Main Menu
 |
 |
|
Description Space syntax is a theory about space and human behavior, which, together with tools and methods for analyzing human interaction in the built environment, examines the impact of accessibility in spatial layouts on behavior, communication and interaction. Importance Space syntax and related methods of analysis are important to universal design because the concept of accessibility is central to the understanding and analysis of the impact of built spaces and urban places on human behavior. Space syntax analysis provides a theoretical perspective for understanding accessibility and spatial layout, and provides methods for analyzing the relative accessibility of alternative design choices. Research in the field focuses on deliberate design of spaces that are intuitively accessible to a wide range of users and understanding of the factors promoting specific types of behaviors. Evidence Space syntax modelling has been used to understand how existing cities, urban areas and buildings are working, and to simulate the likely effect of new interventions, and help integrate information about other socio-economics factors into the design and planning process. Research using space syntax modelling shows the impact of:
Space syntax tools and methods have been used for spatial accessibility analyses of London, Jeddah, and the World Trade Center redesign for lower Manhattan. Architect Norman Foster (1997) says that “I know that these techniques work from the tough environment of practice. I love the world of analysis, observation, of research, but also passion, imprecision, the hunch. Space syntax is the testing of the interaction of these opposing worlds.” Proponents say that “Space Syntax studies provide public and private agencies with robust techniques for evaluating the social, economic and environmental impact of accessibility proposals.” The physical layout of rooms, corridors and vertical connections exerts a strong influence over patterns of movement in retail environments, museums and galleries. Understanding the effects of spatial layout on visitor activity allows design proposals to be generated that facilitate access and encourage natural wayfinding. In practice, space syntax consultants provide appraisals of layouts, investment advice, strategic design and monitoring services, combining detailed observation studies with customer flow models and sales data analysis to generate schemes that optimise patterns of moving, browsing and buying. They also co-ordinate pedestrian, cycling and vehicle strategies through observation, analysis and forecasting of movement flows. Space syntax is a growing theoretical interest with many practical design applications. It can reveal hidden design barriers in older spatial layouts (redesign of London’s Trafalgar Square); in analysis of new spaces or additions (redesign of the Tate in Britain), and in architectural education (all three projects are reported in Dursun, 2007). It can also help to avoid mistakes in design that deaden urban neighborhoods and areas within buildings (Hillier et al, 1987). Background Space syntax originated as a research method in the 1970s at the University of London as a way to record movement and interaction within cities and buildings. The set of analytical techniques called “syntactic” were used by Hillier and Hanson in The Social Logic of Space (1984) to explore the impact of space on social behavior and relationships. Since that time, it has developed into a coherent body of literature about human social interaction in the built environment. “The basic premise of this work is that it is possible to identify certain underlying structures of space that are linked to observable patterns of behavior and that these patterns, in turn, create social function, whether generative . . . or reproductive” (Peponis and Wineman: 272). The distinctive characteristics of societies are expressed in spatial systems. Knowledge is conveyed through “space itself, and through the organization of spaces (Dursan and Saglamer, 2003). So spatial configurations not only “generate social interactions in built environments,” but they “express a social or cultural meaning” (Dursun, 2007: 4). The property of accessibility is critical in space syntax, and suggests the common spatial foundation upon which diverse social effects rest. At the foundation of space syntax are premises concerning how boundaries and connections of built space define the way people behave and relate to one another.“ Built space is to be understood as a relational pattern, a pattern of distinctions, separations, interfaces, and connections, a pattern than integrates, segregates, or differentiates its parts in relation to each other.” (Peponis and Wineman: 271). Space has a ‘social logic’ inasmuch as these relational patterns affect everyday behavior, contributes to structuring social relationships, “and the way in which society and culture become intelligible through their spatial forms.” (Peponis and Wineman : 271). Analysis to date suggests that the social meaning of space is carried by topological rather than shape-specific relationships. Hillier and Hanson defined two basic theorems to illustrate how space works socially. The first, which views space as “generative” because social rules and practices do not need to be invoked to account for movement according to spatial configuration, deals with linear spaces of circulation and movement. The second theorem describes space as “reproductive,” and applies to use spaces, component spaces of building types that contribute to on-going reproduction of social relations. The first theorem states that a building or urban area is a system carrying movement within and between all spaces it contains. Those spaces most directly connected to every other space in the system will have higher density of movement: “put simply, more direct universal accessibility implies a higher probability that a space will be used for movement.” (Peponis and Wineman: 271). The first corollary, the theory of “natural movement”, states that the spatial configuration governs the distribution of movement (Hillier et al, 1993). The second corollary, the theory of “virtual community,” says that movement within a space generates a