空間句法的過(guò)去、現(xiàn)在和未來(lái)—?jiǎng)P文·林奇紀(jì)念演講

比爾·希利爾(英) 蒂姆·斯通納 (英)

秦瀟雨 [譯]楊 滔 [校]

“空間句法的核心是試圖理解人的活動(dòng)，然后為人們?cè)O(shè)計(jì)。如果我們關(guān)注那些超越智慧計(jì)算的事情，對(duì)我們產(chǎn)生真實(shí)的影響是繁榮的生活?！?/p>

—比爾·希利爾

比爾·希利爾非常榮幸被邀請(qǐng)參加今晚的凱文·林奇紀(jì)念演講，而我也很榮幸宣讀比爾·希利爾的演講。首先，我無(wú)法在有限的時(shí)間內(nèi)窮盡比爾才華的深度與廣度。我對(duì)“天才”一詞使用謹(jǐn)慎，而我和其他許多人都相信，他是一個(gè)天才（圖1）。

我接下來(lái)的演講可能會(huì)涉及一些概念，其中每個(gè)概念都值得深入解釋和討論，我也會(huì)提到在過(guò)去40年中比爾和空間句法幫助創(chuàng)造的數(shù)百個(gè)城市規(guī)劃和建筑設(shè)計(jì)項(xiàng)目，但我希望我能描繪出比爾的個(gè)人成就。我想特別談?wù)勊龉ぷ鞯奈磥?lái)方向。未來(lái)很重要。比爾顯然不是感性的，他更愿意談?wù)撍壳罢诠ぷ鞯臇|西，或者是他還不甚了解的東西，而不是凝視過(guò)去。據(jù)我所知，他從不追求獎(jiǎng)?wù)?。得之則幸，并不功利。而且我猜想，就像任何獲得終身成就獎(jiǎng)的人一樣，他想知道為什么在他有生之年這么快就得獎(jiǎng)了。我上周末與他談話時(shí)，他解釋說(shuō)，他真正想談?wù)摰氖撬壳罢谘芯康墓ぷ?。但是，新興理論通常如此，他還不確定他是否正確。換句話說(shuō)，總是有更多的事情要做。

讓我們以他的話作為開(kāi)始，他說(shuō)過(guò)：“我們?nèi)绾卧O(shè)計(jì)城市正如我們?nèi)绾卫斫獬鞘?。理解意味著通過(guò)某種思考模型（mental model），將構(gòu)成城市的物理和空間模式與帶給人們的體驗(yàn)和影響聯(lián)系起來(lái)。這會(huì)涉及空間的思想，例如關(guān)于當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)與整個(gè)城市之間的關(guān)系；也涉及功能性思想，例如關(guān)于活躍中心和次中心的選址方法和位置。無(wú)論來(lái)源如何，我們都可以將其視為一種“結(jié)構(gòu)—功能”模型。它告訴我們，無(wú)論正誤，如果我們用特定的方式來(lái)設(shè)計(jì)城市空間，它將改變城市的體驗(yàn)和運(yùn)行方式?！?/p>

圖1 / Figure 1比爾·希利爾 / Bill Hillier來(lái)源 / Source: Space Syntax

比爾·希利爾還說(shuō)過(guò)：“凱文·林奇在科學(xué)的方向上對(duì)于這一模型問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了探討，通過(guò)讓人們描述他們所見(jiàn)的城市，揭示了5個(gè)空間和物理概念：道路（paths）、邊界（edges）、區(qū)域（districts）、節(jié)點(diǎn)（nodes）和標(biāo)志物（landmarks）。正如他所承認(rèn)的，這些概念并非彼此獨(dú)立。例如，邊界通常是區(qū)域的邊界，而節(jié)點(diǎn)是道路的交匯點(diǎn)。除了開(kāi)發(fā)利用這些相互依存的關(guān)系，無(wú)人提出通用的原則來(lái)解釋這些概念如何相互聯(lián)系從而構(gòu)造整個(gè)城市?！?/p>

“事實(shí)上，從整個(gè)城市的角度來(lái)看，城市意象中有一個(gè)妙趣橫生的命題：‘道路，組成了城市綜合體中最常見(jiàn)、最可能的活動(dòng)線路網(wǎng)絡(luò)，是城市整體賴以組織的最有效手段’[1]96。他補(bǔ)充說(shuō)，與這個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)相比，‘邊界、區(qū)域、節(jié)點(diǎn)和標(biāo)志物’是‘其他元素的設(shè)計(jì)’[1]99。城市的形態(tài)以及5個(gè)元素的相互關(guān)聯(lián)源于道路網(wǎng)絡(luò)的結(jié)構(gòu)。”

城市中道路網(wǎng)絡(luò)的優(yōu)先級(jí)與空間句法在將問(wèn)題延伸至科學(xué)方向上的嘗試，試圖通過(guò)可觀測(cè)功能而非人類的描述測(cè)度空間形式?？臻g句法理論認(rèn)為，城市被理解為空間和功能系統(tǒng)的許多關(guān)鍵概念可以從街道網(wǎng)絡(luò)的分析中推導(dǎo)出來(lái)?？臻g句法提出的“研究問(wèn)題”是：是否有正式的方法來(lái)描述城市的空間結(jié)構(gòu)，既能捕捉到其特有的空間形式，又能將它們描繪到可觀測(cè)的功能模式上，并精確測(cè)度二者之間的聯(lián)系。

事實(shí)證明，這一方法揭示了城市空間結(jié)構(gòu)與其功能之間的基本關(guān)系：在其他條件都相同的情況下，構(gòu)成城市的線呈現(xiàn)出的活動(dòng)速率的關(guān)鍵因素即是空間結(jié)構(gòu)本身，以及每條線與其他線之間如何關(guān)聯(lián)。根據(jù)城市網(wǎng)絡(luò)塑造活動(dòng)的程度，我們稱這種現(xiàn)象為自然活動(dòng)的法則。它的普遍性成為許多結(jié)構(gòu)現(xiàn)象的基礎(chǔ)，而這些結(jié)構(gòu)現(xiàn)象對(duì)于大多數(shù)城市而言都是共同的。通過(guò)這一基本法則，這一方法可以從科學(xué)的角度，從結(jié)構(gòu)—功能模型引向城市的可測(cè)度結(jié)構(gòu)—功能理論，從而幫助我們科學(xué)理解城市的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)表現(xiàn)，并且可以用作城市設(shè)計(jì)的模型。

該方法產(chǎn)生了一系列值得銘記的概念，它們總結(jié)了城市的句法結(jié)構(gòu)—功能理論，發(fā)展至今，可用以定義理論，正如林奇研究中產(chǎn)生的5個(gè)概念可用以定義城市一樣。理解這些概念才能理解空間句法?？臻g句法中有如下5個(gè)核心概念。

第一，是空間本身的描述?？梢詫⒊鞘薪值谰W(wǎng)絡(luò)的混亂和復(fù)雜性打破為離散元素，然后將其作為計(jì)算分析的主題。在大多數(shù)空間句法分析中，離散元素是一條街道路口與下一個(gè)路口之間的道路中心線。它有一定長(zhǎng)度，也有角度對(duì)準(zhǔn)（從北到南，從西到東或之間的任何角度）。它的每一端都有許多連接，如果它是一個(gè)盡頭路，它的一端可能連接為零， 另一端可能有兩三個(gè)或更多連接。它有許多不同體量和用途的建筑物在側(cè)。這些建筑物的數(shù)據(jù)可以游離于線，如同流于線上線下的服務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)一樣。

第二，也是最重要的，正如比爾所解釋的那樣，自然運(yùn)動(dòng)理論表明，更多連接的街道能被更好地利用。連接度是使用計(jì)算機(jī)算法測(cè)量的，該算法測(cè)量人們從A到B移動(dòng)時(shí)想要沿著單獨(dú)街道移動(dòng)的可能性。該算法計(jì)算所有可能的路線，不僅使用距離作為輸入，還測(cè)度路線的復(fù)雜性。這是空間句法的獨(dú)特賣點(diǎn)，大多數(shù)交通模型不包括其中的復(fù)雜性，因此，不能很好地描述真實(shí)的人類行為。那些可能會(huì)被利用得更好的街道會(huì)自動(dòng)生成為紅色，其次是橙色。較少使用的街道是綠色，然后是藍(lán)色。數(shù)十年來(lái)，幾千項(xiàng)研究已經(jīng)證明了這一概念。對(duì)我而言，這是科學(xué)中最重要的發(fā)現(xiàn)之一。

第三個(gè)概念將城市描述為運(yùn)動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)體。 換句話說(shuō)，它解釋了城市土地利用如何安排能夠在自然運(yùn)動(dòng)模式中獲利。 商店自然地移動(dòng)到連接度更好的街道上，大多數(shù)房屋移動(dòng)到小巷和后街上。

第四個(gè)概念，同步的多尺度城市為街道上的人類生活增加了基本的描述，這就是說(shuō)，在任何街道上看到的活動(dòng)都是人們?cè)诨蜷L(zhǎng)或短的距離上移動(dòng)的組合。路線長(zhǎng)短的比例可能會(huì)有所不同，但從某種程度上來(lái)說(shuō)，這種比例往往與街道連接度的高低有關(guān)。

多尺度活動(dòng)以及由此引發(fā)的人際互動(dòng)對(duì)于交易至關(guān)重要，包括社會(huì)交易和經(jīng)濟(jì)交易?，F(xiàn)代規(guī)劃的一個(gè)缺點(diǎn)是過(guò)度分割了全球和地方活動(dòng)。

第五，雙重網(wǎng)絡(luò)的概念提供了城市目的的定義。它允許我們區(qū)分主要路線的前景網(wǎng)絡(luò)和次要路線的背景網(wǎng)絡(luò)之間任何規(guī)模的活動(dòng)。這是一個(gè)非常重要的概念，在此直接引用比爾的話：“城市空間的運(yùn)行方式不止一種。前景網(wǎng)絡(luò)的構(gòu)建強(qiáng)化了活動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗鞘芪⒂^經(jīng)濟(jì)因素驅(qū)動(dòng)的，這些因素受益于高水平的活動(dòng)。而背景網(wǎng)絡(luò)限制和構(gòu)造了活動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗怯缮鐣?huì)和文化因素驅(qū)動(dòng)的，其在住宅空間結(jié)構(gòu)化方面得以體現(xiàn)?！币虼?，城市中的雙重網(wǎng)絡(luò)反映了功能和空間過(guò)程。

對(duì)于空間潛力的運(yùn)作有兩種途徑?？臻g可以被有生產(chǎn)力地用于創(chuàng)造新的活動(dòng)模式以及社會(huì)系統(tǒng)中的共存和潛在關(guān)系，亦可以被保守地表達(dá)和復(fù)制現(xiàn)有的社會(huì)模式和結(jié)構(gòu)。前者與空間整合有關(guān)，后者與空間分離有關(guān)。前景網(wǎng)絡(luò)和背景網(wǎng)絡(luò)之間的差異是更形態(tài)成因的（morphogenetic）和更保守的（conservative）空間之間的差異。 前者關(guān)注活動(dòng)創(chuàng)造的發(fā)展和變化，后者則弱化活動(dòng)以保持其原有狀態(tài)。

從某種意義上說(shuō)，這種通用結(jié)構(gòu)似乎成為了所有城市的基礎(chǔ)，于是我們得出結(jié)論：在城市的個(gè)性化和文化類型之下，有一個(gè)通用的廣普城市，它使城市成為它的本質(zhì)。所有社會(huì)在某種意義上都必然是形態(tài)成因的，以應(yīng)對(duì)不斷變化的技術(shù)和社會(huì)環(huán)境，所有社會(huì)也必須以復(fù)制其結(jié)構(gòu)的方式行事，因此空間被雙重利用。城市是生產(chǎn)變化的龐大的空間形態(tài)制造機(jī)器，被設(shè)置為保守背景以穩(wěn)定其結(jié)構(gòu)，這即是廣普城市（generic city）。我相信廣普城市的發(fā)現(xiàn)使城市社會(huì)成為可能。

因此，空間句法方法的核心是一種愿望，旨在理解并設(shè)計(jì)出蓬勃生機(jī)的城市環(huán)境和穩(wěn)定的社會(huì)環(huán)境。主要街道和城市中心的前景網(wǎng)絡(luò)中已經(jīng)產(chǎn)生了大量實(shí)踐：社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)的互動(dòng)、交易和創(chuàng)新。主要由住宅構(gòu)造的街道安靜地座落于背景網(wǎng)絡(luò)中。如果我們能夠超越聰明的計(jì)算，會(huì)意識(shí)到真正重要的是蓬勃生機(jī)。

然而，在諸多空間語(yǔ)法的呈現(xiàn)中，大量的技術(shù)分析有時(shí)會(huì)掩蓋重要的文化信息，總是呈現(xiàn)出太多的圖表以及太少的對(duì)于重要因果關(guān)系的基本陳述。我認(rèn)為這對(duì)于一個(gè)年輕的學(xué)科而言是可以理解的，空間句法試圖在懷有敵意的環(huán)境下找到自己的出路，面對(duì)每一個(gè)由建筑機(jī)構(gòu)、內(nèi)政部和交通規(guī)劃師主導(dǎo)的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)。在這種情況下，退出競(jìng)爭(zhēng)抑或使用圈內(nèi)行話要比使用大眾通用語(yǔ)言容易得多。同樣可以理解的是，在學(xué)術(shù)界，空間句法需要深?yuàn)W嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)目茖W(xué)辯論。然而，這門學(xué)科已不再處于青少年時(shí)代，而且城市的需求也不僅僅是學(xué)術(shù)。

空間句法如今已經(jīng)成熟到需要發(fā)聲。環(huán)境不再是懷有敵意的，討論空間、連接度、場(chǎng)所、人民、步行以及積極的臨街空間已經(jīng)日趨普遍。20世紀(jì)80年代和90年代一去不返，在以汽車為中心的范式仍然占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位的日益城市化的世界里，科學(xué)比以往任何時(shí)候都更需要理解全球城市化的變化步伐。

作為解釋城市的為數(shù)不多的科學(xué)工作之一，空間句法有其特殊責(zé)任?？臻g句法已經(jīng)參與了英國(guó)一些最為重要的項(xiàng)目，例如特拉法加廣場(chǎng)的重新設(shè)計(jì)（圖2）。在這個(gè)項(xiàng)目中我們解釋了為什么舊的設(shè)計(jì)不起作用。首先進(jìn)行觀察，然后建立一個(gè)空間模型來(lái)說(shuō)明人們?yōu)槭裁醋咴趶V場(chǎng)邊緣，因?yàn)檫@些路線在空間上更為方便。這一診斷讓比爾產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)創(chuàng)造性的想法：在廣場(chǎng)中心建造一個(gè)新的階梯。 我們的模型顯示這將對(duì)行人流量產(chǎn)生重大的積極影響。 比爾與諾曼·福斯特（Norman Foster）分享了他的想法，從此便眾所周知。

在我們合作過(guò)的所有建筑師中，諾曼·福斯特似乎最能理解空間句法：“我知道這些技術(shù)都是在艱苦的實(shí)踐環(huán)境中創(chuàng)造的，我喜歡分析、觀察、研究的工作，但也喜歡激情、不精確和直覺(jué)，空間句法是對(duì)這些對(duì)立世界相互作用的測(cè)試?！睂?duì)于福斯特而言，空間句法并非是將先入為主的設(shè)計(jì)思想合理化的漂亮圖譜，也并非愚弄外行的科技舞曲。相反，它是一種介于科學(xué)理性和藝術(shù)感性之間的設(shè)計(jì)工具。

我對(duì)此滿懷信心，因?yàn)檫@是我自1992年加入比爾在倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院咨詢工作以來(lái)的親眼所見(jiàn)。我們與諾曼·福斯特基金會(huì)合作開(kāi)展了這個(gè)致力于提升倫敦自行車運(yùn)力的項(xiàng)目，使倫敦每年增加了5億次的自行車出行。我們并不憤世嫉俗地將它們從街道移除，而是增設(shè)通途（圖3）。

在各項(xiàng)重大項(xiàng)目中，空間句法都毋庸置疑地被視作一種優(yōu)化設(shè)計(jì)的工具。我們做了大量的幕后工作。比如為倫敦奧運(yùn)會(huì)和殘奧會(huì)創(chuàng)造伊麗莎白女王公園（Queen Elizabeth Park）（圖4）。空間句法輔助了奧林匹克公園總體規(guī)劃的設(shè)計(jì)，從而建立這些社區(qū)與西部和東部的聯(lián)系。該公園至今仍是城市中的活躍地帶（圖5）。

在如今的倫敦，正如其他許多地方一樣，空間句法的方法正在被潛移默化地用于各種各樣的項(xiàng)目。在澳大利亞的達(dá)爾文，我們與市長(zhǎng)和她的顧問(wèn)團(tuán)隊(duì)一起工作，致力于制訂一項(xiàng)規(guī)劃，將城市中心的規(guī)模擴(kuò)大一倍，從而創(chuàng)造出以街道為基礎(chǔ)的、土地增值的新城市（圖6）。城市總體規(guī)劃通過(guò)設(shè)計(jì)工作室的方式開(kāi)展工作。在工作進(jìn)程中，空間句法模型被用于對(duì)新的想法進(jìn)行“模擬測(cè)試”。最終的總體規(guī)劃創(chuàng)造了與現(xiàn)有城市相結(jié)合的新的街道網(wǎng)絡(luò)和空間網(wǎng)絡(luò)（圖7）。該規(guī)劃使用空間句法模型進(jìn)行了分析，以確保新的城市開(kāi)發(fā)與一系列連接度較弱的街道建立強(qiáng)有力的聯(lián)系（圖8），通過(guò)這種方式建立了連接的等級(jí)結(jié)構(gòu)，以適應(yīng)不同土地用途的需求。繁忙的商業(yè)街和安靜的住宅街道，以街道網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳統(tǒng)的連接方式相互隔離。前景網(wǎng)絡(luò)和背景網(wǎng)絡(luò)從理論延伸至設(shè)計(jì)實(shí)踐（圖9）。

圖2 / Figure 2倫敦特拉法加廣場(chǎng)空間設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程Spatial design process of Trafalgar Square, London

圖3 / Figure 3SkyCycle影響城市可達(dá)性SkyCycle Impact on “urban accessibility”

圖4 / Figure 4倫敦伊麗莎白女王奧林匹克公園Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London

圖5 / Figure 5倫敦2012概念性空間規(guī)劃London 2012 Conceptual Spatial Masterplan

UrbanValue模型的構(gòu)建使用空間句法分析作為關(guān)鍵輸入（圖10）。通過(guò)該模型確定土地增值至少可達(dá)37億澳元。我們此前從未做過(guò)這樣的模型。正如我們?cè)谔乩訌V場(chǎng)所做的那樣，我們?cè)谀侵皬膩?lái)沒(méi)有做過(guò)那么精細(xì)尺度的行人活動(dòng)。 實(shí)踐中的重要一課是它引發(fā)了研究。 如果得以有效地組織，工作室可以擁有像大學(xué)一般豐富的研究環(huán)境。傳統(tǒng)學(xué)術(shù)界并非每個(gè)人都認(rèn)同或者想認(rèn)同這一點(diǎn)。但這是事實(shí)，這也是比爾與公司密切合作的原因之一。不是為了創(chuàng)收，是為了創(chuàng)造想法。

但這并不是說(shuō)我們不與學(xué)術(shù)界密切合作，而是恰恰相反。例如，由倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院發(fā)起的Urban Buzz項(xiàng)目大約十年前為我們提供了一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)，比爾開(kāi)展對(duì)入室盜竊問(wèn)題的爭(zhēng)議性研究，從而施展他對(duì)空間布局的重要性發(fā)現(xiàn)。這是一個(gè)復(fù)雜的研究，總而言之，連接度更好的街道（例如左邊的街道）可以降低一個(gè)區(qū)域的財(cái)產(chǎn)成本，而連接較少的布局則會(huì)使之增加（圖11）。

有了這些知識(shí)，我們就可以解決英國(guó)的住房建設(shè)挑戰(zhàn)，設(shè)計(jì)與現(xiàn)狀場(chǎng)所相結(jié)合的城市擴(kuò)張方案。空間可達(dá)性模型提供了一個(gè)平臺(tái)對(duì)方案進(jìn)行測(cè)試。在這個(gè)規(guī)劃中，空間句法幫助設(shè)計(jì)了一個(gè)創(chuàng)建雙重網(wǎng)格的街道布局：一些以商鋪為主的主要街道，以及一些用于非零售和住宅用途的連接度較差的其他等級(jí)街道（圖12）。我們?cè)谥饕值郎习才艧狒[的活動(dòng)，并在小街上安排足夠的活動(dòng)以提供保證安全的“自然監(jiān)視”。注意不要在無(wú)需活動(dòng)的地方創(chuàng)造不想要的活動(dòng)，比如這個(gè)安靜的村莊。通過(guò)分析前后的對(duì)比，我們可以看出空間等級(jí)幾乎沒(méi)有改變，唯一真正的區(qū)別是有意地創(chuàng)造出了向北走出村莊的步行和自行車路線（圖13）。

英國(guó)近期計(jì)劃建設(shè)的一些由全國(guó)最優(yōu)秀的設(shè)計(jì)師規(guī)劃的新城，已經(jīng)認(rèn)識(shí)到其空間結(jié)構(gòu)、土地使用狀況以及由此產(chǎn)生的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)模式的局限性。在任何情況下，診斷都是相同的：前景網(wǎng)絡(luò)和背景網(wǎng)絡(luò)之間存在空間錯(cuò)位。不是歷來(lái)持續(xù)連接的雙重網(wǎng)絡(luò)，而是完全不同的具有破壞性的網(wǎng)絡(luò)。由于分割的城市肌理（將前景主街與背景住宅街道分隔開(kāi)來(lái)的東西）不僅是以汽車為中心的高速公路網(wǎng)絡(luò)，而且也是景觀，因此更具挑戰(zhàn)性。在某種程度上，綠地扼殺了人們的生活（圖14)。

圖15 / Figure 15間斷開(kāi)發(fā)造成的過(guò)度分散的城市The fragmented “city” of disconnected developments

我們最常見(jiàn)的一種空間狀況是間斷開(kāi)發(fā)造成的過(guò)度分散的城市，或者說(shuō)是間斷的田園村莊造成的過(guò)于分散的走廊（圖15）。歷史呈現(xiàn)的是一種不同的模式：持續(xù)相連的社區(qū)構(gòu)造出完整的城市（圖16）。你可以從一個(gè)中心到另一個(gè)中心之間行走，而當(dāng)你從一個(gè)社區(qū)走向另一個(gè)社區(qū)時(shí)，卻從未意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)。

社區(qū)的邊緣不是由高速公路或過(guò)度寬闊的景觀帶劃定的，而是由比爾所謂的住宅街道的“模糊邊界”（fuzzy boundary）劃定的，比如綠色的街道、樹(shù)木、樹(shù)籬和邊緣，如此種種，但是街道本質(zhì)上是一樣的。這并非是對(duì)于環(huán)境的妥協(xié)，而是恰恰相反。生態(tài)學(xué)家告訴我們，由持續(xù)連接的綠色街道構(gòu)成的城市在生態(tài)上比鄉(xiāng)村更加多樣化。所以我們需要大大小小的街道、綠色的街道、持續(xù)連接的街道網(wǎng)絡(luò)以及偶爾出現(xiàn)的特別的公園和開(kāi)放空間，而不是拼布一般拼湊而成的偽造城市或不相連的村莊系統(tǒng)。

城市設(shè)計(jì)的關(guān)鍵因素仍然是連續(xù)不斷的街道網(wǎng)絡(luò)。除了如上所述的支持規(guī)劃和設(shè)計(jì)過(guò)程的傳統(tǒng)用法，空間句法正在以多種創(chuàng)新方式被廣泛使用。例如，我們使用空間布局模型來(lái)推測(cè)倫敦防洪的失敗如何影響城市的大規(guī)模移動(dòng)模式（圖17）。我想我們都本能地認(rèn)為，倫敦市中心的橋梁連接損失會(huì)破壞通信。 但究竟如何？新的路網(wǎng)等級(jí)結(jié)構(gòu)會(huì)是怎樣？

圖16 / Figure 16持續(xù)相連的社區(qū)構(gòu)造出完整的城市The integrated city of continuously connected neighbourhoods

空間可達(dá)性模型使我們首先能夠確定人們可能集中的狀況以及他們?nèi)粘５闹饕苿?dòng)軌跡。

由此產(chǎn)生了自相關(guān)，事實(shí)證明，空間分析本身就是整個(gè)人類密度和活動(dòng)的有力預(yù)測(cè)指標(biāo)。然后，我們可以移除水災(zāi)引發(fā)的那些連接。而后如你所見(jiàn)，倫敦的運(yùn)動(dòng)模式完全被改變（圖18）。

這種分析可以用于應(yīng)急措施和疏散控制。從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，它可以幫助確定活動(dòng)走廊的修復(fù)和重新開(kāi)放的優(yōu)先順序。我們可以通過(guò)加載各地的精確土地利用組合、建筑物密度以及交通路線的位置和容量（公交車、地鐵和火車）來(lái)進(jìn)行更加復(fù)雜的分析。但是，首先了解單獨(dú)的空間如何利用非常重要。畢竟，水災(zāi)來(lái)去，唯有空間永存。

類似的原則適用于任何重大的城市事件和事后疏散，正如2011年發(fā)生在新西蘭克賴斯特徹奇（Christchurch）的事件一樣。克賴斯特徹奇是一座建構(gòu)在歷史悠久的網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的城市。從紅色代表的高度可達(dá)的路線中可以看到，它擴(kuò)散了南北、東西之間的城市運(yùn)動(dòng)。這些線路集中在城市的最中心，支持著克賴斯特徹奇的零售和商業(yè)中心，這是該地區(qū)最為集中的商業(yè)地產(chǎn)。地震摧毀了這個(gè)中心，導(dǎo)致中心商務(wù)區(qū)關(guān)閉約4年。克賴斯特徹奇不得不迅速適應(yīng)并承受災(zāi)難性的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)。

圖17 / Figure 17倫敦水災(zāi)地圖，2008London fl ood map, 2008

有兩件事值得一提。首先，城市的連續(xù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)布局是城市生存的關(guān)鍵，它提供了路線選擇，以便城市活動(dòng)能夠立即適應(yīng)道路封閉。 相比之下，將交通逐漸集中到主要公路上的城市，當(dāng)其中一條路崩潰的時(shí)候，整個(gè)交通系統(tǒng)可能會(huì)隨之崩潰。其次，新的中心如斯坦莫爾路（Stanmore Road）的出現(xiàn)，既是新生的也是商業(yè)在既有的外圍中心再生的體現(xiàn)。建模可以幫助城市規(guī)劃其長(zhǎng)期恢復(fù)及短期疏散和救援工作（圖19）。

有些事件是短暫的，并且可能在當(dāng)時(shí)顯得隨機(jī)而混亂，例如2011年的倫敦暴亂事件（圖20）。我們研究了事件的時(shí)間、地點(diǎn)及發(fā)展態(tài)勢(shì)，利用媒體數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)繪制暴亂的事例。然后，我們?cè)谶@些地理位置上展開(kāi)分析。首先，我們可以看到84%的事件發(fā)生在多重剝奪指數(shù)（Index of Multiple Deprivation，簡(jiǎn)稱IMD）高于平均水平的地區(qū)。這只是一個(gè)開(kāi)始，但是并不能解釋為什么有些IMD評(píng)分高的地區(qū)出現(xiàn)了更嚴(yán)重的暴亂，而有些則完全沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)暴亂。放大并以更精細(xì)的方式查看，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)大多數(shù)事件發(fā)生在更可達(dá)的街道上（圖21）。這是有幫助的，但這些街道是商鋪所在的地方，不是嗎？而為什么一些主要街道沒(méi)有發(fā)生暴亂？我們?cè)黾右粋€(gè)層次來(lái)解釋，就會(huì)更清晰地呈現(xiàn)出結(jié)果（圖22）。

圖18 / Figure 18倫敦水災(zāi)的前后對(duì)比Flooding London, before & after圖19 / Figure 19克賴斯特徹奇地震和城市復(fù)蘇前后對(duì)比Earthquake & urban recovery in Christchurch, before & after圖20 / Figure 202011年倫敦暴亂London Riots 2011

我所展示的所有工作（水災(zāi)、地震、暴亂等工作）都是作為內(nèi)部研究完成的?；诳臻g句法，我們花費(fèi)了大量的時(shí)間來(lái)進(jìn)行無(wú)償?shù)膬?nèi)部研究，開(kāi)發(fā)軟件、研究方法并開(kāi)發(fā)適用于業(yè)界的應(yīng)用。城市設(shè)計(jì)并非錦上添花，而是防患于未然。

此外，空間句法的工作越來(lái)越多地涉及到建筑物內(nèi)部的人的運(yùn)動(dòng)和行為，空間分析軟件已被開(kāi)發(fā)用于理解及預(yù)測(cè)人們?cè)诰?xì)尺度上的行為，比如在零售環(huán)境中、在辦公室以及博物館和畫廊中。這里以英國(guó)泰特美術(shù)館為例（圖23）。左圖為100個(gè)人在10分鐘內(nèi)創(chuàng)建的實(shí)際運(yùn)動(dòng)軌跡（我們通過(guò)跟隨他們來(lái)得出運(yùn)動(dòng)軌跡）。右圖為僅基于建筑平面圖的空間可達(dá)性分析圖，并再次展示了空間在塑造人類活動(dòng)和相遇中的重要作用。

我試著總結(jié)一下我們?cè)诳臻g句法方面的所作所為（圖24）。我們已經(jīng)建立了一個(gè)旨在創(chuàng)造和培育蓬勃生機(jī)的組織。然而，我們的客戶和合作伙伴與我們非常接近，這個(gè)理念與他們的利益相吻合。我們將這個(gè)想法融入具有兩個(gè)關(guān)鍵特征的工作程序中：基于科學(xué)、以人為本。當(dāng)我問(wèn)比爾是否可以用一句話來(lái)描述空間句法時(shí)，他將其簡(jiǎn)化為2個(gè)詞：基于科學(xué)、以人為本（science-based and human-focused）。

圖21(左) / Figure 21 (left)大部分事件發(fā)生在更為可達(dá)的地方Most incidents occurred in more accessible streets圖22(右) / Figure 22 (right)所有單一事件都出現(xiàn)在當(dāng)?shù)厣虡I(yè)街或封閉下區(qū)800m以內(nèi)的范圍內(nèi)every single incident occurred within 800 m of both a high street and an estate

我們主要從事3種工作：第一，在實(shí)踐中應(yīng)用這種方法；第二，持續(xù)迭代，與時(shí)俱進(jìn)：新的數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源，新的計(jì)算能力以及來(lái)自客戶和合作伙伴的新問(wèn)題；第三，廣為傳播，這可能是三者中最為重要的。

我們通過(guò)咨詢和工作室的方式應(yīng)用空間句法，從而運(yùn)營(yíng)公司?？臻g句法公司支持設(shè)計(jì)師創(chuàng)建并測(cè)試設(shè)計(jì)方案。例如最近在倫敦金融城開(kāi)設(shè)的彭博新總部（圖25），該總部在惠特靈大道（Watling Street）的古老街區(qū)中整合出一條街道（圖26）。

再造這條街的想法已經(jīng)醞釀了大約20年了。它來(lái)自對(duì)周圍街道網(wǎng)絡(luò)的分析。就像特拉法加廣場(chǎng)的階梯一樣，這個(gè)想法躍然紙上，但是，在此之前無(wú)人繪制?？臻g建模幫助說(shuō)服決策者這是一個(gè)值得擁有的想法。除了與個(gè)體開(kāi)發(fā)商合作外，空間句法還為整個(gè)倫敦金融城構(gòu)建了一個(gè)行人運(yùn)動(dòng)模型（Pedestrian Movement Model）。在幾年之內(nèi)，我希望任何重要的經(jīng)濟(jì)中心都能擁有它。

除了咨詢部門以外，空間句法工作室還為公共部門和私營(yíng)部門的客戶做設(shè)計(jì)準(zhǔn)備工作，擔(dān)任多學(xué)科團(tuán)隊(duì)的首席設(shè)計(jì)師。這是空間句法的一個(gè)重要發(fā)展。我們通過(guò)另外兩項(xiàng)活動(dòng)來(lái)開(kāi)發(fā)空間句法的方法。第一是研究實(shí)驗(yàn)室（research Laboratory），研究如前所述的關(guān)于水災(zāi)、地震等問(wèn)題的工作。第二是數(shù)字工作營(yíng)（DigitalWorks）開(kāi)發(fā)技術(shù)，我們嘗試將其運(yùn)用在研究項(xiàng)目以及咨詢和工作室工作中。

研究實(shí)驗(yàn)室和數(shù)字工作營(yíng)目前正在參與我們與Future Cities Catapult合作開(kāi)展的工作，致力于創(chuàng)建一個(gè)新的開(kāi)源技術(shù)來(lái)連接數(shù)據(jù)集。為此，我們正在積極尋找健康不平等的現(xiàn)象。例如，包括與汽車依賴相關(guān)的孤獨(dú)現(xiàn)象，而汽車依賴現(xiàn)象直接受到空間規(guī)劃的影響。 我們聯(lián)合了健康、交通和城市設(shè)計(jì)領(lǐng)域，以了解傳統(tǒng)上并不相關(guān)的數(shù)據(jù)集之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。

這對(duì)專業(yè)實(shí)踐具有重要意義，并且我們相信，城市設(shè)計(jì)專業(yè)必須具有一種破壞性的潛力。城市設(shè)計(jì)師的決定對(duì)人們的生活產(chǎn)生著深遠(yuǎn)的影響。越來(lái)越多可用的數(shù)據(jù)集以及我們進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)分析的計(jì)算能力，意味著只要我們掌握了著眼點(diǎn)和方法論，我們將超越古今。

例如，圖中顯示了城市形態(tài)、汽車依賴及其如何影響人們的求職能力（圖27）。通過(guò)展示傳統(tǒng)交通規(guī)劃實(shí)踐如何固化不平等，阻礙了社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)的流動(dòng)，提出我們作為城市設(shè)計(jì)師可以為關(guān)于場(chǎng)所的討論做出強(qiáng)有力的、有據(jù)可依的貢獻(xiàn)。我們可以解釋連接何以如此重要，多少連接度是足夠的，即使太多也是有害的。我們?yōu)榭刹叫行蕴峁┱摀?jù)，論證這是城市設(shè)計(jì)所必須具備的（圖28）。

我們可以參與關(guān)于醫(yī)療保健供給的討論。首先就其位置而言，其次就其質(zhì)量而言，通過(guò)可視化和感官分析，我們可以幫助患者發(fā)聲。 我們將他們關(guān)聯(lián)到空間中，將空間維度引入更為豐富的對(duì)話中，將空間分析嵌入政策辯論，將難以理解的社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行空間化（圖29）。

我們并不自認(rèn)為擁有所有答案，但是我們有一種可以幫助剖析復(fù)雜問(wèn)題的方法，我們一直在尋找更多的挑戰(zhàn)。但空間句法不能單獨(dú)完成這一切，我們也不想如此。我們只想為我們所創(chuàng)造的一切提供廣泛的實(shí)踐—我們的理論，我們的軟件，我們的方法，我們的數(shù)據(jù)。

圖23 / Figure 23泰特美術(shù)館空間分析Spatial analysis of Old Tate Britain

圖25(右) / Figure 25 (right)彭博總部，倫敦城Bloomberg Headquarters, city of London

圖24(左) / Figure 24 (left)我們?cè)诳臻g句法所做的事情A summary of what we’re doing at Space Syntax

圖26 / Figure 26彭博總部路網(wǎng)分析Street network analysis ofBloomberg Headquarters

圖27 / Figure 27汽車依賴性&就業(yè)不平等Car dependence & Inequalities in access to jobs

圖28 / Figure 28就醫(yī)可達(dá)性分析Access to GP practices: availability + accommodation

圖29 / Figure 29總體可步行性&土地混合利用General walkability & Mixed land use

Space Syntax Past, Present & Future：Kevin Lynch Memorial Lecture

Bill Hillier, Tim Stonor

“At the heart of the Space Syntax approach is a desire to understand, and then design for, people.If we look beyond the clever computation, what it matters is thriving life.”

