This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the relation between space syntax and the adjacent field of urban morphology. We believe that this can benefit both fields in their further development and more specifically, this paper will show how typical approaches in urban morphology can be helpful in explaining variations in correlations between space syntax measures and pedestrian movement. That these correlations vary is shown by various scholars and the reoccurring argument is missing data input such as, amongst others, density, land use and public transport. We also see a problem in space syntax analysis in that there seems to be little consistency in exactly how pedestrian movement is best captured, that is, with what measure and at which radius. Hillier and Iida (2005) show for instance in their study of four London areas that the ‘best radius’ can be found with a radius of analysis varying from 12 to 102 segments. This is troublesome, especially if we are not able to explain why this is the case. In this paper we propose to use two typo-morphological approaches to explain such variations: the classification system for street morphologies developed by Marshall (2005) and the integrated density approach ‘Spacemate’ developed by Berghauser Pont and Haupt (2009; 2010). The results presented in this paper show that different neighbourhood types, in terms of density and street morphology, indeed have different patterns driving pedestrian behaviour and following that, ask for tailored spatial analysis. It is shown that in denser and more ‘griddy’ street patterns, the betweenness centrality measure is able to capture pedestrian behaviour, but in other neighbourhood types pedestrian behaviour is better captured when also closeness centrality and the distribution of attractions is included. Further, it is shown that what may be called the ’scale of operation’ of each neighbourhood plays a crucial role which needs to be considered when choosing the radius of analysis. This paper shows further that a first indication of pedestrian intensity and pedestrian distribution can be arrived at by using two relative simple spatial measures: ‘accessible density’ and ‘attraction betweenness’ respectively. Although this study is just a first tentative exploration in combining urban morphology with space syntax, we suggest that we based on these preliminary results can see many advantages in pursuing research in this direction.
[1]
Per Haupt,et al.
Space, Density and Urban Form
,
2009
.
[2]
J. Peponis,et al.
STREET CONNECTIVITY AND URBAN DENSITY: spatial measures and their correlation
,
2007
.
[3]
Anne Vernez Moudon,et al.
A Catholic Approach to Organizing What Urban Designers Should Know
,
1992
.
[4]
Jorge Gil,et al.
On the discovery of urban typologies: data mining the many dimensions of urban form
,
2011,
Urban Morphology.
[5]
A. Moudon.
Urban Morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field
,
2022,
Urban Morphology.
[6]
Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.
Fast unfolding of communities in large networks
,
2008,
0803.0476.
[7]
Ann Legeby.
Patterns of co-presence : Spatial configuration and social segregation
,
2013
.
[8]
Leslie Martín,et al.
Urban Space and Structures
,
1972
.
[9]
Rafael Henrique Moraes Pereira,et al.
The Use Of Space Syntax In Urban Transport Analysis: Limits And Potentials
,
2015
.
[10]
Bill Hillier,et al.
Network and Psychological Effects in Urban Movement
,
2005,
COSIT.
[11]
J. Whitehand,et al.
Twentieth-Century Suburbs: A Morphological Approach
,
2001
.
[12]
Bill Hillier,et al.
The social logic of space: Contents
,
1984
.
[13]
Ivor Samuels,et al.
Urban Forms: The Death and Life of the Urban Block
,
2004
.
[14]
Bill Hillier.
The architectures of seeing and going:or, are cities shaped by bodies or minds? And is there a syntax ofspatial cognition?
,
2003
.