¹ Gregory, I.N. and Ell, P.S., Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies, and Scholarship (Cambridge, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Griffiths, S., ‘GIS and research into historical “spaces of practice”: overcoming the epistemological barriers’, in Travis, C. and Lünen, A. von (eds.), History and GIS: Epistemologies, Considerations and Reflections (Dordecht, 2013), 153–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Pooley, C., ‘Patterns on the ground: urban form, residential structure and the social construction of space’, in Daunton, M.J. (ed.), The Cambridge Urban History of Britain 1840–1950, vol. III (Cambridge, 2000), 429–65Google Scholar; for a space syntax perspective, see Hillier, B. and Vaughan, L., ‘The city as one thing’, Progress in Planning, 67 (2007), 205–30Google Scholar.

⁴ A. Penn, ‘The shape of habitable space’, Proceedings of the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium (London, 2007), 62:1–16.

⁵ The most widely used space syntax software is DepthmapX. DepthmapX is available on an open source licence from UCL's Space Syntax Laboratory http://varoudis.github.io/depthmapX/, accessed 24 Jan. 2019. For the integration of space syntax software with QGIS software, see: Gil, J., Varoudis, T., Karimi, K. and Penn, A., ‘The space syntax toolkit: integrating DepthmapX and exploratory spatial analysis workflows in QGIS’, in Karimi, K., Vaughan, L., Sailer, K., Palaiologou, G. and Bolton, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium (London, 2015), 148:1–16Google Scholar.

⁶ Griffiths, ‘GIS and research into historical “spaces of practice”’; see also Jones, C.E., Griffiths, S., Haklay, M. and Vaughan, L., ‘A multi-disciplinary perspective on the built environment: Space Syntax and cartography – the communication challenge’, in Koch, D., Marcus, L. and Steen, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium (Stockholm, 2007), 48:1–12Google Scholar.

⁷ The influence of Michael Foucault's panopticon is strong here: Foucault, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

⁸ Hillier, B., ‘The architecture of the urban object’, Ekistics, 56 (1989), 334–5Google Scholar; Griffiths, S. and von Lünen, A., ‘Preface’, in Griffiths, S. and Lünen, von (eds.), Spatial Cultures: New Perspectives on the Social Morphology of Cities Past and Present (London, 2016), xx–xxxCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Griffiths, S., ‘Temporality in Hillier and Hanson's theory of spatial description: some implications of historical research for space syntax’, Journal of Space Syntax, 2 (2011), 73–96Google Scholar. For the artifactual dimension of spatial morphology, see Weissenborn, F., ‘After structure: expression in built form’, Journal of Space Syntax, 6 (2015), 34–48Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Hillier, B. and Hanson, J., The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge, 1984), 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Griffiths, S., ‘The use of space syntax in historical research: current practice and future possibilities’, in Greene, M., Reyes, J. and Castro, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium (Santiago, 2012), 8193:1–26Google Scholar; H. Stöger, ‘The ancient city and Huizinga's Homo Ludens’, in Griffiths and von Lünen (eds.), Spatial Cultures, 15–31. For an early modern focus, see Psarra, S., The Venice Variations: Tracing the Architectural Imagination (London, 2018), chs. 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Researchers from UCL's Space Syntax Laboratory hosted two panel sessions at the Urban History Group Annual Conference at Robinson College, University of Cambridge (March/April 2016) and one at the Royal Holloway, University of London Conference (March 2017), and also presented research at the European Association of Urban Historians Conference in Helsinki (August 2016) and Rome (2018) to select a few instances of this interdisciplinary nexus.

¹³ Dyos, H.J., Victorian Suburb: A Study of the Growth of Camberwell (Leicester, 1961)Google Scholar; Pooley, C., ‘The residential segregation of migrant communities in mid-Victorian Liverpool’, Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, new series, 2 (1977), 364–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cannadine, D., ‘Residential differentiation in nineteenth-century towns: from shapes on the ground to shapes in society’, in Johnson, J.H. and Pooley, C. (eds.), The Structure of Nineteenth-Century Cities (London, 1982), 235–81Google Scholar. A recent space syntax contribution to this tradition of work is O'Brien, J.R. and Griffiths, S., ‘Relating urban morphologies to movement potentials over time: a diachronic study with space syntax of Liverpool, UK’, in Heitor, T., Serra, M., Silva, P., Bacharel, M. and da Silva, L. Cannas (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Space Syntax Symposium (Lisbon, 2017), 98.1–11Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Katrina Navickas, Reader in History at the University of Hertfordshire, for her integral role in developing the political meetings research presented in this section and for permission to represent her data in this context.

¹⁵ The research project: ‘Applying space syntax methods to historical data: mapping popular political meetings in 19th century British cities’ is part-funded by an Architectural Research Fund grant (2016) from the UCL Bartlett School of Architecture and is expected to conclude in 2019.

¹⁶ Navickas, K., The Politics of Space and Place, 1789–1848 (Manchester, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ A part of the newspaper data was text-mined using a Python code developed with the British Library Labs team in their Digital Scholarship department – see Navickas, K., and Crymble, A., ‘From Chartist newspaper to digital map of grassroots meetings, 1841–1844: documenting workflows’, Journal of Victorian Culture, 22 (2017), 232–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ S. Griffiths, K. Navickas and D. Blerta, ‘Political meeting places in Manchester and Sheffield c. 1780–1860: the built environment as a quotidian source of political agency’, unpublished paper presented to the European Association of Urban Historians, 29 Aug. to 1 Sep., Rome (2018).

¹⁹ For example L. Mumford, The City in History (Harmondsworth, 1961). Mumford believed the industrial city was essentially dehumanizing. Whatever the justice of this view, from a twenty-first-century standpoint it is also clear that critique of industrial cities that informed post-war modernism also expressed a class-based distaste for industrial cities that too easily associated environmental degradation with social degradation – a form of environmental determinism. See Evans, R., ‘Rookeries and model dwellings’, in Translations from Drawing to Buildings and Other Essays (London, 1997), 94–117Google Scholar.

²⁰ See also Griffiths, S., Jones, C.E., Vaughan, L. and Haklay, M., ‘The persistence of suburban centres in Greater London: combining Conzenian and space syntax approaches’, Urban Morphology, 14 (2010) 85–99Google Scholar.

²¹ It is intended that the detailed methodological process and findings from the political meetings research project should be published in full in the near future.

²² Vaughan, L., Clark, D.C., Sahbaz, O. and Haklay, M., ‘Space and exclusion: does urban morphology play a part in social deprivation?’, Area, 37 (2005), 402–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vaughan, L., ‘The spatial form of poverty in Charles Booth's London’, Progress in Planning, 67 (2007), 231–50Google Scholar; Vaughan, L., ‘Mapping the East End labyrinth’, in Werner, A. (ed.), Jack the Ripper and the East End (London, 2008), 218–37Google Scholar; Vaughan, L. and Geddes, I., ‘Urban form and deprivation: a contemporary proxy for Charles Booth's analysis of poverty’, Radical Statistics, 99 (2009), 46–73Google Scholar.

²³ P.G. Hall, The Industries of London since 1861 (London, 1962).

²⁴ L. Narvaez Zertuche, H. Davis, S. Griffiths, B. Dino and L. Vaughan, ‘The spatial ordering of knowledge economies: the growth of furniture industry in nineteenth-century London’, Proceedings of the 11th International Space Syntax Symposium, 95:1–22.

²⁵ Vaughan, L., ‘The relationship between physical segregation and social marginalisation in the urban environment’, World Architecture, 185 (2005), 88–96Google Scholar. The source map can be found in Russell, C. and Lewis, H.S., The Jew in London, with a Map Specially Made for This Volume by Geo. E. Arkell (London, 1901)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Kushner, T., ‘Jew and non-Jew in the East End of London’, in Alderman, G. and Holmes, C. (eds.), Outsiders & Outcasts: Essays in Honour of William J. Fishman (London, 1993), 32–52Google Scholar.

²⁷ White, J., Rothschild Buildings: Life in an East End Tenement Block 1887–1920 (London, 2003)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Vaughan, L. and Penn, A., ‘Jewish immigrant settlement patterns in Manchester and Leeds 1881’, Urban Studies, 43 (2006), 653–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Gilliland, J. and Olson, S., ‘Residential segregation in the industrializing city: a closer look’, Urban Geography, 3 (2010), 29–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The authors’ research highlights how a consideration of the fine scale hierarchy of streets when mapping rent costs produces an historical understanding of the economic diversity of the city's streets at the time, which contained ‘measurably greater internal diversity of land use, dwelling sizes, household rents, and occupation [while] the lesser side streets, lanes, and alleys nurtured microcosms of difference’, 52.

³⁰ Vaughan, L., Mapping Society: The Spatial Dimensions of Social Cartography (London, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Recent work by M. Poutanen and J. Gilliland serves as parallel examples, whereby the textual source – in this instance, the appointments diary of a community Rabbi in Montreal, provide the authors with a source for mapping the social geography of the Jewish community of the city at the turn of the twentieth century. Poutanen, M. and Gilliland, J., ‘Mapping work in early twentieth-century Montreal: a rabbi, a neighbourhood, and a community’, Urban History Review, 45 (2017), 7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Dalton, R. Conroy, ‘Space syntax and spatial cognition’, in Wu, D. (ed.), World Architecture: Space Syntax, 1 (2005), 41–5Google Scholar.

³³ Vaughan, L. and Sailer, K., ‘The metropolitan rhythm of street life: a socio-spatial analysis of synagogues and churches in nineteenth-century Whitechapel’, in Holmes, Colin and Kershen, Anne J. (eds.), An East End Legacy: Essays in Honour of William J. Fishman (London, 2018), 184–206Google Scholar; also G. Palaiologou and L. Vaughan, ‘Setting up the metropolis: unpacking the historical spatial cultures of London and Manhattan’, in Proceedings of the 10th International Space Syntax Symposium, 55:1–18; Palaiologou, G., ‘High Street transactions and interactions’, in Vaughan, L. (ed.), Suburban Urbanities: Suburbs and the Life of the High Street (London, 2015), 175–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ S. Griffiths, ‘The high street as a morphological event’, in Vaughan (ed.), Suburban Urbanities, 32–52; J. Hanson, ‘Order and structure in urban space: a morphological history of the city of London’, University of London Ph.D. thesis, 1989.

³⁵ S. Griffiths, ‘Persistence and change in the spatio-temporal description of Sheffield parish c. 1750–1905’, in Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, 37:1–15.

³⁶ S. Griffiths, ‘From lines on maps to symbolic order in cities? Translating processional routes as spatial practice, Sheffield c. 1780–1910’, in Griffiths and von Lünen (eds.), Spatial Cultures, 76–94.

³⁷ Griffiths, S., ‘Spatial culture, processional culture and the materialities of social memory in nineteenth-century Sheffield’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 17 (2016), 252–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Griffiths, S., ‘Manufacturing innovation as spatial culture: Sheffield's cutlery industry c. 1750–1900’, in Damme, I. Van, Blondé, B. and Miles, A. (eds.), Cities and Creativity from the Renaissance to the Present (London, 2017), 127–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ 2010–13, Adaptable Suburbs, EPSRC EP/I001212/1, www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/adaptable-suburbs, accessed 31 Jul. 2019; 2006–09, Towards Successful Suburban Town Centres, EPSRC EP/D06595X/1.

⁴⁰ A. Dhanani, ‘Suburban continuity and change’, in Vaughan (ed.), Suburban Urbanities, 53–76.

⁴¹ Griffiths, Jones, Vaughan and Haklay, ‘The persistence of suburban centres in Greater London’; Törma, I., Griffiths, S. and Vaughan, L., ‘High street changeability: the relationship between morphology and demolition, modification and use change in two south London suburbs’, Urban Morphology, 17 (2017), 5–28Google Scholar.

⁴² Griffiths, ‘The high street as a morphological event’. Elsewhere in Suburban Urbanities, Vaughan illustrates the nature of historical continuity with a painting from c. 1830 by John Constable that shows Sir Richard Steele's cottage, Hampstead in the foreground and St Paul's Cathedral in the background, to highlight both the process of urban change – Hampstead was an outlying suburb at the time, while today it is considered part of London – and the continuity of urban elements despite that change. The continuity of the road section depicted as the locus for drinking culture in a succession of inns and pubs ‘signals a kind of path dependency that is one of the ways in which cities such as London have managed to adapt to change’, Vaughan (ed.), Suburban Urbanities, 5–6.

⁴³ Bolton, T., ‘Railway terminals and separation: Paddington and Marylebone Stations, London’, in Clark, J. and Wise, N. (eds.), Urban Renewal, Community and Participation: Theory, Policy and Practice (Dordecht, 2015), 125–40Google Scholar. The essential study by Richard Rodger on the transformation of Edinburgh in the nineteenth century demonstrates the importance of mapping historical land-use patterns to capture the impact of urban interventions. Rodger finds that ‘as in other Victorian cities, the lines of railway development shaped subsequent housing development and crystallised existing zones of land use’. Rodger, R., The Transformation of Edinburgh: Land, Property and Trust in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 2004), 211Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Hillier and Hanson, The Social Logic of Space; Hillier, B., Space Is the Machine (Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar; Hanson, J., Decoding Homes and Houses (Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Hillier and Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, 236.

⁴⁶ Hillier, ‘The architecture of the urban object’.

⁴⁷ Hillier, Space Is the Machine, 141.

⁴⁸ Jerram, L., ‘Space: a useless category for historical analysis?’, History and Theory, 52 (2013), 400–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ M. de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley, 1984).

⁵⁰ Ingold, T., The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London, 2000), 234Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Ibid., 234.

⁵² Hillier and Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, 99.

⁵³ Conroy Dalton, ‘Space syntax and spatial cognition’.

⁵⁴ Griffiths, S., ‘Space syntax as interdisciplinary urban design pedagogy’, in Carmona, M. (ed.), Explorations in Urban Design: An Urban Design Research Primer (Farnham, 2014)Google Scholar; Griffiths, S. and Netto, V., Editorial, Guest, ‘Open syntaxes: towards new engagements with social sciences and humanities’, Journal of Space Syntax, 6 (2016), ii–vGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P. and Bedford, M., ‘Space syntax’, Environment and Planning B, 3 (1976), 179–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ V. Netto, The Social Fabric of Cities (London, 2016).

⁵⁷ Seamon, D., A Geography of the Lifeworld: Movement, Rest, and Encounter (New York, 1979)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Lefebvre, H., The Production of Space, trans. Smith, D.N. (Oxford, 1991), 132, 137Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ The assertion that movement and land-use attractors cannot change spatial configuration is empirically questionable because, over time, these can generate new paths through space, with corresponding configurational effects. Hillier's concern, however, is to establish configuration as primary at the scale of the system. This question is addressed in Griffiths, ‘Temporality in Hillier and Hanson's theory of spatial description’.

⁶⁰ Banks, J.A., ‘The contagion of numbers’, in Dyos, H.J. and Wolff, M. (eds.), The Victorian City: Images and Realities (London, 1976), 105–22Google Scholar; L.S. Liebst, ‘Reassembling Durkheimian sociology of space’, in Griffiths and von Lünen (eds.), Spatial Cultures, 214–24.

⁶¹ A. Briggs, ‘The human aggregate’, in Dyos and Wolff (eds.), The Victorian City: Images and Realities, 83–104; Davison, G., ‘The city as a natural system: theories of urban society in early nineteenth-century Britain’, in Fraser, D. and Sutcliffe, A. (eds.), The Pursuit of Urban History (London, 1983), 349–70Google Scholar.

⁶² W. Booth, In Darkest England and the Way Out (London, 1891), 9.

