isuf Logo
Homepage | About ISUF | Conferences | Journal | Bibliography | Research | Resources | Glossary

Journal

Journal - Viewpoints vol.9 nr.1 (2005)

Viewpoints

If you would like to respond to a viewpoint, or want to write your own, please contact the editor.

Urban sustainability and the ground rules that govern urban space

Teresa Marat-Mendes,
Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais, do Trabalho e Empresa, Secção Autónoma de Arquitectura e Urbanismo, Av. Das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: teresa.marat-mendes@iscte.pt and
Ernie Scoffham,
Institute for the Study of Minimalism, 18B Morningside Road, Edinburgh EH10 4A, Scotland. E-mail: scoffham@aol.com

As a supplement to the contribution on sustain-ability and urban morphology by Stanilov (2003) we should like to draw attention to a method for the analysis of urban form that bears on the notion of sustainability. It entails analysing the physical dimensions of urban forms that have been able to adapt and transcend time in a sustainable way (Marat-Mendes, 2002, 2003; Marat-Mendes and Scoffham, 1998, 1999). A sustainable urban form is defined here as one that has the capacity to survive processes of change, and at the same time provide an environmental quality that responds to the variety of needs over time.

The method consists of a comparative analysis of historical examples of planned urban develop-ment, based on their physical structures and history. It has been developed through an investigation of planned developments, in Lisbon, Edinburgh and Barcelona, which were chosen because they appear to contain certain contradictions. The plan of Lisbon's Baixa Pombalina of 1756 and that of Edinburgh's New Town of 1767 were initiated within 11 years of one another, but while their architectural and legislative determinisms are similar they were based on very different physical characteristics. In addition, while the physical characteristics of Edinburgh's first New Town seem closer to those of Barcelona's Ensanche by Cerdà in 1855, its architectural and legislative determinisms are very different.

Concern for change over time and the reading of urban processes as determinants of change in the urban environment are recognized to be of primary importance for the analysis of urban form. Central to our method is the identification of 'ground rules' (Scoffham, 1984, 2000; Scoffham and Marat-Mendes, 2000), that is plan principles that, when applied appropriately, enable change to occur within an urban layout without major disruption to its original framework. Physical dimensions of urban form that are capable of adaptation, and thereby offer good qualities of life to a succession of inhabitants, are preferred. A degree of interdependence between all parts of the city is seen as a prerequisite.

When used appropriately, physical elements of urban form, such as streets, street-blocks, buildings, lots and façades, contribute to the well-being of the city's inhabitants. The way in which they are arranged in space in terms of shape, size and disposition is the first essential parameter that has emerged from our research. Change within certain specific shapes, sizes and dispositions is more possible than within others: for example, certain shapes perform better in response to development pressures. The research has also shown that there is an interaction between the various physical elements of urban form and that changes undertaken without concern for the collective space have a deep impact, failing to respect the ground rules of the original framework and not contributing to its sustainability.

Urban patterns where changes are most evident are those where change has occurred by unselfconscious adaptation to the pressures of modernization and speculation. Those where changes are less evident appear to adapt better over time, because they tend to manifest changes without major disruption to the plan principles that structured them. These are more sustainable than other urban patterns, as there is a greater reutilization of structures and materials without excessive energy consumption and waste. The 'ground rules' for this form of sustainability would appear to be more universal than has hitherto been recognized.

Finally, the method would aid understanding of the limits of control and change in the urban environment. This would have important impli-cations for planning, and architectural and design practice, in terms of the establishment of a conceptual basis for understanding the ground rules that govern urban space.

The practical application of the method,of which a thumbnail sketch is given here would assist both central and local governments concerned about urban sustainability. Though work needs to be done to convert the findings of this research into a more accessible and practical method, they do offer a potential framework within which development proposals could be assessed. The identification of certain optimal or preferable ground rules suggests that they might be used as guidelines for the layout

of new urban spaces or the regeneration of existing ones.

References

Marat-Mendes, T. (2002) 'The sustainable urban form: a comparative study in Lisbon, Edinburgh and Barcelona', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.

Marat-Mendes, T. (2003) 'Planning the sustainable city', in Petruccioli, A., Stella, M. and Strappa, G. (eds) The planned city? (Uniongrafica Corcelli Editrice, Trani) vol. 3, 916-22.

Marat-Mendes, T. and Scoffham, E.R. (1998) 'The ability to change without having to change', unpublished paper presented to the IMCL Conference on Making Cities Liveable, Lindau, Germany, 4-8 May.

Marat-Mendes, T. and Scoffham, E.R. (1999) 'Achieving a sustainable urban form', in Corona, R. and Maffei, G.L. (eds) Transformations of urban form: from interpretations to methodologies in practice (Alinea Editrice, Firenze) A11-A14.

Scoffham, E. (1984) 'Ground rules: frameworks for low cost and progressive development', unpublished paper presented to the International Conference on Low Cost Housing for Developing Countries, Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India, 12-17 November.

Scoffham, E. R. (2000) 'Shape and sustainability in the urban fabric', in Brandon, P.S., Lombardi, P. and Perera, R.S. (eds) Cities and sustainability: sustaining our cultural heritage (University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka).

Scoffham, E.R. and Marat-Mendes, T. (2000) 'The 'ground rules' of sustainable urban form', in Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M. (eds) Achieving a sustainable urban form (Routledge, London) 97-106.

Stanilov, K. (2003) 'Sustainability and urban morphology', Urban Morphology 7, 43-5.

Dialectical pairs in urban research: some epistemological issues

Giancarlo Cataldi,
Dipartimento di Progettazione dell'Architettura, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Viale Gramsci 42, 50132 Firenze, Italy. E-mail: gcat@unifi.it

The level of debate within ISUF has risen considerably in recent years. It is perhaps an appropriate time, therefore, to determine where urban morphology stands, in the hope that the various schools and disciplines can, together, begin to paint a commonly shared theoretical and methodological framework. Here I shall address the epistemological question of the role of three major dialectical pairs in urban research: theory/practice (theoretical research /applied research), induction / deduction and reading/interpretation.

I shall start from the interdisciplinary nature of our common interest: urban form. It is the point of convergence of geographers, sociologists, hist-orians and architects, whose disciplinary roots are the fundamentals of urban morphology. Research in each discipline has its own viewpoint, 'a professional distortion that should strive to overcome differences of view through ongoing dialogue' (Gambi, 1981, p.141). Each viewpoint, which is legitimate in itself, can be substantially enriched in its relations with 'associated' disciplines. This, however, necessitates an in-depth understanding and comprehension of the specific origins and formative dynamics of the different viewpoints.

To that end, let us endeavour to distinguish these viewpoints in a dialectical manner. The geographical standpoint, by representing the natural shape of places, forms the 'cognitive' ('logical' more than 'physical') basis for urban studies. Geographers have in particular developed a capacity to grasp changing relations between towns and their surroundings, reaching the point, in the case of M.R.G. Conzen, of defining settlements diachronically as the historic record of the events that helped to determine their form (Conzen, 1960, pp. 6-7).

Sociologists and urban anthropologists focus on society, whose members - in order to live together in a relatively confined space known as a town - usually have to abide by the shared statutory pact of the law. The law, while culturally and historically mutable, is capable of governing members behaviour, mechanisms of exchange and relations. In the broader sense, this approach can be defined as 'economic' (from the Greek oikonomía, etymolog-ically 'house law/manage'), which is serial (statistical and demographic), quantitative, trend-based and topical, that is, inclined to favour the synchronic study of present-day townscapes.

In contrast, the historical viewpoint tends to entail study over a longer time span, reconstructing - from archaeological, iconographic, epigraphic, literary, historiographic and documentary sources - various stages of development and transformation. Painstaking and complex, this work can be conducted on the complementary and parallel plains of the 'subjects' (the inhabitants of the town) and the 'objects' (the buildings and urban structures that they re-use or build from new). The latter constitute the inherited and transmissible legacy and, as such, represent the spatial dimension of continuity. In certain in-depth cases of research, the historian's 'retrospective' vision can encompass the entire temporal span of the town by an interpretation based on the comprehensive, unitary and synthetic reconstruction of its principal transformations. In that sense, the aspiration to know the full history of a certain urban phenomenon enters the realm of 'ethics', because it is a sign of an organic quali-tative desire, often determined by the strong feeling of participation on the part of the investigating subject when confronting the object under investigation.

Architects were the last to consider towns as their specific field of research and they did so methodologically by inverting their customary design tool to face the past instead of the future. To outsiders, this operation may seem 'unscientific' or artistically 'invented', yet it is epistemologically legitimate because it is performed, at various scales, on objects that were usually created historically by means of design: hence Muratori's concept of 'operative history' (storia operante), which bases new designs on typo-morphological reconstruction, as if they were the latest phase of a longer-term process (Muratori, 1959, p.8; Muratori et al., 1963, p.13). The projects are, therefore, not simply the product of pure invention, but must at least have a degree of integration with the existing built environment, offering more 'aesthetic' guarantees in comparison with extemporary solutions that are not founded on 'reading'.

It is clear that the sectional viewpoints of urban morphology must always be borne in mind and continually compared in urban research. Only through the desire for integration can our discipline achieve autonomy and scientific recognition.

In Figure 1, the two dialectic pairs theory/ practice and induction/deduction - centred on the previous four associated viewpoints - represent the processual driving force of the integrated system, capable of progressive, auto-regulatory movement toward positions of dynamic balance that are always new. In other words, what is hypothesized is a cyclic mechanism to set up a methodology in which inductive questions of practice should correspond dialectically with deductive answers of theory, triggering off new issues in a whirlwind of asymptotic refinement, increasingly specific, pertinent and consolidated.

In relation to practice, it is important to strive to clarify the distinction between 'reading' and 'inter-pretation', stressing the former term's unambiguous metaphorical value. On the one hand, the current meaning of the word 'reading' implies the existence of a determinate language of a determinate culture in a determinate geographical area and, on the other, the possibility that this language can be recognized and learned at another time and place by third parties, who are evidently capable of understanding its semantic meanings and reconstructing its grammar and syntax. Only by starting from this inter-subjective level of 'reading' as 'conventional sign comprehension' is it possible to reach the ensuing hermeneutic level of interpretation as 'subjective appraisal of meanings', referring to towns as reading-interpretation of their built 'context' (from the Latin cum-textum, 'fabric or text written by several people together').

Hence there is increasing need to compare notes and exchange information within ISUF. As Gian Luigi Maffei, Nicola Marzot and I pointed out in our recent reading-interpretation of Alnwick (Cataldi et al., 2004) the comparison and exchange should lead to a reduced disparity between the interpretations of researchers from different schools and disciplines when looking at the same town. I believe that this is the best basis for scientifically verifying the validity of our research.

References

Cataldi, G., Maffei, G.L. and Marzot, N. (2004) 'Lettura di una città: Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis', unpublished paper presented to the Post IGC Symposium in Urban Morphology, Newcastle upon Tyne, August.

Conzen, M. R. G. (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis, Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 27 (George Philip, London).

Gambi, L. (1981) 'Interventi', in Martinelli, R. and Nuti, L. (eds) Fonti per lo studio del paesaggio agrario (Centro Internazionale per lo Studio delle Cerchie Urbane, Lucca) 138-48.

Muratori, S. (1959) Studi per una operante storia urbana di Venezia (Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, Roma).

Muratori, S., Bollati, R., Bollati, S. and Marinucci, G. (1963) Studi per una operante storia urbana di Roma (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma).

Typological analysis and hermeneutics in the Conzenian and Caniggian schools: overlaps and differences

Nicola Marzot,
Dipartimento di Architettura, Facoltà di Architettura, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Via Quartieri 8, 44100 Ferrara, Italy. E-mail: nicola.marzot@tin.it

The meeting of ISUF in Newcastle upon Tyne last year (Evenden, 2004) has reinforced the usefulness and importance of improving the exchange of case studies between researchers worldwide. In this way, different methodological approaches should provide enlightenment, leading to a consistent interdisciplinary perspective, as prompted by the mission of ISUF. The resulting effort could enhance mutual understanding and eventually, but not necessarily, provide the basis for a collective theoretical framework.

With the benefit of a reciprocal cross-fertilization between a Conzenian analysis of Como (Conzen, 2004) and a Caniggian analysis of Alnwick (Cataldi et al., 2004), it has been possible to focus on the way society, historically assumed as a plural subject, acts in systematic fashion in transforming natural and/or artificial settlements, through space and time, adapting them to current needs.

In general terms, the way that the Conzenian and Caniggian schools interpret urban form seems to be almost entirely independent of their specific disciplinary background - geography on the one hand and architecture on the other - and is in large part grounded in common values, even if the interpretative devices differ in the pursuit of independent disciplinary objectives.

Every historical period can be analysed through the definition of its morphological components and mutual relations, in accordance with a common 'structuralist' perspective. With this approach the type reveals itself as a 'living trace', recording with great sensitivity the rules of internal arrangement of form. It can thus be described with reference to its construction into a spatial framework, whose meaning, in the end, corresponds to the systematic acts of producing form itself, which are, in turn, a direct manifestation of the spirit of the current society.

The two schools also share a common interest in reading the development of urban form from a temporal perspective. Form is described according to the complex of interactions that result in its transformation from an original state to a later one that is fundamentally unpredictable. In so doing, the schools clearly go beyond the 'structuralist' approach, which denies the possibility of describing history in a relational perspective. A purely structuralist approach ignores the importance of time and is reduced to formal manipulation, while a relational perspective implies the identification of history and construction in a never-ending process.

Introducing a dynamic component into morph-ological analysis, the Conzenian and Caniggian schools tend to apply a hermeneutic approach to the theory of urban form, clearly anticipating the most advanced research in contemporary urban design. As a consequence, the construction of urban form is enriched through the layering of the different interpretations which result in the modification of form in accordance with goals and codes which are distinct from those used previously, promoting a new organic perspective in morphological analysis.

Caniggia introduced the concept of 'typological process' to describe the morphological transform-ation of building types in close relation to the process of the successive filling in or emptying of the original building plot. The type adapts itself, becoming the 'living trace' of the rules of the internal arrangement of the form, described through its development over time, whose meaning in the end corresponds to the systematic acts of transform-ation in accordance with the evolution of the society. Conzen set out the concept of the 'burgage cycle' to clarify the dynamics of filling up and clearing the original plot to adapt it to emerging needs.

Both authors were deeply interested in under-standing the real nature of transformation itself. Caniggia, embracing an idealist philosophy, affirmed the existence of a 'rationality of history', capable of guiding men to spontaneous action in accordance with a common set of rules, perm-anently inscribed in existing formal evidence and pursuing a clear aspiration towards unity.

Conzen, with a more pragmatic attitude, supported the existence of a multiplicity of 'rationalities' belonging to the historicity of social groups and individuals who acted in divergent ways in the city. The multiplicity bears witness to an autonomous attitude towards urban form, even if rooted in local tradition, and provides a basis for outlining a variety of interpretations of the spirit of different times.

Notwithstanding their divergent philosophical backgrounds, Conzen and Caniggia both noticed how changes prompted by individual initiatives are often rapidly taken up by others through imitation, because of their efficiency and internal coherence with current conditions. The effect is thus multi-plied in the development of the town as a whole, reaching a point where the original change becomes a commonly shared prescriptive rule.

For these reasons, Conzen and Caniggia have forecast a fruitful approach to the analysis of urban history: to study urban morphology making systematic reference to the diachronic development of rules for urban design, considering them to be the result of a critical consciousness of spontaneous transformations of urban structures over time. This new perspective may bridge the gap between analysis and design and help to reduce the distance between geography and architecture. More than a mere aspiration, this seems to offer a new field for research capable of improving interdisciplinary exchanges.

References

Cataldi, G., Maffei, G.L. and Marzot, N. (2004) 'Interpreting a case study: Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis', unpublished paper presented to the Post-IGC Symposium in Urban Morphology, Newcastle upon Tyne, August.

Conzen, M.P. (2004) 'A Conzenian view of Como', unpublished paper presented to the Post-IGC Symposium in Urban Morphology, Newcastle upon Tyne, August.

Evenden, L. J. (2004) 'International Geographical Congress Symposium in Urban Morphology, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 21-24 August 2004', Urban Morphology 8, 107-10.

New orientations in urban morphology

Albert Levy,
CNRS, Laboratoire Théorie des Mutations Urbaines, UMR 7136, Institut Français d'Urbanisme, Université de Paris VIII, 4 rue Nobel, 77420 Champs-sur-Marne, France. E-mail : albert.levy@univ-paris8.fr

ISUF celebrated its tenth year last summer in Newcastle upon Tyne. What assessment can we make of its achievements? Consolidation and extension of ISUF's activities internationally and greater renown for its journal are positive points. But they must not be allowed to hide internal problems, linked to theoretical and scientific goals, which need to be discussed. I should like to underline some scientific issues of a theoretical and methodological nature. It seems to me that we are witnessing stagnation and repetition of works mainly focused on the legacy of our two great masters, M.R.G. Conzen and G. Caniggia. Their followers, who monopolize ISUF, are transforming it into a kind of celebrative association dedicated to these morphology pioneers, as if nothing had happened in the last 40 years, notwithstanding the huge urban transformations that have taken place. In recent decades there have been major developments in the social sciences, the growth of urban studies, new approaches to the city and new experiences in urban planning. Furthermore, there have been major urban mutations linked to the profound socio-economic transformations of the post-industrial city, associated with metro-politanization and globalization, not to mention the increases in mobility that condition city evolution. There are also new environmental challenges and the issue of sustainability. All these developments call for new research. However, the morphological approaches practised hitherto are mainly historical, focusing especially on the study of former urban forms. Without denying the importance of know-ledge gained in this way, I should like to propose for discussion some reorientations of research, starting from my own experience and work.

Urban form as construct

Early research in urban morphology showed us that urban form is not a fact (a priori), but a construct; a defined object as a hypothesis for research: for example, there is the form of the tissue or urban fabric as conceived by Conzen or Caniggia, and the form of the layouts envisaged by Lavedan and the German geographers of the inter-war period.1 For B. Hillier, urban morphology has urban space as its object of study.2 He distinguishes, within that object of study, built form and space. He isolates space to analyse its syntactical relationships, because, according to him, it is space we are using above all: form is only for ordering it. Space syntax is a descriptive theory of urban space: articulating form and space is now the main problem to solve, according to Hillier. We shall not discuss this hypothesis, but we shall bear in mind the procedure: to begin with an explicit hypothesis concerning the nature of urban form, then test it empirically with an appropriate descriptive methodology.

Urban morphology and urban history

Urban morphology was at one time considered by some to be an auxiliary field of urban history,3 comprising knowledge of the history of a city through its form and evolution. Even geographers did not escape from this idea. To strengthen the autonomy of urban morphology as a discipline, it is necessary to free it from history both method-ologically and as a discipline. Parallels can be drawn with the field of linguistics, where the study of the form of language has been distinguished from the history of language. It is necessary to separate urban morphology, the study of urban form, from the history of the city. In other words, before considering the evolution of any object we must first ask ourselves what that object is, its nature and structure, so that we can better understand the changes to it.

In analogy with the methodology of linguistics, which Caniggia himself used, we need to distinguish between the synchronic approach, or knowledge of the object 'urban form' in terms of its structure at a precise moment T (called a morphological period by Conzen), and the diachronic approach, or knowledge of the process of form transformation (as in Caniggia's typo-logical process), that is the various states (T1, T2, T3 etc) that the structure takes during its evolution in moving from one period to another. In pursuing this distinction, however, we need first an ahistorical approach to urban form and its rules of transformation: we shall be able then to understand the various historical occurrences as particular cases of a more general model, and explain the successive states the structure takes through its evolution.

Urban form and complexity

The study of urban form as a physical space has been limited by the extent of its reliance on cartographic representation. Knowledge of urban form depends heavily on town plans and other graphic documents. Analysis of such material has helped to clarify the notions of tissue and layout, and the concept of typo-morphology4 (the systematic character of tissue), and aided investigation of the notion of typology. But there is a danger of reducing the complexity of urban form to its graphic two-dimensional representation. Much more attention should be given to urban form perceived in its three dimensions and in its plastic expression (colours, textures, materials and styles), as studied, for example, by G. Cullen, E. Bacon, C. Sitte and K. Lynch.5 In their analysis of the city of Versailles, for example, Castex, Celeste and Panerai6 undertook not only a typo-morphological study of the genesis and growth of the tissue of the city, but also an analysis of its townscape evolution, using two different notions of form: tissue and townscape. There is also the important matter of social morphology, the study of the social space of a city - its occupation by different social classes, ethnic groups and types of family, and the spatial distribution of activities and functions in the city as developed, for example, in the works of M. Halbwachs, the Chicago School and M. Roncayolo.7 Conzen, for example, introduced, in his analysis of urban form, the notion of 'functional structure' or 'land use' to complete the study of the townscape, and the notion of 'ethnoscape' has been proposed, including two conceptions of form - townscape and social form.8

Links to the physical environment constitute a further set of inadequately explored relationships. For example, there is the study of urban form in relation to microclimate - for instance, the significance of different urban fabrics and their relation to water, relief, vegetation, light, air and heat, and the distribution of pollutants and nuisances.9 An important debate on compact form and sprawl started from the sustainability issue, and the low priority given by urban morphologists to the 'environmental' dimension has been drawn attention to in this journal.10

From these brief observations two important conclusions can be drawn. First, there is a need to widen the corpus of analysis to embrace much more fully the diversity of modes of representation, including three-dimensional, perspective and video recording, and new technologies of communi-cation, so that the range of aspects of form and of the senses is captured. Secondly, it is important to do justice to the complexity of urban form,11 as polysemic and polymorphic, by articulating the many conceptions of it through a systemic approach, implementing the general theory of systems.

Continuity and discontinuity in urban history

Generally speaking, research in urban morphology focuses, above all, on urban continuity, stressing the longevity of layouts and lineaments, and their influence on successive forms. We find it in Caniggia's concept of typological process and Conzen's concepts of morphological frame and burgage cycle. But, in addition to this phenomenon of continuity, there are also discontinuities in the history of urban form and in its functioning. These discontinuities are important to identify. The passage of the medieval city to the classical city is certainly the result of a process of continuity, with a continuous morphological growth characterizing the pre-industrial city, with changes however in urban governance. But the passage of the pre-industrial city to the industrial city is a radical break with the emergence of new functional architectural types defining the first age of the metropolis. Today, the passage from this industrial city in crisis to the post-industrial city, which corresponds to the birth of a second age of metropolis, is another big discontinuity in urban history, with the rise of new functional architectural types and new distributions of activities and populations in metropolitan areas, producing an urban type with a specific form: the metropolitan urban form. This alternation of conti-nuity with discontinuity in urban history should lead us to re-examine the notion of urban typology.

Macromorphology and micromorphology

The metropolitanization and seemingly endless growth of cities require a new macromorphological approach with new types of analysis. R. Allain, for example, sketched this approach in his recent book.12 The idea of continuity, not in the dynamic way just considered, but in terms of organic continuity, that is a combinatorial system going from smaller elements (materials) to the building and to the whole city, is underlined by some researchers, who reject the distinctions between building, tissue and city, and the possibility of a separate micromorphology.13 Though this kind of continuity was present in former cities, we know that, in the modern city, the dialectical relationship between typology and morphology disappeared:14 the continuity has been broken, and we have now autonomy of the different tissue elements (plots, buildings and streets), and the loss of the systemic and organic character of former cities.15 This new urban condition, the fragmented city, as Aymonino called it, makes possible a micromorphological approach to such fragments, at the scale of the building, the plot and the block. But is micro-morphological analysis, at the scale of the building or the plot, dealing with changes of materials, architectural elements, and small extensions to buildings,16 still urban morphology? Are we not here considering the typology level? Urban morphology begins outside the plot, by the study of the relationships of the building or plot with the other buildings or plots and with the other urban components.

Normative approach and cognitive approach

Finally, the distinction in urban morphology between the normative approach, as exemplified by the work of Caniggia, and the cognitive approach, as exemplified by the work of Conzen, needs to be addressed. The first, developed mainly by archi-tects, has urban action as its objective: morpho-logical analysis is used to indicate what the urban form has to be, to show how to undertake projects according to a particular conception of the city and its form.17 The second, developed mainly by historians and geographers, has as its objective the knowledge of urban forms, the understanding of their rules of formation and transformation, without any implementation in planning practice or any intention of improvement. This distinction raises, in a more general way, the following questions. How should we make use of knowledge? How can we extrapolate from our knowledge of the past in dealing with the problems of the present? What transfer can we make from knowledge to action and vice versa? An ethical, philosophical and political debate is required on these fundamental questions if we are to discover the right connection between knowledge and action.

Notes

1. Conzen, M.R.G. (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis Institute of British Geographers Publication 27 (George Philip, London); Caniggia, G. (1985) Strutture dello spazio antropico (Alinea, Firenze); Caniggia, G. and Maffei, G.L. (1979) Composizione archittetonica e typologia edilizia. I-Lettura dell'edilizia di base (Marsilio, Venezia); Lavedan, P. (1926) Histoire de l'urbanisme (Henri Laurens, Paris; Lavedan, P. (1956) Géographie des villes (Gallimard, Paris); Hofmeister, B. (2004) 'The study of urban form in Germany', Urban Morphology 8, 3-12.

2. Hillier, B. (1984) The social logic of space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge); Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1998) 'Space syntax as a research programme', Urban Morphology 2, 108-10.

3. See, for instance, Gauthiez, B. (2004) 'The history of urban morphology', Urban Morphology 8, 71-89; Malfroy, S. (2004) 'Can there be a joint venture between urban history and urban morphology?', Urban Morphology 8, 114-18; Marzot, N. (1998) 'The role of history in Conzen's and Caniggia's approaches to urban morphology', Urban Morphology 2, 54-5.

4. Aymonino, C., Brusatin, M., Fabbri, G., Lovero, P., Lucianetti, S. and Rossi, A. (1970) La citta di Padova. Saggio di analysi urbana (Officina, Roma).

5. Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape (Architectural Press, London); Bacon, E. N. (1965) Design of cities (Viking Press, New York); Sitte, C (1889) Der städtebau nach seinen Künstlerischen Grund-sätzen (Carl Graeser, Wien); Lynch, K. (1960) The image of the city (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

6. Castex, J., Celeste, P. and Panerai, Ph. (1980) Lecture d'une ville: Versailles (Le Moniteur, Paris).

7. Halbwachs, M. (1928) La population et les tracés de voirie à Paris (Alcan, Paris); Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W. and McKenzie, R. (1925) The city (University of Chicago Press, Chicago); Park, R.E. and Burgess, E.W. (1921) Introduction to the science of sociology (University of Chicago Press, Chicago); Grafmeyer, Y. and Joseph, I. (eds) (1984) L'école de Chicago. Naissance de l'écologie urbaine (Aubier, Paris); Roncayolo, M. (2002) Lectures de villes. Formes et temps (Parenthèses, Marseille).

8. Nasser, N. (2003) 'The challenge of ethnoscapes', Urban Morphology 7, 45-8.

9. On the relationships between nature and city see, for example, Platt, R.H., Rowntree, R.A. and Muick, P.C. (1994) The ecological city (University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst).

10. Stanilov, K. (2003) 'Sustainability and urban morphology', Urban Morphology 7, 43-5.

11. Conzen was aware of this complexity. He wrote: 'The theory of cognition is crucial to urban morphologists because urban settlements are areas of maximum concentration of different processes involving three different types of causality: physical, biotic and social, the latter being the most important one. German geographers call this evocatively Wirkungsgefüge, a term that defies literal translation but can be accurately rendered as dynamic complex' (Conzen, M.R.G. (1998) 'A propos a sounder philosophical basis for urban morphology', Urban Morphology 2, 113-14). See also on this complexity, Moudon, A.V. (1992) 'A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know', Journal of Planning Literature 6, 331-49.

12. Allain, R. (2004) Morphologie urbaine (Armand Colin, Paris) 49-68.

13. See Kropf, K. S. (2003) 'Disciplinary Delilahs', Urban Morphology 7, 48-50.

14. Aymonino, C. et al., op. cit. (note 4).

15. Levy, A. (1999) 'Urban morphology and the problem of the modern urban fabric: some questions for research', Urban Morphology 3, 79-85.

16. Whitehand, J.W.R. (2001) 'British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition', Urban Morphology 5, 103-9; Whitehand, J.W.R., Morton, N.J. and Carr, C.M.H. (1999) 'Urban morphogenesis at the microscale: how houses change', Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26, 503-15.

17. See, for example, Corsini, M.G. (2004) 'From historic centre to suburban design: typological process and design of the Costa degli Orvetti quarter of Genova-Quinto by Gianfranco Caniggia', unpublished paper presented to the Post-IGC Congress Symposium in Urban Morphology, Newcastle upon Tyne, 21-24 August.

This page was created on Oct. 14 1997 by ISUF Webmasters on behalf of the International Seminar on Urban Form and was last updated on Dec. 29, 2005. All rights reserved.