Space is the machine Bill Hillier - Dana Bixby...

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,thenwecansaythatthereisaco

Space is the machine Bill Hillier - Dana Bixby...

Documents

Transcript of Space is the machine Bill Hillier - Dana Bixby...