https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A2=ind2109&L=SPACESYNTAX&O=D&P=15025

Dear all,

I've run space syntax and place syntax analyses for a city and the results from both analyses show that some areas that are the closest and most accessible in place syntax analyses (attraction distance), got low integration degrees in space syntax analyses. Then, should results from both analyses have some sort of correspondence?

Best wishes,

Asmaa

亲爱的，

我对一个城市进行了空间句法和地点句法分析，两种分析的结果表明，一些最接近和最容易进行的地点句法分析（吸引距离）的区域在空间句法分析中的整合度较低. 那么，两种分析的结果是否应该有某种对应关系？

最好的祝福，

阿斯玛

 https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A2=ind2109&L=SPACESYNTAX&O=D&P=15602

Dear Asmaa,

 There is no necessary connection between the two. It depends on many things, including what attractions you analyse, but also how programming/zoning/other regulations guide where things end up. In a relatively flexible plan with fewer regulations about land use (weak program, few regulations, etc), there usually is a connection between a certain range of attractions and integration (e.g. shops and integration, etc), but in other ways of organising programme these relations can be weak or near non-existent. Another difference can be that the correlations them in-between act on some scales, but not others. For some attractions, it may also be weak, negative, or no correlations to integration.

The same could appear if there are contradictory ideas of programming in different parts of the same city, leading to that the same attraction follows contradictory spatial properties which on the global level looks like no relation. For instance, if schools for a period are located in central/integrated locations and in another period in peripheral/segregated locations and schools from both periods are still in use.

Degree and pattern of correspondence, in a sense, is an (initial) finding.

Best

Daniel

亲爱的阿斯玛，

 两者之间没有必然的联系。这取决于很多事情，包括您分析的景点，以及规划/分区/其他法规如何指导事情的最终结果。在一个相对灵活的规划中，对土地使用的规定较少（弱项目、少规定等），通常有一定范围的景点和整合（例如商店和整合等），但在其他组织计划的方式这些关系可能很弱或几乎不存在。另一个区别可能是它们之间的相关性在某些尺度上起作用，但在其他尺度上不起作用。对于某些景点，它也可能与整合弱相关、负相关或没有相关性。

如果在同一个城市的不同部分存在相互矛盾的规划理念，也会出现同样的情况，导致相同的吸引力遵循相互矛盾的空间属性，在全球层面上看起来没有任何关系。例如，如果某个时期的学校位于中心/综合地区，而另一时期的学校位于外围/隔离地区，并且这两个时期的学校仍在使用。

从某种意义上说，对应的程度和模式是（最初的）发现。

最好的

丹尼尔

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A2=ind2109&L=SPACESYNTAX&O=D&P=17378

Dear Asmaa

There are systematic relationship between accessibility and land use categories locational propensities, not necessarily with closeness (integration) as potential accessibility more likely to be with betweenness (path overlap, choice) as flow potential and this at different spatial scale (radius) for different land uses mediated by transport modes (walking, cycling, bus/car, metro, etc)

Understanding these differences is important to understand what the relationship between urban morphology and land use locational patterns.

Even in the case of highly planned city system (like China) these relationship can be retrieved and understood systematically.

For example see:

Wuhan: Xiao, Y., et al. 2017. Street network accessibility-based methodology for appraisal of land use master plans: An empirical case study of Wuhan, China. Land Use Policy, 69, pp.193-203.

Shanghai: Zhang, L., Chiaradia, A. and Zhuang, Y., 2015. A configurational accessibility study of road and metro network in Shanghai, China. In Recent developments in Chinese urban planning (pp. 219-245). Springer, Cham.

One could say that there is method in planning, it is not really random and it is not organized around normal distribution.

In London see: 10. Chiaradia, A. J., Schwander, C. and Honeysett, D., 2009. Profiling land use location with Space Syntax: angular choice and multi metric radii. Presented at: 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, 8th-11th June 2009.

http://www.sss7.org/Proceedings/Seminars/Chiaradia%20-%20Accesssibility%20-%20Land%20Use%20and%20Space%20Syntax%20analysis.pdf

What is remarkable is how the spatial competition/spatial market or/and effectively how planning systemically locate particular land use in relationship to potential accessibility and potential flow.

In the tradition of Hansen (1959) and the transport disciplines, it is ok to weight potential accessibility with opportunities (land uses) yet for urban design and planning, it is also important to understand that land use is also driven by accessibility differentiated propensities or as urban planning intent - which may vary by period but also from spatial market/interaction point of view and urban innovation such as introducing a metro system, new line, surface service, etc.

More generally the differential between residential which represent about 80% of land use and other land use, say jobs as general land use category, is mediated by multi-scale accessibility/flow configuration and their modalities (walking, bus/car, metro, etc.) that slight differential is very much patterning how these about 20% locate.

Alain

亲爱的 Asmaa

可达性和土地利用类别位置倾向之间存在系统关系，不一定与接近性（整合）作为潜在可达性更可能与中介性（路径重叠，选择）作为流动潜力，这在不同的空间尺度（半径）由交通方式（步行、骑自行车、公共汽车/汽车、地铁等）介导的不同土地利用

了解这些差异对于了解城市形态和土地利用位置模式之间的关系很重要。

即使在高度规划的城市系统（如中国）中，也可以系统地检索和理解这些关系。

例如见：

武汉：Xiao, Y., et al. 2017. 基于街道网络可达性的土地利用总体规划评估方法：中国武汉的实证案例研究。土地使用政策，69，第 193-203 页。

上海：Zhang, L.、Chiaradia, A. 和 Zhuang, Y.，2015 年。中国上海道路和地铁网络的配置可达性研究。在中国城市规划的最新发展（第 219-245 页）。斯普林格，查姆。

可以说计划中有方法，它不是真正随机的，也不是围绕正态分布组织的。

在伦敦，请参阅：10. Chiaradia, AJ、Schwander, C. 和 Honeysett, D., 2009。使用空间句法分析土地利用位置：角度选择和多度量半径。发表于：2009 年 6 月 8 日至 11 日，瑞典斯德哥尔摩，第七届国际空间句法研讨会。

http://www.sss7.org/Proceedings/Seminars/Chiaradia%20-%20Accesssibility%20-%20Land%20Use%20and%20Space%20Syntax%20analysis.pdf

值得注意的是空间竞争/空间市场或/以及规划如何有效地系统地定位与潜在可达性和潜在流量相关的特定土地利用。

在 Hansen (1959) 的传统和交通学科中，可以用机会（土地用途）来衡量潜在可达性，但对于城市设计和规划，了解土地利用也受可达性差异化倾向或作为城市规划意图——可能因时期而异，但也可能从空间市场/互动的角度和城市创新的角度来看，例如引入地铁系统、新线路、地面服务等。

更一般地说，占土地利用 80% 左右的住宅与其他土地利用（例如作为一般土地利用类别的工作）之间的差异是由多尺度可达性/流量配置及其方式（步行、公共汽车/汽车、地铁等）调节的.) 这种轻微的差异在很大程度上影响了这些大约 20% 的定位。

阿兰

 place syntax 是另外一种更综合的模型，讨论分析结果为什么有差异