Mutual visibility of points in building plans

In this paper, attempts are made to characterise building plans based on mutual visibility of points defined by the lines composing these plans. Since lines in building plans represent real walls and their surfaces, points defined by these lines are considered to have certain perceivable significance. The paper considers two overlapping sets of points: vertices and coordination points. Vertices are tangible points defined by the free ends and the intersections of lines, while coordination points are the tangible and intangible points defined by intersecting lines and/or diagonals. A coordination point helps to coordinate two or more points, either physically by direct access or visually by sightlines. The paper proposes graph-theoretic techniques to characterise vertices and coordination points based on their visual relationships defined in a number of ways. These techniques are applied to three sets of artificial building plans representing the cellular, deformed and free-plan types: types that are quite common in architectural literature. With the help of these techniques, several elusive properties of architectural space and experience are formally described highlighting similarities and differences among these plan types. The significance of these techniques is discussed in relation to architecture, perceptual psychology and cognitive science.

[1]  Mahbub Rashid,et al.  Describing Plan Configuration According to the Covisibility of Surfaces , 1998 .

[2]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[3]  A. Turner,et al.  From Isovists to Visibility Graphs: A Methodology for the Analysis of Architectural Space , 2001 .

[4]  E. Sadalla,et al.  Reference points in spatial cognition. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[5]  Daniel Ling,et al.  The Mechanisms of Perception , 1969 .

[6]  J. O’Keefe,et al.  Geometric determinants of the place fields of hippocampal neurons , 1996, Nature.

[7]  S. H. Kim,et al.  On the Generation of Linear Representations of Spatial Configuration , 1998 .

[8]  Mahbub Rashid,et al.  On the Description of Shape and Spatial Configuration inside Buildings: Convex Partitions and Their Local Properties , 1997 .

[9]  F. J. Langdon,et al.  The Child's Conception of Space , 1967 .

[10]  Jan M. Wiener,et al.  From Space Syntax to Space Semantics: A Behaviorally and Perceptually Oriented Methodology for the Efficient Description of the Geometry and Topology of Environments , 2008 .

[11]  R. Muller,et al.  Failure of Centrally Placed Objects to Control the Firing Fields of Hippocampal Place Cells , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  J. Gibson The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems , 1967 .

[13]  K. Jeffery,et al.  Experience-dependent rescaling of entorhinal grids , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  J P Steadman,et al.  Built Forms and Building Types: Some Speculations , 1994 .

[15]  Hanspeter A. Mallot,et al.  Graph-based models of space in architecture and cognitive science: a comparative analysis , 2005 .

[16]  N. Burgess Spatial Cognition and the Brain , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[17]  K. Jeffery,et al.  The Boundary Vector Cell Model of Place Cell Firing and Spatial Memory , 2006, Reviews in the neurosciences.

[18]  J. O’Keefe Place units in the hippocampus of the freely moving rat , 1976, Experimental Neurology.

[19]  M. Benedikt,et al.  To Take Hold of Space: Isovists and Isovist Fields , 1979 .

[20]  Taketoshi Ono,et al.  Place recognition responses of neurons in monkey hippocampus , 1991, Neuroscience Letters.