New Urban Forms, Diversity, and Computational Design:

Exploring the Open Block

Jose Carpio-Pinedo1; Guillermo Ramírez2; Salas Montes3; and Patxi J. Lamiquiz4

Abstract: Architects, urban designers, and city planners witness a contemporary lack of imagination regarding new urban form typolo-
gies. Most proposals have swung between two well-defined extremes: the dense, traditional block and the strips/towers defined by the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

modernist principles. More recent yet distinctive proposals are rare, even as the challenges of urban environments have changed.
Based on the concept of diversity, one notably acclaimed exception is Christian de Portzamparc’s open block (îlot ouvert), proposed
as a set of flexible, interdependent rules that ensures an attractive, varied urban scene, and applied in Masséna, a new neighborhood in
Paris. However, this new typology has raised some issues, such as the necessary design efforts or the developer’s uncertainties as to build-
able surface associated with flexibility of form. Computational design tools (CDT) provide an opportunity to explore and quantify the
performance and limits of new urban form typologies. Using CDT, this study first confirmed that the rules stated by Portzamparc were
sufficient and consistent to achieve the intended urban forms, and that these forms are translatable into common design code parameters.
Second, this study discussed the open block as a new form type, by framing its degree of diversity. Finally, this study checked the utility of
CDT during the decision-support process and concluded its potentially wider convenience to explore renewed morphological creativity in
urban designers beyond rigid design codes and standards. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000555. © 2020 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Open block; Îlot ouvert; Diversity; Urban morphology; Computational design; Portzamparc.

Introduction
By the end of the 1960s, the periphery of every city had been built
following the same principles, as a degraded version of Le Corbus-
ier’s radical proposal for the cities of the Modern Movement (MM)
(Le Corbusier 1957). The homogeneity of the same tedious strips
and towers came under severe criticism but did not find successful
alternative forms in practice (Curtis 1982). Moreover, the MM
ideas were so powerful that they have polarized the urban debate
ever since, and classic works in urban morphology studies framed
all urban forms within a shift from pre-MM blocks to MM strips
(Panerai et al. 2004). In search of diversity, no radically new
morphological proposals appeared until 1995, when the Pritzker-
awarded, French architect Christian de Portzamparc won the
masterplanning competition for the Masséna district (12.5 hectares
by the river Seine in southeast Paris, Fig. 1). His proposal was a
new urban type based on the concept of diversity: the open block
1
Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Universidad Politécnica
de Madrid (UPM), Avenida Juan de Herrera, 4. 28040 Madrid, Spain
(corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1508-4246.
Email: jose.carpio@upm.es
2 parc’s proposal with the help of computational design tools (CDT),
Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Universidad Politécnica
de Madrid (UPM), Avenida Juan de Herrera, 4. 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Email: guilleramirezc@gmail.com
3
Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Universidad Politécnica
de Madrid (UPM), Avenida Juan de Herrera, 4. 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Email: salas.montes18@gmail.com
4
Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Universidad Politécnica
de Madrid (UPM), Avenida Juan de Herrera, 4. 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Email: francisco.lamiquiz@upm.es
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 25, 2018; approved
on August 9, 2019; published online on March 19, 2020. Discussion period
open until August 19, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488.
(in French, l’îlot ouvert, Fig. 2), which aimed at retaining the
best of both MM and pre-MM forms. Portzamparc has designed
other developments under the same principles in different
cities—Brussels, New York, Grenoble, Montpellier, Nantes, or
Annecy—but never to the extent of Masséna in Paris. His proposal
paid special attention to relevant issues in the contemporary discus-
sion on sustainable cities, such as compactness, density, mixed-use,
and the relation between buildings and public spaces (Montgomery
1998; Landry 2000; Southworth 2005; Banister 2008; Litman
2013; Pozueta Echavarri et al. 2013).
Despite its promising performance, the open block has been re-
ceived as too challenging for designers because of its definition in
terms of a number of interrelated parametric decisions, far more
complicated than the simpler, standard variables in design codes,
such as the floor area ratio (FAR) or the lot coverage. Perceived
as too flexible or too complex, Portzamparc’s parameters usually
seem difficult to write down in a design code or to apprehend
and apply with the standard resources of architectural practice.
The development of computer-based technologies to assist design
processes seems an encouraging solution to this issue.
This study aimed at shedding light on the viability of Portzam-
as design processes facilitated by the processing power of software,
including nonlinear processes and feedback loops. The first objec-
tive was to test the open block rules with CDT and evaluate
whether the resulting urban forms were faithful to Portzamparc’s
principles, without being too flexible or too restrictive. Our second
objective was to assess the results both as a new morphological
type and as a base for diversity in streetscape. The third objective
was to explore the use of CDT as a decision-support tool during
the development process, focusing on two questions: (a) the con-
trollability of FAR facing the uncertainty that apparently results
from volumetric diversity; and (b) the comparative benefits of the
open block compared with other urban forms.

© ASCE 04020002-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Masséna district master plan. (© Christian de Portzamparc.)

Related Literature

Diversity in Theory and… in Practice?

The diversity of urban forms was one of the key vindications coming
from the forerunner critics of the MM. Cullen (1961) recovered the
importance of volumetric diversity, urban sequences, juxtaposition,
and the picturesque. Jacobs (1961) decried the excessively homoge-
neous modernist urban landscapes, relating a city’s social diversity to
a varied built environment. Hertzberger (1991) studied the mutual
complementarity between a good street and the buildings that config-
ure it and advocated a structure that could foster diversity.
Drawing on the idea of building type in housing and defining it
as a set of structural features able to characterize an identifiable
form, Panerai et al. (2004) defended the relations between build-
ings, blocks, and streets as the basic generators of diversity. At
the same time, the concept of urban typomorphology allowed a sys-
tematization of building codes, a key tool in planning, to keep
building form under control while enabling constraints to architec-
tural flexibility through thresholds on volume, shape, or position.
However, concepts such as diversity are difficult to shape by build-
ing codes and standards (Ben-Joseph 2004) and have only recently
been tackled empirically. Some authors have quantified diversity
mostly through indicators of land use mix (Cervero and Kockelman
1997; Song et al. 2013), while others focused more on the attributes
of the urban landscape (Foltête and Piombini 2007). However, how
can these attributes be materialized into an integrated design? A
hint may be implicit in traditional cities since they present some
Fig. 2. Concept sketches comparing pre-MM (top) and MM forms
regularities that provide structure in variation. This is what the Brit-
(middle) with the open block (bottom). (© Christian de Portzamparc.)
ish structuralist school described by the notion of structure, as the

© ASCE 04020002-2 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

 result of a set of restrictions in a random process (Hanson 1989),
instead of form geometry, repetition, and hierarchy. This notion an-
ticipated Portzamparc’s proposal and is promising for contemporary
urban forms, which may draw on CDT to bring more flexibility and
diversity to otherwise rather fixed design codes.
Christian de Portzamparc’s Open Block (îlot ouvert)
In tune with the MM critics and the search for diversity, Christian de
Portzamparc’s open block championed fighting homogeneity as the
leading idea. The open block represents a rejection of continuous
heights and facades of traditional corridor-streets, but also the loose-
ness of street space in the MM model. Instead, Portzamparc’s pro-
posal implies breaking up the classical block with a succession of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
autonomous yet aligned buildings (Fig. 2). This architect highlighted
the importance of the interplay of light and shadow, possible in a
dense urban environment thanks to the fragmentation of construc-
tions, the height variations, and the porosity of open spaces. This
is also the way to maximize the levels of sunlight and air (Société
d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement de Paris 2010, p. 167). Further,
even if buildings are aligned so that the street is perceived as such,
the variety of standalone volumes is very rich: wide next to narrow;
tall next to not so tall; different colors, materials, and textures. “The
city will become variegated. Architectures will be differentiated
much in the same way as animals in a zoo,” said Portzamparc
(Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement de Paris 2010, p. 161).
This was a new way of understanding the street, which becomes
an attractive collection of successive unpredictable scenes that en-
riches the experience of walking:
Potential harmony is no longer based on an idea of resem-
blance or homogeneity, as had always been the case in the
classical past. I am interested in another form of harmony:
one that is based on insertion; the relations between two or
three different objects, on the creation of contrast. (Société
d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement de Paris 2010, p. 166).
Also, the diversity of physical form leads to other sorts of mix. If form
follows function, a diversity of forms could successfully accommo-
date a mix of uses. This is the case of Masséna, where 28,500 m2
of shops, 116,000 m2 of offices, and 110,000 m2 of facilities are in-
terspersed with housing. Last but not least, according to the develop-
ers, “the concept permitted a considerable degree of social mix”
(Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement de Paris 2010, p. 153).
In short, the new model was outstanding regarding the various dimen-
sions of diversity that authors such as Jacobs had vindicated—
morphological, social, and functional—and, thus, became an
immediate reference for urban sustainability (Mohareb et al. 2016).
The uniqueness of the open block has been noticed espe-
cially among architects and urban designers (Reale 2008, p. 67;
Carpio-Pinedo 2014; Firley and Groen 2014; Siddi and Cocco
2016, p. 106), who have highlighted the reconciliation of density
and openness (Fernández Per et al. 2009; Caudron 2011); its exper-
imental, contemporary and courageous character (Masboungi 2009,
p. 42; Reale 2012, p. 24); and contribution for urban sustainability
(Mega 2010; Pozueta Echavarri et al. 2013, pp. 58–60). Finally,
some authors have celebrated the open block’s diversity as a tool for
intervention in complex urban environments, satisfying wide-ranging
situations and residents’ demands (Charmes 2007, p. 80; Cohen and
Hubert 2014).
However, not all comments have been so celebratory. As a
replicable model, the open block is still to be evaluated, since
its rules look too complicated for common planning practices
and design codes (Charmes 2007, p. 79; Carpio-Pinedo 2014);
a concern that even Portzamparc acknowledged as being usual
(Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement de Paris 2010, p. 166).
© ASCE 04020002-3
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002
Nonetheless, Portzamparc also suggests some ways forward:
technologies (Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement de
Paris 2010, p. 162).
Computer Systems and CDT
The development of computer-assisted architectural design is cur-
rently well consolidated and has diversified into a number of families
or subfamilies of processes, with sometimes important conceptual
overlaps and only fuzzy borders between these processes. Some
examples are solid modeling (Shapiro 2002), parametric design
(Gerber 2007), or generative design (Agkathidis 2015). In this arti-
cle, computational design is used as an umbrella term covering all
design processes facilitated by the processing power of software, in-
cluding nonlinear processes and feedback loops that would seem too
discouraging without the aid of computers.
A recent review found that CDT are still not fully used in ar-
chitectural or urban design practice (Nisztuk and Myszkowski
2017), especially not in a creative way. However, some authors
have highlighted the efficiency of drawing on these tools to gen-
erate urban design prototypes in a very short time period (Koenig
et al. 2017) and for the optimization (Charalampidis and Tsalikidis
2015; Luo et al. 2017) or simultaneous consideration of various fac-
tors (Bielik et al. 2012; Amado and Poggi 2014). Interestingly, other
groups of authors have seen the potential of the tool to enrich the
design process, turning it into a dynamic reflective practice (Beirão
et al. 2011), and to support collaborative and participatory urban
design (Steinø et al. 2013a, b).
CDT facilitate rule-based design processes, rather than
geometry-based ones (Steinø et al. 2013a), in line with the concept
of structure introduced previously (Hanson 1989), which considered
rules as restrictions to randomness as a way toward diversity. If the
rules leading the process are original, radical morphological ideas,
then it is fair to think that these tools may become a good platform
to develop and test new concepts of urban form. Indeed, some pre-
vious contributions show that parametric design outputs can be orig-
inal variegated forms and the result of research with the diversity of
shape (Koltsova et al. 2011), which justify the intuition and interest
of testing Portzamparc’s ideas with this type of software tool. CDT
provide the technical framework that enables us to produce geome-
try according to programed rules, run simulations, and collect mea-
surements that can prove or disprove certain design hypotheses.
With the use of computing power, the design process can be accel-
erated in comparison with traditional methods and enriched with
data that would otherwise be difficult and expensive to process.
Methodology
CDT
This study has required the combination of three different yet com-
plementary computational tools. Firstly, Grasshopper has been the
environment for geometry work and running the simulations.
Grasshopper is one of the most widely used tools for computational
design worldwide (Gerber 2007; Beirão et al. 2011; Bielik et al.
2012; Amado and Poggi 2014; Speranza 2016; Koenig et al.
2017). Secondly, Ladybug has been the tool for sunlight modeling.
Ladybug is a plug-in for Grasshopper that offers a collection of
tools for environmental analysis (Roudsari and Pak 2013). Thirdly,
Python has been the main programing language in the description
of the simulations and the execution flow of the program. Python
is a general-purpose programing language with a broad userbase
in the scientific community.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Table 1. Open block rules
Rule Description
1 50% to 70% of the block perimeter (front property lines, street lines,
or edges) must be built.
2 No front facade can be curved.
3 All buildings must be autonomous (no party walls). Minimum
distance between any two buildings is 6 m.
4 Front yards/gardens also have to be well-sized, so a minimum
setback distance of 10 m is established. A setback is applied to a
volume if there is enough back-space to satisfy Rule 3 and if the
other buildings are enough to maintain Rule 1. If more than one
building may be a setback candidate, the choice is made randomly
by the program.
5 Facade lengths and building heights are interdependent. Volume
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

types are described in Table 2.

6 Compound blocks (made of not one but two prisms) are allowed as
long as there is a 4-story height difference between the two.
7 If a building is on a block corner, the sum of the two facade lengths
at the corner is limited to 60 m.
8 No rules for ground-floor buildings.

Parameters and Rules

The rules for creating an urban fabric of open blocks (îlots ouverts)
were based on those collected by Caudron (2011), who had personal
access to individuals and documents from Christian de Portzam-
parc’s design practice. The rules applied in this study are summa-
rized in Table 1 and aim at ensuring: (a) a good formal definition
of the street right-of-way space (Rules 1 and 2); (b) all buildings
and voids with a certain entity (Rules 3 and 4); (c) the variety of vol-
Fig. 3. The only geometrical input. A, B, and C lines mark 24, 16, and
umes within a same street view (Rules 5–7); and (d) a certain flex-
12-m-wide streets correspondingly. Dimensions indicate block side
ibility and unpredictability in the ground floor (Rule 8). On the other
lengths.
hand, Portzamparc outlined one rule that this study did not consider:
the coordination of volumes on both sides of the street (solid oppo-
site void, tall opposite short, wide opposite narrow, and so on). By Table 2. Dimensions for the diverse building types
limiting the volumetric coordination within each block, the intention
was to increase the feasibility of the open block proposal, while this Type C:
Type A: Type B: narrow, Type GF:
decision has a likely low impact on the urban landscape or any of the
Dimension compound long, low high ground floor
open block benefits.
Length 30–60 m 30–45 m 10–30 m Free
Depth 10–15 m 10–15 m 10–15 m 10–15 m
General Simulation Structure Height Lower volume: 2–5 stories 5–15 stories 1 story
5–11 stories
The simulation consists of different entities organized in four hier- Higher volume:
archical levels. Each hierarchical level contains the next lower- Plus 4–5 stories
level entities and registers all relevant variables at its level. These Maximum:
are, from the highest to the lowest, the following: (a) system, 15 stories
which also decides the simulation running order and registers the
outputs into spreadsheets; (b) block; (c) building; and (d) analysis length, depth, and height, following Table 2); the story height
point, which registers direct sunlight onto a building facade. (3 m), the minimum distance between buildings (6 m); the allowed
setback distance from the block perimeter (10 m); and the list of
sun rays to be computed in the analysis, for the coordinates in
Inputs
Paris, France, on March 21, June 21 and December 21 at 09:00,
The only geometrical input for the simulation has been a set of lines 12:00, 15:00, and 18:00, as long as there was any sunlight.
representing the block perimeters. These were based on a set of
road center lines, interlinked as a deformed grid and generating a
realistic variety of block shapes and sizes (Fig. 3). The block Simulations and Checking Portzamparc’s
area values range from 0.15 to 1.2 ha, with typical values between Rules–Resulting Forms with CDT
0.2 and 0.6 ha. These values relate well to the standard Masséna A random starting point is chosen on the boundary of the block
blocks of 90 × 35 and 90 × 60 m (0.32 and 0.54 ha) (Caudron perimeter (defined as a polyline). From this starting point and in
2011), but include some other sizes and nonrectangular shapes so a counterclockwise direction, buildings are added in sequence
as to test the open block adaptability. with a separation defined by the simulation rules, until there is no
Some other input variables describe general parameters in order more space left to occupy in the perimeter.
to run simulations. These parameters cover the catalog of allowed A total of 10 independent simulations (also called seeds) were run,
dimensions for each building type (three building types and their each with a random start (first volume in place). Three-dimensional

© ASCE 04020002-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

 (3D) models were automatically generated, so that a quality check
was possible. This allowed observation of whether the defined set
of rules produced independent enough, yet similar enough, results,
which could be considered a distinctive, recognizable type. By
running 10 independent simulations with different random start
conditions, it is possible to quantify the variability that can be ex-
pected from the model. These 10 simulations also provide a frame
of reference that can be used for comparisons later on.

Quantitative Assessment of the Resulting Urban Forms

On the quantitative side, a spreadsheet is generated with all the
variables (columns) and observations (rows) at each hierarchical
level of analysis. For the discussion of results, the focus has been
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

on the following variables: perimeter occupation; FAR; lot cover-

age ratio; variety of buildings; and number of buildings per block,
related to the fragmentation of the total constructed volume and the
interplay of solids/voids.
All variables have been analyzed globally (i.e., all simulation or
seeds together) and also in each of the 10 independent, random
simulations. This is important to determine if the model behaves
consistently as a recognizable type, despite its randomness.

Further Questions: CDT as a Decision-Support Tool

After the model setup, and to illustrate the potential of CDT as a
decision-support tool, two issues were analyzed further. Firstly, on
the control of the FAR, fixed per block, to improve the open block
applicability by addressing the typical developers’ main matters of
concern. For this step, the first CDT model was adapted with an
extra condition: total floor area must try to reach the closest value
to (3.6 * block area) ± 5%. This value was decided after observing
the typical results, presented in the following section. The simulation
would reach the value as long as the block geometry enables this
desirable FAR value. The process to achieve this was to increase
or decrease the number of stories at specific buildings (respecting
the corresponding building-type limits). Another possibility could
have been to add or remove unregulated ground-floor buildings.
However, this represented a less challenging alternative to explore.
Secondly, another application of CDT and the open block sim-
ulations was the quantification of the produced benefits and, in
particular, sun lighting. Sunscore is the ratio between the observed Fig. 4. Volumetric results of the 10 simulations.
unobstructed rays and the total analyzed rays at each analysis point.
This analysis excluded blocks on the edge of the grid, to avoid the
border effect.
average value was 64.8% with a standard deviation of 0.052.
There were a very limited number of blocks that fell below the pe-
Results rimeter occupation minimum because of their dissimilar geometric
features, such as non-right angles.
The first set of results consisted of the model volumetric outputs The average FAR in open blocks was 3.7 and the average lot
(Fig. 4 and 3D models). However, these 3D visualizations are coverage was 52.7%. The distribution of both variables followed
not sufficient for urban planners and designers, who require a a normal curve and was consistent in all 10 simulations.
translation into values for the typical design code parameters. To visualize the diversity of buildings, Fig. 6 shows all mod-
Consequently, this study plotted a histogram to show the global eled volumes regarding their height and their facade length, and
distribution of values in the model, including all blocks in all 10 Table 3 details the numbers of buildings per type at each simula-
simulations [Fig. 5(a)]. This global approach to each variable sup- tion. Fig. 7 shows the results for the number of buildings per
ports the comparison of the open block standard values with other block, which is an indicator of fragmentation of the total con-
urban form typologies; whereas the independent results of each structed volume. The outputs of the 10 simulations resulted in
random simulation (seed) enabled the comparison between simu- an average of 6.3 volumes per block (standard variation of
lations and identification of consistent patterns [Fig. 5(b)]. Both 2.59), but also included various blocks with more than double
types of quantitative results have been the base for the discussion (maximum was 17 buildings in Simulation 8).
in the following section. Further, to explore the application of CDT as a decision-support
Regarding the perimeter occupation (% of front property lines tool, the process was repeated with a fixed FAR value to address the
occupied by a building facade, fixed between 50 and 70%), the developers’ concerns about uncertainty. In this way, CDT enabled

© ASCE 04020002-5 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Perimeter occupation, FAR, and lot coverage: (a) general histogram; and (b) box plots for each simulation.

Fig. 6. Diversity of heights and facade lengths.

the quick quantitative assessment of the impact of the fixed FAR
value on the urban form. The statistical average values are detailed
in Table 4. There were a number of situations in which the desired
FAR target could not be reached while simultaneously respecting
the open block rules, due to the block geometry. In particular, it
has been impossible to meet the FAR target at triangular or too-
large blocks. Additionally, to support the discussion on the impact
on volumetric variety, Fig. 8 compares the diversity of heights and
facades with and without a fixed FAR value.
Finally, regarding the sunlight benefits (Fig. 9), the average
value for the 10 simulations was 0.3 (with a standard deviation
of 0.04). The distribution of the value followed a normal curve,
while the 10 simulations showed a consistent pattern. The different
building types achieved different sunscore ranges (Fig. 10): the

© ASCE 04020002-6 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

 Table 3. Number of buildings per type at every simulation tallest types (A and C) were more exposed to sunlight, while the
Type s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10
other two types, especially the ground-floor volumes, did not cap-
ture similar levels of sunlight. However, the results show that there
A 139 119 134 123 133 121 137 129 146 125 are exceptions in all building types, including ground-floor vol-
B 90 108 90 111 97 103 95 85 77 111
umes with similar sunscore levels to the tallest ones.
C 140 131 143 131 130 135 128 156 144 119
GF 146 141 149 158 144 149 163 164 159 163 The sunscore average 0.3 value achieved by the open block is not
Total 515 499 516 523 504 508 523 534 526 518 meaningful unless compared with the sunscore values achieved by its
alternatives. As alternatives, the two radical opposites that Portzam-
parc used as negative references: the traditional, pre-MM blocks,
Table 4. Comparison of descriptive statistics with and without fixed and the MM isolated buildings (Fig. 2). For that, the sunscore analysis
FAR was run for 11 grades of urban fabric, going from 100% of pre-MM
blocks to 100% MM isolated volumes at the block center (as per
No floor-space
restriction Fixed FAR = 3.6 ± 5% Fig. 11). The latter consist of standalone towers off the block perim-
eter, while the former align their facades on top of the block perimeter
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Mean Standard Mean Standard (100% built perimeter). The consequence is the clearer perception of
Variable average deviation average deviation the street in the pre-MM blocks (corridor-street), in contrast with the
Perimeter 0.648 0.052 0.648 0.052 no-street configuration in the modernist fabric (Fig. 12). The sunscore
occupation results showed that the traditional pre-MM blocks had a score of 0.23,
No. of buildings 6.300 2.594 6.300 2.594 while the modernist towers scored 0.39. The open block simulation
in block scores around 0.3 lay in between these two opposites (Fig. 13).
FAR 3.705 1.072 3.419 0.668 Finally, another possible question using CDT as a decision-
Lot coverage 0.527 0.084 0.527 0.084
support tool was the role of street width for sunlight optimization.

Fig. 7. Number of buildings per block: box plots for each simulation.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8. Diversity of heights and facade lengths. Comparison (a) without fixed FAR; and (b) with fixed FAR.

© ASCE 04020002-7 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

 Fig. 9. Sunscore: histogram and box plots for each simulation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Sunscore: box plots per building type.

Fig. 11. The traditional and 11 grades of urban fabric, from 100% nineteenth-century blocks to 100% modernist, isolated volumes.

The model results showed that the sunscore would rise from Discussion
0.3 up to average levels of 0.375 at 40 m-wide streets, but any
further width increase would have no impact on sunlight. On
Have CDT Been Able to Reproduce Open Blocks with
the other hand, those sunscore gains would have an impact
Portzamparc’s Rules?
regarding the levels of land consumption, with a great reduction
(−55%) of the gross built ratio or FAR including the streets’ The results have corroborated that the rules listed in Table 1 are suf-
area (Fig. 14). ficient to produce open blocks by using CDT. Also, that open

© ASCE 04020002-8 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

 (a) (b) (c)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 12. Six street perspectives for the 10 grades of urban fabric: (a) 0%; (b) 20%; (c) 40%; (d) 60%; (e) 80%; and (f) 100%.

Fig. 13. Comparison of open block results with varying fabrics. The X axis represents the percentage of modernist isolated towers. The horizontal
black lines represent the sunscore values achieved by the 10 simulations, which would be similar to those achieved by urban fabrics between 44% and
54% of modernist isolated towers.

blocks can be translated into typical design code parameters, such
as FAR or lot coverage. The first positive validation came from the
sheer observation of the model volumetric results and their compar-
ison with Portzamparc’s drawings and the urban landscape observ-
able in Masséna today. This first examination seemed a success,
given that the 10 3D models totally corresponded to the open
block typology (Fig. 4 and 3D models). These first visual results
pointed at the efficiency of the set of rules to define open blocks.
The quantitative evaluation of the open block characteristics en-
abled the translation into design code parameter standards, and the
comparison with other types of urban fabrics. The CDT results
confirmed the existence of open block typical parameters, with
the distribution of variables following a clear pattern. Besides,
these patterns were consistent in all 10 simulations. The perimeter
occupation, the FAR, and the lot coverage are three key variables
in urban design codes and building regulations, as well as in urban
morphology studies (see e.g., Berghauser Pont and Haupt 2005,
2007). In comparison with previous urban form types, it was con-
firmed that, as proposed by Portzamparc and noticed by the re-
vised literature (Fernández Per et al. 2009), the open block can

© ASCE 04020002-9 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Street-width impact on sunscore and land consumption.
be considered a very dense, compact urban form that makes a
rarely high intensive use of the land surface (WORKac 2009;
Nes et al. 2012), despite its fragmentation and openness for
light and ventilation. Besides, empirical evidence suggests that
compact forms have a very positive effect on the efficient con-
sumption of resources (Shi et al. 2016). On the other hand, it is
also noticeable that, due to the existence of some higher blocks,
the proportion of resulting open space within blocks (47.3%) is
much bigger than in traditional blocks with similar FAR. In Mas-
séna, these spaces get used to allocate private communal court-
yards or even more wisely small public facilities (kindergarten)
and services (flower shop).
Urban Form: Is the Open Block a New Morphological Type
in Which Variety is a Distinctive Feature?
To answer this question, it is worth recalling that, for all of the var-
iables, the 10 boxplots were randomly different, yet consistently
similar. All 10 model iterations were specifically different to each
other, but sharing some common properties, in line with the notions
of structure and type (Hanson 1989). This is generally the same, but
different in the particular. Thus, from the statistical point of view, it
has been possible to claim that Portzamparc’s rules define a distinct
morphological type. There was a risk that the rules were too restric-
tive and the cause of a lack of variety, but this has not been the case.
Checking the street perspective from the same exact location at the
10 different simulations (Fig. 15), the results exemplified that all
of them were extremely different in the details, but absolutely
the same as a global proposal. Besides, the global proposal was
based on the expected unique and attractive streetscape for pedes-
trians that embraced volumetric diversity (Reale 2012; Pozueta
Echavarri et al. 2013): a juxtaposition of high and short, wide
and narrow buildings, resulting in an interplay of voids and solids,
and of lights and shadows.
The achievement of Portzamparc’s vision relied on two key
factors. First, thanks to the four different types of buildings, the
spectrum of both heights and facade lengths is very varied, in con-
trast with the much more homogeneous, common urban fabrics
(Berghauser Pont and Haupt 2005). The results on the number of
buildings per type confirmed a consistent yet diverse pattern
(Table 3). Second, the high number of buildings per block—
more than six volumes per block on average (Fig. 7)—ensured
the fragmentation of the total constructed volume and produced
© ASCE
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002
the mix of solids and voids and lights and shadows that Portzam-
parc pursued.
Further CDT Results as Decision-Support Tools
The first application of CDT as a decision-support tool aimed at fixing
an FAR value to address the developers’ concerns on uncertainty.
The descriptive statistical results showed that the effect of fixing an
FAR value was not outstanding (Table 4), and the simulations
were still framed within the open block typology. However, it is
worth noting that the desired FAR target was impossible to reach
at certain locations due to the dissimilar block geometry (triangular
or too-large blocks).
The triangular blocks remind us that the open block rules were
thought for orthogonal street grids and blocks, and indeed some
rules were not totally accomplished at the same dissimilar blocks
in the previous scenarios, such as the perimeter occupation mini-
mum. Nonetheless, in a real-world scenario it should not be a prob-
lem to address the few nonorthogonal blocks with a different FAR
value or specific rules. Regarding the largest blocks, the character-
istic perimeter-based occupation of the open block left a big, empty
inner space. The model rules were not set up to allow extra volumes
at the heart of a block, although inner volumes would not contradict
the open block principles. The lesson learned is that urban design-
ers should either limit the maximum block size or allow the possi-
bility of inner volumes from the simulation program. Similarly, a
few blocks could not meet the FAR target because they contained
too many low volumes (Type B) and the maximum height was a
constraint. The CDT model was not allowed to alter the types of
volumes in a block, only to increase/decrease the number of stories.
In a real-world case, changing the volume types would be part of
the game and should not be problematic. This certain tolerance
or room for exceptions can and must be anticipated by planning au-
thorities. Alternatively, different FAR values could be established
for those specific situations, which could in fact be defined using
the previous FAR-free simulations.
However, it must be noted that the new rules to achieve a fixed
FAR result in a significant loss in terms of volumetric variety
(Fig. 8). When adding/removing stories, the maximum and mini-
mum height values were respected and commonly reached. As
the result, height diversity was importantly reduced in comparison
with the FAR-free simulations. Nonetheless, one could argue that
the resulting diversity was still remarkable compared with other
typical urban forms.
04020002-10 J. Urban Plann. Dev.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. One location, 10 different simulations. All different, all the same.

Sunlight benefits were the other question explored to test the
utility of CDT as decision-support tools. In fact, among other
utilities, CDT could be useful as tools to help planners optimize
sunlight benefits, in line with previous optimization applica-
tions (Charalampidis and Tsalikidis 2015; Luo et al. 2017).
Looking at the CDT simulation results, planners could pick up
the best proposal regarding sunlight benefits (Simulation 2 in
this case, Fig. 9).
Regarding the intermediate sunscore values achieved by the
open block fabric compared with pre-MM and MM urban forms
(Fig. 13), the results are not spectacular considering Portzamparc
paid so much attention to sunlight in his texts and talks. Yet, one
of his rules to achieve this specific goal was the coordination of vol-
umes on both street sides, which was not included in this study.
Anyway, the other gains described—in terms of diversity, density,
compactness, and streetscape attractiveness—may counterbalance
the halfway results regarding sunlight benefits.
CDT results have also been useful to evaluate the trade-off be-
tween sunlight benefits and street widths. Portzamparc claimed
that the open block rules allowed narrower-than-standard streets
and that the street narrowness in Masséna was one of the main issues
during the decision-making and design process (Société d’Economie
Mixte d’Aménagement de Paris 2010, p. 166). The results showed
that the sunscore would indeed rise at 40 m-wide streets, but any fur-
ther width increase would have no impact on sunlight. However, the
increased benefits on sunlight would have a dramatic consequence
regarding land consumption (Fig. 14). CDT enabled this quick quan-
titative assessment of the different scenarios and their properties and

© ASCE 04020002-11 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002

 confirmed their usefulness to support decision-making processes in
urban planning and design, which would be exhausting without
the help of computational tools.
Conclusions
This study has confirmed the value of CDT as a platform to create, de-
sign, and evaluate new urban design proposals. This conclusion is fun-
damental today, after the globalization of the tedious MM proposals,
and with regard to the current lack of new creative urban forms pro-
posals. In particular, this study has tested CDT positively as tools to
evaluate an acclaimed yet seemingly challenging new urban form pro-
posal: the open block. The use of CDT unlocked the possibility to ver-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ify its rules and potential translatability as internationally typical
design code parameters, and to quantitatively evaluate different sce-
narios, using CDT as decision-support tools during the design process.
Developing a new urban form on the concept of diversity grows
a number of concerns and anxieties, despite all the benefits that the
concept brings in theory. Homogeneity and rigidity obviously work
too well in terms of controlling the final results, whereas channeling
diversity implies an often-discouraging extra effort. However, this
study has proved that CDT can become the inexpensive platform
for embracing diversity and keeping the outputs within control at
the same time. Further, apart from diversity, CDT could support
the exploration of new concepts, rules, and benefits as a path to sup-
port radically original urban forms, in contrast with the currently
minimal creative use of CDT in urban design practice (Nisztuk
and Myszkowski 2017). Further, CDT can enable designers and
planners from all over the world to quickly adapt and test the design
parameters to their local contexts and regulations.
To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to sys-
tematically test Portzamparc’s open block rules. The first conclu-
sion is that the rules—simple as they may seem—are enough and
consistent to define an identifiable fabric of urban blocks, with con-
sistent similar values in several typical design code parameters.
Second, the CDT application has confirmed that Portzamparc’s
rules not only define an urban form, but also a new morphological
type for which diversity is distinctive. CDT results have proved that
the rules found a sweet middle point between an excess of rigidity
(the resulting urban forms are radically different in the detail) and
an excess of flexibility (all are recognizable as open blocks).
Further, CDT proved to be an efficient decision-support tool dur-
ing the design and planning process, as this software platform enables
quick checks of alternatives, and quantification of their benefits. In
particular, it has been possible to explore the results of adding an im-
portant additional condition: a fixed FAR, which would clear the de-
velopers’ doubts and, as a consequence, be the key for applicability.
Also, as a decision-support tool, CDT has been used for quantifying
the sunlight benefits, and could be used to maximize these benefits by
choosing the highest-score simulation.
Finally, and certainly more importantly, CDT paves the way to
imagine and explore not only volumetric diversity, but also alterna-
tive key concepts in a more creative and reflective yet efficient way,
gaining awareness of their possibilities, performance, and limits.
Hopefully this study will encourage fellow designers from all
over the world to do so.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request,
including the Python model code for Grasshopper.
© ASCE 04020002-12
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their careful
reading and insightful suggestions. We also show our gratitude to
French architect Benjamin Jeanson, who was the first to tell us
about the open block and Masséna. We are also immensely grateful
to Louis Caudron, researcher at the Université de Montréal, who
generously shared his ideas, work, and data; and Ramón López
de Lucio, Emeritus Professor at ETSAM-UPM, for his expert opin-
ion and comments. Last but not least, we thank Fiona Westbury,
Fellow of the Institute of Linguists, for proofreading the text.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Supplemental Data
Graphic S1, containing 3D simulations, is available online in the
ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Agkathidis, A. 2015. Generative design. London: Laurence King.
Amado, M., and F. Poggi. 2014. “Solar urban planning: A parametric ap-
proach.” Energy Procedia 48: 1539–1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.egypro.2014.02.174.
Banister, D. 2008. “The sustainable mobility paradigm.” Transp. Policy
15 (2): 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005.
Beirão, J. N., P. Nourian, and B. Mashhoodi. 2011. “Parametric urban de-
sign: An interactive sketching system for shaping neighborhoods.” In
Proc., 29th Conf. on eCAADe. Respecting Fragile Places, 225–234.
Ljubljana, Slovenia: Faculty of Architecture, University of Ljubljana.
https://doi.org/10.1260/1478-0771.10.4.521.
Ben-Joseph, E. 2004. “Future of standards and rules in shaping place:
Beyond the urban genetic code.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 130 (2): 67–74.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2004)130:2(67).
Berghauser Pont, M., and P. Haupt. 2005. “The spacemate: Density and
the typomorphology of the urban fabric.” Nordic J. Archit. Res. 4 (4):
55–68.
Berghauser Pont, M. Y., and P. A. Haupt. 2007. “The relation between
urban form and density.” Urban Morphol., 11 (1): 62–65.
Bielik, M., S. Schneider, and R. Koenig. 2012. “Parametric urban patterns:
Exploring and integrating graph-based spatial properties in parametric
urban modelling.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 30th eCAADe Conf., Digital
Physicality, 701–708. Prague, Czechia: Faculty of Architecture, Czech
Technical University in Prague. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2045
.6163.
Carpio-Pinedo, J. 2014. “La manzana abierta de Portzamparc como
tipología para el paisaje urbano contemporáneo.” Planur-e, 3.
Caudron, L. 2011. L’ouverture de l’îlot. Paris: École Nationale Supérieure
d’Architecture Paris Val-de-Seine.
Cervero, R., and K. Kockelman. 1997. “Travel demand and the 3Ds:
Density, diversity, and design.” Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
2 (3): 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.
Charalampidis, E., and I. Tsalikidis. 2015. “A parametric landscape
design approach for urban green infrastructure development.” In
Proc., Int. Conf. on Changing Cities II: Spatial, Design, Landscape
& Socio-Economic Dimensions, 591–600. Porto Heli, Greece:
University of Thessaly.
Charmes, E. 2007. La rue, village ou décor? Parcours dans deux rues de
Belleville. Grane, France: Créaphis.
Cohen, J. L., and C. Hubert. 2014. France: Modern architectures in history.
London, United Kingdom: Reaktion Books (Modern Architectures in
History).
Cullen, G. 1961. Townscape. New York: Reinhold.
Curtis, W. J. R. 1982. Modern architecture since 1900. Re-publish. 3rd ed.
London: Phaidon.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Fernández Per, A., J. Mozas, and J. Arpa. 2009. Hoco: Density housing
construction & costs. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: a+t architecture publish-
ers (a+t magazine: Hybrids series).
Firley, E., and K. Groen. 2014. The urban masterplanning handbook.
New York: Wiley.
Foltête, J. C., and A. Piombini. 2007. “Urban layout, landscape features and
pedestrian usage.” Landscape Urban Plann. 81 (3): 225–234. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.12.001.
Gerber, D. 2007. “Pour un urbanisme paramétrique. Towards a parametric
urbanism.” In Anomalie_digital art no6—Interactive cities, edited by
V. Châtelet, 146–171. Paris: Anomos & Hyx Editions.
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.
Hertzberger, H. 1991. Lessons for students in architecture. Re-edited.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Edinburgh University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York:
Random House.
Koenig, R., Y. Miao, K. Knecht, and C. Mei-Chih. 2017. “Interactive urban
synthesis. Computational methods for fast prototyping of urban design
proposals.” In Proc., CAADFutures: Int. Conf. on Computer-Aided
Architectural Design Futures, edited by G. Çağ daş , M. Özkar,
L. Gül, and E. Gürer, 23–41. Istanbul, Turkey: Springer. https://doi
.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5197-5.
Koltsova, A., G. Schmitt, P. Schumacher, T. Sudo, S. Narang, and L. Chen.
2011. “A case study of script-based techniques in urban planning.” In
Design computing and cognition ‘10, edited by J. S. Gero, 681–700.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media B.V. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0510-4_36.
Landry, C. 2000. “Urban vitality: A new source of urban competitiveness.”
Archis 12: 8–13.
Le Corbusier. 1957. La Charte d’Athènes. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
Litman, T. 2013. “The new transportation planning paradigm.” ITE J. 83:
20–28.
Luo, Y., J. He, and Y. Ni. 2017. “Analysis of urban ventilation potential
using rule-based modeling.” Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 66: 13–22.
Masboungi, A. 2009. Organiser la ville hypermoderne: François Ascher,
Grand Prix de l’urbanisme 2009. Marseille, France: Parenthèses
(Grand Prix de l’urbanisme).
Mega, V. P. 2010. Sustainable cities for the third millennium: The odyssey
of urban excellence. New York: Springer.
Mohareb, E., S. Derrible, and F. Peiravian. 2016. “Intersections of sustain-
ability and Jane Jacobs, conditions for diversity: A look at four global
cities.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 142 (2): 05015004. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000287.
Montgomery, J. 1998. “Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design.”
J. Urban Des. 3 (1): 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809808724418.
Nes, A. v., M. Berghauser Pont, and B. Mashhoodi. 2012. “Combination
of space syntax with spacematrix and the mixed use index. The
Rotterdam South test case.” In Proc., 8th Int. Space Syntax Symp.
1–29. Santiago, Chile: PUC.
© ASCE 04020002-13
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2020, 146(2): 04020002
Nisztuk, M., and P. B. Myszkowski. 2017. “Usability of contemporary
tools for the computational design of architectural objects: Review, fea-
tures evaluation and reflection.” Int. J. Archit. Comput. 16 (1): 58–84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077117738919.
Panerai, P., J. Castex, J. C. Depaule, and I. Samuels. 2004. Urban forms:
The death and life of the urban block. London: Architectural Press.
Pozueta Echavarri, J., F. J. Lamíquiz Dauden, and M. Porto Schettino.
2013. Architecture & pedestrians. Architectural guidelines for a walk-
able city. Madrid, Spain: CEDEX-Ministerio de Fomento.
Reale, L. 2008. Densità, città, residenza: Tecniche di densificazione e strategie
anti-sprawl. Rome, Italy: Gangemi Editore (Architettura, Urbanistica,
Ambiente Arte, Disegno, Rilievo, Design).
Reale, L., ed. 2012. La città compatta: Sperimentazioni contemporanee
sull’isolato urbano europeo. Rome, Italy: Gangemi Editore.
Roudsari, M. S., and M. Pak. 2013. “Ladybug: A parametric environmental
plugin for grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-
conscious design.” In Proc., 13th Conf. of Int. Building Performance
Simulation Association, 3129–3135. Chambéry, France: IBPSA. http://
www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/bs2013/p_2499.pdf.
Shapiro, V. 2002. “Solid modeling.” In Handbook of computer aided geo-
metric design, edited by G. Farin, J. Hoschek, and M. Kim, 473–518.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10
.1016/B978-044451104-1/50021-6.
Shi, L., S. Yang, and L. Gao. 2016. “Effects of a compact city on urban re-
sources and environment.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 142 (4): 05016002.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000324.
Siddi, C., and G. B. Cocco. 2016. Itinerari di architettura e paesaggio:
Barcellona, Lyon, Paris. Rome: Gangemi Editore (Architettura,
Urbanistica, Ambiente Archeologia, Restauro).
Société d’Economie Mixte d’Aménagement de Paris. 2010. Christian de
portzamparc—L’Îlot Ouvert / The open block. Brussels, Belgium:
SEMAPA—Ante Prima—AAM Éditions.
Song, Y., L. Merlin, and D. Rodriguez. 2013. “Comparing measures of
urban land use mix.” Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 42: 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.08.001.
Southworth, M. 2005. “Designing the walkable city.” J. Urban Plann.
Dev. 131 (4): 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)
131:4(246).
Speranza, P. 2016. “Using parametric methods to understand place in urban
design courses.” J. Urban Des. 21 (5): 661–689. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13574809.2015.1092378.
Steinø, N., B. Karima, and E. Obeling. 2013a. “Using parametrics to facil-
itate collaborative urban design: An attempt to overcome some inherent
dilemmas.” Planum 26: 1–13.
Steinø, N., M. B. Yıldırım, and M. Özkar. 2013b. “Parametric design
strategies for collaborative and participatory urban design.” In Vol.
1 of Proc., 31st eCAADe Conf., of Computation and Performance,
195–204. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
WORKac. 2009. 49 cities. New York: Storefront for Art and
Architecture.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.