Optimizing the Spatial Configuration and Performance of Upper Floors in Shopping Centers Using Generative Design and the TOPSIS Technique: A Case Study of the G2 Floor of Iran Mall
Keywords:
Analysis of Spatial Configuration and Identification, Using space syntaxAbstract
This study aimed to generate redesign alternatives based on previously extracted soft design rules, evaluate and rank the alternatives using the TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making technique, and simulate the performance of the optimal alternative to improve space-syntax and footfall indicators on the G2 floor of Iran Mall. A quantitative, algorithmic, simulation-based design was employed. Six soft design rules derived from the preceding research phase were parameterized within predefined ranges of physical modification, resulting in five distinct spatial alternatives. The alternatives were evaluated using five key performance indicators—footfall, space occupancy rate, user satisfaction, social interactions, and economic value—and three key risk indicators—remaining blind spots, deviation from predicted footfall, and budget deviation. Criterion weights were determined using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, after which the alternatives were ranked using TOPSIS. Sensitivity analysis and expert feedback were subsequently applied to refine the leading alternative and develop the optimized Alternative +3. Spatial, visual, network, and pedestrian-flow analyses were conducted using DepthmapX, Gephi/AGraph, and MassMotion. TOPSIS identified Alternative 3 as the leading solution, with a relative closeness coefficient of 0.766, a distance of 0.234 from the positive ideal solution, and a distance of 0.766 from the negative ideal solution. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of this selection in six scenarios; only reducing the occupancy-rate weight from 0.25 to 0.20 caused Alternative 4 to replace it. Following further optimization, Alternative +3 achieved a mean integration value of 21.60, mean spatial depth of 4.35 steps, choice value of 5,450, visual permeability of 0.55, only five remaining blind spots, and daily footfall of 5,750 users. Space occupancy reached 82%, while the final TOPSIS score increased to 0.790. Integrating generative design, space-syntax analysis, and TOPSIS provides a systematic and evidence-based framework for optimizing large-scale shopping-center layouts. The optimized configuration demonstrates that restructuring circulation loops, strengthening horizontal and vertical connectivity, and enhancing visual permeability can simultaneously reduce spatial isolation, improve movement distribution and accessibility, and enhance the commercial performance of upper retail floors.
Downloads
References
1. Zhou W, Guo H, Hou X, Lai W, Yao L. A Statistical Study of the Pedestrian Distribution in a Commercial Wholesale Centre Based on the Traffic Spatial Structure. Buildings. 2024;14(6):1782.
2. Yurtseven M. The Verticality Challenge in Shopping Malls. Journal of Urban Design. 2024;29(3):301-18.
3. Hillier B, Hanson J. The Social Logic of Space: Cambridge University Press; 1984.
4. Hillier B. Space Is the Machine: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
5. Jalalian-Hoseini S. Space Syntax in Architectural Design: University of Tehran Press; 2020.
6. Jalalian-Hoseini S. Analysis of Bazaars and Shopping Centers as Urban Spaces via Space Syntax Software: Case Studies of Iranian Bazaars and Tehran Shopping Centers. Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies. 2022.
7. Sajadzadeh H, Arianpour S, Talischi G. A Comparative Study of Behavioral Camps in the Traditional Bazaar and Shopping Center of Boroujerd Diplomat Based on Spatial Configuration Analysis. Journal of Researches in Islamic Architecture. 2023;11(1).
8. Turner A, editor Depthmap: A Program to Perform Visibility Graph Analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium; 2001.
9. Varoudis T. DepthmapX: A Cross-Platform Software for Space Syntax Analysis. Journal of Space Syntax. 2020;11(1):45-62.
10. Varoudis T, Hanna S. Beyond Axial Lines: High-Resolution Geometric Analysis of London's Urban Fabric Using LIDAR Scans. UCL Discovery; 2024.
11. Najafpour I, Haghlesan M. Optimizing the Spatial Design of Urban Metro Stations Using the Space Syntax Method. Journal of Architect, Urban Design & Urban Planning. 2023;16(44):49-67.
12. Wang Y, editor Research on Urban Traffic Congestion Using Dual-Modal Model of Space Syntax Based on Big Data. Proceedings of ICAICE '24; 2024: ACM.
13. Freeman LC. A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness. Sociometry. 1977;40(1):35-41.
14. Freeman LC. Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks. 1978;1(3):215-39.
15. Manum B, editor AGraph: A Tool for Spatial Analysis. Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium; 2009.
16. Altafini D, Salardi-Jost M, Cutini V, editors. Decoding Small-Worlds Networks in a Regional Context: Unveiling Local-Local and Local-Global Centrality Logics with Space Syntax. Proceedings of the 14th Space Syntax Symposium; 2024: Tab Edizioni.
17. Space S. Broadgate Arena: Post-Occupancy Evaluation Report. UCL Space Syntax Lab; 2018.
18. Oasys S. MassMotion User Manual. Oasys Ltd.; 2020.
19. Deutsch R. Data-Driven Design and Construction: John Wiley & Sons; 2015.
20. Bier H, Knight T. Data-Driven Design in Architecture: A Systematic Review. Journal of Architectural Computing. 2024;22(1):15-38.
21. Liu Y, Wang S. Big Data in Architectural Design: A Critical Review. Automation in Construction. 2024;158:105-23.
22. Li J, Bian K. Construction of Urban Spatial Intelligent Planning and Design System under the Background of Big Data. International Journal of Information Technology and Systems. 2024;17(1).
23. Zhang H, Zheng Y. From Data to Design: A Methodology for Big-Data-Driven Architecture. Design Studies. 2025;86:101-19.
24. Kim M. Parametric Design and Architectural Form. International Journal of Architectural Computing. 2014;12(3):245-62.
25. Knight T, Stiny G. Generative Design and the Computational Turn in Architecture. Architectural Design. 2015;85(5):24-31.
26. Carpo M. The Second Digital Turn: Design Beyond Intelligence: MIT Press; 2017.
27. Davis M. Reverse Engineering in Architecture. Architectural Design. 2013;83(4):88-95.
28. Khachouch MK, Korchi A, Lakhrissi Y. Architecture Driven Modernization: A Review on Reverse Engineering Techniques Based on Models' Approach. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications. 2023;20:293-302.
29. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 2002;6(2):182-97.
30. Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications: Springer; 1981.
31. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. Compromise Solution by MCDM Methods: A Comparative Analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004;156(2):445-55.
32. Elshafei A, Ibrahim A. Evidence-Based Design in Architecture. Architectural Science Review. 2023;66(2):112-28.
33. Loyola M. The Productivity Gap in the AECO Industry. Building Research & Information. 2018;46(5):489-504.
34. El-Ghandour W, Al-Huss M. Productivity in Construction Industry: A Review. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2004;130(5):718-27.
Downloads
Publication Timeline
- Submitted
- Revised
- Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Shahla Naderi Delpak (Author); Azadeh Shahcheraghi; Zahra Sadat Saeideh Zarabadi (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.