You are on page 1of 14

The Journal of Space Syntax

Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs
Nicholas Sheep Dalton1 and Ruth Conroy Dalton2
The Open University
Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London

Pages: 164-176

The Journal of Space Syntax
Online Publication Date:

Volume: 1, Issue: 1
14 July 2010

Hillier.Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs Nicholas Sheep Dalton1 and Ruth Conroy Dalton2 1 The Open University 2 Bartlett School of Graduate Studies. representation. Keywords: space syntax. and Parvin. One example of this is in a building with an atrium: a large. Finally. visibility-accessiblty. 2010 164 . for example. escalator or lift/elevator. open. This condition arises in a number of cases. and so. 1996. 1993. signage 1. by a directly visible staircase. Hillier.. Pages 164-176. University College London Abstract One of the rare representational problems encountered in space syntax analysis arises during the construction of axial representations of architectural configurations and is the so called 'visibilityaccessibility problem'. graph. 2008). in an office containing half-height partitions or glass walls. it is the contention of this paper that these problems provide an impetus to reinterpret the representations used by space syntax theory. Evidence is presented to substantiate aspects of the proposed representation based on an extension of current topological representations and associated computational methods. by extension. see Doxa. in an urban street where safety barriers prevent indiscriminate pedestrian movement or in an atrium-building that permits direct views to the second story but does not facilitate direct access to those same spaces. et al. A software implementation of the multi-layered network is demonstrated along with examples from a sample of hitherto 'problematic' cases. without affording direct access to them (for example. 1999) has proven to be a powerful predictor of movement at the urban level and capable of providing insight into patterns of usability at the building level. This describes a situation where it is possible to see a space but not to be able to directly move towards it. Issue 1. 2003. This paper introduces a new spatial representation called the multi-layered network that is intended to serve as a more generalized representation of topological spaces than previous representations. Journal of Space Syntax. integration. navigation. multilevel space in a building allowing one to look up and observe spaces on subsequent floors. 1984. for example. Introduction Space syntax (Hillier and Hanson. it is argued that this new multi-layered representation could equally be used as the underlying mechanism for a spatial representation that might be able to accommodate signage-information. One problem discovered when mapping buildings is how to construct a representation of a building where elements of that building can be seen but are not directly accessible. could establish testable conditions with the potential to measure the effect of signage 'catchment areas' and signage placement in a building. Volume 1. While it could be argued that these kinds of spaces are rare and can be handled by adhoc methodological means.

The space of an open plan office can therefore be held to be simultaneously trivial (merely a single. In such environments it is frequently possible to see across to the far side of the store whilst the direct route is blocked by a complex array of display racks.The visibility-accessibly problem is present in a variety of ways and a variety of scales in buildings and urban contexts. If a space syntax analysis of such a space were to be performed. such as those found in the Natural History Museum of Cambridge (UK). Sailer. Again. Take. Here. As with glass cubicles. et al. Suvanajata. for example. reducing noise but creating situations where an occupant can see a destination but will be forced to take a more circuitous route to reach it. an open plan office with numerous. at the urban level one example is provided by the use of pedestrian rails or barriers common in many urban centres such as Oxford Circus or Piccadilly Circus in London (UK) intended to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic (Major and Penn. These visibility-accessibility problems are not confined to the building scale. 2008. From the perspective of a fullygrown and able-bodied adult. the cabinets interrupt free movement but afford some visual clues (from one side of the cabinet through to the other) to the understanding of the wider spatial layout. One question that these space types. this gives 165 rise to the operational question of how to map these spaces. common type of glass barrier is the traditional museum display cabinet. giving greater light. 2003). pose is. Bakke and Yttri. 1999. the decision about which view-point should be used would be regarded primarily as an operational one. Davis and Benedikt. yet the destination remains clearly visible at all times. In the half-height partition situation. of varying heights. forcing the visitor to take more indirect routes through the space (and hence being exposed to a greater number of goods for sale). an isovist generated at a standing-eye-height (Benedikt.1 Modern office buildings can also present analytic difficulties through the use of glass-walled partitions (Figure 1). half-height partitions or many desks impeding direct movement: a situation mentioned in a number of spatial studies of office buildings (Serrato. A second. With the barriers in place. 1979) provides complete visible access to surrounding spaces but the physical blockage of the half-height partitions or desks gives rise to impeded accessibly. Related to both half-height cubicles and museum display cases are the sales areas of many department stores. presented above. Kostakos. 2007. The decision would be made either intuitively or mediated by the experience and professionalism of the researcher. if considered from the lower view-point (of a child or wheelchair-user for example) the space is unquestionably complex. The space would then be mapped either as a single space or as a complex labyrinth (or even Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs . sinuous paths through a labyrinth of partitions and/or desks). 'is this space simple or complex?'. traversing the urban-space necessitates planning a route around the barriers.. 1979. the space appears simpler but is clearly still more complex than a completely open space. 2007). open space) and complex (requiring the planning of multiple. 2003.

1990). unlike space. Signs are also unidirectional. somewhere in between these two extremes. Signage is one of the ways in which occupants of or visitors to large complex buildings can overcome the deficiencies of poor configuration or simply accommodate the complexities of large buildings. In each case. a visitor may regularly encounter signs indicating the way to the toilets but it is rare to have one saying for example 'this way back to. for example. 1996). One might ask directions to a specific ward/room and be given the instructions. at the urban level. we have. standing in a typical hospital such as described by Peponis (Peponis. Currently. especially if these did not include decision Journal of Space Syntax. Intuition suggests that the space is neither irrevocably complex nor a trivial single space but. something that. 2010 . the restaurant'. For example a building-user may observe a sign indicating the direction to a toilet but are unlikely to find one indicating the direction of the air-conditioning plant or the cleaners' cupboard. another location.mapped twice in both ways). creating an effect somewhat similar to a 'hyperlink'. Imagine. The effect of a sign is to reduce the conceptual and topological distance from one space (of a situated observer) to many others. The axial map is a transformation of geometric space into a graph (or network) representation. or 'Living Room') to overcome what are essentially spatial problems. space or group of spaces (such as a department). Crucial to the integration of the use of signage into a representation such as space syntax is an interpretation of the effect that a sign has on conceptual complexity. Like 'programme' and other factors influencing movement patterns in a building. Issue 1. Most signs serve to indicate the distal presence and initial heading of a room. Pages 164-176. the analysis would be adequate but not entirely satisfactory. as yet.7 to 166 0. they tend to eliminate irrelevant information creating pseudo-spatial asymmetries. 'go down here turn left then simply follow the yellow line down main corridor'. et al.. A second. signage is just one of the assumed reasons why the correlation between space and observed movement rarely exceeds a 'threshold' correlation coefficient of approximately 0. Yet the effects of signage are neither random nor unbiased: signs are situated in one location and point to. there is no clear mechanism in space syntax analysis to accommodate the effect of signage in a complex building.8 r-squared. Given that signage is frequently used in a remedial way (small building such as domestic dwellings tend not to need signs indicating the 'Kitchen'. for example. there is no facility to alter this objective spatial description to permit signage to be taken into account. Volume 1. Signs exist to make space more navigable or even 'intelligible' in the Hillierian sense (Hillier. similar and connected problem is that of the effect of signage in a building or quasi-urban environment like the Barbican Centre (a mixed-use residential and arts centre) in London. In space syntax analysis the concept of a change of direction being synonymous with a step change in depth is common but following 'the main corridor' might actually involve several changes of direction. in fact. or link to. Signs are deliberate attempts to alter how the space in a building is experienced but. no representational mechanisms to understand the spatial context of signs. is normally attributed solely to space.

In representational terms the atrium would operate the same as if the first floor were underground something which appears counter intuitive. When one arrives it is possible to see up and observe movement on the first story. It is also possible to interpret the space as open for communication. The visitor on the ground is potentially free to converse with others at the first story. In this configuration the central entrance space becomes the most integrated space of the building.points. but by a degree which is undetermined. The ability to potentially be observed and interact with others is a component of a social space and yet in representational terms the two spaces have a large accessibility distance between them. linguistically. From the point of view of the upper floors they are poorly constituted. Given that there are a number of phenomena which appear to reduce the topological depth from one space to another is there a single representation which can represent the problems presented? Pervious work such as Doxa (2001) has focused on an isovist Visibility Graph approach. the existence of the corridor-route conceptually 'straightens' the path. In effect. which would no longer need to be considered in direction-giving. containing an atrium space. 167 Figure 1 A complex office example. From the ground it is clearly obvious that it is possible to find some currently hidden route up to the first story. Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs . A staircase that is not directly visible from the entrance space (moving from the back of the courtyard space) leads up to the second story space. this paper contents that an axial approach which could be extended to the convex or the isovist representations of space could be a more elegant solution. We can begin by looking at a simple hypothetical building the kind one might experience from (figure 1). These and other similar phenomena can be reduced down to a consideration of the visibility and accessibility of space. Figure 2 introduces a basic axial floor plan of a simple notional two story building with an entrance at the bottom leading into a courtyard. In the hypothetical building the space exists with a courtyard (centre to the left fraction of figure 2) looked down upon by a gallery from either side of the first story space. mezzanines and glass walls creating a visible link from public to private and secured areas.

The underlying representation in space syntax is the graph or network. Given the number of architects who have designed spaces where you can see but not access directly. The Proposal The proposal of this paper is that the established representations of space syntax can be extended and adapted to accommodate these situations. A layered graph (M) can be considered as a set of nodes (N) and a set of a set of edges (E1. it would be counterintuitive to dismiss these kinds of designs as irrelevant on the use of space out of hand. clearly this stands against intuition as well. G = (N. E2 etc) Journal of Space Syntax. Volume 1. Should we then model 'visibility' space? This would mean effectively making each space that was visible also accessible. A graph representation of a building H It is the suggestion of this paper that a more suitable representation is the 'layered-graph'. Mathematically the graph (G) is represented by a set of nodes (N) and a set of edges (E) connecting nodes (see figure 3). Issue 1. In this manner the accessibility axial map can be used. Pages 164-176.Figure 2 a map of total depth of the axial map of a notional building showing the courtyard as the most integrated space. Traditional space syntax could take one of two approaches to solve this problem. 2010 168 . Firstly it can assume that the effect of inter-visibility without accessibility is small on the overall movement economy of the building. 2. E) F A B C E D G Figure 3.

{ E1. That is. Figure 4 shows such a layered-graph. edges are not weighted as is typical in angular analysis but the results presented here are equally applicable or adaptable to weighted. As is common in space syntax. edges are typically two way (undirected) and edges may or may not be weighted. the associated graph can be represented as two distinct edge sets: the edge set of the inter-visible spaces (EV) and the edge set of any mutually accessible spaces (EA). 169 Figure 4. that we can usually see all locations that are immediately accessible to us. Namely. is the one with which space syntax researchers are typically familiar. The layered-graph can be considered simply to be a graph formed of layers. as described in the introduction. Note also that EA is also typically a subset of EV and that EV is a superset of EA. LW\OLQN YLVLEO Figure 5. A path can be formed through the edges in one layer but paths cannot be constructed through edges in more than one layer. For simplicity of explanation in this paper. Note that the accessible edge set. EA. E2. E3…}) This differs from a hypergraph (Harary 1994) where edges can link more than one node. angular graphs. Layered-graph with two 'layers' (edge sets) In the case of the visibility-accessibility problem. Visibility accessibility integration and Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs YLVLEOLW\OLQN . nodes are present on more than one 'layer' but the edges between nodes may differ from layer to layer.M = (N .

j ) is the geodetic distance between node 'I' and node 'J' and Dev (i. 2010 170 . along the 'visibility axis' towards the upper floor) then the upper floor could never be more integrated than if it were directly connected in some physical manner. linked the courtyard to the upper floors. f. The two cyan-coloured links represent the visibilityrelationship between the ground-floor entrance-space and an upper level passageway.91. (one could almost imagine a visitor floating magically upwards. the integration values have been computed as if the visibility link were a full spatial link: as if a staircase. the visibility graph (N. 'accessibility' geodetic depth (9 steps in the accessibility network. for example. We can naturally expect that if the upper floor is directly visible. This causes the upper floors to be more integrated than might be expected. in this example) and the shortest. The primary benefit of the layered-graph representation is that we can consider simultaneously two graphs/networks. Restating these intuitions in space syntax terms: if the step depth from the central.Figure 5 shows an axial map representation of a courtyard-building containing a second storey (to the right) which forms an atrium at the lower floors.j)* (1-!) Journal of Space Syntax. 'visibility' geodetic depth (3 steps in the visibility network). Issue 1. EA). which will take into account the effect of the impact of spatial inter-visibility on standard accessibility graphs: f(Dea( i. Pages 164-176. at worst.j)) is the equivalent distance in the visibility-layer. remain the same. EV) defines the upper limit of the integration values.j ) * ! + Dev (i.j ). Namely.j) is the shortest geodetic distance for the accessibility layer/graph and Dev (i. It can be observed that such visibility links cause the integration core to shift towards this conceptual 'staircase' (the dotted.j)) Where Dea( i.1 (Dalton 2005). All calculations and subsequent visualisations were performed using Webmap@home version 0. Dev (i. The simplest means to do this is to use a linear interpolation formula: Dhg(I. Volume 1. Clearly. It might be surmised that the simplest function to measure the reduction in segregation caused by the effect of spatial inter-visibility is to interpolate the new depth between the first and second cases (accessibility and visibility). EV)). if it were treated as an accessibility graph. the degree of its relative segregation might decrease or. it is unreasonable to assume that the integration values of the upper floor will decrease if it is visible (linked in (N. then the depth to the upper level space should lie between the shortest. In this case. Thus it should be possible to formulate a function. which must define the lower bound of the integration structure of the graph. At the top is a 'superlink' representing a staircase between the ground and first floors. First. lower atrium space to one of the upper levels is calculated. super link). the accessibility graph (N.j) = Dea( I. Second.

the result is that the total depth values for the upper floors are lowered. space-H has a depth equal to spaces D and B which is counterintuitive. If the axial map first presented in figure 2 is processed in the hybrid-manner described above (merging both accessibility and visibility links).graph representation (all shortest paths to node 'A') can be constructed and. In this figure. for example. In the above example. In the pure visibility case (c). Figure 6 provides a visual explanation of this process: each part of the figure shows a Jgraph with a origin-node. a familiar J.5. in the hybrid J-graph.Where ! is a constant factor taking a value between 1 and 0. red lines. if necessary. This ! =0. In this case. space-H still occupies the most distant location from A. space H is now at the same depth as spaces B and D due to its visible connection to space G. In contrast. The formula calculates a new depth. for example). from this. The presence of the visibility links reduce the degree Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs . as originally hypothesized. The rightmost part of figure 6 (c) shows the visibility J-graph. Clearly this factor can be used only for positively (i. it could be established that the layered-graph depth is ( (9*0. where every visibility-link is considered to be a single step in the J-graph. given a ! -factor of 0.5)) = 7. hybrid J-graph showing the effect of applying the depth formula as outlined above. it can be seen that it is now situated between depth 4 (its 'accessibility' level) and depth 1 (its 'visibility' level). for space-G in the hybrid Jgraph. which is aligned with our intuition.5. It can be seen that. one for visibility and one for signage. geodetic distance provided above.5. in this case. a J-graph from space-A from figure 3 for a) accessibility b) hybrid accessibility/visibility c) visibility Given the definition of layered-graph. The leftmost part (a) of figure 6 shows the typical J-graph as defined in the Social Logic of Space (Hillier and Hanson. not negatively) weighted graphs and can be generalised. 171 Figure 6. A. The middle diagram of figure 6 (b) presents the new. for a greater number of layers/edge sets (one layer for accessibility. of 3. By examining spaceG. of the graph presented in figure 3.e.5)+ (6*0. the ! -factor is 0.5 example demonstrates a situation where accessibility and visibility contribute equally to the overall depth of spaces. the total and average depths can be computed in the same manner as for non-layered J-graphs. 1984). the accessibility connections are shown as black lines and the visibility connections are shown as dotted.

