Talk:Ekistics

message: If Ekistics is the science of settlement(s) (as it usually is given), then the "hexagon thing" isn't a primary tenet, so much as a point of view advocated by some principle people. Just like some physicists advocate a variable speed of light, where others don't. Except wheras the physics may one day be settled, in architecture, planning, there is no "right or wrong", just different causes and effects, and to reduce a science to a study of grid-patterning (of which only one is right) is a somewhat naive approach akin to that taught to fist year undergraduates.
There are few hexagonal-grid cities; to claim a science has a primary tenet which nobody deals with is to put a Science on a similar footing to astrology, ie not a real science, which "the study of human settlement" certainly is. There has been a magazine called ekistics since 1964 (monthly), if the hexagonal claim were so important in 40 years it would have risen to greater prominance, surely. As it is, it's more like Buckminster Fuller's tetrahedral domes; interesting geometry.
I suggest the article is misleading at present and should be modified. Certainly a reference to the study of city grids as one facet of the science is entirely appropriate, but should be neutral in form. Perhaps the whole topic should be expanded, albeit more neutrally. Graldensblud 16:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ekistics and Hexagons; neutrality of article disputed

message: I am not Sure why this article is catogarised under Architectural section. I am sure its more relevent with Planning
My understanding of Ekistics is a little different from what has been stated in the article. I can not how ever provide references for the matter I choose to put here as these are based on Notes from lectures and my personal understanding. I too can not really agree with the emphesis on 'Hexagonal'ity. Ekistics may not try to address the geometric patterns but rather to explain the non geometric or organismic pattern of settlements. 
It is difficult to try to explain Ekistics unless it is understood as a part of many theories related to settlements. Ekistics itself tried to see settlemets on a space time grid, rather than at a static point. (As an anlogy: If one was to predict what Humans of the future would be like, in shape, size, Habits etc, one needs to understand, also how man evolved, from Primates to the present state. This understanding can help to better predict the future)
Ekistics is significant because unlike earlier theories(Loche's, Cristller's etc), it considered the dynamic nature of settlemts. Also it deffered from the earlier theories in it that it accepted the non homogenity of the system (Eg: Earlier thories worked on assumptions of an equally distributed transportation system, which is practically impossible). Earlier theories did not accomodate for variations in settlemt patterns caused due to the presence of Natural barriers 
Doxiadis may have tried to find a biological analogy to explain Physical Distribution, Form and Function of Human settlements. He saw settlemets as a heigher order complex biological phenomenon, capable of Birth, growth and death (Both physical and non physical). (Cells, Tissues, Organs, Organ systems, Organism (Man), Comunity, Settlemts, City, Metropolis, ...to Ekiminopolis) He believed that one can learn about settlemets from other settlements only.  He identified componenets or Elements of a settlemet as
1. Nature
2. Man
3. Society
4. Shells
5. Networks
These MAY influence Hexagonal patterns. The original proposal of Hexagonal networks may have come from Christller's Central Place Theory where he proposed Hexagonal systems insted of circular ones so as to take care of 'shadow areas' (An almost triangular area)and areas of over lap in case of circular systems.  Loche's Theories also assumes hexagonal forms. We have to understand that in a perfectly homogeneous system, Hexagonal structure is possible. Ekistics can to some extent try to explain why systems are not exactly hexagonal rather than trying to emphesise on Hexagonality.  
Doxiadis also believed that the utlimate destiny of all settlemts is the Echiminopolis (a world where settlemets are physically continious where cities specialise in certain functions.)
Based on these he analysed the growth of settlemts and identified the following patterns of development based on their share and structure.
1. Concentric settlemts (In regions where transportation can develop equally in all directions)
2. Star shaped cities (where a settlement elongates along High speed transportation corridors giving it a star shape)Eg: Five fingered plan for Copenhagen)
3. Pear Shaped Settlement (where one tail of a star shaped city elongates- usually the elongation is along the corridor which has the fastest transportation means of all the tails)
4. Twin stars (Amalgamation of tails of two adjacent star shaped cities)
5. Dynapolis (A network of star shaped settlemts)
6. Echiminopolis (Where all the settlements in the world are physically connected, forming a continious web)
There are many settlemts which indicate that this understanding of a Dynapolis and subsequent Echiminopolis may come true. Varanasi, Allahabad, Lucknow, Kanpur (India) may be one such network of settlements each specialising in a different function.    
Doxiadis also refered to an Ekistic grid which has a 'Space span' and a 'Time span', where changes to the settlemt were bound to happen. Through Ekistics he tried to analyse and find the desirable direction of change. Based on this understanding, Doxiadis revised Copenhagen's five finger plan to a 'One finger Plan'. It is also Based on this that he may have worked out the direction of growth for Islamabad, so that it does not engulf the older city of Rawalpindi, in such a way that the two cities interact with another yet remain separated and retain their respecive physical and cultural identities.
:Suggest some of the above be incorporated into the article. Citations can be added later, so long as they exist. Wikipedia wants us to be bold in editing! Graldensblud 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ekistics as a study of Settlements 

message: I've made a minor change in the EU section. The Ecumenopolis population scale was changed and i've changed it back to 50KKK. Since all other scales were set in the 'upper limit', i thought it was the best thing to do. But, for the sake of neutrality, I've added a 'tilde'(approximately) and a reference to the Konstantinos' paper with the lower and the upper limits of population. "Adtollite portas principes vestras" 15:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor change and reference add