Description
All details within the document.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
In the final examination, we will stay true to the “comparative” dimension of urban
morphology as promised in the course name: “Comparative Urbanism”.
One:
PROMPT: Urban morphology is the forensic, lot-level study of town plans, ‘built fabric,’ and
building- and land-use, and the forces and processes that shape and animate them. This term
we explored dimensions of the social- construction of urban forms and the structural processes
and relationships that underlie morphological change in Paris, St. Petersburg, and Istanbul. Our
objective was to develop an understanding of why, how, and to whose benefit urban space (and,
specifically, urban form) records, mediates, reflects, embodies, constrains, and/or enables
social, political, and economic change.
We learned that urban change – as much in the building of Paris by Eugene Haussmann as in the
neoliberal global city – entangles opposing and differently empowered stakeholders in a process
of asymmetric contestation. The forensic study of urban forms spells out these stories of
political contestation:
● Why, how, where, and to whose benefit a town plan is laid out or transformed,
● what kinds of built fabric flourish and proliferate or become obsolete and why;
● what building- and land-uses proliferate or are superseded by innovation and why?
They are reflections of often asymmetric political contestation framed in the economic
and aesthetic spirit of the age.
ESSAY QUESTION (min. 1,500 words)
Define « morphogenesis » and profile three cases of morphogenesis, one for each of our case
studies of Paris, Saint-Petersburg, and Istanbul. In each profile, you will address the
emergence of a new morphological period as expressed in the transformation of the town
plan, built fabric, building- and land-uses, burgage cycles, and where appropriate, fringe belt
developments.
Hints on content and structure:
I. Start by defining the key terms “urban morphology,” “morphogenesis,” and
“morphological period,” and outline how they collectively describe the process of
morphological change.
II. Next, define in turn each of the three cases of “morphogenesis” of your choice and how
each is expressed in the material transformation of the town plan, the built fabric, and
building- and land-use.
A. Paris morphogenesis
B. Saint Petersburg …
C. Istanbul …
III. Conclude with a discussion of similarities and dissimilarities across morphogenetic
experiences of the three urban cases.
INSTRUCTIONS
● I am testing your mastery of content; therefore, in drafting your essay, please draw
systematically on the assigned readings and instructor lectures. You do not need to go to
outside sources (in fact don’t).
● Urban morphology is a formal analytical paradigm and method that employs welldefined concepts and terminology. I expect you to draw on and systematically refer to
that knowledge in your discussion of the case studies. A successful essay would mobilize
knowledge from Modules One and Two, which cover the urban morphological model
and method, in the analyses of Paris, Saint-Petersburg, and Istanbul.
● Quoting from, and/or the paraphrasing of strategic passages from the readings is
acceptable but not as a substitute for your own thinking and writing. When drawing
directly from a source, please indicate the author and page number. For example, you
may write, “Clout suggests that the plan for, and subsequent development of Paris’ La
Defense district was in response to…” (Clout, 123).”
● Cartographic and pictorial visualizations are critical to proper urban morphological study.
I expect you to illustrate your arguments with appropriate maps and images drawn from
the readings and, especially, the lectures.
● Please submit your work (as a single Word doc or PDF) to D2L à Submissions à Final
Examination.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
