Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets: the 'emergent neighborhoods' model

M. Mehaffy, S. Porta, Y. Rofè, N. Salingaros

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A controversy remains among planners and urban designers about the proper location of the non-residential core (nucleus) of a neighborhood in relation to thoroughfares. One school of thought suggests that the nucleus should be located along the busiest thoroughfares; a second school holds that it must be some distance away from them - which, because of their disruptiveness, should form the edge of the neighborhood; and a third school proposes that it should be somewhere between the two as an 'eccentric nucleus'. The three schools may be overlooking the underlying variables that govern this problem under different conditions, and so we propose a model for establishing the best location and distribution of urban nuclei as these conditions vary. This requires firstly, a redefinition of the 'neighborhood' as distinguished from a 'pedestrian shed'. We argue that a 'neighborhood' can either emerge within a 'sanctuary area' between thoroughfares, or span across both 'sanctuary areas' and thoroughfares, if the latter are properly designed; a 'pedestrian shed', by contrast, can overlap with neighborhoods and with other pedestrian sheds. We propose a '400 meter rule', a surprisingly small maximum spacing of main thoroughfares that empirical observation shows that traditional, pedestrian-governed urban fabric has always tended to obey, for reasons that are likely to have to do with the self-organizing logic of pedestrian movement and social activity. In so doing, we advance a more fine-grained, permeable, potentially lower-carbon model and illustrate its advantages with several historic and modern examples.
LanguageEnglish
Pages22-46
Number of pages25
JournalUrban Design International
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

pedestrian
mathematics
geometry
sanctuary
school
spacing
carbon

Keywords

  • urban nucleus
  • thoroughfare
  • neighborhood
  • urban morphology
  • urban model

Cite this

Mehaffy, M. ; Porta, S. ; Rofè, Y. ; Salingaros, N. / Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets : the 'emergent neighborhoods' model. In: Urban Design International. 2010 ; Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 22-46.
@article{92102ef32d024514af5e695c37adf103,
title = "Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets: the 'emergent neighborhoods' model",
abstract = "A controversy remains among planners and urban designers about the proper location of the non-residential core (nucleus) of a neighborhood in relation to thoroughfares. One school of thought suggests that the nucleus should be located along the busiest thoroughfares; a second school holds that it must be some distance away from them - which, because of their disruptiveness, should form the edge of the neighborhood; and a third school proposes that it should be somewhere between the two as an 'eccentric nucleus'. The three schools may be overlooking the underlying variables that govern this problem under different conditions, and so we propose a model for establishing the best location and distribution of urban nuclei as these conditions vary. This requires firstly, a redefinition of the 'neighborhood' as distinguished from a 'pedestrian shed'. We argue that a 'neighborhood' can either emerge within a 'sanctuary area' between thoroughfares, or span across both 'sanctuary areas' and thoroughfares, if the latter are properly designed; a 'pedestrian shed', by contrast, can overlap with neighborhoods and with other pedestrian sheds. We propose a '400 meter rule', a surprisingly small maximum spacing of main thoroughfares that empirical observation shows that traditional, pedestrian-governed urban fabric has always tended to obey, for reasons that are likely to have to do with the self-organizing logic of pedestrian movement and social activity. In so doing, we advance a more fine-grained, permeable, potentially lower-carbon model and illustrate its advantages with several historic and modern examples.",
keywords = "urban nucleus, thoroughfare, neighborhood, urban morphology, urban model",
author = "M. Mehaffy and S. Porta and Y. Rof{\`e} and N. Salingaros",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1057/udi.2009.26",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "22--46",
journal = "Urban Design International",
issn = "1357-5317",
number = "1",

}

Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets : the 'emergent neighborhoods' model. / Mehaffy, M.; Porta, S.; Rofè, Y.; Salingaros, N.

In: Urban Design International, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2010, p. 22-46.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets

T2 - Urban Design International

AU - Mehaffy, M.

AU - Porta, S.

AU - Rofè, Y.

AU - Salingaros, N.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - A controversy remains among planners and urban designers about the proper location of the non-residential core (nucleus) of a neighborhood in relation to thoroughfares. One school of thought suggests that the nucleus should be located along the busiest thoroughfares; a second school holds that it must be some distance away from them - which, because of their disruptiveness, should form the edge of the neighborhood; and a third school proposes that it should be somewhere between the two as an 'eccentric nucleus'. The three schools may be overlooking the underlying variables that govern this problem under different conditions, and so we propose a model for establishing the best location and distribution of urban nuclei as these conditions vary. This requires firstly, a redefinition of the 'neighborhood' as distinguished from a 'pedestrian shed'. We argue that a 'neighborhood' can either emerge within a 'sanctuary area' between thoroughfares, or span across both 'sanctuary areas' and thoroughfares, if the latter are properly designed; a 'pedestrian shed', by contrast, can overlap with neighborhoods and with other pedestrian sheds. We propose a '400 meter rule', a surprisingly small maximum spacing of main thoroughfares that empirical observation shows that traditional, pedestrian-governed urban fabric has always tended to obey, for reasons that are likely to have to do with the self-organizing logic of pedestrian movement and social activity. In so doing, we advance a more fine-grained, permeable, potentially lower-carbon model and illustrate its advantages with several historic and modern examples.

AB - A controversy remains among planners and urban designers about the proper location of the non-residential core (nucleus) of a neighborhood in relation to thoroughfares. One school of thought suggests that the nucleus should be located along the busiest thoroughfares; a second school holds that it must be some distance away from them - which, because of their disruptiveness, should form the edge of the neighborhood; and a third school proposes that it should be somewhere between the two as an 'eccentric nucleus'. The three schools may be overlooking the underlying variables that govern this problem under different conditions, and so we propose a model for establishing the best location and distribution of urban nuclei as these conditions vary. This requires firstly, a redefinition of the 'neighborhood' as distinguished from a 'pedestrian shed'. We argue that a 'neighborhood' can either emerge within a 'sanctuary area' between thoroughfares, or span across both 'sanctuary areas' and thoroughfares, if the latter are properly designed; a 'pedestrian shed', by contrast, can overlap with neighborhoods and with other pedestrian sheds. We propose a '400 meter rule', a surprisingly small maximum spacing of main thoroughfares that empirical observation shows that traditional, pedestrian-governed urban fabric has always tended to obey, for reasons that are likely to have to do with the self-organizing logic of pedestrian movement and social activity. In so doing, we advance a more fine-grained, permeable, potentially lower-carbon model and illustrate its advantages with several historic and modern examples.

KW - urban nucleus

KW - thoroughfare

KW - neighborhood

KW - urban morphology

KW - urban model

U2 - 10.1057/udi.2009.26

DO - 10.1057/udi.2009.26

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 22

EP - 46

JO - Urban Design International

JF - Urban Design International

SN - 1357-5317

IS - 1

ER -