As reported in the Guardian Online on 09 September 2004
Science can be used to design cities according to rational laws, writes Philip Ball.
‘It was built to be a modern, efficient, healthy and, all in all, pleasant place to live. Many Britons find this amusing.” That’s how Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, in their book Good Omens, describe Milton Keynes, a town for which neither heaven nor hell is prepared to take credit.
But even with one of the highest densities of roundabouts in the country, not to mention the notorious concrete cows, there are far worse places to live than Milton Keynes. The ridicule it suffers is more a reflection of our instinctive scepticism about the idea of rationally designing a city.
Ever since the 19th century, urban design has had an uneasy relationship with science. Amid the grimy horrors of the Industrial Revolution, cities became viewed as inherently undesirable.
“Town planning began as an attempt not to understand cities but to replace them with something better,” says Bill Hillier, director of the Space Syntax Laboratory at University College London. Idealists like Robert Owen aimed to create a bucolic-industrial utopia, and paved the way for “balanced urban environments” such as garden cities. Read More
As reported in the Times Higher Education Supplement on 17 April 1998
Julia Hinde reports on UCL’s novel architectural consultancy that aims to make money from the spaces between buildings.
How is it that some company coffee machines become the focus of office life, where deals are struck and ideas take shape, while others are purely functional? Why do some modern shopping centres take off, while others are seen as windswept and heartless and remain deserted?
It is down to “space”, says architect Tim Stonor, the business mind behind University College London’s architecture consultancy, the Space Syntax Laboratory. Read More