CUS  Vol.7 No.4 , December 2019
Urban Morphology: Comparative Study of Different Schools of Thought
Abstract: Urban morphology can be described as methodical analyses of form, shape, map, origin, functions and structure of human-made urban fabric and its process of development over time. According to much research that has been conducted, urban morphology can be categorized as three main schools of British, Italian and French. This study will comparatively examine these urban morphology schools of thought. In terms of forming processes and procedures of urban form, British school is emphasized by scholars as it comprehensively considers the historical procedures. Furthermore, it seems that the methodical studies of British school are more precise compared to others.
Cite this paper: Sadeghi, G. and Li, B. (2019) Urban Morphology: Comparative Study of Different Schools of Thought. Current Urban Studies, 7, 562-572. doi: 10.4236/cus.2019.74029.

[1]   Bekkering, H. C. (2006). Morphological Analysis of the Contemporary Urban Territory: Is It Still a Relevant Approach? In F. Hoeven van der, & H. J. Rosemann (Eds.), Urban Transformations and Sustainability (pp. 96-113). Delft: IOS Press.

[2]   Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. (2003). Public Places Urban Spaces—The Dimension of Urban Design. UK, Oxford: Architectural Press.

[3]   Cataldi, G., Maffei, G. L., & Vaccaro, P. (2002). Saverio Muratori and the Italian School of Planning Typology. Urban Morphology, 6, 3-14.

[4]   Cortes, C. P. (2004a). Morphologies of Fragmentation and Continuity. Aix-en-Provence, France: Paper for the AESOP-APERAU PhD Workshop.

[5]   Cortes, C. P. (2004b). Morphologies of Fragmentation and Continuity. Newcastle: ISUF-Newcastle Symposium.

[6]   Darin, M. (1998). The Study of Urban Form in France. Urban Morphology, 2, 63-76.

[7]   Larkham, P. J. (1998). Urban Morphology and Typology in the United Kingdom. In P. Attilio (Ed.), Typological Process and Design Theory (pp. 159-170). Cambridge, MA: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture.

[8]   Levy, A. (1999). Urban Morphology and the Problem of the Modern Urban Fabric: Some Questions for Research. Urban Morphology, 3, 79-85.

[9]   Madanipour, A. (2001). Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-Spatial Process (Mortezaee, F. Trans.). Tehran: Publication of Pardazeshvabarnamerizi Shahri.

[10]   Mirmoghtadaee, M. (2006). A Proposed Method for the Analysis of Urban Character. Journal of Environmental Studies, 32, 129-140.

[11]   Moudon, A. V. (1997). Urban Morphology as an Emerging Interdisciplinary Field. Urban Morphology, 1, 3-10.

[12]   Moudon, A. V. (1998). The Changing Morphology of Suburban Neighborhoods. In Typological Process and Design Theory (pp.141-157). Cambridge, MA: Agha khan Program for Islamic Architecture.

[13]   Panerai, P., Castex, J., & Depaule, J. C. (2004). Urban Forms: The Death and Life of the Urban Block. Oxford: Architectural Press.

[14]   Whitehand, J. W. R. (2001). British Urban Morphology: The Conzenian Tradition. Urban Morphology, 5, 3-10.

[15]   Whitehand, J. W. R. (2007). Conzenian Urban Morphology and Urban Landscapes. Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium (pp. ii01-ii09). Istanbul: Technical University Faculty of Architecture.