Speaker
Description
Contemporary cities have been characterized by complex structures and configurations that limit the ability of citizens to get involved in a dialogue about their neighborhood, their city, and ultimately, the place where they live their lives. The conceptual schema of patterns and urban types has been proposed as a powerful tool for understanding, planning, and discussing the city, even from the 1960s (Alexander, et al., 1977; Bandini, 1984; Lynch, 1960; Hillier & Hanson, 1984). What is more, recently, we have seen an ever-increasing research trend of using spatial analysis and quantitative approaches for typo-morphology research (Ye, et al., 2017; Berghauser Pont et al., 2019; Caliskan et al., 2022; Fleischmann et al., 2022). However, a straightforward open-data approach that allows reproducibility and, more importantly, aims for open science is missing.
In this context, this research focuses on developing a geospatial workflow that exclusively uses pan-European open data to identify high-resolution urban form types for reading, understanding, and planning urban space. Specifically, it proposes a comprehensive methodological framework to identify modular types of build density, functional mixture, and network centrality (space syntax's angular betweenness) by utilizing advanced spatial analysis and machine learning workflows. A key element of this research is that it exclusively uses open datasets readily available for the European urban space (derived from Copernicus' urban atlas and Open Street Map), thus offering the possibility of implementing and replicating this methodology for most European cities, meaningfully contributing to the new wave in urban morphology towards open science through open data and replicable workflows. Ergo provides a useful tool both for the comparative analysis of European urban form, as well as the development of urban form types as the spatial, modular language for articulating spatial descriptions of the urban space towards integrating urbanism-mobility planning. What is more, this research aims to put forward a conceptual approach that goes beyond the data-driven urban planning paradigm, highlighting the planner’s responsibility for their planning choices. The developed geospatial workflow has been implemented for Athens, Greece and its findings highlight the revised role of urban patterns in the contemporary landscape of open data, as the crucial spatial board for early planning stages.
References
Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, et al. (1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bandini M (1984) TYPOLOGY AS A FORM OF CONVENTION. AA Files (6). Architectural Association School of Architecture: 73–82.
Berghauser Pont M, Stavroulaki G and Marcus L (2019) Development of urban types based on network centrality, built density and their impact on pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46(8): 1549–1564.
Caliskan O, Mashhoodi B and Akay M (2022) Morphological indicators of the building fabric: Towards a Metric Typomorphology. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability: 1–30.
Fleischmann M, Feliciotti A and Kerr W (2022) Evolution of Urban Patterns: Urban Morphology as an Open Reproducible Data Science. Geographical Analysis 54(3): 536–558.
Hillier B and Hanson J (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch K (1960) The Image of the City. 1st ed. Publication of the Joint Center for Urban Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Ye Y, Yeh A, Zhuang Y, et al. (2017) “Form Syntax” as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design. URBAN DESIGN International 22(1): 73–90.
| Keywords | urban form; integrated planning; space syntax; urban types; open data |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
