From the editorial by J.W.R. Whitehand :
In this issue of Urban Morphology there are several contributions that combine, or consider the potential of combining, approaches that have hitherto had largely separate existences. Griffiths et al. combine Conzenian and space syntax approaches to the analysis of urban form (pp. 85-99), and conclude that the relationship between suburban built form and socioeconomic activity is both configurational and historical in nature. Stanilov considers the reciprocal benefits to be derived from linking urban modelling more closely with urban morphology (pp. 123-4). He argues that combining knowledge of land-use dynamics derived from urban modelling with knowledge of town plan and building typology gained from morphological analysis could be critical in developing understanding of how cities grow and change. He also envisages urban modelling as a medium for strengthening the place of urban morphology in the management of the built environment beyond its role in conservation. This standpoint is rather different from that adopted by Samuels (pp. 121-3). He makes the case for greater integration, but his focus is on the link between historical area assessment and urban morphology. His concern is that so much in urban morphological research that is fundamental to understanding places is not being taken advantage of by those seeking to establish principles and methods for conserving historical urban landscapes.
