The second part of “You are Here” by Colin Ellard leaves the science behind the navigation of animals, insects, and ants and instead focuses on how we as people relate to different kinds of environments. Ellard doesn’t look to scientists for answers; instead, he quotes and references urban planners, architects, and anthropologists.

Don’t expect the second half of the book to be as interesting as the first part—it’s just not as good.

Ellard begins by discussing our relationship with personal space in our homes and introduces the term “isovist”, which is a key architectural theory for talking about space. Since he does little to explain the term and I have zero knowledge of architectural theory, I had to do a little outside research on the net to find out more about isovists. According to this abstract: 

“An isovist is the set of all points visible from a given vantage point in space and with respect to an environment. The shape and size of an isovist is liable to change with position. Numerical measures are proposed that quantify some salient size and shape features.”

Despite many references to different architects and space experts and the inclusion of the term “isovist”, there’s nothing really all that ground-breaking in Ellard’s long chapter on personal space in “You are Here.” Ellard speculates that the shape of a particular space is one key factor that will hold appeal for a particular room and offers the example of someone’s memory of a nook at their grandmother’s house. He also says that large isovists, as well as those in the center, are usually the most used by people. (From what I could see, he never really explains the “numerical measures’ for isovists.) He continues on by examining the changes in living structures from pre-historic times until the present and talks a little bit about FengS hui and its westernization form, which he calls McFengShui.

When talking about work spaces, Ellard mentions the apparent irony that some of the most beautiful buildings from the outside are the most difficult to navigate from the inside because of the “treacherous curves” in some buildings.

His chapter on people and their relationships with city spaces was much more interesting to me. Kevin Lynch, an urban planner mentioned by Ellard, believed that the best cities were composed of five imageable elements: paths, nodes, regions, boundaries, and landmarks. Lynch’s idea, as presented by Ellard, was that, “highly imageable cities are friendlier for the wayfarer.”

Another concept that Ellard introduces in the chapter on city spaces is that of “integration coefficients”, which sounds complicated, but actually relates to the number of turns it takes to get places. He doesn’t include the formula to determine the exact coefficient, but does offer a map/diagram depicting the coefficients. Obviously, the best-used spaces and streets from an urban planners point of view are those in clusters or straight lines because they encourage people to congregate. Sidewalks are also important part for urban planning.

Ellard also spends a considerable amount of time examining “Second Life”, the online virtual world that now has millions of users. Again, I found this chapter less interesting in terms of his examination of space. I did, however, find some of the little factoids about “Second Life” pretty interesting. Some “Second Life” users have blurred the line between reality and their virtual worlds and have sued each other and Linden Labs for property rights and to complain about the company’s “Code of Conduct.”  

Ellard is concerned that this may be a trend in the future. However, unlike Ellard, I think that the number of “Second Life” users is a drop in the bucket compared to the populations of Europe, Asia, and North America.