775480

research-article2018
JPEXXX10.1177/0739456X18775480Journal of Planning Education and ResearchGu

Instruction Article

Journal of Planning Education and Research

The Teaching of Urban Design:

1­–10
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
A Morphological Approach sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X18775480
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18775480
jper.sagepub.com

Kai Gu1

Abstract
Geographical urban morphology as a field of research provides a systematic basis for theorizing and managing urban landscape
change. After a review of urban morphology as a field of knowledge, particularly within Europe, and as a basis for planning
and urban design, an example of its application in an urban design studio is discussed, focusing on the urban waterfront
redevelopment in Auckland, New Zealand. The characterization of urban landscape forms is supported by cartographic- and
field-based investigation. Urban design guidelines and development plans prepared by students contribute to improving the
character of the built environment.

Keywords
urban morphology, urban design pedagogy, urban waterfront redevelopment, Auckland

Introduction Research on urban morphology is now showing renewed

Urban design is not an established discipline in a formal aca-
demic sense in most parts of the world. It is a distinctive field
that crosses disciplinary boundaries (Carmona 2014;
Cuthbert 2003), and this is implicated in the lack of coher-
ence in urban design theory and pedagogy (Sternberg 2000).
The development of an integrated conceptual framework,
which is essential for bridging urban design research and
practice, has been limited. This paper suggests the basis for a
solution that harnesses the ideas of urban morphology, nota-
bly as they have been developed within Europe and in the
discipline of geography in particular.
The study of urban form has attracted the interest of
researchers in a number of disciplines (Whitehand 2012).
But the use of the term urban form has been and still is some-
what vague and ambiguous (M. P. Conzen 2001). Urban
morphology, the name by which the study of urban form is
widely known, is most firmly established in geography. It
began to take shape at the end of the nineteenth century as a
field of research concerned with the analysis of urban land-
scapes (Gauthiez 2004; Whitehand 1981). Prime movers
were central European researchers, especially geographers,
with their increasing concern with urban physical forms and
their genetic and functional explanation in terms of human
actions in the course of history and the context of nature
(Whitehand 1981). Developed in the course of well over a
century (M. R. G. Conzen 1960; Whitehand 2001), morpho-
logical methods have provided a systematic framework for
distinguishing, characterizing, and explaining the structure
of urban landscapes and their processes of development.
strength (Whitehand 2014a). The dearth of published text-
books or readers on urban morphology has recently been rec-
tified in the form of two such books: one by Karl Kropf
(2017) and the other by Vítor Oliveira (2016). The widening
of the scope and geographical coverage of morphological
research is evidenced by the burgeoning of publications on
cities outside Europe and North America (Whitehand 2014a).
There is also evidence of greater interest in exploring the
relationship between urban morphological research and
planning and urban design practice (Samuels 2014; Scheer
2008). Increasingly, research publications have been con-
cerned with applications in urban conservation, urban design,
and urban coding and planning (Gu 2014). However, this has
not yet on the whole been accompanied by commensurate
interest in assimilating the findings of geographical morpho-
logical research in the teaching of urban design, and pub-
lished examples of the use of clearly formulated
morphological methods for pedagogical purposes are quite
rare (McClure 2014; Samuels 2014).
Urban designers are frequently concerned with the observ-
able urban forms that make up the built environment (streets,
Initial submission, September 2016; revised submissions, November 2016,
December 2017, February 2018; final acceptance, February 2018
1
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Corresponding Author:
Kai Gu, School of Architecture and Planning, University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Email: k.gu@auckland.ac.nz
2 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Figure 1.  The traditions of landscape research and urban
morphology.
Source: Based on Whitehand (2014b).
buildings, spaces, and many other features) as their creation
and transformation have major economic, social, and envi-
ronmental implications. While the term urban morphology
occurs sporadically in relation to both examples of the prac-
tice of urban design and its teaching, this actually gives a
somewhat false impression since not infrequently the term is
being misused as a substitute for urban form (Larkham 2002).
In this paper, the term urban morphology means the study of
urban form. This is a fundamental distinction. It is the find-
ings over many years of urban morphology as a field of
knowledge, especially as a research activity, that can and
should provide important underpinnings of urban design
pedagogy.
Following a review of approaches to the structure of
urban landscapes that have been developed within urban
morphology, this paper explores the pedagogical use of
examples of morphological ideas in the preparation of
urban design guidelines. The nature and application of
these ideas is investigated in relation to the teaching of an
urban design studio for first-year students in the master’s of
urban planning program at the University of Auckland,
New Zealand. The students come from diverse educational
backgrounds, including geography, architecture, sociology,
and environmental studies. A central objective is to demon-
strate geographical urban morphology as a form-based
mode of inquiry into the urban landscape as a basis for
development coordination and control and a resource for
urban design.
