FSI

The FSI (Floor Space Index) expresses the

intensity of an area.

GSI
The GSI (Ground Space Index) expresses
the compactness of an area.

OSR
The OSR (Open Space Ratio) expresses the
pressure on the non-built space.

L
L (Layers) expresses the average number
of floors in an area.

Spacemate
A diagram that makes spatial characteristics
measurable in terms of FSI, GSI, OSR and L.
 6
Spacemate
Spacemate
the spatial logic of urban density

Meta Berghauser Pont

Per Haupt
Colophon

First issued 2002; Spacemate: FSI-GSI-OSR als J o h n Worthington; Visiting professor at the

instrument voor verdichting en verdunning, University of Sheffield and Chalmers University

PERMETA architecten, A m s t e r d a m . of Technology, Gothenburg.

The content of this book is based on the doctoral Publisher

research carried out by Meta Berghauser Pont Delft U n i v e r s i t y Press, t h e N e t h e r l a n d s

a n d Per H a u p t a t t h e D e l f t U n i v e r s i t y o f T e c h n o l o g y , Published under the imprint DUP Science

Faculty of Architecture, Department of U r b a n i s m .

Graphic design

Authors Van G O G O n t w e r p e r s , A m s t e r d a m

M e t a B e r g h a u s e r Pont a n d Per H a u p t
© 2 0 0 4 , M e t a B e r g h a u s e r P o n t a n d Per H a u p t

Supervision
All rights reserved. No part of the material protected

Han Meyer; Professor at the Faculty of by this copyright notice m a y be reproduced or

Architecture, Delft U n i v e r s i t y of Technology. utilized in any f o r m or by any m e a n s , electronic or

J o h n Westrik; Senior lecturer at the Faculty of mechanical, including photocopying, recording or

Architecture, Delft U n i v e r s i t y of Technology. by any i n f o r m a t i o n storage a n d retrieval system,

Scientific review without written permission from the authors which

A n n e Vernez M o u d o n ; Professor at the College of can-be reached t h r o u g h the publisher.

Architecture and Urban Planning, University of

Washington. Printed in the Netherlands

Rudy Uytenhaak; Professor at t h e Faculty of

Architecture, Delft U n i v e r s i t y of Technology. ISBN 90-407-2530-6

Contents

Introduction 8

by AnneVernez M o u d o n

Preface 17

Part 1 19

1.1 Density 20
Criteria a n d m e a s u r e m e n t m e t h o d s

for building density 21

Home density 22

Population density 22

Floor Space Index a n d land index 23

1.2 F S I , G S I , OSR and L 24

Measurement method 26

G r o s s f l o o r area a n d b u i l t a r e a 26

Plan a r e a a n d e n t i t i e s o f m e a s u r e m e n t 27

Spacemate 30
Part 2 35 Part 3 67

2.1 Research 37 3.1 Possible applications 69

Low-rise spacious strip developments 39 Measuring instrument 70

Low-rise compact strip developments 41 Discussion instrument 70

M i d - r i s e o p e n b u i l d i n g blocks 43 Test i n s t r u m e n t 71

M i d - r i s e s p a c i o u s b u i l d i n g blocks 45

Mid-rise closed building blocks 47 3.2 Case study:

M i d - r i s e c o m p a c t b u i l d i n g blocks 49 WestelijkeTuinsteden 72
M i d - r i s e s u p e r blocks 51 Residential environments in Spacemate 74

High-rise developments 53

3.3 Case study:

2.2 Conclusions 54 Zuidoostlob 83
Land development typologies 57 FSI, GSI, OSR a n d L 86

s
Urbanisation 59 Working environments in Spacemate 90

Typologies of non-built space 61 Conclusions regarding transformations 91

Park City, C o u r t y a r d City a n d G a r d e n C i t y 63

Granularity and functional blending 65 Epilogue 92

Literature 100

About the authors 103

Introduction
By AnneVernez M o u d o n , Professor

of Architecture, Landscape Architec-

ture, and Urban Design & Planning

at the University of Washington,

S e a t t l e . S h e i s President o f t h e

International Seminar on Urban

F o r m (ISUF), a Faculty A s s o c i a t e at

t h e L i n c o l n I n s t i t u t e o f L a n d Policy,

a n d a Fellow of the Urban Land

I n s t i t u t e in W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.
 10/11 I n t r o d u c t i o n
Introduction
by AnneVernez Moudon

At the time of my last visit to the Delft University of Technology, Spacemate was
prominently exhibited on the ground floor of the Faculty of Architecture. A large, red-
top surface held about 30 small white models of building and neighbourhood forms.
The forms covered a number of commonly found spatial patterns, ranging from high-
rise modernist blocks to old-town city blocks of row houses.The models of neigh-
bourhood forms were placed along four axes, which were charted on the red surface.
The axes scaled four aspects of density that yielded quantitative measures for each
neighbourhood form: Floor Space Index, Ground Space Index, Open Space Ratio,
and average number of floors.The index values then served to place the models of
building and neighbourhood forms in their appropriate location on the redtop sur-
face. Once placed on the Spacemate chart, the models helped quickly gauge the avail-
able ranges of development density.They tangibly suggested the trade-offs that can
be and are made between building height and coverage at ground for a given density
(total floor space). Density limits of basic types of built forms, such as row houses,
high-rise slabs, etc., also became transparently evident by comparing the different
forms' location on the chart.

The exhibit offered an engaging hands-on approach to understanding the relation-

ship between density and built form. Another 50 or so models of built environments
lying on the floor near by the chart invited the students and the public to test and
compare a great variety of neighbourhood and building designs.
This book is a welcome addition because it clearly articulates what I saw in the
exhibit. It describes and illustrates the method behind the development and the use
of Spacemate. Spacemate is an elegant and useful didactic tool for designers and
communities alike: it helps evaluate the performance of building types by relating
density to amenity indicators such as open space at ground and related privacy and
territorial distribution, building height and associated wind and sun patterns.

The tool is all the more useful due to the fact that development density is not
intuitively easy to perceive.That is, the perception of a project's scale does not
necessarily correspond to its actual measured density: a project may seem large and
bulky but may be less dense than another that does not appear as large or as bulky.
This is because the distribution of built volumes and open spaces, facade detailing
and colour, vegetation, etc., all contribute to the perception of scale.

In my experience, even seasoned professional designers have difficulty assessing a

form's density without going through actual calculations of density. I believe that
most design and planning professionals are not much better than lay people at esti-
mating density of development. In this light, Spacemate becomes an essential instru-
ment to compare the perception of developed areas with their actual density. Such
comparisons have become increasingly critical in urban development today because
the public perceives density, and residential density in particular, negatively. Neigh-
bours are leery of who future residents may be and what 'disturbances' they may
bring. For most projects therefore, the goal is to achieve high densities for economic
reasons, while keeping the perceived scale of the development low.
12/13 I n t r o d u c t i o n
Spacemate provides a solid basis for interaction between actors and stakeholders in
the neighbourhood building process, from the neighbours themselves, to the
bankers financing the new venture, all of whom have different goals as well as per-
ceptions. As such it can greatly help to both abate and resolve looming conflicts.

Spacemate also contributes to filling a gap between design knowledge and practice.
Designers are notorious for exercising synthetic rather than analytic thinking.This
quality has a downside however, because it often raises issues with clients who don't
necessarily understand the qualitative and quantitative trade-offs between different
ways to compose space.This tool is an admirable attempt to make the relationship
between form/space and density explicit, thus translating the inclusive form-based
language of designers into individual spatial elements, such as dwelling units,
rooms, parks, gardens, etc., that have a tangible meaning to clients.

Spacemate's usefulness goes beyond guiding decision-making during the design and
development process. It can support a systematic approach to the development of
space standards, which many claim need urgent attention and revision. Most zoning
regulations currently specify development densities, building position within a site
(in the form of setbacks), and building bulk. Yet they do not address directly the actual
built forms that can/will be generated based on these regulations.

Especially in the increasingly common cases of the large sites, zoning regulations do
not help anticipate the types of buildings that are allowed.This often leads developers
and designers to propose forms that lay communities object to as non-congruent
with the physical context of existing neighbourhoods.To correct this limitation of
regulatory frameworks, designers have recently advocated the use of so-called form-
based codes that specify not only densities or bulks, but also actual building types
permissible in given zones of cities. Spacemate provides an efficient and accurate
 14/15 I n t r o d u c t i o n

tool that helps translate density figures into types of built forms and vice versa. It can
therefore speak to both regulators and users of environments.

The book includes a rich set of building and neighbourhood forms found in the
Netherlands.The authors rightfully suggest that Spacemate can serve to inventory
many extant environments for future reference by design professionals and their
clients. Such an inventory could easily extend across cultures, and provide an excit-
ing opportunity to research and compare a great variety of human habitats.
 16/17 P r e f a c e
Preface

Due to the rising pressure of urbanisation and the desire to create mixed environ-
ments, questions arise as to how and to what degree this desire can be met and opti-
mised. Concerning this issue we must address not only quantitative matters
(maximising the number of square meters), but also the associated qualitative conse-
quences.

The situation calls for a set of instruments by which space usage can be assessed
both quantitatively and qualitatively. Creating a link between the programme of
requirements and the spatial objectives during the first phases of the planning
process is often quite problematic. With the introduction of Spacemate, the linkage
between densities on the one hand and residential environments, building typologies
and the degree of urbanisation on the other is clearly set out. Spacemate is thus an
effective instrument for describing space usage in both quantitative and qualitative
terms.

Spacemate was first developed at the request of Bureau Parkstad; the organization
responsible for the restructuring of the 'Western garden city' (WestelijkeTuinsteden)
of Amsterdam, a typical post-war suburban development. At present, Spacemate is
being further developed at Delft University of Technology. In this English issue of
Spacemate, a number of changes have been made with regard to the Dutch version
of 2002.The most important change is that the emphasis in this issue is less specifi-
cally focused on the WestelijkeTuinsteden.

The first section of the book explains the basic principles of measuring density using
Spacemate.The second section covers the investigation of the relationship between
density and spatial characteristics.The last section concentrates on possible applica-
tions of Spacemate as a control instrument and test framework. It describes two
case studies: WestelijkeTuinsteden and Zuidoostlob in Amsterdam.
I n t h e first p a r t o f t h i s b o o k t h e

historical background to building

density will be described and the

various techniques for m e a s u r i n g

and employing the concept explored.

Additionally, the variables and

definitions that f o r m the basis f o r

Spacemate will be explained a n d

aspects s u c h a s t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f

floor spaces a n d the definition of

development boundaries discussed.

Finally, t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

the various variables is described,

and at the e n d of this section, the

Spacemate diagram is introduced.

1.1 Density

Building density, or density, forms a part of the 'toolbox' of designers and planners; it
influences virtually every aspect of public housing and many aspects of urban plan-
ning. Some differences of interpretation exist around the concept of density. In the
past the concept was often used to normatively categorise an area.Too high of a den-
sity indicated an undesirable situation, while the density of an area containing villa-
style housing was not even considered. Later a more practical need existed for
expressing density in terms of scale and units.This need arose in the first instance
from engineers who were responsible for laying service lines and other infrastructure
whose capacities were determined by the number of inhabitants, the number of
houses and the street surface area in an urban district.The population density was
also statistically essential for providing the appropriate level of amenities in an area.
Finally, determining the density served as an aid to obtaining an overall indication of
the character of the buildings.
 20/21 Part 1

Criteria and measurement methods for building density

Density is a subject into which little fundamental research has been carried out.
Measurement techniques have differed over time and even at the present there is
much confusion as to which method should be used. Before seeking to set out unam-
biguous definitions, it is important to realise that the concept of density can be
approached in various ways.The individual perception of density can be completely
different from the technical attributes of density.These belong to different categories
and it should be clear that it is dangerous to use analyses in one category to draw
conclusions in the other.The emphasis in this book is on the physical/spatial aspects
of density.That is to say, the physical, measurable characteristics of developed areas
are investigated. Of course, this does not mean that other factors are unimportant;
merely that they do not form the starting point of this study.

In the past, a number of indicators were defined and used for the measuring of physi-
cal density.These indicators take the form of quotients in which the denominator is
the total area of the land where the density is being measured, while the numerator
can have a variety of forms: homes, inhabitants, rooms, total available floor area,
total available built area.The following are the most accepted methods that are of
importance when determining density (source: Angenot, 1954 and Heimans, 1965).
Home density

The home density indicates the number of houses, or homes, per unit area of land.
Unwin {Nothing gained by overcrowding, 1912) spoke of an upper density limit of
12 houses per acre while Lloyd Wright (The disappearing city, 1932) suggested an
ideal density of one house to the acre. In the Netherlands the ratio between a number
of houses and a hectare of land is recommended for density calculation (Handleiding
bij de voorbereiding van uitbreidingsplannen, 1942).Today this measure is still widely
used in town planning practice.

Population density

In England, the Housing Manual 1944, argued for the use of an inhabitants per
hectare standard (or quotient). Differences of opinion about this broke out imme-
diately.There was disagreement over the use of the average number of inhabitants
versus the maximum number of inhabitants. An advantage in comparison to the
number of houses is that the size of the houses is indirectly taken into account.
 2 2 / 2 3 Part 1

Floor Space Index and land index

A numerator that could deliver a higher degree of accuracy was required. A report
I from the English Ministry of Health (1944) suggested the use of the building bulk
(floor area) as a numerator.This floor space index (FSI) was used in England in areas
where there was a predominance of commercial buildings. At an international confer-
ence in Zurich (1948), this index was established as the common standard within
Europe. A comparable term used in the US is the FAR, the floor to area ratio, which
expresses the building size in relation to the lot size. In the Netherlands, under the
guidance of the 'Centrale Directie van deWederopbouw en de Volkshuisvesting', the
land index was formulated in 1949 as a measure of building density.This quotient
uses the land area in the numerator and the floor area in the denominator, and so is
inversely equivalent to the F S I .

The densities outlined above are general, averaged across an area.The average den-
sity does not necessarily mean that the whole area has a uniform density.The larger
the area over which the density is measured, the more heterogeneous it is likely to
be. Moreover, as the scale increases, the amount of non-built land (roads, rail, green
areas and water) also increases in relative terms, and density subsequently
decreases.Thus, the definition of the numerator - the total area of the land - in the
quotient is crucial when determining density.
1.2 F S I , G S I , O S R and L

Until now the most widely used method of determining density - certainly in the
Netherlands - remains the number of homes per hectare. However, density not only
concerns the number of homes in a particular area, but also the size of the homes and
the number of amenities, companies and offices.The Floor Space Index or F S I , as
described above, is suitable in this regard. However, density is not only determined
by the number of square meters of floor area. As it happens, areas with identical den-
sities can have an extremely different spatial character. In addition to aspects such as
composition, materials, architectural details and the location of the area, factors such
as compactness, building height and the amount of non-built space play an important
role.These physical, measurable aspects are not taken into account in the methods
mentioned above (the number of homes, inhabitants per hectare and Floor Space
Index). As an alternative, the Spacemate method uses four variables to describe a
developed area, namely the Floor Space Index (FSI), the Ground Space Index (GSI),
the Open Space Ratio (OSR) and Layers (L).These four variables express the intensity,
the compactness, the pressure on non-built space and the building height of an area
respectively.

Thus the FSI reflects the building intensity independently of the programmatic
composition. FSI indicates the gross floor area with regard to land area.The second
variable, G S I , shows the relationship between built and non-built space. Here, the
percentage of the land area that is built on is expressed.The O S R is a measure of the
amount of non-built space at ground level per square meter of floor area.This figure
provides an indication of the pressure on non-built space. If more floor area is devel-
oped in an area with the same footprint, the O S R decreases and the number of
people who will use the non-built space increases. L expresses the average building
height (number of floors) in an area.
 24/25 Part 1

Variables

FSI = Floor Space Index

gross floor area / plan area

T h e FSI e x p r e s s e s t h e
intensity of an area.

GSI = G r o u n d S p a c e I n d e x
built area / plan area

T h e GSI e x p r e s s e s t h e
c o m p a c t n e s s of an area.

OSR = O p e n Space R a t i o

T h e OSR e x p r e s s e s t h e o p e n n e s s
a n d the p r e s s u r e o n t h e n o n - b u i l t
space.

L = Layers
gross floor area / built area

L e x p r e s s e s t h e a v e r a g e n u m b e r of
floors in an area.
Measurement method

The four variables are calculated using the same series of data - gross floor area,
built area and plan area - and are thus mathematically related to each other. A changt
in the FSI automatically means a change in the G S I and/or the O S R . A constant G S I
indicates an unchanged ratio between the built and non-built areas.The FSI can only
increase in this case by increasing the number of floors. When working with F S I , G S I ,
O S R and L, it is important to establish a consensus regarding how to calculate the
underlying values: the gross floor area, the built area and the plan area.

Gross floor area and built area

The gross floor area of a building is the sum of all surfaces, measured per floor level
along the perimeter of the dividing partitions that surround the building (NEN stan-
dard 2508). Underground floor areas also need to be included.There are a number of
points that require extra attention when calculating the gross floor area. If an inner
space borders on another inner space, then measurements must be taken to the
centre of the dividing partition. If an outer area borders on an inner area, the surface
area of the dividing partition must be added in full to the gross floor area of the inner
2
space. Voids and wells should not be included as long as the area is greater than 4 m .
Infrequent niches or recesses and irregular protrusions do not need to be taken into
2
account, as long as the area is less than 0.5 m . Outside spaces, such as loggias,
balconies, uncovered walkways, roof terraces and so on are not included in the
gross floor area of a building. Moreover, open fire escapes and emergency stairways
are not taken into account when calculating the gross floor area. Likewise, when
 26/27 Part 1

Gross floor area = t h e area of e n c l o s e d • area under a + t h e area of u n d e r -

spaces ( e x c l u d i n g (pitched) r o o f ground floors
loggias)

establishing the built area of buildings, the definitions outlined above are used.
In this situation, we are only concerned with the surface area, measured at ground
level along the perimeter of the dividing partitions of the building.

Plan area and entities of measurement

The boundaries of a plan area can be defined in various ways.The chosen method of
establishing boundaries is of particular importance in cases where areas are to be
compared with each other and used as references.There are roughly three ways of
defining boundaries:

- Formal boundaries, such as postal areas, city and neighbourhood boundaries.

- Urban boundaries, where urban structures are used as a guideline.
- Theoretical boundaries, such as an arbitrary grid or circles drawn with a
specific radius.

Both formal and theoretical boundaries have the disadvantage that they do not take
underlying urban structures into account.These methods are used when gathering
statistical data. In order to draw clear conclusions with regard to the urban structures,
the town planning method of drawing boundaries is the most effective. One reason is
that measuring densities always involves averages.This need not be a problem as
long as the area to be measured has a certain degree of homogeneity.To ensure
homogeneity, boundaries should be drawn following urban structures. For every
entity to be measured, the corresponding area and its boundaries have to be defined.
Working from small scale to large scale, entities can be constructed as aggregates of
smaller components, in most cases with the addition of a certain surplus or tare
space.The entities of aggregation uesd in the Spacemate research are as follows:

Building.The plan area is the same as the built area.The borders of the built area are
defined by the edges of the building footprint.

Lot.The plan area of this entity is the sum of built areas and non-built private areas
(tare space) such as gardens and private parking lots. In some cases the lot contains
built areas only and thus corresponds with the entity of the building; no tare space is
added.The lot is defined by the legal boundaries specified in the cadastral map.

Island. In most cases the island will simply be a collection of lots. Sometimes, how-
ever, the island will also contain public areas (tare space), such as playing fields, pub-
lic car parks and green space. An island is limited by the borders of the transport
infrastructure that surrounds it. In places where no relevant transport infrastructure is
present, a border is constructed between the lots and green areas or water.

Fabric.The fabric consists of a collection of islands and the transport infrastructure

surrounding these islands (tare space).The urban fabric is limited by borders drawn
centrally along transport corridors relevant to the scale of measurement. In places
where no relevant transport infrastructure is present, a border is constructed between
the lots and green areas or water.

District.This entity is composed of a collection of fabrics and large scale unbuilt

areas (tare space) not included in the fabric itself, such as parks and larger transport
infrastructure.

In the present study, the urban fabric is main level of investigation.

Spacemate

Based on the definitions described above, a diagram has been developed - Space-
mate - that illustrates the interrelationship between the different variables (FSI, G S I ,
OSR and L).The FSI on the y-axis gives an indication of the intensity in an area and
the G S I on the x-axis reflects the compactness of the development.The OSR and L are
gradients that fan out over the diagram.The last two variables allow the pressure on
the non-built space and the average number of floors respectively to be gauged.The
combination of these four variables gives every project a unique spatial 'fingerprint'.

In order to illustrate how the diagram works, two transformation processes are
described with the aid of graphics. Not only changes in FSI but also G S I , O S R and L
have an influence on the change of density.The transformation processes also show
how building typologies change as a result of changes in the value of F S I , G S I , O S R
and L.
 30/31 P a r t 1

FSI - I x GSI

H i g h FSI = h i g h b u i l d i n g i n t e n s i t y .
H i g h GSI = c o m p a c t b u i l d i n g s .

H i g h OSR = a l a r g e a m o u n t of n o n - b u i l t
OSR
space p e r s q u a r e m e t e r o f f l o o r a r e a ;
l o w pressure on non-built space.

H i g h L = h i g h n u m b e r of f l o o r s ;
every line represents a floor.
The first transformation process ( A B ) begins with a typical L-shaped, Dutch post-war
development containing five floors I A I . What would happen if this typology were
transformed into a closed building block I B I with a constant number of floors? Both
the F S I and the G S I rise along the floor line, which stays constant (the building
remains the same height).The O S R decreases because the floor area increases and
the non-built space decreases.There is thus less non-built space available for a
greater number of square meters of floor area.

The second transformation process ( A C I poses the question: Can a low-rise typology
be developed ici without reducing the density (FSI) of the existing L-shaped develop-
ment (Ai?Thus, the FSI remains constant and we follow the line until the number of
floors decreases from five to two.The G S I rises. What in fact happens is that the floor
area, which was made up of floors stacked on top of each other, is spread over the
entire plan area.The O S R falls because the amount of non-built space decreases
and the same amount of floor area must thus be divided over this smaller area of
non-built space. In this case, the open building block makes way for buildings
featuring patios.
known sought

FSI L = FSI/GSI
GSI OSR = ( 1 - G S I I / F S I

FSI G S I = FSI/L
L OSR = 1 / F S I - 1 / L

FSI GSI = 1 - F S I ' O S R

OSR L = 1(1/FSI-OSR|

GSI FSI = G S I * L

L OSR = ( 1 / L | ' ( 1 / G S I - 1 )

GSI FSI = (1 - G S I I / O S R
OSR n = (1/GSI-1)/OSR

L FSI = 1/|OSR + 1 / L )
OSR G S I r 1/(L*OSR + 1|
This second section summarizes the

investigation into the r e l a t i o n s h i p

between spatial characteristics on the

one hand and density on the other.

Reference areas i n A m s t e r d a m a n d

Rotterdam were analysed during the

investigation.The most important

conclusion is that b u i l d i n g typologies

differ m e a s u r a b l y f r o m each other.

Based o n t h e r e s u l t s , i n f e r e n c e s c a n

be d r a w n about residential environ-

m e n t s , b u i l d i n g t y p o l o g i e s , the

degree of urbanisation a n d func-

tional blending.
 Locations of reference areas in Amsterdam

1 Betondorp 10 D i e m e n 4 19 K o l e n k i t 1 2 27 Sloterplas N o o r d
2 Bijlmer 11 d o r p A m s t e l 1 20 L a n g s w a t e r 28 V e n s e r p o l d e r
3 Bijlmer nieuw 1 12 d o r p A m s t e l 2 21 N i e u w Sloten (PlanWeeber)
4 Bijlmer nieuw 2 13 G r a c h t e n g o r d e l 22 Osdorpl 29 Vondelparkbuurt, Zuid
5 Bijlmer nieuw 3 14 H o l e n d r e c h t 1 23 O s d o r p 2 30 W a t e r g r a a f s m e e r 1
6 Buurt Negen 6 15 H o l e n d r e c h t 2 24 Osdorp3 31 W a t e r g r a a f s m e e r 2
7 Diemen 1 16 J a v a 25 Pijp 32 W i l d e m a n b u u r t
1 Diemen 2 17 J o r d a a n 26 Plan B e r l a g e 33 W i l h e l m i n a p l e i n
9 Diemen 3 18 K N S M (Rivierenbuurt) 34 Zuidas, Gershwin

Locations of reference areas in Rotterdam

1 Afrikaanderbuurt 3 Landtong 5 Peperklip 7 Waterstad

2 Feyenoord 4 Noordereiland 6 Stadstuinen 8 Zuidkade

 36/37 P a r t 2
2.1 Research

In order to investigate the degree to which a relationship exists between the variables
and the various building typologies, a number of residential areas were selected that
clearly differ in terms of the degree of urbanisation and the type of land development.
The areas that were selected and analysed can be categorised as low-rise (2-4 floors),
mid-rise (3-6 and 5-8 floors) and high-rise (>7 floors).

Low-rise developments are subdivided into areas featuring strip developments in

either a 'spacious' or a 'compact' setting.These are common in the suburban VINEX
neighbourhoods of the 1990s, but also in post-war neighbourhoods and neighbour-
hoods from the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The mid-rise developments are subdivided into areas containing open, spacious,
closed and compact building blocks.The open block is typical of the post-war period,
while the closed and compact building blocks are typical of pre-war cities. In the last
10 years this type of building has become popular once more, and due to their larger
scale in terms of size and height (5-8 floors), they are referred to as super blocks.The
KNSM and J a v a islands in Amsterdam provide good examples of this.

High-rise developments can be subdivided into strip developments and tower blocks.
All have a very spacious urban layout.
 38/39 Part 2
Low-rise spacious strip developments

References p l a n area gross floor b u i l t area FSI GSI OSR L

2
area ( m ) <m )2

1 Diemen 2 153.490 60.470 21.400 0,39 0,14 2,18 2,83

2 Bijlmer n e w 3 63.530 27.695 11.300 0,44 0,18 1,89 2,45

3 Bijlmer n e w 1 88.385 40.140 16.165 0,45 0,18 1,80 2,48

4 Holendrecht 2 139.420 65.920 22.925 0,47 0,16 1,77 2,88

5 Diemen 4 82.405 40.435 15.090 0.49 0,18 1,66 2,68

a Diemen 3 116.745 59.920 21.130 0,51 0,18 1,60 2,84

7 Bijlmer new 2 60.635 37.050 12.635 0,61 0,21 1,30 2,93

8 Diemen 1 107.110 70.370 24.010 0,66 0,22 1,18 2,93

9 Holendrecht 1 218.625 153.735 43.775 0,70 0,20 1,14 3,51

10 Amsteldorp 1 32.070 22.605 7,550 0,70 0,24 1,08 2,99

Low-rise compact strip developments 40/41 Part 2

References plan area gross floor b u i l t area FSI GSI OSR L

2
2
(m ) area ( m |

1 Betondorp 116.755 75.230 34.435 0,64 0,29 1,09 2,18

2 N i e u w Sloten 77.235 56.230 23.325 0,73 0,30 0,96 2,-11

3 Watergraafsmeer 2 88.455 70.010 24.055 0,79 0,27 0,92 2,91

4 Amsteldorp 2 50.445 41.730 17.085 0,83 0,34 0,80 2,44

6 Watergraafsmeer 1 156.870 144.165 45.355 0,92 0,29 0,77 3,18

 42/43 P a r t 2
Mid-rise open building blocks

References p l a n area gross floor b u i l t area FSI GSI OSR L

J
<m*) area ( m ) im')

1 Osdorp 2 68.290 47.585 10.130 0,70 0,15 1,22 4,70

2 Osdorp 1 87.850 63.935 13.560 0,73 0,15 1,16 4,72

3 Buurt Negen 6 60.180 46.750 9.350 0,78 0,16 1,09 5,00

4 Osdorp 3 102.025 91.185 19.275 0,89 0,19 0,91 4,73

5 Kolenkit 12 71.735 68.145 14.355 0,95 0,20 0,84 4,75

Mid-rise spacious building blocks 44/45 Part

References p l a n area gross floor b u i l t area FSI GSI OSR L

2
2
(m > area (m )

1 Peperklip 51.045 55.135 11.860 1,08 0,23 0,71 4,65

2 Venserpolder 121.875 145.090 33.150 1,19 0,27 0,61 4,38

(PlanWeeber)

3 Waterstad 50.875 63.890 12.985 1,26 0,26 0,59 4,92

 46/47 P a r t 2
Mid-rise closed building blocks

References p l a n area gross floor b u i l t area FSI GSI OSR L

2
(m )2
area ( m )

Feyenoord 62.315 74.080 19.333 1,19 0,31 0,58 3,83

1

Afrikaanderbuurt 72.150 90.005 25.518 1,25 0,35 0,52 3,53

2

Stadstuinen 110.470 151.795 39.325 1,37 0,36 0,47 3,86

3

4 Plan Berlage 112.480 156.240 35.690 1,39 0,32 0,49 4,38

(Rivierenbuurt)

5 Noordereiland 51.665 85.245 18.605 1,65 0,36 0,39 4,58

 48/49 Part 2
Mid-rise compact building blocks

GSI OSR L
gross floor b u i l t area FSI
References p l a n area
2
J
2
area ( m ) (m )
(m )

0,40 0,33 4,64

128.925 27.760 1,84
Vondelparkbuurt, Zuid 70.240
1
1,89 0,54 0,25 3,53
65.105 123.290 34.890
? Jordaan
0,46 0,27 4,28
218.790 51.110 1,98
Grachtengordel 110.345
3
24.600 2,01 0,50 0,25 3,99
48.770 98.220
4 PUP
 5 0 / 5 1 Part 2
Mid-rise super blocks

References p l a n area gross floor b u i l t area FSI GSI OSR L

2 2
(m l2
area (m ) (m )

1 KNSM 6.600 13.660 2.300 2,07 0,35 0,31 5,93

2 Java 61.195 135.660 21.545 2,22 0,35 0,29 6,30

3 Zuidas, Gershwin 108.895 241.800 39.890 2,22 0,37 0,29 6,06

4 Landtong 44.705 112.820 19.615 2,52 0,44 0,22 5,75

5 Zuidkade 42.110 114.400 14.815 2,72 0,35 0,24 7,72

High-rise developments 52/53 Part 2

References p l a n area gross floor b u i l t area FSI GSI OSR L

2 2
area ( m ) (m )

1 Bijlmer 339.065 256.280 32.940 0,76 0,10 1,19 7,78

2 Sloterplas Noord 54.580 47.295 4.920 0,8/ 0,09 1,05 9,61

3 Wilhelminaplein 33.035 35.510 4.205 1,07 0,13 0,81 8,44

4 Wildemanbuurt 43.075 48.585 5.890 1,13 0,14 0,77 8,25

5 Langswater 33.105 40.940 4.170 1,24 0,13 0,71 9,82

2.2 Conclusions

By grouping the different residential areas in the Spacemate, it is evident that cluster:
are formed that display similarities in terms of spatial structure.Thus, all the high-rise
areas are gathered together in one zone in Spacemate.This is also true of areas when
closed building blocks or strips of low-rise developments predominate.

The interaction between the variables appears to be more significant than their
absolute values; a high-rise area can have the same FSI as an area with closed build
ing blocks.The high-rise area is in fact built in a much less compact manner and so
has a lower G S I . In Spacemate, the position occupied by the high-rise areas is differ
ent to that occupied by the closed building blocks. In the following pages, the possi-
bilities for using the Spacemate are further illustrated. In addition to the various Ian
development typologies, aspects such as urbanisation, the typologies of non-built
space, granularity and functional blending will be described.Thus, a start is made in
quantifying built form and relating this to the qualitative characteristics of urban
areas.
 54/55 Part 2

Low-rise spacious strip developments

• Low-rise compact strip developments

• M i d - r i s e o p e n b u i l d i n g blocks

• M i d - r i s e s p a c i o u s b u i l d i n g blocks

• M i d - r i s e c l o s e d b u i l d i n g blocks

• M i d - r i s e c o m p a c t b u i l d i n g blocks

• Mid-rise super blocks

High-rise d e v e l o p m e n t s
A Low-rise spacious strip developments

B Low-rise compact strip developments

C Mid-rise open b u i l d i n g blocks

D M i d - r i s e s p a c i o u s b u i l d i n g blocks

E M i d - r i s e c l o s e d b u i l d i n g blocks

F M i d - r i s e c o m p a c t b u i l d i n g blocks

G Mid-rise super blocks

H High-rise d e v e l o p m e n t s
 56/57 Part 2

Land development typologies

The areas that were investigated appear in the diagram in clearly defined clusters of
land development typologies.These typologies can therefore be described in terms
of F S I , G S I , O S R and L. Within the low-rise developments a number of typologies are
defined: strip developments with front and back gardens in spacious and compact
variations. In the diagram, these clusters correspond to a height of two to four floors.
Other typologies within these heights as currently investigated are villa and patio
typologies.The villa areas have the lowest FSI and GSI values.These values increase
across the strip developments and are higher still in the areas featuring patios.

A number of different typologies were also investigated for mid-rise developments;

the open building block, the closed building block in a number of variations, and the
super block.The first two correspond to a height of three to five floors and the latter to
a height of five to eight floors.The open building block has the lowest GSI and FSI
values and thus the highest O S R ; there is more non-built space per square meter of
floor area. Within the closed building block typology three clusters can be distin-
guished: the spacious building block, the closed building block and the compact
building block. Both the G S I and FSI increase in this order.The super block is distin-
guished from the closed building block by its greater scale and in particular by its
greater height.The buildings are not necessarily more compact (higher GSI), but the
building intensity (FSI) in particular is higher.Thus the O S R is very low, which means
that the pressure on the non-built space is high.

Finally, in the case of high-rise developments, both tower blocks and strip develop-
ments were analysed. A typical characteristic here is the public, park-like environ-
ment.The GSI remains low with a relatively high F S I . As a result, it is referred to as
spread development but concentrated.
 5 8 / 5 9 Part 2

Jrbanisation

The land development typologies that were investigated clearly differ in terms of the
degree of urbanisation. Urbanisation, in this case, is determined to a large extent by
the pressure on the non-built space, the O S R . Accordingly, new clusters are distin-
guishable in the diagram.These clusters range in the degree of urbanisation from
rural to highly urbanised.

Within the rural cluster, no research has been carried out yet. Detached housing and
sporadic rural settlements are to be expected here.The G S I and FSI are very low and
herefore the OSR is high.There are few buildings and, as a result, there is a great
deal of non-built land per square meter of gross floor area.

The spacious strip typology, along with open building blocks and high-rise develop-
ments, is defined as suburban. More compact strip developments and the spacious
and closed building block typologies are classified as urban.The compactness of the
buildings is the reason forthis. When this compactness is even more pronounced,

(
it is referred to as highly urbanised.The compact and super blocks fall into this
category.
 A grass-land F private gardens K labyrinthic courts

B country house grounds G city parks L p a r t l y b u i l t up i n n e r c o u r t s

C farmyard H inner courts M roof gardens

D public parkland I patios

E park-like gardens J roof parks

1 public 2 mixed 3 private

 60/61 Part 2

Typologies of non-built space

Using the land development typologies and the degree of urbanisation, the diagram
can reflect differences in non-built space. It is possible to outline the degree of open-
ness. Here we are concerned with the non-built space that lies in the direct sphere of
influence of the buildings.

Within the rural landscape there is a great deal of non-built space that generally is
private: the country house on its grounds and the farm with its farmyard. A high-rise
variant would be a number of solitary tower blocks on grass-land.The suburban
environment builds on this in a compact manner. Spacious strip developments, with
mostly privately owned gardens, are particularly common here. High-rise apartments
lie on public parkland. In the open building blocks, the parkland changes into park-like
gardens that can be public or private.

Within the urban environment, the compact strip developments can be found with
smaller gardens or even patios. High-rise apartment blocks no longer lie on parkland,
but in city parks. With regard to mid-rise building typologies, the open building block
with its communal interior has made way for closed buildings with inner courts,
which in general are private.

In a highly urbanised environment, the inner courtyards have largely been built over
and so the compactness and the density of the buildings are greater still.The density
in yet more highly urbanised environments is so high that the open space, along with
the infrastructure, can only be created by double land usage in the form of roof gar-
dens or roof parks.
Park City, Courtyard City and Garden City

Based on the above, three new categories can be defined.These spatial types are
related to the low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise typologies. Grass-land, landscaped
parks, city parks and roof parks together comprise a category we call the Park City
('Parkstad'), which is characterised by its public nature. In the same way, all court-
yards, open and closed, public and private, are grouped in the Courtyard City
('Hofstad'). Country estates, gardens, patios and roof gardens are grouped in the
privately owned Garden City ('Tuinstad').
 6 4 / 6 5 Part 2

Granularity and functional blending

Based on characteristics such as urbanisation, spatiality and land development typo-

logy, the following hypothesis can be formulated with regard to functional blending:
The potential for functional blending increases as the degree of urbanisation rises.
In addition, the size (granularity) of the space and the type of buildings are equally
influential for functional blending. An over abundance of non-built land very likely
restricts functional blending.This is the case in high-rise areas with a low G S I . Also,
too much fragmentation of the space will probably make it less suitable for functional
blending.

When a third dimension is added to the diagram, it can illustrate the potential for
functional blending.The top level corresponds to a high F S I , combined with a high
GSI (the extreme top right corner of the diagram). A gradient of potential for func-
tional blending runs from the top left corner and the bottom right corner of the
diagram to this optimum level.

The granularity of the space and the buildings roughly corresponds to the building
height. It can be seen that the potential for functional blending decreases as we move
in the direction of low-rise developments (spatial fragmentation). As we move in the
high-rise direction, this potential also decreases because the pressure on non-built
space is spread out (excess of space).
 In this final section a number of

possible applications for Spacemate

are briefly outlined. Furthermore,

two case studies from Amsterdam

where Spacemate was applied are

described. In the regeneration plans

3 for WestelijkeTuinsteden, Spacemate

was employed as control instrument

for defining the desired residential

environments. In Zuidoostlob,

Spacemate was used as an analysis

instrument to test the strategies that

were implemented.

s
Case studies Amsterdam

A WestelijkeTuinsteden

B Zuidoostlob
 6 8 / 6 9 Part 3
3.1 Possible applications

As outlined earlier, urban development typologies are described in terms of F S I , G S I ,

O S R and L. When a desired intensity (FSI) is set out, the diagram can be used to
assess which typologies are possible. When a second requirement is defined with
regard to compactness (GSI), the possibilities with regard to land development are
further limited. A maximum OSR can be fixed when functional blending is desired.
Pressure on non-built space is increased as a result.

The way the diagram works means that it is not only the FSI value that is taken into
account.Together with the F S I , the three other variables (GSI, OSR and L) are intro-
duced as equally important in describing the spatial objectives. Depending on the
stated starting point (program, public space, building type) the diagram can be
utilised in different ways. By setting out upper or lower limits, zones in the diagram
can be delineated. For example, a maximum L (number of.floors) or a minimum OSR
can be taken as starting points.The size of the plan area determines the degree of
design freedom^
Measuring instrument

Every plan (existing or designed) can be calculated and categorised using Space-
mate.Thus, plans can be compared with each other and it is immediately obvious if
a plan has a relatively high intensity, compactness and/or openness. Supplementary
information, for example data regarding parking amenities and the distribution
/blending of functions can provide an insight into the degree of optimisation, and
how a linkage can be made with the land development.

Discussion instrument

At an early stage in the development of a plan (for example when drawing up a list of
requirements), Spacemate can provide clarity with regard to the relationship between
the spatial objectives and the development program. Figures and form can be taken
into account at the same time, so that discrepancies between the two come to light
immediately. Inferences with regard to a desired urban and lively cityscape can be
quantified. An interesting question is how the desires of the client or end-user can be
accounted for in the method, e.g. by integrating the User Space Index in Spacemate.
 70/71 Part 3

Test instrument

Spatial objectives, such as the desired residential environment, the degree of urbani-
sation and the type of non-built space, can be translated into densities using Space-
mate. By positioning these elements using Spacemate, it becomes clear within which
boundaries the area in question should be developed and what program require-
ments should be formulated in order to achieve these goals.

In summary, Spacemate has a number of qualities that can be of benefit in practice:

- Spacemate sets out a clear relationship between measurement units and graphic
representation.
- Agreements made through Spacemate have an objective character.
- Spacemate increases the control opportunities at a high level of scale and the
design freedom at a low level of scale.
3.2 Case study: WestelijkeTuinsteden

Residential environments in WestelijkeTuinsteden are described in Leefmilieus Park-

Stad and have been quantified using Spacemate. Characteristics described in Leef-
milieus ParkStad include the lifestyles of the residents, accessibility, the types of
amenities, and so on. It is only with regard to the spatial characteristics and the
degree of functional blending that the question of quantification can be addressed.
7 2 / 7 3 Part 3
Residential environments in Spacemate

Residential environments must be considered in order to achieve the desired level of

differentiation in WestelijkeTuinsteden.Two factors are important in this regard:

- The task concerns the transformation of an existing urban area.

- A term of 15 years is involved.

This means that for the successful implementation of the regeneration project suffi-
cient freedom must be built in to adapt to advances that occur over the specified
period. At the same time, there is a need to set out the objectives in order to ensure
cohesion.Thus, when defining residential environments, a configuration that guaran-
tees great freedom in the architectural elaboration of buildings and housing typolo-
gies is required, while defining the characteristics of the residential environment.
Spacemate can be useful in this respect. Spacemate establishes a relationship
between these urban typologies and measurable - and thus testable - data in the
form of density.

The use of the diverse variables in Spacemate makes it possible to translate the
objectives with regard to the desired level of differentiation into something more
than just a program.Thus, the OSR (the pressure on the non-built space) can for
instance be more significant for a particular area than maximising the FSI (the gross
floor area).

During the elaboration of the residential environments for WestelijkeTuinsteden,

Spacemate was used to clarify the environmental characteristics and to distinguish
the various environments from each other. When defining these environments, the
scale level of the fabric was taken as the starting point. Every residential environment
 74/75 Part 3

district fabric island

is represented by a zone in Spacemate in which an elaboration project can and must

operate.Two considerations are important in this regard:

- Depending on the residential environment, additional characteristics and descrip-

tions are needed.
- Although the fabric is by far the easiest unit to deal with, situations will exist where
a broader or narrower interpretation is desirable.

A number of additional criteria and/or characteristics are set out per residential envi-
ronment in the various zones in Spacemate.These criteria are: 1) scale; 2) preferred
typology or preferred value; 3) degree of functional blending; 4) parking; 5) allocation
of public/private land; 6) reference areas that fall within the zone.
Residential environments in Spacemate

highly urban
OSR < 0.50

urban (including
center and city street)
G S I > 0.20
OSR > 0.40
L>3

garden city
OSR > 0.60
L = 2-10

park
OSR > 0.50
L>8
 76/77 Part 3

suburban
FSI < 0.75
GSI < 0.30
L<5

country houses /
country estates
GSI < 0.10
OSR > 1.50

deregulated housing
construction /allotments
G S I < 0.20
L<3

commercial estates
GSI > 0.20
 highly urban

z o n e : OSR < 0.50

l e v e l of s c a l e : i s l a n d
p r e f e r r e d t y p o l o g y : c l o s e d b u i l d i n g b l o c k / t o w e r blocks o n a p l i n t h
functional blending: island
p a r k i n g : 100% i n t e g r a t e d
a l l o c a t i o n o f p u b l i c / p r i v a t e (%): 3 0 / 7 0

urban (including centre and city street)

z o n e : OSR > 0.40 / GSI > 0.20 / L > 3

level of scale: fabric
p r e f e r r e d t y p o l o g y : c l o s e d b u i l d i n g block
functional blending: island
parking: 90% integrated
a l l o c a t i o n o f p u b l i c / p r i v a t e (%): 2 0 / 8 0

garden city

z o n e : OSR > 0 . 6 0 / L = 2-10

level of scale: fabric
preferred t y p o l o g y : half-open b u i l d i n g b l o c k / u r b a n villa
functional blending: island
parking: 50% integrated
a l l o c a t i o n o f p u b l i c / p r i v a t e (%): 3 0 / 7 0

zone: O S R > 0 . 5 0 / L > 8

level of scale: f a b r i c
p r e f e r r e d t y p o l o g y : t o w e r blocks i n g r e e n areas
functional blending: island
parking: 100% integrated
a l l o c a t i o n o f p u b l i c / p r i v a t e (%): 9 0 / 1 0
 suburban

zone: FSI < 0.75 / G S I < 0.30 / L < 5

level of scale: d i s t r i c t
preferred typology: t e r r a c e d h o u s i n g ( w i t h a m a x i m u m of
five floors, except for the edges: m a x i m u m of eight floors)
functional blending: d i s t r i c t
parking: 5 0 % o n t h e s t r e e t
allocation of public/private (%): 2 0 / 8 0

country houses / country estates

zone: OSR > 1 . 5 0 / G S I < 0.10

level of scale: d i s t r i c t
preferred typology: c o m p a c t v o l u m e s in g r e e n areas
functional blending: i s l a n d
parking: p r e f e r e n c e f o r 1 0 0 % i n t e g r a t e d
allocation of public/private (%): 8 0 / 2 0

deregulated housing construction / allotments

zone: GSI < 0 . 2 0 / L < 3

level of scale: d i s t r i c t
preferred typology: m i n i m a l d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n
the buildings yet to be determined
functional blending: f a b r i c
parking: o n p r i v a t e o r p u b l i c p r o p e r t y
allocation of public/private (%): 2 0 / 8 0

commercial estates

zone: G S I > 0.20

level of scale: d i s t r i c t
preferred typology: -
functional blending: -
parking: on private property
allocation of public/private (%): 2 0 / 8 0
 8 2 / 8 3 Part 3
3.3 Case study: Zuidoostlob

The area of Zuidoostlob in Amsterdam was assessed with the help of Spacemate.
Zuidoostlob is an area dominated by offices and business premises. In the greater
plan ('structuurplan') of Amsterdam, this area is assigned for transformation into a
partly residential environment.The area stretches from Amstel station in the north to
the Academic Medical Centre (AMC) in the south.The area is bordered in an east-west
direction by the A2 motorway and the rail line between Amsterdam and Utrecht. For
each sub-area the density is illustrated in terms of F S I , G S I , OSR and L.The results are
represented with the aid of four separate maps.
 FSI = F l o o r S p a c e I n d e x
g r o s s f l o o r area / p l a n area

T h e FSI e x p r e s s e s t h e
intensity of an area.

GSI = Ground Space Index

b u i l t area / p l a n area

T h e GSI e x p r e s s e s t h e
compactness of an area.
 84/85 Part 3

L = Layers
g r o s s f l o o r area / b u i l t area

L expresses the average

n u m b e r of floors in an area.
FSI

It is noticeable that in working areas, the FSI scores are high in recent developments,
such as around the Arena Boulevard, the Villa Arena, the Getz estate and Cisco. All
these areas are located along the rail and metro lines (Amstel III). A recently devel-
oped industrial and office park alongside the Weespertrekvaart also shows a very
high F S I . It appears that in recent times development has increased in intensity. A
second group of areas with reasonably high intensities are those containing offices.
In these areas, the FSI is structurally higher than in areas dominated by businesses
and sheds.

GSI

The picture becomes more diverse when only the compactness (GSI) of the fabrics is
examined. It is striking that recently developed areas, besides having a high F S I , are
also constructed in a very compact manner. A second group with a high level of com-
pactness are areas with a large number of sheds.The areas containing offices have
low scores in terms of compactness.
 8 6 / 8 7 Part 3

OSR

The lowest OSR values, and thus the greatest pressure on non-built space, are to be
found in recently developed commercial areas where high-rise office blocks are com-
bined with large-scale shopping concepts and leisure amenities, such as the area
around the Arena Boulevard (Villa Arena, Heineken Music Hall and so on). Here the
pressure on the non-built space is extremely high because of the combination of a
high FSI and a high G S I .

The other commercial a r e a s - t h e areas containing offices and sheds - have a low
O S R . Here there is either too much non-built space (offices) or too little floor area
(sheds) available to cause a high degree of pressure on the non-built space.

On the map indicating the average number of floors per sub-area, L, it is noticeable
that a high average number of floors in an area does not necessarily lead to a high
FSI and a high degree of urbanisation.The average number of floors in the areas con-
taining offices is six. Yet the O S R value here is high and there is no question of urbani-
sation.The area around the Arena Boulevard has a very low average building height
but here the pressure on the non-built space is very high.

The following conclusion can be drawn from the situation outlined above: it is a com-
bination of the four variables - F S I , G S I , O S R and L - t h a t provides an insight into the
spatial characteristics of an area.

i
 88/89 Part 3

Working environments in Spacemate

freestanding offices

s m a l l scale c o m p a n i e s

sheds

compact sheds
Working environments in Spacemate

The Spacemate shows the positions occupied by the investigated commercial

environments.The different positions in the Spacemate are used as a legend for the
density map of the Zuidoostlob.The working environments largely occupy low-rise
clusters having one to three floors.These differ from each other in terms of compact-
ness (GSI).The lowest GSI is found in areas with small-scale companies.The higher
GSI values appear in the areas containing sheds.The working environment in the
mid-rise cluster is dominated by freestanding towers with an average of six floors.
Offices are mainly to be found here.There are also a number of areas that cannot be
clustered because they appear only sporadically.These are areas with a high degree
of urbanisation (for this read a low O S R ) . All of these have a high degree of compact-
ness combined with a high intensity.
 9 0 / 9 1 Part 3

Conclusions regarding transformations

A number of conclusions may be drawn in relation to the objective of realising mixed

environments in the Zuidoostlob. Mixing may be realised by means of intensification,
replacement and/or reuse of existing buildings.The outcomes and conclusions of this
study result in the following recommendations:

1. Opportunities are presented by the transformation of existing small-scale industry

zones into mixed residential/working areas, because in this case a relatively large
amount of space is available for intensification. A point requiring attention is the
identity and mutual interaction of the two environments.

2. Industry zones with compact building offer ample possibilities for the realisation of
urban residential/working areas. Buildings can be added to these compact environ-
ments in the form of residential towers.The effect on urban character is consider-
able because little non-built space is available for a large number of users.

3. The scenario for 2030 presented in the 'structuurplan' is particularly problematic in

areas currently dominated by offices. Allowance must be made in these cases for
extensive demolition and new developments, if the scenario is to be realised.

4. Increased density must always be accompanied by the provision of built parking

facilities, since large parts of the area are already crowded with parked cars. Both
the required new parking lots and a proportion of the existing parking lots must be
accommodated in the buildings.
Epilogue
 As mentioned above, the Spacemate

project is currently being extended as

p a r t o f t h e d o c t o r a l research p r o j e c t

o f M e t a B e r g h a u s e r Pont a n d Per

Haupt. Until n o w work on the Space-

m a t e p r o j e c t has f o c u s e d o n t h e r e l a -

tionship between density and spatial

f o r m . In the c o m i n g p e r i o d , attention

will be given to the following points.

\
Networks

Currently, a new section is being added to the research project which investigates the
relationship between networks and the various forms of urban fabric.The first experi-
ments will be directed at the relationship between building and network density and
the concentration of the building units in relation to this density.The results will be
presented in a forthcoming issue of Spacemate.
 94/95 Epilogue

Tare space

Another important aspect which will be investigated is the difference in density

between the different scale levels. What type of area, and how much, must be added
when the island is compared to the urban fabric or the district? Understanding this
logic can be of importance for planners and designers of all scale levels.

SpaceCalculator®

SpaceCalculator is an interactive software that has beendeveloped to calculate space

usage.The basic software is available at www.spacemate.nl. In the coming period the
SpaceCalculator database will be extended with data from national and international
projects. As a result, projected plans can be compared with realised ones. Further-
more, additional software (plug-ins) will be developed that will couple SpaceCalcula-
tor to models for among other things land development, volume of traffic and
urbanisation.
www.spacemate.nl
•
96/97 SpaceCalculator
98/99 S p a c e C a l c u l a t o r
Literature

- Alexander, E. R.; Density measures: a review and analysis. In: Journal of

Architectural and Planning Research, vol. 10, iss. 3, autumn 1993,
pg.181-202.

- Angenot, L . H . J . ; Verhandelingen over het vraagstuk van de dichtheid van

bebouwing. Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1954.

Bach, B. and J. Westrik; Stedelijke dichtheid in relatie tot schaalniveaus.TU Delft.

Campoli, J. and A. Maclean; Visualizing Density. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,

working paper, 2002.

Coördinatieteam optimalisering grondgebruik; Meten met twee maten.

Amsterdam, 1999.

Heeling, J . , H. Meyer and J. Westrik; De kern van de stedebouw in hetperspectief

van de eenentwintigste eeuw. Deel I. Het ontwerp van de stadsplattegrond. S U N ,
Amsterdam, 2002.

Heimans, A.; Bebouwingsdichtheid en grondgebruik voor de woningbouw in

stadsuitbreidingen.Ten Hagen, Den Haag, 1965.

Martin, L. and L. March; Urban spaces and structures. Cambridge University Press,
London, 1972.

Moudon, A.V.; Getting to know the built landscape: typomorphology. In: K.A. Franck
and L. H. Schneekloth, Ordering Space; types in architecture and design. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork, 1994.
 100/101 L i t e r a t u r e

Moudon, A.V.;The changing morphology of suburban neighbourhoods. In: A.

Petruccioli (ed), Typological Process and DesignTheory, conference proceeding,
Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, Cambridge, Mass., 1998, pg. 141-157.

Permeta architecten; Spacemate: De stad in cijfers. In: Stedebouw & Ruimtelijke

Ordening, iss. 1, 2001, pg. 50-54.

Permeta architecten; Ruimtegebruik gekwantificeerd. In: Rooilijn, iss. 1, 2002,

pg. 559-567.

Permeta architecten; Spacemate: FSI-GSI-OSR als instrument voor verdichting

en verdunning. Amsterdam, 2002.

Permeta architecten, in cooperation withTU Delft; Spacemate - Zuidoostlob:

Kwantitatieve analyse van dichtheden en transformatiemogelijkheden.
Amsterdam, 2003.

Rofe,Y; Space and community - the spatial foundations of urban neighbourhoods.

In: Berkely Planning Journal, vol. 10,1995, pg. 107-125.

S A R ; Beslissingen over dichtheid. Eindhoven, 1977.

Scheer, B.C. and M. Petkov; Edge city morphology: A comparison of commercial

centers. In: Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 64, iss. 3, summer
1998, pg. 298-310.

Song,Y. and G - J . Knaap; Measuring urban form. In: Journal of the American
Planning Association, vol. 70, iss. 2, spring 2004, pg. 210-225.
Southworth, M. and P.M. Owens;The evolving metropolis: Studies of community,
neighbourhood and streetform at the urban edge. In: Journal of the American
Planning Association, vol. 59, iss. 3, summer 1993, pg. 271-287.

Tummers, L.J.M. and J.M.Tummers; Het land in de stad: de stedebouw van

degrote agglomeratie.Thoth, Bussum, 1997.

Urhahn, G.B. and M. Bobic; A pattern image: a typical tool for quality in urban
planningjboth, Bussum, 1994.

Werkverband Stedebouwkundig Ontwerpen van deTU Delft-Van Eesteren-Fluck &

Van Lohuizen Stichting; De kern van de Stedebouw in het perspectief van de 21ste
eeuw. In: Blauwe Kamer, tijdschrift voor landschapsontwikkeling en stedebouw,
1999-2000.
 102/103 A u t h o r s
About the authors

Meta Berghauser Pont (Cameroun, 1972) and Per Haupt (Sweden, 1968) are
researchers and doctoral candidates at the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of
Architecture, Department of Urbanism.They each hold a Master degree in Architec-
ture. In 1998 they founded PERMETA architects, a design and research office located
in Amsterdam.
 FSI
The FSI (Floor Space Index) expresses the
intensity of an area.

GSI
The GSI (Ground Space Index) expresses
the compactness of an area.

OSR
The OSR (Open Space Ratio) expresses the
pressure on the non-built space.

L (Layers) expresses the average number •

of floors in an area.

Spacemate
A diagram that makes spatial characteristics
measurable in terms of FSI, GSI, OSR and L.

TU Delft
Delft U n i v e r s i t y of T e c h n o l o g y

Delft University Press