Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 445–470 | Cite as

The Mathematics of Spatial Configuration: Revisiting, Revising and Critiquing Justified Plan Graph Theory

Research

Abstract

The justified plan graph (JPG) was the first practical analytical method developed as part of the theory of Space Syntax, which purported to provide a graphical, mathematical and associated theoretical model for analysing the spatial configuration of buildings. In spite of early interest, in recent years relatively little research using this method has been published, perhaps because the JPG method is rarely explained in its totality and when it is, the descriptions are often inconsistent or unclear. Although it is now embedded in several software programs and its use may be more widespread, it is no better understood and after processing there is a marked lack of consistency in how the results are interpreted. This paper provides a historical background for the development of the JPG and a discussion of its conceptual or theoretical origins, followed by a “worked example” of the mathematics of the JPG. In combination with the results for two further cases, the paper identifies some important interpretative limits in the method and uses the examples to explain its potential use in design analysis. Finally, the paper discusses how the consistent application of this method to sets of related buildings is likely to produce a more valuable, and statistically viable, basis for future work.

Keywords

Justified plan graph graph theory Space Syntax mathematical analysis plan analysis 

References

  1. Alexander Christopher (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, Christopher. 1966. A City is Not a Tree, Part I and Part II. Design 206 (February 1966): 46–55.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein. (1977) A Pattern Language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Asami, Yasushi, Ayse Sema Kubat, Kensuke Kitagawa and Shin–ichi IIDA. 2003. Introducing the third dimension on Space Syntax: Application on the historical Istanbul. Proceedings: 4th International Space Syntax Symposium London: 48.1–48.18.Google Scholar
  5. Bafna, Sonit. 2001. Geometric Intuitions of Genotypes.Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Space Syntax, 20.1-20.16.Google Scholar
  6. Bafna Sonit (2003) Space Syntax: a Brief Introduction to its Logic and Analytical Techniques. Environment and Behavior 35(1): 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birkerts Gunnar. (1994) Process and Expression in Architectural Form. University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  8. Ching Francis D. K (2007) Architecture: Form, Space and Order. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  9. Dovey, Kim. 2010. Becoming Places: Urbanism / Architecture / Identity / Power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dovey Kim. (1999) Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frampton Kenneth. (1995) Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Gelernter Mark. (1995) Sources of Architectural Form: A Critical History of Western Design Theory. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanson Julienne. (1998) Decoding Homes and Houses. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Haq S. (2003) Investigating the syntax line: configurational properties and cognitive correlates. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 841–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harary, Frank. 1960. Some Historical and Intuitive Aspects of Graph Theory. SIAM Review 2, 2 (April 1960): 123–131.Google Scholar
  16. Harary Frank. (1969) Graph Theory. Addison–Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Hillier Bill. (1995) Space is the Machine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillier Bill , Alan Penn. (2004) Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31(4): 487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillier Bill , Julienne Hanson. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hillier, Bill and Kali Tzortzi. 2006. Space Syntax: The Language of Museum Space. Pp. 282–301 in A Companion to Museum Studies, Sharon Macdonald, ed. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Hillier Bill, Julienne Hanson , Graham H. (1987) Ideas are in things: an application of the space syntax method to discovering house genotypes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 14: 363–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopkins, Brian and Robin J. Wilson. 2004. The Truth about Königsberg. The College Mathematics Journal 35, 3 (May 2004): 198–207.Google Scholar
  23. Jencks, Charles and George Baird, eds. 1969. Meaning in Architecture. New York: G. Braziller.Google Scholar
  24. Jiang Bin, Christophe Claramunt , Björn Klarqvist. (2000) Integration of space syntax into GIS for modelling urban spaces. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 2(3–4): 161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klarqvist Björn. (1993) A Space Syntax Glossary. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 2: 11–12Google Scholar
  26. Krüger, M. 1989. On Node and Axial Grid Maps: Distance measures and related topics, London: University College, London.Google Scholar
  27. Leach, Edmund. 1978. Does Space Syntax Really “Constitute the Social”? Pp. 385–401 in Social Organisation and Settlement. Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeology and Geography, D. Green and M. Spriggs, eds. British Archaeology Reports 47. Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Major, Mark David and Nicholas SARRIS. 1999. Cloak and Dagger Theory: Manifestations of the Mundane in the Space of Eight Peter Eisenman Houses. Space Syntax: Second International Symposium, Brasilia. 20.1–20.14.Google Scholar
  29. Manum, Bendik. 2009. AGRAPH: Complementary Software for Axial–Line Analysis. In Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Daniel Koch, Lars Marcus and Jesper Steen, eds. Stockholm: KTH, 2009. 070:1Google Scholar
  30. Manum, Bendik, Espen RUSTEN and Paul BENZE. 2005. AGRAPH, Software for Drawing and Calculating Space Syntax Graphs. Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, vol. I, 97. Delft.Google Scholar
  31. March, Lionel (eds) (1976) The Architecture of Form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. March Lionel , Philip Steadman. (1971) The Geometry of Environment: An introduction to spatial organization in design. RIBA Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Markus Tom. (1987) Buildings as Classifying Devices. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 14: 467–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markus, Tom. 1988. Down to Earth. Building Design (July 15): 16–17.Google Scholar
  35. Markus Tom. (1993) Buildings and Power. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Osman Khadiga M., Mamoun Suliman. (1994) The Space Syntax Methodology: Fits and Misfit. Architecture & Behaviour 10(2): 189–204Google Scholar
  37. Pallasmaa Juhani. (2005) The eyes of the skin: architecture and the senses. Wiley–Academy, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  38. Peponis, John. 1985. The spatial culture of factories. Human Relations 38 (April 1985): 357–390.Google Scholar
  39. Peponis John, Jean Wineman, Mahbub Rashid, Kim S., Sonit Bafna. (1997a) On the description of shape and spatial configuration inside buildings: convex partitions and their local properties. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24: 761–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peponis, John, Jean Wineman, Mahbub Rashid, S. Kim, and Sonit Bafna. 1997b. On the generation of linear representations of spatial configuration. Space Syntax, First International Symposium, vol III, 4.1–41.18. London.Google Scholar
  41. Pevsner Nikolaus. (1936) Pioneers of Modern Design. Faber and Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Ratti Carlo. (2004) Space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31(4): 501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rowland, Ingrid, D., Thomas Noble, Howe (eds) (1999) Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Seppänen, Jouko and James M. Moore. 1970. Facilities Planning with Graph Theory. Management Science 17, 4 (December 1970): 242–253.Google Scholar
  45. Shannon, C. E. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  46. Shapiro Jason S. (2005) A Space Syntax Analysis of Arroyo Hondo Pueblo. School of American Research Press, New Mexico, Santa FeGoogle Scholar
  47. Steadman Philip J. (1973) Graph–theoretic representation of architectural arrangement. Architectural Research and Teaching 2: 161–172Google Scholar
  48. Steadman Philip J. (1983) Architectural Morphology. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Stevens Garry. (1990) The Reasoning Architect: Mathematics and Science in Design. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Stiny George. (1975) Pictorial and Formal Aspects of Shape and Shape Grammar. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  51. Taaffe E. J., Gauthier H. L. (1973) Geography of Transportation. New Jersey, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  52. Teklenberg, J. A. F. Timmermans, H. J. P. Wagenberg, A. F. 1992. Space Syntax: Standardized integration measures and some simulations. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20: 347–357.Google Scholar
  53. Thaler, Ulrich. 2005. Narrative and Syntax, new perspectives on the Late Bronze Age palace of Pylos, Greece. Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, vol. II, 327. Delft.Google Scholar
  54. Turner A., Doxa M., O’Sullivan D., Penn A. (2001) From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28: 103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Xinqi, Zheng, Zhao LU, Fu MEICHEN and Wang SHUQING. 2008. Extension and Application of Space Syntax: A Case Study of Urban Traffic Network Optimizing in Beijing. IEEE Workshop on Power Electronics and Intelligent Transportation System: 291–295.Google Scholar
  56. Zako, Reem. 2006. The power of the veil: Gender inequality in the domestic setting of traditional courtyard houses. Pp. 65–75 in Courtyard Housing: Past, Present and Future, Brian Edwards, Magdo Sibley, Mohamad Hakmi and Peter Land, eds. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Built EnvironmentUniversity of Newcastle School of Architecture and Built EnvironmentCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations