Urban Intensification and the Character of Urban Landscape: A Morphological Perspective
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.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1474689Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 333
 M. P. Johnson, “Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda,” Environment and Planning A, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 717-735, 2001.
 D. Nguyen, “Evidence of the impacts of urban sprawl on social capital,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 610-627, 2010.
 R. Ewing, T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A. Zlot, and S. Raudenbush, “Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity,” In Urban Ecology. Springer US, 2008, pp. 567-582.
 J. I. Carruthers, and G. F. Ulfarsson, “Urban sprawl and the cost of public services,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 503-522, 2003.
 K. Williams, E. Burton, and M. Jenks, “Achieving compact city through intensification: an acceptable option?” in The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? M. Jenks, E. Burton, and K. Williams, Ed. London: E & FN Spon, 1996, p. 84.
 T. Daniels, “Smart growth: a new American approach to regional planning,” Planning practice and research, vol. 16, no. 3-4, pp. 271-279, 2001.
 D. O’Neill, Smart Growth: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 1999.
 N. Dempsey, and M. Jenks, “The future of the compact city,” Built Environment (1978-), vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 116-12, 2010.
 J. Arbury, “From urban sprawl to compact city: An analysis of urban growth management in Auckland (Master dissertation),” Auckland: University of Auckland, 2005, p. 16.
 M. Jenks, “The acceptability of urban intensification” in Achieving sustainable urban form, K. Williams, E. Burton and M. Jenks, Ed. London: E & FN Spon, 2000, p. 242.
 E. Burton, “Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 219-250, 2002.
 I. Woodcock, K. Dovey, and S. Wood, “The character of the compact city: intensification and resident opposition,” Urban planning international, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 35-43, 2008.
 Auckland 2040, ‘Auckland 2040 and the unitary plan’, retrieved on 21, August 2017 from http://www.auckland2040.org.nz/.
 Character Coalition, “Street to lose ‘character’ in urban plan intensification” Retrieved on 20, July 2017 from http://www.charactercoalition.org.nz/street-to-lose-character-in-unitary-plan-intensification/.
 K. Dovey, and I. Woodcock, “The character of urban Intensification: a report on research projects funded by the Australian Research Council, 2002-2010”, 2011, p. 4, retrieved on 30 June from http://www.placeresearch.net/pdf/Character_of_Urban_Intensification.pdf.
 Greater London Authority, “Shaping neighbourhoods: character and context supplementary planning guidance non-technical summary,” June 2014，retrieved on 07, June 2017 from https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/supplementary-planning-guidance/character-and-context.
 G. Davison, and E. Rowden, “There's something about Subi: defending and creating neighbourhood character in Perth, Australia,” Journal of Urban Design, vol. 17, no. 2, 2012, pp. 189-212.
 K. Gu, “From urban landscape units to morphological coding: exploring an alternative approach to zoning in Auckland, New Zealand,” Urban Design International, vol. 19, no. 2, 2014, pp. 159-174.
 V. Oliveira. Urban Morphology: An Introduction to the Study of the Physical Form of Cities. Switzerland: Springer, 2016, pp. 106-107.
 M. P. Conzen, “Urban morphology: a systematic approach to the physical fabric of the city (Unpublished),” International Seminar on Typo-morphology and its Application in Design, 2010, Shanghai, China.
 J. W. R. Whitehand, “British urban morphology: the Conzenion tradition,” Urban morphology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 103-109, 2001.
 N. Dempsey, C. Brown, S. Raman, S. Porta, M. Jenks, C. Jones, and G. Bramley, “Elements of urban form,” Dimensions of the Sustainable City, Dordrecht: Springer, 2010, pp. 21-51.
 K. Gu, “Urban morphological regions and urban landscape management: The case of central Auckland, New Zealand,” Urban Design International, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 148-164, 2010.
 E. J. Sullivan, and J. Yeh, “Smart growth: State strategies in managing sprawl,” The Urban Lawyer, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 349-405, 2013.
 P. Gordon, and H. Richardson, “Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 95-106, 1997.
 B. Randolph, “Delivering the compact city in Australia: Current trends and future implications,” Urban Policy and Research, vol. 24, pp. 473–490, 2006.
 Metro Portland. “Our place in the world: Global challenges, regional strategies, home-grown solutions,” Metro (Oregon regional government) 2008, retrieved on 15, July 2017 from https://www.oregonmetro.gov/our-place-world.
 N. Gallent, and C. Wong, “Introduction: Place shaping, spatial planning and liveability,” Town Planning Review, vol. 80, pp. 353–358, 2009.
 G. W. Adelmann. “Reworking the landscape, Chicago style” The Hastings Center Report vol. 28, no. 6, 1998, pp. 6–11.
 F. Dieleman, and M. Wegener, “Compact city and urban sprawl,” Built Environment, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 308-323, 2004.
 J. L. Grant, “Theory and practice in planning the suburbs: Challenges to implementing new urbanism, smart growth, and sustainability principles.” Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 11-33, 2009.
 E. Talen, “Sense of community and neighbourhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism,” Urban Studies, vol. 36, pp. 1361–1379, 1999.
 J. Dixon, and A. Dupuis, “Urban intensification in Auckland, New Zealand: A challenge for new urbanism,” Housing Studies, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 353-368, 2010.
 M. Jenks, E. Burton and K. Williams, The compact: a sustainable urban form?, London: E & FN Spon, 1996, p. 5, p. 84.
 P. W. Newman, & J. R. Kenworthy, “Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with a global survey”, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 24-37, 1989.
 J. Dodson, “In the wrong place at the wrong time? Assessing some planning, transport and housing market limits to urban consolidation,” Urban Policy and Research, vol. 28, pp. 497–504, 2010.
 R. McCrea, and P. Walters, “Impacts of urban consolidation on urban liveability: Comparing an inner and outer suburb in Brisbane, Australia,” Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 29, pp. 190– 206, 2012.
 N. Quastel, M. Moos, and N. Lynch, “Sustainability-as-density and the return of the social: The case of Vancouver, British Columbia,” Urban Geography, vol. 33, pp. 1055– 1084, 2012.
 G. Davison, “An unlikely urban symbiosis: Urban intensification and neighbourhood character in Collingwood, Vancouver,” Urban policy and research, vol. 29, no. 02, pp. 105-124, 2011.
 K. Williams, “Can urban intensification contribute to sustainable cities? An international perspective,” City Matters (Official electronic journal of Urbanicity), 2004.
 G. Galster, R. Hanson, M. Ratcliffe, H. Wolman, S. Coleman, and J. Freihage, “Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an exclusive concept,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 685, 2001.
 S. Melia, G. Parkhurst, and H. Barton, “The paradox of intensification,” Transport Policy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 46-52, 2011.
 OurAuckland, “Aucklanders want intensified housing done well,” July 2016, retrieved on 13, August 2017 from http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/news/2016/07/aucklanders-want-intensified-housing-done-well/
 A Dupuis, and J. Dixon, “Intensification in Auckland: issues and policy implications,” Urban Policy and Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 415-428, 2002.
 R. Cowan, The Dictionary of Urbanism. Tisbury, UK: Streetwise Press, 2005, p. 57.
 Haringey Council, Haringey Urban Character Study, 2015, retrieved on 12, June 2017 from http://www.haringey.gov.uk/search/gss/Haringay%20Urban%20Character%20Study
 G. Pivo, “How Do You Define Community Character?,” Small Town, pp. 4-17, 1992.
 K. 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
 K. Kropf, “Urban tissue and the character of towns,” Urban Design International, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.247-263, 1996.
 Matthews, 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.
 H. Meyer, “Planning Analysis,” 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.
 M. R. G. Conzen, Alnwich, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis, London: George 1960. pp. 3-4.
 J. W. R. Whitehand, “Urban morphology,” in Historical geography: progress and prospect, M. Pacione, Ed. London: Croom Helm, 1987, pp. 250-76.
 M. R. G. Conzen, “Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow,” in Thinking about Urban Form: Papers on Urban Morphology, 1932–1998. M. P. Conzen, Ed. London: Oxford, 2004, pp. 118-125.
 J. W. R. Whitehand, J. W. R. “Urban morphology and historic urban landscapes (World Heritage papers series),” Managing Historic Cities Gérer les villes historiques, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, vol. 27, pp.35-43, 2010.