Advertisement

The Agents and Processes of Urban Transformation

  • Vítor OliveiraEmail author
Chapter
  • 2.7k Downloads
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

The third chapter focuses on the different agents and agencies responsible for, and on the complex processes of, urban transformation. It analyzes how each one of us takes part in the process of transformation of the urban landscape: as a developer of an action of transformation of the urban forms, as an architect responsible for the design of new physical forms, as the builder of these forms or, in a more indirect way, as a planning officer designing a city vision and guiding private activity in his day-to-day practice of development control, or as an elected politician defining a political strategy for the city. In addition, the chapter aims at understanding the processes of urban transformation: how do we organize ourselves as a society to build a balance between a comprehensive view of the city, usually a planned view, and a number of different contributions eventually associated with a higher spontaneity. It is argued that this balance between unity and diversity is essential in a city that wants to be attractive, in morphological terms.

Keywords

Agents of change Cities Town plan Urban form Urban transformation 

References

  1. Boesinger W, Girsberger H (1971) Le Corbusier 1910–65. Editorial Gustavo Gili, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  2. Howard E (1898) Tomorrow: a peaceful path to real reform. Swann Sonnenschein, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Larkham PJ (1988) Agents and types of change in the conserved townscape. Trans Inst Brit Geogr NS 13:148–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) (2014a) Shapers of urban form. Explorations in urban morphological agency. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (2014b) Agents, agency and urban form: the making of the urban landscape. In: Larkham PJ, Conzen MP (eds) Shapers of urban form. Explorations in urban morphological agency. Routledge, New York, pp 3–23Google Scholar
  6. Oliveira V, Silva M, Samuels I (2014) Urban morphological research and planning practice: a Portuguese assessment. Urban Morphol 18:23–39Google Scholar
  7. Punter JV (1986) Circular arguments: central government and the history of aesthetic control in England and Wales. Plann Hist Bull 8:51–59Google Scholar
  8. Samuels I, Pattacini L (1997) From description to prescription: reflections on the use of a morphological approach in design guidance. Urban Des Int 2:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Whitehand JWR (1989) Development pressure, development control and suburban townscape change: case studies in south-east England. Town Plann Rev 60:403–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Whitehand JWR (1992) Recent advances in urban morphology. Urban Stud 29:619–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Whitehand JWR, Whitehand SM (1983) The physical fabric of town centres: the agents of change. Trans Inst Brit Geogr NS 9:231–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Whitehand JWR, Carr CMH (2001) The creators of England’s inter-war suburbs. Urban Stud 28:218–234Google Scholar
  13. Whitehand JWR, Morton NJ (2004) Urban morphology and planning: the case of fringe belts. Cities 21:275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Departamento de ArquitecturaUniversidade Lusófona do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations