A Joint Framework for Urban Morphology and Design

A JOINT FRAMEWORK FOR URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND DESIGN

409BUILTthinspthinspENVIRONMENTthinspthinspthinspVOLthinspthinsp37thinspthinspthinspNOthinspthinsp4

sometimes perceive morphology as a rather specialized activity concerned with historical maps and somewhat esoteric concepts (such as lsquoorthomorphicrsquo patterns and lsquomorpho-geneticrsquo processes) an intriguing but optional even rather perfunctory prelude to the real business of design (figure 2) On the other hand urban morphologists might perceive urban design as being overly preoccupied

It is almost as if morphology and design use separate hemispheres of the brain Urban morphology is about patt ern recognition urban design is about patt ern creation Urban morphology is about the analysis of ensembles of buildings and spaces urban design is about the deliberate creation of such ensembles Urban morphology is about infer-ence and interpretation of type urban design is about invention of types and intervention using type Urban morphology is about inferring urban form-function relationships urban design is about expressing them Urban morphology is about understanding and evaluating what urban design is creating (fi gure 1)

While urban morphology and design are closely linked in principle they are not always well integrated in practice For a start urban morphology and urban design are associated with separate disciplines with different traditions Urban designers are usually drawn from design disciplines such as architecture whereas urban morphologists may also include geographers and spatial analysts 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 CcedilALIŞKAN

This paper proposes a joint framework for relating urban morphology and design to each other which can help to explain how and why these can be considered as distinct yet connected The paper locates urban morphology and urban design ndash as products and processes ndash within a framework based on the distinction between the physical fabric and the abstract domain in relation to time order This helps clarify and explain the nature and signifi cance of the essential relationship between urban morphology and design The paper concludes with suggestions for the bett er integration of morphology and design

Figure 1enspMorphology and design caricatured as if occupying separate hemispheres of the brain

URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND DESIGN

410 BUILTthinspthinspENVIRONMENTthinspthinspthinspVOLthinspthinsp37thinspthinspthinspNOthinspthinsp4

aims and methods of urban morphology and urban design is not just of lsquoacademicrsquo interest The lack of integration has been blamed for urban places being sub-optimal or dysfunctional Conversely better integration of urban morphology and design can potentially help create better urban places (Ccedilalışkan and Marshall this issue) These suppositions relate both to contemporary calls for an integration between the two fields

with the agency of professional designers in shaping urban change underestimating the influences of chance contingency and context (figure 3) Urban morphologists and urban designers often seem to be looking in different directions or working at cross-purposes It is almost as if the right hand does not always know what the left hand is doing

The perceived dislocation between the

Figure 3enspA pure case of design where the urban fabric (right) is a direct expression of an urban designerrsquos vision (left ) Urban morphologists recognize this as a special case More oft en the urban fabric is put together in a more complex way morphologists are concerned with more than what designers design (Source By courtesy of Kuiper Compagnons 2006)

Figure 2enspIconic morphological study on Venice by Saverio Muratori (1959) the founder of Italian morphology school (Muratori 2001) Urban designers sometimes see this kind of morphological study as an intriguing but optional excursion into urban historical geography



the relationship between urban morphology and urban design What is it that unites them and what is it that divides them How does urban morphology inform urban design How do design interventions impact on the ground (the physical fabric) to create new morphologies ndash whether these are lsquoplannedrsquo overall or not (figure 4) Is morphology a necessary part of (or prelude to) design Where do we draw the boundary between morphology and design (figure 5)

This paper sets out to explore these various issues ultimately to help understand why poor morphological understanding might lead 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 linking urban morphology and design This is then used to interpret morphology and design as products and processes and in relation to time 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 to a substantial body of critical urban space and design theory since the 1960s (Lynch 1960 Jacobs 1961 Cullen 1961 Hillier and Hanson 1984 Bentley et al 1985 Alexander et al 1987) Among them Trancik (1986) can be regarded as the one to address most directly the need for lsquoan integrated design approachrsquo ndash he considers figure-ground linkage and place theories of urbanism

The dislocation between urban morphology and urban design is not so much due to some historical disciplinary schism (like for example that between surgeons and physicians or military and civil engineers) Rather the disciplinary schism could be a symptom of something deeper about the intrinsic nature of morphology and design In effect there is an outstanding challenge and opportunity to gain a better understanding of

Figure 4enspA transect from Ankara Turkey juxtaposition of lsquoplannedrsquo (left ) and lsquounplannedrsquo (right) urban fabric

Figure 5enspThe design of Ijburg Haveneiland (right) involved creation of new block typologies based on existing ones in Amsterdam (left ) The manipulation of abstract morphologies (left ) was part of the lsquodesign researchrsquo for the fi nal scheme This raises the question of where the morphology stops and the design begins (Source By of courtesy Claus en Kaan Architecten 2001)



1988) Steadman (1983 1998 2008) interprets Goethersquos concept of morphology as a science of possible form While commonly known as a branch of biology the more general and abstract sense of morphology as a science of form allows it to be applied beyond biology For example the term morphology is used in geology and geography in reference to the form of natural landscapes and in linguistics in reference to the elements and structure of language In each case morphology can be considered the study of form or structure applicable to the fi eld in question In the context of the built environment then urban

morphology can inform good design Finally we draw out conclusions and implications for the 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 polymath whose interests covered poetry drama literature philosophy and biology Goethe took morphology to mean a lsquoscience dealing with the very essences of formsrsquo (Bullock et al

Table 1enspA selection of defi nitions of urban morphology

Defi nition Source

General lsquoThe study of urban formrsquo (Cowan 2005)

lsquoThe science of form or of various factors that govern and (Lozano 1990 p 209) infl uence formrsquo

lsquoThe study of the physical (or built) fabric of urban form (Urban Morphology Research and the people and processes shaping itrsquo Group 1990)

lsquoMorphology literally means lsquoform-lorersquo or knowledge of (Meyer 2005 p 125) the form hellip what is the essence of that form does certain logic in spatial composition apply certain structuring principlesrsquo

Focus on the lsquohellip 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 patt erns that make up the structure of towns helps us to understand the ways in which towns have grown and developedrsquo lsquoUrban morphology hellip 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 arisersquo

Focus on the lsquoA method of analysis which is basic to fi nd[ing] out (Gebauer and Samuels 1981manner and principles or rules of urban designrsquo cited in Larkham 1998)purpose of lsquohellip the study of the city as human habitathellip Urban (Moudon 1997)study morphologists hellip analyse a cityrsquos evolution from its formative years to its subsequent transformations identifying and dissecting its various componentsrsquo

lsquoFirst there are studies that are aimed at providing (Gauthier and Gilliland 2006 explanations or developing explanatory frameworks or p 42) both (ie 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 (ie normative contributions)rsquo



kinds of urban fabric and (iii) as a means of identifying exemplars types or elements of urban form which could be used as units of design2 It is the last of these ndash design ndash on which this paper will primarily focus from now on

Urban Design

The term design in the most general sense equates with the preconception of something before it is constructed It involves a deliberate act of will towards creation of a fi nite product oft en expressed in the form of some kind of drawing Design also embodies the rationale for something a lsquogood designrsquo implies an eff ective solution to a problem The term urban design could be used in a general sense to mean any kind of design in the urban context ndash which could encompass the design of buildings and infrastructure (otherwise associated with architecture and engineering) Some basic defi nitions of urban design are given in table 2 overleaf

From table 2 we can see that urban design is about shaping the form of the physical urban fabric by organizing urban structure manipulating relationships between elements creating coherent ensembles of buildings and spaces In a broad sense urban design could also be said to include an element of analysis not just synthesis (Lawson 2006) Like urban morphology urban design can operate at a variety of scales although it tends to be most associated with the scale greater than or equal to architecture (buildings) and less than equal to that of town planning (settlements)

A Joint Framework Linking Morphology and Design

From this analysis we can draw out a number of conclusions that will help us relate urban morphology and urban design in a joint framework Urban morphology and urban design both relate to the physical urban fabric The urban fabric is a kind of lsquocommon groundrsquo that is the subject of urban

morphology can be taken to mean the science of urban form and structure Some defi nitions of urban morphology are given in table 1

From table 1 we can see that urban morphology involves scrutiny and analysis of the physical urban fabric (recall figure 2) yet it concerns understanding and explanation of urban change in a wider sense it deals with things like spatial organizations principles components relations discerning structure shape configuration which can also be used towards design In terms of scale urban morphology covers a wide spectrum from the scale of buildings to metropolitan areas In its narrowest sense it refers to the study of the urban fabric of buildings plots and street patterns in a wider sense it can include possible forms and not only the description but explanation of processes of formation (sometimes referred to as morphogenetics)1

In its urban interpretation morphology is usually interpreted as an analytic activity ndash the study of the existing urban form or urban fabric ndash although colloquially we may also speak of lsquothe morphologyrsquo of an area as if morphology were a synonym for form Urban morphology covers a wide area of spatial research including both qualitative techniques 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 for capturing the structural properties of urban form (Benedikt 1979 Hillier and Hanson 1984 Hillier 1996 Batty 2001 Marshall 2005) Kropf (2009 p 109) classifies the major approaches in urban morphology as spatial analytical configurational process typological and historico-geographical

We can identify three key applications of morphology (i) as an investigative or explanatory technique where the intention is to help find out lsquowhat happenedrsquo and where change in form is studied better to understand urban change more generally (ii) as a diagnostic or evaluative tool a means of studying successful or unsuccessful



as processes Yet morphology and design seem to be going in diff erent directions for diff erent purposes but do not seem to be the direct obverse of each other like input and output or analysis and synthesis In some senses they are intertwined morphology could be part of the urban design process

morphology and the object of urban design That said morphology and design also involve a degree of abstraction identifi able in terms of various kinds of urban form elements Both relate to a range of scales Both can be seen as products ndash the morphology of an area or the design of an area ndash as well

Table 2enspA selection of defi nitions of urban design

Defi nition Source

General lsquohellip the art of making places design in an urban contextrsquo (Cowan 2005 p 416) lsquohellip a subfi eld of urban planning particularly concerned (Gunder 2011 p 1) with urban form liveability and aestheticsrsquo lsquoUrban design lies between the broad-brush abstraction of (Buchanan 1997 cited in Cowan planning and concrete specifi cities of architecturersquo 1997 p 20) lsquohellip 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 citiesrsquo lsquoUrban design in specifi c sense grew out of an eff ort to (Mumford 2009 p viii) combine art and science in the three-dimensional planning of urban environmentsrsquo lsquohellip the theory and practice of producing the form and life (Guumlnay 1999 p 32) of the city in the macro meso and micro scales hellip designing and making more extensively guiding the design and making of the city and its partsrsquo Focus on the Urban design the architecture of towns and cities (Spreiregen 1965)physical scope lsquohellip 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 scalersquo lsquohellip the design and shaping of parts of sett lements such as (Childs 2010 p 1) the relationships between multiple built-forms building typologies public space street and other infrastructurersquo lsquoUrban designrsquos concerns are more oft en with the ensemble (Pitt as 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 artefactrsquo Focus on the lsquohellip is concerned with analysing organising and shaping (Buchanan 1988 cited in Cowanprocess and urban form so as to elaborate as richly and as coherently 20005 p 416)purpose of as possible the lived experience of the inhabitantsrsquodesign lsquohellip involves coordinated and self-conscious actions in (Lang 2005 p xix) designing new cities and other human sett lements or redesigning existing ones andor their precincts in response to the needs of their inhabitantsrsquo lsquoWe call Urban Design the symbolic att empt to express an (Castells 1983 p 304 cited in accepted urban meaning in certain urban formsrsquo Cuthbert 2006 p 17) lsquoUrban design can indeed be viewed as the social (Cuthbert 2006 p 21) production of space in its material and symbolic dimensionsrsquo



which are represented in the form of maps but also fi gure-ground diagrams fl oor plans visual models and numerical data (fi gure 2)

Similarly a design can be seen as some-thing that is one step removed from physical reality Indeed design can be seen as a fore-shadow of a future reality Put another way a design could be seen as an abstract projection backwards from a future reality (figure 3)

Taking these together we can see both why morphology and design are alike and how they differ (figure 6) They are alike in that they are both one step removed from physical reality Or put another way morphology and design are part of the same abstract medium separate from but corresponding to physical reality Where this abstract medium corresponds to an existing urban area we refer to it as the morphology of that area when the abstract medium corresponds with the future urban area we refer to it as

while the agency of urban design is part of what an urban morphologist infers It is this range of issues that we now aim to reconcile

Here we present a joint framework which unifies urban morphology and design as products and processes taking account of the physical and the abstract and in relation to urban change (figure 6) The remainder of the paper is concerned with interpreting this framework and using it to understand better the nature of urban morphology and design ndash 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 it refers to Morphology is an abstract lsquoshadowrsquo of physical reality where something that is concrete is projected into the abstract domain of metrics shapes properties and types

Figure 6enspJoint framework integrating morphology and design (a) represents the morphological process of recognition abstraction and interpretation (d) represents the design process of creative organization that converts the existing morphology into the design (c) represents construction conversion of the design into physical reality It is also possible to intervene in the physical fabric directly (b)



of a design Similarly many of Christopher Alexanderrsquos morphological features (eg boundaries alternating repetition local symmetries etc) can also be used as design devices (Mehaffy this issue) The fact that such analytic and design devices are so readily interchangeable (recall figure 5) is well understood and appreciated intuitively by urban designers although the conclusion that this equivalence marks them as the common material of both morphology and design seems to be little remarked on

Morphology and Design as Processes

Morphology is a process of the refl ective (conceptual) mode of mental operation as art and science while design represents an active (applied and experimental) mode of thinking (Hanson 2001 p 2) These processes of morphology and design are also embodied in the framework of fi gure 6 Here we see how it takes an act of cognitive interpretation (a) to get from the physical reality of the urban fabric (buildings and streets) to the abstractions of urban morphology (com-positional units structural links and divi-sions patt erns and types) It then takes an act of creative (re)organization (d) to arrive at a design

Note that the act of creative organization ndash which we associate with the design process ndash takes place wholly within the abstract domain shared with morphology (ie the upper level in figure 6d) In contrast the act of cognitive interpretation or abstraction ndash which we associate with the process of lsquodoingrsquo morphology ndash is a transitional act bridging from the concrete to the abstract (figure 6a) This helps to explain why the act of morphology is a different kind of process from the act of design and yet lsquothe morphologyrsquo itself and lsquothe designrsquo share the same abstract medium

It follows that morphology as a process is 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 how morphology and design differ in that they are pointing in different directions one looking back to existing reality and the other looking forward to a future reality It is in this sense that morphology and design can be seen as the obverse of each other ndash like lsquotwo sides of the same coinrsquo

From the suggestion that morphology and design are both one step removed from the physical reality we can argue that mor-phology and design are made of the same lsquomaterialrsquo That is they are made out of abstract things like geometric shapes dimen-sions properties and types They are basically conceived via mental constructions and com-municated via the conceptual tools of visual representations (symbols and diagrams etc) This is of course in contrast to the physical world of bricks and mortar and asphalt and glass and concrete and wood and vegetation This perceivable reality is subject to direct experience through human sensations And so while the instruments of design may be pens paper rulers and computers the medium of design ndash what designs are made of ndash are metrics and shapes and types which is the same stuff that morphology is made of Morphology and design lsquospeak the same languagersquo Both use either visual (graphical and diagrammatic) language or verbal and mathematical ones to communicate with others3 This gives a fundamental reason why morphology and design could be said to lsquobelong togetherrsquo

Seen this way the morphology is (meta-phorically) the lsquoraw materialrsquo of design4 That is to say when we design we design using concepts axes elements shapes that all come from a morphological interpretation of the urban fabric Kevin Lynchrsquos (1960) classic elements (paths nodes landmarks districts edges) while traditionally viewed as cognitive constructions used to understand urban places may also be interpreted as morphological elements which can be used just as surely to shape the urban design of those places that is they can be used as part



whole settlement ndash without morphology or design in the abstract but simply by direct manipulation of physical elements placing stone upon stone by hand or placing building next to building by eye or wearing a path unselfconsciously by the tread of many footsteps These processes are represented by the fourth side of the frame of figure 6b6

The processes represented by (b) may be equated with what Christopher Alexander (2005) terms lsquomakingrsquo (in contradistinction to designing) where buildings and spatial layouts are created by manipulating the urban fabric in a direct physical way such as laying out plots on the ground lsquoby eyersquo using pieces of string This method of creating buildings and spaces could be interpreted as lsquourban design without urban designersrsquo to the extent that the ensembles of buildings and spaces are created without use of any identifiable design representation in the process Another manifestation of (b) would be the case of Architecture without Architects where vernacular buildings are created by processes that do not involve the formal practice of architectural design (Rudowsky 1969)

We could interpret urban design in a broad sense to embrace all parts of the framework of figure 6 including (b) But if we interpret design in the narrower sense to mean process (d) implying manipulation of abstract forms before physical construction then morphological abstraction (a) is essential to design (d) In other words professional designers who would claim a necessary mastery of technical skills associated with maps plans metrics axes and so on (over and above what is involved in building lsquoby handrsquo and lsquoby eyersquo) are reliant on morphological abstraction for their craft and so should not be dismissive of morphology as inessential or perfunctory Conversely if direct manipulation of the physical fabric (b) is not considered to be design then we can have urban change which bypasses the medium of abstraction with no need for morphology or design The point here is that

the quadrilateral ndash from the design to the reality ndash which is most readily interpreted as the act of construction (figure 6c)5 This is perhaps a surprising result one would not necessarily expect in advance that a framework integrating morphology and design would also involve construction as an integral element Construction is often simply taken for granted and as lying outside the consideration of morphology and design

This reveals a second reason why urban morphology and urban design lsquobelong togetherrsquo not only do lsquomorphologiesrsquo and designs occupy the same abstract domain but the processes of morphology and design belong together because the outputs of morphological analysis are required as the inputs of urban design That is the process of urban morphological interpretation generates the lsquothingsrsquo (urban morphological elements and ordering rules) with which to design As such the process of design of itself requires and creates the need for morphology as its input Under the framework of figure 6 design cannot proceed without first having the morphological material to design with whether this lsquomorphologyrsquo is drawn from an immediate explicit precursor (eg a particular exemplary city quarter) or a general stock of morphological set-pieces types standards and rules of thumb As such this makes morphology seem more relevant and essential than might otherwise be supposed from the designerrsquos point of view The morphology (form) as a product is the raw material from which a design is made and the process of morphology is a necessary prelude to design In effect we are saying that designers (those using graphic representations of physical solutions prior to construction) really do use morphology even if not consciously so in the process somewhere between visiting the site and rendering the final design

Yet this is not to claim that the abstract processes of morphology or design are essential to the creation of the urban fabric It is possible to create a building ndash or a



between the abstract and the built Indeed it is possible (but not inevitable) that there is a repeating cycle c rarr b rarr a rarr d rarr c rarr

Additionally we can identify two alter-nating lsquohemicyclesrsquo ndash on the left half of the diagram a hemicycle associated with urban morphology and on the right half a hemicycle associated with urban design We can interpret these hemicycles as follows

emspUrban morphology in the broad sense is about the part of the cycle that gets from one abstract urban form to the next via the physical fabric Urban morphology tries to interpret what happened between the original morphology and the present mor-phology and by analysing these infer what are perhaps hidden historical processes of planned construction and unplanned build-ing In this sense morphology is concerned with acts of construction (c) and lsquomakingrsquo (b) as well as abstraction (a)

emspUrban design in the broad sense is about the part of the cycle that gets from one physical fabric to the next via the abstract

whichever labels we use morphology seems to be inextricable from design It is either an essential prerequisite of urban design (where design is interpreted in narrow terms d) or is an integral part of it (interpreted in the broadest sense embracing a b c d)

Cycles through Time

Urban morphology is not just about abstraction and urban design is not just about manipulation of abstractions We can take a wider view which becomes apparent when we broaden the perspective with respect to time Time order is already implicitly woven into the fabric of the framework (fi gure 6) but may be seen more explicitly by adding an extra iteration to the framework (fi gure 7)

In figure 7 we see that the existing urban fabric (bottom centre) is itself a product of previous urban change The top left-hand icon represents an earlier design giving rise to an iteration of construction (c) followed by a period of lsquounplannedrsquo change (b) Overall we can see a sense of progression through time from left to right7 alternating

Figure 7enspThe framework extended to depict past present and future Within this we can identify two lsquohemicyclesrsquo identifi able with urban morphology and urban design in a broader sense



then the designs we create are likely to be dysfunctional For example if we interpret lsquoneighbourhoodsrsquo too crudely as discrete self-contained sub-units when in reality they are more subtle porous overlapping entities then designing a new town based on discrete self-contained lsquoneighbourhood unitsrsquo is in danger of leading to a dysfunctional outcome ndash or at least an outcome that performs rather differently from the original fabric of neighbourhoods it purports to draw from (Alexander 1965 Marshall 2009)

Third insofar as morphology (in its broader sense) is concerned with morphogenetics or understanding form as a product of a forma-tion process then a poor understanding of morphological formation could lead to poor design In this case the aspired form itself (the morphology) could be admirable but the assumed process of arriving at it could be problematic Simply lsquocopying and pastingrsquo the final forms of buildings or whole towns will not necessarily work without understanding how such forms arose in the first place This relates to the specific nature of the urban product which to some extent is a collective emergent entity And this is partly why urban design is different from other kinds of design ndash product design say or architectural design

When it comes to urban design we can see that design here is not just a matter of learning from previous acts of design (d) but must also learn from how the physical urban fabric changed according to lsquounplannedrsquo acts of building (b) and emergent forms arising from the interaction of these For this reason urban design must learn not only from urban design theory (in the narrow sense of the theory that has guided previous urban designs or designed urban fabrics) ndash or from lsquothe morphologyrsquo of previous urban designs ndash but also from the study of the form and formation of existing urban fabrics whether these be designed or emergent In other words the urban designer can (and must) also learn from cases where successful outcomes are not wholly the products of deliberate design but products

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

Perhaps curiously this means that urban morphology ndash despite its connotations as an abstract discipline ndash is nevertheless intimately concerned with the physical fabric and is in a sense more interested than urban design in what happens to the physical fabric outside of designed activity Conversely urban design ndash despite its practical orientation ndash is in a sense only fulfilled and justified through this excursion into the abstract Overall figure 7 helps to explain the ways in which urban morphology and urban design are sensed to be linked yet heading in different directions ndash overlapping but almost taking place lsquoback to backrsquo

How Morphological Understanding Aids Design

From the foregoing framework we can sug-gest three ways in which a lack of att ention to morphology could lead to poor design

First a design could be poor or dysfunc-tional if it copies or draws from urban exemplars with lsquopoorly performingrsquo mor-phology (Hall and Sanders this issue) Put another way the design could be based on organizational principles or abstract perhaps artistic forms which do not relate to 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 draw from an existing well-performing urban exemplar but if the design is based on an inadequate morphological representation of that reality we would be in danger of producing inadequate designs This is like saying that our lsquoraw materialsrsquo are of poor quality or as the computer science catch-phrase has it lsquogarbage in garbage outrsquo That is if our morphological model is too crude



outrsquo A third reason is where there is limited understanding of lsquounplannedrsquo as well as lsquoplannedrsquo morphogenetic processes Urban design cannot therefore rely purely on urban lsquotheories of designrsquo but must also be informed by other lsquotheories of urban changersquo In each of these cases the argument is of itself not new but we can now see these belong together as a function of what happens in the abstract space of the morphology-design continuum

The framework suggested in this paper can also help organize knowledge about the contributions of various urban design theorists in relation to each other (figure 8) Urban design theory might be said to occupy the part of the framework that gives a rationale for organizing lsquothe morphologyrsquo into lsquoa designrsquo (d) But the urban design literature may be interpreted more widely For example Lynchrsquos elements (1960) are an exercise in morphological abstraction from which urban designers must apply their own strategies for use in design (figure 8a) Similarly Alexanderrsquos A city is not a tree (1965) can be read as a critique of inadequate urban morphological interpretation (not just a critique of top-down design) conversely his advocacy for lsquomakingrsquo in The Nature of Order (2005) can be seen to bypass mor-phology (and depending on how it is defined design) as does Rudowskyrsquos (1969) Architecture without Architects (figure 8b) Finally the framework reflects a lack of interest on the theme of construction (figure 8c) within urban morphology and urban design literatures (Larkham 2002 Biddulph 2003 Ccedilalışkan and Marshall this issue)

From figure 8 we also see that many issues considered part of the urban design domain (and literature) are not directly to do with design as such but relate to control of design Formal development control or design control can be applied to influence what designers design (figure 8e) This is readily identifiable as a classic function of town planning Alternatively control could in principle be applied to regulate informal

of spontaneous land uses and activities for-tuitous juxtapositions unforeseen adapta-tions (Marshall 2009 pp 253ndash254)

In effect it is the incremental emergent nature of the urban fabric that makes urban design different from other kinds of design that makes analysis of it more like the way we analyse other emergent morphological phenomena (the domain of science rather than the study of design precedents) On the one hand this helps explain why urban morphology can be seen as being more remote from urban design than say architectural morphology and architectural design On the other hand it suggests why urban morphology and urban design have particular need to be linked arguably more so than in contexts where all morphologies are designed (and could be covered within design theory) or contexts where (as in nature) morphogenetic processes need not take account of design

Conclusions and Implications

This paper has provided a framework (fi gure 6) within which the relationships between urban morphology and urban design may be discussed and bett er understood Here we recap the paperrsquos key conclusions relate the framework to the wider literature suggest two routes for further development and two fronts on which urban morphology and urban design could be advanced in practice

First the framework can help visualize how morphology and design can be seen as both lsquobelonging togetherrsquo in the abstract domain and yet rather distinct as processes reflecting different parts of the lsquodesign cyclersquo over time

Second the paper has suggested three reasons why poor morphological understand-ing can lead to poor design outcomes The first reason is that the designs do not relate well to lsquogoodrsquo urban morphology in the first place The second reason is where the morphology is an inadequate representation or reflection of reality ndash lsquogarbage in garbage



vidual morphological elements (eg street width building height) versus morphological concepts treating an urban form as a whole (eg linearity permeability legibility) There are also questions about what is the appro-priate level of abstraction for the purposes of design (figure 9)

In figure 9 while (a1) represents the conventional urban morphology schools with a limited degree of diagrammatic abstraction (a2) refers the morphological approaches having higher level of abstractions eg Steadman (1983) and Clark and Pause (1985) in architectural morphology Marshall (2005) in urban morphology Meanwhile the design process itself can be classified in two phases

(d1) conceptual design ndash that is coming up with a new design idea represented in the abstract diagram8 and

