Do Villages’ Shape our Cities?

Wafa AL-GhatamUniversity College London, UK.

w.al-ghatam@ucl.ac.uk

Abstract

It frequently occurs in the growth of cities that villages are absorbed into the fabric of thatcity. But what are the consequences of this? How far and how do these villages becomepart of the overall fabric of the city? How does this affect the village, and what is the effecton the wider city? These questions have been raised by geographers and social scientists inrelation to the cities of Manama and Muharraq, “Have these small and big villages evolvedto become no more than just settlements ‘implanted’ in an environment that they havenothing to do with, from the economical or cultural angle?” (Jafar, 1975:320). Today, theurban expansion around or inside Bahrain villages has changed its structure;(Al-Najar,1998). Fast urbanisation, especially if considered in the context of Bahrain’s metropolitangrowth, has considerably blurred the boundaries between urban, and village districts (seefig.290). However, it has not been discussed as a spatial question. The aim of this paper isto pose these questions in relation to the cities of Manama and Muharraq, by the methodsof space syntax in order to try to clarify the spatial aspect of the processes described bythe geographers and social scientists.

Through the study of villages of real cases and the ability of space syntax we needto extract common ‘generic’ themes of villages at macro and micro levels as well as thedegree of their mechanism in the city. The outcome might be linked to different levels ofchanges in the city growth process when studying the complexity of global patterns basedon the spatial interaction of local units such as villages. This paper is divided into fourparts:

• The first part is the quantitative analysis, which is based on 9 of these villages inManama and Muharraq cities in 1998. The first measure lies upon the axial repre-sentation of space. It will be first applied to the main configuration of the villages’layouts within the city system - at a global level - trying to analyze the mechanismof the villages’ spatial configuration in the part-whole relationship system? Are theysegregated or integrated in the city? Are villages’ spatial configurations having asimilar behaviour in the two cities? Secondly, this measure will be applied to thevillages at the local level, which will benchmark these villages, in order to see howthe villages’ spatial configuration differentiates the local level from the global level?Thirdly, the study will merge both levels to see how the spatial factors commonbetween the global level and local level play a role in segregating or integrating thevillages into the city system?

• The second part represents the main core of this study in which we will try to answerthe following questions: What are the spatial factors behind spatial segregation orintegration of the villages in the city? Does the segregation or integration of thevillages depend on the local level of the village’s configuration, or on the global level

682 Wafa AL-Ghatam

of the city’s development/planning, or on both? The account will comment on: theaxial lines of the urban grid surrounding the village, the axial system size of thevillage, where and how the urban grid surrounding the village is connected to it,and finally the integration values of the urban grid axial line at a global level andthe integration values of the villages at both levels; global and local.

• The third part consists of suggestion of constructing, through syntax analysis of theaxial lines, a theoretical model to present the relationship between the city and thelocal area (as representation for the spatial of village).

• The final part discusses the results in the light of the previous questions and con-cludes with many questions that need further addressing in future studies.

Part One

1. Bahrain’s urban growth process

The urban growth process in Manama and Muharraq, described by planning historianDr. Mustapha Ben Hamouche (Ben Hamouche, 2004, p.530), outlines that by 1930s ex-tensions outside the old limits of Manama and Muharraq, were planned accordingly (BenHamouche, 2004, p. 528). The suburban zones, in Manama, were the first to accommodategridiron road network (Mandeel, 1992, p.115). By 1954, old Manama already had becomea small nucleus surrounded by vast modern quarters.

A number of public mega-projects were launched in the early 1960s among which bywere the two bridges linking Muharraq with Manama (1966 and 1985), the outer ringroad (1983) and the new airport (1961). Simultaneously, a scheme for upgrading the oldcity was initiated and implemented in 1981. It consisted mainly of enlarging some selectedstreets that separated residential quarters, and improving mechanical accessibility dueto the increase of car ownership. In parallel to the infra-structural projects, large publichousing development projects were launched in the newly reclaimed land. In addition anew bridge was built between Manama and Muharraq in 1985. By 2000 central Manamais undergoing extensive urban development, featuring new banks, hotels, offices, and six-lane, divided highways on land reclaimed from the sea during the past 15 years. Thefast urbanisation of Manama and Muharraq, especially if considered in the context ofBahrain’s metropolitan growth, has considerably blurred the boundaries between urban,village and rural districts (Al-Najar, 1998). The urban expansion in Bahrain cities leadsto the villages became as centres or parts of the cities (Jafar (edit), 1975).

The next step is therefore to set out some detailed evidence of the sort of spatialchanges that took place, using Manama and Muharraq villages as case studies to illustratevillage’s mechanism in the city. This study will examine the configuration of villages thathave taken place in the city. It concentrates on the two levels of change from the globallevel of city spatial system to the local level of the villages’ configuration, embedded inthat system. Furthermore, it will look at how these two levels have relatively an impacton the villages’ changes.

1.1. Global Level

What is the mechanism of the villages’ spatial configuration in the part-whole relationshipsystem? Are they segregated or integrated in the city? Are there Spatial configurations

Do Villages’ Shape our Cities? 683

Figure 290: five types models of the physical changes in Bahrain villages by (Al-Najar,1998) from sociology study of Bahrain (The Sociological Society in Arabian Gulf Cities)

684 Wafa AL-Ghatam

Figure 291: LEFT: Busaiteen Village in Local Level and Global Level a) Top image is forBusaiteen village in Muharraq IntRRad 7, 1998; b) Bottom Left image is Busaiteen IntRn and Int R3 axial map; c) Bottom right is village with the urban grid axial linkage.RIGHT: Naim Village in Local Level and Global Level: a) Top image is for Naim villagein Manama IntRRad 5, 1998; b) Bottom Left image is Naim Int Rn and Int R3 axial map;c) Bottom right is village with the urban grid axial linkage.

having a similar behaviour in the two cities?This part starts by comparing the spatial structures and syntactical values in axial

maps of the villages in the two cities at a Global Level (GL). The axial maps of Muharraqand Manama in 1998 were produce to study the spatial structure of the whole systemof the cities. The Syntactical value of the villages in GL is defined to compare differentspatial patterns in villages. The Synergy value which measures the degree of correlationbetween local integration (Mean Int. R3) and global integration (Mean Int Rn) acrossthe villages provides a description of the topological position of the villages in the wholeurban system. The Intelligibility value measures the predictability of the village into theentire system (Hillier, 1993), which is the degree of correlation between connectivity andglobal integration values (Int Rn).

Figures 291, 292 & 294 show the Global Integration and Local Integration at theGlobal Level of the villages in Muharraq and Manama. These have not experienced thesame degree of segregation or integration in the city system. There are villages having ahigh synergy and intelligibility values, others have a very low synergy and intelligibilityand a third type exists that are in between these two. Table 34 shows all the syntacticmeasurements of the villages in GL.

In Muharraq: Busaiteen village has the highest synergy (0.555) and intelligibility(0.349), then comes Galali whose synergy value is (0.371) and its intelligibility (0.309),then Semahej (synergy 0.279, intelligibility 0.213).and finally Der (synergy 0.233, Intelli-

Do Villages’ Shape our Cities? 685

Table 34: Village syntactic values in Global Level (m = 5 in Manama, m = 7 in Muharraq)Village Village Synergy Intelligibility IntRn IntR3 Conn. IntRRadmname Axial

systemNaim 77 0.778 0.615 1.158 2.348 3.625 2.236

Mahooz 124 0.464 0.286 1.149 2.328 3.991 1.74Helah 109 0.297 0.175 1.006 2.195 3.949 1.738Jefiar 104 0.293 0.172 0.969 2.19 3.622 1.595

Busaiteen 104 0.555 0.349 0.893 2.313 4.434 1.465Arad 180 0.101 0.048 0.862 2.702 3.972 1.352Galali 118 0.371 0.309 0.844 2.63 4.991 1.497

Semahej 150 0.279 0.213 0.74 2.301 4.027 1.359Der 247 0.233 0.156 0.84 2.485 4.397 0.562

gibility 0.156). The lowest synergy and intelligibility is not only to be found in Muharraqbut also in Manama; Arad village has synergy of (0.101) and an intelligibility of (0.048).Similarly, Manama villages show that there are as well three levels of synergy and in-telligibility values; for example, Naim village displays the highest synergy (0.778) andintelligibility (0.615) of all villages of the two cities. The second village after Naim isMahooz, of which the synergy value is (0.464) and the intelligibility (0.286), then comesHelah village (synergy 0.297, intelligibility 0.175). The lowest synergy and intelligibilityvillage in Manama is Jefiar, showing (0.293) for its synergy value and (0.172) for its in-telligibility value. Furthermore, the main local Integration (Int R3) values of the villagesin the two cities are between (2.19 to 2.718), while in the main global Integration (IntRn) values vary in the two cities: in Muharraq villages, the global integration is between(0.844 to 0.893), while in Manama (Int Rn), it lies between (0.969 and 1.158). The mainconnectivity in the two cities villages is also slightly different; in Muharraq, the villages’connectivity is higher than it is found in Manama villages: In Muharraq, the values of thevillages range between (3.972 and 4.991); whereas in Manama’s villages they vary between(3.622 and 3.783). Manama’s Naim (IntRRad5) has the highest value with (2236), andthen comes Jefiar (IntRRad5) with (1.595), while Muharraq’s Busaiteen (IntRRad7) is1.465, and Arad is (1.352).

Within this in mind, the next step would therefore be to chose from Manama andMuharraq villages that show the highest syntax values and the ones with the lowestvalues; to concentrate on and compare them. This study try to find out why Busaiteenin Muharraq city and Naim in Manama are the most integrated ones, (with high synergy& intelligibility values); and why Arad in Muharraq and Galali in Manama are the mostsegregated villages (with low synergy and intelligibility values).

1.1.1. Integrated & segregated Villages

Integrated villages

Busaiteen spatial system contains 104 axial lines. The village is located at the very edge,on the north of Muharraq’s old city. The village is connected to the urban grid with 19axial lines, surrounding the village in all direction. It is bounded to the east by Muharraq’scemetery, to the north by a new planning housing project, and to the west by a ring road,

686 Wafa AL-Ghatam

which goes all around Muharraq Island. (See fig. 291 & 294c)ENaim spatial system contains 77 axial lines; it is located west of the old Manama city.

The village is connected to the urban grid with 14 axial lines coming from all directions.To the northwest, Naim is linked to a commercial street, to the west to a high way and tothe south to the village’s cemetery and rural area, and further down to a new residentialarea project (private villas). (See fig. 292 & 294 a)

Segregated villages:

Arad spatial system contains 180 axial lines; it is located southeast of old Muharraq city.It is connected to the urban grid with 11 axial lines. The village is bounded to the southby a ring road, to the east by a new planning town (new Arad town), and to the northernby a high way. Further up it touches the Bahrain national Airport, to the west, the seawhere Arad fort represents one of the main historical areas of Bahrain. (See fig. 294 rightd)

Jefiar spatial system contains 104 axial lines, the village is located southeast of Manamacity. It is connected to the urban grid with 9 axial lines. A new planning residential areabound the village to the north. To the east by the American Army base, to the east -southby villas, and by Bahrain’s main port, to the west by a high way (See fig. 294)

From the previous descriptions of the four villages, we find that the integrated villagesand the segregated ones, each share, within their group, a quite similar use of the landareas surrounding them. For example, Arad and Jefiar villages which represent the mostsegregated villages are both bounded by a new residential planning town or a new residen-tial area, a big project like National Airport and Bahrain port, and also, encircled witha ring road and highway. On the other hand, Naim and Busaiteen which are the mostintegrated villages feature a similar use of the land: both of them are near the old citycentre, enclosed by a ring road, and finally close to new planning residential areas. Therelationship of the villages’ spatial segregation or integration with the surrounding areasis not part of this paper, there will be a further addressing in future studies in order tounderstand the impact of the surrounded areas on the villages.

1.1.2. Urban grid axial lines, which are connected with the village (ALU) What is theimpact of the axial lines surrounding the villages?

1) Village’s system size (ALV) and connected urban grid axial lines to the village (ALU)ratio

The relative amount of numbers of axial lines connecting the villages to the urban grid(ALU) with the numbers of the axial lines system of the village itself (ALV), are not indirect ration to another (see Table 35) there are big differences between segregated andintegrated villages. For example, in Jefiar the ration (ALV: ALU) is (11.5 : 1), in Arad, itis (16.4 : 1) while in Naim it is (5.5 : 1) and in Busaiteen it is (5.5 : 1).

In the segregated villages such as Jefiar and Arad there is a big system of villageswith less axial lines connection with the urban grid. At the same time integrated villages- such as Naim - have a small system of 77 axial lines and 14 axial lines connected to theurban grid. The system of Busaiteen contains 104 axial lines which is the same systemsize of Jefiar village. However, 19 axial lines surround Busaiteen while Jefiar has only 9axial lines from the surrounding urban grid. The next questions to be raised in respectto the previous observation are: What is the impact of the urban axial lines surrounding

Do Villages’ Shape our Cities? 687

Figure 292: Arad Village in Local Level and Global Level: a) Top image is for Arad villagein Muharraq IntRRad 7, 1998; b) Bottom Left image is Arad Int Rn and Int R3 axialmap; c) Bottom right is village with the urban grid axial linkage.

688 Wafa AL-Ghatam

Table 35: shows the number of the axial lines of villages system and the number of theaxial lines from urban grid connected with village. ALV= the number of the Axial LinesVillage system, ALU= the number of the Axial Lines Urban grid connected to village.

Village Name ALV Number ALU Number ALV : ALUNaim 77 14 5.5 : 1

Busaiteen 104 19 5.5 : 1Jefiar 104 9 11.5 : 1Arad 180 11 16.4 : 1

Figure 293: shows the syntactic values for the urban axial lines connected the villages fromthe surrounded urban grid.

the villages? What are the integration values of the urban axial lines that are connectedto the village? What is their length? The next section will be a comparison of the fourvillages in the light of these questions.

2) The syntactic values of the urban axial lines connecting the villages of the surround-ing urban context

Tables in fig. 293 show Naim’s and Busaiteen’s urban axial lines, which are connectedto the villages. There is a difference between them in their Intelligibility values of ALU.Naim’s ALU Intelligibility value is 0.186524, while Busaiteen ALU Intelligibility value ishigher than Naim’s (0.59493). Also, in contrast, Naim’s system has 77 axial lines with 14ALU, whereas Busaiteen’s system holds 104 axial lines and 19 ALU. Arad’s and Jefiar’sALU syntactic values differ as well: Arad village in Muharraq had the lowest syntacticvalues of ALU among its village group while Jefiar had higher syntactic values than Aradwith less ALU number (9) and less village system (104) in comparison to Arad’s ALUnumber (11) and its village system (180).

3) The Highest integration line ALU Syntactic values How strong syntactically is thehighest integrated ALU on the villages?

The highest integration line ALU which is connected to the villages from GL hasdifferent syntactic values in each village. Therefore, we must review these differences inrelation to the segregated villages and the integrated ones. Naim’s and Busaiteen’s highestintegration line (of the integrated villages) had a high connectivity (16 on Naim, 23 onBusaiteen) and a high Int-R3 ( Naim: 4.88941, Busaiteen: 5.45757 ). In contrast, Jefiar andArad (of the segregated villages) had low syntax values in general; the connectivity for thehighest integration ALU of Jefiar is 8 and Arad’s is 5.0. Also, the Int R3 for the village islower than the one for the integrated villages; the Int-R3 for the highest interaction ALUis 3.58766 for Jefiar and 3.0897 for Arad. The longest connected integration line rangesbetween 310.7 and 461 m.

These differences in ALU syntactic values among the same village spatial performance

Do Villages’ Shape our Cities? 689

Table 36: Villages Local Level Syntactic values. (LAL stand for Local Axial Line withoutthe boundaries of the village)

Village name LAL Synergy Intelligibility IntRn IntR3 ConnectivityNumber LAL LAL LAL LAL LAL

Naim 57 0.743 0.58 1.206 1.78 2.982Busaiteen 92 0.393 0.188 1.008 2.021 3.304

Jefiar 68 0.499 0.392 1.003 1.922 3.353Arad 91 0.783 0.632 1.525 2.752 5.648

groups on a city (segregates and integrated) might suggest a further investigation at thelocal level of individual spatial systems of the villages in order to understand the role ofthe villages’ local configuration as an individual system to the Global Level GL. Therefore,the next step, will look at the villages from their local level.

1.2. Local level

Do villages’ spatial configurations have similar syntactic values on Local Level or not?First, this section starts by compare the spatial structures and syntactical values on

the axial maps of the villages in the two cities in Local Level (LL). Firstly, it will lookat the syntactic values of the villages. What are their differences and their similaritiesin their individual configuration? It is important to mention that the local level of thevillages’ measurements of axial analysis in this study is an axial analysis of the villageswithout their boundaries, by assume that the villages’ axial boundaries are part of theGlobal Level (GL) for these cases studies of Bahrain villages.

Table 293 shows all the syntactic values for the villages at the Local level; again,they have different syntactic values in the LL: Arad in Muharraq city holds the highestsyntactic values among all the villages with a big spatial system (91 axial lines), and thesecond village is Naim in Manama city with a small spatial system (57 axial lines) (SeeTable) & fig. 295. In relation to understanding the villages’ syntax values in LL. Thestudy will underline the pattern of the highest integration lines on LL for the villages.when trying to compare between these villages, the following questions arise: where isthe highest integrated line on the village system (for example is it on the centre of thevillage, or the edge...etc.) and how far does it extend in the system, what pattern of coreintegration on village?

Naim village in Local Level

The village contains 57 axial lines with the highest integrated line IntR3 to be 3.98242, (seefig. 8 a)), IntRn is (1.90877) (see fig. 295a)) and Connectivity 10, Line Length is 115.92m, located in the centre and extending to the edge spreading out with 3 high integratedaxial lines forming altogether a deformed wheel shape. In addition, the deformed wheelpattern integrates perpendicularly with the second high and third integrated axial lineswhich form ring shape in the centre of the village.

690 Wafa AL-Ghatam

Figure 294: LEFT: Jefiar Village in Local Level and Global Level. RIGHT: 6 Illustrate thesegregated and integrated villages axial lines in Global Level and urban grid axial lineswhich connected with the village (ALU)

Busaiteen village in Local Level

Busaiteen contains 92 axial lines, the highest integrated line IntR3 is 4.54367, (see fig. 294(right) c)), Int Rn is (1.687) (see fig. 295c)), Connectivity is 13, and line length is 254.1m,. Located in the centre of the village, extending it from the edge, this line intersectsperpendicularly, almost at 90 degrees, with two of the second highest lines and stretch outtowards the other side of the edges of the village.

Jefiar village in local level

Jefiar contains 68 axial lines, the highest integrated line IntR3 is 2.93322, (see fig. 295(right) b)), Int Rn is (1.41529) (see fig. 295b)) and connectivity is 6.0. Line length is 160.9m. Located between the centre and the edge of the village, the line intersects with 2 shorthigh integrated axial lines which, in return, integrate with a third line forming a ringshape.

Arad village in Local level

Arad contains 91 axial lines, the highest integrated line Int R3 is 5.0, (see fig. 8 d)), IntRn (2.59591) (see fig. 295d)), connectivity 18, line length is 277.34 m. Extending fromthe centre to the edge of the village, it intersects perpendicularly with two of the secondhighest integration lines. These two lines are also integrated with 3 high-integrated linesat the north side of the village; two of them extend to the northern edge and three of thelines form a ring shape in the centre. So the high integration lines are extended in the

Do Villages’ Shape our Cities? 691

Figure 295: LEFT: Villages Int Rn in Local Level (internal structure only) and the in-tegration core pattern such as (deformed wheel, axial ring shape, cross shape:). RIGHT:Villages Int R3 in Local Level (internal structure only)

four directions and intersect with one line in the centre. This line is perpendicular to thehighest integration line.

In Muharraq city, Arad village’s highest integrated line has the highest syntax valuesIntRn, IntR3, connectivity and the longest line among all other. With strong integrationcore. Then comes Busaiteen village. In Manama city, Naim has the highest integratedvalues, with a global pattern of a deformed wheel and rings shape. Then comes Jefiarvillage.

Part Two

What are the spatial factors behind spatial segregation or integration of the villages inthe city? Does the segregation or integration of the villages depend on the local level ofthe village’s configuration, or on the global level of the city’s or on both?

What we found is significant: the synergy values of Naim village in Manama (the inte-grated village) and the synergy values of Arad village in Muharraq (the most segregatedvillage) at their Global Level are the highest Synergy at the local level 0.743 for Naim and0.783 for Arad village. In contrast, Busaiteen synergy values at the local level, which is themost integrated in Muharraq, had the lowest values (0.393), while Jefiar, which is the mostsegregated village in Manama at the Global Level, has a higher synergy than Busaiteen.Jefiar synergy values are 0.499. Again Arad and Naim had also, the highest Intelligibilityvalues: 0.632 for Arad and 0.58 for Naim, which suggest that Naim and Arad villages aremore predictable to the city system. However, Arad village at the Global Level is consid-ered to be the most segregated village, while Naim is the most Integrated. Whereas, atthe Local level, both villages have close syntactic values. The same applies to Busaiteenand Jefiar, which brings us to the next point:

Keeping this information in mind, the following step is to compare between the spatialvillages’ performances on the l Global Level (GL) and the Local Level (LL) in relationto the syntactic measurements of the axial analysis in order to answer the next question:

692 Wafa AL-Ghatam

Does the segregation or integration of the villages depend on the local level of the villages’configuration, or on the global level of the city’s development/planning, or on both?

2. The Local Level (LL) spatial analysis & Global Level (GL)

Where are the highest integrated lines of village in LL in relation to the highest lines ofthe ALU?

2.1. How many axial line of ALU in GL intersect with the High integrated line of thevillages on LL?

From the fig. 295 & 295 (right) Naim village high-integrated line in the LL intersect with5 urban axial lines (ALU) in GL, Busaiteen also intersect with 8 ALU, while Arad andJefiar only One urban axial line.

2.2. Where the heist integration line ALU in GL intersect on the village?

From the fig. 295 & 295 (right) Naim village high-integrated line in the LL intersect with5 urban axial lines (ALU) in GL, Busaiteen also intersect with 8 ALU, while Arad andJefiar only One urban axial line.

In Naim village the highest ALU intersect in the edge with the deformed wheel pattern,of the highest integrated line for the village in LL. In Busaiteen the highest ALU intersecton the edge of the village with the second highest integration in LC. In Jefiar the highestALU intersect with the village on the edge with a segregated line. Also, Arad the highestALU intersect on the edge of the village with a segregated line.

Part Three

A suggestion of Axial Analysis model of the spatial factors of the City & Village relation-ship.

In this final part of he paper, we look at a further study of the village (the local unit)and the city (whole system) relationship to investigate - from a theoretical standpoint -the space syntax in order to find out why local units are segregated or integrated in thewhole system. For example, if we present axial lines of a system model (See fig. 296) byHillier (Hiller, 1996) and add to this system another local unit (as representing for village)by producing an axial analysis while testing one spatial factor of a local unit such as:

• Changing the connection of the local unit in the whole system with different depth

• Changing the connection of the local unit in the whole system with different depth

• The local unit in the system is connected to different locations

• Changing the location of the local unit in relation to the system (close from thecentre, away from the centre...etc)

• Add more axial lines to the local unit

• Add deformed wheel to the local unit

We then collect the syntactic measurements and look for the worst segregation, thebest integration and the spatial factors that lie behind this action.

Do Villages’ Shape our Cities? 693

Figure 296: Theoretical Model of City and Local unit spatial relationship.

Discussion & Conclusion

The mechanisms of the villages in the whole system vary from location to another. Someare segregated other integrated. This paper set out to find the spatial factors behind thisphenomenon. The study looked into two levels: first at the village at the Global leveland, secondly at the village at the local level. Two levels play a role in this segregationor integration o the village. The spatial factors of segregation and integration of Bahrainvillages are the following:

• The proportion of the number of the axial lines from the urban grid connected withthe village into the village axial lines system size, in this study of Bahrain village,is 5.5 : 1 on the integrated villages, and 11.4: 1 from the segregated villages. Thismeans that the distribution of the urban axial lines to the villages in relation tothe village system axial number has to be every 6 axial at least and that the villageshould be connected with one axial line from the urban system to raise the chance tobe an integrated village. A good example for that is Busaiteen (integrated village)and Jefiar (segregated village): they both have the same villages system size axiallines 104 with different number urban axial line ALU; with Busaiteen having 19ALU while Jefiar has 9 ALU. Also, in the integrated village, the ALU connectivityand Int R3 had higher values than ALU of the segregated villages.

• The segregated villages or integrated villages on the global level did not necessaryhave similar syntactic values on their local level. Actually, the segregated and inte-grated villages could have a high synergy and intelligibility on the local level. Forexample Naim (integrated village at the global level ) and Arad (segregated villageat the global level), have both high synergy and intelligibility. The reasons behindthese differences result from the global level because the ALU number connected tothe village, where they are connected, shows that the ratio of the villages systeminto ALU numbers is higher than 5.5:1.

• Furthermore, the villages such as Naim and Arad, at the Local level, share a signif-icant spatial pattern which is the deformed wheel. However, the difference betweenNaim and Arad is that Naim’s deformed wheel is considered the integration core inInt Rn and Int R3, while Arad’s deformed wheel pattern is considered strongest inInt R3, more than Int Rn. Another factor to be taken into account is their spatialpattern which is the ring shape, which is formed by integrating the second highestintegration axial lines in the system with the integration core of the deformed wheel.

694 Wafa AL-Ghatam

Naim, for example, has two spatial rings shape pattern and a line extending fromthe center to the edge.

• The integration core for Naim and Arad at the Local Level is located in the centerand extends to the edges of the villages in four different directions. Hillier noticed,from studying the integration and segregation core of many settlements, in differentcultures of a structure, the deformed wheel (Hillier, 1989, p. 11). He articulates thatthe villages, for example, with local deformed wheels, have the effect of relating localmovement to the larger scale of movement through the area. It links to the edges inall directions, ensuring that it is integrated into the larger scale urban context. Thisworks by relating the ‘local grid conditions’ of each line to the larger scale spatialsystem. The more the two correlate, the more we have ‘synergy’ between local andglobal movement, and this is in practice what makes local areas or villages feel wellused. (Hillier, 1999) This applies also to the spatial factor of the segregated Aradand integrated Naim at the global level, because in Arad, the integration core is notlinked or integrated into the urban context strongly (ALV: ALU, is 11.6: 1 in GL),while Naim, has each line of the deformed wheel linked to the urban context (5.5: 1in GL). This explains why the village had a high synergy at the global level.

The paper concludes with opening up more questions that need further investigatingin future studies, such as:

1. What impact does the surrounding area have on the village’s spatial behaviour(integrated as well as segregated)? For example, a new planning town close to thevillage or a big planning project like an airport;

2. What impact does a ring road or a highway have on the spatial behavioural rela-tionship between the village and the city?

3. How do these different spatial villages mechanisms influence the growth process ofManama city and Muharraq city?

4. How to develop an enhanced method for measuring micro patterns such as villagesor local units in the urban system?

Literature

Al-Najar, B. (1998) The Sociological Society in Arabian Gulf Cities, Dar El-KunoozAl- Adabiya, (in Arabic), Bahrain.

Arab League, (1975) State of Bahrain: A study of environment challenging and Hu-man, (in Arabic), the Institution of research and studies, Cairo, Egypt.

Ben-Hamouch, M. (2004) The Changing Morphology of Gulf Cities: The Case ofBahrain, in: Habitat International, Vol. 28, p. 521-540.

Fuccaro, N. (2000) Understanding the urban history of Bahrain, in: Journal for Crit-ical Studies of the Middle East, 17, p. 49-81.

Hillier (2001a) A theory of the city as object: how spatial laws mediate the socialconstruction of urban space, in: Proceedings of the Third Space Syntax Symposium,Atlanta.

Do Villages’ Shape our Cities? 695

Hillier (1999) Centrality as a process: accounting for attraction inequalities in deformedgrids, in: Urban Design International, 3/4, p. 107-127.

Hillier B (1996a) Space is the Machine, Cambridge University Press, p. 470.Hillier B (1996b) Cities as movement economies, in: Urban Design International, Vol.

1, No. 1, p. 49-60, E & F.N.Spon.Hillier et al (1987) Creating life: or, does architecture determine anything? in: Ar-

chitecture & Behaviour, Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 233-250.Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University

Press.Mandeel, F. (1992) Planning regulations for the traditional Arab-Islamic built environ-

ment in Bahrain. M.Phil. Thesis, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, unpublished.Ministry of Housing (MOH), (1986a) Bahrain yesterday and today. Manama,

Bahrain: Ministry of Housing, Arabian Printing & Publishing House.Ministry of Housing (MOH). (1986b) Development of dwelling units. Manama,

Bahrain: Ministry of Housing, Arabian Printing & Publishing House.Ministry of Housing (MOH), (1987) Manama urban renewal project, Manama:

Physical Planning Directorate.Ministry of Housing (MOH). (1996) Housing and urban development, Manama,

Bahrain, Ministry of Housing, Arabian Printing & Publishing House.