Urban Analysis

Guidebook
Typomorphology

Department of Urbanism
L. van den Burg, editor
H.C. Bekkering
P.G de Bois
E. Boot
L.M. Calabrese
W.J.A. Hermans
V.J. Meyer
E.H. Stolk

-3-

R = 30 km (approx. 1:1.000.000)

R = 10 km (approx. 1:350.000)

R = 3 km (approx. 1:100.000

R = 1 km (approx. 1:35.000)

R = 300 m (approx. 1:10.000

R = 100 m (approx. 1:3.500)

g. 1, Scale

- 48 -

Basic Techniques for Typomorphological Urban Analysis

Leo van den Burg

1: the unavoidable
In this chapter, we will discuss some of the basic techniques for what is sometimes called a typomorphological analysis. But before we can do this, there are a few things we have to make clear. Lets
rst agree that we will make analyses using maps as our basic material. This is not necessarily the case.
We could also analyse photographs, sketches, objects etc., also when making an urban analysis. For the
present purposes though, we will limit ourselves to the map. This is partly a matter of convention. Daily
urbanist practice usually prescribes maps as medium of communication. But maps also provide highly
standardised information which is easily comparable. More than that, maps can ensure that the results
of an analysis can be presented in yet more, but derived maps, resulting in veriable statements. A last
and obvious advantage of using maps for urban analysis is that larger scales are more easily graspable. A
disadvantage is that essentially, the urbanist does not analyse reality, but only a representation of reality.
The mapmaker has made a lot of decisions about what to show and what to leave out. The quality of
the analysis is therefore to a large extent depending on the quality of the maps. That is why the selection
of a good map is the rst step in making an analysis.1 In this selection there are a number of unavoidable aspects to consider: we have to choose a map with an appropriate scale, point in time and level of
abstraction.
Scale
Every map has a scale. Reducing or increasing a scale has a great effect on what we can show in a map.
Fig. 1 shows a number of drawings zooming in on the village of Schipluiden in the vicinity of Delft. The
rst drawing has a radius of 30 km. which results in a scale for this book of approximately 1:1.000.000.
Schipluiden itself is hardly visible and one could say it is silly to use a map like this in an analysis of
Schipluiden. Still, the map can clarify the position of Schipluiden as part of a very densely built area
between Dordrecht in the bottom-right corner and the area between Rotterdam and The Hague. This
image of Schipluiden is completely missing in the fourth drawing in the series. Here Schipluiden presents
itself as a little village in an otherwise endless green area. So depending on the scale of the drawing,
Schipluiden can be seen as completely absorbed in an urban tissue or as a pastoral idyll. Similarly, when
we look at the R=300 drawing, there is the clear suggestion that the heart of Schipluiden is a small cluster
of houses on either side of a river. With only the R=100 drawing, this conclusion is much more difcult
to draw. Yet if one wants to know something about the relationship between the houses and the parcellation, even the R=300 drawing is insufcient. Every scale has its natural morphological scope. This
means that we rst have to have an overview of the location on different scales from which we can then
make a relevant selection for our analysis. Before starting, the urban analyst has to determine on which
scale(s) he or she wants to work.
1. A second step being of course to verify the information in the map where possible by visiting the site

- 49 -

aerial photograph

basic topographical map 1: 1000

reduced basic topographical map

topographical map 1: 25.000

map from a routeplanner

Provincial map 1:50.000

g. 2, level of abstraction

- 50 -

Time
Every map represents a point in time. Depending on what you want to nd out, this may be the wrong
point in time. The current state of affairs (i.e. what you usually have to study) is often not completely
visible in a map - unless you are very lucky. When this is indeed not the case, your basic map may has to
be updated. On the other hand, in some analyses, a historical map can provide more information than a
recent one. For instance when you search for origins of certain developments. As with scale, it is unavoidable that a map includes information about time. Choose carefully. Using the wrong map usually means
that you are wasting your time. Page 56 contains a number of maps which illustrates the development of
Schipluiden. What is very clear is that Schipluiden indeed originated as a small settlement along a river. As
we will see later on, this can explain a lot of peculiarities about the present day structure of Schipluiden.
Of all the possible solutions for this problem, a historical map might provide the urban designer with
arguments to reject some solutions and specically choose for others. Understanding the history of an
area may enable the designer to make reasonable speculations about future developments as well. Something which is much more difcult when we only look at the status quo.
Level of abstraction
As mentioned before, we must realise that every map is a reduction - or simplied representation - of
reality. Even in the most detailed map available, a lot of information and objects we see in reality are
necessarily left out. In itself, this is not a problem. In fact, a map which contains too much information
can be distracting and difcult to use. As always, it depends on what you want to use the map for. When
we return to our example of Schipluiden in g. 2, we see that the digital map in the top right corner (of
which we would normally be very happy to have a copy) is in fact not very useable if we have to say
something about the town as a whole. Lines blur and we are no longer sure what the lines mean that we
do see. In many cases, a simpler map will sufce. Even a map taken from a route planner can work well.
The example shown here might at rst glace appear the most useable map of the six examples. But realise
that it can only be used to show the most elementary information. Even the basic position of Schipluiden
along a river is no longer clear in this drawing. If we want to analyse an urban situation, we will therefore
have to choose carefully which information our map should contain. We should know if the - in itself
unavoidable - level of abstraction is appropriate for our research.
Preparing a basic map
The analyses we will describe in this chapter are based on maps and produce new, derivative maps. We
have seen that choosing a wrong map to work from can lead to the wrong conclusions (or no useable
conclusions at all) and will result in incorrect drawings. Therefore, having good (=appropriate) basic maps
is fundamental for a good analysis. If we nd an appropriate map in an atlas or book or library, thats
ne. If we do not nd it, we will have to make one. We will have to use an inappropriate map and change
the scale, add the information we need from other sources or take away the information we do not need.
Preparing a map like this can cost a lot of time, even when we can use digital information. But it is time
well spent. A good basic drawing can provide the means to produce your own drawings with relative ease.
Not having one, usually leads to more work and a less comprehensive analysis.
Formulating a basic question
Many times, an analysis is started halfway between having no idea what to do and knowing exactly what
you are looking for. Sometimes you wonder where to start your analysis. To avoid that, it is important that
you formulate a basic question to your analysis. Even when you are unsure what to look for, there must
be a reason why you make the analysis, or you wouldnt be making it. Please make this reason explicit.
When there is no basic question or hypothesis to start an analysis with, it is impossible to determine scale,
abstraction or point in time to look at. Many times, this basic question is provided to you by your client,
teacher or a design problem. When this is not the case (for instance when you are simply given a site and
asked to do something with it), there is always the site itself which can provide a natural scope for

- 51 -

basic map

main infrastructure

buildings

secundary infrastructure

public facilities

parcellation

g. 3, documenting the basic morphological layers

- 52 -

your analysis. With some practice, it is not very difcult to establish the context of your area, what it is
connected to, when it was shaped etc. This will probably give you enough basic information to be able to
formulate a working hypothesis. The themes we have mentioned in this paragraph (scale, point in time,
level of abstraction) can provide a guiding line. Making a statement for all of them will force you to make
your rst choices explicit and will serve as a reference for the rest of your analysis.

2: Morphological Layers (see projects 7,13,15,16,20,22,24,25,28,31,32,34,40)

Having made these preparatory remarks, lets start now with a description of the basic techniques we
need for a simple typomorphological analysis. This word implies to elds of research: typo(logy) and
morphology. First morphology. This word means the science of form - the visual world. For our purposes, we assume that this science leads to knowledge of urban forms: cities, villages, neighbourhoods,
squares, streets, etc., all in their respective contexts.
When we want to analyse these forms, probably the rst technique we have to acquaint ourselves with

g. 4, rst interpretations

- 53 -

is that of dissecting a map in its respective parts: to thematically order the elements which shape it in
so-called morphological layers. Everybody who has made an urban analysis before, probably knows this
technique. A simple one might typically result in a series drawings where all the roads end up in one drawing, all the green in another, all the buildings in yet another and the same for all the water. An example of
this can be seen in g. 3, where some of these basic morphological layers are drawn for Schipluiden.
This is a good example of how we take our basic map (top left) and distil it into a number of derivative
new maps. We have to note that these basic layers are not the only possible ones to look at. It might be
that for a specic analysis, a few, but very different layers are much more relevant. In principle, there is an
almost innite number of elements that can be considered. The category buildings alone can be separated in many sub-categories: public buildings, private buildings, high buildings, low buildings, old buildings, new buildings, big buildings, small buildings, beautiful buildings, run-down buildings etc. etc. The
same goes for green, water, infrastructure etc. But as we have seen, other categories are also possible like
density, edges, patterns etc. An important question therefore is how to make a sensible selection from this
innity. In the next paragraphs, we will give some further suggestions which can help us in this respect.
Some believe that drawing morphological layers is all there is to urban analysis. While these drawings are
indeed analytical, our analysis is not nished here. This is only the beginning. We now have to stop and
ask ourselves what we can learn from this documentation.
Layers show what is there and as such, they cannot explain anything. They show the rough data of
Schipluiden, comparable perhaps to the quantitative data that a statistician collects in a survey or poll. A
necessary further step in our analysis is to look at this material and interpret it.
Fig. 4 shows a rst step towards what will eventually enable us to draw relevant conclusions from an
analysis. In the case of Schipluiden, there are some peculiarities our new maps that attract our attention.
For instance the imbalance in size we see between the northern half of the town and the southern half,
the relative regularity of the street pattern, the disturbances of this pattern in some places, the strong
border of the town in the north, the less clearly dened edge in the south, the poor connection between
the buildings in the centre and the rest of the tissue, especially in the north. This second series of drawings is extremely important to make. A pure documentation is never a complete analysis. It cannot convey
our professional opinion of the material.

g. 5, original and derivative morphological maps of an area north of Milan

Lets look at some more examples rst. Fig.5 shows four drawings from an analysis by Italian urbanist
Stefano Boeri. Buildings (1), Plots (2), Agriculture (3) and Infrastructure (4) are separated from each other
for an area just north of Milan. The maps give us the chance to understand a very complex phenomenon
(for instance patterns in the spread of housing areas) in a short time. One could look at the original map
for ages, but the amount of information in a complete map is usually so big that a clear view of a single
theme is impossible. This analysis was not made to facilitate design, but it could have been. It is a good

- 54 -

example of an analysis that an urbanist or architect would make in order to understand a given site or
region in preparation for design.
Structural analyses like these can also be used to explain a design that is already nished. It is daily professional practice to explain your design to other parties. So-called plan analyses are a common tool for this.
An excellent example of this is the series of drawings in g.6. This study by a group of young Dutch
urbanists shows how their proposal for the western garden cities in Amsterdam is built up. Note how
perfectly clear the regularity of the street pattern can be understood in combination with the highway
system, or the complementary character of small and large green areas. Again the main map would not
have given us this information so easily. Note that in this way, the designers can also take us by the hand
and show exactly what they want us to see. An analysis can be a powerful rhetorical tool in the hands of
skilled designers. A good analysis avoids that the uninformed reader draws unfavourable conclusions or
simply doesnt understand the proposal at all.
Another variant can be seen in g.7. This plan analysis of an IJburg island by Claus, Van Dongen en
Schaap shows how the general map of the island was developed from a basic grid. Successive drawings
each carve out their own space from the grid until the plan can be understood in full. The advantage is
that one will always remember the basic idea of a plan, even though the nal result may stand at some
distance from that.

g. 6

g. 7

- 55 -

1857

1900

1958

1968

1974

2003

g. 8, development

- 56 -

A last example is g.9 from an analysis of the Faubourgs of Paris by Jacques Lucan. In a very short series,
the structure of a faubourg block is perfectly illustrated, never to be forgotten. We show it here also to
point at the use of 3d in analyses. These drawings also have a map as their basis, but the author realised
he could not represent everything he wanted in two dimensions. Note that the morphological layers that
these examples use are comparable to our example of Schipluiden, but that they choose their own direction where necessary.

g. 9

3: development (see projects 4,8,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,22,35,37)

Every village or city is a collection of elements which have developed over time. No city or area is built
on a complete tabula rasa. There is always the natural landscape to begin with, and even a town which
is built anew from scratch cannot be built in a day. There is always something which comes rst. For
an urbanist, this is extremely valuable information which can explain later developments and which can
become legible when including time in the analysis. Up to now, we have assumed that we work with
only one map. We have already seen that any map represents a specic point in time. But this point in
time might not give us all the information we need. The layers we have isolated in our morphological
analysis have no history. They are simply there, and for that reason they are all equally important. We
do not know which came rst or whether certain morphological layers are possibly related because they
developed in the same period. Analysing the development of an urban tissue can be a big help to determine which morphological aspects are relevant and which are not.
In the case of schipluiden, the drawings of the separate layers are all equally important at rst sight. We
have no reason to value some structures higher than others. When we look at the development of the
town, we see some aspects that can clarify the morphology of Schipluiden. What is very surprising is that
Schipluiden, small as it is, apparently at some point had a railway station. Both the railway line and the
station have now disappeared. Still, this fact immediately attracts the attention of the attentive urban analyst for it can explain some peculiar features of Schipluiden. We see that the position of the station at the
south of the town created a naturally cut off area where Schipluiden could expand. During a long time,
growth was directed southward rather than northward. Even when the railway line disappeared, the
development continued in this direction. Reasons for this might have been that the necessary infrastructure (roads, shops, other public facilities) was already available in the south and lacking in the north. It
was only with the construction of a new road north of the town that a similar pocket was created that
could be lled up by new developments. A historical analysis has now made clear how the imbalance in

- 57 -

g. 10

g. 11

- 58 -

size between the north an south of Schipluiden, which we noted in 2 can be explained. It also shows
why the northern edge of Schipluiden has such a clear boundary and the south does not. We know now
that the south also had such a clear boundary before, but that it was the disassembling of that boundary which allowed further growth of the town. Remnants of this southern boundary are still visible in
the map today in the zone where the direction of the roads is somewhat twisted relative to the rest of
the tissue. All this information is important for the urban designer. Historical developments often cast
a shadow over the future. Processes that led to changes in the past, may still have an inuence in the
future. This would remain unclear if one only looks at the present.
In our example of Schipluiden, the historical analysis consists of a number of drawings where the city
as a whole is drawn in its different stages of development. This is common, but not the only possible
way. Especially when we have specic ideas about which morphological layers are important, we may
focus our historical analysis on the development of these precise layers. The examples in this book can
give an idea of which direction to choose. There is no xed procedure for this. Fig.10, from the analysis
by Jacques Lucan for instance, shows the development of an area in Paris that was once agricultural, but
gradually developed into an inner city area. Lucan chose to draw only the parcellation of the area and not
the roads as such or the buildings. Apparently, according to Lucan, the changes in the structure of the
parcels tell us more about the spatial characteristics of this area than the development of the building
blocks. These would only have resulted in a lot of undifferentiated black in the drawing.
Another beautiful example of how a historical analysis can clarify development can be seen in g.11.
These are some drawings from an analysis of the city of Versailles by Jean Castex et al. Suppose we only
had the last drawing in the series, with the examples of Paris or Rome in mind we would probably have
guessed that the boulevards of Versailles were similarly carved out from an older tissue. But the historical
drawings clearly show that the boulevards were laid out long before the buildings. A situation that lasted
until the early twentieth century.
A special example of a historical analysis is the one in g.12. where the Dapperbuurt area in Amsterdam
is analysed by Van der Hoeven and Louwe in their study Amsterdam als Stedelijk Bouwwerk. This is
not truly a historical analysis. It does not show actual development. Yet it does show how the structure of
Dapperbuurt can be understood as a series of abstract steps, leading from a hypothetical beginning to the
present day situation. In these drawings, the authors clearly indicate that for them, the actual history of
the Dapperbuurt is less relevant than this hypothetical development that never was.

g. 12

- 59 -

g. 13, comparison

- 60 -

4: comparison and type (see projects 4,8,9,10,12,14,15,20,24,25,27,30,31,34,38)

In paragraph two, we have separated the words typology and morphology. Now, we will try to nd out
how we can also look at typological features through a comparison of our site with other sites. Unfortunately, there is no single denition of the word type current among urbanists and architects. We
understand type as an abstract model which is traceable and describable through an analysis of comparable and concrete objects. We understand typology, parallel to our denition of morphology as the
science of type: in this case leading to knowledge of urban types. How can we determine whether an
urban form can also be called an urban type? For this, we state that we need to compare our situation
with other examples.2
But knowledge of types is not the only possible reason to compare. One of our basic question in paragraph two was how to determine which morphological aspects are relevant and which are not. In paragraph three, we saw that the inclusion of historical information can help in this selection. A comparison
of the urban situation with other examples might be a further aid. If we want to know which features of
Schipluiden are unique to the town and which features it has in common with others, this is impossible

2. cf. also the remarks on type by Anne Vernez Moudon on p. 18 of this volume.

- 61 -

to nd out with the material that we have collected so far. A comparison of Schipluiden to other villages
could provide us with this information and give us further reason to value certain morphological aspects
different from others.3
In such a comparison, it would be of little use to consider Schipluiden next to an ideal, star-shaped military settlement since these two obviously have very little in common. We know already that Schipluiden
is a little village along a river, with a small core and relatively large extensions, situated in a very regular
polder landscape. A comparison would only make sense if we found other examples which share these
basic characteristics. For the sake of brevity, we will give a short example in which Schipluiden is compared to the town of Balk in Friesland, some two hundred kilometers away from Schipluiden (g. 13).
As basic drawings, we have chosen topographical maps with a scale of 1:25.000 We will disregard the
wider context of the towns or any historical information. The reader will understand how to expand this
small example into a bigger analysis. Both Balk and Schipluiden have grown around a small core on either
side of a stream. In the case of Schipluiden, this is a winding river, with Balk, it is a straight canal. We
note that Balk is bigger in size than Schipluiden, but at the same time we see that the urban tissue in Balk
seems less compact than in Schipluiden. A short analysis of the building density in both towns tells us
that the number of inhabitants is probably roughly similar (p.60, middle, size in hectares and percentage
of built area).
When we look a bit closer, we see that both towns have grown to many times their original sizes, but
this growth was not the same in all directions. Especially in Balk, we clearly see that the original string
of buildings was expanded only slightly along the water and that most of the growth took place perpendicular to the canal. We did not notice this before with Schipluiden, but when we look at it now, we see a
similarity. We dont know why this happened, but maybe we have struck something typical in the development of small villages along a stream. We can now formulate a hypothesis. Further comparison might
conrm or reject this.
Something we already noted before about the morphology of Schipluiden is that the southern edge of
the town is rather weakly dened. When we look at Balk, we see the same phenomenon, but even more
so. Along most of its perimeter, Balk has a very fuzzy edge with many small incidents that look arbitrarily
cut off or waiting for a proper ending. This happens everywhere, except where there is a strong infrastructural boundary of a higher order: in this case, a big road passing the town on the west. Now, when
we turn back to Schipluiden, we see that our previous remark can be modied. We already observed that
the southern border of Schipluiden is weakly dened and that the northern border is very strong. We
could not know if this development was unique to Schipluiden or not. We could only document it. Now,
having looked at Balk, we may speculate that it is in fact typical of these villages that their borders are
unclear - unless they are cut off by roads or other infrastructure. An urban designer might have decided
on the basis of our earlier morphological analysis that the southern border of Schipluiden was not well
dened and that new developments should improve this. The present comparison might make us change
our mind. Since it is characteristic of these villages to have fuzzy edges, new additions should perhaps
comply to this principle. In this case, the northern road in Schipluiden could be seen as uncharacteristic
and therefore unwanted.
This is only a very small comparison. Looking at more examples might have shown that our conclusions
were not correct. Hopefully the reader will understand that performing a comparison in search for the
typical or the unique can provide valuable information to ground an urban- or architectural design on.
As is mentioned elsewhere in this book, French and Italian analyses have a strong tradition in typological research. Fig.14 shows some illustrations from a famous analysis by Franois Divorne et al of the
Bastides towns in France. The comparison of Schipluiden to Balk is nothing compared to the incredibly
thorough comparison of the Bastides. Obviously, this can result in a much greater validity in the claims
3. Note that in some cases, it might be the unique that we are looking for, in other cases, it might be the typical. In both
cases, we need a comparison to see which is which.

