Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Studies on the Geometry of Urban Layouts: A Review of the Literature

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Geometry of Urban Layouts

  • 1032 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, it presents a review of the studies that have used different geometric approaches and measures to describe, explain, and understand the significance of urban layout for over a century. Second, it defines the purpose of this book based on the findings of the review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Conzen MP (2001) The study of urban form in the United States. Urban Morphol 5(1):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  2. Darin M (1998) The study of urban form in France. Urban Morphol 2(2):63–76

    Google Scholar 

  3. Heineberg H (2007) German geographical urban morphology in an international and interdisciplinary framework. Urban Morphol 11(1):5–24

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hofmeister B (2004) The study of urban form in Germany. Urban Morphol 8(1):3–12

    Google Scholar 

  5. Larkham PJ (2006) The study of urban form in Great Britain. Urban Morphol 10(2):117–141

    Google Scholar 

  6. Oliveira V, Pinho P (2006) Study of urban form in Portugal: a comparative analysis of the cities of Lisbon and Oporto. Urban Des Int 11(3):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Siksna A (2006) The study of urban form in Australia. Urban Morphol 10(2):89–100

    Google Scholar 

  8. Whitehand J (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenion tradition. Urban Morphol 5(2):103–109

    Google Scholar 

  9. Conzen MP (1978) Analytical approaches to the urban landscape. In: Butzer KW (ed) Dimensions of human geography: essays on some familiar and neglected themes. University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Chicago, pp 128–165

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gauthier P, Gilliland J (2006) Mapping urban morphology: a classification scheme for interpreting contributions to the study of urban form. Urban Morphol 10(1):41–50

    Google Scholar 

  11. Levy A (2005) New orientations in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 9(1):50–53

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moudon AV (1994) Getting to know the built landscape: typomorphology. In: Franck KA, Schneekloth LH (eds) Ordering space: types in architecture and design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 289–311

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mugavin D (1999) A philosophical base for urban morphology. Urban Morphol 3:95–99

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sitte C (1986) City planning according to artistic principles. Rizzoli, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hegemann W, Peets E (1922) Civic art: the American Vitruvius. Architectural Book Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zucker P (1959) Town and square: from the agora to the village green. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bürklin T, Peterek M (2008) Basics: urban building blocks. Birkhäuser, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  18. Childs MC (2006) Squares: a public space design guide for urbanists. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cullen G (1961) Concise townscape. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gandelsonas M et al (1991) The urban text. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gatje RF (2010) Great public squares: an architect’s selection. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carmona M, Heath T, Oc T, Tiesdell S (2012) Public places–urban spaces. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Herdeg K, Doshi B (1990) Formal structure in Indian architecture. Rizzoli, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Herdeg K, Grabar O (1990) Formal structure in Islamic architecture of Iran and Turkistan. Rizzoli, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jacobs AB (1993) Great streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobs AB, Macdonald E, Rofé Y (2002) The boulevard book: history, evolution, design of multiway boulevards. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jenkins EJ (2008) To scale: one hundred urban plans. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kasprisin R (2011) Urban design: the composition of complexity. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Marshall S (2004) Streets and patterns. Spon Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Moughtin J (2003) Urban design: street and square. Architectural Press/Elsevier, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bacon EN (1967) Design of cities. Thames & Hudson, London

    Google Scholar 

  32. Appleyard D, Gerson S, Lintell M (1982) Livable streets. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vitruvius (1960) Vitruvius: the ten books on architecture. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books/Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ewing R, Handy S (2009) Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related to walkability. J Urban Des 14(1):65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ewing R et al (2006) Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. J Phys Act Health 3:S223–S240

    Google Scholar 

  38. Benedikt ML (1979) To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environ Plan B 6(1):47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Higuchi T (1988) The visual and spatial structure of landscapes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nasar JL (1981) Responses to different spatial configurations. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 23(4):439–445

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nasar JL (1983) Environmental factors, perceived distance and spatial behavior. Environ Plan B Plan Des 10(3):275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nasar JL, Fisher B (1993) “Hot spots” of fear and crime: a multi-method investigation. J Environ Psychol 13(3):187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nasar JL, Jones KM (1997) Landscapes of fear and stress. Environ Behav 29(3):291–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nasar JL et al (1985) Out of sight, further from mind: Destination visibility and distance perception. Environ Behav 17(5):627–639

    Google Scholar 

  46. Stamps AE (2001) Evaluating enclosure in urban sites. Landsc Urban Plan 57(1):25–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Stamps AE (2005) Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environ Behav 37(1):102–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stamps AE (2005) Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environ Behav 37(5):587–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Stamps AE (2005) Isovists, enclosure, and permeability theory. Environ Plan B Plan Des 32(5):735–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Stamps AE (2009) On shape and spaciousness. Environ Behav 41(4):526–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Stamps AE (2010) Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environ Behav 42(6):864–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Stamps AE (2012) Effects of multiple boundaries on perceived spaciousness and enclosure. Environ Behav. doi:10.1177/0013916512446808

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stamps AE, Krishnan V (2006) Spaciousness and boundary roughness. Environ Behav 38(6):841–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Stamps AE, Smith S (2002) Environmental enclosure in urban settings. Environ Behav 34(6):781–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Stamps AE III (2003) Permeability and environmental enclosure. Percept Mot Skills 96(3c):1305–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nasar JL (1989) Perception, cognition, and evaluation of urban places. In: Altman I, Zube EH (eds) Public places and spaces. Springer, New York, pp 31–56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Nasar JL (1992) Environmental aesthetics: theory, research, and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nasar JL (1997) New developments in aesthetics for urban design. In: Moore GT, Marans RW (eds) Toward the integration of theory, methods, research, and utilization. Springer, New York, pp 149–193

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Stamps AE (2003) Advances in visual diversity and entropy. Environ Plan B 30(3):449–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Stamps AE III (2002) Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. J Gen Psychol 129(3):300–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Stamps AE III (2004) Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 24(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ewing R, Cervero R (2001) Travel and the built environment: a synthesis. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1780(1):87–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ewing R, Cervero R (2010) Travel and the built environment. J Am Plan Assoc 76(3):265–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Handy SL et al (2002) How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med 23(2):64–73

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stamps AE III (2010) Slines, entropy, and environmental exploration. Environ Plan B Plan Des 37(4):704–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Portugali J (2011) Complexity, cognition and the city. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Lowenthal D (1961) Geography, experience, and imagination: towards a geographical epistemology. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 51(3):241–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Trowbridge CC (1913) On fundamental methods of orientation and “imaginary maps”. Science 38(990):888–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Tolman EC (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev 55(4):189–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Egenhofer MJ, Mark DM (1995) Naive geography. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (US), Santa Barbara, CA

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kitchin R, Blades M (2002) The cognition of geographic space, vol 4. IB Tauris, New York

    Google Scholar 

  72. Mark DM, Smith B, Tversky B (1999) Ontology and geographic objects: an empirical study of cognitive categorization. In: Freksa C, Mark DM (eds) Spatial information theory: cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science. Springer, New York, pp 283–298

    Google Scholar 

  73. Montello DR, Freundschuh S (2005) Cognition of geographic information. In: McMaster RB, Usery EL (eds) A research agenda for geographic information science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 61–91

    Google Scholar 

  74. Stevens A, Coupe P (1978) Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cogn Psychol 10(4):422–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tversky B (2003) Structures of mental spaces: how people think about space. Environ Behav 35(1):66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Freundschuh SM, Egenhofer MJ (1997) Human conceptions of spaces: implications for GIS. Trans GIS 2(4):361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Montello DR (1992) The geometry of environmental knowledge. In: Frank AU, Campari I, Formentini U (eds) Theories and methods of spatio-temporal reasoning in geographic space. Springer, New York, pp 136–152

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  78. Portugali J (2005) Cognitive maps are over 60. In: Cohn AG, Mark DM (eds) Spatial information theory: international conference, COSIT 2005, Elliottville, NY, USA, September 14–18, 2005: proceedings, vol 3693, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, New York, pp 251–264

    Google Scholar 

  79. Tversky B (1993) Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Frank AU, Campari I (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS: European conference, COSIT’93, Marciana Marina, Elba Island, Italy, September 19–22, 1993: proceedings. Springer, New York, pp 14–24

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hirtle SC (2011) Geographical design: spatial cognition and geographical information science. Synth Lect Human-Centered Inform 4(1):1–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Kuipers B (1978) Modeling spatial knowledge. Cogn Sci 2(2):129–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Piaget J, Inhelder B (1956) The child’s concept of space. Humanities Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  83. Hirtle SC, Jonides J (1985) Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Mem Cogn 13(3):208–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Uttal DH et al (2010) Learning fine-grained and category information in navigable real-world space. Mem Cogn 38(8):1026–1040

    Google Scholar 

  85. Muratori S (1959–1960) Studi per una operante storia urbana di Venezia. Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  86. Caniggia G (1963) Lettura di una citta: Como. Centro Studi di Storia Urbanistica, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  87. Caniggia G, Maffei G (1978) Lettura dell’edilizia di base. Marsilio Editori, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  88. Samuels I et al (2004) Urban forms. Architectural Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  89. Caniggia G, Maffei GL (2008) Lettura dell’edilizia di base, vol 215. Alinea Editrice, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cataldi G (ed) (1998) Designing in stages: theory and design in the typological concept of the Italian school of Saverio Muratori. In: Petruccioli A (ed) Typological process and design theory. Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University and MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 35–54

    Google Scholar 

  91. Corsini MG (1997) Residential building types in Italy before 1930: the significance of local typological processes. Urban Morphol 1:34–48

    Google Scholar 

  92. Cataldi G (2003) From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and development of the Italian school of design typology. Urban Morphol 7(1):19–34

    Google Scholar 

  93. Cataldi G, Maffei GL, Vaccaro P (2002) Saverio Muratori and the Italian school of planning typology. Urban Morphol 6(1):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  94. Marzot N (2002) The study of urban form in Italy. Urban Morphol 6(2):59–74

    Google Scholar 

  95. Castex J, Céleste P, Panerai P (1980) Lecture d’une ville: Versailles. Editions du moniteur, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  96. Borie A, Micheloni P, Pinon P (2008) Forma y deformación: De los objetos arquitectónicos y urbanos, vol 15. Editorial Reverte, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  97. Fortier B (1989) La metropole imaginaire: Un atlas de Paris. Mardaga, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  98. Darin M (1988) Les grandes percées urbaines du XIXe siècle: Quatre villes de province. Ann Écon Soc Civilis 43(2):477–505

    Google Scholar 

  99. Darin M (1996) Le plan général d’alignement à Paris. Flux 12(23):43–45

    Google Scholar 

  100. Darin M, Meillerais O, Saudrais P (1991) Transformations de places à Nantes depuis deux siècles. École d’architecture, Nantes

    Google Scholar 

  101. Schluter O (1899) Über den Grundriss der Städte. Z Gesellsch Erdkunde Berlin 34:446–462

    Google Scholar 

  102. Geisler W (1918) Die Großstadtsiedlung Danzig. AW Kafemann, Danzig

    Google Scholar 

  103. Fitch JM (1973) American building: the historical forces that shaped it, vol 1. Schocken Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  104. Garvan AN (1951) Architecture and town planning in colonial Connecticut, vol 6. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  105. Lewis PF (1976) New Orleans: the making of an urban landscape. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  106. Mayer HM et al (1969) Chicago: growth of a metropolis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  107. Whitehill W, Kennedy L (2000) Boston: a topographical history. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  108. Churchill RR (2004) Urban cartography and the mapping of Chicago. Geogr Rev 94(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Dufaux F (2000) A new world from two old ones: the evolution of Montreal’s tenements, 1850–1892. Urban Morphol 4(1):9–19

    Google Scholar 

  110. Groth PE (1994) Living downtown: the history of residential hotels in the United States. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  111. Moudon AV (1986) Built for change: neighborhood architecture in San Francisco. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  112. Moudon AV (1986) Platting versus planning: housing at the household scale. Landscape 29(1):30–38

    Google Scholar 

  113. Moudon AV (1992) The evolution of twentieth-century residential forms: an American case study. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 170–206

    Google Scholar 

  114. Vance JE (1990) The continuing city: urban morphology in Western Civilization. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  115. Conzen MRG (1981) The urban landscape: historical development and management. In: Whitehand JWR (ed) Papers by M.R.G. Conzen. Institute of British Geographers, London

    Google Scholar 

  116. Conzen MRG (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Transactions and Papers, Institute of British Geographers, no 27

    Google Scholar 

  117. Whitehand J, Morton N (2003) Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: an academic concept and planning practice. Environ Plan B Plan Des 30(6):819–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Whitehand J, Morton N (2004) Urban morphology and planning: the case of fringe belts. Cities 21(4):275–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Whitehand J, Morton N (2006) The fringe-belt phenomenon and socioeconomic change. Urban Stud 43(11):2047–2066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Dickinson RE (1998) The West European city: a geographical interpretation, vol 179. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  121. Conzen MP (ed) (1990) The making of the American landscape. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  122. Conzen MRG (1968) The use of town plans in the study of urban history. In: Dyos HJ (ed) The study of urban history. Edward Arnold, London, pp 113–130

    Google Scholar 

  123. Hoskins W (1955) The making of the English landscape. Hodder & Stoughton, London

    Google Scholar 

  124. Jakle JA, Mattson RL (1981) The evolution of a commercial strip. J Cult Geogr 1(2):12–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Krim A (1992) Los Angeles and the anti-tradition of the suburban city. J Hist Geogr 18(1):121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Ward D (1962) The pre-urban cadaster and the urban pattern of Leeds. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 52(2):150–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Slater T (1976) Estate ownership and nineteenth century suburban development. In: McWhirr A (ed) Studies in the archaeology and history of Cirencester, vol 30, British archaeological reports. Oxford, pp 145–157

    Google Scholar 

  128. Whitehand J (1975) Building activity and intensity of development at the urban fringe: the case of a London suburb in the nineteenth century. J Hist Geogr 1(2):211–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Whitehand J (1990) Makers of the residential landscape: conflict and change in outer London. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 15(1):87–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Whitehand J, Carr CM (1999) England’s interwar suburban landscapes: myth and reality. J Hist Geogr 25(4):483–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Whitehand J, Larkham P, Jones A (1992) The changing suburban landscape in post-war England. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 227–265

    Google Scholar 

  132. Whitehand JW, Carr CM (2001) Twentieth-century suburbs: a morphological approach, vol 1. Psychology Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  133. Brown F, Johnson J (1985) An interactive computer model of urban development: the rules governing the morphology of mediaeval London. Environ Plan B Plan Des 12(4):377–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Brown FE (1985) Medieval London: the growth of a city. J Archit Plan Res 2:77–97

    Google Scholar 

  135. Maitland B (1985) Shopping malls: planning and design. Nichols Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  136. Panerai P et al (2004) Urban forms: the death and life of the urban block. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  137. Siksna A (1997) The effects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centers. Urban Morphol 1(1):19–33

    Google Scholar 

  138. Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  139. Alexander C (1965) A city is not a tree. Architect Forum 122(1):58–62

    Google Scholar 

  140. March L, Steadman P (1971) The geometry of environment: an introduction to spatial organization in design. RIBA Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  141. Martin L, March L (eds) (1975) Urban space and structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  142. Steadman P (1983) Architectural morphology: an introduction to the geometry of building plans. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  143. Albert R, Barabási A-L (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74(1):47–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Barabási A-L, Frangos J (2002) Linked: the new science of networks. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  145. Crucitti P, Latora V, Porta S (2000) Centrality measures in spatial networks of urban streets. Phys Rev E 73(3):036125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Portugali J (2000) Self-organization and the city. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  147. Ravasz E, Barabási A-L (2003) Hierarchical organization in complex networks. Phys Rev E 67(2):026112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature 393(6684):440–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Peitgen HO, Jürgens H, Saupe D (2004) Chaos and fractals: new frontiers of science. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  150. Tannier C, Pumain D (2005) Fractals in urban geography: a theoretical outline and an empirical example. Cybergeo Eur J Geogr 2005(307). doi:10.4000/cybergeo.3275

  151. Arlinghaus SL (1985) Fractals take a central place. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr 67(2):83–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Batty M (2005) Network geography: relations, interactions, scaling and spatial processes in GIS. In: Fisher P, Unwin DJ (eds) Re-presenting GIS. Wiley, Chichester, pp 149–170

    Google Scholar 

  153. Batty M (2007) Cities and complexity: understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  154. Batty M, Longley PA (1994) Fractal cities: a geometry of form and function. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  155. Chen Y (2010) Characterizing growth and form of fractal cities with allometric scaling exponents. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc Article ID 194715. doi:10.1155/2010/194715

  156. Dauphiné A (2013) Fractal geography. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  157. Frankhauser P (1998) The fractal approach: a new tool for the spatial analysis of urban agglomerations. Popul Engl Sel 10(1):205–240

    Google Scholar 

  158. Frankhauser P (1998) Fractal geometry of urban patterns and their morphogenesis. Discret Dyn Nat Soc 2(2):127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Frankhauser P (2000) GIS and the fractal formalisation of urban patterns: towards a new paradigm for spatial analysis. In: Fotheringham AS, Wegener M (eds) Spatial models and GIS: new potential and new models. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 121–141

    Google Scholar 

  160. Frankhauser P (2004) Comparing the morphology of urban patterns in Europe: a fractal approach. In: Borsdorf A, Zembri P (eds) European cities: insights on outskirts, vol 2, Report COST Action 10 Urban Civil Engineering. COST Office, Brussels, pp 79–105

    Google Scholar 

  161. Frankhauser P (2008) Fractal geometry for measuring and modelling urban patterns. In: Albeverio S et al (eds) The dynamics of complex urban systems: an interdisciplinary approach. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 213–243

    Google Scholar 

  162. Tannier C et al (2011) A fractal approach to identifying urban boundaries. Geogr Anal 43(2):211–227

    Google Scholar 

  163. Bovill C (1996) Fractal geometry in architecture and design. Birkhäuser, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  164. Cooper J (2005) Assessing urban character: the use of fractal analysis of street edges. Urban Morphol 9(2):95–107

    Google Scholar 

  165. Crompton A (2001) The fractal nature of the everyday environment. Environ Plan B Plan Des 28(2):243–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Crompton A (2005) Scaling in a suburban street. Environ Plan B Plan Des 32(2):191–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Eglash R (1998) Fractals in African settlement architecture. Complexity 4(2):21–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Rodin V, Rodina E (2000) The fractal dimension of Tokyo’s streets. Fractals 8(4):413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Vaughan J, Ostwald MJ (2010) Using fractal analysis to compare the characteristic complexity of nature and architecture: re-examining the evidence. Archit Sci Rev 53(3):323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Graham DJ, Field DJ (2008) Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: spectra, sparseness and nonlinearities. Spat Vis 21(1–2):149–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Harris J (2012) Fractal architecture: organic design philosophy in theory and practice. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  172. Joye Y (2005) Evolutionary and cognitive motivations for fractal art in art and design education. Int J Art Des Educ 24(2):175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Joye Y (2006) Some reflections on the relevance of fractals for art therapy. Arts Psychother 33(2):143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Joye Y (2006) An interdisciplinary argument for natural morphologies in architectural design. Environ Plan B Plan Des 33(2):239–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Joye Y (2007) Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: the case of biophilic architecture. Rev Gen Psychol 11(4):305–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Joye Y (2007) Fractal architecture could be good for you. Nexus Network J 9(2):311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Salingaros NA, Mehaffy MW (2006) A theory of architecture. Umbau-Verlag, Solingen

    Google Scholar 

  178. Taylor RP (2006) Reduction of physiological stress using fractal art and architecture. Leonardo 39(3):245–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Stamps AE (2002) Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landsc Urban Plan 60(3):163–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Mikiten TM, Salingaros NA, Yu H-S (2000) Pavements as embodiments of meaning for a fractal mind. Nexus Network Journal 2(1–2):63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. De Keersmaecker M-L, Frankhauser P, Thomas I (2003) Using fractal dimensions for characterizing intra-urban diversity: the example of Brussels. Geogr Anal 35(4):310–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Lu Y, Tang J (2004) Fractal dimension of a transportation network and its relationship with urban growth: a study of the Dallas–Fort Worth area. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31:895–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Thomas I, Frankhauser P (2013) Fractal dimensions of the built-up footprint: buildings versus roads. Fractal evidence from Antwerp (Belgium). Environ Plan B Plan Des 40(2):310–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Thomas I et al (2010) Clustering patterns of urban built-up areas with curves of fractal scaling behaviour. Environ Plan B Plan Des 37:942–954

    Google Scholar 

  185. Burgess EW (2008) The growth of the city: an introduction to a research project. In: Marzluff JM et al (eds) Urban ecology. Springer, New York, pp 71–78

    Google Scholar 

  186. Christaller W (1966) Central places in southern Germany. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  187. Harris CD, Ullman EL (1945) The nature of cities. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 242:7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Hoyt H (1939) The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods in American cities. Federal Housing Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  189. Philbrick AK (1957) Principles of areal functional organization in regional human geography. Econ Geogr 33(4):299–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Hillier B (2007) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  191. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  192. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  193. Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Networks 1(3):215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Freeman LC, Borgatti SP, White DR (1991) Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Soc Networks 13(2):141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Jiang B, Claramunt C (2002) Integration of space syntax into GIS: new perspectives for urban morphology. Trans GIS 6(3):295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Porta S, Crucitti P, Latora V (2006) The network analysis of urban streets: a dual approach. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 369(2):853–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Teklenburg J, Timmermans H, Van Wagenberg A (1993) Space syntax: standardised integration measures and some simulations. Environ Plan B 20:347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. Peponis J, Wineman J (2002) Spatial structure of environment and behavior. In: Bechtel RB, Churchman A (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 271–291

    Google Scholar 

  200. Baran PK, Rodríguez DA, Khattak AJ (2008) Space syntax and walking in a new urbanist and suburban neighbourhoods. J Urban Des 13(1):5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  201. Hillier B et al (1987) Creating life: or, does architecture determine anything? Archit comportement/Archit Behav 3(3):233–250

    Google Scholar 

  202. Hillier B, Iida S (2005) Network and psychological effects in urban movement. Spat Inf Theory Lect Notes Comput Sci 3693:475–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  203. Hillier B et al (1993) Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ Plan B Plan Des 20:29–66

    Google Scholar 

  204. Penn A et al (1998) Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environ Plan B Plan Des 25(1):59–84

    Google Scholar 

  205. Peponis J et al (1989) The spatial core of urban culture. Ekistics 56(334–335):43–55

    Google Scholar 

  206. Peponis J, Ross C, Rashid M (1997) The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: the case of Atlanta. Geoforum 28(3):341–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  207. Jiang B, Claramunt C (2004) Topological analysis of urban street networks. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31(1):151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  208. Hanson J (1989) Order and structure in urban design: the plans for the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire of 1666. Ekistics 56(334–335):22–42

    Google Scholar 

  209. Griffiths S (2011) Temporality in Hillier and Hanson’s theory of spatial description: some implications of historical research for Space Syntax. J Space Syntax 2(1):73–96

    Google Scholar 

  210. Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures: selected essays, Harper Colophon Books, vol 5019. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  211. Griffiths S (2009) Persistence and change in the spatio-temporal description of Sheffield Parish. In: Koch D, Marcus L, Steen J (eds) Proceedings of the 7th international Space Syntax symposium. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, pp 1770–1910

    Google Scholar 

  212. Griffiths S (2013) GIS and research into historical “spaces of practice”: overcoming the epistemological barriers. In: von Lünen A, Travis C (eds) History and GIS: epistemologies, considerations and reflections. Springer, New York, pp 153–171

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  213. Griffiths S et al (2010) The persistence of suburban centres in Greater London: combining Conzenian and space syntax approaches. Urban Morphol 14(2):85–99

    Google Scholar 

  214. Rashid M, Shateh H (2012) The dialectics of functional and historical morphology in the evolution of a city: the case of the Stone Town of Zanzibar. J Archit 17(6):889–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  215. Rashid M (2012) On space syntax as a configurational theory of architecture from a situated observer’s viewpoint. Environ Plan B Plan Des 39(4):732–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  216. Ariza-Villaverde AB, Jiménez-Hornero FJ, Ravé EGD (2013) Multifractal analysis of axial maps applied to the study of urban morphology. Comput Environ Urban Syst 38:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  217. Carvalho R, Penn A (2004) Scaling and universality in the micro-structure of urban space. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 332:539–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. Hillier B et al (2010) Metric and topo-geometric properties of urban street networks: some convergences, divergences and new results. J Space Syntax 1(2):258–279

    Google Scholar 

  219. Turner A (2009) The role of angularity in route choice. In: Hornsby KS et al (eds) Spatial information theory: 9th international conference, COSIT 2009, Aber Wrac’h, France, September 21–25, 2009: proceedings. Springer, New York, pp 489–504

    Google Scholar 

  220. Wagner R (2008) On the metric, topological and functional structures of urban networks. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 387(8):2120–2132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. Penn A (2003) Space syntax and spatial cognition; or, why the axial line? Environ Behav 35(1):30–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  222. Herold M, Goldstein NC, Clarke KC (2003) The spatiotemporal form of urban growth: measurement, analysis and modeling. Remote Sens Environ 86(3):286–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  223. Pinho P, Oliveira V (2009) Cartographic analysis in urban morphology. Environ Plan B Plan Des 36(1):107–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  224. Goodchild MF (2010) Geographic information systems. In: Gomez B, Jones JP III (eds) Research methods in geography. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 376–391

    Google Scholar 

  225. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2002) Measuring sprawl and its impact. Smart Growth America, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  226. Talen E (2003) Neighborhoods as service providers: a methodology for evaluating pedestrian access. Environ Plan B Plan Des 2003.30(2):181–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. Talen E (2002) Pedestrian access as a measure of urban quality. Plan Pract Res 17(3):257–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  228. Galster G et al (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate 12(4):681–717

    Google Scholar 

  229. Herold M, Scepan J, Clarke KC (2002) The use of remote sensing and landscape metrics to describe structures and changes in urban land uses. Environ Plan A Plan Des 34(8):1443–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  230. Huang J, Lu X, Sellers JM (2007) A global comparative analysis of urban form: applying spatial metrics and remote sensing. Landsc Urban Plan 82(4):184–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  231. Longley PA, Mesev V (2000) On the measurement and generalization of urban form. Environ Plan A 32(3):473–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. Torrens PM, Marina A (2000) Measuring sprawl. Center for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London

    Google Scholar 

  233. Tsai Y-H (2005) Quantifying urban form: compactness versus “sprawl”. Urban Stud 42(1):141–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  234. Batty M (2000) The new urban geography of the third dimension. Environ Plan B Plan Des 27(4):483–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  235. Smith D, Crooks A (2010) From buildings to cities: techniques for the multi-scale analysis of urban form and function. Center for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, London

    Google Scholar 

  236. Barnsley MJ, Barr SL (1997) Distinguishing urban land-use categories in fine spatial resolution land-cover data using a graph-based, structural pattern recognition system. Comput Environ Urban Syst 21(3):209–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  237. Barnsley MJ, Barr SL (2000) Monitoring urban land use by Earth observation. Surv Geophys 21(2–3):269–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  238. Van de Voorde T et al (2009) Quantifying intra-urban morphology of the Greater Dublin area with spatial metrics derived from medium resolution remote sensing data. In: Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society, International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (authors) Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event, 2009: 20–22 May 2009, Shanghai, China [the 5th GRSS/ISPRS workshop on data fusion and remote sensing over urban areas (URBAN 2009) and the 7th international urban remote sensing conference (URS 2009)]. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  239. Vanderhaegen S, Canters F (2010) Developing urban metrics to describe the morphology of urban areas at block level. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 38(4/C7):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  240. Yoshida H, Omae M (2005) An approach for analysis of urban morphology: methods to derive morphological properties of city blocks by using an urban landscape model and their interpretations. Comput Environ Urban Syst 29(2):223–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  241. Pesaresi M, Bianchin A (2001) Recognizing settlement structure using mathematical morphology and image texture. In: Donnay J, Barnsley M, Longley P (eds) Remote sensing and urban analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 55–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  242. Donnay J, Barnsley M, Longley P (2003) Remote sensing and urban analysis: GISDATA 9. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  243. Jenks M, Burgess R (2000) Compact cities: sustainable urban forms for developing countries. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  244. Yokohari M et al (2000) Beyond greenbelts and zoning: a new planning concept for the environment of Asian mega-cities. Landsc Urban Plan 47(3):159–171

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Mahbub Rashid

Authors
  1. Mahbub Rashid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rashid, M. (2017). Studies on the Geometry of Urban Layouts: A Review of the Literature. In: The Geometry of Urban Layouts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30750-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation