Advertisement

Moving Urban Morphology from the Academy to the Studio: The Use of Urban Tissues in Teaching and Continuing Professional Development

  • Richard Hayward
  • Ivor Samuels
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

Instruments of analysis of urban form have been developed to a high degree of sophistication and complexity by academic researchers to the extent that even the term urban morphology can put off the use of these methods by practitioners and those enrolled in design courses––architects, urban designers and town planners. This chapter describes how the urban morphological concept of urban tissue has been used as a design tool in the Joint Centre for Urban Design at Oxford Brookes University (formerly Oxford Polytechnic), and in other institutions including Cracow University of Technology, to analyse and explore design solutions for extensive housing projects. It describes the technique of applying tissues which represent developments known to the designers followed by an interrogation of the result to ascertain the degree to which that tissue is appropriate. The speed of the method enables a number of solutions to be rapidly evaluated and modified to achieve the best fit. Because of its ease of use, the way the method has been used by non-professionals in participation events (which closely resemble New Urbanist Charettes) is also discussed.

Keywords

Urban tissue Urban morphology Teaching Design 

References

  1. Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M (1977) A pattern language. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander C (2005) The nature of order. Centre for Environmental Structure, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentley I, Alcock A, Murrain P, McGlynn S, Smith G (1985) Responsive environments: a manual for designers. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Caniggia G, Maffei GL (1984) Il progetto nell’edilizia di base. Marsilio Editori, VeniceGoogle Scholar
  5. Choay F, Merlin P (1986) A propos de la morphologie urbaine. Université de Paris VII, Noisy-le-GrandGoogle Scholar
  6. Congreve A (2013) The impact of planning reform on planning education. T Ctry Plan 82:485–488Google Scholar
  7. Conzen MRG (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Institute of British Geographers 27, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Gautier P, Gilliland J (2006) Mapping urban morphology. Urban Morphol 10:141–150Google Scholar
  9. Habraken NJ (1998) The structure of the ordinary. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayward R (1988) The use of tissues in urban design. Urban Des Q 25:4–6Google Scholar
  11. Hayward R (1993) Talking tissues. In: Hayward R, McGlynn S (eds) Making better places: urban design now. Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, pp 24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Kendall S (1984) Teaching with tissues: reflections and observations. Open House Int 9:15–22Google Scholar
  14. Larkham PJ, Jones AN (1991) A glossary of urban form. Historical Geography Research Group, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  15. Manwell P (1986) Innovative invasions. Archit J 16:37–42Google Scholar
  16. Martin L, March L (1972) Urban space and structures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50:370–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maslow AH (1954) Motivation and personality. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Muthesius S (1982) The English terraced house. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  20. Oliveira V (2016) Urban morphology: an introduction to the study of the physical form of cities. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samuels I (1990) Architectural practice and urban morphology. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities. Leicester University Press, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  22. Samuels I (2013) ISUF task force on research and practice in urban morphology: an interim report. Urban Morphol 17:40–43Google Scholar
  23. Schoen D (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Veldhuisen KJ, Thijssen AP, Timmermans HJP (1984) Conjoint measurement. Open House Int 9:27–31Google Scholar
  25. Whitehand JWR (2003) Gianfranco Caniggia e MRG Conzen: remarkable parallels. In: D’Amato, Strappa G (eds) Gianfranco Cannigia: della lettura di Como all’interpretazione tipologica della citta. Mario Adda Editori, BariGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GreenwichLondonUK
  2. 2.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations