Advertisement

Translating Analytical Descriptions of Cities into Planning and Simulation Models

  • Kinda Al-SayedEmail author
  • Alan Penn
Conference paper

Abstract

With the increase in urban complexity, plausible analytical and design models became highly valued as the way to decode and reconstruct the organization that makes urban systems. What they lacked is a mechanism by which an analytical description of urban complexity could be translated into a design description. An attempt to define such a mechanism is presented in this paper, where knowledge is retrieved from the natural organization that cities settle into, and devised in a procedural model to support urban planning at the problem definition stage. The model comprises two automated modules, giving preference to street accessibility. The first module implements plausible spatial laws to generate street structures. The performance criteria of these structures are measured against accessibility scores and clustering patterns of street segments. In the second module, an Artificial Neural Networks model (ANNs) is trained on Barcelona’s data, outlining how street width, building height, block density and retail land use might be dependent on street accessibility. The ANNs is tested on Manhattan’s data. The application of the two computational modules is explored at the problem definition stage of a urban planning in order to verify how far deterministic knowledge-based models are in the transition from analysis to design. Our findings suggest that the computational framework proposed could be instrumental at generating simplified representation of an urban grid, whilst being effective at forecasting form-related and functional attributes within a minimum resolution of 200 m. It is finally concluded that as design progresses, knowledge-based models may serve as to minimize uncertainty about complex urban planning problems.

Keywords

Street Network Artificial Neural Network Model Street Segment Building Height ANNs Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Al-Sayed K (2012) Space Syntax as a parametric model. In: Proceedings of the Fall 2011 PUARL international conference, OregonGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Sayed K (2014a) Thinking systems in urban design: a prioritised structure model. In: Carmona M (ed) Explorations in urban design. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 169–181Google Scholar
  3. Al-Sayed K (2014b) A systematic approach towards creative urban design. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition DCC’12. © Springer 2014, pp 133–150Google Scholar
  4. Al-Sayed K, Turner A, Hanna S (2010) Modelling the spatial morphogenesis in cities: the dynamics of spatial change in Manhattan. In: Timmermans HJP (ed) Proceedings of the 10th international conference on design and decision support systems in architecture and urban planning, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Sayed K, Turner A, Hanna S (2012) Generative structures in cities. In: Greene M, Reyes J, Castro A (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international space syntax symposium, Santiago de Chile, PUCGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction, vol 2. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Alexiou K, Johnson J, Zamenopoulos T (eds) (2010) Embracing complexity in design. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Banister D, Penn A, Hillier B, Xu J (1998) Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environ Plan 25(1):59–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barthélemy M (2011) Spatial networks. Phys Rep 499(1):1–101MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Batty M (2005) Cities and complexity: understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Batty M (2010) Networks, flows, and geometry in cities: a challenge to space syntax. J Space Syntax 1(2):366MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Batty M, Carvalho R, Hudson-Smith A, Milton R, Smith D, Steadman P (2008) Scaling and allometry in the building geometries of Greater London. Eur Phys J B 63(3):303–314MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Bettencourt LM, Lobo J, Helbing D, Kühnert C, West GB (2007) Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(17):7301–7306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown FE, Johnson JH (1985) An interactive computer model of urban development: the rules governing the morphology of mediaeval London. Environ Plan 12(4):377–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conroy R (2001) Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. Doctoral dissertation, University College LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Derix C, Gamlesæter Å, Miranda P, Helme L, Kropf K (2012) Simulation heuristics for urban design. In: Digital urban modeling and simulation. Springer, Berlin, pp 159–180Google Scholar
  18. Dietzel C, Herold M, Hemphill JJ, Clarke KC (2005) Spatio-temporal dynamics in California’s central valley: empirical links to urban theory. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19(2):175–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duarte JP, Rocha JM, Soares GD (2007) Unveiling the structure of the Marrakech medina: a shape grammar and an interpreter for generating urban form. AI EDAM 21(4):317–349Google Scholar
  20. Duarte JP, Beirão JN, Montenegro N, Gil J (2012) City Induction: a model for formulating, generating, and evaluating urban designs. In: Digital urban modeling and simulation. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–98Google Scholar
  21. Foody GM (1996) Relating the land cover composition of mixed pixels to artificial neural network classification output. Photogram Eng Remote Sensing 62:491–499Google Scholar
  22. Gong P (1996) Integrated analysis of spatial data from multiple sources using evidential reasoning and artificial neural-network techniques for geological mapping. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 62:513–523Google Scholar
  23. Hanna S (2012) A representational scheme for the extraction of urban genotypes. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition DCC’12. © SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillier B (1996) Space is the machine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Hillier B (2002) A theory of the city as object: or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Design Int 7:153–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillier B, Iida S (2005) Network and psychological effects in urban movement. In: Cohn AG, Mark DM (eds) Proceedings of spatial information theory: international conference 2005. COSIT, Ellicottsville, pp 468–476Google Scholar
  28. Hillier B, Yang T, Turner A (2012) Normalising least angle choice in Depthmap—and how it opens up new perspectives on the global and local analysis of city space. J Space Syntax 3(2):155–193Google Scholar
  29. Jacobs J (1961) Death and life of Great American Cities—the failure of town planning. Penguin Books, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  30. Jiang B (2007) A topological pattern of urban street networks: universality and peculiarity. Phys A 384(2):647–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karimi K (2012) A configurational approach to analytical urban design: ‘Space Syntax’ methodology. Urban Design Int 17(4):297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lämmer S, Gehlsen B, Helbing D (2006) Scaling laws in the spatial structure of urban road networks. Phys A 363(1):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lilliefors HW (1967) On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J Am Stat Assoc 64:399–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcus L (2010) Spatial capital. J Space Syntax 1(1):30–40Google Scholar
  35. Marshall S (2012) Science, pseudo-science and urban design. Urban Design International 17(4):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliveira V (2013) Morpho, a methodology for assessing urban form. Urban Morphol 17(1):149–161Google Scholar
  37. Openshaw S, Openshaw C (1997) Artificial intelligence in geography. Wiley, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Ozbil A, Peponis J, Stone B (2011) Understanding the link between street connectivity, land use and pedestrian flows. Urban Design Int 16:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parish YI, Müller P (2001) Procedural modeling of cities. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM, New York, pp 301–308Google Scholar
  40. Porta S, Latora V, Wang F, Rueda S, Strano E, Scellato S, Latora L (2012) Street centrality and the location of economic activities in Barcelona. Urban Stud 49(7):1471–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Portugali J, Meyer H, Stolk E, Tan E (eds) (2012) Complexity theories of cities have come of age: an overview with implications to urban planning and design. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Ratti C (2004) Urban texture and space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environ Plan 31(4):487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ratti C, Richens P (1999) Urban texture analysis with image processing techniques. In: Computers in building. Springer US, New York, pp 49–64Google Scholar
  44. Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (eds) (1986) Parallel distributed processing, vol 1. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature 323:533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siksna A (1997) The effects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphol 1(1):19–33Google Scholar
  47. Stanilov K, Batty M (2011) Exploring the historical determinants of urban growth patterns through cellular automata. Trans GIS 15(3):253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stiny G (1981) A note on the description of designs. Environ Plan 8:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Teeling C (1996) Algorithmic design: generating urban form, vol 2, pp 89–100Google Scholar
  50. Turner A (2000) Angular analysis: a method for the quantification of space. Working paper 23, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis. UCL, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner A (2011) UCL Depthmap: Spatial network analysis software, version 10. University College London, VR Centre of the Built Environment, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu F (2002) Complexity and urban simulation: towards a computational laboratory. In: Geography Research Forum. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, pp 22–40Google Scholar
  53. Wu N, Silva EA (2009) Artificial intelligence and ‘waves of complexity’ for urban dynamics. In: Proceedings of 8th WSEAS international conference on artificial intelligence, knowledge engineering and data bases (AIKED ‘09), pp 459–464Google Scholar
  54. Ye Y, Van Nes A (2012) New ways of spatial modelling: making spatial diagnosis in combining space syntax, spacematrix and MXI with GIS of New and Old Towns. In: New urban configurations: EAAE/ISUF international conference, Delft, October, pp 16–19Google Scholar
  55. Zheng X, Zhao L, Su Y Yan G, Wang S (2010) An extension method of space syntax and application, advancing computing, communication, control and management. Lecture Notes Electr Eng 56:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations