New Urban Forms, Diversity, and Computational Design - Exploring The Open Block - 202003

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/340262717
New Urban Forms, Diversity, and Computational Design : Exploring the Open
Block
Article in Journal of Urban Planning and Development · March 2020

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000555
CITATIONS READS
2 930
4 authors, including:
Jose Carpio-Pinedo Patxi J. Lamíquiz

Complutense University of Madrid Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
25 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 158 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
space, shopping malls View project
Proyecto I+D+i LUrB 'Lecciones Urbanísticas de la burbuja inmobiliaria: dimensiones, costos y beneficios de las formas características del crecimiento urbano español
1990-2006' (BIA2015-70311-R) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Carpio-Pinedo on 08 September 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ASCE
Journal of Urban Planning
New urban forms, diversity and
and Development
(J. Urban Plann. Dev.)
computational design: exploring the
Vol. 146
Issue 2
open block (îlot ouvert).
Jose Carpio-Pinedo * 1 ORCiD: 0000-0003-1508-4246
Guillermo Ramírez 1
Preprint _ Salas Montes 1
Patxi J. Lamíquiz 1
Please, cite this article as:
1
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Jose Carpio-Pinedo, Guillermo
Ramírez, Salas Montes & Patxi J.
Lamíquiz (2019):
New urban forms, diversity and Abstract
computational design: exploring the
open block (îlot ouvert), Architects, urban designers and planners witness a contemporary lack of
Journal of Urban Planning and
imagination regarding new urban form typologies. Most proposals have
Development 146(2).
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943- swung between two well-defined extremes: the dense, traditional block and
5444.0000555
the strips/towers defined by the modernist principles. More recent yet
distinctive proposals are rare, even if the challenges of urban environments
Published online: March 19, 2020 have changed. Based on the concept of diversity, one notably, acclaimed
* Author for correspondence: exception is Christian de Portzamparc's open block (îlot ouvert), proposed
Jose Carpio-Pinedo as a set of flexible, inter-dependant rules that ensures an attractive, varied
E-mail: jose.carpio@upm.es
urban scene, and applied in Masséna, a new neighbourhood in Paris.
However, this new typology has raised some issues, such as the
necessary design efforts or the developer's uncertainties as to buildable
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 firstly confirmed that the rules stated by Portzamparc were
sufficient and consistent to achieved the intended urban forms, and that
these forms are translatable into common design code parameters.
Secondly, this study discussed the open block 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
Not the version of record. convenience to explore renewed morphological creativity in urban
For the version of record, visit :
designers beyond rigid design codes and standards.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
UP.1943-5444.0000555
Keywords
Open block, Ilot Ouvert, diversity, urban morphology, computational
design, Portzamparc.
Carpio-Pinedo et al. 2020 _ Journal of Urban Planning and Development 146(2)
PREPRINT ___ DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000555
Introduction
By the end of the 1960s, the periphery of every city had been built following the same
principles, as a bastardized version of Le Corbusier’s 1922 radical proposal for the cities of the
Modern Movement (MM). The homogeneity of the same tedious stripes 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 polarised 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 stripes (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 south-east Paris, Fig. 1). His proposal was a new urban type based on the concept
of diversity: the open block (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 discussion 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, Lamíquiz Dauden and
Porto Schettino, 2013).
Fig. 1: Masséna district master plan. ©Christian de Portzamparc.
Preprint*2
Fig. 2: Concept sketches of the open block (bottom) in opposition to previous urban forms (top and middle).
©Christian de Portzamparc.
Despite its promising performance, the open block has been received 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 Portzamparc's proposal with the help of
computational design tools (CDT), as design processes facilitated by the processing power of
software, including non-linear processes and feedback loops. The first objective 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, focussing on two questions: a) the controllability of FAR facing the
uncertainty that apparently results from volumetric diversity; and b) the comparative benefits of
the open block vis-à-vis other urban forms.
Preprint*3
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 Modern Movement (MM). Cullen (1961) recovered the importance of volumetric
diversity, urban sequences, juxtaposition, and the picturesque. Jacobs (1961) decried the
excessively homogeneous 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 configure it, and advocated a structure that could foster
diversity.
Drawing on the idea of building type in housing and defined it as a set of structural features
able to characterise an identifiable form, Panerai and his colleagues (2004) defended the
relations between buildings, blocks and streets as the basic generators of diversity. At the same
time, the concept of urban typo-morphology allowed a systematisation of building codes, a key
tool in planning, to keep building form under control while enabling constraints to architectural
flexibility through thresholds on volume, shape or position. However, concepts like diversity are
difficult to shape by building 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, Merlin and Rodriguez, 2013), while others
focused more on the attributes of the urban landscape (Foltête and Piombini, 2007). However,
how can these attributes be materialised into an integrated design? A hint may be implicit in
traditional cities since they present some regularities that provide structure in variation. This is
what the British structuralist school described by the notion of 'structure', as the result of a set of
restrictions in a random process (Hanson, 1989), instead of form geometry, repetition and
hierarchy. This notion anticipated 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 looseness
of street space in the MM model. Instead, Portzamparc’s proposal implies breaking up the
classical block with a succession of autonomous yet aligned buildings. This architect highlighted
the importance of the interplay of light and shadow, possible in a dense urban environment
thanks to the fragmentation of constructions, the height variations, and the porosity of open
Preprint*4
spaces. This is also the way to maximize the levels of sunlight and air (SEMAPA, 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 colours,
materials and textures. "The city will become variegated. Architectures will be differentiated
much in the same way as animals in a zoo", said Portzamparc (SEMAPA, 2010, p. 161). This
was a new way of understanding the street, which becomes an attractive collection of
successive unpredictable scenes that enriches the experience of walking:
"Potential harmony is no longer based on an idea of resemblance 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".
(SEMAPA, 2010, p. 166).
Also, the diversity of physical form leads to other sorts of mixity. If form follows function, a
diversity of forms could successfully accommodate a mix of uses. This is the case of Masséna,
where 28,500 sqm of shops, 116,000 sqm of offices and 110,000 sqm of facilities are
interspersed with housing. Last but not least, according to the developers, "the concept
permitted a considerable degree of social mix" (SEMAPA, 2010, p. 153). In short, the new model
was outstanding regarding the different dimensions of diversity that authors as Jacobs had
vindicated –morphological, social and functional– and, thus, became an immediate reference for
urban sustainability (Mohareb, Derrible and Peiravian, 2016).
The uniqueness of the open block has been noticed especially 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,
Mozas and Arpa, 2009; Caudron, 2011); its experimental, contemporary and courageous
character (Masboungi, 2009, p. 42; Reale, 2012, p. 24); and contribution for urban sustainability
(Mega, 2010; Pozueta Echavarri, Lamíquiz Dauden and Porto Schettino, 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 complicate for common planning practices and
design codes (Charmes, 2007, p. 79; Carpio-Pinedo, 2014) –a concern that even Portzamparc
acknowledged as usual (SEMAPA, 2010, p. 166). Nonetheless, Portzamparc also suggests
some ways forward: technologies (SEMAPA, 2010, p. 162).
Preprint*5
Computer systems and computational design tools (CDT)
The development of computer-assisted architectural design is currently well consolidated and

has diversified into a number of families or sub-families of processes, with sometimes important
conceptual overlaps and only fuzzy borders between these processes. Some examples are
‘solid modelling’ (Shapiro, 2001), ‘parametric design’ (Gerber, 2007), or ‘generative design’
(Agkathidis, 2015). In this article, ‘computational design’ is used as an umbrella term covering all
design processes facilitated by the processing power of software, including non-linear processes
and feedback loops that would seem too discouraging without the aid of computers.
A recent review found that computational design tools are still not fully used in architectural 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 generate
urban design prototypes in a very short time period (Koenig et al., 2017), and for the optimization
(Charalampidis and Tsalikidis, 2015; Luo, He and Ni, 2017) or simultaneous consideration of
various factors (Bielik, Schneider and Koenig, 2012; Amado and Poggi, 2014). Interestingly,
other group of authors have seen the potential of the tool to enrich the design process, turning it
into a “dynamic reflective practice” (Beirão, Nourian and Mashhoodi, 2011), and to support
collaborative and participatory urban design (Steinø, Karima and Obeling, 2013; Steinø, Yıldırım
and Özkar, 2013).
CDT facilitates rule-based design processes, rather than geometry-based ones (Steinø,
Karima and Obeling, 2013), in line with the concept of 'structure' introduced earlier (Hanson,
1989), which considered rules as restrictions to randomness as a way towards 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 previous contributions show that parametric design outputs can be original
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
tools. CDT provide the technical framework that enables us to produce geometry according to
programmed rules, run simulations, and collect measurements that can prove or disprove
certain design hypotheses. With the use of computing power, the design process can be
accelerated in comparison with traditional methods, and enriched with data that would otherwise
be difficult and expensive to process.
Preprint*6
Methodology
Computational design tools
This study has required the combination of three different yet complementary 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 world-
wide (Gerber, 2007; Beirão, Nourian and Mashhoodi, 2011; Bielik, Schneider and Koenig, 2012;
Amado and Poggi, 2014; Speranza, 2016; Koenig et al., 2017). Secondly, Ladybug has been
the tool for sunlight modelling. 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
programming language in the description of the simulations and the execution flow of the
programme. Python is a general-purpose programming language with a broad userbase in the
scientific community.
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 Portzamparc’s design practice. The rules applied in this study are summarized 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 volumes
within a same street view (rules 5, 6 and 7); and d) a certain flexibility and unpredictability in the
ground floor (rule 8). On the other hand, Portzamparc outlined one rule that this study did not
considered: the coordination of volumes on both sides of the street —solid opposite void, tall
opposite short, wide opposite narrow and so on—. By limiting the volumetric coordination within
each block, the intention was to increase the feasibility of the open block proposal, while this
decision has a likely low impact on the urban landscape or any of the open block benefits.
General simulation structure
The simulation consists of different entities organized in four hierarchical levels. Each
hierarchical level contains the next lower-level entities and registers all relevant variables at its
level. These are –from the highest to the lowest– the following: a) system, which also decides
the simulation running order and registers the outputs into spreadsheets; b) block; c) building;
and d) analysis point, which registers direct sunlight onto a building facade.
Preprint*7
Table 1: The 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 metres.
4 Front yards/gardens also have to be well-sized, so a minimum set-back distance of
10 metres is established. A set-back 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 set-back candidate, the choice is made randomly
by the programme.
5 Facade lengths and building heights are inter-dependent. Volume types are
described in Table 2.
6 Compound blocks (made of no one but two prisms) are allowed as long as there is a
4-storey 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 metres.
8 No rules for ground-floor buildings.
Table 2: Dimensions for the diverse building types.
Type A Type B Type C Type GF

Compound Long, low Narrow, high Ground-floor
length 30 - 60 m 30 - 45 m 10 - 30 m Free
depth 10 - 15 m 10 - 15 m 10 - 15 m 10-15 m
Lower volume: 5-11 st.
height Higher volume: Plus 4-5 st. 2 - 5 storeys 5 - 15 storeys 1 storeys
Maximum: 15 st..
Preprint*8
Inputs
The only geometrical input for the simulation has been a set of lines representing the block
perimeters. These were based on a set of road centre lines, interlinked as a deformed grid and
generating a realistic variety of block shapes and sizes (Fig. 3). The block area values range
from 0.15 to 1.2 hectares, with typical values between 0.2 and 0.6 hectares. These values relate
well to the standard Masséna blocks of 90x35 and 90x60 metres (0.32 and 0.54 Ha) (Caudron,
2011), but include some other sizes and non-rectangular shapes so as to test the open block
adaptability.
Fig. 3: The only geometrical input. Red, green and blue lines mark 24m-, 16m- and 12m-wide streets
correspondingly. Dimensions indicate block side lengths.
Besides, some other input variables describe general parameters in order to run simulations.
These parameters cover the catalogue of allowed dimensions for each building type (three
building types and their length, depth and height, following
Table 2); the storey height (3 metres), the minimum distance between buildings (6 metres);
the allowed setback distance from the block perimeter (10 metres); and the list of sun rays to be
computed in the analysis, for the coordinates in Paris, France, on the 21st of March, June and
December at 9, 12, 15 and 18 o'clock, as long as there is any sunlight.
Preprint*9
Simulations and checking the Portzamparc's rules-resulting forms with CDT
A random starting point is chosen on the boundary of the block perimeter (defined as a
polyline). From this starting point and in a counterclockwise direction, buildings are added in
sequence with a separation defined by the simulation rules, until there is no more space left to
occupy in the perimeter.
Ten independent simulations (also called ‘seeds’) were run, each with a random start (first
volume in place). 3D models were automatically generated, so that a quality check was possible.
This allowed to observe if the defined set of rules produces independent enough, yet similar
enough results, which could be considered a distinctive, recognizable "type". By running ten
independent simulations with different random start conditions, it is possible to quantify the
variability that can be expected from the model. These ten 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 on the following variables: perimeter occupation; floor area ratio (FAR); lot
coverage 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 analysed 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 analysed further. Firstly, on the control of the floor area ratio (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 storeys 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.
Preprint*10
Secondly, another application of CDT and the open block simulations was the quantification
of the produced benefits and, in particular, sun lighting. Sunscore is the ratio between the
observed unobstructed rays and the total analysed rays at each analysis point. This analysis
excluded blocks on the edge of the grid, to avoid the border effect.
Results
A first set of results consist on the model volumetric outputs (Fig. 4 and 3D models).
Fig. 4: Volumetric results of the ten simulations.
Preprint*11
However, these 3D visualizations are not sufficient for urban planners and designers, who
require a translation into values for the typical design code parameters. Consequently, this study
plotted a histogram to show the global distribution of values in the model, including all blocks in
all ten simulations (histograms on the left - Fig. 5). This global approach to each variable
supports the comparison of the open block standard values with other urban form typologies;
whereas the independent results of each random simulation (‘seed’) enabled the comparison
between simulations and identification of consistent patterns (box plots on the right - Fig. 5). Both
types of quantitative results have been the base for the discussion in the following section.
Regarding the perimeter occupation (% of front property lines occupied by a building facade,
fixed between 50 and 70%), the average value was 64.8% with a standard deviation of 0.052.
There were a very limited number of blocks that fell below the perimeter occupation minimum,
because of their dissimilar geometric features, such as non-right angles.
Fig. 5: Perimeter occupation (top), Floor area ratio (middle), and Lot coverage (bottom): General histogram (left)
and box plots for each simulation (right).
Preprint*12
The average FAR in open blocks was 3.7 and the average lot coverage was 52.7%. The
distribution of both variables followed a normal curve and was consistent in all ten simulations.
To visualize the diversity of buildings, Fig. 6 shows all modelled volumes regarding their
height and their facade length, while Table 3 details the numbers of buildings per type at each
simulations.
Fig 7 shows the results for the number of buildings per block, which is an indicator of
fragmentation of the total constructed volume. The ten simulations outputs resulted in an
average of 6.3 volumes per block (standard variation of 2.59), but also included various blocks
with more than double (maximum was 17 buildings in simulation #8).
Fig. 6: Diversity of heights and facade lengths.
Table 3: Number of buildings per type at every simulation.
Type s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10
A 139 119 134 123 133 121 137 129 146 125
B 90 108 90 111 97 103 95 85 77 111
C 140 131 143 131 130 135 128 156 144 119
GF 146 141 149 158 144 149 163 164 159 163
Total 515 499 516 523 504 508 523 534 526 518
Preprint*13
Fig. 7: Number of buildings per block: box plots for each simulation.
Further, to explore the application of CDT as a decision-support tool, the process was
repeated with a fixed FAR value to calm down the developers’ concerns on uncertainty. In this
way CDT enabled 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 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.
Table 4: Comparison of descriptive statistics with and without fixed FAR
No floor space Floor Area Ratio fixed

restriction FAR = 3.6 ± 5%
Mean Standard Mean Standard
Average Deviation Average Deviation
Perimeter occupation 0.648 0.052 0.648 0.052
# of buildings in block 6.300 2.594 6.300 2.594
Floor area ratio 3.705 1.072 3.419 0.668
Lot coverage 0.527 0.084 0.527 0.084
Preprint*14
Fig. 8: Diversity of heights and facade lengths. Comparison Without (left) and With Fixed FAR (right).
Finally, regarding the sunlight benefits (Fig. 9), the average value for the ten simulations was
0.3 (with a standard deviation of 0.04). The distribution of the value followed a normal curve,
while the ten simulations showed a consistent pattern. The different building types achieved
different sunscore ranges (Fig. 10): the tallest types (A and C) were more exposed to sunlight,
while the other two types, especially the ground floor volumes, did not capture similar levels of
sunlight. However, the results show that there are exceptions in all building types, including
ground floor volumes with similar sunscore levels to the tallest ones.
Fig. 9: Sunscore: histogram and box plots for each simulation.
Fig. 10: Sunscore: box plots per building type.
Preprint*15
The sunscore average 0.3 value achieved by the open block was not meaningful unless
compared with the sunscore values achieved by its alternatives. As alternatives, the two radical
opposites that Portzamparc used as negative references: the traditional, pre-MM blocks, and
the MM isolated buildings (Fig. 2). For that, the sunscore analysis was run for ten grades of
urban fabric, going from 100% of pre-MM blocks to 100% MM isolated volumes at the block
centre (as per Fig. 11). The latter consist of standalone towers off the block perimeter, while the
former align their facades on top of the block perimeter (100% built perimeter). The
consequence is the clearer perception of the street in the pre-MM blocks ("corridor-street"), in
contrast with the "no-street" configuration in the modernist fabric (Fig. 12). The sunscore results
showed that the traditional pre-MM blocks had a score of 0.23, while the modernist towers
scored 0.39. The open block simulation scores around 0.3 lied in between these two opposites
(Fig. 13).
Fig. 11: Eleven grades of urban fabric from 100% 19th century blocks to 100% modernist, isolated volumes.
Fig. 12: Six street perspectives for the ten grades of urban fabric (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%).
Preprint*16
Fig. 13: Comparison of open block results with varying fabrics. X axis represents the % of modernist isolated
towers. The horizontal black lines represent the sunscore values achieved by the ten simulations, which would be
similar to those achieved by urban fabrics between 44-54% of modernist isolated towers.
Finally, another possible question using CDT as a decision-support tool was the role of street
width for sunlight optimization. The model results showed that the sunscore would rise from 0.3
up to average levels of 0.375 at 40m-wide streets, but any further width increase would have no
impact on sunlight. On the other hand, those sunscore gains would have an impact regarding
the levels of land consumption, with a great reduction (-55%) of the gross built ratio or floor area
ratio including the streets area (Fig. 14).
Fig. 14: Street width impact on sunscore and land consumption.
Preprint*17
Discussion
Have CDT been able to reproduce open blocks with Portzamparc's rules?
The results have corroborated that the rules listed in Table 1 are sufficient to produce open
blocks by using CDT. Also, that open 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 comparison with Portzamparc’s drawings
and the urban landscape observable in Masséna today. This first examination seemed a
success, given that the ten 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 enabled 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 ten simulations.
The perimeter occupation, the floor area ratio (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
confirmed that, as proposed by Portzamparc and noticed by the revised literature (Fernández
Per, Mozas and Arpa, 2009), the open block can be considered a very dense, compact urban
form that makes a rarely high intensive use of the land surface (WORKac, 2009; Nes,
Berghauser Pont and Mashhoodi, 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 consumption of resources (Shi, Yang and Gao, 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
Masséna, these spaces get used to allocate private communal courtyards 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 to recall that, for all of the variables, the ten boxplots were
randomly different, yet consistently similar. All ten 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 restrictive and the cause of a lack of
Preprint*18
variety, but this has not been the case. Checking the street perspective from the same exact
location at the ten 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 pedestrians
that embraced volumetric diversity (Reale, 2012; Pozueta Echavarri, Lamíquiz Dauden and
Porto Schettino, 2013): a juxtaposition of high and short, wide and narrow buildings, resulting in
an interplay of voids and solids, and of lights and shadows.
Fig. 15: One location, ten different simulations. All different, all the same.
Preprint*19
The achievement of Portzamparc’s vision relied on two key factors. Firstly, thanks to the four
different types of buildings, the spectrum of both heights and facade lengths is very varied, in
contrast 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). Secondly, the high number of buildings per block –over 6 volumes per block
on average (Fig. 7)– ensured the fragmentation of the total constructed volume and produced
the mix of solids and voids and lights and shadows that Portzamparc pursued.
Further CDT results as decision-support tools
The first application of CDT as a decision-support tool aimed at fixing a FAR value to calm
down the developers’ concerns on uncertainty. The descriptive statistical results showed that the
impact of fixing a FAR value was not outstanding (Table 4), and the simulations were still framed
within the open block typology. However, it is worth to note 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 minimum. Nonetheless, in a
real-world scenario it should not be a problem to address the few non-orthogonal blocks with a
different FAR value or specific rules. Regarding the largest blocks, the characteristic 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 learnt is that urban designers should either limit the
maximum block size or allow the possibility of inner volumes from the simulation programme.
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 storeys. 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 authorities. 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 storeys, the maximum and
minimum 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.
Preprint*20
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 applications (Charalampidis and
Tsalikidis, 2015; Luo, He and Ni, 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 vis-à-vis pre-
MM and MM urban forms (Fig. 13), the results are not spectacular since 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 volumes 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 between 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 (SEMAPA, 2010, p. 166). The results showed that the
sunscore would indeed rise at 40m-wide streets, but any further 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 quantitative
assessment of the different scenarios and their properties, and 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 computational design tools (CDT) as a platform to
create, design, and evaluate new urban design proposals. This conclusion is fundamental today,
after the globalisation of the tedious Modern Movement proposals, and vis-à-vis the current lack
of new creative urban forms proposals. In particular, this study has tested CDT positively as
tools to evaluate an acclaimed yet seemingly challenging new urban form proposal: the open
block. The use of CDT unlocked the possibility to verify its rules and potential translatability as
internationally-typical design code parameters, and to quantitatively evaluate different scenarios,
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 channelling diversity
implies an often discouraging extra effort. However, this study has proved that CDT can become
Preprint*21
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 support radically original urban forms, in contrast with the little
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 systematically test Portzamparc's
open block rules. The first conclusion is that the rules –simple as they may seem– are enough
and consistent to define an identifiable fabric of urban blocks, with consistent 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 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 during 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 important
additional condition: a fixed floor area ratio (FAR), which would clear the developers’ 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 alternative 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 (Python model code for Grasshopper).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive
comments, which greatly contributed to improving previous versions of this text.
Also, we would like to show our gratitude to French architect Benjamin Jeanson, who was the
Preprint*22
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 to Ramón López de Lucio, Emerit Professor at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, for
his thoughts on the open block. Last but not least, we thank Fiona Westbury, Fellow of the
Institute of Linguists, for proofreading the text.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.
Supplemental Data
3D file S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (ascelibrary.org).
References
Agkathidis, A. (2015) Generative Design. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.
Amado, M. and F. Poggi (2014) ‘Solar urban planning : a parametric approach’, Energy
Procedia, 48, pp. 1539–1548. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.174.
Banister, D. (2008) ‘The sustainable mobility paradigm’, Transport Policy, 15(2), pp. 73–80.
doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005.
Beirão, J. N., P. Nourian and B. Mashhoodi (2011) ‘Parametric urban design: An interactive
sketching system for shaping neighborhoods’, Respecting Fragile Places (29th
eCAADe Conference Proceedings), pp. 225–234. doi: 10.1260/1478-0771.10.4.521.
Ben-Joseph, E. (2004) ‘Future of Standards and Rules in Shaping Place: Beyond the Urban
Genetic Code’, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 130(2), pp. 67–74. doi:
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’, Urbanism Laboratory for Cities and Regions
Progress of Research Issues in Urbanism 2007, 4(4), pp. 55–68. Available at:
http://www.arkitekturforskning.net/tidsskrift/2005/2005_4/Berghauser_haupt.pdf.
Berghauser Pont, M. Y. and P. A. Haupt (2007) ‘The relation between urban form and
density’, Urban Morphology, pp. 62–65.
Bielik, M., S. Schneider and R. Koenig (2012) ‘Parametric Urban Patterns - Exploring and
integrating graph-based spatial properties in parametric urban modelling’, eCAADe
2012, (January), pp. 701–708. doi: 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. École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture Paris Val-
de-Seine.
Preprint*23
Cervero, R. and K. Kockelman (1997) ‘Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and
design’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), pp. 199–
219. doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.
Charalampidis, E. and I. Tsalikidis (2015) ‘A parametric landscape design approach for

urban green infrastructure development’, in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Changing Cities II: Spatial, Design, Landscape & Socio-economic
Dimensions. Porto Heli, pp. 591–600.
Charmes, E. (2007) La rue, village ou décor?: parcours dans deux rues de Belleville.
Créaphis.
Cohen, J. L. and C. Hubert (2014) France: Modern Architectures in History. Reaktion Books
(Modern Architectures in History).
Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp.
Curtis, W. J. R. (1982) Modern Architecture Since 1900. Re-publish. Phaidon Press.
Fernández Per, A., J. Mozas and J. Arpa (2009) HoCo: Density Housing Construction &
Costs. a+t architecture publishers (A+t magazine: Hybrids series).
Firley, E. and K. Groen (2014) The Urban Masterplanning Handbook. Wiley.
Foltête, J. C. and A. Piombini (2007) ‘Urban layout, landscape features and pedestrian
usage’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), pp. 225–234. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.12.001.
Gerber, D. (2007) ‘Pour un urbanisme paramétrique. Towards a Parametric Urbanism’, in

Châtelet, V. (ed.) Anomalie_digital art no6 - Interactive Cities. Paris: Anomos & Hyx
Editions, pp. 146–171.
Hanson, J. (1989) ‘Order and Structure in Urban Design: The Plans for the Rebuilding of
London after the Great Fire of 1666’, Ekistics, pp. 22–41.
Hertzberger, H. (1991) Lessons for Students in Architecture. Re-edited. Rotterdam: 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 Çağdaş,
G. et al. (eds) CAADFutures: International Conference on Computer-Aided
Architectural Design Futures. Istanbul, Turkey: Springer, pp. 23–41. doi: 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 Gero, J. S. (ed.) Design
Computing and Cognition ’10. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., pp. 681–700.
doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0.
Landry, C. (2000) ‘Urban Vitality: A New Source of Urban Competitiveness’, Archis, 12.
Litman, T. (2013) ‘The new transportation paradigm’, ITE Journal, 83(May), p. 20–24,26,28.
Luo, Y., J. He and Y. Ni (2017) ‘Analysis of urban ventilation potential using rule-based
Preprint*24
modeling’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 66, pp. 13–22.
Masboungi, A. (dir. . (2009) Organiser la ville hypermoderne: François Ascher, Grand Prix
de l’urbanisme 2009. Parenthèses (Grand Prix de l’urbanisme).
Mega, V. P. (2010) Sustainable Cities for the Third Millennium: The Odyssey of Urban
Excellence. Springer New York. Available at:
https://books.google.es/books?id=t9_U40byLvsC.
Mohareb, E., S. Derrible and F. Peiravian (2016) ‘Intersections of Sustainability and Jane
Jacobs ’ Conditions for Diversity : A Look at Four Global Cities’, Journal of Urban
Planning and Development, 142(2). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000287.
Montgomery, J. (1998) ‘Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design’, Journal of Urban
Design, 3(1), pp. 93–116. doi: 10.1080/13574809808724418.
Nes, A. van, M. Berghauser Pont and B. Mashhoodi (2012) ‘Combination of Space Syntax
with Spacematrix and the Mixed-use Index. The Rotterdam South test case’, Eighth
International Space Syntax Symposium. doi: urn:NBN:nl:ui:24-uuid:d865e5b6-519e-
4959-8c3d-800054d1b351.
Nisztuk, M. and P. B. Myszkowski (2017) ‘Usability of contemporary tools for the

computational design of architectural objects: Review, features evaluation and
reflection’, International Journal of Architectural Computing, p. 147807711773891. doi:
10.1177/1478077117738919.
Panerai, P., J. Castex, J. C. Depaule and I. Samuels (2004) Urban Forms: The Death and
Life of the Urban Block. Architectural Press.
Pozueta Echavarri, J., F. J. Lamíquiz Dauden and M. Porto Schettino (2013) Architecture &
Pedestrians. Architectural Guidelines for a Walkable City. Madrid: CEDEX-Ministerio
de Fomento.
Reale, L. (2008) Densità, città, residenza: Tecniche di densificazione e strategie anti-sprawl.

Gangemi Editore (Architettura, Urbanistica, Ambiente Arte, Disegno, Rilievo, Design).
Reale, L. (ed. . (2012) La città compatta: sperimentazioni contemporanee sull’isolato urbano

europeo. Gangemi Editore.
Roudsari, M. S. and M. Pak (2013) ‘Ladybug: a Parametric Environmental Plugin for

Grasshopper To Help Designers Create an Environmentally-Conscious Design’, 13th
Conference of International building Performance Simulation Association, pp. 3129–
3135. Available at: http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/bs2013/p_2499.pdf.
SEMAPA (2010) Christian de Portzamparc - L’Îlot Ouvert / The Open Block. Bruxelles:
SEMAPA - Ante Prima - AAM Éditions.
Shapiro, V. (2001) ‘Solid Modeling’, in Farin, G., Hoschek, J., and Kim, M. . (eds) Handbook
of computer aided geometric design. Elsevier Science. doi: 10.1016/B978-044451104-
1/50021-6.
Shi, L., S. Yang and L. Gao (2016) ‘Effects of a Compact City on Urban Resources and
Environment’, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 142(4), p. 05016002. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000324.
Preprint*25
Siddi, C. and G. B. Cocco (2016) Itinerari di architettura e paesaggio: Barcellona, Lyon,

Paris. Gangemi Editore (Architettura, Urbanistica, Ambiente Archeologia, Restauro).
Song, Y., L. Merlin and D. Rodriguez (2013) ‘Comparing measures of urban land use mix’,
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. Elsevier Ltd, 42, pp. 1–13. doi:
10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.08.001.
Southworth, M. (2005) ‘Designing the Walkable City’, Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 131(4), pp. 246–257. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246).
Speranza, P. (2016) ‘Using parametric methods to understand place in urban design

courses’, Journal of Urban Design, 21(5), pp. 661–689. doi:
10.1080/13574809.2015.1092378.
Steinø, N., B. Karima and E. Obeling (2013) ‘Using Parametrics to Facilitate Collaborative
Urban Design: An Attempt to Overcome some Inherent Dilemmas’, Planum. The
Journal of Urbanism, 16, pp. 1–13. Available at:
http://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/using-parametrics-to-facilitate-collaborative-urban-
design(fac621f3-cb5c-41ba-bf12-8b41093ad719).html.
Steinø, N., M. B. Yıldırım and M. Özkar (2013) ‘Parametric Design Strategies for
Collaborative and Participatory Urban Design’, Computation and Performance,
Proceedings of the 31st eCAADe Conference, 1, pp. 195–204.
WORKac (2009) 49 cities. New York: Storefront for Art and Architecture.
Preprint*26
View publication stats

New Urban Forms, Diversity, and Computational Design - Exploring The Open Block - 202003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Urban Forms, Diversity, and Computational Design - Exploring The Open Block - 202003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Journal of Urban Planning and Development · March 2020

Jose Carpio-Pinedo Patxi J. Lamíquiz

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

space, shopping malls View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Computational design tools (CDT) provide an opportunity to explore and

Fig. 1: Masséna district master plan. ©Christian de Portzamparc.

Diversity in theory and… in practice?

Christian de Portzamparc’s open block (îlot ouvert).

"Potential harmony is no longer based on an idea of resemblance or

Computer systems and computational design tools (CDT)

The development of computer-assisted architectural design is currently well consolidated and

Computational design tools

Parameters and rules

General simulation structure

Table 1: The open block rules.

Table 2: Dimensions for the diverse building types.

Type A Type B Type C Type GF

Simulations and checking the Portzamparc's rules-resulting forms with CDT

Quantitative assessment of the resulting urban forms

Further questions: CDT as a decision-support tool

Fig. 4: Volumetric results of the ten simulations.

Fig. 6: Diversity of heights and facade lengths.

Table 3: Number of buildings per type at every simulation.

Table 4: Comparison of descriptive statistics with and without fixed FAR

No floor space Floor Area Ratio fixed

Perimeter occupation 0.648 0.052 0.648 0.052

# of buildings in block 6.300 2.594 6.300 2.594

Floor area ratio 3.705 1.072 3.419 0.668

Lot coverage 0.527 0.084 0.527 0.084

Fig. 9: Sunscore: histogram and box plots for each simulation.

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

Fig. 14: Street width impact on sunscore and land consumption.

Further CDT results as decision-support tools

Data Availability Statement

3D file S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (ascelibrary.org).

Agkathidis, A. (2015) Generative Design. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

Carpio-Pinedo, J. (2014) ‘La manzana abierta de Portzamparc como tipología para el

Charalampidis, E. and I. Tsalikidis (2015) ‘A parametric landscape design approach for

Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape. New York: Reinhold Pub. Corp.

Curtis, W. J. R. (1982) Modern Architecture Since 1900. Re-publish. Phaidon Press.

Firley, E. and K. Groen (2014) The Urban Masterplanning Handbook. Wiley.

Gerber, D. (2007) ‘Pour un urbanisme paramétrique. Towards a Parametric Urbanism’, in

Hertzberger, H. (1991) Lessons for Students in Architecture. Re-edited. Rotterdam: 010

modeling’, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 66, pp. 13–22.

Nisztuk, M. and P. B. Myszkowski (2017) ‘Usability of contemporary tools for the

Reale, L. (2008) Densità, città, residenza: Tecniche di densificazione e strategie anti-sprawl.

Reale, L. (ed. . (2012) La città compatta: sperimentazioni contemporanee sull’isolato urbano

Roudsari, M. S. and M. Pak (2013) ‘Ladybug: a Parametric Environmental Plugin for

Siddi, C. and G. B. Cocco (2016) Itinerari di architettura e paesaggio: Barcellona, Lyon,

Speranza, P. (2016) ‘Using parametric methods to understand place in urban design

View publication stats

You might also like