Urban Morphology (2006) 10(1), 41-50 © International Seminar on Urban Form, 2006 ISSN 1027-4278

Mapping urban morphology: a classification scheme forinterpreting contributions to the study of urban form

Pierre GauthierDepartment of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University,

1455 de Maisonneuve Ouest, Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8, Canada.E-mail: pierreg@alcor.concordia.ca

andJason Gilliland

Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Social Science Centre,London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada. E-mail: jgillila@uwo.ca

Revised version received 5 December 2005

Abstract. Urban morphology is a thriving field of enquiry involvingresearchers from a wide diversity of disciplinary, linguistic and culturalbackgrounds. While this diversity has helped advance our understanding of thecomplexity of urban form, confusion and controversy has also arisen over thevarious theoretical formulations forwarded by researchers from differentphilosophical and epistemological backgrounds. With the aim of improvingintelligibility in the field, this paper proposes a straightforward scheme toidentify, classify and interpret, or ‘map’, individual contributions to the studyof urban form according to their respective theoretical or epistemologicalperspectives. Drawing upon epistemological discussions familiar to thereaders of this journal, the authors first distinguish between cognitive andnormative studies. A second distinction is made between internalist studiesthat consider urban form as a relatively independent system, and externaliststudies in which urban form stands as a passive product of various externaldeterminants. Using these basic criteria, it is possible to interpret andsynthesize a multitude of contributions and map them using a simple Cartesiangrid. The paper highlights how contributions from seemingly differenttheoretical approaches to urban morphology are intrinsically similar in theirtreatment of urban form as an object of enquiry.

Key Words: urban morphology, built environment, epistemology,morphological theories, morphological approaches

Urban morphology, in simple terms, is thestudy of city forms. While there is generalagreement among self-proclaimed ‘urbanmorphologists’ as to what they study, there isconsiderable debate over how urban forms areto be studied. An inevitable source ofmisunderstanding stems from the fact thatmajor contributions to urban morphologicalscholarship continue to be made by researchers

from a wide variety of disciplinary, linguisticand cultural backgrounds. Undoubtedly, partof the confusion arising from divergenttheories and methods in urban morphologycould be alleviated with a multi-lingualglossary of terminology in the field (cf.Larkham and Jones, 1991; Malfroy, 1986).Nevertheless, a great deal of confusion andcontroversy is due to the diversity (and

42 Mapping urban morphology

apparent incompatibility) of the varioustheoretical formulations that have beenadopted and presented by researchers fromdifferent philosophical and epistemologicalbackgrounds (Gerosa, 1999). It has thereforebeen argued that one of the most urgentrequirements in the field of urban morphologyis the elucidation of its philosophical orepistemological foundations (Conzen, 1998;Gerosa, 1999; Whitehand, 1999). It wouldthen be ‘possible to improve intelligibilitydespite differences of vocabulary andlanguage, and thereby carry forward thedialogue’ (Gerosa, 1999, p. 45).

In this paper, we propose a system toidentify and interpret, or ‘map’, individualcontributions to the study of urban formaccording to their respective theoretical orepistemological perspectives. In an effort to‘improve intelligibility’ in urban morphology,we offer a two-tiered examination ofprevailing approaches in the field. First, wedistinguish between cognitive and normativeapproaches to urban form, and then a seconddistinction is made between what we terminternalist and externalist contributions.Using these basic criteria, it is possible tointerpret and synthesize a multitude ofcontributions and map them using a simpleCartesian grid. It is not our aim here toprovide a comprehensive review of research onurban form (see instead Conzen, 2001; Darin,1998; Hofmeister, 2004; Marzot, 2002; Slater,1990; Vilagrasa Ibarz, 1998; Whitehand, 1987,1992); however, we do identify some of themajor contributions in order to illustrate theutility of the proposed method ofclassification. While it is not our intention tosuggest the superiority of any individualcontribution or approach, our discussionfocuses particular attention on the so-calledBritish, French, and Italian ‘schools’ of urbanmorphology which should be most familiar toreaders of this journal (Cataldi et al., 2002;Darin, 1998; Moudon, 1997; Whitehand,2001). With the proposed framework we shallhighlight and discuss how contributions arisingfrom these three seemingly differenttheoretical approaches are intrinsically similar,in that each one has contributed to the

development of an internalist perspective onthe development of urban form.

Cognitive versus normative approaches

Our first level of classification sorts eachcontribution according to the primary heuristicpurpose they serve (whether or not thispurpose is explicitly stated by the author). Insurveying a sample of the most prominentstudies dealing with urban form, a twofolddistinction can be made. First, there arestudies that are aimed at providing explana-tions or developing explanatory frameworks orboth (i.e. cognitive contributions); andsecondly, there are studies aimed at deter-mining the modalities according to which thecity should be planned or built in the future(i.e. normative contributions).

Drawing upon the work of Lang (1987),Moudon (1994) has proposed a similardistinction in her ambitious and fairlythorough exposé aimed at producing anepistemological map of substantive researchrelated to urban design. She calls eachcategory normative-prescriptive and substan-tive-descriptive: ‘it is important to distinguishfirst between normative or prescriptive infor-mation (emphasizing the ‘what should be’) andsubstantive or critically descriptive knowledge(emphasizing the ‘what is’ and perhaps alsothe ‘why’)’ (p. 332). More recently, Levy(2005) has suggested that the same distinctionbe made in the field of urban morphology, todistinguish between what he termed normativeand cognitive approaches.

For the present purpose we have adoptedthe more straightforward terminology used byLevy. We use the expression cognitive toreflect the heuristic nature of an intellectualenterprise concerned with producing know-ledge or at developing theoretical means,methods and techniques destined to producesuch knowledge. Likewise, the term normativedenotes accurately an intellectual exercise,which aims at articulating a view of what thefuture should look like, or at exposing adoctrine or specific sets of norms andprescriptions that would serve such a view.

Mapping urban morphology 43

Some social scientists or historians mightraise an eyebrow at the suggestion that it isnecessary to make a distinction betweencognitive and normative contributions,thinking that their different character is self-evident. However, others might question thedesirability or even the possibility, onepistemological grounds, of making such adistinction. The fact that the same propositioncould elicit two entirely legitimate butopposite interpretations is indicative of thecomplexities at play in underlying epistem-ological and philosophical questions. It is notour intention in the context of this short articleto proceed to a thorough examination of suchquestions; however, we will evoke brieflysome epistemological considerations arisingfrom the proposed distinction.

We posit that differentiating betweencognitive and normative studies is a criticalstep for clarifying the multi-faceted nature ofthe intellectual agenda of urban morphology.The field of urban morphology lies at theintersection of several academic disciplinessuch as architecture, urban planning,geography and history. Each of thesedisciplines is influenced in turn, by a variety oftraditions, research programmes, analyticalapparatuses, and in particular, by specificresearch problems and research objectives.Urban planning is a case in point, and one inwhich the problem of the heuristicprogrammes and procedures is raised quiteacutely. As a practice, urban planning isclearly oriented towards action, whereas as ascholarly subject matter, it assumes a morecomplex and ambiguous character. Thediscipline of urban planning seems to possessa mixed identity: science, applied science andprescriptive practice (Levy and Spigai, 1989).In the fields of architecture and by extensionurban design and planning, the term ‘theory’for instance, could assume two distinctlydifferent meanings. In some circumstances,typically in the literature of applied planning,theory refers to a doctrine accompanied by aseries of prescriptions. Whereas in othercircumstances, the term theory – as scientistswould understand it – refers to a body ofprinciples put forward to explain a phenom-

enon. To add to the confusion, the appliedplanning literature, including canonic texts ofurbanism, often aim at conferring scientificstatus on what is highly ideological (Choay,1965; Lefebvre, 1970).

Whether there is an epistemological gapbetween the explanatory and cognitive on theone hand and the normative on the other, asimplied by Choay (1965), or whether thesecategories correspond to opposite conceptualpoles located on a continuum, as Moudon(1992) suggests, is open to interpretation. Theformer position suggests a difference in nature,while the latter implies a variation in intensity.To distinguish between cognitive andnormative approaches does much to clarify thenature of the intellectual contribution of theschool of process typology, as exemplified bythe ideas of Italian architect Saverio Muratori.Various commentators have posited that theMuratorian tradition has developed anormative approach to the built environment.Moudon (1994) states for instance that the so-called Italian school offers a renewedtheoretical foundation for urban planning anddesign, which engages long-standing citybuilding traditions. She contrasts thiscontribution with the ‘scholarly’ approach ofthe so-called Conzenians, that is, Britishresearchers working in the tradition ofgeographer M.R.G. Conzen. Levy (2005)expressed a similar idea, when making adistinction between what he termed thenormative approach of Gianfranco Caniggiaand the cognitive approach exemplified by thework of M.R.G. Conzen. Such an interpret-ation echoes that put forward by Whitehandand Larkham (1992), who, in their genealogyof research traditions in urban morphology,characterize the Italian school as beingpreoccupied with urban design. We do notdispute such an interpretation, but suggest thatit might obscure the scientific contributionmade by proponents of process typology, andin particular those of the ‘second generation’,such as Cataldi, Maretto and Caniggia who,inspired by Muratori’s original ideas, havebeen working towards a science of the builtenvironment (Cataldi et al., 1997; Gerosa,1992). It is therefore more accurate to depict

44 Mapping urban morphology

the intellectual enterprise of process typologyas both normative and cognitive and to mapindividual studies according to their primaryaim. Accordingly, we term cognitive thosecontributions that aim to produce knowledge(e.g. Caniggia, 1963, 1994) or developtheoretical and analytical tools (e.g. Caniggiaand Maffei, 1979; Maretto, 1984), and wereserve the term normative for contributionsexplicitly aimed at articulating a vision of thefuture (e.g. Maretto, 2005, or the intellectualcontribution represented by the 1983 entry tothe Campo di Marte alla Giudeccacompetition in Venice by Caniggia and histeam), or at formulating an approach toplanning practice (e.g. Caniggia and Marconi(1986) on heritage preservation).

The appeal of comparing and assessing theprocess typology and Conzenian approachesresides in the fact that both have developed –based on different philosophical and epistem-ological grounds – rather sophisticateddescriptive and explanatory frameworks tostudy urban form and its transformations. Thefollowing section posits that these explanatoryframeworks confer a similar epistemic status tourban form as an object of enquiry, and thatthis common trait distinguishes theseapproaches from the vast majority of otherapproaches to the study of urban form.

Internalist versus externalist approaches

According to the second proposed criterion forclassification, each contribution is sortedaccording to the epistemic status conferred tourban form: by distinguishing betweencontributions that consider urban form as arelatively independent system, andcontributions in which urban form stands as adependent variable, or passive product ofvarious external determinants.

An examination of the key researchtraditions in urban morphology, specificallythe British, Italian and French schools, revealsthat they hold in common the intent to capturein the empirical reality of the city, some‘forms’, understood here as the form of theurban fabric, and to study intricate details of

such forms. Levy describes the commonground of these studies as ‘the idea that aparticular logic has dictated the organization ofthe urban fabric in different periods; that somecategories remain constant; that certain aspectsare permanent; that there are rules oftransformation over time that dictate changesto the fabric; and that the organization anddevelopment of the fabric are not random, butfollow laws that urban morphology tries toidentify’ (Levy, 1999, p. 79). To comprehendthe urban fabric in terms of ‘urban form’,understood as a system of its own that isgoverned by internal sets of relations,necessitates two prerequisites: first, that theelements in the system are not discrete objects;and secondly, that the relations betweenelements are not contingent. In other words,there exists an ‘internal’ logic to this system.Such a perspective allows for the developmentof theoretical frameworks that find the primaryexplanation for morphogenesis in theconstraints and potential for change presentwithin the system itself. We propose to callthese approaches that are primarily concernedwith understanding the internal logic of theurban fabric internalist approaches to urbanmorphology.

Jean Castex and colleagues (1980) positthat, although to a certain extent a city is amaterial projection of social, political andeconomic systems or structures, to compre-hend it as a built object and a form comprisingthe city as an object allows one to observe thatthis projection proceeds through varioussystems of spatial symbolization, and ismanifested in a substance, the built space, thathas its own consistency and resilience (Castexet al., 1980, XI). The understanding of suchmodes of spatial symbolization and ofstructurally resilient settlement configurationsand urban forms that make up the specificphysiognomy of a city lies at the heart of theheuristic project of internalist approaches tourban morphology.

Alternatively, we label as externalist thoseapproaches that primarily see the urban formas the end product of processes driven bypolitical (e.g. Çelik, 1997), anthropological(e.g. Rapoport, 1977, 1982; Rykwert, 1988),

Mapping urban morphology 45

geographical and economic (e.g. Vance, 1977,1990), historical (e.g. Benevolo, 1980), andperceptual (e.g. Lynch and Rodwin, 1958;Lynch, 1960) determinants. Historically,externalist contributions have been far morenumerous than internalist ones; notwith-standing the numbers, the importance of theinternalist approach lies in its ability toproduce original and highly innovativeinterpretations of urban material culture.

We posit that a common object of enquiry,i.e. the city as a spatial form, and a commonconceptualization of the urban built environ-ment as a dynamic system granted withrelative autonomy, connects the contributionsof the three ‘schools’ and constitutes theprimary core of the urban morphology researchprogramme, albeit this programme is still inthe process of becoming a paradigm. From anepistemological perspective, the commen-surability of the cognitive-explanatorytheoretical frameworks developed under theauspices of the three schools of urbanmorphology lies in their common internalistperspective. It is interesting to discover howthese similarly systemic or structuralistframeworks were informed by particulardisciplinary and philosophical traditions thatare only very remotely connected: geographerM.R.G. Conzen drew insights from Cassirer’sphilosophy of symbolic forms (Conzen, 1998),whereas Italian architect and planner Caniggiawas inspired by the European continentalstructural linguistics, particularly the structuralphonology of the Cercle de Prague (Caniggiaand Marconi, 1985; Caniggia, 1988). Theadoption of Italian methods by architecturalscholars in France marked their entrance intothe animated French structuralist debate(Cohen, 1984).

Perhaps the most important contribution ofurban morphology to the study of cities hasbeen to show how the built environment canbe understood as a system of relationssubmitted to rules of transformation. Theconceptual possibility to capture some culturaloccurrences in systemic terms has provenextremely fruitful in urban morphology, as ithas in numerous other scientific fields and

disciplines. This simple theoretical a prioriallows us to better understand the complexityof the urban built environment, and inparticular to better comprehend how theprocess of a city’s physical formation has itsown weight and inertia, that work to opposesocial, economic and political factors, in thesame way that it has been alternativelyassumed that the physical development of thecity is conditioned by these factors.

Mapping urban morphology

The usefulness of graphically mapping variouscontributions to the study of urban form on agrid should be seen at both a practical level forresearchers interested in urban morphology,and at a more analytical and epistemologicallevel, as it elicits new interpretations on thenature of contributions or groups ofcontributions that deal with urban form. Thissection will illustrate the benefits of themapping exercise by discussing briefly someof its results (see Figure 1). It is not ourintention to draw a comprehensive picture ofthe various contributions to urban morphology,but we do reference some well-knowncontributions in order to illustrate thepertinence of the proposed approach.

At a practical level, the grid allows for asynthetic representation of some common-alities and distinctions observable in thetheoretical and epistemological perspectivesfavoured in various contributions. Suchmapping is beneficial as it provides animmediate basis for comparison when facedwith the corpus of contributions emanatingfrom a variety of disciplinary traditions andlinguistic environments. In fact, the idea todevelop such a tool originated in the authors’attempts to make sense of the wide variety ofcontributions to the study of urban form byresearchers in Canada (Gilliland and Gauthier,2006) (see this issue, pp. 51-66). Whenconducted more comprehensively, themapping can help to identify tendencies in anational research effort on urban form, forinstance, or to distinguish the leanings of

46 Mapping urban morphology

Figure 1. Mapping contributions to the study of urban form.

various groups of researchers, whether or notthese groups conduct formal exchanges.

On a more analytical level, in addition tothe intrinsic heuristic value of the proposedcategories, the mapping allows one to studythe distribution of various contributions indifferent quadrants in order to identify patternsof concentration (possible research ‘clusters’)or dispersion. The exercise allows for therecognition of similarities or differencesbetween narratives, which might otherwise gounnoticed.

A closer look at the grid reveals that theinternalist/cognitive quadrant includes various

scientific studies concerned with the city as anartifact and spatial form, and whichconceptualize its built environment as asystem. Such a depiction best qualifies thework of M.R.G. Conzen (1960, 1962, 1968),for instance, as well as the scientific efforts ofvarious proponents of process typology.Whereas Muratori’s philosophy and researchmethods broke the ground, the secondgeneration process typologists such asCaniggia and Maffei (1979), Cataldi (1977),and Maretto (1984), have worked moreattentively at developing a science of the builtenvironment. The research tradition known as

Mapping urban morphology 47

space syntax has also produced severalimportant contributions to urban morphologythat fall in this category, and is bestrepresented by the work of Bill Hillier andJulienne Hanson from the Bartlett School ofPlanning at University College London (e.g.Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Hillier, 1996).

The externalist/cognitive quadrant regroupsthe scientific contributions concerned with theforms and transformations of the urban builtenvironment, but which rely predominantly onexplanatory frameworks based on externalconditions of development. The vast majorityof scientific contributions dealing with urbanform (especially from the Anglo-Saxon world)have adopted a common externalistperspective, even though they have come froma wide array of disciplinary perspectives (e.g.Benevolo, 1980; Lynch, 1960; Mumford,1961; Rapoport, 1982; Vance, 1977). Most ofthe work that has been conducted in the so-called Conzenian tradition (most notably thecontributions of geographer Jeremy Whitehand(1972a, b, 1974, Whitehand and Whitehand,1984) has been concerned with the impact ofsocial or economic factors on the evolution ofurban form. It therefore could be argued thatalthough these more recent contributions drawupon Conzen’s ideas, they are fundamentallydifferent in that they adopt an externalistexplanatory framework.

The studies categorized as internalist/normative could be otherwise qualified asurban design normative contributions, as theyaim at devising an urban form that has yet tobe built. Many contributions from processtypologists could be cited in this category (e.g.Cervallati et al., 1981; Davoli and Zaffagnini,1993; Maretto, 2005; Spigai, 1980). Forfurther discussion of the influence of typo-morphological approaches on urban design,see Lane (1993) and Nigrelli (1999). Some ofthe ideas about heritage preservation that havebeen put forward by Conzenian researchersalso belong in this category, such as Kropf ’s(1996) paper on typological zoning andConzen’s (1966, 1975) own work on the utilityof town-plan analysis. This category ofstudies also includes the popular urban designdoctrines that have come out of the United

States in recent decades, such as NewUrbanism (Duany et al., 1999) and transit-oriented development (Calthorpe, 1993).

In the externalist/normative quadrant groupare studies that develop applied approaches tothe processes dealing with the making of urbanfabrics. Among the contributions to be foundin this category are those arising fromresearchers who first developed externalistexplanatory theoretical frameworks and thentranslated them into operational planning anddesign tools for the benefit of practitioners(e.g. Larkham, 1992, 1996; Lynch, 1981;Rapoport, 1977).

Conclusion

Thus far, most commentators in urbanmorphology have insisted on the simplecognitive/normative dichotomy to characterizeresearch on urban form in general, andcontributions arising from the Conzenian andprocess typology approaches in particular.The mapping of specific contributionsdisplayed in Figure 1 shows that, from theproposed epistemological perspective at least,there might actually be more similaritiesbetween the core contributions of M.R.G.Conzen and the cognitive contributions of theprocess typologists than there are betweenConzen’s own work and the contributions ofthe so-called second generation Conzenians.

Reading the proposed mapping allows onealso to visualize the dual nature of theintellectual contribution of process typology;the enterprise has produced works of anexplanatory or cognitive nature as well asnormative treatises. The mapping stressesimplicitly that its dual nature distinguishesprocess typology from more purely normativeplanning and design theoretical perspectives(e.g. New Urbanism), which are confined tothe internalist/normative quadrant. The saidduality could raise specific epistemologicalquestions pertaining to the modalitiesaccording to which morphological knowledgecould be operationalized in applied circum-stances and, conversely, how planning issuescould be problematized for research. Spigai

48 Mapping urban morphology

(1980) and Levy and Spigai (1989) havediscussed such matters, and have proposedtheoretical formulations aimed at buildingbridges between the two heuristic poles.Accordingly, their contributions are mapped atthe intersection of the cognitive and normativecategories.

It is expected that the proposed ‘mapping’system will be useful to act as a guide forfuture reviews of literature in the field.Furthermore, it is hoped that this system willhelp to clarify and adequately acknowledge thenature of a wide array of intellectual contri-butions to the understanding, management andmaking of the urban built environment.

References

Benevolo, L. (1980) The history of the city (MITPress, Cambridge, MA).

Boudon, F., Chastel, A., Couzy, H. and Hamon, F.(1977) Système de l’architecture urbaine. Lequartier de Halles à Paris (Éditions du CNRS,Paris).

Calthorpe, P. (1993) The next American metro-polis: ecology, community and the Americandream (Princeton Architectural Press, NewYork).

Caniggia, G. (1963) Lettura di una città: Como(Centro studi di storia urbanistica, Roma).

Caniggia, G. (1988) ‘Studio sui processi diformazione e di mutazione delle tipologieedilizie: stato della disciplina’, in ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche Problemi del restauroin Italia, Atti del Convegno Nazionale tenutosia Roma nei giorni 3-6 novembre 1986(Campanotto editore, Udine) 21-34.

Caniggia, G. (1994) Lecture de Florence (InstitutSupérieur d’Architecture Saint-Luc, Bruxelles).

Caniggia, G. and Maffei, G.L. (1979) Compo-sizione architettonica e tipologia edilizia/1Lettura dell'edilizia di base (Marsilio, Venezia).

Caniggia, G. and Marconi, P. (1986) ‘Continuitàtipologica e manutenzione consepevole: metodie tecniche per la mutazione fisiologica dellacittà’, Restauro e città, anno II, 127-44.

Castex, J., Celeste, P. and Panerai, P. (1980)Lecture d’une ville: Versailles (Éditions duMoniteur, Paris).

Cataldi G. (1977) Per una scienza del territorio(Alinea, Firenze).

Cataldi, G., Maffei, G.L. and Vaccaro, P. (1997)

‘The Italian school of process typology’, UrbanMorphology 1, 49-63.

Çelik, Z. (1997) Urban forms and colonialconfrontations: Algiers under the French rule(University of California Press, Berkeley).

Cervallati, P.L., Scannavini, R. and De Angelis, C.(1981) La nouvelle culture urbaine: Bologneface à son patrimoine (Seuil, Paris).

Choay, F. (1965) L’urbanisme utopies et réalités(Seuil, Paris).

Cohen, J.L. (1984) ‘La coupure entre architectes etintellectuels, ou les enseignements de l’italo-philie’, in Secrétariat de la Recherche Architect-urale Extenso (Ministère de l’Industrie et de laRecherche, Paris).

Conzen, M.P. (2001) ‘The study of urban form inthe United States’, Urban Morphology 5, 3-14.

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

Conzen, M.R.G. (1962) ‘The plan analysis of anEnglish city centre’, in Norborg, K. (ed.)Proceedings of the IGU Symposium in UrbanGeography Lund 1960 (Gleerup, Lund) 383-414.

Conzen, M.R.G. (1966) ‘Historical townscapes inBritain: a problem in applied geography’, inHouse, J.W. (ed.) Northern geographical essaysin honour of G.H.J. Daysh (University ofNewcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne)56-78.

Conzen, M.R.G. (1968) ‘The use of town plans inthe study of urban history’, in Dyos, H.J. (ed.)The study of urban history (Edward Arnold,London) 113-30.

Conzen, M.R.G. (1975) ‘Geography and townscapeconservation’, in Uhlig, H. and Lienau, C. (eds)Anglo-German Symposium in AppliedGeography, Giessen-Würzburg-München (Lenz,Giessen) 95-102.

Conzen, M.R.G. (1998) ‘Apropos a sounderphilosophical basis for urban morphology’,Urban Morphology 2, 113-14.

Darin, M. (1998) ‘The study of urban form inFrance’, Urban Morphology 2, 63-76.

Davoli, P. and Zaffagnini, M. (1993) Progettare neltessuto urbano (Alinea, Firenze).

Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. and Speck, J. (1999)Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and thedecline of the American dream (North PointPress, New York).

Gerosa, P.G. (1992) Éléments pour une histoire desthéories sur la ville comme artefact et formespatiale (XVIIIe - XXe siècles) Collection villes-

Mapping urban morphology 49

société-idées 7 (Université des scienceshumaines de Strasbourg, Strasbourg).

Gerosa, P.G. (1999) ‘The philosophical foundationsof urban morphology’, Urban Morphology 3,44-45.

Gilliland, J. and Gauthier, P. (2006) ‘The study ofurban form in Canada’, Urban Morphology 10,51-66.

Habraken, N.J. (1998) The structure of theordinary: form and control in the builtenvironment (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

Hillier, B. (1996) Space is the machine (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge).

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The social logic ofspace (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge).

Hofmeister, B. (2004) ‘The study of urban form inGermany’, Urban Morphology 8, 3-12.

King, A.D. (1984) ‘The social production ofbuilding form: theory and research’, Society andSpace 2, 429-56.

Kostof , S. (1991) The city shaped: urban patternsand meanings through history (Thames andHudson, London).

Kropf, K.S. (1996) ‘An alternative approach tozoning in France: typology, historical characterand development control’, European PlanningStudies, 4, 717-37.

Lane, A. (1993) Urban morphology and urbandesign: a review Occasional Paper 35,Department of Planning and Landscape(University of Manchester, Manchester).

Lang, J. (1987) Creating architectural theory: therole of the behavioral sciences in environmentaldesign (Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork).

Larkham, P.J. (1992) ‘Conservation and thechanging urban landscape’, Progress inPlanning 37, 87-183.

Larkham, P.J. (1996) Conservation and the city(Routledge, London).

Larkham, P.J. and Jones, A.N. (1991) A glossary ofurban form Institute of British Geographers,Historical Geography Research GroupMonograph 26 (Geo Books, Norwich).

Lefebvre, H. (1970) La révolution urbaine(Gallimard, Paris).

Levy, A. (1999) ‘Urban morphology and theproblem of the modern urban fabric: somequestions for research’, Urban Morphology 3,79-85.

Levy, A. (2005) ‘New orientations in urbanmorphology’, Urban Morphology 9, 50-3.

Levy, A. and Spigai, V. (1989) ‘Contribution auprojet urbain: éléments d’une théorie de lacomposition urbaine’, in Levy, A. and Spigai, V.

(eds) Le plan et l’architecture de la ville. Ilpiano e l’architettura della città (Cluva editrice,Venezia) 137-52.

Levy, A. and Spigai, V. (1992) La qualité de laforme urbaine Rapport pour le Ministère del’Équipement du Logement et des Transport(Secrétariat Permanent du Plan Urbain, Paris).

Lynch, K. (1960) The image of the city (MIT Press,Cambridge, MA).

Lynch, K. (1981) Good city form (MIT Press,Cambridge, MA).

Lynch, K. and Rodwin, L. (1958) ‘A theory ofurban form’, Journal of the American Instituteof Planners 24, 201-14.

Malfroy, S. (1986) ‘Introduction à la terminologie’,in L’approche morphologique de la ville et duterritoire Eidgenössische TechnischeHochschule Zürich, Architekturabteilung,(Geschichte des Stadtebaus, Zürich) 12-76.

Maretto, P. (1984) Realtà naturale e realtàcostruita (Alinea editrice, Firenze).

Maretto, P. (2005) ‘Urban morphology as a basisfor urban design: the project for the Isola deiCantieri in Chioggia’, Urban Morphology 9, 29-44.

Marzot, N. (2002) ‘The study of urban form inItaly’, Urban Morphology 6, 59-73.

Moudon, A.V. (1986) Built for change:neighborhood architecture in San Francisco(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

Moudon, A.V. (1992) ‘A catholic approach toorganizing what urban designers should know’,Journal of Planning Literature 6, 331-48.

Moudon, A.V. (1994) ‘Getting to know the builtlandscape: typomorphology’, in Frank, K.A. andSchneekloth, L.H. (eds) Ordering space. Typesin architecture and design (Van NostrandReinhold, New York) 289-311.

Moudon, A.V. (1997) ‘Urban morphology as anemerging interdisciplinary field’, UrbanMorphology 1, 3-10.

Mumford, L. (1961) The city in history: its origins,its transformations, and its prospects (HarcourtBrace and World, New York).

Muratori, S. (1960) Studi per una operante storiaurbana di Venezia (Istituto Poligrafico delloStato, Roma).

Nigrelli, F.C. (1999) Percorsi del progetto urbanoin Francia e in Italia 1960-1997 (OfficinaEdizioni, Roma).

Rapoport, A. (1977) Human aspects of urban form:towards a man-environment approach to urbanform and design (Pergamon Press, New York).

Rapoport, A. (1982) The meaning of the builtenvironment: a non-verbal communication

50 Mapping urban morphology

approach (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA).Rykwert, J. (1988) The idea of a town: the

anthropology of urban form in Rome, Italy andthe ancient world (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).

Samuels, I. and Pattacini, L. (1997) ‘Fromdescription to prescription: reflections on the useof a morphological approach in designguidance’, Urban Design International 2, 81-91.

Slater, T.R. (1978) ‘Family, society and theornamental villa on the fringes of Englishcountry towns’, Journal of HistoricalGeography 4, 129-44.

Slater, T.R. (ed.) (1990) The built form of westerncities: essays for M.R.G. Conzen on theoccasion of his eightieth birthday (LeicesterUniversity Press, Leicester).

Spigai, V. (1980) Guide per l’analisi e laprogettazione della funzione abitativa in aereurbane di impianto antico. Istituto universitariodi architettura di Venezia (Dipartimento diteoria e tecnica della progettazione urbana,Venezia).

Vance, J.E. (1977) This scene of man: the role andstructure of the city in the geography of Westerncivilization (Harper and Row, New York).

Vance, J.E. (1990) The continuing city: urbanmorphology in western civilization (JohnHopkins University Press, Baltimore).

Vilagrasa Ibarz, J. (1998) ‘The study of urban formin Spain’, Urban Morphology 2, 35-44.

Whitehand, J.W.R. (1972a) ‘Urban-rent theory,time series and morphogenesis: an example of

eclecticism in geographical research’, Area 4,215-22.

Whitehand, J.W.R. (1972b) ‘Building cycles andthe spatial pattern of urban growth’,Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 56, 39-55.

Whitehand, J.W.R. (1974) ‘The changing nature ofthe urban fringe: a time perspective’, in Johnson,J.H. (ed.) Suburban growth: geographicalprocesses at the edge of the Western city (Wiley,London) 31-52.

Whitehand, J.W.R. (ed.) (1981) The urbanlandscape: historical development andmanagement (Academic Press, London).

Whitehand, J.W.R. (1987) The changing face ofcities: a study of development cycles and urbanform (Basil Blackwell, Oxford).

Whitehand, J.W.R. (1992) The making of the urbanlandscape (Basil Blackwell, Oxford).

Whitehand, J.W.R. (1999) ‘A century of urbanmorphology?’, Urban Morphology 3, 1-2.

Whitehand, J.W.R. (2001) ‘British urbanmorphology: the Conzenian tradition’, UrbanMorphology 5, 103-9.

Whitehand, J.W.R. and Whitehand, S.M. (1984)‘The physical fabric of town centres: the agentsof change’, Transactions of the Institute ofBritish Geographers, NS 9, 231-47.

Whitehand, J.W.R. and Larkham, P.J. (eds) (1992)Urban landscapes: international perspectives(Routledge, London).

Building Futures

The group Building Futures, set up by the RoyalInstitute of British Architects, seeks to addressfuture built environments, and issues affecting thebuilt environment professions, in 20 years and evenfurther in the future. Its aims are:! to promote debate on the future of the built

environment; ! to influence relevant professionals, clients,

educationalists, decision makers and policymakers to anticipate and analyse developmentsaffecting architecture and urban design, both asprofessional disciplines and as activitiesinfluencing society;

! to collaborate with key individuals andorganizations;

! to build upon and complement existing work;! to use a variety of media including publications

and events.

Examples of questions that Building Futuresseeks to answer are: how and where shall we beliving in 50 or 100 years’ time, when the climatehas changed and cities are bigger than ever? Whattechnologies will architects be using to designbuildings and what new materials will they bespecifying? How will new technologies affect thebuildings we use every day?

Collaboration and dialogue are central to theBuilding Futures programme. A steering group hasoverall responsibility for the programme. There isalso an advisory group which is involved in andconsulted on projects.

Questions and requests for further informationshould be directed to Karolina Grebowiec, RoyalInstitute of British Architects, 60 Portland Place,London W1B 1AD, UK. E-mail: buildingfutures@inst.riba.org