{"title":"Urban Intensification and the Character of Urban Landscape: A Morphological Perspective","authors":"Xindong An, Kai Gu","volume":141,"journal":"International Journal of Architectural and Environmental Engineering","pagesStart":898,"pagesEnd":903,"ISSN":"1307-6892","URL":"https:\/\/publications.waset.org\/pdf\/10009565","abstract":"
Urban intensification is regarded as the prevalent strategy in many cities of the world to ease the pressures of urban sprawl and deliver sustainable development through increasing the density of built form and activities. However, within the context of intensive development, planning and design control measures that help to maintain and promote the character of existing residential environments have been slow to develop. This causes the possible loss of the character of an area that makes a place unique and distinctive. The purpose of this paper is to explore the way of identifying the character of an urban area for the planning of urban landscape in the implementation of intensification. By employing the theory of urban morphology, the concept of morphological region is used for the analysis and characterisation of the spatial structure of the urban landscape in terms of ground plans, building types, and building and land utilisation. The morphological mapping of the character of urban landscape is suggested, which lays a foundation for more sensitive planning of urban landscape changes.<\/p>\r\n","references":"[1]\tM. P. Johnson, \u201cEnvironmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda,\u201d Environment and Planning A, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 717-735, 2001. \r\n[2]\tD. Nguyen, \u201cEvidence of the impacts of urban sprawl on social capital,\u201d Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 610-627, 2010. \r\n[3]\tR. Ewing, T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A. Zlot, and S. Raudenbush, \u201cRelationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity,\u201d In Urban Ecology. Springer US, 2008, pp. 567-582.\r\n[4]\tJ. I. Carruthers, and G. F. Ulfarsson, \u201cUrban sprawl and the cost of public services,\u201d Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 503-522, 2003. \r\n[5]\tK. Williams, E. Burton, and M. Jenks, \u201cAchieving compact city through intensification: an acceptable option?\u201d in The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? M. Jenks, E. Burton, and K. Williams, Ed. London: E & FN Spon, 1996, p. 84.\r\n[6]\tT. Daniels, \u201cSmart growth: a new American approach to regional planning,\u201d Planning practice and research, vol. 16, no. 3-4, pp. 271-279, 2001.\r\n[7]\tD. O\u2019Neill, Smart Growth: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI\u2013the Urban Land Institute, 1999.\r\n[8]\tN. Dempsey, and M. Jenks, \u201cThe future of the compact city,\u201d Built Environment (1978-), vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 116-12, 2010.\r\n[9]\tJ. Arbury, \u201cFrom urban sprawl to compact city: An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland (Master dissertation),\u201d Auckland: University of Auckland, 2005, p. 16.\r\n[10]\tM. Jenks, \u201cThe acceptability of urban intensification\u201d in Achieving sustainable urban form, K. Williams, E. Burton and M. Jenks, Ed. London: E & FN Spon, 2000, p. 242.\r\n[11]\tE. Burton, \u201cMeasuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities,\u201d Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 219-250, 2002.\r\n[12]\tI. Woodcock, K. Dovey, and S. Wood, \u201cThe character of the compact city: intensification and resident opposition,\u201d Urban planning international, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 35-43, 2008.\r\n[13]\tAuckland 2040, \u2018Auckland 2040 and the unitary plan\u2019, retrieved on 21, August 2017 from http:\/\/www.auckland2040.org.nz\/.\r\n[14]\tCharacter Coalition, \u201cStreet to lose \u2018character\u2019 in urban plan intensification\u201d Retrieved on 20, July 2017 from http:\/\/www.charactercoalition.org.nz\/street-to-lose-character-in-unitary-plan-intensification\/.\r\n[15]\tK. Dovey, and I. Woodcock, \u201cThe character of urban Intensification: a report on research projects funded by the Australian Research Council, 2002-2010\u201d, 2011, p. 4, retrieved on 30 June from http:\/\/www.placeresearch.net\/pdf\/Character_of_Urban_Intensification.pdf.\r\n[16]\tGreater London Authority, \u201cShaping neighbourhoods: character and context supplementary planning guidance non-technical summary,\u201d June 2014\uff0cretrieved on 07, June 2017 from https:\/\/www.london.gov.uk\/what-we-do\/planning\/implementing-london-plan\/supplementary-planning-guidance\/character-and-context.\r\n[17]\tG. Davison, and E. Rowden, \u201cThere's something about Subi: defending and creating neighbourhood character in Perth, Australia,\u201d Journal of Urban Design, vol. 17, no. 2, 2012, pp. 189-212. \r\n[18]\tK. Gu, \u201cFrom urban landscape units to morphological coding: exploring an alternative approach to zoning in Auckland, New Zealand,\u201d Urban Design International, vol. 19, no. 2, 2014, pp. 159-174. \r\n[19]\tV. Oliveira. Urban Morphology: An Introduction to the Study of the Physical Form of Cities. Switzerland: Springer, 2016, pp. 106-107. \r\n[20]\tM. P. Conzen, \u201cUrban morphology: a systematic approach to the physical fabric of the city (Unpublished),\u201d International Seminar on Typo-morphology and its Application in Design, 2010, Shanghai, China. \r\n[21]\tJ. W. R. Whitehand, \u201cBritish urban morphology: the Conzenion tradition,\u201d Urban morphology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 103-109, 2001.\r\n[22]\tN. Dempsey, C. Brown, S. Raman, S. Porta, M. Jenks, C. Jones, and G. Bramley, \u201cElements of urban form,\u201d Dimensions of the Sustainable City, Dordrecht: Springer, 2010, pp. 21-51.\r\n[23]\tK. Gu, \u201cUrban morphological regions and urban landscape management: The case of central Auckland, New Zealand,\u201d Urban Design International, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 148-164, 2010.\r\n[24]\tE. J. Sullivan, and J. Yeh, \u201cSmart growth: State strategies in managing sprawl,\u201d The Urban Lawyer, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 349-405, 2013.\r\n[25]\tP. Gordon, and H. Richardson, \u201cAre compact cities a desirable planning goal?,\u201d Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 95-106, 1997. \r\n[26]\tB. Randolph, \u201cDelivering the compact city in Australia: Current trends and future implications,\u201d Urban Policy and Research, vol. 24, pp. 473\u2013490, 2006.\r\n[27]\tMetro Portland. \u201cOur place in the world: Global challenges, regional strategies, home-grown solutions,\u201d Metro (Oregon regional government) 2008, retrieved on 15, July 2017 from https:\/\/www.oregonmetro.gov\/our-place-world.\r\n[28]\tN. Gallent, and C. Wong, \u201cIntroduction: Place shaping, spatial planning and liveability,\u201d Town Planning Review, vol. 80, pp. 353\u2013358, 2009.\r\n[29]\tG. W. Adelmann. \u201cReworking the landscape, Chicago style\u201d The Hastings Center Report vol. 28, no. 6, 1998, pp. 6\u201311.\r\n[30]\tF. Dieleman, and M. Wegener, \u201cCompact city and urban sprawl,\u201d Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 308-323, 2004. \r\n[31]\tJ. L. Grant, \u201cTheory and practice in planning the suburbs: Challenges to implementing new urbanism, smart growth, and sustainability principles.\u201d Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 11-33, 2009.\r\n[32]\tE. Talen, \u201cSense of community and neighbourhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism,\u201d Urban Studies, vol. 36, pp. 1361\u20131379, 1999.\u2028\r\n[33]\tJ. Dixon, and A. Dupuis, \u201cUrban intensification in Auckland, New Zealand: A challenge for new urbanism,\u201d Housing Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 353-368, 2010.\r\n[34]\tM. Jenks, E. Burton and K. Williams, The compact: a sustainable urban form?, London: E & FN Spon, 1996, p. 5, p. 84.\r\n[35]\tP. W. Newman, & J. R. Kenworthy, \u201cGasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with a global survey\u201d, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 24-37, 1989.\r\n[36]\tJ. Dodson, \u201cIn the wrong place at the wrong time? Assessing some planning, transport and housing market limits to urban consolidation,\u201d Urban Policy and Research, vol. 28, pp. 497\u2013504, 2010. \r\n[37]\tR. McCrea, and P. Walters, \u201cImpacts of urban consolidation on urban liveability: Comparing an inner and outer suburb in Brisbane, Australia,\u201d Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 29, pp. 190\u2013 206, 2012. \r\n[38]\tN. Quastel, M. Moos, and N. Lynch, \u201cSustainability-as-density and the return of the social: The case of Vancouver, British Columbia,\u201d Urban Geography, vol. 33, pp. 1055\u2013 1084, 2012. \r\n[39]\tG. Davison, \u201cAn unlikely urban symbiosis: Urban intensification and neighbourhood character in Collingwood, Vancouver,\u201d Urban policy and research, vol. 29, no. 02, pp. 105-124, 2011. \r\n[40]\tK. Williams, \u201cCan urban intensification contribute to sustainable cities? An international perspective,\u201d City Matters (Official electronic journal of Urbanicity), 2004.\r\n[41]\tG. Galster, R. Hanson, M. Ratcliffe, H. Wolman, S. Coleman, and J. Freihage, \u201cWrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an exclusive concept,\u201d Housing Policy Debate, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 685, 2001.\r\n[42]\tS. Melia, G. Parkhurst, and H. Barton, \u201cThe paradox of intensification,\u201d Transport Policy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 46-52, 2011.\r\n[43]\tOurAuckland, \u201cAucklanders want intensified housing done well,\u201d July 2016, retrieved on 13, August 2017 from http:\/\/ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz\/articles\/news\/2016\/07\/aucklanders-want-intensified-housing-done-well\/ \r\n[44]\tA Dupuis, and J. Dixon, \u201cIntensification in Auckland: issues and policy implications,\u201d Urban Policy and Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 415-428, 2002.\r\n[45]\tR. Cowan, The Dictionary of Urbanism. Tisbury, UK: Streetwise Press, 2005, p. 57.\r\n[46]\tHaringey Council, Haringey Urban Character Study, 2015, retrieved on 12, June 2017 from http:\/\/www.haringey.gov.uk\/search\/gss\/Haringay%20Urban%20Character%20Study\r\n[47]\tG. Pivo, \u201cHow Do You Define Community Character?,\u201d Small Town, pp. 4-17, 1992. \r\n[48]\tK. Hill, Planning Group Auckland (NZ) City, Boffa Miskell and Reed Architects Salmond, Character & heritage study upper Symonds Street. Auckland: Boffa Miskell. 2004, pp.1-3\r\n[49]\tK. Kropf, \u201cUrban tissue and the character of towns,\u201d Urban Design International, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.247-263, 1996. \r\n[50]\tMatthews, Matthews Architecture, North Shore (N.Z.) and City Council. Northcote historic residential neighbourhoods: heritage and character study. Takapuna, N. Z: North Shore City Council, 2005, p.2. \r\n[51]\tH. Meyer, \u201cPlanning Analysis,\u201d T. M. de Jong, & D. Van Der Voordt, Ed, Ways to study and research: urban, architectural and technical design, Northlands: Delft University Press, 2002, pp. 125-136. \r\n[52]\tM. R. G. Conzen, Alnwich, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis, London: George 1960. pp. 3-4.\r\n[53]\tJ. W. R. Whitehand, \u201cUrban morphology,\u201d in Historical geography: progress and prospect, M. Pacione, Ed. London: Croom Helm, 1987, pp. 250-76.\r\n[54]\tM. R. G. Conzen, \u201cMorphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow,\u201d in Thinking about Urban Form: Papers on Urban Morphology, 1932\u20131998. M. P. Conzen, Ed. London: Oxford, 2004, pp. 118-125.\r\n[55]\tJ. W. R. Whitehand, J. W. R. \u201cUrban morphology and historic urban landscapes (World Heritage papers series),\u201d Managing Historic Cities G\u00e9rer les villes historiques, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, vol. 27, pp.35-43, 2010. ","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 141, 2018"}