yam,

rlý

An enquiry into

THE DEFINITION OF BUILT FORM

IN URBAN MORPHOLOGY

volume one

Karl- S'Kropf

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Geography

Faculty of Arts

University of Birmingham

1993
 SYNOPSIS

The thesis is divided into two main sections corresponding to two primary goals, one

theoretical, the other practical. Section I seeks to establish a consistent theoretical basis

for the definition and subdivision of built form for the purposes of urban morphological

analysis. An analysis and comparison of the work of M. R.G. Conzen and Gianfranco

Caniggia serves as the basis for this endeavour. The result is a proposal for definitions

and subdivisions -of built form, synthesizing the concepts and methods of Conzen and

Caniggia. Section II examines the implications of the proposed subdivision for

explanation in urban morphology and the possibility of applying morphological concepts

generally and the proposed subdivision in particular to the practice of urban planning,

urban design and architecture. The primary focus for application is the realm of

planning, specifically, the possibility of applying morphological analysis to the production

of planning regulations or guidelines.

108,738 words
 to M.P.S.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are due to the following for illustrations and willing and patient assistance: the

Library of the University of Birmingham; the Bodleian Library, in particular the Map

Room, Radcliffe Camera and the Upper Reading Room of the Old Library; Oxford

Polytechnic (now Oxford Brookes University) Library and the Local Studies Library of

the Oxford County Library.

The thesis would not have been possible without the Urban Morphology Research

Group. Fellow post-graduates of the U.M.R.G. have contributed to this thesis by their

in formal and informal discussions, asking intelligent questions and

active participation

In particular I would like to thank Nigel Baker,

pointing out unintelligent passages.

Heather Barrett, David Bell, Tim Hall, James Higgins, Phillip Hubbard, Andrew Jones,

Peter Larkham, Keith Lilley, Chris Whitfield and Helen Wright. Thanks are also due

to the staff of the Department of Geography for their administrative care and good

humour. Special thanks go to the senior members of the U. M.R.G., Dr. Terry Slater, for
reviewing work in progress and for general encouragement, and Professor Jeremy

Whitehand for maintaining a skillfull hand on a long rein in his task as supervisor.

Thanks and credit are due to the both of them also for providing an environment

conducive to the pursuit of the ideas presented here. Very special thanks are due to Dr.

M.R.G. Conzen for reading and commenting on my early work as well as for discussions,

advice and encouragement.

Further acknowledgments and thanks go to Richard Griffith for discussions

concerning listed buildings and for permission to include the results in the thesis.

Thanks also to Sylvain Malfroy for comments on an early draft of chapter three.

Particular thanks must go to Ivor Samuels

who introduced me to the subject and

supervised the Master's thesis on which this thesis is based. His continued interest and

comments have contributed greatly to the result. Thanks are due to him also for the

kind loan of various bits of drawing

equipment and many books unavailable elsewhere

in England. I am especially in his debt for presenting the opportunity to work in

Asnieres and for making the whole project possible. Thanks to Madame Abravanel and

the Patrimoine Historique et Artistique de la France for their part in the action pilote.

Thanks are due also to the mayor of Asnieres, Paul Lassus, for providing the cause of the

project and for his considerable contribution to it. For technical support in Asnieres as

well as substantial general support and encouragement, thanks to Patrick Alton-Marques

and Marie-Christine Bouyer.

Finally, special thanks to Mark Griffiths for help of kinds too numerous to mention

and to Juliet Blaxland, Julia Brown, Mr. and Mrs. A. Gore, David Lawson, Margot Levy,

Candida March and Margaret Savory.

 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

CONTENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

LIST OF TABLES xxi

LIST OF APPENDICES xxi

ABBREVIATIONSAND GRAPHIC CONVENTIONS xxii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Theory 1
Application 3

1. SOURCES AND ORIGINS 4

M. R.G. Conzen 4
Gianfranco Caniggia 6
Further sources and origins 7

2. BASIC PRINCIPLES 10
Built form as the product of human choice 10
Built form as the result of a process of formation 10
Built form as an arrangement of parts and as a whole 11
Built form as interpretation 11

3. THE ISSUE OF LANGUAGE 13

Language and logic 13
Native language and common terms 14
Language and logical types 15

4. METHOD 17
The method of the enquiry 17
The method of identifying specific forms 19
The method of explanation 20
The approach taken to explanation 21

5. THE THESIS IN THE CONTEXT OF GEOGRAPHY 22

 6. THE THESIS IN THE CONTEXTOF PLANNING,
URBAN DESIGNAND ARCHITECTURE 27

7. GENERAL REFLECTIONS 30

SECTION I: THEORY 32

CHAPTERTWO: A DETAILED ANALYSISOF M.R.G. CONZEN'S

MORPHOLOGICALSUBDIVISIONS 37

1. THE NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SUBDIVISIONS 38

Implied general aspects 38
Function 39
Social and economic context 39
Site 40
Development 40
The townscape 41
Land utilization pattern 42
The plot as unit 42
Use types 43
The relation betweenthe plot and use type 43
The distinction of form and use 44
Building fabric 46
Period of origin and the definition of form 48
Town plan 50
The plan-element complexes 51
Street-system 52
Plot pattern 53
Building pattern 56
Element types 57
Differences between the elements 57
Plan-units 59
Plan-Unit types and sub-types 60
Plan-divisions 62
Townscape cells or morphotopes 63

2. THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS 65

The relations between the form complexes 65
The static links 65
Building fabric-land utilization 66
Land utilization-town plan 67
The dynamic links 69
The relations between the plan-element complexes 70
The element complexes, plan-units, and plan-divisions 71
Summary of issues to be addressed in synthesis 72
CHAPTERTHREE: A DETAILED ANALYSISOF
GIANFRANCOCANIGGIA'SMORPHOLOGICALSUBDIVISIONS 75

1. THE NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SUBDIVISIONS 76

Copresence, derivation and the typological process 76
Copresence: the hierarchy of scales or general classes 77
The objects of the built environment 78
The hierarchy of objectsand general classes 79
Arrangements of objectsand specific classes 82
Materials 84
Natural and artificial materials 85
Elastic and plastic materials 86
Structures 86
Use and the definition of form 88
Apertures 90
Elastic and plastic structures 91
Rooms or cells 92
The base type 93
Level of specificity 93
The elementary cell 94
'Role' and the definition of form 95
Derivation and the definition of form 96
Buildings 97
The typological processand the definition of form 98
The basetype 99
The leading type and type of first building 100
Synchronic variants 102
Tissue 104
The lot 105
The pertinent strip 105
The route 106
The built route 107
A conflation of scales 108
The block 110
Base and infcll tissue 111
Nodes and poles 111
Urban organisms 112
The base settlement organism and elementary settlement nucleus 113
The base urban organism and elementary urban nucleus 113

2. THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS 116

The relation between scales or general classes 117
The relation between specific classes or types 119
Materials 120
Structures 120
Rooms or cells 121
Buildings 121
Tissues,quarters and urban organisms 121
Summary of issues to be addressed in synthesis 122
CHAPTER FOUR: THE COMPARISONAND EVALUATION OF
CONZEN'SAND CANIGGIA'SSUBDIVISIONS 124
.
1. GENERAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES 124
The medieval town 125
History and the process of formation 127
Objects and structure 129
Language 129
The question of applicability 130
The hypothesis of synthesis 131
The point of viewfor comparison and criteria for evaluation 133
The referencepoint for comparison and synthesis: the plot 134

2. COMPARISONOF GENERAL CONCEPTS 134

The test case of the plot 134
Overcoming the problems of the plot
and lot 135
Conzen's plot, use and the 136
aspect of use
Form, use and control 136
The importance of control 138
Re-examining the general aspects 140
Suggested general aspects 141
Distinctions within the general aspects 144
The temporal aspect 144
The human aspect 145
The natural aspect 147
The energetic aspect 147
Summary of general and specific aspects 147
Closer examination of the plot as the point of reference for synthesis 148
The plot and Conzen's and Caniggia's general conception of form 150
The type and the pertinent characteristics used to define form 151
Type, number and arrangement of parts as pertinent characteristics 152
Outline as a pertinent characteristic 152
The general structure of urban form and the distinction of
general classes 154
The hierarchy of form 154
'Containment' and the relation betweengeneral classes 155
The logical type and the general structure of urban form:
levels of complexity 156
Written language as an example 158
Generic and specific types 158
Generic type as a pertinent characteristic 160
Specific type as a pertinent characteristic 161
'Single object arrangements' and coextensive levels 163
The problem of language 165
Intermediate levels 166
Caniggia's lot in terms of coextensive levels 168
Level of specificity, level of resolution and outline 170
Level of specificity 171
Level of resolution 173
 Outline 176
Implications for procedure 177
Moving towards synthesis 179

3. A DETAILED COMPARISONAND EVALUATION OF SUBDIVISIONS 180

The plot as a starting point for synthesis 180
The building 182
Rooms, structures and materials 183
Substructures and intermediate levels 185
The problem of the level above the plot 187
The implications of general conception and procedure on the
definition of form 188
Accounting for the lost elementsof the block, plot series and
pertinent strip 190
-
The plot series or pertinent strip 191
The block 191
The block and the street/block pattern 193
The street or route as a form 193
Accounting for different types of route and intersections and pavements 194
Plan-units and tissue 196
Level of specificity and the definition of plan-units and tissue 196
General types of plan-unit or tissue 197
Phenomena of ambiguity: shared forms and resultant forms 198
Shared streets 198
Resultant blocks 199
Chronological comparative analysis 200
Interim summary of results 202
The problem of the level above the plan-unit/tissue 202
The problem of plan-unit type and sub-type and the concept of
form 203
constituent
The problem of discontinuity 205
The problem of too few examples 206
Conzen'splan-unit type and sub-type and the hierarchy of form 207
Conzenis forms and the upper limit of the hierarchy 209
What is a town? ' 210

CHAPTER FIVE: A PROPOSALFOR THE SUBDIVISIONOF

URBAN FORM FOR THE PURPOSESOF MORPHOLOGICALANALYSIS 212

1. PRELIMINARY DISTINCTIONS AND POINT OF VIEW 213

Classes, relations and properties 213
Space, time and energy 214
Point of view 214

2. THE OBJECT OF STUDY 215

The distinction between humans and the environment 216
The distinction between built and unbuilt forms 217
The distinction between movable and immovable forms 218
 The distinction between urban and rural areas 219
Urban areas and the traditional realms of enquiry 220

3. THE SUBDIVISION OF ASPECTS 221

The temporal aspect 222
The energetic aspect 223
The human aspect 223
The natural aspect 224

4. THE SPATIAL ASPECT 225

The characteristic of complexity 225
The hierarchy of levels of complexity. 226
Generic structure and generic types 227
Specific structure and specific types 229
The general conception of generic and specific types 230
Types conceived as three-dimensional 230
Types as general and specific classes 231
Types as hypotheses 232
Typesas the product of different functions or 'acts of building' 232
Coextensive levels and extension 234
Intermediate levels and compression 235
Extension, compression and ambiguity of levels 237
Resultant forms 238

5. THE PROCEDUREFOR IDENTIFYING SPECIFICTYPES 239

Generic structure as the fundamental type 239
The study area 240
Analytical scope 240
Chronological comparative analysis 241
Level of specificity and levels of resolution 241
The first level of specificity 243
Outline 243
Degreesof specif city 244
Relative position 245
The second level of specificity 245
Parts, number and arrangement 245
Degreesof specificity 246
Higher levels of specificity 247
Critical apparatus 247

SECTION II: APPLICATION 249

CHAPTER SIX: THE APPLICATIONTO EXPLANATION IN

URBAN MORPHOLOGY 252

1. MODES OF EXPLANATION 253

The spatial mode 253
Relative position 253
Internal structure 254
 Classification and opposition 255
The temporal mode 256
Chronology 256
Evolution 257
Classification and opposition 259
The energetic mode 260
Energy of construction and transformation 260
Energy of use 261
Classification and opposition 262
The human mode 262
Intention 262
Use 264
Control 264
Construction and transformation 265
Agents 266
The natural mode 266
Considerations for explanation 267
Response and significance 269
Explanation 269
Signification and interpretation 271
Character and senseof place 272
The limits and modes of interpretation 274
Enquiry as interpretation 275
Three modes of enquiry 277
The three modes in the context of established disciplines 279
Interpretation and culture 280

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE APPLICATION TO MANAGEMENT OF

INFORMATION CONCERNING BUILT FORM 283

1. A LETTER CONCERNINGTHE DEFINITION OF 'BUILDING'

AND THE MANAGEMENTOF LISTED BUILDINGS 285
Stating the problem 286
The general view of urban morphology 288
The specific view of urban morphology 291
Looking at an example 293
Manipulating information 295

CHAPTER EIGHT: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONSIN THE

APPLICATIONTO PLANNING, URBAN DESIGNAND ARCHITECTURE 300

1. DESCRIPTION AND PRESCRIPTION 300

Kinds of meta-discourse 302
General points of contact 305
Specific points of contact 307
Values and intentions: the necessary precursors to application 308
Internal conflicts? 309
CHAPTER NINE: THE APPLICATIONTO PLANNING 312

1. AN IDEAL APPROACH 312

The general context for application 313
The value of the existing built environment 315
Intentions 319
Public and private intentions 320
The suitability of forms to intentions 321
Identifying forms 322
The importance of specific distinctions 323
The importance of aspectsother than form 324
Moving from description to prescription 325

2. FORM BASEDZONING 327

Simplicity of regulations 329
Interrelation of regulations 329
Flexibility of regulations 330
Benefits of the emphasis on form 332
The mechanism of regulation 333
Application within the context of different planning systems 334

3. THE ISSUEOF CREATIVITY 336

4 AN EXAMPLE 339
The opportunity for application 339
The Action Pilote and Plan d'Occupation des Solsfor
Asnieres-sur-Oise 340
The Commune of Asnieres-sur-Oise 341
The specific context of application: the Plan d'Occupation des Sols 342

5. REFLECTIONS ON THE PROCESS OF PRESCRIPTION 347

The issue of assumptions and context 347
Defining types 349
Specific procedures 349
Challenges in the process 351
The necessity of judgement 353
Considerations in making prescriptions 254
The formulation of prescriptions 357
Reflections and considerations 362

SECTION III 365

CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSION 366

Results 366
Continuing plausibility 372
Opportunities and responsibilities 374

REFERENCES 378
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Elements of the town plan. 400

Figure 2. Caniggia's general categories of object. 401

Figure 3. Two senses of the relation 'contain'. 401

Figure 4. Caniggia's hierarchy of scales. 402

Figure 5. Specific classes as subdivisions 402

of a general class.

Figure 6. Rome: examples of diachronic transformation. 403

Figure 7. The typological process and the 404

growth of towns.

Figure 8. The relation between general

classes as
potential part-to-potential whole. 405

Figure 9. Simple representation of the

general aspects of the built environment. 405

Figure 10. Elaborated representation of the general aspects of

the built environment. 406

Figure 11. Study areas: motivated and arbitrary boundaries. 407

Figure 12. Different types of contemporary British brick. 410

Figure 13. Wall materials in English vernacular construction. 411

Figure 14. Roofing materials in English vernacular construction. 411

Figure 15. Masonry wall construction: ashlar and rubble. 413

Figure 16. Masonry wall construction: flint and brick or stone. 414

Figure 17. Brick wall construction. 415

Figure 18. Timber frame wall construction. 415

Figure 19. Timber frame wall construction:details. 416

 Figure 20. Wall apertures: windows characteristic of the medieval period. 417

Figure 21. Wall apertures: windows characteristic of

the 17th to 19th centuries. 418

Figure 22. The window aperture in detail. 419

Figure 23. The intermediate levels occupied by the sash window. 420

Figure 24. Window, Chapel of St. Etheldreda,London. 421

Figure 25. Roof types, distinguished by outline. 422

Figure 26. Timber frame roof construction: single and double types. 423
-rafter
Figure 27. Timber frame roof construction: butt 424
purlin types.

Figure 28. Timber frame roof 425

construction: slate covering.

Figure 29. Timber frame roof construction: 426

plain tile covering.

Figure 30. The street as a type of

structure, sections and details. 427

Figure 31. The street as a type of structure, 428

sections.

Figure 32. Examples of enclosure walls, England. 429

Figure 33. The Base type as a composition of structures. " 430

Figure 34. Elastic/timber and plastic/masonry structures. 431

Figure 35. Caniggia's diagrammatic representation of the wall envelope. 432

Figure 36. Greek and Roman masonry construction. 433

Figure 37. American wood frame construction. 433

Figure 38. American steel frame construction. 434

Figure 39. Small scale American steel construction. 435

Figure 40. Synchronic variants of the 'elementary cell'. 437

Figure 41. Types of room distinguished by proportions. 438

Figure 42. The stairway as a kind of room. 439

Figure 43. The dormer as a kind of room. 440

Figure 44. The chimney as a kind of room. 441

Figure 45. Examples of chimneys in English vernacular architecture. 441

Figure 46. Typical combinations of rooms in Tunisian houses. 442

Figure 47. Georgian house in Bedford Square, Bloomsbury, London. 444

Figure 48. Early Victorian back-to-back houses. 445

Figure 49. Mid-Victorian through-houses. 445

Figure 50. Late-Victorian back-wing houses. 446

Figure 51. Late-Victorian and Edwardian back-wing houses. 446

Figure 52. Tenements in Glasgow. 447

Figure 53. Edwardian villa in the French renaissance style. 447

Figure 54. Late-Edwardian semi-detached houses. 448

Figure 55. Simple buildings in England from the Roman period. 448

Figure 56. Diagrammatic representation of building types. 449

Figure 57. Wide frontage house with lateral hall behind shops. 450

Figure 58. Narrow frontage house with cross-passage in hall. 451

Figure 59. Narrow frontage house with long passage. 451

Figure 60. Narrow frontage house with longitudinal passage. 452

Figure 61. Universal terrace house. 453

Figure 62. Two-up and two-down cottage with central stairs. 454

Figure 63. Base types. 454

Figure 64. Base types and synchronic variants by position relative to slope. 455

Figure 65. Comparison of building types by region. 456

Figure 66. The typological process leading to the 'mature row house'. 457

Figure 67. The typological process of the row house. 459

Figure 68. Apartment houses resulting from fusion. 461

 Figure 69. Synchronic variants by position. The corner row house. 462

Figure 70. Diagrammatic representation of the specific structure

of the basilica. 462

Figure 71. Examples of basilicas in Italy, France, England and Germany. 463

Figure 72. The theatre. Examples from 18th century Europe. 464

Figure 73. The atrium house of the Roman Imperial period. 465

Figure 74. The courtyard house of North Africa. 466

Figure 75. Plans and section of courtyard house in Al-Kufa, Iraq. 468

Figure 76. General building types in San Francisco of the 19th century. 469

Figure 77. Building types in San Francisco

of the 19th century. 469

Figure 78. Building types in San Francisco

of the 19th and 20th centuries. 470

Figure 79. High-rise building type. 471

Figure 80. Four types of modern urban building. 472

Figure 81. The plot. 474

Figure 82. Teasdale's Yard. 475

Figure 83. Examples of plots from Oxford. 476

Figure 84. Examples of plots containing several different types of building. 476

Figure 85. Three blocks in North Oxford. 477

Figure 86. Hospital building, England, 18th century. 478

Figure 87. Ground floor wall surveys of Florence. 479

Figure 88. A comparison of Conzen's plot and Caniggia's lot. 480

Figure 89. Plot types in Venzone identified by Caniggia. 481

Figure 90. Greek courtyard houses. 482

Figure 91. The temple of Apollo, Delphi. 483

Figure 92. Part of the Plan of St. Gall. 484

Figure 93. Prison building, France, 19th century. 484

Figure 94. The Siedlung in Berlin, early 20th century. 485

Figure 95. Paris, Le Corbusier's Plan Voisin, 1925. 486

Figure 96. Apartment buildings in Florence. 487

Figure 97. Reconstruction of Harvard College and Cambridge Massachusetts. 488

Figure 98. Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine. 489

Figure 99. Cypress College, Cypress, California. 489

Figure 100. Examples of plot patterns in Alnwick. 491

Figure 101. Types of residual burgage complexes in Newcastle upon Tyne. 492

Figure 102. Metrological analysis of Lower Broad Street, Ludlow. 493

Figure 103. Geometrical analysis of

Broad Street-Mill Street plan-unit, Ludlow. 494

Figure 104. The terrace. An example in Oxford. 495

Figure 105. The semi-detached house as a resultant form. 496

Figure 106. The street/block pattern of central Oxford. 497

Figure 107. The street/block pattern of central Oxford with streets outlined. 498

Figure 108. High Street, Oxford. 499

Figure 109. Streets in central Oxford grouped by outline and orientation. 499

Figure 110. Intersections and squares in central Oxford. 500

Figure 111. Blocks in central Oxford grouped by outline. 501

Figure 112. Infill tissue. 502

Figure 113. A block in Tunis. 503

Figure 114. Streets and blocks in Tunis. 504

Figure 115. The block in San Francisco, north of Market Street. 505

Figure 116. 'Short-platting' the north of Market block. 505

Figure 117. The change in the plot pattern of the north of Market block. 506

Figure 118. Examples of proposed street sections for the Mission Bay site. 507

Figure 119. The site of Alnwick. 509

Figure 120. Reconstruction of medieval Alnwick. 510

Figure 121. Earlier development units in Alnwick. 511

Figure 122. Modern development units in Alnwick. 512

Figure 123. The Circus at Bath 513

Figure 124. View of the Circus at Bath circa 1773. 514

Figure 125. Florence, tissues composed primarily of basic buildings. 515

Figure 126. Caniggia's built routes and block. 516

Figure 127. Models of the formation of urban tissue. 517

Figure 128. Schematic representation of the elementary settlement nucleus. 517

Figure 129. The street/block and plot pattern of Pompeii. 518

Figure 130. Schematic representation of different general types of

plan unit or tissue. 519

Figure 131. Streets and blocks in the Alamo Square area, San Francisco. 520

Figure 132. Conway. 522

Figure 133. Whithorn and Frodsham. 523

Figure 134. Ludlow. 524

Figure 135. Alnwick. 525

Figure 136. The urban fringe belts of Alnwick. 526

Figure 137. Alnwick-Types of plan-units. 527

Figure 138. The plan divisions of Alnwick. 528

Figure 139. Plan-units in the medieval town of Doncaster. 529

Figure 140. The plan-units of medieval Bewdley. 530

Figure 141. Schematic representation of the elementary urban nucleus. 530

Figure 142. Suggested graphic convention for two plan units with
a shared street. 531

Figure 143. The street/block pattern of San Francisco. 532

Figure 144. Conjectural plan-units of San Francisco circa 1852.533

 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Generic structure and generic types - 227

Table 2. Matrix of listings and built objects 296

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Figures -- 399

Appendix B. Notes on Goethe's method 535

Appendix C. Caniggia's typo-morphological method 538

Appendix D. Plan d'Occupations des Sols for Asnieres-sur-Oise,

draft in English, 21-1-92 554

 ABBREVIATIONS AND GRAPHIC CONVENTIONS

Abbreviations

Alnwick = Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town Plan Analysis (Conzen 1969)

Lettura = Composizione Architettonica e Tipologia Edilizia:.

1. Lettura dell'Edilizia di Base (Caniggia and Maffei 1979)

Progetto = Composizione Architettonica e Tipologia Edilizia:

2. Il Progetto nell'Edilizia di Base (Caniggia and Maffei 1984)

Graphic conventions

In the text, single slashes indicate something intended as an expression or sign-vehicle,

while guillemets indicate something intended as content. Thus /plot/ refers to the

sequence of characters forming the word and <plot>. to the idea or concept
_refers

corresponding to the word. /Plot/ means, expresses or refers to <plot>. Also, in order

to distinguish words from objects, double slashes will be used to indicate an object.

Therefore, //plot// is the object corresponding to the verbal expression /plot/, both refering

to the content <plot> (Adapted from Eco 1976).

 ONE

INTRODUCTION

This thesis has two primary goals. One is to establish a consistent basis for the

definition and subdivision of built form for the purposes of urban morphological analysis.

A proposal for definitions and subdivisions is then made on that basis. The other

primary goal is to examine the possibility of applying the proposed subdivision to the

of urban planning, urban design and architecture. The first goal concerns
practice

theory, and the second application. There are two main sections to the thesis

to these two goals. Section I covers theory, section II application.

corresponding

Theory

The theory is based on the work of M. R. G. Conzen and Gianfranco Caniggia. The aim

a consistent basis for the definition and subdivision of form springs from
of establishing

of their work and the desire to both overcome some of the inconsistencies
a close reading

and shortcomings perceived in it as well as to pursue a similarity between their

 2

respective subdivisions and methods. The similarity presents the possibility of

synthesizing their work and so achieving the aim of a more consistent and coherent

subdivision of form. The inconsistencies of one might be overcome by the strengths of

the other. In addition, their work is complementary in terms of the scope and detail of

the objects they identify and analyze. Taken together the two might then provide a more

comprehensive and detailed subdivision.

The means adopted to establish a consistent basis for the definition and subdivision

of urban form has two main components. The first is a detailed analysis of Conzen's and

Caniggia's subdivisions and the second

a comparison and evaluation of the subdivisions.

The work of Conzen and Caniggia has been

chosen over others as a starting point

because theirs is the most fully developed the field of urban

and rigorous within

morphology. The analysis of Conzen's subdivisions is found in chapter two and of

Caniggia's in chapter three.

Conzen's and Caniggia's subdivisions are compared in chapter four, The comparison

states and elaborates- the fundamental hypothesis of the thesis: both Conzen's and

Caniggia's subdivisions have a similar structure and both are similar to a more abstract

structure, specifically, a hierarchy of types as put forward by Whitehead and Russell

(1925). That similarity provides a basis for synthesizing Conzen's and Caniggia's

subdivisions to arrive at a more consistent and coherent subdivision of urban form.

Comparing the two sets of subdivisions with each other and the abstract structure is a

means of checking the hypothesis of similarity. Chapter five sets out the results of the

comparison as a proposal for a modified subdivision of urban form. Implications for the

procedures of analysis are also presented.

 3
Application

The immediate aim of morphological analysis is to identify and describe the constituent

parts of urban form and their interaction in the process of formation. The subdivision

of form provides the theoretical framework for analysis. The ultimate goal of analysis is

to explain the form, process of formation and diversity of urban areas. The first realm

for application is thus explanation. Further realms for application are the fields of

planning, urban design and architecture. The implications of the proposed subdivision

of form for application in these realms is explored in section II of the thesis. The

primary focus for application is the realm of planning, specifically, the possibility of the

application of morphological analysis to the production of planning regulations or

guidelines.

The issues of applying the suggested

subdivision are addressed in section II, being

chapters six, seven, eight and nine. The implications of the subdivision for explanation

are explored in chapter six. In chapter seven a hypothetical example of application to

the organization and manipulation of information for the purposes of management is

pursued. The general issues of applying the definitions and explanations of morphology

to planning, urban design and architecture are pursued in chapter eight. Presented in

chapter nine is an ideal approach to the application of the suggested morphological

subdivisions to guidelines and regulations for planning as well as an account of an actual

example of application.

The desirability of pursuing the aims of this thesis has been voiced by T. R. Slater.

Undoubtedly the two biggest challenges facing the community of scholars [in
urban
morphology] are, first, the integration of
the two major schools of conceptual thought:
on the one hand, the Anglo-German, historico-geographical group following the
precepts developed by M. R. G. Conzen and, on the other, the Italian, architectural
planning group following the precepts developed by Muratori and Caniggia.
Secondly, there is the challenge of presenting these
scholarly analyses in a way in
 4

which they can be utilized by those professionals, developers and public servants
who have responsibility for managing the development of the townscape, as well as
educating the public and politicians as to the significance of inherited townscapes.
(Slater 1990a: 17)

In these terms, this thesis confronts both these challenges and, it is hoped, goes

some way in meeting them. The first challenge is more directly addressed in the attempt

to synthesize the work of Conzen and Caniggia. To achieve even a step in the direction

of integration is to move closer to a position from which it is possible to benefit from the

wisdom and experience of two bodies of scholars rather than one. The second challenge

presents a much broader front and is first explored generally and then, necessarily,

addressed from a particular position. In both cases, the position occupied is one resting

firmly on the shoulders of those who came before. If it allows one to see further, it is

because of the height they provide.

SOURCESAND ORIGINS

M. R. G. Conzen

The work of M.R.G. Conzen lies within the tradition of human geography and more
_

specifically German settlement geography. He was a student at the Geographical

Institute in the University of Berlin from 1926. There, Conzen took up the ideas of

Schlüter's Kulturgeographie, introduced in 1899, and the work of Louis and Bobek,

whose seminars and field excursions Conzen attended. (Whitehand 1981: 9).

Conzen's development of urban morphology was first and most fully set out in

Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis (first published in 1960 with a

 5

revised edition published in 1969). The subtitle of this monograph points to Conzen's

greatest contribution to geography, the method of town plan analysis, a method further

elaborated in his studies of central Newcastle (1962) and Ludlow (1966,1975,1988).

One of the major contributions of his method is the systematic inclusion of plots as a

primary element for analysis. Before the publication of Alnwick, plots and plot pattern

had received little attention in urban morphology (Conzen 1969:4).

Conzen's work established a framework of concepts, terminology and procedures for

analyzing the town plan in the effort to explain the physical form of the town itself. The

approach is historical and evolutionary, seeing the form of the town as the result of the

sequence of events in its formation. Those events are in turn seen as part of the social

and economic development of the local, regional and national context in which the town

lies. In some of his later papers, Conzen also began exploring the issue of what he

termed townscape management, suggesting the use of morphological analysis as a basis

for decision making in the control of change in the built environment.

The use and extension of Conzen's method by others is a mark of its value as a

contribution to the field of geography as well as urban archaeology. To give a sample,

the work of Bond (Bond 1990; Aston and Bond 1976), Bradley (1990), Brooks and

Whittington (1977), M.P. Conzen (1990), Gordon (1981,1984), Koter (1990), Slater

(Slater 1981,1982,1988a, 1988b, 1989,1990b; Hayfield and Slater 1984), Whitehand

(Whitehand 1975,1977,1987,1988b, 1990,1992; Whitehandand Alauddin 1969) to

greater and lesser degrees rest on the foundations laid by Conzen. That his work has not

been more widely accepted is in part due to the move toward quantification in British

and North American geography in the 1960s. It is mainly in the last ten years that more

work has appeared which is a, development of Conzen's ideas (Whitehand 1988a).

 6

This thesis attempts to develop the concepts, terminology and procedures of

Conzenian morphological analysis and set them out in general terms, thus at the same

time giving some indication of their wider application. This thesis must be seen,

therefore, as lying within the realm of urban morphology and so more generally within

the realm of human geography.

Cianfranco Caniggia

The work of the Italian architect and urban historian Gianfranco Caniggia, the other

source on which this thesis draws, is, strictly speaking, outside the realm of geography.

The typo-morphological approach to architecture and urban design put forward and

practised by Caniggia is a direct development of the work and teachings of Saverio

Muratori, also an Italian architect. Muratori trained as an architect and architectural

tutor in the late 1920s. By the 1950s he had become disenchanted with the overall view

and approach, and more so the result, of the Modernism he had been taught. Muratori

himself taught at the School of Architecture in Venice from 1950 to -1955 and at Rome

from 1956 to 1973. In Venice he initiated a study of the existing structure of the city

of Venice to form a basis for the design of buildings within the city. Regardless of the

opposition to his approach on. the part of other tutors and students, Muratori developed

it further in Rome. He worked on the notion that the proper basis for design was a

thorough knowledge of buildings. His concern was the processes of the formation and

transformation of the built environment and the immediate needs it accommodates, rather

than an abstract social or political programme.

Caniggia, as an assistant of Muratori, took up his ideas and approach. He

participated in the major study of Rome directed by Muratori published in 1963

 7
(Muratori, et al 1963). In the same year Caniggia published a study of the town of Como

(Caniggia 1963). He worked as an architectural tutor from 1959 and elaborated -and

extended the methods formulated by Muratori both as a tutor and as a practising

architect. With Gian Luigi Maffei, Caniggia published two major works which set out

those developments, Composizionearchitettonica e tipologia edilizia: 1 Lettura dell edilizia

di base (Caniggia and Maffei 1979), and, Composizionearchitettonica e tipologia edilizia:

2 Il progetto nell edilizia di base (Caniggia and Maffei 1984). Caniggia was a professor

of architecture at Florence and later at Rome.

In as much as this thesis draws on Caniggia's and Muratori's work and is motivated

in part by the desire to apply the results to the realms of architecture and urban design,

it must be seen as lying within that realm. The thesis is an attempt to further develop

the typo-morphological approach to architecture and urban design.

Further sources and origins

More generally, this thesis lies within the field of study established by Johann Wolfgang

von Goethe.

The subject Goethe developed, and christened, for the study of living forms in the
process of constant change and transformation was Morphology. By it he understood
not only a branch of botany and biology, which is the meaning it still has today, but
an independent science. It would, as he conceived it, make use of the findings of
all the other sciences, including the quantitative results of physics and chemistry.
For he was not, as is often asserted, opposed to analytical methods. On the contrary,
he states explicitly, and on many occasions, that every means of investigating nature
is legitimate and useful. The business of morphology was what he called
...
'synthesis'; by which he did not mean putting together again all the parts that
analysis had laid out side by side, but starting with living wholes and studying them
in the light of the information about them that other sciences can provide; or put the
other way round, co-ordinating the scattered findings of the other sciences under the
unifying aspect of form.
By what means is one to grasp the full complexity of an organism - not just
...
its external appearance but its internal organization, the interworking of all the parts
in and through the whole? And not just the organism as we see it at any given
 8

moment of time but the cycle of its development from the beginning of its
life-history till its end, including transformation into something totally unlike in
appearance as, for instance, the metamorphosis of a chrysalis into a butterfly?
Goethe thought it could only be done by what he called Anschauung, intuitive
contemplation, you if like, though both these words have something misleading about
them. It involved first a subtle technique of the eye, indispensable for the
apprehension of developmental processes; but the role of the mind's eye is no less
important. The analytical thought involved is considerable too; for all the findings
of the physico-chemical study of organism have to be borne in mind.... Intuition,
on the other hand, might suggest the sudden flash out of the blue. But, vital and
indispensable as that is, it is but one moment in the sustained process of
Anschauung, a moment for which Goethe reserved the term apercu, defining this as
one link in the chain of observation and thought. Goethe developed the technique
of Anschauung into a methodical discipline and a fine art; it was by means of it that
he made the discoveries he did about the forms of animals and plants.
The bringing of order into all the variety of individual forms thus grasped was
achieved by Goethe in two complementary ways: by comparison and by the use of
the type concept, the former a source of genuine inspiration to later workers in the
field, the latter still the subject of much dispute. The archetypal concept, as he
used it, involved a free movement between deduction and induction, even as
Anschauung involved a constant alternation between analysis and synthesis. The
procedure was to compare individual forms until the mind was sufficiently saturated
with them for an archetype to emerge which then, in its turn, served as a regulative
organ of perception in the comparison and ordering of further forms. Though
abstractions, therefore, these archetypes or, as he called them Urphanomene, were
never purely mental abstractions; they still partook of sensuous experience. Nor
were they static conceptions like Platonic ideas; they were capable of modification
as new forms were investigated. (Wilkinson 1962: 177-8)

As an object for morphological investigation, the built environment is, needless to

say, quite different from plants or animals. The notion of the application of Goethe's

morphological analysis to the built environment is not, however, too far fetched. Goethe

himself applied his morphological principles to the evaluation and criticism of works of

art. In doing so, he was aware of the differences between living things and works of art.

For such principles to be fruitful in their application the critic must have the
differences between art and nature constantly in mind. First and most important is
the difference of material. Morphological criticism which, in discussing a work of
art, does not take account of the substance in which the formative principle is there
at work lands itself in that species of organism aesthetics which is content to speak
in terms of cells and fibres and never gets down to talking in terms of words and
tones, paint and canvas, clay or stone. Not-that there is anything wrong with
 9

biological analogies for the purposes of illumination. But they can never yield any
measure of precision.
Secondly, the relations of natural forms are in constant flux and change. Those
of art-forms are stable. As Goethe puts it in his essay on Winklemann, man, victim
of transience in himself and in the forms among which he dwells, is yet endowed
with the power to create forms which endure. It is perhaps ironical that we can only
continue to live in the world we inhabit by abstracting stability from the forms of
change; whereas we endow art with life by attributing movement, growth, and
function to relations which are in fact stable. It is this illusion of movement which
makes it possible to apply to art the same-morphological principles as to nature; and
the sense of its being an illusion frank, and honest illusion, as Schiller would say
-a
be absent from criticism.
- must never
And thirdly, art has what Goethe called Gehalt. This is perhaps best rendered
by import, for it is not to be confused with content as this is often understood. The
objects, figures and scenes represented, the paraphrasable prose sense which can
be abstracted from literature, these, for Goethe, are all as much a part of the artist's
material, his Stoff, as the stone or clay, the brush, paint, and canvas, the words and
the tones. They are the potential which takes on the specific actuality of form.
Once all this heterogeneous material is fashioned by the artist it constitutes Gestalt
it. All the patterns or systems of relation, work on each other. Sound
- all of
patterns, rhyme, rhythm, colour, and shape do not simply work together as form and
contain images, ideas, characters, objects, and themes which are to be thought of as
meaning or content patterns. What then is Gehalt? A Gestalt of nature has no
import. Its whole complex existence is its Gestalt which is expressive of nothing but
itself. It is, if you like, its own import. But a Gestalt which is a work of art is
expressive of feeling, of the elusive but familiar patterns of our inner life, those
transient experiences which are expressible in no other way. This is its Gehalt.
And this import is immanent within the Gestalt, implicit in it, and never to be made
explicit by being translated into any other set of terms.
Must we, then, despair of saying anything about a work of art at all? Goethe
encourages us to think that we need not. 'The true mediator' he says 'is art itself.
To speak about art therefore, would seem like trying to mediate the mediator; and
yet by doing so, much that is valuable has accumulated. ' For what we can speak
is
of not the Gehalt but the Gestalt and that is the whole value of the analogy with
-
nature. We can try to discover the relations of the parts to each other and to the
whole; partly by Anschauung, and partly by analysis. Again with his approval:
'Don't be discouraged by having to take the poem to pieces as it were' he wrote to
a friend, 'I know of no other way of proceeding from a general to a specific
appreciation. ' The procedure advocated was essentially the some as for works of
nature: a constant to and fro between analysis and synthesis - synthesis not in the
sense of putting together the results attained by attending to the parts, but in the
sense of looking at the whole again in the light of all the detail discovered.
(Wilkinson 1962: 180-1)

Obviously there are yet differences between works of art and the built environment,

most important is the fact that though in

stable somerespects,the built environment
 10

does function and grow. It is to some extent both nature and art. Further, like art, it

has in many cases import, Goethe's Gehalt.

BASIC PRINCIPLES

Built form as the product of human choice

Goethe's morphology provides some basic principles for-the more specific study of urban

morphology. As Goethe studied the body, the cells, tissues and organs of plants and

animals or the paint and canvas, words and tones of works of art, so in studying the built

environment it is necessary to begin with its material substance. If, for urban

morphology, the object of enquiry is, generally, that which has been built, then the Stoff

of the built environment is building materials: bricks and mortar, timber, stone, concrete,

steel, glass etc..

Built objects are, however, not only the materials themselves but the material as

selected and arranged by humans. The material in isolation is mute. In isolation the

materials are not forms. Form is the material in an arrangement. Built form is the

material in an arrangement which is the result of human choice, the choice of using a

particular material for a particular purpose and putting it in a particular place.

Built form as the result of a process of formation

Form is the result of the process of formation (Goethe in Wilkinson 1962: 176). To

understand the choices and arrangements constituting the built environment it is

necessary to follow the acts of building, the sequence of events which result in the
 11

arrangement of that material. The form or structure of the built environment is the result

of the whole history of building acts. Thus, as noted by Caniggia, there is a

correspondence between structure and history (Caniggia 1979: 59). Or, in Goethe's

words, 'we try in vain to express the essence of a thing. All that we can become aware

of are effects and a complete history of effects would presumably at least approximate the

essenceof that same thing' (in Stephenson 1984: 61). To understand the structure of the

built environment, it is necessary to examine history.

Built form as an arrangement of parts and as a whole

In general, the basis for understanding an identifiable form is understanding the

interrelation between parts and between the parts and the whole. Thus in urban

morphology it is necessary to see form as both a complex of component parts and as a

whole. The two views are not mutually exclusive, at least over time. That is,

perceptually, it may not be possible to see the forms of. the built environment as both

arrangements of parts and as whole objects simultaneously, but it is possible to see them

so alternately. Taking the procedure from Goethe, we can take in both views over time

and compare them. In combination then, as an idea, we can see that the whole is the

arrangement of parts. We do not know the arch except as an arrangement of individual

stones.

Built form as interpretation

Here, it is recognised that the perception and identification of parts and their position

in a whole is the product of an interaction between the object of enquiry (leaving aside

the ontological status of the 'object') and the enquirer. There is an interpretation
 12

involved. Nor are the more 'vague' aspects of interpretations separable from the objects.

One is dealing with objects, with things, but also with an observer and, finally, with that

which arises between the two. The intellectual, physical and emotional responses of the

observer to which may be applied the labels of conception, idea, image, allusion,

nostalgia, mystery, beauty, repulsion, depression are the result of the relation between

the objects and the observer. These lie neither in the object nor in the 'eyes of the

beholder' but in the relation between the two.

Yet, the results of interpretation can be shared, can be intersubjective and can be

said to have an objective existence. What must be avoided, however, is, on the one

hand, falling back on received ideas and concepts and on the other, falling into singular

viewpoints which cannot be shared, which cannot become intersubjective. That is to say,

the objects which are part of existing discourse and which are considered 'natural' or

self-evident must still be examined and evaluated, tested to determine if they remain

valid and relevant. Equally, some effort must be made to determine which parts,

relations, and interactions contribute to the more general or vague aspects of the sense

of the built environment. For this reason it is necessary to be specific about the forms

which contribute to a whole and make the means of identifying those forms identifiable

and repeatable. The aim of this thesis is to suggest such a means.

 13

THE ISSUEOF LANGUAGE

Language and logic

For any enquiry into the built environment to be communicated it is necessary to use

language. This fact presents certain issues which must be addressed when attempting

to examine and analyze the works of others and when attempting to describe phenomena

oneself. One issue is the structure of language.

Language continually asserts by the syntax of subject and predicate that 'things'
somehow 'have' qualities and attributes. A more precise way of talking would insist
that the 'things' are produced, are seen as'separate from other 'things', and are made
'real' by their internal relations and by their behaviour in relationship with other
things and with the speaker. (Bateson, 1980: 67; my emphasis)

This is to say, the structure of language used to describe a given phenomenon does

not necessarily correspond to the structure or internal relations of the phenomenon nor

to the relationship between the given phenomenon and other phenomena or the speaker.

The verbal description of a building, for example, does not have the same structure as

the building. The parts of language are different from those of the built environment and

they fit together in a different way.

The analysis and comparison of Conzen's and Caniggia's texts thus necessarily

involves a scrutiny of the structure of the language used. One of the aims of the analysis

is to attempt to separate the structure imposed by language and identify the structure of

subdivisions in general terms: those of classes, relations and properties. That is, the

analysis involves identifying the pertinent characteristics selected to define classes of

entities and the formal relations between the entities and classes of entities.

The analysis and comparison of the texts of Conzen and Caniggia is not an analysis

of the built environmentbut of views or interpretationsof the built environment. The

 14

is
analysis an examination of language and concepts which refer to the built environment.

Chapters two, three and four are thus more strictly language or logical analysis rather

than geography or architecture. Those chapters make use of fundamental ideas from the

realm of the philosophy of language and formal logic as developed by Peirce, Frege,

Russell, Quine, Carnap, Wittgenstein and others. This approach is taken as a necessary

component in the overall aim of the thesis. It is a means to an end.

Native language and common terms

One of the issues of language faced in analyzing Conzen's and Caniggia's work is more

practical in nature. They write in different languages and neither is a native English

speaker, though Conzen did write his major works in English. Stylistically, they write

very differently, which is in some ways due to their respective native languages and

disciplines. Conzen's English is terse, using Latinate or greek based terms often from

geomorphology. Caniggia's Italian is rhetorical and elaborate, using terms borrowed from

biology (see Afalfroy 1986).

In addressing Conzen's work, the tersenessbecomes a problem. Terms are defined

in very few words and generally only in one or two phrasings so that any ambiguity must

be settled by inferences from. other parts of the text. With Caniggia or, more strictly

Caniggia and Maffei, the first issue is translation from the Italian. None of their texts

are available in English (portions of Lettura and Progetto have been translated and are

included as Appendix Q. Beyond the translation, the main issue presented by Caniggia

and MTaffei's prose is that its fullness, wealth of examples and variant phrasings of

concepts or definitions present some ambiguities due to conflicting interpretations.

Ultimately, however, these issues present a relatively minor problem.

 15

Much more troublesome with respect to language is the issue of common terms or

names. In hypothesising about such terms as 'building' or 'plot' in the attempt to arrive

at new subdivisions of form, one runs up against both a flexible network and a relatively

intransigent body of concepts. The attempt to reconceptualize classes or subdivisions of

form and then apply to them recognizable or familiar names as labels often results in a

repulsion between the component concepts associated with the familiar name and the

new class or subdivision. Is, for example, a single terraced house a building? Is it, with

its garden, a plot? Is the entire terrace a building? Can a class or subdivision labelled

'plot' include as members both a single terraced house with its garden and a public

park?

The problem faced specifically in chapter five is the desire to find a label for a

general class of form which is familiar and descriptive yet general enough to

accommodate a wide range of forms. The solution chosen is to use Latin terms. Latin

is familiar enough because it is a root language of English and is used in taxonomy and

other Fields of enquiry while being vague enough because it is a dead language.

Language und logical types

This tactic also helps in dealing with another problem which arises due to the structure

of language and the structure of subdivisions to be described. It is in a sense the

reverse of the in
problem encountered analysis. Language is the lens through which one

views someone else's conception of a phenomenon. Equally, it is the lens through which

one must project ones own ideas. Particularly when dealing with complex notions, that

lens often distorts or darkens the view.

 16

The structure of subdivisions outlined in chapter five involves a distinction which,

it
until was first fully exposed by A. N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell at the beginning

of this century, was the source of paradox for at least 2000 years. It is in the effort to

keep that distinction clear that the tactic of using Latin terms seems necessary. The

distinction made is that between a class and its members. Confusion of class and

member generates, amongst other things, the vicious circle or liars' paradox.

'Epimenides was a Cretan who said "Cretans always lie". ' Is Epimenides lying?

Whitehead and Russell's solution to this problem (1925) is to posit a hierarchy of

logical types. Members of a class are of one type, and the class, as an entity, is of a type

one step up in the hierarchy. The paradox plays on the fact that it is necessary to use

language to talk about language. A statement about all statements is of a higher logical

type than an ordinary statement because it refers to the class of all statements. The

problem is that a statement about all statements is, obviously, a statement and so also

itself a member of the class of all statements. There is a confusion of member and class.

Distinguishing between 'statements' and 'statements about all statements' avoids the

confusion and removes the paradox.

The problem in attempting to describe the structure of a hierarchy of logical types

is that the subject - predicate structure of language does not distinguish between classes

and their members. A 'class' and a 'member' are both rendered as nouns, as things.

Further, language becomes an awkward medium for rendering the hierarchical structure.

To speak of parts of parts and parts of parts of parts, while being accurate is not

felicitous. The use of Latin labels for the different levels in the hierarchy distinguishes

between class and member and allows for the use of simpler language.
 17

METHOD

The method of the enquiry

The issues of language discussed so far touch on some aspects of the relationship

between forms and the observer. - The way in which the forms are conceived and

therefore rendered into language is an aspect of that relationship. Another is

aspect the

way in which the observer arrives at a given conception. The process of

conceptualization or reconceptualization is part of any enquiry and involves inference.

The general method of enquiry adopted in this thesis is taken form C.S. Peirce.

Every inquiry whatsoever takes its rise in the observation ... of some surprising
phenomenon, some experience which either disappoints an expectation, or breaks
in upon some habit of expectation of the inquisiturus; The inquiry begins with
...
pondering these phenomena in all their aspects, in the search of some point of view
the wonder shall be resolved. At length a conjecture arises that furnishes
whence
a possible Explanation, by which I mean a syllogism exhibiting the surprising fact
as necessarily consequent upon the circumstances of its occurrence together with the
truth of the credible conjecture, as premisses [sic]. On account of this Explanation,
the inquirer is led to regard his conjecture, or hypothesis, with favour. As I phrase
it, he provisionally holds it to be 'Plausible'; this acceptance ranges in different
cases - and reasonably so from a mere expression of it in the interrogative mood,
-
as a question meriting attention and reply, up through all appraisals of Plausibility,
to uncontrollable inclination to believe. The whole series of mental performances
between the notice of the wonderful phenomenon and the acceptance of the
hypothesis, during which the usually docile understanding seems to hold' the bit
between its teeth and to have us at its mercy, the search for pertinent circumstances
and the laying hold of them, sometimes without our cognizance, the scrutiny of them,
the dark laboring, the bursting out of the startling conjecture, the remarking of its
smooth fitting to the anomaly, as it is turned back and forth like a key in a lock,
and the final estimation of its Plausibility, I reckon as composing the First Stage of
Inquiry. Its characteristic form of reasoning I term Retroduction [or Abduction]; i. e.,
reasoning from consequent to antecedent....
Retroduction does not afford security. The hypothesis must be tested.
This testing, to be logically valid, must honestly start, not as Retroduction starts,
with scrutiny of the phenomena, but with examination of the hypothesis, and a
muster of all sorts of conditional experiential consequences which would follow from
its truth. This constitutes the Second Stage of Inquiry. For its characteristic form
of reasoning our language has, for two centuries, been happily provided with the
name Deduction....
 18

The purpose of Deduction, that of collecting, consequents of the hypothesis,

having been sufficiently carried out, the inquiry enters upon its Third Stage, that of
ascertaining how far those consequents accord with Experience, and of judging
accordingly whether the hypothesis is sensibly correct, or requires some inessential
modification, or must be entirely rejected. Its characteristic form of reasoning is
Induction. (Peirce 1958,367-9)

This is here taken as a more detailed account of Goethe's 'free movement between

deduction and induction. ' The hypothesis can be seen as the archetype, as described

by Wilkinson, which is then considered more or less plausible by deduction and

induction. The free movement is better described as a circle or perhaps a spiral. The

hypothesis, taken as a whole or partially, is tested by deduction and induction and

modified or rejected. The modified or new hypothesis is then tested again and so on

through successive cycles until it is considered sufficiently plausible. If one maintains

some doubts about or dissatisfaction with existing explanations of certain phenomena, one

must continue to look at evidence in different ways and to remain open to different

hypotheses, to test their consequences when they arise and to test the accordance of

those consequences with experience.

From this position, an inductive or deductive approach alone is seen as insufficient.

The combination of methods provides a more complete account, in the same way that the

combination of viewing form as both whole and an arrangement or interaction of parts

is a better account of form.

The standards for the deductive component of the enquiry are those of formal logic.

Of particular importance is the distinction made between class, relation and property

and, as mentioned, that between a class and a member of the class.

Chapters two and three are primarily deductive. In each, the respective subdivision

of Conzen and Caniggia is taken as an hypothesis and examined to determine, as much

 19

as possible, the 'conditional experiential consequenceswhich would follow from its truth. '

Chapter four involves all three modes. The evaluation of Conzen's and Caniggia's

subdivisions is inductive in the comparison of the two with each other and with specific

examples in order to determine the extent to which the 'consequents' of deduction

'accord with Experience: The suggestion of a similarity between the two sets of

subdivisions and between both and the abstract structure of the hierarchy of logical types

is the hypothesis. There is deduction in the examination of that hypothesis and its

consequences and implications. There is further induction in determining whether the

implications accord with experience by showing how the hypothesised subdivision

accounts for further specific examples.

Chapter five is a more formal statement of the various conclusions of chapter four.

It is in a sense a summary of the results of the previous chapters and is the goal at

which they aim. That aim is, again, to establish a consistent, coherent and

comprehensive subdivision of urban form for the purposes of urban morphological

analysis.

The method of identifying specific forms

The establishment of a general subdivision or general structure for urban form is the

necessary precursor to the analysis and comparison of the specific structure of particular

urban areas or built forms in morphological analysis. As outlined in chapter five, the

method used to identify and describe the specific structure of forms for particular areas

is the same as that used in formulating the general structure. That is, Goethe's and

Peirce's cycles of hypothesis, deduction and induction is used in identifying specific

types of form in the morphological analysis of specific urban areas. The method is
 20

therefore part of the procedure for identifying specific types in morphological analysis

which follows from the suggested general structure of subdivisions as set out in chapter

rive.

The method of explanation

The identification of specific types of form is, of course, only a step in the process of

explanation. The procedure for identifying specific forms set out in chapter five accounts

for the internal relations of form and some of the relations between a given form and

others. An adequate explanation of form must identify further relations of a given built

form to other built forms as well as to humans and to natural entities. That is to say, to

fully explain a given built form it is necessary to see it in its human context and its

natural context as well as its built context. There is, in addition, an energetic context.

The construction, maintenance and use of a built form requires energy. Accounting for

the energy required and used and the dynamics of that use adds a further dimension to

the explanation of the form and so improves our understanding of the form. Chapter six

explores the issues of explanation entailed by the adoption of the suggested subdivision

of urban form of chapter five.

Again, the primary aim of this thesis is to suggestthe subdivision. The examination

of explanation is a secondary aim and is necessarily only an outline discussion, the

purpose of which is to identify the main components of explanation following from the

suggested subdivision, their limits and procedural implications.

 21
The approach taken to explanation

Explanation is assumed to be, at its most general, the correlation of the description of

phenomena to a set or structure of relations (Bateson 1980: 90). The method used to

identify the set of relations is again the cycle of hypothesis, deduction and induction.

A form, as a description of phenomena, is hypothesised to correspond to a particular

position in a set of relations, the other positions being occupied by descriptions of other

phenomena. The hypothesis is determined to be plausible by deducing its implications

and checking its correspondence with experience by induction.

Different sets of relations will apply to a given form, the nature of the relations will

differ from set to set and the structure of any one may be more or less coherent. As

in
suggested more detail in chapter six, the primary sets used in explaining urban form

are: the spatial relations between built forms; the temporal relations constituting the

process of formation; the energetic relations in the production, maintenance,

transformation and use of a form; the relations between the form and humans, primarily

those of intention, construction and use, but also of control and significance; the relations

between a form and the natural environment.

The language considered to be appropriate to describe the different relations and

entities related will differ depending on the nature of the entities and relations. Some

are best described graphically, others verbally and others numerically (the choice of an

appropriate language, it would seem, is itself an hypothesis which demands testing to

determine which is the most effective for the purposes of a given set of relations). The

energetic relations, on the one hand, are best expressed numerically. On the other hand,

the human-built form relations would not seem susceptible to numeric description but
 22

best described verbally. In the case of the spatial relations, a combination of graphic,

verbal and numeric would seem the most effective.

Further, the nature of the relations may be more or less determinate and precise and

so 'universal' or'scientific'. Nor is numeric description a prerequisite for precision. The

relations of significance or meaning in human-built form relations, for example, cannot

be adequately described numerically but can be described with a high degree of

precision.

Regardless of the language used for any one set of relations, the entire approach to

explanation advocated in chapter six is avowedly synthetic. Following Goethe, 'the

business of morphology [is] synthesis co-ordinating the scattered findings of the other
...

sciences under the unifying aspect of form' (Wilkinson 1962; 177).

THE THESIS IN THE CONTEXTOF GEOGRAPHY

In the context of geography, this approach falls within the realm of 'integrating'

approaches as identified by Hartshorne (1949). More generally, the whole endeavour of

urban morphology can be said. to fall within the chorographic approach as described by

Hartshorne in as much as the intention is to identify distinct forms and areas and so

differentiate areas of the earth's surface.

While the approach to urban morphology advocated here is concerned with the

specific characteristics of particular places, there is nevertheless a desire to describe

those characteristics not in isolation but in relation to other places using a common

language. There is an interest in both differences and similarities, which can only be
 23

identified by comparison. As Conzen notes

towns carry uniqueness as one of their basic attributes. In this respect they become
objects of idiographic or regional study. Yet the fact that all these systems draw on
the geosphere as their common reservoir of forces and factors means that their
uniqueness is not 'random' or unrelated but that they are capable of sharing
characteristics of various kinds in varying degree. They are therefore susceptible
to comparative regional study. Both forms of investigation, the idiographic and
comparative, are found in what can be termed the regional approach. (1981: 77)

More specifically, in this thesis there is a desire to establish a systematic and

consistent approach to the description and explanation of urban areas by making use of

a theoretical structure of subdivisions of form. In this respect, the approach taken in this

thesis is more theoretical and systematic than chorographic. It contains many elements

of a systematic or scientific approach to geography as described by Harvey (1969),

including primitive terms, defined terms, formation rules and correspondence rules. The

suggested subdivision set out in chapter five is a formal structure or set of relata as

defined by Harvey (1969: 89) for which chapter five is the text.

Further, the identification of specific forms in terms of the suggested subdivision is

in effect a classification of form, which is a component of explanation as advocated by

Harvey. Also, most of the modes of explanation outlined in chapter six generally fall

within the scope of Harvey's programme for a more systematic and scientific approach

to geography.

Though there is this more systematic aspect to the approach to morphology suggested

here, there is not an emphasis on numeric description and quantification. As mentioned,

the language considered to be appropriate to describe relations and entities depends on

their nature. The primary concern of this thesis is form, which cannot be adequately

described by numbers and quantities alone (Bateson 1980: 58). As in the case of

Goethe's morphology, the fundamental basis for defining form is by relative position.
 24

That is, by the spatial relations of part-to-part and part-to-whole. This approach is thus

to a large extent structural. It is concerned with relative positions. Beyond the

identification of general and specific forms, some of the modes of explanation outlined

in chapter six also take a generally structuralist approach. The sets of relations to which

descriptions of phenomena are correlated in the process of explanation can be seen as

structures. The explanatory value comes from seeing a given form as occupying a

position in that structure. While most work in geography taking a predominantly or

openly structuralist approach is Marxist (Johnston 1986: 101), the modes of explanation

outlined in chapter six which can be called structuralist owe more to Foucault (1972).

The Marxist view is here taken as one of many possible structures which might be

hypothesised in attempting to explain a given form or forms. Like any other hypothesis,

it must be tested by deduction and induction in order to render it plausible.

In the explanation of form, urban morphology works from the premise that the forms

produced by a group of people occupying a particular place over a particular period of

time are an aspect of the culture of the *group. The forms are thus seen to have

significance within the culture and are also seen as an expression of it. As discussed

in chapter six, a full explanation or understanding of urban form must include the

relation of a given form to humans in terms of its significance or meaning and the more

or less well articulated responses a form elicits in human observers. Explanation thus

involves the interpretation of form.

As discussed in chapter six, urban morphological analysis is here seen as a process

of making inferences from the evidence of the built environment and other sources

related to it. To identify a form is to infer its in

membership a class. To explain a form

is to infer its place in relation to other forms, its place in a process of formation, its
 25

relation to various human agents etc. Equally, the process of interpretation in terms of

significance or meaning, according to Peirce, follows the inferential cycle of hypothesis,

deduction and induction. Interpretation is an inferential activity. This is a view of

interpretation maintained in the field of semiotics. Peirce, in fact, made fundamental

contributions to the development of modern semiotics. As further developed by Eco

(1976,1984), semiotics offers important insights into the process of interpretation. Its

application to urban morphology and the limits of application are discussed in chapter

six.

In this respect, amongstothers, urban morphology lies within the tradition of cultural

geography. This is perhaps to state the obvious. Certainly by its roots, it lies most

firmly in this realm. Conzen's development of urban morphology takes as a point of

departure the work of Schluter who was an early advocate of cultural geography. In

addition, given the emphasis put on the process of formation in the explanation of form,

urban morphology must also be seen as a kind of historical geography. In general then,

urban morphology can be considered part of the humanist approach to geography as

outlined by Johnston (1991) in opposition to the positivist approach or

'radical'/structuralist approach. Given the more or less systematic or positivist- and

structuralist aspect noted above, however, this distinction is necessarily one of degree.

Looking at the state of contemporary humanist geography generally, urban

morphology shares more than a few aspects with other more or less well defined trends.

There is, on the one hand, the cultural geography which has developed in large part from

the work of Sauer and Leighly and the Berkeley School (Sauer 1963), mainly pursued

in North America. Some of its most notable practitioners are Jackson (1984,1990),

Lewis (1979,1990), Lowenthal (1985), Aleinig (1979) and Zelinsky (1973,1990). On

 26

the other hand is the so called social geography or new cultural geography which has

emerged more recently, represented by such authors as Cosgrove (1982,1989), Domosh

(1989), Duncan (1987), Gottdiener (1984, Gottdiener and Lagopoulos 1986), Harvey

(1989), Knox (1987,1991) and Ley (1985,1988). The primary common point is all are

based on making inferences from the form of the built environment.

As sources for the present work, these lines of geographic enquiry, while offering a

great deal in terms of general insights and specific information, are less helpful in terms

of specific methods. - Neither line of enquiry is specific enough in identifying the forms

from which the inferences are made, nor in placing them in a position within a larger

context. On the one hand, the narrative and exploratory approach of the North American

cultural geographic tradition is too general for the purposes of this thesis. It has much

to add as a complement to the methods advocated in chapters five and six but is less

well -suited to serve as a basis for them. On the other hand, the social geographic

approach tends to be too narrow in its focus on ideology and power relations and makes

use of methods uncritically borrowed from literary and so called critical theory. Again,

the insight gained from the studies of social geography are not to be dismissed but

critically examined and used to complement the overall picture of urban areas. From

an evaluation of these other works, the more rigorous and systematic methods provided

by Conzenian morphology has been chosen as the best suited to serve as a basis for

developing an improved subdivision of urban form. The subdivision is seen as an

armature or framework into which the findings of direct morphological analysis and

explanation and work in other areas can be placed to arrive at a more complete and

detailed picture and explanation of the built environment.

 27

THE THESIS IN THE CONTEXT OF PLANNING,URBAN DESIGNAND

ARCHITECTURE

Seen in an historical context, the application of urban morphology to architecture, urban

design and planning is one amongst a range of responses to the developments of these

fields in the first half of the twentieth century. Muratori, who began to express his ideas

in the early 1950s was one of the first architects in Italy to openly criticise Modernist

doctrines of architecture and planning. For Muratori, and after him Caniggia and others,

urban analysis was seen as a form of operative history offering an alternative to and

criticism of the programmes and methods of Modernist architecture and planning. The

latter were seen as too far removed from the particular issues raised by the problems of

building and building in a specific urban context. Muratori saw the architect not as an

artist or social engineer, whose task was one of personal expression or social and

political activism, but as a technician of the urban fabric who must know in detail the

medium in which he or she works.

The state of architecture and planning and the resulting state of towns and cities in

the later twentieth century presented for Muratori, Caniggia and indeed for Conzen, a

crisis of values. An increasing self-consciousness and positivistic world view had, in

their view, led to a loss of direction and a break in the cultural continuity of

architectural and urban design.

Nor are Muratori, Caniggia and Conzen alone in their reaction against Modernism.

The range of responses is too varied to be adequately addressed here. It is interesting

to note, however, that the years from 1959 to 1961 saw the publication of Muratori's

study of Venice (1959), Conzen's study of Alnwick (1960), Kevin Lynch's The Image of
 28

the City (1960), Gordon Cullen's Townscape (1961), and Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life

of Great American Cities (1961). All these are in general concerned with the structure

of pre-Modernist cities. That concern developed over the 1960s and -1970s as

by, amongst others, Rudofsky's Architecture Without Architects (1964), Rossi's

represented

The Architecture of the City (1982, originally published in 1966), Alexander et al in A

Pattern Language (1977) and Alexander's The Timeless Way of Building (1979), On

Streets, edited by Anderson (1978), Rowe and Koetter's Collage City (1978), Rob Krier's

Urban Space (1979), Norberg-Schulz's Genius Loci (1980) and Appleyard's Livable Streets

(1981). Part of this trend, beginning in the early 1970s, was the increasing interest in

Britain and North America in design guidelines as a means of focusing attention on the

positive aspects of pre-Modernist design practice. Perhaps the most notable example is

the Essex Design Guide (Essex County Council 1973).

The morphological approach is one amongst these which finds value in the form of

pre-Modern urban areas and seeks to learn from them in order to avoid what are seen

as the mistakes of the Modern movement and contemporary urban development in

general. The various proponents of a morphological approach do not, of course, present

a unified front. In Italy, the Scuola Muratoriana is one camp which includes R. and S.

Bollati, Marinucci (Muratori- et al 1963), Maretto (1960,1986), Cataldi (1981), S.

Giannini and, of course, Caniggia and Maffei. Another camp is formed, loosely, around

the work of Samona, Quaroni, Aymonino (1964a, 1964b, 1966,1970) and Rossi (1970,

1982). In the 30s Quaroni and Muratori collaborated on several projects but they later

split, Quaroni going on to collaborate for a time with Aymonino. Other Italian architects

siech as Cervellati (1977), Grassi and Gregotti (1966,1985) have also pursued a typo-

morphological approach to architecture. Aside from the camps of the Italian architects,
 29

architects and urbanists in other countries have pursued morphology. Castex and

Panerai (Castex, Celeste and Panerai 1980; Castex, Depaule and Panerai 1980; Panerai

et al 1980), Choay and Merlin (Merlin 1988) in France, Malfroy (1986) in Switzerland,

Moudon (1986) and to some extent Duany + Plater-Zyberk (Krieger 1991) in America

and Bandini and Samuels (1985,1990) in Britain.

In general, awareness of morphological ideas is greater in Europe and perhaps

greatest in Italy. There, some of the concepts of morphology have been assimilated into

working practices. In terms of visibility within the architectural world, Aldo Rossi,

internationally known as an architect, is the most prominent figure claiming to follow a

typo-morphological method based on analysis. His writings, such as The Architecture of

the City (1982), do not, however, advance a clear, specific method. As a basis for

elaborating an approach to the application of morphological principles to planning, urban

design and architecture, Rossi's work and that of the others tends either to be too

general, on the one hand, offering no specific methods for identifying different types of

form and directing design activity or, on the other, the work tends to be too specific,

describing particular forms but not offering a general framework for prescription. The

work of Duany + Plater-Zyberk (Krieger 1991), for example, while offering a specific

framework of prescriptions, can be criticised for promoting a limited range of types which

is applied more or less discriminately in very different contexts. Nor do they set out a

method for identifying the types specific to a town or region which might form a basis

for prescriptions in the given town or region.

In contrast, Caniggia and Maffei's work provides the analytical tools for identifying

specific types but gives few specific indications of how to translate the types into

Regardless, Caniggia and Maffei's

prescriptions. work has been judged the most rigorous
 30

and complete of the sources available. The challenge in attempting to elaborate an

approach to application from their work is thus to maintain the specificity while

providing general principles which allow for application in different contexts.

7
GENERAL REFLECTIONS

The above discussion, openly general, can only touch lightly on specific attitudes and

philosophical positions. It is a glimpse of an aspect of a much larger and active concern

which to fully explore would overtake the more immediate concern of the thesis. The

general attitude taken in the thesis could best be described, if a neologism can be

forgiven, as polydox, taking concepts and ideas from many places. Thus the

heterogeneity of the bibliography (if not the references): Vico, Goethe, Wittgenstein,

Russell, Peirce, Husserl, Barthes, Eco, Bateson, Foucault, to name but a few. If there

is a unifying principle it is in the act of combining and comparing views, ideas, concepts,

and strategies in the hope of reaping more from the combination or comparison then is

offered by any one alone. That is, the heterogeneity should not be seen merely as an

exercise in syncretism but as part of a critical method.

The heterogeneity may not always be apparent in the body of the thesis. This is so

because the intention of the thesis is in one respect very narrow. It is primarily

concerned with the subdivision of urban form for the purposes of morphological analysis.

In terms of the process of analysis, the concern is restricted to the explication and

refinement of the means of identifying form in the built environment. The concern is the

distinction, description and classification of regularities and differences in the structure

 31

of the built environment. It is narrow in that identification is something which is for the

most part compressed between perception, on the one hand, and explanation on the

other. Identification to
adheres perception or explanation; it is a part of seeing a 'house',

of calling it a house and so distinguishing it from other buildings and going on to infer

or determine why and how it is different. The task of this thesis is thus to peel apart

perception, identification and explanation, for the purpose of making the process

accessible and so repeatable. As it is, the process of distinguishing, identifying and

classifying forms seems to be some kind of arcane art, a cabalistic and hermetic

conjuring, performed in the depths and darkness of the mind of the master.

In the end, the desire is to provide a common and consistent basis for the

identification of form in the built environment. More generally, it is a desire for a

common language which can be used by different disciplines concerned with urban form

and so facilitate the exchange of information. This should not be construed, however,

merely as attempt to establish logically consistent concepts and stable definitions, It is

not an attempt to reduce the form of the built environment to something naively orderly

and certain. The result of the research should be seen as a tool which can be used in

exposing differences. That is, the purpose of the tool is to expose phenomena and

distinctions which demand explanation and which may not have been made manifest or

apparent using the existing methods of studying the built environment.

 SECTION I

THEORY

Philosophical problems arise when language,

goes on holiday.

Ludwig Wittgenstein
Philosophical Investigations
 33

Analysis, comparison and evaluation

This section is concerned with the theory or, strictly, a theoretical aspect of urban

morphology. Specifically the concern is the definition and subdivision of urban form for

the purposes of morphological analysis. The overall intention of this section is to

establish a basis for a consistent, coherent and comprehensive theoretical subdivision of

urban form and then to propose a definition and subdivision on that basis.

The means to that end are a detailed analysis and comparison of the definitions and

subdivisions used by M. R. G. Conzen and Gianfranco Caniggia. The analysis involves an

examination of the logical structure of their respective subdivisions, first, in terms of the

consistency or commensurability of individual subdivisions and, secondly, in terms of the

coherence of the subdivisions as a set. The task is to determine if there are

inconsistencies and if so, their nature and implications. Thirdly, the subdivisions are

examined in terms of their correspondence to the variety of forms found in the built

environment.

The materials for analysis are the principal texts of the two authors in which the

respective subdivisions are defined. For Conzen, the main sources are Alnwick,

Northumberland: a study in town plan analysis (Conzen 1969), and the various pieces

compiled in The urban landscape, (Whitehand 1981). The sources for Caniggia are

Composizione architettonica e tipologia edilizia: 1. Lettura dell'edilizia di base and

Composizionearchitettonica e tipologia edilizia: 2. Progetto nell edilizia di base.

The framework for analysis is the distinction made in formal logic between classes,

relations and properties. In examining the subdivisions, the specific issues to be

addressed in analyzing the texts will be two-fold. The first step will be to determine the

nature of the individual subdivisions. This involves identifying the pertinent

 34

characteristics used to define the subdivisions as classes, distinguishing different kinds

of characteristics and then sorting by kind. The second step will be to examine the

relations between individual subdivisions in order to determine the nature of the

This involves identifying the pertinent characteristics

subdivisions as a set or structure.

used to define the relations between subdivisions, again distinguishing different kinds

of characteristics and then sorting by kind.

The next step in establishing a basis for a revised subdivision is the comparison and

evaluation of Conzen's and Caniggia's respective versions. The fundamental hypothesis

in the comparison and of the thesis as a whole is: both Conzen's and Caniggia's

subdivisions have a similar structure and both are similar to a more abstract structure,

specifically, a hierarchy of types as put forward by Russell and Whitehead (1925). That

provides a basis for synthesizing Conzen's and Caniggia's subdivisions to arrive

similarity

of urban form. Comparing the two sets of

at a more consistent and coherent subdivision

subdivisions with each other and the abstract structure is a means of checking the

hypothesis of similarity. A further concern in the comparison and evaluation will be to

examine the correspondence between the sets of subdivisions and the physical structure

of the built environment, determining the to

extent which the sets fully represents those

structures.

The aim of the comparison is three-fold: to determine the extent to which the

general similarity between Conzen's and Caniggia's subdivisions and the abstract

structure holds in detail; to determine how the inconsistencies of internal structure in

one set of subdivisions can be overcome by the strengths of the other and those of the

abstract structure; to determine how the two together can provide a more comprehensive

account of the forms in

encountered a variety of urban areas. This provides a basis for
 35

selecting the best aspects of each to arrive as a preferred general structure of

subdivision.

The procedure followed in the comparison is to first establish general similarities

and differences. The next step is to establish a specific link between the two by

identifying a common term as a reference point. This leads, first, to a comparison of the

more general or abstract subdivisions and second, to a comparison of the more specific

objects identified in the subdivisions. The general framework for comparison is, again,

the distinction between classes, relations and properties. In order to form the basis for

a proposal for a modified subdivision, the comparison also involves evaluation. The

criteria for evaluation are: consistency, all definitions should be based on the same

pertinent characteristics; coherence, the definitions should be related to each other in

a consistent way in order to form a clear structure; specificity, the definitions should

clearly posit classes of identifiable phenomena; generality, the definitions should be

based on pertinent characteristics found in as wide a variety of examples as possible

while still allowing for the identification of specific differences; comprehension, the

definitions should account for as wide a range of forms as is appropriate to the task of

explanation.

The comparison is found in chapter four and the results are presented in chapter

five. This chapter is in effect a proposal for a modified definition and subdivision of

urban form for the purposes of morphological analysis. It is a synthesis of Conzen's and

Caniggia's work, based on the previous analyses,comparison and evaluation, taking what

has been considered best from both to form something new.

 36
Note

In the following chapters, quotations and citations form the primary texts of Conzen and

Caniggia are designated with a year and page number only unless the context makes the

designation ambiguous. Thus, for example, (Conzen 1969:5) appears as (1969: 5);

(Caniggia and Maffei 1979:74) appears as (1979: 74) and (Caniggia and Maffei 1984: 134)

as (1984: 134). For convenience, references to Conzen's papers collected in Whitchand

1981 are cited from that source and designated (1981).

 TWO
A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF M. R. G. CONZEN'S

MORPHOLOGICAL SUBDIVISIONS

Summarizing the subdivisions, Conzen seeks to explain the geographical structure of

towns and begins by distinguishing the general aspects of function, social and economic

townscape and development. Within the

context, the site, the morphological aspect or

townscape, he distinguishes three morphological aspects: town plan, land utilization

pattern and building fabric. Conzen intended to treat all three aspects in equal detail

(Whitehand 1981: 13) but in the end concentrated on town plan. This aspect is therefore

treated in more detail. The town plan is itself subdivided into three complexes of plan-

plot pattern, and building pattern. The constituent element of

elements: street-system,

the street-system is the street; the element of the plot pattern is the plot and the element

the building pattern is the block-plan of the building. Further, particular unique
of

combinations of streets, plots, and block-plans represent plan-units. Simple combinations

of these are sub-types and related sub-types together form types. To account for the

larger scale divisions of the town plan, Conzen identifies plan-divisions, which are
 38

combinations of plan-units. Several orders of plan-division are identified, each order

being a combination of division of the next lower order. A further distinction is made

which is the identification of morphogenetic regions which are combinations of town plan,

building fabric, land utilization pattern and the site. The development of the town, which

leads to the variety and complexity of arrangement of plan-units, plan-divisions and

is divided into morphological periods. These correspond to the

morphogenetic regions,

development which gave rise to specific changes in the

periods of social and economic

town. Types of change are also distinguished such as burgage plot repletion and

fringe-belt development.
metamorphosis, redevelopment and

THE NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SUBDIVISIONS

Implied general aspects

It is important to realize that town plans originate, develop, and function within a
human context without which they remain incomprehensible.
physical and
Therefore, plan analysis properly includes the evaluation of physical conditions of
social development. The
site and situation as well as of relevant economic and
latter, indeed, provides the background for the interdependence of plan, building
fabric, and land bridge between the the functional
use, and the morphological and
in urban geography. (1969: 5)
approaches

Functionally the geographical character of a town is determined by economic and

social significance within some regional context, no matter whether we are
'central place' with service functions towards a contiguous 'urban
considering a
field' or a specialized town. Morphologically it finds expression in the physiognomy
or townscape,... (1969: 3)

In these quotations, Conzen implies a general distinction between the functional aspect

of a town, the morphological aspect, its site and the context of social and economic

development. As these distinctions are implied, no more detailed definitions are given
 39

except for that of the morphological aspect, which is, of course, the focus of Conzen's

enquiry and the object of analysis of this chapter. Despite the lack of definitions, the

basis for defining the other aspects might be inferred from these quotations.

Function

The functional aspect of a town can be inferred to encompassthe inter-human activities

occurring within a town and the interactions of humans with the built elements of the

town. Such functional aspectsas government, policing, provisions of services, production

of goods, exchange and distribution of goods, education, entertainment, collection and

disposal of waste etc. all fundamentally involve human beings engaged either in an

interaction with other humans, or in a physical activity in a given part of the town

(house, office, shop, factory etc.) or moving from one place to another. The pertinent

features defining this aspect are thus, generally, the relations between humans and

between humans and the built environment.

Social and economic context

Social and economic context can also be interpreted as encompassing human activity in

and interaction with the built environment. Relative to function, however, it involves a

larger area in which the town is found and longer periods of time. The pertinent features

defining this aspect are thus again the relations between humans and between humans

and the environment, built and unbuilt within an area including the town and over an

extended period of time.

 40

Site

Site, as the 'natural substratum' (1981: 79), can be interpreted as the arrangement of

natural features within the area of the town. This first assumesa distinction between the

site and the built objects which constitute the town. This can generally be inferred to

be the distinction between built and unbuilt elements. Second, the pertinent

characteristics of the definition of site can be inferred to include, generally, the spatial

relations between those features.

Development

Towns have a life. history. Their development, together with the cultural history of
the region in which they lie, is written deeply into the outline and fabric of their
built-up areas. When one period has achieved the manifestation of its own-. ":,.
,,
requirements in the urban pattern of land use, streets, plots and buildings, another,
supersedes it in turn, and the built-up area, in its functional organization as well as
in its townscape, becomes the accumulated record of the town's development.
(1969: 6)

Another implicit distinction is thus that of development or, specific to the morphological

aspect, morphogenesis. Development is the change in the functional, including social

and economic, and morphological aspects over time. The pertinent feature is the relation

of one state of each aspect to another over time, that is, the temporal relations between

states. This aspect is further subdivided by Conzen into periods. 'Each period leaves

its distinctive material residues in the landscape and for the purpose of geographical

analysis can be viewed as a morphological period' (1969: 7). The pertinent characteristics

defining any period are the economic, social, spiritual and material forms of human

culture and its built environment. Relative consistency of those forms over time

constitutes a distinct period.

 41

In summary, Conzen implicitly distinguishes five general aspects in the built

environment: the functional, the morphological, social and economic context, site and

development. The pertinent characteristics which define function and social and

in
economic context are, general, the relations between humans and between humans and

the built environment (the morphological aspect). Site is distinguished on the basis of

the distinction of built and unbuilt elements and development is defined by the pertinent

characteristic of temporal relations. The morphological aspects is defined generally on

the basis of spatial relations between built forms.

As the focus of this thesis is the physical form of the built environment, the

remainder of this analysis will cover the morphological aspect of the built environment,

referred to by Conzen as townscape. It is this aspect which Conzen has treated most

fully.

The townscape --

Townscape is 'the physiognomy of the urban landscape' (1969: 131). As an aspect of the

town, this can be interpreted in general as encompassingits physical configuration or the

arrangement of man-made features in the town. The pertinent characteristic

distinguishing this aspect is thus the set of spatial relations between those features. To

take the analysis further it is necessary to examine in detail the nature of those features

individually and the relations between them. The latter will be examined in the second

section of this chapter. Concerning the former, Conzen states that townscape is a

'combination of town plan, pattern of building forms and pattern of urban land use'

(1969: 3). Each aspect will be examined in turn.

 42

Land utilization pattern

The urban land-use pattern is the arrangement or spatial distribution of land use. The

elements of the pattern are 'the individual units of land utilization occupying discrete

plots'. Classification of uses is 'based on the single criterion of purpose' (1981: 79).

With land utilization pattern there is a distinction between elements and pattern. This

is to distinguish between objects, on the one hand, and their arrangement or order in

space on the other. The pertinent characteristic defining the pattern is thus the spatial

relations of the elements. More specifically, spatial relations will be taken here and

throughout to refer to the relative positions of objects in space, generally taking the

surface of the earth as a reference point and most commonly described in geometric

terms such as linear dimensions, angles, radii etc., in fixed units of measure and a fixed

coordinate system.

The elements are defined as individual units of land use classified on the basis of

purpose. In this definition there are three pertinent features. One concerns the unit

occupied, a plot, another the use of the plot and the third the relation between the two.

The plot as unit

The plot is only more fully defined within the aspect of town plan. There it is defined

'a
as parcel of land representing a land-use unit defined by boundaries on the ground'

(1969: 128)., A parcel defined by boundaries is an arrangement of boundaries forming

a closed figure or area. The pertinent feature defining the entity is thus the spatial

relations of the boundaries. The nature of the boundaries is examined in the discussion

of town plan, below.

 43
Use types

Use or purpose refers to human activity and human interaction with the environment,

built and unbuilt. Conzen classifies use into different types. Each type is a distinct

combination of actions or interactions with other humans or the environment. Different

combinations define different types, such as commercial, retail, business, professional,

industrial, transport, residential etc. The different types are different classes of activity.

Further, Conzen identifies groupings of element complexes within the land utilization

pattern. Groups of contiguous units of the same type are considered as entities or

distinct areas. The areas are defined by the types of use attributed to the unit and the

position of the unit relative to others. The pertinent characteristics defining the areas

are thus the class of use attributed to the units and the spatial relations between the

units.

The relation betweenthe plot and-use type

Regarding the relation between the use and the plot as a unit, Conzen makes several

different statements. 'Each [plot] is essentially a unit of land use (1969: 5). A plot
..:

is 'a parcel of land representing a land-use unit ' (1969: 128). Elements of land use
...

are 'units of land utilization occupying discrete plots ..: (1981: 79).

The first statement would seem to indicate that the parcel or plot is identical with

the land-use unit. That is to say, there is no relation between them because /plot/ and

/land-use unit/ refer to the same thing. They are different terms for the same entity or

concept.

The second statement would seem to indicate, by the use of the word 'representing',

that the plot, as an object, is recognized or selected as a unit of land use. //Plot//, the
 44

object, means <land-use unit>. The relation would then be one of signification. The

plot stands as a sign for the idea of the land use unit by convention.

The third statement can reasonably be interpreted as positing that the land-use unit

fills or takes place in the area defined by the plot. - The relation is thus one of

containment. The land use lies within the boundaries of the plot. The latter two

definitions necessitate that the plot be defined as a distinct entity in other terms.

The distinction of form and use

The question of the relation between use types and plots raises the general issue, outside

of Conzen's subdivisions, of the relation between use and form. The question is, are use

and form actually distinct? Should they be considered as indivisible or as different but

related aspects of the built environment conceived as a whole? Conzen himself has

already distinguished the functional aspect of the town from the morphological, that is,

the human activities going on in a town from its physical arrangement. On what basis

can the distinction be made? How is it possible to distinguish between a house and the

use of a house?

At a very fundamental level, there is the physical separatenessof humans and their

environment. The human body is a distinct form, composed of distinct material relative

to its environment. The human body has freedom of movement. The environment

presents a boundary but does not determine the movement within those boundaries. The

rate of movement or activity of the human body is faster than that of the terrestrial

environment, which is relatively inert. Thus, buildings remain in one place and humans

move in and out of and around them.

 45

It is also possible to distinguish specific activities from specific forms. A particular

activity may necessarily include a form, but given the separatenessof humans and built

objects, the activity and form are not indivisible. A particular form can be used for

different purposes. A chair, for example, can be used as a seat, a step, a shelf, a

weapon, a hanger for clothing or other objects, or for firewood. A house may be used as

a residence, an office, a shop, a hotel, an artist's studio, a gallery, a hospital, a gaol, a

workshop for manufacturing, a warehouse, for firewood or a training site for firemen.

Nor are patterns of activity fixed to areas within towns. As Conzen notes, while

town plan and to a lesser extent building fabric are conservative in that they tend
to reflect the pattern of past landownership and capital investment longer ... the
land-use pattern responds more easily to changing functional impulses.
...
(1981: 80)

Unless fixed by planning regulations, the boundaries of the use districts of towns tend

to shift. Existing buildings tend to serve different purposes over time.

Conversely, a given use may be accommodatedby a number of different forms. The

set of activities commonly referred to as residential might be accommodated by a cave,

a multi-story H-plan building, a tree, a palladian villa, the space under a bridge, a semi-

detached house, a tent, a residential college hall, or a cardboard box.

Given this variability, use cannot be used as a pertinent characteristic in defining

and distinguishing form in any consistent way. Firstly, if asked to distinguish examples

of the class 'residential buildings', it would not be possible to decide which objects to

include in the class without first knowing the specific forms associated with that activity.

Rather, because the work of establishing the association between the use and specific

examples has been done, it is possible to recognize'residential buildings'. Secondly, if

defined by use, such a class would include a huge variety of forms in terms of the size,
 46

shape and internal structure of the buildings. Use alone as a pertinent characteristic will

not define a consistent class of form.

Taking this into account, it would seem that Conzen'sland utilization pattern is more

suitably put within the general aspect of function. The land utilization pattern is defined

by the pertinent characteristics of human activity and its spatial relations, which are the

defining function. The aspect of townscape or physiognomy is, in

same characteristics

contrast, defined generally by the characteristic of the spatial relations of physical

objects.

This is not to dismiss use. It is an essential aspect of the town and must be

included in any adequate explanation of it. Forms cannot be understood without a

knowledge of use. One does not make sense without the other. The point to be made

here is that to have a consistent subdivision of aspects, use should be considered as

distinct from form.

Building fabric

The building fabric has individual buildings as its constituent form elements. These
by the twin criteria [of original function and
are classified morphogenetically ...
the original purpose of buildings forming systematic element
period of origin],
dwelling houses, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, and
complexes such as
buildings. Within each of these complexes period divisions produce
community
historical type groups, such as Georgian, the early and mid-Victorian, or the late-
Victorian and Edwardian in- Britain. These in turn are subdivided
into actual building types on the basis of their design for a
morphogenetically
particular purpose within a definite period context resulting in specific
characteristics of plan, elevation and architectural style. (1981: 78)

The building fabric of towns can be readily divided according to siting and
original function into those buildings that house the dominant part of the land use
occupying their plots and those that serve subsidiary functions. The first are the
'plot dominants' and the last the 'plot accessories'. In townscapes with a medieval
plan, the majority on the plot dominants are traditionally sited at the street frontage
of their burgage plots....
 47
Within this grouping, however, each building type forms its own stock having its
particular distribution pattern. This can be called the stand of the building type in
question in analogy to the stand of timber in forestry. or the crop stand of the
American farmer. The stands of different building types associate in varying ways
within the same town to form that town's unique building pattern. Any particular
building group or association of groups within that pattern may consist of one
building type only and therefore form an exclusive group, or it may be a mixed
group characterized either by a more of less equal mixture of several building types
or by the dominance of one type with an admixture of other types. (1981: 62)

These quotations show that Conzen makes the same distinction between element and

pattern for building fabric as is made for land utilization pattern. The pertinent

characteristic defining the pattern is similarly the spatial relations between the elements.

The elements are defined as individual buildings without any more specific definition.

One must therefore assume the conventional definition of 'building'. Conzen does,

however, distinguish different types of building based on several different criteria. Most

general is the distinction of plot dominant and plot accessory. The distinction is based

on the use of the building and the position of the building within the plot relative to the

street. A plot dominant is the site of greater use and is located on the frontage. The

plot accessory is the site of lesser use and not on the frontage. The pertinent criteria for

this distinction are thus the property of relative levels of human activity and the spatial

relation of the building with the street. He also distinguishes types based on period of

origin and original purpose as well as specific internal and external form. Each type is

a class, the more general classes encompassing the more specific as subsets, all the

classes being subsets of the fundamental class posited by 'building'.

As with land utilization, Conzen identifies groupings or element complexes within

the building pattern. The pertinent characteristics defining the groups are, similarly, the

class of the element and its position relative to others.

 48

In summary, Conzen distinguishes buildings types and groupings based on five

different criteria: position relative to a street, intensity of use, use type, period of origin

and internal and external form, assuming a conventional definition of 'building'.

Period of origin and the definition of form

It has already been argued that use does not provide a'criterion for the consistent

definition of form. Intensity of use, still being based on human activity, likewise does

not provide a criterion for consistent definition. Period of origin is equally equivocal.

Period of origin refers to a position in a temporal sequence. Most generally it posits a

given object to have been built after some and before others, stated in terms of a fixed

unit of time, usually years. The pertinent characteristic in a aefinition by period of

origin is thus the set of temporal relations. As a pertinent characteristic defining a class,

temporal position does not provide a consistent definition of form.

If one were to define a specific type of building as 'buildings built in 1556' without

any reference to the specific spatial relations of the parts, the task of identifying the

physical examples would be rather difficult. First, one must be able, somehow, to

recognise the actual examples (or accept an ostensive definition the finger pointing to
-

that building there). As in the case of buildings defined by use, the fact that it is

possible to recognize buildings by period of origin is because the difficult work of

determining the age of buildings has been done and the association has been made

between a date and the forms typical of buildings constructed at that date. Second, the

class based on temporal position would be enormously varied in terms of the outward

form and internal structure of the examples. Without any other criterion it would include

all buildings built at a given time: houses,sheds, palaces, monasteries, factories, schools,
 49

churches etc. Temporal position alone as a pertinent characteristic will not define a

consistent class of form.

On the practical level, the issue becomesone of our perception of temporal relations.

Always we are confronted 'now' with objects. Our perception is such that we cannot

directly experience temporal differences. The establishment of temporal difference is,

therefore, contingent on inference or memory or both. Through those means, using

various sources of information, it is possible to establish a relative temporal position or

period of origin for a given built object. However, the ability to determine a relative

temporal position assumesa definition for the Object to be placed. We must know what

is being dated.

The 'fake' puts this into stronger relief. To distinguish a fake one must have either

documentary or verbal evidence that the object is a fake or find some manifest physical

difference, some aspect that is inconsistent with other examples known with more

certainty to be of the period in question. Already, therefore, we have defined the object.

We only go to such lengths in attempting to verify the authenticity, the period of origin,

of a possible fake because we identify it as a member of a class already defined more

or less specifically. The successful fake replicates the physical material, structure and

arrangement of the original, the spatial relations of its parts and the physical

manifestations of decay (the more successful fake replicates the documents to

authenticate it).

More abstractly, if, in analysis, one were to increase the level of specificity of some

type to the point at which it determined four identical objects, one could go the step

further and distinguish the four by their relative age. Without any distinguishing

physical features, however, the task of dating them would be difficult to say the least.
 50

Of the four identical lamps on the table before me, which is older? If they are identical,

what perceptible difference is there? What if they were made simultaneously? But

indeed they are different because they would have been made by different people or on

different machines and now occupy different positions spatially. One could go on asking

questions and making statements but to little effect.

The issue boils down to the fundamental difference between space and time (or at

least the way we have learned to perceive 'them'). Whether or not this is due to some

ontological difference is a further problem. Whatever the case, we perceive temporal

relations as different from spatial relations. To consider them in any way equivalent and

so the basis for equivalent definitions of objects is to ignore that difference. Sequence

is inevitable but cannot be the basis for a consistent definition of form.

Temporal sequence is, of course, of the utmost importance in the explanation of

urban form. Our understanding of form is improved greatly by knowing the process of

formation. For the purposes of outlining and defining forms, however, temporal relations

must be taken as components of a distinct aspect. As Conzen has identified the aspect

of development based on temporal relations, to be consistent, period of origin would best

be accounted for under that aspect.

Thus, to arrive at a more consistent definition of form, both use and period of origin

should be considered as separate aspects associated with forms.

Town plan

It is taken as axiomatic that the town plan includes all features of the built-up
area
as shown on the 1/2500 Ordnance Survey Plans.
This comprises the geographical arrangement of the urban built-up area in its full
morphological detail A town plan can be defined, therefore, as the arrangement
...
of an urban built-up area in all its man-made features. (1969: 4)
 ý ANI Fý,
a! ý/

5"ý
As the topographical or geographical arrangement of man-made features, the pertinent

characteristic of the general definition of town plan is the spatial relation of the features.

In defining the features, Conzen states that the town plan 'consists of four element

complexes - site, street-system, plot pattern and building arrangement' (1981: 60). He

also identifies plan-unit types and sub-types as well as plan-divisions. The nature of the

individual features will be examined here and the specific nature of the relations holding

between them in the following section.

Regarding site, Conzen has included site as an aspect at different levels in different

texts. It is included in the distinction of the implied general aspects with function,

socio-economic context and development (1969: 5), with the form complexes (1981: 79)

and with the element complexes (1981: 60). The site was considered earlier with the

implicit general aspects and -will not be treated further here.

The plan-element complexes

Looking more specifically first at the element complexes, each is defined as the

arrangement of its constituent element:

Street-system:The arrangement of contiguous intercommunicating streets

...

Plot pattern: the arrangement of contiguous plots in a built-up area

...

Building pattern: the arrangement of existing buildings, i. e. their block-plans in a

built-up area (1969: Glossary)
...

As in the form complexes, there is the distinction between pattern or arrangement and

the constituent element. For each pattern, then, in general, the defining characteristic

is the spatial relation of the elements. To determine the specific nature of those relations

and the nature of the constituent element, each complex will be examined in turn.
 52

Street-System

The definition of street-system specifies that the relation between elements is one of

contiguity and intercommunication. To determine how this applies, the nature of the

be examined in detail. The street is defined as: 'a space (street-space) in

element must

a built-up area bounded by street-lines and reserved for the use of surface traffic'

(1969: 130). An example of part of a street-system is show in Figure 1.

The first phrase of the definition of the street refers to a 'space'. A space in this

sense can be defined more specifically as an area or volume between particular

boundaries. A space is thus constituted by a relation between boundaries. To further

determine the nature of the 'street', the nature of the boundary must be specified, which

in the definition is a street-line. This is defined as 'the boundary separating a street-

space from its adjoining street-blocks'(1969: 130). As the space is defined by the

relation of the boundaries, the boundary cannot be defined by the space without the

definition becoming circular. Thus, the pertinent term in the definition of 'street-line'

is 'street-block. ' This is defined as 'a plot or group of contiguous plots bounded partly

by street-lines ..: (1969: 130). Here the definition becomes circular if based
or wholly

on the street-line and so it is the plot that is the pertinent term. A plot, is a parcel of

land defined by boundaries on the ground.

The 'street-line' is thus an abstract, complex entity referring ultimately to the plot.

The 'street-line' is abstract in that, taken literally as a line, it is the two dimensional

trace on the ground plane, or its corresponding line on a map, of the outside edges of the

plot or plots making up the street-block taken together as a continuous line. Taking into

consideration the conventions of orthographic projection, the street-line can be assumed

to refer to the specific objects of which the line is a trace, whether two- or
 53

three-dimensional. The 'street-line' is complex because it is an arrangement of parts,

specifically, the outside wall or edge of a plot or plots taken together as a continuous

entity.

With this definition a problem arises, however, in attempting to outline a single

element and it is difficult to specify a relation between the elements. There is no

indication of a boundary which divides different streets to form individual elements. The

boundaries defining streets form closed figures enclosing not the element to be defined

but another entity, the street-block, which is considered part of the plot pattern (see

Figure 1). The definition of the street therefore relies on the arrangement of street-

blocks and in effect, the street-system is defined by the plot pattern. The street-system

be as a monolithic entity or boundaries must be

must, therefore, considered either

applied across streets to divide them into separate elements. The definition as it stands

does not indicate where such boundaries might be drawn. To say that the street-system

is an arrangement of elements is thus difficult to support and no relation can be

specified between elements. This is a problem which must be addressed in any attempt

to synthesise the subdivisions.

Plot Pattern

The full definition of plot pattern is: 'the arrangement of contiguous plots in a built-up

area viewed as a separate complex of the town plan and divided into street-blocks'

(1969: 128). The explanatory text adds,

The areaswithin the town plan unoccupiedby streetsand boundedwholly or in part

by street-linesare street-blocks. Each street-blockrepresentsa group of contiguous
plots or else a single land parcel. Each is
parcel essentially a unit of land use: it
is physically defined by boundarieson or aboveground and may be called a plot,
whatever its size. The arrangement of contiguousplots is evident from the plot
I
 54

boundaries and when considered separately from other elements of the town plan
may be called the plot pattern. (1969: 5)

Again, there is the distinction of element and pattern, the pertinent characteristic in the

definition being the spatial relation of the elements. The definition also specifies the

relation of contiguity. Figures 1,100,120,121 and 122 show examples of plot patterns.

The primary element is the plot: 'a parcel of land representing a land-use unit

defined by boundaries on the ground' (1969: 128). As a parcel or area, the plot is

constituted in the relation between the boundaries, specifically, forming a closed figure

and including the ground surface within the figure. The physical material which

constitutes those boundaries is not specifically stated in the definitions but as noted

it
above can be assumed that the boundaries are the two- and three-dimensional features

on the of
ground which the corresponding map lines are a trace. These can be a variety

of things as, for example, in the case of a traditional burgage plot the front and side walls

of the plot dominant and the free-standing walls to the sides and back, behind the plot

dominant. Thus, like the street-line, the plot boundary is an aggregate of parts such as

walls, etc., in a specific relation to each other taken together as an entity (see Figure

81).

The pertinent characteristic defining the plot is thus the spatial relation of boundary

lines with the requirement that the boundaries form a closed figure, the boundary lines

referring, by convention, to physical objects or the difference between objects such as

a change in paving.

In discussing plot pattern, Conzen identifies two other entities, however, the street-

block and the plot series (see Figures 100 and 101). The street-block is 'a plot or group

of contiguousplots boundedpartly or wholly by street-linesand forming a discrete part

 55

of the plot pattern of the town' (1969:130). The plot series is 'a row of plots each with

its own frontageplacedcontiguouslyalong the samestreet-line' (1969:128). Both street-

blocks and plot seriesarc aggregatesor arrangementsof plots and arc thus defined by

the spatial relation betweenthe constituent plots. Given that the street-block, and by

its similarity, the plot series, is considered as 'a discrete part of the plot pattern,'

(1969:130), there are two different typesof elementcomposingthe plot pattern: the plot,

on the one hand, and the street-block and plot serieson the other.

The presenceof two typesof 'element' givesrise to a contradiction in the definition

of the plot pattern. As the 'arrangement of contiguous plots', plot pattern, strictly

speaking, refers to the relations between adjoining plots. The definition also indicates,

however, the pattern is divided into street-blocks. Contiguous and divided arc mutually

exclusive relations. If there are to be two elements, the plot and street-block, then the

9plot pattern' must include both the relations of contiguity and division. Conversely, the

inclusion of both the relations of contiguity and division gives rise to two types of

element. Alternatively, if the 'plot pattern' is to include only one type of relation, there

can only be one type of element. The question of which element to include remains an

issue to be examined in chapter four.

The street-line is yet another entity which is identified in connection with the plot

pattern. It is defined as the boundary between streets and street-blocks, and, according

to the analysis above, is composed of the outer edge of plots in a block. The street-line

might, therefore, be considered as the outline of the street-block. Conzen says, however,

that street-blocks may be bounded wholly or in part (1969: 5) by street-lines, throwing

some doubt on this interpretation. As the street-block is defined primarily as an

aggregate of plots and the street-line as an aggregate of specific parts of plots taken
 56

together but not necessarily forming a complete closed figure, the street-line would not

seem to form a constituent or defining aspect of the street-block. Ultimately the street-

line must be seen as a separate entity, posited in addition to the definition of plot

pattern, street-block and plot.

The definition of the plot also indicates that a plot represents a land-use unit. As

discussed above, use does not provide a basis for the consistent definition of form. To

achieve a consistent definition of form, therefore, the associated use of a form is best

considered as a distinct aspect within the general aspect of function identified by

Conzen.

Building Pattern

Building pattern is 'the arrangement of existing buildings i. e. their block-plans, in the

built-up area viewed as a separate element complex of tile town.' Tile block-plan of a

building is 'the area occupied by a building and defined on the ground by the lines of

its containing walls. Loosely referred to as the "building" .. .' (1969: 123).

As the arrangement of buildings, the pertinent feature defining the building pattern

is the spatial relation between elements, the constituent element is, strictly, the

block-plan, which is an area and so constituted in the relations holding between

boundaries which must form a closed "figure and includes the ground surface within the

boundaries. The boundaries are the 'lines' of the building's containing walls. As in the

case of street-lines, this assumes the relations implicit to orthographic projection, the

lines being the two-dimensional trace of the physical material of the external walls of the

building. The pertinent characteristic defining block-plan is the spatial relation of

boundary lines which in turn refer to specific material objects by convention.

 57

Element Types

Conzen also identifies specific types of elements within each complex.

The design of any particular plan element or group of plan elements such as a
medieval street space or combination of street spaces, a series of plots for Victorian
working-class housing, or a pair of modem semi-detached houses, is determined by
two criteria - original function and period of origin. These two provide a basis for
a morphogenctic classification of plan elements appropriate to geographic analysis.
(1981: 78)

The definitions of the types posit classes which are subsets of each class posited by the

more general definition of the element. Looking at a range of examples, however, the

pertinent characteristic derining the different specific types varies, including more than

original function and period of origin. In some cases, such as the strip-plot, or high-

street layout, the defining characteristics are the specific parts and their geometric

arrangement or the outline of the arrangement. In other cases, -such as agricultural

residual, or tail-end plot, the position of the element in relation to others is added as a

pertinent feature. Other characteristics used are the type of tenure, type of

transformation as well as combinations of all of these. As noted previously, use and

period of origin present problems for the consistent definition of form. Tenure and

transformation, as bases for the definition of form present other issues discussed in

chapter three. The remaining characteristics of specific parts, their arrangement and

outline and the relative position of the element are the best suited for the definition of

form but are not used by Conzen in a consistent way.

Differences between the elements

In the town plan, the basic constituentsof tile variouscomplexesand plan-unit typesare

Ahe street, plot and block-plan. Each is constituted by a relation of parts. On closer
I
 58

inspection, however, each is different. The definition of the street, though referring

indirectly but to the plot, makes no mention of a boundary to the element on

ultimately

The definition includes no direct to

reference specific material objects. The
the ground.

is a space, the area 'outside' the defining boundary of the street-line, or

street primarily

'between' street-blocks. In contrast, the definitions of both the plot and the block-plan

boundaries on the ground and the area 'within' or 'inside' the boundary.
refer to

There is then a fundamental difference between the nature of the relationship of

which makesup the street, on the one hand, and thosewhich make up the plot or
parts

block-plan on the other. The street is defined in such a way that it cannot 'contain' any

further elementswhile the plot containsthe block-plan and the block-plan the internal

the building. In defining a 'single' street, the boundingstreet-linesare made

structureof

discontinuousparts of different street-blocks. The closed figure of the street-lines

up of
'inside' the street-blocksrather than 'single' streets. Thus it can be
enclosethe plots

that the area defined in the relation of parts constituting a 'street, is by nature
said

'outside' in contrast to the area defined in the relation of parts constituting 'plot' and

'block-plan' which are by nature 'inside'.

Lookingat the plot pattern, it wasnotedthat the definition identified two constituent

kinds of elements,the plot, on-theone hand, and the street-blockand the plot serieson

the other. This is in to

contrast street-systemand building pattern which are each the

arrangementor associationof a single kind or class of element.

I
Thus eachcomplexis different in its make-up. The street-systemis an arrangement

of a class of constituent elements,any element ultimately defined as an area outside or

between its bounding entities. The plot pattern is an arrangementof two classesof

constituent elementsýone, the plot, defined as a closed figure of parts and the area it
 59

taken discrete
encloses,the other, the street-block,an arrangementof plots as a entity.

Finally, The building pattern is an arrangementof oneclassof constituentelementwhich

is defined figure of parts and the it

area encloses. These issuesmust be
as a closed

taken into account in the to

attempt make use of Conzen'ssubdivisions in establishing

basis for the definition and subdivision of form.

a consistent

Plan-units

Conzen defines a plan-unit as:

Any part of a town representing an individualized combination of streets, plots and

buildings distinct from its neighbours, unique in its site circumstances and endowed
with a measure of morphological unity and/or homogeneity. Plan-units represent
essentially morphogenctic plan types and vary in character so as to produce a
morphogenctic typology in which the simple combinations represent sub-types, their
integrations to more complex units forming types. (1969: 128)

As a combination of plan elements, plan-units are characterised by the relations between

objects. The nature of the plan elements has been examined above. The nature of the

relations between them in composing plan-units is not, however, stated in any more

specific terms then 'combination endowed with a measure of morphological unity

...

and/or homogeneity. Given the relations posited between the elements in defining each

element complex, specifically, the spatial relations between objects, described in

geometrical terms, it can reasonably be assumed that the same relations are intended in

the definition of plan-units. The difference is, of course,that the objects selectedin the

definition of plan-units include all of the three kinds of plan elements. Further, unlike

the element complexes, the combination of elements in forming plan-units is not 'viewed

as a separate element complex of the town' (1969: Glossary, under street-system, plot

pattern and building pattern). Each unit is conceived as a 'part of a town endowed with
I
 60

homogeneity'. Interpreting 'morphological

a measure of morphological unity and/or unity'

as similarity of physical form, specific plan-units are the areas in which similar specific

in
elementsare arranged a similar way. Figures 132-135 and 137 show examplesof

plan-units.

From this interpretation, the pertinent characteristic in the general definition of

9plan-unit' is the spatial relation of plan-elements. The pertinent feature in the definition

of different plan-unit types is the specific arrangement of elements, each of a specific

class. A complication arises, however, which makes defining plan-units more difficult.

This is the problem encountered with the definition of the street. As the single street

is not properly defined as an independent 'element', it is difficult to see how it can be

included as a constituent part in a plan-unit. Again, this is an issue which must be dealt

with in the attempt to establish a consistent definition and subdivision of form.

Plan-unit types and sub-types

A further distinction is made by Conzen between plan-unit sub-types and types. In the

definition, types are stated to be 'integrations' of sub-types, with no other indication of

the pertinent characteristics on which the integration is based. Examining the plan-units

identified in AInwick reveals two different bases for grouping sub-types. One example

is plan-unit (i), the Medieval High Street Layout (see Figure 137), of which Conzen says:

The deep burgages put this plan-unit into the general class of medieval High Street
layouts.... Whereas this layout remains virtually unaltered in its street system,
its area of constituent burgage series has been influenced by the burgage cycle and
the evolution of the Inner Fringe Belt.... Each of the three main series has been
affected differently by these changes and so constitutes a separate sub-type of plan,
the average state of its burgages providing the general criterion for classification.
(1969: 108)
 61

Another example is plan-unit (x), the Mid- and Late Victorian Residential Accretions

(Figure 137). In the list of sub-types,all but three are termed layouts (1969:112). A

layout is defined as: 'a plan-unit showing an arrangement of streets, plots and buildings

based on a unified design' (1969: 126).

In the first case, the sub-types are plot series and so not complete plan-units. They

are distinct components of a single example of a plan-unit type. In the second case,

most of the sub-types are complete examples of plan-units, the plan-unit type being a

class of similar complete plan-units.

Considering additional statements made by Conzen, it would seem that

t

"morphological unity' is not the only basis for defining types. The passage already

quoted regarding elements types and the classification of elements would seem also to

apply to plan-units. The passageapplies, first, because the constituent elements of the

plan-units are classified using a variety of characteristics, primarily use, and period of

origin. Second, Conzen indicates plan-units as entities are to be classified by the same

characteristics. I'lie list of plan-units for Alnwick also indicatesthat other characteristics

are used. Namessuch as 'Later Alterations of the Old Town' as well as the sub-types

of the Medieval High Street Layout referred to above, would seem to include change over

time as a pertinent feature. The Middle and Outer Fringe Belts are defined primarily

on the basis of relative position and constituent parts.

Thus, as in the definition of different types of individual elements, the pertinent

I

characteristics defining the different types and sub-types of plan-unit vary. This

variability must be addressedin order to arrive at a consistentdefinition of form.

 62

Plan divisions

The plan-division is defined as:

a geographical group of morphogenctic plan-units, a morphogenetic plan 'region'

within the town. Urban plan regions arrange themselves in a hierarchy of two or
more orders depending on the size and complexity of the town. The kernel or Old
Town, with or without its Inner Fringe Belt, depending on the plan character of that
belt, forms a plan-division of the first order as does the totality of integuments
outside. Individual integuments are plan divisions of the second order. (1969: 128)

More specifically for Alnwick:

The plan divisions of Alnwick group themselvesinto four orders. Those of the
lowest order are marked in Figure [137] by Arabic numerals can readily be
distinguished as plan-type units.
The identification of divisions of the third order, marked by small letters, is also
relatively easy as they are generally groups of type units, some representingtype
units of higher order. But these groups arc occasionally discontinuous, forming
tregional' units only in the sense of accretionary zones, as in the case of the
subdivisionswithin each fringe belt.
The divisions of the secondorder, marked by Romannumerals,presentgreater
difficulties, at least in the outer accretions,becauseof the tendencyof the fringe
belts to disrupt and interpenetrateother built up areas. Nevertheless,criteria of
relative internal homogeneity in terms of plan morphology definitely distinguish the
fringe belts from the kernel and the residential accretions. Tile divisions of the
second order are also functionally distinct and in that respectgroup themselves into
a core and integuments in Smailes' sense.
The two divisions of tile first order, denoted by capital letters in the legend of
Figure [137], are comparativelystraightforwardas they presentthe familiar contrast
betweenold. kemel and new accretions.(1969:116)

As a 'geographical group of morphogenetic plan-units', a plan-division is an

aggregate of areas. I'lie pertinent characteristics defining tile group are some common

feature which defines a class of plan-units along with the outline of those plan-units and

the spatial relations betweenthem. The sameholds for eachorder of plan-division. The

divisions of one order are the 'elements' to be classified and groupedto form the next

higher order of divisions.

 63

As stated in the definition, the objectsof the lowestorder of plan-division are plan-

The pertinent characteristics used to define these as plan-divisions are thus

units.

be the same as those used for the definition of plan-units. The

assumed to

define the higher order plan-division seem limited to 'relative

characteristicsused to

internal homogeneity in terms of plan morphology' and to spatial position relative to

divisions of the sameorder. The former can reasonablybe interpreted as similarity

other

of spatial relations of constituent parts. No other specific characteristics are cited, nor

is any method for distinguishing divisions specified. There are only the examples of the

studies of Alnwick (1969) and Ludlow. (1966,1975,1988)

Townscape cells or inorphotopes

Finally, Conzen identified townscape cells, or moiphotopes.

In purely static terms the physical combinations of town plan, building fabric and
land utilization pattern occurs in a somewhat hierarchical manner whereby the town
'contains' and forms the general frame of, the land utilization pattern, the land
plan
in turn 'contain' the building fabric. In this way the three form
use units or plots
together with the natural substratum of the site combine locally to
complexes
the smallest morphogenetically homogeneous areas, provisionally termed
produce
9townscape cells'. In a variety of ways which need further investigation these
townscape cells group themselves into minor townscape units which in turn combine
different levels of integration to form a hierarchy of intra-urban regions. (1981: 79)
at

The characteristics defining these entities is not openly stated by Conzen. Inferring

from the statements he has made regarding townscape regions and from the example of

the Ludlow studies, in principle, the regions are defined by one or more characteristics

from each of the three form complexes. The boundaryof the townscapecell is then the

union (using set theory terminology) of three separate regions from each form complex.

It remainsuncertainwhich characteristicsare to be consideredpertinent. As in the case

Conzen identifies groups of townscape cells of several orders. Conzen

of plan-divisions,
 64

openly states the characteristics defining the higher order groups have not been

established.

While accepting the statement 'townscape cells group themselves' is not meant as

an evasion and that it might be considered an infelicity of language, it is at best

misleading and at worst a potential subterfuge. This sort of language consciously or

unconsciously conceals a method based primarily on intuition, and presents a barrier to

any development of the discipline. The point is raised because one of the primary

purposes of this thesis is to attempt to make the method of morphological analysis

explicit and consistent and so repeatable and reasoned. This is not to exclude intuition.

Intuition is a necessary component of any enquiry. The purpose of specifying a method

is to provide boundaries within which the intuitive powers of a larger body of people

might be brought to bear on the same questions, providing, therefore, a wider range of

possible solutions and enriching the enquiry as a whole.

In summary, plan-units are defined primarily on the basis of 'morphological unity',

interpreted as a similar arrangement of similar elements, more generally, the spatial

relations of elements. The classificationof elementsand plan-units themselvesis based

on a variety of pertinent features which makes it less clear which specific characteristics

are considered pertinent in defining plan-units. There is also some ambiguity in the

distinction between plan-unit types and sub-types.

Accepting the ambiguities in tile definition of plan-units, the features defining plan-

divisions are the spatial relations of internal parts (plan-units) and the spatial relations

between divisions. The pertinent characteristics defining townscape cells is openly

uncertain.
 65

What remains to be examined is the nature of the relations holding betweenthe

various entities examinedabove,that is: betweenthe form complexesin making up the

townscape;betweenthe element complexesin making up the town plan as well as the

relations between these and plan-units and plan-divisions.

THE NATURE OF THE REIATIONS BETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS

Conzen specifies a hierarchical relation between subdivisions in three instances:

between the form complexes, that is, the three aspects of the townscape; between the

three plan-elementcomplexes;betweenorders of plan-divisions. .

Ile reIations between the forin complexes

Regarding the relation between the form complexes, Conzen notes two kinds of relation,

the static links and the dynamic links.

Complexity characterizes the structure of the townscape in two respects,

systematically in terms of the different kinds of form elements and spatially in terms
of the way these form elements arc associated in space as the result of historical
development and functional requirements. The former represents the static, the
latter the dynamic aspect of the townscape. (1981: 78)

The static links

The static relation holding between the form complexes specified by Conzen is that of

hierarchical containment.
 66

In purely static terms the physical combinations of town plan, building fabric and
land utilization pattern occurs in a somewhat hierarchical manner whereby the town
plan 'contains' and forms the general frame of, the land utilization pattern, the land
use units or plots in turn 'contain" the building fabric. (1981: 79)

In principle, the relation is characterised by the specific spatial relation of

containment. The hierarchy is constituted by the fact that one complex contains the

secondwhich in turn contains the third. The use, however,

of the inverted commasfor

the word 'contain' and the qualification of the use of 'somewhat' in the above quotation

in
and other publications (1981:60; 1988:
260) indicate a certain uneasinessor wariness
I
with the meanings. Examination of the relations reveals some justification for the

wariness.

Buildingfabiic - land utilization

On the basis that a land-use unit corresponds to a plot, the building fabric can be said

to be contained by the land utilization pattern primarily because any one building is

locatedinside or within a land-useunit. That is, each elementof the building fabric as

an individual object is related to an individual element of the land utilization pattern

specifically by the relation within. Any group of contiguous buildings will thus also be

within a group of contiguous land-use units. So, whether contiguous or isolated, all

buildings will be within a land-use unit over the whole area of the town and the building

pattern can be said to be within the land utilization pattern. Graphically speaking, any

one building will lie within the closed figure of the outline of a plot or block.

Taking into account the arguments for the distinction of form and use, this

interpretation can only be considered valid if the static hierarchy is based on the

physical structure of the plot. It is the physical entity of the plot that 'contains' the
 67

building fabric, not the human activity constituting use, nor types of use. First, 'use' is

intangible and it would therefore be stre;ching the definition of 'contain' to say that use

in any way bounds or encloses the building fabric. Second, if use is considered to be

distinct from form and not a valid basis for the consistent definition of form, to say that

the physical activities of use or use types 'contain' the building fabric is to include use

types as a constituent of form, which is a contradiction. Given the ambiguous

or use

nature of the land-use unit and so the land utilization pattern as an element of form, the

the land utilization pattern within a hierarchy of form is equally ambiguous.

position of

Land utilization - town plan

Due to the issuesjust cited, the way in which the land utilization pattern is contained

by the town plan is equally unclear. Is it the pattern of uses-or of plots which is

by
contained the town plan? If it is the pattern of plots which is contained by the town

is
plan, the relation relatively clear. Becausethe plot has been chosenas the land-use

is
unit and the plot pattern an aspector componentof the town plan, the land utilization

pattern correspondsto the plot pattern. The boundariesof the land utilization pattern

will thus coincide with thoseof the plot It

pattern. might then be said that the land-use

units are containedwithin the boundariesof street blocks in the sameway that buildings

are containedwithin the boundariesof plots. It is then the single aspectof street-system

which contains the land utilization pattern.

If it is the pattern of useswhich is containedby the town plan, tile relation is not

so clear. If it is acceptedthat the town plan is madeup of the three elementcomplexes,

is it thesetaken togetherwhich contain land useor only one aspect? This also puts into

question the nature of the individual complexes. Is the town plan to be conceivedonly
 68

in two dimensions? 77hiswould imply that 'town plan' refers only to the arrangement of

traces
the two-dimensional on the groundplane of 'all featuresof the built-up areashown

on the 1/2500 OrdnanceSurvey '

Plans, and that the features
three-dimensional are only

included in the form complexof building fabric. The 'objects' of the town plan are then

only areas corresponding to specific three-dimensional objects.,

Conceived in this way, what of the town plan actually 'contains' use? It is perhaps

more true to say that it is the building fabric, conceived as all the three-dimensional

aspectsof the town, including free standingwalls, fencesand pavements,which contains

use. The physical structures of the built environment bound and constrain human

activity and behaviour even if only in their functions as signs. A park or public square,

for example, constituted by a distinct ground surface and so marked by a change of

ground surface and enclosed perhaps in part or whole by railings or walls, physically and

psychologically bounds and constrains but also allows certain types of behaviour and

activity. It is the material substance of the built environment which provides a container

for or presents a physical or psychological barrier to human activity.

If the town plan were not to be conceived as only the two-dimensional aspects of the

ground plane, it is unclear which of the three-dimensional

aspectsshould be included

in the town plan, which in the-building fabric and which, if any, in the land utilization

pattern. It thus remains unclear how, the town plan contains the patterns of use.

In any case, it is the ambiguity of the nature of the land utilization pattern which

creates these problems. Any attempt to arrive at a consistent definition of form and

colierent hierarchy of elements or aspects based on Conzen's work must address this

issue.
 69

The dynamic links

,

Regardingthe dynamic links betweenthe form complexes,Conzennotes:

The diversity of morphological processes makes the townscape more complex and
this effect is substantially increased by the differential time response of town plan,
building fabric and land use pattern to changing functional needs. Town plan and
to a lesser extent building fabric are conservative in that they tend to reflect the
pattern of past landownership and capital investment longer. The land use
...
pattern responds more easily to changing functional impulses, its influence on an
historical townscape being therefore more negative. (1981: 80)

The relation between the complexesis in this case one of differential rates of

change. One complex changes faster than another. The pertinent characteristic defining

the dynamic aspect is thus temporal relations between forms. Afore specifically the

pertinent feature is a property of that relation, being the rate of change generally stated

in terms of the amount of changeover a fixed unit of time. It is stated that land use

pattern changes more- rapidly than the building fabric, which in turn changes more

rapidly than town plan.

Returning to the problem encountered with the static links, it would seem that the

dynamic links do not corroborate the hierarchy of building fabric - land utilization

pattern - town plan. If the actual activities constituting use occur at a more rapid rate

than the 'behaviour' of built form (people move and come and go while the building

remains in place), and if individual use types and patterns of use type tend to change

more rapidly than built form, it is difficult to justify placing land-use pattern between

town plan and building fabric in the hierarchy of aspects. Again, the problemarisesdue

to the inclusion of use in a hierarchy of form. If it remains in the hierarchy at all, the

land-use pattern would seem to best occupy one extreme the most or fastest change
- -

and town plan the other - the least or slowestchange.

 70
The relations between the plan-element complexes

Conzenstatesthe town plan

consists of four element complexes - site, street system, plot pattern and building
arrangement. Physically they are related by a hierarchical principle analogous to
that governing the form categories of the whole townscape, the spatially more
comprehensive complexes acting as morphological frames for the less comprehensive
ones. (1981: 60)

The plan-element complexes are the most obviously hierarchical in the sense of

containment. The building pattern is contained by the plot pattern in that any one

block-plqn is physically 'inside' a single plot, thus the building pattern can be said to

be 'inside' the plot pattern over the whole of the built-up area of a town. The street-

system contains the plot pattern in that streets are defined by street-lines which, by

definition, enclose or 'contain' aggregatesof plots. Thus the streets together bound and

contain the plot pattern. As has been noted, however, there is a difference in the way

the plot pattern contains the building pattern and the street-system contains the plot

pattern. Any one block-plan is contained by one plot while several streets are necessary

to contain a street-block (see Figure 1). This difference comes about from the difference

in the definitions of the street and plot. The plot, it will be remembered, is an

arrangementof parts and the area 'inside' thoseparts,while the street is an areabetween

or outside of the constituent parts. The continuous street-line which bounds a

street-block forms one half the boundary of several streets (excepting a circular

street-block in which case it would be half a single street). Seenanother way, while a

single plot contains one or more block-plans, a 'single' street does not contain any other

element. It is only in the relation between streets that there is any containment of plots

and the plot pattern. Thus it is tile street-system, versus merely 'streets', which contains

plots while it can be said that 'plots' contain 'block-plans' and in turn that the 'plot
 71

pattern' contains the 'building pattern. The way in which the site can be said to

'contain' the street-system is not specified by Conzen. One possible interpretation is to

view the site as the surfaceon which the streetsare laid and the topographyand other

aspects constrain the street-system. Taking another view, the street-system can be seen

as a, part of the site, interpreting 'contain' as 'include as a constituent part'. The

inclusion of site in a hierarchy of built form is, however, inconsistent. Even if the site

can be considered primarily as form, it is unbuilt form in contrast to built form. The

relation betweenbuilt and unbuilt forms will thus be fundamentallydifferent than that

betweendifferent kinds of built form. Taking all this into consideration,the different

levels of the hierarchy are all related in different ways.

The element complexes, plan-units and pIan-divisions

The primary relation between the element complexes and plan-units must be inferred

from the definition of plan-units. The plan-unit is a distinct- combination of plan-

elements. The relation is thus part-to-whole in the sense of 'to constitute'. Afore strictly,

a distinct type of plan-unit is made up of a distinct part of each of the plan-element

complexes. It is assumed that those parts correspond to the different types of elements

identirted in the classificationof eachcomplex. Eachelementcomplexthus providesthe

field or domain of possible objects for the classification of types of that element which

in turn provides a portion of the field or domain of possible terms for the plan-unit sub-

types. The completedomain is madeup of the types from each complex. The range of

sub-types then provides the domain of terms making up plan-unit types.

The relation between plan-units and plan-divisions must also be inferred from

definitions and examples. In the description of plan-divisions (1969:116), the lowest

 72

order plan-divisions are said to be "readily distinguished as plan-type units. ' The relation

is a postulatedor positedcorrespondenceof terms. Strictly speaking,there is no relation

between<plan-unit type> and <lowest order plan-division>. It is a caseof different

/plan-unit
names, type/ and /lowest order plan-division/, being used to refer to the same

entity. In the example of Alnwick, however, for the most part, the lowest order plan-

divisions are plan-unit sub-types. That is to say, the stated correspondence is not

followed in practice. An additional qualification necessary is that a given plan-unit sub-

type may be considered as several plan-divisions, for example, in the distinction of

different plan-divisions (Figure 138: 17,19) within the Intramural plan-unit sub-type

(Figure 137: 9) of the Closed Fringe Belt in Alnwick. This division seems to be made

of the basis of relative position. The result is that there is an inconsistent

correspondence of terms.

Summary of issues to be addrcssed in synthesis

This analysis has raised several issues or problems which must be addressed in using

Conzen'ssubdivisions in the attempt to establisha consistentbasis for the definition of

urban form.

First and foremostis the inclusion of use as a pertinent feature in the definition of

form. Conzen's definition of the plot as a land-use unit creates problems in several

areas. One is in the definition of the plot itself. It has been argued that use cannot be

taken as a pertinent characteristic to define form in a consistent way. The pertinent

characteristic defining use is a liuman-form relation which is distinct from the spatial

relations betweenbuilt objects. To maintain a consistentview, form and use are best

seen as distinct aspectsof the phenomenonof urban areas. Identified forms may be
 73

shownto be related to or associatedwith specific usesand then classified accordingto

that associated use. This is, however, to attribute use, as a distinct aspect, to an entity

which has been defined on the basis of spatial relations. The inclusion of use and land

utilization pattern with the morphological aspect also raises problems in the definition

of plan-units and in establishing clear relations between the different form complexes and

the different element complexes.

Another issue raised is the inclusion of period of origin as a pertinent characteristic

in the definition of building types and of foms generally. It was argued that period of

origin, like use, cannot be taken as a pertinent characteristic to define forni in a

consistent way. Period of origin refers to a temporal relation which, to be consistent,

must be considereddistinct from spatial relations and so form. It was concluded that

period of origin was best included within the general aspect of development.

Several issues arose in the analysis dealing more directly with the forms identified

by Conzen. One is the definition of the street and the street-system. Analysis revealed

the street is not properly defined as an 'element'. The definition does not identify a

single entity which can be outlined and which is then a constituent part of the street-

system. This in turn raises problems in establishing a clear relation between the street-

system and the plot pattern and ultimately in the definition of plan-units.

Another issue is the inclusion of two types of element in the plot patten. The block

and plot-series are included as subsidiary or apparent features of the plot pattern and

not properly included as constituent elements. This also causes problems in establishing

a clear relation between the plot pattern and street-system.

All these issuesconvergein the problem of defining types of form. Conzenusesa

variety of tics
characteris in defining types, primarily use and period of origin. Aside
10
 74

from the problems just mentioned regarding these, there is no explicitly consistent basis

for defining types. All these issues must be addressed in order to use Conzen's

in
subdivisions the attempt to establish a consistent,explicit and so repeatablemeans

of identifying and describing form.

 THREE

A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF

GIANFRANCO CANIGGIA'S

MORPHOLOGICAL SUBDIVISIONS

In summary, Caniggia seeks to understand the built environment by examining the

historical process of its formation. Ile begins first with the general distinction between

spatial and temporal relations, which lie refers to, respectively, as copresence and

derivation. The examination of copresence proceeds with an abstract set of component

subdivisions. I'lici subdivision formsa hierarchy in which the componentsare: elements,

structures of elements, systems of structures, and organisms of systems. This is first

applied to individual buildings, in which building materialssuch as bricks, timbers, tiles

etc. are taken as the elements. Tile structuresof elementsare then the associationsof

building materials into such things as walls, interior floors, roofs etc. Systems of

structures are arrangements of the latter into rooms, stairs, corridors, etc., the organism

being the building. Looking at the town, the same scheme is applied, taking buildings

as elements. The structure of elements is an association of buildings or an aggregate,

 76

in general referred to as a tissue. I'he system of structures is then a combination of

tissues forming regions or districts, which taken together form the organism of the town.

The fonns are identified within the context of the successivechangesconstituting a

town's development. The entire period of development is divided into phases

distinguished by differences in the characteristic forms produced over a period of time.

THE NATURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SUBDIVISIONS

Copresence, derivation and the typological process

Caniggiastatesthat there is a 'correspondencebetweenhistory and structure' (1979:59).

Thus it can be said that the 'object' of Caniggia's enquiry is the 'history of the built

environment'. The phenomena of the built environment over time are taken by Caniggia

as a unitary but complex entity. In analysis, he begins by distinguishing two aspects of

the object of enquiry: copresence and derivation.

Copresence is spatial correlation and derivation is temporal correlation. An object

exists in as much as it belongs to an individuated portion of such a double process,
reassembled in the single concept of history. (1979: 62)

The first subdivision is thus between spatial and temporal relations. That is, the

pertinent characteristicsselected to derine copresenceare spatial relations and those

selected to define derivation are temporal relations. The distinction is based on the

fundamentalassumptionof a distinction betweenspaceand time.

To further determine the nature of copresence and derivation it is necessary to

examine in detail the subdivisions in each realm, the entities identirted and the relations
 77

betweenthem. As the primary concernof the this thesis is form, copresenceis the main

is
object of examinationand addressedin full in this chapter.

Looking briefly at derivation, however,it is well to note that the relations selected

in the definition of derivation are not thoseof physical continuity holding betweenany

one object at one time and another. The term refers to the relations holding betweenan

object at the momentof its creation and the object or objectswhich servedas the model

or basis for the object created, in the mind of the maker. The relations of physical

continuity must be taken as assumed, that is, one must assumethat the spatial relations

of copresencewill continue to hold over time. Thus a further distinction betweenthe

subdivisions is that while the spatial relations of copresence,seenat any one time, do

not include humans,they are a necessaryconstituent in the relations of derivation.

A distinction within the realm of derivation is that madebetweenspecific typological

processes. A typological processis a specific case of derivation applied to a specific

type of object. The pertinent characteristicsdefining the processesare thus, similarly,

temporal relations betweenobjects and humans.

Copresence: the hierarchy of scales or general classes

Within the realm of copresence, Caniggia is concerried with built objects. Regarding

these, he notes that

We begin by reflecting on the fact that the objects which surround us have an
individuality, an organicity, in as much as they must be recognizedby us and
denoted with a term which is different for each object or each class of similar
objects. They have, therefore,a relative opposability with respect to other objects
which guarantees us the individuality of each amidst others. (1979:67)

lie also notes that, at a given time, objects stand in relation to each other and that 'a

relation always dctýrmines a structure, specifically, a mode of mutual participation, of

 78

reciprocal interaction between two or more entities' (1979:60). For Caniggia, the

subdivision of form is basedon a structure. A structure is a set of entities in specific

to
relation each other. To determine the specific nature of the structure and so the

it
subdivision of copresence, is to
necessary examinein detail the entities and relations

constituting the structure. As in the previous chapter, the entities will be examined first

and then the relations betweenthem.

The objectsof the built environment

Any object whatsoever is made not only of itself but is in some way composed of
is
parts, each of which also properly an 'object' identifiable in itself according to its
relative degree of self-sufficiency and complementarity with other parts. Each object
is composed of a number of elements connected together to form an organism and
each element is itself an organism of a smaller scale. (1979: 69)

Copresence is realized in two modes: between objects of analogous scale and

...
between objects of different scale. (1979: 60-1)

In order to comprehend the constituent parts together according to a gradual

approach, it is indispensable to understand that every component must be seen in
relation to the others of the scale immediately larger and immediately smaller.
It is quite easy, therefore, to find copresence at many scales and, relative to any
one scale, to find objects which are analogous, which are contained or which contain
in a system which necessarily implies a world of rules of reciprocal comportment,
a total unity where the objects stand together and from this mutual existence obtain
their specific functions, correlations and identities. (1979: 61)

The first quotation indicates that the entities in the structure, referred to as objects

(oggetti) are complex. They are not 'individuals', that is, indivisible, but composedof

parts. Further, the quotation indicates that the parts of an object are also complex. The

parts are themselves composeq of parts.

In the second quotation, Caniggia distinguishes, in the abstract, two types of object,

those: 'of analogous scale' and 'of different scale'. A further distinction is made in the
 79

following quotationsbetweenobjects 'of the scale immediately largee or 'objects which

contain' and 'objects of the scale immediatelysmallee or'objects which are contained.

The terms'analogous','different', 'smaller' and 'larger' refer to the relationsbetween

in terms of a comparison of the objects. The term 'contain' refers more

objects

specifically to the nature of the relation between parts physically (see Figure 2). The

different objects in the structure arc parts, parts of parts and parts of parts of parts etc.

They are related one to another part-to-whole in a series. The objects are distinguished

and named in terms of their relation to other objects. The pertinent characteristics

defining the objects are thus the relations betWeenobjects.

The hierarchy of objects and general classes

Strictly the pertinent characteristic defining any one object in the series is the relation

of part-to-whole to the next in the series. Any one object is a composition of entities of

the next lower position in the series. The result is a hierarchical structure, any one

those
position encompassing below it. As defined, the structure is tautological. That is,

it is defined in terms of elementswithin the structure.

The objectsand the relations betweenthemwhich constitutethe structureare in fact

defined simultaneously. It is thus necessaryto discussthe relations betweenobjects in

examining the nature of particular objects.

Theoretically, the structure of parts, parts of parts and parts of parts of parts etc.

implies an infinite series. A simple analogy is Chineseboxesor Russiandolls. One

contains another which contains yet another and so on. The analogy is not accurate

enough,however,in that one box or doll 'contains' another merely within its boundaries

not as a component part. A more accurate analogy would be the structure of a single
I
 80

box. The box 'contains' the bottom, sides and top and the sides of the top as component

parts (see Figure 3). Another is

example written language. A letter is a part of a word

is
which part of a sentencewhich is part of a paragraphwhich is part of a chapter etc.

The terms used by Caniggia in the abovequotations to refer to the entities of the

built environment are general and remain as variables within the tautological structure.

They only apply once a particular position has been selected in the structure as the

'object of analogous scale'. Having chosen a position, the three terms refer to three

adjacent positions in the series with analogous objects in the middle.

However,

we see that it will be necessary to divide the components of built objects into four
terms: elements, structures of elements, systems of structures and organisms of
systems. In order to comprehend the constituent parts together according to a
gradual approach, it is indispensable to understand that every component must be
seen in relation to the others of the scale immediately larger and immediately
smaller, preselecting, nevertheless, one level of components in a range of scales
which is consonant with the scale of the object which we arc examining. (1979: 73)

The terms 'element', 'structure of elements', 'system of structures' and organism of

systems'form a series of four positions in the abstract structure, related part-to-whole.

They remain general,however,and so a set of variables. Any position in the structure

can be selectedas the 'element'. Once selected,the three remaining terms would refer

to adjacent positions in the structure with the 'elements' as the objects of the smallest

scale.

Caniggia does go on to correlate the series of four terms to specific phenomena. In

examining buildings:

elements are bricks, tiles, beams etc.; tile structures are the single associations of
several elements such as floors, walls, partitions, roofs etc.; the systems are those
aggregations of structures recognizable as relatively autonomous: rooms, stairs, etc.
which in turn combine to form the organism of systems, specifically, the entire
building. (1979: 73)
 81

He also correlatesthe series of four terms in the examinationof urban areas:

[for the city] the term of the minimum scale which we assume will be the most
is building. The buildings be the 'elements'; tissues the 'structures';
useful the will
parishes, quarters, or districts the 'systems of structures' and the city as a whole the
'organism of systems'. (1979: 74)

As described in these quotations, for both series of four entities, any one entity is defined

as the 'association', aggregation' or 'composition' of objects of the scale immediately

smaller. Each is thus defined in the same way. Each is a general class of objects,

defined as "objectswith a relation of whole-to-partto objects of the scale immediately

smaller'.

Examining this from a logical standpoint, to avoid circularity in the definitions of

the series of terms, it is strictly necessary to begin from the smallest or simplest (least

complex) and proceed step-wise up the series. It is necessary to first define the

'elements' and then each subsequent class in terms of its relation to the preceding class.

Thus each class is ultimately defined in terms of its relation to the elements.

Taking this into account, it becomes apparent that the elements must be defined on

a different basis. I'hey must be defined by a means outside the tautology of the

structure. Regardingmaterials, this issue is addressedbelow in the discussionof the

individual subdivisions. For buildings, as part of the secondsequenceof four classes

of objects, it is assumedthat as 'elements', buildings are taken as defined in the first

sequence of four classes.

The result is a subdivisionof copresenceinto two setsof four classeswith one class

shared betweenthe two sets. This leavessevenclassesof objects. Except for the case

of materials, the pertinent characteristic defining all the classesis the spatial relation
 82

of whole-to-part between the object defined and the objects of the scale immediately

smaller in the abstract structure of the hierarchy of scales (see Figure 4).

Arrangements of objects and specific classes

The relation of whole-to-partor part-to-wholeis between'objects of different scale' and

is only one of the two modes of copresence identified by Caniggia. The other is that

between analogous objects or objects of analogous scale. Iliese two terms ('analogous

objects' or 'objects of analogousscale') refer to objects of the same scale or class as

discussed above, for example, all 'elements' or all 'organisms of systems'.

If, as Caniggia states, 'each object is composed of a number of elements connected

together to form an organism and each element is itself an organism of [the, scale

immediately smaller]" (1979: 69), the connection between those elements to form an
I

organism is between analogous objects. A connection is a relation and in this case it

is the spatial relation of part-to-part between analogous objects. It follows that in the

definition of the general classes, the terms 'association', 'aggregation' and 'combination'

to
refer spatial relations of part-to-part betweenanalogousobjects. Each association,

aggregation and combination is 'recognized by us and denoted with a term which is

different for each object or each class of similar objects (1979:67). The
.. .'

associations, aggregations and combinations are thus different sets of specific spatial

relations between analogous objects. Different sets of specific relations are identified as

different specific objects.

Thus a given scale or general class is subdivided into different specific classes of

object based on the specific relations of part-to-part betweenthe constituent parts

 83

(analogous objects of the next smaller scale). Taking the example of buildings, Caniggia

notes,

if I pick out the elementsthat I recognizeas similar within a single definition, I

obtain a'building type', called such because assumedstatistically. More specifically
I see a number of buildings with two habitable floors over a ground floor with two
windowsper floor and with one large door and one small door on the ground floor.
I also see that the buildings of this kind are placed next to each other to form a
sequenceof similar houses along the length of a street, having a shared vertical
structure perpendicular to the street. They are normally placed along the edge of
the street and stand betweenthe street and an open areawithin the building for the
exclusive use of each house. I label the combination of these characteristics 'row
house'. This is to say I have recognizedthe existenceof one such type a posteriori.
That is, I have noted the physical existenceof examplesand from those fabricated
a logical diagram, placing it under the title 'row house'. It is clear that the choice
of title arises from a contradistinction. If I invent such a term and recognizethe
existence of the 'row house' I have already implicitly admitted two things: the
existenceof houses which are not 'row' houses, and the existenceof buildings which
are not houses. More specifically I have noted the existence of different houses to
I
which will give different labels and I have also seen buildings which are not
houses which I have called, for example, churches, large houses (palazzi) or
monasteries. I have therefore made a classification of buildings in the quarter I
have examined,dividing them into categoriesby meansof an 'a posteriorianalysis'.
(1979:48)

There are, then, a variety of types or specific classes of object within any one scale

or general class and each specific class is thus a subdivision of the scale (see Figure 5).

The primary pertinent characteristic defining the specific classes is the specific type of

the constituent parts and the spatial relations of part-to-part betweenthe parts. That is,

a given object is distinguishedfrom othersof the same by

scale the particular set of parts

and the particular relations of part-to-part constituting the object. All objects with the

same kind of parts and relation of parts constitute a specific class or type.

In summary, copresence is subdivided into seven general classes based on the

relation of part-to-whole in a hierarchical structure. Each class is further divided into

specific classes based on the constituent parts and the relations of part-to-part between
 84

them. To further determine the nature of the subdivisions, it is necessary to examine

each of the general classesin more detail.

Materials

The first specific subdivision or lowest scale in the hierarchy of components is defined

generally by the 'elements

statements, are bricks, tiles, timbers etc.' and 'elementsare

materials .. .' (1979:73). More generally it could be stated, 'elements are building

materials'. As set out in the aboveanalysis,the generaldefinition of the generalclasses

of copresenceis 'all objects with a relation of whole-to-part to objects of the scale

immediately smaller. As mentioned, this cannot be the basis for the definition of the

lowest scale.

Aside from those just quoted, Caniggia offers a different definition: 'material is a

synthesis between the matter of which it is made and the specific culture which the

people of a region confers in using it in order to build' (1984: 162). The pertinent

characteristics in this definition of materials are the componentsubstance,matter, and

the relation of 'use', for the purpose of building, between the matter and humans.
,

Strictly, however,this is a circular definition. It reduces to: the basic elements of

buildings are the smallestelementsused in buildings. Such a definition is only valid

if interpreted as ostensive, that is, as a pointer toward or mention of specific objects.

As Russell points out, a class can be determined not only by a common

characteristic or set of characteristics but also by listing (Russell 1919:12). This is

ultimately the basis for Caniggia's definition of materials: 'elements are bricks, tiles,

timbers etc.' (see Figures 12-14).

 85

The general class is then subdivided into specific classes of materials on the basis

of characteristicsof the entities listed, relying on conventionaldefinitions of the terms

such as 'bricks', 'tiles' or 'beams', etc. I'liese might be stated either verbally, as in the

exampleof a brick, 'a block of fired terra cotta of such and such dimensions',graphically

(see Figure 12) or identified ostensively. Each specific definition is the basis for the

subdivision of the general class into specific classesof entities such as 'all blocks of

fired terra cotta of such and such dimensions',each class being a type of material or

element.

Natural and artificial materials

A further distinction is made by Caniggia according to the provenanceof a material,

identifying a difference between natural and artificial materials. The distinction is based

on the degree of complexity of the process by which a material is made. The fewer steps

in the process the more natural the material, the more"steps the more artificial. the

difference between natural and artificial materials, however,is a difference between

different processes of forination, not, strictly, the resultant forms. A process of

formation is a sequence of events, a set of temporal relations involved in the production

of an object. In terms of the desire to define and identify specific forms in a consistent

and systematic way, that sequence does not provide an appropriate pertinent

characteristic for the consistentdefinition or identification of form. The distinction of

different processeshelps to explain the different forms but does not, strictly, define

classes of form of sufficient detail or specificity.

The distinction of natural and artificial materialsis oneof degreein a rangebetween

two poles. That is,.it determinesa relative difference betweenany one identified form
 86

and the others. I'lie distinction thus provides a relative order betweenidentified forms

within the general class of elements.

Elastic and plastic matetials

Caniggiaalso distinguishesbetweenelastic and plastic materials,a distinction basedon

the internal structure and physical properties of the materials. Afore strictly, it is based

on the physical properties or 'behaviour' of the materials when placed under a load, the

physical properties being dependant on the internal structure of the materials. The

pertinent characteristic in the distinction of different forms of behaviourunder load is

change of form 'Over time. The characteristics thus include both the form or spatial

relation of parts and the continuity or change of those relations over time, which are

temporal relations. Like the'distinction between natural and artificial materials, the

distinction between elastic and plastic materials helps to explain the different forms but

does not, strictly, define classes of form of sufficient detail or specificity.

Similarly, this is a distinction of degree in a range between two poles. Any one

material is to -some degree both elastic and plastic, demonstrating the properties

characteristicof each. The distinction thus providesa relative order betweenidentified

forms within the generalclass of elements.

Structures

The statement 'structures are the single associations of several elements (1979: 73),
...,

defines the general class at the second level. That is, a 9single association of several

is
elements' equivalent to 'objects with a relation of whole-to-part to entities of the scale

immediately smaller, the smaller scale being materials or 'elements'. 'Structures' thus
 87

refers to the generalclass defined by the pertinent characteristicof a relation of whole-

to-part with 'elements' or materials.

In referring to specific classes of structures, Caniggia uses conventional terms such

as '. floors, walls, partitions, roofs,etc.'. Caniggia'sdefinition and discussionof these

..

specific terms are presented in a much less systematic way than that of the general

classesof the hierarchy of scales. There appear to be at least four different pertinent

characteristicsselectedin the definition of these terms.

One is the spccific componentsor parts constituting the object to be defined. A

second is the particular arrangement of the components. Another is the position of the

entity to be defined in relation to other entities of the same scale or some reference

point. A fourth is the intention, purposeor use of the entity to be defined.

The first pertinent characteristic is the specific class of the component parts,

assuming the spatial relation of whole-to-part between the entity and the specific parts,

which are of the scale immediately smaller. The second is

characteristic the spatial

relation of part-to-part between entities in the composition of parts. This also assumes

a relation of whole-to-part between the entity defined and the parts. The third pertinent

characteristic is the spatial relation of part-to-part betweenthe entity defined and other

objects of the same scale in forming an object of the scale immediately larger. This

assumesa relation of part-to-wholebetween these objects and the object of the scale

immediately larger. The fourth characteristic is the relation betweenthe entity as an

object and human activity or intention.

Caniggia's definition of structures calls on all four of these characteristics. In the

definition of types of structures, the first two characteristics are often stated together,

defining the types by means of particular components and arrangements of components,

 NI

88

in the illustrations-of structures (see Figures 33-35). Different types of upper

as shown

floor, for example,are distinguishedby the different arrangementsof different types of

beams,joists and floorboards(see Figure 33).

Caniggia uses position relative to other objects as in the case offloor, which is 'a

horizontal plane ... raised with respect to the outside ... [and] acting in association

' Thefoundation is 'the groundwhich borders the floor.' The

with the vertical structure.
"restson the ground ... connect[ed]with the foundation having a
vertical structure ...

height such that the interior space... [is] higher than the height of a man .. .' The

'. must form part of the covering ... acting to associateitself with the walls
roof ..
(1984: 149-50,156).

He also reters to intention, purpose or use. The floor is 'an easily traversable

[which is] raised with respect to the outside in order to provide protection from
pavement

' Thefoundation is that which '. sustainsthe vertical structure and the load
rainwater. ..

it transfers '
there. The vertical structure is that which '. ensurefs] protection
which ..

from the climate ... and transfers [to the foundation] the weight of ... the rwf, '

internal space'. which can contain the functions of man.' The roof is that
creating an ..

forms '. part of the covering [with] a particular resistanceto atmospheric

which . ., ...

agents' (1984:149-50,156).

Useand the definition offonn

Selecting use as a pertinent characteristic in the definition of form again raises the issue

distinction between use and form. In Caniggia's definitions and discussions of

of the

structures, use'is'not, as it is with Conzen, a specific or systematic subdivision but

intrinsic part of each definition. Considering the previous arguments

apparently an
 89

concerninguse and form and looking closely at the definitions, use, purposeor intention

is associatedwith but does not provide a characteristic which leads to a consistent

definition of form or structure. Any man-madeobject is closely bound up with its use

or intention and the object's form may be explained by its use but, again, is ultimately

distinct from it.

More specifically, a floor is that thing 'which might act as a pavement easily

traversable... raised with respect to the outside in order to provide protection from

'
rain-water. 'T'hevertical structure must ensureprotection from the climate and have
...
dimensions suitable to the use [of man]' (1984:149-50). One part of each of these

statementsdescribesor refers to a 'thing', the other explains why the thing has the form

or property described, connecting it to specific human needs or activities.

To emphasize this point, an arrangement of stone standing in a specific relation to

the ground and to other structurescan be identified as a 'wall'. The use or intention of

that 'wall' is, however, neither sufficient nor necessaryin its identification. That

particular arrangement is explained by the intention to enclose a space and support a

roof. 'Use' is intangible, however, and any identification of a form by use must

ultimately refer back to physical description of parts and arrangements. This is made

particularly evident when consideringthat the sameparts and arrangement

can be used

for different purposesand still more evident when the sameparticular 'wall' is used for

different purposes over time. Ultimately it is a matter of consistency in choosing

to define entities. In order to maintain a consistent and

pertinent characteristics

systematic definition of form, intention, use or purpose should be distinguished as a

relation between humans and a form. Uses are thus aspects which can only be attributed

with a form once the form has been identified. The

or associated explanatory value of
I
 90

intention, useor purpose,however,cannotbe overestimatedin making senseof the forms

identified by their physical structure. The intentionsof a builder determinewhich of the

possiblematerialsand formsare most suitable for a particular purpose. Thus, knowledge

of those intentions helps to explain the resulting form. The remaining pertinent

characteristicsused by Caniggiain defining 'structures' are all spatial relations between

entities which are in turn defined in terms of spatial relations.

Apertures

Another component in the general class of 'structure' is the aperture, which

constitutes a structure within a structure ... [and] forms part of the whole vertical
structure ... maintaining insulation, protection and [the] ability to support itself,
in brief, all the characteristics of vertical structure excepting that of carrying the
roof. (1984: 152)

Frorn, the first phrase above, 'a structure within a structure, ' it would, in general, seem

that the aperture has the characteristics of both of two adjacent general classes in the

hierarchy of scales. That is, the aperture is composed of 'materials' and is an entity in

itself yet is still a part of the vertical structure. In addition, it is uncertain whether the

term 'aperture' refers only to the structure placed within the opening, such as a window

and its frame or both the window and frame and the surround of the aperture (including

the horizontal structure, such as a-lintel or arch, and the jambs and cill), which,

structurally speaking, permits the opening within the wall (see Figure 22).

'n1is raises two questions. The first, which is of some importance, is, how can such

an identifiable entity as the aperture be accommodated within the hierarchy of scales?

This also applies to a double frame truss roof, amongst other things (see Figures 26 and

27). Specifically, the members composing an individual truss are properly 'materials'
 91

and the truss is a 'single association of materials' but the truss is only a component or

part of the roof. The truss is still an object of a smaller scale relative to the roof. There

seems, therefore, to be a need for an intermediate scale between materials and

structures. This poses a general problem in the recognition of entities within the general

definition of generalclassesand the abstract structure of scales.

The second question, which is more specific, is, should the head, jamb and cill be

considered as a part of the 'window' substructure or properly a part of the 'wall', leaving

the frame within the opening and the window or door as the identifiable substructure?

Both of these questions will be addressed in the next chapter

Elastic and plastic structures

Caniggia also makes a distinction between elastic and plastic structures. Like that

between elastic and plastic materials, this distinction is based on the physical properties,

behaviour, of a structure when placed under a load. Caniggia specifies three

or

associated characteristics in comparing the two: weight, which is a property; lateral

dimension or thicknesswhich is also a property, described in terms of a comparisonto

a fixed unit of measure; and relative seriality or organicity, which is a distinction

between two types of internal arrangement or structural relation of parts.

Each of these characteristics determines a range between two poles. A given

is
structure more or less light or heavy,thin or thick and serial or organic. Specifically,

a rough timber wall, is an elastic structure relative to a rough stone wall is

which plastic.

The former is lighter, thinner and has parts arranged in a more serial order, the latter

heavier, thicker and has parts arranged in a more organic order. Equally, a simple

beam and rafter roof is more elastic relative to. a double frame truss roof, the latter
ridge
I
 92

being thicker, heavier and more organic than the former. Thus, in general, a structure

madeof elastic material tends to be light, thin and serial while a structure made of

plastic material tends to be heavy, thick and organic. On the one pole is

elastic-light-thin-serialand on the other plastic-heavy-thick-organic.Like the distinction

between elastic and plastic materials, the distinction between elastic and plastic

helps to explain the different forms but does not, strictly, define classes of form
structure

detail or specificity. Similarly, the distinction is one of degree in a range

of sufficient

between two poles. Any one material is to some degree both elastic and plastic,

demonstrating the properties characteristic of each. The distinction thus provides a

relative order betweenidentified forms within the general class of elements.

Roonis or cells

The third scale in the general hierarchy is occupied by the general class of 'systems,

defined as '. those aggregations of structures recognisable as relatively autonomous:

..

rooms, stairs etc. . .' (1979: 74).

In subdividing the general class, Caniggia refers to conventional terms, 'rooms' and

9stairs', but also to his own tems, the base type and elementary cell. The former are not

further defined in any detail, the emphasisbeing placed on the latter. The base type

defined primarily on the basis of component parts, arrangement

and elementary cell are

of components, position relative to other entities and use or purpose as well as derivation

and the typological process.

 93

Thebasetype

More specifically, the base type is defined as

a single room house made of one space enclosed by a floor, four load bearing walls
and a roof with one of the four walls pierced by a door for access, light and air, the
space being about rive or six metres square. (1984: 135)

This quotation determines a specific class or type which might be generalized as: 'any

aggregate of floor, four walls (one with a door) and a roof of such and such arrangement

and such and such dimensions'. The pertinent characteristics of this definition are the

component parts and the arrangement of components. However, as Caniggia notes, in

order to avoid

all inexact generalisations when we posit a concrete construction (a real building),

from the analysis of a base type, we must begin from a precise spatial and temporal
realm, provided, therefore, with a history. We will begin from a 'real building' and
not a schema or idea of a building, or at least a definition of base type specific
enough to refer to a real typological moment.... (1984: 135)

To achieve 'a definition of base type specific enough to refer to a real typological

moment,' the definition of the base type must be more detailed. This is accomplished

in the text by the use of illustrations (see Figures 33,63,64 and 66)

Level of specificiiy

Caniggia addresses the specificity of definitions in general, noting that,

an essential characteristic in the application of the notion of the 'type' in the

... be less deep, be
reading of buildings is that the reading can more or can based
...
on small differences-or on macroscopic differences. It is for this reasonthat we
must ... [define] a further concept, the level of specificity of the type This, in
...
brief, indicates the possibility of investigatingthe typological structure accordingto
a progressive range of depth. We can, for example, limit ourselvesin our reading
to a distinction between basic and specialised buildings. Within ihe former [we can
distinguish] terraced housesand row houses.... (1979:95)
 94

The maximum level of specificity is obtained, in theory, when the type identifies
the attributes it is possible to rind in it, in all the
one and only one object with all
which it exhibits, which render it, in whatever mode, totally
characteristics
however similar. Only at that point will it have realised
opposable to other objects,
building type the building.... (1979: 111)
the coincidence of the and

In terms of classes, defining types within a given scale at different levels of specificity

in a different number of types within that scale. That is, a difference in

results only

level of specificity is not a difference in scale. A more specific type is still made up of

to a sub-group within the larger group.

members of the general class and so refers

Having defined base type generally, any more specific or detailed rendering of that
a

definition determines a class whose members remain members of the same general class

the scale. Diagrammatically, if one takes a general class as a line, a

and so of same

to some segment of the line, each more detailed definition of types

specific class refers

to a smaller portion of that segment, which is,

within that specific class will refer

theoretically, divisible into still smaller segments and so on ad inji"nitum (see Figure 5).

The point is, the general and specific types all refer to the same 'line'.

The elementary cell

The 'elementarycell' is

the samespace [as the basetype] entered into the formation of a derivative type of
[i.
greater size e. more spaces than one]. (1979: 98)

[The elementarycell] presentsitsclf as a componentsystem ... in a complex

in
organism various versions,each of a specialisedpurpose ... according to a..
diversified ýtopology. They are not, therefore, equal elements but rather
. but different
homogeneous elements,reciprocally coherent of characters,roles and
positionswhile always remaining connected by being a specialisedderivation of the
same element [i. e. the base type].... The specialisation of each of the cells in
developing a particular role is tied to the relative conservationof one' or more!
characteristics contained in the base type. (1984:135)
 95

As the elementarycell is 'the samespace' as the base type, it is defined in the same

way. That is, both /elementarycell/ and /base type/ refer to a specific class or type of

'system'. each class being defined generally as <some single arrangements of

structures> (see Figure 40) More specific descriptions and illustrations of the various

base types and elementary cells are included in the text. However, in Caniggia's

they
statements, are all set out in terms of role and derivation.

The specialisation of each of the cells in developing a particular role is tied to the
relative conservation of one or more characteristics contained in the base type,
achieving on the one hand the maximum attenuation of an aspect or the maximum
sublimation on the other. A cell at the ground floor is connected to the ground, like
the base type, and therefore inherits from it accessibility, indeed, even sublimating
it by increasing the size of the opening. (1984: 138)

Together the verbal definitions and illustrations include as pertinent characteristics

component parts, arrangements of components, position relative to other entities, and the

use or purpose of the entity defined. Another is the derivation of the entity.
role,

I'lic first three characteristics are spatial relations (assuming the parts are defined

in terms of spatial relations). The role of an elementary cell refers to the relation of use

intention between the cell and human.

or

'Role' and the definition ofform

More specifically, a cell occupying a ground floor street front position relative to three

other cells, one above,one behind and the third above the last, will be composedof a

particular set of componentsin a particular way in order to function with the others (see

]Figure 40). The ground floor front cell will retain or 'conserve' certain features of the

base type or rather, have certain features in common with the base type when comparing

the two. That is, it will have a floor, four walls (one with a door) and a roof. However,
 96

in order to function with the other cells it will differ from the base type in having

different types of components in certain -positions. In this case the rear wall will have

floor the 'roor be an upper

an opening to gain access to theýrear ground cell and will

floor, perhaps with an opening reached by stairs to gain access to the upper cells.

The role of a cell is a matter of the relation of use or intention between a human and

the intention to have access from one cell to an other. Without the
the cell, such as

intention, the presence or absence of openings is irrelevant. Given the four cells in their

their respective parts, one is able to distinguish four

respective positions composed of

different cells by those different positions and the different arrangement of the specific

Like use, role does not establish a consistent class of object

components of each cell.

in terms of form. To remain consistent, role is best considered as a distinct aspect

relative to form.

Derivation and the definition ofform

The derivation of a cell refers to its position in the typological process and so to a

in A given cell, as part of a later and more developed

position a temporal sequence.

is
building type, related to a base type through steps in the typological process that led

from the base type to the mature type. As discussed in the previous chapter. regarding

the desire for a consistent definition of form and the temporal aspect of form, temporal

are not appropriate characteristics for a consistent definition. The issue of the
relations

temporal relations of derivation and specifically the typological process with respect to

the definition of form is discussed more fully in the following section.

While it does not provide a basis for consistent definitions of form, the temporal

typological does basis for

sequence of the process provide a relating or ordering
 97

identified types within the general class. By the comparison of examples of elementary

cells and base types and the identification. of physical differences and similarities

betweenthem in termsof components,the arrangementof componentsand their position

relative to other cells, it is possible to place an elementary cell in the sequenceof a

typological process. That order helps to explain the forms by placing them in a temporal

context.

Buildings
15

'Organisms of systems' is the term used to refer to entities occupying the fourth level of

the hierarchy of scales. The term is defined generally with the statement,

... aggregations or structures recognisable as relatively autonomous: rooms, stairs

etc. ... come together to form the organism of systems, specifically, the entire
building. (1979: 73)

Interpreting 'come together to form' as 'are arranged' the statement follows the general

definition and posits a general class based on the pertinent characteristics of the spatial

relations of whole-to-part, the parts being 'systems'.

The subdivision of the general class into specific classes is first made at a lower

level of specificity, being the distinction of specialisedand basic buildings. The detailed

discussionof the former is left by Caniggiato a projected but unrealised volume. The

basis for the distinction is both physical form and use. 'We realise at once certain

macroscopic distinctions; some buildings are of greater complexity and size ... not

nonnally usedfor family (1979:

residence" 92). Basicbuildings are subdivided into more

specific types, namely: base type, leading type; qnchronic variants of. position,

transfonnation and substitution. The terms 'row house' and 'apartment house' are used

as examples.
 98

The typological processand the definition offonn

The distinction of types within the class of basic buildings, as in the case of elementary

cells, is based on derivation or, more specifically, on reprojection by phases of the

typological process. This poses the same problem of unravelling the means of definition

faced in the distinction of types of elementary cell. At the level of the building the

problem would appear to be still more complicated given the particularly close if not

inextricable relation between period and 'house.

In response it might be said that derivation generally and reprojection by phases

specifically are the methods by which types are identified but not the means. An

evolutionary model directs our attention toward certain objects by providing an

organising framework into which individual types can be systematically placed. It

provides a set of relations between identified forms within an established general class.

Againj however, placement in a sequence demands that the types must be fbuný and

their relations to others - their similarities and differences determined before they can
-

be placed. Biological evolution arose out of systematic attempts to classify, that is, to

distinguish and name the many species found in the world. The discovery of formal

homologies in the course of classification suggested relations between species, resulting

in a particular sequence of relations ('evolution). This in turn suggested or posed

certain problems or gaps, prompting further search for specific forms to fill the gaps. An

evolutionary framework may suggest forms to be looked for but does not in itself provide

the means of identification. The means are the form and structure of individual

examples.

In terms of the dynamics of processes, the evolution of building types occurs on a

different level, that is to say, is of a different logical type from the process of the
 99

formation of any one of the individuals of the type. The process of evolution is

fundamentally a sequence connecting aggregates. I'liat is, a period or phase encompasses

the construction of a statistical aggregate of houses. Change from one period to another

is thus a change'irom one aggregateto another. The construction or modification of a

single house is a process involving one member in the aggregate. That sequence of

construction and modification connects, temporally, the constituent parts of that one

house. It can be said, then, that as a member of the class stands to the class as a wholeg

so the of
processes formationand changeof an individual example of that type stands

to the processes of formation and change of a type as a whole. The transformation of

an individual house, as an entity, is a member of the class of transformations to the class

of houses.

As discussed in the previous chapter, there is a perceptual basis for a distinction

of spatial and temporal aspects. This in turn provides a distinction of the characteristics

which might be used to derine types. The above discussion shows there is also a logical

basis for a distinction of different kinds of temporal aspect due to the difference in

logical type between the processes of change in the type and in the construction and

modification of a single building.

The base ý)pe

The'base type, which has already been defined as a member of the scale of 'systems' is

again defined as a member of the scale of 'organisms', or building. The pertinent

characteristicsdefining it as an 'organism' are the sameas those used in defining it as

a 9system': component parts, arrangement of parts, relative position and intention or use
 100

as well as derivation. Relative position applies even to the simpler, isolated base type,

as illustrated by Caniggia, in terms of position relative to a slope (see Figure 64).

As a one room building, the base type raisesa question concerning the definition

of generalclassesand the hierarchy of scales. The generaldefinition defines objects as

9aggregations','associations' or 'combinations' of entities. A 'single room house' would

be
not readily acceptedas a conventionalinterpretationof these terms. An association,

combination or aggregation of one is contradictory. Regardless, the single room house

does function as a house. It is therefore necessary to account for such phenomena.

Examinationof different urban areasat variousscalesshowsthat the single room house

is not the only case of this phenomenon. If the subdivision of form is to be systematic

and logically consistent,this issuemust be addressed.It is enoughto say here that logic

accepts a single member class or set and even an empty set. The problem will be

discussed more fully in the following chapter.

The leading type and type offirst building

The meaning of 'leading type' and 'type of First building' overlap but are not equivalent.

They refer, on one level, to a position in the typological process. 'Leading type' refers

to the type current at a given time according to which both new buildings are built and

modifications of existing buildings are made. The leading type is the current 'concept

of the house'. It is thus related, in the typological process, to some body of buildings

constructed previously which, through transformation, provided the basis, the preliminary

idea, for that leading type. 'Type of first building' refers to a leading type and to a

particular time and place. The type of First building is the set of examples of a leading

type realised on a site unconstrained by previous building. Thus, for a given area the
 101

type of first building is the sameas the leading type which was current at the time the

area was initially built up. Put in terms of time, the type of first building for a given

time is the current leading type as realised on sites not occupied by any previous

buildings. As a sub-groupof 'leading type' the type of first building is also related to

previous buildings in the typological process.

Clearly, without specifying the period or place, 'leading type' and 'type of first

building' remain as variables within the framework of the typological process. The

domain of possible values for those variables lies within the general class of basic

buildings. Obviously this goes no further in specifying what the term refers to materially.

On specifying place and time, 'leading type' and 'type of first building' will refer to

a specific arrangement of 'systems' but, as discussed, period or temporal position does

not provide a consistent basis for the definition of form. - The specific spatial arrangement

of systems must be identified first and then placed in a ternporal position. In the texts,

Caniggia describes the base type in terms of parts, arrangement of parts and relative

position in order to begin a specific discussion of the typological process. Caniggia

establishes an initial point of reference in order to compare other types with it, then

establishing differences and similarities. This implies that other types must be described

in order to be compared with the base type.

Digressing again to empliasise the distinction between the definition of a type and

its place in a process, it must be said that, to a greater or lesser degree, definition is

assumed in perception. Regai-Jlessof the aspects to which one attends when looking at

a building, one establishes some recognised orxler in perceiving the building as an entity.

The ability to recognise a building assumes a type, even if vague. That is, one

recognises a building because one remembers another or others 'like' it, one remembers
I
 102

some other perception of an entity with 'some characteristic or series of characteristics

in common.' If one can remember other examples one can then cite an aggregate which

constitutes the type. In these terms, the main point of this thesis is to establish a

consistentbasis for recognition.

Particularly for those with a good deal of experience, the recognition of types is

second nature and often not explicit. To spell out all the assumptions takes rather a long

time and would be counter-productive if, say, one's interest is the evolution of types.

The point is, however, that the assumptionshave been made. The morphologists

interested in evolution have, in their ability to'recognise different buildings, already

defined, at least tentatively, the types with which they are working and which they are

attempting to put into some evolutionary sequence.

Thus Caniggia, in specifically defining leading types and synchronic variants and

typological processes, first describes the base type and later types in
outlining specific

terms of component parts, arrangement of parts and position relative to slopes, solar

orientation and to other types. He then asserts these constitute a particular process.

That done, we begin to understand the relations between them, that is, their evolution.

- Synchronicvariants

Synchronic variants act as variables in the typological process in the same way as the

leading type. As such, they are related to the leading type through the structure of the

typological process.

The synchronic variants by position are a trange of types analogous to the leading

type of 'first building' but conditionedby having originated in an anomaloustopological

position .. .' (1984: 98). This is best shown'by illustrations (Figure 69). As well as
 103

Caniggia describes them verbally, identifying differences of

illustrating the variants,

and
parts,arrangements positions relative to other types.

Synchronicvariantsby transformationand substitutionare 'variations relative to the

[current] leading type but diachronic changesof the types originally constituting the

"first building" (1984:98) (see Figure 6).

Once specified in terms of time and place, the pertinent characteristics defining

variants by position and by transformation and substitution are their

synchronic

component parts and the arrangement of those parts, the position relative to other types.

Like the leading type and type of first building, the terms also refers to the typological

process and a position within it.

Another entity defined by Caniggia in discussing building types is the pertinent area.

'The row house has, characteristically, a twofold face, one on the street and one on the

internal uncovered space for the exclusive use of each house which we will call the

(1979: 93). In terms of form, the pertinent area, as an internal uncovered

pertinent area"

house faces, resembles a 'system'. One might assume that by

space onto which the

'internal uncovered space' is meant 'a space not having a roof within a house'. In this

be an arrangement of 'structures, and a part

case the pertinent area would, as an object,

house. Another interpretation, however, is that the pertinent area is a single space
of the

(as in the base type), of the same scale as the house and so
arrangement of systems'

forming an aggregate with it.

The question becomes more important when examining a wider variety of urban

house and building types. In looking at these different areas, the

environments and

question is whether it makes more sense to see the pertinent area, or its equivalent, as

-f
 104

is, in the house or an entity forming an arrangement with the house. This
a part of, that

issuewill be taken up and discussedfurther in the next chapter.

Tissue

'Buildings' occupy the fourth and highest level of the first four scale hierarchy of

and organisms of systems., I'lie

elements, structures of elements, systems of structures

four hierarchy takes buildings as the elements (1979: 74). Again, it is

second scale

here that buildings, as 'elements' in the second set of four scales, are taken as
assumed

defined as 'organisms' in the first set of four scales. Thus the previous discussion of

buildings applies to the second hierarchy and accounts for the 'element'. The objects

in the second set are termed tissues and are defined generally as
of the next scale up

of several elements,' (1979: 74) taking 'buildings' as the elements or

.. associations

Caniggia also employs another term. 'Using the most generic term
component parts.

indicate a collection of buildings we will call [them] aggregates' (1979: 122).

possible to

The distinction between aggregatesand tissue is that tissue refers to the objects as types

includes the pertinent characteristic of a relation to other objects in a typological

and so

process.

As in the case of buildings, the generalclass of tissue is subdivided into the two

broad specific classesbasedon the distinction betweenspecialised and basic tissues.

As with specialisedand basic buildings, the pertinent characteristicsof the distinction

the human-formrelation of use. Specialised

are spatial relationsof componentparts and

tissue, like specialised buildings, was to have been treated in a projected but unrealised

Within the class of basic tissue,Caniggiaidentifies severalentities: the lot, the

volume. 0

strip, the route, various built routes,blocksand infill tissue.

pertinent
 105

The lot

Caniggia notes that the buildable lot 'is comprised of the area built upon together with

'
the pertinent area, and that 'the module of the aggregate is the lot' (1979: 129).

These statements and the general definition of tissue above together imply that

/building/ and IloV refer to the same thing or concept, as do the /module of the aggregate/

/element tissue/. The lot is defined, however, as 'the area built upon together
and the of

with the pertinent area.' It will be recalled that an ambiguity regarding the pertinent

area arose in the previous section. The question is whether the pertinent area is a

part of the building or a separate entity which forms an association with the,
component

building. The equivalence of the lot and building as the module of the aggregate

former the definition of the lot as 'the area built upon together with
supports the while

the pertinent area' supports the latter. Examining a wider range of examples than those

by Caniggia (see Figures 81-99) raises further issues addressed in the following
used

The ambiguity does not, however, have further implications in the discussion
chapter.

tissue. It will be assumed therefore, that /lot/, /building/ and /module of the aggregate/
of

all refer to the <element of tissue>.

The pertinent strip

'As we call that area which is connected to each [building] type the 'pertinent area', we

that strip formed by the covering of lots, inherent in each front of a route and
will call

by the route, the pertinent strip (1979: 129-30). As defined in this quotation
served .. .'

illustrated in the texts (see Figure 126) the 'pertinent strip' is an 'association of
and
 106

several elements'. I'lic pertinent characteristics identified in the definition are

component parts (lots), arrangement of components, position relative to other entities and

use.

The route

We begin to see the value of a class of structure which has not yet been discussed,
the various examples of which are subsumed under the term route.... In brief,
before constructing a house it is necessary to have a structure enabling one to reach
the place where the building will arise. The 'route' is, by definition, the structure
to be reached (1979: 128).
which allows a place

In the above quotation, the route is defined primarily in terms of its use and its

position relative to other entities. The pertinent characteristicsare thus the relation of

use between the object and humans and the spatial relation of the object to others.

Beyond using the word 'structure', however, Caniggia does not describe 'route' in terms

its constituent parts. The definition, therefore, does not follow the definition of general
of

This throws into some doubt the place of the route as an entity in either of the
classes.

four scale hierarchies. If Caniggia's use of the word 'structure' in defining the route is

interpreted according to the definition of the general classes of the hierarchy as a 'single

of elements','route' could then be said to refer to an aggregateof materials

association
brick, asphalt, concrete etc., forming a continuous flat surface of
such as gravel, stone,

length sitting in some specific relation to

such and such a width and such and such a

particular buildings (see Figures 30,31,106,107,110 and 118).

If this interpretation is accepted,there remainsthe problem of placing the route in

Simply, a route is not the same kind of object as a 'building'. Given Caniggia
a scale.

states that 'we will use the categories route and pertinent strip in order to characterise

the structure of tissue' and given that the definition of the generalclassesspecifiesthat
 107

an object of a given scale is 'all objectswith a relation of whole-to-partto objects of the

scale immediately smaller, it would follow that the route should be placed in the scale

of 'building' or 'organism'. That is, in order to be a part within a tissue, the route must

be an 'element' within the secondhierarchy. This would not seemacceptableif 'route'

is interpreted as a structure, which is to say on object in the secondlevel of the first

hierarchy.

This problem presentsa more extreme case of that raised by the base type as a

'building'. Generally it is the phenomenonof an object of one scale acting alone at a

higher scaleas a single object arrangement.Again, the issueof how to accountfor such

phenomenamust be addressedin any attempt to arrive at a systematicand consistent

meansof identifying form.

Thebuilt route

'Built route' is a term referring to a more general class of a lower level of specificity

by tissue, the tems referring to classes of higher'

within the scale occupied specificity

being: matrix route, planned building route, connecting route and restructuring route.

[In the case where building occurs along a pre-existing route] we will call the route
a matrix route, and the buildings matrix route buildings. (1979: 132)

Routesof a different nature are formed from passagesleft in the continuum of

matrix route buildings or by breaking through the front and demolishing a house.
They are of a different nature becausethey are not conditioned by the presenceof
two poles but by the [need for additional housesand] the need to reach each house
from such a passage. Theseare routes,therefore,conceivedwith the intention of
using the buildings along its edge and which for that reasonwe will call planned
building routes. (1979:134)

A planned building route does not extend indefinitely. Beyond a certain limit
it is necessaryto attend to a further exigence,that of allowing movementbetween
two planned building routes. It might be built mainly to avoid the situation in
which the only way to get from one to anotherof two buildings on oppositefronts of
the same block is by their respectiveplanned building routes and the interposing
 108

matrix route. Thus, there will tend to be routes connecting planned building routes,
or as we will call them for short, if less exactly, connecting routes. (1979: 135)

The restructuring route is that type of route which overlays a pre-existing

building tissue (built according to the dialectic of the three routes already
described) when it is necessary to consider a direct connection between twoý
pre-existing poles not already connected by an existing matrix route by cutting
through the aggregate. (1979: 137)

As illustrations and descriptions indicate (see Figures 125-127), each of these is

composed of a route and two pertinent strips, one strip along each edge of the route. The

pertinent features defining built routes generally are their parts and the arrangement of

parts. The pertinent characteristics which differentiate the matrix, planned building,

connecting and restructuring routes are their spatial position relative to each other, that

is, the spatial relation of part-to-part, and their relative temporal position in terms of the

sequence of their construction.

A conflation of scales

A problem arises with the definitions of the lot, the pertinent strip and the built route.

Caniggia states that 'the module of the aggregate is the lot' (1979: 129). The pertinent

strip is 'the front of a route formedby the built lots which are served by the '
route. He

then adds that 'we will use - the categories route and pertinent strip in order to

characterise the structure of tissue' (1979: 129-30). The specific classes of built route

defined by Caniggia are arrangements of a route and two pertinent strips. Further,

the basetissue,which is the matrix of successivedevelopment,must refer to a route

built on its edgeswith the 'base type' and with longitudinal developmentlimited by
the need to introduce planned building routesat intervals. Any tissue, in effect, is
reducible to such a matrix, constituted in a variety of ways and present as the
elementarymodule of any aggregate however developed or specialised. (1979:136)
0
 109

N The abovestatementswould indicate that there are two scalesof entity constituting

tissue',one of which is not explicitly accommodatedin the secondfour-scalehierarchy.

An arrangement of lots forms a pertinent strip while an arrangement of pertinent strips

and a route forms a built route. The lot is the 'element' from the scale immediately

smaller relative to 'tissue'. Within tissue, however,there is a lower scale entity which

is the pertinent strip, and a higher scale entity which is the built route. The hierarchy

as set out states that tissue is an aggregate of lots (a single association of buildings),

while the definition of actual types of tissue would indicate that tissue is an aggregate

of pertinent strips and routes, leaving the pertinent strip unaccounted for in the hierarchy

as a 'single association of buildings' (or lots) but which is nonetheless an identified

entity acting as a component part of tissue.

This problem is manifest in a discrepancy in the organisation of the text of Lettura.

The schematic hierarchy is set out (page 74) with buildings as 'elements', tissues as

ýstructures%quarters as 'systems' and cities as 'organisms'. In contrast, the sequence of

chapters runs: building, tissue, urban organism and territory. The last term is not

mentioned in setting out the hierarchy and the 'quarter' is not addressed or defined in

the body of the text. It would appear that the scalesof tissue and quarter have been

conflated forcing two scales into the one category of tissue.

Along with the ambiguity in the definition of the lot, this presentsa problem with

the hierarchies which must be addressedin any attempt to arrive at a systematicand

consistent means of identifying form.

 110

The block

The definitions of the various routes have implications for the definition of the block.

According to Caniggia'smodel, the block is the result of the combination of a matrix

route, two parallel planned building routes perpendicular to the matrix route and a

connecting route parallel to the matrix route (see Figure 126). The block is then

considered to be the fusion of one of the pertinent strips of each of the four routes

mentioned (1979: 136).

Caniggiaconsidersthe block, as an entity, to be equivocaland takes the built route

as the type of object occupying the scale of tissue. This equivocation is in part due to

the missing scale. The block, like the pertinent strip, is an aggregate of lots and is

plainly "a single association of elements' easily identifiable as an entity. It is similar to

the pertinent strip and would thus occupy the same scale. The equivocation arises in

the block's relation to the routeswhich surroundand delimit it. If the entity at the scale

of 'single associations of buildings' necessarily includes the route (which it must to form

a built route) it is in fact quite difficult to establish which route is to be associatedwith

a given block or vice versa. If, however,the pertinent strip and the block are taken as

the types or entities of 'single associations of buildings or lots' and the route is

considered as another kind of entity at the same scale, it is easier to conceive of

arrangements of these entities forming built routes as well as grids. These would be

entities of the next higher scale, namely, quarters and districts. The status of the block

is another issue which must be addressedalong with the larger issue of the conflation

of scales in attempting to arrive at a systematic means of identifying form at this level.

 ill

Baseand infill tissue

Another term used by Caniggia is base tissue. The term refers to the matrix route,

described as an arrangement of particular parts and, like base type also refers to a

in
position the typologicalprocess. It is the 'starting point' from which a tissue evolves.

Infill tissue is another term defined in discussing tissue. Caniggia describes it as

a distinct arrangementof lots formedin to

particular positionsrelative others (seeFigure

112). As such it can be outlined as an entity but, like apertures in structures, remains

larger aggregate of lots which can in turn be identified as an entity. Like the
a part of a

infill tissue would seem to occupy an intermediate scale between that of the lot
aperture,

that of the pertinent strip. Again, this phenomenon must be addressed in attempting
and

to arrive at a systematic means of identifying form.

Nodes and poles

Caniggia also defines the terms node, nodality, pole and polarity. These are based on

position of objects and the axis of a route, They are, however, general terms,
relative

to be occupied along a route. A is

node any crossing of
referring to variable positions

'ending. Filling the variable position with a given example

routes, a pole any

degrees of relative nodality or polarity for points along the route. The terms
establishes

thus ultimately establishes a distinction of degree and so a possible order of positions.

-
The distinction is used by Caniggia as an explanatory opposition, focusing attention on

the differential change or transformation to tissues occupying different positions along a

route.
 112

Urban organisins
t5

Dueto the problemsencounteredwith the scalesof 'tissue' and 'quarter', that of the city

is
as a whole also rendereduncertain. In setting out the frameworkof scales,Caniggia

'the city as a whole [is] the "organism" of '

systems, the quarter being the 'system
notes

of structures'. The quarter is not, however, defined in specific terms in the text.

Regardless,it is possibleto examinethe entities which are defined as 'organisms'

Caniggia uses a number of terms to identify specific organisms. To begin, he defines

three terms: settlement,proto-urbannucleusand urban nucleus.

[The settlement is] a complex of residential buildings directly related to a whole

productive territory [the proto-urban nucleus is] a complex of residential
...
buildings as well as secondary and tertiary productive uses with a range of influence
encompassing not only its own territory but also that of a series of surrounding
settlements; [an urban nucleus - is] a complex of a greater range of influence
encompassing the area of influence of several proto-urban nuclei and their
settlements. (1979: 166)

Iliese derinitions include references to parts, that is, to buildings; to use: residential

buildings, productive territory and uses, referring also to the less definite 'range of

influence'. The definitions do not, however, refer directly to the entities defined within

the general structure of the second hierarchy nor are they illustrated. It would thus be

difficult to say that these tems, as defined, in any way determine specific classes or

types within a general class of that hierarchy. The further terms of base settlement

organism, elementary settlement nucleus, base urban organism, and elementary urban

nucleus are, however, defined in terms of base tissue and are accompanied by

illustrations.
 113
Base settlement organism and elementary settlement nucleus

As defined verbally and illustrated (see Figure 128), the base settlementorganism

consistsof a single base tissue, that is, a route with a pertinent strip on either edge of

the route. Like the base type the base settlement organism is a single entity

9arrangement'.

The new term neverthelesschangesour view of the sameobject in the sensethat it

is easy to see that one thing [the basic tissue] is a group of buildings on a matrix
route inserted in the middle of a city and the other [the basic settlementorganism]
is the samequantity of housesstanding on its own to form a nucleus. (1979:167)

Caniggia also refers to the same schema as an elementary settlement nucleus. While

both refer to the same arrangement of parts, the first term is meant to refer to the

concept or type which is the starting point of a typological process. The second is meant
I
to refer to any specific example found in analysis or the reading of a town which is

'conditioned by' the base settlement organism. Both thus refer to the typological process

but to different positions within it.

Base urban organism and elementary urban nucleus

The tenns baseurban organismand elementaryurban nucleusrefer to

the correlation of severaltissueswithin an organism. Each will have arisen from a

matrix route, will have developed planned building routes and formed connecting
routes. Each route will have brought about its pertinent strips according to the
dialectic already described. A single such example in itself may constitute an
organism independently. It is enoughto think of the many small and medium sized
villages which correspond to this scheme. In practice, these are all of limited
longitudinal extension,havingthreeparallel streetsin the longitudinal direction with
transverseroutesjoining them. Frequentlythe central longitudinal street is situated
along the axis of a 'promontory' or ridge, the two parallel streetson a slope and the
perpendicular streets descending from the centre. This scheme reflects the
progressive constitution of a village, growing by successivephasesfrom a matrix
route and applicable to a variety of other topographicsituations (see Figure 141].
(1979:169-71),
 114

In terms of the componentparts of the base urban, organism and elementary urban

nucleus,Caniggianotes that they arc the result of 'the cohesionof "base tissue", that is,

in the view of this phase of reading, through several "base settlement organisms"'

(1979:173).

As in the distinction between the base settlement organism and elementary

settlementnucleus, the baseurban organismrefers to the concept or type which is the

starting point within a typological process. The elementary urban nucleus refers to

examples found in analysis, being the result of development from the base urban

organism. -Both terms thus refer to positions within the typological process.

Further, referring to the base urban organism, Caniggia notes that

in general, the nucleus of a large entity presents not only one such structure but
several. Any urban nucleus can be read according to a dialectic, frequently
complex, of sub-organisms in various modes of collaboration. Read in this way, an
aggregate responding to such a scheme of formation can be assumed as the module
of an urban organism however much it has grown. (1979: 169-71)

In this context the base urban organism is referred to as the supermodule of organisms.

A problem regarding the scales of the hierarchy arises in seeing the base urban

organism as an arrangement of base settlement organisms and further, seeing the base

urban organism as a component of a larger entity. Strictly speaking, an elementary

urban nucleus or base urban organism taken as an arrangement of 'settlements' or of

'base settlement organisms' would be of a larger scale than that of 'organisms'. That is,

an arrangement or aggregate of settlements, as an entity, would be of a larger scale than

a single settlement, just as a wall, as an aggregate of bricks, is of a larger scale than an

individual brick. Further, if the base urban organism, as a supermodule, is a component

of some larger entity, that entity should occupy a scale one step larger. This would

imply that there should be two further scales in the hierarchy to account for the entities
 115

defined. For Caniggia, however, the base settlement organism, base urban organism and

the latter as supermoduleall lie within the scale of 'organisms'.

The issue would seemto be a matter of view and the namesor labels which mark

to be taken. As Caniggia specifies, the use of different terms is

or signal the view

intended to 'changeour view of the sameobject'.

Viewing objects alternately as independententities and elementswithin a larger entity

the entities identified. The importance of

emphasizesthe relative position of various

basis for understandingurban forms cannot be understated. In

relative position as a

termsof the desire to arrive at a meansof identifying form in a systematicway, however,

the various labels used by Caniggia and the ambiguity of their relation to each other

The situation involves the issues of single entity arrangements

present certain problems.

intermediate scales, both of which have been encountered earlier in the analysis.
and

Also involved is the issue of the number of scales necessary to account for the

the logic of the hierarchical structure of

phenomena of urban areas while maintaining

These issues must be addressed in the attempt to arrive at a more systematic

scales.

identifying urban form.

means of

Ultimately, only two distinct entities are defined within the scale of 'organisms', the

base settlement organism and the base urban organism/supermodule. The pertinent

defining them include the component parts, the arrangement of the parts,
characteristics

human-form relation of use. The relative position of the entity is also a pertinent
and

the term supermodule used to label a base urban organism within a larger
characteristic,

Beyond that term, no others are used to label instances of either form in different
entity.

positions. Difference in position is discussed by Caniggia mainly using the following

terMS.
I
 116
The terms used to specify relative position in reference to organisms are node,

antinode,-central axis, dividing axis, boundary, centre and periphery. All refer to the

concept of nodality and polarity and, as in previous cases, are used in a relative sense

and establish a relative order of componentsby the attribution of a relative value of

nodality or polarity. Again this refers to, the relation between components and

determinesan order within the generalclass.

THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSBETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS

Having examinedthe nature of the individual subdivisions,this sectionwill examinethe

relations holding between those subdivisions in order to determine the nature of the

subdivisionsas a set.
Caniggia begins with 'the history of the built environment' conceived as an entity.

This is subdivided into 'copresence'and 'derivation'.

Copresence is spatial correlation and derivation is temporal correlation; an object

exists in as much as it belongs to an individuated point of such a double process,
reassembled in the single concept of 'history (1979: 62)

This subdivision follows from the differentiation of space and time, the relation between

the two being beyond the capacity of the author to elucidate except to venture that they
I
are two aspectsof the same'object' which through the frame of human perception are,

or appear, different. To be adequately understood, any object, or better, any phenomenon

must be seen in terms of both aspects.

Again, the main concern of this work is spatial relations or form and so it is

copresencewhich will be examinedin more detail.

 117

The relations between scales or general classes

The primary or general subdivisions of copresence are related to each other in a

consistent system of relations posited in an abstract hierarchy of scales. Central to the

structure or the hierarchy is the concept of complexity. The concept of complexity as

used by Caniggia, involves or assumes two primary relations: part-to-whole and part-to-

part. An object or phenomenonis considered complex when it can be said, 'that

arrangement of things is an object! The relations of part-to-whole and part-to-part are

expressed in this statement. The phrase '. things is an object', expresses the relation
..

of part-to-whole. ýThe arrangement of things is seen as a unified or single entity and the

'things' are the parts of the whole 'object'. All the things have the relation of part-to-

wholewith the object (and the object has the relation of whole-to-partwith all the parts).

The phrase 'that arrangement of things .. -', expresses the relation7of part-to-part. The

object can be seen as a 'whole' because there is a connection between a number of

things and each of the things is considered a part. Each thing has a specific relation of

part-to-part to all the others. The 'object' and the 'arrangement of parts' are different

aspects of ways or seeing the same phenomenon. To distinguish or identify a complex

entity or object it is necessary to see it as a whole, distinct from its surroundings, and

as an arrangement of parts.

Also central to the hierarchical structure are the conceptsof levels of complexity

and similarity. Levels of complexity involve the relation of part-to-whole. The parts of

a complex object can themselves be complex. The parts can be composed of parts or,

conversely, a whole can be part of a larger whole. There can be a sequence or series of

part-to-whole forming a hierarchy in which an entity at any point in the

relations of
 118

is both a whole composed of smaller parts and a part within a larger whole. Steps
series

from part to whole in the sequenceare levels of complexity.

Similarity involves the relation of part-to-part. Entities are considered similar either

because,as objectsor wholes,they have the samekind of parts in the samerelation of

part-to-part or becausethe entities, as parts, occupy the sameposition relative to other

entities in a relation of part-to-part in composing a whole.

Objects which are similar in terms of part-to-part are similar in terms of part-to-

It then follows that if a set of objects is judged as similar at one level of

whole.

at each level are similar. Conversely, objects are identified as

complexity, objects

similar because of their relative position within the structure. That is, objects are

subdivided into different by

classes similarity in terms of relative position. Objects and

the relations between objects are defined simultaneously. This is the basis for the

subdivision of copresence.-

Caniggia. begins with a schematic division into four classes labelled elements,

of elements, systems of structures and organisms of systems. They are thus

structures

to the next in a series of relations of part-to-whole. The schematic division

related one

is correlated to the phenomenaof the built environment in two sets. In the first, the

9elements' are building materials. The resulting sequence of classes of objects is:

'materials', 9structures', 'cells' or 'rooms', and 'buildings', one related to the next as part-

to-whole. In the second set, the class of 'elements' is correlated with 'buildings' as

defined in the first set. Ideally, this forms a sequence of classes, being: 'buildings',

9tissues', 'quarters' and 'city', one related to the next as part-to-whole (see Figure 4).

The previous analysis showed, however, that there are problems in the definition of the

classesand the relation betweenthem at the levels of tissue, quarter and city.
 119

Looking more closely at the relation betweenthe levels or scalesof the hierarchy,

whenseenas generalclassesthe scalesare not strictly related part-to-wholebut potential

part-to-potential whole. While any one particular object of a given scale is a part of a

single object of the scale immediate larger, the class of all objects of a given scale is not

a 'part' of the class of the objects of the scale immediately larger. Strictly, the class of

objects of a given scale is the set of objects which might act as parts in the arrangements

which form the objects of the scale immediately larger. Any one scale, as a class, can

be seenas the domainof a function which is 'the arrangingof parts'. Ilie product of the

function is the range of forms of the scale immediately larger (see Figure 8).

7le relations between specific classes or types

Each scale or general class is subdivided into specific classes. The subdivision is based

on a combination of pertinent characteristics including the component parts, the relations

of part-to-part either of the component parts of an object, or the between the object and

other objects of the same scale, the use purpose or role of a form and its position in a

typological process. ý--

I'lie specific classeswithin a generalclass are first of all related by being members
ý

of the same class, that is, by each having the characteristics which define the general

class. The relation between general and specific class is then class-to-member. As

mentioned, a class is an aggregateof entities with no necessarily specific relation holding

between the membersother than having a characteristic or series of characteristics in

common. In other words, the definition of a class does not determine an order between

the membersof the class. It is, however,

possibleto establisli an order betweenspecific

classes within a given general class based on the choice of some specific characteristic
I
 120

or property attributed to the members. As Russell notes (1919:30), there are many

characteristicsand so many orderswhich might be chosento distinguish within a class.

The only thing arbitrary in the matter is the choice of which characteristic. In his

discussionof the various scales,Caniggiaselectscharacteristicsspecific to each scale

primarily for the purpose of explaining the process of formation of the built objects.

Materials

At the level of materials lie distinguishesbetweennatural and artificial materials and

elastic and plastic materials. Both of these distinctions are based on a property which

is exhibited in degrees and so detemine a relative order between specific classes in a

I
range between two poles. Having chosen these characteristics, the specific relations

between members will depend on the degree of the characteristic exhibited by individual

members. The relation between specific classes is then one of the difference in the

degree of elasticity/plasticity or naturalness/artificialness.

Further it can be said that the distinction betweennatural and artificial materials

is based on the temporal sequence involved in the production of the material and the

distinction between elastic and plastic materials is based ultimately on the internal

the materials which are manifest in the physical properties.

structure of

Structures

At the level of structures,a distinction is made betweenelastic and plastic structures

basedon the materialsand their internal structure as well as on the arrangementof the

materials forming a structure and its properties. Again, the distinction is one of a range,
 121

betweentwo poles and so determines a relative order of specific classes within the

class, the relation being the difference in the degree of elasticity/plastici ty.
general

Roorasor cells

The order applied within the level of "systems' is based on derivation and the typological

Any specific class occupies a position relative to others in the sequence of

process.

development posited by the typological process. 11at is, a given type of elementary cell

be in the sequence of development starting with a 'base type' through to the

can placed

cells found in the mature types of today. Any type or specific class
more complicated

'system' or cell is compared with or seen in relation to the 'base type' to determine
of

the similarities and differences. The assumption is that the greater the differences and

the fewer the similarities between the base type and another type of cell, the further the

latter will be from the base type and the greater the likelihood of its being part of a more

mature or developed type.

Buildings

At the level of the building the order betweenthe specific classesis, again, determined

by the typological process. This is shownin diagrammaticform in Figures 6 and 7. To

fully analyzethe relationswithin the typologicalprocessin any moredetail is beyondthe

scopeof this work.

Tissues,quarters and urban organisms

The types or specific classeswithin the scales'tissue/quarter' and 'organism' are also

in their respective general classesaccording to the typological process. In

ordered
I
 122

addition Caniggiaintroducesthe conceptsof node, pole, centre, and periphery. These

are applied as relative values to specific classes within each general class and so

determine a relative sequencebetweenmembersbased on the difference of degree of

exhibited nodality or polarity etc.

Summary of issues to be addressed in synthesis

The more general subdivisions made by Caniggia between temporal and spatial relations

and between the general classes into a hierarchy of form are made on a clear, consistent

basis. In the attempt to establish a fully consistent and coherent basis for the definition

and subdivision of from, these general distinctions would seem to offer the best starting

point. Caniggia's inclusion of use, role, intention, derivation and the typological process

in the definition of specific classes raises problems for the consistent definition of form.

As argued in this and the previous chapters, use, role and intention, as human-form

relations, and derivation, as a temporal relation, cannot be used as pertinent

characteristics to define form in a consistent way. To be consistent, human-form and

temporal relations must be considered as distinct aspects in relation to form.

Other issues arose in the analysis of the general classes forming the hierarchy of

scales. The examinationof th,

5 lowestlcvel, that of materials,raised the point that, given

the general definition of general clasks and the resulting hierarchy, the lowest scale

must be defined in terms outside the hierarchy. Caniggia does this for materials by

defining the class by listing.

In the analysis of structures, the aperture brought up the phenomenon of

substructures and the need for a consistent way of accounting for this and similar

phenomenonwithin the hierarchical structure.

 123

At the scale corresponding to buildings, examination of the base type or one room

houseraised the issueof the 'single object arrangement'and the need to accountfor this

phenomenon in a consistent way in the hierarchy of form. A problem also arose

regarding the definition of pertinent area. There is an ambiguity with respect to the

place of the pertinent area and by implication the place of the 'building' in the hierarchy

of scales. This issue thereforehas implications for the level of tissue. Examinationof

this scale showed several problems. One is the status of the route as an object and its

place in the hierarchy. Perhaps more seriously is the problem of an apparent conflation

of scales. This results in the inclusion of two types of entity within the scale of tissue,

taking the lot as the 'element'. The two entities are the pertinent strip and the built

route. Another issue is the statusof the block as an entity or object in the hierarchy of

form. The problems encountered in the level of tissue affect that of the urban organism.

The position and status of the entities identified in this level are put into doubt.

In order to use Caniggia's subdivisions in the attempt to establish a consistent,

explicit and so'repeatable means of identifying and describing form, all these issues must

be addressed.
 FOUR

THE COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF

, CONZEN'S AND CANIGGIA'S

SUBDIVISIONS

GENERAL SIMILARITIESAND DIFFERENCES

AI.R.G. Conzenand GianfrancoCaniggiaworked in different disciplines and in different

Both worked, however, in the larger overall context of Europe within a similar
countries.

period. Both have applied considerable attention to their object of study. These

considerations go some way in accounting for the differences and similarities which

in comparing their work. Conzen, the geographer, and Caniggia, the architect,
emerge

both use the vocabulary and conceptsof their respective disciplines and arrive at a

picture of the built environment tinted by the colour of their respective glasses. In

Conzen's work, there is an emphasis on the town plan and in Caniggia's on the building.

Conzen uses the terms and concepts of geography and geomorphology and Caniggia those

of architecture, also adopting biological terms and concepts (Malfroy 1986). Afore
 125

fundamentally, the two have worked in different languages, Conzen in German and

English and Caniggia in Italian. Further, working, in his adopted home of England,

Conzen takes as his primary object of analysis the English town of medieval origin.

Caniggia focuses on Italian towns, studying those which grew and were substantially

transformed in the medieval period but which were in many cases of Roman origin.

Becausethey take different viewsand different specific objects of study, the terms and

conceptsused by Conzenand Caniggia in analysis are to some extent different. The

is in detail the to they different.

purposeof this chapter to examine extent which are

Suchdifferencesas there are betweenthem in terms of discipline, languageand specific

object of study doesnot preclude similarities. The purposeof this chapter is equally to

examine in detail the extent to which they are similar.

'nic inedieval town

Though Conzen and Caniggia examine different specific towns, they both examine towns.

As much as towns are similar, Conzen and Caniggia study similar things. That they both

Europe degree likely

examine medieval towns of makes a greater of similarity more -

as much as European medieval towns are similar. The choice, for each, of the
again,

one. Conzen and Caniggia have a similar view of

medieval period, was not an arbitrary

that period. It is a view which in part can be traced to the turn of the century and

gained currency in the first half of this century. Its main advocates were
which

such as Benedetto Croce and Emile Durkhiem- The

philosophers and sociologists

period was seen by them as an ideal instance of community, when the needs
medieval

expressed directly in the building of the town, by the people of

of that community were

the community. It was seen as a time when craft predominated and the production of
 126

the built environmentwas not mediated either by slave labour or mechanization. For

Conzenand Caniggiathis period, or more generally,the period from the Middle Ages to

the end of the'eighteenth century, is seen as one of tradition, a tradition now lost to

For Conzenand Caniggia,modem society is in a state of crisis (Conzen

modemsociety.

1981:55ff, Caniggia 1979:15fo both becauseof the loss of traditions and the negative

industrialization. In Caniggia's work, this opinion is

effects of mechanizationand
in the introduction to Leitura while it is more implicit in Conzen's
explicit, openly stated

work, emergingin'statementssuch as, -

[The slightly curved medievalstreet, lined with independentlydesignedbuildings]

is characteristic of medieval corporate society where everybody belonged to a
particular group and accepted the measure of that group yet within this, certainly
in towns,was recognizedas an individual. (Conzen1981:61)

For both, the built environmentas producedin the medievalor traditional period is seen

to that produced in our time. Afore practically, for both generally and
as superior

Conzenspecifically, this period is of central importance becausethe majority of the

townsof Western Europe were createdor substantially transformedin that time.

Equally, for both Conzenand Caniggia, the study of the built environment is a

of regaining somethingof what has been lost or, at the least, preserving the
means

traditional legacy if it is not -possibleto return to traditional ways of building. Both

town and seek'to understandhow it came to be. This does

admire the traditional not

of modem forms. Indeed, to understandthe traditional town it is

exclude examination

to start with the town as it is known today. Rather, within the town as we
necessary

it
know today are the traces of what went before. It is possible to learn from the study

how things were done in the past. The town is seen as a record of past
of the town

in the human need for shelter, exchangeand interaction.

experiments accommodating
 127

For Conzen, as a geographer, this examination leads to an explanation of the present

form of the town as well as suggestions for conservation preservation policies.

-or

Caniggia goes beyond explanation and policies and attempts to use the lessons embodied

in the town as a basis for design proposals. In this sense Caniggia goes further in

pursuing the ideal of the traditional town. He seeks to repair the damagedone to

historic townsby modem developmentthroughrebuilding following principles gathered

from the study of traditional building.

History and the process'of formation

In this approach to the town, Conzen and Caniggia share a fundamental assumption. For

both, the key to understandingthe town as it is today is the town as it has been, its

history. For Conzen,

towns have a life history. Their development together with the cultural history of
the region in which they lie, is written deeply int the outline and fabric of their
built-up areas. (1969: 6)

An evolutionary approach, tracing existing forms back to the underlying formative

processes and interpreting them accordingly would seem to provide the rational
method of analysis. (1969: 7)

For Caniggia, there is a

substantial correspondence between structure and history, a characteristic proper to

all things which derive from a process of formation.... [Further, ] to read building
structure is to 'understand' the structure of the built environment as a spatial realm
using logical tools. It is to understand the components as put together, structured,
by man. [This reading can] be achieved by reconstructing the process of
...
formation of the later type starting from its elementary or original form. (1979: 59-60)

From these quotations it is evident that the similarity in their views is not found

the idea of history as the key to understanding the structure of towns. Both
only-in

Conzen and Caniggia's see the town as the result of a formative process. History is that
 128

process. More strictly, the historical record, including the town itself, makesit possible

to recountthat process. This leads to in

a similarity method,both using early town plans

as historical documentsto trace the development

of a town.

Equally, both see,the process of formation as one of gradual change or evolution

(Conzen 1969: 4,6,9; Caniggia 1979: 52). While Caniggia posits a general overall

mechanismfor the evolutionary process,and Conzendoes not, both identify similar

components or properties in the process. Both identify differential rates of change

betweensmaller elements such as individual buildings and larger elements such as

patterns of streets and, blocks (Conzen 1969: 6-7; Caniggia 1976: 63-102; 1979: 255).

Both recognize that people's needs change over time, demanding new forms of building,

the result being the transformationof the existing, central areas of a town and the

addition of new forms on the periphery (Conzen 1969: 6-7; Caniggia 1979: 75ff,

1984:97ff). This implies that there is a direct con-elation between forms and the

purposes and activities the forms accommodate as well as the social and economic

conditions under which they were formed, an implication made explicit by both Conzen

and Caniggia (Conzen 1969: 6; Caniggia 1979: 52). Both also identify periods or phases

in the process of the development and transformation of the built environment. Purposes,

activities and socio-economic conditions change through time and there is a

correspondingchangein the built forths producedto satisfy those needsand conditions.

A period or phasecan then be identified as the segmentof time during which similar

forms continue to be produced (Conzen 1969:7-8; Caniggia 1979: 52).

 129

Objects and structure

In their, generalconceptionof the form of the built environment, there are similarities

betweenConzenand Caniggiain severalrespects. I'licy identify similar entities such as

the building, the plot and aggregatesof plots and the street. They both conceiveof form

in terms of types and both specify a hierarchical relationship between forms (Conzen

1981:60,79; Caniggia 1979:73-4) It is these similarities in particular which are to be

in
examined more detail.

Thus while there are differences in view, purpose and language, there are notable

similarities. The similarities would seem to offer more encouragement in the attempt at

a synthesis then the differences offer discouragement.

Language

The differences in language are perhaps the least problematic. The languages involved

arc within the same family (Indo-European) and English and Italian are directly related

through Latin. They thus have very similar structure and vocabulary, in contrast to the

difference, for example, between English and Chinese or Hopi. While different languages

might give rise to some small differences in conception, the language itself is not a

fundamental barrier. Indeed, Conzen completed his major works in a second language.

The main purpose of this section is to examine what differences there are in content

between the terms pertinent to morphology, whether originating in the language or tile

original conception of the tems. In the end, the difference in language is an

inconveniencenot a barrier.

The difference in discipline is in many waysa difference in language. Working in

different disciplines, Conzenand Caniggianeverthelesssharetile sameobject of enquiry

I
 130

to
and a large degreea similar purpose. They both desire to understandthe physical

form of towns. With that commonobject and purposeand given the similarities in their

overall view already mentioned,the differencesderived from their separatedisciplines

is effectively reduced to the terms and correspondingconcepts used to refer to the

similar object of study. Again, the main purposeof this chapter is to examinein detail

just how different those tems and conceptsare. Do they use equivalent conceptsand

terms? If not, in what way are they different? Certainly the difference in discipline

leads to a differencein emphasis. Eachaddressesin more detail aspectsthe other does

not. Given, however, a similar purpose and an overlapping area of equivalence in terms,

a difference in emphasis might be seen as an advantage, the expertise of one

complementingthat of the other.

The question of applicability

The differences arising from Conzen and Caniggia examining different specific towns

raises the question of the wider applicability of any one method or body or terms and

concepts. In a sense, the purpose of this thesis is to arrive at a method and body of

terms and concepts that encompasses the aspects and objects cited by Conzen and

Caniggia and, it is hoped, beyond. The differences in concepts and terminology arising

from the study of different specificlowns should be revealed in 7the course of the

following comparison. On tile one hand, differences may indicate terms or concepts

which are specific to a particular place or time. On tile other hand, the concepts and

terms which are common to both Conzen and Caniggia are more likely to be of general

applicability.
 131

The possibility of the extensionof methodsderived from specific studiesis suggested

by Conzenin Alnwick. Iliere he notes that,

this study ... is concerned with geographicalanalysis of the town plan. By

investigatinga specific casewhich promisesresults of general significance,and by
it to
adoptingan evolutionaryviewpoint, seeks establish someof the basic concepts
applicable to recurrent phenomena in urban morphology and to lead to an
explanation of the arrangement and diversity of an urban area in termsof plan types
and resulting geographicaldivisions. (1969:4)

The possibility of extending morphological method is also suggested by the similarities

betweenConzen'sand Caniggia'swork and betweentheir work and that of others such

as Castex and Pancrai (Castex, Celeste and Panerai 1980; Panerai ef al- 1980) and

Moudon (1986). Similar methods are used to study different specific objects. The fact

that similar ideas come out of separate specific examinations of different specific

examples of town would seem to indicate those ideas have more general applicability.

The hypothesis of synthesis

In the end, however,the attempt to synthesizethe methodsand to extend the resulting

method to the study of other towns must remain hypotheses. These are the main

hypothesesof this thesis, specifically: Conzen'sand Caniggia's methods have similar

structure and elements: methods with similar structure and elements can be linked

together: therefore the two methodscan be linked together. Each method emphasises

different aspectsof the sameobject: different emphasesof the sameobject taken together

show more detail: thereforethe two togethershowmore detail. If the two togethershow

more detail and: greaterdetail allows for more completeexplanation: it follows that the

two methodstogetherallow for morecompleteexplanation. The two methodshave been

to
used explain towns: similar objects be by
can explained the samemethod: therefore,
I
 132

from all the preceding,it follows that the two methodstogethercan be used to give a

more completeexplanationof other towns.

The questionswhich must be answeredare then, How-similar are the methods?

How exactly can they be linked together? How is'greater detail shown? How does

greater detail improve explanations? Can the methods be applied to different examples.

An assumptionis made in the last syllogism, specifically, that towns are similar. It

might be argued, taking a strictly modal perspective, that it is necessary to have different

methods to adequately explain different towns. To require this, however, is to render

comparison impossible, or at least ineffectual. To determine the extent to which towns

are similar, one needsto examinethem in detail and comparethem. If it is said that to

examine them in detail demands a separate method for each object examined, a

comparison of results will involve a comparison of both the, method and the objects

examined. It will then be unclear whether the results show differences between the

methodsor betweenthe objects. To make effective comparisonsone needsto establish

fixed point of view. If, for example, in looking at towns, it is

a reference point or

decided that to explain one example it is necessary to use the concepts of landmarks,

nodes,paths, districts and edges;for another thoseof urban artifacts, primary elements,

dwelling areas and locus and in yet another, grain, visual character, sequential view and

quarters, how is it possible to compare the results? Without a common term between

them there is no way to know if is

one comparing like with like. Even if there were a

common term, it is not certain that the terms within any one method are related to each

other in the same way as those within any of the other methods. It would not'be certain,

therefore, that there be

would any correspondingterms beyond tile first commonterm.
 133

For effectivecomparison,it is necessaryto establisha consistentmethodof analysis

using the same set of terms for all examples. The purpose of this thesis is to suggest that

such a method can be establishedthrough the of

synthesis existing methods. This is

limited in scope,however,to a method for the identification and description of form.

This should be seen not as a method for determining a fixed set of objects but as a

by differences
methodof exposing, comparison, that demand A
explanation. consistent

view of form then provides the basis for consistentcomparison.

The point of viewfor comparison and criteria for evaluation -

As the purposeof this chapter is to comparethe methodsof Conzenand Caniggia,and

it has been said that for comparisonto be effective there must be a fixed point of view,

it is necessary to specify the view taken in making the comparison. The common view

in each method separately has been to see each in terms of classes, relations and
used

properties. This then is the basis for comparing the two methods. The question to be

asked is, when seen in these terms, are the subdivisions used in each method defined

in the same way? If not, which offers a better definition? The second question demands

judgement. The criteria for evaluation are:

a value

(a) consistency, all definitions should be based on the same pertinent characteristics;

(b) coherence, the definitions should be related to each other in a consistent way in

order to form a clear structure;

(c) specificity, the definitions should clearly posit classesof identiriable phenomenain

sufficient detail;

(d) generality, the derinitions should be basedon pertinent characteristicsfound in as

wide a variety of examples as possible while still allowing for the identification of
I
 134

specific differences;

(e) comprehension,the definitions should account for as wide a range of forms as is

appropriateto the task of explanation.

The referencepoint for comparison and synthesis: the plot

To begin the comparison,it would also seemnecessaryto establish point at which there

is a correspondence in Conzen's and Caniggia's terms. Where is there the least doubt

that they are referring to the samething? Notably, it would seemto be the caseof the

plot, or, as referred to by Caniggia, the lot. Notable, because it is the awarenessand use

in analysis of the plot that distinguishes both Conzen's and Caniggia's work from others

and which to some extent distinguishes urban morphology from other fields of

geographical and architectural enquiry.

To choose the plot as the reference point, however, is to a certain extent to dive

head first into the most troubled area. The previous analyses have shown that the

definitions of Conzen"s plot and Caniggia's lot give rise to several problems in their

respective places. To address these problems directly is perhaps the best way to begin,

clearing away some of the major issues, making further comparison easier.

COMPARISONOF GENERAL CONCEPTS

The test case of the plot

That Conzen'splot and Caniggia'slot refer to the samething is perhapsmostdirectly if

vaguelyshownin illustrations. ComparingFigures 100, and 120-122 taken from AInwick

 135

by Conzenas examplesof 'arrangements

of contiguousplots' or plot pattern,
and cited

figures illustrating section 2.2.2. of Leitura (Figures 112,125), examplesof

and the

tissue, of which the lot is the module, demonstratesthe similarity. 'Mis graphic

while is
encouraging, too vagueas a basisof comparison. Looking at the other
similarity,

entities associated with the plot and lot within the element complex of plot pattern,

Conzenidentifies two main typesof entities, the plot, on the one hand, and the block and

plot serieson the other. Also identified are the further entities of plot head and plot tail

subdivisions of the plot. In defining tissue, Caniggia identifies three main

which are

the lot, made up of the built area and the pertinent area; the pertinent strip,
entities:

lots; and the built route, made up of the route and the pertinent strip. The
made up of

block is mentioned but is considered by Caniggia as equivocal.

From this examination, there appears to be a correspondence ýetween Conzen's plot

and Caniggia's lot in terms of the constituent parts of the entity and the entities of which

it forms a part. The plot head corresponds to the built area and plot tail to the pertinent

area (see Figure 88). Conzen's plot series is an aggregate of plots and Caniggia's

lots (see Figures 100,101 and 126). Though both

pertinent strip an aggregate of

block as an aggregate of plots or lots, they differ in their definitions and

recognize the

interpretations of the block's place within the structure of forms.

Overcoming the problems of the plot and lot

Conzen'sdefinitions of plot pattern raised problemsof both inconsistencyin definition

to
relative other element complexesand in terms of comprehension. The plot pattern,

complex, has two constituent elements, the plot and the block, one an
as an element

the other, while the other element complexeshave only one constituent
aggregateof
 136

element. Regarding comprehension, putting two entities within the one complex

potentially conceals pertinent forms useful in analysis. That is, the street block's are not

treated in detail, being seen as a secondary aspect of the plot pattern. The
adequately

plot series also has a marginal status relative to the plot and street.

Similarly, Caniggia's definition of tissue contains two constituent elements, the lot

and the pertinent strip. His subdivision thus suffers from the same problems as Conzen's

through the conflation of levels identified in the previous analysis.

Conzen'Splot and the aspect of use

A comparison of definitions of the plot also reveals an important difference. The plot,

according to Conzen, represents a land-use unit. The inclusion of use in the definition

the desire for consistency in the definitions of form. Several

of the plot conflicts with

arguments have been put forward in the previous chapters suggesting that use is not a

pertinent characteristic of forin and should therefore not be a component of its

definition. Distinguishing between classes, relations and properties, human activity and

the relation between that activity and physical forms are fundamentally different from the

relations between the material objects constituting physical forms. To maintain

'use' should rightly refer to the human activity while 'form' should refer to
consistency,

the arrangement of physical objects., -A further issue is raised in examining the plot

is not adequately addressed by Conzen or Caniggia. This is the issue of control.

which

Form, use and control

'Plot' is a term used in too many ways to sustain further use as an analytical term

restricting that use. It is used to refer to a parcel or area of land as an abstract

without
 137

entity, sometimes including the boundary, either in the abstract, as an imaginary line

between comer points, or referring to the physical objects fonning the boundary or a

differenceof physical objectssuch as the line betweentwo different paving materials (or

as in North America betweena mown and unmownlawn). It is used to refer to all the

objects within the area, including buildings, gardens and the enclosing walls. It is used

to refer to the defined place of human activity. It is also used to refer to, or assumes,

the abstract notion of property, an object socially recognized to be under the direct or

indirect control of a person or group of people. To arrive at consistent definitions and

a coherent set of terms for form, these differencesmust be taken into account.

In particular, as use should be distinguished from form, so control should be

distinguished from both. Use refers to an aggregate of human activities, for example,

residential use: sleeping, eating, social interaction, etc., The use may be accommodated

by any number of different physical forms. The classification of use, and so its

definition, should be based on types of activities. In examining and explaining form, the

different types of activities can then be shown to be associated with specific forms by a

relation of physical presence or interaction - sleeping, eating and socializing in a house.

Ownership or control is thus distinct, referring to the socially acknowledged relationship

between a human or group of humans and a physical object or form, conferring rights

protected by law or social convention on the individual or group over the object. The

classification of control should be based on the nature of the relationship: ownership,

leasehold tenancy, rental tenancy, -custodian- or stewardship, etc.

 138

The importanceof control

The importance of this relation in the formation and transformation of the built

environmenthas been obscuredin part becauseof its subsumptionin other categories.

More recently its importancehas beenrecognizedbut only little explored. As a separate

aspect influencing the form of the built environment it has been noted by Muthesius in

his study of the English terracedhouse(1982:31) and by Moudonin her study of Alamo

Square in San Francisco (1986: 145). An ýargument for its distinction as a separate

aspect was put forward by the author in his MA thesis (1986). The increase in the

number of studies dealing specifically with ownership and its involvement in the

dynamics of urban form indicates a growing awarenessof the importance of control. See,

for example, Adams and May (1990), Cannadine (1980), Carr (1982), Carter and Lewis

(1990), Jahn (1982), Jones (1991), Pompa (1988) Rowely (1975), Springett (1982) and

Ward Given the purpose of this thesis, little more, if anything can be added
-(1970)

to emphasise the need for the distinction.

except

The reason for the obscurity of control as a distinct aspect of form is due mainly to

the fact that the effect of the relations of control is for the most part one of a limit

to physical boundaries. The boundaries of entities of use and form

which corresponds

correspond to those of control making it difficult to distinguish one from the others.

Further, the nature of control is abstract. It has no physical substance. Private

ownership serves as a good example and is perhaps the most common type of control.

As a socially and legally defined entity of ownership, the privately owned land parcel

limits the activities of the ownersto the defined area. The owners may do what they

wish (within other legal limits) within the parcel but do not have that freedomoutside

for legal and social reasons. The boundary of the parcel limits or confines those
 139

to
activities a strictly defined (if not observed)area. It should be noted that this areal

restriction of activity is it
what makes possible to refer to a plot as a land use unit.

Similarly, ownershiplimits the building activity of the owner. Again using the plot

as an example,the in
area which an owner is allowed to act on the built environment is

limited by the area defined in the legal agreement establishing the plot as property.

Depending on the strength and effectiveness of the social and legal system, an owner

cannot build or modify buildings beyond the limits of the plot for legal and social

reasons.

I'lie strength of the social and legal limits- set by the division of land as property is

considerable. One of the most striking examples of that strength is the effect of the

initial subdivision of land on a new settlementor an addition to an existing settlement.

The development of medieval new towns, 18th Century estates in London and elsewhere

and almost any contemporary suburban housing estate begins, not with building, but with

the division of land into parcels conceivedas property.

- Building adheresto the limits

of the plots defined. The building gives material force to the abstract division of tile

land. Once built, the physical definition of the plot reinforces the limit set by the

property boundary. Being relatively inert, it is likely to remain as built until it is

considered of less value than a different or altered form. Ther6 is a tendency for the

initial pattern of land division to persist because the amount of physical material and

capital and time invested in the building is too great to change easily. That is, it

remains of value for relatively extended periods. Also, as the plot is the unit of

ownership, change is most likely to occur in terms of those units. Changes thus follow

the establishedboundaries. The most frequent changesto the pattern of ownershipare

 140

the subdivision or combination of existing plots. While the physical divisions reinforce

division, if never built, projected property division may easily be changed.

property

The division of propertycomesfirst, but building takes over. There is, however,an

interaction betweenthe two. On the one hand, the property may be divided with a

forms; the width of a plot, for example, may be limited by the

consciousness of possible

possible spans of given construction methods or the conventionally accepted size of

rooms. On the other hand, possible new forms may not be implemented due to the

and their desire to keep the property boundaries fixed, as in

strength of property owners

the case of London after the Great Fire.

It would seem that for the purposes of analysis, a clearer picture of the built

environment emerges by distinguishing physical forms from their associated uses and the

limits and nature of control over them. Seen as separate aspects, it is possible to

them and examine their interaction over time, contributing to a more detailed
correlate

is the distinction.
explanation than possible without making

Re-exanzining the general aspects

In seeking to distinguish these aspects and to maintain consistency in the definitions of

each aspect it would seem to

necessary take a step back and examinethe most general

by Conzen and Caniggia. Conzen distinguishes the functional

subdivisions made aspect,

aspect,
the morphological context,
socio-economic the site and development. Within tile

morphologicalaspector lie
townscape, distinguishestown plan, land utilization pattern

building pattern. Caniggia'smost basic division is betweenspatial and temporal

and

relations, that is, and

copresence derivation respectively. What immediatelystandsout

in tile comparison is, on the one hand, Conzen'sinclusion of land utilization pattern
 141

within the more general aspect of townscape, and on the other, Caniggia's exclusion of

general aspects corresponding to site and function. These aspects are addressed by

Caniggiain the treatmentof individual forms.

RegardingConzen'sinclusionof land utilization pattern,taking into accountprevious

arguments and the criterion of consistency, it would seem that in a synthesis of these

land
aspects, utilization pattern should be included under the generalaspectof function,

rather than under the general aspect of townscape. This follows because, on the one

hand, function is a generalaspectcharacterizedby the relation betweenhumanactivity

and the built environment and land utilization pattern is a more specific aspect

characterized by the same pertinent feature. On the other hand, townscape is a general

aspect characterized by the spatial relations between built objects. Regarding Caniggia's

exclusion of all but spatial and temporal aspects, the criterion of comprehension would

to
seem necessitate the inclusion of general aspects for site, -and function.

Tbe issue of control adds another consideration. The general category of function

would not seem to be an appropriate general category for the aspect of control. Rather,

taking into account the desire for generality and consistency, function, as a general

aspect is too limiting. Looking at the two aspects of function and control in terms of

classes, relations and properties, both function and control refer to a relation between

humans and built forms. The two might then be put together under a more general

category.

Suggested general aspects

Working from these considerationsand taking into account the argumentsabove, it is

possible to suggestfour general aspectsto the built environment: the spatial, temporal,
.
 142

human and natural. For the spatial aspect, the pertinent characteristic is the spatial

relations of material objects built by man. This Conzen's

encompasses townscape,

excluding land use pattern but including town plan and building fabric and encompasses

Caniggia's copresence. -ý

The pertinent characteristic of the temporal aspect is temporal relations or sequence

and change,including the of

processes formationand transformation. This encompasses

Conzen's development and morphogenesis and Caniggia's derivation.

For the human aspect,the pertinent characteristic is the relation betweenhumans

and the built environment, including relations or interactions as intention, use, control,

construction and transformation, response and significance and referring indirectly to the

more complex structures of government, law, exchange, production, education etc. This

encompassesConzen's function, socio-economic context and land-use pattern. This also

encompasses Caniggia's discussions of use, role and intention in examining specific

forms.

The natural aspectrefersto the mediumout of which the built environmentis made,

including therefore the stuff of the earth and atmosphere, its arrangement or spatial

This encompassesConzen's
relations, properties and processes. physical context and site

as well as Caniggia's to
references slope, solar orientation and other natural features or

phenomena in the discussion of specific forms.

Tile identification of a natural aspect assumes a distinction between the built and

unbuilt environment. The primary concern of urban morphology is built objects, in

contrast to unbuilt or natural objects. As noted in chapter three in the discussion of

materials, the distinction of built and unbuilt objects is basedprimarily on the fact that

built objects are the result of an interaction of humansand the natural environmentin
 143

the act of building. This definition can be supported by distinguishing an additional

aspect, one traditionally identified along with the aspectsof spaceand time, namely,

objects (von Humbolt in Hartshorne 1949:135). /Objects/ is here interpreted as

<material objects> or more generally <matter>. Given the developments of twentieth

century physics, however, the aspect of matter can be stated more generally as energy.

This is so because,while the concept of matter in general cannot account for that of

energy, the concept of energy is able to account for matter.

The distinction of an energeticaspect reinforcesthe distinction betweenbuilt and

unbuilt because it is possible to distinguish the two in terms of the source of energy

which drives or sustains the process of formation of the two kinds of object. Built objects

are those which arc the result of a process of formation sustained by human energy.

The energetic aspect is in many ways essential for the full- explanation of form.

Examples which demonstrate this are the cost-distance hypothesis and tile hypothesis of

differential rates of change-between street systems, plot'patterns and building patterns.

In the case of the latter, one of the primary explanations of this phenomenon is tile

difference in the amount of effort, and so energy, necessary to produce change in the

different elements. Less effort is necessary to change individual buildings than to change

streets.

These suggesteddivisions are based on the distinction between the kinds of relation

and the kind of entities related. As argued in chapterstwo and three, spatial relations

are fundamentally different from temporal relations. Equally, the relations between

humansand built objects are different from those betweentwo or more built objects in

terms of the nature of the componentsand the nature of the relations between the

components.
 144

As noted by both Conzen(1969:4) and Caniggia(1979:62), the different aspectsof

the built environmentwhich they identify are distinguished for the purposesof analysis

recognizedto be interdependent
and interacting. To someextent, the medium
and are

languagemakesthe different aspectsappearmore independentthan they are

of written

their interrelation. Graphic diagrams do somewhatbetter in

and tends to obscure

illustrating the differences between the aspects and the way they are interrelated. As

/form/, /function/ and /development/ are all nouns and so equivalent but they all
words,

different phenomena. Figure 9 attempts to express more directly the

refer to very

interrelation of the aspects. I.,ooking at the aspects in this way is to see the interaction

humans and built forms and the natural environment over time as a whole. To
of

distinguish different aspects is thus only to see the same thing from different

perspectives. It is to focus on a particular relation or set of relations.

Distinctions within the general aspects

I'lie further subdivision of the spatial aspect is the main focus of the thesis and is

in detail in the remainder of this and in the following chapter. Regarding the
addressed

Conzen and Caniggia make no systematic subdivision of the human and

other aspects,

but a first tentative suggestion can made here based on the distinctions
natural aspects

to this point and the general distinction of classes, relations and properties.
made up

The temporal aspect

The subdivision of the temporal aspect is, beyond a certain point, speculative and not

to be undertaken here in any detail. Both Conzen and Caniggia suggest a division by

For Conzen, the process of socio-economic development

periods or phases.
 145

changes in its intensity as well as in its material and spiritual forms, thus allowing
recognition of distinct cultural periods. ... Each period leaves its distinctive
material residues in the landscape and for the purpose of geographical analysis can
be viewed as a morphological period. (1969: 7)

Caniggia notes that,

If I compare the changes to the 'type' over smaller temporal intervals, I realize that
in the course of a century the type has-ývaried through a series of changes, some
temporary, in the sense that they do not have a perceptible effect on the new
formulation of the type, others permanent, which I rind quite clearly in the new type.
This occurs even in, the absence of gradual overall building, given that most often
building activity does not go on continuously but is realized through alternate
periods of 'building booms' and stasis. (1979: 52)

In reality the contribution of local changes is legible only over long periods
... we
will call the chronological interval of sufficient length to find a change of sufficient
clarity a phase. (1979: 52)

For both Conzen and Caniggia, the periods are not absolute but relative and must be

determined for each study based on similarities and differences over time in the town to

be studied. Essentially this is the segmentation of time as a linear sequence. Each

segment is defined by continuity of patterns of interaction between humans and forms

and more particularly and especially the continued production of similar forms. Caniggia

does go further in subdividing the temporal aspect by positing a mechanism for change.

That mechanism is the typological process. A full examination of the typological process

is a likely area for further study.

The hunian aspect

Under the humanaspectare the subdivisionsof useand control, as arguedaboveas well

as the further distinctions of intension, con-structionltrrinsfomzatioti,responselsignificance.

Intention refers to the relations between humans and forms in terms of ideas, problems,

objectives and desiies concerning potential forms. Use refers to the relation between a
 146

form and a human which is the actual interaction of form and human for a purpose.

Control refers to the relations betweenhumansand forms which by conventionlimit or

bound the use, construction, response or significance of a form.

Construction1transfor7nationrefers to the relations between humans and forms which give

rise to a direct creation or change of form, that is, the intentional act of building or

modifying the material form itself, encompassing the techniques and tools of construction.

Response-significancerefers to the relation between humans and forms which give rise

to physical and mental sensationsor significancein the human. This includes exchange

value, which refers to the relation between a form as an object and a material or

monetary equivalent attributed by liumans in a given context.

The humanaspectconcernsrelation betweenhumansand built objects. In studies

and analyses, the human or humans which are part of those relations are often referred

to as agents. Examples of such studies are those concerning the agents of change.

These have shown there are many people and organizations involved in the production

and changeof the built environment(Carter 1970; Conzen1988; Freeman1988,1990;

Friedman 1989; Jones1991; Knox 1988; Larkham 1988,1990; Pompa1988;Whitehand

1992). Following from the desire for consistencyand specificity, distinctions should be

made within the general category of 'agent. The more basic distinctions are:

(a) number, distinguishing between individuals and corporate entities;

(b) structure, if the agent is a corporate entity, distinguishing differences in the way

individuals are related within the entity in terms of power or the freedom to make

decisions and take action;

(C) social and legal status, distinguishing between private individuals, private

companies,public companies,
private or public institutions, governmentministries ete.
 147

In terms of explanation, the task is- to examine and determine the nature of the

interrelations and interactions between the agents and the forms and the relations

betweenthe agentsinvolved.

The natural aspect

Under the natural aspectare the componentsof earth, atmosphere,sun, water,flora and

fauna and their various interrelations to form the identifiable general subjects of physical

geography and biology and more specifically climatology, meteorology, topography,

geology, hydrology, botany, zoology, ecology etc.

The energeticaspect

This aspect is one which demands further study. A provisional subdivision of the

energetic aspect is between the source, type and pathway. of energy.

Summary of general and specific aspects

Having made these distinctions, the simple diagram of Figure 9 can be expanded to

illustrate the distinction of these aspects. The expanded diagram is shown in Figure 10.

As the more general aspects must be seen as interdependent and interacting, so must tile

more specific. It is only through an examination of those interactions that it is possible

to arrive at an adequate explanation of form. What is the effect, for example, of controls

on intentions, of response on use or of use on significance etc.?

 148

Closer examination of the plot as the point of reference for synthesis

Returning to the examinationof the plot, the precedingdiscussionsuggeststhe.removal

of use as a pertinent characteristic in the definition of the plot as a form. Conzen's

definition is reduced to 'a parcel of land defined by boundaries on the ground.'

Caniggia'sdefinition remains unchangedwith 'tile area built upon together with the

'
pertinent area. To what do thesederinitions materially refer? Rather, what aspectsor

characteristics of form or the spatial relations of objects are selected to detennine the

class of entities of <plot>? In both cases,the plot is consideredas an area. At its

most basic, this is to see the ground or surface of the earth as divisible, any one

continuous division being an area in opposition to other continuous divisions. In more

abstract terms, an area is the part of the earth's surface, seen as a two dimensional

surface, defined as within a closed geometric figure made up of points and the lines

between them. The lines are the boundaries of the area. The pertinent characteristics

defining the area are thus the spatial relation on a two dimensional surface of boundary

lines. It is in these tenns that Conzen's plot and Caniggia's lot can be said to refer to

the same thing. In what other ways are they similar? Strictly, neither definition

specifically states what actually constitutes the defining boundaries of the area. The

definitions are thus equivocal in tems of specifying the spatial relation of objects. To

beyond these too restricted and so equivocal definitions, it is necessary to make

go

inferences from other statements in the texts. Looking at statements about the plot or

lot in specific applications shows similarities between Conzen's and Caniggia's

conception of plot and lot respectively. For Conzen in Ainwick, the strip-plot is 'an

less fronting
elongated, more or rectangular plot a street with one of its shorter

boundaries[see Figure 88]' (1969:130). Additionally, the strip-plot is divided into two
 149

areas, the plot head and the plot tail. The former is 'the smaller but usually more

important front part of a strip-plot including the frontage and any land under and close

to a plot dominant, placed on or near the street line.' The latter is 'the larger but

less important rear part of a strip-plot, rarely occupied by a plot dominant

usually

(1969:128).

Caniggia notes that there is

on each route the basic characteristic of modularly disposed building fronts. This
is symptomatic, in reality, of an overall modularity in the conformation of aggregates.
That modularity arises from the fact that an aggregate is built at more or less the
time building types. Analogous types imply
same using analogous ... a similar
measure of area under each building, which constitutes the buildable lot. This is
comprised of the area built upon together with the pertinent area. Therefore, the
module of the aggregate is the lot, constantly tending toward a rectangular form and
a disposition of one short side fronting on the street and the long side perpendicular
to the street [see Figure 88]. (1979: 129)

These quotations indicate a greater degree of similarity between Conzen's and

Caniggia's conception of the plot as used for the analysis of an English town of medieval

Italian towns of medieval or earlier origin respectively. There is a similarity

origin and

in outline, that is, the configuration of the boundary on the ground plane, and a

similarity in the division and location of component parts the built area and unbuilt
-

area. There is the further similarity of orientation to the street or route. The quotations

both imply that a building is located within the plot in a similar relative position.
also

Given the above similarities, Conzen's plot and Caniggia's lot refer to a similar set of

characteristicsand so may be said to refer to the sameor similar class of object, at least

within the restricted areas specified. Tentatively, then, the plot may be used as a

reference point in further comparisons of subdivisions.

 150

The plot and Conzen's and Canig-cria's

C5 general conception of form

Several problems still remain, however, in the definitions of the plot. Strictly, both

definitions remain limited in scope,set only in terms of the characteristicsof an area.

Neither definition explicitly includes any other constituentparts. This is a problemwith

to the criterion of specificity, that is, accounting for all the relevant details of the
respect

consideration. Is there more to a plot than the geometry of its outline, the
object under

distinction of the built and unbuilt areas and their relative positions that would be useful

in analysis? With respect to the criterion of generality, the definitions are too specific

to the examples cited and so exclude other types and thus wider application.

The first problem involves a more general consideration. flow, in general, is form

by Conzen and Caniggia? As examined in chapter two, Conzen, for

conceived or viewed

the purposes of analysis, separates tile two-dimensional surface features from the three-

dimensional building fabric. He tends to see the built environment in terms of the two-

dimensional trace of three-dimensional objects. Certainly the plan information refers

three-dimensional reality, but by using primarily plan information for analysis, the
to the

definition of the analytic subdivisions will exclude characteristics left out by the

conventions of orthographic projection, primarily the formal aspect of the third

dimension. The definition of any plan element will thus be restricted.

For the most part Caniggia conceiVesof form as an organic, three-dimensional whole,

the emphasisin the definition of the lot on area. This is manifest in the
regardlessof

of the hierarchy of forms, in which any one entity is seenas the arrangement
conception

its in
parts all its detail.
three-dimensional That the lot is seenprimarily as an area
of

is in part due to the ambiguities in its definition and the conflation of scales,a problem

to be addressedbelow. Caniggia'sconceptionof form is clearest in the treatmentof the

 151

building. It -is conceived as a three-dimensionalentity composedof distinct three-

dimensionalparts. It is thus conceivedin terms of the spatial relation betweenobjects,

that is, betweenparts. The building is also conceivedas a type, that is /building/ refers

to a class of objects defined by, common characteristics. Any object having the

is
characteristics an example of the class. Conzen also refers to forms in terms of types,

most notably in defining plan units. As in the case of Caniggia's building type, Conzen's

plan unit type is a class of object or form derined by common characteristics. Conzen

is not as explicit as Caniggia in the use of the type, employing it as a matter of course

without any discussion.

The type and the pertinent characteristics used to define fonn

Looking at the matter more generally, any word or term referring to an object refers to

because of the nature of language. /House/ refers not to any one particular object
a class
S
but to the concept <house> and so to all objects which have the characteristics which

that concept. That is to say, the type is defined on the basis of common
constitute

characteristics. For Caniggia's building type, the primary characteristic As the

For Conzen's plan-unit type, the primary characteristic is the

arrangement of rooms.

combination of streets, plots and buildings. More fundamentally, this implies that the

definition of an object demandsa choice of pertinent characteristics. As,,an example,in

the discussion of the plot, it was argued that the use of a plot is not a pertinent

characteristic in defining a plot as a form.

 152

Type, number and arrangement of parts as pertinent characteristics

What, then, are the pertinent characteristicsof form,generally? Conzen'sdefinition of

the plan-unit and Caniggia's of the building provide the preliminary choices. For

Caniggia,the building is an arrangement of rooms. More abstractly,-it is a particular

number of a particular kind of object each in a particular spatial relation to the others.

Likewise, the plan-unit, as a combination of streets,plots and blocks, is a particular

number of particular types of objects in a particular spatial relation to each other. I'lie

basic characteristicsdefining form can thus be tentatively fixed as the type,number,and

arrangement of parts. From this it is clear that a form must be seen as both an

individual object and as an arrangement of parts. A building is recognizable as an entity

with a distinct outline, yet it is possible to discern recognizable parts, each with its own

distinct outline.

Outline as a pertinent characteristic

The outline of the whole arises with the arrangement of the parts. It is by discerning or

defining an outward limit or boundary, that it is possible to identify or recognizea

collection of things as an individual object. The most common and certainly the most

systematic way to specify the-*outline of a form is to express it in terms -of external

dimensions. It is important to note, lloweVer, that in terms of the distinction between

classes, relations and properties, dimensions or measurements are properties. Properties

are qualities or quantities of objects or relations. To measure is to compare something

against a fixed or known unit. To satisfy the desire for specificity, external dimensions

alone are not sufficient to define a form. The class of all objects or entities 25 ft by 100

ft is too general for the purposes of analyzing the built environment. In some cases,
 153

particularly the plot, the outline alone can be used to define specific forms becausean

is
assumption made that the outline refers to the specific objects composing the form.

Again, the desire for specificity, would make this kind of assumptionunacceptable.The

description of the outline is contingent on recognisingthe form as an arrangementof

constituent parts. Practically speaking, there are many cases, particularly in attempting

to reconstruct forms of earlier periods, in which the information regarding the specific

constituent parts does not exist. Inferences must be made from the information that does

exist and in the case of tile plot, for example, the outline dimensionsare often all that

is available, the original material having been replaced.

I'his is not sufficient reason to exclude from the general definition of form the

aspects of characteristics which do not exist in the present state of the form. In order

to account for the full range of possible forms and to account for the full complexity of

those forms, the base definition should include as pertinent characteristics the objects

which physically compose the entire form. Thus, returning to the definition of the plot,

the inclusion of only the characteristics of an area as pertinent must be considered as

insufficient. A plot, as a constituentelement in the structure of the built environment

is a three-dimensional entity, composed variously of buildings, sheds, planting, paving,

enclosure walls, fences or hedges, amongst many other possible structures or elements.

At the least, the basedefinition should include a place for theseobjects. There is then

the explicit indication that somethingwasthere even if it is not now. This reinforcesthe

tentative list of pertinent characteristicsto be used in the suggestedgeneral definition

of form: the type of parts, their number and arrangement, adding that the parts and

arrangementbe conceivedin all three dimensions.

 154

Ilie general structure of urban form and the distinction of

general classes

Looking again at the definition of Caniggia's building type and Conzen's plan-unit type,

there is an important difference between the chosen pertinent characteristics. In

Caniggia'sdefinition of the building, the characteristic chosen is the arrangementof

rooms. This is an arrangementof one kind or class of object. The pertinent parts

selected are all rooms, even if there are different kinds of rooms. In contrast, the

pertinent characteristicchosenin defining the plan-unit is the combination of different

kinds of object: streets, plots and buildings. The question is how these forms are

different.

The hierarchy offorin

This raises the more general questions of how the different forms are related to each

other and what the structure of the built environment is as a whole. The question

becomes whether one sees forms as 'unconnected heterogeneouselements' or as aspects

or parts in an interdependent relationship forming a whole, generally referred to as the

built environment (Caniggia 1979: 59-60). To ask how forms are related is in some ways

to approach the issue from the wrong end. It would be more appropriate to ask how

forms came to be defined. Rather, it is possible to ask how forms are related because,

as used here and by Conzen and Caniggia, the forms are conceivcd as related in a

particular way. More accurately, one should say 9came to be conceived' as related in a

particular way. One of the primary contributions of Conzen, Muratori and Caniggia is

to have conceivedof and articulated the view of the built environmentas a structure of

hierarchically related parts. Such a view came about through a thorough scrutiny of the
 155

built environment itself. They posited the hypothesis of a hierarchical structure which

continues to sustain the scrutiny of others. The hierarchy is manifest in the relations

between the subdivisions. If the subdivisions or elements are defined on the basis of that

structure, this is to define both individual elements and the relations between them at

the same time. It is thus impossible to-discuss the individual elements without

discussing the relations between them. To attempt to achieve consistency in the

definition of the subdivisions is also to attempt to achieve coherence in the structure of

subdivisions.

'Containment'and the relation betweengeneral classes

Though there are differences between Conzen's and Caniggia's versions of the hierarchy

and problems in each, the fundamental idea is that one type of form in the built

environment contains another and is itself contained by yet another. For example, the

plot contains the building and the plot is itself contained in the block. Looking more

carefully at Conzen's and Caniggia's versions reveals differences. Caniggia states

explicitly the relation between the subdivisions is a hierarchy such that 'each object is

composed of a number of elements connected together to form an organism and each

element is itself an organism of a smaller scale' (1979: 69). A building is an aggregate

of rooms, a room an aggregate of structures (walls etc. ), a structure an aggregate of

materials. It is a hierarchy in which any one form encompasses all the forms within it

in progressive steps of aggregation. Any one form thus 'contains' all the forms within it

as constituent parts.
 156

Conzenstatesthat the relation betweenthe form complexes

in hierarchical manner,whereby the town plan 'contains', and

occurs a somewhat
formsthe morphologicalframeof, the land utilization pattern,and the land use-units
in
or plots turn 'contain' the building fabric. (1981: 79)

[The element complexes] are interrelated by a hierarchical principle analogous

ý
to that governing the form [complexes] (1981: 60)
...

Taking into account what has been said about use and the definition of form, 'land

'land-use units' will here be interpreted as 'plot pattern' and

utilization pattern' and

loplots'respectively. The issue is

then what Conzenmeansby 'contain'. The two most

likely options are: on the one hand, 'to have within' or 'enclose' and on the other, 'to

include as a constituent'. Conzen'suse of inverted commaswith the word /contain/ and

'forms
the additional phrases, the generalframe or as well as the emphasisin Conzen's

definitions on boundaries would tend to support the first interpretation. Buildings lie

boundaries and plot patterns lie within street lines. There is thus a contrast
within-plot

betweenConzen'sand Caniggia'suse of 'contain'. The former uses it in the senseof

9within a boundary' and the latter in the sense of 'includes as a constituent'

difference illustrated in Figure 3.

corresponding to the as

The logical, typc and the general structure of

urban forin: ' levels of complexity

In terms of attempting a synthesis of subdivisions, which version has the most-to offer

the desire for definition

with respectto consistent and a coherentstructure of elements?

For several reasonsCaniggia'sversion has more to recommendit. Conzen'sversion is

as analysis has shown, there are inconsistencies in the relations between

vague and,

levels. These'problems are in part duc to his conception of the relation 9contain' which
 157

in turn is related to his definition of elements in terms of areasand boundaries. The

senseof 'contain' as 'hold within' or 'enclose' is consistentwith the conceptionof form

as an area and an outline or boundary. I'his conception of form has already been

criticised, for
however, not being able to fully accountfor and so adequatelydefine form.

The structureof subdivisionsin Caniggia'shierarchy is basedon an abstractschema

which applies to each level in the hierarchy. That is, any one level is related to the next

above it in the same way. Each level and the relation to the next level is defined at the

sametime. Thus the definition of all levels and the relation betweenlevels is consistent.

The result is a structure of subdivisions in which there is an explicit and specific

connection between the subdivisions to form a coherent set. The relation between

is
subdivisions part-to-whole. Objects of one level are the parts composing objects of the

next level up. Afore strictly, in tems of classes, objects of one level are the potential

parts in the acts of composition the results of which is the range of objects of the next

level up. The group of all potential parts taken together is a class of object. Equally,

the group of all objects resulting from the composition of objects from the first group is

a class of objects. It is more correct to say that the relation between the classes is

potential part-to-potential whole because the members of the class at the lower level are

not 'parts'
themselves or membersof the class at the higher level but parts of individual

members of that class. This distinction correspondsto that by

made Whitehead and

Russell (1925) in defining logical types. The distinction involves the intervening

function. One class, the lower in tile hierarchy, is the set of possible terms for the

function. The other class, the higher in tile hierarchy, is the set of products of the

function (see Figure 8). In terms of Caniggia's hierarchy, the class of all "rooms' is the

set of terms for the 'function of building' tile product of which is the set of all 'buildings'.
 158

If the function of composition is seen as increasing in complexity of objects from part to

whole, the structure of the hierarchy can be seen as one of levels of complexity.

Mitten language as an example

Within certain limits, written language has a structure analogous to that of Caniggia's

hierarchy of elements and serves as an illustration. In written language, disregarding

content, there are letters, words, sentences or lines, and paragraphs or stanzas (and

various other larger entities). Letters can be taken as individuals, that is, objects without

constituent parts. Single letters thus have zero aggregation or complexity and constitute

the lowest level. Words are aggregatesof letters, sentences are aggregatesof words and

paragraphs are aggregates of sentences. Each term, /letter/, /word/, /sentence/,

/paragraph/ therefore refers to a different level of complexity and different type of entity.

The objects in a given level are distinct from those in the others because they are

aggregates of different kinds of part.

Cenetic types and specific types

Seen in this way, it can be said that all written words are generically the same because

they are all composed of letters. A sentence, as an aggregate of words is then

generically a different type of entity. It is, we shall say, a different generic type of entity.

Words and sentences are not, however, random aggregatesof letters or words. They are

specific arrangements of their respective parts. That is, again disregarding content, the
M

word /dog/ is different from the word /cat/ because it is a specific arrangement of

different specific letters. Each is, we shall say, a different speci/tictype of word. The

dictionary thus provides a partial list of the different accepted specific types of word.
 159

Further, the specific type is not a single object but a class of instances,each instance

being an example of the specific type. Any one example might be written in a different

DOG or D0G, but provided each retains the pertinent characteristic

style or spacing,

defining the word /dog/ (the letters d, g, o in the sequenced-o-g), it is an exampleof the

speciric type.

The relation betweenthe letters and wordsand betweenwordsand sentencesis part-

to-whole. Letters are parts of words and words are parts of sentences. As mentioned,

seen in terms of classes, however, the relation is not strictly part-to-whole. The class of

letters is not a part of the class of all words. Putting together or aggregating words
all

is an act or function following particular rules. Words and sentences are not eternal

be analyzed as static entities. They coine to lie and to better understand them
givens to

that process should become the object of analysis. The class of all letters is the set of

domain the function whose product is words. Further, the set of all
possible terms or of

of that function is tile domain of the function whose product is

products or range

sentences. Generally then, each generic type can be seen as the range of one function

and the domain of another in a hierarchy of functions corresponding to a hierarchy of

levels of complexity in the products of the functions.

Analogously, as letters, words, sentences and paragraphs are different generic types

of entity, so are Caniggia's levels of form: materialsq-structures, cells and buildings. As

there are different specific types of letter, word, etc., there are different specific types of

and buildings. As the relation between the generic classes

materials, structures, cells

in written language, in terms of objects, is one of part-to-whole, so are Caniggia's levels

of form: materials are parts of structuresetc. As the generic types of letters, words etc.

the product of an act of aggregation following various rules and so best seen as the
are
 160

function, so should the generic types of form in tile built environment be

product of a

seen as products of a function. In terms of classes, as any one generic type is the range

function whose product is a different generic type of entity which is in turn the
of a

domain of another function in a hierarchy, so any one level of Caniggia's hierarchy is the

range of a function whose product is a different generic type of entity which is in turn

the domain of another function in a hierarchy.

Generic type as a pertinent characteristic

If the definitions of form used in the analysis of the built environment are to be

form a coherent set of terms they must take into account differences in
consistent and

types. It is particularly important in specifying the relation between

generic and specific

different terms and to assure that all forms are taken into account. As noted, the

tentatively included in the suggested general definition of form

pertinent characteristics

The distinction of generic and specific

are the type, number and arrangement of parts.

types, however, indicates that 'type of part' is still too general. Without specifying the

define forms in any number of ways. A building might

generic type of parts, one might

be defined as an arrangement of bricks or a block might be defined as an arrangement

floors, roofs etc. Such definitions would not be wrong but they neglect forms
of walls,

levels of organization lying between the brick and building or block and wall, floor
or

or roof It is also a matter of consistency. To be consistent, all definitions should

include as a pertinent characteristic the same generic type relative to the type of form

being defined.

The question is, then, which generic type relative to the type being defined should

be chosen as the pertinent characteristic? Conzen's definition of the plan-unit selects

 161

three generic types, which would seem to go against the desire for consistency and

specificity. Each of the constituentelementsof the plan-unit is not defined in the same

way as the plan-unit itself and the definitions of those elements are inadequatewith

respect to the criterion of specificity. Caniggia's schematic definition provides a more

consistentand specific basis for the definition of form. It derineseach level in the same

way and at the same time establishes the relation with the other levels. A given level

is defined as being composed of The forms one level down the hierarchy.

The pertinent characteristicsselectedfor defining form can thus be stated as: the

generic type of part, limited to one, the number of parts and their arrangement. By

positing a step-wise structure of levels in which the forms of one level are the parts of

the next higher level, the generictype of the form will be determinedby the generic type

of the part and vice versa.

Specific type as a pertinent characteristic

Looking again at Conzen's and Caniggia's clefinitions of the plan-unit and building and

also at other of their definitions, it is not sufficient to specify the type of parts only in

terms of generic type. The is

plan-unit an 'individualized combination' of streets,plots

and buildings. I'lie many different plan-units specified in AInwick also indicate that it

is not just the generic type of part, but also the specific type which must be identified

in defining a form. Different plan-units are distinguished because they have different

constituent parts, either different types of streets, plots or buildings. Likewise, Caniggia

distinguishes different specific types of building on the basis of different specific types

of parts. This is evident in the distinction of different types of rooms, structures and

materials and also in the concept of levels of specificity (1979:48,111).

 162

In terms of classes, relations and properties, to distinguish a -specific type is to

distinguish a subclass within and established class. It is to establish differences between

members of a class beyond the similarities which define the established class. Those

members with similar differences are then members of a subclass or specific type. This

is essentially a function of comparison and classification, an analytical, a posteriori,

procedure. While the distinction of generic types in analysis is also a function of

comparison and classification, the difference between classifying generic types and

specific types can be seen as the distinction of different functions and their domains and

ranges seen as whole classes while the latter is the distinction of the different products

or range of a single function.

Thus the set of pertinent characteristics for defining form must include the specific

type of part, the whole set being the generic type of part, the specific type, number and

arrangement of those parts. This is essentially to formalise Caniggia's hierarchy of forms.

Having adopted the structure of that hierarchy for the suggested general definition of

form and structure of generic elements, the following is an attempt to deduce some of the

implications of adopting that structure. It is perhaps well to repeat here that this set of

pertinent characteristics for the definition of form is not intended to establish a definitive

catalogue of all possible forms-. It is a means of organizing information and creating a

framework for comparison in order to'reveal differences which demand explanation.

77his implies that if some object or form does not seem to fit easily within the

framework, it is different not that it is wrong or does not exist. The question must be,

why is it different? The set of characteristics provides a consistent procedure for the

recognition of form, making it possible to ask why a given form is different and compare

results in a consistent way. How is such flexibility possible while keeping the levels
 163

distinct and maintaining the desired consistencyand coherence? Applying the set of

pertinent characteristicsto the plot and examininga range of existing examplesraises

issueswhich make it possible to answerthis question.

'Single object arrangenients' and coextensive levels

The level in the hierarchy below the plot is occupied by 'buildings'. According to the

generaldefinition, the plot must thereforebe of

an arrangement buildings. Even cursory

examination of the examplesof plots reveals many which would not seem to fit the

definition of a plot. There are plots with only one building and others without any

buildings. The plot is composed,in fact, of different types of parts, such as boundary

hedges,shedsand other free standing structures (see Figures 81-99).

walls,

To reconcile theseconflicts, emphasisshould be placed on viewing the formsof the

built environment as objects occupying a position relative. to other objects. They must

be seen as both objects which are parts in an arrangement with others to form a larger

themselves unitary arrangements of parts. Maintaining

entity and as objects which are

this view, one can examine a given form from two perspectives: as a part in an object of

composed of parts of lesser complexity. Using both

greater complexity and as an object

these views to isolate -and identify objects provides multiple criteria for establishing

given form lies in the hierarchy of levels of complexity. One can then ask, what
where a

is the next more complex identifiable form of which a building is a part? What other

that form? What position as a part does that more complex form occupy?
parts compose

What other forms occupy a similar position in composing forms of higher complexity?

In order to successfully answer such questions and achieve the desired flexibility and

consistency it is necessary to recognize the concept of coextensivelevels.

 164

The simplest example is a one room house. In Caniggia's terms, an object which

is an arrangement of structures (a floor, four walls and a roof) is a 'room. If, as a part

in an object of higher complexity, it does not form an arrangementwith other roomsbut

stands alone, an 'arrangement of one room', within an area defined by a boundary wall,

the whole enclosure in turn being one of several forming a block, the object is part of

a9 plot'. As part of a plot it is, by definition, a 'building'. The object is, then, a 'single

room building' is
and a point at which the level of complexity of 'rooms' is coextensive

with the level of 'buildings'. The single room is directly part of a plot without being part

of an arrangement of several rooms composing a building (see Figure 89, top row).

There is in this case an intersection of levels and the single room can be considered to

function as a building.

Other examples show that one form may extend through several levels of the

hierarchy. A single space building such as a factory shed may occupy an entire block.

This would then be an example of a single room building, a single building plot and a

single plot block. To account for this within the framework of the hierarchy of levels of

complexity, the slied must be considered as coextensively a 'room', a 'building, a9 plot'

and a 'block'. This is to say that it is an Object which is composedof parts of the level

of 'structures"- walls, floors, roofsetc. - and a part which formsan aggregatewith streets

and perhaps other blocks to form a plan unit or tissue. '17he

intervening levels still apply

but only, so to speak, as brackets around the form. In this sense, the levels of

complexity can be seen as potential positions to be occupied. A given form can be said

to occupy a level either because it is composed of parts of the next lower level or

because it is a part of the form of the next higher level. It will occupy several levels

simultaneously,if, like the examplejust cited, it is composedof parts two or more levels
 165

below the level in which the object acts as a part. In the exampleof the plot, a garden

or boundary wall is composedof building materials and so occupies the level of

structures; it is a wall (see Figure 32). As a part, however, it does not from an

arrangement with other walls, a floor and roof to compose a room. The next identifiable

more complex form of which it is a part is a plot. The other main constituents of the plot

the buildings (see Figure 81). In the plot, then, the

are the open ground surface and

boundary wall and open ground surface 'function' at the level of buildings in composing

the identifiable form of the plot. At this point it becomes apparent that language

imposes certain constraints.

'nie problem of language

Giving the levels of complexity labels such as 'rooms' or 'buildings' is misleading

becausethe labels are too restrictive. This is so on the one hand becausethe reasonable

interpretation of such terms exclude many identifiable forms. The interpretation of

/room/, for example, would not readily admit cupboards, stairways, corridors, and

balconies, which are, on the one hand arrangements of walls, floors, ceiling/floors, or

roofs and on the other are components in making up'buildings'. On the other hand, the

terms are misleading with respect to coextensive entities. The day to day meaning of

terms tend to give rise to expectations which are somewhat difficult to overcome. I'lie

generally accepteddefinition of /building/ would tend to repulse interpretations such as

<boundary wall> or <Iiedge>.

Because of these problems, it is proposed in the following chapter to employ Latin

terms as labels for the different generic types or levels of complexity. There are several

reasons for choosing these terms. One is tile traditional use of Latin terminology in the
 166

terms by familiarity. There is also the fact that

sciences, making the more acceptable

Latin is a dead language and so relatively stable. It is therefore also vague enough in

the Modem languages.

most people's minds to prevent problems encountered with

Equally, Latin, being a root language of English and other Modem languages, it provides

to what would be a too dry and mechanical system of symbols,

a preferable alternative

numbering or lettering. The terms can be selected to refer in a very general way to the

forms likely to be found in each level.

Intermediate levels

Examining again the range of existing plots and applying the pertinent characteristics

for defining form, another issue arises in attempting to achieve the desired degree of

Looking at a terrace of houses in terms. of levels of

generality and comprehension.

The entire terrace, including the back gardens, is

complexity raises several problems.

identifiable entity composed of what appear to be plots. At the same time, the entire
an

terrace may be found as a part of a block (see Figure 104). As a composition of plots,

the terrace must be considered as occupying the level of the 'block', but as part of a

block, it would occupy the level of the 'plot. To account for such an identifiable entity

within the framework of levels, it is necessary to recognize intermediate levels. Again,

this is a matter of seeing forms as botli individual objects and arrangements of parts. It

is by adopting these two views alternately in looking at the terrace that the form appears

between the levels of the block and plot. One must ask, what is tile next
as an entity

more complex form of which the row of plots making up the terrace is a part? What

other objects compose that form? What position as a part does that form occupy? What

other forms occupy a similar position in composing a form of the next higher level of
 167

complexity? Answeringthesequestionsreveals a form which as an object is composed

but as a part still acts or functions as a plot. It is a hyper-plot or a hypo-block.

of plots

It will be noted that, as coextensiveforms extend more than one level, there may be

several intermediate levels betweenthe primary levels. Theoretically, it could be said

I
there is an infinite number of possible intennediate levels. A window frame, for

is
example, a compositionof materials and thereforeoccupies the level of 'structures'.

It functions, however,as a part within a wall which occupies the same level. The

window frame thus occupiesan intermediatelevel in this case betweenthat of materials

and that of structures (see Figure 22). In some examplesof window frame, the main

openings of the frame are filled with a secondary structure of wood or a lead framework

and small panes (see Figure 20, s). This entity would thus occupy a level between that
-
the frame and materials, a tertiary intermediate level. It is conceivable that the small
of

panes could also be filled with a framework and still smaller panes and so on ad

infinitum. There would thus be an infinite number of intermediate levels. In practice,

.
limits are imposed, in this case primarily by the properties and workability of
of course,

the materials. Other examples of forms occupying intermediate levels are roof trusses,

columns composedof cut stonesor bricks, apartmentsor flats in blocks.

Taking into accountcoextensiveand intermediatelevels leadsto the selectionof the

following pertinent characteristicsin the definition of form: the generic type of the parts,

the specific type of the parts, their number and arrangement and the position of the
I
in a form of the higher levels of complexity.
object as a part
 168
Caniggia's lot in terms of coextensive levels

Coextensivelevelshelp in addressingthe problemencounteredwith Caniggia'sderinition

of the lot. In the definition there is an ambiguity regarding the status of the pertinent

area. One interpretation would take the pertinent area as a 'room' and so a part of the

houseor 'building'. The other would take the pertinent area as a separate,one room

'building', thus together with the house forming a lot of two main parts. In either case,

coextensive levels are necessary to adequately account for the form. In the first

interpretation the building (with the pertinent area) must be consideredas coextensive

with the level of the lot. The 'building' alone is considered as a 'lot'. In the second

interpretation, the pertinent area, as a 'room' must be considered as coextensive with the

level of 'buildings'. The two 'buildings' then forming a 'lot'. Given the examples shown

by Caniggia (Figures 64-68), neither interpretation seems more justified than the other.

On the-one hand, some of the building types illustrated by Caniggia include the pertinent

area. On the other hand, a wide variety of types do not and thosewhich do are almost

exclusively the casa a schiera or row house. Tile pertinent area of the casa a schiera

tends to be regular and more like a recognizable 'room'.

Coextensivelevels do not, in the end, resolve the issue in terms of a strict

correspondenceof forms and levels. Both coextensive levels or extension and

intermediate levels or compressionare'cases of a form occupying two or more levels at

once. It is thus impossible in such cases to notate or label a form univocally or

unambiguouslyas one or the other. What remainsunambiguousis the fact of extension

or compression. In all cases the extension or compression has limits. The extension in

the case of Caniggia's lot occurs betweenthe level of the 'room' and the 'lot' (if the

pertinent area is consideredas a "room'). The form in question is composedof rooms

 169

is
and part of a pertinent strip or block. It is the fact of extension of compression and

its limits which is of interest rather than a fixed labelling of forms. This emphasisesthe

comparativebasisof analysis. The fact of extensionor compressiononly emergesin the

comparison of a variety of forms.

The necessity for coextensive and intermediate levels demonstrates that the division

of the built environment into distinct levels of complexity is an idealised view or

framework for the purposes of analysis. It is not, however, an arbitrary view but one

motivated,so to speak,by the object viewed. The divisions are in a sense by

suggested

the built environment, more particularly in the case of Caniggia, by the history of the

built environment. For Caniggia, each level corresponds to a stage of complexity in the

evolution of the built environment,from the formationof routewaysand the selection of

eaves and trees as dwellings to the complex, composite settlements of large cities.

Regardless,the resulting view is one in which the built environmentis seenas a type.

That is, the built environment is seen as a composite of all versions. Any one version

is then seen in terms of what it does or does not have in common with all the rest

together. The act of analysis is thus to compare an actual case with the composite

version represented schematically by the structure of levels of complexity. The

comparisonpoints out or underlines the deviation and differencesof the example from

the composite seen as a common reference point. In such comparisons, the complexities

of level, the and

compressions extensionsencounteredin actual casesare then thrown

into relief, standing out demanding explanation.

 170

Level of specificity, level of resolution and outline

Returning to the set of pertinent characteristicsfor the suggestedgeneral definition of

form, an issue raised in citing Conzen's plan-unit as an example remains an unresolved

problem. The plan-unit was cited as an example of a form defined as an arrangement

of parts but was criticised becauseit included more than one generic type of part. The

problem is, then, if the degreeof specificity achieved by Conzenin defining plan-units

dependedon the inclusion of three generic types of part, is it possible to adequately

define formsusing only one generic type of part? The rangeand specificity of the plan-

units identified by Conzen and the resulting comprehensiveness and subtlety of his

explanations of growth and change in towns is one of the primary attractions of his work.

How is that rangeand specificity possiblewithin the suggestedframeworkof definitions, -

that is, without reference to the range of pertinent characteristics used by Conzen? The

question involves the distinction of specific types.

In the task of distinguishing forms, the generic type of the forms and so their

position in the hierarchy of levels is determined or assumed by recognizing the type of

the most complex parts composing the forms and the place of the forms as parts in more

complex entities. Without specifying more than this, all that has been determined is that

the form is of a given generic type. Without specifying more, the generic type remains

a single, undifferentiated class. Examining the different examples of a given generic type

and identifying the specific type of the parts, their number and arrangement begins to

subdivide the generic type into distinct sets of specific types. Using the suggested set

of pertinent characteristics to identify specific types within Conzen's hierarchy as it

it
stands, would only be possible to distinguish plan-units on the basis of the street

system - the types of streets their number and arrangement. This is obviously not
 171

enoughto be able to distinguish the range of types identified by Conzen. The lack of

available detail is in part due to the structure of Conzen'shierarchy, a problem to be

addressedbelow. it
Regardless, is necessaryto allow for more detail in distinguishing

specific types. To do so within the structure of the suggested

general definition of form

and hierarchy of levels demandsthe inclusion of several additional concepts: level of

specificity,level of resolutionand outline.

Level of specificity

Level of specificity is a concept provided by Caniggia.

This, in brief, indicates the possibility of investigating the typological structure

according to a progressive range of depth. We can, for example, limit ourselves in
our reading to a distinction between basic and specialised buildings. Within the
former [we can distinguish] apartment houses and row houses ... (1979: 95)

The maximum level of specificity is obtained, in theory, when the type identifies
one and only one object with all the attributes it is possible to find in it, in all the
characteristics which it exhibits, which render it, in whatever mode, totally
opposable to other objects, however similar. Only at that point will it have realised
the coincidence of the building type and the building (1979: 111)
...

Thus, the greater and more particular the pertinent characteristics chosen in defining

specific types, the higher the level of specificity. It is possible, for example, to define

house type on the basis of more general features such as the number and arrangement
a

of rooms such as the case of a two-up and two-down cottage (see Figure 62). On the

other hand it is possibleto add to that definition featuressuch as the specific dimensions

and proportions of the rooms,the structure and materials of the floors, walls and roof,

including the dimensions,proportionsand positionof the openings,the specific structure,

pattern and colour of decorativedetails and finishes and so on ad infinitum.

 172

Putting this into the termsof the suggestedgeneraldefinition and structureof levels,

the most general or lowest level of specificity is the generic type itself. The generic type

'buildings', for example,is derinedby one featureor pertinent characteristic,the spatial

relation of a particular, type of part, that is, 'any arrangement of "rooms".' The most

specific or highest level of specificity is realised when all features are specified in all

levels and a building is differentiatedfrom all others. This is to identify a specific type

of only one example. By varying the level of specificity of the pertinent characteristics

it is possible to vary the subtlety of distinction of specific types. On the one hand it

might be coarse, such as Caniggia"s distinction of basic and special buildings and on the

other very fine, differentiating, for example, individual houses in the same terrace. For

this concept to work within the suggested framework and for the distinction of specific

types to be made on a consistent and repeatable basis, level of specificity should be

enunciated in terms of the hierarchy of generic types or levels of complexity. That is to

say, the pertinent characteristic chosen to define specific types should be taken from

progressively lower levels of complexity. In the example of tile house, this would mean

specifying first the outline of the object as a whole, in terms of dimensions and ratios;

second, specifying the characteristics of rooms: their number, relative position and

outline in terms of dimensionsand ratios; and then proceedingto specify the 'structures'

walls, roofs etc. - of each 'their

room: number,arrangement
and outline; then the
-floors,

materials of each structure: their number, arrangementand outline and finally the

specific material and its properties such as texture and colour.

 173

Level of resolution

A concept which facilitates this approachand which has more general application in

morphologicalanalysis is level of resolution. In examining a town, both Conzenand

Caniggiaisolate the forms of a level of complexity in order to analyzethem separately.

With Conzen,the areal arrangementof each plan element is viewed as a separate

element complex. Street-system,

for example, is considered as 'the arrangementof

contiguousintercommunicatingstreetsviewedas a sperateelementcomplexof the town

plan' (1969:130). In the study of central Newcastle (1981:26), the street-systemis

illustrated showingonly street-blockboundariesor street-lines(seeFigure 1). Similarly,

_
the plot pattern is 'the arrangementof contiguousplots in a built-up area viewed as an

element complex of the town '

plan... (1969:128). In the Newcastle study, the plot

pattern is illustrated showingonly the outline of individual plots.- Building pattern is

also 'viewed as a separateelementcomplex' but usually illustrated with other elements.

Caniggiasimilarly isolateselementsas is apparentin the structure of his texts and

the illustrations and diagrams in

used analysis (see Figures 33,34,40,65,125,126,

141). While each element is treated separatelyin the texts, Caniggdais not, however,

as systematicas Conzenin separatingthe elementsgraphically. lie does not maintain

consistent graphic conventionsin this respect.

Evaluating this aspect of their work, Conzen,on the one hand, in such works as

Alnwick and the Newcastle(1962) and Ludlow studies(1966,1975,1983), is much more

consistent in establishing and following graphic conventions for illustrating the separate

element complexes. Caniggia, in contrast, is less consistent, using a variety of different

diagrams and plans, some showing one type of element and others two or more. On the

other hand, Caniggia does systematically separate the elements in setting out the
 174

in Lettura and Progetto, treating one element in each chapter. Conzen treats
chapters

the different elements less consistently but this difference is due primarily to the

difference of purpose of the respective works. Caniggia's is theoretical and intended to

the
emphasise different levels while Conzen's
are casestudies structured chronologically

to emphasise the process of development.

Regardlessof thesedifferences,one of the most important results of separatingthe

different levels theoretically and graphically is that Conzen and Caniggia are able to

in two different ways. The separationfacilitates direct comparison

make comparisons

level each other in order to establish differences in outline

of the elementsof one with

over the entire town. That is, it facilitates the identification of

and repeating patterns

in terms of outline and similar arrangements of elements. The separation thus

elements

facilitates the identification of types of arrangements, which is to say, specific types of

forms occupying the next level up in complexity.

Separating levels also makes it possible to compare the different levels with each

other. Looking at the changes in each level over time it is possible to distinguish

different rates of change between the different levels. Such comparisons have led to the

important postulate of differential rates of change between street patterns, plot patterns

building patterns. It is, indeed, these procedures which distingu ish the works of
and

Conzen, Muratori, Caniggia and other morphologists and the methods- of urban

in general from other approaches to the analysis of the built environment.

morphology

Given both Conzen and Caniggia conceive of the town as an organic whole and

consider the distinction of levels or element complexes as a means of analysis, it is

significant that Conzensaysof building pattern, plot pattern and street-systemthat they

of
are arrangements elementsviewed as separateelement complexes. The conception
 175

of an element complex and its illustration is a matter of view. To distinguish only one

level of form is to limit the resolution of onesview. Aside from the exclusionof aspects

in the conventions of orthographic projection, the illustration of plot pattern, for example,

is a picture of a town which excludesobjects below a given level of complexity. It does

not resolve to a degree of detail finer than the outline of plots. The illustration of plot

pattern does not distinguish or resolve the parts of individual plots (see Figure 1). To

isolate the elements of one level of complexity is thus to view the town at a

corresponding level of resolution. Illustrations of the different form complexes illustrate

the town at different levels of resolution.

Conzen's graphic conventions based on illustrating the element complexes can be

adoptedto the general

suggested definition of form and hierarchy of levels. To illustrate

separatelythe forms of the different generic types is to view the town at different levels

of resolutioncorrespondingto the different levelsof complexity. The conceptionof levels

of resolution provides for a more systematicapproachto analysis and the distinction of

specific types. Increasing the level of resolution of analysis relative to the generic type .

of the forms to be identified is to increase the amount of pertinent details used to

distinguish specific types. It is to include as pertinent characteristics elements from

generic types one or more levels below that of the type to be identified. Increasing the

level of resolution of analysis is to increase the level of specificity of the specific types

distinguished in analysis. 'I'lie level of specificity can be increased in a systematic

fashion by proceeding step-wise, examining forms at progressively higher levels of

resolution relative to the level of the forms to be identified. An analysis can thus be

carried out at a stated level of specificity in terms of level of resolution. Given Conzen's

plan-unit is a combination of streets,plots and buildings, the analysis of plan-units in

I
 176

AInwick was carried out at the level of resolution of the 'building'. That is, in defining

specific types of plan-unit, Conzen distinguished elements from several levels below that

of the plan-unit as constituent parts and so includes street plot and building types of as

pertinent characteristicsin the definition of the plan-units.

Outline

To further specify the analytical view and procedure implied by these conceptions, the

levels of resolution should be conceivedand illustrated in terms of the outline of the

individual elements, following the convention established by'Conzen. Outline is an

additional concept facilitating analysis. The outline of an object in terms of

measurementsof dimensions: and proportions of dimensions is a description of the object.

It is a notation of some of its properties. If, as noted, outline alone is insufficient to

derine form, it can, however,be usedas a conventionalmeansto refer to formsas objects

and can be used as a component in the organization of the pertinent characteristics used

in the definition and distinction of specific types. Outline and even a portion of outline,

such as plot width, even though limited in terms of the definition of form, are very useful

as analytical tools. For example, metrological analysis, using the plot width (Bond 1990;

Lafrenz 1988; Slater 1981,1982,1988b, 1990b; see Figure 102) and geometrical

analysis,using the proportionsof the plan outline of plots (Slater 1990b, see Figure 103)

are powerful tools in the task of determining historical plot patterns.

The graphic outline of a plot, for example,is used to refer to the division of land

and the arrangement of buildings and enclosure walls of which the outline is a partial

description. In addition, measurementsof dimensionsand proportionsof dimensionsof

the outline give a concisesummaryof the arrangementof thoseparts. Outline is a way

 177

of specifyingCCaspects of the arrangement of a form without specifying the

component parts. As a means of defining form, outline assumes the existence of those

parts, whatever they might be. Again, the fact that in some cases the specific type of the

parts cannot be identified because there is no evidence of them or information about

them should not be taken as a justification for the exclusion of that information in the

general definition of form. In all cases,the outline assumesthat somethingwas or is

there.

Further, graphic outline is perhaps the most common form of representationof

in the built environment. Outline may be a representation of only two

objects

dimensions such as the figure resulting from the orthographic projection of the external

boundariesof a three-dimensionalobject, or it may be three dimensional, being the

external boundaries as depicted in other forms of projection- such as isometric,

axonometric and perspective. Outline is also one of the most economical means of

expression in terms of the proportion of content to expression. Outline is thus well

suited to the first step in distinguishing specific types in analysis.

Implications for procedure

The suggestedgeneral definition of f6m, again, includes as pertinent characteristics:

type of parts, referring to the hierarchy of generic types, the specific type of the
generic

parts, their number, arrangement and the position of the form in an object of the next

higher level of complexity. Assumingthat the identified parts are the most complex

entities composing the form, the generic type of the identified from will be one step up

the hierarchy relative to the parts.

 178

Specific types of form can be identified at different levels of specificity by increasing

the level of resolution of analysis relative to the forms to be identified. The first level

of specificity is the distinction of forms at the level of resolution of the forms themselves,

that is by outline. Outline includes the external dimensions of the form and the

proportions of those dimensions. A further distinction is made according to the relative

position of the form. Specific types of plot can be distinguished, for example, by the

plan dimensions of width and depth, the proportions of those dimensions and the position

to others and to a street (see Appendix D, section 5.1).

of the plot relative

The second level of specificity involves increasing the level of resolution to that

corresponding to the next lower level of complexity relative to the forms to be identified.

Specific types of form are then distinguished by identifying the specific type of the

constituent parts (distinguished by outline), the number of each part and the arrangement

of all the parts. Taking again the example of the plot, specific types can be

distinguished by identifying: the type. of constituent parts, that is, buildings and any

other forms which function be extension (such as enclosure walls) or compression; the

number of each type of part and the arrangement of all the different parts (see Appendix

D, section 5-3).

Identifying specific types at the third and higher levels involves distinguishing more

specifically the constituent parts of-a form at each lower level. This is done by

increasing, step-wise, the level of resolution in order to distinguish the objects of the

levels two and more steps down the hierarchy from that of the forms to be identified.

The same procedure is then followed at each level as for the second, identifying the type

of parts, their number and arrangement. Thus, in the case of the plot, the third level

involve distinguishing: the different types of constituent buildings by the type

would
 179

number and arrangement of rooms, different types of room being distinguished only in

outline; different types of enclosure walls, distinguished by construction type, the

materials identified only in outline.

Moving towards synthesis

To define objectsin this way is to define both the objectsand the relations between

them at the sametime. It is also in effect to define the hierarchy of elements. Keeping

in mind both Conzen'sand Caniggia's version of the hierarchy and accepting the

general
suggested definition of form, the question remains, how many levels are in the

hierarchy and what occupieseach level? If, in the abstract,the generic hierarchy taken

from Caniggiacan be extended indefinitely, as he notes (1979:74), the question also

arises of which levels are pertinent to morphology. Taking as a primary goal the

synthesis of Conzen's and Caniggia's analytical subdivisions of form and again accepting

the suggested general definition of form and the structure of the hierarchy of elements

given above, a comparison of Conzen's and Caniggia's specific subdivisions is a means

of answering these questions. Taking into account the criticisms noted in the previous

analyses, the comparison also serves as the basis for suggesting a modified hierarchy

which rectifies the problems identified. The comparison thus involves three entities:

Conzen"s elements and hierarchy, Caniggia's elements and hierarchy and the suggested

general definition of form and structure of levels. The last serves as a reference point

against which to judge the other two.

The synthesis is made possible by the suggested general definition of form and tile

hierarchy it assumes,derived form Caniggia and reinforced by Russell and Whitehead s

work on the distinction of logical types as well as tile distinction of classes, relations and
 180

The generaldefinition providesa structurewithin which the elementsdefined

properties.

by Conzenand Caniggiacan be placed. One of the primary benefits of this structure is

it
that achievesa balance of generality and specificity becauseit defines elementsby

their relative position and internal structure. On the one hand, defining by relative

rangeof forms to satisfy the criterion. Many things might occupy

position allows a wide

position. On the other hand, defining by internal structure makes it possible to

a given

distinguish specifically betweenthe different forms which do occupy a given position.

A DETAILED COMPARISONAND EVALUATION OF SUBDIVISIONS

'Me plot as a starting point for synthesis

As establishedin the previoussectionof this chapter, the plot is the elementwhich has

been chosen as the starting point of comparison and so, ultimately of synthesis.

Fundamentally,for both Conzenand Caniggia,the plot containsthe buildings and is part

of a plot seriesor block. That is, tile plot is the next more complex entity of which the

building is a part. Figures 81-99 show examplesof various types. Conzen'sand

Caniggia'srespectiveconceptionsof the plot haveto someextent alreadybeencompared.

Problems regarding Conzen'sversion were noted, specifically that his definition was

considered too restrictive regarding the actual constituent parts which might make up the

plot. For the same reason it is also inadequate as a component within the suggested

hierarchy of levels. Caniggia's definition is, however, no more adequate. Indeed,

general

the lot, as distinct from 'building', is not even included in his outline of the hierarchy

of elements but only mentioned in the discussion of tissue as a module (though in most
 181

cases the 'building, with the pertinent area, functions as a plot in the examples Caniggia

cites). The plot is thus dealt with more explicitly within Conzen'shierarchy of forms

than in Caniggia's, while both give restrictive derinitions relative to the suggestedgeneral

derinition. As demonstratedabove,the plot can be defined more fully according to the

suggestedgeneraldefinition and so be establishedas a primary elementin the hierarchy

of form.

The importance of the plot in accounting for the diversity of forms is demonstrated

by illustrating a wider variety then thoseshownbe Conzenand Caniggia(Figures81-99).

To consider all these as 'buildings' and so to consider them as composed of 'rooms' with

no other identifiable form in between, is to ignore a large range of forms which would

contribute to a more complete explanation of the built environment. First, there are

examples of plots composed of several different identifiable building types (see Figures

82; 84,86,91,92). Second, other examples show that it is possible to identify different

types of building occupying the same position in plots which are otherwise the same (see

Figures 76-78). Third, it is possible to rind similar types of building used in different

positions within a plot or in plots of different outline (see Appendix D, section 5.3).

Making these distinctions is only possible by identifying and outlining buildings as

a component part of the plot and identifying the plot as a primary element composed of

buildings and other elements. The form betweenroomsand plots might be accounted

for as an intermediate level which is still, to identify it as a form. As there are

theoretically an infinite numberof intermediatelevels, a choice must be made between

primary and intermediate levels at some point. Conzen'sdistinction betweenthe plot

and building and Caniggia's between building and lot argue for distinguishing between

and giving primary status to tile building and the plot. Thus, in proposing a synthesis
 182

of Conzen'sand Caniggia'ssubdivisions,this is to establish an additional level relative

to Caniggia's hierarchy above that of the 'building.

71c building

Having confirmed the distinction of plot and building or more strictly the distinction of

two levels of form in the hierarchy occupied by buildings and plots respectively, the

comparison of the level corresponding to the 'building' can be addressed. The

comparison is complicated by Conzen's distinction of town plan and building fabric. As

a plan element in the town plan, 'building' or 'block-plan' refers to the two dimensional

trace of a three-dimensional object taken as the boundary of an area. The block-plan,

as a trace, does refer, however,

to the three-dimensionalobject. Further detail must be

sought in the treatment of the separateaspect of building fabric which, however, is

limited in Conzen'swritings. Nevertheless,the examplesshownin the study of towns in

the industrial era (1981:99-104; Figures 47-54) indicate the objects to which he is

referring. Though he doesnot strictly define 'building', the plan, section,elevation and

axonometric or isometric drawings are generically similar to those used by Caniggia to

illustrate building types (Figures63-69). Given the lack of a specific detailed definition

on the part of Conzen,

the definition of the plot as containing the building along with the

graphic similarity are the primary bases for positing a correspondence between Conzen's

/building-building fabric/ and Caniggia's /building type/.

Here the different emphasesof Conzen'sand Caniggia'swork becomefully apparent.

Caniggiagoeson to define the parts of buildings, identifying three levels of form below

that of the 'building, namely, 'rooms', 'structures' and 'materials'.

 183

Rooms, structurcs and materials

Conzendoes recognize the elements found in these levels and their importance in

accountingfor the diversity of the built environment. Certainly, throughouthis writings

he recognizesdifferent building types,for example,in distinguishing plan-unit types in

Ainwick and in the discussion of the burgage cycle as well as more directly in his

discussionof buildings in 'The morphologyof townsin Britain during the industrial era'

(1981: 97-104). He also recognizes materials,*as in the studies of Frodsham and Ludlow

(1966), in which he includes a plan showing the distribution of wall materials. By

synthesizing the subdivisions of Conzen and Caniggia, the'lower levels of complexity

recognized by Caniggia can be included in a systematic and coherent manner. Certainly

to restrict the level of resolution of analysis to the outline of the building is to exclude

a great deal that contributes to the character and identity of villages, towns and cities.

At the most abstract, given the interconnection of elements made explicit in the

hierarchy of elements, the higher levels of complexity can-only be explained by reference

to the lower levels. Taking a more concrete example, the developments in building

materials over the 19th century have had a considerable effect on urban form due to the

implications of these developments for building types. - Structural steel, reinforced

concrete and glass as building materials allowed for the development, for example, of the

great train sheds, skyscrapersand megastructures. The form of these buildings has

implications for the structure and form of plots and blocks and so of plan-units and

It
towns. still might be argued that such detail is unnecessaryfor the explanation of a

town,or can be assumedby referring to the building outline. Further, such detail might

be considered too burdensometo produce for more than a few examples. Such an

argument cannot be counteredby referenceto any specific study as a standardand so

 184

to include such detail in order for a study to be valid. Ultimately, the

a requirement

level of resolution of any given study will depend on the specific intentions of the study.

The argument for including the lower levels of complexity and so higher levels of

of analysis in a systematic way, is to allow for different intentions within the

resolution

framework. This it
makes possible to synthesize the results of different
same analytical

the different concerns of different researchers on the basis

- specific studies, to synthesize

of a common view of form, leading, step by to

step, a better understanding of the built

Thus, for example, the relatively extensive work on building

environment as a whole.

types (e. Brunskill 1971,1982; Caniggia 1963,1976,1979,1984; Maretto 1960;

g.

Moudon 1986; Muthesius 1982) can be placed in a specific position in the context of the

hierarchy of form. The result is a greater understanding of both the building types and

the forms of higher complexity of which they are a part.

For the purposes of providing the common view or framework, Caniggia's definitions

level to buildings and the further levels occupied by rooms,

of the corresponding

and materials should be included in the suggested general structure of

structures

those of Conzen and Caniggia. Given that Caniggia's definition

elements, synthesizing

hierarchy and elements is the basis for the suggested general definition of form,
of the

there is little problem in adapting Caniggia's definition of the lower levels of complexity

to the suggested structure. ý The main issues cited in the analysis of Caniggia's

were the inclusion of use and derivation in the definitions, the various
subdivisions

types used to differentiate specific types within each generic type

characterizations of

and the issue of substructures.

Arguments for the exclusion use and derivation from the definition of form have been

presented in the previous chapters of analysis. It was also argued there that the
 185

characterizationsused by Caniggia are not pertinent to the definition of form. The

remainingpertinent characteristicsused by Caniggiain defining form are thoseselected

for the suggestedgeneraldefinition of form as set out in this chapter.

This is not to say use, derivation, the typological process and axes of opposing

propertiesshould be dismissedentirely. They must remain as aspectsof the phenomena

to be examinedand are important conceptsin the explanation of form. They are some

of the most fundamental contributions to morphology made by Muratori, Caniggia and

other of Muratori's students. These other aspects are not strictly the topic of this thesis

and are only discussedfurther in outline in connectionwith explanation.

Substructures
and intermediatelevels

The issue of substructuresraised by aperturesand horizontal structures in section I of

chapter 3 is resolved by the concepts of intermediate levels and compression introduced

in the preceding section of this chapter. Addressing the issue more specifically, the term

9aperture' itself presents a problem when referring to form. The 'opening' of a door or

window is the lack of wall material and so cannot be defined as a form as suggestedat

either a primary or intermediated level. I'lie opening is the result of the arrangement

of the materials forming the wall but is not strictly a 'part' of the wall. This aside,

taperture', as used by Caniggia, refers to the frame and membrane of a door or window

which rills the opening, excluding any component of the load bearing parts of the wall.

As an identifiable arrangementof inaterials, the window or door frame and

membranemust be consideredas occupying the level of 'structures' but as a part in a

more complex form it is still part of the wall and so functions at the level of 'materials'.
 186

The frame and membrane must, therefore, be seen as occupying an intermediate level

betweenmaterials and structures. It is a substructure(see Figures 22 and 23).

Caniggia also identifies and names the horizontal structure associatedwith an

aperture. He does not refer to it as a 'structure within a structure', but he does cite it

as a distinct entity. As identifiable entities, different types of horizontal structure must

be addressedin different ways. An arch, as an arrangementof bricks or stonesand as

an identifiable part of a wall, must also be consideredas a substructureand so to occupy

an intermediatelevel betweenmaterialsand structures. In contrast, a beam of woodor

stone, as a homogeneous single unit of building material must be considered as a

different specific type of material which functions as a part in the arrangement of the

wall. It is generally similar to a single stone or brick and is not, therefore, a

substructure.
In some cases, there is a distinct or articulated frame around the opening which

includes the horizontalstructure,jambsand cill, and so formsan identiriable entity. 77he

articulated frame must, therefore,be considered as a substructure as well. In more

elaborate examples, the articulated frame made up of horizontal structure, jambs and cill

and the frame and membraneof the opening must be consideredtogether as a single

identifiable entity (seeFigure24). The whole must be consideredas a substructureand

the component's broken down into further intermediate levels. In many cases there is an

interconnectionbetweenparts makingdefinitive distinction of parts into different levels

impossible. Here it should be noted in general that with the conceptsof compression

and extension it is possible to account for such complex forms in any number of ways.

The guiding principle in deciding which account to choose must be that of Occam's

Razor: the simplest account which explains the phenomenonmust be consideredthe

 187

best. In cases where there is ambiguity and no single account is satisfactory, the limits

of the ambiguity should be identified and the case openly stated as ambiguouswithin-

thoselimits. It is the fact of ambiguity that then demandsexplanation. The levels of

materials, structures, rooms and buildings and the intervening intermediate levels

constitutethe realm of architecture. Ambiguity and interplay betweendistinct structures

is in some cases intentional on the part of the architect. Whether conscious or

unconscious, explicitly intentional and discussed verbally or not, a great deal of

ingenuity and imaginationhavebeenput into the designof elementswithin theselevels.

Ambiguity of identifiable structures or entities is often cited as a demonstrationof

creativity and skill on the part of the designer. I'his is not to say that such ambiguities

were conceived in terms of compressionof levels. Rather, ambiguity of levels and

compression are ways of describing and distinguishing forms a posiviori. - The purpose

of explanation is then to attempt to connect the ambiguity and compression with the

conceptsand aestheticswhich brought about the forms.--

71c, problem of the level above the plot

Accepting the synthesis as suggestedthus far gives a hierarchy of five primary levels of

complexity, the lowest being occupied by materials and the others by structures,rooms

buildings and plots respectively. The next level for comparisonis thus the next above

the plot. This level presentsdifficulties both becauseof the differencebetweenConzen's

and Caniggia's general conception of the structure of the built environment and because

has shown that problems emerge in Conzen's and Caniggia's derinitions

analysis at this

point.
 188
The implications of general conception and procedure

on the definition offomi

Regarding the first issue, Conzen'sgeographicalperspective sees the town, or more

specifically the form complexesand element complexes,in terms of discrete elements

and their distribution pattern. Conzenthus identifies elementsand elementcomplexes.

That is, having identified distinct types of form, the building, plot and street, he

conceives of the combination of any one type of element as the pattern of that one type

over the entire town. Within each pattern lie then distinguishes different specific types

of each element. In contrast, Caniggia sees -the combination of a given element as

another distinct type of

of object which there may be many different types over the area

of the town. For Caniggia, a combination of plots is not the plot pattern of the entire

town but a single tissue which is another type of element. A combination of tissues may

then be a "town' or part of a 'town'. For Caniggia, the pattern of any one element over

the whole town is not an entity but an analytical tool. In-the attempt to conceiveof the

it
town as was built, the pattern over the whole town of a given element plays no direct

part. The pattern is useful in attempting to determine how the town was conceived, after

the fact, in analysis. T'his is not to say that Caniggia's divisions are any more real or

that Conzenwould consider the element complexesas anything but analytical tools.

Indeed, the difference reduces to one of emphasis and the status conferred on the

patterns by Conzen in calling the patterns element complexes. Ultimately, Conzen and

Caniggia both use the pattern of single elementsover the whole town for the purposeof

distinguishing types. For Conzen, it is not the pattern as a whole which contributes to

the explanation of the town, but the types distinguished within the patterns and their

inclusion in plan-units. The types from each complex in themselves in

and together
I
 189

plan-units are the entities which are used in explanation. The difference between

Conzenand Caniggiain this respectis thus moreone of specific procedurethan content.

Further, Conzendoes conceive of form in a way similar to that of Caniggia in the

definition for plan-units and plan-divisions. A plan-unit is a combinationof buildings,

plots and streets in the sameway that a tissue is a combination of buildings, lots and

routes. For both Conzenand Caniggia,then, there is a general distinction betweenthe

pattern of a single elementover the whole town, which is used for the analytical purpose

of distinguishing types, and the types themselves,and the combinationor arrangement

of types to form objectsof the next higher level of complexity. This latter conceptionis

to be taken for the purposesof synthesizingthe two setsof subdivisions. The pattern of

type of element over the whole town is the illustration of the town at a
a single generic

given level of resolution. That illustration is an analytical tool used for the purpose of

distinguishing specific types at the lowest level of specificity for the generic type

illustrated. Thus, an illustration of the plot pattern is an illustration of the town at the

level of resolution of the plot in which the plots are shown only in outline (see Figures

1,101). From this illustration, it is possible to distinguish specific types of plot only to

the first level of specificity, that is, by similarities and differences of outline only. To

distinguish specific types of plots at a higher level of specificity it is necessary to

increase the level of resolution of the illustration to that of the building. Differences and

similarities in the number, 'outline and arrangement of buildings and other elements

composing a plot can then be included in the distinction of specific types of plot.

In terms of the general conception of form, this puts the emphasis, as Caniggia does,

types of form as constituents of a given town or urban area. The pattern

on the specific
 190

of the forms of a single level is seen as a particular view of the town to be used for the

purposes of analysis.

Assumingthis conception,Conzen'sbuilding fabric, block plan and building pattern,

plot and plot pattern and Caniggia'smaterials,structures,rooms,buildings and lot have

been accountedfor within the five levels adopted so far. It remains to determine the

elementsabove the level of the plot. T'his brings up the problems encounteredin the

individual analyses of Conzen's and Caniggia's subdivisions.

Accountingfor the lost elementsof the block,

plot series and pertinent strip

With Conzen'ssubdivisions,the issueis the inclusion of the block not as an elementbut

as 'a discrete part of the plot pattern' (1969: 130) and the further identification of the

plot series, which, like the block, is generically an arrangement of plots. The result is

that there are two types of identifiable entities within the plot pattern. Put into the terms

of the suggested general definition of form, this issue must be dealt with either by the

inclusion of the block and plot series in an intermediate level between that occupied by

the plot and the next primary level above that of the plot, or the inclusion of the block

and plot series in a primary level above that of the plot.

With Caniggia, there is a similar problem of several identifiable entities being

included in one level. Within tissue there is the lot, identified as the module, the

pertinent strip and the built route. Accepting the argumentsthat Caniggia'slot is to be

as equivalent to Conzen's plot and occupies a separate level, there remain

considered

two entities within the level of tissue, the pertinent strip and built route. In termsof the
 191

general
suggested definition of form, thesemust be accountedfor in distinct levels, either

different primary levels or intermediatelevels.

To addresstheseissuesdemandsa comparisonof the elementsConzenand Caniggia

identified by asking the questionused in determining the definition of the plot. Taking

the plot as the constituentelement,what is the next morecomplexform of which the plot

is a part? What other parts go to form that more complex object? What position as a

part does that more complex object occupy? What other objects occupy a similar

position?

Theplot seriesor pertinent strip

Both Conzen and Caniggia identify a simple arrangement of plots which Conzen terms

9plot series' and Caniggia terms 'pertinent strip' (see Figures 100,101 and 126). For

Caniggia, the pertinent strip is a constituent of a built route, the latter being a type of

tissue. Equally, for Conzen the plot series is a component of a plan-unit. Tentatively,

then, it may be suggested that the simple arrangement of plots corresponding to the plot

series and pertinent strip is an identifiable form occupying a primary level above the plot

and below the plan unit or tissue. This would solve the problem of the presenceof two

elements in one level, one being an aggregate of the other, identified in the analyses of

Conzen's and Caniggia's subdivisions

The block

The block, however,is also a combination of plots and is a form identified by both

Conzenand Caniggia. The distinctive feature of the block relative to the plot series is

that it is surrounded entirely by streets. Caniggia argues that the block is a combination
 192

of pertinent strips, being the result of the fusion of severalbuilt routes. This conception,

while valid in many cases,showsthe limits imposed by Caniggia'sconcentrationon a

particular region and period. One of the fundamentalpremisesof Caniggia'smethod is

to
that the attempt reconstructthe town is done according to the conception by which

it was built. T'he analytical or a posterioti type is meant to approach, asymptotically, the

a prioti type of -The

consciousness.
spontaneous bias for the Medieval period is shown,

therefore, in the exclusion of both the Classical Greek and Roman and earlier (Assyrian,

Egyptian,Near Eastern,Chinese,etc.) conceptionsaswell as that of the Renaissanceand

later in which the town is conceived as a pattern of streets and blocks. It also excludes

most of the planned townsof the Middle Ages (though Caniggiaarguesthat such plans

were 'guided' by the 'formative laws' of built routes [1979:169-71]). In many of these

casesit is not possibleto divide the block into separate'pertinent strips' which can be

to
unequivocally related a street in order to form a built route. The block as conceived

for the original plan of San Franciscois an example (see Figure 115).

To avoid Caniggia's bias and to satisfy the criteria of generality as well as specificity

it would seem necessary to account for the block as a constituent form. Tentatively,

then, the block should be placed along with the plot series in the level of the hierarchy

betweenthat of the plot and the plan-unit or tissue. Including the block and the plot

as types of form at the same level helps to overcome the problem

series or pertinent strip

the presence of two elements in one level encountered in both Conzen's and Caniggia's
of

Examination of the next level will help to support this suggestion.

subdivisions.
 193

Theblock and the street1block

pattem

It is a curious point that Conzendid not identify the block as a plan element. Had he

done so he could have accountedfor both the block and the street system. That is, the

block pattern, consideringonly the outline of the blocks determinesthe samefigure as

the street system. Streetsand blocks are complementaryelementsof the samepattern.

If the block were consideredas the sole element, however,the problem would remain.

It would not be possible to identify individual streets as entities, the streets being the

result of the arrangementof blocks. That is, of course, staying within Conzen's

conception of the element complex. Using the general conception adapted from Caniggia,

or, indeed, Conzen's conception of the plan-unit, it is possible to include both the street

and the block as constituentelements.

Thestreetor route as a form

Caniggia's definition of tissue includes the street as a constituent part as do most of the

plan-units identified by Conzen. The question then arises, what kind of forin is the

Caniggia defines 'route' as 'the structure which allows a place to be reached'

street?

(1979:128). This definition givesno indication of the physical nature of the street unless

9structure' is interpreted in the specific sense used by Caniggia in referring to 9an

arrangement of materials'. This interpretation would seem to accommodate most

examples. Within the suggested framework of elements, it would then occupy a primary

between that of materials and that of 'rooms'. By extension it could then be

position

to occupy successively the levels corresponding to buildings, plots and tissue

considered

This degree of extension should not be considered an anomaly. As

or plan-units.

Caniggia notes 'a building cannot exist without a route' (1979: 127). The route is
I
 194

fundamental and necessary structures 'created' by man. It has

perhaps one of the most

far
beenpossibleto proceedthis without discussingthe route because it is not internal

to the forms which have been examined. In many cases,however, knowledge of

to and from routes is essential in the explanationof forms. Accessand

points of access

to through forms in the built environmentare fundamentalaspectsin the

movement and

in the forms human

accommodate intentions and uses.
way which

Returning to Conzen'sview ?f the street, lie does in a senseinclude both the street

block in his definition of the street system. He explicitly names the street as the
and

but the object actually determined by the definition is in effect the block. He
element

does not refer to the street as a material object which can be outlined but as a space

between blocks. It is possible, however, to derine the street as a distinct object, as

by Caniggia. As a structure it is a composition of materials (from compacted

suggested

free of obstructions to reinforced concrete) oriented horizontally and

earth -orý earth

usually level with the ground, of parallel sides of such and such a width and such and

such a length.

Accounting for different types of route and

intersections and pavements

With this definition the problemregardingtile contiguity of streetsnoted in the analysis

Conzen'sstreet-systemarisesagain. Given that the street surface is often continuous

of

in level and surfacematerial and that streetsoften come in

together, complex ways, it is

difficult to divide the street system into constituent streets. This problem can be

by defining streets using the suggested general definition of form and using
addressed

of intersection both in its common usage for streets and in its strict sense
the concept
 195

from set theory. Specific types of street can be defined in terms of the specific type of

parts, their number and arrangement and a street's position relative to other streets. It

is then possible to distinguish different types of street and different distinct streets within

the pattern of streets and blocks (see Figures 106-108). The length of street for which

these aspects remain relatively constant is then an individual street and lines can be

drawn between distinct streets where the aspects change (see Figure 107). If a change

in the aspects occurs along a continuous length of street, such as a market or square, the

distinct segments can then be considered as a distinct types of street (see Figure 109).

To account for the whole oCthestreet system,the areaswhich can be consideredas part

of two or more separatestreets should be considered as distinct entities, that is, as

intersections. As the intersectionof two sets is the set of elementscommonto both, the

intersection of streets is that area common to both. Further, the suggested general

definition can be applied to intersections in order to distinguish different specific types

of intersection. On the one hand there is the simple perpendicularcrossingand on the

other, a huge variety of squares, etc. (see Figure 110).

Another issue is the pavement or sidewalk. Is it a part of the street or the. block?

On the one hand, the pavementis an extensionof and contiguouswith the block and

often a continuousfigure aroundit (seeFigure 111). On the other, the pavementis often

designedas part of the street (see Figure 118). This is another case of an ambiguous

element occupyingan intermediatelevel similar to window and door surrounds. As part

of the street, the pavement is often of different design to the roadway and so a

As part of the block it is a distinct component, similar to the case of a

substructure.

free-standingwall around a plot but horizontal rather than vertical. It should thus be

identified as ambiguous.
I
 196
Plan-units and tissue

Accepting the plot seriesand block as elementsoccupyingthe level abovethe plot, and

the street as another distinct element occupying the same level by extension, it is

possible to identify Caniggia'stissuesand Conzen'splan-units as arrangementsof these

elements. That is, tissuesor plan-units are the next more complex object of which the

plot series or block is a part, the street being another constituent element. That the

plan-unit should occupy a primary rather than an intermediate level is argued by the

prevalence of the form as an identifiable object in most if not all types of settlement.

In terms of internal arrangement of parts, Conzen and Caniggia both identify similar

types of entity. At a low level of specificity, Conzen's High Street Layout, suburbium and

arterial and residential ribbons are very similar to Caniggia's built routes (see Figures

126,127,135 and 137). Each is a combination of a single street bounded on either side

by plot series, usually with rectangular plots oriented perpendicularly to the street. It

is noticeable at this point, by looking at the different types of units identified by Conzen

and Caniggia and at the way in which they are defined, that both Conzen and Caniggia

are defining similar things in similar ways and both are easily adapted to the suggested

general derinition of elements.

Level of specificity and the definition of plan-units and zissue

Within the frameworkof the suggestedgeneral definition, it is possible to include the

level of detail used by Conzen in AInwick in distinguishing plan-unit types. By

increasing the level of specificity of the definition to four levels and so resolving to the

level of buildings, the definition of a plan-unit or tissue is similar to that of Conzen's.

Here Conzen's and Caniggia's view and method come together most felicitously and
 197
fruitfully. Their conception and method are more similar at this point. With the plan-

unit Conzenbrings together the elements first separatedinto element complexesand

defines objects as a combinationof parts in a manner similar to Caniggia. Conzen's

strength here, relative to Caniggia,is in the variety of plan-units which he is able to

distinguish. He hasdescribedand explaineda wider variety of examples. This strength

is reinforced and increasedby combining it with Caniggia'sstrength,as adapted in the

suggestedgeneral definition of form, which is the consistencyand coherenceof his

general conception of form. Any one level intrinsically encompassesall those below it.

All the detail necessary to define a range of types is presented in a systematic way within

the samehierarchy of form.

General types of plan-unit or tissue

Examining a variety of examples at a low level of specificity, distinguishing only streets,

plot series and blocks in outline, it is possible to identify several basic types of plan-unit

or tissue. At one end of a spectrum is the cul-de-sac type, common to towns in the

Middle East, North Africa as well as some EuropeanMedieval towns and 20th century

suburbs. It is a street with plot serieson either side and one end. - There is thus only

one accesspoint to the unit. At the other end of the spectrumis a block or arrangement

of blocks surroundedon all sidesby streets. Betweenthesetwo typesare the built route

and ribbon forms identified previously. The latter type often -has side streets

perpendicular to the main street of the main street may split to form aY (see Figure

130).
 198

Phenomena of ambiguity: shared forms and resultant forms

Severalissuesarise when examininghow theseunits go togetherto form larger entities,

when
or conversely, attemptingto identify units within a specific town. One is the issue

of shared foms, in particular shared streets. Another issue is that raised by Caniggia's

conceptionof the block. How can such an identifiable entity be accountedfor within the

hierarchy of forms.

Sharedstreets

In the case of the built route type of plan-unit, the street is internal to the unit, the

boundaries of the unit lying along those,of the plot series. The street is thus

unambiguouslypari of the unit. In the case of plan-units with a street on the outside,

there is the possibility the street will be sharedwith another plan-unit. Examplesare

Conzen'sTraditional Arterial Ribbons and CompositeRibbons (see Figure 137, vi and

xii). The shared street is ambiguously related to two or more different plot series. As

plan-units, none of the associated units is satisfactorily left without the street as a

component. As in other cases of ambiguity, the principle should be to identify the limits

of the ambiguity. Figure 142 shows a graphic convention for indicating a street shared

by two plan-units.

In somecases,as in someof the streetsidentified by Conzenin Alnwick (seeFigure

137, viii), or Market Street in San Francisco (see Figure 144), the street may best be

considered a unit in itself by extension. In such cases,the street works as a seam,

linking togetherseveraldifferent units. In manycasesthis is the result of the street pre-

dating the various units.

 199

Resultantblocks'

The other main issue encounteredin attempting to define units is the resultant block.

This is the block as describedby Caniggia(1979:136). The resultant block is madeup

of severalplot serieseachof which is a constituentof separateunits, usually of the type

by Caniggia'sbuilt routes. This view of the block is supportedby arguing

represented

in
that, termsof the processof formation,the block appearsas the result of the creation

first of a matrix route followedby two perpendicularplanned building routeswhich are

in turn followed by the creation of a connecting route betweenthe planned building

to the matrix route (see Figures 126 and 127). At issue is tlfe fact that
routes, parallel

the block, as an'identifiable form, does not have a place in the hierarchy.

Looking at this phenomenon in terms of the suggested'general definition, the issue

because the plot series making up the block have first been associated with a
arises

the combination has been identified as a plan-u-nit or tissue., Ile 'parts9, at

street and

the lower level in the hierarchy are the street and plot seriesand the whole, at the next

level up, is the built route. The plot series making up what is identified as a block have

been tied to a plan-unit which is a form occupying a level above that-of the
already

block. In this case,the block is a featurewhich is composedof parts from two or more

different tissues. I'lie block is not a constituent part of any one of the tissuesbut is a

of their juxtaposition. Two characteristicsidentify this phenomenon.Ile

resultantfonn

the resultant form crosses the boundaries between the contributing

outline of M

forms and the resultant form, in terms of constituent parts, occupies a level

below that of the contributing forms. Other examples of this phenomenon can be

found at different levels in the hierarchy. One is the semi-detachedpair and anotherthe

terraCe (see Figure 105).

1
 200

The issue of resultant forms arises because it is possible to subdivide forms in

,,

different ways. Having decided on one subdivision, looking back, a form appears which

is the result of a different subdivision. In the case of the resultant block, outlining

distinct plot series and streets as parts at one level and built routes at the next higher

is one way. Outlining whole blocks and streets at one level and a grid plan-unit at the

level is The resultant block can only be identified as such when the
next another way.

composing the block can be identified and associated with a street to form a
plot series

built route.

While, in a sense, a resultant form is 'outside' a given identified hierarchy of

forms, resultant forms should, nonetheless, be taken into account. The

constituent

forms, which taken together give rise to the resultant forms, should be
contributing

identified. In the case of the resultant block, the contributing forms are the built mutes.

This is to identify the position occupied by the resultant form. The contributing parts

be identified. This is to identify the constituent parts of the resultant form,

should also

in the case of the resultant block, would be the plot series. The resultant form
which,

is thus described in the same way as constituent forms and its relation to the hierarchy,

though 'outside', is still made explicit.

Chronological comparative analysis

Practically speaking, determining if a block was conceived as such or is a resultant block

is perhaps one of the more vexing problems of analysis at this level. A simple block

that conceived for the original grid of San Francisco (see Figure 115) is fairly
such as

as a block, especially with unambiguous corroborating

clearly an entity conceived

Looking at these simple blocks as they have developed over time, or cases
evidence.
 201

where the original design of the block was more complex (see Figures 116,117), it is

moredifficult to determineif the entity is a resultant block or originally built as a block.

In either case,there is compressionand it is necessaryto consider the block as divided

into plot series. Each plot seriesthen occupiesan intermediatelevel betweenthat of the

plot and the plot series/block.

One of the primary assumptions of morphology serves as a guide in addressing the

problem of distinguishing the constituent from the resultant block. That assumptionis

that form is the result of the processof formation. In the attempt to trace and describe

the process of formation, it is necessary to identify and describe forms as they were

originally built. The whole purpose of examining records of earlier states of a town is

to be able to describe its form in

at various stages order to establish the processof

formation. At each stage the constituent forms are described in the same way - by their

internal structure and relative position. By comparing the different states of a town at

different times it is possibleto determinetile form and structure of different parts of the

town and the sequence in which they were added. So, regarding the distinction of

constituent and resultant blocks, analysis of the different states of a town through time,

or chronological analysis,
comparative makes it possible to determine if a combination

of plot serieswas originally built as a block or developedinto one over time through the

building of severalbuilt routes.

Another guide is to comparethe specific componentswithin the block and within

adjacent blocks, increasingthe level of resolution of analysis as necessary,even to the

level of buildings, if the evidenceis available. If there is a greaterdegreeof similarity

between buildings within the block than within plot series either side of a bounding

street, one might likely decide that the block wasoriginally conceivedas such. This can
 202

indication. There are far too many variations and

obviously only serve as a general

to possibly address here.

specific situations

Interim summary of results

Toward the goal of synthesizing Conzen's and Caniggia's subdivisions and suggesting a

hierarchy of form, the exercise of comparison has suggested taking the general
revised

definition of form and the first four levels from Caniggia, taking the level of plot from

Conzen and adding a new level corresponding to the plot series and block. Relative to

Caniggia's subdivisions, this is to add two levels between those of the building and

tissue. The additional levels solve the problem of conflation in Caniggia's subdivision

in chapter three and systematically account for the entities of the lot and pertinent
cited

identified by Caniggia but not accounted for in the hierarchy of elements. Relative
strip

to Conzen's subdivisions, all the plan elements, and the plan-units, are adapted to and

included in a single hierarchy of form. Further, three levels are added below that of the

building. In this adaptation, the level corresponding to Conzen's street-system is

to account for the street, the block and plot series. The street is identified as
adjusted

defined not by blocks but by internal structure and position. The latter change
an entity

the problem cited in chapter two of the two elements within the level of the plot,
solves

the systematic incorporation of the plot series into the - hierarchy of form and
allows

the defined by Conzen.

resolves the ambiguous nature of street as

ýMe problem of the level above the plan- uni t/I issue

The adoption of a level occupied by the plot series/block and street also provides the

basis for equating Caniggia's tissue and Conzen's plan-unit, which then occupy a level
 203

one step up from that of the plot series/block. The next higher level to be examined is

to
thus that corresponding arrangementsor combinationsof plan-unit/tissue. For Conzen,

such combinationsare the plan divisions and for Caniggia urban organisms.

Comparingthe specific forms identified by Conzenand Caniggia again showsthe

strength of Conzen'swork at this level. Caniggia identifies only two basic, schematic

formswhile Conzenidentifies at least two specific forms, the kernel and fringe belt and

the more general integument. Further, the distinction of several types of fringe belt -

inner, intermediate and outer - as separateentities expands the number of forms he

identifies. While the connectionbetweenplan-units and plan divisions is somewhat

based on statements such as 'plan division: a geographical group of morphogenctic

vague,

plan units (1969: 128) and '[plan divisions] of the lowest order ... can readily be

identified as plan-type units, ' the fact that they are distinguished by the 'criteria of

internal homogeneity in terms of plan morphology (1969: 116) suggests that

relative .-, .'

the plan division is adaptableto the general

suggested definition of elements. A plan

division can be defined by the pertinent characteristics of the generic type of part (plan-

by the specific type of the parts (specific plan-type units), their number and
units),

(relative internal homogeneity), and their relative position (kernel, inner,

arrangement

intermediate and outer fringe belts).

Theproblemof plan-unit typesand sub-typesand the

concept of constituent fomi

There is, however, a problem. In principle, if the lowest order of plan-division is the

as shown in chapter two, then both the plan-unit type, defined by

plan-unit sub-type, as

Conzen, and the next higher order plan division are equivalent entities, both being
 204

plan-unit sub-types. The problem is that in practice, as shown in the

combinations of

of Alnivick, the third order plan-divisions do not all correspond to plan-unit

example

types. Presumably, this is because the pertinent characteristics used to define plan-units

are different. Because those characteristics are not explicitly stated

and plan-divisions

there is no way to judge. I'his is one of the more difficult problems presented by

Conzen's work and one not clarified by later publications nor explanations by Conzen

himself.

Comparison of the plan-units and plan-divisions identified in AInwick shows that in

to
somecasesthe plan-units correspond specific plan-aivisions,that is, to an identifiable

single part of the town, such as the Medieval High Street layout and Suburbium (3rd

order plan divisions). In other cases,specifically the residential accretions,the 'plan-

is '
unit' merely a class of sub-types. That is, the 'plan-unit' does not constitute a single

identifiable form or object in the hierarchy of forms,defined by its internal structure and

relative position. It is the distribution pattern of a number of examplesof a form (a

combination of buildings plots and streets) defined on the basis of use and period of

origin. To someextent this begs the question of the difference betweena distribution

pattern and an 'identifiable form'. Both are, in general, defined by the pertinent

characteristicsof the type of part and the spatial relations of those parts.

In the contextof the suggestedgeneraldefinition of elements,the primary difference

betweena distribution patternand an 'identifiable form' is the level of specificity applied

in describing the arrangementof parts. The orientationand specific position of the parts

relative to each other and the whole are consideredas pertinent characteristics in the

definition of an identifiable or, we shall say, constituentform in contrast to merely the

mixture of forms in terms of percentageper unit area. The fringe belts and outer
 205

accretionsof Alnwick as outlined on the map of plan-divisions (Figure 138) are examples

of constituent forms. The classification and grouping of plan-unit sub-types and types

outlined on the map of types of plan-units by period of origin and use (Figure 137) are

distribution patterns.

Comparingthe two mapsindicates that if one acceptsthe forms in Figure 138, the

groupings in Figure 137 run counter to those forms. An 'outer accretion', for example,

is not necessarily made up of plan units from the same period. In the case of the fringe

belt, it is suggestedhere, taking into account the arguments regarding form and use, that

the inclusion of use as a pertinent characteristic in the definition of the fringe belt is

unnecessary. I'lie various components of the fringe belt can be identified on the basis

of their outline and internal structure and the whole form of the fringe belt by their

arrangement. Further, the components of the fringe belt can be distinguished by their

relative position. The uses which have been involved in the formation of the fringe belt,

such as institutions, industry etc., should thus be seenas a basis for explanationof the

form rather than its definition.

Taking period of origin and use as primary pertinent characteristics in defining

entities leads to the identification of deceptive 'objects'. The distribution pattern of

examplesof plan-unit types, like plot pattern and building pattern, is necessaryfor the

s
purpose of analysis.The distribution pattern does not, however,present an hypothesis

concerning the structure of the town, as does the map of plan divisions.

The problem of discontinuity

A further complication in identifying the forms at this level is their discontinuous nature,

making it that much more difficult to outline a constituent form. In the end it perhaps
 206

comesdown to aestheticsand familiarity. A fringe belt forms a figure which is, as a

notion, simple in gross outline -a ring - and a manifestation of a conception - the

annular growth of towns - which has been current for some time. It may be that there

are other forms of order which better explain the growthand transformationof townsbut

they remain to be suggested.

The problem of too few examples

To either corroboratethe choiceof the fringe belt and residential integumentsor suggest

new forms, in addition or as alternatives, it is necessary to identify entities which have

a consistent internal structure and a consistent position relative to other forms as found

in a number of examples. Morphology is necessarily a comparative discipline. To

identify forms it is necessary to compare one thing with another. Before it is possible

to say with any certainty that the fringe belt, or any other form, is a type of form rather

than a single instance, it is necessary to cite several examples. The fact that so few

forms have been identified at this level and that those that have are somewhat elusive

is in part due to the fact that so few studies of sufficient breadth and detail have been

carried out to allow for comparison.

Tentatively, then, the kernel, fringe belt and residential integumentcan be taken as

typical combinations of plan-units and so adapted to the suggested general definition of

elements,occupying the level abovethe plan-unit/tissue. Given Conzen'sdistinction of

sub-types and types and distinction of several orders of plan division, four in the case

of Alnwick and rive in the case of Ludlow (1966), the questions arise, first, of whether

it is the sub-type or type which should be taken to occupy the level above the plot

series/block, and second, how many levels there might be above it.
 207

Conzen'splan-unit type and sub-type in the context of

the suggestedhierarchy ofform

Examining the,plan-unit sub-typesidentified in Alnivick, it is apparent that different

kinds of object are consideredas sub-typesand that there are thereforedifferent kinds

of relation betweenthosedifferent sub-typeand the types. In the case of the Medieval

High Street Layout (Figure 137,plan-unit [i]), the sub-typesare plot series. They arc

distinguished because,though originally similar, they have changed in different ways

over time. The different plot seriesoccupy specific positions relative to the street and

each other. The composition of those elements constitutes the type, which is a

constituentform as discussedabove. The relation betweenthe sub-typeand the type is

thus part to whole, specifyingrelative position of parts. The is

relation thus similar to

in
that posited the suggestedgeneral definition of elements.

In the case of the Traditional Arterial Ribbons (Figure 137, plan-unit [vi]) and

Residential Accretions (plan-units [ix], [x], [xi]), the sub-typesare each combinations

of buildings, plots and streets. That is to say, each sub-type is an exampleof the same

generaltype. The type, as a combinationof is

sub-types, not consideredas a constituent

form as in the case of the Medieval High Street Layout. The type in the case of the

Ribbons and Accretions is a class or category rather than a form. The internal

arrangementof the parts, that is, the membersof the class, is not taken as a pertinent

characteristic in the definition of the type. Thus the sub-types of the Ribbons and

Accretions are equivalent to the types of the Medieval High Street Layout and the

Suburbium, being defined in terms of internal structure and constituent parts and in

some cases relative position. This interpretation is reinforced by Conzen'suse of the

plural in referring to the Ribbonsand Accretions in contrast to the Medieval High Street
I
 208

Layout and Suburbium. It is also reinforced by the fact that the sub-types of the

MedievalHigh StreetLayoutare groupedwithin a single plan division (Figure 138, Ala),

and the Ribbons and Accretionsare consideredas separatedivisions (AIV, AV) if they

are considereddivisions at all.

Given theseproblems,it would seemthat Conzen'sdistinction of sub-typeand type

is not of use in attempting to adapt his plan-unit to the suggested framework of elements.
I
In the suggested framework, the inclusion of a level occupied by the plot series and

block accounts for the sub-typeS in the case of the Medieval High Street Layout, the

plan-unit type would then occupy the next level up. The different sub-types in the case

of the Ribbons and Accretions, as different arrangements of plot series or block and

streets, are accounted for as specific types of plan-unit or tissue, occupying the level

above that of the plot series/block. The plan-unit types of the Ribbons and Accretions,

not being constituent forms but merely classes of specific types of units, are not to be

for
accounted within the hierarchy of form. Rather, they are subsetsof the generic type

of the unit, distinguished on the basis of period of origin and use. These categories or

subsets may be useful as guides in the process of analysis but should not be considered

as specific types of form unless verified by the pertinent characteristics of internal

structure and relative position.

This is not to say that there mayýnot be the need to account for forms in terms of

intermediatelevels. In the caseof Alnwick, Conzen'ssub-typenumber 17 (Figure 137),

which as a combinationof plot series and street should occupy the level of the unit in

hierarchy
the suggested- of levels, would remain as a part of, or function within, plan-unit

(i), The Medieval High Street Layout. That is, the combination of the two entities does

not form an entity of the next higher level. Sub-type 17 is thus best accounted for as
 209

an intermediate level between that of the plot series/block and the unit/tissue.
occupying

The solution to the problem of sub-units adopted by Slater (1989,1990b), in which

into constituent parts can similarly be accounted for

primary plan units arc subdivided

in terms of intermediate levels.

Of the forms identified by Conzen as plan unit sub-types or types, the following

level, (using Conzen's numbering): (i)

would seem to occupy the of plan-unit/tissue

Medieval High Street Layout; (ii) Medieval 'Suburbium"; (iii) Simple High Street Layout;

(iv) Extramural Borough Street; the two examples of (vi), sub-types 12 and 13, the latter

including the street and sub-types 38 and 39 (the sub-types identified being plot series

in the case of [i]) and 14; (vii), 17, occupying an intermediate level as noted; (viii),
as

Pre-Victorian Frame Roads (by extension); each of the sub-types within (ix), (x), (xi).

Conzen'sfonns and the upper limit of the. hierarchy

The Fringe belt presentsa problem. In Figure 137 of Alnwick, the fringe belts are

identified as single plan unit types, tile sub-types being plot series or plots. The

definition of the fringe belt in the glossary,however,statesthat the fringe belt is a type

integument and so a combination of accretions, which are in turn defined as

of

to units. Further, in Figure [21], the fringe belt is placed in an order

equivalent plan

other entities which are madeup of severalplan-units. Is the fringe belt to occupy
with

the level of plan-unit/tissueof the next level up, as a combinationof plan-units/tissues?

Although much work has been done on the processesinvolved in the formation of the

fringe belt (e.g. Whitehand 1972,1975,1987,1988b; Barke 1990), less has beendone

the specific form and constituent elements of fringe belts. Again, without further
on

examples for comparisonand without sufficient detail to better judge the case,even a
I
 210

tentative statement cannot be made. This also raises the question of how many levels

there are abovethat of units/tissues. Without further examplesit is impossibleto say.

The question is whetherit is possibleto identify typical combinationsof tissuesforming

identifiable entities, that is, severalexamplesof similar arrangementsof tissues. Within

the suggestedframeworkof levels, it is, in principle, possible to go on ad injinisum. It

might be realistically ventured that it is possible to identify two levels above that of

units/tissues. Confirming such a venture and determining the structure of the forms

which occupy those levels obviously presents a wide field for further research.

What is a town?

All of this puts into question the possibility of applying to any one level in the hierarchy

the label of /town/ or /city/ and the wisdom of attempting to do so. Looking at the range

of forms which are considered "towns' as examined by Conzen and Caniggia, from a

single ribbon or built route, to Newcastleor Florence,it would not seempossible to fix

a level corresponding to the notion of <town>. 77heOED considers the distinction

between <town> and <village> to be 'indefinite' and the definition of /city/ is still

more hesitant,being moreof the natureof an encyclopediaentry, with historical sketches

and different usagesfor different countries. This raisesagain the more general issue of

languageand the need for labels for the entities defined in analysis which do not raise

expectationsbecauseof commonand, as in this case,equivocal current definitions. The

conclusion is that it would be ill-advised or disingenuous to establish a correlation

between a particular form and the labels /town/ or /city/. The solution adopted here is
 211

to use "artificial' labels when referring only to forms or the spatial aspectof urban areas.

With other aspectstaken into account, a variety of forms might be called a 'town' or
9
cl y

The analysis of the precedingchaptersand the comparisonand evaluation of this

chapter have attemptedto establish a basis for suggestinga subdivision of urban form

by synthesizing the work of Conzen and Caniggia. The analysis, comparison and

evaluation along with the abstract concept of logical types have provided the means for

selectingwhat is best from each and of fusing them into a greater whole. The following

chapter presents the results of the attempted synthesis.

 FIVE

A PROPOSAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF

BUILT FORM FOR THE PURPOSES OF

MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

I'lie first part of this thesis examined and compared in detail the analytical subdivisions

of urban forin used by Conzenand Caniggia. The purpose of the examination and

to
comparisonwas evaluatethe subdivisionsand determine if they have been made on

a consistent basis and, if not, in what way each is inconsistent. This chapter carries

forward the results of that comparisonand evaluation and presents a proposal for a

modified analytical subdivisionof urban form. The proposalis an attempt to synthesize

and, it is hoped, to improve on the work of Conzenand Caniggia. It is thus in a sense

a summaryof the results of the previous chapters.

Any enquiry must begin with a purposeor primary concern. The study of urban

morphology is concerned with the description and explanation of the form, development

and diversity of urban areas. To proceed with this enquiry it is necessary to make two

distinctions. First, it is necessary to identify the form of urban areas as an object

general
 213

in opposition to other phenomena. Second, it is necessary to identify the most

of study

generalcomponentelementswithin urban areas.

PRELIMINARY DISTINCTIONSAND POINT OF VIEW

To make these distinctions and to proceed with the enquiry in a consistent and

a preliminary distinction must be made, in accordance with the previous

systematic way,

This is the distinction between classes, relations and properties. These are
analyses.

taken as fundamental conceptual tools in the examination, description and explanation

in general and so urban areas in particular.

of phenomena

Classes, relations and properties

To view phenomenaand identify and label a particular phenomenonas an entity distinct

from others is to posit a class of instances. The distinction is made possible by

identifying or selectinga set of pertinentcharacteristicsin termsof relationsor properties.

All phenomenawhich havea given pertinent characteristicsare membersof a class. A

is a perceivedconnection,associationor between
correspondence two or more
relation

A relation necessarilyinvolves two or more entities in addition to the observer.

entities.

A property is a quality, feature or characteristic of a single entity. Examples of

hardness, dimension or speed. A property involves only one entity in

properties are

to the observer. The property may, however, be measured and described in

addition

terms of a comparison and so a relation to a fixed unit. Regardless of the method of

the
measurement, property obtains to the entity measured.
 214
Space, time and energy

Another preliminary distinction is one which is so fundamentalas to seemunnecessary

to mention. It is the distinction betweenspace,time and energy. These arc taken as

primitives, as the basic conceptsused in describing, explaining and understandingthe

world. They are not seen as in any way separate but as co-dependentaspects of

phenomena. To take a spatial perspective is to isolate spatial relations and properties

as the pertinent characteristics in defining distinct entities or aspects. To take a

temporal perspective is to isolate temporal relations and properties. Likewise, an

energetic perspective isolates energetic relations and properties. In general, entities that

are defined in terms of spatial relations and properties are referred to asforras. Entities

defined in terms of temporal relations and properties are referred to as processesand

those defined in terms of energetic relations and properties are referred to as states.

The energetic and temporal aspects cannot be dealt with in any detail here but, as

noted in the previous chapter, the energetic is one which merits more direct attention.

In any case, to be consistent,the phenomenaof urban areaswill be described here at

the most general level in terms of spatial, temporal and energetic aspects, concentrating

on the first.

Point of view

Having made the generaldistinction betweenspatial, temporaland energeticaspects,it

is necessary to make a choice of one aspect as the primary point of view in order to

proceed with an enquiry in a consistent way. This is to privilege one view, not to the

exclusion of the others, but as a referencepoint to which others are related in the
 215

process of explanation. Morphology is the study offomz, so, it is the spatial which is to

be adoptedas the primary aspect.

There are severaladvantagesto a morphologicalapproach. First, the fonns of the

built environmentaremorefamiliarandreadilydescribedthanprocesses
and energetic

states. Forms are the recognizableobjects of the built environment. Second,physical

form is what we experience most directly at a given time and with most facility, both by

direct experience, or indirectly through representations. In terms of human perception,

to identify processesand energetic states, is, in general, to identify as entities temporal

or energetic relations between forms. To observe a process is generally to observe the

change in an object or interaction of a group of objects over time. It is important to

for example, that a building at a given time is a stage in a process, but to

recognize,

describe that moment is to describe a form. Identification of the phenomenon as a stage

in a process depends on the identification of an entity in spatial terms at one time and

the recognition of the entity at a later time by comparison. The identified process,as

include the form of the object at various stages tied together by the
an entity, will

relations of either continuity or change.

THE OBJECTOF STUDY

The distinctions betweenclasses,relationsand propertiesand betweenforms, processes

and states are primarily epistemological. These terms specify the way in which

phenomenaare viewed and described. Theseare the tools which make it possible to

distinguish an object of study as a phenomenondistinct from others. The concern of

 216

urban morphology is the form of urban areas. More generally, the concern is the built

environment. This concern motivatesthe distinction betweenhumans,

'as builders, the

unbuill environmentand the built environment. More accurately, the distinction is

betweenthe environment,being the terrestrial sphereand atmosphere,and humansand

the built within

elements the environment. The built environmentis not an entity which

is separatefrom the so-callednatural environmentand which may be enteredor left over

a distinct threshold. The 'built environment'is a collection of elementswhich is spread

throughout and interpenctrates the 'natural' environment. Nevertheless, even though the

term /built environment/ is not strictly accurate, it will be used as a more familiar and

convenient term with the understanding that it refers to the built elements of the

environmentas a class of distinct forms.

ýMe distinction between humans and the environment

From a spatial perspective, the primary feature in the distinction between humans and

the environment is the physical separatenessand mobility of humans. The human body

can be identified as a separate entity with freedom of movement relative to the surface

of the earth. As a class of entity, humanscan further be distinguished relative to other

forms in terms of outwardform and internal structure. Distinctions in the temporaland

energetic aspectsreinforce those of the spatial. From the temporal perspective, the

processesand behaviourof humansproceedat distinct ratesrelative to the processesand

behaviour of the earth's surface and atmosphereand to those of the flora and fauna.

From the energeticperspective,the human body is a distinct energetic pathwaywithin

a larger network.
 217
ýMe distinction between built and unbuilt forms

The concernof urban morphologyis the set of objects or entities built by humans. It

is thus necessaryto distinguish between built and unbuilt objects. The distinction

necessarilyinvolvestwo aspects. One is the specific form of the object and the other is

the relation of the form to humans. Regardingthe first aspect;the objects must first be

identified as a distinct entity. This is best done by first establishing the identity of the

object on the basis of spatial relations. This done, the relation between humans and

built object which allows the identification of the object as built is the act of building.

This relation is best describedas a process,specifically, the processof formation. To

distinguishedbetweenbuilt and unbuilt objects it is then necessaryto identify distinct

processesof formation. The processescan be distinguished by taking an energetic

that
perspective, is, by distinguishing the energysourceand pathwaywhich sustainsthe

process. Processes
can be said to be different becausethey are directly sustainedby

different sourcesof energy. A built form is the product of the human act of building.

It is the product of a processsustainedby human energy.

A tree and a house,for example,can be identified as distinct forms by the specific

material parts which composethem and the arrangementof those parts. They are

distinct as unbuilt and built objects,however,becauseof the difference in the processes

of their formation. Thus, the built environmentis taken to be constituted by the distinct

physical forms in the environmentwhich are the result of processessustained by the

application of human energy.

As the built elementsof the environmentýarethe result of an interaction or relation

between humansand the environment,to adequatelydescribe and explain them, it is

necessary to see them in terms of their relations to humans directly- and to the
 218

environmentdirectly. Ther-6are thus human and environmentalor natural aspectsto

built elementsas well as spatial, temporaland energetic. To explain and understandthe

form and processof formationof a town it is necessaryto examinethe relations between

humansand the town: the way in which humans went about building it, the human

intentions, activities, methods,laws and ideas which contributed to the building of the

town. Equally, it is to
necessary examine the relations between the environment and the

town, to identify the conditions and limits imposed by the physical environment in, and

from which, the town was built: the climate, topography, soils, geology, hydrology, flora

and fauna etc.

There are thus five main aspects to be addressed in the study of the built

temporal, energetic, human and natural. Again, the spatial is taken

environment: spatial,

as the central aspect to which the others are related.

The distinction between movable and immovable forms

Reiterating the general definition given above, the built environment is taken to be

by the distinct physical-forms 'in the environment which are the result of
constituted

by the application of human energy. Such a definition, if accepted

processes sustained

broadly, would include all human artifacts, including furniture, utensils, tools, weapons,

vehicles etc. To arrive at a workable derinition for the object of study for urban

it
morphology, is thus to
necessary distinguish betweenmovableand immovableartifacts.

Such a distinction correspondsto that made in the English languagein a legal context

between real and personal property. I'lie distinction is also found in the French between

meublesand immeubles
or the Italian, mobili and immobili. More strictly then, the object

of study of urban morphology is: the distinct physical forms in the environment with a
 219

rLxed position on the earth's surface over time which are the result of processes

sustainedby the application of human energy.

The movablesare an importantpart of the built environmentand must be taken into

in
account a full description of it. Certainly, they are necessary
componentsin the use

of the immovable forms and contribute a great deal to the sense of, for example, a

building or a town. An empty room in a building or an empty square in a town will

.
accommodate a certain range of activities and present a distinct experience in

to
comparison a furnished roomor a squarefull of cars, market stalls or lined with cafes

with outdoorseating. I'lie movables,as a class of entities, thus constitutesa component

of the built environmentwhich must be included in any attempt to fully explain the use

and characterof the built environment.

ýMe distinction between urban and rural areas

The field of immoveablesis still too broad a domain as the object of study for urban

morphology. In order to restrict the scope of enquiry and define a manageable object of

it is necessary to make a distinction between urban and rural areas within the
study,

built environment.

In terms of form, the distinction betweenurban and rural is not discrete. Rural

areas,such as farmland or planted and tended forests,

are built in the sensethat human

energy is involved in the arrangement of objects. The primary difference is the nature
I
of the objects constituting, those areas. In rural areas, there are fewer, and different,

forms which are the result of a process of formation sustained by human energy. The

difference betweenurban and rural is thus one of degree. On the one hand are urban

include more built versus unbuilt forms as constituent elements and on the
areas which
I
 220

other are rural areas which contain less built versus unbuilt forms. The boundary

betweenthe two kinds of areaswill not necessarilybe a distinct and unambiguous. The

distinction will be a matter of relative difference. Urban areaswill be taken to be those

areaswhich are composedpredominantly of built forms.

An urban area cannot be adequatelydefined nor explained in isolation from the

surroundingrural areas. An urban areacan only be identified in contrast to rural areas.

Equally, an urban area is formed and functions within a specific context of a region or

territory including rural areas. Rural areas, as a class, therefore, constitute another

of
component the built environmentand a full explanationof the form and development

of an urban area must include its relation to that component.

The result of these distinctions is that, strictly, the objects of study for urban

morphology are all those areas of the environment which are composed predominantly

of distinct physical forms with a fixed position which are the product of a process of

formation sustained by tile application of human energy. More simply, the objects of

study for urban morphology are human settlements such as villages, towns, cities and

metropolitan areas.

Urban areas and the traditional realms of enquiry

Distinguishing betweenhumans and 1he environment and between built and unbuilt

elements of the environment determines three general realms: tile human, the built

In
environmentand the unbuilt environment. terms of traditional disciplines, each is a

distinct field of enquiry. The realm of the human is the object of study for the
relatively

humanities including such fields as P"'tic8, economics, law, history, sociology,

- The
psychology,anthropology,ethnologyetc. realm of the unbuilt environment is the
 221

object of the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, physical

geography etc.

The built environment is the object of study for geography, archaeology,

anthropology, architecture, urban design, planning, landscape architecture. Explanations

within this field of study involve identifying and examining the relations between the

built environment and humans and between the built and unbuilt environments. Study

of the built environment is thus distinct but draws on knowledge from both the

humanities and the natural sciences.

The movable elements within the built environment are in general studied by the

disciplines of the decorative arts, industrial design, architecture and to some extent

landscapearchitecture as well as geography,archaeologyand anthropology. The rural

portion of the built environment is the object of study for some branches of human

geographyaswell as landscape
studies,landscape
architecture,anthropology,archaeology

and the agricultural sciences.

THE SUBDIVISIONOF ASPECTS

There are, again,five main aspectsto be addressedin the study of the built environment:

spatial, temporal, energetic, human and natural. The spatial is taken as the central

aspectto which the othersare related, here,

concentrating, on tile built, immovableforms

of urban areas. Beforedistinguishing the parts or elementswithin urban areasin detail,

the more general subdivision of tile other aspectswill be outlined.

 222

'ne temporal aspect

The first consideration regarding the temporal aspect is the perception of time as

That is to say, it is assumed that temporal relations are not symmetrical;

uni-directional.

be One event follows another in a sequence. Chronology refers

they cannot reversed.

to temporal sequence relative to a fixed time unit. It is merely the order of events in

duration. The most general subdivision of chronology is the distinction

time regardless of

between continuity and change. The perception of continuity and change depends on the

frame of the viewer in terms of period and resolution. For example,

observational

looking at a building as a whole, not resolving below the level of

regarding resolution,

different rooms, a change by replacement of individual bricks will appear as continuity.

Regarding period, the gradual decay of a building over a period of a century, for

example, will appear as continuity over a period of a week.

Continuity may occur by inertia or replacement. Inertia refers to the stability over

time of the physical material and arrangement of a form. Replacement refers to the

form over time in terms of arrangement with a change of constituent parts.

stability of a

Change may occur by addition, subtraction, or defomiation. Addition and subtraction

increase or decrease in the number of parts of a form which otherwise remains

refer an

Substitutionis a form of changewhich is a combinationof subtraction and

unchanged.

It is the sameas replacemefitbut seen in terms_of

the constituent parts; there
addition.

in
is a change parts but a continuity of arrangement.With the substitution of constituent

a form is materially different even if tile of

arrangement the parts remains the
parts,

Deformationrefers to a changein the shapeor outline of a form with a continuity

same.

of its parts and their relative positions.

 223

These subdivisionsassumethe act of 'building' on the part of humansbut do not

consider humans as directly pertinent in distinguishing the divisions. Any of the

subdivisionsmight be in
a constituent a sequenceof building acts which describes a

given processof building. Evolution involves not only the sequenceof building acts but

the parallel and interacting sequenceof intentions, that is, the ideas or concepts on

which the acts were based. Assumingthe act of building is a consciousor learned and

habitual process, the idea of the built object is necessary.before the building of the

object. The idea will have a temporal location corresponding to a position preceding and

concurrent with that of the building. The idea or concept can be placed in a range of

ideas or concepts possible at the time. Iliat range is derived from all previous building

acts of which it is possiblethe actors or agentswould have knowledge. There is thus a

relation betweena new building and the idea which precedesit and a relation between

the idea and previous buildings.

Taking the subdivisionsof continuity and changeas pertinentcharacteristics,petiods

can be defined within chronology and evolution. A period is any length of time during

which a type or combination of types of continuity or change in form remains current.

Ile energetic aspect

Within the energetic aspect the general subdivisions are the source,type, pathway of

energy. Further detail in the subdivision of this aspectis beyondthe scopeof the thesis.

Ile human aspect

Under the human aspect are use, control, intention, construction-transformation, response-

significance. Userefers to the relation betweena form and a human is

which the actual
I
 224

interaction of form and human for a purpose. Control refers to the relations between

humansand forms which by convention limit or bound the use, construction, response

or significanceof a form. Intention refers to the relations betweenhumansand forms in

terms of ideas, problems, objectives and desires concerning potential forms.

Construction-transformation
refers to the relations betweenhumansand formswhich give

to
rise a creation or changeof form, that is, the intentional act of building or modifying

the material form itself, encompassing the techniques and tools of construction.

Respon. refers
se-significance to the relation betweenhumansand forms which give rise

to physical and mental sensations or significance in the human.

The different agents occupying the position of 'human' in the human-form relations

should also be distinguished by: number, determining whether the agent is an individual

or corporate entity or group; structure, determining if the is

agent a corporate entity or

group-and identifying the relation of individuals within the entity in terms of power or

the freedom to make decisions and take action; social and legal status or position,

determining whether the agent is a private individual, private company, public company,

private or public institution, government ministry, a population or community as a whole

etc.

The'natural aspect

Under the natural aspectare the componentsof earth, atmosphere,sun, water,flora and

fauna and their various interrelations seen in relation to the urban area or built form

under consideration from the spatial, temporal and energetic perspectives.

 225

THE SPATIAL ASPECT

717he
characteristic of complexity

The basis for the subdivisionof the spatial aspectof urban areasis the characteristic of

complexity. In terms of form, an object is complex when the object is judged to be

composedof severalsmaller objects. A block within a town, for example, is a complex

object. Ilie block is identified as an entity but on examination can be seen to be an

arrangementof individual plots. 'I'lie subdivision of the form of urban areasis basedon

this characteristicof complexity.

Complexityassumesthe distinction of two kinds of relation: the relation of part-to-

whole and the relation of part-to-part. In the block there is a relation betweenthe plots

and the block of part-to-wholeand a set of relations betweenthe individual plots of part-

towpart.

Afor7n, therefore,is here understoodas an arrangementof objectsconsideredas a

whole. It involvesthe distinction of objectsas parts, the relation of part-to-part and part-

to-whole and the distinction

subsequent of the arrangement
of parts as an object. The

'object' and the 'arrangementof parts' are different aspectsor ways of seeingthe'same

'thing'. To distinguish or identify a complex entity or object it is necessaryto see it as

a whole, distinct from its surroundings,and as an arrangement

of parts. A building, for

example,can be seeneither as an identifiable whole relative to other buildings and other

objects such as blocks and streetsor as an arrangement

of rooms. A block can be seen

to
as an autonomousentity relative other blocks and to streets,or as an arrangementof

plots.

Strictly, arrangementrefers not to specific objects or materials but to a set of

I
 226

relations between parts. An arrangement is a set of related positions to be occupied.

A variety of specific material ohjects might occupy those positions in making up a

particular exampleof the arrangement. It is thus possibleto identify different examples

of the sameaffangement.

The hierarchy of levels of complexity

Looking at the range of objects composing different urban areas, it can be seen that the

general relation of part-to-whole is not restricted to two kinds of objects, rooms-to-

buildings or plots-to-blocks. I'lie parts of one object are themselves composed of parts

and the object is itself a part of a larger kind of object. Within a block, for example, the

plots are recognizableas complex objects. An individual plot is an arrangementof

buildings and enclosure walls. Equally, the block is part of a larger entity such as a grid

of streets and blocks.

Indeed, examinationof the whole of an urban area shows there is a sequenceof

relations of part-to-whole. Building materials are arranged to form structural elements

such as walls, floors, roof etc. Theseare arranged to form rooms. Roomsare in turn

arrangedto form buildings. One or more buildings are arranged to form plots, plots to

form blocks, blocks and streetsto form tissuesand tissues to form larger entities.

The structure arising from the sequenceof positions related part-to-whole is a

hierarchy. It is a hierarchy of aggregation of parts. Each step from part-to-whole is a

step up in levelof complexity. A given level is occupied by objects which are composed

of the objects from the level below. Structural elementssuch as walls, floors and roofs,

for example, are aggregates of building materials. Rooms are in turn aggregates of

structural elements and buildings aggregates of rooms. Each step up the hierarchy is
 227

thus an increasein complexity. The higher the level, the more parts involved in the

compositionof a form. A brick, which occupiesa low level, is simple. It has, in effect,

no 'parts. A building is complex, being composed of rooms which are in turn composed

of structural elementswhich in turn are composedof building materials.

Generic structure and generic types

I'lie hierarchy of levels related part-to-whole is taken as the generic structure of urban

areas and is the basis for the primary subdivision of the form of urban areas. The

structure of the hierarchy is such that it could extend, theoretically, to infinity in either

direction. For the purposes of the urban morphological analysis, it is limited to nine

levels, beginning with building materials. Table 1 shows the hierarchy with Latin terms

to designate each of the different levels and a common term corresponding to each to

indicate typical objects at each level.

comp, lures (combinationsof objects of the level sedes)

I

sedes, (combinationsof plan-units) (seeFigures132-144)

x lextus
I
tissues/plan-units(see Figures 119-131)
Ia.
E
0 sertum plot series/blocks/streets(see Figures 100-118)
0
fines plots (see Figures 81-99)

to aedes buildings (see Figures 47-80)

E
.En
tectum rooms (see Figures,
33-46)
I

sta tio structural elements(see Figures 15-32)

I-
part-to-whole
aria building materials (see Figures 12-14)

Table 1. Generic structure and generic types

 228

Forms can thus be distinguished generically by their position in that structure. That is,

forms are distinguished by their level of complexity or the number of relations of part-to-

whole encompassed by the form relative to materials.

From this perspective,a brick is distinct from a wall and a wall from a building

becausea brick, at the first level is an individual and, for the purposesof morphological

is a
analysis, not complex; wall, at the second level, involves one relation of part-to-

whole and so one step up in complexity; and a building, at the fourth level, involves

three steps up in complexity and thus three relations of part-to whole.

The different kinds of form distinguishedon the basis of position within the generic

structureare taken as different generictypesof form. For consistencyand simplicity, the

generic type of forms should be identified in terms of one step of part-to-whole in the

hierarchy. Theparts in an arrangementthus refer to the mostcomplexobjectswhich are

components of the arrangement. That is, the term 'parts' should be restricted to refer

only to the component objects which occupy the next level down the hierarchy of levels

of complexity. For example, the 'parts' of a building (aedes) are rooms (tectum).

Similarly, the term 'arrangement' should be used to refer to the set of relations between

objects of the same level of complexity. In the example of the building, the

tarrangement' of parts refers the spatial relations between the rooms. Thus, a building,

while it can be seen as an arrangement of structural elements or building materials will,

by convention, be seen as an arrangement of rooms. The other parts are accounted for

step-wise as parts of parts. Thus, structural elements are parts of rooms and building

materials parts of structural elements. If an object is identified at a given level, the

presence of forms is assumed in all the levels below. The identification of a form thus

ultimately refers, step-wise, to the presence of the material composing the form.
 229

Accepting this convention, the generic type of a given form is determined by the

type of its most complex constituent parts., A form in which the most complex
generic

type tectum, for example, is considered to be of generic type aedes.

parts are of generic

Conversely, the least complex arrangement of objects of a given generic type is a form

type one step up the hierarchy. The arrangement seen as a whole,

of the generic

including the objects, is seen as an object or fomi of the next step up in level of

relative to the parts. Given a pattern of objects of generic type tectum over
complexity

for example, the simplest arrangements of those objects constituting identifiable

an area,

wholes are forms of generic type aedes.

Specific structure and specific types

As mentioned, distinguishing different kinds of objects involves a distinction of two kinds

part-to-whole and part-to-part. Having isolated the relation of part-to-whole,

of relation:

the relation of part-to-part is that between objects of-tie same generic type. The

between rooms in a building, for example are relations of part-to-part. A

relations

building is recognizableas an identifiable object becausethe specific relations between

taken together as a combination or specific arrangement. Again, strictly

rooms are

arrangementrefers not to a specific object or material but to the set of

speaking,

betweenparts. An can
arrangement be seenas a set of related positions to be
relations

A
occupied. variety of specific material objects might occupy thosepositions in making

up a particular exampleof the arrangement. Thus it is possible to recognizedifferent

the samearrangement. It is possible to identify several different buildings

examplesof

the same of
arrangement rooms(see Figure 71). The different exampleswill have
with

material differencesand occupydifferent places in a town but eachhas the same

Specific
 230

if
arrangement each has the samekind of parts in the samerelative positions. Equally,

it is possibleto identify different arrangementsand so different forms by distinguishing

differencesin the relations of part-to-part.

The structure arising from the spatial disposition of objects related part-to-part is

taken as the specificstructureof urban forms. There are three primary aspectswhich are

taken as pertinent characteristicsof specific structure: the specific type of the parts

the
related, numberof parts and the or
arrangement specific spatial relations betweenthe

parts.

Specific structure is the basis for identifying different forms of the same generic

type. That is, different forms within a given generic type can be distinguished by

differences of specific structure. A basilica plan church and a row house, for example

(see Figures 67 and 71), are both arrangements of rooms or spaces and are thus both

generically, buildings (of the generic type aedes). They are distinct as specific forms

because each is a distinct arrangement of a specific number of distinct kinds of rooms

or spaces. Comparing them, there is a difference in relations of part-to-part in terms of

the dispositions of the relations, the kind of entities related and the number of entities

thus relation s. The different forms distinguished in terms of specific structure are
and

taken as different specijic types of form.

Ile general conception of generic and specific types

Typesconceivedas three-dimensional

Both generic and specific types of form are conceived as three-dimensional. That is, the

in three dimensions are all pertinent to the

relations of part-to-whole and part-to-part all

derinition of generic and specific types of form. The relations of part-to-whole are
 231

conceivedas holding betweenthree-dimensionalparts and a three-dimensionalwhole.

The relations of part-to-part are, likewise, conceived as holding between three-

dimensionalpartsin all three-dimensions.Two-dimensionalrepresentationsare assumed

to
to refer all the detail
three-dimensional of the forms. A plot, for example,is conceived

not only in terms of the two-dimensional

plan outline but also the thickness and height

of any enclosurewall, the breadth,width and height of all buildings including the pitch
-

of the roof (Figure 1 a).

T)Pes as general and specific classes

The primary subdivision of form is based on the distinction of generic types according

to the generic structure. The secondary subdivision is the division of each generic type

into specific types according to specific structure. Generic types are general classes of

form and specific types are subclasses of generic types. That is, both generic and

types are classesof entities. A class is a group of entities defined as all entities
specific

of characteristics in common. The characteristics

with some single characteristic or set

defining a class or type are the pertinent characteristics of that class or type.
.I
I'lie pertinent characteristic defining the generic types of form arc the relations of

part-to-whole. The generic type aedes, for example, is the group of all forms related to

the generic type leclum by one relation of part-to-whole. The pertinent characteristics

defining specific types of form are the relations of part-to-part, including the specific type

of the parts, the number and the arrangement of parts.

A particular physical object which exhibits the pertinent characteristics of a given

type is an example of the type. The type is thus constituted by the group of all

examples. Any olýject composed of rooms is an example of the generic type aedes.
 232

Conversely,the generic type aedesis constituted by all objects composedof rooms. All

objectswith the specific structure shownin Figure 70 are examplesof the specific type

of building known as a basilica. The specific type basilica is constituted by all buildings

with the specific structure shown in Figure 70.

Typesas hypotheses

A type is neither entirely material'nor entirely ideal. On the one hand, it is only

to
possible suggest the idea of a type because there are material examples which exhibit

the pertinent characteristics. On the other hand, it is only possible to suggest a material

object as an example exhibiting the pertinent characteristics because there is an idea of

those characteristics forming a set and so a type. In the process of analysis, a type

begins, therefore, as a hypothesis. Experience and comparison present various sets of

relations as possible pertinent characteristics defining a type and one set is hypothesised

as more plausible than others.

The plausibility of a hypothesised type is reinforced by the presence of a number

of examples. The type is a number of examples taken together as a whole. While a type

of one example is possible, as a general principle in the identification of types, a single

example type should only be-hypothesised when the example in question cannot be

adequately accounted for as another type with a larger number of examples.

Typesas the product of differentfunctions or

different 'acts of building'

IA:)oking at the generic and specific structure of form in general, when generic and

specific types are seen as classes, the relation between adjacent generic types in tile
 233

hierarchy is not strictly part-to-whole but potential part-to-potential whole. The specific

the the higher level.

types constituting a given generic type are not parts of class of next

The specific types of the given level are, more strictly, the domain of forms which are

in the composition of individual members of the class of the generic type

potential parts

higher level. That class is, then, the range of objects composed of parts from
of the next

the next lower level.

Also, as,the relation of part-to-whole in terms of classes is more strictly potential

the relations between parts in specific types is more rightly

part-to-potential whole,

Any one object from a given generic type may be

potential part-to-potential part.

combined with others of the same generic type in an arrangement.

To aid in explaining this distinction, it is worth briefly taking a temporal

Urban form is the product of a processofformation. At the most general,

perspective. .

is
the process the act of building. - The act is to compose or to arrange. The process or

building involves: seeing the forms of one level of complexity as a domain of parts;
act of

from the domain; and arranging them to produce the range of forms of the
selecting parts

higher level of complexity. To build a wall, for example, it is necessary to identify

next

domain of possible parts, in this case the variety of building materials, and select one
a

from amongst them. Having selected one, bricks, for example, it is then necessary to

them in a specific way. Using the same type of brick in the same general
arrange

English bond for example, it is possible to build walls of different overall form
pattern,

and so build a range of specific types of wall.

The forms of each generic type can thus be seen as the products of different

or functions. -The different 'building functions' can be distinguished in two

processes

by the generic type of the objects which are used as parts in tile function; by the
ways:
 234

the objects which contain the products of the function as parts., Thus,
generic type of

be called a 'wall' if it is something built of bricks or something which

something can

Something can be called a 'block' if it

occupies a particular position as part of a room.

is something built of plots or something which occupies a particular place as part of a

From this the forms of a given level can be said to be

plan-unit or tissue. perspective,

function in the structure of urban form as a whole. A form functions

performing a given

'Plot', for example, when it has buildings as constituent parts or is a distinct

as a

a plot series. In this limited sense of function it is possible to say that a

constituent of

form is defined by the way in which it is 'used. To distinguish between this sense and

the sense of 'accommodating a particular human activity such as 'residential' or

'commercial', the latter will be referred to by use or purpose and the formerfunction.

Coextensive*levels and extension

This perspective helps in accounting for the variety of phenomenaencountered in

There are, for instance,casesin which a block containsa plot which

specific examples.

is entirely occupied by a building. That is, within a block there is found a form which

is an arrangementof roomswhich occupiesan area of the sameoutline dimensionsin

the other plots composing the block (see Figure 85). The form, as an
plan as

arrangementof rooms is of the generic type aedes. Nevertheless,even though it is

considered a single building and is not associatedwith a garden or open area, it

occupiesthe areaand position of a plot and functionsas a plot in the compositionof the

block.

According to the generaldefinition, a generic type is composedof objects from the

level one step downthe hierarchy. In this case,one of the constituent parts of the block
 235

is a building which does not function with other objects to form a plot. It is thus an

object from a level two steps down. Conversely, according to the general definition, an

object should function as a part in a form one step up the hierarchy. A building is by

definition part of a plot. In this case,the building functionsas a part in a form two steps

up without functioning as a part in a form of the intervening level. In terms of

component parts the object is of the generic type aedes but as a part in an arrangement

it functions as a form of the generic typefines.

To accountfor this phenomenon,it can be said that the building is coextensive

with

the plot. There is an extension of the form to function as a part not one but two levels

up the hierarchy. Cases of extension may involve more than two levels. There are

instancesin which a block containsa form which is composedsolely of an enclosurewall

defining an area which fronts the street. Strictly, this is a 'room' (being composed of

structural elements) and so of generic type tectunt. Even though it does not contain a

building as a constituent part, it nevertheless occupies the area and position of a plot

and functions as a plot in the composition of the block (see Figure 85). As an object it

is of the generic type tectum but as a part in an arrangement it functions as a form of the

generic typefines.

Extension is thus defined as all cases in which a form of a given generic type

functions as a part in a form two or more levels up the hierarchy of levels of complexity

without functioning as a part in forms of intervening levels.

Interinediatc levcls and compression

Another phenomenonwhich must be addressedis that in which an object functions as

in a form of the generic type one level up but in a form of the same generic
a part not
I
 236

type as the object itself. An is

example a timber window frame within a brick or

masonrywall (seeFigures22 and 23). The frame is an of

arrangement timber and glass,

that is, of materials. It is thereforean object of the generic type statio. As an object,

however, it does not function as a part on its own in a form of the generic type one step

the hierarchy, which in this casewould be a room or space(of generic type tecium).
up

It functions as a part of a wall, that is, as a part of an object which is also an

arrangementof materials and so an object of generic type statio. The wall and the

frame are objectsof the samegeneric type but the window frame functions as a
window

if it were an object of the generic type one step below. To account

part of the wall, as

for this phenomenon,the window frame will be said to occupy an intermediatelevel

betweenmateria and statio. It is an arrangementof materialswhich functionsas a single

object of material. There is a compression of a form of a given generic type into an

intermediate level to function as a part within a form of the same generic type.

Compressioncan thus be defined as all cases in which a form of a given generic type as

determined by its component parts, functions as an object not at that level but one level

down the hierarchy. Put anotherway,compressioncan be defined as all casesin which

form functions as an object of the same generic type as the parts of which it is
a

composed.

Another exampleof compressionis an apartmenthouseor block of flats within a plot

(see Figures 68 and 78). The apartmenthouseas a whole is an arrangementof spaces

(of generic type tectum) and functions as a part within a plot. It is thus of generic type

aedes. The individual flats or however,

apartments, are also identifiable arrangements

or spaces. Each is thus, strictly, a form of the generic type aedes. As parts,
of rooms

however,the individual flats or apartmentsfunction not in forming a plot but a single

 237

building. Ilie flats or apartments thus occupy an intermediate level between tectum and

They are objects of generic type aedes which, as parts, function as if they were
aedes.

of generic teclum.

There are instancesof compressionwhich involve more that one intermediatelevel.

An example is a window frame in which the main openings are filled with a secondary

structure of quarries held in a framework of lead cames (see Figure 20, s). The lattice

of cames and quarries is an arrangement of materials, yet is a part of an arrangement of

is in turn a part of an arrangement of materials forming the wall. The

materials which

lead framework occupies a tertiary level between the primary level of materia and the

secondary level occupied by the main window frame. Theoretically, there may be an

infinite number of intermediate levels. The physical properties of the materials impose

practical limits to the number of intermediate levels.

Extension, compressionand ambiguity of levels

Both compression and extension are cases of ambiguity in which a form occupies two or

more levels at once. It is thus impossible in such cases to notate or label a form

unequivocally or unambiguously as one or the other. What remains unambiguous is the

fact of extensionor compression. In all casesthe extensionor compressionhas limits.

In practice, the limits can be identified as shownin figure ?? What is of interest is the

fact of extensionof compressionand its limits rather than a strict or fixed labelling of

forms. This emphasisesthe comparativebasis of analysis. The fact of extension or

compression only emerges in the comparison of a variety of forms.

 238

Resultant forms

One of the results of ambiguity due to compressionis the emergenceof resultantforms.

One common example is the block composedof distinct plot series which are best

tissues(seeFigure 126). Another example

consideredas parts of separateplan-units or

is the pair of semi-detached houses which is a 'single' building composed of two 'halves'

best considered a part of separate plots (see Figure 105). In both cases, the
each

resultant form is implicated in the ambiguity arising from compression. If the semi-

detachedhouseswith their plots are seenas separateentities, the 'single' building of the

pair is ambiguously related to the two separate plots. To see the pair as a single entity,

however, is to ignore the identiriable form of the 'half', including any separating

structure. In the caseof the block, if the plan-units are considereddistinct, the block

which is composed of plot series from separate plan-units is ambiguously related to the

plot series of the distinct plan-units. If the block is considered as a

streets and other

is part of a larger unit, the differences within the block must be

single entity which

ignored as must the distinct plan-units which contribute plot series to the resultant

block. To account for these forms, the resultant block and the semi-detached pair and

can
other similar phenomena be referredto as resultantfonns,in oppositionto constituent

forrns, which in thesecasesare the single semi-detachedhouseand plot or built route

of built mutes. The characteristic distinguishing resultant forms is that

and combination

the outline of the form crosses the boundaries between two or more contributing

constituent forms. Thus the outline of a semi-detachedpair of houses crosses the

boundary betweenthe pair of semi-detachedplots. The resultant forms are therefore,

outside the hierarchy of constituent forms. Nevertheless, it is possible to account

strictly,

for such cases of ambiguity in a systematic manner by noting the conuibutingfonns (the
 239

in the of the semi-detachedhouse) and the contributing parts (the isolated

plots case

houseof one of the semi-detachedplots). The different distinct identifiable forms are

for
thus accounted and the relations betweenthem remain clear.

THE PROCEDUREFOR IDENTIFYING SPECIFICTYPES

Generic structure as the fundamental type

The purposeof morphologicalanalysis is the explanationof the form of urban areas. To

it is necessaryto identify the forms to be explained. One of

proceedwith explanation,

the primary tasks of analysis,therefore,is the identification and description of specific

forms. To this end, the-genericstructure provides a general framework. The generic

is basedon the structure not of one or another urban area but on a composite
structure

areas. It is a set of tics

characteris sharedby all urban areas. Rather, any
view of urban

the generic structure any one relation of part-to-whole is

one of the characteristics of - -

by a majority of urban areas. In this respect the generic structure is the

shared

fundamental type of urban areas. It is the class of all entities composed of building

structural elements, rooms, buildings, plots, etc. related to each other part-to-
materials,

in a hierarchy of levels of complexity.

whole

Analysis of a given example is a comparison of the example with the composite view

the fundamental type represented schematically by the generic structure. Taking the
of

fundamental type as a reference point, the comparison points out or underlines where tile

differs from it. The specific differences are found in the process of
given example

identifying specific types of form. The generic types of a given urban area are made up
 240

of the range of specific types found in the area.

In the interest of promoting an analytical procedure that is repeatable and which

for comparativeanalysis, specific types should be distinguished and described

allows

according to establishedproceduresand terms.

'nic study area

The specific object of analysis should be limited in terms of area. It is thus necessary

to isolate and define a study area. The boundaryof the study area might be arbitrary

to the form of the object of study or motivated by it, conforming to some

relative

identified boundary(seeFigure 11). Regardless,as far as possiblethe study areashould

be defined with an awarenessof its position within a larger entity and so generally within

the hierarchy of generic types. This places the study area and the forms it contains into

context. The identified forms can then be said to be 'typical' of that context
a specific
Comparisons can then be made between analogous study areas in order to
or place.

identify similarities and differences.

Analytical scope

Given the nine generic types within the generic structure, the identification of specific

types demands or assumes the establishment of a scope of analysis. Some or all of the

types must be chosen as the object of analysis. Different projects will have
generic

different aims. The choice of generic types depends, therefore, on the specific aims of

tile particular project. I'lie spread of generic types in which specific types are to be

identified shall be taken as tile scopeof analysis or analytical scopeof the project.
 241

Chronological comparative analysis

The next procedure is to examine and compare the state of the study area at different

in time, in a sequence from earliest to most recent, that is, in a chronological

points

Again, one of the primary assumptions of morphology is that form

comparative analysis.

is the result of the process of formation. In the attempt to trace and describe that

processit is to
necessary identify and describe forms as they were originally built. The

whole purposeof examiningrecordsof earlier statesof a town is to be able to describe

its form at various stagesin order to establish the processof formation. At each stage

the constituent forms are described in the sameway - by their internal structure and

relative position. By comparing the different states of a town at different times it is

to determine the form and structure of different parts of the town and the
possible

in which they were added. The sequence does not define the parts but
sequence

provides a set of limits which make the structure of individual forms and the whole town

understandable. Chronological comparative analysis, also allows one to identify internal

transformations of individual forms. If extensive enough, the resulting form

changes or

be considered a new or different type. Strictly, the new type is not defined by the
may

fact that it is the result of change, rather, the difference between the new type and-the

old can be explained by change over time.

Level of specificity and level of resolution

In examining the variety of forms in a given generic type, it is apparent that the

distinction between forms might be more or less specific. It is possible, for example, to

distinguish specific types of building more generally, in terms of external shape and

dimensions, or more specifically, in terms of the internal arrangement of rooms, or still

 242

more specifically in terms of the type of structural elements and materials used. By

including the parts of lower levels of complexity as pertinent characteristics in

distinguishing specific types, riner and more specific distinctions can be made.

Specific types can thus be distinguished at different levels of specificity depending

on the level of resolution of analysis. A level of resolution is the analytical view taken in

any representation, mental or graphic, of urban form. To view or represent a study area

at a particular level of resolution is to see or show only the forms of one generic type,

in outline, over the whole of the study area. The different levels of resolution thus

correspondto the levels in the hierarchy and are designatedby the nameof the generic

type of the corresponding level. A drawing taking the level of resolution fines, for

example, shows only forms of that generic type in outline (Figures 120,131,140).

Forms which function at that level by extension or compression should also be shown in

outline. Thus, in a drawing of resolution fines, a building or single enclosure which

functions as a plot is included as a plot and shown in outline. Separating out one

generic type of form and viewing the disposition of those forms over the study area

facilitates distinguishing different forms in terms of their outline. It also facilitates

distinguishing different arrangements,that is the relations of part-to-part betweenthe

objects outlined and so forms-ofthe next higher level of complexity. A plan of an area

of resolutionfines, for example,allows the distinction of different plots in terms of their

outline and the distinction of different arrangementsof plots as plot series or blocks.

Level of resolution thus provides a means for a systematic approach to the

distinction of specific types of form. In the procedure of analysis, more detail can be

seen and so consideredpertinent by increasing the level of resolution used in analysis

relative to the generic type of forms to be distinguished. This is to increasethe level of

 243

types, taking features from levels of the hierarchy as pertinent

specificity of the several

in the identification of specific types of a given level. The level of

characteristics

be increased in a systematic way by proceeding step-wise, examining

specificity can

forms at progressively higher levels of resolution. The level of specificity of a type can

thus be stated in terms of the level of resolution of analysis. The number of levels of

complexity between that of the forms to be distinguished and that of the level of

resolution taken in analysis,inclusively, is taken as the level of specificity of the form.

Thus, for example, the level of specificity of a specific type of tissue or plan-unit (of

isfour levels if the type was identified at a level of resolution of

generic type textus)

In that case,forms of generic type aedes,such as buildings, would be included

aedes.

in outline and be the smallest or least complex parts considered as pertinent in the

distinction of different tissuesor plan units.

The first level of specificity

Outline

A level of specificity of one is the distinction of specific types of form by outline. The

form is the combination of its external dimensions. These are stated in terms
outline of a

in fixed units of lengths, angle, radii etc. as a set. The measurements

of measurements

sufficient to fully describe the outline of the form. The outline of a form
alone are not

is constituted by the measurements and the relations between them, that is, the

proportions of the form.

Outline is a way of specifying aspects of the arrangement of a form without

the component parts. As a means of distinguishing specific types of form,

specifying

outline assumes the existence of those parts whatever they might be. Outline is thus
I
 244

incompleteas a definition but is an effective initial meansof identifying specific types

and very effective in caseswhere knowledgeof componentparts is lacking or the detail

is consideredunnecessaryfor the study.

Degreesof specificity

A greater or lesser degree of specificity within the first level can be achieved in

identifying specific types in terms of outline by three general means: limiting, or not, the

outline to two dimensions;measuringthe dimensionsand proportionswith more or less

precision; stating the dimensions and proportions as a wider or narrower range.

With the first means, greater generality in the definition of the outline is possible

by reducing the pertinent dimensions to those of the plan outline, section outline or

elevation outline. The plan outline of a form is the two-dimensional trace in plan by

orthographic projection of the external dimensions of the form. Elevation outline is the

in
same elevation and section outline the same for any given section.

With the second means,the degree of specificity can be varied by considering

pertinent or not small deviations from geometrically simple forms. A greater degree of

generality is achieved by approximating forms to simple geometric figures of simple

proportions. A greater degree of specificity is achieved by considering pertinent all

irregularities of line, angle, curve etc., as well as the measurement of length, angle,

radius etc. and their proportions to a high numerical precision.

With the third mens,specificity can be varied by statingdimensionsand proportions

in a wider or narrower range. The dimensions of plots in a given urban area, for

example, will not likely be exactly the same. If there are different distinct ranges of

dimension or proportion, each can be consideredas a different specific type of plot.

 245
Relative position

Remaining within the first level of specificity, specific types can be distinguished in

terms of the position of the form relative to other forms. If, for instance, there are

examplesof plots of different orientation to the street and position within a block, each

distinct set of examplesshould be considered as a distinct specific type. Plots of

for example, be oriented to a street with either the short or long

rectangular outline may,

side along the street. It may also be noted that the plots are part of a series occupying

block or in the comers of the

a central position along one side of a zones occupying

block (see Appendix D, sections 4 and 5.1). '

The appropriate degree of specificity within the first level for a given analysis will

depend on the purpose of the analysis and the extent of irregularity in the forms to be

analyzed. Too high a degree of specificity used in distinguishing forms with a large

extent of irregularity will produce a large and unworkable number of specific types. The

effort might be better spent by increasing the level of resolution and distinguishing

types of a level of specificity of two levels.

specific

I'lic second level of specificity

Parts, number and arrangement

Specific types of two levels are identified by increasing the level of resolution of analysis

to one level higher than the generic type of the forms to be identified. In distinguishing

specific types of plot, for example, this would mean that the level of resolution would be

that of the building (aedes), so that all forms functioning at that level are shown in

The specific types are then identified by distinguishing the constituent parts of
outline.
 246

the form, their number and arrangement. Again, the parts are only those forms of the

lower level of complexity distinguished in terms of outline.

next

Degreesof specificity

The degree of specificity can be varied within the second level by three means:

identifying the parts only as positions to be occupied by a range of types; stating the

outline of the positions and their geometric relations with more or less precision;

identifying the parts with a greateror lesserdegreeof specificity in terms of outline as

discussedabove.

Thus taking the example of the plot, the parts can be identified generally as

be 'built area' and 'unbuilt area' or more specifically,

positions to occupied, such as:

'building', 'garden' and 'enclosure wall' (see Appendix D, section 5.2). A wider or

narrowerrangeof specific typesmight then be identified as possiblecomponentsin each

position.

The positions themselvesand their geometricrelations to each other can be stated

less precisely. The built area of a plot, for example, might be a geometrically
more or
figure in which the component part might be found in a number of different
simple

or an area of specific shape with few possible alternate positions for tile
positions,

part. As in the case of outline, the degree of specificity of tile position can
component

be varied by considering pertinent or not small deviations from geometrically simple

forms. A greater degree of generality is achieved by approximating forms to simple

figures of simple proportions. A greater degree of specificity is achieved by

geometric

irregularities of line, angle, curve etc., and the measurement

considering pertinent all

length, angle, radius etc. and their proportions to a high numerical precision. The
of
 247

more precisely the position is defined, the fewer possible variations in the placement of

the object in the position.

The degreeof specificity within the secondlevel can also be varied by the degree

of specificity used in identifying the individual parts with might be found in any one of

the positionsin the arrangement.The parts are distinguishedin termsof outline and can

thereforebe distinguishedat different degreesof specificity as discussedabove.

Higher levels of specificity

M,

To increase the level of specificity further, the-same procedure of identifying the parts,

their number and arrangement is followed for each step down the hierarchy relative to

the foms being identified. Thus for the plot, the next step, a level of specificity of three,

would involve identifying the component 'rooms' of the buildings composing the plot and

distinguishing different arrangements of rooms. A level of specificity of four would

involve distinguishing the different types of structure and their arrangement in composing

the roomsand a level of rive would involve distinguishing different typesof materialsand

their arrangement in making up tile structures.

Critical apparatus

I'lie foregoing is in effect an apparatus for morphological analysis. It bears reiteration

that the focus is here necessarily restricted to the identification of specific types of form.

As an apparatus, what has been presented is only part of the larger set of concepts

necessary for full analysis. Nor, again, should the generic types be seen as normative

of form. Generic types are not a fixed collection of parts which are to be
categories

considered as necessary components in all cases. Generic structure is a heuristic device

 248

for comparative study facilitating the discovery of similarities and differences between

specific examples. It is an apparatus criticus for the built environment.

 SECTIONIl

APPLICATION

The arts were born of Chanceand Observation,fostered

by Use and Experimentand matured by Knowledgeand
Reason.

Leon Battista Alberti

On the art of building in ten books
 250

Explanation, management and prescription

The last chapter set out a proposalfor the definition and subdivision of urban from. The

immediate purpose of the subdivision is for use in urban morphological analysis, the

is, in turn, the explanationof urban form. The analytical subdivision

purposeof which

is applied as a logical tool in the task of explanation. 71iis is to interpret 'application'

broadly. 11e largely academicpursuit of explanationis not strictly an 'applied' science

(taking 'science' broadly as well). Certainly, explanation cannot strictly be considered

If, however, one interprets

a practical application of the analytical subdivision.

application as 'bringing into effective contact', it is possible to conceive of a range of

applications. At one end of the range is explanation, in which the application of the

is in
subdivision effective changing,and one hopes, improving, our understandingof

form and the of

phenomena urban areasmore generally. At the other end of the
urban

is the to urban planning, design and architecture,

range- the application of subdivision

it may be effective as a tool for achieving the aims and desires motivating the
where

design, formation and transformation of urban areas.

The following chapters explore this range of applications. Chapter six examines the

implications of the proposedsubdivision for.explanation within the discipline of urban

morphology. In chapter seven, the possibility of applying the subdivision to the

administration and of
management tile- built environment is suggestedand explored.

Specifically, the suggestedapplication is the use of the subdivision as a basis for

and organizing information for the purposes of the administration and

gathering
listed buildings by English Heritage. Chaptereight examinesthe general
managementof

issues involved in applying the analytical subdivision and the conceptsand principles

of urban morphology generally to tile practice of urban planning, urban design and
 251

architecture. Chapter nine presents an ideal approach to planning based on the

subdivision and morphological concepts as well as an account of an actual application

of the ideal approach.

1'
 six

THE APPLICATION TO EXPLANATION IN

URBAN MORPHOLOGY

Explanation, at its most general, is here taken to be the correlation of descriptions of

phenomena with a structure of relations. On the one hand, this involves seeing a given

phenomenon, both as a whole and a set of constituent parts, in the context in which it

arose, identifying the relations between it and other phenomena. This is to identify the

possible causesqconditions and limits of its coming and continuing to be. On the other

hand it involves seeing the phenomenon in the context of other, similar phenomena,

determining if it shows a similar or distinct, relation to causes, conditions and limits in

comparison with the similar phenomena.

Description of the phenomenon to be explained is the necessary precursor to any

explanation. Again, the phenomenonof concern here is urban form. The preceding

chapter puts forward a proposalfor the idcntirication and description of the component

parts and structure, that is, the form of urban areas. In the terms of the previous

chapter, the to
phenomena be explainedare the specyictypesof form constitutinga given
 253

This chapter explores in outline the implications for explanation of the

study area.

proposedsubdivision of urban f6m.

MODESOF EXPLANATION

In general, the approach to explanation follows from. the subdivisions set out in the

chapter. That is, the more general distinctions between the spatial, temporal
previous

and the more specific distinctions between humans

and energetic aspects of phenomena

and the built and unbuilt environments as well as the movable and immovable, the urban

and rural components of the built, environment. Because these subdivisions are

conceivedas aspectsor of
components a unitary phenomenonrelated to each other in

specific ways, the subdivision providesa frameworkof relations for explanation. Each

aspect provides a viewpoint for a distinct mode of explanation which is related to and

interdependentwith all the others. No one modeprovidesa completeexplanation. The

following explores in outline the way in which each mode can contribute to the full

explanation of form. The different modes are thus the: spatial, temporal, energetic,

human and natural.

Ile spatial mode

Relative position

In a general sense, location in a particular place on the globe and within the context of

the generic structure of urban form provides a basis for explanation in terms of limits

and in termsof 'function' as defined in the previouschapter. Concerning

and conditions
 254

the latter, the identification of the generic type of a form and so its position relative to

forms provides an initial explanation of the form in terms of the part it plays in
other

constituting urban form. More particularly, the specific boundaries and physical

of a site or location in terms of built form impose limits and conditions on the
properties

forms which might occupy that site and location. The form of a room, for
range of

its size, the position of apertures cte. is a response, amongst many other things,
example,

to the location of that room within some larger entity such as a house and perhaps also

the position of the house within a plot, the plot within a block etc. Taking another

example,the form of a plan-unit or tissue on a particular site will be a responseto the

surrounding plan-units or tissuesand so streets and blocks and the dimensionsof the

site as bounded by other built forms, as well as the position of the site in relation to

larger entities such as the settlementas a whole.

Internal structure

A form is also partially explained by its constituent parts. The physical properties of

each part will impose limits and conditions on the possible arrangements of the parts and

the resulting structure and outline of the form. The type of building materials and
of

method of construction used in building a room will impose limits and conditions on the

form of the room such as the overall-size of the room, wall thickness, window size and

position etc. The form of a plan-unit or tissue will be limited and conditioned by the

type of street, plot, building etc. used as component parts. Each element will have

dimensions and a particular logic of aggregation which will limit the possible
specific

and so the form of the tissue.

arrangements
 255

Classification and opposition

For the purposes of explanation, specific types of form can be classified and opposed one

to another on the basis of different spatial relations. Taking the example of relative

position as a part, classification can be more or less specific. On the one hand it can

be general, such as the classification of structural elements into the general categories

of roof, wall and floor. Thesebonventionalterms include in their definition a general

relative position. On the other hand, the classification can be more specific, made

to
according specific position within another form. An example is the distinction of plots

by their position in a block, identifying, for- instance, mid-block and comer plots.

Specific types can also be grouped based on a binary pair of characteristics such as used

by Caniggia. Within the spatial mode, for tissue and urban organisms Caniggia uses the

pairs centre/periphery and axis/limit. For materials and structures he uses elastic/plastic

and for the arrangement of parts generally lie uses the pair serial/organic.

The value of a binary opposition is that it focuses attention on a characteristic

property of forms which only emerges or becomes apparent in the context of its position,

use, existence over time or some other relation to humans, to the built or natural

environment.

The distinction of the pair elastic/plastic,for example,focuseson the behaviourof

materials or structures when placed under load. The behaviour is related to the internal

structure of the form. Formsof different internal structure will behavedifferently under

load. The distinction of centre/peripheryand axis/limit/ have value in relation to human

activity and the transformation of existing built forms. The distinction focuses, for

example,on the differential intensity and kind of transformationin the centre of a town

relative to the periphery.

 256

The temporal mode

Explanation from the temporal perspective is based on chronology and evolution and the

One of the most fundamental notions of

component relations of continuity and change.

is that form is the result of the process of formation. That process is

urban morphology

from the temporal perspective. A form is in part explained by the sequence

accessible

of events which give rise to the form, both the immediate physical process of construction

the evolution of the form as a product of thought.

and transformation and

Chronology

T'he temporal location of a built form in a chronological sequence, generally stated as the

date of formation or transformation, is a basis for explanation in terms of specific acts

limits and conditions. At the most fundamental level, two things cannot occupy the
and

same -space at the same time. Those things which come later must occupy a different

place. A building or settlement occupies a given area and any subsequent building must

be placed elsewhere, next to or away from it. That which is formed earlier becomes a

constituent of a site, contributing specific properties to those which obtained previously

or changing them entirely. In terms of the, function of a form as a constituent part,

previous acts of building impose limits and conditions on subsequent building. The

of possible forms which a house might take on an existing plot within an existing
range

is by those pre-existing forms, the dimensions of the plot, the type

settlement constrained

plots and buildings, the position of the plot within a block, and tile
of adjacent

orientation of the plot to a street.

In terms of the component parts of a form, a given form is explained by the specific

sequenceof acts of building, of adding, removingor changingparts, eachact constrained

 257

by the conditions and limits holding at the time at which it occurs. The conditions and

limits of a particular-time extend beyondthe spatial and physical properties of a place

to the availability of materials,techniques,skills, conceptsetc. From this perspective,

a form can be consideredan anachronismor discontinuity within a particular context

because, relative to surrounding forms or other component parts, those temporal

boundarieshave been broken. Such things as a lift in an Elizabethanmanor houseor

a steel-frame building in the centre of a Medieval town are clues to change, to

development,
subsequent to additions or transformationsat a time when such forms or

technology would have been possible.

Evolution

Regarding evolution, it can hardly be said that urban morphology is.without theory, given

the many ideas and relations subsumed under the term evolution. Had urban

morphology as a field of enquiry not succeeded the formulation of the theory of biological

evolution and its general assimilation over a period of a hundred years, the 'evolutionary

approach, tracing existing forms back to the underlying formative processes' would less

likely have seemed'to provide the rational methodof analysis.' (Conzen1969:7). As it

is, the many implicit assumptions remain to be fully exposed and formulated in terins

of the built environment.

The mechanismof the evolution of built forms, perhaps most fully examined and

outlined by Muratori and Caniggia,involves not only the sequences

of building acts but

the sequenceof ideasor conceptson which the acts were based. That is, assumingthe

act of building is a consciousor learnedand habitual process,the idea of a built object

is necessarybefore the building of the object. 'rhe idea will have a temporal location
I
 258

to
previous and concurrent with that of the building. Beyondchronology,however,the

idea or conceptcan be placed in a rangeof ideasor conceptspossibleat the time. That

range is derived from all previous building acts of which it is possible the actors or

agentswould have knowledge. A given form can be explained, partially, by its relation

to the concept on which it was based and the relation of the concept to previous

buildings.

Often the explanation will be that the form realises the status quo ante, the same

form as thoseimmediatelyantecedentand intended for the samepurpose. The question

then becomes,
on what idea or conceptwas any difference based:on the accumulation

of small scale changes to other similar existing forms; on other, older antecedent forms

still existing or of which there is record; on the assimilationof forms from different types

used for different purposes; on tile introduction of innovations from other regions; on

innovations derived from the development of new materials and technology. There may

be many sources.

In attempting to explain a form in terms of chronology and evolution an issue arises

regarding the conception of form as adopted in the previous chapter. A built form may

be analyzed a posterimi in terms of the generic structure of form as proposed but any

particularly of forms from different cultures and periods, should remain

specific analysis,

open to the possibility that the concept of the form at the time of building does not

correspond to any position in tile generic structure. This is to say that the concept of

a form a priori, may not correspond to a type identified a posteriori in terms of the

form. Thus, as far as possible, the analysis of an evolutionary

generic structure of

sequenceof types be
should an attempt to trace the conceptsusedat the time of building

and relate those concepts to antecedent buildings. It may be the case that those
 259

have in the hierarchy of types. The

concepts, those types a piiori, no analogue generic

differenceis then an aspectwhich must be incorporatedinto any explanation.

Classificationand opposition

Within the temporal mode, the classification and opposition of forms can be made on

bases. One is chronology,classifying forms accordingto the date of construction

several

or modification. Forms of the same generic type can be classified according to age and

to determine similarities and differences. This is a necessary step in

compared

by stages of evolution. Following Caniggia's model, this is done on the

classification

basis of the derivation of a ptiori types from examples existing at a given time.

Examplesare classified according to similarity of derivation.

Another basis for classifying forms is types of change. Chronological comparative

it to distinguish the initial sequence of building acts which

analysis makes possible

result in a form from the subsequent acts which involve-a change to that form. Forms

can then be grouped together. Conzen's

which go through similar subsequent changes

distinction of metamorphic and orthornorphic plot patterns is an example of such a

classification. While it is possible to identify many varieties of transformation, when

seen in the context of the hierarchy of form, the different kinds of transfonnationcan be

reduced to two: addition and subtraction. The transformationof an object at a given

level of the hierarchy is an addition or subtraction of component parts at lower levels of

the hierarchy. From this perspective,replacementand substitution can be reduced to

the combination of subtraction and immediateaddition of a similar part.

Identifying and specifyingkinds of changethen becomesa matter of comparingthe

examples of a give specific type at different times and Finding what additions and
In
 260

have been at
made which levels. 'Typical' changescan then be posited
subtractions

it can be shownthat similar changeshave been made to a number of examplesof

when

type. Conzen's Burgage Cycle is an example of several typical changes which

a specific

together form a typical seties or cycle of changes: the addition of a burgage series with

plots and plot dominants (rines) to a site or existing settlement; the addition of plot

(aedes)to each plot; the removal or subtraction of plot accessories from each
accessories

plot; the further subtraction of accessories and plot walls (statio) (see Figure 82).

The energetic mode

Urban form is explained in part by energetic actions, reactions, limits and conditions.

On the one hand, energy is necessary for the construction and maintenance of built form

is
and on the other, energy often necessaryto make the forms habitable or useful for

human purposes. At a more basic level, the structure and properties of materials can

be explained in terms of energy. I'lie 'inertia' of materials, that is, the continuity of their

structure, can be explained in terms of the energetics of their molecular and atomic

structure. This is, of course, outside the realm of urban morphology. The energetic

of materials may, however, be of interest in some cases such as in the example

properties

of the walls and roof of dwelling houses. The thermal propertiesof the material used to

build the walls and roof in combination with the desire for heat insulation help to

explain the structure of the walls and roof.

Energy of construction and transformation

In termsof the constructionand maintenanceof built form, the source,type, pathwayand

flow of energy help to explain, for example, tile differential rates of change between
 261

buildings, plots, and streets and blocks. The energy necessary to make a change to an

individual building is much smaller than that necessaryto changean individual block

or street. Thus, given the general tendency toward minimum expenditure of energy for

any given change, there tends to be a greater cumulative change to buildings than to

streets and blocks. More generally, the overall inertia of the built environment is

explained, in part, by the same tendency to expend as little energy as necessary.

Generally,once the energyhas been expendedin the construction of a given form, the

form remains as built. Less energy is required for maintenance or small scale

modifications then for demolition and rebuilding. The former is thus generally preferred

to the latter.

Energy of use

In terms of the use of a form, the source, type and pathway of energy help to explain, for

example,the form of traditional courtyard housesin the-Middle East and North Africa.

In the hot and climates of theseareas,roomsare kept relatively cool and so habitable

by their arrangement around a central courtyard. The heat absorbed by the materials

of the building during the day is radiated at night. The cool air is retained during the

day, shadedand protectedfrom wind by the form of the courtyard (seeFathy 1986). The

form of the house is explained in part by the desire to manipulate energy flows in order

to make the housemore comfortable.

Likewise, the form of high-rise buildings can be explained, in part, by the energy

source of vertical circulation. In general, the requirement for human energy to climb

more than five or six storeys is considered too great. With lifts, electrical energy is used

to power vertical circulation, saving tile expense of human energy. The development of
I
 262

lift madehigh-rise buildings by

possible reducing the humanenergyrequired
the electric

to move up and down the building.

Classification and opposition

Classifications and oppositions of types in terms of energetics can be made on the basis

One is energy requirement, that is, more or less (Caniggia's distinction

of several axes.

is in part based on this opposition). Other axes are:

of natural and artificial materials

conductivity/resistanceand active/passive.

Ilie human mode

The human aspectof built fonn is perhapsthe most complex realm of explanation. For

that. reason it is probably the richest and most revealing. Following the distinctions

made-in the previous chapter, there are several perspectivesor modesof explanation

the general heading of the human aspect: intention, use, control,

within

as well as agents.
construction/transformationand response/significance

Intention

The initial assumptionis that-humans build for a purpose. A need or desire, fear or

gives rise to the intention to -useor build someobject. The object is then used
aversion

functions to or
accommodate satisfy the desire or need, to relieve the aversion or
and

fear.

The explanationof a form then involves relating the form to a desire or intention,

brief to build, to accommodatesome human activity of perform some

a charge or

function. At the most basic level, there is a need for shelter. The need explains the
 263

of the shelter. But why a particular form? What were the specific terms of the
existence

problem? What range of problems were addressed? What was the range of possible

solutions? What were the limits of that range? Further, what conditions gaverise to that

particular problem? What conditions made that range of solutions available and

excludedothers? Thesequestionsrelate, on the one hand, to the desiresand intentions

of 'clients', the individual or corporateagentswho provide the impetus to build, in terms

of their specific desires for the built environment. On the other hand, the questions

relate to the 'designers',that is, to the policies; and

programmes concernsof the people

contributing to the theoretical and critical discourse concerning the form of the built

environment and directly involved in designing and building the actual built

environment. The questions above also concern the more general image and expectations

for the built environment shared by the population of a given area.

A form is thus explained by the intention to build and the intention to build in a

particular way. It is explained by the desire to solve or address a range of problems or

concerns and the ideas which might provide solutions. -

Because of the diversity of intentions in building, the possible classifications and

oppositions, of forms are equally diverse and cannot be identified here. In general,

however,the other aspectsused in explanationoffer a starting point: spatial, temporal,

energetic, natural and the other human aspects of use, control, constru6tion-

transformation and response-significance. Clearly there is an overlap of aspects. The

distinction to be maderegardingintentions is the difference betweenthe conceptionof

a form in the minds of the builders and the form as seen in analysis. Intention involves

the conception in the mind of the builders. 11iis is for the most part the distinction
 264

by Caniggia between the a priori type and the a posteriori type (see also Baxandall
made

1985).,

Use

Most forms'arc built or transformedto facilitate a particular human activity. The forms

in
are effect tools and so can be explained, in part, by the function they perform, the

actual activity they physically accommodate. Ilie form of a dwelling house, for example,

is explained, in part,, by the specific activities it accommodates: sleeping, eating,

socializing etc. More generally it might be said that the forms of the built environment

can be explained by the habits and inclinations of the people who use those forms.

Nor are forms necessarily used in the way they were originally intended to be used.

If, however, a form is used for a other than that for which it was originally
-purpose

intended but no modificationsare made to it, the new use does not help to explain the

form in the same way as the original use. 'Me fact that the form can accommodate more

than one use indicates the form is flexible with respectto use. It may be, then, that the

different usesover time only explains the continued

fact that the form hasaccommodated

existenceof the form.

Control

Built forms are also explained in part by the limits and controls concerning built form

imposedor exertedby variousagents:laws,acts, policies, ordinances,regulations,codes

concerning the form, use and construction of built form directly. Of particular

importancewithin this modeof explanationis the systemof property tenure,division and

exchange. The form of a streetJor example, including the buildings which line it, is in
I
 265

part explained by the original division of property into plots and blocks, their size and

the form of tenure applying to individual plots. Equally, the form and appearance of that

street can be explained in part by any building regulations, ordinances or other laws

restricting the form of building.

As with use,there arc many kinds of control and thus many possibleclassifications

The appropriate grouping for a given study will depend on the primary
and oppositions.

purpose and analytical scope of the study. The most likely to be of value in explanation

relate to the nature of the agents:public/private, individual/corporate; or to the nature

of control: occupation, tenancy, ownership, right of legislation and enforcement, etc.

Constructionand transfomzation

The act of building, that is, the manufacture of materials, construction, modification and

maintenance of built form is a basis for the explanation of form. A given object, a

Roman temple or a high-rise tower for example, is explained in part by the actual

process of construction and the technology, tools and skills involved in the process.

More generally, the structure or organization of the humans involved in construction

contribute to the explanation of built form, directly in terms of the structure of the

building 'trade' or 'industry', and indirectly in terms of the conditions which make a

particular mode of organizationpossible: politics, economicsand finance, training and

education etc. Tlius, for example,it might be said that the form of housing in England

in the 1990scan be explainedin part by the structure of the building industry with large

national construction firms operatingover most of the country.

The possible classifications and oppositions of forms according to

construction/transformationwill depend on the specific interest of a given study.

I
 266

Pertinent oppositions might include: natural/artificial, hand built/machine built,

local/foreignlabour or skill and different types of organizationssuch as families, guilds,

unions etc.

Agenis

In each modewithin the humanaspect,explanationwill involve relating a form or forms

to agents occupying the position of 'human' in the human-form relation. The nature of

the agents can be distinguished by: number, whether an individual or corporate entity

if the is
agent a corporate entity or group, distinguishing different
or group; structure,

relations between individuals within the entity in terms of power or the freedom to make

decisions and take action; social and legal status or position, whether the agent is a

private individual, private company, public compapy, private or public institution,

government ministry, a population or community as a whole etc.

7lic natural mode

From the perspective of the environment, that is, the non-built elements of the

environment,built form be
can explained,partially, as a responseto the conditions and

limits imposedby: the form, materialand physical propertiesof the terrain; the short and

long term atmosphericconditions; solar orientation and insolation; the source,amount

and form of water, potable and non-potable,and the viable plant and animal speciesof

the region.
 267

Considerations for explanation

is
This all necessarilyabbreviated,a thumbnail sketch for more detailed and specific

Looking closely at the range of forms in the hierarchy, it

attempts at explanation.

becomesclear that any one level or form will demand different modesof explanation.

That is, one mode or another or a componentwithin a mode may be emphasiscdwith

in form as defined within, the hierarchy of generic

respect to others explaining a given

types. While this might be construed from one perspective as a fragmentedand so

approach, the subdivision of forms by generic and specific type and of

undirected

different modesof explanationcan be seenas a meansof achieving more directed and

By identifying morespecifically the parts of the built

specific analysesand explanations.

the of
processes their formation, it is possible to be more accurate in
environmentand

about the forms and processesand the possible reasonsfor their

making statements

By identifying levels of complexity it is possibleto be specific in identifying

occurrence.

is actually changing and what remaining, the same in the development and
what

transformationof the built environment. It is then possible to be more specific about

things are changing or remaining the same, who is involved and how it is
why those

done.

It should also be fairly clear from the preceding that the different modes of

individually sufficient but overlap. It is their interrelation which

explanation are not

begins to form an adequateexplanation.

Indeed, the combinationof different sortsof information is of the utmost importance

in making more general inferencesabout the processesof formation and transformation

of urban form. The formulation of regularities, tendenciesand working hypothesesis

the recognition and identification of emergent patterns arising from

possible through
I
 268

of different explanations and the groupings of forms in

combinations and comparisons

The hypothesis of annular growth or outward expansion of urban areas (see

each mode.

Figure 7), is made possible by correlating the period of origin'of buildings with their

in a town., The fringe belt model (see Figure 136) is based primarily on the
position

correlation of the period of origin of buildings, their position in a town and the specific

form of individual buildings.

Further, the groupings, sequences and series as well as-their correlations and the

emergentpatternsaid in finding and identifying specific types and pointing to possible

explanations. 71iroughfamiliarity with: the history of typesof construction,building plan

and layout;
development kinds of transformations,
the history of transformationsand their

associationwith intended uses;kinds of control, the area and period in which they were

exercisedand the formsassociatedwith that area and period; emergentpatterns such as

outward expansion, fringe belt formation, the burgage cycle, the progressive duration of

buildings, plots and blocks; through familiarity with all these and innumerable other

groupings, sequences,correlations and emergent patterns, a framework is established into

types can be placed. Such familiarity provides a body of working

which specific

hypotheses, of tentative expectations which can be used in making distinctions, positing

specific types and ng.

suggesti explanat ions.

The extent to which such hypotheses or expectations apply, both in time and area

is of particular importance. On the one hand the whole endeavour of morphology is

historical and in that respect the interest lies in what has specifically contributed to the

formation of a particular place. The question is, what constitutes this place and why is

it that way? On the other hand there is an interest in what common processes might

to the formation of the built environment. The question is then, what

contribute
 - -, I

269

regularities can be identified, what repeating patterns and processes? The problem is

how to balance the two interests. Care must be taken in applying hypothesesand

expectations. They must not be forced on examples. It is necessaryto be prepared to

suspendexpectationsand be ready to try different hypotheses. I

Response and significance

Making hypotheses about the built environment involves another aspect of the built

environment within that of the human which is a further mode of explanation: the human

to
response and significance of built form. Within the context of urban morphology, the

interaction between humans and built form in terms of response and significance is

important in three main ways:as part of the explanationof individual forms; as the basis

for the explanation of differences in the overall or synthetic. (rather than analytic)

perceptionof the built environment;as the meansof inference in the built environment

generally and so the basis of any hypothesisconcerning the built environment.

Explanation

Response and significance contribute in several ways to the explanation of individual

forms. Knowledge of the human physical response to built forms, for example, in terms

of proximity, scale, proportion, complexity, enclosure, exposure, height, depth, surface

texture or pattern and colour, can be used by the designersof built form to intentionally

elicit responses. I'lie overall size of gothic cathedrals, for example, the height of the

navesand aisles and the proportionsof the columns and windowscan be explained in

part by the intentions to elicit moreor less specific responsesin the peopleentering and

using the building - ascension,

awe, rapture, faith. The responsemay be merely a kind
I
 270

of stimulus or may include some mental content, an idea or other image. A gateway or

portal, for example, can elicit a general stimulus for those moving through it - approach,

restriction, enclosure, passage,emergence - as well as signify the more or less specific,

socially defined content of <entrance>. Another exampleis the use of a larger door in

relation to other openings on the facade of a building to signify <main entrance>. In

forms
somecases, are built primarily for the purposeof signification such as monuments,

memorials and markers, signifying such content as <victory>, <remembrance> or

<Father Junipero Serra passed this way>.

Many elements of built forms can be used to signify general or specific content: the

arrangement of several buildings, the overall form of individual buildings, plan

arrangement, structural elements, sculptural and decorative elements, colour as well as,

of course, inscriptions and other verbal or graphic signs.

Further, there are casesin which a form acquires significance over time. In such

cases, the significance helps to explain not the process of formation but the continued

existence of the form and perhaps its relation to the form of other objects which are

designed in response to its presence. The Eiffel Tower in Paris, for instance, was meant

as a temporary structure. It was intended to signify, more or less specifically, <French

engineering skill> or <French technical preeminence (or at least competitiveness)> as

well as more generally, <progress> and <modemity>. Since then it has come to

signify primarily <Paris> and has become a principle and permanent landmark in the

city.

Built formsalso havesignificancein termsof exchangevalue. The cost or monetary

value attributed to a built form, in particular the plot as the common unit of land

exchange, must be taken into account in a full explanation of urban areas. The
 271

fringe belt phenomena, for example, by the use of bid-rent theory is based
explanation of

on the variability of exchangevalue over distance and time.

In terms of classifications and oppositions, the phenomena of response or

signification might be distinguished,for example,accordingto modesof sign production

(see Eco 1976), types of response or types of content.

Signification and interpretation

It is clear, however,that only a fraction of the built environment is producedwith the

intentioii of communicating some content. Most elements of the built environment are

produced primarily for the purpose of accommodating some physical activity.

Regardless, many built objects are interpreted as having some significance, even if not

intended in its production. This mode of interpretation is identified in the field of

semiotics as recognition along with ostention, replication, and invention (Eco 1976: 217).

Recognition is a form of interpretafion or, more strictly, is a sign function in which no

sender and no intention of communication is involved. In recognition, the sign is in

effect produced by the interpreter.

In urban morphology and in the tradition of cultural geography more generally,

recognition has been more or less openly the basis of interpreting the built environment

in two primary ways. On the one hand is the interpretation of the overall or synthetic

perception of built environments and the desire to distinguish different places in terms

of 'character' or 'senseof place'. On the other hand there is the interpretation of what

the built environment'says' aboutthe peopleor culture which producedit. In this latter

sense,the built environmentis interpretedas an unwitting expression. Built formsare

interpreted as expressions regardless of whether or not they were intended as

I
 jT

272

expressions. Taking a semiotic point of view helps to clarify the way in which

significance and interpretation operate in these approaches to the study of the built

environment.

Character and senseof place

From a semiotic perspective, character or sense of place is a complex response to a

complex phenomenon involving many different kinds of stimulus and response. The

correlation of that complex response with a label such ýs /sense of place/ or, for example,

/Paris/ or /San Francisco/ is what is called by Eco undercoding (1976:135). , In

undercoding, the whole sense or response is considered pertinent, but only identified and

labelled as a wholeprovisionally,either becausethe vocabularyand conceptswith which

to be more specific remain unknown or because the complex sense has yet to be

analyzed.

To distinguish and specify different places in terms of character or sense of place

is to begin to analyze the complex response and to provide vocabulary and concepts in

order to speak more specifically about what constitutes a place and so what contributes

to the sense of a place. Urban morphology attempts to do this in a systematic way by

identifying distinct aspectsof built 'places' and the relations betweenthem. All the

aspects identified for the purposes-of explanation in this chapter can be taken as

constituent elements of character or sense of place.

The character of Paris, for example is constituted by, amongst other things, its

location and spatial arrangement of forms, the arrondissements, the boulevards, the

blocks of apartmenthouses,Notre Dame,the Opera,Arc de Triomphe, SacreCoeurand

the Eiffel Tower; by its temporalexistence,its ageand tile processesof its development,
 273

its history; by the natural featureswithin, on and around which it is built, the Ile de

France, the Seine, Montparnasse,the Marais, the weatherand climate, the plane trees

by the intentionsof thosewho built the city, both the ordinary peoplewho
and chestnuts;

built the manyordinary housesand the greatmen and women,Saint Louis, Francoisler,

Catherinede Medicis, Louis XIV, Hausmann;by the activities which go on within it, the

living, shopping in street markets, drink ing-smoking and chatting in cafes,

working and

being to tourists; by the people themselves; by the laws

going to the cinema, rude

it; by the methods of its construction and the many other impressions
controlling ...

The 'place' is constituted by these things and, 'needless to say, too many others to ever

mention.

Equally, San Francisco is its location on the northern end of the peninsula between

the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, it is the arrangement of parts, the grids, the

Columbus, Van Ness and Lombard Avenues, the Victorian wood-frame

neighbourhoods,

houses and granite clad high-rise towers, the Golden Gate Bridge, Sutro Tower, the

Palace of Fine Arts, Transamerica Pyramid and Bank of America building; it is its short

history, the earthquake and rebuilding; it is the hills, the Bay, tile Ocean, it is the fog,

the wind and light; the desires and intentions of miners and railroad magnates, Chinese

immigrants and venture capitalists; the city is the activities it contains, the office work,

the therapy, walking through Fisherman's Wharf, buying cracked crab and sour dough

bread or a newspaper on a street comer from a man in a small plywood shelter, bicycle

messengers riding up and down hills, it is shopping, eating lunch in a small comer

hawkers hawking in front of strip joints; it is the staggering variety of people who
plaza,

live there, the laws controlling it; tile way it was built; it is the joy of a view from

Russian Hill south and east over the Bay and tile smell of coffee roasting in the Hills
I
 ý J17

274

Brother's plant south of Market Street, the fear of an unintended walk through Hayes

Valley and the frustration of trying to drive out of town on a Friday afternoon. It is all

thesethings and, again, too many other things to possibly mention.

The task of urban morphologyin attempting to specify what constitutesthe senseof

a place involves, in the terminology of semiotics, a segmentation of the expression plane

in parallel with a segmentation of the content plane. The constituent expressive elements

which are identified as contributing to the sense are conceptualized as distinct entities.

In order to talk about the finer segmentation of content, it is necessary to have an

equally finely segmented verbal expression to correspond to that -segmented content.

Each new concept needs a word. This is in effect to subdivide the built environment in

detail and so into a greater number of constituent parts, providing a label for
greater

each new part. The language in

used geography, environmental design and particularly

is
urban morphology more finely segmented than ordinary language. The proposal of the

previous chapter is an attempt to further segment the verbal expression and content

planes referring to the built environment and to segment it in a more systematic way in

order to promote more systematic examination of the built environment in general and

character or sense of place in particular.

The limits and modesof interpretation

A full analysis of character or sense of place should determine not only what functions

as a sign-vehicle and what the corresponding content is but also the way in which it

functions. There is no established 'code' for reading the built environment. This is in

due to the fact that, as noted, much of what can be interpreted as significant in the
part

built environment is not intentionally expressed. It is also due to the fact that most of
 275

is in the built environment is non-verbal (on this see Rapoport 1982).

what significant

The built environmentis not a verbal text (thoughit containsverbal elements). To 'read'

the built is
environment not like reading a book. If the analogyholds at all, it is in the

sense that the book, as an object, can be interpreted by: its overall form and

construction, the kind of paper and cover of which it is made, the page layout, typeface

and illustrations; the history of its production from conception to sale, the energy used

to produce it, the intentions of its production (the communication of the content of the

book being only one amongst many, others being, perhaps, profit, fame, market share),

the position or status of the book relative to others (coffee table book, serious reference

work, airport novel, up-market, down-market etc. ), the structure of the society into which

the book fits as a cultural object and the importanceplaced on it; the way the book is

actually used (read, used as a doorstop, paper weight, fuel etc. ); the regulations limiting

its production such as libel and censorship laws, sales agreements between publishers

and retailers etc.; the mode of its production distribution -and sale and all the sensations

the book elicits. Theseaspectscan 'tell' us somethingabout the book but in a manner

very different from the verbal contentof the book and, needlessto say, tell us something

different from that content. Such differences in modes of interpretation must be

very

kept in mind when attempting to 'read' the built environment in order to avoid

misinterpretation.

Enquiry as interpretation

In a strict sense all phenomena have 'significance' in that all awareness and knowledge

of the world is a response to signs. That is, syllogistically, all perception is by signs

(Peirce 1958:34,65): awarenessand knowledge of tile world is gained through

I
 276

perception: therefore awareness and knowledge of the world is gained by way of signs.

The awarenessand knowledge from signs is accessible through the process of

inzerpretation.As the built environmentis part of the world, it followsthat all awareness

and knowledgeof the built environment is the product of interpretation. From this

perspective, the whole enquiry into the built environment generally and the enquiry of

urban morphologyin particular is necessarilybased on the interpretation of the built

environment as a collection of signs. We can describe and explain the built environment

only by what we perceive and what we perceive are signs.

This raises the question of what is a legitimate interpretation. With respect to this

question, Eco's position regaiding what constitutes a sign is accepted here. A sign is

'everything that on the grounds of a previously establishedsocial convention, can be taken

as something standing for something else' (Eco 1976: 16; my emphasis). This is to say,

an object works as a sign because there is agreement within a group that the object

means or refers to something else. Strictly then, a legitimate interpretation is one which

identifies a socially established comelation between a sign-vehicle and a content unit.

Two other points must also be considered. One is that there are different groups who

will have different definitions for given signs, different not necessarily in the sense of

contradictory (though this might be the case) but in terms of elaboration and detail.

Also, some groups, particularly specialist or expert groups will use or recognize signs that

other groups do not. It is thus possible to distinguish generally between common sense

interpretationsand specialist or expert interpretations(Eco 1984:73). The other point

is that the correlation between sign-vehicle and content is not fixed absolutely. This

implies that at somepoint the correlationsmust be posited and that the meaning
 277

to the sign-vehicle may change,expand or contract. Signs must be invented

attributed

or ercated and can be modified (Eco,1976).

Threenwdesof enquiry

For the study of the built -environment, these considerations suggest three general

to interpretation. One is to attempt to catalogue the common sense

approaches

interpretations of the built environment. This is done not primarily by examining the

but their by
usage a population. The question is, what is the 9
common
signs themselves

usage' of the elements of the built environment in terms of the use of objects in

communication and their opposition to other objects in such communication? What are

the common ideas and stereotypes people attach to objects in the built environment? For

interpretation to be considered legitimate it must, like a legitimate

a common sense

dictionary entry, be based on a sample of citations. The connection must be made by

enough people to warrant its legitimacy. An example of -an attempt at such a 'lexicon'

for the built environmentis AmosRapoport'sbook TheMeaning of the Built Environment

(1982)

A second approach to interpretation is that of the encyclopedia. This is in many

ways the approach taken in geography and urban morphology. The task is to gather the

current knowledgeabout something,in this case built form, and to update the account

as new information is gathered. To be considered legitimate, the knowledge or

information about the form should, as in the caseof history and philology, be basedon

the comparison of several primary sources. Legitimate knowledge is then the most

plausible hypothesismade from the available sources.

 278

The encyclopedic approach not only records meaning but also creates it. Each new

bit of information added to the accountof a given form becomesa part of the definition

form. T'he knowledge of the form. Urban

of the significance or meaning grows with

thus posits meanings for forms based on the plausibility and

morphological research

persuasive strength of the evidence that the research presents as an explanation of the

form. Once the correlation of form and information is posited, the form can then be

taken as a sign standing for or referring to that information. If, for example, the form of

house is by the intentions involved in its construction, the house can be

a explained

interpreted as a sign-vehicle referring to the intentions. The life of this correlation of

information and form as a sign will depend on the plausibility and utility of the

correlation. If it is it
used often enough can be said to be current and active, at least

within the specialist or expert field. It may then come into common usage. In either

realm, it will share the fate of all signs, having the possibility of, amongst other things,

being abused, reduced to a cliche or forgotten entirely.

The encyclopedic approach thus involves interpreting form according to correlations

established by previous research and positing or inventing additional correlations with

new research. A correlation hypothesised in explanation is the first positing of a sign

which might later be interpreted. Subsequent interpretations are based on the

con-clations of that explanation.

An implication of this is that there is then an interaction between researchand

sense of place. Everything that is learned through research about a place becomes,

I potentially, part of the sense of that place. The information one knows about a place

contributes to ones sense of the place. As one gets to know more, the sense grows and

changes.
 279

It should also be noted that the invention of additional signs through explanation

correspondsto the of
segmentation expressionand content planes discussedabove. To

identify new forms and refer to them by name, to provide explanations for them and

subsequentlyinterpret the formsas signs accordingto the explanationsis to segmentor

subdivide the continuum of the expressionand content planes. Again, The proposalof

the previouschapter is an attempt to further segmentthe verbal expressionand content

planes referring to the built environment in a systematic way in order to promote more

systematicexaminationof the built environment.

The third approach to interpretation also involves invention but in a less restricted

way. The approachmight be called critical or creative. It is interpretation basedon the

perceptions of an individual, making new connectionsbetween built forms and other

aspectsof the world. It is an approachin which anything goes. The intention is to look

at the built environment in as many different ways as possible in order to arrive at

different conceptions which might provide new understanding of it. It is not less

legitimate for that reason. It is more speculative. It is basedon the direct experience

built and its legitimacy lies in its reference to a specific place or

of the environment

places. The result of such an approachis in a sensean invitation to go to the,place and

to
attempt see it in the same,
way, that is, to make the connectionsbetween ideas and

forms made by the author.

Thethreemodesin the contextof establisheddisciplines

The first approach has been pursued in different ways within the realms of environmental

environmental design and geography. See, for example, Lynch (1960),

psychology,

Norberg-Schulz(1980), Rapoport(1982), Gottdiener (1986), Domosh(1989), Cosgrove

 280

(1982,1984) and Daniels and Cosgrove (1988). It remains a relatively small field, in

it would seem, because of the difficulty of translating the content of non-verbal

part,

held by a population into verbal language. Rapoport's use of advertising

signs as

interesting and productive direction. T11esecond approach is

material suggests an

the fields of geography, environmental design and art and

generally pursued within

architectural history. It is the approach taken in this thesis.

Ilie third approach, as part of an academic enquiry, has been pursued within

and environmental design but primarily within the tradition of cultural

geography

'the interpretation of the ordinary landscape'. Outside the academic

geography and

realm it can be found in travel writing, fiction, the visual arts and cinema.

I'lie interpretation of the built environment as an 'unwitting' -expression of a

or culture corresponds more or less to all of these approaches. The

population

interpretation of built form as expressive of culture is not, of course, restricted to these

fields. Such a view is also taken in anthropology, archaeology, sociology and semiotics.

Interpretation and culture

Semiotics in particular shedslight on several points regarding this issue. One is the

the codification of the artifact or built object as a sign. The object cannot be
processof

taken as a sign of a particular culture until the specific correlation between the object

and culture has been posited. Once posited, the object is an expressionof the culture

in as njuch as Ithe culture' is itself a socially dermcd concept. In general, culture

is defined in tems of its structure, habits, and products. Thus, if a culture is defined,

in part, by what it produces, the products can then be interpreted as referring to the

producers and by way of them referring to the larger group to which they belong.
specific
 281

Beyond referring to the producers and the larger group, what does the object say

about the culture? Semiotics highlights the fact that without seeing the object in the

context of the culture, that is, in opposition to the other objects it produces and

occupying a particular position within the culture in terms of its use, importance etc.,

the object cannot say more than, <this object is a product of such and such a culture>.

The implication is that the position of the object within a culture must be demonstrated

for it to -'say' anything about the culture. The connections and oppositions to other

aspects must be specified.

The desire to be specific in the study -of the built environment is a primary

motivation of the proposals of this and the previous chapter. If that study is to further

our understanding of urban form, it cannot remain satisfied with global, generalizing

statements and vague terminology. To remain so is to be satisfied -with the paradoxical

wisdom of plus Va change, plus cest le mgme chose. Always different statements but

always general statements. To begin to understand more, one must ask what, exactly,

changes and what stays the same.

Given a desire for specificity and a desire for a consistent framework for comparative

one conclusion to be drawn from the work at this point is that there is a need for
study,

a recognized system of nomenclature for built form. The proposal in the previous chapter

labels for the generic types of form and is a step toward such a system. What
suggests

is necessary is a consistent approach to the naming of specific types. Both Conzen and

Caniggia use labels for the specific types they identify in their studies. Conzen uses

verbal names such as'Alnwick type High Street Layout' (1969: 108), and Caniggia letter

and number designations (1984: 114-16). To be more effective as tools in comparative

the types must be named using a consistent procedure and nomenclature.

study,
 282

One advantage of systematic nomenclature is that the types named according to an

establishedsystemare more likely to becomecodified as signs and so communicated.

This should facilitate comparative study and so ultimately improve our understanding of
t
built form.

If the built environmentis,consideredas an important componentof humanculture

and can be consideredas a repositoryof accumulatedwisdom - the trials, errors and

successes of generations in attempting to form a workable, sustainable and convivial

habitat - we have a responsibility to know specifically what constitutes the built

environment and, at the least, record it, if not preserve it materially. A system of

nomenclature would facilitate the recording and the act of recording would focus

attention on the built environment,its diversity and the importance of that variety in

terms of aesthetic satisfaction and political choice.

 SEVEN

THE APPLICATION TO MANAGEMENT OF

INFORMATION CONCERNING BUILT FORM

desire be in to the built environment arises not only

The and need to specific referring

the academic disciplines but also in areas in which the built environment
within realm of

is the object of daily practice. This is perhaps most obvious in tile cases of planning,

design and architecture. Another area for which specificity is desirable is the
urban

of the built environment by private or public institutions,

administration and management

departmentsor ministries. Such bodies as English Heritage and the

trusts, agencies,

National Trust in England and the National Trust for Historic Preservationin America

local authorities, municipal governments, housing authorities or trusts, have

as well as

their control some portion of the built environment, in terms of ownership,

under

trusteeship,or legal jurisdiction. As owners,trusteesor regulators,thesebodies have the

task of managing that portion of the built environment in terms, variously, of the physical

the property, control of its occupation and use or control of modifications

maintenance of

by occupants or tenitnts.
 284

It is assumed here that effective execution of the task of management demands-a

comprehensiveand specific knowledgeof the entities to be in

managed, this case,built

forms. The proposal of chapter five for the identification and description of built form

provides a means of supplying and organizing that comprehensive and specific

knowledge. In other words, the managementof built form is an area in which the

proposed subdivision of built form may be applied for specific practical purposes.

One possible specific application of this kind is the management of listed buildings

by English Heritage, a central governmental agency charged with the administration of

historic monuments and buildings in England. Briefly, a listed building is a building

judged to be of 'special architectural or historical interest' by a local authority. English

Heritage is the central advisory body to local authorities for listed buildings. English

Heritage are-also directly responsible for a number of buildings and sites owned by or

entrusted to the state.

The listing of a building is in general interpreted as a preservation order. Any

modifications to a listed building must be approved by the local authority and any

demolitions must be approved by English Heritage. To make modifications to a listed

building, the owner must apply to the local authority for listed building consent

(Cullingworth 1988). At the moment,for the purposesof listing, a 'building' can be

anything from an iron railing or call-box to a complex building such as the Circus at

Bath (Richard Griffith, personalcommunication).

The following is a letter to Richard Griffith, an architect working for English

Heritage. The letter was written after several discussions with Griffith about his specific

tasks at English Heritage and the more general question of the problems faced by the

body as a whole. - The main point of discussion was the problem of compiling and
 285

organizing information about listed buildings, primarily the total number of buildings

listed and so under the control of English Heritage. A fundamental aspect of the

discussion was the implications of the definition of 'building' for the total number of

listed buildings.

At English Heritage, Griffith is responsible for advising and providing technical

assistance on applications for listed building consent. He has more general concerns in
.

the task of managementand has been frustratedwith the lack of informationabout listed

buildings. Griffith has assertedin print CTimes',letters, 17-7-86and ThePlanner, 1-9-

89) that English Heritage does not know the total number of listed buildings in England,

in part due to the lack of any strict definition of 'building'.

The following letter discusses the possible application of the morphological

subdivisionsof built form as proposedin this thesis to the definition of built form for the

purposes of listing and managing buildings.

1-

A LETTER CONCERNINGTHE DEFINITION OF 'BUILDING' AND

THE MANAGEMENTOF LISTED BUILDINGS

Dear Richard,

I write this as a continuationof the conversationswe have had about your work at

English Heritage. In those conversations, it struck me that the questions

you were

asking and some of the problems you confront might be successfully addressed using

some of the concepts of urban morphology. I am writing, therefore, in the hope that what
I
 286

follows might be of some use to you, or at the least of some interest. Having never fully

explained morphology, I attempt, briefly, to do so and show that it can be applied to the

issues you address at English Heritage., -

Stating the problem

0

The specific issues I would like to address are the challenges you face at English

Heritage, both in the management of listed buildings as well as in asking the question,

how many listed buildings arc there in England? What I hope might be of use and

which I attempt to explain is a specific means of addressing that question and the issues

of management.

Perhaps I should begin by setting out what I understand to be the task you confront

at English Heritage as well as the basic issues raised by your question of the number of

listed - buildings. Starting with the latter, it seems- your question raises the more

fundamentalquestion,what is a building? If one is to count 'buildings', one must know

is to be included and what is not. Using an example you mentioned, the Circus at
what

Bath presents several problems (see Figures 123 and 124). Is it one building or are

there as many buildings as there are front doors to the street? This leads to the more

complicated problems faced -in managing such an entity. Does the Circus have

identifiable, relatively autonomousparts? Who controls those parts. flow many

individuals, corporatebodies,or institutions havesomeform of control of this building?

What is the nature of that control - ownership, leasehold, rental tenancy, planning

authority? Further, what are the units of ownership or tenure? Is it, for example, the

individual terracedhouse? As you mentioned,in one casea nursing homenow takesup

 287

what were once three separatehouses. It may also be the case that what was once one

househas since been divided into severalseparateflats.

All this raisesa perhapsmore pertinent question. If it is the whole Circus which

has been listed, how much changecan be sustained to each componentpart without

changing the whole? How is it possible to manage that change without a specific

knowledgeof the componentparts and who has control of those parts?

The primary problem, as far as I understand, is that in the process of listing, there

is no discrimination betweendifferent kinds of buildings, or 'built objects'. A call-box

and the Circus at Bath are both listed buildings.

Thus in the case of the Circus, the listing takes no account of the constituent parts

of the 'building'. In a sense it comes down to language, which rather than an aid, seems

to be an obstacle to understanding. 'Building' is a general term which encompasses a

vast range of built objects (for lack of a better term). There is no distinction in the term

'building' between something composed of simply a floor, four walls and a roof, and

something composed of a number of houses, each house itself composed of a number of

rooms. The category 'listed building" is thus too coarse and simple to deal with tile

variety of identifiable built objectswhich might be singled out and listed.

While this is a matter of the actual physical form and internal arrangementof the

objects, another issue, again as I understandit, is that the listing does not distinguish

the units of ownership,or, more generally, of control over tile property. Nor does it

distinguish betweendifferent typesof control, such as freehold, leasehold,tenancy etc.

Does the unit of ownership correspond to the 'building' listed? Are there several owners

within one 'building' or are there perhaps several agents involved with different kinds
 288

building. This obviously has more direct implications for the

of control over a single

the property rather than for classification.

management of

Moving beyond these issues, there may be the possibility that the actual use of a

in terms of management. 11iis is to distinguish use,

property also raises problems

from control, taken strictly as the legal relation

referring to specific types of activities,

between an individual or corporate entity and a specific built object. Does a listing

specify the use of a building? What problems arise from different kinds of activity

one listed building or by changes of use over time? Does the unit of
occurring within

flat, correspond to the entire listed property or only a

use, such as a shop, surgery or

Does the unit of use correspond to a unit of control? Iliese questions arc
part?

less pertinent to the question of the number of listed buildings but may, again,
certainly

perhaps be pertinent to the task of management.

I'lie general view of urban morpholog

my

Drawing the distinctions between form, control and use in formulating these questions

is central to what I hope might be of use to you and which I will make an effort to clarify

as best I can. What I am suggesting is an analytical framework or system of

to aid in accounting for the complexity and diversity of - the built

classification

environment. It is based on the concepts and ideas generated in the field of urban

pursued by both geographers and architects. The aim of the

morphology, a study

discipline is to explain the form of human settlements. It'does so not only at the level

the settlement as a whole. In the explanation of a town, it is necessary to examine the

of

different parts constituting a settlement, from building materials to the patterns of streets

blocks. In explaining a form, it is necessary to examine how the parts fit together
and
 289

to form the whole. It is necessary, as well, to determine how the various parts are put

togetherover time and are changedto form the settlement as we know it today. What

exactly makes one settlementdifferent from another? Is it different types of building

different typesof construction,different building types,different plot patterns,

material,

different arrangementsof streetsand blocks? Is it the ageof a settlementand the variety

forms added over time? Certainly it is all these and more. To explain such
- of

differences it is necessary to carefully distinguish the different aspects and parts of the

built environmentand to do so in a consistentway in order to make useful comparisons.

What I believe may be of use to you is the manner of distinguishing aspects and parts.

This is all probably terribly unrelenting in its abstraction. If you can bear it a bit

longer, I will try to put it in to more tangible terms.

In attempting to explain the built environment, the general distinction is made in

between different aspects of the built form, history,

urban morphology
-environment:
energy, culture and nature. More strictly, this is the distinction within the built

environment of spatial relations between built objects; the temporal relations between

built objects; the relations betweenenergeticstates;the relations betweenbuilt objects

and humansand betweenbuilt objectsand nature.

Taking all theseaspectsas pertinent to the study of urban morphology,the possible

the study becomes rather broad. Nor has anyone realised its full potential, if
scope of

it is possible. What I am suggesting may be most pertinent to your purposes is not

the full analytical approach and the specific information it generates but the
necessarily

means of organising the information. Of the five aspects, it would seem that the aspects

of form and culture am the most immediately pertinent.

 290

I'lie strength of a 'morphological' view, as I see it, is that not only does it distinguish

large range of forms in the built environment, it also puts them in a specific relation
a

to each other. It specifies the relations between them. A single brick is a part of a

if
town, even a seemingly inconsequential part. In between the brick and the town, there

is a range of identifiable objects which you or I might point out and talk about: a wall,

house, a plot, a block, a neighbourhood. Each is relatively autonomous yet

a room, a

is
each connected in some way with the others; each is part of the town. In a sense

those identifiable forms are different levels of complexity in the settlement, they are

different levels of organisation or aggregation. Any one object is made of parts, but,

is a part of some larger scale object. Bricks are put together to form
equally, each object

walls; walls, togetherwith floors and roofs form rooms, and rooms are put together to

form houses. From this standpoint,it is possibleto seethe built environmentat different

levels of complexity. A house can be seen equally as a collection of building materials

(bricks, mortar, timber, and glass), a collection of structures (foundations, walls, floors,

(including, lialls corridors and Taking

and roof) or a collection of rooms stairways). each

level as a general category of form, each is related to the others in a hierarchy of levels.

Each level of complexity represents a generic category or class of form: building

rooms, buildings (taking those terms in their broadest sense). The

materials, structures,

different classes are related in a hierarchy in which the objects of one class are the parts

together to form the objects of the neýt class up the hierarchy; building
which go

together to form structures etc. Taking the entire structure of generic

materials are put

types related one to another as a whole, a generic type of form is in effect defined by its

position relative to others.

 291

You mentioned that one of the- things you need in addressing the issue of the

number of listed buildings is definitions. The distinction of a hierarchy of generic forms

in the built environment is in essence the definition of generic types of built form.

It is this which I believe may be mostdirectly of use to you. If you can bear it, I will

explain a bit more and attempt to showmore specifically how all this might be applied.

Ile specific view of urban morphology

A generic type is a class which would include all forms identifiable at a given level of

for
complexity, example,all building materials,or all structures. Within a generic type

it is then possibleto identify different specific types. For example,within the generic

be
type which might provisionallycalled 'buildings', there are many specific types such

as detached, semi-detached, and ten-acedor row houses (see Figures 47-54). Going

further, one can be yet more specific and distinguish different types of terraced house,

for example,two-up-two-down,back-to-back,tunnel-back, universal plan etc. Within a

given generic type one can apply different levels of specificity in defining types. At

the lowest level there is no differentiation within the generic type; all the examplesare

consideredas the sametype. At the highest level there is a separatespecific type for

every example. Every detail is specifiedand as no two buildings are exactly alike, every

example is a specific type in itself -a class of one member.

At this point you can see that the type is essential to the whole endeavour. To

remain consistent, the definition of types at all levels must be made on the same basis.

Within the aspect of form, or spatial relations, types of form should be defined solely

on the basis of form, not on the basis of use (which is often the case for the common

buildings hospital, prison etc.). The need to avoid this is clear. Many
names of
I-
 292

buildings can accommodatedifferent uses. Ilie form of a building is not necessarily

A be hospital and vice versa (with some.changes

specific to use. prison can used as a

likely to be necessaryboth ways)and Castle Howard could be used as either.

At all levels in the hierarchy of form, specific types are defined on the basis of the

type of parts and their specific arrangement in composing any given example. A terraced

housecould thus be defined asany of

arrangement rooms(including stairs and halls )
etc.

with openingsto the back and front but not to the sides. Different specific arrangements

halls, and stairways then distinguish different specific types of terraced house
of rooms, -

the-two-up-two down, etc.

Looking at the whole of the built environment, it is possible to identify at least nine

form levels of complexity, here giving them labels in Latin and

generic types of or

common terms:

materia, building materials - bricks and mortar, timber, steel, glass, etc.;

floors, roofs;
statio, structural elements - walls,

fectum. ) rOOMS- including halls, corridors, stairways, etc.;

buildings including houses, schools, churches, office buildings, factories,

aedes, -

but includinj single room buildings such as sheds,hangars,and call-

warehouses also

boxes;

fines, plots -a building or combinationof buildings and open spacewith somekind of

boundary-a suburbanhouseand its gardenor a country housewith its outbuildings

0 and

fences or walls;

plot series and blocks - generally identifiable compositions of plots;

serfum,

lextus, tissues or plan-units - combinations of streets and blocks forming distinct

pattems;
 293

tissues forming identifiable urban areas, for example, a walled

sedes, combinations of

core combined with ribbon development spreading out along from the gates along
gridded

the routes to the town;

the result of the fusion of several

complures, polycentric urban areas, most often

settlements - London, for example.

Lookin, at an example

All a bit much really, or a bit much for your purposes but then perhaps not enough. It

is all too reductive. Getting down to example's begins to show that things are not so

The Circus is a good case, raising a number of questions (Figures 123

easily reduced.

124). Each individual house in the terrace is a combination of rooms etc. and so
and

have to be called a building by the definition above. Equally, each has a garden
would

boundary wall and thus the combination would have to be considered a plot.
and a plot

The individual 'plots' are still components of a larger entity which is the 'terrace' which

is yet only part of the block it occupies. This is all further complicated by tile fact that

the entity 'the Circus' is composed of several segments or separate terraces which are

each a part of a separate street-block.

In answer, I would first say that, if it is the entire Circus which has been listed,

has been listed is a tissue, a combination of streets and blocks and all they
what

Certainly the Circus makes no sense without tile circular street and tile central
contain.

island nor without the streets leading into the Circus. Looking at the problem in more

detail, it is necessary to add intermediate levels to the hierarchy of generic types of

form. A purpose built or composed terrace is a form which lies between the plot and tile

block. The terrace is composed of plots but is still only part of a block (though
I
 294

sometimes the terrace with its outbuildings is the entire block, as in the case of the

Royal Crescent). It was certainly the intention in the design of terraces such as the

Crescent to create the image of a single building. The design of such terraces is the

more ingenious for compressing into an apparently unitary entity a number of levels of

organization, fusing buildings and plots into a grand whole. One might see it as the end

of a progression from a row of isolated dwellings, each with a vaguely identified patch

of land, to a row of isolated dwellings on plots with shared boundary walls, to the row

of houses with common walls and back gardens, each house still being identifiably

distinct from the others, to the composed terrace such as the Crescent. What is

ingenious is that it maintains all the elements, the individual house with its garden, the

building and plot but forges something new, something additional by putting them

together into a single composition.

So, in terms of addressing your main question, how many buildings are there in

England, how does all of this help? In a sense it forces one to reformulate the question.

What exactly has been listed? In the case of the Circus, as I have suggested, it is a

tissue which contains portions of streets and blocks, plots and buildings and everything

the b uildings. One may want to limit the levels of complexity which are
making up

considered pertinent. How important are the individual stones or window frames making

of an individual house in the Circus? How important is the arrangement of

up a wall

houses? In the Circus

rooms within the any case, - taking only the circular portion with

its plots, is, again, a tissue, composed of three plot series, each within three separate

street-blocks, and a segment of street. The plot series are composed of 10,11, and 12

plots (as of the late nineteenth century) thus giving a total of 33 plots. With one primary
 295

building on each plot there are 33 buildings, plus any out buildings (if these are

considered part of the listing).

Several issues regarding the actual number of the various forms arise at this point

involving the history of the Circus and the aspectof tenure or control. Regardingthe

or lack of it, betweenthe units of form

latter there is the issue of the correspondence,

(the 33 plots) and units of ownership or tenure, plots being one of the more common

units of tenure. If they do not correspond, there may be more or less than 33 units of

tenure. One might also ask the question, is form the primary aspect to be used in

listing buildings? If not, tenure could be the -basis of defining units and the number

might thus be different.

Another issue is the time at which one fixes the number of buildings. Given that

changes can and do occur in the actual fabric of a building over time - two or more

houses being knocked together, or one being divided - the_number of 'buildings' is not

fixed over time. Most likely one would take the original state of the building or its

original design, at least as a starting point. In some cases, however, determining that

state can be problematic. The Circus is likely not such a case, but earlier, less well

documentedbuildings may be.

Manipulating information
M
So, what is the result of all this? Again, as I see it, one has a framework for organizing

information about listed buildings. The framework provides a means of accounting for

the listings in a systematic way., One might thus begin with all listings. From there one

can distinguish the different types of form included in each listing and the number of

each type. It would then be possible to begin compiling totals. So, taking a hypothetical
 296

set of numbers, with, say, 270 total listings, one might deten-nine that there are 3 tissues,

8 blocks, 59 plots, and 200 buildings as the namedobject in the listing. 77hisset of

figures, however, disguises the fact that the listed tissues may contain blocks, plots, and

buildings; the listed blocks may contain plots and buildings, etc. To get a clearer

picture of what is actually containedwithin the listings, the information is perhapsbest

0

set out in a matrix.

OBJECT CONTAINED WIMN THE LISTING

TOTAL
NAMED LISTING
LISTINGS

270 TISSUE BLOCK PLOT BUILDING TOTAL

TISSUE 31111
3 3

BLOCK 10 8 18

PLOT 36 24 59 119

BUILDING 50 26 59 200 336

TOTAL 99 59 118

TOTAL
OBJECTS

Table 2. Matrix of listings and built objects

From this one can then determine the total number of each type of form and the

context in which it is located. In the hypothetical example, there is a total of 119 plots,

36 of which are located within listed tissues, 24 of which are located in individual listed

blocks, and 59 of which are individual plots. Within the 8 total individual blocks listed,

-. il
 297

there are 59 total entities, 24 of which are plots and 27 buildings. Regarding

intermediate levels, any form occupying an intermediate level can be accounted for by

placing it in the category of the higher level. Ilius, a terrace would be placed within the

category of blocks, the individual units counting as plots, etc. This may all seem to

replicate information, a building being part of a plot, but a plot is quite often more than

just a building. By providing the number of plots one has an indication that there is

to
more manage than just a building, be it gardens and boundary walls or a park. Such

figures Which of the figures, if

a set of information provides a mine of to manipulate.

any, will be of use will depend on the purpose to which it is to be put. Without knowing

more specifically what those purposes might be, there would not seem to be much

advantage in going any further in making correlations.

In terms of the active managementof the body of listings, it might be useful to look

more closely at the human aspect. In the abstract, the human aspect can be taken as

all relations between humans and built objects. Thus, there are, on the one hand, the

objects, differentiated into generic and specific types. On the other hand, there are the

people or agents, who can be classified in terms of the structure of tile agent or entity,

that is: individuals, families, partnerships, associations, companies, corporations,

institutions, commissions, local and national government agencies or departments, etc.

There are then different kinds of relation between the objects and agents. These can be

divided into relations of. use, control, intentions, construction and transformation, and

significance. The category of control would seem to be the most immediately pertinent.

It includes the legal or conventional relations between buildings and people or agents

such as tenure and regulation. Tenure can be further broken down into:

ownership/freehold, leasehold, tenancy, and squatting.

I
 298

By determining and noting for a given listing the units of tenure, the type of tenure

which applies,and the type of agentswho hold the tenure,one has a baseof information

for determining and evaluating management strategies and tactics. One can then

generatesuch figuresas: of the 336 listed buildings (from the hypotheticalmodel),56%

arc owner occupied,29% are leased, 12% rented, 1% squatted,and 2% are empty or

abandoned. Or, of the 336 listed buildings 10% are owned by individuals, 12% by

limited companies, 3% by associations 35% by private institutions (including, say,

foundations, schools, universities, hospitals etc.), and 30% by public institutions,

agencies or departments.

In a sense, all this leads to a structure for a data base for listed buildings. So, one

might easily computerise all this with a standard data base program. The core of the

data base is the physical form of the objects listed, set out in terms of generic and

specific type. The other information is then correlated to that core. Which information

is included will, again, depend on your intentions and needs in the task of management.

The advantages of this are:

different kinds of built form can be distinguished on a very specific and

-

consistent basis in order to more accurately determine what is actually being

managed.

- when compiling statistics, one can compare like with like, keeping the

information about different types of form in different categories.

 299
by distinguishing different types of form, it will be possible to better determine
-

appropriate management strategies and tactics and so improve the quality and

effectiveness of the management.

other associated information such as tenure, present use, age, condition, etc.
-

can be correlated to the listed forms and manipulated to create a better overall

picture of the body of listings

Yours sincerely,

The above is, essentially, a proposal for the gathering, organization and manipulation of

information. It involves, on the one hand, a value judgement in terms of what

infonnation is pertinent and so worth gathering in a general sense. It does not involve,

on the other hand, an evaluation of specific forms to determine which are to be selected.

It gives no indication of how to determine which specific buildings are of 'special

architectural or historic interest'. In tile terms of chapter five, it is assumed that the

distinction of all the different generic types of form is pertinent to the task of

management. No assumption or judgement is made, however, regarding which specific

types, nor specific examples are pertinent to that task. It might be all of them; it might

be a small selection of them. Somepertinent aspect must be identified which serves as

a basis for evaluation and so selection of individual examples of specific types of form.

The following chapter addresses this issue in more detail in terms of the possible

application of the proposed subdivision of built form to the disciplines of planning, urban

design and architecture.

 EIGHT

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE

APPLICATION TO PLANNING,

URBAN DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

DESCRIPTION AND PRESCRIPTION

The application of urban morphology to the fields of planning, urban design and

architecture has often been suggested but has too rarely resulted directly in actual

building. There is a generalexpectationthat the knowledgeand insight gainedthrough

morphologicalstudiesmust be
somehow of use in practice. Somehow
there seemsto be

an enormouspotentialwaiting to be realised(Conzen1966,1975; Lane 1991; Larkham

1990; Samuels1985;Slater 1990b;Slaterand Shaw1988; Whi tehand1990,1992). The

barrier is the 'somehow'.That barrier involvesboth the methodsand the will to employ

them, on the part of architects, planners and municipal govemments.- In Italy,

morphological principles have been assimilated into general architectural practice in

work on historic centres (Samuels 1990). I'liere is the relatively well known project in
 301

Bologna (Cervellati 1979). Caniggia presents examples of projects for Florence and

Genoain Progettoand wasinvolvedin earthquakereconstructionwork in Naples. In the

U.S., Afoudon advocatesa type based planning system (1986: 241) and presents the work

of severalarchitectswhosework is moreor less basedon morphological

principles. Also

in the U.S., a type based system of ordinances has been pursued by Duany + Plater-

Zyberk, for example at the well publicized development of Seaside, Florida (Krieger

1991).
While these examples do provide means for getting over the apparent barrier to the

application of morphological principles to planning, urban design and architecture,

several more basic questions remain. What is the barrier and where does it lie? What

are the fundamental issues involved in moving from a study which attempts to explain

the built environment to a discipline which attempts to construct-and transform the

built environment itself? To ask an urban morphologist to begin making suggestionson

how to build cities is similar to asking an art historian for advice on how to paint, an

architectural historian on how to build a house, or a sociologist on how to structure a

society. Such comparisons point in the general direction of both potentials and

limitations but still in much too general a direction to be of any use.

Where are the points of contact between the realms of description and prescription?

Where are the boundaries, barriers, and limits? Perhaps more importantly, at which

points must values be assigned and judgements made in order to make the choices and

decisions necessary to manage, plan, or design? The evaluation, and selection of

possibilities demands a basis or standard for making choices. Behind the choices also

lie intentions and purposes and a basic orientation and fundamental drive to accomplish

something. Behind the choices are values and desires, conscious and unconscious.
 302

It should be fairly clear that description and explanation, on the one hand, and

prescription on the other, involve two fundamentallydifferent intentions. The intention

of description and explanation, taken in a broad sense as the enquiry of morphology as

I.

is to increaseour understandingof the form of the built environment. The

a whole,

intention of management, planning, and design is to create or produce, maintain, or

somehowact on the built environmentin order to human

accommodate activity. Both

are synthetic but in a different medium, that is, with different materials. Morphology

together descriptions (statements and images) to create a model for the purpose of
puts

Management,planning and design put together or act on building materials

explanation.

(bricks and mortar) for the purpose of satisfying human needs and desires such as shelter

facilitation of human activity. From this perspective,

and the accommodation and

is
morphology a meta-discourse to the 'discourse' of tile formation and transformation of

I the built environment. Before attempting to identify any of contact or choice

-points
between these two realms, several suppositions or assumptions should be identified.

Kinds of incta-discourse

The relation between description/explanat ion and prescription/design is similar to that

between the history of painting and painting or between the study of English Literature

and writing novels, poetry, drama etc. Scrutinising any one of these different

manifestations of the relation, it becomes apparent that the description-prescription

opposition can be shifted. That is, there are different ways of approaching history or

criticism. The different approaches can themselves be described. Choosing any one

approach is thus itself a prescription. Afore specifically, one can take a Marxist,

feminist, Christian, evolutionist, traditionalist, or nihilist view in writing history or

I
 303

criticism. Given the same object of study, any one of these views will pick out or choose

different aspects of that object as pertinent to criticism or history. To distinguish

different views is in effect to describe them. When engaging in the discourse of history

or criticism, a view must be chosen, and therefore the pertinent aspects of the object.

If an established view is not chosen, another must be formed. One must prescribe a

view. If it is not prescribed, that is, explicitly, it is inscribed in the work itself,

implicitly in its presuppositions, assumptions, and postulates. A view will be

fallen into (which someone else is bound to describe). In this way urban
unconsciously

morphology is itself a prescription. It is a view of the built environment which one must

choose over others. That choice may not be explicit but nonetheless assumes an

implicitly one must decide morphology is the most suited to ones

evaluation: explicitly or

purposes or intentions and so decide not to use any of the others. -

- It should be noted, however,that the discourseof morphologyis distinct from the

discourse of architectural and planning criticism and from the discourse of design

approaches,manifestosor treatises. All are to

meta-discourses the 'discourse' of the

constructionand transformationof the built environment. Each is, however,a different

kind of meta-discourse. Criticism involves evaluation and judgement of existing or

proposeddesigns,having somespokenor unspoken,consciousor unconsciousstandard

as a reference. A treatise or manifestoinvolves the explication of a standard and the

meansof achieving it. A treatise or manifestois a set of instructions for the processof

design. The critical meta-discourse is not strictly prescriptive but, one might say,

proscriptive in the sense that it selects out or excludes examples or possibilities of those

offered. The instructive meta-discourse of the treatise or manifesto is prescriptive. The

critical discourse points out how well or badly something was done, the instructive, how
I
 304

to do it next time (thoughcriticism which promotesa positive examplewould be a form

of prescription). Morphology, in its effort to explain in a comprehensive way all the

forms of the built environment,and the processesof its formation and transformationis

only descriptive and explanatory. It is inclusive. No form or processis excluded nor

taken as a standard. I'liat is, the intention of morphology is to explain forms, not

evaluate them with respect to their suitability to a specific purpose. Morphology does

not provide a meansfor selecting standardsfor the judgement and evaluation of forms

with respect to intentions or purposes. If the enquiry is to be objective and

the
comprehensive, conceptsof morphologymust view all forms and processesas equally

valuable, as necessaryfor the purposesof explanation. To remain objective, the view

must be maintained that there can be no indissoluble link or absolutely determined

relation between a specific form and its application or use. A standard might be chosen

from within the framework of morphology and promoted in critical or instructive

discourses. It is only the ideal of objectivity (a choice) which excludes a standard or

preference in morphology.
I
It is necessary, in the end, to distinguish between descriptive/explanatory,

proscriptive/critical, and prescriptive/instructive discourse as different kinds of

even
meta-discourse, if they have the same 'object'. Certainly, as art history and

criticism enriches the practice of 6rt, offering it tools, concepts, strategies, and

morphology
programmes, can contribute to architectural and planning practice, at least

for those practitioners who chooseto take up the suggestions. Which raises again the

question, where are the points of contact? At which level can concepts be exported?

Where are the boundariesand limits pastwhich it would be fruitless to force onesway?

Conversely, what sort of critical or instructive discourse can be developed using

 305

What is a morphologically based design approach? At the

morphological concepts?

least,which conceptsor ideas,which viewpointswithin morphologycan work as the basis

for critical analysis and judgement of new designs?

Having distinguishedbetweendescriptive,proscriptive and prescriptive varieties of

it
meta-discourse, would seem,on reflection, that the first is a meta-discourseto the

latter two. I'liat is, in describing and explaining the forms and processes of the built

environment,morphologytakes as part of the processof formation and transformation,

critical and instructive discourseabout the built environment. Morphologydescribes

critical and design conceptswhich lead to forms as well as the forms themselvesas part

of its explanationof the built environment.

Seenthe other way round, critical and instructive discourserefer to objectsalready

identified by some descriptive discourse. That is, criticism and design are carried out

using the objects identified within some greater overall framework of concepts. Design,

of course, involves the creation of forms which will not have been previously described.

Such creations must, however, arise within some existing, and so described or

describable, context. The new form arises in an existing framework of ideas and

conditions.

General points of contact

It would seem, then, that the most basic point of contact between morphology and design

or planning is at the level of description, that is, at the level of the general point of view

which morphology provides. A critic or designer might choose a morphological

description and explanation of the built environment, the entities it identifies, the terms

and definitions of the parts, and the structure of those parts, that is, their position
 306

to each other. The issue is one of language, in the sense of an applied specialist
relative

language. Thus designers might

morphologists, critics, planners, architects and urban

language, might see the built environment in the or

same way, at least with
use the same

So, in practice, a local authority or municipal

some common points of reference.

use a data base as described in the previous chapter to record the

government might

built forms within the town for the purposes of management and planning control. This

is the first point of contact and the first point at which it is necessary to identify

intentions, evaluate options and make a choice.

Why accept the morphological view? Morphology makes a systematic distinction

between different levels of complexity and so distinguishes a wide range of forms in the

entire built environment, from elements of construction to towns and metropolitan areas.

It provides a systematic and comprehensive framework in which to place the forms,

identifying the relations between them in a consistent manner. It therefore provides a

is more detailed and coherent than other models or modes of description.

view which

The chronological and evolutionary approach to explanation clarifies many of tile

of the form of the built environment which other views are unable to
complexities

unravel. It explicitly includes the agents and cultural context of the production of the

built environment and so is readily combined and correlated with the information and

insights of other disciplines. As a g6neral point of view, morphology is adaptable to

different intentions. It is suited to the varied purposes of explanation, commentary,

design and design education. Each realm

criticism, planning, urban and architectural

likely require its own specific concepts and terms but morphology provides a body
will

of terms common and useful to them all.

 307

Moving towarxl the more specific applications it becomes clear that there is a general

point of contact and there are potential specific points of contact. Different intentions

will demand using the language of morphology differently. The location of specific points

of contact will dependon the specific intentions of each application.

Specific points of contact

If the general point of contact is the overall view of the built environment offered by

urban morphology,that is, the identification and description of the objects of the built

environment, it, would seem that the potential specific points of contact- lie -in the

correlation of forms with the various explanations. An assumption of morphology is that

these modesof explanationhave the value they do becausethe various issuescited in

each explanation were identified by research or inference to be the issues taken into

account when a given form was created. Conversely, it is assumed that a given form was

a response, conscious or unconscious, to those issues. The difference, then, between

morphological analysis and criticism or design is that in morphological analysis the form

is given and the task is to identify the limits and conditions under which it was created,

in criticism and design, the limits and conditions are given, more or less, and the
while

task is to evaluate,selector create a form to suit the conditions. In the latter casesone

is being askedto respondto conditionswhile in the former, one is describinga response

which has already been made. It is in the relation betweena form and the limits and

conditions operating when it was created that one rinds a potential point of contact

between morphology and criticism, planning and design. If the general point of contact

is made by selecting the general view of morphology, the specific points are made by

choosing to accept the explanations posited by morphology.

I
 308

The contactlies in an inference. Statedin terms of intentions: a particular form was

developed or refined under particular conditions for a particular purpose:ýthose

and that purposestill obtain now: the previouslydevelopedform is, therefore,

conditions

to
response the presentconditions and purpose. The inferencemight
still an appropriate

be stated more generally in terms of values: a particular form was developed and

of value: the form is still consideredof value: it is, therefore,appropriate to

considered
form build new examplesor a new version of it.
maintain the or

Practically speaking, this applies to the use of an existing or commissioned 'purc'

by a planner, critic or designer. The forms and explanations of

morphological analysis

the analysis may suggest possible solutions to present problems because previous and

are judged to be similar and the forms developed in response to those

present conditions

still of value. Equally, an analysis might be carried out with the specific
problems

a set of criteria and a specific set of intentions.

purpose of evaluation, given

Values and intentions: the necessary precursors to application

In the end, however, the general and specific points of contact are a matter of method

than results. The view

morphological has chosenaspectsof the built environment
rather

of consideration for-the purposes of evaluative analysis but leaves open the

as worthy

their importance or value for the purposes of specific use. The information
question of

by 'pure' descriptive, explanatory morphological analyses, will be of use to

provided

urban designers and architects if it is to their purpose. The pure

planners,

analysis will tell planners and designers what is there and will give them
morphological

inventory of forms, relations, and processes. It cannot, however, in any way determine
an

which of the forms, relations and processes are more important or of greater value
 309

their specific use. The pure analysis is mutý with respect to whether those
regarding

forms, relations, and processesare preferable to anything else or nothing, whether a

given arrangement or process is successful and adequately accommodates the purposes

it was meant to serve. To decide on any of these points it is necessary to identify

intentions and values.

A pure morphological analysis, such as Conzen's analysis of Alnwick, for example,

deal of information about the town and goes some distance in helping
provides a great

how it got to be the way it is. Nothing in the analysis, however, indicates
us understand

it has identified, is of greater or lesser relative value. I'llis is so

what, of the things

because there is no indication for whom they might have value or for what
mainly

purposes or intentions.

Internal conflicts?

Is there a basic contradiction in a morphologically based prescriptive system? There are

two generally accepted characteristics attributed to townscapes which are considered of

but which would seem to be in conflict: continuity on the one hand and change
value

on the other. Given the task of managinga townscape,

which value takes precedence?

How can continuity be maintainedwhile still allowing for change? flow is it possible

to arrive at the variety and interest characteristic of change over time and still maintain

continuity?

This conflict is perhapsmost visibly addressedin the question of faqadism. Given

the desire to maintain the characteristic form of the High Street of an English town, with

its relatively narrow frontage buildings, how is it possible to accommodate a Boots or

Alarks and Spencer on thal High Street when each tenant requires two or three
I
 310

contiguous buildings, and even then these do not provide enough of the right kind of

space? Is it wrong to demolish the body of the building while keeping the facadesin

the attempt to maintain continuity and accommodate change? If so, why? Is it

'dishonest'? Would it be more honest to require a new developmentto 'reflect' what

existed before by, say, requiring facade divisions and walls or columns to occupy the

position of plot boundariesdemolishedin building the new, larger building, not out of

structural necessitybut becauseof some idea of continuity? It would seemthat urban

morphology is not prepared to take a position on the matter. Rather, it might be said

that the conflict between continuity and change is the object of tirban morphological

enquiry. Within the framework of that enquiry, neither continuity nor change has a

privileged position. Neither is inherently more desirable than the other from a

morphological perspective.

Conservation(ism) is, it would seem,an attitude or approachto design and planning

attributable to particular periods. Does the urban morphologist in such a period

necessarily subscribeto that attitude? Is it possible to be an urban morphologistand

advocate comprehensive redevelopment? If central Birmingham, as an urban

morphological is
phenomenon, said to be indicative of a particular culture and time yet

the urban morphologistprotestshe or she does not like it, is that the view of an urban

morphologistor just anothervoice in the crowd? On what basis is the judgementmade?

Because it removed what the urban morphologist considers to be of value - older

buildings perhaps -a senseof history, of continuity? Or is it disliked becausethe

morphologist thinks it's ugly, does not work, is run down, and dangerous? Or is it all

these reasons? Urban morphology, by laying out the parts and processes of the built

environment in such detail, seems merely to posit a larger range of objects to it

which
 311

is then necessaryto attribute value rather than to provide a basis for making such an

attribution.

Morphology will only be a tool for a planner or designer inclined to use it. If

townscape'is an educationalassetcapableof introducing the youngergenerationinto the

life of its own community ... [and] puts the present generation and its work into an

historic context', someonemust teach the lessons,someonemust do the hard work of

selecting material, organising it and actually teaching, setting readings and essays,giving

lectures. If the townscape'provides object lessonsin achievementsas well as failures',

someonemust indicate which are the achievementsand which the failures. If it is to

help 'create a senseof humanitywhich cares for the efforts of others and has a thought

for future generations when shaping its own work, ' it will not be the buildings on their

own, the silent bricks and mortar, which create that sense but someone who points to

them and says, these are of some importance, do not neglect them or it will be not only

your loss but your sons' and daughters'. The townscape, the built environment will only

become a lesson book if its language is taught and understood and the book is'actively

used in lessons. And like any form of history or education it will be susceptible to'

revision, the heros and villains will change places, the achievements and failures will be

Conzen
(Quotations,
reassessed 1958:
49-58).

The conclusion of all this must be that, morphological analysis and explanation do

not provide standards nor give any indication of which of the forms identified and

explained in analysis is better than any other in any given context. In order to make

use of the potential points of contact, general or specific, it is necessary to identify

intentions and values.

 NINE

THE APPLICATION TO PLANNING

AN IDEAL APPROACH

As shown in the previouschapters,the application of morphologicalconcepts,without

the identification and exerciseof intentions and values, is limited to the collection and

manipulation of information. While there is an evaluation involved in the choice of

information to be collected, there is not an evaluationof the relative importanceof what

is collected.

This chapterwill explorea possiblemodeof employingmorphologicalconceptsand

terms for the purposesof prescription, that is, evaluating forms and making decisions
I
regarding future or potential change to the built environment. What is presented is one

possible approach to the application of morphology to planning. There are potentially

many.
 313

The approachsuggestedhere draws on the work of Caniggia,particularly the ideas

presented in Progetto, which outlines an approach to design based on morphological

conceptsand terms. The approachpresentedhere stopsshort of 'design' becauseit does

not specify any one particular product. It may be said, however,the approachis design

in as much as it setsoutwardboundariesto design activity. Certainly, it is planning in

the sensethat it constrainsand directs design in specific ways.

More specifically, the following is an approach to the production of planning

regulations or guidelines based on form, in particular, the conception of form presented

in chapter five. That is to say, the choice has been made to adopt the general view

provided by urban morphology as presented in this thesis. As noted in the previous

chapter, in order to proceed in the application it is necessary to identify or adopt a set

of intentions and values. Further, in order to make sense of the choices involved and

to Seethe more general applicability of the approach, it is also necessary to establish the

context in which those intentions and values are applied and exercised.

The general context of application

At the most general, the context of application.is the whole of the built environment.

Urban morphologypoints out that the built environmentdevelopsand changesover time.

Villages, towns and cities are formed and transformedby the creation and addition of

new forms of building and the modificationand replacementof existing formsover years,

decadesand centuries. The developmentand changeoccur because,while the objects

of the built environmentare relatively stable and inert, humandesiresand intentions are

active and changing. At a given time, the stability and fixity of a building is one of its

most important aspects. It provides shelter and a stable environmentwhich suits the
I
 314

needsand intentionsof the humanswho built it. Withtime, human

however, desiresand

intentionschangeand newor additional forrnsbecome

necessary.The stability and fixity

I built
of the existing environmentand the investment
of time and resourcesthen present

a resistanceto change. To overcomethat further

resistance, energyand resourcesare

necessary. Existing buildings must be actively transformed and adapted or new-ones

built. There is thus a conflict, or better, an interactionbetweenhumansand the built

environment,betweeninhabitant and habitat. Iliere is an interaction betweenexisting

forms and new activities and intentions.

It is possible to recognize this process of change and the interaction of inhabitant

and habitat in hindsight. It is possible to see it through history by viewing past

decisions and actions in chronological sequence. Regardless of such a distant

perspective view, there is always the more restricted, immediate view of the present.

Faced with an unsatisfactory arrangement of rooms or buildings, for example, a decision

must be made at some moment to changeit and determine in what way it should be

changed. The sequence of changes and transformations is continued with each new

decision and action. The interaction of inhabitant and habitat becomesmanifest with

each decision to changea building or build a new one. To make a decision and take

action it is necessary to have a-purpose or reason for building. It is necessary to identify

intentions. Equally, it is necessary to determine what form of building is most suited

the
to accommodate intentions identified. Tile identification of intentions and choice of

building form ultimately demands a ýset of values, the exercise of judgement and

determination or choice of what is of value.

 315

Ile value of the built

existin-C3, environment

Within a given culture, behaviour and activity concerning the built environment is

motivatedor controlled on the basis of various openly declared or assumedset of values

which. Legal and social, economic,religious, political and environmentalvaluesprovide

frameworkfor and set limits to the possible intentions and forms of building. Within
a

thoselimits there are still manyareaswhich demandthe exerciseof specific judgements

.
and attribution of value.

17hevarious approachesto planning, urban design and architecture represent

different sets of values regarding the built environment. The following, again, presents

takes as a foundation the study of urban morphology. As noted

one such approach which

in the previous chapters, morphology does not, strictly, provide a basis for the

form. In order to take such a study as a starting point for an approach

pr escription of

to planning, urban design and architecture, certain choices must be made as

presuppositions to any action.

One of the most fundamental suppositions is the recognition of vaIuc in the

built environment. More specifically, this is to consider that there are forms
existing

found in the built environment,individual elementsor typesof element,which continue

to have value after their initial construction, for a range of human purposes. I'his

judgement is best seenin the contextof the interaction of inhabitant and habitat. Forms

continue to be valued on the one hand becausesomehuman needsand desircs remain

relatively constant. Formswhich have been developedover time to serve those needs

of
remain of use and so value. On the other hand, as human needschangeand evolve,

existing forms may be consideredof value for new or different purposesor intentions.
 316

Purpose is here taken in a wide sense. It is understood to encompass the

accommodation of human activities, the intended or recognized functioning of built

objects as signs eliciting a range of possible psychological responsesor meanings as well

as the 'functioning' of built elementsas aestheticobjects. A given form may thus be of

value for any number of different reasons.

Perhaps the most direct reason the existing built environment is of value is that it

does serve to accommodate human activity. The built environment has co-evolved with

humans and so is necessaryfor human existence as it has developed. The human

specieslives and behavesas it doeswith the built environment. Human life would be

very different, for example,without roadsin the form and extent in which they now exist.

The built environment is the result of many experiments in attempting to accommodate

human activities. In an extended. process of trial and error, new forms are introduced

and over time refined and improved or abandoned. Humans, by producing and using

those forms, learn to live with and rely on them in the day-to-day activities of their lives.

The built environment is of value not only directly by accommodating uses. It is

also of value as a repository of the results of experiments in accommodating human

activity and so as a store of accumulatedwisdom. On the one hand, forms will continue

to be of use and value longer if they function well in accommodating activities which are

fundamentalto human life. On the other hand, forms will continue to be of use and

value longer if they are easily adapted to different purposes. Thus, tile development and

refinementof a form will often be towardachieving suitability to several functions rather

than only one. By accommodating several functions the form will be of greater value.

I'lie squareor piazza,for example,functions for manydifferent purposes:vehicular and

 317

pedestrian circulation, markets, public gatherings or festivals, parking, seating space for

cafes etc.

The existing built environment is of value because it is the product of a great deal

human effort. That is

effort applied indirectly in the form of capital investment,
of

intermediately in planning and design time and directly in the form of human labour, in

the initial construction,maintenanceand transformationof built objects. That value is

perhaps most starkly expressed financially, in terms of the cost of labour and resources

required to replace what exists.

Because the built environment exists as a context or environment, it has

by providing a means of orientation through familiarity. Landmark

psychological value

buildings, routes, squares, districts etc. help to guide people in making their way through

the built environment because they are fixed reference points. It is their continued

existence in a specific place which gives them this value. Familiarity itself is of value

because it provides a degree of certainty and security and so psychological comfort.

Even for nomads, unrecognizable territory provokes the discomfort or fear of the

unknown.

The built environment is produced over time. Different parts are added or

transformedat different times. It thereforehas value as an historical record. Objects

and combinationsof objects which we see today can be recognizedas referring to the

and events which gave rise to them. They can also be taken to refer to events
periods

which may have occurred within or in association with them any time after their

The record can be perceived in a very general way, a particular building

construction.

or town may be seen as 'old', in

or an elaborate way, with specific forms eliciting specific

periods, events or associations to form a complex image or narrative.

 318

Beyond referring to history, many objects in the built environment have value

because they have been intentionally built or subsequently recognized to signify some

for example, may intentionally signify

content: monuments, memorials and churches,

<victory>, <remembrance> and <aith>; buildings such as the Eiffel tower or

Pompedieu Centre, have come to signify <Paris> and <modemity> amongst other

things.

Many parts of the built environment, either individual buildings, parts of buildings,

of towns or even entire towns, have value because they give rise to an aesthetic
parts

experience. It is, possible to take pleasure in the objects themselves. The aesthetic

be due to the abilities of"a designer or craftsmen or'the unconscious skill of

value may

large build or put together parts of the built environment. The

a number of people who

be derived from the intentional design or chance combination of objects

pleasure may

to the effects of time. Different observers will of course take pleasure in different
or

objects and aspects, depending'on their preferences.

All places have value, more or less, for some or all of these reasons and clearly for

many more. Each place also has value as a distinct place, for the combination of

makes it unique. There is value in the individuality of places and

specific aspects which

the variety of individual places. This value would seem to be greater at the present

There is a tendency today toward the standardization of forms in the built

moment.

from the pattern of streets and blocks to tile details of individual buildings.
environment,

This promotes a homogenization of the built environment. As places become more

similar, differences become more valuable. The specific form and character of individual

towns and the existence of a diversity of forms are of value for several reasons. There

is value in the individual character of towns for their attraction to visitors, travellers and
I
 319

tourists. People enjoy seeing'different places and seek them out. This is of value for the

it brings aboutand the potential financial benefitsfor the town. For residents,
enjoyment

the individual and regional identity of a town, based on its specific physical

has value as a sign standing for the people and habits of the town and
characteristics,

region. Local and regional allegiance is often stronger than national or political

Humans have the tendency to identify themselves with the town or region
allegiance.

in which they were raised or live now. To erase the identity of tile town is thus in effect

to erase a part of the identity of its inhabitants.

Perhaps more fundamentally, differences allow for choice. Differences between

towns as well as within towns to

allow people choose the town, district and building they

'Mis involves not only aesthetics but economics. Because the market value of
prefer.

buildings varies with age and size, maintaining a range of buildings of different type and

age provides a range of prices.

Maintaining differences is a political issue. Submitting to the national laissez faire

standards for new building is to abdicate power and reduce choice. There becomes only

one way to build. In the present situation, the primary values are often short-term profit

and expedience. The quality of the built environment,including the public realm, is left

to self-interestedindividuals and small groups.

Intentions

The value placed on the built environment will likely vary from place to place.

Whatever the reasons for the attribution of value, it is people who make the attribution.

The attribution of value will depend on the desires and intentions of the people who

make decisionsand have the powerto changethe built environment,from the individual
 320

tenant or home-owner making changes to a single house, to a regional or national

building
government a new town. As noted, peoples' intentions and desireschangeand

tendýto change more rapidly than the elements of the built environment. Another

supposition made in the approacbsuggestedbere follows from this. It is necessaryto

regularly re-evaluate human purposes and intentions regarding the built environment.

What is needed? What is wanted? What is desired from the built environment?

Because intentions change and because they vary from place to place and instance to

instance, it is not possible to enumerate them. Only the more generally applicable

purposes or intentions for building might be noted. The purpose of the built environment

generally is to provide facilities for shelter, communication, production, exchange,

administration, meeting, entertainment etc. and less directly, the purpose might be: an

investment; to provide orientation and psychological comfort; to express a general or

specific content; to stimulate aestlictic experience; to establish and maintain a general

character; to provide choice.

Public and pfivate intentions

Because of the social nature of humans, it is important to distinguish between public and

private needs and desires. The immediate needs or desires of individuals must be

balanced with those of the public as a group. What is considered of value to any one

individual or small group may conflict with what is of value to the public as a whole.

One of the most pertinent examplesis the street and the relation of buildings to it. The

traditional arrangement of a street lined with row houses or houses on or near the

frontageestablishesa clear distinction betweenthe public realm of the street and the

private realm of the courtyardsor back gardensof individual houses. The value of this
 321

arrangement is that it is clear where public and private activities are appropriate.

Individuals do as they wish within their own property with little or no imposition on

individuals Streets and squares are then spaces which

other or the public generally.

the public, individually or as a group.

serve all members of

The suitability of forms to intentions

Having identified a set of intentions, both public and private, it is necessary to determine

forms intentions. The starting point for this task is

which may suit those purposes and

here taken to be the existing built environment. That is, the existing built environment

is recognized to be of value as a store of trails in attempting to satisfy particular

intentions. The assumption is then that forms developed to satisfy a given intention or

in the past are the best starting point in the search for forms to satisfy the same
purpose

intentions in the present. In order to determine which forms are suitable for
or similar

intention, it is first necessary to know what exists and second to know which
a given

forms are or have been used to satisfy a given intention. If it is tile more
existing

is considered of value, it is necessary to know what

general character of a place which

specifically constitutes that character.

A morphological approach directly addresses these questions by beginning with a

detailed analysis of the existing form -of a town or village. Distinct forms are identified

different levels, from the arrangement of streets and blocks to the details of individual
at

buildings. Regarding overall character, the working assumption is that tile character or

identity of a place is sensed primarily through its physical form, that is, through
specific

the arrangement of objects relative to tile land and to each other. Another supposition

in morphology is that form is the rcsult of the process of formation. This implies
made
 322

that the form and characterof a town is the result of the specific historical acts which

havecontributed to its formation. The goal of analysisis then to attempt to uncoverthat

process. The analysis is thereforenecessarilyhistorical.

' It is an attempt to determine

according
the principles and processes to which things were built.

Identifying forms
0
The general view and procedure adopted for identifying existing forms is the generic and

specific structure of urban form and the procedure for identifying specific types as

outlined in chapter rive. T'hus, an appropriate study area and analytical, scope are

identified for the purposes of the application. The generic types identified are, again,

as follows:

materia, building materials;

statio. ) structural elements;

tectum, rooms;

aedes, buildings;

fines, plots;

serfum, plot series and blocks;

lextus, tissues or plan-units;

sedes, combinationsof tissuesforming identifiable urban areas;

complures, polycentric urban areas.

The specific types constituting tile study area, within the levels selected for analysis,

are then identified at a level of specificity appropriate to tile application. While no

claim should or could be madethat such an analysiscan identify and describe the form

and characterof a tqwn or village in all its detail, the approachdoesreveal more detail
 -, T
-

323

than most other methods. By distinguishing generic types of form and a range of specific

types, morphological analysis provides a more detailed description in a more systematic

A greater degree of clarity and coherence is

manner than other methods of analysis.

possible as a result of clearly

distinguishing the relations between forms and so

identifying the way in which the forms fit together in constituting a given settlement.

The importanceof specificdistinctions

The detail is particularly important in evaluating forms with respect to human

and clarity

intentions and purposes. Too often in evaluating urban form, the problems which are the

type of form are mistaken as the result of another. An example is

result of one generic

judgement in first half the twentieth century that the 'corridor street' as
the made the of

form the ills encountered in cities. Many problems such as

a was the source of many of

disease were in fact not to do with form at all but with services such as water supply and

Other problems were due to the form of buildings and the density of
sewerage.

The street was, however, taken as a symbol, most notably by Le Corbusier,

occupation.

of all the ills of the late nineteenth century industrial city. The cure was to rid the city

Attempts to realise the cure in the latter half of the twentieth century by
of the street.

building new areas free of the-traditional street have in many cases shown the error of

the judgement.

Yet to summarily dismiss the Modernist city in all its details is to fall into the same

trap as the Modernists. High-rise housing, for example, in its various forms, is not in all

cases dysfunctional, nor is the arrangement of tower blocks in a park-like setting. They

both work for some specific people and intentions. The many experiments of the 20th
 " ""': F"

324
They a
are only waste if dismissed without examining
century are not a complete waste.

the results or dismissingall the experimentson the basis of someof the results.

All these judgements are possible only in hindsight. It is necessaryto make

in order to judge. It would perhapsbe wiser, however,

to make experiments
experiments

a smaller scale then was the case with Modernist town planning and allow time to
on

judge the results before proceeding with large scale projects.

Criteria for judging the suitability of forms for specific intentions as well as the

intentions themselveswill be different for different cases. The criteria and intentions

then, be established for each case. In the morphological approach suggested here,
must,

the evaluation of form with respect to intentions is made at all the various levels of

resolution in terms of the interactionof inhabitant and habitat. The evaluation is carried

out with the awarenessthat the form of the built environment does not strictly

determine human activity or behaviour and that human activity cannot disregard the

form of the built environment. The built environment is seen as an outward boundary

limit to human activity and intentions. Equally, at any given time, the potential of a
or

form to accommodate activities will not be realised. A given form may be used in
given

different ways, some not yet discovered.

any number of

The importanceof aspectsother than fomi

While the working assumption is that character is sensed primarily through the

perception of physical form, other aspects contribute substantially to character. Use, in

particular, is important in describing the full character of a town or individual form. The

in which a place or form is used and the activities which occur within it are
way

essential aspects of a place's character. Consciousness of this is very important in the

 325

forms. A particular existing form, a square or piazza, for example, may be

evaluation of

have for its overall character. It might, then, be considered desirable

considered to value

to maintain that character in the existing square or to propose the design of a similar

in development. The form of the square, its dimensions and proportions

square a new

parts, however, are likely to be only a few of the aspects contributing to

and constituent

its overall character. Its position within the town and the activities which go on within

it, amongst other things, are likely to be equally important.

These additional aspects should be taken into account when proposing to maintain

form or proposing a new one. Regardless however many aspects are

an existing

form in attempting to distinguish its character, it is still the form with

associated with a

the form which is to be maintained, modified or

which the aspects are associated and

built. To have a detailed knowledge of a form in terms of its parts and their

arrangement, is to have a basis for maintaining the existing form or building a similar

one. Having that knowledge is to be a step closer to maintain ing its character or

creating a similar character.

Moving froin description to prescription

M

Becausemorphologicalanalysisdescribesand explains form in terms of the processof

building, it facilitates the translation'of the findings of analysis into prescriptions for

planning, urban designand architecture. Following the procedureset out in chapter rive,

types can be identified at different levels and degreesof specificity by adopting

specific

different levels of resolutionin analysis. Again, at the first level, typescan be identified

and described by outline and relative position. At the second level, they can be

identified and described in terms of the type of their constituent parts, the number of
 326

each type of part and their arrangement. By increasing the level of resolution step-wise,

the types can be identified at the third and higher levels of specificity, identifying the
I
type of constituent parts, the number of each type of part and their arrangement at each

level.

In the contextof analysis,thesecharacteristicsare used to describe the forms found

in a particular study area for the purpose of explanation. In order to provide a

repeatable method facilitating comparative study, they are as much as possible simple,

clear and unambiguous. These same qualities also make the characteristics suitable for

use as prescriptions within the context of planning, urban design, and architecture.

The characteristicsusedto describethe form of an existing building can be used to

prescribe the forin of a new building. They provide a set of outline principles which

describe a way of building. The basic premise of application to planning, urban design

and architecture is that it is possible to construct a building or more generally a built

form which has the samecharacteristicsas an existing type. This is to build a new

example of an existingC9type. Such an approach might be applied in setting up

regulations or guidelines for planning or as design principles for urban design and

architecture.

The followingpursuesthe applicationwithin the contextof regulationsor guidelines.

Specifically, it is seen as a possible approach to the production of zoning bye-laws within

a zoning based planning system or as design guidelines within a discretionary planning

system.

The primary motivation for such an approach is, again, the recognition of value in

the forms of the existing built environment, in particular the value of the general

characterand individuality of existing settlements. The value may be attributed for any
 327

to either individual forms or a combination of forms and the

number of other reasons,
Given a desire to derive benefit from that value, this approach
resultant character.

provides a means.

FORAI-BASED ZONING

The approach advocated here is conceived as a system of regulatory zoning based on

It in the Form is here

form. stands contrast to more common use-basedzoning.

in terms of type as defined in this thesis. It is thus a system of type-based

conceived

zoning. Tlie generic and specific structure of urban form provides a framework for

identifying types to be used in the zoning regulations. The basic principle is, zone

boundaries are defined on the basis of the differences in tile specific structure of the

Areas of different specific structure are

elements constituting a given settlement.

identified as different zones. For eachzonethere is a set of regulationswhich prescribes

the constituent forms of each zone in order to maintain the structure which defines it.

The regulations are based on the specific types of form identified in each generic type.

The zones are in fact the types of form occupying the higher levels in tile hierarchy of

At the highest level is town or settlement. Viewed as a whole, it is

generic structure.

identified in contrast to the surroundingcountrysideor natural or agricultural areas. If

of a larger metropolitanarea, the administrative or political boundary is

a town is part

acceptedwith the that

consciousness the boundarymay not correspondto a specific form.

In practice, whetheror not the municipal boundarycorrespondsto an identified type of

form, it functions as the largestor most inclusive 'zone'. A municipal boundarymay in

I
 328

fact contain several separate settlements or towns, in which case each settlement

constitutes a distinct zonewithin the larger zone of the municipality as a whole.

At the next lower level in the hierarchy are districts. One or more districts are

identified within eachsettlement,dependingon the sizeand complexityof the settlement.

In terms of the generic types,the districts correspondto tissues(lextus)and are defined

primarily on the basis of the pattern of streets and blocks but also on the pattern of

parcellization within blocks, the type of constituent plots and building form. The

districts constitute the primary urban zones. At the next lower level, correspondingto

that of the block (sertum),sub-zonesmay be iclentified within the zonesdependingon

the complexity of the town, based on specific differences of the relative position of

blocks, parcellization pattern, the relative position and the type of constituent plots and

buildings.

A further step down,at the level of the plot (fines),for each sub-zone(and for zones

without allowable
sub-zones), typesof plot are identified, basedon tile outline of the plot,

its relative position, constituent parts and their arrangement. The different zonesare

likely to each have a different rangeof allowable plot types.

Taking the next two levels together(aedesand tectunz),allowable building typesare

identified for each type of plot, basedon outline or overall external form, the position of

the building in the plot and the constituentparts such as room types,storeynumber, roof

and facade types and their arrangement. Finally, taking the two lowest levels together

(statio and materia), allowable typesof constructiondetails and materials are identified

for the different building types as well as for other structures such as enclosurewalls.
 329
Simplicity of reglilations

Approaching zoning regulations in this way has several immediate advantages. The

regulations for any one level are simple and straightforward. They can be expressed

graphically with great ease, making them more easily understood. District zones are

defined by boundaries and accompanied by regulations concerning the allowable types

of street and block of

and allowable arrangements streets and blocks. Street types are

illustrated by plan and section diagrams showing the range of allowable constituent parts

such as pavements and islands and allowable arrangements of the parts. Block types arc

illustrated by plan diagrams showing the range of allowable types of constituent sub-

zones and allowable arrangements of the sub-zones. Sub-zones (and blocks without sub-

zones) are also illustrated by plan diagrams showing allowable plot types and allowable

arrangements of the plots. Plot types are illustrated by plan and axonometric diagrams,

indicating allowable building and enclosure types and allowable arrangements of those

elements. Similarly, building types are illustrated by plan, elevation, section and

axonometric diagrams with notations, as are construction details and materials. In all

cases, allowable types include a range of maximum and minimum dimensions and

proportions of dimensions and for the case of plots, maximum building coverage.

Interrelixtion of rcgulations
0

It will be noted that the prescriptions at each level of refer to those of the next lower

level. The prescriptions thus form a coherent set. The recognition that character and

identity is found in tile combination of forms is taken into account in tile regulations.

it is not enough to identify the parts which are characteristic of a place. It is also
 330

necessary to indicate the combinations and arrangement of parts which are characteristic

of the place.

Flexibility of regulations

Beginning with a system of interrelated parts covering the range of forms from the

settlement as a whole to materials and supplying prescriptions specifying particular

level has several advantages. Being aware of a wide range of aspects

aspects at each

to form and character, it is possible to select those aspects which are

contributing

for a given case. It is possible to choose the characteristics, to use some and
appropriate

to or fewer and so exercise varying degrees of control. It is possible

not others, use more

to set limits to specific aspects and still allow for variety within those limits. The

on the interrelationship of levels, relative position and arrangement rather than

emphasis

leads to a system with a high degree.of control while allowing for

on unrelated quantities

flexibility.

There is flexibility in tile choice of prescriptions which might be applied. In some

it
cases may be considered necessary or appropriate to prescribe in detail only to the

level of streets and blocks. 7lius, patterns of streets and blocks could be speciried,

different patterns for different zones, with a range of different block

perhaps specifying

types. I'lie parcellization pattern, plot, building, and construction types could
and street

be constrained by less specific prescriptions. In other cases, it might be considered

to apply a high level of specificity only to plot and material types. Less
appropriate

specific prescriptions could be applied to the street and block type and pattern, the

parcellization pattern and building type.

 331

By stating prescriptions in terms of outline, relative position and arrangement of

it is to determine specific forms while allowing for variety in the type of

parts, possible

It would be possible, for to

example, prescribe the outline dimensions
constituent parts.

a plot type, the orientation of the plot relative to the street and the
and proportions of

building within the plot, leaving the building form, construction details
position of the

relatively unrestricted. Even if specific prescriptions are applied at all

and materials

levels, flexibility is possible by stating the prescriptions in terms of a range of

dimensions, proportions and types. By stating dimensions in terms of a range of lengths

lengths, it is to
possible prescribe specific fonns while leaving room
and proportions of

for variations.

This flexibility allows for the application of this approach in a variety of situations.

It is appropriate not only for towns which have a recognized value for their historical and

It can also be used in newer built up areas and for new development
regional character.

field sites. The issue is then tile source of the types prescribed. For cases in
on green

there is the desire to maintain existing forms and character, the source of types
which

is the analysis of the town itself. Working on the assumption that to maintain form is

to begin to maintain character, the analysis provides a method of specifying the forms

the town. ' The findings of the analysis can then be translated into
composing

to maintain'the forms.
prescriptions which work

In other cases it may be desired to change the existing character of a place. There

be the desire to give an urban or suburban area which is considered anonymous or

may

placeless a character more appropriate to the region in which it is found. In this case,

types can be selected from an analysis of surrounding towns of the region.

 332

Perhaps the most interesting application and one which would potentially have tile

long term effect is the use of such an approach to new development.

greatest

Morphological studies show that the form of initial development imposes strong limits on

development. The initial forms tend to persist. Barring comprehensive

subsequent

is gradual process. With a morphological approach

redevelopment, transformation a slow

it is possible to base the form of new development on types identified in tile surrounding

region and take advantage of the refinement and improvement of forms is the
-which

of the modification of previous types to accommodate new uses. Typical

result

can be incorporated into the new development. At the same time, aspects
modifications

forms which have been developed over time and remain of value yet which
of the existing

left out. This then assures that the purposes for which
arc perhaps not obvious are not

the forms were developed continue to be accommodated and character is maintained.

Benerits of the emphasis on forin

As just noted, the original form of a settlement has a lasting effect on its subsequent form

and so its character. Consciousnessof this would suggest that it is important to clearly

the desired form and character of new development before building begins.
conceive of

Equally, it would indicate that the form and character of an existing settlement cannot

be changed in a day. Unless achieved by large scale and expensive comprehensive

the transformation of a town is a slow, gradual process. The advantage

redevelopment,

of starting from an analysis of an existing town or of towns in a surrounding region is that

the decision to maintain, change or create form and character is made from an informed

position. It is only possible to maintain and consciously change or create new forms

and character if the existing form and character is known.

 333

Whether applied to new or existing settlements, the benefit of this approach to

prescription is the emphasis on form. The appearance and quality of the built

is
environment positively prescribed rather than left to the desires of self-interested

groupsand individuals and the whims of national trends and fashions. The government

of a town its
can exercise right to determine the form of the town. By using a systemof

form based prescription, both the image and the general functioning of tile town is

conceived in detail before anything is built. There is not, however, the necessityof

designingin detail the entire town. The resourcesand human effort applied to building

can thus be directed to a particular end and not wasted. That end should not be seen

as an ideal fixed state or model but as a specific idea of preferred qualities: of

appearance, of function and of potential to accommodate change. In existing towns, by

.
prescribing a range of forms of modifications such as extensions, it is possible to direct

the overall change in a settlement. The change occurs not by direct intervention but by

the actions of individuals over time. In either case, emphasis is put on the quality of the

environment, but not solely in the negative sense of setting out minimum standards and

separating incompatible uses. The quality of the environment is put forward in a positive

sense by promoting a particular form and character.

Ilic inechanisin of regulation

This approach to regulations would ideally work on the basis of status quo ante in

combinationwith a provision for innovation, that is, as a mixture of legally binding and

discretionaryplanning systems. For any proposalor application which adheresto all the

pertinent regulations,the applicant should have the right to build and must be granted

If
permission. the application purposelyproposessomethingwhich is not by
allowed the
 334

regulations, the applicant must seek special permission for a variance of the regulations

for that particular case. Each application for a variance should be judged according to

a previously stated set of criteria. Proposals for variances should address specific

for the proposed change for each regulation for which a

regulations with a rationale

is sought. I'lie rationale should explain how the proposal is an improvement

variance

of the existing conditions or provides for some activity currently unaccommodated but

which would be beneficial to Refusals

accommodate. of applications for variancesshould

be justified in terms of the statedcriteria.

Such a mechanismshould not be seenas an attempt to stifle or exclude innovation.

It should be seen as an attempt to direct innovation in a conscious move toward the

improvementof the built environment. The barrier to difference should be intended to

prevent change which is the result of expedience, laissez faire standards or cheap,

shoddy developmentmeant primarily for private profit. The spirit of such regulations

should be to maintain what is of value and promoteimprovementbasedon what has been

shownby experienceto work or by controlled experimentationof what has not been tried.

New is not necessarily better, but there is only one way to find out.

Application within Ilic context of different planning systeins

In England, planning law does not accommodate the suggested structure and mechanism

of prescriptions. To work within the English planning system, such a set of prescriptions

would have to be voluntarily adopted by a local planning authority (LPA) to act as a

guide for applicants. The prescriptions, as guidelines, would provide

a statement of

principles on which evaluation of proposals would be made. An application which

adheres to the guidelines is more likely to receive approval. Such a statement of

I
 335

principles would benefit both the LPA and the applicant. For the applicant, the

is
advantage advance knowledgeof the points taken into consideration in judging an

application. An applicant can thus avoid wasting time and money preparing proposals

likely to receive approval. For the LPA, time is saved in processing

which are not

applications by reducing the number of obviously inappropriate proposals and by

establishing specific criteria by which proposalsare to be judged. Also, the guidelines

becomea specific public statementof intentions which can be used by the LPA in

appeal casesto justify refusals. Appeal casesmight then be shorter and less frequent.

This approachmight help to counterwhat is consideredby someas the arbitrary nature

of the English planning systemin which statementsconcerning refusalsare considered

either too vague or general to be of use for improving the proposal or too specific and

so too binding. The approach

suggested would more closely define the boundariesfor

aestheticjudgementson the part of planners and so lessen the importance of aesthetic

mattersfor day to day planning. At the sametime the planners would gain more control

over the quality of the environment by placing more emphasis on the form of

developmentwhich is generally the focus of aesthetic concerns.

In the U.S., Franceand other countrieswith a legally binding zoning-basedplanning

system,the suggestedsystemof prescriptions could be adapted relatively easily. The

specific legal context of each country would, of course, present different issues to be

in
addressed any attempt to adopt such a system.
 336

THE ISSUEOF CREATIVITY

A system of form based prescription derived from existing types is likely, perhaps

inevitably, to receive the criticism that the regulations stifle creativity, or, as one

it, The
'anaesthetize'architecture. word pastichewill almostcertainly arise.
architect put

The issue of pastiche involves the specific design of individual objects, mainly

buildings, and so necessarilyputs the discussion into the context of architecture and

design principles. It is in many ways an aesthetic issue. It involves the

architectural

aesthetic preferences of individuals in designing individual buildings. Certainly, the

system of regulations or prescriptions suggested above restricts the possible choices in

designing a building. Ilie same is true, however, of any identifiable style, new or old,

whether the personal style of an individual architect or the more general style *attributed

to a period or place. In order to build several buildings which have an identifiable style

it is necessary to restrict the choice of possible constituent elements and arrangements

to the same set or a similar set in all the buildings. This point is a matter of the source

of the restrictions and the reasons for which they are applied. An assumption made in

the approach suggested here is that to build is not even ideally an entirely private

activity. There is a public aspect to buildings. The right to build carries'with it a

to contribute to the public realm. The restrictions applied to building

responsibility

therefore, only be those chosen by the owner or architect to express a

should not,

personalstyle. The restrictions should also include those accepted from the public to

maintain the public realm and that which is deemedto be of value to the public, whether

specific forms or more generalcharacter.

 337

One of the main points in condemning a building as pastiche is that it is not of its

time. This is an entirely aestheticjudgement. If a building type is consideredof value,

selectedand actively used, it is of its time, regardlessof its so called origin. To forbid

the building of that type becauseit is is

consideredpastiche as much aesthetic tyranny

as it is to enforcethe building of a so-calledold type. Ideally there should be a choice

of types, however they might be judged aesthetically.

Adopting a system of regulations based on form which specifies a range of forms

makesit possible to assurethere is choice in the types of form. By prescribing aspects

of form at the various levels it also assuresthat someof the more basic if less visible and

heated issues are addressedsuch as street patterns, block sizes and the position of

buildings relative to the street.

The criticism that regulations stifle creativity is too general. It is possible to apply

creativity within limits. Evidence of this is readily apparent in the wide variety of forms

found within the, bounds of any one identifiable style, be it the Classical, Gothic,

Renaissanceor Modem, the oeuvreof a single architect or the different stylesof regional

vernacular building. Indeed, part of tile problem of pastiche is tile awarenessof all these

styles and a concentrationon the differences between them rather than within them.

Emphasison the differencesbetweenstyles restricts attention to what is similar within

any one style. Within the boundsof the similarities of a given style, there is, however,

a great deal of variety. There is thus room for creativity and individual expression. It

is a matter of paying attention to the specific differencesof each example of a style,

beyond the similarities which define it.

The task of the individual architect or builder in designing a building and

attempting to express something new while still working within a given is

style to create
 338

differences within limits. The limits define the style. Whether self-imposed of imposed

by planning regulations, the limits provide a framework for creativity. It might even be

that broadened scope of creativity and disregard for local constraints actually
said a

design. Except for a very few practitioners, the blank slate can be an
vitiates

intimidating barrier to creativity.

Indeed, the constraints and challenges provided by limited means often lead to

better, more creative design. In some respects, a sign of true creativity is shown in the

to create something new which remains familiar, in the ability to work within
ability

limits, producing an object which is both identifiable as part of a town or region

strict

the expression of an individual or period. This is to create a new version of

and clearly

The of in
an existing type, to reinterpret the type. principle reinterpretation architecture

design underlies the form based system of regulations suggested here.

and urban

Motivating these principles is the recognition of value and creative opportunity in

the interplay between the old and the new, between old buildings and new buildings,

between old types and new examples of those types. The interplay allows for a broader

richer range of expression by referring to both the past and present. It makes
and

for specific expressive aims. The ambiguity of old and

possible a play on expectations

strength which can outlive fashion and style.

new makes possible a rhetorical

To a certain extent the argument about creativity is a red herring. While the heat

in the rhetoric is hottest when spoken by or about the few best architects, it must be.

that a small percentage of buildings arc designed by the best architects.

remembered

The heat of the rhetoric cools or changes side when addressing the bad architects and

builders responsible for a large part of the built environment. The issue then shifts to

damage limitation. Is creativity limited by preventing a builder from putting up a row

I
 339

bungalows in an existing settlement? The issue becomes one of a balance

of cheap

between liberty and some notion of the public good. This argument might rightly be

It certainly is the more difficult problem.

given more attention then that of creativity.

An outline of the structure and method of formulating regulations described here was

first presented by the author at the coloque, 'Le droit et 1environment' on 24-25 July

1991 in Asnieres-sur-Oise. The work was presented as part of an action pilote for the

Commune of Asnieres sponsored by the Patrimoine Historique et Artistique de la France

directed by Ivor Samuels of the Joint Centre for Urban Design at Oxford Polytechni C.
and

Following from the action pilote, Samuels and the author with the other members of the

by the of Asnieres to revise the commune's Plan

action pilote team were asked mayor

d'Occupation des Sols on the basis of the system of regulations presented at the coloque.

This work, as an application of the ideas developed in this thesis, is discussed in more

detail in the following chapter.

AN EXAMPLE

7lic opportunity for application

This chapter is an account and discussion of an actual application of the ideas put

forward in the previous chapter, specifically, that of producing planning regulations

basedon morphologicalanalysis. The work was undertaken in France in collaboration

with others for a local authority. A draft version in English of the text for the project is

included as Appendix D. The following is a brief description of the project and the

in
context which it came about. It includes a discussionof someof the issuesinvolved
I
 340

in the application of morphological concepts and principles in planning and the move

from description to prescription.

The Action Pilote and Plan d'Occupationdes Solsfor

Oise
Asnieres-sur-

The work began as an action pilote organised by Patrimione Histmique et Artistique de

la France (PHAF) and Ivor Samuelsof the Joint Centre for Urban Design (JCUD) at

Oxford Polytechnic. PHAF is an associationconcernedwith the preservation of the

archaeological, architectural and artistic heritage or patrimony, the material culture, of

France. PHAF and Samuelshavebeenassociatedfor more that ten years,producing rive

actionspilotes in that time for such townsas Provins,

Donzenac, Honfleur, and Thulle.

The action pilote is a short term design or idea generating project usually held over

a summer holiday period. In most cases the project is initiated by a town or local

(in one case it was the opposition to the local authority). The local authority
authority

or concerned body, having identified some specific issue or general concern regarding

the architectural or built patrimony of the town, contacts PHAF who with Samuels

organise the project team. Typically the team is made up of Samuelsand one or two

other tutors from the JCUD and a selection of their diploma and MA students. While

the action pilote is for the most part an urban design project, the intent is more generally

to bring out issuesand focus awarenesson the built environment. The result is thus

often varied, involving not just design but other strategies such as managementof

activities, education or the production of 'town trails', guidebooks for tourists and

residentspointing out the highlights of the history and architectural heritageof the town.
 341

The Communeof Asnieres-sur-Oise

The actionpilote beganin July 1991, running for three weeks. The subject of the project

was the town of located

Asnieres-sur-Oise, about 35km north of Paris within the Ile de

France Region and the Departmentof the Val d'Oise. Asnieres is properly called a

the
commune, Frenchequivalentto the British local authority. The communeof Asnieres

encompasses a large area of land including two main settlements, Asnieres and Baillon,

as well as a former Cistercian monastery, recognised as a national historic monument.

Also within the boundariesof the communeare large areasof farmland and national and

private forest.

The settlementof Asnieresoriginated with the Chateaude la Reine Blanche, now

built
an orphanage, in the 13th century for Louis IX the Saint King. Saint Louis also

founded the Cistercian monastery, which is called Royaumont (Royal Monastery).

Asnieresdevelopedas an agricultural settlementaround the core of the chateau. From

the Renaissanceto the end of the nineteenth century a number of large houseswith

extensivegroundswereaddedto the settlement. Thesewereessentiallyvillae suburbanae

for men of meansfrom Paris. In the nineteenthcentury, industry came to Asniereswith

several factoriesbuilt in the easternedgeof the settlement. Recently, the predominant

form of development has been the addition -of lotissments or pavillon housing

development. These are typically culs-de-sacof small suburban detached housesfor

single families on small plots. The land for development is typically former farmland or

the gardensor parkland of the large houseswithin an on the fringe of the present built.

up area. The development

of lotissments
and the transformationof existing houseson the

basis of the pavillon type has been identified as the main problem confronted by

Asnieres.
 342

The actionpilote confrontedthis issuealongwith moregeneral issuesconcerningthe

perceptionof the as
commune a whole within its context. It also dealt with more specific

issuesconcerning the structure and appearanceof the communeat the detailed level.

The project thus had several different sections in which issues were identified and

proposalssuggested. The various issueswere:

(a) the overall imageof the communeand its structurein terms of its relation to natural

features - forest, hills, and river - and the entrances, paths ancf landmarks within it;

(b) the character of 'the commune in terms of the built form and structure of the

settlements, set in morphological terms;

(c) the redevelopmentof a disused industrial site;

(d) the built fabric of public spacesin the commune

(e) public awarenessof the history, landmarksand character of the environment,built

and natural
The results of the project were presented at a coloque, or conference, attended by

representatives from neighbouring communes and from various government agencies

involved with the built environment. The theme of the coloque was Law and the

Environment. As the various points of the project were presented, discussion ensued on

the problems of implementation of new or different plans and regulations, the legal

pathways available and the possible barriers as well as more general discussion on the

issues of regional character and how to maintain it without descending into pastiche.
 343

'17hespecific context for application:

the Plan d'Occupation des Sols

An unexpectedresult of the actionpilote and coloquewas the commissioningof the team

by the mayor of the communeto complete a new Plan d'Occupationdes Sols (POS)for

the commune. The POS is a legally binding land-use plan constituted by a graphic

zoning plan indicating wheredevelopment

may or may not occur and written regulations

indicating the allowable density and form of development in each zone. Within the

French legal structurc, *the POS is a component of the Code d'Urbanisme which is in turn

law. Communes are not-requircd to have a POS. -In such cases,

a component of civil

development is based by default on the Code d'Urbanisme. The POS is thus

regulation of

legal tool which allows the commune more control over the type and direction of
a

development. Ideally, regulations are framed to suit the specific commune and the issues

it faces at a given time. The POS may be revised at the discretion of the mayor and

the commune. Typically, a POS is prepared for a commune by the Direction

council of

Departmental dEquipment (DDE), a national agency with regional offices (a department

is the equivalent of a county in the US or district in the UK). The staff of the DDE is

of civil engineers. In France there is no planning profession as it is

made up mainly

known in Britain or the US. The tasks of the planner in Britain are taken up in France

by the DDE and a number of other different agencieswithin the governmentsof the

regionsor For
departments. the POS,the servicesof the DDE are payed for or subsidiscd

by the state. A communemay choose,however,to hire private consultantsto preparea

POS. The benefit of using the DDE is that it is obviously cheaper. One of the

disadvantagesis that the DDE use a standardformat and standardizedregulationsin

 344

POS. Private consultants offer the possibility of providing a POS which is

preparing a

sensitive to local conditions but at a higher cost to the commune.

more

Once a POShas been approvedby the council it is then a legal document. Any

infringement of the POS can be prosecutedthrough civil courts. The procedure for

building then involves submitting a proposal and applying for a permis de construire

is approvedor rejected on the basis of the proposal's adherence to the zoning

which

of the POS. From the position of the applicant, if a permis is refusedwithout

regulations

in POS, be brought against the commune. The communeis

justification the a casemay

thus legally bound to the POS it

until revises or replaces it.

The actual process of evaluating proposals and issuing -permis is in most cases

by
handled the DDE. With national legislation for decentralisationin 1983, the process

devolved onto the communesif they so chose. A large commune taking on the
was

of processing applications- would likely hire staff specifically for that

responsibilities

in Britain. For smaller communes the job might be

purpose, similar to a planning office.

taken on by the existing staff'of administrators, the councillors and the mayor.

Regardless, the final decision on permis rests with the mayor. 71iis is possible because

in the structure of French local government the mayor has much more power than his

or her equivalent in Britain.

Asniereshas taken advantageof the clecentralisationlegislation even though it is a

2,400 people with a full-time administrative staff of four. Processing

communeof only
I
de construireis handled by the mayor himself and the secretary to the mayor.
of perinis

The presentmayor, M. Paul Lassus,was elected on the campaign slogan,9youcame to

Asnieres to escapethe suburbs, don't let them follow you'. lie is a new style and

New Age mayor who unseatedone of a dynasty of old style mayors with,
somewhat
 345

close ties to developersand business. The interests of the previous mayor

reputedly,

the story goes, mainly financial and he gave relatively free reign to the
were, as

developersof lotissments. Those interests were not entirely legitimate and Lassusand

the presentcouncillors were elected on the basis of putting an end to the corruption and

the to
municipal government the quality'of the environment,both
shifting the concernsof

natural and built.

The mayor, in particular, has a keen interest in architecture and local history and

knowledgeable on those subjects. The procedure he has adopted for processing

is very

de is to have a Saturday 'surgery' at the town hall. The applicants

permis construire

for a meeting to discuss their plans during which negotiations occur, the mayor
arrange

tactics to persuade the applicant to build 'in harmony' with

resorting to a wide range of

the character of the existing settlement. Having done this for three years, the mayor

found the tools at his disposal for presenting his arguments inadequate and too often

Ile required an external, objective basis for his arguments,

judged as entirely subjective.

ideally in a graphic form, to which he could appeal in negotiating with applicants.

Though'this might seem frighteningly restrictive and autocratic from the British or

American perspective, the mayor's attitude remains positive. Ile maintains that- if a

positive imageof the communeis presentedwhich reinforcesthe existing characterof the

it the desire to build in that way and so create the future

settlement, will create

commune.

To get the tools he needed, the mayor First' went to the Direction Regional

d'Architectureet d'Urbanisme(DRAU) who recommendeda French architect to produce

POS. After an initial survey and inventory of the built fabric, the architect
a new

little of use as an illustrative tool nor did he produce any general principles
produced
 346

be used as regulations in a POS. Lassusthus turned to PHAF-and the

which could

action pilote.

From the perspective of a team member, the action pilote presented an ideal

test the previously conjectural idea of producing design

opportunity to apply and

or regulations based on a morphological analysis. The three week period of

guidelines

to allow the formulation of a basic structure for the

the action pilote was only enough

and the identification of a small range of types at different levels of

guidelines

The initi4l work done by the French architect was in

complexity to serve as examples.

fact invaluable as a starting point, making up for the lack of knowledge of French towns

and building types.

Regarding the possibility of producing a POS based on morphological -analysis, it

the coloque by representatives of the DDE that a POS is not

was acknowledged at

to take the form adopted by the DDE. The Code d'Urbanisme states that the
required

requirements for a POS are that it contain a general description of the

minimum
.
(Rapport de Presentation), that it indicate in graphic form where development
commune

is and is not allowed, and that the density of development is determined either in terms

land coverage or floor area ratio. - The POS may in addition include regulations for the
of

type of land use allowed in the different zones and the arrangement and external aspect

individual buildings. Having been asked to produce a new POS, the task then became
of

and elaborating the guidelines as formulated in the action pilote into

one of converting

regulations which would meet the minimum requirements for a POS.

a set of zones and

Work on the POS began in August, involving most of the members of the action

team: Ivor and Olga Samuels, myself and Simon Kneafsey, Lisa Turner, Martin
pilote

perry, Chris Whelan and Ian Foster. The latter were all more or less recent graduates
 347

of the diploma course in urban design at the JCUD. By the end of October we had

produced a rough draft in English.

The text presented in Appendix D is the first revised draft, using most of the

illustrations which will appear in the final document. The text has undergonefurther

revision in the processof translation into French but is essentially the It

same. must be

noted, however, that there are inconsistencies in the text, particularly in the cross

references,as well as omissionsand the inclusion of someFrench terms. There are two

plans included, which arc more recent and will thereforepresent some inconsistencies.

The plan labelled 2/3 is the main zoning plan for the central areasand is referred to in

the text variously as plan x, plan POS 01 and POS2/3. The plan labelled 3/3 is the

plan indicating the plot series zonesreferred to in sections 4 and 5. There are fewer

zonesindicated on the plan for Baillon than referred to in the text.

5-

REFLECTIONSON THE PROCESSOF PRESCRIPTION

The issue of assumptions and context

The following is a discussionof someof the specific issuesand problemsof movingform

description to prescription addressedmore generally in chapter eight. As noted there,

several fundamental decisions,must be made before going on from an analysis to

fomulate prescriptions.

In the context of producing prescriptions for someone as consultants, those choices

are to a certain extent external to the study. They are necessary precursors to
actually

doing the work. The clients ask for the work becausethey have made someof those
 348

decisions. Thus,certain assumptionsmust be acceptedfrom the client. In Asnieres,the

primary assumption on the part of the mayor and council - the clients - was: the

traditional and historic characterof the settlementhas positive value. This is coupled

with the assumptionthat it is worth preserving the character in order to continue to

derive benefit from the value. The questionwas then how to preservethe character. The

mayor and council lacked an answer to this and therefore looked for advice. We

provided the advice with the further assumption on our part that the morphological

approachgaveus a better basisthan others for determining the characterof a settlement.

Another sourceof external assumptionsor limits to choice is the overall context in

is
which one working. The legal system presents certain boundaries or conditions to the

activity of prescription. Some kinds of prescription will be legally possible and others

will not. Equally, there is a social and political context which presents further

conditions and boundaries. One may face resistance to prescriptions which are too

stringent. In Asniereswe were working within the legal structure of civil law, the Code
.
d'Urbanisme and the POS, and the social and political structure of a social/libcral

democracy. I'lic mayor was willing and determined to stretch the boundariesof both

those systems. On the one hand he was going outside the established though not

mandatory form of the POS while still remaining within the bounds of the Code

d'Urbanismeand civil lawý On the other hand, he was willing to face public opposition

and so risk his political career by using his power as mayor to establish relatively

stringent regulations on building.

As consultantsto the mayorwe acceptedthis position while we were reluctant to be

as stringent as the mayor wanted in restricting the-range of types or variations in setting

out the regulations. The conditions of this position were clear, or becameso as we
 349

in formulation of regulations. It bears emphasising that it

progressed our analysis and

is necessary to be constantly aware of these conditions and the assumptions which create

them in or-der to come up 'with effective prescriptions. Without that- context,

The regulationsmust work within an existing body

prescriptionswould not makesense.

of laws and mechanismfor building.

This is not to say that the approach and method cannot be used elsewhere. The

assumption is the desire to maintain character. Given that, the approach and
primary

method remain valid. The specifics of different legal systems and cultures will

different specific fonnulations of prescriptions. Certainly, the content of the

necessitate

be different, reflecting the differences between different places.

prescriptions will

Derining Types

The document to be produced for the POS was initially conceived also to be a guidebook

for the residents of the communeor those wishing to build in the commune. As a

guidebookit was intended that it be distributed to all the residentsand available at the

town hall. This meant that the documenthad to be accessibleto non-specialists. Given

the audience and purpose of the final product, both as legal document and guidebook,

it was decided to compresssome of the levels of as set out in chapter rive. In the

document,materialsand structures(maletia,statio) are presentedtogetherin one section

as are rooms and buildings (tectum, aedes). The result was considered to be more

accessible and effective, leaving seven main sections: the commune as a whole,

districts, streets and blocks, plots, building form, and elements of

settlements,

construction.
 350

Specific procedures

In the specific procedure of analysis, each team member selected a level to analyze

his her-interest and skills (the five JCUD students all had degreesin
according to or

Elementsof constructionwas broken down into two main sections:one for

architecture).
for walls (the latter including openings), as that level was considered too
roofs and one

large for handle. The actual analysis of building form and elements of
one person to

in the field, taking measurements of dimensions and

construction was carried out mainly

taking photographs and sketching, in combination with documentary research'in

angles,

books and journals on local vernacular architecture and discussion with various people

knowledgeable in the subject., For forms further up the hierarchy, such as districts and

documents, mainly maps. Cadastral surveys from 1742

plots, more time was spent with

1865 the current map. Written history of Asnieres is

and were available as well as

il the main source being the mayor who has read most of what has
scattered and sparse,

been written.

The actual method used to identify specific types was that set out in chapter five.

To recount,the formsat a given level of complexity are viewedas arrangementsof parts.

The differentiation of specific typesthen involvesdistinguishing differencesof four main

regarding the form and its parts: the outline,of the form as a whole, the type of
aspects

the componentparts, their number,and their arrangement. Taking plots as an example,

the plan outline of the whole is examinedin terms of the dimensionsof width and depth

in plan and the ratio of width to depth.' Different dimensionsand proportions begin to

distinguish, different types of plot (see Appendix D, section 5.1). The parts are

as types, necessarily by reference to the range of forms being defined in the

examined,

lower level of complexity. For the plot the different general parts *arethe main
next
 351

building (plot dominant in Conzenianterms), the outbuildings or dependances(plot

in
accessories Conzenianterms) and the enclosurewall. Different specific types'of plot

are thus distinguished by the different type of building, outbuilding or enclosurewall

composinga given example (see Appendix D, section 5.3). The number,of parts is

counted directly, for example, the number of buildings etc.; examples containing different

as different specific types. The arrangement

numbers of component parts are considered

is
of parts examined in terms of the geometric relations between the parts, for example

the position of the main building in relation to the short side of the plot boundary etc.

Different specific types arc defined by the different specific arrangements of parts.

Two other aspects were also used to distinguish different types. One is the position

of the form as a whole within a form of the next level up- the hierarchy, for example, the

position of a plot within a plot series or block. For the plot this is examined in terms

of the orientation of the plot relative to the street and its position relative to other plots,

to the outline of the block as well as to the cardinal points (see Appendix D, section 4).

The other aspect is that of access. This is examined in terms of the simple issues of

entering, moving through and resting. Thus for plots the issue is theýposition of the

primary access to the plot within the whole structure of the plot (see Appendix D, section

5.1).

Challenges in the process

An interesting issuearosefrom the needto examineor have knowledgeof types from tile

next higher or lower level in defining specific types. There was a tendency in

formulating the definition of the types to complicate the definition by including

definitions of forms a level higher or lower than that under consideration. In setting out
 352

the overall structure of regulations, the idea was to create a set of interconnected

prescriptions,any one type referring, on the one hand, to the definitions of its component

parts, and on the other, to its own position in forms of which it is a component. The

for
regulations a plot type, for example,should thus refer to the building and enclosure

wall types of which it is composed,

and to the type of plot seriesor block of which the

plot type is a component. The problem was thus to refer to the connection but to keep

for
the regulations one level free of any statementsregulating forms of the other levels.

The result at times seemedtoo simple on its own, thus the desire to include more. To

do so, however,was unnecessaryand also goes against the general principle of only

defining somethingonce to avoid contradictions.

The issue of the interconnectionof levels is also important in a positive sense. It

is necessary to make the connection. A complaint against many previous design guides

and handbooks attempting to identify and maintain characteristic forms is the kit-of-parts

syndrome. In this, the forms are presented in an inventory, giving, for example,
.
characteristic doorways or window frames without, however, indicating which can be

combined, how they should be arranged to give a characteristic facade and the overall

form -of the building of which they can be a part. It becomes a kit-of-parts without

instructions.

Our task was thus to put together the kit-of-parts and write the instructions. Thus

in formulating prescriptions it was necessary to be conscious of all the other levels in

order to note the typical associations of forms. A district is composed of all the levels

below it and'its character is thus derived from the typical combination of all those

elements. To have, for example, a rustic farm door on a large classical urban house is
 353

to erode the characterof both the houseand the door by erasing the typical association

is
which as much a 'part' of structure as the construction of the door.

Ile necessity of judgement

The process of gathering information, distinguishing and defining types and setting out

prescriptionsinvolvesa numberof judgements. This is true whether the analysis is done

for the purposes of explanation or for formulating regulations. I'lie first set of judgements

was made in setting up the methodfor the field work. It was judged that the aspectsof

type: overall form or outline; type, number and arrangement of parts; relative position

as component and access were more important or pertinent than others. Further

judgements were made in arriving at the range of specific types considered to be

characteristic of Asnieres. Somemembersof the team were at first reluctant to make

that judgement, arguing they had insufficient information and lacked of familiarity with

the subject. Here I believe a subjective judgement, however much familiarity and

evidence one has, is necessary and unavoidable. To be tenable, however, the judgement

must be supported by persuasive arguments and whatever evidence one has. In the

context of produc ing planning regulations as suggested here, the argument should involve

both historical and material evidence and a positive idea of what will improve the

settlement.

Part of the difficulty team membershad in making the judgements necessary'to

derine types is that the type is an idea, a compositeimagecompiled by observationand

experience of a number of examples. In the early stages of analysis it was necessary to

persuadethe membersof the team to make a hypothesis,to formulate the type on the

basis of the information they did have. Once the hypotheses were made and the types
 354

presented,there was a great deal of discussionwithin the team and with the mayor and

Nor werethe hypotheticaltypes acceptedas they emerged. They were tested by

others.

to the field and gaining more experience,comparing the composite image of

returning

the type with its many exampleson the ground and reformulating the type only to test

it again. This process is essentially synthetic in the sense that it involves putting

togetherone image from many. In this respect it is unavoidably creative. Where it

differs from so-called pure creation is in the fact one must show the type is a product

accessible to all. Pure creation can be called such mainly because the
of sources
be unambiguouslyidentified. The type, in contrast,
sourcesare not evident or cannot
be shown to be derived from existing examples.
must

One could argue this problem might be approachedmore objectively. One could

it statistically, considering the forms which are most prevalent numerically to

approach

be most typical. This does not avoid the problem, however. One must define the types

to be counted. There is, nevertheless, a statistical component to the derinition of types.

One must rind enough examples to warrant hypothesising a type, though the examples

be on the ground or found in documentary sources.

may

Considerations in making prescriptions

The step from defining types to making prescription involves further judgement. It is

both synthetic and selective. One must have in mind an image of the settlementas a

in
whole and all its parts, selectingfmm the types identified thosewhich arc to compose

that image. It may be that one selects them all but that is no less a choice. Ideally one

Imust also evaluate the types and decide if they meet the needs of modem life. To do

this one must have standards. As discussed in chapter six these cannot be derived from
 355

an analysis of form. They are either accepted from some other source, determined

through investigation of people's needs, directly or indirectly, or hypothesised and

developed as convictions or opinions from experience. In this respect, the definition and

types for prescription involves not only form but other aspects such as use,
selection of

ownership and significance. The prescriptions must work within the existing context,

taking advantage of its opportunities and addressing its challenges as well as

ameliorating problems. The definition of districts, that is, the main urban zones, in

Asnieres illustrates these issues quite well.

Having defined a range of tissues/plan-units, several other issues were taken into

in determining the boundaries of the prescriptive zones. One decision was to

account

directing development. The zone Le Village (UAa) is

use the zones as a means of

being denser and more urban. For the prescriptions, the boundaries of
characterised as

the zone were extended over areas which were not strictly defined as Le Village in terms

The intention in extending the boundaries was to enlarge and reinforce

of plan units.

the zone, creating an identifiable core area (see Appendix D, plan 2/3).

Prescriptions, at the lower levels of complexity were also used to reinforce the

distinction betweenzones,again, going beyond the bounds establishedby the analysis

to -emphasisethe difference., This is not to say the analysis provided a definite,

unambiguousboundary which was then ignored. The boundary of the plan unit was

uncertain from the start. To arrive at a boundary at all, it was necessaryto disregard

specific differences in detail within the boundary and similarities either side of it.

Again, because the original purpose of the analysis was to produce regulations, our

decisionswere directed toward that end along the way, making it difficult to say when

the analysis stoppedand prescription began.

 356

The actual complexity of the built environmentis beyond prescription. To attempt

that complexity is to descendmore quickly into pastiche. The variety of the

to prescribe

built environment so often praised as a positive aspect is, for the most part, the

of many individual decisions. This, -at least, was the assumptionmade

cumulative effect

in formulating prescriptions., A further assumption was that by formulating general

allow for individual choice within somerange, individual decisions

prescriptions which

be made leading to the desired variety. Yet another assumptionwas that there
would

be a number of individuals making the decisions. A more difficult situation arises

would

it is likely that one personor a corporatebody will be making the decisions,as in

when

the case of a large scale development by. a single developer. In such cases the

institution of variety becomesmore problematic.

Another considerationin defining districts wasuse. Le Village, which is considered

the central district, is distinguished by the inclusion of commercial activities and

as

public buildings. The other districts contain mainly residential uses with professional

The Delacoste area contains the industrial uses and within

offices and studios allowed.

the different natural zones there is a distinction between cultivated and uncultivated

land. The resulfi ng zones are not defined strictly in terms of form. Certainly they are

As one might expect, however,there is an association between

not strictly plan units.

the usesand plan units. Given the needsof particular uses, such as the need for large

buildings and open areas for industrial uses,ýone rinds those uses, and should place

them, where those needscan be met.

In general then, the approachwas to see the zonesas outlining what the settlement

be rather than what it was at somepoint in time. Tlie idea is to see the range
should

formsIidentified through analysisas the elementswith which one has to work in order
of
 357

to determinethe presentand future form of the settlement. Attempting to establishzones

to
which correspond some historical state of the settlement is fraught with problems.

There is alwaysthe questionof which point in it history. Which point is better than the

Is
others? there sufficient evidenceto establish what the state of the settlementwas at

a given time? The solution to these problems is to see historical forms as constituents

of the present state of the town. Planning and prescription is based on the desire to

maintain existing character. Becauseexisting character is basedon what the settlement

has been, its history, to maintain existing character is to maintain historical character.

At the same time, by not fixing historical character to a specific point, it is possible to

allow for change and accommodate new uses and activities and new forms. The apparent

paradox of maintaining character and allowing for change is transcended by the

knowledge, provided by morphological concepts and analysis, that arrangements can

be while parts might be changed and that forms of one generic type might
-maintained
be changed with little or no perceptible change to others.

A further motivation to the prescriptions was a set of general ideas about urban

design. As pointed out in the sectionon streetsand blocks (Appendix D, section 4), for

example, maintaining the traditional structure of streets lined with buildings along the

frontageis justified not only by the desire to maintain character but also becauseof the

belief that the resulting definition of public and private realms is a positive urban design

principle. The clear distinction of public and private realms makes a better urban

environment.
 358

ne formulation of prescriptions

Having selected a range of specific types as the basis for regulations, the next step was

Within the POS, be formulated

to formulate specific regulations. prescriptions must as

Something is allowed or it is not. It is possible, however

unambiguously as possible.

include allow for a discretionary approach. In

to more ambiguous get-out clauses which

involving form, the regulations work on the basis of buildability. If a proposal

most cases

it is buildable and cannot be refused. Anything built

adheres to all the regulations

does adhere to the regulations is illegal and the responsible party liable to
which not

legal action and penalty.

In the case of plots, however, there are laws within civil law which maintain

over the Coded'Urbanismeand any POS. That is, the latter two cannot go
I precedence

the former. According to civil law, a land owner has the right to subdivide and
against

the land in certain situations. A plot may be sub-divided and sold every ten years
sell

and on the death of the owner. It is not possibleto control the size, shapeor orientation

from such sub-division within civil law and so within the Code
of plots resulting

d'Urbanismeor any POS. Oneof the only regulationsregardingtheseaspectsin civil law

is the minimum width of a frontage,which must be wide enoughto allow the passageof

a man with a wheelbarrow.

Given these limits to the legal tools available, the desire to constrain the form and

of plots in the POShad to be translated into terms of buildability. On this

orientation

it is interesting to note that it is only the owner who can directly control the form
point
land division. More generally, it would seem that in most countries where land
of -

is a fundamentalright this is the case. This limitation would indeed seemto

ownership

the notion of the power of the initial pattern of land division of a settlement,
reinforce

r
 359

its contribution to the character of the settlement and continuing constraint on

subsequentchanges.-

Taking these and other considerations into account, the actual formulation of

followed fairly directly from the definitions of types, the pertinent features
regulations

again being the overall dimensions or proportions of the type, the specific type of

noting the position of the type in

componentparts, their numberand arrangement, also

forms of the next higher level of complexity.

is
The form of the communeas a whole given with the municipal boundary. In the

Asnieres, the boundary does not correspond to any identifiable or typical form.
case of

The regulation in the POS concerning this aspect is that the municipal boundary

the limits within which all the other regulations will apply. Also given
establishes areal

this level are the constituent parts of the commune, that is, the separate settlements,
at

arrangement. The only choice at this level is the selection of which

their number and

be considered as separate settlements and the initial

of the existing urban areas should

the boundaries. In the case of Asnieres, the basis for establishing separate
position of

primarily the distinction between urban (zones designated U) and natural

settlements was

(zones desi gnated N), the physical separateness of the different urban areas and
areas

in
differences the internal structure of the urban areas. Once established, the boundaries

legally fixed. The number of separate settlements and their arrangement relative to
are

follow as a function of identifying built up areas as separate settlements

one another

distribution. Also at this level, many regulations were included

given their existing

as requirements for
concerning more general points as well services, parking etc.

The outlines of the separate settlements function as a regulation in the same way as

boundary, as a limit within which distinct regulations for elements of lower

the municipal
 360

In Asnieres, the boundaries of the settlements were, for the most

complexity will apply.

drawn the limit of the built up area (relative to farmland, forest, marsh, rivers
part, at

) but the boundaries did include some green field sites which had been selected for
etc.

development in the near future. The constituent parts of the settlements are the districts

identified in the next level down the hierarchy. The number and arrangement of

districts, as in the case of the settlements, follow as a function of the identification of

distinct districts and their existing position. Thus, at this level, the only aspect of form

is cited for regulation is the boundary of the settlements.

which

The same holds for the district zones and plot series zones. The outline of the zones

limit within which separate regulations will apply for elements of lower levels of
are the

The other number and arrangement of the zones are assumed in the position
complexity.

boundaries. The boundaries of the district zones were drawn based on

of the zone

primarily street/block structure and plot pattern but also use and the
several criteria,

desired direction of future development.

For plots, the various aspects used to distinguish different types of plot were used

establishing criteria for allowable forms of building. The outline, in terms

as regulations

the outline of the plot, led to a regulation prescribing the allowable proportions
of plan

the outline (width and depth) and another regulation for the allowable range of
of plan

dimensions.

The general arrangement of component parts led to regulations limiting the position

buildable and non-buildable area and the percentage of building coverage in

and size of

the buildable area. The specific component parts and their arrangement and number led

types of building, allowable arrangements of the

to a regulation specifying allowable

types and allowable types of enclosure wall. Prescriptions were also included
constituent
 361

specifying the orientation of the plot relative to the street and the accesspoint to the plot

from the street following from the differentiation of types according to relative position.

In the caseof building form, the translationof typesto prescriptionswasconditioned

by several issues. One was the fact that two generic types of form (aedesand tectum)

included in one section, another was the fact that there was no information
were

the internal of
arrangement buildings. Yet another was that there
available regarding

desire to prescribe the internal arrangement,at least in terms of the disposition

was no

of roomson any given storey.

1"heoutline of building form led to prescriptions specifying: allowable plan outline

(the block plan) of the building, stated in terms of graphic examples with minimum and

dimensions for the width and depth; allowable section outline, again
maximum allowable

in terms of graphic examples with dimensions and proportions of depth to height. A

was also included concerning the relation of building height to street width.
prescription

Strictly, this prescription should have been in the section dealing with streets and blocks

but as no other specific prescriptions were applied to' streets it was considered more

include it building form.

practical to with

Because the disposition of rooms was considered inappropriate as a subject for

identified for prescription were the roof and the facade

prescription, the component parts

of the building. The prescriptions specified a range of allowable types of roof and
walls

Here prescriptions for the arrangement of parts relied to some extent on common
wall.

definition of elements, it being assumed, for example, that the roof occupied a particular

position relative to the walls.

Prescriptions concerning the disposition of rooms were included in terms of storcy

the position of floors relative to the ground level, to each other and to the eaves.
number,
 362

These aspects were considered of importance because they affect the appearance of the

building from the street by the position of windows and the lack or presence of stairs to

main entrances.

For the elements of construction and materials, the prescriptions follow similarly

from the distinction of outline of the elements and the constituent parts and their

In some cases, such as roof and walls, only the outline is

arrangement and number.

the external material and details, the actual internal construction

specified along with

being considered inappropriate to regulate.

In general, given the geometric nature of the elements which were the subject of

graphic descriptions and diagrams were considered the most effective way
prescription,

the in combination with text giving dimensions, proportions etc.

of stating prescriptions,

Zoning plan 2/3,1: 2000, includes designation of the commune boundary, settlement

boundaries (Asnieres, Baillon, Royaumont), district zone boundaries (UA, UG, Ul, N,

NA); and plan 3/3,1: 1000, includes sub-zone boundaries (A, B, C, D, E, F, G). For

building form, axonometric drawings were considered the most accessible and
plots and

efficient and for elements of construction a combination of axonometric, elevation and

section drawings'was used.

Reflections and considerations

The documentproducedfor Asnieresis in a sensea fusion of three main ideas: the typo-

approachto analysisand design,the zoningtordinancesystemof regulatory

morphological

the tradition of design guidesand guidelines. The project in Asniereswas

planning and

an attempt to apply and elaborate the first idea. The second idea was tile
explicitly

in
context which the application and elaborationoccurred and the third idea, that of the
 363

design guide, was consciously chosen as a example with respect to the presentation. In

particular, a model for presentationand drawing style in the early stagesof the work was

the designguide for the BreconBeaconsNational Park (1988). More generallyand more

importantly, the aspect taken from the tradition of the design guides is the notion of

presenting a positive image of the desired form of development.

Ilie decision to use drawings to such an extent was prompted by two main

considerations. On the technical side, one consideration was the immediacy and

efficiency of drawings as a form of expression for the purposes of describing spatial

relations and complex objects. The combination of drawings and text made it possible

to be much more concise in expressing prescriptions while maintaining a high degree of

precision. The other main considerationwas the accessibility of drawings. Axonometric

drawings in particular are very effective in communicating building form to a wide

audience.

On the practical side, while the wealth or drawings makes for a more lively and

accessible document, the question of feasibility arises given the relative expense of

drawing. Photographs are an option in some cases but the selective nature of drawings

gives them several advantages. It is possible, so to speak, to edit a drawing and so

emphasise selected aspects to make a particular point. Photographs, unless very well

composed, tend to be indiscriminant, showing too much. Another advantage to drawings

is that it is possible to alter images of existing buildings or other forms and also show

new forms in existing sites. Further, on an aesthetic level, the graphic consistencyof

drawings provides a positive unity to the document as a whole. Often the effect of using

a large number of photographs is visually distracting.

 364

Aside from the explicit use of, and so resemblanceto, these three approachesto

planning and design, the POSfor Asnieres also resemblesin somerespect the work of

Duany + Plater-Zyberk. The resemblancelies primarily in the use of types as a basis

for prescription and the identification of different types of elements such as buildings,

plots, blocks and streets. The primary difference lies in the specificity of the types and

I
prescriptions and the range of elementsspecified. From the stand point of the desire to

identify and maintain local and regional character, Duany + Plater-Zyberk'splans and

codes are not sufficiently specific nor accurate. In their work, a limited and similar

range of building types is used in the different parts of the country in which they have

created plans. In addition, the 'local' types which they use are for the most part limited

to building types. The types of street, block and tissue or layout tend to be the sameor

in
similar all the plans. Such criticism must, however,be seen in context. Relative to

much of the development in the United States, the plans of Duany + Plater-Zyberk are

several steps in the right direction.

 365

SECTION III

Natural beliefs, if they generally have a foundation of

truth, also require correction and purification from natural
illusions.

C.S. Peirce
'The doctrine of necessity'
 S(.6
.

TEN

CONCLUSION

Results

At the beginning of chapter four, a series of questions was raised as a consequence of

stating in full the central hypothesis of this thesis. Those questions are as follows. How

similar are Conzen's and Caniggia's morphological concepts and methods? How can they

be synthesised? How is greater detail in analysis achieved by the synthesis? How does

greater detail improve explanations? Can the results be applied to different examples?

The thesis has been an attempt to answer all but the last question. As noted in chapter

four, that question can be answered only by making a fundamental assumption and

testing, that is, by using the suggestedconcepts and method. The assumption is that the

objects of enquiry are similar. The testing is necessarybecause the validity of any

method can only be based on -results. Even then, without a consistent method one

cannot comparethe results of a given methodwith any other and so judge the validity

of one or another. The fundamentalassumptionnecessaryin this thesis is that towns,

 367

or different urban areas,are sufficiently similar to warrant using the samemethod in the

analysis and explanation of different examples. The way forward is thus to make the

assumptionand use the suggested

methodfor analysis. The testing is in the use. Only

by attempting to use the methodon different townswill it be possible to judge whether

it is applicable or not.

Returning to the other questions,how similar are the concepts and methods of

Conzen and Caniggia? Chapters two, three and four address this question. Chapter four

sets out in detail the similarities and differences. To review, there are general and

speqific commonpoints. In their generalview of the object of enquiry, both Conzenand

Caniggiadistinguish spatial and temporalaspects,identifying formsand processesin the

built environment. Both seeform generallyas the result of the processof formation. For

both, understanding of the built environment is gained through history, through an

examination of the acts and processesthat have contributed to the formation and

transformationof towns. Both see the form of the built environment as a product of
.
human needsand desires. There is, then, a correspondencebetweenchangesin form

and changesin human needsand desires. Both see such changeas evolutionary,as a

gradual processin which it is possibleto distinguish periods or phasesfor a given town

or region. While both recognizethe unique characteristics and features of different

places and objects, each also recognizes common features constituting the built

environment. Specifically, both identify as general kinds of form the building,

plot, street

and tissue or plan-unit. Both conceive of these general objects as types, the
general

class constituted by specific examples. Most importantly for the purposes of this thesis,

both Conzen and Caniggia see the different kinds of form as related to each other in
a

hierarchical structure. The built environmentis seenas a complex structure in which

 368

a given kind of element is contained by another which is in turn contained by yet

another.

This similarity of generalstructureis the key to addressingthe secondquestion,how

can Conzen'sand Caniggia'sconceptsand methodsbe synthesized? It is the similarity

at this general, structural level it

which makes possible to overcome the specific

differencesbetweentheir conceptsand methods. As the concept of the building type

allows for a diversity of specific examples while still remaining coherent because of a

similarity of general features, so the similar general structure of Conzen's and Caniggia's

conceptions of built form provides a basis for overcoming specific differences.

That similarity is reinforced by a mutual similarity to the general structure of logical

types introduced by Whitehead and Russell. The structure of logical types offers

reinforcementbecauseit provides a consistent,coherent view consonantwith the two

more specific views. The reinforcement is dependent on the acceptance of the rive

criteria for evaluation set out in chapter four: consistency, coherence, specificity,

generality and comprehension. It is assumed that concepts and methods which meet

these criteria arc better than thosewhich do not.

The common general structure presented in chapter five is in effect a formalization

of Conzen's and Caniggia's respective versions of the hierarchy of forms. As presented

in chapter five, the hierarchy or generic structure of built form is seen as one of levels

of complexity. Each level is a generalclass of form which is subdivided into different

specific classes or types of form on the basis of the internal structure of examples.

Generic structure provides a basis for definitions of form which are similar and so

consistent. They are related to each other in a similar way and so form a coherent set
,

of definitions. Further, the commonstructure provides a dual view of form,and so a

 369

basis for a dual definition which is both specific and general. A form is seenas both a

in a larger composition. Seen in this way,

composition of parts and a component part

form can be defined in termsof relative position and internal structure. The latter allows

for the distinction of specific differencesbetweenobjectswhich occupya similar position,

and so specificity, while the former allows for the possibility of a variety of different

entities to occupy a particular position and so generality. Finally, the common structure

can be extended to include a wide variety of objects in the built environment while

remaining consistentand coherent,thus providing comprehension.

Comparison and evaluation did reveal, however, that the structure as adopted from

Conzen,Caniggiaand Whiteheadand Russell did not fully account for the full diversity

and complexity of the built environment. To account for that diversity and complexity

and for the generalstructure to remain consistentand coherent,the additional concepts

of coextensive levels and extension, intermediate levels and compression, ambiguity and

resultant and shared forms were introduced. These concepts retain the consistency and

coherence of the general structure because they were primarily the result of deduction

from that structure. The case of coextensive levels provides a good example. Working

form the hypothesis that the general structure of the hierarchy of levels is able to account

for the diversity of built form, the inductive activity of examining specific examples led

to the judgement that someforms were still not adequatelyaccountedfor. This led to

a re-examinationof the structure and the deductive activity of developingcorollaries of

the structurewhich might accountfor the exampleswhich did not seemo fit. In the case

of coextensivelevels, the exampleswere 'single room buildings' and other 'single object

arrangements'. Working within the structure of a hierarchy of general classesand the

logic of classesand sets, the deduction was made that a single member set is a valid
 370

The further hypothesis was made that the single room house is an instance of a
entity.

'set of one member, in this case an aggregate of one entity. Making that series of

inferences, it was possible to account for the apparently anomalous examples in a manner

consistentwith the generalstructure. The introduction of the additional conceptsthus

extendedthe generalstructure in its ability to comprehendthe forms encounteredin the

built environment.

The integration of both Conzen's and Caniggia's categories of form within a single

structure and,the introduction of the additional conceptsaddressesthe third question,

how is moredetail shown? First, the comparisonundertakenin chapter four showedthat

while both Conzenand Caniggiaidentified the block and plot series, these forms were

not fully and explicitly accountedfor within the hierarchy. By explicitly including these

in a primary level of the hierarchy, the synthesis provides a more comprehensive and so

detailed view of the built environment.

Second, while Caniggia identified a wide range of general categories of form, lie did

not apply the same level of specificity to each in identifying specific types. Where

Caniggia did not, however, Conzen did. Caniggia identifies in great detail building types

and the parts of buildings while Conzenidentifies in equal detail plan-unit types and

their parts. The synthesisof the conceptsand methodsinvolves not only the general

structure but the specific criteria or pertinent characteristicsand the procedureused in

identifying specific types. The pertinent characteristicsand procedurespresented in

chapter rive provide a means of identifying specific types consistently at all levels in the

hierarchy. The suggestedprocedureinvolvesestablishingan analytical scopeand level

of resolutionof analysis. Dependingon the purposesof the analysis,specific types can

be identified at different levels of specificity. At the first level of specificity the

 371

pertinent characteristicsare outline and relative position,at the secondand higher levels

the characteristicsare the specific type of the parts of the constituent forms of each

generic type, their number and arrangement. By using a level of specificity

correspondingto that usedby Caniggiafor building typesand Conzenfor plan-unit types

at all levels in the hierarchy, a greater level of detail is included relative to that

identified by either Conzenor Caniggiaalone.

Third, by the use of coextensiveand intermediatelevels, further detail is included

in a consistent way. These concepts make it possible to identify and consistently account

for entities such as apertures, apartment houses, plots composed entirely of a single

building and plan-units consisting of a single street which either fall between the primary

general levels of the hierarchy or extend over several.

How does greater detail improve explanation? Generally it can be said that the

more one knows about a phenomenon, the better one understands it and is able to

explain it. In the case of the built environment, given that it is seen here as the result

of a process of formation and that that process fundamentally involves change, greater

detail in describing change makes it possible to

specify exactly what is changing and

what not. Certainly, it was such attention to detail which lead Muratori, Conzen
and

Caniggia to the important conception of differential rates of change between buildings,

plots and streets. Concerning detail and specificity in descriptions of change, as shown

in chapters four and six, even the word 'transformation" is perhaps too vague. Within

the context of a hierarchy of forms, it is possible to reduce 'transformation' down to three

general types of change: addition, subtraction and deformation. Such a reduction is

possible and leads, perhaps paradoxically, to more detail because of the greater

differentiation of forms. Ilie 'transformation" of an object may involve many additions,

 372

subtractionsand deformationsat various levels. The ability to specify which parts are

changing at which level it

makes possible to be in
more precise attributing particular

to
changes particular conditions, causes or intentions and so be more precise in

explanation.

Continuing plausibility

As noted, the thesis has involved hypothetical, deductive and inductive inferences. The

hypotheses are tested through deductive and inductive inferences. Deductive inferences,

as defined in the introduction, involve an -examination of a hypothesis and the

identification of the possible consequenceswhich would follow from the truth of the

hypothesis. The validity of deductive inferenceslies in their accordancewith the rules

of logic. Such inferences arc true or false only in reference to the statements of the

hypothesis. Ilie examination of Conzen's and Caniggia's definitions in chapters two and

three was an exercise in determining to what extent they are true in this sense, that is,

the extent to which they are or are not contradictory. This was, at the same time, to

examine the derinitions suggested in the synthesis. The contradictions and

inconsistencies identified in the analysis of Conzen's and Caniggia's work were in effect

selected out, the synthesis being built out of the definitions, general and specific, which

form an internally consistent set.

Inductive inferences,as defined in the introduction, involves the examinationof a

hypothesisand the deductive inferencesmadefrom it in relation to experiencein order

to determine the to
extent which the hypothesis and deductions accord with experience.
I
The inductive inferencesof the thesis are found in, the identification of specific built

objects as examplesof a given conceptor definition. The identification of examplesis

 373

intended as a demonstrationof an accordancebetweenthe hypothesisand deductions

As noted by Peirce (1958:367-9), that accordanceand so the validity

and experience.

hypothesis deductionscan only be more or less plausible. The test of the

of the and

hypothesisand deductionslies in their continuing plausibility. Within the context of

it has been possible to cite a small number of examples. These are

the thesis, only

to warrant maintaining the hypothesis and deductions while

sufficiently plausible
More examples must be
remaining open to the possibility of admitting adjustments.
by
cited, however, to make the accordancemore persuasiveand plausible, or not,

showingthat the hypothesisand deductionsaccordwith a larger number of cases,or not.

The thesis is thus in effect an argumentor suggestionto view the built environment in

a particular way and so test it further. The present successof the hypothesisand the

examplescited constitute a starting point for further examinations,tests and studies.

The good fortune of being involved in the work in Asnieres presented an

opportunity to test not only the possibility of application to planning but also to test the

central hypothesis and deductions of the thesis directly. The necessity of presenting the

general ideas to the clients and presenting the specific definitions and procedures to the

people who worked on the project was in effect a further test of the central hypothesis

and deductions. The general success and acceptance of the project give support to the

plausibility of the hypothesis and deductions.

As an experiment in application, the general success of the project suggests a

result, as far as the project has gone. At the time of writing, the plan is in the
positive

of approval. It has successfully gone before the council several times and
process

legal from the departmental

prifecture. There remains a period of
received approval

for publiqueafter which the plan again goesbefore the council

severalweeks an enquete
 374

for final approvalwhich is scheduledfor May 1993. In addition, the plan has received

national presscoverageon the basis it

of providing an innovative approach to the POS

applicable in other towns. Subsequently,a number of communeshave inquired of

Asnieresabout the plan.

The plan is not free from controversynor dissent. When presented to the POS

committeeand the full council there wasconsiderabledebate. At a pressconferencein

which the POS was presented, the journalists, while generally positive and interested,

expressedconcernabout over-prescription. This has been the most commoncriticism.

While the criticism may apply to this particular application, the approach itself is not

necessarily prescriptive to the same extent. As argued in chapter nine, there is a

considerabledegreeof flexibility possiblein the application of prescriptions. The extent

of prescription is in the end a political question.

Such political questions aside, the general success of the work in Asnieres would

seem to demonstrate that it is possible, at least at the scale of Asnieres, to use a

morphological analysis of a town as a basis for a set of planning prescriptions. What

remains, of course, is testing in action. No judgements can be made until buildings have

been built and modifications made according to the prescriptions.

Opportunities and responsibilities

Examining the results of the thesis turns the examinationback to the motivationsfor it.

Perhaps the most direct motivations those enunciated by Slater and quoted in the

introduction. One is the integrationof the Anglo-Germanand Italian schoolsof urban

morphologyand the other the presentationof morphological

analysesin a form useful to

planners,developersand politicians. Both thesechallengeshave been addressedin the

 375

thesisand positive preliminary stepstaken to meetthem. Underlying the desire to meet

thesechallengesis a more general perceived need motivating this thesis. That is the

needto be morespecific and precisein examiningand making statementsabout the built

environment,whether for the purposesof analysisor prescription. That need is rooted

in the desire to come to a better understanding of the phenomena of the built

In
environment. the caseof prescriptive activities, the need is also rooted in the desire

to be better prepared and able to address the challenges of maintaining and transforming

the built environmentto accommodatethe manyneedsand desiresfor which it has been,

is and will continue to be built. The need for specificity and precision is also rooted in

the desire to make the most of diversity of the built environment and the many

experimentsembodiedin the immensevariety of forms which constitute it.

While a short step has been taken toward greater precision and specificity, much

more has to be done to reach more tangible results. This points to the possibilities for

further research arising out of the thesis. The most obvious direction is to apply the

apparatus developed in the thesis to the morphological analysis of particular towns. Such

an application would provide further tests of the concepts and methods which have been

introduced and, if they continue to be successful, provide further examples which might

illustrate them better. Another possible area for further research is to examine in more

detail the phenomenaof extension,compressionand resultant forms, either within an

analysis of particular towns or by examining a number of different examples. Issues

which might be investigated are, the limits of extension and compression, their

prevalenceat different levels of complexity, whether particular types of form have a

greater tendency to exhibit extension or compression, the prevalence of resultant forms

and their place relative to the hierarchy of levels.

 376
Certainly the concepts introduced in the thesis raise many interesting questions and

possibilities with respect to the processes of formation and transformation. How might

they help to better describe and explain those processes? Equally, Caniggia's model of

the typological process remains a relatively unexplored area which might be addressed

within the framework of the apparatus suggested in the thesis.

The distinction of an energetic aspect, made in chapter four and rive, presents

another area for research. Though the energetics of buildings has been explored and

continues to be explored, generally it is only buildings rather than other kinds of built

form which are the focus of study. Further, such studies generally focus on new

technology. The area of energetics is one for which the notion of the built environment

as a store of potential solutions is particularly apt and vital. What do traditional built

forms, at all levels, have to offer in terms of energy use? This points to further
a area

of potential, not only of the concepts suggested in the thesis but also of urban

morphology generally. The notion of the built environment as a record of experiments

is one which sees built form and forms of behaviour as fundamentally interrelated. The

interrelation is not fixed but is historical and consensual. A

given form may be used

for different purposes and a given activity accommodated by different forms. Yet, forms

present boundaries to behaviour and behaviour present criteria to be met. The diversity

of built forms thus corresponds to a diversity of forms of behaviour. That diversity, like

the diversity of forms of life generally, is part of the mechanism for survival. Diversity

begets stability. Given the pressure for change put on the built environment by

increasing population and by short-sighted development, the diversity of forms in the

built environment is at risk. Urban morphology as a discipline is particularly well

placed to address this issue. At the least what is necessary is to record forms, not in
I
 377

isolation but in context,both environmentaland human. Becauseof their knowledgeof

the built environment and its relation to nature and the people who build it,

have the ability, and the to

responsibility, make that knowledge more
morphologists

One step toward that is to establish a consistentsystemof nomenclaturefor

accessible.

built forms, as suggestedin chapter six. Another step to be taken is to explore further

in
the application of morphologicalconcepts planning, urban design and architecture.

This demands further testing and refinement of regulations based on morphological

analysisand active promotionof the idea. Without willing councils, mayorsand citizens,

no amountof testing will be enough. A further avenuein this respect is the use of type

baseddesign and the notion of reinterpretationof types in educationin planning, urban

design and architecture. A design studio course could be set up around the

identification and reinterpretation of various types of form. Such an approach would

focus attention on the diversity of the built environmentand its interrelation with basic

human needs. It might also underline the fact that the built environmentis the product

of choice, not just betweendifferent objects but betweendifferent forms of behaviour.

To enjoy particular environmentsmeansparticipating in particular forms of behaviour.

To enjoy the environment of our choice meansnot only participating but maintaining a

diversity of forms from which to choose.

 REFERENCES

Adams, David, and May, Helen

1990 'Land ownershipand land-use.planning,
The Planner Vol. 76, No. 38 '
London: The Royal Town Planning Institute
Alberti, Leon Battista
1988 On the Art of Building in Ten Books,[1486]
translatedby Rykwert,Joseph,Leach, Neil, and Tavernor, Robert
Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press
Alexander, Christopher
1979 The TimelessWayof Building
New York: Oxford University Press
1987 A New Theoryof Urban Design
New York: Oxford University Press
Alexander, Christopher,et al
1977 A Pattern Language
New York: Oxford University Press
Anderson,Stanford,ed.
1978 On Streets
Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press
Appleyard, Donald
1981 Livable Streets
Berkeley: University of California Press
Art Institute of Chicagoand Centre GeorgesPompidou
1986 JIies van der Rohe (exhibition catalogue)
Chicago/NewYork: Art Institute of Chicagoand Rizzoli
Aston, M. and Bond, J. C.
1976 The Landscapeof Towns
London: J.M. Dent & Sons
paperback: 1978
Gloucester:Alan Sutton
Aymonino, Carlo
1964a La citta tenitorio
Bari:
1964b Aspettie problemidella tipologia edilizia
Venice:
1965 Lafomiazione del concettodi tiplogia, edilizia
Venice: Istituto Universitario di Architettura
 379

Aymonino, C., Brusatin, M., Fabbri, G., Lena, M.,

Lovero, P., Lucianetti, S., and Rossi,Aldo
1970 La citta di Padova:saggio di analisi urbana
Rome: Officina edizioni
Banaudi, Dario, e Rossi,Sandro
1987 'Due ricerche su Vigevan6, Urbanistica87
Milan: FAE Riviste
Barthes, Roland
1973 Mythologies[1957]
London: Paladin Grafton Books
Bateson,Gregory
1980 Mind and Nature
New York: Bantam
Baxandall, Michael
1985 Patternsof Intention
New Haven, Corm.:Yale University Press
Bond, J.C.
1990 'Central place and medieval town: the origins of Thame,Oxfordshire', in
Slater, ed. 1990
Bony, jean
1979 The English DecoratedStyle
Oxford: Phaidon
Bradley, J.
1990 'The role of town-plananalysis in the study of the medieval Irish town,
in Slater, ed. 1990
Brecon BeaconsNational Park
1988 BreconBeaconsNational Park Building Design: a Guidefor Developers
Broadbent,G.
1990 Emerging Conceptsin Urban SpaceDesign
London: Van NorstrandReinhold (International)
Brooks, N.P., and Whittington, G.
1977 'Planning, and growthin the medievalScottishburgh: the exampleof St.
Andrews",
Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers
NewSeriesVol.2 No.3
London: Institute of British Geographers
Brunskill, R.W.
1971 Illustrated Book of VernacularArchitecture
London: Faber and Faber
1982 Houses
London: Collins
Burke, Peter
1985 Vico
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Burnham, B. and Wacher,J.
1990 TheSmall Townsof Roman Britain
London: Batsford
 380

Caniggia, Gianfranco
1963 Lettura di una Citta: Corno
Rome: Centro Studi di Storia-Urbanistica
reprint: 1984
Como: Edizioni New Press
1976 Struiture dello spazio antropico: studi e note
Biblioteca di Architettura / Saggi e Documenti 3
Florence: Uniedit
Caniggia, Gianfranco, e Maffei, Gian Luigi
1979 ComposizioneArchitetionica e. Tipologia Edilizia:
1. Lettura dell'Edilizia di Base
Venice: Marsilio Editori
1984 ComposizioneArchitetionica, e Tipologia EdilL-ia:
2. Il Progetto neli'Edilizia di Base
Venice: Marsilio Editori
Cannadine, David
1980 Lords and landlords: the aristocracy and the towns
Leicester: Leicester University Press
Carr, Michael
1982 'The developmentand character of a metropolitan suburb', in
Thompson1982
Carter, H.
1970 'A decision-making approach to town-plan analysis:
a case study of Llandudno, in
Carter, H., and Davies, W. K. D. eds.
Urban Essays: studies in the geography of Wales
London: Longman
Carter, H., and Lewis, Roy
1990 An urban geography of England and Wales in the nineteenth century
London: Edward Arnold
Castex, J., Celeste, P., and Panerai, Ph.
1980 Lecture dune ville: Versailles
Paris: Editions du Moniteur
Castex, J., Depaule, J.C., and Panerai, Ph.
1980 Fomms urbaines: de ilot a la barre, nouvelle edition
Paris: Dunod
Cataldi, Giancarlo
1981 Lezioni di Achitettura
Biblioteca di Architettura / Saggi e Documenti 26
Florence: Alinea
Cataldi, Giancarlo, ed.
1984 Saverio Muratori: Il Pensiero e I'qpera,
Numero Sepciale di Studi e Documenti di Architettura,
Nuova Serie N. 12 (with parallel English text)
Florence: Alinea
Cervellati, P.L.
1977 La nuova cultura della citta
Atilati: Edizione Scientifiche e Tecniche Alondadori
 381

Chiappi, Carlo, e Villa, Giorgio

1980 Tipo / progetto/ composizione architettonica
Biblioteca di Architettura / Saggie Documenti 18
Florence: Alinea
Ciardini, Francesco,e Falini, Paola
1981 Lanalisi dei centri storico
Rome: Officina Edizioni
Condit, C.W.
1968 AmericanBuilding
Chicago:University of ChicagoPress
Conzen,M.P.
1990 'Town-plan in
analysis an American setting: cadatral processesin
Bostonand Omaha,1630 - 1930", in Slater, ed. 1990
Conzen,M.P., ed.
1990 The Making of the AmericanLandscape
Boston,Mass.:Unwin Hyman
Conzen,M.R.G.
1958 'The growth and characterof Whitby', in
Daysh,G.Hj., ed.
A surveyof Whitbyand the SurroundingArea
Eton: The ShakespeareHead Press
1960 Ainwick, Northumberland:A -Studyin Town Plan Analysis
Institute of British GeographersPublication No. 27
London: GeorgePhilip
1962 'The plan analysisof an English city centre' in
Norberg, K. ed.
Proceedingsof the 1UGsymposiumin urban geography,Lund 1960,
Lund: Lund Studiesin GeographySeries B
(collected in Whitehand 1981)
1966 'Historical townscapesin Britain: a problem in applied geography, in
House,J.W., ed.
Northern Geographicalessaysin honour of G.IIJ. Daysh,
Departmentof Geography,University of Newcastleupon Tyne
Newcastleupon Tyne: Oriel Press
(collected in Whitehand 1981)
1968 'The use of town plans in the study of urban history', in
Dyos, 11J., ed.
TheStudy of Urban History
London: EdwardArnold
1969 Alnwick, Northumberland:A Study in Town Plan Analysis2nd ed.
London: Institute of British Geographers
1975 'Geographyand townscapeconservation',in
Uhlig, If., and Lienau, C., eds.
Anglo-GermanSymposiumin Applied Geography,
Giessen- Wurzburg- Munchen,1973,
Giessen:Lenz
(collected in Whitehand 1981)
 382

Conzen,M.R.G.
1978 'The morphologyof towns in Britain during the industrial era', in
Jager,H. ed.
ProblemedesStadtwesens im industriellenZeitalter
Cologne:Boulan Verlag GmbH
(collected in Whitehand 1981)
1981 see Whitehand 1981
1988 'Morphogenesis,morphologicalregionsand secular human agencyin
the historic townscape,as exemplified by Ludlow', in
Deneckeand Shaw 1988
Cosgrove,Denis
1982 'The myth and stonesof Venice: an historical geographyof
a symbolic landscape',
Journal of Historical GeographyVol.10, No.2
London: Academic Press
1984 Social Formationand SymbolicLandscape
London: CroomHelm
1989 'Geographyis everywhere:culture and symbolismin humanlandscapes',
in Gregoryand Walford 1989

Cosgrove,D., and Jackson,P.

1987 'New directions in cultural geography',
Area Vol.19 No.2
London: Institute of British Geographers
Croce, Benedetto
1949 Aly Philosophy,translatedby E.F. Carritt
London: GeorgeAllen & Unwin
Cullen, Gordon
1961 Townscape
London: The Architectural Press
Cullingworth, J.B.
1988- Townand CountryPlanning in Britain 10th ed.
London: Unwin Hyman
Daniels, S., and Cosgrove,D., eds.
1988 The Iconographyof Landscape
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press
Daunton,MJ.
1978 'The building cycle and the urban fringe in Victorian cities,
. Journal Historical Geography Vol. 4, No.2
of
London: Academic Press
Denecke, D., and Shaw, G., eds.
1988 Urban Historical Geography. recent progress in Britain and Germany
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Domosh, Mona
1989 'A method for interpreting landscape:
a case study of the New York World Building'q
Area Vol. 21 No.4
London: Institute of British Geographers
 383

Duncan,J.S.
1987 'Review of urban imagery: semiotics'
Urban GeographyVol. 8, No. 5
Silver Springs,Maryland: V.H. Winston & Son
Duncan,J.S., and Duncan, N.
1988 '(Re)readingthe landscape,
Societyand Space:Environmentand Planning D Vol.6 No.2
London: Pion
Durkhiem, Emile
1991 The Division of Labour in Society,[1893] translatedby W.D. Halls
London: Macmillan
Eco, Umberto
1976 A Theoryof Semiotics
Bloomington,Ind.: Indiana University Press
1984 Sernioticsand the Philosophyof Language
London: Macmillan
1990 The Limits of Interpretation
Bloomington,Ind.: Indiana University Press
1992 Interpretationand overinterpretation,edited by StefanCollini
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press
EssexCounty Council
1973 A Design Guidefor ResidentialAreas
- Chelmsford: Essex County Council
Falini, Paola,ed.
1986 Il recuperorinnovato
Rome: Edizioni Kappa
Fathy, Hassan
1986 Natural Energy and VernacularArchitecture
Chicago:University of ChicagoPressfor The United Nations University
Femeaux-Jordan,R.
1969 WesternArchitecture
I,ondon: Thames& Hudson
Feyerabend,P.
1975 Against klethod
London: Verso
Foucault, Michel
1972 TheArchaeologyof Knowledge,[1969] translatedby A.M. SheridanSmith
London: Routledge -
Freeman,M.
1988 'Developers,architects and building styles:
post-war redeveolopment in two town centres',
Transactionsofthe Instituteof British GeographersNewSeriesVol.13 No.2
London: Institute of British Geographers
1990 'Commercialbuilding development:the agentsof change',
in Slater, ed. 1990
Friedman, David
1989 F7orentineNew Towns:Urban Design in the Late Aliddle Ages
Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Pressfor the Architectural History Foundation
 384

Gad, G., and Holdsworth,D.

1984 'Building for the city, region, and nation', in
Russell, V.L, ed.
Forging a Consensus: on Toronto
historical essaYS
Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Girouard, Mark
1990 The English Town
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press
Gordon, G.
1981 'The historico-geographicexplanationof urban morphology:
a discussion of some Scottish evidence',
ScottishGeographicalMagazineVol.97 No.1
Edinburgh: Royal ScottishGeographicalSociety
1984 'The Shapingof urban morphology',
Urban History Yearbook1984
Leicester: LeicesterUniversity Press
Gottdiener, M. -
1984 TheSocial Productionof Urban Space
Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press
Gottdiener, M., and Lagopoulos,A. Ph.
1986 The City and the Sign
New York: Columbia University Press
Goltdiener, M., and Pickvance,C.G., eds.
1991 Urban Life in Transition
Newbury Park: SagePublications
Gregory,D. and Walford, R. eds.
1989 Horizonsin Hurnan Geography
London: Macmillan
Gregotti, Vittorio
1966 11territorio dell'architettura
Milan:
Gregotti, Vittorio, ed.
1985 'The groundsof typology', Casabella509/510
Milan: Gruppo Electa
Hakim, B.S.
1986 Arab-IslamicCites
London: Routledge& Kegan Paul/KPI
Hartshome,Richard
1949 The Nature of Geography2nd imprint
Lancaster,Pennsylvania:Associationof American Geographers
Harvey, David
1969 Explanation in Geography
London: EdwardArnold
1989 The Condition of Postmodernity
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
 385

Hayfield, C, and Slater, T.R.

1984 The MedievalTownof Hedon:Excavations1975-76
HumbersideHeritage Publication No. 7
Hull: HumbersideLeisure Services
Hough, Michael
1984 City Form and Natural Process
London: CroomHelm
paperback: 1989
London: Routledge
Jackson,J.B.
1984 Discoveringthe VernacularLandscape
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press
1990 'The housein the vernacularlandscape',in M.P. Conzen,ed. 1990
Jacobs,jane
1961 The Death and Life of GreatAmericanCities
New York: RandomHouse
Jahn, Michael
1982 'Suburbandevelopmentin outer West London, 1850 - 1900", in
Thompson1982
Johnston,R.J.
1986 Philosophyand Human Geography2nd ed
London: EdwardArnold
1989 'Philosophy, ideologyand geography',in Gregoryand Walford 1989
1991 Geographyand Geographers, 4th ed
London: EdwardArnold
Jones,A.N.
1991 "The managementof residential townscapes,
Unpublished PhD thesis, university of Birmingham
Knox, P.L.
1982 Urban Social Geography:an introduction
London: Longman
1987 'The social production of the built environment:
architects, architectureand the post-modemcity',
Progressin Human GeographyVol.11 No.3
London: EdwardArnold
1991 'The restlessurban landscape:economicchangeand the
transformationof metropolitanWashingtonDC',
Annals of the Associationof AmericanGeographersVol.81 No.2
WashingtonDC: Associationof American Geographers
Knox, P.L., ed.
1988 The DesignProfessionsand the Built Environment
London: CroornHelm
Koter, M.
1990 'The morphologicalevolution of a nineteenth-centurycity centre:
Lodz, Poland, 1825 - 1973, in Slater, ed. 1990
 386

Krieger, A.
1991 AndreasDuany and ElizabethPlater-Zyberk:
Townsand Town-MakingPrinciples
Harvard University GraduateSchoolof Design
New York: Rizzoli
Krier, Rob
1979 Urban Space,[1975]
London: AcademyEditions
Kropf, K.S.
1986 'Urban morphologyconsidered',
Unpublished MA thesis, Oxford Polytechnic
Lafrenz,J.
1988 "rhe metrologicalanalysisof early modem planned towns', in
Deneckeand Shaw1988
Lane, Andrea
1991 'Urban morphology'
Urban Design Quarterly issue 38
London: Urban Design Group
Larkham, P.
1988 'Agents and types of changein the conservedlandscape',
Transactionsofthe InstituteofBritish Geographers
NewSeriesVol.13 No.2
London: Institute of British Geographers
Larkham, P.
1990 'Conservationand the managementof historical townscapes',in
Slater, ed. 1990
Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret
1974 Oeuvrecomplete1910-1929
Zurich: Les Editions d'Architecture (Artemis)
Lewis, P.F.
1979 'Axioms for reading the landscape',in Meinig, ed. 1979
Lewis, P.F.
1990 'T'he Northeastand the making of American geographicalhabits', in
M.P. Conzen,ed. 1990
Ley, David
1983 A Social Geographyof the City
New York: Harper and Row
1985 'Cultural/humanistic geography',
- Progress in Human Geography Vol.9 No.3
London: EdwardArnold
1988 'From urban structure to urban landscape',
Urban Geography,Vol. 9, No.1
Silver Springs,Maryland: V.11.Winston & Son
Littlewood, M.
1986 LandscapeDetailing 2nd ed.
London: The Architectural Press
Lowenthal,David
1985 The Past is a Foreign Country
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
 387

Lynch, Kevin
1960 The Image of the City
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
MacDonald, William L
1986 The Architecture of the Roman Empire, Volume 11.An Urban Appraisal
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press
Maholy-Nagy, S.
1968 Matrix of Man
London: Pall Mall Press
Malfroy, Sylvain
1986 Lapproche morphologique de la ville et du territoire
Zurich: Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich
Maretto, Paolo
1960 Tedilizia gotica Veneziana'
Palladio: Rivista di Storia dellArchiteitura
Nuova Serie, anno X-1960, Fasicolo III-IV
Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato
1986 La casa veneziana nella storia della citta
Venice: Marsilio Editori
Meinig, D.
1979 'Symbolic landscapes', in Meinig, ed. 1979
Meinig, D., ed.
1979 The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays
New York: Oxford University Press
Merlin, Pierre, with D"Alfonso, E. and Choay, F., eds.
1988 Morphologie urbaine et parcellaire
Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes
Moss, M. E.
1987 Benedetto Croce Reconsidered
Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England
Morris, A. E. J.
1979 History of Urban Form, 2nd edition
London: George Godwin
Moudon, Anne Vernez
1986 Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Mowl, T. and Earnshaw, B. 1988
1988 John Wood. Architect of Obsession
Bath: Millstream Books
Muratori, Saverio
1959 'Studi per una operante storia urbana di Venezia',
Palladio: Rivista di Storia dellArchilettura
Nuova Serie, anno IX-1959, Fasicolo III-IV
Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato
Muratori, S. Bollati, S., Bollati, R., and Marinucci, G.
1963 Studi per una operante storia urbana di Roma
Rome: Centro Studi di Storia Urbanistica
 388

Muthesius,Stephan
1982 The English TerracedHouse
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press
Nash, W.G.
1983 Brickwork I 3rd ed.
London: Hutchinson
Christian
Norberg-Schulz,
1980 Genius Loci: towardsa phenomenologyof architecture,[19791
London: AcademyEditions
dell'Orto, Luisa Franchi, and Varone,Antonio, eds.
1992 RediscoveringPompeii (exhibition catalogue)
Rome: "VErma" Di Bretschneider
Panerai,Ph. et al
1980 Elementsd'analyseurbaine
Brussels:Archives d'Architecture Moderne
Peirce, Charles S.
1958 SelectedWritings,edited by Philip P. Wiener
New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Pevsner,N.
1960 An Outline of EuropeanArchitecture6th ed.
Harmondsworth:Penguin
1976 A History of Building Types
London: Thames& Hudson
P6mpa, Nick
1988 'The nature of agents of change in the residential townscape:
South Birmingham 1970 -W
unpublished Phl). thesis, University of Birmingham
Portoghesi, Paolo, dir.
1968 DL-ionario Enciclopedico di Architettura e Urbanistica
Rome: Istituto Editoriale Romano
Rapoport,Amos
1982 The Meaning of the Built Environment
London: Sage
Ricoeur, Paul
1967 Husserl.
- an Analysisof his Phenomenology, translated by E.G. Ballard
Evanston,Illinois: NorthwesternUniversity Press
Rossi,Aldo
1970 LAnalisi Urbana e la ProgettazioneArchitettonica
Milan: CooperativaLibraria. Universitaria Politecnico
1982 TheArchitectureofthe City, [1966] translatedby JoanOckmanand Diane
Ghirardo
Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press
Rowe,C., and Koetter, F. -
1978 Collage City
Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press
 389

Rowely,G.
1975 'Landownershipin the spatial growth of towns: a Sheffield example,
The East Midland GeographerVol.6, Part 4, No.44
Nottingham: Departmentof Geography,University of Nottingham
Rudofsky,Paul -
1964 Architecturewithout Architects:a short introduction to
non-pedigreedarchitecture
London: AcademyEditions
Russell, Bertrand
1919 Introduction to MathematicalPhilosophy
London: GeorgeAllen & Unwin,
Samuels,Ivor
1983 'Towardsan architectural analysisof urban from:
conservationstudies in Britain and Italy',
Joint Centrefor Urban DesignResearchNote No.14
Oxford: Joint Centre for Urban Design, Oxford Polytechnic
1985 'Urban morphologyin design',
Joint Centrefor Urban DesignResearchNote No.19
Oxford: Joint Centre for Urban Design,Oxford Polytechnic
1990 'Architectural practice and urban morphology',in Slater, ed. 1990
San Francisco,Departmentof City Planning, City
and County of
1990 Mission Bay Plan: Proposalfor Adoption
San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco Departmentof
City Planning
Sauer,C.O. I
1963 Land and Life: a selectionfromthe writings of
Carl Ortwin Saueredited by J. Leighly
Berkeley: University of California Press
Schopenhauer,Arthur
1970 Essaysand Aphorisms,[18511translated by R.J. flollingdale
Harmondsworth:Penguin
Skidmore,Owings& Merrill and Bush-Brown,A.
1984 Skidmore,Owings& Merrill. Architecture
and Urbanism 1973-1983
London: Thames& Hudson
Slater, T.R.
1981 "Me analysis of burgagepatterns in medieval towns
Area Vol.13, No.3
London: Institute of British Geographers
1982 'Urban genesisand medieval town plans in
Warwickshire and Worcestershire',in Slater, ed. 1982
1988a 'Medieval CompositeTowns in England:
Evidence from Bridgnorth, Shropshire",
Universityof Birmingham Departmentof Geography,
OccasionalPaper No. 41
Birmingham: Departmentof Geography,University of Birmingham
1988b 'English medieval town plannine, in Deneckeand Shaw 1988
 390

1989 Toricastees Town Plan: An Analysis' in

Buckland, P.C., Magilton,J.R., and Hayfield, C. eds.
TheArchaeologyof Doncaster:2 TheMedievaland Later Town (Part i)
BAR British Series202(i) -
Oxford: B.A.R.
1990a 'Urban morphologyin 1990: developmentsin international co-operation',
in Slater, ed. 1990
1990b 'English medievalnew townswith compositetowns:
evidence from the Midlands', in Slater, ed. 1990
Slater, T.R., ed.
1982 Field and Forest:An historical geographyof
Warwickshireand Worcestershire (ed.)
Norwich: Geo,Books
1990 The Built For7nof WesternCites (ed.)
Leicester: LeicesterUniversity Press
Slater, T.R., and Shaw,G.
1988 'Historical geographyand conservationplanning in British towns', in
Deneckeand Shaw 1988
Springett, Jane
1982 'Landownersand urban development:
the RamsdenEstateand nineteenth-centuryHuddersfield',
Journal of Historical GeographyVol.8 No.2
London: Academic Press
Stilgoe,J.
1982 CommonLandscapeof America 1580 1845
-
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press
Stephenson,R. H.
1984 'Last Universal Man or wilful amateur' in Wilkinson 1984
-
Thompson,F.M.L., ed.
1982 TheRise of Suburbia
Leicester: Leicester University Press
Turner, P.V.
1984 Campus
Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Pressfor the Architectural History Foundation
Tzonis,A. and Lefaivre, L
1986 ClassicalArchitecture
CambridgeMass.:MIT Press
Vance,J.E.
1990 The Continuing City. urban morphologyin WesternCivilization
Baltimore: The JohnsHopkins University Press
revised edition of Vance,J.E.: 1977
This Sceneof Man
New York: Harper's College Press
Vico, Giambattista
1982 SelectedWritings, [c.1690-17441edited and translated by Leon Pompa
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press

I
 391

Vitruvius
1960 The Ten Booksof Architecture[c. 27 BC-AD 68?] translated by
M.H. Morgan [1914]
New York: Dover
Wacher, John
1974 The Townsof RomanBritain
London: Batsford
reprint: 1976
London: Book Club Associates
Ward, David
1970 'The pre-urban cadasterand the urban pattern of Leeds', in
Baker, A., Hamshere,J. and Langton,J., eds.
Geographicalinterpretationof historical sources:
readings in historical geography
NewtonAbbot: David & Charles
Ward-Perkins,J.B.
1977 RomanArchitecture
New York: Harry N. Abrams
Whitchand, J.W.R.
1972 'Urban-rent theory, time series and morphogenesis:
an exampleof eclecticism in geographicalresearch',
Area Vol.4 No.4
London: Institute of British Geographers
1975 'Building activity and intensity of developmentat the urban fringe:
the case of a London suburb in the nineteenth century ,
Journal of Historical GeographyVol.1 No.2
London: Academic Press
1977 'The basis for an historico-geographicaltheory of urban form',
Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers
NewSeriesVol.2 No.3
London: Institute of British Geographers
1978 'The building cycle and the urban fringe in Victorian
cities: a reply',
Journal of Historical GeographyVol.4 No.2
London: Academic Press
1981 The Urban Landscape:Historical Development Management,
and
Papersby M.R.G. Conzen
Institute of British GeographersSpecial Publication No. 13
London: AcademicPress
1987 The Changing Faceof Cities
Institute of British GeographersSpecial Publication No. 21
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
1988a 'Recent developmentsin urban morphology',in Deneckeand Shaw 1988
1988b 'Urban fringe belts: developmentof an idea',
Planning Perspectives Vol.3 No.1
London: E. &. F.N. Spon
1990 'Townscapemanagement:ideal and reality', in Slater, ed. 1990
1992 The Making of the Urban Landscape
Institute of British GeographersSpecial Publication No. 26
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
 392

Whitehand, J.W.R., and Alauddin, K.

1969 'The town plans of Scotland:somepreliminary considerations',
ScottishCeographicalMagazineVol.85 No.2
Edinburgh: Royal ScottishGeographicalSociety
Whitehead,A.N., and Russell, B.
1925 Ptincipia Mathematica2nd ed., vol. 1
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press
Wilkinson, E. M.
1962 'Goethe'sConceptionof Forný in Wilkinson and Willoghby 1962
1984 GoetheRevisited(ed.)
London: John Calder
Wilkinson, E. M. and Willoghby, L A., eds.
1962 Goethe.- Poet and Thinker
London: EdwardArnold
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1989 PhilosophicalInvestigations,[1945-9] translatedby G.E.M. Anscombe
(reprint of English text with index)
Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Wright, Georg Henrik von
1971 Explanation and Understanding
London: Routledge& KeganPaul
Zelinsky, W.
1973 The Cultural Geography of the United States
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
1990 'The imprint of central authority', in M.P. Conzen,
ed. 1990