Managing the urban change: A morphological perspective for planning
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2019.82Keywords:
Morphological research, planning practice, morphological unity, part-to-whole relationshipAbstract
This study questions the awareness of planners on the intrinsic qualities of the built environment in shaping of urban form in Turkey throughout a centennial period after foundation of Turkish Republic in 1923. It suggests a morphological framework, to develop such an evaluation, which is based on three basic principles: the historicity of urban forms, the hierarchical nesting of urban form elements, and their reconciliation within a complex interaction with each other in a part-to-whole relationship. It is regarded as an initial attempt to develop a brief discussion about a morphological perspective to be utilized in planning practice. It is asserted that the centennial development of planning practice in Turkey brought to light that the professionals lost their concern on the intrinsic qualities of urban form, on how it is evolved historically, and on how its elements are related to each other. They abandoned themselves to the relative ease of application of insensitive planning with high confidence on the decency and convenience of procedural functioning of planning. It reveals that there is a need for a morphological perspective that would take into account the morphological unity of urban form elements within their interplay in order to develop a responsive planning approach.
Metrics
References
Akcan, E. (2012). Architecture in translation: Germany, Turkey and the modern house. Durham: Duke University Press.
Alexander C (1966) A city is not a tree. Design 206:47–55.
Alexander C, Neis H, Anninou A, King I (1987) A new theory of urban design. Oxford University Press, New York.
Balamir, M. (1975) ‘Kat Mülkiyeti ve Kentleşmemiz’ (‘The process of ownership fragmentation in Turkish urbanization’), Middle East Technical University, Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 1 (2), 295–319.
Barke M (2003) The lifespan of a typological form? Urban Morphology 15:21–38.
Barke (2015) Further thoughts on research and practice in urban morphology: a British perspective. Urban Morphology 19(1):96-99.
Barke (2018) The Importance of Urban Form as an Object of Study. In Oliveira V (ed) Teaching Urban Morphology. Springer, Cham, pp.11-30.
Barke (2019) Why study urban morphology? The views of ISUF members, Urban Morphology 23(2):105-14.
Bilgin, İ. (1999) ‘Modernization’, in Sey, Y. (ed.) Housing and settlement in Anatolia: a historical perspective (Tepe Architectural Culture Centre, İstanbul) 247–361.
Bobek H (1927) Grundfragen der Stadtgeographie, Geogr. Anz. 28, 213-24.
Booth P (1995) ‘Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy’, Journal of Planning Education and Research (14):103-112.
Borsi, K. (2015). Drawing the region: Hermann Jansen’s vision of Greater Berlin in 1910. The Journal of Architecture, 20(1), 47-72.
Bozdoğan S. (2001). Modernism and Nation Building. Seattle:University of Washington Press.
Bozdoğan S, Akcan E (2012) Turkey: modern architects in history. Reaktion, London.
Cataldi G (2003) From Muratori to Caniggia: the origins and development of Italian school of design typology. Urban Morphology 1:96–99.
Conzen MRG (1958) The growth and character of Whitby. In: Daysh GHJ (ed) A survey of Whitby and the surrounding area. Shakespeare Head Press, Eton, pp 49–89.
Conzen, M. R. G. (1960) Alnwick: Northumber- land: a study in town-plan analysis Institute of British Geographers Publication 27. George Philip, London.
Conzen MRG (1969) Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis, 2nd edn. Institute of British Geograpers Publication 27. Institute of British Geographers, London.
Conzen MRG (1975) Geography and townscape conservation. In: Uhlig H, Lienau C (eds) Anglo-German symposium in applied geography. Lenz, Giessen, pp 95–102.
Conzen, M. R. G. (2004) Thinking about urban form: papers on urban morphology (Conzen, M. P., ed.). Peter Lang, Bern.
Cullen G (1961) Townscape. Reinhold, New York.
Gu K (2018) Exploring Urban Morphology as Urban Design.
Pedagogy. In Oliveira V (ed) Teaching Urban Morphology. Springer, Cham, pp.145-158.
Günay, B. (2005) Türkiye mimarlığı: gelenek, yöre, doğu, batı (Architecture in Turkey: tradition, locality, east, west). Şehir Plancıları Odası, Ankara.
Hall T (2008) The form-based development plan: bridging the gap between theory and practice in urban morphology. Urban Morphology 12(1):77–95.
Hedman R, Jaszenski A (1984) Fundamentals of urban design. APA Press, Chicago.
Jacobs A, Appleyard D (1987) Toward an Urban Design Manifesto, Journal of the American Planning Association, 53:1, 112-120.
Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books, New York.
Keskinok Ç (2006) Şehirciliğimizin yüzyılını değerlendirirken (On the evaluation of a century of our urbanism). In: Keskinok Ç (ed) Kentleşme siyasaları (Urbanization policies). Kaynak, Istanbul, pp 213–218.
Kropf K (1996) Urban tissue and the character of towns. Urban Design International 1:247–263.
Kropf K (2014) Ambiguity in the definition of built form. Urban Morphology 18(1):41–57.
Kropf K (2017) The handbook of urban morphology. Chichester, Wiley.
Kropf K, Ferguson P (2014) City of Bath morphological study. Built Form Resource, Oxford.
Larkham PJ (2006) The study of urban form in Great Britain. Urban Morphology 10(2):117–141.
Loius, H. (1936). Die geographische Gliederung von Gross-Berlin’, in Louis, H. and Panzer, W. (er.) Landerkundliche Forschung: Krebs-Festschrift içinde (s.146-171), Engelhorn, Stuttgart.
Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Massachusetts.
Lynch K (1981) Good City Form, MIT: Cambridge Massachusetts.
Moudon AV (1997) Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology
(1):3–10.
Oliveira V (2006) The morphological dimension of municipal plans. Urban Morphology 10(2):101–113.
Oliveira V (2016) Urban morphology: an introduction to the study of the physical form of cities. Springer, Dordrecht.
Oliveira V, Sousa S (2012) Urban morphology in planning practice. Urban Morphology 16(1):80–82.
Oliveira V, Silva M, Samuels I (2014) Urban morphological research and planning practice: a Portuguese assessment. Urban Morphology 18(1):23–39.
Öncel, A. D. (2010) Apartman: Galata’da yeni bir konut tipi (Apartment: a new housing type in Galata). Kitap, İstanbul.
Panerai P., Castex J., Depaule, J. C. & Samuels, I. (2004). Urban forms: the death and life of the urban block. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Rykwert, J. (2010). The Seduction of Place. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.
Saban Okesli D. (2009). Hermann Jansen’s planning principles and his urban legacy in Adana. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 26(2), 45-67.
Samuels I (1990) Architectural practice and urban morphology. In: Slater TR (ed) The built form of Western cities. Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp 415–435.
Samuels I (1997) A typomorphological approach to design. Urban Design International 4:129–141.
Samuels I (2019a) Research and Practice, in V. Oliveira (ed.), J.W.R. Whitehand and the Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Morphology, Springer, Cham, p. 115-131.
Samuels I (2019b) Mind the gap, Urban Morphology 23(2):169-70.
Scheer BC (2008) Urban morphology and urban design. Urban Morphology 12(2):131–133.
Scheer BC (2010) Evolution of urban form: typology for planners and architects. APA, Chicago.
Schlüter, O. (1899). Bemerkungen zur Siedelungs-geographie, Geographische Zeitschrift, 5, 65– 84.
Sey, Y. (1998a) ‘Cumhuriyet döneminde Türkiye’de mimarlık ve yapı’ (‘Production of architecture and building during the Republican period’), in Sey, Y. (ed.) 75 yılda değişen kent ve mimarlık (75 years of urban and architectural change) (Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul) 25–40.
Sey, Y. (1998b) ‘Cumhuriyet döneminde konut’ (‘Housing during the Republican period’), in Sey, Y. (ed.) 75 yılda değişen kent ve mimarlık (75 years of urban and architectural change) (Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul) 273–300.
Tankut G (1993) Bir bas ̧kentin imarı (Development of a capital city). Anahtar, istanbul.
Tibbalds F (2001) Making people-friendly towns. Taylor & Francis, London.
Trancik. R. (1986). Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an urban renaissance. DETR, London.
Ünlü T, Baş Y (2017). Morphological processes and the making of residential forms: morphogenetic types in Turkish cities. Urban Morphology 21(2):105-122.
Ward, S. (1992). The Garden City introduced. Ward, S. (Der.) The Garden City: Past, present and future içinde. Oxon: Spon.
Whitehand, J. W. R. (1981) ‘Conzenian ideas: extension and development’, in Whitehand, J. W. R. (ed.) The urban landscape: historical development and management. Papers by M. R. G. Conzen Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 13 (Academic Press, London) 127-52.
Whitehand JWR (2001) British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology 5(2):103–109.
Whitehand JWR (2005) The problem of anglophone squint. Area 37:228–230.
Whitehand JWR (2007) Conzenian urban morphology and urban landscapes. In: Proceedings of the 6th international space syntax symposium, Istanbul.
Whitehand JWR (2009) The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice. Urban Morphology 13(1):5–27.
Whitehand JWR (2012) Issues in urban morphology. Urban Morphology 16(1):55–65.
Whitehand JWR (2019) ISUF and Urban Morphology: 25 years on and counting, Urban Morphology 23(2):103–4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
COPYRIGHT POLICY
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.
6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.
ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning is an OAJ supported by 