The Development of Urban
Morphology
The morphological idea was introduced to geography by Carl
Ritter (1779–1859) for the study of the forms and structure of
the landscape, which was considered to have an organic qual-
ity (Sauer 1925) (Figure 1). Otto Schlüter (1899a, 1899b)
postulated a morphology of the cultural landscape (kultur-
landschaft), which he envisaged as a parallel in human geog-
raphy to the morphology of the physical or natural landscape
in physical geography. He identified a number of objects
comprising the cultural landscape, the physical forms and
appearance of towns and cities being the constituents of a
separate category of the cultural landscape: an urban land-
scape (stadtlandschaft) as distinct from the rural landscape
(Larkham and Conzen 2014a).
In an essay on Deutsche Stadtanlagen (the layout of
German towns), published in 1894, Johannes Fritz used town
plans to compare the physical forms of urban areas. It is evi-
dent that empirical field-based research underpinned his plan
analysis (Larkham and Conzen 2014a). He delimited the dif-
ferent layouts (street layouts in particular) of which the city of
Rostock was comprised. Though crude, it exemplifies the
beginning of a potentially important research activity that is
often referred to today as morphological regionalization: the
recognition of the way in which urban landscapes are struc-
tured into unitary areas (Whitehand 2014b). Recognizing
such unitary areas is not only part of the activity of discover-
ing how urban landscapes are composed but also fundamental
to the planning and design of what should happen to those
landscapes in the future (Whitehand 2014b).
Fritz’s interest in the use of historical maps and plans and
the cartographic representation of the various physical forms
within urban areas to enable understanding of the urban land-
scape was further advanced by other German-speaking
researchers (Gauthiez 2004). In particular, Hugo Hassinger
(1916) followed Fritz’s interest in street plans by mapping
buildings according to their architectural periods. Walter
Geisler (1918) mapped land and building utilization and the
number of stories of the residential buildings of inner Danzig.
This mapping investigated specific aspects of urban form in
much greater detail than had been done before. It was fol-
lowed by Geisler’s (1924) major work, Die deutsche Stadt—
an extensive study of three morphological aspects culminating
in the comprehensive classifications of the sites, ground plans,
and building types of German towns (Whitehand 1981).
Urban morphology was especially developed in the mid-
twentieth century by M. R. G. Conzen (1960). His approach
had a number of tenets. First, the urban landscape comprises
three interrelated urban form complexes or elements—the
ground plan (including streets, plots, and the block plans of
buildings), building fabric (the three-dimensional form), and
land and building utilization (M. R. G. Conzen 1960). The
ground plan, which is the element most resistant to change,
Gu 3
provides the framework for the building forms and pattern of
land utilization. Second, the morphological structures of the
urban landscape are the products and expressions of particu-
lar social, political-economic, and technological processes.
Third, urban developments can be conceptualized as a series
of morphological periods that leave distinct residues in the
urban landscape (M. R. G. Conzen 1969). Finally, the recog-
nition of the residues of past periods, varying from one part
of an urban area to another, gives rise to spatial groupings of
form ensembles (Whitehand 2009).
Geographical urban morphology provides a dynamic
approach to the structure of the urban landscape. The idea of
morphological regions or units is particularly used to inves-
tigate, in relation to the process of urban development, the
urban landscape as a mosaic of interrelated forms and the
way they fit together. A morphological region is an area that
has unity in respect of its combination of streets, plots, build-
ings, and land and building utilization that distinguishes it
from surrounding areas. In M. R. G. Conzen’s (2004) study
of Ludlow, plan type areas, building type areas, main urban
land utilization areas, and morphological regions are mapped
in relation to one another to show the historical stratification
of this market town.
The research traditions of urban morphology and their
antecedents in landscape research are summarized in
Figure 1. The Berkeley school of cultural geography,
established by Carl Sauer, can be traced back directly to
German geographical roots. However, its lasting impact
lay in rural landscape study rather than urban areas. Parallel
to the development of the urban Anglo-German geographi-
cal school, associated with M. R. G. Conzen, has been the
Italian architectural school, associated with Gianfranco
Caniggia and Saverio Muratori, which developed building
typological thinking (Caniggia and Maffei 2001). These
two schools came together in 1994 to form key compo-
nents of the International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF).
Exploring the relationship between these two theoretical
frameworks has been part of ISUF’s wider interest in
developing a body of integrated knowledge of urban form
across cultures and disciplines (Moudon 1994, 1997;
Whitehand 2006).
The Making of the Urban Landscape
In the early development of the field, Schlüter envisaged an
explanatory morphology, as opposed to a descriptive mor-
phography, being fully aware of the interdependence in
geography of the three aspects of form, function, and devel-
opment through time (Whitehand 1981). This perspective
became central to urban morphology. In the study of
Alnwick, M. R. G. Conzen (1969, 5) clearly states that “it
is important to realize that town plans originate, develop
and function within a physical and human context without
which they remain incomprehensible.” Urban forms are,
after all, a direct outcome of processes and in a real sense,
the embodiment of the attitudes prevailing at the time and
in the place of their creation (M. R. G. Conzen 1966).
Driven by the desire to provide a sound theoretical basis
for urban morphology and influenced by Chapin (1964),
Harold Carter (1970), in his study of Llandudno, was more
concerned with processes than urban products. He distin-
guished between primary decision making, such as the cre-
ation of new planned units, and secondary decision making,
largely concerned with issues of detail. The primary deci-
sions that frequently trigger secondary decisions set the stage
for secondary decisions (Chapin 1964). In describing the use
of the urban landscapes as a source of evidence relating to
processes, Whitehand (1977, 402) stated that “in the case of
urban morphology, the actual outcome of decisions in the
landscape, though it is an imperfect record, is an immensely
detailed testimony to past events and may well be a more
reliable guide to process than ostensibly more direct records
of the decision involved.”
The further broadening of morphological research orien-
tations and methods after the 1970s is particularly evident in
the study of the morphological concept of urban fringe belts
(M. P. Conzen 2009). Large-scale historical variations in the
speed at which urban areas grow are a major underpinning of
this concept. Whitehand (1967, 1977, 1987) established the
relationship between fringe belts and building cycles. The
creation of fringe belts was linked to slumps in housebuild-
ing, when land values were low, whereas the creation of
high-density housing tended to predominate during booms in
housebuilding, when land values were high. These dynam-
ics, in combination with geographical obstacles to the out-
ward growth of the built-up area, gave rise to an urban area
in which residential growth zones alternated with fringe
belts. The urban economic interpretation of fringe belts was
supported by Parkes and Thrift (1980) and Barke (1974).
In the United Kingdom, the range of social agents active
in commercial development (Whitehand 1992), suburban
development (Whitehand and Carr 2001), and conservation
planning (Larkham 1988) have been explored, leading to
consideration of the effects of their characteristics on the
urban landscape. One of the latest explorations of the built
environment as an expression of the economic and political
power exerted at different times by various agencies is the
edited volume Shapers of Urban Form: Explorations in
Morphological Agency by Larkham and Conzen (2014b).
Urban Morphology and Urban Design
Urban design is arguably a binary system consisting of the
management and creation of urban form. The management
of urban landscape change is primarily concerned with urban
coding (Marshall 2011), in particular, development control
and urban design codes (Carmona, Marshall, and Stevens
2006). The creation of new urban form is to do with the pro-
cesses of actualizing urban developments. These two aspects
of urban design are interrelated. The management of urban
4 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
landscape change has a direct influence on the creation and
transformation of urban form: Changes in physical urban
fabric are expected in turn to stimulate new development
control and management. In this light, it is not surprising that
urban morphology can serve as a theoretical foundation for
urban design practice.
Research publications on the significance of urban mor-
phology for urban design practice began to be evident from
the 1980s onward (Moudon 1992; Samuels 1985). Research
on the composite structure of the urban landscape has been
used as a basis for developing urban design proposals (Gygax
2007; Maretto 2005), urban coding and planning (Kropf
2001), urban conservation (Baker 2010), and form-based
development plans (Hall 2008). These are concerned with
both the management and design of urban landscape forms;
they merit special attention in exploring the pedagogical use
of urban morphology in planning and urban design.
The effective use of the morphological approach to urban
landscape characterization and development control policy
has in particular been illustrated in the Stratford upon Avon
District Design Guide (Kropf 2001). The specific design
guidelines, which are based on the morphological articula-
tion of settlements, character areas, streets and neighbor-
hoods, and buildings, are expected to guide the new
development or redevelopment in ways that can strengthen
local communities and create places of distinction. The idea
of typo-morphology (Moudon 1994) has been frequently
used to support the preparation of urban design proposals. In
projects in Chioggia (Maretto 2005) and Venice (Gygax
2007), the ideas of typological processes (Caniggia and
Maffei 2001) and micro-morphology (Whitehand 2001)
have been employed to help secure designs that are local,
sustainable, and equitable.
The significance of urban morphology for new urbanism
theory and practice is noteworthy (Çalişkan and Marshall
2011). Moudon (2000) suggested that new urbanism needs to
rethink its reliance on static building types and expand its
definition to include how space may be used by different
people and for different purposes and consider how types
perform over time. Urban morphology makes it clear that
time is an essential dimension of urban form and that the
designer’s intervention only marks the beginning of a long
process of transformation. The use of aspects of morphology
and typology in the writings of Rob Krier (1992) and Léon
Krier (2009) leans toward the study of architectural spatial
objects. However, many of their urban design projects have
illustrated the use of morphological and typological analyses
in design practice. In particular, Léon Krier’s new urbanism
project for Poundbury, Dorchester (1988–1993), aims to
recapture urban design processes—the formation of urban
quarters and high streets—that have, for a long time, struc-
tured the configuration of urban space. It adopts urban devel-
opment strategies that enable the continuity of urban
evolution and the transformation of urban space that is rooted
in the tradition of the locality (L. Krier 1992, 2009).
The Morphological Approach to the
Teaching of Urban Design
The first year of the master’s of urban planning course in the
University of Auckland is an example of bringing geographi-
cal urban morphology out of the academy and into urban
design studios. The urban design studio explores the process
of engaging planners in the study of the urban waterfront
landscape and its dynamics for the purpose of managing its
future growth and transformation.
As in many port cities around the world, policymakers,
planners, and developers envision Auckland’s waterfront as
a space of promise and a prime location for investment.
Auckland’s waterfront is being marketed as a crucial area for
economic growth and place promotion. Influenced by neo-
liberal performance-based planning and entrepreneurial and
public investments, urban waterfront areas of Auckland have
been undergoing extensive revitalization in the past two to
three decades. The changing relationships between water,
land use, and activities present both conceptual and practical
challenges to planning and urban design.
In addition to introducing students to the relevant knowl-
edge and skills of urban design, the learning objectives of the
urban design studio include advancing the understanding of
urban design through the analysis and integration of findings
from evidence-based research and exploring the relationship
between the academic interests in urban morphology and pro-
fessional practice in physical planning and place-making.
Figure 2 shows the morphological approach to the urban
design project. The course work is divided into two interre-
lated tasks: investigating the morphological process of
Auckland’s central waterfront and preparing urban design
guidelines for its future changes. The research findings from
the first task are incorporated and implemented in the second.
The first task is devoted to a critical examination, from
morphological and political-economic perspectives, of the
formation and change of Auckland’s central waterfront.
Urban developments can be conceptualized as a series of
morphological periods that represent paradigms of design
and accommodation to circumstances that can operate largely
unchallenged, sometimes for decades or even longer.
Morphological periods leave their distinctive residues in the
urban landscape (M. R. G. Conzen 1969). These form the
basis of morphological units—the spatial groupings of form
ensembles. The recognition of such units is fundamental for
urban landscape characterization and assessment. Auckland’s
central waterfront has been created by the implementation of
a series of land reclamation schemes. In addition to fluctua-
tions in socioeconomic development, land reclamation and
the adoption of new transport modes since the mid-nine-
teenth century have been major factors influencing the for-
mation of the urban form elements and the resulting
morphological units.
Field-based empirical research underpins the urban mor-
phological approach. Based on the delimitation of survey
Gu 5
Figure 2.  The urban morphological approach to urban design.
areas, students are expected to assemble sources (especially
ground plans), determine the structure of databases, and
establish codings for field records. Street pattern, land and
building use, building type, and vegetation are main objects
of field survey. A plot-by-plot morphological survey provides
important original data for morphological analysis. The
growth of digital sources for urban morphology, including
web-based services for property information, urban three-
dimensional “maps,” and street-view maps, can improve the
efficiency of the mapping of the extant built environment and
the collection of information through field surveys.
Figure 3 shows a sample of students’ course work on the
morphological units in Auckland’s central waterfront. The
dynamics of the waterfront expansions have created con-
trasting morphological units. Each unit represents an indi-
vidualized combination of streets, plots, buildings, and land
use distinct from its neighbors. The morphological units
directly bordering the CBD have smaller plots and higher
building density. The built environment of these units, espe-
cially the Viaduct Harbour, Fort Street, and central area units,
appear to be natural extensions of the CBD. The morphologi-
cal units adjacent to the harbor accommodate marine trans-
port and services facilities and other uses. An extensive port
unit is a single plot containing mainly low-rise buildings
serving cargo transport. The Westhaven unit is featured by
yacht clubs, sailing schools, and parking space mainly serv-
ing a large inner-city marina. And the central wharf unit has
a mixture of contemporary and historical buildings located
on large plots.
The characterization and assessment of the socioeco-
nomic performance of individual units and their relation-
ships have formed a basis for planning and designing their
future changes. In this student project, the development and
change of the central wharfs are discussed, in particular in
relation to New Zealand’s planning system, institutional
arrangements, and intentions of various agencies. Auckland’s
central wharfs have developed next to Waitemata Harbour,
but the potential to showcase and enhance the harbor’s natu-
ral beauty and the functional and amenity values has not yet
been realized. Both public access to the waterfront and the
design of the public realm need to be improved. Urgent
action is required to address urban design issues and the
implementation of more accountable urban management in
instances of their future change (Manlangit and Som 2015b).
The second task focuses on the preparation of urban
design guidelines for a morphological unit of each student’s
choice in Auckland’s central waterfront. Urban design guide-
lines are to clarify and implement the objectives of the man-
agement of urban landscape change. The guidelines also
include a conceptual development plan illustrating desirable
6 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Figure 3.  Morphological units in Auckland’s central waterfront.
Source: Manlangit and Som (2015b). Used with permission.
development outcomes. Figure 4 shows the students’ pro-
posal, titled “Auckland’s Central Waterfront: Renew, Revive
and Reconnect.” Like many other student projects, the pri-
mary objectives of this urban design proposal are to harness
intrinsic site assets and resources and integrate new struc-
tures with surroundings and ensure feasibility. The students’
projects are expected to resolve the widespread problem
prevalent in previous developments of treating individual
projects as separate components and physical structures
rather than connected and integrated entities. The waterfront
area in Auckland is historically important for local Māori. To
reinforce Māori cultural heritage and identity, new built and
landscape forms in many of the students’ projects frequently
reflect traditional Māori architecture and art (Brown 2009).
In this project, the shapes and cultural meanings of the sym-
bols of hei matau (fish hook, symbolizing strength and safe
travel across water), Māori triple twist (symbolizing friend-
ship and joining together of peoples and cultures), and koru
(fern frond, symbolizing new life, growth, and peace) have
inspired the development of a cohesive design framework for
Princes Wharf, Queens Wharf, and Captain Cook and
Marsden Wharves.
Particularly in relation to promoting local history, cultural
tradition, and identity, students’ projects have illustrated the
value of the morphological approach in the creation and
management of urban landscape forms. They are also help-
ing to overcome the problem of the piecemeal approach to
urban design that has created fragmented urban fabric on
Auckland’s central waterfront. In addition to the quality of
both graphic and textual presentations, the assessment crite-
ria highlight in particular the accuracy and usefulness of a
morphological analysis both in describing the study area and
informing development control policy and urban design con-
cepts and proposals.
Reflections on the Use of Urban
Morphology in Urban Design
Although urban design is deemed to be diverse, a great deal
of its practice is concerned essentially with the manipulation
of and control over the three interrelated urban form ele-
ments—ground plan, building fabric, and land and building
utilization. The morphological study of the characteristics of
the urban form elements as the product of urban develop-
ment processes is essential to support the formation of design
control policy and development plans that contribute to
urban spatial continuity and integrity.
In terms of scale, urban morphological research ranges
from the examination of individual plots and buildings to the
configuration of entire urban areas. To effectively serve the
Gu 7
Figure 4.  “Auckland’s Central Waterfront: Renew, Revive and Reconnect.”
Source: Manlangit and Som (2015a). Used with permission.
purposes of planning and urban design, the adaptive use of
morphological tools to investigate study areas of different
scales and development contexts needs to be clearly com-
municated. In the process of identifying morphological units,
it is possible to divide an urban area, based on one, a combi-
nation of two, or all of these urban form elements, into land-
scape divisions that each have a unity distinguishing them
from adjoining areas. The physical geographical and natural
landscape elements (e.g., topographical features and vegeta-
tion) and building materials can also be taken into consider-
ation (Gu 2010b).
Engaging students in a morphological inquiry involving
theory, method, and empirical evidence also helps to create a
synergism of teaching and research. In particular, a recent
study has traced the formation of a set of three concentric
urban fringe belts on the Auckland isthmus (Gu 2010a). The
original land uses of the urban waterfront areas adjacent to
the CBDs include the cargo and passenger transport and
marine industries and services that were essential for early
growth of the urban kernel. Auckland’s central waterfront
area forms the integral segments of its inner fringe belt. The
fringe belt elements could be changed during the processes
of fringe belt alienation or adaptation. However, such
changes have important planning implications. The rapid
reduction of the fringe belt zones of Auckland’s central
waterfront has posed a substantial threat to the integration of
the urban landscape and the opportunities for public life. The
linking between the fringe belt idea and waterfront planning
and design has enriched research-informed teaching.
Like many port cities, Auckland is striving to promote
itself as a regional and international center of culture, busi-
ness, and tourism. There have been continuous efforts to
seek new waterfront planning and design strategies for
achieving multiple social, economic, and physical objectives
within the framework of sustainability. The present urban
design studio has adopted an “action-research” model that
extends the dissemination of the applications of academic
research into the practice of waterfront planning. The dem-
onstration of its use in relation to current or recent problems
of waterfront redevelopment is through regular student pre-
sentations to the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency.
The urban design studio received an aggregated average
90.9 percent overall approval rating for teaching quality and
effectiveness between 2012 and 2015. According to open-
ended comments on teaching from students, they have appre-
ciated the establishment of a seamless connection between
academic concepts and urban design practice and the oppor-
tunity to put into practice what they have learned. Students
8 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
have also frequently commented that “urban morphological
theory and method are intellectually stimulating” and that
“the morphological field workshops have demonstrated the
importance of ‘ways of seeing’ and they are particularly
intriguing and inspiring.” To strengthen the link between this
urban design studio and other planning courses concerning
policy and governance, students are expected to make sense
of the morphological “footprints” on the ground and pro-
posed “blueprints” based on their knowledge of local plan
making and implementation processes. This course has
diversified and complemented the teaching program in plan-
ning at the university.
Conclusion
It is a truism that urban form is spatially “structured” to
serve particular human needs and purposes. It is both a
means of functional efficiency and, through its embodiment
of the endeavors of past societies, a sociocultural resource
of inestimable value. Proliferations of models of inquiries
and their use in urban design research and practice are
evident (Kropf 2009). Relying on the existing physical fab-
ric of the city, maps, and city plans, ranging from two-
dimensional to three-dimensional objects, geographical
urban morphology provides a more systematic and dynamic
approach to the spatial structure of the physical urban fabric.
The central purpose of morphological analysis is to interpret
urban manifestations and decipher the inherent information
about local authority for planning control purposes and the
developers’, planners’, and users’ responsibilities for urban
changes (Whitehand 1987).
Drawing on the experience of teaching urban morphol-
ogy to planning students in an urban design studio, this
paper illustrates how urban morphology as it has devel-
oped as a research field can provide interdisciplinary ped-
agogical bases for tackling the academic and professional
problems facing urban design. In the context of waterfront
redevelopment, the formation and reformation of water-
front landscapes are related to the complexity of the insti-
tutional framework and planning instruments and
conflicting interests of different morphological agencies.
The study of the morphological process helps understand-
ing of changing waterfront landscapes and the challenges
confronting planning and urban design for economic and
social development, integration of the waterfront into the
city, and protection of coastal resources and public
benefits.
The interest in strengthening urban morphological analy-
sis and the management of urban landscape change is related
to the discussion about bridging geography and planning. In
particular, geographical perspectives can lend analytical
insight to planning thought and practice (Phelps and Tewdwr-
Jones 2008). An evident advantage of the geographical mor-
phological approach is that it provides a clear logic for urban
form analysis and the process of reasoning. In the case of the
example discussed in this paper, a morphologically based
inquiry into the modes of decision making that underlie the
spatial character and dynamics of the waterfront landscape
offers the possibility of providing a sound footing for
accountable waterfront planning and design.
To enhance the applicability of urban morphology in
planning and urban design practice, morphological concepts
can be simplified. For instance, in a morphological study for
a parish plan public consultation, the technical terms urban
landscape units became character areas, and fringe belts
became community spaces and utilities—potentially mis-
leading terms in certain respects but more likely to evoke
roughly apposite images among other professionals and the
general public (Whitehand 2009).
As a practice of giving shape and coherence to built envi-
ronments, urban design has been regarded as both a field of
research and a profession. One of the primary activities of
urban design is “making use of the existing elements, and
also . . . creating as many additional elements as needed for
reconstructing the unity and continuity [which is] lacking in
the contemporary city” (Perez de Arce 1978, 252). Urban
morphology provides powerful tools for perceiving, visual-
izing, and intervening in the physical urban environment
through the study of the urban landscape components and
their dynamics. The use of this approach in practice is to
recapture and maintain the integrity of urban form. It can
reinforce both urban design pedagogy and the theoretical
foundation of urban design.
Urban design has a place in many different cultures, lan-
guages, and countries and is influenced by their respective
cultural traditions and political-economic conditions
(Radović 2004). For example, as many branches of knowl-
edge, the geomantic and cosmological conceptions are fun-
damental to the design of cities and urban places in some
East Asian countries over history. Both urban design teach-
ing and practice can benefit from the understanding of the
wide range of different kinds of cities and research conven-
tions. Comparative urban morphology concerning the cross-
cultural exploration of the morphology of cities in different
geographical regions has been gaining momentum in the past
fifteen years or so (see e.g., M. P. Conzen, Gu, and Whitehand
2012; Whitehand and Gu 2007). It is expected that the new
research effort will not only contribute to the integration and
development of the intellectual content of urban morphology
but also enhance the understanding of diverse urban design
and planning ideas.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Professor Jeremy Whitehand for his
detailed comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Gu 9
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Baker, N. 2010. A Characterisation of the Historic Townscape of
Central Hereford. Herefordshire Archaeology Report 266.
Hereford, UK: Herefordshire Council.
Barke, M. 1974. “The Changing Urban Fringe of Falkirk: Some
Morphological Implications of Urban Growth.” Scottish
Geographical Magazine 90 (2): 85–97.
Brown, D. 2009. Māori Architecture. Auckland: Raupō.
Çalişkan, O., and S. Marshall. 2011. “Urban Morphology and
Design: Introduction.” Built Environment 37 (4): 381–92.
Caniggia, G., and G. L. Maffei. 2001. Architectural Composition
and Building Typology: Interpreting Basic Building. Firenze:
Alinea.
Carmona, M. 2014. “Investigating Urban Design.” In Explorations
in Urban Design: An Urban Design Research Primer, edited
by M. Carmona, 1–11. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Carmona, M., S. Marshall, and Q. Stevens. 2006. “Design
Codes: Their Use and Potential.” Progress in Planning 65
(4): 209–89.
Carter, H. 1970. “A Decision-Making Approach to Town Plan
Analysis: A Case Study of Llandudno.” In Urban Essays:
Studies in the Geography of Wales, edited by H. Carter and W.
K. D. Davies, 66–78. London: Longman Group.
Chapin, F. S. 1964. “Selected Theories of Urban Growth and
Structure.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 30
(1): 51–58.
Conzen, M. P. 2001. “The Study of Urban Form in the United
States.” Urban Morphology 5 (1): 3–14.
Conzen, M. P. 2009. “How Cities Internalize Their Former Urban
Fringes.” Urban Morphology 13 (1): 29–54.
Conzen, M. P., K. Gu, and J. W. R. Whitehand. 2012. “Comparing
Traditional Urban Form in China and Europe: A Fringe-Belt
Approach.” Urban Geography 33 (1): 22–45.
Conzen, M. R. G. 1960. Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-
Plan Analysis. Institute of British Geographers Publication No.
27. London: George Philip.
Conzen, M. R. G. 1966. “Historical Townscapes in Britain: A
Problem in Applied Geography.” In Northern Geographical
Essays in Honour of G. H. J. Daysh, edited by J. W. House,
56–78. Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle upon
Tyne.
Conzen, M. R. G. 1969. Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in
Town-Plan Analysis. 2nd ed. Institute of British Geographers
Publication No. 27. London: Institute of British Geographers.
Conzen, M. R. G. 2004. “Morphogenesis, Morphological Regions,
and Secular Human Agency in the Historical Townscape, as
Exemplified by Ludlow.” In Thinking about Urban Form:
Papers on Urban Morphology 1932–1998, edited by M. P.
Conzen, 116–42. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Cuthbert, A. R. 2003. “Introduction.” In Designing Cities: Critical
Readings in Urban Design, edited by A. R. Cuthbert, 2–20.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fritz, J. 1894. Deutsche Stadtanlagen. Beilage zum Programm 520
des Lyceums zu Strassburg. Strassburg: Heitz & Mündel.
Gauthiez, B. 2004. “The History of Urban Morphology.” Urban
Morphology 8 (2): 71–89.
Geisler, W. 1918. Danzig: ein Siedlungsgeographischer Versuch.
Danzig: Kafeman.
Geisler, W. 1924. Die deutsche Stadt: ein Beitrag zur Morphologie
der Kulturlandschaft. Stuttgart: Engelhorn.
Gu, K. 2010a. “Exploring the Fringe-Belt Concept in Auckland:
An Urban Morphological Idea and Planning Practice.” New
Zealand Geographer 66 (1): 44–60.
Gu, K. 2010b. “Urban Morphological Regions and Urban Landscape
Management: The Case of Central Auckland, New Zealand.”
Urban Design International 15 (3): 148–64.
Gu, K. 2014. “From Urban Landscape Units to Morphological Coding:
Exploring an Alternative Approach to Zoning in Auckland, New
Zealand.” Urban Design International 19 (2): 159–74.
Gygax, F. 2007. “The Morphological Basis of Urban Design:
Experiments in Giudecca, Venice.” Urban Morphology 11 (2):
111–25.
Hall, T. 2008. “The Form-Based Development Plan: Bridging the
Gap between Theory and Practice in Urban Morphology.”
Urban Morphology 12 (2): 77–95.
Hassinger, H. 1916. Kunsthistorischer Atlas von Wien. Österrei­
chische Kunsttopographie 15. Vienna.
Krier, L. 1992. Architecture and Urban Design 1967–1992.
London: Academy Editions.
Krier, L. 2009. The Architecture of Community. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Krier, R. 1992. Urban Space. London: Academy Editions.
Kropf, K. S., ed. 2001. Stratford-upon-Avon District Design Guide.
Stratford-upon-Avon District Council. https://www.stratford.
gov.uk/doc/175516/name/stratford%20district%20design%20
guide.pdf.
Kropf, K. 2009. “Aspects of Urban Form.” Urban Morphology 13
(2): 105–20.
Kropf, K. 2017. The Handbook of Urban Morphology. Chichester:
Wiley.
Larkham, P. J. 1988. “Changing Conservation Areas in the English
Midlands: Evidence from Local Planning Records.” Urban
Geography 9 (5): 445–65.
Larkham, P. J. 2002. “Misusing ‘Morphology’?” Urban Morphology
6 (2): 95–97.
Larkham, P. J., and M. P. Conzen. 2014a. “Agents, Agency, and
Urban Form: The Making of the Urban Landscape.” In Shapers
of Urban Form: Explorations in Morphological Agency, edited
P. J. Larkham and M. P. Conzen, 3–23. London: Routledge.
Larkham, P. J., and M. P. Conzen, eds. 2014b. Shapers of Urban Form:
Explorations in Morphological Agency. London: Routledge.
Manlangit, D., and V. Som. 2015a. Managing Future Change to
Auckland’s Central Waterfront, course work for MUrbPlan 708.
Manlangit, D., and V. Som. 2015b. Reading and Interpreting
Auckland’s Central Waterfront, course work for MUrbPlan 708.
Maretto, M. 2005. “Urban Morphology as a Basis for Urban
Design: The Project for the Isola dei Cantieri in Chioggia.”
Urban Morphology 9 (1): 29–44.
Marshall, S., ed. 2011. Urban Coding and Planning. London:
Routledge.
McClure, W. 2014. “Interlacing Urban Morphology and Design
Studio Education: The Time Is Ripe.” Urban Morphology 18
(2): 168–70.
10 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Moudon, A. V. 1992. “A Catholic Approach to Organizing
What Urban Designers Should Know.” Journal of Planning
Literature 6 (4): 331–48.
Moudon, A. V. 1994. “Getting to Know the Built Landscape:
Typomorphology.” In Ordering Space: Types in Architecture
and Design, edited by K. A. Franck and L. H. Schneekloth,
289–311. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Moudon, A. V. 1997. “Urban Morphology as an Emerging
Interdisciplinary Field.” Urban Morphology 1 (1): 3–10.
Moudon, A. V. 2000. “Proof of Goodness: A Substantive Basis for
New Urbanism?” Places 13 (2): 38–43.
Oliveira, V. 2016. Urban Morphology: An Introduction to the Study
of the Physical Form of Cities. Cham: Springer.
Parkes, D. N., and N. J. Thrift. 1980. Times, Spaces, and Places: A
Chronogeographic Perspective. John Wiley: Chichester.
Perez de Arce, R. 1978. “Urban Transformations and the Architecture
of Additions.” Architecture Design 4 (7/8): 237–66.
Phelps, N. A., and M. Tewdwr-Jones. 2008. “If Geography Is
Anything, Maybe It’s Planning’s Alter Ego? Reflections on
Policy Relevance in Two Disciplines Concerned with Place and
Space.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33
(4): 566–84.
Radović, D. 2004. “Towards Culturally Responsive and Responsible
Teaching of Urban Design.” Urban Design International 9 (4):
175–86.
Samuels, I. 1985. Urban Morphology in Design. Research Note 19.
Oxford: Joint Centre for Urban Design, Oxford Polytechnics.
Samuels, I. 2014. “ISUF Task Force on Research and Practice in
Urban Morphology: An Interim Report.” http://www.urban-
form.org/about.html#projects.
Sauer, C. O. 1925. “The Morphology of Landscape.” In Land
and Life: A Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin
Sauer, edited by J. Leighly, 315–50. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Scheer, B. C. 2008. “Urban Morphology and Urban Design.” Urban
Morphology 12 (2): 140–41.
Schlüter, O. 1899a. “Bemerkungen zur Siedlungsgeographie.”
Geographische Zeitschrift 5: 65–84.
Schlüter, O. 1899b. “Über den Grundriss der Städte.” Zeitschrift
der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 34: 446–62.
Sternberg, E. 2000. “An Integrative Theory of Urban Design.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (3):
265–78.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 1967. “Fringe Belts: A Neglected Aspect of
Urban Geography.” Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 41: 223–33.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 1977. “The Basis for an Historico-Geographical
Theory of Urban Form.” Transactions of the Institute British
Geographers 2: 400–16.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 1981. “Background to the Urban Morphogenetic
Tradition.” In The Urban Landscape: Historical Development
and Management: Papers by MRG Conzen, edited by J. W.
R. Whitehand, 1–24. Institute of British Geographers Special
Publication, No 13. London: Academic Press.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 1987. The Changing Face of Cities: A Study
of Development Cycles and Urban Form. Institute of British
Geographers Special Publication 21. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 1992. The Making of the Urban Landscape.
Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 26.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2001. “British Urban Morphology: the
Conzenian Tradition.” Urban Morphology 5 (2): 103–09.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2006. “Towards a More Integrated Approach.”
Urban Morphology 10 (2): 87–88.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2009. “The Structure of Urban Landscapes:
Strengthening Research and Practice.” Urban Morphology 13
(1): 5–27.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2012. “Issues in Urban Morphology.” Urban
Morphology 16 (1): 55–65.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2014a. “The Changing Face of Urban
Morphology: Achievements and Challenges.” Urban Morpho­
logy 18 (2): 95–96.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2014b. Conzenian Research and Urban
Landscape Management, ISUF conference keynote presenta-
tion, July 3–6, Porto, Portugal.
Whitehand, J. W. R., and C. M. H. Carr. 2001. Twentieth-Century
Suburbs: A Morphological Approach. London: Routledge.
Whitehand, J. W. R., and K. Gu. 2007. “Extending the Compass of
Plan Analysis: A Chinese Exploration.” Urban Morphology 11
(2): 91–109.
Author Biography
Kai Gu is an associate professor in the School of Architecture and
Planning at the University of Auckland. His research interests include
urban morphology, urban design, and urban landscape management.