For example.5 is just a example intended to demonstrate the influence of the visibility links on the resultant patterns of integration. First. Overall. By examining figure 7. the interpolation of global values also fails when asymmetric values are used. these would occur in the case of signage (A points to B which does not point back to A) and may also appear in the case of visible upper levels. it could be thought that looking down on a lower level might be more likely than looking up. the integration pattern shifts so that the upper and lower spaces become equally accessible (in this example. in many cases. The upper floor becomes more integrated but not as integrated as in the pure visibility case in figure 5. As such the layered-graph computation has certain advantages and hence was the method programmed into the webmap@home software. The ! -factor of 0. Second. LW\OLQN YLVLEO YLVLEOLW\OLQN Figure 7. yet it remains more integrated than in the visibility-only case. Journal of Space Syntax. From this case it can be see that it is possible to interpolate between the visibility and accessibility total depths and. it can be seen that the integration core of the building moves away from the courtyard entrance. this could mask any benefits of this approach. the interpolation between integration values would break down in the case of using some non-global depths (for example radius 3) as the value would shift due to the change in connectivity. Pages 164-176. the hybrid axial line representation. As to be expected.5 Table 1 shows the values of total depth computed for each node in the visibility (EV). in this case a different !"factor could be applied depending upon the direction of gaze.of segregation of the upper level.5. The third column contains the values which have been computed using the new values of depth for the layered-graph method with a !-factor of 0. While this could be used as an approximation. the visibility depths are always lower than the accessibility ones (making a space visible lowers its conceptual distance from everywhere else). Issue 1. Volume 1. the accessibility (EA) graphs. it should also be possible to interpolate between the global integration (radius infinity) values. 2010 172 . calculated using a !-factor of 0. by implication. it is assumed that the lower floors do not have windows overlooking the ground floor) and the back plane becomes the most integrated part of the building.

Given the simple definition of the !-factor presented here. it might be expected that a !-factor value of. the current space syntax value). it might be possible to derive a value for the !-factor through experimental means. in the case presented in the introduction. while an atrium-building might be best represented by a !-factor value 0.5 77. One final observation is that when !-factor =1.5 62 79 79 79 79 53 18 19 57 60 57 58 57 59 Table 1 values for accessibility total depth (column 2) and visibility total depth (column 3) for all nodes in figure 7 and.5 77. might emerge as the best correlate (across all offices with half-height partitions). It is the suggestion of this paper that !-factor values would be approximately equal for specific visual contexts or situations.7. the total depth for !-factor = 0. in column 4.0.e.173 AXIAL line # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Accessibility 72 57 70 87 70 87 87 87 89 78 65 78 95 95 95 95 56 Visibility 38 38 51 68 51 68 68 68 55 46 52 46 63 63 63 63 50 VisibiltyTD0.82.5 72 62 58.5 55 47. this is equivalent to the visibility-is-equivalent-to-accessibility map and when !-factor = 0. Further em- Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs .5 77.0 this corresponds to the accessibility-only map (i.5 Setting the !-factor The value of the !-factor now becomes the necessary parameter to understanding the impact of visibility on the spatial structure of the building.5 77. of the half-height partitions in an office building. for example 0. For example.5 60.5 60. By experimenting with a range of !-factor values it could be possible to determine what !-factor might best improve the correlation with observed movement for a particular building or building typology. A more detailed experiment could consist of the introduction of a temporary visibility-barrier into an already studied spatial system and then examine its effect on movement rates of new visitors (and hence those not familiar with the layout) to the space.

Layered-graph and intelligibility It has become apparent. or more. in this case. with two Edge sets. 2010 174 . instead of a single integer value. N. once again. but once that destination has been reached the same sign cannot be re-utilised to return to the origin (although. Again. Another effect that might be anticipated of a layered-graph representing signage-links is that it might raise the apparent intelligibility of a sufficiently complex building (since the intelligibility of small systems will always be high. Clearly it is simpler to alter a buildings' signage (to some extent) than it would be to modify the inter-visibility of spaces within a building and so form a viable empirical test of the layered-graph representation. this time. providing brief glimpses to spatially remote locations. instead of representing an inter-visibility condition between two spaces. represent two different signs indicating the presence and the initial direction of travel of two spatially remote and physically unconnected spaces. So for a node.pirical and observational work will need to be completed and. Consider. to this end. could also be used to form simple experiments. Journal of Space Syntax. the sign-as-link is one way (it is a directed graph) insomuch as a sign may indicate the presence of a destination from an origin. This leads to one theoretical problem: since the calculation of intelligibility depends upon a correlate of the measure of a node's connectivity. as a description of a building's signage system. Volume 1. that one effect of signage is to reduce the overall segregation (or raise the mean integration) of a complex building. Extensions Given the layered-graph mechanism. Issue 1. is transformed into an ordered list of degrees drawn from each edge set. The effect of signage is as if a building has been artfully constructed using numerous one-way mirrors. It would be reasonable to assume that one definition of connectivity. a second sign might serve this purpose). what precisely is connectivity in the context of a layered-graph? Each and every node has two. the core hypothesis of this paper is that the mere existence of a sign certainly cannot make the target location appear to be any further away compared to its actual 'accessibility-distance' and certainly can not cause it to appear any closer than if it were little more than a single change of direction away. then it might be possible to calculate the !-factor value which is necessary to calibrate the signage-link model. for each layer there is a different connectivity/degree. If pedestrian. edge sets leading from it so the degree of a node (its connectivity). this effect must be confined to systems in excess of approximately fifty spaces). imagine that the axial line graph represents a non-atrium building: the cyan-coloured links. would be to apply the !-factor to the degree/connectivity value. Pages 164-176. for axial line analysis. in rare situations. Observe also that. EA and EV. is to be made freely available. the software which has been developed to perform the accessibility-visibility calculations. mean flow-rates at regular 'gates' within a building could be observed both with and without the effect of signage. This hypothesis could be tested via the basic observation that the intelligibility of the layered-graph of a well signed building should be reasonably expected to be higher than that of the accessibility-only graph. figure 7 and. must still hold true. in the context of a layered-graph. it might be fruitful to explore the utility of this representation to other problems. The layered-graph. That is to say.

” in P. vol. B.” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Space Syntax Symposium. Solutions for visibility-accessibility and signage problems via layered-graphs . A. Proceedings. F.S..S. A. eds. A. E. While this paper has not incorporated either the effect 175 of angular analyses or other graph-weightings. Springer Verlag. (1994) Kubat. vol. Ellicottville. and Penn. 49-72. (2008). “Natural movement: or. 6 no 1. Wineman. Mark. Peponis. Cambridge University Press. vol. then the layered-graph is reduced to the simpler graph typical of space syntax methods. Cambridge (UK). (1999). Kostakos. This layered-graph approach appears to be a further generalisation of the current space syntax representations. London. V. As such.G. B. J. 13 no 3. vol. pp. pp. 16. an approximation of intelligibility can be duly created. and Beisi. Istanbul.15.” Computer Graphics and Image Processing. Davis.” in A. (2005). 20 no 1. Harary.. pp. A.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. M. 6th International Space Syntax symposium.!) * k(N.. eds. Hillier. pp. and Choi.. 22 no 5. signage in buildings. N. Cohn and D. 2005. Proceedings of Spatial Information Theory: International Conference. 29-66.. pp. J. 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium. (1993). potentially. (1984). (2003).K. M. (2007). Hillier. Alfred Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.. given this equation for K. “Finding the building in wayfinding. 097-1 .9.” Environment & Behavior. vol. Michigan. U. Architectural Research Quarterly. (2005). A. September 14-18. J. and E. (2001). 11 no 1. 169-191. References Bakke. pp.Y. B. (1979). 555-590. B. vol. Dalton. The social logic of space. and Benedikt.. 475-490. WebmapAtHome. eds. Parvin. when the more general case of accessibility being directly equivalent to visibility. Ertekin.. N. and Yttri. Hanson. (2008). Graph Theory. 3. Grajewski.” in A.” Environment and Planning B. S. and Xu. available for down load from http://tinyurl. & Iida.. M. 169-181. Colorado. J. “Effect of visibility on multilevel movement: a study of the high-density compact built environment in Hong Kong. Cambridge University Press. 4 part 3. 257-264. pp. vol. II. Space is the Machine.EV) K(N) = k(N. eds.” Environment and Planning B. B.A.W. Proceedings. J.M... Y. it seems reasonable to warrant further research and testing in this area. M. L. J. “Following the crowd: spatial layout and crowd behaviour. “Morphologies of co-presence in interior public space in places of performance: the Royal Festival Hall and the Royal National Theatre of London. Eyübo_lou.” in J. and k(N. Güney. Berlin. Bafna. configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. pp. N. Conclusions This paper has introduced the concept of a layered-graph and shown how it can be used in space syntax to represent a wide range of real-world situations including a solution to the visibility-accessibly problem and. “To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Peponis. ITU Faculty of Architecture. Hillier. J. Westview Press.. Doxa. Benedikt. Cambridge (UK). and O'Neill. Istanbul. C. “The Hidden Geometry of Deformed Grids.” Urban Design International. pp. T. E) is the degree of edge set E for node N. COSIT 2005. Penn. Y. (1979). Fisher. Cambridge University Press. Ö.1-16. B. Cambridge (MA).L. 17-19. Carolin and T. vol. Major.Y. Hillier.EA) * ! + (1-! Where K(N) is the degree/connectivity of node. “Network and psychological effects in urban movement. 26. the concept of the layered-graph is not antithetical to these representational methods. It is evident that the layered-graph approach can be used to represent a number of different problematic cases found in real world buildings and even urban environments. Min. “Hybrid infrastructures for knowledge work. ”Quantifying the effects of space on encounter.D. (1990)..L. (1996). 47-65. Zimring. and S.I. For example. pp. pp. & Hanson. “Computational models of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Hillier.

Y. MK7 6AA United Kingdom Journal of Space Syntax. ITU Faculty of Architecture.” in A. Suvanajata. A.1-11.. and Penn. Turner. Serrato. Istanbul.Sailer. vol. Walton Hall. pp. A.6.I. The Open University. and Computing. 176 Contact Details: Nicholas Sheep Dalton n. 3.S. M. and E. 124-1 . II. UK. 2010 . Ertekin.8. 88-114. pp. 6th International Space Syntax symposium.. Budgen.. Eyübo_lou. R.” Journal of Architectural/Planning Research and Studies. vol. Güney. & Wineman. “Spatial and communication patterns in research & development The Departments of Mathematics and Statistics. Proceedings. Pages 164-176. London.. Buckinghamshire. Ö. Lonsdale. pp. (2003). J.” in Space Syntax: second international symposium. (2007). “Movement Navigator: A Relational Syntax Study on Movement and Space at King's Cross and Piccadilly Circus Underground Stations. Issue 1. K. vol. 11. I. Volume 1. “Effective workplaces-bridging the gap between architectural research and design practice. A. (1999). Istanbul. Kubat. eds. Milton Keynes.dalton@open.