Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:54:22.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A coupled configurational description of boundary shape based on distance and directionality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2011

Ermal Shpuza
Ermal Shpuza*
Affiliation:
Southern Polytechnic State University, Marietta, Georgia, USA
*
Reprint requests to: Ermal Shpuza, Department of Architecture, Southern Polytechnic State University, 1100 South Marietta Parkway, Marietta, GA 30060, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A configurational method for describing shape is proposed based on two measures that gauge human experiences of moving through space: distance and changes in direction of travel. Boundary shapes from the built environment and nature are studied in a morphospace composed of two axes: one corresponding to each measure, to yield a typological classification of form. It is shown that the covariance between distance and directionality is mediated by the topological structure of embedded main circulation. Three kinds of circulation—elementary, ring, and linear—thus affect three fundamentally different balancing conditions between distance and directionality in boundary shapes. The analysis of large samples of shapes thus far demonstrates a “unique shape” status, where no two different shapes have the same pair of relative distance and directional fragmentation values.

Keywords

ConfigurationalDirectional FragmentationRelative DistanceShapeUnique
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 25 , Issue 4: Representing and Reasoning About Three-Dimensional Space , November 2011 , pp. 357 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albrecht, D., & Broikos, C. (2000). On the Job: Design and the American Office. New York: Princeton University Press and Washington, DC: National Building Museum.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, R.F. (1984). Measuring and comparing two-dimensional shapes. In Spatial Statistics and Models (Gaile, G.M., & Willmott, C.J., Eds.), pp. 293–312. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Batty, M. (2001). Exploring isovist fields: space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Environment and Planning (B): Planning and Design 28, 123–150.Google Scholar
Bedarida, M., & Milatović, M. (1991). Bürogebäude. Stuttgart: Karl Krämer.Google Scholar
Blair, D.J., & Biss, T.A. (1967). Measurement of shape in geography: an appraisal of methods and techniques. In Bulletin of Quantitative Data for Geographers 11, Nottingham: Nottingham University, Department of Geography.Google Scholar
Blaser, W. (2003). Bayer Konzernzentrale Headquarters. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Bunge, W. (1966). Theoretical Geography. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Clark, W.A.V., & Gaile, G.L. (1973). The analysis and recognition of shapes. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 55(1), 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, R. (2001). Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. PhD Thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Cooke, C. (1975). Nikolai Krasil'nikov's quantitative approach to architectural design: an early example. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. (2006). Key Houses of the Twentieth Century: Plans, Sections and Elevations. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Duffy, F. (1974). Office design and organizations: 1. Theoretical basis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 1, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, F., & Powell, K. (1997). The New Office. London: Conrad Octopus.Google Scholar
Futagawa, Y. (2008). GA Contemporary Architecture, Office 2, 11. Tokyo: ADA Edita.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Golomb, S. (1996). Polyominoes: Puzzles, Patterns, Problems and Packings. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Google Earth. (2006–2010). Retrieved April 2006–August 2010.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. (2008). Key Contemporary Buildings: Plans, Sections and Elevations. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Haggett, P., & Chorley, R.J. (1969). Network Analysis in Geography. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanna, S. (2010). Design agents and the need for high-dimensional perception. In Design Computing and Cognition ‘10 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 115–134. Stuttgart: Springer.Google Scholar
Hascher, R., Jeska, S., & Klauck, B. (2002). Office Buildings: A Design Manual. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hillier, B. (1999). The hidden geometry of deformed grids: or, why space syntax works when it looks as though it shouldn't. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26, 169–191.Google Scholar
Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1989). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning (B): Planning and Design 20, 29–66.Google Scholar
Koenderink, J.J. (1990). Solid Shape. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Maceachren, A. (1985). Compactness of geographic shape: comparison and evaluation of measures. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 67(1), 53–67.Google Scholar
March, L., & Steadman, P. (1971). The Geometry of Environment. London: RIBA Publications.Google Scholar
Mayer, A. (1877). Geschichte des Prinzips der Kleinsten Action. Leipzig: Veit.Google Scholar
Moellering, H., & Rayner, J. (1981). The harmonic analysis of spatial shapes using dual axis fourier shape analysis (DAFSA). Geographical Analysis 13(1), 64–77.Google Scholar
Myers, J. (2010). Polyomino tiling. Accessed at http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/tiling/Google Scholar
Myerson, J., & Ross, P. (1999). The Creative Office. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.Google Scholar
Natural Earth. (2010). 1:110m Physical vectors. Accessed at http://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/110m-physical-vectors on September 2010.Google Scholar
Peponis, J., & Wineman, J. (2002). Spatial structure of environment and behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Bechtel, R.B., & Churchman, A., Eds.), pp. 271–291. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Peponis, J., Wineman, J., Rashid, M., Hong Kim, S., & Bafna, S. (1997). On the description of shape and spatial configuration inside buildings: convex partitions and their local properties. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24, 761–781.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child's Conception of Space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pile, J. (1976). Interior 3rd Book of Offices. New York: Watson–Guptill.Google Scholar
Psarra, S., & Grajewski, T. (2001). Describing shape and shape complexity using local properties. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Space Syntax, pp. 28.1–28.6.Google Scholar
Pullen, W.D. (2011). Daedalus 2.3. Available at http://www.astrolog.org/labyrnth/daedalus.htm on February 2011.Google Scholar
Shpuza, E. (2001). Floorplate shapes as generators of circulation. Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Space Syntax, pp. 29.1–29.15.Google Scholar
Shpuza, E. (2006). Floorplate shapes and office layouts: a model of the effect of floorplate shape on circulation integration. PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology. Accessed at http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/etd-03172006-111654Google Scholar
Shpuza, E. (2007). Urban shapes and urban grids: a comparative study of Adriatic and Ionian coastal cities. Proc. 6th Int. Space Syntax Symp., pp. 9.01–9.25.Google Scholar
Shpuza, E., & Peponis, J. (2008). The effect of floorplate shape upon office layout integration. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 35(2), 318–336.Google Scholar
Steadman, P. (2003). How day-lighting constrains access. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. Space Syntax, pp. 5.1–5.18.Google Scholar
Steadman, P., & Mitchell, L.J. (2010). Architectural morphospace: mapping worlds of built forms. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37(2), 197–220.Google Scholar
Tabor, P. (1976). Analyzing route patterns. In The Architecture of Form (March, L., Ed.), pp. 352–378. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. (1971). Distances within shapes: an introduction to a family of finite frequency distributions. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 53(1), 40–53.Google Scholar
Thompson, D.W. (1959). On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, A., Doxa, M., O'Sullivan, D., & Penn, A. (2001). From isovist to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28, 103–122.Google Scholar
van Meel, J. (2000). The European Office: Office Design and National Context. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.Google Scholar
Various Authors. (2004–2009). Architectural Review, May 2004–Dec 2009. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
Wentz, E. (2000). A shape definition for geographic applications based on edge, elongation and perforation. Geographical Analysis 32(1), 95–112.Google Scholar
Weston, R. (2010). Key Buildings of the 20th Century: Plans, Sections and Elevation, 2nd ed.New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Willoughby, T.M. (1975). Building forms and circulation patterns. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2, 59–87.Google Scholar
Zamani, P. (2008). Views across boundaries and groupings across categories: the morphology of display in the galleries of the high museum of art 1983–2003. PhD Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Zar, J. (2009). Biostatistical Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar