A Joint Framework for Urban Morphology A

8/15/2019 A Joint Framework for Urban Morphology A

1/18

A JOINT FRAMEWORK FOR URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND DESIGN

409BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 37 NO 4

sometimes perceive morphology as a ratherspecialized activity, concerned with historicalmaps and somewhat esoteric concepts (suchas ‘orthomorphic’ patterns and ‘morpho-genetic’ processes); an intriguing but optional,even rather perfunctory, prelude to the real

business of design (figure 2). On the other

hand, urban morphologists might perceiveurban design as being overly preoccupied

It is almost as if morphology and design useseparate hemispheres of the brain. Urbanmorphology is about patern recognition;urban design is about patern creation.Urban morphology is about the analysis ofensembles of buildings and spaces; urban

design is about the deliberate creation of suchensembles. Urban morphology is about infer-ence and interpretation of type; urban designis about invention of types and interventionusing type. Urban morphology is aboutinferring urban form-function relationships;urban design is about expressing them.Urban morphology is about understandingand evaluating what urban design is creating(figure 1).

While urban morphology and designare closely linked in principle, they are notalways well integrated in practice. For astart, urban morphology and urban designare associated with separate disciplines withdifferent traditions. Urban designers areusually drawn from design disciplines suchas architecture, whereas urban morphologistsmay also include geographers and spatialanalysts with a scientific background but no

design training.On the one hand, urban designers might

A Joint Framework forUrban Morphology and Design

STEPHEN MARSHALL and OLGU ÇALIŞKAN

This paper proposes a joint framework for relating urban morphology and designto each other, which can help to explain how and why these can be considered asdistinct yet connected. The paper locates urban morphology and urban design –as products and processes – within a framework based on the distinction betweenthe physical fabric and the abstract domain, in relation to time order. This helpsclarify and explain the nature and signi ficance of the essential relationship betweenurban morphology and design. The paper concludes with suggestions for the beter

integration of morphology and design.

Figure 1. Morphology and design caricatured asif occupying separate hemispheres of the brain.


2/18

URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND DESIGN

410 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 37 NO 4

aims and methods of urban morphologyand urban design is not just of ‘academic’interest. The lack of integration has been

blamed for urban places being sub-optimal ordysfunctional. Conversely, better integrationof urban morphology and design can

potentially help create better urban places(Çalışkan and Marshall, this issue). Thesesuppositions relate both to contemporarycalls for an integration between the two fields

with the agency of professional designersin shaping urban change, underestimatingthe influences of chance, contingency andcontext (figure 3). Urban morphologists andurban designers often seem to be lookingin different directions, or working at cross-

purposes. It is almost as if the right handdoes not always know what the left hand isdoing.

The perceived dislocation between the

Figure 3. A pure case of design, where the urban fabric (right) is a direct expression of an urban designer’svision (lef). Urban morphologists recognize this as a special case. More ofen, the urban fabric is puttogether in a more complex way; morphologists are concerned with more than what designers design.(Source: By courtesy of Kuiper Compagnons, 2006)

Figure 2. Iconic morphological study on Venice by Saverio Muratori (1959), the founder of Italianmorphology school (Muratori, 2001). Urban designers sometimes see this kind of morphological study asan intriguing but optional excursion into urban historical geography.


3/18



the relationship between urban morphologyand urban design. What is it that unites themand what is it that divides them? How doesurban morphology inform urban design?How do design interventions impact on theground (the physical fabric) to create new

morphologies – whether these are ‘planned’overall or not (figure 4)? Is morphology anecessary part of (or prelude to) design?Where do we draw the boundary betweenmorphology and design (figure 5)?

This paper sets out to explore these variousissues, ultimately to help understand whypoor morphological understanding mightlead to poor design outcomes. First, we con-sider basic definitions and interpretations of

urban morphology and then urban design.Next we develop a new framework linkingurban morphology and design. This is thenused to interpret morphology and design asproducts and processes, and in relation totime. This allows us to learn how and why

(Hayward, 1993; Samuels, 1993, 1999; Kropf,1998; McGlynn and Samuels, 2000; Maretto,2005; Chapman, 2006; Gygax, 2007), and toa substantial body of critical urban spaceand design theory since the 1960s (Lynch,1960; Jacobs, 1961; Cullen, 1961; Hillier and

Hanson, 1984; Bentley et al., 1985; Alexanderet al., 1987). Among them, Trancik (1986)can be regarded as the one to address mostdirectly the need for ‘an integrated designapproach’ – he considers figure-ground , linkage , and place theories of urbanism.

The dislocation between urban morphologyand urban design is not so much due tosome historical disciplinary schism (like,for example, that between surgeons and

physicians, or military and civil engineers).Rather, the disciplinary schism could be asymptom of something deeper, about theintrinsic nature of morphology and design. Ineffect, there is an outstanding challenge andopportunity to gain a better understanding of

Figure 4. A transect from Ankara, Turkey: juxtaposition of ‘planned’ (lef) and ‘unplanned’ (right) urbanfabric.

Figure 5. The design of IjburgHaveneiland (right) involvedcreation of new blocktypologies based on existingones in Amsterdam (lef).The manipulation of abstractmorphologies (lef) was partof the ‘design research’ forthe final scheme. This raisesthe question of where themorphology stops and thedesign begins. (Source: Byof courtesy Claus en KaanArchitecten, 2001)


4/18



1988). Steadman (1983, 1998, 2008) interpretsGoethe’s concept of morphology as a scienceof possible form. While commonly known asa branch of biology, the more general andabstract sense of morphology as a science ofform allows it to be applied beyond biology.

For example, the term morphology is usedin geology and geography in reference to theform of natural landscapes, and in linguistics,in reference to the elements and structure oflanguage. In each case morphology can beconsidered the study of form or structureapplicable to the field in question. In thecontext of the built environment, then, urban

morphology can inform good design. Finally,we draw out conclusions and implications forthe onward development of the relationship

between urban morphology and design.

Urban Morphology

The term morphology was originally coined by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832),the famous German writer and polymathwhose interests covered poetry, drama,literature, philosophy, and biology. Goethetook morphology to mean a ‘science dealingwith the very essences of forms’ (Bullock et al. ,

Table 1. A selection of definitions of urban morphology.

De finition Source

General ‘The study of urban form.’ (Cowan, 2005)

‘The science of form, or of various factors that govern and (Lozano, 1990, p. 209) influence form.’

‘The study of the physical (or built) fabric of urban form, (Urban Morphology Research and the people and processes shaping it.’ Group, 1990)

‘Morphology literally means ‘form-lore’, or knowledge of (Meyer, 2005, p. 125) the form … what is the essence of that form; does certain

logic in spatial composition apply, certain structuring

principles?’Focus on the ‘… an approach to conceptualising the complexity of (Larkham, 2005)object of study physical form. Understanding the physical complexities of(urban form) various scales, from individual buildings, plots, street- blocks, and the street paterns that make up the structure of

towns helps us to understand the ways in which towns havegrown and developed.’

‘Urban morphology … is not merely two dimensional in (Smailes, 1955, p. 101; cited in scope. On the contrary, it is through the special importance Chapman, 2006, p. 24) which the third dimension assumes in the urban scene that

much of its distinctiveness and variety arise.’

Focus on the ‘A method of analysis which is basic to find[ing] out (Gebauer and Samuels, 1981;manner and principles or rules of urban design.’ cited in Larkham, 1998)purpose of

‘… the study of the city as human habitat… Urban (Moudon, 1997)studymorphologists … analyse a city’s evolution from itsformative years to its subsequent transformations,identifying and dissecting its various components.’

‘First, there are studies that are aimed at providing (Gauthier and Gilliland, 2006, explanations or developing explanatory frameworks or p. 42) both (i.e. cognitive contributions); and secondly, there are

studies aimed at determining the modalities according to

which the city should be planned or built in the future (i.e.normative contributions).’


5/18



kinds of urban fabric; and (iii) as a means ofidentifying exemplars, types or elements ofurban form which could be used as units ofdesign.2 It is the last of these – design – onwhich this paper will primarily focus fromnow on.

Urban Design

The term design in the most general senseequates with the preconception of something

before it is constructed. It involves adeliberate act of will towards creation of afinite product, ofen expressed in the form ofsome kind of drawing. Design also embodiesthe rationale for something; a ‘good design’

implies an effective solution to a problem.The term urban design could be used in ageneral sense to mean any kind of design inthe urban context – which could encompassthe design of buildings and infrastructure(otherwise associated with architecture andengineering). Some basic definitions of urbandesign are given in table 2 overleaf.

From table 2, we can see that urban designis about shaping the form of the physical

urban fabric, by organizing urban structure,manipulating relationships between elements,creating coherent ensembles of buildings andspaces. In a broad sense, urban design couldalso be said to include an element of analysis,not just synthesis (Lawson, 2006). Like urbanmorphology, urban design can operate at avariety of scales, although it tends to be mostassociated with the scale greater than orequal to architecture (buildings) and less than

equal to that of town planning (settlements).

A Joint Framework LinkingMorphology and Design

From this analysis we can draw out anumber of conclusions that will help usrelate urban morphology and urban designin a joint framework. Urban morphologyand urban design both relate to the physical

urban fabric. The urban fabric is a kind of‘common ground’, that is the subject of urban

morphology can be taken to mean the scienceof urban form and structure. Some definitionsof urban morphology are given in table 1.

From table 1, we can see that urbanmorphology involves scrutiny and analysis ofthe physical urban fabric (recall figure 2); yet

it concerns understanding and explanation ofurban change in a wider sense; it deals withthings like spatial organizations, principles,components, relations, discerning structure,shape, configuration, which can also be usedtowards design. In terms of scale, urbanmorphology covers a wide spectrum fromthe scale of buildings to metropolitan areas.In its narrowest sense, it refers to the studyof the urban fabric of buildings, plots and

street patterns; in a wider sense it can includepossible forms, and not only the description

but explanation of processes of formation(sometimes referred to as morphogenetics).1

In its urban interpretation, morphology isusually interpreted as an analytic activity– the study of the existing urban form orurban fabric – although colloquially we mayalso speak of ‘the morphology’ of an area asif morphology were a synonym for form.

Urban morphology covers a wide area ofspatial research including both qualitativetechniques such as the use of the figure-ground or tissue analysis (Muratori, 1959;Caniggia and Maffei, 1979; Moudon, 1986;Panerai et al. , 1980; Oswald and Baccini,2003) as well as quantitative techniques forcapturing the structural properties of urbanform (Benedikt, 1979; Hillier and Hanson,1984; Hillier, 1996; Batty, 2001; Marshall,

2005). Kropf (2009, p. 109) classifies the majorapproaches in urban morphology as spatialanalytical , configurational , process typologicaland historico-geographical.

We can identify three key applicationsof morphology: (i) as an investigative orexplanatory technique, where the intentionis to help find out ‘what happened’, andwhere change in form is studied better tounderstand urban change more generally;

(ii) as a diagnostic or evaluative tool, ameans of studying successful or unsuccessful


6/18



as processes. Yet morphology and designseem to be going in different directions, fordifferent purposes; but do not seem to be thedirect obverse of each other, like input andoutput, or analysis and synthesis. In some

senses they are intertwined: morphologycould be part of the urban design process;

morphology and the object of urban design.That said, morphology and design alsoinvolve a degree of abstraction, identifiablein terms of various kinds of urban formelements. Both relate to a range of scales. Both

can be seen as products – the morphology ofan area, or the design of an area – as well

Table 2. A selection of definitions of urban design.

De finition Source

General ‘… the art of making places; design in an urban context.’ (Cowan, 2005, p. 416)

‘… a subfield of urban planning particularly concerned (Gunder, 2011, p. 1) with urban form, liveability and aesthetics.’

‘Urban design lies between the broad-brush abstraction of (Buchanan, 1997; cited in Cowan,planning and concrete specificities of architecture.’ 1997, p. 20)

‘… a place making process that involves creating three- (Wall and Waterman, 2009, p. 17) dimensional urban forms and space, which enhance the

experience of towns and cities.’

‘Urban design in specific sense grew out of an effort to (Mumford, 2009, p. viii) combine art and science in the three-dimensional planning

of urban environments.’

‘… the theory and practice of producing the form and life (Günay, 1999, p. 32) of the city in the macro, meso and micro scales; …

designing and making, more extensively guiding thedesign and making of the city and its parts.’

Focus on the Urban design: the architecture of towns and cities. (Spreiregen, 1965)physical scope

‘… strongly related to the public sphere, common space (Heeling, 2001, p. 14)and product between the objects, the buildings. An urban design can beof design

on every scale.’

‘… the design and shaping of parts of setlements such as (Childs, 2010, p. 1) the relationships between multiple built-forms, building

typologies, public space, street and other infrastructure.’

‘Urban design’s concerns are more ofen with the ensemble (Pitas, 1982; cited in Rowley, of buildings in the urban fabric and their relation to public 1994, p. 194) space than with the building of a particular artefact.’

Focus on the ‘… is concerned with analysing, organising and shaping (Buchanan, 1988; cited in Cowan,process and urban form so as to elaborate as richly and as coherently 20005, p. 416)purpose of as possible the lived experience of the inhabitants.’design

‘… involves coordinated and self-conscious actions in (Lang, 2005, p. xix) designing new cities and other human setlements or

redesigning existing ones and/or their precincts in responseto the needs of their inhabitants.’

‘We call Urban Design the symbolic atempt to express an (Castells, 1983, p. 304; cited in accepted urban meaning in certain urban forms.’ Cuthbert, 2006, p. 17)

‘Urban design can indeed be viewed as the social (Cuthbert, 2006, p. 21) production of space in its material and symbolic

dimensions.’


7/18



which are represented in the form of maps but also figure-ground diagrams, floor plans,visual models and numerical data (figure 2).

Similarly, a design can be seen as some-thing that is one step removed from physicalreality. Indeed, design can be seen as a fore-

shadow of a future reality. Put another way, adesign could be seen as an abstract projection backwards from a future reality (figure 3).

Taking these together, we can see both whymorphology and design are alike, and howthey differ (figure 6). They are alike in thatthey are both one step removed from physicalreality. Or put another way, morphologyand design are part of the same abstractmedium separate from but corresponding to

physical reality. Where this abstract mediumcorresponds to an existing urban area, werefer to it as the morphology of that area;when the abstract medium correspondswith the future urban area, we refer to it as

while the agency of urban design is part ofwhat an urban morphologist infers. It is thisrange of issues that we now aim to reconcile.

Here we present a joint framework whichunifies urban morphology and design, asproducts and processes, taking account of

the physical and the abstract, and in relationto urban change (figure 6). The remainder ofthe paper is concerned with interpreting thisframework and using it to understand betterthe nature of urban morphology and design –and ultimately also to urban planning.

Morphology and Design as Abstractions

Morphology can be seen as being one step

removed from the physical reality of what itrefers to. Morphology is an abstract ‘shadow’of physical reality, where something that isconcrete is projected into the abstract domainof metrics, shapes, properties and types,

Figure 6. Joint framework integrating morphology and design: (a) represents the morphological process ofrecognition, abstraction and interpretation; (d) represents the design process of creative organization thatconverts the existing morphology into the design; (c) represents construction: conversion of the design intophysical reality. It is also possible to intervene in the physical fabric directly (b).


8/18



of a design. Similarly, many of ChristopherAlexander’s morphological features (e.g.

boundaries, alternating repetition, localsymmetries, etc.) can also be used as designdevices (Mehaffy, this issue). The fact thatsuch analytic and design devices are so

readily interchangeable (recall figure 5) iswell understood and appreciated intuitively by urban designers, although the conclusionthat this equivalence marks them as thecommon material of both morphology anddesign seems to be little remarked on.

Morphology and Design as Processes

Morphology is a process of the reflective

(conceptual) mode of mental operation asart and science, while design represents anactive (applied and experimental) mode ofthinking (Hanson, 2001, p. 2). These processesof morphology and design are also embodiedin the framework of figure 6. Here, we seehow it takes an act of cognitive interpretation(a) to get from the physical reality of theurban fabric (buildings and streets) to theabstractions of urban morphology (com-

positional units, structural links and divi-sions, paterns and types). It then takes an actof creative (re)organization (d) to arrive at adesign.

Note that the act of creative organization –which we associate with the design process– takes place wholly within the abstractdomain shared with morphology (i.e. theupper level in figure 6d). In contrast, the actof cognitive interpretation or abstraction

– which we associate with the process of‘doing’ morphology – is a transitional act

bridging from the concrete to the abstract(figure 6a). This helps to explain why theact of morphology is a different kind ofprocess from the act of design, and yet ‘themorphology’ itself and ‘the design’ share thesame abstract medium.

It follows that morphology as a processis not the direct obverse of design. Figure 6

rather suggests that the true reverse of the process of morphology is the third side of

the design of that area. Hence we see howmorphology and design differ in that they arepointing in different directions: one looking

back to existing reality, and the other lookingforward to a future reality. It is in this sensethat morphology and design can be seen as

the obverse of each other – like ‘two sides ofthe same coin.’From the suggestion that morphology

and design are both one step removed fromthe physical reality, we can argue that mor-phology and design are made of the same‘material’. That is, they are made out ofabstract things like geometric shapes, dimen-sions, properties and types. They are basicallyconceived via mental constructions and com-

municated via the conceptual tools of visualrepresentations (symbols and diagrams, etc.).This is, of course, in contrast to the physicalworld of bricks and mortar and asphalt andglass and concrete and wood and vegetation.This perceivable reality is subject to directexperience through human sensations. Andso, while the instruments of design may

be pens, paper, rulers and computers, themedium of design – what designs are made

of – are metrics and shapes and types, whichis the same stuff that morphology is madeof. Morphology and design ‘speak the samelanguage.’ Both use either visual (graphicaland diagrammatic) language or verbal andmathematical ones to communicate withothers.3 This gives a fundamental reasonwhy morphology and design could be saidto ‘belong together’.

Seen this way, the morphology is (meta-

phorically) the ‘raw material’ of design.4 That is to say, when we design, we designusing concepts, axes, elements, shapes thatall come from a morphological interpretationof the urban fabric. Kevin Lynch’s (1960)classic elements (paths, nodes, landmarks,districts, edges), while traditionally viewedas cognitive constructions used to understandurban places, may also be interpreted asmorphological elements, which can be used

just as surely to shape the urban design ofthose places; that is they can be used as part


9/18



whole settlement – without morphology ordesign in the abstract, but simply by directmanipulation of physical elements: placingstone upon stone by hand, or placing

building next to building by eye, or wearing apath unselfconsciously by the tread of many

footsteps. These processes are represented bythe fourth side of the frame of figure 6b.6

The processes represented by (b) may beequated with what Christopher Alexander(2005) terms ‘making’ (in contradistinctionto designing), where buildings and spatiallayouts are created by manipulating theurban fabric in a direct physical way, such aslaying out plots on the ground ‘by eye’ usingpieces of string. This method of creating

buildings and spaces could be interpretedas ‘urban design without urban designers’to the extent that the ensembles of buildingsand spaces are created without use of anyidentifiable design representation in theprocess. Another manifestation of (b) would

be the case of Architecture without Architects where vernacular buildings are created byprocesses that do not involve the formalpractice of architectural design (Rudowsky,

1969).We could interpret urban design in a

broad sense to embrace all parts of theframework of figure 6, including (b). But ifwe interpret design in the narrower sense tomean process (d), implying manipulation ofabstract forms before physical construction,then morphological abstraction (a) is essentialto design (d). In other words, professionaldesigners who would claim a necessary

mastery of technical skills associated withmaps, plans, metrics, axes and so on (overand above what is involved in building‘by hand’ and ‘by eye’) are reliant onmorphological abstraction for their craft, andso should not be dismissive of morphologyas inessential or perfunctory. Conversely, ifdirect manipulation of the physical fabric(b) is not considered to be design, then wecan have urban change which bypasses the

medium of abstraction, with no need formorphology or design. The point here is that

the quadrilateral – from the design to thereality – which is most readily interpretedas the act of construction (figure 6c).5 Thisis perhaps a surprising result: one wouldnot necessarily expect in advance that aframework integrating morphology and

design would also involve construction as anintegral element. Construction is often simplytaken for granted, and as lying outside theconsideration of morphology and design.

This reveals a second reason why urbanmorphology and urban design ‘belongtogether’: not only do ‘morphologies’ anddesigns occupy the same abstract domain,

but the processes of morphology and design belong together because the outputs of

morphological analysis are required as theinputs of urban design. That is, the processof urban morphological interpretationgenerates the ‘things’ (urban morphologicalelements and ordering rules) with which todesign. As such, the process of design of itself requires and creates the need for morphology,as its input. Under the framework of figure6, design cannot proceed without firsthaving the morphological material to design

with, whether this ‘morphology’ is drawnfrom an immediate explicit precursor (e.g.a particular exemplary city quarter), or ageneral stock of morphological set-pieces,types, standards and rules of thumb. Assuch, this makes morphology seem morerelevant and essential, than might otherwise

be supposed, from the designer’s point ofview. The morphology (form) as a productis the raw material from which a design is

made; and the process of morphology is anecessary prelude to design. In effect, we aresaying that designers (those using graphicrepresentations of physical solutions priorto construction) really do use morphology,even if not consciously so, in the processsomewhere between visiting the site andrendering the final design.

Yet this is not to claim that the abstractprocesses of morphology or design are

essential to the creation of the urban fabric.It is possible to create a building – or a


10/18



between the abstract and the built. Indeed, itis possible (but not inevitable) that there is arepeating cycle c→ b→ a→ d→ c→.

Additionally, we can identify two alter-nating ‘hemicycles’ – on the left half ofthe diagram, a hemicycle associated with

urban morphology, and on the right half, ahemicycle associated with urban design. Wecan interpret these hemicycles as follows:

Urban morphology in the broad senseis about the part of the cycle that gets fromone abstract urban form to the next, via thephysical fabric. Urban morphology triesto interpret what happened between theoriginal morphology and the present mor-

phology, and by analysing these, infer whatare perhaps hidden historical processes ofplanned construction and unplanned build-ing. In this sense morphology is concernedwith acts of construction (c) and ‘making’ (b)as well as abstraction (a).

Urban design in the broad sense is aboutthe part of the cycle that gets from onephysical fabric to the next, via the abstract

whichever labels we use, morphology seemsto be inextricable from design. It is either anessential prerequisite of urban design (wheredesign is interpreted in narrow terms, d) oris an integral part of it (interpreted in the

broadest sense, embracing a , b , c , d).

Cycles through Time

Urban morphology is not just aboutabstraction, and urban design is not just aboutmanipulation of abstractions. We can take awider view, which becomes apparent whenwe broaden the perspective with respect totime. Time order is already implicitly woveninto the fabric of the framework (figure 6),

but may be seen more explicitly by addingan extra iteration to the framework (figure 7).

In figure 7, we see that the existing urbanfabric (bottom, centre) is itself a product ofprevious urban change. The top left-handicon represents an earlier design, giving riseto an iteration of construction (c) followed

by a period of ‘unplanned’ change (b).Overall, we can see a sense of progressionthrough time from left to right,7 alternating

Figure 7. The framework extended to depict past, present and future. Within this we can identify two‘hemicycles’ identifiable with urban morphology and urban design in a broader sense.


11/18



then the designs we create are likely to bedysfunctional. For example, if we interpret‘neighbourhoods’ too crudely as discreteself-contained sub-units when in reality theyare more subtle, porous, overlapping entities,then designing a new town based on discrete

self-contained ‘neighbourhood units’ is indanger of leading to a dysfunctional outcome– or at least, an outcome that performsrather differently from the original fabric ofneighbourhoods it purports to draw from(Alexander, 1965; Marshall, 2009).

Third, insofar as morphology (in its broadersense) is concerned with morphogenetics orunderstanding form as a product of a forma-tion process, then a poor understanding of

morphological formation could lead to poordesign. In this case, the aspired form itself(the morphology) could be admirable, butthe assumed process of arriving at it could beproblematic. Simply ‘copying and pasting’ thefinal forms of buildings or whole towns willnot necessarily work, without understandinghow such forms arose in the first place. Thisrelates to the specific nature of the urbanproduct, which to some extent is a collective,

emergent entity. And this is partly why urban design is different from other kinds of design– product design, say, or architectural design.

When it comes to urban design, we cansee that design here is not just a matterof learning from previous acts of design(d), but must also learn from how thephysical urban fabric changed accordingto ‘unplanned’ acts of building (b) andemergent forms arising from the interaction

of these. For this reason, urban design mustlearn not only from urban design theory(in the narrow sense of the theory that hasguided previous urban designs or designedurban fabrics) – or from ‘the morphology’ ofprevious urban designs – but also from thestudy of the form and formation of existingurban fabrics, whether these be designed oremergent. In other words, the urban designercan (and must) also learn from cases where

successful outcomes are not wholly theproducts of deliberate design, but products

domain. Urban design in this broader senseis concerned with morphological abstraction(a) and construction (c) as well as design inthe narrow sense (d).

Perhaps curiously, this means that urban

morphology – despite its connotations as anabstract discipline – is nevertheless intimatelyconcerned with the physical fabric, and is ina sense more interested than urban design inwhat happens to the physical fabric outsideof designed activity. Conversely, urban design– despite its practical orientation – is in asense only fulfilled and justified through thisexcursion into the abstract. Overall, figure 7helps to explain the ways in which urban

morphology and urban design are sensed to be linked, yet heading in different directions– overlapping but almost taking place ‘backto back’.

How Morphological UnderstandingAids Design

From the foregoing framework, we can sug-gest three ways in which a lack of atention to

morphology could lead to poor design.First, a design could be poor or dysfunc-

tional if it copies or draws from urbanexemplars with ‘poorly performing’ mor-phology (Hall and Sanders, this issue). Putanother way, the design could be basedon organizational principles or abstract,perhaps artistic, forms which do not relateto successful urban morphological patterns.For example, a rhino morphology is good for

a rhino, but not necessarily a city (Mehaffy,this issue).

Second, a design could attempt to drawfrom an existing well-performing urbanexemplar, but if the design is based on aninadequate morphological representationof that reality, we would be in danger ofproducing inadequate designs. This is likesaying that our ‘raw materials’ are of poorquality; or, as the computer science catch-

phrase has it, ‘garbage in, garbage out’. Thatis, if our morphological model is too crude,


12/18


13/18



vidual morphological elements (e.g. streetwidth, building height) versus morphological

concepts treating an urban form as a whole(e.g. linearity, permeability, legibility). Thereare also questions about what is the appro-priate level of abstraction for the purposes ofdesign (figure 9).

In figure 9, while (a1) represents the

conventional urban morphology schools witha limited degree of diagrammatic abstraction,(a

2) refers the morphological approaches

having higher level of abstractions, e.g.

Steadman (1983) and Clark and Pause (1985)in architectural morphology, Marshall (2005)in urban morphology. Meanwhile, the designprocess itself can be classified in two phases:

(d1) conceptual design – that is, coming up with

a new design idea represented in the abstractdiagram;8 and

(d2) model articulation – that is, metrical

visualization of the abstract design idea inorder to communicate with the third parties

processes of ‘building’ and ‘making’ (figure6b , 8b). This kind of control (figure 8 f ) is a

relatively unexplored topic in the urbandesign literature, although some texts could

be interpreted as addressing this issue(Hakim, 2008; Marshall, 2011). Figure 8articulates the clear distinction between townplanning as master planning or ‘town design’(for example, Gibberd, 1967), which is ineffect a kind of large-scale or outline design(figure 8d), and the role of planning to dowith planning regulations and development

control (figure 8e; and potentially figure 8 f ).The framework introduced in figure 6

provides a conceptual foundation whichcan be further expanded and elaboratedin different directions. Two principal sug-gestions are made here.

The first area for further development con-cerns the kind of morphological representa-tion that is appropriate for different purposes(historical investigation; performance evalua-

tion; application to design). There are ques-tions about the use of indicators of indi-

Figure 8. A selection of theoreticalcontributions in urbanism mappedout within the basic frameworkurban morphology and design.


14/18


15/18



linguistics (Concise Oxford English Dictionary,2002), Güney points out the fundamental role of‘morpheme’ in morphology (2008, p. 98) as thesmallest meaningful and undividable unit of aform-composition (Ibid. , p. 99). The importance ofthe concept basically derives from the compositeand combinatorial nature of urban form (Lozano,1990, pp. 40, 242).

3. There are some analysis and design approacheswhich combine these two different modes ofrepresentation in one domain: ‘parametricism’in design and the configurative spatial researchmethods (i.e. space syntax or isovist analysis ) inmorphology.

4. This conclusion echoes Broadbent’s sug-gestion that ‘knowledge is the raw material fordesign’ (1995, p. 20; cited in Hanson, 2001, p. 2)and Kropf’s idea of the urban designer as cra fsman

(this issue).

5. Strictly speaking, construction in its everydayinterpretation is practically synonymous with building, as activities taking place within thephysical world. However, here we take con-struction (figure 6c) to mean specifically somethingrelating from the abstract to the physical; ormaking something concrete from somethingabstract; and as such is the obverse of abstraction(a). Of course, while conceptually opposites,abstraction (a) and construction (c) are not the

same process in reverse (one cannot get from aplan to a town simply by reversing the processthat produces a plan from a town). Note also thatwhile physical change occupies the lower part offigure 6, the interpretation of construction as anactivity ‘in time’ depends on how the passage oftime is interpreted (see note 7).

6. The claim that whole buildings or setlementscan be created ‘without design’ depends onthe definition of design. Here, the point is thatwhere design is considered in the narrow sense

of manipulation of forms in the abstract domain(figure 6d) to generate a preconceived specificationof the whole product prior to construction, thenthis activity is not essential to the creation of buildings or setlements. But this does not implythat buildings made ‘by hand’ or setlementscreated by aligning buildings ‘by eye’ might notinvolve deliberate will or cognitive ability; northat parts of buildings or parts of setlementsmight not involve design locally.

7. More elaborate interpretations of time orderare possible. 1. One could argue that the physicalworld only exists in the present, and that the pastand future only exist as abstract projections from

of a common morphological language. Tostrengthen this:

1. Urban morphological analysis should be tailored more towards the kinds ofabstraction that are most useful for designers

to use in practice; and

2. Urban design practice and educationshould be supported by new tools andmethods informed by the immense body ofabstract morphological knowledge.

A second front relates to the wider inter-pretation of the ‘hemicycles’ of morphologyand design over time (figure 7). Each

discipline can learn more from each other:

3. Urban designers should be educated inwider ‘theories of urban change’ that takeaccount of urban processes other than thosecontrolled by professional designers andplanners; and

4. Urban morphologists’ education shouldinclude explicit atention to the methods

and motivations of urban designers, to helpaccount for the observed (or hidden) changesin urban fabrics over time.

By such means, we hope that the different‘hemispheres’ of the urban morphology anddesign domains could be beter united, so thelef hand and the right hand – while doingdifferent things – do them in full knowledgeof one another, towards common ends.

NOTES

1. Morphology in its broad interpretationincludes study of both form and formation (table1; Whitehand, 1981; Moudon, 1997; Kropf, 2001).Alternatively, it is also possible to distinguishmorphology as study of form, and morphogeneticsas study of formation.

2. Drawing from the basic definition ofmorphology as ‘the study of morphemes,including the study of inflectional units’ in


16/18



Alexander, C. (2005) The Nature of Order. An Essay ofthe Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe , Book 3. Berkeley, CA: Center for EnvironmentalStructure.

Baty, M. (2001) Exploring isovist fields: space andshape in architectural and urban morphology.Environment and Planning B , 28 , pp. 123–150.

Benedikt, M.L. (1979) To take hold of space: isovistsand isovist field.

Environment and Planning B , 6 , pp. 47–65.

Biddulph, M. (2003) The Bibliography of Urban Design.Available at htp://www.rudi.net/node/6610. Accessed December 2010.

Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S.and Smith, G. (1985) Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Broadbent, G. (1995) Emerging Concepts in UrbanSpace Design. London: Routledge.

Buchanan, P. (1988) What city? A plea for place inthe public realm. Architectural Review , 184(1101),pp. 31–41.

Buchanan, P. (1997) A lecture talk in thesymposium of ‘The New Urban Agenda forUrban Design’, October 1996, Department ofEnvironment, cited in Cowan, R. (1997) Thenew urban agenda. Urban Design Quarterly , 63 ,pp. 18–23.

Bullock, A., Stallybrass, O. and Trombley, S. (1988)The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought , 2nded. London: Fontana Press.

Çalışkan, O. and Marshall, S. (2011) Urban mor-phology and design – Introduction. BuiltEnvironment (this issue).

Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: ACross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements.Berkeley, CA : University of California Press.

Chapman, D.W. (2006) Applying macro urbanmorphology to urban design and developmentplanning: Valleta and Floriana. Urban Mor-

phology , 10(1), pp. 23–40.Caniggia, G. and Maffei, G.L. ( 2001 [1979]) Architectural Composition and Building Typology:Interpreting Basic Building. Firenze: Alinea.

Childs, M. (2010) Spectrum of urban design roles. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), pp. 1–19.

Clark, R.H. and Pause, M. (2005 [1985]) AnalyticDiagrams, Formative Ideas and Partis. Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2002), 10th ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cowan, R. (1997) The new urban agenda. UrbanDesign Quarterly , 63 , pp. 18–23.

the present. As such, the lower part of figure 7would always exist in the present. Then, a designcould be considered an abstract foreshadowof a future morphology. The design (as ‘futuremorphology seen from the present’) would beconceptually distinguishable from the morphology(as ‘abstraction of physical fabric existing once thefuture has arrived’), though both would occupythe same time frame. 2. The vertical dimensioncould either mean something instantaneous(correspondence of abstract and physicaldomains at a given point in time), or processestaking place through time with positive duration(morphological abstraction or construction). 3.Although construction (c) is shown vertically, thisdoes not mean it takes place instantaneously (anymore than the task of morphological abstraction isinstantaneous); the physical processes associatedwith construction occupy the physical world

through time. The framework could be refi

nedto reflect the ramifications of these temporalinterpretations explicitly, but there is no space (ortime) to pursue this here.

8. Even though the main direction of the secondstep of design process (d

2) – from abstract diagram

to the geometric scheme – seems one-way, itactually comprises a series of feedbacks fromscheme to diagram, as well. These feedbacksmainly allow the designer to make the necessarychanges in the abstract diagram to fit the basicidea into the context.

9. As Lawson (2006) states, design comprisesanalysis, synthesis and evaluation in a cyclic pro-cess. Such a dynamic process can be seen as asimulation of evolution comprising genetic combi-nations (types), mutations (form transformations)and selection (design) see: de Jong (2009). Notethat morphological design research cannotoperate at the level of simple diagrams: thedesigned morphology needs to be expressed at asuffi cient degree of resolution to be meaningfullydecomposed and analyzed.

REFERENCES

Alexander, C. (1965) A city is not a tree. ArchitecturalForum , 122(1), pp. 58–62 (Part I), and 122(2), pp.58–62 (Part II).

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977) A Patern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C., Neis, H., Anninou, A. and King, I(1987) A New Theory of Urban Design. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0265-8135()6L.47[aid=6231225]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0265-8135()6L.47[aid=6231225]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0265-8135()6L.47[aid=6231225]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0265-8135()6L.47[aid=6231225]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0265-8135()6L.47[aid=6231225]http://www.rudi.net/node/6610http://www.rudi.net/node/6610http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0265-8135()6L.47[aid=6231225]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0265-8135()6L.47[aid=6231225]


17/18



Ontwerpdiscipline [On Urbanism: a Search forthe Foundations of the Urban Design Discipline].Delf: Delf University Press.

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic ofSpace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hillier, B. (1996) Space is the Machine. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great AmericanCities. New York: Random House.

Kropf, K. (1998) Typological zoning, in Petruccioli,A. (ed.) Typological Process and Design Theory.Cambridge, MA.: Aga Khan Program forIslamic Architecture, pp. 127–140.

Kropf, K. (2001) Conceptions of change in the builtenvironment. Urban Morphology , 5(1), pp. 29–42.

Kropf, K. (2009) Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology , 13(2), pp. 105–120.

Kropf, K. (2011) Morphological investigations:cuting into the substance of urban form. BuiltEnvironment (this issue).

Lang, J. (2005) Urban Design: A Typology of Proce-dures and Products. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Larkham, P.J. (1998) Urban morphology andtypology in the United Kingdom, in Petruccioli,A. (ed.) Typological Process and Design Theory.Cambridge, MA: Aga Khan Program for IslamicArchitecture, pp. 159–177.

Larkham, P.J. (2002) Consolidated Urban Morphology

Reading List. Available at htp://www.urbanform.org/bibliography.html. Accessed January2011.

Larkham, P.J. (2005) Understanding urban form?Urban Design , 93 , pp. 22–24.

Lawson, B. (2006) How Designers Think: De-mystifying The Design Process . Oxford: Archi-tectural Press.

Lozano, E. (1990) Community Design and Culture ofCities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.Mareto, M. (2005) Urban morphology as a basis

for urban design: the project for the Isola deiCantieri in Chioggia. Urban Morphology , 9(1),pp. 29–44.

Marshall, S. (2005) Streets and Paterns. London:Spon Press.

Marshall, S. (2009) Cities, Design and Evolution.London: Routledge.

Marshall, S., ed. (2011) Urban Coding and Planning.London: Routledge.

McGlynn, S. and Samuels, I. (2000) The funnel, thesieve and the template: towards an operational

Cowan, R. (2005) The Dictionary of Urbanism.Tisbury: Streetwise Press.

Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape. London: ArchitecturalPress.

Cuthbert, A.R. (2006) The Form of Cities: PoliticalEconomy and Urban Design. Oxford: Blackwell.

De Jong, T.M. ( 2009) ‘The Evolution of a Design’.Available at htp://team.bk.tudelf.nl/. AccessedDecember 2010.

Gauthier, P. and Gilliland, J. (2006) Mappingurban morphology: a classification scheme forinterpreting contributions to the study of urbanform. Urban Morphology , 10(1), pp. 41–50.

Gebauer, M. and Samuels, I. (1981) Urban Morphology: An Introduction, Joint Centre forUrban Design, Research Note 8. Oxford: OxfordPolytechnic.

Gibberd, F. (1967) Town Design. London: Archi-tectural Press.

Günay, B. (1999) Urban Design is a Public Policy.Ankara: METU Faculty of Architecture Press.

Gunder, M. (2011) Commentary: is urban designstill urban planning? An exploration andresponse. Journal of Planning Education andResearch , 20(10), pp. 1–12.

Güney, A. (2008) Architectural Precedent Analysis:A Cognitive Approach to MorphologicalAnalysis of Buildings in Relation to DesignProcess, in Zarzar, K.M. and Güney, A. (eds.)Understanding Meaningful Environments: Archi-tectural Precedents and the Question of Identityin Creative Design. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp.91–113.

Gygax, F. (2007) The morphological basis of urbandesign: experiments in Giudecca, Venice. Urban Morphology , 11(2), pp. 111–125.

Hall, T. and Sanders, P. (2011) Morphologicaldesign control for large-scale city development– a new proposal. Built Environment (this issue).

Hakim, B.S. (2008) Mediterranean urban and build-ing codes: origins, content, impact, and lessons.Urban Design International, 13(1), pp. 21–40.

Hanson, J. (2001) Morphology and Design: Re-conciling Intellect, Intuition, and Ethics inthe Reflective Practice of Architecture, inProceedings of the 3rd International SpaceSyntax Symposium. Available at htp://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/1024/. Accessed 5 October 2011.

Hayward, R. (1993) ‘Talking tissues’ in Hayward,R. and McGlynn, S. (eds.) Making Beter Places:Urban Design Now. Oxford: Buterworth.

Heeling, J. (2001) Over Stedebouw: Een Zoektochtnaar de Grondslagen van de Stedebouwkundige

http://www.urbanform.org/bibliography.htmlhttp://www.urbanform.org/bibliography.htmlhttp://www.urbanform.org/bibliography.htmlhttp://www.urbanform.org/bibliography.html


18/18


Samuels, I. (1993) The Plan d’Occupation des Sols for Asnieres sur Oise: a morphological designguide, in Hayward, R. and McGlynn, S. (eds) Making Beter Places: Urban Design Now. Oxford:Buterworth.

Samuels, I. (1999) A typomorphological approachto design. Urban Design International , 4(3), pp.

129–141.Smailes, A.E. (1955) Some reflections on the

geographical description of townscapes.Institute of British Geographers, Transactions andPapers , no. 21, pp. 99–115.

Spreiregen, P.D. (1965) Urban Design: The Archi-tecture of Town and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Steadman, P. (1983) Architectural Morphology. AnIntroduction to the Geometry of Building Plans.London: Pion.

Steadman, J.P. (1998) Sketch for an archetypal building. Environment and Planning B , 27 , pp.92–105.

Steadman, P. (2008 [1979]) The Evolution of Designs.Biological Analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts. London: Routledge

Trancik, R. (1986) Finding Lost Space. New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Urban Morphology Research Group (1990)Glossary. Available at htp://www.urbanform.org/glossary.html. Accessed in January 2011.

Wall, E. and Waterman, T. (2009) Basics Landscape Architecture: Urban Design. Lausanne: AVAPublishing.

Whitehand, J.W.R. (1981) Background to the urbanmorphogenetic tradition, in Whitehand, J.W.R.(ed.) The Urban Landscape: Historical Developmentand Management: Papers by M.R.G. Conzen London: Academic Press, pp. 1–24.

urban morphology. Urban Morphology , 4(2), pp.79–89.

Mehaffy, M. W. (2011) A city is not a rhinoceros: onthe aims and opportunities of morphogeneticurban design. Built Environment (this issue).

Meyer, H. (2005) Plan analysis, in de Jong, T.M. andvan der Voortdt, D.J.M. (eds.) Ways to Study and

Research: Urban, Architectural and Technical Design.Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 125–135.

Moudon, A.V. (1986) Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Moudon, A.V. (1997) Urban morphology as anemerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Mor- phology , 1(1), pp. 3–10.

Mumford, E. (2009) De fining Urban Design: CIAM Architects and the Formation of a Discipline, 1937– 69. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Muratori, S. (1959) Studi Per Una Operante StoriaUrbana di Venezia. Rome: Instituto Poligraphicodello Stato.

Oswald, F. and Baccini, P. (2003) Netzstadt,Designing the Urban. Basel: Birkhauser.

Panerai, P., Depaule, J.C., Domorgon, M. andVeyrenche, M. (1980) Eléments d’analyse urbaine.Brussels: Editions Archives d’ArchitectureModerne.

Pitas, M. (1982) Preface, in Ferebee, A. (ed.)Education for Urban Design. New York: Institutefor Urban Design.

Punter, J. and Carmona, M. (1997) The DesignDimension Of Planning: Theory, Content, andBest Practice for Design Policies. London: E & FNSpon.

Rowley, A. (1994) Definitions of urban design: thenature and concerns of urban design. PlanningPractice and Research , 9(3), pp. 179–197.

Rudowsky, B. (1969) Architecture without architects.New York: Museum of Modern Art.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1357-5317()4:3L.129[aid=9786967]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1357-5317()4:3L.129[aid=9786967]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1357-5317()4:3L.129[aid=9786967]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1357-5317()4:3L.129[aid=9786967]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1357-5317()4:3L.129[aid=9786967]http://www.urbanform.org/glossary.htmlhttp://www.urbanform.org/glossary.htmlhttp://www.urbanform.org/glossary.htmlhttp://www.urbanform.org/glossary.htmlhttp://www.urbanform.org/glossary.htmlhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1357-5317()4:3L.129[aid=9786967]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1357-5317()4:3L.129[aid=9786967]

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	heraldoferreira
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

A Joint Framework for Urban Morphology A

Documents