Hofmeister 2004

8/15/2019 Hofmeister 2004

1/10

Urban Morphology (2004) 8(1), 3-12 3

The study of urban form in Germany

Burkhard Hofmeister

Technische Universität Berlin, Strasse des 17. Juni 135,10623 Berlin, Germany1

Revised manuscript received 1 December 2003

Abstract. Urban geography in Germany is unique inasmuch as there wasa period of three decades at the beginning of the twentieth century duringwhich geographers focussed their research on urban morphology. In

analysing the layout and the building fabric of towns their most important tool was the town plan. This period was followed by periods during whichurban functions and urban structures were the major concerns of urbangeographers. However, in the second half of the twentieth century therewere again innovative contributions to the study of urban form, stimulated by the activities of architects and urban historians, the research of Britishgeographers, such as A.E. Smailes and Berlin-born M.R.G. Conzen, theurban conservation movement, and activities of the study group Die alteStadt.

Key Words: urban morphology, geography, town plans, Germany

During the 1880s, when geography becameestablished as a scientific discipline inGerman universities, the first generation of professional geographers undertaking researchin the field of human geography was mainlyconcerned with the two basic questions of where and why urban places had come intoexistence. The location of towns and theirraison d’être were the dominant topics untilabout the turn of the century.

Friedrich Ratzel, the most prominentgeographer of this first period, had beentrained as a pharmacist before studyingnatural sciences. He was appointed to thechair of geography in the University of Leipzig in 1886. A good example of themethodology of this first generation of geographers was his treatise Die geograph-ische Lage der großen Städte (The geo-graphical location of large cities) (Ratzel,

1903). The author was, however, not merelyconcerned with where cities were located.He tried to find out about the motives of thefounding fathers of an urban place and whatgrowth factors might have attracted them tothis particular locality. It was in this contextthat Ratzel coined the term Raumqualität (quality of space). What he had in mind wasan evaluation of the particular site andsituation chosen for the settlement inquestion.

Around the turn of the century somerepresentatives of human geography began toargue that the study of location and of genetic questions was far from satisfactory.Walter Geisler in the introductory chapter of his book Die deutsche Stadt. Ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der Kulturlandschaft (TheGerman town: a contribution to the morph-ology of the cultural landscape) pointed out

ISSN 1027-4278 © International Seminar on Urban Form, 2004


2/10

The study of urban form in Germany 5

that we shall only be able to answer thequestion of what a particular landscape lookslike ‘if we do not restrict ourselves to themere distribution of geographical objects but

rather describe their form’ (Geisler, 1924, p.365).

The urban morphology epoch

While physical geographers were occupiedwith the description of landforms, and theirvegetation cover, human geographers startedto focus on the layout of urban places, thestreet patterns, transportation lines, squares,open spaces and the three-dimensional

building fabric. Thus the following threedecades became known as the morphologicalor physiognomic epoch of German urbangeography.

The layout of towns was considered arewarding object of research because of itspersistence. The longevity of street patternsbecame particularly evident after the SecondWorld War when, even in areas that had beenheavily damaged by air raids, reconstructionwork often followed existing streets, a

phenomenon that induced city planners tocomment that ‘we are building around ourown sewers’.

This second epoch of urban geographymay be traced back to the time span from1899 to 1928. It started with the publicationof Otto Schlüter’s Über den Grundriß der Städte (On the layout of towns) (Schlüter,1899). Schlüter was appointed to the chair of geography in the University of Halle in 1911.It was he who coined the terms Morphologieder Kulturlandschaft (morphology of thecultural landscape) and dingliche Erfüllungder Erdoberfläche (objects shaping theearth’s surface). The Finnish geographer J.G.Granö was influenced by this methodology of German geographers and, while proclaiming Reine Geographie (pure geography), in turninfluenced German geographical studies farinto the 1920s.

Schlüter published a treatise on thesettlements of north-eastern Thuringia in1903. Other authors contributing to the

morphology of urban places in Germanywere E. Schrader (1922), with his publicationon the towns in Hesse, and Robert Grad-mann, with publications on the towns in

Württemberg (1914) and Swebia (1916). Theculmination of the morphological epoch wasreached when, after writing his famousmonograph on Danzig in 1918, Geislerpublished his aforementioned comprehensivetreatise Die deutsche Stadt (Geisler, 1924).

The last important study along these lineswas Rudolf Martiny’s Die Grundriß-gestaltung der deutschen Siedlungen (Thelayout of German settlements) (Martiny,1928). But in the meantime Hans Bobek

(1927) had already stimulated a change of direction with his treatise Grundfragen der Stadtgeographie (Basic questions of urbangeography), in which he pointed out that thefunctions of urban places were far moreimportant than their morphological appear-ance. As a consequence, the morphologicalapproach to urban geography developed littleover some three decades, and was tocelebrate its revival only in the latter years of the twentieth century.

The methodology of the morphological

approach

As to the methodology of urban geographersduring the morphological epoch, the townplan became the characteristic instrument of their endeavours. They analysed the streetpatterns, especially the length, width anddirection of streets.

The first German scholar to makeextensive use of town plans for analysing thelayout of German towns seems to have beenthe Strassburg-based high school teacher J.Fritz (1894) with his essay on DeutscheStadtanlagen (German towns). Two othersignificant publications were EugenOberhummer’s paper Der Stadtplan, seine Entwicklung und geographische Bedeutung(The town plan, its development andgeographical relevance) read to the SixteenthMeeting of German Geographers andpublished in the conference proceedings


3/10

6 The study of urban form in Germany

(Oberhummer, 1907), and the treatise byHugo Hassinger (1910) Über Aufgaben der Städtekunde (On the problems of urbanstudies), published in Dr. A. Petermann’s

Mitteilungen. Both authors underlined theimportance of historical town plans fortracing the original settlement layout. Theydiscussed in detail the discernment of ancientcartographers and the reliability of old townplans.

Hassinger stressed the fact that old townplans provide evidence of the original designof towns. He argued that the oldest streetswere laid out with regard to the surface relief and the distribution of water bodies, and

reflected early human features such as oldrural field paths and town gates and townwalls. Such main routes, set by nature andby man, have in later times been connectedwith each other by subordinate or secondarystreets. A third category are those streets thathave later been added to the original streetnetwork as necessary corrections, for instancethe replacement of old narrow streets bymodern broad boulevards. A final categoryare those arbitrarily constructed streets asthey are found in the grid-like patterns of

recent suburban areas (Hassinger, 1910).The various publications on the layout of

German towns stressed two issues thatinitiated a vigorous discussion amongGerman geographers. First, by means of comparison of the layout of towns in variousparts of Germany some authors came to theconclusion that not only rural villages butalso towns looked different on either side of the so-called Elbe-Saale-Line. These tworivers were, for many centuries, the dividing

line between the regions to the west, settledby Germanic tribes, and the regions to theeast, settled by Slavic tribes and only after1200 colonized by Germanic people fromfarther west.

Consequently, towns to the west of theElbe-Saale-Line were believed to have grownover a number of centuries with the resultthat their street patterns were more or lessirregular. In contrast, the towns east of theElbe-Saale-Line were founded by the colon-izing people under the rule of particular

governing authorities on the basis of someprepared plan so that they had a much moreregular street pattern, if not an exact grid. Itwas even argued that the population of west

German towns mainly grew by the expansionof existing towns in various directions by theelongation of existing streets into thesurrounding area while the population of eastern Germany mainly grew by the found-ing of new villages and towns.

Opponents of this theory retorted that therewere also regular street patterns in the townsof the western German provinces, and thatthe partition of Germany into two greatsettlement regions with irregular and regular

layouts respectively was just too simplified astory of how Germany had becomepopulated.

Very likely this discussion had beeninfluenced by the work of historians, inparticular the famous book by S. Rietschel(1897) on Markt und Stadt in ihrem recht-lichen Verhältnis (Market and town and their juridical relationship).

The second issue was the significance of market places and town walls in the layout of towns. It was argued that the market had

developed over several centuries from a merewidening of the main street to a centrally-located square of increasing size, and in sometowns there were even several market placeseach devoted to the trade in a particularcommodity, such as horses or other animals,meat, grain, vegetables, fish or forestproducts. There was, indeed, certainevidence of the market place becoming moreprominent with increasing distance east of theElbe-Saale-Line.

Almost every German town that existed by1200, or was founded after 1200, was awalled town in accord with the motto Bürger und Bauer trennt die Mauer (citizen andpeasant are separated by the wall). In manycases the wall followed a roughly circularline, and this had an impact on the directionof at least a few streets. Some streets ranparallel to the wall while others ended infront of it. One or two thoroughfares wereoriented toward the gates, which were theonly entry points into town. The extreme


4/10


case was four gates at the four cardinal pointsand two main streets connecting these gatesand forming a cross in the centre of town.

When, after 1500, a number of towns were

fortified with large ramparts and bastions,these fortifications had a still greater impacton the layout of towns. Some newly-foundedfortresses, such as Neuf Brisach near theFrench-German border, had a spectacularlayout dominated by a huge centrally-located place des armes and an exact grid pattern of streets. When in more recent years thosefortifications were dismantled, the openspaces were often used for ring roads andrailway lines.

A special category of towns in Germanywere the numerous court-towns of the royaltyand high nobility of the former Germansovereign territories. These towns used to bedesigned according to the founders’conception, the streets being oriented towardthe royal palace. Some such layouts were acombination of both a radial street patternand a grid.

In a post-war treatise on Mannheim,Friedmann (1968) pointed out that the esprit géométrique had completely ruled the layout

of town to the extent that the rows of blocks(each a perfect square within a perfect grid)were each assigned a letter of the alphabetand each individual block was assigned anadditional number. The houses were notnumbered along the streets but rather alongthe four sides of the individual block.

In contrast to the layout, less attention waspaid to the third dimension, namely thebuilding fabric. There were at least sixaspects to be investigated: first, the position

of houses relative to the direction of thestreets; secondly, housing densities as relatedto compact city blocks or free-standinghouses; thirdly, the age and style of thebuildings; fourthly, the construction materialwith regard to its workability and thebuilding style; fifthly, the height of buildings,also with regard to the construction material;and sixthly, the shape of the roofs.

One major issue discussed by Hassinger(1910) and several other authors was the

extent to which town houses had beenderived from the peasants’ houses of thetown’s rural environs, the influences fromfarther afield, and the effects building

regulations might have had on houses. Suchinfluences and regulations may have eithersupported or prevented the acceptance of foreign building materials and foreignarchitectural styles.

Initially there was discussion aboutwhether the gable had originally faced thestreet and whether in the course of time aGiebelschwenkung (turn of the gable) hadtaken place so that a greater number of houses, particularly those outside the old

town kernel, were now standing in a longi-tudinal direction, i.e. parallel to the street.

Evaluation of the urban morphology epoch

The morphological approach to urbangeography as it was practised in the firstthree decades of the twentieth century wasnot really a complete paradigmatic change.Genetic and location factors as well as urbanfunctions had always been objects of urban

geographical research. Thus the whole firstchapter of Geisler’s book Die deutsche Stadt (1924) was devoted to the question of thechoice of topographische Lage (site) for anynew settlement. Several authors made state-ments to the effect that urban form must notbe isolated from other urban aspects, such aslocation, growth factors and the functions of towns. The only difference in comparison tothe previous period and the following periodsof the discipline was the fact that moreemphasis was put on the question of urbanform while other aspects of urban researchwere of minor importance. During thosethree decades urban form became thestarting-point and the major topic of urbangeography.

Some authors claimed that, on the basis of urban form, conclusions could be drawnabout the genesis of an urban settlement.Changes of the direction of streets and of thesize and shape of building blocks served asindicators for tracing different stages of


5/10


development of a town, as did changes of building materials and architectural styles.Even Bobek acknowledged the results of theurban morphological research of Schlüter and

other scholars (Bobek, 1927).It is hard to judge how important and how

successful those discussions on the form of towns were. It may be somewhat disill-usioning to learn that at the very end of theurban morphology epoch both Geisler (1924)and Martiny (1928) in their respectivepublications stated that architects anddirectors of museums, rather thangeographers, had cared about research onurban form. Geisler pointed out that ‘it is

characteristic that there are quite a fewexcellent compendiums of geomorphology,but that except for a few monographs there isvirtually no systematic treatment of themorphology of the cultural landscape’(Geisler, 1924, p. 365). These were notinspiring statements about the period of urbangeography that now came to an end.

Post-war geography and the study of

urban form

The period from 1928 to the mid-1950s wasdominated by research on urban functionsand urban structure. Bobek with his earlypublications had served as a pacemaker;Christaller’s central place theory of 1933 wasa milestone, as was the editorial work of Passarge (1930) on Stadtlandschaften der Erde (Townscapes of the world), to mention just a few of the outstanding contributions of the time.

The study of urban form was, however,not totally neglected. The first author tohave returned to urban morphology seems tohave been H.F. Gorki (1954) with his treatiseon Die Grundrisse der westfälischen Städte(The layout of Westfalian towns). Theauthor distinguished radial, grid, featherlike,parallel and single-street patterns of the townkernel. He came to the conclusion that twomajor types of layout, a circular-radial typeand rectangular-rectilinear type, occupieddistinct areas within the province of Westfalia

and that these may very well be identifiedwith areas where, on the one hand, towns hadgrown progressively and, on the other hand,they had been founded according to some

preconceived plan (Gorki, 1954, pp. 17-18).Three major attempts were made to push

the study of urban form into new directions.The first of these was a treatise by IlseMöller (1959) on a suburban area of Hamburg, dealing with the suitability of different house types for specific functionaluses. Möller distinguished between sevensoziale Grundstrukturen von Gebäuden (basicsocial structures of houses) in the particularpart of Hamburg she investigated: first, small

residential houses; secondly, large residentialhouses divided into small flats; thirdly, largeresidential houses divided into large flats;fourthly, rows of suburban villas; fifthly,free-standing villas of normal size; sixthly,free-standing villas of extraordinary size; andseventhly, public buildings. She thenmapped the distribution of each basicstructural type and tried to establish areasdominated by one or two such types. Sheclaimed that each basic structural type had atypical capacity for certain urban functionsseeking accommodation. The higher thefunction, the greater was the demand forappropriate housing.

The lower-rank basic structures willaccommodate all kinds of shops, such asgrocery shops and general merchandiseshops as well as small craftsmen’s shopsand restaurants, the small residential housebeing even more attractive to suchenterprises than the large residential housedivided into small flats. Of the high-rankbasic structures, the large residential housesdivided into large flats and the rows of surburban villas, and particularly the free-standing villas, very seldom accommodatesuch shops and craftsmen’s enterprises.However, all these high-ranking basicstructures are most appropriate forphysicians’ and solicitors’ offices,administrative offices, fashion parlours,boarding houses, publishing firms andconsulates. The last three functions, owingto their higher demand for space and their


6/10


greater need for display, even prefer thesuburban villas (Möller, 1959, pp. 141-2).

The second treatise was the dissertation by

Arnold Schulze (1962) Die Sielhafenorte(Tidewater channel settlements) on those verypeculiar settlements along the German coastof the North Sea. His investigation wasdevoted to Formengenese (genesis of form).The author’s intention was to trace thosetidewater channel settlements to the originalrows of houses facing the coast line and toshow the various steps of development to therather sophisticated present-day Deich-nischensiedlungen (cove and dike settle-

ments). The author stressed that, despite theloss of the seaport function of some of thetidewater channel settlements and their trans-formation to tourist or commuting settlementsor residential places for agricultural workers,their peculiar layout and building fabric havebeen largely preserved to the present day.

The third treatise was the article byFriedrich Huttenlocher (1963) in Geograph-ische Zeitschrift on Städtetypen und ihreGesellschaften anhand südwestdeutscher Beispiele (Clusters of urban types in south-

western Germany). The author claimed thatphysiognomic types of towns are regionaltypes inasmuch as in any particular regionthe dominant construction material not onlydetermines the prevailing colour of thebuildings, but also certain architecturalfeatures and details of style, these beingdependent upon the workability of thematerial in question. A result of his studieswas recognition of what he called Material- pr ov in ze n ( pr ov in ce s o f d om in an t

construction materials).He distinguished between three suchprovinces in southwestern Germany: theregion of the red sandstones of the OdenwaldMountain, northern Black Forest and UpperRhine Valley, the Keuper sandstone region of the Neckar Valley and a portion of Kraichgau, and the Backstein region of bricksin Upper Swebia. He also pointed out thathouses started to look different as soon aspeople ran out of particular constructionmaterials. For instance in Brandenburg, a

glaciated region, the steeple of Berlin’sNicolai Church erected in 1223 was built of erratic boulders, but after these became rarepeople switched to different constructionmaterials, and the French monastic churcherected in 1271 was built of brick.

In addition to these three approaches, therehave been other contributions to urbanmorphology, such as the monographs on theformer ducal residences of Alt-Mannheim(Friedmann, 1968) and Wolfenbüttel (Ohnes-orge, 1974) and the treatise by Krings onBelgian towns (Krings, 1984).

A number of German geographers didfield work on urban places outside their own

country. Although their investigations weregenerally more concerned with other aspectsof towns, they nevertheless made somevaluable contributions to urban morphology.For example, Elmar Sabelberg (1984)provided most stimulating accounts of Italiantowns. Judged by the numbers of geographers involved in urban studies, themost intensively investigated towns are thosein the Islamic culture realm (Wirth, 2000)and Latin America.

Contributions from outside Germany

In the English-speaking countries there wasno urban morphology epoch, in the first half of the twentieth century at least, comparableto that in Germany. In the United Kingdomurban morphology was initiated in the 1950swhen A.E. Smailes (1955) published hisfamous paper ‘Some reflections on thegeographical description and analysis of townscapes’ in the Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. However,British geography received an importantimpetus from a study on the townscape of Alnwick by M.R.G. Conzen (1960), a Berlingeographer who had emigrated to GreatBritain and whose ideas returned, so to speak,via England to his country of birth(Whitehand, 1981).

In the United States urban morphology hadnever been an important issue – the papersby John Leighly on Swedish towns (1928)


7/10


and Baltic towns (1939) were ratherexceptional. It was only after the 1960s thatAmerican geographers began to make up forthis neglect. Cum grano salis these

American contributions to urban form mightbe equated with post-war German socialgeography, if Rickert’s house façades areseen as a social-geographic indicator in termsof Hartke’s Munich school of socialgeography, a point made by Joseph Hajdu(1968).

Developments in other fields

There were also incentives from other

disciplines. In 1952 the architect and cityengineer Karl Gruber published his famousbook Die Gestalt der deutschen Stadt (Theshape of the German town) which containednumerous drawings and offered a wealth of information on the form of towns throughoutGermany (Gruber, 1952). The urbanhistorian Heinz Stoob initiated thevoluminous Deutscher Städteatlas (Atlas of German towns) (Stoob 1973 ff). There hadbeen co-operation between geographers and

the representatives of various disciplines inpreparing the historical atlases of the GermanLänder. Atlases such as the Historischer Atlas von Baden-Württemberg containedseveral issues on the layout of medievaltowns, the comments on which were usuallywritten by geographers (Scheuerbrandt,1976).

An impetus not to be underestimated camefrom the environmental movement in generaland the urban conservation movement inparticular after Earth Day 1970. People inmany countries had become aware of the factthat, in the two and a half decades after theSecond World War, much harm had beendone to nature and little attention given toenvironmental issues. In the field of urbanism this meant that too much of theurban heritage had already been destroyedand replaced by modern and often rathersterile structures and that there was a highdemand for careful restoration and cautiousconservation. This, in turn, meant that there

was a need to produce inventories of theolder parts of towns and to care about theirlayout and building fabric. Planners were inneed of preparatory investigations with regard

to urban renewal programmes, the distanteffects of prominent buildings, thecompactness of streets and squares, anddeficiencies such as the lack of ventilation orexposure to sunshine.

In 1973 a study group called Die alteStadt (The old town) was founded inEsslingen am Neckar. Eventually some 140towns with historic kernels in the German-speaking countries of Germany, Austria,Switzerland and South Tyrol became

members of this association which regularlyheld meetings twice a year, the membertowns being represented by their mayors,their chief engineers, their urbanconservationists, their local historians andarchivists. A quarterly journal of the sametitle, Die alte Stadt , was founded, on theeditorial board of which served, amongothers, one professional geographer. Thepresent author had the honour to hold thisposition for 15 years. The journal served asa kind of link between practising town

administrators and planners on the one handand academics specializing in urban affairson the other.

Stadtgestalt and Sozialtopgraphie

Urban geographers in Germany have thusresumed research on urban form since themid-1970s. In 1979, H. Schroeder-Lanzorganized a Canadian-German symposium onStadtgestalt-Forschung (urban morphologicalresearch) in Trier with a remarkable numberof foreign geographers participating. Theproceedings were published some years laterin two large volumes (Schroeder-Lanz, 1982/ 1986). One contribution to this symposium,by Jürgen Lafrenz, is particularly noteworthy.He applied the so-called metrological method(the science dealing with weights andmeasures) to his research on street patterns.After looking for standard measures deter-mining the sizes of lots and the width of


8/10


streets, he searched for deviations and tried todetect disruptions of urban growth on thebasis of such deviations.

In a later paper (Lafrenz, 1989), the same

author used the city of Lübeck as an examplefor what he called Bewertungszyklen (eval-uation of cycles of buildings). According tohis findings there have been two such cyclesin this town’s recent past. The economicgrowth during the nineteenth century led tolot sizes, street widths and building heightsthat differed from the traditional street patternand building fabric of the old town. Fromthe beginning of the twentieth centurythrough to the 1920s, people made attempts

to correct those errors. A second cyclestarted after the Second World War when,during the course of reconstruction, many oldand partially destroyed buildings were torndown and replaced by modern structures,these usually being out of proportion to thetraditional building stock. After 1970, theurban conservation movement made peoplesensitive to such blunders, and anotherrevaluation in favour of traditional forms ledto a more subtle treatment of townscapes.

A different line of research was the so-

called Sozialtopographie (social topography),that is social data assigned to individual lotsor building blocks or even larger units of thetown. Since statistics are subject to certainrestrictions at the level of the individual lot,this method cannot always be applied usingpresent-day data. However, historical datamay be used to reveal earlier developmentsof towns. Research along these lines hasalready produced interesting results, theinvestigations by Dietrich Denecke (1980)

being of particular note. But there are otherdisciplines involved in this kind of research:for example, there are the contributions bythe urban planner Cord Meckseper. Hispaper Stadtplan und Sozialstruktur in der deutschen Stadt des Mittelalters (Town planand social structure in the German medievaltown) (Meckseper, 1972) is of special note.

Various authors claimed to have foundevidence that as early as the late MiddleAges tanners had been banned from the townproper and that housing for them was

provided outside the town walls along thebanks of a river or canal. Tanning andcertain other noisome crafts were thusconcentrated in particular streets, the namesof which reveal to the present day the formerlocation of such crafts. Even back in thefifteenth century, differences in housing rentsbetween the more- and less-centrally locatedstreets made for the segregation of higher-and lower-status residents as well as differentcommercial functions. In 1515 the famousmerchant Fugger in Augsburg started toprovide low-rent housing for his employeesin one section of his huge estate. In aGerman ducal residence the duke around

1550 restricted carriage entrances to a limitedarea near his castle, thus forcing the nobilityto live right next to the ducal estate. Theseare just a few examples, already in earlyhistorical times, of making urban form andfunction coincide.

Conclusion

The study of urban form has had a compara-tively long tradition in Germany. It was the

main concern of human geographers duringthe first three decades of the twentiethcentury. During the 1950s and the 1960ssome interesting contributions were made thatopened up different lines of investigation. Inthe wake of the urban conservation move-ment after 1970, the founding of the studygroup Die alte Stadt in 1973 and stimulationfrom representatives of other disciplines andfrom foreign geographers, there has been aremarkable revival of urban form studies in

Germany. Although no bread-and-butterissue, urban form has, in recent years,received adequate attention from Germangeographers.

Note

1. Address for correspondence: Zenostrasse 1A,D-83435 Bad Reichenhall, Germany.

References


9/10


Bobek, H. (1927) ‘Grundfragen der Stadtgeo-graphie’, Geographischer Anzeiger 28, 213-24.

Christaller, W. (1933) Die zentralen Orte inSüddeutschland (Fischer, Jena).

Conzen, M.R.G. (1960) Alnwick, Northumber-land: a study in town-plan analysis, Institute of British Geographers Publication 27 (GeorgePhilip, London).

Denecke, D. (1980) ‘Die sozio-ökonomischeGliederung südniedersächsischer Städte im 18.und 19. Jahrhundert. Historisch-geographischeStadtpläne und ihre Analyse’ Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte 52, 25-38.

Friedmann, H. (1968) Alt-Mannheim im Wandelseiner Physiognomie. Struktur und Funktionen(1606-1965), Forschungen zur deutschenLandeskunde 168 (Bundesanstalt fürLandeskunde und Raumforschung, BadGodesberg).

Fritz, J. (1894) ‘Deutsche Stadtanlagen’, Beilage zum Programm 520 des Lyzeums Strassburg(Heitz-Mündel, Strassburg).

Geisler, W. (1918) Danzig: ein siedlungs-geographischer Versuch (Kafeman, Danzig).

Geisler, W. (1924) Die deutsche Stadt: ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der Kulturlandschaft ,Forschungen zur deutschen Landes- undVolkskunde (Engelhorn, Stuttgart).

Gorki, H.F. (1954) ‘Die Grundrisse der west-

fälischen Städte’, Spieker 5, 5-18.Gradmann, R. (1914) Die städtischen Siedlungen

des Königreichs Württemberg (Engelhorn,Stuttgart).

Gradmann, R. (1916) ‘Schwäbische Städte’ Zeit-schrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin.

Granö, J.G. (1929) ‘Reine Geographie. Einemethodologische Studie, beleuchtet mitBeispielen aus Finnland und Estland’, ActaGeographica (Helsinki) 2, 1-202.

Gruber, K. (1952) Die Gestalt der deutschenStadt. Ihr Wandel aus der geistigen Ordnung

der Zeiten (Callwey, München).Hajdu, J.G. (1968) ‘Toward a definition of post-war German social geography’, Annals of the

Association of American Geographers 58, 397-410.

Hassinger, H. (1910) ‘Über Aufgaben derStädtekunde’, Dr. A. Petermann’s MitteilungenII, 289-94.

Hofmeister, B. (1992) ‘Urban geography’, inEhlers, E. (ed.) 40 years after: Germangeography. Developments, trends, and

prospects 1952-1992 (Geographisches Institutder Universität Bonn, Bonn).

Huttenlocher, F. (1963) ‘Städtetypen und ihreGesellschaften anhand südwestdeutscherBeispiele’, Geographische Zeitschrift 51, 161-82.

Krings, W. (1984) Innenstädte in Belgien.Gestalt, Veränderung, Erhaltung (1960-78),Bonner Geographische Abhandlungen 68(Ferdinand Dümmlers, Bonn).

Lafrenz, J. (1989) ‘Bewertungszyklen vorindus-trieller Stadtgestalt im Industriezeitalter’, Diealte Stadt 16, 39-57.

Leighly, J.B. (1928) ‘The towns of Mälardalen inSweden: a study in urban morphology’,University of California Publications inGeography 3, 1-134.

Leighly, J.B. (1939) ‘The towns of medievalLivonia’, University of California Publicationsin Geography 6/7, 235-314.

Martiny, R. (1928) Die Grundrißgestaltung der deutschen Siedlungen, Ergänzungsheft 197,Petermanns Mitteilungen (Justus Perthes,Gotha).

Meckseper, C. (1972) ‘Stadtplan und Sozial-struktur in der deutschen Stadt desMittelalters’, Stadtbauwelt 33, 52-7.

Möller, I. (1959) Die Entwicklung eines Hamburger Gebietes von der Agrar- zur Großstadtlandschaft , Hamburger Geograph-ische Studien 10 (Geographisches Institut der

Universität Hamburg, Hamburg).Oberhummer, E. (1907) ‘Der Stadtplan, seine

Entwickelung und geographische Bedeutung’,Verhandlungen des 16. Deutschen Geograph-entages (Dietrich Reimer, Berlin) 66-101.

Ohnesorge, K.W. (1974) Wolfenbüttel.Geographie einer ehemaligen Residenzstadt ,Braunschweiger Geographische Studien 5(Gotze, Braunschweig).

Passarge, S. (ed.) (1930) Stadtlandschaften der Erde (Ferdinand Hirt, Breslau).

Ratzel, F. (1903) ‘Die geographische Lage der

großen Städte’, Großstadt, Jahrbuch der Gehe-Stiftung 9 (Zahn and Jaensch, Dresden).

Rickert, J.E. (1967) ‘House façades of theNortheastern United States: a tool of geographic analysis’, Annals of the Associationof American Geographers 57, 211-38.

Rietschel, S. (1897) Markt und Stadt in ihremrechtlichen Verhältnis (Veit, Leipzig).

Sabelberg, E. (1984) Regionale Stadttypen in Italien. Genese und Struktur der toskanischenund sizilianischen Städte an den BeispielenFlorenz, Siena, Catania und Agrigent ,


10/10


Erdkundliches Wissen 66 (Franz Steiner,Wiesbaden).

Scheuerbrandt, A. (1976) ‘Grundrisse mittelalter-licher Städte I, Heidelberg’, Historischer Atlas

von Baden-Württemberg, Erläuterungen(Offizin Chr. Scheufele, Stuttgart).

Schlüter, O. (1899) ‘Über den Grundriß derStädte’, Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für

Erdkunde zu Berlin 34, 446-62.Schlüter, O. (1903) Die Siedlungen im nordöst-

lichen Thüringen: ein Beispiel für die Behandlung siedlungsgeographischer Fragen(Costenoble, Berlin).

Schrader, E. (1922) ‘Die Städte Hessens’, Jahresbericht des Frankfurter Vereins für Geographie und Statistik (Knauer, Frankfurt-am-Main).

Schroeder-Lanz, H. (ed.) (1982/86) Stadtgestalt-Forschung. Deutsch-Kanadisches KolloquiumTrier 14-17.6.1979, Trierer GeographischeStudien Sonderheft 4/5 (Geographische Gesell-schaft Trier, Trier).

Schultze, A. (1962) Die Sielhafenorte und dasProblem des regionalen Typus im Bauplan der Kulturlandschaft , Göttinger GeographischeAbhandlungen 27 (Geographisches Institut derUniversität Göttingen, Göttingen).

Smailes, A.E. (1955) ‘Some reflections on the

geographical description and analysis of town-scapes’, Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 21, 99-115.

Stoob, H. (ed.) (1973 ff) Deutscher Städteatlas

(GSV Städteatlas, Altenbeken, Münster).Whitehand, J.W.R. (1981) ‘Background to the

urban morphogenetic tradition’, in Whitehand,J.W.R. (ed.) The urban landscape: historicaldevelopment and management, Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 13(Academic Press, London) 1-24.

Wirth, E. (2000) Die orientalische Stadt imislamischen Vorderasien und Nordafrika:Städtische Bausubstanz und räumlicheOrdnung, Wirtschaftsleben und sozialeOrganisation (Philipp von Zabern, Mainz) 2vols.

1

Documents

Hofmeister 2004