the morphological basis of urban design: experiments in ...the morphological basis of urban design:...

Urban Morphology (2007) 11(2), 111-25 © International Seminar on Urban Form, 2007 ISSN 1027-4278

The morphological basis of urban design: experiments inGiudecca, Venice

Franziska Gygax Architect, EPF Lausanne, Rathausgasse 10, 5000 Aarau, Switzerland.

E-mail: [email protected]

Revised version received 8 February 2007

Abstract. Reconciling progress, on the one hand, and conservation of a richlegacy of physical forms from the past on the other, is a major challenge. Inthe case of Venice significant change is only possible in its outlying districts,such as Giudecca, since only measures preserving the fabric of the buildingsare permitted in the Centro Storico. Giudecca island is used as a case studyto explore ways of integrating new ideas in an area which is very much shapedby its historical development. Analysis of the present urban fabric andcomparison of different recent design strategies offer solutions to futuredevelopment of the island.

Key Words: urban design, regeneration, historical forms, high density,Venice

Every city needs to accommodate changes insociety. This accommodation poses majorproblems for established cities, particularlythose with a rich legacy of the products of pastsocieties. This paper considers how new ideasmay be integrated into the urban form of a citythat has been powerfully shaped by a longhistory. The solution to the problem ofreconciling new with old is sought in theanalysis of existing urban form, taking theexample of the city of Venice. It focusesparticular attention on ways of solving theproblem of reconciling high-density urbanfabrics with present-day housing standards.

Venice

Venice, ‘the lagoon city’, must develop furtherto be able to face the future. New concepts arenecessary to secure the ‘real survival’ of thecity. The city is losing its inhabitants as aconsequence of tourism and its status as a

‘museified’ city. Tourism is unquestionablyVenice’s main source of income. The housingmarket and the cost of living, for example, areincreasingly related to the demands of tourists.The extremely high costs of housing in theCentro Storico have resulted in the exodus oflarge numbers of the local population. Duringthe last 20 years Venice has lost one-third ofits inhabitants.

The municipality of Venice is striving toslow down the urban exodus and prevent thecity from turning into a museum. To achievethis goal it supports change of use and therestructuring of entire areas, especially itsindustrial estates, seeking to create newhousing structures that are adapted to thecurrent situation.

The challenge of building something new inVenice relates to seemingly incompatiblefacts. As the lagoon city is so much shaped byits historical and cultural heritage, it seems tobe nearly impossible to build something newthat is of comparable cultural significance to

112 The morphological basis of urban design

what already exists. Venice has a very specialform and a variety of building types that shapeit, such that new ways of building can easilybe out of place. Urban designers need toconfront a variety of questions. How can up-to-date forms, respecting present-day needs,regenerate the city without destroying itscharacter? Do dwellings built according to thetypological tradition still correspond to today’sideas of living? Which typology meetsmodern needs for quality of life, hygiene andstandards of living? How does contemporaryarchitecture work in such historically-shapeddense surroundings? What sorts of land andbuilding use can be included withoutendangering existing public and privateservices?

Giudecca island

Giudecca island, which is part of the city ofVenice, is well suited to an investigation ofnew building in a historical context. It hasmost of the typological features of the mainisland but is less densely structured. Mainlycomposed of residential areas and disusedindustrial estates at the border of the main areavisited by tourists, it is connected to the publictransport system and can be reached easilyfrom the city centre. It is the only part of thelagoon that offers space for something new,having many unused, or ill-used, industrialbuildings that provide scope for new concepts.According to their state of repair, typology andvalue as monuments, these buildings can eitherbe used differently or they can even bedemolished.

The island has been the subject of severalplanning studies. Projects have already beenimplemented in some areas, although not all ofthem are finished. The island has examples ofrecent construction (Figure 1A) that illustratedifferent solutions and offer the possibility ofan assessment and comparison. In 1984,Alvaro Siza won a competition for the recon-struction of the Campo di Marte: GianfrancoCaniggia submitted a proposal based on well-founded historical studies but was not given an

award. The selected development was onlypartially implemented and includes archi-tectural designs by Carlo Aymonino and AldoRossi (Comune di Venezia, 1986). In 1986,Gino Valle designed a very dense residentialarea (the Scalera-Trevisan area) – a miniaturetown, on the south shore of the lagoon (Croset,1986). In 1997, Cino Zucchi won acompetition for the design of a whole district(the Junghans area), the individual housesbeing designed by ten different architects(Comune di Venezia, 1997). In light of theseplanning studies, a further project to beconsidered here concerns the reuse of adisused industrial estate. It is based on workundertaken by the author in the Department ofArchitecture at the Ecole PolytechniqueFédérale de Lausanne (Gygax, 2003) andfocuses on the redevelopment for mixed use ofa former shipyard – the Cantieri Navali eOfficine Meccaniche di Venezia (CNOMV).The method used by the author might bedescribed as ‘experimental exploration’. Thedesign is based on a detailed analysis of theurban structure and its historical development.The proposed forms fit the character andarrangement of existing forms but continuethem in a contemporary way. The city’smorphology and building typology are theprime underpinnings of the project. Questionsabout contemporary architectural interventionsare answered by examining and comparingdifferent recently proposed designs.

Three types of morphological pattern maybe distinguished on the island of Giudecca.The first mainly consists of a very compact,linear development along the Fondamenta inthe north. To the south, in the direction of thelagoon, it has a less dense fabric, structured byalleys and canals, disposed in a comb-form.The first building line on the north shore of theisland has its most representative façade facingthe main island of Venice. The consolidationof the island, according to the buildingtradition of the lagoon city, began from thisside. The second pattern consists of a lessdense structure behind the main line towardsthe open lagoon. This development issomewhat loose and characterized by both

Figu

re 1

. Giu

decc

a Is

land

: (A

) loc

atio

n of

the

proj

ects

by

Val

le, Z

ucch

i, C

anig

gia

and

the

auth

or;

(B) m

orph

olog

ical

stru

ctur

e


built and unbuilt landscapes, in which thegreen spaces have a planned appearance. Theoutlying district in the south-west consists ofstructurally incoherent elements. The clearstructure of the north front contrasts towardsthe south with this open and less structuredsystem of rows of houses, gardens, squares andparks. The residential buildings in this zoneare lined up in rows orthogonal to theFondamenta. The open composition, withdetached blocks and gardens, is associatedhere with a diverse and sometimes confusingpattern of pathways. Narrow alleys suddenlyopen out into squares and pathways lead awayfrom them. Enclaves, enclosed units likeformer monasteries or industrial estates, arefurther characteristics of this second pattern.The paths and alleys do not constitute anetwork: all of the connections to theFondamenta are linear culs-de-sac. TheFondamenta is the main axis and the onlythoroughfare from which there are links to thedifferent islands. Many of the alleysorthogonal to the Fondamenta end in privateproperty near the lagoon. All districts of theisland reach as far as the boundaries of thesecond-to-last stage of reinforcement of theland. Consequently the last strip of land in thedirection of the lagoon, the third pattern,remains undeveloped and vacant. This greenstrip is only partly cultivated and makes up theonly ‘natural’ terrain along the lagoon(Trincanato and Umberto, 1971) (Figure 1B).

Giudecca island, like Venice generally, isnot only important because of its historicalroots. The lagoon city is shaped by contraststhat contribute to the fascination ofexperiencing its space. The contrast betweendensity and openness is arguably one of themost important features. Narrow streets,which are almost always in the shade, leadthrough heavily built-up residential areas withvery elongated plots. Suddenly a bright andlight-flooded square opens up just round thecorner. This is where people meet and wherethe magnificent buildings are: these squaresare large enough for the observer to appreciatethe ornamented façades.

‘Repetition and uniqueness’ is anotherfeature of Venice. The relatively strict rhythm

of the narrow plots and the repeated lines ofterraced houses (case a schiera) are inter-rupted in certain places to accommodate asingle ‘event’, such as a building or a publicplace. Public and private spaces are two partsof the city that are clearly defined in principlebut still merge into each other. Privateoutdoor space, except for the palazzi, is hard tofind. Thus the residents, mainly those living inmore popular areas, often extend theiractivities to public spaces and augment their‘private’ space. Another characteristic ofVenice is the city’s ‘boundaries and connect-ions’. The canals, which structure the entirecity, appear to be boundaries at first sight.From a boat, however, it becomes clear thatcanals connect everything: every area isdirectly accessible. The high walls of thesingle plots divide private from public space.They make a distinction between eachproperty, but they also weld the differentgroups of houses into characteristicimpenetrable blocks.

Gino Valle and the Scalera-Trevisan area

The housing estate designed by Gino Valle inthe Scalera-Trevisan area reflects many ofVenice’s characteristics. The heavily built-up‘miniature town’ is situated in a vacantindustrial area and adopted the outer buildinglines of its neighbour, the Mulino Stucky. Thedistrict has its own autonomous spatialstructure and is arranged in a strict hierarchyof public and private space. Starting from thestreet, some narrow footpaths that areinterrupted by squares adjoin a footbridge thatleads to the entrances to the dwellings. Theestate includes 94 dwellings within a structurebased on a modular square grid of 1.65 m. Allthe dwellings directly adjoin public space andoffer a view over the lagoon. Consequentlythey are relatively narrow and have severalstoreys. The whole neighbourhood is terraced:the northern area has buildings of four storeys,whereas the buildings in the southern area areonly of a single storey.

The entire structure has a semi-publiccharacter. The area is shaped by a large

The morphological basis of urban design 115

complex building in its central area that addsto an impression of quite high density.Although the dwellings adjoin a public space,they still seem to be quite private. There areprivate outdoor spaces on the terraces: thesingle-storey houses are the only ones to havea garden.

Valle’s plan does not take into account thephysical form of the surroundings: he onlyconsidered the context in so far as it shaped theboundaries of the neighbourhood. His plan isa contemporary interpretation of the generallayout of Venice. The chief characteristics,typical features and qualities of the architec-ture and urban development of Venice arecombined in the most confined of spaces.Valle searches for a city module that is validtoday and creates space for living byintegrating the identity of Venice’s architec-ture with the identity of its inhabitants (Figures2-4).

As an approach to building high-qualitydwellings in a very confined space, the designhas much to commend it. The pattern of thepublic and semi-public space of the area,however, is too strict. The outdoor spaces aresomewhat rigid and sterile: they create analmost oppressive atmosphere. This alsoexplains why this part of Giudecca is so quiet.The public space created by Valle has notfostered contact between the inhabitants, nor istheir social life well developed.

Cino Zucchi and the Junghans area

Cino Zucchi’s plan for the mixed-use develop-ment of the Junghans area was intended toinclude two different characteristics ofGiudecca island. On the one hand, he adoptedthe recurring dimensions of the traditionalbuilding typology and Venice’s traditionaltypes of development; on the other hand, heinterpreted the lagoon’s artificial geography.New roads and public places were built in theheart of the district, and a new ‘network ofways’ was created on land and at sea. Havingits own harbour, the former industrial zone isdirectly connected to the lagoon. The basicspatial modules of the existing area weremaintained. The new buildings reflect thescales and typologies of the houses that werereplaced. The radial structure of the formermain factory was completely destroyed, but itsform is outlined in one of the new buildings inorder to evoke the place’s former character. Inshort, the Junghans area was rebuilt accordingto the existing morphological character of theisland, but its architecture and appearance areclearly contemporary.

The Junghans area as it exists today fullyaccords with Venice’s efforts regarding socialprovision for its inhabitants, providing manynew dwellings and space for public andcultural life. Dwellings are of three types:student accommodation , subsidized dwellingsand dwellings at market prices. They are of

Figure 2. Design for the Scalera-Trevisan area: section. Reproduced from Valle, 1986,with the permission of P. Valle.


various sizes, some having a garden, a terraceor a loggia. There are a variety of types oflayout so that people from different socio-professional backgrounds can mix.Implemented only a short while ago, the planfits its surroundings well. The most importantfeatures of the city’s construction and physicalform were included in the new developments,and the history of the former industrial zone

has been respected. Morphologically,however, the plan contains a slightcontradiction: on the one hand, the area almostcompletely fits into the existing pattern, andthe volume and form of the existing houses arereflected; but on the other, the residential areareaches as far as the south shore, leaving noopen space between it and the lagoon (Figures5 and 6).

Figure 3. Design for the Scalera-Trevisan area: floor plans. Reproduced fromValle, 1986, with the permission of P. Valle.


Gianfranco Caniggia and the Campo diMarte

The competition for the design of the Campodi Marte took place 20 years ago. In hiswinning design Alvaro Siza planned todemolish existing social housing and rebuildthe entire area, but today there are still onlyfour new buildings in existence. This reflectsthe difficulty of finding a good design solutionfor the area, and it also raises the questionwhether the winner’s project was socio-politically and economically feasible.

Concentrating above all on the area’smorphogenesis, Caniggia saw the Campo diMarte as an opportunity to demonstrate how toovercome the lack of accord between thetessuto reale (the city structure that has beenconstantly adapted to the needs of theinhabitants) and the tessuto progettato (the citystructure that is supposed to be improved

according to the rational criteria of urbandevelopment science). The latter, according toCaniggia, has been growing in the twentiethcentury. He considers the former to be flexibleand adaptable, but he regards the tessutoprogettato as arbitrary in its scale and setting.The existing buildings of the Campo di Martethat were to be replaced clearly belong to thetessuto progettato. According to Caniggia thearea should no longer be built in this way. Hepreferred a contemporary design that wouldcreate a new and modern tessuto giudeccano;a structure characteristic of Giudecca island.He drew up guidelines that were intended toprevent meaningless mimicry, repletion andrigid standards, as he considered them basicmistakes of the architects and town planners ofthe tessuto progettato. ‘The project as aprocess’ is the method he pursued. He saw theentire construction of the city as a complexprocess ongoing for centuries.

Figure 4. The Scalera-Trevisan area: aerial view. Reproduced fromCroset, 1986, with the permission of Lotus International.


Figure 5. Design for the Junghans area: ground floor. Reproduced fromComune di Venezia, 1997, with the permission of Cino Zucchi Architetti.

Figure 6. Design for the Junghans area: model. Reproduced from Comune di Venezia,1997, with the permission of Cino Zucchi Architetti.


Caniggia’s approach included a criticalassessment of the process by which Venice’surban structure had been shaped. Hesimulated the creation of the urban form invitro and wanted to continue the history of thecity’s development in his plan, which wasmeant to be an integral part of the morph-ogenesis of Venice.

Caniggia deduced a formation system fromhis historical analysis, and based on it he drewup his master plan for the area. The undevel-oped Campo di Marte, as it was according toNapoleon’s land survey, was his starting point.The area was divided again into single largeplots perpendicular to the Fondamenta: thus

integrating streets in ‘comb-form’ (calli), asthey had been originally. Then a set of rulesgoverning the proposed different parts wasdrawn up. This located gardens and publicspaces, as well as building sites.

Caniggia then followed the logical phasesof formation. The first house to take place oneach single plot (the casa madre) was the mostimportant and would serve as a foundation forcomplementary buildings. This system wasmeant to be reproduced serially along the calli.Series of adjoining houses were to bealternately lined up in north-south and east-west directions. According to their positionthey either share a courtyard with the neigh-

Figure 7. Design for the Campo di Marte: general view.Reproduced from Comune di Venezia, 1986,

with the permission of Adelaide Regazzoni Caniggia.


bouring block or have one of their own.Caniggia specified new house typologies inaccord with the competition guidelines. Thesemight be alien to the Venetian city as theyincluded recent structural fittings, but theywould give a new and contemporary meaningto the surroundings. The outdoor spaces wereto be arranged in a clear hierarchy. It wasintended that this would make the housesappear individual and create a privateatmosphere (Figures 7 and 8).

The set of rules that Caniggia drew up tookaccount of both the historical development andcurrent circumstances of Giudecca island, butarguably the ground plan and architecture arecontradictory in certain respects. Although the

individual new plots are a clear and logicalpart of the island’s urban form, the differentsizes of the buildings within the plots are notconsistent with this. The plots and paths, forexample, are arranged orthogonal to theFondamenta, but the arrangement of thegroups of houses is the opposite of the tessutoreale: according to this the rows of housesshould line the calli in a north-south directionand dwellings should be arranged in an east-west direction. Thus the view between lagoonand Fondamenta is interrupted. Furthermore,public spaces and gardens are often in theshade. Caniggia did not repeat the existingstructures of the 1950s, but the positioning ofthe groups of houses would have created a

Figure 8. Design for the Campo di Mare: detail of block.Reproduced from Comune di Venezia, 1986, with the permission of

Adelaide Regazzioni Caniggia.


relatively uniform fabric. The single groups ofhouses do have subtle spatial qualities: theydifferentiate between private, semi-private andpublic outdoor spaces, but they appearschematic and confusing. Caniggia’s draft ofthe Campo di Marte remains a mechanicalscheme that does not attain the spatial qualitiesfor which he was striving.

A proposal for the CNOMV area

The proposal for the CNOMV area provided amixture of living, work, leisure, public andprivate uses (Figure 9). The urban revaluationcriteria of the municipal authority were adoptedand account was taken of the Piano RegolatoreGenerale (Benevolo, 1996). The starting pointwas a historical analysis of the area and its

Figure 9. The CNMOV area in 1989.Reproduced with permission from Comune di Venezia, 1989.


surroundings. Several hypotheses served as abasis for possible solutions and concepts. Theeffects of each intervention strategy on theexisting structures and social environmentwere considered. This first phase of criticalcomparison of various layouts allowedoptimization of the morphological arrangementof new elements and their uses.

The provision of a promenade gives theisland a different character. The southern areaof the island becomes accessible and public.The new path along the shore connects the twoends of the island and reveals the green spacesand former gardens. Although the existingwalls of the properties along the promenadedivide it into a series of different types ofspace, the rhythmical sequence of spaces has aunifying effect. Working as a counterbalanceto the Fordamenta, this southern line becomesthe second uninterrupted footpath on theisland.

The south shore is different from theFondamenta, which is very close to the city.The transition from land to sea is more naturalhere, and the land slopes gently towards thelagoon. The second-to-last stage of reinforce-ment of the land is also visible in this area. Allof the buildings and walls in the proposeddesign reach as far as the old boundary,outside of which the ground was said to be

unsafe as it was not reinforced and is situatedon a lower level than the rest of the island.This led to a clearly defined vacant strip in thesouth. The promenade runs along the line ofthe last stage of reinforcement which followsthe plot boundaries and is farther back fromthe sea. This increases the individuality of thesouth shore in comparison with the northshore. A path made of wooden slats leadsthrough the individual free spaces. As peopleare expected to look at the lagoon, the wallsbetween the spaces are high enough to separatethem visually from one another. The two sortsof promenade spaces create very differentrelations between land and sea. The greenspaces mostly consist of old gardens and trees:the plants and trees act as a kind of filter thatpeople look through when facing the lagoon.The hard surfaces are situated in areas offormer shipyards where the terrain isreinforced up to the water and where rampsand platforms provide direct access to the sea.

The promenade also constitutes a part of theisland’s road network. The publicly accessiblestrip in the south of the island improvesaccessibility. Starting from the existing built-up areas and paths, there are several routesleading to the proposed promenade: itsbeginning and end, as well as the CNOMVarea itself, which is situated near the centre,

Figure 10. Design for the CNMOV area: perspective.Reproduced with permission from Gygax, 2003.


are public rights of way (Figure 10).Attention is paid to the island’s three main

characteristics: the built-up, public front in thenorth, the intermediate zone with its suburbancharacter, and the green strip in the south. Theposition, building materials and use of thebuildings establish a continuity with thesurroundings and create outdoor spaces thatare characteristic of the island.

As the north front of the island is veryimportant, the buildings along the Fondamentaas well as the Sottoportego, which is the

entrance to the area, are preserved. All thedisused industrial buildings within the plot,except for one boatshed, which is to bepreserved as a testimony to the past, are to bedemolished. Because their existing form doesnot meet current needs and is not susceptible toconversion to dwellings, the other boatshedhad to make room for projects that reduce thehousing shortage.

The new residential buildings in the centreof the CNOMV area contribute to itsmodernization. They are situated between the

Figure 12. Design for the CNMOV area: ground floor.Reproduced with permission from Gygax, 2003.

Figure 11. Design for the CNMOV area.Reproduced with permission from Gygax, 2003.


built-up front to the north and the outdoorspace to the south which links the quarter tothe promenade. The buildings create newconnections to the surrounding areas, theFondamenta and the promenade. To link thearea to the public space of the main axis, thebuildings along the Fondamenta are re-used forcultural and public purposes. The existingSottoportego opens into a slightly enlargedsquare which serves as an outdoor space for allthe inhabitants. The long residential blocks areprincipally arranged in a north-south direction.This disposition creates a degree of opennesstowards the lagoon, and the private and publicoutdoor spaces in their dense surroundings cangain maximum benefit from sunshine. Thenew buildings in the north are arranged so asto create a semi-public zone. Private openspaces are bounded by fairly high brick walls,following a still evident tradition on the island.The fronts of buildings to the south are closedto avoid direct interference of the major square

in the south with the purely residential areas.The arrangement of the blocks and thepresence of planting at intervals allow theprivate space to be protected yet open. Semi-public passages in north-south and east-westdirections provide ‘unexpected’ connections.The boatshed, which will still be used toaccommodate boats, forms a clear public unitwith the square: its function and integrationinto the area support the mixed use. A synergyis being created: on the one hand, the areaprofits from increased development; on theother, the activities of the redeveloped districtand its functions as an entrance qualify thepromenade (Figures 11-13).

The design of the dwellings is inspired bythe traditional Venetian house in terms ofdensity of building, relationship of rooms tooutdoor spaces and absence of a stronghierarchy in the distribution of dwellings.Semi-public passages within the urbanstructure lead to the residential buildings.

Figure 13. Design for the CNMOV area: model.Reproduced with permission from Gygax, 2003.


Open, semi-private staircases lead to the actualdwellings. The ground floors are on a slightlyhigher level to protect the dwellings from theaqua alta and to give the inhabitants greaterprivacy. Every dwelling has its own outdoorspace, a garden or a loggia.

Materials familiar to Venice are employed.The walls and boundaries are of Venetianbrick, like the surviving boatshed. Thebuildings are also of brick, and are plastered ina warm colour and placed on concrete socles.The socles and window reveals of whiteconcrete are reminiscent of traditionalVenetian façades ornamented with whiteIstrian stone. The material of the residentialarea is different from the concrete of thepromenade. This difference was intended toemphasize the leisure port’s function as a placeof work, rather than to make a distinctionbetween public and private uses.

Conclusion

In Giudecca, the use of contemporary formsand concepts is definitely feasible. A newproject for a part of the town must beintegrated into the existing built environmentbut it must not imitate or wallow in nostalgia.Venice’s strong characteristic elements shouldnot appear in a schematic or stereotyped wayin a design, although they need to be includedbecause they constitute the special quality ofthe place. Characteristic elements need to beunderstood and interpreted in a way that givesthem renewed meaning. A design that takesinto consideration, on the one hand, historical

development and existing forms and, on theother, current needs makes it possible to createmodern spatial qualities that can work as anintegral part of a continuously developingurban structure.

References

Comune di Venezia, Assesorato all’Urbanistica,Quaglia, T. and Polli, G. (eds) (1986)Ridisegnare Venezia. Dieci progetti di concorsoper la ricostruzione di Campo di Marte(Cataloghi Marsilio, Venezia).

Comune di Venezia, Dina, A. and Ortelli, P. (eds)(1997) Mille alloggi per Venezia. I programmidi recupero urbano e la costruzione della nuovacittà (Arsenale Editrice, Venezia).

Comune di Venezia and Salzano, E. (eds) (1989)Atlante di Venezia. La forma della città in scala1/1000 nel fotopiano e nella carta numerica(Marsilio Editori, Venezia).

Croset, P.-A. (1986) ‘Sul progetto di Gino Vallealla Giudecca’, Lotus International 51,109- 28.

Benevolo, L. (ed.) (1996) Venezia, il nouvo pianourbanistico (Editori Laterza, Bari-Roma).

Gygax, F. (2003) ‘Un nouveau quartier d’affect-ation mixte pour l’île de la Guidecca à Venise.Restructuration et réaffectation de l’Area ExCantieri Navali e Officine MeccanicheVeneziane’, unpublished diploma thesis, EcolePolytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.

Trincanato, E. and Umberto, F. (1971) Venise au fildu temps (Editions Joël Cuénot, Boulogne-Billancourt).

Valle, G. (1986) ‘Venise 1986: construire, protéger,restaurer’, Architecture d’aujourd’hui 248, 70-93.

Jacqueline Tatom

The death has occurred, at the age of 51, ofJacqueline Tatom. She was Assistant Professor ofArchitecture at Washington University in St Louisand a long-standing member of ISUF. Shepublished a ‘viewpoint’ in the inaugural issue ofUrban Morphology in 1997. Her other publicationsincluded articles in the Nordic Journal of Archi-tectural Research and Ecumene. Most recently shewas editing a collection of essays on Towards a

metropolitan urbanism. Born in Morocco, shepractised as an architect in France, the UnitedStates and West Africa, and held positions atHarvard University and the University of Texasbefore moving to St Louis. A memorial fund hasbeen established in her honour: The JacquelineTatom Memorial Fund, College of Architecture,Campus Box 1079, Washington University, OneBrookings Drive, St Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA.

the morphological basis of urban design: experiments in ...the morphological basis of urban design:...

Documents