A city acts on its inhabitants less as a stable container than as a succession of unequal exposures. Streets, squares, routes, greenery, façades, shade, services and social intensities do not operate separately; they form a variable field through which bodies move, attention is allocated, familiarity accumulates and recovery becomes more or less possible. This shifts the problem of urban well-being away from the search for a universally optimal environment. Spokane et al. make the first decisive move by disaggregating the streetscape to lot and block level: health-relevant urban form becomes legible only when measurement descends below the scale of generic neighbourhood indicators and identifies the physical features through which social processes can occur. Urrutia del Campo reaches a parallel conclusion from Madrid’s public squares.
Comfort cannot be generalised as one climatic state because successful public space offers a mixture of positions and microclimates from which different users can select. Samuelsson names the broader urban consequence topodiversity: variation across spatial conditions is not residual complexity but a resource that allows subjective well-being to be supported through several pathways at once. This principle unsettles the recurrent equation between quality and homogeneity. A city of maximum density, maximum greenness or maximum accessibility would still be impoverished if every encounter reproduced the same environmental regime. Bryer et al.’s umbrella review makes the epistemic caution equally important: greenspace is associated with multiple beneficial outcomes, particularly mortality, mental health and cognition, yet the evidence is heterogeneous and often methodologically weak. “Green” therefore cannot function as an undifferentiated causal token. Liu, Ho and Wilson sharpen the problem by dividing green-space effects into functional, spatial and perceptual pathways, showing how arbitrary buffers and coarse greenness metrics can conceal the actual scale at which exposure becomes cognitively relevant. Cheng et al. extend the critique beyond the green–grey opposition itself. Urban restoration emerges not only from vegetation but from façade design, services, street-scale conditions, serenity, prospect, refuge and person–place relations; the built city can participate in restoration when its configurations support recovery rather than merely acting as stressor. What matters across these studies is a shift from environmental presence to environmental availability: not whether a beneficial feature exists somewhere in a mapped territory, but whether it can be reached, perceived, occupied and repeated within ordinary life. Movement supplies the temporal mechanism. Tu et al. show that walking cannot be reduced to exercise because natural and artificial walking environments produce different psychological effects even when the activity is nominally the same. Christensen et al. turn this distinction into a real-time methodological problem by coupling geographical information with ecological momentary assessment: place and psychological state are observed together as they unfold rather than reconstructed from static residence or retrospective summaries. Zhang, Ahmad Termida and Susilo then reveal what repetition does to cognition itself. Familiar areas possess inertia because previous spatial knowledge matters, yet they are continuously revised by intervening trips and changing activity patterns. Familiarity is therefore an accumulated but corrigible geography. The city that matters psychologically is neither the administrative city nor the total city available on a map; it is a moving subset generated by recurrent access, perceptual salience, environmental difference and the capacity to choose among conditions. The conceptual object produced by this convergence is a differential city: an urban field whose value depends not on perfect environments but on the distribution, accessibility and temporal sequencing of heterogeneous environmental possibilities.
Once exposure is understood as differential, urban research must also become differential in its evidential architecture. A façade coding system, a microclimatic plaza study, a greenspace buffer, a GPS trace, a momentary wellbeing prompt and a longitudinal familiar-area map do not represent interchangeable measurements of “place”; each preserves a different relation between environment and experience. The methodological challenge is therefore to coordinate scales without pretending that one universal variable can exhaust the field. The street-level grain sought by Spokane et al. and Liu et al. shows why large-area indicators lose the material mechanisms of encounter, while Christensen et al. demonstrate that even precise spatial location remains incomplete unless time and subjective state are synchronised. Urrutia’s plazas make choice itself observable: environmental diversity matters because users redistribute themselves across microclimates and affordances. Samuelsson expands this into a planning principle, but the political force of topodiversity lies precisely in resisting a singular urban optimum. A city capable of supporting heterogeneous lives must retain different spatial conditions, while ensuring that those differences do not simply reproduce unequal access to restoration, mobility or social infrastructure. This is where the health literature and the urban-form literature converge most productively. Bryer et al. warn against converting broad associations into overconfident policy certainty; Cheng et al. warn against treating restoration as nature alone; Tu et al. show that the path of movement matters to the effect of movement; Zhang et al. show that recurrence changes the cognitive territory against which future movement is organised. Together they imply an urban epistemology based on trajectories rather than inventories. The relevant archive would record not only where environmental resources are located but how they become available through routes, timing, repetition, bodily conditions and changing familiarity. For Socioplastics, this makes spatial evidence inherently relational and infrastructural. A street photograph gains meaning when connected to route, weather, use and recurrence; a green-space measure becomes stronger when its perceptual and functional accessibility are distinguished; a plaza observation becomes longitudinal when repeated environmental options and occupation patterns can be compared; a mobility trace becomes epistemically richer when it is allowed to describe not only displacement but the progressive construction of a familiar field. The corpus should therefore preserve multiple grains at once: object, frontage, block, public space, route, activity set, neighbourhood and city, with metadata sufficient to identify how each claim was produced. Such an architecture prevents two common reductions: the reduction of environmental psychology to subjective report detached from form, and the reduction of urban analytics to spatial variables detached from lived time. It also changes what planning evidence can mean. Instead of ranking environments against one total score, the analysis can identify distributions of opportunity, zones of low environmental choice, corridors of restorative continuity, interruptions in familiar space, and places where microclimatic, social and morphological diversity coincide. The city becomes legible as a changing system of capacities rather than as a catalogue of amenities. In that form, evidence does not merely describe urban conditions; it maps the relations through which people can enter, avoid, repeat, recognise and reinterpret them. Within Socioplastics, the differential city condenses as RelationalAgency.
Anto Lloveras is an architect, urbanist and researcher whose work connects spatial practice, environmental observation, epistemology, archives and comparative field methods through LAPIEZA LAB and Socioplastics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bryer, B., Odebeatu, C.C., Lee, W.R., Vitangcol, K., Gallegos-Rejas, V., Osborne, N.J., Williams, G. and Darssan, D. (2025) ‘Greenspace exposure and associated health outcomes: a systematic review of reviews’, F1000Research, 13, 491, version 2. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148878.2
Cheng, S., Jiang, P., Biljecki, F. and van Ameijde, J. (2027) ‘The restorative value of urban environments: A systematic review of quantitative evidence, methods and data’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 122, 108659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2026.108659
Christensen, R., Constable Fernandez, C., Topalian, N., Vaughan, L., Krenz, K., Pitman, A. and Fett, A.-K. (2025) ‘A systematic review of geographically informed ecological momentary assessment studies on the place-based correlates of mental health, substance use and wellbeing’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 264, 105487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105487
Liu, S., Ho, H.C. and Wilson, J.P. (2025) ‘Effects of urban green space on human cognition: A systematic search and scoping review’, Urban Climate, 60, 102372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2025.102372
Samuelsson, K. (2021) ‘The Topodiverse City: Urban Form for Subjective Well-Being’, Frontiers in Built Environment, 7, 735221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2021.735221
Spokane, A.R., Lombard, J.L., Martinez, F., Mason, C.A., Gorman-Smith, D., Plater-Zyberk, E., Brown, S.C., Perrino, T. and Szapocznik, J. (2007) ‘Identifying Streetscape Features Significant to Well-Being’, Architectural Science Review, 50(3), pp. 234–245. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5029
Tu, R., Xiao, Y., Huang, J., Zhou, J., Yin, S. and Song, S. (2026) ‘Health effects of exposure to different urban walking environments: A systematic review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Transport & Health, 47, 102246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2025.102246
Urrutia del Campo, N. (2011) ‘Clima, diseño y diversidad urbana en el uso de tres plazas de Madrid’, Revista Territorios en Formación, 1, pp. 161–178.
Zhang, W., Ahmad Termida, N. and Susilo, Y.O. (2019) ‘What construct one’s familiar area? A quantitative and longitudinal study’, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(2), pp. 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317714798
