URBAN DYNAMICS & HOUSING CHANGE - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd

Millennium

Modelling Development of Urban Form in Residential Areas with

System of Cellular Automata

Ognen MARINA
University Ss. Cyril and Methodious in Skopje, Faculty of Architecture, Bul. Partizanski odredi, 24
Skopje, Macedonia
e-mail: ognen.marina@arh.ukim.edu.mk

Abstract
Complex order of urban form is created through a process of dynamic transformations. The emerging form is a
result of a process of morphogenesis as a historically embedded process of creation and adaptation. This process
creates order through interaction of the inherent order of the form and the order of the process and society itself.
In our research process of form creation is determined as a system of elements and locally defined rules for their
combinations. Condition of each of the elements is set by its interaction with all the other elements of the system
and therefore is locally determined. Cellular automata are the system that is used for representation of the
dynamic and morphogenetic behaviour of urban form. This system is coherent with the nature of the phenomenon
that represents. The result is a model of development of urban form that elucidates forces and processes that are
beyond materiality of urban form and reveal the configuration aspects of processes that are shaping our cities.
Traversing diverse historical and contemporary settings, we seek to explicate spatial distribution and models of
urban form in their relevance to the society and city itself.

Keywords: Urban form, Modelling, Dynamic Transformations, Cellular Automata.

Introduction: Process VS. Fixed Typology

Urban form as a dominant physical structure in urban environment determines many aspects of
our everyday life activities. It is part of everyday experience for a significant part of the human kind and
is the way humanity expresses its culture and society in spatial manner. Dominant typologies that served
to legitimized the production of urban form through architecture since eighteenth century were either
based on the idea of return of architecture to its natural origins – a model of primitive shelter as an
imitation of the order of Nature, or emerging as a result of Industrial era – architecture as a process of
production of functional parts (Vidler 2003). In these concepts urban form is just an inert receptor of
externally imposed order and therefore its form is predetermined by fixed typologies (Delanda 2004).

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
WS-25: HOUSING AND INNOVATION

Most of the paradigms were delegitimized with the fact that the origin of the order of urban
form was position outside the system instead to acknowledge the inherent order of the system as
fundamental for form generating process.
Urban form exists simultaneously as a historically embedded process of creation of
form and as an object – product of that process (Hillier, 1996). The nature of urban form is inherently
dynamic and can not be determined by fixed types regardless of vastness of number of types. Therefore,
existing concepts in theory of cities based on fixed typologies does not provide solid ground for
understanding the process of creation of form and the phenomenon of urbanity in general.
Solution of this situation can be reach only by radical change in point of view: urban
form not to be conceived as a static system of predetermined ideal forms but rather as a dynamic system
of changes that will generate a complex result. The emerging form will be a result of a process of
morphogenesis as a historically embedded process of creation and adaptation (Holland, 1996). This
process creates order through interaction of the inherent order of the form and the order of the process
itself.

1. Order Creation Process and Generative restrictions

The idea of architectural and urban form as order that is inherently connected with the society
and culture of mankind is in very base of our idea of urban form as a complex and generative system. It
is this theoretical stand that enables us to determine process of analyzing and in the same time genesis
of architectural and urban form through process of creation of order that is inherent to the system and
the process itself.
The source of this idea of architecture as a representation of particular social order and the
formal tools that are enabling it is within the notion of classical architecture. Name of the classical
architecture is connected to and derived from the social order of classici, the highest in rank in social
strata of ancient Rome (Tzonis, 1986). The order in classical architecture is determined by formal tools
or techne of composition (Aristotle) that are connected with order and distribution of matter (Cicero).
The form is predetermined by formal typology organized and transferred in reality through
canonical system of formal conventions and is encoded by social conventions through which building
obtains social relevance within the built and social environment. The process of order creation and its
formal tools is the way that this social relevance is obtained (Tzonis) and the society and culture is
realized in spatial manner.
In a formal sense architectural and urban form can be defined as a set of elements and set of
rules that determines the way in which this elements combine and are organized in process of creation
unifying whole. The problem with this definition of form and process of its creation is that it does not
provide guarantee that elements of form organized by obeying the defined rules will create logical
entities that can be recognized as architecture or urban form. Therefore the real source of order creation
in the process of form creation is not in the definition of elements and rules for their combinations but
rather in the restriction that are imposed to a formal system. Generative restrictions are given as an
affinity of elements of the formal system to combine with one set elements more often rather than with
some other group of elements. This idea suggest that the emergence of order is not dependant on
combinatorial rules and that the same is not imposed from top-down by some central principle but is
rather embedded in the elements of the system of form. Tendency some of the elements to create
combinations with particular set of elements is called by linguist George K. Zipf (Delanda, 2003) as a
degree of crystallization. It exhibits the degree of connectivity between particular group of elements to
create logical and semantically coherent entities as a result of existence of locally defined affinities and
restrictions of elements.
Order creation process emerges from element’s inherent logic and is defined by locally
determined restrictions that because of its generative potential are generative restrictions. Locally
embedded rules and restrictions that determines which of these combinations will result in a form that
can be recognized as urban form are the very base for better understanding of the phenomenon of the
cities and not just the combinatorial rules.
Therefore order creation process in the context of architecture and urban form can be
understood as a locally driven process of relationships between elements within the system. This

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
URBAN DYNAMICS & HOUSING CHANGE - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd
Millennium

process of creation of logically coherent unities requires existence and definition of urban form as a
system of objective and logically ordered relationships. For that purpose we will define architecture and
especially urban form dominantly as a system of spatial relations or even better as a configurations. For
Bill Hiller (1996) this spatial configuration of urban form is the strongest link between form, context
and the society. It is through configurational aspect of urban form that culture and society is realised in
spatial manner and not through superficiality of form surface and architectural stiles.
In architecture and urban form physical process of creation of boundaries is analogue to a
process of creation of categories. Creation of one category – interior space determines the existence of
another distinctive category that is exterior space. These relations are not just a physical fact but rather
have logical nature although they are created as a result of physical process. Objectivity of relations
between these categories is called configurations. This attribute of architectural and urban form enables
us to exhibit and research the configurational aspects of form and function within their objective and
abstract comparability. For that reason we will observe architectural and urban form exclusively through
its configurational aspect and its double nature.

2. Configurational aspects of Urban form

Built environment and architectural objects as a part of it are the biggest and most complex
creation of mankind. Its complexity and vastness comes from a process of continous creation of
architectural form not only as a physical objects but as a proces of creation of spatial, social an cultural
relations. Dependance of form creation process on these configurational aspects of architectural form
determines the importance of understanding the same.
Architectural objects can be determined as a construction of physical and material elements
ordered in stable shape (Hillier, 1996). As a result of this process of construction a spatial relation
between interior and exterior space is created. This relation generates the basic spatial configurations
that differentiate architectural form from any other human activity. (Fig.1)

Fig.1: Creation of spatial configurations

This proces of transformation of preexisting condition and creation of new order within the
physical reality and new configurations of space determines the social meaning and relevance of act of
construction and form creation. With this architecture becomes socially relevant and meaningful.
Therefore architectural objects because of their nature can not be determined only as physical objects
but through their spatial and organizational aspects as a dominantly configurational structures. With this
system of architectural form becomes the spatio temporal manifestations of configurational order
realised througs physical elements.
The complexity of the system comes from a locally driven set of simple rules that induce
continous adaptations and changes on local level but with impact on overall condition of the system. It
enables us to generate complex and novel shapes and configurations as a result of dynamic, nonlinear

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
WS-25: HOUSING AND INNOVATION

and locally driven morphogenetic process. These new structures are more than a sum of their parts and
are not predetermined or preconsived by any means. They are result of a hystorically embeded process
of creation which is driven by locally conditioned simple rules.

3. New Paradigms in Order Creation Process

In order to construct a model of dynamic development of architectural form first we have to

establish some theoretical preliminaries and to address some new concepts and paradigms.
The idea of architectural form as an inert receptor of predetermined form originates in part from the
dominant concepts of representation. Formal elements of architectural form represented in Cartesian
three-dimensional space are determined by fixed coordinates of their points within the system. With
this, elements of architecture are nothing more than a copy of ideal, platonic forms liberated of any trace
of inherent order (Delanda, 2008).
As an opposition of these concept is the idea of architectural form as dynamic and historically
contingent system. The order of the system emerges as a result of a process of morphogenesis. Creation
of form is a process of individualization where every particular property of an distinctive element is a
result of acumulation and interaction of different influences, conditions and restrictions, process that is
completle dependant on specific and historically contingent details. Adjacent to this concept is
topological paradigm where identity and position of each of the elements or parts of it within the system
are determined exclusively through its relation with all other elements within the system. By this,
identity of the element is generated through decentralized set of relations within the structure of the
system and without interference of any external centre of identity or shape. Since there is no centre to
dictate the predetermined form of elements of the architectural and urban form, formal order is
determined only by locally defined relations between the elements. This decentralized order generating
process is distributed within, and in the same time dependant on a population of elements. So, instead of
thinking in terms of one shape defining centre the system should be understand in terms of population of
elements. This multiplicity (Deleuze, 1988) of elements and local relations that create the order of the
system are the source of process of morphogenesis. In situation when system of architectural form is
defined as a population of elements we always have to specify the process of creation first in order to
have the idea of the overall form of the system. This process is inherently historic and is based on
existence of differences between the elements. Without existence of these productive differences that
raise the process of adaptation and levelling of differences within the system and diffusion of novel and
creative solutions within the population of formal elements there would not be any morphogenesis.
These are the new paradigms and new concept that should enable us to construct a model of
dynamic development of architectural and urban form.

4. Model of Dynamic Transformations with System of Cellular Automata

So far we have establish that the process of form creation is determined as a system of elements
and locally defined rules for their combinations. Condition of each of the elements is set by its
interaction with all the other elements of the system and therefore is locally determined. Rules and
mechanism of this system are applicable to all the levels of complexity of the phenomenon of
architectural or urban form indifferent to the spatial size of the entity. This model of form is inherently
dynamic and on the basis of set of elements and local rules generates complex order that will identify
system of form as more than just the sum of the elements.
Cellular Automata are the systems that are constituted of populations of cells that create emergent
order and configurations on base of locally driven rules and relations between them. With use of cellular
automata we can establish satisfactory level of simplification of process of form generation and in the
same time to preserve the complexity of the result. The process of morphogenesis is represented as a
sequence of activities of cells whose present condition (simple as on or off, black or white, built or not)

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
URBAN DYNAMICS & HOUSING CHANGE - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd
Millennium

is always determined by previous condition or the condition of their neighbouring cells which modifies
the shape of the configuration and the structure at large. Formally it can be defined as: SH (t+1) = Ft
(SH (t), SU (H) (t)) (Portugali, 1999).; where SH (t) is a present condition of a cell H, U (H) is a cell
neighbourhood H, SU (H) defines the set of conditions of neighbourhood cells (configuration of the
neighbourhood) and F is a rule of transformation developing in time t, according to which the new
condition of H is created. (Fig.2)

Figure 2. Sample of posible states of cell in Cellular Automata

With creation of a basic element of architectural form – spatial cell the elementary
configurationally relation between inside and outside is created. Through process of addition more
discreet elements are created that generates complex configurations of physical and spatial structures.
These elements and their spatial relations and configuration of the system in general are represented
through system of cellular automata (Fig.3).

Figure 3. Iterations of Cellular Automata model of Architectural form

Comparative syntactic models for each model of cell automata represent the
permeability and connectivity of the spatial configurations and confirms the configurationally aspects of
the system that is represented through this model. Change in only one segment of the system results in

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
WS-25: HOUSING AND INNOVATION

change of the overall organization of the model. Analysis of process of development of configuration of
any set of the elements will enable us to determine the rules according which these particular structures
is generated. This defines cellular automata model of architectural form as analytical tool but in the
same time a model with form generation capacity. 3D images of representation of iterations of the
system of Cellular Automata as a model of architectural form gives even better idea of spatial and
generative capacity of the model (Fig.4).

Figure 4. 3D representation of Cellular Automata model of Architectural form

5. Model of Development of Urban form

Model of urban form that we have developed is based on a certain simplification of reality
because of the simple fact that the model of reality that represents the reality in whole complexity would
not provide any new information apart from our everyday experience and even less analytical or
scientific insight of the phenomenon. Therefore it should fulfil certain preconditions.
Model of urban form should map the dynamic behaviour of urban form that is not only to map the
fixed position of elements of urban form in time but rather to have the potential to define the way
elements of urban form change in time. Only in that case model of urban form would not be related to
fixed and stable conditions of elements in time but would refer more to the dynamics of development,
change and adaptations of the system. The innovation of this approach is that the elements and relations
of the model representing the development of the system of urban form would emerge exclusively as
locally determined and decentralised process of complex order creation.
On the basis of our previous explication we have determined system of Cellular Automata as most
appropriate for modelling dynamic change of urban form as a process of creation of complex order.
With this model form of the system is always a result of non-linear historically embedded process of
dynamic transformations.
In order to establish such model of development of urban form it is necessary to define certain
postulates of the model. First, existence of at least one basic spatial element is necessary in order to
have basic spatial relations of inside-outside space that will create a basic spatial configuration. Second,
contact between two cells will always be on one of its sides. Third, relation between discrete spaces is
always through contact between two cells. This is only an initial, starting and fixed condition of the
model and we are mostly interested in dynamical aspect of the system that we are modelling. For that
purpose we have to define set of locally determined and embedded rules that will shape the behaviour of
each of the elements of the system. These rules will act as a combinatorial restrictions and affinities of
the elements.
The condition of each of the cells will be determined as result of interaction and accumulation of
different locally embedded rules rather than by an exterior, order imposing centre. In this model use of
cellular automata is additionally justified with spatial and representational similarity between elements
of urban form (buildings, lots, streets, squares and others) and discrete cells as elements of the model.
Further more condition of each of the elements of urban form that is beyond its formal aspect (property
rights, legal status and others) can be represented with binary determined condition of the system of
cells.
In order to create more realistic model of development of urban form in process of creation and
implementing set of local rules of transformations of the elements of the system we traced and mapped
the types and tendencies of transformations observed in two residential settlements in Skopje. Research
was performed on two urban residential areas in city of Skopje that are constituted of residential
housing and have two different and distinct formal and historic backgrounds. First observed case study

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
URBAN DYNAMICS & HOUSING CHANGE - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd
Millennium

(Madjir maalo) is dated from nineteen century and is part of the historic milieu of Skopje. It has
developed as a result of historic and first planned urban structure of Skopje and vernacular architecture.
The second case study (Taftalidze) is a residential area developed after the earthquake in 1963 as an
example of modernistic urbanism with conceptual mixture of urban sprawl. Both areas have gone
through significant change and process of transformations that can be detected and explored. On the
base of detailed morphosyntactic analysis of both residential areas we have determined main rules and
tendencies of development of urban form in these residential areas in process of creation of model of
development. Then, these rules that are locally determined and are affecting the condition of each of the
cells of the system were defined and transferred into the simplified syntax of systems of Cellular
Automata.
Transformations where the dominant process of transformations is determined as a tendency
from elementary organization to a complex aggregation is the base for the fist rule transferred into the
simplified syntax of cellular automata: if the cell is with status black (1) than at least one of its
neighboring cells with status white (0) will become black (1). (Fig.5)

Figure 5. Rule nr.1

Second rule is based on another process of transformations with main tendency to create
symmetry (symmetrical organization) out of asymmetrical pre-condition of the elements of the system.
Second rule is defined as: if the cell with status white (0) has contact with at least two other cells with
status black (1), than it will become black (1). (Fig.6)

Figure 6. Rule nr.2

If we impose only these two rules on the system it is very immanent that the system will fill the
whole system field with black cell elements and once overfilled will reach equilibrium without any
possibility for further development. Therefore it is necessary to introduce third rule that will be
reductive and will act as restriction of black cell production. Third rule is: if a cell with status black (1)

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
WS-25: HOUSING AND INNOVATION

has contact with at least three other neighboring cells with status white (0), than it will become white
(0). (Fig.7)

Figure 7. Rule nr.3

Implementation of this rule can be understood as an implementation of restrictions for development of
form that in reality can be recognized as formal, economic or legislative restrictions. Finally, in order to
model the whole complexity of the system it is necessary to introduce another variable into the process
of iterations. For that reason we have determined fourth rule as set of rules defined by John Conway as a
“Game of Life”.
It is obvious that application of only one of these rules into the model of urban form will
generate relatively linear and expected result. But with simultaneous application of multiple of rules,
their interaction and influence within the system, the number of possible solutions will rise beyond
predictability of human mind and accessible tools. (Fig.8)

Figure 8. Sample of 3D and 2D representation with syntactic diagram and Total and Medium depth indicators

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
URBAN DYNAMICS & HOUSING CHANGE - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd
Millennium

In order to follow the development of urban form beyond its formal representation syntactic
diagrams and degree of connectivity of particular configuration is given as adjacent to the 3D
representation of cell aggregation. After only several iterations of the system within the model of
development it is possible to detect emergence of complex configurations. What is most important is
that complex order of these configurations is created on base of simple and locally defined rules, where
none of them is defining the global form and condition of the system. And yet the global outcome of the
form of the system is highly complex.
Generally, some tendencies within the system can be recognized. First, regardless of the initial
condition of the system of cells it is evident that tendency of creation of compact forms is dominant.
Second, this compact forms have tendency to pertain within the system for some period of time. Third,
periodical oscillations of size of these aggregations suggest that there is a high possibility of existence
of attractors within the system. (Fig.5)

Figure 5. 3D representation of iterations of Model of Urban form in Residential areas

All this tendencies are inherent to the system, are result of locally embedded simple rules and
are exhibiting generative capacity of the system for creation of complex spatial order of elements. It is
also obvious that most of the generated spatial configurations would not survive the reality test and their
similarity with real situation can vary, but complexity of generated formal and spatial configurations are
indicative enough to obtain necessary level of scientific pressure to proceed with further research of
potential of this model of development of urban form.

Conclusion

Plausibility of this model of development of urban form is confirmed on several levels. On

conceptual level it is constituted of elements that are organized and defined by locally driven simple

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
WS-25: HOUSING AND INNOVATION

rules that generate complex behaviour or complex configurations in our case that are more than sum of
their parts. Form of the elements in time t+1 is determined according to the condition of all elements
within the system given in time t, and set of rules of transformations. This confirms that this model of
development of urban form represented with cellular automata is based on principle of transformation
and productive differences. Final result of the model is a form of the elements that is a product of
historically contingent process of accumulation of transformations and adaptation within the system.
Therefore Cellular Automata are most appropriate system for modeling dynamic development of urban
form and morphogenetic behavior of architectural form. This system is coherent with the nature of the
phenomenon that represents. Construction of a model of dynamic development of the system of urban
form with use of Cellular Automata should enable us for deeper insight into the process of
morphogenesis, better understanding of phenomenon of cities, but above all better understanding of
results and consequences of our actions into the world that we live in.

References

Vidler, Antony. (2003) “The Third Typolgy”. in Alexander R. Cuthbert. Ed. Designing Cities. Oxford, Blackwell
Publishing.

Delanda, Manuel. (2004) Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. New York. Continuum.

Hillier, Bill, Hanson, Jullienne. (1996) Space is the Machine– A Configurational Theory of Architecture.
Cambridge University Press. 45-46.

Holland, John H. (1996) Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. New York. Basic Books. 3.

Tzonis, Alexander, Liane Lefaivre, Classical Architecture, The Poetics of Order, The MIT Press,1986, 1.

Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975, bk.I, ch.II, para.I.

Cicero, Ad Herennium, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusettes, 1954, bk.I, ch II, para.3.

Delanda, Manuel. 2008 “Deleuze and the Genesis of Form”, Manuel De Landa, An Annotated Bibliogarphy,
viewed on 18 September 2008, http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/delanda/>

Deleuze, Gilles. (1988) Bergsonism. New York. Zone Books.

Portugali, Juval. (1999) Self-Organization and the City. Springer-Verlag. Berlin.

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference
URBAN DYNAMICS & HOUSING CHANGE - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd
Millennium

Batty, Michael. (2005) Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based
Models, and Fractals, Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press.

ENHR 2010, 4-7 July, ISTANBUL 22nd International Housing Research

Conference