EN / TR
Computational Urbanism Research
06 - DISTRICTOngoing2024-2025

Computational Urbanism

We let algorithms design a neighborhood. Then we built it.

Scale 1:5000 District
Area 2.4 km²
Duration 9 months
Team 4 researchers
Tools Rhino Python
Status Active Phase 2
01

How do you design a neighborhood?

Traditional masterplanning relies on intuition. The architect draws a plan based on experience and precedent. Maybe it works. Maybe it doesn't. You won't know until people move in.

We tried something different. We simulated 127,000 pedestrians walking through the site every day. We tested 5,000 different building arrangements. We optimized for conflicting goals: maximize density, maximize walkability, maximize sunlight, minimize wind.

The algorithm found something we wouldn't have drawn ourselves. Instead of spreading buildings evenly, it clustered them into five mini-centers. That pattern turns out to match what Jane Jacobs observed in thriving neighborhoods. But we discovered it computationally.

Pedestrian flow heatmap simulation

127,000 Agents: Each colored dot is a simulated person. The heatmap shows where they congregate.

02

Theoretical Framework

01

Evolutionary Optimization

NSGA-II algorithm explores the design space. It finds solutions that balance competing objectives without human bias.

02

Agent-Based Simulation

127,000 virtual pedestrians with realistic behavior. They walk, shop, commute. Their patterns reveal design flaws.

03

Multi-Objective Balance

Density, walkability, sunlight, wind comfort. The algorithm finds trade-offs humans struggle to see.

04

Post-Occupancy Validation

We built Phase 1. Real pedestrian counts matched simulation within 13%. The method works.

03

Research Process

01

Collect Site Data

GIS, traffic counts, demographics from municipal sources

02

Build Agent Model

127,000 agents calibrated to observed behavior

03

Run Evolution

NSGA-II tests 5,000+ variants overnight

04

Validate and Iterate

Compare predictions to real-world measurements

04

Research Phases

01

Data Gathering

GIS mapping, traffic counts, demographic surveys. Nine months of fieldwork before we touched a computer.

02

Agent Calibration

We filmed real pedestrians in Kadikoy. Used the footage to calibrate walking speeds, route choices, stopping patterns.

03

Evolution Runs

5,000+ design variants tested overnight. Each one simulated, scored, and ranked against objectives.

04

Validation

Phase 1 is built. We're comparing predictions to reality. So far: 87% match.

05

Key Metrics

127k
Agents
Simulated pedestrians
5,000+
Variants
Design iterations
87%
Accuracy
Simulation vs. reality
2.4 km²
Coverage
District scale
06

Key Thinkers

01

Jane Jacobs

Urban Activist, 1916-2006

Jacobs watched New York sidewalks for years. She saw that thriving streets need mixed uses, short blocks, and eyes on the street. Our algorithm independently discovered similar patterns.

02

Christopher Alexander

Architect and Theorist, 1936-2022

Alexander's Pattern Language proposed design rules that emerge from human behavior. Our agent-based approach generates those patterns computationally.

03

Jan Gehl

Danish Urban Designer

Gehl invented pedestrian counting as urban research. Our walkability metrics directly extend his methods.

04

Kevin Lynch

Urban Planner, 1918-1984

Lynch identified the elements that make cities legible: paths, edges, nodes. Our algorithms optimize for his criteria.

07

Case Studies

Bilkent Campus Masterplan

Ankara, Turkey

A 50-hectare university expansion. Buildings 'found' their positions through 5,000 iterations. Average walking distance between academic buildings dropped 23%.

50 ha Area
-23% Walking Reduction

Kadikoy Validation Study

Istanbul, Turkey

We simulated existing conditions, then measured real pedestrian flows. 87% correlation. This validated the entire methodology.

87% Accuracy
127k Agents

Comparative Analysis

Traditional Masterplan

Architect Draws, City Builds

Based on precedent and intuition. Sometimes brilliant, sometimes disastrous. No way to test before construction.

Experience-BasedUntestedRisky

Parametric Urbanism

Rules Generate Form

Grasshopper definitions produce variants. Better than manual, but still designer-driven.

Rule-BasedFlexibleDesigner-Led

Agent-Based Modeling

Simulate Before Building

Virtual pedestrians test the design. Problems show up before ground is broken.

PredictiveData-DrivenTestable

Our Approach

Evolve + Simulate

Evolutionary algorithms generate options. Agent simulations test them. Only validated designs survive.

Multi-ObjectiveValidated87% Accurate
05

Optimization Results

100% 75% 50% 25% 0%
92%
85%
78%
67%
45%
Commercial Core
Mixed-Use
Residential
Green Buffer
Industrial Edge

Where should buildings be tallest? The algorithm figured it out.

08

Key Findings

01

Polycentric beats uniform. When we optimized for both density AND walkability, the algorithm consistently produced 5 mini-centers, not an even spread.

5 clusters optimal
02

Small blocks emerge naturally. When walkability is weighted high enough, the algorithm produces blocks under 100m perimeter. Jane Jacobs was right.

<100m blocks
03

Prediction is possible. 87% correlation between simulated and real pedestrian flows. Urban design can be evidence-based.

87% accuracy
04

Speed matters. Testing 5,000 variants in 24 hours means we can explore design spaces humans never could.

5,000 in 24 hours
09

Honest Limitations

Data Dependency

Garbage in, garbage out. If our GIS data is wrong, so are our predictions.

Computational Cost

Wind simulation is simplified. Full CFD at district scale would take weeks.

Behavioral Assumption

Agents calibrated to Istanbul. Different cities might behave differently.

Temporal Limitation

Static optimization. Cities change over decades. Our model captures one moment.

10

Conclusion

Urban design doesn't have to be guesswork. With 127,000 simulated pedestrians and 87% prediction accuracy, we can test neighborhoods before we build them. The algorithm found patterns Jane Jacobs described, but found them computationally. That's the future of planning.

Limitations

  • Best for greenfield sites
  • Static model for now

Future Directions

  • Metropolitan scale expansion
  • Real-time monitoring integration