Theory of City Form 201,
Literature referred to in Tuesday. Feb.2& class
K.Lynch, The Image of the City, MIT Press, 1960
K.Lynch, Theory of Good City Form, MIT Press, 1981
"Reconsidering The Image of the City', "Grounds for Utopia" , and "Temporary
Par<:\dise ?" (San Diego) in T.Banerjee and M. Southworth, City Sense and City
Design, MIT Press, 1990
C. Alexander, A New Theory of Urban Design, Oxford U Press, 1988
C. Alexander, The Nature of Order, Vol. 1-4, Center for Environmental Structure,
Berkeley, 2002-2005
J.Habraken, Transformation of the Site, Atwater, 1988
J.Habraken, The Grunsveld Variations, MIT Dept. of Architecture,1981
J.Habraken, "The Control of Complexity", Places, Vol.4, No.2
L.Martin and L.March, Urban Space and Structures, Cambridge U. Press, 1972
L.March and P.Steadman, The Geometry of Environment, MIT Press, 1974
P .Steadman, Architectural Morphology, Pion . 1983
P.Cowan, "Studies in the Growth, Change and Ageing of Buildings", Transactions
of the Bartlett Society, Vol. 1
P. Cowan and J. Nicholson, "Growth and Change in Hospitals", Vol 3 J.Weeks, "Indeterminate Architecture", Vol. 2 G. Aylward, "Towards a Theory for Describing and Designing Adaptability in the Built Environment", Vol 7 M. Zafeiradou, In the Quest of an Adaptable Built Form: Studying Transformations in the MIT Campus, MIT S.M.Arch.S. Thesis. 2003 W. Hillier and J.Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge U.Press, 1984 W . Hillier, Space Is the Machine, Cambridge U. Press, 1996 M. Batty and P. Longley, Fractal Cities : A Geometry of Form and Function, Academic Press, 1994 Anas, A., R. Arnott, et al. (1998). "Urban Spatial Structure." Journal of Economic Literature XXXVI (September 1998): pp. 1426-1464. Crucitti , P., V. Latora, et al. (2006). "Centrality in Networks of Urban Streets." Chaos 16(1). Xie, F. and D. Levinson (2007) . "Measuring the structure of road networks." Geographical Analysis July 2007. 1
THEORY OF crTY 'FORM
11.330
Spring 1978
SOME ~lOn:S ON "ADAPTABILITY"
General definition: the future cost, discounted to the present, of adapt­
1ngthe spatial system to possible new future functions. In the general
form, it is an 1mpossi~le measure, since we hsve not specified CC3tS to
whom, nor what functions, nor when, nor to wh,lt level of perfor-..lance.
More
1• .
li~ted
definitions:
Ada~tab1lity
is a =easure of the costs to so~oue at some specific fu­
ture date, dis::cuntedto the present, reqtlired to adapt a site to some
defined ch=ge, at some level of perfor=ce, such as: adjusting it to
a cnrked incr~ase or decre~$e in th~ intensity of its present use; or
converting it to th~ moet l~~ely reploc~~e~t activity. ~nere the costs
or the actors o~ the ch~ges are multi-~:enbior~l, there w:ll be multi­
ple 1.ndices. r,,:iices might be ..eighteci, or r..>ke into aCCOV!l': the pro':;­
abillt:; of the futun c:unse.
the degree ot benefit gained bi' the
adaptation. Tl~s ~e3S~re relies on gocd pr~dicticn.
or
2.
A more restricted llle.!iSure is m:!llit:ulabilit"1, in wllich ~e con~i:ier. cllly
those changes in the 8pati~1 system which can be achiev~d by individuale
or scalI groups, 4t low ~ost, in ~ short tica, wi:h little poli:i~al
lever~ge.
.Givt=n sF-ec;;':~ed l:!.cits of this 1c.illc;. the measur~s woul·j be
the degree of change that could b~ achieved under tnose lil:lits, i.e.,
the nUCIber of new fU:lc:ions that could or could 'n ot be ecco=ciated,
the increase in intensity th~t eould be accepted, etc.
3.
Another measure i~ re,,~::-s{bil!tj, or the cost of re:urning the sitE< to
lame previous condition ("::Istural;" or "ur.occupied," pre&ur-.a::ly) "Where
it could be held in rcsc::-ve ·or c:zveloped in a new way. The "uatural"
condition gust be carefully defined, to ensur~ that it will itself bG
highly ~daptable.
If.
Still ana the:: mcasu.re is resilience, in w"hi::h a · specified ileyere dis­
ruption is igposed on the spatial system (earthquake, fire, attack,
plag~e. ab~ndonm~nt ~nd rc-cccupation, etc.), and the Measure i~ the
speed with which fu..ction can be re-cstabli:;hed at previoU!l levels of
perfor..a:ce without exceeding a given rate of C03t, or, vice versa,
·the coat of restoration witinn a certOlin t~. So::ial · reso·.lrce!l ~y b~
more critical here than spatial ones.
S.
A final ~easure is actually quite different: innov~tiveness, or the
Ability of a spati~land institutional syste~ to s~nerOlte, test, ru.d
facilitate new cnvi~on=nt.u nnci beh:1vic,ral possibilities. This is
Much vaguar, pe::hapa gore i~port~t, and nct further considered her~.
Cor.llCCeiml to othe!: V~!: prasu=bly, ad.:i?t;;';'ility is valu:!ble for su.­
vival, for ;cn:~~l. for ma!ntaiD~n3 f~tu:e choice 0: reduci~~ fu~~r~
cost, end aloo for lnc:cas!n6 ~re!le~!: choi~. A manipulable pla::e
CDn b~ conciuc:!.ve to par::!.c;:~~t!on &1d develc?=nt. It UGuc.lly con­
flict;) with .effic!enc:' c£ proci:!:!tion, end .per:..:1ps at ti~s ... ~th fit
2
11. 330
Theory of City Form: Adaptability -- 3
Costs:
Adaptability usually entails substantial economic costs, which may in part
by circumvented by" us~ng cheap excess capacity (unserviced open space, for
exa:ple, or reservoirs of waste), or features which are useful for other
reasons (good cOlll!llunications, for eXaI:lple). But recycling, growth room,
mobile and temporary facilities, and good info~tion, planning and control,
all impose present costs. The discount rate is crucial to the evaluation of
adaptability (although planners should have a professional bias toward a
low discount rate?). Effective adaptability depends on good prediction (of
what i8 likely to change, or of what is likely to be valuable in the future,
for "example), and on "good disseoination of inforcation so that decision­
makers
take advantage of the adaptability that in fact exists. I.e.,
the perception of adaptability is in itself important (and perceived adapt­
ability may have psychological value, even if never used). Prediction and
dissemination both entail cost:! of their o~m. On the other hand, "there are
distinct benefits in adapting, or costs in not doing 60. The costs and bene­
fits "will accrue to differe~t people, of course.
can
There may also be social, political and psychological coots: apparent waste,
disorientation, uncertainty, a characterless or unstimulating environment.
An extremely adaptable or responsive environ=nt would pr,,:'ably be intolerable.
The stability of the large physical environment ~~y be one of its assets.
Design stratcgies may reduce SOCl!! of the pol:i.tical IILd psychological costs
of adaptability (the location of pe=ncnt sY;.-.bolic land:::arks in a shifting
IB:ldscape, for elcaICplc). In sc:::e c~es, it =y be an objecti",e to reduce
acaptability, i.e., to icpose arbitrary c~rtainty by increasing the cost of
future adaptation (lOfo "r evt!r wild lO )", or to reduce future choices to a few
manageable possibilities.
Systematic m2asu=cs of adapr.~bility could "be useful in programming, in "
de9ign, in cost-bene£it evaluation, in managecent, in mskin; decisione.
t<.easurcs are likcl:: ':0 i.;~ used L"l an incremental ;:0:.1 (which alternative has
the more adaptability?), or in satisficing (the ccst of adaptation must
never be higher "than SOlr.e arbit:-ary figure, or a certain degree of indi­
vidual manipulation must always "~e possible). P:'cgrams might state the
maximum allowable cost for adapting to some likely succcssor use, or for
restoring the site to its previcus condition. Or there might be more spe­
cific physical rules, i.e., "to every unit of 1000 square feet of floor
apace, it must be possible to " ~ake a 50~ addition without disru?ting any
other area." Random perturbations might be used. to test simulated proposals.
Kevin Lynch
May 1976
3
1,'V;-
o.{
'''
,
~/Y;?'?~~
(/'1
'I;'
~""iJ ''J
I '"
I
hi?")'
(r
\)
4
o~02')V- ~jv-P OY~. 1
-t'~
L=tlr7k?1;r~~ A~V-'1 li'1 '2p!7J ?,rr~t?-§-t'}7J
U
?!'em (lYl?
i/
fn?
,:}PI' ??7rr~ rr!';Z'O 117/"{(671 1'
-w ?-J/r''7l? :?~ "'v 'UJ-:~) Cr?~
h)/lO",.
" -imp r/?
-n ~-"
1 r?r:J- t Y ni)
',.,.A,/."f)
7
I t!
'
Uv
~'t;/YZr/lvi/).-v.?I~qV;-;"?" !(.if ?'/)d?/t 12. ' ofl'7 i~10K~} l\?
f
r
.7ff":{!:
7?':Y~JJ/rf/ a?7?"7i?JC?rJ ~
-
I
U f U
l
Vr/>??--mtry
7J'//J;
'~m
V"JrvYeJTfJ)
--rcnt?)
f:/tf
v;y-c
('I.;
TfYu '?em ,;~Jf~?rr ~o!'j)l "?
-",-,~
cf-.
1
r'?"''''!mp?;o ' J-'Y-P7J1 }7>?~7;;P~ 'VJ'I 'Wf
':H;y/-,? ":' '''?r~'fi- .C~'" i :"ry"' l.n"~t:T+
?1J~n?7J n'G :"
l ~~t??~~r V""'IY~ A-'1';T'~
()?r
-
)
~'>yV1
vi":
-1
~Yt ~i)V .,~
t~YJ7{rrV(J ~~ .fir!)'} Y0ffj-19
7p~~nrOJ 'Pi7p~ ».111 --->'fjf '''{ff'Y ~~U'O 0).
I
""""'~~'YY0r,, f ~P'O}r1n? ~+7""r':,r
C/Y)'I} \
(CO t
J
.
~ l",~;v 1-'1J1'ircl p.- \~1 .
~-G~'~~rr 7Jl-'r~'P -x~
r/}--{~ ~ Vi)A \)
-
?
('
-;3?,~,'y,"rG7J r
v~",?'i)
(J
@JPP Yu V' ~1
5
[/"L
-~~?- l-yy
:;J)
j
Tr'~ ~J--'~ 'r~~cY:¥ l?lJl?? 1) t f:m ( W~
'rJ:~ -flfr'd7
•
v
--f4.(J f/ ~
1
'79O,
!
..
-?J?J~ I_~
o~ rd-",~7'~ 7 r/Y??
- "l'lJ"l'5t 0rzP'YT/ )"'( '(rt,--VJVlh \'
I
V1~p
-n \ f~-ryn(I-';; -J[. . r-/l~o 1-?? ~?-1-I/YlJ y," \
I
"."r/~'Y1rv-;r,?
"(J""
>YJ;)
':-'(f--~?'~1 PJ
r~ pm ~cr?1?€-r p d>,;)3~'7,?i! '"Jrf-.0'YV>7J!1! ~
rG~ lr:'''''-o57'~ }r3';)~v .AIAr'c; '~'l?Jol?!J-
~t3.1 ()'o"jYVn7~ 1// a (1
?t'Y-"-%
-v r }!m:-'l)9i]?
t7) Y'YV
0 v t, U U -to U
Y
fJ /)(7
-
()~?;~ /'72t:~/r;f' 2A~ '):r~'f?<V:-;?;
'[JI~
/
-,
rr.ll
l'
'
(0 ry) vY>y
- [I'
fJ~
.~
.
-.
r:,}xl
0 "P P vyiJ) A-"ylc')-'J . 0r' ,n o);,ry>-t----V@J'i
{J // ~ (I f
-(fu, u . ~ U 0- 'r
P-'F7 rJ",)-u)"~-o?~W J"'.:t..-wW'.']f) \ ''nA (s­
't2i!ft r r ~1?l'~:;;)f-t)?[I ?rrP~7
!31J tf(f)
7J?;rr.O
P?J/yr-n.-f) , ~ vYOct!) 'CJ-·{t /i.'
7
,
>?70
~P7 V
'Y??
,~ .' A
-// . /l
'-J\6
.
TI
u
(/
1,
&
r-r:---rr-r (. ~?J!%fJ- rnt/, .;,5h,.Uo1m+;
v~;rl71c', r'G1 r ~YP~ 0, ~
1/
i
oir) frvj(P 14YY!? (//;.')11 (
. ~)
. )'--(.~07
.() " ". cv'er~77~
~
C:1i
(J
U
. I ~ P v
. 'l~DJ-/J
.k~
. -t..
'\/}-'"'
J ~ ~I' -;)
.
afl/}~ 'Y',V/J ~. Y1'iI7R
• ' r)'yn
If U
r
/'
..
",
,
//
.
1
,.
r
1
I
/
I
I
I
-t
<.
,.
I
/
I
/
The Grunsfeld Variations
.­
Image courtesy of the M IT Dept of Architecture.
Site
Plan
o
200'
~~~I
100'
600'
1000'
6
/
ffi North
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
4.241J / 11.330J Theory of City Form
Spring 2013
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.