主题：using depthmap analysis?  how it can guide in designing?（depthmap分析如何指导设计?）

Maliha 的问题：

My project although is an exploration to see how i can use space syntax theories, to build a concept. and then more tangibly, use Depthmap to analyze and help in the design process. So far my reading on design methods by Bryan Lawson has taught me that design is process in which problems and solutions emerge together. So in my project that I am working on right now, It works quite the same way. It is indeed a back and forth process, where i make changes to the build intuitively and then take the result into Depthmap to analyse. I hope to produce a good project finally, and also in whatever little way contribute to the wide research going on in the field of Space Syntax..

我的项目是探索如何运用空间句法理论来构建一个概念。然后更具体地说，使用Depthmap在设计过程中进行分析和帮助。到目前为止，我对布莱恩·劳森（Bryan Lawson）的设计方法的阅读教会了我，设计是一个问题和解决方案同时出现的过程。所以在我现在正在做的项目中，它的工作方式是完全相同的。这确实是一个来回的过程，我直观地对构建进行更改，然后将结果放入Depthmap进行分析。我希望最终能产生一个好的项目，也希望能为空间语法领域正在进行的广泛研究做出贡献。

Daniel Koch的回答：

This does point to an interesting question. I would, however,claim that space syntax as _theory_ has a lot to contribute to design, also in the "generative phase", while the specific softwares may have less.

这确实指向了一个有趣的问题。然而，我认为空间语法作为“理论”对设计有很大的贡献，同样是在“生成阶段”，而具体的软件可能贡献较少。

First, the generative phase is inherently analytic, just as the analytic phase is inherently generative (the first performs site and problem analysis indirectly by suggesting solutions (Sanford Anderson, Lundequist, etc.) that indirectly prioritize the issues and show what might be, the second because your future generative solutions will depend on your analytic focus, method, and techniques (see Châtelet for graphs, or Kenneth Knoespel regarding space syntax specifically). This means that what we set out to solve and what means we have at our hands are important in the generative phase no matter how free we might wish to think us to be (although one can argue that there is no "right" prioritisation, it is always there). Intuitive design work isn't "free" in the ideal sense, but dependent on [a lot of things including experience,knowledge, values, and perceptions].

首先，生成阶段本质上是分析阶段，正如分析阶段本质上是生成阶段一样（第一阶段通过建议解决方案（Sanford Anderson、Lundequist等）间接执行站点和问题分析，间接确定问题的优先级，并显示可能存在的问题，第二个原因是，您未来的生成性解决方案将取决于您的分析重点、方法和技术（关于图形，请参见Chátelet，关于空间语法，请参见Kenneth Knoespel）。这意味着，无论我们希望自己多么自由，我们着手解决的问题和手中掌握的手段在生成阶段都是重要的（尽管有人会说没有“正确”的优先顺序，但它总是存在的）。直观的设计工作不是理想意义上的“免费”，而是依赖于[很多东西，包括经验、知识、价值观和感知]。

Second, if we extract the theoretical configurative and performative knowledge space syntax has generated it can participate in generative phases, and contirbute to them, as one part, and to focus on certain questions. Things like distances,centrality, periphery, separation, connection, series, narratives and so on can from many points of view be worked with via space syntax thinking. Unfortunately, this tends to require a deeper understanding of the theory than much analytic work, since it requires transformation of analytic models to principles or factors of design work. (One could discuss this as early-stage shifts between generative and predictive phases, but this misses the point)

第二，如果我们提取语法所生成的理论构形知识空间和行为知识空间，它就可以参与生成阶段，并将它们作为一个部分延续下去，并关注某些问题。从许多角度来看，诸如距离、中心性、外围性、分离性、连接性、系列性、叙述性等都可以通过空间句法思维来处理。不幸的是，这往往需要比许多分析工作更深入的理论理解，因为它需要将分析模型转换为设计工作的原则或因素。（人们可以将此作为生成阶段和预测阶段之间的早期转换来讨论，但这没有抓住要点）

Eisenman could be used as an example of someone successfully using theoretical frameworks to guide generation of architecture. One could argue that his geometrical rulesets have no foundation, but they still _work in the generative phase_. Similarly, space syntax could. But this is still touching on the surface of how theory contributes in generative stages of design. Let's stick to it for a moment, though: For instance when you are working with spatial distributions in your designs (which is what you do as an architect, to a large degrees), there are SPS models that could support your work.

艾森曼可以作为一个成功使用理论框架指导架构生成的例子。可以说，他的几何规则没有基础，但它们仍在生成阶段中工作。类似地，空间语法也可以。但这仍然触及到理论如何在设计的生成阶段做出贡献的表面。不过，让我们延申一下：例如，当您在设计中处理空间分布时（这在很大程度上是您作为架构师所做的），有一些SPS模型可以支持您的工作。

When working with strategies of spatial aggregation (adding spaces to spaces) there are excellent chapters in the Social Logig of Space for how simple social conditions can lead to complex aggregated forms. Further reading could be on emergence (Like Steven Johnsons "Emergence"), and emergent design. When working with strategies of spatial subdivision you could look at "the laws of the field" in Space is the Machine to get an understanding of what kind of distance- and configurative effects different kinds of solutions give. There are also papers from Istanbul (I'm sorry, I don't have the papers here now) that discuss distance-effects of various small changes of spatial systems/house plans (Ruth Conroy-Dalton and others, I think).

当使用空间聚合策略（向空间添加空间）时，在空间的社会逻辑中有很好的章节介绍了简单的社会条件如何导致复杂的聚合形式。进一步的阅读可以是关于涌现（如史蒂文·约翰逊的《涌现》）和涌现设计。在使用空间细分策略时，您可以查看“空间法则”，了解不同解决方案的距离和配置效果。伊斯坦布尔也有一些论文（很抱歉，我现在没有这些论文）讨论了空间系统/房屋平面图的各种微小变化对距离的影响（我想是露丝·康罗伊·道尔顿和其他人）。

Add to that an understanding of what creates perceived or experienced distances, centrality, movement flows and so on,_these factors can be employed in the generative phase_, but with

great care. Again, we _always_ as architect make assumptions and use what knowledge we have when designing, choosing what goesover what, and so on. The less you wish to work with emergent social performatives and/or function, the less _maybe_ space syntax can contribute.These two factors, transforming configurative ideas into operative generative tools (which to a large degree has to be done constantly and anew for each new project), and accepting the interconnection between generative and analytic phases (such as analysis by design) are key issues to understand, which are worked with in design theory and constantly happen in architectural practice. (From construction to ventilation to use to materials to sunlight to experiences to reference objects to models and ideals to values to tradition et cetera - and perhaps this points to the issue at hand, to use space syntax in early stages of design one has to find the ways in which it can work less as a technique and more similar to all the other knowledge we make use of _when we generate ideas and solutions_.) And, of course, the simple thing of giving spatial configuration higher priority in the design process due to its proved impact on performative outcomes has effects of its own on what you design.

除此之外，还要了解是什么造成了感知或体验到的距离、中心性、运动流等，这些因素可以在生成阶段使用，但需要非常小心。同样，作为架构师，我们总是做出假设，在设计时使用我们所拥有的知识，选择什么，等等。你越不希望使用紧急社会行为和功能，语法的空间就越小。这两个因素，将配置思想转化为可操作的生成工具（在很大程度上，每一个新项目都必须不断地重新进行），并接受生成阶段和分析阶段（如设计分析）之间的相互联系是需要理解的关键问题，在设计理论中使用，并且在设计实践中不断发生建筑实践。（从建筑到通风，从使用到材料，从阳光到体验，从参考对象到模型，从理想到价值观到传统等等——也许这就指向了当前的问题，在设计的早期阶段使用空间语法，我们必须找到一种方法，使其作为一种技术发挥更少的作用，而与所有其他技术更为相似我们在产生想法和解决方案时所利用的知识当然，在设计过程中给予空间配置更高的优先级是一件很简单的事情，因为它对性能结果的影响已被证明对你的设计有影响。

I'm saying this partly from my own experience in architectural design, and would suggest your could for instance begin your thinking around the j-graph and its possibilities. Then there is further leads in axial lines and isovists to how to create differentiation in depth and public/private spheres. The point remains, however that if your interest is in the earlier stages

of design then you will want to understand space syntax spatial theory rather than analytic techniques (if they can be separated, which they can).

我之所以这样说，部分是因为我自己在建筑设计方面的经验，并建议您可以开始思考j图及其可能性。然后，在轴线和等视主义者中有进一步的线索，以了解如何在深度和公共/私人领域创造差异化。然而，问题仍然是，如果你的兴趣在早期阶段。对于设计，你会想理解空间语法空间理论，而不是分析技术（如果它们可以分开，它们可以分开）。

Sophia is right, however; for this to be possible you need a wide reading and an open mind that it won't (can't and shouldn't) be the only thing you work with. I think it requires a wider reading to even be possible to make the transformation into generative ideas fruitful.

To try to sum it up: we need to figure out what parts, and how, the knowledge gathered in space syntax research can be transformed into useful intuitive knowledge in the design phase. It is possible,if we accept that intuition is by and large knowledge-based (whether that knowledge is "correct" or not), and that this phase, and the role of sps in it, will always be a matter of choice. The long mail is just to raise the issue that we shouldn't dismiss the idea of space syntax in generative phases.

Because it is already there_. And if we don't take that seriously,it might do damage, especially if it is used wrong. If we do,however, it can contribute to architectural design.There is still fairly little written on this, unfortunately, but we are hoping for more to be submitted to our theme "Architectural Research and Architectural Design" for the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. ;)

然而，索菲亚是对的；要做到这一点，你需要广泛的阅读和开放的心态，而这不是（不能也不应该）你唯一的工作。我认为它需要更广泛的阅读，甚至可能使转化为生成性思想富有成效。总结一下：我们需要弄清楚在空间语法研究中收集的知识可以在设计阶段转化为有用的直观知识的部分和方式。如果我们接受直觉基本上是以知识为基础的（无论知识是否“正确”），那么这一阶段以及SP在其中的作用将始终是一个选择问题，这是可能的。这封长邮件只是提出了一个问题，即我们不应该在生成阶段忽略空间语法的概念。

因为它已经在那里了。如果我们不认真对待，它可能会造成损害，特别是如果它被错误地使用。然而，如果我们这样做，它将有助于建筑设计。

不幸的是，关于这一点的文章还很少，但我们希望在第七届国际空间句法研讨会的主题“建筑研究和建筑设计”中提交更多

Sophia Psarra的回答

Dear Maliha,

Your problem raises serious theoretical issues regarding Space Syntax and its contribution to design. For a good theoretical discussion on these issues see the second chapter of "Space is

the Machine": "The Need for an Analytic Theory of Architecture".As Hillier argues in this chapter, there are generative theories in art and analytic theories in science. Space Syntax is useful less in the generative stages of design, where ideas should be as innovative as possible, and mainly at the predictive phases,where analytic precision is needed to predict how an innovative design can function successfully. So, Alan is right in suggesting you start using your intuition and employ Space Syntax to test your design proposals at a later stage.

For a better understanding of innovative design, see the the first chapter of "Space is the Machine": "What Architecture Adds to Building".The main core of the argument there is that

Architecture moves beyond cultural reproduction into the realm of possibility and principled understanding. The designer uses abstract comparative knowldge from a wide range of buildings and forms aiming at genotypical innovation rather than reduplication.

So, you need to explore a number of precedents and familiarize yourself with the history and theory of museum forms and museum spaces. The Space Syntax references provided by other members of this list can assist you in understanding how museums are functioning in terms of movement, visibility, and organization of content at the analytic level, but for the generative phases of your design you need some additional literature:

1. Newhouse, V., (1998), Towards A New Museum, New York: Monacelli Press

2. Newhouse, V., (2005), Art and the Power of Placement, New York: The Monacelli Press.

3. Staniszewski, M. A., (1998), The Power of Display, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Regarding ideas and inspiration associated with the generative phases of the design, these can come from a number of sources: the content to be housed in the museum, the site, the urban context, the wider cultural/political messages of the museum, landscape, etc.

Space Syntax has a role to play regarding the factors of site, landscape or urban context, and the way in which you can achieve a successful integration of your building and its main points of entry with the urban area. For an imaginative response though, you need wide reading, and an engagement with as many aspects of the design as possible (not simply the functional ones).

亲爱的玛丽亚，

您的问题提出了有关空间语法及其对设计的贡献的严重理论问题。有关这些问题的良好理论讨论，请参见“空间就是机器”的第二章：“对建筑分析理论的需求”。正如希利尔在本章中所说，艺术中有生成理论，科学中有分析理论。空间语法在设计的生成阶段用处不大，在生成阶段，创意应尽可能具有创新性，主要是在预测阶段，在预测阶段，需要分析精度来预测创新设计如何成功运作。因此，Alan正确地建议您开始使用您的直觉，并在稍后阶段使用空间语法来测试您的设计方案。

要更好地理解创新设计，请参阅“空间就是机器”的第一章：“建筑为建筑增添了什么”。争论的主要核心是，建筑超越了文化复制，进入了可能性和原则性理解的领域。设计师利用广泛的建筑和形式中的抽象比较知识，旨在进行基因型创新，而不是重复。

因此，你需要探索一些先例，熟悉博物馆形式和博物馆空间的历史和理论。此列表中其他成员提供的空间语法参考可帮助您了解博物馆在分析层面上如何在内容的移动、可见性和组织方面发挥作用，但对于设计的生成阶段，您需要一些额外的文献：

1.Newhouse，V.，（1998），朝向新博物馆，纽约：莫纳切利出版社

2.Newhouse，V.，（2005），《艺术与安置的力量》，纽约：莫纳切利出版社。

3.Staniszewski，M.A.（1998），《显示的力量》，马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社。

关于与设计生成阶段相关的想法和灵感，这些想法和灵感可以来自多个来源：博物馆内的内容、场地、城市背景、博物馆更广泛的文化/政治信息、景观等。

空间句法在场地、景观或城市环境等因素方面发挥着重要作用，以及如何实现建筑及其主要入口点与城市区域的成功整合。然而，要获得富有想象力的回应，你需要广泛阅读，并尽可能多地参与设计的各个方面（而不仅仅是功能方面）。