Advertisement

The Importance of Observation: Urban Morphology in the Field

  • Peter J. Larkham
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

This chapter develops from an academic literature on the benefits of fieldwork in geography, and observation of the benefits for professional disciplines such as town planning and urban design. Both disciplines claim to recognise the need for understanding urban form to inform design and management decisions. Recent advances in technology and data manipulation, though, have led some apparently to rely more on the virtual than the real. I argue that deep engagement with the messy complexities of real-world urban form has benefits, including a better understanding of smaller features that cumulatively create a character, the factors that shape the lived experience and the genius loci. So, in a range of cultural contexts and urban forms, what is important to observe and measure, and how should we do so?

Keywords

Fieldwork Observation Walking 

References

  1. Abercrombie P, Abercrombie L (1923) Stratford-upon-Avon: report on future development. Liverpool University Press, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams-Hutcheson G, Longhurst R (2017) At least in person there would have been a cup of tea: interviewing via Skype. Area 49:148–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker NJ, Slater TR (1992) Morphological regions in English medieval towns. In: Whitehand JWR, Larkham PJ (eds) Urban landscapes: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 43–65Google Scholar
  4. Bednarz RS, Bednarz SW (1995) Teaching geography skills. In: Kemball W (ed) Spaces and places: a geography manual for teachers. Geographic education national implementation project, Washington, pp 53–72Google Scholar
  5. Bestor TC (2003) Inquisitive observation: following networks in urban ethnography. In: Bestor T, Steinhoff P, Bestor VL (eds) Doing fieldwork in Japan. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, pp 315–334Google Scholar
  6. Boyle A, Maguire S, Martin A, Milsom C, Nash R, Rawlinson S, Turner A, Wurthmann S, Conchie S (2007) Fieldwork is good: the student perception and the affective domain. J Geogr High Educ 31:299–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conzen MP, Dahmann NM, Schuble TJ (2006) At home downtown: the residential transformation of central Chicago’s new global-era core, 1985–2005. Committee on Geographical Studies, University of Chicago, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  8. Conzen MRG (1969) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Publication no. 27. Institute of British Geographers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Conzen MRG (1975) Geography and townscape conservation. In: Uhlig H, Lienau C (eds) Anglo-German symposium in applied geography, Giessen-Würzburg-München, 1973. Giessener Geographische Schriften, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  10. Conzen MRG (1988) Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow. In: Denecke D, Shaw G (eds) Urban historical geography: recent progress in Britain and Germany. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 253–272Google Scholar
  11. De Certeau M (1984) The practice of everyday life. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Degen MM, Rose G (2012) The sensory experiencing of urban design. Urban Stud 49:3271–3287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dummer T, Cook I, Parker S, Hull A (2008) Promoting and assessing deep learning in geography fieldwork. J Geogr High Educ 32:459–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elwood SA (2004) Experiential learning, spatial practice, and critical urban geographies. J Geogr 103:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Everson J (1969) Some aspects of teaching geography through fieldwork. Geography 54:64–73Google Scholar
  16. Gold J, Jenkins A, Lee R, Monk J, Riley J, Shepherd I, Unwin D (1991) Teaching geography in higher education: a manual of good practice. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorman R (2017) Changing ethnographic mediums: the place-based contingency of smartphones and scratchnotes. Area 49:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haigh MJ (1986) The evaluation of an experiment in physical geography teaching. J Geogr High Educ 10:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoskins WG (1967) Fieldwork in local history. Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Huff D (1954) How to lie with statistics. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones P, Bunce G, Evans J, Gibbs H, Hein JR (2008) Exploring space and place with walking interview. J Res Pract 4. Article D2 Google Scholar
  22. Jones P, Drury R, McBeath J (2011) Using GPS-enabled mobile computing to augment qualitative interviewing: two case studies. Field Methods 23:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kern E, Carpenter J (1984) Enhancement of student values, interests and attitudes in earth science through a field-oriented approach. J Geol Educ 32:299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kent M, Gilbertson DD, Hunt CO (1997) Fieldwork in geography teaching: a critical review of the literature and approaches. J Geogr High Educ 21:313–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim KJ (ed) (2003) International urban form study. Seoul Development Institute, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  26. Knox PL (1976) Fieldwork in urban geography. Scott Geogr Mag 92:101–107Google Scholar
  27. Koter M (1990) The morphological evolution of a nineteenth-century city centre: Łódź, Poland, 1825–1973. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 109–141Google Scholar
  28. Kropf KS (2009) Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphol 13:105–120Google Scholar
  29. Larkham PJ (2003) The teaching of urban form. In: Petruccioli A, Stella M, Strappa G (eds) The planned city. Uniongrafica Corcelli Editrice, BariGoogle Scholar
  30. Larkham PJ (2005) Understanding urban form? Urban Des 93:22–24Google Scholar
  31. Larkham PJ, Jones AN (1991) A glossary of urban form. Monograph No. 26. Institute of British Geographers Historical Geography Research Group, GeoBooks, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  32. Larkham PJ, Morton N (2011) Drawing lines on maps: morphological regions and planning practices. Urban Morphol 15:133–162Google Scholar
  33. Larkham PJ, Chapman D, Morton N, Birkhamshaw A (2005) Stratford-on-Avon district residential character study. Stratford-upon-Avon District Council, Stratford-upon-AvonGoogle Scholar
  34. Lilley KD (2000) Mapping the medieval city: plan analysis and urban history. Urban Hist 27:5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lonergan N, Andresen LW (1988) Field-based education: some theoretical considerations. High Educ Res Dev 7:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lowenthal D, Bowden MJ (1975) Introduction. In: Lowenthal D, Bowden MJ (eds) Geographies of the mind. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Marshall S, Çalışkan O (2011) A joint framework for urban morphology and design. Built Environment 37:409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin D (2003) Observing metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia. J Geogr 102:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. May J (1999) Developing fieldwork in social and cultural geography. J Geogr High Educ 23:207–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McElroy B (1981) Models and reality: integrating practical work and fieldwork in geography. In: Fien J, Gerber R, Wilson P (eds) The geography teacher’s guide to the classroom. Macmillan, Melbourne, pp 95–103Google Scholar
  41. Monmonier M (1991) How to lie with maps. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Moudon AV (1986) Built for change: neighborhood architecture in San Francisco. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Moudon AV (1995) Teaching urban form. J Plan Educ Res 14:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moudon AV (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphol 1:3–10Google Scholar
  45. Natoli SJ (1995) The nature of geography. In: Kemball W (ed) Spaces and places: a geography manual for teachers. Geographic Education National Implementation Project, Washington, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  46. Nitz HJ (2001) Medieval towns with grid plan and central market place in east-central Europe: origins and diffusion in the early-thirteenth century. Urban Morphol 5:81–98Google Scholar
  47. Rowe PG (2014) Foreword. In: Correa F, Alfaro CG (eds) Mexico City: between geometry and geography. Applied Research and Design, NovatoGoogle Scholar
  48. Scott I, Fuller I, Gaskin S (2006) Life without fieldwork: some lecturers’ perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork. J Geogr High Educ 30:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharpe C (1986) The teaching of urban morphogenesis. The Can Geogr 30:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sidaway JD (2002) Photography and geographical fieldwork. J Geogr High Educ 26:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slater TR (1981) The analysis of burgage patterns in medieval towns. Area 13:211–216Google Scholar
  52. Slater TR (1990) English medieval new towns with composite plans: evidence from the Midlands. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 60–82Google Scholar
  53. Smailes AE (1955) Some reflections on the geographical description of townscapes. Inst Br Geogr Trans Pap 21:99–115Google Scholar
  54. The Guardian (2017) Revealed: the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London. The Guardian 24 JulyGoogle Scholar
  55. Whitehand JWR (1977) The basis for an historico-geographical theory of urban form. Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 2:400–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitehand JWR, Carr CMH (2001) Twentieth-century suburbs. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitelock D, Jelfs A (2005) Would you rather collect data in the rain or attend a virtual field trip? Int J Contin Eng Educ Life Long Learn 15:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wunderlich FM (2008) Walking and rhythmicity. J Urban Des 13:125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zelinsky W (2001) The geographer as voyeur. Geogr Rev 91:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Birmingham City UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations