As a field of study, urban morphology set out in the early 20th century, planting its academic flag in the vast field of human geography. Like an archaeologist digging through layers of history to piece together the present, the early practitioners of this developing field strove to decipher the complex patterns and structures that formed urban landscapes. Urban morphology’s popularity fluctuated as it developed, reaching its height mostly in American and British academia in the 1950s and 1960s.

At its height, urban morphology was held up as a guiding light that revealed hitherto unknown aspects of metropolitan character. It was heralded as the “DNA” of cities because of how thoroughly it examined the physical and historical components of these locations.

However, as the academic landscape evolved, subsequent trends, such as the “quantitative revolution” and the “cultural turn,” began to exert their influence on the field of urban morphology. The “quantitative revolution” introduced a wave of mathematical and statistical approaches to geography, temporarily shifting the focus away from the qualitative aspects of urban form. Meanwhile, the “cultural turn” steered attention towards the cultural and societal dimensions of cities, often sidelining the study of physical form. These academic crosswinds led to fluctuations in urban morphology’s popularity.

Nevertheless, despite the changing tides, urban morphology persevered, demonstrating its resilience and adaptability. It weathered the intellectual storms and retained its significance within the realm of urban geography. As cities continued to evolve and grow, urban morphology emerged as a guiding compass for understanding the physical evolution of urban areas, providing valuable insights into their dynamic nature.