Design studies are being done on contemporary master-plans which may be applied in many locations worldwide. Advances in information technology are becoming the base model of design studies, and these may be more effective than the efforts of humans in the field of architecture and urban design. However, urban morphology variables and constants must be considered while designing contemporary master-plans in the existing built environment. The aims of this study were to extend the use of computer software for different applications and to make a topological work in the regional context. Accordingly, a case study was made using the nCloth simulation tools to create non-Euclidean forms while protecting the road system, which is one of the constant parameters of urban morphology in the built environment.
KantorJM.A tale of bridges: topology and architecture. Nexus Netw J2005; 7(2): 13–21.
2.
Tafuri M. Toward a critique of architectural ideology. In: Hays M (ed.)Architecture theory since 1968. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969, pp. 2–36.
3.
HeynenH.What belongs to architecture?’ Avant-garde ideas in the modern movement. J Architecture1999; 4(2): 129–147.
4.
CalinescuM.Five faces of modernity: modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch, postmodernism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987.
5.
BürgerP.Theory of the avant-garde. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
6.
HeynenH.Architecture and modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
7.
Di CristinaG. Architecture and science. Chichester: Wiley-Academy, 2001.
8.
EmmerM.Mathland: the role of mathematics in virtual architecture. Nexus Netw J2005; 7(2): 73–88.
9.
Sola-MoralesI.Differences: topographies of contemporary architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
10.
TafuriM.Architecture and utopia: design and capitalist development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1976.
11.
Duarte JS, Ducla-Soares G, Caldas LG, et al. An urban grammar for the medina of Marrakech: towards a tool for urban design in Islamic contexts. In: Riitahuhta A (ed.)Design computing and cognition’06. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006, pp. 483–502.
12.
WaltersD.The architect as superhero: archigram and text of serious comics. Architonic1994; 3(2).
13.
CookP.Archigram. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.
14.
SadlerS.The brutal birth of archigram. In: HarwoodEPowersA (eds) Twentieth Century Architecture 6. London: The Sixties, life, style, architecture, 2002, pp. 120–128.
15.
SadlerS.Archigram: architecture without architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
16.
KurokawaK.Metabolism in architecture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1977.
17.
TafuriMDalCo F. Modern architecture. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1979.
18.
KoolhaasRObristHU.Project Japan metabolism talks. London: Taschen, 2011.
19.
LangPMenkingW.Superstudio: life without objects. Milan: Skira, 2003.
20.
ChristopherAIshikawaSSilversteinM.A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
21.
De LandaM. A thousand years of nonlinear history (Swerve editions). New York: Zone Books, 2000.
22.
IngrahamC.Post-animal life. In:HarrisonAL (ed.) Architectural theories of the environment: posthuman territory. New York: Routledge, 2013, pp. 44–52.
23.
SchumacherP.Parametricism: a new global style for architecture and urban design. Archit Design2009; 79(4): 14–23.
24.
GageMFFriddleT.Disheveled geometries: the digital stone project. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Architecture, 2013.
25.
LynnG.Animate form. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.
26.
OxmanROxmanR.Theories of the digital in architecture. London; New York: Routledge, 2014.
27.
KolarevicB.Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing. London: Spon Press, 2003.
28.
De LandaM.Deleuze and the use of genetic algorithms in architecture. In: LeachN (ed.) Designing for a digital world. London: Wiley-Academy, 2002, pp. 117–120.
29.
JabiW.Parametric design for architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2013.
30.
SchonDA.The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
31.
SchonDAWigginsG.Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Des Stud1992; 13(2): 135–156.
32.
GarnerS.The undervalued role of drawing in design. In: ThistlewoodD (ed.) Drawing research and development. London: Longman, 1992, pp. 98–109.
33.
GoelV.Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
34.
SuwaMTverskyB.What architects see in their sketches: implications for design tools. In: Proceedings of CHI’96, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13–18 April 1996, pp. 191–192. New York: ACM.
35.
MoudonAV.Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphol1997; 1: 3–10.
36.
CaniggiaGMaffeiGL.Architectural composition and building typology: interpreting basic building. Firenze: Alinea Editrice, 2001.
37.
PaneraiPCastexJDepauleJC. Urban forms: the death and life of the urban block. Oxford: Architectural Press, 2004.
38.
KnoxPPinchS.Urban social geography: an introduction. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, 2006.
39.
WhitehandJWR.Background to the urban morphogenetic tradition. In: WhitehandJWR (ed.) The urban landscape: historical development and management (Papers by MRG Conzen). Toronto, ON, Canada: Academic Press, 1981, pp. 1–24.
40.
ConzenMRG. Thinking about urban form: papers on urban morphology, 1932–1998. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004.
41.
PetruccioliA.After amnesia: learning from the Islamic Mediterranean urban fabric. Bari: ICAR, 2007.
42.
SamuelsI.Classics in human geography revisited, ConzenM.R.G.1960: Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers Publication 27. London: George Philip. Commentary no 2. Prog Hum Geog2009; 33(6): 859–864.
43.
MorrisAEJ. History of urban form before the industrial revolution. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1994.
