URBAN DESIGN International

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 25–40 | Cite as

‘What is space syntax not?’ Reflections on space syntax as sociospatial theory

  • Vinicius M Netto
Original Article

Abstract

Few approaches have been quite so polemical and have stirred quite so many different responses as space syntax. This article is not an introduction to space syntax; rather it aims to discuss its substantive reach and epistemological status. To this end I make use of one of the simplest – though not necessarily the best or easiest – ways of understanding something: namely, defining what something is not. This negative path will lead us to a series of observations concerning the nature of the theory in order to highlight, on the one hand, its main contributions, such as the emphases on social reproduction, co-presence and the embodiment of practice; its hybrid epistemology; its relational concept of space; and the reaffirmation of space as a living dimension. On the other hand, it shall discuss the limits of the theory concerning society–space relations: the reduction of social practice to movement, human interaction to social interfaces and encounter, and the actor to bodily presence; the primacy of syntax over semantics; the problem of time in the structuring of space; and the difficulties of theoretical contribution. Finally I look to discuss the theory’s place regarding distinctions between urban and sociospatial theories, and dilemmas to be faced in its future development.

Keywords

space syntax theory epistemology 

References

  1. Allen, P.M. (2012) Cities: The visible expression of co-evolving complexity. In: J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk and E. Tan (eds.) Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design. London: Springer, pp. 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, W. (1964) Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batty, M. (2004) Distance in Space Syntax. London, UK: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL). CASA Working Papers (80).Google Scholar
  4. Batty, M. (2013) The New Science of Cities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bettencourt, L.M.A. (2013) The origins of scaling in cities. Science 340 (6139): 1348–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassirer, E. ([1923] 1965) The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, V.1: Language. Yale, CT: University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chiaradia, A., Hillier, B., Schwander, C. and Barnes, Y. (2013) Compositional and urban form effects on residential property value patterns in Greater London. Urban Design and Planning 166 (3): 176–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conroy-Dalton, R. (2003) The secret is to follow your nose: Route path selection and angularity. Environment and Behavior 35 (1): 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Erickson, B. and Lloyd-Jones, T (1997) Experiments with settlement aggregation models. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24 (6): 903–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frederick, M. (2007) 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J. and Shleifer, A. (1992) Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy 100 (6): 1126–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaeser, E. (2010) The Triumph of The City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier And Happier. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  15. Griffiths, S. (2011) Temporality in Hillier and Hanson’s theory of spatial description: Some implications of historical research for space syntax. The Journal of Space Syntax 2 (1): 73–96.Google Scholar
  16. Griffiths, S. (2012) Networks, narratives and literary representation: Reflections on Julienne Hanson’s paper ‘time and space in two nineteenth century novels’ (1976). The Journal of Space Syntax 3 (1): 22–34.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hansen, W.G. (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25 (2): 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hillier, B. (1996) Space is the Machine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hillier, B. (1999) The common language of space: A way of looking at the social, economic and environmental functioning of cities on a common basis. Journal of Environmental Sciences 11 (3): 344–349.Google Scholar
  22. Hillier, B. (2002) A theory of the city as object: Or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Design International 7 (3): 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hillier, B. (2011) Is architectural form meaningless? A configurational theory of generic meaning in architecture, and its limits. The Journal of Space Syntax 2 (2): 125–153.Google Scholar
  24. Hillier, B. (2012) The genetic code for cities: Is it simpler than we think? In: J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk and E. Tan (eds.) Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design. London: Springer, pp. 67–89.Google Scholar
  25. Hillier, B. and Leaman, A. (1973) The man-environment paradigm and its paradoxes. Architectural Design 78 (8): 507–511.Google Scholar
  26. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic Of Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T. and Xu, J. (1993) Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20 (29): 29–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillier, B. and Netto, V.M. (2002) Society seen through the prism of space: Outline of a theory of society and space. Urban Design International 7 (3): 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hillier, B. and Penn, A. (2004) Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31 (4): 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holanda, F. (2000) Class footprints in the landscape. Urban Design International 5: 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holanda, F. (2010) Sociological architecture: A particular way of looking at places. The Journal of Space Syntax 1 (2): 337–355.Google Scholar
  32. Holanda, F. (2011) Discussion on ‘temporality in Hillier and Hanson’s theory of spatial description: Some implications of historical research for space syntax’, by Sam Griffiths. The Journal of Space Syntax 2 (1): 282–286.Google Scholar
  33. Hölscher, C., Conroy-Dalton, R. and Turner, A. (2007) (eds.). Space syntax and spatial cognition. Proceedings of the Workshop held in Bremen; 24 September 2006. Bremen: Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
  34. Husserl, E. ([1906] 1976) Logical Investigations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Jacobs, J. ([1961] 1993) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobs, J. (1969) The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  37. Krafta, R. (1994) Urban convergence: Morphology and attraction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23 (1): 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kruger, M. J. (1979) An approach to built-form connectivity at urban scale: System description and its representation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 6 (1): 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Luhmann, N. ([1984] 1995) Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Martin, L. and March, L. (eds.) (1972) Urban Space and Structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Massey, D. (2005) For Space. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Myrdal, G. (1957) Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  44. Narvaez, L., Penn, A. and Griffiths, S. (2014) The spatial dimensions of trade: From the geography of uses to the architecture of local economies. ITU A|Z 11 (2): 209–230.Google Scholar
  45. Netto, V.M. (2008) Practice, space, and the duality of meaning. Society and Space – Environment and Planning D 26: 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Netto, V.M. (forthcoming) The Social Fabric of Cities. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  47. Netto, V.M., Saboya, R.T., Vargas, J.C., Figueiredo, L., Freitas, C. and Pinheiro, M. (2012) The convergence of patterns in the city: (isolating) the effects of architectural morphology on movement and activity. In: M. Greene (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium. Santiago: Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar
  48. Penn, A., Hillier, B., Banister, D. and Xu, J (1998) Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25 (1): 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Penn, A. and Turner, A (2004) Movement-generated land-use agglomeration: Simulation experiments on the drivers of fine-scale land-use patterning. Urban Design International 9: 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Penn, A., Perdikogianni, I. and Mottram, C. (2009) The generation of diversity. In: R. Cooper, G. Evans and C. Boyko (eds.) Designing Sustainable Cities. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  51. Peponis, J., Lycourioti, I. and Mari, I (2002) Spatial models, design reasons and the construction of spatial meaning. Philosophica 70: 59–90.Google Scholar
  52. Peponis, J., Conroy-Dalton, R., Wineman, J. and Dalton, N. (2004) Measuring the effects of layout upon visitors’ spatial behaviors in open plan exhibition settings. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31 (3): 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peponis, J., Bafna, S., Dahabrehb, S. and Doganb, F. (2015) Configurational meaning and conceptual shifts in design. The Journal of Architecture 20 (2): 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Popper, K. (1972) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Portugali, J., Meyer, H., Stolk, E. and Tan, E. (eds.) (2012) Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An Overview with Implications to Urban Planning and Design. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Psarra, S. (2009) Architecture and Narrative-the Formation of Space and Cultural Meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Psarra, S. (2010) The ghost of conceived space – What kind of work does or should space syntax perform for architecture. The Journal of Space Syntax 1 (1): 17–29.Google Scholar
  58. Ratti, C. (2004a) Space syntax: Some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31 (4): 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ratti, C. (2004b) Rejoinder to Hillier and Penn. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31 (4): 512–516.Google Scholar
  60. Scott, A.J. and Storper, M. (2014) The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seamon, D. (2007) A lived hermetic of people and place: Phenomenology and space syntax. In: A. S. Kubat, O. Ertekin, Y. Guney, & E. Eyuboglu, (eds.) Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium; 12–15 June, Istanbul. Istanbul: Technical University Faculty of Architecture, Vol. I, pp. iii–1–16.Google Scholar
  62. Seamon, D. (2012) ‘A jumping, joyous urban jumble’: Jane Jacobs’s death and life of great american cities as a phenomenology of urban place. The Journal of Space Syntax 3 (1): 139–149.Google Scholar
  63. Soja, E. (2000) Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Soja, E. (2001) In different spaces. In: J. Peponis, J. Wineman and S. Bafna (eds.) Proceedings of III International Space Syntax Symposium. 7–11 May, Atlanta. Atlanta: GeorgiaTech Press.Google Scholar
  65. Turner, A., Doxa, M., O’Sullivan, D. and Penn, A. (2001) From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 (1): 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Turner, A. (2003) Analysing the visual dynamics of spatial morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30 (5): 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turner, A. (2005) Being in Space and Space in Being. Proceedings of the 5th Space Syntax Symposium. 13–17 June, Delft, The Netherlands. Delft: Techne Press, Vol. 1, pp. 57–63.Google Scholar
  68. van der Leeuw, S. and McGlade, J. (1997) Structural change and bifurcation in urban evolution: A non-linear dynamical perspective. In: J. McGlade and S. van der Leeuw (eds.) Time, Process and Structured Transformation in Archeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Vaughan, L. (ed.) (2007) The spatial syntax of urban segregation. Progress in Planning 67 (3): 199–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vaughan, L., Clark, D. C., Sahbaz, O. and Haklay, M. (2005) Space and exclusion: Does urban morphology play a part in social deprivation? Area 37 (4): 402–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vaughan, L. and Arbaci, S. (2011) The challenges of understanding urban segregation. Built Environment 37 (2): 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weber, A. (1909) Theory of The Location of Industries. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  73. Weber, M. ([1920] 1968) Economy And Society Vol.1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  74. Wheaton, W. C. (1982) Urban spatial development with durable but replaceable capital. Journal of Urban Economics 12: 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wilson, A. (2008) Urban and Regional Dynamics – 1: A Core Model. London, UK: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL). CASA Working Papers (128).Google Scholar
  76. Wittgenstein, L. ([1953] 2001) Philosophical Investigations. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vinicius M Netto
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Programme in Architecture and Urbanism, Universidade Federal Fluminense

Personalised recommendations