarytype—thatcitiesoffer.Streets,avenues,alleys,boulevards,roadsandsoonareallvariantsonthefundamental2-pilelineartype.Itisatleasta




SpaceSyntax

1.251.3

1.351.4

1.451.5

1.551.6

1.651.7

1.751.8

1.851.9

1.952

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

k-blocks

mea

ndep

th

y = .003x + 1.537, R-s quared: .429

1.251.3

1.351.4

1.451.5

1.551.6

1.651.7

1.751.8

1.851.9

1.952

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

k-blocks

mea

ndep

th

y = .003x + 1.774, R-s quared: .903

1.251.3

1.351.4

1.451.5

1.551.6

1.651.7

1.751.8

1.851.9

1.952

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

k-blocks

mea

ndep

th

y = .001x + 1.639, R-s quared: .072

a. Growth of one pile grid.

b. Growth of four pile grid.

c. Gr owth of two pile grid.

Figure 9.2




SpaceSyntax

suggestiveinferencethattheseuniqueintegrationpossibilitiesofthevisibilityfieldscreatedby2-pilesystemsarethereasonforthisprivilegedtypologicalstatus. Arelatedinterpretationmightbepossibleforthatotherdominanturbanspatialtype:thelargeopenspaceknownvariouslyasthe‘piazza’,‘place’or—withinappropriategeometricityinEnglish—‘square’.Ifwecreateasquareinagrid—saybyeliminatingthecentralfourblocksina6x6grid,asinplate3c,theeffectistoreducethemeandepthandthusincreasetheoverallintegrationofthesystem.Ifwethenmovethesquaretowardsthecorner,asinplate3d,wefindthatthemeandepthofthesystemisstillreducedcomparedtothe6×6grid,buttoalesserdegreethanwiththecentralspace.Inotherwords,theeffectsareexactlywhatwewouldexpectfromtheprinciplesfortheconstructionofintegrationsetoutinthelastchapter.Acentrallylocatedlargerspaceintegratesmorethanonethatisperipherallylocated.Theeffectsofreplacingtheopenspaceswithequivalentlyshapedblocks,asinplate3eandf,arealsoexactlywhatwouldbeexpected.Acentrallyplacedblockreducesintegrationmorethanaperipherallyplacedblock.Replacingsquarespacesandblockswithlinearspacesandblocksofequivalentareawillalsofollowtheseprinciples. Inotherwords,all-linevisibilitymapsreproducethelocaltoglobaleffectsbywhichtheglobalconfigurationalpropertiesofspatialcomplexeswereshowntoarisefromlocalphysicalmoves.Wemaythereforeposeinterestingquestionssuchas:whatlocalphysicalmovesgiverisetothecharacteristicstructuresthatarefoundinthevarioustypesofurbangrids?Forexample,beginingwiththe6×6grid,whoseall-linemeandepthis1.931,inplate3gadoublesizedblockiscreatedacrossthecentrelinenearthe‘northern’edge.Theeffectistoreducetheintegrationofthecentralline,previously(alongwiththecentraleast-westline)themostintegratingbecauseofitscentrallocation.Alsotheoverallmeandepthofthesystemincreasesto1.949.Inplate3h,theblockisbroughtclosertothecentre.Theeffectistode-integratethecentralnorth-southlineevenmore,ascanbeseenfromthedeepeningofthebluetothenorthandsouthoftheblock.Thereisasecondeffect.Theeast-westcentrallinesarenowlessintegratedthanthenorth-southlinesadjacenttothedoubleblock.Thisisbecauseoneofthecrucialconnectionsthatgavethemthisvalue—thenorth-southcentralline—hasbeenblocked.Infactthiseffectwasalsopresentinplate3g,butlessstrongly,sothatitdidnotreachthethresholdatwhichthecolourwouldbechanged.Inplate3jtheblockismovedawayfromthecentrallineandreturnedtothenorthernedge.Comparingwithplate3g,itcanbeseenthatthesegregativeeffectisless.Inplate3k,theblockismovedawayfromtheedge.Thesegregativeeffectisgreaterthanforplate3j,butlessthanforplate3h. Itisclearthattheseeffectsfollowfromtheprinciplessetoutinthepreviouschapter.Themorecentrallyablockisplaced,thegreaterthe‘depthgain’orlossofintegration.Itshouldthereforebepossibletoexplorehowthedeploymentofblocksingeneralcreatedifferentlystructuredgrids.Forexample,ifweplacefourdouble-sizedblocksadjacenttothecentreasinplate3l,weimmediatelycreateakindof‘deformedwheel’integrationstructure,withhub,spokesandarimoneblockinfromtheedge.




SpaceSyntax

Thishappensbecausethedouble-sizedblocksalleliminateconnectiontothecentrallines,whicharenaturallyprioritisedbytheform,andmakethe‘rim’lines,whicharestillmaximallyconnected,relativelystrongerinintegration.Theinterstitialzonesdefinedbythewheelaredefinedbytherathersharpsegregationcreatedbehindthedoubleblocksbycuttingthemoffnotonlyfromthetheirlateralneighbourzones,butalsofromthecentrallines.Thisstructureisthereforecharacterisedbydiffusingintegrationtocreatethewheel,andratherstronglysegregatedzonesclosetothecentreoftheform.Incontrast,plate3m,byplacingtheblocksawayfromthecentrallines,createsstrongerintegrationinthecentrallines,butweakerintherimlines.Thefourzonesadjacenttothecentrearestillmarkedoutbycomparativesegregation,butmuchlessthanbeforebecauseinallcasesdirectlinkstobothneighbourzonesandthecentrallinesareretained.Theresultingformisoverallmoreintegratedthanthepreviouscase,withastrongercentralstructure,butalessstrongzonestructureandalessmarkeddeformedwheeleffect. Ineachcase,theseeffectsareexpressionsoftheprinciplesforthecreationofstructureinspatialcomplexessetoutinthepreviouschapter.Theyshowthatcomparativelysimplelocalchangesinaspatialcomplexcanhavepowerfulstructuraleffectsontheconfigurationofthewhole.Evenonthebasisofwhatweknow,wecansuggestgenerativeprocesseswhicheitherminimiseormaximiseintegrationand,itwillturnout,intelligibility(asdefinedinChapter3).Ingeneral,lossofintegrationandintelligibilityresultsfromplacingblockssothattheybarlinesgeneratedbyexistingblocksat90degrees.Themostgeneralformofthiswouldseemtobeaprocessinwhichwelocaterectangularblocksinnon-contiguousT-shapes,asinplate3n.Thenon-contiguousThastheeffectthatbothlinesparalleltothelongfacesofexistingblocksareinevitablystoppedbyblocksplacedinthevicinity,andlinesalongthesurfaceoftheblockthereforechangedirectionat90degrees.Wecancallthisthe90-degreegenerator.Asthescattergramshows,theaggregateformarisingfromthe90-degreegeneratorhasverypoorintelligibilityanditisclearthatitwillalwaysdosoifappliedastheprincipalgeneratorfortheblockplacing.Asimilar90-degreeeffectwillariseinasquareblockprocessbysimilarlyplacingeachnextblocksoastoblockthefacelineonatleastoneexistingblock.Inordertomakethisprocessworkinalldirections,itisnecessarytocreateslightlywiderspacesnearthecornerofeachblock,asinplate3p,inwhichthelossofintegrationandintelligibilityisevengreaterthantotherectangular90-degreeprocess. The90-degreeprocessdependsoncreatingthe90-degreerelationatthepointwhereanewblockisaddedtothesystem.Supposethenthatweavoidsuchrelationsatleastforonelineparalleltoafaceinanexistingblock.Inotherwords,supposeweaddblockssoastocreateatleastone‘zero-degree’relationforthenewblock(i.e.continuingtheline)andanexistingblock.Plate3qisanexampleofarandomprocessfollowingonlythisrule.Itwillofcoursecreate90-degreerelationsaswellaszero-degreerelations,simplyastheresultofthenon-contiguousL-shape.Theprocesscreatesanumberoflacunas,andlinesofalldifferentlengths.Butatthisscaletheoutcomehasafairlystrongedge-to-centrestructure,andthe




SpaceSyntax

degreeofintegrationandintelligibilityarehigh.Wecanthenaddtothisprocessthe‘extension’rulefromthepreviouschapterandrequiretheprocessalwaystoconservethezero-degreerelationforthelongestlineavailable.Onepossibleoutcomeofsuchaprocessisshowninplate3r.Theeffectofintroducingthe‘extension’rulebywhichthelongestlineisconservedwhereeachnewblockisaddedistocreatenotonlyamuchstrongerstructure,butalsoastructurethatismuchmoredifferentiatedbetweenhighandlowintegrationthanbefore.Overallintegrationandintelligibilityarealsoveryhigh.Wecannowseethatthepureorthogonalgridisasimpleextensionofthisprinciple:linelengthisconservedinalldirectionsbymakingall-linerelationsalongfaceszero-degreecontinuations. However,thereisnosuchthinginrealityasapuregrid,iffornootherreasonthanbecausecertainlineswillbespatiallyprivilegedattheexpenseofothersbybeingcontinuedoutsidethesettlementintotheroutesthatconnectitwithothersettlements,whileotherlineswillnot.Inpracticewealsofindthatgeometricallyorderedgrids,suchasthosefoundinancientGreeceandRome,ancientChinaandmodernAmerica,arenotinternallyuniform.Sometimeslinesinonedirectionareprivilegedattheexpenseofothersbytheoverallshapeofthesettlement,but,morecommonly,somelinesareinternallystoppedatrightanglesbybuiltforms,whileotherscontinue.Thisiswhywecallsuchgrids‘interruptedgrids’,andnotethattheywerejustasstructuredas‘deformed’grids. Thesesimplecasesillustratethekindofthingweneedtoknow:howspatialstructureinagridarisesfromlocalactiononblocks.Onewholeclassofgrids—interruptedgrids—isbasedalmostentirelyonwhatwehavesofarexplored,thatisgridshapeandinterruption.Wecanhavetheoutlineofatheoryofinterruptedgridsonthebasisofthemethodswehavesofarsetout.However,thecommonestkindofgridisnotinterruptedbutdeformed.Thedifferencebetweenthetwoiseasytodescribe.Intheinterruptedgridswehavesofarconsideredallmajorlines—thatis,thesubsetoftheall-linemapthatconstitutestheaxialmap—areeithertangenttoavertexofablockorendonablockatclosetoninetydegrees.Inpracticaltermsthismeansthatlineseithercontinuewithnochangeindirection,orcompelaninety-degreechangeindirection.Wecouldcallsuchgridszero-ninetygrids,becauseallmovementsproceedwithazero-degreechangeindirectionoraninety-degreechangeindirection.Deformedgridsare,quitesimply,gridsthatusethewholerangeinbetween. Whatthetwotypesofgridhaveincommonisthat,whateverthetechniqueforcreatinganglesofincidencebetweenlines,theoutcomeisvariationinthelengthsoflines.Thesevariationsareoneofthemeansbywhichstructureiscreatedintheurbangrid.Inbothdeformedandinterruptedgrids,thisstructuremostcommonlyarisesfromtheapplicationofthe‘extension’principle:longerlinestendtobeconservedbyzero-orlow-degreelinerelations,allowingninety-orhigh-degreelinerelationstooccurawayfromthelongerlines.Thisiswhyindeformedgridswetypicallyfindthedominantstructureismadeofsequencesoflongerlineswhoseintersectionsarelowdegree,andshorter,morelocalised,lines




SpaceSyntax

whoseintersectionsarehighdegree.InChapter4,forexample,wefoundthatintheCityofLondon,therewasapervasivetendencyforlongerlinestobeincidenttoothersatopenangleswhilethemorelocalisedshorterlinestendtobeincidentat,orcloseto,rightangles.Inspiteofotherdifferences,similarobservationscanbemadeaboutmanyArabtowns,thoughthelinesthatintersectatopenanglestendtobelesslong,andlessdifferentiatedinlengthfromsomeofthemorelocalisedlines.Thisisanexampleofaparametricdifferenceexpressingculturalvariationinthefundamentalsettlementprocess.Weshouldalsonoteofcoursethatthisrelationwasexactlyinvertedinthe‘strangetowns’ofChapter6.Itwasthelongestlinesthatendedinninety-degreerelationsbybeingincidenttomajorpublicbuildings. Infact,thesituationisslightlymoresubtle.Ifweconsiderthestructureofthegridfromthepointofviewofhowitslocalsub-areasarefittedintothelarger-scalegridinbothwesternandArabcities,wefindthatinbothcasesthisrelationismostoftenformedbyusinganinety-degreerelationtojointheinternalstreetsofthelocalareatothelarger-scalegrid.However,thesub-arealinethatlinkstothemaingridatninetydegreeswillitselfthentendtoavoidninety-degreerelationsasitmovesintotheheartofthesub-area,andcontinueoutinanotherdirection.Inotherwords,thelinesthatformthedominantstructureinsub-areasfollowthesametypeoflogicasthelineofthemaingrid,thoughatasmallerscale.Linearityisbeingusedtocreateanintegrationcorelinkingedgetocentreforthesub-areasinmuchthesamewayasthelarger-scalegridiscreatingitforthetownasawhole. Thepatternofanglesofincidenceoflinescreatedbydifferentwaysofplacingblocksofbuiltform,andparticularlythevariationbetweenlow-andhigh-degreeanglesofincidenceindeformedgrids,andzero-andninety-degreeanglesofincidenceininterruptedgrids,thereforeseemcriticaltoourunderstandingofhowrealurbanstructuresareputtogetherasspatialsystems.Sincemostlargecitiesaredeformedgrids,andthereisreasonforbelievingthatthestructureofdeformedgridsisinsomesensesmorecomplexandsubtlethaninterruptedgrids,wemustnowexploretheimplicationofwhatwehavelearnedfordeformedgrids.

How emergence overcomes indeterminacy to create local orderIfwearetobeginwithouttheassumptionofanunderlyinggrid,toguidetheplacingofblocks,thenwemustfirstshowhowlocalorderarisesinagrowingagregateinthefirstplace.Bylocalorder,wemeanconstantrelationsbetweenoneblockanditsneighbours.Thisexcursionwillleadustoaconclusionofasmuchtheoreticalaspracticalimportance.Thereasonwefindurbansystemsinvariablydisplaylocalaswellasglobalorder,isthatwithoutlocalorderthereisindeterminacyintheemergentstructure.Verysmallchangesinthepositioningandshapeofobjectscanleadtoaradicaldifferenceinthestructureofintegrationintheall-linemapcreatedbythoseobjects.Forthisreason,large-scalelayoutscannotbeconstructedonthebasisoflocalindeterminacy,andthisiswhyweinvariablyfindlocalaswellasglobalorderinurbansystems.Theroleoflocalrulefollowingistomaketheemergenceoflocalstructurepredictable.Theselocal‘emergences’thenstabilise




SpaceSyntax

thesituationenoughtopermittheemergenceofmoreglobalorder‘ontheirback’,asitwere.Thisiswhywefind,atsmallesturbanscale,‘nearinvariants’intheformofcontinuousdefinitionoflocalexternalspacesbybuildingentrances,andthelocallinearisationofbuiltforms.Localorderinthissensewillbeseentobethenecessaryfoundationofglobalurbanform.Withoutit,thelocalsystemcannotbestabilisedsufficientlytoallowglobalpatternstobeconstructed. Wemustbeginbyconsideringthemostelementaryrelationsinasystem,beginningwithoneobjectinthevicinityofanother.Plate4a,bandcshowsaseriesofpossiblecaseswhicharethensubjectedtoall-lineanalysis.Aswecansee,ineachcasetheprecisepatternofintegrationisdifferent,dependingontheshapesoftheobjectsandtheirpositionswithrespecttoeachother.Butthereisalsoaninvarianteffect.Regardlessoftheshapeorrelativelocationsofthecells,allthepairsofobjectscreateafocusofintegrationbetweenthemintheall-linemap.Furtherexperimentwouldshow,andreflectionconfirm,thatgivenanypairofobjectsinasubstratethen,otherthingsbeingequal,integrationwilltendtobedrawntotheregionjointlydefinedbetweenthem.Thismeansalsothateachobjectisadjacenttoasharedsetofintegratinglines,andthereforepotentiallypermeabletoit,inthedirectionoftheotherobject.Thisisaninstanceofwhatwemeanbyaninvariant.Itisastructuralconditionthatisalwaysthecaseevenunderconsiderableandgeometricvariation.Itisalsoanemergenteffect,inthatitwasnotdefinedintheinitialrulewhichplacedthesecondobject,butemergedfromthisplacingwhereveritoccurred.Inthisparticularcase,theinvariantemergenteffectgivesameaningtothespatialconceptof‘betweenness’. Assoonaswebegintoconsidersystemswithmorethantwoobjects,however,welosethisinvarianceintheemergentoutcomeandinsteaddiscoveraprofoundproblemwhichseemsinitiallycompletelyincompatiblewiththeideaofalocalorder:thatofindeterminacyintheemergentoutcome.Assoonaswehaveathirdobject,wefindthatstructuresemergentfromanalysisoftheall-linemapsarisingfromthoseobjectsarehighlyunpredictableandsubjecttogreatvariationinoutcomeswithverysmallchangesintheshapeandpositioningofanyoftheobjects.Fortunately,itisinfindingtheanswertothisproblemthatwewillbeabletosetthefoundationsforafulltheoreticalunderstandingofsettlementspace.Onlybyplacingandorientingobjectsincertainwaysinrelationtoeachothercanlocalindeterminacybeovercomeandlocalordercreatedintheevolvingsystem. Supposethenweaddathirdobjecttothepairswehavealreadyconsidered,asinplate4dande.Itseemsthereisnoreliablyemergentpattern.Onthecontrary,thestructurechangesfrom4dtoefollowingveryminorchangesinthelocationsoftheblocks.Plate4fandgshowthesameeffectinamuchmorecomplexsystem.Theonlydifferencebetweenthetwoisachangeinthesize—butnottheshapeorposition—ofoneoftheobjects,yettheoutcomeintheall-linemapisquitedifferent.Furtherexperimentationwillshowthatthisisalwaysthecase.Thereisofcoursealocaldeterminismoperating.Butitissodependentonverysmallchangesintheshapeandpositioningofobjectsthatitisvirtuallyimpossibletopredictwithoutthisverydetailedknowledge.




SpaceSyntax

Noweverythingthathasbeenlearnedaboutrealspatialsystemsintheearlierchaptersofthisbooksuggeststhatstructuralindeterminacyinspatialpatternsisthelastthingweexpecttofind.Onthecontrary,wehavefoundthatspatialsystemsofallkindsandatalllevelstendtoorganisethemselvesaccordingtocertaingenotypes,thatis,commonpatternsthatoftencrossseeminglyquitedifferentcases.Itisclearthatsuchsystemsarenotindeterminate.Noraretheyalteredintheirstructurebyminorchanges.Onthecontrary,theirstructuresarehighlyrobust,andcanusuallyabsorbquitesignificantmodificationswithoutundergoinggreatchangesinstructure.Inthissense,wecansaythatrealsystemshaveagreatdealofredundancy.Thisredundancy,andtheconsequentrobustnessinthestructuraloutcome,canonlyarisefromconsistenciesofsomekindinthewaythatobjectsareplaced,thatisfromalocalrulefollowingbehaviourintheplacingofobjects.Sincewehaveseenthatrealsystemsseemtofollowrulesaboutlocallinearityofbuiltforms,andtherelationoflinestoentrances,weshouldfirstconsiderthestructuraleffectsofthese. Supposethenthatwealignaseriesofblocks,asinplate4h.Nowthereisanemergentinvariant.Integrationintheall-linemapwillalignitselfonesideorotherofthealignmentofcells.Onreflection,itisevidentthatthismustalwaysbeso.Integrationmustalwaysbedominatedbytheouterverticesthatcanseeeachother.However,whichsideisselectedisstillhighlyindeterminate.Itdependsonquiteminordifferencesinthenatureofthecellsurfaces,andtheinter-relationsofthesedifferencesoneithersideofthealignment.Plate4i,forexample,showsaslightrealignmentofthesameblocksasinh,inthatthepositionsofthethreeinternalblocksarerearranged.Theeffectisthatthedominantlinesofintegrationshiftfromonefaceofthealignmenttotheother.Thereasonsforthesedifferencescanalwaysbetraced,buttheyareoftenquitehardtofind.Inthiscaseitdependsontherelativelengthofthelongestalignmentsalongtheface,andthisdependsonverysmalldifferencesinthedegreetowhichblocksprotrude.Theall-lineintegrationanalysisofthesystemisthereforenotyetrobust.Wehavesolvedhalftheproblem.Weknowwewillfindalinearpatternofintegrationintheall-linemap.Butwedonotyetknowwhereitwillbe. Onewayofmakingtheoutcomedeterminatewillofcoursebetoaligntheobjectsperfectlyandstandardisetheirshape.Ifwedothis,thenintegrationwilldistributeitselfequallyonbothsidesofthealignment.However,thereisasecondfactorthatcanbringredundancyintothealignment,onewhichdoesnotrequireustoattaingeometricalperfection,andthatistherelationofexternalspacetobuildingentrances.Ifwemodelevenasinglecellnotsimplyasaconvexobject,butasabuilding-likeentitywithaninteriorandanentrance(andcreatingafinitesubstratemirroringtheshapeofthebuiltform)thenwefindthatthisonitsownwillhavetheimmediate—andonreflectionobvious—effectofbringingintegrationontolinespassingtheentrance,asinplate5a.Inotherwords,theeffectontheall-linemapofconsideringinternalaswellasexternalspace,asrelatedthroughtheentrance,istointegratetheareaoutsidetheentrancetothebuildinginadirectionorthogonaltotheorientationoftheentrance.Itwouldnotstretchthingstoofartosuggestthat




SpaceSyntax

theeffectofevenonesuchbuildingwithentranceistocreatealocalspatialpatternwhichisalreadystreet-like.Itiseasytoseethatthisisanecessaryemergenteffect.Otherthingsbeingequal,therelationtotheinteriorofthe‘building’willalwayscreateanextradegreeofintegrationinthelocalall-linemap,andintheabsenceofotherinfluences,thisrelationwilldominatethestructureofintegration. Nowitisclearthatifwebothaligncellswithinteriorsandfacetheirentrancesmoreorlessinthesamedirection,thenintegrationintheresultantall-linemapwillpowerfullyandreliablyfollowthelineorthogonalto(andthereforelinking)thealignmentofentrances,asinplate5b.Weareineffectusingthealignmentandtheentranceeffecttoreinforceeachother,andsocreateredundancyintheresultingstructure.Thiseffectwillbelostifwefaceapairofcellsinoppositedirections,asinplate5c,orplaceonebehindtheother,asinplate5d.Stabilisationrequiresalignmentandentrancestocoincideincreatingthesameeffect. Wenowseethatthesetwomostlocalisedinvariantsinurbanform,therelationofspacetoentrancesandthelocalalignmentofforms,togetherreliablycreateexactlytheemergentlocalstructureinthesubstratethatwehaveobservedtobethecase.Cellalignment‘means’thecreationofalinearintegrationstructurealongthesurfacesofalignedcells;entranceorientationspecifiesonwhichsidethisistooccur.Intheabsenceofoneorotherwewillnotfindtheinvariantpatternwehavenoted.Thetwotogetherhavetheeffectofeliminatinglocalindeterminacyintheform,andcreatingarobustemergentpatternofintegrationintheaggregate. Thereis,moreover,asecondwayinwhichanemergentpatternofintegrationcanbestabilisedinasmallaggregate:bycreatingasecondalignmentofcellsmoreorlessparalleltoanexistingalignment.Thissecondalignmentdoesnothavetobecomplete,butthemorecompleteitisthemoreitwilleliminateindeterminacyintheresultingpatternofintegrationintheall-lineanalysis.Inthetwocasesinplate5eand5f,forexample,quiteminorchangesintheshapeandalignmentofcells—thelowerleftcellinfhasbeenmovedslightlytotheleftofitspositionine—isenoughtorealignthedominantlineofintegrationfromleftrighttodiagonallytopdown.However,if,asinplate5g,weaddathirdcellonthesecondline,itisveryhardtofindanarrangementofthecellsorshapechangewhichdoesnotleadtothemainaxesofintegrationrunninglefttorightbetweenthetwoalignments.Thepatternofintegrationhasagainbecomerobust.Itisnotlikelytochangeundersmallvariationsintheshapeandpositionofcells. Therearethenthreewaysinwhichthelocalindeterminacyofintegrationpatternscanbeovercomeinsmallcellularaggregates.Oneisalignmentofthecells.Thesecondisalignmentofentrances.Thethirdisparallelalignments.Whatwefindinrealsettlementsisthatallthreeareusedtoreinforceeachother.Itseemsanunavoidableinferencethat,atthislocalisedlevel,settlementspursueintegrationintheemergentstructurebyusingallthreewaysofachievingittoreinforceeachother.Inotherwords,evenatthemostlocalisedlevelwefindthatsettlementsexploitemegentlawsofspace.Wecanthenbequitepreciseastotherespectiverolesofhumanagencyandobjectivelaws.Thehumanagencyisinthephysical




SpaceSyntax

shaping,locatingandorientationofbuiltforms.Thelawsareintheemergentspatialeffectsconsequentonthosephysicaldecisions.Builtforms,wemaysay,areshaped,locatedandorientedbyhumanagency,butinthelightoflawswhichcontroltheireffects.The laws of growthIfthisissoatthemostlocalisedlevel,whatofthehigherlevelsofareaandglobalstructure?Herewemustremindourselvesofthecontraryinfluencesoftwounderlyingprinciples:linearityintegratesthevisibilityfield,compactnessintegratesthemovementfield.Urbanform,weproposed,reconciledthesetwoimperativesofgrowingsystemsthrough‘deformed’or‘interrupted’grids,bothofwhichtendtomaximiselinearitywithoutlosingcompactness.Weshallseenowthatthisprinciplecanbeseentooperateateveryleveloftheevolutionofurbanform,rightdowntothelevelofcertainverysmallsettlementswhoselayoutseemstocontaintheveryseedsofurbanform. InThe Social Logic of Space3itwasshownthatthebasictopologicalformsofcertainsmallandapparentlyhaphazardsettlementforms,inwhichirregularringstreetswithoccasionallargerspaceslikebeadsonastring—hencethe‘beadyring’—couldbegeneratedby‘restrictedrandom’cellgrowthprocessesinwhichcellswithentranceandspacesoutsidetheentrancewereaggregatedrandomly,subjectonlytotherulesthateachcelljoineditsopenspaceontotheopenspaceofacellalreadyinthecomplex,andthatjoiningcellsbytheirverticeswasforbidden(sincejoiningbuildingsatthecornerisneverfoundinpractice).Plate6ashowsanexample. Itwasalsosuggestedthatmanysettlementswhichbeganwiththistypeofprocessprogressivelyintroduced‘globalising’rulesastheygrewlarger.Theseglobalisingrulestooktheformoflongeraxiallinesinsomepartsofthecomplex,andlargerconvexspaces,usuallywithsomewell-definedrelationbetweenthetwo.Theeffectofglobalisingruleswasthatcertainkeyproperties,suchastheaxialdepthfromtheoutsidetotheheartofthesettlement,tendedtoremainfairlyconstant.Suchcontentstendedtocreateastructuremoreorlessonthescaleofthesettlementasitgrew.Analysisthenshowed4thattheeffectoftheseruleswastomaintainboththeintelligibilityandthefunctionalityofthesettlement,tomaintainastrongrelationbetweenthedifferentpartsofthesettlementandbetweenthesettlementandtheoutsideworld. Inthese‘beadyring’forms,twokeylocalspatialcharacteristicswerenoted,whichthentendedtobeconservedunderexpansion.First,virtuallyalllocal‘convex’spaces,howeversmallornarrowwere‘constituted’byentrances.Second,theseconvexelementstendedtobelinkedbylinesofsightandaccess.Sinceweknewthatbothoftheseariseasemergentsfromtheconservationofintegrationintheform,itseemsreasonabletobelievethatwenowhaveatheoryfortheselocalaspectsoftheform.Butwhatoftheglobalisingprocesses? Weshouldnotethatbeadyringsalreadyresembleurbansystemsinwayswhicharesignificantforurbanstructures.First,thedistributionofintegrationintheopenspaceisnotundifferentiated,butbiasedstronglytowardscertainlinesand




SpaceSyntax

certainlocations.Second,thelinesthatareprioritisedtendtobeamongthosethatlinkthesettlementtoitsexterior.Theoretically,ofcourse,thisislikelytobethecase,becauseinanysmallcollectionofobjects,thelineswhicharewhollyinternal(inthatbothendsstoponbuiltforms),arelikelytobeshorterthanlineswhichconnecttheinteriortotheexterior.Thisisparticularlysignificant,sinceitseemstocontaintheseedsofakeyaspectofurbanstructures:thatisthetendencyfortheintegrationcoretolinkatleastsomekeyinternalareastotheperipheryofthesettlement. Toexplorehowthisbecomesakeyfactorinsettlementgrowth,wemustbringintoplacethe‘fourprinciples’setoutinthepreviouschapter,andreinterpretthemfortheaggregativeprocessinwhichbuiltformsprogressivelyconstructpatternsofopenspace.Thereaderwillrecallthatthefourprincipleswerecentrality: blocksplacedmorecentrallyonalinecreatemoredepthgain—thatisreduceintegration—thanperipherallyplacedblocks,andviceversaforthecreationofopenspacebyblockremoval;extension:thelongerthelineonwhichwedefinecentrality,thegreaterthedepthgainfromtheblock,andviceversaforspace;contiguity: contiguousblockscreatemoredepthgainthannon-contiguousblocks,andviceversaforspace;andlinearity:linearlyarrangedcontiguousblockscreatemoredepthgainthancoiledorpartiallycoiledblocks. Seenfromthepointofviewofthelinestructuresthatarecreatedbyblockaggregationprocesses,thefourprinciplesbegintolookmuchsimpler.Thecentralityprincipleandtheextensionprinciplecanbeexpressedasasingleprinciple:maximisethelengthofthelongestavailableline.Ifthereisachoiceaboutplacingabuildingtoblockalongerorshorterline,blocktheshorterline.Thisdoesnotquiteworkinavoid,sincetoomanylinesareinfinite,butitwouldbeprogressivelymoreandmorepossibletomakesuchdiscriminationsasanaggregatebecomesmorecomplex.Theeffectofthisrulewouldbealwaystoconservethelongestexistinglinesinthegrowingaggregateandgraduallyevolvetheselinesintoyetlongerlines.Asimilarsimplificationispossiblefortheprinciplesofcontiguityandlinearitywhenconsideredfromthepointofviewoflinecreation.Bothimplytheminimisationofdeflectionfromlinearity.Placingobjectscontiguouslywillclearlyincreasedeflection,andsowillthelinearplacingofobjects,ratherthanina‘coiledup’form. Wemightthentranscribethefourprinciplesintoasimplerformwhichrunssomethinglike:selectlongestlinesformaximumlinearity,andonothers(wheremaximumlinearityisbydefinitionnotbeingconserved)keepdeflectiontotheminimum.Wecaneasilyseehowsucharule,operatinginthecontextoftheneedtoresolvetheparadoxbetweencompactmetricintegrationandlinearvisualintegrationwouldleadnaturallytothestructuralbiaswefindinthebeady-ringform.Isislessobvious,butnonethelessthecase,thatitcanalsoleadtothemuchmorecomplexstructuralbiasesinlargerurbangridsthatweidentifyas‘integrationcores’.Induecourse,wewillalsoseethatitcaninitselfleadnaturallytothecommonestkindsoflocalareastructurethatwefindinlargercities. Howthenandwhydotheseglobalpropertiesofurbansystemsarise?Consideringtheearlieststagesofgrowthindeformedgrids,beginningwiththe




SpaceSyntax

thehypothetical‘beady-ring’settlementofplate6b,withitsall-lineanalysisandintelligibilityscattergrambelow.Theintegrationcorelinksedgetocentreandthescattergramshowsthattheintelligibilityishigh(fromwhichwemaybesurethatthecorrelationoflocalandglobalinteractionwillbeevenhigher).Nowweknowthatinanysuchsystemthelongestavailablelinesareunlikelytobethosethatmakeinteriorconnections,sincethesebydefinitionstoponbuildingsateachend,butwillbeamongthosethatlinkinteriortoexterior.Supposethenthatwesimplyfollowtheruleofplacingnewblockssoastoextendlongestlines.Apossibleoutcomeafterawhilewouldbeasinplate6c. Thisisafairlycommonformofdevelopment,butasaprincipletoguidetheevolutionoflargersystemsitisinsufficient,sincetheeffectistocreatelacunasintheformandmakeitnon-compact.Wealsofind,onanalysis,thatthecorebecomesfocusedverystronglyinthecentre,withedgesthatbecomeveryweak.Thisiswhatwewouldexpect,sinceitisthelackofcompactdevelopmentinalldirectionsthatledtothelackofstructureattheedges.Wealsofindintelligibility,asshowninthescattergram,beginningtobreakdowninthemoreintegratedareas,reflectingtheindependenceofgrowthalongdifferentalignments.Infactwefindthistypeofdevelopmentisquitecommoninsmall-scalesettlements,butisrarelyfoundinlargerones.Morphologically,thereseemtobesoundreasonsforthislimitation.Noneofthepropertieswehavecometoexpectingrowingsystemsareconservedbeyondacertainstageinthistypeofdevelopment. Letusthenexperimentbyexpandingthehypotheticalsettlementcompactly.Wewillexploretwopossibilities.Inthefirst,wepursueourdualruleofoptimisingthelinearextensionofexistinglongestlines,andavoidingunduelineardeflectionintheremainderofthesystem.Inthesecond,wereversethefirstprinciple,andblocklongestlinesatninetydegreeswithblocksthatalsocausesubstantialdeflectionoflineselsewhereinthesystem.Plate6dshowstwopossibleoutcomesafterafurtherringofgrowthcompletewithall-lineanalysesandintelligibilityscattergrams.Inthefirstoutcome,theintegrationcorecontinuestolinkcentretoedge,andmaintainoverallintegrationandintelligibilityinthesystem.Inthesecond,chicanesonalllinesfromcentretoedgemeanthattheselinesbecomehardtodifferentiatefromotherlines.Theresultisamuchmorecentralisedcore,whichnolongercoversthediameterofthesystem.Theoveralldegreeofintegrationandintelligibilityareaccordinglysubstantiallylessthaninthefirstcase.Ifwethencontinuethesamepairprocessesasinplate6eandf,wefindsimilaroutcomes,thoughwiththeadditionaleffectthattheintegrationcorein6fhasnowsplitintotwo.Thelevelsofbothintegrationandintelligibilityaresignificantlylowerin6fthan6e. Theseareofcourseconsiderablesimplificationsofrealurbangrowthprocesses,buttheyservetoillustrateafundamentalprinciple:thatgiventhatwefollowtherulesoflocalalignmentofbuiltformsandentrancestostabiliseintegrationinthelocalsystem,thensimplyfollowingtheruleofselectingthelongestlinesforextendinglinearity,andkeepingdeflectiontoareasonablylowlevelintherestofthesystem,willinitselftendtocreateanintegrationcorethatlinkscentreto




SpaceSyntax

peripheryinseveraldirections.Thisnotonlytendstosolvetheparadoxoflinearityandcompactness,bycreatingspacesthatlinkcentretoedge,butalsocreatesasystemwhichisinternallyintegrated,andintelligible.Thustheparadoxofcentralityisovercome,atleastfromthepointofviewofvisibilityandintelligibility.Allthishappensbecausetheintegrationcorestructuresthesettlementinsuchawayasbothtointegratethesettlementinternallywhileatthesametimeintegratingittoitsexterior.Inotherwords,thecombined‘centrality’and‘extension’principles—simplybybeingappliedinagrowingsystem—havetheeffectofovercomingthecentralityparadoxbyexploitingthevisibilityparadox.Inthissenseatleastwecansaythatsomeofthekeyinvariantsofglobalorderinthefundamentalsettlementprocessaresimplyproductsofgenericfunctionappliedtogrowingsystemsinthelightoftheparadoxesofgrowthinsuchsystems. Onequestionthenremains.Howdolocalareastructuresarise?Letusthenpickupthestoryoftheexpandingdeformedgridthatweleftatplate6e.Weknowthatsystemscanevolveacentre-to-edgeintegrationcorewhichwillguaranteecertainkeysystempropertiesundergrowth.However,asthesystemgrowsfarther,itwillgeneratemoreandmorethestructuralproblemwesawinPlate6c:asthelinesthatformtheintegrationcoredriveoutwards,theytendtobecomefartherandfartherapartcreatinglargerandlargerlacunasinthesystem.Asthesystemgrows,thisproblemmustbecomemoreacute.Thescaleofthelacunasmeansthatitcannotbesolvedbysimplyavoidingoverlydeflectinglines.Theremustbestructurewithinthelacunasjustaspreviouslytherewasaneedforstructureinthemainsettlementasitgrew.Thestructure,wemightsay,thatresolvesthecentralityparadoxatthelevelofthewholesettlementrecreatesitasamorelocalisedproblem,bypartlyenclosingareasthatmustbyfilledinwithbuiltformsifthecompactnessruleistoberetained.Itfollowsthatstructuremustevolvetoovercomethisproblem. Allweneedtospecifyisthecontinuationoftheprocesswehavealreadydescribedforthegrowingcentreintothelacunasbetweentheradials.Sincebuiltformswillalreadyexistattheedge,theprocessmustbeginthere.Aprocessofplacingblocksinordertomaximisethelongestlinescreatedbythebuiltformswillfirsttendtocreatealinearspacepenetratingthelacunalaterally,sothatinspiteofthefactthattheprocesshasbegunattheedgesofthelacuna,astructurewillbecreatedwhichisdominatedbyedge-to-centrelinesinatleasttwoandpossiblymoredirections.Theintersticeswillthenbefilledwithblocksthatavoidoverlydeflectinglinearity,andthesewillthenformthelessintegratedzoneswithinthesub-area.Becauseinitiallytheconditionsofthislocalprocessarestructuredfromtheperiphery,theconditionsforradialgrowthdonotexisthere.Onthecontrary,theinitialmovesinthesystemunderthesemorestructuredconditionsnecessarilybegintosketchamoreorthogonalgrid.Accordingly,wetendtofindagreatertendencytowardsorthogonalorderintheseinterstitialareasthanintheinitialurbanform.Itisliterallysuggestedbytheprocessitself. Incaseswherethisprocesssubsumesanearliersettlement—sayanexistingvillage—thenthismayinitiallybethenaturalmagnetforthelines




SpaceSyntax

penetratingthelacunafromtheedge.Thiswilltendtoformalocaldeformationofthegridevolvinginthelacuna.ItisexactlysuchaprocessthatgaverisetoLondon’s‘urbanvillages’.Theseareinvariablythefocioftheintegrationcoreoflocaldeformedgridswhich,likeotherLondonareas,taketheformofa‘deformedwheel’(thatis,anintegrationcorewithahub,spokesandarim,withquietareasintheinterstitialzones)inwhichtheperiphery,insteadofbeingthespaceoutsidethesettlement,isformedbytheradialsofthelarger-scaleurbanprocess.ItisthisprocessthatgivesrisetothefactthatincitieslikeLondonthe‘deformedwheel’structureisrepeatedtwice,onceatthelevelofthewholecityandonceatthelevelofthelocalarea.Itisalsothisthatgivesrisetothegeometryofthelocalandlarger-scaleorganisationofthecitythatwenotedearlierinthischapter,inwhichlengthoflineandangleofincidencewerethekeyvariables. Notallcities,ofcourse,havethiskindoflocalareastructure.Butthisisthedifficultcase.Londonembodiesthecontinuationoftheoperationofgenericfunction,andthespatialprocessestowhichitgivesrise,intothelocalareastructureofthegrowingcity.ItisthisthatmakesLondon,inspiteofinitialappearances,suchaparadigmaticcaseofthewell-structuredcity.Perhapsbecausethroughoutitshistoryplanninginterventionwasofthemostparsimoniouskind,thegreatestlatitudewascreatedforthefundamentalsettlementprocesstoevolveinoneofitspurestforms. ItisthisthatgivesLondonitsuniquetheoreticalinterest.Othercitieshaveverydifferentwaysofconstructingtheirlocalareastructures,buttheyaremorestructured,thatis,theyareaproductmoreofculturalparametrisationofthefundamentalprocessthanofthefundamentalprocessitself.InShiraz,forexample,localareastructuresaremuchmoreaxiallybrokenupthanLondon,buttheyarealsosmallerandlesscomplexasareas.MostlocalareasinShirazaremadeupofsequencesofright-anglelinesconnectinginone,two,threeorfourplacestothedominantstructureoftheintegrationcore.Theirrelationispredominantlytotheoutside,andthatrelationisconstructedbysimple,butdeep,sequencesoflines.Wedonotthereforefindthatthecorrelationofradius-3andradius-nintegrationgivesthestructureofthelocalarea.Wedofind,however(asshownbyKayvanKarimi,adoctoralstudentatUCL),thatthethecorrelationofradius-6andradius-nintegrationdoescapturethisstructure,asshowninthetwocasespickedoutinplate7.Wealsofindageometriccorrelationtotheseproperties:eachlinethatformspartofalocalareabelongsentirelytothatarea.Nolinewhichisinternaltoanareaalsocrossesacorelineandbecomespartalsoofanotherlocalarea.LocalareasinShirazare,wemightsay,linearlydiscrete.ThiswasmuchlessthecaseinLondonwhereatleastsomelineswhichwerepartoflocalareasalsocontinuedintoneighbouringareas.Aswehavefoundbefore,configurationofpropertiesareconstructedeventuallyoutofthelinegeometryconstructedbyblocksofbuiltform. Shirazisafairlyextremecase,wherelocalstructuresaresmall,segregatedandhighlydependentontheglobalstructureofthesettlement.AttheoppositeextremewefindcitieslikeChicago,wherethehighmeanaveragelengthoflineandthefactthatsomecrosstheentiresystemmeanthatintegrationisveryhigh.There




SpaceSyntax

isthen,inthesettlementasawhole,ahighcorrelationbetweenconnectivityandintegration,anda fortioriahighcorrelationbetweenlocalandglobalintegration.InChicagothereisverylittletendencyforwholelinestobeconfinedtoanyplausiblesub-areainthecity.Onthecontrary,amajorcharacteristicofthestructureofthecityisthatallareasaremadeupoflinesthatincludemanythataregloballinesinthesystem.Butthisdoesnotmeanthatthereisnolocalareastructure.Onthecontrary,ifweselectforareasalllineswithinthatareaandthosewhichpassthroughthearea,wefindreproducedatthelocallevelevenstrongercorrelationbetweenconnectivityandintegrationthanprevailsforthesystemasawhole.Inotherwords,thelocalareastructureofthecityischaracterisedinthecaseofChicagobythecorrelationbetweenconnectivity(thatis,radius-1integration)andradius-nintegration,inLondonbythecorrelationbetweenradius-3andradius-nintegrationandinShirazbythecorrelationofradius-6andradius-nintegration.Thisthenisaparameterbywhicheachcityadaptsthefundamentalsettlementprocesstoitsownstructuralneeds. However,alloftheinvariantsthatwerespecifiedintheoriginaldescriptionofcitiesholdinallthreeofthesecases.Notonlydowefindthesedeepstructuresincommon,butalsoacommongeometricallanguageoflinelengthandanglesofincidencethroughwhichnotonlythesestructures,butalsotheparameterisationsthroughwhichculturesidentifythemselvesinspatialform,arerealised.Itistheexistenceofthiscommongeometriclanguagewhichpermitsbothinvariantsandculturalparameterisationstoproceedsidebyside.Atthedeepestlevelofwhatallculturesshare—thatis,ofwhatiscommonspatiallytohumankind–isthegeometriclanguagethatweallspeak. NotesThiswasexploredintheearlyseventiesbyDanielRichardsonin‘Randomgrowthinatessellation’,Journal of the Cambridge Philosophical Society,74,1973,pp.515–28.Thedifferencebetweena‘deformed’and‘interrupted’gridisthatthecontrolledirregularityoftheformercomesaboutessentiallythroughgeometricdeformationofthelinestructure,inthemannerofEuropeancities,whilethatofthelattercomesaboutbyplacingbuildingsandotherfacilitiesto‘interrupt’somelinesratherthanothers,inthemannerofGraeco-RomanorAmericangrids.Bothusuallyachievetheresultofawell-definedpatternofintegrationintheaxialmapofthecity.Forafurtherdiscussion,seebelow.SeeB.Hillier&J.Hanson,The Social Logic of Space,CambridgeUniversityPress,1984,Chapter2.B.Hillieretal.‘Creatinglife:or,doesarchitecturedetermineanything?’,Architecture & Behaviour,vol.3,no.3,SpecialIssueonSpaceSyntaxresearch,EditionsdelaTour,1987.

1

2

3

4

Part four


Part fourTheoretical syntheses

Forms and functions, buildings and societiesCommonsenseaffirms,andtheordinaryuseoflanguageconfirms,thatthereisanassociationbetweentheformandfunctionofabuilding.Ifwenameakindofbuilding—say‘school’or‘house’or‘church’—andtrytodisentanglewhatwemean,thenwefindatleasttwosetsofideaspresentintheword.Oneistheideaofaparticularformofsocialorganisation.Theotheristheideaofaparticularformofbuilding.Perhapsanorganisationandaformistoospecific.Afamilyofpossibleorganisationsandafamilyofpossibleformsmightconveymoreaccuratelywhatisinourminds.Theseseeminsomewaytobeboundupwitheachotherintheintuitionsof‘school’or‘house’or‘church’,sothatwethinkwerecogniseonefromtheother.Thisassociationofideasisnotconfinedtocognition.Itaffectsbehaviour.Byrecognisingtypesasform-functionpairings,weanticipatehowtobehaveinthekindsofspacesthatweexpecttofindinabuilding.Wearepre-programmedbyourintuitionsofbuildingtypestobehaveinwaysappropriatetotheform. However,inspiteoftheapparentclosenessoftheassociation,therelationbetweenformandfunctioninbuildingshasalwaysprovedresistanttoanalysis.Althoughtherelationseemsintuitivelyclearonacasebycasebasis,andarchitectsdesignbuildingstofitdifferentfunctionsforthemostpartwithouttoomuchdifficulty,itisveryhardtobeexplicitaboutwhatitisthatdistinguishestheform-functionrelationasitappearsinonetypeofbuildingfromthewayitappearsinanother.Onemightsaythatadesignerwilldesignapossibleversionoftheform–functionpairingforacertainpurpose,butthatdoesnotmeanthatanyaspectofwhatisdesignedisnecessaryforthatpurpose.Knowledgeofwhatisnecessaryimpliesknowledgeofthelimitsofpossibility.Suchlimitsarenotatallwellunderstood.Inthepresentstateofknowledge,itisnotunreasonabletodoubttheirexistence.Theform-functionrelationmaynotbewelldefinedenoughtoallowsuchknowledge.Thefactthatbuildingssoeasilychangetheirfunctionsupportthesedoubts.Theform-functionrelationmaynotbequiteasspecificastheuncriticaluseofthelanguageofbuildingtypessuggests. Tosomeextentthisstateofaffairsmaybeduetofailuretodistinguishbetweenthespecificfunctionsbuildingsperform,and‘genericfunction’,assetoutinthelasttwochapters.Genericfunctionimpliesthatwhatmakesbuildingsfunctionallyinterchangeableiswhatbuildingsmusthaveincommonspatiallyinordertofulfilanyfunction.Themoregenericfunctionissufficienttoaccountforspatialorganisationinanyparticularcase,thenthemorewewouldexpectfunctionalflexibility.However,thisdoesnotsolvetheprobleminhand.Intuitionclearlyanticipates,andlanguageinstitutionalises,specificfunctionsandwarnsusthatinsomeimportantsenseaschoolisaschool,andahouseahouse.Areintuitionandlanguagethenwronginthisaffirmation? Therearetwoaspectstotheproblem.First,ourideasaboutbuildingsalreadycomerepletewithsocialideas.Second,ourideasaboutsocialinstitutionscomewithideasaboutbuildingsattachedtothem.Eachpresentsaproblemforarchitecturaltheory.Thefirstleadstotheform-functionquestionaswehavedescribedit.Doescommonsensedeceiveusinaffirmingawell-formedtypological

Space is the machineChapter ten

Theoretical syntheses


SpaceSyntax

Of what things is space the cause? None of the four modes of causation can be ascribed to it. It is neither cause in the sense of the matter of things (for nothing is composed of it), nor as the form and definition of things, nor of ends, nor does it move things.(Aristotle: Physics book iv chapter 1)

288

Space is the machine289



SpaceSyntax

relationbetweentheformabuildingtakesandwhatitisfor?Ifitdoesnot,isthisassociationcontingent,inthatitjusthappensthatthisfunctionleadstothisformandthatfunctionanother?Oristheresomemoresystematicsenseinwhichvariationinfunctionsareassociatedwithvariationsinform?Ifthelatteristhecase,thentherecanbeaform-functiontheoryinarchitecture.Ifnot,therecannotbe.Thesecondleadstoquestionsaboutbuildingsassocialobjects.Doesitmatterthatourideasaboutsocialinstitutionscomewithideasaboutbuildingsattachedtothem?Isthebuildinginsomesenseapartofthedefinitionofthesocialentitieswenameasschools,monasteries,andsoon?Ifso,isthissimplyanassociationofideas,oristheresomewell-definedsenseinwhichvariationsinsocialformsareexpressedthroughvariationintheformsofbuildings? Onreflection,ourreactiontendstobeagainsttheideaofsystematicrelations.Atfirstsight,asocialorganisation—sayaschool—isasetofrolesandrelationsthatcanbefullydescribedwithoutinvokingabuilding.However,thematterisnotsoeasilysettled.Theideaofaschool,ifnotitsorganisationaldiagram,impliesmorethanrolesandrelationsintheabstract.Itimpliesrolesandrelationsrealisedinspatialforminsomeway.Theremust,forexample,bespatialinterfacesofsomekindbetweenteachersandtaught.Suchinterfacesdefineakindofminimalspatialcontentnotsimplytothebuilding,buttoanorganisationandthereforetothebuilding.Thesespatialdimensionsoforganisationarisenotfromtheformoftheorganisationbutfromitsfunctioning.Anorganisationcanbedescribedwithoutreferencetospace,andthereforewithoutreferencetobuildings,butthewayinwhichtheorganisationworksusuallycannot. Theideaofaschooldoesafterallseemsimplysometypeofrealisationinspace.Itwasarecognitionofthisminimalspatialcontextinorganisationsthatgaverisetothetheoryofbuildingsas‘interfaces’between‘inhabitants’and‘visitors’,(suchaspriestsandcongregations,teachersandtaught,familiesandguests),andbetweendifferentcategoriesofinhabitantthatwassetoutinThe Social Logic of Space1.Interfacesseemtodefinetheessentialspatial‘genotypes’ofthebuildingswenameasbelongingtothisorthatfunctionaltype.However,thisleadstoadifficultquestion:Ifsocietiesregularlyproducespatialgenotypesinbuildings,thenistheresomesenseinwhichthesegenotypesarenecessaryto,andevenapartof,society?Anevenmoredifficultquestionfollows.Ifwefindithardtoconceptualisehowabuildingcanhavenecessarysocialdimensiontoit,isitevenhardertoconceptualisehowasocietycanhaveanecessarybuiltdimensiontoit? Ourpuzzleisthentwo-fold.Buildingsseemtobephysicalthings,andsocietiesandorganisationsseemtobeabstractions.Yetourideasofbuildingsseemtocontainsocialabstractions,andourideaofsocialorganisationsseemstocontainideasofbuildings.Thecommoncoinofbothrelationsseemstobetheideaofspace.Spacebothgivestheformtothesocialabstractionswhichwenameinbuildings,andspaceseemstobethecontentofthebuildingthatcanbetakenbacktothemoreabstractconceptionsofsocietyandorganisation.Thefirstdefinestheform-functionprobleminarchitecture.Inwhatsenseistherearegularrelation




SpaceSyntax

betweentheformsofbuildingsandthewaysinwhichthebitsofsocietythatinhabitthemwork?Thesecondistheproblemofthebuildingasasocialobject.Isthereanyrealsenseinsocietiesneedingbuildingstomakethemwork?Thesetworelatedproblemswillbedealtwithinturn,beginningwithalittlerecenthistory.Recent historyItissad,buttrue,thatthetheoreticalnatureoftheform-functionrelationinarchitecturemainlycomestopublicattentionthroughfailure.Whenanarchitecturalscheme—sayaninnercityredevelopmentoralargehousingestate—goeswronginapublicway,itiscommontoblamearchitectsfortheircrazytheories.Itisaone-sidedgame.Buildingsandplacesthatworkrarelyattractsuchepistemologicalcomment.Goodbuildingsandplacesaretakentobeasnatureintendedratherthanasartificialproductsofthought.Nooneeverpraisesarchitecturefortheexcellenceofitstheories.Onlyfailure,itseems,alertsthemanorwomanontheupperlevelwalkwayorintheemptypiazzatothehighlytheoreticalnatureofarchitecture. Butwhatexactlyisitaboutarchitecturethatthesetheoreticalcriticsarereferringto?Theyseemnottobetalkingaboutconstruction,sincethatwouldberegarded,rightlyorwrongly,asamatteroffact,ofknowabletechnique,andthereforeamatterofcompetenceratherthantheory.Nordotheyseemtobetalkingaboutaestheticsorstyle,sincethatwouldberegardedasamatteroftasteorofart,andthereforeamatterofsensibilityratherthantheory.TheoreticalcriticismofarchitectureseemssquarelyaimedatthesecondtermoftheVitruviantriadof‘firmness,commodity,anddelight’.1Itaddressesthewayinwhichthephysicalandspatialformofbuildingsimpingesonthewayweliveourlives—thatis,theform-functionrelation. Aswehaveseen,theform-functionrelationiseasytotalkaboutinageneralisedway,butdifficulttotalkaboutprecisely.Itisnotevenclearhowweshouldtalkaboutit.Theform-functionrelation,unlikeconstruction,doesnotseemtobelongtoarchitectureasscience,sincethereseemtobenoclearfacts,letaloneexplicitandtestabletheories.Nordoesitbelongtoarchitectureasart.WecannotseriouslyseetheNorthPeckhamestateorPruittIgoeasfailuresofart.Yettheform-functionrelationdoesseemtobewhatpeopleexpectarchitecturaltheoriestobeabout.Onreflection,wemightfindthatbotharchitectsandtheirtheoreticalcriticsagreethatthisisright.Architectureisatechniqueandanartwithsocialconsequenceswhichareintrinsicratherthanextrinsic.Theylieinthenatureoftheobjectitself,aswellasinitsassociationsandsymbolicmeanings.Architecturaltheoriesdonotthereforeingeneraltaketheformofpropositionsaboutconstructionorpropositionsaboutart:theyareinessencepropositionsabouttherelationbetweenarchitectureandlife;thatis,aboutwhatarchitectureisforinrelationtowhatitis.Thisisperhapsthedistinctivefeaturethatmakesarchitectureunlikeanythingelsethathumanbeingsdo.Atleastpartofitssocialimplicationslieinitsveryform,andournotionsofwhatatheoryisreflectthis. Agreatdealmoreofthecurrentpublicdebateaboutarchitecturethanweallowisaimedattheform-functionrelation.Peopleareworriedaboutplacesthatseemnottowork;aboutdevelopmentsincitiesthatlackthelifethatisthesource




SpaceSyntax

ofurbanity;abouthousingestatesthatdonotseemtogeneratetheelementarydecenciesofcommunitylife.Theybelieve,rightlyorwrongly,thatarchitectureisinsomewayimplicated.Thiscreatesaproblembetweenarchitectureanditspublicthatismorethanoneofcommunication,because,inspiteofthefactthatdesigningformstofitfunctionsisoneofthefoundationsofarchitecturalpractice,thefactisthatmostofourusableknowledgeaboutitcomesfromprecedentandindividualexperience.Thereisverylittletheoreticalunderstandingoftheform-functionrelation.Weevenfinditdifficulttotalkaboutinaconsistentandrationalway.Fortunately,whenpushcomestoshove,thetheoreticalcriticsontheupperlevelwalkwayshareourincoherence,andneedonlyalittleencouragementtoconspirewithusintalkingabouttheproblemasthoughitcouldbereducedtoconstructionoraesthetics,ormaybethelackofshops,ortransport,ornurseryfacilities. Theideathatthereissolittletheoreticalunderstandingofformandfunctioninarchitecturemaysurprisemany,sinceitiswidelybelievedthatthefailuresoftwentieth-centuryarchitecturearelargelytobelaidatthedoorofa‘functionalist’theory.2Theconventionalwisdomisthatmodernismfailedbecauseitwasmoreconcernedwiththerelationbetweenformandfunctionthanwiththerelationbetweenformandmeaning,andthatthiswassobecausearchitecture,underthepeculiarsocialpressuresofthepostbellumdecades,hadbecomemorepreoccupiedwithsocialengineeringthrougharchitecturethanwitharchitectureitself.Thesubsequentdisillusionwithfunctionalismasthenormativebasisofdesignalsobecamearejectionoftheform-functionrelationastheprimaryfocusforatheoryofarchitecture,infavouroftheform-meaningrelation.Modernistfunctionalismwasrejectednotonlyasafalsetheory,butasatheoryaimedatthewrongproblem. Inretrospect,itisfarfromobviousthattherejectionshouldhavebeensothoroughgoing.Itwasalwaysclearthatthe‘failures’ofmodernismwerenotsimplyfailuresofafunctionalistphilosophy,butalsofunctionalfailures.Thenewhousingformssimplydidnotworktomeetthebenignsocialengineeringobjectives—community,interaction,identity,andsoon—thatwerewrittenintotheirprogrammes.Theproperinferencefromthiswouldseemtobethatthefunctionalisttheoriesusedbythedesignerswerewrong,butthatfunctionalfailurehadconfirmedthecentralimportanceoftheform-functionrelation.Therecould,afterall,benofunctionalfailureiftherelationbetweenformandfunctionwerenotpowerful.Thecallshouldthenfollowforanewtheoryoffunction.Instead,therewasaabandonmentoffunctionaltheoryingeneralandanintellectualabandonmentoftheform-functionproblematexactlythemomentwhenfunctionalfailurehadbroughtitdramaticallytopublicattention. Tounderstandthisapparentlyperversereaction—andalsoseethatinacertainsenseitwasjustified—wemustunderstandexactlywhatitwasthatwasrejected.Whatwasrejected,itwillbeargued,wasnottheform-functionrelationper se,sincethatcontinuedtoplaythesamepracticalroleinarchitecturalpracticethatithasalwaysplayed,butaspecificformulationoftheformfunctionproblemthatprovidedthefoundationforarchitectureassocialengineering.Thiswewillcallthe‘paradigmofthemachine’.Theparadigmofthemachinewasthenecessaryfoundationforthe




SpaceSyntax

practiceofarchitectureassocialengineering,andoriginatedinadebatebetweenarchitectureandthesocialsciences.Asaresult,certaintheoreticalproblemsinthesocialsciencespertainingtotherelationbetweenthesocialworldandthematerialworld,weretransmittedintoarchitecture.Totheextentthatarchitecturebecamesocialengineering,theparadigmofthemachineinvadedarchitecturalthought,tookoveritslanguageanditsinstitutionalstructures,andbecamepervasiveanddestructive.The metaphor of the machine and the paradigm of the machineWemustbeginbymakingacleardistinctionbetweentheparadigmofthemachineandthemetaphorofthemachine.Themostfamous—somewouldsayinfamous—propositionofarchitecturaltheoryinthetwentiethcenturyisprobablyLeCorbusier’s‘Ahouseisamachineforlivingin’.3Onthefaceofit,thisseemstoassertadirectanalogybetweenbuildingsandmachines.Infact,acloserreadingquicklysuggeststhisisnottobetakenseriously.Amachineisanorganisationofmatterthattransformsothermatterthroughitsoperation.NothinglikethisconceptionistobefoundinLeCorbusier’stext.Translatingfrommachinestobuildingswouldhavetocentreontheplanastheorganiserofthelifethatgoesoninabuilding.Ifthebuildingistobeseenasamachine,thenthisimpliesthatrelationbetweentheplanandthelifethattakesplaceintheplanisinsomesensemechanistic,andthattheformeriseitherdeterminative,orastrictexpression,ofthelatter.ThisbeliefisnottobefoundinLeCorbusier’stext.Onthecontrary,wheninhis‘Manualofthedwelling’heexplainsinmoredetail‘thehouseasamachineforlivingin’,hedescribesrooms,andexhortsclientstodemandawholerangeofroomsfornewfunctions,buthedoesnotdiscusstheorganisationofroomsintoaplaninanyway.4Itisclearthathispreoccupationisnotwiththemachineasformalanaloguefortheorganisationofthedwelling,butwiththemachineasthemetaphorforastyleunclutteredwiththedecorativedetritusofthepast. Thisinterpretationisconfirmedwhen,lateroninthebook,LeCorbusierdoestalkofplans.Hisapproachispassionate,historical,andpreoccupiedwiththesymbolicpotentialofspace.5ItisclearthatLeCorbusierseestheplanaspartofarchitecture,andthespacethatisorganisedbytheplanasaprimeexpressionofarchitecturalcreativity.Hisspatialphilosophyisspecific:theprinciplespatialelementistheaxis.Theorganisationofthebuildingistheorganisationofitsaxes,thatis,ofitssequencesofexperience.Theaxisisfundamentalbecausetheexperienceofarchitectureisanexperienceofmovement.‘Arrangementisthegradingofaxes,andsoitisthegradingofaims,theclassificationofintentions’.6Thereisnodeterminisminthisview,onlyastrictrationalismbywhichthemindimposesitsgeometricselfonthegeometricpotentialoftheexternalworld,andcallsitarchitecture.OnefindsinLeCorbusierthenthemetaphorofthemachine,butnottheparadigmofthemachine.Ingeneralwewillfindthisisthecaseinhigharchitecture.Onescoursthearchitecturalmanifestosofthetwentiethcenturyinvainforathoroughgoingstatementofthedeterminismfromspatialformtofunction,oritsinverse,thatwouldbethetruearchitecturalembodimentoftheparadigmatic,asopposedtometaphoric,ideaofthebuildingasmachine.7

Wherethendowefindthenotoriousfunctionaldeterminismforwhichtwentieth-centuryarchitecturehasbecomefamousandforwhichmodernismhas




SpaceSyntax

beensocommonlyblamed?Theansweristhatitistobefoundinthesocialandpoliticaltheorisingthatincreasinglybecametheintellectualcontextofthepracticeofarchitectureasarchitecturemovedtowardsasocialengineeringpractice.Thecentralpropositionofarchitectureassocialengineeringisthatspecificsocialoutcomescanbeengineeredbymanipulatingarchitecturethiswayandthat.Inotherwords,therelationbetweenformandfunctioninarchitectureisanalogoustosimilarproblemsdealtwithbyengineers.Ifarchitectureisindeedsocialengineeringthenitneedsatheorytoexplainhowitworks.Theparadigmofthemachinefilledthisneed.Weshouldcallthistheparadigmofthemachine,notthetheoryofthemachine,becauseaparadigmisasetofmodelideasandassumptionsaboutthefundamentalconstitutionofafieldofphenomenawhichtelluswhatthereistotheoriseabout.Itfunctionsasaframeworkforthoughtandforthesettingofobjectives,boththeoreticalandpractical.Ittellsusineffectwhatkindofaproblemwearedealingwith.Atheorytellsushowphenomenawork,andthereforesuggestshowwemightsolveproblems8.Theparadigmofthemachine,itwillbearguedsetsuptheform-functionprobleminsuchawaythatitcouldnevergenerateacredibleform-functiontheory. Thereadermightobjectatthispointthatthepossibilityofpursuingsocialobjectivesthrougharchitecturehasbeenreaffirmedthroughoutthisbook,sincespatialforminarchitecturehasbeenshowntohavesocialdeterminantsandsocialconsequences.Thisisacorrectaccusation.Butthesubstanceoftheproposalhereisdifferent.Thecentralargumentinthisbookisthattherelationbetweenformandfunctionatalllevelsofthebuiltenvironment,fromthedwellingtothecity,passesthroughthevariableofspatialconfigurations.Theeffectsofspatialconfigurationarenotonindividuals,butoncollectionsofindividualsandhowtheyinterrelatethroughspace.Allthatisproposed,ineffect,isthatapatternofspaceinacomplexcanaffectthepatternofco-presenceandco-awarenessofcollectionsofpeoplewhoinhabitandvisitthatcomplex.Thisisaveryobviousthingtosay.Themostlikelyansweris:‘Wellofcourse…’Oneismorelikelytoobjecttoitstrivialitythantoitsmetaphysics.Allthathasbeendoneinearlierchaptersistoshowverycarefullyexactlyhowthisoccurs,andhowtheselow-leveleffectslinktomoreinteresting,moreobviouslysocialeffects. Nowtheessenceofthesocialengineeringapproachtotheform-functionrelationinarchitecturewasthatithadnoconceptionofspatialconfiguration,andwithoutthistheeffectswewillfindourselveslookingforarenoteffectsfromonetypeofpatterntoanother,butfromphysicalformsdirectlytoindividuals.Thebuildingitselfisseenasthemachine,andthephysicalformofthebuildingthedeterminantofbehaviour.Suchrelationsdonotexist,oratleastnotinanyinterestingsense.Beliefintheirexistencereallydoesviolatecommonsense.Howcanamaterialobjectlikeabuildingimpingedirectlyonhumanbehaviour?Evenso,itisexactlythisthatweareexpectedtobelieveifweabandonspatialconfigurationastheinterveningvariable.Theparadigmofthemachineineffectasksustobelievethattherelationofformtofunctioninarchitecturepassesnot,credibly,fromapatternofspacecreatedbythebuildingtoapatternofco-awarenessandco-presence,but,incredibly,directlyfrombuildingtoindividual.




SpaceSyntax

Therearemanyversionsofthisbelief.Someassumethatdirectrelationbetweenbuildingandbehaviourshouldtaketheformof‘fitting’activitiestospaces.Othersstresstheinterveningroleofcognition,forexample,thatthebuiltenvironmentactsasaseriesof‘clueandclues’tobehaviourorasakindoftheatricalbackclothwhichis‘appropriate’fortheactivityhappeninginfrontofit.Allhaveincommonthattheypresupposearelationbetweenbuiltformandbehaviourunmediatedbyspatialconfiguration.9Thatsuchrelationsdonotreallyexistinanysystematicsenseseemsamplyconfirmedbothbythelackofresearchresultswhichshowsuchrelations,andbythefactthattheonlyrelationswecanfindarethosethatpassthroughspatialconfiguration.Theeffectoftheparadigmofthemachineonthetheoryandpracticeofarchitecturewasthereforetobasearchitecturalpracticeonatheoreticalfoundationwhichgeneratednoresearchresultsandcouldpredictnooutcomesfromdesign.Architectureassocialengineeringwasineffectfoundedonapostulateofarelationbetweenbuiltformandhumanfunctionwhichcouldnotbeverifiedbecauseitwasnotthere. Itwasthisnaïveformulationoftheform-functionrelationinarchitecturethatwasrejectedwiththedemiseofmodernism.Unfortunately,bythenithadbecome,throughitsnormativeroleindesign,sofullyenmeshedwiththewholeideaoftheform-functionprobleminarchitecture,thattherejectionoftheparadigmbecame,forawhileatleast,therejectionoftheproblem,andconsequentlyoftheneedforaformfunctiontheoryinarchitectureatall.Thischainofeventsisevidenceoftheabilityofparadigmstoexertcovertpoweronhumanthought.Theparadigmofthemachinewasalwaysstrangetoarchitects,butitbecamethefoundationformodernisminaction,throughitsroleintheprogrammesofsocialengineeringthatarchitecturewasenjoinedtocarryoutinthepost-wardecades.Theparadigmofthemachinewasanideaaboutarchitecturethatneverbecameaproperlyarchitecturalidea,forthesimplereasonthattherelationsonwhichtheparadigmwerepositedsimplydonotexist.Theirhypotheticalexistencewasanillusionoftheparadigm. Oncewehavelocatedtheparadigmofthemachineasthenecessarybeliefsystemofarchitectureassocialengineering,wecanbegintotraceitsoriginsandunderstanditstruenature.Itsoriginsturnouttobeagreatdealolderthanwemightthink,andlinkuptoamuchwiderspectrumofideasthatbegantoprevailinintellectuallifetowardstheendoftheeighteenthandintheearlypartofthenineteenthcentury.ThisbroaderunderlyingschemeofthoughtthatgaverisetotheparadigmofthemachineconstituteswhatIwillcallthe‘organism-environmentparadigm’.Tounderstanditsnaturewemustunderstandtheoriginsofitskeyconceptualconstituent:theideaof‘environment’.

The origins of the environment‘Environment’isoneofthosecuriouswordswhichweassumehavealwaysbeenaround,butwhichareinfactquiterecentadditionstoourvocabulary,andtooursystemofcommonconcepts.Itisaninterestinglycomplexidea.Itimpliesnotonlythemilieuinwhichweexist,butamilieuwhichsurroundsus.Environingmeanstosurround,soanenvironmentisnotonlyaphysicalmilieubutonewhichactively




SpaceSyntax

andsignificantlysurrounds,sothattheenvironedthinginsomewayisawareof,oraffectedby,its‘environment’.Environmentasasurroundingthingimpliesanexperiencingsubjectatitscentre.Inthelatetwentiethcentury,weconfirmthiscomplexityinthetermenvironmentbyusingittoexpressnotonlyanewawarenessoftheimportanceofourmilieu,butalsoofourrelationtoit. Inthisform,theideawasbarelypresentincommonconsciousnessuntilwellpasttheturnofthecentury,anditisonlyinthepastthreedecadesthatithasbecomeadominantelementinourviewofourselvesandourplaceintheworld.Becauseoftheimportanceoftheconceptincurrentthinking,theargumentthatisabouttobeproposedneedsverycarefuldefinition.Inbeingcriticaloftheeffectsoftheconceptofenvironmentintheformationofcertainparadigmaticschemes,thereisnoimpliedcriticismofthechangeinourawarenessofoursurroundingsthattheideaofenvironmenthashelpedtobringabout.Therearehowever,hiddendangersintheconcept.Inparticular,wemustinvestigatetheoriginsandmeaningsofthewordifwearetofullyunderstandtheorigins,andthemaligneffectsoftheparadigmofthemachineinarchitecture. AccordingtoCanguihem10,wemustlookfortheoriginsoftheconceptofenvironmentinitsmodernsenseintheeighteenthcentury,andsomeverysignificantdevelopmentsthattookplacetheninthedevelopmentofscientificthinkingaboutthenaturalworld.Tounderstandthescientificdevelopments,wemustknowtheproblemtowhichtheywereaddressed,andforthiswemustgoallthewaybacktoAristotle.Inlookingatthenaturalworld,especiallythoseareaswhicharecoveredbysuchmodernsciencesasbiologyandzoology(butalsoincludingtheareasnowcoveredbyphysicsandchemistry),whatAristotlesawinnaturewasageneralform-functionproblem:howwasitthattheformsofspecies(orothernaturalforms)weresowelladaptedtohowtheyfunctioned?WemightsaythatforthisreasonAristotlesawnatureasadesignproblem,andsoughtananswerwhichwouldexplainhownaturemanagedtodesignsuchsuccessfulform-functionrelations. Aristotleansweredbymakingananalogywitharchitecture.ThisanalogyissopervasiveinAristotle’saccountsofnaturethatitshouldbethoughtofasAristotle’sparadigm.Theformofahouse,Aristotlearguedcannotbeexplainedbyapurelymaterialprocessoflayingstoneonstone.This‘material’processhadtobeguidedbyapre-existingideaoftheformthehousewastotake.Whatisthenatureofsuchideasandwheredotheycomefrom?Theyare,accordingtoAristotle,purposes.Theformofahousearisesfromhumanpurposes.Formsarethereforeexpressionsofpurposesandindeed,inasense,arepurposes.Asitisinarchitecture,Aristotleargues,soitmustbeinnature,sincewefindthesameagreementbetweenformandapparentpurpose.Aristotlethengeneralises.Materialcausesexplainlittle.Finalcausesarepurposes.Thesourceoforderinnaturemustthereforebepurposefuldesign.ItwouldnotbetoomuchofanexaggerationtosaythattheentireAristoteliansystemofnaturewaserectedonthisarchitecturalfoundation.11Itsflawsarewellknown.Fromascientificpointofview,arguingfromdesignexplainsnothing.Itdoesnomorethanremoveonemysterybyinvokinganother,andexplainonekindoforderbyassuminganotheranteriortoit.




SpaceSyntax

Nowthereasontheseideasareanimportantbackgroundintheeighteenthcenturyisthatinkeyareasofscience,suchasphysics,theorieshadarisenwhichseemednotonlytobetrue,butalsoshowedhowitwaspossibletoexplainorderwithouttheassumptionofanteriororder.HowsurprisingthisapparentemancipationofhumanthoughtseemedcanbestbeexplainedbyacontrastwithAristotelianphysics.ThefundamentalassumptionsofAristotelianphysicswerecommonsense.Ifsomethingmoved,itwasbecausesomethingelsehadmovedit.Allourexperienceconfirmsthis.Yetitleadstoanimpossiblephysics.Forexample,accordingtotheseassumptions,itwasselfevidentthattheforcesthatimpelledmovementcouldnotworkinavoid.Fromthisitfollowedthatspacewasaplenum,ratherthanavacuum.Insuchauniverse,thechainofmovementmustbeendless.Whatevermoves,somethingelsemustitselfbemoved.Whatthenisattheendoftheline?Aristotleanswerswithaverbalconjuringtrick:theunmovedmover. Newton’ssolutiontotheparadoxesofAristotelianphysicsisaswellknownasitisextraordinary.FollowingearlierincompleteformulationsbyGalileoandDescartes,heproposesaprinciplewhichcontradictsallexperienceavailableatthetime,the‘principleofinertia’whichstatesthatallbodiesmove‘inarightline’foreveruntilimpelledbysomeexternalforcetochangetheircourse.12Thisreformulationputsmotion‘onthesamelevelofbeingasrest’,13sothatmotionisnolongerachange,asitwasinAristotle,butastate.Thisiswhyitcancontinueforever,andthisiswhytheprincipleofinertiacanbeusedasthefundamentalassumptionofamathematicalphysics,whosetaskwasthentodescribehowforcesworkoninertbodiestoproducethepatternsthatweseeintheuniverse. Ofcourse,someofNewton’scontemporariesobjectedthatineliminatingcommonsenseNewtonhadalsoeliminatedphysics,andwasofferingamathematicaldescriptionbutnotaphysicaltheory.14Ontheotherhand,Newton’stheory,withtheminimumofassumptionsandwiththegreatestsimplicity,gaveanastonishinglyaccurateaccountofavastrangeofpreviouslydisparatephenomena,andpermittedauncannyaccuracyofpredictionacrossmanyfields.Inotherwords,althoughitdidnotshowwhytheworldworkedthewayitdidinanywaywhichsatisfiedcommonsenseintuition,itshowedhowitworkedwithunprecedentedprecision.Mostimportantofall,Newton’stheoryshowedhowtherecouldbeobservableorderintheuniversewithoutinvokingsomepregivenorderwhichgaverisetoit.Toacceptthattheuniverseworkedmathematicallyneedednostrongerpresuppositionthanthatasoapbubbleissphericalbecausethatrepresentsthemostprobabledistributionofforces. ItwasthisdiscoveryoforderwithoutanteriororderthatprovidedtheconceptualmodelfortheattemptsinthecenturyfollowingNewtontomakeaparallelemancipationinourunderstandingofothernaturalphenomena.Fromthispointofview,theproblemthathadoriginallymotivatedAristotle,theformsofspeciesinnatureandtheirrelationtofunction,seemedintractable.Howcouldtherebeatheoryoftheoriginationoforderinnaturalspecieswithoutanteriororder,ordesigninsomeguise,themoresoinviewofthefactthatinthisvastlyrichanddiverseareaofformsAristotle’soriginalobjectionthatmathematicscouldnotbethelanguageofsciencebecauseitwastoopreciseand




SpaceSyntax

abstract,seemedstilltoholdforce,despitetheconquestofphysicsbymathematics. Themodernconceptof‘environment’tookitsformessentiallyasthefirstattempttoformulateasolutiontothisproblem:namely,theenvironmentaldeterminationofspecies.Indifferentpartsoftheworld—andthereforeindifferentambientconditions—verydifferentpatternsofspeciationhadoccurred.Theideaoftheenvironmentaldeterminationoftheformsofspeciesquitesimplyturnedtheproblemintothesolution.Ifdifferentspeciationwastobefoundindifferentregions,whatmorenaturalpropositionwastherethanthatitwastheconditionsprevailingintheseregionsthathadledtodifferentialspeciationinthefirstplace?Thereweremanyvariantsonthisunderlyingschemeofenvironmentaldetermination,andnoclearideawasproposedofhowthemechanismofenvironmentdeterminingformmightactuallywork.15ButsinceNewtonwedidnotneedtobesureofmechanismbeforewebelievedinatheory,andtheideaofenvironmentaldeterminationhadgreatforcebecauseitshowedforthefirsttimehowintheperplexingworldofnaturalformsordercould,inprinciple,arisefromanaturalprocesswithouttheexistenceofpregivenorder.Inthatsense,theepistemologicalforceofenvironmentaldeterminismcapturedsomethingoftheglamourthatsurroundedthetheoriesofthephysicists.Itiswithinthisschemeofthoughtthatourmodernnotionof‘environment’originates.Anenvironmentnotonlysurrounds:itaffectsandinfluences.Theideaofenvironmentiscloselyboundupwiththeideaofabeingororganismatitscentredrawingintoitselftheseeffectsandinfluences,andalsocreativecontributingfromitsowninteriornaturetotheinteractiveprocessbywhichitsform,andhencetherelationshipbetweenitsformanditsbehaviour,isdeveloped.The organism-environment paradigmThisschemeofthoughtissoimportantinthehistoryofwesternculturesthatitdeservesaname—perhapsthe‘organism-environmentparadigm’.16Bythisismeantnotsimplytheideaofenvironmentaldeterminationbutalsothevitalisticandsubjectivisticobjectionstoitwhichsoughttoinvolvetheorganismitselfintheprocessoftheevolutionofitsform,17sincetheseideasarevirtuallycalledintoexistencebyenvironmentaldeterminism.Theorganism-environmentparadigmistheschemeofideasthatforcesustochoosebetweenobjectivedeterminationbythe‘environment’andthesubjectiveobjectionstothis.Itisanintellectualframeworkwhichstillinfluencescertainfieldsofscholarshipmuchmorethanitought,sincewithinacenturyofitsinception,thewholeschemeofthoughthadbeenreplacedinthefieldwhereithasoriginatedbythefarmoresophisticatedparadigmofevolutiontheory,inwhichtheenvironmentwasnolongerseenasmould,butasaselector,andtherelationoforganismtoenvironmentnotasadirectphysicalrelationofcauseandeffect,butasanindirectrelation,mediatedbywhatwewouldnowcallgeneticinformationstructures,passedfromonegenerationtothenext,andgraduallyevolving,butnotonthetimescaleofindividuals.TheDarwinianschemeisnotanadjustmentwithintheorganism-environmentparadigm,butareplacementofitbyanotherparadigm,oneinwhichthedominantprocessisnotaninteractionbetweenthephysicalorganismanditsenvironmentbutanabstractstatisticalmechanisminwhichinformationalstructuresbuiltintoorganismsdiffuseanddecayin




SpaceSyntax

theevolvingpopulationaccordingtotheprobabilityofrandomlygeneratedmutationsleadingtogreatersuccessinleavingprogeny.18Thesubstitutionofrandomvariationofformsfortheenvironmentaldeterminationofformshas,wemaynote,exactlythesameepistemologicalfunctionasthesubstitutionofinertiaforcausedmovementinNewton’stheory.Throughthisitshowsthewaytoorderwithoutpregivenorderinnature,andtoanemancipationofthestudyofnatureontothelevelofphysics. Fromthepointofviewoftheoriginsofthemachineanalogyinarchitecture,wehavetounderstandthattheorganism-environmentparadigm,whileshowinglittlescientificexplanatorypowerinthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturies,hadgreatmetaphoricalpower.WellbeforeDarwin,throughthatlittleunderstoodprocessbywhichscientificideasbecomeabsorbedintoculture,wefindtheorganism-environmentideadiffusingwithparadigmaticforcewellbeyondtheboundsof‘naturalhistory’(asitwasthencalled).Balzac,forexample,useditexplicitlyasoneoftheguidingideasinhisComedie Humaine,seeingsocialspeciesasproductsofmilieu,andhisnovelsastheirnaturalhistory.‘Theidea(forhisComedie Humaine)’wroteBalzac‘originatedinacomparisonbetweenhumanityandanimality…Aswereadthewritingofthemysticswhostudiedthesciencesintheirrelationtotheinfinite,andtheworksofthegreatestauthorsonNaturalHistory…wedetectinthemonadsofLeibnitz,intheorganicmoleculesofBuffon,inthevegetativeforceofNeedham,inthecorrelationofsimilarorgansofCharlesBonnet…wedetectIsaytherudimentsofthegreatlawofSelfforSelf,whichliesattherootofUnityofStructure.Thereisbutoneanimal.Thecreatorworksonasinglemodelforeveryorganisedbeing.‘TheAnimal’iselementary,andtakesitsexternalform,ortobeaccuratethedifferencesinitsexternalform,fromtheenvironmentinwhichitisobligedtodevelop.Zoologicalspeciesaretheresultofthesedifferences...Iformypart,convincedofthisschemeofnaturelongbeforethediscussiontowhichithasgivenrise,perceivedthatinthisrespectsocietyresemblednature.FordoesnotsocietymodifyMan,accordingtotheconditionsinwhichhelivesandacts,intomenasmanifoldasthespeciesinZoology?...IfBuffoncouldproduceamagnificentworkbyattemptingtorepresentinabookthewholerealmofzoology,wastherenotroomforaworkofthesamekindonsociety?’19

ItisinBalzac’snovelsthatwefindsomeoftheearliestexamplesofthatexact,atmosphericdescriptionofphysicalenvironments,presagingpersonagesandtheirmisfortunes,andcreatinginthereader’smindaquasi-naturalisticassociationbetweenenvironmentandhumanbeing,whichissocharacteristicofthetechniqueofthenineteenth-centurynovel.20Moresignificantlyforourpresenttheme,environmentaldeterminismprovidedtheintellectualsparkforthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenth-centuryfashionfor‘architecturaldeterminism’:themechanisticideathatarchitecturaldesigncould,ifhandledright,directlycausebeneficialeffectsonthemoralandsociallivesofpeople.Thisbecameapervasiveinfluenceonsocialreformersoftheperiod,aswellasonthebuildersofprisonsandasylums.21Itwasthisthatestablishedtheparadigmaticideathatarchitecturecouldbebothunderstoodandexploitedbydirectanalogytomachines,areconciliationattractiveandunderstandabletoearlynineteenth-centurythought.Architecturaldeterminism




SpaceSyntax

seemedtonormalisetheproblemsofarchitecturebymakingthemlooklikeproblemsofengineering.Throughitsassociationwiththeexpandingsocialengineeringpurposesofearlynineteenth-centuryarchitecture,andtheincreasingsponsorshipofthestate,architecturaldeterminismcametobeseenasapowerful,scientificandaction-orientatedreformulationoftheform-functionrelationinarchitecture. Architecturaldeterminism,ofcourse,isnomoretruethanenvironmentaldeterminismhadbeen,norshouldweexpectittobe.AswithLamarkism,noresultshavebeenproducedwhichevenbegintocompelourbelief.However,unlikeenvironmentaldeterminism,architecturaldeterminismsurvivedDarwin.Therewereprobablythreereasonsforthisimpropersurvival.First,environmentaldeterminismwasascientificerror,andthereforerefutable,whilstarchitecturaldeterminismwasamorediffuseculturalparadigm,oftenbelowthelevelofconsciousthought,andnotexposedthereforetodirectrefutation.Second,becauseitwasaculturalbelief,ittendedtobecomeinstitutionalised.Ifyouspentmoneyonarchitectureasmoralengineering,thenyouhadtobelieveinit.Third,theDarwinianrevolutionleftmanyoftheculturalby-productsofenvironmentaldeterminismbehindbecausethemetaphoricalimpactofDarwinismonculturelayelsewhere,inthesurvivalofthefittestandthedescentfrommonkeys,withthereformulationoftheform-functionprobleminnatureonlyinthesmallprintreadbythespecialist. Forwhateverreason,theorganism-environmentparadigmsurvivedintothetwentiethcentury.Partlythroughitsassociationwiththedeterminismassociatedwitharchitectureassocialengineering,itbecamethedefaultpositionfortheformulationofallproblemsdealingwiththerelationofhumanbeingsandtheirbuiltenvironment.Thisdefaultsurvivaltakesmanyforms;thestudyofhuman‘response’tothebuiltenvironment;thestudyofcognitiveschemesbywhichwerepresentthebuiltenvironmenttoourselves;thestudyofbuiltenvironmentsastheatricalsetsorbackclothsprovidingcuesandcluesfortheactivitythatisintendedtotakeplaceintheforeground;thestudyof‘territory’,thatis,thestudyofthespaceexteriortotheindividualinsofarasitisconstructedandinterpretedthroughdrivesemanatingfrominsidetheindividual—alltheseusethesameunderlyingparadigmaticschemeofanindividualsurroundedbyanenvironmentwhichthatindividualseekstointerpretoraffect. Itisthroughengagementwiththisdefaultintellectualisationoftheform-functionproblemthatarchitecture,asitengagesinsocialengineering,alsoengagestheparadigmofthemachine,andtheassumptionitimpliesofthedirectandmechanisticrelationbetweenanindividualandthatindividual’simmediateenvironment.Themetaphorofthemachine,wemightsay,mettheparadigmofthemachine,andtheprisonofideaswascomplete.Throughthepowerfuleffectsofcustomarylanguageonourhabitualpatternsofthought,thishasbecomethenaturalandinevitableformulationofawholeclassofproblems,somuchsothattheappealofwriterslikeGiddens22tobringspaceandtimebackintothe‘constitutionofsociety’areineffectlargelyforbiddenbythecontinuinginvisibleeffectsofthisparadigmaticbackground,becausetheymakeitappearasareturntonineteenth-centurymechansim.




SpaceSyntax

Thecovertpoweroftheparadigmisreinforcedbytheeasewithwhichtheorganism-environmentschemeingestsandreinterpretsmoreancientdualities.Forexample,theCartesiandualityofres cogitans,thethingthatthinks,andres extensa,thethingthatis,isre-expressedastherelationbetweenabstract,individualmindsandconcretesurroundingenvironments.Similarlythedistinctionbetweensubjectandobjectbecomestheexperiencingmindandtheexperiencedenvironmentalobject.Eventherivalhistoricalspeculationsofrationalismandempiricismfindarestingplaceinthesuperordinate,apparentlyempiricalconceptofanindividualmind,receptiveandconstructive,surroundedbyamaterialenvironment,emanatingandmalleable.Ahistoryoferrorsis,itseems,confirmedasaprogressiveorthodoxybythenewformulation. However,theworstoutcomeoftheparadigmofthemachine,anditsintellectualparenttheorganism-environmentparadigm,isthatbyrepresentingthehumansubjectastheobjectofconcernatthecentreofaninfluencingandinfluencedenvironment,theappearanceissetupofahumanescienceconcernedwithunderstandingtheeffectsofbuiltenvironmentonthesocial,cognitiveandemotionallifeofpeople.Butwithinthisformulationnosucheffectsarediscoverable,otherthanthosethatdoarisefromthesimplephysicalpresenceofanindividualinanenvironment,suchastheeffectsofairpollutiononhealth,ortheeffectofsunondiseasesoftheskin.Theappearanceofthehumanescienceis,inthelastanalysis,aninhumanedeception. Atroot,theseconsequencesfollowfromthefactthattheparadigmofthemachinesetsupthebuiltenvironmentasnomorethananinertphysicalbackgroundtothebehaviourandexperiencesofpeople.Ineffect,theartificialenvironmentisbeingtreatedasanaturalenvironment.Thisblindstheinquirertothemostsignificantsinglefactaboutthebuiltenvironment:thatitisnotsimplyabackgroundtosocialbehaviour—itisitselfasocialbehaviour.Priortobeingexperiencedbysubjects,itisalreadyimbuedwithpatternswhichreflectitsorigininthebehavioursthoughwhichitiscreated.Thesepatternsarereflectedfirstandforemostasspatialconfigurations.Aswehaveseeninearlierchapters,itisonlywhenweunderstandtheconfigurationalnatureofspaceandtheoriginsofspatialconfigurationinthebuiltenvironmentinsocialbehaviour,thatwecanbegintounderstanditseffectsonsocialbehaviour.Bothofthesefundamentalfacts—thefactofspatialconfigurationandthefactofthesocialconstruction—theparadigmofthemachinerendersinvisible. Whattheparadigmofthemachinedefinesinsteadisaquestformaterial,cognitiveorsymbolicinfluencesthat,asitwere,emanatefromthebuiltenvironmentsurroundingindividuals,andsomehow‘cause’behaviourorresponseinthoseindividuals.Yetthebuiltenvironmentthatisexpectedtodothishasnohistory,noimmanentsocialcontentandnorelationtothelarger-scalesociety.Therelationofpeopletoenvironmentisthusreducedtoonethatisbothlocalisedinphysicalspaceanddecontextualisedinlogicalspace.Theeffectssoughtareforthoseindividualsinthatspaceatthattime,freeofspatialorsocialcontext.Thereisnoevidencethatanysuchsystematiceffectsareanythingbutimaginary.




SpaceSyntax

Whereverarchitecturesoughtinteractionwiththesocialsciences—thatis,totheextentthatarchitecturesoughtsocialengineeringobjectives—thiswasthedominantparadigmwithinwhichquestionswereformulated,andresearchinitiated.Itisthismechanisticformulationoftheform-functionproblemasoneofamechanisticrelationbetweenanexperiencingsubjectandanobjectiveenvironment,unmediatedbyspatialconfiguration,thatwasdecisivelyrejectedwiththefallofmodernism.Itwasrejectedbecauseithadledarchitecturalpracticeandtheoryintoanimpasseinwhichtheform-functionrelationseemsparadoxical.Theparadoxisthatifarchitecturaldeterminismistruetheneffectsshouldfollowfromdesignthatsimplydonotfollowinreality.Yetifarchitecturaldeterminismisuntrue,thendesigndoesnotseemtomattersincenoadverseorbeneficialsocialconsequencescanfollowwhateverwedo.Thisparadoxwaseventuallycrystallisedbythearchitecturethatmostthoroughlyembodiestheideaofarchitectureassocialengineering:theinnovativehousingestatesofmodernism.Theseestatesweretheembodimentofthebenignintentionsofarchitectureassocialengineering.Yetitwasexactlyassocialengineeringthattheyseemedtofail.Architecturaldeterminismhadfailed.Yetarchitectureitseemedhaddeterminedthefailure. Unfortunately,bythetimethisbecameclear,theinvisibleeffectsofparadigmstotakeoverlanguage,andguidethoughtbyunconsciousconstraint,hadmadethisseemtheonlypossibleformulationoftheform-functionproblem.Theabandonmentofformandfunctionasthecentralproblematicofarchitecturaltheory,anditssubstitutionbytheform-meaningproblem,wastheresult.Inarchitecturalpolemic,themetaphorofthemachinewassucceededbythemetaphoroflanguage,andinresearchthefallaciousparadigmofthemachinewassucceededbythe—aswewillseeinafuturetext—equallyfallaciousparadigmoflanguage.Theparadigmofthemachinehadeffectively‘structurallyexcludedfromthought’exactlythepatternrelationsbetweenspaceandpeoplethataretheessenceoftheform-functionrelationinarchitecture. Letusthenreviewtheideawewishtodispensewith.Architecturaldeterminism,theparadigmofthemachine,andtheorganism-environmentparadigmarealldifferentnamesforthesameunderlyingschemeofthoughtwhosefoundationswehavehopefullynowfatallyundermined.Architecturaldeterminismisthewayinwhichtheschemeofideasappearswithinarchitecture,andconfrontitspracticeanditstheory.Theparadigmofthemachineistheinvisibleschemeofthoughtwhichhistoryimplantedinarchitecturaldiscourseastheframeworkwithinwhichtheform-functionrelation,seenassocialengineering,shouldbedefined.Theorganism-environmentparadigmisthebroaderandoldermasterschemeofquasi-scientificideasonwhichthewholefallaciousstructurewaserected.Thethree-levelschemeconstructsanapparatusofthoughtwithinwhichneithertheform-functionrelationinarchitecture,northeroleofspaceinsociety,canbeformulatedinsuchawaythatresearchcanbedefinedandprogressmadeinunderstanding. Thiswholetripartiteedificeofthoughtisdissolvedbythepropositionthattheform-functionrelationinarchitecture,andtherelationofspacetosociety,ismediatedbyspatialconfiguration.Spatialconfigurationproposesatheoryinwhichwefind




SpaceSyntax

patterneffectsfromspacetopeopleandfrompeopletospacethatinnowayinvokesmechanisticdeterminism.Atthesametime,theconfigurationparadigmsavestheideathatarchitecturehassocialeffects.Bychangingthedesignofabuildingorcomplexwedochangeoutcomes.Thereisafterallsomekindofmechanismbetweenthebuiltworldandpeople.Butthemachineisnotthebuilding.Spaceisthemachine.Space is the machineWesawinChapter2thateverytheorymustexistwithinabroaderparadigmaticschemeofideasthatdefinesthenatureofthefieldandwhattypesofproblemsaretobeopeneduptoresearch.Howthenshouldageneralparadigmaticschemeforthisredefinitionoftherelationbetweenbuildingsandpeoplebeformulated?Onethingisclear.Previousdefinitionsoftherelationhavebeenbasedonanalogywithfieldsotherthanarchitecture.Theredefinitionproposedherehasnoexternalanalogue.Itis,shallwesay,theparadigmofarchitectureand,ifweareright,theparadigmofarchitectureisaconfigurationparadigm.Howmaytheconfigurationalparadigmofarchitecturethenbeformulatedasageneralschemeofideas?Letmesuggestwhatmayseematfirstanoddmanoeuvre:athoroughgoingcomparisonbetweenbuildingsandmachines.Itturnsoutthatthismayafterallbeilluminating,especiallyinthelightoftheresearchresultsreportedinearlierchapters. Ifwethinkofformandfunctioninamachine,thenitisclearthatadescriptionoftheformwouldbeastatedescriptionofasystemofdifferentiatedpartsthatmakeupthemachine,andadescriptionoffunctionwouldbeadynamicdescriptionofhowthepartsmoveinaco-ordinatedwaytoimpelandprocesssomematerial.Conceptually,wemightsayamachinehasthreeaspects:whatitis,howitworks,andwhatitdoestosomethingelse.Ifwetrytoapplythistobuiltforms(obviouslyleavingasidethebuilding’smechanicalplant,whichisanormalmachine)thenweencounterdifficultiesinallthreeaspects.First,asspatialelementsthepartsofabuildingtendtobeweaklydifferentiated.Thereisamoreorlessuniversallistofspacetypes—rooms,corridors,courtsandsoon—whichvaryintheirsizeandshapebutnotintheirbasicnature.InChapter8wesawhowthiscameabout,andthatthesespatialtypeswereessentiallyconfigurationalstrategies.Evenso,forpracticalpurposes,thisalsoshowswhytheapparentlexiconofspatialtypesissolimited.This,wesaw,wasoneofthereasonswhybuildingsdesignedforonesetofactivitiesareofteneasilyadaptedforothers.Second,thepartsofbuildingsdon’tmove.Thereisonlyastatedescriptionofthem.Third,people,thehypotheticalprocessedmaterial,domove,butnotunderanyimpulsefromthebuildings.Onthecontrarytheymoveindependentlyandundertheirownmotivation.TocaricatureAristotle,inbuildingspeopleareunmovedmovers.Aswewillseeinamoment,thisreferencebacktoAristotelianphysicsisnotidle. However,throughconfigurationalanalysisandempiricalinvestigationswenowknowanumberofthingsaboutbuildingswhichbeardirectlyonthedifferencesbetweenthemandmachines.First,althoughthetypesofspaceinabuildingarefairlyuniversal,theydiffersignificantlywhenseenfromthepointofviewofconfiguration.Howtherestofthebuildingisavailableasaconfiguration




SpaceSyntax

fromaspace,asshownbyan‘integrationvalue’isoneofthemostmarkedtypesofdifferentiationbetweenspaces.Configuration,itseems,doesafterallturnthebuildingintoasystemofdifferentiatedparts,notinamachine-likesense,butinaquiteunique,architecturalsense. Now,wealsoknowthattherearetwowaysinwhichthesedifferencesrelatetofunction.First,functioncanuseconfigurationaldifferencestogiveapictureofitselfinthespatialformofthebuilding,sothatthebuildingcomestoembodysocialandculturalinformationinitsform.Thebuildingthusisnolongeramerephysicalobject,anymorethan(afterDarwin)anorganismwasamerephysicalobject.Throughconfigurations,buildings,likeorganisms,bothcontainandtransmitinformation.Second,weknowthatalthoughthepartsofabuildingdonotmove,throughtheirconfigurationaldifferencestheydoaffectthepatternofmovement,inthat,otherthingsbeingequal,thedegreetowhichspacesareusedformovementisafunctionoftheirconfigurationalposition.Thisisnotaneffectofthebuildingonindividuals,butasystemeffectfromthespacestructureofthebuildingtotheprobabilisticdistributionofpeople.Wedonotthereforeneedhypothesesabouthowthebuildingentersthementalstateofindividualsandcompelstheminthisorthatdirection,aswouldberequiredbyarchitecturaldeterminism.WehavetransformedthemechanismfromtheAristoteliantotheNewtonianmode.Naturalmovementisakindofinertiatheory:itsaysnothowindividualsareimpelledbybuildingstomoveinthisorthatdirection,butthat,giventhattheymove,thentheirdistributioninaspatialconfigurationwillfollowcertainmathematicalandmorphologicallaws,givenonlythatmovementisfromall—oratleast,most—partstoallothers,andfollowssomeprincipleofeconomyinrouteselection. Nowinthefirst,Darwinian,sensethatbuildingsare,throughtheirspatialconfigurations,embodimentsofsocialinformationgoverningwhatmusthappenandwhere,wecanthensaythatthebuildingisadependentvariableinasocialprocess.Itsspatialformis,inawell-definedthoughlimitedsense,aproductofitssocialfunction.However,inthesecond,Newtonian,sensethatspatialconfigurationisgenerativeofmovementconfiguration,andthusofpotentialco-presencesamongpeople,thenwecanalsoseethatthebuildingasanindependentvariableisasocialprocess.Itsfunctionis,inanequallywell-definedsense,createdbyitsspatialform.Inotherwords,buildingscanbothreceiveinformationfromsocietythroughspatialconfiguration,andalsotransmiteffectsbacktosocietythroughconfiguration. Howdothesebifurcatingtendenciesrelatetoeachother?Therearetwoaspectstotheanswer.Thefirstisthat,thetwotendenciesaredynamicallyinterrelated.Afunctionalgenotypeinabuildingisatemporaryfixationofculturalrulesinconfigurationalform.Butitsexpressionhasalreadybeenconstructedwithinthelawsof‘genericfunction’asdiscussedinChapter8,thatis,ontheonehand,bylocal-to-globallawsbywhichlocalphysicalchangeshave,bothinthemselvesandwhenappliedsuccessively,globaleffectsonspatialconfiguration;and,ontheother,lawswhichlinktheselocal-to-globaleffectstogenericfunction,thatis,thepropertiesofintelligibilityandfunctionalitythatpermitaspatialcomplex




SpaceSyntax

tobeadaptedinprincipleforhumanoccupationandmovement.Inotherwords,thebuildinginits‘Darwinian’modeasaspatialcomplexembodyingsocialinformationalreadyembodiesthe‘Newtonian’lawsbywhichabuildingalreadyconstitutes,initself,afieldofpotentialmovementandco-presence.Forexample,anintegratedspaceforeverydaylivingisoneinwhichgeneratedmovementisnaturaltoitsfunction,whileasegregatedspaceforuseonlyonspecialoccasionsisonewheregeneratedmovementisnot. Thusthegenotypeswhichorderculturalpatternsofspaceusealreadytendtoreflectthegenerativelawsofspace.Wheretheydonot,itmaybeafailureofdesign,oritmaysimplybeareflectionofthefactthatculturalpatternstendtobemorecomplexthanthepossibilitiesofferedbyspace,anditmaynotbepossibletogiveaspatialformtoallthesocialrulesthatoperateinasituation.Ineithercase,wefindthattheshortcomingsofspacetendtobecompensatedbyreinforcedbehavioursofindividualstoensurethattheculturalpatternsurvives.Inspiteofthelawfulnessofspace,anditsrelationtohumanlifeinspace,thereisstillsomedegreeofinterchangebetweenthestructureofspaceitselfandhumanactivityrealisedinspace,inthatifspacedoesnotprovideadequatelyfortherealisationofsomesetofrulesforsocialrelationsinspace,thenthislackmaybecompensatedforbyspecialbehaviours.Forexample,asJustindeSyllasshowedinapioneeringstudy23(whichstillremainsunpublishedbecauseofthereluctanceofprofessionaljournalstoallowseriousanalyticcriticismsofarchitects’buildings),inachildren’sassessmentcentrethefailureofthebuildingtoprovidefornaturalsurveillanceofthechildrenbythestaffthrougheverydaypatternsofactivity,combinedwiththeexcessivelycomplexandpermissivelayoutofthebuilding,createdasituationinwhichstaffhadtocompensateforthelackofspatialcontrolsbybehavinglikegaolersthemselves,continuallylockingdoors,andattemptingtopolicerestrictiverules. Thesecondaspectoftheansweristhatthetwocontrarytendenciesareunequal,inthesensethatthe‘Newtonian’,orgenerative,propertiesofthebuildingwillalwaysoperateunlesstherearesocialrulesandpractisestorestricttheiroperation,whereasthe‘Darwinian’,orinformational,propertiesofbuildingsusuallyrequirethesupportofsocialrulesandpractices.Inotherwords,spatialconfigurationswillnaturallytendtofollowthegenerativelawsexceptinsofarastheyarerestrictedbysocialrules.Wethusfindthat,asdiscussedinChapter7,buildingsvarybetweenthosewhichtendtoexpressandrestrictsocialrelationsandthosewhichtendtogeneratesocialrelations.Wherewefindstronggenotypes,wefindthemassociatedwithstrongrulesofbehaviour,becausetheformofthebuildingisalreadyamappingofthatbehaviour.Butwhenthesocialrulesdecay,orarenolongerenforced,thenthespatialconfigurationrevertstothegenerativemode.Itsspatialpatternswillgenerateonlythepatternsofco-presencethatwouldbeexpectedbythetheoryofnaturalmovement.Thusacourtroomstrippedofjudgesandjudged,andsetinafunfair,ceasestobeacourtroomandbecomesapureexpressionofthegenerativelawsofspace.Therelationofspatialconfigurationtopeopleisunmediatedbysocialrules.Theonlyeffectofthatspacewillbetheeffect




SpaceSyntax

ofthosepatternsonpatternsofmovementeventhoughtheywereoriginallycreatedtoexpresssocialrules.Thesystemis,asitwere,reducedtoitsowninertia.Thisinertia,however,isstilllawful. Buildingsarethusprobabilisticspacemachines,abletoabsorbaswellasgeneratesocialinformationthroughtheirconfiguration.Inaveryrestrictedsensethen,wecansaythatbuildingsaremachine-like,inthattheyarephysicalsystemswhichthroughtheirspatialpropertiesproducewell-definedfunctionaloutcomes.Inanother,equallyrestrictedsense,buildingsarelanguage-like,inthattheyembody,impartandtransmitsocialinformation.Butwewouldnotunderstandeitheroftheserestrictedtruthsunlesswehadfirstunderstoodthat,intheiressentialnatureanddynamics,buildingsareneithermachinenorlanguage.Inthattheyareprobabilisticspacemachines,buildingsresemblenothingelse. Asprobabilisticspacemachines,buildingsaresubjecttothreetypesoflaw.First,therearetheself-contained‘lawsofspace’,whichtaketheformofimplicationsfromlocalphysicaldesignmovestoglobalspatialconfigurationaleffects.Second,therearelawswhichlinkthefieldofpossibilitycreatedbythefirsttypeoflawto‘genericfunction’,thatis,tobasicintelligibilityandfunctionality,especiallynaturalmovement.Third,therearelawsbywhichsocialformations,andthepatternsofrule-governedspatialactivitytheygiveriseto,makeuseofthesetwotypesoflawtogiveapictureofthemselvesinspace-time,andthroughthistogiverisetothesensethatbuildingsareinsomefar-reachingsense,socialobjects,andassuchimportanttosociety,andeven,insomesense,partofit.Thispointsustooursecondquestion.Buildings as social objectsThroughthemechanismoftheform-functionrelation,asithasjustbeendescribed,ithasbeenshownhow,startingfromthebuildingasphysicalobjectsandsocietyasabstraction,throughtheintermediaryofspace,socialabstractionsbecomeembeddedinbuildingsandcanalsobeinfluencedbybuildings.Thisledtoananswertothequestion:howisitthatbuildingsarerepletewithsocialideas?Wewillnowconsiderthereversequestion:howisitthatsocialinstitutionscontainideasaboutbuildings,anddoesitmatterthattheydo?What,inshort,istheroleofbuildingsinsociety? WemaybeginbyremindingourselvesofabasicdistinctionmadeinChapter1,adistinctionthatwasthefoundationonwhichthewholeconfigurationaltheorywaserected.Thisisthesimplepropositionthathumanbeingsinhabittwotypesofco-existentworld;acontinuousmaterialworldofobjectsandspaceswhichweoccupyandmoveaboutinphysically;andadiscontinuousworldofexpressiveforms,signsandsymbolswhichweoccupycognitively.Theformeris‘real’space,thelatterlogicalspace.Theactofbuilding,throughthecreationofconfigurationinspaceandform,convertstheseintoasingleworld.Aconfigurationalworldisacontinuousspatialworldconstructedsothatexpressivityalsohasbecomecontinuous.Buildingisthemeetingpointofthetwoworlds,whererealspaceisconvertedintologicalspace. Throughtheircombinationoftherealandexpressiveworlds,buildingsconvertthematerialworldwhichweinhabitintoanon-discursiveworldofculture,




SpaceSyntax

indeedintoculture’sdensestlocus.Throughthisconversion,thematerialworldbecomesforusinformationandidearatherthanthing.Becauseculturefunctionsnon-discursively,andmakestheartificialappearnatural,thebuiltworldwehavemadeintoinformationandideacomestoappearnaturaltous.Webecomelessandlessawareofitpreciselybecauseitsupportsourculturalidentitybyactingasitsembodiedbasis.Thebuildingbecomesseeminglydematerialisedintonon-discursivityandthereforeintoculture,whileremainingatthesametimethephysicalandspatialmilieuinwhichwelivebodily. Throughthisassimilationofthematerialworldintheculturalworld,buildingbecomesapuzzleforus.Webecomesousedtoitsautonomicculturalitythatwearetakenbysurprisewhenwerememberitsphysicalnature.Webegintomakedistinctionsbetweenhouseandhome,andbetweenbuildinganddwelling24,protestingthatbuildingis‘merematerial’whilesomethingelse,someimmaterialhumanstuff,istheessenceofwhatappearsatfirsttobeaphysicalobject.Underlyingthesedistinctionsisaseriousphilosophicaldifficulty:howcanthematerialworldbeinvolvedinoursocialandculturalliveswhenourexperienceofsocietyandcultureseemcentredinourminds?Weencounterthesamedifficultywhenwetrytoseparatesocialinstitutionsfromthebuildingstheyoccupy.Itisclearthatthecentreofwhatwemeanbyasocialinstitutionisanarrangementamongpeople.Suchanarrangementcansurelyexistwithoutabuilding.Thuswesaythatachurchis‘merebricksandmortar’,nothingwithoutpriestandcongregation.Thetruthofthisseemsaffirmedbytheabandonedchurchbuildingwithouteither. Butthefactthatachurchbuildingwithoutitssocialsetupisnolonger‘reallyachurch’doesnotimplythatwithitssocialsetupthebuildingisamerephysicalappendage.25Thefactthatthesocialsetup‘givesameaning’tothebuildingismorethananassociationofideas.Onceasocialset-upwithitsbuildingexists,thenthebuildingismuchmorethanastagesetorbackground.Initselfittransmitsthroughitsspatialandphysicalformkeyaspectsoftheformofthesocialsetup.Thecaseofthechurchisparticularlyclear,sincetheentireformofthebuildingisdedicatedtothesupportofaspatialisedritualofsomekind,andtheprovisionofanaudienceforthatritual.Byprovidingaspatialformadaptedtoaparticularritualthebuildingbecomespartofthemeansbywhichthatritualisenactedbyitscommunity.Sinceritualsonlysurviveinsofarastheyareenactedinrealspace-time,thebuildingbecomesapowerfulpartofthemeansbywhichthatritualisperpetuated,andtransmittedintothefuture. However,thematterisyetmorecomplicated.Thedifficultyinunderstandinghowahouseisanaspectofahome,andabuildinganaspectofaninstitution,reflectsourinabilitytounderstandhowwhatappeartonaïveperceptionasabstractionsandphysicalthings—thatis,socialinstitutionandbuildings—canbegenuinelyinterrelated.Infact,thisisonlyoneaspectofamoregeneraldifficulty.Wehavethesameproblemintryingtodecidewhethersocialinstitutions,orwholesocieties,actuallyexist,oraresimplycommonideasinthemindsofcollectionsofindividuals.Howcantheabstractionwecallsocietytakeonphysicalform,asit




SpaceSyntax

seemsitmustdoifitistoberealinthenormallyacceptedsensesoftheword?Ifsocietydoesexist,theninwhatsensedoesitexist?Clearly,thereisaprobleminassigningsocietyamaterialexistenceinthesamesensethatweassignanindividualamaterialexistence.Yetifsocietiesdonotexistinamaterialsense,theninwhatsensecantheybesaidto‘reallyexist’?Thisproblemisafurtherobstructioninthewayofunderstandingtherelationsbetweenbuildingsandsociety.Ifwedonotassignsocietysomekindofmaterialexistenceitseemsunlikelythatwecanformulateanswerstoquestionsastowhyandhowspatialisationthroughthehouseashomeandthechurchbuildingasanaspectofthechurchinstitutionshouldbesoconsistentanaspectofsociety.Wemayposeitasaquestion:ifsocietydoesnotrequirespatialisation,thenwhydoesitgiveitselfspatialforminsuchconsistentways?Ifsocietyisimmaterial,thensurelyitwouldnotrequirethisconsistencyofmaterialisation. Fortunately,theideaofsociety‘reallyexisting’isnotexhaustedbythepossibilitiesofexistinginthesamesensethatindividuals,ormaterialobjects,exist,thatis,ascontinuous,finiteentitiesoccupyingawell-definedregionofspace-time.Onceagainwefindparadigmaticideasobstructingtheformulationoftheproblem,andindeedonceagaintheseideasareessentiallyideaswhichareoverlymechanistic,andobscuretherelationbetweentheabstractandmaterialworld.Atrootourinabilitytoconceptualisesocietyasathinghasitsoriginsinthemostfundamentalofourmaterialisticprejudices:theideaofathing.Things,itwillturnout,arenotassimpleastheyseem. Wemaybeginwithafamousprobleminphilosophy,allegedlyoriginatingwithHeraclitusanddiscussedatlength(andrecentlybyphilosophicalstandards)byQuine,26aboutthedefinitionofrivers.Howcanwesaythatariverisathingwhenitsconstitutiveelements—watermolecules—keepchanging,andwillbefoundnowhere,nowelsewhereintheriver,theninanearbysea,thenasfallingrain?Oncesaid,thedifficultyramifies.Perpetualeliminationandreplacementofpartsisalsotrueofhumanbeings.Weshouldseeourselvesnotasthings,perhaps,butasprocesses.Thecommonsensedefinitionofindividualsasthings,andevenofthingsingeneral,seemsafteralltobeillusory,theresultofanaïveperceptionoftheworld. Butwheredoesitend?Isall‘fluxandchange’,andareallassertionsofthe‘thingness’oftheworldjusttemporaryfixations?Orcanwesavetheideaofthingnessbyamorecarefuldefinition?Considerthreeentitieswhichseemtohavedifferentdegreesofthingness:aone-metrecubedemptyboxlyingonthegroundbelowatreeonawarmsummereveningwithalightwind;aswarmofgnatsthreemetresabovethebox;andacubicmetreofgnat-freeairthreemetrestotheeastoftheswarm.Theboxisclearlyathing,thecubicmetreofairnot,eventhoughitisafinitephysicalentityintimeandspace.Theswarmweinstinctivelynameasathing,eventhoughitseemsdubiouslytosatisfycommonsensecriteria.Canwethenarriveatageneraldefinitionwhichclarifieswhatisandisnotathing? First,whatdoestheswarmhavethatthecubicmetreofairdoesnot?Letusreflectonhowtheswarmcomesintoexistence.Theswarmappearsrandom




SpaceSyntax

butitisnot.Itisapartiallyrandomsystemsubjecttoatleastonerestriction:thatindividualgnatsmoverandomlyonlyuntiltheyseeafieldofvisionemptyofgnats,whentheyturnandflybackinthedirectionofgnats.Thisrule,followedbyeachindividualgnat,isenoughtoconvertasetofindividualsintoaswarm.Everynowandthenagnatwillbelostandanothergained,butthisdoesnotaffecttheexistenceoftheswarmbecausetheswarmdoesnotdependonanyindividual.Itarisesfromcertainconsistenciesinthebehaviourofacollectionofindividuals,withoutanyindividualneedingtohaveaconceptionofaswarm.27

However,wedohaveaconceptionofaswarm,andareinclinedtocallitathing.Why?Howcanweconceptualisethissenseofthingness?Theanswerrequirestwostages.First,thesenseofthingnessappearsbecausewenotethroughtimerelationalpersistencesamonggnats,thatis,waysinwhichgnatsrelatetoothergnats,thatmanifestthemselvesinspaceandpersistthroughtime.Becausetheserelationsaremultipleandsimultaneouswemaycallthemconfigurationalpersistencies.Second,theseconfigurationalpersistenceshavethequiteobjectiveeffectthatthethingwethinkwesee,theswarm,offerssomeresistancetodeterminationbyforcesexternaltoitself,forexamplethelightwindthatwenotedwasblowing.Inboththesesenses,theswarmdiffersfromthecubicmetreofair.Therearenorelationalpersistencesarisingfromtheairmoleculessuchthatthesepersistenciesresistdeterminationbyexternalforces.Thelightwindblowsawaytheairmoleculesandreplacesthemwithothers,butleavestheswarmofgnats.Ofcourseifthewindwereastrongwind,thenboththecubicmetreandtheswarmmightbeblownaway.Butthatdoesnoteliminateourpoint.Theconfigurationalpersistenceoftheswarmoffersacertainresistancetoexternalitiesthatmanifestsitselfasatemporarystabilityinspace-time,andthisseemsenoughtocallitathing. Bythesecriteria,thecubicmetreofairisclearlynotathing,buttheboxonthegroundclearlyis.Itsconfigurationalpersistencesareofamoredurableandfixedkindthanthoseoftheswarm,butneverthelessitisclearlythesepersistencesthatleadustocallitaboxratherthanacollectionofpiecesofwood.Aswiththeswarm,also,theseconfigurationalpersistences,whilestrongerthantheswarmdonotofferendlessresistancetoexternalities.Amajorexplosionforexamplecoulddispersetheboxsufficientlyforustosaythatitnolongerexisted.Thepassageofsufficienttimewouldhaveasimilareffect.Takingthedefinitionofthingsfartherafield,itseemstoworkforrivers,whichwecanseeasconfigurationalpersistenciesamongstbanks,watermoleculesandlandgradients,ratherthansimplyaswatermolecules.Fromhere,itclearlyworksforlessdifficultcasessuchashumanbeings.Ifithasconfigurationalpersistencies,wemightsay,thenit’sathing. Nowaninterestingaspectofthisdefinitionofwhatweseeandsayisathingisthatwhatwearedefiningisaprocess,or,moreprecisely,aparticularstageofaprocess,withtheparticularattributesofconfigurationalpersistence.Inotherwords,wehavemadeourproblemindefiningthings—thatwhatweseeappearstobeprocessratherthanfixation—intothecentrepieceofourdefinition.Wecannowseethatthephilosopher’sproblemaroseinthefirstplacebecause,believing




SpaceSyntax

thatatanymomentintimeweseestates,weformthenaïvenotionthatstatesareprimary,andthatprocessesareinterestingonlyinthattheygiverisetostates.Thisistomisconceivewhatwesee.Whenweseeauniverse,ahumanbeing,aboxoraswarm,whatweseeisaconstructiveprocessunfoldinginspace-timeundermorphologicalnecessity.Itisfromthisconjunctionthattheappearanceofthestablestatesarisesthatinturngivesrisetothenotionofthings. Letusagreetocalltheseconfigurationalpersistencies‘structures’,notingthattheyareinvariablystagesofprocesses,andthatnamedthingnessseemstoarisefromsuchstructures.Howdoesthisallowustoreformulatethequestion:doessociety‘reallyexist’,thatis,isitsomekindofthing?Wemaybeginasusualbynotingwhatweseeandexperienceinspace-time.Whatweseeofsocietyinspace-time—apartfromitsphysicalandspatialmilieu—isindividualsinteracting,transacting,encounteringandperhapsalsoseekingrefugefromallthese.Issocietythenthesumoftheinteractionsthatweseeinspace-time? Itcannotbeso.Whateversocietyis,onethingaboutitisclear:itmustpersistthroughtime.Whateverinteractionsare,theycannotinthemselvesbesocietysincetheydonotpersist.Evenallowingforsocialchange,societiesrelatenotonlyindividualsatonepointintime,butalsoindividualsacrosstime.Evenwhenallindividualscurrentlyaliveinasocietyaredeadandreplacedbytheirdescendants,somethingsurvivesasa‘society’whichisrecognisablydescendedfromtheoriginalsociety,eventhoughitmayhavechangedconsiderably.Societyis,attheveryleast,somethingthatoutlastsindividuals.Inspiteoftheclaimedrealismofthosewhoreducesocietytoindividuals,thisreductionisinfacttheonethingwelogicallycannotdo,sinceitfailstoexplaintheprimarypropertyofsociety,namelyitspersistencebeyondthelivesofanycollectionofindividualswhomakeitupatanypointintime.Itfollowsthatwecannotreducesocietytoindividualinteractions. Ifwearenottalkingaboutinteractionsinspace-timewhenwesay‘society’thenwhatarewethentalkingabout?Onthebasisofourreflectionsaboutthingsingeneral,thequestioncanbebetterput:whatpersistsunderthemyriadofhumaninteractionsthatweobserveinspace-time?Theanswerisalmostimmediatefromtheformulationofthequestion.Whatpersistsisnotinteractions,butcertainconfigurationalpatternsunderlyingtheinteractions.Individualinteractionsareendlesslyreplaced.Butcertainunderlyingpetternsintheseinteractionspersist.Itisthesepatternsthatwenameas‘society’.Thepatternscanbetheresultofanynumberofdifferentpatternformers:formsofproduction,socialinstitutions,andsoon.Butitisthepatternsthemselvesthatwenameas‘society’.Usefully,thisdistinctionallowsustoincludethespatialformofsocietyamongthepatternformers.Spaceisonethingthatcangenerateandrestrictencounterandinteractionprobabilities,indeedthisishowspacebecomesinvolvedinsociety. Societythenisnotthespace-timemanifestationsofsocietyastheinteractionfieldsthatcontinuallyoccurinspace-time,buttheconfigurationalpersistencesunderlyinginteractionfields.Thereisanunavoidableinferencefromthis:theentitywhichwenameas‘society’isnotathingbutanabstraction.Doesthisthenmean




SpaceSyntax

thatsocietyisimaginary,avirtualproductofconsensusamongindividuals,withoutphysicalaffirmationintheworld?Itdoesnot.Itisreal.Wherethendoesthisrealitycomefrom?Theanswerisstunninglysimple:frombeingrealisedinspace-time.Theobservablematerialworldofinteractioninwhichweliveisnotitselfsocietybutitisthemeansbywhichsociety,theabstraction,realisesitselfinspace-timeandthusprojectsitselffrompasttofuture.Therealisationinspace-timeisthemeansbywhichsocietyasasystemofconfigurationalpersistenceachievesthispersistenceandtransmitsitselfacrosstime. Nowtheimportantthingaboutthisdefinitionofsocietyfromourpresentpointofviewisthatitimmediatelyallowsustoseetheroleofbuildingsandphysicalenvironments.Oursenseofbeingseparatedfromourphysicalcircumstancesisfoundedintheverynatureofoursocialexistencewhosenatureistoovercomespace,byformingthisabstractconfigurationalentity,society,whoseexistenceseemsnotinitselfspatialbutbeyondandabovespace.Societyisinthissenseanabstraction.Itisthegenotypesofsocialarrangementsthatarereproducedthroughtime,andwhicharethereforerecognisableintherelationalcomplexeswhicharerealisedinaspecificformatonepointintime.Societyisinthissenseadematerialisedthing,andthisiswhywefindithardeventoacknowledgeitsexistenceasarealthing. However,althoughsocietyisthisdematerialisedgenotypicalthing,themeansbywhichitisprojectedthroughtimeisanythingbutdematerialised.Onthecontrary,whilethematerialformofsocietyatanymomentoftimeisnotthatsociety,itis the means by which that society is transmitted into the future.Thematerialformofasocietyasasystemofrelationsatapointintimeisnotthatsocietyandcertainlynotitsstructure,but,bybeingarealisationoftheunderlyinggenotypesofsociety,thematerialformisthemeansbywhichthesocietyasanabstractionisrealisedinspace-timeandthenreproduced.Societyisnotinitselfitsmaterialform,butevensoonlyexiststhroughitsmaterialform.Thiscuriousdouble-takeiswhyallsocialpracticestaketheformofabstractstructures,likethegrammarsoflanguages,whichareneverseenaspartofanymaterialreality,butneverthelessdominatethatrealitybystructuringwhatcanhappeninit,andbycreatingtherealspace-timeeventsthroughwhichthosestructuresarethemselvesperpetuated. Buildingshappenwithinthisdouble-take.Likethesocialeventswhichtheycontain,theythemselvesarespace-timerealisationsofabstractions.Theyarelessthansocialevents,inthattheyarenotmadeupofactingandthinkinghumanbeings,buttheyarealsomoreinthattheyarelonglasting,almostpermanent,transformationsoftherealworldintheimageoftheabstractionsthatgoverntheirform.Buildingsarenotmapsofhumaninteraction.Theyaremapsofthesocialgenotypes,ofhumaninteraction.Thisiswhatmakesthemsopowerful.Socialinteractionsasspatialeventsaremomentaryrealisationsofabstractions,ofwhichtheyarethereforethephenotypes.Buildingsonlycontingentlyhousethephenotypesofhumaninteraction.Themostfundamentalerroroftheparadigmofthemachinewastoseekorderintherelationofpeopletothebuiltworldprecisely




SpaceSyntax

intheselocalisedphenotypes.Thebuiltworldfixesinstonenotthephenotypesbutthegenotypesofsocialbehaviour. Themysteryofthesocialnatureofthebuildingnowbecomesclear.Manifestlyaphysicalobject,itsessentialnatureistogiveformtoanabstraction,andthroughthistogivethatabstractiontherealisationwhichenablesittobeprojectedthroughtime.Buildingsdonotreflecttheparticularmaterialisationsofsocietythatoccuratanymomentintime,butaspectsofthegenericabstractionswhichconstitutesocietyitself.Itistheseabstractionsratherthananyparticularrealisationofthem,thatneedtobetransmittedthroughtime.Buildingsmakethisdoublypowerfulbybuildingthesegenotypesintotheverymaterialityofourexistence,andatthesametime,throughtheomnipresenceofconfiguration,renderingthesesamesocial‘things’non-discursive. Buildingsarethusamongthemostpowerfulmeansthatasocietyhastoconstituteitselfinspace-timeandthroughthistoprojectitselfintothefuture.Inthissense,societiesinspiteofbeinginthemselvesa-spatial,arethoroughlydependentonspace.Theactofbuildingis,asaconsequence,inevitablyasocialact.Assuchitentailsrisks;risksthattheformswillnotbethosethatpermitthesocietytoreproduceitsessentialforms.Inamodernsociety,theserisksarecarriedbetweenarchitectureandthesocialagenciesthroughwhicharchitectureislegitimatedandcontrolled.Architecturepersistsbothbecausesocietychangesandmustchangeitsbuiltworldinordertoperpetuateitselfinaslightlydifferentwaytoitspredecessor,andbecausetheriskstosocietyarenotposedattheleveloftheindividualbuildingsorparticularprojects.Thesemustalwaysexperimentwiththefuture.Therealriskisinthepersistenceoferrorthroughtime,sothatformsinconsistentwiththeperpetuationofagoodsocietybecomedominant.Itisexactlyfromsuchhighrisksthatwe,inthelatetwentiethcentury,seemrecentlytohavemadeourescape.NotesOr‘durability,convenienceandbeauty’inthetranslationbyMorrisHickeyMorganasVitruvius,The Ten Books on Architecture,Book1,Chapter3originallyHarvardUniversityPress,1914,Doveredition,1960.ButforimportantcommentsonthisviewseeStanfordAnderson,‘Thefictionoffunction’,Assemblage 2,February1987;andalsoJ.Habermas,‘Modernandpost-modernarchitecture’,9h,no.4,1982;andA.Colquhoun,‘Typologyanddesignmethod’,inMeaninginArchitecture,eds.C.JencksandG.Baird;Barrie&Rockliff,1969.LeCorbusier,Vers une architecture,1923;translatedbyEtchellsF.,Towards a New Architecture,ArchitecturalPress,1927;Versionused:1970Paperbackof1946edition,p.89.LeCorbusierpp.114–5.Ibid.,p.173etseq.Ibid.,p.173.Infact,thecleareststatementofthebasicideasbehindthephilosophyareprobablyretrospective.Forexample,SirLeslieMartin’sclassic‘Architect’sapproachto

1

2

3

4567




SpaceSyntax

architecture’intheRIBA Journal ofMay1967isprobablythemostlucidaccount.However,evenherethereisacertainamountofconfusion.Martinannouncesatthebeginningofhistextthathedoesnotintendtotalkaboutforms,butabouttheprocessesthatgiverisetothem,thengoesontotalkaboutlittleapartfromforms.Itmayindeedbethatonehastowaitforthenineteensixtieswhenmodernismwastakingovertheschoolsofarchitectureforaproperacademicformulationofamodernistform-functiontheory,assetoutforexampleintheNotes on the Synthesis of Form ofChristopherAlexander,1964,whichwillbediscussedindetailinthenextchapter.Forapost-Kuhndiscussionofthenatureof‘paradigms’seeM.Masterman,‘Thenatureofaparadigm’ined.I.Lakatos&A.Musgrave,Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge,CambridgeUniversityPress1970.ThemostextensivetreatmentofthisissueisinNecdetTeymur’scomplexanddifficult,Environmental Discourse,?uestionPress,London,1982.G.Canguilhem,‘Levivantetsonmilieu’,inLa Connaissance de la Vie,1971,LibrairiePhilosophiqueJ.Vrin,Paris,1971.Seealso‘Machineetorganisme’inthesametext.Thetwomostimportantreferencestothe‘architecturalanalogy’inAristotleareprobablyinthe‘Physics’,Book2,Chapter8pp.250–2intheMcKeoneditionof1941,andinthe‘Partsofanimals’,Book1,Chapter5,pp.657–9inthesameedition.ButtheideaispervasivethroughoutAristotle,asshownbytheconceptualimportanceassignedtoitinthereferencescited.‘Thevis insita,orinnateforceofmatter,isapowerofresistingbywhicheverybody,asmuchasinitlies,continuesinitspresentstate,whetheritbeofrest,orofmovinguniformlyforwardinarightline’I.Newton:DefinitionIIIfromDefinition&ScholiumBook1,Principia Mathematica,Versionused:ed.H.Thayer,Newton’s Philosophy of Nature,Haffer,NewYorkandLondon,1953.Koyre’sexcellentformulationin‘NewtonandDescartes’,inA.Koyre,Newtonian Studies,Chapman&Hall,1965p.67.SeeA.Koyre,‘HuygensandLeibnizonuniversalattraction’,Appendix,‘Attraction an occult quality?’ p.140.ForadiscussiononthisseeC.Gillispie,The Edge of Objectivity,PrincetonUniversityPress,1958,Chapter7,‘Thehistoryofnature’.Forexample,GillispiediscussesthehighlydevelopedversionoftheschemeofthoughtduetoLamarckwhosawtheorganismasitselfcontributingtotheevolutionofitsformsthroughtheinteractionbetweenthecreativeforcesemanatingfromtheorganismitselfandthemouldingeffectoftheenvironment,makingananalogytothegeologicalprocessesoferosionthatgaverisetoriversandvalleys(p.275).Seemyearlier(withLeaman)‘Theman-environmentparadigmanditsparadoxes’;ArchitecturalDesignAugust1973.Iseetheearliertermfortheparadigmastechnicallyincorrect,ratherthansimplypoliticallyincorrect.SeeGillispie,The Edge of Objectivity.Again,oneofthebestaccountsofthehistoryofthisideaistobefoundinGillispie,Chapter8,‘Biologycomesofage’.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718




SpaceSyntax

H.Balzac,Author’sIntroduction(toLaComediaHumaine)1842;availableinEnglishas‘Author’sIntroduction’inAt the sign of the Cat and Racket and other stories, Dent,London,1908.ThebestexampleisprobablytheopeningpagesofEugenie Grandet.SeeforexampleD.Rothman,The Discovery of the Asylum,Little,Brown&CoBoston-Toronto,1971—forexampleonp.84:‘Asaresultofthisthinking,prisonarchitectureandarrangementsbecamethecentralconcernforreformersoftheperiod.Unliketheirpredecessors,theyturnedalltheirattentioninward.tothedivisionsoftimeandspacewithintheinstitution.Thelayoutofcells,themethodsoflabour,andthemannerofeatingandsleepingwithinthepenitentiarywerethecrucialissues.Themostinfluentialbenevolentorganisationdevotedtoprisonreform,theBostonPrisonDisciplineSociety,appropriatelyconsideredarchitectureoneofthemostimportantofthemoralsciences.‘Thereare’,thesocietyannounced,‘principlesinarchitecture,bytheobservationofwhichgreatmoralchangescanbemoreeasilyproducedamongthemostabandonedofourrace…Thereissuchathingasarchitectureadaptedtomorals;thatotherthingsbeingequal,theprospectofimprovement,inmorals,depends,insomedegree,upontheconstructionofbuildings’.Thosewhowouldrehabilitatethedevianthadbettercultivatethisscience…Aswithanyotherscience,theadvocatesofmoralarchitectureanticipatedthattheprincipleswhichemergedfromthepenitentiaryexperimentwouldhaveclearandimportantapplicationsinthewidersociety.Anarrangementwhichhelpedtoreformviciousanddepravedmenwouldalsobeeffectiveinregulatingthebehaviourofordinarycitizensinothersituations.Thepenitentiary,byitsexample,byitsdiscoveryandverificationofproperprinciplesofsocialorganisation,wouldserveasamodelfortheentiresociety’.Pessimistsmightbetemptedtoconcludethatthisisexactlywhathappenedatleasttopublichousinginthelatenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies.SeealsothelateRobinEvans,The Fabrication of Virtue,CambridgeUniversityPress,1983.SeeA.Giddens,A contemporary critique of historical materialism,MacMillan,1981,Chapter1,‘Thetime-spaceconstitutionofsocialsystems’.J.deSyllas,Aesthetic order and spatial disorder in a children’s home:a case study of the Langtry Walk Children’s Observation and Assessment Centre in the London Borough of Camden,January,1991;baseonresearchcarriedoutforanMScthesisfortheMScinAdvancedArchitecturalStudiesintheBartlett,ucl,1981.M.Heidegger,‘Building,dwelling,thinking’in:Basic Writings,Routledge&KeganPaul,1987,pp.319–39.OriginallyinGerman.ThisbasicfactisnowincreasinglyrecognisedthroughimportantnewstudiessuchasthosereportedbyTomMarkus.,Buildings and Power; Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types,Routledge,1993.W.Quine,‘Identity,ostension,hypostasis’—inFromaLogical Point of View,HarperandRow,NewYork,1953,pp.65–79.SeeR.Thom,Structural Stability and Morphogenesis,Benjamin,1972,pp.318–19.

19

2021

22

23

24

25

26

27

The creative paradoxThereis,inarchitecture,acertaincreativeparadox.Mostarchitectureismadebyindividuals,andthemoresignificantthearchitecture,themoreitisvaluedastheproductofauniqueindividualcreativity.Yetwiththepassageoftime,eventhemostinnovativearchitecturecomestobeseenalsoasaproductofthetimeandsocietywithinwhichitwascreated.Thisdoesnotleadtoalowervaluationofindividualarchitects,butitdoesaddtotheappreciationofarchitectureasenseofthesocialandintellectualmilieuinwhichthearchitecturewasbroughtintoexistence,whichmaynothavebeenclearatthetimeofitscreation.Sucheffectsarenotconfinedtostyleandappearance,wheretheyaremostobvious.Manywriters,mostnotablythelateRobinEvans,1MarkGirouard2andmorerecentlyTomMarkus,3havenotedsimilareffectsforspaceorganisation. Itmightbesaidthatthisretrospectiveshiftinperceptionarisessimplybecausearchitectureisa‘socialart’,andthatitisonlywiththesocialdistancebroughtaboutbytimethatwhatwasalwayspresentcanbeseenclearly.Butthisistorestateratherthanresolvethepuzzle.Architectureisasocialartintwosenses:inthenarrowsensethatbuildingshavesocialpurposes,andinthebroadersensethatbuiltenvironmentsseemtoreflectsociety.Atthetimeofitscreation,itisusuallyclearthataworkofarchitectureisasocialartinthefirstsense,butnotalwaysinthesecond.Weseeeasilythatabuildingisanexpressionofsocialpurposes,butnothowtheformsofthisexpressionareinsomesenseaproductoftimeandplace.Itisonlywiththepassageoftimethatthesecondeffectseemstoemergewithanyclarity. Thepuzzleisthattheindividualactofarchitecturalcreationseemsablenotonlytoexpressthesocialpurposesofabuildingbutalsotocarrywithinitmessagesfromthesocietyinwhichitwascreatedwhichonlybecomeclearwiththepassageoftime.How,then,wemayask,doessocietygetintotheheadofthedesignerduringtheprocessofcreativedesign,andcomeoutintheformofthebuilding?Wehave,ofcourse,seenhowthiscanhappeninthevernacular.Consistencyofculturalandsocialexpressionismaintainedthroughvernacularbuildings,inspiteofthegreatvariationbetweenindividualcases,becausetheprocessofmakingthebuildingisguidedbyconfigurationalideastothinkwith.Thesegovernthewaysinwhichformsandspacesareassembledintoawhole,anditisthisthatconservessomelevelofconfigurationalaffinityfromonebuildingtothenext.Butarchitectureis,attheveryleast,thetakingintoconsciousandreflectivethoughtofexactlythoseconfigurationalaspectsofspaceandformbywhichculturesreproducethemselvesthroughbuildings.Howcanarchitecturebeatonceanindividualexpressionandanexpressionofsociety,iftheessenceofarchitectureliesintranscendingtheconventionsthattiebuildingsintotheidiosyncrasiesofparticularcultures?Intentions and realitiesThisquestionhasbeenposedinanextremeformbyeventsinthetwentiethcentury.Fromaboutmid-century,massivechangeswerebroughtaboutincitiesinthenameofarchitecture.Vastswathesofwhathadpreviouslybeenplausible

The reasoning artChapter eleven



SpaceSyntax

An intention is embedded in its situation, in human customs and institutions. If the technique of the game of chess did not exist, I could not intend to play a game of chess. In so far as I do intend the con-struction of a sentence in advance, that is made possible by the fact that I can speak the language in question.Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations 1, 337.

My present belief, formed over the past six years, is that there exists a designerly way of thinking and communicating that is both differ-ent from scientific and scholarly ways of thinking, and as powerful as scientific and scholarly methods of enquiry when applied to its own kinds of problem.L. Bruce Archer (1984 p. 348)

314

The reasoning art315



SpaceSyntax

urbanitywereexcisedandrebuiltasresidentialzoneswhichwere,incomparisontotheurbantraditiontheyreplaced,asstrangeasTeotihuacan.Inmostlanguages,theseareashaveaspecialname—inEnglishitis‘estates’—todistinguishthemfromtherestoftheurbanfabric.Theselinguisticdistinctionsexpressfundamentaldifferencesinspatialform.Continuitywithcontextisingeneralsharplybroken,ifnotbybarriersthenatleastbychangesinformalandspatialarrangement.Theeffectisthatnoonegoesintotheseareasunlesstheyhaveto.Theybecome,inAlisonRavetz’saccurateterm,‘reservations’.4

Withintheareas,differencesareevenmorepronounced.Publicspaceisnolongerconstructedinsmoothlychangingyetreadablepatternsbythecarefulalignmentandorientationofbuildings.Instead,atthesmallscale,thereareendlesscourts,plazas,greensandwalkways,apparentlyintendedtocreateanintimatesenseoflocalethroughthezealouspursuitofneighbourliness,butseemingtohavetheeffectattheaggregatelevelofcontributingtoageneralsenseoffragmentationinspace.Atthelargerscalethesefragmentsarelinkedintoabstractpatternsinwhichspaceseemstheaccidentalby-productofageometricorderbeyondthereachofexperience,graspableintheplan,butnotattheexperientialscaleofarchitecturalreality. Thesearetheformsof‘pathological’spacewhichwereexaminedindetailinChapter5.Aswesaw,thespatialnatureofsocialexperiencewasdecisivelyalteredbythesearchitecturalinterventions.Withintheareascreatedtheinhabitants(whoseexperiencecould,becauseoftheirstructuralisolation,neverbesharedbythoseoutside),witnessedthedestructionoftheeverydaynormalitiesofurbanlifeandtheirreplacementbyacaricatureurbanlifestyleinwhichfearandalienationinemptyspacesbecameasnormalasthedecentanonymitiesofthepopulatedspacesofurbanityhadbeenpreviously. Theseoutcomeswereneverofcourseintentional.Infacttheintentionswereexactlythecontrary:tousenewformsofspacetocreatenewformsofcommunity.Theseintentionsmutatedwithtime,firsttakingtheformoffuturisticvisions,thenofamoretechnicalenterpriseoftheinventionofcommunitybyspatialengineering,thenfinallyofnostalgiafora—probablyimaginary—urbanpast.Oneafteranother,allthesevisionsfailed,leavingwherevertheywereattemptedthesamesenseofanurbanlandscapedespoiledofitsessentialfeaturesandreplacedbyalandscapeaspuzzlingasitwasunwelcome.Ifanarchitecturalintentionisaproposaltocreateasocialoutcomethroughaform,therewas,attheveryleast,amonumentalmismatchbetweenarchitecturalintentionsandlivedrealities. However,theseintentionswereneverpurelyarchitectural.Beliefinthepossibilityofnewformsofcommunalexistencethroughspatialengineeringweresharedwidelyamongstthemultiplicityofpoliticalandexecutiveagenciesthatbroughtaboutthere-structuringoftheurbanlandscape.Theapparentcauses,aswellastheoutcomes,ofthesearchitecturalchangeswereprofoundlysocial.Itisthisthatputsourquestionabouttherelationofarchitecturalcreationtosocietyintosharpfocus.Werethechangesauthenticarchitecturalproducts,inwhichcase




SpaceSyntax

themismatchofintentionsandrealitiesisarchitecturalerror?Orwasarchitecturesomehowsubvertedbysocialforcesofwhichitbecameforatimeawillingagentandadvocate?Wehavethequestionofhowarchitecturecanbeatonceacreativeandsocialactinitsmostextremeform.Didsocietygetintoarchitectureandcomeoutinbuiltform?Ifso,thenitisamatterofurgencytoknowhowthiscanhappen,themoresoifwearetosaveourdefinitionofarchitectureasthetakingintoconsciousthoughtofthenon-discursive,andthereforesocial,contentofbuilding. Tounderstandthatthiswasindeedpossible,wemustunderstandmuchmorethanwedoaboutthenatureandoriginsofarchitecturalintentions,andhowarchitectsconverttheseintobuiltrealities.Thatistosay,wemustunderstandhowarchitectsdowhattheydo:design.Understandingtheprocessofdesignhasbeenoneofthevexedthemesofarchitecturaltheoryinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.5However,questionsaboutdesignhavealwaysbeenposedintermsoftheprocessofdesign:howdoarchitectsgoabouttheirtaskofdesigning,andcanitbeimprovedtoprovideagreaterlikelihoodofsuccess?6Inthischapterwewilltrytoposethequestioninanentirelynewway:thatis,byinquiringintoitsproducts:howisitthattheseproductscanbe—oratleastseemtobe—atonceindividualandsocial?Whatisthenatureofdesign,thatitisatonceacreativeindividualactivityandatthesametimecapableofinfluence,evensubversion,bysocialforcesandvalues?Is design reason or intuition?Interestindesignasanactivityaroseinitiallyinthenineteensixties,partlythroughageneralinterestinthepossibilityofapplying‘scientificmethods’inthepursuitofsocialobjectiveinarchitecture,7partlybecausethepossibilityofusingcomputersindesignseemedtobepredicatedonabetterunderstandingofhowdesignersworked—butmostlyperhapsbecausethepossibilityofdesignfieldssuchasarchitecturebeingconstitutedasformaldisciplinesseemedtostandorfallonthepossibilityofatheoreticalunderstandingofthedesignprocess.8 Itwouldcauselittleoffencetothosewhohavewritteninthisfieldtosuggestthatinspiteoftheseeffortsthedesignprocesstodayremainslargelyopaque.Asaconsequence,enquiriesintothenatureofdesignandthepolemicstowhichtheygiverisearefranklyunfashionable,andhavebeenstagnantforsomeyears.Fortheacademicallyminded,enquiryintotheobjectsofdesignrightlyseemstooffermorepromisethanenquiryintothenatureofdesign.However,ifwearetoanswerthequestionwehavesetourselves,wecannotavoidreopeningthisenquiryinalimitedwayandreconsideringatleastsomeofthekeyissuesthatpastattemptstoanalysedesignhavehighlighted.Wecannot,forexample,avoidtheprincipalstumblingblocktopreviousenquiriesintodesign:istheactivityofdesignaprocessofreasoning,andthereforeonewhichcantosomeextentbeexplicated,orisitapurely‘intuitive’process,andonewhichmustthereforeremainamystery? Atfirstsight,theclaimthatarchitecturaldesignis‘intuitive’islikelytobegreetedwithsomecaution.Whateverelseitis—andthemoresoifwefollowthedefinitionofarchitecturesetoutinthefirstchapterofthisbook—architecturaldesignseemstobetheimpositiononthematerialworldoftheorderingactivityofthe




SpaceSyntax

humanmind.Througharchitecture,wecometosee,inthebuiltworldinwhichwelive,patternsoforderwhoseoriginslieinhumanthought.Itmightthenbeexpectedthatarchitectswouldseedesignasaprocesscentredonthoseorderingpowersofhumanmindswhichwe,forwantofalessgeneralterm,callreason.Butifwelistentoarchitectstalkingaboutdesign,theyrarelytalkaboutreason.Ifpressedtodescribethementalprocessofdesign,theyaremorelikelytoinvokeintuition. Wemightofcoursetakeacynicalviewandseethispreferencefortheartoverthescienceofarchitectureasnomorethanatricktomaintainprofessionalmystique,sinceartisamysteryandscience,bydefinition,accessibletoopenenquiry.However,Isuspectthereisadeeperandmorejustifiablereasonforstressingintuitionindesign,onewhichhastodowiththenatureofdesignitselfasanactivity.Forpurelytechnicalreasons,Ibelieve,whatwenormallycallintuitionisunavoidablythemotorofthedesignprocess.Itisnotaquestionofwhetherweshouldpreferanintuitiveapproachtodesignorareasoningapproach.Itissimplythatfordesigntotakeplaceatallmentalstructuresmustbedeployedandusedinsuchawayastomaketheuseoftheterm‘intuition’hardtoavoidinanyreasonableaccountoftheprocess. Thisdoesnotmeanthatreasonisnotinvolvedinthedesignprocess.Onthecontrary,Iwilltrytoshowthatreasonisalsointimatelyinvolvedindesignactivity.Itisthepolarisationbetweenintuitionandreasonthatiswrong.Reasonisinvolvedindesignformuchthesamereasonsasintuitionis.Architecture,Iwilltrytoshow,isthedeploymentofintuitionwithinafieldstructuredbyreason,andinthissensewemaycallarchitecturethereasoningart. Atfirstsight,thismayseemastrangeidea.Reasonandintuitionareusuallyopposed,evenseenasincompatible,inouraccountsofhumanthoughtprocesses.Atypicaldictionarydefinitionis‘immediateapprehensionbythemindwithoutreasoning…immediateinsight’.Reason,usedtodescribeprocessesofthought(asopposedtoinnatefaculties),stressesexternalisationofthestructureofargumentsasinto‘formortrytoreachconclusionsbyconnectedthought’.Thequestion:isdesignamatterofintuitionorreason?referstothisdistinction.Howfarisdesigncarriedoutthroughinchoate,‘blackbox’processesinsidethemindwhichcannotbemadeexplicit?Andhowfarisitcarriedoutbyformsofexternalisedreasoningwhichintheirverynatureare,orcanatleastbemade,explicitandthereforeopentoenquiry? Thisquestionhas,fortwodecades,hadpracticalurgencysinceitmightwellprescribelimitstothewaysinwhichwemightseektousecomputerstosupportarchitectsinthecreativeaspectsoftheirwork.Unfortunately,effortstosolvethisproblemhaveledatbesttoawidegapbetweentheoryandpractice,andatworsttodownrightparadox.Thefactisthatassoonaswetrytolookatitcloselytheprocessofdesignbecomesmoreandmorepuzzling.Design as a processAtfirstsight,theprocessofdesignseemsstraightforwardenough.Itisusuallyinitiatedwitha‘brief’,whichdescribes,summarilyoratlength,whatthebuildingmustdo.Itthenpassesthroughaseriesofstagesduringwhichapossiblebuilding




SpaceSyntax

isfirstsketchedandthengraduallyrealisedinmorepreciseform,andendswhenthedesignerhandsoveraproposalforabuilding,drawnandexplainedinsuchawayastoshowwhatthebuildingwillbelikeandhowitwillprovidewhatthebriefasksfor,orsomethingbetter. Thisseemssimpleenough.Butifwelookalittlemoreclosely,mattersarenotsoclear.The‘brief’whichinitiatestheprocessmaybealengthyformalspecification,oritmaybeafewspokenwords,butwhateverformittakes,theessenceofabriefisthatitdescribesnotabuildingbutwhatabuildingmustdo,thatis,whatfunctionalprogrammeitmustsatisfy.Thebriefspecifiesthefunctionalprogrammeratherthanthebuildingbecausewhatthebuildingwillbelike,visuallyandspatially,isthespecialityofthearchitect;thereasonweemployoneinthefirstplace.Ifweknowwhatthebuildingistobelike,asopposedtowhatitmustdo,thenwedonotseekthehelpofanarchitect. Findingtheformthatsatisfiesthefunctionalconstraintssetoutinabstractforminthebriefisthenareasonablewayofdescribingthearchitect’susefulskill.Thebriefinitiatesthe‘designprocess’,attheendofwhich—andoftenaftermuchtrialanderror—thedesignerhandsbacktotheclientaproposalforabuilding,drawnandexplainedinsuchawayastoshowbothwhatthebuildingwillbelikeandhowitwilldowhatthebriefasksfor.Thishasledmanytobelievethattounderstandthedesignprocesswemustshowsomeprocessofthoughtbywhichaformalandspatialobjectmaybederivedfromwritteninstructionsaboutfunction.Initially,thissoundsinnocuousenough,butonreflectionitraisesprofounddifficulties.Bywhatpossiblemeanscouldtherebeamentalprocesswhichtranslatesfromwritteninstructiontophysicalandspatialforms?Thetwodomainsarenotcommensurable.Thesameappliestotheideaoftranslatingfromnotionsoffunctiontonotionsofform.The‘form-function’relationis,aswehaveseen,perhapstheleastunderstoodprobleminarchitecturaltheory.Nowonderthedesignprocessappearsmysterious.Itisnotatallclearthattherecouldbeanexplicitprocessbywhichthesetwotranslationsbetweenincommensurabledomainscouldbeachieved. However,manywhohavesoughttoexplainthedesignprocessintermsofwhatgoeson—orshouldgoon—inthemindofthedesignerhavetakenthisasthedefinitionoftheoutlineofthedesignprocess,andsetupthequestionasoneofexplainingbywhatformofreasoning,orotherthoughtprocess,designersgofrominformationaboutfunctiontoaproposalforaphysicalandspatialobject.Itisworthexaminingthisideaclosely,sinceindoingsowewillatleastexposethefulldifficultyofourproblem.Design as a procedureThemostpowerfulstatementoftheproceduralviewofdesignisprobablystillChristopherAlexander’sNotesonthesynthesisofform9anditisworthcommentingon,eventhirtyyearsafteritwaswritten,becausealthoughwrong,andknownbyitsauthortobewrong,itissufficientlyrigorousinitsconceptionandexecutiontoraiseinastarkandsimplewaytheprofoundestproblemsinconceptualisingtheactofdesign.




SpaceSyntax

TheargumentintheNotesisgroundedinoneofthefundamentalpolemicsthatmodernismhadintroducedtoarchitecture:howfaritwassatisfactorytoregarddesignasanintuitiveprocess,dominatedbyimaginationandperhapsimpededbyreason,andhowfarcouldtheintuitiveprocessbeprogressivelyreplacedbyareason-basedprocedureinwhichthearchitectcoulddrawoneverexpandingknowledge?Thefundamentalargumentagainstintuitionismindesignwasthatitwasthroughtheunquestioningrelianceonintuitionthatarchitecturewastiedbothtoimagism—thedominationofarchitecturebythevisualratherthanbythefunctional—andtohistoricism—thedominationofarchitecturalcreativitybytheformsofthepast.10

Alexander’swasthefirstutterlyseriousandformalattempttoputthisintoeffect.Itwasbasedonseeingthedesignprocess,fromtheabstractstatementoffunctioninthebrieftothecrystallisationofaphysicalform,asaprocessofanalysisofinformationfollowedbysynthesisofform.Severalmodelswereproposedatthetime,butallsharedthecentralnotionthataprocessfromabstractlystatedfunctiontoconcretearchitecturalsolutionscouldandshouldbeaprocessoftheanalysisoftheproblemfollowedbyasynthesisofthesolution.Analysis-synthesisseemedthenaturalschemeofthoughtbywhichwecouldseektoreplaceanintuitionbasedprocesswithareasonbasedprocess. Itwouldnotofcourseappearsonow.Withhindsight,itiseasytoseethatanalysis-synthesisisnotatallanaturalschemeofthoughtbutsomethingmoreakintoaparadigmofthought,anunderstandingofwhichrequiresaminorexcursionintothehistoryofideas.Wetendtothinkof‘analysis-synthesis’asaverytwentieth-centuryidea(wemakethesameerrorover‘architecturaldeterminism’),butitisnot.ItwasfirstsetoutclearlyintheseventeenthcenturybythemathematicianphilosopherRenéDescartesinhisDiscourse in Method.11Descartes’sobjectivewasverysimilartothatofthetwentieth-centurydesigntheorists.Descarteswantedtoridthemindoftheclutterofpreconceptionsembodiedinnaturallanguage,and,startingonlyfromindubitable,simplenotions,reworkthewholestructureofhumanknowledge.Hismodelwasgeometry,wherewebeginfromasmallnumberofindubitable(ashethought)postulatesandaxioms,andusethemtocreatechainsofreasoning(theorems,lemmas,proofs,andsoon)andeventuallylargestructuresofsecureknowledge. Descartesbelievedthatbystartingequallysimplyandworkingwithsimilarrigour,allfieldsofknowledgecouldberenderedaswell-structuredandsecureasEuclidiangeometry.Descartes’smetaphorfortherestructuringoflanguagewasthewell-orderedtown,laidoutongeometricalprinciples,whichhecontrastedwiththetownthathadgrownup,likethehumanknowledgeembodiedinlanguageandhabit,byachanceprocessofaccretion.12InDescartes,wefindalltheelementsinthemodernistphilosophy:thedesiretogetridofpreconceptions,tomakeabreakwiththeuntidypast,andtoderiveawholenewstructureofideasthroughanalysisoffoundationsandrigorousdevelopmentofmorecomplexideas.




SpaceSyntax

Alexander’sversionofthisintheNoteswastopropose‘theanalyticalnatureoftheprogramme,andthesyntheticnatureofits(architectural)realisation’.Hesummarisedthisinapairofrelatedhierarchicaldiagrams.Ontheonesideisthe‘downward’hierarchyoftheanalysisof‘needs’,inwhichthebroadeststatementof‘need’isfirstbrokendownintoitsmajorcomponents,thenthesearebrokendown,andthisisrepeateduntilthemostelementarylevelofneedisreached.The‘upward’hierarchyofarchitecturalformsthenworktheotherway,withthemostbasiclevelasthefootofthepyramid,thenthenextlevelinwhichthesearecombined,andrepeatingthistillthewholeformis‘synthesised’. Alexanderoffersaworkedexampleofhismethod:theredesignofavillageinIndia.Hisprocedurewasfirsttolistallthe‘misfitvariables’(thatis,thethingsthatcouldpotentiallybeputintothewrongrelationship)as‘needsorrequirementsthatmustbesatisfiedinaproperlyfunctioningvillage’.Theseincludeallthose‘explicitlyfeltbythevillagersasneeds’,those‘calledforbynationalandregionaleconomyandsocialpurpose’andthose‘alreadysatisfiedimplicitlyinthepresentvillage(whicharerequiredbutnotfeltasneedsbyanybody)’.Examplesofthe141needsidentifiedwere:‘Harijansregardedasrituallyimpure,untouchableetc.’,‘Efficientandrapiddistributionofseeds,fertiliseretc.fromblockHQ’,‘Simplifythemobilityoflabor,toandfromvillages,andtoandfromfieldsandindustriesandhouses’,andsoon.Alltheinteractionsbetweentheneedsarethenlisted,sothatwehaveagraphmadeupofthe‘needs’orelementsofthegraphandthe‘interactions’orlinksinthegraph. Thegraphisthenanalysedanddecomposedinto‘fourmajorsubsets’eachmadeupofbetweentwoandfour‘minorsubsets’.Minorsubsetsaregroupsofinterrelatedneeds,andmajorsubsetsaregroupsofgroups.Each‘minorsubset’isthentranslatedintoa‘constructivediagram’indicatingapproximatelyhowthesubsetofneedcouldbesatisfiedbyaspatialarrangement.Thesediagramsarethengroupedtogetherintomorecomplex‘constructivediagrams’representingthe‘majorsubsets’ofneeds,andthefourmajorsubsetsarethengroupedtoformaconstructivediagramforthewholevillage.Inthisway,Alexanderclaimstohavebegunwiththeanalysisofneedsasafieldofinformationandendedwiththesynthesisofadesignsolution,thatis,anoutlineofspatialdesignforthevillageasawhole. Manymodernreaderswillbeasrepelledbytheethnocentricarroganceofthetimeasbythebizarrenessofthesolutionproposed.Butthisisnotthepointatissuehere(thoughitmaywellbeepistemologicallylinkedtoit).TheissuehereiswhatAlexanderhasactuallydone.Hasheactuallyderivedanobject,thevillage,frominformation,theabstractlystatedneeds,bymeansofaformalprocedure?Iftheanswerisyes,thenhecantrulyclaimtohavesucceededinhisaimofreplacingintuitivedesignwithasystematicprocedure. Infact,thereisadevastatingflawinAlexander’sprocedure,onewhichentirelyvitiateshisaimofreplacingintuitionwithreason,andleadshimonlytoconcealintuition—evenprejudice—underaveneerofreason.Thisisnotasingleflawbutapervasiveflaw.Itvitiateseverystageoftheargument.Theflawcanbestatedasfollows.WhatAlexanderisopposedtoisintuitionbaseddesign,which,he




SpaceSyntax

argues,leadsthedesignerawayfromaproperunderstandingoffunctionalneedsandthesubsequentsynthesisofasolutiononthebasisofthatunderstanding.Inpracticaltermsthismeansthatheisopposedtotheideathattobeaskedtodesigna‘school’,say,immediatelyactivatesinthemindarangeofgivensolutionstothatdesignproblem,solutionsinwhichthefunctionalpatternsofa‘school’suchashavingclasses,assemblies,teachersandtaught,headandteachers,andsoonarealreadyarrangedinspecificwaysaccordingtocertainconventionalpatternsthroughtheideasofbuiltformwhichtheword‘school’immediatelybringstomind.Alexanderobjects,ineffect,tothefactthatintheordinaryuseoflanguage,wordslike‘school’alreadyassociateintuitivelywhatthearchitectseekstorelateanalyticallyandsynthetically,thatis,thefunctionalandspatialpattern.Thisimmediacyofassociationbetweenfunctionandformispreciselythemeansbywhichpastconventionsarereproduced.Alexander’sprogrammethereforedependsondoingsomethingdifferentfromthis. Doeshe?Ofcoursenot.Thisisexactlywhathisprocedurecannotdo.Howevermuchyoudisaggregatethe‘programme’analytically,therearenoanalyticmeanstomovefromaprogrammeorfunctionalelementtoanarchitecturalorspatialelement.Thiscanonlybedonebyusingpre-existingknowledgeorassumptionsabouthowfunctionalideastranslateintospatialones.Inotherwords,tomakethecrucialstepinthewholeprocedure,thatis,togofrominformationtoobjectandfromfunctiontoform,Alexanderhasrecoursetoexactlywhathesaidhewasavoiding:theuseofintuitivelyheldassumptionsaboutwhattherelationisorshouldbe. Alexanderdoesnot,however,drawtheproperconclusionfromthis,thatis,thathistechniquedoesnotavoidintuitivedesign,butinfactconcealstheuseofintuitionandassumptionundertheguiseofaprocedure.Thisisprobablybecauseheisoverlyimpressedbythetechniqueheusesinordertomakethetransitionfrominformationandfunctiontospatialandphysicaldesign,thatis,the‘constructivediagram’.Alexanderintroducesthisthroughadisingenuousexample.Heshowsthatifyoudrawvehicularmovementataroadintersection,representingtheamountofmovementbythethicknessofthelines,thenboththelinesofmovementandthethicknessarearepresentationoftheactualspatialsolutionrequired.However,thisisalmosttheonlykindofcasewheresuchaclosecorrespondenceof‘constructivediagram’andrealitycanbefound,anditissobecauseitisamatterofengineering,notculture.TheideathatthiscanbeduplicatedintocaseswherethepassagefromfunctiontoforminvolvesculturalpatterningcanonlyhavetheeffectthatAlexanderproposestoignoreculturalpatterningandimposehisownculturalassumptionsthroughthedesign. BythisdisregardofcultureandcovertimpositionofhisownAlexanderbetraysthewholeessenceofhistechnique:ateverystageofmovingfromfunctiontoformhehasnoalternativebuttohaverecoursetohisownexisting,taken-for-grantedknowledgeofhowfunctionrelatestoform,andthereforehowinformationrelatestoobjects.Inotherwords,howevermuchhedisaggregatesthedesignproblem,Alexanderstillproceedsinthewayheoriginallyobjectedto:thatis,by




SpaceSyntax

already‘knowing’therelationbetweenformandfunction.Thispriorknowingcoversexactlythoseaspectsofdesignthatwecalled‘non-discursive’inChapter1,wherewenotedthattheywerehandledinthevernacularastheunconsciousrelationalby-productsofthemanipulationofobjects.WecanthensayofAlexander’sprocedurethat,farfromreplacingintuitivedesignwithaprocedure,hehasretreatedtoavernacularisticmodeofdesignbutonlyinordertotransmit—andcovertly—highlypersonalisedvaluesattheexpenseofthosesanctionedbyaculture. Oncethisisseen,thenitclearlyalsoappliestotherelationshipsamongelementsintheanalysedprogramme,andtotherelationsamongspatialelementsinthe‘synthesised’builtform.Inotherwords,inspiteofallthe‘methodology’,itisintuitiveknowledgethathasactuallydonetheentiredesign.ThecuriousthingisthatAlexanderseemstohaveknownthis,andactuallydiscussesittosomeextentinhisbook:‘Thedesigner’,hesays,‘mustalreadyhavesomephysicalideasabouttheprobleminhismindwhenhestarts.’Indeedthedesignermust,andinfacttheyareinvokedateverystageoftheprocess.Itisclearthattheseobjectionsmustafflictanynon-trivialversionoftheanalysis-synthesismodel.Tomakethetransitionfrominformationtoobjectorfromfunctiontoformwemustuseknowledgethatwealreadyhave.Thishasanimportantimplication:thatdesignasaprocessofcerebrationisnotsimplyaprocedurethatdrawsonknowledge,butonewheretheprocessisactuallybasedinknowledgeandhowthedesignerhandlesit. Onreflection,perhaps,wemayseewheretheerrorlayintheanalysis-synthesismodelofdesign.Theprocessfromwrittenbrieftotheproposalforanobjectdescribestheexternalitiesoftheprocessandhowitisembeddedinawidersocialschemeofthings.Thereisnoreasontosupposethatitisatthesametimeadescriptionoftheinternalitiesoftheprocess,thatis,ofthethoughtprocessbywhichthedesignerconceivestheobject.FromwhatwehaveseenofAlexander’smethods,andfromwhatwemayinferfromvernacularandintuitivedesign,theinternalitiesofdesignarecentrednotaroundaprocedurebutaroundknowledge.TheprocedureproposedbyAlexandermayconcealknowledge,butitdoesnoteliminateit.Onthecontrary,aswehaveshown,itisateverypointbasedonknowledgeofacertainkind.Ifwearetounderstandtheinternalitiesofdesign,thenitisclearthatweneed,asastartingpoint,amodelofdesignwhichacknowledgesthecentralityofknowledgeratherthanconcealingit.Howthencansuchamodelbeconstructed?Design as conjecture-testThefirststepiseasy.Theanalysis-synthesismodelis,atroot,amisunderstandingaboutscientificmethod,andthetwentiethcenturyhasseenarevolutioninthenotionsof‘scientificmethodology’.Ourconceptionofsciencehasmovedonfromoneinwhichscientistsweredatagathererswhoproceededby‘inductivegeneralisation’(ifthesunrisesoftenenough,thenwemayassumeitalwaysrises)toconstructtheorieswhichwere‘certain’becausetheyhadbeenderivedby‘induction’.Wenowseescienceasahighlyimaginativeactivityinwhich‘data’isnotsomuchseenasthefoundationfortheory,asthemeansoftestingandeliminatingtheories13andasthesourceofintuitivetheoreticalleaps.14Karl




SpaceSyntax

Popperhasbeenthemostinfluentialphilosopherinthisrevolution.Hearguedthatinductionwasnotonlyunreliable,butalsothatonecouldnotlogically‘induct’complexmodelsoftheinnerworkingofnature.Suchmodelshavetobefirstimaginativelyconjectured,thenrefuted,orsupported,byrigoroustestingagainstdata.Notheorycaneverbe‘proved’.Everytheoryisforeveruncertain,andlikelytobereplacedbyabetterone.Eveniftheinductionoftheories(asopposedtosimplestatementsaboutsunsrisingorsequencesofnumbers)werelogicallypossible,thenitwouldstillbeoflittleusetosciencesinceiftheorieswerearguedashavingbeenderivedfromdata,therewouldneverbeanyfurtherneedtotestthemagainstdata.Sinceoftenrivaltheoriesweresupportedbyallbutaveryfewitemsofdata,thenitfollowedthatsciencecouldneverprogressunlessitusedthosefewitemsofdatatorefute,ratherthanthemanytosupport,theories. Ifthen,scienceremainsarationalactivityinspiteofbeingledbyimaginationandintuition,itisnotclearwhyshouldweseekastrongermodelforrationalityindesign.Onthefaceofit,designlooksmuchmorelikeaprocessofconjecture-testthanaprocessof‘analysis-synthesis’.Theusefulnessofthisargument(whichIandothersproposedintheearlyseventies15)isthatitrelatesintuitionandreasoninalifelikeway,andalsosuggeststhatdesignisnotsoverydifferentfromothertypesofhumanactivity.Forexample,conjecture-testseemsareasonablemodelforspeaking:onefirstconjecturesasemanticcomplex,thentestsitoutbytryingtosayit.16Whatdistinguishesdesignfromotheractivitiesisnotitsprocedurebutitsobject,andwhatmakesdesigndifficultiswhatistobedesigned.Theoristsshouldtherefore,itwasargued,shifttheirattentionfromtheprocessofdesigntoitsproductiftheireffortswereevertobeuseful. Nowthisargumentishelpfulasfarasitgoes.Butitisclearlypointlesstoclaimtohavesolvedtheproblemofthedesignprocesssimplybyproposingananalogytoscience.Designisaprocesswhichthosewhoundertakeitfindquitedifferent,andindeeditisclearlyquitedifferentinitsoutcome.Allwehavelearnedfromtheanalogywithscienceistodispensewithanillusion:thatrationalityinthoughtisnecessarilyandonlytherationalityofaprocessorprocedure.Howmaytheargumentthenbedevelopedfurther? Infact,therelevanceoftheanalogywithscienceisnotyetquiteexhausted,andwemayusefullyextenditalittle.Justasascientistcannot‘induct’acomplextheoreticalmodelfromaseriesof‘inductivegeneralisations’,so,aswehaveseenthroughAlexander,adesignercannot‘induct’abuildingfromananalysisofthepartsofaprogramme.Thereasonissimpleandfundamental.Seeneitherasspaceorasform,abuildingisaconfiguration,anditisasaconfigurationthatitworksandisexperienced.Nowweknowthatthefundamentalcharacteristicofaconfigurationisthateverytimeitischanged,saybytheadditionorsubtractionofanelementorpart,thenthepropertiesofthewholeconfigurationchange.Theeffectsofregularchanges,thatis,thosemadebyfollowingconsistentlyappliedrules,canbebroadlypredicted,buttheeffectsofsmallorinconsistentchangeswherenoruleisappliedfromonetothenext,cannotbepredicted.Thereis,aswesawinChapter9,somedegreeoflocalindeterminacyfromconfigurationtoitsstructure.




