Spatial cultures of Soho, London. Exploring the evolution of space, culture and society of London's infamous cultural quarter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space as affording social interaction is highly debated subject among various epistemic disciplines. This research contributes to the discussion by shedding light on urban culture and community organisation in spatialised ways. Providing a case of London’s famous cultural quarter, Soho, the research investigates the physical and cultural representation of the neighbourhood and relates it to the evolving socio-spatial logic of the area. Utilising analytical methods of space syntax and its network graph theories that are based on the human perception of space, the research narrates the evolution in spatial configuration and its implication on Soho’s social morphology. The method used examines the spatial changes over time to evaluate the shifting identity of the area that was in the past an immigrant quarter and presently a celebrated gay village. The approach, therefore, combines analytical methods, such as network analysis, historical morphology analysis and distribution of land uses over time, with empirical methods, such as observations, auto-ethnography, literature, and photographs. Dataset comprises of street network graphs, historical maps, and street telephone and trade directories, as well as a list of literature, and data collected by the author through surveys. Soho’s cosmopolitanism and its ability to reinvent over time, when viewed through the prism of spatial cultures, help understand the potential of urban fabric in maintaining a time-space relationship and organisation of community life. Social research often tends to overlook the relationship between people and culture with their physical environment, where they manifest through the various practices and occupational distribution. In the case of Soho, the research found that there was a clear distribution of specific communities along specific streets over a certain period in the history. The gay bars were situated along Rupert and Old Compton Street, whereas the Jewish and Irish traders were established on Berwick Street, and so on. Upon spatial analysis of Soho and its surrounding areas, it was found that the streets of Soho were unlike that of its surrounding neighbourhoods. In Soho, the streets were organised with a certain level of hierarchy, and this hierarchy also shifted over time. This impacted the distribution of landuses within the area over time. Street hierarchy was measured through mathematical modelling of streets as derived by space syntax. In doing so, the research enabled viewing spaces and communities as evolving in parallel over time. In conclusion, by mapping the activities and the spatiality of Soho’s various cultural inhabitants over three historical periods and connecting these changes to the changing spatial morphology of the region, the research highlighted the importance of space in establishing the evolving nature of Soho. Such changes are visible in both symbolic and functional ways, from the location of a Govinda temple on a Soho square street, to the rise and fall of culture specific landuses such as gay bars on Old Compton Street. The research concludes by highlighting gentrification as an example of this time-space relation and addresses the research gap of studying spaces for its ability to afford changeability over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".