pattern of coawareness and copresence (Hillier, 1989). The third corollary suggests that types of space uses will be located according to their relative dependence on social movement (Hillier, B., 1997). Spaces like retail businesses must be located in areas of higher movement, while residential spaces need less movement. The second theorem applies to common the components of common building types, defined by activity (“dining room”), social rule (“private room”), and function (“reception area”). The theorem suggests that the labels attached to social programs within spaces inform us of their function and “sustains a stable, if abstract, spatial relationship [which] contributes to the reproduction of social schema.” (Hillier, B., 1997). The patterns of relationships within these spaces are intuitively known, although they might vary from design to design. According to social expectations, some labeled spaces, or rooms, would be more accessible than others (“living room” as opposed to “bedroom”). Methods of Analysis Although Hillier and Hanson first developed syntactic analysis to understand the behavioral impact of space, they strove to describe space and spatial relationships separately from their use. Accessibility is a function of the number of direction changes made, the number of boundaries crossed, or the number of spaces traversed and, in the more recent work, metric properties. Hillier’s early work followed Thiel (1970), who coded patterns of behavior and perception, including Lynch’s (1960) parameters of urban space (districts, notes, edges, paths, and landmarks). Thiel’s notational system described the elements defining space, their relational patterns, and spatial connections. There are two approaches to the analysis of spatial syntax: examining patterns of connections (graph-based), and analyzing perceived spatial relations (geometry-based). Graphs consist of nodes (vertices) and edges (lines). In the graph-based system, the “integration” of a space, a measure of its accessibility or centrality, is expressed as “distance,” so that a more integrated space is less distant from other spaces. Since the system standardizes these measures, spaces can be compared to one another or to ideal regular patterns known as benchmarks (Hillier, 1998). However, analysis of open spatial plans with ambiguous boundaries is more difficult than cellular plans. Spaces are classified as one-dimensional paths of movement or as places inviting prolonged occupation. Understanding the social information contained in plans links “geometric intuition with our intuition regarding the human dimensions of inhabiting space” (Peponis and Wineman: 274). Perception-based approaches to analysis of space syntax include axial maps, convexity, and visibility polygons. Axial maps, or linear representations, describe all the ways to move around a spatial layout to reach other spaces, and the lines traced most often, which are darker, are more integrated or central to the system. The analysis of spatial convexity results in “convex maps” documenting “isovists” or visibility polygons within visual fields (Benedikt, 1979; Batty, 2001; Turner et al., 2001). Visibility diagonals represent potential lines of movement across space (Peponis et al, 1998a and 1998b). Archaea’s (1977) early work on visual fields demonstrated behavioral correlates, showing that people position themselves within a space according to their preferences for seeing (visual access) or being seen (visual exposure), so the environment is a place that concentrates or diffuses information. Centers of Study Space syntax is a specialty at the University College London’s Space Group and its commercial spin off, the Space Syntax Laboratory. Studies can also be pursued in the U.S. at Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of Michigan, the University of Kansas and Texas Tech. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (www.envplan.com/B.html) publishes much of the most important technical work in this area, while papers addressing specialized questions are published in journals such as Environment and Behavior (www.sagepub.com), Urban Design International, Ekistics, and Geoforum. The 6th bi-annual international symposium on space syntax gathered in Istanbul in June 2007 (http://www.spacesyntaxistanbul.itu.edu.tr), and a rich record of symposia papers can be downloaded from the links provided in http://www.spacesyntax.net/symposia/index.htm. Research and Development Needs Carlo Ratti of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has questioned the mathematical reliability of space syntax due to paradoxes arising in the analysis of certain geometric configurations. Ratti’s paper incited a passionate academic exchange with Bill Hiller and Alan Penn.(Ratti, 2004; Hillier and Penn, 2004). Space syntax analysis is being combined with geographic accessibility analysis in GIS by researchers in the Spatial Analysis and Design research group at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. It is being linked with traditional transport engineering models (Bin Jiang, Valerio Cutini and Mike Betty), and with related fields in urban planning. Evolving problem definitions in space syntax research seeks better specification of the interaction between sociological and morphological insights, refining the mapping of spatial behaviors as regular patterns and the morphological principles underpinning observed regularities (Peponis and Wineman: 278). Attempts to combine space syntax with more traditional transport engineering models, using intersections as nodes and constructing visibility graphs to link them have been made by various researchers, including Bin Jiang, Valerio Cutini and Mike Batty. Related Guidelines Space syntax research and practice have demonstrated that spatial arrangements have discernable and measurable impact on human behavior. Since these impacts can be modeled, predicted, and improved prior to construction, designers have a responsibility to understand them. We can no longer think of space and behavior as two separate domains. Building form has a very specific role to play in controlling movement, circulation, and encounter (Architectural Wayfinding and Building Form and Features). While larger architectural firms often hire consultants to analyze their designs, smaller firms can make extensive use of the boarder principles and easy-to-master analytical techniques of space syntax analysis to bring more intentional outcomes into their buildings and urban space plans. Guidelines are no substitute for more comprehensive research into space syntax; even cursory study will yield many rich ideas for the designer. For example: 1. We can’t think of space and social systems without viewing them as interactive. “Social structure is inherently spatial, and inhabited space has a fundamentally social logic.” (Bafna, 2003, p. 18). 2. Movement in urban space is better understood with respect to spatial layout than programmatic purpose, while movement within buildings is best understood in terms of specific uses rather than spatial regularity (Peponis and Wineman, 2002: 280). 3. The most navigable circulation system is the straight line with perpendicular branches running off of it. 4. Unintelligible spaces that are difficult to navigate and produce little social contact can have measurable negative social and economic consequences. Poor spatial arrangements can negatively impact behavior and the individual and social level; conversely good social arrangements can have positive impact. References Archaea, J., 1977, “The place of architectural factors in behavioral theories of privacy,” Journal of Social Issues 33: 116-137. Bafna, S., 2003, “Space Syntax: A Brief Introduction to Its Logic and Analytical Techniques,” Environment and Behavior, 35(1): 17-29. Bafna, S., 2005, quoted in Peponis, J., “Space Syntax,” Volume 4(12) of Implications, University of Minnesota, http://www.informdesign.umn.edu. Batty, M., 2001, “Exploring isovist fields: Space and shape in architectural and urban morphology,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28: 123-150. Benedikt, M., 1979, “To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 6: 47-65. Dursun, P., 2007, “Space Syntax in Architectural Design,” Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Dursun, P. and G. Saglamer, 2003, “Spatial Analysis of Different Home Environments I nthe City of Trabzon,” in J. Hanson, ed., Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium. NA, 2007, “How productive is that office plan? "Space syntax" will tell you,” Contract Magazine: Inspiring Commercial Design Solution, May 1, 2007. Foster, N., 1997, “Cities and urban life: London and elsewhere,” Structural Engineer, 75:88, 125-32, 4/1997 Hillier, B. et al., 1987, “Creating Life: Or, Does Architecture Determine Anything?” Architecture & Comportement/ Architecture & Behaviour, 3 (3). pp. 233-250. Hillier, B., 1989, “The architecture of urban objects,” Ekistics 56 (334/335): 5-21. Hillier, B., 1997, “Cities as movement economies,” pp. 295-342 in P. Droege, ed., Intelligent environments: Spatial aspects of the information revolution, Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hillier, B., 1998, “A note on the intuiting of forms: Three issues in the theory of design,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (25th anniversary issue): 37-40. B Hillier, 1999, “The common language of space: a way of looking at the social, economic and environmental functioning,” Journal of Environmental Science, Vol. 11 No.3. Hillier, B., 1999, Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge University Press. Hillier, B., 2004, “Can streets be made safe?” Urban Design International, 2004. Hillier, B. et al, 1993, “Natural Movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20: 29-66. Hiller, B. and J. Hanson, 1984, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. B Hillier and S Iida, 2005, Network and psychological effects in urban movement, Proceedings of Spatial Information Theory: International, New York: Springer. Hillier, B. and A. Penn, 2004, “Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti, Ratti, C., 2004, “Space syntax: Some inconsistencies,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(4): 487-499. B Hillier, and K Tzortzi, 2006, “Space Syntax: The Language of Museum Space, “ in S. MacDonald, ed., A Companion to Museum Studies, London: Blackwell Publishing. Penn, Alan, 2003, “Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition, Or, Why the Axial Line?” Environment and Behavior, V. 35(1): 30-65. Peponis, John et al, 1998, “On the generation of linear representation of spatial configuration,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25: 559-576. Peponis, John et al, 1998b, “Describing plan configuration according to the covisibility of surfaces,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25: 693-708. Peponis, John et al., 2006, “On the formulation of spatial meaning in architectural design,” Proceedings, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London. Peponis, John, and Jean Wineman, 2002, “Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior,” pp. 271-291 in Bechtel and Churchman. Handbook of Environmental Psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ratti, C., 2004, “Space syntax: Some inconsistencies,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(4): 501-511. Stravroulaki, Gianna and John Peponis, 2002, “The spatial construction of seeing at Castelvecchio,” p. 66.1-66.14 in Proceedings, 4thInternational Space Symposium, London. [museum design] Thiel, P., 1970, “Notes on the description, scaling, notations, and scoring of some perceptual and cognitive attributes of the physical environment,” pp. 593-619 in H.M. Proshansky et al, eds., Environmental Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.. Turner, A., et al, 2001, “From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28: 103-121. Vaughan, L, Chatford Clark, D. Sahbaz, O., and M. Haklay, 2005, “Space and exclusion: does urban morphology play a part in social deprivation?” Area, Volume 37(4): 402-412. Links Network of International Space Syntax Research, http://www.spacesyntax.net. Space Syntax (commercial firm): http://wwwwww.spacesyntax.com/ Space Syntax Laboratory, University College London: http://wwwwww.spacesyntax.org Authors Susan S. Hunter, Ph.D. Editorial Board Review Status
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25
3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved." |