URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN:INTRODUCTION

Urban Morphology and Design: Introduction

OLGU ALIKAN and STEPHEN MARSHALL Urban planning has seen a succession of clashing ideologies and fashions swinging in and out of favour over the last century, which are intimately tied up with both urban morphology and urban design (gure 1). Camillo Sitte (1899) used a morphological understanding of the urban fabric to formulate principles for urban design, or city planning according to artistic principles. Then along came Le Corbusier who castigated those traditional urban fabrics and proposed his own modernist solutions (1933). But those modernist solutions in turn fell out of favour, criticized by the likes of Jane Jacobs (1961), just as more traditional townscapes became appreciated once more for their urban qualities (Cullen, 1961). Modernist-style urban fabrics continue to be created and criticized (Trancik, 1986; Alexander, 2002a, 2002b; Shelton, 2011). In response, neo-traditional urbanists propose contemporary designs based on an appreciation of traditional urban fabrics (for example, Katz, 1994; Krier, 2006). However, some of the contemporary approaches, although in principle alert to the failures of Modernism, may in practice replicate some of their undesired effects, not least in the case of large-scale masterplanned developments, gated communities, and whole new settlements planned from the top down. In several respects the lessons of Jacobs and Alexander have not been learned (Marshall, 2009, pp. 4849). As far as masterplanned developments are concerned, indeed, the defining battle between conventional modernist and neo-traditional approaches is to a large degree a battle over the urban fabric (Ibid., p. 3): in terms of the format of
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

streets and spaces, their relation to buildings, the scale and grain of development, and the relation to urban context (Hebbert, 2003; Mehaffy, 2008; Campbell, 2010). Underlying these arguments is an implicit premise that better linkage of urban morphology and urban design produce better places and the converse argument, that the lack of integration leads to less successful urbanism. This is to say that urban designers creating urban compositions without a good understanding of the form and functioning of the existing urban fabrics risk failing to fulfil the place-making potential of those who do integrate their design with a morphological understanding. There seems to be unexplored potential to integrate better urban morphology and design to help inform better design and planning practice; and it is this potential that this issue of Built Environment sets out to explore. In this opening paper, we first introduce some current problems concerning place making in relation to morphology and design, and sketch out some background to the fields of urban morphology and urban design, including a comparison of the scope of their literature. From here, we articulate what we believe are the outstanding challenges, before providing an overview of the papers in this issue, and finally reflecting on their implications. The Problem of Urban Place Making in Perspective The problem of urban place making can be seen manifested in three ongoing challenges relating to the lack of integration between
381

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN

Figure 1.Contrasting traditions of the morphological perspective in design thinking: classifying the instance, criticizing the model, manifesting the alternative. Top: Same-scale comparison of the traditional and Radiant Citys new modern block patterns by Le Corbusier (1935). Middle: Comparison of traditional and modern urban blocks in favour of the neo-traditional alternative by Lon Krier (1977). Bottom: The comparison of modernist setting with the proposed urban fabric of the generic city by Rem Koolhaas (1995) (Sources: Le Corbusier, 1964, p. 164; Krier, 2009, p. 136; Koolhaas et al., 1995, pp. 1126, 1133).
382 BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN:INTRODUCTION

urban morphology and urban design. We can refer to these here for convenience as lack of socio-spatial perspective, big architecture and two-dimensional planning. The first concern relates to the perceived dislocation of urban design from sociospatial concerns such as the public good, social and environmental justice, ecological sustainability, socio-economic diversity and fairness (Gunder, 2010). Cuthbert (2007, p. 177) criticized urban design for lacking a concerted attempt to link the material creation or designing of urban space and form to fundamental societal processes beyond the enduring market rationale. In todays context, urban form can often seem a simple aggregate of private interests or form follows finance (Lang, 1994). Such a context based on piecemeal and collage-like urban (trans)formation patterns comprises both positive and negative consequences with regards to morphology and design. While the process leads to deep fragmentation in the morphology of cities (Busquets, 2006, p. 9), it also indicates new opportunities for a better production of city parts with increased awareness on the intermediate scale of urban form. The second concern, that of urban design as big architecture, applies to contemporary redevelopment models involving massive compositions of large floorplate and visually monumental high-rise office and residential developments. While this format may be acceptable from an economic perspective, the result may be criticized from a morphological point of view (Scheer, 2008, p. 140; Allies, 2010, p. 20). The creation of these huge package programmes involving uniform architectural treatment and the consolidation of finegrained collective forms is identified as one of the major factors behind the loss of positive morphological qualities of our districts. The more urbanism loses its ability to operate with the complex patterns of property structure on urban space the lost art of subdivision the less open, diverse and coherent are the urban fabrics turned out (Campbell and Cowan, 2002; Campbell, 2010, p. 5).
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

A related problem with the point of big architecture results from another misconception in contemporary urban design, which considers the design of urban fabric from the perspective of product or graphic design. Considering urban form simplistically as a composite object or geometrized pattern, this interpretation in urban design overemphasizes the surface reality of form (and therefore disregards the collective quality of urban form), the potential creativity within urban types and typologies novelty for its own sake and the content-wise possibilities of the context (figure 2). The third concern derives from the planning side of the urbanism. Le Corbusier (1933, p. 198) classically asserted that city planning is a three-dimensional rather than a two-dimensional science. The lack of form and space quality in local development plans and the enduring two-dimensional landuse paradigm in planning (Hall, 2008, pp. 7778) is still one of the major problems for many contemporary planning systems. As asserted by Walters (2007, pp. 3141) the root of the problem goes back to the early transformation of spatial planning emerging as an autonomous field by ending its reliance on physical design. Such a transformation basically signifies the disrupted relationship between policy design and physical (or physicalist) planning from the emergence of systems planning from the late 1950s planning (see also Taylor, 1998), to contemporary approaches such as advocacy, incrementalist, strategic, and environmental planning (Klosterman, 1985) and social policy perspectives (Davidoff, 1965). Although such a transformation may be considered as a natural evolution of urban planning in the context of increased socio-spatial and political complexity, at least from the point of view of planning theory, it has resulted in a kind of disconnection between planning and the normative theories of urban form in design which mainly considers the substantial physical nature of human settlements (Talen and Ellis 2002). The paradigmatic shift in
383

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN

Figure 2.Above: The competition entry by MVRDV (2008): a mixeduse urban ecological master plan, Tirana, Albania (rst prize). Below: the design scheme of Lingang New City, Shanghai, China (gmp von Gerkan, Marg and Partner Architects, 2002). Is there a third way out for the contemporary urban design apart from generically objectifying collective urban form or total geometric control for a symbolic formalism? (Source: By courtesy of MVRDV and gmp Heiner Leiska)

planning has also found its reflection in the changing mode of representation of space; the more procedural and conceptual nature of spatial planning has lost the emphasis on the perceived quality of the intermediate scale-urban form. This gap has filled by the emergence of urban design. The Agency of Urban Morphology and Design Finding its historical roots in the continental approach of urban architecture and functionalist urbanism since the late 1920s (Mumford, 2009), urban design was recognized as a disciplinary solution for the real gap between architecture and planning through the 1960s (Gosling, 2002, p. 7). Currently, urban design has become recognized as an interdisciplinary
384

eld of study, practised by those from architectural and planning backgrounds (Lang, 1994, Moudon, 1992). Urban design is sometimes seen as a specialized side discipline or sub-discipline of planning, or an extension of architecture; or up to a point could be considered a discipline (if not quite a profession) in its own right, with a range of journals and periodicals dedicated to it.1 While urban design was progressing on its own track, another interdisciplinary research field on urban space and form has been developed simultaneously in different European schools. Although their conventions have been based on a small number of leading authors, those approaches have represented different urban morphology schools in time (Moudon, 1997). With an increasing amount of interest gathering
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN:INTRODUCTION

around the issue, internationally, urban morphology has been highly institutionalized around the organization of ISUF (International Seminar on Urban Form) with its own academic journal, Urban Morphology since 1997. The main asset of the new research field was that it had provided a systemic conceptual framework and various techniques of spatial representation to understand urban form and formation in relation to the constitutional elements of urban form: the building, the plot and the street (after Conzen, 1969; Caniggia and Maffei, 1979; Kropf, 1996). This could be said to be particularly useful in those approaches emerging in reaction to conventional Modernism, for three reasons: first, the interest in pre-existing context; second, the attention to traditional units of design such as the street and even the plot (which open-plan Modernist layouts often did without); and thirdly, to do with understanding what it was that worked in traditional urban fabrics, that was lost in Modern ones. Although arising in a sense independently, as separate responses to modern urban planning, the links between urban morphology and urban design have often been present, at least implicitly, and in some cases, explicitly. Such connections can be observed in different schools through urban design history in which many designers analysed and drew normative conclusions out of the existing forms and patterns (figure 1). Among them, the most obvious relation can be viewed in the neo-traditionalist and neo-rationalist design schemes like those of the Krier brothers (Krier, 2009; Krier, 2006), Katz (1994), Duany and Plater-Zyberk (1991) and Calthorpe (1993). From a morphological point of view, the originality of their design thinking derives from the design models which are the products of a systemic typological understanding of traditional urban forms (Krier, 1979). In this sense, the endeavour to comprehend the nature of urban form can be considered as an intrinsic phase of any urban design process as looking
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

at the already established conditions to define, accordingly, design problems and relevant design responses (Erickson and Lloyd-Jones, 2001, pp. 34). Despite the fact that there has been always a built-in relation between urban morphology and design in urbanism, it has not always been easy to see an explicit concern to systemize such a link between these two domains from a theoretical (conceptual and methodological) perspective. To gain an insight into the scope of the field of urban morphology and design, we provide a brief overview of their respective literatures. The Literature According to the Urban Morphology reading list compiled by Peter Larkham (2002), with a total of 469 publications, there are ten major research elds determined in urban morphology (Larkham, 2002). Among them, the topic of townscape, planning and management covers 9 per cent of all publications (gure 3). It is in this category that we might expect to nd dedicated urban design literature located, at least in terms of design as a process and professional activity. That said, other topics such as history and morphological elements (including streets and blocks and the like) are also closely related to the interests of urban designers. In order to reveal more directly the specific position of urban design in the literature of urban morphology, we now re-analyse and re-classify Larkhams original list of 469 references into four categories: researches on general design theory; contemporary urban design practice; design history; and morphological researches which are not related to urban planning and design. In this context, we recognize a very subordinate position for planning and design considerations in urban morphological research which corresponds to only about 10 per cent of the whole literature (figure 4). Now let us turn to see how urban morphology features within the urban design
385

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN

Figure 3.The distribution of sub-themes in the literature of urban morphology. (Source: After Larkham, 2002)

Figure 4.The proportion of urban morphological literature relating to design. (Source: Based on analysis of original list of references compiled by Larkham, 2002)

literature. According to the bibliographic research done by Mike Biddulph (2003), among 1230 books, articles and reports, the share of the publications which are directly related to urban morphology is only 7 per cent of the total (figure 5). So, just as urban design was a minority concern of urban morphology literature, urban morphology is a minority concern of the urban design literature. Despite this, the existence of a positively identifiable overlap indicates a
386

real potential for a closer link between the knowledge bases of these two fields. The Outstanding Challenge Taking the already emerging mutual interests of both elds into consideration, we see a real opportunity to realize the latent potential of better integrating urban morphology and urban design, addressing the implicit premise that this will lead to better place making.
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN:INTRODUCTION

Figure 5.The distribution of sub-themes in the literature of urban design (Source: After Biddulph, 2003)

Recognizing the contemporary critiques of urban design and place making noted earlier, our intention is not to promote a pure physicalist approach to urban design theory while aiming for a closer relation between design and morphology. Rather, we suppose that contemporary urban design can truly transcend such a critique by interacting with urban morphology, which deals with urban form as a collective product an aggregate of design interventions and user activities in a social context. From this perspective, urban morphology oers a highly potent platform and theoretical foundation to urban design to increase its eectiveness in a broader perspective. In turn, urban design as the design dimension of place making in general presents a prolic insight to urban morphology in the endeavour of understanding the productive forces behind the built environment. In this context, there is an outstanding challenge to explore ways of better linking urban morphology and design not only theoretically, but how this understanding can be applied to urban design and planning practice. There is an opportunity to relate more strongly concepts of morphology such as tissue, composition, topology, pattern and type (Leupen et al., 1997; Moudon, 1997; Kropf, 1996, 2009) to the instruments such as urban design frameworks, form-based
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

coding and planning regulations (Hall, 1997, 2008; Biddulph and Punter, 1999; Carmona, 1999, 2001; Parolek et al., 2008; Punter and Carmona, 1997; Larkham, 2005; Walters, 2007; Samuels, 2008; Marshall, 2011). In such a way, contemporary urban design and planning could benefit from more explicit morphological understanding and application in creating complex urban fabrics. The impulse for this exploration is partly pragmatic: to help improve the ultimate product of urban design, that is the urban fabric. But it is also an opportunity to forge better links theoretically and conceptually between morphology and design in the urban context, and by extension, the broader theoretical question of the sometimes seemingly mysterious relationship between analysis and design. This Issue This issue of Built Environment explores the ways in which urban morphology and design may be better integrated, with particular concern for how the concepts and methods of urban morphology can be used to support better urban design and planning. This does not mean that we are advocating any particular urban design approach such as a traditionalist or contextual approach but rather that we seek morphologically informed approaches whether these be
387

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN

traditionalist, supra-modernist or any other urban design approach. We are interested in questions such as: how can a stronger approach to physical form be (re)established in relation to spatial planning, through better morphological understanding? How can the morphological way of thinking about the urban fabric including its spatial context and temporal dynamic be used to inuence acts of design? And on which methodological and conceptual bases can we construct a morphology-led planning and design approach in urbanism? This issue aims to provide fresh insights into these questions, by reporting on recent and ongoing research and practice. Herein, we present six papers providing snapshots of works in progress extending understanding on conceptual, empirical and procedural fronts. Very broadly speaking, the first two papers synthesize and extend the conceptual territory; the next two look at detailed case studies in relatively unexplored contexts, and the final two explore the new procedural horizons of metropolitan scale morphology and morphogenetic urban design. First up, to help establish a conceptual baseline for the investigations in this issue, Karl Kropf presents a survey of recent applications of urban morphology in the practice of urban design and planning. In doing so, he considers the relationships between urban form, morphology and design, exploring the sense in which urban morphology describes the substance of urban form, the material with which the urban designer works. Kropf explores a range of themes, relating some selected urban design practices to wider narratives about urban morphological theories and traditions. From the perspective of a theoretician and design practitioner, Kropf addresses a new definition of urban designer as modern craftsman. Next up, Stephen Marshall and Olgu alkan explore fundamental conceptual relationships between urban morphology and design. While doing that, we examine the basic distinctions in the cognition and
388

action in morphology and design, reveal their common assumptions and then develop a joint framework which is based on the distinction between the domain of abstraction and the physical fabric, and their change over time. The framework eventually leads to a set of suggestions for a better integration between the two fields, and in particular, how better morphological understanding could lead to better urban design. Tony Hall and Paul Sanders then address the application of urban morphological understanding to the design of large-scale city developments in specific locations. They first review some existing approaches in Europe and South Africa, before presenting a case study from Brisbane which demonstrates some of the challenges of inserting new urban design into an existing urban fabric. The authors suggest an alternative framework based on historical morphological studies which they suggest points the way to a general approach to the design of large-scale city development that could be incorporated within the planning process internationally. From the same perspective of design control in planning, Tolga nl then examines the morphological nature of piecemeal urban changes in rapidly transforming urban fabrics, through the example of the city of Mersin, Turkey. Demonstrating the progressive transformations of urban fabric at the level of plot, block and tissue, nls empirical analysis demonstrates the effects of a planning system that allows piecemeal change to the urban fabric via partial plan modifications, without any strategic design control. We then move to the metropolitan scale. Peter Bosselmann reports on the use of morphological analysis as a tool for improving understanding of the form of the metropolitan landscape. He traces the urban transect to its roots in bio-geography and applies transects as a longitudinal sampling method to the design of the metropolitan landscape, demonstrated through design exercises relating to the Pearl River Delta and
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN:INTRODUCTION

the San Francisco Bay Area. These illustrate the experience of existing conditions and how through tentative design proposals future local conditions can be conceived that address sustainable development strategies applicable to an entire urbanized region. Finally, Michael Mehaffy describes recent developments in so-called morphogenetic or form-generating urban design tools and strategies. These involve some kind of code or specification for creating urban components rather than (as with a plan) a direct specification of a particular final product. Mehaffy offers a critical assessment of the fields aims, challenges and opportunities, examined through the contrasting approaches of Patrik Schumachers parameticism, Peter Eisenmans generative methods, Christopher Alexanders patterns and adaptive morphogenesis, and generative codes in relation to New Urbanism. Mehaffy concludes with a discussion of opportunities for the further development of promising new morphogenetic design tools and approaches. Taken together, these papers reflect a combination of conceptual and practical issues relating both to traditional and new morphological approaches that can inform urban design. While each paper draws its own conclusions, we can reflect here on a number of implications for planning in the built environment more widely that arise from the journal issue papers taken together. A first point relates to the provenance and very existence of planning. The modern town planning movement as something going beyond simply big urban design embodies the fundamental idea that a town is not just a designed object (the creation of a designer) but is almost like a living, growing organism, adapted to its environment. Historically, this relates to the idea of survey before plan, as pioneered by Patrick Geddes (whose use of the transect is discussed here by Bosselmann), which continues to be echoed in contemporary approaches which we could call morphology before design (represented especially in Kropf; Hall and
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

Sanders; Marshall and alkan). As such, one could argue that the emergence of the town planning movement can be seen as arising from the historical conjunction of urban morphology with urban design. The papers in this issue also contribute to arguments about the basic nature and purpose of planning is planning an art or a science; a technical or a political exercise? Kropf interprets urban design as a craft, but also notes the use of modern morphological indicators; the technical nature of planning is also seen especially in terms of morphological representation (Bosselmann) and morphogenetic tools (Mehaffy). Then again, we also see a role for morphology to assist with planning regulation (nl; Hall and Sanders). Meanwhile, Mehaffys analysis reveals tensions between urban design (and by extension planning) as a form of artistic expression, and as a means of solving problems of place making. It is not surprising that the ideology and technology of representation also features in this issue. After all, in a fundamental sense a plan is a technical form of representation, which takes us to the root of the meaning of planning in a historical sense (Turner, 1996). Today, rather than just two-dimensional paper plans, we have a plethora of representational and analytic tools, from GIS to simulation models; expanding use of data modelling, mapping and simulation technologies in urban studies has already addressed the increasing scope and efficiency in urban morphology. Representing large units of complex urban environments (Bosselmann) has a serious potential to free the urban morphologist from the very conventional handcrafted tradition of cartographic scrutiny and unveil the interpretative power of their analytical mind in pattern recognition. There is definite potential that a more efficient revelation of compositional rules of existing urban fabrics by urban morphology could find its reflection in more successful interpretations of the rules for designed urban forms
389

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN

through emerging morpho-generative design processes (Mehaffy). Then there is the issue of scale, which is woven through the conceptual territories of both urban morphology and urban design (Kropf). The papers in this issue run from the scale of plots and blocks (nl; Hall and Sanders) to the metropolitan scale (Bosselmann). These papers raise questions about how interventions at any given scale affect the urban morphology at other scales, which in turn relates to the wider planning issue of what is the desired scale of unit of planning. The concept of town planning, after all, implies the town as the unit at which to carry out design or planning; but the papers in this issue raise the possibility of planning interventions at smaller and larger scales which are both ongoing challenges. This in turn relates to a final challenge, that of top down planning versus bottom up urbanism. On the one hand, we can see the prospect of the urban fabric being created through generative urban codes and processes (Mehaffy) or the possibility of planning control being applied to both informal and formal design interventions (Marshall and alkan). These could represent a kind of bottom-up urbanism as an alternative to conventional master planning or town design. On the other hand, nls analysis of morphological change in the absence of strategic planning demonstrates some of the effects of allowing piecemeal change. This points to the need for more research into the different kinds of emergent effects whether positive or negative arising from different kinds of uncoordinated incremental processes or deliberately programmed generative codes. This relates to questions of both the optimal kind and scale of planning intervention. In each of these cases, we can see potential for synergies between approaches, but also the sense of clear alternative paths ahead which might become the ideological battles of urban morphology and design of the future.
390

NOTE 1.Dedicated periodicals include Urban Design, Journal of Urban Design, Urban Design International; and other urban design related journals include Urban Design and Planning (Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers) and the Journal of Urbanism. Other urban design related journals published at either national or international level are Architecture + Urbanism in Japan, Urbanistica in Italy, Stedebouw & Ruimtelke Ordeningin in the Netherlands, Architektur + Wettbewerbe in Germany, Revue Urbanisme in France, Planlama in Turkey.

REFERENCES Alexander, C. (2002a) The Nature of Order, Book 1. Berkeley, CA: Center for Environmental Structure. Alexander, C. (2002b) The Nature of Order, Book 2. Berkeley, CA: Center for Environmental Structure. Allies, B. (2010) Cultivating the City London before and after 2012. Amsterdam: SUN. Biddulph, M. (2003) The Bibliography of Urban Design. Available at http://www.rudi.net/ node/6610. Accessed in December 2010. Biddulph, M. and Punter, J. (1999) Urban Design Strategies in Practice, theme issue of Built Environment, 25(4). Busquets, J. (2006) A new lens for the urbanistic project, in Busquets, J. and Correa, F. (eds.) Cities: X Lines: Approaches to City and Open Territory Design. Rovereto: Nicolodi Editore. Calthorpe, P. (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Campbell, K. (2010) Making massive small change. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning, 163(DP1), pp. 36. Campbell, K. and Cowan, R. (2002) Re:Urbanism. London: Urban Exchange. Caniggia, G. and Maei, G.L. ( 1979 [2001]) Architectural Composition and Building Typology: Interpreting Basic Building. Firenze: Alinea. Carmona, M. (1999) Controlling the design of private sector residential development: an agenda for improving practice. Environment and Planning B, 26(6), pp. 807833. Carmona, M. (2001) Housing Design Quality: Through Policy, Guidance, and Review. London: Spon Press.
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN:INTRODUCTION

Conzen, M.R.G. (1969) Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town Plan Analysis. Publication no. 27. London: Institute of British Geographers. Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape. London: Architectural Press. Cuthbert, A.R. (2007) Urban design: requiem for an era review and critique of the last 50 years. Urban Design International, 12(4), pp. 177 223. Davido, P. (1965 [2003]) Advocacy and pluralism in planning, in Campbell, S. and Feinstein, S. (eds.) Readings in Planning Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Duany, A. and Plater-Zyberk, E. (1991) Towns and Town-Making Principles. New York: Rizzoli. Erickson. B. and Lloyd-Jones, T. (2001) Design problems, in Roberts, M. and Greed, C. (eds.) Approaching Urban Design: The Design Process. Harlow: Longman, pp. 37. Gosling, D. (2002) The Evolution of American Urban Design: A Chronological Anthology. Chichester: Wiley. Gunder, M. (2010) Commentary: Is urban design still urban planning? An exploration and response. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(10), pp. 112. Hall, A.C. (1997) Dealing with incremental change: an application of urban morphology to design control. Journal of Urban Design, 2(3), pp. 221 239. Hall, T. (2008) The form-based development plan: bridging the gap between theory and practice in urban morphology. Urban Morphology, 12(2), pp. 7795. Hebbert, M. (2003) New Urbanism. The movement in context. Built Environment, 29(3), pp. 193209. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death And Life Of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Katz, P. (1994) The New Urbanism: Toward An Architecture of Community. New York: McGrawHill. Klosterman, R.E. (1985) Arguments for and against planning. Town Planning Review, 56(1), pp. 520. Koolhaas, R., Mau , B., Sigler, J. and Werlemann, H. (1995) S, M, L, XL. New York: Monacelli. Krier, R. (1979) Urban Space. London: Academy Editions. Krier, R. (2006) Town Spaces: Contemporary Interpretations in Traditional Urbanism. Basel: Birkhuser. Krier, L. (2009) The Architecture of Community. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kropf, K. (1996) Urban tissue and the character
BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4

of towns. Urban Design International, 1(3), pp. 247263. Kropf, K. (2009) Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology, 13(2), pp. 105120. Lang, J. (1994) Urban Design: The American Experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lang, J. (2007 [1994]) Urban design as a discipline and as a profession, in Larice, M. and Macdonald, E. (eds.) The Urban Design Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 46178. Larkham, P.J. (2002) Consolidated Urban Morphology Reading List. Available at http://www. urbanform.org/bibliography.html. Accessed in January 2011. Larkham, P. J. (2005) Understanding urban form? Urban Design, 93, pp. 2224. Le Corbusier (1933 [1964]) The Radiant City: Elements of a Doctrine of Urbanism To Be Used as the Basis of Our Machine-Age Civilization . London: Faber. Leupen, B., Grafe, C., Krnig, N., Lampe, M. and de Zeuw, P. (1997) Design and Analysis. Rotterdam: 010. Marshall, S. (2009) Cities, Design and Evolution. London: Routledge. Marshall, S. (ed.) (2011) Urban Coding and Planning. Abingdon: Routledge. Mehay, M.W. (2008) Generative methods in urban design: a progress assessment. Journal of Urbanism, 1(1), pp. 5775. Moudon, A.V. (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary eld. Urban Morphology, 1(1), pp. 310. Moudon, A.V. (2003 [1992]) A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know, in Cuthbert, A.R. (ed.) Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design. Oxford: Blackwell: pp. 362386. Mumford, E. (2009) Dening Urban Design: CIAM Architects and the Formation of a Discipline, 1937 69. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Parolek, D.G., Parolek, K. and Crawford, P.C. (2008) Form Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Punter, J. and Carmona, M. (1997) The Design Dimension Of Planning: Theory, Content, and Best Practice for Design Policies. London: E & FN Spon. Samuels, I. (2008) Typomorphology and urban design practice. Urban Morphology, 12(1), pp. 5862.
391

URBANMORPHOLOGYANDDESIGN

Scheer B.C. (2008) Urban morphology and urban design. Urban Morphology, 12(2), pp. 140142. Shelton, B. (2011) Adelaides urban design: pendular swings in concepts and codes, in Marshall, S. (ed.) Urban Coding and Planning. London: Routledge. Sitte, C. (1889 [1945]) The Art of Building Cities. City Building According to its Artistic Fundamentals. New York: Reinhold. Talen, E. and Ellis, C. (2002) Beyond relativism: reclaiming the search for good city form. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, pp. 3649.

Taylor, N. (1998) Urban Planning Theory since 1945. London: SAGE. Trancik, R. (1986) Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Turner, T. (1996) City as Landscape. London: E & FN.Spon. Walters, D. (2007) Designing Community: Charrettes, Master Plans and Form-Based Codes. Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.

392

BUILTENVIRONMENTVOL37NO4