Flat City versus Volumetric City, Re-application of the Layered Movement Network Approach

In cities of low or medium density it is possible to conduct a configurative analysis using mobility networks as main structural elements for the landscape (Bruyns, 2011, Read & Bruyns 2007). Expressed as a ‘movement-function’ indicator in three distinct scales, the overall results diverge from conventional typological driven analysis placing emphasis on movement patterns and how commercial functions cluster to each network. Not as a consequence of form but seen as an element that lends structure to the city, the ‘Flat City’ approach (Read, 2005) views mobility networks themselves as key structural indicator that highlight the social use of space, public as well as private. In contrast, high density cities, or aptly named ‘Volumetric Cities’ (Shelton, et. al., 2010), are challenged by spatial compression that establish other dependencies on mobility networks. Apart from the conventional use of movement networks, ‘Volumetric Cities’ place additional emphasis on pedestrian networks, interwoven with both the ‘in’ and ‘exterior’ conditions of the city. In this light, the question and applicability of the Flat City model remains questionable and as yet untested. This paper questions the applicability of the network driven model and its dependencies on movement networks in the context of the high-density landscapes. The paper will outline the basic premise of previous empirical work, before highlighting the challenges in the reapplication of this approach in the urban context of Hong Kong. As part of its aims, the discussion wishes to illustrate empirical work whilst possibly concluding on the adjustments deemed necessary for the re- application of this method in high-density urban landscapes in order to understand the formal expression of these cities.