- 62 -

g. 14

g. 15
of the researchers. Here we see two small drawings that show the typical relation between squares and
streets and between squares and churches in these towns. In the study, similar comparisons are drawn
up to the level of the individual house. In fact, for many typological studies, especially in France and
Italy, the typology of the single building is often the endpoint of the analysis. A scale level which is not
common in the Dutch practice.
The Dutch example in g.15 does show building typology, but only in as far as it can illustrate typical
urban patterns: in this case a typical section of the canal zone in Amsterdam compared to a more recent
example at the Java island. As we saw before in the analysis of the faubourgs, the third dimension must
sometimes be included in the analysis to show what is important. This is often the case in analyses that
deal with (building)type or typical urban spaces where height, elevation and enclosure are relevant aspects
of the tissue.
Sometimes, the most characteristic feature of a building or site can be explained by comparing it with
something it is not. In g.16, Colin Rowe explains with two carefully selected examples the fundamental
difference between a modern solitary building and the traditional inner city fabric. This is a very elegant
way of showing this, because only two illustrations can at once explain two different worlds when put
next to each other.

- 63 -

g. 18, drawing your conclusions

- 64 -

In g.17, Richard Wurman shows how comparing a well known example to a lesser known example can
lead to an a-ha erlebnis. The (in Dutch eyes) well known map of Amsterdam can immediately put a map
of ancient babylon in perspective. Showing only the last map would have left most of us clueless about
how big this city really was. One look at Amsterdam at the same scale explains.

g. 16

g. 17

5: drawing your conclusions (see projects 5,13,26,28,31,33,34,35,36,38,39)

Analyses do not only help a designer to structure a design, but they are also commonly used to explain
the characteristics of a site or a design to others: your superior, your client, the municipality etc. All these
parties want to understand what your professional opinion is of a site or they want to be able to judge
whether your proposed intervention is good. In this communication with others, it is important that
you are able to visualise your ndings. The documentary part of an analysis - layers, time, comparison
- together form a coherent story, but it can be a rather long story and there may come a point where you
need to show the essence of your analysis as concise as possible.
Lets summarise the analytical process once more (g. 18). The rst drawing shows the basic map that we
prepared of Schipluiden. This is the one from which all our other maps have been derived. In preparing
this map, we have made decisions about scale, time and abstraction which limit what we can see in the
map, but the map itself does not tell us anything yet. Somebody may look at it for hours and not

- 65 -

know what we want to illustrate. The second two maps show two of the layers that were part of our rst
analytical series. It is the layer with all the buildings in the town and the layer with the water structure.
These drawings document. They do not show what we think about the water structure, they only show
it as it appeared in our basic map. In the fourth drawing we have combined the two layers because we
noted a similarity between them. In the fth drawing we indicate how the water structure and the building
structure are tot a large extent congruent. We pick up the pencil ourselves and for the rst time add to the
map.
This is an important analytical step since this means that this information is no longer visible in reality.
It is our own interpretation of reality. It is a conclusion we could draw only after taking the map apart
and selectively put it back together again. It shows the regularity of the basic structure of Schipluiden
and its congruity with the landscape, but it also clearly shows where this regularity is disturbed. In our
previous analysis, we have seen the reasons for this. This drawing shows what we have learned from the
morphology of Schipluiden, but in doing that, much of the information that is still visible in the drawing
is not necessary anymore. Now, the canals and streets are not important anymore as canals and streets
but because they are part of an abstract structure which can be represented also in a more abstract way. A
nal step in our analysis is therefore that we forget our basic map completely and only show the essentials
that we have taken from it: our personal selection. If somebody were to ask us: can you show me in ve
seconds what you think is the essence of Schipluiden, we could do this with this nal drawing, not with
the previous ones. Documentary drawings do not show a personal stamp, but as the drawings become
more interpretative, the drawing techniques can also become more personal. The designer is free to
choose. It can be done with a map, but also with a cartoon, with a diagram, with a single word.
Fig.19 shows some beautiful examples of conclusive drawings by Kevin Lynch from his famous book
The Image of the City. These drawings are used to summarise an argument. The argument itself (the
documentation) is not visible here and in a way this is also not necessary anymore. The drawings have the
power to explain a complete analysis in a single image.
Another example of this can be seen in g.20. The person who has made this drawing wants us to believe
that the Dutch town of Heerlen and the German town of Aachen have grown into an urban pattern
which transcends the two separate towns and can be recognised as a new entity. A drawing like this can be
a very powerful pr-tool. We do not know if the information in the drawing is correct, but it looks good
and you only have to see it once to remember it. Please be aware that drawings like these, separated from
the original analysis can easily start a life of their own.
Sometimes, an interpretative drawing is needed to open up the possibility for further research. In g.21,
the authors represent the highway that connects the cities of the Dutch Randstad as a circle. Of course,
this road is not circular in reality but the whole concept of the Randstad might as well be represented
as such. Suddenly, this one drawing makes a lot of other drawings possible through which many aspects
related to the experience of this highway can be visualised (see p.270). Many times, a departure from
the original map is necessary to come to new insights. A last example of this is the famous drawing of
Van der Hoeven and Louwe of the canal zone in Amsterdam (g.22). In a small series of drawings, the
authors discovered that this area in Amsterdam is very similar to the ideal commercial city as proposed
by Simon Stevin in the seventeenth century. Unrolling the canal zone into a strip makes this connection
clear. As with the Randstad road, a new -personalised- drawing technique was necessary to be able to
visualise what the authors considered the essence of the area.

6: drawing techniques
Everybody who has seen less successful analyses knows that even slight differences in the orientation of
maps, a change in the use of colour, too much information in a drawing etc. can make an analysis un-necessarily difcult to understand. In most cases, this is not because of methodical faults, but because of a
lack of drawing techniques. Most problems arise from the fact that the drawings in an analysis must be

- 66 -

g. 19

g. 20

g. 21

g. 22

- 67 -

comparable. This leads to obvious rules that within a series of drawings, there is a unity of scale, legend,
colour, penwidth and orientation. But there are also a few less obvious rules and suggestions that might
help you in making a comprehensible analysis.
1: Show as little information as possible in one drawing. Remember that as a matter of principle, it is
better to make ten drawings with very little information than one drawing with much information. The
reader or audience must be taken through the analysis bit by bit. If there are more themes or elements
than necessary in one drawing, the reader will have to search for the right information and will easily lose
track of the argument.
2: Use common reference points. When you draw morphological layers and follow the rst rule, each
drawing contains relatively little information. Especially when the original map is not included in the
drawing anymore, the reader will have problems to compare the different drawings Therefore it is very
important that you use common reference points. In many of the drawings of Schipluiden we drew the
main waterways, even though these waterways were not relevant themselves. In the comparison with Balk,
the original map was visible in the background and all the drawings had the same frame. There are many
ways, but remember that in principle, comparing drawings is impossible when there are no common
reference points.
3: The use of photographs. Many people believe that including photographs in an analysis helps to clarify
the point. This often leads to analyses that look like tourist guides rather than morphological analyses.
Keep as a basic rule that your story must be clear without photographs. Even a photograph which has
zoomed in on a subject will still contain so much information that a reader easily gets lost. He will not
know whether it was the house in the picture that was important or the sidewalk that was in front of it
(This does not mean that photographs cannot be used in a good way. For examples of analyses which use
photographs or other perspective illustrations, see projects 2,6,7,8,11,12, 33,35,36)
4: All the important information must be visible in images. Please keep in mind that in morphological analyses, text supports the images, not vice versa. Everything you want to say must be visualised. In
our profession, drawings provide the means to check statements, text cannot. This does not mean that
text must always be reduced to a minimum. In fact, most of the examples in part B of this book come
from books themselves which carried a lot of text. In this volume though, we primarily look at drawing
techniques. An analysis which explains form is impossible without drawings, but keep in mind that other
documents may be added to strengthen your argument.
5: Computer techniques. The purpose of this chapter was to show some basic conventions in making
typo-morphological analyses in the Dutch context. Most of the examples were extremely simple 2d representations. This does not mean that the urban analyst may only use simple drawings. Far from it. Over
the last decade, urban designers and architects have been very inventive in the use of drawing techniques.
Progress has been made especially in the use of computer programs. GIS and MAYA techniques link statistical or quantitative information to a map which enable graphical representations that would have been
almost impossible to make a few years ago. Examples of these techniques can be seen in this book, but
a further explanation is outside the scope of this study. The most important thing is that the methodical
conventions laid down here must remain clear, the graphical techniques are to a large extent up to the
person making the analysis.

7: is this all?
Is this all there is to analysing? Of course not. It is only the beginning. In this chapter, we have only
looked at formal urban characteristics and showed how these may be compared. We have called this form
of analysis typomorphological. But there are many more sorts of urban analyses. There are analyses
which deal with technical aspects, mental impressions, organisations, time use, functions, connectivity,
density, trafc ows, statistical data, environmental aspects, etc. etc. There can be as many types of analyses as there are urban phenomena. Any designer is free to choose his weapons and to use them in

- 68 -

the way he sees t. But any analysis dealing with morphology - also the virtuoso freestyle ones - will nd
it almost unavoidable to address the themes we have mentioned above. The fact that a good analysis is
also interpretative of a site and therefore subjective makes it very difcult to lay down a xed method for
typomorphological analyses. Still, there is a general understanding of how to make a basic one. It is a procedure which is shaped in practice. One is free to modulate it and expand upon it. The analyses which are
shown in part two of this book show how much variation is possible. Hopefully though, the reader will
nd that most of the examples in part two use the basic techniques we have introduced in this chapter.

- 69 -

- no. 9 1974
Cities, comparisons of form and scale
Richard Saul Wurman
This study is a comparison of different cities. Its
value lies in the immediate accessibility of the
information; ah, so Amsterdam is as big as this,
and New York is as big as that. One glance and
you know.
Notice that there is strict adherence to several
basic principles: a unity in medium (in this case clay
tablets), a unity and legibility of scale (through the
gridlines) and a unity of information (each city is
represented through the same elements). If any of
these principles had been neglected, the information would have been lost. The most critical point
in analyses like these therefore is the choice of
what to show and what to leave out.

g. 1. Amsterdam

g. 2. Brugues

g. 3. Rome

- 108 -

- no. 9 -

g. 4. Karlsruhe

g. 5. Venice

g. 6. Babylon

- 109 -

- no. 9 -

g. 7. Chandigarh
g. 8. Athens

g. 9. Gizeh

- 110 -

- no. 9 -

g. 10. New York

g. 11. Palmanova

g. 12. Miletus

- 111 -

- no. 16 1987
Rotterdam Verstedelijkt landschap
Frits Palmboom
The name of this book is a reference to Amsterdam als Stedelijk Bouwwerk (project 13), but
there is a big difference in meaning: where Van der Hoeven and Louwe speak of Amsterdam as
an urban construction (a man-made object, created ex nihilo, autonomous in space and time),
Palmboom speaks of Rotterdam as an urbanised landscape: as something that evolved over time
and remains forever linked to the landscape on which it is grounded. In the case of Rotterdam,
this landscape is much more dynamic than in Amsterdam. Where Amsterdam developed along
a small provincial river and an inland sea, Rotterdam is situated at the mouth of a big river and
was always subjected to the forces of the open water (gs. 2-5). Naturally, the resulting complexity of the landscape has always shaped the layout of the city - from its street pattern, to
the layout of its green spaces. Together with later additions which do not respect the original
landscape (like the highway system, g. 6), this results in a city of separated islands (g. 7).
These islands all have their own internal logic and are sometimes poorly connected on a higher
scale level (gs. 8). Also the harbour and the reconstruction of the inner city after the second
world war (gs. 9-10) increase the complexity. Palmboom pleads for an understanding of this
complexity and the inevitable limits this sets for future developments: urban designers should
not try to ght the fragmented nature of the city, but cooperate with it and attempt to enhance
existing qualities. Fig. 11 shows the main morphological layers which Palmboom distinguishes
(landscape, city streets, and highways). Fig. 12 shows the structural diversity of the Rotterdam
area in comparison to that of Amsterdam.

g. 1

- 144 -

- no. 16 -

g. 2

g. 3

g. 4
- 145 -

- no. 16 -

g. 5

g. 6
- 146 -

- no. 16 -

g. 7

g. 8
- 147 -

- no. 16 -

g. 9

g. 10

- 148 -

- no. 16 -

g. 11

g. 12

- 149 -

- no. 17 1988
Locatie Zuidpoortgebied: stadsmorfologische atlas
Rein Geurtsen
Rein Geurtsen is an important gure for Dutch urban analysis: as a teacher and as an urban
designer. This study was made for the municipality of Delft, who wanted to organise a design
competition for a run down area of the old inner city: the Zuidpoortgebied. As an introduction to the design teams and to establish a proper understanding of the area with all the parties,
Geurtsen prepared this urban morphological atlas. It offers what you might call an illustrated
history of the area for professionals: historical maps, analytical drawings, texts and photographs
are combined to give insight into the relationship between city form and historical developments. In the book, Geurtsen looks at two scale levels: the city as a whole and the Zuidpoort in
detail. Here we present a selection from the second scale level.

- 150 -

- no. 19 -

1990
Landschap en Verstedelijking tussen Den Haag en Rotterdam
Frits Palmboom
This is a good example of how an analysis can be used as a basis for urban design. In this study,
the landscape between Den Haag and Rotterdam is looked at from all sides; from its geomorphology to the trafc routes. Systematically presented theme maps are alternated with
hand-drawn illustrations, summarising the argument. The reader is taken by the hand along all
the steps that the designer took to understand the area. The last drawing shows the design proposal that was made possible with the analysis. Through such a systematic and yet intuitive process, the designer can indeed gain enough information for new design proposals. All decisions
seem to derive from the analysis. On the one hand, this makes it easy for the reader or client to
follow the designers reasoning, on the other hand, just because of its persuasive character, an
analysis might often be used to justify a design which in fact has a wholly different agenda.

- 166 -

- no. 19 -

- 167 -

- no. 19 -

- 168 -

- no. 19 -

- 169 -

- no. 19 -

Overall view of study area

- 170 -

- no. 19 -

- 171 -

- no. 19 -

Building patterns

Open spaces

- 172 -

- no. 19 -

Design proposal: large-scale open space for the south-wing.

- 173 -

- no. 22 -

1996
Paris des Faubourgs: Formation, Transformation
Jacques Lucan ed.
Paris des Faubourgs is a comprehensive study investigating the development of the areas which
have grown around the old inner city of Paris: the Faubourgs. It includes maps, diagrams,
photographs and texts which illustrate the social and urban relevance of these areas. This wide
scope is characteristic for analyses of the French school. Our main interest is in the drawings.
Figs. 2 - 4 show a morphological analysis of the area cit des eurs; rst as a basic section
through a block, then as an assemblage of its various parts. The beauty of this analysis is that
while one could look forever at the last drawing without learning much, the whole series claries
the city-structure in a matter of seconds. The same goes for the transformation of the plaine
Monceau in g. 5. These drawings show how land ownership and circulation patterns have
changed over time. Note that this is a very different series than in g. 6 where the buildings in
the area of Montmartre are included. All these analyses are excellent examples of how carefully
drawn images can clarify complex urban patterns in a very short time.

g. 1

- 180 -

- no. 22 -

g. 2
- 181 -

- no. 22 -

g. 3

- 182 -

- no. 22 -

g. 4

- 183 -

- no. 22 -

g. 5
- 184 -

- no. 22 -

g. 6
- 185 -

- no. 26 -

1998
Stadsanalyse: De Nieuwe Kaart van Den Haag / Stadsportretten
Els Bet, Martin Verwoest
Many times, an urban analysis is not meant to be read by a professional audience but by
relatively inexperienced people. These might nonetheless have a great inuence on the future
of your plan: clients, politicians etc. In such cases, it is very important to make your message
comprehensible at all costs. This means that you have to be very careful in the rhetoric of your
story, that you select very carefully what you show and that you make your illustrations in such
a way that the attention is not directed at the map, but at the message. The present analysis
produced by the Urban Development section of the city of The Hague is a very clear example
of this. Several short chapters in this study are illustrated with images that leave no room for
doubt. The analysis starts with g.1 which shows that The Hague has a very different relation to
the national highway system than the other big cities in the west of Holland. This relation is as
yet very weak, but the construction of a new tangent (g. 3) will make new cross connections
possible in the city (g.4). The Hague has always had much better developed east-west connections than north-south. The reason for this is partly to be found in the geomorphology of the
area (g.6). But this illustration also shows more ways to conceptualise the city. A single image
to summarise your argument can be a very important help in getting your ideas across (see for
instance also projects 33-34). Here the authors have chosen for the image of a bromvlieg
(blowy - g.8) that can be healed with a second wing in the form of the new road.
The whole argument leads to the presentation of The new map of The Hague(g.9).
A document that would have been much more difcult to understand without the analysis.

g. 1

g. 2
- 198 -

- no. 26 -

g. 3

g. 4

g. 5

- 199 -

- no. 26 -

g. 6

- 200 -

- no. 26 -

g. 7

g. 8

g. 9
- 201 -

- no. 37 -

2003
Ontwerpen in de Historische Stad: wonen en werken in de Utrechtse binnenstad (nal project)
Gerjan Timmerman
In project nr. 23, we showed an analysis based on the STOA method. We indicated there how
STOA observes that axes of development can alternate through time or on different scale levels.
The present analysis shows this phenomenon for the inner city of Utrecht (recognisable by
the fortication). The light lines represent the growing water system in the city, the darker lines
represent dominant infrastructural lines. The bottom left image on page 273 shows the last stage
in the development of Utrecht. The present creation of large scale extensions to the west of the

1100

1500

1900

1950

- 272 -

- no. 37 -

city (not visible here) has caused the dominant direction to shift again from north-south to eastwest. This has big implications for urban design, also on a smaller scale. For his nal project,
the author of this analysis has tried to anticipate this development in a design for a part of the
inner city. Page 274 shows an abstraction of the present-day situation. The right page shows the
design proposal and the effect this should have on the urban tissue surrounding the area.

1650

1830

2000

- 273 -

- no. 37 -

existing situation

- 274 -

- no. 37 -

proposed intervention

- 275 -

Colofon
Urban Analysis Guidbook, Typomorphology
Technical University Delft
Faculty of Architecture
Department of Urbanism
editors
Leo van den Burg
Egbert Stolk
editorial board
H.C. Bekkering
P.G. de Bois
E. Boot
L.M. Calabrese
W.J.A. Hermans
V.J. Meyer
August 2004

- 295 -

- 296 -