The Spatial Morphology of Oporto’s Urban Fringe

Chapter
Part of the Cities and Nature book series (CITIES)

Abstract

We investigate the formation processes of suburban street networks, through the analysis of five study areas at Oporto’s urban fringe, over a period of 55 years. We start by recreating their street grids on four different time periods through the common technique of map regression, extending it in order to make possible the identification of individual development operations (represented by their street layouts), occurring between sequential time periods within each study area. Space syntax is used to study the structural evolution of the complete street networks, while the individual morphologies of development operations are quantified and classified according to simple topological parameters. We observe different structural evolutions among the several study areas and also different frequencies for the morphological classes of development operations occurring therein. By crossing these two types of results, we show that the differences observed at the level of the entire networks may be explained by the also different morphologies of the individual developments constructing them through time. We conclude by suggesting that these findings offer some clues on how street networks could be planned from the bottom-up, by regulating street patterns at the very local level in order to achieve desired global outcomes.

References

  1. Batty, M. (2007). Cities and complexity: Understanding cities withh cellular automata, agent-based models and fractals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cardoso, R. (2010). Space matters: Fine-tuning the variable geometry of cities. CITTA 3rd Annual Conference on Planning Research, Porto.Google Scholar
  3. Carvalho, R., & Penn, A. (2004). Scaling and universality in the micro-structure of urban space. Physica A, 332, 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Case-Scheer, B. (2001). The anatomy of sprawl. Places, 14(2), 28–37.Google Scholar
  5. Chiaradia, A., Schwander, C., & Honeysett, D. (2009). Profiling land use location with space syntax: Angular choice and multi metric radii. In D. Koch, L. Marcus & J. Steen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Stockholm: KTH.Google Scholar
  6. Conroy, R. (2000). Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments, Unit for architectural studies. London: UCL.Google Scholar
  7. Domingues, A. (2008). Entensive urbanisation: A new scale for planning. CITTA 1st Annual Conference on Planning Research, Porto.Google Scholar
  8. EEA. (2006). Urban sprawl in Europe: The ignored challenge, EEA report. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  9. Friedmann, J., & Miller, J. (1965). The urban field. Journal of the American Planning Association, 31(4), 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrison, W. L. (1960). Connectivity of the interstate highway system. Papers and Proceedings, Regional Science Association, Vol. 6 (pp. 121–137).Google Scholar
  11. Haq, S. (2003). Investigating the syntax line: Configurational properties and cognitive correlates. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30, 841–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haq, S., Hill, G., & Pramanik, A. (2005). Comparison of configurational, wayfinding and cognitive correlates in real and virtual settings. 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, Delft.Google Scholar
  13. Hargett, P., & Chorley, J. C. (1969). Network analysis in geography. London: Butler & Tanner.Google Scholar
  14. Hillier, B. (1989). The architecture of the urban object. Ekistics, 56(334/33), 5–21.Google Scholar
  15. Hillier, B. (1996a). Cities as movement economies. Urban Design International, 1(1), 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillier, B. (1996b). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hillier, B. (1999). The hidden geometry of deformed grids: Or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(2), 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillier, B. (2002). A theory of the city as object: Or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Design International, 7, 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hillier, B., & Iida, S. (2005). Network effects and psychological effects: A theory of urban movement. COSIT 2005 – International Conference on Spatial Information Theory. Elliotville.Google Scholar
  21. Hillier, B., & Vaughan, L. (2007). The city as one thing. Progress in Planning, 67, 3.Google Scholar
  22. Hillier, B., et al. (1987). Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture and Behaviour, 3(3), 233–250.Google Scholar
  23. Hillier, B., et al. (1993). Natural movement: Or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 29–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, H. K., & Sohn, D. W. (2002). An analysis of the relationship between land use density of office buildings and urban street configuration: Case studies of two areas in Seoul by space syntax analysis. Cities, 19(6), 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kropf, K. (2009). Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology, 13(2), 105–120.Google Scholar
  26. Kropf, K. (2011). Morphological investigations: Cutting into the substance of urban form. Built Environment, 37(4), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krüger, M. (1989). On node and axial grid maps: Distance measures and related topics. London: Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, UCL.Google Scholar
  28. Levy, A. (1999). Urban morphology and the problem of moder urban fabric: Some questions for research. Urban Morphology, 3(2), 79–85.Google Scholar
  29. Long, Y., Baran, P., & Moore, R. (2007). The role of space syntax in spatial cognition: Evidence from urban China. 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  30. Marshall, S. (2005). Streets and patterns. New York/London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marshall, S. (2009). Cities, design and evolution. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history: Its origins, its transformations and its prospects. San Diego: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade & Reference Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Ortiz-Chao, C., & Hillier, B. (2007). In search of patterns of land-use in Mexico City using logistic regression at the plot level. 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istambul.Google Scholar
  34. Park, H.-T. (2009). Boundary effects on the intelligibility and predictability of spatial systems. 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  35. Penn, A., et al. (1998). Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pinho, P., & Oliveira, V. (2009). Cartographic analysis in urban morphology. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 107–127.Google Scholar
  37. Porta, S., Crucitti, P., & Latora, V. (2006a). The network analysis of urban streets: A primal approach. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(5), 705–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Porta, S., Crucitti, P., & Latora, V. (2006b). The network analysis of urban streets: A dual approach. Physica A, 396, 853–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prosperi, D., Moudon, A. V., & Claessens, F. (2009). The question of metropolitan form: An introduction. Footprint, 5(Autumn), 1–4.Google Scholar
  40. Read, S. (1999). Space syntax and the Dutch city. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(2), 251–264.Google Scholar
  41. Read, S., & Bruyns, G. (2007). The form of a metropolitan territory: The case of Amsterdam and its periphery. 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istambul.Google Scholar
  42. Serra, M., & Pinho, P. (2011). Dynamics of periurban spatial structures: Investigating differentiated patterns of change on Oporto’s urban fringe. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(2), 359–382.Google Scholar
  43. Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities without cities: An interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. New York: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tuncer, E. (2007). Perception and intelligibility in the context of spatial syntax and spatial cognition: Reading an unfamiliar place out of cognitive maps. 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  45. Whitehand, J. W. R. (1992). Recent advances in urban morphology. Urban Studies, 29(3–4), 619–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whitehand, J. W. R. (2001). British urban morphology: The Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology, 5(2), 103–109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CITTA – Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations