4.24.- SEPES Entidad Pública Empresarial del Suelo

Morphological studies have held an important place in the German-speaking countries since the late 1800s, and slightly later in the English speaking world from the 1920s. The majority of the research takes place in Central Europe, Great Britain, and North America. Urban morphology was grounded in the German morphogenetic approach, which Whitehand terms as “the tracing of the evolution of forms in terms of their underlying processes” (1981). Schlüter and his student Geisler (1899), who examined the aspects of urban form, are the

predecessors of morphological tradition. Conzen was highly influenced by their approach. Schlüter emphasised two notions in his early work; cultural landscape (kulturlandshaft) and cultural geography (kulturgeographie); where the former is the research object of the latter. This geography concerns man-made forms embodied within the aims and actions of man, history and nature. In addition he predicted an explanatory morphology that is aware of its interdependence with geography in terms of three aspects; form, function, and development (history). Schlüter proposed three kinds of objects under cultural landscape; settlements, land utilisation, and lines of communication. In addition, he divided geography into three groups; settlement geography, economic geography, and transport geography. He defines urban geography as the “physical forms and appearance of the town, a distinct category of cultural landscape” (Whitehand, 1981, p.1; Whitehand, 1987).

Moreover Conzen, inspired by his German colleagues’ works, developed two morphological studies. The first is “A survey of Whitby” (1958) which is a record of land and building utilisation as well as building types. This study was revealed as the basis for a townscape conservation strategy and the importance of community with a sense of continuity. Here, he mentions that a detailed explanation of morphological development of a town is crucial for the townscape conservation. Secondly, in the study of “Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town plan analysis” (1960) he established basic frameworks for urban morphology and recognised the individual plot as the fundamental unit of the analysis with the help of cartographic examination. As Whitehand highlights in Conzenian tradition, synthesis is very important. Conzen derived concepts from the development of urban landscapes, which are related to the historical context. He divided the townscape into three parts; town plan (streets, plots and blocks, buildings), building forms, and land use (Whitehand, 1981; 1987).

Conzen employs a retrogressive method, which means working back from present day forms. He revealed how the physical configuration of cities developed over time. He used a method, which analyses parts of towns at

different scales from the individual to the whole settlement in the post war period (Whitehand, 1987; Whitehand, 2005). Moreover Conzen enumerated three aspects in terms of the importance of physical fabric; having practical utility that provides orientation, having intellectual value, which provides strong visual experience of the urban area’s history, and having aesthetic value which is about orientation and variations in the width of streets. While subjects such as economics of location, innovation and economic fluctuations, which are related to urban morphology, are implicit in Conzen’s work, they are explicit in Whitehand’s (1987) work. Moudon states that, “Whitehand developed the ideas of Conzen and pushed the limits of urban morphology into urban economics” (Moudon, 1997, pg. 4).

In the mid inter-war years, major subjects developed in the field of urban morphology. First urban geographers recognised the work of urban historians, and form was identified from the point of forces that generate it. In the 1950s American researchers Burgess (sociologist) and Hoyt (land economist) created the Concentric Zone Model, which affected English-speaking countries. Hence, the Conzenian School and British urban morphology were attracted by American morphology during the 1960s and 1970s. American urban morphology was related to land-use patterns, which see town plan and building form as a land- use container. Hence, within this period, economic interest, use and exchange of property were involved in the development. In addition to urban history, economic theory started to influence urban morphology and draw the attention of the urban morphologists (Whitehand, 1981; 1987).

As do Conzen and Whitehand, Wharton also dwells upon the importance of landscape management. Wharton (2005) mentions that urban morphology analysis and methodology of landscape characterisation have much in common; for instance, both try to understand and define the meanings of urban form and urban landscape, the time dimensions within which they exist and change, their functions, and the forces that affect their form. In addition, both are interested in the evolution of rural or urban settlements and how they are shaped. These

constitute a base map for their current status and character; and they are crucial for future development strategies, plans, policies, and conservation and management principles. As Wharton (2005) highlights, it is the landscape which works as a catalyst for managing change and which gives character and uniqueness to a place; it directly affects human behaviour, values and movement, and gives character to a place, hence generating a sense of belonging.

Urban morphology and process typology are built on the “evolutionary conception of change” (Kropf, 2001, p.30) and as Kropf (2001) mentions the initiators of this concept are Conzen, Muratori, and Caniggia. They have different explanations for the change in urban morphology. With the help of geomorphology, Conzen identifies street systems, building and plot patterns, burgage cycle, and fringe belt, which he related to transformation and periodisation. Subsequently, Muratori and Caniggia identify building types, tissue, urban organisms and territories. Accordingly, various kinds of transformation of these elements is called tabernization. Burgage cycle (plot) can be given as an example of the transformation of a single object through a single non-repeating sequence. On the other hand, fringe belt (settlement) represents the transformation of a single complex object through a repeating sequence (Kropf, 2001, p.31).

Recent approaches are dealing with the processes that embody the form. The basic aim here is to find out which features are constant in an urban landscape. This usually depends on the structures and materials of the buildings and their finite life cycles. There will be urban change on some scale and at some time everywhere. The stages of urban change can be set in a hierarchy as follows: buildings are the elements that change fastest in terms of use; then plot patterns take place due to subdivision, amalgamation and changing ownerships; and lastly the street network, which is the most resistant to change among the others (Larkham, 2005).