What is the classification of the urban morphology?
There have been various periods of adaptation such as the Greek city-state, Roman urbanism, merchants and medieval urbanization, collegiality in the bastide, the Renaissance, the mercantile city, the industrial city, and the modern city. Eventually, we come to the class-bound city where the façade of the gentleman’s residence was the only part available to the masses. Classification of these has led to many models’s produced as a guide to urban morphology. The Burgess model is simplistic and comprehensive based on concentric circles that radiate from the core of the central business district through, light manufacturing, low-class residential, council estates commuter zone and the suburbs. This model was typical of the 1920’s but was a very generalized form and so had weaknesses regarding zonal boundaries. Hoyts’ Sector model has similar descriptions for the various areas but sees them in zones rather than circles. It’s a better model as it takes account of distance and direction form the city but still ignores mixed usage. In fact, in order to fully analyze urban morphology, it is necessary to identify and dissect the many components that have contributed to the evolutionary process. A town plan will effectively show the whole site and give an understanding of the function and essence of the site. Google earth adds a new dimension when studying the features of urban development and as technology advances, it will be possible to have 3D records of the morphology of an area. Therefore although there is always something remaining of the historic use of the area, there is also something erased but with 3D records, these will now be preserved for the future.
Generally, a city will be planned or unplanned. The planned city was until the 19th century “invariably registered as an orderly geometric diagram” while the unplanned or “spontaneous city” grew from the needs of the citizens.