Optimizing urban block layouts and density distribution: A generative design framework for neighborhood performance

Mavahebi Tabatabai, G.; Tahsildoost, M.; Ardekani, A. and Zomorodian, Z. S. (2026) Optimizing urban block layouts and density distribution: A generative design framework for neighborhood performance. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 15(5), pp. 1722-1750. ISSN 2046-6099

Abstract

Purpose – In many countries, urban block layouts follow rigid and outdated design guidelines; however, these approaches fail to effectively address settlement construction, neighborhood planning, the design of old urban contexts and the rapid development of emerging cities, as seen in the new towns of Iran and various other regions worldwide. Revising these guidelines requires early-stage decision-making to evaluate building layouts based on their impact on the built environment. This study introduces a workflow for optimizing urban block layouts with constant density while considering design constraints, climate and environmental performance. This framework assists planners and policymakers in refining site density distribution and building massing. Design/methodology/approach – A computational urban design method was developed utilizing a grasshopper-based algorithm and Python for data generation. It introduces an innovative approach by incorporating buildings' placement coordinates as design variables alongside dimensions and orientation. The Wallacei tool optimizes layouts by considering energy use intensity (EUI), outdoor thermal comfort and facades' received radiation employing Ladybug Tools. Spatial daylight autonomy (sDA) and urban heat island (UHI) effects are also integrated into the workflow. The framework is applied to a hypothetical residential district in Tehran, consisting of nine blocks, each containing nine plots. Findings – The results for a set of optimal solutions demonstrate that beyond existing urban design policies, environmentally prioritized designs are achievable. Radiation differences between the optimal models and the conventional parallel layout range from 41.3 to 61.1%. However, changes in EUI and universal thermal climate index (UTCI) are minimal; significant improvements are observed in sDA, with 7, 8 or all 9 buildings meeting the acceptable threshold compared to none in the parallel layout. These findings highlight the effectiveness of the design method framework proposed in this research, which has the potential to significantly influence urban planning practices across various regions globally. Originality/value – The methodology of this study provides a flexible decision-making framework for early design phases, enabling policymakers, architects and urban designers to address the gap between current urban design methods and environmentally driven approaches. Sensitivity analysis of optimal solutions further offers valuable insights into the correlation between design variables and evaluation metrics.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: decision-making framework; energy performance; environmental performance; generative design; urban density distribution; urban layout
Index terms: dimension, energy-use intensity, urban design, urban planning, urban density, Tehran, built environment, architect, sensitivity analysis, environmental performance, design phase, effectiveness, urban designer, density, design method, generative design, urban heat island, placement, methodology, energy performance, workflow, outdoor thermal comfort, decision-making, planner
Subjects: research methods, Geography, energy systems, building performance, management, design process, performance management, sustainability assessment, decision analysis, profession, health monitoring assessment and metrics, urban design, design methods, urban planning, environmental hazards, climate science, professional practice, analytical methods, infrastructure and transport systems
Topics: Geographical Context, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Governance, Human Resources, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Business Strategy, Risk Management, Health and Safety, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here