SpaceSyntax

Itfollowsthatdesignersmustthinkconfigurationally,andofcoursethisisexactlywhattheydo.Theverycentreofarchitecturaldesignisthebringingtogetherofpartstoformawhole.Designis,manifestly,aconfigurationalactivity.Twoconsequencesfollow.First,sinceaconfigurationisa‘whole’,whosepropertiesmaybesignificantlychangedbyquiteminorchanges,itfollowsthatthedesignermustonthewholetendtodesigntop-down.Theobjectofthearchitect’sthoughtisaconfiguration,andaconfigurationisawholeentity,notanaccumulationofparts.Thisofcourseiswhatwemeanbyadesignconjecture.Itisaconfigurationalguess.Itcannotbeotherwise,sinceconfigurationcannotbearrivedatbyanadditiveprocess.Second,becauseaconjectureisconfigurational,andweknowthatconfigurationishandledbythehumanmindnon-discursively,itfollowsthatconfigurationalconjecturesarelikelytobegeneratednon-discursively.Thisofcourseiswhyarchitectstalkofintuition.Aprocessofconfigurationalconjecturecannotproceedotherthannon-discursively.Itcannotthereforeeitherfollowareasonedprocedure,norcanitproceedadditivelyfromthebottomup.Designisbynatureaholistic,intuitiveprocess,andthisconclusionfollowsfromareasonedanalysisoftheprocessofdesign. Wethereforehaveaproblem.Ifdesignisbothaprocessofnon-discursiveconjecture,andatthesametimeaknowledgebasedprocess,howcanthesetwofactsbereconciled?Howcanwe,thatis,constructamodeloftheinternalitiesofthedesignprocesswhichboth‘saves’theapparentpriorityofintuitionoverreasonindesign,whileatthesametimesavingtheideaofdesignasaknowledgebasedprocessinwhichhumanreasonis,par excellence,deployed? Theanswer,aswewillsee,willlieinexploringtheimplicationsofthenon-discursiveinbuilding—thatis,theputtingtogetherorcomposingofaformalandspatialstructure—fordesignasacognitiveprocess.Wehavealreadynotedinapreviouschapterthat,inthevernacular,thenon-discursiveaspectsofthebuilding,thatis,thepatternofformandthepatternofspacewhichgivethebuildingitsculturalcharacter,arerecreatedunconsciouslythroughthemanipulationofobjects.Theform,thespatialpatternandthefunctionalpattern—theform-functionrelation,inshort—areknowninadvanceandneedonlyberecreated.Becausearchitectureofitsnatureunlinksthepatternaspectsofthebuildingfromtheirdependenceonsocialknowledge,thenitisthesenon-discursiveaspectswhichbecomeuncertain.Itfollowsthattheproblemwemustsolveinunderstandingdesignasaknowledgebasedprocessrequiresustoshowexactlyhowthosenon-discursiveaspectsarehandled,thoseaspects,thatis,thatAlexanderconcealedsothoroughlyinhisproceduraltheory.The design process closely observedLetusthendefinearchitecturaldesignasaknowledgeproblemasclearlyaswecan.Wemustbeginwithabasicfact:adesignisarepresentation,notathing.Todesignabuildingistocreatearepresentationofanunknownandoriginalobjectwhosepropertiesmustbewellenoughunderstoodinadvanceinorderfortheactofbuildingtoproceedwithconfidence.Thepropertiesthatmustbepredictedincludeofcourseall‘technical’aspects,thatis,thoseaspectswhicharegoverned




SpaceSyntax

bysomekindofphysicallaws,suchasthestructuralorclimaticperformance.However,theyalsoincludethenon-discursiveproperties,thatis,theputtingtogetherorcomposingofaformalstructureandaspatialstructure.Theformerisamatterofforeseeingtheaestheticandculturalsignificanceoftheproposedbuilding,thelatteramatterofforeseeinghowthebuildingasaspatialentitywillworkfortheprogrammesofactivitythatareprojectedtotakeplaceinit(aswellasothers,asyetunforeseen,thatmightintimebeadded). Inarchitecture,itisthesenon-discursiveaspectstowhichattentionismostdrawnsinceitisintheseareasthatarchitectureclaimstocreateanentity‘overandabovebuilding’.Thismeansthatinthedesignprocesstherearetwonon-discursiveproblems:thegenerationoftheproposedform,andthepredictionofitsfunctionalproperties.Ourproblemistoexplainhoweachofthesecanhappen,andinparticularhoweachdrawsonandusessomekindofknowledge.17Thebestwaytobeginmightbeactuallytoexaminewhathappens—orwhatseemstohappen—duringthecourseofthedesignprocess.Whatcanbeseentohappenshouldatleastbeanoutwardandvisiblesignoftheinteriorprocessofdesign. Ifweobservethedesignprocessasithappens,thenwefindourselvesnotingtwoapparentlyverydifferentbutcloselyinterrelatedkindsofactivity.Oneistheproposingofconjecturalformsaspossiblesolutionstotheprobleminhand,usuallythroughaseriesofsketchesordrawings.Theotheristalkingaboutforms,thatis,explainingthem,defendingthem,criticisingthemandproposingmodifications,ineffectdiscussingwhattheywillbelikeifbuilt.Wemayusefullynotethattheconjecturingofformsappearstohappenlargelyinnon-discursivemode,butthatreasoningaboutformshappensprimarilyindiscursivemode. Letuslookfirstatthemorediscursiveaspectsoftheprocess,thatis,attheissueofprediction.Howisitpossibletopredicttheperformanceofanunknownandoriginalobject?Consideringtheproblemintheabstract,itwouldseemthatthepossibilitiesarelimited.Predictioncaneitherbemadeonthebasisofanalogywithknowncases,orbyappealtoprinciple,thatis,towhatisheldtobetrueofallpossiblecases,orperhapssomemixtureofbothofthesesuchas‘experience’whichusuallytakestheformofaprovisionalprinciplebasedonpersonallyknowncases. Wewillfindthisausefulguideinlisteningcarefullytowhatisbeingsaidinthestudio,andinparticular,tohowdesignerscommentondesignconjecturesandpredictwhattheywillbelike.Onekindofinchoatecomment,forexample,tendstoreflectnon-discursivityquitedirectly.Forexample,‘Thisisgreat’or‘Ireallygoforthis.’However,thisisrarelyallthatissaidwhenofferingsuchevaluations.Quitecommonlyitwillbefollowedbysomeremarklike:‘AmIrightinbeingremindedof...?’,or‘Youseemtohaveinmindsuchandsuch.’Inotherwords,thereisusuallysomeattemptintalkingaboutprojectedformstoinvokeexistingforms. Notingthisallowsustoformulateausefulthought.Evenifthespatialandphysicalformsofbuildingsarenon-discursive,thisdoesnotmeanthattheprocessofpointingtocomparisonsbetweenthemisnon-discursive.Onthecontrary,aprocessofcomparisoncanbeconductedwithoutviolatingthenon-discursivityof




SpaceSyntax

form.Onedoesnothavetodescribeaformtomakeacomparison.Acomparisoncanbeagreedordisagreedwithverballyonthebasisofappreciationsoftheformwhichremaininnon-discursivemode.Therefore,eventhoughtheobjectofevaluationremainsnon-discursive,westillfinddiscursivereasoningbeingemployedexplicitlyinawayinwhichitdoesnotseemtobe—oratleastisnotmanifested—intheprocessofgeneratingdesignconjectures.Designersrarelyclaim‘Igotthisbitfromhere,thatfromthere’,sincethiswouldsuggestpasticheratherthanoriginality.Butdiscursivecomparisonsarealegitimateaspectoftheprocessofdesignevaluationandpredictiononcetheconjectureexists. Thistendencytoinvokeexistingbuildingsbecomesmuchmorenoticeablewhenitcomestopredictingthefunctionalperformanceofthebuildingasopposedtoevaluatingitsformaesthetically.Wecommonlyfindthatthemostpersuasiveandpowerfulargumentsarecomparisonswithknowncaseswhichinsomesenseorinsomeaspectthedesignproposalresembles.Thereisanobviousreasonwhyweshouldexpectthistobethecase.Architectsdesignform,buthopeforfunction.Themostdifficultaspectofpredictionfromanarchitecturalconjectureisthepredictionoffunctionfromform.Itisonlyinexistingbuildingsthatfunctionaswellasformcanbeseen.Byanempiricalappealtocases,then,function,thekeyunknowninthedesignprocess,canbecomepartofthepredictivereasoningaboutformswhichcharacterisesthedesignprocess. Forthisreason,theformsofdiscursivereasoningthatareusedinforeseeingthearchitecturalnatureandpredictingfunctionalperformancetendtobeofanempiricalkind.Allotherargumentsseemtobeweakcomparedtothese,andinpracticewefindthatempiricalappealsareoftenthefinalarbiters.Thisiswhy,inthediscursiveorpredictivephasesofdesign,wenotethepredominanceofreasoning,whichisatonceempiricalanddiscursive.Indeed,itistheirempiricismthatmakesthesephasesdiscursive. Itisgoodthatitshouldbeso.Ifdesignconjectureswerejustifiedbyappealtoprinciple,thentherecouldbelittleeffectivecritiqueofdesignsontheonehand,andlittledevelopmentofprincipleontheother.Thesituationwouldbeanalogoustothepre-Galileansituationinsciencewhen,undertheinfluenceoftheAristotelianmethodology,scienceattemptedtoproceedfromgeneralaxiomstoparticularphenomena,withtheeffectthatnolearningfromunexpectedphenomenawaspossible.Indesign,thesituationisanalogous.Thetestingofdesignsagainstknowncaseswillalwaysbethemostflexibleandpotentiallyunderminingtechniquefortheevaluationofdesignconjectures.Throughit,therealworldisbroughtintotheworldofdesign,andisheldthereinmuchthesamewayandformuchthesamereasonsasitisinscience. Wehavethenitseemsdefinedatleastonephaseofdesignasaknowledgebasedprocess,andonekindofknowledgethatisdeployedinthedesignprocess.Empiricalknowledgeofthenon-discursiveaspectsofbuildings,especiallytherelationofspatialformtofunction,arefundamentaltothepredictiveordiscursivephasesoftheconjecture-testsequenceswhichcharacterisethedesignprocess.We




SpaceSyntax

mayalsonotethat,aswelearnfromHacking,18inscienceempiricalphenomenamayalsobethesparkfortheory,notbyanylogicalprocedurebutbyexactlythekindofnon-discursiveleapswhichcharacterisescientifictheorisation.Inarchitecture,similarly,existingcases—thatis,knownarchitecturalphenomena—canbethesparkforanewandoriginaldesign.Where do architectural ideas come from? Butwhataboutthefirstnon-discursivephaseoftheprocess,thatis,thegenerationofconjecturalforms?Letusbeginagainbylookingattheevidencethatdesignshowsoftheprocessofconjecturingforms.Observingtheprocess,whatweusuallyseeisaseriesofdrawnconjectures.Werarelyfindasingleconjectureandquiterarelyasinglekindofconjecture.Morecommonlywefindfamiliesofconjecturesreflectingdifferentpossiblestrategiesinsolvingtheprobleminhand.Whatweactuallysee,then,isarangeofpossibleforms,arangewhichclearlyderivesfromamuchgreaterpossiblesetandwhichwillintimebereducedtoasingleproposal. Inotherwords,onthefaceofit,whatweseeevidenceofintheconjecturalphasesofdesignisnotatranslationfrominformationtoobjectorfromfunctiontoform,butsomethingmuchmoreeasilyconceptualised:atranslationfromarchitecturalpossibilitytoarchitecturalspecificity.Itmayofcoursebeobjectedthatthispropositionisselfevident.Butfromthepointofviewofhowweconceptualisedesignasaknowledge-basedprocessitisveryimportant.Itimpliesthatthegenerationofform,themostproblematicofallaspectsofdesignfromthepointofviewoftheanalyst,isnotamatteroftranslatingbetweenincommensurabledomains,butaprocesscontained,inthemain,withinasingledomain:thedomainofarchitecturalform.Ifthisisthecase,thenitfollowsthatthemostimportantelementintheprocesswillbehowthedesignerunderstandsthefieldofformalandspatialpossibility. Thisisnotallthatweseeonthesurfaceofthings.Adesignconjectureisnotsimplyaconjecturalformbutaformalconjectureembodyingafunctionalconjecture.Theformalconjectureineffectcomestousalreadyrepletewithafunctionalpredictionwhichoffersasolutiontotheproblemposedbythebrief.Wemustthenconcludethatnotionsoffunctionandtheirrelationtoformarealsopresentinthedesigner’sunderstandingofarchitecturalpossibility,atleastinsuchawayastosupportaformalconjecturewhichisatthesametimeafunctionprediction.Ineffectthedesignerismappingnotonlyfromknowledgeofformalpossibilitytoaconjectureforformalspecificity,butalsofromknowledgeoffunctionalprobabilitytoafunctionalprediction. Wemightsaythatseenasacognitiveacttheconceptualisationofaformseemstobeamatteroftranslatingfromknowledgeofformalandspatialpossibilitytoformalandspatialactuality,andfromfunctionalprobabilitytofunctionalprediction,inthelightofanabstractlystatedbrief.Inotherwords,designisnotamatteroftranslatingbetweenincommensurabledomains,butaprocessoftransformationwithindomains,exactlythosedomainswhicharelinkedintheverynatureofbuildings.Iffollowsthattheknowledgethatdesignersuseinthegenerationofdesignconjecturesis,liketheknowledgeusedintestingconjectures,




SpaceSyntax

insomesenseknowledgeofbuildings,butinthiscase,knowledgeofpossibilityratherthanactuality.Thequestionis:whatisthisknowledgelike?Inthetestingphasestheknowledgewasclearlyempiricalknowledgeofrealcases,anditwaspossibletoarguethatthiswasthebestformforthenecessaryknowledgetotake.Doesthesameholdforthegenerationofdesignconjectures? Letusimmediatelysetupaguidepost.Wesawinanalysingthevernacularthatthecreationofavernacularformmeantholdingsteadyideastothinkwithaboutrelationalstructuresinordertomanipulatetheideaswethinkof,thatis,thephysicalandspatialelementsthatarecomposedintoabuilding.Theanalogywaswithlanguagewherethecreativeactoflanguageisonlypossiblebyholdingsteadytheserelationalideastothinkwiththatwecallgrammaticalandsemanticknowledge.Itwasalsosuggestedthatarchitecturemeanttakingthesenon-discursivestructuresintotherealmofreflectivethought,inmuchthesamewayasthescientisttakesintoconsciousreflectivethoughttheconditionsfortheexistenceofphenomenapresupposedbythecraftsman.Throughthistransformationofknowledge,architecturemeantnotsimplyreproducingaculturallysanctionednon-discursivepattern,butbyreflectiveabstractiononthepossibilitiesofsuchpatterns,tocreatenewnon-discursivities. Buthowdoesreflectiveabstractioncometobeembodiedintheactofdesign?Tounderstandthiswemustfirstrecognisethatdesignisnotitselfanactofreflectiveabstraction.Onitsown,reflectiveabstractioncanonlyleadtotheunderstandingofforms.Designisaboutthecreationofforms.Itisaprocessofconcretiondependentonabstractionbutnotinitselfaprocessofabstraction.Thisprocessofconcretionmustincorporatereflectiveabstraction,butnotinitselfbesimplyreflectiveabstraction.Howcanthishappen?Theanswerissimple,and,oncestatedcarefully,quiteobvious.It is in the nature of creative acts of concretion, like design, that some set of ideas to think with must be held steady, temporarily at least, in order to manipulate and experiment with the ideas the designer thinks of in searching the field of possibility. Thisisbecausetheactof—letuscallitnon-discursiveconcretion,thecreationofanon-discursiveconjectureforaphysicalandspatialform—isnotinitselfasimpleapplicationofreflectiveabstraction,butadeploymentofreflectiveabstractiontoconstructandsearchafieldofpossibility,insuchawaythatthereflectiveabstractionsconstructthatsearchandinformthedesignerwhenheorshemightbenearwhatisbeingsought. Inotherwords,inarchitecturethereflectiveabstractionsareinsertedintothedesignprocessasideastothinkwithtobetemporarilytakenforgrantedinordertoconstructandsearchafieldofpossibilityintermsofthosereflectiveabstractions.Indesign,ideastothinkwitharenecessarybecausetheyinformthedesignerwhatheorsheislookingforandconstructsthefieldinsuchawayastoallowittoyieldtohisorherefforts.Agooddesignerineffectconstructshisorherownideastothinkwithanddeploysthemasstructuringmechanismstosearchthefieldofpossibilityandguidehimorherastothedegreeofsuccessorotherwiseofthesearch.Theactofdesignissuchthatitmust,temporarilyatleast,holdsteadyideastothinkwithinordertomanipulateandexperimentwiththeideasthata




SpaceSyntax

designerneedstothinkof.Itisnecessaryinthelogicalstructureoftheact.Inordertoproposesuchandsuchaformandsuchandsuchanoutcomethedesignermustknow,orbelieveheorsheknows,notonlythenon-discursivitiesofformandspacebutalsowhatingeneralistheeffectofformsonoutcomes.Solution typologiesThequestionis:whataretheseideaslike?Andwheredotheycomefrom?Againwecanmostusefullybeginbylookingattheevidenceprovidedbythedesignprocessitselfinaction.Thistimeweshouldlookattheearlieststages,sinceitisthesourcesofdesignconjecturesforwhichwearenowlooking.Wecannotbeginearlierthanthebriefitself,thatis,theinformationthatinitiatesthedesignprocessinthefirstplace. Wehavealreadydiscussedtheproblemthatwhenwenameakindofbuilding,saysa‘school’,wearealreadyreferringtoaverycomplexsetofideaswhichincludenotonlybuildingswithcertaincharacteristicappearances,butalsocertainpatternsofactivitycarriedoutbypeoplewithwell-definedsocialrolesincertainkindsofspatialarrangements.Inotherwords,thecommonsenseuseofawordtonameabuildingalreadydescribespossiblerelationsamongexactlythosenon-discursiveaspectsofbuildingswhichthedesignerwillseektorelatethroughdesign:thatis,afunctionalprogramme,aspatialpatternforthatfunctionalprogrammeandanexpressionof‘schoolness’throughthephysicalformofthebuilding.Onreflection,wemustexpectthis.Itistheothersideofouranalysisofthevernacular.Allofus,notonlybuilders,alreadytakepartinanongoingbuildingculture,throughwhichweareabletounderstandandusebuildings,formoreorlessthesamereasonsthatbuildersareabletobuildthem.Aswiththebuilder,however,theculturalknowledgeofbuildingthatwehaveisnon-discursiveinsofarasitdealswiththebuildingasarelationalcomplexofformandspace.Wemustnotealso,that,aswiththevernacularbuilder,non-discursiveknowledge,becauseitisrelational,isessentiallyabstract,althoughwemayholdittogetherbyimagesofphysicalobjects,justasthebuilderreproducesitbymanipulatingphysicalobjects. Ifawholefieldofnon-discursivityinwhichformsofhumanactivity,spatialpatternsandformalexpressionsareinterrelatedisactivatedbytheuseofwordslike‘school’,thenitfollowsthatitisalsoactivatedbythebrief.Thecomplexofideasactivatedisunlikelytotaketheformofasingleculturaltype,aswewouldexpectittobeinthevernacular,butthatofasetofpossibilitieswhichreflectscurrent,recentorhistoricalsolutionstothatkindofdesignproblem,andwhichmanifestthemselvestothedesignerasafieldofstrategicchoice.Weneedanameforsuchfieldsofstrategicpossibilitydefinedbypastpractice,andsinceelsewhere19ithasbeencalleda‘solutiontypology’wecancontinuetousethisexpression.Nowthecriticalfactaboutasolutiontypologyisthatitalreadyconstitutesasetofnon-discursiveideasofexactlythekindthedesignerrequires,andsooffersthemanimmediatelyavailablesetof‘ideas-to-think-with’insearchingthesolutionfield.Inexactlythesamewaythatthevernacularbuilderusesthephenotypicalmeansathisdisposaltotransmitabstractnon-discursivitiesthroughtheorganisationoftheformandthespace,so




SpaceSyntax

thedesignerreviewingprecedent,consciouslyorunconsciously,absorbsthenon-discursivitiescontainedineachofthesolutions.Thesolutiontypologyisthereforemadeofgenotypes,orratherofphenotypeswhichimplygenotypes.Thedesignerdoesnothavetousethesegenotypes,buttheideasarethere,andtheiressentiallyunconsciousandabstractnaturemeansthatitwillnotbeeasytobefreeofthem.Foranydesignproblem,wemaythennotethatthereexistsapregivenhistoricalsetofnon-discursivegenotypesreflectingtherecenthistoryofthatproblem.Onreflection,theexistenceofsuchhistoricalsetsisthepreconditionforbeingabletoidentifya‘designproblem’inthefirstplace.Inspiteoffirstappearances,a‘designproblem’isahistoricalconception. Onewayinwhichdesignersoftenrecognisethatdesign,eventhemostinnovative,happenswithinthiscontextofideasdefinedbythehistoryofarchitecturetothatpointisbymakingareviewofexistingsolutionstothetypeofdesignproblemposedbythebrief.Thereisawellestablishedtermforthecasessoreviewed.Theyarecalled‘precedents’.Precedentsareexistingexamplesofsolutionstoaparticulardesignproblem.Reviewsofprecedentrarelylookatonesinglekindofsolution.Theyusuallyshowaswidearangeofsolutionsaspossible,20includingthosethatarenotconsideredgood.Werarelyfindhoweverthatthereviewofprecedentisfollowedbyemulatingoneprecedentorother.Onthecontrary,wherethereviewofprecedentisexplicitinthiswaythesubsequentdesignusuallymakesitclearthatthepurposeoftheexercisewasnottoprovideabestcaseexemplartofollow,buttosetupsomethinglikemarkersinthefieldofpossibilityforanewdeparture.Thereviewofprecedentisnotintendedtoreducetheoriginalityofthenewdesign,butonthecontrarytoensureitsoriginalitybylayingoutprecedentinaclearandexplicitway.Inmakingareviewofprecedentadesignerisacknowledgingthehistoricalcontinuitynotonlyofarchitecturalsolutionsbutofarchitecturalproblems.Itacknowledgesthatinarchitectureatanypointintimewehavethatkindofproblembecausewealreadyhavethatkindofsolution. Solutiontypologies,becausetheyimplyarangeofnon-discursivityinarelativelyabstractedform,caninthemselvesprovidecognitivemechanismsthoughwhichthedesignerscanstructurethefieldofpossibility.Buttheycandosointwoways,eitherexplicitly,aswefindwhenaconsciousreviewofprecedentismade,orimplicitly,whenprecedentisusedinanunacknowledgedwaytostructurethesearchforasolution.Thelatterstrategywillalwaysbeaconservativeone,intheobvioussensethatitwillalwaystendtoconservetheexistingsolutiontypology.Theformerstrategy,byacknowledgingthesolutiontypology,willtendtobemoreprogressivesincebysettingoutprecedentitcreatesarchitecturalconditionsinwhichthesimplefollowingofprecedentismoredifficult. Nowwhetherornotthedesignermakesanexplicitreviewofprecedent,itisunavoidablethatexistinggenotypesareatleastapowerful,ifghostly,presenceintheprocessthroughwhichdesignconjecturesareformed.Establishedgenotypescaninvadetheprocessofarchitecturalcreationbybecomingpartoftheideastothinkwiththatinformthesearchforadesignconjecture,withorwithoutthe




SpaceSyntax

complianceofthearchitect.Itisentirelytobeexpectedthenthatarchitectswill,whileexploringformalpossibility,findculturalgenotypesattachedtoatleastsomeoftheideastheyarethinkingwith.Theevidenceofarchitecturalhistoryisthattheprocessofculturalevolutionwhichwecallthehistoryofarchitectureistoaconsiderableextentinformedbytheculturalstabilityinducedbytheuseofexistingsolutiontypologies—orrathertheirgenotypes—asideastothinkwithinsearchingthefieldofpossibilityfordesignconjecture. Wecouldthinkofthistypeofarchitecturalproductionas‘normal’architecturebyanalogywithThomasKuhn’sconceptionof‘normal’scienceas‘puzzlesolving’withinanunchallengedparadigm.21Theanalogyisnotprecise.Thearchitecturalfieldismorefluid.Thereisnooneparadigm.Evensothebroadanalogyisprobablycorrect.Theactofarchitecturalcreationtransmitssomedegreeofculturalcontinuitybecauseexistingsolutiontypologiesarethemostpowerfulandnaturallyavailableideastothinkwithinthegenerationofdesignconjectures.Itisthisthatcreatesthesensethatinspiteofeachbuilding’sbeinganindividual,buildingsdoformgraduallyevolvingspecies.Weseenowhowthegenotypesofthosespeciesaretransmittedthroughthecomparativeindeterminacyofindividualcreation.Solution typologies and normal architectureThereare,however,seriousdangersintheuseofsolutiontypologies.Epistemologically,wecansaythattheexistenceofsolutiontypologiesandtheirpowerstotransmitnon-discursiveabstractions,tendstovernacularisearchitecture,thatis,toreturnitfromitsaspirationtoauniversaltransculturalitybackinthedirectionofsociallynormalisedintentionsandforms.Is‘normalarchitecture’then,definedasarchitectureinwhichtheinfluenceofprevailingsolutiontypesisparamount,thesameasthevernacular,thatis,nomorethanthetransmissionofculturethroughartefacts? Theansweristhatitisnot.Normalarchitectureusessimilarcognitivemechanismstothevernacularinproducingdesigns,butthisdoesnotmeanthatthenon-discursiveknowledgethatinformsdesignsisofthesametype.Onthecontrary,itislikelytoreflecttwofundamentalnewfacts:first,theexistenceofarchitectsasaspecialisedknowledgegeneratingandknowledgeusinggroup,and,second,thefactthatthisspecialisationislegitimisedandmadeviablebythewidersocialstructuresofwhichitformsapart.Thiscreatesanewpossibility:that‘architecturalknowledge’maycometoreflectnotsimplyknowledgethatarchitectssharewithothersocialmembersthroughcommonculture,butknowledgewhichreflectsthefactthatarchitectsactonbehalfofothersincertainsocialsituations.Inotherwords,architecturehasthepotentialtorepresentculturalpartisanshipasmuchasculturalagreement. Thedegreetowhichthishappensdependsonanewfactorwhicharisesalongsidethecomingintoexistenceofarchitectsasaspecialisedgroup:thecontinuingdebatebetweensocietyanditsarchitectsabouttheaimsandpurposesofarchitecture.Wecanfollowcurrentfashionandcallthis‘architecturaldiscourse’.Architecturaldiscoursearisesfromthesimplefactthatbecausethroughbuildingsociallifeisconstitutedinorganisedspace,andsocialvaluesarerepresented




SpaceSyntax

invisibleform,architecturecannotbesociallyneutral.Onthecontrary,everyarchitecturalactdirectlyengagesthesocial,andremainsinapermanentdialecticwithit.Itistheintimacyofthisrelationthatensuresasecond,higherleveldialecticbetweenarchitectureandsociety:onebetweenarchitecturaltheoryandsocialideologyintheformationofarchitectural‘intentions’.Architecturalintentionsarethegeneralpropositionsthatstakeoutthepointsofaimforarchitecturaldesign.Theyarelikelytoinvolvequitecomplexpropositionsabouttherelationofarchitecturetolife.Suchpropositionsaretheoreticalinthattheypropose,howeverbroadly,anapproachtospatialandformalconfiguration.Assuchtheyengagewiththeoreticaldebatewithinarchitecture.Ontheotherhand,thesepropositionsarealsosocialpropositions,andassuchinevitablyprovokeandbecomepartofwidersocialdebate. Becausethisisso,statementsofarchitecturalintentcannotandshouldnotbetakenatfacevalue.Thesheertechnicalintimacyoftheinvolvementofarchitecturewiththesocialleadsitintoapermanentdanger:thatthetheoreticalandintentionalabstractionswhichinformdesignandtellitwheretoaimwillbecomesubordinatedtoprevailingsocialideologies.Thisleadsarchitectureintoacontinuingintellectualstruggle.Ontheonehand,theclosenessofthisinvolvementofarchitecturewithsociety,necessarilydrawsarchitectureintothepermanentdebatethateverysocietyhaswithitselfaboutitsnatureanddirection.Ontheother,thenatureofarchitectureasreflectivethoughtandactioninexactlythoseaspectsofbuildingswhicharebytheirnaturesocial,leadsarchitecturetodrawbackfromthisdebateintopreoccupationwithitsownautonomy.Thiscanappearparadoxical,butitisastructuralnecessity.Architectureistechnicallyenmeshedinsociety,yetitsreasonforexistenceistobreakfreefromthisenmeshing,andtoproposenewformsandfreedomsalteringthetermsofthisenmeshing. Thistwo-sideddebateiswhatwecallarchitecturaldiscourse,thatis,thecontinuingdebateaboutarchitecturalideasandtheirrelationtosocialvaluesthatisconductedbetweenarchitectureanditspublic.Inspiteofitsneedforautonomy,discourseinarchitecture,aselsewhere,isnotafreestandingthing,butaconstantlyshiftingbundleofideaswhichreflectandcontributetomoregeneralpatternsofdiscoursethroughwhichasocietydebatesitselfwithitself.Architecturaldiscourseisoneofthemeansbywhicharchitecturebothtiesintoandstrugglestobefreefromthegradualevolutionandadaptationoftheculturalandinstitutionalstructureswhichmarkeverymodernsociety.Thusalthougharchitectureisinprincipleafreeingofbuildingfromthespecificconstraintsofaculture,theneedtoembedthisfreedomindiscourseinordertosustainitensuresthatarchitecturecanneverassumeitsfreedomfromintellectualandsocialcontext.Thequestion‘wheredoarchitecturalideascomefrom?’isaquestiontowhichanundermininganswerisalwayspossible:thatanyarchitecturalideamaypresentitselfasfree-standingandclearofsocialconstruction,buttimemayshowtohavebeenanunwittingimplementofaspecificideology.




SpaceSyntax

Aconstantquestion-markthereforehangsoverstatementsofarchitecturalintent.Aretheyautonomousconstructsofarchitecturalthought,andthereforeconstructiveofferingsfromarchitecturetosociety,oraretheyideaswhichareinsomesensealreadyreceivedfromsociety,imprintedonarchitecturethroughthecommonprocessesbywhichsocialandculturalchangebecomenormalisedintosocialbehaviourandinstitutions?Inshort,arethenotionsaboutarchitectureandsociety,thatareexpressedthroughthechanginglanguageofarchitectural‘intentions’,insomesensesociallyconstructed? Thisquestionismostpressinginthematterofspace.Anarchitecturalintentionisusuallyaproposaltocreateasocialoutcomethroughaspatialform.Intentionalstatementsinarchitecturethereforeinevitablyassociatesocialvalueswithspatialconcepts,andbecomeineffectpropositionsabouttherelationbetweenarchitectureandhowlifeshouldbelivedinspace.Theoretically,theyareform-functionpropositions.Forexample,propositionsabouttherelationbetweenhousinglayoutandcommunityformation,orbetweenopen-planofficesorschoolsandorganisationalfunctioning,orbetweendomesticspacedesignandfamilybehaviour,areallform-functionpropositionsrelatingspacetoconceptsofnormalordesirablesocialbehaviour.Sometimessuchpropositionsarequiteexplicit,butquitecommonlytheybecomeimplicit,transmittedthroughtheacceptedformsofbuildingandsupportedbythecommonwordsandtermsweusetotalkaboutthem. Becausethisisso,architecturaltheoryhastwoobjectsofstudy,whichwereatthesametimeitsprimarysources.Oneistheobjectsofarchitecture,thatis,thebuildingsandplacesthatexistandcouldexist.Thesecondisthestudyof‘intentions’,andespeciallyofthe‘ideas-we-think-with’thatunderlieintentionsinarchitecture,thatis,theshiftingarrayofconceptsthatunderliearchitecturaldiscourseandwhichseemoftentogovernthebroaderchangesinarchitecturalformsthatweseeovertime.Manywouldseethelatterstudyasprimary,arguingthatdiscoursesarepriortobuildingsandbuildingscanonlyberenderedintelligibleassocialandarchitecturalproductsthroughtheirrelationtodiscourses.However,akeylessonfromarchitecturalexperimentationinthetwentiethcenturyisthattherehasoftenbeenamismatchbetweenthediscourseofarchitecturalideasandintentions,andtheactualperformanceofthebuildingandspatialformswhichexpressthoseintentions.Wecannotproceedontheassumptionthatthereisatightrelationbetweenideaandreality.Wemaywellchoosetostudythetwoinparallel,butinordertodothiswemustalsolearntostudyeachseparately.Theparallelinfluenceofsociallyconstructedintentionsontheonehandandavailablesolutiontypologiesontheothertogetherconstituteapotentialprisonofideathroughwhicharchitecture,whilestillpursuingitsaimoffreedomandautonomy,becomesineffecttheinchoateandunwillingservantofsocialforces.A case study Thereisaparamountexampleofthis,whichconcernstheoriginsofthestrangelandscapesdescribedanddiscussedinChapter5,andwhichwerethesubjectofanearlierpapercalled‘Againstenclosure’.22Inthispaperitwasreportedthatby




SpaceSyntax

examiningalargenumberofcasesofsocialhousingdesign,inthemid-twentiethcentury23aconsistentsetofspatialideascouldbeidentified,coupledtoequallypervasivesocialideas.Thespatialideacentredaroundtheideaof‘enclosure’:thatgoodspacewasenclosedspace.Thesocialideawasthatsuch‘enclosures’hadtobeidentifiedwithwell-defined,andpreferablysmall,groupsofpeople,andexcludeothers.Theguidingideathatlinkedthetwowasthatifagroupofneighbourswasforcedintoface-to-facerelations,andotherswereexcluded,thenthisgroupwillbegintoformasmallcommunity.Thesameideawasappliedatthehigherlevelofthe‘enclosureofenclosures’,or‘clusterofclusters’,tocreate‘localcommunities’.Architecturally,theseledtoapreoccupationwithgroupingdwellingssoastoassociateidentifiableanddistinctexternalspaceswitheachgroupofdwellings,coupledtoanoverarchinggeometry,sothattherelationofthelocalgroupelementwiththelargerwholewouldbeclearlymanifestedintheplan.Thewholeschemeofthoughtwasdescribableintermsofthreelinkedprincipleswhichcouldbeappliedtogeneratea‘layout’,regardlessofcontext:‘enclosure,repetition,hierarchy’.Thesethreelinkedideasweresopervasive,andcouldbefoundundermanydifferenttypesofbuildingandspatialgeometry,thattheyseemedinthemselvestoconstituteakindof‘designparadigm’—onewhichwasconstantlytransmittedthroughthesolutiontypologieswhichembodieditandwhichofferedthemselvesasprecedentforpublichousing. Unfortunately,itwasexactlythissetofideasthatcreatedthefragmentedandsegregatedlandscapesthatweretheobjectofourpathologicalinvestigationsinChapter5.Thenotionthatsmall-scalelocalised‘enclosures’,eachonecorrespondingtoasmall,identifiablecommunity24shouldbetheprimaryelementofthenewhousingarea,wasexactlythemeansbywhichthevirtualcommunity,broughtaboutbythenaturalco-presenceandco-awarenessarisingfromeverydaymovementinstreetbasedareas,wasdestroyed.Thetrueeffectwastoconvertwhathadbeenpreviouslyacommunitylinkedbythecontinuous,unboundedpublicspaceofthestreetsystem,intoaseriesofdiscretepockets,eachasremovedfromthehumanisinginfluenceofthepublicrealmasthenext—ineffecttocreateacomplexandlabyrinthinezonebetweenthedwellingandpublicspace.AswesawinChapter5,thecrisisofmodernpublichousingwasthecrisisofthisspace.Whateverthedeclaredcommunitarianintentionofthecreatorsofthese‘estates’,theeffectwastoremovetheleastprivilegedgroupsinoursocietiesfromthepublicrealm,andconsignthemtozoneswhichnooutsiderenteredwithoutastrongreason,andwhichwerethereforeknownonlytotheirinhabitants.Thisisthedurablelegacyofthebureaucratisationofarchitecturalthoughtwhichbroughtthesezonesintoexistence. Evenatthesmallscaleofthe‘enclosure’itself,commonsense,andalittlemorepragmaticthought,couldhavewarneddesignersthattheirintentionswereunlikelytobefulfilled.Humanbeingstendtohavespecialsocialrulesofpolitenessandavoidancetogoverntheirrelationstoneighbours,preciselybecausetheserelations,becausetheyareever-present,couldeasilybecometoopressingandobtrusive.Exaggeratingthisface-to-facerelationbyspatialdesign,andatthesame




SpaceSyntax

timeeliminatingtheleaveningofstrangersasfoundinordinarystreets,seemsfarmorelikelytoreinforcetheserulesofcontrolandavoidancethantoalleviatethem.Weshouldexpectmoreavoidance,andmoreinvestmentinthecontrolofover-pressingneighbourlinessintheseisolatedface-to-facegroups.Thequestionisnotsomuch:howdidtheneighbourlinessparadigmfail?but:howcouldthefictionofforcedinteractionhaveprevailedforsolong? Thehistoricalworktotracetheevolutionandconstanttransmutationofthissetofspatialandsocialassumptionsthatunderpinnedsomuchmid-twentiethcenturypublichousinghasnotbeendone,butthreethingscanbeclearlysaid.First,thatinspiteofits‘soft’expressionintermsofneighbourlinessandcommunity,theessentialideaofenforcedface-to-faceinteractionisthoroughlymechanisticinexactlythesensethatwasarguedinthediscussionofthe‘paradigmofthemachine’inthepreviouschapter.Second,wecannotethefrequencywithwhichthe‘enclosure,repetition,hierarchy’paradigmwasproposedasanovelsolutiontoexactlytheproblemthatithaditselfcreated.Forexample,inthesameyearthatKirschenmannandMunschalekpublishedtheirbookfromwhichsomanyofourcasesof‘enclosure,repetition,hierarchy’weredrawn,theGreaterLondonCouncilpublishednewdesignguidanceonhousinglayout25intendedtocorrecttheerrorsofthepastandproposenewprinciples.Infact,inspiteofmuchnewlanguage,whatwasproposedtookexactlythesameformaswhatitwasseekingtoreplace:‘enclosure,repetition,hierarchy’,dressedupinnewwordsanddiagrams.Third,eachelementofthedesignparadigmcanbefoundateachstageoftheevolutionofsocialhousingpolicy,andinfactcanbetracedbacktoitsverybeginninginthe‘philanthropic’housingprogrammesofnineteenth-centuryLondon.Sopervasivearetheideas,infact,thatitishardnottoseethemasthedesignparadigmofsocialhousing,adesignsolutionwhichsociety,througharchitecture,imposedoncertainsectionsofitspopulation. Bothofthesefactssuggestthatthedesignparadigmof‘enclosure,repetition,hierarchy’wasameansbywhichthoseverysamesocialengineeringaimsinarchitecturethatitsoughttosupersedewereperpetuated.Weshouldnotbesurprisedatthis.Itisinthenatureofparadigmsthattheycanguideapparentlynewproposalsalongthesameunderlyingconceptualtramlinesasthosefromwhichescapeissought.Thewidespreadavailabilityofasolutiontypologybasedonthisscheme,linkedtohabitualstatementsofsocialintentionlegitimisedbythepublicagencieswhichatthetimecontrolledasocialhousingprogrammeonahugescale,mustgosomewaytounderstandingthepowerofthisideatobeconstantlyreformulatedandacceptedasnew,whenitmanifestlywasnot. Thesocialknowledgeembodiedinthesolutiontypologiesinasocietywitharchitectureisnotthenthesameasthatwhichunderpinsthevernacularformsofsocietieswithoutarchitecture.Onthecontrary,theyarelikelytobeinfluencedbythetypesofstructureprevalentinasociety,andthereforetoreflectitsbiases.Theproblemwithsuchsolutiontypologies,especiallyiftheyaresanctionedbyexplicitdesignguidance,isthattheirsocialoriginstendtobeasconcealedfromviewastheirtheoreticalnatureisobscure.Non-discursivityis,asitwere,turnedonitshead.




SpaceSyntax

Itbecomesameansnotofexpressingculturebutofimposingculture,oftenforsocialendswhicharenotexplicit.Insuchcircumstances,architecturalintentionsbecomeanobjectoflegitimateenquiry,butthenaturalnon-discursivityofsolutionsmakeitveryhardtobringtothesurfaceanyconcealedideologicalcontent.However,anarchitecturaltraditionwhichfailstofreeitselffromsuchaconceptualprison,ashappenedduringthemodernhousingprogramme,isindangernotonlyoflosingitsidentityasarchitecture,butalsoofacquiringanother,moredangerousidentity:thatofanunwillingandservileagentofsocialforcesofwhichithasaslittleunderstandingandoverwhichishasnocontrol.Style as non-discursive idiolectTheessenceofthe‘enclosure,repetition,hierarchy’paradigmisthatitsubstitutesasocialideologyof‘desirableseparation’forananalytictheoryoftherelationbetweenspaceandcommunity.Itthenworksinthemannerofavernacular,inthatends—inthiscase,inmyview,malignends—areguaranteedthroughthemanipulationofthings,thatis,thegivensolutiontypologies.Atthesametime,itcreatestheappearanceofarchitecture,inthatanillusionissetupofanarchitecturaldebateoverendsinthelightofmeans.Whatisreallygoingonisvernacularinthesensethatcovertendsarebeingtransmittedbythemanipulationofmeans,buttheendsarenolongerthoseofasharedculture,butthoseofpartisansocialprogrammes. Thisdebasedmodeofarchitecturaloperationhasplayedsuchasignificantroleinthetwentieth-centuryhistoryofarchitecturethatitdeservesfarmoreintensivestudythanhassofarbeendevotedtoit.Itamountstonothinglessthanthesubversionofarchitecturetowardswhatwemightcallbureaucraticvernacularisation,inthenameofapartisansocialengineeringbyspatialmeans.Thequestionforatheoryofdesigninarchitectureisthen:howmaytheseapparentconsequencesoftheexistenceofarchitectsasaspecialinterestgroupinasocietywithinequitiesbeavoided?Thequestionhastwoaspects.Howcansolutionsbegeneratedoutsidetheprevailinginfluenceofsolutiontypologies,withallthedangersthattheiruncriticalusecanbring?Andhowmayinnovativesolutionsbepredicted?Onlyifthesequestionscanbeansweredcanweseethegroundsoftheexistenceofarchitectureinthesensethatwehavedefinedit,thatis,asanautonomousdomainwhichdebateswith,respondstoandcreatesnewpossibilitiesforsociety,butisnotsubservienttoit.Itfollowsfromallourpreviousanalysisthattheseareknowledgequestions.Whatthenaretheknowledgeconditionsforanautonomousarchitecture? Onceagainletusbeginbylookingattheevidenceprovidedbythedesignprocess,andespeciallybyitsvisibleproducts.Themostobviousthingthatwenoticeinacreativedesigner’sworkisthatitisrecognisable.Itconstituteswhatseemstobeinsomesenseaspeciesofarchitectureinitself.Ithas,inshort,whatwecallstyle.Nowstyleisclearlyanon-discursiveconcept.Styleexistswherewenoteinasetofcasesnon-discursivities,whetherformalorspatial,whichappeartobeunifiedbycommonprinciple.Touseaformofwordswhichiseffectivewhilebeingfashionable,wemightsaythatbystylewemeananon-discursiveideolect.Stylegivesrisetothesenseofaspeciesofarchitecturewherethegenotype




SpaceSyntax

doesnotseemtoarisefromthetransmissionofaculturallynormalform-functionsolutionwithintheexistingtypology,butthroughacharacteristicstructuringofthenon-discursivemeansthemselves,againeitherformalorspatial.Theexistenceofstylemeansthatwhatistakenintoreflectiveabstractionisnotarangeofpossiblesolutionsbuttheformalandspatialnon-discursivemeansbywhichsolutionscanbecreated.Astyle,inshort,isagenotypeofmeans.Itcreatesanindividualisedspeciesofarchitecturewhichcross-cutsthearchitecturallynormalculturaltypingandmayindeedrunacrossarangeofbuildingtypes. Becausethesenseofstylearisesdirectlyfromthenon-discursivemeans,andbecausewecanbesurethatwecouldnotrecognisetheexistenceofastylethroughasinglecase—thoughasinglecasemightgenerateastyle—itfollowsthatoursensethatthenon-discursiveideolectthatconstitutesthestyleisessentiallyanabstraction.Itisthecommongroundofasetofcases.Itisyetanotherinstanceofourabilitytoextracttheabstractfromtheconcrete,thegenotypefromthesetofphenotypes,andtore-concretisetheabstractgenotypeinadifferentforminanewphenotype. Ourconceptofstyleinarchitecturetends,ofcourse,tobeboundtoitsmostobviousmanifestationinhowabuildingappearstotheeye,thatis,tothenon-discursivitiesofform.Suchalimitedviewwouldnotsurviveacarefulexaminationoftheworksofindividualarchitects.Goodarchitectshavespatial,aswellasformal,styles.Sometimesthisisquiteeasytosee,forexampleintheworkofFrankLloydWright.Buteveninsuchcases,itisdifficulttoexplicate.Experimentalstudies26suggestthatexplicatingarchitecturalgenotypesofmeansisrathermoredifficultthanexplicatingvernaculargenotypesofends.Butitcanberewarding,andisessentialtoourunderstandingofindividualarchitects’work.Forexample,inacomparativeanalysisoffivehousesbyLoosandfivebyLeCorbusier,agraduatestudentatUCL27wasabletoshowthatalthoughineachhousetherewasconfigurationaldifferentiationoffunctions,therewasnoconsistentpatternwithineitherarchitect’sworkofthekindthatonesooftenfindsinvernacularsamples(seeChapter1).Itwasnotthatthedifferentfunctionswerenotspatiallydifferentiated,butthatthepatternofdifferentiationwasnotconsistentacrosscases.Itwasasthougheachrecognisedtheprinciplethatfunctionsshouldbespatiallydifferentiated,butthatthiswasregardedasamatterofexperimentandinnovation,ratherthanthereproductionofaculturallyapprovedgenotype. However,whatthestudentwasabletoshowwasthateacharchitecthadadistinctivespatialstyle,inthatwhatevereachwasdoingwiththefunctionalpattern,distinctivespatialmeanswereusedtoachievetheends.Forexample,intheLooshouses,addingvisibilityrelationstopermeabilityrelationsincreasedthe‘intelligibility’(asdefinedinChapter3)ofthespacepattern,whereasintheLeCorbusierhousesitdidnot.Similarly,intheLooshouses,thegeometryoftheplanreinforcedaspectsofthespatialstructureoftheplan,inthatmajorlinesofspatialintegrationcoincidedwithfocusesofgeometricorder,whereasintheLeCorbusierhousestheydidnot.Byexaminingthehousesassequencesofisovists,thestudentalsoshowedthatinLooshousestheisovistsareverylargeandcomplex,




SpaceSyntax

butrelativelyuniform,whereaswithLeCorbusiertheisovistsaremoreselectiveinthespatialrelationstheyshowfromtheline,witheachepisodetendingtobedramaticallydifferentfromtheothers.Intheserespects,thestudentargued,thetwoarchitectswereadumbratingmorefundamental—almostphilosophical—differencesthrougharchitecture:Loostocreatehouseswhicharenovelexpressionsofculturallydefinedhabitability,LeCorbusiertocreatelesshabitable,moreidealiseddomainsofrigorousabstraction.NeitherLeCorbusiernorLooswasseentobedenyingthesocialandculturalnatureofthedomesticinterior.Buteach,bysatisfyingtheneedtogivespaceculturalmeaningthroughfunctionaldifferentiationfirstonewaythenanother,butwithaconsistentspatialstyle,isgivingprioritynottothefunctionalendsofbuildingbuttothearchitecturalmeansofexpressingthosefunctionalends.Thegenotypeofthesehouseslay,itwassuggested,notinfunctionalends,asinthevernacular,butinthewaythearchitecturalmeansareusedtoexpresstheends.Butthemeansmodifytheendsbyre-expressingthemaspartofaricherculturalrealm.28

Thisdistinctionbetweenendsandmeansis,Ibelieve,fundamentaltothedefinitionofarchitectureofferedearlier.Itsuggeststhatwecanmakeausefuldistinction,inarchitectureaselsewhere,betweentherealmofsocialmeaningandtherealmoftheaesthetic—inthiscasethespatialaesthetic.Theculturalandfunctionaldifferentiationofspaceisthesocialmeaning,thespatialmeansisthebasisofthespatialaesthetic.Theformerconveysaclearsocialintention,thelatteranarchitecturalexperiencewhichre-contextualisesthesocialintention.Meaningistherealmofconstraint,thespatialaesthetictherealmoffreedom.Thespatialmeaningofformexpresseswhatarchitecturemustbetofulfilitspurposeasasocialobject,thespatialaestheticexpresseswhatitcanbetofulfilitspurposeasarchitecture.Butalthoughspacemovesoutsidetherealmofspecificcodesofsocialknowledge,itdoesnotloseitssocialdimension.Therelationbetweenspatialandsocialformsisnotcontingent,butfollowspatternswhicharesoconsistentthatwecanhardlydoubtthattheyhavethenatureoflaws.Thespatialaestheticcarriessocialpotentialsthroughtheselaws.Theautonomyofarchitecturalmeansthusfindsitselfinarealmgovernedbygeneralprinciple,withitsfreedomrestrictednotbythespecificspatialdemandsofaculturebutbythelawsofspacethemselves.Two types of theoryThisanalysisofthenotionofstylesuggeststhatitismorethanamatterofrecognisableappearances.Itseemstogototheheartofthenatureofarchitecture.Thisisthecase,andafurtherreviewofthegenerativestagesofdesignwillsuggestwhythisisthecase.WemaybeginbyremindingthereaderofadistinctionmadeinChapter2betweentheoriesastheywereusedinartandtheoriesastheywereusedinscience.Inscienceatheorywasaboutunderstanding,andonceunderstandingwasachievedthenactioncouldfollow.Atheoryinartisaboutcreation,inessenceaboutpossibility.Theoriesinartworkbysuggestingnewwaystostructurethesearchofthefieldofpossibleforms.Suchtheoriesarenotuniversal,butsimplygenerativeinthattheyuseabstractthoughttogeneratenew




SpaceSyntax

possibilitiesinartthathadnotbeenseenbefore. Itisclearthattheideaofstyleasnon-discursiveideolectandasa‘genotypeofmeans’hasadirectlyanalogousrole.Itseffectistoconstructanabstractmeansofsearchingasolutionspace,thatis,toactasan‘ideatothinkwith’atthelevelofthenon-discursivemeansofarchitecture,openinguproutestopossiblearchitecturesthroughthetakingholdofthemeansbywhichnon-discursivityiscreated.Becauseitisso,itleadstoquitenewwaysofsearchingthefieldofpossibility.Whileasolutiontypologystructuresthefieldofpossibilitybyidentifyingaseriesofdiscreteislands,sothatsearchtendstoberestrictedtothevicinityofthoseislands,astyleasnon-discursiveideolectdefinesacontinuouswebwithinthewholefieldofpossibility,creatingadensity,richnessandpotentialoriginalityofsolutionsfarexceedingthatofanytypology.Mitchellsummarisesthissuccinctly:‘Possessionofastyleisessential.Withoutit,anarchitectattemptingtodesignislikethescholarsGulliverencounteredattheAcademyofLagado,whotriedtowritebooksbyrandomlycombiningwords.Thatway,onewouldnevergettotheend.’29Thisistrueinaprofoundsense.Itarisesfromthenatureofsolutionspacesandhowtheycanbesearchedwithouttheguidanceofpregivensolutions.Onemightaddofcourse,thatthisisonlythecaseifonewantstocreatearchitecture. Buthowevermuchwecomplicatetheideaofstyle,itsrelevanceisconfinedtothefirstphaseofdesign,thegenerationofapossiblesolution,notthesecondstageofpredictivetesting.ItwassuggestedinChapter2thatthedistinctivefeatureofarchitectureisthatitrequiresboththeoriesinthesenseinwhichartistsusethewordandalsotheoriesinthesenseinwhichscientistsusetheword,thatis,theoriesofpossibilityandtheoriesofunderstanding;theorieswhichtelluswhereandhowtosearch,andtheoriesthattelluswhatwehavefound.Wenowseeclearlywhythisisthecase.Itispreciselybecausethesolutionfieldhasbeensearchedwithoutthefunctionalguaranteesthatsolutiontypesseemtooffer(howevermisleadingly)thatthedesignerisnowingreaterneedthaneverofwaystosolvethesecondaspectofdesign:thephaseofpredictingfunctionalandexperientialoutcomes.Theproblemisnowagreatdealmoredifficult,sincebydefinitionthesolutionsfound,becausewehavenotbeenledtothembyknownsolutiontypes,aremorelikelytoberemotefromexperienceandfromprecedent.Insuchcases,themeansofpredictionindesignmustmoveawayfromprecedentandtowardsprinciple.Sincethesearetheonlytwopossiblemodesofforeseeingfutureperformance,thedesignerisforced,throughtheverynatureofthefreedomthathasbeenexercisedingeneratingsolutions,intotherealmoftheory.Themoreoriginalthearchitecture,thegreaterwillbethisdependence. Inasensewhichiscriticaltotheveryexistenceofarchitecture,then,styleandtheoryareparallelfreedoms.Innovationcanonlybewithintherealmofthehumanlypossibleonthebasisoftheoreticallyanalyticknowledgebecauseonlythiscanguidethepredictiveaspectsofdesignwherenoguaranteesofculturalorideologicalconformityareavailablethroughthevernacularorsolutiontypes.Theoryisfundamentalknowledgeofpossibilityandthereforeoflimitation.Thereis




SpaceSyntax

thereforeanobjectiveneedtoassociatenon-discursiveideolectwithanalytictheory.Ofcoursethiswouldonlybethecaseiftherewereobjectivelimitationstowhatisarchitecturally,asopposedtotechnically,possible.Wehaveseenthattherearesuchlimitations.Fundamentally,theoryisknowledgeoftheselimitations. Onthisbasis,andonlyonthisbasis,theideaofanalytictheorycanbebuiltintothattransformabilityofculturewhichisarchitecture.Withoutanalytictheory,aswehaveseeninsomephasesoftwentieth-centuryarchitecture,architecturedefeatsitselfbypursuingfreedomswhicharebeyonditstheoreticalpowers.Analytictheoryisthepricethatarchitecturemustpayforfreedom.Withoutit,thetwosidesofarchitecture—thatitisatonceindividualcreationandsocialtransmission—moveintoarbitraryanduncomprehendingconflict.Withanalytictheory,thedebateoverarchitecturalendsisanopendebate,withoutit,aconcealedparadigm.Analytictheoryis,inshort,thepriceofarchitecturalfreedom.Whatisnolongerinterestingistheideathatarchitecturalfreedomcanbeexercisedoutsidethelimitationthatthelawsofhumanspatialexistenceandthelawsofspaceitselfplaceuponpossibility. Wecannowatleastseehowimportantouroriginalquestionwas:ifarchitectureisthetakingholdoftheconfigurationalcontentofbuilding,andmakingitthebasisforreflectivecreationbyfreeingitfromculturalstereotyping,howisitthattheindividualactofarchitecturalcreationisabletocarrywithinitmessagesfromthesocietyinwhichitwascreated.Theanswer,wenowsee,issimpleandfundamental.Architectureisasocialartbecausetheprimarymaterialoftheart—thefieldofconfigurationalpossibilityforspaceandform—isalsothemeansbywhichbuildingshaveintrinsicsocialcontents.Spaceconstitutesandformrepresentsthepresenceofthesocialintheveryformofthemilieuxinwhichweliveandwork.Inthevernacular,thefitbetweenformsoflifeandbuiltformsisgivenbythecommonculturalprogrammingofboth.Architecturedispenseswiththeprogrammingbutitdoesnotdispensewiththerelationthatisguaranteedbytheprogramming.Therelationofformtolifebecomesaquestiontoberesolved,nolongeramatterofculturalhabit.Therelationcanonlybeformulatedonthebasisofknowledgeofsomekind.Thedesignerhastoassumeknowledgeoftheform-functionrelation,andassumethatitisofsufficientgeneralitytobeusedinarangeofsituations.Designcanonlyproceedonthebasisofassumedknowledgeabouttherelationofspatialformtolife.Thisiswhymoststatementsofarchitecturalintentionarestatementsofthiskind,justasmostarchitecturaltheoriesareattemptstoformulatetheserelationshipsinamoregeneralway.Itisatthispoint,throughtheneedforpropositions,bothspecificandgeneral,thatlinkformtofunction,thatarchitectureistiedtosocietyandbecomesthesocialart.Inasense,architectureistiedtosocietybyitstheoreticalneeds. Itisthenasimplefactthatthelogicofthedesignprocessmakesthelinkbetweenarchitectureandsociety.Butitdoessoeitheronthetermsofarchitectureoronthetermsofsociety.Itdependsonhowfartheguidingtheoreticalideasaresocialknowledgeorgenuinelyanalyticknowledge.Intheworstcase,thetakeoverofareasofarchitecturebyideologicalformulationsinsteadofanalytictheoriescan




SpaceSyntax

leadarchitectureintoitsopposite:akindofdegeneratequasi-vernacularism,lackingthenaturalculturalfitnessofthevernacularortheconsideredstrangenessofgenuinearchitecture. Theonlyalternativeformofknowledgeistheoreticalknowledge.Theoreticalknowledgeisbydefinitiontheattempttomakethenon-discursivediscursive,thatis,anattempttoacquireknowledgeofnon-discursivity.Likealltheorisationitisofcourseliabletoerror.Butitsorientationtowardstheexplicitnessofnon-discursiveknowledgemeansthatitserrorscannotbesoeasilyperpetuatedasaretheerrorsinstitutionalisedinsolutiontypologies.This,inthelastanalysis,iswhytheprojectofarchitectureandtheprojectofarchitecturaltheoryarethesameproject.Theoryisthepreconditionoftheliberationofarchitecturefromthesocialknowledgewhichdominatesvernaculardesignandwhichcontinuallythreatensarchitecturewithbureaucraticextinctionthroughtypologicalguidance.Architectureasweknowitnecessarilyoscillatesbetweenthesetwopolesoftheoreticalandsocialknowledge,sometimesnotknowingwhenitisinformedbyoneandbytheother.Onethingisclear.Itisonlythroughthetheoreticalstudyofarchitecturethatwecanbegintobecometrulyawareofwhenwearebeingcreativelyfreeintherealmofthenon-discursiveandwhenweare,withoutbeingfullyaware,followingthehiddendictatesofsociety. Thisiswhygreatarchitecturetends,ifnottoobjectivity,thenatleasttoabeliefinitsownobjectivity.Lesserarchitectsassertthattheycreate.Greatarchitectsbelievetheydiscover.Thisdifferenceisduetotheinterventionofthatpeculiarbrandofreflectivethoughtwhichstandsonthefoundationoftheory,yetwhenappliedincreativemodebreaksboundsandchangesthearchitectureofthepastintothearchitectureofthefuture. NotesForexample,RobinEvans,Figures,doorsandpassageways,ArchitecturalDesign,4,1978,pp.267–78;alsoRookeriesandmodeldwellings:Englishhousingreformandthemoralityofprivatespace,Architectural Association Quarterly,10,1,1978,pp.25–35.MarkGirouard,Life in the English Country House: A Social and Architectural History,YaleUniversityPress,1978;subsequentlyPenguin,1980.TomMarkus,Buildings and Power; Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types,Routledge,1993.AlisonRavetz,inconversation.Ed.N.Cross,‘New Developments in Design Methodology’,Wiley,1984.B.Lawson,How Designers Think: the Design Process Demystified,Butterworth,1990;originallyArchitecturalPress,1980.C.JonesandD.G.Thornley,Conference on Design Methods,Pergamon,Oxford,1963;eds.BroadbentG.andWardA.,Design Methods in Architecture,LundHumphries,London,1969;ed.G.T.Moore,Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning,MITPress,Cambridge,Mass.,1970;N.Cross&R.Roy,

1

2

3

456

7




SpaceSyntax

Design Methods Manual,TheOpenUniversityPress,MiltonKeynes,1975;ed.S.A.Gregory,The Design Method,Butterworth,London,1966.H.Simon,The Sciences of the Artificial,mitPress,1971;andB.Hillier,‘The nature of the artificial’inGeoforum,vol.16,no2,pp.163–78,1985.C.Alexander,Notes on the Synthesis of Form,McGrawHill,NewYork,1964.Howtheargumentabout‘designmethod’wasintimatelyrelatedtooneofthekeyphilosophicalobjectivesofmodernism,thatis,toreplaceahistoricallyandaestheticallydominatedarchitecturewithananalyticallyandsociallybasedarchitecture,canbestbeseeninsuchtextsasSirLeslieMartin’slectureattheribainApril1967publishedas‘Thearchitect’sapproachtoarchitecture’,RIBA Journal,May1967.R.Descartes,Discourse on Method,1628;editionused:Trans:E.HaldaneandG.Ross,The Philosophical Works of Descartes,CambridgeUniversityPress,1970,vol.1,pp.92–3.Descartesp87.K.Popper,The Logic of Scientific Discovery,Hutchinson,1934;Conjectures and Refutations,Hutchinson,1968;andObjectiveKnowledge,Hutchinson,1972.I.Hacking,Representing and Intervening,CambridgeUniversityPress,1983.SeeHillieretal.,‘Knowledge and design’,ineds.IttlesenandProshansky,Environmental Psychology;1976;republishedinedN.Cross,above,1984.OriginallyedraConferenceProceedings,1972.B.HillierBandA.Leaman‘How is design possible?’ inJournalofArchitecturalResearchandTeaching,3,1,1974.ThereaderisalsoreferredbacktothediscussionofthisprobleminChapter2.Hacking,Representing and Intervening,p.220.Hillier&Leaman,‘How is design possible?’Theterms‘problem’and‘solution’areusedquitedeliberatelyhere.Iamwellawarethatsometheoristshavedoubtedthatdesigners‘solveproblems’andevenarguethatthisconceptionofdesignislikelytoleadtoanuncreativeattitudeandperformanceonthepartofdesigners.Theanalysisofdesignsetoutinthischaptersuggeststhatdesign,whileawhollycreativeact,isquiteusefullythoughtofalsoasaproblemsolvingact,notperhapsbecauseitisanactofproblemsolvingtout court,butbecauseitincludesone.Thebriefdoesposeaproblem.Adesigndoesofferasolution.Thekeyquestions,andtheoneswithwhichthischapterisconcernedare:whatkindofproblem?and:whatkindofsolution?andwhatkindsofknowledgeareusedingoingfromonetotheother?T.KuhnThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,1962.AndwhichIdiscussedatgreaterlengthinB.Hillier‘Againstenclosure’,ineds.N.Teymur&T.Markus,Rehumanizing Housing,Butterworths,1988.ForthemostpartdrawnfromKirschenmann&Munschalek,Residential Districts,GranadaPublishing,London,1980;originallyinGermanasQuartierezumWohnen,DeutscheVerlags-Anstalt,1977.

8

910

11

1213

1415

16

17181920

21

22

23




SpaceSyntax

J.Hanson,‘Thearchitectureofcommunity’,Architecture & Behaviour,EditionsdelaTour,specialissueonspacesyntaxresearch,vol.3,No.3,1987.GreaterLondonCouncil,Introduction to the Housing Layout,ArchitecturalPress,London,1978.ApioneeringstudyisbyJ.Hanson,‘Deconstructingarchitects’houses’Environment & Planning B; Planning and Design,21,1994,pp.675–704.DickonIrwin,astudentontheMScinAdvancedArchitecturalStudiesattheBartlettin1989.ThereisanotheraccountofthisworkinB.Hillier,‘Specificallyarchitecturaltheory’The Harvard Architectural Review,no.9,Rizzoli,NewYork,1993.AlsopublishedasB.Hillier,‘Specificallyarchitecturalknowledge’,Nordic Journal of Architectural Research,2,1993.W.J.Mitchell,The Logic of Architecture: Design Computation and Cognition,MITPress,1990,p.239.

24

25

26

27

28

29

Index344

Index


SpaceSyntax

Above,17,72–73Abstractartefacts,65–67Abstractionprocesses,7,34–36,61,62,328–329Additivetheory,10Adjacencycomplex(a–complex),217–219,221Adult–childinterface,147–154Aestheticpurpose,10–11,325,338Affectvariables,156–159Aggregationprocesses,68–69Alberti,L.B.,41,47,48Alexander,C.,318–322Allen,T.,201,208All–lineanalysis,6,98,271–272All–linevisibilitymaps,270–280Analysis–synthesisprocess,319–322Analyticknowledge,29–30Analytictheory,2,3,41,42,46,47,340Analytictheoryofarchitecture,1,4,7,8,40 development/foundationof,2–3,59–60 experimentation/simulationindesignand,1 logicofbuiltenvironmentsand,1 predictionofobject/personrelative toobjectand,46–47 rationalanalysisand,1 regularitiesvs.theoriesand,4,51 See alsoArchitecturaltheory; Non–discursivetechniqueAnglesofincidence,277,286Anthropologicalideasaboutspace,190–191,193Anti–socialbehaviors.SeeSafetyissuesArcher,L.B.,314Architecturalcompetence,31–32,33Architecturaldesign,1,2,6,43 analysis–synthesisprocessand,319–322 analytictheoryand,340 architecturaldiscourseand,332–333 autonomousarchitectureand,336–338 configurationalconjectures, non–discursivegenerationof,323–324,327 cultural/programmaticrequirementsand,6,329 designprocess,creative–predictivenatureof, 43–44,46–47 enclosure/repetition/hierarchyparadigmand, 334–335,336 experimental20thcenturyarchitecture,2,39–40 generationofdesignconjectures,reflective abstractionand,327–329,336 genericfunction,humanuseofspaceand,5–6 intent,realisationof,12–13,314–316,332, 333–336,340 knowledge–basedprocessof,324–327,339, 340–341 non–discursiveaspectsofdesignand,321–322, 324,325,329,335–336

normalarchitecture,solutiontypologiesand, 331–333 partisansocialprogrammesand,336 pathologicaluseofspaceand,315–316,334 precedentsand,330–331 procedureofdesignand,318–322 processofdesignand,317–318 reasoningprocessvs.intuitiveprocessand, 316–317,319–322 scientificmethodand,316,322–323 socialartofarchitecture, creativeparadoxand,314 socialdimensionsof,2,3,6,331–333 sociallyconstructedintentions,availablesolution typologiesand,333–336 solutiontypologiesand,329–333,335–336,339 structural/expressiveidiosyncrasiesand,6 style,non–discursiveidiolectof,336–338,339 theory,structureofdesignprocessand,44–45, 338–341 top–downprocessof,6,324 vernaculartraditionsand,328,329,336 See alsoAnalytictheoryofarchitecture;Architecturaltheory;Architecture;Combinatorial artofarchitecture;SpaceinbuildingsArchitecturaldeterminism,138,293,298–299,301 architecturalvs.socialprocessesand,156–160 citizenusevs.spaceexplorersand,154–155 configuralchanges,modifiedpresence/ co–presenceand,143,145 configurationalmodelling,architectural variablesand,140 housingestatesand,141,142–146,156–159 integrationanalysis,housingarea/estate constituenciesand,152–154 meanencounterrateand,145–146 methodologicaldifficultiesand,138,139 mind–bodyproblemand,138–139 naturalmovement,naturalsurveillanceand,146 pathologicaluseofspaceand,155,159–160,169 socialdisadvantagementprocessand,138,139 spatialsocialstructures,L–shapednon–relation and,146–152 street–basedsystemand,143,145–146,152–154 theoreticaldifficultiesand,138,139 urbansafety,formulafor,142–146 virtualcommunity,co–presence/co–awareness and,141–142,160,169Architecturaldiscourse,332–333Architecturalprobability,223,226–228,256–260Architecturaltheory,2–3 analytictheoriesand,2,3,41,42,46,47,340 broadpropositionvs.narrowpropositionand, 47–48

Index345

Index


SpaceSyntax

creativeinnovation,functional successand,48–49 defensiblespacetheoryand,41–42,47,48,146 definitionof,39,41–42 designprocess,analytic–normativetheoretical solutionsand,43–47,48 disciplineofarchitecture,developmentof,2 evaluationof,4 generativephaseand,46,48–49 innovation/creativityindesignand,2,3,39,40 knowledge–basedmodelofdesignand,6–7,41 lawsofspatial/formalmaterialsand,7 liberationfromsocialknowledgeand,339–341 modernism,failureof,39–40 needfor,39–40 non–discursivetechniqueand,59–60 non–discursivityofconfigurationand,27–30 normativetheoriesand,2,3,7,32,41–42,47 philosophy/sciencedomainsand,55–59 preceptsforbuilders,40–41 predictionofobject/personrelativetoobject and,46–47,48,54–55 problemswith,47–49 proportiontheoryand,41,42,47 simpleregularities,formaldefinitionof,52–54 spatialpotentialities,systemof possibilitiesand,7–8 surfaceregularity,underlyinginvariance and,50–54 theory,definitionof,49–52,54–55 See alsoAnalytictheoryofarchitecture; Architecturaldesign;Architecture; Combinatorialartofarchitecture;Form– functiontheory;Non–discursivetechnique; PartitioningtheoryArchitecture,10–11 absenceofarchitectsand,10,34 abstraction/concretion,architecturalscience/art and,7 additivetheoryand,10 architecturalcompetenceand,31–32,33 artistic–scientificnatureof,61–62 building,aesthetics/meaningand,10–11,34–36 conscious/comparativethoughtand,32–33 creativeintentand,12–13,32–35 definitionof,33–35,39 disorderlyspaceuse,socialdeclineand,5 form–functionrelationship,filtersof,6,258 genotypical/phenotypicalvarietyand,34 languageanalogyand,7–8,31–32 non–discursiveaspectsofbuilding,speculative/ abstractthoughtand,3,33,35 object/activityof,11–13,33–34 socialdimensionsof,2,3,6,7,34–35,348

socialknowledgeand,34–35 spatialenclosureand,19 subject/objectsof,13 systematicintentand,33–34 theoreticalknowledgeand,35,339–340 vernacular,reflectivethought/innovationand, 34–36 See alsoAnalytictheoryofarchitecture; Architecturaldesign;Architecturaltheory; Building;Buildings;Combinatorialartof architectureAristotle,288,295,326 form–purposeparadigmof,295–296 physicstheoryof,296,302,303Artofarchitecture,7,8 additivetheoryand,10 creativeparadoxand,314 everydaybuilding,culturalrichnessof,10–11Artefacts abstractartefacts,65–67 builtenvironmentsand,67–69 objectartefacts,65–66 structuralismand,66–67 See alsoNon–discursivetechniqueAsymmetry,88–89,91Asynchronoussystems,187Autonomousarchitecture,336–338Axis,111,174–175 axialanalysis,98,117,118,120–121,199 axialcompressionofscale,179–180 facades,axialdisjunctionand,177–178,180–183 instrumentalaxiality,180,184,189 justaboutaxialstructure,178–179,180,183,184 labyrinthianlogic,116,179 symbolicaxiality,175–177,178,184,189 visibilitymapsand,271 See alsoStrangetowns

Backhouse,A.,212Bacon,F.,49,111Balancedasymmetry,88–89Balzac,H.,298Barredlines,228–234Barringprocesses,239–245Below,17,72–73BoothmapofLondon,124Boundaries,15,16,223–225,271Buckley,F.,76Building,10 absenceofarchitectsand,10,34 additivetheoryand,10 aesthetics/meaningand,10–11 aggregationprocessesand,68–69 architecturalcompetenceand,31–32

Index346

Index


SpaceSyntax

architectureand,10,11–12,31–32,35–36 boundarycreation,socialrelationsand,16 builtenvironments,artefactsof,67–69 configurationofproperties,visualityto intelligibilityand,18 design,reasoningvs.intuitiveprocessand, 316–317 logicalemergents,inside/outsideandabove/ below,15,17 non–discursivity,spatial/formalpatternsand, 30–31 processof,31–32 transmissionofculture,built artefactsand,30–31,32 vernacularstyle,1,3,31–32,36 See alsoArchitecturaldesign;Architecture;Buildings;Space;SpaceinbuildingsBuildings,13–14 elaborationofform/space,configurationsand, 17–18 evolutionaryhistoryof,14 inside/outside,interdependenceof,15 layouts,space–to–spaceroutesand,23,27 multifunctionality/diversityofculturalexpression and,14–15 paradigmofthemachineand,292–294 physical/spatialform,bodily/socio–cultural functionand,16–17,20,30–31 relationalschemesofspaceand,18 socialnatureof,305–311 spatialrelations,objective/non–objectivenature of,15–16 strong–programmebuildings,197–199 transformationofmaterial/space, functionaleffectof,15,16 vernaculararchitectureand,31–32 weak–programmebuildings,199–201 See alsoArchitecture;Building;Combinatorial artofarchitecture;Space;SpaceinbuildingsBuiltenvironments.SeeArchitecturaldeterminism; Building;Buildings;Non–discursivetechnique; UrbanspatialformBureaucraticvernacularisation,336

Calvino,I.,262Canguihem,G.,295Cassirer,E.,61,62Cellaggregationmodel,192–193,217,265Cellularelements,80–81Centralityparadox,265–266Centralityprinciple,234,238–239,282Child–adultinterface,147–154Childrenexplorers,154–155Chomsky,N.,31,67

Cities.SeeFundamentalcity; Movementeconomies;Strangetowns;Urban design;UrbanspatialformCitizenbehavior,154–155Cognitivepsychology,1,86Combinatorialartofarchitecture,216–217 L–shapedcontiguousbarsand,230–232 adjacencycomplexesand,217–219,221 architecturalpossibility,restrictions onstructureof,221 barredlinesand,228–234 barringprocessesand,239–245 cellularenumerationand,217 centralityprinciple,234,238–239 constructionofintegrationand,223–234 contiguityprinciple,234,238–239 courts/corridorsand,236–238 depthgaineffectsofbarsand,223–226, 228,230,232,234 dynamicspatialprocesses,analysisof,239 elementaryobjects,configurationalstrategies and,235–239 elements,flawedconceptof,256–257 emergent/convergentspatialpatterns and,244–245 enclosureeffectand,232,234 extensionprinciple,234,238–239 functionalitypropertyand,253–256 genericfunctionand,223,245–256 globalconfigurationalpropertiesand, 221,222,244–245 globalconfiguration,naturallawsand,257–258 integration,constructionof,222,223–234 intelligibilitypropertyand,245–253 largecomplexes,shallowrange ofpossibilityand,222 light/airrestrictionsand,220–221 linearityprinciple,234,238–239 linearlycontiguousbarsand,232–234 local/globalprinciples,architecturalprobability and,223,226–228,256–260 meta–theoreticalapproachof,259–260 permeabilitycomplexesand,217–223 possiblespatialarrangements,filtersfor,258 spatialelementsand,222–223 wellsand,235–236 wholeobjectbarringand,232,234 See alsoArchitecturaltheory;Architecture; Fundamentalcity;Spaceinbuildings; SpatialconfigurationComputermodelling,6,93,112Concretionprocesses,7,61,62Configuration,1,16,17 abstractartefactsand,66–67

Index347

Index


SpaceSyntax

architectural/urbandesignand,1,2 builtenvironmentsand,67–68 configuralproperties,spatialisedcultural/social functionand,25–27 configurationalanalysis,1,2,25,28,69–71,73 cross–disciplinaryinterestin,1–2 definitionof,23–25,71–73 elaborationofform/spaceand,17–18 facadesasconfigurations,85–91 non–discursivenatureof,3,27–30 permeabilitypatternsand,22,23,24,27 recognitionof,27–28 regularshapesasconfigurations,80–81 shapesasconfigurations,73–76,80–81 socialdimensionsof,2,3 socialknowledge/analyticknowledgeand,29–30 spaceconfigurations/configurationsofpeople, 20–23 symmetrypropertiesand,74–76 unconscious/intuitivemanagementof,3,28–30 universaldistanceand,79 See alsoAnalytictheoryofarchitecture; Architecturaldesign;Architecture; Non–discursivetechnique;Patternaspect; SpatialconfigurationConfigurationalmodelling,98–108,140Configurationalparadigmofarchitecture,302–305Connectivityofurbanspace,93,94Contiguityprinciple,234,238–239,282Convergentspatialpatterns,244–245Convexelementsinalayout,93–94,98 axis,111,174,179 convexisovist,114,115–116,123 co–presenceand,118–119Convexisovists,114,115–116,123Co–presence/co–awareness,4,118,141–142,143, 145,203,255–256,293,334Corridors,236–238,239Courtoflawinterface,198–199Courts,236–238,239,274Coveringcore,263Creativity buildingvs.architectureand,12–13,32–35 disciplineoftheoryand,40 innovation,functionalsuccessand,48–49 paradoxof,314 See alsoArtofarchitecture;InnovationCrime.SeeSafetyissuesCross–disciplinaryresearch,1–2Cross–disciplinarytheoreticalfoundation,2Culturalgenotypes,60,196,303,304Culturalrequirements,6,10,20Culture–boundspatialpatterns,3,8 buildingsand,10–11,14,20

configuralproperties,spatialised functionand,25–27 culturalgenotypesand,196–197 domesticspaceand,30–31 genotypesand,60,196,303,304 transmissionofculture,builtartefactsand, 30–31,32 urbandesignand,134 See alsoForm–functiontheory

Darwin,C.,298,303Defensiblespacetheory,41–42,47,48,146Deformedgrids,92,98,134,264,276–277Density buildingdensities,113,125,126 prejudiceagainst,135–136 shortmodelsituationand,5 virtualcommunitiesand,141Depthproperties,23,72–73,76–77,79 See alsoCombinatorialartofarchitecture; Genericfunction deSaussure,F.,50,65Descartes,R.,19,20,296,319Design.SeeArchitecturaldesign;Form–function theory;Genericfunction;Knowledge;Spatial configuration deSyllas,J.,304Determinism.SeeArchitecturaldeterminismDistanceconcept,76–80Disurbanism,131–134Divisionoflabour,201Domain/protectedspace,16Domesticspace,30–31,82–84,196–197, 254,292,338Douglas,M.,193Drew,P.,212

Earth–linepositioning,89–91Edgeeffect,120Elaborationofform/space,17–18Emergentspatialpatterns,244–245,262, 265–270,277–281Enclosureeffect,232,234Enclosure/repetition/hierarchyparadigm, 334–335,336Encounterrates,145–146Encounterzones,125,126,130,155,201Energyeconomyofaplan,85Entropy,55–57,259–260Environment,295–297 environmentaldeterminismand,297,298 organism–environmentparadigmand,297–302 See alsoForm–functiontheory

Index348

Index


SpaceSyntax

Evans,R.,314Evolutiontheory,298Evolutionofurbanforms,262–265,269, 279,281–286Experimentationinspace,1,2,3,209–210,314–316Explorersofspace,154–155Expressiveidiosyncrasies,6,10Extensionprinciple,234,238–239,275–276,282Extensionsofphysicalobjects,19–20

Facadesasconfigurations,85–91 See also StrangetownsFear.SeeSafetyissuesFletcher,B.,174Form–functiongap,111Form–functiontheory,5–6,8,288–290 architecturaldeterminismand,293,298–299,301 configuralproperties,spacialisedfunctionand, 25–27 configurationalparadigmofarchitecture,space asmachineand,302–305 configurationalpersistences,socialstructure and,309–310 environmentaldeterminismand,297,298 environment,developingideaof,295–297 evolutiontheory,geneticinformationstructures and,298 form–functioninterdependenceinspace,114–116 form–purposeparadigmand,295–296,297 generativelawsofspace,socialrules/practices and,304–305 genericfunctionand,288,303–304 genotypes,culturalpatternsofspaceuseand, 303,304 machinemetaphor/paradigmofthemachine and,292–294,299–301,310 modernism,failuresof,291,293 orderwithoutanteriororderand,296–297,298 organism–environmentparadigmand,294, 297–302 physical/spatialform,bodily/socio–cultural functionand,16–17 recenthistoryof,290–292 socialengineeringobjectivesand,291,292, 293–294,299–301 socialnatureofbuildings,space–time realisationsofabstractions,305–311 spatialconfiguration,patterneffectsand, 301–302 spatialdimension,socialabstractions/buildings and,289–290 thingness,flux/changeand,307–309 See alsoArchitecturaldeterminism

Form–meaningrelationship,6Function buildings,multifunctionalityof,14–15 creativeinnovationand,48–49 space,functionof,1,5,15 spacialisedcultural/socialfunctions,configural propertiesand,25–27 transformation,functionaleffectof,15 See alsoForm–functiontheory;Genericfunction; HumansocietyFunctionalisttheory,291Fundamentalcity,262 all–linevisibilitymapsand,270–280 beadyringurbanform,281–282 cellalignmentand,279–280 centralityparadoxand,265–266 centralityprincipleand,282 compactness/linearityand,268,281 contiguityprincipleand,282 coveringcorevs.radius–radiuscore,behavioural differencesand,263 deformedgridsand,264,276–277,281 emergentspatialpatternsand,262, 265–270,277–281 evolutionofurbanforms,generallawsof,262– 265,269,279,281–286 extensionprincipleand,275–276,282 externalspace,buildingentrancesand,279–280 genericfunctionand,264,265 globalisingrules,intelligibility/functionality and,281 humanagencyand,280,281 indeterminacyand,277–281 internal/externalintegration,266,268 interruptedgridsand,276–277,281 linearityprincipleand,282 localareastructure/globalstructureand, 264,274–276 localareastructures,developmentof,284–286 localconditionsintime/placeand,265 localorder,emergenceovercoming indeterminacyand,277–281 nearinvariantsand,263–264,265,268,277 90–degreeprocessand,275–276 piazza/squareand,274 social/economicprocessesand,265 space,infinitestructurabilityof,269–270 spatiallawsand,265 structuredgridin,268–270 two–pilegridsystemsand,272–274 urbangridcomparisons,263 visibilityparadoxand,266–268 See alsoStrangetowns

Index349

Index


SpaceSyntax

Galilean–Cartesianviewofspace,19–20Galileo,296,326Generativeprocess,193,201,304–305Genericfunction,5–6,223,262 co–presence/co–awarenesspatternsand, 255–256 depthmaximising/depthminimisingprocesses and,247,251–253,255 form–functiontheoryand,288,303–304 functionalitypropertyand,247–248,253–256,264 intelligibilitypropertyand,245–253,264 neutralisedmovementand,255–256 occupation/movement,requirementsofspace and,248–250 occupation/movement,typeofspace/complex and,253–256 sequencingofspaces,functional interdependenciesand,254–255 spaces,topologicaltypesof,250–253 unprogrammedmovementand,255 visibility,depthpropertiesand,245–247 See alsoFundamentalcityGeneticinformationstructures,298Genotypes,34,48,60,106,192,256,279 culturalgenotypes,spatialdimensionand, 196,303,304 inequalitygenotype,196–197,203–208 probabilisticinequalitygenotypes,laboratory examples,203–208 socialgenotypesofhumaninteraction,310 solutiontypologiesand,329–331 style,explicationof,337,339Giddens,A.,299Girouard,M.,314Glassie,H.,31,32Globalconfigurationaleffects,5,6 aggregativeprocess,recursiveapplication ofrulesand,68–69 integrationanalysisand,80–81 localelementalconfigurationsand,69 See alsoLocalphysicalchangesGlobalintegrationinurbansystems,99–101Globalspatialelements,98,116,201–203,257–258Globalsymmetry,87–88Golubitsky,M.,74Granovetter,M.,202,208Graphicalrepresentation,1 depthpropertiesand,23,72–73,76–77,79 Manhattandistance/Manhattangridand,79 normalisationformula/i–valueformulaand,77 ringpropertiesand,23 shapesasconfigurationsand,74–76 tessellationand,80 treeform,23

universaldistancesand,76–80 See alsoJustifiedgraphs(J–graphs);LayoutsGraphtheory,76–77Grids.SeeFundamentalcity;Urbandesign; UrbanspatialformGroupdynamics,190,194 See alsoFundamentalcity;Housingestates; Safetyissues;Strangetowns

Hacking,I.,209Hanson,J.,77,185,191,281Harary,F.,76Heisenberg,W.,67Hellick,M.,216Hillier,B.,73,75,77,80,95,96, 185,191,195,281,334Housingestates,4–5,101,314–315 L–shapednon–relationand,147–152 architecturalvs.socialprocessesand,156–159 co–presence/co–awarenessand,141 disurbanismand,131–134 estatedegeneration,spatialdesign/social processesand,159–160 integrationanalysisof,152–154 multipleinterfaces/socialstructuresinspace, 146–152 sociallyconstructedintentions,availablesolution typologiesand,333–336 urbansafety,formulafor,142–146Humanagency,280,281Humanartefacts,65 builtenvironments,67–69 cities,111 See alsoFundamentalcity;Humansociety; MovementeconomiesHumansociety abstractartefactsand,65–67 architecturaldesignand,2,3,6 boundarycreation,socialrelationsand,16 configurationalproperties,spatialisedfunction and,25–27 generationofrelations,5 genericfunction,humanuseofspaceand,5–6 housingestates,impoverishedvirtual communities,4–5 rule–boundspaceand,5 socialdecline,disorderlyuseofspaceand,5 socialknowledge/analyticknowledgeand, 28–29,30 socialstructure,mechanicalvs. statisticalmodelsof,191 spatialpatterning,activities/relationships and,15,20 spatialpotentialities,systemofpossibilities

Index350

Index


SpaceSyntax

and,7–8 territorialityand,41–42 transformationofmaterial/space,functional effectof,15,16 transmissionofculture,buildartefacts and,30–31,32 See alsoArchitecturaldeterminism;Form– functiontheory;Movementeconomies; Spatialconfiguration

i–valueequality,88i–valueformula,77,82Ideaswethinkof/ideaswethinkwith,28–29, 194–195,339Indeterminacyinspatialpatterns,278–281Industrialpurpose,5Inequalitygenotype,196–197,203–208Inertiaprinciple,296,298,303Informaluseofopenspace,123Innovation,2,3,11 architecturalcompetenceand,33 architecturaltheoryand,48–49 organisationalefficiencyand,213 reflectivethought,genotypical/phenotypical varietyand,34 theoreticallyanalyticknowledgeand,339–340 See alsoCreativityInside,15,16,17Integrationanalysis,25–27,94,180 all–lineintegrationanalysis,271–272,279 centralintegrationeffect,80–81 constructionofintegrationand,223–234 coveringcorevs.radius–radiuscore,behavioural differencesand,263 houseplans,82–84 housingareas/estates,spaceuse/movement patternsand,152–154 integrationalinequalities,196–197 integrationcore,125,126,130,155,187,199,263 internal/externalintegration,266,268 largecomplexes,shallowrangeofpossibilities and,222 shapepropertiesand,88–89,91 visualintegrationvs.metricintegration,268 See alsoGenericfunctionIntelligenturbananaloguemodel,104–106Intelligibilityinurbansystems,91–98 See alsoFundamentalcity;Genericfunction; Layouts;Strangetowns;UrbanspatialformIntent,12–13,33–34,314–316,332,333–336Interfacesinabuilding,198Interiors.SeeSpaceinbuildingsInterruptedgrids,276–277,281Intuitiveprocess,3,28–30,316–317,319–321

Isovists,114,115–116,123,187–188,188

Justaboutaxiallogic,178–179,180,183,184Justifiedgraphs(J–graphs),22–23,72–73 configurationalanalysisand,72–73 depthpropertiesand,23,72–73,76–77,79 isomorphism,86,88 normalisationformula/i–valueformulaand,77 ringpropertiesand,23 symmetrypropertiesofshapesand,74–76 treeformand,23 whole–complexpropertiesand,80

Knowledge,194–195 generationofdesignconjecturesand,327–329 innovationvs.efficiencyand,213 knowledge–basedmodelofdesign,6–7,41,45, 324–327,340–341 scientificknowledge,195–196,201–203, 208,209–210 socialknowledge,28–30,31,34–35,195–197 theoreticallyanalyticknowledge,339–340Kuhn,T.,331

Laboratorycaseexamples,190,201–202, 203–208,210–213Labyrinthianlogic,116,179Land–usepatterns,113,124,126,127Language abstractartefactof,65 combinatorialsystemsand,221,256 customarylanguage,habitualthoughtpatterns and,299 languagemetaphor,7–8,31–32 senseperceptionsand,61 theory,words/formalexpressionsand,55–58Layeredmodelsofurbanspace,106–108Layouts,23,27,74 changeeffects,experimentswith,94,97–98 convexelementsin,93–94,98 deformedgridstructure,92,98 housingestatesand,101 justaboutaxialityand,179 lineelementsin,98 localintegration/globalintegrationinurban systems,99–101 See alsoBuildings;Strangetowns;Urban design;UrbanspatialformLeCorbusier,41,111,292,337,338Lévi–Strauss,C.,66,190,191,192,193,197,207Lightandairrestrictions,220–221Linearityprinciple,234,238–239,282Linearlycontiguousbars,232–234Lineofsight,174–175,179,186

Index351

Index


SpaceSyntax

Localintegrationinurbansystems,99–101Localphysicalchanges,5,6 globalpatterns,evolutionof,69 spatio–temporaladditionstoasystem,68 See alsoGlobalconfigurationaleffectsLocalspatialelements,98,201–203Localsymmetry,87–88Logicalemergents above/below,17 inside/outside,15,17 spatialpatternsinbuildingsand,18Longmodels,5,193–194,197,198Loos,A.,337,338L–shapedcontiguousbars,230–232L–shapednon–relation,147–154

Machinemetaphor,292–294,299Manhattandistance/grid,79March,L.,70Markus,T.,314Mead,M.,30Meaning,10–11,193–194,306Means–endssystems,111,112Mechanicalmodelofsocialstructure,191,193Meta–theoreticalapproach,259–260Mitchell,W.J.,339Mixeduses,4,113Modernism,2,39–40,41,156,291,293,294,319Morphogeneticmodels,192–194,207–208Movementeconomies,4,113–114,127 alignmentpatternsand,124–125 axialanalysisand,120–121 contact,generationof,126 convexisovistsand,114,115 co–presence,convexspatialelementand, 118–119 disurbanism,housingestates/discontinuous urbanstructuresand,131–134 edgeeffectand,120 encounterzones,125,126,130 form–functioninterdependence inspaceand,114–116 informaluseofopenspacesand,123,127 integrationvaluesinlinemapsand,119 labryinthianlogicand,116 landusepatternsand,113,124,126,127 Londonexample,116–119 multifunctionality,part–wholeproblemand, 112–113,127 multipliereffectsand,125–127,134 naturalmovementprincipleand,120–125, 131,134 part–to–wholerelationshipand,127–131 pedestrianmovementand,99,113,119,123

physicalcity/functionalcityand,111–112 precinctisationand,134 retailestablishments,spatialdistributionof,125 safety/well–beingand,131,134 socio–economicclass,mappingof,124 socio–economicforces,movement–urbangrid relationshipand,113–114 transformationofcities,valuesystems and,134–136 two–linelogicand,116,118 urbanbuzzand,126,127,134 urbangrid–movementrelationship,120–125,126 vehicularmovementand,99,113,119,123 SeeGenericfunction;Movementeconomies; Naturalmovementprinciple;Strong–programme buildings;Weak–programmebuildingsMultifunctionality,14–15,112–113,127

Naturalformtheory,41–42,47 evolutiontheory,geneticinformationstructures and,298 form–purposerelationship,295–296,297 organism–environmentparadigmand,297–298 See alsoForm–functiontheoryNaturallaws,66,67,257Naturalmovementprinciple,120–125,131,134,146, 155,303Nearinvariants,263–264,265,268,277Negativeattractors,183,189Neighbourlinessparadigm,334–335Networks,201–203Neutralisedmovement,255–256Newman,O.,41,42,44,47,48Newspapereditorialfloorinterface,199–201Newton,I.,3,296,297,298,30390–degreeprocess,275–276Non–discursivedimensions,3,4 architecturaldesignand,321–322,324,325,329 buildingspatial/formalpatternsand,30,31–32 configuration,thinkingof/withideasand,27–30 neutraldescriptive/analyticaltechniquesand,4 regularitiesvs.theoriesand,4 speculative/abstractthoughtand,3,33,35 structuralismand,29–30 styleasnon–discursiveidiolect,336–338 theoreticalknowledge,architectureand, 35,339–340 See alsoArchitecturaldesign;Configuration; Non–discursivetechniqueNon–discursivetechnique,59–60 abstractartefacts/objectartefactsand,65–67 aggregationprocessesand,68–69 balancedasymmetryand,88–89 builtenvironmentsasartefactsand,67–69

Index352

Index


SpaceSyntax

configurationalanalysis,keyprinciplesof,73 configurationalformalisms,simplicityin,69–71 configurationalmodelling, urbandesignand,98–108 configurationalpatternsof abstractartefactsand,66 configuration,definitionof,71–73 configurationrecognition,syntacticproperties and,86–91 earth–linepositioningand,89–91 facadesasconfigurationsand,85–91 futureurbanmodels,intelligentanalogues ofcities,101–108 integrationanalysisand,80–81,82–84, 88–89,91,94 justifiedgraphsand,72–73,74–77,79,80 normalisationformula/i–valueformulaand,77,82 plansasshapedspaceand,82–85 regularshapesasconfigurations,80–81 shapesasconfigurationsand,73–76,80–81 space–timemanifestation,65–66 structuralismand,66–67 symmetrypropertiesofshapesand,74–76,86–91 universaldistancesand,76–80 urbanspaceaslayers,intelligibilityand,91–98 urbansystems,localintegration/global integrationand,99–101Normalarchitecture,331–333Normalisationformula,77Normalscience,331Normativetheories,2,3,7,32,41–42,47

Objectartefacts,65–69Occupation,6Orderwithoutanteriororder,296–297,298Organictowns,187Organism–environmentparadigm,294,297–302Outside,15,16,17

Palladianproperties,41,44Paradigmofthemachine,292–294,295, 299–301,310Partisansocialprogrammes,336Partitioningtheory,5Part–to–wholerelationship,127–131Part–wholeproblem,112–113,127Pathologicaluseofspace,155,159–160, 169,315–316,334Patternaspect,1 abstractartefactsand,66–67 permeabilitypatterns,22,23,24,27 rationalanalysisof,1,3 regularitiesvs.theoriesand,4 sinkestates,disorderly/unsafe

spatialuseand,5 spatialpatterning,activities/relationships and,15,20–22 spatialpatternsinbuildings,naturallawand,18 vernacularactofbuildingand,3 See alsoConfiguration;SpatialconfigurationPedestrianmovement,99,113,119,121,142Peponis,J.,130Permeabilitycomplexes(p–complexes),217–223SeealsoCombinatorialartofarchitecturePermeabilitypatterns,22,23,24,27,82Phenotypes,34,256,310Philosophyofdesign,1 experimentation/simulationindesignand,1 form–functiontheoryand,8 objectrecognition,semanticstageof,86 theory,philosophy/sciencedomainsand,55–59Physicaleconomyofashape,82Plans cross–national/cross–temporalsampleof,216 form–functioninterdependenceinspaceand, 114–116 shapedspaceand,82–85 See alsoArchitecturaldesign;Layouts; UrbandesignPlato,66,67Popper,K.,322,323Precedents,330–331Precinctisation,134Predictiveaspectsofdesign,43–44,46–47, 325–326,339Probabilisticinequalitygenotypes,203–208, 304–305Probability.SeeArchitecturalprobabilityProfaneurbanspaces,174–175Programmaticrequirements,6Proportiontheory,41–42,47,48Pythagoreantheory,41,58

Quine,W.,307

Radicalinnovation,11Radius–radiuscore,263Rationalanalysis,1,3 elaborationofform/space,17–18 inside/outside,interdependenceof,15Redundancy,279Reflectiveabstraction,328–329Regularities,4,5 abstractartefactsand,66–67 alllineanalysisand,6 analytictheoryofarchitectureand,59 simpleregularities,formaldefinitionof,52–54 surfaceregularity,underlying

Index353

Index


SpaceSyntax

invarianceand,50–54Regularshapesasconfigurations,80–81Relations,1,67Religiousbuildings,174–175,254Research cross–disciplineresearch,1–2 rationalanalysis,realdesigntestsof,1Research/developmentorganisations,190, 201–202,203–208,210–213Retailestablishments,125Ringproperties,23Ritual,5Ruralisation,135–136Russell,B.,15,16,142

Sacredspaces,174–175,254Safetyissues,131,134 architecturaldeterminismand,138,141,142 architecturalvs.socialprocessesand,156–160 globalscale/networksand,203 naturalmovement,naturalsurveillanceand,146 singlecategoryspaceuserand,155 urbansafety,formulafor,142–146Scalegap,111Sciencedomain,55–59,61–62,66Scientificknowledge,195–196,201–203, 208,209–210Scientificmethod,316,322–323Scruton,R.,10,11,19,40,41,42Sequencingofspaces,254–255Settlementanalysis,5,6 expressiveidiosyncrasiesand,10 morphogeneticmodelsand,192–194,207–208 spatialforms,projectionofmentalprocesses and,191 spatialideas,geometricalnatureof,6 vacantspaceand,6,19 See alsoBuilding;Fundamentalcity; StrangetownsShapesasconfigurations,73–76 facadesasconfigurations,85–91 regularshapesand,80–81Sheltertheorists,14,15Shortmodels,4,5,193–194,201Similarforms/relations,186–187Simon,H.,65,67Simpleregularities,52–54Simulationindesign,1Sinkestates,5Socialdecline,5 integrationcore,retreatfrom,155 localvs.globalnetworksand,202–203 spacedesign/use,socialprocessesand, 159–160

See also Architecturaldeterminism; SafetyissuesSocialdisadvantagementprocess,138,139Socialengineeringobjectives,291,292 bureaucraticvernacularisationand,336 organism–environmentparadigmand,299 paradigmofthemachineand,292–294,299–301 See alsoForm–functiontheory;HousingestatesSocialgenotypesofinteraction,310Socialknowledge,28–30,31,34–35,195–197,335Sociallife.SeeArchitecturaldeterminism;Culture– boundspatialpatterns;Form–functiontheory; HumansocietySocialmeaning,193–194,306Socialnetworks,203Socialreproduction,5,176–184Socialsciences,4,19,190–191Socialisationinterface,147–152,209Sociologicalperspective,1 boundaries,socialrelationsand,16 movement–urbangridstructureand,113–114 statisticalmodelofsocialstructure,191,193 transformationofcities,valuesystems and,134–136 SeealsoArchitecturaldeterminismSocio–technicalecosystem,65Solutiontypologies,329–333,335–336,339Space,18,19 anthropologicalideasof,190–191,193 buildings,culture–boundspaceof,20 configurationsofpeople/configurationsof space,20–22,67–68 extensionwithoutobjects,19–20 form–functioninterdependenceand,114–116 Galilean–Cartesianviewof,19–20 humanagencyand,19 infinitestructurabilityof,269–270 integrationanalysisand,25,26 justifiedgraphs,depth/ringproperties and,22–23 patternsofpermeabilityand,22,24,27 potentialsof,115 relationalschemesofspace,18,20 socialstructuresof,146–154,191 spatialideas,6,19 spatialrelations,15–16 synchronyofspace,185,186 vacantspace,6,18,19 See alsoBuildings;Configuration;Movement economies;Spaceinbuildings; SpatialconfigurationSpaceinbuildings,1,5,19 anthropologicalideasofspaceand,190–191,193 casestudyof,203–208,210–213

Index354

Index


SpaceSyntax

createdphenomenon,visiblecolleges and,209–210 divisionoflabourand,201 efficiencyvs.innovationand,213 generativeprocessand,193,201 genericfunctionand,5–6 inequalitygenotypesand,196–197,203–208 integrationvaluesofspacesand,196,199–201 interface,functionalconstituentsofbuildings and,198,201 local/globalnetworks,strongand weaktiesand,201–203,208 long/shortmodelsituationsand,5, 193–194,197,198,201,207 mechanical/statisticalmodelsof socialstructureand,191,193 morphogeneticmodels,topologicalproperties/ settlementformsand,192–194,207–208 partitioningtheoryand,5 probabilisticinequalitygenotypes,203–208 scientificknowledge,spaceinfluenceand, 201–203,208,209–210 socialknowledge,spatial configurationand,196–197 socialknowledgevs.scientific knowledgeand,194–196 socialmeaningand,193–194 sociologicalperspectiveand,193 spatialgroupdynamicsand,190,194 spatialpatterning,activities/relationships and,15,20–22 strong–programmebuildingsand,197–199 transformationofmaterial/space, functionaleffectof,15 visualimage,content/meaningand,10 weakprogrammebuildingsand,199–201 See alsoBuildings;Combinatorialartof architecture;Humansociety;Spatial configuration;VacantspaceSpaceexplorers,154–155Spaceasmachine,302–305Spacesyntaxanalytictools,1Spacesyntaxtheoryandmethods,1,60,70,194Space–timeregularities,65–67 See alsoNon–discursivetechnique; Spatio–temporalphenomenaSpacetopology,250–253Space–to–spacepermeability,23,27Space–usetypes,207–208Spatialconfiguration,1,3 builtenvironments,socialpurposesand,67–68 configurationalparadigmofarchitecture,302–305 housingestates,co–presence/co–awareness systemand,4–5

long/shortmodelsand,5 non–discursiveaspectsofspace/formand,3 socialdecline,disorderlyuseofspaceand,5 socialorganisationoflifeand,3,20–22 spatialpatterneffects,301–302 spatialpotentialities,systemof possibilitiesand,7–8 spatialrelations,objective/non– objectivenatureof,15–16 universaldistancesand,76–80 See alsoArchitecturaldesign;Combinatorial artofarchitecture;Configuration;Form– functiontheory;Non–discursivetechnique; PartitioningtheorySpatialelements,222–223Spatialenclosure,19Spatialgroupdynamics,190,194Spatialideas,6,19Spatiallayouts.SeeLayoutsSpatialrelations,15–16Spatialisedfunctions,25–27Spatio–temporalphenomena,28–30,31 builtenvironmentsand,68–69 space–timeregularities,65–67 time–spacerelationship,185–189Specificdistance,77,79Statisticalmodelofsocialstructure,191,193Steadman,P.,77,216,217,220,245,247Stewart,I.,74Strangetowns,171 asynchronoussystems,movementand,187 axis,symbol/instrumentfunctionsand, 174–175,180 facadesofbuildings,axialdisjunctionand, 177–178,180–183 facadesofbuildings,synchronousorderin,187 global/localstructures,totaldisjunctionand,183–184

heart/periphery,axialcompression ofscalesand,179–180 instrumentalaxialityin,180,184,189 integrationcoresand,187 justabout/unobtrusiveaxialstructure and,178–179,180,183,184 naturalmovementand,180,183,188–189 negativeattractorsand,183,189 organictowns,functionalspatial patterningand,187 part–facade/full–facadeisovists,187–188 sociallyconstructedintentions,available solutiontypologiesand,333–336 socialreproduction,symbolicspatial formsand,176–184 symbolicaxialityin,175–177,178,184,189 timeasaspectofspaceand,185–189

Index355

Index


SpaceSyntax

tunnelisovistand,189 See alsoFundamentalcityStreet–basedsystemofinteractions,143, 145–146,152–154,334Streetnetworklinks,98,104–106Strong–programmebuildings,197–199Strongties,201–203,208Structuralidiosyncrasies,6Structuralism,29–30,66–67,190–191Structuredgrids,268–269Style,336–338,339Surfaceregularity,50–54Sustainabilityissues,111Symbolicaxiality,175–177,178,184,189Symmetrypropertiesofshapes,74–76,86–91Synchronousorderoffacades,187Synchronyofspace,185,186

Technologytools,1,6,65,93,112Territoriality,41–42,47,48Tessellation,80–81,82,84–85,91,271,272Theory,4 additivetheory,10 architecture,theoreticalknowledgeand,35 defensiblespace,41–42 definitionof,49–52 futureurbanmodelsand,102 knowledge–basedmodelofdesignand,6–7 language,words/formalexpressionsand,55–58 partitioningtheory,5 philosophy/sciencedomainsand,55–59 proportion,41–42 surfaceregularityand,50–52 See alsoAnalytictheoryofarchitecture; Architecturaltheory;Form–functiontheory; Knowledge;PhilosophyofdesignThingness,307–309Time–spacerelationship,185–189Top–downdesignprocess,6,324Topologicalproperties,192–194,207–208,250–253Transformation,15,16 citystructuresand,134–136 See alsoCombinatorialartofarchitectureTrans–spatialnetworks,203Treeform,23Tunnelisovist,189Two–linelogic,116,1182–pilegridsystems,272–274

Universaldistances,76–80Unprogrammedmovement,255Urbanbuzz,126,127,134Urbandesign,1 configurationalmodellingand,98–108

configurationalnatureof,1,2 disurbanism,housingestatesand,131–134 intelligenturbananaloguemodel,streetnetwork linksand,104–106 layeredmodelsofurbanspaceand,106–108 localintegration/globalintegrationand,99–101 patternaspectof,1 streetgrids,patternsofmovementand,98 urbangrids/urbanfunctioningand,4,113–114,135 See alsoLayouts;Movementeconomies; UrbanspatialformUrbannetworks,203Urbanspatialform,4 axis,symbol/instrumentfunctionsand,174–175 connectivityofaspace,93,94 deformedgridstructure,92,98,134 futureurbanmodels,intelligent analoguesofcities,101–108 grid–movementrelationship,4,120–125,126 integrationvalueofaspace,94 localintegration/globalintegration,99–101,202–203 normalisationformula/i–valueformulaand,77,82 similarform/similarrelationsand,186–187 synchronyofspaceand,185 timeasaspectofspaceand,185–189 urbanspaceaslayers,intelligibilityand,91–98 See alsoLayouts;Strangetowns;Urbandesign

Vacantspace,6,18,19Vehicularmovement,99,113,119,123Vernaculartraditions,1,3,11,31–32,34–35, 36,328,329,336Virtualcommunities,4–5 architecturaldesign,patternsof behaviorand,140–142 architecturaldeterminismand,160,169 destructuringof,159 socialstructuresofspaceand,146–147 See alsoArchitecturaldeterminism; HousingestatesVisibilitymaps.SeeAll–linevisibilitymapsVisibilityparadox,266–268Visibilityproperties,98,245–247Visualimpression,10

Wagner,R.,135Weak–programmebuildings,199–201Weakties,201–203,208Wells,235–236Whole–complexproperties,80Wholeobjectbarring,232,234Wittgenstein,L.,314Wright,F.L.,337

Space is the machine Bill Hillier - UCL Discovery

Documents

Transcript of Space is the machine Bill Hillier - UCL Discovery