Keywords
spatial analysis
space syntax
process typology
historico-geographical approach
How to Cite
Abstract
The diversity and complexity of human settlements is reflected in the range of ways we try to understand them. The richness of subject matter presented by cities has given rise to an equal richness in methods of investigation. Even within a single field such as urban morphology, there are different approaches with different terms of reference. The challenge raised by the diversity is not how to select between the different views but how to combine and co-ordinate them. The purpose of this paper is to undertake an initial critical analysis of different approaches to urban morphology in an effort to meet that challenge. The first aim is to identify the range of different phenomena taken as the object of urban morphological enquiry. The second is to identify an aspect that is common to all the approaches and that can be used as a reference key to co-ordinate different views in a rigorous way. The ultimate goal is a composite view in which the different approaches support each other to provide a better understanding of human settlements.
References
Batty, M. (2007) Cities and complexity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
Burgess, E. W. (1925) “The growth of the city”, em Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W. e Mackenzie, R. D. (eds) The city (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 47-62.
Calhoun, C. J. (ed.) (2002) Dictionary of social sciences (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Caniggia, G. e Maffei, G. L. (2001) Architectural composition and building typology: interpreting basic building (Alinea, Florence).
Castex, J., Celeste, P. e Panerai, P. (1980) Lecture d’une ville: Versailles (Editions du Moniteur, Paris).
Castex, J., Depaule, J. C., Panerai, P. e Samuels, I. (2005) Urban forms: the death and life of the urban block (Architectural Press, Oxford).
Conzen, M. R. G. (1966) “Historical townscapes in Britain: a problem in applied geography”, em House, J. W. (ed.) Northern Geographical essays in honour of G. H. J. Daysh (Department of Geography, University of Newcastle upon Tyne) 56-78.
Conzen, M. R. G. (1969) Alnwick, Northumberland:a study in town-plan analysis (Institute of British Geographers, London).
Conzen, M. R. G. (1981) “Geography and townscape conservation”, em Whitehand, J. W. R. (ed.) The urban landscape: historical development. Papers by M. R. G. Conzen Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 13 (Academic Press, London) 75-86.
Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea (Penguin, Harmondsworth).
Eco, U. (1979) A theory of semiotics (Indiana University Press, Bloomington).
Goethe, J. W. (1952) Goethe’s botanical writings (Bertha Mueller, Trad) (University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu HI).
Gould, S. J. (1991) Bully for brontosaurus (Penguin, Harmondsworth).
Habraken, N. J. (1998) The structure of the ordinary (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
Helm, J. e Robinson, A. (2002) GCSE Geography for AQA Specification B (Heinemann, Oxford).
Hillier, B. (1996) Space is the machine (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Hillier, B. e Hanson, J. (1984) The social logic of space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Hoyt, H. (1939) The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods in American cities (Federal Housing Administration, Washington DC).
Jacobs, J. (1961) The death and life of great American cities (Random House, New York).
Kropf, K. (1996) “Urban tissue and the character of towns”, Urban Design International 1, 247-63.
Kropf, K. (1997) “When is a plot not a plot: problems in representation and interpretation”, artigo não-publicado apresentado no Fourth International Seminar on Urban Form, Birmingham, England.
Kropf, K. (1998) “Plot types and housing in nineteenth century Westminster”, em Petruccioli, A. (ed.) Rethinking the XIXth century city (Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA) 113-19.
Kropf K. (2001) “Conceptions of change in the built environment”, Urban Morphology 5, 29-42.
Levy, A. (1999) “Urban morphology and the problem of the modern urban fabric: some questions for research”, Urban Morphology 3, 79-85.
Lynch, K. (1981) Good city form (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
Moudon, A. V. (1986) Built for change (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
Osmond, P. (2008) “An enquiry into new methodologies for evaluating sustainable urban form”, tese não-publicada, University of New South Wales.
Peirce, C. S. (1958) Charles S. Peirce: selected writings (Dover Publications, New York).
Putnam, H. (1995) Pragmatism (Blackwell, Oxford).
Slater, T. R. (1982) “Urban genesis and medieval town plans in Warwickshire and Worcestershire”, em Slater, T. R (ed.) Field and forest: an historical geography of Warwickshire and Worcestershire (Geo Books, Norwich) 173-202.
Stanilov, K. e Scheer, B. C. (eds) (2004) Suburban form: an international perspective (Routledge, London).
Steadman, P. (2008) The evolution of designs (Routledge, London).
Whitehand, J. W. R. e Carr, C. M. H. (2001) Twentieth-century suburbs: a morphological approach (Routledge, London).
Whitehand, J. W. R. e Morton, N. J. (2003) “Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: an academic concept and planning practice”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30, 819-39.
Wilkinson, E. M. (1962) “Goethe’s conception of form”, em Wilkinson, E. M. e Willoughby, L. A. (eds) Goethe: poet and thinker (Edward Arnold, London) 167-84.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Karl Kropf; Gislaine Elizete Beloto