J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology

The Urban Book Series

Vítor Oliveira   Editor

J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historicogeographical Approach to Urban Morphology

The Urban Book Series Series Advisory Editors Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian, University College London, London, UK Michael Batty, University College London, London, UK Simin Davoudi, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK Geoffrey DeVerteuil, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK Karl Kropf, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK Marco Maretto, University of Parma, Parma, Italy Ali Modarres, University of Washington, Tacoma, WA, USA Fabian Neuhaus, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Vítor Oliveira, Porto University, Porto, Portugal Christopher Silver, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA Giuseppe Strappa, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Igor Vojnovic, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA Jeremy Whitehand, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Aims and Scope The Urban Book Series is a resource for urban studies and geography research worldwide. It provides a unique and innovative resource for the latest developments in the field, nurturing a comprehensive and encompassing publication venue for urban studies, urban geography, planning and regional development. The series publishes peer-reviewed volumes related to urbanization, sustainability, urban environments, sustainable urbanism, governance, globalization, urban and sustainable development, spatial and area studies, urban management, urban infrastructure, urban dynamics, green cities and urban landscapes. It also invites research which documents urbanization processes and urban dynamics on a national, regional and local level, welcoming case studies, as well as comparative and applied research. The series will appeal to urbanists, geographers, planners, engineers, architects, policy makers, and to all of those interested in a wide-ranging overview of contemporary urban studies and innovations in the field. It accepts monographs, edited volumes and textbooks.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14773

Vítor Oliveira Editor

J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology

123

Editor Vítor Oliveira Centro de Investigação do Território, Transportes e Ambiente, Faculdade de Engenharia Universidade do Porto Porto, Portugal

ISSN 2365-757X ISSN 2365-7588 (electronic) The Urban Book Series ISBN 978-3-030-00619-8 ISBN 978-3-030-00620-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018955159 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To J.W.R. Whitehand on the occasion of his eightieth birthday

Foreword

Advances in scientific knowledge are driven by individuals, because it takes the spark of particular minds to see new connections in the life around them and to push forward to redefine common understandings of how things work. It then takes a community to recognize the value of those sparks and to set about testing and extending the ideas they produce and begin searching for fruitful applications. Some thinkers are good at generating sparks, while others are adept at building exploratory communities, and yet those who are skilled at both are far less common. Jeremy Whitehand belongs to those who are unusually, one might almost say preternaturally, good at doing both. Many scholars thrive at the margins of traditional scientific and humanistic disciplines, and do so by contributing not only to the conceptual stock-in-trade of the academic fields in which they were trained, but also by cultivating the less well-tended grounds that vaguely separate those disciplines from their neighbours. Jeremy Whitehand gained distinction as a mainstream urban geographer, all the while grounding that stature in diverse contributions to urban morphology. But going further, in committing to the study of urban form in all its planetary diversity, he placed himself squarely at the crossroads of geography, history, architecture, archaeology, landscape ecology and urban planning, with a thirst for theory, an affinity for archives, a faculty for fieldwork, and a desire to inculcate in others the same drive to understand the physical nature of cities. He began as a geographer, and to a large extent he remains one to the core, but to most urban morphologists who know him that is the most incidental aspect of his broadly interdisciplinary work and his old-time courtly persona. It is a singular fact that early in his academic career Whitehand encountered and for a brief period of three years taught alongside a senior colleague whose influence would quickly shape his larger outlook on geography, on cities, and on the way different cultures have built them. My father, MRG Conzen, took to Jeremy Whitehand as soon as he arrived in Newcastle, but it was more than personality that drew them together in an intellectual embrace that would help set the trajectory of Whitehand’s research and teaching. Conzen worked out an exploratory and explanatory system for analysing the historically conditioned morphology of cities vii

viii

Foreword

that not only appealed to the younger colleague, but opened up for him avenues for further work and fresh insights that would fill a lifetime and earn him, in his own right, an unrivalled reputation for innovation and mentorship. And in response Whitehand, over the years and at every turn, unstintingly acknowledged the influence Conzen had as the original and ongoing stimulus to his own highly independent thinking. In the opening essay of this collection, Vítor Oliveira presents the key landmarks by which urban morphology has developed over the last half-century as a field of intellectual endeavour and the leading role Whitehand has played both through his personal research and through the all-important task of building a community of scholars who, in turn, have done so much collectively to create a robust field on the international level. Whitehand had the opportunity to enjoy a long-lasting association with MRG Conzen, extending from their earliest time together, in 1963, until Conzen’s death, at age 93, in 2000. Conzen could not have imagined in his earlier days, when he first put his urban morphological interests into practice, that he would have the good fortune to connect with someone of such similar sensibilities who became, not just his eager follower but a prodigious force for the advancement of the special field they both held dear. While innate modesty compelled Whitehand to preface his writings with generous references to his morphological mentor, for others, viewing his remarkable record of systematic, precise and path-breaking research on its own merits, there can be no question as to his own outstanding originality. I know that Conzen and Whitehand maintained a rich, decades-long personal conversation covering every aspect of the field that interested them, which included, of course, speculations about the field’s development. Encouraging international participation and cross-cultural comparative work ranked high on the list. Whitehand took up the reins of that challenge and carried it forward as a campaign in ways that no one else, I think, could possibly have done. I shall call it a four-legged campaign. It started with his own research, which has swelled to truly eye-popping proportions, doubtless the envy of many who must brave the severity of today’s institutional publish-or-perish environment. Many of his articles have been co-authored, often with multiple collaborators, yet none of them, I believe, would dispute that it was Jeremy who was in charge, pretty much most of the time. These collaborations showcase his ability to share and inspire others to share with him, the grunt work of methodical, meticulous research, as well as his willingness to share honours when it came to the authorship of ideas. Even so, the record of sustained initiative rests clearly with him, and it is that dedication and unflagging drive that have solidified the conceptual underpinnings of historico-morphological work that has, among other things, given rise to this welcome book, and which justifies its salute to Whitehand’s intellectual leadership. The campaign gained another leg, or leg up, so to speak, with Whitehand’s successful training of a sizeable number of doctoral students, many of whom secured academic positions that permitted a wider seeding of Conzenian ideas in research settings that would otherwise have been likely. Others found employment in applied fields where their morphological experience would prove beneficial.

Foreword

ix

The solicitude with which Whitehand guided his students in their research is perhaps best reflected in the fact that a number have gone on to make substantial names for themselves both in the field and in related endeavours. Karl Kropf and Peter Larkham, authors of chapters that follow, are two such conspicuous cases. The other contributors represent colleagues who at various stages of their careers became attracted to Whitehand’s mode of thinking and the persuasiveness of his writings and conference appearances. Michael Barke encountered Whitehand early on in Glasgow, and, in ways I recognize well, has managed to balance his extensive morphological interests with diverse research in quite other realms. Ivor Samuels, for his part, has long been familiar with, and a bridge to, the Italian world of architectural typomorphological study, that other fecund dimension of international urban morphology. And as a practitioner of historic preservation and urban design in the public sphere, he has through his engagement with Whitehand’s work lent credibility to scholarly morphological research in the eyes of at least a few of the more enlightened planners and government officials. Kai Gu, I am pleased to note, first met Jeremy Whitehand at my house in Chicago during a post-conference field excursion of urban morphologists in 2001. Theirs has been a charmed friendship ever since, exchanging sage morphological opinions for access to Chinese language and heritage, and much, much more. And Vítor Oliveira, editor of this and other recent books on international urban morphology and co-founder of the Portuguese Network of Urban Morphologists, can without fear of dispute be described as one of the most energetic, resourceful and imaginative architectural converts to historico-geographical urban morphology that Jeremy Whitehand could have wished for. The third and fourth legs of the campaign to raise the visibility and effectiveness of international urban morphology, as Vitor points out in the opening chapter, were the parts Whitehand played in the founding of the International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF) and the journal, Urban Morphology. These two initiatives, requiring prolonged planning and patient cultivation of contacts across disciplinary and national boundaries, yielded two institutions, one a meeting ground and critical social lubricant in the form of regular conferences, and the other a scholarly journal to serve as a prime record and outlet for sound research in the field, both of which have stood the test of time with admirable stability. This is not the place to describe Whitehand’s contributions to these two institutions in detail, but reference must be made in passing to the extraordinary investments of time he and his wife Susan Whitehand have made in editing the journal, and the elaborate care they have taken to ensure the quality of its contents. Casual readers everywhere may hardly grasp how much effort has gone into nurturing manuscripts by authors for whom English is not their native language, thus giving them a coveted publication in this prestigious international forum. At the same time, even the most casual browser of the journal can hardly fail to notice the ideological and substantive inclusiveness of its contents and editorial stance. As a last set of observations, it seems more than appropriate to draw attention to the composition, content and intent of this book. It marks the approach of Jeremy Whitehand’s eightieth birthday and is offered as an unapologetic and celebratory

x

Foreword

salute to his professional accomplishments. But it differs from many ostensible ‘festschriften’. This is not a grab bag of loosely related idiosyncratic contributions by former students and colleagues honouring their mentor/friend. Instead, it is a carefully thought-out sequence of substantive reviews of the conceptual foundations of topics basic to the development and current state of knowledge in the field Jeremy Whitehand has done so much to define and nourish. Vítor Oliveira opening chapter offers a wide-ranging review of the intellectual background of several strands in modern urban morphology as they relate to Whitehand’s emergence as a scholar. It traces his encounter with the man who inspired his choice of long-term research specialization, along with Whitehand’s own course of study, his professional history, the central topics he opted to investigate and the ideas that emerged, the students he trained, and the organizations he helped found that have ensured the vitality of the field. The following three chapters, by Kai Gu on urban morphological regions, Michael Barke on urban fringe belts and Peter Larkham on urban landscape agents and agency, each examine in concise terms the concepts which have interested Whitehand most keenly and which he developed with the greatest sustained vigour. All three chapters include concern for the practical implications of the concepts for urban landscape management. Karl Kropf, perhaps the most philosophically inclined of practicing urban morphologists, explores the methodological difficulties and comparative challenges that confront the field and how Whitehand has tended to deal with them (including his reaction to a small earthquake in his campus office, not to mention Kropf’s quick peek at Whitehand’s personal hippocampus!). As a private urban morphology consultant Kropf contributes an especially relevant perspective to the question of the field’s collective relevance. Making this thread the centrepiece of his chapter, Ivor Samuels opens a window on Whitehand’s conviction that academic research needs to offer usable concepts and technical methods for use in the public realm of urban landscape planning and evaluates both his efforts in that direction and the prospects for significant engagement between urban morphological research and public policy. Vítor Oliveira’s closing chapter brings the reader full circle, in an elegant tribute to the man who has so centrally inspired him and many others in the rising generation of urban morphologists. Pursuing, therefore, its dual objective as both festschrift and primer, the book is—for the broader audience to which it is addressed—nothing less than a concise and forceful introduction to the central ideas which have propelled the historico-geographical tradition to the forefront of international urban morphology. Chicago, USA

Michael P. Conzen Past president of ISUF (2009–2013) The University of Chicago [email protected]

Contents

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vítor Oliveira

1

2 Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea . . . . . . . . . . Kai Gu

33

3 Fringe Belts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Barke

47

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter J. Larkham

67

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology: Through the Lens of JWR Whitehand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karl Kropf

91

6 Research and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Ivor Samuels 7 JWR Whitehand: 50 Years of Urban Morphological Research . . . . . 133 Vítor Oliveira

xi

Abbreviations

ANCSA BMCPC CBD DOE IFB IGU ISUF IT LPA MFB NIMBY OFB POS UCL UMRG UNESCO UK

Associazione Nationale Centri Storico-Artistici Beijing Municipal City Planning Commission Central Business District Department of Environment Inner Fringe Belt International Geographical Union International Seminar on Urban Form Information Technology Local Planning Authority Middle Fringe Belt Not In My Back Yard Outer Fringe Belt Plan d’ Occupation des Sols University College London Urban Morphology Research Group United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Kingdom

xiii

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2

Fig. 1.3 Fig. 1.4

Fig. 1.5

Fig. 1.6 Fig. 1.7 Fig. 1.8

Fig. 1.9

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.3

Settlements in the Chilterns classified according to building types (Source Whitehand 1965) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MRG Conzen and JWR Whitehand at Conzen’s home in Newcastle upon Tyne on his 90th birthday, in 1997 (Source photographic collection of Michael P. Conzen) . . . . . . JWR Whitehand at his home in Barnt Green in 2017 (Source photograph by Susan Whitehand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One of the meetings in the field at the ISUF conference in Glasgow and Newcastle upon Tyne, 2004 (Photograph by Heinz Heineberg Source Urban Morphology 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothetical variations in the size of new plots developed in relation to time and distance from the city centre (Source Whitehand 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An innovation/building cycle model (Source Whitehand 2001, based upon Whitehand 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fringe belts of Nanjing (Source Whitehand and Gu 2017) . . . . Distribution of major rebuildings, additions and structural alterations in the central areas of Watford and Northampton (Source Whitehand and Whitehand 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of building plan applications in the central areas of Watford and Northampton involving initiators, architects and builders from various locations (Source Whitehand and Whitehand 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ludlow old town: morphological regions (Source Conzen 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local authority character areas in 1999 (in blue) and urban landscape units recognised by Bienstman in 2005 (in red) in central Alkmaar, The Netherlands (Source Whitehand 2009) . . Urban landscape units: a Hualinsi area and b Tongfuxilu area, Guangzhou (Source Whitehand et al. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

4

..

5

..

6

..

8

..

17

.. ..

18 20

..

21

..

22

..

36

..

40

..

41

xv

xvi

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3

Fig. 4.4

Fig. 4.5

Fig. 4.6 Fig. 5.1

List of Figures

Fringe belts of Tyneside (Source Whitehand 1967a) . . . . . . . . . Hypothetical bid-rent curves and resultant landscapes: a during a housing boom and b during a housing slump. Hypothetical variations in the relative proportions of new institutional and new housing development with distance from the edge of the built-up area a during a housing boom and b during a housing slump (Source Whitehand 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land use of part of the middle fringe belt of Glasgow in 1968 (Source Whitehand and Morton 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fringe belt associated with the fourteenth century wall of Pingyao, China (Source Whitehand et al. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . Land use of Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt in 1995 (Source Whitehand and Morton 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of surface in Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt (Source Hopkins 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reconstruction of typological process in Rome: change from single cell to multi-storey, driven by long-term sociocultural change (Source Corsini 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatial relationships between initiators and architects in four Midlands conservation areas (Source Larkham 1988b) . . . . . . . Contacts (letters, telephone calls and meetings) between the owner and other bodies: broken line indicates one-way communication. This demonstrates the high volume of communication for a single, relatively small, development (Source Whitehand 1989a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothetical and actual variations in bid prices for the Amersham development site based partly on information from potential developers (Source Whitehand 1989a) . . . . . . . . . . . . Sequence of amended proposals for an office building in Henley on Thames, showing interplay of input from the building client, architect, conservation officer and development control planner (redrawn from planning files by PJ Larkham) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes to the streetscape of Charlotte Street, Brisbane, 1895–2012 (Sanders and Woodward 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A detail of the main figure showing a representation of the principal plan components of Pingyao. The outline of different areas with distinct characteristics as described in the key is the product of sequential comparison, scanning the plan visually to identify similarities and differences. Further comparisons of plots patterns are made to infer the transformational types (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

52

..

54

..

55

..

57

..

60

..

61

..

72

..

76

..

77

..

78

..

79

..

82

. . 104

List of Figures

Fig. 5.2

Fig. 5.3

Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5 Fig. 6.6 Fig. 6.7 Fig. 6.8 Fig. 6.9

A graph showing the temporal correlation of the building cycle and morphogenesis of fringe-belt sites. Comparison is used in numerous ways to construct the graph, from sequential comparison of plans to identify fringe-belt sites as well as changes over time, measurement of areas, and correlating variations to a common chronology (Source Whitehand 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan representation of a Pingyao and b Como, highlighting the different route types identified as one of the common elements that acts as ‘control points’ for the comparison. It is worth noting that the route types are defined in terms of more abstract, topological characteristics, which help minimise the potential cultural bias of the control points (Source Whitehand et al. 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three planning applications for the site of Old Hyrons, Amersham (Source Whitehand 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Old Hyrons site, Amersham. The relationship between offers received and possible number of new dwellings. Firms located more than 15 km away are underlined (Source Whitehand 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BMCPC conservation and redevelopment plan for Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan units, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007) . . . . . Building types, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land and building utilisation, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban landscape units, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barnt Green character areas (Source Whitehand 2009) . . . . . . . A page of description of two areas from the Barnt Green character analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii

. . 107

. . 109 . . 118

. . 119 . . 123 . . 123 . . 124 . . 124 . . 125 . . 126 . . 127

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 1.5 Table 1.6

Table 1.7

ISUF annual conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Urban Morphology’—most cited papers (Source Scopus, June 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whitehand’s most cited papers (Source Scopus, June 2018) . Applications of the concept (or variations of the concept) of morphological region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applications of the fringe-belt concept up to 2009 (Source MP Conzen 2009b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physical characteristics of Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt and neighbouring housing zones in 1995 (Whitehand and Morton 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison between initial approval and actual development in areas in South East England and the English Midlands (Source Whitehand and Larkham 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

8

.. ..

9 9

..

12

..

16

..

19

..

23

xix

Chapter 1

An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand Vítor Oliveira

Abstract Over recent decades, the historico-geographical approach has been prominent in the debate on the physical form of cities and the agents and processes shaping that form over time. With origins in the work of German-speaking researchers—particularly MRG Conzen—this approach has been systematically developed since the 1960s by researchers in various parts of the world. JWR Whitehand structured an innovative and comprehensive school of urban morphological thought grounded on the invaluable basis provided by Conzen. This is the main argument of this book, published on the 80th anniversary of Whitehand’s birth. The development of several dimensions of the concepts of fringe belt and morphological region and the systematic exploration of the theme of agents of change are identified in this chapter as key contributions by Whitehand to the development of this school of thought. Keywords Urban morphology · Historico-geographical approach JWR Whitehand · Fringe belts · Morphological regions · Agents of change

1.1 MRG Conzen and the Origins of the Historico-Geographical Approach MRG Conzen was born in Berlin on 21 January 1907. Between 1926 and 1932, he studied geography, history and philosophy at the University of Berlin. Among the notable academics who influenced him at that time were Albrecht Penck and Herbert Louis. After the rise of the Nazi Party in 1933, Conzen emigrated to Great Britain. He studied town and country planning at the Victoria University of Manchester between 1934 and 1936 and then worked in regional and town planning in Macclesfield, Cheshire. Simultaneously, he pursued postgraduate research in historical geography at the Victoria University of Manchester. The beginning of the Second World War brought significant challenges for Conzen as a German émigré living in V. Oliveira (B) Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4_1

1

2

V. Oliveira

England. In the process of coping with these, he took up employment based on his interest in geography, holding an academic post first at the University of Manchester (1940–1946), then at the University of Durham (1946–1961) and finally at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne (1961–1972). He died in Newcastle upon Tyne in 2000. Conzen authored relatively few publications by today’s standards. But several of them have proved in the course of time to be significant in the development of studies of urban form. Among these, ‘Alnwick, Northumberland—a study in townplan analysis’ (Conzen 1960) stands as one of the most important books on urban morphology published so far (see Monteiro 2017, for a synthesis of the process of book production). The work of Conzen as a whole offers a comprehensive framework for the study and design of the physical form of cities. The perspective and contents of this work were clearly influenced by his training and early research in Berlin, during the second half of the 1920s and the early 1930s, prior to his emigration to the UK (see Whitehand 1981a, for a review of German human geography, and urban morphology in particular, in the early decades of the twentieth century). The Alnwick monograph is an attempt to fill a gap in urban morphology. It is driven by the problems of how the plan of an old-established town has acquired its geographical complexity, the concepts that can be deduced to help in the analysis of town plans in general, and the contribution that the development of a town plan makes to the regional structure of a town. It is an attempt to explain the present structure of a town plan by examining its development (Conzen 1960). The monograph is in three parts. In the first part, the tripartite division of the urban landscape (or townscape) into town plan, building fabric, and land and building utilization is introduced. It is one of the fundamental aspects of Conzen’s theory, although in this monograph the focus is just on the town plan (indeed, the monograph was planned to be the first of three books). Hence, it is the aim, scope and method of town-plan analysis on which the introduction concentrates. The town plan is defined as the topographical arrangement of an urban built-up area in all its manmade features, containing three distinct complexes of plan elements: (i) streets and their arrangement in a street system; (ii) plots and their aggregation in street blocks; and (iii) the block plans of buildings. In the second part, the growth of Alnwick’s built-up area is analysed according to five morphological periods, each of which has left its distinctive material residues in the landscape: (i) Anglian, (ii) Norman to Early Modern, (iii) Later Georgian and Early Victorian, (iv) Mid- and Late Victorian and, finally, (v) Modern. This analysis of the physical growth of Alnwick from Anglian times to the 1950s is informed by a number of key concepts. Some of these are new, such as the burgage cycle (the life cycle of a plot held by a burgess). Others are developments of existing ideas. Among the latter is the fringe-belt concept, which relates to the development of a zone of generally low-intensity land use at the urban fringe during a hiatus in the growth of the built-up area and the change this fringe belt undergoes during and following its subsequent incorporation within the urban area. In the third part of the monograph, the existing town plan of Alnwick is analysed. Here, 14 major types of plan units and 49 subtypes are identified. Drawing on

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

3

these divisions—and on the three elements of the ground plan—Conzen proposes a geographical structure based on a set of plan divisions grouped into four orders. The three parts of the book include 21 maps, including four fold-out maps, three in colour. Two particular features distinguish the book from work within all other research traditions dealing with the physical structure of urban areas: the extent to which processes were conceptualized, and the meticulous way in which terms used to describe them were researched (Whitehand 2009a). The essential message of the book is that the numerous morphological features of urban places at all scales can be reduced to a logical system of explanation, which can lead to an incisive and nuanced understanding of the relationship between urban communities and the physical fabric they create and recreate around them as social needs change over time (MP Conzen 2009b). In the conclusion, MRG Conzen introduces two strands of research that he would develop in subsequent years: the need for this theory of plan analysis to be connected to a full investigation of the associated patterns of land use and building types to produce a complete interpretation of the urban landscape; and the need to extend the theory to cover different functional types of towns, and towns in different cultural areas.

1.2 JWR Whitehand Jeremy William Richard Whitehand was born eighty years ago, on 10 August 1938, in Reading, UK. At the beginning of the 1950s, he became interested in geography mainly through the influence of his high-school teacher, RW Brooker (Oliveira 2016). This might be seen now as a very preliminary harbinger of a distant academic career. However, the fact that as an undergraduate he was described as ‘the best tennis player the University has possessed for years’ (Lennard 1960) would seem to be a much less obvious portent. But this belies the fact that in the University tennis team there were also two geography research students whom he got to know well: Pat Hamilton, whose research on settlements patterns particularly influenced him, and Graeme Whittington. In early 1961, his PhD supervisor, Peter Wood drew his attention to the book on Alnwick, and Whitehand would later become familiar with Conzen’s studies on Whitby and Newcastle upon Tyne (Conzen 1958, 1962). However, as he was already committed to a PhD topic, the work of Conzen did not have the significant influence on his thesis that it might otherwise have done. The thesis, concluded in 1964 in the University of Reading, is a comparative morphological study of settlement patterns, with a particular focus on building types, taking a small region of England, the Chiltern Hills, as the case study (Whitehand 1964, 1965, 1969). The innovative nature of this work lies at least partly in the fact that, until the 1960s, studies of settlements had mostly been based on street systems, especially within the core areas of traditional settlements (Fig. 1.1).

4

V. Oliveira

Fig. 1.1 Settlements in the Chilterns classified according to building types (Source Whitehand 1965)

In 1963, at the end of the third year of his PhD research, Whitehand began lecturing in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Curiously, Conzen (who, for Whitehand, was little more than a notable name at that time) was not on his appointing panel. But their shared interests were manifest and a rapport between them quickly developed (Fig. 1.2). Whitehand was given the responsibility for an introductory lecture course in human geography, a tutorial group, contributions to a practical course and a firstyear field course with Conzen. In the two subsequent years, Whitehand also assisted with the special option courses that Conzen gave in alternate years in urban morphology and historical geography—primarily seminar courses. Conzen was a firm believer in the value of dialectics, and this was expressed in having both a principal seminar speaker and a seminar leader for each seminar. There was a strong emphasis on fieldwork, not least on field seminars. Three years later, Whitehand moved to the University of Glasgow, primarily to take on responsibility for urban geography, including the supervision of research students in that field. This included a special option course which had a major seminar and fieldwork component. Michael Barke arrived in Glasgow to do a PhD at this time. Although he was not one of Whitehand’s research students, he quickly developed an

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

5

Fig. 1.2 MRG Conzen and JWR Whitehand at Conzen’s home in Newcastle upon Tyne on his 90th birthday, in 1997 (Source photographic collection of Michael P. Conzen)

interest in the work Whitehand was doing on fringe belts and later himself went on to publish notable papers on this subject (this will be expanded in Chap. 3), including from his base in Newcastle upon Tyne at what was to become the University of Northumbria. Indeed, Newcastle upon Tyne provides a significant geographical and biographical link in that Michael P Conzen, son of MRG Conzen, spent most of his early years there before emigrating to North America to do research (also on fringe belts), and on 12 July 1968 Jeremy and Susan Whitehand were married in Newcastle upon Tyne, where they had first met. In 1971, Whitehand moved to the Department of Geography at the University of Birmingham, replacing Robin Donkin, one of Conzen’s former PhD students. David Linton, a geomorphologist who was Head of Department, was sympathetic to morphological approaches more generally and supported Whitehand’s appointment. Whitehand continued supervising the research students he had in Glasgow, took over the supervision of one of Donkin’s research students and soon acquired more PhD students from among Birmingham graduates who had taken his undergraduate urban morphology course. Within a short time in Birmingham, he founded, in 1974, the Urban Morphology Research Group; in 1991, he became Professor of Urban Geography; and in 2005, he became Emeritus Professor of Urban Geography. He was awarded a DSc by the University of Reading in 1992 for his published work on urban morphology. At the time of writing, in 2018, he continues to supervise a number of research students in the University of Birmingham and overseas (Fig. 1.3).

6

V. Oliveira

Fig. 1.3 JWR Whitehand at his home in Barnt Green in 2017 (Source photograph by Susan Whitehand)

1.3 Institutional Contribution 1.3.1 Urban Morphology Research Group (UMRG) At the beginning of the 1970s, two events had occurred almost simultaneously: Conzen had retired from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, and Whitehand had taken up his appointment in the University of Birmingham. The retirement of Conzen meant the disappearance of the urban morphological research core in Newcastle. However, the appointment of Whitehand in Birmingham led quickly to the emergence of a similar research focus in that university. The new group of urban morphology researchers was ‘institutionalized’ in 1974, three years after Whitehand had arrived in Birmingham, with the foundation of the UMRG. Initially, it took the form of weekly meetings with the research students that Whitehand was supervising, but soon the Group was joined by Terry Slater, who had been a student of one of Conzen’s first students, Jay Appleton. Within a few years, the UMRG was drawing in external contributions to its seminars. In the course of the 1980s and 1990s, it changed from being overwhelmingly populated by British

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

7

researchers (particularly research students who had been trained as undergraduates in the University of Birmingham) to having a largely international membership. Headed by Whitehand, over four and a half decades the UMRG has become the principal centre of the historico-geographical approach to urban morphology. The importance of the Group is reflected in the excellence of the research projects carried out over the past 44 years; the completion of notable PhD theses (including those by Kropf 1993; Larkham 1986 and Lilley 1995); the influential publications of its members (some of which are listed on the Group’s website); and the Urban Morphology Research Monograph Series edited by Slater (see, e.g. Dargan 1997; Higgins 1996; and Lilley 1999). Current work of the Group focuses on research and practice, fringe belts and urban landscapes, practical applications and comparative research and, not least, historical urban morphology.

1.3.2 International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF) The process leading to the formation of ISUF is described by Moudon (1997). In that process, the UMRG and Whitehand had a central role (Samuels 2014). Just before the creation of ISUF, in 1990, he chaired an important international conference in Birmingham and co-edited a book gathering contributions from researchers in Europe and North America (Whitehand and Larkham 1992). Four years later, in 1994, a group of some 20 urban morphologists (including Whitehand), from five different countries, met in Lausanne, Switzerland, and founded the International Seminar on Urban Form. After three meetings in consecutive years in Lausanne, Whitehand organized the first ISUF open conference in Birmingham, in 1997 (Table 1.1). Seven years later, he and Barke organized a further ISUF conference, this time in Glasgow and Newcastle upon Tyne—in association with the International Geographical Union (IGU); Fig. 1.4. In 25 years, the ISUF annual conference took place in America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Since the modest beginning of the organization in Lausanne, Whitehand has been a member of its Council, helping ISUF to achieve its present position as the most important international organization for the study of urban form.

1.3.3 The Journal ‘Urban Morphology’ At the third Lausanne meeting, in 1996, it was agreed to establish a journal that would facilitate communication between annual meetings, disseminate the results of research and record the organization’s activities (Kropf 1997). In the following year, the first number of ‘Urban Morphology’, edited by Whitehand, was published. Over the last two decades, under Whitehand’s editorship, retaining its independence by resisting numerous approaches from commercial publishers, ‘Urban Mor-

8

V. Oliveira

Table 1.1 ISUF annual conferences 1994 Lausanne 1995 Lausanne

2003 Trani 2012 Delft 2004 Glasgow and Newcastle 2013 Brisbane

1996 Lausanne 1997 Birmingham

2005 London 2006 Stockholm

2014 Porto 2015 Rome

1998 Versailles

2007 Ouro Preto

2016 Nanjing

1999 Florence 2000 Groningen

2008 Artimino 2009 Guangzhou

2017 Valencia 2018 Krasnoyarsk

2001 Cincinnati

2010 Hamburg

2019 Nicosia

2002 Cernobbio

2011 Montreal

2020 Salt Lake City

Fig. 1.4 One of the meetings in the field at the ISUF conference in Glasgow and Newcastle upon Tyne, 2004 (Photograph by Heinz Heineberg Source Urban Morphology 8)

phology’ has grown into a recognized major refereed academic journal. Whitehand has been indefatigable in keeping it focused on the urban landscape and maintaining its high standard. The journal’s scope is truly international. Though it is published in English, much of its content is by authors for whom English is not their first language. Hence, there is an exceptional amount of work in editing much of what is published. The journal is an invaluable reference source for urban morphology in different regional contexts (Samuels 2014)—see Oliveira and Monteiro (2013) and Whitehand (2018) for an analysis of the contents of the journal. Among papers published are the ‘Study of urban form in…’ series and the much cited ‘Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field’ (Moudon 1997) and ‘British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition’ (Whitehand 2001)—see Tables 1.2 and 1.3.

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

9

Table 1.2 ‘Urban Morphology’—most cited papers (Source Scopus, June 2018) Document title Authors Year

Cited by

Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field

Moudon

1997

161

British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition The evolution of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres

Whitehand

2001

92

Siksna

1997

52

Aspects of urban form

Kropf

2009

51

Urban morphology and the problem of the Levy modern urban fabric How cities internalize their former urban fringes MP Conzen

1999

46

2009b

38

Mapping urban morphology

Gauthier, Gilliland

2006

29

The structure of urban landscapes

Whitehand

2009

28

Saverio Muratori and the Italian school of planning typology

Cataldi et al.

2002

28

The study of urban form in the United States

MP Conzen

2001

28

Table 1.3 Whitehand’s most cited papers (Source Scopus, June 2018) Document title

Year

Cited by

2001

92

Urban morphology and planning: the case of fringe belts (with Morton) 2004

41

Research on Chinese urban form: retrospect and prospect (with Gu)

2006

37

Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land (with Morton)

2003

37

Contributors to the recent development and influence of human geography

1985

34

British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition

Urban fringe belts: development of an idea

1988

32

Background to the urban morphogenetic tradition

1981

30

The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice

2009

28

The fringe-belt phenomenon and socioeconomic change (with Morton) 2006

28

Issues in urban morphology

24

2012

1.4 Substantive Contribution 1.4.1 Urban Morphology as a Field of Knowledge In the 1980s and 1990s, the physical form of urban areas was attracting increasing interest among scholars in several different disciplines and research traditions. Major books were published on the dominant morphological approaches (Caniggia and Maffei 1984; Hillier and Hanson 1984; Batty and Longley 1994), and resulting from international cooperation (Merlin et al. 1988; Slater 1990; Whitehand and

10

V. Oliveira

Larkham 1992) and the proceedings of international conferences (including the major conferences promoted by the UMRG in Birmingham in 1990 and the first ISUF conference in Lausanne in 1994). Against this background, ‘Recent advances in urban morphology’ (Whitehand 1992a) was published at the beginning of the 1990s. Here, Whitehand offers a comprehensive definition of urban morphology as a field of knowledge. Five topics are included: (i) the use of computers to simulate urban physical structures; (ii) humanism and urban form; (iii) urban morphogenetics (with its roots in central European geography); (iv) the agents responsible for the forms created in the landscape; and, finally, (v) ideas on the planning and management of urban landscapes (influenced in particular by architecture, urban design and geography). Of the four dominant approaches in urban morphology, this review includes three (historico-geographical, process typological and spatial analysis). Over the last two decades, Whitehand has been addressing various aspects of the foundations of urban morphology in ‘Editorial comments’ published in Urban Morphology (see, e.g. Whitehand 2016a, b). His editorials formed the basis for another fundamental paper, ‘Issues in urban morphology’ (Whitehand 2012), published two decades after the first one. It examines a number of challenges facing urban morphology. Several of these relate to the multidisciplinary character of research on urban form and the tendency for relevant disciplines to be poorly connected. The issues discussed include poor communication between different linguistic areas, underrepresentation of research on non-Western cities, the tendency for studies to be place specific and the poor relationship between research and practice.

1.4.2 The Definition of an Historico-Geographical Approach At the end of the 1970s, Whitehand (1977) stated that the historico-geographical aspects of urban form were not attracting enough scholarly interest to give rise to either basic textbooks or a review literature. Against that background, he proposed a theoretical framework, in which explanation of urban form was rooted in the wider realm of social and economic processes. Some key aspects of this framework were: innovation, diffusion and constructional activity; the implications of the interrelationship of these processes for the arrangement of forms within the city; regional variations in the adoption of innovations and in constructional activity; and the significance of these variations for the forms that characterize different towns (Whitehand 1977). However, the key moment for the definition of this approach was the publication of ‘The urban landscape: historical development and management’ four years later (Whitehand 1981a). It was here that Whitehand placed, for the first time, the work of Conzen at the centre of this approach. ‘The urban landscape’ is in six chapters: Whitehand brought together four papers by Conzen, written between 1960 and 1978, and contributed introductory and concluding essays of his own, assessing the background to, and the influence of, Conzen’s work (including extensions of town-

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

11

plan analysis, development of the fringe-belt concept and work on urban landscape management). Over the following three decades, this historico-geographical approach would be elaborated by Whitehand in a series of papers (Whitehand 1987a, 2001, 2007a), offering a refined view of the origins, developments and main characteristics of this school of thought. This view would also receive important contributions by other members of the UMRG, namely Larkham (1998) and Slater (1990). There was also a video-recording of an interview with Conzen, conducted by Slater and Whitehand (1988), about his life and work. The video was later shown and discussed at the Annual Conference of the Institute of British Geographers in 1988.

1.4.3 The Concept of Morphological Region The concept of morphological region, as an area that has unity in respect of its form that distinguishes it from surrounding areas, and the method of morphological regionalization, as the process of identifying and mapping these regions, were proposed and developed by Conzen mainly between the late 1950s and the late 1980s. For Conzen, the climax of the exploration of the physical development of an urban area was this division of an area into morphological regions, based on a combination of town plan, building fabric and land and building utilization. In the last three decades, Whitehand has had a central role in the development of the concept, in a direct way through his own research work, and in an indirect way through the supervision of theses, such as those of Barrett, Bienstman, Birkhamshaw, Jones and Kropf (see Table 1.4 for 30 applications of the concept to cities and towns in different parts of the world). In his monograph on Alnwick, Conzen mapped a four-tier hierarchy of units based just on the town plan. In Ludlow, he mapped morphological regions, based on the combination of town plan, building fabric and land and building utilization (Conzen 1960, 1975, 1988). Initially, he mapped each of these systematic form complexes individually. Each map contained a hierarchy of units ranging from major divisions of the town to very localized ones. The three maps together were the basis of a fourth composite map of a five-tier hierarchy of morphological regions. The closest there is to a set of rules to be followed in the delimitation of boundaries was published in Conzen (1988), taking into consideration the systematic form complex, the degree of form persistence, the morphological periods, the morphological constituents of historical stratification and the contribution to the hierarchy of morphological regions. The procedural aspects of the method were later developed by Baker and Slater (1992) and Larkham and Morton (2011), but there is room for development. A comparison between the two sets of maps prepared for Ludlow, in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s, reveals differences, reflecting Conzen’s increasing knowledge of Ludlow and refinements in the method. The object of the first suburban regionalization founded on Conzenian principles was part of the London dormitory town of Amersham, which was largely developed in the twentieth century, though incorporating existing rural buildings (Whitehand

12

V. Oliveira

Table 1.4 Applications of the concept (or variations of the concept) of morphological region Place studied Form complex Hierarchy of Investigator(s) Publication date (and hierarchy of morphological form complex regions maps when these are prepared) Britain Alnwick

Town plan

4

Conzen

1960

Town plan (5), building fabric (5), land utilization (5)

5

Conzen

1975

Town plan (5), building fabric (5), land utilization (nh)

5

Conzen

1988

Town plan, building fabric, land utilization Town plan, building fabric

nh

Whitehand

1989

3

Jones

1991

Town plan, building fabric, land utilization, vegetation

4

Whitehand

2007

Edgbaston

Town plan, building fabric

3

Jones

1991

Northwood

Town plan, building fabric

3

Jones

1991

Worcester

Town plan

2

Baker, Slater

1992

Birmingham

Town plan (3), building fabric (3), land utilization (nh)

4

Barrett

1996

Bristol

Town plan (4), building fabric (3), land utilization (nh)

4

Barrett

1996

Bromsgrove

Town plan (4), building fabric (4), land utilization (nh)

4

Bienstman

2007

Edgware

Town plan

nh

Larkham, Morton 2011

Docklands (London)

Town plan

nh

Larkham, Morton 2011

Stratford-uponAvon

Town plan, building fabric, land utilization

2

Birkhamshaw, Whitehand

Ludlow

Amersham

Barnt Green

2012

(continued)

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand Table 1.4 (continued) Place studied Form complex Hierarchy of (and hierarchy of morphological form complex regions maps when these are prepared)

13

Investigator(s)

Publication date

Elsewhere in Europe Mennecy, France Town plan, building fabric

nh

Kropf

1996

Antequera, Spain Town plan, building fabric, land utilization Alkmaar, Town plan (4), Netherlands building fabric (4), land utilization (nh)

nh

Barke

2003

4

Bienstman

2007

Sibiu, Romania

Town plan

nh

Whitehand

2009b

Upplands Väsby, Sweden St Petersburg, Russia Porto, Portugal

Town plan

2

Whitehand

2009b

Town plan

nh

Whitehand

2009b

Town plan, building fabric, land utilization

4

Oliveira et al.

2015

Town plan

nh

Whitehand

2009b

Africa Lusaka, Zambia Asia Xangai, China

Town plan

nh

Zhang

2003

Pingyao, China

Town plan

nh

Whitehand, Gu

2007a

Beijing, China

Town plan, building fabric, land utilization Town plan (2), building fabric (nh), land utilization (nh)

2

Whitehand, Gu

2007b

3

Whitehand et al.

2011b

Town plan

nh

Zhang

2015

Town plan, building fabric, land utilization

2

Chen

2018

Town plan

3

Whitehand

2009b

Town plan, building fabric, land utilization

3

Gu

2010

Guangzhou, China

Zuoying, Taiwan

North America Lantzville, Canada Oceania Auckland, New Zealand

nh—no hierarchy 1–5—levels in hierarchy

14

V. Oliveira

1989)—this study will be amplified in Chap. 6. In contrast to the complex interrelationship of town plan, building form and land utilization in traditional urban cores, in this small area the three form complexes had essentially the same distributions. Unlike in Alnwick and Ludlow, a hierarchy of units was not identified. In addition to this difference in terms of content, a formal difference was the type of graphical representation used. During the 1990s, Whitehand supervised several PhD theses that developed the morphological region concept (Barrett 1996; Jones 1991; Kropf 1996). Focusing on the English suburbs of Barnt Green, Edgbaston and Northwood, Jones (1991) developed the focus by Whitehand (1989) on suburban areas. He recognized a three-tier hierarchy of boundaries between regions based on the historical development of town plan and building fabric. The main features in his maps are plot boundary changes, antecedent forms, dwelling types and building age. While maintaining Jones’s focus on townscape management, Barrett (1996) considered major changes in city centre conservation areas in Birmingham and Bristol. The method used was very close to that used by Conzen (1988) in Ludlow, revealing a four-tier hierarchy of regions for each area: first-order boundaries correspond to the major plan units and reflect the main stages in the historical development of the street plan and plot pattern; secondand third-order boundaries reflect plan changes within first-order plan units and in the boundaries of land-use units and major building form units; fourth-order boundaries take into account variations of building form and also minor differentiations of plan. Kropf (1996) describes the application in planning of a type of urban morphological regionalization, developed in his PhD thesis, in particular in the zoning plan of the Plan d’ Occupation des Sols of Mennecy. In the mid-2000s, the fourth PhD thesis on this concept, supervised by Whitehand, was concluded. With an approach close to that of Conzen (1988) and Barrett (1996), Bienstman (2007) examined conservation areas in Alkmaar in the Netherlands and Bromsgrove in the English Midlands, identifying a four-tier hierarchy of regions in each of these towns. By this time, Whitehand had started applying the concept outside Europe, more particularly in China, where an initial application had been by Zhang (2003). While Whitehand and Gu (2006) offered a comprehensive review of research on Chinese urban form, Whitehand and Gu (2007a) provided an application of the concept in Pingyao, exclusively based on the town plan of this historic city—no hierarchy of regions was provided. In addition to breaking new ground geographically, the paper exemplified the thinking, especially the types of inference, that can be employed to advantage when confronted with the different, generally less informative, sources available in China. In another application to a Chinese city, in a small part of the core of Beijing (Whitehand and Gu 2007b), both building fabric and land utilization were included in addition to the town plan. As in Conzen’s combining of the three systematic form complexes, the long-term persistence of the town plan was of particular importance, providing a framework within which the building fabric and land utilization have developed. In Guangzhou, Whitehand et al. (2011a, b) applied the concept in conservation, where a subsequent application was undertaken by Zhang (2015). An application to Zuoying was carried out by Chen (2018).

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

15

Almost a decade ago, Whitehand published a key paper for the understanding of this concept, reviewing its origins and development, its utilization in a number of variants, its application in different types of urban area and different parts of the world (including Africa, North America and Oceania) and its potential in conservation planning (Whitehand 2009b). Particularly important was the application of the concept in a parish plan for Barnt Green, described in the paper (see Chap. 6 and Fig. 6.9). As the settlement surveyed was essentially a mature suburb, vegetation was added to the form complexes taken into consideration. A hierarchy of regions was recognized and mapped, with most of the main regions containing second- and third-order subdivisions and one of the regions containing fourth-order subdivisions. The application in planning was extended further by Birkhamshaw and Whitehand (2012), who compare the regions, or character areas, delimitated by researchers with those delimitated by local planners and residents in Stratford-upon-Avon. The concept of morphological region is further developed in this book by Kai Gu in Chap. 2. After reviewing its origins and development—and the method of morphological regionalization—Gu focuses on the recent contributions of Whitehand and his associates. These can be divided into two main groups: (i) the utilization of the concept in a number of variants and its application and adaptation in different types of urban areas and different parts of the world (Chap. 2 has a focus on China), and (ii) the potential of the concept for urban landscape management (with a close focus on the paper ‘The structure of urban landscapes’, referred to above). Furthermore, the new exploration of morphological regionalization is expected to contribute to the development of a body of integrated and accessible knowledge of urban morphology across cultures and disciplines.

1.4.4 The Fringe-Belt Concept The fringe-belt concept had its origins in the recognition by Louis (1936) of the long-term significance of physical limitations on urban growth, notably city walls and the open zone beyond them upon which building was prohibited. Louis identifies, within the urban structure of Berlin, a number of land-use zones representing former peripheral urban uses encompassed by later accretions to the built-up area and separating older from younger residential areas. Their land use varied, especially according to position within the urban area: institutions, country houses and their parks, public utilities, recreational areas and allotment gardens were among existing or former uses. Three fringe belts were recognized and mapped: two continuous embedded belts, associated with former fortification zones, and a third less clearly defined belt (Whitehand 1988b). A quarter century later, Conzen (1960), in his study of Alnwick (Table 1.5), also identified three distinct belts (inner, middle and outer) but within a very small built-up area. His fundamental conceptual contribution was to incorporate fringe-belt patterns into an elaborate morphological theory of interactions between formative and transformative spatial processes of all kinds. As part of this, he developed an intricate

16

V. Oliveira

Table 1.5 Applications of the fringe-belt concept up to 2009 (Source MP Conzen 2009b)

* Corresponding to period studied; otherwise the modern size (in brackets); various sources. ** In 1911, the nearest available date corresponding to the Manchester fringe belt map. ¶ Dates in brackets indicate time of survey or terminal date of study, when indicated by author. † With special reference to landscape parks or ornamental villas or both. § The period studied is 1541–1960, while the effective date chosen here for mapping fringe belts in Morelia is 1700.

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

17

classification of processes in fringe-belt formation and subsequent modification in Alnwick. He later applied this to the inner fringe belt (IFB) of central Newcastle upon Tyne (Conzen 1962), a much larger and morphologically more challenging case (MP Conzen 2009b). Whitehand published his first paper on fringe belts in the mid-1960s. The main innovation of this paper was its focus on a whole conurbation. Whitehand (1967) offered a ‘reading’ of the development of a number of fringe belts within the Tyneside conurbation, giving special attention to Newcastle (Fig. 3.1 in Chap. 3). He recognized a set of general principles underlying this development, particularly in respect of the changes that take place in fringe belts after they cease to be at the fringe of the built-up area. He recognized phases of fringe-belt formation and modification, an interpretation subsequently taken up by Barke (1974). In the 1970s, Whitehand added an economic dimension to the spatial perspective that had dominated research on fringe belts during the 1960s (Ünlü 2013). He proposed a model of the conversion of land use, from rural to urban, focusing particularly on the location of new areas of housing in relation to institutions, a major land use in fringe belts (Whitehand 1972a). This model was applied in the city of Glasgow. In addition, Whitehand (1972b) offered a systematic integration of a number of ideas derived from urban-rent theory and the analysis of building cycles in a morphological view of the development of land-use patterns. Whitehand (1975) continued to explore fluctuations in building activity and intensity of development at the urban fringe, focusing on Kensington, London, in the nineteenth century (Fig. 1.5). The topic of innovation was also increasingly addressed in his research at this time and was later incorporated in simplified schematic representations (Fig. 1.6). The economic perspective continued to be explored, notably by Barke (1990), Openshaw (1974) and Vilagrasa (1990). ‘The changing face of cities’ (Whitehand 1987b) brought together Whitehand’s research on development cycles and urban form, with a particular concern for fringe belts. In the following year, Whitehand (1988b) reviewed the origins, development and diffusion of the fringe-belt concept. He considered the significance of the physi-

Fig. 1.5 Hypothetical variations in the size of new plots developed in relation to time and distance from the city centre (Source Whitehand 1975)

18

V. Oliveira

Fig. 1.6 An innovation/building cycle model (Source Whitehand 2001, based upon Whitehand 1994)

cal delimitations of urban areas in the early development of the concept and explored aspects of fringe belts that have a bearing on townscape management. In addition, he identified a social perspective, complementary to the spatial and the economic perspectives exemplified by Slater (1978) and Carter and Wheatley (1979). Two papers published more than two decades later would offer new comprehensive reviews of the concept, MP Conzen (2009b)—providing a cross-cultural comparison, and Ünlü (2013)—structuring research according to four dominant perspectives. While no significant advances in the concept can be traced in the 1990s (except for some international diffusion, as exemplified by von der Dollen 1990 and RodrigoCervantes 1999), a new perspective was offered by Whitehand in the 2000s—an explicit concern for agency and planning. This was applied in the study of Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt (Whitehand and Morton 2003, 2004, 2006). Whitehand and Morton (2003) addressed the decision-making of those influencing fringe-belt plots and the significance of fringe belts for planning. They started by exploring the physical attributes of the plots of the Edwardian fringe belt (Table 1.6), moving on to consider the pressures for change to which these plots have been subjected and the main conservative forces that have resisted such pressures. They also explored the fringe-belt concept as a planning instrument, addressing the role of informal discussions between developers and the local authority, and within the local authority, and the roles of third parties in the process of landscape change (Whitehand and Morton 2004). Not least, Whitehand and Morton (2006) related the fringe-belt phenomenon to broader socio-economic changes in recent decades. As in the case of the morphological region, in recent years Whitehand has been exploring the application of the fringe-belt concept in Eastern Asia (MP Conzen et al. 2012; Whitehand et al. 2011a, b; Whitehand and Gu 2017). Two of these papers examine Pingyao, comparing Chinese and European contexts, and there have

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

19

Table 1.6 Physical characteristics of Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt and neighbouring housing zones in 1995 (Whitehand and Morton 2003) Edwardian fringe belta Late Victorian and Edwardian housing zoneb

Interwar housing zonec

0

90

95

10.04 5.64 0.37–64.22

0.04 0.02 0.01–0.27

0.03 0.03 0.02–0.05

3.8 1.0 0–25

33.1 34.0 7–58

16.3 15.0 12–25

9.8 4.0 0–70

47.9 44.0 9–92

24.6 24.5 14–33

Mean Median Range

5 0 0–40

137 152 93–160

131 121 100–163

Road crossings (number per km)

1.7

8.2

8.1

Plot shape (% rectilinear) Plot size (ha) Mean Median Range Building coverage (%) Mean Median Range Hard surface (%) Mean Median Range Road length (m per ha)

a 28

sample plots (road length based on 10 random sample squares) random sample plots (road length based on 10 random sample squares) c 20 random sample plots (road length based on 10 random sample squares) b 15

been applications in two other continents (Table 1.5). A third paper describes an application to Nanjing (Whitehand and Gu 2017), exploring one of the elements that has been dominant in the origin and early development of the concept, fixation lines associated with city walls. The Nanjing case study offers the opportunity for discussion of a fringe belt related to one of the world’s longest and most massive city walls (Fig. 1.7). The concept of fringe belt is further developed in this book by Michael Barke in Chap. 3 (including a comprehensive debate on the 1967 paper and on the group of articles published in the early 1970s, to name just a few). That chapter examines in detail Whitehand’s contribution to the theoretical development of fringe belt studies, the critiques of his approach, and his contribution to the recognition of fringe belts in the ‘applied’ planning arena. Finally, the chapter provides a self-reflective account of the influence of Whitehand on Barke’s career and research interests, especially in relation to fringe belts.

20

V. Oliveira

Fig. 1.7 Fringe belts of Nanjing (Source Whitehand and Gu 2017)

1.4.5 Agents of Change Although the role of agency, individual and institutional, has been implicit in a great deal of work in the field of urban morphology, it was Whitehand who, at the beginning of the 1980s, started to make it more explicit (Samuels 2014). Indeed, despite the existence of studies of the physical changes in town centres in Britain (Whitehand 1979) and the policies and decisions of the local planning authorities influencing those

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

21

changes, the roles of the numerous individuals, firms and organizations involved in the ownership, design and implementation of changes to the building fabric remained, until the beginning of the 1980s, largely unexplored. Against this background, Whitehand and Whitehand (1983) proposed an innovative research framework—including the research procedures, the types of change and the types of agents—for rectifying this deficiency. The research framework was applied in the study of physical changes to the commercial cores, or centres, of two British towns, Northampton and Watford, since the First World War. Drawing on building plan applications submitted to local authorities as the main data source (something that had been proposed in a previous paper—Aspinall and Whitehand 1980), the authors analysed the various types of physical change undergone by the

Fig. 1.8 Distribution of major rebuildings, additions and structural alterations in the central areas of Watford and Northampton (Source Whitehand and Whitehand 1983)

22

V. Oliveira

two centres, especially rebuildings, additions to existing buildings and structural changes (Fig. 1.8). These changes were then analysed as the product of numerous chains of decision-making, which normally involved initiators, architects and builders. In the subsequent year, a further paper was published that continued to explore the results of the study of the same two towns (Whitehand and Whitehand 1984). This paper amplified a number of topics that were implicit in the previous paper; namely the variations between the two towns, the timing of the changes and the changing interrelationships between the agents and, finally, the provenance of the agents (Fig. 1.9). At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, Whitehand enlarged his territorial focus from commercial cores to low-density residential areas (Whitehand 1988a, 1989, 1990; Whitehand and Larkham 1991). This new focus enabled Whitehand (1988a) to address piecemeal townscape change within the lineaments of

Fig. 1.9 Percentage of building plan applications in the central areas of Watford and Northampton involving initiators, architects and builders from various locations (Source Whitehand and Whitehand 1984)

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

23

Table 1.7 Comparison between initial approval and actual development in areas in South East England and the English Midlands (Source Whitehand and Larkham 1991) Development type

Type of difference

Different

Demolition Density

Same

Applicant Access

Building type

Different

Same

Amersham

5

13

2

4

2

3

12

6

Epsom

12

19

4

7

2

8

12

19

South East

17

32

6

11

4

11

24

25

Gibbet Hill 5

9

0

4

1

1

9

5

Tettenhall

8

40

2

7

4

3

10

39

Midlands

13

49

2

11

5

4

19

44

existing patterns of streets and plots (the study of change in commercial cores was mainly centred on buildings). Other aspects of this paper were the consideration of the role of local authorities as agents and the examination of conflicting interests. In the same year, addressing the agents and types of change in conservation areas, Larkham (1998) identified the existence of two main groups of agents, direct agents (principally the initiators of plans and their architects) and indirect agents (including local authorities and the public). While a brief comparison with the findings on commercial cores and an exploration of the theme of conflict had been outlined by Whitehand (1990), a more consolidated view is offered by Whitehand and Larkham (1991). Both themes (comparison between different areas and conflict) are structured around the topics of development pressure, influence of local authorities, attempts to obtain more profitable approvals, and interactions between applicants and local authorities (Whitehand and Larkham 1991) (Table 1.7). In 1992, Whitehand further enlarged the territorial focus of research, adding institutional and public areas to commercial cores and residential areas, and extending the temporal focus back to the mid-nineteenth century (Whitehand 1992b). At the beginning of the 1990s, a synthesis of this line of research was offered (Whitehand 1992c; Whitehand et al. 1992). This provided a number of conclusions: (i) timing is important for the success and character of proposals of change; (ii) economic factors are fundamental to the decision-making of developers; (iii) in terms of the provenance of agents, there has been a long-term increase in the role played by non-local firms; (iv) governmental control over development, concerned as it is primarily with physical standards, has paid little heed to the appearance of the built environment; (v) conflict between the forces of preservation and change is endemic to much of the process of development and attempted development; (vi) many more urban landscapes exist on paper than ever come into being on the ground; (vii) more frenetic activity (or greater building density) does not necessarily entail more obtrusive development; (viii) infill and piecemeal redevelopment often require the employment of particular ‘ingenuity’ if the visual environment of neighbouring occupiers, and cumulatively the visual environment of the larger community, is not to be adversely affected; and, finally, (ix) the decision-making process that leads to devel-

24

V. Oliveira

opment consists of a number of poorly coordinated activities. In the second half of the 1980s, a number of theses supervised by Whitehand fed this debate on the agents of change (Booth 1989; Freeman 1986; Larkham 1986; Pompa 1988; Thompson 1987). In addition, Vilagrasa (1992) offered a first international comparison based on this research framework with a study of the commercial cores of Worcester and Lleida (Spain). A decade later, Whitehand and Carr (2001) focused on England’s interwar suburbs, paying particular attention to the geographical reach and the scale of operation of firms, and analysing in unusual detail the role of one type of agent, the architects, in the creation of these suburbs. The crucial role of Whitehand within this strand of research has been recently acknowledged in a book dedicated to him: ‘Shapers of urban form’ (Larkham and Conzen 2014). The chapter ‘A new vision: the role of municipal authorities and planners in replanning Britain after the Second World War’ (Larkham (2014) is an excellent example of work within the line of research that had been inaugurated by Whitehand three decades earlier. The theme of agents of change is further developed in this book by Peter Larkham in Chap. 4. Larkham offers more evidence on the fundamental role of Whitehand on this theme, after the major study of Northampton and Watford (mentioned above), where he rigorously explored data sources, processes and decision-makers (individual, corporate and structural). As Larkham reminds us, over the next decades, this new direction in morphological study would come to dominate, both directly and indirectly, much of the academic literature on urban form and is still significant. Similarly, Whitehand’s influence remains significant, both through his own continuing work on China (also explored in Chap. 2), and also in the still-growing body of research exploring the micro- and macro-morphology of how and why urban places change.

1.4.6 Comparative Studies As Whitehand (2009a) argues, comparison of the findings of different research projects is a major problem in most fields. In the social sciences, and especially in the humanities, projects are often designed with insufficient thought being given to how their findings may be related to those of other studies. In urban morphology, problems of comparison are made more difficult by the fact that research is undertaken within several disciplines and published in a great many languages. The frames of reference employed are very diverse. Only in the case of a relatively small number of studies that adopt the same definitions and methods, there is a reasonable prospect that reliable and rigorous comparisons of findings can be made. Whitehand (2009c) argues for expending more effort in seeking bases for wider comparisons not only between studies adopting the same morphological approach but also between studies adopting different approaches.

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

25

Despite some initial efforts in the 1980s (Slater and Whitehand 1988; Whitehand 1981b), the promotion of the topic of comparative studies only regained impetus within the last decade. MP Conzen (2009b) and Whitehand (2009b) explored the utilization of the same morphological approach in different geographical contexts. In an unusually wide-ranging review of work on fringe belts, MP Conzen (2009b) compared more than 40 applications of the concept in cities over a wide geographical compass. Similarly, Whitehand (2009b) provided an extensive review of applications of the concept of morphological region: by Conzen, between the late 1950s and the late 1980s; by Whitehand or by PhD students under his supervision, from the late 1980s onwards; and by a growing number of researchers in different parts of the world. This comparative study underlined the potential of the concept of morphological region in the study and design of the physical form of cities, but also warned of the need for great sensitivity to the specific dynamics of each urban area and for procedures to be undertaken to facilitate comparability of results, such as the use of the same level of resolution in the delimitation of the different regions. Kropf (2009), Oliveira et al. (2015) and Whitehand et al. (2014) undertook comparative studies of different morphological approaches. Kropf (2009) developed a critical analysis of a set of fundamental texts on the historico-geographical approach, the process typological approach, space syntax and spatial analysis. Oliveira et al. (2015) developed the line of research launched by Kropf. They selected one concept for each approach and applied the four concepts in a single case study in the city of Porto, Portugal. Whitehand et al. (2014) applied the concepts of typological process and morphological period first in England and then in China, over the period from the mid-nineteenth century to the late twentieth century, considering: (i) sequences of ordinary residential building types that are recognized in each of the two areas; (ii) periods characterized by different types and connections between those types; and (iii) areas that are different in both their building types and their ‘periodizations’ but in which commonalities in their processes of change are found. The theme of comparative studies is further developed in this book by Karl Kropf in Chap. 5. Kropf argues that the rigour of urban morphology derives to a significant degree from the active use of comparison as a core part of its methodology. As such, comparison is used not just in explicit comparative studies but in a thoroughgoing way at a number of different levels. Over his long career, Whitehand has made a significant contribution to the rigour of urban morphology through his clarity of language and terminology, consistent reference to testable general principles and his high standards of scholarship. In particular, the chapter takes Whitehand’s work on plan units, suburban transformations and the fringe belt as topics to explore the different uses of comparison. The chapter concludes by taking lessons from Whitehand’s work that point to ways in which urban morphology can consolidate and extend its contribution to our understanding of cities.

26

V. Oliveira

1.4.7 The Relationship Between Research and Practice Bringing the topic of research and practice to the centre of the morphological agenda is another fundamental aspect of Whitehand’s contribution to the construction of the historico-geographical approach. In the last fifteen years, he has helped to bridge the gap between research and practice in a number of ways: in several editorials in the journal ‘Urban Morphology’ (Whitehand 2000, 2007b, 2013), in his participation in the ISUF Task Force on Research and Practice (Samuels 2013), and in exploration of the use of the concepts of morphological region and fringe belt in professional practice (Whitehand 2009b). As Whitehand (2007b) has reminded us, the weak relationship between research and practice is an acknowledged problem in a number of fields. The existence of research and policy in largely separate worlds is to some extent ‘institutionalized’ in that organizations are often either largely to do with research and scholarship or mainly concerned with public and/or private practice. In the case of the built environment, it may seem self-evident that the production of new urban forms and, even more obviously, the modification and conservation of existing ones should be grounded on an understanding of present urban forms and their past development. But this elementary requirement frequently remains unfulfilled (Whitehand 2013). In the case of urban morphology and architectural and planning practice, the mutual isolation is broken by the occasional ‘guest lecture’ from across the divide, or when government planning officials join the steering committees of research projects, or, perhaps potentially more effectively, when academic researchers become involved in development projects. But such occurrences are too infrequent to have more than a minor influence on the bulk of urban landscape development (Whitehand 2000). Against this background, and after half a year of intense debate, in mid-2012 the ISUF Task Force on Research and Practice prepared a report containing four recommendations (Samuels 2013): (i) the preparation of a manifesto, or charter, to communicate in a simple and direct way to planning practitioners what urban morphology has to offer to planning practice; (ii) the collection of relevant information on how urban morphology is included in different courses within different countries; (iii) the collection of good practices of how and where urban morphology is being used successfully (Maretto and Scardigno 2016; Oliveira et al. 2014); and (iv) the preparation of urban morphology manuals (Kropf 2017; Oliveira 2016). In the mid-2000s, Jeremy and Susan Whitehand had the opportunity to apply the concepts of morphological region and fringe belt in a parish plan in the UK (Whitehand 2009b), as described in Sect. 1.4.3 and in Chap. 6. The relation between research and practice is further developed in this book by Ivor Samuels in Chap. 6. Samuels considers the impact of Whitehand’s work on practice in three ways: (i) through publications in specialist and professional journals and the extent to which the concepts presented in this work have been adopted in practice; (ii) through advisory contributions to government and non-governmental official bodies, nationally and internationally, and their reception and the degree to which they have been incorporated in the policies of these agencies; and (iii) through

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

27

supervision of students who have gone on to practise privately and in national and local government, in particular students from different disciplines who followed more generalist master’s degrees in urban design by research in urban morphology. The chapter includes a brief discussion of the Barnt Green Local Plan, referred to above.

1.5 Conclusion Drawing on the idea—widely accepted among urban morphologists—that it was Conzen who launched the basis for an historico-geographical theory of urban form in the middle of the twentieth century, it has been argued in this chapter that it was Whitehand who effectively structured a school of urban morphological thought grounded on that invaluable basis. Over half a century, Whitehand has been a key contributor to the definition of urban morphology as a field of knowledge and, within it, to the establishment of the historico-geographical approach, proposing and refining a number of morphological theories, concepts and methods. The foundation of the UMRG in Birmingham in the early 1970s, two years after the retirement of Conzen in Newcastle upon Tyne, would be decisive in this process, as would his contribution to the inauguration of ISUF, and the foundation in the mid-1990s of the journal ‘Urban Morphology’, which offered a truly international stage for debate on urban form. Over the following decades, Whitehand would define an effective morphological agenda including themes such as comparative studies, the relation between research and practice, and the agents of change. From the end of the 1980s onwards, Whitehand would systematically develop the concept of morphological region in a direct way, through his own research work, and in an indirect way, through the supervision of PhD students. Finally, it is fitting to refer to the role of Whitehand in the development of the fringe-belt concept, exploring new aspects of its spatial dimension, adding economic and planning perspectives, and confirming its validity in different geographical contexts. Acknowledgements I owe an incalculable debt to Professor Jeremy Whitehand. Over the last fifteen years, in a direct way (through personal conversations or through email correspondence) and in an indirect way (through his notable and extensive work), Jeremy Whitehand has been my main influence in the field of urban morphology. More particularly, I should like to thank him for providing detailed and indispensable information for writing Chap. 1 and for recording ‘An interview with Professor JWR Whitehand’ in the University of Birmingham in October 2016. The idea for editing this book emerged in that week that I have spent in Newcastle upon Tyne, Alnwick and Birmingham. For that, I should also like to thank the warm hospitality of Susan and Jeremy Whitehand, and of Vivienne and Michael Barke.

28

V. Oliveira

References Aspinall PJ, Whitehand JWR (1980) Building plans: a major source for urban studies. Area 12:199–203 Baker NJ, Slater TR (1992) Morphological regions in English medieval towns. In: Whitehand JWR, Lakham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 43–68 Barke M (1974) The changing urban fringe of Falkirk: some morphological implications of urban growth. Scott Geogr Mag 90:85–97 Barke M (1990) Morphogenesis, fringe belts and urban size. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities: essays for MRG Conzen on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 279–299 Barke M (2003) Urban landscape regions and conservation: new approaches and problems in Antequerra, Málaga Province, Spain. Urban Morphol 7:3–13 Barrett HJ (1996) Townscape changes and local planning management in city conservation areas: the example of Birmingham and Bristol. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Batty M, Longley P (1994) Fractal cities. Academic Press, London Bienstman H (2007) Morphological concepts and urban landscape management. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Booth PN (1989) Owners, solicitors and residential development: the case of a Manchester suburb. Unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Caniggia G, Maffei GL (1984) Composizione architettonica e tipologia edilizia II: il progetto nell’edilizia do base. Marsilio, Venice Carter H, Wheatley S (1979) Fixation lines and fringe belts, land uses and social areas. Trans Inst Br Geogr 4:214–238 Cataldi G, Maffei GL, Vaccaro P (2002) Saverio Muratori and the Italian school of planning typology. Urban Morphol 6:3–14 Chen C-H (2018) A military-related townscape: the case of Zuoying, Taiwan. Urban Morphol 22:53–68 Conzen MP (2001) The study of urban form in the United States. Urban Morphol 5:3–14 Conzen MP (2009a) Conzen MRG 1960: Alnwick, Northumberland—response. Prog Hum Geog 33:862–864 Conzen MP (2009b) How cities internalize their former urban fringes: a cross-cultural comparison. Urban Morphol 13:29–54 Conzen MP, Gu K, Whitehand JWR (2012) Comparing traditional urban form in China and Europe: a fringe-approach. Urban Geogr 33:22–45 Conzen MRG (1958) The growth and character of Whitby. In: Daysh GHJ (ed) A survey of Whitby and the surrounding area. Shakespeare Head Press, Eton, pp 49–89 Conzen MRG (1960) Alnwick Northumberland. George Philip, London Conzen MRG (1962) The plan analysis of an English city centre. In: Norborg K (ed) Proceedings of the IGU symposium in urban geography Lund 1960. Lund, pp 383–414 Conzen MRG (1975) Geography and townscape conservation. In: Uhlig H, Lienau C (eds) AngloGerman symposium in applied geography, Giessen-Würzburg-München. Lenz, Giessen, pp 95–102 Conzen MRG (1988) Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape. In: Denecke D, Shaw G (eds) Urban historical geography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 253–272 Dargan P (1997) The Norman town in Ireland. UMRG, Birmingham von der Dollen B (1990) An historico-geographical perspective on urban fringe-belt phenomena. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities: essays for MRG Conzen on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 319–345 Freeman M (1986) The nature and agents of central-area change. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

29

Gu K (2010) Urban morphological regions and urban landscape management: the case of central Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Des Int 15:148–164 Higgins JP (1996) Industrialisation and urban morphogenesis, the economics of capitalism and the production of urban space in nineteenth-century Newtown. UMRG, Birmingham Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Jones AN (1991) The management of residential townscapes. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Kropf KS (1993) An inquiry into the definition of built form in urban morphology. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Kropf KS (1996) An alternative approach to zoning in France: typology, historical character and development control. Eur Plan Stud 4:717–737 Kropf KS (1997) ISUF 1996. Urban Morphol 1:65–67 Kropf KS (2009) Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphol 13:105–120 Kropf KS (2017) Handbook of urban morphology. Wiley, London Larkham PJ (1986) Conservation, planning and morphology in West Midlands conservation areas 1968–84. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Larkham PJ (1998) Urban morphology and typology in the United Kingdom. In: Petruccioli A (ed) Typological process and design theory. Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, Cambridge, pp 159–178 Larkham PJ (1988) Agents and types of change in the conserved townscape. Trans Inst Br Geogr 13:148–164 Larkham PJ (2014) A new vision: the role of municipal authorities and planners in replanning Britain after the Second World War. In: Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, New York, pp 230–250 Larkham PJ, Morton N (2011) Drawing lines on maps: morphological regions and planning practices. Urban Morphol 15:133–151 Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) (2014) Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, New York Lennard DG (1960) Sports profile: Jeremy Whitehand. The Shell May 10th, p 8 Levy A (1999) Urban morphology and the problem of the modern urban fabric: some questions for research. Urban Morphol 3:79–85 Lilley KD (1995) Medieval coventry. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Lilley KD (1999) Norman towns in southern England. UMRG, Birmingham Louis H (1936) Die geographische Gliederung von Gross-Berlin. Engelhorn, Stuttgart, pp 146–171 Maretto M, Scardigno N (2016) Muratorian urban morphology: the walled city of Ahmedabad. Urban Morphol 20:18–33 Merlin P, Alfonso E, Choay F (eds) (1988) Morphologie urbaine et parcellaire. Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, Saint-Denis Monteiro C (2017) Publishing an urban morphological classic. Urban Morphol 21:181–182 Moudon AV (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphol 1:3–10 Oliveira V (2016) An interview with Professor JWR Whitehand. University of Birmingham, Birmingham Oliveira V, Monteiro C (2013) What is Urban morphology made of? Urban Morphol 17:118–120 Oliveira V, Silva M, Samuels I (2014) Urban morphological research and planning practice: a Portuguese assessment. Urban Morphol 18:23–39 Oliveira V, Monteiro C, Partanen J (2015) A comparative study of urban form. Urban Morphol 19:73–92 Openshaw S (1974) A theory of the morphological and functional development of the townscape in an historical context, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Seminar Paper 24 Pompa ND (1988) The nature and agents of change in the residential townscape. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK

30

V. Oliveira

Rodrigo-Cervantes NE (1999) The concept of the fringe belt in a Mexican city. In: Corona R, Maffei GL (eds) Transformations of urban form. Alinea, Firenze FK2, pp 16–20 Samuels I (2013) ISUF task force on research and practice in Urban morphology. Urban Morphol 17:40–43 Samuels I (2014) Foreword. In: Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, New York, pp xxi–xxiv Siksna A (1997) The evolution of block size and form in North American and Australian city centres. Urban Morphol 1:19–33 Slater TR (1978) Family, society and the ornamental villa on the fringes of English country towns. J Hist Geogr 4:129–144 Slater TR (ed) (1990) The built form of western cities: essays for MRG Conzen on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Leicester University Press, Leicester Slater TR, Whitehand JWR (1988) A filmed interview with MRG Conzen. In: Annual conference of the institute of british geographers, Loughborough, UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 1YqSQ8luEng Thompson IA (1987) An investigation into the development of the building fabric of Huddersfield’s CBD 1869–1939. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Ünlü T (2013) Thinking about urban fringe belts: a Mediterranean perspective. Urban Morphol 17:5–20 Vilagrasa J (1990) The fringe-belt concept in a Spanish context. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities: essays for MRG Conzen on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 300–308 Vilagrasa J (1992) Recent change in two historical city centres: an Anglo-Spanish comparison. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (ed) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 266–296 Whitehand JWR (1964) Settlement patterns in the Chilterns. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK Whitehand JWR (1965) Building types as a basis for settlement classification. In: Whittow JB, Wood PD (eds) Essays in geography for Austin Miller. University of Reading, Reading, pp 291–305 Whitehand JWR (1967) Fringe belts: a neglected aspect of urban geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 41:223–233 Whitehand JWR (1969) Traditional building materials in the Chilterns: a survey based on random sampling. Oxoniensia 32:1–9 Whitehand JWR (1972a) Building cycles and the spatial pattern of urban growth. Trans Inst Br Geogr 56:39–55 Whitehand JWR (1972b) Urban-rent theory, time series and morphogenesis: an example of eclectism in geographical research. Area 4:214–222 Whitehand JWR (1975) Building activity and intensity of development at the urban fringe: the case of a London suburb in the nineteenth century. J Hist Geogr 1:211–224 Whitehand JWR (1977) The basis for an historico-geographical theory of urban form. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 2:400–416 Whitehand JWR (1979) The study of variations in the building fabric of town centres: procedural problems and preliminary findings in southern Scotland. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 4:559–575 Whitehand JWR (ed) (1981a) The urban landscape: historical development and management; Papers by MRG Conzen. Academic Press, London Whitehand JWR (1981b) Conzenian ideas: extension and development. In: Whitehand JWR (ed) The urban landscape: historical development and management; Papers by MRG Conzen. Academic Press, London, pp 127–152 Whitehand JWR (1987a) MRG Conzen and the intellectual parentage of urban morphology. Plan Hist Bull 9:35–41 Whitehand JWR (1987b) The changing face of cities: a study of development cycles and urban form. Blackwell, Oxford

1 An Introduction to the Work of JWR Whitehand

31

Whitehand JWR (1988a) The changing urban landscape: the case of London’s high-class residential fringe. Geogr J 154:351–366 Whitehand JWR (1988b) Urban fringe belts: development of an idea. Plan Perspect 3:47–58 Whitehand JWR (1989) Residential development under restraint: a case study in London’s ruralurban fringe. University of Birmingham School of Geography Occasional Publication 28 Whitehand JWR (1990) Makers of the residential landscape: conflict and change in outer London. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 15:87–101 Whitehand JWR (1992a) Recent advances in urban morphology. Urban Stud 29:619–636 Whitehand JWR (1992b) The makers of British towns: architects, builders and property owners, c 1850–1939. J Hist Geogr 18:417–438 Whitehand JWR (1992c) The making of the urban landscape. Basil Blackwell, Oxford Whitehand JWR (1994) Development cycles and urban landscapes. Geography 79:3–17 Whitehand JWR (2000) From explanation to prescription. Urban Morphol 4:1–2 Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphol 5:103–109 Whitehand JWR (2007a) Conzenian urban morphology and urban landscapes. In: Sixth International Space Syntax Symposium, June, Istanbul, Turkey Whitehand JWR (2007b) Urban morphology and policy. Urban Morphol 11:79–80 Whitehand JWR (2009a) Conzen MRG 1960: Alnwick, Northumberland—Commentary 1. Progr Hum Geog 33:859–860 Whitehand JWR (2009b) The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice. Urban Morphol 13:5–27 Whitehand JWR (2009c) Comparing studies of urban form. Urban Morphol 13:87–88 Whitehand JWR (2012) Issues in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 16:55–65 Whitehand JWR (2013) Urban morphological research and practice. Urban Morphol 17:3–4 Whitehand JWR (2016a) Recent changes in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 20:3–4 Whitehand JWR (2016b) Bringing order to urban morphology? Urban Morphol 20:87–88 Whitehand JWR (2018) Urban morphology: how interdisciplinary? How international? Urban Morphol 22:3–4 Whitehand JWR, Carr CMH (2001) Twentieth-century suburbs. A morphological approach. Routledge:London Whitehand JWR, Whitehand SM (1983) The study of physical change in town centres: research procedures and types of change. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 8:483–507 Whitehand JWR, Whitehand SM (1984) The physical fabric of town centres: the agents of change. Trans Inst Br Geogr 9:231–247 Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (1991) Suburban cramming and development control. J Prop Res 8:147–159 Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) (1992) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2003) Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: an academic concept and planning practice. Environ Plan B Plan Des 30:819–839 Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2004) Urban morphology and planning: the case of fringe belts. Cities 21:275–289 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2006) Research on Chinese urban form: retrospect and prospect. Prog Hum Geogr 30:337–355 Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2006) The fringe-belt phenomenon and socioeconomic change. Urban Stud 43:2047–2066 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007a) Extending the compass of plan analysis: a Chinese exploration. Urban Morphol 11:91–109 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007b) Urban conservation in China: historical development, current practice and morphological approach. Town Plan Rev 78:643–670 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2017) Urban fringe belts: evidence from China. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci 44:80–99

32

V. Oliveira

Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ, Jones AN (1992) The changing suburban landscape in post-war England. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (ed) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 227–265 Whitehand JWR, Gu K, Whitehand SM (2011a) Fringe belts and socioeconomic change in China. Environ Plan B Plan Des 38:41–60 Whitehand JWR, Gu K, Whitehand SM, Zhang J (2011b) Urban morphology and conservation in China. Cities 28:171–185 Whitehand JWR, Gu K, Conzen MP, Whitehand S (2014) The typological process and the morphological period: a cross-cultural assessment. Environ Plan B Plan Des 41:512–533 Zhang J (2003) Planning, morphology and change in China’s conservation areas. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, UK Zhang J (2015) Urban morphological processes in China. Urban Morphol 19:35–56

Chapter 2

Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea Kai Gu

Abstract The question of how to articulate and represent the structure of the urban landscape has long been central to geographical urban morphology. Between the late 1950s and the late 1980s, MRG Conzen made a major contribution to the development of morphological regionalisation—the process of identifying and mapping urban morphological regions that is fundamental to the understanding of the structure and change of towns and cities. In the past two to three decades, the scope of research on morphological regionalisation has expanded both geographically, to include studies from diverse cultural regions and, professionally, to demonstrate its significance for planning and urban design. After a review of the origins and development of the idea of urban morphological regions, this chapter focuses on the research contributions by JWR Whitehand and his associates and followers to its recent advancement. Discussion of the concept includes its application and adaptation in different cultural regions and its potential and challenges in urban conservation. More recent explorations aim to extend the application of morphological regionalisation in the development of form-based zoning, urban design guidelines, urban redevelopment management and planning for social inclusion. Keywords Urban morphology · Urban morphological regions Urban conservation · Morphological coding · Urban design

2.1 Introduction It is a truism that aspirations, efforts and experiences of successive urban societies express themselves in the physical pattern of the urban landscape. Observable forms that make up the urban landscape—streets, buildings, spaces and other features—capture and hold important results of urban activities. The urban landscape is therefore a major source of aesthetic stimulus and historical knowledge and a principal means K. Gu (B) University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4_2

33

34

K. Gu

of emotional and practical orientation (Whitehand and Larkham 1992, p. 1). It is not surprising that the study of the urban landscape has long been an academic and professional interest. The study of the urban landscape, often known as ‘urban morphology’, has attracted researchers in a number of fields, including geography, architecture and planning. With regard to the history of urban morphology, its origins were largely within central European geography and it became a field of study towards the end of the nineteenth century (Whitehand 1981). Otto Schlüter in 1899 declared that ‘cultural landscapes’, which includes urban and rural landscapes, should be an object of scientific study parallel to the study of ‘natural landscapes’. Schlüter’s (1899a, b) work arguably marked the beginning of wider recognition of urban morphology—the study of the urban landscape as a field of scholarly investigation (Whitehand 2004, p. 3). According to German geographers, the objects that exist together in the landscape exist in interrelation (Conzen 1978; Kropf et al. 1996). They constitute a reality that is more than the sum of the constituent parts. The areal character they collectively express has form, structure and function, and hence position in a system that is subject to development (Sauer 1925, p. 321). The term ‘landscape’ is for some a key unitary conception within geography (Hartshorne 1939). Similar terms are ‘area’ and ‘region’. The geographical region is an area occupied by a singular combination of the earth’s phenomena constituting an open-ended spatial system of the geosphere characterised by material form, functional interactions, and subject to unceasing temporal change (Conzen 1978, p. 140). The concept of the region concerning the internal structure of an urban area is essentially a construct that emerged in the late nineteenth century. In an essay on Deutsche Stadtanlagen, published in 1894, Johannes Fritz used town plans to compare the physical forms of urban areas. Supported by his field-based research, Fritz recognised that a city is not an undifferentiated mass (Larkham and Conzen 2014, p. 5). It has a spatial structure that relates to the way in which it has grown. He delimited by broken lines the different layouts of which the city of Rostock was comprised. This exploratory work exemplifies the beginning of a potentially important research activity which is often referred to as urban morphological regionalisation: the recognition of the way in which urban landscapes are structured into unitary areas (Whitehand 2014). Between the late 1950s and the late 1980s, MRG Conzen made a major contribution to the development of morphological regionalisation. In his study of the English market town of Alnwick (Conzen 1960), he delimited plan units or distinctive areas of ground plan type that expressed the historical grain of the town. The plan, or two-dimensional layout, of an urban area was for him one of the three urban landscape components (or ‘form complexes’) of its morphological character, the other two being building form and pattern of land and building utilisation. In a subsequent study, based on the mapping of the results of earlier field surveys of several British towns, including Whithorn, Frodsham, Conway and Ludlow, he examined all three components in combination (Conzen 1966). The later development of that study (Conzen 1975) and a more detailed publication on the Anglo–Welsh border town of

2 Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea

35

Ludlow (Conzen 1988) comprised the core of Conzen’s thinking about morphological regionalisation and its significance for conservation planning (Whitehand 2009, p. 8). In the past two to three decades, the scope of research on morphological regionalisation has expanded both geographically, to include studies from diverse cultural regions and, professionally, to demonstrate its significance for planning and urban design. JWR Whitehand and his associates have been at the forefront in advancing morphological regionalisation. Their research is vital in the further substantiation and consolidation of the morphological idea. They have examined its new utilisation in a number of variants, its application and adaptation in different types of urban areas and different parts of the world, and its potential and challenges in urban conservation (Whitehand 2009). The structure of the urban landscape as represented in morphological regions conditions the opportunities for and constraints on change for the community and its members (Conzen 1978, p. 136). Recognising such unitary areas is not only part of the activity of discovering how urban landscapes are composed but it is also fundamental to planning and designing those landscapes in the future (Whitehand 2014). The more recent explorations aim to apply morphological regionalisation to the improvement of traditional zoning, urban design guidelines, urban redevelopment management and planning for social inclusion (Tian 2017; Gu 2018; Wang 2018).

2.2 MRG Conzen’s Contributions to the Development of Morphological Regionalisation The climax of the exploration of urban physical development and its structural result is the division of an urban area into morphological regions (Whitehand 2001, p. 106). In establishing the basic method of morphological regionalisation and the conceptual framework that underpins it, Conzen explored how the ground plan (or town plan) was itself made up of several elements: streets, plots and building block plans. The building form included structure, style and materials. The ground plan provided the framework for the buildings and the land and building utilisation, buildings being the containers of the covered part of the land utilisation. All the components derive their character from their historical and cultural contexts. The ground plan is the component most resistant to change, reflecting a major capital investment, particularly in the case of the street plan. Building forms tend to persist for a lengthy time span, but are more susceptible to adaptation and replacement. The pattern of land and building utilisation is the most subject to change (Conzen 2004, p. 124). The differences among the three components in their changes over time, combined with the respective characteristic forms according to the period in which they were created or adapted, are evident in the way in which the urban landscape is historically stratified (Whitehand et al. 2011). This stratification, reflecting the distinctive residues of past periods, varies from one part of an urban area to

36

K. Gu

Fig. 2.1 Ludlow old town: morphological regions (Source Conzen 2004)

another. It thereby gives rise to spatial groupings of form ensembles (Whitehand 2009, p. 8). Conzen demonstrated, especially in his study of Ludlow, how the way in which the urban landscape is historically stratified gives rise to a hierarchy of morphological regions (Conzen 1968, 1975, 1988, 2004). The initial stages of the method entail creating three maps (Fig. 2.1). These are maps of plan units (or plan-type areas), building type (or building form and fabric) and land utilisation (including building utilisation). The map of plan-type areas or plan units shows unitary areas delimited according to their ground plan, comprising site, street layout, plot pattern and building block plans. Based on plan analysis using a combination of field survey, analysis of historical ground plans and documentary records, this map is concerned only with a two-dimensional view. There is a hierarchy of areas, indicated by the strength of the boundaries between them. For example, the edge of the medieval town is a strong boundary (Conzen 2004). The map of building-type areas (building type being the three-dimensional physical form of the buildings) is based on sources similar to those for plan-type areas, with morphological periods being particularly important in categorising building types. Again there is a hierarchy of areas, or units, reflected in the thickness of the boundaries.

2 Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea

37

The integration of these three maps provides a delimitation of morphological regions. These regions are a composite of the areas delimited on the previous maps. However, they are not delimited simply by superimposition of the three maps (Kropf et al. 1996) that would lead to a confused pattern that failed to represent the way in which the physical character of the townscape has developed and the distinct identities of its various parts. Reconciliation of the boundaries between the different maps requires understanding the contributions that ground plan, building form and land and building utilisation make to the urban landscape (Kropf et al. 1996). In the case of Ludlow, these regions embody a large number of social and economic processes over time—spanning in this case over 1000 years. They range, for example, from the concentration of power in the castle to the trading activities of the medieval marketplace and, in more recent times, the recreational activities embodied in green spaces in parts of the fringe belt outside the town wall. The medieval core is a dominant feature, reflected in a first-order boundary. The commercial core within the medieval core is a second-order boundary. Conzen (1966, 1975) first discussed the application of urban morphology in urban conservation in the 1960s and 1970s. The argument for using morphological regionalisation as one of the bases for conservation planning rests to a considerable extent on the value of the urban landscape as a source of experience (Whitehand 2009). The morphological regions provide a framework for establishing the nature and intensity of the historical expressiveness of various parts of an urban area (Conzen 1975, p. 98). The historical expressiveness of the urban landscape is fundamental to formulating proposals for conservation. Morphological regionalisation is an integrated approach in which emphasis is placed on how the various components of the landscape fit together—the emphasis is on landscapes as integrated entities rather than as remarkable bits and pieces: it is not primarily about individual buildings and sites—it is about ensembles. On the basis of the recognition of the problems in preservation planning, especially the treating of the historical urban landscape as a loose assemblage of special buildings without considering its coherence or context, Conzen argued that instead of speaking merely of preservation, it might be better to use the term landscape management as being less suggestive of restriction to physical preservation of particular landscape elements (Conzen 1966, p. 59). In the past two to three decades, morphological regionalisation has been continuously pursued by urban morphologists. In conjunction with the International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF) and the Urban Morphology Research Group (UMRG) based at Birmingham University, Whitehand and his associates have played a pivotal role in advancing, coordinating and advocating international research on morphological regions. They have explored its significance for the understanding of urban landscape history (Baker and Slater 1992), its cross-cultural application (Barke 2003; Conzen 2007), its use in area-based conservation planning (Jones 1991; Barrett 1996; Morton 2002; Bienstman 2007; Larkham and Morton 2011) and urban planning and coding (Kropf 2011; Gu 2014).

38

K. Gu

2.3 JWR Whitehand’s Ideas and Their Influence JWR Whitehand’s contribution to the development of the idea of urban morphological regions is part of his wider academic leadership and scholarly achievement, especially in consolidating and promoting urban morphological research. His work, including some 200 publications, has been most significant for the development of a body of integrated and accessible knowledge of urban morphology across cultures and disciplines. Whitehand’s studies of morphological regionalisation have particularly focused on strengthening morphological research and planning practice, and the cross-cultural application of morphological theory (the two issues are also explored in Chaps. 5 and 6). The earliest published research by Whitehand that directly discussed morphological regions may be traced back to the late 1980s. In an investigation of residential development in London’s urban–rural fringe, he presented a comprehensive study of the adaptation and renewal of Amersham—a town situated some 42 km north-west of the centre of London (Whitehand 1989). In his discussion of townscape management, Whitehand includes a map of morphological regions (referred to here as ‘townscape units’) in part of east-central Amersham (Whitehand 1989, p. 13). He exemplifies the way in which such units ‘objectivate the spirit of society’, to use Conzen’s expression. The development of one of these units is examined in terms of its rural antecedents, the aims of a local housebuilder in relation to those antecedents and the challenges presented to the various agents of change (notably developers and planners) engaged in future development. This approach to morphological regions in relation to townscape management is elaborated in Whitehand (1990). Whitehand’s research on morphological regionalisation in the following two decades is meticulously summarised in his paper, published in 2009, entitled ‘The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice’. Following a comprehensive review of the development of the idea, a number of examples of regionalisation of historical urban cores and suburban areas are presented. The new application and adaptation of the idea are illustrated in the case studies that were developed by either himself or his PhD students in the 1990s and 2000s (Jones 1991; Barrett 1996; Bienstman 2007). Whitehand has made it clear that the concept of morphological regions is a complex but important idea in geographical urban morphology, and its formulation and application have entailed much effort in data gathering and analysis. At the core of morphological regionalisation is the changing configuration of the physical form of cities over time (Whitehand 2009). Whitehand argues that Conzen has provided a widely applicable method, but it would be unrealistic to expect this to be developed to the point of allowing patterns of morphological regions to be precisely replicated by different researchers working independently in the same area (Whitehand 2009). Each morphological region tends to be historically influenced in two ways: first, through the environment provided by existing forms, especially their layout; secondly, by the way in which forms, most obviously buildings, though embodying the innovations of their period of construction, also embody characteristics ‘inherited’ from previous generations of forms. To

2 Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea

39

understand this process of creating a mosaic of morphological regions, it is necessary to appreciate not only the physical sequences of which the mosaic is a product but also the decision-making processes, planned and spontaneous, that it represents (Whitehand 2009). A large part of the paper is devoted to the significance of morphological regionalisation for urban conservation. It gives emphasis to the way in which urban morphological analysis and synthesis, expressed cartographically in terms of a hierarchy of morphological regions, can articulate and help to enhance that historical and geographical awareness that is such an important contributor to a healthy society (Whitehand 2009). But whether something merits special recognition for conservation is not necessarily self-evident, particularly in the case of an ensemble in which it is the relationship between the parts that is so important. Morphological regionalisation provides a more holistic approach to articulating the historical grain of an urban area. Since human appreciation of the landscape is principally by means of direct observation as people move through the landscape, the constituents of that landscape need to be represented accordingly. Landscapes need to be represented historicogeographically because this is fundamental to their meaningfulness as experiences (Whitehand 2012). However, discrepancies between delimitations by local authority planners and those produced by urban morphologists following in the tradition of urban morphological regionalisation are sometimes striking (Fig. 2.2). In the past decade or so, much of Whitehand’s work on morphological regionalisation has been undertaken in China, a country that has particularly acute conservation problems associated with its current explosive economic growth and consequent pressures for the redevelopment of its historical urban areas (Whitehand and Gu 2007a, b; Whitehand et al. 2011). In Whitehand and Gu’s study of Pingyao, a World Heritage Site designated by UNESCO in 1997, distinctive plan-type areas were delimited (Whitehand and Gu 2007a). This study highlights the importance in urban morphology of the use of those limited cartographical sources that are available in China, including their use in conjunction with field surveys and other sources of information. It also shows fundamental differences in the historical development of Chinese and European urban areas, especially relating to deep-seated cultural differences. The application of morphological regionalisation in area-based conservation planning, especially in delimiting the boundaries of character areas, has been the focus of investigation in Guangzhou (Whitehand et al. 2011). Contemporary urban conservation in China arose principally out of a re-awakening of interest in the country’s heritage in the late 1970s following widespread destruction of historical features during the Cultural Revolution. However, methods of urban conservation currently used have been derived principally from land-use planning. The vague criteria for identifying conservation areas and the inconsistency in delimiting their boundaries have been detrimental to the credibility of conservation planning and its efficient implementation. Using a combination of field survey and archival records, the three urban landscape components (ground plan, building form and land utilisation) are recorded and mapped for two study areas in Guangzhou. In this study, the term ‘urban landscape unit’ is used rather than ‘morphological region’ (as it may help to present an

40

K. Gu

Fig. 2.2 Local authority character areas in 1999 (in blue) and urban landscape units recognised by Bienstman in 2005 (in red) in central Alkmaar, The Netherlands (Source Whitehand 2009)

apposite image among a wider readership). Ground plan, building form and land utilisation combine at different levels of integration to form a hierarchy of units. Figure 2.3 shows three orders of units. The different types of first-order units are distinguished by different intensities of shading. In each study area, there is a major distinction between, on the one hand, traditional areas mainly comprised of pre-1949 plots and buildings and, on the other hand, areas redeveloped since 1949, where the traditional plot pattern and buildings, and occasionally traditional streets, have been effaced. The two maps in Fig. 2.3 provide a foundation for conservation planning. They depict fundamental aspects of the historico-geographical identity that should be conserved. The character of the various units is a basis for deciding conservation priorities (Whitehand et al. 2011). Whitehand’s morphological research on Chinese cities, which is primarily field and cartographic based, is ground breaking. For the first time, the physical form of Chinese cities is systematically examined based on plot-level information. The morphological explanation of the structuring of the Chinese urban landscape complements and diversifies the traditional cosmological and geomantic perspectives on

2 Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea

41

Fig. 2.3 Urban landscape units: a Hualinsi area and b Tongfuxilu area, Guangzhou (Source Whitehand et al. 2011)

historical cities in China. Similar to Whitehand’s studies of cities in other parts of the world, he places heavy reliance on the landscape form on the ground as a source of evidence in the study of Chinese cities. The process of his field investigation includes assembling sources (especially ground plans), determining the structure of database and field record codings, and plot-by-plot observing and recording. The systematic, rational and accurate field survey and subsequent mapping have formed a strong basis for the reconstruction of urban development processes. Urban morphological regions encapsulate many cultural assets that a society inherits from its predecessors. Delimited as they are by tangible features on the ground, morphological regions can be used to ensure that future changes are incorporated harmoniously into the existing landscape—they are germane to urban landscape management in general and conservation in particular (Whitehand 2009). The Conzenian approach to urban landscape management has been shown to be no less applicable to the pre-communist landscapes of Chinese cities than to the radically different European urban landscapes.

42

K. Gu

2.4 Strengthening Morphological Research and Planning Action The idea of morphological regions that uncovers the process of change is part of discovering possibilities for the future (Whitehand 2009). Increasing interest in morphological regionalisation in recent years has come from the field of planning and urban design. This has been so in relation to development coordination and control and in the creation of new built forms (Gu 2010, 2014, 2018; Kropf 2011). Area delimitation and boundary drawing are fundamental activities for planners and urban designers, for example, to specify areas within which particular policies apply (Larkham and Morton 2011). Morphological regionalisation has been involved in the exploration of alternatives to traditional zoning. Urban planners generally treat the city as a functional entity, classifying areas by use. The most common breakdown is land use (Scheer 2001, p. 28). However, current zoning regulations, mainly concerned with land use and building details, tend to be reactive and ineffective in guiding positive management of change to the historical urban landscape. Morphological codes use physical form rather than separation of uses as the organising principle (Kropf 2011). Methods of generating the codes, especially the identification of urban form divisions, recognise a spatial mixture of different period types and styles as a result of the dynamics of historico-geographical development. The creation of morphological codes and the adoption of the morphological approach within the statutory planning system are illustrated in a recent study of Auckland, New Zealand (Gu 2014). The management of urban landscape change is not solely about preservation. It includes the accommodation of new uses within traditional forms and the incorporation of new forms among traditional ones. While the character of the various morphological regions is a basis for deciding what in the landscape should be retained, it is also a starting point for the adaptation of existing structures and the design of new ones. The inherently historico-geographical approach is consistent with the tenets of the Muratorian architectural school in which forms in the city are seen in terms of an evolutionary process that provides the key to the design of new structures (Maretto 2005). 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 elements—ground plan, building fabric and land and building utilisation. Research publications on the significance of urban morphology for urban design practice began to be explored from the 1980s onwards (Gu 2018). Research on the composite structure of the urban landscape has served as a basis for developing urban design proposals (Maretto 2005) and form-based development plans (Hall 2008). In particular, the morphological regions, as the product of urban development processes, have been used to support the formation of design guidelines that contribute to urban spatial continuity and integrity (Gu 2018). Much of what has been achieved in urban morphology has entailed developing the understanding of the form of cities. But much the same methods can be used as bases

2 Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea

43

for planning and urban design. The processes of improving urban environments need to benefit from experience and much of that experience is encapsulated in the urban landscape. A historico-geographical approach to the urban landscape is essential for the identification and characterisation of certain landscapes for both conservation and other changes.

2.5 Conclusion The origin of the idea of regions in geography can be traced back to the beginning of the subject as an organised field of knowledge (Hartshorne 1939). Fundamental to the idea of regions is the notion that there is an element of order in the Earth’s surface that they are, in some sense, regularities (Kropf et al. 1996). Indeed, it could be said that the concept of regions is inherently geographical in that the entire subject of geography is predicated on the fact that there are meaningful patterns in the way in which the Earth’s surface, including its cultural elements, is composed (Kropf et al. 1996). The recognition and delimitation of areas of morphological distinctiveness have been important in urban morphology since its beginning as a systematic field study (Whitehand 2009, p. 6). During the first three decades after the Second World War, MRG Conzen attached major importance to the concept of urban morphological regions (Kropf et al. 1996). Whitehand’s contribution to the development of the idea of urban morphological regions is related to his responses to the challenges facing urban morphology: including the need to promote comparative urban morphology and the poor relationship between research and practice. The concept of morphological regions allows for the careful specification and spatial demarcation of urban character, especially where there is strong heritage value. This has great potential for improving the quality of historical conservation programmes. Comparative urban morphology can contribute to the integration and development of the intellectual content of urban morphology and its methods. The conceptual constructs of urban morphology are complex. Clarification is not helped by the variety of morphological terminologies. For example, urban morphological regions are also referred to as ‘townscape regions’, ‘urban landscape regions’, ‘urban landscape units’, ‘townscape units’, ‘morphological units’ and ‘character areas’. The problem deserves more systematic attention. There are two glossaries of urban morphology: Larkham and Jones’s (1991) ‘A glossary of urban form’ and ‘Glossary of technical terms in urban morphology’ annexed to Conzen’s (2004) ‘Thinking about urban form’. Despite their relatively recent dates of publication, they are largely related with much earlier work (Marat-Mendes 2011). In light of this, ISUF has set up a task force to create an online didactic ‘morphopedia’ or urban morphological lexicon. It is expected to be developed so that concepts in urban morphology can be employed in a rigorous way and explain the intellectual architecture of the field as a systematic interdisciplinary approach to urban form MP Conzen (2011).

44

K. Gu

Whitehand recognised the lack of coordination between disciplines. Both research and practice have tended to be slow to benefit from integration of the different disciplinary strands of which the study of urban landscapes should be composed (Whitehand 2017). To some extent responding to this problem, Kropf et al. (1996) compare the urban morphological ideas of plan units and regions and the architectural typological concept of tissues. They argue that plan units and morphological regions are primarily explanatory, and only secondarily a planning tool. Tissue, in contrast, which was a notion conceived expressly with a view to application in architectural practice, is the product of a process whereby building types evolve. The links between typological and geographical–morphological thinking, both of which are concerned with the structure of urban form, require more research. Two current research projects that extend the thread of morphological regionalisation explored in this chapter are noteworthy. Wang (2018) seeks to relate urban morphology, including various aspects discussed in this chapter, to planning for spatial justice. The project examines the changing processes of social and physical reconfiguration of a social housing area in T¯amaki, Auckland. By incorporating morphological regionalisation, this project is expected to contribute to the development of spatial justice through articulating how such a conception can be related to analyses of cases of justice and injustice in planning practice. To enhance the practicality of urban redevelopment management, Yinsheng Tian, one of the earlier Chinese recruits to the Urban Morphology Research Group in Birmingham, explores the idea of urban management units (Tian 2017). He argues that the identification of property ownership units is not only to reveal the effects of planning decisions on landscape forms, but also to help identify effective strategies for urban redevelopment control. The combining, or integration, of the maps of character areas and property ownership units yields urban management units for the purpose of more accountable redevelopment control guidelines. Urban morphological regions have been shown to have a fundamental place in the understanding of urban landscapes. Over the course of the past half-century, Whitehand has in this context provided a remarkable demonstration of systematic morphological survey, analysis, synthesis and mapping of urban landscape information. His research reveals existing settlements as a significant planning and urban design resource that can inform decision-making about future built environments. His work has been a major source of inspiration for subsequent studies of morphological regionalisation. Urban landscapes are changing at an unprecedented pace in most parts of the world. They are presenting new challenges for the comprehension and management of urban landscape forms. Urban morphology has developed, albeit somewhat slowly, a valuable concept of urban regionalisation for both enhancing that understanding and utilising it in improving the built environment. There is a need to build on those foundations by further testing and developing the concept and applying it. Acknowledgements The research on which part of this paper is based was funded by the China Natural Science Foundation, Award Reference 51678241.

2 Urban Morphological Regions: Development of an Idea

45

References Baker NJ, Slater TR (1992) Morphological regions in English medieval towns. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 43–68 Barke M (2003) Urban landscape regions and conservation: new approaches and problems in Antequera, Málaga Province, Spain. Urban Morphol 7:3–13 Barrett HJ (1996) Townscape changes and local planning management in city conservation areas. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham Bienstman H (2007) Morphological concepts and urban landscape management: the cases of Alkmaar and Bromsgrove. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Conzen MP (1978) Analytical approaches to the urban landscape. In: Butzer KW (ed) Dimensions of human geography: essays on some familiar and neglected themes, Research Paper No 186, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 128–165 Conzen, MP (2007) Ouro Preto’s urban morphology from a Conzenian perspective. In: 14th international seminar on urban form, Ouro Preto, 1 Sept 2007 Conzen MP (2011) ISUF’s president report. Urban Morphol 15:120 Conzen MRG (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers Publication No. 27. George Philip, London Conzen MRG (1966) Historical townscapes in Britain: a problem in applied geography. In: House JW (ed) Northern geographical essays in honour of G. H. J. Daysh. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 56–78 Conzen MRG (1968) The use of town plans in the study of urban history. In: Dyos HJ (ed) The study of urban history. Edward Arnold, London, pp 113–130 Conzen MRG (1975) Geography and townscape conservation. In: Uhlig H, Lienau C (eds) AngloGerman symposium in applied geography: Giessen-Würzburg-München, Lenz, Giessen, pp 95–102 Conzen MRG (1988) Morphogenesis, morphogenetic regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow. In: Denecke D, Shaw G (eds) Urban historical geography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 253–271 Conzen MRG (2004) Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow. In: Conzen MP (ed) Thinking about urban form: papers on urban morphology, 1932–1998. Peter Lang, Oxford, pp 116–142 Gu K (2010) Urban morphological regions and urban landscape management: the case of central Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Des Int 15:148–164 Gu K (2014) From urban landscape units to morphological coding: exploring an alternative approach to zoning in Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Des Int 19:159–174 Gu K (2018) The teaching of urban design: a morphological approach. J Plan Educ Res. https://do i.org/10.1177/0739456x18775480 Hall T (2008) The form-based development plan: bridging the gap between theory and practice in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 12:77–95 Hartshorne R (1939) The nature of geography: a critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. The Association Lancaster, Pennsylvania Jones AN (1991) The management of residential townscapes: an investigation of development in mature residential areas of the West Midlands and Outer Metropolitan Area. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK Kropf KS (2011) Coding in the French planning system: from building line to morphological zoning. In: Marshall S (ed) Urban coding and planning. Routledge, London, pp 158–179 Kropf KS, Larkham PJ, Whitehand JWR (1996) Plan units, regions and tissues: conflicts or reconciliation? In: 3rd international seminar on urban form, Lausanne, 25–27 July 1996 Larkham PJ, Jones AN (1991) A glossary of urban form. Historical Geography Research Series, no 26. Institute of British Geographers, London Larkham PJ, Morton N (2011) Drawing lines on maps: morphological regions and planning practices. Urban Morphol 15:133–151

46

K. Gu

Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (2014) Agents, agency, and urban form: the making of the urban landscape. In: Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, London, pp 3–23 Marat-Mendes T (2011) Glossaries and dictionaries of urban morphology. Urban Morphol 15:161–162 Maretto M (2005) Urban morphology as a basis for urban design: the project for the Isola dei Cantieri in Chioggia. Urban Morphol 9:29–44 Morton N (2002) Reinventing morphological regions? Urban Morphol 6:97–98 Sauer CO (1925) The morphology of landscape. In: University of California publication in geography, vol 11, no 2. California University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 19–54 Scheer BC (2001) The anatomy of sprawl. Places A Forum Environ Des 14:26–37 Schlüter O (1899a) Über den Grundriss der Städte. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 34:446–462 Schlüter O (1899b) Bemerkungen zur Siedlungsgeographie. Geogr Z 5:65–84 Tian Y (2017) Urban management units and metabolism urban regeneration. Research application to the Natural Science Foundation of China Wang S (2018) Planning, spatial justice and community renewal: a case study of Auckland, New Zealand. PhD thesis proposal, University of Auckland, New Zealand Whitehand JWR (1981) Background to the urban morphogenetic tradition. In: Whitehand JWR (ed) The urban landscape: historical development and management: papers by MRG Conzen. Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, No 13. Academic Press, London, pp 1–24 Whitehand JWR (1989) Residential development under restraint: a case study in London’s ruralurban fringe. School of Geography, University of Birmingham, Occasional Publication 28 Whitehand JWR (1990) Townscape management: ideal and reality. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities: essays for MRG Conzen on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 370–393 Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphol 5:103–109 Whitehand JWR (2004) Foreword. In: Conzen MRG, Conzen MP (eds) Thinking about urban form: papers on urban morphology, 1932–1998. Peter Lang, Oxford, p 3 Whitehand JWR (2009) The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice. Urban Morphol 13:5–27 Whitehand JWR (2012) Issues in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 16:55–65 Whitehand JWR (2014) Conzenian research and urban landscape management. In: 21st international seminar on urban form, Porto, 3–6 July 2014 Whitehand JWR (2017) Bridging the gaps: urban morphology 20 years on. Urban Morphol 21:3–4 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007a) Extending the compass of plan analysis: a Chinese exploration. Urban Morphol 11:91–109 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007b) Urban conservation in China: historical development, current practice and morphological approach. Town Plan Rev 78:643–670 Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (1992) Urban landscapes. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, p 1 Whitehand JWR, Gu K, Whitehand SM, Zhang J (2011) Urban morphology and conservation in China. Cities 28:171–185

Chapter 3

Fringe Belts Michael Barke

Abstract This chapter is principally concerned with Jeremy Whitehand’s contribution to the study of urban fringe belts. However, this consideration will initially be set in a broader context relating to the general field of urban morphology as an object of study. This is because the development of urban morphology as an academic endeavour, and along with it, the study of fringe belts, has not been a straightforward linear progression. Indeed, there have been periods when, in the Anglophone world at least, the subject appeared to be on the verge of extinction. The fact that this has not occurred is in no small measure due to the efforts of JWR Whitehand. The essay will then proceed to an assessment of the major contributions made by Whitehand in the general area of fringe-belt studies. We shall then conclude with a personal assessment of Whitehand’s overall influence and academic characteristics, derived mainly, although not exclusively, from his contributions to that specific branch of urban morphology. Keywords Fringe belt · Conceptual urban morphology · Processes of change Urban landscape management · Cross-cultural comparisons · Fieldwork

3.1 Battling for Urban Morphology (and the Fringe-Belt Concept) In Chap. 1, Oliveira has already described in some detail the evolution of fringebelt studies within the field of urban morphology and the pivotal role of Whitehand within this development. Most urban morphologists would agree that the academic field embraced by this term, and the physical reality it encompasses, is an important part of the study of urban landscapes and their evolution. However, this has not always been the case in other disciplines and, at certain times, certainly not the case within the discipline of human geography, of which urban geography is a major M. Barke (B) University of Northumbria, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4_3

47

48

M. Barke

subset. Indeed, urban morphology remains a marginal part of the curriculum in most British and North American undergraduate geography degrees. It is of interest, therefore, to examine the trajectory of development of urban morphology—and, by extension, fringe-belt studies—within the field of geography and related fields of urban studies. This examination is especially pertinent given Whitehand’s frequent pleas for interdisciplinary approaches to fringe belts and other urban morphological studies (Whitehand 1998, 2001, 2012). In 1984, it was possible for Professor Harold Carter to observe that Conzenian urban morphology had achieved only very limited progress within the broader field of urban geography. Despite acknowledging that the fringe-belt concept showed more advances than other aspects of urban morphology, he still noted that ‘a brief scan of urban geography texts reveals the term fringe belt as appearing in only one’ (Carter 1984, p. 146). The implication was clear—the study of urban morphology, and along with it, the study of concepts such as fringe belts, was highly marginal within the broader corpus of urban geography at least. Nearly 40 years later, the situation is very different. Although the study of urban morphology probably does remain peripheral to mainstream urban geography (within UK universities at least), the same cannot be said of its position within broader fields of urban studies. Taking the fringe-belt concept as an example, a rapid survey of publications derived from the online Google Scholar site using that term or the term ‘urban fringe belt’ shows only ten outputs up to the time of Carter’s review. Between 1981 and 1991, the situation remained static with only a further ten papers appearing. From 1991 to the present however, the number of papers with an explicit focus on the study of fringe belts has risen to 76. A rather different measure is provided by MP Conzen (2009) who cited 42 urban places across the globe where fringe belts have been identified and studied. Again, the rate of acceleration is indicated by the fact that nearly 50% of these studies were published between 2000 and 2009. Urban geographers may, in general, remain somewhat sceptical about the academic value of urban morphology and features such as fringe belts but academic colleagues in other fields such as urban design, architecture, landscape and planning history have engaged with the concepts with considerably more enthusiasm. Whilst the contributions of several scholars to this growth must be acknowledged, within the field of fringe-belt studies pre-eminence must be given to JWR Whitehand. Nevertheless, several classic texts, dealing inter alia with the changing form of towns, make no mention of fringe belts as a feature of the urban structure. Whilst it is not surprising that some of the earliest texts dealing with urban form (Korn 1961; Gutkind 1964; Burke 1971) make no mention of the concept, it is of greater concern that it is also not featured in subsequent geographical texts (Vance 1977) or more recent books dealing explicitly with urban form and urban landscapes. For example, Morris (1994) and Waller (2000) eschew the concept in their respective overviews. It would appear that the concept has failed to engage some urban historians both past and present, even those whose primary concern is ostensibly with the urban landscape. Along with Whitehand, it is the view of the present author that this has more to do with the boundaries between disciplines than with any intrinsic lack of relevance. It is significant that architectural historians have been less blinkered, most

3 Fringe Belts

49

notably Kostof (1992) who interprets the fringe belt as an essential component of urban form through history, noting that ‘alternating irregular rings of fringe belts and residential districts can be detected on the plans of many European cities’ (Kostof 1992, p. 35). Despite this recognition and acceptance of the significant place of fringe-belt studies within any examination of the urban landscape, some disciplines remain frustratingly blind to the now substantial body of knowledge and terminology on the subject. For example, a recent historical text on ‘Town Defences and The Making of Urban Landscapes’ reveals a total lack of awareness of the contribution of urban morphology to that very topic and the language used shows an enthusiastic but naively misplaced sense of discovery—‘Town defences therefore comprised far more than linear obstacles; rather, they consisted of complex and multi-layered belts of features’ (Creighton 2010, p. 49). There is no citation whatsoever of the substantial urban morphological literature on fringe belts that drew attention to, and studied in detail, similar features from the 1960s onwards. It would appear that, in some cases, disciplinary blinkers remain firmly fixed and Whitehand’s calls for cross-fertilisation (e.g. Whitehand 2012) have, in this case, fallen on deaf ears. However, it has not always been the case that urban historians have shown themselves to be unaware of the work of a key urban morphologist such as Jeremy Whitehand and there are earlier examples of academic confrontations between Whitehand and urban historians over the fringe-belt concept and Whitehand’s theoretical and methodological expositions. This case is worthy of examination in some detail as it reveals interesting aspects of the apparent misunderstanding that can take place in the interpretation of detailed academic argument, but also highlights one of the most robust defences of the historico-geographical approach to the development of urban form in print. Daunton (1978) introduced his attack on Whitehand’s theory of the role of the building cycle in fringe-belt formation with a summary of the three papers that had laid out and empirically examined this theory (Whitehand 1972a, 1974, 1975) and then commented that ‘(…) this approach bears little relationship with the actual operation of the land market, of the building industry or of political decision-making in Victorian cities’ (Daunton 1978, p. 176). Daunton’s criticisms included an assertion that institutions did in fact suffer from shortages of credit or capital in direct opposition to what he claims to be Whitehand’s position that institutional users of land were not severely affected by such shortages. This is a serious and somewhat ‘schoolboyish’ misunderstanding of Whitehand’s actual argument which, crucially, is about the relative position of institutions in relation to housebuilders. Second, Daunton claims, with virtually no empirical evidence, that public bodies (institutions) were affected by cycles that had nothing to do with the building cycle but were politically generated, with some periods of expanding functions being followed by long periods of retrenchment. But Whitehand demonstrates that, in the examples cited by Daunton, ‘While house-building fluctuated violently, the acquisition of sites for public parks (whether measured by number or area) differed little between house-building slumps and booms, resulting in substantial variations over time in the relative amounts of land developed for these two uses’ (Whitehand 1978, p. 184). Third, Daunton claims that institutional land was not particularly cheap (again confusing the absolute position

50

M. Barke

with the relative) and that it was not used in an extensive fashion, citing the example of board schools and infirmaries where he claims that the intensity of utilisation of land was as high as or higher than housing. But schools are not necessarily occupiers of fringe-belt sites (the subject of Whitehand’s papers), and Daunton provides no evidence about large-scale city-serving users of land such as colleges, cemeteries, parks, sports grounds, golf course (i.e. the most common components of fringe belts). Fourth, Daunton questions the importance of land costs as a proportion of total development costs arguing that in leasehold areas in particular the cost of land was of little consequence as land was not bought outright and ground rents were low. Therefore, ‘(…) it seems highly implausible that there should be any variation in plot size over the cycle’ (Daunton 1978, p. 177)—Whitehand’s argument would suggest such variation. Again, this is a serious misreading of the argument which is actually about land value, not the builder’s outlay. A fifth point is that Daunton claims that areas where land was owned by a few large landowners would not be affected by the processes described by Whitehand as they had the ability to control the market and would be exempt from the significance of the building cycle, citing the example of the Calthorpe Estate in Edgbaston. Whitehand is able to respond that, in fact, booms in housebuilding were associated with the proliferation of smaller plots and increases in the intensity of use. In other words, even when there was virtually a monopoly of land, decisions on the development of the estate were influenced by changing economic circumstances. Finally, Daunton completely ignores the fact that the primary purpose of Whitehand’s papers was geographical, being concerned with the location of various types of development in relation to the building cycle. It is of considerable significance that a third party entered into this discussion and provided empirical evidence in support of Whitehand’s position (Rodger 1979). Furthermore, it was concluded that ‘The distinctive paths of housebuilding and public building (e.g. institutions—my clarification) are too emphatic at the national, regional and local level to admit of an explanation based on the structure of landownership in individual boroughs as advanced by Daunton’ (Rodger 1979, pp. 74–75) and observing that ‘(…) the Whitehand model offers a useful first approximation in accounting for the cyclically variable phasing of public and private building (…)’ (Rodger 1979, p. 75). Rodger also recognised that Whitehand’s theory does not assume a perfect land market but proposes a theory of the underlying mechanism that explains land use and density of building on different sites within an urban area and stressed that the theory does not discount the exceptional. Although direct evidence is lacking, it could be argued that this was a pivotal moment in the academic development of fringe-belt studies. At the very least, Whitehand had stimulated a wider engagement with the concept and his robust response demonstrated the requirement of absolute precision in the analysis of the phenomenon. There is no doubt that the approach had moved on from the descriptive to the analytical.

3 Fringe Belts

51

3.2 JWR Whitehand’s Contribution to Fringe-Belt Studies This section will review Whitehand’s unique contributions to the study of fringe belts. Whitehand is widely and justly credited with the advancement of urban morphology and, specifically, the study of the fringe-belt phenomenon, from the foundations laid by MRG Conzen who, in turn, followed the work of Herbert Louis (Whitehand 1988). Although there were substantial precedents (see Whitehand 1987), Conzen’s monograph on Alnwick (1960) had laid down for the first time a comprehensive schema for the conceptualisation of morphological developments in the urban landscape. Foremost amongst these, of course, was the concept of the fringe belt, and it was this phenomenon that Whitehand chose to explore in his 1967 paper ‘Fringe belts: a neglected aspect of urban geography’. The conceptual basis for this paper inevitably owed much to Conzen but possibly equally important was a continuing frustration with the largely descriptive approach to the study of intra-urban structures and forms that eschewed any attempt to conceptualise morphological developments, typified in papers by Smailes (1955), Jones (1958) and Stedman (1958). Unlike Conzen’s major concern with the inner fringe belt (IFB) in relatively small towns (with the major exception of Newcastle upon Tyne—Conzen 1962), Whitehand’s (1967a) paper concentrated much more on the middle and outer fringe belts (MFB and OFB) of the Tyneside conurbation (Fig. 3.1). Indeed, there is no detailed analysis of the core city’s (Newcastle upon Tyne) IFB—understandably so as this had already been accomplished by Conzen (1962). Whitehand’s larger compass significantly expanded the scope of fringe-belt studies. Before this, it is arguable that many saw the concept simply in terms of small urban areas with a medieval history and possessing relict feature such as town walls. Its intrinsic interest lay primarily with the historicity of such places. Whitehand’s 1967 paper expanded the scope of fringe-belt studies on a significant scale—literally so, by demonstrating the importance of the concept to the interpretation of the structure of much larger urban areas, and conceptually by demonstrating that fringe belts were not simply just a ‘historic’ phenomenon but were a continuous feature of the urban structure produced by and subject to a wide set of contemporary socio-economic processes at the local, regional and national scale. This had been implicit in Conzen’s studies of course, but Whitehand made it much more explicit. One of the key distinguishing features of the 1967 paper was that it isolated fringe belts as a phenomenon in their own right, instead of dealing with them as part of a ‘whole town’ study. This served to draw particular attention to the concept, albeit not without questioning and controversy—something that, as already noted, characterised this phase of attempting to establish a conceptual rather than idiographic basis for the study of urban morphology. Despite the clear exposition and definition of the precise nature of a fringe belt and its likely constituent elements, unfortunately there was soon evidence that the term and the concept were subject to misunderstanding and misapplication (Jackson 1977; Lea 1980). A further valuable contribution made by the 1967 paper was to draw attention to the potential confusion of concepts generated by a simplistic interpretation of apparently

52

M. Barke

Fig. 3.1 Fringe belts of Tyneside (Source Whitehand 1967a)

similar visual features in the urban landscape. This was especially apparent in relation to the inner fringe belt and its possible confusion with the similarly located Central Business District Frame (Horwood and Boyce 1959). This, then popular, idea related to the belt of mixed land uses, sometimes also called the ‘zone in transition’ (Preston 1966), between the CBD proper (characterised by commercial land use) and the first zone of relatively centrally located residential development. Superficially, this may appear to be very similar to the idea of the IFB, characterised mainly by equally miscellaneous land uses such as institutions of various kinds. Although there may well be a spatial coincidence, Whitehand demonstrated that, conceptually, the two are quite different. In a town of some age, the IFB is likely to pre-exist having initially formed the actual periphery of the town with plots of land being used for a wide range of purposes such as gardens, religious institutions and isolation hospitals. The CBD Frame is formed by the colonisation of sites (some of which may be part of the IFB) by land uses seeking relative centrality, adjacent to the urban core. The CBD Frame may therefore exist totally independently of the IFB—it is conceptually and in its physical presence, a quite different phenomenon. For example, the CBD Frame may also develop, not on IFB plots but on much smaller centrally located house plots. Although a further idea was not fully developed within the 1967 paper, its significance was recognised and formed the inspiration for further work (Barke 1976). This is the crucial recognition that as well as being formed by dynamic processes impacting at the urban periphery, fringe belts do not then just simply sit as static components of that structure as identifiable IFB, MFB and OFB. In fact, especially

3 Fringe Belts

53

in growing towns, they subsequently have an internal ‘life’ of their own (although this, of course, is never entirely independent of what is going on around them). As Whitehand expressed it (Whitehand 1967a) ‘Existing fringe-belt plots, like other parts of an urban area, are subject to a cycle of adaptation and redevelopment which usually involves a change of land use. Such a cycle may already have run its course several times in a medieval IFB’ (Whitehand 1967a, p. 231) and ‘the investigation of individual plot histories is (…) necessary before any general principles can be substantiated’ (Whitehand 1967a, p. 232). Whitehand also drew attention to the importance of mutual attraction and repulsion of land uses and different activities within the fringe belt. As Whitehand therefore emphasised, the analysis of change within the fringe belt thus assumes as great a significance as the processes that initially formed it. A final important feature of the 1967 paper was the fact that, as noted above, it was concerned with a large conurbation, not with a single free-standing town. In other words, the study area was polycentric in character. This clearly gives rise to a number of problems as much of the initial conceptualisation of fringe-belt formation, and the change is based on the notion of an urban area with just one dominant centre. Whitehand later reflected on the problems of this Tyneside study somewhat selfcritically ‘A problem that was not resolved (…) and one that greatly complicates the fringe-belt concept and has its parallels in other conceptions of the city based on a single centre, is that of the partial dependency of smaller centres on larger ones and hence the conceptual difficulty of dealing with the fringe belts of settlements that are in a sense themselves part of the fringe belts of larger centres’ (Whitehand 1981, p. 134). One could take exception to this final clause as detailed research should be able to identify which fringe belts relate to which ‘cores’, even within a polycentric urban region, and in fact, Whitehand does himself less than justice as part of a resolution of the problem is contained within this quotation that it is possible to recognise a hierarchy of fringe belts and which belongs to which ‘core’ of several nearby settlements. If the 1967 paper advanced fringe-belt studies in several new and exciting directions, Whitehand’s next major contribution was even more seminal. Two major publications (Whitehand 1972a, 1974) set out Whitehand’s advances in thinking about some of the economic processes at work in fringe-belt formation and change. These related mainly to the concept of the building cycle in conjunction with bid-rent theory (Fig. 3.2). In one sense, this was an extension of well-rehearsed ideas derived mainly from urban economics. But the application was groundbreaking. Whitehand was able to show—initially for a study area in north-west Glasgow between 1840 and 1923 (Fig. 3.3)—that the composition of the urban land use pattern related to fluctuations in the building cycle whereby alternating booms and slumps produced periods of relative colonisation of the fringe by housing in the former and institutional land use in the latter, mainly due to their relative ability to bid for undeveloped sites at the contemporary urban fringe. This has subsequently proven to be a powerful model and explanation of fringe-belt formation, despite some significant (misplaced) criticism (Daunton 1978).

54

M. Barke

Fig. 3.2 Hypothetical bid-rent curves and resultant landscapes: a during a housing boom and b during a housing slump. Hypothetical variations in the relative proportions of new institutional and new housing development with distance from the edge of the built-up area a during a housing boom and b during a housing slump (Source Whitehand 1974)

Whitehand later extended this idea to a mainly residential section of the fringe of west London between 1826 and 1869 (Whitehand 1975) showing how alternating periods of housebuilding boom and slump were associated with variations in the intensity of new development. Following up his earlier emphasis on change within a formed fringe belt, Whitehand (1972b) then went on to demonstrate the applicability of the same concept once fringe areas were encompassed within the built-up area—albeit in a very different way. Simplifying the argument somewhat, bid-rent theory would predict that institutions would be succeeded by residential development during a housing boom. However, in reality, fringe belts often maintain their integrity over long periods and also the institutions which are one of their principal constituents often expand into adjacent residential areas. Whitehand explained this apparent anomaly by the fact that large institutions especially can develop the ability to out-bid residential development, even within a boom period. Indeed, more capital may be invested over time on institutional sites than on residential sites, especially if

3 Fringe Belts

55

Fig. 3.3 Land use of part of the middle fringe belt of Glasgow in 1968 (Source Whitehand and Morton 2006)

they become an integral part of an urban area’s infrastructure, for example university campuses (Whitehand 1991) or large hospitals. The wider significance of this work on building cycles in relation to bid-rent theory was considerable and not just limited to the field of urban morphology. The concept of bid-rent had rarely been applied to institutional land use, despite this being a major component of urban areas, being limited to consideration of commercial, residential and industrial uses. Whitehand’s model, although admittedly simplifying reality, incorporated institutional use—a major component of fringe belts of course—virtually the first time that this category of land use had been considered within the framework of bid-rent theory. But the deeper significance of this group of papers lays primarily with the fact that they constituted a major advance in the conceptual basis of fringe-belt studies and removed the subject of urban morphology away from the (largely false) accusation that it was dominated by an empirical, descriptive

56

M. Barke

paradigm. This body of work was clearly not embedded in an idiographic approach and demonstrably was concerned with the search for theory of general applicability. A further original contribution by Whitehand lies with his increasing exploration of cross-cultural comparisons of urban morphological phenomena, including fringe belts. This can be identified in an early stage of formulation with a brief study of the middle fringe belt of Lusaka, Zambia (Whitehand 2009)—note that this research was carried out in 1993. However, a much fuller examination of the relevance of concepts derived in the Western, developed country, environment to very different socio-economic and political conditions concerned research in China. The preamble to this research pointed out that basic, often long-lived, ideas about urban form and structures tend to develop within specific geographical and cultural contexts. The way that many such ideas and concepts became part of the established canon of work in the fields of urban geography and planning in the first part of the twentieth century and were applied without question is a testimony to the perpetuation of the colonialism of academic and intellectual ideas prevalent at this time. Whilst teaching at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in the 1980s the present author became acutely aware of, and embarrassed by, the fact that recommended standard texts in these fields invariably dealt with West European or North American environments. Fortunately, this state of affairs changed towards the end of the second half of the last century. Nevertheless, even though the value of cross-cultural comparisons is now widely recognised, there remains a paucity of genuinely in-depth studies pursuing this objective. Along with Kai Gu, Jeremy Whitehand has sought to fill this gap in the context of urban morphology generally and fringe-belt studies in particular (Whitehand and Gu 2007a, b; Whitehand et al. 2011). A major study of the fringe belts of the city of Pingyao, Shanxi province, 500 km south-west of Beijing, revealed a series of generic characteristics. Although inevitably somewhat speculative due to the absence of early cartographic sources, it proved possible to identify fixation lines associated with early city walls. In general, the area outside the main city wall remained free of building colonisation. However, the location of religious or quasi-religious institutions could be reconstructed (Fig. 3.4), many of which were attracted to larger sites at the edge of the city. But specific cultural features dictated the precise location of some religious institutions: for example, temples of heaven had to be located outside southern walls whilst temples of earth were outside northern walls, temples of the sun outside eastern walls and temples of the moon outside western walls. Figure 3.4 shows the fringe-belt sites associated with the ‘present’ (fourteenth century) wall. A substantial part of this paper is devoted to examining the impact of political changes on urban form and Pingyao’s fringe belts. Intriguingly, Whitehand and Gu point out the remarkable morphological continuity from the past to the communist-inspired danweis, areas consisting of walled enclosures (work units) with housing provided for those working within the enclosure, be it a hospital, factory or school. Although emerging in a very different economic context, this structural component had strong echoes of traditional Chinese courtyard housing areas. Although some danweis were a result of conversions within the walled city, many were added to the fringe belt in the extramural part of the western city wall. In relation to contemporary processes, Whitehand

3 Fringe Belts

57

Fig. 3.4 Fringe belt associated with the fourteenth century wall of Pingyao, China (Source Whitehand et al. 2011)

and Gu also draw particular attention to the recent values attached to the city wall due to the new commercial ethos emerging in China in the 1980s epitomised by the fact that Pingyao and its city wall had significant potential for the development of tourism. Consequently, ‘(…) perceptions of the city wall and the spaces on either side of it that made up the fringe belt underwent a transformation (…)’ (Whitehand and Gu 2007a, p. 52). A major part of this was the re-evaluation of the city wall and its environs; although not conceived specifically in terms of preservation of the fringe belt, a series of policy initiatives were put into place that reflected the recognition of this morphological feature. Although similarities with medieval European cities are clear, some contrasts are apparent, again, reflecting cultural differences. In the European context, there is a substantial contrast between the block plans of housing areas and adjacent fringe-belt sites, but in the case of Pingyao courtyard development is found in both areas, some of which are ‘traditional’, others reflecting a political imperative to create ‘work zones’. In terms of the spatial form of the city, a further contrast relates to the rectilinearity of the component plots of the fringe belt. In most European cities, fringe-belt plot shapes and sizes are irregular. But more important in terms of current morphogenetic

58

M. Barke

processes in Pingyao is the fact that the intensity of use of the inner fringe-belt has actually declined in recent years. This is partially due to the clearance of residential areas in the vicinity of the wall in order to create better perspectives of this tourist feature. Finally, the study highlights the fact that the ‘morphological periodicities’ in China are unlike those in Europe. Although direct comparison is compromised by the lack of direct documentary sources, the study demonstrated that European ‘morphological periods’ had only limited relevance within the Chinese context. In fact, additions to urban form appear to have been less differentiated over time until relatively recently. The middle of the twentieth century marked a major turning point in this respect. A further important ‘cultural’ (or perhaps political) distinction relates to the imposition of danweis between the mid-1950s and the early 1980s where a residential function was compounded with several other functions within the same morphological unit. Significantly, for the emergence of the current morphological form of the city, the visual and historic elements of this inner fringe-belt area have now been embraced within a distinctive morphological period, one that emphasises a policy of adapting to a globalised world and the requirement to recognise the importance of developments such as tourism. Whitehand and Gu draw attention, uniquely, to the socio-political importance of two remarkably rapid morphological periods in the mid-twentieth century, following on from an extraordinarily long period of stasis. Nevertheless, the authors were able to conclude that ‘the major fringe belt that has developed in Pingyao, over the past six hundred years, eventually shows what have come to be recognised in recent decades as classic features of fringe belts associated with city walls, notably a boulevard ring road and the more open-grained character of the extramural zone compared with the intramural zone’ (Whitehand and Gu 2007a, p. 57). However, the crucial difference between western examples and this case relates to the rapidity of recent change with recent morphological periods being tied to major changes in political ideology. The period of danweis development was associated with the Communist Revolution and the more recent phase of opening up to international links resulting, for example, in the enhancement as a major tourist resource of ‘green’ areas near the wall. This study therefore drew attention to the role of both cultural influences and especially political control in the survival and even expansion of fringe belts, the extent of which is ‘hard to envisage in a Western-style market economy’ (Whitehand and Gu 2007a, p. 57). A further area in which Whitehand has advanced the study of fringe belts is in relation to planning and urban landscape management. Whitehand has pointed out that, whilst it is self-evident that knowledge and understanding of urban form are a prerequisite for policy-making in relation to the urban landscape, the recognition of this linkage in applied, practical situations is all too rare. Yet, long before the requirement to designate ‘character areas’ within conservation areas, Conzen (1975) had devised a template to characterise unitary areas within towns for the purposes of assessing future developments. As distinctive morphological and land use features, fringe belts, despite their heterogeneous land use make up, do possess a unity, derived from their origins and history, their location, their extensive character and the size and shape of plots. Yet, planning and urban management policies, even when aimed

3 Fringe Belts

59

at the conservation of character, usually remain blind to this distinctiveness. This is especially unfortunate as fringe belts ‘articulate the historico-geographic structure of towns and cities’ (Whitehand 2014, p. 2). Whitehand has identified the major problem with urban landscape management as currently practiced as being the focus on individual buildings, sites and monuments or small areas of special interest rather than the historico-geographical structuring of the entire city. Detailed examination of Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt (Fig. 3.5) reveals the weak relationship between planning practice and this major urban morphological feature (Whitehand and Morton 2003, 2004). Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt is clearly a distinctive unit in its own right but, except in conservation areas, decision-making by planners and other urban managers is almost exclusively on a fragmented, site-by-site basis. Furthermore, the British planning system focuses primarily on the use of land in specific locations whereas any policy based on urban morphological principles would have to take a wider view. The arguments for a stronger recognition of features such as fringe belts by planning practice are strong. Fringe belts are characterised by the virtual absence of housing, they have limited road networks with a low occurrence of radial roads running across the fringe belt (and therefore may constitute something of a barrier), and they possess large, well-vegetated plots often with ‘landmark’ buildings, usually institutions of various kinds: they form a boundary between historically and morphologically distinct residential areas. Fringe belts themselves have practical utility in that they are important visual features enabling geographical orientation. Without necessarily being overtly recognised as such, fringe belts are an important part of residents’ mental map of an area. Although rarely made explicit, they also therefore provide a historico-geographical frame of reference and play a cultural environmental role. Furthermore, they often function as a ‘green belt’ within the city itself and possess considerable ecological significance due to their quasi-rural character and the provision of habitats. These characteristics are clearly of significance for urban landscape management. Whitehand and Morton (2004) also pointed out that the structure of local authority administrative departments constitutes something of a problem in relation to the management of fringe-belt sites. The wide diversity of interests relevant to decision-making creates considerable scope for differences of opinion within the local authority, and it is not uncommon for a considerable number of local authority departments to make substantive and possibly conflicting comments in relation to management and planning issues. Of particular concern is the weak conceptualisation that characterises the designation of conservation areas (Whitehand 2009). In the vast majority of cases, it is not possible to identify the criteria that have been used by governmental bodies to designate such areas, yet urban morphological regionalisation would surely provide the necessary scientific rigour to the process of identification and subsequent policy development. One very specific and highly important feature of Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt has excited particular interest mainly through Whitehand’s direction of his research team—this concerns the ecological significance of the fringe belt (Hopkins 2004)—see Fig. 3.6. Unusually, this has also taken the form of interdisciplinary investigation, another priority derived from Whitehand’s intellectual perspective. Urban morphology had not concerned itself with the role played by the natural envi-

60

M. Barke

Fig. 3.5 Land use of Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt in 1995 (Source Whitehand and Morton 2003)

3 Fringe Belts

61

Fig. 3.6 Types of surface in Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt (Source Hopkins 2012)

ronment within the built environment until Morton and Whitehand’s (1999) work on biodiversity within fragmented habitats in Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt. This was followed by the incorporation of ecological habitat considerations in a broader study for planning purposes of Barnt Green, a suburb to the south of Birmingham (Whitehand 2009). A measure of the ecological significance of the Edwardian fringe belt is that it constitutes 7% of the area of the city but possesses 16% of the city’s urban green space. Research found that the Edwardian fringe belt had greater habitat stability than other areas, the number of tree and herb species was greater, and habitat patches had been subject to less major disturbance than those elsewhere in the city. In

62

M. Barke

the case of Birmingham, eight out of ten sites included in the ‘Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England’ are located within the Edwardian fringe belt (Whitehand and Morton 2003). This fact alone is surely clear evidence that residents derive benefits, whether direct or indirect, from ecological services and that fringe belts are a key factor in maintaining the supply of such benefits. Although Whitehand’s contribution to the examination of agents of change in urban morphology (this issue is amplified in the next chapter) is probably more apparent in relation to city centres (Whitehand 1983), there has still been a major input into this theme in the context of fringe belts. Whitehand pioneered the study of the explanation of the processes of change consequent upon institutional and individual decision-making. The outcomes of such decisions may take many years to become apparent and can only be revealed by painstaking research. One example concerns the role played by a Government Department, the Ministry of Public Building and Works in creating the fringe belt of north-east Newcastle (Whitehand 1967a) which acquired around 60 ha of land at the time of the Second World War, 50% of which was still awaiting development as a hospital and school even 20 years later. The role of Birmingham University in shaping the land use structure and physical appearance of part of the middle fringe belt of Birmingham has been subject to detailed analysis (Whitehand 1991). But the most comprehensive analysis of agents of change and key decision-making is to be found in additional work on Birmingham’s Edwardian fringe belt (Whitehand and Morton 2003, 2004). In these studies, the processes of development and change are traced in detail and the decision-making by key actors is carefully unpicked. In the case of several specific sites, it proved possible to expose the interactions between developers and planners, the role played by informal discussion and the variable influence of third parties. In other words, the precise detail of the processes at work. In a subsequent analysis, Whitehand and Morton (2006) drew attention to the impact of the commercialisation of public services (e.g. education and health) that are often present within fringe belts and the way in which decision-making is becoming more overtly economic. For example, charitable bodies are increasingly looking to exploit their land assets, leading to the redevelopment of plots for housing. On the other hand, environmental lobbies have become more effective in opposing developments, leading to a more complex set of interactions and lengthier decision-making periods concerning fringe-belt sites. In summary, Whitehand’s contributions to fringe-belt studies included taking systematic detailed analysis of the phenomenon beyond the medieval town, dealing with the issue of polycentric urban environments, establishing a conceptual framework for exploring change within fringe belts, creating a conceptual model linking the building cycle and bid-rent theory to fringe-belt formation and change, recognising the necessity for detailed exploration of the agents of change and, in particular, the decisionmaking process of developers and planning authorities, setting out an agenda for the incorporation of fringe-belt considerations within the urban management and plan-

3 Fringe Belts

63

ning process, and demonstrating the ecological and habitat importance of fringe-belt sites. As if all this were not enough, a fresh area of cultural cross-comparison of fringe-belt formation and change process has more recently been initiated.

3.3 JWR Whitehand: A Personal Appreciation There can be no doubt that Jeremy Whitehand is an outstanding academic and scholar whose contribution extends far beyond the confines of urban morphology. But it is the latter, of course, where his legacy will be celebrated by subsequent generations of scholars. It is difficult to know just how much of an influence upon Jeremy MRG Conzen was during the former’s brief period at Newcastle University, but it seems clear that, if not entirely formative, it was considerable. And that relationship remained strong after Jeremy’s move to Glasgow University and then on to Birmingham. A number of academic colleagues have noted the strong similarity in several respects between Conzen and Whitehand, most obviously in their areas of interest but also, to some extent, in their modus operandi. A major difference, of course, is in the volume of publication and possibly—this is a speculation—attitude to the task of writing. One senses that Jeremy greatly enjoys the creative challenge of writing up a research project, in developing a logical argument and in marshalling the empirical evidence in support of interpretation but always with an eye to the clarity and readability of the piece. But Jeremy shares with MRG Conzen the same meticulous scholarship and attention to detail. His fundamental concern for the latter has led him to the ‘discovery’ and utilisation of a number of generally underused data sources that help to throw light on longer-term trends within the urban built environment. His canon of published work bears the same hallmark of conceptual grasp married to an unceasing search for empirical evidence and with the objectives of testing or adding to and advancing an argument, theory, or field of knowledge. He is fond of quoting Albrecht Penck’s advice (conveyed to him by Conzen): ‘when you see the particular, always look for the general’ (Whitehand 2012, p. 59). In addition, Jeremy has always shown an awareness and eagerness to embrace different techniques of analysis. It is these qualities that have made him an outstanding editor as numerous contributors to ‘Urban Morphology’ and many PhD research students could testify. These qualities are manifest in his chosen field of urban morphology, but Jeremy is anything but a one-dimensional narrow specialist with, for example, a lifelong interest in the processes of creation and diffusion of academic knowledge at national and international scales. Although this will be dealt with in detail elsewhere in this volume, colleagues within the urban morphology field will also be well aware of his concern for the relationships between research and practice and his efforts to bring these two areas closer together (Whitehand 2009). To the uninitiated, the name JWR Whitehand is not readily associated with the idea of fieldwork. The nature of most of his published work is perhaps more suggestive of someone whose principal research environment is the library, the archive or the repository of statistical sources. This is profoundly misleading and actually wrong.

64

M. Barke

Jeremy Whitehand is par excellence a field geographer. This was manifest in his own PhD work involving exhaustive detailed fieldwork in 32 sample areas spread over 800 square miles of the Chilterns (Whitehand 1965, 1967b). The compilation of the detailed map of Tyneside’s fringe belts (Fig. 3.1), in conjunction with Ordnance Survey maps, shows the same meticulous ‘ground truthing’ intent. Perhaps, even more impressive is the dedication to field survey work manifest in his more recent work in China, a necessary substitute due to the paucity of archival sources. This concern for detailed fieldwork became apparent to the present author when he joined the Geography Department at Glasgow University as a callow postgraduate student in 1968. Dominating the walls of Jeremy’s office were two large field maps of Central Glasgow (probably at the 1:2500 scale), one of the age of every building in the city centre, the other showing the ground floor land use of those buildings. The maps were, of course, compiled through Jeremy’s own fieldwork. Although never published by Jeremy, they became the starting point for at least one of his PhD students (Sim 1976). I mention this as it illustrates the fact that Jeremy has always believed in extensive fieldwork as the basis for research, even when the larger part of subsequent work may have been documentary based. But it also illustrates Jeremy’s generosity in sharing the fruits of his substantial labours in creating a baseline which could be built upon by others. A similar act of generosity led to a change of direction in the present author’s research career. I had come to Glasgow as a historical geographer with a particular interest in nineteenth-century social geography. In those days, PhD topics were not always as closely prescribed as subsequently and the rather vague idea I had was based on a feeling that most of the historical social geography research had been based on large urban areas. My intention was to examine the social geographical composition of small Scottish burghs against the background of ideas and findings from larger places. Intriguingly, the same question was asked much later but of a very different research topic (Barke 1990); but, put simply, the idea was—does size make a difference? However, an important part of the academic apprenticeship at Glasgow was to work as a demonstrator in laboratories and this extended into helping with field trips. This was predominantly with first-year students, but the opportunity also arose to take part in an urban geography field excursion in north-west Glasgow under the leadership of Jeremy. This was a revelation and an epiphany! What was at that time a completely new concept to me became suddenly clear under Jeremy’s inspiring and masterful exposition in the field. A combination of enthusiasm and clarity of explanation made the processes behind what had appeared to be an ordinary and, in places, rather dreary urban landscape become clear in the field. I was at once a convert to urban morphology. When I was later entrusted with leading the same field trip by myself, I had the benefit of Jeremy’s generously provided notes and these confirmed my conversion. The nature of my PhD research changed at a stroke, and even though it was inadequately represented in the final thesis, this conversion was due to Jeremy’s inspiring field teaching, his role as a catalyst in discovering a different research field and his insistence on the imperative of the careful, detailed research that must lie behind it.

3 Fringe Belts

65

References Barke M (1976) Land use succession: a factor in fringe-belt modification. Area 8:303–306 Barke M (1990) Morphogenesis, fringe belts and urban size: an exploratory essay. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of western cities. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 279–299 Burke G (1971) Towns in the making. Edward Arnold, London Carter H (1984) Book review: The Urban landscape: historical development and management. Papers by MRG Conzen. In: Whitehand JWR (ed) Progress in human geography, vol 8, pp 145–147 Conzen MP (2009) How cities internalize their former fringes. Urban Morphol 13:29–54 Conzen MRG (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Inst Brit Geogr publication No. 27, London Conzen MRG (1962) The plan analysis of an English city centre. In: Norborg K (ed) Proceedings of the IGU Symposium in Urban Geography, Lund 1960. Gleerup, Lund, pp 383–414 Conzen MRG (1975) Geography and townscape conservation. In: Uhlig H, Lienau C (eds) AngloGerman Symposium in applied geography. Giessen-Wurzburg-Munchen, Lenz, Giessen, pp 95–102 Creighton OH (2010) Town defences and the Making of Urban Landscapes’. In: Lilley KD, Lloyd CD, Trick SG (eds) Medieval landscapes: landscape history after Hoskins, vol 2. Windgather, Macclesfield, pp 43–56 Daunton MJ (1978) The building cycle and the urban fringe in Victorian cities: a comment. J Hist Geogr 4:175–181 Gutkind EA (1964) International history of city development, vol 8. Free Press of Glencoe, New York Hopkins MIW (2004) Using fringe belts to examine the relationships between urban morphology and urban ecology. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham Hopkins MIW (2012) The ecological significance of urban fringe belts. Urban Morphol 16:41–54 Horwood EM, Boyce RR (1959) Studies of the central business district and urban freeway development. University of Washington Press, Seattle Jackson JT (1977) Housing and social structure in mid-Victorian Wigan and St. Helens. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Liverpool Jones E (1958) The delimitation of some urban landscape features in Belfast. Scott Geogr Mag 74:150–162 Korn A (1961) History builds the town. Lund Humphries & Co., Ltd., London Kostof S (1992) The city assembled: the elements of urban form through history. Thames and Hudson, London, pp 34–35 Lea KJ (1980) Greater Glasgow. Scott Geogr Mag 96:14–15 Morris AEJ (1994) History of urban form: before the industrial revolutions, 3rd edn. Longman, Harlow Morton NJ, Whitehand JWR (1999) A report on the Edwardian fringe-belt of Birmingham. Unpublished report for the URGENT programme, Biodversity in urban habitat patches Preston RE (1966) The zone in transition: a study of urban land use patterns. Econ Geogr 42:236–260 Rodger RG (1979) The building cycle and the urban fringe in Victorian cities: another comment. J Hist Geog 5:72–78 Sim DF (1976) Patterns of building adaptation and redevelopment in the Central Business District of Glasgow. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow Smailes AE (1955) Some reflections on the geographical description and analysis of townscapes. Trans Inst Br Geogr 21:99–115 Stedman MB (1958) The townscape of Birmingham in 1956. Trans Inst Br Geogr 25:225–238 Vance JE (1977) This scene of man: the role and structure of the city in the geography of Western civilization. Harper & Row, New York Waller P (ed) (2000) The English urban landscape. Oxford University Press, Oxford Whitehand JWR (1965) Building types as a basis for settlement classification. In: Whittow JB, Wood PA (eds) Essays in geography for Austin Miller. University of Reading, Reading, pp 291–305

66

M. Barke

Whitehand JWR (1967a) Fringe belts: a neglected aspect of urban geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 41:223–233 Whitehand JWR (1967b) Traditional building materials in the Chilterns: a survey based on random sampling. Oxoniensia 32:1–9 Whitehand JWR (1972a) Building cycles and the spatial pattern of urban growth. Trans Inst B Geogr 56:39–55 Whitehand JWR (1972b) Urban rent theory, time series and morphogenesis: an example of eclecticism in geographical research. Area 4:215–222 Whitehand JWR (1974) The changing nature of the urban fringe: a time perspective. In: Johnson JH (ed) Suburban growth: geographical processes at the edge of the western city. Wiley, London, pp 31–52 Whitehand JWR (1975) Building activity and intensity of development at the urban fringe: the case of a London suburb in the nineteenth century. J Hist Geog 1:211–224 Whitehand JWR (1978) The building cycle and the urban fringe in Victorian cities: a reply. J Hist Geog 4:181–191 Whitehand JWR (1981) Conzenian ideas: extension and development, in Whitehand JWR (ed) The Urban landscape: historical development and management. Papers by MRG Conzen, Inst Brit Geogr Special Publication No. 13, pp 127–52 Whitehand JWR (1983) Land-use structure, built form and agents of change. In: Davies RL, Champion AG (eds) The future for the city centre. Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, No. 14, pp 41–59 Whitehand JWR (1987) MRG Conzen and the intellectual parentage of urban morphology. Plann Hist Bull 9:35–41 Whitehand JWR (1988) Urban fringe belts: development of an idea. Plann Perspect 3:47–58 Whitehand JWR (1991) Institutional site planning: The University of Birmingham, England 1900–1969. Plann Hist 13:29–35 Whitehand JWR (1998) Editorial comment: Il faut tourner la page. Urban Morphol 2:1–2 Whitehand JWR (2001) Editorial comment: meeting of minds? Urban Morphol 5:1–2 Whitehand JWR (2009) The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice. Urban Morphol 13:5–28 Whitehand JWR (2012) Issues in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 16:55–64 Whitehand JWR (2014) Urban morphology, urban landscape management and fringe belts. Urban Des 93:19–21 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007a) Extending the compass of plan analysis: a Chinese exploration. Urban Morphol 11:91–109 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007b) Urban conservation in China: historical development, current practice and morphological approach. Town Plann Rev 78:643–670 Whitehand JWR, Gu K, Whitehand SM (2011) Fringe belts and socioeconomic change in China. Environ Plan B Plan Des 38:41–60 Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2003) Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: an academic concept and planning practice. Environ Plan 30:819–839 Whitehand JWR, Morton N (2004) Urban morphology and planning: the case of fringe belts. Cities 21:275–289 Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2006) The Fringe-belt phenomenon and socioeconomic change. Urban Stud 43:2047–2066

Chapter 4

Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape Peter J. Larkham

Abstract Many significant transitions have been made in the study of urban form, with one of the most fundamental being the transition from considering rather impersonal mechanisms of urban change—for example historico-geographical and financial—to a more detailed and nuanced exploration of agents and agency. After all, it is people who make decisions. JWR Whitehand’s major study of Northampton and Watford, published in the early 1980s, was not the first to study decision-making but he did rigorously explore data sources, processes and decision-makers (individual, corporate and structural). Both directly and indirectly, this new direction in morphological study continues to have a profound influence on the academic literature (Larkham and MP Conzen in Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, New York, 2014). As urban morphology became internationalized and interdisciplinary, especially with the rise of the International Seminar on Urban Form but also through developments such as mathematical modelling, the direct influence of Whitehand’s agents and agency work has changed. It remains significant, both via his own ongoing work on China, but also in the still-growing body of research exploring the micro- and macro-morphology of how and why urban places change. This chapter will explore the nature of ‘agency’ and how the study of agents of change continues to influence academic and professional explorations of urban form. Keywords Agents of change · Agency · Decision-making approach Production of the built environment

This chapter is an extension of ideas articulated with MP Conzen for the introductory chapter to Larkham and MP Conzen (2014) and I am grateful to Michael Conzen for his contribution. P. J. Larkham (B) Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4_4

67

68

P. J. Larkham

4.1 Introduction: Agents, Agency and the Study of Urban Form The ‘look’ of settlements—their two- and three-dimensional structures, their spatial composition and the content of their built environments, their character and appearance—as well as how they work has intrigued commentators and philosophers since virtually the beginning of urban life. A vast array of descriptive knowledge of urban forms has accumulated over the centuries, encompassing every region with an urban tradition. Specialized branches of knowledge relating to the study of urban form—urban morphology—have developed in the academic and professional disciplines of history, geography, anthropology, sociology, art history, architecture, town planning, landscape architecture, and engineering, amongst others. It may therefore not be a ‘discipline’ at all, but is certainly a distinct field of knowledge; it is inherently international and interdisciplinary, and cross-temporal; but these strengths may mask problems in focus, concepts, terms and applications. This chapter focuses on just one concept, that of agents and agency, and how this has had an impact on how urban morphology as a field of knowledge is conceptualized and operationalized. It begins by outlining work that has been undertaken in relation to this concept within the broader context of urban morphology before exploring aspects of it developed by Whitehand and his associates. Early morphological studies, most especially in a central European intellectual tradition, were largely descriptive and classificatory—morphography (Fritz 1894; Dickinson 1934). Fritz, for example, used visual inspection of town plans as his main source to draw a distinction between eastern and western German medieval towns. The origins of such distinct forms were not explored in any detail. The 1920s were a period of intensive work in German-speaking urban morphology (Dörries 1930). There were important studies by Geisler (1924) and Martiny (1928), who both worked extensively on comparative studies of urban form and the classification of town plans. But these researchers ‘allowed themselves to be pushed by the enormous scope of their projects into merely morphographic classification, producing profuse nomenclature with little meaning. Thus they aggravated a tendency towards mere morphography already apparent in the poorer types of settlement monographs’ of the period (Whitehand 1981, p. 4). These early perspectives were also shaped by morphogenetic approaches, recognising the detailed town plan as, in essence, a historical document in its own right (cf Strahm 1950). This approach developed largely from the work of Schlüter, who proposed the morphology of the cultural landscape (Kulturlandschaft) as the central goal of cultural geography (Kulturgeographie), just as geomorphology was central to physical geography. He was interested in understanding the forms created by human activities, but he also considered their origins and their development through time. This was not mere description, but an integration of form, function and historical development. Schlüter applied this framework to studies of settlement geography (Schlüter 1899a), a study of the ground plans of towns (Schlüter 1899b), and a detailed monograph on the settlements of north-eastern Thuringia (Schlüter 1903).

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

69

He felt that the urban landscape (Stadtlandschaft), that is, the physical form of a town, was the main object of research in its own right (Schlüter 1899a). Schlüter’s influence spread beyond his own publications, especially through the dissertations he supervised at the University of Halle. The classifications of Geisler, Martiny and others were criticized even during the inter-war period for being both ends in themselves, and being of little value in advancing the discipline. These works were referred to as erschöpfend, a word having the dual meaning of exhaustive and exhausting (Schöller 1953). Bobek was particularly critical and crucially argued that the study of form per se should not neglect the dynamic forces creating those forms (Bobek 1927). The limitations of this simplistic morphographical approach were also noted by Keyser (1958) and as the ‘barren elaboration of extremely complex systems’ and ‘a pointless process of descriptive classification’ criticised by Carter (1970, p. 66). In particular, the smallscale town maps commonly used had insufficient detail to allow recognition of details of street and plot alignments crucial to revealing distinct stages of growth. The use of contemporary plans also tended to obscure potential developmental stages that might be revealed through, for example, comparison of a series of historical maps. Even from the early days, therefore, description was seen as insufficient: forms needed to be analysed and explained. The Germanic work also had relatively little influence in the English academic literature. Dickinson was an exception. He provided the most direct British link with German ideas on town formation (Dickinson 1945, 1951), although his emulation of the earlier German literature brought no advance in theory or method. It is perhaps significant that MRG Conzen, after his arrival in England in 1933, found little familiar or challenging work in English with which to engage (MRG Conzen, pers. comm., and see his collected papers in MRG Conzen 2004). By the 1960s, there was evidence of a clash of academic cultures, primarily between social scientists and urban morphologists (both of whom might also categorize themselves as geographers). A lack of theory was a key criticism (seen in the discussion at the International Geographical Union symposium in 1960; Norborg 1962), and certainly morphology did not engage with then-fashionable functional and ecological urban theory, method and technique. Non-geographical interest in urban form was relatively limited; for example, the architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner (German-born, working in England) provided urban contexts for his descriptions of key buildings (the ongoing nationwide ‘Buildings of England’ series) that essentially formed a major comparative study, drawing also on ideas from mainland Europe. In Italy, a small number of architects worked on detailed city-level studies to create a developmental model of architectural form—Muratori and Caniggia, and the process typological approach (Cataldi 2003) which also informed their own architectural practice (Cataldi et al. 2002) and which can be seen as a way of understanding the social construction of architectural and urban form (Gauthier 2005). Urban archaeologists and historians became interested in urban form (Aston and Bond 1976) and the link between form and agency could sometimes be traced from documentation but was often, and in increasingly more sophisticated ways, inferred (Lilley 2001, 2009).

70

P. J. Larkham

Most urban morphological studies now consider the process of producing urban form as much as the pure product, the urban form itself. There are exceptions, largely in computational studies of modelling and simulation (Al-shalabi et al. 2013); or studies of the relationship between form and other factors such as climate and disaster response (Rose et al. 2014; León and March 2016). Yet otherwise, the relationship between form, production, producer and consumer is embedded within the ethos of urban morphology. The physical urban form represents elements of the society that created it, reshaped it, or currently occupies it. It is an ‘objectivation of the spirit’ of society (Conzen 1966, p. 59), or ‘the physical appearance of social reality’ (Pesaresi and Bianchin 2001, p. 56). Urban forms are created through a process of decisions taken by individuals and groups. While this proposition is easy to assert, it is less easy to demonstrate in the detail called for by the nature of the forms being studied. But this represents a change in the focus of urban morphology, dating from the 1950s but becoming dominant in the 1980s. The place of agents and agency is explicit in Moudon’s lead paper in the first issue of the journal ‘Urban Morphology’: ‘The city is the accumulation and the integration of many individual and small group actions, themselves governed by cultural traditions and shaped by social and economic forces over time … [urban morphologists] study the outcomes of ideas and intentions as they take shape on the ground and mould our cities’ (Moudon 1997, p. 3). For Jones and Larkham, urban morphology is simply ‘the study of the physical (or built) fabric of urban form, and the people and processes shaping it’ (Jones and Larkham 1991; see also www.urbanform.org/glossary.html). MP Conzen (2013) has suggested a refinement of this view: ‘urban morphology is the study of the built form of cities, and it seeks to explain the layout and spatial composition of urban structures and open spaces, their material character and symbolic meaning, in the light of the forces that have created, expanded, diversified and transformed them’.

4.2 The Idea of ‘Agency’ ‘Agency’ is a widely used although problematic concept. In sociology, for example, ‘the term agency itself has maintained an elusive, albeit resonant, vagueness; it has all too seldom inspired systematic analysis, despite the long list of terms with which it has been associated’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998, p. 962). There is also a duality between structure and agency (Holmwood and Stewart 1991). However, accepting these complexities in other disciplines, the idea as applied in urban morphology is simple—perhaps deceptively so. ‘Agency’ comprises the range of processes by which things happen in the urban landscape. This may be a decision-making process, where the decision-makers can be identified, the processes by which decisions are made can be explored, and the consequences for built form identified—whether in the past or present, and some consequences may well be in the future. There is a tendency for agency to be assigned to ‘things’ or even ‘processes’ rather than people or institutions. The use of actor–network theory, for example, has offered a new agency-based perspective on urban change, where the actors in the complex

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

71

sets of associations that shape places can be non-human as well as human: Essex and Brayshay (2007) have seen the 1943 reconstruction plan for Plymouth in this light. Here, the plan can itself have agency, as could the wider system of town and country planning. Agency has also been assigned to buildings themselves, for example skyscrapers. In a study of architectural forms and the production of architectural and urban form, they should ‘be understood “relationally” in terms of their role as connecting agents in colonial and post-colonial economies’ (McNeill 2009, p. 6). Cities could have agency, or be ‘actors’ (Hall and Hubbard 2014). In similar vein, cultures and values should certainly be seen as playing important roles in shaping places: for example, in how migrant communities reshape the urban surroundings in which they find themselves (Preston and Lo 2000; Nasser 2003; Edwards 2004). For the Italian typological school, the building typology changes through long-term processes of social and cultural change—see the example of Rome in Corsini 1998 (Fig. 4.1). Likewise, the economy, and especially issues such as globalization, shapes the actions of individuals and organizations, and the landscapes that they produce (Gad and Holdsworth 1987; Stewart 1999). For some urban morphologists, the cyclic impact of economic fluctuations creates cycles in building and development, hence physical patterns in the urban landscape: the example of fringe belts is covered in Chap. 3.

4.3 Changing the Focus of Urban Morphology: JWR Whitehand and Agents of Change Particularly since the 1980s, one research focus has linked the study of urban landscapes more explicitly to the types of agents and the specific organizations and individuals responsible for their creation. ‘Each pursues particular goals, the nature of which can result in conflict over the form of the built environment. It is important therefore to understand the motives underlying the behaviour of these key agents’ (Pacione 1991, p. 162). That strand has been largely rooted in UK—or at least anglophone—urban geography, but has quickly broadened its disciplinary and spatial focus. An early contribution to this focus was Carter’s work on Llandudno (Carter 1970). He differentiated ‘primary’ decision-making, such as the creation of new planned units, and ‘secondary’ decision-making, largely concerned with issues of detail. He was motivated by the desire to provide a sound theoretical basis for urban morphology, reacting to the criticisms of the 1960s. Accordingly, he drew upon recent work about those who make decisions and the process of decision-making in ‘the behavioural environment’ (cf Kirk 1963). Most influential was Chapin’s conceptual system, quoted thus by Carter (with his own comments added in square brackets): in its most basic form, and viewing the components in reverse order, this framework seeks explanation for any man-induced phenomenon being studied [in this instance town plan] in terms of human behaviour [patterns of activity], with behaviour patterns being a function in turn of people’s values [or the attitudes held concerning those activities]. A fourth element

72

P. J. Larkham

Fig. 4.1 Reconstruction of typological process in Rome: change from single cell to multi-storey, driven by long-term sociocultural change (Source Corsini 1998)

of the framework has to do with control processes [strategies or plans] that influence the interplay among the first three components (Chapin 1964, p. 56, as annotated by Carter 1970, p. 67).

This explicit attempt at theory building went largely unheeded at the time, as did Carter’s suggestion that ‘both urban historians and urban geographers’ (i.e. urban morphologists) should develop ‘a more acute awareness of social processes rather than an obsession with the events of history or the “phenomenal” facts of geography’ (Carter 1970, p. 77). Carter was, though, more concerned with the concept of decision-making than with exploring the decision-makers themselves; more with process than people or urban product. One of his comments does reveal the fundamental problem of any such work: ‘it is a great pity that sufficient evidence is not available to enable the origin [of a specific decision] to be traced in detail’ (Carter 1970, p. 72). In this, as in many other aspects of urban morphology, a great deal of deduction from incomplete evidence is required. Nevertheless, Carter suggested that

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

73

this approach could rescue ‘the study of town morphology from the barren outpost of urban geography which it has so long been’—because of its separation from developments in the social sciences and other disciplines, by which he principally meant the so-called quantitative revolution (Carter 1970, p. 76). The nature of morphological work, certainly in the English academic literature, changed significantly from the late 1970s, especially in English-speaking academe. Whitehand (1967, 1972a, b) had developed Conzenian ideas of the urban fringe belt through linking urban rent theory and development cycles (themselves products of wider cyclic trends in the economy, building and trade). Innovation, specifically transport related, was more explicitly linked to urban growth and form (Binford 1974). Economic and social history was being related more closely to urban form, including through the study of aristocratic estate development (Mortimore 1969; Rowley 1975). Vance (1978) explored institutional forces—governmental and financial institutions, and housing policy—and their influence on urban form, and this perspective informed his two overview texts on urban form (Vance 1977, 1990). Whitehand (1977) suggested a historico-geographical theory of urban form, a framework including inductive and deductive chains of inference, relating particularly to innovation and construction activity, within the context of social and economic forces. This, he noted, moved morphologists away from their traditional heavy reliance on the urban landscape itself as a source of evidence (Whitehand 1977, p. 402). He mentioned the potential contribution of ideas of innovation diffusion—which reappear in some later work dealing with relationships between agents, locations and physical forms. He also suggested that the value of a decision-making approach was problematic because of the illusive nature of the process of decisionmaking. Agency is certainly implicit in this framework. Gordon (1984) built on this approach with a conceptual framework in which decision-makers were seen as ‘actors’ on the ‘stage’ of changing urban form—although he also suggested ‘decision agents’ and ‘contextual factors’ as alternative terms less likely to imply active and passive roles (Gordon 1984, p. 3). This is ‘a framework which can accommodate the varied elements of morphology, processes and process relationships, and the detailed and aggregate links between processes and elements of morphology’ (Gordon 1984, p. 4). This is a simple framework. However, in subsequent decades, morphologists have not systematically followed Gordon’s suggested immediate tasks: ‘empirical elaboration and the weighing of the relative importance of the interacting factors and processes in the continuing search for improved specification and reliable generality’ (Gordon 1984, p. 14). Shortly after his historico-geographical theory paper, Whitehand initiated a major research project on the Central Business Districts (CBDs) of Northampton and Watford which, in retrospect, spurred a noteworthy shift in focus despite clearly being rooted in his previous work. The original funding application to the UK’s Social Science Research Council mentioned using documentary sources to examine physical change together with land-use histories, ‘the locational histories of the firms occupying these sites and the nature and location of the parties involved in property development, notably developers, architects, the local authority and land- and building-owners’ (Whitehand 1979, p. 1; I am grateful to Jeremy Whitehand for

74

P. J. Larkham

sharing the text of the original grant application). A systematic analysis of the nature and location of these agents ‘could provide a bridge between urban morphology, which has suffered from an undue reliance on a traditional approach through field observation and cartographic sources, and various other kinds of research—for example, studies of business history … and of the roles of financial and other agencies’ (Whitehand 1979, p. 9). A key aim was spatial/geographical: To examine the extent to which developers of different types and with different spheres of influence employed locally-based architects, the association between the use of such architects and the employment of local contractors, the association between architectural style and building materials and the architects employed, and the extent to which specific organizations and types of organization (for example, banks, the Post Office, and insurance companies) were bonded to an architectural style (Whitehand 1979, p. 10).

The project produced two major papers, one on the physical changes and the second on the agents of change (Whitehand and Whitehand 1983, 1984) as well as a chapter for a Special Publication of the Institute of British Geographers linking the two (Whitehand 1983), and informed a number of other publications too. Key points made included the nature of agents involved; their change over time (for example the move from private to institutional land ownership in UK city centres); the varying time horizons of their interests and activities; the influence of structural issues including finance availability and planning legislation and policy. With several decades of hindsight, these points may now seem obvious, but they had not previously been drawn together and articulated so clearly. The spatial point mentioned as a research aim was related specifically to decision-making. Decisions made by locally based agents, especially the initiators of change and the architects/designers whom they employ appear generally to result in different types and styles of new buildings, or alterations to existing buildings, than decisions taken by agents based far from the site of the change. This was most clearly expressed in the following statement, although the principle can also extend to other agents, for example incoming homeowners. It seems inescapable … that boardroom decisions taken in the metropolis against a background of national scale operations would have produced different results from those taken by local individuals with a field of vision ending abruptly at the edge of their town’s sphere of influence (Whitehand 1984, p. 4).

While this was, perhaps, an abruptly phrased generalization, subsequent work in other locations and contexts has tended to confirm its relevance, especially in an era of concentration of decision-making, globalization and instant communication. Freeman (1990) extended Whitehand’s analysis to two further CBDs, Aylesbury and Wembley, suggesting that the provenance of agents was more significant in the adoption of new architectural styles, especially postmodern. Jones et al. (1988) examined residential landscapes, identifying a range of strategies of development and redevelopment, intensifying development density and altering the character and appearance of areas; they began using evidence of residents’ views obtained from local planning authority records. Larkham (1988a, b) took the same perspective in a study of conservation planning and townscape change (or, sometimes, nonchange), again demonstrating relationships between agent location and development

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

75

form (Fig. 4.2). Larkham also identified groupings of decision-makers: those directly involved in the change (including the initiator of the plan and the designer) and those indirectly involved (e.g. the planning authority, contractors and local residents), although subsequent work has emphasised the input of the planning system and of some individual planning officers, so they should perhaps now be re-classified as ‘direct’ agents. He also explored ‘standing relationships’ between plan initiators and architects, namely the repeated use of the same architect by the same initiator over extended periods. More recently, Larkham has extended this perspective to the post-war reconstruction of British towns, for example examining the decisionmaking process relating to bombed churches (Larkham and Nasr 2012) and city centre redevelopment (Larkham 2016), and the nature of plan-making and decisionmakers (Larkham 2014). Decisions affecting conservation have also been examined in this way (Larkham and Adams 2016). This output has had significant impact on work on post-war reconstruction in the fields of urban history and planning history. As Whitehand had noted in his grant application, work in other disciplines and research traditions was proceeding. For example, the Chairman of Land Investors PLC provided an ‘insider’s view’ of the dynamics of UK commercial property development (Rose 1985). Although his book was derived from a research degree, it is clear that his position and reputation in the industry gave some degree of leverage in accessing information that might otherwise have been difficult to obtain. And there was also other UK-based works on housebuilding, planning and community involvement (Short et al. 1986). But, like Rose’s work, these studies are not urban morphologies; the changing built environment is central to their concerns, but its form is not. This relates to a wider academic concern for the production of the built environment (cf Lefebvre) in the 1980s (King 1984; Knox 1987; Goss 1988): ‘the built environment is not only an expression of the economic and political power exerted at different times by various individuals, social groups and governments: it is also a means by which the prevailing system of power and socio-economic relationships are maintained’ (Knox 1984, p. 107; although see Unwin 2000 for a critique, and Knox 2011; Shaw 2004). This approach has since declined in academic publications, although it should still be considered relevant to a wider conceptualization of urban morphological process. Whitehand also produced a detailed examination of one development in Amersham. In introducing this study, he noted that such work in the UK depended on data sources primarily from local authorities (building and planning applications). However, information on individual developments has often been quite limited and it is evident that most individual cases are far more complex than might appear from compilations of more readily available information. There is a need to complement existing studies by laying bare some of the attitudes and behaviour underlying specific developments and by tracing the contributions of the various decision makers (Whitehand 1989a, p. 1).

This examination of one late-1920s house and the sequence of proposals for its redevelopment was unusual in its detail and in the access to those directly involved in making decisions. The volume of communications between agents was tracked, funding issues explored (number and value of offers made for the site), and the

76

P. J. Larkham

Fig. 4.2 Spatial relationships between initiators and architects in four Midlands conservation areas (Source Larkham 1988b)

sequence of planning applications and the potential impact of the various designs and densities on the surrounding urban landscape evaluated. Conclusions were drawn not just about this development saga, but more broadly about the process and key factors in second-cycle development in a highly managed and highly pressured London fringe. The tactics used to restrain development, which included major departure from DOE [UK government Department of the Environment] guidance and the LPA’s [Local Planning Authority’s] own nominal procedures, were not only costly to several of the interested parties but inimical to an integrated consideration of the proposal (Whitehand 1989a, p. 28).

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

77

Fig. 4.3 Contacts (letters, telephone calls and meetings) between the owner and other bodies: broken line indicates one-way communication. This demonstrates the high volume of communication for a single, relatively small, development (Source Whitehand 1989a)

The unique nature of the study is suggested by unusual detail of the volume and nature of communications throughout this development process, and the number of personal communications from agents to the author (Fig. 4.3). Thus, unlike many studies, here there was virtually no need to make deductions on the basis of incomplete evidence. In fact, this was Whitehand’s parents’ house, and the chain of planning applications resulted from the family’s efforts to secure maximum return from the site when they could no longer occupy it (cf Fig. 4.4). Being personally involved in the process, Jeremy Whitehand heard himself described as a ‘vexatious litigant’ by a senior planning officer during a public meeting, owing to the chain of applications put forward for this one site! Whitehand’s move from CBDs to residential areas resulted in further studies of residential development in areas of strict planning control (Whitehand 1988, 1989b; Whitehand et al. 1992) in which he continued to interrogate town-planning records, where a concern for urban landscape management became more clearly expressed. A wider study of twentieth-century British suburban landscapes was also produced (Whitehand and Carr 2001) which examined macro- and micro-scales and brought

78

P. J. Larkham

Fig. 4.4 Hypothetical and actual variations in bid prices for the Amersham development site based partly on information from potential developers (Source Whitehand 1989a)

the perspective of agents of change, especially of residential property ownership and the ‘neighbour effect’ (where one owner makes a change, neighbours will soon follow) to the fore. The move to consider the impact of planning regulation brought studies of the impact of development control and development pressure (Whitehand 1989b; Whitehand and Larkham 1991). In the UK context, ‘planning’ is a major agent, whether in terms of the effects of plan-making on decisions; of development control on permitting, modifying or rejecting proposed developments, or more widely on promoting public engagement with decision-making about the local built environment (Fig. 4.5). Overall this body of work by Whitehand and his co-workers demonstrated, with numerous detailed examples, the fundamental importance of agency in considering the creation, maintenance and future change of the urban landscape from central office and retail areas to low-density residential areas; from areas where high volumes of change are expected to those where restraint or conservation policies are applied. It shed new light on relationships between decision-makers, place, and process and type of change. ‘Local’ agents are likely to make different decisions from ‘non-local’ agents, and this can certainly have implications for urban landscape management. Although not expressed explicitly in this body of work, the ‘passive view of human agency’ (Ley 1988) became passé. Agents and agency, people and decision-makers,

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

79

Fig. 4.5 Sequence of amended proposals for an office building in Henley on Thames, showing interplay of input from the building client, architect, conservation officer and development control planner (redrawn from planning files by PJ Larkham)

80

P. J. Larkham

are generally ‘active’ participants in landscape change—some of them vociferously so, even if what they are arguing for is a lack of change (as some view conservation). However, this work has only scratched the surface of the information available in a relatively small number of locations in only one country.

4.4 Internationalization and Interdisciplinary Directions The growth of historical and archaeological interest has already been mentioned and has included documentary research to explore the impacts on urban form of landowners, including the church (Slater 1987; Slater and Rosser 1998; Baker and Holt 2003), aristocratic families (Lilley 2001) and town corporations (Boogaart 2004). Metrology has informed plan analysis, allowing more detailed consideration of ‘processes’ of plan formation and town layout in the medieval period, to supplement the patchy availability of documentary sources (Slater 1996; Lilley 1999). On a wider spatial scale, historico-morphological study has revealed the decision-making processes underlying entire settlement patterns, such as the transfer of urban ideas from the borders of the Duchy of Austria to the kingdom of Bohemia in the thirteenth century (Nitz 2001). Work on the development of towns during the industrial period has shown the impacts of landownership, especially on the conversion of agricultural land to urban use (Springett 1982; Hooper 1985; Graham and Proudfoot 1992), the detail of particularly suburban development, and its usually small-scale nature—for example proceeding on a field-by-field basis—leading to considerable variation in form and character over space (e.g. Moudon 1986; Beresford 1988; Sandweiss 2001). New perspectives on historical urban form were developed, for example with Johnston’s (1966) exploration of race, caste and class and the urban form of nineteenth-century Philadelphia, and Groth’s study of the multi-class residential hotel in America and its various forms (Groth 1994). More researchers have paid attention to the period since the mid-nineteenth century, when sources permitting detailed building-by-building analyses became available—for example in the UK in the form of building plans submitted to local authorities (Aspinall and Whitehand 1980; Roger 1981). This has, for example, allowed consideration of speculation and design in Headingley, Leeds, and the emergence of a local architectural profession (Trowell 1985). For the post-1947 period, similar data have been recovered from the records of local authority planning departments (Larkham 1988a). Significant work has been carried out using such data in exploring decision-making processes, although frequent changes in the mechanisms of the ‘agency’ of planning control (e.g. in the definition of what needs formal planning permission and what does not) means that long-term comparisons are difficult. The ‘social production’ approach, especially looking at the contribution of elite groups, has attracted interest—for example with Domosh’s work on contrasting land allocation in retail districts in nineteenth-century New York, with a ‘splintered elite’,

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

81

and Boston, with a ‘ruling elite’ (Domosh 1996). Of course, there is usually much more data available on elite landscapes and their agents, and far less on the production of, for example, squatter settlement form. In other cultural contexts, agency is often implicit in studies of changing urban form: e.g. the cultural and economic control of Chinese communism (Lu 2006). In the same context, Gaubatz (1996) explores the cultural, social and economic structures of urban form on the Chinese frontiers: the impact of multiculturalism is significant, for example where Chinese, Tibetan and Muslim cultures intersect and create or transform urban landscapes containing elements particular to each cultural tradition. In Dubai, the astonishing new architectural and urban forms emerging in that city’s explosive urbanism have been explored in the light of the oil economy, globalization and policy development (Elsheshtawy 2010). Although such work sheds new light on changing urban forms, processes and agency, its drawback is that there has been little theoretical development based on international comparative analysis—existing work has tended to be based on individual case studies. The complex politics of the post-war period also sometimes seems to limit what can explicitly be said in relation to some processes and places, for example in relating agency to the mapping of striking urban changes in Lhasa following the Chinese occupation (Larsen and Sinding-Larsen 2001). Whitehand’s own work has focused on Chinese urban form for more than a decade. Chinese cities are historically rich, complex and extensive, though morphological work has been limited and generally descriptive. Data sources are problematic, including the destruction of land and property records between the 1950s and 1970s (Whitehand and Gu 2006). While it has not yet been possible to explore individual and corporate agents and agency in the Chinese sociopolitical context in ways now familiar in the UK, a start has been made on studying conservation planning as an agency. Traditional urban landscapes have been widely erased during the past halfcentury or more, but national and city-scale conservation designations are now being made; the latter including ‘Strict Conservation Areas’ and ‘Character Coordination Areas’ where building replacement and the accommodation of new forms and uses are more carefully managed (Whitehand et al. 2011).

4.5 The Continuing Relevance of Agents and Agency Most settlements comprise the familiar units—streets, street blocks, spaces, plots, buildings and building elements; these contain the various activities and land uses. But they differ in that they are affected in different ways in their responses to climate, location, culture, history, available materials, and the processes and aspirations of their society. Yet settlements do not simply materialize: they are created and shaped by people—individually or as groups and organizations (agents) and via processes (agency). All urban dwellers and users are affected by processes of urban change and the products arising in the urban landscape. They may welcome or fight such processes

82

P. J. Larkham

Fig. 4.6 Changes to the streetscape of Charlotte Street, Brisbane, 1895–2012 (Sanders and Woodward 2015)

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

83

and products. But questions often arise in the minds of many people, whether they are directly or indirectly, actively or passively, involved. ‘How did this get built? Why did they demolish that? Who designed that? Why isn’t something done about this?’ Given the speed and scale of change in many urban landscapes, especially recently (Fig. 4.6), questions are legitimately raised about how decisions affecting so many people are taken, and their likely impact. Answers can be found to all of these types of question, although finding the information can be a lengthy process. In many cases, complete information is unobtainable, and appropriate inferences have to be drawn. When such research is done, it often fascinates locals, informs professionals, and can be revealing at scales from the most local to the national and indeed international. This is the fundamental continuing relevance of studying urban form through the lens of agents and agency: it explains what happens (or does not happen). The substantial body of detailed empirical studies produced by Whitehand and his collaborators and co-authors contributes new ideas to our understanding of changing urban form, at least in the UK with its generally detailed and reasonably consistent body of data during the twentieth century. More recently, political changes to what requires explicit planning consent have altered that consistency; and other national cultures and planning systems may not be conducive to this level of examination. But, although simple citation counts over-simplify complex patterns of intellectual transfer, it is interesting to see the international citation of Whitehand’s ‘agents and agency’ work in Chinese, French, Japanese, Polish and Spanish academic papers, and that it was considered sufficiently important to generate a festschrift with nineteen contributors representing eight countries excluding the UK. The perspective on agents and agency, on decisions and decision-making, offers a far more complex and detailed set of responses to the problems raised in understanding the form and development of the urban landscape, even if some of those answers remain partial and derived from inference. It is a more conceptually rich perspective than—and a far cry from—that offered by a range of writers (often from the architectural profession) in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries discussed by Maumi (2003). Reynaud (1863), for example, suggested that ‘The layout of a town is the work of time rather than that of architects’; for him, the creation of a town was so complex that it was beyond unaided human achievement. ‘It was therefore risky to trust one man, one office, one state’ (Maumi 2003, p. 870). Giovannoni (1931) agreed, recognizing the influence of a myriad of actors: ‘No human mind can foresee and manage such a complex phenomenon as the birth or the growth of a town in a rigorous way; no individual force can replace the reunion of wills and interests of thousands of individuals, institutions or firms’. Although Whitehand (1977) did mention the problems of a decision-making approach, what has emerged is neither a refined decision-making approach nor even a developed historico-geographical model, but instead a much broader international and interdisciplinary acceptance of the explanatory power of fusing information on agents and agency with detailed knowledge of the changing physical urban fabric.

84

P. J. Larkham

4.6 Future Directions The cultural context for much research, across much of the world, is changing. Interdisciplinarity (or its not-quite-synonyms trans-disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and so on) and international collaboration have risen high in the agendas of governments and research funders; impact and novelty are not far behind. Yet many aspects relate directly to urban morphology; for example, to take just one key morphologist, there is a strong correlation with MRG Conzen’s own discipline-crossing background and his promotion of international comparisons and the link between the general and the particular seen, for example, in the video interview between MRG Conzen, JWR Whitehand and TR Slater in 1986. In terms of an agenda for agents and agency in urban form, this is the ‘process’ end of considering urban morphology and both process and product. There have been international comparisons in terms of product—for example the ISUF-led comparative study of selected areas in six ‘world cities’ (Kim 2003, though this is not widely available). The processes that led to, and continually reshape, those forms merit equal international comparison. This allows explanation of why places are so different—or, indeed, so similar. Numerous research questions immediately arise: for example, given that a major aspect of the place-marketing and urban design agendas is about creating uniqueness and character in places, what is the effect of increasingly international ownership in property, property finance, development process and design? There are reasons why a large element of mid-twentieth-century modernism is widely known as the ‘International Style’. More recently, the ‘clone town’ problem was identified, certainly within the UK, and internationally too one can see the same businesses, shopfront designs and so on across so many cities. Globalization, the requirements of corporate identity, fashions in architectural design and the standing relationships between corporate clients and designers have become significant factors. Hence, there is an under-explored international morphological dimension linked to Whitehand’s comment about local and non-local agents discussed above. Studying the morphological effects of agents and agency would be facilitated by still closer engagement with a wide range of disciplines. Historical, cultural, psychological and sociological perspectives are clearly relevant to developing a broader understanding of how people react to each other, to the stimuli of place, and how they make decisions. Politics and economics have great parts to play in explaining so many decision-making processes at all scales, whether this is the politics of political parties or simply of inter-personal and inter-organizational activity. Drawing the dimension of nature into consideration of urban form remains an under-exploited research opportunity: the value of urban parks, street trees, gardens and other spaces for both people and wildlife/biodiversity has been studied but is often rendered in terms of financial value rather than as a contribution to a wider understanding of urban systems and forms. There is a point to consider here about rates and scales of urban change, as flora and fauna have different rates of chance from physical structures; they also often contribute significantly to the character and appearance of places. Many other disciplines could make equally valuable contributions.

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

85

Research approaches can be equally interdisciplinary, and here is where novelty can be generated (though novelty ‘for its own sake’ should be avoided, but seems an inevitable consequence of some research funding agendas!). Applications of computers for data analysis, visualization, simulation and so on are common when looking at physical forms but, perhaps, less so when thinking of the processes of production and use. They would, of course, be invaluable in the collection, management, comparison and analysis of large data sets. Working with urban users in new ways includes, for example, ‘walk-along’ methods of engaging with people within the urban environments being investigated. Multimedia and Web-based outputs offer the prospect of engaging more directly with a far wider range of potential research users than those who read traditional academic journals. If apps delivering on-the-spot information on ‘who built that?’, ‘how did that get planning permission?’ and ‘what used to be on this site?’ do not already exist, they could easily be developed, and these are all research outputs from inquiries into the agents and agency dimensions of urban morphology. The future for this branch of urban morphology is, therefore, broad and promising. New perspectives and new technologies can reach new and far wider audiences. But this is inescapably rooted in the work of key scholars of the past and present, amongst whom the contribution of JWR Whitehand is particularly significant. Although he did not personally engage with new technologies, he did make significant moves in linking physical forms with processes of production—economics and bid rents—and with people, organizations and decision-making. The PhD students he nurtured have pushed such studies further, in academic studies of urban form, development, conservation, urban users and uses; or as built environment professionals who have taken this sensitivity to people, process and urban product into their professional careers. Yet there remains tremendous potential for developing this aspect of urban morphology. Whitehand’s own body of work and that which he has influenced elsewhere has clearly sought to understand more clearly the complex ‘reunion of wills and interests’ that exists at all times and in all places.

References Al-shalabi M, Billa L, Pradhan B, Mansor S, Al-Sharif AA (2013) Modelling urban growth evolution and land-use changes using GIS based cellular automata and SLEUTH models: the case of Sana’a metropolitan city, Yemen. Environ Earth Sci 70:425–437 Aspinall PJ, Whitehand JWR (1980) Building plans: a major source for urban studies. Area 12:199–203 Aston M, Bond J (1976) The landscape of towns. Dent, London Baker N, Holt R (2003) Urban growth and the medieval church: Gloucester and Worcester. Ashgate, Aldershot Beresford MW (1988) East End, West End: the face of Leeds during urbanisation, 1684–1842. Publications of the Thoresby Society Nos. 60/61. Thoresby Society, Leeds Binford HC (1974) Land tenure, social structure and railway impact on North Lambeth 1830–1865. J Transp Hist 2:131–152 Bobek H (1927) Grundfragen der stadtgeographie. Geogr Anz 28:213–224

86

P. J. Larkham

Boogaart TA (2004) An ethnogeography of late medieval Bruges: evolution of the corporate milieu, 1280–1349. Edward Mellen Press, Lampeter Carter H (1970) A decision-making approach to town plan analysis: a case study of Llandudno. In: Carter H, Davies WKD (eds) Urban essays: studies in the geography of Wales. Longman, London, pp 66–78 Cataldi G (2003) From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and development of the Italian school of design typology. Urban Morphol 7:19–34 Cataldi G, Maffei GL, Vaccaro P (2002) Saverio Muratori and the Italian school of planning typology. Urban Morphol 6:3–14 Chapin FS (1964) Selected theories of urban growth and structure. J Am Inst Plann 30:51–58 Conzen MP (2013) Experiments in cross-cultural urban morphology. In: Proceedings of the Joint meeting of the international seminar on urban form and the european association for architectural education, School of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 16–19 Oct 2012 Conzen MRG (1966) Historical townscapes in Britain: a problem in applied geography. In: House JW (ed) Northern geographical essays in honour of GHJ Daysh. Oriel Press, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 56–78 Conzen MRG, Conzen MP (ed) (2004) Thinking about urban form: papers on urban morphology. Lang, Oxford Corsini MG (1998) Tipi e tessuti del centro storico di Roma. Kappa, Rome Dickinson RE (1934) The town plans of East Anglia: a study in urban morphology. Geography 19:37–50 Dickinson RE (1945) The morphology of the medieval German town. Geogr Rev 35:74–97 Dickinson RE (1951) The west European city. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London Domosh M (1996) Invented cities: the creation of landscape in nineteenth-century New York and Boston. Yale University Press, New Haven Dörries H (1930) Der gegenwärtige Stand der Stadtgeographie. Pet Geogr Mitt 209:310–325 Edwards G (2004) The morphological impact of ethnic minority ingress into an established suburban environment. Unpublished MPhil thesis, School of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester Elsheshtawy Y (2010) Dubai: behind an urban spectacle. Routledge, Abingdon Emirbayer M, Mische A (1998) What is agency? Am J Sociol 103:962–1023 Essex S, Brayshay M (2007) Vision, vested interest and pragmatism: who re-made Britain’s blitzed cities? Plann Perspect 22:417–441 Freeman M (1990) Commercial building development: the agents of change. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities: essays for MRG Conzen on the occasion of his eightieth birthday. Leicester University Press, Leicester Fritz J (1894) Deutsche Stadtanlangen. In: Beilage zum Programm 520 edes Lyzeums Strassburg. Heitz, Strassburg Gad G, Holdsworth D (1987) Corporate capitalism and the emergence of the high-rise office building. Urban Geogr 8:212–231 Gaubatz PR (1996) Beyond the Great Wall: urban form and transformation on the Chinese frontiers. Stanford University Press, Stanford Gauthier P (2005) Conceptualizing the social construction of urban and architectural form through the typological process. Urban Morphol 9:83–93 Geisler W (1924) Die deutsche Stadt: ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der Kulturlandschaft. Engelhorn, Stuttgart Giovannoni, G. (1931) Veccie città ed edilizia nuova. Unione Typografico-Editrice Torinese, Turin Gordon G (1984) The shaping of urban morphology. Urban Hist 11:1–10 Goss J (1988) The built environment and social theory: towards an architectural geography. Prof Geogr 40:392–403 Graham BJ, Proudfoot L (1992) Landlords, planning, and urban growth in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Ireland. J Urban Hist 18:308–329

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

87

Groth PE (1994) Living downtown: the history of residential hotels in the United States. University of California Press, Berkeley Hall T, Hubbard P (2014) ‘Birmingham needs you, you need Birmingham’: cities as actors and actors in cities. In: Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, New York, pp 285–300 Holmwood J, Stewart A (1991) Explanation and social theory. Macmillan, Basingstoke Hooper A (1985) The role of landed property in the production of the built environment. Bartlett International Summer School, Paper No. 6. Bartlett School, University College, London Johnston NJ (1966) The caste and class of the urban form of historic Philadelphia. J Am Inst Plann 32:334–350 Jones AN, Booth PN, Larkham PJ, Pompa ND, Whitehand JWR (1988) The management of planned residential townscapes. Working Paper No. 43. School of Geography, University of Birmingham Jones AN, Larkham PJ (1991) A glossary of urban form. Institute of British Geographers Historical Geography Research Group Monograph No. 26. GeoBooks, Norwich Kim KJ (ed) (2003) International urban form study: development pattern and density of selected world cities. Seoul Development Institute, Seoul Keyser E (1958) Städtegründungen und Städtebau in Nordwestdeutschland im Mittelalter: Bundesanstalt für Landeskunde, Remagen am Rhein King AD (1984) The social production of building form: theory and research. Environ Plann D Soc Space 2:429–446 Kirk W (1963) Problems of geography. Geogr 48:357–378 Knox PL (1984) Symbolism, styles and settings: the built environment and the imperatives of urbanized capitalism. Architecture et Comportement 2:107–122 Knox PL (1987) The social production of the built environment: architects, architecture and the post-modern city. Prog Hum Geogr 11:354–377 Knox PL (2011) Cities and design. Routledge, London Larkham PJ (1988a) Changing conservation areas in the English Midlands: evidence from local planning records. Urban Geogr 9:445–465 Larkham PJ (1988b) Agents and types of change in the conserved townscape. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 13:148–164 Larkham PJ (2014) A new vision: the role of municipal authorities and planners in replanning Britain after the Second World War. In: Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, New York, pp 230–250 Larkham PJ (2016) Replanning post-war Birmingham: process, product and longevity. Architectura 46:2–26 Larkham PJ, Adams D (2016) The un-necessary monument? The origins, impact and potential conservation of Birmingham Central Library. Trans Anc Mon Soc 60:94–127 Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) (2014) Shapers of urban form: explorations in morphological agency. Routledge, New York Larkham PJ, Nasr J (2012) Decision making under duress: the treatment of churches in the City of London during and after World War II. Urban Hist 39:285–309 Larsen K, Sinding-Larsen A (2001) The Lhasa atlas. Serindia Publications, London León J, March A (2016) An urban form response to disaster vulnerability: improving tsunami evacuation in Iquique, Chile. Environ Plann B Plann Des 43:826–847 Ley D (1988) From urban structure to urban landscape. Urban Geogr 9:98–105 Lilley KD (1999) Urban landscapes and the cultural politics of territorial control in Anglo-Norman England. Landsc Res 24:5–23 Lilley KD (2001) Urban planning and the design of towns in the middle ages: the Earls of Devon and their ‘new towns’. Plann Perspect 16:1–24 Lilley KD (2009) The landscapes of Edward’s new towns: their planning and design. In: Williams D, Kenyon J (eds) The impact of the Edwardian castles on Wales. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 99–113 Lu D (2006) Remaking Chinese urban form: modernity, scarcity and space, 1949–2005. Routledge, Abingdon

88

P. J. Larkham

Martiny R (1928) Die Grundrissgestaltung der deutschen Siedlungen Justus Perthes, Gotha Maumi C (2003) The will of a few men with common-sense: a few thoughts. In: Petruccioli A, Stella M, Strappa G (eds) The Planned City, vol 3. Uniongrafica Corcelli Editrice, Bari, pp 869–873 McNeill D (2009) The global architect: firms, fame and urban form. Routledge, New York Mortimore MJ (1969) Landownership and urban growth in Bradford and its environs in the West Riding conurbation, 1850–1950. Trans Inst Br Geogr 46:105–119 Moudon AV (1986) Built for change: neighborhood architecture in San Francisco. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Moudon AV (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphol 1:3–10 Nasser N (2003) The challenge of ethnoscapes. Urban Morphol 7:45–48 Nitz H-J (2001) Medieval towns with grid plan and central market place in east-central Europe: origins and diffusion in the early-thirteenth century. Urban Morphol 5:81–97 Norborg K (ed) Proceedings of the international geographical union symposium on urban geography, Lund 1960. Lund Studies in Geography No. 24. Gleerup, Lund Pacione M (1991) Development pressure and the production of the built environment in the urban fringe. Scot Geogr Mag 107:162–169 Pesaresi M, Bianchin A (2001) Recognizing settlement structure using mathematical morphology and image texture. In: Donnay J-P, Barnsley MJ, Longley PA (eds) Remote sensing and urban analysis. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 46–60 Preston V, Lo L (2000) ‘Asian theme’ malls in suburban Toronto: land use conflict in Richmond Hill. Canad Geogr 44:182–190 Reynaud L (1863) Traité d’Architecture, II: Composition des Édifices. Dunod, Paris Roger RG (1981) Sources and methods of urban studies: the contribution of building records. Area 13:315–321 Rose J (1985) The dynamics of urban property development. Spon, London Rose P, Keim C, Robazza G, Viejo P, Schofield J (2014) Cities and energy: urban morphology and residential heat-energy demand. Environ Plann B Plann Des 41:138–162 Rowley G (1975) Landownership and the spatial growth of towns: a Sheffield example. East Mids Geogr 6:200–213 Sanders P, Woodward SA (2015) Morphogenetic analysis of architectural elements within the townscape. Urban Morphol 19:5–24 Sandweiss E (2001) St Louis: the evolution of an American urban landscape. Temple University Press, Philadelphia Schlüter O (1899a) Bemerkungen zur Siedlungsgeographie. Geographische Zeitschrift 5:65–84 Schlüter O (1899b) Über der Grundriss der Städte. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 34:446–462 Schlüter O (1903) Die Siedlungen im nordöstlichen Thüringen: ein Beispiel für die Behandlung siedlungsgeographischer Fragen. Costenoble, Berlin Schöller P (1953) Aufgaben und Probleme der Stadtgeographie. Erdkunde 7:161–184 Shaw D (2004) City building on the eastern frontier: sorting the new nineteenth-century city. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Short JR, Fleming S, Witt S (1986) Housebuilding, planning and community action: the production and negotiation of the built environment. Routledge, London Slater TR (1987) Ideal and reality in English episcopal medieval town planning. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 12:191–203 Slater TR (1996) Medieval town-founding on the estates of the Benedictine Order in England. In: Eliassen F-E, Ersland GA (eds) Power, profit and urban land. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 70–93 Slater TR, Rosser G (eds) (1998) The church in the medieval town. Ashgate, Aldershot Springett J (1982) Landowners and urban development: the Ramsden Estate and nineteenth-century Huddersfield. J Hist Geogr 8:129–144 Strahm H (1950) Zur Verfassungstopographie der mittelalterlichen Städte. Zeit Schw Ges 30:406–407, 409–410

4 Agents and Agency in the Urban Landscape

89

Stewart DJ (1999) Changing Cairo: the political economy of urban form. Intl J Urban and Regl Res 23:103–127 Trowell F (1985) Speculative housing development in Leeds and the involvement of local architects in the design process, 1866–1914. Constr Hist 1:13–24 Unwin T (2000) A waste of space? Towards a critique of the social production of space. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 25:11–29 Vance JE Jr (1977) This scene of man: the role and structure of the city in the geography of Western civilization. Harper’s College Press, New York Vance JE Jr (1978) Institutional forces that shape the city. In: Herbert DT, Johnston RJ (eds) Social areas in cities: processes, patterns and problems. Wiley, Chichester, pp 81–109 Vance JE Jr (1990) The continuing city: urban morphology in Western civilization. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Whitehand JWR (1967) Fringe belts: a neglected aspect of urban geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 41:223–233 Whitehand JWR (1972a) Building cycles and the spatial pattern of urban growth. Trans Inst Br Geogr 56:39–55 Whitehand JWR (1972b) Urban-rent theory, time series and morphogenesis: an example of eclecticism in geographical research. Area 4:215–222 Whitehand JWR (1977) The basis for an historico-geographical theory of urban form. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 2:400–416 Whitehand JWR (1979) Property developers, building users, and the changing form of the town centre since 1880. Funding application to the Social Science Research Council (obtained from the author) Whitehand JWR (1981) Background to the urban morphogenetic tradition. In: Whitehand JWR (ed) (1981) The urban landscape: historical development and management: papers by MRG Conzen. Institute of British Geographers Special Publication No. 13. Academic Press, London, pp. 1–24 Whitehand JWR (1983) Land use structure, built-form and agents of change. In: Davies RL (ed) The future for the city centre. Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, No. 14. Academic Press, London pp 41–59 Whitehand JWR (1984) Rebuilding town centres: developers, architects and styles. Department of Geography Occasional Publication No. 19. University of Birmingham, Birmingham Whitehand JWR (1988) The changing urban landscape: the transformation of London’s high-class residential fringe. Geogr J 154:351–366 Whitehand JWR (1989a) Residential development under restraint: a case study in London’s ruralurban fringe. Occasional Publication No. 28. School of Geography, University of Birmingham Whitehand JWR (1989b) Development pressure, development control and suburban townscape change: case studies in south-east England. Town Plann Rev 60:403–421 Whitehand JWR (1990) Makers of the residential landscape: conflict and change in outer London. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 15:87–101 Whitehand JWR, Carr CMH (2001) Twentieth-century suburbs: a morphological approach. Routledge, London Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2006) Research on Chinese urban form: progress and prospect. Progr Human Geogr 30:337–355 Whitehand JWR, Gu K, Whitehand SM, Zhang J (2011) Urban morphology and conservation in China. Cities 28:165–171 Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (1991) Suburban cramming and development control. J Prop Res 8:147–159 Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ, Jones AN (1992) The changing suburban landscape in post-war England. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 227–265

90

P. J. Larkham

Whitehand JWR, Whitehand SM (1983) The study of physical change in town centres: research procedures and types of change. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 8:483–507 Whitehand JWR, Whitehand SM (1984) The physical fabric of town centres: the agents of change. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 9:231–247

Chapter 5

Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology: Through the Lens of JWR Whitehand Karl Kropf

Abstract There are many reasons why we might want to deepen our understanding of urban environments, from the often quoted fact that over half the global population now lives in cities to the seemingly inexorable spread of common building types across the globe and the attendant loss of diversity. Or still, there is the spectre of moribund town centres and stagnating suburbs. The field of urban morphology has made significant contributions to our understanding of cities and has great potential to deepen it further. That contribution has been possible—and continues to be—in large part, because urban morphology provides a rigorous approach to the study of urban form. As argued in this chapter, the rigour of urban morphology derives to a significant degree from the active use of comparison as a core part of its methodology. The suggestion is that comparison is used not just in explicit ‘comparative studies’ but in a thoroughgoing way at a number of different levels. This suggestion is pursued through the lens of the work of Professor Jeremy Whitehand. Over his long career, Whitehand has made a significant contribution to the rigour of urban morphology through his clarity of language and terminology, consistent reference to testable general principles and his high standards of scholarship. In particular, the chapter will take Whitehand’s work on plan analysis, the fringe-belt and cross-cultural studies as topics to explore the different uses of comparison. The paper concludes by taking lessons from Whitehand’s work that point to ways in which urban morphology can consolidate and extend its contribution to our understanding of cities. Keywords Rigour · Comparison · Perception · Inference · Method Urban morphology

K. Kropf (B) Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4_5

91

92

K. Kropf

5.1 Introduction A debate that runs within a number of academic fields of study is whether a given field is a science. Some fields that come to mind include economics, sociology and psychology. Amongst the others are, arguably, cultural geography and architecture. These are obviously relevant to this volume because they are the two fields out of which urban morphology has emerged. The purpose of this chapter is not to address the question—is urban morphology a science?—but to consider a less specific version of that question: can urban morphology be a rigorous field or discipline? The questions clearly overlap to the extent that rigour is an attribute of science. For the purposes of this chapter, rigour is taken to be generally synonymous with meticulousness, thoroughness, attention to detail, diligence, scrupulousness, exactitude, precision and accuracy. Within the context of an academic discipline, rigour more specifically tends to denote theoretical, methodological and logical consistency, clarity, comprehensiveness and coherence. These attributes tend to be valued where an overall aim within a field is to improve our understanding of the world around us and to build up an accumulated body of knowledge and understanding that is shared within a wider public or community. Rigour is necessary in order to improve and extend accepted ideas as well as to persuasively critique and supersede them. Rigour is necessary whenever we invoke or propose a ‘theory’ or, more particularly, whenever we invoke or propose concepts of general applicability about regularities of urban form and process. The latter can certainly be applied to the field of urban morphology as exemplified by a range of specific authors from Saverio Muratori, Gianfranco Caniggia and MRG Conzen to MP Conzen, JWR Whitehand, Lionel March, Philip Steadman and Stephen Marshall as well as, in different ways, Michael Batty, Elsa Arcuate, Bill Hillier, Lars Marcus, Meta Berghauser-Pont, John Peponis and Sergio Porta. As will be explored in this chapter, an active principle that operates with the exercise of rigour is the act of ‘comparison’. The principle operates in different ways at different stages when we seek to understand our surroundings, In some cases it is used explicitly and deliberately in others implicitly. The more specific aim of this chapter is to bring to light the ways that comparison operates in order to facilitate greater rigour in undertaking urban morphological research and the theoretical and methodological development of the field. The obvious starting point for exploring the operation and use of comparison as a fundamental component of rigour is to examine the work of researchers who have taken a rigorous approach. If there is anyone within the field of urban morphology who has taken a rigorous approach, one of them is JWR Whitehand. Whitehand has been central to the consolidation and development of the British School of urban morphology and the historico-geographical approach to the subject. His rigour is evident in the way he has worked within but extended the concepts of MRG Conzen and in his careful and deliberate use of those concepts in order to maintain their clarity and coherence. It is therefore fitting to the purposes of this volume to explore comparison through the lens of Whitehand’s work.

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

93

To this end, the chapter is structured to work through a series of examples culminating in an examination of Whitehand’s work. The aim is to build up a clear idea of comparison and the different ways in which it operates in order to gain an insight into its role in a rigorous approach to urban morphology. The series of examples is broken down into three broad groups that are examined in the three main sections of this chapter. The first explores the role of comparison in perception, which operates at the unconscious level as part of an organism’s adaptive response to an environment necessarily mediated through the information provided by sense organs. The second section looks at the conscious use of comparison in different fields of study with the aim of establishing objective knowledge or the ‘truth’ about the subject. In the third section, Whitehand’s work is examined to identify different modes of comparison within urban morphology that provides the foundation for the rigour. The aim, as set out in the concluding section, is to suggest how we might best take advantage of our native capacity for comparison in order to build up a robust body of knowledge that accords with experience and is capable of growth within a community. The method adopted in the paper is to a large extent self-referential: it takes a fundamentally comparative approach to critical analysis of a concept that is central to urban morphology. By setting out a series of instances of comparison, it is possible to compare one with the others to identify common structural characteristics as well as key differences that establish a basis for differences in modes of comparison.

5.2 A Philosophical Backdrop To start with an anecdote, not long after I first met Professor Whitehand we were having a discussion in his office at the University of Birmingham. In the midst of the meeting, the desk between us began to shake slightly along with some of the bookshelves, attended by the sound of creaking wood and a quiet rattling. We looked at each other with some surprise and after a moment said, ‘must have been an earthquake’. To take a philosophical view of the anecdote, the surprising fact or phenomenon of the shaking table and creaking shelves—being out of the ordinary—was rendered a matter of course by the hypothesis of an earthquake. Put another way, the specific experience was compared with and ‘mapped onto’ the general schema provided by the concept of an earthquake. This is an example of what the American logician and philosopher CS Peirce calls ‘abduction’. Peirce introduced the principle in the 1860s as a complement to the two classical forms of inference, deduction and induction. As a simple review, deduction is an inference from general to particular and is a matter of logical certainty. Induction is an inference from a set of particulars to a general principle and is always provisional. As Peirce pointed out, however, the move to a general idea from particulars necessarily involves an abductive inference—essentially a ‘best guess’ that is subsequently supported or not by the inductive checking against examples and further experience (and still always provisional).

94

K. Kropf

What is of particular importance for this discussion is that the ‘phenomena’ from which inferences are made are necessarily plural. We can only make an inductive inference by comparing our experience of multiple examples of the ‘same thing’. That is, the idea of ‘the same thing’—a cup of coffee or a bicycle—can only be formulated and named if we have in our head the memory of previous experiences. The general idea—something that can be named—is then an aggregate or composite image of those experiences. The composite is based on the similarities in our experiences, which can only be established by comparison between them. As Peirce and others have suggested, there is no sharp break between ‘intuition’ and ‘reason’, going as far as to suggest that the process of perception itself, while not accessible to direct conscious attention, takes the form of an abductive inference. The form of an abductive inference as expressed by Peirce in about 1902 is: The surprising fact C is observed. If A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. (Peirce 1931) In suggesting that perception takes the form of an abductive inference, the component A in the syllogism is generated by or retrieved from our cognitive system. On the basis that our cognitive capacities are built up by the process of learning, the idea of A would have come either from direct experience or ‘book learning’ of some kind. To return to the anecdote of the earthquake, if either one of us had no direct experience of an earthquake or exposure to the idea as a principle from our formal or informal education, the shaking and creaking would have remained a curious fact. We could not have the perception or make the inference that the shaking desk and creaking shelves would be a matter of course following on from an earthquake. Either way, the perception or inference involves a comparison of immediate experience with an idea already in our heads. Peirce takes this further by suggesting first that all ideas are in effect signs and that all thought and reasoning is of necessity by signs. The interpretation of a given sign (perception, idea) can only be by another sign (idea), leading to Peirce’s conception of unlimited semiosis. As he proposes it, the process of interpretation could go from sign to sign indefinitely. Peirce goes on to suggest, however, that as a matter of pragmatics, the process does not run infinitely but ends, provisionally, in a habit. That habit is our second nature response to experiences that constitutes meaning: the things that come to mind at the sight of a familiar face or sound of a word. Peirce’s notion of unlimited semiosis and thinking in signs is his response to the age-old philosophical problem of whether we have access to the world in itself. If we only have access to representations of the world around us, (due, in one of Peirce’s formulations, to our ‘incapacities’; Peirce 1868), then the only way we can build up a stable overall picture of that world is to compare and correlate our different views of it. If we only had access to a sequence of unrelated impressions, there would be no possibility of locating ourselves in relation to anything or recognise objects. We can only perceive and recognise a cup of coffee or a bicycle as such because we have in our memory the composite image of previous instances. We compare our immediate experience with the image and infer, abductively, the general idea as a

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

95

best guess. From here, the deductive inference is that, if abduction is fundamentally comparative and perception is a form of abduction, perception is fundamentally comparative. The following section examines three ways in which our unconscious cognitive apparatus involves the comparison of various sense inputs.

5.3 Comparison in Perception 5.3.1 Place Cells, Grid Cells and Border Cells A fascinating example at the unconscious level is the case of mechanisms working within the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex in the brain. Research since the mid-twentieth century has identified a range of cells in these locations that have a significant role in spatial cognition and memory. These include what are called place cells, grid cells and border cells, amongst others. Place cells were discovered in the 1970s and, in simplified terms, were found to develop in distinct patterns depending on the experience of the organism in its environment. The patterns of place cells were also found to persist and to play a significant part in spatial memory. What was not known early on was how they were formed. More recent research has shown that place cells work together with grid cells and border cells to develop the persistent patterns. Most relevant to this chapter is the likely mechanisms involved. In their groundbreaking research, Moser et al. (2015) discovered that ‘multiple firing fields of individual entorhinal neurons formed a regularly spaced triangular or hexagonal grid pattern, which repeated itself across the entire available space’, which they dubbed grid cells. In addition, they found the spacing or scale of the grid varied in different parts of the cortex. While the specific mechanism has not yet been determined, a current proposal is that place cells form by the ‘linear combination of periodic firing fields from grid cells with a common central peak, but different grid spacing and orientation’. Here, the suggestion is that because ‘the wavelength of the individual grid patterns is different, the patterns cancel each other except at the central peak, which becomes the place field of the receiving cell.’ To give an analogy, the principle described is in essence the same as the phenomenon of a moiré pattern. This occurs when two patterns are overlain and the top layer is semi-transparent or has transparent gaps. If the two patterns are the same or similar but not perfectly aligned, the result is a third ‘interference’ pattern. An equivalent with sound is the phenomenon of the ‘beats’ heard when two tones are played simultaneously but slightly ‘out of tune’. The beats decrease in frequency as the tones get closer in pitch, disappearing when they are in unison. The phenomenon is used to tune musical instruments. In simple terms, what would appear to be happening in the brain with grid cells, border cells and place cells is that two or more different patterns (grid, border and others) are being overlain and the resulting ‘interference pattern’ is playing a part

96

K. Kropf

in forming place cells that are active in spatial cognition and memory. In structural terms, this is again the combination and comparison of two sets of information resulting in the generation of a third.

5.3.2 Face Recognition Another example of comparison working at the unconscious or subconscious level is the capacity of pattern recognition. There are a number of theories that seek to explain the general phenomenon of pattern recognition, though there is no consensus on which of the competing conceptions provide the best picture of the mechanisms involved. Most theories involve the general principle of comparing immediate sense data with some kind of image or information retrieved from memory. The main difference between the theories is the nature of that information, in particular whether it takes the form of a whole image, some kind of abstract template or a combination of individual features. The more specific case of face recognition has been the subject of considerable research, the results of which are a clearer idea of how the process works—at least for faces. The picture that has emerged from recent investigations (Chang and Tsao 2017) confirms the idea that, for faces, the brain responds to selected features or, more specifically, to a composite or ensemble of features. In essence, the research shows that specific ‘face cells’ in the brain respond to isolated, abstract features relating to the shape and appearance of faces. Identification of an individual’s face then occurs when a particular ensemble of cells fire together and that ensemble corresponds to a remembered one, which is in turn interpreted by the further memories associated with the person resulting in ‘identification’. While the mechanics of the whole process are not fully elaborated, structurally the process involves the same three elements of input, stored information and the further information of recognition. The fact that the recognition is an ‘interpretation’ involving comparison is underscored by the fact that there is always the possibility of uncertainty or a mistake, either of which requires conscious checking.

5.3.3 Binocular Vision A third example of the unconscious use of comparison is binocular vision. As in the other cases, binocular vision involves two sources of information that are compared to generate a third. Unlike the previous two examples, however, in this case the two sources are received by the brain simultaneously rather than first an immediate sense perception and then a remembered one. What is of particular importance moreover is that the two sources are slightly different. The difference arises because the eyes are set slightly apart and produce slightly different perspectives of the same scene. When the two are combined and compared by the brain, even though each is a two-

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

97

dimensional image, the brain is able to interpret the ‘difference’ as the additional information about the third dimension of depth. Without the different perspectives, there would be no additional information. The capacity of the brain to generate the bonus or yield of depth perception from two ‘flat’ images is amply demonstrated by its exploitation through the use of stereoscopic photography in the production of topographic maps and 3D movies. It is also notable that the combination of two similar but different images to generate a third is similar to the moire effect of overlaying similar but different patterns as described above for grid cells and place cells.

5.4 Conscious, Implicit Comparison Given the consequences of our ‘incapacities’ as identified by Peirce, the move towards more rigorous attempts to understand our surroundings has not been a matter of shortcircuiting our senses to get direct access to the world. Rather, the move has involved the systematic marshalling of comparison. Some of the most basic techniques and procedures central to scientific methods, many of which we now take for granted, are founded on the act of setting one thing against another and identifying the differences, or not, between them. Three examples taken somewhat at random are measurement, experimental control and peer review.

5.4.1 Measurement Measurement is a simple and straightforward application of comparison that has facilitated a wide range of beneficial human activities—not least trade—along with its systematic application in scientific enquiry. Again, because we have no way to directly intuit quantitative attributes of objects such mass, length or time, we must determine them by reference, directly or indirectly, to some other object. To declare the mass or weight of something in any unit of measurement is to necessarily refer to and compare it with an object or procedure that defines the unit. The base units of length, mass, time and electromagnetism in the metric system all refer to either a mise en pratiques, a practical realisation, or a physical object. The kilogram, for example, is defined by a block of platinum-iridium made and held in France (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures 2018). Strictly, measurement involves three minimum elements: an unknown, new, quantity; a known, fixed, quantity; and the difference between the two, determined by comparison. One of the essential—and innovative—aspects of measurement by reference to agreed objects or procedures and the use of calibrated measuring devices is the ‘externalisation’ of memory and its embodiment or inscription in the environment. The work of establishing reference objects and procedures and calibrating instruments to the defined units establishes a ‘memory’ of the unit that is not dependent on any par-

98

K. Kropf

ticular individual holding it in his or her head. It is therefore ready to hand with little effort, accessible to the community and can persist independent of any individual.

5.4.2 Experimental Control The principle of experimental control is a further application—and compounding of comparison. Where measurement is a single comparison, an experimental control is a comparison of measurements. And, as with measurement, one is ‘new’ and the other ‘fixed’. The procedure usually involves running two parallel experiments with all inputs and conditions the same except for applying the experimental factor in only one of the two. By comparing measurements of the two as taken both before and after the experiment, it is then possible to infer that any differences in the results can be attributed to the experimental factor. In cases where the data and evidence for the investigation are necessarily historical or the timescales of the processes involved are extremely long—as in the study of human settlements—the direct use of experimental control is limited. In general, the role of a control is taken by an idealised model or ‘type’, which still allows comparison with a ‘fixed’ or invariant case in order to identify similarities and differences. Clearly this requires more care in drawing conclusions and also the need to review the model or type to ensure it remains relevant. A further step in the use of controls is to compare the results of a series of controlled experiments working through a range of different factors. The idea of comparing multiple experiments points to the third example procedure, which is peer review.

5.4.3 Peer Review In summary, the process of peer review involves, first, a scientific investigation and the preparation of works by the investigator(s) to communicate the results. The second step is the submission of that work to other, similar investigators to check the work for adherence to a range of standards. A third is then the judgement by the editor or body disseminating the work whether to publish it or not. The essence of peer review is a twofold comparison, first on the part of the reviewers and then on the part of the editor. Each individual reviewer will compare the new work against an existing set of methods, techniques and procedures to ensure the results are valid. The reviewer will also compare any new elements with existing theories, concepts and facts to ensure that the new fits with those theories and/or accounts for established results. Finally, the reviewer will compare the new work against established principles of inference to ensure the new work has drawn valid conclusions.

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

99

The role of the editor is then to compare the points raised by the reviewers with each other and with his/her own view. The editor weighs the different views in the balance and makes a judgment about whether to publish or not. To draw an analogy, the range of reviews provides a multi-ocular view resulting in greater depth and a wider angle of view than a single perspective and allows for a more considered judgement. Some of the more formal specifics of peer review as a species of comparison can be explored through three examples of comparative techniques that have been used, some for millennia, in the development of human knowledge. At a general level, peer review is an expression of the fact that human understanding as an accumulated body of knowledge is dependent on language and communication. That body of knowledge, like language itself, has emerged within a community or group of people. An essential feature of any group of people is the variation in capacities, ways of thinking and understanding of individuals.

5.5 Comparative Methods The pool of human knowledge is fundamentally a diverse mix of ideas held in the heads of individuals and as expressed in recorded works of all kinds. When seeking to establish the ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ about even a shared experience, the variability and diversity of perspectives and interpretations pose something of a challenge. Again, as with language, even though a language only emerges in and is shared between a community, it is only ever made manifest in the expressions of individuals. Taking a pragmatist position, the ‘truth’ necessarily lies in what individual ideas and expressions have in common through active investigation in the long run. And those commonalities can only be identified by comparing the individual ideas and expression.

5.5.1 Comparison of Multiple Sources: History In the field of history, one of the core principles that has been established to deal with variations in interpretations is to compare a number of sources that describe the same events (Bodin 1566, Howell and Prevenier 2001). Accounts of events are deemed to be more reliable when they are corroborated by a number of different independent sources. In terms of the schema of comparison, the process involves comparison of two or more sources of information and the identification of similarities and differences. This is followed by the formulation of a hypothesis setting out the most plausible account. As with binocular vision, this case involves two sources of information gained more or less simultaneously as opposed to the comparison of new information and remembered or stored information as in the case of recognition. Put another way, the historian compares two or more ‘external’ sources rather than one external and one internal.

100

K. Kropf

5.5.2 Comparison of Multiple Sources: Philology A more specific but related instance of this method is found in the field of philology, which is, broadly, the study of languages through written texts and oral statements (Ziolkowsk 1990). Originating in Ancient Greece when texts were reproduced by hand from previous manuscripts and prone to transcription and translation errors or loss, a principal aim of early philology was to reconstruct a hypothetical ‘original’ text from variant copies when there was no known extant original. Other branches of philology include decipherment of ancient languages and comparative linguists in which the development and roots of languages are traced. The core method of philology for the purposes of reconstructing an ‘original’ is to read through and compare the variant texts, identify the similarities and differences and propose a ‘reliable’ version based on a range of principles regarding both the source of the version and critical analysis of the text. As with comparison of multiple sources in history, a philological analysis involves the comparison of two or more ‘external’ sources of information and the generation of further information in the form of the proposed version and knowledge of its derivation.

5.5.3 Comparison of Multiple Viewpoints: Triangulation A further instance of the explicit application of comparison as part of a systematic method of investigation is triangulation as used in the social sciences. The principle—and name—is taken from the technique used in land surveying. Describing a simplified version of the land surveying technique is a useful way to illustrate the role of comparison in the process. The aim of this particular technique is to identify an unknown location of an observer from features in the landscape: – find two prominent features that are separated from each other but on the same sight line as seen from the observers’ point of view (i.e. appear superimposed), – find the features on a map and draw a line through them both and towards the observer, – do the same for a second set of two features, and – the observer’s location is on the intersection of the two lines. The procedure involves three sets of comparison: – compare features in the landscape with each other > aligned, – compare features in the landscape with the map > match and draw line, and – compare/combine the lines to find the intersection > infer location. This method might be termed ‘graphic resectioning’ with the use of aligned features standing in for reference to a bearing angle and/or a grid reference. Both of the latter still make use of comparison with reference back to some feature on the ground or magnetic north. As with other measurements, a bearing angle from north is a difference and the product of comparison.

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

101

The basis of triangulation is essentially the same as the principle of binocular vision: the comparison and combination of two sources of information taken from different perspectives to generate additional information—depth perception or location. This underlying concept was adopted within the social sciences in the 1970s as a methodological principle. The basic idea is that an investigation can be made more robust and credible by undertaking the work from two or more perspectives with the results of each compared and combined. As identified by Denzin (1978), the different perspectives can be taken up with respect to data, investigators, theories and methods. The benefits of triangulation in research are similar to those identified for binocular vision: – – – – –

resilience, redundancy/reliability, credibility, wider field of view, depth perception/richness, complexity, cross/back assessment of sources, and enhanced interpolation for faintness or obstruction of views.

5.6 Comparing Comparisons Taking a broad comparative overview of the foregoing, it is possible to identify three initial modes of comparison operating at the level of an individual. In one mode, immediate perception or new information is compared with known or remembered information. This generally leads on (by abductive inference) to identification or recognition and, in more deliberate, conscious analysis, to the identification and articulation of both similarities and differences. In the second mode, two immediate perceptions or sources of new information taken from two perspectives with a known difference between them are compared with each other. Perception of the resulting ‘interference pattern’ adds further information generally interpreted as an additional dimension of the phenomenon or ‘missing’ information. The third mode is essentially to combine two or more instances of the first two. A further mode operating at the level of a community is the comparison of two or more descriptions or sources of information about the same phenomenon, each taken from the perspective of a different individual. For convenience, these might be referred to, respectively, as sequential, simultaneous, compound and multiple modes of comparison.

102

K. Kropf

While it is far beyond the scope of this chapter to say there might be some structured way in which the different modes operate and relate to each other, it is fair to say that the different modes, singly and together, underpin and, in part, constitute what we refer to as rigour. Rather, the chapter began with the premise that comparison is an active principle that operates with the exercise of rigour. The argument so far is thus that rigour might be operationally defined as the application of measurement, experimental control, peer review, multiple sources and triangulation—amongst many other techniques and procedures. As the foregoing seeks to show, those techniques and procedures fundamentally involve comparison. Therefore, comparison is fundamental to rigour. It remains to explore the extent to which urban morphology makes use of ‘comparative techniques’ and so can be said to be a rigorous discipline.

5.7 Comparison in Urban Morphology Through the Lens of JWR Whitehand At this point, it might be argued that a better way to express the argument is to say that urban morphology ‘can be undertaken in a rigorous way’. The variable here is the individual undertaking the work. Use of comparative techniques is not a guarantee of rigour: the techniques are necessary but not sufficient, which is why the choice of JWR Whitehand is so appropriate to the task of showing that urban morphology can be rigorous. That is, as will be discussed, not only does Whitehand make use of comparative techniques, he has, over his career, combined them in a way that makes the most of their underlying rigour. In order to begin to flesh out this argument, the following traces out a number of the ways that Whitehand has applied comparative techniques in his work, which in turn points to the way he puts them together. As a brief note before moving on, while Whitehand’s work provides an excellent example for the purposes of this chapter, he would himself be one of the first to point out that he is part of a community of scholars who are working—with rigour—towards a common goal of building up an accumulated body of knowledge that improves our understanding of the settlements in which we live. This section will examine three main examples of Whitehand’s work, focusing on a particular element or concept rather than a particular study, topic or publication. By the same token, the selection and source material is necessarily limited by the scope of the chapter—it is by no means an exhaustive survey. The three main examples examined are: – plan components—comparing patterns, – the fringe-belt—comparing different descriptions of the same ‘thing’ and – comparative study—comparing different examples of the same ‘thing’.

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

103

5.7.1 Plan Analysis In their paper on extending the compass of plan analysis, Whitehand and Gu (2007) report on their application of MRG Conzen’s method of town-plan analysis to the Chinese city of Pingyao (see also Chap. 2). This case is illuminating for the purposes of this chapter in a number of ways: in terms of the basic analytical techniques used, their qualification in light of the nature of the particular case and the inferences made from the results. As set out by Conzen in his seminal study of Alnwick (Conzen 1960), town-plan analysis entails a systematic and progressive distinction of form complexes, plan element complexes and town-plan elements, as well as the distinction of different plan units, being the individualised combinations of the plan elements: streets, plots and buildings. The basic technique of distinguishing different complexes, elements and plan units is fundamentally comparative. In the terms set out in the first two sections, the comparison operates in the individual sequential mode, working from cartographic plans. The process necessarily involves both familiarity with a number of different plans, in order to generate a body of memories to which subsequent experiences are compared, and repeated scanning and visual scrutiny of the plan currently under analysis. To identify similarities and differences, one area of the plan must be compared with another. Within Conzen’s method of town-plan analysis as applied by Whitehand and Gu, there are two different types of comparison: synchronic and diachronic. That is, one is a comparison of different parts of the plan as it stands at a given point in time and the other comparison of the same part at different points in a time series. The two types are made evident in the study of Pingyao by the categories of plan elements identified in the analysis. On the one hand, the street-plan types are distinguished on a principally synchronic basis by their geometry (square grid, rectilinear and irregular rectilinear), and on the other hand, courtyard plots are distinguished on a diachronic basis in terms of the degree of modification (orthomorphic, hypometamorphic and metamorphic). At a more conscious level, Whitehand and Gu make use of comparison in the study of Pingyao, though not explicitly as such. In any application of a set of defined concepts and methods, there is necessarily a comparison made between the new material being analysed and the established concepts and methods. One must potentially ask, does a given element identified in the analysis fit a particular defined category type? This question comes to the fore in the case of Pingyao because of the limited source material on which the analysis is based. Indeed, it is the ‘lack’ of source material that is highlighted by the authors at the outset and is one of the things that makes the article important in the effort to extend the application of Conzenean methods outside of Western Europe. What is of particular note is the carefully calibrated way in which Whitehand and Gu make the extension. In framing the issue, the authors qualify their results by stating that, key morphogenetic features can be brought together in the form of a map-cum-cartogram, though the limited historical record, especially in the form of true plans, and minimal archae-

104

K. Kropf

Fig. 5.1 A detail of the main figure showing a representation of the principal plan components of Pingyao. The outline of different areas with distinct characteristics as described in the key is the product of sequential comparison, scanning the plan visually to identify similarities and differences. Further comparisons of plots patterns are made to infer the transformational types (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007)

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

105

ological evidence, have meant that this is necessarily more reliant on hypothesis than the nearest equivalent of Conzen’s maps. However, although plan units—the end products of Conzen’s more historically-informed plan analyses—have not been delimited, Fig. 5.1 contains a major part of the groundwork for the recognition of such units. (Whitehand and Gu 2007, p. 98)

This statement demonstrates the detailed comparison that has been made between Conzen’s work and the authors own in terms of the evidence on which the analysis was based, the specific concepts and terminology used and the inferences that might be drawn from the results. In addition to the use of the sequential mode of comparison in identifying similarities and differences in the plan and in checking the results against the core concepts and methods of the discipline, the paper also makes use of the simultaneous mode of triangulation. The two authors bring to the paper different perspectives due to their different experience, education and cultural background. It is fair to say the comparison and combination of Whitehand and Gu’s perspectives on Pingyao bring the benefits identified for triangulation of: – – – –

credibility, wider field of view, depth perception/ richness, complexity and enhanced interpolation for faintness or obstruction of views.

5.7.2 The Fringe-Belt Model The idea of extending a concept and method such as town-plan analysis was not new to Whitehand in his paper with Gu. In the early 1970s, Whitehand took the concept of the fringe-belt as set out by Conzen and stretched it in a deliberate and, as he put it, eclectic way (Whitehand 1972)—see also Chap. 3. Though not explicitly so, Whitehand’s approach can be seen as an example of methodological triangulation, comparing and combining the results of looking at the same phenomenon from different points of view. On its own, the fringe-belt model is already the product of compound comparison. It is rightly considered a model in that it posits a set of both spatial and temporal relations that can be used to both understand existing settlements and to predict likely general, aggregate processes and spatial results. Putting together the model in the first place required, on the one hand, comparing a number of different settlements with each other in order to identify common patterns of development (synchronic). On the other hand, it involved comparing the different states of a given settlement, one with the next at different stages in its development (diachronic). It was then necessary to compare the resulting series with each other in order to identify the common pattern of successive fringe-belt formation (both synchronic and diachronic). Very briefly this entails the accumulation of a heterogeneous mix of generally large, nonresidential plots on the periphery of a settlement (fringe features) in periods of relative

106

K. Kropf

stasis followed by the extension of finer grained, more regular mainly residential development beyond those fringe features in periods of relative growth. This leaves the fringe features embedded within the built-up area. Diachronic comparison also shows that there is a strong tendency for the fringe features to persist over time. There is also a tendency for the cycle of stasis–accumulation and growth–extension to repeat. As a result, a settlement may have a series of inner, middle and outer fringe-belts depending on the size and age of the settlement. In taking his eclectic approach to this phenomenon, Whitehand sought to add depth to the model. He did so by combining different theoretical and methodological perspectives (see Fig. 5.2). Most crucially, he added the economic perspective of urban-rent theory to the synchronic comparison of physical form (to distinguish non-residential fringe features from residential integument). This was done within the diachronic comparative framework of the time series and morphogenesis—tracking the changes in fringe features and residential areas as the settlement grows. The depth provided by that additional perspective allowed Whitehand to paint a much more nuanced picture of the process of successive fringe formation. Importantly, it opens up a view into the finer mechanisms that may be at work, such as the thresholds of land value on bid-rent gradients to which agents are responding in their actions. As with binocular vision and triangulation, effective comparison of different views of the same phenomena requires a clear understanding of the relationships between the different views and how they are accurately focused on the same point. This highlights the importance of information sources and the treatment of evidence when seeking to tie things together. Information needs to be accurately correlated, spatially and in time, which in turn requires, on the one hand, clear and credible sources of information and, on the other, comparison of the information to make the correlations. As in the case of Pingyao, in the exploration of the fringe-belt process, Whitehand is very careful to qualify his statements and openly identifies the limits imposed by lack of information on the inferences that can be drawn. In addition to the general comparison of viewpoints and the more detailed comparison of evidence involved in Whitehand’s investigation, the work also implicitly entails a comparison between case studies and the fringe-belt model. As set out in the 1972 paper, Whitehand refers on the one hand to a case study in Glasgow and on the other to hypothetical illustrative models. The latter are no doubt based on an aggregate of other cases—which necessarily involves comparison of the cases to establish a credible model. In summary, this case involves all four of the different modes of comparison: sequential, simultaneous, compound and multiple, some direct, some indirect. The end result, in particular of the compound comparison involved in the fringe-belt model and the multiple comparisons made by bringing in the perspective of land economics, is a picture of much greater depth with significant potential for further use and elaboration.

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

107

Fig. 5.2 A graph showing the temporal correlation of the building cycle and morphogenesis of fringe-belt sites. Comparison is used in numerous ways to construct the graph, from sequential comparison of plans to identify fringe-belt sites as well as changes over time, measurement of areas, and correlating variations to a common chronology (Source Whitehand 1972)

5.7.3 A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study A third example of Whitehand’s work is of particular interest because it is both obvious that it should be included and at the same time constitutes a special case. That it should be seen as a special case might seem odd, given that it is one of the few instances of an explicitly comparative study in which Whitehand has been involved, specifically the work set out in the article, ‘Plan analysis of historical cities: a Sino-European comparison’ (Whitehand et al. 2016).

108

K. Kropf

In brief, the paper, co-authored by Whitehand, MP Conzen and K Gu, sets out a comparative analysis of the cities of Pingyao in China and Como in Italy. The particular elements on which the comparison focuses include the morphological frame—notably fortifications—the street system, plot pattern and building pattern. What makes the case special, as seen in light of the previous discussions of comparison in the first and second parts of this chapter, is not the specific methodology or details of the case but the nature of an openly ‘comparative study’. Within the terms of the first two sections, such a comparative study is, in its basic methodology, an application of the sequential mode of comparison. That is, to undertake the comparison, one needs to look first at one and then the other. The act of comparison is thus between the first, as held in one’s memory, and the second as immediate perception. Clearly, the choice of which case to view first might be arbitrary and one could also reverse the order at a later stage by spending time viewing the ‘second’ case in order to set it in one’s short-term memory and then make a comparison with the ‘first’ case as the immediate perception. But that potential variability in the process underlines a point of particular importance however obvious it may be. To make a useful comparison in such a study, it is essential to identify the common generic elements that provide the reference for ‘rectifying’ the two cases in order to make a like-for-like comparison. In the case of Pingyao and Como, the ‘control points’ for the rectification are the generic plan elements of streets, plots and buildings. That is to say, it is a common comparison back to the basic concepts and methods of urban morphology. If the need for reference features as control points may seem obvious, it should then be equally obvious that the identification of the reference features themselves must have been the product of previous comparisons. The case of comparing Pingyao and Como is then only an interim step in a long iterative sequence that must have started somewhere, likely as a vague perception—and abductive inference—of similarity. Each successive comparison of different cases is then an inductive checking of the hypothesis of similarity, ideally with progressively increasing specificity and precision. The case of Pingyao and Como meets that ideal, and at the same time, the authors are careful to move forward systematically. Whitehand, MP Conzen and Gu do not rush in where angels fear to tread. The care is shown primarily in the consistent reference to established Conzenean concepts and the attendant terminology—a comparison back to principles. At the same time, they are careful not to suggest everything is the same. Indeed, despite identifying similar morphological frames including city walls with gates and arterial streets, gridded street patterns, a range of plot patterns that have undergone similar degrees of transformation from orthomorphic to metamorphic and courtyard houses, the authors begin their conclusion by stating that, ‘in physical form the cities display more differences than they share similarities’ (Whitehand et al. 2016, p. 156). Perhaps this is to say you would not mistake yourself for being in Como when walking down a street in Pingyao or vice versa (Fig. 5.3). More importantly, what is striking in the comparison made by Whitehand, MP Conzen and Gu is that their discussion of the differences in physical form moves almost directly to differences of conception, intention and use. Thus, whereas

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

109

Fig. 5.3 Plan representation of a Pingyao and b Como, highlighting the different route types identified as one of the common elements that acts as ‘control points’ for the comparison. It is worth noting that the route types are defined in terms of more abstract, topological characteristics, which help minimise the potential cultural bias of the control points (Source Whitehand et al. 2016)

Pingyao has few public open spaces and many culs-de-sac, there are many public spaces and few culs-de-sac in Como, pointing to different patterns of social interaction, rooted in different social structures and attitudes. Similarly, the street pattern and plot types in Pingyao are structured with the majority of plots facing south with an entrance on the southern end. In contrast, in Como the orientation of the streets relates primarily to the topography and plots are oriented with public fronts facing onto the streets irrespective of the orientation of the street. Similarly, with building types, the traditional courtyard houses in Pingyao are predominantly inward fac-

110

K. Kropf

Fig. 5.3 (continued)

ing with ‘plain relatively undifferentiated exteriors… which lack windows on to the street’ (Whitehand et al. 2016, p. 152), while buildings in Como typically have a ‘high frequency of windows, doorways and arched vehicular entranceways allowing easy access to the interior of plots’ (Whitehand et al. 2016, p. 154). As the authors explain, these differences in physical form arise with the significant differences in underlying conceptions of the world, attendant values and activities. To summarise very reductively, the Chinese city of traditional origin is informed by the ancient concept of qi and the principles of Feng Shui, fairly abruptly shifting to the sociopolitical order(s) of the Communist period, whereas the Italian city of early origin is

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

111

informed by Classical polytheistic cosmology and the genius loci, transmuted and progressively reimagined through Christian cultural–political and Modernist socioeconomic orders. At the beginning of this section, it was suggested that the direct comparative study of Pingyao and Como was both an obvious choice and a special case as an example to explore the role of comparison in urban morphology. It is an obvious choice because, methodologically, it involves sequential comparison of the two cases, compound comparison with the reference back to the framework of concepts from Conzenean town-plan analysis as well as measurement and sequential comparison of multiple sources within each case to identify types of element and associations with activities and world views. The case also involves multiple comparisons because it is a multi-authored paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. The case is special, or rather, a distinct form of comparison because it highlights an issue that gets to the heart of the matter of rigour. As a point of background, one argument ‘against’ comparative studies, in particular cross-cultural comparative studies, is that the methodological apparatus—concepts, categories, models and techniques—blinds or distorts the view of the investigators to features or attributes that do not fit into that apparatus. Features are missed or misinterpreted. The critique from the other side is that if we must use a different method and set of concepts for each study we lose our way. We have no ‘control points’ and cannot rectify the two descriptions. This opposition can be caricatured as reductionist rigidity on one hand and solipsistic aimlessness on the other. The third position is to say that there is an inescapable trade-off between consistency, in order to maintain a coherent body of knowledge, and flexibility, in order to accommodate and account for the diversity of evidence as it emerges. Taking that third position suggests that a comparative study of different settlements need not be just a sequential comparison that identifies similarities and differences. As a first step, the investigation could identify similarities, differences and also, openly, ambiguities. From there, the similarities provide the control points and the differences and ambiguities provide the starting point for bringing to bear information on the underlying cultural differences in world view, intentions and activities of their creators and residents. Such a move begins to generate two different views of the same thing—two different ways of seeing and using the city. That is, the investigation shifts from a sequential comparison to a simultaneous one, which brings with it the potential for greater depth perception. The ‘known relation’ between the views, analogous to the known distance between viewpoints in triangulation, is the relation of each view to the generic physical forms already identified as similarities. Viewing ‘the settlement’ from two cultural viewpoints generates a kind of interference pattern. The added depth is that the ‘meaning’ of generic elements—the ‘settlement’, ‘street’, ‘plot’ and ‘building’—becomes richer, extending out in slightly different directions from the generalised physical form. And in that act of comparison, the added depth opens up and, in a sense, temporarily ‘loosens’ the definitions of the elements. That loosened state presents the opportunity to re-evaluate the definitions and check if they need qualification, modification or adaptation in order to account for the evidence presented by both cases.

112

K. Kropf

At the least, that loosened state allows the possibility of identifying more clearly the boundaries of ambiguity. And, in the end, it might be said that acknowledging ambiguity and holding the two or more viewpoints in one’s head is a form of depth perception.

5.8 Conclusion The question posed at the outset of this chapter was can urban morphology be a rigorous field or discipline? This was later qualified to the question can urban morphology be undertaken in a rigorous way? It was also suggested at the outset that due to our ‘incapacities’, a necessary, though not sufficient component of rigour is comparison. In considering a series of examples, it was shown that comparison operates at a number of different levels: at the unconscious level of perception; in common techniques used as a matter of course such measurement and experimental control; and more deliberately as part of disciplinary methodologies. A further result of surveying those examples was to identify different modes of comparison: sequential, simultaneous, compound and multiple. Looking then at the work of JWR Whitehand and his coauthors, what also became evident is that all these modes of comparison were seen to be operating in the methods used in urban morphology. Using the different levels and modes of comparison in a deliberate way—measurement, control by reference to generic structures and models, comparison of sources and triangulation to multiple authors, comparative studies and peer review—creates an interwoven fabric of comparison with different modes and levels working in different directions to give strength and resilience to the results of an investigation. But as noted, while this is necessary for rigour, it is not sufficient. What Whitehand’s work demonstrates in an exemplary way is that the modes and levels of comparison need to be complemented by further ‘principles of application’. As an initial and provisional list, those include: – – – – –

consistent use of terminology, consistently setting evidence within an established theoretical framework, direct and careful use of multiple primary sources, careful use of inference and working with co-authors with different experience.

If we were all to follow his example, the field of urban morphology as a whole would only gain strength and standing. The example in particular of the comparative study, with its potential for greater depth perception by viewing urban form from different cultural perspectives, presents enormous scope for growth and discovery. And if we, like Whitehand, remain open to eclectic approaches, combining views with care and attention, we will improve our understanding of human settlements and contribute to building up an accumulated body of knowledge and understanding that is shared within a wider public or community.

5 Rigour and Comparison in Urban Morphology …

113

References Bodin J (1566) Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem. Martin le Jeune, Paris Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (2018) International Prototype of the Kilogram. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. https://www.bipm.org/en/bipm/mass/ipk/. Accessed 25 June 2018 Chang L, Tsao DY (2017) The code for facial identity in the primate brain. Cell 169:1013–1028 Conzen MRG (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers Publication 27 George Philip, London Denzin NK (1978) The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGrawHill, New York Howell MC, Prevenier W (2001) From reliable sources: an introduction to historical methods. Cornell University Press, Ithaca Moser MB, Rowland DC, Moser EI (2015) Place cells, grid cells and memory. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 7:a021808 Peirce CS (1868) Some consequences of four incapacities. J Specul Philos 2:140–157. Available via Peirce.org. http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html. Accessed 25 June 2018 Peirce CS (1931) Abduction and perceptual judgments. The collected papers Vol. V.: Pragmatism and pramaticism. Available via Textlog. https://www.textlog.de/7664-2.html Accessed 25 June 2018 Whitehand JWR (1972) Urban-rent theory, time series and morphogenesis: an example of eclecticism in geographical research. Area 4:215–222 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007) Extending the compass of plan analysis: a Chinese exploration. Urban Morphol 11:91–109 Whitehand JWR, Conzen MP, Gu K (2016) Plan analysis of historical cities: a Sino-European comparison. Urban Morphol 20:139–158 Ziolkowsk (1990) What is philology. Comparative Literature Studies 27:1–12. http://www.jstor.or g/stable/40246721. Accessed 25 June 2018

Chapter 6

Research and Practice Ivor Samuels

Abstract With an extensive record of geographical research, Jeremy Whitehand’s career lies firmly at the cognitive end of the urban morphology spectrum set out by Gauthier and Gilliland (2006). Practice, in the sense of intervening in the built environment through the medium of projects or plans, whether executed or adopted as policies, is rarely carried out by geographers but is usually the occupation of architects and town planners. Among researchers, there tends to be a readiness to challenge established knowledge and to investigate new approaches. Practitioners are primarily concerned with achieving agreement and reconciling the demands of a variety of actors, including clients and members of political bureaucracies at different territorial levels. Practitioners achieve peer recognition for their activity through projects that have been implemented, in contrast to researchers who achieve much of their recognition according to the extent that their published work is acclaimed for the way it challenges accepted positions. Research involves reflection and is to a large extent independent of everyday management with its attendant political pressures. The gulf between researchers and practitioners is admirably summarised by Barke (2015, p. 97): academics reproach practitioners for short-term conceptually shallow solutions to immediate problems while practitioners criticise academics for over theorising and failing to engage with the real world. Given the extent of Whitehand’s publications, it will be necessary to restrict this discussion to a limited range of his work while being aware that some readers will consider works that have been omitted to be significant. The work has been grouped under three headings: (i) publications in books and journals and the extent which the concepts presented in that work have directly investigated or commented on the activities of practitioners; (ii) contributions to government and nongovernmental official bodies, nationally and internationally, their reception, and the degree to which this work has been incorporated in the policies of these agencies; and (iii) supervision of research students who have gone on to practise privately and in national and local governments.

I. Samuels (B) University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4_6

115

116

I. Samuels

Keywords Character areas · Planning practice · Residential development Town centres · Urban morphology · Urban conservation

6.1 Studies of Town Centres In the 1980s, Whitehand published two Occasional Publications of the Department of Geography at Birmingham University. The first, published in 1984, is a comparative study of central area development and redevelopment of the towns of Watford and Northampton from the 1920s until the 1970s (already mentioned in Chaps. 1 and 4). This period witnessed a growth in chain stores and the replacement of local operators, including architects and developers, by speculative developments by insurance and property companies drawn from a wider geographical area. The way the inherited urban context and land ownerships influenced development is carefully recorded. It also investigates in considerable detail the way different architectural styles were adopted and replaced over a period of fifty years. A later study (Whitehand 1992) examines the development of a number of British towns in almost sociological terms as it traces the provenance of the makers of these towns between 1850 and 1939. It documents a concentration of activity in the hands of fewer developers who progressively replaced local firms over this period. Similar processes to the 1984 study were demonstrated in this work which could be described as an investigation into the sociology of urban form as it traces inter alia the shift from local to nonlocal architects, particularly in the interwar period. Since these studies, town centres have gone through successive periods of crisis as retail parks, central shopping malls and now online shopping have impacted on their development. However, this careful survey does support a concern of the urban design fraternity which was expressed in ‘Towards an Urban Design Manifesto’ published in the USA by Jacobs and Appleyard (1987). This was thirty years ago before the discontents of globalisation and the Internet had really impacted on cities, but the issues they identify are even more relevant today. The last in their list of eight problems is that of ‘rootless professionalism’ as architects, developers and their financial supporters operate on an ever-widening global scale. A relatively early example of this process is carefully documented by the Watford and Northampton studies as local actors, architects, developers and tenants were progressively replaced by those from a much wider catchment. This work could have been used to support the Manifesto argument had the authors been aware of it—an example of the difficulty of crossing disciplinary and in this case national, if not linguistic, boundaries.

6.2 Housing Development Of greater current relevance is the study ‘Residential development under restraint’ which was published in 1989 (Whitehand 1989)—already mentioned in Chaps. 1, 2 and 4. It reports in great detail the process of obtaining planning permission for

6 Research and Practice

117

the redevelopment of the small (0.38 hectare) site of Old Hyrons and is an unusual exposition which directly relates to the practices of a range of professions and actors involved in the implementation of a housing project in a sensitive urban context. These include landowners, developers, estate agents, local and central government officers (planners and highway engineers), architects and local residents. Its particularity lies in the way the author reports his experience of being directly involved over three years as the agent of the landowner of this site in the town of Amersham in the Chiltern Hills, part of the London Metropolitan Green Belt some 40 kilometres north-west of the city. This study brings academic rigour and careful attention to detail to the development process which is meticulously recorded. For example, over 400 contacts in the form of letters, telephone calls and meetings between the owner and thirteen different parties who were involved at some time in the proceedings have been mapped (see Fig. 4.3 in Chap. 4). It is also unusual in that it deals over a period of three years with the entire process of development from initial negotiations with several interested parties for purchase of the site, through appeals against refusal of planning permission, to the final granting of planning permission (Fig. 6.1). Projects are more often studied working back from the built result through to the initial stages, and they rarely explore in this way alternative schemes that were rejected together with the reasons for their rejection. It is also an especially rare example of work that openly reveals the discussion of financial matters which are usually held privately between the parties involved and normally considered to be confidential and not open to public scrutiny. He shows a direct correlation between the density of new dwellings that could be achieved on the site and the price offered by developers, but it is pointed out that this might be altered if the market profile for the site suggested that fewer units of higher value could be built to produce a higher percentage profit (Fig. 6.2). He also demonstrates how neighbours’ attitudes to a prospective scheme are influenced by the point in their life cycle of those concerned. Older families are more concerned with exchange value as against the preoccupation with current use value of younger families—although the latter attitudes would be influenced by a potential loss of value from low-quality new development taking place nearby. The profile of those objecting to new building in the vicinity of their homes is therefore more complicated and less homogenous than usually represented. Financial viability is of current concern since UK housing policy now puts the onus on developers to fund social housing directly from the profits of a project, and this has led to debates as to the feasibility of schemes, with arguments often being used by developers to demonstrate that, because of marginal feasibility, no surplus funds would be available to provide social housing, either on the site under discussion or in other locations. These negotiations are usually held privately between the local authority and the developer with none of the figures involved ever being publicly revealed. The process described took place between April 1983 and January 1986. Yet the matters discussed are still very much of concern in the Britain of 2018. Housing pressures in London and the south-east have particularly affected places like Amersham

118

I. Samuels

Fig. 6.1 Three planning applications for the site of Old Hyrons, Amersham (Source Whitehand 1989)

6 Research and Practice

119

Fig. 6.2 Old Hyrons site, Amersham. The relationship between offers received and possible number of new dwellings. Firms located more than 15 km away are underlined (Source Whitehand 1989)

that are situated adjacent to or within London’s green belt, where there is intense local pressure from many existing residents to restrain further building. The withdrawal of the public sector from housebuilding, the sale of public housing and reductions in annual rates of housebuilding have been reflected in house price increases relative to incomes and reductions in home ownership. These phenomena have been extensively documented (e.g. Bentley 2016). Recently, the role of Local Planning Authorities in facilitating or hindering development has also become a political issue, with the planning process being blamed for the housing shortage in areas of population growth. Whitehand’s devastating critique of the Local Planning Authority’s role over three years at the site of Old Hyrons in Amersham supports this argument. He notes that ‘Tardiness, misrepresentation and nonresponse were major features of its approach’ (Whitehand 1989, p. 28) and suggests that this may have been related to the workload pressures on the planning department—certainly a problem that has been exacerbated over the recent years of austerity as UK local authority planning department budgets have been reduced by 46%—the biggest percentage reduction of any local authority service.

120

I. Samuels

He is also critical of the attitude of a Government planner. During the course of the appeal process to the Central Government’s Department of the Environment against a refusal of planning permission, the Planning Inspector is reported as having shown little interest in what Whitehand calls townscape issues. The Inspector was solely concerned with functional matters such as overlooking, noise and density—although the latter is pointed out as having been so variously defined with respect to the areas selected by the various parties involved as to have been of no support for any of their respective cases. The biggest impact on the townscape quality of the proposal and the way the character of the surroundings would be altered was the County Highway Engineer’s insistence on the location of a single entry to the site from a position which required the felling of trees and the cutting of a gap in an existing hedgerow. These interventions have detracted from the townscape quality of the site and resulted in a greatly increased impact of the new development on the neighbourhood. The power of highway engineers together with the influence on the form of the development of the owner to maximise the exchange value and the efforts by prospective developers to extract the maximum of profit is a more carefully documented affirmation of a later attempt to set out the relevant influence of different actors on the various elements of the built environment (McGlynn 1993). The design and layout of streets, the most enduring element of urban areas, are controlled by highway engineers while the quality and form of development are set by landowners and developers. The architect was brought in at the end of the process and in this case seems to have been directed to adopt a neo-Tudor style in favour at the time. However, no comment is made on the quality of the very small back-to-back units adopted for part of the site. This is a type that had become notorious as the sub-standard speculative housing built to accommodate the workers of the expanding nineteenth century industrial towns, but with the recent deregulation of housing standards is becoming increasingly popular with developers. In the scheme as built at Old Hyrons, some of these single-aspect dwellings face north, so only during summer months is some limited sunlight to be enjoyed in any of their rooms.

6.3 Urban Conservation There is worldwide concern for the future of the inherited urban landscape as it is threatened by the massive pressures of global urbanisation of recent years. Given this interest it might be expected that in at least some parts of the whole spectrum of urban morphological approaches, there would be contributions to this problem. In particular, those analytical techniques derived from the work of MRG Conzen would seem to be particularly relevant. While Whitehand has written extensively on how these Conzenian methods can be applied (see, for example, Whitehand 2009), he has also noted how infrequently these techniques have been incorporated into practice: ‘despite the burgeoning expenditure of energy on these activities [urban conservation] the urban morphological contribution to them has been meagre’ (Whitehand 2015, p. 115).

6 Research and Practice

121

A survey of the different subdivisions of an urban area according to plan form, building types and uses and the subsequent identification of distinctive character areas is in most cases a preliminary exercise to devising policies for conservation. In a study supported by the Economic and Social Research Council, Birkhamshaw and Whitehand (2012) compared the way the character areas of a small suburban sector of Stratford on Avon were perceived by its inhabitants and local planners. They then compared these with a Conzenian mapping of urban landscape units. It revealed significant differences in perceptions. The residents tended to map areas separated by main streets even though the built form was similar on both sides of these streets. The planners’ perceptions translated into the delineation of more extensive areas which often grouped together a large range of urban landscape units. A consequence was that in their responses to planning applications, they were not able to support their decisions by referring to those smaller areas of distinctive character, which they acknowledged were valuable even though they had not identified them. Whitehand was one of ten contributors to a series of international expert meetings organised by UNESCO to give advice on conservation, and in a 2015 Editorial in ‘Urban Morphology’ he reflected pessimistically on the publication resulting from those events (van Oers and Haraguchi 2010) noting that in spite of all the energy being expended on these activities ‘the urban morphological contribution to them has been meagre’ (Whitehand 2015, p. 115). He was the only contributor to mention urban morphology, and there was only one other academic among the ten. The contrast between an academic’s approach and that of a practitioner is vividly demonstrated by the way the contributors used citations to support their views. Whitehand cited 42 sources while all the other writers together cited 44. Some practitioners provided no references whatsoever. Like many fields of study, urban morphology is notable for the way different schools of thought often do not acknowledge that other approaches may be relevant or at least useful. Yet it may be helpful in practice to combine or juxtapose different techniques, but this can be an anathema to some academics. In this UNESCO publication, the contribution of Professor Bruno Gabrielli (2010) who was President of the Associazione Nationale Centri Storico-Artistici (ANCSA) from 1985 to 2005 cites eight sources but does not include any reference to the work of the Italian Muratorian/Cannigian School which has contributed so much to ISUF. During these meetings, Whitehand offered a frank critique of the way the World Heritage Centre (the sponsor of the meetings referred to above) was making little reference to the stream of research over the past 100 years or more on cultural landscape assessment, particularly in relation to historical urban landscapes. He made a similar point in a presentation in Sibiu, Romania, where he had been invited by the Romanian Ministry of Culture to offer advice on the promotion of the nomination of the historic centre of Sibiu for inscription on the World Heritage List and where he had undertaken an urban landscape analysis. He noted that this paucity of reference to morphological research was the more surprising given that forms of morphological mapping had taken place for a number of cities from Vienna to Beijing, including World Heritage Sites (Whitehand 2008).

122

I. Samuels

This neglect is not confined to UNESCO. British guidance on conservation from English Heritage also ignored any of the work investigating methods of plotting urban landscape units, which are close to the concept of character areas which arguably have become the basis for defining conservation areas (Samuels 2010). Eight years later, little progress seems to have been made. The Oxford Character Assessment Toolkit, a document produced by Oxford City Council, Oxford County Council and English Heritage (Oxford City Council 2018), makes no reference to any of the research in urban morphology that has taken place or any of the methods that have been developed and presented in the pages of ‘Urban Morphology’ over the last two decades. While it ventures into many topics that involve subjective judgments, such as ‘the spirit of place’, a map of urban landscape units could form an objective basis for assessments.

6.4 Conservation Planning in the Zhishanmen Area of Beijing Whitehand’s extensive work in China offers examples of the ways in which a morphological approach to historical urban landscapes can offer clear advantages over less systematic ways of delineating areas for conservation. A case in point is work undertaken in the 2.2 hectare Zhishanmen area. This lies north of Beijing’s Forbidden City and was designated for special treatment by Beijing Municipal City Planning Commission (BMCPC). A plan for the area, mainly concerned with density, land use, transport and green space, was prepared in 2000. Whitehand and Gu (2007) noted that while aspects of the ground plan such as streets and plot boundaries were recorded, they were not integrated with one another or with other aspects of the plan to provide a firm basis for the definition of the conservation area. BMCPC proposed the retention of about half the buildings in the area, including all the pre-twentieth century buildings, but did not consider how these related to their surroundings. Nor did they take into account illegal buildings in their proposal to reduce the number of households to about one-sixth of the existing number (Fig. 6.3). Using cartographic records supplemented by their own plot-by-plot site survey, Whitehand and Gu produced a map of the plan units of Zhishanmen (Fig. 6.4), a map of building types (Fig. 6.5), a map of land and building use (Fig. 6.6) and finally a map of urban landscape units based on a combination of the three previous mappings (Fig. 6.7). They point out that the traditional Beijing courtyard is as powerful a morphological frame as the burgage plots studied by Conzen. These studies enable them to suggest that in relation to boundary of the conservation area as defined

6 Research and Practice

123

Fig. 6.3 BMCPC conservation and redevelopment plan for Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007)

Fig. 6.4 Plan units, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007)

124

Fig. 6.5 Building types, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007)

Fig. 6.6 Land and building utilisation, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007)

I. Samuels

6 Research and Practice

125

Fig. 6.7 Urban landscape units, Zishanmen (Source Whitehand and Gu 2007)

by BMCPC ‘there appears to be little or no justification for the line that has been taken along a great deal of its length’ (Whitehand and Gu 2007, p. 19) and that this boundary neglects some significant relationships. For example, they criticise the way the conservation area has been defined to divide a major square in the centre of the area. Even though the buildings on one side of this space are not of a quality in themselves to justify conservation, the square is of historical significance and therefore needs to be considered as a whole (Fig. 6.8).

126

I. Samuels

6.5 Barnt Green Character Areas In Britain, Jeremy and Susan Whitehand have demonstrated how an easily applicable version of Conzenian analysis can be used to establish character areas for planning purposes. In 2005 for the commuter settlement of Barnt Green, outside Birmingham, they prepared a map of character areas (preferring that term to ‘urban landscape units’, which would be less readily understood by the general public) as a basis for a Parish Plan—see also Chap. 1. The plan of character areas is supplemented by an illustrated description of each area. The descriptions are deliberately formulated in a way that enables them to be understood by nonprofessionals and go further than a simple description to include observations on the history of the area and its salient features, including those that need to be respected in any future development (Fig. 6.9). Where land clearly falls within a fringe belt, this term was deliberately avoided, again to reduce the difficulty that a technical term might cause for a wide readership. This character areas map comprised part of the Parish Plan approved in 2006. Subsequent developments have on the whole conformed well to the character areas in which they have been located, though various other factors not evident from the planning application documentation have contributed to the decision making.

Fig. 6.8 Barnt Green character areas (Source Whitehand 2009)

Fig. 6.9 A page of description of two areas from the Barnt Green character analysis

6 Research and Practice 127

128

I. Samuels

6.6 Research Students An important if indirect contribution to practice has been made by Whitehand’s research students of which he has had ‘50–60 so that the tracing of all of their career paths would be a massive research project in its own right’ (personal communication). In the earlier years of his career, most of these research students moved into academia but they also included a number of geographers who moved into practice in a remarkably wide range of agencies and localities—just to note a few—Hiske Bienstman who went into heritage work in the Netherlands (Bientsman 2009), Chris Carr (Argyll and Bute Council), Richard Mabbitt (Department of Environment), Simon Marshall (the Prison Service) and Michael Hopkins (Charnwood Borough Council) who is currently working on the integration of green space into urban morphological approaches (Hopkins 2018). In particular, two former research students with urban design backgrounds should be mentioned. Tony Hall and Karl Kropf (the author of Chap. 5) who, both having done courses at the Joint Centre for Urban Design at the then Oxford Polytechnic, went on to complete Doctorates at Birmingham. Hall, a transport planner with experience in local government and consultancy, later became Professor of Planning at Anglia Ruskin University before moving to Australia. Most unusually for an environment professional, as an elected member he was Chair of the Planning Committee of Chelmsford City Council in Essex, east of London, from 1996 to 2013 where he oversaw the political guidance of the planning department. He has published extensively on that experience and on topics closely related to urban morphology (Hall 1997, 2000). Kropf, a landscape architect, went on to work in local government where he edited the Stratford-on-Avon District Design Guide (2001) before moving into private consultancy, and now returning to academic life. His PhD work made a major contribution to the Asnieres-sur-Oise Plan which was based on a typomorphological approach (Samuels 1993). Over recent years, Whitehand’s research students at Birmingham have been almost exclusively Chinese. They are either working for a Birmingham University PhD or spending a period there while enrolled at a Chinese University. Because of the widespread involvement of Chinese academics in consultancy work commissioned by government agencies, as soon as they obtained posts in academia they have become involved in practice. For example, Professor Feng Song and the Urban Morphology Group at Peking University are advising on heritage management in Kuling, among other cities (Song et al. 2016), and Whitehand continues to be directly involved in this work. Academic involvement in practice used to be the case to a limited extent in the UK where architecture and town planning professionals were able to combine practice with teaching and research. Today, this has become more difficult because of the increased specialisation of academic roles. There is even an increasing distinction between academics employed for teaching and those employed for research.

6 Research and Practice

129

6.7 Conclusion In the Editorials, he has written for ‘Urban Morphology’ over the last twenty years. Whitehand has frequently referred to the need to bridge the increasing gap between the various approaches to the study of urban form (see, for example, Whitehand 2010). Already referred to above is his concern about the gap between research and practice in the conservation field about which he has also expressed his concern in several Editorials, and he has also deplored the ignorance of many aspects of urban morphology in urban planning practice in general (Whitehand 2014). The neglect of these methods may be for several reasons. The accusation is often made that for laypersons, the language and methods of urban morphology are too complex. Whitehand has acknowledged this problem and responded by modifying the terminology he used in his own work at Barnt Green (see above). However, given the complexity of other methods which have been included under the umbrella of urban morphology, for example Space Syntax and Spatial Analysis, the vocabulary of the Process-Typological and Historico-Geographical approaches (Oliveira 2016), in spite of their names, are relatively accessible without specialised knowledge or access to sophisticated IT resources or data that are expensive to access. Another reason for neglect may be that the utility of the relevant methods has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Thus, a positive way for academics to contribute to practice would be by investigating the results of those adopted plans and polices which have systematically applied urban morphological approaches. An academic study has the benefit of being free from the inhibitions of corporate solidarity which may restrict architects and town planners from criticising their co-professionals. Writing in the critical layperson tradition of Jane Jacobs, Brand (1994) in a book that was later developed into a widely broadcast television series observed that a building’s life begins when the architect leaves. Can the same observation apply to town planners who in practice have applied innovative urban morphological approaches? A direct research contribution to practice would be to evaluate cases where plans or projects have been implemented. The revisiting of the Asnières POS was a modest example of this, but more ambitious investigations could be undertaken. For example, an evaluation of how the Stratford-on-Avon Design Guide referred to above has been used since its adoption could be informative. Because of staff changes, shifting policies and altered market contexts, these studies are not easy to carry out but results could be fed back to practitioners in a way which demonstrated the applicability, or otherwise, of the methods used. Whitehand’s work in such different contexts as Amersham and Beijing offers examples of the potential for informing practice of this type of evaluation. Furthermore, an external evaluation would have the advantage of not being subject to the control of the agency responsible for the work. Whitehand has noted how some of his UNESCO work discussed above was not fully reported (personal communication), and this author has experience of an investigation, critical of its commissioning agencies, which was never published. A different response to the need to link research to practice could be the solution adopted by the academics of University College London (UCL) who set up a limited

130

I. Samuels

company, Space Syntax Limited (www.spacesyntax.com), to carry out consultancy work by offering their speciality to public and private agencies and other consultancies. Established as a limited company in 1989, it was a ‘spin-off’ ahead of its time. While this arrangement avoids these agencies having to recruit the necessary skills in house, it does mean that there may be implementation problems after the consultancy contract is completed, as at Asnières-sur-Oise. Another possible contributor to the relative neglect of urban morphology is the dispersed nature of it discourse across several disciplines and many languages. Unlike scientific disciplines, where English is the accepted medium of communication, some key texts are still only available in their original languages. The translation of relevant materials has been a slow process. This has made it difficult to devise and establish focussed teaching courses or programmes which are inclusive of the different approaches derived from a variety of disciplines and communicated in different languages. As Whitehand has noted in an ‘Urban Morphology’ Editorial of 2016, in the last two years this situation has been remedied to a certain extent. Two important works have been published, by Oliveira (2016) and Kropf (2017), which offer overviews of the whole field and discuss their applications. More recently, a volume on teaching urban morphology has also been published (Oliveira 2018). They should facilitate the formation of professionals from different disciplines who are familiar with the concepts of urban morphology and their application in practice.

References Barke M (2015) Further thoughts on research and practice in urban morphology: a British perspective. Urban Morphol 19:96–99 Bentley D (2016) The housing question: overcoming the shortage of homes. Civitas, London Bientsman H (2009) Housing associations and built form conservation in the Netherlands: another gap to bridge. Urban Morphol 13:135–136 Birkhamshaw AJ, Whitehand JWR (2012) Conzenian urban morphology and the character areas of planners and residents. Urban Des Int 17:4–17 Brand S (1994) How buildings learn: what happens after they’re built. Viking, New York Gabrielli B (2010) Urban planning challenged by historic urban landscape. In: van Oers R, Haraguchi S (eds) Managing historic cities, world heritage papers 27. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, pp 10–27 Gauthier P, Gilliland J (2006) Mapping urban morphology: a classification scheme for interpreting contributions to the study of urban form. Urban Morphol 10:41–50 Hall AC (1997) Dealing with incremental change: an application of urban morphology to design control. J Urban Des 2:221–239 Hall AC (2000) How morphology can improve development plans. Urban Morphol 4:29–32 Hopkins MIW (2018) Reflections on how we view cities: a green space enigma? Urban Morphol 22:75–76 Jacobs A, Appleyard D (1987) Towards an urban design manifesto. Am Plan Assoc J 53:112–120 Kropf K (2017) The handbook of urban morphology. Wiley, Chichester McGlynn S (1993) Reviewing the rhetoric. In: Hayward R, McGlynn S (eds) Making better places: urban design now. Butterworth, Oxford

6 Research and Practice

131

Oliveira V (2016) Urban morphology. An introduction to the study of the physical form of cities. Springer, Cham Oliveira V (ed) (2018) Teaching urban Morphology. Springer, Cham Oxford City Council (2018) Character assessment toolkit. https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20193/ character_assessment_toolkit. Accessed 15 May 2018 Samuels I (1993) The Plan d’Occupation des Sols for Asnières sur Oise: a morphological design guide. In: Hayward R, McGlynn S (eds) Making better places: urban design now. Butterworth, Oxford Samuels I (2010) Understanding place? Urban Morphol 14:29–32 Song F, Dai Y, Li N (2016) Reconciling the theory of urban morphology and the practice of heritage conservation. Urban Morphol 20:159–160 Stratford-on-Avon District Council (2001) Stratford-on-Avon District Design Guide. https://www. stratford.gov.uk/doc/175516/name/stratford%20district%20design%20guide.pdf/. Accessed 15 May 2018 van Oers R, Haraguchi S (eds) (2010) Managing historic cities, world heritage papers 27. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, pp 19–25 Whitehand JWR (1984) Rebuilding town centres; developer’s architects and styles. University of Birmingham School of Geography, Occasional Publication no 19 Whitehand JWR (1989) Residential development under restraint: a case study in London’s ruralurban fringe. University of Birmingham School of Geography, Occasional Publication no 28 Whitehand JWR (1992) The makers of British towns: architects, builders and property owners, c1850-1939. J Hist Geogr 18:417–438 Whitehand JWR (2008) Urban morphology and urban landscape heritage. Unpublished lecture, Sibiu, Romania Whitehand JWR (2009) The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice. Urban Morphol 13:5–27 Whitehand JWR (2010) The problem of separate worlds. Urban Morphol 14:83–84 Whitehand JWR (2014) The changing face of urban morphology: achievements and challenges. Urban Morphol 18:95–96 Whitehand JWR (2015) Conservation, heritage and urban morphology. Urban Morphol 19:115–116 Whitehand JWR (2016) Bringing order to urban morphology. Urban Morphol 20:87–88 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2007) Urban conservation in china, historical development, current practice and morphological approach. Town Plan Rev 78:643–670

Chapter 7

JWR Whitehand: 50 Years of Urban Morphological Research Vítor Oliveira

Abstract This chapter brings together some of the main arguments presented in the previous chapters to support the thesis of the book: it was JWR Whitehand who effectively structured a new school of urban morphological thought grounded on the seminal work of MRG Conzen. Over half a century, Whitehand has been a key contributor to the definition of urban morphology as a field of knowledge and, within it, to the establishment of the historico-geographical approach, proposing and refining a number of morphological theories, concepts and methods. The chapter is in six parts. Each one of these is grounded on one fundamental paper published by Whitehand in each decade between the 1960s and the 2010s. Keywords Urban morphology · Historico-geographical approach JWR Whitehand · Fringe belts · Morphological regions · Agents of change

7.1 Fringe Belts: A Neglected Aspect of Urban Geography The first influential paper written by Whitehand, ‘Fringe belts: a neglected aspect of urban geography’, was published five decades ago, when he was less than 30 years old (Whitehand 1967). As Barke reminds us in Chap. 3 the paper was groundbreaking in various aspects: (i) isolating fringe belts as a phenomenon in their own right (instead of dealing with them as part of a whole town study); (ii) distinguishing fringe belts from other concepts that were being used in geography in the interpretation of the urban landscape, such as the Central Business District Frame; (iii) expanding the scope and scale of analysis from towns and cities to conurbations (the study area was polycentric in character); and, finally, (iv) recognising that after their formation fringe belts went through a sequence of changes. The three papers published in the early 1970s, on Glasgow and London, created a conceptual model linking the building cycle and bid rent theory to fringe-belt V. Oliveira (B) Universidade Do Porto, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00620-4_7

133

134

V. Oliveira

formation and change (Whitehand 1972a, 1972b, 1975). As Kropf states in Chap. 5, Whitehand was, in these papers, implicitly ‘comparing’ and combining different perspectives in a very ‘rigorous’ way: adding urban-rent theory to the synchronic comparison of physical form (to distinguish residential areas from institutional areas and open spaces) and to the diachronic comparative framework of the time series and morphogenesis, tracking the plot changes both in fringe belts and residential areas as settlements grow. The Edwardian (middle) fringe belt of Birmingham would offer Whitehand the opportunity for a detailed exploration of the agents of change, integrating the morphological concept with the line of research that he would launch in the Northampton and Watford study (see Sect. 7.3). In particular, Whitehand and Morton address the decision-making process of developers and planning authorities, setting out an agenda for the incorporation of fringe-belt considerations within the urban management and planning process (Whitehand and Morton 2003, 2004, 2006). ‘Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: an academic concept and planning practice’ and ‘Urban morphology and planning: the case of fringe belts’ are today two of Whitehand’s most cited papers (see Table 1.3 in Chap. 1). A cultural cross-comparison of fringe-belt formation and change process would then be offered by Whitehand’s work in China, particularly in Pingyao and Nanjing (Conzen et al. 2012, Whitehand et al. 2011a, Whitehand and Gu 2017)—see Sect. 7.6. After the 1967 article, Whitehand would publish fifteen papers on fringe belts. The concept would become one of the most important in his own research work and in the historico-geographical approach to urban morphology. Ten years after the paper on the Tyneside conurbation, he published ‘The basis for an historico-geographical theory of urban form’.

7.2 The Basis for an Historico-Geographical Theory of Urban Form In this 1977 paper, published three years after the creation of the UMRG, Whitehand starts elaborating an historico-geographical theory of urban form (Whitehand 1977). As Larkham argues in Chap. 4, the paper offers a framework including inductive and deductive chains of inference, relating particularly to innovation, diffusion and construction activity, within the context of social and economic forces. Some of the main elements of the historico-geographical approach are implicit in this framework—agency, for instance. Other components of this framework would be linked to major morphological concepts—for example, fringe belts and innovation. At the time, Whitehand was already involved in intense discussions on this approach. As Barke reminds us, one of the most relevant was the debate with MJ Daunton on fringe belts, drawing on the three papers published in the early 1970s and including Daunton’s comment and Whitehand’s reply at the end of that decade (Daunton 1978, Whitehand 1978). The discussion about building cycles and urban fringes

7 JWR Whitehand: 50 Years of Urban Morphological Research

135

addressed the operation of the land market of the building industry and of political decision-making in Victorian cities. Barke argues that this was a pivotal moment in the academic development of fringe-belt studies, moving on from a descriptive to an analytical dimension. In ‘The urban landscape: historical development and management’, Whitehand placed, for the first time, the work of Conzen at the centre of this historicogeographical theory of urban form (Whitehand 1981). Grounded on that central work, Whitehand elaborates his theoretical and methodological framework, including a set of elements, in a more explicit way than in the 1977 paper: extensions of town plan analysis (comprising the key topic of comparative studies—see, for example, Whitehand and Alauddin 1969), the development of the fringe-belt concept (both through traditional approaches that followed closely the conceptions developed by Conzen and through attempts to link this traditional conception with urban-rent theory) and, finally, the relation between morphological research and urban landscape management. Twenty years later, Whitehand would publish his most cited paper ‘British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition’, offering an updated synthesis of his historicogeographical theory of urban form (Whitehand 2001). The paper pays particular attention to the concepts of fringe belt and morphological region and to the link between decision-taking and urban form (adopting a more explicit perspective on this issue than the 1977 paper and the 1981 book).

7.3 The Study on Northampton and Watford Shortly after his historico-geographical theory paper, Whitehand initiated a major research project on the town centres of Northampton and Watford (Whitehand and Whitehand 1983, 1984). The project represented the beginning of a systematic line of research within the historico-geographical approach, integrating the analysis of changes to the building fabric with the study of the individuals and organisations involved in the various aspects of property development. The new research framework included systematic reflection on research procedures, types of change, timing of the changes, types of agents, relations between agents, provenance of agents, conflict situations and comparison between different functional areas. The Amersham study was published at the end of the 1980s (Whitehand 1989). As Larkham, in Chap. 4, and Samuels, in Chap. 6, state, the unique nature of the study is the unusual detail of the volume and nature of communications throughout the three-year process of obtaining planning permission for the redevelopment of a small site and the number of personal communications from agents to the author. With over 400 contacts in the form of letters, telephone calls and meetings, there was virtually no need to make deductions on the basis of incomplete evidence. ‘Residential development under restraint’ also presents Whitehand’s first application of the concept of morphological region.

136

V. Oliveira

After one decade of research on agents and agency, the book ‘The making of the urban landscape’ was published (Whitehand 1992a). The book gathers a number of key findings as follows: (i) timing is important for the success and character of proposals of change; (ii) economic factors are fundamental to the decision-making of developers; (iii) there has been a long-term increase in the role played by non-local firms; (iv) governmental control has paid little heed to the appearance of the built environment; (v) conflict between the forces of preservation and change is endemic; (vi) many more urban landscapes exist on paper than ever come into being on the ground; (vii) more frenetic activity does not necessarily entail more obtrusive development; (viii) infill and piecemeal redevelopment often require the employment of particular ‘ingenuity’ (viii) infill and piecemeal redevelopment often require particular ingenuity if the environment of neighbouring occupiers, and cumulatively the environment of the larger community, is not to be adversely affected; and, finally, (ix) the decision-making process consists of a number of poorly coordinated activities.

7.4 Recent Advances in Urban Morphology ‘The making of the urban landscape’ and ‘Recent advances in urban morphology’ (Whitehand 1992b) were published in the same year. While the former reviews research on agents of change, the latter moves from the historico-geographical theory of urban form to urban morphology as a comprehensive field of knowledge, embracing different disciplines (architecture, geography, history and town planning), several morphological approaches (comprising not only the historico-geographical but also the process typological and spatial analysis) and various issues (from humanism to the then emerging use of computers, from a comprehensive state of the art in scientific research to its potential application in planning practice). The first ISUF meeting in Lausanne took place two years after the publication of ‘Recent advances’, and the first number of the journal ‘Urban Morphology’ was published in 1997. As Barke reminds us, the development of urban morphology has not been a straightforward linear progression and there have been periods when the subject appeared to be on the verge of extinction. The fact that this has not occurred is in no small measure due to the efforts of Whitehand, as a researcher and a teacher (in Newcastle, Glasgow and, particularly, Birmingham), as the Head of the UMRG, as a member of the ISUF Council and as the Editor of ‘Urban Morphology’.

7.5 The Structure of Urban Landscapes: Strengthening Research and Practice At the end of the 2000s, Whitehand published ‘The structure of urban landscapes’, a comprehensive review on morphological regions (Whitehand 2009). This is a key

7 JWR Whitehand: 50 Years of Urban Morphological Research

137

paper for the understanding of the concept that Whitehand had started to explore twenty years early in the Amersham study. The article reviews the origins and development of the concept, and its utilisation in a number of variants. As Gu argues, in Chap. 2, the paper is also crucial for understanding the main contributions of Whitehand to the development of the morphological region concept: its application in different types of urban area and in different parts of the world (notably in China) and its potential in conservation planning. As Samuels reminds us, practice, in the sense of intervening in the built environment through the medium of projects or plans, whether executed or adopted as policies, is rarely carried out by geographers. As such, in the absence of a professional structure for intervening in the built environment, the practice activity of Whitehand might be considered to have been constrained by his extensive activity as an academic which has achieved wide recognition. A notable exception is the plan for Barnt Green that is also described in the ‘The structure of urban landscapes’. In that plan, Jeremy and Susan Whitehand use the concepts of morphological region and fringe belt to distinguish the different parts that make up the mature suburb of Barnt Green and provide a morphogenetic approach to define the rules of transformation for each one of these parts.

7.6 Urban Fringe Belts: Evidence from China ‘Urban fringe belts: evidence from China’ was published 50 years after ‘Fringe belts: a neglected aspect of urban geography’. The 2017 paper states both the importance of China as the main case study of Whitehand’s research in the last decade and of fringe belts as the main topic of his historico-geographical approach systematically explored over half a century. As Gu argues, Whitehand’s research on Chinese cities, which is primarily field- and cartographic-based, is groundbreaking: for the first time, the physical form of Chinese cities is systematically examined based on plot-level information, and this morphological explanation complements and diversifies the traditional cosmological and geomantic perspectives on historical cities. As Barke so well summarises in Chap. 3, Whitehand’s contributions to fringe-belt studies over half a century included taking systematic detailed analysis of the phenomenon beyond the medieval town, dealing with the issue of polycentric urban environments, establishing a conceptual framework for exploring change within fringe belts, creating a conceptual model linking the building cycle and bid rent theory to fringe-belt formation and change, recognising the necessity for detailed exploration of the agents of change and, in particular, the decision-making process of developers and planning authorities, setting out an agenda for the incorporation of fringe-belt considerations within the urban management and planning process and demonstrating the ecological and habitat importance of fringe-belt sites. As if all this were not enough, he added a fresh area of cross-cultural comparison of the fringe-belt formation and change process.

138

V. Oliveira

References Conzen MP, Gu K, Whitehand JWR (2012) Comparing traditional urban form in China and Europe. Urban Geogr 33:22–45 Daunton MJ (1978) The building cycle and the urban fringe in Victorian cities: a comment. Jnl Hist Geog 4:175–181 Whitehand JWR (1967) Fringe belts: a neglected aspect of urban geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 41:223–233 Whitehand JWR (1972a) Building cycles and the spatial pattern of urban growth. Trans Inst Br Geogr 56:39–55 Whitehand JWR (1972b) Urban-rent theory, time series and morphogenesis. Area 4:214–222 Whitehand JWR (1975) Building activity and intensity of development at the urban fringe. J Hist Geogr 1:211–224 Whitehand JWR (1977) The basis for an historico-geographical theory of urban form. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 2:400–416 Whitehand JWR (1978) The building cycle and the urban fringe in Victorian cities: a reply. J Hist Geog 4:181–191 Whitehand JWR (ed) (1981) The urban landscape: historical development and management. Academic Press, London Whitehand JWR (1989) Residential development under restraint: a case study in London’s ruralurban fringe. University of Birmingham School of Geography Occasional Publication no 28 Whitehand JWR (1992a) The making of the urban landscape. Basil Blackwell, Oxford Whitehand JWR (1992b) Recent advances in urban morphology. Urban Stud 29:619–636 Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphol 5:103–109 Whitehand JWR (2009) The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice. Urban Morphol 13:5–27 Whitehand JWR, Alauddin K (1969) The town plans of Scotland: some preliminary considerations. Scott Geogr Mag 85:109–121 Whitehand JWR, Whitehand SM (1983) The study of physical change in town centres. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 8:483–507 Whitehand JWR, Whitehand SM (1984) The physical fabric of town centres. Trans Inst Br Geogr 9:231–247 Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2003) Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land. Environ Plan 30:819–839 Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2004) Urban morphology and planning. Cities 21:275–289 Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2006) The fringe-belt phenomenon and socioeconomic change. Urban Stud 43:2047–2066 Whitehand JWR, Gu K (2017) Urban fringe belts: evidence from China. Environ Plann B Urban Anal City Sci 44:80–99 Whitehand JWR, Gu K, Whitehand SM (2011a) Fringe belts and socioeconomic change in China. Environ Plan 38:41–60