" 

 == Complete article rewrite proposal == 

 (I have no affiliation with space syntax. I'm an archaeologist, presently working on a PhD in which I use space syntax methods to analyse an ancient settlement plan - which is just a small part of my research) 

 In my view the present article does no justice to what space syntax is, neither do the various comments on this talk page. I realise that most people are familiar with the theory through urban planning, and regard space syntax as an applied method for urban design. The first two sentences of the article are telling:  

 ""The term space syntax encompasses a set of theories and techniques for the analysis of spatial configurations. It was conceived by Bill Hillier, Julienne Hanson and colleagues at The Bartlett, University College London in the late 1970s to early 1980s as a tool to help urban planners simulate the likely social effects of their designs."" 

 First, 'a set of theories and techniques for the analysis of spatial configuration is too narrow as a definition. Second, helping urban planners was not at all the reason for developing space syntax.  

 As I see it, space syntax is first and foremost a theory about the relation between space and society. This can be read in the introductory chapter of Hillier & Hanson's the social logic of space (1984). Here (and on a multitude of other places) they argue that the current paradigm found in sociology, social geography, and anthropology to name a few, does not succeed in describing nor explaining the relation between people and their built environment accurately. As Hillier in his writings engages with many influential theories in the social sciences (from 'biggies' as Durkheim to Levi-Strauss and Giddens) his aims are clearly much larger than just providing urban planners with some useful tools.  

 As a matter of fact, the theory having some relevance for urban planning is just an accident, a by-product of the subsequent theory testing on real world situations. At some point they discovered that the integration values of the axial map corresponded well with observed aggregated movement flows of pedestrians and certain land uses (first main insights of these investigations published by Hillier et al in 1993). Many more cases of such studies followed, testing other variables as well, but generally with the same results. So they concluded that axial lines could more or less predict human presence and movement within urban grids. They were initially as puzzled about this as one of the above commentators on this talk page: ""Why should the axial organization of space be so fundamental?"" Hillier et al wonder in their 1993 article (p. 62). In the years after the hypothesis was developed that this related to the way people cognize space and spatial relations, which, against common assumption, is not primarily determined by metric factors. Recent cognitive research in way finding behaviour is starting to confirm this picture.  

 Also the assertion of user jmanooch that ""SS salesfolks and researchers will claim they can do all these things [solving real urban design problems], but they can't"" is not really a fair assessment of space syntax in my view. I may of course be wrong here because I have no insight in the workfloor dynamics of the urban planning profession. But this quote of the end of their 1993 article might represent better their view on the usefulness of space syntax for urban design: ""It does not tell designers what to do. It helps them to understand what they are doing"". 

 Anyway, long story short (too late for that..): this article needs a thorough rewrite.  

 1. It needs to position space syntax theory in relation to other social theories about the relation between space and society  
 2. It needs to represent the history and original aims of space syntax research more faithfully  
 3. It needs to discuss its subsequent reception or uses in various (academic and applied) fields, not only urban design/planning (although clearly, here it has had the most impact)  
 4. And of course the criticism that space syntax theory and method received should be systematically dealt with, including replies by Hillier & others. Now it only contains a very imprecise review of Ratti's 2004{{cite journal|last1=Ratti|first1=C|title=Urban Texture and Space syntax: some inconsistencies|journal=Environment and Planning B: Planni