Spatial Dynamics of Marketplaces
I C Istek
Center for Spatial Information Science, University of Tokyo, Komaba 4-6-1 Meguro-ku Tokyo 153-89-04, Japan
E-mail: ici@csis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Abstract. Marketplaces are a common topic in literature. However, the questions with their spatial theories have been often subject
to the discussions at a level of more abstract concepts or socio-economic factors rather than their actual layouts. This common
tendency seems to engender some considerable problems in our theoretical understanding of marketplaces and how they actuallywork. In fact, the false implications of this lack already exist among architectural literature whereby marketplaces are accepted asarchitectonic influence on more recent building types like arcades, department stores and shopping centres. Their evidence,
circumstantial and hearsay, suggests that the spatial layouts require much precise understanding in relation to the abstract and socioeconomic implications.
The aim of this paper is to gain such understanding by exploring the spatial configurations of two cross-cultural andmorphologically distinct marketplaces in Isfahan and Istanbul. In order to deal with that, a method is used by adopting 'space syntax',
known both as an analytical representation and another theory of space at a level above the individual.
The paper will argue that the spatial dynamics found in the marketplaces have several instrumental and symbolic means that are to
do with organising movements and interactions between people in relation to the socio-economic structures. Knowing such innerdynamics of spatial configurations, planning and use from a multi-contextual perspective is central to understand marketplaces and toevaluate their implications on the other related buildings and urban structures.

1 Introduction: Spatial Theories of Marketplace and Their Problems
Among the available theories that only act at a level above the individual, a great deal of attention has been given tomarketplaces as socio-economic phenomena and how they should or might work. The earliest theories that sought toexplain the activities and their spatial distribution in marketplaces were based on the 'micro-economic' theory (Holland,
1987). Their central concern was defined by two interrelated questions: i.) What is the rationale that regulates the space
allocation process of activities in marketplaces, and ii.) How does the market economy itself emerge from this process?
Notions like land values, needs, and behaviour patterns in order to provide exchange or mutual advantage over andabove the individuals most often explain the space allocation process.
'Location theory' is a prime example of the development of spatial theories from micro-economic assumptions (Isard,1956). In that, the location of different activities is only seen as the outcome of a combined market mechanism
involving three basic elements: commodities, land, and transportation. Land is considered as being a large featurelessplain and infinitely available to perform productive operations or to satisfy the residential needs (i.e.: shopping). So that,in principle there would be no need to pay for it. On the other hand, what gives land a differential quality and generates
its value is the transportation cost to move the product or labour from the place of production (e.g.: farm, factory, etc.)
to the marketplace.
The similar view is also pervasive in 'Micro-Economic Theories of Land Use' (Barra, 1989) which deals with theprocess of activity, location and rent from the individual residents' or retailers' points of view. First, activities willcompete for the consumption of land. Then, once the equilibrium has been reached, they will have been chosen a site ofparticular size as such that the cost of land and transport they have to pay optimises their utility. Competition will also
determine the land value in each location as well as the price of commodities at the marketplace.
The classical models of Von Thunen and Weber are, particularly, among the first examples in explaining the effect oftransportation cost on the distance and spatial location of activities, as well as the functioning of the land market. Von
Thunen (1966), while using an example of idealised agricultural region at the centre of which there is a single
marketplace where a large number of producers want to sell their products, explains the way in which the transportation
cost affects the producers and the consumers. That is also the consequences for the space allocation process, rent, andthe price of commodities in the marketplace. Weber (1929) has similarly used transportation as an essential constraint to
explain the location of industry in relation to a market of industrial commodities. However, in his case, the consumptionof land was not made explicit.
Later, Christaller (1933, 1963) and Losch (1954) to explain the formation of marketplaces and their geometricalarrangements in the building models of larger city systems or regions have developed these classical models of location.
Like Von Thunen and Weber before him, Christaller assumes an idealised (unbounded) homogeneous plain where there
are central places defined as marketplaces at the centre of urban settlements. Distributed uniformly over this plain is a
population homogeneous with respect to income or purchasing power. There is a transportation system that allowed theurban places of the same size to be equally accessible. Transportation costs are directly proportional to distance.
Producers and consumers are spatially and economically rational.
Although very important are these theoretical developments, later, some researchers have claimed that people areneither spatially nor economically rational (Berry, Barnum and Tenant, 1962; Gollege, Rushton and Clark, 1966). The
notions of location and distance (with land value and transportation cost) that are being constantly implemented byusing mathematical models on the uniform hierarchical arrangement of places in hypothetical cases have been more
recently proved to be both no match in real applications and not much effective for offering operational models
developed from the work (Barra, op. cit.). More fundamentally, in these models what seems missing is the question of
spatial dynamics as most revealing aspects of real structures and the main physical distributor of the socio-economic
factors. In other words, if we are to understand the marketplace as spatial domain of socio-economic interactions andexchange of goods between people, the central problem is to do with the movement and interface patterns of spatial
arrangements. These patterns allow overcoming the distance between different categories of people, i.e.: between
consumers and producers or retailers, or between different categories of producers or retailers. Let us assume, forexample, a farmer wants to sell his product in the marketplace, and a resident of the city wants to buy that product. The
process of exchange involves here an interface between the two categories of people by using the spatial pattern of
movement to overcome the distance either from the domain of production, or from the house of the residence to themarketplace. This simple notion of interface explains even how the spatial dynamics are fundamental for a better
understanding of socio-economic interactions and behaviours. Therefore, any rigorous study for the actual way in whichmarketplaces function should bring these dynamics of the layouts, planning and use in its central problem.
The lack in our theoretical understanding of these aspects of marketplaces has already shown its false implications
among architectural literature on more recent forms of commercial and retail structures. Their evidence is circumstantial
and hearsay.
2 Architectural Fallacies of Marketplace
Among the architectural literature, marketplace is explicitly accepted as a formal or so-called architectonic influence on
the building types like arcades, department stores and shopping centres. This view is particularly pervasive among thetypological studies (Aloi, 1959; Geist, 1979; Maitland, 1985). For example, Aloi explains: "It is important to realise thedistinction between these organisms (the market, the shop and the department store) is not always clearly cut. ...If thedepartment store is the most recent of these organisms -which could be interpreted as an assemblage or symbiosis ofordinary single shops- and naturally make use of the most modern techniques, it must be admitted that the most ancientof these organisations, the market conceived as a large covered mall is architecturally the most interesting. This isparticularly true, because the covered market is the commercial organism destined to be the most adaptable to thosemodern structural techniques..." (Aloi, op. cit., pp. 31-32).
Similarly, Maitland, in his attempt to produce a planning and design guidebook of shopping malls, gives a sketchy
presentation of the marketplace as the historical origin of the ninetieth century developments of retail structures. He
claims: "The retailing function of the city has always provided some of its most memorable and interesting places.
Whether encrusting the frontages of its main streets, as at Pompeii or filling the market squares of medieval towns, orcondensed along an enclosed thoroughfare as in the Isfahan bazaar... But, if these characteristics of retailing wereapparent in the historical city, and substantially reaffirmed with the nineteenth century developments of the arcade,department store and covered market hall, their significance has been dramatically heightened by the shopping mall of
the past thirty years." (Maitland, op. cit., pp. 1)
As evident by these studies, the standard procedure to tell the story of a certain building form seems that it should be
supplemented with some information about the historical developments along with its other related forms in the samecontext. Since they are bound up with loosely defined observations at the level of images and appearances rather thanmore descriptive methods, the result is far less than satisfactory and unreliable. However, even among more specificstudies on the topic there seem to be a special problem not only in explaining the built or urban phenomenon
descriptively, but also in understanding it. Such studies present themselves as being conditioned by preexisting external
determinants. Among them, there seem to be two fundamentally different and pervasive (but similarly paradigmatic)
theoretical approaches which strongly holds the explanations of built-forms of marketplaces.
The first approach, exemplified by the study of Hakim (1987), emphasises the idea of a hierarchical spatial model
upon the marketplace according to a symbolic framework of the form and location in relation to the city's major
mosque. According to Hakim: "This framework is based on the interpretation of the trade or product in terms of its
perceived or symbolic standing, creating at least a three-level hierarchy according to the accepted proximity to theJami... As the first levels of the hierarchy are trades or products encouraged locating close to the Jami, such as
bookshops and perfume products. In contrast, the second category should be placed farthest away owing to thepotentially offensive noise (e.g.: copper making) or smells or to their symbolic content (e.g.: footwear products). The
third category is that of products that do not generate any physical offence and symbolically neutral. They can belocated with relative freedom within the hierarchy, and examples would be clothes, jewelry, and head-dress products."(Hakim, op. cit., pp. 81)
From a descriptive point of view, this single explanation with its generalisations and abstractions has forced particularcases of urban forms into an ideal type. Loumi's research (1988) on spatial configurations of Arab towns in North
Africa, however, presents that the idea of a single-type of urban form based on such hierarchical models is totally
unsatisfactory. Besides, the spatial analysis of the twelve Arab towns found across the region suggest that their grid
structures present typological tendencies and morphological individualities, as well as generic properties.
On the other hand, the second theoretical approach locates the explanations of such spatially ordered urban forms in
the individual cultural subjects by holding more cognitive models that built in individual's heads. The study of the
traditional forms of Persian architecture by Ardalan and Bakhtiar (1973) exemplifies that attempt whereby it is claimed:"...Cities and buildings, analogous to the forms of nature, appear complete and beautiful at every stage of their
growth...Central to this system is the belief that man exists most wholesomely within a physical environment that is
analogous to him. The city in his disposition, is thus to emulate the human anatomy which by inverse analogy, relates tothe cosmos. As a growing concept, this one that can grow indefinitely, with a multiplicity of geometric elements
developing from it, like cells in a body or leaves from the limbs of a tree. The bazaar traditionally begins at the palace
precincts, which symbolise the spiritual head of the body. As the bazaar grows, the vital backbone of the city evolves,
and the pedestrian streets leading into the city's body proper inserts themselves as ribs... This structural form represents
the religious, political, financial and social integration of the traditional city... The identity and boundaries of man, his
city and his universe are once again established." (Ardalan and Bakhtiar, op. cit., pp. 89-93).

This second approach -as it might fall into an opposing camp- is more concentrated to provide a methodology ofinvestigating differences rather than a generalisation of particular cases into a single ideal type. However, the built
urban form is; first by adopting highly questionable concepts described in the hope that it is analogous to the forms ofnature; then its order is sought in the human mind only, but not in the physical environment itself.
On the whole, neither of the two approaches seem to give an answer to more comparative studies of cross-cultural andmorphologically distinct configurations (e.g.: regular versus deformed, or concentric versus linear). Both approaches are
deterministic in their theoretical positions. Either, the spatial phenomenon is forced to fit into the false analogies andtried to conceptualise by means of culture or any other preexisting non-spatial determinants. Or, the social factors (andthe society at large) are given a specific order and hoped that this would create a desired order in social relations.
However, to know a built phenomenon -either architecture or city- requires a knowledge of what it consists of, andthat might equally reveal the possible social factors embedded in the spatial form itself, and how these factors work
themselves out. Hillier and Hanson (1984) argue for the descriptive autonomy of spatial phenomenon. And, that should
not be seen as a simple reflection of a prior social or economic model. They continue: "The built or urban form isdefined as real and autonomous, while at the same time originating from the social activity. The inference is that therelation of society to the spatial form is lawful in a large degree, and in order to understand that form the important task
is to concentrate on the form itself prior to any presupposition of external determinants." (Hillier and Hanson, op. cit.,
pp. 198-222) This is equally essential both for our better understanding of building and urban forms -the largest humanartifacts apart from society itself (Hillier, 1985).
In review of the literature, what seems clear is that the actual way in which marketplaces function has been poorly
understood, and their space has been subject to a great deal of theoretical abstractions and speculations at the expense ofsocio-economic factors. In fact, there is a gap between the spatial dynamics of marketplaces and their socio-economic
implications which require for much precise understanding of the instrumental and symbolic components of theirlayouts, planning and use. The main objective of this paper is to find out whether it would be possible to bridge this gap
by exploring the spatial configurations of two real cases with a methodology adopted from the 'space syntax' theory. As
often known, 'space syntax' is not only a set of modeling and analytical techniques of spatial patterns in buildings andcities, but also another theory of space at a level above the individual to inquire the relations between societies andspace. In fact, it has been driven from the later point of view, mainly to seek answers to the question: how and why dopeople and societies acquire themselves a spatial form, and do these spatial forms matter? To explore these theoreticalpremises vis-a-vis the available spatial theories of marketplaces is also among the aims of this paper.
3 Raw Data on Two Cases
For this exploratory research, two cross-cultural and morphologically distinct cases have been selected: the one from
Isfahan with more deformed and linear configuration, and the other from Istanbul with regular and concentric
configuration. Before beginning to explain the particular analysis, this section will give a brief historical background ofeach case along with their general descriptions at an intuitive level. This is only for -if not for any other reason- that theintuitive descriptions will familiarise the reader with the cases and provide a justification for those whom do not haveany prior knowledge of them.
3.1 Case One: Isfahan
Isfahan occupies a site, situated near the geographic centre as well as in the largest and richest oasis of Iran watered by
the Zayandah River (Fig. 1). However, there is an uncertainty to the details about the origin of the city. After a battle in643, Caliph Omar and his armies captured the city. During the next three hundred years Isfahan changed hands often,
passing from one dynasty or feudal lord to another, mainly of Fars and Iraq (Bunt, 1966, pp. 20). At this time, the city
was consisted of two distinct quarters lying about two miles apart: the Jewish quarter called as Yahudieyeh and theoriginal Jay, later known as Shahrestan. In the 10th century, the city was already well known for its silk textiles andflourishing. Later, Yahudieyeh and Jay were enclosed within a single wall, and the citadel -the moats of that are still
remains today- was built.
In the 11th century, Isfahan was captured by the Seljuks whom made it later their capital (Khusran, 1881). At thistime, the city originated well to the north and east of its present centre soon grew large in favour of the later area, andthe Seljuk capital were centered in the region now occupied by the Masjid-i Jami. The old square Maidan-i Qadim
extended from the Masjid-i Jami to the Mosque of Ali and the Seljuk Royal Palace (Qa'leh Tabarak) stood to the east of
this square. The marketplace provided as the western boundary of the square, and its route shown as a dotted line
divided the city centrally.
In 1228, the Mongols captured Isfahan. Unlike all other cities of the further north the Mongols did not destroy
Isfahan, but it did not benefit from their patronage and the 14th century Mongol renaissance either. By that time,
religious wars that would later make Shi'ism gradually become a great faith and the state religion in Iran had also
seriously damaged the city (Battuta, 1929).
In the end of 16th century, with the Safavids the city's most important period began in its history. The old Seljuk citywhere the clutter of houses had then grown up around the Masjid-i Jami and the marketplace were left as they stood,
and the new city began where the old one left off, to the south and west on the site of present Maidan-i Shah. The newsquare was plotted on a spot towards which the marketplace debauched on the north. Whilst, to the west laid the new
palace quarter with the High Gate and Royal Grandstand called Ali Qapu, and to the southeast respectively the
Masjid-i Shah (Royal Mosque) and the Masjid-i Shaikh Lutfullah. The new square was at once a market, a religious
square, a polo ground and a meeting place of monarch and citizens.

`

The Ancient City, circa 930

The Seljuk City, circa 1120

The Safavid City, circa 1587-1620

Figure 1. Isfahan (maps after Ardalan and Bakhtiar, 1973)

Today, the marketplace commence at the Masjid-i Jami in the north, move southwards to the old Seljuk square of
Maidan-i Qadim where it provides as the western boundary of what had been a great public square stretched from theexisting Masjid-i Jami to the also existing Masjid-i Ali on the southwest, and on the southeast was bounded by the
Qa'leh Tabarak. Although the old square -used partly today as a vegetable market- can still be traced, it has been
entirely built over. No remains of the old Seljuk Royal Palace can be found today. This section was subsequently linked
by an extension of the main market street to the new square of Maidan-i Shah creating the Isfahan's existing
marketplace that grew in time still further to the southeastwards to the Zayandah River.
Moving out from the southeast portal of Masjid-i Jami into a small square, one is drawn into the market. It forms alinear street domed throughout of its length, parallel to which small shops run on both sides. Between the shops, at
frequent intervals, there are the arched entrances of hans (large commercial buildings with mixed-uses including
lodgings, shops, storerooms, offices and workshops), medreses (religious schools), hamams (public baths), turbes(tombs), mescits (mosques), timchahs (shopping arcades) and serais (warehouses). Each varies in size, but has beenplanned -apart from hamams- around an open and central courtyard. Connected to the main market street on both sides,
there are also streets leading to the residential quarters of tightly clustered houses. These streets, normally 4-5 meters
wide, penetrate the encircling walls through gateways, and subsequently disperse into two lanes in 2-3 meters wide. In
each residential quarter aligned to the main market street, small markets, local mosques or shrines, and public baths areto be found to this day.
Near to the southern opening onto the Maidan-i Shah, the market fans out into an interlocking pattern of domed streetsand meet the new square. The Safavids built this particular section of the market called the Qaisariyeh. Each street here
has its own gateway, and at each street crossing rises a lofty dome over a central fountain pool. To the periphery of the
Maidan-i Shah, which is a 165 meters wide and 510 meters long rectangular space, the market spreads with a doublearcade of shops below and niches above. The market also continues behind the sides of the square, in fact, passes it andleads to the southeast of Isfahan.
3.2 Case Two: Istanbul
The first settlements in the Istanbul peninsula date from the late 3000 or early 2000 BC (Janin, 1964). However, thecity's known history begins with the first Megarian colony -a community of tradesmen and fishermen- established at theeastern tip of the peninsula during the middle of the 7th century BC (Fig. 2). There were two other Megarian colonies:
the one in Chalcedon (called now Kadikoy) on the Asian part of the Bosphorus, the other in Galata on the northern sideof the Golden Horn. The Megarian City on the peninsula called Byzantium encircled a small area within the Wall of
Byzas, corresponding to the first of the seven hills. Its harbour, the Port of Bosphorion, was laid just beyond the wall on
the Golden Horn. The highest point at the peninsula was the centre of the colony, the Acropolis.

The Ancient City, circa 750-330 B.C.

The Byzantine City, circa 408-450

The Ottoman City, circa 1460

Figure 2. Istanbul (maps after Celik, 1986)

In 196, the Romans captured the city and destroyed Byzantium's original fortifications. They built the new ones
enclosing a larger area within the Wall of Septimius Severus, including the first and second hills, and the harbour.
In 330, when the seat of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Byzantium, the city became its new capital
known as Constantinople. The main features of the Severan City determined the basic layout of the new capital. But,
more than that, a new set of fortifications were built to incorporate the third and fourth hills, thereby quadrupling thesize of the Greco-Roman city (Grosvenor, 1895).
During the early 4th century, many residential areas were built in the suburbs outside the Wall of Constantine(Hearsey, 1963; Krautheimer, 1983). This spurt of building activity led to the construction of another set of walls, theWall of Theodosius. After the 5th century, the city would not expand beyond this wall, and they would define thecapital's western boundaries until the middle of the 12th century. But during the same period, the city became filled withforums, monuments, commercial and residential buildings. By the 5th century, the city had acquired three principal
forums -the Forum Augusteon (Milion), the Forum Constantine and the Forum Tauri- along its main thoroughfare
called the Mese. The Mese extended from the Forum Augusteon towards the west; then passing close to the present siteof the marketplace; and having bifurcated, each branch finally leading to a major gate in the city. In addition, later, theForum Bovis and the Forum Arcadius were also built.
In 1453, with the Ottoman conquest and their declaration as the capital, the city's history entered into a new era.
Shortly after the conquest, the city's reorganisation -lasted about a century- began from the old capital of the
Byzantiums to the new one of the Ottomans (Celik, 1986). Among the first major tasks of the Ottomans were the repairsof the western boundaries, the Wall of Theodosius, and the remaking of the entire capital into a Turkish-Islamic city.
There were also three important buildings erected; the Old Palace to the north of the Forum Tauri, the Kulliye of
Mehmet II (religious complex) on the fourth hill, and the Old Bedesten (market hall) siting today in the center of themarketplace.
In the 16th century, with the rapid population increase, Istanbul witnessed another time of great building activity andnew neighbourhoods. The city was endowed with many important monuments under the patronage of the Ottomans.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, Istanbul continued to develop along the same lines it had in the 15th and 16th
centuries. However, due to the gradual decline of the Ottoman power the scale of the development was by no means
comparable to that of the previous centuries.
At present, the marketplace is located in the traditional trading district of Istanbul extending from its harbour on theGolden Horn to the Beyazit Square (Forum Tauri). It is also in proximity to the city's main traditional thoroughfare,
Divanyolu (earlier called the Mese), which follows a line running along the main ridge between the Square of Hagia
Sophia and the Beyazit Square. The Beyazit Square, the only open public place survived to the present from theByzantine forums, is located in the vicinity of the marketplace.
The marketplace was first started to be built shortly after the Ottoman conquest of the city, with the construction of
the Old Bedesten, and then the New Bedesten (Gulersoy, 1990). However, later the outer walls of the two buildings
became aligned with wooden stalls and booths. As their numbers were increased, the rows of the similar ones were built
against the opposite walls. At the same time, the narrow streets formed in this way were covered with temporary
materials like canvas awnings. But, following a fire in 1701, the market was rebuilt in the masonry and to vault it overwithout changing the plan of the street network or the number of the shops. Finally, the area between the two bedestens
was became completely filled in time. The form of the market today assumes a system of multiple galleries in parallel,
yet curiously doglegs in its longitudinal axis. On the lower slopes, apart from shops one can also find the quarter of hans(commercial buildings for manufacturers and wholesalers) which are planned around one or more open courtyards withworkshops or shops superimposed on the floors above of warehouses with surrounding galleries.
4 A 'Syntactic' Methodology
The framework of the syntactic analysis was based on two basic tools called convex and axial maps to model andcapture several syntactic properties of the two cases quantitatively. By using the basic tools further illustrations werealso made to develop an alphanumeric analysis of these properties and their graphical representations to clarify thespatial configurations in terms of permeability and direct visibility or accessibility.
The convex map breaks up the spatial layouts of urban forms into the two-dimensional extensions of spaces called
convex spaces (Fig. 12a). By definition, the convex spaces identify the largest and fewest possible segments that can be
fully perceived at one time within the layout. The convex map reveals the 'local constituents' since each segment has aboundary of its own, and it is defined by every point that has a direct accessibility to every other point in that convex
segment. Whereas, the axial map deals with the linear extension of the fewest and longest straight sight or access linesthat cover all the available connections between the convex spaces (Fig. 3). The axial maps try to capture the overall
sense of connections that is available to a possible observer or passerby while moving about the marketplaces, andtherefore represent the 'global constituents' of the layouts.
As a direct implication of these two analytic modelling tools, the spatial configurations can be seen in their sense ofoperating at two different scales at once. Whenever one moves in the layouts, through the convex spaces perceives the
local organisation of the space the person is in. But at the same time, through the axial lines of longest sight and accessthe global organisation of the space is also perceived.
On the basis of the two representation tools, the main aim of the syntactic analysis is to define quantitatively theextent to which each space is connected directly or indirectly to all other spaces in the layout.
5 Analysis: a Multi-Contextual Perspective
The syntactic analysis in this research was carried out to explore the markets at four distinct contexts. These involve theapplications of the two basic representation tools on the spatial layouts. At each context, first, the basic tools wereadapted and made their convex and/or axial map representations. Then, a series of quantitative analyses based on thespace syntax theory and the computer programs (Axman PPC 2.5, written by Sheep T Iconoclast, 1992; NewWave 1.0,
written by Sheep T Iconoclast, 1985) were computed to find out the important spatial dynamics. For the reader'sreference, all the analytical variables and their definitions used in this paper are given as Appendix at the end.
The four analytic contexts are: i.) Market Within Global Urban Context, ii.) Market Within Local Urban Context, iii.)
Market as It is, and iv.) Market and Social Categories
5.1 Market Within Global Urban Context
The analysis first concentrates on the cases within their large urban contexts to find out how they are related to eachcity's global systems and patterns of movement. Figure 3 shows the ground maps of Isfahan (1919) and Istanbul (1940)
modelled with the internal streets of the marketplaces. The reader should be reminded about the selection of these maps.
Since the earlier decades of the twentieth century, the urban layouts of both cities have been subject to a continual phaseof replanning and rebuilding activities in the hope that these efforts would produce a 'regularised' and 'remodernised'city planning (Architectural Review, 1976; Celik, op. cit.; Kayvan, 1996). In order to eliminate the implications of thisrebuilding phase and to have a more reliable picture of the relations between the marketplace and each city's traditional
urban pattern, the maps were chosen from the periods before these transformations. The modelled map, in the case of
Isfahan, includes the traditional site of the Seljuk and the Safavid cities to the northern banks of the Zayandah River.
Whereas in Istanbul, it covers the Byzantine and Ottoman city's main traditional sites along the Mese thoroughfare fromthe Topkapi Palace and the Square of Hagia Sophia to the Aquaduct of Valens.
Figure 3 also illustrates the 'axial map' representations of the ground maps, as digitised into the computer. Syntactic
analysis of the axial maps produces two kinds of outputs: an alphanumeric data in the form of line numbers with spatial
parameters assigned to each; and a graphic data in the form of integration maps in which lines are coloured up inaccordance with their value on the previous parameters. Although the later are rough approximations compared with theformer, it allows us to have an immediate grasp of the structures of the markets within the global urban contexts.
Figure 4 shows the global 'integration' maps of Isfahan and Istanbul illustrating the distribution of integration in theaxial maps. From the point of view of natural movement and global interface patterns, the integration map is theimportant result of computation. In these maps, the colours of the spectrum represent the integration values of lines
from red for the most integrated through to indigo for the most segregated. This allows us to see how integration -a
syntactic description of how far a space lies from every other spaces- spread through the urban structure.

Figure 3. Marketplaces and Their Axial Map Representations within the Global Urban Context of Isfahan and Istanbul

One of the important outcomes of the analysis is the strong correspondence between the location of the market andthe global integration core. In Isfahan, the computer in the southeast and the central areas selects the 10% mostintegrated spaces (Fig. 5). These spaces also strongly connect the market's internal streets and its adjacent major public
square (Maidan-i Shah, once used as market square) to the southern part of the city through a major axis, called 'Chahar
Bagh'. Similarly, in the case of Istanbul, the 10% most integrated spaces also concentrate into the central location in theform of a deformed cross lying next to the marketplace. The core not only picks up several axes hitting the marketplace,but also tends to connect it towards the harbours of the city on the Golden Horn (Eminonu, once called the Port ofBosphorion) and on the Sea of Marmara (the Ports of Kumkapi and Kadirga). On the other hand, the segregated areas of
the quite residential zones lie peripherally to the most integrated central areas.
The graphical representations of this correspondence can be better expressed by the alphanumerical data. Whenlooked at the numbers of the 25% most integrated streets, the most integrated spaces of Isfahan pick up at least 15
highly integrated axial lines found along the market streets, which make up the 12% of the global integration core (15out of 126 lines). Whereas, in Istanbul, the result is 7 market streets picked up by the integration core, and that makes
up 14% of all the most integrated axial lines within the core (7 out of 51 lines).
More local perspective is offered by the local (radius3) integration maps. In Figure 6 the urban structures of Isfahan
and Istanbul are literally read at a different scale, within their three axial steps. The maps illustrate the distribution of
the highest values of integrating spaces (shown by red, orange and yellow lines). The locations and several internal
streets of the markets are also captured (shown by lines with black dots at both ends) as locally integrated centres within
their global urban contexts.
We can also show that both markets play a key role in creating the part and whole structures within their cities. Since
different radii of integration reflect the different scales of the urban structure, it turns out that the important tounderstanding part and whole is the understanding the relations between the different radii of integration (Hillier, 1996).
Figure 7 illustrates on the left the axial maps of the cities with the market streets plotted in black dots. The scattergrams

Figure 4. Distribution Global Integration in Isfahan and Istanbul

on the right plot each line in each city's axial map a point located according to its degree of global (radius-n) integrationon the horizontal axis and its degree of local (radius-3) integration on the vertical axis. The red points are the lines
which make up the marketplaces, and form a good linear scatter about their own (gray at the background) regression
line by crossing the main regression line at a steeper angle. The linearity implies a good relation between local andglobal integration, the steeper slope across the regression line implies that the most integrated lines within the city,which are the lines from the edge towards the centre, are locally than globally integrated. Their local integration isFigure 5. Scattergrams of 10% Most Globally Integrated Spaces (in red dots) and Their Locations (in black dots) within the Contextsof Isfahan and Istanbul

Figure 6. Scattergrams of 25% Most Locally (radius-3) Integrated Spaces (in red dots) and Their Locations (in black dots) within theContexts of Isfahan and Istanbul

Figure 7. Scattergrams of the Marketsplaces (in red dots) and Their Locations (in black dots) within the contexts of Isfahan and
Istanbulintensified for their degree of global integration. The strong local integrators which define the slope of red points for the
local area are invariably these edge-to-centre lines. We find this effect of local area in both cases. It means that as one
move along the most integrated lines (like Chahar Bagh in Isfahan or the Divanyolu thoroughfare in Istanbul) then themarkets make themselves available as well-structured local aggregations of the urban grid. In other words, they are
powerful centres.
5.2 Market Within Local Urban Context
One of the results within the global context was found that the markets emerge as local centres. This was further
emphasised here by exploring the cases within their local urban contexts. Figure 8 shows the axial maps modelling themarkets into a smaller surrounding area defined within three steps.
In both cases, the 10% most integrated spaces (Fig. 9) are distributed among the internal market streets only.
Therefore, the markets clearly stand out within their surroundings. The integration map in Isfahan (in black dots)
primarily selects the linear market route with the penetrating lines from the surrounding area. However, the northeast
end of the route, called the vegetable market (on the site of the old Seljuk Square), does not take place in the core. Thisparticular part of the market, despite selected as locally integrated in the global urban context (Fig. 6), turns out to bemuch segregated. The core winds out by following the market route in the middle, and emerges into the new square (theMaidan-i Shah). In Istanbul, while the 10% most integrated spaces also concentrate into the marketplace, the two major
thoroughfares are selected as best integrators.

(after Ardalan and Bakhtiar, 1973)(after Gulersoy, 1990)

Figure 8. Marketplaces and Their Axial Map Representations within the Local Urban Context of Isfahan and Istanbul

Figure 9. Distribution of Global Integration and 10% Most Integrated Spaces (in black dots) within the Local Urban Context

In this context, as the scale of the analysed areas reduced from the global to the local, it is also noticed that the two
urban systems begin to show some differences in spatial properties (Table 1). One of them, intelligibility, is the degreeof correlation between the connectivity and integration values of each space. The two systems as analysed in theirglobal contexts had very weak values (Isfahan R2= 0.107, Istanbul R2=0.136). As the analysis shifted into a more local
context, the intelligibility values become higher than before (Isfahan R2= 0.114, Istanbul R2=0.453). However, thevalue of Isfahan is still weaker than Istanbul.
The mean integration (MeanRRA) is also very informative property in terms of seeing the key differences between
the spatial structures. In Isfahan, this value was found 0.493 within the global context, which means that the urban
system is relatively deep and more segregated than Istanbul (0.848). In the local urban context, the value for Isfahan(0.569) slightly improves, however that is still very deep and more than two-times segregated than that of Istanbul(1.435).

Table 1. Syntactic Properties of Marketplaces within Global and Local Urban Contexts

5.3 Market as it is
The syntactic analysis in this context was carried out according to the following considerations. First, the markets are
considered in terms of their internal configurations. Then, they were explored in two distinct modes: firstly, in relation
to the world beyond their boundaries; secondly, in relation to buildings that defines them. It was hoped that the former
mode might reveal the interface and movement patterns between the inside and the outside, therefore the relations of thedifferent categories of users (i.e.: sellers as inhabitants or more permanent users and buyers as visitors or less permanent
users). Whereas, the later mode might uncover the internal patterns between the different categories of sellers in eachmarket. In other words, it is our hypothesis that the reasons for the morphological differences between the two cases
might be of the differences between the interface patterns among the users.
5.3.1 Spatial Relations to the World Outside
In Isfahan, the 10% best integrators (shown in red) are mostly the space outside and those entrance spaces penetrating
into the marketplace (Fig. 10). The form of the global integration core is not continuous and deep, but shallow linking
the main entrances to the market route only. The similar spaces were also found locally integrated when derived a highcorrelation of 0.903 between the global and local integration values (Table 2). Meantime, the continuous axial segmentsof the route hold the highest control values. Therefore, this route becomes the major control core of the market bywhich not only the shops, but also the entrances of other buildings such as medreses, turbes, mescits are also controlled(Fig. 11). These zones, however, are not cut off from the major route. They immediately open onto it. The similar
situation also exists at the near of the south opening and much denser parts of the market onto the Maidan-i Shah.
On the other hand, in Istanbul, the 10% integration core takes the form of a concentric grid, mainly focusing to theinternal streets around and through the Old Bedesten with 5 major penetrating axes from the outside (Fig. 10). The
space outside is also among the best integrators. The segregated areas where the quarters of hans spread peripherally are
not too far from the integration core, but usually one axial step away. From a more local point of view, the 10% radius-3
integration core and its similarity with the 10% global integration core is also striking. Particularly, the correlation
between the global and local integration values gives a high R-squared value of 0.950 (Table 2). The control core isheld by those spaces located in and around the Old Bedesten (Fig. 11).
In addition, the two markets present some individuality that can be best illustrated by the alphanumeric data ofsyntactic parameters. The spatial pattern of the market in Isfahan shows a weaker value of intelligibility (R2= 0.211)
when compared to that of the Istanbul (R2= 0.656). However, as considered the mean axial integration values, bothmarkets are quite integrated and close to each other in their values (1.724 in Isfahan and 1.781 in Istanbul). A further
comparison, which clarifies the previous graphic data (Fig. 10), is among the integration values (RRA) from the spaceoutside. Isfahan has a higher value (3.913) than Istanbul (3.313).

Figure 10. 10% Integration and 25% Seregation Core Maps

Figure 11. 10% Control Core Maps with Locations of Institutional Buildings

Table 2. Syntactic Properties of Marketplaces in Relation to Outside and within Themselves

Finally, the graph representations called 'justified graph' (Fig. 12b) developed on the basis convex maps (Fig. 12a) areuseful to capture some fundamental differences between the cases. In these representations, circles and their permeable
links by lines represent convex spaces, and all the spaces of the same depth value are lined horizontally above the spaceoutside. As a result, in each market system not only the interrelations of permeability between the convex spaces can beseen immediately, but also the relations to the space outside provide a better picture by illustrating the whole at once. At
first glance, the convex organisation in Istanbul tends to be more globally distributed among a number of spaces. Thistendency might allow routes to form rings across the whole system by connecting different parts of the market.
Whereas, the system in Isfahan is not globally distributed as Istanbul. In fact, the rings forming routes and connections
between the convex spaces are made at more local levels rather than the global level of the market. The degree of
convex ringiness is informative here in order to capture the differences. Particularly, the value in Istanbul (0.204) ishigher than that of Isfahan (0.143). In addition, the systems as justified above the space outside can be also compared intheir overall convex depths. The market in Isfahan is deep as much as 12 convex steps from the outside, whereas in
Istanbul it is as much as 9 convex steps.

Figure 12a. Convex Maps of MarketplacesFigure 12b. Justified Graph Representations

5.3.2 Spatial Relations Within
In this part of the analysis, the internal spatial configurations were purely seen within themselves without taking
account of the carrier (the space outside). The 10% best integrating spaces in Isfahan form a global core concentrating
mainly to the middle part of the market route in the direction of the Maidan-i Shah. The core, however, does notconnect the one end to the other (Fig. 13). And, the northeast end of the market, where originated, stays mainly
segregated despite being locally integrated. On the other hand, as we have seen in the first mode analysis with respect tothe space outside, the high value of correlation between the globally and locally integrating spaces is not the case here.
Much lower correlation value of 0.159 suggests that the local centres selected by the local (radius-3) integration core
works much effectively over and above the global. Since it is particularly concentrated into the different local quarters(Table 2).
In case of Istanbul, the global integration core is similar to the previous analysis (Fig. 10). The core shows ringy
characteristics holding the 10% best integrating spaces together, mainly around the Old Bedesten. In relation to thesegregated areas, most of the best integrators are not far, in fact maximum two axial steps away. On the other hand, thestrong correlation between the global and local integrating spaces (R2 = 0.782), suggests that the spatial configuration
has no much local effect over and above the global integration core (Table 2).
Furthermore, some alphanumeric measures can be emphasised in comparison. For example, the grid axiality gives agood numerical indication of the major difference between the morphological properties. In Isfahan, a low value of
0.085 shows that there is a great degree of deformation. In Istanbul, despite the deformation of the street system towards
the eastern edge, a higher grid axiality value of 0.198 indicates that it is a grid-like system as a whole. These values not
only support our intuitions prior to the analysis, but also make them rather precise about the morphological differences.
Finally, in terms of the mean integration values there is a drastic difference. The market in Istanbul has a higher value of
1.615 compared to that of Isfahan (0.692), which means that it is more integrated and shallow as a whole.

Figure 13. 10% Integration and 25% Seregation Core Maps

5.4 Market and Social Categories
So far, the paper has only considered the spatial configurations of the markets. In this context, it explores the semantics(i.e.: social categories) and their relations with the configurations. In Figure 14, the convex maps illustrate the
distribution of trades represented with a colour code where each convex space is allocated according to the type of tradecarried out by the shops opening onto that space. The blank spaces show that there is no shops opening onto them. In
these maps, there are certain tendencies revealing how the shops and other commercial buildings (e.g.: hans, timchahs,
serais and kervansarays) are arranged and their activities are carried out.
Since most of the convex spaces are occupied by the shops carrying out the same line of trade, the spatial allocationaccording to the different types of trades is manifested in Isfahan with the exception of 5 spaces only (out of 297). The
exceptional ones allocating more than one colour refer that there are several trades carried among the shops opening
onto these spaces. On the other hand, in Istanbul, the number of these spaces has a higher value of 59 (out of 234) thanIsfahan.
When the labels of the buildings examined the institutional or religious buildings like mescits, turbes, and medreses(Fig. 14) frequently punctuate the market route in Isfahan. These buildings have their entrances directly onto the market
route. In comparison with Isfahan, there is only one mescit and one medrese within the marketplace of Istanbul. The
other institutional or religious buildings are not located inside, but spread outside.
Furthermore, the mean values of some syntactic measures give a more reliable picture of their locations (Table 3). For
example, in Isfahan, the maximum percentages of space-use among the total number of 192 convex spaces belong to theshops dealing with products like vegetables, textiles and wholesale in textile. Similarly, in Istanbul, the textile shops arealso the maximum space-users. The shops dealing with jewelry, leather-made products, and ready-made clothes follow
them. On the other hand, some space-users have certain similarities in nature to each other. The mean integration values
show the consistencies in the way in which these users are located in the markets. For example, the dealers in the spices
have the highest integration value of 1.655 in Isfahan. The next highest mean integration values belong successively tothe dealers in the market for rural shoppers, the coppersmiths and the dealers in the leather-made products and thecarpets. Whereas In Istanbul, the highest value (1.226) belong to the dealers in the jewelry. That is followed by thesimilar space-users to those found in Isfahan: namely the dealers in the copper/silver household and tourist articles, theleather-made goods, the carpets and rugs. The last three also have the highest mean local (radius-3) integration values intheir location. In addition, the dealers in the wholesale and manufacturing businesses occupy the locations with thelowest mean integration values.

The locations of both the market for rural shoppers in Isfahan and the dealers in the tourist articles in Istanbul have thehighest mean connectivity and mean control values. This means that over and above the neighbouring spaces thesespace-users have a good connection and the highest control. As far as the mean connectivity measure -another local
measure- is concerned, the next highly connected locations in Isfahan are occupied successively by those dealers in theleather-made products, the skilled-hand crafts and antiques, and the coppersmiths. Whereas, in Istanbul, the shops
dealing with jewelry, leather-made products, carpets/rugs occupy the other best connected locations after the tourist
products like metalwork household goods.

Figure 14. Convex Maps with Trades Distribution

Table 3. Syntactic and Space-use Properties of Trades within the Marketplaces

6 Discussion
Despite the variations in morphology and geographical locations between Isfahan and Istanbul, one of the important
findings of this research is the strong correspondence between the location of the marketplace and the city's global
integration core. The integration core is probably the most important super-structure in the urban configuration. Since
the core selects the distribution of highly integrated lines of sight and accesses, it is a reliable predictor of how cities
generate contact and what kind of patterns of contact they engender. The similar tendency that was found by the ways inwhich the urban integration cores connect the markets beyond the cities outside boundaries (including harbour areas)
provides the access of products and services as well as strangers of the cities into these trading arenas. Meanwhile, assome authors claimed (Hakim, op. cit.), the residences are not hierarchically separated from the markets. They are
relatively near them by living in the peripheral locations. This suggests that a strong natural interface is likely to takeplace between the residents and the strangers in the marketplace where products and services are offered. That will, in
return, reinforce an even stronger probabilistic interface involving an 'exchange' relationship between the seller and thetwo different groups of buyer (the strangers and the residences). In other words, the close correspondence between thelocation of the marketplace and the global urban core confirms that the concept of 'centrality' on the basis of theintegration has a robust and much precise role. This finding, particularly, goes against the view of the centrality ofmarketplaces based on the notions of geographical location and distance adopted by the authours of the quantitativeand economic geography (Christaller, op. cit.; Losch, op. cit.).
From a more economic standpoint, the 'exchange' interface between the seller and the buyer is important. In the
distribution of products, there seem to be two conventional methods; one can either offer the products at themarketplace to which the consumers come (i.e.: shopkeeper); or travel with the products and offer them to theconsumers at his residence (i.e.: peddler). The former mentioned leads necessarily to the development of marketplaces,and equally makes their physical layouts crucial. Whereas, the later mentioned does not require any marketplaces inconventional sense. Yet, today's products are more often offered on the market and not by peddlers. With the sale oflarge quantities of products, complicated accounting and organisation, not only the production but also the offering
necessitates an increased capital investment and demands a permanent as well as globally integrated marketplace. The
required increase in capital investment is made only possible through the transfer of production from a customeroriented production to an anonymous market-oriented production. In other words, that is through the free interface ofbuyers and sellers in the economic activity.
Meanwhile, both markets are the traditional cores of agglomerations located today within the larger site ofcommercial districts. The correspondence found in the more local urban context between the traditional market street
network and the integration core have suggested that the markets also stand out, to even a greater degree. They are thelocal centres of economic agglomeration where both production and offering of products have been traditionally carriedout at one place. By strong integration, as the natural movement patterns are channeled into their streets, they can also
take control of the overall commercial movement within their larger trading districts. From the shop-owner's point ofview, this agglomeration at a highly integrated location can be seen as advantage to cut the production or marketing fees
comparing to the same activities carried by scattered shops. In addition, individual shopkeepers or craftsmen who own
the means of production can get together and act politically as members of a larger form of solidarity based on thedivision of labour (Durkheim, 1968).
The spatial relations within each market, on the other hand, have revealed the interface patterns between the different
categories of users. Both markets are highly integrated from the world outside their boundaries. Especially, the evidenceof a shallow core connecting the main entrances into the major market streets suggests that the maximum movement
traffic in and out of the markets will take place freely at these spaces. Inside, the inhabitants will control the movement
patterns of the visitors, or the shop-owners; therefore the local and the global parameters correlate each other. However,there seem to exist different ways of achieving this control and the movement patterns.
In Isfahan, there is a stronger relation between the social categories of shop-owners or craftsmen and their spatial
distribution than in Istanbul. This strong relation organises the spatial distribution of the social identities in such a waythat it somehow reflects the division of labour within the marketplace. It also reinforces the local aggregations, andkeeps the shop-owners strong. For example, the evidence of several religious or institutional buildings like mescits,turbes, medreses located in close local relation to each trade activity, their segregated locations in the market's global
street network, and the strong control over their boundaries, all emphasise the local guild membership in the same trade.
The encounters among the same guild members are intensified through the direct spatial links rather than the global
links across the market. Commercial encounters between the seller and the buyer, however, take place in the major
market route. The strong spatial relation between the mescits and the guilds in which the shops are often incorporated
also indicate the close ties between the religious and commercial life. This might suggest that the socio-spatial
agglomeration of the guild members be based not only on the economic grounds, but also on the religious and ethics. In
fact, the religious buildings provide a sanctuary for the same guild members who frequently gather to pray together,thus reinforce their membership ties. Connected with the mescits, the medreses are for the training of younger members
to become apprentice tradesmen or artisans in the same guild. These segregated areas are the places where normally thevisitors or buyers have less access. Yet, their quiet locations are achieved without totally isolating them from the major
market street into which the movement of all visitors is channeled.
In Istanbul, on the other hand, the correspondence between the social categories and their spatial distribution issparser than in Isfahan. Since several locations within the market are shared among the different trade members,
particularly, the tendencies towards the closed spatial locations and the categorical purity of local guilds are weaker. On
the other hand, we cannot find strong and locally distinct relationships between the trades and the other institutions. Allof these suggest that the solidarity among the shop-owners or craftsmen seem to be based on the economic grounds
more than the religious or ethics. This would allow, however, all users whether buyers or sellers to interact one anotherby using the same movement pattern, which is more globally distributed and intelligible than that of Isfahan. Hence,
there would be created much denser global structure and overall control across the market.
Along with the differences, the two markets also reflect certain consistencies in the shop-owners perceptions. For
example, the shops selling products that are more popular among the consumers (including tea, coffee, spices, carpets,
leather-made products, copper-silver household or tourist articles, products for rural shoppers) occupy the mostaccessible locations from the outside to draw a potential from the maximum natural movement. The same shops are also
located in highly connected areas to their neighbouring quarters of trades. And, this might lead us to the notion of'related selling' whereby the customer is persuaded to make another purchase from the next shops selling different
goods. The shops involved in wholesale and manufacturing are mostly located in the deepest and the least accessible
parts of the markets since they offer their products in large quantities.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, an attempt has been made to explore what there is to be known about the space of marketplaces. The
available studies of marketplaces have shown that their spatial aspects are often idealised, and the departure point ismostly taken as some abstract concepts or non-spatial factors like socio-economics. But, these factors prove to be sobasic and generalised, thus cannot yield about the link between the space and their socio-economic implications. There
are no doubts that in commercial activity people need to exchange their products to ensure their economic survival.
However, what is even more important in the study of marketplaces is how economic behaviour ordered in society, as
well as in spatial relations by rules restricting trades, movement and interaction patterns. This information is, in return,often shared and taken for granted by the members of society. Therefore, it is to a great extent social behaviour, whichis reproduced, in everyday spatial relations.
The paper has shown that this is also true for the space of marketplaces. Their spatial configurations explored from amulti-contextual perspective are predominantly related to the social relations. Knowing the ways in which this isactually done is even more crucial to understand the differences between the cross-cultural examples. The examinationof the two marketplaces in Isfahan and Istanbul has revealed that the morphologically distinct cases have certain
instrumental and symbolic means that are to do with organising movements and interfaces involving the socioeconomic interactions among people. However, they are also strongly related to the two different ways of social
structuring of space. More awareness of the spatial dynamics seems inevitable to obliterate what is of the actual in thespace of markets, as well as to evaluate their implications on the design of new building and urban structures.

Appendix
i. Justified graph and the notion of 'depth'
A justified graph is a representation in which convex spaces (or axial lines) of a building or settlement system (S) are
shown by circles and their permeability by lines, and all convex spaces of the same depth value are lined up horizontally
above the space outside called 'carrier'. Every convex space in the layout can be assigned a depth value according to theminimum number of steps that must be taken to arrive in that space starting from the carrier. A step is defined as amovement from one space to another.
By definition, the depth between two spaces a, b of a system S is noted as D (a, b). It is equal to the minimum number ofconnections that must be used to reach a through b or vice versa. Thus, the depth is a non-metric distance measure, andabout the properties of separation or integration in the system.
ii. Mean depth value (MD)Mean depth is a general indicator of the depth of a system from the carrier or from a particular convex space (or axial line).
The mean depth from a space a in a system S is defined by the expression:
D(a, bi)MD(a,S)= bi S
k-1
k is the number of spaces in system S.
iii. Connectivity
This configuration variable defines how many other spaces is only one step away from each convex space or axial line. It is
calculated by counting the number of connections that each space has to its neighbouring spaces. The higher theconnectivity value, the more a space is connected to neighbouring spaces. Connectivity is a local variable since it takes into
account the relation of a space to its immediate neighbouring spaces only. To describe a system as a whole, the meanconnectivity value of all its spaces can be also used. This basically refers to the average connectivity of each space.
iv. Control value
Control value (CV) expresses not only the number of neighouring spaces a space has, but also the extent to which thatspace can control access to its immediate neighbouring spaces. Therefore, this variable is an extended version ofconnectivity, and another local measure. This is calculated by first giving each space a value of '1', then each space
distributes that value of '1' equally among its 'n' number of neighbouring spaces (1/n). Spaces with many neighbours gain
more than they give away, whereas spaces with few neighbours will give more than they gain. Values are, finally, summed
up for each space to find their respective total control value. Spaces which have a control value larger than '1' will be strongin control those below '1' will be weak in control.
By definition, the control value of a space a is given by the following expression:
CV(a) =D(ab, b) =1

1
Val (b)

Val (b) is the number of connections of a space b.
v. Integration: Relative asymmetry (RA), Real Relative Asymmetry (RRA)
Integration identifies how well integrated or how segregated each space are in relation to all other spaces in a spatialconfiguration; it is therefore a global value. A space is integrated when all the other spaces in the system are relatively nearand few intervening spaces must be traversed in order to reach from one space to another. Whereas, a space is segregatedwhen all the other spaces in the system are relatively far and large number of intervening spaces must be traversed in orderto reach from one space to another. The integration of a space a in a system S is calculated by, first, counting the mean
depth (see above) in terms of how many steps must be traversed to get to every other space in the whole system. This
number is then put into the following expression where the RA (a, S) (Relative Asymmetry) value is calculated:
RA(a, S) = 2 MD(a, S)-1)/k-2

MD (a, S) is the mean depth value (see above) and k the number of spaces in the system. For all a, S : 0 RA(a, S) 1
Finally, the RRA (Real Relative Asymmetry), which is the integration value is calculated by dividing RA value with"diamond value" (see Hillier and Hanson, 1984) in order to make the value commensurable throughout any size of spatial
systems. The RRA of a space a in a system S is expressed as follows:
RRA (a, S) =RA (a, S)
RAD (k)k is the number of spaces in system S, and RAD (k) the diamond valuewhich is calculated as follows:

6.644k x log10 (k+4) - 3.17k + 2
RAD(k) =k2 - 3k +2
To describe an urban street system as a whole, the mean integration value of all its spaces can be also used.
vi. Restricted integration (integration3, or RRA.r-3)
This is a restricted version of integration variable computing the integration for all spaces in a system within their threesteps, therefore is more local measure than the global integration. Higher values indicate more segregated spaces in terms of
their local areas within three steps, while smaller values mean more integration.
vii. Relative axial ringiness or Relative number of axial rings (RR)
The term called 'ringiness' refers to the formation of rings of spaces (, or lines) in a system. The measure of ringiness
captures the number of circulation loops in the system, thus allow Ôringy or us to state how much the global structure of thesystem is distributed' among the spaces. The relative ringiness is defined by the following expression:
RR =
2k-5
L - k + 1
L is the number of connections in the system, k the number of spaces in the system, and (2k-5) represents the maximum
number of independent planar rings in a graph of k spaces. Lower values indicate higher degree of relative ringiness.
viii. Intelligibility
A spatial configuration's intelligibility is an important phenomenon to architecture. The space syntax defines theintelligibility of layouts in terms of the relationship between the local and global properties. This definition suggests that aspatial system is intelligible, or understandable, when the information which is directly available (connectivity) to the user
gives a good sense of position with regard to the layout as a whole (integration). Intelligibility addresses the way people canlearn about large patterns from their experience of small parts. It is a spatial variable, which describes a layout system as awhole. Intelligibility is defined as the correlation between the integration and connectivity values. The precise measure ofintelligibility is the linear correlation between the integration value and the connectivity of all the spaces of a system. The
higher the correlation the more one can infer location within the layout system as a whole according to directly available
information.
ix. Axial integration of convex spaces
This measure gives the comparison of the number of axial lines to convex spaces.
RA (ax/cx) = Lax / kcx
kcx is number of convex spaces, and Lax number of axial lines crossing all convex spaces.
Lower values indicate a high degree of axial integration of convex spaces. It should be noted that the result is a number
between '0' and '1'.
x. Grid axiality (GA)This variable allows making the comparison of each axial system to an orthogonal (perfect) grid with the same number ofislands. Therefore, by this comparison that can be stated the difference between the order properties of the two axial
systems unequivocally in their numerical forms. The GA is defined as follows:
GA = (x 2) + 2
Lax

is the number of islands and Lax= number of axial lines.
The result is a value between 0 and 1, where higher values indicate a stronger approximation to a perfect orthogonal gridand lower values a greater degree of axial deformation.

References
Aloi R. (1959): "Mercati e Negozi" Ulrico Hoepli Editore, Milano, 1959
Architectural Review (1976): "Iran Special Issue" vol. 159, no. 951, May 1976, pp. 299-319
Ardalan N. and Bakhtiar L. (1973): "The Senseof Unity: the Sufi Tradition in Persian Architecture" The University of Chicago Press
Berry, B. J. L., Barnum H. and Tenant R. (1962): "Retail Location and Consumer Behaviour" Papers of the Regional Science
Association, 9, pp. 65-106
Barra, T de la (1989): "Integrated Land Use and Transport Modelling-Decision Chains and Hierarchies" Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Chapter 2
Battuta I. (1929): "Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354" London, pp. 91
Durkheim E. (1968): "The Division of Labour in Society" (translated by G. Simpson) the Free Press, New York

Gollege R. G., Rushton G. and Clark W. A. V. (1966): "Some Spatial Characteristics of Iowa's Farm Population and Implications for
the Grouping of Central Place Functions" Economic Geography, 43, pp.261-272
Bunt W. (1966): "Isfahan, Pearl of Persia" Elek Books, London, pp. 20
Celik, Z. (1986): "The Remaking of Istanbul", University of Washington Press, pp. 22-25
Christaller W. (1933): "Die Zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland" (translated by C. W. Baskin, 1963, as "Central Places in Southern
Germany") Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall
Geist J. F. (1979): "Passagen, ein Bautype des 19. Jahrhunderts" (translated by J. O. Newman and J. H. Smith as "Arcade") MIT
Press, Cambridge-Mass.
Grosvenor, E. A. (1895): "Constantinople" Boston, vol. 2, pp. 374-376
Gulersoy C. (1990): "Story of the Grand Bazaar" Istanbul Kitapligi, Istanbul, pp. 5-10
Hakim B. S. (1987): "Arabic-Islamic Cities: Building and Planning Principles" Routledge & Kegan PLC, London
Hearsey J. E. N. (1963): "City of Constantine" London
Hillier B. (1996): "Space is the Machine" Cambridge University Press, pp. 170-175
Hillier B. (1986): "The Nature of the Artificial: The Contingent and the Necessary in Spatial Form in Architecture" Geoforum 16 (3),pp. 163-78
Hillier B. and Hanson J. (1984): "The Social Logic of Space" Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Holland S. (1987): "The Market Economy, from Micro to Meso-economics" Weidenfelt and Nicholson, London, pp. 23
Isard W. (1956): "Location and Space Economy" MIT Press, Cambridge-Mass.
Janin R. (1964): "Constantinople Byzantine" Paris, pp. 9-20
Kayvan K. (1996): "The Problem of Historic Cores in Iranian Cities" published on the Internet:
http://www.daap.uc.edu/~openspace/karimi/frame1.html
Khusran N. (1881): "Safar-Nameh" Paris
Krautheimer R. (1983): "Three Christian Capitals" Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 41-67
Losch A. (1954): "The Economics of Location" (translated by W. H. Woglom and W. F. Stolper) Yale University Press, New Haven,
Connecticut
Loumi A. (1988): "Spatial Configuration of Towns in North Africa" University of London, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis
Maitland B. (1985): "Shopping Malls: Planning and Design" Construction Press, London
Von Thunen J. H. (1966): "Von Thunen's Isolated State" (edited by P. Hall) Pergamon Press, London
Weber A. (1929): "Theory of the Location of Industries" (translated by C. J. Friedrich) the University of Chicago Press, Chicago