Urban morphology is defined as the study of urban form regarding its physical, transformational and structural relations and changing patterns over time (Carmona et al., 2010; Whitehand, 2007; Pinzon Cortes, 2009). The patterns that urban morphology
identifies are shaped by the efforts made over time for human survival and simultaneously changing lifestyles (Kropf, 2005). In this sense, as Moudon (1997, p.3) states, urban morphology is “the study of the city as a human habitat”. Table 2.1 presents a collection of the other definitions of urban morphology available in the literature. These definitions overall also show that urban morphology does not only exclusively pay attention to the physical built environment but also to the human agent shaping its structure.
Table 2.1 A collection of definitions of urban morphology
The Definitions of Urban Morphology Scholars
The study of the evolution process of a particular place over time Scheer & Scheer (2002) The study of the physical (or built) fabric of urban form, and the people and
processes shaping it Larkham & Jones (1990)
A study identifying “the repeating patterns in the structure, formation and
their origin, growth, and function” Dickinson (1948, p.232)
The structure of urban form has multiple constituent elements. Therefore, the challenge here is in defining the term ‘structure’ since what generates it and how it was generated are complex questions. Kropf (2005, p.17) emphasises the ambiguity in the understanding of this structure through the words used to define the urban environment, such as “urban fabric” or “urban grain”. As Kropf (2014, p.43) indicates, urban morphology looks at the urban form through its elements and their relative relationships to each other. In this sense, how the elements come together, are positioned and generate the built form defines this structure. In this respect, the structure can refer to “spatial configuration” since it depends on the interpretation (Kropf, 2005, p.17). Spatial configuration here refers to the structural relationship between the elements of physical form. How the structure is defined through the elements and how they come together and define the urban form both occur within a
17
hierarchy, without doubt, even though the structure is not defined in detail (Kropf, 2014). The differences in hierarchy result in the emergence of different patterns in the built environment. These patterns help in understanding the nature of the building process at different place scales (Alexander et al., 1977). Given the fact that type is a small unit of a structure at a certain scale, the observed patterns and hierarchies in the built environment can be classified into types that follow a similar spatial organisation.
Thus, a better understanding of the built environment and its structural patterns at different place scales primarily depends on the understanding of the concept of type at the relevant scale.
2.1.1. Type
Type initially establishes a base helping to identify specific characteristics, which construct the essence of a particular type of “objects, events, settings and people”
(Lawrence, 1994, p.271). In other words, it is a way of thinking through classification.
The conceptualisation of type dates back to the 18th century – the Age of Enlightenment and gathered momentum with its application to a variety of human-related contexts in various disciplines (Guney, 2007). It was first introduced to modern architecture as a theory by Quatremere de Quincy (1755 – 1849) in the late 18th century (Guney, 2007;
Lee, 2011). Since then, the role of type as a design tool has been immensely promoted in architectural discourses.
Architectural historian Antony Vidler (1998) asserts that there are three concepts associated with types, which emerged in different periods. The first concept considers type as a base to create a model in the rationalistic philosophy of Enlightenment. This can be mainly seen in Quatremere de Quincy’s architectural interpretation of type, which associates it with three main notions – origin, transformation and invention (Guney, 2007; Caliskan, 2009). Quincy’s approach emphasised type’s direct association with human invention, distinguished between type and model, and adopted the idea that type cannot be imitated like a model but provides the base to create the model (Caliskan, 2009). In the Age of Enlightenment, the idea of type was also theorised by J.N.L Durand (1760-1834) and linked to style (Guney, 2007). The second typology emerged to oppose mass production in the late 19th century (Vidler, 1998). This notion
'=!8$F*!35!@'A*.5378!3A*'G'%$!B17!177')318*A!B38/!8/*!F.'A#)83'5T='.@W@1(35%!F.')*77!
15A!8/37!F*.3'A!#7*A!8/*!8*.@!F.'8'8$F*!17!1!7815A1.A37*A!1.)/38*)8#.1G!A*73%5!*G*@*58:!
B/3)/!B17!.*F*18*A!A*F*5A35%!'5!8/*!)/15%35%!7')31G!78.#)8#.*!0^3AG*.:!NXXbZ!*$:!
LMMO9,!>/*!8/3.A!8$F'G'%$!.1A3)1GG$!A3==*.7!=.'@!8/*!=3.78!8B'!8$F'G'%3*7!735)*!8/*.*!37!5'!
358*583'5! 8'! )'@F1.*! @15W@1A*! 8$F*! B38/! o$%(3*2"& D%$3I"2E& (I3:042& 03:2+Hp! 0^3AG*.:!
NXXb:!F,N_9,!P578*1A:!8$F* 37!7**5!17!1!F1.8 '=!1!o9*$0%&(H&9(%30%I03-p 15A!177')318*A!B38/!
8/*!)'5835#38$!'=!F/$73)1G!='.@!=.'@!8/*!F178!8'!8/*!F.*7*58!0^3AG*.:!NXXb:!F,N_9,!>/37!
5'83'5! 37! .*F.*7*58*A! ?$! 8/*! 5*'W.183'51G3787U! 358*.F.*8183'5! '=! 8$F*! 0^3AG*.:! NXXb9:!
358.'A#)*A!?$!;#.18'.3 1=8*.!8/*!NX`M7:!15A!A*6*G'F*A!?$!'8/*.!7)/'G1.7!7#)/!17 K*.*@$
Q/38*/15A:! ;3)/1*G! H,! ['52*5:! -GA'! C'773! 15A! [1.G1! -.%15! 0*$:! LMMO9,! P5! 8/37!
#5A*.7815A35%! '=! 8$F'G'%$:! 8/*! *G*@*587! '=! 8/*! ?#3G8! ='.@! 1.*! 5'8! 3@38183'57! '=! 8/*!
!" #$%&%&'()
*" +$,-)&'() ." /&)$)%&'() 0" 1)2%&'() 3" #-)2%&'()
!" /(4&54678&$9,&9$)
*" /,46):#$%(%$&5%2 ." ;%<(%85&5%2 0" =92,&5%2742>798) 3" /&'6)
!" ?$5@52
*" +78%9$,)7%A7B2%C6)>@) ." D-)7E)@52252@87 %A7
8-)6&)$
0" D-)7>)@$))7%A765B)2)88 3" F)()4&)>7)6)<)2&87%A7
&-)7A%$<G<4B52@7 ($%,)88
H" =92,&5%2467>)&)$<5258<
I" /&$9,&9$4674E8&$4,&5%27
%A747(4$&5,964$7E956>52@
J" ;%2&5295&'7%A7A%$<
K" L%,467,%66),&5M)7<)<%$'7
!" N48)
*" O%>)6 ." O4&$5P 0" Q<($52&
3" O%96>
H" =5@9$)
19
Following the above-mentioned neo-rationalistic approach to type, this research relates type to the history and takes it as a guidance point to trace the continuities and discontinuities undergone during the transformation process of house form. As Krier (1998, p.42) defines it, “[a] type represents the organisational structure of a building in plan and section” and “evolves until it achieves its basic (i.e. its rational and logical) form”. Therefore, the role of type is regulatory in the structural formation and organisation of the built environment over time; and, until it turns into a mature type, the process of its reinvention is experiential. As Chen and Thwaites (2013, p.46) indicate, the creation of new and different building forms depends on this process, achieved through the “experiential perception [of type] that translated into forms”. In this regard, type provides a vocabulary for the understanding of built forms. Schneekloth and Frank (1994) also point out the close association between type and form, since type constructs the initial idea of a building form and defines its outline. Cannigia and Maffei (1979) also advocate that the understanding of type is not only limited to being a “base idea” or
“origin” but also includes the evolutionary nature of type, where a latter type is developed from the previous type. Given this, the role of type in the understanding of the formation and transformation of the built environment is prominent and two-sided.
Type is thus taken as a superior point of departure for the understanding of urban form as a whole since its evolution process also gives clues regarding the formation of the built structure over time.