Randomized trial clarifies housing design decisions in peri-urban settings, suggesting improved outcomes for renewal processes.
Peri-urban rural housing renewal does not start from scratch, but builds on existing spatial patterns formed through long-term self-construction and continuous renovation. Recurring functional composition, dimensional characteristics, and spatial organisation constitute relatively stable spatial prototypes. However, existing studies have mostly used such prototypes for residential type identification and spatial feature induction, while giving limited attention to how prototype evidence can be transformed into design decisions. To address this theoretical and methodological gap, this study extends the spatial prototype from a type-identification tool into a basis for design decision-making and proposes a “spatial prototype extraction–adaptation–translation” framework. Taking S Village in peri-urban Xi’an as a case study, 40 dwellings were mapped and 17 representative dwellings were selected. Local spatial prototypes were identified through functional frequency, representative dimensional ranges, and spatial topological relationships; the CRS architectural programming matrix then translated this spatial evidence into “goal–constraint–action” rules. The results show that the framework clarifies renewal decisions through “functional subdivision, hierarchy deepening, and skeleton continuation”. Bedrooms, passages, bathrooms, front yards, and kitchens are high-frequency functional units, with average occurrences of 3.0, 1.7, 1.4, 1.2, and 1.1 per household, respectively. Space syntax analysis shows that passages and atria act as core connecting nodes, with average depths of 1.2 and 2.0, while bathrooms and backyards are located deeper, with average depths of 5.8 and 4.6. These findings confirm the stability of the atrium–passage organisation and support “skeleton retention–function supplementation” for old-house renewal and “prototype continuation–functional reorganisation” for new housing design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: