Advertisement

Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 63–81 | Cite as

Differentiating between Line and Point Maps Using Spatial Experience: Considering Richard Neutra’s Lovell House

Research

Abstract

Space Syntax researchers have demonstrated methods for mapping and analysing zones (rooms) and lines (paths) in plans. One Space Syntax technique that is rarely used is focussed on the mapping of points (intersections) in architectural plans, and is an inversion of a more common approach to the mapping of lines (paths) in plans. From a graph theory perspective, the former point map is a dual of the latter, primal line map; meaning the two are numerically comparable. In this paper such a comparison is used to investigate if there is any difference between the capacity of line and point maps to suggest the spatial experience of the individual. The case study chosen to develop such a comparative analysis is Richard Neutra's Lovell House. This design is mapped, using both line and point techniques, and mathematically analysed to determine the socially significant paths and intersections. A selected investigation of the intelligibility implications of these lines and points along with their three-dimensional properties is then developed. The paper concludes that there is some evidence that, for point and line maps with similar mathematical properties, point maps are more successful at suggesting the experiential qualities of space.

Keywords

Space syntax axial line analysis intersection analysis graph mathematics Richard Neutra Lovell House 

References

  1. Aspinall, Peter. 1993. Aspects of Spatial Experience and Structure. Pp. 334-341 in Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought, Ben Farmer, Hentie Louw, eds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Batty, Michael. 2004. A New Theory of Space Syntax. London: University College London.Google Scholar
  3. Batty, Michael, and Rui Carvalho. 2003. A Rigorous Definition of Axial Lines: Ridges on Isovist Fields. London: University College London.Google Scholar
  4. Benedikt Michael. (1979) To take hold of space: isovists and isovist view fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 6(1): 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedikt, Michael and Clarke. A. Burnham. 1985, Perceiving Architectural Space: From Optic Arrays to Isovists. pp. 103-114. in Persistence and Change, First International Conference on Event Perception, L. W. H. Warren and R. E. Shaw eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Boesiger, Willy. 1964. Richard Neutra 1923-50. New York: Frederick A. Praeger Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Conroy, Ruth. 2001. Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. Ph.D. Dissertation, London: University of London.Google Scholar
  8. Dawes, Michael and Michael J. Ostwald. 2011. Lines of Sight, Paths of Socialization: An Axial Line Analysis of Five Domestic Designs by Richard Neutra. The International Journal of the Constructed Environment 1, 4: 1-28.Google Scholar
  9. Desyllas, Jake. 2000. The relationship between urban street configuration and office rent patterns in Berlin. London: University College London.Google Scholar
  10. Dovey, Kim. 1993. Putting Geometry in its Place: Toward a Phenomenology of the Design Process. Pp. 246-250 in Dwelling, Seeing and Designing. David Seamon ed. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ellard, Colin. 2009. You Are Here. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen Walter G. (1959) How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25(2): 73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanson Julienne (1998) Decoding Homes and Houses. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Haq, Saif and Sara GIROTTO. 2003. Ability and Intelligibility: Wayfinding and Environmental Cognition in the Designed Environment. Pp. 68.61-68.20 in Proceedings 4th International Space Syntax Symposium. London.Google Scholar
  15. Hillier Bill. (1996) Space is the machine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillier Bill., Richard BRUDETT., John PEPONIS., Alan PENN. (1987) Creating Life: or does architecture determine anything?. Architecture & Behaviour 3(3): 233–250Google Scholar
  17. Hillier Bill., Julienne Hanson. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillier Bill., Alan PENN. (2004) Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31(4): 501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillier, Bill and Simon SHU. 2000. Crime and Urban Layout: The need for evidence. Pp. 224- 248 in Secure Foundations: Key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety. S. Ballintyne, P. K. Pease and V. McLaren. eds. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  20. HINES, Thomas S. 2009. Richard Neutra and the Search for Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  21. Jiang Bin., Christophe Claramunt. (2002) Integration of space syntax into GIS: New Perspectives for Urban Morphology. Transactions in GIS 6(3): 295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang Bin., Christophe Claramunt. 2004. Topological analysis of urban street networks. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31, 1: 151-162.Google Scholar
  23. Kansky, K J. 1963. Structure of Transportation Networks: Relationships Between Network Geometry and Regional Characteristics. Ph.D. Dissertation, Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  24. Lovell, Phillip. 1929. Care of the body. Los Angeles, Sunday Times Magazine. Los Angeles. December 15: 26.Google Scholar
  25. March, Lionel and Phillip Steadman. 1971. The Geometry of Environment. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  26. McCoy, Esther. 1960. Richard Neutra. New York: George Braziller Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Montello, Daniel R. 1998. A New Framework for Understanding the Acquisition of Spatial Knowledge in Large-scale Environments. pp. 143-154. in Spatial and Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Information Systems. M. J. Egenhofer, R. G. Golledge. eds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Montello, Daniel R. 2003. Regions in Geography: Process and Content. Pp. 173-189 in Foundations of Geographic Information Science. M. Duckham, M.F. Goodchild, M.F. Worboys. eds. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Montello, Daniel R. 2007. The contribution of space syntax to a comprehensive theory of environmental psychology. Pp. iv01-iv12 in Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  30. Neutra, Richard. 1956. Life and Human Habitat. Stuttgart: Mensch und Wohnen.Google Scholar
  31. O'Gorman, James. 2007. Neff and Neutra: regionalism versus Internationalism. Pp 214-224 in Architectural Regionalism : Collected Writings on Place, Identity, Modernity, and Tradition, V. B. Canizaro, ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ostwald, Michael J. 2011. The Mathematics of Spatial Configuration: Revisiting, Revising and Critiquing Justified Plan Graph Theory. Nexus Network Journal 13, 2 (Summer 2011): 445- 470.Google Scholar
  33. Ostwald Michael J, Michael Dawes. (2011) Axial Line Analysis Revisited: Reconsidering its Value for Architecture. The International Journal of the Constructed Environment 1(3): 219–242Google Scholar
  34. Pallasmaa, Juhani. 1996. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Penn Alan. (2003) Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition. Or why the Axial Line? Environment and Behavior 35: 30–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peponis, John and Jean Wineman 2002. Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior. pp. 271-291. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. R. Bechtel and A. Churchman eds. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Peponis John, Jean Wineman, Mahbub Rashid, Sonit Bafna, Kim H.S. (1998) Describing plan configuration according to the covisibility of surfaces. Planning and design 25(5): 693–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peponis John, Jean Wineman, Mahbub Rashid, Sonit Bafna, Kim H.S. 1997. On the Generation of Linear Representations of Spatial Configuration. Pp. 41.01-41.18 in Proceedings of the First Space Syntax International Symposium. London.Google Scholar
  39. Porta Sergio, Paolo Crucitti, Latora Vito. (2006) The network analysis of urban streets: A dual approach. Physica 369(2): 853–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Porta Sergio, Paolo Crucitti, Latora Vito. The network analysis of urban streets: A primal approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 33, 5: 705-725.Google Scholar
  41. RASHID, Mahbub, Jean Wineman and Craig Zimring. 2009. Space behavior and environmental perception in open plan offices: a prospective study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36, 3: 432-449.Google Scholar
  42. Ratti, Carlo. 2004a. Urban texture and space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31, 4: 487-499.Google Scholar
  43. Ratti, Carlo.. 2004b. Rejoinder to Hillier and Penn. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31, 4: 513-516.Google Scholar
  44. READ Stephen. (1999) Space syntax and the Dutch city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26(2): 251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sack, Manfred. 1992. Richard Neutra. Zurich, Artemis Verlags AG.Google Scholar
  46. Seppanen, Jouku, andJames M. MOORE. 1970. Facilities Planning with Graph Theory. Management Science 17, 4: 242-253.Google Scholar
  47. Steadman, Phillip. 1983. Architectural Morphology: An Introduction to the Geometry of Building Plans. London: Pion Limited.Google Scholar
  48. Taaffe, Edward James, Howard L. GAUTHIER and Morton E. O’KELLY. 1973. Geography of Transportation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  49. Thiis-Evensen, Thomas. 1987. Archetypes in Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Turner, Alasdair. 2005. Could A Road Centre Line Be An Axial Line In Disguise. Pp. 149-159 in Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium. Delft.Google Scholar
  51. Turner, Alasdair. 2007. From axial to road-centre lines: a new representation for space syntax and a new model of route choice for transportation network analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34, 3: 539-555.Google Scholar
  52. TURNER Alasdair., Maria DOXA., David O’SULLIVAN., Alan PENN. (2001) From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28(1): 103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner Alasdair., Alan Penn., Bill Hillier. (2005) An algorythmic definition of the axial map. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32(3): 425–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ueno, Jumpei, Aya Nakazawa and Tatsuya Kishimoto. 2009. An Analysis of Pedestrian Movement in Multilevel Complex by Space Syntax Theory. Pp. 118.1-118.12 in Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  55. Wilson, Alan G. 1970. Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  56. Yoon, Chaeshin. 2009. Alternative Geometry for Space Syntax. Pp. 133:1-133:12 in Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture and Built EnvironmentThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations