Comparative Assessment of Courtyard and Boulevard Adaptability in Landscape and Residential Space

   Purpose: The study aims to identify architectural and urban-planning characteristics that determine the adaptability of courtyards and boulevards as elements of the landscape and recreational space.

   Design/methodology/approach: Research is based on 14 projects implemented in Russia and abroad. Morphological, functional-scenario, socio-spatial, and comparative analyses are combined with an expert scoring procedure using six criteria: adaptability, scenario density, inclusiveness, environmental integration, co-authorship and urban connectivity.

   Research findings: It is shown that spaces embedded in the landscape and recreational space demonstrate the higher adaptability and integral comfort. The average comfort coefficient is 2.83 for Russia and 4.42 for foreign countries. The largest gap concerns co-authorship, adaptability, and environmental integration.

   Practical implications: The proposed system can be used in pre-design analysis, courtyard redevelopment, and planning of local public spaces in residential districts.

   Originality/value: The paper offers a comparative assessment model that links the adaptability of courtyards and boulevards to their integration into landscape and residential space.

1. Akhtyamov, I.I. Challenges Facing Contemporary Urban Squares and Ways to Develop them as Spaces for Social Interaction. Arkhitektura. Restavratsiya. Dizain. Urbanistika. 2024; 1(3): 429–439. (In Russian)

2. Balukhina, N.V., Gibadulina, A.R. Analysis of Connectivity Parameters in Integrated Residential Development Projects. Akademicheskii vestnik UralNIIproekt RAASN. 2022; 4. (In Russian)

3. Grishina, M.P. Experience in Developing Architectural Planning Solutions and Functional Organization of Courtyard Areas in Kazan. Izvestiya Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. 2018; 1(3): 103–111. (In Russian)

4. Esaulov, G.V. Identity of Architecture and Urban Planning. Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitel'stvo. 2018; 4: 12–18. EDN: YWTYKT (In Russian)

5. Kozlova, L.V. Boundary as a Method of Urban Space Revitalizing. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. 2014; 6(89): 117–123. EDN: SGIWBT (In Russian)

6. Krasheninnikov, I.A. Prospects for Analyzing the Urban Space “Porosity”. Arkhitektura i sovremennye informatsionnye tekhnologii. 2017; 3(40): 215–226. EDN: ZGEZVN (In Russian)

7. Nefedov, V.A. Urban Landscape Design. Saint-Petersburg: Lyubavich, 2012. 320 p. ISBN 978-5-86983-355-6. (In Russian)

8. Petrovskaya, E.I., Podobulkin, A.G., Pechenkin, I.A., Mavlenkin, A.I. Method of Coding a Pedestrian Comfortable Urban Environment and Combination of Centric and Linear Urban Spaces. Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. 2018; 3(44): 392–426. (In Russian)

9. Sokolova, M.A., Aleksandrova, K.Yu. Urban Voids as a Component of Architectural Environment Humanization. Academia. Arkhitektura i stroitel'stvo. 2019; 4(49): 262–280. DOI: 10.24411/1998-4839-2019-00018. EDN: HSFTFP (In Russian)

10. Appleyard, D., Lintell, M. Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents’ Viewpoint. Highway Research Record. 1971; (356): 69–84.

11. Gehl, J. Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2010. 288 p. ISBN 978-1-59726-574-4.

12. Lynch, K. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1960. 194 p. ISBN 978-0-262-12004-3.

13. Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., Pratlong, F. Introducing the 15-minute City: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities. 2021; 4(1): 93–111. DOI: 10.3390/smartcities4010006

14. Siragusa, A., Andersson, C., Martinez-Bäckström, N., Petrella, L. Climate-KIC Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice. Nairobi: UN-Habitat, 2016. ISBN 978-92-1-132656-7.