Urban Morphology and Urban Design

Urban morphology and urban design

Brenda Case Scheer, College of Architecture and Planning, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0370, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

There has recently been a tlurry of discussion in Vidler (1977) went so far as to propose that the city this journal about the relationship between urban (its building types, its customary form and morphological research and practice (Hall, 2008; meaning) is the third typology, by which he meant Samuels, 2008; Whitehand, 2007). As a practising that designers could use the city as an autonomous architect and planner, I have frequently applied the reference (instead of nature or machine, which concepts oftypology and morphology in my design were Vidler's first two references). Ultimately work. I have used neighbourhood morphology to discredited by association with post modernism's develop a successful architectural parti that married historical pastiche, remnants of these ideas surface a new type to an older pattern: I have used the everywhere in architecture, frequently as a rich morphological narrative ofa dying small downtown fonn of contextualism that is more whispered than to develop its urban plans and guidelines for its proclaimed (Goode, 1992). recovery (Scheer and Scheer, 1998). I have re­ Urban morphology, as a source for urban design, scaled old patterns for new uses, to draw a cultural suffers from the same unpopularity and misreading line from the past into a new, progressive future. I among architectural critics. Its association with have identified critical urban design issues, and small-scale, traditional urban environments (town­ thus solutions. that could only be revealed through scape and New Urbanism) has made it suspect for a close reading ofa region's morphology. So why applications in respected, high image architec[Ure. does the translation of morphological ideas to World architecture glorifies large, multi-user, practice seem so treacherous? complex urban projects: it is an urbanism of Until the whole movement degenerated into a slickness, sculptural shape and show-off design, thematic cut and paste routine, many architectural symbolic of large corporations and overriding theorists explored notions of typology and urban control, totally conflicting with the old-fashioned form as a pointed response to the universality of regulating plans, lots, blocks. and small typologies modernism (Krier, 1982; Moneo. 1978). Anthony now' associated with morphology. As Ivor Samuels Viewpoints 141

(2008) points out, this architecture and urban As in most appl ications of morphology for urban design is more likely to be Judged and driven by design, form-based Lodes are directed at residential sustainability paradigms, although of the 'green scales and small supporting commercial and insti­ gadgetry' type. Morphology's legitimate green tutional uses. These are satisfying scales for the strategies of conservation, adaptability and' loose application to lots, blocks and types, but problem­ fit' are less in vogue. atic in their very limited applicability to most ofthe Only m small-scale contexts has urban American urban landscape. The New Urbanists' morphology made inroads in urban design. In the realistic goal is to apply these codes to about 5 per US. this has surfaced primarily in the revolution in planning known as form-based codes (FBC). These cent of the developed city. leaving the vast areas codes are intended to supplant or supplement driven by larger-scale forces - shopping malls, traditional land-use restrictive zoning (Walters municipal centres, theme parks, airports, large open (2007) provides a lucid and intelligent background). spaces, highways, large-lot housing subdivisions; The methodology, promoted by New Urbanists, industrial parks - untouched by coding, and thus by bases the development of codes on fonnulaic urban design based on morphology. analyses of existing or desired urban form, public Urban morphologists themselves have been space and some architectural elements (see Parolek much preoccupied with the scale of townscape and "I ai. (2008) for the olliciol handbook). While traditional or historic urban fonn, with vel)' few some of the language of typo morphology is used in researchers and practitioners exploring the much the analytical fonnulae (types, lots, blocks), the more problematic scale of the contemporary; rigid FBC methodologists seem unaware of the key expanded metropolitan landscape. This is a huge theories and ideas that could deepen their opportunity. as research in these large-scale areas understanding of this enterprise. Two examples by American morphologists suggests that seem­ will sullice: the idea of resoiution has eluded FBe analysis, with all the coding focused on the ingly fonnless spaces can also yield to a useful neighbourhood scale or on the particulars of street morphological reading (see, for example, Moudon design and house front (what we might call the and Hess, 2000; Scheer and Petkov, 1998; Stanilov tissue level) and none on the region or city scale. and Scheer, 2004; Tatom. 2006). The work of the The other aspect that the FBC method misses, landscape urbanists (Waldheim, 2006) suggests a which is key to urban design, is the historical tantalizing connection to be made for designers evolution of places over time. The understanding concerned with the process of urbanization and of urban change and evolution, and the conceptual change at scales larger than the residential framework for designing for change, are without neighbourhood. There is much work to be done to doubt the most powerful legacies of urban bring the methods of typo morphology to bear on morphology. The cultural and social context that metropolitan-scale prohlems. can be read in the evolution of the historical fabric eludes these designers. Their static analysis leads to a static vision. To be fair, most urban designers References are stuck in this 'master planner' mode. In FBC methods, this problem is slightly eased because the Goode, 1. (1992) 'Typological theory in the United code assumes further building over time, and offers States: the consumption ofarchiteclural authenticity', a regulating plan that might control change. How Journal ofArchitectural Education 46, 2-13. much more elegant such plans would be if they Hall, T. (2008) 'Bridging the gap: applying urban went a few steps further to demonstrate the morphology to successful planning practice', Urhan continuity of change from deep past to unpredict­ Morphology 12, 54-7. able future. Krier. R. (1982) Urhun space (Rinoli, New York). The literature of New Urbanists rarely Monco. R. (lq78) 'On typology'. Opposifions [3, recognizes recent precedent outside the writings of Summer, 23-45. the acolytes of the movement itself; a bad habit to Moudon, A. V. and Hess. P. (2000) 'Suburban clusters: be sure. So the basic and foundational urban the nucleation of multifamily housing in suburban morphological concepts are not drawn upon as areas of the central Puget Sound', Journal of the such: form-based code prescriptive methods American Planning Association 66, 243-64. seemingly have been almost independently derived Parolek, D., Parolek, K. and Crawford, P. (2008) Form rather than benefiting from urban morphology's based codes: a guide/in' fllanners. lIrban designen. depth and theory. 142 Viewpoints

municl]mfifies. and deve/opt!rs (Wiley. Hoboken, NJ). In Waldheim, C. (ed.) Land\'cape urbanism Samuels. I. (200S) 'Typomorphology and urban design (Princeton Architectural Press. New York) 179-96. practice', Urban Morphology 12, 58-62. Vidler, A. (1977) 'The third typology', Oppositions 7, Scheer, B. and Petkov, M. (199g) 'Edge city Winter, 1-4. morphology', Journal of the American Planning Waldheim, C. (2006) 'Landscape 3S urbanism', III As.<,"ociation 64.198-310. Waldheim, C. (ed.) Landscape urhallism (Princeton Scheer. B. and Scheer. D. (1998) 'Typology and urhan Architectural Press, New York) 3S-S-l. design guidelines: pre~crving the city Wilhl)ul Waltt:rs, D. t1007) Designing community: charrettes. dictating design', in Petruccioli, A (ed.) Rl.!fhinking masler plans and form-hmcd codes (Elsevier, the ninetemlil-century city (Aga Khan Program lor Burlington, MA). Islamic Architecture. Cambridge, MA) 151-64. WhitehanJ, J. W. R. (2007) 'Urban morphology and Stanilov, K. and Scheer, B. (cds) (2004) Suburbanform: policy: bridging the gap', Urban Morphology 11,79- an infernational perspective (Routledge, New York). 80. Tatom, J. (2006) 'Urban highways and the public realm',