A configurational theory of architecture (CTA) from a situated observer's viewpoint (SOV) is discussed. It includes the levels of description, representation, and interpretation and takes a bottom-up approach because a situated observer, who is on the ground with a building, typically builds his or her understanding of the building using immediately available elements, called perceptual primitives. Evidence from geometry, psychology or cognition, and spatial reasoning suggests that the level of description of a CTA from a SOV must include unambiguously defined perceptual primitives and their perceivable elementary topological and projective relations. Subsequently, in the levels of representation and interpretation any complex relational properties of buildings must be constructed and their meanings must be explained using these perceptual primitives. Early space syntax (SS), with its foundations defined using such perceptual primitives as convex space and axial lines, helps capture the structure of visual experience of buildings but has limitations regarding a CTA from a SOV. More recently, SS theorists have revised the foundations of SS using much simpler perceptual primitives in an attempt to integrate the apparently disparate techniques of SS into a coherent mathematical system. As a result, they have eliminated many limitations of early SS regarding a CTA from a SOV. However, in order to become a CTA from a SOV, SS will still need to explain the importance of these newly defined perceptual primitives, and provide a framework for configurational studies using the mathematical system developed using these primitives.
BattyM, 2001, “Exploring isovist fields: Space and shape in architectural and urban morphology”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28123–150
2.
BattyMRanaS, 2004, “The automatic definition and generation of axial lines and axial maps”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31615–640
3.
BenediktM L, 1979, “To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields”Environment and Planning B647–65
4.
DaltonConroy R, 2003, “The secret is to follow your nose: Route path selection and angularity”Environment and Behavior35107–131
5.
DaltonConroy RHölscherCTurnerA (Eds), 2007Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition, Proceedings of the Workshop held in Bremen, 24th September 2006 SFB/TR 8 Volume 2 (Universität Bremen, Bremen)
6.
DaltonR A, 2001Spatial Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environments unpublished PhD thesis, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College, London
EvansG WSmithCPezdekK, 1982, “Cognitive maps and urban form”Journal of the American Planning Association48232–244
9.
FigueiredoLAmorimL, 2005, “Continuity lines in the axial system”, in Proceedings of the Fifth Space Syntax International Symposium (Delft University of Technology, Delft) pp 162–174
10.
FranzGWienerJ M, 2008, “From space syntax to semantics: A behaviorally and perceptually oriented methodology for the efficient description of the geometry and topology of environments”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35574–592
11.
FranzGMallotH AWienerJ M, 2005, “Graph-based models of space in architecture and cognitive science—a comparative analysis”, in Proceedings of INTERSYMP-2005, International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, Windsor, http://www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary; doi:10.1.1.84.6541
12.
FranzM OStürzlWHübnerWMallotHA, 2008, “A robot system for biomimetic navigation—from snapshots to metric embeddings of view graphs”Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics38297–314
13.
GarsoffkyBSchwanSHesseF W, 2002, “Viewpoint dependency in the recognition of dynamic scenes”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition281035–1050
14.
GrossC GGrazianoM S A, 1995, “Multiple representations of space in the brain”The Neuroscientist143–50
15.
HansonJ, 1989, “Order and structure in urban design: The plans for the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire of 1666”Ekistics334–522–44
16.
HansonJ, 1994, “Deconstructing architects' houses”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design21675–704
17.
HaqS, 2003, “Investigating the syntax line: Configurational properties and cognitive correlates”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30841–863
18.
HillierB, 1996Space is the Machine (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
19.
HillierB, 2007a, “Studying cities to learn about minds: How geometric intuitions shape urban space and make it work,” in Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition, Proceedings of the Workshop held in Bremen, 24th September 2006 Eds DaltonConroy RHölscherCTurnerA, SFB/TR 8, volume 2 (Universität Bremen, Bremen) pp 11–33
20.
HillierB, 2007bSpace is the Machine (Space Syntax, London)
21.
HillierBHansonJ, 1984The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
22.
HillierBIidaS, 2005, “Network effects and psychological effects: A theory of urban movement”, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Space Syntaxvolume I, Ed. van NesA (TU Delft, Delft) pp 553–564
23.
HillierBBurdettRPeponisJPennA, 1987, “Creating life: Or does architecture determine anything?”Architecture et Compartement/Architecture and Behaviour3233–250
24.
HillierBPennAHansonJGrajewskiTXuJ, 1993, “Natural movement; or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2029–66
25.
HochbergJ, 1983, “Visual perception in architecture”VIA626–45
26.
HochmairHFrankA U, 2002, “Influence of estimation errors on wayfinding-decisions in unknown street networks—analyzing the least-angle strategy”Spatial Cognition and Computation2283–313
27.
KimY OPennA, 2004, “Linking the spatial syntax of cognitive maps to the spatial syntax of the environment”Environment and Behavior36483–504
28.
KleinF, 1893, “Verglecheinde Betrachtungenüber neuere geometrischen Forschungen” [A comparative review of recent researches in geometry]Bulletin of the New York Mathematical Society2215–249
29.
KritchevshyM, 1988, “The elementary spatial functions of the brain”, in Spatial Cognition: Brain Bases and Development Eds Stiles-DavisJKritchevskyMBellugiU (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 111–140
KuipersB, 2000, “The spatial semantic hierarchy”Artificial Intelligence119191–233
32.
KuipersB, 2008, “An intellectual history of the spatial semantic hierarchy”Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics38243–264
33.
KuipersBTecuciDStankiewiczB J, 2003, “The skeleton in the cognitive map: A computational and empirical exploration”Environment and Behavior3581–106
34.
KuipersBModayilJBeesonPMacMahonMSavelliF, 2004, “Local metrical and global topological maps in the hybrid spatial semantic hierarchy”, in ICRA 2004. IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA) pp 4845–4851
35.
LieblichIArbibM A, 1982, “Multiple representations of space underlying behavior”The Behavioral and Brain Sciences5627–659
36.
LynchK, 1960The Image of the City (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
37.
MallotH AGillnerS, 2000, “Route navigation without place recognition: What is recognized in recognition-triggered responses?”Perception2943–55
38.
MarchLSteadmanP, 1971The Geometry of Environment (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
39.
MeilingerTFranzGBülthoffH H, 2009, “From isovists via mental representations to behavior: First steps toward closing the causal chain”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design3948–62
40.
MontelloD R, 1991, “Spatial orientation and the angularity of urban routes: A field study,”Environment and Behavior2347–69
41.
MooreG T, 1979, “Knowing about environmental knowing: The current state of theory and research on environmental cognition”Environment and Behavior1133–70
42.
O'KeefeJNadelL, 1974, “Maps in the brain”New Scientist62749–751
43.
O'KeefeJNadelL, 1978The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map (Clarendon, Oxford)
44.
O'ReganJ K, 1992, “Solving the ‘real’ mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory”Canadian Journal of Psychology46461–488
45.
PennA, 2003, “Space syntax and spatial cognition, or why the axial line?”Environment and Behavior3530–65
46.
PennADaltonN, 1994, “The architecture of society: Stochastic simulation of urban movement”, in Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena Eds GilbertNDoranN (UCL Press, London) pp 85–125
47.
PeponisJ, 1993a, “The architectural configuration of lyric form at La Tourette”Ekistics60237–252
48.
PeponisJ, 1993b, “Evaluation and formulation in design: The implications of morphological theories of function”Nordisk Architekturforsking6(2) 53–62
49.
PeponisJWinemanJ, 2002, “Spatial structure of environment and behavior”, in Handbook of Environmental Psychology Eds BechtelR BChurchmanA (John Wiley, New York) pp 271–291
50.
PeponisJZimringCChoiY K, 1990, “Finding the building in the wayfinding”Environment and Behavior22555–590
51.
PeponisJWinemanJRashidMKimS HBafnaS, 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
52.
PeponisJWinemanJBafnaSRashidMKimS H, 1998a, “On the generation of linear representations of spatial configuration”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25559–576
53.
PeponisJWinemanJRashidMBafnaSKimS H, 1998b, “Describing plan configuration according to the covisibility of surfaces”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25693–708
54.
PeponisJBafnaSZhangZ, 2008, “The connectivity of streets: Reach and directional distance”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35881–901
55.
PiagetJ, 1969The Mechanisms of Perception translated by SeagrimG N (Basic Books, New York)
56.
PiagetJ, 1970Psychology and Epistemology (Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middx)
57.
PiagetJInhelderB, 1967The Child's Conception of Space translated by LangdonF JLunzerJ L (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London)
58.
PickH L, 1976, “Transactional—constructivist approach to environmental knowing: A commentary”, in Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research, and Methods Eds MooreG TGollegeR G (Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA) pp 165–173
59.
PsarraS, 2009Architecture and Narrative (Routledge, New York)
60.
PylyshynZ, 1999, “Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception”Behavioral and Brain Sciences22341–423
61.
RashidM, 1998On the Configurational Studies of Building Plans from the Viewpoint of a Situated Observer: A Partial Theory of Configuration for Plans Not Involving Curves PhD Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
62.
RashidM, 2011, “Mutual visibility of point in building plans”Journal of Architecture16231–266
63.
RashidM, 2012, “Shape-sensitive configurational descriptions of building plans”International Journal of Architectural Computing10(1) 33–52
64.
RattiC, 2004, “Space syntax: Some inconsistencies”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31487–499
65.
RemolinaEKuipersB, 2004, “Towards a general theory of topological maps”Artificial Intelligence15247–104
66.
SadallaE KMontelloD R, 1989, “Remembering changes in direction”Environment and Behavior21346–363
67.
TurnerA, 2007a, “From axial to road-centre lines: A new representation for space syntax and a new model of route choice for transport network analysis”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design34539–555
68.
TurnerA, 2007b, “The ingredients of an exosomatic cognitive map: Isovists, agents and axial lines?”, in Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition, Proceedings of the Workshop held in Bremen, 24th September 2006 SFB/TR 8 volume 2, Eds DaltonConroy RHölscherCTurnerA (Universität Bremen, Bremen) pp 163–180
69.
TurnerADoxaMO'SullivanDPennA, 2001, “From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28103–121
70.
TurnerAPennAHillierB, 2005, “An algorithmic definition of the axial map”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32425–444
71.
TverskyB, 2000, “Levels and structure of cognitive mapping”, in Cognitive Mapping: Past, Present and Future Eds KitchinRFreundschuhS M (Routledge, London) pp 24–43
72.
TverskyB, 2003, “Structures of mental spaces: How people think about space”Environment and Behavior3566–80
73.
ZimringCDaltonConroy R, 2003, “Linking objective measures of space to cognition and action”Environment and Behavior353–16
