Recently there has been a revival of interest in visibility analysis of architectural configurations. The new analyses rely heavily on computing power and statistical analysis, two factors which, according to the postpositivist school of geography, should immediately cause us to be wary. The danger, they would suggest, is in the application of a reductionist formal mathematical description in order to ‘explain’ multilayered sociospatial phenomena. The author presents an attempt to rationalise how we can use visibility analysis to explore architecture in this multilayered context by considering the dynamics that lead to the visual experience. In particular, it is recommended that we assess the visual process of inhabitation, rather than assess the visibility in vacuo. In order to investigate the possibilities and limitations of the methodology, an urban environment is analysed by means of an agent-based model of visual actors within the configuration. The results obtained from the model are compared with actual pedestrian movement and other analytic measurements of the area: the agents correlate well both with human movement patterns and with configurational relationship as analysed by space-syntax methods. The application of both methods in combination improves on the correlation with observed movement of either, which in turn implies that an understanding of both the process of inhabitation and the principles of configuration may play a crucial role in determining the social usage of space.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmidonE LEisnerG H, 1968, “Delineating landscape view areas: A computer approach”, RN PSW-180, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
2.
BattyM, 2000, “Less is more, more is different: Complexity, morphology, cities, and emergence”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27167–168
3.
BattyM, 2001, “Exploring isovist fields: Space and shape in architectural and urban morphology”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28123–150
4.
BattyMJiangB, 1999, “Multi-agent simulation: New approaches to exploring space–time dynamics within GIS”, WP 10, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London
5.
BenediktM L, 1979, “To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design647–65
6.
BenediktM L, 1997, “Paths, people, and purposes, by Philip Thiel”ARCADE: The Journal for Architecture and Design in the Northwest15(4) 14
7.
BenediktM LBurnhamC A, 1985, “Perceiving architectural space: From optic rays to isovists”, in Persistence and Change Eds WarrenW HShawR E (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London) pp 103–114
8.
BootsBShiodeN, 2003, “Recursive Voronoi diagrams”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30113–124
BrooksR A, 1991, “Intelligence without representation”Artificial Intelligence47139–159
11.
ConroyR A, 2001Spatial Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environments PhD thesis, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, London
12.
DaleKCollettT S, 2001, “Using artificial evolution and selection to model insect navigation”Current Biology111305–1316
13.
DaltonN, 2001, “Fractional configurational analysis and a solution to the Manhattan problem”, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space SyntaxGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, pp 26.1–26.13
14.
DavisL SBenediktM L, 1979, “Computational models of space: Isovists and isovist fields”Computer Graphics and Image Processing11(3) 49–72
15.
De FlorianiLMarzanoPPuppoE, 1994, “Line-of-sight communication on terrain models”International Journal of Geographical Information Systems8329–342
16.
DesyllasJDuxburyE, 2001, “Axial maps and visibility graph analysis”, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space SyntaxGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, pp 27.1–27.13
17.
FisherP F, 1991, “First experiments in viewshed uncertainty: The accuracy of the view-shed area”Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing571321–1327
18.
FisherP F, 1995, “An exploration of probable viewsheds in landscape planning”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design22527–546
19.
Fisher-GewirtzmanDWagnerI A, 2002, “Spatial openness as a practical metric for evaluating built-up environments”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3037–49
20.
GibsonJ J, 1950The Perception of the Visual World (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA)
HansonJ, 1994, “‘Deconstructing’ architects' houses”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design21675–704
23.
HarveyD, 1973Social Justice and the City (Edward Arnold, London)
24.
HarveyIHusbandsPCliffDThompsonAJakobiN, 1997, “Evolutionary robotics: The Sussex approach”Robotics and Autonomous Systems20205–224
25.
HillierB, 1996Space is the Machine (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
26.
HillierBHansonJ, 1984The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
27.
HillierBPennAHansonJGrajewskiTXuJ, 1993, “Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2029–66
28.
JiangBClaramuntC, 2002, “Integration of space syntax into GIS: New perspectives for urban morphology”Transactions in GIS295–309
29.
KrügerM J T, 1979, “An approach to built-form connectivity at an urban scale: System description and its representation”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design667–88
30.
KuipersB, 2000, “The spatial semantic hierarchy”Artificial Intelligence119191–233
31.
LeeJStuckyD, 1998, “On applying viewshed analysis for determining least-cost paths on digital elevation models”International Journal of Geographical Information Systems12891–905
32.
LloberaM, 1996, “Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology”Antiquity70612–622
33.
LynchK, 1960The Image of the City (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
34.
LynchK, 1976Managing the Sense of Region (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
35.
MarchLSteadmanP, 1971The Geometry of Environment (Methuen, London)
36.
MaturanaH RVarelaF J, 1980Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (D Reidel, Dordrecht)
37.
MaturanaH RVarelaF J, 1987The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding (Shambhala Publications, Boston, MA)
38.
OreskesNShrader-FrechetteKBelitzK, 1994, “Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences”Science263641–646
39.
O'RourkeJ, 1987Art Gallery Theorems and Algorithms (Oxford University Press, New York)
40.
PennA, 2001, “Space syntax and spatial cognition, or why the axial line?”, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space SyntaxGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, pp 11.1–11.16
41.
PennADaltonN, 1994, “The architecture of society: Stochastic simulation of urban movement”, in Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena Eds GilbertNDoranJ (UCL Press, London) pp 85–125
42.
PennATurnerA, 2002, “Space syntax based agent models”, in Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics Eds SchreckenbergMSharmaS (Springer, Heidelberg) pp 99–114
43.
PennAConroyRDaltonNDekkerLMottramCTurnerA, 1997, “Intelligent architecture: New tools for the three dimensional analysis of space and built form”, in Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Space SyntaxUniversity College London, London, pp 30.1–30.19
44.
PeponisJWinemanJRashidMKimHong SBafnaS, 1997, “On the description of shape and spatial configuration inside buildings: Convex partitions and their local properties”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24761–781
45.
RanaSMorelyJ, 2002, “Surface networks”, WP 42, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Architecture, University College London, London
46.
RattiC, 2002Urban Analysis for Environmental Prediction PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
47.
SojaE, 2001, “In different spaces”, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space SyntaxGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, pp s1.1–-s1.7
48.
Space Syntax Laboratory, 1996, “Baltic House: Preliminary report”, technical report, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, London
49.
TellerJ, 2003, “A spherical metric for the field-oriented analysis of complex urban open spaces”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30339–356
50.
ThielP, 1961, “A sequence experience notation for architectural and urban space”Town Planning Review3233–52
51.
ThielP, 1998, “People, Paths, and Purposes: Notations for a Participatory Envirotecture” (University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA)
TurnerA, 2001, “Angular analysis”, in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space SyntaxGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, pp 30.1–30.11
54.
TurnerAPennA, 1999, “Making isovists syntatic: Isovist integration analysis”, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Space Syntax Volume IIIUniversidad de Brasil, Brasilia, Brazil, 01.01 to 01.09, http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uktformat/research/vga/isss.pdf
55.
TurnerAPennA, 2002, “Encoding natural movement as an agent-based system: An investigation into human pedestrian behaviour in the built environment”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design29473–490
56.
TurnerADoxaMO'SullivanDPennA, 2001, “From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28103–121
57.
University College London, 2000, “A system and method for intelligent modelling of public spaces”, International Patent Application PCT/GB01/03763, European Patent Office, filed 2000
58.
WheelerM, 1996, “From robots to Rothko: The bringing forth of worlds”, in The Philosophy of Artificial Life Ed. BodenM A (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 209–236
