Decoding Socio-Cultural Spatial Patterns in Historic Chinese Neighborhoods: A Pattern Language Approach from Chengdu

Abstract

As cities densify and lifestyles become increasingly individualized, older adults face heightened risks of isolation and reduced wellbeing. Yet in historic Chinese neighborhoods, everyday socio-cultural practices—square dancing, Mahjong, community gardening and street markets—continue to foster social cohesion and spatial familiarity. This study employs Christopher Alexander’s pattern-language framework to examine how these practices are spatially embedded across six traditional neighborhoods in Chengdu. Drawing on systematic field observation, photographic surveys and typological mapping, it identifies recurring spatial configurations that support older adults’ participation and cultural continuity. While many canonical patterns remain relevant, the analysis shows how several require contextual reinterpretation to reflect Chinese collectivism, threshold sociability and informal public-space use. Synthesizing these insights, the paper develops a pattern-based design toolkit for culturally sensitive urban regeneration, contributing to age-friendly planning grounded in lived spatial practices. Although centered on six historic neighborhoods in Chengdu, the findings are intended primarily for Chinese heritage-led regeneration and—where comparable high-density morphologies, edge conditions and management regimes exist—are cautiously transferable to heritage districts elsewhere.

1. Introduction

In rapidly transforming Chinese cities, the challenge of sustaining everyday life in ageing neighbourhoods has emerged as a silent but urgent concern [1,2]. While top-down redevelopment promises infrastructure upgrades and increased density, it often comes at the cost of eroding the lived environments that foster social cohesion, especially among older residents [3,4]. As spatial familiarity gives way to architectural uniformity, many older communities report a diminished sense of belonging, reduced opportunities for casual interaction, and rising feelings of isolation [5,6].

Such shifts are not only demographic or psychological—they are deeply spatial. Everyday sociability in historic neighbourhoods has long depended on fine-grained environments: from shared courtyards and shaded thresholds to narrow pedestrian alleys and community teahouses [7,8]. These modest, in-between spaces serve as micro-infrastructures for social life, offering flexibility, territorial familiarity, and low barriers to participation [9,10]. However, modern planning tools seldom capture the value of such spaces, focusing instead on large-scale metrics or visual coherence [11].

There is growing consensus in Chinese planning discourse that the design of “liveable,” “age-friendly” spaces must be rooted in the everyday spatial practices of residents [12,13]. Yet a critical methodological gap remains: how can planners and designers systematically identify, interpret, and translate these informal socio-spatial patterns into transferable spatial strategies?

This study responds to that gap by proposing a new framework for decoding spatial patterns in historic Chinese neighborhoods. Internationally, comparable approaches have highlighted the importance of decoding socio-spatial practices through different lenses. Hillier and Hanson’s Space Syntax framework [14] has been widely employed to reveal how street networks and configurational depth shape movement and encounters, while urban sociology traditions from Jacobs [15], Goffman [16], and Lefebvre [17] emphasize the everyday production of social space and the micro-settings of interaction. Research on ageing and built environments in Europe and North America (Buffel & Phillipson [18]; Van Hoof et al. [19]) further illustrates how spatial patterns underpin social capital and wellbeing. By situating Chengdu’s historic neighborhoods within this wider discourse, this study contributes to bridging Chinese heritage-led regeneration with international debates on spatial patterning, sociability, and design for ageing. Grounded in Alexander’s Pattern Language theory [20] and refined through field-based observation, the approach treats spatial configurations not as static forms, but as evolving expressions of resident behaviour, cultural memory, and built environment interplay [21,22]. In doing so, it offers a practical toolset for embedding socio-cultural sensitivity into heritage-led regeneration, bridging the divide between lived experience and spatial design.

Following this section, Section 2 reviews interdisciplinary literature on socio-cultural wellbeing, spatial quality, and Pattern Language, highlighting a gap in how informal practices are spatially embedded and design-translatable. Section 3 outlines the methodology, combining spatial coding, behavioral observation, and interviews. Section 4 applies this approach to historic Chengdu neighborhoods to identify recurring patterns. Section 5 develops these into a transferable design framework, while Section 6 concludes with policy and theoretical implications for culturally responsive regeneration.

Accordingly, this study is guided by the following research question: How are informal socio-cultural practices—particularly those that support older adults—spatially embedded in historic Chinese neighbourhoods, and how can they be translated into transferable spatial typologies for age-friendly regeneration? To address this, the study pursues three objectives: (1) to identify recurring spatial practices that sustain community life among older residents; (2) to decode the material-spatial structures enabling these practices through systematic observation and pattern analysis; and (3) to construct a pattern-based design framework that informs culturally sensitive, age-friendly regeneration. While the empirical focus is Chengdu, the method is designed for global transfer, whereas the specific pattern–space relations are China-grounded and only cautiously transferable to heritage districts with comparable high-density morphologies, threshold conditions and management regimes. We therefore selected six neighborhoods that are morphologically and historically distinct, so we could test whether the same socio-cultural practices—and their supporting spatial patterns—persist across contrasting fabrics and contribute to older residents’ wellbeing.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Socio-Cultural Activities and Wellbeing in Urban Spaces

Socio-cultural activities are increasingly recognized as critical components of urban wellbeing, particularly among ageing populations. As cities densify and lifestyles become more individualized, sustaining inclusive and community-driven spatial practices remains a growing challenge. Research across urban studies, gerontology, and environmental psychology has consistently demonstrated that active participation in community activities—such as group dancing, neighborhood gatherings, and public events—provides significant benefits for mental and physical health, enhancing life satisfaction and promoting social cohesion [23,24,25].

Among older adults, social participation exerts a protective influence against depression and loneliness. For example, longitudinal analyses conducted in both Chinese and international contexts indicate that frequent social engagement—encompassing cultural events, community associations, and informal interpersonal interactions—serves to alleviate depressive symptoms and cultivate a heightened sense of belonging [23,24,26]. Within Chinese urban settings, such engagements frequently manifest as dynamic practices such as square dancing, Mahjong gatherings, and choral singing, which are deeply ingrained in collective memory and everyday neighborhood life [27,28].

Furthermore, urban green spaces and culturally resonant environments function as enabling contexts for social participation. Research indicates that the presence of accessible parks, open plazas, and pedestrian-friendly environments substantially amplifies the frequency and quality of social engagement among older residents [25,29]. This aligns with emerging evidence suggesting that well-conceived urban environments can mitigate the impacts of reduced mobility, limited financial resources, or diminished personal networks in old age, thereby fostering resilience and psychological wellbeing [30,31].

The health benefits associated with participation extend beyond the individual level, contributing to broader community resilience. Consistent involvement in neighborhood activities enhances collective efficacy, informal support networks, and emotional solidarity—elements crucial for sustainable aging in place [32]. Notably, the nature and structure of activities—whether informal recreation, organized events, or ritualistic gatherings—are shaped by spatial conditions; thus, recognizing the interdependence between built form and socio-cultural practices is essential for designing future-proofed, age-inclusive public spaces [33,34,35,36].

Collectively, this body of literature underscores the dual imperative of (1) enabling social infrastructure and (2) preserving cultural modes of gathering as cornerstones of healthy urban living. These insights provide the foundation for the present study, which investigates how spatial patterns in historic Chinese neighborhoods can sustain socio-cultural activity through the framework of pattern language. These insights echo longer traditions in urban sociology, where Jacobs [15] emphasized the everyday vitality of sidewalks as foundations of social life, and Low [37] demonstrated how public spaces are not neutral backdrops but culturally produced and contested arenas. Such perspectives broaden the scope of wellbeing studies by underlining that spatial practices carry symbolic and relational meanings beyond their immediate health benefits.

2.2. Spatial Quality and the Everyday Urban Fabric

Building on the evidence that socio-cultural activities contribute significantly to wellbeing (Section 2.1), it is equally important to examine the spatial qualities of neighborhood fabric that enable or constrain such practices. Understanding how public spaces support socio-cultural life requires a nuanced account of spatial quality beyond conventional notions of access or provision. Concepts such as “positive outdoor space” [20], “spatial justice” [38], and “convivial urbanism” [39] emphasize the relational, experiential, and equitable dimensions of space. These theoretical contributions underline how urban form mediates opportunities for informal interaction, community cohesion, and the expression of everyday cultural practices.

Empirical studies have demonstrated that traditional neighbourhoods, despite physical ageing or infrastructural obsolescence, often perform better than their modern counterparts in enabling informal social life. This is largely due to their fine-grained street networks, human-scale built forms, and porous boundaries that encourage overlapping zones of activity and encounter [15,40,41]. In the Chinese context, communal teahouses, shared courtyards, and pedestrian-oriented markets function as micro-infrastructures of sociability, offering both spatial familiarity and flexibility [42,43,44].

The post-1949 trajectory of urban development in China saw a shift from socialist courtyard housing (Danwei) to market-driven gated compounds, disrupting long-established routines of place-based interaction [45,46]. Such morphological changes have resulted in fragmented urban fabrics and decreased walkability, eroding traditional spatial mechanisms of informal socialization [47,48]. The loss of in-between spaces, e.g., thresholds, alleys, corner zones, has limited spontaneous gathering, especially among older adults who rely heavily on localized mobility and territorial familiarity [49,50,51].

Recent planning efforts in China have begun to recognize the need for “livable” and “age-friendly” public spaces that reintroduce human-scale qualities and support everyday socio-cultural use [52,53]. However, there remains a methodological gap in capturing the micro-spatial structures that sustain communal practices. Spatial quality is not only an outcome of design, but a dynamic condition shaped through usage, adaptation, and memory [48,54,55].

Design-oriented studies and urban morphology research increasingly point to the importance of intermediate spatial scales—courtyards, local streets, squares—as essential for enabling casual encounters and supporting community rhythms [7,56,57]. Yet, while urban vitality indices and morphological metrics can quantify patterns, few frameworks meaningfully link spatial form to lived socio-cultural routines. Parallel to these insights, the space syntax tradition has provided systematic tools for examining how spatial configuration conditions movement and encounter. Hillier and Hanson’s ‘Social Logic of Space’ [14] established a configurational method to quantify integration and segregation, while Marcus [58] demonstrated how such measures illuminate variations in community life across housing estates. Together these approaches illustrate the analytical power of spatial configuration models, complementing interpretive frameworks such as pattern language. This reinforces the need for interpretive tools such as Pattern Language that can translate observed practices into transferable spatial configurations, particularly in heritage-rich but transformation-prone neighborhoods.

