2015
DOI: 10.1057/udi.2015.21
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
26
0
5

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
3
26
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, this method can identify the physical and relational properties of space. However, it analyzes an organically growing city not as a transforming entity, but with static, deterministic, and linear perspectives that are unable to address the impact of locations with temporalized and dynamic activities [41]. Thus, in this study, the space syntax method was utilized only for a patchwork to analyze social phenomena in the city.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, this method can identify the physical and relational properties of space. However, it analyzes an organically growing city not as a transforming entity, but with static, deterministic, and linear perspectives that are unable to address the impact of locations with temporalized and dynamic activities [41]. Thus, in this study, the space syntax method was utilized only for a patchwork to analyze social phenomena in the city.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The visibility, accessibility, and interconnectedness of these boundaries (space syntax) (Steen & Markhede, ) contribute to the level of architectural privacy afforded. Specifically, physical (and symbolic) boundaries that users perceive and encounter in a setting and how they occupy and move through space (Bafna, ; see also Netto, ) affect individual and group privacy.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Th e visibility, accessibility, and interconnectedness of these boundaries (space syntax) (Steen & Markhede, 2010 ) contribute to the level of architectural privacy aff orded. Specifi cally, physical (and symbolic) boundaries that users perceive and encounter in a setting and how they occupy and move through space (Bafna, 2003 ; see also Netto, 2016 ) aff ect individual and group privacy. In addition to visual fi elds, boundaries also prompt a sensory response to a range of environmental information about tactile, olfactory, and acoustical stimuli that support or impede privacy for workers.…”
Section: Environmental Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attempts to embed the temporal process in theorisations and methodologies for the study of cities' transformations requires an understanding of the structuration of space in time. Such attempts are discussed in theoretical and methodological debates (Baker 2003;Griffiths 2011;Netto 2016) and do exists in empirical studies (Griffiths 2009;Al-Sayed et al 2012;Charalambous & Geddes 2015), but remain limited and are still not fully developed and exploited.…”
Section: Scope Of the Projectmentioning
confidence: 99%