Mapping Urban Morphology: a Classification Scheme for Interpreting Contributions to the Study of Urban Form

Western University Scholarship@Western Geography Publications Geography Department 2006 Mapping Urban Morphology: A Classification Scheme for Interpreting Contributions to the Study of Urban Form Pierre Gauthier Concordia University Jason Gilliland University of Western Ontario Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/geographypub Part of the Geography Commons Citation of this paper: Gauthier, Pierre and Gilliland, Jason, "Mapping Urban Morphology: A Classification Scheme for Interpreting Contributions to the Study of Urban Form" (2006). Geography Publications. 111. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/geographypub/111 Mapping urban morphology: a classification scheme for interpreting contributions to the study of urban form Pierre Gauthier Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Ouest, Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] and Jason Gilliland Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Social Science Centre, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] Revised version received 5 December 2005 Abstract. Urban morphology is a thriving field of enquiry involving researchers from a wide diversity of disciplinary, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. While this diversity has helped advance our understanding of the complexity of urban form, confusion and controversy has also arisen over the various theoretical formulations forwarded by researchers from different philosophical and epistemological backgrounds. With the aim of improving intelligibility in the field, this paper proposes a straightforward scheme to identify, classify and interpret, or ‘map’, individual contributions to the study of urban form according to their respective theoretical or epistemological perspectives. Drawing upon epistemological discussions familiar to the readers of this journal, the authors first distinguish between cognitive and normative studies. A second distinction is made between internalist studies that consider urban form as a relatively independent system, and externalist studies in which urban form stands as a passive product of various external determinants. Using these basic criteria, it is possible to interpret and synthesize a multitude of contributions and map them using a simple Cartesian grid. The paper highlights how contributions from seemingly different theoretical approaches to urban morphology are intrinsically similar in their treatment of urban form as an object of enquiry. Key Words: urban morphology, built environment, epistemology, morphological theories, morphological approaches Urban morphology, in simple terms, is the from a wide variety of disciplinary, linguistic study of city forms. While there is general and cultural backgrounds. Undoubtedly, part agreement among self-proclaimed ‘urban of the confusion arising from divergent morphologists’ as to what they study, there is theories and methods in urban morphology considerable debate over how urban forms are could be alleviated with a multi-lingual to be studied. An inevitable source of glossary of terminology in the field (cf. misunderstanding stems from the fact that Larkham and Jones, 1991; Malfroy, 1986). major contributions to urban morphological Nevertheless, a great deal of confusion and scholarship continue to be made by researchers controversy is due to the diversity (and Urban Morphology (2006) 10(1), 41-50 © International Seminar on Urban Form, 2006 ISSN 1027-4278 42 Mapping urban morphology apparent incompatibility) of the various development of an internalist perspective on theoretical formulations that have been the development of urban form. adopted and presented by researchers from different philosophical and epistemological backgrounds (Gerosa, 1999). It has therefore Cognitive versus normative approaches been argued that one of the most urgent requirements in the field of urban morphology Our first level of classification sorts each is the elucidation of its philosophical or contribution according to the primary heuristic epistemological foundations (Conzen, 1998; purpose they serve (whether or not this Gerosa, 1999; Whitehand, 1999). It would purpose is explicitly stated by the author). In then be ‘possible to improve intelligibility surveying a sample of the most prominent despite differences of vocabulary and studies dealing with urban form, a twofold language, and thereby carry forward the distinction can be made. First, there are dialogue’ (Gerosa, 1999, p. 45). studies that are aimed at providing explana- In this paper, we propose a system to tions or developing explanatory frameworks or identify and interpret, or ‘map’, individual both (i.e. cognitive contributions); and contributions to the study of urban form secondly, there are studies aimed at deter- according to their respective theoretical or mining the modalities according to which the epistemological perspectives. In an effort to city should be planned or built in the future ‘improve intelligibility’ in urban morphology, (i.e. normative contributions). we offer a two-tiered examination of Drawing upon the work of Lang (1987), prevailing approaches in the field. First, we Moudon (1994) has proposed a similar distinguish between cognitive and normative distinction in her ambitious and fairly approaches to urban form, and then a second thorough exposé aimed at producing an distinction is made between what we term epistemological map of substantive research internalist and externalist contributions. related to urban design. She calls each Using these basic criteria, it is possible to category normative-prescriptive and substan- interpret and synthesize a multitude of tive-descriptive: ‘it is important to distinguish contributions and map them using a simple first between normative or prescriptive infor- Cartesian grid. It is not our aim here to mation (emphasizing the ‘what should be’) and provide a comprehensive review of research on substantive or critically descriptive knowledge urban form (see instead Conzen, 2001; Darin, (emphasizing the ‘what is’ and perhaps also 1998; Hofmeister, 2004; Marzot, 2002; Slater, the ‘why’)’ (p. 332). More recently, Levy 1990; Vilagrasa Ibarz, 1998; Whitehand, 1987, (2005) has suggested that the same distinction 1992); however, we do identify some of the be made in the field of urban morphology, to major contributions in order to illustrate the distinguish between what he termed normative utility of the proposed method of and cognitive approaches. classification. While it is not our intention to For the present purpose we have adopted suggest the superiority of any individual the more straightforward terminology used by contribution or approach, our discussion Levy. We use the expression cognitive to focuses particular attention on the so-called reflect the heuristic nature of an intellectual British, French, and Italian ‘schools’ of urban enterprise concerned with producing know- morphology which should be most familiar to ledge or at developing theoretical means, readers of this journal (Cataldi et al., 2002; methods and techniques destined to produce Darin, 1998; Moudon, 1997; Whitehand, such knowledge. Likewise, the term normative 2001). With the proposed framework we shall denotes accurately an intellectual exercise, highlight and discuss how contributions arising which aims at articulating a view of what the from these three seemingly different future should look like, or at exposing a theoretical approaches are intrinsically similar, doctrine or specific sets of norms and in that each one has contributed to the prescriptions that would serve such a view. Mapping urban morphology 43 Some social scientists or historians might enon. To add to the confusion, the applied raise an eyebrow at the suggestion that it is planning literature, including canonic texts of necessary to make a distinction between urbanism, often aim at conferring scientific cognitive and normative contributions, status on what is highly ideological (Choay, thinking that their different character is self- 1965; Lefebvre, 1970). evident. However, others might question the Whether there is an epistemological gap desirability or even the possibility, on between the explanatory and cognitive on the epistemological grounds, of making such a one hand and the normative on the other, as distinction. The fact that the same proposition implied by Choay (1965), or whether these could elicit two entirely legitimate but categories correspond to opposite conceptual opposite interpretations is indicative of the poles located on a continuum, as Moudon complexities at play in underlying epistem- (1992) suggests, is open to interpretation. The ological and philosophical questions. It is not former position suggests a difference in nature, our intention in the context of this short article while the latter implies a variation in intensity. to proceed to a thorough examination of such To distinguish between cognitive and questions; however, we will evoke briefly normative approaches does much to clarify the some epistemological considerations arising nature of the intellectual contribution of the from the proposed distinction. school of process typology, as exemplified by We posit that differentiating between the ideas of Italian architect Saverio Muratori. cognitive and normative studies is a critical Various commentators have posited that the step for clarifying the multi-faceted nature of Muratorian tradition has developed a the intellectual agenda of urban morphology. normative approach

Load more