Site-planning layouts are difficult to compare computationally because many planning-relevant relationships are understood through professional judgement, heuristic rules, and regulatory practice rather than directly measurable variables. This study develops the Site Planning Layout Indicators (SPLI), a parcel-level framework that translates selected site-planning concepts and multimodal urban evidence into structured spatial indicators. SPLI links building-level morphology and functional hierarchy with parcel-level spatial organization, functional diversity, accessibility conditions, and land-use intensity. A reproducible workflow harmonizes statutory land use, parcel and building geometry, points of interest, street networks, and building-function information; supplements incomplete building attributes through relational graph-based inference; and distinguishes observed, derived, inferred, and interpreted fields while retaining their provenance and processing status. The framework is applied across statutory land-use categories and planning subzones in Queenstown, Singapore. An evidence-first classification procedure, threshold perturbation tests, implementation in a second planning area, and independent professional blind coding are used to examine the reproducibility and interpretive limits of the spatial-organization rules. Comparative analyses identify contextual differences in several SPLI fields, most clearly in accessibility and development intensity. SPLI provides a traceable operational basis for storing, comparing, and revising selected products of planning reasoning without treating professional judgement as universal ground truth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: