Supergrid and Superblock: Lessons in Urban Structure from China and Japan 9780367478889, 9781032355221, 9781003037194

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series
Title
Copyright
Table of Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
An Introductory Essay
From Radials and Grids to Supergrids and Superblocks
Chapter 1 An Eastern Supergrid and Superblock Urban Model
Supergrid and Superblocks
A Note on Theory and Approach
Chapter 2 Supergrid and Superblock History
Origins in the East
Transformation in China
Contemporary China: Fragmentation, Disconnection, and Isolation
Developments in Japan
Contemporary Japan: Diversity, Vitality, and Convenience
Conclusions
Chapter 3 Culture
Tendencies: Eastern ‘Areal’ and Western 'Linear'
Similarities: ‘Areal’, Multi-Dimensional, Multi-Directional
Diff erence: Wall- and Floor-oriented Areal Conception
Solid and Void
Brightness and Darkness
Static and Dynamic: ‘2D + 3D’ and ‘2D’ Areal Conception
Part and Whole
Centrality and Asymmetry
Multi-Petal and Multi-Fugal Structure
Discussion
Chapter 4 Theory
Interconnection: The Interplay between Structure, Movement and
Activity
Organized Complexity: Interrelationship between Form and Function
Interrelationships between Street Network and Activities
Integration, Connection, and Interaction
Key Measures of Form and Function
Discussion
Chapter 5 Practice in China: The Kingdom of Walls and Gates
Supergrids of Xi’an and Nanjing
Superblocks: Jinyuan, Xi’an and Daguangli, Nanjing
Movement, Activity, and Interconnection
Connection
Interaction
Integration
Discussion
Chapter 6 Practice in Japan: The Hidden Floor
The Supergrids of Kyoto and Osaka
Superblocks: Shijo-Karasuma and Imazato
Movement, Activity and Interconnection
Connection
Interaction
Integration
Discussion
Chapter 7 Supergrid and Superblock: A System for Global Consideration
Chinese and Japanese Superblocks Compared
Chinese Version: A Missing Link in the Structure
Japanese Version: A Lesson on the Importance of Glocal Streets
Design Principles of the Two Versions
Advantages and Disadvantages
Chinese Superblock: Towards a Solution
Inset: Directions for the Supergrid and Superblock System in China
Appendix I Chronological Outline of Chinese and Japanese History
Appendix II Notes on Data and Method
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK  i

Supergrid and Superblock

In this superbly illustrated book Xiaofei Chen presents the first analysis in English of a ubiquitous East Asian urban phenomenon: the supergrid and superblock urban structure. The book opens with an introductory essay by Barrie Shelton in which he sets the scene for what is to follow, emphasizing how alien this structure was to Western urban design culture where radial patterns of development were the norm. Then, in her first chapter, Chen explains the make-up of the supergrid and superblock urban structure and its contrasting Chinese and Japanese forms. In the following three chapters she digs deep into the history, cultural origins, and underlying design philosophy of the supergrid and superblock to show how, under diferent cultural influences, the model has developed into two distinct forms. Two further chapters (5 and 6) provide detailed analysis of two sample superblocks in China (in Xi’an and Nanjing) and two in Japan (in Kyoto and Osaka) to reveal the relative advantages and disadvantages of how the structure is manifest in the two countries. In her conclusion she discusses her findings to show how and why the supergrid and superblock structure is a valuable urban design model which, with regional adjustments, can be used efectively in cities other than those of East Asia. Xiaofei Chen is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning of Qingdao University of Technology. After completing Bachelors (Built Environments) and Masters (Urban Design) degrees at the University of Melbourne, and her PhD at the University of Sydney, she returned to China and to her home city of Qingdao. Barrie Shelton, author of Learning from the Japanese City and co-author of The Making of Hong Kong (both published in the Planning, History, and Environment series) held senior positions at the Universities of Tasmania, Sydney, and Melbourne. He now lives with his wife Emiko in Yanagawa, Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan.

ii  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Planning, History and Environment series Editor: Ann Rudkin, Alexandrine Press, Marcham, UK Editorial Board: Professor Arturo Almandoz, Universidad Simón Bolivar, Caracas, Venezuela and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile Professor Nezar AlSayyad, University of California, Berkeley, USA Professor Scott A. Bollens, University of California, Irvine, USA Professor Robert Bruegmann, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA Professor Meredith Clausen, University of Washington, Seattle, USA Dr Jefrey W. Cody, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, USA Professor Yasser Elsheshtawy, Independent Scholar, Philadelphia, USA Professor Robert Freestone, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia Professor John R. Gold, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Professor Michael Hebbert, University College London, UK Selection of published titles Council Housing and Culture: The history of a social experiment by Alison Ravetz

Good Cities, Better Lives: How Europe discovered the lost art of urbanism by Peter Hall

Planning Latin America’s Capital Cities, 1850–1950 edited by Arturo Almandoz

The Planning Imagination: Peter Hall and the study of urban and regional planning edited by Mark TewdwrJones, Nicholas Phelps and Robert Freestone

Exporting American Architecture, 1870–2000 by Jefrey W. Cody The Making and Selling of Post-Mao Beijing by Anne-Marie Broudehoux Planning Middle Eastern Cities: An urban kaleidoscope in a globalizing world edited by Yasser Elsheshtawy Globalizing Taipei: The political economy of spatial development edited by Reginald Yin-Wang Kwok New Urbanism and American Planning: The conflict of cultures by Emily Talen Remaking Chinese Urban Form: Modernity, scarcity and space, 1949–2005 by Duanfang Lu Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities edited by David L.A. Gordon Planning the Megacity: Jakarta in the twentieth century by Christopher Silver

Garden Suburbs of Tomorrow? A new future for cottage estates by Martin Crookston Sociable Cities: The 21st-century reinvention of the Garden City by Peter Hall and Colin Ward Modernization, Urbanization and Development in Latin America, 1900s–2000s by Arturo Almandoz Planning the Great Metropolis: The 1929 Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs by David A. Johnson Remaking the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge: A case of shadowboxing with nature by Karen Trapenberg Frick Great British Plans: Who made them and how they worked by Ian Wray Homeland: Zionism as a housing regime, 1860–2011 by Yael Allweil

Ordinary Places, Extraordinary Events: Citizenship, democracy and urban space in Latin America edited by Clara Irazábal

Olympic Cities: City agendas, planning and the world’s games 1896–2016, 3rd ed. edited by John R. Gold and Margaret M. Gold

The Evolving Arab City: Tradition, modernity and urban development edited by Yasser Elsheshtawy

Globalizing Seoul: The city’s cultural and urban change by Jieheerah Yun

Stockholm: The making of a metropolis by Thomas Hall

Planning Metropolitan Australia edited by Stephen Hamnett and Robert Freestone

Dubai: Behind an urban spectacle by Yasser Elsheshtawy Capital Cities in the Aftermath of Empires: Planning in central and southeastern Europe edited by Emily Gunzburger Makaš and Tanja Damljanović Conley Orienting Istanbul: Cultural capital of Europe? edited by Deniz Göktürk, Levent Soysal and İpek Türeli The Making of Hong Kong: From vertical to volumetric by Barrie Shelton, Justyna Karakiewicz and Thomas Kvan Urban Coding and Planning edited by Stephen Marshall Planning Asian Cities: Risks and resilience edited by Stephen Hamnett and Dean Forbes Staging the New Berlin: Place marketing and the politics of reinvention post-1989 by Claire Colomb

Trajectories of Conflict and Peace: Jerusalem and Belfast since 1994 by Scott A. Bollens Planning Abu Dhabi: An urban history by Alamira Reem Bani Hashim Temporary Cities: Resisting transience in Arabia by Yasser Elsheshtawy Planning Singapore: The experimental city edited by Stephen Hamnett and Belinda Yuen No Little Plans: How government built America’s wealth and infrastructure by Ian Wray Being Urban: Community, conflict and belonging in the Middle East edited by Simon Goldhill

City and Soul in Divided Societies by Scott A. Bollens

Festival Cities: Culture, planning and urban life by John R. Gold and Margaret M. Gold

Learning from the Japan City: Looking East in urban design, 2nd edition by Barrie Shelton

Riyadh: Transforming a desert city by Yasser Elsheshtawy

The Urban Wisdom of Jane Jacobs edited by Sonia Hirt with Diane Zahm Of Planting and Planning: The making of British colonial cities, 2nd edition by Robert Home Healthy City Planning: Global health equity from neighbourhood to nation by Jason Corburn

Building Colonial Hong Kong: Speculative development and segregation in the city by Cecilia Chu The Settlement Patterns of Britain: Past, present and the future foretold in eight essays by Nick Green Supergrid and Superblock: Lessons in urban structure from China and Japan by Xiaofei Chen

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK  iii

Supergrid and Superblock Lessons in Urban Structure from China and Japan

Xiaofei Chen with an introductory essay by Barrie Shelton

iv  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Front Cover image: Modern example of superblock form in Tokyo, Japan. Back Cover images: (Top) Model supergrid pattern. (Bottom) Superblock example network. First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Xiaofei Chen; Introduction: Barrie Shelton The right of Xiaofei Chen to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978–0–367–47888–9 (hbk) ISBN: 978–1–032–35522–1 (pbk) ISBN: 978–1–003–03719–4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003037194 Typeset in Aktiv Grotesk and ITC Galliard Pro by PNR Design, Didcot

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK  v

Contents Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

An Introductory Essay by Barrie Shelton From Radials and Grids to Supergrids and Superblocks

1 1

Chapter 1

An Eastern Supergrid and Superblock Urban Model Supergrid and Superblocks A Note on Theory and Approach

25 26 34

Chapter 2

Supergrid and Superblock History Origins in the East Transformation in China Contemporary China: Fragmentation, Disconnection, and Isolation Developments in Japan Contemporary Japan: Diversity, Vitality, and Convenience Conclusions

36 38 39 45 49 54 57

Chapter 3

Culture Tendencies: Eastern ‘Areal’ and Western ‘Linear’ Similarities: ‘Areal’, Multi-Dimensional, Multi-Directional Diference: Wall- and Floor-oriented Areal Conception Solid and Void Brightness and Darkness Static and Dynamic: ‘2D + 3D’ and ‘2D’ Areal Conception Part and Whole Centrality and Asymmetry Multi-Petal and Multi-Fugal Structure Discussion

60 61 64 70 76 78 80 82 83 84 85

Chapter 4

Theory 89 Interconnection: The Interplay between Structure, Movement and Activity 90 Organized Complexity: Interrelationship between Form and Function 92 Interrelationships between Street Network and Activities 98 Integration, Connection, and Interaction 104 Key Measures of Form and Function 111 Discussion 115

Chapter 5

Practice in China: The Kingdom of Walls and Gates Supergrids of Xi’an and Nanjing Superblocks: Jinyuan, Xi’an and Daguangli, Nanjing Movement, Activity, and Interconnection Connection Interaction

117 118 124 132 133 141

vi  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Integration Discussion

150 157

Chapter 6

Practice in Japan: The Hidden Floor The Supergrids of Kyoto and Osaka Superblocks: Shijo-Karasuma and Imazato Movement, Activity and Interconnection Connection Interaction Integration Discussion

160 162 171 177 179 187 196 202

Chapter 7

Supergrid and Superblock: A System for Global Consideration Chinese and Japanese Superblocks Compared Chinese Version: A Missing Link in the Structure Japanese Version: A Lesson on the Importance of Glocal Streets Design Principles of the Two Versions Advantages and Disadvantages Chinese Superblock: Towards a Solution Inset: Directions for the Supergrid and Superblock System in China

204 207 208 209 211 212 213 216

Appendix I

Chronological Outline of Chinese and Japanese History

220

Appendix II Notes on Data and Method

222

Bibliography

228

Index

242

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK  vii

Preface Luoyeguigen is an often-used idiom in Chinese culture. It usually describes the biological process of leaves falling to the ground and becoming part of the soil to nourish the roots. On another level, Chinese use it as a metaphor to describe those of us who leave their homes early but return to their home when they age. I am one of millions of Chinese who have studied abroad. I have over seven years of living, studying, and working experiences in Australia. This chapter of my life started when I was eighteen years old and has changed greatly my understanding of the world. I see it neither as a Chinese nor as an Australian, but rather as an ‘outsider’. This is largely because I have had, constantly, to switch back and forth between the two contrasting and sometimes conflicted cultures and lifestyles. I now see the world with a rather comparative and multi-layered perspective; and I often think ‘in other people’s shoes’ to better understand whole stories of world events and incidents in life. At the end of my studies in Australia, I decided to return to China and start a new life with a fresh way of understanding my home country and to teach there. Although I am still quite young, my action seems much as it means in the idiom, Luoyeguigen. My research interests lie primarily in the physical and structural form of cities, and these diferent life experiences opened another door to me. While in Australia, my studies extended also to Japan with periods at Nagoya and Osaka City Universities. It was in these cities (two of Japan’s largest with extensive areas of superblocks) that I first investigated the supergrid and superblock phenomenon. Barrie Shelton, author of Learning from the Japanese City, introduced me to the Japanese version. However, although I commenced with studies of the Japanese superblock, I felt more closely connected to the subject when I extended the scope to include equivalent (similar but diferent) examples from my own (Chinese) culture. It allowed me to step into comparative study and discover subtle relationships between city structures and human societies – to see how powerful the role of culture can be in impacting on the formation of our cities, and how this further reshapes our cultures. I wished to understand more about these relationships and how the supergrid and superblock system first emanated from the East. It is now my desire to explain this versatile model of urban structure to a broader readership by describing its essential characteristics; placing it in its historical, cultural, and theoretical contexts; and to show two contemporary Chinese and two Japanese superblocks as case studies. It may already be clear to some readers that this book is more than academic research: it is also a process of

viii  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

personal growth and of gaining a better understanding of my own regional culture and its place in the world. Xiaofei Chen Qingdao

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK  ix

Acknowledgements This book could not have been accomplished without help from many wonderful people. First and foremost, many thanks are given to Barrie Shelton, who was one of my supervisors at the University of Sydney and has been a wise and generous mentor since my days of study at the University of Melbourne. He has been my most significant source of advice and always very supportive. It was his research on Japanese cities that prompted my interest in superblocks, which is a fascinating topic and was mostly ignored at the time. I thank him for his selfless support and for contributing his introductory essay. I also want to thank my parents who supported me financially and emotionally through my seven years in Australia. Their care and love encouraged me to develop my doctoral research into this book. At the same time, I ofer many thanks to my other doctoral supervisor, Peter Armstrong, who was kind, warm-hearted and always helpful throughout my initial research. Preparation of this work has also been a life experience. I travelled far in China and Japan to observe and collect data on the four cities of my case studies. In the process, I also made friends and met helpful people along the way. Among them, I would particularly like to thank Xiaofeng Long (Director of Xi’an Planning Institute) and her colleagues, Xiangzhong Zhang and Wenjun Xu from the Qingdao Planning Institute, who explained the Chinese planning system and allowed me access to government materials, which would have otherwise been difcult to access. I would also like to express my thanks to Professor Shihoko Koike, of Osaka Prefectural University, who invited me as a visiting scholar and helped me in my quest for materials vital to my research. Finally, yet crucially, I want to thank the two supporting universities: the University of Sydney and Qingdao University of Technology. Respectively, they assisted my research and this book in various ways, including financially, for research and relevant conference travel and, in the case of Qingdao, for paying for the cost of colour illustrations in this book. Substantial eforts have been made to contact copyright holders and identify sources of material, especially the maps and diagrams reproduced in this book. Further, I wish to thank many individuals and organizations for allowing items to re-appear here. These are acknowledged within or beneath figure captions. However, if any errors or oversights have occurred, we would wish to correct these at a later printing. Please contact the author, c/o Routledge. Where no source is given, the drawing or photo is that of the author.

x  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  1

Introduction

An Introductory Essay: From Radials and Grids to Supergrids and Superblocks Barrie Shelton I became aware of the ‘Supergrid + Superblock’ combination as a distinct type of urban system mostly through my observations of Japanese cities, which commenced seriously in 1989. These were first published in book form ten years later as Learning from the Japanese City, although I said little specifically about the superblock in that edition. Later, after presenting it as a distinct and significant urban model in my university lectures over several years, I added a detailed account of a superblock and its super-grid surrounds as the sixth and final chapter in a much revised and extended 2012 edition. The more I investigated the combination, the more I came to realize just how important it is; and I am surprised that it has passed without much comment in international or even Japanese domestic urban design literature, especially the modern Japanese version. In 2013, I ran the last of several superblock-focused urban design studios in Nagoya with graduate students from the Universities of Melbourne and Nagoya, of which one, Chen Xiaofei, is now the author of this book. As with many of her East Asian graduate colleagues who attended my lectures at the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne, my theorizing of the superblock within a large-scale city grid as a promising design model struck a chord because it was born of their (Eastern) culture and its predisposition to ‘areal’ thinking about space (as distinct from a Western ‘linear’ inclination). Further, it is very much for this reason that it has been overlooked in urban scholarship, for the theory upon which most of this is based has for too long been rooted in the experience of Western cities. Dr Chen was intrigued by the supergrid-superblock phenomenon and has since examined its forms and functioning, and explored its cultural and historical contexts in China and Japan more deeply and broadly than anyone. Her investigation deserves attention.

2  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

I am a scholar in my senior years introducing what I believe to be the important work of a young one. When asked to contribute an introductory chapter to Chen’s book, it seemed appropriate for me to recall my own protracted ‘discovery’ of the multidirectional Eastern supergrid-and-superblock urban structure as added background to her work – essentially from my radial-concentric Anglo-European roots, extended by a long experience of highly centralized Australian cities and enriched by my thirty-plus years encounter with (Eastern) supergrid urbanism. It is a story that I can readily trace back to my schooldays, though I knew nothing about superblocks then. Hence, my timeline of getting to know the subject is long – a slow process of observation and scholarship (initially of Western architecture and cities) and of ‘crossing’ cultures relatively late in life. As far as urban design is concerned, it is a story of growing up and absorbing a radial-concentric predisposition towards cities, having this reinforced by a mountain of historical and theoretical information through my early studies and career, and realizing its limitations (though not invalidity) largely through experience of supergrids and superblocks in East Asia, especially Japan – and assisted by a few crucial theorists along the way. Most of all, it is an experience that has brought a deeper understanding of urbanism in both cultures. I should explain that in the added chapter (entitled ‘Superblock Synthesis’) of the second edition of my book, I tentatively used the term ‘supergrid’ to describe the extensive net of wide roads within which the superblock is embedded. However, I described more emphatically the grid-and-block duo as a ‘grid of big roads that configure the city into a series of superblocks’ (Shelton, 2012, p. 139). I also emphasized the contrast between the lines of buildings that tend to stand tall about the edges of most Japanese superblocks and the many buildings that commonly sit low but densely amongst narrow streets within. I further explained that this formation was, in part, the inevitable outcome of decades of regulation in which building height has been related to street width, hence high buildings come with wide roads and low ones with narrow streets. It was here that I borrowed the terms ‘hard shell’ and ‘soft yolk’ from Peter Popham’s mid-1980s writing on Tokyo (Popham, 1985 p. 48), to capture the experience of moving from the wide and noisy trafc-busy roads of the cross-city (Super) grid, through the line of high and/or large footprint buildings along these roads (‘hard shells’) into the relatively quiet atmosphere of narrow streets and often village-like interiors (soft yolks) within the superblocks. From this work two illustrations have emerged to become signature diagrams to my writing on Japanese cities (figure I.1). Although these images may appear realistic, they are in fact of a fictitious place and therefore ‘diagrams’ of a Japanese strain of the wider ‘Supergrid and Superblock’ urban phenomenon that Dr Chen presents here. The left image represents a cross-city ‘supergrid’ while the right one shows the intricate and intimate internal street network and pattern of buildings of a single superblock. The supergrid is shown as ‘warped’ since in reality roads are rarely perfectly orthogonal; for even in a country

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  3

Figure I.1. Supergrid and superblock diagrams. (left) Typical ‘warped’ supergrid of wide roads defining superblocks of irregular shapes. Arrows indicate extended area of the supergrid. (right) Typical superblock form within a supergrid: taller/bulkier buildings tend to line the wide perimeter supergrid roads with mostly lower and smaller buildings and narrow streets within. (Source: Shelton, 2012, pp. 9 and 138)

with a strong top-down planning bureaucracy, the routing of major infrastructure has to cope with the contingencies of landform, intransigent land owners, sacred sites, and other elements that demand deviation. I should also stress that it is a pattern that is generally alien to the Western city and one that most theoretical and historical writing has not readily explained, hence the importance of this book. It is in the nature of urban design that much of its theory is rooted in culture and this continues even in a highly globalized world – indeed, more than one might think. In 2016, two of my former colleagues at Melbourne University, published a paper with the rhetorical title of ‘The Science of Urban Design?’ (Dovey and Pafka, 2016). In it they focused on works of some of the giants of urban design writing and diagramming: Camillo Sitte, Gordon Cullen, Kevin Lynch, Ildefons Cerdà, Jane Jacobs,1 and Christopher Alexander. In their conclusions, the authors emphasized the prominence of observation in the emergence of urban design theory (and practice), and how ‘observations crystalize into theory, as a conceptual explanation of how the city works and, by implication of how it should be designed’. Further, they neatly concluded ‘the best urban design theory has been educated by many years of observation with huge gaps in our understanding of informal and eastern cities’ (my italics). They emphasize that the theories of the urban design greats are based on ‘detailed and protracted observation of a particular range of cities’, which are European and/or their derivatives in North America. Yet these are the theories that have shaped modern urban design thinking almost everywhere, and (I would add) sometimes hindered meaningful observation of other ‘ranges of cities’, especially those where significant urban structures, patterns, and conditions exist in other strong and anciently established cultures and are significantly diferent to those found in Western countries. This is the context within which Chen’s work is set and why it is important. She ofers a comparison of tendencies in spatial thinking between Western and (Far) Eastern cultures, and she

4  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

examines and compares superblocks within and between two Eastern sub-cultures, Chinese and Japanese. My earliest independent experience of daily cross-city travel is pertinent here. It was in England soon after my eleventh birthday: for the next seven years, my home and school were each situated several kilometres out from the city centre though in quite diferent places. Like many pupils attending the school, I had to travel on two buses each day to reach it. My first bus took me into the city’s huge central square, where I changed to a second bus to make my way out from the centre to the school, with a return journey each evening. It felt much as though I was making a literal crossing of the city and for a while, in my geographical naivety, it never occurred to me that this may not be so. In fact, I was travelling into the city, and out again within the same quarter segment. A few of my friends were turning even sharper angles. Our buses were mostly following former fixed-rail tram routes, which both reflected and reinforced a strongly radial city structure with a compact and dominant centre. While most school children would not have experienced this structure as daily routine, it was nevertheless all around them, for most British and European cities were structured in this way. During the quarter century following my schooling, in various guises (student, researcher, professional, and academic) I found myself increasingly absorbed by the history and morphology of cities, and related urban theory and design ideas. The idea that was most persistently impressed upon me was of the city as a radial-concentric construct. In the ancient and mediaeval worlds, nearly all planned settlements (as distinct from those that evolved ‘naturally’) were of a rectilinear grid formation. It quickly became clear that Renaissance values and circumstances laid the foundations for a radial-concentric predisposition in modern Western urban design. During this period rivalries between European states were common and cities a first line of attack. Development of theories and models for city designs of a radial-concentric nature were generated initially in fifteenthcentury Italy and spread to other places. Designs consisted of the town within a ring of fortifications and layouts embodying Renaissance aesthetic ideals: centrality made visible through geometry, symmetry, monumentality, axiality, etc. Typical characteristics were: central plaza; radiating axial streets (sometimes double digit in number and some running all the way to the edge); concentric secondary streets; concentric patterning of form (with more important and decorated buildings such as church and palace at or about the centre); concentrically placed subsidiary plazas as subcentres within segments; and clear distinction between town and country (figure I.2). Not all designs showed all characteristics with equal force but most showed a majority, and distinctly. The list of designer-proponents is long and includes names such as Antonio Filarete (c.1400–1469), Pietro di Cataneo (1510– 1569), Francesco di Giorgio (1439–1501), and Giorgio Vasari il Giovane (1562– 1625). Of plans that emerged as real towns, Palmanova (1593) is iconic. A design challenge of the times was to put together the functional rectilinear street-block

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  5

Figure I.2. Example Renaissance radial-concentric plans. (left) Giorgio Vasari il Giovane’s Ideal City Plan, 1598: a symmetrical synthesis of round, radial and rectilinear. (right) Palma Nuova, 1593: the best-known built form of its type (street structure in red, fortified perimeters in grey). (Sources: (left) Adapted from a plan in Brinckmann, 1912, p. 31; (right) Abstracted from a plan in De La Croix, 1960, p. 298 and attributed to ‘Braun-Hogenberg, v. plate 68’)

of old planned towns and the tapering wedge-segments of the new radial plans. Francesco de Marchi (1504–1576) described his own design for a fortified town as ‘a checkerboard skin draped over a radial skeleton’.2 Military technology changed and fortification became obsolete, but radial design principles and patterns persisted. They carried a certain rational integrity and potential for wider application. As cities grew larger, they were applied at larger scales: for instance, in the park-palace-polis combination of Karlsruhe; in more complex assemblages for new cities such as L’Enfant’s Washington; and in the transformation of existing ones, the best-known being Haussmann’s Paris project; and in admired unbuilt proposals, particularly Wren’s post-Great Fire plan for London. All tended to use the interplay of multiple hubs and radials as networks for longer cross-town connections with street grids for more local movements, with Wren’s London one of the clearest (figure I.3). The radial ideal has remained strong in the Western urban design psyche and this shows in their frequent use for book covers and title pages on urban subjects across countries and time. While scales and complexities of application may have expanded and the content of related discussion changed, the rectilinear-radial conundrum remains. During his Papacy (1585–1590), Sixtus V, working with his architect Domenico Fontana, demonstrated an embryonic set of multiple radials in his desire to connect scattered sacred sites in Rome’s then patchy and partly derelict landscape, at a time when wealthy pilgrims were on the increase and the horse-drawn carriage was beginning to serve more than princes and prelates. But the climax of this approach came nearly four centuries later with Haussmann’s (and Napoleon III’s) complex transformation of Paris between 1853 and 1870. As in Rome, some of the admired features (or parts thereof) were already in place but disconnected – Champs Elysees, Rue de Rivoli, Place des Vosges, Place de Vendome among them. The

6  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure I.3. Sir Christopher Wren’s plan for London following ‘The Great Fire’ of 1666. An admired early example of a city structure employing multiple hubs-and-radials and grid (dark grey shows area razed by fire). (Source: Base adapted from a plan in Barber and Jackson, 1990, p. 36, whose source is attributed to Harrison’s History of London of 1775)

skill was in bringing all, old and new, into larger and more integrated networks with attention to design consistency along connecting lines and to highlighting the hubs. Haussmann’s Paris was both ‘late Renaissance’ and ‘Early Modern’ in that it embraced the former’s aesthetic grandeur (and that of its ofspring Baroque) and some Early Modern functional concerns, particularly sanitation and trafc circulation. As lines for more efcient trafc flow, and underground pipes and sewers, the new and improved streets were infrastructure responses to the dreadful environmental conditions brought on by rapid industrialization and rampant city growth – processes prompting substantial change in the nature and scope of urban design. The latter part of the nineteenth century (mostly post-Haussmann) saw a shift in planning approaches whereby regulation became a significant means of shaping desired visions of city form. Nevertheless, the notion of a centralized city with a radial-concentric structure persisted but with jumps in scale and abstraction. Britain may have been the earliest nation to commence industrialization, but it was Germany that emerged as the design-cum-planning leader when responding to the associated urban problems. It was in Germany that the first handbooks, city planning schemes, and first teaching professor (Baumeister) whose primary focus was urban design, emerged. Books by Reinhard Baumeister (1833–1917) and Josef Stübben (1845–1936), and the German-speaking Viennese architect, Camillo Sitte (1843–1903), are the landmark trio of texts in early modern urban design – published respectively in 1876, 1890, and 1889.3 All discuss radials and grids (not supergrids) as the common urban structures. It was two decades later, when the

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  7

first roughly equivalent English books appeared, with the authors (also a trio) quite explicit in their debt to the pioneering Germans, especially Stübben. They were Raymond Unwin (1863–1940), Inigo Triggs (1876–1923) and Thomas Mawson (1861–1933) and their books, Town Planning in Practice of 1909, Town Planning: Past, Present and Possible of 1909 and Civic Art of 1911, were all published in London. All six writers make strong reference to radial and grid urban layouts, and to related aspects of building form. Triggs’s summary reflects the general viewpoint, noting that where cities had been planned, the structural types could be summarized as threefold: ‘spider’s web or radial’, ‘rectangular or chessboard’ (i.e. grid), and ‘radial-grid combination’, with the radial being favoured in Europe and grid in America. He also wrote that, while both can be efective for movement, the radial had proved ‘the better system’ from an aesthetic viewpoint, adding that America had not made aesthetics a priority and was realizing its mistakes.4 The English trio (who had all made planning pilgrimages to Germany) also noted the regulative aspect of German planning: building zones that determined building height and the area of its footprint. While not identical between cities, the general approach was similar – at least three zones, arranged more or less concentrically, with buildings stepping down in height and occupying proportionately less of their sites as one moved from the centre. Thus the city would decrease in height and become less intense and more spacious from centre to periphery. Sometimes, buildings flanking major roads (mostly radials) were allowed to stretch the full widths of their sites to give a continuous building edge to the street, Clearly, the preconception of a city’s form underpinning these pioneering controls is radial-concentric. Figure I.4 indicates the approach. In the early years of the twentieth century, with London the centre of the world’s largest Empire, British architects were keen to assert themselves in the

Figure I.4. Typical approach to early-modern zoning regulation to shape German cities. If each zone is fully developed according to the regulations, the relative densities of building would accord with the figures in the table’s bottom line – a planned stepping down and thinning out of building from centre to edge.

8  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

area of town planning. In the same short period, 1909 to 1911, that these books appeared, the Royal Institute of British Architects organized in London the largest and most international town planning conference and exhibition until that time, with leading theorists and practitioners from across Europe, America, and further afield present.5 Sitte had died a few years before and Baumeister was ageing, but the revered Stübben was a speaker as were Unwin and Mawson, with Triggs an exhibitor. Accordingly, the radial concentric concept pervaded strongly, but with new diagrams reflecting new urban conditions, including size and spread. For instance, with health, hygiene and scenic beauty high on the agenda, parks became essential: likewise, growing travel demands brought railways and stations. Hence, these were added to the radial (infra)structure. German presenter, Rudolf Eberstadt (1856–1922), showed this clearly in a diagram with wedges of nature between segments of built form reaching outwards from the centre (figure I.5), as did Henry Vaughan Lanchester (1834–1913). Three years earlier (1908), Lanchester had produced a more detailed diagram (also in figure I.5) with parkland corridors and railways radiating from a city centre, which Mawson (1911) included in his above-mentioned Civic Art published in the conference year. Both were 1910 London conference speakers. Yet another presenter, the Australian architectplanner, John Sulman (1849–1934), in a paper foreshadowing the urban design competition for his country’s new capital (Canberra), showed a symmetrical plan for a radial-concentric city with radial parkways (figure I.5). Ebenezer Howard was not a conference speaker, but he was a delegate and Letchworth Garden City (of which he was an initiator) was the site of a conference field visit: his book, Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1902) was already well-known and its iconic garden city diagrams showed a triple layer of radial thinking: a radial-concentric mother city with radial links to smaller radial concentric satellite towns (figure I.6). Lending weight to Triggs’s comments on the addition of radials to American

Figure I.5. Model city structures with radial parklands from the 1900s. (left) Radial Pattern for Town Extension by Messrs. Möhring, Petersen and Eberstadt, Germany: concentric rings of decreasing density cut by radiating lines of parkland. (centre) H.V. Lanchester, UK: radiating corridors of parkland and rail lines from a waterfront centre and station. (right) John Sulman, Australia: inner ring of a radial city with radiating parkways, concentric patterning and multiple rond-points. (Sources: (left and right) Adapted from drawings in Royal Institute of British Architects, 1911, pp. 328 and 608; (centre) Adapted from a diagram in Mawson,1911b, who attributed its origin to H.V. Lanchester)

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  9

Figure I.6. Ebenezer Howard’s radial-concentric Garden City system. (left) The system consists of a central city with radial links to a ring of smaller but similarly structured satellite towns (half of the plan is shown here). (right) A segment of the central city with a radial-concentric internal structure. (Source: Adapted from diagrams in Ebenezer Howard, 1902, pp. 143 and 53)

orthogonal street grids, Daniel Burnham (1846–1912) was responsible for the American exhibit which included City Beautiful radials over Chicago’s orthogonal grid. The exhibit roused great admiration from delegates with Adshead (1911, p. 180) describing the American images as ‘“the clou” of the exhibition’ when reviewing the event for the Town Planning Review; Mawson in his conference address, described it as a ‘design based on a system of diagonal avenues with concentric, encircling, bow-shaped avenues’ (Mawson, 1911, p. 436). A few years later, Burnham’s American compatriots at the conference, Charles Mulford Robinson (speaker) and Frank Koester (delegate) were both to discuss radial-grid dilemmas in their respective books, City Planning with Special Reference to the Planning of Streets and Lots (1916) and Modern City Planning and Maintenance (1914). America not only followed Germany with zoning ordinances but was quick to recognize the potential of new technologies to build tall. It married the two, allowing very tall buildings in commercial zones, invariably at a city’s heart. Compared with European cities, where legislated falls in building heights were comparatively modest, the fall from a tall and concentrated central business district to the next zone ring in the USA could be abrupt, almost clif-like: ‘The skyline is first low and then suddenly rises in peaks of stone and steel’ wrote Tunnard and Reed (1953, p. 155) in their history of The American Skyline. I moved to Australia in the late 1960s, where I have since lived in every state capital bar Brisbane. On arrival in my new country, I was surprised how strongly the American planning practice of an ‘extruded centre’ had been embraced. I soon learned that buildings had been scraping the Melbourne and Sydney skies (at 50 m or thereabouts) by 1890 and had quickly become a talking point. Issues of

10  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

height in the smaller capitals came slightly later, and, while investigating Adelaide’s history, I was amused to find that debate in the South Australian Parliament about the city skyline had been framed in terms of ‘Paris or New York’, i.e. of European or American form.6 Either way, buildings were still to be higher and denser at the centre. Melbourne (established 1829) and Adelaide (1836) are the youngest of Australian state capitals, appearing more than four decades after Sydney: they were also the most planned and are the most centralized. Significantly, each has a structure of wide roads radiating out from a centre that is efectively a superblock.7 Two of my early book buys in my new country were James Colman’s slender paperback, Planning and People: An Introduction to Urban Planning in Australia (1971) and Constantine Doxiadis’s weighty tome, Ekistics: An Introduction to the Science of Human Settlements (1968). Colman’s endpapers showed outline maps of the urban areas of each Australian state capital and its main roads. These had an immediate impact on a young Englishman and I have faithfully depicted these in grey scale to include the essential elements of his maps of Adelaide and Melbourne; I also highlight the positions of their respective grid centres. The main road patterns were so strongly radial that it left me in no doubt about the dominance of their centres (figure I.7). For Adelaide, I also indicate the ring of parklands (famously admired by Ebenezer Howard)8 around its centre. And for Melbourne, I show a separate map of the city’s rail system which includes a rail loop around the city’s superblock centre, begun about the same time as Colman’s book was published. The parkland ring and rail loop, in their diferent ways, each reinforced the city’s radial structure. To me, the inbuilt ‘centrality’ of these structures (superblock centres, parkland and rail ‘collars’, and radial roads and railways, and the centre-based nature of the thinking behind them became more fascinating as I expanded my urban knowledge through experience of East Asia’s multi-directional supergrid and superblock urban systems,

Figure I.7. Two Australian metropolises, c. 1970: strongly radial in structure. (left) Adelaide urban area (dark grey), major roads and city centre (red) within a parkland ring (green). (middle) Melbourne urban area, major roads and city centre. (right) Opened in 1981, the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop (MURL) circles the city’s grid centre, is 6 km long, has five stations, and is focus for fifteen radiating and tributary lines. (Source: (left and middle) Adapted from maps in Colman, 1971, endpapers); (right) Adapted from: City of Melbourne data)

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  11

which were clearly the antithesis of the acutely radial structures of my previous (Western) years. Doxiadis (1968) I remember for diferent but related reasons. Amongst his many diagrams were four related to the modern radial-grid issue (see figure I.8). He showed an orthogonal grid diagram explaining that ‘the grid-iron system can expand without difculty’, meaning easy extension in any direction. He also showed a radial plan with the comment, ‘centripetal forces in major settlements lead to an unworkable form’. In his text, he explained that the main force for shaping cities is the need for close relationships between ‘activity units’ with the radial systems ofering the best access for higher order units to gain such advantage – at the centre and at a price. As a city grows there are only so many centre-seeking, ‘higher order’ units that the centre can take before becoming ‘unworkable’. He attributes the force behind a grid-iron system as the desire for order and simple subdivision for building on rectilinear blocks – leading to a regular grid that can expand in any direction and accommodate intensification or contraction in any part. However, a small street-block system (included in his set of four) also forms a potentially infinite grid but, he stresses, ‘is deprived of scale’ (Doxiadis, 1968, p. 315), thus a higher modular order is required. That higher order, he notes, could be provided by an outsized road grid of larger dimension and arterial status: his solution shows such a small block street grid contained within a larger grid of higher order roads, giving local scale through their boundary definition to communities – which is a supergrid and superblock structure in all but name (figure I.8, right). However, Doxiadis did not plan his superblocks as small-scale street grid subdivisions within a larger higher order supergrid – a conclusion to which his analysis, with a diferent mindset, might have led. Doxiadis was a Modernist and member of CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne) until its end; and, as a good Modernist, he categorized and separated functions, including types of vehicular and pedestrian movement. In his own plan-making, superblocks were conceived as local and autonomous cells with internal street networks that were mainly loops and culs-de-sac, and with weak connections to nearby superblocks. His book Ekistiks was the outcome of years of research and master planning as

Figure I.8. Doxiadis’s analysis of urban structure. (left) Grid-iron: ‘system can expand without difficulty’. (centre left) Radial: ‘centripetal forces in major settlements lead to an unworkable form’. (centre right) Grid city: ‘with many small blocks’. (right) Grid city ‘with subdivisions corresponding to their size’: small street blocks bounded by a ‘higher modular order’ of major roads (in red). This is effectively a supergrid-superblock system. (Source: Plans adapted from Doxiadis, 1968, pp. 313 and 315; quotations from the same source)

12  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

evidenced by a journal of the same name which he had founded some eleven years before. In the intervening years, Jane Jacobs had written her Death and Life of American Cities (1961), declaring cities to be systems of ‘organized complexity’, in which small street blocks, connected streets and mixes of most things (uses, building ages, building conditions, daily schedules, etc.) are the vital ingredients for social and economic vitality. Four years later (1965), Christopher Alexander’s more detached award-winning paper, ‘A City is not a Tree’ appeared: it demonstrated (by way of set theory) that a city’s organization cannot be reduced conceptually or physically to tree-like branching systems, which he said was the overwhelming tendency of urban planners (including Doxiadis): an urban place requires complex overlapping functions and connectivity to rise to its potential. This provided a theoretical underpinning to some of Jacob’s ‘complexity’ observations and planning critique; and undermined the Modernist’s reductionist notion of the city. Their works were warning calls to planners to stop oversimplifying cities to the detriment of residents’ convenience and opportunities. Doxiadis’s actual plans were for the most part all that Jacobs and Alexander were directly or implicitly condemning. He was irritated by Jacobs’s text and, in his master tome, is explicit in his disagreement (Doxiadis, 1968, p. 405); and, while usually keen to show himself abreast with new ideas, makes no mention of Alexander. Over the next two decades, I extended my knowledge of urban history, design, and morphology, with the 1980s particularly intense: a postgraduate thesis (on Adelaide’s form), three urban design competitions, and a major urban design consultancy – all with significant historical and theoretical content, all gaining awards, but all of Western content – while at the same time I was also writing and teaching. Concurrently, I started to visit East Asia, prompting a special interest in Japanese spatial culture and built form. During the 1990s, I developed my ideas for Learning from the Japanese City: West meets East in Urban Design (1999), which is fundamentally about Eastern ways of seeing that difer significantly from those of the West, to reveal, among other things, a sensibility pre-disposed to ‘area’ (as distinct from a Western predisposition to ‘line’). This is not the place to elaborate in detail as Chen both summarizes and extends that theme, especially as it applies to China. A pair of maps (one English and one Japanese) adapted from my book will have to sufce here: these capture sufciently the ‘line–area’ theme at two very diferent scales: written text and town organization. The construction of these two ‘Where to find’ maps (figure I.9) are underpinned, respectively, by concepts of line and area in almost every way. To understand scripts composed of alphabet letters requires the letters to be arranged in the correct linear sequence and with accurate spacing along real or imagined lines: on the English map, words represent the streets of a city in which the organizational framework is a system of named streets (lines) that make up an urban network. By contrast, understanding scripts composed of kanji (Chinese characters used in Japanese script) is dependent on their real or imaginary placement in squares (areas): for

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  13

Figure I.9. Japanese and English ‘Where to find’ maps. (bottom) The ‘Where’ (red dot) is shown within a mosaic of areal units (machi) and written in square-based kanji characters. (top) The ‘Where’ is shown as a red ‘x’ within a framework of linear units (streets) and written in linebased alphabet letters’. (Source: Compiled from images in Shelton, 2012, pp. 46–47, which are adaptations of location maps for a Japanese food outlet and English office)

this reason, they can be placed for easy reading in any direction: here, some names are written horizontally and some vertically to represent areas of a city in which the organizational framework is a system of named areas (machi or cho) that make up an urban patchwork: streets have no names but within those patches there are numbered plots relating to each machi. Thus the machi (area) is equivalent to the street (line). By the end of the twentieth century, I had built up a sound knowledge of Western urban design history and theory, including that of Australia where I had already lived the greater part of my life. I had also written a substantial exploration of Japanese spatial culture and cities that was widely read across a range of urban, design and culture disciplines. I stress that my insights into Japan’s cities were only possible because of an extensive knowledge of Western cities which led to puzzling questions when I compared the two. In the process, spatial biases within my own culture (and therefore within me), and related fortes and blind-spots became glaringly apparent. My interest in urban morphology was intensified by this cultural extension. At about the same time (the few years either side of the year 2000), independent works from three authors emerged that greatly expanded the urbanist’s understanding of the nature and functioning of road and street structures and patterns. These were Bill Hillier’s Space is the Machine (1996b),

14  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Stephen Marshall’s Street and Patterns (2005) and Nikos Salingaros’s Principles of Urban Structure (2005). In their diferent but complimentary ways, all highlighted the importance of connection in the city and its efects on human lives and opportunities. (It is the content of these three works plus that of several others that Chen brings together as overlapping and complimentary on pages 90–92.) Directly or otherwise, all three drew attention to the vital aspect of relationships between scales of movement. Combining some insights and approaches from their works with what was increasingly an anthropological dimension in my own, I began to see the radial, grid and supergrid structures in a wider context. One of simplest yet most useful diagrams from these books is that of Marshall showing types of street pattern – ‘linear’, ‘tree’ (including radial), and ‘grid’– and interrelationships between macro- and micro-scales of these types (see figure 4.12). They reveal degrees of connection in street patterns from those with joined grids at macro- and micro-scales to those with tree patterns sprouting at the micro-scale from a linear macro-scale trunk. The two most visited tourist cities in Japan are the old and new capitals, Kyoto and Tokyo. It is hard to visit either without noticing the clear urban structure of wide road macro grids defining large, usually rectilinear areas, with each of their sides at least a few hundred metres long, within which are contrasting micro grids of narrow streets of varying degrees of regularity. These constitute the supergrid and superblock structure. The pattern is clear in Kyoto across much of the city. In Tokyo the pattern is clearest in the low flat (shitamachi) areas, much of which resulted from early Modern planning following the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake. These patterns are evident in both ancient (figure I.10) and modern Japanese planning. When Toshi Design Kenkyutai (Urban Design Study Group) produced their pioneering investigation of Japanese urban space, Nihon no Toshi Kukan in 1968, they chose the ancient Japanese grid plan to grace their book’s box cover. This fractal repetition of grid nets of narrow streets set within grid nets of wide roads is of course Marshall’s micro-scale within macro-scale grid. The concept is

Figure I.10. General structure of ancient Japanese capitals. Borrowed from China, the model was applied in variable form to a succession of capitals. The plan shows key components relevant to this text: supergrid, superblocks and street-blocks (light grey area is the Imperial compound).

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  15

one of nested areas, reflecting a cultural predisposition – inherited from China, where it is still strong. In the decade following the release of Learning from the Japanese City: West meets East in Urban Design (1999), I spent a period as visiting professor at Nagoya University. This meant living in Japan’s third largest metropolis where the continuous built-up area has a population of seven million and contains within it an extensive area of supergrid-framed superblocks. I was able to examine some parts, which led to the additional chapter in my book’s second edition, Learning from the Japanese City: Looking East in Urban Design (2012), on one of the city’s superblocks and its supergrid context. I named the particular block ‘Gokiso’, after the exchange subway station at its north-eastern corner. It is a typical superblock with larger and higher buildings, higher order shopping and other facilities about its periphery; and small-town qualities within, including local shopping streets, narrow quiet streets, shrines, schools, restaurants, bars, bathhouses, small workshops, and more. It has areas of regular and irregular grid, old and new buildings, mixed activities and schedules, mixed incomes, in fact just about mixed everything. By Jane Jacobs’s criteria, it would score highly (although being of an unfamiliar form, I suspect she may have taken a while to appreciate it – the cultural dimension!). This has much to do with the variety of street types within: straight and curved, narrow and very narrow, deep (several turns from the supergrid edge) and shallow (direct connection). Figure I.11 shows the streets according to their scale of connection: global, glocal, and local. It is rather like adding a ‘median’ to Marshall’s ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ scales. This is very appropriate when dealing with superblocks: for the supergrid network is the macro or global scale enabling direct passage across the city; the micro-scale streets are those contained within the superblock and with a local function; and the median or glocal streets are those that cross supergrid roads to give connection between superblocks close to each other: If the balance between these types of roads and streets is good and the numbers of crossings and junctions within and between each scale category

Figure I.11. Superblock structure of ‘Gokiso’, Nagoya. The three levels of connection explained in the text: global (red), glocal (black) and local (grey). (Source: Shelton, 2012, p. 159, reproduced here with minor changes)

16  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

are high, this ofers convenience of movement across scales. (One of Chen’s vital findings is that a generous supply of median or glocal connections between superblocks is really the key to the success of the whole system.) In addition, there are other elements of connection: for example, in the Gokiso superblock, subways run along two sides, with local circuit buses running from the stations and through the Gokiso and other superblocks near-by; and there are vast cycle parking places (sometimes underground) by the stations. In other words, it is an area that is well ‘integrated’ (to use a Hillier term but in a slightly varied way). Not all superblocks have such a positive range of qualities as Gokiso but many do, with some having even more facilities and being visually more attractive. Thus, it presents us with an urban model of considerable merit and potential. Another value of Chen’s work is that it is in part an exploration of this potential. As indicated earlier, superblocks and supergrids have received slightly more attention from urban designers in recent years. One prompt was the Spanish planning initiative to transform Ildefonso Cerdà’s belatedly admired 1859 Barcelona grid (and radial) plan9 into a kind of ‘supergrid’ (see figure 1.3). I qualify the term because, by the scale of Eastern supergrids, the Barcelona transformation is moderate, hovering somewhere between grid and supergrid: it has nevertheless brought the term and general idea back into the planning limelight. The Cerdà plan is of interest here for more than its design, for there are several aspects to it that often go unmentioned. The most significant here is that it was a pioneering grid plan when the European planning mind-frame was strongly radial-concentric; and the plan’s original introduction is confirmation of this for its adoption had an interesting twist. Concurrent with Cerdà’s proposal was a Barcelona City urban design competition – which Cerdà did not enter. The winning entry was however a plan with a radial structure about a grand axis! Implementation of Cerdà’s plan was by authority of Spain’s national government in Madrid (Urbano, 2016). Of further interest here is that the plan was mostly ignored by European urban designers for a century. For instance, neither Cerdà nor his plan received any mention from speakers at the 1910 London conference referred to above. It is also missing from the previously referenced German and English texts of the early modern planning period. Nearly sixty years later, neither Cerdà nor Barcelona appear in Doxiadis’s Ekistiks. It has been consistently overlooked because it was ‘made’ in the wrong place (south of the Pyrenees), produced at the wrong time (Spain was fast losing power and prestige as a colonial power), and written in the wrong language (French and German were the European ‘big two’ with English rising). Another forceful reason that is only now becoming apparent is that it was of the wrong ‘pattern’ – grid rather than radial. Only in the second half of the last century was it received more favourably, commencing perhaps with its inclusion in Aldo Rossi’s L’Architettura della Citta of 1966, which was translated into English many years later: Rossi described the plan as ‘very important’, ‘certainly more advanced than Haussmann’s and ‘insufciently known’ (Rossi, 1982, p. 150).

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  17

The second prompt for interest in the Superblock is concern about China’s particular version of the Eastern supergrid/superblock structure. Large walled and gated communities are ubiquitous in China and extend over the greater part of many superblocks (sometimes over their entirety). This greatly restricts circulation within and between superblocks. Also, many Chinese supergrid roads are notoriously congested and, as Chen shows well, the two issues are closely related: less access within superblocks means more use of supergrid roads for relatively short journeys. That this issue has urban designers’ attention at the moment is probably more to do with some Western urbanists’ concerns with the rise of gated communities in their own cities than direct interest in the Chinese issue. A common response (from Western and Western-educated Chinese professionals) has been to propose demolition of the walled precincts and replace them with Western (New Urbanist-like) planning models when something more attuned to the culture would be appropriate. Chen sheds considerable new light on this issue and her probing of Chinese superblocks and supergrids as a cultural and morphological phenomenon ofers a much-needed broader viewpoint. As she explains, the gated and walled community is a concept consistent with the Eastern spatial predisposition to area and a Chinese preoccupation with walls. In the West, the ‘superblock-and-supergrid’ concept has commonly been synonymous with the idea of relatively disconnected semi-autonomous superblock cells framed by highways with limited access and green landscaped edges (as in much of Doxiadis’s work). Milton Keynes is the only British new city realized wholly of this type. I remember the fanfare and heated discussion that greeted its early planning. After publication of the second edition of my book I had, courtesy of the Tokyo publisher, Kajima Shuppenkai, opportunity for a Japanese translation. With this edition (2014), I ofered further comment on the Japanese model, by way of comparison with the British project (representing the Western attitude to superblock planning). Figure I.12 shows parts of the two supergrid structures and an example superblock from each. Although the two supergrids and superblocks were initiated at diferent times and in diferent circumstances, they have essential elements in common, namely supergrids of global roads casting broad nets over relatively flat landscapes, giving definition to many superblocks. Intervals between supergrid intersections are between 500 m and 1.5 km to give typical superblock areas of a square kilometre or thereabouts. But there are crucial diferences. The Nagoya plan (in fact a series of plans) was a pragmatic attempt to efect and accommodate a growing industrial city extending from an old city grid that dates back to the seventeenth century, with the supergrid pattern begun in the 1920s and with a direction well-set by the early post-World War II period. Milton Keynes was formally designated as a new town in 1967 with the planning of its structure much-influenced by the participation of American geographer, Melvin Webber (Cowan, 1969). In his writing, Webber theorized the grid as a structure ofering ease and equality of movement in all

18  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure I.12. Nagoya and Milton Keynes supergrids and superblocks. (top left) Part of Nagoya’s supergrid within which the Gokiso superblock (G) occurs. (bottom left) Gokiso superblock where culs-de-sac are few. (top right) Part of the Milton Keynes supergrid within which the Heelands superblock (H) occurs: (Bottom right) Heelands street network with few connections to surrounding superblocks; and internal streets, which are mostly culs-de-sac and loops. (Source: Shelton, 2014, p. 156, reproduced here with minor changes)

directions, and freedom of choice across a wide ‘non-place (urban) realm’ – in contrast to the largely radial and strongly hierarchical structures (primary hub and spokes) of most established cities.10 Milton Keynes was conceived as a collection of road-bound superblock communities, each with its own centre and global road boundaries. Supergrid roads are essentially movement corridors and lines of space separation (often with greenery in the manner of parkways) giving identity to the superblocks. With the local centre as focus within the superblock, the built areas can efectively ‘turn their backs’ on the grid roads. Connections between superblocks across the main grid roads are few: for instance, vehicles are generally unable to pass directly from one superblock to another by a crossroad, and more than one vehicle entry point to a superblock from any one side is uncommon: there are usually a couple of pedestrian/cyclist connections, commonly under or over the global roads. Internally the superblock is dominated by loop roads and

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  19

culs-de-sac. In other words, connections between the local streets and global roads and between superblocks (i.e. between scales) are sparse. The Nagoya pattern is less even but at its best, provides a distinct and noteworthy contrast. The supergrid or global roads function also as commercial and service corridors: hence, these are not only lines of movement but also of activities and their crossings are important nodal points. The addition of subways beneath some supergrid-roads and stations beneath some crossing points contributes further to their intensity. Distances between crossing places from one superblock to another are usually quite short and direct, for vehicles and pedestrians alike. In the Gokiso superblock, direct crossing points occur on average every 180 m along the global roads: and pedestrians and cyclists can enter and leave the superblock at even shorter distances − on average every 73 m. This shows high levels of connectivity between blocks and of permeability into and through the blocks, especially as, internally, the area has a high density of streets with few culs-de-sac. Nagoya’s supergrid roads not only link the city’s districts (as trafc arteries) but can also have a local integrating function: the grid roads are the meeting points of local streets and global (cross-city) routes and places where local shops, services, and facilities overlap with those serving the wider city. The Milton Keynes supergrid may ofer pattern repetition and regular east–west and north–south movement, and therefore a measure of equality. But given lower order disconnections, it also imposes an equality of inconvenience and isolation, deterring activity within superblocks and at their interchange corners; and overcentralizes ‘the centre’, which is an east–west line of designated superblocks at the geographical middle. Nagoya’s grid plan was altogether more utilitarian, driven primarily by the desire to provide a rapidly expanding and motorizing industrial city with convenient connections. As far as I know, there is no explicit grand theory but, at the same time, we should remember that this city’s planning has occurred against a backcloth of cultural practice that is ancient in the region (as Chen shows particularly well). Although many old Japanese design practices are not set within an explicit body of theory, there is also little doubt that many have fallen within the spirit of recent (mostly Western generated) theory. Accordingly, it should not pass unrecognized that, between the plans for Nagoya and Milton Keynes, came the two earliernoted writers with very diferent viewpoints to those of Webber – Jacobs (1961) with her principles of short blocks, and more streets and mixed primary uses, and Christopher Alexander’s (1965) ‘The City is not a Tree’. The strong message from these works is that urbanism thrives on intricate multi-directional networks of physical links and interplays between activities of all scales. With hindsight, it may be said that Milton Keynes ignored much of the writing of Jacobs and Alexander while Nagoya (unknowingly) foreshadowed them.11 Over the past two decades, the importance of good connective networks in enabling synergetic interplays between varied activities has been better understood through the theorizing of

20  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

several ‘connection’ or ‘systems’ specialists, who are central to Chen’s work (see Chapter 4). As a consequence, the in-built limitations of the Milton Keynes kind of structure have become more obvious. One of those theorists, Bill Hillier (1992), wrote a review article on the town emphasizing its disconnected form. It is ironic that Milton Keynes became famous for its ‘innovation’ through much of the planning world, while Nagoya’s succession of plans has, by comparison, passed unnoticed, even in Japan. If we take a step further and think of Milton Keynes from another angle: as a series of defined communities, each with its own small internal centre linked to a concentrated super centre, then the city appears more and more as a centralized structure, closer in spirit to radial thinking, though cast in supergrid clothing! Returning to Doxiadis, he was probably right in pronouncing the ultimate unworkability of a radial structure at increased scale: but like the Milton Keynes planners he could not escape a centre-fixation which derives from a radial concentric heritage. He was also correct in foreseeing a future in which vast regions would become urbanized (his ‘ecumenopolis’) and individual cities undiferentiated except by government administrative lines: ‘You are now entering the City of X’. In such places (and huge urban areas of China and Japan fit the description), a truly multi-directional supergrid that is a continuous interface between local and global functions makes sense with all kinds of conditions in the intervening superblocks making for rich mixes of complementary activities and synergies. (It may be said to provide a ‘spread city’ and, to an extent, ‘spread centres’ too, both emphasized by Chen.) There comes a point when we expect too much of radial concentric structures, especially in long-established cities where these are straining to be both the contemporary functional centre and the culturally significant centre, carrying the patterns and artefacts of history. In this context, Koolhaas and Mau’s comments of more than two decades ago cannot be taken lightly: The persistence of the present concentric obsession makes us all … secondclass citizens in our own civilization, disenfranchised by the dumb coincidence of our collective exile from the center. In our concentric programming … the insistence on the center as the core of value and meaning, font of all significance, is doubly destructive – not only is the ever-increasing volume of dependencies an ultimately intolerable strain, it also means that the centre has to be constantly maintained, i.e., modernized. As ‘the most important place’, it paradoxically has to be, at the same time, the most old and the most new, the most fixed and the most dynamic… (Koolhaus and Mau, 1995, p. 1249)

Radial structures are a centralizing force and confer many those who live and work at or about their centres. They may not second-class citizens but they appear to be pushing an increasing that category, as already large cities further expand. Of the cities I

privileges on make ‘us all’ majority into have lived in,

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  21

nowhere has this been more apparent than in highly centralized Melbourne. If various liveable city tables from the last decade12 are an indication of quality, then Melbourne (and Adelaide) are success stories. For most years over the last decade, Melbourne has been ranked consistently as one of the world’s top ten most liveable cities (sometimes first) by several ranking surveys. One can only assume that thanks to the concentration of economic, educational, cultural and infrastructure facilities in an information economy, the city ofers a remarkably high quality of lifestyle, opportunity, and convenience – for those close to the centre. Important first-class facilities include its street and tram networks but the trams too are largely radial and within ‘the inner ring’ meaning within a few kilometres of the historic ‘Hoddle Grid’ centre and the encircling rail loop. However, while being lauded as ‘the most liveable’, it was also shown by Kelly and Donovan in their 2015 City Limits report on Australian cities to have serious problems related to its centralization. Opportunities (particularly for employment) and convenience (for just about everything) diminish rapidly as one moves out from the centre with wealth, income, and convenience of access gaps between the inner, middle, and outer 10 km rings already wide and widening. Significantly, this was most extreme in the nation’s two most centralized cities, Melbourne and Adelaide. In explaining such disparities, attention is drawn to car-dependence, trafc congestion, access to and infrequency of public transport and similar factors. Faced with such problems, few planners turn to road and street structures as major factors because the profession tends to think in abstracts, statistics and functions rather than tangible morphology, the impact of which is little understood and grossly underestimated, even today. The reality is that as one travels out from the centre of cities such as Melbourne, between the city-scale radials, the more local street systems become less dense, less grid-like at the micro-scale and more loopy and tree-like (with many culs-de-sac). The conditions echo those common to many American cities in Southworth and Owens’s study of 1993 which identified five types of street pattern as they occurred through the twentieth century from small ‘grid’ in 1900 to ‘lollipops on sticks’ (i.e. predominantly culs-de-sac) in 1990 with ever-decreasing densities of streets and street crossings and junctions per equivalent unit area (in fact, from twenty-six to eight intersections). These changes (plus rigid zoning) reduce connection across the whole network and exacerbate the dominance of centres. In today’s megalopolitan world, the multidirectional supergrid has more relevance than ever, enabling ‘central’ and local facilities and conditions to coexist in close proximity and overlap across vast areas. To use a Koolhaas phrase, it has the capacity to ‘irrigate (broad) territories’. It can spread facilities we think of as central and village-like enclaves, and all things between, across a landscape while maintaining convenience of access. These are the kind of mixed conditions inferred in Jacobs’s and Alexander’s early work. Such structures deserve more serious exploration, free from the radial and linear predispositions embedded in much Western-generated planning theory. Chen’s work heads seriously in this

22  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

direction. She shows: how city structures are rooted in culture; how a general model generated in East Asia bears fundamentally diferent characteristics from most Western models; and how the same general model bears markedly diferent tendencies when applied in two related Eastern cultural settings. Her work illustrates well Dovey and Pafka’s conclusion in their ‘Science of Urban Design?’ paper from which I quoted at the beginning: that urban design theory carries within it the biases embedded in the cities from which it is generated and that theory, having been generated mostly in Western cities bears Western cultural biases. Chen shows how non-Western models have contemporary relevance but are overlooked in a Western-dominated field of urban design theory. Given the nature of the Supergrid and Superblock model (especially its capacity for multi-directional expansion) it seems appropriate for a planet which is becoming more of an urban world than one of cities. At more median- and micro-scales, she also shows that successful application depends on the balance of connections between the multiple scales. Chen’s work is, I hope, a way-pointer to further serious consideration of the supergrid-superblock phenomenon, and recognition of its contemporary relevance to circumstances beyond the East, and its broad potential as a model.

Notes 1.

Jane Jacobs is the exception here: she was a journalist and her Death and Life of Great American Cities of 1961 relied mostly on text with just one simple diagram of streets and street blocks in the entire work.

2.

Translated quotation in de La Croix, 1960, p. 288.

3.

These were: Reinhard Baumeister’s (1833–1917) Stadte-Erweiterungen in technischer, beaupolizeilicher und wirtschaftlicher beziehung (Enlargement of Towns from Technical, Local Government and Economic Viewpoints) published in Berlin in 1876, Josef Stübben’s Der Stadtbau (Town Planning) published in Darmstadt in 1890 and Camillo Sitte’s Der Stadtebau nach seinen Kunstlerischen Grundsatzen (Town Planning According to Artistic Principles) published in Vienna in 1889.

4.

Triggs introduces his discussion of grid and radial systems on p. 85 of his book and continues on the subject for over thirty pages with reference to European, American and theoretical cities.

5.

The Proceedings of the 1910 RIBA Conference, lists all delegates and includes ‘Notes’ on accompanying exhibitions: the book of over 800 information-packed pages was published in the following year and includes many useful illustrations.

6.

The issue of tall buildings in Australian city centres on the notion of a New York or Parisian type of skyline for central Adelaide is discussed briefly in my essay, ‘Adelaide’s urban design: pendular swings in concepts and codes’ (with reference to further sources) in Marshall, 2011.

7.

These are not generally thought of as ‘superblocks’ by professionals but have been referred to as ‘the Square Mile’ in Adelaide (its approximate size) and ‘the Hoddle Grid’ in Melbourne (after Robert Hoddle, the surveyor who designed it).

8.

An interpretive plan of Adelaide emphasizing the parklands was the only illustration of a city that Howard included in his Garden Cities of Tomorrow (figure 4 in Howard’s book) other than those of his own garden city idea and associated projects.

AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY  23

9.

The 1859 Plan’s title is ‘Plano de los Alrededores de la Ciudad de Barcelona y Proyecto de sy Reforma y Ensanche’ (Map of the Surroundings of the City of Barcelona and Plan for its Internal Reform and Expansion).

10. Webber (1920–2006) wrote several influential articles from the 1960s to the 1990s that included such memorable phrases in their titles as ‘post-city age’, ‘non-place urban realm’, ‘community without propinquity’ and ‘spread-city’, reflecting his emphasis upon freedom of movement in motorized cities. In his 2007 Guardian obituary of Webber, Terence Bendixson (2007) said that ‘critics of car-friendly Milton Keynes sometimes claim that (Webber) … single-handedly ensured that 34 square miles of Buckinghamshire became an Anglo-Saxon Los Angeles’ rather than a string of highdensity neighbourhoods served by monorail, as earlier planned. 11. Readers wishing to know more about Gokiso Superblock and the Nagoya Supergrid may refer to Chapter 6 of Learning from the Japanese City: Looking East in Urban Design (2012). 12. Example tables are the Economist Intelligence Unit Global Liveability Index, Monocle Most Liveable City Index, Mercer’s Quality of Living Index, and Deutsche Bank Liveability Survey. Most include various infrastructure services and cultural facilities.

Acknowledgement Barrie Shelton wishes to thank Asher Lloyd for his thoughtful, creative and patient assistance in the preparation of figures for this introductory essay.

24  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

AN EASTERN SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK URBAN MODEL  25

Chapter One

An Eastern Supergrid and Superblock Urban Model In Chinese culture, 2020 was the Year of the Mouse, the first of a twelve-year cycle and symbol of renewal, and this was the year I completed the first draft of my book on the Supergrid and Superblock urban structure. The model structure can be traced back to ancient times in both China and Japan and remains widespread today although in modified forms (figure 1.1). Considering how common it is in Chinese, Japanese and some other East Asian cities, interest in the system is not strong. The supergrid-superblock structure is an important but neglected model

Figure 1.1. Modern examples of supergrid and superblock forms: Qingdao, China (top) and Tokyo, Japan (bottom). (Source: (bottom) Otto Chen)

26  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

in urban design and one that I wish to ‘re-introduce’ to the world: I hope that my book will bring a renewed and creative cycle of interest in the model and trigger new design interpretations.

Supergrid and Superblocks A ‘supergrid and superblock’ urban structure is by nature a net-and-cell system that covers large areas of many cities and usually in their areas of denser population. The supergrid network (which may be a uniform or deformed grid) of wide crosscity arterial roads forms a series of superblock cells, each containing a network of narrower streets and a set of street blocks at a local scale. The supergrid and superblocks are interdependent and mutually supportive parts of a single urban system. To better understand the structure, I identify four types of connection. The supergrid as an urban structural network of wide roads (typically 25 m or more in width) forms a multi-directional net over large areas of a city. These roads may therefore be termed ‘global’, and are mostly city arterial roads that extend at least 5 km. The superblock is an area or cell of approximately 1 km2 (though it may be larger or smaller) that is defined and bounded by the global roads of the supergrid and made up of a network of narrower streets. Within this network of narrower streets there are two types: ‘local’ streets (usually between 5–12 m in width) that connect to the edges of the superblock, and ‘internal’ streets (commonly 5 m wide or less) that do not connect to the edges. Between these two scales of ‘global’ and ‘local’ are the ‘glocal’ streets (typically 10–15 m wide), which cross global roads to connect superblocks which are in close proximity. These categories are shown in figure 1.2. Those with little knowledge of urban planning have a limited understanding of how cities are structured spatially. In contrast, academics classify city structures into all kinds of types, which can be confusing. Here, I divide cities into just two general types: grid and radial. The radial structure is so deeply ingrained in the Western psyche that it has been influential worldwide. Shelton discusses this phenomenon at some length in his introductory essay, emphasizing how the radial structure has flourished in Western cities. Two influential examples immediately come to mind: Haussmann’s redevelopment of Paris and Howard’s ‘Garden City’. Also, they are often the first to be quoted as examples by people in the East when envisaging a planning project. This kind of city structure seems to represent a ‘modern’ or ‘more advanced’ type as it commonly occurs in Western, especially European countries. Some may argue that Western cities are formatted as a grid, but even classic cities like Barcelona, which has a substantial grid pattern at one scale, also have strong radial city structures at a macro scale. It is easy to take for granted that cities are what we think they are, as Lynch (1961) showed in his experiment with mental maps. The same place can register diferently between people in their perceptions. For most Westerners, it is common

AN EASTERN SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK URBAN MODEL  27

Figure 1.2. Typical supergrid (top left); Example superblock (top right); Four types of street (bottom) and their relationships in a superblock (also top right). (Dimensions indicated are typical, not absolute.)

to have an image of a dominant business and institutional district in the middle which is an area inherited from earlier times (‘the old city’) with housing areas as suburbs radiating from or orbiting around it. Within each suburb, grid and street blocks are the smallest interface that people encounter on a daily basis. This radialconcentric Anglo-European type, as Shelton suggests, is the kind in which most Western readers of this book will have been submerged. Despite the influence of such a structure and the theories that shape our minds of what a standard city is, it is important to point out that not all cities are structured in this way. After studying and travelling in Western countries for nearly eight years, I see both sides of the world and believe it is necessary to explain the supergrid and superblock system that is common in my Eastern culture. For many, it will no doubt constitute a kind of introduction. As the two giants of ‘the East’, China and Japan are appropriate representatives. This is not only because of their economic prominence, large populations and land areas, but because their cultures are dominant in sourcing the ancient and modern ‘rules’ of this Eastern region. In ancient times, China was the leading force and origin of the Eastern culture. In modern times, Japan has had a more prominent role, including the transformation and export of what it had absorbed from China and the West. This is particularly evident in modern language (the introduction of new words), which has had a tremendous impact on China and other parts of East Asia. Cities in China and Japan have been flourishing for more than a millennium (longer in China) and designed within strong cultural predispositions that are

28  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

largely diferent from the West’s. The two countries share many aspects of culture, and they have the experience of urban development that is based on a clearly classical and ideal planning paradigm that has also influenced city form in other East Asian countries – the supergrid and superblock structure. While the origin of this structure can be traced back to ancient China thousands of years ago, new forms are sculpted as the structure has evolved through various transformations, including strong Western influence in modern times. China inherits the supergrid and superblock structure as the basic city skeleton from the Tang Dynasty (6CE) (Xu, 2000). Through continuous development in history, the Superblock structure was transformed from a closed to a relatively open to a closed system in relation to the supergrid under the influence of the pervasive use of a ‘wall-and-gate’ structure. As a result, the modern Chinese city structure seems to show an inability to support many modern functions because of the influence of this morphology. Superblocks in China tend to fragment cities because of the disconnections between street networks within them and the citywide arterial road networks or supergrids (Xu, 2007; Zhao, 2008; Nieminen, 2012). This connection problem has led to longer walking distances, trafc congestion, and uneven distribution of activities. These issues create a series of social, economic, and environmental problems in cities: air pollution, trafc congestion, longer commuting times, and single use of land and associated zoning, etc. (Guo, 2009). The traditional mixed function and walkable city is disappearing; traces of Chinese culture and architecture are being lost; the fragmentation of cities is becoming more severe along with other urban problems (Ding, 2009). In Japan, although heavily influenced by China, the supergrid and superblock structure was adapted and transformed from a closed and semi-closed system to an open system in accordance with the country’s culture. Correspondingly, many examples of this structure have been configured to achieve good local and citywide integration and to accommodate public transport (Shelton, 2012). The traditional Japanese spatial structure incorporates significant modern changes to create diverse, vibrant, and convenient urban environments (Jinnai, 1994; Hein, 2008; Fujita and Hill, 1997; Sorensen, 2002). To an extent, this resonates with New Urbanism’s idea of creating mixed land use and good connections in city design. Important characteristics of vibrant cities, culture and traditional aspects of people’s lives are preserved (Ashihara, 1989). Japanese cities show their own distinctive characteristics and ‘personalities’ with fewer problems. Some contemporary observers even think of modern Japanese cities as a model for the future, an inspiration for urban planning (Mohr, 2007) and a valuable lesson for developing countries on the ways to modernize their cities (Sorensen, 2002). Although the ancient model continues to influence the formation of modern supergrid and superblock structures, it is important to realize that the ancient and modern versions are quite diferent in their morphologies but maintain a strong presence in modern Chinese and Japanese cities. At the same time, although

AN EASTERN SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK URBAN MODEL  29

Western planning ideas and models have had a strong and sustained influence on modern Chinese and Japanese cities, the modern structures in the two countries present distinctive Eastern national characteristics as they evolve. These transformations are complex and are discussed with specific examples in Chapter 2 to reveal how cities evolve through time. That is to say, a spatial logic behind the structure remains under the respective cultures’ regimes to endure through time. As the academic literature shows, there is a strong correlation between culture and spatial conception that contributes to the design and formation of urban structure. Superblocks look diferent from case to case in the ways they are structured internally to present powerful Chinese and Japanese scents. With a desire to reveal this mystery, this work elucidates these specific urban structures by asking a basic question. What are the similarities and diferences between the city structures of the two countries and what accounts for these? While superblocks are an integral part of multi-directional supergrid structures in many Chinese and Japanese cities, they also exist in cities in Korea and other East Asian countries: see Wang (1996) and the work of Peponis and his team (Feng and Peponis, 2020; Peponis et al., 2015, 2016). An examination of the ancient history of Asia reveals that China took the leading role in creating an international political system: a ‘suzerain–vassal state relationship’, sometimes known as a ‘tributary relationship’. Neighbouring countries, including Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand, were keen to learn from ancient China and so also practised the ‘Chang’an1 model’ (see Chapters 2 and 5) in their capital cities. This cultural bond links ancient and modern but also diferent countries with a common appreciation of what cities should be like. It should be noted, however, that although superblocks are also found in Western cities, they are more often imbued with strong radial overtones. Shelton highlights this in his introduction where he suggests that Milton Keynes, while appearing to have a supergrid road structure, also has a hidden radial spatial logic. Thus, while superblock structures may exist in the West, they remain substantially diferent from those found in the East. Chapter 3 elaborates this discussion by focusing on the superblock phenomenon and its deeper socio-cultural meanings. Cities are not only places where culture manifests itself at both micro and macro levels; they are the setting for the fundamental functions of trade and exchange. In other words, they are not only physical entities with socio-cultural codes, but places for efcient economic performance through the facilitation of free-willed human movement and activity (Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996b). A group of theories has been emerging in the West since the 1960s concerning the qualities of modern cities and the interrelationship between urban structure and function: these theories raise questions about the appropriateness of various city structures to support positive economic performance and general vitality. The group not only provides the framework for this study (see Chapter 4), but also

30  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

inspires methods that are used to investigate these interrelationships – in order to understand how structure afects the distribution of movement and activities and vice versa; and how this plays out in the supergrids and superblocks of Chinese and Japanese cities. With this multi-folded understanding of city structure in mind, it is easy to appreciate that it is the physical manifestation of underlying socio-cultural and economic forces that allow human activities and movement to take place. While the good city structure will reflect both the regional and local culture, it will also aid the generation of socio-economic movement and activity. Supergrid and superblock structures in Chinese and Japanese cities are both rooted in Eastern culture; yet they are, respectively, ‘Chinese’ and ‘Japanese’, with divergent characteristics that both ‘hinder’ and ‘help’ their function. This study suggests that there are strong culture–structure correlations that explain key similarities and diferences in the urban morphology and functional performance of the heterogeneous versions of the supergrid and superblock structure. Nevertheless, existing scholarship about the two countries’ supergrid and superblock structures is limited. In general, two lines of inquiry can be found: (1) exploration of socio-cultural influences on the design of spatial form as historical and social studies; and (2) investigation of the relationship between physical form and human behaviour as modern urban studies. The issue with the existing literature is that it ofers very limited understanding of the intricacies between the two, reflecting compartments of academic urban study. When we examine related studies of the structure in the Chinese context, it is important to see it from two aspects: studies from outside China mostly in English or studies from within the country in Chinese. For those studies in English, there are three lines of inquiry about this structure. First, many existing studies recognize the ‘gated community’ as the major morphology of Chinese cities, but often they confusingly equate this with the concept of superblock. Second, most studies do not see the supergrid and superblocks as one structural system, and if they do, they fail to explore the structure in a systematic way, and certainly do not relate functional use to a cultural discourse. Most of these studies are inclined towards the functional use from social and political perspectives. Third, the clearest understanding of the structure from a physical perspective comes from historical studies of the ancient structure. Few discuss the modern supergrid and superblock structure with clarity or recognize its decisive role in shaping and afecting the functional use of cities, except for a few more recent studies that investigate the transportation system but without recognition of its operation within a super gridand-cell urban framework. A relatively recent book in English on the superblock that must be noted is Johnson et al., China Lab Guide to Megablock Urbanisms (2020), an edited collection of articles ofering social, economic, cultural, and environmental perspectives on China’s superblock structures from a range of scholars, including some Chinese now based in Western universities. They see

AN EASTERN SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK URBAN MODEL  31

the superblock as a positive element in design and planning, with the potential to address certain issues of sustainability and with possibilities for ‘export’. On the other hand, studies in Chinese on both ancient and modern versions of supergrids and superblocks suggest that they are a recognized and commonly accepted element in planning. Such studies were very limited before 2016 and mostly concerned with historical forms or transport issues. Since then, they have increased sharply and today number over a hundred, mostly prompted by the release of the ‘wall-demolishing policy’2 (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2016), which was controversial and widely opposed. Most of these studies incline towards demolition of the walls around gated communities and explore ways to convert the supergrid and superblocks into street blocks, as commonly found in Western cities. Almost none probes into the supergrid and superblock arrangement as a system to discover what it is really like and how it works; and how its problems can be solved without extensive demolition of the walls around gated communities. The ‘walldemolishing policy’ was discussed by Kan et al. (2017) and this is one of the few sources, regardless of language, to suggest that it is not wise to abandon the walls around residential compounds and any change should be addressed with discretion and more considered approaches. However, although studies of the structure may be increasing, there are none so far that bridge the dimensions of physical structure, culture, and urban design theory together. And it is fairly obvious that most academics within China see the structure as problematic and wish to replace it rather than seek to understand its value and respond accordingly. In the case of Japanese cities, while general urban studies are abundant, those on the supergrid and superblock structure are rare. It seems that the Japanese do not recognize the supergrid and superblock structure as widely as do the Chinese, and there is certainly no policy to abandon it. Most studies of Japanese cities focus either on physical morphology without recognition of the superblock and supergrid system or on functional aspects from social, cultural, and political viewpoints. Indeed, the Superblock in Japan is often understood as something quite diferent – as a huge building block rather than as a component of urban structure. This puts it into the camp of big architecture rather than urban design. Thus, the clearest recognition of the structure is to be found in historical studies, which are about the ancient rather than modern versions. For the studies in English, the one enlightening discussion is that of Shelton (2012) with his detailed study of a superblock and more limited commentary on Nagoya’s supergrid. It follows that there is no framing of the focus with a comparative mindset that sees similarities and diferences of the modern structures in the two culture-related countries. If comparison does occur, the focus again turns to ancient times, with Chang’an and Heian-kyo3 the most likely subjects. A recent European superblock project is to be found in Barcelona’s urban renewal programme. It stresses the advantages of the superblock structure over

32  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

the ‘radial structure and dense road network’. Barcelona’s structure has both the famous Cerdà street grid and wide radials.4 Because the radial structure is essentially made up of arterial roads, even though the urban grid network is dense, most of the vehicles scattered in the dense network come together on the arterials for longdistance commuting. This leads to congestion with most of the trafc concentrated on relatively few major roads, leaving much unused or underused space in the network, and leading to other related problems including high incidence of trafc accidents and erosion of pedestrian space (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2014). Therefore, to reduce these problems, the original ‘dense road network plus street block structure’ was reorganized and gradually transformed into a superblock structure (figure 1.3). In Barcelona, it was a case of modifying the street block structure through the transformation of certain streets to give a superblock layer. This shows that the structure of a dense network can result in urban problems including trafc congestion, and the way to resolve this in Barcelona was to give a superblock layer to the original dense grid structure. Therefore, in China, the

Figure 1.3. Barcelona model: conceptual transformation from street block to super block. (Source: Adjuntament de Barcelona, 2014, pp. 10, 12, 14)

AN EASTERN SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK URBAN MODEL  33

establishment of a ‘dense road network, narrow street’ model of street blocks will not necessarily solve the problems of trafc congestion in the city as the guidelines hoped. As for valuing the supergrid and superblock structure, it is interesting that it is little appreciated by scholars and professionals in either China or Japan, but is given greater credit outside by the few who have observed it closely. Given this context, and the extensive investigation of the topic in the next six chapters, I feel the book would be incomplete if I did not finish with some positive suggestions. I will therefore conclude with some directions for a culturally appropriate prototype. In general, worthwhile research in this area of urban studies is patchy, and almost non-existent when it comes to comparison of supergrid and superblock structures in and between modern cities, and especially between diferent countries and cultures. Thus, the aim of this book is to achieve a better understanding of the structures themselves, their Chinese and Japanese variations, their relationship to culture, and their relative economic and social performance as facilitators of movement and generators of activity. In this way, my work bridges cultural studies and modern urban design theories, bringing them together to understand cities as ‘organized complexity’. Today this structure in the two countries presents rather diferent morphologies with a range of variations. Under the influence of culture, it appears to display some disadvantages in China, while in Japanese cities it seems to ofer certain advantages in terms of generation and facilitation of movement and activities. This is discussed further in Chapters 5 and 6, where the investigation of four superblocks in China and Japan discovers three overarching conditions: 1. Culture has a profound influence on the physical morphologies of both Chinese and Japanese cities. There is a similar ‘areal thinking’ embedded in their cultures, and this correlates with the use of a multi-directional supergrid road system. Respective ‘wall’ and ‘floor’ oriented spatial conceptions, appear to be responsible for diferences in superblock structures between the cities of the two countries. Chinese cities contain an extensive ‘wall and gate’ structure accompanied by a limited street network, while Japanese cities have an extensive street structure that has two-dimensional and ‘Oku-like’ spatial characteristics (For an elaboration of the concept of Oku, see Maki, 1979). 2. There are identifiable street–activity relationships in the four study sites. In Chinese superblocks, the location of the gates of compounds decides where most movement and activities can take place because of the ‘wall and gate’ structure: such structures create a problem of over concentration of functions in limited areas. In comparison, glocal streets in a pure street network play a key role in distributing most activities and provide the crucial linkage between global and local movement in Japanese superblocks. This generates a well-distributed pattern of activities across superblocks in Japan.

34  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

3. Structurally, one of the most significant findings is the importance of the middle level glocal street network in the operation of the supergrid and superblock structure. It strengthens the argument of scholars such as Hillier, Marshall, and Alexander that connection between scales is fundamental to a well-connected city structure. The investigation of Japanese superblocks provides inspiration and guidance for the improvement of Chinese superblock structures. Perhaps the premier modification that can be made is the construction of a well-connected and integrated glocal street structure while still respecting the wall structure, which is a manifestation and valued item of Chinese spatial culture. This will be discussed in the final chapter.

A Note on Theory and Approach In order to cover the topic adequately, discussion ranges across many superblocks in several cities and countries. However, for detailed comparison (Chapters 5 and 6) the essential approach is by comparative case study – two superblocks in China (one in Xi’an and one in Nanjing) and two in Japan (one in Kyoto and one in Osaka). It was anticipated that this would show relative conditions, advantages and disadvantages of the Chinese and Japanese structures, and lead to recognition of the design principles that lie behind the efective spatial organization of superblocks. Further, superblocks in Chinese cities were found to be less efective in some areas and it appears that the country could derive some positive ideas for their improvement from Japanese models. The logical final step at the end of this book is to propose a culturally appropriate prototype for design modifications and improvement of Chinese superblock structures. Morphological mapping as the main tool is used to investigate the physical form of superblocks and this is discussed in Appendix II. In the use of theories to gain understanding, I had to ask myself: ‘Is the employment of Western ideas to a culture-related study of Chinese and Japanese cities a paradox?’ My response was that this may be partly so but that there are good reasons to proceed with the approach. 1. Since the twentieth century China and Japan have been strongly influenced by Western urban design and planning ideas and these have been widely applied and practised (Chang, 1982; Lu, 2006a). It is also evident that while neither China nor Japan wholly accepted Western ideas, they moulded them to fit their cultures in acceptable forms and according to appropriate principles (Lu, 2006a; Mohr, 2007; Sorensen, 2002). Further, it is undeniable that most Chinese and Japanese major cities are modern cities, both physically, functionally, and even socially. It is possible that a ‘non-Western urban tradition, which had modernized

AN EASTERN SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK URBAN MODEL  35

while remaining free of European cultural influence – unfortunately’ does not exist (Smith, 1979, p. 49). 2. There is no systematic theory for understanding modern Chinese or Japanese cities based solely on Chinese and Japanese culture. Eastern cities are not formed simply of pure bloodlines from their traditional culture and ideology but are heavily influenced by ideas from the West and have collided with them. In other words, they are hybrids of Eastern and Western ideas with a ‘discourse [that is] polarized between the East and the West on the [one] hand, and between tradition and modernity on the other’ (Papadakis, 1999, p. 28). Therefore, simply applying Chinese or Japanese planning theories (even if they exist) is not sufcient for studying modern cities. It follows that using Western theories to understand the modern cities is only a partial contradiction. These are appropriate and ‘helpful tools for analysing urban matters in other cultures if one keeps their limits in mind’ (ibid.). More importantly, the essence of the group of studies that is used as the theoretical foundation of this research regards urban structure as a lattice or urban web rather than a man-made tree or tributary system. This coincides with the ancient philosophical positions of Eastern culture and areal thinking in city design and planning, as discussed in Chapter 3. 3. Jianfei Zhu was confronted with the same issue and concluded that, in this mix-and-match globalized world, ideas and methods can be tested across cultural boundaries as experiments with respect to cultural diferences (Zhu, 2004). Tentative conclusions from the cross-cultural experiments are usually open to debate, which might even lead to further studies and possible intellectual development. With some caution, this research regards the dialogue across cultures, ideas, and theories as a positive and constructive attempt to generate new questions and inspirations that may help China, Japan, and other places in their future urban development.

Notes 1. Chang’an is the former name of Xi’an. 2. In 2016, China’s State Council released a series of guidelines that showed a marked change of planning approach towards the planning of city structure and neighbourhood design. First, ‘wide road and superblocks’ were to be replaced with a finer network of urban blocks and streets; and second, the walls around existing gated communities were to be demolished and it was forbidden to construct walls in new ones. In this book, I refer to this set of guidelines as the ‘wall-demolishing policy’. As I explain further in Chapter 2, this afects the interests of most Chinese people as most are living in gated communities for reasons of safety and a well-managed environment. 3. Heian-kyo is now known as Kyoto. 4. The grid structure of Ildelfons Cerdà’s 1859 plan for the expansion of Barcelona is clearly visible in the city today.

36  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Chapter Two

Supergrid and Superblock History Cities are amalgams of buildings and people. They are inhabited settings from which daily rituals – the mundane and the extraordinary, the random and the staged – derive their validity. In the urban artifact and its mutations are condensed continuities of time and place. The city is the ultimate memorial of our struggles and glories: it is where the pride of the past is set on display. Spiro Kostof, The City Shaped (1991), p. 16 We are all familiar with the idea of history and that we are part of the history of human civilization. As living beings, we know that our memories have limits, and that we usually know most about the past through those who have recorded it. In other words, histories have their biases and subjectivities. The events will turn into diferent stories depending on who is telling them. Therefore, it is very hard to be definitive about history. Accordingly, opinions and attitudes to the topic are wideranging. Some think that we must learn from the past: ‘The supreme purpose of history is a better world’ (Herbert Hoover);1 ‘History teaches everything including the future’ (Lamartine);2 ‘History … is the science of human societies’ (Fustel de Coulanges);3 ‘A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots’ (Marcus Garvey).4 At the other extreme, there are voices that see little value because of its lack of objectivity and shaky nature: ‘History is a pack of lies we play on the dead’ (Voltaire);5 ‘History is merely gossip’ (Oscar Wilde).6 While all branches of history are open to interpretation, the history of cities has one advantage: cities are physical and many contemporary cities are built on layers and layers from the past. Those physical forms and structures are tangible and therefore objective evidence of past forms, patterns, and change – morphogenesis. Beneath the modern hard-surface streets we walk every day, there are residues from

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  37

the past that influence present forms and life in ways that are rarely immediately apparent. The subject of this book, the supergrid and superblock urban structure is not a new phenomenon, though we may associate it with modern times. We may ask the question: where did the idea originate in the East and how has the structure evolved into the forms we construct today? This chapter will trace and explain how a mysterious spatial element controls the evolution of a common Eastern urban supergrid and superblock structure in China and Japan; and while sharing the same origin, why the superblock components in the two countries present generally diferent morphologies. It is difcult to understand the supergrid and superblock structure without visual support, thus I trace the history of the structure from the literature and display forms along a timeline, with the outcome to be seen in figure 2.1. It shows many changes over a very long period of Eastern history. By comparison, its existence in Western cities is short. Further, while the structure may have a long history in both China and Japan, its origins lie clearly in China as is recognized by Chinese and Japanese scholars alike. The two elements of the structure, supergrid and superblock, are closely interdependent and exist in a kind of symbiosis. When change occurs in one, it follows in the other. Changes in the internal structures of superblocks have a major impact on the performance of the whole system. Further, superblocks have altered markedly through history between relatively closed and open systems with wider consequences. With the diferent experiences of contextual change (political and socio-economic), in contemporary China the supergrid and superblock structures have evolved into relatively closed systems compared with more open ones in Japan.

Figure 2.1. Timeline of superblock structures: examples from China, Japan and the West from ancient to modern times.

38  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Origins in the East The very nature of the supergrid and superblock structure is a grid system that encompasses a wide area, if not a whole city. The prominent architect Wu Liangyong suggests that the prevalence of a grid system in China is probably derived from the ‘well-and-field’ land subdivision system and the courtyard house prototype. The grid pattern resembles former farmland settlement patterns where people gathered around a well as the smallest settlement unit. A courtyard house is a basic living unit within a neighbourhood. A group of courtyards houses can form a Lüli, which is the basic residential ward at city scale. Residential wards were also subdivided by grid patterns, repeating the same pattern of organization for the city as a whole. The ‘nine-square pattern is a very important source of Chinese settlement form, however complicated the connections and evolutionary processes might have been’ (Wu, 2011, p. 69). This ‘nine-square’ system closely resembles the royal city schema described in the Kao Gong Ji7 as an ideal paradigm for the planning of capital cities in ancient China. This schema is by far the earliest record of the planning of an ideal Chinese city and it is clearly a supergrid and superblock structure (see figure 2.2). To a large extent, this can be considered the source of the checkerboard layout of land subdivision and the walled residential management system.

Figure 2.2. (left) Canonical plan for a Chinese capital city (Wangcheng) from the midtenth century; (right) Functional diagram of the ideal Chinese model plan. (Source: (left) Kaogong ji)

The Kao Gong Ji demonstrates the early principles of city-making from city scale to standards for residential houses. Its most important part for this book is the proposed idea for creating a city with a supergrid and superblock structure that is bound by walls and gates: ‘匠人营国, 方九里, 旁三门. 国中九经九纬, 经涂九 轨, 左祖右社, 面朝后市, 市朝一夫’, which means that a city should be nine Li, and enclosed by walls with three gates on each side (one Li is a square of which each side is approximately 510 m). The city should be subdivided with three north–south and three east-west roads, which connect opposite gates with straight

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  39

arterial (global) roads to form nine superblocks. Thus, a supergrid and superblock structure can only exist when global roads provide connection between such gates in a wall structure. Moreover, it was used as a tool for spatial planning and social control that tied a system of social hierarchy to one of land subdivision. Each superblock could be used for diferent urban functions (such as a palace, a residential quarter, or a market). They are associated with systems of etiquette law and morality, which endows the design of cities with philosophical and social meaning by positioning parts at specific locations to bear particular relationships with each other. This model was not only widely accepted as the ideal city model within China, it also had a strong influence on neighbouring countries within the East Asia region, especially on ancient Japan and Korea for the planning of their capitals.

Transformation in China The supergrid and superblock structure in China has seen many changes over time: Lüli, Lifang/Shifang, Xiangfang, and Jiefang from the earliest Chinese settlement to the present. It has experienced an intermittent process of changing form from a closed to a relatively open and back to a closed system due to shifts in political outlook, social order, and economic development (Zheng and Li, 2017; Liu and Li, 2009). The supergrid system as the city’s skeleton has been used continuously to form the major road network in both ancient and modern times, whereas superblocks have changed from a walled structure to less walled and more streetoriented structure and back to a walled structure as is now observed in modern cities. During the Han (206 BCE–220 CE) and Tang (618–907 CE) Dynasties, living quarters were usually large walled blocks, which were efectively superblocks within a supergrid network. The first application of the supergrid and superblock structure from Kao Gong Ji was in the construction of the city of Chang’an in the Han Dynasty as indicated in figure 2.3a (He, 2012). This planning model was absorbed into the design of the city of Ye in the Caowei Dynasty (220–265 CE), practised as a systematic urban structure in the design of the city of Ping in the Beiwei Dynasty (398–494 CE), and further developed in the city of Luoyang. Finally, in the Sui and Tang Dynasties (figure 2.3b and 2.4a), this model reached a mature state in the city of Chang’an in sixth century BCE (Wang, 2014), and which constituted ‘a classical planning model, prescribing a grand, centric, Confucian order’ (Zhu, 2004, p. 6). (This is the best known city model associated with ancient China, however its site in this later period, although close, was not the same as during the Han Dynasty.) In the process, the superblocks in the supergrid system of those walled cities were designed and divided to have several identifiable communities as walled superblocks. The use of the walls around cities and superblocks in structuring the cities became more unified and systematic.

40  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 2.3. Examples of supergrid and superblock city structures under selected dynasties: (a) Xianyang in Han; (b) Chang’an in Tang (the classic model); (c) Bianliang in Song; (d) Beijing in Yuan; (e) Beijing in Qing.

Moreover, they were not only given symbolic and political meaning to represent law and order (Steinhardt, 1999), but also used as a device to manage and control social security and movement by creating a number of closed systems and curfews (Wang, 2014; Zheng and Li, 2007). The large walled blocks were the basic units (Lifang) of the Chinese at that time, and the most typical layout is two orders of cross streets plus laneways and culs-de-sac within each unit (Fu, 2001, p. 10). The orientation of buildings and cities also changed from east–west to north–south during this period (Shi, 2005; Zhao, 2013). During the Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE) the morphology of city structure transformed from a closed to a semi-open system under the influence of the development of a market economy. While the walls around cities and courtyard compounds were left largely intact, the walled superblock form was in decline as indicated in figure 2.4b (Heng, 1999; Friedmann, 2005). Supergrids mostly remained to connect gates and created superblocks defined by global roads with limited walls. Within each superblock, a cross street plus laneway street layout as inherited from the Tang Dynasty was mostly retained but changed into new forms in some parts. Despite the Emperor of the time trying to restore the wall and regain centralized management, the walls around superblocks were eventually demolished under pressure from the people. Commercial activities and businesses

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  41

Figure 2.4. Examples of superblock structures under selected Dynasties: (a) Chang’an in Tang; (b) Datong in Song; (c) Beijing in Qing; (d) Beijing in Qing (1750) showing the wall structure and courtyard buildings; (e) Diagram of general ancient Chinese superblock structure. (Sources: (c) Base plan sourced from Wu, 1999, p. 161; (d) Base plan sourced from Zhu, 2004, p. 85)

could open directly on to streets while curfews were abandoned. This was accompanied by a boom in street and night markets and, in turn, in the tax system and economy. Such cities were Bianliang, Luoyang, Nanjing, and Hangzhou, and were a type common in southern China. In cities like Bianliang, commercial enterprises and shops emerged to invade streets and become shopping streets or districts, with walls around superblocks being gradually demolished, though this was unofcial. There is a famous Song painting Qingmingshanghetu illustrating the city of Bianliang (figure 2.3c), in which it is obvious that many streets were used as public spaces free from the restriction of the wall around superblocks (figure 2.5). It is important to note that because of the courtyard type of houses, some enclosure persisted, and levels of openness diverged between northern and southern regions of China. Fences and free-standing decorated flat gates were used to demarcate space for social management. They transformed into something more akin to a marker that signalled a threshold between open street city space and walled superblock. This is the origin of today’s free standing decorated gateways, which have also become the symbolic entry points to ‘China towns’ in many cities around the world (figure 2.6). In the Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties (1279–1911 CE), supergrids were still to be found in many cities. However, cities had become more street-oriented with narrower streets linking the major wide roads to the residential courtyards as in a ‘fishbone structure’, which is the name given to them by Wu (1999). The global roads were still defined by the location of city gates with superblocks defined

42  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 2.5. Parts of Zhangzeduan’s Qingmingshanghetu, painted in the Song Dynasty. (Sources: (top left) Bai, 2021; (top right) Art ifeng, 2018; (bottom left) Hua, 2020; (bottom right) Photophoto, 2015)

Figure 2.6. Decorated archways in Hainan (China) and Sydney (Australia).

mostly by those global roads rather than by walls (see figure 2.3d and e). Within each superblock, the orientation of buildings based on a south-facing building principle created many narrow streets running in an east–west direction (see figure 2.4c and d). The decorated archways were widely used in cities to demarcate space as ‘billboards’ to show the social status of various groups. However, even though the walled superblocks were gone, some form of walled compound within each superblock started to reappear due to top-down policies of the authorities. Within cities, some large walled spaces in the form of superblocks can also be found, with fences and gates to demarcate the boundaries of certain properties, social and economic groups, or even races; and the level of openness started to decline again. Thus, the system was not a fully open one as in the Song Dynasty, though it continued to have some level of openness. In modern times, the supergrid and superblock structure has experienced four

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  43

Figure 2.7. Town layouts by Japanese planners in China: (left) Changchun Plan, 1932; (right) Datong Plan, 1938. (Sources: (left) CC US Library of Congress Geography and Map Division; (right) CC Datong City Planning Administration)

stages of change under Western influence. Because of numerous internal wars caused by the collapse of the old empire and the founding of new political regimes, the structure mostly remained in the form inherited from the Qing Dynasty with limited demolition before the 1920s; as Gajer (2015, p. 5) pointed out, it remained as ‘a cellular pattern’. The first stage was marked by the American neighbourhood unit concept, which was applied experimentally from the 1920s to the 1940s (Lu, 2006a; Ren, 2008). During this same period, Japanese colonial planners also practised the neighbourhood unit idea in Changchun (Shinkyō) and Datong. But most changes were of relatively small scale, experimental and restricted to a few major cities. From the 1950s to 1970s, the ‘new China’ was established: cities were in great need of reconstruction and revival. Several Western post-war superblock approaches were introduced to accelerate urban reconstruction and development, and especially models from China’s political ally, the Soviet Union. Major models were the company town, the superblock schema, and the micro-district (Lü et al., 2001; Bray, 2005; Gajer, 2015; Den Hartog, 2010). Particularly relevant here are the neighbourhood unit and micro-district models, which were efectively superblocks in ‘nature, spatial structure and organizational rationales’, and were applied in many large projects (Shui, 1962, pp. 2–21). They were later adapted into the danwei or work unit model, which was a self-sufcient neighbourhood incorporating work, living, and service activities, and together these were administered as state-run industries. This new model was widely used throughout the nation as the new planning norm. Lu (2006b) discusses how these diferent models were practised in China and points out that the original Western models

44  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

did not have any walls but were adapted to have a systematic wall structure to demarcate boundaries and protect territory because of conflicts between land ownership and increasing social crime. Although many city walls were demolished, as Lu states: Traditional characteristics of nations do not disappear easily. Some may be held back temporarily during times of political and social change … these traditions may resurrect themselves under new conditions, and once again actively participate in shaping for better or worse, distinctive presents. (ibid., p. 142)

The third stage was the introduction of comprehensive trafc planning. In 1978 China initiated economic reform and became more market oriented. Housing became profitable rather than an essential assigned by the state. The walled work unit was gradually replaced by a new type of development, the Xiaoqu. Along with the introduction of a neighbourhood management system from Hong Kong, large-scale residential development started to boom (ibid.). During this period, American style highways and wide arterial roads became the norm for many Asian cities (Shane, 2014). Existing city-wide roads were extended based on the major roads of the old city, and many wide arterial roads were constructed for city expansion. In 1980, the Shenzhen Institute of Urban Design and Research consulted Llewelyn-Davies, Weeks, Forestier-Walker & Bor, which planned the British new city of Milton Keynes as a supergrid and superblock structure. This was when China’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ) was set up. The SEZ in Shenzhen became the model for the nation, and other cities started to copy it and included a modern supergrid trafc system to serve the rapid growth in automobiles (ibid.). This kind of practice was also formalized in the Code for Transport Planning on Urban Roads (GB 50220-95) in 1995. It required that cities are to be covered by a hierarchical road network with global road intervals of between 750 m and 1,200 m depending on the size of a city – in other words a supergrid network. The fourth stage came with developments over the two decades up to 2018. Superblock development in tandem with a supergrid transport system proved an efcient way of achieving rapid development and urban growth, and revenues generated by land leases became local government’s major source of finance for the provision of social services and infrastructure. Larger land parcels on city peripheries were sold for the construction of housing according to the Corbusian ‘towers-in-parkland’ model. During this period, the concept of the gated community from America also became popular in China (Liu, 2010). Adapted from the work unit model, the element of the wall has continued to thrive in the construction of new Xiaoqu, which are essentially gated communities. Xiaoqu of various sizes are still being built. Larger ones can wall a whole superblock resembling physically the ancient model, while the smaller ones, also walled, coexist with each other in compounds within superblocks bound by global roads. Figure 2.8 shows all four morphological types in the process of transformation.

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  45

Figure 2.8. Modern plans for superblocks: (a) Neighbourhood plan, Tianjin; (b) Micro-district experimental site plan, Beijing; (c) Typical work-unit plan; (d) Gated community (Xiaoqu) plan. (Sources: (a, b) Lu, 2006a, pp. 134, 56; (c) Brand and Nyuyen, 2014)

Contemporary China: Fragmentation, Disconnection, and Isolation Since the 1978 economic reform and the need to increase the supply of housing for a skyrocketing population, superblock development has become the ‘default solution’ for modern Chinese urbanization, as happened in some Western countries after World War II. Most large contemporary cities in China have emerged largely as net-and-cell structures consisting of supergrids and superblocks (Zhao, 2008; Johnson et al., 2020). In each cell of the supergrid, there may be diferent combinations of walled and unwalled areas (usually residential) from the above four stages of modern development (figures 2.9 and 2.10). More than 80 per cent of developments are of the gated community type (Wang, 2003) and an increasing number are built at the superblock scale (Zhao and Hu, 2008). Monson (2008) claims that superblocks represent the DNA of contemporary Chinese cities; as major elements within the supergrid, they establish the foundation for trafc networks, property transactions, and urban expansion, and reflect collectivism and communism in the culture of contemporary China. Nevertheless, with increasing interest and more studies of the superblock

46  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 2.9. (left) Typical supergrid and superblock; (right) Structures in contemporary Chinese cities.

phenomenon (Fraker, 2006), problems with the structure have been emerging for some time. Chinese cities have tended to become more fragmented, disconnected, with isolated parts under the walled super-grid-and-block type of development. This has occurred while Western superblock models (showing similar tendencies) have been much criticized since their early days, with the American author, Jane Jacobs, one of the most vehement critics. China, however, still prefers this type of development, even though superblocks do tend to fragment cities, create singleuse isolated cells, minimize connections between the inner superblock and the wider city environment – and overall create a disconnected urban fabric. Because gated communities are the major components of a superblock, existing studies have pointed out that gated communities create barriers to existing road networks and pedestrian movement, and this applies especially to those gated communities of a superblock scale. The resulting problem is disconnection. Xu (2007b) and Xu and Yang (2010) assert that this type of superblock is detrimental to China’s urban environment because it has very limited connections to surrounding areas and the wider city network. To understand the problem, I have cited more than twenty-five studies over a thirteen-year period8 that criticize superblocks and/or gated communities from urban planning perspectives: they regard the gated community as a source of social, economic, and environmental problems by creating barriers and imposing restrictions on movement. The major problems can be summarized as follows: (1) the lack of efective connectivity, weak road planning and inappropriately sized land subdivisions at a city scale (Zhao,

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  47

Figure 2.10. Superblocks and gated communities: (left) one Superblock, one gated community; (right) one Superblock, several gated communities. (Source: Base map from Google map, 2020)

2006; Zhao, 2008; Xu and Yang, 2010); and (2) missing connections within a superblock with walls acting as major barriers to create closed loop and dead-end street layouts as indicated in figure 2.11 (Monson, 2008; Wang, 2010; Nieminen, 2012). Most studies go on to recommend improved connectivity to superblocks by adoption of the street blocks. As a result, in 2016, the State Council of China realized the problem and released a set of guidelines aimed to (1) replace the superblock layouts with the Western-type street blocks; (2) demolish all existing walls around gated

Figure 2.11. The problem of movement: absence of direct connection between superblocks.

48  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

communities to improve street density within superblocks; and (3) halt the construction of walls around new residential quarters (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2016). However, the ‘wall-demolishing’ guideline has received strong criticism and opposition from the populous and many academics, who claim that the level of safety of gated communities would be compromised if the wall-demolishing policy is realized. In reality, walls and gates cannot prevent all criminal action, with some studies pointing out that their presence is largely psychological and inherent to Chinese culture, which shows strong attachment to spatial enclosure with the pervasive use of walls in buildings and cities as already discussed. This clearly indicates a national concern about connection and transport problems resulting from the wall structure and an obvious conflict between sociocultural lifestyle and efective transportation. Since then, more than one-hundred articles have appeared that explore how superblocks might be transformed to street block layouts in Chinese cities to improve their levels of connectivity. In 2018, a new regulation for the planning of comprehensive urban transport systems (GB/T 51328-2018) was published to replace the former GB 50220-95. Nevertheless, this kind of large-scale superblock development remains strong and gated walled compounds for community living are an established and popular selling point for developers. Moreover, no clear solutions are proposed to help improve the level of connectivity within superblocks or to demolish walls without opposition, even though the number of new studies is large. Despite considerable influence from Western nations and other sources, contemporary Chinese cities maintain a clear Chinese style in at least three ways. First, the supergrid is used as the overarching structure with small street grids and radial road structures relatively few.9 Many pre-modern global roads that once connected gates in now demolished city walls, have been reused as the skeleton of modern supergrids. Second, the introduction of Western planning ideas has mostly used the modern Western superblock model. Third, most Western models, where adopted, were given a Chinese twist: they were eventually walled in order to declare property ownership and enhance levels of security (Lu, 2006b). During this period, superblocks were surrounded by arterial roads and occupied by walled areas, which may have been residential communities, working places, or public services. Further, the remains of building projects from these stages exist now in mixed formations making up the dominant contemporary urban landscape in China. What has happened is that the wall structure has continued to be used pervasively in combination with Western superblock models and the major structure of cities remains that of superblocks within a supergrid, with the street layout within each superblock a relatively closed system dominated by the cul-desac. Society persists with walled community units within superblocks, indicating the strong value it gives to this kind of structure. These processes of change

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  49

have given a special character to the modern Chinese superblock structure and understanding this is fundamental to sound decision-making about future form. As discussed before, the implementation of the ‘wall demolition policy’ has been widely resisted by the people and its actual influence is very limited. It is easy to see that the policy is against the cultural and social order and does not really bring satisfactory solutions to solve the urban problems raised by many academic studies. This highlights the importance and urgency of the understanding of the modern structure of Chinese cities.

Developments in Japan Ancient Japanese city planning was heavily influenced by Chinese planning methods, and the supergrid and superblock structure is one of the most important planning models that was introduced to Japan. However, when compared with China, in Japan the structure was not used as consistently through history. When it has been used, it has transformed from a semi-closed system with multiple fenced areas in ancient cities to an open system in modern cities. While Japan’s ancient capitals reached back to the Asuka period with Naniwakyo, and Asuka-kyo as early examples, it was during the later classical period, from the late seventh to late eighth centuries that the Chinese supergrid and superblock model was applied to the design of Japan’s capitals: Fujiwara-Kyo (commenced 694 CE), Heijo-Kyo (710 CE), Nagaoka-Kyo (784 CE) and Heian-Kyo (794 CE) (see figure 2.13). These are considered as the first real capital cities. Fujiwara was the first to adopt the model, which was gradually adapted to the ‘Jo (areas in a row) – Bo (areas in a ‘column’) – sei’ planning system (Takahashi et al., 1993; Wang, 2007a, 2007b; Stavros, 2014). It specifies every area in the city by its row and column numbers: these are structured within a network of ‘big roads’ and ‘small streets’. This is the Japanese version of the Chinese supergrid and superblock structure: which reached its peak in Heian-kyo (see figures 2.12 and 2.13).

Figure 2.12. Japan’s supergrid and superblock structure: as adapted from the Chinese model.

50  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 2.13. (left) Locations and (right) Plans with supergrids of Japan’s four ancient capitals.

The transformation of the adopted Chinese superblock model underwent three major morphological changes in order to fit better with the Japanese values and practices: (1) the abandonment of heavy walls; (2) a change in design approach from a process of moving from ‘whole to part’ to ‘part to whole’; and (3) transformation of the street network within each superblock from a Chinese cross-street pattern with varied block sizes to a matrix of four-by-four street blocks of equal size (typically 120 m squares). In this process, the Japanese superblock became a semi-closed system rather than a closed system. Wooden gates and fences were also used to demarcate space in superblocks rather than heavy brick walls around superblocks. As a result of these changes a better structure for movement and trafc was created (Shi, 2005; Wang, 2007b). However, during the Kamakura, Muromachi and Azuchi-Momoyama periods (1185–1603), this supergrid and superblock structure was mostly destroyed: wide roads were gradually eroded and replaced by a street block structure – known as machi or cho (see p. 169) – of irregular narrow streets, especially in Heian-Kyo10 (Takahashi et al., 1994). The mediaeval era in Japan was a period of chaos. There was no dominant political power over the entire country, and therefore, cities tended to grow organically without much planning (ibid.). Later, between the Sengoku (1467–1615) and Tokugawa or Edo (1603–1867) periods, a warring period with all kinds of social upheaval and political turmoil, a new type of urban settlement began to form, the castle town. As an indigenous urban structure characterized by asymmetry and irregularity, it provided the base for the modern Japanese city (Sorensen, 2002) with a layout with inbuilt Oku qualities as explained and appreciated by Fumihiko Maki (1979).

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  51

Before the development of the mature castle town with its semblance of a superblock and surrounding water channels, most towns and cities in Japan had a basic machi/street block structure11 without an overarching supergrid. They were laid out based on the ranking of social status from Chinese Confucianism: the higher ranked vassals and samurai were located next to a castle, while lower ranked commoners such as merchants and artisans were located on the outer edge or along major roads (such as the Suzaku in Heian-kyo). Temples and shrines were located even further away on the urban fringe (Sorensen, 2002, pp. 22–23). When castle towns were fully built up in the Tokugawa period, most (certainly those on flat sites) had systems of water channels that efectively divided them into a collection of water-bound areas of a superblock nature. This was especially the case as the waterways were used not just for transport (major connectors) in the town but were also considered a ‘place of performance’ to ‘experience the delights of ludic space’ (Jinnai, 1995, p. 175). Within this overall structure each ‘superblock’ had its own street structure that was connected to other superblocks by bridges which were also places of social gatherings. In Edo, some such superblocks were even specialized commercial and entertainment districts (Naito, 2003). This occurred also in Osaka and some other major cities. These formations were not within a supergrid of roads, but rather products of land subdivision within a superstructure of water channels. Although the water-bound superblock was widespread in Japanese cities during this time, there appears to be no clearly repeated configuration. For instance, Edo was designed with superblocks in a

Figure 2.14. Water-bound ‘superblock’ in Edo in the Tokugawa period. (Source: Adapted from Takahashi et al., 1993, pp. 214–216)

52  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

centripetal city structure that spiralled out from the castle centre (see figure 2.14), whereas Osaka had a relatively regular water network (see figure 6.8). Although castle towns were created for social segregation and defensive purposes and did have some walls, fences, and gates, these were not generally around the water superblocks or whole cities. They were around the residences of the lords and daimyos; fences and gates were also set as road barricades to monitor and control people’s circulation but with much lighter and more flexible physical structures when compared to Chinese walled superblocks. In other words, the city was a relatively un-walled, semi-open system (see figure 2.15). Moreover, although the Chinese Imperial supergrid was no longer used, the water channels served a similar purpose – with various groups distinguished by social class congregating in diferent parts of the city around the castle. In some sense, the spatial structure of the indigenous Japanese castle town resembles the Chinese Lifang and Japanese Jobosei system, and this may help explain the recurrence of the supergrid and superblock in the modern period.

Figure 2.15. (left) Example of a gate and (right) Positions of gates in an ancient Japanese city. (Source: (left) Takahashi and Yoshida, 1989, p. 176)

While Sorensen (2002) states that castle towns have a profound influence on modern Japanese structure, it is also important to recognize that they have had an impact on the formation of the modern supergrid and superblocks. Water channels often laid down the foundations for modern transportation too. In examining dozens of maps of Japanese cities of various scales from the Togukawa period and twentieth century, I found that many water channels had been covered or filled in and transformed into wide roads to accommodate trams and motor vehicles. It is reasonable to suggest that, although the supergrid did not exist in the former period, the areal thinking underpinning it is still apparent in the spatial organization of towns. The supergrid and superblock structure reappeared as an open system in the Meiji period (1868–1912). The formation of an actual supergrid superblock structure, as Shelton (2012) states, is usually the result of modern Eastern planning practice (partly under Western influence), such as road widening, land readjustment, and height control according to the ‘slope plane’ rule12 (see figure 2.16). These afect the design of Japanese cities today and create the ‘hard-shell

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  53

Figure 2.16. Diagrammatic explanation of the slope/slant plane concept.

Figure 2.17. A clear example of a Tokyo superblock with a high ‘hard shell’ and low ‘soft yolk’ form. (Photo source: Chen Otto)

and soft-yolk’13 type of superblock in contemporary Japanese cities (see figure 2.17). The first modern embryonic supergrid network appeared during late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The introduction of new forms of Western technology and transportation, such as train, tram, and automobile boosted the need for city transformation (Sorensen, 2002). Tram networks were constructed in many major Japanese cities. These created a grid network of wide roads, which were later converted into wider global roads to accommodate automobiles. New global roads were then constructed to extend this network across a greater city area as a regular or deformed grid. Kyoto, Osaka, Nagoya and some other cities all experienced this process. Land readjustment was invariably part of the grid extension process and often part of post-earthquake reconstruction as in Nagoya and Tokyo (see figure 2.18). In the process, a new broader grid is superimposed on top of an existing small grid structure to create an open system that links the city’s parts across wide territory with minimal obstruction in the connections. This kind of supergrid

54  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 2.18. (left) The Nagoya city plan, 1926, included streets, parks and canals; (right) Plan for Tokyo’s reconstruction after the Great Earthquake in 1923. (Source: (left) Nagoya Urban Institute, 1999, p. 58; (right) Masia, 1986, p. 31)

and superblock structure is widely used in Japanese cities and written into the planning regulations of some cities with detailed explanations (National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, 2015). For instance, Osaka city specifies a 500 m supergrid in inner-city areas and a 1 km supergrid in outer areas (further explanation is given in Chapter 6).

Contemporary Japan: Diversity, Vitality, and Convenience Shelton (2012, p. 141) states that ‘the superblock structure is the sine qua non of Japanese urban design – attempted time and again wherever space and circumstances have allowed’. Although existing studies of the supergrid and superblock structure in Japanese cities are few, these do suggest it has a positive role in creating more diverse, convenient, and vibrant environments, and assists in integrating the city as a whole. Ashihara (1989) discerned that a hidden order in Japanese cities follows from a design and planning process usually starting with parts and moving to the whole, indicating a piecemeal design approach and attention to small-scale and detail. Further, he believes that this characteristic is crucial for the design of lively and versatile city environments, and is an important aspect of the culture, together with the floor-oriented spatial conception. He writes of an amoeboid quality in Japanese cities that allows for endless expansion. Kurokawa (1994, p. 29) claims that symbiosis is also an important characteristic of Japanese culture and cities, which allows for the incorporation and juxtaposition of contrasting or opposing elements. Although he does not relate this idea directly to the creation of urban structure, he suggests the concept of symbiosis and that

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  55

Japanese cities are a good example of the philosophical concept of the rhizome developed by Deleuze and Guattari (1987, p. 32): ‘an open system’ with multiple and non-hierarchical connections and links. It emphasizes the importance of multiplicity and interconnection between diferent things. These characteristics of Japanese cities are noted by a number of Japanese commentators. Both Jinnai (1994) and Watanabe (1985, pp. 272–276) write of the positive consequences of the high levels of mixed use in Japanese cities. Similarly, Fujita and Hill (1997) praise Japanese urban areas for avoiding the extreme residential segregation prevalent in US cities and that rich and poor residents are able to live in close proximity. Hohn (2000, p. 548) states: … urban space in Japan thus has primarily positive connotations, for this guarantees variety, liveliness, colour, variability and contrast with simultaneous integration in a common network which makes for cohesion. The key to success lies in the inclusive philosophy of flexible direction, in the general openness of town planning to new ideas and stimuli.

Sorensen (2002) also applauds the value of the inclusive and flexible nature of Japanese urbanism and its mixed land use. He describes how extensive areas of Japanese cities are integrated mixed use, with medium-to-high residential density and good public transport following a series of planning interventions and experiments since the Meiji Period. Hein discusses the Japanese idea of neighbourhood and comments that the Japanese cities are: densely built, functionally and socially mixed residential areas with shopping streets, educational facilities and public transportation within walking distance, and feature narrow and irregular paths that require cars to drive carefully and allows room for neighbourly talk and children’s play. (Hein, 2008, p.11)

She thinks that the special quality to the Japanese neighbourhood (Machi) is its social and functional diversity. Similarly, this supergrid and superblock structure is repeatedly discussed by Tsukamoto in his studies. Even though he did not use the term ‘superblock’, he accurately depicts the Japanese city condition: a clear contrast between ‘wide avenues’, modern ‘high-rise buildings’, ‘large stations’ and ‘a dense pattern of single family houses, small apartment blocks and gardens, integrated in a fine network of services that tend to concentrate around a commercial street (Shotengai) with small businesses, eateries, artisans and services to the community’ along a network of narrow streets (Tsukamoto and Almazán, 2006, pp. 3–4; Kitayama, 2010, p. 29; Tsukamoto and Fujimura, 2007). While the global infrastructure is considered as a form of Western influence, he claims that the mixed-used residential area reflects a ‘deeply rooted feature of Japanese lifestyle’. Together these generate a

56  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

unique character and Japanese identity that cannot be found in Western cities. More specifically, Mohr (2007) points out that many contemporary observers view Japanese cities as a model for the future and an inspiration for urban planning. This implies a need to understand Japanese urban structure and discover what the crucial elements and relationships for creating such a good environment really are. Shelton (2012) is the first (and may be the only) study of the supergrid and superblock structure in contemporary Japanese cities. He argues that the superblock is an important urban spatial structure that can encourage and facilitate many of the qualities of Japanese cities that have been discussed by the authors above. Shelton’s study has received repeatedly positive comments from Fumihiko Maki (Maki, 2015; 2017; 2020; Maki and Makabe, 2019), and it is a modest but pioneer study that has provided a fundamental understanding of the Japanese structure and guidance to this work. His observation of the city of Nagoya reveals a unique urban structure: the ‘hard shell/big road’ macro grid flanked by higher buildings, and the more intricate ‘soft yolk/small street’ networks with their lower buildings that sit within the larger grid to form superblocks. (Shelton 2012, p. 141)

This was started by the superimposition of a modern supergrid of big roads on a pre-existing small grid of narrow streets that formed Nagoya castle town. More important is that he discovers that the distribution of activities is both concentrated at the intersections of major roads and along their edges, and also scattered across the whole superblock area (see figure 2.19). With the help of maps and diagrams, Shelton also shows several potential analytical methods to understand how this structure afects movement and activity patterns in cities (see

Figure 2.19. Diagrammatic layout of contemporary supergrid (right) and superblock (left) in Japan showing: street structures (black) and intensity of activity levels (red); and crosssectional building heights (bottom).

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  57

Chapter 4). He points to Kyoto as having a similar superblock structure, but that it has undergone a diferent process of formation because of the ancient adoption of the Chinese supergrid and superblock model. This implies a potential for diferent types of superblocks in Japan, which is investigated in Chapter 6. Shelton (2012) also indicates that this Japanese superblock structure has influenced cities in other parts of East Asia where Chinese spatial culture has penetrated, like Taiwan. In her study of Taipei, Wang (1996) confirmed this speculation. She discovered a similar superblock structure of higher density where there were strong Chinese and Japanese influences on its city development.14 However, Taipei will not be discussed further in this book since Wang (1996) has already made a comprehensive morphological study of the island’s superblocks: it is however a good reference for understanding the combination of Chinese and Japanese cultural forms. Lastly, several collaborative studios between students of Melbourne and Nagoya Universities investigated selected superblocks in the city of Nagoya between 2011 and 2013. These noted well-connected structures in and between most superblocks contributing positively to active and synergetic environments, thus reinforcing the observations of the authors quoted above.

Conclusions This chapter began with the historical development of supergrid and superblock structures in Chinese and Japanese cities. By piecing together many records from textual and graphic sources (primary and secondary), I have been able to present two chronological stories that explain how their structures have changed over time (figure 2.20).

Figure 2.20. Comparison: sequential transformation of Chinese and Japanese superblock structures.

58  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

In China, the supergrid and superblock structure has a long history with the pervasive use of a hierarchical ‘wall-and-gate’ structure. In this process, a supergrid remained, but superblock structures changed from the walled compound to a more open structure and then reverted to a structure of more isolated cells. More specifically, they were transformed from walled superblocks with a cross street pattern in the Tang era to superblocks with limited walls and a fishbone street pattern in the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing eras (Liu and Lai, 2008; Liu and Ge, 2014), and then to the modern walled/gated compounds with ‘towersin-the-park’ (and other free-standing building types) with tree pattern circulation (Monson, 2008). Structurally, walled areas have always existed within the supergrid and superblock framework at various scales and in a range of forms, and the transformation of the Chinese superblock has been, as Friedmann (2005, p. 117) put it, a case of China going ‘backward into the Future’. When compared, the evolution of the Japanese version of the supergrid and superblock structure was diferentiated from that of the Chinese with a stronger water-related culture (Jinnai, 1994; Osamu, 2006) and a relatively better connected and more flexible urban system. The earliest supergrid and superblock structure in Japan can be traced back to China, and has since appeared in cities only when they reached a certain size or were planned as large settlements from the outset (as with Heian-kyo). Unlike the ancient Chinese model, the Japanese version abandoned the wall structure for various reasons, of which the most important may have been climate. And even though some gates can be found in Japanese cities, they were not used pervasively and systematically nor were they heavily built as was the case in China. The modern version of the supergrid city in Japan is largely the result of top-down trafc planning, land readjustment and postwar or disaster reconstruction. A better appreciation of the histories and key physical characteristics of the supergrid and superblock systems in China and Japan should provide a deeper understanding of the cultural contexts, which led to the variations between the two and this is the focus of the next chapter.

Notes 1.

Herbert Hoover (1874–1964) was the 31st President of the United States (1929– 1933).

2.

French author, poet, and statesman, Alphonse de Lamartine (1790 –1869) played a significant role in the foundation of the Second Republic.

3.

Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges (1830–1889) was a French historian, famous as the author of La Cité antique (The Ancient City), published in 1864.

4.

Jamaican born, Marcus Garvey (1887–1940) was a political activist, publisher, and journalist and founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League.

5.

Voltaire was the pen name of the French satirist and playwright François-Marie Arouet (1694–1778).

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK HISTORY  59

6.

From Oscar Wilde’s play, Lady Windermere’s Fan, first performed in 1892.

7.

The world’s oldest encyclopaedia of technology probably compiled between the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.

8.

Those studies include: Zou and Bian (2000); Zhao (2002); Wang (2003); Liao (2004); Wu (2005); Huang (2006); Li and Yu (2006); Li and Li (2007); Xu and Yang (2008); Yang and Min (2008); Liu and Li (2009); Song and Zhu (2009); Liu and Li (2010); Hu (2010); Wang (2010); Dou (2010); Song (2010); Liang and Su (2011); Feng, Breitung & Zhu (2011); Wei and Qin (2011); Hu, Yu and Luo (2011); Deng (2013); and Wallenwein (2013).

9.

A small grid can create triangular shapes, which are to be avoided in Chinese planning according to culture and fengshui.

10. Known today as Kyoto. 11. A network of regular grid and square blocks that were first used in ancient Nara and Kyoto as a spatial tool for land subdivision. 12. Slant/Slope Plane: this has been a fundamental component in determining building form since 1919. The concept is to create a building envelope that is defined by the width of street to allow light into street and buildings: accordingly, the wider the street, the higher a building can be. It is determined using a 1:1.5 and 1:1.25 in a horizontal-to-vertical ratio above a certain wall height in commercial and residential areas, respectively – see figure 2.16. 13. For the explanation of the ‘hard-shell and soft-yolk’, which is a term used by Shelton in his study of Japanese superblocks (borrowing terms from Popham), see Chapter 6. 14. Japan was a major influence on Taiwanese modern city planning during its occupation of Taiwan in the early twentieth century.

60  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Chapter Three

Culture Of course, culture is what makes architecture and cities distinctive to begin with. Yoshinobu Ashihara, The Hidden Order (1989), p. 14 History and culture have complicated, intertwined, and dynamic relationships with each other, and this is clearly evident in architecture and city design. On one hand, local climate and many other factors afect people’s everyday lives and habits that have developed over long periods of time, gradually forming distinctive cultures. On the other hand, culture is an underlying and formidable power that diferentiates cities by sculpting similar and dissimilar urban forms and spatial structures. It is also the product of the interweaving of philosophies, social norms, religions, and politics that have a huge impact on the way people conceive their world, how they understand space, and construct their urban environments. Those cultures that have withstood the tests of time continue to thrive in modern times and shape our lives today. In other words, cities are not simply composed of buildings and other physical entities, they are also the direct manifestation of a wide range of cultural constructs of human societies. Cities’ physical forms are created and shaped by the cultures that inhabit them and, in return, the urban forms shape these cultures. These inextricable and dynamic interrelationships reinforce and write the histories of cities: as Hillier (1996b, p. 16) states, ‘through the idiosyncrasies of style, building and settlement form becomes one of the primary – though most puzzling and variable – expressions of culture’. Supergrid and superblock structures in Chinese and Japanese cities difer in form from those of other countries because they are culturally manifested, codified, and utilized in diferent ways. In order to understand these modern structures in the Eastern context, it is important to appreciate the cultural discourses that made them. They are not just the products of modernization, but also built on layers of the past that are culturally congruent and carry the imprints of an Eastern urban paradigm.

CULTURE  61

Tendencies: Eastern ‘Areal’ and Western ‘Linear’ It is fair to say that our current methodologies and frameworks for understanding the world are mostly Western dominated. These are built upon a science that is created from Western values and interests. However, if we zoom out and look at the world, there is another large part that exists and develops in parallel; and that is the East, which remains mysterious to most Western people. If we trace the origins of Eastern and Western thought, China and continental Europe are generally recognized as the ancient sources of these two major civilizations of the world, and commonly referred to as ‘the East’ and ‘the West’ (Craig, 1979, p. 50). The ontologies of the East and West have formulated two interesting but disparate systems of epistemology under diferent social, political, and climatic impacts. Where cities are concerned, it is to be expected that diferences between the two systems would have resulted in very diferent physical structures that constitute cities. While the Western urban structure is well known, widely studied and often praised, the Eastern-born city structure has received limited attention and is not generally understood, especially the role of traditional culture in afecting physical built structures and forms. There is a strong connection between culture (e.g. language, religion, and philosophy) and spatial conception, which contributes to the creation and formation of diferent sequences and arrangements of space and buildings, and the generation of varying spatial experiences in cities. Lu and Bozovic-Stamenovic (2004) discuss the relationship between Chinese culture and the formation of the spatial conception of enclosure. Ru et al. (2010) cover the Chinese understanding of vagueness. While Ashihara (1989) and Kurokawa (1994) indicate a relatively more open, asymmetric, dynamic/ephemeral conception of space in Japanese culture, Nitschke (1966; 1988; 1993) and Isozaki (1979) both discuss the Japanese concept of Ma. Maki (1987; 2008) explores the concept of Oku and Li (2009) compares and elaborates the similarities and diferences in the Chinese and Japanese concepts of Oku. While culture can be articulated in various forms, the words of a language are often seen as ‘the index of culture’ and ‘a means of spatial expression’ (Chang, 1982). The human mind has the habit of handling ‘configuration unconsciously and intuitively, in much the same way as we handle the grammatical and semantic structures of a language intuitively’ (Hillier, 1996b, p. 4). This interesting comparison of language and city structure reveals a possible relationship between how spaces are perceived under the influence of culture, and how this afects the design of the structure of a city. Among existing authors, Shelton specifically argues that the Eastern areal and Western linear understandings of space are related closely to their languages and writing systems, and contribute significantly to the Eastern areal/lateral and Western linear/radial concepts of city structure (see figure 3.1). He compares the

62  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 3.1. Areal and linear tendencies in Eastern and Western cultures: (left) city structure; (right) writing and identification codes. (Sources: (left) Shelton 2012, p. 9; (right) modelled on Shelton’s lecture images, University of Melbourne, 2013)

connection between language and city structure and concludes that the writing of ‘pictures’ in squares in Chinese or Japanese reveals an ‘areal’ understanding of space with inbuilt multi-directional qualities. He also emphasizes that ‘writing and page layout are both acts of spatial arrangement’ (Shelton, 2012, pp. 20–64), which bear similarity to the processes of city design and place-making. For the very young this cultural logic of the placement of objects in space can create a mindset that gives diferent cultural perceptions of space through the language system. As a Chinese, I have similar experience in writing Chinese at my first grade of primary school. We used paper that was full of boxes and squares as the base for writing. Each character had to be written in a box and repeated dozens of times. Each part of the character has to be written with proper proportion to make it correct. In comparison, the (phonetic alphabet) writing systems of the West are structured in lines that need to be placed in a certain order and direction to express meaning, and this nurtures a habit of thinking and creating in a linear fashion and in a single direction. This perception of space, therefore, can be seen as ‘areal’ in the East and ‘linear’ in the West, and can be linked to two types of urban structure: the Eastern multi-directional grid and the Western linear radial web. These represent two kinds of cultural perception of space and correspond to two writing systems and two ways of thinking: the Eastern Areal (lateral) and Western Linear (sequential). Mask (2020, pp. 131–134) also refers at length to Shelton’s work in her book on addresses, which are organized according to areas (machi) in Japan but along lines (streets) in the West: she notes that Shelton’s work is much more than speculative, referring to work in areas of neuroscience that adds weight to his view. This diference between Eastern and Western city structures is also discussed by some Chinese and Japanese academics. They read Western cities as having a primary radial structure in combination with a small grid secondary structure,

CULTURE  63

Figure 3.2. Eastern (left column) and Western (right column) city spatial structures.

in contrast to fractal repetition of a grid structure at diferent scales in Chinese and Japanese cities. Both Zhao (2008) and Zhu (2010) point out directly these structural diferences: that China has a supergrid with superblocks while the West has a small radial structure with street blocks (see figure 3.2). The former distinguishes the construct and scale between the Eastern supergrid (with road intervals typically at 500 to 1,200 m) and Western radial structure with a small grid network (and with street intervals normally between 50 m and 250 m). While Zhu discusses the cultural and philosophical grounds that foster the diference by providing a theoretical framework, and further specifies that the Chinese city grid is an internalized spatial territory with walls and gates, and the Western cardinal grid is an externalized grid with more emphasis on the nodes and intersections (Zhu, 2010, p. 107). As early as 1916, the Japanese architect Kataoka (1916, pp. 150–200) writing from a planning perspective, also comments on this radial and grid diference between Western and Japanese cities. He points out the limitations of the Western radial structure and appeals for limited and wise application in Japanese cities. Although this radial structure still has considerable application in many Chinese and Japanese cities, it rarely becomes the dominant structure. From these studies, we can gather two important messages: 1. We may think of city structure as the organizational structure of spatial relationships in cities at the macro scale. In this way, the small grid in the West

64  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

does not equate with city structure: it is a street layout or a sub-structure within a primary radial structure. The use of a grid network in the East, as the supergrid and superblock, is a city structure that exists above the grid layout. Although grid networks exist in both Eastern and Western cities, they difer in their scales and hierarchies. 2. The supergrid and superblock structure can be found in some modern Western cities, but in terms of spatial relationships, the radial and linear structure is still strong. For instance, in Milton Keynes, the macro road structure is a supergrid and superblock structure but radial thinking is still strongly apparent. Superblocks are isolated, have their own small local centres, and are separated from yet dependent on a single dominant, functional centre just as one would find in a city that has a macro-scale radial structure (Shelton, 2014, pp. 155–158). Reflecting back to Shelton’s identification of respective areal and linear tendencies in Eastern and Western spatial thinking, it is reasonable to conclude that the radial structure in the West is clearly a counterpoint to the supergrid and superblock structure in the East, and the two embody diferent epistemologies from two contrasting and dominant cultural backdrops: the multi-directional grid and linear radial web (see figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3. Early diagrams of Eastern grid and Western radial cities: (left) Classic Chinese model in 2 BCE; (right) Classic Western model of early Renaissance: Filarete’s radial plan for the city of Sforzinda, 1457. (Sources: (left) Nalan, 1676; (right) Public domain)

Similarities: ‘Areal’, Multi-Dimensional, Multi-Directional The basic argument here is that China and Japan share similar areal thinking, which represents one of the core values of Eastern culture. This thinking is manifested in various aspects of the culture, and the most unequivocal representation of the idea

CULTURE  65

is the use of Chinese characters as a major component in their script systems. The origin of Chinese characters can be traced back to the mental habit of translating observable and experiential natural phenomena and forces into illustrations and pictographs thousands of years ago (Boudonnant and Kushizaki, 2003, p. 197). The ideograms are miniatures of things in nature ‘to catch the universe as if they were an image’. They also represent the ‘laws of the universe, since they are an attempt to signify what exists through a visual presentation of patterns’ (Liotta and Belfiore, 2012, p. 11), and to encapsulate the worldview and visualization of the structures of Chinese and Japanese spaces. In other words, the key to understanding Eastern culture is to appreciate the multiple interrelationships between the parts and the whole of areal structural arrangements (Li and Yang, 2007, pp. 50–58). Just like the ideograms, the same characters confined within squares and arranged in diferent spatial relationships can result in diferent meanings and connotations (see figure 3.4). Hence, being able to arrange things in multiple directions in an ‘areal’ setting becomes a mental ability of the Chinese and Japanese through years of training and practice from their childhood. This phenomenon is described by Shelton (2012) and can be referred to as the Eastern multi-directional spatial conception. Such spatial logic of creating Chinese characters in matrices at the micro level (part) is also applied in the arrangement of characters into sentences and texts at the macro level (whole). Not only does each character illustrate an image individually, but when with other characters and stamps, it can depict meaning as in a ‘painting’, which is the beauty of calligraphy. Japan adopted Chinese characters and calligraphy as part of its culture and therefore shares these

Figure 3.4. Chinese characters in matrices: differing areal placements of the same characters in the same square block base in single and compound characters.

66  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 3.5. (top) Example of Chinese calligraphy indicating relationship between the part and whole relations at micro and macro levels, Lan Ting Xu by Xizhi Wang; (bottom) Examples of Chinese and Japanese posters showing multiple directions in writing. (Sources: (top) China Online Museum; (bottom left) Guangdong Museum of Art; (bottom right) Public domain)

characteristics. Characters can also be written and read in multiple directions without compromising either the meaning or ease of reading, as shown in figure 3.5 (Li and Yang, 2007, p. 54; Shelton, 1999; 2012). Arrangement of characters as texts will often appear in multiple directions. In other words, understanding the language or, more specifically, the nature of the written script becomes a crucial bridge to comprehending the Chinese and Japanese spatial conception and city structure (Chang, 1982, p. 10; Shelton, 2012; Wang, 2014, p. 173). With this basic understanding of written characters and their placement, it is apparent that Chinese and Japanese spatial conceptions are similar, but very diferent from that of the West. Space is not only considered as a multi-directional physical construct, but also as a multi-dimensional experience and this can be considered to be at the heart of Eastern spatial conception. In modern times, the basic concept of space is written as 空間 in both Chinese and Japanese, with the Chinese having adopted the compound character from Japanese in the twentieth century. However, the two characters represented a

CULTURE  67

Figure 3.6. The concept of Jian or Ma (间/間) in Chinese and Japanese built form: Wuhouci in Chengdu (left) and The Founder’s Hall (Goei-dō) in Kyoto (right).

Western concept that refers to a three-dimensional spatial conception built on the Cartesian system, which did not exist in traditional Chinese and Japanese cultures. Originally, the two characters were used separately, with diferent meanings and connotations (Li and Yang, 2007; Isozaki, 1979; 2011). The first character, 空, means emptiness and void, and the character, 間, means gaps, interstices or chasm between space and time; or, as indicated in figure 3.6, it refers to the space between two pillars of a wooden frame as an architectural unit in China and Japan (Nitschke, 1966; Li and Yang, 2007; Isozaki, 2011, p. 94), and has the connotation of time being paused (Zong, 1981; Zhu, 2004): ‘a relativised and sensorial perception of space’ (Liotta and Belfiore, 2012, p. 56). In ancient China, unlike the modern phrase, 宇宙 was originally used to represent the traditional spatial conception.1 宇 (Yu) represents the space above, in the middle and below, and 宙 (Zhou) means the past, present and future.  In other words, Yu refers to the limited space in four directions and Zhou refers to the unlimited time. The two characters being used together as one for the Chinese conception of space and time as one entity. Similarly, the word, 空间 is a phrase to represent the void or gap between solid objects in the traditional Japanese spatial conception. In Isozaki’s (2011, pp. 89–90) words: it is the combination of ‘a series of magical and symbolic space’ and ‘a series of abstract, multidimensional spaces (semiotic space)’ that are interrelated spatially and temporally. That is to say, unlike the concepts of space and time in the West where these are treated as separate entities, space in Chinese and Japanese culture not only represents a physical construct, but also refers to a series of experiences of time through space or ‘a structure of feelings’ (Li and Yang, 2007, pp. 50–51; Nitschke, 1966; Liotta and Belfiore, 2012). Neither the traditional Chinese nor Japanese conceptions of space are three-dimensional linear concepts, but multi-dimensional areal conceptions that unite space and time as one.

68  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

This also shows clearly in traditional Chinese and Japanese paintings, which may be considered as ways of creating multi-directional and multi-dimensional space – in experience and sentiment. It is a common knowledge for most people that perspective is a basic technique in painting. However, this ‘norm’ is largely a West-centric view, a point raised by Hockney (2006) in his controversial book, Secret Knowledge. Established in the Renaissance, Western ‘linear perspective’ is a geometrical representation that tends to mimic or reflect nature and express norms of beauty through an understanding of how light and chiaroscuro work in nature (Bush and Shih, 1985; Sasaki, 2013). The pursuit of capturing realism in paintings cultivates the discovery of optic laws, which is further developed into more scientific production: camera and picture. However, a contrasting approach can be traced in China. The Chinese tend to capture and reflect the spirit and philosophy of nature and society rather than the accuracy of outer physical forms based on a pictorial mental construct (Bush and Shih, 1985). A famous painter of the Qing Dynasty, Zou, even criticized the Western drawing techniques and the use of perspective as too superficial. For him, the Western way of drawing only captures the physical shapes, and loses the essence of depiction, which is the spirit of an object. In this sense, an accurate Western perspective is the opposite of what constitutes a good painting in Chinese practice. Chinese paintings are often accompanied by poems and calligraphy on one side. The observer can read, watch, and experience paintings at the same time. The three are inseparable and mutually supportive in depicting a dynamic scene. In order to achieve this, the multiple point perspective or aerial/atmospheric perspectives (三 (六) 远法),2 is used to create paintings and more importantly to express a philosophical phenomenon. Japanese painting mostly adopted Chinese painting techniques and theories before the eighteenth century (Bharne, 2014). Therefore, similar techniques of drawing can be found in the artworks of both cultures. The two paintings in figure 3.7 show clearly the use of multiple point perspective. By creating moving visual points and refusing fixed point linear perspective, this drawing technique is used to illustrate a series of experiences in an area rather than a physical thing at a specific moment as has been commonly adopted in the West since the Renaissance. Paintings are not only intended for observation but also to be experienced and felt. The observers are more than an audience from the outside as is the common way in the West, but also participants (Li and Yang, 2007, p. 60; Liotta and Belfiore, 2012, p. 60). It is not difcult to appreciate that the paintings employing this Chinese and Japanese conception see space and time as inseparable entities and are expressed through multi-dimensional (as noted by Isozaki) and multi-directional (as noted by Shelton) artistic conceptions to create experiential space. These traditional spatial concepts of China and Japan serve to reinforce Shelton’s notion of ‘areal thinking’ in these related Eastern cultures: they are both multi-dimensional and multi-directional. Hence, the conception of space in the

CULTURE  69

Figure 3.7. Traditional Chinese and Japanese paintings: (left) Chinese showing part of Qingmingshanghetu (festival), Bianliang; (right) Japanese screen painting showing part of Ryakuchu-Ryakugai, Kyoto. Both views reflect Eastern multiple perspective and multidimensional spatial conceptions. (Sources: (left) Bi, 2021; (right) Art Gallery of NSW, 1999)

two countries is not a linear construct that follows the XYZ directions of Cartesian axes: a product of linear thinking (Isozaki, 2011, pp. 89–91; Li and Yang, 2007, p. 34; Bharne, 2014, p. 101). It is a multi-dimensional construct of space and time that is made of a web of nodes (experience and sense) which contains multiple connections and directions (see figure 3.8). It is beyond the Western 3D spatial conception that is primarily about physical structure: it is a multi-dimensional spatial construct and is composed of physical, temporal, psychological, nonsequential events, experience, and sentiments. This is important because it is clearly indicative of a spatial conception that entwines space and time as interrelated concepts.

Figure 3.8. Eastern/traditional (Chinese and Japanese) areal (left) and Western/modern Cartesian (right) spatial conceptions.

By linking these ideas to the supergrid and superblock structure, a continuity can be found in both ancient and modern Chinese and Japanese cities. In ancient times, both China and Japan adopted the supergrid structure, which was considered an ideal Eastern city-planning paradigm (Liu and Lai, 2008). Over two millennia later, a supergrid and superblock structure is again widely used in both

70  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

countries, as discussed in the previous chapter. Thus, it is becoming very evident that there is a correlation between culture and city structure, and that correlation extends to most aspects of Chinese and Japanese culture and cities, from language (writing) to paintings to architecture and city design. A multi-dimensional spatial conception can be linked to areal thinking as a dominant way of reading space in the culture and this lies behind the multi-directional supergrid in both Chinese and Japanese cities and is recognized in a range of ways by diverse authors.

Difference: Wall- and Floor-Oriented Areal Conception Although the Chinese and Japanese have similar and long-established ways of areal thinking and multi-dimensional concepts of space, there are diferences in their appreciation of space, creating diferences of structure and morphology, as already intimated. If we return for a moment to the subject of language and scripts, marked diferences are to be found between Chinese and Japanese. The use of Chinese ideograms may be common to both writing systems but syntax and sounds in the two languages are very diferent. Chinese is an isolating language with each character used for a monosyllabic morpheme that is confined by a system of ‘rigid and bony block structure’, while Japanese is an agglutinative language that is polysyllabic, ambiguous and ‘characterized by a weak syntax’ (Belfiore and Liotta, 2012, p. 6). It also has more ambiguity and fluidity because of the introduction of the Kana system3 creating a diferent ‘mental context and spatiality’ from the Chinese (see figure 3.9). These diferences in syntax between the two languages and associated variations in scripts would appear to parallel the contrasts in

Figure 3.9. Examples of Chinese and Japanese texts: left shows characters in isolation in Chinese; right depicts the use of Japanese (phonetic) Kana in association with Chinese characters.

CULTURE  71

spatial conception and structuring of spaces in the two countries. China has clear hierarchical space that is well defined by wall structures (like the block structure in writing characters). In comparison, Japan is equipped with a ‘non-dominant hierarchy, a de-centred and extended fragmentation of space’ (ibid.) showing a new mental spatiality (Okazaki 2003), which can be extended to architecture, urban design, and planning (Okazaki, 2003, p. 14). In considering space, Ashihara (1989) defines architectural space by three basic elements: the floor, the wall, and the ceiling. He provides a conceptual framework to identify two types of ordering systems: one that is characterized by the wall and the other by the floor (see figure 3.10). He propounds that Japanese conception of space can be understood as an ‘Architecture of the floor’, while that of the West is an ‘Architecture of the Wall’ (Ashihara, 1983, p. 3) and suggests that Chinese Architecture is ‘more West than East’ (Ashihara, 1989, p. 134). However, although walls are linear elements, they are used as tools to formulate areas in Chinese culture. The common use of walls in both Chinese and Western cities does not bring Chinese architecture or urban design any closer to that of the West since in China it has been an adjunct to a spatial conception that is primarily areal and rectilinear, as discussed above. Nevertheless, it does reveal an important diference between Chinese and Japanese architecture and the related spatial conceptions, and this concerns the use of the wall. Adopting Ashihara’s framework, I would suggest that China has a more wall-oriented spatial conception (both 2D horizontal and 3D vertical), whereas in Japan it is more floor-oriented (2D horizontal plane). Brick carvings from the tomb of the Han Dynasty illustrate how the Chinese were living 2,000 years ago. The basic living unit is related to quadrangles and

Figure 3.10. Spatial conceptions compared: Chinese ‘wall’ (left) and Japanese ‘floor’ (right) tendencies.

72  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 3.11. Images and model from an Eastern Han tomb: (a) Courtyard; (b) A market place; (c) A residential courtyard. (Source: Author’s photos taken in Chinese museums)

courtyards enclosed by walls, rooms, or roofed corridors of houses. Spaces are separated into several areas according to social status and function (see figure 3.11). As discussed in Chapter 2 the earliest formal concept of Chinese urban design and planning can be traced back to the Kao Gong Ji in Zhou Dynasty (1 BCE) (Steinhardt, 1999) and it goes back again to the basic rule of having an area that is walled to begin a city. Both Chinese, and non-Chinese academics recognize the pervasive use of wall structures in cities and believe that ‘A wall is a key element in the formation of space in the Chinese conception’, and the ‘architecture of city walls, was vertical or hierarchical’ (Zhu, 2004, p. 46). Any Chinese characters and phrases that relate to a city also indicate that a city would not be a Chinese city without walls (Wheatley, 1971; Xu, 2000). Any Chinese architecture that is composed of a number of buildings would not exist without walls to create a series of architectural experiences (Zhu, 2010). Walls and gates are hence the special characteristics of Chinese urban design and planning in demarcating space and inseparable parts of Chinese culture and religion over thousands of years of evolution (Lu and Bozovic-Stamenovic, 2004; Lu, 2006b; Nieminen, 2012). Walls and gates together form structures that are composed of hierarchies of walls and gates, including city walls (which usually includes outer, inner and, where appropriate, royal palace walls), Superblock walls, ward walls and walls of courtyard houses (see figure 3.12). The construction of space by using walls in China is not only a device to protect, but also a physical structure that shapes the order of space, to create unity through difusion, centrality through decentralization, and concordance through separation. Spaces are hence ‘fragmented, dissected, enclosed, localized and relativized’ (Zhu, 2004, pp. 50–51). This might be the result of long periods of warfare: China went through unity, division, and unity again and again over thousands of years which might cultivate a strong attachment to the wall for protection in its culture. Walls are not only physical but functional and psychological features that construct Chinese cities and society (Boyd, 1962; Chang, 1977; Mote, 1977; Steinhardt 1999). At a philosophical level, Chinese spatial culture focuses on the idea of enclosure and containment to reach a balance between conflicting things

CULTURE  73

Figure 3.12. Walls used as elements to enclose and create cohesive units at architecture and urban design: (a) building/courtyard; (b) groups of courtyards; (c) Superblocks; and (d) city. (Sources: (a) Institute of Architecture Science, 1959; (b) Wu, 1999, p. 160; (c) Chang, 2011)

(Li and Yang, 2007). There is a dynamic containment between space and time in order to reach a balance (Zong, 1981). This balance in Chinese philosophy can be considered as the ‘equilibrium of Yin and Yang’ from Taoism; the ‘moderation of extremes and mitigation of conflict’ (中庸) from Confucianism; and the ‘recurrence and reincarnation’ (轮回) from Buddhism (Li and Yang, 2007). Or, as Zong (1981) notes, it is summarized in the words of Yijing:4 there are forces that always come and go in dynamic motion in the universe, and the limitless is limited within an invisible circular system (无往不复, 天地际也). Infinite time can only be captured and understood through finite space (see figure 3.13). Spiritually, walls represent ‘what was constant in the vicissitude of life’, ‘a sense of eternity’ or as ‘part of the timeless universe, in contrast to the incessant changes in the world’ (Lu, 2006a, p. 130). As a result, a strong sense of spatial enclosure to protect land and people through the use of the wall structure can be termed ‘the wall-oriented spatial conception’. The wall structure is more than a defensive structure; it is also a systematic metaphysical structural mechanism to create interconnections between everything in the universe to maintain balance and unification between humans and nature (Zhu, 2004; Li and Yang, 2007). When compared, Japanese spatial conception is also metaphysical, but its character can be considered as the embodiment of Ma/void (Nitschke, 1966;

74  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 3.13. Chinese conception of space: infinity made finite.

Isozaki, 1979), or in Ashihara’s words: an ‘Architecture of the floor’ (Ashihara, 1983, p. 10). It is a ‘productive emptiness like a place prepared and purified to receive the gods’ (Isozaki, 2011, p. 100). ‘Ma’ also resonates the philosophy of absolute nothingness (無の境地), which is stressed by Nishida Kitar5 as the foundation of Japanese culture (Nishida, 1958). The concept of Ma poses a strong emphasis on the idea of ‘boundarylessness’ (figure 3.14). In other words, it places the focus on allowing spaces to expand unlimitedly as a plane, which means the ground or floor becomes the decisive element in constructing space. It is an ‘intuitive grasp of the “formless and voiceless” rather than concrete things’ (Fu and Heine, 1995, p. 55 quoted in Liotta and Belfiore, 2012, p. 11). Bharne (2014, p. 85) gives a similar interpretation when he remarks that the traditional sense of space in Japan is like ‘an organic void – had no beginning and no end’. Roland Barthes’s famous comment also indicates the presence of a central void in Tokyo: ‘it does possess a center, but the center is empty … the sacred nothing … an empty

Figure 3.14. Japanese spatial conception: Ma.

CULTURE  75

subject’ (Barthes, 1982, pp. 30–32). Just like Kazuo Shinohara states that the meaning of space in Japan is to take out rather than to put in as is common in the West (Wilson, 1989, p. 18). Ma can also be understood as the Philosophy of Symbiosis, the Rikyu grey of Kurokawa (1994), the bi-dimensional spatial layering (Liotta and Belfiore, 2012), the ‘hidden order’ of Japanese society and cities (Ashihara, 1989), the concept of oku (Maki, 1979), and of intermediary space (Ashihara, 1983; Kurokawa, 1994; Maki, 2008; Bharne, 2014). It represents the sense of impermanence, incompleteness, and imperfection under the influence of Buddhism that can give birth to unlimited possibilities and spatial expansion (Ashihara, 1983, p. 10). Moreover, it indicates a more open, fluid, flexible, ephemeral, atmospheric, transparent, and porous sense of space. No clear boundary is needed to enclose space, but an ambiguous border between man and nature, inside and outside (see figure 3.15). More importantly, it allows ‘the juxtaposition of diferent things and the expansion of space in multiple directions’ (Ashihara, 1989, p. 55). Although the use of the wall is also common in Japanese cities, it is more symbolic and less prominent. The emphasis in creating space is to allow constant change to happen in space and the use of the wall in Japan gives less emphasis to strong physical outlines in spatial demarcation (Ashihara, 1983, p. 10; Ashihara, 1989; Shelton, 2012; Bharne, 2014). The boundary between spaces is not necessarily a physical structure: it can be a sign, the flow of people, a change of pattern on the ground or other subtlety. Even when there is a need to build a boundary, the choice of material would usually favour timber frame (a lighter material) to create an intermediary space and give a sense of ambiguity between inside and outside. To summarize, the pursuit of unlimited space as a void gives a particular appreciation of spatial openness within Japanese culture and a strong emphasis on the floor and ambiguous boundaries thus reinforcing a floor-oriented spatial conception. Building upon these wall and floor oriented spatial conceptions, China

Figure 3.15. Architecture of the floor (left); Symbolic ‘wall’ in Japanese ritual (right). (Sources: Ashihara, 1983, pp. 6, 12)

76  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

and Japan have developed distinctive characteristics that afect their respective treatment of space in architecture and urban design.

Solid and Void In China, space can be considered as the solid in the void (infinite) and the void (finite) in the solid: they are contained within each other (Li and Yang, 2007). Correspondingly, spaces in buildings or cities are arranged by enclosing voids with solid walls, which are used as structural tools. The basic unit, a courtyard, is a physical embodiment of Chinese philosophy, and represents how human beings can live with nature to reach a balance and reflect the rules and principles of Chinese society. While the Chinese courtyard compounds ‘can be viewed as a void or nothingness from outside, it is also a “solid” centre from within’ (Zhu, 2004, p. 224). As indicated in figure 3.16, buildings (the solid), representing limited space (宇), are used to enclose the yard (宙), which embodies unlimited time and invites nature from outside. Corridors provide an ambiguous transition between the solid and void to moderate a clear contrast between humans and nature. At the same

Figure 3.16. Chinese solid and void relationship: courtyard compound.

CULTURE  77

time, a sharp distinction between inside and outside can be maintained by the use of the solid wall. Even the use of the material in Chinese architecture is a mix of solid (brick wall) and void (wood frame and column). In other words, the beauty of creating a Chinese sense of space lies in the ability to enclose the void in solid to reach a perfect balance between the human (inside) and nature (outside). The use of the wall becomes the structural key to generate a space that contains both void and solid (Li and Yang, 2007, pp. 113–120), and the Chinese courtyard is a perfect manifestation of this concept. In contrast, in Japanese culture the idea that ‘form is emptiness and emptiness is form’ is given as the most important principle for the generation of space (Liotta and Belfiore, 2012, p. 11), and represents the essence of Japanese spatial conception, Ma. This is reflected in traditional architecture as the removable sliding screens between posts and beams that bear the load of the structural skeleton. As Atsushi Ueda (1990, p. 11) states, ‘the history of Japanese architecture is the struggle with the pillars’. At the same time, spaces between pillars are demarcated with flexible paper sliding doors (shoji), folding curtains and wooden screens (fusuma) that can be seen as flowing void/Ma, rather than ‘something defined by the heavy material and existential presence surrounding walls’ (Ashihara, 1983, pp. 10–12). Ma is used to blur the boundary between each potential room, and to create spaces that are ‘neither indoors nor outdoors’. These spaces are ‘not even in between’ but are ‘an intermediate space that connects the interior space to nature’ with ‘its own atmosphere’ (Liotta and Belfiore, 2012, p. 14). ‘Japanese architecture’ says Kuma (2010, p. 15), is a ‘treasure-trove of boundary techniques’,6 and the engawa is the best example of such space (see figure 3.17). Unlike the corridors in a Chinese courtyard that are used to provide

Figure 3.17. Engawa in Japanese building.

78  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

transitions to the internalized nature, it is a direct threshold between interior and exterior that allows the inside to ‘melt’ into nature outside. By changing the position of the sliding doors, the whole house can be completely opened to the outside and human and nature become inter-penetrable and flawlessly blending within each other (Ashihara, 1983; Kurokawa, 1994; Liotta and Belfiore, 2012). In other words, the frame and pillars in buildings are used to define vertical space as the void thus giving emphasis to the floor as the only solid entity – which is the floor-oriented conception.

Brightness and Darkness The second important technique for creating space in Chinese architecture emphasizes the idea of brightness and darkness dynamically contained within each other to reach a balance. ‘One bright and two dark’ or ‘three bright and two or four dark’ are commonly used rules to create buildings with such conceptual spaces (Wang, 2008, p. 41). Walls and gates are used to structure a hierarchical social order through the creation of a series of ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ spaces.7 Depending on the size of a courtyard, the parts in the composition of each building are endowed with qualities of being ‘bright’ or ‘dark’, which are subdivided by walls into a number of sub-units (figure 3.18 right). Moreover, the wall-and-gate structures create depth within a courtyard compound. The larger the compound gets, the more depth it will have (Zhu, 2004, pp. 103–118). However, greater depth is not associated with darker space. This is because a yard for each sub-unit creates a space in the light that keeps the ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ in balance with equal distribution (figure 3.18). This concept is

Figure 3.18. Spatial qualities in Chinese courtyard design: (left) Depth levels numbered 1 to 5; (right) Brightness/darkness. (Source: (right) Adapted from Wang, 2008, p. 40)

CULTURE  79

also used in designing the landscape to create a more diversified spatial experience using the wall structure for separation and connection (Xu, 2007a; Zeng, 2010). And so ‘bright’ and ‘dark’ spaces penetrate every aspect of a building and landscape: the wall structure is used to balance brightness and darkness in space through separation into sub-units. In contrast, the Japanese have a special appreciation of shadow and darkness: the Japanese novelist, Tanizaki (1977, p. 17) wrote that space for living is made as if ‘we spread a parasol to throw a shadow on the earth, and in the pale light of the shadow we put together a house’. While numerous themes of darkness pervade Japanese architectural history (Bharne, 2014), darkness tends to have a positive connotation in defining spatiality (Liotta and Belfiore, 2012). ‘Traditional Japanese architectural space was experienced as much through darkness as light’; it was ‘less about reading size, geometry, and form’ and ‘more about the perceptual experience of minimal light playing in a void’ (Bharne, 2014, pp. 115–116). As a consequence ‘the beauty of a Japanese room depends on a variation of shadows, heavy shadows against light shadows – it has nothing else’ (Tanizaki, 1977, pp. 18). Space in Japanese cities is created through depth, which can also be understood as the ‘philosophy of inner space’ or oku (inner depth). Maki (2008, pp. 165–168) has probably probed this idea more than most: oku is a spatial arrangement to suggest depth and to create ‘perceptual remoteness within limited space like an onion’; he continues, ‘topography, trees, screens and other framing devices can all be used to endow urban space with oku, as can the treatment of natural light’. The diagrams and photographs in figure 3.19 show the kind of Oku space and related levels of shadow in equivalent space in the Osaka superblock. Such depth is described by Tanizaki (1977, p. 170) as ‘being expressed in the suggestive quality of natural light, whether inside or outside’. Thus, space

Figure 3.19. Spatial depth in Japanese cities: (top) Depths in a Tokyo block – black/purple/ blue; (bottom) Equivalent spatial depths with increasing shadow in an Osaka superblock. (Source: (top) Adapted from Maki, 2008, p. 165)

80  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 3.20. Darkness as light in a Japanese temple: Shoren-in, Kyoto. (Source: City of Kyoto and Kyoto Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2017)

with more depth is associated with darkness, which can also be considered as a form of light. Such space is ‘implicit in the conceit of darkness at the heart of the forest’, representing a massive central void (Isozaki, 2011, p. 77), and becomes an ambiance that is immersed with shrines hiding deep in the mountains; tea houses concealed in the shadowed meandering paths within heavy plantations; and planar spaces that are hidden in the shadow of long and heavy roofs (figure 3.20). ‘The space of darkness (therefore) probes an individual’s consciousness to its very depths, while the space of emptiness logically analyses an individual’s personality in a diversifying, complicating sweep’ (ibid., pp. 89–90). A spatial conception that senses space as an unlimited void and nothingness with ambiguous boundaries, and darkness as light in space with depth, can be considered as an incarnation of spatial technique that creates Ma, and further reinforces the idea of floor oriented spatial conception.

Static and Dynamic: ‘2D + 3D’ and ‘2D’ Areal Conception In Chinese culture, the words ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’8 in relation to spatial conception and production can be better interpreted as 形 xing (form) and 势 shi (propensity). ‘Xing’ refers to the static form that is visable from a close distance or ‘locally’, whereas ‘shi’ refers to a dynamic propensity that is only observable at a distance or ‘globally.9 Shi as a dynamic force cannot be formed without a collection of a large number of xing as static individualities, and the two must be contained within each other to reach a balance (Wang, 1992; Zhu, 2004). The creation of such space is through the use of the wall to accumulate smaller shapes (xing) into a force of propensity (shi) to form a strong multi-dimensionality. Horizontally, they are fragmented to divide, but vertically they incorporate to unite. In other words, space in China is perceived both horizontally and vertically (see figure 3.21). Moreover, the use of walls also plays a similar role in the social structure of Chinese society: to separate people with diferent social status and to

CULTURE  81

Figure 3.21. Chinese spatial concepts of Xing and Shi: (left) Xing focuses on the physical shape of a singular building; (right) Shi is felt through a collection of buildings. (Sources: Adapted from (left) Hellier, 2014; (right) Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2016)

unite ‘diferentiated segments’ into a socio-political hierarchy (Zhu, 2004, p. 224). Spaces are therefore both fragmented and united by the wall structure that can be seen at close distance as a static 2D plane (xing) and felt over long distance as a dynamic 3D holograph (shi). In comparison, Japanese spatial conception has a bias towards spatial dynamism, which has its origins in the fluidity of Ma. It indicates a boundary-less space with constant change and has a strong two-dimensionality. This is depicted by Chang (1982, p. 169), who proclaims: ‘the notion of flowing space depends on the notion of infinity, where space extends infinitely in two directions’ (p. 169), and ‘it is predominantly horizontal’ (ibid., pp. 163–168). Because space is mostly seen as two dimensional, it has greater flexibility and fluidity as a dynamic system. Similarly, Kuma sees this bi-dimensional spatial layering as succeeding ‘in giving Japanese architecture a sense of opening and a well-organized space’ (Belfiore, 2012, p. 1). Kurokawa (1994) also sees the dynamism and fluidity of space as Rikyu Grey and symbiosis. In the description of the city of Kyoto, he remarks that all the elements of its architecture tend to dissolve in the ‘grey light of dusk’, losing every perspective and three-dimensional character, and reducing ‘the world of three dimensions’ to ‘a flat world’ (Kurokawa, 1994, p. 73). This two-dimensionality in Maki’s eyes is ‘inner space envelopment’ and includes gift-wrapping (Maki, 2008); and it is also what Ashihara (1989) called the ‘amoeba’ quality of Japanese cities. In Tange’s words, ‘instead of defying gravity, the Japanese have preferred to seek space in which to spread out horizontally’… ‘The organization and balance of forces are reduced to two dimensions: what one has is a succession of planes’ (Tange, 1960, p. 23). As a result, a Japanese room is usually designed through a process of Okoshiezu (起こし絵図). Walls are treated as planar autonomous compositions that were laid on the ground first and then lifted vertically to make a flexible enclosure (see figure 3.22). It is ‘less about containment and more about wrapping space like a gift paper, it is more implicit and less protective’ (Bharne, 2014, p. 107). In other words, the wall is like an extension of the floor as a two-dimensional spatial expansion in multiple directions with boundary-less-ness and transparency. Again, this reflects the floor-oriented spatial conception.

82  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 3.22. Two-dimensionality in conceiving and constructing space in Japan: (a) Walls, ceilings and floors of Shoin and Tea House; and (b) Example of Okoshiezu. (Sources: (left) Bharne, 2014, p. 84; (right) Sadwat blog, 2009)

Part and Whole Ashihara (1989) observes that Chinese cities are built from the whole to the parts, whereas the Japanese cities are built from the parts to whole (see figure 3.23). It is a characteristic that is evident in both their ancient and modern planning. In the ancient Chinese model, the use of the wall structure was to define boundaries, and a supergrid was laid out first to ensure the global roads were equally distributed. Similarly, the construction of the modern wide road network in Chinese cities is also a heavily top-down process of infrastructure planning (Wang, 2014). This means that cities are planned from the whole to the part by first laying out the overarching structure, namely the supergrid. In contrast, the planning of Japanese cities does not start from a whole plan. Adapting to the Japanese cultural and political context, design of the four Japanese

Figure 3.23. Relationships between parts and whole: (left) Chinese – from whole to parts; (right) Japanese – from parts to whole.

CULTURE  83

ancient capitals diverged from the Chinese way, reversing the process of planning: by creating equal-sized plots, street blocks and superblocks before laying out the supergrid (Wang, 2007b).10 The modern supergrid in Japan results from a land readjustment process that is influenced by both top-down and bottom-up forces (Sorensen, 2002). Also, because most supergrids are superimposed over existing settlements through land readjustment, the whole process has a clear part-to-whole theme.

Centrality and Asymmetry Centrality and symmetry are strongly favoured by the Chinese and widely used in the design of buildings and cities, while the Japanese mastered asymmetry, which has infiltrated into almost every aspect of their lives. Unlike the Western axis that focuses on a strong and dominant centre, the centrality in Chinese city planning follows a decentralized experiential axis (Boyd, 1962; Zhu, 2004). This centrality is achieved by using a system of walls and gates to create hierarchies of spatial containment to unite and separate space across diferent scales. In Japan, the floororiented spatial conception allows asymmetrical spatial organization to be possible and pervasive in its cities (see figure 3.24). Construction is from part to whole with a tendency for expansion from a void centre in multiple directions with little spatial obstruction and no axis to follow. Chinese and Japanese supergrid and superblock structures can be seen as the representation of two planning approaches: more regular and often symmetrical superblock structures with a pervasive use of the wall structure in China; and irregular and asymmetrical structures in Japan with limited use of walls.

Figure 3.24. Arrangement of buildings and walls around axes: (left) Chinese symmetrical and (right) Japanese asymmetrical.

84  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Multi-Petal and Multi-Fugal Structure The concept of centri-petal and centri-fugal are originally from physics to describe forces in nature that attract objects or direct them away from a fixed point. This has been introduced to urban studies to describe diferent morphological formative processes. Because of the wall- and floor-oriented diferences discussed here, Chinese and Japanese cities can be considered as having ‘multi-centripetal’ and ‘multi-centrifugal’ structures respectively. Liu and Lai (2008, p. 57) indicate that the Chinese Lifang system is a multicentred city structure that provides dynamic forces between the Lifang units (superblocks) and the whole system (an agglomeration of the superblocks). Similarly, Japanese cities are also multi-centred (Shelton, 2012; Sorensen, 2002): they ‘have no real spaces or centres, represent the concept of Ma and incorporate an endless array of “folded” spaces or oku’ (Bognar, 1985, p. 67). While cities in both countries have multiple centres, Chinese cities are oriented centripetally through a hierarchical wall structure (Liang and Sun, 2003). In comparison, Japanese cities expand through a fugal-like outward force and ‘demonstrate a centrifugal order ruled by the floor, which produces an urban sprawl directed outward, totally oblivious to boundaries’ in contrast to a ‘an inward-turned centripetal order ruled by the wall’ (Ashihara, 1983, p. 34). However, the centripetal and centrifugal concepts are set within a framework of linear thinking that developed from the central place theory and the monocentred structure of Western cities (Liu and Lai, 2008). Because Chinese and Japanese supergrid and superblock structures are multi-centred phenomena and a product of areal thinking, perhaps new concepts and terms are necessary to describe this multi-centred structure under diferent cultural contexts. The walloriented conception creates a supergrid and superblock structure that has multiple centripetal forces within a collection of walled superblocks, in contrast to a floor-

Figure 3.25. Contrasting forces within supergrid and superblock structures: (left) Chinese multi-petal; and (right) Japanese multi-fugal.

CULTURE  85

oriented conception that creates multiple centrifugal forces that expand outwards haphazardly from the existing urban area (see figure 3.25). The two structures show diferent kinds of morphological progression. While the floor-oriented structure tends to expand more freely like an amoeba, the wall-oriented structure tends to develop within planned areas with more restrictions.

Discussion Although Chinese and Japanese spatial conceptions are both areal, the above discussion also sees key diferences that are linked to their respective wall and floor orientations. The Chinese use spatial enclosure and containment to maintain equilibrium, whereas the Japanese abandon the boundary to reach the balance between humans and nature. They represent respectively ‘spatial equilibrium’ and ‘spatial continuity’ and together contrast with the ‘spatial confrontation’ of the West (Kurokawa, 1994).11 The spatial enclosure and containment are in the form of the wall structure that is pervasively used in Chinese architecture and cities in the search for balance between solid and void, light and dark, and xing (form) and shi (propensity and force). In comparison, the bi-dimensional layering, spatial depth (Oku) and fluidity of space are widely employed in Japanese architecture and cities to pursue a sense of Ma, the darkness and dynamism of space as a flat world in pursuit of an ideal of infinity that blends with nature. Moreover, space in Chinese culture is perceived in a more vertical way than in Japanese, leading to stronger demarcation and boundary contrasting with an ambiguity of boundary in Japan – respectively, wall- and floor-oriented spatial conceptions (see figure 3.26).

Figure 3.26. ‘Wall’ and ‘floor’ concepts of space in traditional architecture: (top) Solid wall and base with movement/views between inside and outside through ‘cut holes’ – Chinese; (bottom) Floor as ‘floating platform’ about which are (re)movable screens to interrupt space and modulate view/movement between interior and exterior – Japanese.

86  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Using Ashihara’s conceptual framework as a basis, the extensive and constant use of the wall through various scales in China indicates a strong wall-oriented spatial conception. With this stronger emphasis on the creation of vertical space, it cultivates a more three-dimensional sense of enclosure by using the walls for separation, protection, and control. On the other hand, Japanese spatial conception, with its focus on the floor as a two-dimensional layering process, blurs the concept of boundary and creates more flexibility and fluidity in space. Unlike in the West, where the wall has traditionally been seen as the primary and linear element in spatial conception and composition (Shelton, 2012), it has been adjunct to a spatial conception that is primarily areal and rectilinear in nature in China. In Japan, the wall has traditionally been even less important than it is now with a greater emphasis on area and floor (Ashihara, 1989). From this, there followed divergent tendencies: relatively closed in China and open in Japan; with subtle diferences in the areal conception contributing to the creation of the diferent levels of spatial enclosure: more closed arrangements in China compared to relatively open ones in Japan. Despite the diferences, self-similarity, and fractal repetition,12 areal qualities have been a feature of both, but expressed in diferent but parallel ways from block to city scales – from the Chinese courtyard compounds and Japanese Machi 13 at block scale; through the Chinese walled residential superblock (Lifang) and Japanese water-bounded superblock at district scale, to the Chinese walled city and Japanese un-walled city (see figure 3.27). Further these historical-cultural diferences remain apparent in today’s city forms as they seek to function in contemporary ways and serve current demands

A Chinese courtyard (Institute of Architecture Science 1959)

The keyuan compound with mansion and garden in Nan Luogu Xiang, Beijing (Wu, 1999, p. 160)

The Walled Superblock/Compound (Lifang) in Chang’an (Chang, 2011)

A real model of a walled City (Nanjing)

A Japanese residential house (Essley 2008)

City Street Blocks in Edo (Yasuo, 1986, p. 24)

A Water-bounded Superblock in Edo (Taiyo, 2003, pp. 28–29)

The City of Osaka in the 17th Century (Dai, 2013)

Figure 3.27. Fractal repetition in ‘wall’ and ‘floor’ construction at increasing scales.

CULTURE  87

of dwelling, production, consumption, etc. In this context, I will examine how the two modern versions perform by way of a group of (Western) theories concerned with structure and function. These theories are the subject of the next chapter where they are presented as an interrelated set, preceding their use for evaluation of specific Chinese and Japanese supergrids and superblocks in Chapters 5 and 6.

Notes 1.

The phrase ‘宇宙’ was originally from the chapter on nature in Wenzi: ‘四方上下谓 之宇, 古往今来谓之宙’). 宙合, 天地, 乾坤, 八方’ are all used to describe similar interconnected space-time concepts.

2.

Multiple perspective or areal/atmospheric perspectives is a western concept that is based on the observation of Chinese painting from western linear thinking. Qin (2008) argues that there is no perspective or vanishing point in Chinese painting, and hence the use of the term can be misleading in understanding Chinese painting techniques.

3.

Kana characters (which includes hiragana and katakana) are a phonetic part of the Japanese writing system that are used together with Kanji: they are used mainly for the transcription of native and foreign languages.

4.

This is one of the classic philosophical books of China, with ideas penetrating all aspects of culture.

5.

A prominent Japanese philosopher, he is the founder of what has been called the Kyoto School of philosophy.

6.

The techniques involve the use of diferent forms of screen, such as shoji and fusama panels, diferent kinds of folded screens and adjustable space dividers, and intermediary space like the engawa.

7.

In ancient times, commoners were not allowed to have a single building that was more than three rooms. The solution was to build two smaller buildings with separate yards that were detached from the main building (with three rooms) to create the same amount of space. They are divided and linked by walls and gates. The two smaller buildings are classified as dark space, while the main building is the bright space (Wang, 2008, p. 41).

8.

The third concept is about seeing the static and dynamic in space, the use of the word indicates a Western reading of space, but it is not the same in Chinese and Japanese spatial conception. Unlike the Western idea of dynamic and static, which is only about ‘the physical’, the Xing and Shi are about both shape and feeling.

9.

The two words are used to echo Hillier’s terminology and concepts of space, which are discussed in Chapter 4.

10. To understand the whole story, a more detailed explanation is given in Chapter 6. 11. Kurokawa (2015, Chapter 6) states that ‘I would like to suggest that the diference between the western concept of space and eastern concept of space is the diference between spatial confrontation and spatial continuity. Western architecture emerged from a philosophy of confrontation with nature and the impulse to conquer it … the Japanese concept of space reaches out to embrace nature and to achieve unity and harmony with it.’ Although Western culture divides the outside and inside with wall structure, it is very diferent since Chinese culture invites nature from outside to the inside of human living courtyards in order to reach a harmony between the two. China has the same sense of blending nature and human, however, the way to achieve the balance is to invite nature into the human world by creating a void in the solid wall and

88  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

buildings, nature is in the yard, with a blurred boundary between the solid houses on the four sides. In contrast, Japanese culture tends to the idea that human space should be part of nature by blending with it with ambiguous boundaries. 12. See Chapter 4 for discussion of Salingaros’s study. 13. Machi usually refers to an area made up of a number of street blocks (or parts thereof) forming a district (often commercial) of a city or town.

THEORY  89

Chapter Four

Theory Thinking has its strategies and tactics too, much as other forms of action have. Merely to think about cities and get somewhere, one of the main things to know is what kind of problem cities pose, for all problems cannot be thought about in the same way. Which avenues of thinking are apt to be useful and to help yield the truth depends not on how we might prefer to think about a subject, but rather on the inherent nature of the subject itself. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), p. 442 Cities present two sets of important features through their spatial structures. One is generated by the sociocultural life at a local scale displaying diferences, and the other is generated by economic life at a global scale demonstrating similarities as the generic function1 of cities (Hillier, 2001, p. 10).2 Cities in the past were also economic centres, but often socio-cultural-political forces were given higher priorities in their construction, as is evident in the previous chapter. Buildings and spaces are often placed in a range of specific sequences, patterns, and configurations to reflect those forces (Hillier, 1996b) and to satisfy ‘certain needs expressed by diferent forces’ (Doxiadis, 1968, p. 288). Consequently, spatial structures have often been deployed to restrict certain connectivity and urban mixing (e.g. with gates, walls, and water channels), and to reduce levels of social encounter and economic development with some conveniences of living sacrificed. Nevertheless, such understanding of cities as politically and religiously oriented centres in ancient times has shifted or at least acquired new layers. In the late nineteenth century, cities came to be seen increasingly ‘as works of art’ with an emphasis on aesthetics. This was followed by the more function dominated view that prevailed in the Modernist era with cities conceived ‘as machines’. A further change occurred in the 1960s with the city increasingly seen as a textual and experiential phenomenon (or city as text) – a reaction to the clinical functionalism of Modernism. This, in turn, has been superseded by attitudes (as embodied in

90  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

New Urbanism), which see cities as sources of wealth and places for production and trading, synergetic and convenient lifestyles with emphasis on structures and conditions that encourage synergies between activities (Marshall, 2005; Shelton, 2011, p. 139; 2012). Under these shifts of paradigm about what is important in a city, the thinking about principles for the creation of good urban structures has also changed. As a result, cities become ‘palimpsests that emerge from multiple layers of creativity, erasure, history, politics, economics and technical invention’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 14). While socio-cultural influences were an underlying power configuring urban morphology in the past, the homogeneity and commercialization of contemporary cities through globalization is a reflection of how they have been shaped to serve wealth production as their primary function. This requires a well-connected urban structure to exchange goods and information (and create synergies), and it has never been so amplified as it is today (Hillier, 2001). However, not all cities are equally efective and productive. As indicated in Chapters 2 and 3, supergrid and superblock structures in modern Chinese cities are encountering problems, while some similarly categorized structures in Japanese cities appear to be more efective in supporting economic productivity without sacrificing convenience. This chapter builds a framework of theory based on contemporary ideas of good city form in order to understand how the supergrid and superblock structures work to facilitate or impede efective functioning in contemporary Chinese and Japanese cities – that is, how specific forms within this urban structure combine, for better or worse, to afect the functional use of space.

Interconnection: The Interplay of Structure, Movement and Activity Writing in 1961, Jacobs likened the Modernist machine-based image of a city to that of ‘a collection of separate life drawers’ (Jacobs, 1961, p. 450). Consequently, cities were made in the same way to isolate form and function by planners and designers based on a range of Modernist planning ideas and concepts (Hillier, 1996b). It followed that the socio-economic functions of cities sufered from this compartmentalization in structure, movement, and activity, making it difcult to create urban synergies (Jacobs, 1961; Hillier, 1996b; Marshall, 2005; 2009). This kind of thinking has also led to the creation of Western Superblock propositions, which can be classified into four types: (1) a supergrid and superblock structure designed as one block-and-grid system in practice, such as Milton Keynes, England, Chandigarh, India, and Islamabad, Pakistan; (2) superblocks in practice created for improving trafc safety and pedestrian friendliness since the 1920s, like Sunnyside, Radburn and Baldwin Hills Village in the United States; (3) the Superblock as a theoretical proposal or prototype, such as Corbusier’s The City of Tomorrow, Perry’s Neighbourhood Unit, and Doxiadis’s ecological planning framework; and (4) advocacies for transforming cities into systems of Superblocks

THEORY  91

Figure 4.1. Superblocks under the influence of Modernist planning: (a) Supergrid and superblocks in Milton Keynes; and superblocks in (b) Los Angeles, (c) Islamabad, and (d) a proposal in Tra c in Towns. (Sources: (a) Google Map, 2017; (b) Google Map, 2019; (c) Doxiadis, 1968, p. 360; (d) Buchanan, 1963, p. 44)

through changes to trafc infrastructure such as Buchanan’s Trafc in Towns 1963 report for the UK government (see figure 4.1 a, b, c, d). These Modernist concepts were criticized soon after their introduction, but have continued to have influence in China and Japan. As discussed before, while China’s experiments with these concepts have resulted in urban fragmentation and several functional issues, Japanese planners have tended to be more adaptive – ‘adopting foreign techniques aimed at creating a more functional layout of the land as long as they allowed for small-scale piecemeal interventions’ (Mohr, 2007, p. 10). In short, Modernist planning and Western superblock practices have been problematic in the West (Jacobs, 1961 and Hillier, 1996), and are not working well in Eastern cities either. These Modernist concepts not only reflect a linear spatial conception, creating strong radial and tree structures in cities, but also mirror the ‘two-variable system of thinking and analyzing’3 as criticized by Jacobs (1961, p. 449) that naively considers cities as a number of isolated systems. Hence, a better ‘thinking strategy’ for designing cities is required. Arising from the critique of this Modernist understanding and further

92  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

reflection on traditional and modern cities since the 1960s, many studies, including Jacobs (1961), Alexander (1965), Hillier and Hansen (1984); (Hillier, 1996b), Bentley et al. (1985), Deleuze and Guattari (1987), Gehl (1987; 2010), Arida (2002), Salingaros (2005), and Marshall (2005; 2009) are concerned with interrelationships between the built form (building and space) and function (movement and activity) in cities. These studies note that an efective urban structure is needed to support the operation of a modern city, which should be able to provide and maximize good socio-economic performance (trade and exchange) and services by generating and facilitating human movement and activities and other functions. In this book, I frame these collectively as ‘Interconnection Theory’. Although these studies have diferent theoretical content and strategies, they are concerned with the contemporary preoccupation with good urban structure for the generation of movement, activity, and urban synergies. From these studies, integration, connection, and interaction can be summarized as the key principles for creating a good urban structure if it is to maintain trade and social exchange through convenient movement and efcient activity generation. This will create synergies between social and economic activities that equate with Jacobs’s (1961) ‘organized complexity’. Without a well-designed physical form that provides connections for movement and facilitates interaction between diferent parts of a city and across multiple scales, problems will occur: ‘extreme compartmentalization and dissociation of internal elements of any organized object will lead to destruction’ (Alexander, 1965, p. 17). The central ideas of Interconnection Theory are as follows: 1. Cities are organized and complex systems that are mainly composed of interconnected physical and functional sub-systems through multiple links; 2. Interplay between street structure, movement and activities is the core of interconnection between form and function; 3. Integration, Connection and Interaction are the three fundamental principles that a well-functioning city structure needs to possess in order to generate socioeconomic synergies.

Organized Complexity: Interrelationship between Form and Function Physically, cities are stocks of buildings linked by space and infrastructure. Functionally, they support economic, social, cultural and environmental processes. In efect, they are means-ends systems in which the means are physical and the ends are functional. Our most critical area of ignorance is about the relation of means to ends that is of the physical city to the functional city. (Hillier, 1996b, p. 149)

Hillier’s description of cities reveals their two important sub-systems: physical form

THEORY  93

as a means, and function as an end (see figure 4.2). These are the two primary intertwined systems that were isolated in Modernist planning and much criticized by Jane Jacobs. In her writing, she identifies the deterioration of the American urban environment as a consequence of the application of Modernist principles in the 1950s; and her observations brought the interplay between the physical form of cities and their socio-functional performance into sharper focus. This interaction as depicted in her famous book The Death and Life of the Great American Cities laid the foundation stone for this group of interconnection theories and has assisted the understanding of several important scholars who followed her. The leitmotif of this book is the need to think of the cities as ‘organized complexity’, composed of several interrelated systems. These systems present ‘situations in which a halfdozen or even several dozen quantities are all varying simultaneously and in subtly interconnected ways’ (Jacobs, 1961, pp. 452, 446), and their interconnections can create ‘street ballets’, which are the result of the choreography between the form and functions of cities. Four years later, as an architect and design theorist, Christopher Alexander was not satisfied with conventional modern architecture and planning. Influenced by Jacobs’s idea of urban complexity, his 1965 paper, ‘City is not a Tree’, proposes the idea of the semi-lattice structure and tree-structure as opposites; both, he says, are ‘ways of thinking about how a large collection of many small systems goes to make up a large and complex system’ (Alexander, 1965, p. 67). Alexander visualizes Jacobs’s ‘complexity’ as a ‘semi-lattice’ structure, which equates with a ‘natural city’ which shows a number of interconnected systems that can stimulate

Jacobs, 1961 Alexander, 1965 Benley et al., 1985 Deleuze & Guattari, 1987 Gehl, 1987, 2010 Hillier, 1996b Salingaros, 2005

Figure 4.2. Interconnection theory.

94  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 4.3. (top) Tree and (bottom) Semi-lattice structure.

rich interplay between activities at all scales to generate synergies. He explains the semi-lattice axiom as: ‘A collection of sets forms a semi-lattice if and only if, when two overlapping sets belong to the collection, then the set of elements common to both also belongs to the collection’ (ibid., p. 69) (see figure 4.3). His criticism is that lack of such complexity can lead to the kind of dysfunctional design of modern ‘artificial cities’ characterized by the work of Le Corbusier, Ludwig Hilberseimer, and other Modernist planning disasters (Alexander, 1977; 1979). Ten years later, another important theory contributing to our understanding of the city as interconnected systems was provided by two key works: The Social Logic of Space (Hillier and Hansen, 1984) and Space is the Machine (Hillier, 1996b). Hillier underlines the importance of interconnections between physical means and functional ends as a non-hierarchical structure; and that a city is more than the sum of its parts. He sees that much of the failure of Modernist design and planning as due to the separation between form and function as independent systems. While the first book reveals the interconnection between spatial configuration and social function as space syntax, it is the second one that provides the more developed theory on cities. He puts forward the notion of the city as a ‘Movement Economy’ and explores the relationship between spatial configuration and the distribution of functions to conclude that the latter is a consequence of movement through spaces (which in the city is mainly streets) and takes the next step of providing methods for quantifying spatial performance. This work was complemented by that of Ian Bentley et al. (1985), Stephen Marshall (2005), and several other authors. Bentley et al.’s 1985 work, Responsive Environments, was a practical book,

THEORY  95

published under the influence of Jacobs, Alexander, Hillier, and others. The central idea of the book was to show the ‘important relationships between social life and the arrangement of the built environment’ (Bentley et al., 1985, p. 144) through seven interconnected qualities of the forms and functions of cities: ‘permeability, legibility, robustness, variety, richness, visual appearance, and personalization’. These qualities work together to create a ‘responsive urban environment’. Although intended as a step-by-step guide to show designers and planners how a good urban environment can be created, its central underlying philosophy is clearly to understand the city as unrehearsed choreography, which is the quality to which the term ‘responsive’ is related. Two years later, again under the influence of Jacobs, Alexander and other theorists, came Gehl’s book, Life between Buildings (1987), which is considered a milestone in the study of public space (Perks and Vliet, 1993), and his book, Cities for People in 2010, continues those ideas and calls for careful consideration of people and their activities in city design. Following from Jacobs’s ideas, Gehl also emphasizes the connection between the physical forms of cities and social behaviour. His central argument has three levels: first, movement and activities have a ‘self-reinforcing’ quality, which can be maintained and strengthened by a well-designed physical form and spatial arrangement at a micro scale; second, only when the design of forms from macro- to micro-scale are all interconnected and work together, can the small-scale design of space between buildings be truly wellfunctioning and well-used (Gehl, 1987); and thirdly, city design should follow a bottom-up (or from part to whole) approach: starting from human activities to space and then to the built form (Gehl, 2010). Gehl’s specific attention to human scale, detail design, and local scale diferentiates his study from the others. This also reflects Ashihara’s (1983) discussion of the nature of Japanese urban design and planning (see Chapter 3). Also in 1987, Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of rhizome and the theory of assemblage appeared in English in their book A Thousand of Plateaus (seven years after the original in French). In essence, their theory may be seen as yet another expression of Jacobs’s complexity or Alexander’s ‘semi-lattice’. They use the biological term ‘rhizome’ as a metaphor to indicate an interconnected organic whole that forms a multi-directional system. They define it as ‘an open system’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p. 32) with multiple connections, which indicates the importance of multiplicity and interconnection between parts in a non-hierarchical structure. They also stress that a rhizome ‘is composed not of units but of dimensions, or rather directions in motion… [It] is made only of lines:4 lines of segmentary and stratification as its dimensions, and the line of flight or reterritorialization as the maximum dimension after which the multiplicity undergoes metamorphosis, changes in nature’ (ibid., p. 42). Hence, they introduce the rhizome in opposition to the concepts of tree structure and arborescent conception of knowledge (associated with Modernist design), and also to dualism and binary choices.

96  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

The theory of assemblage explains social complexity by emphasizing mobility, interchangeability, and multiplicity in one or more interconnected systems. It states that the relationships of the parts ‘are in constant variation’ (ibid., p. 82), and replaceable by other parts within or outside the system. Each assemblage can be further stratified, territorialized, organized, signified, and attributed without afecting the operation within each system. This has inspired a more recent study by Dovey (2016) who sees cities as ‘Complex Adaptive Assemblages’ and argues that cities are made of both rhizomes and trees as exemplified in smooth and strained space, which in turn represent bottom-up self-organization and the topdown institutionalized hierarchy. Two decades ago, when cities were still built largely on Modernist planning principles, Ayssar Arida provided a visionary overview of cities in his book Quantum Theory (2002). His metaphorical analysis of the relationship between quantum physics and urban design ofered a refreshingly new perception of our understanding of cities. He claims that, through the lens of quantum physics, everything in space can be seen as a duality (not dualism), where there is a particle and its radiating waves. He thus recognizes cities as open systems, in which they are ‘incapable of existing in a state of self-contained exclusion. They can find a dynamic equilibrium that allows them to regulate their energy into a creative order’ (ibid., p. 141). He derived the basis of his theory from metaphysics and uses the ‘interference model’ to indicate how cities should be understood. The particle and its wave compose a system, which is also in constant motion. Cities are, therefore, made up of a huge number of particles with their overlapping waves to create an impetus in energy and new entities. He also indicates that traditional Chinese philosophies and urban design methods (Fengshui) bear some similarities to quantum theory (ibid., pp. 81–86), especially the emphasis on equilibrium and balance. His model again stresses the importance of interconnection and overlapping; and more importantly, it ofers a system of thinking that is dynamic and changing. Having worked with Alexander, Nikos Salingaros shares a similar critical perspective on the role of Modernist planning in the destruction of the complexity of cities. In his book, Principles of Urban Structure (2005), he develops Alexander’s idea of a semi-lattice structure as the backbone to his concept of the ‘Urban Web’ (figure 4.4), which also bears some similarities with Arida’s particle-wave model. He describes a city as being composed of activity nodes,5 interconnections, and hierarchy to which he gives the name ‘urban web’ and suggests that it ‘provides us with a diferent way of thinking about an urban area’. It is not ‘the geometrical form that is of primary importance. Rather, the web consists of activity nodes and the physical connections (here: paths) between these nodes’ (ibid., p. 15). After a link is cut, a good urban design is able to relink nodes through multiple connections as formulated in an urban web, but this does not occur in a ‘tree’ structure. In addition, he also introduces the notion of cities being fractal in their

THEORY  97

structures and patterns (figure 4.5). It is an important characteristic of an urban web that it has self-similarity through all scales of its hierarchy (ibid., pp. 145– 148). To some extent, the wall system is such a fractal structure in ancient Chinese cities, consisting of a hierarchy of enclosures: the palace, imperial compound, inner and outer city walls at the city level, with superblock walls, and courtyard walls at district and local levels. However, the fractal feature has been mostly erased from the traditional cities by the actions of Modern Movement planners and designers. Fractal cities cannot exist where ‘a city’s structural and connective hierarchy is missing all of its lower scales’ (ibid., p. 148). The idea reverberates in Gehl’s theorization of space between buildings as a complex organizing structure at multiple scales (Gehl, 2005, p. 17), and Jacobs’s central argument about the need for the city to be seen as a network of complex and interacting systems with understandable orders and rules: ‘By adding or replacing connections and nodes one can bring a dead urban area back to life. In doing so we are organizing the complexity of an urban area’ (Jacobs, 1961 cited by Salingaros, 2005, p. 15).

Figure 4.4. Urban web of nodes and links. With linear or unbalanced distributed links, severance of a single link can destroy all or large parts of a system. With multiple and complex links, severance of one link will have little effect on the whole. (Source: Adapted from Salingaros, 2005, pp. 1, 18, 22)

Figure 4.5. Koch snowflake: mathematical fractal repetition (left) and plan of unrealistic fractal (right). (Source: Salingaros 2005, pp. 140, 14)

98  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Under the influence of Jacobs, Alexander and Hillier, Stephen Marshall’s Streets and Patterns (2005) and Cities, Design and Evolution (2009) complement each other as two sibling books, supporting the idea of urban complexity in relation to its form and function, following from reflection and criticism of Modernist planning. While the first book covers ten years of research exploring the interrelationship between transport (movement, circulation) and street patterns (built form), it is really the second book that more clearly indicates the intricate and complex urban order and the importance of the interconnections between parts and whole, processes and patterns, and forms and functions in cities (Marshall, 2009, p. 16 and Chapter 3). By proposing the idea of cities as ecosystems, he conceives cities as collections of interdependent and co-evolving units, sub-units and super-units organized by urban syntax that ‘are partly in cooperation, but partly in competition’ (ibid., p. 18). He believes that such an understanding of cities allows people to appreciate the qualities of cities as a constantly evolving interconnected structure, rather than as fixed relationships between the parts and the whole. To some extent, this is similar to Hillier’s space syntax and Alexander’s semi-lattice structure with overlapping sets and sub-sets.

Interrelationships between Street Network and Activities Between the physical and functional spheres of cities, the most dominant and powerful interconnections can be understood from the interplay between streets and activities. Metaphorically, the street network, movement, and activities in the life and death of a city are as vital as the blood vessels, blood circulation, and metabolism in a human body. Streets carry movements to support and generate activities, just as blood vessels carry blood with nutrients and waste in and out of organs to maintain the metabolism and diferent functions of the body through circulation. Jacobs provides valuable insight into the functional importance of cities and argues that several specific qualities of built form are the structural keys to bring about synergies, vitality, convenience, and safety in cities. These characteristics of built form include: short blocks and frequent streets; many corner sites and congregation points; active street frontages; and a mix of primary uses, building types, ages, sizes, and even people at high concentrations and densities in an urban environment. These qualities can be categorized into building and space in the physical system and movement and activities representing the functional system (see figure 4.6). Among these, the street network in relation to the functional use of space takes on a more determinant role in this interconnection. On the physical side of the equation, there is an ‘internal urban order that ties diferent physical elements (predominantly building and space) together’ (Marshall, 2009, p. 36). At the same time, the forms of cities are primarily connected and shaped by their streets, which can most clearly reflect the urban order (ibid., p.

THEORY  99

Jacobs, 1961 Alexander, 1965 Benley et al., 1985 Deleuze & Guattari, 1987 Gehl, 1987, 2010 Hillier, 1996b Salingaros, 2005

Figure 4.6. Interconnections between form and function.

29). Jacobs is direct in her opinion of the importance of the street: ‘think of a city and what comes to mind? Its streets. If a city’s streets look interesting, the city looks interesting; if they look dull, the city looks dull’ (Jacobs, 1961, p. 2). There is a profound meaning in her description of streets: as public space, streets not only provide physical channels for movement as a structural skeleton, they are also places to accommodate Gehl’s ‘life between buildings’. Moreover, it also reveals another crucial relationship: streets define the block structure and built form, which in return defines the streets as the most important element of an urban structure and form of connection (Salingaros, 2005). They shape the sizes and appearances of buildings to create the physical form of cities and take the role of creating and sustaining various social, economic, and cultural human activities and socialization (Jacobs, 1961; Marshall, 2005; San Francisco Planning Department, 2010). The spatial organization of streets, as Jacobs suggests, is decisive in terms of determining the success of cities, and they further support the mix of various activities and movements. It is not a two-dimensional phenomenon, but a threedimensional structure that is formed by both building and space: buildings give space shape and spaces connect them as a whole. On the socio-functional side, ‘street choreography’ is a poetic label Jacobs (1961) uses to depict the functional mechanism of cities. Movement and activity are the central agents that deliver the performance and message that a physical structure possesses, and they shape and are shaped by the purpose behind those physical structures: either cultural-political or socio-economical (Hillier, 1999). This is explained by Alexander (1965) as a semi-lattice structure that can create an observable phenomenon of the following kind: along a street, there is an autobank, a convenience store, a bus stop, a laundry, and a café next to each other, people can go to the bank to get some cash to buy a newspaper and groceries and send clothes for washing while having a cup of cofee and waiting for the bus. The

100  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

proximity and connection of multiple functional uses of space can provide more opportunities and enjoyable experiences for urban ‘dancers’ and improve business by attracting and sharing more customers and creating new economic and social interactions. This gives full meaning to Jacob’s ‘street ballet’ – a city shows its complexity and success through its streets. As mentioned before, not all cities have good interplay between streets, movement, and activity. Some cities tend to have less, while others have more. This is because the way in which people design their cities reflects how they understand them (Hillier, 1999, p. 149; Alexander, 1965; Salingaros, 2005), so that diferent street patterns are created to generate diferent urban forms that have divergent social and functional impacts. While a tree structure mode of thinking will create a street network with a pattern that limits interplay in a city, a semi-lattice mode of thinking, as Alexander argues, is more likely to generate Jacobs’s ‘street ballet’ and this is also what Hillier’s ‘Movement Economy’ points out: Well-functioning cities can therefore, it will be suggested, be thought of as ‘movement economies’. By this is meant that it is the reciprocal efects of space and movement on each other … and the multiplier efects on both that arise from patterns of land use and building densities, which are themselves influenced by the space-movement relations, that give cities their characteristic structures, and give rise to the sense that everything is working together to create the special kinds of well-being and excitement that we associate with cities at their best. (Hillier, 1996b, pp. 152–153)

As Hillier remarks, the ‘structure of the urban grid itself is the most powerful single determinant of urban movement’ (ibid., p. 43). Movement, itself determined by the nature and visibility of the spatial configuration of a city, decides the level and distribution of vitality of socio-economic activities. This concept claims that the spatial configuration of a grid (primarily the street network) influences the pattern of movement, which then afects the distribution of activities in cities, which in turn attracts greater or lesser flows of people: if greater, this further stimulates activities which become stronger as attractors. This socio-economic process in any urban structure is called a multiplier efect, and reflects the dynamic interaction between the structure, movement, and activity. The ‘interior logic of a city’s disorderly grid is fundamentally about movement, so that many properties of urban space are a product of these connections’ (Hillier, 1996b; Hillier and Hanson, 1984 quoted in Salingaros 2005, p. 36). This stands in opposition to the conventional understanding of the movement–function relationship, as it claims that configuration determines the functions, not the other way around. Like Hillier, Gehl is also concerned with the relationship between spatial structure (space between buildings) and human activities in space (social functions), but he approaches the importance of the street and its activities by exploring the quality of public space and its impact on activities at the human

THEORY  101

scale. He argues that the intensity of outdoor activity increases concurrently with the quality of the physical environment at difering scales and to varying degrees. The ‘physical structure reflects and supports the social structure’ by classifying the diferent types and levels of social behaviour (walking, sitting, standing, seeing, hearing, and talking) with their corresponding desirable physical form (of building façades, floor levels, positions and orientation of seating etc.). In other words, there are many intricate interrelationships between buildings and space that can foster diferent types of social use and generate diferent flows of people. For Gehl (1987), a good urban structure is one where the ‘space between buildings’ (mainly streets) is at a human scale which allows people to connect and interact with each other and so contribute to a self-reinforcing process. This kind of interplay occurs best in responsive built forms that allow people a ‘degree of choice’ to use or move across space. They are in fact the ‘Responsive Environments’ of Bentley and his co-authors (1985). They argue that permeability is the most fundamental of seven qualities that are required to create a responsive environment. Among the seven qualities, permeability equates with a wellconnected street network that ofers people a greater choice of routes. The street network that defines block structure is obviously the most important physical form that can represent this quality. The approach of Bentley et al. in their studies shows an understanding of the street connections within an area and between the inside and outside of an area, and explains the importance of depth and linkage. For this group, it is important to have a well-connected street network as a basis to sustain ‘a good pool of use’ and further maintain the good economic and social quality of an urban structure. Arida (2002) visualizes this interplay as a duality of activities: the relationship between physical movement and social interactions. He used the ‘interference model’ with an ‘event’ and ‘event horizon’ to show the importance of mixed functions. As he explains, while an ‘event’ can be a thing or a happening, it is also the ‘source of waves that spread over a territory’, with the ‘event horizon’ the complementary area of the wave that provides interconnection with other events. Interactive and overlapping impacts between diferent events can further give birth to a new ‘event’ and a new wave that overlaps and interferes with the original waves to create new patterns (ibid., p. 212). In other words, the event represents the physical form of a building or space, while the horizon represents the functional impact from the event in forms of movement and activities (see figure 4.7). This process keeps repeating itself constantly and creates a ‘chain reaction of events that transform a whole system’ (ibid.). Arida further applies this model to interpret how Modernist planning and the design of cities with rigid zoning and segregated communities can separate cities into parts. He also suggests the concept of the quantum type city, which allows a vibrant and interconnected structure with overlapping and interacting functions (figure 4.8). His dualist thinking and interference model clearly supports and

102  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 4.7. Quantum theory’s interference model: event centre and waves, and event horizons (top left); Overlapping of several event waves (bottom left); and peripheral emergence of new centre from overlapping waves (right). (Source: Arida 2002, pp. 149, 154, 211)

complements Alexander’s idea by providing a new mindset for designers to think in a ‘semi-lattice way’: it also shows that each entity in a city cannot be understood in isolation but only through its interconnections and interaction with others. Salingaros (2005, p. 17) decomposes the idea of the urban web into ‘human activity nodes and their interconnections’ and emphasizes the importance of multiple links between these nodes by making an analogy with the human brain as they both depend on multiple connections between nodes. The interplay between various human activities is synergized through movements that go through street

Figure 4.8. Interference model applied to interpret a range of city conditions. (Source: Adapted from Arida, 2002, pp. 212–213)

THEORY  103

networks, where multiple connections should be provided to maintain a wellfunctioning city as Hillier’s Movement Economy describes. The interconnections and multiple links can be seen as the paths or street network patterns and as an organizing principle for cities, while the nodes are carriers for collective human activities and functionalities. They are self-organized into a ‘multiple connected but not chaotic’ web (ibid., p. 19). Marshall emphasizes the importance of trafc to an urban design by exploring the connectivity of street patterns and urban networks. He claims that ‘to a significant extent street pattern is – and must be – influenced by the geometry of movement and the typology of route connectivity’ (Marshall, 2005, p. 13). Based on this idea, he ofers a systematic and tangible classification of diferent types of street patterns and urban networks at the city and local scales as a methodological framework to explore the diferent possibilities of how the tree and grid networks can be combined with each other at diferent scales to assist or obstruct movement and activities. Marshall’s exploration of the street structure provides an important reference and conceptual frame for understanding how existing cities are constructed and how new ones may be designed (figure 4.9). Although he mainly focuses on the investigation of the physical network, the idea behind it is to show the possible impacts on trafc patterns that can be made by diferent types of street layouts. In short, the discussion above shows that spatial form in cities can be conceived in terms of the buildings and the ‘space in between’, which act as physical vessels to accommodate functional uses. At the same time, buildings also provide nodes

Figure 4.9. Street structure: types and methods of mapping (top): translating street structure into node-link representation and quantifying depth (bottom left); translating street structures (a, b) into routes (c, d) and route types (e, f) (bottom right). (Source: Marshall, 2005, pp. 119, 122)

104  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

for activities to take place as the origin and destination of movement, while spaces shaped by buildings create places for movement to circulate, and for flows to congregate, which can further generate activities in relation to the nodes. Therefore, spatial forms can change the distribution of movement between places, while activities that take place in the spaces can generate flows to change the physical form as a counter efect.

Integration, Connection, and Interaction The interrelationship between city structure, movement, and activities is mostly manifest in the interplay between the street network and the functional uses of space. Integration, connection, and interaction are three fundamental principles that need to be achieved to maintain a good interconnection between form and function (see figure 4.10). The relations are not casual but reciprocal, and they overlap each other to create the synergies that a good urban structure possesses. In other words, these principles are ‘laws of form and organization’ that ‘permit an infinite variety of diferent structures that establish a human connection’, and ‘these ideas resonate with ordinary people’s assessment of what’s good and bad in the built environment’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 12). First and foremost is Integration. Hillier (2001) proposes a ‘global-local’ theoretical model to understand the integration through space syntax. It can be considered as the part-and-whole relationship, which is common to both ‘topdown’ and ‘bottom-up’ processes in city design and planning. It also represents the idea of spatial configuration across all scales as a series of parts and wholes. It is the integration of the operation of part-and-whole, and ‘top-down-bottom-up’ processes across scales that is crucial for an efective working urban structure. This model indicates a dual production of space: (1) a local and largely residential process that is prompted by sociocultural forces that generate diferences

Figure 4.10. The three major principles underpinning good urban structure.

THEORY  105

in local space with distinctive patterns and geometric shapes reflecting dissimilar but specific spatial cultures; and (2) a global process of forming public space driven by microeconomic activity as ‘a single overriding structure’ creating a ‘globalizing pattern of space which tends to be everywhere similar because the microeconomic activity is spatially universal’. These two processes create an ‘underlying pattern of diferences and invariants that we find everywhere in settlement forms’ (Hillier, 2001, p. 10). He also argues that ‘local physical changes in a spatial system always have more or less global configurational efects. It is the laws governing this passage from local physical moves to global spatial efects that are the spatial laws that underlie building’ (Hillier, 1996b, p. 7) He further emphasizes the power of a city’s spatial form and structure and their deterministic impacts on the distribution of movements and activities across multiple scales. In other words, it is the global network of the structure of a city that determines where most of the movement will go, rather than any particular destination. Moreover, Hillier asserts that the key factor in making a successful city structure is the ability to move easily through multiple scales from global to local systems, which are all connected structurally and afect each other. Unlike permeability, connectivity, and accessibility, integration calculates the values for each link in the network according to its topological measures of access to all other links in that network. The more integrated a network is locally, globally and across scales, the more functional attractors it will create. Any small changes in the spatial structure can lead to larger changes of movement and further alter the performance of socioeconomic activities of a place. In other words: ‘Places do not make cities, but cities make places’ (Hillier, 1996a, p. 42). In this way, integration has a domino efect that provides interconnection at diferent scales across a whole system. A vibrant, convenient, and safe city environment can only be assured by good integration within city systems. Like Hillier, Salingaros also stresses the importance of integration between scales by claiming that the urban web can create an ‘ordered hierarchy of connections on several diferent levels of scales’ to maintain the self-organization of the system’, which follows a strict order: starting from the smallest scales (footpaths), and progressing up to the higher scales (roads of increasing capacity)’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 19). This indicates that any missing or disrupted connections at any scale can make the whole system become dysfunctional and ‘pathological’, because ‘in any complex system, organization proceeds from the small to the large’ (ibid., p. 35). For Jacobs, the idea of integration can be understood as the way in which parts of a city can be more efectively working with the whole and how diferent levels and types of function can cooperate across scales. She suggests the creation of a ‘lively and interesting’ street fabric requires as ‘continuous a network as possible throughout a district of a potential sub-city size and power’, knitting with parks, squares, and public buildings to increase complexity and intensity. It is therefore

106  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

possible to have a functional identity serving as a self-containing and interacting district (Jacobs, 1961, p. 139). Her discussion not only covers functional mix from an intermingling of local street stores to specialized districts and city areas as an economic force at diferent levels, but also how each community or neighbourhood can be better incorporated to make a city a whole. This is contrasted with the idea of isolated islands proposed by Modernists in their superblock projects. It makes clear that the functional mix can only be achieved by good integration across scales with proper structural supports. Here, her suggestion indicates the importance of integration through the part and whole relationship by emphasizing the street network’s spatial configuration and functional incorporation across scales. The need for integration is also stressed by Gehl and Marshall, who see integration as interconnection across scales from diferent perspectives. Gehl (1987) argues that integration is the capacity, which comes only when the designs of the forms from macro- to micro-scales are all interconnected and work together. Only in this way, can the small-scale design of space between buildings truly function well and be well used. Marshall (2005, p. 15) focuses on the street network and sees its wider impact on the whole city through interconnections at multiple scales. He also challenges people to think of a street ‘not just as an isolated architectural set piece, but as a contribution to wider urban structure’. Integration can also be understood as the overlapping of diferent functions as in Alexander’s semi-lattice structure, Arida’s overlapping of waves of particles, and the Bentley team’s co-functioning of their seven qualities for a ‘responsive environment’. For Arida, a desirable urban structure should have connected and overlapped functions that can generate new activities to maintain the interactive dynamism of a city’s complexity. Integration also represents a multiplicity of alliances, connections, and synergies between diferent places as the structure of a rhizome or the assemblage of a number of interconnected sub-systems. Connection is the second principle: primarily this denotes the physical connectivity, permeability, and accessibility of places and is concerned with the circulation of people in cities to form movement patterns. By implication, this has an important social function. ‘Good cities are structured to maximize random social encounters and this is a significant part of how they work as urban economies and ecologies’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 17). Jacobs’s discussion of short blocks, more frequent streets and a mix of uses indicates the importance of creating a structure that is well connected both physically and functionally. A dense street network can efciently generate economic activities and social interaction ‘only because of the way they perform’ (Jacobs, 1961, p. 199). She is saying good structural connection creates a sense of ‘togetherness’ as an old planning ideal that can be achieved from streets and their sidewalks (ibid., p. 73). It provides an interconnected network for good permeability and accessibility for movement through the ‘intensiveness of interconnectivity’ and the ‘capacity to move through the network using multiple pathways’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 18). Similarly, Bentley et al. (1985) argue that

THEORY  107

permeability as an expression of structural connection is the most essential quality needed to create a responsive environment and connected network, which are fundamental to the generation of complex interconnections, giving people choices in moving across space. Hillier further indicates the importance of connection through his theory of ‘configuration-movement-attractors’: a good spatial configuration is one that is well-connected and as a result will generate movement and activity. His idea for understanding connection is to simplify the street or spatial pattern into a network of intersecting lines and examine their positions relative to each other within the system. Connection in Hillier’s ‘global–local’ model also means the process of creating a functional centrality in an urban structure. This may show a radial structure, a ‘spiky potato shape’ or ‘a deformed wheel’ (which is composed of semi-grids and hubs of lines close to the centre, see figure 4.11), because of the ‘overall configuration of the grid, which decides where the centre should be, and of the kind of local process of grid adaptation and intensification predicted by the movement economy’ (Hillier, 1999, p. 14). Again, the inter-dependence and inter-accessibility of the centre, that is determined by the structural connection, also create phenomena of ‘attractor inequality’ and ‘configurational inequalities’ (Hillier, 1999). It is crucial because the city structure as a whole determines this centre, with changes occurring continually, often by way of the ‘Siksna process’,6 which intensifies the centre into a smaller and more compact grid network and therefore more connected structure. Hillier (1999) also indicates that the grid structure tends to create a centre with high movement levels, while the tree network

Figure 4.11. Centrality: ‘deformed wheel’ or ‘spiky potato’ shapes of city structure. (Source: Hillier, 1999, p. 13)

108  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

redistributes the flow to the edge of the structure showing low levels of movement; the smaller the blocks and grid in the middle of a structure, the more movement and activity will happen in the central area due to a more connected network. In other words, they indicate that the level of connection of a street pattern has a deterministic role of generating movement and activity in cities and this is the key to creating a good urban structure. Further, this also implies that centripetal and centrifugal forces exist in the process of formation of many cities on various scales as discussed in Chapter 3. Marshall (2005) also underlines the importance of connection. He shows that the grid network provides multiple connections and high permeability. He ofers a systematic classification of street patterns and urban networks at local and larger scales as a framework and shows how tree and grid networks of diferent scales can combine with each other to enhance or deter movement. His diagrams strongly suggest the grid network to be the most connected structure which forms internally well-connected cities (figure 4.12). For Marshall, the level of connectivity and integration of a street pattern has a deterministic role in movement and activity in cities and is a key factor in making a good urban structure. This is also argued by Salingaros (2005), who stresses the importance of having multiple links in an urban web to maintain movement and generate diverse activity. He emphasizes that the connection between form and function at diferent scales is the key to sustaining a self-organized, ordered, interconnected and diverse urban environment. This resembles Arida’s particle and wave model, in which overlapping functions are connected through multiple links to bring synergy and convenience to cities. And it reflects the idea of an assemblage, which is defined not by ‘its parts but by their connections and flows, by the ways it produces desire’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 167). Alexander’s overlapping functions and Arida’s overlapping waves both show the importance of multiple connections in street networks. Multiple links, in either

Figure 4.12. Macro-micro combinations of the three basic types of street structure: linear, tree, and grid. (Source: Adapted from Marshall, 2005, p. 96)

THEORY  109

the semi-lattice structure or particle-and-wave model, provide the connective conditions for synergies and functional mixing phenomena described by Salingaros as ‘highly complex’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 21). The importance of connection cannot be overestimated with Hillier (2001) claiming that configuration generates attractions, and not the reverse. Salingaros also reinforces this point, stating that ‘it is the organized complexity of a functioning urban web that determines its overall form, and not the other way around’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 21). For Jacobs and Gehl, connection also means an urban web that is interwoven by the porosity of the street interface and diverse activities with multiple building levels at the smallest urban scale. Jacobs’s ‘eyes on the street’ (from windows, balconies, etc.) is a form of multi-level connection at a human scale that presents degrees of contact to increase or decrease levels of safety through structural organization (Jacobs, 1961). All elements, including sidewalks, streetlights, seats, staircases, and street furniture, give ‘more interesting city elements and permit a greater diversity in the use of the city space’ (Gehl, 2010, p. 169). These physical structures contribute to the urban web by increasing connections between parts at a micro-scale. In short, connection is an organizational principle that makes cities function more efectively by enabling greater circulation and activity. Interaction7 is the third principle. As (Dovey, 2016, p. 29) points out: ‘the issue of mix in urban design needs to be understood not only as a functional, formal, and socio-economic mix but in terms of the interconnections and synergies between them – the mix of mixes’. Combinations of diferent types of physical structure are required to support functional mix. In Jacobs’s terms, they should together create a fusion of diferent streets, blocks, and building types; and of sizes, ages and patterns of these as well as an intermingling of diferent social classes with varying levels of income and rent (figure 4.13). This ‘mix of mixes’ together creates a mix of grain sizes, densities, intensities, and synergies through multiple connections that will facilitate ‘multiple information exchanges’ and so complete Salingaros’s ‘urban complexity’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 174). Jacobs’s concept of the ‘self-destruction of diversity’ (Jacobs, 1961, p. 255) reveals the importance of functional diversity in keeping the vitality and longterm operation of socio-economic activities alive, because single functions with few interactions will ultimately become destructive. Interaction equates with the overlapping of diferent functions (Alexander, 1965) through a semi-lattice structure to create Jacobs’s ‘unrehearsed (street) choreography’. This is not simply described as the proximity of diferent functions, but also as the mix of those functions at diferent levels of a city structure to generate the desirable synergies. Bentley and his colleagues’ ‘variety, robustness, richness, visual appropriateness, and personalization’ in a responsive environment are also entirely compatible with Jacobs’s idea of interaction, and they demonstrate how the physical structure can support such functional interactions through design. In addition to the idea of intermixing, Arida’s model illustrates the importance

110  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 4.13. Interaction between activities and functions in Chinese (left) and Japanese (right) cities.

of dynamic and constant change, which is a key to the production of multiplicity and flexibility in a complex system. The need to be able to change is also at the core of a desirable urban structure, which should have a connected structure to support the overlapping of diferent functions and generate new activities to maintain the interactive dynamism as a condition of ‘urban complexity’. Interaction for Hillier can be interpreted as the ‘multiplier efects’ between structure–movement–activity relations. Activities are, for Hillier, the functional attractors that feed on the movement of people. Normally, they are the primary visitation functions (or the primary functions of Jacobs) such as shops, restaurants, ofces, and public places. These movements can also be generated by a more integrated and connected network, which further generates the kind of functions that feed on flows and support the secondary functions, which in turn attract more flows. In this process, a denser network can create functional density, which again enables greater flows and concentrations of attraction. These are multiplier efects between the network, movement, and activities – interaction between formal and functional relationships. Changes to the network will change the flows within it and afect functional and social mix. The multiplier efect also echoes the idea of ‘multiplicities’ discussed by Deleuze and Guattari. They are ‘rhizomatic and expose arborescent pseudo multiplicities for what they are … they are flat, in the sense that they fill or occupy all of their dimensions’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, pp. 8–9), presenting a planar assemblage of liaisons and relations between them to foster co-functioning, which also reflects Jacobs’s mix of diferent functions and people to create multiple synergies. Interaction presents itself as a form of multiplicity, which is made by intermixing diferent functional uses. In turn, this is generated by a non-hierarchical rhizomelike city structure. Furthermore, the interaction can also be found across levels, because ‘any understanding of mix entails an understanding of how mix changes at diferent scales’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 26). At this human scale, interaction can be understood

THEORY  111

as Jacobs’s mix and ‘eyes on the street’, which implies a vertical mix with, for instance, retail on the ground floor and housing and/or ofce space above. It also can be seen as a horizontal mix at the street level with shops and factories locating in proximity and forming high porosity (Gehl, 1987, p. 2010). At the neighbourhood or district scale, there may be a mix of retail, factory, and recreation that makes a relatively self-contained district; and these neighbourhoods can be seen as specialized districts at the city scale. Thus, interaction becomes extremely hard to map, but it reflects the nature of the subject: intermixing is complex. Understanding interaction is not simply to see where the functions or land uses lie, but to understand where they mix and co-function. Simply, Jacobs observes this interaction as street choreography, and for her, street intersections are a major focus for such mixing.

Key Measures of Form and Function A wide range of measures can be found for form and function in urban studies. Among these characteristics, density and intensity, type and variety, and pattern and distribution are widely discussed in many studies (figure 4.14). Through the lens of interconnection theory as proposed here, some existing and new measures are used to understand the supergrid and superblock structure in Chinese and Japanese cities in the next two chapters. Density is a characteristic that can be understood as ‘the degree to which people, buildings, and activities are concentrated’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 31), and ‘high densities are often seen as a prerequisite for economic growth and sustainable urban development’ (Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 2014, p. 12). It can be used to measure both the buildings and space of an urban form since it is afected by the intricate relationship between dimensions and numbers of objects. Discussed by Jacobs throughout her book, her emphasis on the concentration and proximity of streets, blocks, and buildings shows the importance of density, which is crucial to the vitality of cities. Gehl (1987) indicates the importance of density through the discussion of how it afects building heights and sizes, which ultimately influence the enjoyment of the physical structure of human activities. Salingaros comments that: ‘without a sufcient density and variety of nodes, functional paths (as opposed to unused ones that are purely decorative) can never form’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 27). His urban web is a hierarchical organization that needs adequate density to structure the whole. The parts and the interaction between those parts are simple, but the accumulation of the parts will make a highly complex whole (Alexander, 1965; Salingaros, 2005, p. 36). In other words, density transforms cities into multiple but interrelated complex dynamisms, and this is how the relations between buildings and spaces are orchestrated. While Jacobs (1961, p. 254) and Dovey (2016) argue that higher density can generally create increased functional mix and walkability, Salingaros points out that

112  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 4.14. Measures of formal and functional systems.

density is not always a good thing. A high density of streets and blocks can also be destructive of city structure as it can create non-functional ‘decorative paths’ for connection and sacrifice other social functions (Salingaros, 2005, p. 34). This also indicates that the degree of density needs to be properly understood in order to reach an appropriate relationship that can facilitate rather than impede movement and activity. Intensity is a quantitative measure that cannot be triggered by simply increasing the level of density of building and people, but through the ‘concentration of encounters and connections’ and ‘interconnections of density with mix and access’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 37). In other words, the intensity of movement and activity can generate the ‘street ballet’ phenomenon that is created by the concentration and mix of activities and flows. Hillier’s space syntax measures the integration of spatial configuration that shows diferent levels of intensity of circulation and activity in diferent colours as maps. Arida’s interference model describes the importance of intensity as the overlapping of diferent waves/event horizons that radiate from diferent particles/events. In short, the more functions overlap, the higher the intensity becomes, with more synergies and triggering of new functions. Interestingly, there is a mysterious relationship between density and intensity: ‘all kinds of urban intensity depend on certain levels of density, but through certain urban design control or rules, intensity can be produced without density and vice versa’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 37). To some extent, this reflects the multiplicity of the two measures as interlinked concepts that embody complexity and interconnection. First raised by Thompson (1917) as a process of biological deformation, type is a concept that can be used to describe many things in any field. It ‘is [also] an object according to which one can conceive works that do not resemble one another at all’ (Quatremère de Quincy quoted in Rossi, 1982, pp. 40–41). It is ‘developed according to both needs and aspirations to beauty’ and each is ‘associated with a form and a way of life’ (ibid.). As a cultural element that exists in

THEORY  113

all architectural artefacts, a type can be considered as ‘a bundle of interconnected parts that has congealed in a manner that enables repetition; it cannot be reduced to its parts because it is the whole that enables us to recognize the type’, and further it can help understanding the ‘language of urban morphology’ (Dovey, 2016, p. 69). Jacobs emphasizes the importance of the mix of diferent types of buildings and streets. Legibility of a responsive environment as indicated by Bentley et al. includes Lynch’s five elements: nodes, paths, edges, landmarks, and districts, which indicate a reduction of the physical elements of cities into five types. Marshall’s study of diferent types of the street layout with dissimilar topological spatial arrangements indicates a range of connectivity that each type can provide. Moreover, street types are not only afected by two-dimensional layout but are also formed by the buildings on the two sides creating diferent types of interfaces at the human scale as discussed by Gehl. Buildings are also vertical culs-de-sac and enclaves (Yeang, 2002, p. 181): these, by virtue of their structural requirements, usually possess tree structures, and diferent building types also indicate diferent vertical connections as continuations of roads and streets. While building type can be understood as ‘formal’ or ‘functional’8 (Dovey, 2016), Rossi (1982, pp. 46–47) elucidates the importance of understanding building type as a physical element of cities. While buildings can be classified as individual entities in six categories: ‘pavilion, row, courtyard, tower, slab, and perimeter block’ (Lerup, 1976), they can also be classified as three types of collective forms: ‘compositional, megastructure, and group’ (Maki, 2008). As cities are comprised of both, both are useful in understanding the physical built form of city structure. While type provides a classification of the diferent physical elements that may help in ‘deconstructing’ cities, variety (or diversity) is a principle for mixing diferent functions, types, ages, densities, and people. Or in Jacobs’s words, it is the ‘mingling of high-yield, middling-yield, low-yield and no-yield enterprises’ (Jacobs, 1961, p. 201). An assemblage also comprises a variety of elements to form a non-hierarchical structure (Dovey, 2016). Bentley et al. suggest that easily accessible places are irrelevant unless they ofer a choice of experience: they must, in addition, have variety (mixed uses), as the second major quality of a responsive environment, to provide experiences, which can be further enriched by a fusion of the senses (motion, smell, hearing, touch, and sight) or by personalized space (Bentley et al., 1985, p. 10). Arida (2002), too, discusses the importance of variety in raising the number of choices that a city can provide through the overlapping of fields of a range of events. And in Alexander’s work, variety equates with diferent functional sets in a semi-lattice structure and measures the accumulation of choices of experiences and functions. Indeed, Jacobs (1961) remarks that misunderstanding the nature of variety can be detrimental to cities through a process of ‘self-destruction’. She indicates that

114  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

variety should be understood as the number of dissimilar functions rather than of similar options in the same classification. For example, the mix of diferent types of shops that sell food or clothes does not necessarily equal variety; they are in fact specializations. True variety means the juxtapositions of restaurants, clothes shops, factories, ofces, schools, houses, and more. The consequence of misunderstanding the two concepts can lead to the destruction of synergies in a place by reducing the need and desire to move around, which brings a contraction in the range of activities. This can become a vicious and destructive loop, ‘by encapsulating the essence of why similar structures arise repeatedly around the world and throughout history, “patterns” represent the most intelligent decomposition of architectural and urban systems that has ever been attempted’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 100). In fact, ‘we observe the world around us and learn its structure by abstracting cause and efect, and by documenting recurring solutions obtained under diferent conditions. Such empirical rules, representing regularities of behavior, are called “patterns”’ (ibid., p. 191). These are ‘encapsulation(s) of forces’ and represent ‘a way of understanding, and possibly controlling, a complex system’ and ‘as necessary design tools with which to build something that is functionally and structurally coherent’ (ibid., p. 198). In reality, cities are made up of combinations of patterns that are fusions of open and closed systems with public and private spaces, and mixes of smooth (rhizomic) or striated (tree) spaces9 as discussed by Deleuze and Guattari (1987, Chapter 14). The urban web as proposed by Salingaros is made of such multiple interconnected open and closed systems across scales and represents numerous urban patterns. Marshall’s (2005) explorations of diferent compositions of street networks: from the simple tree and grid to a combination of tree and grid, indicates a way for decoding street patterns in an urban web. A tributary structure has a code for creating a tree pattern street network, while a semi-lattice or rhizome structure produces multiple connected street networks with the spatial code of a grid.10 Each composition represents an urban pattern, which provides diferent conditions of accessibility, permeability, connectivity, and depth. Of urban patterns that can be mapped as an abstraction of a layer of urban complexity, distribution reveals how the movement and activities are located within an area. Social activities and movements take place in tangible structures (buildings and streets) as physical patterns, which also represent a functional distribution. Hillier’s space syntax depicts the distribution of an urban economy through the analysis of the integration of urban grids. Arida’s particles and events in a radiating wave model indicate how the distribution of the various elements in a city can afect each other, especially in the creation of greater diversity. Salingaros (2005) explains how multiple connections between nodes (or Arida’s particles) are crucial to a structure if it is to enable people to move and use the space in flexible and changing functional distributions. In short, all of these works point towards the importance of location in a system.

THEORY  115

This is, as Hillier (1996b, p. 175) states, ‘the urban movement economy, arising from the multiplier efect of space, depends on certain conditions: a certain size, a certain density, a certain distribution of land uses, a specific type of grid that maintains the interface between local and global, and so on’. It is important to see that the six measures, as discussed above, are also by their very nature representative of a number of spatial organizational rules. They work and reinforce each other to create diferent levels of integration, connection, and interaction by modulating the physical and functional systems that can further facilitate or impede the generation of movement and activities in cities. Rather than following any linear or hierarchical rules, they are all overlapping with each other and work as in a rhizome structure.

Discussion Comparing the above theories and ideas, we can see that they all follow a similar logic for understanding cities. Jacobs’s ‘organized complexity’ is close to Alexander’s ‘semi-lattice’ way of thinking, and they resonate with Hillier’s space syntax, the ‘responsive environment’ of Bentley et al., Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘assemblage and rhizome’, Gehl’s ‘life between buildings’, Arida’s ‘interference model’, Salingaros’s ‘urban web’ and Marshall’s ‘evolving ecosystem’. Although they interpret substantially the same phenomenon with diferent metaphors and conceptual models, all stress the importance of the interconnection and multiplicities between form and function in urban complexity and the need to understand a city as something more than the sum of its parts. These theoretical conceptual models also bear some resemblance to Eastern areal thinking, which emphasizes lateral connections and multiplicities of relationship between all things as a way of conceiving the world, as discussed in the previous chapter. Cities created under a linear ‘tree-like way of thinking’ tend to have tree-like or tributary street structures, reducing their vitality as cities by fragmenting them into islands and isolating their functions (zoning). This approach strips away interconnections between the form and function as has certainly been the case in many Chinese cities, as discussed in Chapter 2. In contrast, interconnected formfunction relationships showing Jacobs’s ‘unrehearsed choreography’ are to be found more often in Japan’s cities. Such phenomena reflect a semi-lattice condition that has good links between nodes and vitality of life and activity. In the following two chapters, we will explore supergrid and superblock structures in two Chinese and two Japanese cities through the lens of the interconnection theory.

Notes 1.

Modern cities present a common ‘generic function’, by which Hillier fathoms: ‘it is the spatial implications of the most fundamental aspects of human use of space that is the fact of occupation and the fact of movement. At this generic level, function imposes

116  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

restraints on what is spatially viable, and this is responsible for what all buildings have in common as spatial designs (Hillier, 1996, p. 8). 2.

The concept of ‘spatial culture’ refers to the inclination of cultures to produce distinctive forms according to identifiable spatial values. Hillier sees culture as the major force behind the urban grids of pre-modern cities. However, he points to a major change when economic development became the priority in modern cities: the impact of culture as a variable ‘mainly puts its imprint on the local texturing of space, generating its characteristic diferences, whereas micro-economics is a constant and puts its imprint mainly on the emerging global structure of the settlement in a more or less invariant way’ (Hillier, 2001, p. 6).

3.

Jacobs uses this term to criticize the traditional scientific approach that tries to solve the urban problem as a math equation with only two variables at a time.

4.

As they also point out that these lines, or lineaments, should not be confused with lineages of the arborescent type, which are merely localizable linkages between points and positions.

5.

‘... a node can be anything that attracts people, like a house, a hot-dog stand, a shaded bench, or a public transport stop’ (Salingaros, 2005, p. 15).

6.

‘Siksna process’ refers to the process of the grid intensification and smaller block sizes in city centres that can increase the system efciency for movements (Siksna, 1997). In Hillier’s (1999, p. 2) words: ‘spatially, the movement economy process works at two levels in generating a pattern of centrality: a global level and a local level… The greater the scale is of the centre, the stronger the “Siksna process” will be’.

7.

Interaction and its related theories also inspire a method in mapping activities and functions, and this is explained in Appendix II.

8.

The former usually refers to the physical configuration of buildings and the latter is more widely accepted to understand the function of a building such as a house or factory. This often confuses students in education.

9.

In short, a space in which a war machine develops is a smooth space. It is organic and has less control. A space instituted by state apparatus is a striated space, which has a clear territorial rule and order (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, Chapter 14).

10. Le Corbusier’s urban proposal in the Athens Charter of 1933 represents one type of pattern that is the reversal of traditional city structure, which represents another type of pattern.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  117

Chapter Five

Practice in China: The Kingdom of Walls and Gates … at a structural level [Chinese cities are] constructed by a system of walls, not by a field of open spaces that are naturally related and congregated to each other… [and] at a spatial level, the city walls are the only material and constitutive element that defines this overall concentric, hierarchical composition. Zhu, Chinese Spatial Strategies Imperial Beijing 1420–1911 (2004), pp. 46 and 48 As is evident from Chapters 2 and 3, the way we design our cities is closely related to culture, and the distinctive Chinese way of constructing buildings and cities is related to the combination of two fundamental concepts: Lifang and ‘walloriented conception’. Translating them into actual form, they are the ‘supergrid and superblock structure’ and the ‘wall-and-gate structure’, which are strong areal phenomena. They existed in ancient Chinese cities at all scales (from city walls to courtyard houses) to divide spaces into hierarchies of areas, with strong fractal characteristics, as discussed in Chapter 4. Although China has many diferent regional geographies and subcultures, these two forms are closely related to each other and are applied in most places albeit with variations on a common theme. As said before, China developed an ‘architecture of the wall’ to create systematic fractal structures of enclosed areas by using linear elements (walls and gates) to divide and protect (figure 5.0). However, although modern cities continue to make pervasive use of the walland-gate structure, they are no longer fractal. The wall-and-gate structure has been fragmented and reformed under a range of social changes: the demolition of city walls since the end of the republican period in 1949 (Lu, 2006a, p. 131); the massive construction of walls around work units since the 1960s (ibid., p. 135); and the nation-wide replacement of courtyard houses with modern architecture

118  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.0. City walls of Xi’an (left) and Nanjing (right). (Photo: (right) Xinhuawang, 2016)

from the West. These changes have transformed the structure into isolated groups that have become ‘accessories’ to modern buildings. This is consistent with Salingaros’s (2005, pp. 141–143) statement that traditional cities tend to have fractal features while modern cities do not. Nevertheless, a fragmented wall-and-gate structure continues to have a powerful presence in modern Chinese cities and has a major impact on the supergrid and superblock structure. These structures work with various street patterns to shape movement, and determine how streets, buildings and open spaces are distributed across a superblock. This greatly afects how movement and activity are distributed in modern cities. In this Chapter, two typical but somewhat diferent Chinese cities: Xi’an and Nanjing are selected for observation. In each, a superblock is studied to illustrate how the supergrid and superblock structure operates with the wall-and-gate structure in today’s cities. I brought together together dozens of old maps and data from local libraries to find records that show how the present supergrid and superblock structures in the two cities are working today.

Supergrids of Xi’an and Nanjing Xi’an and Nanjing have both been capitals of China on more than a dozen occasions over a period of almost two millennia. With extremely long histories, they are cities of exceptional importance. While Xi’an was the birthplace of the idea of the supergrid and superblock structure in China, introducing design rules to strengthen the royal power, Nanjing is located in the southern part of China, where symmetry and orthodox rules are adapted flexibly according to variations in the geographical and socio-cultural environments. Both cities have seen structural changes over many dynasties with layers from the past evident one on top of another. Although historically important, in contemporary China Xi’an and Nanjing are typical second tier cities, each with over eight million residents, excluding a further three million migrants. Xi’an has a regular supergrid covering a highly urbanized

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  119

area of about 540 km2, with the supergrid of roughly 20 × 27 km. In comparison, the supergrid of Nanjing covers a highly urbanized inner-city area of about 180 km2 (15 × 12 km), also the city has a more regular but smaller grid interval (0.5–1.0 km2) in the riverside area, a district which was recently built – mostly in the twenty-first century (figure 5.1). In both cities, because of the remains of ancient city walls, many global roads extend from the inner walled area to the outside and reach as far as the outer ring road, providing connections for intra-city travel. The average intervals between global roads in both cities are about one kilometre and so superblocks are typically one square kilometre in area. The many geographical features and heritage sites in both cities account for some irregularities in their supergrids. Some global roads also overlap with ring roads, which were built to supplement the supergrid with intra-city connections and also to link with intercity highways. Hence, these can take some long-distance trafc of the major global roads to higher order movement channels, in the form of elevated or underground structures. If we look back at the evolution of the two cities over 2,000 years, their past forms are a combination of the supergrid and superblock and wall-andgate structures. Their contemporary supergrids are mostly the result of modern development (since the 1920s) and are partly under Western influences. However,

Figure 5.1. Selected superblocks in the supergrids of Xi’an (top) and Nanjing (bottom). (Source: Base map from Google 2019)

120  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.2. Xi’an city: former global roads shown in relation to the modern supergrid and study site.

layers of the cities’ past forms have had considerable impact on their modern structures (see figure 5.2). Figure 5.3 shows the historical transformation of Xi’an over the city’s history. During the Han Dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE) Xi’an was known as Chang’an and at that time the supergrid and superblock structure was still at an embryonic stage (figure 5.3a). The city changed its name to Daxing during Sui Dynasty (581–618 CE) and new planning ideas were applied. It was divided by more wide global roads leading to the city gates, and 108 walled residential quarters along with a walled palace and markets were built (figure 5.3b). The walled superblocks, which varied in size because the global roads were in place before their construction, were connected to the supergrid by four gates on each side. With a few further extensions, the city reached maturity as the famous Eastern planning model in the Tang Dynasty (618–906 CE). Two layers of walls can be found in this classic model: the first protected the royal palace and the second surrounded the walled superblocks. It marked a turning point with planning concepts being applied systematically, creating a city with symmetry, order, and hierarchy: a manifestation of the classical city of Kao Gong Ji as discussed in Chapter 2. This not only influenced the construction of capital cities in China but also in other countries in East Asia (He, 2012), including Kyoto in Japan, which will be discussed in the next chapter. However, the city was later destroyed during the course of numerous wars. When reconstructed in the Wudai period (907–960 CE), it shrank to the area of what was previously that of the central royal palace (about 3 × 4 km), and this remained until the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), by which time it had grown by a third and the shape changed (figure 5.3c, d, e, f). Between the Qing (1644–1911) and Minguo (1912–1949) periods, a separate area in the north-east quarter of the city was further walled within the city wall (see figure 5.3g in grey). This was

Figure 5.3. Xi’an’s supergrid history: structural change.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  121

122  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

a special area to separate the Man minority from the Han people and marks the major diference between Xi’an in the Ming and Qing eras (Shi, 1996). It illustrates how Chinese people use the wall-and-gate structure to construct a spatial hierarchy of walled areas. To some extent, it is the city structure in the Qing Dynasty, with some inherited elements and characteristics, especially the locations of global roads and gates, from the Ming Dynasty, that set the basis for the modern supergrid. Contrary to the part-to-whole process of the building of Chang’an in the Han Dynasty, the city in later dynasties was conceived and built from whole to part (ibid.). All the wide roads of diferent periods in the city are global connections linking city gates and therefore serving both inter-city and intra-city movement. The widest road was centrally placed to form a city axis leading to the area of the walled royal palace. In the process, shifts in the location of gates along the city walls occurred to afect the positions of global roads and the number and sizes of superblocks, creating a clear ‘city gate-road-superblock gate’ relationship. Walland-gate structures were constructed in a way that determined how the city would be used to generate or obstruct movement and activities, especially during periods when curfews were applied for reasons of safety (Editorial Board of the District of Lianhu of Xi’an, 2001; Shi, 1996; He, 2012). In Xi’an’s modern period, global road positions from these earlier periods still influence the form of its supergrid and superblocks. Having survived the Culture Revolution, Xi’an’s city wall from the Ming and Qing Dynasties has been largely retained apart from some minor modifications necessary to cope with modern trafc. Starting from the walled city as its centre, modern Xi’an has experienced regular supergrid expansion on all four sides. Two crossed historical global roads and four gates of the Qing Dynasties (two dotted blue lines in figure 5.2) were adapted and extended beyond the city wall to form a larger Xi’an metropolis along with a new network of wide global roads. To accommodate the modern transportation system, fourteen more gates were constructed to supplement those from previous dynasties, and opening these gates in the city walls for modern transport determined the construction and expansion of the global roads. A few global roads and the drainage canal from the Tang period were also reused for part of the modern supergrid system (see the solid blue line in figure 5.3b). The city’s Han heritage area results in significant distortion of the modern supergrid, meaning the position of the modern global roads is afected by the location of ancient ones and by the city gates. As in the case of Xi’an, Nanjing’s modern supergrid has been formed under the influence of three ancient cities built in the area. The imprints of city structures from the Six Dynasties (229–529 CE), Southern Tang Dynasty (937–975 CE), and Ming Dynasty (1368–1644 CE) are evident in the supergrid of today (see figure 5.4 top). Those earlier cities were also constructed with supergrid and superblock structures in which many major roads were related to city gates allowing passage through city walls. In other words, major roads ran between the gates and were

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  123

used as city-wide or ‘global’ connections (indicated as dotted green, purple and orange lines in figure 5.4 top), and they divided the cities into superblocks. Of all periods, the city structure of the Ming Dynasty has had greatest impact on the modern structure. The Ming city had three layers of city walls: the royal palace wall and the inner and outer city wall, creating the largest supergrid network before the modern supergrid was constructed (Wu, 2011; Yang, 2009; Chen and Gazzola, 2013). Unlike Xi’an, Nanjing’s city wall was partly demolished, and what remains placed fewer restrictions on the formation of modern roads (figure 5.4 bottom).

Figure 5.4. Nanjing’s supergrid history. Historical layers: (top) from the Six Dynasties Era to the present; (bottom) 1929 Capital Plan and modern supergrid compared.

124  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

The design of the global road network at the time also overlapped with many roads from previous dynasties, and set an embryonic framework for the Capital Plan of 1929 (Wang, 2014). For this study it is particularly interesting that the 1929 Capital Plan was directed by two American planners, who were trying to transform Nanjing into an ‘Eastern Washington’ by adopting what was considered the most advanced Modernist planning of the time. The city was designed with some radial roads and a small street grid structure as was common in Western (particularly North American) cities (see figure 5.4 bottom in both black and red lines). The grid is particularly small in the north, western and eastern parts of the city where, historically, little development had occurred. However, the grid was never fully realized because the triangular shaped land parcels that would be produced in parts of the grid structure were considered a waste of land in Chinese spatial conception (Editorial Board of Local Chronicles of the City of Nanjing, 1999; 2008; 2009; Zhu, 2014; Wang, 2014). Consequently, the Capital Plan was revised by Chinese planners, who used squares to expand the city concentrically in all directions. This approach, by its nature, created a supergrid and superblock structure (see red lines and lighter red lines in figure 5.4 bottom). Thus, the formation of the supergrid in Nanjing (with components from radial and small grid and areal supergrid thinking) reflects very well the diferences between the Eastern areal and Western linear conception of space, as discussed in Chapter 3. The supergrid histories of Xi’an and Nanjing provide strong evidence of the importance of walls and gates as key structural elements, and together they represent the case for road networks being designed as complementary to walland-gate structures in China. The wall-and-gate structure appears consistently in both cities as fractal patterns, reflecting directly Chinese wall-oriented spatial practice within a broader Eastern predisposition to areal and multi-directional spatial thinking.

Superblocks: Jinyuan, Xi’an and Daguangli, Nanjing Superblocks are defined by the supergrid as distinct and self-contained units. They usually contain a variety of functions, but are predominantly residential. There are also work places and shops to provide the basic needs of local residents. The two superblocks for detailed study are Jinyuan, Xi’an and Daguangli, Najing. Jinyuan is in the second row of superblocks to the west of the Xi’an’s west city wall. It occupies about 0.75 km2 with an average width (east–west) of 0.8 km and length (north–south) of 0.94 km. The total built area is about 21 ha, giving approximately 26 per cent building coverage. Daguangli is located on the eastern edge of Nanjing’s supergrid close to the site of the Royal Palace of the Ming Dynasty. It is about 1.4 km long (east–west) and 0.8 km wide (north–south), and with an area of approximately 1.2 km2: about 34 ha are built over giving 28 per

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  125

Figure 5.5. Study superblocks: Jinyuan and Daguangli in relation to their neighbouring superblocks in aerial photos. (Source: Base maps from Google 2019)

cent building coverage (see figure 5.5). The two sites, in the central and outer parts of their cities’ supergrids, respectively, have reasonably similar population densities: 270 people/ha for Jinyuan and 210 people/ha for Daguangli (estimates based on site visit information from local communities). Jinyuan and Daguangli are subdivided by streets into a number of smaller areas, but these are mostly much larger than a normal Western street block. Jinyuan is subdivided into three sub-areas of 47, 27 and 1.5 ha, respectively, while Daguangli is subdivided into fourteen sub-areas ranging from 1.2 to 23 ha. These areas are further subdivided by a complex structure of walls, gates and buildings resulting in a number of walled compounds (figure 5.6 and 5.7). Walls are generally between 1 and 3 metres high, and the walled compounds are tightly packed next to each other, mostly without streets in between: altogether; they create forty-six compounds of irregular shape containing a total of 401 buildings in Jinyuan and seventy-five compounds with 487 individual buildings in Daguangli. The most common building type within the two superblocks is the six- to eightstorey slab block arranged in walled groups (68 per cent in Jinyuan and 80 per cent in Daguangli). These are often mixed with individual high-rise towers, one- to two- storey pavilions, and slab and courtyard buildings, which are also arranged in

126  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.6. Street block and wall structures: Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right).

Figure 5.7. Buildings and walls shown in isometric (top) and figure-ground (bottom) drawings: Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right).

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  127

128  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

groups (figure 5.8a). Pavilions and single-storey row houses are mostly located at the edge of the superblock or around a walled compound as part of the enclosing wall (figure 5.8e, f). In Daguangli, there are also some small pavilions (usually of one or two storeys) and courtyard buildings in groups showing a fine grain and village-like appearance. Of these, one is a historically protected area while others are currently in slum condition (figure 5.8b). These buildings and compounds have a considerable range of ages and functions. A water channel that once surrounded the Royal Palace in the Ming Dynasty now runs through Daguangli in an east–west alignment (Figure 5.8h). It separates the superblock into northern and southern halves with only two bridges connecting the two halves. Tracing back over the history of the two superblocks, we find a pervasive use of the wall-and-gate structure from ancient times. In 1999, seven ancient wells were found in Jinyuan during the construction of housing (Shanxi Archaeology

Figure 5.8. Scenes of Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right) depicting building types.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  129

Institute, 2008), which led to the discovery of the earliest predecessor of Jinyuan: the Liquan superblock (figure 5.9h). This is an important place in relation to the Royal Palace and walled city centre in ancient and modern times. When, in 582 BCE, people were developing this area they heard the sound of water and built seven wells. As a home to a water channel in the Sui and Tang Dynasties, it was said that the people who drank from those wells were healed from illnesses, and hence they named the superblock, Liquan.1 While the ancient and modern superblocks are of diferent sizes, Liquan represents a typical Chang’an superblock (Tang Dynasty) and is about 40 per cent larger than today’s Jinyuan (figure 5.9a). It was a walled superblock (838 × 1,032 m) next to the city’s international trade market and accommodated about 10,000 people with a mix of temples, royal residences, and pottery kilns, which were courtyard building compounds (Shanxi Archaeology Institute, 2008; He, 2012). The gates were connected by two perpendicular 15 m wide glocal streets dividing the superblock into four smaller sections. Four pairs of 5–6 m local cross streets gave further subdivision into sixteen street blocks, each containing a network of 2–3 m internal streets with walled courtyards of diferent sizes. However, Liquan was destroyed and gradually occupied by several villages as part of a suburb of Chang’an. Then, during the Qing Dynasty, the area became a walled military training field, and in the 1920s it was converted into a walled airport, which remained until 1991 (Figure 5.9b, g). The airport was moved largely for reasons of noise and has since been gradually developed into the many walled residential and industrial compounds we see today. By 2002, the southward and westward extensions of two existing global roads (dotted red lines on map in figure 5.9c) were constructed and the supergrid finally completed around all four sides to form a superblock within the supergrid system. Four glocal roads (orange lines) were also added and these continue to serve the superblock. When we examine the global roads around Jinyuan, we find they were built at diferent times, but mostly since the 1950s as indicated in figure 5.9d, e. (Shanxi Archaeology Institute, 2008; Shi, 1996; Editorial Board of the District of Lianhu of Xi’an (EBDL), 2001; Planning Institute of Xi’an, 2016; Zheng and Li, 2007). Like Jinyuan, Daguangli is also located in a historically important place but it does not have a superblock ancestor. During the Six Dynasties period (222–589 CE), because of its close proximity to the Qinhuai River, the area attracted many royal and rich people who built their homes in the form of walled mansion courtyard compounds. In the year 414, Dongfu city was located in the southeast quarter of Daguangli superblock because of its strategic location between the Royal Palace and city wall. In the Ming Dynasty, much of today’s Daguangli became the area for central government departments to the south of the Ming Royal Palace. In Qing Dynasty, the area was still occupied by large walled courtyard compounds inherited from previous dynasties, but with more subdivision, the built area was expanded on both sides of the diagonal street, which linked two city gates (figure 5.10a, b).

130  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.9. Transformation of the Jinyuan superblock from the Sui and Tang Dynasties to 2002.

Figure 5.10. Transformation of the Daguangli superblock: from the Ming Era to the 1980s.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  131

132  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Between the 1920s and 1950s, the area went through even more subdivision in the southeast half, and the area on the north side of the water channel was used as a military airport. During this period, the shape of the superblock was gradually formed with global connections on three sides. The resulting structure within the superblock did not change dramatically until the 1960s when many of the irregular streets were removed and the water channel and diagonal street were modified to give more regularity. More importantly, the area was fully enclosed by four global roads: two were extended and two remained narrow until the 1990s. Some new gated communities were built during this period but were not walled at first: an extensive wall structure emerged as more communities were constructed in this area (figure 5.10c, d). If we look again at the global roads around Daguangli, it is not hard to see that there is a mix of roads inherited from the Ming Dynasty and roads built in modern times, mainly since the 1960s (figure 5.10e) (Wu, 2011; Yang, 2009; Editorial Board of Local Chronicles of the City of Nanjing, 2008, pp. 37–128; 2009, pp. 80–290; 2011, pp. 635–652; Chen and Gazzola, 2013; Zhu, 2014; The Compiling Committee of the Communication Almanac of Nanjing, 1991; Highway Management Ofce and Historical Commission, 1989). While Jinyuan and Daguangli are mostly products of the modern period, it is now evident that they were strongly influenced by the ancient wall-and-street form of the city. In the modern versions of the two superblocks, three common features can be found: (1) They are mostly lower along their edges and higher in their middles. Although some taller buildings can be found at the edges, they are usually attached to or behind the lower commercial edges or walls; (2) The built form is mostly composed of tall buildings standing in extensive open space but mixed with groups of lower buildings; (3) There is a pervasive use of the wall structure (figure 5.11).

Figure 5.11. Major characteristics of the two superblocks.

Movement, Activity, and Interconnection The extensive walled division of both superblocks, together with relatively few public roads, mean that gate locations within wall structure necessitate a system of private ‘streets’ within most walled compounds and these are largely of a tree structure including culs-de-sac. For this reason, it can be said that the spatial order

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  133

Figure 5.12. Street structures of the two superblocks showing global roads and glocal, local and internal streets and gates.

is organized more by the wall structure than by the street network (figures 5.6 and 5.7). By taking the walls and gates into consideration, the street structure must incorporate gates to explain the full hierarchical network for movement. Thus, the gates are ‘converted’ in this study to equate with the three street types: glocal, local, and internal – with the latter mostly made up of culs-de-sac (figure 5.12).

Connection Within both Jinyuan and Daguangli, the street networks are mainly made up of very sparse and distorted grids in combination with numerous culs-de-sac, mostly in the form of gates (see figure 5.13). While all global roads and glocal streets are in grid or quasi-grid patterns, most local streets and gates and all internal streets and gates are in tree patterns or end in culs-de-sac. A consequence is a wellconnected grid at a global scale, but a poorly connected street network at local and internal scales. In addition, glocal roads are few, adding to the problem of connection. Using Alexander’s terminology, it is largely made up of tree structures; and, as indicated by Marshall, tree patterns and culs-de-sac provide the lowest levels of connectivity (Alexander, 1965; Marshall, 2005). The result is that city scale connectivity is efective but that between and within superblocks is not. Overall, in Jinyuan, the global–local connection is the strongest, while in Daguangli it is the glocal–internal connection as shown in figures 5.12 and 5.14. The types of connection largely determine the flow of trafc within each superblock. This diference is also apparent from the street and junction densities and the street patterns. In Jinyuan, the overall street density is 10.67 km/km2, and the most numerous types of connection are the local streets and gates. They account for over half of all street types, although their average length is only around 100 m. The densities of global, glocal, local, and internal streets are 4.64, 1.56, 1.9 and 0.4 km/km2,

134  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.13. (from top to bottom) Glocal, local, and internal gates and their attached walls in Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right).

respectively. Clearly, the global and local connections have the highest street densities, followed by glocal and internal streets. This suggests that the global–local type of connection is the strongest. As there are very few glocal streets, Jinyuan is not well connected to its neighbouring superblocks which is a further indication that both local streets and gates are feeding trafc directly onto the global roads. The sparsity of glocal streets to provide alternatives to relieve global trafc routes puts great pressure on the global roads (figures 5.14 and 5.17). In Daguangli, the density of each street type shows glocal streets (5.01 km/ 2 km ) as the highest, followed by global roads (3.7 km/km2), internal (1.75 km/ km2) and local (1.4 km/km2) streets. However, the internal connections (streets and gates) are the most numerous and are found along eight glocal streets. Together, they make glocal–internal connections the most common and the most vital and frequently used part of the network: the numerous internal streets feed people directly onto glocal streets and in turn onto global roads and other nearby superblocks. This means that, numerically, the global–local connection is secondary to the glocal–internal connection. Although density and absolute numbers indicate that the glocal streets are most extensive in Daguangli, their average length is less than half that of the global roads, suggesting that glocal streets rarely penetrate deeply into neighbouring

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  135

Figure 5.14. Street dimensions and related statistics: Jinyuan and Daguangli.

superblocks, and this is consistent with the mapping as indicated in figure 5.14 and 5.17. The average widths, on the other hand, are very similar, indicating a common standard was applied in the design. Intersections and T-sections are the common type of junction resulting from the grid and tree pattern of streets, and I will refer to these as ‘standard junctions’ as shown in figure 5.15. If we consider the statistics collected from the site investigation, the impact of walls and gates on the local spatial structure is clearly apparent. The gates of those walled areas are also part of the junction system and exchange points between public and private street networks. I will refer to these as the ‘gate/T-section’ type, which is a street connecting to one or more gates. The type is very common in both superblocks, and most of them are local or internal streets in conjunction with gates. Jinyuan has nine intersections (four global–global plus five global–glocal) and sixty-one T-sections (including gates), equivalent figures for Daguangli are twenty-one intersections and 178 T-sections

136  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.15. Junction types – distribution and numbers: Jinyuan and Daguangli.

giving a total of 199 publicly accessible junctions (with 60 per cent in the form of gates), which is 129 more junctions than Jinyuan. Generally, Daguangli has a higher junction density than Jinyuan. The percentages of intersections in Jinyuan (12 per cent) and Daguangli (10 per cent) are very close, while the percentage of T-sections in Daguangli is about three times that of Jinyuan. However, the distribution of junctions is far from even in both superblocks. In both they are mostly located along the global roads and glocal streets. Nonetheless, most junctions tend to occur in close proximity to global–glocal junctions in Jinyuan, while more occur along glocal streets in Daguangli. The interesting diference between the two superblocks is that most junctions in Jinyuan are global–local T-sections in the form of gates, while those in Daguangli are mostly glocal–internal and also in gate form. This shows more connections are linking global roads and local streets in Jinyuan, while more are linking glocal and internal streets in Daguangli. In addition, both superblocks exhibit extensive ‘tree patterns’ resulting from numerous gates efectively forming culs-de-sac. In Jinyuan, most streets do not form a true network, as they are mostly dead-ends – i.e. entrances to walled areas. This is indicative of low overall connectivity within the superblock. The global– local connections are strongest in a poorly connected pattern dominated by culs-de-sac, due to the widespread occurrence of the wall and the gate structure. Daguangli, on the other hand, is much better connected than Jinyuan. It has a street pattern that is a mix of grid and cul-de-sacs (figure 5.16). Basically, the global roads and the four longest glocal streets form a grid pattern as a skeleton with twelve glocal, thirty local and 114 internal streets and gates tending to tree patterns. Internal streets and gates are mostly connected to glocal streets, while local culs-de-sac are all connected to global roads.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  137

Figure 5.16. Streets and gates: Jinyuan and Daguangli.

On a larger scale, the paucity of connections within Jinyuan’s and Daguangli’s neighbouring superblocks has already been highlighted and is good reason to look further at this scale. Poor inner- and inter-superblock connection is common to most superblocks in both cities: in particular, there is no strong pattern of connection that extends between neighbouring superblocks and so Jinyuan and Daguangli are representative of a general condition. Figure 5.17 shows two groups of nine superblocks, each with Jinyuan and Daguangli at the centre. The network is sparse and at best forms a loose grid in the three superblocks to the north of Jinyuan and is even sparser or non-existent in the three superblocks to the south. Connection in the superblock to the east is only slightly better. The street network is also fragmented in Daguangli with few good connections. Glocal streets are quite numerous in the superblock and even form a network, but they do not extend far beyond in any useful way. The three superblocks to the west are unusual and generally enjoy good inter-connection but they are not connected to Daguangli. The strongest glocal connection is north–

Figure 5.17. Superblocks and surrounding superblocks (districts): Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right).

138  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

south where one street traverses fully three blocks but otherwise glocal connections are short and few. This is a very uneven distribution, yet the Daguangli superblock is the best connected in the group of nine. Thus, although it has a fair number of glocal streets (as defined in this study), the majority do not extend far into neighbouring superblocks, with medium-distance travel being forced to run on global roads. Hence, street patterns in both superblocks result in contorted routes for trafc (and movement generally) over medium distances: the limited number, density and length of glocal streets with limited connections directs trafc onto global roads for relatively short journeys, increasing pressure (extra trafc) on these roads. Although street patterns in the two superblocks appear to be diferent, we see more similarities than diferences in transport movements and flows. In Jinyuan, more connections are directly linked to global roads, with most movements restricted between global roads and local streets by the wall-and-gate structure, especially for motor vehicles. Most local roads and gates release trafc directly onto global roads and the general pattern of car movement is mostly along the four global roads. There are also twenty bus routes with ten bus stops running along the four global roads. In future, a subway line will align with the east global road with a station at the southeast corner of the superblock. This will also attract people who use public transport to travel to the global roads. As a result, global roads will take most of all modal movements. When compared with Jinyuan, Daguangli has more connections between glocal streets and internal streets and gates indicating more movement between glocal streets and gated communities through internal gates and streets. However, because of the problem of glocal streets previously discussed, trafc is still directed back to the global roads. Twenty-eight bus routes with twelve bus stops serve Daguangli along its four global edges. In the future, there will also be two new subway lines running beneath the global roads at the southern and eastern edges of the superblock (see figures 5.18 and 5.19). This means that both public transport and automobiles will rely heavily on the global roads. To a large extent, this explains a problem that is common to most Chinese cities where trafc congestion occurs mostly along the wide arterial (global or supergrid) roads during morning and afternoon peak travel times. Movements and flows are fed from the gates of walled residential, company, educational, and other institutional compounds onto internal streets or tree-structured glocal streets and onto the supergrid. In addition, both cities rely heavily on bus lines (over 300 each) and a few subway lines that also run on or below the global roads. Over the next twenty years, the authorities have planned a dozen more subway lines that will form a grid network beneath the existing supergrid roads. This will create extensive multi-level grid networks for intra-city travel. The present supergrids should be relieved of some trafc but motor vehicle use is increasing and without a more connected network of glocal and superblock scales, the global roads will continue to be highly congested, and probably worse.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  139

Figure 5.18. Public transport systems of Xi’an and Jinyuan: city subways (top); city bus lines (centre); and Superblock subways and bus services (bottom).

140  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.19. Public transport systems of Nanjing and Daguangli: city subways (top); city bus lines (centre); superblock subways (proposed) and bus services (bottom).

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  141

In summary, both superblocks have mixes of ‘semi-lattice’ and ‘tree’ patterns that are formed by a range of street types at diferent scales of connection. The semi-lattice pattern is mostly found at the macro supergrid scale, while tree patterns occur at lesser scales and include many gates and small streets. As indicated by Marshall (2005), the tree or cul-de-sac patterns provide the lowest connectivity for facilitating movement. This means that the level of connection is rather weak within the two superblocks because of the impact of walls and gates around living quarters.

Interaction Jane Jacobs (1961) put forward convincingly the view that a well-connected and dense network of streets provides most opportunity for varied movement, which in turn will generate more extensive activity, particularly at street meeting points: junctions and street corners were particularly important in her thinking. This argument has been prominent in planning theory ever since. Over 30 years later, Hillier (1996a) used the term ‘movement economy’, which rests on positive relationships between levels of (street) connection, movement (especially pedestrian movement), and the generation of activity (especially economic activity). In other words, it has been the norm in planning thought that certain kinds of integrated and connected places will be active places. According to this, the two Chinese superblocks discussed would be expected to have limited activities as both would be seen as lacking well-connected street networks. However, this is only partly true. Even though many Chinese cities have limited connection across scales as discussed above, the level of activity remains quite strong, especially around the gates of walled communities and particularly in the form of street markets. This is consistent with Zhu’s (2004, p. 52) finding: ‘While streets facilitated linear flow of movement, nodal areas accommodated the commercial, cultural and religious life of the local population. The two overlapped significantly, creating a spectacle of congestion and vitality.’ My investigation of actual uses in the two superblocks shows some noteworthy conditions. For my examination of the distribution and activity mix, activities are categorized into four major types: consumption, production, service, and residence (for more detailed explanation of this, see Appendix II). Their distribution in Jinyuan and Daguangli are illustrated in figure 5.20. There are some significant diferences between the two, of which the most important are: (1) non-residential activities tend to concentrate along glocal streets (which are street block edges) in Daguangli (69 per cent), whereas most tend to gather along the global roads in Jinyuan (87 per cent); and (2) mixed activities can be seen to spread over a greater proportion of the Daguangli superblock than is the case in Jinyuan. Here, it is important to remember that the Daguangli superblock has more glocal–internal connections compared to Jinyuan superblocks, which has more global–local

142  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.20. Distribution of the four activity types consumption, production, service and residence. Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right)

connections. These diferences imply a common spatial logic in China: the location of gates is strongly related to the distribution of activities. The following discussion provides evidence of this. Nearly three-quarters (74 per cent) of consumption activities in Jinyuan are found along global roads and local streets and close to their points of connection, especially around the local gates (68 per cent). Production activities are more strongly related to local than other street types. Service activities are not obviously related to any street type. In Daguangli, more activities tend to locate along glocal than other street types. Most consumption activities (72 per cent) are also located along glocal streets. If we compare the results of activity per street, per kilometre and per street density, it is even more obvious that global roads and local streets attract the two highest concentrations of activities in Jinyuan. However, glocal and internal streets have stronger concentrations of activities than global roads in Daguangli. The proportions of each activity type locating around local and internal gates are 58 per cent and 80 per cent for consumption, 52 per cent and 26 per cent for production and 52 per cent and 53 per cent for the service activities. For both superblocks, activities are strongly related to local and internal gates (see figures 5.21 and 5.22).

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  143

Figure 5.21. Distribution of activity types in relation to global roads, glocal, local and internal streets in Jinyuan.

144  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.22. Distribution of activity types in relation to global roads, glocal, local and internal streets in Daguangli.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  145

There is also a strong mixing of diferent activity types in both superblocks. In Jinyuan, most non-residential activity mixes (92 per cent) are located along the global roads and glocal streets. The strongest relationship here is the 73 per cent of consumption and service mixes (in purple) that occur along global roads, the 57 per cent of consumption and production mixes (in orange), 75 per cent of service and production mixes (in green) and 67 per cent of the mix of three types also concentrate along the global roads. On the other hand, the percentage of consumption and service mixes locating around gates is 79 per cent. It would be even higher if street vendors and markets were taken into account. However, no mix of consumption and production activities and only 25 per cent of production and service mixes can be found around gates. Mixes of activity types happen mostly around the global–local T-sections (about 86 per cent), which are in fact local gates. In comparison, global-global intersections do not show a strong relationship to activity mix in this superblock. Mixes of consumption and service activities are mostly located around local T-sections. Of these, about 60 per cent are located around the global–local T-sections (see figure 5.23). The most common mix in Daguangli is consumption–service (54 per cent), which is more than consumption–production (32 per cent), and much more than either production–service (7 per cent) or the three-type mix (also 7 per cent). Consistently, these activity mixes show stronger relationships to global roads than all other street types. More specifically, consumption–production and consumption–service mixes show moderately positive relationships with glocal (over 40 per cent) and local streets (more than 30 per cent). They also show a stronger relationship to internal gates (18 per cent) than internal streets (9 per cent). Given the scarcity of service–production and consumption–service– production mixes, the data may be of limited significance: however, it may be noted that the few mixes of these types that do occur are found only along the global roads and show no relationship to internal streets. Among the mixes of all non-residential activities, 70 per cent are related to junctions and, of these, twothirds can be found around T-sections rather than intersections. More specifically, the mix of consumption–service activities shows the strongest relationship to junctions, especially T-sections (75 per cent) rather than intersections. Of these, 42 per cent (the highest) are related to global–local T-sections (including gates). The mix of consumption–production activities (63 per cent), is also strongly related to T-sections, with all related to global–local T-sections. The mix of productionservice activities and of all three types is only found around junctions, without further correlation with either T-sections or intersections (see figure 5.23). By collecting all the data, I developed a method for mapping the intensity of activity mix both horizontally (across ground level) and vertically (through floor levels) across the two study areas (see Appendix II). Generally, the co-functioning of activities on both horizontal and vertical levels show clear patterns of separation between high- and low-intensity areas in the two superblocks.

146  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.23. Distribution of activity mixes in relation to global roads, glocal, local and internal streets, in Jinyuan (top) and Daguangli (bottom).

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  147

Figure 5.24. Functional mix intensity in relation to junction types in the Jinyuan superblock.

In Jinyuan, the ‘high’ and ‘very high’ intensity areas (in dark pink and red) show a far stronger relationship to global roads (79 per cent) than any other street type. ‘High’ intensity also has a clear relationship to global–local T-sections (mostly in the form of gates), followed by global–glocal junctions. The small grid area in the northeast corner of the site (where there is a mix of streets and gates) shows the highest intensity of all (figure 5.24). This supports the theoretical position that a greater mix of functions will occur in areas of greatest structural mix. In Daguangli, concentrations of high intensity along the global roads and glocal streets are clear. Places with higher levels of intensity (mixes of three and four types of activity) are also strongly related to global–glocal junctions. This again supports the theoretical position whereby more functional mix will occur where there is a well-connected structure of channels to support movement and interaction between activities. Higher measures (mixes of three and four activity types) of vertical intensity are also concentrated mostly along the global and glocal streets (figure 5.25). Very few activity mixes can be found in the interiors of areas enclosed by the global and glocal streets. The ‘very high’ (in red) intensity occurs essentially along the global roads and particularly around global–glocal junctions. Most local and internal gates relate to places of ‘medium’ level intensity (light pink). When we look more closely at the location of particular uses, we see further significant features. Most shops and stores in both Jinyuan and Daguangli not

148  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.25. Functional mix intensity in relation to junction types in the Daguangli superblock.

only gravitate to global roads and glocal streets (79 per cent and 85 per cent respectively) but among those shops, over 70 per cent of convenience stores and food outlets are close to the gates or entrances of public congregation spaces, such as parks, hospitals, and schools. Most restaurants are located along the global roads and glocal streets in both superblocks. In Daguangli, 75 per cent of the restaurants are at the global–glocal and glocal–glocal junctions. In the case of banks and most financial institutions, 80 per cent are related to global roads and show no special relationship to gates in either superblock. In the case of schools, hospitals, and hotels over 80 per cent concentrate along the global roads and glocal streets and show a clear relationship to gates. In reality, building uses can be quite mixed. While the data are complex, there are a few important relationships. In both superblocks, restaurants and hotels are often mixed or in close proximity – within 100 m of each other. Similarly, ofces are commonly mixed with banks and convenience stores. The mix of the three types of building uses are an indication of where people work, shop, and manage their finances: this three-type mix also tends to concentrate along the global roads and glocal streets. Moreover, informal activities, mostly street vendors, also reinforce Hillier’s movement economy theory and are a distinctive phenomenon in Chinese superblocks. These informal activities tend to gather around the gates of walled areas, certain glocal streets, intersections of global roads or glocal streets, and bus or subway stops where there are large flows of people (figure 5.26). They can also be found as a supplement in places where commercial functions are required but

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  149

not found. In addition, structures such as covered shopping streets (figure 5.27) are found in both superblocks. Local residents told me that these used to be street markets but were organized by the local government to keep the street clean. Interestingly, they are all found along the major glocal streets.

Figure 5.26. Examples of informal activities: Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right).

150  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.27. Covered shopping streets: Jinyuan (left) and Daguangli (right).

These observations suggest that most of Jacobs’s and Hillier’s theoretical positions are applicable to China. However, the amount of activity is sometimes at variance with what one might expect from the theory with the most obvious example being global roads and glocal streets. Even though global roads are wellconnected and well-integrated at the city level, they do not always support most activity: glocal streets can attract as many activities as global roads when there are more gates located along the glocal streets. In such cases, the decisive factor is the location of gates (figure 5.28). When more gates are located along the global roads, activities congregate on global roads, as in Jinyuan. When more gates are located along the glocal streets, activities follow, as in Daguangli. In other words, walls and gates have a fundamental influence on the distribution of activities. They are, respectively, key (negative) barriers and (positive) exchange points and hence mediators in afecting the flow of people and cars, and businesses take advantage of this structural element to realize the ‘movement economy’.

Integration The logic of creating superblocks within a supergrid net continues to dominate the planning of the two cities. It is important therefore to gain a better understanding of the relationships between the parts (superblocks) and whole (supergrid), and particularly of how diferences in these relationships influence movement and the generation of activity at each scale. For this, I turned to Space Syntax theory (as explained in Chapter 4 and Appendix II). Among numerous measures associated with the theory, ‘integration’ (with global and local radii [R = n and R = 3 respectively]), ‘connectivity’ and ‘synergy’ were selected to analyse the two superblocks and their supergrid contexts. I converted the collected spatial information into axial line maps and analysed those maps with Depthmap software. Basically, ‘integration’ measures the degree of accessibility of one street to all the others in an urban network. With higher integration, there is greater connectivity, and fewer directional changes when moving from one street to

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  151

another elsewhere in the system. The resulting value indicates how efective (or otherwise) inter-accessibility, connection, and integration are in a network.2 Global integration analysis calculates how every axial line is connected to all others in the

Figure 5.28. Varied activities around the gates of gated communities (including informal activity).

152  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

city by way of the total number of directional changes to all other axial lines. In the same way, local integration analysis calculates how every axial line is connected to other streets within a locality (mostly three turns or depths). Connectivity is a static local measure and explains the number of connections that each street has to other nearby streets. Synergy measures the correlation between global and local integration and is an indicator of how interconnected an urban system is. The closer a correlation value (R2) is to 1, the better a spatial structure supports movement between global and local scale, and the stronger the correlation between the part and whole. This is important in indicating whether an urban structure can create ‘well-defined relationships between diferent levels of movement’ to generate synergy (Hillier 1996b, p. 174). To some extent, those measures can reflect the core of what the Interconnection theory has elucidated in Chapter 4. A basic principle one can extract from Hillier’s work is that the more integrated and connected an urban network is, the more distributed movement and the more extensive activities are likely to be. In the maps that follow the colours of the axial lines range from red to dark blue, indicating that levels of integration and connectivity range from high to low. First, the whole city network is analysed and the result is shown in figure 5.29. From both the integration and connectivity maps of Xi’an and Nanjing, the axial lines towards the centres of these cities show as the most integrated and connected in the whole city system, as is common in the case of old established city centres. However, by general city standards, neither centre may be thought of as a ‘concentrated’ centre, the areas would in most circumstances be considered as well-integrated but wide (that is, those areas ofer a degree of functional centrality), especially in Xi’an. In terms of synergy, the structure of Xi’an shows a much stronger ability to move people from local to global level than that of Nanjing (figure 5.29a4 and b4). Overall, Xi’an’s Street network does not present a clear ‘deformed wheel’ or ‘spiky potato’ shape, or in other words it implies a relatively non-centralized city structure as discussed in Chapter 4. It shows generally a relatively high level of integration, connectivity and accessibility across local and global scales (synergy = 0.88). The global (R = n) and local integration (R = 3) maps both indicate that the distribution of movement and activity intensity across the city is wide with some patches of less-integrated streets. The local integration analysis shows more integrated streets in the system in a grid format than the global integration. These indicate that Xi’an’s urban structure can generate broad movement and activity across scales. In comparison, Nanjing shows greater tendency towards a ‘spiky potato’ configuration – that is, decreasing levels of integration in the global network as one moves away from the crossing of the two longest red lines towards the outskirts of the city. But this, it should be noted is relative within China. However, when we move to local integration, this shows a rather diferent distribution pattern. There

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  153

Figure 5.29. Global and local integration, connectivity, and synergy analyses: Xi’an (left a1– a4) and Nanjing (right b1–b4) at city scale.

154  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

are two major well-integrated areas, which are the two more commercialized and synergized areas of the city as indicated in red, orange, and yellow colour (see figure 5.29b2). This is consistent with the connectivity map and the reality, for the two areas correspond to the old and new city centres of the city. What is really surprising is the synergy (R2 = 0.38) of Nanjing’s network, which indicates a rather weak ability to move from local to global scale. This is probably caused by interruptions in the street network resulting from formations in the natural landscape that separate it into the modern and new sections. The global road networks of the two cities are structurally both of a semi-lattice type, though the supergrid of Xi’an shows higher synergy and connectivity ratings than Nanjing: 0.8 against 0.62, and 3.82 against 3.25, respectively. The global integration for Xi’an indicates a supergrid network that is mostly well connected and integrated, although with a few minor patches of lesser integration. Nanjing’s supergrid also exhibits even measures of integration across most of the grid, the main exception being towards the eastern edges where the network encounters more rugged topography with lakes. However, higher levels of integration are mostly found in the central area, where the old city stood (figure 5.30). Moving from the global to the glocal networks of the two superblocks, the analyses present a very diferent picture, indicating fragmented mostly tree structures at this mid-scale. The global and local integration analyses of Jinyuan and Daguangli and their neighbouring superblocks are shown in figure 5.31. In both superblocks, glocal streets display only moderate levels of integration and connectivity, and a similar level of synergy. In the nine-superblock area of which Jinyuan is in the middle, local integration analyses indicate that the more integrated streets can only be found within Jinyuan, or are connected with global road around Jinyuan. The other streets, namely those in the glocal network, are less integrated. In the connectivity analysis, the level of connectivity of the glocal (district) network is only 2.8, which is much lower than the whole city network (4.69) and global road network (3.82) as shown in figures 5.29, 5.30 and 5.31. Only two streets are well connected in the district network, of which only one is in Jinyuan: again, it is a global road (indicated in red in figure 5.31a3). For Daguangli, the global and local integration analyses of the street network of this nine-superblock district scale also show a slightly higher level of integration. The global integration of the network demonstrates that the global streets on the north and west edges of Daguangli are the most integrated, while the most integrated streets in the local integration analysis are entirely outside of the confines of Daguangli superblock itself. Connectivity analysis further emphasizes the weakness of Daguangli showing that only the eastern edge of the superblock is relatively well-connected. Again, the most connected (best performing) street in the district is not within the superblock. These observations indicate that the system in terms of distributing movement and activity at the glocal scale.

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  155

Figure 5.30. Global and local integration, connectivity, and synergy analyses of global roads: Xi’an (left a1–a4) and Nanjing (right b1–b4) at city scale.

156  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.31. Global and local integration, connectivity, and synergy analyses of the glocal streets in and around the two superblocks: Jinyuan (left a1–a4) and Daguangli (right b1–b4) (district/group of superblocks’ scale).

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  157

At the local level, only local integration analyses were applied to the street networks of the two superblocks with results showing moderate levels of integration and connectivity, and equal levels (0.84) of synergy (see figure 5.32). For Jinyuan, results demonstrate that global roads are the most integrated within its local network and these are attached to higher activity levels and greater movement intensity than all other streets (which in this case are mostly gates, shown as the short lines on the map). In Daguangli, three glocal streets and the north global road appear the most integrated in the local network. This indicates that glocal streets have a relatively stronger role for short-distance movement in Daguangli than in Jinyuan, which is consistent with the glocal–internal type of connection being the most numerous here. However, it is also obvious that these glocal streets are not well integrated or connected into the wider system, suggesting that most movement, even over comparatively short distances, maybe forced onto the global roads. Further, it would appear that some such movement is probably redirected even further out from the superblock onto global roads in the broader network (see figures 5.31b1, b2, b3). To use Space Syntax to analyse the Chinese superblocks at local level is unorthodox. However, because of the dominance of the wall-and-gate structure, I thought it necessary to find an alternative method. My major concerns were how to include the gates as connections, and to what extent ‘streets’ within the gated compounds should be included, if at all. After testing various options, I concluded that the most appropriate way of recording this structure was to include the gates to each walled area as a short line of connection but exclude private ‘streets’ within the walled areas as these are usually tree structures and culs-de-sac, and generally inaccessible to the wider public. While I realized that this is at variance with standard practice, I was aware that in its development, Space Syntax would not have been used where cities primarily comprised gated walled compounds. My approach demonstrates how most movement and activity are theoretically distributed in the superblocks and the results are largely consistent with my collection of data discussed above. This method of analysing Chinese superblocks appears efective and reasonably accurate. Altogether, this aspect of my analysis highlights the strong influence of the ‘wall-and-gate’ structure in China and the need for adaptation of some (Western) methods of analysis if they are to maintain their usefulness.

Discussion Jinyuan and Daguangli in their Xi’an and Nanjing supergrid contexts represent two common superblock conditions in contemporary Chinese cities. The former is in the central part of a supergrid but has a poorly connected internal structure, while Daguangli is on the edge of a supergrid with a better-connected internal

158  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 5.32. Local integration and connectivity, and synergy analyses: Jinyuan (left a1–a3) and Daguangli (right a1–a3) (local/superblock scale).

structure. Perhaps the most important message from this investigation is that culture has a central role in shaping and forming a distinctive morphology in these sites through the dominance of the ‘wall-and-gate’ structure. It reshapes the physical configuration, type, density, and pattern of the street networks of Jinyuan and Daguangli superblocks to form, respectively, strong global–local and glocal–internal connections. But unlike the wall-and-gate structure of ancient China, there is no longer a broad and consistent fractal repetition of forms in most contemporary cities. Rather, the structure is fragmented and weak in cross-scale connections. Moreover, there is a clear separation of residential and non-residential activities

PRACTICE IN CHINA: THE KINGDOM OF WALLS AND GATES  159

flowing primarily from the wall-and-gate structure. Walls surround and separate the residential areas into several groups. All non-residential activities tend to gather and create highly mixed-used clusters over limited areas. Such a distribution further generates highly intensified areas of mixed activities around the edges of the superblocks with broad areas of far less intense activity in the middle. In Daguangli, activities are more distributed than in Jinyuan because of the stronger glocal–internal connections. In addition, both superblocks are host to a large number of street vendors who form morning and night markets in places where they can best supplement the fixed service activities (such as at the front gates of hospitals and schools). This further intensifies mixed functions in particular places. Overall, these characteristics reflect the presence of three powerful processes in both superblocks: 1. ‘Gate-ism’: activities gravitate to locations at and around the gates to walled compounds to form concentrated mixed clusters; 2. ‘Movement-transfer-ism’: the wall-and-gate structure modifies connectivity in the street network to redistribute patterns of movement and activity – which further afects movement in all modes of travel. Also, activities gather in places where diferent street types connect: since street types tend to generate particular building types (connections bring mixes of physical form too), this further intensifies activity mix; 3. ‘Magnet-ism’: permanent non-residential activities that concentrate in particular places then act as magnets for informal (economic and other) activities with the whole (formal and informal) showing high levels of synergy. More important, while it is true that the spatial configuration of cities has a clear and traceable logic of relationship to movement and activities and all kinds of interconnections, it is also evident that the wall-and-gate structure has prompted review of this logic and demonstrates an alternative order, as discussed here. These and related concepts are realized in the combination of supergrid-andsuperblock and wall-and-gate structures that we see in and around Jinyuan and Daguangli superblocks today. These structures are fundamental and enduring elements that have been used consciously and otherwise, in the creation of large areas of Chinese cities over many centuries, and their use continues. In the next chapter, we will see a very diferent superblock story in Japan.

Notes 1. After the word for ‘spring’. 2. The method and related terminologies are further explained in the Appendix II.

160  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Chapter Six

Practice in Japan: The Hidden Floor … while the centre of a European city may be a cathedral or market where population and people converge, the centre of a Japanese city may not be that clear. There is a central area of Tokyo – for example the moatencircled Imperial Palace – but it consists mostly of immaculately kept gardens inhabited by the royal family and their staf. The surrounding city is crowded and congested with little that might give it form or focus. Its boundaries are ill-defined, sprawling wildly in every direction. It grows and flourishes in fits and starts without any kind of long-term urban planning. Tokyo is an ‘amoeba city’ with its amorphous sprawl and the constant change it undergoes, like the pulsating body of the organism. Ashihara The Hidden Order, Tokyo through the Twentieth Century (1989), pp. 57–58 My knowledge of Japan was limited before I travelled to Tokyo and Nagoya in 2011. Unlike the wall-and-gate structure, which is much in evidence when travelling in Chinese cities, Japanese cities have a special characteristic which is described by Ashihara (1989) as a ‘hidden order’ and deeply cultural. Having visited some eight cities in Japan, I think that there are several characteristics that can represent the country’s built-form: a ‘shoes-of lifestyle’ that is oriented towards floor, the use of sliding screens as ‘doors’, continuous space and ‘open’ floors in buildings (these first three are closely related), and no clear boundaries between city and country. These features are also discussed by Ashihara implying a floor-oriented conception of space in his book, The Hidden Order – Tokyo through the Twentieth Century (1989), which inspires the title of this chapter. This ‘floororiented’ conception can mostly be observed through intangible signs and media. These are abundant but vague and often difcult to articulate.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  161

Among these characteristics of Japanese cities, there is also a clear physical structure that is superimposed on them. That is, the supergrid of wide arterial roads lined by all kinds of tall modern buildings that stand in sharp contrast to the variety of small residential houses and other buildings in traditional and modern styles along narrow streets and lanes (see figure 6.0). The wide roads are usually associated with high trafc flows and subway stations, which present a city scene of hustle-and-bustle. Surrounded by the wide arterial roads are areas with dense networks of narrow streets that carry much less trafc, are slower paced, and ofer relatively quiet living environments. This condition is described by Shelton as ‘two powerful patterns’ in cities with ‘hard-shell’ supergrid and ‘soft-yolk’ superblock form,1 which have been ‘central to modern Japanese city planning’ (Shelton, 2012, p. 139). Maki, in his recent books, Zanzo no Modernism (Maki, 2017); Another Utopia (Maki and Makabe, 2019); and Urbanism no Ima (Maki, 2020), also discusses the supergrid and superblock phenomenon with reference to Shelton’s recognition of this pattern in Nagoya. My investigation is based on this recognition and defines the wide road network system as a supergrid at city scale, and the patchworks of regular and

Figure 6.0. Two distinct scales of street and buildings in the Japanese cityscape. Top: a wide supergrid type road; bottom: a narrow street within a superblock.

162  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

irregular grids as superblocks within the supergrid, as indicated at the beginning of the book. This construct shapes the city form into a mix of large and small buildings with a broadly mixed and distributed pattern of activities. The supergrid and superblock structure is a physical exemplar that provides a strong and visible supergrid frame for the less tangible ‘hidden order’ within. Thus, the supergrid is an overarching order that organizes superblocks containing seemingly chaotic complexities. This kind of pattern is traceable across scales with fractal repetition. In this chapter, I explore the spatial structure, patterns of built form and activity, and interconnection between systems of supergrids and example superblocks in two cities.

The Supergrids of Kyoto and Osaka Kyoto and Osaka are two extremely important Japanese cities. Not only are they among the five largest cities in modern Japan, they were also ancient capitals with long and rich histories: ancient Osaka (Naniwa) was Japan’s first capital, while ancient Kyoto (Heian-kyo) was the capital of Japan reaching highest maturity in terms of structure, culture and technology. Together, they make up part of the Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe metropolitan area in Japan’s Kansai region with a population of more than 17 million. The scale is large and comparable to the Tokyo-Yokohama agglomeration. Separately, Kyoto has an area of 828 km2 and a population of almost 1.5 million. Osaka, in comparison, is only 223 km2 but has a population of

Figure 6.1. Kyoto (left) and Osaka (right) supergrids and the location of selected superblocks investigated.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  163

nearly 3 million. This diference is because a large part of Kyoto’s area is covered by hills, while Osaka is mostly flat with an extensive network of water channels. In fact, the highly urbanized area covered by the supergrid in Kyoto is only 160 km2 (approx.16  10 km), which is similar in area to Osaka’s supergrid of 150 km2 (approximately 15  10 km) (figure 6.1). Like Nagoya, both Kyoto and Osaka have networks of wide roads superimposed over or extending out from urbanized areas. Such supergrids create superblocks that are mostly around 1 km2 in size, although the intervals between global roads do vary under the influence of natural landscape and historical patterns. Kyoto’s supergrid is quite regular in the middle area with an average interval of about 0.8 km, deforming where elements such as trainlines, hills and rivers are encountered towards the edges. The eastern side of the supergrid is denser where superblocks are less than 1 km2, while it is looser on the western side with superblocks of more than 1 km2. Some of the historically important global roads were inherited from previous eras and continue to act as the major channels for trafc. The supergrid in Osaka is regular but unevenly distributed. The global road intervals tend to occur in two distinct sizes: small and regular (about 0.5 km square) in the middle commercial area; but large and irregular (more than 1 km) in the outer part of the supergrid, although this pattern is occasionally broken by major transportation centres that are responsible for some radial patterns and irregular shapes in between regular superblocks. Ancient Kyoto and Osaka were capitals and their historical development has imposed strong imprints on their modern morphology. Archaeological excavation indicates that several early Japanese cities were concentrated in the Kyoto-Osaka region (see figure 2.13) and, as previously explained, some of these ancient cities had supergrid and superblock structures, the origins of which can be traced back to ancient China’s famous ‘Chang’an model’ (see figure 2.2). This went through a series of developments and adaptations during the successive construction of Japan’s earliest true capitals: Fujiwara-kyo, Heijo-kyo, Nagaoka-kyo to Heiankyo. In the process, some characteristics of the former capitals were inherited by the next, while some new features were introduced. Fujiwara-kyo is considered as the first to have adopted the system and the first Japanese capital with this kind of planning; and Heian-kyo is the city generally thought of as the classic ancient Japanese ‘style’ for it was here that the system reached greatest sophistication and perfection. As discussed in chapter 2 (see pp. 49–50), one of the most important aspects of adaptation of the Chinese model into a Japanese format became known as the jō-bō system. It was not only used as a physical layout of roads and streets but also for land distribution and management. The jō-bō layout is the ancient Japanese version of a supergrid and superblock fractal structure composed of wide roads and narrow streets to form a multi-directional network without a wall around each superblock (Takahashi et al., 1993; Stavros, 2014). This ‘wall-less’ condition

164  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

gives an open relationship between areas and roads and had a profound social and physical impact on Japanese cities. Despite various transformations, ancient Kyoto (or Heian-kyo, founded in 794 CE) is the best representation of the supergrid and superblock structure in early Japanese history (figure 6.2). It used the jō-bō system (条坊制), which is also referred to by Stavros (2014) as the ‘four columns–eight rows’ (shigyō-hachimon) system. It is of a rectangular city with an imperial compound in the centre north approached by the broad Suzaku Oji or the central axis (which is also a global road) that divides most of the city into east (Sakyō) and west (Ukyō) sections, each of which was divided into a matrix of nine jō and four bō as indicated in figure 6.3. In other words, this is essentially a supergrid-and-superblock system. The supergrid created a number of superblocks, which were bound by global roads. Each superblock was 516 metres square, composed of a number of street blocks (or cho, typically 120 metres square). Those superblocks in each section were numbered one to eight from north to south (jō) with the most northerly one excluded, and from one to four from west to east for the left section and east to west for the right section. Each superblock was further subdivided into 16 (4  4) street blocks and numbered from the 1 to 16 as indicated in figure 6.3c. Each street block usually contained 32 (four columns and eight rows) rectangular land parcels (henushi), which were 30 metres (east–west) by 15 metres (north–south).

Figure 6.2. Extent of Kyoto through history, shown in relation to the modern layout.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  165

Figure 6.3. Heian-kyo city plan and its numbering system through scales: from city through street block to land parcel.

There is a story about the adoption and adaption of the system discussed by Wang (2007a) and Stavros (2014, p. 12) that is of particular interest here.2 Because the model was introduced from China, the Japanese tried to create idealized patterns with ‘perfect squares’ in the design of capitals preceding Heiankyo, namely Fujiwara-kyo and Heijo-kyo. A grid was laid out first to form areas which were not all of equal size due to variations in street widths around each block. This caused a problem in land distribution and allocation, which further led to social strife and chaos. As a result, in the design of Heian-kyo, this problem was corrected by doing the opposite: they started with a perfect square (120  120 m) as the basic unit. Those areas were then arranged into rows (jō) and columns (bō), and a street network was created from the spaces left – with streets of diferent widths. This network consisted mainly of two types of streets: wide global roads or oji, and narrow streets, koji. The east–west roads were named by numbers from north to south, while the north–south roads and narrow streets had specific names of places or uses. It is not difcult to appreciate that it was a case of planning areas before streets suggesting an emphasis on area in the spatial conception. When compared with ancient Chinese supergrids and superblocks, ancient Japanese supergrids and superblocks difer in terms of how each superblock is formed and further subdivided. The diferences can be summarized as follows: (1) Japanese superblocks are not walled; and (2) they are mostly equal in size and composed of a number of machi/cho (blocks), while the Chinese ones are

166  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

subdivided into courtyards of various sizes. This further implies the design concept from part to whole. Although the land partitioning and specification system has been abandoned, modern Kyoto’s design remains under the influence of the ancient system with combinations of north–south streets and east–west streets crossing at right angles (Wang, 2007a; Stavros, 2014). However, this structure had a relatively short life. While the city layout is still influenced by the ancient plan, there have been many changes which have diminished the ancient jō-bō system and during the mediaeval period it morphed into a street block structure. Also, the western part of the city declined and the eastern part became the major city area which, in turn, was divided into two sections: North (Kamigyo) and south (Shimigyo) in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as indicated in figure 6.4 (Takahashi et al., 1993; Stavros, 2014, pp. 50–60). Parts of the two sections were walled with only one road (Muromachi) linking them because of internal rivalries (ibid.). However, in the Edo period, the two sections were reintegrated and converted into a castle town under Hideyoshi’s city reconstruction (see figure 6.5a, b). The street block structure was further subdivided into half-sized rectangular blocks by creating more north–south aligned roads, and this constituted another major structural change (ibid.).

Figure 6.4. Kyoto city structure with the eroded supergrid network. (Source: Adapted from Stavros, 2014, p. 50)

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  167

Two major impacts in the twentieth century led to the reappearance of a supergrid and superblock structure on this castle town block layout. Unlike the jōbō system, the modern supergrid was formed partly under the influence of Western city planning ideas and/or technology. The first impact was the introduction of new types of transport and the need for city expansion and connection. A network of tramlines was constructed in the early twentieth century along widened old streets or newly built wide roads to form the first embryonic modern supergrid network to serve the Kyoto area: this was the largest since ancient times.  The tramline system was later converted into wide global roads to accommodate motor vehicles. Some of these roads overlapped with wide road alignments of the Heian city. Secondly, the supergrid was created under land readjustment and road widening movements (see figure 6.5c). In the process, the street block structure was used consistently, whereas the supergrid and superblock structure has usually been intensified when large-scale city developments are needed. This structure allows the city to expand in all directions and reflects the areal spatial conception as a guiding principle behind the several transformations and this is best exemplified in modern times (the twentieth century) when the city reached its greatest expansion (Takahashi et al., 1993).

Figure 6.5. Kyoto’s layout in (a) the fifteenth to sixteenth century, (b) seventeenth to eighteenth century; (c) early twentieth century. The planned supergrid and superblock structure did not re-appear widely until the early twentieth century. (Sources: (a) Takahashi et al., 1993, p. 130; (b) Takahashi et al., 1993, p. 188; (c) International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 2016)

168  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

In Osaka, the supergrid was built in a more localized fashion compared with Kyoto. There were only two periods that showed the presence of superblocks in this city (figure 6.6). Although Osaka has an ancient predecessor from the Asuka period in Naniwa, one of the earliest prototype cities, unlike Kyoto, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that Naniwa ever had a jō-bō type of system (Osaka City Housing History Compilation Committee, 1989, pp. 62–65). Predating the supergrid in the early settlement development of Osaka, there was a network of water channels: commencing in the sixteenth century, and the construction of these (1594 to 1698) separated the city into several areas (ibid., pp. 112–113). Further, these areas were large enough to contain street blocks and may be looked upon as a form of water-bound superblock: the water channels were a kind of supergrid system, as they were used for transportation, with areas of small streets within, creating a multi-directional movement network for boats (see figure 6.7). Further, this network of water channels remained until the twentieth century as indicated in figure 6.8. This structure remained until the modernization of the city in the early twentieth century. It was at this time that a network of tramlines was constructed to accommodate the new public transport service as a quasi-supergrid (see figure 6.9). As a consequence, the tram network as an infant supergrid marked the city into a number of areas that may again be viewed as superblocks. This set the

Figure 6.6. Historical layering of Osaka supergrid-like and supergrid networks and the superblock selected for investigation.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  169

Figure 6.7. Osaka’s water channels and street grids in the eighteenth century; construction began in the sixteenth century. (Source: Author’s map with information sourced from Osaka City Housing History Compilation Committee, 1989, p. 118; Ibei, 1928)

Figure 6.8. Osaka City in 1885 showing substantial blocks of varying sizes surrounded by water channels. (Source: Masayuki, 1885)

170  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.9. Osaka tramlines (red) in 1928 and 1955: these form an embryonic supergrid. (Sources: (left) Ibei, 1928; (right) Warakujiya Editorial Department, 1955)

skeleton of the modern supergrid. It was further converted into a network of wider roads for automobiles, mostly since the 1960s. Some water channels were also filled in and converted to wide global roads, which changed the sizes and shapes of some superblocks in the most intensive commercial areas of the city. During these transformations, it is easy to see from the maps that, while a supergrid was not always implemented, a street block structure was persistently used: in fact, in both cities, space was demarcated in the form of street blocks of two typical sizes: 80  80 m and 120  120 m. This machi/cho (block) structure is mostly absent in Chinese cities and reflects the Japanese inclination to ‘see’ space as area and floor. As discussed earlier, the block structure was used consistently as a basic unit in the city from the Heian period until modern times. The structure within machi/cho also went through a series of transformations while today’s supergrid networks were adopted after the block structure. Figure 6.10 illustrates the transformation of the block structure since the Heian period. The structure of a block was originally subdivided into thirty-two plots with narrower streets in the middle. In the mediaeval period, building plots were oriented towards the edges of a block or streets, within a conceptual frame of diagonal division of the blocks and some irregular lot shapes. This tendency continued through the Edo period and into modern times. As a result, the machi/cho unit does not always coincide with street blocks, which are surrounded by streets, but is a conceptual space (diamond-shaped) that represents a social unit, occupies parts of two street blocks, and crosses the street. This further emphasizes the Japanese inclination to work with areas. At the same time, taking in diferent technology-related networks (water channels, tramlines, roads), supergrids and superblocks have persisted. This

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  171

Figure 6.10. The machi/cho structure: changes from ancient to early modern times.

characteristic is a further indication of the tendency to think ‘areally’ and ‘multidirectionally’ with a superblock-type of structure as an influential constant in Japanese urban development.

Superblocks: Shijo-Karasuma and Imazato The superblocks selected in Kyoto and Osaka are named after the local subway stations: Shijo-Karasuma (abbreviated hereafter to ‘Shijo’) and Imazato, respectively. They have a more regular outline when compared to some of the surrounding superblocks (figure 6.11). They present two typical variations of Japanese superblocks. Shijo is located in the commercialized middle of Kyoto, whereas Imazato is situated towards the western periphery of the ‘Osaka system’, which gives it an edge position and a relatively larger size than superblocks towards the middle. While both areas are essentially residential, diferences in location result in Shijo being more commercialized and Imazato relatively more industrialized. The former has a regular shape and is only about 60 ha (820  700 m), while Imazato is far more irregular and more than twice the size, 156 ha. Shijo has a regular grid street network and a fine grain with small buildings packed within each block. In Imazato, there are two contrasting spatial orders: an organic and irregular arrangement in the southwest quarter, and a more regular modern grid arrangement in the other three quarters creating distinctive finer and coarser grains within the same superblock (see figure 6.12).

172  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.11. Shijo-Karasuma (left) and Imazato (right) superblocks and their surrounding superblocks: glocal/district scale.

Figure 6.12. The superblocks: Shijo-Karasuma (a, b) and Imazato (c, d); aerials and areas (top) and figureground maps (bottom).

The total built area of Shijo is about 60 ha with an average population density of 81 people/ha (Kyoto City Ofcial Website, 2020). In Imazato, the total built area is 150 ha with an average population density of about 150 people/ha (Osaka City, 2020). The building coverage of Shijo (60 per cent) and Imazato (52 per cent) are fairly similar. Shijo is subdivided into fifty-seven street blocks ranging between 0.135 and 1.7 ha with 2,534 individual buildings. While there are 9,651 buildings in Imazato located in 535 street blocks that vary in size from 9.6 m2 to 1.7 ha. Street blocks in general are larger and more regular in Shijo than Imazato. For all the diferences between the two Japanese superblocks, if we compare them with the two Chinese superblocks, it is clear from the figures that the Japanese pair together present a very diferent scene from the Chinese pair: their street networks

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  173

Figure 6.13. Block and street structures: block sizes and street widths in Shijo-Karasuma (left) and Imazato (right).

are much denser, block sizes much smaller, and their buildings far more numerous and tightly packed (figure 6.13). By tracing the morphogenesis of the two superblocks, we see how the floororiented conception of space has influenced the design of buildings and cities in Japan. Historically, Shijo does not have a precise superblock ancestor in the Heiankyo supergrid. The earliest form of the area of today’s Shijo contained thirty street

174  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

blocks from four diferent superblocks (about 25 ha of each), which were separated by global roads in the ancient supergrid (stage one, as indicated by red dotted lines in figure 6.14). The two global roads were later diminished during the mediaeval period. Half of Shijo was enclosed by a wall in the second stage, but this existed for

Figure 6.14. Transformation of the Shijo-Karasuma superblock: from Heian to modern times.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  175

only a short period and was later demolished. Under Hideyoshi’s redevelopment in the Edo period, more north–south aligned streets were added to make smaller blocks in the structure of the castle town as illustrated in stage three. This structure was retained as the base of the modern superblock as indicated in stage four: most streets and blocks remained unchanged, with only one long block in the southwest corner and more bridges over the water channels constructed. The next change began in the 1920s with the introduction of a tram network. One of the tramlines was accommodated to pass through this area by filling in the water channel at its centre. The last stage of transformation brought substantial street widening. The global roads on the southern and western edges were widened to 50 m. The edge roads on the north and east were also redeveloped but are narrower, though still wide. However, the new global roads on the north and south sides coincide with the Shijo and Gojo global roads of ancient Heiankyo. The road on the western edge of the study site was a river and transformed into a wide global road. The two global roads of Heian-kyo became glocal streets with the removal of tramlines (Takahashi et al., 1993; Stavros, 2014; International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 2016). Throughout these structural transformations, Shijo maintained the block structure in some form. Walls were not used to surround any superblocks or as a systematic structure. In other words, spaces have been mostly maintained as inclusive areas without strong boundaries and this again is consistent with the floor-oriented spatial conception. The Imazato superblock presents a diferent history: it was previously in the largely rural Higashinari county, containing several villages on the east side of Osaka City. The area was not part of the city until 1925 when the city boundary was extended. It then became the Higashinari district of Osaka City. The global road on the southern edge of the Imazato superblock was constructed first in the 1920s, with the global roads on the western, northern, and eastern edges constructed successively in later years. In other words, Imazato was gradually formed from the 1920s to the 1950s through a process of road widening and land readjustment – usually associated with extension of the tram network which was later used for the global road network. Four major stages of transformation of the Imazato superblock are indicated in figure 6.15 and can be summarized as follows. The first stage of formation was at the end of nineteenth century when this was still a rural area with only a few small villages. Each village had an organic organization that contained a network of narrow meandering streets giving oku-like spaces. The second came after the area’s absorption into Osaka City. The irregular block and organic street patterns of the villages were inherited, expanded, and merged into a larger modern urban settlement but remained irregular in form until the 1920s. An inter-city highway (the orange line in figure 6.15b) can be seen running next to Imazato village and separating two patterns of development, regular and irregular grids. The third stage of development shows a re-organization of space into a combination of

176  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

regular and irregular street blocks. The organic component was kept in the land readjustment of this area in the 1930s and 1940s. To a large extent, the regular street network used the organic village networks as starting points to emerge as

Figure 6.15. Four stages of change in the Imazato superblock.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  177

one connected grid network. The final stage of the transformation occurred in the early 1950s. The street blocks were further extended northwards and westwards and later edged by the two global roads after the waterway was completed (International Research Center for Japanese Studies, 2017; Osaka City Urban Housing History Editorial Committee, 1989; Osaka City Ward Organization, 1995). In this process, the modern regular grid expanded around the old irregular grid in all directions, creating spatial depth in the built form and a clear ‘twodimensionality’. In addition, there are no clear boundaries between the old and new settlements, which come together seamlessly. From the historical mapping of Shijo and Imazato, it becomes clear that both superblocks have been created mainly through bottom-up and part-to-whole processes. The supergrid, however, is a structure that was superimposed on top of a part-existing and part-emerging block structure. Dense and varied modern forms have followed. If we fast forward to today, it should be noted that the two modern superblocks present four commonalities: 1. Buildings of many sizes and shapes are densely mixed with forms influenced by the street networks under ‘slope plane’ control. 2. A ‘hard shell-soft yolk’ sectional form can be found in both superblocks, and the ‘soft-yolk’ is again indicative of the ‘two-dimensionality’ of Japanese spatial culture in the settlement expansion. 3. The abundance of glocal streets in both superblocks provides good connections with neighbouring superblocks. This ofers a sense of boundlessness in the structure. 4. There is an oku type spatial quality in several places, and variety in scale, depth, and layering of space (see figure 6.16). It should also be noted that these two Japanese superblocks do not use the heavy and systematic wall structure found in most Chinese superblocks. Historically, there was some use of wooden gates for public and private separation as shown in figure 2.15. In Shijo, I found remains of some such gates, which are few in number and subtle in nature and therefore are mostly unrecognized (see figure 6.17). These gates have no relationship to any strong wall structures but merely a separation device to mark private space for a few families.

Movement, Activity, and Interconnection It is widely known that Japan has a long tradition of wood construction, especially for houses; and that this material is prone to fire, which has been experienced

178  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.16. 3D form of Shijo-Karasuma (top) and Imazato (bottom): the ‘hard-shell and soft-yolk’ phenomenon is highlighted.

Figure 6.17. Example of a street barrier rather than a gate (with no systematic wall structure) in Shijo-Karasuma.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  179

frequently. Therefore under planning regulations wooden buildings are restricted to no more than three storeys, and physical barriers such as streets are needed to prevent fire spreading across neighbourhoods. Building Standard Law (BSL) is applied to control the built form to comply with the regulations. Building uses are restricted by the BSL according to (loose) land-use zones. For over a century (since 1919), roads and streets have also had significant impact on built form through ‘slope plane’ regulation in BSL. Despite growing complexities of detail in ‘slope plane’ regulation (as briefly discussed in Chapter 2), the general idea is to restrict building height according to adjacent street width: wide roads allow for high buildings alongside, while in narrower streets buildings are lower. In diferent land-use zones, the width/height ratio may also vary: less for residential than commercial. Although there have been several changes in regulations in recent decades, street width still has a significant impact on the built form. With this in mind, my mapping of Shijo and Imazato and Shelton’s description of Gokiso (see Shelton, 2012, Chapter 6) both reflect the significant impact of street width on building form and the ‘hard-shell and softyolk’ phenomenon.

Connection Road/street layout and block structure are the two key physical structures that shape the ‘shell-and-yolk’ form. Figure 6.18 illustrates the four types of linear connection in a hierarchical structure and their relative measurements: global, glocal, local, and internal. The global, glocal, and local streets are essentially in a grid pattern. But the internal streets are slightly diferent: they are mostly culsde-sac in Shijo, while the majority form an irregular grid in Imazato. In Shijo, the widths of the four global roads range between 26 m and 50 m and are associated with many towers and high-rise buildings. Fourteen glocal streets are evenly distributed across the superblock and provide connections for medium-distance travel to the eight closest superblocks. Their widths vary from 4.5 m to 15 m and often do not have a consistent width along their lengths. There are seven local streets within the superblock with widths ranging between 3 m and 5 m. Buildings on the two sides are mostly low (up to three storeys) with a few residential towers. Internal streets are from 2 m to 6 m wide with an average length of 41 m. They mostly provide direct access to individual properties. Both local and internal streets are shared space, and internal streets have a sense of semi-private space and depth for pedestrians and cyclists. In Imazato, the range of widths of the four global roads is not dissimilar: from 25 to 40 m; correspondingly, buildings tend to be higher at these edges, and especially along the north global road (the widest). However, these are occasionally interspersed with lower buildings to form an uneven shell. This is mainly because Imazato is located towards the edge of this supergrid. Twenty-six glocal streets

180  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

have widths ranging between 2 m to 10 m, and most are designed as shared space. Their distribution maintains good connection to neighbouring superblocks on each side, although some are restricted in length. Some have light-controlled crossings to provide good connections between neighbouring superblocks while others are connected by bridges and tunnels. Their narrow widths generally result in lower building heights along their sides, but some higher buildings can be found where lots are larger and allow for greater setbacks or slanted forms. Twenty-five local streets range between 2 m and 8 m in width and between 40 m and 1,280 m in length. Most are shared space, but some have sidewalks, especially those along the waterway, which are designed with clear delineation between pedestrians and cars. In comparison, 437 internal streets are all designed as shared space and many combine to give ‘oku experiences’ of irregular patterns and depths. Both local and

Figure 6.18. Street structure, street dimensions and related statistics of Shijo-Karasuma (left) and Imazato (right): stuctures show global, glocal, local and internal streets.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  181

internal streets tend to be narrower in the village area with lower buildings (mostly less than three storeys). The two street types also tend to be wider with higher buildings in the non-village area, with slanted and stepped forms. Some internal buildings reach up to thirty storeys, especially along the local streets next to the river (where the river presumably ofers additional space for the calculation of building height). Global roads and glocal streets have higher street densities in Shijo than Imazato. But in Imazato, it is the internal streets that have by far the highest density (approximately 40 km/km2). This suggests that Shijo is better connected to other parts of the city and its nearby superblocks, while Imazato is better connected within the superblock area. In both superblocks, buildings are strongly aligned along the supergrid roads, while placement in the interior area has more of a ‘patchwork’ quality, which is most apparent in Imazato’s old village area. As already noted, the old village contrasts with the other parts of the superblock constructed mostly in the modern period. The village areas have good examples of the oku phenomenon with meandering streets wrapping around space in an onionlike manner. But even in Shijo, space is more diverse and deeper than it may first appear for within a street block, internal culs-de-sac will often lead people into deep spaces where more little houses of various shapes and sizes, are located (figure 6.19). This adds to the patchwork impression.

Figure 6.19. Shared space in local culs-de-sac.

182  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.20. Street and junction types: distribution and numbers: Shijo-Karasuma (left) and Imazato (right) superblocks.

The arrangement of streets in both superblocks gives rise to very dense distributions of junctions. The distribution and number of each junction type is indicated in figure 6.20. The high densities of junctions are clear indications of well-connected street networks. In Shijo, there are 123 junctions in total, with seventy as T-sections and the rest intersections. The overall density of junctions is over 200 per km2 with an intersection density of 88/km2 and T-section density of 116/km2. Further, the density of glocal–internal T-sections (about 62/km2) is the highest of all types of junctions, followed by glocal–glocal intersections (60/km2), global– glocal intersection (33/km2), glocal–local intersection (22/km2), local–internal T-sections (18/km2), and glocal–local T-sections (12/km2). In Imazato, the intensity of those junctions is much higher in the old village area than in the non-village area, while the distribution of the junctions is more even in the non-village area. There are a staggering number of junctions in total (912), with 262 intersections and 650 T-sections. These numbers give a junction density across the whole area of 608/km2 with a density of 175/km2 for intersections and of 433/km2 for T-sections. Intersections are generally formed by global–glocal streets, glocal–glocal streets or glocal–local and local–local streets; while T-sections occur when an internal street connects to a glocal or local street. The abundance of junctions within the two superblocks is obviously consistent with their high densities of streets and street blocks. In Shijo, the pattern forms a multi-directional grid network with smaller blocks and a denser street network in the southern part. Clearly, more subdivision has occurred in the southern part of the superblock. While local streets all run in parallel and in a north–south direction, internal streets do not provide connections between glocal and local streets or

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  183

between local streets. This means there is more north–south aligned connection allowing for easier and greater north–south movement. Culs-de-sac and loops are mostly concentrated in the two middle rows of street blocks and do not interrupt the general grid pattern of the superblock. The Imazato superblock, by comparison, has a street network that is densely distributed across the whole area, and presents two contrasting street patterns corresponding to its two types of area: the grid pattern and regular blocks of the non-village area and the denser pattern of often curvilinear and irregular streets of the old village (a response to natural contours). Consequently, it is in this older area where there is greater spatial depth and a stronger sense of oku which is quite similar to that found by Shelton (2012, pp. 156–157) in the Gokiso superblock of Nagoya, where an old village imprint also remains. Nevertheless, although irregular, the network is mostly of a ‘warped grid’ rather than ‘tree’ structure in the village area, while many internal streets in the non-village area are actually culsde-sac. Another aspect of this superblock is that most internal streets run in an east–west direction in the non-village area, but north–south in the village area. This creates two diferent patterns that are linked by glocal and local streets and form two kinds of streetscapes, which enriches the spatial experience of the whole. This reminds me of the comments made by Maki about spatial diferences between Japanese and other cultures when he writes of an ‘inner space envelopment’ in Japan in contrast to ‘centre demarcation’ in most other places (Maki 2008, pp. 166–168). The irregular grid of several blocks ‘wraps up’ a territory without any physical wall structure. Grid and cul-de-sac street networks are essentially semi-lattice and tree in nature, provide greater and lesser connectivity respectively, and accordingly help and hinder movement. For Shijo, the street network is essentially ‘semi-lattice’ with good connections at all scales. Especially at glocal level (see figure 6.21), the pattern of the glocal streets suggests even flows of trafc and a well-connected structure for medium-distance travel. It is similar to the supergrid at global level, forming a grid pattern but of a lesser scale. The glocal streets are denser (60 m interval) in the superblock to the east than on other sides, and particularly sparse in the superblocks to the west. The pattern is more even within Shijo and on the northern side than within the superblocks on other sides. By comparison, the glocal streets in and around Imazato are less evenly distributed with a combination of dense and well-connected irregular grids in the western, southern and eastern areas. Even though Imazato also contains many glocal streets, in the other nearby areas (north, northeast, and northwest), glocal streets are structured less evenly. Moreover, there is progressively less connection westwards in the superblocks to the south of Osaka Castle, where a looser glocal street network exists. While maintaining good connections at a global scale through the supergrid out from Imazato, the network becomes a mix of ‘semilattice’ and ‘tree’ at a glocal–local scale in Imazato. Overall, the structure of the

184  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

street network between superblocks shows a mix of well-connected and poorly connected parts, which suggests an uneven distribution of flows through nearby superblocks. With these kinds of well-connected street patterns in both superblocks, trafc can be distributed through diferent types of streets. Shijo is also very wellconnected to other parts of the city through four long global roads providing long-distance travel. Two subway lines and twenty-five bus lines also serve Shijo to provide transport to other parts of the city following the global roads (see figure 6.22). Many glocal streets provide ample choice of route for medium- and shortdistance travel, easing the pressure on global roads. In Imazato, three subway

Figure 6.21. Shijo-Karasuma (top) and Imazato (bottom): superblocks and surrounding superblocks (glocal/district scale).

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  185

Figure 6.22. Public transport systems of Kyoto and Shijo-Karasuma: city subways (top), city bus lines (centre), and superblock subways and bus services (bottom)

186  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

lines run beneath the south, north and west global roads and six bus lines operate along the north, west and east global roads and one along a glocal street within the superblock (figure 6.23). These provide multi-level city-wide connections in four

Figure 6.23. Public transport systems of Osaka and Imazato: city subways (top), city bus lines (centre), and superblock subways and bus services (bottom).

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  187

directions and connect with major railway lines. Although there are fewer glocal streets, they still serve to provide links between the major train stations, schools, and several commercial areas in the neighbouring area. In both superblocks, local and internal streets act as distributors to feed trafc directly to global and glocal streets. These street networks in both superblocks ofer relatively convenient connection to other parts of the city along both the global roads and glocal streets.

Interaction Overall, these superblocks show diverse urban environments and well-connected street networks across scales in ways that are common in Japan’s cities. Within each superblock, there are mixes of buildings and streets of various sizes and functions to facilitate well distributed patterns of activity. To a large extent, the cityscapes of Japan match Jane Jacobs’s general description of good city form, with the supergrid and superblock structure the major contributor to this kind of movement and activity distribution. One of the most obvious features of the supergrid and superblock structure of Kyoto and Osaka is that the structure provides a very convenient environment in which to travel around, especially by public transport but often for walking and cycling too. Also, shopping and travelling are well related, especially around subway stations. Indeed, Calthorpe’s transit-oriented development is probably best practised in Japanese cities, although perhaps in ways he never imagined or would condone (Calthorpe, 1993). This is accurately referred to as ‘a comprehensive mixed-mode public transport system’ by Shelton (2012, p. 140). Usually located on global roads that define superblocks, subway stations are important nodal points for modal interchange, where there are large flows of people and many opportunities for business (figure 6.24). Activity levels fall away from the subway stations but with most areas usually mixed use even if predominately residential. They are rarely exclusively residential: most areas contain places with oku-like qualities and small-scale refinement, in retreat from busy streets. I encountered many such conditions when exploring Japan’s cities, and the phenomenon is to be experienced in the two superblocks discussed here. In general, as indicated in figure 6.25, diferent types of activity are well-distributed across the whole area. However, while all types intermix with each other, consumption activities also tend to gather in linear formation along streets in both superblocks. Activity mixes are to be found in taller buildings along the edges, whereas such mixes are generally limited to within three levels in the lower buildings of the inner area. In Shijo, 95 per cent of consumption, production, and service activities are located along global and glocal streets, which are formatted as a grid; and they are also spread fairly evenly along them. In other words, the grid pattern is responsible for creating such a wide distribution of mixed activities. However, within this general conclusion, the following may also be noted. More production activities

188  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

gather along the glocal streets than the other street types. Consumption activities are rarely found on local and internal streets. Most non-residential activities are related to glocal streets and global roads: almost two-thirds of consumption (64

Figure 6.24. Subway stations integrated with commercial functions are common in Japan: (a) Nara, (b) Kyoto, (c) Kobe, and (d) Tokyo.

Figure 6.25. Distribution of the Four Activity Types: Shijo-Karasuma (left) and Imazato (right).

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  189

per cent) and production (65 per cent), respectively, are along glocal streets and global roads with well over half of service activities (58 per cent) along global roads (figure 6.26). Imazato is more complex and patterns of relationship between activity types and their attachment to street types is more difcult to interpret. Here, the patterns of activity in the village and non-village areas are quite diferent (figure 6.27). Almost one-third of all non-residential activities and nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of the residential activities are located along the irregular streets in the village quarter. While 52 per cent of consumption activities are related to the irregular streets in the village area, most production (88 per cent) and service (61 per cent) activities are associated with the streets in grid pattern. All types of

Figure 6.26. Distribution and quantities of functions in Shijo-Karasuma: distribution of activities by type (maps); number of establishments of each activity type (lists); and numbers of all activities (3 measures) along each street type (bar chart and table).

190  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.27. Distribution and quantities of functions in Imazato: distribution of activities by type (maps); number of establishments of each activity type (lists); and numbers of all activities (3 measures) along each street type (bar chart and table).

activity are well-distributed. Consumption activities (46 per cent) gravitate mostly towards glocal streets, production (38 per cent) and service activities (38 per cent) favour internal streets. The maps and data also indicate that consumption activities (39 per cent) are most numerous along all global roads, followed by service (36 per cent) and production (26 per cent) activities. More production activities (49 per cent) concentrate along glocal streets than other types, followed by consumption activities (37 per cent) and service activities (18 per cent). Local streets are much more related to production activities (56 per cent) and much less related to consumption activities (14 per cent). Internal streets are also mostly associated with production activities (52 per cent) rather than service (28 per cent) or consumption activities (19 per cent). It is clear that most non-residential activities are related to the glocal street network, although more than half of the production and service activities are located along the global roads in Shijo. The story is similar in Imazato, with most

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  191

non-residential activities distributed somewhat evenly along the glocal streets, which shows their power for generating activities. The diference is that the global roads have the highest activity density of all street types in Imazato, while glocal streets are related to more activities in Shijo. It is particularly interesting that production activities remain strong in both superblocks: of non-residential types, these have the greatest overall presence, with the highest percentage of all general activity types in both superblocks (40 per cent of the total for Shijo and 52 per cent for Imazato). Further, in Shijo, they tend to be located in places where there were once dye and clothes factories, thus production tends to continue on established industrial land. But in Imazato, production is more likely to be found in modern factories along regular grid streets in the non-village areas – presumably on more recent and spacious plots with easier access from wider grid roads. When the broad categories of functions are broken down further, we find that some specific building uses favour particular locations in both superblocks, the most obvious being: (1) over 90 per cent of restaurants are located along the global roads and glocal streets; (2) all convenience stores are located along global and glocal streets, and mostly at corners of global–glocal and glocal–glocal intersections; (3) more than 80 per cent of hospitals, banks, and educational institutions are along global and glocal streets with more than half favouring global roads; (4) all shrines, temples, and churches are associated with internal streets, being located directly on an internal street or at a glocal–internal T-section. When compared to the two Chinese superblocks, informal activities are rare in the Japanese superblocks. In Shijo, I witnessed just one pop-up market in a temple next to the global roads, and just two people in Imazato selling ice creams and food boxes near a global intersection. However, there are shopping streets with long and consistent lines of many stores in Shijo and Imazato: these can be seen in figures 6.26 and 6.27 as a consistent line of many stores but more clearly in Imazato. The Shijo street has no cover across it, whereas Imazato’s is much longer, covered and with a range of surface paving (figure 6.28). It is also worth noting that informal activities are often seasonal in Japan and associated with festivals and this is probably the case in these superblocks, especially Imazato. (While informal activities are undoubtedly more common in Chinese superblocks, I was probably viewing the Japanese superblocks at the wrong time to witness the informal activities that might occur.) Mixed activities exist ‘horizontally’ across much of ground floor level of the interiors of both superblocks but these do not extend significantly to upper floors. However, activity mixes are common at higher levels around the edges of the superblocks, especially along the north and east edges of Shijo and along the north and south edges of Imazato where, significantly, more junctions are concentrated. However, further examination of activity distribution in relation to junction types reveals few clear relationships. In Shijo, the only clear pattern is that over

192  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.28. Shopping streets: open to the sky in Shijo (left) and roofed in Imazato (right).

70 per cent of consumption activities are around junctions, and especially intersections. However, no such relationship exists for production and service activities. Nevertheless, there is a positive relationship between activity mixes and junction types. In Shijo, the mix of consumption and production activities shows strongly at intersections – over three-quarters (76 per cent) of occurrences. Eighty per cent of consumption and service mix occurs around intersections, and most (75 per cent) is around global–glocal intersections. Even more consumption and service mixes, and production and service mixes (80 per cent in both instances) have gravitated towards intersections and, as one might now expect, mixes of all three types (consumption, service, and production) are also largely around intersections, with global–glocal intersections particularly favoured (figure 6.29).

Figure 6.29. Distribution and quantities of activity mixes in relation to street types: ShijoKarasuma (left) and Imazato (right).

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  193

Similarly, in Imazato, the general activity types show some relationship to junctions, but no particular relationships to any junction type, except in the case of consumption. Where there are higher concentrations of junctions, more consumption activities are to be found and this is especially evident along the covered shopping streets. The results strongly reflect the importance of high densities of streets and high frequencies of intersections for the generation of consumption activities, as recognized by Jane Jacobs. In the case of relationships between activity mixes and junction types in Imazato, there is only one of significance, although activity mixes in general are fewer here. The one clear finding is that all mixes of consumption and service activities are located around junctions, with 66.7 per cent located around intersections. Of these, global–glocal intersections again show the highest percentage (38 per cent), although this is not strong; half the production and consumption activity mixes are also located around global–glocal intersections. A mix of service and production activities can be found in only three locations in this superblock and have no particular relationship to a junction type. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that global and glocal intersections are places of strategic importance in a supergrid and superblock structure (figure 6.30). When mapping the density of activity distribution across horizontal and through vertical levels of the two superblocks,3 a ‘flat and distributed’ pattern (see figure 6.30) is clearly seen. In Shijo, more than 90 per cent of the area is served

Figure 6.30. Distribution of activity mixes in relation to junction types: Shijo-Karasuma (left) and Imazato (right).

194  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

by more than three types of activity on the horizontal level. Further, nearly all (93 per cent) of the areas of ‘very high’ intensity (that is, a mix of four types of activity) are distributed along glocal streets; 92.6 per cent of the intersections are related to the areas with ‘very high’ intensity (the mix of four types of activity); and most T-sections show a strong relationship with the ‘high’ intensity areas (a mix of three activity types). However, on the vertical level, the intensity is generally moderate, with higher intensity mixes (of three and four activity types) tending to locate along global roads. The intensity of activity across levels in Shijo is generally low and where this does occur, just one-third is around intersections and T-sections. This indicates a stronger relationship with global roads than junctions (figure 6.31). In Imazato, this characteristic of ‘flatness’ is even clearer. ‘Very high’ and ‘high’ intensity levels occur broadly in the horizontal plane but at very few points do these rise vertically between floors. This reflects a development attitude that treats space as two-dimensional planes and is consistent with the earlier discussed Japanese floor-oriented spatial conception. While the general distribution of intensity is dispersed, 60 per cent of higher intensity areas (mixes of two, three and four

Figure 6.31. Shijo-Karasuma superblock: interaction between street network, Junction and function mix intensity.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  195

activity types) are related to global roads and glocal streets, intensifying around global–global, global–glocal, and glocal–glocal junctions. Even junctions between glocal, local and internal streets tend to gather intensity. There are also patterns in which bands of higher intensity encircle areas of lower intensity, corresponding again to Maki’s descriptions of oku and ‘wrapping’ in spatial development and of a floor orientation. The limited areas of vertical intensity are a general reflection of the Imazato superblock, in which development is mainly low-rise. It also reflects an area whose landform is quite flat. Further, the higher intensity (almost 85 per cent) shows a clear relationship to global roads and even more to global–global and global–glocal junctions (figure 6.32).

Figure 6.32. Imazato superblock: interaction between street network, junction and function mix intensity.

The findings from this investigation of the Japanese superblocks seem to substantiate theoretical positions covered in Chapter 4 and be generally applicable to Japan, although with Japanese twists usually explained by cultural predispositions. Global roads and glocal streets are well-connected, and they mostly support the location of activities because of the flow from local and internal streets, respectively. The full range of activity types is evenly distributed throughout the whole area.

196  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Buildings, streets and public spaces with diferent sizes, types, ages, and functions are all mixed together (figure 6.27). Each type of activity is distributed in a slightly diferent pattern. While consumption activities are well-distributed, they also tend to gather in linear formats as shopping streets along well-connected streets and global roads. They also tend to be close to the most concentrated residential places – as one would expect, for customer convenience brings more business. However, services are more scattered than consumption activities with less clear concentrations. While production activities are also distributed, there is a tendency to favour areas in between more connected and less connected places. Residential activities are everywhere and without a clear pattern. The type of connection can decide the distribution of diferent levels of activity intensity. In the case of Shijo, there are many glocal streets forming in true grid pattern and these collect flows from both local and internal streets. They are also well connected, extending well into its surrounding superblocks: here high proportions of activities are found along glocal streets, thus not overburdening global roads. In Imazato, although there are also glocal streets in a grid structure, they rarely extend very far into surrounding superblocks. This is similar to Daguangli, where glocal streets fail to form a grid at a more extended level. Moreover, the higher the number and concentration of junctions, the more activities there are. Activity mixes are clearly related to junctions, especially intersections. They also tend to concentrate along the global edges and are less inclined to extend above ground floors in the soft yolk. In other words, the activity mix also reflects a ‘flatness’ in the two Japanese superblocks.

Integration This strong interconnection between structure and activities can also be explained in what can be termed ‘synergy maps’ based on space syntax, following the same method applied to the two Chinese superblocks. In general, the street networks of both Kyoto and Osaka do not present clear centres with ‘spiky potato’ configurations but do exhibit moderately high synergy. This confirms a relatively well-distributed pattern of activities. When compared, Osaka is generally less integrated than Kyoto with more of a mix of well integrated and less integrated areas. In terms of synergy, Kyoto has a stronger ability than Osaka to allow movement and activities to move across scales, with many historic streets being the most integrated in the whole city network: examples being Sanjo, Shijo, Nijo (see figure 6.33). Interestingly, those streets were also the most integrated in the previous city network from 1701 to 1940 (Kigawa and Seo, 2009). The supergrid maps of both Kyoto and Osaka reveal well integrated and connected global road networks and one expects a relatively even distribution of movement and activity across most of their broad central areas (figure 6.34). Natural landscape does interfere with the supergrid in Kyoto, which becomes less

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  197

Figure 6.33. Global and local integration, connectivity and synergy analyses: Kyoto (left a1–a4) and Osaka (right b1–b4) (city scale).

198  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.34. Global and local integration, connectivity and synergy analyses of global roads: Kyoto (left a1–a4) and Osaka (right b1–b4) at city scale.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  199

integrated globally and locally when it extends into the outer areas. This implies evenly distributed movement and activity intensity across the middle areas, where the grid is regular. In Osaka, the global road network is rather diferent: overall, it presents a moderately integrated network. Both global and local integration maps show a mix of moderate and low levels of integration, and each has two distinctive groups of red lines. They are not only the most integrated global roads but are also the inner commercial and Tennoji areas. This is also picked up by analysis of the whole city network as shown in figure 6.33, which also suggests that the global roads take most of the trafc and determine most of the city movement. The more integrated roads are aligned north–south in the commercial centre, while, in the Tennoji area, the highest integration is in an east–west alignment. Thus, the distribution pattern shows a contrast between the two groups of ‘most integrated’ roads with lower integration levels for the global roads around them. It is clearly apparent that Shijo and Imazato are located in higher and lesser integrated areas in their respective cities. In the area of the nine superblocks with Shijo at the centre, analysis of the glocal street network indicates a high level of global (R = n) and local (R = 3) integration. All the glocal streets within Shijo are well integrated and connected in the area. The scatter plot also shows the highest correlation (0.96) between global and local integration, implying excellent synergy – a regular grid that supports the flow of movement and activity between global and local scales. In Imazato, the level of integration and connectivity is obviously lower than that of Shijo. One peculiar phenomenon is that although the glocal streets within the superblock look dense and well-connected, they are not well integrated into the glocal street network of the wider area. Most glocal streets present moderately low levels of integration, especially some glocal streets in the neighbouring superblock on Imazato’s western side (the castle town area). This potentially means a lower level of movement and activity concentration along the glocal streets. Within the district area, the glocal streets surrounding Imazato are the most integrated streets with the highest integration values: this suggests that most longer-distance travel tends to be along the global roads in this area. This is rather diferent in the area around Shijo, where glocal streets are better integrated between superblocks (figure 6.35). The analyses of the Shijo and Imazato superblocks indicate that the former is both more integrated and connected. The level of synergy is also higher in the former (0.95) than the latter (0.64), implying much stronger ability to support movement and activities to move across scales. Again, this is mostly because Shijo’s network is essentially a grid. The local integration analysis of Shijo shows that the street network in the southern half of the superblock is better integrated than in the north, with two east–west aligned glocal streets showing as the most integrated of all streets (with values of 3.64 and 3.55): significantly the second of these is a shopping street. Similarly, the overall integration analysis of Imazato’s street network indicates that the local network has only a moderate level of integration

200  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Figure 6.35. Global and local integration, connectivity and synergy analyses of the glocal streets in and around Shijo-Karasuma (left a1–a4) and Imazato (right b1–b4) at district or group of superblocks scale.

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  201

with some well-integrated streets (global and glocal) and less integrated streets (local and internal) in the village area. The most integrated streets are not the global roads, but the two glocal streets as indicated in red (figure 6.36, b1): these are local shopping streets (the longer one is the covered street as shown in figure 6.28) with an average integration value of 2.19. This example shows clearly that that space syntax can readily detect the Japanese street network, and integration analysis represents with reasonable accuracy the pattern of movement and activity distribution according to the concept of a movement economy. Moreover, the streets in areas of regular street pattern are generally more integrated and

Figure 6.36. Local integration and connectivity, and synergy analyses: Shijo-Karasuma (left a1–a4) and Imazato (right a1–a4) at local or superblock scale.

202  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

connected than those in the areas of irregularity as indicated in figure 6.36a2 and b2). The three least integrated and connected sections are the three old villages dating back to the nineteenth century (see maps in figure 6.15).

Discussion The two Japanese superblocks, Shijo-Karasuma in Kyoto and Imazato in Osaka, represent two types of superblocks in Japanese cities. They show two kinds of spatial pattern that are common in Japan. One is the regular grid network that tends to occur more in the central parts of a city’s supergrid; the other is a combination of regular and irregular grids including culs-de-sac, which tends to occur more in the outer cells of a supergrid. This is also reflected in the diversity of building uses. While the Kyoto superblock is dominated more by commercial functions such as hotels and shops, more factories and manufacturers (some oldestablished) flourish in the Imazato superblock. A similar occurrence was reported by Shelton (2012) in his study of Nagoya and the Gokiso superblock, which is also in an outer city area with a similar combination of regular and irregular grid forms as Imazato. Like Gokiso, both Shijo and Imazato superblocks show ‘hard shell and soft yolk’ built forms and highly mixed-use activity patterns that work within a refined street structure. This came about from the superimposition of a supergrid network on a partly existing fine grain settlement texture and hence the clear contrast between the ‘frame’ of wide roads and interior of narrow streets, and between the associated tall buildings and small houses. The supergrid of global roads is the superstructure that ties together the wider city. It also links tightly with glocal and local streets, to transfer people between a variety of local places across the city through long-distance (cross-city) travel. Under the influence of the Japanese slope-plane building rules, buildings along the global roads are often tall and bulky while many more along the narrow streets of the Shijo and Imazato superblocks are either low or exhibit the slanted or stepped form following the slope-plane rule. All these elements in Japanese superblocks indicate some of the principles that are operational in the design of Japanese cities. At the same time, there is variety with Shijo showing very diferent characteristics from Imazato – the most basic is that it has a very regular grid network. Imazato is diferent in that it has within it the remains of an old village area which is more traditional, of a smaller scale, and more tightly patterned. Extra depth is gained in Imazato through its numerous internal and irregular streets that ironically provide extra connections between glocal and local roads and also ofer a certain level of privacy. These superblocks have well-connected dense street networks (more north– south streets) and small street blocks, which facilitate a very broad and relatively even distribution of mixed activities. This corroborates Jacobs’s observation that more short blocks, frequent streets, and high density of intersections will attract

PRACTICE IN JAPAN: THE HIDDEN FLOOR  203

more and diverse activities. While residential activities are almost everywhere, nonresidential activities are interspersed with them to create a highly mixed urban environment with a great diversity of building types and uses. At the same time, the greater mixes of activity are mostly concentrated around the edges. Because of the limits posed by the physical conditions of the interior, activities tend to be a little less mixed and remain mostly one storey and generally no more than three. This reinforces the ‘hard shell’ and the flatness or two dimensionality of the interior of the superblock. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter and earlier in the book, one of the important ‘hidden forces’ that shapes Japanese cityscapes and built form is the floor-oriented spatial conception. Superblocks exhibit these floor- or area-oriented spatial characteristics in several ways, which I summarize in the concluding paragraph of this chapter. The superblocks do not occur in isolation but are generously connected: between superblocks, the global roads are not strong barriers because connecting glocal streets are usually plentiful. Within superblocks, most of the local and internal streets do not have clear physical boundaries within them: the common condition is of a flat floor without rigid separation between cars and pedestrians – in other words, a continuous surface. Buildings, including houses, sit directly on the edges of streets with little or no setback. Streets are commonly treated as extensions of houses with occupants making use of streets for flower displays; and in the streets people and cars are not physically separated. Further, all kinds of activities mix together in close proximity to each other, and with mixed distribution, resulting in arrangements that bring considerable convenience and synergies with surprisingly little congestion.

Notes 1. ‘Hard Shell and Soft Yolk’ originally is a term by Shelton (2012) borrowed from Popham (1985). 2. This is related to the part and whole relationship as discussed in Chapter 3. 3. For a reminder of method, see Appendix II.

204  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Chapter Seven

Supergrid and Superblock: A System for Global Consideration This book started by contemplating two related elements of an urban structure that are commonly found in Chinese and Japanese cities – the supergrid and superblock. Together, these form a system that has a long history that can be traced back more than 2,000 years to ancient China. It was also found in cities outside of China, including the ancient capitals of Japan. Significantly, through engagement with various cultures in diferent historical epochs and associated importation and assimilation of ideas, a similar spatial organization remains strong in the cities of contemporary China and Japan but with new interpretations. In the previous chapters, I have tried to convey four fundamental messages. First and foremost, I wanted to introduce the supergrid and superblock as a system that deserves serious study and inclusion in any textbook concerned with the study of Asian cities, especially those of China, Japan, and Korea. Rather than being regarded and classified as a giant form of street block, superblocks within a supergrid should be considered together as a system of city organization that is parallel and equal to the much studied and widely applied radial system. Secondly, I wanted to reiterate the idea of the contrasting linear and areal conceptions of space in Western and Eastern cultures, as discussed by Yoshinobu Ashihara, Barrie Shelton, and others who see deeper relationships between culture and physical form. Adding to this viewpoint, I want to propose the notion of a Chinese wall-oriented areal conception of space in contrast to a Japanese floororiented areal conception. These two modes of thinking afect how cities are designed, as evidenced in my four superblock case studies. Thirdly, I proposed the term ‘interconnection theory’ for the group of related theories that are gathered and used here to reveal how four superblocks from two Chinese and two Japanese cities operate to sustain everyday life in each city: these also reflect contemporary values in urban design. This proposed theory will provide an introduction to a strand of modern urban design studies for those who are interested.

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  205

Lastly, I sought to stress the operational importance of the ‘glocal street’ in the supergrid and superblock system for my work shows it plays a crucial role in determining the levels of connection and distribution of activities within and between superblocks. Greater attention to this glocal element is more likely to reveal the operational problems of superblocks and therefore enable efective solutions to be devised. This applies especially to China where the intention is to reduce trafc congestion in the system but where emphasis has so far been directed to the walled compound as the culprit (an obstruction to be demolished) rather than to the glocal street as a potential liberator: this latter approach embodies greater respect for ‘the wall’ as part of Chinese culture. While China and Japan have been transforming their traditional cities to support modern functions using Western technology, the modern supergrid and superblock structure in these countries is a product of the process of learning from and reading the West through the filter of Eastern culture. While Japan’s urban development is now at a mature stage, China is a relative newcomer and is still in the process of rapid urbanization on an enormous scale. My comparative investigations indicate that the Japanese superblock structure shows some positive features that can usefully be adopted and adapted to improve the structure of Chinese cities. The consequent physical structures, respectively wall-dominated and street-dominated, create contrasting functional use patterns. In Chinese superblocks, residential and non-residential uses are generally more separated with concentrations and mixes of non-residential activities around gates to residential compounds. In Japan, residential and non-residential uses are more mixed and relatively evenly distributed, and this ofers clues for solutions to China’s problems. A better understanding of the merits of their existing city structures should also prove useful for the Japanese in the future planning and design of their cities. The overall purpose of introducing this structure to the world in the way I have is to draw more attention to its value and potential for solving problems of city design and regeneration in many places. The structure should take its place as an urban design model for cities beyond East Asia. It is therefore appropriate to remind readers of Barcelona’s relatively recent application of a superblock structure in a Western context as discussed in Chapter 1, where the transformation has increased the quality of the urban environment. It indicates that the supergrid and superblock structure warrants further study and that it could benefit many other cities. Chapter 2 discussed the urban challenges China is facing as a result of conflicts between valued aspects of traditional culture and the functioning of its cities as modern entities. The conflicts drew greatest attention and debate in 2016 when the State Council of China released guidelines for the conversion of supergrid and superblock structures into sets of more and narrower streets, and smaller street blocks – in efect, by deconstructing and opening-up existing gated communities. Following this, studies have been emerging proposing solutions which can be divided into three categories.

206  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

The first is to replace the supergrid with a Western-type small grid network, such as Calthorpe Associates’ proposal for Chenggong city in Yunnan. However, this approach is extremely rare and limited to small-scale projects. Second is to demolish walls around residential compounds in order to remove barriers, ease trafc flow and decrease trafc congestion. This has proved unpopular, and was opposed by the people afected, impeding implementation of the guidelines. The third position argues for improving existing structures without or with minimal demolition of walls-and-gates, which as a cultural element that should be kept (Kan et al., 2017). This last option is the least discussed but is what most people favour. The Chinese preference for walls under the influence of the wall-oriented areal conception in its spatial culture (discussed in Chapter 3) brought about some reluctance to implement the policy. The majority of people declare the importance of the wall structure for their safety and refuse to remove ‘their walls’. It has left an even more perplexing situation for the government, and there is a strong desire to look for new solutions (Huang et al., 2015). It is not difcult to appreciate that this problem is not well understood and without some new initiatives, this urban problem will remain in China, with a danger of great damage to the country through the process of urbanization. Although this book has been written after the ‘wall-demolishing’ policy was announced in 2016, my study of the supergrid-and-superblock structure began two years before it was launched. When announced, I tended to agree with the policy, thinking that we needed to get rid of the wall structure around residential quarters. However, as my study developed, I increasingly came to believe that it is important to rethink the situation and take into account the cultural dimension in order to understand the physical structure; and the reaction of the public has only reinforced this conviction. The Japanese component of this study reveals the importance of a wellconnected and integrated grid network of several street types across scales to provide a range of connections to meet short-, medium-, and long-distance travel needs. Also important is the accommodation of a range of movement modes. Further, there are associated building regulations that link building size to street width. In this context, it is the varied street network that is the major component of the Japanese urban structure which generates a dense and well-distributed mix of uses. (This is consistent with space syntax theory and the notion of a ‘movement economy’.) While the wall and gate structure and the drawbacks of the Chinese superblocks are not entirely unrelated, the findings here suggest strongly that the drawbacks are not caused by the wall and gate subject per se but primarily by the absence of a well-integrated and connected glocal street network, this being the key structural element.

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  207

Chinese and Japanese Superblocks Compared As became evident in Chapters 2 and 3, Eastern culture’s ‘areal thinking’ and multi-directional spatial conception have been strong underlying influences on the supergrid form. In both countries, however, added influences have come in modern times from Western road and trafc technologies. While the Eastern cultural influence was ‘born’ in ancient China and migrated to Japan, those ancient planning concepts are now evident in the contemporary cities of both countries with further modern Chinese and Japanese interpretations. With the importation of Western technology from the late nineteenth century on, the further development of the supergrid was a ‘natural’ extension under the Eastern cultural spatial conception. This is especially evident in the case study of Nanjing where a Western small (not super) grid structure was joined by a superimposed supergrid network, which better fits the Chinese cultural understanding of spatial demarcation (as explained in Chapter 5). Similar but diferent, Kyoto and Osaka

Figure 7.1. The four supergrids and four superblocks (highlighted in red) under comparative investigation in this book: Xi’an and Jinyuan; Nanjing and Daguangli; Kyoto and Shijo-Karasuma; and Osaka and Imazato.

208  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

adapted Western tram technology but applied it as a supergrid system rather than as a Western radial layout. These tram networks are an early modern prototype of the later supergrid and superblock structures (as shown in Chapter 6). In other words, the modern formation of the supergrid in Chinese and Japanese cities is an ‘areal’ spatial practice that combines newer Western technologies with an ancient Eastern spatial conception. The global road networks in China and Japan both take the form of a multidirectional wide-road supergrid network over broad urban areas (see figure 7.1). They both have a similar dominant interval between roads of about one kilometre, to create a city skeleton, which frames a number of superblocks as cells. In both countries, a city supergrid may be regular or irregular under the influence of the geographical, heritage and other features. Yet, while China and Japan share similar multi-directional supergrids, diferences occur within the superblocks, where the variant ‘wall’ and ‘floor’ oriented spatial conceptions are experienced.

Chinese Version: A Missing Link in the Structure Chapter 5 analysed the two Chinese superblocks to show the same principle of spatial organization, with a pervasive use of the wall-and-gate structure as the major component controlling and influencing the street network. Xi’an’s Jinyuan and Nanjing’s Daguangli superblocks, represent two types that tend to be found towards the central and edge parts of a supergrid, respectively. Both are surrounded by global roads that enjoy some level of equality within the global network. Both indicate high levels of self-containment within the superblocks. But neither is well-integrated or connected at glocal and local scales, with Jinyuan the far less connected of the two. Jinyuan superblock has numerous global–local connections that link walled compounds directly to the supergrid. Such a network creates a condition in which most movement onto global roads is directed through numerous local streets and gates. In comparison, Daguangli’s network is connected through two major combinations: global roads linking with local streets and gates, and glocal streets linking with internal streets and gates. Here, there are more T-sections than intersections, especially internal T-sections in the form of gates. As a result, movement from local and internal gates occurs directly onto global roads and glocal streets, with a particularly high volume through glocal streets. But most of the glocal streets are not well connected and integrated into the wider street network, which means that people and cars cannot move very far when using these glocal streets and are forced back onto the global roads. Hence, glocal networks in both superblocks are problematic, with poor integration at this scale. Jinyuan is an example of a superblock that shows a deficiency of glocal streets causing an over concentration of movement and activity along global roads. Daguangli is an example showing that the mere presence of numerous glocal streets within a

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  209

superblock may itself not be enough. One superblock can have many glocal streets but if they are less connected to the surrounding superblocks, they still become less efective for people to move over short and medium distances. The two examples give a very important message: that a network should be well-connected not only within its own level, but also across levels to maintain good connections. This largely correlates with my discussion of theory in Chapter 4: that a multiscaled semi-lattice grid-form structure as an urban web is most important for the efective operation of a city. It is not just the connection within each scale that matters, it is the connection across scales that is decisive in supporting the system as a whole. When a network system is fragmented, it is usually the connections between levels that are missing, and this is overlooked frequently in practice. Problems are usually addressed within each scale instead of thinking from a wider perspective: and this is the case in the government’s attempt to solve the problem of trafc congestion by recommending demolition of the ‘wall-and-gate’ structure. It was found that this kind of structure within each superblock resulted in a ‘natural’ concentration of mixed activity in places isolated from residential areas by walls. In Jinyuan, there is a strong relationship between global roads and all nonresidential activities, and in Danguangli between glocal streets and non-residential activities, especially consumption activities. It is also apparent that areas external to the gates of walled compounds that form the global–local and glocal–internal connections in Jinyuan and Daguangli, respectively, are mostly associated with consumption and service activities. Local and internal streets and gates generate movement directly onto the global roads because the gates are the thresholds in collecting and dispersing movement by a range of modes. This attracts activities to serve the flow, which encourages more movement and activity to concentrate along global roads in Jinyuan and glocal streets in Daguangli. While all types of activity are afected by this street-movement activity principle (as discussed in Chapter 4), it is consumption activities that are found to have a stronger relationship to gates than other activity types. More specifically, uses such as restaurants, convenience stores, markets, and food vendors especially favour gates. Activity distribution is greatly afected by the number and location of gates. Mixes of activity types are mainly related to global roads, glocal streets and global–local T-sections in both superblocks, with the intensity of these mixes strongly related to the location of gates. While the highest intensities may not always be found around the gates, most gates are related to activity mixes of at least two types.

Japanese Version: A Lesson on the Importance of Glocal Streets Both Shijo-Karasuma and Imazato superblocks show useful findings on relationships between street networks and the distribution of activities. It is also evident that culture plays an important role in shaping the physical form but in a subtle manner. Shijo-Karasuma presents a typical superblock that is located more centrally,

210  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

while Imazato is a good representation of one situated towards or at the edge of a supergrid area. Both superblocks demonstrate how Japanese culture and its spatial conceptions (‘areal’ and ‘floor-oriented’) are materialized in actual practice. The physical form and distribution of functions across the two superblocks show an overall flatness with some higher buildings about the edges, presenting a ‘hardshell and soft-yolk’ urban morphology. This flatness is also manifested in the distribution of function intensity. The floor/area conception takes tangible form as extensive flat boundless urban ground, where flatness is emphasized by broad and similar patterns of streets, activity and movement, and by fractal hierarchies and multi-directionality. In Shijo-Karasuma, glocal streets are the most important connectors in the superblock. The glocal streets not only form a grid network within the superblocks, they also form a grid at a higher level within the wider district, namely the area of nine superblocks, of which Shijo-Karasuma is in the middle. While the street network, in general, shows high levels of connectivity with all four street types linking efectively as a hierarchical grid network, it is the glocal streets that are both evenly distributed and with the highest density that construct the major skeleton for the superblock. Local streets intensify the grid and give the opportunity for further subdivision of the superblock. Internal streets, in loop and cul-de-sac patterns, are usually contained within street blocks and show minimal impact to the glocal grid. Because local and internal streets are mostly connected to glocal streets, most trafc is fed to the glocal streets, which facilitates convenient movement to neighbouring superblocks. In Imazato, the street structure is somewhat diferent. Here, the glocal–internal and local–internal are the two dominant types of connection. While global roads, glocal and local streets together form a well-connected grid, internal streets are all attached to the glocal and local streets in a mix of irregular grid and cul-de-sac patterns. Internal streets have the densest presence in this superblock, especially in the ‘village area’, providing the shortest distance travel routes and feeding significant amounts of trafc onto those glocal and local streets. While local streets lead directly to the global roads and glocal streets, some of Imazato’s neighbouring superblocks show very few or even no glocal connections to the study site. This creates a weaker condition of connection at glocal scale for Imazato than Shijo. For the two superblocks, glocal streets have the highest concentration of activities, especially consumption and production. In Shijo, they also show the highest activity density, followed by global, local, and internal streets. With glocal streets structured as grids in both superblocks, activities appear to be generally very well distributed. Higher concentrations of activities tend to occur along global roads or along a few glocal streets; the latter can take the form of covered shopping streets. Sometimes, shopping streets have even higher concentrations than global roads, which is the case in Imazato. Global roads indicate stronger relationships to consumption activities and mixes of diferent activity types, with local streets

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  211

showing a stronger relationship with production activities than other activity types. Consumption activities tend to concentrate around junctions, especially intersections (more specifically global–glocal intersections) and in areas with a high frequency of junctions. The two Japanese superblocks again indicate the importance of the glocal streets in the network. With more glocal streets, activities are better distributed across the area. Thus, how glocal streets are connected at a medium scale is particularly important in a supergrid and superblock structure. Good connection only within a superblock is incomplete. A superblock, to be fully efective, requires good integration and connection across scales; and from the discussion here, it is clear to see that glocal streets play a crucial role in the successful operation of the overall structure. How well they are distributed and connected with local streets and global roads is of vital importance.

Design Principles of the Two Versions In both China and Japan, at city scale, a grid configured network is structured as the basic skeleton, which serves cross-city travel and gives definition to superblock cells. In China, each superblock within the skeletal grid is mostly divided into walled compounds of varying sizes by a wall-and-gate structure, which in turn consists of a mix of walls, fences, hedges, buildings and equivalent structures variously constructed of bricks, stone, concrete, metal, timber, vegetation, and other materials. Gates to compounds are distributed irregularly and mostly along global and glocal public roads and streets. However, in Japan a superblock consists of a mix of street and junction types to provide a network in (often warped) grid form ofering high levels of connectivity across scales. Gates can also be found in a Japanese superblock, but usually as entry to individual houses or other buildings. They do not normally create strong barriers to movement across extensive areas. Within the walled compounds of a Chinese superblock are separate private, usually tributary or tree configured, street systems that are linked to the public street system via gates. In a Japanese superblock, it is a street-based structure that ofers more or less direct connection between streets and individual buildings. Often, no clear physical structure exists to distinguish private streets and public spaces in superblocks. Also constructed within these walled compounds of a Chinese superblock is a range of building types – towers, slab blocks, free-standing pavilions, etc. No specified relationship between buildings and streets is required by law. However, strict regulations are imposed on distances between residential buildings within each walled compound. Gates and compound spaces mediate between public streets and residential buildings. In a Japanese superblock, street form is related to building form as street width is a factor in determining building height through the slope plane rule (regulation). Related to street type, taller and/

212  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

or bulkier buildings tend to occur along global roads, which are wide; with lower and more compact buildings tending to occur along usually narrow glocal and local streets. Functionally, the wall-and-gate structure in a Chinese superblock is used to separate most residential and non-residential activities from each other. Although, strictly speaking, street markets and vendors are not allowed to conduct business outside walled compounds on public streets, they still gather in the vicinity of the gates to serve local residents. In contrast, a wide range of activities and building uses are permitted to mix along streets and in buildings through an inclusive zoning policy (regulation) in a Japanese superblock. The shotengai or shopping street (often covered) is a common form for the sale of retail items and services; and these normally locate within a superblock or sometimes cross from one superblock to another. Street markets and vendors are restricted and usually found only at special events such as festivals.

Advantages and Disadvantages Supergrid and superblock structures of contemporary China and Japan are distinct variations of a common type of (Eastern) urban structure that have evolved to serve similar purposes but derive from and suit diferent (sub)cultural values and circumstances. The two have the same supergrid format, but diferent superblock structures. Each performs adequately in generating diverse activities. The Chinese version, however, can easily lead to an unbalanced distribution of movement – with associated congestion in parts of the network, clear separation of residential and non-residential activities, and over-concentration of activities in particular areas, especially around gates, whereas the Japanese version demonstrates a more even distribution (spread) of activities. The chief advantage of the Chinese superblock structure is that it is more easily controlled ofering greater security and protection for residents and users. Its structure prevents or deters movement (particularly vehicular movement) through the walled residential compounds and, in turn, through the superblocks, and can be seen to create a quieter and more comfortable living environment. In such a structure, it is easier to collect and concentrate people and to redirect or restrict flows and movement. It follows that it is simpler to predict and control where activities will take place and where people, especially large numbers, will gather in space. As a result, synergies generated from the ‘movement economy’ are around compound gates. However, these strengths are also part of the problem. They exacerbate congestion and over-concentration; and problems become even more dramatic and harmful when the wall structure in a superblock is constructed on a broad scale and detached from the street network. Significantly, the greatest disadvantage of the wall structure is that it impedes the construction of well-connected glocal

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  213

streets and so causes disconnection in the network at that scale. Thus, the walland-gate structure has both advantages and disadvantages – it ofers considerable protection and advantages for management but also over-concentrates and isolates activities, impedes movement, and reduces integration across scales. The equivalent Japanese superblocks displayed generally greater connection and integration across scales, particularly at the scale of the glocal street network. With more and better connected and integrated glocal streets, the need to use global roads for movement over medium distances is reduced. The Japanese street-oriented structure is indicative of a more flexible network that encourages greater distribution of movement through a range of street types with graded levels of connection, width, and material treatment. Clearly this more connected grid network of more variable street types provides greater freedom of movement both within and between superblocks while, at the same time, easing congestion elsewhere in the system: it also prevents over-concentration or isolation without sacrificing diversity of activity. However, it is important to emphasize that this only works when the glocal streets are also well-connected across scales – otherwise, problems of disconnection can also occur, as we found in Imazato. More through trafc may have its merits, but it can be disturbing for residents: more vehicle movement and non-residential activities mixing with residential functions can create an unpleasant living environment with more noise and pollution. The structure is also not very suitable for managing large numbers of people as groups. The amount and configuration of leisure and living space may also be compromised by the construction of more roads and streets. While the analysis of the Chinese superblocks is informative of a design approach, it also draws attention to some problems. Although the Japanese version is not problem-free, there are some merits to its structure that provide strong clues for improvement of superblock structures in Chinese cities. This may be possible while respecting the much-valued ‘wall-and-gate’ tradition.

Chinese Superblock: Towards a Solution There are two possible approaches. Because of the limited number of local and internal streets, the first inclination is simply to increase these streets as a part of the public street network and so improve street connectivity. This is essentially the response of the Chinese government in its wall-demolishing policy. At first glance, any investigation of Chinese superblock structure will show a dearth of local and internal streets because of the wall and gate structure (as is evident in the two case studies in Chapter 5). The introduction of more local and internal streets would bring some easing of the congestion, especially in the short term, as there is theoretical evidence that more connected street networks do assist movement with some associated generation of a more distributed pattern of activity (as the situation in Imazato suggests). Nevertheless, this study also shows that the two

214  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

street types have relatively low activity density – that is they do not attract or generate as many activities as global and glocal streets. Also, having a large and dense network of local and internal streets (especially if it is irregular) can restrict movement by confusing users (poor legibility) and weakening the potential for synergies. This is especially evident in Imazato, which has the least integrated street network and a moderately low level of connectivity compared with the other three sites. Even though they form a grid pattern, the excessive local and internal streets still lead most trafc back to the global roads and glocal streets. And this is compounded by the glocal streets in the superblocks surrounding Imazato being poorly integrated, making glocal movement over-reliant on global roads with correspondingly disproportionately high levels of activity on those roads. Hence, the demolition of walls to allow for new local and internal streets is likely to have a marginal impact on the Chinese superblocks’ shortcomings and is likely to lead to further problems in Chinese cities. With the absence of walls, which are valued as part of the social environment (security) and China’s cultural fabric, social opposition would arise and the wall structure would probably return in the future as happened in the past when previously demolished walls returned in the modern era with even greater impact (discussed in Chapter 2). Moreover, demolishing walls will involve other practical problems, such as ownership, community management, and particularly security.1 It is not hard to see that conversion to a permeable public network is far from straightforward. The alternative approach (suggested here) is to create a network of wellconnected and well-integrated glocal streets as a skeleton. Provision of these would ofer good connection across scales and contribute substantially to the issue of imbalance between street types and over-concentration of activity but not involve wholesale demolition of walls and erosion of the wall-and-gate structure. As explained earlier, glocal streets not only attract more activities than local and internal streets, they also provide alternative routes to global roads for mediumdistance movement and so ease trafc pressure on global roads (an enormous urban problem in China). The use of glocal streets for this sort of movement is most evident in the Shijo-Karasuma superblock: the glocal streets here ofer a very well-integrated street network and make an invaluable contribution to connection across scales. In Shijo, they have the highest activity density and the highest concentration of mixed activity of the two Japanese superblocks and contribute substantially to the superblock’s relatively even and dense distribution of just about everything. In a Chinese superblock, while the location of gates is the key determinant of movement and activity distribution, these still rely essentially on a street network. This means that Chinese cities need a good foundation network. Yet there is a network deficiency in China’s superblocks as indicated by the two Chinese case studies. The key player, an efective glocal street network is largely missing and/ or poorly integrated causing a structural problem. Numbers and densities of glocal

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  215

streets in the two Japanese superblocks are about five times greater than in the two Chinese examples and have the highest concentration of activities. In other words, introducing more glocal streets into Chinese superblocks would help immediately and have the greatest long-term impact in improving connectivity and generating more distributed patterns of activity, including mixed activity. Most important is that glocal streets have to be well-integrated across scales. This requires a well-connected and integrated glocal street network amongst neighbouring superblocks with good connections on all sides (as found in and around Shijo-Karasuma). In comparison, Daguangli and Imazato both have integration issues. They rely mostly on the glocal–internal type of connection, while showing few good connections to other glocal streets in neighbouring superblocks with low integration levels at this scale. As a result, both have high concentrations of activities along the global roads. Even in Imazato, with a large number of internal streets, concentration on the global roads still exists. In comparison, the Daguangli network is better at distributing activities along global and glocal streets than Imazato. Because gates are the major threshold for controlling trafc and influencing the location of activities (consistent with Hillier’s (1996a) concept of ‘movement economy’), the location of the gates in this Chinese city structure decides where most movement will occur and, further, where most activities will be located. By increasing the number and density of the glocal streets to form a grid, and an even distribution of gates along global and glocal streets, this will create more evenly distributed patterns of movement and activities. In this way, the problems created by the physical structure can be substantially alleviated, while the wall structure, which represents the social and cultural fabric in Chinese cities, need not be lost. The Inset which follows is a practical adjunct to my conclusion, where I suggest an example model framework of the kind required to improve the form and functioning of China’s urban supergrid and superblock system.

Note 1. Streets in existing walled areas are private, owned by diferent companies and mostly in cul-de-sac patterns.

216  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Directions for the Supergrid and Superblock System in China In the light of the investigation of the Eastern supergrid and superblock system, a model framework is suggested for their future form in China. The approach combines traditional and modern Chinese practice with some beneficial principles adopted from the corresponding Japanese system. Although some critical dimensions are included and should be applied with appropriate variations according to local conditions. Given today’s problematic forms in China, the following directions are fundamental to this approach: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

maintenance of the enclosed compound as a unit; more and therefore reduced size of street blocks and compounds within a superblock; more and more evenly distributed gates (as junctions) between compounds and streets; and more integrated and connected glocal street networks.

Point (i) is as acceptance of a long-standing cultural preference. Point (iv) is clearly the priority, with points (ii) and (iii) as integral supports. Moves in these directions (for the transformation of existing superblocks and construction of new ones) will ensure better circulation of people and vehicles, improved distribution of activities, and more convenient urban life.

Connecting the Superblock with the Whole City and Surrounding Superblocks Movement beyond and within each superblock is determined mostly by the road/ street network operating by way of four types of connections: global, glocal, local and internal, which accord with their definitions outlined in Chapter 1 and used throughout the book. Further, local and internal ‘streets’ will frequently occur in the form of local and internal gates, and may dominate at this local scale, given the special place of the wall and gate structure in Chinese culture. All these types will form a clear pattern, whose legibility is reinforced by the size (length and width) and character of each. In larger urban agglomerations a global subway system aligned with selected global roads is also suggested. Global roads (red in Inset figure A) make up a rectilinear supergrid of city-wide scale with the supergrid defining superblocks. Global roads are constructed at intervals of about a kilometre to form superblocks of about one square kilometre. These roads are wide including generous pavements (sidewalks) on each side. The recommended minimum width for a global road is 30 m including a pavement (sidewalk) of at least 5 m width along each side. Glocal streets (orange in Inset figure A) also form a grid, but these are narrower and shorter than global roads: these cross between superblocks but do not extend in length for more than a few superblocks. The role of the glocal street is to facilitate movement between superblocks in the vicinity of each other without having to resort to global roads. The preceding investigation found these streets to be the key to a balanced network structure. Recommended dimensions for glocal streets are a maximum length of three superblocks or equivalent; with street widths of between 10 m and 15 m, including pavements (sidewalks) on each side of between 2 m and 3 m. An example structure combining these global and glocal elements is shown in Inset figure A.

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  217

Inset Figure A. Model supergrid pattern: showing global roads and glocal streets. Note the staggered starting/stopping points of the glocal streets (maximum length three superblocks).

A subway system provides a global scale public transport service: lines are aligned with global roads and normally located beneath them. This is also a multi-directional grid system giving access across the whole area of the supergrid (and where appropriate, can extend beyond). Lines align with every third global road and subway stations occur at intervals of 1.5 km, with stations located alternately at every third global road intersection and every third mid-point between intersections: thus, every second station is an exchange station offering cross-city travel in four directions. However, this arrangement is applicable only to the more extensive and denser multi-million urban agglomerations.

Inset Figure B. Subway and stations in relation to supergrid and superblocks. Note that every second station is an exchange station.

218  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Connecting Superblock Within A superblock is made up of streets and street blocks, of which each block may equate with a single compound or (preferably) be made up of more, smaller compounds. Streets within a superblock are of two types: local streets linking directly to global roads; and internal streets (which are really a sub-category of ‘local’) whose ends do not extend to the edge of the superblock. Together, these offer local permeability and convenience and spatial depth within the superblock. Local streets have vehicular carriageways with pedestrian pavements (sidewalks) on each side, whereas internal streets are usually narrower, of more variable form and with surfaces that do not necessarily differentiate between pedestrian and vehicular use. Local gates (acting as equivalents of local streets) link walled compounds to global roads, while internal gates link walled compounds to glocal (and sometimes) local streets. Further, these may dominate ‘local’ and ‘internal’ circulation systems in the Chinese ‘wall and gate’ context. Components and some recommended dimensions for this structure follow, with an example pattern in Inset figure C.

 A local street will not exceed 10 m in width, including pavements (sidewalks) of at least 2 m width along each side;

 An internal street will not usually exceed 5 m in width;  A single street block edge will not exceed 250 m in length;  A street block will not exceed 6.25 ha in area, which is also the maximum area for a single compound: however, street blocks should preferably contain more than one compound. (If, for some exceptional reason, a compound exceeds the maximum dimensions, its layout will accommodate public passage across it to maintain permeability in the superblock as a whole.) Within all the above constraints, and whatever the size and shape of street blocks and compounds, entry gates from the streets are to be frequent.

Inset Figure C. Superblock example network with: global roads; glocal streets connecting with surrounding superblocks; local ltreets/gates connecting to global roads; and internal streets/gates connecting to glocal streets.

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK: A SYSTEM FOR GLOBAL CONSIDERATION  219

Superblock Form and Function: Desired Future Character Formally and functionally, there are fundamental differences between a street block’s edges and interior. A typical superblock contains sixteen or more street blocks, as shown in Inset figure D. Formally, edges consist of buildings and walls, that together give a continuous and solid perimeter to the interior space. This is punctuated by gates placed at regular intervals (maximum distance of 125 m apart, preferably less) providing convenient connection between compounds and streets. The height of street-edge buildings will be determined by the width of the road/street by which they stand, but with higher buildings permitted around intersections, where the potential for concentration and connection is high – the recommended general street width to building height ratio is 1 : 1.25 rising to 1 : 5 around intersections. By contrast, the interior area of such a ‘walled’ street block or compound is open and landscaped with buildings of any free-standing formal type (point-tower, box, slab, pavilion, etc.) or combination (e.g. box-podium and tower). Most buildings of the block interiors will stand taller than edge buildings. In effect the edge buildings and walls together form a barrier between ‘public outside’ and ‘community inside’, to provide a safer, quieter, less polluted and generally more relaxed environment within. This form is reminiscent of former walled blocks and courtyard compounds in China. Functionally, a distinctive characteristic of superblocks is that buildings along global road and glocal and local street edges will accommodate predominately non-residential uses, although dwellings are also permitted as part of street block perimeters, particularly at higher levels and along global roads. (For instance, roofs of commercial and public buildings, particularly along global roads, could function as ‘ground’ with gardens, compound community facilities and dwellings at this level.) While diverse uses are to be encouraged along all road and street edges, a narrower range of function will be allowed along glocal and local streets, compatible with the reduced street width and associated building scale.

Inset Figure D. Superblock form showing basic characteristics and functions of the structure.

220  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Appendix One

Chronological Outline of Chinese and Japanese History Chinese History Time

Dynasty

c. 10,000–2,000 BCE

Prehistoric China

Neolithic Cultures

c. 2100–1600 BCE

Early Bronze Age of China

Xia (Hsia)

c. 1600–1046 BCE

Shang

c. 1046–256 BCE

Zhou (Chou)

c. 1046–771 BCE

Ancient China

Western Zhou

c. 771–256 BCE

Eastern Zhou

c. 770–476 BCE

Spring and Autumn Period

c. 475–221 BCE

Warring State Period

c. 221–206 BCE

Qin (Ch’in)

206 BCE–220 CE

Early Imperial China

Han

206 BCE–9 CE

Western/Former Han

25–220 CE

Eastern/Later Han

220–589 CE

China’s ‘Middle/Dark Ages’

‘Period of Disunity’ or Six Dynasties Period

581–618 CE

Sui

618–906 CE

Tang

907–960 CE

Mediaeval China

Five Dynasties and Ten States

960–1279 CE

Song

960–1127 CE

Northern Song

1127–1279 CE

Southern Song

907–1125 CE

Liao

1038–1227 CE

Western Xia

1115–1234 CE

The Final Dynasties

Jin

APPENDIX I  221

1279–1367 CE

Yuan

1368–1644 CE

Ming

1644–1911 CE

Qing (Ch’ing)

1912–1949 CE

Early Modern China/ The Republic of China Era

Republic Period

1949–present

Contemporary China

People’s Republic of China

Japanese History Time

Periods

c. 10,000–3000 BCE

Paleolithic Era

c. 4000–300 BCE c. 900 BCE–250 CE

Jomon Ancient Japan

Yayoi

250–552

Kofun

552–710

Asuka

710–794

Classical Japan

Nara

794–1185

Heian

1185–1333

Kamakura

1333–1336

Kemmu Restoration

1336–1573

Mediaeval Japan

1573–1603 1603–1867

Azuchi-Momoyama Early Modern Japan

1868–1912 1912–1926

Ashikaga (Muromachi)

Tokugawa (Edo) Meiji

Modern Japan

Taisho

1926–1945

Showa (Pre-war)

1945–1989

Showa (Post-war)

(1989–2019) 2019–present

Contemporary Japan

Heisei Reiwa

222  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Appendix Two

Notes on Data and Method Mapping the Street Network 1. Street Type Street networks are classified into four major types: Global Road, Glocal Street, Local Street and Internal Street (as illustrated in figure 1.2). This was devised after consulting Hillier, Marshall and Shelton’s theories, terminology and mapping techniques of streets and their patterns of connection.

Street Type

Definition

Global Road

Refers to the wide arterial roads that form the supergrid. They are commonly 25 m or wider, extend for 5 or more kilometres and flanked on both sides by pavements (sidewalk) that cater primarily for pedestrians and cyclists, and some social activities. They sometimes overlap with subway lines, elevated highways, bridges, underground tunnels and other multilevel connections.

Glocal Street

Refers to streets that connect neighbouring superblocks across global roads. A glocal street is usually less than 20 m wide and as a single link, connects no more than three superblocks with just two superblock crossing points.

Local Street

Refers to the streets within a superblock that join directly with global roads but do not cross them. Local streets are typically less than 12 m in width.

Internal Street

Refers to streets that are without direct connection with the global road edges of a superblock and provide direct internal links only to glocal, local or other internal streets within superblocks. These are of variable length and width but commonly less than 5 m wide.

APPENDIX II  223

2. Street Density Two measures are used here to record the density of a street network in a superblock as supplements to maps: these can provide quantitive indications of the presence of all streets (in the network) and of each street type: (1)

Density of road/street network: Street Density = Length of the Streets (km)/Size of the Study Area (km2)

(2)

Density of junctions (T-sections and/or cross-intersections): Density of Junctions = Number of Junctions (No.)/ Size of the study Area (km2)

3. Street Pattern The mapping of street networks in superblocks as a network of lines is derived from the methods used by Bentley et al. (1986), Hillier (1996a), Salingaros (2005), Marshall (2005) and Shelton (2012). This resulted in three types of maps: (1)

Mapping of street pattern according to two categories: the grid and the tree (cul-de-sac and loop);

(2)

Mapping of a superblock’s street and connections with surrounding superblocks;

(3)

Mapping of connections at multiple levels (such as subway stations and bridges).

The Mapping of Function/Activity 1. Activity Distribution Inspired by the triangle models of Hoek (2008), Nes et al. (2012) and Dovey and Pafka (2014), and also by the writing of Jacobs (1961), I devised a variation, a triangular model of functions, that places all social-economic activities into four major categories (see figure App. 1). The diagram gives example building uses that fit each type of social activity. These types of activity are colour-coded and converted into map data that show the spatial distribution of activities and the mixes of uses within superblocks. The four major categories show a functional system to map the diferent uses of space/types of activities. The table below gives a definition for each type.

224  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Activity Type

Definition

Consumption

Includes wealth-using activities that are related to the use of any commodity of service in cities. It is the most fundamental socioeconomic activity that takes place in cities. Common examples are shops and stores, restaurants, and karaoke.

Production

Includes wealth-creating activities (both physical and intellectual) that are related to the production of any commodity, service or data/information in cities. Examples include factory-based manufacturing companies and ofce-based new generating companies.

Service

Includes activities supportive of consumption, production or living. These include social, educational, medical, financial, and hospitality services. Buildings housing such activities including schools, hospitals, hotels, libraries, banks, etc.

Residence

Includes activities related to living and residing, including all kinds of dwelling, houses and apartments, etc.

The mapping of ground-level activities of buildings indicates a ‘horizontal’ distribution of uses. The mapping of activities on multiple floors indicates a ‘vertical use’ of buildings. These can also be used to indicate four combinations or mixes of functions: (1)

Consumption + Production;

(2)

Consumption + Service;

(3)

Production + Service;

(4)

Consumption + Production + Service;

and the mapping of the locations of these combinations shows their spatial distribution, and this is done at glocal, local and internal scales.

2. Activity Variety The variety/diversity of the categories of consumption, production, service, and residence are further mapped according to the actual uses found in each individual building and each floor level.

APPENDIX II  225

Figure App.1. Functional classification of activities with examples.

3. Intensity of Activity Mix Mapping of the intensity of activity covers all activities across ground level (horizontal) and floor levels (vertical). These are mapped by using the four functional categories (as in the figure App. 1) with a mapping technique created for this purpose. Horizontal intensity indicates activity on the ground floor by recording the ground floor functions present in every 50 m2 of each case study superblock – see figure App. 2 (left). Vertical intensity illustrates the level of functional mix by mapping the number of function types found within each building through all floors – see figure App. 2 (right).

Figure App.2. Method of mapping activity intensity.

Interrelationships: Integration, Connection, and Interaction 

Connection maps combine (superimpose) information from maps showing the density, type, and patterns of street networks with that showing the four types of activities.

226  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK



Interaction maps, combine (superimpose) information from maps of distribution, variety, and intensity of activity mix with that of street networks.



Integration maps reveal interrelationship between the spatial configuration, movement, and activity by using space syntax analyses.

Connection Connection, as previously discussed, stresses the importance of ‘physical’ and ‘functional’: ‘physical’ connection can provide structural advantage and functional mix can provide proximate advantage. There are three types of maps that cover connection: (1)

street patterns and the distribution of all activities;

(2)

street types and the distribution of all activities;

(3)

street density (junctions) and the distribution of all activities. Four key numerical measures are used to assist understanding in connection maps:

1.

Total number of activities along each street type

2.

Activities per each street type =

3.

Activities per (km) street length =

4.

Activities per street density (km/km2) =

Total number of activities along the street type Number of streets of that type Total number of activities along the street type Total length of each type of street (km) Total number of activities along the street type Street density of each street type

Interaction Interaction as discussed in Chapter 4 is concerned with the co-functioning and the ‘mix of mixes’ of diferent functions that benefit from proximity to each other and the synergies that flow from this. Jacobs’s mix of diferent sizes, types, ages of buildings and other physical structures is, in essence, to provide shelter and accommodation for a wide variety of functions, allowing these to mix through the assemblage of small (a convenience store) and large (department store) buildings. Thus, interaction refers to physical and functional interaction, interplay, proximity, and mix. It is manifested as socio-economic functions through the variety, intensity, and distribution of movement and activities. It is the interaction between people, buildings and space with a focus on how diferent functions gather together in mixed assemblages to serve people through the advantages bestowed by physical form. Interaction is depicted in three groups of maps showing: (1) the distribution of activity mixes with all streets.

APPENDIX II  227

(2) the variety of activity mixes with all streets. (3) the intensity of activity mixes with all streets.

Integration: Space Syntax Analysis In preparing a space syntax map, street networks are converted into axial lines. An axial line is one straight line in a network of lines representing all streets or parts of a street in the whole system. They are drawn by way of intersecting lines each of which represents a sightline of a person moving through space, thus representing human perception. They are a series of the longest possible axes as a simplification of street spaces, which are formed as convex spaces (Hillier, 1996a). This rests on the theory of natural movement that follows a ‘least angle’ path between origins and destinations by minimizing the angular deviation between the two (Space Syntax Limited, 2017). In this work, axial line maps are imported to space syntax software (UCL Depthmap) for qualitative and quantitative analysis to indicate certain spatial characteristics of the superblocks studied. Although the software is also able to generate axial line maps from block structure maps, it cannot distinguish space for movement from open spaces or river channels. Therefore, this study required modification of standard maps through hand drawing and selection, to make results more accurate and site specific. Map results show intersecting lines of diferent colours (red to purple), which represent the potential distribution and intensity of natural movement (and potential synergies) that arise purely from the structural configuration of the supergrid and superblock networks or parts thereof. Space syntax is used to understand the space-to-function relationships by analysing the spatial configuration of the supergrid in each city and the chosen superblocks at three levels: (1)

the (whole city) supergrids of the four cities concerned – global scale;

(2)

the four selected superblocks and their eight surrounding superblocks – glocal scale; and

(3)

the four selected superblocks – local scale.

Integration Maps (1) (2) (3) (4)

Mapping of the whole city street network using global (R = n) and local (R = 3) integration measures; Mapping of the supergrid by using global (R = n) and local (R = 3) integration measure only; Mapping the streets within the area of nine superblocks (selected superblock plus the eight surrounding ones) using (R = n) and (R = 3) measures; and Mapping the streets within selected superblock using (R = 3) measure only.

228  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Bibliography Adshead, S.D. (1910) The Town Planning Conference of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Town Planning Review, 1(3), pp. 178–190. Ajuntament de Barcelona (2014) Urban Mobility Plan (UMP) 2013–2018. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona. Alexander, C. (1965) A city is not a tree. Architectural Forum, 122(1), pp. 58–62. Alexander, C. (1977) A Pattern Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexander, C. (1979) The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arida, A. (2002) Quantum Theory. London: Routledge. Art Gallery of NSW (1999) Views in and around Kyoto (Rakuchu-Rakugai zu). Available at: https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/7.1980.a-b/. Art ifeng (2018) Qing ming shang he tu, by Zhang ze duan. Available at: http://upload. art.ifeng.com/2018/0718/1531897475693.jpg. Ashihara, Y. (1983) The Aesthetic Townscape, trans. Riggs, L.E. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ashihara, Y. (1989) The Hidden Order, Tokyo through the Twentieth Century. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Bai, X.S. (2021) Zooming in Qing ming shang he tu. Available at: https://baijiahao.baidu. com/s?id=1720367555117299099&wfr=spider&for=pc. Barber, F. and Jackson, P. (1990) The History of London in Maps. London: Barrie & Jenkins. Barthes, R. (1982) Empire of Signs, trans. Howard, R. New York: Hill and Wang. Baumeister, R. (1876) Stadte-Erweiterungen in technischer, beaupolizeilicher und wirtschaftlicher Beziehung [Enlargement of Towns from technical, local government and economic viewpoints]. Berlin: Ernst & Korn. Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2016) Travel Information-Tourist Highlights. Available at: http://ltlx.buaa.edu.cn/asv14/Travel_Information.htm. Belfiore, M. (2012) On Japanese spatial layering. Le carré bleu, no. 2. Available at: http://www.lecarrebleu.eu/allegati/lcb%202-2012_inglese_.pdf. Bendixson, T. (2007) Obituary: Melvin Webber. The Guardian, 1 February. Bentley, I. et al. (1985) Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. London: Architectural Press. Bharne, V. (2014) Zen Space and Neon Places, Reflections on Japanese Architecture and Urbanism. Novato, CA: Oro Edtions. Bi, J. (2021) Why did over 400 riots fail in Song Dynasty? Available at: https://baijiahao. baidu.com/s?id=1713942526839113897. Bognar, B. (1985) Contemporary Japanese Architecture, Its Development and Challenge. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

BIBLIOGRAPHY  229

Boudonnant, L. and Kushizaki, H. (2003) Traces of the Brush. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books. Boyd, A. (1962) Chinese Architecture and Town Planning: 1500 BC–AD 1911. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Brand, D. and Nguyen, N.M. (2014) Revisiting the Form of Chinese Traditional Capital Cities. Paper presented at the 12th Australasian Urban History Planning History Conference, Wellington, New Zealand. Bray, D. (2005) Social Space and Governance in Urban China: The Danwei System from Origins to Reform. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brinckmann, A.E. (1912) Platz und Monument. Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth. Available at: https://digiub.uni-heidelberg.de/digit/brinckmann1912/0007. Buchanan, C. (1963) Trafc in Towns. London: Ministry of Transport. Bush, S. and Shih, H. (1985) Early Chinese Texts on Painting. Cambridge, MA: HarvardYenching Institute Studies. Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Chang, S. (1977) The morphology of walled capitals, in Skinner, G.W. (ed.) The City in Late Imperial China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 75–100. Chang, C. (1982) Japanese Spatial Conception: A Critical Analysis of its Elements in the Culture and Traditions of Japan and in its Post-War Era. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Chang, A.Y. (2011) What does Chang’an look like? Available at: http://image2081-c. poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20111205/16/6129204420111205161854057.jpg. Chen, W. and Gazzola, L. (2013) Comparative Study on the City Walls of Nanjing and Rome. Nanjing: Southeast University Press. City of Kyoto and Kyoto Convention and Visitors Bureau (2017) Kyoto City Guide – Temple Shoren-in. Available at: http://kyoto.travel/en/thingstodo/entertainment. Collins, G.R. and Collins, C.C. (1986) Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern City Planning (With a translation of the 1889 Austrian edition of his City Planning According to Artistic Principles). New York: Rizzoli. Colman, J. (1971) Planning and People: An Introduction to Uurban Planning in Australia. Sydney: Angus and Robinson. Cowan, P. (1969) Milton Keynes: the creation of a city. New Society, 13 February, pp. 3–5. Craig, A.M. (1979) Japan: a Comparative View. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cullen, G. (1960) Townscape. London: Architectural Press. De La Croix, H. (1960) Military architecture and the radial city plan in sixteenth century Italy. The Art Bulletin, 40(4), pp. 263–298. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (trans. Massumi, B.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Den Hartog, H. (2010) Shanghai New Towns: Searching for Community and Identity in a Sprawling Metropolis. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. Deng, F.F. (2013) Gated community and housing segregation: empirical evidence from

230  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Chongqing, China. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2416663. Ding, C.R. (2009) Policy and planning challenges to promote efcient urban spatial development during the emerging rapid transformation in China. Sustainability, 1(3), pp. 384–408. Dou, Q. (2010) From micro-district to gated community: the evolution of the morphology of residential housing in Beijing [in Chinese]. Multiple Perspectives: Theory and Practice, Architecture Journal, 3, pp. 7–11. Available at: http://www.cqvip.com/QK/94827X/ 201003/33512771.html. Dovey, K. and Pafka, E. (2014) The urban density assemblage. Urban Design International, 19(1), pp. 66–76. Dovey, K. (2016) Urban Design Thinking: A Conceptual Toolkit. London: Bloomsbury. Dovey, K. and Pafka, E. (2016) The science of urban design? Urban Design International, 21(1), pp. 1–10. Doxiadis, C.A. (1968) Ekistiks: An Introduction to the Science of Human Settlements, London: Hutchinson. Eberstadt, R. (1911) Town planning in Germany: the Greater Berlin Competition, in Royal Institute of British Architects, Transactions of the Town Planning Conference, London, 10–15 October 1910. London: RIBA, pp. 313–333. Editorial Board of Local Chronicles of the City of Nanjing (1999) Nanjing Land Management Yearbook [in Chinese]. Nanjing: Aide Publishing House of Nanjing. Editorial Board of Local Chronicles of the City of Nanjing (2008) The Chronicles of the City Planning of Nanjing [in Chinese]. Nanjing: Jiangsu People’s Publishing House. Editorial Board of Local Chronicles of the City of Nanjing (2009) The Chronicles of the City of Nanjing: The City Construction of Urban and Rural Area [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Local Records Publishing. Editorial Board of Local Chronicles of the City of Nanjing (2011) The Chronicles of the City Planning of Nanjing [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Local Records Publishing. Editorial Board of the District of Lianhu of Xi’an (EBDL) (2001) District Records of Lianhu [in Chinese]. Xi’an: Sanqin Publishing House. Feng, D., Breitung, W. and Zhu, H. (2011) Space of fragmentation: a study of the linkages between gated communities and their neighborhoods in Guangzhou, China [in Chinese]. Geology, 30(1), pp. 61–70. Available at: http://www.dlyj.ac.cn/CN/10.11 821/yj2011010006. Feng, C. and Peponis, J. (2020) The definition of syntactic types: the generation, analysis, and sorting of universes of superblock designs. Environment and Planning B, 47(6), pp. 1031–1046. Fraker, H. Jr (2006) Unforbidden cities: can a new type of ‘gated community’ reverse China’s ecological debacle? Available at: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-maga zine/september-october-2006-global-warning/unforbidden-cities. Friedmann, J. (2005) China’s Urban Transition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY  231

Fu, X.N. (2001) Ancient Chinese Architecture and Urban Planning Design Principles and Methods [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press. Fu, C.W. and Heine, S. (eds.) (1995) Japan in Tradition and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Suny Press. Fujita, K. and Hill, R.C. (1997) Together and equal: place stratification in Osaka, in Karan, P.P. and Stapleton, K. (eds.) The Japanese City. Lexington, KT: The University Press of Kentucky, pp. 106–133. Gajer, S. (2015) Deconstructing the Superblock: Universal Solutions vs. Cultural Specificity in Chinese Urban Planning. Masters thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa. Available at: https://curve.carleton.ca/9820c074-0b19-4da3-afc6-072188df6151. Gehl, Y. (1987) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gehl, Y. (2010) Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press. Guo, X.M. (2009) Challenges of urban form in fast-growing Chinese cities: a case study of Kunshan, in Proceeding of the 4th International Conference of the International Forumon Urbanism (IFoU). Amsterdam/Delft, pp. 607–616. Available at: http:// newurbanquestion.ifou.org/proceedings/5%20The%20Transformation%20of%20 Urban%20Form/full%20papers/D010_Guo_Xiangmin_Challenges%20of%20 Urban%20Form%20in%20Fast%20growing%20Chinese%20Cities.pdf. He, C. (2012) The Former Capital City of Xi’an [in Chinese]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. Hein, C. (2008) Machi: neighborhood and small town – the foundation for urban transformation in Japan, Journal of Urban History, 35, pp. 75–107. Hellier, G. (2014) Asia, China, Beijing, Forbidden City, Imperial Palace, Palace Museum. UNESCO World Heritage Site. Available at: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/ clip-6056597-stock-footage-china-circa-january-asia-china-beijing-forbidden-cityimperial-palace-palace-museum.html. Heng, C.K. (1999) Cities of Aristocrats and Bureaucrats: The Development of Medieval Chinese Cityscapes. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Highway Management Ofce and Historical Commission (1989) The Ancient Road System of Nanjing [Nanjing gu dai dao lu shi]. Nanjing: Jiangsu Science and Technology Press. Hillier, B. (1992) Milton Keynes: look back to London. Architects’ Journal, 195(15), pp. 42–46. Hillier, B. (1996a) Cities as movement economies. Urban Design International, 1(1), pp. 41–60. Hillier, B. (1996b) Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hillier, B. (1999) Centrality as a process: accounting for attraction inequalities in deformed grids. Urban Design International, 4(3), pp. 107–127. Hillier, B. (2001) A Theory of the City as Object: Or, How Spatial Laws mediate the Social Construction of Urban Space. Paper presented at 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia.

232  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hockney, D. (2006) Secret Knowledge, 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Hoek, J.W. van den (2008) The MXI (mixed use index) as a tool for urban planning and analysis, in Corporations and Cities: Envisioning Corporate Real Estate in the Urban Future. Available at: http://joostvandenhoek.com/mediapool/80/805179/data/ MXI_paper-2008_vandenHoek.pdf. Hohn, U. (2000) Stadtplanung in Japan: Geschichte – Recht – Praxis – Theorie [City Planning in Japan: History – Law – Pratice – Theory]. Dortmund: Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur. Howard, E. (1902) Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein. Hu, S.R. (2010) The study of west district of Hangzhou Residential gated neighborhood: looking at cities from an urban design perspective [in Chinese]. Master Thesis Architecture Faulty, Zhejiang University. Available at: http://wenku.baidu.com/ view/47b24af 77c1cfad6195fa759.html?re=view### Hu, Y.J., Yu, T. and Luo, X.L. (2011) Research on Urban Fragmentation of China under the Reconstruction of Public Space during Transformation Period [in Chinese]. Study of Urban Spatial Reconstruction, 3, pp. 10–13. Available at: http://www.mur.cn/nsfil es/8054FCE0B476E5388AFD80F087E40FD1-2011-03-10.pdf Hua, B. (2020) Qing ming shang he tu. Available at: https://huaban.com/pins/3540 322520/. Huang, Y. (2006) Collectivism, Political Control, and Gating in Chinese Cities [in Chinese]. Urban Geography, 27(6), pp. 507–525. Available at: http://www. tandfonline.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.2747/0272-3638.27. 6.507. Huang, C.C., Busch, C., He, D. et al. (2015) 12 Green Guidelines, CDBC’s Green and Smart Urban Development Guidelines. China Development Bank Capital. Available at: https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/12-Green-Guidelines. pdf. Ibei, K. (1928) The Latest Map of Osaksa City. Osaka: Warakujiya. International Research Center for Japanese Studies (2016) Historical Maps of Kyoto Prefecture. Available at: http://tois.nichibun.ac.jp/chizu/santoshi_2116.html; http:// tois.nichibun.ac.jp/chizu/index_area26.html. International Research Center for Japanese Studies (2017) Historical Maps of Osaka Prefecture. Available at: http://tois.nichibun.ac.jp/chizu/index_area27.html. Isozaki, A. (1979) Ma-Space – Time in Japan. New York: Cooper-Hewitt Museum. Isozaki, A. (2011) Japan-ness in Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Jinnai, H. (1994) Tokyo, a Model for the 21st Century? Paper presented to the European Association of Japanese Studies Conference. Jinnai, H. (1995) Tokyo, A Spatial Anthropology (trans. Kimiko Nishimura). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY  233

Johnson, J., Brazier, C. and Lam, T. (2020) China Lab Guide to Megablock Urbanisms. Barcelona: Actar Publishers. Katoaka, Y. (1916) The End of the Study of the Modern City [in Japanese]. Architectural Crafts Association. Tokyo: Kenchiku Kogai Kykai. Kan, H.Y., Forsyth, A. and Rowe, P. (2017) Redesigning China’s superblock neighbourhoods: policies, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Urban Design, 22(6), pp. 257–277. Kelly, J-F. and Donegan, P. (2015) City Limits: Why Australia’s Cities are Broken and How We can Fix Them. Carlton: Melbourne University Press. Kigawa, T. and Seo, K. (2009) Using Space Syntax to trace the Japanese urban renovation from jyokamachi to modern cities: what formed the city, the centre or the boundary? in Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Available at: http:// www.sss7.org/Proceedings/05%20Spatial%20Morphology%20and%20Urban%20 Growth/053_Kigawa_Seo.pdf. Kitayama, K. (2010) Changes in urban areas of Tokyo at the beginning of the 21st century, in Kitayama, K., Tsukamoto, Y. and Nishizawa, R. (eds.) Tokyo Metabolizing. Tokyo: Toto Publishing. Koester, F. (1914) Modern City Planning and Maintenance. New York: McBride, Nast & Co. Koolhaus, R. and Mau, B. (1995) S,M,L,X,L. New York: Monacelli. Kostof, S. (1991) The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History. London: Thames and Hudson. Kuma, K. (2010) Kyokai: A Japanese Technique for Articulating Space. Tokyo: Tankosha. Kurokawa, K. (1994) The Philosophy of Symbiosis. London: Academy Editions. Kyoto City Ofcial Website (2020) 2020 Census Kyoto City National Statistical Division Results. Lanchester, H.V. (1911) Cause and efect in the modern city, in Royal Institute of British Architects, Transactions of the Town Planning Conference, London, 10–15 October 1910. London: RIBA, pp. 434–450. Le Corbusier (1929) The City of Tomorrow and Its Planning (trans. Etchells, F.). London: John Rodker. Lerup, L. (1976) The dissection of three housing situations: another view of the same old thing. Architecture Criticism and Evaluation, 29(4), pp. 5–13. Li, D. (2009) The Concept of ‘Oku’ in Japanese and Chinese Traditional Paintings, Gardens and Architecture: A Comparative Study. Graduate School of HumanEnvironment Studies, Kyushu University, Master Thesis. Available at: http://www. hues.kyushu-u.ac.jp/education/student/pdf/2009/2HE08084E.pdf. Li, J. and Li, L.L. (2007) The gated community: from the economic perspective and sustainable urban planning [in Chinese]. China Urban Symposium, Heilongjiang Technology, pp. 1208–1202. Li, X. and Yang, J. (2007) The Chinese Space [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Construction Industry Publishing House.

234  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Li, Z.T. and Yu, Y. (2006) ‘Open Block’ Concept and its inspiration in urban planning of China’s residential housing development [in Chinese]. Urban Planner, 2(31). Liang, P. and Su, H.M. (2011) The study of the characteristics of the history of the enclosed superblock and grid pattern of Chinese cities [in Chinese]. City Exploitation, 4(3). Available at: http://wenku.baidu.com/view/006059340912a21614792 90b.html?re=view. Liang, J. and Sun, H. (2003) Reading the urban form and layout of Fangli units of Chang’an in Tang Dynasty [in Chinese]. City Planning Review, 27(1), pp. 77–82. Liao, P. (2004) Cancer of urban life: problems of gated communities in China and their solutions, Modern Architecture, 5(1), pp. 46–49. Available at: http://wenku.baidu. com/view/c22f80c34028915f804dc213.html. Liotta, S.-J. and Belfiore, M. (2012) Patterns and Layering: Japanese Spatial Culture, Nature and Architecture. Berlin: Die Gestalten Verlag. Liu, Y.L. (2010) A review of studies of gated community since 1990s [in Chinese]. Human Geography, 3, pp. 10–15. Liu, P.S. and Ge, J.F. (2014) The development of cities in Nansong Dynasty and the analysis of diferent types of cities [in Chinese]. Journal of Sichuan Normal University, Social Science, 41(6), pp. 133–142. Liu, M. and Lai, G. (2008) The city characters of the institution of enclosure Li-Fang walled-ward and warden-market before the Chinese medieval city revolution [in Chinese]. Journal of Building and Planning, National Taiwan University, 15, pp. 41–69. Liu, Y. and Li, Z. (2009) From gated community to Chinese resource-efcient community [in Chinese]. Time+Architecture, 02, pp. 20–24. Liu, Y. and Li, Z.G. (2010) A review of studies of gated community since 1990s [in Chinese]. Human Geography, 3(1), pp. 10–15. Available at: http://www.cqvip.com/ QK/82608X/201003/34162090.html. Lu, D. (2006a) Remaking Chinese Urban Form: Modernity, Scarcity and Space, 1949– 2005. London: Routledge. Lu, D. (2006b) Travelling urban form: the neighbourhood unit in China. Planning Perspectives, 21, pp. 369–392. Lu, Y. and Bozovic-Stamenovic, R. (2004) The spatial concept of Chinese architecture. International Journal of Architectural Theory, 9(1), pp. 22–34. Lü, J., Rowe, P. and Zhang, J. (2001) Modern Urban Housing in China, 1840–2000. Munich: Prestel. Lynch, K. (1961) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maki, F. (1979) Japanese city spaces and the concept of oku. Japan Architect, 54(265), pp. 50–62. Maki, F. (1987) An Aesthetic of Fragmentation. New York: Rizzoli. Maki, F. (2008) Nurturing Dreams: Collected Essays on Architecture and the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maki, F. (2015) Thinking Architecture and City from an Architectural Perspective [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

BIBLIOGRAPHY  235

Maki, F. (2017) Reflecting on Modernism, Zanzo no Modernism [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten. Maki, F. (2020) Urbanism no Ima (trans. Contemporary Urbanism) [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kajima Shuppankai. Maki, F. and Makabe, T. (2019) Another Utopia. Tokyo: NTT Shuppan. Masai, Y. (1986) Altas Tokyo: Edo/Tokyo through Maps. Tokyo: Heibonsha. Manieri-Elia, M. (1979) ‘Toward an imperial city’: Daniel H. Burnham and the City Beautiful Movement, in Ciucci, G., Dal Co, F., Manieri-Elia, M. and Tafuri, M., The American City: from the Civil War to the New Deal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–142. Marshall, S. (2005) Street and Patterns. London: Routledge. Marshall, S. (2009) Cities Design and Evolution. London: Routledge. Masayuki, T. (ed.) (1885) New version Osaka Koi Fuji: Nara-Kobe-Hyogo, in Tokuya N. Osaka: Nakajima Sobo. Mask, D. (2020) The Address Book. London: Profile. Mawson, T. (1911a) Public parks and gardens: their design and equipment, in Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) (1911) Transactions of the Town Planning Conference, London, 10–15 October 1910. London: RIBA, pp. 434–450. Mawson, T. (1911b) Civic Art: Studies in Town Planning, Parks, Boulevards and Open Spaces. London: B.T. Batsford. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (2016) State Council Issues: Key Suggestions to Further Reinforce the Management of Urban Planning and Construction [in Chinese]. Available at: http://www.mohurd. gov.cn/zxydt/201602/t20160222_226701.html. Mohr, M. (ed.) (2007) More than a Concrete Jungle: Urbanization in Japan. Asia Program Special Report No. 137. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center. Monson, K. (2008) String block vs superblock patterns of dispersal in China. Architectural Design, 78(1), pp. 46–53. Mote, F.W. (1977) The transformation of Nanking, 1350–1400, in Skinner, G.W. (ed.) The City in Late Imperial China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 101– 154. Nanlan, C.D. (1676) Illustrated Three Ritual Classics [in Chinese]. Kaogongji, Zhouli. Nagoya Urban Institute (1999) Planning History of Nagoya (1919–1969) [in Japanese]. Nagoya: Nagoya Urban Institute. Naito, A. (2003) Edo, the City that became Tokyo: An Illustrated History (trans. Horton, H.M.). Tokyo: Kodansha International. National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management (2015) The Examination of the Road Network Planning [in Japanese]. Tokyo: National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management. Nes, A. van, Berhauser Pont, M., Mashhoodi, B. (2012) Combination of Space Syntax with Spacematrix and the Mixed Use Index: The Rotterdam South Test Case. Paper presented at the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium, Santiago de Chile.

236  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Available at: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:d865e5b6-519e-49 59-8c3d-800054d1b351?collection=research. Neumann, M. (2011) Centenary paper: Ildefons Cerdà and the future of spatial planning: the network urbanism of a city planning pioneer. Town Planning Review, 82(2), pp. 117–143. Nieminen, S. (2012) Chinese Superblock: A Study and Design Tools for Sustainable Urban Housing Development in China. Tampere: Tampere University of Technology. Nishida, K. (1958) Intelligibility and the Philosophy of Nothingness: Three Philosophical Essays. Honolulu: East-West Center. Nitschke, G. (1966) Ma – The Japanese sense of place. Architectural Design, 36, pp. 116–156. Nitschke, G. (1988) Ma – place, space, void. Kyoto Journal, 8, pp. 33–39. Available at: https://www.kyotojournal.org/culture-arts/ma-place-space-void. Nitschke, G. (1993) Ma – place, space, void, in: From Shinto to Ando. Studies in Architectural Anthropology in Japan. London: Academy Editions, pp. 48–61. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research (2014) Densification as a Planning Strategy (theme issue). 26(2). Available at: http://arkitekturforskning.net/na/issue/view/52. Osaka City (2020) General population of Osaka [in Japanese]. Available at: https:// www.city.osaka.lg.jp/toshikeikaku/page/0000537188.html. Osaka City Urban Housing History Editorial Committee (1989) Housing in Osaka – Osaka Urban Housing History [in Japanese]. Osaka: Heibonsha Publishing. Osaka City Ward Organization (1995) Record of Town Development: 100 years Reconstruction of Osaka-shi [in Japanese]. Osaka: Osaka City Urban Development Association Press. Papadakis, A. (1999) Japan at the Cutting Edge. London: Andreas Papadakis Publisher. Peponis, J., Feng, C., Green, D., Haynie, D. and Kim, S.H. (2015) Syntax and parametric analysis of superblock patterns. Journal of Space Syntax, 6(1), pp. 109–141. Peponis, J., Park, J. and Feng, C. (2016) The city as interface of scales: Gangnam urbanism, in Kim, S.H., Cinn, E., Ahn, K., Kim, S., Chung, I., Jeong, D.E. and Enos, R. (eds.) The FAR Game. Seoul: SPACE Books, pp. 102–111. Perks, W. and Vliet, D.V. (1993) Sustainable community design: restructuring and demonstration. Plan Canada, November, pp. 30–36. Pinkney, D.H. (1955) Napoleon III’s transformation of Paris: the origins and development of the idea. Journal of Modern History, 27(2), pp. 125–134. Popham, P. (1985) Tokyo: The City at the End of the World. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Qin, J. (2008) Querying the theory of ‘scattering-dots-with-on-focus perspective’ [in Chinese]. Northwest Arts, Journal of the Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences). Ren, C. (2008) An analysis of the evolution, value and applicability of high-density gridiron street patterns and streets of China: a consideration of the grand road and superblock phenomenon. Urban Planning Forum, 174(2), pp. 53–61. Robinson, C.M. (1916) City Planning with Special Reference to the Planning of Streets and Lots. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

BIBLIOGRAPHY  237

Rossi, A. (1966) L’Architettura della Citta. Padova: Marsilio. Rossi, A. (1982) The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Royal Institute of British Architects (1911) Transactions of the Town Planning Conference, London 10–15 October 1910. London: RIBA. Ru, H., Zhao, Y. and Mao, S. (2010) The fuzzy beauty expression in the Chinese traditional architecture space [in Chinese]. Journal of Shenyang Architecture University, 12(2), pp. 148–152. Salingaros, N. (2005) Principles of Urban Structure. Amsterdam: Techne Press. San Francisco Planning Department (2010) Walking, Bicycling & Public Space on Market Street: A Public Space, Public Life Study of San Francisco’s Most Important Street. San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco. Available at: http://www.better marketstreetsf.org/docs/MarketStreetReport.pdf. Sasaki, K. (2013) Perspectives East and West. Contemporary Aesthetics, 11. Available at: https://contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=670/. Shane, D.G. (2014) Block, Superblock and Mega-block, A Short History. Available at: http:// www.arcduecitta.it/world/2014/01/block-superblock-and-megablock-a-short-history/. Shanxi Archaeology Institute (2009) The Kiln Site of Tricolor-Glazed Pottery at Liquanfang in Chang’an Capital City of Tang Dynasty. Xi’an: Antique Publishing House. Shelton, B. (1999) Learning from the Japanese City: West meets East in Urban Design. London: Routledge. Shelton, B. (2011) Adelaide’s urban design: pendular swings in concepts and codes, in Marshall, S. (ed.) Urban Coding and Planning. London: Routledge, pp. 131–157. Shelton, B. (2012) Learning from the Japanese City: Looking East in Urban Design. London: Routledge. Shelton, B. (2014) Nihon no toshi kara manabu koto (Learning from the Japanese City) [in Japanese], trans. Katagi, A. Tokyo: Kajima Shuppankai. Shi, N.H. (1996) The Historical Atlas of Xi’an [in Chinese]. Xi’an: Xi’an Cartographic Publishing House. Shi, M. (2005) Flexibility and originality in the development of Japanese architectural culture – taking the diferences in the planning and layout of the ancient capitals of China and Japan as an example. Zhejiang Social Science, 2, pp. 166–170. Shui, Y. (1962) The nature and scale of foreign residential districts and microdistricts [in Chinese]. Architectural Journal, 11, pp. 21–22. Smith, H.D. (1979) Sky and water: the deep structures of Tokyo, in Craig, A.M. (ed.) Japan: a Comparative View. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 49–99. Siksna, A. (1997) The efects of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphology, 1(1), pp. 19–33. Sitte, C. (1889) Der Stadtebau nach seinen Kunstlerischen Grundsatzen (City Planning according to Artistic Principles). Wien: Verlag von Carl Graeser. Song, W.X. (2010) The Study Progress of Gated Communities in China [in Chinese]. Urban Planning, Nanjing University, 4. Available at: http://www.cnki.com.cn/ Article/CJFDTotal-CXGH201004009.htm.

238  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Song, W.X. and Zhu, X.G. (2009) The gated communities in China: the negative impact of the social diferentiation [in Chinese]. The Urban Planner, 11, pp. 82–86. Available at: http://www.cqvip.com/qk/81000x/200911/32418185.html. Sorensen, A. (2002) The Making of Urban Japan: Cities and Planning from Edo to the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge. Southworth, M. and Owen, P. (1993) The evolving metropolis: studies of communities, neighborhood and street form at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3), pp. 271–287. Stavros, M. (2014) Kyoto: An Urban History of Japan’s Premodern Capital. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Steinhardt, N.S. (1999) Chinese Imperial City Planning. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Stübben, J. (1890) Der Stadtbau (Town Planning). Darmstadt: Bergstrasser. Sulman, J. (1911) The Federal Capital of Australia, in Royal Institute of British Architects, Transactions of the Town Planning Conference, London, 10–15 October 1910. London: RIBA, pp. 434–450. Takahashi, Y. and Yoshida, N. (1989) Introduction to Urban History of Japan I [in Japanese]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Takahashi Y., Yoshida, N., Miyamoto, M. and Ito, T. (eds.) (1993) An Illustrated History of Japanese Cities [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai. Tange, K. (1960) Katsura: Tradition and Creation of Japanese Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University University Press. Tanizaki, J. (1977) In Praise of Shadows, trans. Harper, T.J, and Seidensticker, E.G. Stony Creek, CT: Leete’s Island Books. The Compiling Committee of the Communication Almanac of Nanjing (1991) Nanjing Trafc Yearbook [in Chinese]. Nanjing: Aide Publishing House of Nanjing. Thompson, D.W. (1917) On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toshi Design Kenkyutai (1968) Japanese Urban Space [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Shokokusha. Triggs, I. (1909) Town Planning: Past, Present and Possible. London: Methuen. Tsukamoto, Y. and Almazán, J. (2006) Scrap and build, denied urbanism, forgotten, excluded and repressed forms of urban life. Monu, No. 4, pp. 3–4. Tsukamoto, Y. and Fujimura, R. (2007) Typology/morphology of Tokyo. 10+1, No. 47, pp. 76–84. Tunnard, C. and Reed, H.H. (1953) American Skyline. New York: Mentor. Ueda, A. (1990) The Inner Harmony of the Japanese House. New York: Kodansha. Unwin, R. (1909) Town Planning in Practice: An Introduction to the Art of Designing Cities and Suburbs. London: T.F. Unwin. Urbano, J. (2016) The Cerdà plan for the expansion of Barcelona: a model for modern city planning. Focus, 12(1), pp. 47–50. Available at: https://digitalcommons.calpoly. edu/focus/vol12/iss1/13. Wallenwein, F. (2013) The Housing Model Xiaoqu: The Expression of an Increasing Polarization of the Urban Population in Chinese Cities? Master Thesis, Heidelberg University. Available at: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/1714 3/1/The Housing Model xiaoqu_Wallenwein.pdf.

BIBLIOGRAPHY  239

Wang, Q. (1992) An analysis of a fengshui theory of xing-shi and the design of exterior space of architecture intraditional China [in Chinese], in Feng shui li lun yan jiu. Tianjin: Tianjin University Press, pp. 117–137. Wang, L.P. (1996) Designing the Superblock: A Model for Taipei Redevelopment. Masters Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wang, Y.H. (2003) New Residential Neighborhood [in Chinese]. Nanjing: Southeast University. Wang, H. (2007a) The transformation of jo-bo system in Japanese historical capital cities [in Chinese]. International Urban Planning, 1(2). Wang, Q. (2007b) Chinese Architectural Graphic Dictionary [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Machine Press. Wang, Q. (2008) Illustrated Chinese Dwellings [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Electric Power Press. Wang, Y.H. (2010) The gated communities in Chinese cities: problems and counter measures [in Chinese]. Modern Urban Studies, 3(6), pp. 85–90. Wang, D. (2014) Urban Planning History of China [in Chinese]. Nanjing: Southeast University Publishing House. Warakujiya Editorial Department (ed.) (1955) The last map of Osaka city [in Japanese], in Osaka City Map. Osaka: Warakujiya Co. Ltd. Watanabe, S. (1985) An Introduction to Comparative City Planning [Hikaku Toshi Keikaku Josetsu]. Tokyo: Sanseido. Webber, M.M. (1964) The urban place and the non-place urban realm, in Webber, M.M., Dyckman, J.W. and Foley, D.L. (eds.) Explorations in Urban Structure. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 79–153. Webber, M.M. (1968) The post-city age. Daedelus, 97(4), pp. 1091–1110. Webber, M.M. (1998) The joys of spread-city. Urban Design International, 3(4), pp. 201–206. Wheatley, P. (1971) The Pivot of the Four Quarters: A Preliminary Enquiry into the Origin and Character of the Ancient Chinese City. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Wei, W. and Qin, L.F. (2011) The analysis of Chinese gated communities [in Chinese]. Zhejiang University Architectural Journal, pp. 5–8. Available at: http://wenku.baidu. com/view/535c9b85cc22bcd126f0cc5.html. Wilde, O. (1893) Lady Windermere’s Fan. London: London: Elkin Mathews and John Lane. Wilson, P. (1989) Western Objects, Eastern Fields. London: Architectural Association. Wu, L. (1999) Rehabilitating the Old City of Beijing, A Project in the Ju’er Hutong Neighborhood. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Wu, F. (2005) Rediscovering the ‘gate’ under market transition: from work-unit compounds to commodity housing enclaves [in Chinese]. Housing Studies, 20(2), pp. 235– 254. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.8 763&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Wu, T. (2011) The City Planning of Jiankang (Nanjing) in Six Dynasties [in Chinese]. Beijing: Qinghua University Press.

240  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Xu, Y. (2000) The Chinese City in Space and Time: The Development of Urban Form in Suzhou. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Xu, B. (2007a) Discovering the Illumination Rhythm from Juan-Nan Traditional Gardens [in Chinese]. Chinese Culture University. Xu, X.C. (2007b) Urban Road and Transportation Planning [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Construction Industry Press. Xu, M. and Yang, Z. (2008) Rethinking the multi-disciplinary studies of gated communities: urban design perspectives [in Chinese]. Urban Planning International, 4. Xu, M. and Yang, Z. (2010) Superblocks plus gated community: the death of public space [in Chinese]. Architectural Journal, 3, pp. 12–15. Yang, X.H. (2009) The Palace of Ming Dynasty in Nanjing [in Chinese]. Nanjing: Nanjing Publishing House. Yang, C. Y. and Min, S. (2008) Theoretical framework and Chinese model of gated communities [in Chinese]. Huazhong Architecture Journal, 26(11), pp. 139–142. Available at: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-HZJZ200811038.htm. Yasushi, K. (1916) The Study of Modern Cities or Contemporary City Research [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kenchiku Kogei Kyokai. Yasuo, M. (1986) Altas Tokyo: Edo/Tokyo through Maps. Tokyo: Heibonsha. Yeang, K. (2002) Reinventing the Skyscraper: A Vertical Theory of Urban Design. Chichester: Wiley-Academy. Zeng, L. (2010) Analysis on the Application of Light and Shadow in Waterscape Design [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. Zhao, X. (2006) The Extension of ‘Courtyard Consciousness’ in the Community Constructed by Developer [in Chinese]. Masters Thesis, Dalian University of Technology. Zhao, G. (2008) Research on Urban City Grid Form [in Chinese]. Master Thesis, Tianjing University. Zhao, Y.C. (2013) Traditional Techniques in Design and Construction of Beijing Courtyard Compound [in Chinese]. Hefei: Anhui Science and Technology Press. Zhao, J. and Hu, L.N. (2008) Investigations about the planning of large residential housing [in Chinese]. Ecological Planning, China Urban Planning Symposium. Dalian: Dalian Publisher. Zheng, W. and Li, J. (2007) An Analysis of the Internal Road System in Chang’an in Tang Dynasty [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House. Zheng, G. and Li, S. (2017) The evolution of Lifang system in Tang and Song Dynasties and its enlightenment to the present – from the perspective of the relationship between state and society [in Chinese]. Urban Development Studies, 24(3), pp. 84–88. Zhu, J. (2004) Chinese Spatial Strategies Imperial Beijing 1420–1911. London: Routledge. Zhu, W. (2010) Space, Symbol and City: A Theory of Urban Design [in Chinese]. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press. Zhu, B.G. (2014) Old Maps of Nanjing [in Chinese]. Nanjing: Nanjing Publishing House. Zong, B.H. (1981) Walking in Aesthetic [in Chinese]. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.

BIBLIOGRAPHY  241

Zou, Y. and Bian, H.B. (2000) Comments on urban residential district pattern in China [in Chinese]. World Architecture, 5, pp. 21–23. Available at: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/ detail/detail.aspx?filename=SJZJ200005003&dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=cjfd2000&v =MDE2ODRaTEc0SHRITXFvOUZaNFIrQzM4NHpoNFhuRDBMVGcyWDJoc3h GckNVUjdxZmJ1Wm9GeTdnVXIvQk5pZlI=.

242  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Index (Italic numbers indicate pages with figures)

boundary-less-ness 81, 177 Buchanan, Colin 91

accessibility 105–106, 114, 150, 152

building zones/zoning 7, 7

adaptation 107, 157, 163

Burnham, Daniel 9

Adelaide 10, 10, 12, 21, 23 Alexander, Christopher 3, 12,20, 34, 92,

Cartesian 67, 69

93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 109, 111,

centralized 2, 6, 10, 20–21, 40

133

centrifugal 84–85, 108

agglomeration 84, 162

centripetal 11, 51, 84, 108

America 7, 8, 9, 44

centre-fixation 20

ancient Japanese capitals 14

Cerdà, Ildefons 3, 16, 32

Asuka-kyo 49

Chandigarh 90

archaeology 128–29

Chicago 9

areal 1, 13, 33, 35, 52, 61–62, 64–65,

City Beautiful 9

67–68, 70–71, 84–86, 115, 117, 124, 167, 204, 206–208, 210 arterial 11, 26, 28, 32, 39, 44, 48, 138, 161 Ashihara, Yoshinobu 28, 54, 60–61, 71, 74–75, 77–78, 81–82, 84, 86, 160, 204 assemblage 95–96, 106, 108, 110, 113, 115

circulation 6, 17, 52, 58, 98, 106, 109, 112, 216, 218 cityscapes 187, 203 co-function 111 Colman, James 10 complexity 12, 33, 92–98, 100, 105–106, 109–110, 112, 114–115 concentration 21, 33, 111–12, 196, 199, 208–210, 214–215, 219

Asuka 49, 168

concentrically 4, 7, 124

asymmetry 50, 83

configuration 51, 61, 94, 100, 104, 106–

axial 4, 150–152

107, 109, 112, 116, 152, 158–159, 213

axiality 4

Confucianism 51, 73

axis 16, 83, 122, 164

congestion 21, 28, 32–33, 138, 141, 203,

Azuchi-Momoyama 50 Arida, Ayssar 92, 96, 101, 102, 106, 108– 109, 112–115

205–206, 209, 212–213 connection 14, 16, 20, 21 balance of 22 scale of 16

Barcelona 16–17, 23, 26, 31–32, 35, 205

connectivity 12, 19, 46–48, 89, 103,

Baumeister, Reinhard 6, 8, 22

105–106, 108, 113–14, 133, 136,

block-and-grid 90

141, 150, 152–159, 183, 197–201,

bottom-up 83, 95–96, 104, 177

210–211, 213–215

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK  243

convenience 12, 16, 21–22, 54, 89–90, 98–99, 108, 148, 191, 196, 203, 209, 218 Corbusier 90, 94, 116 courtyard 38, 40–41, 72, 76–78, 86–88, 97, 113, 117, 128–129, 166, 219 cul-de-sac 48, 136, 141, 183, 210, 215 Cullen, Gordon 3

formation 2, 4, 28–29, 52, 56, 61, 72, 108, 123–124, 175, 187, 208 form-function 115 fractal 14, 63, 86, 96–97, 117–18, 124, 162–163, 210 fragmentation 28, 45, 71, 91 framework 12–13, 30, 58, 63, 71, 84, 86, 90, 103, 108, 124, 215–216 Fujiwara-Kei 49

danwei 43

Fujiwara-kyo 163, 165

decentralization 72

fusuma 77

De Marchi, Francesco 5 Deleuze, Gilles 92, 95, 110, 114–116 Di Cataneo, Pietro 4

Gehl, Jan 92, 95, 97, 100–101, 106, 109, 111, 113

Di Giorgio, Francesco 4

Germany (planning) 6–7

Dovey, Kim 3, 22, 90, 96, 106, 108, 109,

Gokiso 15–16, 18–19, 23, 179, 183, 202

110, 111, 112, 113 Doxiadis, Constantinos 10, 11–12, 16, 17, 20, 89, 90, 91

grain 109, 128, 171, 202 grid-and-cell 30 grid-iron 11, 11

dualism 95–96

Guattari, Félix 92, 95, 110, 114–116

duality 96, 101

guideline 33, 35, 47–48, 205–206

dynasty 28, 39–40, 42–43, 68, 71–72, 120, 122–124, 128–129, 132

hard shell/soft yolk 2 Haussmann, Georges 5–6, 17, 26

ecumenopolis 20

Heian-kyo 35, 49, 51, 162–165, 175

Eberstadt, Rudolf 8

Heijo-kyo 49, 163, 165

epistemology 61, 64

hidden order 54, 60, 75, 160, 162

equilibrium 73, 85, 96

hierarchy 39, 71, 81, 96–97, 105, 120, 122 of connections 105

fengshui 59, 96 Filarete, Antonio 4

of enclosures 97 of walled areas 122

flatness 194, 196, 203, 210

Hillier, Bill 14, 20

flexibility 81, 86, 110

horizontal-to-vertical 59

floor-oriented 54, 70–71, 75, 78, 81,

Howard, Ebenezer 8, 9, 10

83–85, 160, 173, 175, 194, 203–204, 210 flow 75, 108, 133, 141, 148, 150, 195, 199, 209

ideograms 65, 70 ideology 35 impermanence 75

fluidity 70, 81, 85–86

implementation 16, 49, 206

Fontana, Domenico 5

industrialization 6

force/forces 11, 30, 65, 73, 81, 83–85,

infrastructure 3, 6, 21, 23, 44, 54–55, 82,

89, 104, 108, 114, 203 format 152, 163, 212

91–92 integration 28, 55, 92, 104–106, 108,

244  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

112, 114–115, 150–158, 196–201,

Kurokawa 54, 61, 75, 78, 81, 85, 87

208, 211, 213, 215

Kyoto 14, 34–35, 53, 56, 59, 67, 69, 73,

intensification 11, 107, 116

80–81, 87, 120, 162–164, 166–168,

intensity 19, 56, 101, 105, 111–112, 145,

171–172, 185, 187–188, 196–197,

147–148, 152, 157, 182, 194–196,

202, 207

199, 209–210 inter-accessibility 107, 151

Lanchester, Henry Vaughan 8, 8

interaction 92–93, 100, 102, 104, 106,

landscape 5, 22, 48, 79, 154, 163

109–111, 115–116, 141, 147, 187,

land-use 179

194–195

layering 75, 81, 85–86, 168, 177

interchange 19, 187 interchangeability 96 interconnection 14, 55, 90, 92–96, 98,

layout 4, 7, 38, 40, 43, 47–48, 50, 56, 62, 64, 91, 103, 113, 163, 166–167, 179, 208, 218

101, 104–106, 111–112, 115, 132,

legibility 95, 113, 214, 216

152, 162, 177, 196, 204

L’Enfant, Pierre Charles 5

interconnectivity 106

Letchworth Garden City 8

interface 20, 27, 109, 113, 115

liveability 23

interference 96, 101–102, 112, 115

Lynch, Kevin 3, 26, 113

intermediary 75, 87 intermix 109–111, 187

machi 13, 50–51, 55, 62, 88, 170–171

interplay 5, 20, 90, 92–94, 98, 100–102,

macro 14, 16, 26, 29, 56, 63–66, 95, 106,

104 interrelationship 14, 29–30, 60, 65, 92, 98, 101, 104 intersection 17, 21, 56, 63, 111, 135– 136, 145, 148, 182, 191–194, 196, 203, 208, 211, 217, 219 isolation 19, 45, 70, 102, 203, 213 Isozaki, Arata 61, 67–69, 74, 80

141 Maki, Fumihiko 33, 56, 61, 75, 79, 81, 113, 161, 183 mapping 34, 103, 116, 135, 145, 177, 179, 193 Marshall, Stephen 14, 23, 34, 90, 92, 94, 98–99, 103, 106, 108, 133, 141 Mawson, Thomas 7, 8, 9 Megablock 30

Jacobs, Jane 3, 12, 15, 20, 22, 46, 89–93,

megastructure 113

95, 97–100, 105–106, 109–111, 113,

Melbourne 1, 3, 9–10, 10, 21, 23, 57, 62

115–116, 141, 150, 187, 193

metabolism 98

jō-bō 163–614, 166–168

method 116, 145, 157, 196, 203

junction 16, 21, 133, 135–136, 141, 145,

Milton Keynes 17–20, 23, 29, 44, 64,

147–148, 182, 191–196, 211, 216 juxtaposition 54, 75, 114

90–91 mix-and-match 35 Modernist 11, 89–91, 93–96, 98, 101, 124

kana 70, 87

modernization 60, 168

kanji 13, 87

modification 34, 122

Karlsruhe 5

Möhring, Petersen and Eberstadt 8,

Koester, Frank 9

morphology 4, 12–13, 21, 28, 30–31, 40,

Koolhaas, Rem 20–22

70, 90, 113, 158, 163, 210

SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK  245

movement/movements 5, 7, 18, 23, 98– 99, 103, 105, 110, 114, 116, 138, 167 relationship between scales 14, 16 multi-dimensional 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,

periphery 7, 15, 44, 171 permeability 19, 95, 101, 105–108, 114, 218 philosophy 55, 61, 68, 73–76, 79, 87, 95 pictographs 65

73 multi-directional 11, 20, 22, 26, 29, 33,

piecemeal 54, 91

62, 64–66, 68, 70, 95, 124, 163, 168,

place-making 62

182, 207–208

Popham, Peter 2

multiplicity 55, 95–96, 106, 110, 112

porosity 109, 111

Nagaoka-kyo 49, 163

Qingmingshanghetu 41–42, 69, 73

Nagoya 1, 15, 18–20, 23, 31, 53–54, 56–57, 160–161, 163, 183, 202 Gokiso (superblock) 15–16, 15, 18 supergrid 18–20 Naniwa-kyo 49, 162, 168 Nanjing 34, 41, 86, 118–119, 122–124, 132, 140, 152, 154, 207–208

radial city structure 4–8 and Renaissance aesthetic ideals 4 as centralizing force 21 radial-concentric 8 and building zones 7 garden city 9

Napoleon III (Bonaparte) 5

plans 5

Nara 59, 188

predisposition 2, 4

neighbourhood 23, 35, 38, 43–45, 55, 90, 106, 111, 179

structure 6, 20–21 radial plan (and grid-iron comparison) 11

net-and-cell 26, 45

reconstruction 43, 53–54, 58, 166

non-hierarchical 55, 94–95, 110, 113

redevelopment 26, 175

non-Western (urban design) models 22

regulation 2, 6–7, 48, 179, 212 rhizome 95, 106, 114–115

organized complexity 12

Robinson, Charles Mulford 9

oji 164–65

Rome 5

oku 33, 50, 61, 75, 79, 84–85, 175, 177,

Rossi, Aldo 12

180–181, 183, 187, 195 ontologies 61 openness 41–42, 55, 75 Palmanova 4, 5

Royal Institute of British Architects 8 Town Planning Conference and Exhibition (1910) 8 Salingaros, Nikos 14, 88, 92, 96–97, 99–

paradigm 28, 38, 60, 69, 90

100, 102, 104–5, 108–109, 111–112,

Paris 5, 6, 10, 26

114–116, 118

part-and-whole 104 parkland corridors and railways (radiating) 8, 8

scripts 12–13 alphabet letters and lines 13–14, 14 kanji (characters) and areas 13–14, 14

patchwork 13, 161, 181

shell-and-yolk 179

pedestrian 11, 19, 32, 46, 90, 141, 179–

Shelton, Barrie

180, 203, 218

shotengai 55, 212

perception 62, 67, 96

Sixtus V, Pope 5

246  SUPERGRID AND SUPERBLOCK

Sitte, Camillo 3, 6, 8

tree-structure 93, 138

skyline 9, 10, 23

Triggs, Inigo 7, 8, 9, 22

soft-yolk 52, 59, 161, 177–179, 210

two-dimensionality 81–82, 177

space syntax 94, 98, 104, 112, 114–115,

typology 103

150, 157, 196, 201, 206 street structures and patterns 14 Southworth, M and P. Owens’s study of types 21 structure–movement–activity 110

Unwin, Raymond 7, 8 urbanization 45, 205–206 urban design theory 3 urban layouts, structural types 7

Stübben, Josef 6, 7, 8 Sulman, John 8, 8

Vasari il Giovane, Giorgio 4, 5

superblocks as autonomous cells 11, 17

vehicular 11, 212, 218

superblock structure

vendors 145, 148, 159, 209, 212

concern about China’s version 17 supergrid, warped 2–3, 3

walkability 111

supergrid roads

wall-and-gate 28, 57, 78, 117–119, 122,

as commercial/service corridors 19 sustainability 31

124, 128, 138, 157–160, 208–209, 211–214

Sydney 9, 10

wall-demolishing 31, 35, 48, 206, 213

symmetry 4, 83, 118, 120

wall-oriented 71, 73, 84–86, 117, 124,

synergy 108, 150, 152–159, 196–201

204, 206 walls-and-gates 206

thinking about space 1

Washington 5

‘areal’ (Eastern) 1

water-bound 51, 168

‘linear’ (Western) 1

water-bounded 86

Togukawa 52

ways of seeing 12–13

Tokyo 2, 14

Eastern predisposition to ‘area’ 12

top-down 3, 42, 58, 82–83, 96, 104

Western predisposition to ‘line’ 12

top-down-bottom-up 104

Webber, Melvin 14, 18, 19

Toshi Design Kenkyutai (Urban design

‘Where to find’ maps 12–13, 13

study group) 14 towers-in-parkland 44, 58

Wren’s Plan for London 5, 6 work-unit 45

towers-in-the-park (see: towers-inparkland) transformation 5, 16, 27–29, 32, 39, 44, 50, 53, 57–58, 120, 130–131, 164,

Xi’an 34, 35, 118, 119, 120–122, 123, 124, 129, 139, 152–154, 207–208 Xiaoqu 44–45

167, 170, 174–175, 177, 205, 216 transit-oriented 187 transportation 30, 48, 52–53, 55, 122, 163, 168

Zone 7, 9, 44, 179 Zoning 7, 9, 21, 28, 101, 115, 212