Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NIKOS A. SALINGAROS
Division of Mathematics, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249,
USA. Email: salingar@sphere.math.utsa.edu
Journal of Urban Design, vol. 5 (2000), pages 291-316. Carfax Publishing, Taylor &
Francis Ltd.
ABSTRACT. Structural principles developed in biology, computer science, and economics are
applied here to urban design. The coherence of urban form can be understood from the theory
of complex interacting systems. Complex large-scale wholes are assembled from tightly
interacting subunits on many different levels of scale, in a hierarchy going down to the natural
structure of materials. A variety of elements and functions on the small scale is necessary for
large-scale coherence. Dead urban and suburban regions may be resurrected in part by
reconnecting their geometry. If these suggestions are put into practice, new projects could even
approach the coherence that characterizes the best-loved urban regions built in the past. The
proposed design rules differ radically from ones in use today. In a major revision of
contemporary urban practice, it is shown that grid alignment does not connect a city, giving only
the misleading impression of doing so. Although these ideas are consistent with the New
Urbanism, they come from science and are independent of traditional urbanist arguments.
Introduction
This paper uses scientific principles to understand urban coherence. From small man-made
objects -- such as sculptures, pottery, and textiles -- to buildings, the best examples share a
particular geometrical quality. Though not usually viewed from this perspective, we will argue
that the form of cities and the urban fabric is also governed by the same general rules.
Geometrical principles that produce a beautiful sculpture or textile generate a positive emotional
response: can we identify similar rules for an urban setting the size of a neighborhood or an
entire city? If so, then the resonance with human beings that characterizes great urban
environments could be explainable in terms of geometry. The ideas developed here have been
encouraged by recent work of Christopher Alexander (Alexander, 2000).
An essential quality shared by all living cities is a high degree of organized complexity (Jacobs,
1961). The geometrical assembly of elements to achieve coherence results in a definite and
identifiable urban morphology. It turns out that this morphology closely resembles that of
traditional cities and towns: unplanned villages of many different cultures around the world; cities
as they were before the middle of the nineteenth century; and to some degree, free squatter
settlements. The morphology of a geometrically coherent system resembles planned twentiethcentury cities the least of all. Contemporary rules for urban form, which reduce both complexity
and connectivity in today's cities, are not capable of generating urban coherence. We analyze
why this is so, and offer new rules that do.
Different components of the urban fabric: streets, shops, offices, houses, pedestrian zones, green
spaces, plazas, parking lots, etc. connect to generate a successful city, creating an efficient,
livable, and psychologically nourishing human environment. The success of the result depends on
geometrical coherence. The transportation network defines city form; a city lives and works
according to its network of connective paths (Alexander, Neis et al., 1987; Hillier, 1999;
Salingaros, 1998). In addition, it will have pedestrian life if its urban spaces accommodate and
support pedestrian paths (Alexander, Neis et al., 1987; Gehl, 1987; Hillier, 1997; Salingaros,
1999). A third, purely geometrical factor -- urban coherence -- determines the success of a city,
and has its own set of rules. These need to be studied independently of the path structure and
the formation of urban spaces.
To achieve geometrical coherence in any system, a tightly-knit and complex whole is generated
via general rules. Geometrical coherence is an identifiable quality that ties the city together
through form, and is an essential prerequisite for the vitality of the urban fabric. The underlying
idea is very simple: a city is a network of paths, which are topologically deformable (Salingaros,
1998). Coherent city form must also be plastic; i.e., able to follow the bending, extension, and
compression of paths without tearing. In order to do this, the urban fabric must be strongly
connected on the smallest scale, and loosely connected on the largest scale. Connectivity on all
scales thus leads to urban coherence.
In living cities, every urban element is formed by the combination of subelements defined on a
hierarchy of different scales. Complementary elements of roughly the same size couple strongly
to become an element of the next-higher order in size (Salingaros, 1995). Different types of
connections tie elements of different sizes together, so that every element is linked to every other
element. The strongest connections are local (close-range) ones. Connections between smaller
and larger elements, or between internal subelements of distinct modules, are weaker. Repeated
similar units do not connect: coupling works either by contrasting qualities, or via an intermediate
catalyst. Elements are therefore necessary, not only for their own primary function, but also for
their secondary role in linking other elements that cannot couple directly by themselves.
This paper presents theoretical rules for assembling components into coherent wholes,
developed outside urbanism. The components that influence urban morphology are then
reviewed. We derive and explain geometrical coherence, while at the same time applying the
proposed rules to analyze the urban fabric on successive scales. First, we identify the basic
interactions between components on the small scale. Fractal interfaces and the auto-catalytic
threshold are discussed. We then review modular decomposition, and Alexander's Pattern
Language. After this, we examine ordering mechanisms on the large scale. The key role of
entropy in alignment forces is explained. Finally, these ideas are applied to cities. We emphasize
the need for mixed use, and argue that long-term stability depends upon allowing for emergent
connections.
In a general complex system, as for example an organism or a large computer program, certain
rules of assembly are followed so that the parts cooperate and the whole functions well. There is
little formal difference between such systems and the urban fabric (Lozano, 1990). A few
structural rules have evolved in the study of complex systems. Initially stated by Herbert Simon
for economics (Simon, 1962; Simon and Ando, 1961), some were re-invented in the context of
computer programming (Booch, 1991; Courtois, 1985; Pree, 1995). Others appeared
independently in engineering and biology (Mesarovic, Macko et al., 1970; Miller, 1978;
Passioura, 1979). Of the many different possible statements of system rules, the following list is
critically relevant to urban design.
Rule 1. COUPLINGS: Strongly-coupled elements on the same scale form a module.
There should be no unconnected elements inside a module.
Rule 2. DIVERSITY: Similar elements do not couple. A critical diversity of
different elements is needed because some will catalyze couplings between others.
Rule 3. BOUNDARIES: Different modules couple via their boundary elements.
Connections form between modules, and not between their internal elements.
Rule 4. FORCES: Interactions are naturally strongest on the smallest scale, and
weakest on the largest scale. Reversing them generates pathologies.
Rule 5. ORGANIZATION: Long-range forces create the large scale from welldefined structure on the smaller scales. Alignment does not establish, but can
destroy short-range couplings.
Rule 6. HIERARCHY: A system's components assemble progressively from small
to large. This process generates linked units defined on many distinct scales.
Rule 7. INTERDEPENDENCE: Elements and modules on different scales do not
depend on each other in a symmetric manner: a higher scale requires all lower
scales, but not vice versa.
Rule 8. DECOMPOSITION: A coherent system cannot be completely decomposed
into constituent parts. There exist many inequivalent decompositions based on
different types of units.
These eight rules are offered as generic principles of urban form. We will be analyzing in some
detail where the rules come from, giving original arguments with visual, scientific, and urban
examples. The whole point is to convince the reader of their inevitability in assembling a living
city. A system's development in time defines an underlying sequence. The smaller scales need to
be defined before the larger scales: their elements must couple in a stable manner before the
higher-order modules can even begin to form and interact. Elements on the smallest scale, along
with their couplings, thus provide the foundations for the entire structure. Requiring a hierarchy
of nested scales means that not even one scale can be missing, otherwise the whole system is
unstable.
The coherence of a complex interacting system may be understood as it connects progressively.
During a short time period, strong couplings will establish internal equilibrium in each module,
with little change in the relationship among different modules. (One analogy is the initial formation
of many small isolated crystals in a solution). Over a longer time period, the weaker couplings
between modules will take them towards a larger-order equilibrium, while their internal equilibria
are of course maintained. The process iterates, so that on even longer time periods, modules of
modules tend towards equilibrium, and so on. The end result is a global equilibrium state for the
entire system (corresponding to a single complex crystal).
A useful analogy is to imagine some sort of "friction" between regions A and B in Figures 1 to 4,
arising either from contrasting materials, or from the geometry of the interface. If two regions can
"slide" against each other, they are not coupled. An isolated element might have properties that
give it internal coherence, yet when juxtaposed with its complement, the pair acquires new
properties and added strength through mutual support (Figures 1 and 2). The union of two or
more elements has to show completeness; not only is an individual element much weaker alone,
but a successful grouping is clearly self-contained (Rule 1). A coupling is strong whenever one
element needs its complement for greater coherence. Completeness depends on the strength of
the overall boundary. The aim is to unify different elements into a higher-level module that
acquires its own properties.
Rule 3 states that the boundary elements in a module connect it to another module. Some
elements may literally fit together geometrically like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle (Figures 2 and 3).
Contrast can work together with interlocking to bind elements closer together (Figures 1 and 2).
In other cases, the interface between two elements may preclude joining, so that some "glue" in
the form of an intermediate region may be required, which couples to each element's boundary
(Figure 5). Inductive coupling -- occurring with the help of an intermediate element -- explains
how large complex modules can be formed from many coupled pairs. If A connects to B, and B
connects to C, then A connects to C (Figure 5). Pairwise connections usually act in the presence
of structural continuities, so that these together with the local bonds define a larger module.
An example from physics and chemistry illustrates the coupling process, and how it leads to
completeness. A salt molecule is composed of two atoms: an acid and a base. Internal atomic
bonds, which determine each atom's internal structure, are far stronger than molecular bonds. It
is only the outer electron shell that plays a role in the chemical bond that binds the two atoms
together. Molecular coupling occurs when the outer electrons of the acid just fill up the holes in
the outer shell of the base. In the bound salt molecule, these outer electrons are shared by both
atoms, thus providing interpenetration and a common boundary at the same time. We emphasize
that the combination possesses new, emergent properties, since the components of common
table salt, an essential part of our diet, are sodium and chlorine, which are individually
poisonous.
Jane Jacobs pointed out that diversity in urban uses can become a problem only when elements
have a disproportionate size (Jacobs, 1961) (p. 234). Especially on the small scale, units that
couple must be of similar size (Rule 1), so any large occupant of street frontage will fail to
couple with adjoining buildings because of the size imbalance. The same is true for the
megatower set in amongst smaller buildings. Size imbalance among urban units can create
desolation by preventing small-scale couplings, although exactly the same kind of contrast in
uses at small scale becomes an asset because it enables couplings among the adjoining elements.
Mutual reinforcement
We perceive objects interacting via a geometrical field that is distinct from the other known
physical forces (Alexander, 2000). This geometrical field is a function of information, and the
interactive force depends on how that information intensifies via combination (Salingaros, 1999).
Details of the interaction mechanism depend on a spatial field model that will not be discussed
here; nevertheless, a reader can verify these effects intuitively once they are identified. Since the
interaction depends on information contained in shape, surface texture, pattern, color, and detail,
any approach to design that minimizes such information for stylistic reasons also eliminates the
building blocks for urban coherence (Salingaros, 1999).
The idea of mutual reinforcement or harmonization describes this effect. Two elements -- for
example, a piece of footpath and a wall -- will couple if they reinforce each other. Each of them
in isolation is weaker than they are when juxtaposed. By this we mean their function as well as
their aesthetic impact, positive visual impression, or degree of perceived emotional comfort in
the user. If they make no difference to each other, then the juxtaposed elements are not mutually
reinforcing, and there is no connection. In some instances, removing one will seriously diminish
the effectiveness of the other. One may then conclude that they were both contributing to create
a greater whole, which is destroyed by the removal of one of its components.
Urban couplings begin on the smallest possible scale, and are needed to bind contrasting or
complementary components together into one unit. Possible examples of complementary pairs
include: footpath with boundary wall; parking place with a piece of pedestrian canopy; wall with
tree; bricks with mortar; paving stones of contrasting colors; entry-way with arcade; column
with roof; local street with parking spaces; curb with bollards; etc. Whether such couplings
work or not depends on a multitude of factors. The test of the degree to which two elements
couple relies on judgements made by the human mind, which, after all, is the most sophisticated
known computer. The older, humanistic approach to design looked for such harmonies between
components, and gave them priority over streamlining.
one region from another are an exception rather than the rule in living cities. A successful urban
interface resembles either a permeable membrane with holes to allow for interchange, or a
folded curtain with an edge that looks like a meandering river on a plan. The first type of
interface corresponds to a colander or sieve; a surface so stretched that it is full of holes. The
second type of interface represents a crinkly, convoluted surface that fills up volume, in contrast
to a flat plane which defines a minimal separation (Batty and Longley, 1994; Kaye, 1994).
Colonnades, arcades, rows of houses and shops with gaps for cross-paths all correspond to
fractal surfaces akin to porous membrane filters (Figure 4). Such a permeable interface permits
free physical movement across itself for some objects (like pedestrians), while keeping a
separation between other objects (like vehicles). Urban coherence depends rigorously on the
human scale. Perforations or gaps are therefore useful when they occur on the scales 1 m - 3 m
corresponding to the size and physical movements of a pedestrian. If gaps in the urban fabric
occur only beyond this scale (i.e., without any substructure on the human scale), they erase the
fractal coupling.
Other urban interfaces tend to be convoluted instead (Figure 3). An impermeable building edge
couples by interweaving with its adjoining space. Convolution or folding provides a greater
contact area that encourages human events to take place there. For millennia, daily commerce
depended on filtered pedestrian movement in the marketplace, with human contact and
interchange occurring in the folds of a building's edge. Fractal interfaces join built structure to
open space, and offer the catalyst for the play among natural urban forces and activities. Folding
in the urban fabric is a useful coupling on all scales, from the folds of an architectural element at
1 cm, all the way up to the urban folding that creates a semi-enclosed plaza. Nevertheless, the
human connection is established by folding on the human scale.
Using the geometrical couplings from the preceding section explains the fractal morphology of
connective boundaries as a consequence of system coherence (Rule 3). We do not propose that
urban interfaces have to be fractal just because biological interfaces are, even though there is an
obvious analogy. Instead, we offer a scientific explanation: fractal interfaces are a direct result of
short-range coupling forces that connect two regions. Couplings over the range of human scales
will generate a fractal geometry in the urban fabric, as can be deduced from repeating Figures 3
and 4. Since both biological and urban systems obey universal rules of structure based on
connectivity acting on different scales, this explains why the same morphology arises in the two
separate disciplines.
As proposed in (Salingaros, 1999), the success of urban space depends on visual and auditory
connections between a pedestrian and the surrounding built surfaces. The appropriate
boundaries for urban space were derived by considering the geometrical optics of information
transmission. Interfaces that maximize signals are either perforated, or convoluted, whereas
straight edges are poor transmitters (Salingaros, 1999). This is precisely our conclusion in the
present paper, which was reached by considering local couplings. The fractal nature of urban
interfaces thus follows independently from three entirely different starting points: (1) maximizing
geometrical couplings between urban regions on either side of an interface; (2) providing a
setting that will catalyze human interactions; (3) the need for a sensory connection to the user.
The most natural urban interface between buildings and street is a relaxed, segmented curve.
This geometry is found in traditional villages and towns. There, walls are aligned in such a way
so that the ensemble defines an approximately linear ordering of strongly-coupled units. Each
individual faade or section of wall is angled and curved on the small scale, not because of
carelessness, but because its shape and alignment are used for local couplings. By contrast, the
contemporary practice of strict alignment in urban regions along a straight line, or strict alignment
in suburban regions along some arbitrary curve, fails to couple elements on the small scale. Both
recent cases are mathematically similar, because they eliminate the fractal quality (i.e., variations
on the small scale) of traditional interfaces.
In cases where empty modules contribute to a larger whole, they are held together by a frame;
their boundary plays the connective role (Rules 2 and 3). What we perceive as a built plain unit
is in fact the empty region together with its frame. Empty modules can only couple with other
elements having internal geometric properties. Coupling is achieved by totally surrounding a void
with a structured boundary on the same scale, like putting a substantial frame on a mirror (Figure
7) (Alexander, 2000). Coupling two regions with different textures evolves from Figure 1 to
Figure 3 as the texture of one unit diminishes, requiring more of the enclosure mechanism to
work; and finally going to total enclosure as the enclosed area becomes empty (Figure 7). Since
elements have to be on the same scale to couple strongly (Rule 1), the boundary surrounding a
homogenous region should be of comparable size as the region being surrounded (Figure 7).
The coupling shown in Figure 7 works because the internal void contrasts with the complex
border, and supports the latter's geometry. The border material could stand alone if configured
into a unit without a hole, but a void cannot stand alone as an independent unit. Revising a deep
misconception in the twentieth century's architectural and urban design tradition, voids are not
units. Using empty modules exclusively -- as in the minimalist design style -- makes it impossible
to generate geometrical coherence (Rule 2). If architectural and urban elements cannot couple
on the smallest scales, then they can never support the large scale. For this reason, a coherent
urban fabric depends just as much on the actual materials, and the shapes of the elementary
(smallest) building blocks, as it does on any higher-level connections.
(or structural unit) may also act as a catalyst to couple two other units. We start with a random
mixture of different units that we know to be components of an eventual organic whole, and
which are allowed to interact freely with one another. Every molecule is presumed to play a
secondary role as a catalyst, in addition to whatever its principal chemical role may be. It is clear
that we need a variety of units, because any single unit might be needed to catalyze a particular
connection between two other units. The auto-catalytic threshold is probabilistic and sudden
(Kauffman, 1995), and proves Rule 2.
Urban coherence emerges in an analogous fashion. The formation of a complex interacting
whole requires the availability of many different types of urban elements. The reason is that some
of those elements need to act as intermediate connectors, to catalyze the coupling between other
urban elements (Figure 5). One cannot assemble a living, coherent city by restricting the element
variety and mix. The corollary is also obvious: urban life in the dynamic cities that we know
arises almost spontaneously when a critical mixture and density of urban elements has been
reached, and disappears when one of those essential elements is removed, isolated, or
concentrated (Jacobs, 1961). Even if we have the requisite variety of elements, they must be
allowed to interact; therefore, segregating urban functions stops the connective process.
This dual, connective role of elements is insufficiently recognized in urban design. After many
decades of rigidly stereotyping urban elements according to a single primary function, it is
difficult to imagine all their other, secondary functions, and their fundamental role in connecting
the urban fabric is ignored. For instance, while it is obvious that we need a road to connect a
house with a store, we similarly need stores and houses as geometric connective elements in
different situations. Connective elements are eliminated in the drive to "purify" the built
environment because their true function is not understood. The mechanism of mutual catalysis is
fundamental in complex systems and works in creating living cities the world over, yet it runs
counter to what has been taught for decades in architecture schools.
The above result unequivocally supports one of Jane Jacobs's proposals for the generation of
life in cities: "The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good
proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield they must produce. This mingling
must be fairly close-grained" (Jacobs, 1961) (p. 150). Jacobs outlined cogent economic
arguments to support her result; here, our arguments are scientific. Elements of any living
environment are not going to be defined by geometrically identical units (Rule 2). In a separate
publication (Salingaros and West, 1999), we derive an optimum distribution for project funding
in urban construction, which is skewed towards small projects. This formula inevitably precludes
most large lump developments, so it guarantees the preservation of old buildings by allowing
only a few new buildings into any coherent region.
pull into an arch, which formed an integral part of the house, and drive through this structure.
Twentieth-century buildings have generally lost their inside/outside connection. Glass walls
emphatically do not couple indoors to outdoors; they create informational ambiguity by
connecting visually while disconnecting physically and aurally (Salingaros, 1999). Coupling
almost always works via an intermediate region: an entrance hall linking the street to the house
interior; a roofed corridor as a transition between the inside of a house and a patio or garden; an
arcade as a transition between storefronts and a street or plaza; a covered patio as a transition
between the inside and the exposed space outside (Figure 5). In contemporary suburbs, people
sitting on an open porch are not protected enough from either the road traffic, or from the
disturbing feeling of a vast, empty space generated by building set-backs. Without any interface,
there is no connection to the open space in front.
That a green area surrounds a building is a very recent notion, and doesn't work because flat
lawn provides no boundary (Salingaros, 1999). A lawn helps to isolate the suburban house from
its surroundings; it is the opposite of a connective element. The solution offered by the traditional
courtyard house makes more sense geometrically. The plainer an element is, the more it needs
to be surrounded by a structured boundary (Figure 7). Most successful green areas are
surrounded by something: a building, a wall, or a river (Alexander, Ishikawa et al., 1977).
Today's flat, uniform suburban lawns couple to nothing. This flawed pattern derives from older
palatial estates with vast decorative lawns, which were themselves surrounded by hedges and
very high, solid walls (Rule 3). Those walls, although essential for the geometrical coupling, are
now outlawed by zoning regulations.
Even in an artificial complex system such as the urban fabric, it is impossible to violate the
inverse proportionality between force intensity and range. Juxtaposing large contrasting units
generates unnatural forces on the large scale, which overwhelm both the short-range coupling
forces, and the weaker long-range alignment forces necessary for urban coherence. Le
Corbusier attempted to reverse the intensity and range of urban forces (Rule 4). He conjectured
-- incorrectly, and without any scientific evidence -- that this radical re-organization would solve
the problems facing nineteenth-century cities in the twentieth century. He never realized that such
a reversal was physically impossible, and only succeeded in dissolving the structural interactions
between urban units.
imposed by planning tries to counteract this mistaken notion of "random" growth (Batty and
Longley, 1994). Most successful urban regions tend to be more "nearly ordered" rather than
"nearly disordered" (Hillier, 1999). Approximate linearization is a consequence of human
movement, and leads to one form of clear urban ordering. This does not imply perfectly straight
or parallel lines, but rather a relaxed linearization of urban form induced by the path structure.
Regardless of the approximately linear ordering forces due to the transportation network, a city
can never be aligned completely without losing its geometrical coherence.
Figure 10 has both coupling and alignment (with more symmetry than is required for a city plan).
It is reminiscent of the designs on oriental carpets and ancient Chinese bronze vessels, where
bilateral symmetry is used because those patterns are seen frontally. A city is ordered in an
approximately linear fashion by its transportation network, so its plan doesn't need such
reflectional symmetries. Nevertheless, many urban planners judge a design by how it represents
visual abstraction from the air -- as in the disconnected twentieth-century model shown in Figure
8 -- and don't allow for urban functions on the ground to generate their own coherent form.
Large-scale ordering may be imposed, but it has to be done delicately, and with an
understanding of the relative strength of all the underlying forces.
Architects today use grid alignment instead of pairwise connections as a general design
technique. The premise behind this idea is false: no short-range connectivity comes from aligning
edges along a rectangular or any other grid (Rule 5). This basic misunderstanding has become
so pervasive, however, as to assume an unshakable authority. People now imagine an absolute
three-dimensional grid permeating all of space, to which one aligns urban elements; not only
buildings, walls, and paths, but also bricks, windows, doors, steps, ledges, manicured bushes,
strips of lawn, and even rectangular planters. Aligned elements are believed to connect to an
invisible rigid frame, hence to each other. Since there is no such grid, the imagined connections
are non-existent.
Two analogies are the making of a quilt; and playing with LEGO blocks. In the first case, sew
patches of material together, paying attention to the local connections but not to any overall
pattern, so that the quilt is flat but its seams are not aligned. Contrast this with merely laying the
same patches in an exact orthogonal pattern on the floor, but not sewing them together. In the
second case, use LEGO blocks to build a connected, three-dimensional toy. Contrast this with
laying LEGO blocks down on a table in a perfectly rectangular pattern, but without joining them.
In both latter cases, picking up any patch or block will not pick up the rest; they are aligned but
are not attached. In the same way, historical cities are complex and connected, whereas
contemporary cities are aligned but disconnected.
An apparent order that depends exclusively on grid alignment is deeply misleading, because it
gives a false impression of connectivity where none exists. A simple test of connectivity is the
following: is the urban fabric stable under deformations of the plan? That is, if we shift elements
around just enough to break the rectangular grid, is the city still connected? Most often it isn't; it
falls apart after the linear ordering is lost, because its elements were never connected in the first
place. Suburbs are disconnected by choice. On the other hand, vertical couplings (i.e.,
apartments on top of shops, or offices on top of apartments) are stable since they are not
affected by horizontal perturbations. Unfortunately, those traditional couplings are shunned by
planners obsessed with segregating functions.
forces exerted by all the surrounding elements are accommodated -- the result is seldom
symmetric, nor perfectly straight. This plasticity gives life to traditional cities.
The evolution of a complex system in time was discussed in an earlier section, and the sequence
leading to coherence was identified as small to large (Rule 6). Most hierarchical thinking in
urbanism today is framed in terms of the opposite sequence: large to small (see (Friedman,
1997) for a summary of hierarchical theories of urban planning). Even under the guidance of an
overall organizing principle, assembling the urban fabric in principle proceeds from small to large
(Alexander, 2000; Alexander, Neis et al., 1987). A flawed urban plan is immediately obvious
by its high visual symmetry, which usually means that small-scale structure has been sacrificed to
accommodate the largest elements first. Any strict top-down order is imposed order, which
violates Rule 7.
The causality expressed in Rule 7, which states that the large scale depends on the smaller
scales, should not be misinterpreted. Once properly established, the large scale is much more
difficult to change because it includes so much substructure. All of the included subunits must be
moved along with the large-scale module. By contrast, it is relatively easy to change the smaller
scales, which do not depend on the larger scales (Habraken, 1998). Rooms can be re-arranged
without changing the rest of the house; houses can be moved without changing the road grid; a
neighborhood can be entirely rebuilt without affecting the rest of the city. This opposite one-way
dependence of change in a complex system is sometimes expressed as: "the large scale
dominates the smaller scales" (Habraken, 1998).
disconnecting process because they became slums. Eventually, however, urban renewal goes in
and destroys even those regions, cutting their geometrical connections with a surgical precision.
The disadvantaged resident population may at that point lose any humanity left to them, strictly
as a result of the changed urban geometry. Today's disconnected cities fail as an environment for
a large portion of the healthy population: children, teenagers, mothers with babies, and older
people; as well as handicapped persons of all ages. The solution is to reconnect every piece of a
city, on whatever scale, to every other piece.
downtown megatowers, whose shape and use are going to be drastically altered. Even more so
than the modification of buildings, the geometry of public space, parking lots, urban plazas,
parks, sidewalks, and roads must be re-done. Many authors have suggested rules for
assembling a city in a more connected manner, supported by sensible arguments (Alexander,
Ishikawa et al., 1977; Alexander, Neis et al., 1987; Gehl, 1987; Greenberg, 1995; Kunstler,
1996; Lozano, 1990). Spurious counter-arguments condemning those ideas as old-fashioned,
romantic, not innovative, or not modern enough have unfortunately prevented their adoption until
now.
there is absolutely no geometrical reason for each house to be next to its neighbor (thus
violating Rules 1 and 2). Houses can only link to each other indirectly, via complementary
elements such as neighborhood stores, surrounding roads, and common front or back yards
(Rule 2). The intermediate connective elements exist on a different scale, yet all scales up to the
size of the subdivision itself are removed nowadays (Salingaros and West, 1999). Even if a
house is coupled to its own yard -- which is certainly not the case for the majority of houses
built during the twentieth century -- we are left with house/yard pairs uncoupled from each
other. Many people want that, however, having confused the need for privacy with geometrical
isolation.
A classic European pairing couples stores to housing vertically in three or four-storey buildings,
with apartments on top of each store. The commercial space successfully contrasts and couples
with the residential space (Rule 1). The more intense use of the commercial space weights it as
several times the residential space, so a mix of 1:2 or 1:3 is appropriate, validating the proposed
scaling (Rule 6). American cities employed this example of vertical coupling widely until the
1940's. The point is that the residential units couple indirectly to each other via the commercial
units, which doesn't occur in today's strictly residential four-storey apartment buildings (Rule 2).
The converse -- zoning all high-rise office towers so that their bottom four storeys are residential
-- is the quickest way to bring downtowns to life.
A coupling popular in England is to have a five to ten-house cluster share a giant back yard or
private square, so that houses couple via the green (which covers about three times the area of a
house). Children then have a car-free minipark to themselves instead of separate, smaller back
yards. The United States had the corollary of this solution in the 1920's: a cluster of houses
sharing a giant front yard, which was maintained by the City. Groups of houses all facing a
minipark existed in some form or other. One version has houses built facing a square or cul-desac road. Among the most successful spots for this pattern is around a lake. Today, however,
such house/park clusters have been destroyed by cutting off the green by a surrounding road,
which undoes the essential coupling.
Footpaths orthogonal to local roads leave spaces between some houses (Salingaros, 1998).
These cross-paths establish a multi-house cluster as a suburban unit, by surrounding it. Lots
today adjoin each other on three sides; however, older homes have a very useful back alley, and
cross-paths exist between every few houses. An urban module consisting of eight five-house
clusters, together with a neighborhood park and four commercial or civic elements, became the
basis for initial planning and growth in Savannah, Georgia (Bacon, 1974). Each five-house
cluster was defined by a surrounding road, and the house clusters and four larger buildings
surrounded the park. This module was repeated several times before the need was felt for other
types of elements, exactly as required by the system rules.
squalor and misery lies a real-world illustration of urban coherence. Another important point is
that the growth of shanty or indigenous towns respects and follows the natural topography as no
other urban form does (Ribeiro, 1997). Ideally, we would wish to add some (but not too much)
alignment to the favela model.
An interesting development illustrative of natural urban forces has occurred with the influx of
squatters into nineteenth-century colonial cities. In parts of Cairo, people have taken over the
flat roofs of commercial buildings, so that today, there is a separate two-dimensional squatter
city built on top of imposing office buildings. Here is an officially unacknowledged vertical
coupling between residential and office space. In the southern states of the USA, homeless
persons inhabit the space underneath some elevated highway interchanges: a vertical coupling
between residential and transportation space. As the forces behind these phenomena are not
understood, they are treated as a nuisance, and remain uncoordinated. The population pressure,
however, guarantees their continued existence.
Most texts on urbanism condemn favelas for their "formless sprawl". Their authors little
understand complexity in either form or function, and are following the declaration of war on
cumulative urban forms and organic, continuous structures, as codified by Le Corbusier in the
1933 Athens Charter. Note the causality of scales expressed in the typical favela: the smaller
scales -- such as individual buildings -- often precede the large scale that is defined by a path
and road network. This causality is reversed in planning, where the large-scale infrastructure is
laid down first, to be followed only much later by houses and other buildings. One sees in hybrid
systems of slums, where a government lays down a rectangular grid of wide roads, while leaving
the building of houses up to the residents, a notable lack of organic coherence such as is found
in totally free systems.
The basic notion of stability in physical systems underlines that states are long-lived only if they
do not have to be propped up: if their energy is such that all inevitable small changes reinforce
that state instead of disturbing it drastically. A dynamically stable urban state is one that has an
enormous number of geometrical and functional connections on many different scales. Some are
going to be cut as new ones arise. These time-dependent processes are self-sustaining on the
average. In the same way, traditional buildings that connect well into the urban fabric stabilize
that region as a result of their design. Contemporary buildings as a rule don't connect at all: they
fail to create human environments because their architects misunderstood (or vainly hoped to
reverse) the direction in which urban forms evolve naturally.
Conclusion
Several suggestions were made that, if applied, could dramatically improve the coherence of the
urban fabric. The proposals were based on rules for geometrical coherence derived from
complex systems theory. These results are valuable because they support urban solutions that
instinctively work, while invalidating popular but destructive methods that are in wide use today.
Since the 1940's urban planners have followed rules whose effect is to sever short-range
connections. A fundamental misunderstanding about urban geometry leads to the segregation of
functions, which has now become an obsession. As a result, the modern city is intentionally
disconnected: in mathematical terms, it is random. Retail areas have been torn out of residential
neighborhoods , leaving suburban tracts that consist entirely of isolated houses and ornamental
lawns. At the same time, residential units have been torn out of commercial centers, leaving an
empty shell at night. It was thought that alignment and repetition of identical units would connect
them, but it doesn't. Implementing the rules given here can solve many urban design problems,
or at least lead to a clearer understanding of their causes.
Acknowledgments
The author's research is supported in part by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.
Christopher Alexander's ideas have influenced this paper to an enormous extent, and I am
grateful to Debora Tejada for her suggestions.
References
Alexander, Christopher (2000) The Nature of Order (New York, Oxford University Press).
(in press)
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. and Angel, S.
(1977) A Pattern Language (New York, Oxford University Press).
Alexander, C., Neis, H., Anninou, A. and King, I. (1987) A New Theory of Urban Design
(New York, Oxford University Press).
Bacon, Edmund N. (1974) Design of Cities (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, Penguin
Books).
Batty, Michael and Longley, Paul (1994) Fractal Cities (London, Academic Press).
Booch, Grady (1991) Object Oriented Design (Redwood City, California,
Benjamin/Cummings).
Bovill, Carl (1996) Fractal Geometry in Architecture and Design (Boston, Birkhuser).
Collins, G. R. and Collins, C. C. (1986) City Planning According to Artistic Principles, by
Camillo Sitte (New York, Random House). [Der Stdte-Bau, Carl Graeser Verlag, Vienna,
1901]
Courtois, P.-J. (1985) "On Time and Space Decomposition of Complex Structures",
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 28 pp. 590-603.
Cullen, Gordon (1961) The Concise Townscape (Oxford, Butterworth).
Frankhauser, Pierre (1994) La Fractalit des Structures Urbaines (Paris, Anthropos).
Friedman, Avi (1997) "Design for Change: Flexible Planning Strategies for the 1990s and
Beyond", Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 2 pp. 277-295.
Garnsworthy, Amanda and O'Connor, Kevin (1997) "Knowledge-Based Manufacturing and
Regional Change", in: Intelligent Environments. Edited by: P. Droege (Amsterdam, Elsevier)
pp. 87-97.
Gehl, Jan (1987) Life Between Buildings (New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Greenberg, Mike (1995) The Poetics of Cities (Columbus, Ohio State University Press).
Habraken, N. J. (1998) The Structure of the Ordinary (Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT
Press).
Hillier, Bill (1997) "Cities as Movement Economies", in: Intelligent Environments. Edited by:
P. Droege (Amsterdam, Elsevier) pp. 295-342. [Chapter 4 of: B. Hillier, "Space is the
Machine", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996]
Hillier, Bill (1999) "The Hidden Geometry of Deformed Grids", Environment and Planning B,
Vol. 26 pp. 169-191.
Jacobs, Jane (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York, Vintage
Books).
Kauffman, Stuart (1995) At Home in the Universe (New York, Oxford University Press).
Kaye, Brian H. (1994) A Random Walk Through Fractal Dimensions 2nd Edition
(Weinheim, Germany, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft).
Kunstler, James Howard (1996) Home From Nowhere (New York, Simon & Schuster).
Lozano, Eduardo E. (1990) Community Design and the Culture of Cities (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Makse, H. A., Havlin, S. and Stanley, H. E. (1995) "Modelling Urban Growth Patterns",
Nature, Vol. 377 pp. 608-612.
Mesarovic, M. D., Macko, D. and Takahara, Y. (1970) Theory of Hierarchical Multilevel
Systems (New York, Academic Press).
Miller, James Grier (1978) Living Systems (New York, McGraw-Hill).
Moughtin, Cliff (1992) Urban Design: Street and Square (Oxford, Butterworth).
Moughtin, Cliff, Oc, Taner and Tiesdell, Steven (1995) Urban Design: Ornament and