Scholarlink

<p>Urban design competitions (UDCs) serve as crucial platforms for testing ideas, methodologies, and conceptual frameworks in architecture and urban planning. While existing research has explored the procedural and evaluative dimensions of these approaches, a persistent gap remains between quantitative reasoning and qualitative design thinking, particularly in how analytical tools inform design argumentation. This paper addresses that gap by introducing a methodological framework for assessing the role and epistemic value of mathematically and topologically grounded instruments in UDCs. Demonstrated through the example of space syntax, the study employs a reflective-experimental approach across five case studies at various spatial scales: city, district, neighborhood, block, and building. Results demonstrate how space syntax operates across design process phases: (1) diagnostic in analytical stages, (2) selectively generative in creative development, and (3) argumentative in executive substantiation. Through three disciplinary lenses—praxiology, phenomenology, and epistemology—the study advances a transferable model for evaluating the methodological and cognitive roles of analytical tools in UDCs, bridging the divide between computational analysis and conceptual design reasoning.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From Spatio-configurational Analysis to Conceptual Synthesis: A Methodological Framework for Applying Space Syntax in Urban Design Competitions

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月12日

查看全文
  • Aleksandra Đorđević,
  • Ana Zorić,
  • Miloš Kostić,
  • Mladen Pešić,
  • Aleksandra Milovanović

摘要

Urban design competitions (UDCs) serve as crucial platforms for testing ideas, methodologies, and conceptual frameworks in architecture and urban planning. While existing research has explored the procedural and evaluative dimensions of these approaches, a persistent gap remains between quantitative reasoning and qualitative design thinking, particularly in how analytical tools inform design argumentation. This paper addresses that gap by introducing a methodological framework for assessing the role and epistemic value of mathematically and topologically grounded instruments in UDCs. Demonstrated through the example of space syntax, the study employs a reflective-experimental approach across five case studies at various spatial scales: city, district, neighborhood, block, and building. Results demonstrate how space syntax operates across design process phases: (1) diagnostic in analytical stages, (2) selectively generative in creative development, and (3) argumentative in executive substantiation. Through three disciplinary lenses—praxiology, phenomenology, and epistemology—the study advances a transferable model for evaluating the methodological and cognitive roles of analytical tools in UDCs, bridging the divide between computational analysis and conceptual design reasoning.