2.3. Pattern Language as a Framework for Spatial Analysis

While studies of urban morphology and spatial justice (Section 2.2) reveal important qualities of the built fabric, they often lack interpretive tools that connect these qualities to lived practices. One such framework is Christopher Alexander’s pattern language, which provides a systematic vocabulary for recurring socio-spatial solutions. A Pattern Language [20] introduced the idea of recurring spatial solutions such as activity nodes, common areas, and intimacy gradients, which support everyday social and cultural routines. This human-centred methodology offers not prescriptive plans but a vocabulary for interpreting how urban form can facilitate social behaviours and communal practices [59]. Internationally, scholars have extended Alexander’s work into diverse contexts. Hakim [60] applied a generative pattern approach to revitalising heritage districts in the Middle East, while more recent studies in co-housing [61] and participatory planning in African cities [62] have demonstrated how localized spatial vocabularies can be extracted and formalised as pattern languages. These applications underscore the adaptability of the framework, showing its potential to bridge between global theory and culturally specific urban contexts.

Despite its global influence, application of pattern language in Chinese urban contexts has been limited, with most uses confined to architectural pedagogy or schematic city planning [63]. These applications rarely engage with empirical observations of informal socio-spatial life or test whether Alexander’s patterns accurately reflect lived experience in transformation-prone neighbourhoods.

Recent scholarship proposes a multi-scalar “urban pattern language” that bridges micro- and macro-level urban morphological analysis [22]. This framework operationalizes pattern language as a systematic process of decoding recurring forms across urban scales: street grids, courtyard typologies, plazas, and block configurations. It validates that such patterns reflect cultural specificity and urban history [22].

Parallel to these developments, studies in high-density Asian cities have illustrated that pattern-based spatial frameworks can effectively translate urban morphology into actionable design strategies. For example, Zhou, Nijhuis and Dijkstra [63] outline a pattern language framework tailored to green space interventions in high-rise environments, showing how open space design can reinforce social rhythms and ecological resilience. In addition, case studies in Khartoum [64] and other cities demonstrate that pattern language can be applied in participatory urban analyses to extract localized spatial vocabularies, linking resident behaviours to spatial configuration [21,61,62].

Collectively, the literature emphasizes the interpretive power of pattern language for linking built form to lived socio-cultural routines. It provides both a heuristic and analytical approach whereby observed community practices, e.g., communal markets and teahouse gatherings, can be systematically translated into spatial typologies. This bridges the theory-practice divide and offers a transferable template for context-sensitive urban design, particularly within heritage-rich neighbourhoods facing modernization pressures.

2.4. Identified Knowledge Gap

Despite increasing attention to the social value of historic neighbourhoods and their socio-cultural practices, the material-spatial foundations of these practices, e.g., thresholds, alleys, corner zones, and edge conditions, remain underexplored. While configurational approaches such as space syntax [14] or sociological accounts of public space [15] offer valuable insights, they seldom translate everyday socio-cultural routines into designable spatial categories. In China, urban regeneration projects often replace or ignore these spatial substrates, prioritizing standardization and modernization over lived communal fabric [22,65].

Morphological studies and urban vitality indices (e.g., pedestrian flow, street lengths) have advanced our understanding of urban form [66], yet they typically fail to connect what residents (especially older residents) do in these spaces, forming routines and local memories, with how spaces are configured. They lack interpretive frameworks that translate observed behaviours into spatial categories [67].

Although participatory planning is promoted in theory, structured methods to capture tacit, intergenerational spatial knowledge remain rare—particularly those enabling translation of lived spatial routines into design language [68]. Moreover, few studies operationalize participatory spatial studies that could support pattern-based interventions.

Notably, no empirical study to date has adapted a pattern-based spatial decoding framework (e.g., Pattern Language) to analyse how informal socio-cultural practices—such as courtyard gardening, Mahjong games, square dance 1 or informal market interactions—are embedded in the spatial logic of historic Chinese neighbourhoods, nor has any study formalized such practices into a typology that can guide regenerative planning without erasing cultural specificity [69].

This research addresses that gap by developing a pattern-management workflow that combines behavioural observation, typological mapping and interview triangulation to induct and test pattern–space relations across six Chengdu neighbourhoods. The approach positions pattern language as a complementary, practice-centred lens alongside configurational and sociological models, and contributes at two levels: (i) a globally transferable method for decoding and organising socio-spatial practices, and (ii) a China-grounded set of empirical relations that can be cautiously tested in other high-density heritage contexts where morphologies, edge conditions and management regimes are comparable.

3. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a qualitative case study methodology to investigate how socio-cultural activities are spatially embedded within historic Chinese neighborhoods and how these spatial logics can inform pattern-based regeneration. Grounded in Pattern Language theory [20], it develops an inductive, fieldwork-based framework that interprets spatial configurations as dynamic expressions of resident behavior and built form. Each methodological step is designed to directly address one of the study’s three core research objectives. Chengdu, the provincial capital of Sichuan Province, China, was selected due to its layered urban history, rich continuity of everyday cultural practices, and increasing redevelopment pressure that threatens its socio-spatial fabric [70].

3.1. Sites Selection and Survey Scope

The scope of the survey encompassed six neighborhoods in Chengdu representing three morphogenetic phases, selected for both their spatial diversity and visibility of socio-cultural practices. These neighborhoods are Shaocheng (A), Caoshijie (B), Ma’an (C), Jianshe Road (D), Zhiminlu (E), and Fuqin (F) (Figure 1).

Sites A and B reflect ancient Chinese planning ideologies, resembling traditional Hutong or Lifang systems with compact housing, organized corridors, and intimate, sociable environments rooted in spatial memory and territorial familiarity.

Sites C and D represent the socialist era (1949–1978), featuring large communal open spaces within work-unit layouts originally used for collective activities, now informally repurposed for square dancing, markets, and play.

Sites E and F, shaped by early post-socialist planning, combine standardized mid-rise to high-rise residential blocks with semi-formal communal areas. While some informal interactions persist in edges and residual courtyards, they are increasingly constrained by gated boundaries and property surveillance.

Sites were chosen for morphological and historical contrast (traditional lanes, socialist courtyards, post-socialist compounds), with the explicit aim of examining whether shared practices and their pattern supports recur despite these differences.

3.2. Research Design and Objectives

The research responds to three guiding objectives, each addressed through targeted methodological strategies:

(1) To identify recurring socio-cultural practices that support community life among older residents:

This was approached through site-based ethnographic fieldwork. Field visits and informal interviews were used to capture common socio-cultural activities—such as traditional markets, square dancing, Mahjong games, and gardening—that persist across the selected neighborhoods. The analysis focused on identifying recurring behaviors and their spatial dependencies.

(2) To decode the material-spatial structures that enable these practices through spatial coding and observation:

A pattern language framework was employed to systematize spatial observation. After the initial behavioral observation (Step 1), a set of 52 canonical patterns was chosen from A Pattern Language [20] to guide the spatial coding process (Appendix A 

Table A1. The selected patterns that exhibit similarity to the activities observed in the six traditional Chinese urban neighborhoods.

Activities	Size	Patterns
Traditional Food market	Large	Identifiable neighborhood (14), Neighborhood boundary (15), Web of shopping (19),
	Medium	Promenade (31), Shopping street (32), Market of many shops (46), Degree of Publicness (36)
	Small	Food stands (93), Pedestrian street (100), Path shape (121), Home workshop (157)
Elderly square dance	Large	Subculture boundary (13), Life cycle (26), Network of Learning (18), Four-story limit (21), Activity nodes (30), Night life (33)
	Medium	Small public squares (61), Dancing in the street (63), Common land (67), Local sports (72)
	Small	Positive outdoor space (106), Activity pocket (124), Seat spots (241)
Socialization in community garden	Large	Accessible green (60), Common land (67), Positive outdoor space (106)
	Medium	Public outdoor room (69), Animals (74), South facing outdoors (105), Common area at the heart (129), Communal eating (147), Vegetable garden (177)
	Small	Pools and streams (64), Still water (71), Tree place (171), Garden growing wide (172), Garden wall (173), Garden seat (176)
Playing Mahjong in teahouse	Large	Network of Learning (18), Street café (88), Street views (164), Opening to the street (165)
	Medium	Public outdoor room (69), Main entrance (110), Intimacy gradient (127), Indoor sunlight (128), Common area at the heart (129), Tapestry of light and dark (135), Reception welcomes you (149)
	Small	Six-foot balcony (167), Cooking layout (184)

). Each activity setting was assessed against spatial criteria defined by these canonical patterns, with attention to features such as enclosure, access, adjacency, and visual permeability. Where observed practices diverged from canonical forms, new patterns were inductively formulated to capture these localized features. These emergent patterns were collated and summarized , complementing the canonical set and extending the framework to the Chengdu context.

(3) To construct a pattern-based design framework that informs culturally sensitive, age-friendly regeneration, ensuring that spatial practices supporting older residents are preserved and enhanced:

This objective was addressed by aligning the decoded spatial logics with proposed patterns after field study. Observed spatial practices were mapped against livability and age-friendly planning discourses to evaluate gaps and opportunities. The result is a context-sensitive pattern-based design framework that reflects both empirical spatial practices and broader regeneration goals.

3.3. Data Collection

Data collection followed three steps: (1) participant behavior observation, (2) spatial mapping and typological classification, and (3) informal interviews with residents and managers. Data acquisition integrated these spatial, behavioral, and narrative methodologies over a two-month fieldwork period, conducted in two phases: 1 February to 29 February and 1 June to 30 June 2023. Each bi-weekly sampling session was separated by a three-day interval to facilitate data consolidation from the preceding sessions. As for interview design, participants were purposively sampled to reflect diversity among older adults across gender, age band and socio-economic background. The final interview set comprised 18 participants (10 women, 8 men): 7 aged 60–69, 7 aged 70–79, and 4 aged 80+ (marked as residents). Roles included residents (12), vendors/service providers (4) and activity organizers (2) (marked as managers). As proxies for socio-economic diversity, we recorded housing tenure (11 owner-occupiers; 7 tenants), prior occupation (6 state-sector; 7 private-sector; 5 informal) and education (5 primary; 9 secondary; 4 higher). Representativeness was addressed analytically (not statistically) by triangulating a demographically varied interview sample with site-wide behavioral counts and mapping, and by checking convergence/divergence of themes by gender, age band and socio-economic proxies.

3.4. Data Triangulation

This study uses a three-stage workflow that proceeds from (1) participant behavior observation, (2) spatial mapping and socio-cultural activity classification and triangulated by (3) neighborhood residents’ and managers’ interviews. The final outcome culminates in actionable space-making strategies compiled in Appendix B and referenced in Section 5.2.

(1) Participant behavior observation:

The observation protocol (Appendix A

Table A2. Observation Protocol.

1. General Information

Date of Observation: Time Slot: Morning/Midday/Afternoon/Evening (circle) Weather Conditions: Sunny/Cloudy/Rainy/Other Neighborhood Code: A/B/C/D/E/F Specific Location (e.g., courtyard, alley, teahouse front, entrance plaza): Observer Name: Map Reference or Photo Code (if any):

2. Spatial Setting

Type of space (select one or more):

□ Alley

□ Courtyard

□ Market stall zone

□ Teahouse exterior

□ Square/open paved area

□ Garden edge/green fringe

□ Building threshold/corridor

Adjacency: Nearby functions: □ Residential □ Commercial □ Service □ Religious □ None Visibility: □ Open □ Semi-screened □ Hidden/enclosed Spatial dimensions (estimated): Width: ______ m Length: ______ m Accessibility: □ Through street □ Cul-de-sac □ Gate-controlled Material condition: □ Well-maintained □ Partially deteriorated □ Poor

3. Activities and Behavioral Patterns

Activity type observed (select or describe):

□ Square dancing

□ Mahjong playing

□ Gardening or plant care

□ Market vending

□ Informal gathering/chatting

□ Child play

□ Solitary use (e.g., resting, stretching, cleaning)

□ Other (specify): ___________________________

Approximate number of participants: Adults (male): ___ Adults (female): ___ Elderly (65+): ___ Children: ___ Roles and positions: Where do they stand/sit? (use sketch if needed) Are zones occupied fixed or fluid? Frequency of user turnover: □ Low □ Medium □ High

4. Spatial Interactions and Social Dynamics

Are people interacting or solitary? Type of interaction: □ Peer □ Intergenerational □ Strangers □ Familiar groups Do users rearrange space (move chairs, bring tools, adapt the setting)? Presence of territorial markers (e.g., personal items, semi-fixed furniture)? Are there signs of routine use (e.g., wear patterns, leftover objects, personalization)?

5. Environmental Qualities (relevant to Pattern Language)

Shading: □ Natural □ Built □ None Seating: □ Formal □ Informal □ None Boundary condition: □ Open □ Semi-permeable □ Enclosed Micro-climate adaptation (fans, vegetation, water points)? Noise level: □ Quiet □ Moderate □ Loud

6. Observer Reflections

What appears to support or hinder this activity spatially? Any tensions between formal planning and observed use? Notes on rhythm (episodic, routine, spontaneous)? Any potential pattern from Alexander’s list that seems relevant? (e.g., “Activity Node,” “Courtyards Which Live,” “Outdoor Room”)

) was designed by synthesizing principles from behavior mapping, urban morphology, and pattern language theory. It draws on behavior mapping techniques developed in environmental psychology to systematically capture spatial use and behavioral patterns across different times and locations [71]. The protocol also incorporates ethnographic principles of participant observation, emphasizing immersive, non-intrusive documentation of real-time user behaviors and spatial rhythms [72]. In addition, it aligns with urban studies methodologies that prioritize the observation of spatial configurations, access hierarchies, and frequency of public life as indicators of socio-spatial vitality [73]. Standards were designated to ensure consistency across sites, focusing on spatial variables (e.g., layout, boundaries), behavioral indicators (e.g., group size, activity type), and temporal dimensions (e.g., peak usage). This structured yet flexible approach allows for capturing both static spatial features and dynamic everyday practices. In addition, we recorded 1 min spot counts across morning/afternoon/evening windows for pedestrian flow (markets), group size (dance, teahouse) and user presence (gardens), and took in situ dimensional measurements (widths, lengths, areas). For cross-site comparison we used simple accessibility proxies: plaza width and distance to nearest entrance (dance), continuous spine length and lane width (markets), edge visibility (frontage openness) and patch area (gardens/teahouse).

(2) Spatial mapping and socio-cultural activity classification:

Activities were grouped into subtypes (e.g., M1–M4 for markets) based on observed variations in spatial layout, social interaction density, and frequency of use. Each subtype was documented through hand-drawn plans, field photography, and annotated sketches, focusing on key spatial variables such as enclosure level, proximity to thresholds, and flexibility of space use. These features were then interpreted through the lens of Pattern Language [20], with attention to how each configuration aligns with or deviates from established patterns (e.g., “Web of Shopping” or “Activity Node” in Appendix A.1). This process allowed for both inductive classification and critical comparison with canonical spatial patterns, helping identify not only recurring morphologies but also emergent patterns specific to the Chinese neighborhood context. In doing so, the mapping exercise moved beyond descriptive cataloguing to reveal the socio-spatial logic underpinning lived practices.

During pattern induction, observed configurations were matched to canonical patterns in Alexander, Ishikawa and Silverstein [20], and parenthetical numbers after each pattern name (e.g., ‘Shopping Street (32)’) denote the original APL index. Where observations exceeded the canon, we proposed pattern extensions (coded M1-1, D2-2, etc.; Table 7).

(3) Informal interviews triangulation:

Conversations with elderly residents and neighborhood managers served as a confirmatory step to triangulate observed behavioral patterns. These dialogues provided qualitative insight into everyday routines, spatial preferences, and the emotional meanings attached to specific places. In each of the six neighborhoods, informal conversations were conducted with approximately one neighborhood manager and two local residents (18 participants in total). Interviewees were asked about the perceived importance of certain spaces, changes in use over time, and challenges in maintaining communal activities. Their narratives helped validate and contextualize the spatial coding, clarifying whether observed configurations are aligned with long-standing cultural practices or recent adaptive behaviors. This step ensured that the typological framework was grounded not only in physical observation but also in local knowledge and lived experience.

The three steps pattern-management workflow (behavioral observation → spatial mapping: pattern induction against canonical patterns → interview triangulation) is designed to be portable; when applied elsewhere it should be locally parameterized (sampling frames, thresholds, governance conditions) and validated against site-specific observations.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

This research adhered to institutional ethical guidelines for qualitative fieldwork involving human participants. Informed verbal consent was obtained from all elderly residents (65+) and neighborhood managers engaged in informal interviews, with participants assured of their anonymity and the voluntary nature of their participation. No personally identifiable information was collected. Observations were conducted in public and semi-public spaces with non-intrusive methods such as sketching and note-taking, ensuring minimal disruption to everyday activities. All photographic documentation avoided capturing identifiable individuals unless explicit permission was granted. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Strathclyde Ethics Committee (Ref: UEC22/27).

4. Results

4.1. Overview of Observed Socio-Cultural Practices

This section presents the results of field-based observation and spatial coding conducted across six morphologically distinctive historic neighborhoods in Chengdu. Across these contrasting fabrics, we observed the same eight practices and recurring pattern supports, allowing cross-site comparison of their links to wellbeing. These included: (1) traditional food markets, (2) square dancing, (3) street-side vendors, (4) public chess playing, (5) playing Mahjong in teahouses, (6) street water calligraphy writing, (7) community street haircuts, and (8) community gardening.

Table 1. Frequency of observation of common socio-cultural activities in six neighborhoods.

Activities	Frequency	A 1	B	C	D	E	F
1. Traditional food markets	6	1	1	1	1	1	1
Square dancing	10	2	2	1	2	2	1
Street-side vendors	7	2	1	1	1	1	1
Public chess playing	2	1	1	0	0	0	0
Playing Mahjong in teahouses	8	2	2	1	1	1	1
Street water calligraphy writing	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Community street haircuts	2	1	1	0	0	0	0
Community gardening	5	1	1	1	1	0	1

¹ Neighborhood codes.

summarizes the initial observed frequency and spatial distribution of these activities across neighborhoods A–F. Activity occurrence varied notably between neighborhood types: neighborhood A, characterized by an intact and fine-grained alleyway system, recorded the highest density and diversity of socio-cultural activities, while neighborhood E, a high-rise modern development, displayed the lowest frequency and range. This reflects how traditional urban form provides more adaptable and socially permeable spaces for recurring public life, while more modern morphologies tend to restrict such interactions.

Among the eight activities, four were selected for in-depth analysis based on frequency, spatial clarity, and relevance to elderly wellbeing: square dancing (10 occurrences), Playing Mahjong in teahouses (8), community gardening (5), and traditional food markets (6). Square dancing was the most widespread and spatially consistent elderly activity, typically performed in open plazas; Mahjong gatherings reflected intimate, fixed settings fostering social bonding; gardening emerged as a newer wellbeing-oriented trend noted in the literature for its therapeutic and communal value; and food markets, while modest in frequency, formed part of routine daily life and sustained neighborhood interaction. The remaining activities were excluded due to either low frequency (e.g., street calligraphy, public chess), limited social intensity (e.g., street haircuts), or excessive spatial variability (e.g., mobile vendors), making them unsuitable for pattern-based spatial analysis.

4.2. Spatial Analysis by Activity

4.2.1. Traditional Food Market

Traditional food markets remain among the most visible and frequented socio-cultural practices across the six observed neighborhoods (

Table 2. Observations of the subtypes of Traditional food market.

M1—Informal food market 1	Pattern matches
	Identifiable Neighborhood (14), Web of Shopping (19), Promenade (31), Market of Many Shops (46), Food Stands (93), Pedestrian Street (100)
M2—Ground floor retail unit
	Neighborhood Boundary (15), Shopping Street (32), Degree of Publicness (36), Path Shape (121)
M3—Large open-air markets
	Market of Many Shops (46), Home Workshop (157), Path Shape (121), Food Stands (93)
M4—Markets converted from former residential units
	Identifiable Neighbourhood (14), Promenade (31), Shopping Street (32), Pedestrian Street (100)

¹Xiaoqu is the name of a common old neighborhood type, featuring 6–7 floors buildings built post-1978.

). Four recurrent market subtypes (M1–M4) differ by lane width, frontage depth, and visibility, shaping both pedestrian throughput and social permeability across historic, socialist, and post-socialist fabrics. M1, observed only in Site C, represents a medium-sized, permanent market integrated within a historic alley network. It features a clear circulation path with semi-enclosed vendor stalls flanked by residential blocks, fostering a strong rhythm of daily activity. M2, found across all six sites (A–F), is a large-scale street market occupying widened laneways with overhead canopies. This subtype mixes formalized stalls and informal vendors, creating a dynamic but dense commercial strip with high levels of pedestrian movement. M3, present in Sites A, C, and F, manifests as small, informal market zones where vegetable sellers occupy transitional spaces beside main paths. The spatial layout here is more fluid, with vendors adjusting to available shade and flow. M4, also concentrated in Sites A, C, and F, typically takes the form of temporary morning markets emerging outside gated residential complexes. These comprise mobile carts and foldable tables, dispersing by mid-morning.

Across all subtypes, observed activities were spatially dependent on proximity to entrances, circulation routes, and visual openness. Frequent interaction zones included informal seating edges, shared thresholds, and shaded corners, aligning with multiple spatial patterns such as Shopping Street (32) 2, Market of Many Shops (46), Degree of Publicness (36), and Pedestrian Street (100) [20]. Despite formal variation, the markets maintained high sociability and accessibility, supporting elderly residents’ routines of shopping, greeting, and resting. Informal interviews confirmed their importance not only as functional spaces but also as anchors of neighborhood familiarity.

Each of the Traditional Food Market subtypes (M1–M4) demonstrates distinct spatial characteristics that align with specific pattern logics from ‘A Pattern Language’ [20], based on direct observation of physical layout, circulation behavior, and social interaction intensity.

M1 is characterized by densely clustered informal stalls lining pedestrian corridors, with minimal formal enclosure and high visibility from surrounding paths. The linear and continuous movement of pedestrians, combined with intermittent vendor positioning, reflects the qualities outlined in Shopping Street (32)—where commerce thrives along paths with a rhythmic pattern of engagement. The temporary stall structures and spontaneous arrangement of vendors also match Food Stands (93), which originally describes flexible, small-scale retail embedded in everyday pedestrian life [20]. Furthermore, the overall corridor continuity and social permeability echo Promenade (31) and Pedestrian Street (100), where social and economic activities are fluidly integrated with movement. Elderly residents were often seen pausing at familiar vendors or greeting neighbors (Table 2), turning shopping into a daily social ritual.

M2 involves ground floor retail interfaces, located at neighborhood edge. The proximity to living quarters, combined with threshold-based interaction (e.g., talking over gates, stalls spilling into alleys), reflects Path Shape (121)—a pattern focused on how circulation shapes social contact. The transitional boundary between private and public space mirrors Neighborhood Boundary (15), and the varying levels of spatial exposure across these units align with Degree of Publicness (36), as users subtly control their visibility and engagement levels [20]. Elderly individuals frequently lingered at these thresholds, chatting with shopkeepers or acquaintances while sitting on low stools.

M3 introduces hybridized use, where food sales co-exist with large-scale production or storage areas. The spatial adaptation of courtyards or garages into multifunctional market spaces resonates with Home Workshop (157), where domestic life and economic activity blur. The irregular configuration of these spaces and adaptive re-use of existing fabric also reflect the logic of Path Shape (121) and Market of Many Shops (46)—not through formality but through emergent clustering and circulation rhythms [20]. Here, elderly participants were often involved in both selling and informal hosting, reinforcing their roles as social anchors within the neighborhood economy.

M4 represents commercial shops converted from former residential units, often positioned along neighborhood inner roads. These settings exhibit clearer frontage, longer visibility lines, and rhythmically spaced stalls. Such spatial articulation supports the logic of Shopping Street (32), with a discernible commercial rhythm reinforced by Promenade (31) [20]. Unlike M1, these spaces often demonstrate greater legibility and territorial clarity, hence also reflecting Identifiable Neighborhood (14) in how they anchor everyday routines within the local mental map [20]. From the observer’s perspective, these shops offered an ideal location for elderly residents to replenish daily necessities without having to traverse long distances, thereby encouraging more frequent and independent engagement with the public realm.

Across sites, the four subtypes were spatially dependent on proximity to entrances, circulation routes and visual openness. Frequent interaction zones included informal seating edges, shared thresholds and shaded corners, aligning with pattern logics such as Shopping Street (32) and Market of Many Shops (46) (Table 2). Despite formal variation, the markets maintained high sociability and accessibility, supporting older residents’ routines of shopping, greeting and resting. Informal interviews confirmed their importance not only as functional spaces but also as anchors of neighbourhood familiarity.

In Informal food-market (M1) corridor (≈59.8 m long × 7–10 m wide; total ≈ 418–598 m²), eight 1 min peak-time counts at different times of day recorded 32, 27, 20, 25, 40, 12, 35, 32 passers-by (mean ≈ 28 persons/min). The density analysis suggested an optimal market area of about two times the observed space, indicating crowding during peak hours. Ground-floor retail-unit markets (M2), present in all six sites, typically occupied widened laneways 8–12 m in width and extended lengths ≥80 m, accommodating 20–35 formal and informal stalls; these segments consistently supported the highest pedestrian throughput. Large open-air markets (M3), documented in Sites A, C and F, were generally 15–20 m long × 6–8 m wide (≈120 m²) and could serve approximately 100–150 people across the morning period. Markets converted from former residential units (M4), also found in Sites A, C and F, involved individual units (3–4 m frontage × 5–6 m depth), typically hosting 10–30 individuals across a morning window. Comparatively, M2 exhibited the highest measured through-flow, coinciding with wider lanes (8–12 m) and longer continuous spines (≥80 m), whereas M1, M3 and M4 showed lower sustained through-flow (with M3 concentrating short morning peaks and M1 displaying two times area pressure).

In summary, performance across the four subtypes is driven by corridor continuity and edge legibility rather than gross area. M2 sustains reliable through-flow because stalls align with a continuous spine without blocking movement; M3 concentrates peak social intensity in short morning windows where shade and edges compress flows. M1 shows latent demand beyond current capacity (area pressure ≈ 2×), and M4 stabilises routine access via clear sightlines and territorial clarity but naturally caps capacity. Morphologically, traditional and socialist fabrics enable all four forms; in post-socialist modern compounds (such as site E), activity persists mainly along semi-permeable compound edges.

4.2.2. Square Dance

Square dancing among older residents appears in three recurrent spatial subtypes that differ by enclosure, visibility, and evening tolerance for sound: D1 coupled dance in semi-enclosed courtyards, D2 dance in a matrix in plazas and internal access roads, and D3 circled dance in larger multifunctional open areas (

Table 3. Observations of the subtypes of Square dance.

D1—Coupled dance	Patterns matches
	Subculture Boundary (13), Activity Nodes (30), Night Life (33), Common Land (67), Small Public Squares (61)
D2—Dance in a matrix
	Dancing in the Street (63), Local Sports (72), Activity Pocket (124), Positive Outdoor Space (106), Seat Spots (241)
D3—Circled dance
	Common Area at the Heart (129), Indoor Sunlight (128), Network of Learning (18), Life Cycle (26)

). Across sites A–F, these settings support predictable temporal rhythms (early morning/evening) and attract both participants and onlookers, with flat surfaces, semi-permeable edges, and informal seating enabling routine sociability. These qualities align with Alexander’s patterns that structure small squares, activity nodes, and dancing in streets, indicating that square dancing is not incidental but spatially ‘scripted’ by recurring edge and surface conditions.

All subtypes exhibited strong temporal rhythms—typically early morning or evening—and attracted both participants and onlookers, reinforcing community familiarity. Observed spatial qualities included flat, uninterrupted surfaces, semi-permeable boundaries, and informal seating edges. These correspond with patterns such as Activity Nodes (30), Dancing in the Street (63), Positive Outdoor Space (106), and Small Public Squares (61) [20], reflecting square dancing’s role as a socially and spatially embedded expression of elderly wellbeing.

D1 typically unfolds in semi-formalized public corners, often adjacent to active circulation paths or informal markets, where small groups of elderly residents gather in the evening. The space is often marked by ambient lighting, nearby trade activity, and flexible visibility. These settings reflect Subculture Boundary (13) and Night Life (33), which together highlight how peripheral, liminal spaces transition into after-dark gathering spots [20]. The spatial overlap of walking paths, vendor stalls, and resting spots also resonates with Activity Nodes (30) and Common Land (67), supporting the convergence of movement and sociability [20]. The moderate scale and consistent reoccupation of these corners echo the logic of Small Public Squares (61), enabling routine-based, age-friendly interaction [20].

D2 occurs in semi-enclosed courtyards or on internal access roads, where groups informally co-opt shared residential space for dancing. These adaptive environments align with Dancing in the Street (63), with the flexible use of paved areas allowing for spontaneous evening occupation [20]. The linear or nodal configuration of such spaces corresponds with Activity Pocket (124), while their athletic-yet-social function matches Local Sports (72) [20]. Surrounding seating edges and intermediate openness also reflect Positive Outdoor Space (106) and Seat Spots (241), supporting both participation and casual engagement by elderly observers or less active participants.

D3 takes place in large, multifunctional plazas typically found at the center of former Danwei compounds or collective open zones, such as those in the nearby park. These environments serve as de facto community cores, reflecting Common Area at the Heart (129) through their centrality and collective access [20]. Their wide exposure and natural brightness align symbolically with Indoor Sunlight (128), extending the metaphor to well-lit outdoor conditions. The social regularity, intergenerational observation, and embodied nature of the dancing practice align with Life Cycle (26) and Network of Learning (18), both of which emphasize sustained, meaningful community rituals particularly resonant with ageing populations [20].

Observations indicated that dance activities depended heavily on surface condition, enclosure, and adjacency to residential thresholds. Traditional sites (A, B) offered only small-scale junctions or temple forecourts, whereas socialist compounds (C, D) provided central squares large enough to accommodate collective events. Informal interviews revealed that participants valued not only the exercise but also the rhythm of sociability and routine created by these practices. Systematic counts indicated that dance in a matrix (D2), observed across all six sites, most often occurred in plazas 14–21 m wide and attracted the highest numbers, with evening sessions involving 30–50 participants in central courtyards. Circled dances (D3), concentrated in Sites D and E, involved groups of 20–30 participants forming circles around shaded plaza edges of ≥20 m in diameter. Coupled dances (D1), present in Sites A, C, and D, were modest in scale, typically involving 6–12 participants occupying 4–6 m wide alley widenings or forecourt corners. Post-socialist compounds (Sites E, F) showed only sporadic participation, rarely exceeding 8–10 participants in semi-public residual areas. Comparatively, evening D2 group sizes exceeded those of D3 and D1 and were associated with medium-width plazas (14–21 m), whereas D3 formed intermediate-sized circles along ≥20 m edges and D1 remained the smallest in 4–6 m corners. This distribution indicates that morphogenetic phase shapes the intensity and scale of dance, with socialist layouts offering the most favorable spatial capacity for large collective formations; sustained participation co-occurred with flat, continuous surfaces, available perimeter seating, daytime shade/gentle evening lighting, and step-free access from nearby housing.

4.2.3. Socialization in Community Gardens

Community gardening emerged as a quiet yet meaningful practice across the six neighborhoods, with three spatial subtypes identified (

Table 4. Observations on the subtypes of gardening.

G1—Planned garden	Pattern matches
	Accessible Green (60), Common Land (67), Positive Outdoor Space (106), Public Outdoor Room (69), Communal Eating (147), Vegetable Garden (177)
G2—Informal gardens
	Garden Growing Wild (172), Garden Wall (173), Garden Seat (176), Common Area at the Heart (129), South Facing Outdoors (105), Tree Place (171)
G3—Vertical garden
	Life Cycle (26), South Facing Outdoors (105), Garden Wall (173), Garden Seat (176)

). G1—planned gardens, observed only in Site C, were purpose-built with defined plots, fencing, and shared tools, often supported by local management. G2—informal gardens, present across all six sites (A–F), occupied leftover spaces along paths or courtyards and were self-organized by residents, reflecting personal initiative and collective adaptation. G3—vertical gardens, recorded exclusively in Site C, involved potted plants or climbing vines along window sills, balconies, or walls, often improvised from domestic materials (Table 4).

All types facilitated social bonding through shared care routines, observation, and casual interaction, particularly among elderly residents. Spatial features supporting these practices aligned with patterns such as Accessible Green (60), Common Land (67), Garden Wall (173), Garden Seat (176), and Common Area at the Heart (129), emphasizing gardening’s role in fostering routine, identity, and everyday sociability.

G1 refers to purpose-built community gardens designed with defined plots, circulation paths, and physical enclosures such as low fences or hedges. These spaces are often supported by local institutions or resident committees, featuring designated access points and visible signage. The clear layout and sense of collective ownership reflect Common Land (67) and Accessible Green (60), both of which emphasize shared, usable greenery integrated into neighborhood life [20]. Seating edges and open, walkable paths surrounding the gardens also align with Positive Outdoor Space (106), encouraging lingering and casual interaction [20]. The structured yet open nature of these gardens fosters intergenerational visibility and collaborative maintenance, supporting a socially inclusive and spatially legible green amenity.

G2 captures self-organized informal gardens occupying residual spaces—such as edges of pathways, roadside verges, or building setbacks—where elderly residents plant vegetables or flowers. These adaptive settings align with Garden Growing Wild (172) and Garden Wall (173), as many involve vines, climbing plants, or makeshift planters using recycled materials along boundary walls [20]. The presence of makeshift seating or resting spots corresponds with Garden Seat (176), while the collective usage and low intervention character reflect Common Area at the Heart (129) [20]. These gardens blur public–private boundaries and thrive on everyday interaction, creating a vernacular green culture deeply embedded in lived routines.

G3 involves vertical gardens located along building façades, balconies, or window ledges, often cultivated by young or elderly residents using containers, railings, or hanging structures. These highly individual but publicly visible interventions match Garden Wall (173) and Garden Seat (176), where vertical surfaces and adjacent thresholds become micro-landscapes [20]. Their proximity to indoor life and high observability support Life Cycle (26), linking gardening with daily rhythm and aging in place. Although modest in scale, these gardens extend domestic identity into the shared streetscape, offering both personal satisfaction and neighborhood visual vitality.

From the field study, gardens were most persistent in interstitial or overlooked spaces where formal regulation was weak, demonstrating how residents transform marginal land into micro-social territories. Informal interviews indicated that these gardens offered both material benefits (fresh vegetables) and intangible ones (shared labor, conversation, and neighborhood stewardship). Across all six sites, informal gardens (G2) were the most recurrent, with numerous patches recorded. These plots typically reclaimed strips 2–4 m wide and 5–10 m long, aligning with a commonly used cultivation threshold in local guidance, and were maintained by small groups of 3–5 elderly residents—often women—who rotated planting, watering, and harvesting. Planned gardens (G1)—limited to Site C—appeared as centrally landscaped areas of 200–300 m², but only a minority of observed residents (fewer than 10 across repeated visits) actively engaged in cultivation, confirming their limited role as social anchors. Vertical gardens (G3), also recorded only in Site C, took the form of balcony trellises 1–2 m deep × 3–5 m long or rooftop planters maintained privately by 2–3 households. Because G2 relies on low-intervention edge conditions rather than dedicated plots, it is the most transferable form. G1 and G3, both limited to Site C, indicate that institutional support (for plot maintenance) and generous domestic frontages enable more visible, collectively legible greening. For age-friendly regeneration, this implies prioritizing edge legibility, low seating, and micro-irrigation/compost points at pedestrian routes, while supporting plot-based gardens where resident committees or managers exist. Comparatively, G2 persisted more widely than G1/G3 regardless of gross area, aligning endurance with edge visibility and permeability rather than plot size alone.

4.2.4. Teahouse for Playing Mahjong

Mahjong gatherings appear in three recurrent settings that differ by threshold porosity, thermal/microclimatic comfort, and visibility to passers-by: T1 ground floor family unit converted from ground-floor residences, T2 original retail teahouses with consistent layouts and lighting, and T3 outdoor teahouses that seasonally occupy shaded public edges (

Table 5. Observations on the subtypes of Teahouse for playing Mahjong.

T1—Ground floor family unit converted into a teahouse	Pattern matches
	Opening to the Street (165), Street Views (164), Street Café (88), Intimacy Gradient (127), Reception Welcomes You (149), Six-Foot Balcony (167)
T2—Original ground floor retail teahouse
	Indoor Sunlight (128), Common Area at the Heart (129), Main Entrance (110), Public Outdoor Room (69), Tapestry of Light and Dark (135), Network of Learning (18)
T3—Outdoor teahouse
	Street Views (164), Street Café (88), Opening to the Street (165)

). T1 observed solely in Sites A and B, were converted from ground-floor residential units, blending private thresholds with street-facing sociability. T2 found in all six sites, operated within commercial units, offering consistent spatial layouts, structured service, and thermal comfort. T3 recorded in Sites A and C, utilized shaded sidewalks, squares, or small parks with portable furniture and seasonal setup. Across all types, mahjong served as a structured and highly localized form of elder engagement, linking spatial familiarity with sensory comfort and routine-based interaction. Spatial features observed aligned with patterns such as Opening to the Street (165), Street Café (88), Public Outdoor Room (69), Indoor Sunlight (128), and Network of Learning (18), highlighting how physical settings scaffold both social participation and cultural continuity.

T1 typically occurs in ground-floor domestic units converted into semi-public teahouses, often located at the inner courtyard side of a residential building. These intimate, family-run spaces maintain a fluid boundary between home and street, with players often seated close to windows or balconies. Such settings embody Opening to the Street (165) and Street Views (164), enabling visual and acoustic exchange with passersby [20]. The atmosphere recalls Street Café (88), where informal leisure blends with neighborhood rhythms [20]. Internally, layered spatial transitions and modest entry points reflect Intimacy Gradient (127) and Reception Welcomes You (149), while small protruding edges and thresholds are reminiscent of the Six-Foot Balcony (167) [20].

T2 refers to original teahouses occupying ground-floor commercial spaces with clearer frontage and formal service. These venues often support extended social stays with stable seating arrangements, warm lighting, and familiar hosts. Spatially, they align with Indoor Sunlight (128) and Tapestry of Light and Dark (135), creating a comfortable visual environment for long-duration use [20]. Their frequent role as community anchors reflects Common Area at the Heart (129), while formal thresholds and signage relate to Main Entrance (110) [20]. Their public-yet-intimate ambiance further echoes Public Outdoor Room (69) and the intergenerational skill-sharing function of Network of Learning (18) [20].

T3 encompasses outdoor teahouse spaces—often seasonal, canopy-shaded, or operating beside local squares—where simple tables and stools invite open-air play. These environments blend informal leisure with public presence, drawing on Street Views (164), Opening to the Street (165), and Street Café (88) to support sociability in breathable, transitional spaces [20]. Across all subtypes, Mahjong settings provided not only entertainment but also structured temporal routines and passive surveillance, contributing to a sense of social rhythm and spatial familiarity among elderly residents.

Overall, teahouses were embedded in circulation networks that encouraged visibility and easy access, while also providing semi-private thresholds for prolonged stays. Informal interviews underscored that Mahjong was not only a leisure pursuit but also a key ritual of male sociability and status recognition, offering daily rhythms of interaction comparable to the female-led square dances. Outdoor teahouses (T3), documented in Sites A and C, routinely hosted 25–50 players each afternoon, with tables fully occupied. Ground-floor family-unit teahouses (T1) in Sites A and B were smaller, with porches at least 1.8 m wide and staircases 0.6–1.5 m wide, typically accommodating 8–12 regulars. Retail teahouses (T2), found across all six sites, maintained steady gatherings of around 20 older patrons at peak hours. By contrast, post-socialist compounds (Sites E, F) showed no active teahouse spaces, as gated management constrained informal ground-floor appropriation. Teahouse vitality co-occurred with threshold design and micro-comfort: T1 where domestic edges allowed visual/auditory spillover to the street; T2 where stable seating and light quality supported longer stays; and T3 where shaded, open-air edges accommodated portable furniture without obstructing flows. Comparatively, T2 maintained steadier occupancies than T1, while T3 achieved the highest afternoon peaks; in all cases, longer stays aligned with proximity to circulation routes and semi-permeable, well-lit thresholds.

4.2.5. Summary

The preceding subsections examined four major socio-cultural practices—informal food markets, square dancing, community gardening, and teahouses for playing Mahjong—each decoded into subtypes reflecting distinct spatial adaptations. To consolidate these findings, their distribution across the six study neighbourhoods (A–F) is summarized in Figure 2. The stacked bar chart visualizes how activity subtypes are embedded in differing morphogenetic phases, offering a comparative view of neighbourhood sociability.

The synthesis highlights two parallel tendencies. On the one hand, activity distribution reflects clear morphological differences: traditional sites (A, B) sustain more intimate practices in compact thresholds, socialist compounds (C, D) accommodate larger collective routines in central squares and courtyards, while post-socialist neighbourhoods (E, F) show selective persistence, with gardening and limited retail teahouses surviving under gated management. On the other hand, despite these differences, the four socio-cultural activities recur across all sites, revealing a shared repertoire of elderly sociability that transcends form.

Importantly, the analysis also underscores how particular morphologies—most notably Site C (Ma’an), a socialist compound—demonstrate a clustering of diverse activities within walkable courtyards and open edges. Such environments allow multiple socio-cultural practices to coexist and reinforce each other. This richness suggests that lessons can be drawn from older morphologies for future placemaking: rather than erasing them, regeneration strategies may benefit from cross-learning how their spatial affordances sustain dense, overlapping sociability.

4.3. Synthesis: Shared Carriers of Elderly Socio-Cultural Activities

This section assesses the shared public spaces in which the studied socio-cultural activities (M1–T3) take place. By integrating spatial typologies with informal interview insights, it examines how these environments are perceived and inhabited in everyday life, revealing the spatial conditions that support recurring community practices. Interview insights reported here draw on a balanced mix of women and men across the three age bands and socio-economic backgrounds shown in Section 3.3.

Table 6. Triangulated Observations of Public Space Use: Embedded Manager and Resident Narratives.

Identified Shared Public Space	Activity Types Hosted	Sites Observed	Interviewee Comments
Linear pedestrian corridor	M1, M2, D1	A, B, C, D, F	Manager 6: These paths support small vendors and let people sit down along the way. Resident 4: We feel safe here because everyone can see what’s going on. Resident 12: It’s easy to talk to neighbors as they walk past.
Inner neighborhood courtyard	M3, D2, G2, T3	A, B, C, D, F	Manager 1: Courtyards are great for elderly residents—they come here daily. Resident 2: We can garden or dance without feeling in anyone’s way. Resident 1: This is where our day starts and ends—it’s familiar.
Corridor/street corner	M1, D1	A, C, D	Manager 3: Markets bring people together for both business and chatting. Resident 1: We often linger and talk after buying things. Resident 8: This space keeps our daily rhythm going—it’s part of our routine.
Residential shopfront/downstairs	M4, G3, T3	C, D	Manager 3: It’s convenient for older people—they don’t need to go far to be part of things. Resident 8: We see each other often at these doorways. Resident 5: I don’t always join, but I like hearing people chat downstairs.
Small residual square	D1, G2	A, B, C, D, F	Manager 1: These small squares are used by locals however they want. Resident 11: We gather here almost every day, without planning. Resident 3: It’s always us older folks—we know how to make it ours.
Formal plaza or civic square	D2, D3	All	Manager 5: We use this space for organized dances or events. Resident 10: It’s the centre of the area—everyone knows this spot. Resident 6: You come here to see who’s around and feel connected.
Community park	D3, G1, G2	A, B, C, D, F	Manager 1: Parks help everyone relax—there’s greenery and space. Resident 3: I come here to stretch and get fresh air. Resident 1: You see grandparents and kids—it feels like a shared place.
Community edge	M4, D2, G2	All	Manager 4: Even near gates, people gather and interact informally. Resident 9: This spot feels like part of our home, but open. Resident 8: I just sit here and watch the street—no need to go far.
Vertical thresholds (balconies)	G3	D	Manager 4: Balconies let people stay connected without leaving home. Resident 7: I can still see plants growing and talk to neighbors below. Resident 8: From up here, I still feel part of things.
Indoor communal room	T1, T2	A, C	Manager 1: These indoor spots are perfect for long Mahjong games. Resident 1: We gather here all the time—it feels private but social. Resident 6: It’s comfortable in all seasons—that’s why we keep coming back.

collates interviewees’ comments on the identified shared public-space settings and, read against Section 4.2.1, Section 4.2.2, Section 4.2.3 and Section 4.2.4, indicates strong convergence between what older residents say they need and the spatial conditions under which activities persisted. Along linear pedestrian corridors, interviewees’ comments about convenience, visibility and brief pauses “along the way” are consistent with the observed high through-flow of corridor markets (M2) and small corner gatherings (D1/M1) where paths were continuous and unobstructed. In inner courtyards and plazas, interviewees described familiar, everyday meeting grounds with flat surfaces and evening legibility, matching the concentration of square dancing (D2) on medium-width plazas and the steady presence of nearby teahouses. At frontage edges, interviewees valued being “downstairs,” seeing neighbors and lingering by thresholds, which accords with the endurance of converted-unit markets (M4), teahouses (T1–T3) and vertical gardens (G3) where semi-permeable edges and seasonal shade were available. Small residual squares were spoken of as places to “use however we want” and “gather almost every day,” in line with coupled dances (D1) and informal edge gardens (G2) occupying shaded, semi-enclosed pockets. Community-park settings supported lingering where edges remained permeable, aligning with D3 and gardens (G1/G2); where management or fencing reduced permeability, interviewees reported limited staying, mirroring lower observed use. Across post-socialist compounds, remarks about restrictions and blank ground floors corresponded with sporadic or absent participation in dance and teahouse activities, indicating a mismatch between desired routines and provided space. Overall, the interviewees’ comments corroborate that the shared carriers meet expectations when continuous walkable width, flat central spans with peripheral seating and evening lighting, and semi-permeable shaded thresholds are present; where these conditions are absent, both narratives and observations converge on reduced or intermittent use.

5. Discussion

5.1. Corroboration

5.1.1. Patterns Parallel with ‘A Pattern Language’ and Supporting Elderly Wellbeing

Building on Alexander’s ‘A Pattern Language’ [20], this study identifies recurring spatial patterns that structure four socio-cultural practices commonly observed among older residents in historic Chinese neighborhoods—traditional food markets, square dancing, community gardening and teahouses for playing Mahjong. Figure 3 expands each practice into a pattern network in which nodes represent the spatial patterns that jointly structure the activity and edges depict observed enabling relations among those patterns; node colors encode five interlinked wellbeing dimensions—social connectivity, psychological security, environmental quality, access to public amenities and psychological health—making the relations between practices and wellbeing legible at a glance. Each spatial pattern was assigned one primary wellbeing dimension by co-occurrence with interview codes.

Social connectivity patterns, such as Common Land (67), Activity Nodes (30), and Street Café (88), sustain interpersonal interaction through open thresholds, lingering zones, and rhythmic re-occupation. These spaces frequently hosted elderly square dancing, Mahjong play, and market stalls—activities that not only facilitated physical gathering but also reinforced neighborhood ties. Literature on ageing and social capital, including Buffel, Phillipson and Scharf [18] and van Hoof et al. [34] affirms that such spatial enablers mitigate social isolation and help maintain community identity, which is consistent with our results that emphasize edge seating, shade, and threshold permeability as enablers of later-life sociability.

Psychological security was supported by patterns like Intimacy Gradient (127), Street Views (164), and Neighborhood Boundary (15), which create subtle transitions between public and private zones. These allow elderly residents to regulate their exposure and engagement—whether pausing at a semi-private doorway to watch dancing (D1) or playing Mahjong in a quiet corner (T1). Wahl and Oswald [74] link such perceptual legibility and boundary clarity to ageing-in-place satisfaction and emotional stability.

Public services and amenities were reflected in patterns such as Positive Outdoor Space (106), Pedestrian Street (100), and Public Outdoor Room (69). These structured highly visible areas with clear access routes, seating, and adaptable layouts were repeatedly observed in dancing types (D2, D3), garden area (G1), and teahouses (T2, T3). These align with Gehl [75] principle that accessible, comfortable public edges are essential for elderly autonomy.

Environmental quality emerged in patterns like Garden Wall (173), South-Facing Outdoors (105), and Indoor Sunlight (128). Found in gardening (G2, G3) and Mahjong (T2) spaces; these features provide sensory richness, passive solar gain, and visual greenery, supporting biophilic design principles [76] and nature–health linkages [77] known to foster attention restoration and psychological wellbeing.

Finally, psychological health status was reinforced by patterns such as Network of Learning (18) and Animals (74), which embed rituals that strengthen identity, knowledge exchange, walking dog, intergenerational observation, and meaning-making. Present in square dancing (D3) and teahouse settings (T2), these spatial routines contribute to emotional regulation and continuity. Sarkar, Gallacher and Webster [78] similarly highlight how socially and emotionally meaningful spatial scripts can support elderly mental health in dense urban contexts.

When compared with findings from the observations and interview triangulation (Section 4.3), the pattern networks show that traditional food markets cluster around access to public amenities (continuous spines, proximate stalls, places to pause) and social connectivity, with psychological security (clear sightlines, evening legibility) and environmental quality (shade, airflow) as supporting conditions. Square-dance networks are dominated by social connectivity and psychological health (rhythm, movement, routine), reinforced by psychological security (enclosure, lighting) and environmental quality (flat, comfortable surfaces). Teahouse networks privilege social connectivity and psychological security at domestic/retail thresholds, with environmental quality (shade, breezeways) and access to public amenities (seating, power, nearby conveniences) enabling longer stays. Community-garden networks emphasize psychological health (purposeful activity, care) and environmental quality (greening, microclimate), with social connectivity via shared labor and, where edges are visible, psychological security. In post-socialist compounds, sparser links and weaker color presence for social connectivity and psychological health align with the lower participation observed, whereas richer interlinks appear where corridors, plazas and thresholds co-provide amenities, visibility and microclimatic comfort.

Taken together, the recurring patterns across markets, dance, gardening and teahouse settings accommodate both functional needs (gathering, resting, observing, interacting) and affective ones (rhythm, routine, belonging) for older residents. Their cross-activity recurrence and co-occurrence—visible in the pattern networks—suggest a shared spatial grammar of continuous corridors, legible edges, flat central spans and semi-permeable thresholds that align with the five wellbeing dimensions. This convergence is consistent with Alexander’s view of patterns as reusable solutions, while the Chengdu evidence shows they are culturally and temporally modulated in practice (e.g., threshold sociability, evening legibility).

5.1.2. Deviations and Additions Beyond Pattern Language

While many of the spatial affordances identified in this study align with Alexander’s canonical pattern language [20] (Appendix A.1), field observations and interview triangulation (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6) revealed several emergent configurations that expand this vocabulary. These observed additions reflect culturally adapted, elderly-friendly transformations that respond to both sensory and social needs. Importantly, they emerged through informal appropriation, collective habituation, and adaptive reuse, rather than formal planning.

Informal food markets (M1) consistently appeared along linear pedestrian corridors, characterised by (M1-1) densely clustered stalls and (M1-2) intermittent vendor positioning [79], producing rhythmic flows of movement. Elderly participants appreciated the (M1-3) high visibility of these spaces and the ease of “talking to neighbours as they walk past”—a form of (M1-4) social permeability [80] that fostered casual sociability without requiring commitment (Table 7). These qualities distinguish them from conventional plaza-based marketplaces and warrant recognition as a unique elderly-friendly market typology.

Ground floor retail units (M2) and Converted residences (M4) revealed threshold-mediated participation. Many elders preferred “doorways” as gathering edges or listening posts (Table 7), justifying additional patterns such as (M2-1) threshold-based interaction [81] and (M4-3) territorial clarity. The “convenience” of such proximities for older people was explicitly praised by managers, affirming the spatial and psychological role of (M2-2) transitional boundaries [82] that gently modulate exposure and involvement (Table 7).

Large open-air markets (M3) were often embedded within courtyards or garages repurposed by residents—an expression of (M3-1) hybridized use [83] and (M3-3) adaptive clustering [84]. These spaces reflected no standardised layout, but their coexistence of (M3-2) “food sales and storage” [83] mirrored layered domestic-economic activities, sustaining visibility and control without formality.

Coupled Dance (D1) typically took place in small squares or corridor spaces that supported routine bodily coordination and sensory anchoring. Spatial features such as (D1-1) ambient lighting [85] and (D1-2) convergence of movement and sociability [75] provided emotionally secure and perceptually legible settings for the elderly. Their habitual return to these areas—“peripheral but consistent reoccupation” (Table 7)—validated (D1-3) ritualised comfort [86]. These patterns align with findings that lighting, familiarity, and semi-enclosure enhance social participation and emotional regulation among older adults [87,88].

Dance in a Matrix (D2) was often observed in courtyards and internal access roads, activated by (D2-1) flexible use of semi-public space [58] and (D2-2) spontaneous evening occupation [89]. Seating edges enabled pause and social anchoring, affirming (D2-3) embedded social-athletic rhythm [90]. Research confirms that low-barrier, informal venues for rhythmic movement contribute to physical wellbeing and informal bonding among ageing populations [91].

Circled Dance (D3) was tied to civic squares and large plazas that served as (D3-1) multifunctional community cores [92]. Their (D3-2) wide exposure and brightness [93] fostered symbolic inclusivity, while (D3-3) collective access enabled embodied rituals [94]. These qualities match findings that open, shared public realms enhance a sense of belonging and intergenerational continuity for older users [95].

Gardening practices (G1–G3) reflected divergent levels of formalisation and generational accessibility. Planned gardens (G1) were often supported by neighbourhood management and marked by (G1-1) defined plots, (G1-2) structured circulation paths, (G1-3) structured yet open layout and (G1-4) intergenerational visibility [96]—layouts that enabled both older and younger residents to maintain eye contact and participate side-by-side. These structured yet inclusive designs not only promoted sensory stimulation but also fostered psychological wellbeing and social cohesion among older participants [97].

In contrast, informal gardens (G2) emerged organically through everyday appropriation. Residents cultivated (G2-1) self-organized edge gardens, with (G2-2) vines and recycled planters spread along walls and alleys, often accompanied by (G2-3) makeshift seating [98]. These settings had a (G2-4) low-intervention character that allowed older adults to engage in gardening at their own pace, offering both physical activity and informal social interaction. As Scott, Masser and Pachana [96] observed, these types of environments enhance older adults’ self-esteem, social bonding, and meaningful occupation in later life.

Vertical gardens (G3) represented another layer of elderly adaptation—particularly among less mobile residents. Using (G3-1) vertical gardens on façades and balconies, older participants creatively shaped (G3-3) containers and railings used [99] that enabled visibility, pride, and continued care for life. These vertical arrangements not only sustained a sense of (G3-4) domestic identity in shared streetscape within the public realm but also (G3-2) enhanced observability from both inside and outside the dwelling, fostering emotional connection with the street and neighborhood. As Estrada and Roxas [99] observed, these practices allowed older individuals to “still feel part of things” even without leaving their homes, while Lampert et al. [100] further emphasize the psychosocial value of visual engagement with greenery in constrained domestic settings.

Teahouse practices (T1–T3) underscored the importance of intimacy, familiarity, and layered spatial cues. Converted domestic units (T1) allowed (T1-1) “blending of home and street” and (T1-2) acoustic-visual continuity [101], as Mahjong games filled communal rooms with sound and routine (Table 7). Daniels [101] study on contemporary Japanese domestic spaces describes how homes are deliberately shaped to mediate social intimacy and visibility—blurring the line between private and public through spatial atmospheres.

Original teahouses (T2) were valued for their (T2-1) extended social stays, (T2-2) familiar hosts, forming a (T2-3) public-yet-intimate ambiance well-suited to the elderly’s comfort and extended stays. While specific studies on traditional Chinese teahouses remain limited, research in environmental psychology has shown that familiarity, personalization, and warm lighting are key to fostering emotional security and prolonged comfort among older adults [19].

Outdoor teahouses (T3) extended this informality to (T3-1) Outdoor seasonal setups, (T3-2) “shaded sidewalks” with (T3-3) portable furniture, offering breathable (T3-4) “transitional spaces” for sociability and retreat (Table 7). Similar ideas have been explored in public realm design studies, where adaptable furnishings and semi-shaded environments are seen to enhance casual interaction and restorative experiences, especially for older populations [102].

In summary, these additions reflect a localized form of spatial intelligence shaped by embodied practice, ageing needs, and social trust. They do not contradict Alexander’s original patterns but instead provide complementary lenses for interpreting lived spaces in the context of Chinese historic neighbourhoods. As such, they are proposed as pattern extensions rooted in both ethnographic insight and morphological specificity. Similar ideas have been explored in public realm design studies [19,103] where adaptable furnishings and semi-shaded environments are seen to enhance casual interaction and restorative experiences, especially for older populations. At the same time, these empirical extensions position our work in dialogue with other traditions: unlike space syntax, which quantifies configurational properties such as integration or depth [14,58], our framework foregrounds the lived socio-cultural routines documented in Table 7, such as threshold-based encounters or embodied rituals. Similarly, while urban sociology highlights the symbolic and contested meanings of public space [15,37], our analysis translates these social practices into designable spatial categories. In this sense, the Chengdu cases corroborate Alexander’s propositions while extending them through a field-based vocabulary that bridges form, behaviour, and cultural meaning. For implementation, each added pattern in Table 7 is linked to a corresponding design strategy in Appendix B.

Table 7. Additional patterns from the four socio-cultural activities (see Appendix B 

Table A3. Pattern Language Strategies for Elderly Wellbeing in Historic Neighborhoods.

Shared Public-Space Type	Activity Subtypes	Supporting Patterns (Canonical + Additional)	Design Strategies (Condensed)
Linear pedestrian corridor	M1, M2, D1	Shopping Street (32); Food Stands (93); Web of Shopping (19); Path Shape (121); Activity Nodes (30); M1-1; M1-4; M2-1; D1-3	Preserve continuous spine; add shaded stalls + low seating at thresholds; create 4–6 m pockets/lay-bys; protect flow continuity
Inner neighborhood courtyard	M3, D2, G2, T3	Market of Many Shops (46); Home Workshop (157); Dancing in the Street (63); Positive Outdoor Space (106); Garden Wall (173); M3-1; M3-3; D2-2; G2-2; T3-1	Hybrid layouts with visual openness; uninterrupted surfaces framed by benches; shade + permeable edges for T3; tap/compost points for G2
Corridor/street corner	M1, D1	Shopping Street (32); Food Stands (93); Activity Nodes (30); Night Life (33); Subculture Boundary (13); M1-4; D1-3	Formalize 4–6 m corner pockets; ambient lighting; soft paving; queue/edge management that keeps the spine clear
Residential shopfront/downstairs	M4, G3, T3	Promenade (31); Identifiable Neighborhood (14); Garden Wall (173); Street Views (164); M4-3; G3-1; T3-2	Maintain semi-permeable thresholds (half-open doors, see-through screens); visible forecourt seating; shaded, non-blocking portable tables
Small residual square	D1, G2	Activity Nodes (30); Positive Outdoor Space (106); Garden Wall (173); D1-3; G2-2	Widen pockets to 4–6 m; perimeter benches/lean-rails; edge planting with tap access; keep sightlines clear
Formal plaza/civic square	D2, D3	Common Area at the Heart (129); Life Cycle (26); Dancing in the Street (63); Positive Outdoor Space (106); D2-2; D3-2	Keep effective width 14–21 m; continuous perimeter seating; low-glare evening lighting; provide shade structures
Community park	D3, G1, G2	Accessible Green (60); Vegetable Garden (177); Garden Growing Wild (172); Common Area at the Heart (129); G1-1; G2-2; D3-3	Shade along paths; visible small plots at edges; safe cross-views to dance areas; provide water access and storage
Community edge	M4, D2, G2	Promenade (31); Identifiable Neighborhood (14); Street Views (164); Positive Outdoor Space (106); M4-1; D2-1; G2-3	Soften hard gates; mark semi-permeable community fronts; edge seating + lighting; maintain clear entrances
Vertical thresholds (balconies)	G3	Garden Wall (173); Indoor Sunlight (128); G3-1; G3-2	Encourage rail planters/trellises; safe fixings + drip trays; support resident-driven greening
Indoor communal room	T1, T2	Opening to the Street (165); Indoor Sunlight (128); Public Outdoor Room (69); Street Café (88); T1-1; T1-2; T2-1; T2-3	Soft thresholds and flexible furniture; warm ambient lighting; accessible seating plans; preserve social acoustics of play
Shared public-space type	Activity subtypes	Supporting patterns (canonical + additional)	Design strategies (condensed)

for the associated design strategies).

Activity Code	Additional Patterns Found
M1—Informal food market	(M1-1) Densely clustered informal stalls lining pedestrian corridors; (M1-2) Intermittent vendor positioning; (M1-3) High visibility; (M1-4) Social permeability along rhythmic pedestrian flows
M2—Ground floor retail unit	(M2-1) Threshold-based interaction at neighborhood edges; (M2-2) Transitional boundaries between private and public space
M3—Large open-air markets	(M3-1) Hybridized use of courtyards or garages; (M3-2) Food sales co-exist with production or storage; (M3-3) Emergent clustering and adaptive reuse of fabric
M4—Markets converted from former residential units	(M4-1) Commercial rhythm along inner roads; (M4-2) Clearer frontage and longer visibility lines; (M4-3) Greater legibility and territorial clarity
D1—Coupled dance	(D1-1) Ambient lighting; (D1-2) Convergence of movement and sociability; (D1-3) Peripheral but consistent reoccupation
D2—Dance in a matrix	(D2-1) Flexible use of internal access roads or courtyards; (D2-2) Spontaneous evening occupation; social-athletic function; (D2-3) Surrounded by seating edges
D3—Circled dance	(D3-1) Large multifunctional plazas as community cores; (D3-2) Wide exposure and natural brightness; (D3-3) Embodied rituals and collective access
G1—Planned garden	(G1-1) Defined plots and circulation paths; (G1-2) Supported by local management; (G1-3) Structured yet open layout; (G1-4) Intergenerational visibility
G2—Informal gardens	(G2-1) Self-organized edge gardens; (G2-2) Vines and recycled planters along boundary walls; (G2-3) Makeshift seating; (G2-4) Low intervention character
G3—Vertical garden	(G3-1) Vertical gardens on façades and balconies; (G3-2) High observability; (G3-3) Containers and railings used creatively; (G3-4) Domestic identity in shared streetscape
T1—Ground floor family unit converted into a teahouse	(T1-1) Blending of home and street; (T1-2) Acoustic and visual exchange
T2—Original ground floor retail teahouse	(T2-1) Extended social stays; (T2-2) Familiar hosts; (T2-3) Public-yet-intimate ambiance
T3—Outdoor teahouse	(T3-1) Outdoor seasonal setups; (T3-2) Shaded sidewalks and squares; (T3-3) Portable furniture; (T3-4) Open-air sociability in breathable, transitional spaces

Table 7. Additional patterns from the four socio-cultural activities (see Appendix B Table A3 for the associated design strategies).

Activity Code	Additional Patterns Found
M1—Informal food market	(M1-1) Densely clustered informal stalls lining pedestrian corridors; (M1-2) Intermittent vendor positioning; (M1-3) High visibility; (M1-4) Social permeability along rhythmic pedestrian flows
M2—Ground floor retail unit	(M2-1) Threshold-based interaction at neighborhood edges; (M2-2) Transitional boundaries between private and public space
M3—Large open-air markets	(M3-1) Hybridized use of courtyards or garages; (M3-2) Food sales co-exist with production or storage; (M3-3) Emergent clustering and adaptive reuse of fabric
M4—Markets converted from former residential units	(M4-1) Commercial rhythm along inner roads; (M4-2) Clearer frontage and longer visibility lines; (M4-3) Greater legibility and territorial clarity
D1—Coupled dance	(D1-1) Ambient lighting; (D1-2) Convergence of movement and sociability; (D1-3) Peripheral but consistent reoccupation
D2—Dance in a matrix	(D2-1) Flexible use of internal access roads or courtyards; (D2-2) Spontaneous evening occupation; social-athletic function; (D2-3) Surrounded by seating edges
D3—Circled dance	(D3-1) Large multifunctional plazas as community cores; (D3-2) Wide exposure and natural brightness; (D3-3) Embodied rituals and collective access
G1—Planned garden	(G1-1) Defined plots and circulation paths; (G1-2) Supported by local management; (G1-3) Structured yet open layout; (G1-4) Intergenerational visibility
G2—Informal gardens	(G2-1) Self-organized edge gardens; (G2-2) Vines and recycled planters along boundary walls; (G2-3) Makeshift seating; (G2-4) Low intervention character
G3—Vertical garden	(G3-1) Vertical gardens on façades and balconies; (G3-2) High observability; (G3-3) Containers and railings used creatively; (G3-4) Domestic identity in shared streetscape
T1—Ground floor family unit converted into a teahouse	(T1-1) Blending of home and street; (T1-2) Acoustic and visual exchange
T2—Original ground floor retail teahouse	(T2-1) Extended social stays; (T2-2) Familiar hosts; (T2-3) Public-yet-intimate ambiance
T3—Outdoor teahouse	(T3-1) Outdoor seasonal setups; (T3-2) Shaded sidewalks and squares; (T3-3) Portable furniture; (T3-4) Open-air sociability in breathable, transitional spaces

5.2. A Pattern-Based Framework for Shared Public Space Making in Age-Friendly Regeneration

The corroborations and extensions outlined in Section 5.1 provide a foundation for moving from analytical insight to practical guidance. Building on these findings, this section proposes a pattern-based framework that translates observed socio-cultural routines into concrete strategies across different shared space types. Across the six neighborhoods, ten shared public-space types (Table 6) were found to host recurring practices of markets, dancing, gardening and teahouse gatherings, each embedding distinct yet overlapping design needs. Because individual spaces often host multiple activity subtypes concurrently (e.g., widened lanes supporting morning M2 stalls and evening D1 formations), a one-to-one mapping from subtype to placemaking action would mis-specify design requirements. We therefore synthesize at the level of space type: for each of the ten types, we aggregate the recurrent supporting patterns (Table 7) and specify the corresponding design strategies in Appendix B Table A3 (see “Design Strategy”), yielding implementable guidance for corridors, courtyards, corners, shopfronts and squares.

Linear pedestrian corridors frequently accommodated informal food markets (M1), ground-floor retail units (M2) and coupled dance sessions (D1). In these elongated spines, M1 benefitted from preserving the linear alley structure, adding shaded stalls and ensuring uninterrupted pedestrian flow (M1-4); M2 worked best when stalls aligned along a continuous spine with small lay-bys and thresholds that allowed brief pauses (M2-1). D1 routines thrived in semi-enclosed pockets at corridor edges, where ambient lighting and soft paving supported comfort and visibility (D1-3). Design strategies: preserve a continuous spine; add shaded stalls and low seating at thresholds; create 4–6 m pockets/lay-bys; protect flow continuity. Together, these strategies reinforced the socially permeable and rhythmically active qualities noted by Buffel, Phillipson and Scharf [18] and Gehl [75].

Inner neighborhood courtyards supported courtyard or garage markets (M3), outdoor teahouses (T3), matrix dance (D2) and informal edge gardening (G2), often in layered combinations. M3 involved hybrid layouts for commercial and social uses with visual openness and enhanced lighting (M3-1; M3-2). D2 required uninterrupted open surfaces framed by benches (D2-2); G2 persisted with low-intervention planting and makeshift seating (G2-2); T3 performed best at shaded, semi-permeable edges (T3-1; T3-2). Design strategies: keep a clear, uninterrupted center; frame edges with benches; provide shade and semi-permeable thresholds for T3; add tap/compost points for G2. Similar multifunctional courtyard designs in dense blocks enhance intergenerational interaction and informal trade [93,104].

Smaller corridor or street corner spaces hosted informal food markets (M1) and coupled dance (D1). M1 kept stall arrangements tight to preserve circulation (M1-4), while D1 used defined pockets that maintained visual connection to passers-by while buffering noise (D1-3). Design strategies: formalize 4–6 m corner pockets; provide ambient lighting and soft paving; manage queues/edges to keep the spine clear. Such corners can support everyday engagement and visibility among older adults [105].

Residential shopfronts or downstairs spaces were re-purposed as converted residential markets (M4), vertical gardens (G3) and outdoor teahouses (T3). M4 preserved walkable spines with rhythmic stalls and clear signage (M4-3); G3 encouraged balcony/façade greening visible from the street (G3-1); T3 relied on portable shaded seating and porous boundaries for interaction (T3-2). Design strategies: maintain semi-permeable thresholds (half-open fronts); use visible forecourt seating that does not block flows; support balcony/railing trellises with safe fixings and drip trays. These qualities align with evidence that everyday green views aid mental health [78,106].

Small residual squares hosted coupled dance (D1) and informal edge gardening (G2). Soft paving, low-level lighting and semi-enclosed edges supported smaller dance groups (D1-3), while self-managed planting with adjacent seating invited passive observation (G2-2). Design strategies: widen pockets to 4–6 m; add perimeter benches/lean-rails; provide edge planting with tap access; keep sightlines clear. Comparable conversions in Hong Kong’s estates have increased outdoor activity among older residents [107].

Formal plazas and civic squares offered the scale needed for matrix dance (D2) and circled dance (D3). D2 required flat, flexible surfaces framed by benches (D2-2), while D3 relied on large, multi-access plazas with shade structures (D3-2). Design strategies: keep an effective width of 14–21 m; provide continuous perimeter seating; use low-glare evening lighting; add shade structures at edges. In Guangzhou, such plazas and large greens sustain elderly performances and community pride [108].

Community parks combined circled dance (D3) with planned gardens (G1) and informal edge gardening (G2). G1 defined plots with clear circulation and intergenerational visibility (G1-1); G2 used low-intervention planting edges (G2-2); D3 benefitted from shaded performance spaces in view of gardens (D3-3). Design strategies: provide shade along paths; locate small plots on visible edges; ensure cross-views between garden and dance areas; add water access and storage. Evidence from Guo, Yanai and Xu [98] confirms associated wellbeing benefits.

Community edges acted as semi-public frontiers, hosting converted residential markets (M4), matrix dance (D2) and informal gardening (G2). M4 used clear signage and a readable stall rhythm (M4-1); D2 required uninterrupted surfaces with edge seating (D2-1); G2 deployed planting strips as informal seating buffers (G2-3). Design strategies: soften hard gates; mark semi-permeable community fronts; add edge seating and lighting; maintain clear entrances. Such edges enable “light-touch” participation for less mobile elders [18].

Vertical thresholds primarily supported vertical gardening (G3). Integrating railing planters or façade green screens while protecting street views kept residents visually connected (G3-1; G3-2). Design strategies: encourage rail planters/trellises; use safe fixings and drip trays; support resident-led greening. Visual exposure to greenery can improve mental health even without direct contact [78].

Indoor communal rooms hosted converted domestic teahouses (T1) and formal indoor teahouses (T2). T1 benefitted from soft thresholds and flexible furniture blending home and street (T1-1; T1-2); T2 from thermal comfort, signage and accessible seating plans (T2-1; T2-3). Design strategies: maintain soft, visible thresholds; provide warm ambient lighting; organize accessible seating plans; preserve the social acoustics of play. ‘Third places’ of this type increase year-round senior use [109].

Together, these narratives illustrate how the ten shared public-space types function as adaptive infrastructures of ageing. By embedding design strategies aligned with observed practices and supported by existing literature, this framework provides planners and designers with a culturally grounded, empirically validated blueprint for regeneration that supports older residents as active co-makers of place.

6. Conclusions

This study adapts Alexander’s Pattern Language to decode how the everyday practices of older residents—traditional food markets, square dancing, community gardening, and teahouses for Mahjong—are spatially embedded in six historic Chengdu neighborhoods. Treating patterns as spatial scripts, we link relations of enclosure, access, adjacency, visibility, and edge conditions to lived routines. Using behavior mapping and spatial documentation, followed by interview triangulation, the analysis moves from fine-grained observations to a comparative typology of ten shared public-space types, tests Alexander’s propositions in empirical settings, and identifies additional patterns that reflect Chinese neighborhood sociability. Tables, figures, and the strategy framework in Appendix B show how these insights translate into implementable guidance for regeneration.

The findings advance ongoing debates by positioning pattern language as a bridge between lived practice and formal urban morphology—complementing configurational approaches such as space syntax and ethnographic traditions. Recurrent practices in Chengdu emerge as a form of local spatial intelligence, where ageing, intergenerational interaction, and social trust are sustained through threshold relations, edges, and micro-comfort features such as shade and seating. Canonical ideas—like activity nodes and outdoor rooms—are affirmed, while culturally specific heuristics are articulated, including permeability along rhythmic pedestrian flows, ambient lighting for evening dance, and portable furniture under seasonal shade. Crucially, these claims rest on triangulation: agreement between observed behaviors, measured spatial conditions, and interview accounts.

Practically, the framework is ready to be used and the method is transferable to other urban contexts. Planning departments, heritage authorities, and community organizations can audit streets and courtyards with the ten space types, identify which activity subtypes are present and which supporting patterns are missing, then select “fix-first” strategies from Appendix B to repair critical supports—for example, preserving a continuous spine for markets, providing clear-width ranges for evening dance, or opening thresholds around teahouses. Small, reversible retrofits can be co-designed with residents and managers, piloted in situ, and iterated using simple indicators such as counts, dwell time, and perceived comfort. Because the pipeline is grounded in triangulation, it also provides a clear basis for post-implementation evaluation and local calibration.

Although rooted in Chengdu, the implications are broader. Many historic districts face pressures of modernization, gentrification, and demographic ageing. The proposed framework offers a transferable toolkit for recognizing and sustaining socio-cultural practices in regeneration, giving public agencies a vocabulary for street and courtyard retrofits and enabling community-led stewardship grounded in lived routines. In this way, the work contributes to the global conversation on creating age-friendly, culturally responsive public spaces.

Future research should extend beyond the six neighborhoods, test the proposed patterns through pilot interventions, and integrate quantitative measures—pedestrian counts, accessibility indices, and microclimate audits—to assess effectiveness across seasons and governance settings. Comparative applications in other cities can refine the catalogue toward a more generalizable reference for ageing-friendly regeneration.

Formalizing everyday socio-cultural practices as patterns shows how cultural memory and community life can be safeguarded amid rapid urban change. The approach strengthens the explanatory and operational reach of pattern language, situates it in dialogue with syntax and sociology, and equips practitioners with a clear roadmap for aligning heritage conservation with social wellbeing.