A theoretical base for urban morphology: practical way to achive the city character
List of Authors
  • Ahmadi, Vahid , Farkisch, Hero

Keyword
  • City Character, Theories, Urban morphology, Italian school, German school

Abstract
  • The new cities form rapidly and usually follow many unconnected concepts that cause confusion in urban spaces while in historical cities formed gradually according to accepted patterns and corrected rules. Moreover, many non-local agents influence on the form of new cities while the forming of traditional urban spaces depends on the morphology of the site, the historical background and the culture of local people. In literature of urban design, character is synonymous with the concept of physical identity. Meaning is differences between physical traits of a city from other cities. Urban morphology has focused on urban physical studies, and provides a conceptual framework for urban character study. This process can be use, as the part of the urban spaces that have physical properties of the entire city instead of analyzed of the whole city. In this way, we were looking for some of the important researches by focus the urban morphology. We also had chosen the analysis literature review for our methodology. In this article, we were going to achieve a method for analysis cities by looking to characters (physical identity). Subjects of this paper were about the theoretical framework of content urban morphology with emphasis on methods and different perspectives about analyzing them. That also provides definitions about a quality of visual elements, aesthetic form, physical analysis and cognition of space, urban public spaces, physical characteristics that influence a clear image of the city, and finally townscape significance to give urban environment identity. Indeed, we are looking for comprehensive process and analytical model to suit their particular environment and conditions for urban character study, instead of using conventional analytical models. The method for each city can be distinct and unique, because it cannot be a comprehensive method to analyze and present understanding to all cities. This paper had argued the Kropf‟s method is one of the best instrument to introduce the main research indicates and general approach for historical cities.

Reference
  • Alexander, Ch. 1979. The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Arnheim, R. 1974. Art and Visual Perception. University of California Press.
    Bacon, E. 1973. Design of Cities. Thames and Hudson.
    Barghjelveh, Sh. 2004. Program to identify and analyze the physical environment. Journal of Fine Arts, 39, pp 39-48.
    Bentley, I. 1985. Responsive environments : a manual for designers, London, Architectural Press.
    Carmona, M. 2003. Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Oxford; Boston, Architectural Press.
    Cullen, G. 1995. The Concise Townscape. Architectural press.
    Geddes, P. 1915. Cities in Evolution. London.
    Hillier, B. 1989. Space Syntax. Ekistics 334, January/February.
    Islami, Gh. 1998. Endogenous Development: A Model for the Process of Man-Environment Transaction. Ph.D thesis. UK: Heriot-Watt University.
    Koberg, D. & Bagnall, J. 1974. The Universal Traveler, Los Altos. Ca: William Kaufman (2nd edition 1977).
    Koster, E. A. 2001. Urban morphology, a taste of a form – oriented approach to the history of urban development. Summary of Ph.D thesis.
    Kristjánsdóttir, S. 2001. The Integration of Architectural and Geographical Concepts in Urban Morphology: Preliminary Thoughts. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Urban Form, September 5-9 2001, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, bls.112-113.
    Kropf, K. 1996. Urban tissue and the character of towns. Urban Design International, 1(3), pp 274-263.
    Larkham, P. J. 1998. Urban morphology and typology in the United Kingdom. In: Attilio Petruccioli (Ed.) Typological process and design theory. Agha Khan program for Islamic architecture, conference proceeding.
    Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city, Cambridge, Technology Press.
    Lynch, K. 1987. A theory of good city form, Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press.
    Madanipour, A. 1996. Design of urban space: an inquiry into a socio-spatial process, Chichester; New York, Wiley.
    Mirmoghtadaee, M. 2006. Proposed Method to Analyze the City Character. Journal of Environmental Studies, 39, pp 129-140.
    Mirmoghtadaee, M. 2004. Criteria to identify and evaluate the physical identity of cities. Journal of Fine Arts, 29, pp 17-26.
    Molavi, M. 2005. Formal analysis of urban space and its philosophical foundations. Journal of Fine Arts, 27, pp 27-34.
    Moudon, A. V. 2000. Proof of goodness: a substantive basis for new urbanism. Places, 13:2, pp 38-43.
    Mumford, L. 1961. City in History. New York.
    Parsi, H. R. 2002. Content knowledge in urban space. Journal of Fine Arts, 11, pp 41-49.
    Rapoport, A. 1977. Human Aspects of Urban Form. New York. Pergarnon Press.
    Rofe, Y. 1995. Space and community-the spatial foundation of urban neighborhoods. Berkeley Planning Journal, 10, pp 107-125.
    Scheer, B. C. & Scheer, D. R. (1998). Typology and urban design guidelines. In: Attillio Petruccioli (Ed.) Rethinking XIX century city. Agha Khan program for Islamic architecture, conference proceeding. Cambridge Massachusetts.
    Schulz, N. Ch. 2009. Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture. Tehran: Rokhdad No Press.
    Sheppard, A. 1999. Principles of Art Philosophy. Tehran: Hermes press.
    Sitte, C. 1965. City planning according to artistic principles... [Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen], London, Phaidon press.