(d2) model articulation ndash that is metrical visualization of the abstract design idea in order to communicate with the third parties

processes of lsquobuildingrsquo and lsquomakingrsquo (figure 6b 8b) This kind of control (figure 8f) is a relatively unexplored topic in the urban design literature although some texts could be interpreted as addressing this issue (Hakim 2008 Marshall 2011) Figure 8 articulates the clear distinction between town planning as master planning or lsquotown designrsquo (for example Gibberd 1967) which is in effect a kind of large-scale or outline design (figure 8d) and the role of planning to do with planning regulations and development control (figure 8e and potentially figure 8f)

The framework introduced in figure 6 provides a conceptual foundation which can be further expanded and elaborated in 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 8enspA selection of theoretical contributions in urbanism mapped out within the basic framework urban morphology and design



is that of urban design as a collective activity or coordination of lsquodesign by many handsrsquo That is urban design need not just be about designing lsquowhole ensemblesrsquo but the design process itself could be organized in a collective way through instruments such as design coding where there is a division of labour between a generic level of lsquodesign controlrsquo and individual acts of design ndash or lsquomakingrsquo (figure 8e and 8f) This could potentially contribute to new kinds of lsquoplanningrsquo ndash including the possibility of lsquoplanning without master plannersrsquo

Finally we suggest implications for inte-gration of urban morphology and design practice as a kind of lsquojoint venturersquo on two fronts First stronger linkage between urban morphology and design can be founded on exploiting the shared lsquocommon groundrsquo of the abstract domain and the potential

with realistic drawings and (physical or digital) models as the operational tools for the construction phase

In parallel with (d2) there is a counter-process towards analysis (morphology) Pro-cess (a3) basically represents the lsquoperformance evaluationrsquo of the design model produced (a3) tests the produced imaginary design scheme against the lsquoidealrsquo design concepts embedded in the abstract design diagram (ie integration legibility coherence etc) This systematic scrutiny is what we call lsquomorphological design researchrsquo (recall figure 5) Taken together we see how the activity of design can be regarded as broader than the core process represented by (d1) but can also include elements of analysis and abstraction (a2) as well as (d2)9

The second area for further development

Figure 9enspDiff erent levels of abstraction within the framework of urban morphology and design reveal more complex relationships between diff erent kinds of abstraction and design



linguistics (Concise Oxford English Dictionary 2002) Guumlney points out the fundamental role of lsquomorphemersquo in morphology (2008 p 98) as the smallest meaningful and undividable unit of a form-composition (Ibid p 99) The importance of the concept basically derives from the composite and combinatorial nature of urban form (Lozano 1990 pp 40 242)

3emspThere are some analysis and design approaches which combine these two diff erent modes of representation in one domain lsquoparametricismrsquo in design and the confi gurative spatial research methods (ie space syntax or isovist analysis ) in morphology

4emspThis conclusion echoes Broadbentrsquos sug-gestion that lsquoknowledge is the raw material for designrsquo (1995 p 20 cited in Hanson 2001 p 2) and Kropfrsquos idea of the urban designer as craft sman (this issue)

5emspStrictly speaking construction in its everyday interpretation is practically synonymous with building as activities taking place within the physical world However here we take con-struction (fi gure 6c) to mean specifi cally something relating from the abstract to the physical or making something concrete from something abstract 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 a plan to a town simply by reversing the process that produces a plan from a town) Note also that while physical change occupies the lower part of fi gure 6 the interpretation of construction as an activity lsquoin timersquo depends on how the passage of time is interpreted (see note 7)

6emspThe claim that whole buildings or sett lements can be created lsquowithout designrsquo depends on the defi nition of design Here the point is that where design is considered in the narrow sense of manipulation of forms in the abstract domain (fi gure 6d) to generate a preconceived specifi cation of the whole product prior to construction then this activity is not essential to the creation of buildings or sett lements But this does not imply that buildings made lsquoby handrsquo or sett lements created by aligning buildings lsquoby eyersquo might not involve deliberate will or cognitive ability nor that parts of buildings or parts of sett lements might not involve design locally

7emspMore elaborate interpretations of time order are possible 1 One could argue that the physical world only exists in the present and that the past and future only exist as abstract projections from

of a common morphological language To strengthen this

1emspUrban morphological analysis should be tailored more towards the kinds of abstraction that are most useful for designers to use in practice and

2emspUrban design practice and education should be supported by new tools and methods informed by the immense body of abstract morphological knowledge

A second front relates to the wider inter-pretation of the lsquohemicyclesrsquo of morphology and design over time (fi gure 7) Each discipline can learn more from each other

3 Urban designers should be educated in wider lsquotheories of urban changersquo that take account of urban processes other than those controlled by professional designers and planners and

4 Urban morphologistsrsquo education should include explicit att ention to the methods and motivations of urban designers to help account for the observed (or hidden) changes in urban fabrics over time

By such means we hope that the diff erent lsquohemispheresrsquo of the urban morphology and design domains could be bett er united so the left hand and the right hand ndash while doing diff erent things ndash do them in full knowledge of one another towards common ends

NOTES

1emspMorphology in its broad interpretation includes study of both form and formation (table 1 Whitehand 1981 Moudon 1997 Kropf 2001) Alternatively it is also possible to distinguish morphology as study of form and morphogenetics as study of formation

2emspDrawing from the basic defi nition of morphology as lsquothe study of morphemes including the study of infl ectional unitsrsquo in



Alexander C (2005) The Nature of Order An Essay of the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe Book 3 Berkeley CA Center for Environmental Structure

Batt y M (2001) Exploring isovist fi elds space and shape in architectural and urban morphology Environment and Planning B 28 pp 123ndash150

Benedikt ML (1979) To take hold of space isovists and isovist fi eld Environment and Planning B 6 pp 47ndash65

Biddulph M (2003) The Bibliography of Urban Design Available at htt pwwwrudinetnode6610 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 Urban Space Design London Routledge

Buchanan P (1988) What city A plea for place in the publi c realm Architectural Review 184(1101) pp 31ndash41

Buchanan P (1997) A lecture talk in the symposium of lsquoThe New Urban Agenda for Urban Designrsquo October 1996 Department of Environment cited in Cowan R (1997) The new urban agenda Urban Design Quarterly 63 pp 18ndash23

Bullock A Stallybrass O and Trombley S (1988) The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought 2nd ed London Fontana Press

Ccedilalışkan O and Marshall S (2011) Urban mor-phology and design ndash Introduction Built Environment (this issue)

Castells M (1983) The City and the Grassroots A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements Berkeley CA University of California Press

Chapman DW (2006) Applying macro urban morphology to urban design and development planning Vallett a and Floriana Urban Mor-phology 10(1) pp 23ndash40

Caniggia G and Maff ei GL ( 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 1ndash19

Clark RH and Pause M (2005 [1985]) Analytic Diagrams 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 Urban Design Quarterly 63 pp 18ndash23

the present As such the lower part of fi gure 7 would always exist in the present Then a design could be considered an abstract foreshadow of a future morphology The design (as lsquofuture morphology seen from the presentrsquo) would be conceptually distinguishable from the morphology (as lsquoabstraction of physical fabric existing once the future has arrivedrsquo) though both would occupy the same time frame 2 The vertical dimension could either mean something instantaneous (correspondence of abstract and physical domains at a given point in time) or processes taking place through time with positive duration (morphological abstraction or construction) 3 Although construction (c) is shown vertically this does not mean it takes place instantaneously (any more than the task of morphological abstraction is instantaneous) the physical processes associated with construction occupy the physical world through time The framework could be refi ned to refl ect the ramifi cations of these temporal interpretations explicitly but there is no space (or time) to pursue this here

8emspEven though the main direction of the second step of design process (d2) ndash from abstract diagram to the geometric scheme ndash seems one-way it actually comprises a series of feedbacks from scheme to diagram as well These feedbacks mainly allow the designer to make the necessary changes in the abstract diagram to fi t the basic idea into the context

9emspAs Lawson (2006) states design comprises analysis synthesis and evaluation in a cyclic pro-cess Such a dynamic process can be seen as a simulation of evolution comprising genetic combi-nations (types) mutations (form transformations) and selection (design) see de Jong (2009) Note that morphological design research cannot operate at the level of simple diagrams the designed morphology needs to be expressed at a suffi cient degree of resolution to be meaningfully decomposed and analyzed

REFERENCES

Alexander C (1965) A city is not a tree Architectural Forum 122(1) pp 58ndash62 (Part I) and 122(2) pp 58ndash62 (Part II)

Alexander C Ishikawa S and Silverstein M (1977) A Patt ern 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



Ontwerpdiscipline [On Urbanism a Search for the Foundations of the Urban Design Discipline] Delft Delft University Press

Hillier B and Hanson J (1984) The Social Logic of Space Cambridge Cambridge University Press

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

Jacobs J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities New York Random House

Kropf K (1998) Typological zoning in Petruccioli A (ed) Typological Process and Design Theory Cambridge MA Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture pp 127ndash140

Kropf K (2001) Conceptions of change in the built environment Urban Morphology 5(1) pp 29ndash42

Kropf K (2009) Aspects of urban form Urban Morphology 13(2) pp 105ndash120

Kropf K (2011) Morphological investigations cutt ing into the substance of urban form Built Environment (this issue)

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

Larkham PJ (1998) Urban morphology and typology in the United Kingdom in Petruccioli A (ed) Typological Process and Design Theory Cambridge MA Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture pp 159ndash177

Larkham PJ (2002) Consolidated Urban Morphology Reading List Available at htt pwwwurbanformorgbibliographyhtml Accessed January 2011

Larkham PJ (2005) Understanding urban form Urban Design 93 pp 22ndash24

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

Lozano E (1990) Community Design and Culture of Cities Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Lynch K (1960) The Image of the City Cambridge MA MIT Press

Marett o M (2005) Urban morphology as a basis for urban design the project for the Isola dei Cantieri in Chioggia Urban Morphology 9(1) pp 29ndash44

Marshall S (2005) Streets and Patt erns 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 the sieve and the template towards an operational

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

Cullen G (1961) Townscape London Architectural Press

Cuthbert AR (2006) The Form of Cities Political Economy and Urban Design Oxford Blackwell

De Jong TM ( 2009) lsquoThe Evolution of a Designrsquo Available at htt pteambktudelft nl Accessed December 2010

Gauthier P and Gilliland J (2006) Mapping urban morphology a classifi cation scheme for interpreting contributions to the study of urban form Urban Morphology 10(1) pp 41ndash50

Gebauer M and Samuels I (1981) Urban Morphology An Introduction Joint Centre for Urban Design Research Note 8 Oxford Oxford Polytechnic

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

Guumlnay B (1999) Urban Design is a Public Policy Ankara METU Faculty of Architecture Press

Gunder M (2011) Commentary is urban design still urban planning An exploration and response Journal of Planning Education and Research 20(10) pp 1ndash12

Guumlney A (2008) Architectural Precedent Analysis A Cognitive Approach to Morphological Analysis of Buildings in Relation to Design Process in Zarzar KM and Guumlney A (eds) Understanding Meaningful Environments Archi-tectural Precedents and the Question of Identity in Creative Design Amsterdam IOS Press pp 91ndash113

Gygax F (2007) The morphological basis of urban design experiments in Giudecca Venice Urban Morphology 11(2) pp 111ndash125

Hall T and Sanders P (2011) Morphological design control for large-scale city development ndash a new proposal Built Environment (this issue)

Hakim BS (2008) Mediterranean urban and build-ing codes origins content impact and lessons Urban Design International 13(1) pp 21ndash40

Hanson J (2001) Morphology and Design Re-conciling Intellect Intuition and Ethics in the Refl ective Practice of Architecture in Proceedings of the 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium Available at htt peprintsuclacuk1024 Accessed 5 October 2011

Hayward R (1993) lsquoTalking tissuesrsquo in Hayward R and McGlynn S (eds) Making Bett er Places Urban Design Now Oxford Butt erworth

Heeling J (2001) Over Stedebouw Een Zoektocht naar de Grondslagen van de Stedebouwkundige



Samuels I (1993) The Plan drsquoOccupation des Sols for Asnieres sur Oise a morphological design guide in Hayward R and McGlynn S (eds) Making Bett er Places Urban Design Now Oxford Butt erworth

Samuels I (1999) A typomorphological approach to design Urban Design International 4(3) pp 129ndash141

Smailes AE (1955) Some refl ections on the geographical description of townscapes Institute of British Geographers Transactions and Papers no 21 pp 99ndash115

Spreiregen PD (1965) Urban Design The Archi-tecture of Town and Cities New York McGraw-Hill

Steadman P (1983) Architectural Morphology An Introduction to the Geometry of Building Plans London Pion

Steadman JP (1998) Sketch for an archetypal building Environment and Planning B 27 pp 92ndash105

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 htt pwwwurbanformorgglossaryhtml Accessed in January 2011

Wall E and Waterman T (2009) Basics Landscape Architecture Urban Design Lausanne AVA Publishing

Whitehand JWR (1981) Background to the urban morphogenetic tradition in Whitehand JWR (ed) The Urban Landscape Historical Development and Management Papers by MRG Conzen London Academic Press pp 1ndash24

urban morphology Urban Morphology 4(2) pp 79ndash89

Mehaff y M W (2011) A city is not a rhinoceros on the aims and opportunities of morphogenetic urban design Built Environment (this issue)

Meyer H (2005) Plan analysis in de Jong TM and van der Voortdt DJM (eds) Ways to Study and Research Urban Architectural and Technical Design Amsterdam IOS Press pp 125ndash135

Moudon AV (1986) Built for Change Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco Cambridge MA MIT Press

Moudon AV (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary fi eld Urban Mor-phology 1(1) pp 3ndash10

Mumford E (2009) Defi ning Urban Design CIAM Architects and the Formation of a Discipline 1937ndash69 New Haven CT Yale University Press

Muratori S (1959) Studi Per Una Operante Storia Urbana di Venezia Rome Instituto Poligraphico dello Stato

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

Panerai P Depaule JC Domorgon M and Veyrenche M (1980) Eleacutements drsquoanalyse urbaine Brussels Editions Archives drsquoArchitecture Moderne

Pitt as M (1982) Preface in Ferebee A (ed) Education for Urban Design New York Institute for Urban Design

Punter J and Carmona M (1997) The Design Dimension Of Planning Theory Content and Best Practice for Design Policies London E amp FN Spon

Rowley A (1994) Defi nitions of urban design the nature and concerns of urban design Planning Practice and Research 9(3) pp 179ndash197

Rudowsky B (1969) Architecture without architects New York Museum of Modern Art



aims and methods of urban morphology and urban design is not just of lsquoacademicrsquo interest The lack of integration has been blamed for urban places being sub-optimal or dysfunctional Conversely better integration of urban morphology and design can potentially help create better urban places (Ccedilalışkan and Marshall this issue) These suppositions relate both to contemporary calls for an integration between the two fields

with the agency of professional designers in shaping urban change underestimating the influences of chance contingency and context (figure 3) Urban morphologists and urban designers often seem to be looking in different directions or working at cross-purposes It is almost as if the right hand does not always know what the left hand is doing

The perceived dislocation between the

Figure 3enspA pure case of design where the urban fabric (right) is a direct expression of an urban designerrsquos vision (left ) Urban morphologists recognize this as a special case More oft en the urban fabric is put together in a more complex way morphologists are concerned with more than what designers design (Source By courtesy of Kuiper Compagnons 2006)

Figure 2enspIconic morphological study on Venice by Saverio Muratori (1959) the founder of Italian morphology school (Muratori 2001) Urban designers sometimes see this kind of morphological study as an intriguing but optional excursion into urban historical geography













Urban Morphology



Defi nition Source











Urban Design














Defi nition Source





































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES
















































































Urban Morphology



Defi nition Source











Urban Design














Defi nition Source





































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES








































































Urban Morphology



Defi nition Source











Urban Design














Defi nition Source





































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES







































































Urban Design














Defi nition Source





































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES









































































Defi nition Source





































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES







































































































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES





























































































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES



















































































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES











































































Cycles through Time



























































NOTES

























REFERENCES



























































































































NOTES

























REFERENCES
















































































































NOTES

























REFERENCES





































































































NOTES

























REFERENCES



























































































NOTES

























REFERENCES



















































































NOTES

























REFERENCES


























































































REFERENCES






























































































































































A Joint Framework for Urban Morphology and Design

Documents