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

net/publication/311852836

“Form Syntax” as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for

urbanity-making in urban design

Article  in  URBAN DESIGN International · February 2017

DOI: 10.1057/s41289-016-0035-3

CITATIONS READS

47 5,587

5 authors, including:

Yu Ye Anthony G.O. Yeh

Tongji University The University of Hong Kong
51 PUBLICATIONS   1,361 CITATIONS    242 PUBLICATIONS   11,516 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Akkelies Van Nes Jianzheng Liu

Høgskulen på Vestlandet The University of Hong Kong
81 PUBLICATIONS   949 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   547 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The applications of Virtual Reality technologies for cultural heritage conservation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area View project

Space Syntax and Crime View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yu Ye on 09 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article
‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign:
A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban
design

Yu Yea,*, Anthony Yehb, Yu Zhuanga, Akkelies van Nesc and Jianzheng Liub

a
Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai,
China.
E-mail: yye@tongji.edu.cn
b
Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
c
Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 134,
2628 BL Delft, The Netherlands.
*Corresponding author.

Abstract Creating vibrant urban places is a challenging task in urban design due to the intangible feature of
urbanity. This paper presents Form Syntax, a design analytical tool that is capable of assisting urbanity making in
design practices based on understandings of three essential urban morphological elements and their influences
on urbanity. Using the geographical information system (GIS), Form Syntax integrates three methods—Space
Syntax, Spacematrix, and Mixed-Use Index—to measure the street-network configuration, building density, and
functional mix, respectively. These three components can be quantified and combined to represent urban
morphological features, thereby providing a classification of the degree of urbanity. Form Syntax contributes to
geodesign by combining quantitative tools with traditional, intuition-based design to achieve a clear visualisa-
tion of the degree of urbanity of a place, which can subsequently be used to propose spatial strategies for
enhancing vibrant urban places. The Dutch city of Rotterdam is used to illustrate how the tool improves the
traditional site analysis, idea evaluation, and proposal evaluation phases of urban design. A GIS add-in has been
developed to enhance the appeal of Form Syntax among urban design practitioners.
URBAN DESIGN International (2016). doi:10.1057/s41289-016-0035-3

Keywords: urban morphology; urban design; geodesign; Space Syntax; urbanity

The Possibility of Applying Geodesign viii) that can generally be regarded as ‘‘analysing,
in Urban Design organising, and shaping urban form to elaborate
as richly and as coherently the lived experience of
The concept of geodesign refers to the science of the inhabitants’’ (Buchanan, 1988; cited in Cowan
introducing geographic analyses into the urban and Rogers, 2005, p. 416).
design process. Steinitz (2012) proposed the Geodesign has recently emerged as a method for
renowned definition of geodesign as a methodol- incorporating geographical analyses into the built
ogy that supports design through the use of environment domain, complementing the growth
geography. More specifically, geodesign is ‘‘a of geographical information systems (GIS) as a
design and planning method which tightly cou- foundational digital platform (Dangermond, 2013;
ples the creation of design proposals with impact Flaxman, 2010). Geodesign was first embraced by
simulations informed by geographic contexts’’ landscape architects for mapping the geographical
(Flaxman, 2010). Urban design is ‘‘an effort of contexts of their sites and was then adapted by
combining art and science’’ (Mumford, 2009, p. land-use and transport planners to address

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

www.palgrave.com/journals
 Ye et al

conflicts and facilitate correspondence between Urbanity Making in Urban Design:

different characteristics (Batty, 2013). However, Significance and Challenges
applications of geodesign in urban design are
seldom comparable to established landscape prac- The concept of urbanity has become ‘‘a constant
tice. Existing attempts lack a focus on urban form. presence in progressive urban debates’’ over the
For instance, agent-based modelling used in spa- past two decades (Lees, 2010, p. 2302). As a
tial design mainly focuses on stakeholder issues concept representing vibrant social lives interact-
(Batty, 2007), and the urban introduction pattern ing with urban form, the importance of urbanity
(UIP) focuses primarily on shape grammar and has been widely discussed. For instance, the
design methodology (Beirão et al, 2012). Without a European Commission’s Green Paper on the Urban
sufficient understanding of urban form in which Environment (1990) claimed that urbanity (or in
urban design manifests, current geodesign their words, ‘‘life in the diverse and multi-func-
approaches cannot effectively assist in urban tional city’’) should be considered a fundamental
design. Nevertheless, this situation is understand- issue rather than a luxury. Many scholars also
able because the urban form is difficult to quantify claim that an important role of urban design is the
through a GIS platform. In this context, most of the fostering of lively, vibrant places rather than
existing analytical models, including agent-based soulless developments (Buchanan, 1988; Mont-
modelling, transport models, economic models, gomery, 1998; Marcus, 2010).
and planning models share two major shortcom- Urbanity has been regarded as an essential, but
ings: ‘‘they do not easily become an integral part of also challenging task in urban design due to its
the urban design process, and even if they do, they intangible features. An experienced designer may
cannot provide a reliable evaluation system to lead handle the task of urbanity making using his
the design process by bringing together creativity intuition. However, a designer’s intuition may not
and research into one single framework’’ (Karimi, be able to handle complex situations when projects
2012, p. 299). become complicated. Many design principles have
Tools developed from an urban morphological been proposed to guide urbanity making, from
perspective are necessary for improving urban Jacobs’ (1961) suggestions for diversity to Gehl’s
design practices. As ‘‘the study of the physical (or (1971) claim for street lives and Montgomery’s
built) fabric of urban form, and the process (1998) discussions of urbanity making. However,
shaping it’’ (Larkham and Jones, 1991, p. 55), the task of producing vibrant urban places
urban morphology is a research field that is remains challenging. Many places that are
closely related to urban design in theory. These designed to be lively and inviting have proven
two fields speak the same language, which unsuccessful in their objective, as seen in new
conveys the essential components of a desired European neighbourhoods (Cremaschi and Eck-
urban form and look for a continuous period, hardt, 2011).
from past to future (Marshall and Caliskan, 2011). Current design principles have certain short-
As such, constructing a quantitative analysis of comings in assisting urbanity making. First, these
urban morphological elements is necessary if we design principles are proposed in fragmented
want to introduce geodesign approaches into observations without a complete morphological
urban design practices. Advances in quantitative structure. Because design theorists make their
morphological analysis tools over the past decade observations based on their own experiences, a
have provided new ways of describing, classify- messy overlap among various design principles
ing, and representing the most essential proper- can be observed. For instance, Montgomery’s
ties of urban forms (Conzen, 2010; Moudon, 1997; (1998) suggestion of ‘‘fine grain’’ partly repeats
Marcus, 2010; Stanilov, 2010). For instance, Ye his other suggestions, such as adaptability, city
and van Nes’s recent work (2013, 2014), which blocks and permeability, and human scale. Sec-
applied the grid analysis of GIS to integrate Space ond, due to the inadequate urban morphological
Syntax, Spacematrix, and Mixed-Use Index (MXI) analysis tools and conceptual framework, urban
in a quantitative urban morphological study, design principles are proposed by describing the
presents a preliminary response to this research observed positive urban form rather than by
trend, which also generates potential for the abstracting the key reasons for producing urban-
further development of an analytical tool for ity. Therefore, many urban design principles look
urban design. different, but target the same point. For instance,

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

Figure 1: The combination of essential morphological elements measured by Space Syntax, Spacematrix, and MXI based on grids (Ye
and van Nes, 2014, p. 104).

Jacobs (1961) suggests ‘‘short blocks’’ for street tasks. The term ‘‘form’’ represents the morpholog-
block development, whereas Gehl (1971) suggests ical focus of the tool. The term ‘‘syntax’’ comes
the concepts of ‘‘assemble’’ and ‘‘open up’’. Third, from linguistics and originally referred to the
as a result of fragmented observations, each study of the principles and processes by which
principle only contributes to a small piece of sentences are constructed. Herein, ‘‘syntax’’ repre-
urbanity making. This situation inflates the num- sents the inherent link between morphological
ber of design principles, which renders design elements and an urban form’s social performance.
difficult. For instance, Montgomery (1998) pro-
posed 12 design principles, and some later design
theories claimed higher numbers. Existing morphological studies as the foundation
Therefore, a new morphological approach seek- of Form Syntax
ing common and essential morphological under-
standings in urbanity making is required. This The Form Syntax tool is developed based on a
approach has to unify the current fragmented series of recent morphological studies (Ye and van
principles and assist in avoiding overfull princi- Nes, 2013, 2014). Based on the review of Con-
ples that disturb designers’ practices, which would zenian morphological tradition, urban form is
help designers develop a clear understanding of abstracted as three essential elements: (1) the street
urbanity making. system, (2) the building system (plots and the
buildings located on them), and (3) the land use
pattern (Conzen, 1960). GIS was then used as a
Form Syntax: From Morphological platform to integrate Space Syntax, Spacematrix,
Classifications to Understanding Urbanity and Mixed-Use Index (MXI) to define high or low
values of the three essential urban morphological
As stated above, two main issues should be elements and combined these values to classify
considered. The first issue is that of developing a urban form. As shown in Figure 1, a grid system
quantitative description of urban morphological was used as an analytical unit to integrate vector-
elements as a foundation for introducing geode- based data with polygon-based data.
sign approaches into urban design. The second Each of these elements can be measured using
issue is seeking common and essential morpho- separate, established methods. Space Syntax pro-
logical understanding of urbanity for better urban- vides a measure of street-network configuration
ity making. As such, a new tool named Form that can be substituted for the street system
Syntax has been developed to handle these two (Hillier and Hanson, 1984). Spacematrix can

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

represent the building system because it provides design, more accurate and acceptable results can be
quantitative measurements for building density, provided for design analysis. The advantage of the
building type, and non-built space (Berghauser- current grid analysis is in providing standardised
Pont and Haupt, 2010). Finally, the Mixed-Use units for morphological study, which facilitates an
Index (MXI) can quantify the degree of the equal comparison of morphological elements. How-
functional mix situation to represent the land-use ever, this combination method is ineffective in
pattern to a certain extent (van den Hoek, 2009). urban design. Grid-based data lead to accuracy
This classification of urban form shows that problems when used to guide urban design, which
certain correlations may exist between the com- is always based on street blocks. The grid-based
bined morphological elements and the degree of analysis also contradicts designers’ basic under-
urbanity; the areas that obtain high values for all standings of urban form, restricting the effectiveness
three morphological elements tend to appear in of their application in design practices. Therefore,
city centres that obtain high degrees of urbanity. A we developed an improved combination approach
first test of the combination of these three mor- that converts the vector-based street-network con-
phological elements was carried out in new and figuration and polygon-based built mass and func-
old towns in the Netherlands and China. As the tional mixture into street blocks (Figure 2).
results show, vibrant town centres depend on high Converting the street-network configuration
values for street-network configuration, building values from street central lines to street blocks
density, and function mix (Ye and van Nes, 2013). can be done using the distance decay model to
Moreover, a high behaviour intensity recorded by obtain the average of the surrounding streets’
GPS tracking may appear around areas with high values with consideration of the length of each
morphological elements according to an empirical street.1 The values of the building density and
test in Delft, Netherlands (Ye and van Nes, 2014). functional mixture are initially based on blocks. It
However, the abovementioned research has two is then possible to combine the three elements.
shortcomings. First, the combination of the quan-
titative analysis of the three key urban morpho-
logical elements was based on a grid analysis that Building a clear understanding of the relationship
is too rough for urban designers. The challenge is between the key morphological elements and degree
combining these data on the street block level of urbanity
rather than using grids. Second, it seems that the A deep understanding of urbanity has been pro-
combined essential morphological elements could posed in recent years. Many scholars have recog-
act as a measure of the varying degree of urbanity nised the possibility of measuring urbanity from an
to a certain extent. However, statistical analysis is urban morphological perspective (Marcus, 2010).
required to fine-tune this assumption. For instance, Westin (2011, p. 227) claimed that
urbanity is ‘‘a life and form of the city’’. Oliveira
(2013, p. 22) noted that urbanity is ‘‘a social and
Further developments in the construction spatial construct’’ that can be measured from two
of the Form Syntax tool perspectives: urban form and dynamic social activ-
ity. Therefore, it is possible to follow previous
Preliminary achievements have been fulfilled, but reviews of Conzenian morphological tradition to
improvements can still be made in the construc- set appropriate measurements of morphological
tion of a new analytical tool to apply geodesign in elements to describe the various degrees of urban-
urbanity making. Unlike previous work focusing ity. Additionally, it is possible to check the consis-
on morphological analyses, the Form Syntax tool tency of morphological understandings of urbanity
could provide more accurate results and solid by applying a social understanding of urbanity as a
connections between the degree of urbanity and reference. In this way, a new and concise method
the morphological elements. for describing the relationship between the key
morphological elements of the urban fabric and
Producing better results for designers: Converting degree of urbanity can be finally produced.
analysis units from grids to street blocks Based on this consideration, new measurements
The first improvement is converting previous grid of the values of each attribute, such as street-
analysis units to street block units. By converting the network configuration, building density, and func-
grid unit, which is common in geodesign analysis, tional mixture, are then developed. Specifically, the
to a street block unit, which is common in urban building of a spatial classification system is

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

Figure 2: Combining essential morphological elements based on street blocks.

achieved by assigning high, medium, and low into point-type, stripe-type, or block-type depend-
values to the three measurements (Table 1). First, ing on the building’s form. The environment can
Space Syntax encompasses a set of techniques for therefore be divided into nine categories. Spacema-
analysing street-network configurations (Hillier trix assigns low values to low-rise point and low-
and Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1999; Hillier et al, rise stripe buildings, and high values to mid-rise
1993). Space Syntax provides an explanation for stripe, mid-rise block, and high-rise block build-
how the spatial configurations of street networks ings. This type of classification is assigned due to
affect movement flows and the locations of eco- the potential positive or negative influences of the
nomic activities (Lu and Seo, 2015). This feature building densities and types on urbanity (Trancik,
can be treated as representative of the degree of 1986; Joosten and van Nes, 2005). Trancik (1986)
urbanity to a certain extent. The final configuration discussed the benefits of high building density and
rates are assigned according to both global and block and stripe building types in creating urbanity
local radii to produce a comprehensive description from a theoretical perspective. Joosten and van Nes’
of the street-network configuration (van Nes and (2005) empirical study in Berlin found that high
Stolk, 2012). The detailed results from all of the building density normally represents high popula-
Space Syntax analyses are calculated using the tion density occupying a particular block and thus
betweenness measure of spatial design network tends to positively influence the creation of urban-
analysis (sDNA). sDNA was developed at Cardiff ity. Block or stripe building types tend to improve
University and can provide accurate results for interactions between buildings and streets, which
street central lines. The numbers are then divided also results in a high degree of urbanity. All other
roughly into high, medium, and low value ranges categories belong to the medium value.
using the natural break method. Third, the Mixed-Use Index (MXI) method was
Second, Spacematrix simultaneously contributes developed by van den Hoek (2009) to measure the
measures for both building density and building various degrees of mixed land use. The original
type (Berghauser-Pont and Haupt, 2007, 2010). It MXI model measured the percentages of the
uses three measurements to quantify building housing, working, and amenity spaces occupying
density, namely, the floor space index (FSI), ground urban blocks. The ‘‘housing’’ function included
space index (GSI), and average number of floors or various residential dwellings, such as apartments,
layers (L). The building density is classified into condominiums, and townhouses. The ‘‘working’’
low-rise, mid-rise, or high-rise depending on the function encompassed offices, factories, and labo-
number of floors. The building type is separated ratories. The ‘‘amenities’’ function covered

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

Table 1: Explanations of high, medium and low values in street-network configuration, building density and type, and degree of
functional mixture

Street-network configuration High Bb belongs to the highest one third according to the natural break method
(sDNA) Medium Bb belongs to the medium one third according to the natural break method
Low Bb belongs to the lowest one third according to the natural break method
P Li =Da
Bb ¼ ni¼1 BtARðxÞi Pn i a ; Bb = the configuration value of each block, BtAR(x)i = the configuration
L =Di
i¼1 i
values of the surrounding streets, Li = the lengths of the street central lines affecting the blocks,
Di = the shortest Euclidian distances from the street central lines to the block edges, a = distance
decay value 8
Building density and type High < E : mid-rise, stripe type is 3 \ Laverage \ 7 and 0:2 \ GSI \0:3
(Spacematrix) Types E; F; I ¼ F : mid-rise, block type is 3\ Laverage \ 7 and GSI  0:3
:
I : high-rise, block type is Laverage  7 and GSI  0:3
8
Medium < D : mid-rise, point type is 3 \ Laverage \ 7 and 0 \ GSI  0:2
Types D; G; H ¼ G : high-rise, point type is Laverage  7 and 0 GSI  0:2
:
H : high-rise, stripe type is Laverage  7 and 0:2 \GSI \ 0:3
8
Low < A : low-rise, point type is Laverage  3 and 0 \ GSI  0:2
Types A; B; C ¼ B : low-rise, stripe type is Laverage  3 and 0:2 \ GSI \0:3
:
C : low-rise, block type is Laverage  3 and GSI  0:3
FSIx = Fx/Ax; Fx = gross floor area of (m2) in street block x; Ax = gross area of block x (m2);
GSIx = Bx/Ax; Bx = gross building footprint of (m2) in street block x; Laverage ¼ FSIx =GSIx ;
Functional mixture (MXI) High Mixed ðtriplefunctionalÞ
8
>
> Ahousing Aamenities Aworking
>
> 5%\ %\20% and % [ 5% and % [ 5%
>
> Agross Agross Agross
>
>
< Aamenities Ahousing Aworking
¼ 5%\ %\20% and % [ 5% and % [ 5%
>
> A gross A gross Agross
>
>
>
> Aworking Aamenities Ahousing
>
>
: 5%\ %\20% and % [ 5% and % [ 5%
Agross Agross Agross
Ahousing Aworking Aamenities
Highly  mxied ¼ %  20% and %  20% and %  20%
Agross Agross Agross
Medium Bifunctional
8
>
> Ahousing Aamenities Aworking
>
> Housing þ Amenities: % [ 5% and % [ 5% and %
>
> A gross A gross Agross
>
>
< Ahousing Aworking Aamenities
¼ Housing þ working: % [ 5% and % [ 5% and %5
>
> Agross Agross Agross
>
>
>
> Aamenities Aworking Ahousing
>
>
: Amenities þ working: % [ 5% and % [ 5% and %
Agross Agross Agross
Low A A
Monofuncional ¼ housing %  95%or working %  95% or Aamenities %  95% or Aamenities %  95%
Agross Agross Agross Agross
Ahousing = the gross housing floor space (m2); Aworking = the gross working floor space (m2);
Aamenities = the gross floor space of all commercial and public facilities (m2). Agross = the gross floor
space of the analysed area

commercial facilities, such as shopping centres, Adding another 5% working floor space helps
schools, and universities, as well as leisure facili- strengthen Jacobs’ (1961) ‘‘eyes upon the street’’
ties, such as sporting arenas, cinemas, concert halls, concept by introducing additional activities to the
and museums. Here, the MXI is defined as block. A mixed block can then be developed. If
MXI = (%Housing/%Working/%Amenities). The amenities and office spaces both occupy 20% of a
allocation rankings in MXI correspond to the residential block, then the appeal of the block
system measurements of high, medium, and low increases given its complex functions and dynamic
(or monofunctional) degrees of functional mix. The activities. In other words, a higher degree of
dividing line between monofunctional and bifunc- urbanity results. In general, urban forms can be
tional is set at 5% according to the floor space classified into seven categories ranked from all low
analysis. An allocation of 5% of space for amenities values to all high values in the three morphological
in a residential neighbourhood indicates four elements.
corner stores or a half-line commercial frontage. As illustrated in Table 2, the urban form can be
This scenario generates a basic foundation for classified into different urban form types. A gradual
changing the degree of urbanity in the block. increase in the three morphological elements, from

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

type (I) to (VII), can be observed. For instance, type the highest degree of urbanity. Conversely, type
(VII) areas have either three high values or two high (I) areas have either three low values or two low
values and one medium value in all measurements. values and one medium value in all spatial mea-
It represents a block with high accessibility, high surements. These areas represent blocks with low
density of appropriate building types, and a high accessibility, density, and degree of functional mix,
degree of functional mixture, which should obtain which should obtain the lowest degree of urbanity.

Table 2: Different types of urban form via Form Syntax

Balanced versus unbalanced Type The value distribution of the street-network configuration, Example
building density and type, and functional mixture degree

Balanced with I L/L/L; M/L/L; L/L/M; L/M/L

low values

II L/M/M; M/L/M; M/M/L

Unbalanced III H/L/L; L/H/L; L/L/H

IV H/M/L; M/H/L; L/M/H; H/L/M; L/H/M; M/L/H

V H/H/L; H/L/H; L/H/H

Balanced with VI M/M/H; M/H/M; H/M/M; M/M/M

high values

VII H/H/H; H/M/H; M/H/H; H/H/M

L low value, M medium value, H high value.

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

These seven types can also be divided into three 10 add-in is composed of two components: an
groups based on the values of the three morpholog- XML file and a DLL file. The XML file includes
ical components: ‘‘balanced urban areas with low tool metadata and describes tool customisations,
values’’, ‘‘unbalanced’’, and ‘‘balanced urban areas images, and other simple data included in the
with high values’’. ‘‘Balance’’ reflects similar values customisations. The DLL component contains the
in the sDNA, Spacematrix, and MXI measurements assembled code written in C#. This component
(that is, similarly high or similarly low values), generates the Graphical User Interface for this
whereas ‘‘unbalanced’’ reflects significant differences tool and the algorithms for street-network con-
between the values of the three measurements. figuration analysis, density and building type
How strongly these urban form types reflect the analysis, functional mix analysis, and Form Syn-
degree of urbanity is further tested in an empirical tax analysis. The two components are compressed
case. Since urbanity can be regarded as a social as self-contained zipped archives with the Esri
and spatial construct, the intensity of non-optional AddIn file extension.
activity2 is a good representation of an area’s
urbanity from a social perspective (van Schaick
and van Der Spek, 2008) and can, therefore, be How Form Syntax Engages with Urbanity
used to test the effectiveness of urban morpholog- Making in the Design Process
ical taxonomy in reflecting urbanity. An investi-
gation is performed based on this understanding The urban design process is generalised as a step-
(Figure 3). In contrast to Ye and van Nes’ (2014) by-step decision making procedure that pro-
rough comparison, a statistical analysis provides gresses through problem definition, design idea
stronger support for the correlation between mor- development, predicting solutions, and post-im-
phological elements and the degree of urbanity plementation evaluation (Moughtin et al, 1999;
represented by behaviour intensity. Lang, 2005). In other words, the urban design
Because the correlation analysis is made between process begins with a problem or request and ends
two ordinal variables, one continuous (i.e., GPS with a problem solving outcome. According to
tracking data) and one categorical (i.e., various urban Karimi (2012), a generic urban design process
forms), Goodman and Kruskal’s gamma is used. This contains two main stages: the generation of a
correlation coefficient proposed by Goodman and design idea and design proposals. More specifi-
Kruskal (1954) is a non-parametric test that is used to cally, an urban designer must address the context,
measure the rank correlation relationship between analyse the design site, evaluate the design ideas
ordinal variables.3 The result should lie between -1 generated and finally propose design proposals
(indicating a strong negative relationship) and 1 for the entire design process. Traditionally, this
(indicating a strong positive relationship). The result process has been guided by designers’ experi-
of the Gamma analysis (G = 0.586) proves a rela- ences, intuitive feelings and stakeholder consulta-
tively strong correlation between the assumed degree tions. The personal capacity of the designer is
of urbanity from a morphological perspective and the always crucial to the success of a design project,
reflection of urbanity from a social perspective. partly because it is difficult to integrate existing
These results indicate that the classification of analytical tools into the spatial thinking of urban
urban form can be developed into a measurement designers.
of urbanity from a morphological perspective. Nevertheless, the Form Syntax obtaining in-
Indeed, Form Syntax reflects the spatial features of depth understandings between urbanity and
urban form as part of a continuous rural-to-urban urban form is able to suggest appropriate design
gradient. This understanding of morphological strategies in the three key phases of the urban
elements and urbanity can assist in urban design design process: site analysis, idea evaluation,
practices. and proposal evaluation (Figure 5). In the pro-
cess of site analysis, Form Syntax can help to
combine the three key morphological elements
The Form Syntax GIS add-in to visualise the present urbanity of a site.
Meanwhile, comparing high or low values of
A GIS add-in has been developed to improve the morphological elements helps highlight potential
convenience of applying Form Syntax in real areas. In the processes of both idea and proposal
design projects (Figure 4). The ArcGIS Desktop evaluations, Form Syntax can help to compare

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

Figure 3: Form Syntax: identifying essential morphological values in urbanity making.

the before-and-after situation of a site and Form Syntax assists in site analysis I: Visualising
evaluate the effectiveness of design ideas or intangible urbanity
proposals. These three possible applications are
elaborated using the case of Rotterdam, a Visualising the intangible urbanity of a design site
megacity in southern Netherlands. is the most direct application of Form Syntax,

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

Figure 4: The add-in structure of Form Syntax.

Figure 5: Form Syntax as an analytical tool offers assistance in the three key phases of the urban design process.

which works as an indicator of urbanity making The input data are street-networks; street
for urban designers. It is important when the blocks; and building density, height, and function,
intention is to plan a new vibrant urban area. which can be easily collected from the municipal-
Figure 6 demonstrates an application of Form ity’s GIS database. As shown above, most places
Syntax in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Various (e.g., Centrum, Delftshaven) that would be iden-
degrees of urbanity in street blocks can be com- tified as high urban areas by experienced design-
puted by Form Syntax and illustrated from high ers are also identified as such by the Form Syntax
(red) to low (blue). tool, which are shown in red, representing

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

Figure 6: Applying Form Syntax to visualise intangible urbanity.

medium and high degrees of urbanity. Form values for the three morphological features (e.g.,
Syntax helps design practitioners to quickly over- two high values and one low value or one high
view the degree of urbanity of a design site. value and two low values) are the key transfor-
mation areas. For example, an area categorised as
unbalanced (Type V), containing two high values
Form Syntax assists in site analysis II: and one low value in the three measurements can
Identifying potential areas and suggesting be easily developed into a highly urban area by
appropriate strategies improving the low value. Such strategies may
involve improving street-network accessibility,
In addition to the direct visualisation of intangible increasing building mass density or facilitating
urbanity, Form Syntax also helps to quickly high diversity land use. Second, an interrelation-
identify potential areas and suggests interventions ship exists between these three morphological
that are required to upgrade a certain area by properties. Streets can exist for thousands of years.
comparing high or low morphological values. This Therefore, when town buildings and their inner
capacity for identifying the potential areas is functions change over decades, street-network
generalised from two observations. The first is configurations tend to remain the same. A build-
that the unbalanced areas with quite different ing exists for several decades, on average, whereas

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

the functions inside it change constantly (van Nes, (1971). Two empirical studies (Joosten and van
2002). Recent research on the morphological evo- Nes, 2005; van Nes and López, 2010) provide
lution processes of new towns in both the Nether- strong supports for this understanding.
lands and China explored this relationship further, Figure 7 demonstrates an application of Form
concluding that street-network configuration pro- Syntax in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The accu-
vides the foundation, followed by building density racy of this diagnostic method has been tested by
and the degree of functional mixture (Ye and van using Street View in Google Earth. Potential areas
Nes, 2013). for improvement can be identified through Form
Therefore, potentials can be identified in unbal- Syntax.
anced areas according to this interrelationship
between street-network configuration, building
density, and functional mixture. Specific interven- Form Syntax assists idea evaluation in the urban
tions and strategies can be proposed to transform design process
unattractive urban areas into balanced areas with
good socioeconomic performance. Table 3 pre- Form Syntax is also useful for idea evaluation. By
sents a matrix that identifies five development visualising and comparing the before-and-after
strategies based on street-network configuration, situations, this tool can predict the anticipated
building density, and functional mixture values. impacts of design ideas on urbanity and then test
For instance, the spatial configuration of the street- different design ideas. Built between the Nieuwe
network is high in areas belonging to Category A, Maas (a tributary of the Rhine River), the Rotter-
where the value of building density and types is dam municipality is divided into northern and
low (i.e., with significant imbalances between FSI, southern parts. For economic, social, and ethnic
GSI, and configuration values). These areas show reasons, the southern part has long been unpop-
potential for further densification on the built ular for working and living. With the objective of
mass. In Category B, the value of the building establishing a ‘‘strong economy’’ and an ‘‘attractive
density and type is high, but the street-network residential city’’, building a new bridge to improve
configuration is low. Street-network configuration connections and activate unattractive areas has
must be improved in these areas if the intention is been widely discussed. However, assessing the
to enhance the street life within them. Policies possible effects of different ideas on the degree of
encouraging better functional mixture are required urbanity is a problem. Form Syntax provides a
in Category C areas, which already score high in new way to predict the anticipated impact of
both the Space Syntax and Spacematrix analyses, design ideas on urbanity (Figure 8).
but still score low in the MXI analysis. In many Figure 8A shows the present situation. Fig-
cases, Category C is caused by a lack of active ures 8B, C show the potential effects of the
frontages connecting buildings to their adjacent proposed bridge (I) and bridge (II), respectively.
streets. Active frontages and diverse functional The building density and functional mixture are
mixes promote the emergence of vibrant and lively assumed to remain unchanged after bridge con-
urban areas according to Jacobs (1961) and Gehl struction. The potential impact of the different

Table 3: The classification of various types of morphological potentials

Type of potential Street-network configuration Building density and type Functional mixture
(space syntax) (Spacematrix) (MXI)

Potential A: densification/morphological High Low Low

development High Low Medium
Medium Low High
High Low High
Potential B: street-network configuration Low High Low
development Low Medium High
Low High Medium
Low High High
Potential C: functional mixture Medium High Low
development High High Low
Potential D: containing both Potential A + B Low Low High
Potential E: containing both Potential A + C High Medium Low

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

Figure 7: Applying Form Syntax to identify potential areas and suggest interventions to upgrade a certain area.

ideas on urbanity is determined by comparing the effectiveness of whole design proposals can be
effect of two design ideas. As is evident, the evaluated. Idea evaluation only tests preliminary
proposed bridge (I) will more positively influence design ideas, whereas proposal evaluation makes
urbanity making than bridge (II). Many areas far a complicated judgement considering all of the
from the new bridge would also benefit from proposed design interventions. Figure 10 demon-
improved spatial configuration (Figure 9). strates the application of Form Syntax in Rotter-
dam’s old harbour area to measure the
effectiveness of the proposed design intervention.4
Form Syntax assists in proposal evaluation The design site is an old industrial area that is
in the urban design process targeted for revitalisation. A series of spatial
interventions are proposed for the promotion of
Furthermore, the Form Syntax tool is useful for the a higher degree of urbanity.
evaluation of various urban design proposals. By More specifically, the street-network connection
judging the impacts of proposed design interven- will be strengthened by the ‘‘link’’ strategy. The
tions by simulating before-and-after scenarios, the ‘‘grassroots’’ strategy helps introduce new

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

Figure 8: Applying Form Syntax to compare the anticipated impacts of constructing new bridges (I) and (II) in Rotterdam.

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

Figure 9: Comparing the anticipated impacts of new bridges (I) and (II) to identify the more appropriate bridge.

enterprises and functions into this district through practitioners to understand and incorporate. Long-
converting old industrial factories into mixed-used standing phases of the urban design process that
space. A series of local entrepreneurs would be were traditionally inspired by intuition can now
encouraged to begin their business and stimulate be supported by a scientifically grounded analysis
small initiatives. The ‘‘anchors’’ strategy aims at method, combining creativity and rationality into
developing major landmarks, e.g. large building one framework. It is a successful response to the
complex and landscape project, to attract broad call for introducing geodesign approach into
attention and serve as the anchor for future urban design.
developments. Second, Form Syntax generates a more solid and
Form Syntax is applied to predict the effective- clear vision regarding the relationship of morpho-
ness of these interventions. The combined strategy logical elements and degrees of urbanity than
is evaluated in the three aspects of street-network previous methods. The direct application of this
configuration, building density and type, and knowledge can be applied to urban design pro-
functional mixture. Figure 10A, C shows the cesses of site analysis, idea evaluation and solution
before and after maps separately to demonstrate evaluation, which ensures better design practices.
the effects. As shown on the maps, this site would This quantitative morphological description of
now benefit from many improvements to its urbanity responds well to the call to seek common
degree of urbanity through the proposed and essential understandings in urbanity making.
interventions. Moreover, the data input required for Form
Syntax is limited and overlaps with various design
analyses. Form Syntax analysis is predicated on
Conclusions obtaining GIS data, such as road networks, build-
ings, block shapes, and functions, all of which are
In developing the work of Ye and van Nes used in current urban design practices. While
(2013, 2014), which introduced a quantitative some existing geometrical analysis methods are
approach into urban morphology, the Form Syn- time-consuming, data-intensive, and expensive to
tax tool further contributes to both geodesign and build, design practitioners will not need to invest
urbanity making in several ways. First, the tool extra time or effort into Form Syntax analysis.
applies quantitative geo-techniques by following Instead, a good GIS file of the site providing data
traditional, intuition-based urban design pro- on building density, functions and the road centre
cesses. Form Syntax uses the urban morphological line is required. The development of a GIS add-in
tradition to explain and describe urban form also facilitates the incorporation of Form Syntax
quantitatively. This internal logic is easy for design into real projects.

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

Figure 10: Applying Form Syntax to evaluate a design proposal’s effectiveness.

Nevertheless, the Form Syntax tool is in a urban design. There is an increasing scholarly
beginning phase, and fine-tuning and improve- interest in introducing new quantitative thinking
ments are still needed. Refinements that adds more into the previously qualitative and intuition-based
spatial parameters, such as inter-visibility between fields of urban form and urban design. The work
buildings and streets and entrance densities (van of Form Syntax illustrates a good response to this
Nes and López, 2010), are needed to construct a trend. It presents at least an attempt to combine
more comprehensive analysis system. The config- science and urban design practices, in particular in
uration of private and public interfaces is also the testing of the extent to which various urban
fundamental to urbanity, which should be consid- design proposals correspond to their intentions in
ered in the future developments as well. The tool’s achieving urbanity.
geo-referenced spatial feature can be further devel-
oped through coordination with other socio-eco-
nomic data, such as property prices, rental prices, Acknowledgements
shop and retail sale volumes, and crime data. It is
possible to extend Form Syntax, which has an open
pattern, in other research directions. We thank Henrik Harder, Anders Sorgenfri Jen-
To conclude, emerging new techniques have sen, Kristian and Hegner Reinau for the GPS data
already brought new quantitative possibilities to and insightful suggestions they provided. We are

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 ‘‘Form Syntax’’ as a contribution to geodesign: A morphological tool for urbanity-making in urban design

also grateful to the editor and two anonymous European Commission. (1990) Green Paper on the Urban Envi-
referees for their valuable comments and ronment. Brussels: EC.
Flaxman, M. (2010) Geodesign: Fundamental Principles and Routes
guidance. Forward. Redlands, CA: GeoDesign Summit ESRI.
Gehl, J. (1989, originally published in 1971) Life between
Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand
Notes Reinhold.
Goodman, A. and Kruskal, H. (1954) Measures of association
1 The equation calculating each block’s configuration is for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical
P L Da Association 49(268): 732–764.
Bb ¼ ni¼1 BtARðxÞi Pn i i a , where Bb = the configuration Hillier, B. (1999) Centrality as a process: Accounting for
i¼1
Li Di
value of each block, BtAR(x)i = the configuration values of attraction inequalities in deformed grids. Urban Design
the surrounding streets through sDNA, Li = the lengths of the International 4(3–4): 107–127.
street central lines affecting the blocks, Di = the shortest Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space.
Euclidian distance from the street central lines to the block Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
edges, and = the distance decay parameter. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T. and Xu, J. (1993)
2 According to Gehl’s (1971) definition, ‘‘optional’’ outdoor Natural Movement: or configuration and attraction in urban
activities are those that only occur under favourable exterior pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning
physical conditions, such as standing around enjoying life, and Design 20(1): 29–66.
sitting, and sunbathing. These ‘‘optional’’ activities strongly Jacobs, J. (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New
depend on the urban form. York: Random House.
3 Goodman and Kruskal’s gamma (G) is computed as Joosten, V. and van Nes, A. (2005) How block types influences
G ¼ N s Nd the natural movement economic process: Micro-spatial con-
Ns þNd . Ns is determined by the number of cases that
ditions on the dispersal of shops and Café in Berlin. In: van
are ranked in the same relative position in both variables, and
Nes, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Space Syntax
Nd is determined by the number of cases that ranked
Symposium, Delft, The Netherlands: Techne Press, p. 225.
differently in the two variables.
Karimi, K. (2012) A configurational approach to analytical
4 This design proposal was produced in an urban design
urban design: ‘Space syntax’s methodology. Urban Design
workshop organized by TU Delft. It is not an official proposal
International 17(4): 297–318.
approved by the municipality.
Lang, J. (2005) Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and
Products. Amsterdam: Routledge.
Larkham, P.J. and Jones, A.N. (1991) A Glossary of Urban Form.
References London: Institute of British Geographers.
Lees, L. (2010) Planning urbanity? Environment and Planning A
Batty, M. (2007) Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with 42(10): 2302–2308.
Cellular Automata, Agent-Based Models, and Fractals. Cam- Lu, Y. and Seo, H. B. (2015) Developing visibility analysis for a
bridge: The MIT Press. retail store: A pilot study in a bookstore. Environment and
Batty, M. (2013) Defining geodesign (=GIS + design?). Environ- Planning B: Planning and Design 42(1): 95–109.
ment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40(1): 1–2. Marcus, L. (2010) Spatial capital. The Journal of Space Syntax 1(1):
Beirão, J., Duarte, J., Stouffs, R. and Bekkering, H. (2012) 30–40.
Designing with urban induction patterns: a methodological Marshall, S. and Caliskan, O. (2011) A joint framework for
approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design urban morphology and design. Built Environment 37(4):
39(4): 665. 409–426.
Berghauser-Pont, M. and Haupt, P. (2007) The relationship Montgomery, J. (1998) Making a city: urbanity, vitality and
between urban form and density. Urban Morphology 11(1): urban design. Journal of Urban Design 3(1): 93–116.
62–66. Moudon, A.V. (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging
Berghauser-Pont, M. and Haupt, P. (2010) Spacematrix: Space, interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology 1(1): 3–10.
Density and Urban Form. Amsterdam: NAI. Moughtin, C., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C. and Signoretta, P. (1999)
Buchanan, P. (1988) What city? A plea for place in the public Urban Design: Method and Technique. London: Architectural
realm. The Architectural Review 184(1101): 31–41. Press.
Cremaschi, M. and Eckhardt, F. (2011) Changing Places: Urban- Mumford, E.P. (2009) Defining Urban Design: CIAM Architects
ity, Citizenship, and Ideology in the New European Neighbour- and the Formation of a Discipline, 1937–1969. New Haven, CT:
hoods. Amsterdam: Techne Press. Yale University Press.
Conzen, M.P. (2010) The elusive common denominator in Oliveira, V. (2013) Morpho: a methodology for assessing urban
understanding urban form Urban Morphology 14(1): 55–58. form. Urban Morphology 17(1): 21–33.
Conzen, M.R.G. (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Stanilov, K. (2010) Bridging the gap between urban morphol-
Town-Plan Analysis, Transactions and Papers (Institute of ogy and urban modelling. Urban Morphology 14(2): 123–124.
British Geographers). Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geo- Steinitz, C. (2012) A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geogra-
graphical Society. phy By Design. California: Esri Press.
Cowan, R. and Rogers, L. (2005) The Dictionary of Urbanism. Trancik, R. (1986) Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design.
Salisbury: Tisbury Streetwise Press. New York: Wiley.
Dangermond, J. (2013) Keynote. 2013 Geodesign Summit. Red- van den Hoek, J. (2009) The mixed use index (Mixed-use Index)
lands, CA: ESRI. as planning tool for (new) towns in the 21st century. In: M.

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

 Ye et al

Provoost (ed.) New Towns for the 21st Century: the Planned vs, International Space Syntax Symposium, Santiago de Chile:
the Unplanned city. Amsterdam: SUN Architecture, PUC, p. 8005.
pp. 198–207. van Schaick, J. and van Der Spek, S.C. (2008) Urbanism on Track:
van Nes, A. (2002) Road building and urban change. The effect of Application of Tracking Technologies in Urbanism. Amsterdam:
rind roads on the dispersal of shop and retail in Western European IOS Press.
towns and cities. PhD thesis. Department of Land Use and Westin, S. (2011) The life and form of the city: An interview
Landscape Planning. Agricultural University of Norway. with Bill Hillier. Space and Culture 14(2): 227–237.
van Nes, A. and López, M. (2010) Macro and micro scale spatial Ye, Y. and van Nes, A. (2013) Measuring urban maturation
variables and the distribution of residential burglaries and processes in Dutch and Chinese new towns: Combining
theft from cars: an investigation of space and crime in the street network configuration with building density and
Dutch cities of Alkmaar and Gouda. Journal of Space Syntax degree of land use diversification through GIS. Journal of
1(2): 296–314. Space Syntax 4(1): 17–37.
van Nes, A. and Stolk, E H. (2012) Degrees of sustainable Ye, Y. and van Nes, A. (2014) Quantitative tools in urban
location of railway stations: Integrating space syntax and morphology: combining space syntax, Spacematrix, and
Node place value model on railway stations in the province Mixed-use Index in a GIS framework. Urban Morphology
Noord-Holland’s strategic plan for 2010–2040. In: M. Greene, 18(2): 97–118.
J. Reyes, and A. Castro (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth

ª 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International

View publication stats