the evolution of urban form in china

8/3/2019 The Evolution of Urban Form in China

1/16

The evolution of urban form in China: an application of

M. R. G. Conzens method in Guangzhou

Sheng Yao

School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences,

University of Birmingham,

Birmingham B15 2TT,

UK.

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +44 07411028282

(Address above is available for 11mouthes)

Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Engineering,

South China University of Technology,

Guangzhou 510640

P. R. China

Abstract: M. R. G. Conzens theory of urban morphology has been an important stimulus to the

study of the evolution of European cities. This paper explores Conzens method of morphological

regionalization in the very different cultural environment existing in Guangzhou, China. No.10

Fu area is a typical traditional residential area in Guangzhou. Despite the lack of many of the

sources of data used in the West, this paper undertakes a morphological regionalization in this area

employing the three form complexes used by Conzen: ground plan, building types, and land and

building utilization. The application of the method to conservation planning is discussed.

Key words: evolutionary process, urban morphology, M. R. G. Conzens theory, Guangzhou

Introduction

In recent times, particularly since the mid-twentieth century, there has been increasing

attention to conserving aspects of the character of places. Urban conservation hasassumed considerable significance in many countries (Whitehand, Gu et al. 2011).

Identifying and delimiting character areas has become part of the conservation

process. However, decisions on this process are far from being well informed.

Relevant research in urban morphology needs to be brought to bear on the subject.

Urban morphology seeks to understand the spatial structure and character of a

metropolitan area, city, town or village by examining the patterns of its component

parts and the process of their development.

However, in China in particular there is a weak connection between urban


2/16

morphology and the practice of urban conservation. Here top-down planning is

imposed in design projects practically countrywide (Chen 2010). Many historical

character areas have disappeared in Chinese cities as a result of large-scale urban

growth and revelopment promoted by government and other agencies.

Nevertheless, the approach of urban morphology has recently been adopted in

China despite the fact that historical sources are poor in comparison with those

available in the West (Whitehand 2009). It has become evident from analysis of the

ground plan of the ancient Chinese city of Pingyao that the types of studies

undertaken by Conzen and his successors can also be illuminating in Chinas very

different cultural environment (Whitehand and Gu 2007). A study of a small area near

Beijings Forbidden City has demonstrated the application of a full morphological

regionalization (Whitehand and Gu 2007).

This paper explores, in relation to China, aspects of urban morphological thinkingconcerning conservation that have been developed largely in the West. The principal

part of the paper examines Conzens method of morphological regionalization in

Guangzhou.

Application of Conzenian method

The theoretical underpinning to conservation that Conzenian thinking can provide

stems from Conzens perspective on the relationship between the urban landscape and

society(Whitehand, Gu et al. 2011). The urban landscape is, for Conzen, the

objectivation of the spirit of the succession of societies that inhabits it. And

morphological regionalizations are, like the landscape itself, a cumulative record

Conzen, 1966, pp. 57-61.

In practical terms the starting point for such a regionalization is the

historico-geographical structuring of the landscape. A major aspect of understanding

urban landscapes is the identification of urban landscape (or townscape) units. These

units provide a framework for establishing the nature and intensity of the historical

expressiveness of various parts of an urban area (Conzen, 1975, p. 98). As Conzen

showed, they also provide a basis for assessing conservation priorities.

In Conzens study of the English market town of Alnwick, he demonstrated how the

historical development of a major aspect of urban form could be expressed in great

detail cartographically (Conzen 1960). To understand this it is necessary to appreciate

how the various urban landscape components (termed form complexes by Conzen)

relate to one another(Whitehand, Gu et al. 2011).

The urban landscape is a combination of three components : ground plan (or

two-dimensional layout), pattern of building forms, and pattern of land and building

utilization. All these aspects have been the subject of geographical investigation


3/16

(Conzen 1960).

A ground plan can be defined as the topographical arrangement of an urban built-up

area in all its man-made features. It contains three distinct complexes of plan

elements:1. Streets and their arrangement in a street-system;2. Plots and their aggregation in street-blocks;3. Buildings or, more precisely, their block-plans (Conzen 1960).

The ground plan provides the framework for the building forms and pattern of land

utilization, and the buildings contain the covered part of the land utilization. All these

components derive their character from the historical and cultural context at the time

of their creation and adaptation.

The ground plan is the component most resistant to change, reflecting a majorcapital investment, particularly in the case of the street plan. Building forms also tend

to persist for a lengthy time span, but are more susceptible than the street plan to

destruction by fire and war, and to adaptation and replacement related to change of

ownership and function. The pattern of land and building utilization is the most

subject to change, at least in and around urban cores --- here new functional impulses

and fashions are prevalent and change is often facilitated by the more limited tenure

of the occupiers of buildings (Whitehand 2009).

These differences between the three components in their change over time are

evident in the way in which the urban landscape is historically stratified. The ground

plan generally determines the major units of the hierarchy. The smallest units, or

morphotopes, are generally determined by the form of the buildings (Conzen, 1988).

Land and building utilization plays a muted role in defining the various levels of

region within traditional areas of towns because of its broad conformability to the

ground plan (Whitehand 2006).

It is the application in Guangzhou of the method of elucidating these units and then

employing them to establish conservation priorities that is the main focus of attention

here.

Guangzhou

Guangzhou, with a population of some 7.73 million in 2007, is the largest city in

southern China. Its early development can be traced back to 214 BC if not earlier

(Zhou and Xiao, 2003, p. 124). During the period of Chinas closed-door policy, in

the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), Guangzhou became the only significant port in China

trading with the outside world (Gu, Tian et al. 2008). The last of a series of extensions

to its walled area took place in 1647, and the built-up area of the city was largely

confined within those walls until the nineteenth century (Whitehand, Gu et al. 2011).


4/16

Commerce and handicrafts burgeoned in Guangzhou between the mid-eighteenth

century and the Opium War of 1840-2 (Gu, Tian et al. 2008). After the mid-nineteenth

century, Guangzhou underwent unprecedented socioeconomic and cultural change

(Elvin and Skinner, 1974; Esherick, 2000; Tsin, 1999). Although traditional buildingmethods and styles continued, Western influences began to play an important role in

the citys transformation (Yang and Cai, 2003).

Following Chinas transformation under communism, mainly during the third

quarter of the twentieth century, Guangzhou underwent rapid development,

particularly after 1984 when it was designated as one of fourteen coastal open cities

(yanhai kaifang chengshi) by the central government (Xu and Yeh, 2003).

Urban conservation in GuangzhouGuangzhou is at serious risk of becoming placeless and losing its cultural identity in a

wave of urbanization and globalization. The introduction of structures of great mass

and height into traditional residential areas is destroying the historical urban fabric.

The development of conservation in Guangzhou resembles that in many other

historical cities in China. Guangzhou was inscribed on the national list of Precious

Historico-Cultural Cities in 1982. A conservation plan for the City was prepared in

1983 (Shi & Xu, 2005, p. 553) and was incorporated in a master plan for Guangzhou

in 1984 (Guangzhou Municipal Government, 1984). Seven conservation areas were

identified (Guangzhou Municipal Government, 1987). Eventually various

conservation principles were reflected in a set of conservation regulations

(Guangzhou Municipal Government, 1996; Peoples Congress of Guangzhou, 1999).

In 2000, 16 HCCAs were designated and a further 21 historical conservation areas

needing development management (neibu kongzhi lishi baohuqu) were scheduled to

be so designated. The boundaries of these two types of conservation areas and further

conservation principles and methods were set out in 2005 (Institute of Urban & Rural

Planning & Design, & School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, 2005). Four

general principles were identified in determining the boundaries of the HCCAs:

namely authenticity, integrity, continuity and practicality.

The present Historical Urban Area (Lishi Jiuchengqu) is some 20 sq km in extent. It

contains ten of the Citys 16 HCCAs, each encompassing a significant number of

traditional buildings and street blocks or archaeological sites, five Historical

Character Areas (HCAs, Lishi Fengmao Baohuqu), in which historical features are

more fragmented, and Construction Control Areas (Jianshe Kongzhiqu, areas

immediately adjacent to the HCCAs and HCAs). The boundaries of the HCCAs

largely follow city administrative boundaries and street lines (Guangdong Research

Institute of Urban & Rural Planning & Design, & School of Architecture, Tsinghua

University, 2005, p. 108). The ten HCCAs vary between about 50 and 145 ha in


5/16

extent(Fig 1).

Figue1. The No.10 Fu Historico-Cultural Conservation Area in relation to the line of the city wall and the

Historical Urban Area. Based on Conservation Plan for the Historico-Cultural City of Guangzhou Plans

Section (Guihuatu) (Guangdong Research Institute of Urban and Rural Planning and Design, & School of

Architecture, Tsinghua University, 2005, pp. 6162).

The problem of deficient records

Compiling a record of detailed changes to the urban landscape of Guangzhou is far

more difficult than in the large majority of Western cities. As in practically all Chinese

cities, the lifespans of buildings are comparatively short. Surviving street and plot

patterns, and, for the period since 1840, survivals of building fabric, are important

sources for investigating the development of residential building types (Zeng, 1991;

Zhou and Xiao, 2003).


6/16

There is a lack of systematic historical building records and historical series of true

ground plans (comprising streets, plots and the block plans of buildings), such as are

available for most European cities. A collection of historical maps of Guangzhou,

published in 2003 (Zhou and Xiao, 2003), contains maps of the city and its environs

from 1685 to 1949. However, maps prepared before the early-twentieth century showlittle more than streets and builtup areas. The earliest complete survey of Guangzhou

was prepared by Guangzhou Land Bureau (Guangzhou Tudiju) between 1926 and

1935. The resulting maps, comprising 383 sheets, were bound in two volumes,

entitled Guangzhou minguo jingjie tu (Map of land divisions and boundaries in

Guangzhou in the period of the Republic). They show street systems and plot

boundaries of much of the built-up area of Guangzhou at the scale of 1:600, or 1:500

in the case of maps prepared in 1933. A series of large-scale maps at the scale of

1:500, showing building block plans and street systems, was prepared in the

post-1949 period. Guangzhou minguo jingjie tu and the large-scale maps that were

prepared in the late-twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries were important sourcesof information for the present research, and provided the base maps for the field

surveys.

A Chinese application: No.10 Fu area, Guangzhou

The meaning of case study.The case study is establishment of some basic principles and exhibition of some

morphological phenomena of general significance in the very different environment

from western cities. NO.10 Fu area was selected to examine the application of

Conzenian urban morphology to conservation in Guangzhou in relation to the method

currently adopted in that city.

Background to No.10 Fu areaThe word of Fu() means the commercial area near the river in Guangzhou.

Following the project of Daguan river and Xihao river which are west of city wall

in Ming dynasty, 18 Fu areas were built along the river and developed to be

commercial areas in Xiguan which is a district west of city wall. In Qing dynasty,

they have been the major commercial areas and open windows to the outside world inGuangzhou, even in China(Fig2).

No.10 Fu area is one of them. It is a ordinary and traditional area in Guangzhou

which is commercial outside and residential inside the area. It represent the characters

of traditional areas in Xiguan.


7/16

Fig2. The location of Fu in relation to the line of the city wall and the rivers. Based on Atlas of Conservation

Plan for the Historico-Cultural City of Guangzhou Structure of Space Section (kongjiangejutu) (Guangdong

Research Institute of Urban and Rural Planning and Design, & School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, 2005,

pp.19).

Townscape analysisFigs4578 comprise, for the studying area, the maps of the basic triad of form

complexes, together with their syntheses --- the maps of urban landscape units.


8/16

1. Town planThree different types of plan-unit boundaries, or seams (Conzen, 1969, p. 128),

have been mapped in Figure3: street-block seams (following the lines of streets),

plot-tail seams and plot-side seams. They are used to distinguish the groups of plots,and it is clear that the plan-unit boundaries are both a powerful articulation of the

ground plans structure and a fundamental framework for the plan units.

Fig3. Plan-unit boundaries

In Fig4 , 1-st order boundaries separate areas of markedly different on ground plan

for example, the road of No.10 Fu qilou unit(Fig9 B) and principal traditional

residential unit are distinguished by the boundary. Among the residential areas, the

post-1949 multi-storey flats of big size unit is separated with the pre-1949 traditional


9/16

residential unit. 2-order unit boundaries reflect in particular spatial variations in plot

patterns which include plot depths, plot directions and the entrances of building in the

plot.(Fig4). As is widely evident in Europe, there is a marked tendency for spatial

groupings of plots into series with common characteristics. These groupings are a

major basis of plan units (Whitehand, Gu et al. 2011). And there are still some tinydifferences among the plots, for example the plot widths and plot shape, so this paper

use the 3-rd unit boundaries to distinguish them.

Fig4. Plan-units

2. Building typesBecause of the poor record of buildings especially the common residential houses

in Guangzhou, most judgment were made by survey works in the area to see the

exterior of the buildings and sometimes check the inside structure of the buildings.


10/16

Practically all plots, whether containing pre- or post-1949 buildings, are totally or

very nearly covered by buildings, the multi-storey flats of 9 storeys areas, which

generally have building coverage of less than 50%, are particularly distinctive (Fig9

H). It is very difficult to distinguish the row houses because of their frequently and

irregularly redevelopment in structures and utilizations of buildings, for example theowner changed the zhutongwu house(a type of traditional houses with one jian) to

be used as a flat(Fig6 A); rebuilt the ground floor of pre-revolutionary other row

house to be a shop(Fig6 B); separate a mingziwu house(a type of traditional houses

with two jian) to be two houses with one rebuilt and the other one still be

traditional(Fig6 C). The principle of the judgment is to check the origin of the

building, thezhutongwu house which now be used as a flat is still a traditional lingnan

house in building type.

Fig5. Building type


11/16

Fig7. Land and Building utilization

Fig6. Jingtang Chens photographs, 2010

A B C


12/16

3. Land and building utilizationIn Fig7, it is clear and obvious that most of the commercial and residential mixed

lands are along Baohua Road and No.10 Fu Road facing outside the studing area, the

residential lands are inside. It is a common pattern of land and building utilization in

Guangzhou. Many rooms of the ground floor of the multi-flats in the right side of themap are changed to be shops, so it is commercial and residential mixed lands too.

4. Urban landscape unitsThe maps of the basic triad of form complexes, together with their syntheses --- the

map of urban landscape units. The inter-war thoroughfare units are almost entirely

lined with purpose-built shopfront buildings. These front directly onto the street in

Baohua Road(Fig9 A) and No.10 Fu Road(Fig9 B). Most of the units are traditional

units, the special one is River Space unit; it is a river before in Ming and Qing dynasty

Fig8. Urban landscape units


13/16

but was filled to be the street of No.16 Fu beijie, and the plots still has the character of

rivers edge(Fig9 G). No.16 Fu Dajie is a street in the middle of the map with plots

along the two sides of it which are shorter than most of other plots in studying

area(Fig9 C). The buildings of the multi-storey flat unit are built in the

post-revolutionary period, and are totally different with other building fabric becauseof their massive size(Fig9 H).

problemsThe most intractable problems concern the relationship between traditional and

modern physical forms. Structures of great height and mass introduced in recent

decades are grossly out of scale amidst one and two-storey dwellings(Fig9 H). The

introduction into them of multi-storey buildings in most cases not only destroys the

human scale of what are generally little more than alleyways but also seriously

impairs natural lighting at street level(Whitehand, Gu et al. 2011).

Another problem is numerous poorly-constructed redevelopment and invariably

illegal, top-floor extensions. It not only destroy the facades of original grey brickwork

but also the character of the whole block. Here many of the redevelopment and

extensions are non-desirable relationship with traditional lingnan culture, it is just

poorly and simply-constructed rooms or shops which are introduced into the houses of

original characters.


14/16

Fig9. Characteristics of urban landscape units. Autors and Jingtang Chens photographs, 2010


15/16

conclusion

Unlike urban expansion, restructuring and economic development in China, which

have been the subject of considerable research over many decades, the conservation

of Chinese towns and cities received little attention until the 1980s(Whitehand and Gu2007). Cities in China will lose much of their traditional characters if urban

conservation continues to be ineffectual.

The principle of Conzenian method is that we should treat historical landscapes as

entities not loose assemblages of historical bits and pieces. But in China, the poplar

things for urban morphology are redevelopment of commercial pedestrian streets and

monumental buildings. The traditional residential area which represent the historical

characters of local culture attract little attention from the government, and many

structures of great height and mass introduced in recent decades destroyed the urban

fabric of the areas.

In this paper, The feasibility and value of utilizing the Conzenian method of urbanmorphology has been shown in an environment strikingly different from the European

one in which it has so far largely been applied. Through landscape research, we can

understand the historical characters of urban form and correlated to urban

conservation.

The meaning of townscape analysis in Guangzhou is providing a basis for

conservation planning, urban design and building design for the future. Urban

landscape wants to achieve a succession of previous societies. Without the plans

based on the townscape analysis, it is in high risk of losing connections between

historical grain and new buildings.

A major consideration is the way in which urban morphological analysis and

synthesis, expressed cartographically in terms of a hierarchy of urban landscape units,

articulate and help to enhance that historical and geographical awareness that is such

an important contributor to a healthy society.

References:

Chen, F. (2010). "Typomorphology and public participation in China " Urban morphology 14(2):

124~127.

Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). "ALNWICK, NORTHUMBERLAND A STUDY IN TOWN-PLAN

ANALYSIS." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers(27): 1-122.

Conzen, M.R.G. (1975). Geography and townscape conservation, in Uhlig, H. and Lienau, C. (eds)

Anglo-German symposium in applied geography: Giessen-Wrzburg- Mnchen . (Lenz,

Giessen) 95-102.

Conzen, M. R. G. (1988) Morphogenesis, morphological regions and secular human agency in


16/16

the historic townscape, as exemplified by Ludlow, in Denecke, D. and Shaw, G. (eds)

Urban historical geography: recent progress in Britain and Germany (Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge) 253-72.

Elvin, M. and Skinner, W. (1974) The Chinese city between two worlds (Stanford University Press,

California).

Gu, K., Y. Tian, et al. (2008). "Residential building types as an evolutionary process: the Guangzhou

area, China." Urban morphology 12(2): 97-115.

Guangdong Research Institute of Urban and Rural Planning and Design and School of Architecture,

Tsinghua University. (2005). Guangzhou Lishi Wenhua Mingcheng Guihua (Conservation

plan for the historico-cultural City of Guangzhou), unpublished document.

Qiu, C. (ed.). (1998). Guangzhou Jindai Jingjishi (Economic history of Guangzhou in early modern

times) (Guangdong Renmin Press, Guangzhou ).

Shi, H., and Xu, X. (2005) Guangzhou lishi wenhua mingcheng baohu guihua huigu (Conservation

planning of the historico-cultural City of Guangzhou: a review), in Compiling Committee for

Urban Planning Development of Guangzhou in Retrospect (ed.) Guangzhoushi Chengshi

Guihua Fazhan Huigu (Urban planning development of Guangzhou in retrospect). 552559.

Whitehand, J. W. R. (2006). "Thinking about urban form: Papers on urban morphology, 1932-1998."

Urban Studies 43(7): 1221-1223.

Whitehand, J. W. R. (2009). "The structure of urban landscapes: strengthening research and practice."

Urban morphology 13(1): 5-27.

Whitehand, J. W. R. and K. Gu (2007). "Extending the compass of plan analysis: a Chinese

exploration." Urban morphology 11(2): 91-109.

Whitehand, J. W. R. and K. Gu (2007). "Urban conservation in China: Historical development, current

practice and morphological approach " Town Planning Review 78(Number 5 September

2007): 643-670.

Whitehand, J. W. R., K. Gu, et al. (2011). "Urban morphology and conservation in China." Cities 28(2):

171-185.

Xu, J., and Yeh, A. G. O. (2003) City profile: Guangzhou, Cities 20, 361374.

Yang, B., and Cai, M. (2003) Zhongguo Jindai Jianzhu Shihua (A concise history of Chinese

architecture in the early modern period) (Jijie Gongye Press, Beijing)

Zhou, A., and Xiao, J. (eds). (2003) Guangzhou Lishi Ditu Jingcui (A selection of historical maps of

Guangzhou) (Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu Press, Beijing).

Zeng, Z. (1991) Guangzhou lishi dili (Historical geography of Guangzhou) (Guangdong Renmin Press,

Guangzhou).

the evolution of urban form in china

Documents