Planning Practice and the Shaping of the Urban Pattern

  • Tolga Ünlü
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


The general dissatisfaction about the quality of the urban built environment gave rise to questions on the link between practice and research on urban form in the last decades. Within these two sides of inseparable relation, research is related to understanding and explanation of physical form and its functioning through an investigation of the change of urban form throughout long periods, while practice is concerned with shaping the physical form of the urban fabric through creating an urban composition. This study examines the relation between research and practice on urban form with a particular attention to the development of planning decisions and their implementation. Turkish planning practice is taken into consideration for such a discussion. It is seen that morphological research is not the basis for the prescription of the future development, and practitioners are not aware of the essence of the subject that they are dealing with. There is a need for an education strategy to develop responsive planning policies.


Morphological research and practice Development plans Urban pattern Turkey 



The research on which this paper is based was funded by TUBITAK (National Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey), grant number 113K131.


  1. Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M (1977) A pattern language. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander C, Neis H, Anninou A, King I (1987) A new theory of urban design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Aru KA (1998) Türk Kenti. Yem, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  4. Barke M (2003) The lifespan of a typological form? Urban Morphol 15:21–38Google Scholar
  5. Barke (2015) Further thoughts on research and practice in urban morphology: a British perspective. Urban Morphol 15:19–34Google Scholar
  6. Cataldi G (2003) From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and development of Italian school of design typology. Urban Morphol 1:96–99Google Scholar
  7. Conzen MRG (1969) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis, 2nd edn. Institute of British Geograpers Publication 27. Institute of British Geographers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Conzen MRG (1975) Geography and townscape conservation. In: Uhlig H, Lienau C (eds) Anglo-German symposium in applied geography. Lenz, Giessen, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  9. Conzen MP (2013) Substance, method and meaning in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 17:132–134Google Scholar
  10. Cullen G (1961) Townscape. Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuthbert AR (2007) Urban design: requiem for an era. Urban Des Int 12:177–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eldem SH (1954) Türk evi plan tipleri. İTÜ Mimarlık Faültesi, İstanbulGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallion AB, Eisner S (1980) The urban pattern. Van Nostrand, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauthier P (2005) Conceptualizing the social construction of urban and architectural forms through the typological process. Urban Morphol 9:83–93Google Scholar
  15. Günay B (1999) Urban design is a public policy. METU Faculty of Architecture Press, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall AC (1997) Dealing with incremental change: an application of urban morphology to design control. J Urban Des 2–3:221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall T (2008) The form-based development plan: bridging the gap between theory and practice in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 12:77–95Google Scholar
  18. Hall T (2013) The potential influence of urban morphology on planning practice. Urban Morphol 17:54–55Google Scholar
  19. Hedman R, Jaszenski A (1984) Fundamentals of urban design. APA Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Krieger A, Saunders WS (2009) Urban design. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  22. Kropf K (1996) Urban tissue and the character of towns. Urban Des Int 1:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kropf K (2014) Ambiguity in the definition of built form. Urban Morphol 18:41–57Google Scholar
  24. Kropf K, Ferguson P (2014) City of Bath morphological study. Built Form Resource, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Kropf K, Malfroy S (2013) What is urban morphology supposed to be about? Urban Morphol 17:128–131Google Scholar
  26. Larkham PJ (2006) The study of urban form in Great Britain. Urban Morphol 10:117–141Google Scholar
  27. Larkham P, Jones AN (1991) A glossary of urban form. Historical Geography Research Series 26. Urban Morphology Research Group, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  28. Levy A (1999) Urban morphology and the problem of the modern urban fabric: some questions for research. Urban Morphol 3:79–85Google Scholar
  29. Lozano EE (1990) Community, design and the culture of cities. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall S (2012) Science, pseudo-science and urban design. Urban Des Int 17:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marshall S, Çalışkan O (2011) A joint framework for urban morphology and design. Built Environ 37:409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCormack A (2013) Informing and forming practice: the imperative of urban morphology. Urban Morphol 17:45–48Google Scholar
  34. McGlynn S, Samuels I (2000) The funnel, the sieve and the template. Urban Morphol 4:79–89Google Scholar
  35. Moudon AV (1992) A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know. J Plan Lit 6:332–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moudon AV (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphol 1:3–10Google Scholar
  37. O’Connell D (2013) Morphology and design: the developing dialogue. Urban Morphol 17:52–54Google Scholar
  38. Oliveira V (2006) The morphological dimension of municipal plans. Urban Morphol 10:101–113Google Scholar
  39. Oliveira V (2016) Urban morphology: an introduction to the study of the physical form of cities. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oliveira V, Sousa S (2012) Urban morphology in planning practice. Urban Morphol 16:80–82Google Scholar
  41. Oliveira V, Silva M, Samuels I (2014) Urban morphological research and planning practice: a Portuguese assessment. Urban Morphol 18:23–39Google Scholar
  42. Rasmussen SE (1969) Towns and buildings. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Samuels I (1990) Architectural practice and urban morphology. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 415–435Google Scholar
  44. Samuels I (1997) A typomorphological approach to design. Urban Des Int 4:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Samuels I (2013) ISUF task force on research and practice in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 17:40–43Google Scholar
  46. Sanders P (2013) Towards consonance in urban form. Urban Morphol 17:116–118Google Scholar
  47. Scheer BC (2008) Urban morphology and urban design. Urban Morphol 12:131–133Google Scholar
  48. Scheer BC (2010) Evolution of urban form: typology for planners and architects. APA, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheer BC (2013) The master plan is dead: long live urban morphology. Urban Morphol 17:48–50Google Scholar
  50. Scheer BC (2016) The epistemology of urban morphology. Urban Morphol 20:5–17Google Scholar
  51. Sorkin M (2009) The end(s) of urban design. In: Krieger A, Saunders WS (eds) Urban design. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 155–182Google Scholar
  52. Tibbalds F (2001) Making people-friendly towns. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Ünlü T (2011) Towards conceptualization of piecemeal urban transformation: the case of Mersin, Turkey. Built Environ 37:445–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ünlü T (2013) Transformation of a Mediterranean port city into a city of clutter: dualities in the urban landscape. Cities 30:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ünlü T, Baş Y (2017) Morphological processes and the making of residential forms: morphogenetic types in Turkish cities. Urban Morphol 21:105–122Google Scholar
  56. Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an urban renaissance. DETR, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitehand JWR (1992) Recent advances in urban morphology. Urban Stud 29:619–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphol 5:103–109Google Scholar
  59. Whitehand JWR (2005) The problem of anglophone squint. Area 37:228–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Whitehand JWR (2007) Conzenian urban morphology and urban landscapes. In: Proceedings of the 6th international space syntax symposium, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  61. Whitehand JWR (2009) The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice. Urban Morphol 13:5–27Google Scholar
  62. Whitehand JWR (2012) Issues in urban morphology. Urban Morphol 16:55–65Google Scholar
  63. Willis C (1995) Form follows finance. Princeton Architectural Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mersin UniversityMersinTurkey

Personalised recommendations