A shape grammar for the spontaneous occupation settled in fishing villages: The case of Garopaba,Brazil

Abstract

This work presents the second stage of a larger study which conducted the elaboration of a shape grammar based on the analysis of the remaining fishing villages in the Santa Catarina State, Southern Brazil. The architectural and formal structure of the villages provide a perspective of the constructive methods and features embedded in the spatial arrangements and represent a local cultural heritage site. The aim of the present work relies on unraveling its spatial resources using a shape grammar approach, in order to contribute to the preservation of a distinct culture, and is intended to be used to safeguard its formal language planning. Also, through the analytical grammar, it would be possible to contribute in framing design guidelines regarding the remaining villages, to keep it steady on the traditional context, safeguarding its peculiar character. As such, the method in this body of work considered the analysis resulting from the first stage, in order to develop an analytical shape grammar using Garopaba village as a case of study. This stage involved the establishment of a formal language for the analytical grammar, consisting of initial form, vocabulary, families, and spatial relations, and thus, a series of rules emerged, decoding the composition arrangements. The results involved the verification of the considered parameters, confirming the existence of spatial patterns. Thus, it was possible to conclude that the grammar contributes to identifying the occupation process occupation and the spatial patterns which underlies an artisanal fishing village. Also, the grammar allowed the creation of urban compositions similar to the structure of traditional fishing communities in Santa Catarina, generating different discussions regarding the analytical approach towards fishing villages arrangements, compared to the examples studied, specifically, in Garopaba city.

Keywords

shape grammar urban form fishing villages Santa Catarina

Introduction

The traditional fishing villages of Santa Catarina state are located within the coastal zone and are a form of informal urban settlement corresponding to the occupation from the first half of 20th century.^1,2 The architectural and formal structure of the villages provide a perspective of the constructive methods and features embedded in the spatial arrangements and represent a local cultural heritage site. According to Lago,³ the villages were built by groups of fishermen and their families, in times where agriculture was in transition to the practice of artisanal fishery. Due to the tourism establishment and urbanization processes conducted upon the Santa Catarina’s coastline after the decade of 1980, many of the villages throughout the coast became touristic beaches, thus, the original characteristics of form and function, usual spatial dynamics originally from artisanal fishery practice, suffered changes.¹ Although the specific formal features and the village’s underlying logic reflect its rhythms and patterns settled over the years, modifications have made them fragmented spaces, or almost eliminated altogether.^1,3

Still, the remaining fragments of fishing villages have a rich spatial configuration. In the villages where fishing activity has remained until today, mostly, even on a small scale, there are spatial patterns which refer to the original formal structure, and constructive typology. Since Santa Catarina coast is subjected to almost similar local conditions, it is therefore not surprising to find the similarity of formal structure in most of these villages.^4,5 Therefore, the aim of the present work relies on unraveling its spatial resources using a shape grammar approach, in order to contribute to the preservation of a distinct culture, and is intended to be used to safeguard its composition language. Also, through the analytical grammar, it would be possible to contribute in framing design guidelines regarding the remaining villages, to keep it steady on the traditional context, safeguarding its peculiar character.^6,7

As stated, this paper focused on the second stage of a larger research, in which the fishing villages in Santa Catarina were analyzed from the occupation process point of view, in order to elaborate a shape grammar based on the growth of the coastal settlements. The complete research involved three main stages. First, an analysis was conducted, encompassing history, morphology, and topology contexts, elucidating constructive typologies, spatial dynamics, and the identification of recurrent characteristics regarding the coastal occupation in Santa Catarina estate, which, in the past, was largely described in the works of Lago.^3,4

The second stage -which is the one focused on this paper- involved the establishment of a formal language for the analytical grammar, consisting of initial form, vocabulary, families, and spatial relations, and thus, a series of rules emerged, decoding the composition arrangements.^8,9 The third stage of the process included the implementation of the village’s grammar in a visual programming environment, to test its efficiency in reproducing the composition language of the villages. Algorithms in C# were used to generate the compositions to verify whether visual programming retain the settlement’s qualities or not, with the aid of computational strategies based on random numbers, stochastic search and object-oriented programming.¹⁰

As such, the method in this work considered the analysis resulting from the first stage, in order to develop an analytical shape grammar using Garopaba fishing village as a case of study. According to Economou,¹¹ this grammar makes it possible to describe the style or type of the design, including, therefore, a rule-based system method.^12,13 Moreover, shape grammar was selected as the methodology to decode the analysis of the village’s occupation since it allows to represent shapes and rules visually¹⁴ and to merge complementary features of the same typology in an ordered set of rules.¹⁵

The results consisted of a shape grammar that recreates the formal patterns and the structure, decoding the composition arrangements of the villages, which makes it possible to construct new instances of the style, applying them in contemporary urban planning and architectural design, in order to preserve and revitalize the existing fishing settlements.

Moreover, the grammar developed in this study is representative of the village’s evolution growth, that is, the instauration of the occupation in Santa Catarina coastline. Indeed, this grammar evolves incrementally, highlighting the changes upon the developing fabric, at that time. However, due to the changes conducted through the coastline territory after the second half of XX century, the growth of traditional fishermen villages was interrupted. The elements of several villages were turned apart, as well as embedded into a new urban tissue .^1,3 In the case of Garopaba, the city kept a very significative fragment of the village preserved until nowadays, aside its historic center.¹⁶ Considering the urbanization’s recent events, the expansion process that evolved after the 1980 decade, and also the changes upon the original village context, are a part of the authors subsequently works, in which a transformation grammar should result.

Elements of a formal language

The elements of a composition form contribute to preserving the logic and knowledge used to organize the space. According to Alexander,¹⁷ the existence of patterns emphasizes that all acts of construction in space are governed by a pattern language of some kind, which infers geometric shapes in space, through common actions shaped by a people. The author points out, also, that language is, therefore, like a semiology, it is the genetic system that gives power to small acts so that they form a whole. However, it is possible to notice that, over the years, an intrinsic composition language may undergo changes, evolution, or de-characterization, as the community itself is linked to other dynamics.¹⁷

According to Gong,¹⁸ urban fabric records the physical development while reflecting the rhythms and patterns of urban life. In informal or historic settlements, particularly, the accumulation is gained through unpredictable, subtle processes over time. The conventional urban design usually overlooks these processes, setting order in urban fabric by distinct and deliberate configurations.¹⁸ In this sense, the occupation of fishing villages does not happen in a planned way, but gradually and incrementally over time, as the demands are created by the residents of these places, that is, there are different aspects that these users have incorporated throughout the process of occupation.¹⁹ According to the literature review the establishment of fishing villages in Santa Catarina Coast began around the decade of 1930.^3,4

Moreover, architectural elements create a unique local language, based on the spatial relationships between these elements, a descriptive set was settled.²⁰ Through the identification of patterns of solutions used in space, it was possible to analyze the language and then extract generation rules that are attributed by the logic of deployment in space.^17,20 Vocabulary elements identify the architectural style, addressing the generation of a plan and creating a geometrical pattern that determines the composition characteristics of the plan.⁶ Authors such as Stiny and Mitchell,²¹ Koning and Eizenberg,²² and Cagdas²³ stated that the vocabulary elements act as a starting point for the plan generation.

Regarding the element’s association, Knight²⁴ points out that spatial relations are defined as the possibilities of arrangements between shapes. They provide different contexts for adding shapes in a vocabulary to one another or subtracting those shapes from each other to create designs. The author reinforces those basic grammars are defined from additional rules, determined from a particular spatial relationship, to generate the same designs, but in different orientations. To condition a spatial relationship to elements that show transformations, labels can be used together with rules and, in this way, restricting parameters. Each marker determines a different relation, according to the symmetries of the shapes in it, which generates designs with distinct spatial properties.²⁴

Related works

This research is based on previous studies on the development of urban design through a shape grammar approach. Shape grammars are a formal design theory proposed by Stiny and Gips,²⁵ consisting in an algorithmic process to generate designs.¹³ The application of shape grammar as a method represents a valuable contribution to decode a given pre-existing language.^17,26 Stiny and Mitchell²⁷ motivated by the belief that understanding an architectural style requires more than simply describing its essential properties and pointing out important examples, propose that it is necessary to create rules capable of constructing new instances of that style.²⁷

Following the statement, Duarte²⁸ developed a parametric grammar from the analysis of urban form of the Marrakech Medina, in the Zaouiat Lakhdar neighborhood, in Morocco. Similarly, some recent examples of shape grammars applied to the analysis of urban fabric and informal settlements, include: Yousefniapasha,²⁹ regarding the generation of vernacular houses on the villages adjacent to rice fields of Mazandaran, in the north of Iran; Verniz and Duarte,¹³ which unravels the spontaneous occupation of Brazilian informal settlement place at Santa Marta favela, producing an urban grammar; Castro and Beirão,⁷ using shape grammars as a support instrument for heritage safeguard planning, based on a vernacular language to a contemporary materialization; and Ena,³⁰ decoding Rio de Janeiro’s favelas with a shape grammar application as a contribution to the debate over the regularization of favelas.

The common point in all identified studies is to make it possible to regenerate patterns that belong to specific urban languages, adopting a generative approach. Also, these grammars approach the composition form considering its plan view which is the one selected in the present study. Furthermore, according to Ozdemir and Ozdemir,³¹ in shape grammars, rules are not expressed as a symbolic expression, they are directly expressed through shapes, making it possible for the urban design language to define and create spatial compositions. Identifying constants in the urban fabric brings to light spatial representations of the collectivity, since types represent the spatial ideas that structure the order of urban spaces.^13,30,31 Given the fixed layouts, lacking of adequacy and efficiency present in the traditional approach to urban design, more adaptable and flexible features have been emerged, including behavioral modeling techniques based on multi-agent systems (simulations), geometric modeling techniques based on generative algorithms, among others.²⁶

Therefore, to interpret the unknown processes in a consistent analysis of a given self-built settlement, its logic of generation must be preserved. Consequently, shape grammars support the analysis of existing fishing villages in the urban coastal fabric of Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil, and can be used to preserve its composition language. The collectivity of urban morphology,¹⁸ which may hinder the use of shape grammars in urbanism, nevertheless, discursive practices^32,33 and the infusion of semantic descriptions³⁴ has enabled shape grammars to describe²⁷ or design³⁵ an urban form.

Moreover, this grammar describes the self-built occupation in Garopaba fishing village based on a few simple assumptions similar to the ones regarding favela Santa Marta urban grammar,^13,36 favela Parque Royal³⁰ and the work of Gong,¹⁸ in generating urban fabric. These assumptions are (1) alleys and streets are progressively provided alongside the buildings; (2) the place for the houses is self-selected and the neighborhood is self-built; (3) an existing line (representing a barrier) guides the process of occupation; and (4) alleys are spontaneously formed when the initial entrances to access the houses become difficult.

Garopaba’s village

Overview of similar villages

The fishermen village of Garopaba finds itself among the thirty-eight other cities in the coastline of Santa Catarina estate. Regarding the initial occupation by villages in the whole coastal area, it is substantial to present the available historical maps from Florianópolis, which is the capital city. Unfortunately, it is not possible to present historical maps from Garopaba’s initial occupation in the beginning of the XX century,¹ however, Florianópolis, provides geo-referenced image records since 1938.

Nowadays, the capital is known and famous for being the most touristic city across the estate’s seaside, in which several of its villages have lost traditional context and essential elements built by the fishermen, being replaced by luxury resorts and high standard mansions.^3,4 It is also stated by Lago¹ that those original characteristics of artisanal fishery practices implanted at the villages territories, were significantly changed after 1980 decade. Therefore, in order to show the occupation process in different stages during the XX century, two important villages of Florianópolis are presented, Barra da Lagoa (Figure 1) and Pântano do Sul (Figure 2), which represent the two most important remaining village’s fragments on the city.

Figure 1.

Evolution of Pântano do Sul across time, in Florianópolis.³⁷

Figure 2.

Evolution of Barra da Lagoa across the time, in Florianópolis.³⁷

Case of study

According to Comerlato,¹⁶ the occupation of Garopaba’s territory in early XX century expanded from the coastline (specifically close to the sea, alongside the sheds) into the interior, characterizing a village of fishermen families. Nowadays, the specific remaining fragment, which corresponds to the historic center in Garopaba, is defined by the seaside area where the fishermen village is still settled, as show in Figures 3 and 4. As such, the fragment is marked with dashed white lines in Figure 3, which demarks the present scenario of the village as well as the area of this study.

Figure 3.

Present scenario of the historic center, dashed.³⁸

Figure 4.

Garopaba seaside overview.³⁸

Moreover, Correa³⁹ and Comerlato¹⁶ highlight the preservation of a few structures from the colonization period, that is, at Garopaba’s shore it once took place a whale oil-extract factory² (armação baleeira) foundation. At the end of the XIX century, these facility buildings were still conserved. Nowadays, the reminiscent constructions are located on the west side of the village, above the promontory,³ as show in Figure 5 (dashed yellow square), consisting of church chapel, square, and house of the officials, as show in the early XX century, in Figure 6.

Figure 5.

Present scenario of Garopaba historic center.³⁸

Figure 6.

Historic center in the early XX century.⁴⁰

In terms of Garopaba as a whole structured municipality, not only the historic center fragment, it is noted that several residencies were located in the city’s downtown, usually where the public buildings were settled. The map in Figure 7 illustrates how the public infrastructure works nowadays, which is by having the buildings concentrated on the surroundings of a main square.

Figure 7.

Map highlight Garopaba public buildings.

Nevertheless, Lago,¹ Pereira,³ and Correa³⁹ affirm that, the addition of this type of constructions did not influence the establishment of the village, considering that those buildings elements in the description of Figure 7 are part of events occurred in the municipality after the 1950 decade. Additionally, since the beginning of the XX century, the village had its own fishing/selling dynamics that does not involved the use of the urban structure.¹

Moreover, due to the tourism establishment and urbanization processes conducted upon the Santa Catarina’s coastline after the decade of 1980, the villages throughout the coast of Santa Catarina became also touristic cities, interrupting the village’s growth. Thus, the process of land subdivision, plots and new streets structured the Garopaba territory into a whole urban tissue⁴¹ as show in Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Map highlight Garopaba public buildings.³⁸

Therefore, the unfoldment of the urbanization processes, which created several new downtown blocks, and consequently the instauration of all types of dwellings, placed far from the main street, that is, located in other parts of the city, are not the object of this study, considering that the remaining fishermen village itself exists only in the historic center. That is, it is possible to identify the typology and its character by the analysis of the elements. These expansion processes, tough, are a part of the authors subsequently works, which are still in process of elaboration, considering that as far as the expansion advances, is no longer possible to clearly identify which are the local fishermen households and which are part of residencies from seasonable staying tourists.

Additionally, it is important to present Figures 9–14, which come from historical records of the municipality, in order to illustrate the village’s establishment itself, as well as the occupation evolution in the early years of the past century.

Figure 9.

Garopaba village in early XX century.⁴⁰

Figure 10.

Fishing dynamics in early XX in Garopaba.⁴⁰

Figure 11.

A view of the sheds.⁴⁰

Figure 12.

Boats placed at the shore in early XX century.⁴⁰

Figure 13.

The first dwelling taking place.⁴⁰

Figure 14.

A view from the church in early XX.⁴⁰

The images highlight the morphological process of instauration of the fishermen that took place along the years in Garopaba historic center (the shore), which encompasses the area of study. In general, it appears that there is an optimization of the spaces between elements that occurs over decades, and the spatial relationships developed are the result of a natural process, resulting from the practice of fishing and construction priorities. The most immediate evidence, therefore, is given by the presence of a significant number of shed/shacks (used to store the boats and gear), which are lined up along the shore, without uniformity and with variable spacing between them.^3,4

Regarding the structure of the villages, the living houses and its close neighborly relations are an important part of the topology, which create crowded areas in the villages.^3,4 It is notable that the close relationships between families that live close together cause densification forms and irregular multifamily plots. As Pereira¹ emphasizes, one of the most important features in the fishing settlements is the close relationship between the fishing sheds and the water line (shore), which becomes essential for the fishing dynamics to happen in the expected way.¹

As such, dynamics involving the fishing shed includes its priority regarding the proximity to the water, since the shed’s door must always face the water, so the boats can be dragged from the ocean to be stored inside. The sheds should be associated with other sheds, side by side, as shown in Figure 15. The fisherman’s family house appears allocated, mostly, behind the shed as Figure 16 shows.

Figure 15.

Sheds side by side.³⁸

Figure 16.

Houses behind the sheds.³⁸

As Figures 17 and 18 below evidence, the most essential elements in the village consist of fishing sheds, houses, alleys in between them, markets, and main streets.

Figure 17.

Houses and markets from the main street.³⁸

Figure 18.

Houses and markets from the main street.³⁸

The circulation network is very irregular, suggesting that it is a result of building placement, which later become narrow alleys between the buildings, aligned to the topography. The general plan of the historic center of Garopaba is presented in the map of Figure 19, showing a small piece of the housing system close to the main street. In order to simplify shapes information and make it into a visible correspondence to the grammar, sheds are represented by gray rectangles, houses by empty rectangles, and markets by diagonal stripes hatched rectangles. The water line is a thick continuous dark line, and main streets are the gray ones.

Figure 19.

General plan of the Garopaba historic center, corresponding to the village’s beginning (source: authors).

For the present work, the rectangular shape of the buildings is proposed to represent shapes in the fishing villages plans, since it is the actual form in reality. Therefore, the village’s grammar consists, mostly, of fishing sheds, houses, alleys in between them, markets, and streets.¹⁰

Method

Shape grammar was selected as the methodology to visually decode the analysis of occupation of a fishing village since it allows to represent shapes and rules visually¹⁵ and to merge complementary features of the same typology in an ordered set of rules.³² As mentioned, the completed study was based on three main stages. Methods and tools on the first stage involved the geo-referenced data of Santa Catarina coastline provided by the municipality, complemented by interviews in the field, and digital platforms such as Open Topo Map e Earth Systems Monitor. Once the information was gathered, a large analysis was conducted, encompassing history, morphology, and topology contexts, elucidating constructive typologies, spatial dynamics and the identification of recurrent characteristics regarding the coastal occupation in Santa Catarina estate, which, in the past, was largely described in the works of Lago.^3,4

As mentioned, the second stage, which is the one focused in this body of work, involved the establishment of the method for the analytical grammar itself, and it was carried out in three specific steps outlined by Li.⁴² Regarding the three specific steps within the stage two, it encompassed the formal, dimensional and topological analysis of the shapes, as follows:

Synthesizing data

The corpus is a set of shapes belonging to the design language encoded by the grammar, which in the case of fishing villages settlements includes water line, buildings and main street segments, with its specifications. Such as, the elements were written down as symbols and codes,⁴³ to guide the grammar structure itself according to the elements, as Table 1 shows:

Table 1.

Grammar structure.

Elements	Symbol	Specification	Symbol
Water line	WL	water border line (shore)
Fishing shed	shd	width/shed	ws
		length/shed	ls
		alley in between two	d
		contextual alignment	α
		new placement alignment	β
		marker adding reference (side)	●
Fisherman’s house	hs	width/house	wh
		length/house	lh
		circulation	e
		placement alignment	δ
		alley in between two	f
		retreat distance considering MS	g
		marker adding reference (back)	o
		marker adding reference (side)	*
Marketplaces	mkt	width/market	wm
		length/market	lm
		placement alignment	δ
Main street	MS	main street segment
		market-street retreat distance	h
		marker adding reference (back)	o
		marker adding reference (side)	*
Plots	plt	plot division

Figures 20 and 21 highlight the elements association based on the previous data showed in Table 1.

Figure 20.

Sheds primary associations.

Figure 21.

Houses primary associations.

In terms of hierarchy, the two most important buildings (highlighted with bold in Figure 22) are the fishing shed (shd), which is the first to be allocated connected to the water line (WL), and the fisherman’s house (hs), allocated, mostly, behind the shed (R2). The sheds, also, are associated with other sheds (R1), side by side only. An agglomeration of houses may bring a little alley in between; the houses, so the circulation is guaranteed. Still, sheds may be linked to the marketplaces (mkt) (R3), which always brings in a main street (MS), considering that markets must be located in streets where it is possible to easily access. Figure 22 shows also the house- main street relation (R4), the house-house association, considering the position side by side (R5) or in the back-to-back (R6). The same relation works for the houses and marketplaces (R7). As the application of the rules progress, the arrangement of the villages grows incrementally, following the pattern of association shown in Figures 20 and 21.

Figure 22.

Grammar workflow and typology and rule schemata. (source: authors).

Once typology was determined, the analysis of the corpus was synthesized into urban topology, identifying buildings and pathways between them. According to Lambe and Dongre,⁶ a rule schemata method describes the association of elements, thus, the schema in Figure 22 was developed based on how the association of the elements work in this grammar.

Therefore, once the element’s type and topology were established, the words were turned into a vocabulary of geometric shapes, with hatches expressing typology, as shown in Figure 23. In order to classify different building typologies, hatches were added to the polygonal shapes, defining vocabulary according to its function: fishing sheds, houses, and markets. Additionally, plots are represented by a four-sided polygon.

Figure 23.

Grammar workflow and typology and rule schemata (source: authors).

Inferring the rules

Before inferring the rules, it was necessary to state the grammar according to the four-tuple definition²⁵ to an analytical shape grammar (SG).¹¹ The established methodology includes the structure SG= (S, M, R, I), being the following:

- a finite set vocabulary of shapes (S) that includes all possible shapes used or generated by the process, including an initial shape and the final drawings;

- a finite set of markers or labels (M) used to restrict parameters;

- a finite set of rules (R) that defines the permissible transformations in shapes. The final design is the result of recursive application of rules;

- A labeled initial form (I) that starts the algorithmic process.

Once the corpus was identified, shapes and shape relations were characterized, the rules were elaborated in order to replicate such shapes and shape relations using 2D shapes to represent plans and such, to recreate the urban coastal fabric of the fishing village.

Derivation

After being inferred, the rules were applied in a derivation process. The derivation eliminated redundancy and so grammar was readjusted as needed. It used the bottom-up approach, considering that it delivers a better result since informal settlements are not planned, the agglomeration of the buildings into a grid is not easily identifiable.

Results

Considering the context, the composition arrangement is determined from the particular spatial relationships established, generating the design. The geometric shapes in the grammar, show highlighted characteristics based on the original structure of the fishing villages, that is, it is the result of the topological analysis, regarding construction-construction, access-construction, and construction-water line that were established following the real-life associations, responsible for maintaining the underlying logic of the villages.

Decision making process

Based on Verniz and Duarte’s diagram,¹³ a decision-making process diagram regarding some contextual factors was elaborated for the grammar, as shown in Figure 24. Initially, this statement follows the observation that fishing villages occupy coastal areas close to a physical barrier (hill), and evolve incrementally, and as such, the initial form consists of a shed connected to the water border line. Therefore, decision-making steps provide answers to the following questions: 1. How does the occupation initiate? R1 indicates the allocation of a second fishing shed, transferring the dark dot marker (●) from the bottom vertices (right or left) of the existing shed to the right or left bottom vertex (depending on the occupation growth direction) of the new one, always keeping the connection to the water border line at least one vertex. As such, the dark dot becomes the reference point for the allocation of new fishing sheds. The application of the rule always transfers the previous dark dot marker to the new fishing shed’s upper vertices. The sheds can be juxtaposed or not (R1a and R1b), depending on the need for trails and according to the space that allows the distribution of these buildings. Also, the shed’s owners negotiate land parcels and building alignments.

Figure 24.

Diagram showing how the grammar evidences the underlying logic behind the occupation process of a fishing village settlement. (source: authors).

2. How do the houses take place and the neighborhood get settled? The first houses follow the logic of living near the place of work (sea and boats) and correspond to the families dwelling that live close to the shore, most of them owning a fishing shed. Initially, the houses are allocated usually on the back of the sheds, and rarely, they are positioned on the side. It is important to observe that in the first place, houses take place accompanying sheds as reference, as R2 shows. Afterwards, the houses are added considering markers upon the houses themselves, already placed by rules R2 and R4, and so on. Also, the neighbors negotiate land parceling, house alignment and distances between houses, which later indicates the formation of gaps and narrow alleys. Therefore, the insertion of houses occurs according to the rules R2, R4, R5 e R6. The position of the new house also determines whether the circulation needs to be provided by alleys or not. The house building may also be juxtaposed, due, among other reasons, to the amount of land available, which, if scarce, infers a more agglomerated occupation. Immediate neighborhoods, too, can give rise to juxtaposed buildings, as families can build side by side.

3. How does a building (of any typology) align with the context? According to this adjustment rule, there is a change in the position of the building. The decision in rule RC determines the alignment of the new building relative to the closest, rotating the building to align it with the whole neighborhood context. It occurs only in order to maintain the relation between urban form and phenomena such as morphology, as the urban fabric, in general, is not a geometric grid.

4. How does the circulation system work? Usually, the circulation network is very irregular, suggesting that it results from the building placement process. Rules R5 and R6 represent the circulation network generation. Still, the position of the new buildings determines whether the circulation needs to be provided by alleys or not, considering that alleys are spontaneously formed when the accesses of the existing houses become difficult, since an agglomeration of buildings needs to guarantee circulation.

5. Where are the markets allocated? Rules R3 e R7 insert a marketplace in the settlement. The market is in the third place of the typology hierarchy and so, gets added from the shed or the houses already added. A market place always comes together with the establishment of a main street, considering that these buildings must be located in streets where it is possible to easily access.

6. How are the plots divided? Rule R8 enables the demarcation of lots, an action that is connected with the need to delimit properties and land parceling according to the neighborhood, the most important relation in the village spatial organization. The neighbors negotiate land parceling, path width and building alignment, distances between buildings and whether paths will be alleys or not. Moreover, the association establishes dividing the lots facing two paths, for every parcel to be equally accessible.

A simplification form was carried out due to space limitations, that is, only the area dashed in red in the following map of Figure 25 is selected to apply the grammar, given that the other areas follow the same occupation conditions.

Figure 25.

The area selected for derivation (source: authors).

Grammar structure

First, the initial shape that initiates the construction of the arrays is included in the grammar, which, in this case, consists of a grey rectangle corresponding an existing shed, labeled with a dark dot (●) at both right and left bottom vertexes, and a water border line (WL) representing the shore. The dark dot works as a marker responsible for adding new sheds side by side only, with at least one of the dots being always upon the WL. Moreover, the already stated grammar structure considers SG = (S, M, R,I), which includes three different types of markers. The dark marker (●) works for allocation of sheds, side by side only, and it is always placed in the bottom vertexes of the polygon representing the shed. The empty dot marker (o) is placed in the upper vertex of the polygon representing the house, adding buildings above the selected one, with or without circulation (alleys) between them. The star key marker (*) adds buildings side by side. In total, the grammar has three types of hatches indicating typology and two different line thicknesses. The finite set of forms consists mostly in rectangles. The total number of rules is nine. As such, the grammar structure is defined by:

S= {shd, hs, mkt, plt, WL, MS}

M= {●, O, *}

R= {R1… R9}

Rules

Based on the simplified shapes,¹⁸ the topological relations are embedded into the context of rules, which in this case includes the relationships among fishing sheds, streets, houses with or without creating pathways in between, and especially, between water line and sheds. In this study, to elaborate the grammar of fishing villages, the authors concluded that six levels encompass the natural and intuitive process of occupation of the coastline. The rules were elaborated, therefore, based on spatial relations and topology, also the association of vocabulary elements and the different typologies observed and pointed out in Figure 10, respecting the growth logic of the following steps:

(1) allocation of sheds on the water line border;

(2) allocation of the first houses according to sheds; establishment of circulation;

(3) insertion of first marketplaces according to sheds; main streets;

(4) allocation of houses from the main street and from houses themselves;

(5) insertion of the marketplaces and adjustments to local context, if necessary;

(6) demarcation of plots.

Rules R1 to R7 are symmetrical.

Considering the initial form in Figure 26, rule R1 refers to the allocation of fishing sheds keeping one of the dark dots on the water line. Rule R1 is a symmetrical rule, being possible to apply on the left or right side of the initial form, according to the respective marker. In the following Figure 27 it is shown applied to the right (it depends on the occupation growth direction). WL refers to the water line. The indicated measures upon the new shed ws and ls equal to width/shed and length/shed. The angle α corresponds to the given existing local context alignment. By adding a second shed, R1 defines a β angle, considering that the sheds are not completely settled up with the same angle, just approximately. R1a and R1b decide whether alleys are created between sheds, or not. If there is an alley, a distance d defines it. R1 is applied sequentially always transferring the dark dot marker (●) from the bottom vertices (right or left) of the previous shed to the (right or left bottom vertex) new one, always keeping sheds side-by-side, and also maintaining the connection to the water line with at least one vertex.

Figure 26.

Initial form (source: authors).

Figure 27.

Rule R1 (source: authors).

Rule R2 infers the allocation of the fisherman house and establishment of circulation, if needed. When gaps between shed and house are formed, it is represented by e distance. Regardless, the alignment between shed and house are approximately parallel, but it may also be variant, and so it generates a δ angle. Mostly, houses occur on the back of the shed, but sometimes the house is dislocated to the side. When the context demands it, the house gets adjusted by the RC rule. Rule R2 is applied sequentially as long as there are spaces close to the sheds. This rule does not use markers to add houses since the shed itself is the reference element. The indicated measures upon the house wh and lh equal to width/house and length/house (Figure 28).

Figure 28.

rule R2 (source: authors).

Rule R3 denotes the insertion of marketplaces and, consequently, main streets. Initially, the market buildings are added according to a shed, and later, to houses. Considering the shed, in R3 market buildings do not require markers to be inserted, since it happens as long as there are available areas. The main street is connected to the market in at least one face, and it is usually approximately parallel to the water line, and so it generates a δ angle. Once it is in the third position of the hierarchy regarding closeness to the water line, it is set on the back of the shed (Figure 29).

Figure 29.

Rule R3 (source: authors).

The indicated measures upon the market wm and lm equal to width/market and length/market. This rule also indicates the happening of a star key marker (*), on the bottom vertices (right or left) of the market building. It works as a reference to add buildings side-by-side.

From the R4 and so on the grammar conducts the arrangement to grow in width and length, through the bottom-up approach. Once the allocation of the sheds is put on hold, the reference starts to be the main street added by the rule R3. Now, the reference for allocation of houses is the main street. As such, the houses emerge from the MS having the star key marker (*) at the bottom vertex, and also the empty dot marker (o) at the upper arrest. These markers will be the reference point to R5 and R6 since it is based on the allocation of new houses considering the polygon houses themselves. Still, in R4 neighbors decide the retreat distance considering the yards, corresponding to g, and so on (Figure 30).

Figure 30.

Rule R4 (source: authors).

Rule R5, therefore, adds the polygons houses considering the star marker (*), side-by-side. At this moment, it is decided whether there will be an alley between houses, and if so, it is defined by f. R5 is applied sequentially, always transferring the star marker from the bottom vertices (right or left) of the previous house to the (right or left bottom vertex) of the new one. The empty dot marker (o) at the upper arrest remains positioned (Figure 31).

Figure 31.

Rule R5 (source: authors).

Rule R6 adds houses back-to-back considering the empty dot marker (o) at the upper arrest of the polygon. Similarly, as R5, at this moment it is decided whether there will be an alley between houses, and if so, it is defined by f. Rule R6 is applied sequentially, always transferring the empty dot marker from the bottom edge of the previous house to the bottom edge of the new one. The star marker at the bottom vertex remains positioned (Figure 32).

Figure 32.

Rule R6 (source: authors).

Rule R7 adds the polygons markets considering the star marker (*), side-by-side. Similarly, as R5, at this moment it is decided whether there will be an alley between the buildings and if so, it is defined by f. Still, in R7 neighbors decide the market-street retreat distance, corresponding to h, and so on. R7 is applied sequentially, always transferring the star marker from the bottom vertices (right or left) of the previous building to the (right or left bottom vertex) of the new one. The empty dot marker (o) at the upper arrest remains positioned (Figure 33).

Figure 33.

Rule R7 (source: authors).

Rule RC is a generic rule and it may be applied to buildings of any typology. It conducts adjustments to local topographic context, and also transferring if necessary (Figure 34).

Figure 34.

Rule RC (source: authors).

Rule R8 defines the plots by establishing a four-sided polygon. This form was adopted due to the impossibility of demarcating the exact contours of the lots, both because they were divided into several parcels and because this is the visible form provided by the master plan of the municipality of Garopaba in current satellite images. The shape of the polygon demarcated by the R8 has context-adjustable straight lines (Figure 35).

Figure 35.

Rule R8 (source: authors).

Also, the number of elements within the plots are variable, since more than one building can be found, a fact established by the owners and neighborhood at the time of construction, or at the time of demarcation of the property. Nevertheless, it is expressed by . Rule R9 erases the markers (Figure 36).

Figure 36.

Rule R9 (source: authors).

Derivation process

Hence, after being inferred, the rules were applied in a derivation process. The derivation eliminated redundancy and so, the grammar was readjusted as needed. It used the bottom-up approach, considering that informal fishing settlements are not planned, suggesting that it is a result of building placement, within relations occurring over decades. The circulation network presented itself as irregular, and the spatial features developed are the result of a natural process, resulting from the practice of fishing and construction priorities (Figure 37).

Figure 37.

Derivation process (source: authors).

Derivation process evidenced that the grammar may continue evolving incrementally. Also, it can be guided under another topography context, that is, according to another general plan, to form new composition instances. Hence, although this grammar is capable of generating a large number of instances of fishing villages arrangements, as shown in Figures 38 and 39, the forms are constrained to the style of the villages, even when RC is applied several times as happened in Figure 38.

Figure 38.

Other composition from derivation of the same rules applying RC to the context.

Figure 39.

Other composition from derivation of the same rules. (source: authors).

Computational Implementation

Moreover, as stated before, the grammar was partially implemented in a parametric modeling environment,¹⁰ to test its efficiency in reproducing the composition language of fishing villages in general, through the Santa Catarina estate coastline. It was reported that the programming was able to generate an occupation with parametrically adjustable characteristics.¹⁰ At first, the occupation is randomly launched, then organized through a set of rules. Furthermore, the programming was developed in lines of code using the C# language. Also, an algorithmic model called “stochastic search” was used, which allowed the launching of different parameterized coordinates, so that they did not coincide punctually, still, the parameters could be modified, allowing to control the proximities and the area in which they were inserted.¹⁰ Hence, Figure 40 shows the Grasshopper interface containing the algorithmic scripts of programming developed in parametric modeling component Grasshopper, within the Rhinoceros three-dimensional modeling program:

Figure 40.

Algorithmic scripts.¹⁰

It was reported that the development of the programming allowed for the creation of urban compositions similar to the structure of traditional fishing communities in Santa Catarina, as the computational derivations in Figure 41 points out. The computer program and the examples of the built form generated highlighted different discussions about the result of the programming for urban arrangements compared to the examples studied.

Figure 41.

Computational derivations.¹⁰

Conclusion

This study was a part of a larger research regarding fishing villages on the coast of Santa Catarina, which for the most part, suffer from a disfigurement process caused by the replacement by activities related to tourism and consequently deconstruction of the composition language responsible for defining the urban characteristics of these villages. This report concluded that the grammar made it possible to preserve the logic responsible for generating these communities.

Rhus and it was responsible for defining the sequence of insertion of elements to form a fishing village’s grammar. In this grammar, all the buildings are represented with a similar four-sided polygon, whereas this grammar is scale-free and does not aim to involve the building’s footprints, only the visual and spatial organization. The rules were extracted corresponding to the spatial configuration of the corpus considering aspects of urban composition. It was possible to embed parameters such as, the fishing shed must be located in a strategic position close to the sea and on the shortest possible route for distribution of fish. The position of the first houses is located directly next to the shed in order to facilitate access to fishing material and allow for an adequate family bond. The residences are located on the same lot, configuring a cluster of houses belonging to the same family. Alleys are gradually added leading to connecting routes between sheds and lots. Restrictions are related to environmental characteristics (topography, presence of vegetation, beach relief, etc.). From the derivation process, it was possible to conclude that the composition language from the grammar and its restriction parameters are congruent to the language present in the case study, the Garopaba fishing village. As a result, it was possible to make it more compatible with the original language. Moreover, the grammar developed in this study is representative of the village’s evolution growth, that is, the instauration of the occupation in Santa Catarina coastline. Indeed, this grammar evolves incrementally, highlighting the changes upon the developing fabric, at that time. However, due the reasons presented previous, the growth of fishermen village was interrupted, becoming an urban tissue. Moreover, the expansion process that evolved from after the 1980 decade, and also the changes upon the original context are a part of the authors subsequently works, in which a transformation grammar should result. Additionally, further work may include developing strategies to distribute this work as an educational tool to architecture schools and also the general public, which could make possible students to be more careful regarding fishing villages, and to increase the interest in learning about these villages, as well, considering its fragility towards the upcoming urbanization and verticalization of coastline in Santa Catarina.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior.

ORCID iD

Sara D Correa

Notes

References

Pereira

. Formação sócio-espacial do litoral de Santa Catarina (Brasil): gênese e transformações recentes. Geosul, v.18, n.35, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil, 2003: p. 99–129.

Pippi

. Considerações ambientais e paisagísticas para o planejamento urbano do Campeche’ – Florianópolis’ 173 f. MSc Thesis,- UFSC. Florianópolis, Brazil: Federal University of Santa Catarina, 2004.

Lago

. Condições sociais e econômicas do pescador artesanal e aspectos da evolução da atividade pesqueira em Santa Catarina: resultados de pesquisas realizadas em 1966 sob o patrocínio do acordo de pesca . Florianópolis, Brazil: [s.n.], 1967.

Lago

. Contribuição geográfica ao estudo de pesca em Santa Catarina. Revista Brasileira de Geografia, Rio de Janeiro, v. 23, n. 1, 1961:121–213.

Medeiros

Polette

Vizinho

. Macedo CX and Borges JC Diagnóstico sócio-econômico e cultural nas comunidades pesqueiras artesanais do litoral centro-norte do estado de Santa Catarina. Notas técnicas da Facimar, 1997, p. 3342.

Lambe

Dongre

. A shape grammar approach to contextual design: a case study of the Pol houses of Ahmedabad, India. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci 2019; 46(5): 845–861.

Castro

Beirão

. Shape Grammars as a support instrument for heritage safeguard planning From a vernacular language to a contemporary materialization. XXIII Iberoamerican Society of Digital Graphics 2020; 2: 377–384.

Stiny

. Computing with Form and Meaning in Architecture. J Architectural Educ 1985; 39(1): 7–19.

Stiny

. Shape: Talking about Seeing and Doing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.

10.

Correa

Vaz

Mariano

, et al. A shape grammar implementation: the case of fishing villages in Santa Catarina. In: SIGraDi 2021 - Proceedings of the 25th Iberoamerican Congress of Digital Graphics] Ubiquitous Conference, São Paulo: , 8725–12736 November 2021, pp. –.

11.

Economou

. Shape grammars in architectural design studio. In: 2000 ACSA technology conference, Hong Kong, China, 2000, pp. 10–14.

12.

Hayes-roth

. Rule-Based System. Commun. ACM 1985; 28(9): 921–932.

13.

Verniz

Duarte

. Santa marta urban grammar: unraveling the spontaneous occupation of brazilian informal settlements. Environ Plann B: Urban Analytics City Sci 2019; 0(0): 1–18. DOI: 10.1177/2399808319897625.

14.

Knight

Stiny

. Making grammars: From computing with shapes to computing with things. Des Stud 2015; 41: 8–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2015.08.006.

15.

Knight

. Shapes and other things. Nexus Netw J 2015; 17(3): 963–980. DOI: 10.1007/s00004-015-0267-3.

16.

Comerlato

. As Armações baleeiras na configuração da costa catarinense em tempos coloniais. Tempos Históricos Volume 15 - 2° Semestre – 2011, 2011, pp. 481–501.

17.

Alexander

. A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

18.

Gong

. Generating urban fabric in the orthogonal or non-orthogonal urban landscape. Environ Plann B: Urban Analytics City Sci 2020; 47(1): 25–44. DOI: 10.1177/2399808318761667.

19.

Septanti

Irvansyah Setyawan

. The innovative architectural concepts and building components for fishermen settlements in surabaya (study of typological form, element and architectural component). In: The International Conference on Informal Settlement and Affordable Housing, with specific theme “Sustainable Slum Upgrading in Urban Area, 2009, p. III.221–III.236.

20.

Mitchell

. The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation and Cognition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1990.

21.

Stiny

Mitchell

. The palladian grammar. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 1978; 5(1): 5–18. DOI: 10.1068/b050005.

22.

Koning

Eizenberg

. The Language ofthe Prairie. Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie Houses’ Environ Plann B 1981; 8(3): 295–323.

23.

Cagdas

. A shape grammar: The language of traditional Turkish houses. Environ Plann B 1996; 23: 443–464.

24.

Knight

. Designing with Grammars. CAAD Futures Digital Proc 1991; 1991(1980): 33–48.

25.

Stiny

Gips

. Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. In: Petrocelli

(ed) The best computer papers of 1971. Princeton, NJ: Auerbach publishers, 1972, pp. 125–135.

26.

Mandić

Tepavčević

. Analysis of shape grammar application as a tool for urban design. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 2015; 42(4): 675–687. DOI: 10.1068/b130084p.

27.

Stiny

Mitchell

. The grammar of paradise : on the generation of Mughul gardens. Environ and Plan B: Urban Analyt and City Sci 1980; 7: 209–226.

28.

Duarte

Rocha

Soares

. Unveiling the structure of the Marrakech Medina: A shape grammar and an interpreter for generating urban form. Artif Intell Eng Des 2007; 21: 317–349. DOI: 10.1017/S0890060407000315.

29.

Yousefniapasha

Teeling

Rollo

, et al. Shape grammar, culture, and generation of vernacular houses (a practice on the villages adjacent to rice fields of Mazandaranthe north of Iran). Environ Plann B: Urban Analytics City Sci 2021; 48(1): 94–114. DOI: 10.1177/2399808319843919.

30.

Ena

. De-coding Rio de Janeiro’s Favelas. In: Proceedings of the 36 the eCAADe Conference, Lodz University of Technology, Poland, 2018, pp. 429–438.

31.

Ozdemir

. Prioritizing store plan alternatives produced with shape grammar using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Environ Plann B: Urban Analytics City Sci 2018; 45(4): 751–771. DOI: 10.1177/0265813516686566.

32.

Duarte

. Customizing mass housing: a discursive grammar for Siza’s Malagueira houses. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001.

33.

Beirão

Duarte

. Urban Grammars: Towards Flexible Urban Design. In: Digital Design: The Quest for New Paradigms [23nd eCAADe Conference Proceedings], Lisbon, Portugal, 21–24 September 2005, 2005, pp. 491–500.

34.

Knight

. Color grammars: designing with lines and colors. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 1989; 16(4): 417–449. DOI: 10.1068/b160417.

35.

Beirão

Duarte

Stouffs

. Creating specific grammars with generic grammars: Towards flexible urban design. Nexus Netw J 2011; 13(1): 73–111.

36.

Verniz

Duarte

. Santa Marta Urban Grammar Towards an understanding of the genesis of form. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Faculty of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Rome, Italy, 2017, pp. 477–484.

37.

Geoprocessamento de Florianópolis. PMF. Available at http://geo.pmf.sc.gov.br/ (accessed in May 2022).

38.

Google Street View images. (accessed in May, 2022).

39.

CORREA

. Uma gramática da forma para as vilas pesqueiras catarinenses: análise do processo de instauração da ocupação litorânea. Master Thesis. Florianópolis, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 2021, p. 240.

40.

Municipality of Garopaba Historic pictures collection available at https:/garopaba.sc.gov.br. (accessed in May, 2022).

41.

Filardi

ACL

. Diagnóstico da pesca artesanal marinha do município de Garopaba SC: potencialidades e obstáculos para a gestão adaptativa para o diagnóstico da pesca artesanal marinha do município de Garopaba. Master Thesis. Florianópolis, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 2007.

42.

. A shape grammar for teaching the architectural style of the Yingzao fashi. PhD Thesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001.

43.

Said

Embi

. A Parametric Shape Grammar of the Traditional Malay Long-Roof Type Houses. Int J Archit Comput 2008; 6(2): 121–144.