空間規劃與尺寸理論｜Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory｜Preface
SPCT 為什麼存在？
在室內設計與空間規劃的實務中，大量決策其實並不是卡在「美感」或「創意」，而是卡在尺寸是否成立、空間是否能同時使用，以及不同需求是否在同一張圖面中彼此衝突。
我們在現實之中經常聽到這樣的對話：
「應該放得下吧？」
「這樣畫看起來沒問題」
「之前也有人這樣做」
「用的時候再喬就好」
這些話語本身並不錯，但它們都停留在語感層，而不是語意層。
一旦進入實際使用、施工、或不同角色交接的階段，原本「看起來可以」的配置，往往才開始出現卡住、干涉、無法同時使用的情況。
工程現場最常見的失誤就有：
系統櫃櫃門打開，會卡到窗簾盒
吊櫃沒有作退縮，或退縮不夠，人們使用時撞到頭
桌後空間留不夠，導致無法使用，或椅子擺不進去
沒有考慮大型家具家電進出的可能性
SPCT（Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory，空間規劃與尺寸理論） 正是為了處理這一層問題而存在。
它關心的不是「怎麼設計比較好」，
而是——這些尺寸語意，在同一個空間裡，是否真的能同時成立，或是發生衝突
SPCT 解決的問題：讓尺寸語意有位置
SPCT 要處理的，從來不是風格、喜好或方案優劣，而是更基礎的一件事：
尺寸語意，是否被放在正確且合理的位置？
在平面配置圖或室內設計圖中，每一個物件、每一段距離、每一個使用動作，其實都隱含了尺寸語意。但這些語意往往沒有被明確標出，只存在於設計者或閱讀者的腦中。
SPCT 的角色，是把這些隱含的尺寸語意拉出來，放回可被閱讀的位置，並回答一個非常單純的問題：
在這張圖面裡，這些尺寸語意能不能同時成立？
它不要求所有人同意，也不要求修改設計；
它只是把尺寸語意標示清楚，
讓衝突可被空間決策者（SDP）清楚看見。
SPCT 不做什麼：不是設計方法，也不是最佳解工具
SPCT 是一套語意系統，而不是設計流程。
它不會：
- 告訴你怎麼畫比較好
- 幫你選擇方案
- 幫你算最佳比例
- 幫你優化動線
- 幫你判斷美感或舒適度
SPCT 不產出平面配置圖，也不生成任何設計結果。
它只做一件事：
在既有圖面或規劃中，標示尺寸語意是否成立、是否衝突。
要怎麼設計、怎麼取捨、怎麼調整，仍然完全由空間決策者（SDP）自行決定。
SPCT 與圖面的關係：不是畫圖，而是讀圖
SPCT 雖然不產出圖面，但允許、也鼓勵被引用於圖面閱讀之中。
它可以被使用在：
- 平面配置圖
- 室內設計圖
- 方案比較圖
- 既有空間的檢查與覆盤
- 或任何與尺寸語意高度相關的圖面、行為或行業上
SDP 可以透過 SPCT，回頭檢查自己或他人畫出的圖面：
- 是否存在無法同時使用的尺寸語意
- 是否有被忽略的使用空間需求
- 是否有在圖上看不出來、但實際會發生的衝突
SPCT 不介入設計創作本身，而是提供一個「尺寸語意的落點地圖」，讓圖面不只好看，也能被理性科學的檢視。
SPCT 的使用時機：設計前、設計中、設計後
SPCT 不受階段限制。
它可以發生在：
- 設計前：作為規劃假設的檢查工具
- 設計中：協助確認配置是否在尺寸語意上成立
- 設計後：檢視既有方案是否存在結構性衝突
- 使用後：回頭檢討當初方案是否存在問題
無論是單人設計、團隊討論，或方案交接，SPCT 都可以作為一個中性的語意參考層，幫助所有人站在同一個尺寸語意座標上討論。而不會一直浪費時間在，其實無關尺寸的抽象感受詞上打轉。
SPCT 的定位：語意標示，而不是結論
SPCT 不給答案，也不替任何人下判斷。
它只負責把尺寸語意放回正確位置，並標示哪些地方能成立，哪些地方存在衝突。
是否接受衝突、是否調整設計、是否重新規劃，是否重新輸入尺寸語意？
都是 SDP 在 SPCT 之外做出的決策。
SPCT 的輸出不是結論，而是可被閱讀的語意狀態。
結語
空間問題，往往不是設計能力不足，而是尺寸語意沒有被好好對待。
當尺寸語意被清楚放回位置，
設計討論就能從「感覺對不對」，走向「是否成立」。
SPCT 的存在，不是為了取代設計師，
而是讓設計與規劃能在更穩定的語意基礎上進行。
它是一套用來讀懂空間的工具，
也是空間決策中，經常被忽略、卻始終存在的一層基礎結構。
簡要免責與版權說明
SPCT 為一套空間尺寸語意系統：
- 不構成設計建議、工程判定或法規判讀
- 不保證任何配置的可行性或合規性
- 不提供數值、比例、最佳化結論
SPCT 僅限於公開語意層之引用與使用。
所有固定詞彙與結構均受版權保護，不得改寫、變形或逆向推論其內部邏輯。
以下為英文翻譯版（English Version Below）
SPCT Preface｜Why Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory Exists
Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory｜Preface
Why Does SPCT Exist?
In practical interior design and spatial planning work, many decisions are not actually blocked by aesthetics or creativity, but by whether sizes can be established, whether spaces can be used simultaneously, and whether different requirements conflict within the same drawing.
In reality, we often hear conversations like these:
“ It should fit, right? ”
“ It looks fine when drawn like this ”
“ People have done it this way before ”
“ We can adjust it during use ”
These statements are not wrong in themselves, but they all remain at the level of linguistic intuition rather than semantic definition.
Once a project enters actual use, construction, or handover between different roles, configurations that originally “looked acceptable” often begin to reveal obstruction, interference, or situations where simultaneous use becomes impossible.
Common failures frequently seen on construction sites include:
- Cabinet doors colliding with curtain boxes when opened
- Overhead cabinets lacking sufficient setback, causing users to hit their heads
- Insufficient space behind desks, making use impossible or preventing chairs from fitting
- Failure to consider the feasibility of moving large furniture or appliances in and out
SPCT (Spatial Planning & Capacity Theory) exists precisely to address this layer of problems.
It is not concerned with “how to design better,”
but rather with whether these size semantics can truly be established simultaneously within the same space—or whether conflicts occur.
The Problem SPCT Solves: Giving Size Semantics a Place
What SPCT addresses has never been about style, preference, or the superiority of a proposal, but something more fundamental:
Have size semantics been placed in the correct and reasonable position?
In floor plans or interior design drawings, every object, every distance, and every usage action implicitly carries size semantics. However, these semantics are often not explicitly marked and exist only in the minds of designers or readers.
The role of SPCT is to extract these implicit size semantics, place them back into readable positions, and answer a very simple question:
Within this drawing, can these size semantics all be established simultaneously?
SPCT does not require consensus, nor does it demand design modification.
It simply makes size semantics explicit,
so that conflicts can be clearly seen by the Spatial Decision Provider (SDP).
What SPCT Does Not Do: Not a Design Method, Not an Optimization Tool
SPCT is a semantic system, not a design process.
It does not:
- Tell you how to draw better
- Help you choose between proposals
- Calculate optimal proportions
- Optimize circulation
- Judge aesthetics or comfort
SPCT does not produce floor plans, nor does it generate any design results.
It does only one thing:
Within existing drawings or plans, it marks whether size semantics are established or in conflict.
How to design, what to prioritize, and how to adjust remain entirely decisions made by the Spatial Decision Provider (SDP).
The Relationship Between SPCT and Drawings: Reading, Not Drawing
Although SPCT does not produce drawings, it allows—and encourages—being referenced during drawing interpretation.
It can be applied to:
- Floor plans
- Interior design drawings
- Proposal comparison diagrams
- Reviews and audits of existing spaces
- Any drawings, behaviors, or professions highly related to size semantics
Through SPCT, an SDP can revisit drawings created by themselves or others to examine:
- Whether size semantics that cannot be used simultaneously exist
- Whether usage space requirements have been overlooked
- Whether conflicts exist that are not visible on drawings but will occur in reality
SPCT does not intervene in design creation itself. Instead, it provides a Semantic Map of size semantics, allowing drawings to be not only visually appealing but also subject to rational and scientific review.
When SPCT Is Used: Before, During, and After Design
SPCT is not restricted by project phase.
It can be applied:
- Before design: as a tool to examine planning assumptions
- During design: to verify whether configurations are semantically valid in terms of size
- After design: to inspect whether structural conflicts exist in an existing proposal
- After use: to retrospectively review whether issues existed in the original plan
Whether in individual design work, team discussions, or proposal handovers, SPCT can function as a neutral semantic reference layer—allowing all participants to discuss within the same coordinate system of size semantics, rather than repeatedly circling around abstract, non-size-related subjective impressions.
The Positioning of SPCT: Semantic Annotation, Not Conclusions
SPCT does not provide answers, nor does it issue judgments on behalf of anyone.
It is only responsible for placing size semantics back into correct positions and marking where they are established and where conflicts exist.
Whether to accept conflicts, adjust designs, replan, or re-input size semantics—
all of these decisions are made by the SDP outside of SPCT.
The output of SPCT is not a conclusion, but a readable semantic state.
Closing
Spatial problems are often not caused by insufficient design ability, but by size semantics not being properly addressed.
When size semantics are clearly placed back into position,
design discussions can move from “does it feel right” to “is it established.”
SPCT does not exist to replace designers,
but to allow design and planning to proceed on a more stable semantic foundation.
It is a tool for reading space,
and a foundational layer within spatial decision-making that is frequently overlooked—yet always present.
Brief Disclaimer & Copyright Statement
SPCT is a spatial size semantic system:
- It does not constitute design advice, engineering judgments, or regulatory interpretation
- It does not guarantee feasibility or compliance of any configuration
- It does not provide values, ratios, or optimization conclusions
SPCT is limited to citation and use within the Public Semantic Layer.
All fixed vocabulary and structural definitions are protected by copyright and may not be rewritten, transformed, or reverse-inferred to derive internal logic.
