66 Reports

Urban Morphology (2012) 16(1), 66-75 © International Seminar on Urban Form, 2012 ISSN 1027-4278

Eighteenth International Seminar on Urban Form, Montréal, Canada,26-29 August 2011

ISUF 2011 was only the second ISUF conference tobe held in North America. With the theme ‘Urbanmorphology and the post-carbon city’, it was heldat Concordia University, on the Sir GeorgeWilliams Campus, located in downtown Montréalin the vibrant Rue Sainte-Catherine. The Canadianorganizers of the conference, led by Pierre Gauthier(Concordia University) and Jason Gilliland(University of Western Ontario), are to becongratulated on their organization of thisremarkable and very productive event.

Like the last ISUF conference in North America(in Cincinnati in 2001), this one in Montréal was ahuge success. There were 217 presentations andmore than 250 participants. It is to be hoped thatthe strong Canadian participation in ISUF 2011 willbe followed by increasing Canadian participation inISUF more generally in the coming years, asoccurred in the case of Brazilian participation afterthe Ouro Preto conference in 2007.

The truly international dimension of ISUF wasonce again evident, with participants coming fromfive continents. As expected the Americas (50 percent) and Europe (28 per cent) were the mostrepresented parts of the world. Unfortunately,African participation was small (2 per cent).

Nevertheless, the participation of the Algeriandelegation, ‘representing’ the African Continent,should be highlighted. Organizers of futureconferences should clearly affirm the promotion ofAfrican participation as a key challenge. A closerlook at the top ten countries by the origin of thosepresenting papers reveals that the three mostrepresented countries were all in the Americas(Canada, Brazil and the United States) followed indescending order by the United Kingdom, France,China, Portugal, Japan, Australia, and Sweden.

Besides providing the stage for very productiveurban morphological debate, this conferenceoffered participants the opportunity – enhanced bythe field trips on the second day – to discover afascinating city. The history of Montréal startedwith a small mission colony of about 50 settlers in1642, later becoming an active commercial centre,and then an important metropolis. Industrializationand the development of the service sector werecrucial for that development process. Theexceptional conditions of the site (particularlyMount Royal and its surrounding forests, the St.Lawrence River, and the Lachine rapids) weredecisive in the establishment of the firstsettlements. Throughout the years these initial

Figure 1. The reception in the Canadian Centre for Architecture(photograph by Faiz Imam).

Report 67

urban forms expanded in the form of a powerfulurban grid, parallel to the river. More recentlythere were major changes in the city centre,including the construction of several skyscrapers.

After the official opening of the conference, thepaper sessions began with a keynote address byJeremy Whitehand (University of Birmingham).Drawing especially on articles and editorials that hehad published in Urban Morphology over recentyears, he gave us a remarkable paper, where thekey issues of – and the challenges for – urbanmorphology, as a field of knowledge in thecontemporary world, were identified and debated.These issues were: the multidisciplinarity of urbanmorphology; the problem of ‘anglophone squint’;Euro-American ‘myopia’; the tension between the‘particular’ and the ‘general’; the need forcomparative studies; the need for integratedapproaches; the relationship between research andpractice; urban morphological classics; and finally,cross-disciplinary relationships.

Over the 4 days of the conference eight broad‘streams’ were pursued: (1) advances in theory andmethods; (2) temporality (continuity and change);(3) new regional spatial dynamics; (4) form, societyand technology; (5) heritage and form; (6) topicalexplorations; (7) form, sustainability and climaticchange; and finally, (8) urban morphology,planning and urban design. Streams 7 and 8contained the largest number of presentations. Thisseems to confirm that the relationships betweenurban morphology and both urban planning andother fields of knowledge concerning the city and

the built environment are major issues underdiscussion by urban morphologists – see alsoOliveira (2011). At the interface between urbanmorphology, sustainability and climatic-changestudies, explored in Stream 7, it is important tohighlight the work that is being developed in theNational University of Singapore, NanjingUniversity, and the University of Western Ontario.However, Stream 3, which focused on new spatialdynamics at the regional scale (including issuessuch as the dispersed city and the fragmented city)attracted less than 10 papers – a reminder, perhaps,of the need for ISUF to address all the differentscales in morphological theory, research andpractice.

As always, rich morphological debates were notconfined to the paper sessions. Many fruitfuldiscussions took place during the social events ofthe conference: the coffee breaks and lunch breaks,the reception in the Canadian Centre forArchitecture (Figure 1), and the gala dinner in theremarkable building of Marché Bonsecours (Figure2).

The conference was concluded with a plenarypresentation by Michael Conzen (University ofChicago) on the future of ISUF and, indeed, ofurban morphology as a field of knowledge. Someof the themes that had been introduced by JeremyWhitehand in the first day of the conference, anddebated in different parallel sessions, wererevisited. The different types of study of urbanform and the need for comparative analysis, such asrecently proposed by Karl Kropf (2009), were

Figure 2. The gala dinner in the Marché Bonsecours (photograph by Faiz Imam).

68 Reports

given particular attention. A wider framework ofanalysis, encompassing not only differentapproaches but also different disciplines, wasproposed.

Before returning to their countries of originsome participants took part in one of twoexcursions. The first took participants to QuebecCity (Figure 3), the capital of the province ofQuebec, founded in the seventeenth century. Thesecond excursion was to Toronto, founded in thelate-eighteenth century, and now the largest city inCanada. The remaining participants departed withthe satisfaction of being part of the large ISUFfamily and with renewed enthusiasm for anotheryear of morphological research. After the attractiveinvitation of Nicola Marzot (TechnischeUniversiteit Delft) at the end of the conference, a

trip to Delft for ISUF 2012 should already be on theagenda of many participants.

References

Kropf, K. (2009) ‘Aspects of urban form’, UrbanMorphology 13, 105-20.

Oliveira, V. (2011) ‘Our common future in urbanmorphology’, Urban Morphology 15, 77-9.

Vítor Oliveira, CITTA – Centro de Investigação doTerritório, Transportes e Ambiente, Faculdade deEngenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua RobertoFrias 4200-465 Porto, Portugal. E-mail:vitorm@fe.up.pt

ISUF President’s Report

The growing size and diversity of the InternationalSeminar on Urban Form challenges establishedhabits and outlook. It has seemed important to meduring the last year that ISUF should examine itsrole among the professional fields from which itdraws support and embark on initiatives that will

keep it useful in the future. Those goals suggesteda two-stage approach: first, to reassess the internalfunctioning of the organization, and, secondly, toexplore ways of increasing its relevance amongfields to which it relates.

For all its growth, which stems in part from its

Figure 3. The historical core of Quebec City (middle ground) and its inner fringe belt(foreground) (photograph by Susan Whitehand).

Report 69

interdisciplinary openness, ISUF is still a remark-ably volunteer-driven group. This volunteerismkeeps the financial costs of participation low:conference fees, given the size of the events, arestill moderate; the cost of Urban Morphology isastonishingly low compared with that of other high-quality, refereed, scientific journals. The true costsof our operations are measured by the time andenergy enthusiastically donated by enough of ourmembers to keep these operations, and the website,going successfully. It is for this reason that I wishin this report to express on behalf of all membersour sincere thanks for the ongoing contributionsmade by these volunteers, and especially thosebeing made to the current phase of reappraisalwithin ISUF.

In line with our perceived ‘internal’ and‘external’ needs, two short-term task forces workedhard during 2010-11 to streamline ISUF’s websiteand the procedures for organizing annualconferences. The Task Force to Reconstitute theWebsite worked to overhaul and rationalize thesite’s fundamental structure, regain timeliness inmanaging library subscriptions to the journal’sonline content, add cross-indexing features(prepared by Peter Larkham), and make provisionfor additional sections of planned content. Chairedby Jeremy Whitehand (UK), the group alsoincluded Kiril Stanilov (USA), Richard Whitehand(Sweden), and Susan Whitehand (UK). Thisallowed advanced expertise in website design andoperation to be united with intimate knowledge ofthe membership/subscriber database kept by theTreasurer and the journal’s editorial team. TheTask Force worked with skill and dispatch, and thestability and ease of use of our website followingcompletion of its assignment are testimony to thesuccess of the reorganization. ISUF members owethese colleagues very warm thanks for their hardwork.

The other relatively urgent matter was toformulate simple but recognized procedures forproposing and then hosting the annual conferences.When meetings were small and confined to aconvenient geographical orbit, arrangements couldbe left to the predilections of the local organizers,especially in the days of alternating large and smallgatherings. But with the growing size of theconventions, and the desire within ISUF to broadenthe intercontinental and cultural mix of meetings,some organizational aspects had to become moreroutine and predictable. Under the leadership ofKai Gu (New Zealand), our Secretary General, theTask Force to Revamp ISUF’s Conferences, onwhich Michael Barke (UK), Wendy McClure

(USA), and Pierre Gauthier and Jason Gilliland(Canada) also served, drew up a set of planningguidelines that identified necessary factors andprocedures to be incorporated into future meetings.Since the organizers of the 2011 Montréal meetingswere members of the Task Force, it was possiblenot only to pave the way for future conferencearrangements but to implement many of the ideas intime for that event. The planning frameworkincluded ideas for the incorporation of certain kindsof workshops, maximizing scholarly exchangethrough the careful composition of paper sessions,and further ideas for such things as fundingopportunities, prizes and awards, and sessionmonitors. For this team’s work, we in ISUF arevery thankful indeed.

ISUF takes its scholarly journal very seriously,and its high professional standards and reputationfor readability and diversity are now, after fifteenvolumes, well established. Nevertheless, I felt itimportant that the journal not escape scrutiny.Therefore, the third team, the Task Force to Assessthe Journal, chaired by Michaël Darin (France),with Giancarlo Cataldi (Italy), Howard Davis(USA), Teresa Marat-Mendes (Portugal) andJeremy Whitehand (UK) as additional members,was asked to consider further ways in which thejournal can extend its influence and better serve theinterests of ISUF and its readers. These revolvedaround such ideas as regularizing the reporting ofthe activities of ISUF’s regional affiliates (largelycountry-based member groups such as those thathave been established for the UK, Italy, the Nordiccountries, and, most recently, Portugal). Also,there is potential to increase the range of booksreviewed, perhaps organize theme issues, andgenerally extend the international scope ofcoverage of work being done in different worldregions on urban morphology. Many of the ideasculled by the Task Force are desirable, but theirimplementation will depend on the willingness ofISUF members to increase their contributions in theform of writing and submissions to the Editor. Ofequal significance is the present precarious balancebetween the ardent goal of inclusion and thepainstaking editorial effort it takes to convert manysubmissions from around the world into seamlessEnglish, for those authors for whom this is not theirnatural language. For their nuanced and sensitivework in evaluating the challenges ahead for ourvalued journal, ISUF owes these task forcemembers a big vote of thanks.

Now I turn to the two remaining – and currentlyrunning – task forces, charged with preparations fortwo initiatives requiring quite distinct creativity.

70 Reports

The first is the Task Force to Create an ExpositorySection on ISUF’s Website. The idea here is thatmany individuals among the various professionsconcerned with ‘urban form’, broadly conceived –not to mention the wider public – may not have aneffective understanding of what ‘urban morph-ology’ as an intellectual field stands for and what itoffers in the way of key concepts. It is, of course,these concepts and theories that make possible acoherent basis for analysis, both historical andprospective, so that persuasive policies for designand management can be advocated. Along withothers who have shared this concern in preliminarydiscussions, I envisage a website section in theform of a mini ‘Urban Morphopedia’, whoseabbreviated (and well-illustrated) encyclopedia-style entries will explain key concepts and theoriesused in urban morphological research. The short-term Task Force, under the chairmanship of PeterLarkham (UK), and consisting also of MarcoMaretto (Italy), Fei Chen (UK), Remy Allain(France), Paul Hess (USA), and Jeremy Whitehand(UK), has been asked to consider how such anexpository section should be organized, and topropose to ISUF Council an Editorial Boardcharged with developing this section over the next2 or 3 years, during which time short essay entrieswould be commissioned, edited, and uploaded. Itis hoped this task force will report its proposals toCouncil by September, 2012. I hereby encourageISUF members and interested readers to contributethoughts and ideas to this initiative over the nextfew months by contacting Peter Larkham(peter.larkham@bcu.ac.uk). The work of this TaskForce is significant for improving scientificcommunication both between and beyond the‘urban form’ professions, and is here acknowledgedwith appreciation.

Finally, the Task Force on Research and Practicehas a charge that is perhaps the most nebulous butpotentially the most far-reaching in a practicalsense: to improve communications between theresearchers who study urban form systematically

and the practitioners (in both public and privatesectors) who shape the design and management ofurban form. The findings of the ‘researchers’should be of more than theoretical interest to the‘shapers’, and, conversely, the real-world exper-ience of the latter should be equally valuable to theformer. To what extent can ISUF play a role inseeking better communication? Chairing thisgroup is Ivor Samuels (UK), assisted by VítorOliveira (Portugal), Art McCormack (Ireland),Sylvain Malfroy (Switzerland), Karl Kropf (UK),Giuseppe Strappa (Italy) and Amund Sinding-Larsen (Norway). Again, I encourage ISUFmembers and interested readers to contributethoughts and ideas to this Task Force over the nextfew months by contacting Ivor Samuels(ivor.samuels@googlemail.com). Our prospectivethanks go to this team also for taking on thischallenging but promising line of inquiry.

The recommendations of the first three taskforces have been received by Council. Some,considering their urgency, have been fully imple-mented, particularly with regard to the essentialfunctionality of the website and the planning offuture meetings. Various proposals for the journalare being weighed by the Editor. Recommend-ations from the two remaining task forces will bedue no later than early September for Councilconsideration. I am hopeful that this extendedround of refurbishment will position ISUF to bemore visible among organizations that havesomething to say about the form of our cities. Atthe same time I hope this changing ISUF remainscongenial to its long-time supporters, attracts andkeeps new generations of enthusiastic members,and, above all, spurs many of them to become trulyactive in the shaping of ISUF itself.

Michael P. Conzen, Committee on GeographicalStudies, The University of Chicago, 5828 S.University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637-1583, U.S.A.E-mail: m-conzen@uchicago.edu

ISUF business meetings, Montréal, Canada, August 2011

Meetings of the Council and Editorial Board ofISUF took place on Thursday, 25 August 2011 inMontréal, immediately before the ISUF 2011conference held at Concordia University. AGeneral Meeting of ISUF took place during theconference. This report summarizes the principalmatters covered in the three meetings.

President’s Report

The President, Michael Conzen, reported on thesuccess of the conference held in 2010 in Hamburg,and thanked Jürgen Lafrenz and Alex Rostkowskifor their excellent work in organizing this event.He also expressed thanks to Pierre Gauthier, JasonGilliland and their team of helpers for organizing