Motion Perspectives Integration in the Qualification of the Urban Spaces: Towards a 2D- and a 3D-Enrichment of the S-Partition Method

  • Thomas LeducEmail author
  • Francis Miguet
  • Vincent Tourre


The spatio-cognitive properties of urban surroundings must be taken into account in the design of urban spaces. However, there are few methods and software tools to assess the visual properties and the spatial identity of places, and most of them are based on two-dimensional visibility analysis only and on a static analysis of surroundings. Our proposal aims to provide turnkey solutions that could increase the implementation of urban planning policies concerned with sensitive impacts of urban fabric renewal. The method presented in this chapter enhances the urban space partition proposed by Peponis et al. (Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24(5):761–781, 1997) in order to qualify all pedestrian paths in the studied area taking into account the importance of changes in visual surroundings and the vertical landmarks. In our use case, the results of our method applied on two paths are compared with a 3D isovists analysis in order to clearly show the key-points in the path. A software solution has been developed as a plugin of the well-known SketchUp computer-aided architectural design (CAAD) tool to be tested by students in the context of project teaching in School of Architecture.


Convex partition Vertical landmark 3D isovist 


  1. Batty, M. (2001). Exploring isovist fields: Space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(1), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedikt, M. L. (1979). To take hold of space: Isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 6(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. GDAL. (2016). GDAL—Geospatial Data Abstraction Library, Version 1.10.1. GDAL Development Team, Open Source Geospatial Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lonergan, C., & Hedley, N. (2016). Unpacking isovists: A framework for 3D spatial visibility analysis. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 43(2), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Peponis, J., & Bellal, T. (2010). Fallingwater: The interplay between space and shape. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(6), 982–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Peponis, J., Wineman, J., Rashid, M., Hong Kim, S., & Bafna, S. (1997). On the description of shape and spatial configuration inside buildings: convex partitions and their local properties. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(5), 761–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Teller, J. (2003). A spherical metric for the field-oriented analysis of complex urban open spaces. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(3), 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Turner, A., Doxa, M., O’Sullivan, D., & Penn, A. (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(1), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR CNRS AAU-CRENAU, ensa NantesUniversité Bretagne LoireNantesFrance
  2. 2.UMR CNRS AAU-CRENAU, Ecole Centrale NantesUniversité Bretagne LoireNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations