The morphology is a main characteristic of urban megaprojects. Despite the fact that scholars focus on form when examining the role of these projects in influencing their context, performance and objective, very few studies analyse the morphology and urban design of UMPs in detail (but see, for example, Carmona’s (2002) analysis of the urban design of a megaproject in Tokyo Bay).
Descriptions typically remain at the general level, and sometimes the urban form of UMPs is very broadly described, highlighting for example their size or their iconicity.
Sklair considers that iconicity in architecture has two defining characteristics:
First, it clearly means famous, at least for some constituencies; and second, a judgment of iconicity is also a symbolic/ aesthetic judgment. By this I mean that an architectural icon is imbued with a special meaning that is symbolic for a culture and/or a time, and that this special meaning has an aesthetic component. It is this unique combination of fame with symbolism and aesthetic quality that creates the icon. Iconicity persists, but not necessarily forever. (Sklair, 2006, p. 25)
UMPs are analysed against different backgrounds – economic, political, social and managerial – and yet design and architecture focused studies on UMPs are rare. For example, Fanstein (2008) asserts that ‘there is a striking physical similarity among the schemes in European and American urban megaprojects’, without explaining the nature of those similarities. Priemus et al. (2008) consider that megaprojects are colossal, captivating because of their size and aesthetic design, having an innovative and experimental character.
Scholars also focus on the quality and the iconicity of design as the means by which UMPs fulfill their role as tools to attract media and business attention. ‘This form of intervention (urban megaprojects) goes hand in hand with an eclectic planning style where attention to design, detail, morphology, and aesthetics is paramount’
(Swyngedouw et al., 2002). ‘Well-designed landmark developments bring lasting value to cities’ (Worpole, 2000).
Architectural symbolism and iconicity strongly contribute to the role of spectacular design as a tool for marketing cities in the era of capitalist globalization. ‘They act as a permanent advertisement for the city, attracting media, cultural activities, tourists and business alike (Carmona, 2002).
3.1 Urban Analysis Approach and Methodology
In this research, we aim to closely analyse the morphology of UMPs in Dubai. We suggest doing this through a number of case studies. The objective of analysing a selection of Dubai UMPs is to understand the characteristics of the components of the master plans, the elements that govern the relation with the immediate context and the city in general, and the aspects of iconicity that are specific to this kind of development.
A morphology analysis can have different aspects and mobilize different approaches.
Merlin (1988) considers that there is an absence of consensus on the terminology of urban analysis, and an epistemological weakness as well as a lack of scientific rigor in the approaches taken by researchers in this domain. Attempting to devise a typology of approaches in morphological analysis, Lévy (2005) considers that there are five types of analysis in approaching the urban form:
- Urban form as a form of the urban landscape (in the sense of urban ‘paysage’ in French), in the meaning of the urban space understood in its three dimensions and its plastic materiality (texture, color, materials, styles, volumes, gabarits, etc.), as analyzed by G. Cullen (1961), E. Bacon(1965), C. Sitte (1889), K. Lynch (1960), etc.
- The urban form as ‘social morphology’, in which urban space is studied as a space occupied by social, demographic and ethnic groups and family types, as well as the functions’ distribution in the city (such studies to be found in the work of Durkheim (1960), Halbwachs (1828), Roncayolo (1996), etc.).
- The urban form as a bioclimatic form, which is thus studied through its environmental dimension, as an urban microclimate in relation to which many aspects can be mobilized: site location, urban fabric shape, orientation, pollution agents, etc. (see e.g.
Escourrou (1980) and Hall (1971)).
- The urban form as the form of urban fabrics (Panerai, Langé, 2001), that consists in studying the interrelations between the constitutive elements of an urban fabric: the lots, the road network, the open space, the built space on the one hand and their relation with the site on the other.
- The urban form as the form of urban layouts (tracés urbains in French), which means the analysis of the geometric form of the city (organic plan/ geometric plan; orthogonal plan, radio-concentric plan). Lavedan (1926, 1941, 1952) has proposed a categorization of these layouts, while Pinon (1994) and Lévy (1996b) have analysed the notion of
‘urban composition’.
In our context, the approach that has been adopted is for the most part close to the fifth type above, the urban form considered as a form of urban layouts, since our interest concerns the general layout of the projects’ plans in their relation with the city, and as an urban composition through which iconicity features, symbolism, and aspects related to the partition or the divisibility of a plan are analysed. Sometimes, the built areas are analysed in their relation to the parcels and the road system, mobilizing hence the approach of urban form as a form of urban fabrics (the fourth type).
Analysis grid and indicators’ definition
Based on our analysis, we consider that analysing the urban morphology of Dubai UMPs is equivalent to understanding three aspects (See fig. 2.15):
- The physical image of UMPs in contributing to the city’s promotion and the adopted economy of fascination (Iconicity)
- The role of each project within the city’s dynamics and the type of relation with its context (Accessibility)
- The project management and implementation through the plan’s form (Divisibility).
Fig 2.15: A diagram of the three aspects that are addressed in the urban morphology analysis
The first aspect that the analysis aims at understanding through morphology is the iconicity of the project and the fascination dimension, or the ‘technological sublime’.
While the literature highlights this as a characteristic aspect of Dubai UMPs, we aim for a detailed understanding of the elements and types of composition that contribute to this image. We propose the following characteristics:
- Type of composition: concentric, organic, others.
- Presence of central bodies of water or greenery.
- Presence of artificial islands.
- Presence of iconic buildings or other records.
The second aspect is accessibility in terms of relation to the city and the connectivity of the project with its immediate and broader contexts. The proposed characteristics to be analysed are:
- Location of the project: along main roads, at the intersection of roads, etc.
- Servicing by various forms of transport: metro, water taxis, tramway, etc.
- Relation to the context at the plan level: introverted, connected - Catchment area: local, metropolitan