Advertisement

URBAN DESIGN International

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 73–90 | Cite as

“Form Syntax” as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

  • Yu YeEmail author
  • Anthony Yeh
  • Yu Zhuang
  • Akkelies van Nes
  • Jianzheng Liu
Original Article

Abstract

Creating vibrant urban places is a challenging task in urban design due to the intangible feature of urbanity. This paper presents Form Syntax, a design analytical tool that is capable of assisting urbanity making in design practices based on understandings of three essential urban morphological elements and their influences on urbanity. Using the geographical information system (GIS), Form Syntax integrates three methods—Space Syntax, Spacematrix, and Mixed-Use Index—to measure the street-network configuration, building density, and functional mix, respectively. These three components can be quantified and combined to represent urban morphological features, thereby providing a classification of the degree of urbanity. Form Syntax contributes to geodesign by combining quantitative tools with traditional, intuition-based design to achieve a clear visualisation of the degree of urbanity of a place, which can subsequently be used to propose spatial strategies for enhancing vibrant urban places. The Dutch city of Rotterdam is used to illustrate how the tool improves the traditional site analysis, idea evaluation, and proposal evaluation phases of urban design. A GIS add-in has been developed to enhance the appeal of Form Syntax among urban design practitioners.

Keywords

urban morphology urban design geodesign Space Syntax urbanity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Henrik Harder, Anders Sorgenfri Jensen, Kristian and Hegner Reinau for the GPS data and insightful suggestions they provided. We are also grateful to the editor and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and guidance.

References

  1. Batty, M. (2007) Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based Models, and Fractals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Batty, M. (2013) Defining geodesign (=GIS + design?). Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40(1): 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beirão, J., Duarte, J., Stouffs, R. and Bekkering, H. (2012) Designing with urban induction patterns: a methodological approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39(4): 665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berghauser-Pont, M. and Haupt, P. (2007) The relationship between urban form and density. Urban Morphology 11(1): 62–66.Google Scholar
  5. Berghauser-Pont, M. and Haupt, P. (2010) Spacematrix: Space, Density and Urban Form. Amsterdam: NAI.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, P. (1988) What city? A plea for place in the public realm. The Architectural Review 184(1101): 31–41.Google Scholar
  7. Cremaschi, M. and Eckhardt, F. (2011) Changing Places: Urbanity, Citizenship, and Ideology in the New European Neighbourhoods. Amsterdam: Techne Press.Google Scholar
  8. Conzen, M.P. (2010) The elusive common denominator in understanding urban form Urban Morphology 14(1): 55–58.Google Scholar
  9. Conzen, M.R.G. (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis, Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers). Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society.Google Scholar
  10. Cowan, R. and Rogers, L. (2005) The Dictionary of Urbanism. Salisbury: Tisbury Streetwise Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dangermond, J. (2013) Keynote. 2013 Geodesign Summit. Redlands, CA: ESRI.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (1990) Green Paper on the Urban Environment. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  13. Flaxman, M. (2010) Geodesign: Fundamental Principles and Routes Forward. Redlands, CA: GeoDesign Summit ESRI.Google Scholar
  14. Gehl, J. (1989, originally published in 1971) Life between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  15. Goodman, A. and Kruskal, H. (1954) Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 49(268): 732–764.Google Scholar
  16. Hillier, B. (1999) Centrality as a process: Accounting for attraction inequalities in deformed grids. Urban Design International 4(3–4): 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T. and Xu, J. (1993) Natural Movement: or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20(1): 29–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. Joosten, V. and van Nes, A. (2005) How block types influences the natural movement economic process: Micro-spatial conditions on the dispersal of shops and Café in Berlin. In: van Nes, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Space Syntax Symposium, Delft, The Netherlands: Techne Press, p. 225.Google Scholar
  21. Karimi, K. (2012) A configurational approach to analytical urban design: ‘Space syntax’s methodology. Urban Design International 17(4): 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lang, J. (2005) Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. Amsterdam: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Larkham, P.J. and Jones, A.N. (1991) A Glossary of Urban Form. London: Institute of British Geographers.Google Scholar
  24. Lees, L. (2010) Planning urbanity? Environment and Planning A 42(10): 2302–2308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lu, Y. and Seo, H. B. (2015) Developing visibility analysis for a retail store: A pilot study in a bookstore. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 42(1): 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marcus, L. (2010) Spatial capital. The Journal of Space Syntax 1(1): 30–40.Google Scholar
  27. Marshall, S. and Caliskan, O. (2011) A joint framework for urban morphology and design. Built Environment 37(4): 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Montgomery, J. (1998) Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design 3(1): 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moudon, A.V. (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology 1(1): 3–10.Google Scholar
  30. Moughtin, C., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C. and Signoretta, P. (1999) Urban Design: Method and Technique. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mumford, E.P. (2009) Defining Urban Design: CIAM Architects and the Formation of a Discipline, 19371969. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Oliveira, V. (2013) Morpho: a methodology for assessing urban form. Urban Morphology 17(1): 21–33.Google Scholar
  33. Stanilov, K. (2010) Bridging the gap between urban morphology and urban modelling. Urban Morphology 14(2): 123–124.Google Scholar
  34. Steinitz, C. (2012) A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography By Design. California: Esri Press.Google Scholar
  35. Trancik, R. (1986) Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. van den Hoek, J. (2009) The mixed use index (Mixed-use Index) as planning tool for (new) towns in the 21st century. In: M. Provoost (ed.) New Towns for the 21st Century: the Planned vs, the Unplanned city. Amsterdam: SUN Architecture, pp. 198–207.Google Scholar
  37. van Nes, A. (2002) Road building and urban change. The effect of rind roads on the dispersal of shop and retail in Western European towns and cities. PhD thesis. Department of Land Use and Landscape Planning. Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
  38. van Nes, A. and López, M. (2010) Macro and micro scale spatial variables and the distribution of residential burglaries and theft from cars: an investigation of space and crime in the Dutch cities of Alkmaar and Gouda. Journal of Space Syntax 1(2): 296–314.Google Scholar
  39. van Nes, A. and Stolk, E H. (2012) Degrees of sustainable location of railway stations: Integrating space syntax and Node place value model on railway stations in the province Noord-Holland’s strategic plan for 2010–2040. In: M. Greene, J. Reyes, and A. Castro (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Space Syntax Symposium, Santiago de Chile: PUC, p. 8005.Google Scholar
  40. van Schaick, J. and van Der Spek, S.C. (2008) Urbanism on Track: Application of Tracking Technologies in Urbanism. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  41. Westin, S. (2011) The life and form of the city: An interview with Bill Hillier. Space and Culture 14(2): 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ye, Y. and van Nes, A. (2013) Measuring urban maturation processes in Dutch and Chinese new towns: Combining street network configuration with building density and degree of land use diversification through GIS. Journal of Space Syntax 4(1): 17–37.Google Scholar
  43. Ye, Y. and van Nes, A. (2014) Quantitative tools in urban morphology: combining space syntax, Spacematrix, and Mixed-use Index in a GIS framework. Urban Morphology 18(2): 97–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Ye
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anthony Yeh
    • 2
  • Yu Zhuang
    • 1
  • Akkelies van Nes
    • 3
  • Jianzheng Liu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban PlanningTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Urban Planning and DesignThe University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina
  3. 3.Department of Urbanism, Faculty of ArchitectureDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations