New approaches to urban form and processes: Retail distribution

as indicator.

Anthony Fuchs
TU Delft 1st Edition, Berlageweg 1, 2628CR Delft, t: 015-2782971, e: A.fuchs@tudelft.nl

2. Understanding urban and metropolitan form:

Keywords: Urban Form, Retail allocation, Berlin, Rotterdam

Introduction:
Urbanization is an increasing condition of modern times and became a numeric de facto
reality in the beginning of the 21st century. In a world of urbanites investigations to the
heart of urbanization processes are of utmost importance. Which kind of city do we want
to live in? The volatile times of globalization render a basic question like what (form) is a
city into a difficult one. The complexity of postmodern urban landscapes blurs not only
formal delineations but also require expanding the classical urban morphologic studies
towards structural and functional analysis. The conference paper picks up a converging
tendency from different fields observable over the last decades to outline a new extended
methodology though based on the very essence of urban morphology, applying mapping
as ultimate tool. This contribution is the theoretical basis for a second paper to be
presented at the Eura Conference (Fuchs et.al. 2008) in Milan held in the beginning of
October dealing more specifically with first applications in Rotterdam and Berlin. Within
the framework of The Urban Project Conference two questions are addressed, first why
changing conditions of our times require this evolution of classic urban morphology
studies and secondly what is needed to unlock the possibilities of new approaches for a
deeper understanding of past, current and future urban processes.

A changing context:
Cities of today are changing at an ever increasing pace. Existing regions are rapidly
transformed into radically different environments. Factors responsible for these
regions’/settlements’ mutations seem to be of a diverse nature. Ideas such as the post
modern and network society, global and network cities all shed light from a variety of
angels through which to observe society in relation to the built environment (Castells
2002, Florida 2004, Hall 2006, Harvey 1996, Sassen 2001, Sennett 1992, Sieverts 2001),
though are based on commonly identified changes: Cultural and economic globalization,
increased mobility and urbanization, neo-liberalism, consumerism, individualization, the
decline of public life and financial households to name the most important ones. These
changes have considerably accelerated since the 1970s and in combination (although
exerting distinct and often diverting forces) contributed ultimately to what we presently
recognize as multi-nodal structures of functional complexity (Byrne 2003, Salingaros
2005, Wilson 2000), diverse and incoherent territories, cities affected by sprawl and their
fragmented settlements (Hall 2006, Amin & Thrift 2002). These ongoing changes need a
more profound knowledge of scale and territorial polarization, termed often - for the sake
of continuity - centrality. Morphological questions addressing the city in the 21 st century
will not be answered by focusing on its mere physical appearance but requires
investigations into functional and structural characteristics in ‘space’. Still urban
morphology could and actually should form the backbone and communicative interface of
these future directions by expanding its basic concepts.

The naissance of classical urban morphology:

Research into urban growth address some of the most fundamental questions in urban
studies. The form of the built-up has triggered artist’s imaginations since the very
beginning of mankind.1 However cartographic representations on the scope of a city
remained very scarce until Humanism - the time an appropriate tool had been developed
to seize the vastness of large scales: perspective bird-eye paintings visualized the urban
environment in a prior unknown scale and viewpoint. Descriptive contributions soon
discovered plan and abstraction as appropriate tools for re-presentation. The
unquestioned apogee of this pre-scientific development is the Nolli-maps elaborated in
18th century Rome.2 Taking the historical precedents of urban morphology into account
the later preoccupation with micro-scale transformations and typographic investigations
can better be explained.

The staring point of classical morphology is mostly stated with the work of Quatremere
de Quincy in the first half of the 19th century who used town plans to understand their
historic development (Gauthiez 2004). In the following century the emerging science
situated at the cross point of architecture, urban planning, geography, and history
(Gauthier & Gilliland 2005). Until today this multi-disciplinarity has exerted considerable
tensions on the topic, torn not only between different scales but also elaborated within
different discourses that manifested in separate schools of thoughts. Classical
morphology studies can be traced back to certain protagonists who initiated or influenced
different schools (Gauthier & Gilliland, 2005), among the most famous and oldest the
German (Heineberg 2007, Hofmeister 2004), the more traditional Italian (Marzot 2002),
French (Darin 1998) and the concise British school (Larkham 2006, Whitehand 2001).
While Otto Schlüter is considered as general forefather of urban morphology, his disciples
Walter Geisler and Rudolf Martiny gave the discourse the geographic-morphogenetic
direction the German school is reputed for. Schlüter’s counterpart in Italy Gustavo
Giovanni laid the foundation for later investigations of Saverio Muratori, Gianfranco
1
The first representation of a city has been found in Catalhuyuk in 1963 and is staggering nine
millennia old.
2
These plans have been in active use in the Roman municipality until 1970 and heavily influenced
the discourse and practice of urban cartography for the next upcoming two centuries.
Caniggia and Paola Maretto focusing primarily on typological approaches. In Britain, the
German immigrant Michael Robert Gunther Conzen influenced a prior marginal urban
morphological discourse to such an extend he became name-giving to the school. The
Conzenean tradition, theorized later by Jeremy Whitehand follows strict lines of an
integrative approach, which is normally tripartite into town plan, building fabric and land
use (Whitehand 2007) and looks into formative processes to explain morphological
phenomena like the fringebelts.
These schools although following different thoughts and traditions, are based on certain
consensus. Firstly, they all agree that cities bear a certain inert logic that spatially
manifests in its form. Secondly the mainstream of researchers bases all analyses upon
urban fabric, which constitutes of three distinctive elements, streets, build and open
plots.3 The traditional Italian and French school 4 are normally pre-occupied with the
micro-scale and apply typological approaches5 - their results are mostly of phenotypical
nature. Contrary German and British researchers aim for genotypical investigations to
understand the genesis of urban form on the scale of the settlement. The first group
perceives urban morphology as an aggregate of ‘architectural types’ and are less
relevant for this paper as their approach leaves little space for the interpretation of the
forces at play. The latter group convinced by “[t]he past provides the key to the future” 6
uses town plans and other documents into a longitudinal sequence to investigate
changes over time - this evolutionary thinking has been borrowed by natural historians
(Kropf 2001). Snapshots of given moments are compared like frozen pictures to
reconstruct the urban ontogenesis.
Over the last decades this method seems to face increasingly difficulties to describe and
prescribe current and future growth of postmodern cityscapes. Global cities, new service
centralities and their accelerated changes can hardly be explained or even described with
traditional urban form models. In this perspective it is not very surprising that most cited
morphology studies are the ones focusing on historical grown settlements with little
spatial growth since medieval times (Schlüter 1903, Geisler 1924, Conzen 1960).
Consequently at the turn of the 21st century, contributions multiplied questioning the
status of morphology studies and reflecting on future research directions.
Generally speaking there is a voice to expand the interdisciplinary (Larkham 2006),
particular towards sciences with structural approaches. As Racine 2004 claims ‘it is on
relation that we must act and not only on forms.’ The most apparent expansion of urban
morphology studies is elaborating on one of its key elements, which developed already
on its own account into a self contained research branch. It is like flipping the figure

3
Both morphological truisms represent the essence of morphological studies and are also the
starting point of the later stated new working methodology.
4
A Second branch of the French school focuses on morphogenesis.
5
The strong link to tradition also manifests in an emphasis on socio-cultural dynamics and an
attitude to perceive urban morphology as an additive result of elements they so called architectural
‘types.’
6
Whitehand (1987), p.146
ground image around, using the plots and building as canvas and bringing street
networks to the foreground. So far classical morphology studies considered open space
and streets mostly in their spatial (in-between) forms but not by their systematic values.
The importance of movements for the perception and ultimately the form of the urban
built-up has been outlined at several occasions (Hillier & Hanson 1984, Hillier 1996,
Bruyns & Read 2007, Fuchs & Read 2008). This line of reasoning is conform to other
urban morphologists outlining infrastructure as an ‘essential part of the new urban fabric’
being the ‘principal agent of urban change’ (Levy 1999).
Additionally to this opening-up of urban morphology studies, energies have to focus on
abolishing its concept of the flat surface. The rapid changes of the last decades revealed
pathologies of classic morphology studies if concentrating solely on physical form. ‘Form
follows function’ yet allows a second reading, synthesizing the logic of urban processes in
time – only a second wisdom of urban growth needs to be added ‘function follows
structure.’ By addressing functional and structural questions on the scale of urban
systems its underlying morphogenetic processes can be better understood. Before
outlining the two complementing research inputs, their precondition of a centrality
concept needs to be clarified.

In a nutshell: The concept of centrality

In the past kernels represented the morphological, structural and functional center of a
settlement, attracting people and aspiring meaning. This entity increasingly dissolved in
modern times. It is important to understand these three types require different conditions
of ‘being central.’
Despite the predominance of the term in urban discourse the literature on centrality itself
is very thin.
Most current debates on concepts such as network cities, urban renewal and
regeneration, creative cities, the buzz effect to just name a few are all based on a certain
notion of centrality. Therefore the scarcity of efforts to delineate the term surprises
(Hillier 1997, Latora & Porta, 2007). Most contributors build up their argumentations on
an a priori notion that generally shares a large common basis whereas differ sometimes
considerably in detail and depth.
The few forerunners dealing with this issue faced problems of both quantifying and
qualifying centrality (Christaller 1933, Davies 1967). In classical urban geography the
notion of centrality has been derived from the central place theory and based on
functional characteristics. Consequently centrality has been understood as location of
increased attractiveness (Lösch 1940, Isard 1956, Alonso 1964). Besides this geographic
discourse centrality emerged additionally as a concept of social sciences in human and
business network theory (Bavelas 1948, 1950). With the angle of a different discipline the
term has been defined by its system characteristics (thus without spatial implications).
Taking both viewpoints into an anthropocentric context one legitimate interpretation
unfolds, central places are spaces where people are (or choose to be). Thus
attractiveness is the capacity of an area to attract program or functions and ultimately
people (obviously a circular causation). Taking the purpose of cities into account a two
fold approach suggests itself: Despite ten millennia of history, their reason d’être of
settlements remained the same, being places of exchange (economic as well socio-
cultural). In this line empirical research confirmed the strong link between economic and
socio-cultural ‘central’ places in a similar scale (see further below) while first bears the
advantage of being more time-efficient to quantify. Thus some scholars have been
interested in fast and indirect ways to visualize centrality and urban form: the
structuralists are by far the most dominant ones.

Towards new approaches - Structure

In the past certain contributions already perforated the border between morphology and
structural analysis. First impetus has been initiated by economic geographers of pre-WW2
Scandinavia and Germany. In the time of the Weimarer Republic a new discourse
emerged, introducing the importance of urban systems into morphology studies, Hans
Bobek and the better known Walter Christaller were the forerunners of new, more
structural approaches which influenced the German school since. While certain
investigations have been undertaken on the scale of a settlement and taking real space
into consideration (e.g. Davies 1968), predominantly economic geography developed
models in abstract space, like the central place theory (Christaller 1933). The criticism on
central place theory is well known but the reason for its failure is seldom stated. By using
an abstract model to explain spatial urban systems and basing it on a functional
argument, a causality mistake falsifies the model. Taking more recent discourses into
account functions seem to be in first place an effect and just in second place a self
aggravating dynamic. Thus emphasis has to be given not to the nodes solely but to the
nature of their links as defining element. An approach emerging in the 1980s did exactly
this by using a syntactic model to compute urban systems. This tool named Space Syntax
has been developed by Professor Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson, both Professors at the
Bartlett School (Hillier 1984, 1999). This approach takes one specific aspect of urban form
into account and argues the urban grid as determent element of urban growth and
change. Contrary to morphological investigations to this date the emphasis has been put
on seeing streets as a system. Cities are according to Ben Hillier ‘movement economies’
spatial compromises of daily movement patterns and other needs. For those readers not
familiar with Space Syntax, its methodology will be outline shortly. The urban grid is
broken down into axial lines following certain tracing rules to later calculate the
(typological) importance of each segment to the abutting ones and in relation to the total
system. The results deliver indication of connectivity (a centrality index) and integration
(the distributive capacity). Abundant empirical evidence underlines the accuracy of
calculation results in predicting past (Desyllas 1997), current and future conditions (Ye &
Håkan, 1997) of movements and urban centrality. However there is a certain criticism
arising due to the limitness of syntactic methods. 7 Space Syntax has two shortcomings,
foremost it is an typological approach to urban space that also hinder links to most
geographical information sets and secondly it mainly uses one single value of centrality
(Porta et.al. 2007).
Similar to classical urban morphology Space Syntax is in the process of transformation.
Certain research energies are deployed to establish a link with other methods like
geographic economy models (Larkham 2006, Jiang & Claramunt 2000). To realize this
goal the syntactic approach has to be abolished towards a network approach embedded
into real space.8
This development stands in the line of Peter Larkham’s thinking seeing “a great
opportunity [in] exploring the potential complementarity of the different traditions of
space syntax and Conzenian morphology.”9 The incorporation does not stop with urban
morphology. With the advances in information technologies new prospects open for
spatial research which has been stated in several articles (Jiang et.al. 1999, Jiang &
Claramunt 2000, Jiang & Yao 2006, Jiang et.al. 2000, Jiang & Claramunt 2002, Larkham
2006). GPS process and GIS information in combination enable new dimensions of data
sets ‘in space’ allowing to link urban-configurational models with local investigations.
With the other technological advances functional investigations become more time
efficient and can be oriented towards a more comprising scope. Some countries (in
particular the Anglo-Saxons ones) are more advanced in exploiting the potential of GIS
technologies for data collection, but generally speaking there is a tendency towards
information abundance at reach for spatial investigations. Taking the afore mentioned
about urban form and centrality into account, several data-set are more likely to
contribute to deliver indications into urban processes shaping the urban environment, in
particular land values, social composition of the population, densities of built-up,
population and workplaces have been useful sets in past investigations (Fuchs 2007,
Fuchs et.al. 2008).

Towards new approaches -Function

Applying spatial functional mapping on the scale of the city for the purpose of research is
a rather new branch and methodologies are still in the making (Bruyns 2008, Fuchs 2007,
Fuchs A. & S.A. Read, 2007, Fuchs et.al 2008, Oor 2007, Porta et.al. 2007, Strano et.al.
2007, Thurstain-Goodwin & Gong 2004). The author can look back to two years of own
experience and has developed a methodology in a process of trial and error which shares

7
Further as Space Syntax is a method still in the making it inherits certain imperfections that can
result to questionable result and certain inaccuracies in larger observation scales (Ratti 2004).
8
This modified Space Syntax method is comparable to other models recently developed in Italy.
See Latora & Porta, 2007, Strano (et.al.) 2007, Porta (et.al.) 2007 for further information.
9
Larkham ( 2006), p.130
similarities to the workflow developed by Thurstain-Goodwin & Gong 2004 based on the
assumption data comes from census documents of the municipality.10
Every functional entity (an office, a shop, etc.) is represented in its global coordinates on
a spatial map as a dot. The total spatial pattern of a function is represented in a map
which allows comparative analysis with other mapped material. The grain of detail of the
building plot has one major advantage it links urban abstract analytical scale with the real
dimension of architecture and human perspective.

Among all urban functions the mapping of shops has recently emerged as a very
promising tool to advance investigations into urban form. Most researchers take
infrastructure as basis to show empirical evidence of the interdependency of commercial
and service activities with the condition of urban (structural) centrality. These findings
confirm other Space Syntax investigations dealing with retail (Van Nes, 2003, 2005, 2006,
2007, Bruyns 2008). The reason for the center aspiration tendency of retail businesses
has to be seen as consequence of market driven self-interests. “In order to survive in a
competitive environment, shop and retail owners will always search for the optimal
location in order to reach potential customers.” 11 If the conditions of location changes so
do the shops by relocating soon.

10
In case these are non-existent or inaccessible, as it has been in the case of a recent research
project focusing on Rotterdam, yellow pages can be consulted instead which certain constraints on
completeness.
11
Van Nes (2007), p.8
A new approach - Method
How should a new approach look like helping to position urban morphology studies in the
discourse of the city of the 21st century? Firstly its methods have to stand in tradition of
classical morphology studies not only in ideological background and work flow but also in
its way of representation. The importance of maps will be crucial to focus on the very
essence and advantage of investigations into urban form. By using mapping techniques
different information sets about form, structure and functions can quickly be combined to
represent the urban in a prior unknown comprising dimension. Preliminary work has been
undertaken on the city of Berlin, where information sets linked to the price or value of
land, such as built-up, workplace and denizen densities have been overlaid with socio-
economic census data. The information range per layer has been translated into a figure-
ground scale, where the maximum indicator has been total black and no value is coded
as white. All in-between values are grouped and associated to a specific shade of grey
according to their intensities. With this very basic method already astonishing results
could be delivered. Combining this superposition map with the structural analysis of
space syntax not only the allocation pattern of shops could be explained but also an
improved image of centrality and metropolitan form given.
However a(n additional) mathematical translation in the light of the recent advances in
computer modeling can not be avoided on long run. Although calculations still perquisite
a multilayered information input and thus not only considerably preparation but also CPU
calculation time (Candau 2000, Fragkia & Seto 2007) they are likely to hold the key to
predict past and future urban growth patterns. One promising impetus is Kernel Density
Estimators. These mathematical probability models calculate, based on a certain
samples, the likeliness of events to occur in a defined system. A group of Italian
researchers (Latora & Porta, 2007, Porta et.al. 2007, Strano et.al. 2007) has recently
developed an advanced structural mathematical model using GIS information sets. It
appears Geographic Information Systems have unlocked Pandora’s Box of spatial
research. Like perspective has been the prerequisite needed for artists to fabricate the
first complete pictures of cities it is just a question of time until we will have the
appropriate tool to describe and maybe predict urban forms by understanding their
causalities.

References

Allen J. & K. Lu, 2003, “Modeling and Prediction of Future Urban Growth in the Charleston
Region of South Carolina: a GIS-based Integrated Approach”, in: Conservation Ecology,
Vol.8, No.2, accessed online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss2/art2 the
10.05.2008

Alonso W., 1964, Location and Land Use: Towards a General Theory of Land Rent,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Bavelas A., 1948, “A mathematical model for group structures”, in: Human
Organization, Vol.7, pp. 16-30.

Bavelas A., 1950, “Communication patterns in task oriented groups”, Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, Vol.22, pp.271-282.

Bruyns G. & S. Read, 2007, “The form of a metropolitan territory - the case of Amsterdam
and its periphery”, in: A.S. Kubat, Ö. Ertekin, Y.İ. Güney, E. Eyüboğlu (eds.),
Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul Technical
University, Cenkler, Istanbul, pp. 010.01-010.18.

Bruyns G., 2008 (forthcoming), Dispozatif: a spatial mechanism for the contemporary
urban landscape, unpublished PhD Thesis, TU Delft.

Candau J., 2000, “Calibrating a cellular automaton model of urban growth in a timely
manner”, in: 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental
Modeling (GIS/EM4): Problems, Prospects and Research Needs, Banff, Alberta,
Canada, 2nd - 8th September.

Charlsten growth model

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/dctech/urban.html the 10.05.2008

Cheng J. & I. Masser, 2004, “Understanding spatial and temporal processes of urban
growth: cellular automata modelling”, in: Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, Vol.31, pp. 167-194.

Christaller W., 1933, Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland, Gustav Fischer, Jena.

Conzen, M.R.G., 1960, “Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-plan Analysis”, in:

Institute of British Geographers Publication, Vol. 27, George Philip, London.

Conzen M.P., 2001, “The study of urban form in the United States”, in: Urban
Morphology, Vol. 5, pp. 3-14.

Darin M., 1998, “The study of urban form in France”, in: Urban Morphology, Vol.2,
pp.63-76.

Davies W.K.D., 1967, “Centrality and the Central Place Hierarchy”, in: Urban Studies,
Vol.4, pp.61-67.

Davies W.K.D., 1968, “The morphology of central places: a case study”, in: Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, Vol.58, pp. 91-110.

Desyllas J., 2000, The relationship between urban street configuration and office rent
patterns in Berlin, unpublished PHD-thesis, University College London, London.

Fuchs A. & S.A. Read, 2007, " Vital City Form”, paper presented at the Vital City
Conference, Glasgow 12th -14th September.

Fuchs A. & S.A. Read, 2008 (forthcoming), "From the Creative to the Vital City and
Region", paper to be presented at the ACSP-AESOP Joint Congress, Chicago, 5th -11th
July.

Fuchs A., Maat K., Rooij R.& O. Rotem, 2008 (forthcoming), "Spatial Shifts in Retail
allocation as an indicator of socio-cultural changes - Case study Rotterdam", paper to be
presented at the EURA 2008 Conference, Milan, 9th -11th October.
Fragkia M. & K.C. Seto, 2007, “Modeling urban growth in data-sparse environments: a
new approach”, in: Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 34, pp.
858-883.

Geisler W., 1924, Die deutsche Stadt: ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der
Kulturlandschaft, Forschungen zur deutschen Landes- und Volkskunde,
Engelhorn, Stuttgart.

Gauthier P. & J. Gilliland, 2006, “Mapping urban morphology: a classification scheme for
interpreting contributions to the study of urban form”, in: Urban Morphology, Vol. 10,
No.1, pp.41-50.

Heineberg H. 2007, “German geographical urban morphology in an international and

interdisciplinary framework”, in: Urban Morphology, Vol. 11, pp. 5-24.

Hillier B., 1996, “Cities as movement economies”, in: Urban Design International,
Vol.1, No.1.

Hillier B. & J. Hanson, 1984, The social logic of space, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

Hofmeister B., 2004, “The study of urban form in Germany”, in: Urban Morphology, Vol.
8, pp. 3-12.

Isard W., 1956, Location and space-economy : a general theory relating to

industrial location, market areas, land use, trade, and urban structure, MIT
Press, New York.

Jiang B, Claramunt C, 2002, “Integration of Space Syntax into GIS: new perspectives for
urban morphology”, Transactions in GIS 6, 151-162.

Jiang B. & X. Yao, 2006, “Location-based services and GIS in perspective, Computers
Environment and Urban Systems”, Elsevier, Vol. 30, pp. 712 - 725.

Jiang B., Claramunt C. & B. Klarqvist, 2000, “An integration of space syntax into GIS for
modelling urban spaces”, in: International Journal of Applied Earth Observation
and Geoinformation, Vol. 2, pp. 161-171.

Jiang B. & C. Claramunt, 2000, “Extending space syntax towards an alternative model of
space within GIS”, presented at the: 3nd AGILE Conference on Geographic
Information Science, Helsinki, 25th -27th May.

Jiang B. & Claramunt C. & M. Batty, 1999, “Geometric accessibility and geographic
information: extending desktop GIS to space syntax, in: Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems, Vol. 23, pp.127-146.

Kropf K.S., 2001, “Conceptions of change in the built environment”, in: Urban
Morphology, Vol. 5, pp. 29-42.

Larkham P.J., 2006, “The study of urban form in Great Britain”, in: Urban Morphology,
Vol.10, pp.117-141.

Latora V. & S. Porta, 2007, “Centrality and cities - Multiple Centrality Assessment as a tool
for urban analysis and design”, in: T. Haas (ed.) New Urbanism and Beyond:
Contemporary and Future Trends in Urban Design, Rizzoli, New York.

Levy A., 1999, “Urban morphology and the problem of the modern urban fabric: some
questions for research”, in: Urban Morphology, Vol.3, pp. 79-85.
Lo, C.P., 2007, “The application of geospatial technology to urban morphological
research”, in: Urban Morphology, Vol.11, pp. 81-90.

Lösch A., 1940, Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft, Jena.

Marzot N., 2002, “The study of urban form in Italy’, in: Urban Morphology, Vol. 6, pp.
59-73.

Moudon A.V., 1997, “Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field”, in: Urban
Morphology, Vol. 1, pp.3-10.

Orr (et.al.) 2007, “Retailing and the city – an investigation into the relationships between
urban form and retailing in Edinburgh”, paper presented at the Vital City conference,
Glasgow, September 12 -14.

Racine J.B., 2004, “Form Urban Form to Urban Relations: In search of for a new kind of
reflexive and Critical Knowledge in Urban Geography and City Monitoring”, in: Cities in
transition, Dela, Vol. 21, pp.41 – 52.

Schlüter O., 1903, Die Siedlungen im nordöstlichen Thürigen: ein Beispiel für die
beahndlung siedlungsgeographischer Fragen, Costenoble, Berlin.

Strano E., Cardillo A., Iacoviello V. & V. Latora, 2007, “Street centrality vs. commerce and
service locations in cities: a Kernel Density Correlation case study in Bologna, Italy”,
accessed online:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701111.pdf

Porta S., P. Crucitti & V. Latora, 2007, “Multiple Centrality Assessment in parma – A
network analysis of paths and open space”, accessed online:
http://www.ct.infn.it/~latora/Parma_submit_lowres.pdf 10.05.2008

Ratti C., 2004, “Space Syntax: some inconsistencies”, in: Environment and Planning B
- Planning and Design, Vol. 31, No.4, pp. 501–511.

Otto Schlüter
Thurstain-Goodwin M. & G. Yi, 2004, “Tracking retail trends in London - Linking the 1971
Census of Distribution to ODPM's new town centre statistical series - A revised report”,
CASA Working Paper 91, accessed online:
http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/working_papers/paper91.pdf

Van Nes A., 2003, "A configurative approach to understand pedestrian-based and car-
based shopping centres. Configurative studies on Oslo and Eindhoven," in Hanson J (ed.),
2003, Proceedings Space Syntax. 4th International Symposium, University College
London.

Van Nes A., 2005, "Typology of shopping areas in Amsterdam," in: van Nes A. (ed.), 2005,
Proceedings Space Syntax. 5th International Symposium, TU Delft, Techne Press,
Amsterdam.

Van Nes A., 2006, "Centrality and economic investment in the Rijnland region", paper
presented at the Global Places, Local Spaces. Planning research conference, The
Bartlett, London, 5th -7th April.

Van Nes A., 2007, "The spatial conditions for a vital compact city. The structure of the
street net and its impact on urban sustainability”, in: Proceedings NESS conference,
NIBR, Oslo.

Wagner P. & M. Wegener, 2007, “Urban Land Use, Transport and Environment Models”,
in: disP, Vol. 170, No.3, pp.45-56.
Whitehand J.W.R., 1987, The Changing Face of Cities – A study of Development
Cycles and Urban Form, Basil Blackwell, New York.

Whitehand J.W.R., 1992, “Recent advances in urban morphology”, in: Urban Studies,
Vol. 29, pp. 619-636.

Whitehand J.W.R., 2001, “British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition”, in: Urban
Morphology, Vol. 5, pp.103-109.

Whitehand J.W.R., 2007, “Conzenian Urban Morphology and Urban Landscapes”, in: A.S.
Kubat, Ö. Ertekin, Y.İ. Güney, E. Eyüboğlu (Eds.), Proceedings, 6th International
Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul Technical University, Cenkler, Istanbul, pp. ii.01-09.