Bill Hillier

It’s a great honour to have been asked to give this evening’s Kevin Lynch Memorial Lecture, and a special honour to be doing so on behalf of Bill Hillier.

First, I can’t do justice in the time available to the breadth and depth of Bill’s genius. And I use the word genius carefully. I believe, as do many others, that he is a genius (Figure 1). I may only this evening touch on concepts that each deserves a more lengthy explanation and discussion. And,likewise, on the hundreds of urban planning and building design projects that Bill and Space Syntax have helped create over the past four decades.

I want to talk especially about the future directions that his work is taking. The future is important because Bill is not obviously sentimental. He is far more likely to want to talk about something he is currently working on, or something he doesn’t yet understand, than to dwell on the past. He hasn’t ever, to my knowledge, sought prizes. He’s enjoyed them when they’ve appeared, but he hasn’t gone after them.

And, I suspect like anyone receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award, he has wondered why it was being given so soon, before his lifetime is fully achieved. When I spoke with him last weekend he explained that what he’d really like to be talking about is what he’s currently working on. However,as is often the case with emerging theory, he’s not sure he’s right about it yet. In other words there’s always more to be done.

So let’s begin with some words from him. He says, “How we design cities is how we understand them. By understanding, we mean having some kinds of mental model linking the physical and spatial patterns that make up the city to how they are experienced by people and how they work for them.

This may involve spatial ideas, for example about the relation between local neighbourhoods and the city as a whole, and functional ideas, for example about how and where active centres and sub-centres can be located. Whatever its source, we can think of this as a “structure-function” model. It will tell us,rightly or wrongly, that if we design the space of the city in this way rather than that, it will change how the city is experienced and works.”

Bill goes on to say: “Kevin Lynch took the question of such a model in the direction of science by bringing to light fi ve spatial and physical concepts through which people described the cities they saw:paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks. As he acknowledged, these are not independent of each other, for example edges will normally be the edges of districts, and nodes the meeting of paths. Nor are there argued to be general principles of how the concepts relate to each other to form the city as a whole, other than to exploit these interdependencies.”

“In fact, from the point of view of the city as a whole, there is a remarkably interesting proposition in the Image of the City: ‘The paths, the network of habitual or potential lines of movement through the urban complex, are the most potent means by which the whole can be ordered’[1]96. Compared with this network, he adds, the ‘edges, districts, nodes and landmarks’ are the ‘design of other elements’[1]99.The form of the city, and the interrelating of the fi ve elements, arises from how the network of paths is structured.”

The priority of the path network in cities is shared by Space Syntax in its attempt to take the question further in the direction of science, by testing spatial forms against observable functions rather than human descriptions. Space Syntax argues that many of the key concepts for understanding the city as a spatial and functional system can be derived from the analysis of the street network. The “research question” posed by Space Syntax is: Is there is a formal procedure to describe the spatial structure of the city which both captures its characteristic spatial forms, and maps these onto observable functional patterns with enough rigor to test the link between the two?That this turns out to be the case which due to the fact that the procedure brings to light a fundamental relation between the spatial structure of the city and its functioning: that other thing being equal the key determinant of movement rates in the lines that make up the city is the spatial con fi guration itself,how each line relates to all the others. We call this phenomenon—of the degree to which movement is shaped by the urban grid—the law of natural movement. Its generality underlies many structural phenomena which are common to most, if not all,cities.

Through this fundamental law, the procedure can,in scientific terms, lead from a structure-function model to a testable structure-function theory of the city, one which could serve both our increasing need for scienti fi c understanding of the city in terms of its economic and social performance, and as a model for use in design. The procedure generates a set of memorable concepts which summarise the syntactic structure-function theory of the city as far as it has been so far developed, and can be used to define the theory, as Lynch’s five concepts define the view of the city that emerged from his research.“Understand these concepts and you understand Space Syntax.”

First, is the description of space itself. That it’s possible to break the apparent chaos and complexity of a city’s street network into discrete elements that can then be the subject of computational analysis.In most Space Syntax analysis, the discrete element is the road centre line between one street intersection and the next. This has a length. It has an angular alignment (north to south, west to east or any angle in between); it has a number of connections at each end of it. At one end it may have 0 if it’s a cul de sac. At the other it may have just two or three or more. It has a number of buildings along it, of dierent sizes and uses. Data on these buildings can be hung othe line. As can data on the services that fl ow above or below the line.

Second, and most importantly, is the theory of natural movement, which as Bill just explained,demonstrates that the more connected streets are better used. Connectivity is measured using a computer algorithm that measures how likely it is that people will want to fl ow down individual streets as they move from A to B. The algorithm calculates all possible journeys using not only the distance as an input but also the complexity of the journey. This

is the USP of Space Syntax - most traffic models don’t include complexity in them, and as a result,don’t work particularly well to describe real human behaviours. Streets that are likely to be well used are automatically coloured red, then orange.Less well used streets are coloured green then blue. The concept has been demonstrated now in thousands of studies over several decades. To me it’s one of the most important discoveries in science.

The third concept describes cities as movement economies. In other words, it explains how land uses in the city arrange themselves to take advantage of the natural movement pattern. The shops move to the more connected streets with more natural movement. The houses move, in the majority, to the side and back streets.

The fourth concept of the simultaneously multi-scale city adds a fundamental description of human life in streets, which is that the activity you see on any street is typically a mix of people moving across longer and shorter distances. The proportion of longer to shorter journeys may vary from the more connected to the less connected streets but it is always, to a degree, there. Multi-scale movement, and the human interactions that are induced by this, are fundamental to trade. To both social and economic transaction. One of the shortcomings of modern planning has been to overly separate global and local movement.

Fifth, and fi nally, the concept of the dual grid provides a de fi nition of the purpose of cities. It allows us to distinguish, for any scale of movement,between the foreground grid of main routes and the background grid of minor routes. This is so important a concept that I’m going to quote Bill directly again:

“Finally, (he says) space in cities works in more than one way. The foreground network is structured to maximise movement, and it is so because it is driven by micro-economic factors which benefit from high levels of movement, while the background network restricts and structures movement,and does so because it is driven by social and cultural factors which fi nd expression in the way residential space is structured.” So the dual network in cities re fl ects functional as well as spatial processes.This is an instance of the more general potential of space to operate in two ways. Space can be used generatively to create new patterns of movement and so co-presence and potential relations in the social system, or it can be used conservatively to express and so reproduce existing social patterns and structures. The former is associated with spatial integration, the latter with spatial segregation.

The difference between the foreground and background networks is the difference between more morphogenetic and more conservative space. The former focuses movement to create development and change, the latter diuses it to keep things as they are. This generic structure seems to underlie all cities in some sense, and we must conclude that beneath the individuality and cultural typing of cities, there is a universal generic city which makes the city what it essentially is. All societies must in some sense be morphogenetic in order to cope with changing technological and social circumstances,and all societies must also act in ways that reproduce their structures, hence the dual use of space.

Cities are spatially massive morphogenetic machines that produce change, set into a conservative background which stabilises their structure.This is the generic city. It was I believe the discovery of the generic city that first made urban societies possible.” At the heart of the Space Syntax approach therefore is a desire to understand and then design for both thriving life and societal stability. Plenty of actions on the foreground grid of main streets and in the centres: social and economic interaction, transaction and innovation. Quiet repose in the background grid of mainly residential streets. If we can look beyond the clever computation, what matters is thriving life.

However, in many Space Syntax presentations, a wash of technical analysis has sometimes obscured the key cultural messages; too many graphs and too few statements of fundamental “so therefore”importance. Now I think this is forgiveable in a young discipline trying to fi nd its way in a hostile context—confronted at every turn by the architectural establishment, by the Home Office, by the transport planners.

It’s far easier in such circumstances to withdraw and to talk the secret language of the clique than the common language of the crowd. And it’s also understandable that, in academic circles, Space Syntax needs the esoteric rigour of scienti fi c debate.But the discipline is no longer in its teenage years and the needs of cities are more than academic.

Space Syntax is mature now, and needs, I believe,to have its voice. The context is no longer hostile—to the discussion of space, connectivity, place,people, walking, active frontages. The 1980s and the 1990s are no more—and in an increasingly urbanising world in which car-centric paradigms still dominate, science is needed, more than ever, to make sense of the pace of change in global urbanism.

As one of the few scienti fi c eorts to explain cities,Space Syntax has a special responsibility. Space Syntax has been involved in some of the most important projects in the UK, such as the redesign of Trafalgar Square (Figure 2). We explained why the old design didn’t work—first through observations, then through the construction of a spatial model that showed why people walked around the edges of the square because the routes were more spatially convenient.

Of all the architects we’ve worked with, Norman Foster seems to understand Space Syntax best: “I know that these techniques work from the tough environment of practice. I love the work of analysis, observation, of research but also passion,imprecision, the hunch. Space Syntax is the testing of the interaction of these opposing worlds.” To Foster, Space Syntax is not a set of pretty—if complicated—pictures to post-rationalise preconceived design ideas: a techno-wash to bamboozle the uninitiated. Instead, it’s a design tool that mediates between rational science and artistic emotion.

I can say this with con fi dence because I’ve seen it fi rst hand since joining Bill’s consultancy work at UCL in 1992. And currently, working with the Norman Foster Foundation on this project to expand London’s cycling capacity with another 500 million cycle journeys a year. Not to remove it from street level—as was cynically assumed—but to add to it(Figure 3).

Space Syntax was conceived as a tool to facilitate design. To take the guesswork out of it. What we’ve done has been behind the scenes...as in the creation of the Queen Elizabeth Park for the London Olympic and Paralympic Games (Figure 4). Space Syntax helped to shape the design for the Olympic Park masterplan so that it made connections with those communities to the west and east. This means that the park remains an active part of the city today(Figure 5).

In London today, as in many other places, the Space Syntax approach is being quietly used on a wide range of projects. And sometimes more prominently, such as here in Darwin, Australia, where we worked with the Lord Mayor and her team of advisors, to create a plan that doubles the size of the city centre in a way that will create new, street-based urbanism with enhanced land values (Figure 6).

A masterplan was developed for the city through a process of design workshops. During these workshops, a Space Syntax model was run to “l(fā)ive test”emerging ideas. A final masterplan was produced,creating a new network of streets and spaces that integrates with the existing city (Figure 7). This plan has been analysed using the Space Syntax model to make sure that strong connections were made into, and through, the new developments and that a set of quieter, less well connected streets was created (Figure 8). In this way a hierarchy of connections was produced to accommodate the movement needs of dierent land uses: busier commercial streets and quieter residential streets, only a turn away from each other in the manner of traditionally connected street grids. The foreground grid and the background grid make it from theory into design practice (Figure 9).

An UrbanValue model was constructed, using Space Syntax analysis as a key input (Figure 10).This model identified land value increases of at least 3.7 billion Australian dollars. We’d never quite produced a model quite like this before. Just as we’d never quite produced a fine-scale pedestrian movement before as we did for Trafalgar Square.One key lesson from practice is that it provokes research. If you organise it correctly, the studio can be as fertile a research environment as the university.

Not everyone in traditional academia agrees with this—or wants to agree. But it’s true and it’s one of the reasons that Bill engages so closely with the company. It’s not to make money. It’s to make ideas. But that’s not to say we don’t work closely with academia. Far from it. For example, the UCL-led Urban Buzz project gave us an opportunity around ten years ago to develop Bill’s controversial research into burglary. To fi nesse his fi ndings about the importance of spatial layout.

It’s a complex explanation—not for today’s presentation - but, in summary, better connected streets,such as those on the left, can reduce the lifetime costs of an area whereas less connected layouts can increase them (Figure 11). Armed with this knowledge we can address the UK’s housebuilding challenge, designing urban extensions that integrate with existing places.

Spatial accessibility modelling provides an evidence platform to test proposals on. In this plan,Space Syntax has helped to design a street layout that creates a dual grid: a few main streets for the shops and a hierarchy of medium to less well connected other streets for non-retail and residential uses (Figure 12).

High movement on the main streets where we want it and sufficient movement on the side streets to provide “natural surveillance” that facilitates safety.And being careful not to create unwanted movement through places where it isn’t wanted such as this quiet village. By toggling between before and after analyses we can see that the spatial hierarchy is barely altered—the only real dierence being the creation—deliberately—of a walking and cycling route northwards out of the village (Figure 13).

Closer to home a number of recently planned New Towns – planned by the nation’s fi nest—have recognised limitations in their spatial structures, their land use dispositions and the resulting patterns of socio-economic activity. In every case the diagnosis is the same: a spatial dislocation between the foreground and the background grid. Not the continuously connected dual grids of history but something quite dierent – and damaging.

Made even more challenging by the fact that the disconnective tissue—the stuthat separates foreground main streets from background residential streets—is not only the car-centric highways network, but it’s landscape, too. People’s lives are sti fl ed by green (Figure 14). If there is one spatial condition we see most often—it is the overly fragmented city of disconnected developments (Figure 15). Or, we might soon need to say, the overly fragmented corridor of disconnected garden villages.

What history offers is a different model: the integrated city of continuously connected neighbourhoods (Figure 16). Where you can walk between one centre and another without ever realising when you’ve passed from one neighbourhood to the next.

Because the edges of neighbourhoods are not de fi ned by a highway or an overly wide landscape swathe, but by what Bill calls the “fuzzy boundary” of residential streets. Green streets, with trees,hedges and verges. But streets are all the same.

And this is not about environmental compromise.It’s the opposite. The ecologists tell us that cities of continuously connected green streets are ecologically more diverse than the countryside. So we need streets, large and small. Green streets. And continuously connected grids of streets with occasional,exceptional parks and open spaces. Not patchwork quilt-like pseudo-cities or disconnected village systems.

The key element of urban design is still the continuously connected network of streets. Aside from what we might call the conventional uses of the approach—to support the planning and design process—Space Syntax is being used in a number of innovative ways and I’d like to share a few. For example, we have used spatial layout modelling to speculate how a failure of London’s fl ood defences would impact on the large-scale movement patterns of the city (Figure 17).

I think we all know intuitively that the loss of bridge connections across central London would devastate communications. But how precisely?And what would the new route hierarchy look like?Spatial accessibility modelling allows us first to identify the likely concentrations of people and also the key movement channels they are used to taking day to day.

We can then remove those connections that are taken out by a flood. As you can see, London’s movement patterns change entirely (Figure 18).This analysis can inform emergency response planning as well as evacuation control. In the longer term it can help prioritise the repair and reopening of movement corridors.

We can of course make an even more sophisticated analysis by loading up each location with the precise land use mix and density of buildings as well as the location and capacity of transport routes: bus,tube and train. Which is in fact what we do.

But, first it’s important to understand what space alone would do. After all, come the flood, all we might be left with is the space. And similar principles apply to any major urban event and consequent evacuation. As happened in Christchurch in New Zealand following the earthquakes of 2011.

Christchurch is a city built on a historic grid that, as you can see from the pattern of red, highly accessible routes, diuses movement between north and south, west and east. The greatest concentration of these routes is at the very centre, supporting Christchurch’s retail and business centre, the greatest concentration of commercial property in the region.

The earthquakes devastated this very centre, resulting in the closure of the entire CBD for four years.Christchurch had to adapt quickly or suffer catastrophic economic failure. Two things are worth pointing out:

first, the continuously connected grid layout of the city was key to the city’s survival, providing as it does a choice of routes so that movement could immediately adapt to road closures. Contrast this with cities that have increasingly funneled their traffic onto a limited number of major highways.When one of those goes down the whole might easily go with it

second, the emergence of new centres such as that circled, Stanmore Road. It was to new as well as existing peripheral centres that businesses relocated.Modelling helps cities plan for their long-term recovery as well as their short-term evacuation and relief eforts (Figure 19).Some events are short-lived and can, at the time, appear random and chaotic. For example, the London Riots in 2011 (Figure 20).

We looked at the time—indeed while the events were unfolding—at what was happening where,using media sources to map the riot instances. We then ran analytics on these locations.

First, we can see that 84% of the incidents occurred in areas with higher than average Index of Multiple Deprivation.

This is a start but it doesn’t explain why certain areas with high IMD scores saw higher levels of rioting and some didn’t see any.

By zooming in and looking in a more granular way we then identified that most incidents occurred in more accessible streets (Figure 21).

This is helpful but of course that’s where the shops are, isn’t it?

And why didn’t some high streets suer?

Once we add a further layer of analysis, a clearer picture emerges (Figure 22).

We looked at the proximity of rioting incidents to clusters of densely connected but spatially inaccessible streets—these are typically post-war housing estates. And we saw that every single incident occurred within 800m of both a high street and an estate.

Now all the work I just showed—the flooding,earthquake, rioting work—was all done as in-house research. At Space Syntax we devote a considerable amount of time to unpaid in-house research.To develop our software, develop our methods and to develop the applicability of the approach to industry.

Urban design is not therefore just about the good days. It’s about protecting against the bad days, too.Our work at Space Syntax is increasingly about the movement and behaviour of people inside buildings, where spatial analysis software has been developed to understand, then to predict, the fi nescale behaviours of people in retail environments,in oces and in museums & galleries as here at the Old Tate Britain (Figure 23), where:

on the left you can see the actual pattern of movement created by 100 people in their fi rst ten minutes(we know this because we followed them)

and on the right you can see a spatial accessibility analysis based only on the fl oor plan of the building and demonstrating, once again, the fundamental role of space in shaping human movement and encounter.

So let me try and summarise what we’re doing at Space Syntax (Figure 24).

We’ve built an organisation around the central idea of creating and then nurturing thriving life. However our clients and partners approach us, this idea is common to their interests.

We wrap the idea in a process that has two key characteristics: it’s science-based and it’s human-focused. When I asked Bill if he could describe Space Syntax in one sentence he reduced it to these four words: science-based and human-focused.

Then, as you’ve seen, there are three principal kinds of activity that we undertake:

fi rst, we apply the approach in practice

second, we develop it continuously to keep pace of change: new data sources, new computing capabilities and, most of all, new kinds of questions from our clients and partners

third, we disseminate it. This is possibly the most important one of the three. And it’s where I’ll end in a few minutes.

The Company supports other designers in the creation and testing of design proposals, for example,the recently opened new headquarters of Bloomberg in the City of London(Figure 25), which incorporates a street on the ancient alignment of Watling Street (Figure 26).The idea of recreating this street has been around twenty years in gestation. it emerged from analysis of the surrounding street network. like the staircase at Trafalgar Square the idea is obvious once it’s drawn. But no one had drawn it until we did. And then spatial modelling has helped convince decision-takers that it is an idea worth having.

As well as working with individual developers,Space Syntax has also constructed a Pedestrian Movement Model for the whole of the City of London. In a few years I would expect any serious economic centre to have one of these. Alongside the Consultancy, the Space Syntax Studio prepares designs for public and private sector clients, acting as the lead designer in multi-disciplinary teams.This is an important development for Space Syntax.We develop the Space Syntax approach through two further streams of activity. First, the research laboratory—you’ve seen its work on flooding,earthquakes and other issues just now. Second, the Digital Works, that develops technology we try out on research projects and then implement in the Consultancy and Studio work. Both the Laboratory and Digital Works streams are currently engaged in work we’re undertaking with the Future Cities Catapult to create a new, open source piece of technology to connect datasets.

To do so we’re actively looking at health inequalities—including, for example, the phenomenon of loneliness that is associated with car-dependence,which in turn is directly affected by spatial planning. We’re bringing together the fields of health,transport and urban design to understand the associations between datasets that are traditionally held apart.

This has important implications for professional practice and, we believe, a disruptive potential that the urban design profession must learn to master if it is to remain relevant. The decisions taken by urban designers have profound impacts on people’s lives. The datasets that are becoming increasingly available—and the computing power that is now with us to drive the analysis of the datasets—means that, if we know where to look and how to look—we can say far more than we have ever been able to.For example, as in this slide, about urban morphology, car dependence and how this aects people’s ability to seek work. By showing how traditional transport planning practice is locking in inequalities(Figure 27)—is hampering social and economic mobility—we as urban designers can make a powerful, evidence-rich contribution to the debate about place. Why connectivity matters. How much connectivity is enough and even when too much is harmful.

We can argue for walkability. Not as a nice to have.But as a must (Figure 28). We can engage in the debate about healthcare provision. First, in terms of its location and second, in terms of its quality.We can help patients have a voice by visualising and analysing their feelings. Relating them to place. Bringing the spatial dimension into conversations that are ever the richer as a result. Inserting spatial analytics into policy debates. Spatialising social and economic phenomena that are otherwise impossible to understand. Or simply misunderstood(Figure 29).

We don’t claim to have all the answers. But we have an approach that helps unpack complex problems and we’re always looking for the next challenge. We want nothing less than for everything we have created to be available to general practice.

Our theories. Our software. Our methods. And our data.