An Analytical Approach to Urban Form

  • Meta Berghauser PontEmail author
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


The focus of space-morphology, a specific branch in urban morphology, is to ‘uncover the fundamental characteristics of urban geometries’ (Moudon in Ordering space: types in architecture and design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p. 289–311, 1992) and ‘enrich the description of built form in ways that express aspects of performance and function’ (Peponis in Investigative modeling and spatial analysis: a commentary of directions. p. 2, 2014). Two research directions are important when discussing space-morphology, both developed in the UK during the 1970s. First, the work at the Centre of Land Use and Built Form at Cambridge University directed by Leslie Martin and Lionel March and their seminal work ‘the grid as generator’ (Martin and March in Urban space and structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972). Recently, this direction received renewed attention with publications such as ‘Streets & Patterns’ by Marshall (Urban Des Int 17:257–271, 2005) and ‘Space, density and urban form’ by Berghauser Pont and Haupt (Spacematrix: space, density and urban form. NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2010). Second, the Unit for Architectural Studies at University College London, directed by Bill Hillier, that developed in what we today know as the Space Syntax laboratory. Besides the description of these two directions in what we call space-morphology, this chapter will discuss how these two directions can be combined and how this can benefit the other schools of urban morphology, not least when it comes to identifying typologies. Typologies, being specific combinations of spatial properties, perform and function in specific ways and can be an effective way to inform urban design and planning practice when they intervene in cities and change these types or add new ones. Such an evidence-based approach puts new demands on the education of architects, urban planners and designers.


Space-morphology Typo-morphology Spatial analysis Performativity Density Space syntax 


  1. Barbano G, Egusquiza A (2015) Interconnection between scales for friendly and affordable sustainable urban districts retrofitting. In: 6th international building physics conference, IBPC 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthelemy M (2015) From paths to blocks: new measures for street patterns. Environ Plan B 44:256–271Google Scholar
  3. Bellamy CC, Jagt APN, Barbour S, Smith M, Mosely D (2017) A spatial framework for targeting urban planning for pollinators and people with local stakeholders. Environ Res 158:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berghauser Pont M, Haupt P (2009) Space, density and urban form. University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  5. Berghauser Pont M, Haupt P (2010) Spacematrix: space, density and urban form. NAi Publishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Berghauser Pont M, Marcus L (2014) Innovations in measuring density: from area density and location density to accessible and perceived density. Nord J Archit Res 2:11–31Google Scholar
  7. Berghauser Pont M, Marcus L (2015) What can typology explain that configuration can not? In: Proceedings of the 10th Space syntax symposium, UCL, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Berghauser Pont M, Stavroulaki G, Gil J, Marcus L, Serra M, Hausleitner B (2017) Quantitative comparison of cities: distribution of street and building types based on density and centrality measures. In: Proceedings of the 11th International space syntax symposium. IST, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  9. Caliskan O, Marshall S (2011) Urban morpholgy and design: introduction. Built Environ 37:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997) Travel demand and the 3 d’s: density, diversity and design. Transp Res D 2:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuthbert AR (2007) Urban design: requiem for an era. Urban Des Int 12:177–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dark SJ, Bram D (2007). The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) in physical geography. Prog Phys Geog 31(5):471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forsyth A (2003) Measuring density. Design Brief 9, Design Center, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauthier P, Gilliland J (2006) Mapping urban morphology. Urban Morphol 10:41–50Google Scholar
  15. Gibson J (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw R, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting and knowing: toward an ecological psychology. Routledge, Hillsdale, pp 67–82Google Scholar
  16. Gil J, Beirao J, Montenegro N, Duarte JP (2012) On the discovery of urban typologies: data mining the many dimensions of urban form. Urban Morphol 16:27–40Google Scholar
  17. Hausleitner B, Berghauser Pont M (2017) Development of a configurational typology for micro-businesses integrating geometric and configurational variables. In: Proceedings of the 11th international space syntax symposium. IST, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillier B (1996) Space is the Machine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillier B (2003) The architectures of seeing and going: or, are cities shaped by bodies or minds? And is there a syntax of spatial cognition? In: Proceedings of the 4th international space syntax symposium. UCL, London, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  20. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillier B, Iida S (2005) Network and psychological effects in urban movement. In Proceedings of the 5th international space syntax symposium, Delft, University of TechnologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoenig A (1928) Baudichte und Weitraumigkeit. Baugilde 10(1928):713–715Google Scholar
  23. Jelinski DE, Wu J (1996) The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 11:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiang B, Claramunt C, Batty M (1999) Geometric accessibility and geographic information: extending desktop GIS to space syntax. Comput Environ Urban Syst 23:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jong T, van der Voordt DJM (2002) Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design. DUP Science, DelftGoogle Scholar
  26. Kropf K (2009) Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphol 13:105–120Google Scholar
  27. Kropf K (2011) Morphological investigations. Built Environ 37:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larkham PJ, Marton N (2011) Drawing lines on maps. Urban Morphol 15:133–151Google Scholar
  29. Lee C, Moudon AV (2006) The 3Ds + R: quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transp Res D 11:204–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcus L (2015) Ecological space and cognitive geometry. In: Proceedings of the 10th international space syntax symposium. University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Marcus L, Westin S, Liebst L (2013) Network buzz: conception and geometry of networks in geography, architecture and sociology. In: Proceedings, ninth international space syntax symposium. SeoulGoogle Scholar
  32. Marshall S (2005) Streets & Patterns. Spon Press, OxonGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall S (2012) Science, pseudo-science and urban design. Urban Des Int 17:257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin L, March L (eds) (1972) Urban space and structures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Moudon AV (1992) Getting to know the built landscape: typomorphology. In: Franck K, Schneekloth L (eds) Ordering space: types in architecture and design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 289–311Google Scholar
  36. Moudon AV, Lee C (2009) Urbanism by numbers: a quantitative approach to urban form. In: Tatom J, Stauber J (eds) Making the metropolitan landscape. Routledge, New York, pp 57–77Google Scholar
  37. Netto V, Saboya R, Vargas J, Figueiredo L, Freitas C, Pinheiro M (2012) The convergence of patterns in the city. In: Proceedings of the 8th international space syntax symposium. PUC, Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  38. Norberg-Schulz C (1979) Genius Loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture. Rizzoli, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Openshaw S, Taylor PJ (1979) A million or so correlation coeffi-cients. In: Wrigley N (ed) Statistical applications in spatial sciences. Pion, London, pp 127–144Google Scholar
  40. Peponis J (2014) Investigative modeling and spatial analysis: a commentary of directions. Res Workshop, KTH, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  41. Peponis J, Allen D, French S, Scoppa M, Brown J (2007) Street connectivity and urban density: spatial measures and their correlation. In: Kuba Unwin (1912) t AS, Ertekin Ö, Guney YI, Eyubolou E (eds) Proceedings of the 6th international space syntax symposium. ITU, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  42. Ratti C (2004) Urban texture and space syntax. Environ Plan B 31:487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Serra M (2013) Anatomy of an emerging metropolitan territory. Ph.D. thesis. Universidade do Porto, PortoGoogle Scholar
  44. Serra M, Hillier B (2017) Spatial configuration and vehicular movement. Proceedings of the 11th international space syntax symposium. IST, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  45. Ståhle A (2008) Compact sprawl: ex-ploring public open space and con-tradictions in urban density. Ph.D. thesis, KTH, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  46. Steadman P (2013) Density and built form: integrating Spacemate with the work of Martin and March. Environ Plan B 40:341–358Google Scholar
  47. Unwin R (1912) Nothing gained by overcrowding! How the garden city type of development may benefit both owner and occupier. PS King & Son, WestminsterGoogle Scholar
  48. Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an urban renaissance. E & FN Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. UN Habitat (2015) A new strategy of sustainable neighbourhood planning: five principles. Discussion Note 3 Urban Planning.
  50. Weibull J (1980) On the numerical measurement of accessibility. Environ Plan A 12:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphol 5:103–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations