Spatial Street Network and Urban Routes Around the Modernist Boulevard in Bucharest

Chapter
Part of the Springer Geography book series (SPRINGERGEOGR)

Abstract

In January/February 2013, in frame of a short-term visit funded by NeDiMAH at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, we returned to an older research on the Magheru Boulevard in Bucharest, shaped during the interwar time (1930s) with Modernist buildings. The main outcome of our research concerned the digital representation of urban cultural routes. For this purpose, we designed some such routes for a number of architects, but also for the green spaces. The information about the architects will flow into an online encyclopaedia and thus be a part of a semantic network. The buildings themselves can be detailed in the plan or in the 3D model. In the meantime, the pedestrian route itself can be connected to the street network. We also analysed the street network as a graph, for two purposes. One is the optimisation of the accessibility through Space Syntax for performing the route. Such results can be used for creating similar routes of pre-1755 earthquake Lisbon in another project of us of similar identification of highlights in frame of a 3D city model. Another one is the optimisation of intervention in case of post-earthquake intervention (evacuation, employment of search and rescue teams) since these Modernist buildings are most vulnerable to earthquakes. For the later, we reviewed literature on the topic including agent-based modelling and street network modelling in GIS. Urban intervention in case of earthquakes can be of interest also for semantic networks, since an ontology of it can be developed.

Keywords

Interwar Route Fractals 3D Space Morphology Public participation GIS Data Google Earth Vulnerability Space syntax Perception Sequential 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on work developed within the NeDiMAH (Network for Digital Methods in Arts and Humanities) Short Visit Grant 5454 of the main author hosted by the second author with the title “Architectural heritage protection of the central area of Bucharest—mapping ways of visualisation in GIS and archives (so-called “registries” or taxonomy/ontology entries)”. The work was presented at the conference “The future of historical network research” in Hamburg, Germany, also funded by NeDiMAH and includes updates to the report based on the comments received. Initial routes have been done during field trips in frame of the Marie Curie Fellowship funded projects CA’REDIVIVUS and PIANO in Italy and Romania. Some ideas on taxonomy and agent-based design have been analysed in the frame of the Short-Term Scientific Mission COST-STSM-ECOST-STSM-IS1104-010413-024718 at the ISCTE Lisbon, Portugal.

References

  1. Alexander Ch, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M (1977) A pattern language, towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Amoroso N (2010) The exposed city: mapping the urban invisibles. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Amoroso N, Hudson-Smith A, Phillips M, Speed C, Willis K (2013) Concept for workshop: patch-scape; pads, pods, phones and spatial data. In: Buhmann E, Pietsch M (eds) Digital landscape architecture. Wichmann, Berlin, pp 330–341Google Scholar
  4. Armaş I, Dardala M, Reveiu A, Furtuna F (2010) Spatial modeling of urban environmental vulnerability to seismic risk. Case study: the historical center of the Bucharest municipality—Romania. In: Proceedings of the WSEAS/CIEO international conference on urban rehabilitation and sustainability, Faro, 2010Google Scholar
  5. Bafna S (2003) Space syntax, a brief introduction to its logic and analytic techniques. Environ Behav 35(1):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barthélemy M, Flammini A (2008) Modeling urban street patterns. Phys Rev Lett 100:138702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batty M (2005) The AJAX project: new theory and new software for space syntax. In: Proceedings of the 5th international space syntax symposium, Delft, The Netherlands, 13–17 June 2005Google Scholar
  8. Bostenaru Dan M (2013) Management of innovation: innovation policy in the urban development. Urbanism Arhitectura Constructii 4(2):3–18Google Scholar
  9. Bostenaru Dan M (2012) Arhitectura interbelică cu structură din beton armat expusă la hazard seismic în context european. Intervenţii în spaţiul romanesc şi Italian, doctoral thesis, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  10. Bostenaru Dan M (2011a) Seven years dedicated to the conservation of the Modern Movement Heritage, e-conservation magazine 18, pp 19–26, http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/977
  11. Bostenaru Dan M (2011b) Street network issues for disaster management. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference “Reliability and statistics in transportation and communication” (RelStat’11), Riga, Latvia, 19–22 Oct 2011, pp 443–452Google Scholar
  12. Bostenaru Dan M (2011c) The use of ontology for digital conservation of architecture works after catastrophes. J Appl Eng Sci 14(2):11–18Google Scholar
  13. Bostenaru Dan M (2010a) Spaţiul verde redescoperit—Der wiederentdeckte Grünraum. Cuvillier Press, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  14. Bostenaru Dan M (2010b) The flat and the knurled space in the reconstruction of cities. In: Panangopoulos T, Noronha T, Beltrao J (eds) 3rd WSEAS international conference on advances in urban rehabilitation and sustainability, Faro, Portugal, pp 80–85Google Scholar
  15. Bostenaru Dan M (2005a) (Un)Sincerity in the exterior expression: spatial structures in the avantgarde architecture. In: Mircea Mihăilescu and Călin Mircea (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on shell and spatial structures, vol II. Editura Mediamira, Cluj Napoca, pp 753–760Google Scholar
  16. Bostenaru Dan M (2005b) Multidisciplinary co-operation in building design according to urbanistic zoning and seismic microzonation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:397–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bostenaru Dan M (2004) Multi-criteria decision model for retrofitting existing buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bostenaru Dan M, Panagopoulos T, Gociman CO, Armaş I, Dill A, Chiriloae A, Florescu T (2013) The impact of hazards on the urban tissue—3D representation and digital databases. Adv Geosci 35:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Condaratos S, Wang W (1999) 20th century architecture: Greece. Prestel, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  20. Craig WJ, Harris TM, Weiner D (eds) (2002) Community participation and geographic information systems. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Dursun P (2007) Space syntax in architectural design, 056. In: Proceedings, 6th international space syntax symposium, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  22. Eco U (1997) Function and sign: the semiotics of architecture. In: Leach N (ed) Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory. Routledge, London, pp 182–202Google Scholar
  23. Fiedrich F (2004) Ein High-Level-Architecture-basiertes Multiagentensystem zur Ressourcenoptimierung nach Starkbeben, PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  24. Florescu T (2006) Formă şi Trans-Formare Urbană. Editura Universitară “Ion Mincu”, BucharestGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallagher H, Farmer B, Mendoza C, Lee C, Dickson H, and Greene M (2013) GEM building taxonomy v2.0: evaluation and testing report. GEM building taxonomy global component, available from http://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/gem-building-taxonomy/posts/report-on-evaluation-and-testingof-the-gem-building-taxonomy-released/
  26. Henry A, Frascaria-Lacoste N (2012) The green roof dilemma—Discussion of Francis and Lorimer (2011). J Environ Manage 104:91–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillier B (1999) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Ioan A (2012) Marcel Iancu și alfabetul său formal: un exercițiu didactic în derulare (I), Arhitectura 3/2012Google Scholar
  29. Jiang B, Claramunt C (2002) Integration of space syntax into GIS: new perspectives for urban morphology. Trans GIS 6:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Le Corbusier (1971) Chartre d’Athenes, Seuil, Paris (first publication 1943)Google Scholar
  31. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Machedon L, Scoffham E (1999) Romanian modernism: the architecture of Bucharest, 1920–1940. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Marat-Mendes T, Sampayo M (2010) Étienne de Groer: The Scales of Urban Intervention in the Lisbon Territory. In: Proceedings of the 1st European architectural historians network conference, Guimaraes, Portugal, pp 32–39Google Scholar
  34. Mihăilă M (2014) About possible architectural routes and lectures. Bucharest—a short study, Urbanism, Arhitectură, Construcţii. Online firstGoogle Scholar
  35. Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010). SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36(3): 257–269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006 Google Scholar
  36. MVRDV (1999) Metacity/Datatown. 010 Publishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  37. Penelis G, Penelis GR, Paschalidis KP (2003) The structural upgrading of the army pension fund (A.P.F.) building in Athens, FIB2003, Athens, 2003Google Scholar
  38. Ratti C (2004) Urban texture and space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environ Plan B. Plan Des 31:487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharp D, Cooke C (2000) The modern movement in architecture—selections from the DOCOMOMO registers. 010 Publishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. Sitte C (1889) Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen, New edn. Birkhäuser, Basel 2002Google Scholar
  41. Sonne W (2009) Dwelling in the metropolis: Reformed urban blocks 1890–1940 as a model for the sustainable compact city. Prog Plan 72(2):53–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vialard A, Bafna S (2009) Syntax of change in the mid-twentieth century American house. In: Koch D, Marcus L, Steen J (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international space syntax symposium, KTH, Stockholm, Ref 130, 130:1Google Scholar
  43. Voigt A, Aharoni S, Birken J, Krell A, Zappe J (eds) (2010) The Daniel Libeskind research studio. Staatliche Hochschule für Gestaltung Karlsruhe, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  44. Zikas T, Gehbauer F (2007) Decision process and optimisation rules for seismic retrofit programs. In: SFB 461 (ed) Proceedings of the international symposium on strong Vrancea earthquakes and risk mitigation. Bucharest, Romania, pp 472–484Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urban and Landscape Design Department and Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies“Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and UrbanismBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Institute for Architectural Design, Art und TheoryKarlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations