查看文章

Since the beginning there has been a strong and pervasive emphasis within space syntax on description. In a not so often referred to text (Hillier et al 1984a) this is put quite straightforward:“For the architectural researcher, the question ought to be crystallised as his or her most pressing concern, since how can any investigation be truly systematic unless the architectural variable can be controlled?” It might sound self-evident to researchers within most disciplines but within architecture the subject of description is often treated without the necessary scientific care. From the beginning there has also been a strong conviction that architecture needs to be described and studied in its concrete manifestations, that is as architectural physical form rather than as architectural ideas, hence the residence of space syntax in architectural and urban morphology rather than architectural history and theory. It also seems likely that this development of form-studies within architectural research can contribute much to other disciplines.

One such discipline that could gain from architectural research of this kind is geography and transportation science with its wide range of subdisciplines, where the field of accessibility research is the one that comes closest to space syntax. As a matter of fact, from within this field space syntax is likely to be regarded as nothing else than a special case of accessibility, for example:“[…] space syntax which we consider a special case of accessibility within graphs”(Batty 2004a). In a simplistic sense the difference between space syntax and accessibility research in general has to do with scale, where accessibility research to the most part …