⁶³ For example, Joyce, P., The Rule of Freedom: Liberalism and the Modern City (London, 2003)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Johnson, P. and Millet, M. (eds.), Archaeological Survey and the City (Oxford, 2013)Google Scholar; Carter, H., An Introduction to Historical Geography (London, 1983)Google Scholar; Conzen, M.R.G., Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis (London, 1960)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Oliver, G., Photographs and Local History (London, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Collingwood, R.G., The Idea of History (Oxford, 1961), 18Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Conzen, M.P., ‘The elusive common denominator in understanding urban form’, Urban Morphology, 14 (2010), 55–8Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Pooley, ‘Patterns on the ground’, 465.

⁶⁹ This position has achieved acceptance across a wide range of periods in mainstream social history, for example Newsome, D., ‘Introduction: making movement meaningful’, in Laurence, R. and Newsome, D. (eds.), Rome, Ostia, Pompeii: Movement and Space (Oxford, 2011)Google Scholar; Kumin, B. (ed.), Political Space in Early Modern Europe (Farnham, 2009)Google Scholar; Sleight, S., Young People and the Shaping of Public Space in Melbourne 1870–1914 (Farnham, 2013)Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Jerram, ‘Space: a useless category for historical analysis?’, 400–19.

⁷¹ Jerram, L., Streetlife: The Untold History of Europe's Twentieth Century (Oxford, 2011)Google Scholar.

⁷² Current work by historians interested in mapping demonstrates both the achievements and challenges of interdisciplinary work, for example K. Navickas, ‘Political meetings mapper’, http://politicalmeetingsmapper.co.uk/maps/, accessed 5 Feb. 2019; V. Brown's mapping of the Jamaican Slave Revolt 1760–61, http://revolt.axismaps.com/map/, accessed 5 Feb. 2019; also Brown, V., ‘Mapping a slave revolt visualizing spatial history through the archives of slavery’, Social Text, 33 (2015), 134–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The reconstruction of nineteenth-century Sheffield as a three-dimensional architectural model as part of the Materializing Sheffield project raises some intriguing epistemological questions about accessing the materiality of the urban past, www.hrionline.ac.uk/matshef/, accessed 5 Feb. 2019.

⁷³ Gunn, S. and Faire, L., ‘Introduction: why bother with method?’, in Gunn, S. and Faire, L. (eds.), Research Methods for History (Edinburgh, 2012), 1–12Google Scholar; Rau, S. and Schönherr, E., ‘Preface’, in Rau and Schönherr (eds.), Mapping Spatial Relations, their Perceptions and Dynamics: The City Today and in the Past (Dordrecht, 2014), v–ixCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ This historiography dates from at least the 1960s and is associated with the work of H.J. Dyos, Asa Briggs, Michael Wolff, Anthony Sutcliffe, Derek Fraser and David Reeder among others.

⁷⁵ Gregory and Ell, Historical GIS; Bodenhamer, D.J., ‘The spatial humanities: space, time and place in the new digital age’, in Weller, T. (ed.), History in the Digital Age (London, 2013), 23–38Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ The recent AHRC sponsored MESH (Mapping Edinburgh's Social History) project at the University of Edinburgh is an ambitious public history project that integrates a vast range of cartographic and geocoded historical datasets, www.ed.ac.uk/history-classics-archaeology/research/research-projects/mapping-edinburgh-s-social-history, accessed 5 Feb. 2019.

⁷⁷ A. von Lünen, ‘Tracking in a new territory: re-imaging GIS for history’, in Travis and von Lünen (eds.), History and GIS, 211–39; Griffiths, ‘GIS and research into historical “spaces of practice”’.

⁷⁸ Hacking, I., Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁹ Hillier, Space Is the Machine, 88–145.

⁸⁰ Mayne, A. and Murray, T., ‘The archaeology of urban landscapes: explorations in slumland’, in Mayne and Murray (eds.), The Archaeology of Urban Landscapes: Explorations in Slumland (Cambridge, 2001), 1–7Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Thompson, E.P., The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (New York, 1978), 197–8Google Scholar.