摘要
城市的樣貌是由各種驅動力(Driven forces)所形塑。這些驅動力不僅創造了各種城市的樣貌，也同時帶來了各種都市議題，而人類去改變與塑造良好都市型態的意圖也隨之而生。隨著科技與技術的不斷進步，規劃者與政府不斷嘗試著去解決都市問題，而其中很明顯地，不同的願景、規劃者、規劃方法會造就完全不同的都市形態。在規劃的過程中，指認這些過往的規劃痕跡是極為重要的一環，因為都市發展是一個連續、堆疊的過程，新與舊同時並存、相互連結而堆疊交雜於城市中。此外，都市型態可分解為街道、街廓、地塊與建築。透過指認出都市型態中的各種元素的不同，進而指認出不同規劃時期所產生的都市形態，將有利於保存、更新等都市計畫的提出。
都市形態學在此方面議題中為常用的方法。但在過去的研究中，量化的方法較少被運用於都市形態學的研究裡。而隨著地理資訊系統(GIS)的出現以及電腦技術的進步，現在研究者可以記錄大量的都市型態並且將之與各種量化資料加以連結。此一革新讓研究者可以更快速、大量的研究都市形態，以及其背後相關聯的各種政治經濟、社會文化等都市驅動力。
本研究嘗試找出如何的都市形態是被如何的規畫意圖與方法所形成，藉著將都市解剖成最基本的形態元素並討論其特徵與差異。而量化方法與GIS也將納入進行，其中Space Syntax、Spacematrix以及Landscape Matrices具有可以快速大量探討都市形態特徵的能力因而被採納。前述所提到的四項都市形態特徵將以此為基礎進行分析，而運用這些特徵所得到的量化指標將會被互相比較討論進而指認不同的都市形態。
總結來說，本研究發現不同的規劃願景與方法的確造就了不同的都市型態特徵，而在本研究的研究地區台中市中，這些特徵是很清楚地可以透過量化後之指標進行指認。這些指標或許不能完全的指認精準的都市形態，但已經足以去辨別都市形態的異同。再者，透過此一比較，可以很清楚地指認出不同時期的台中市都市形態特徵的差異以及其發展模式。

City has always been shaped by driven forces. The driven forces not only build up various kinds of cities, but also create a great deal of urban issues. Therefore, intentions to change and shape a better city have emerged. Coming with new methods and tools invented, intentions from governments and planners try to solve urban problems. It is obvious that different intentions and planning method would create different urban form, which is composed by four basic urban morphological factors: street, block, plot and building; and it is also important to recognize and identify their existence, because urban development is a continuous process, and city is an accumulation of past. Thus, by better understanding the composition of urban form, more advanced plans not only for new development, but also for conservation and regeneration could be proposed.
To answer and solve this situation, urban morphology is frequently referred. However, in the history of development of urban morphology, we can find that quantitative methods have not been applied synchronously. With the emergence of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and growing capability of personal computer, now researchers can not only record features of sequence of urban forms, but also establish connections with quantitative data, which allow urban forms to be studied and analyzed with the socio-economic driven forces.
This research tries to find out what kinds of urban form has been created by different intentions and tools. Dissecting the urban form into the four basic morphological elements to discuss their features and differentiation between them. Moreover, the quantitative methods and GIS are surely adopted, Space Syntax, Spacematrix and Landscape metrics, because of the potential to explore the urban form in a wide area rapidly and efficiently. The representative parameters of urban form would be selected and calculated, and patterns development would be identified based on the comparison of these parameters.
The findings of this research show that intentions and planning methods truly cause lots of influence on the characteristics of urban form, and within Taichung city, they are recognizable by examining the parameters selected to represent the urban form. These parameters may not completely interpret the natures of urban form, but it is distinguishable to identify the similarity and diversity as studying a city. Also the characteristics of urban form in different periods of Taichung are identified, as well as the urban development patterns.

Alper, S. (2009). Quantitative analysis of urban morphology: Exploring ethnic urban formations and structure in the city of İzmir.
Beirão, J. N., & Duarte, J. P. (2005). Urban Grammars: Towards Flexible Urban Design. In Digital Design: The Quest for New Paradigms: 23rd eCAADe Conference Proceedings, 491-500
Beirão, J. N., & Duarte, J. P. (2009). Urban Design with Patterns and Shape Rules. In Model Town, Using Urban Simulation in New Town Planning. Egbert Stolk and Marco te Brömmelstroet. SUN, Amsterdam.
Berghauser-Pont, I., & Haupt, P. (2007). The Spacemate: density and the typomorphology of the urban fabric. Urbanism laboratory for cities and regions: progress of research issues in urbanism.
Berghauser Pont, M., & Haupt, P. (2010). Spacematrix: Space, density and urban form. Rotterdam: Nai Publishers.
Rowe C., & Prof Fred Koetter (1984). Collage City. The MIT Press.
Cataldi, G., Maffei, G. L., & Vaccaro, P. (2002). Saverio Muratori and the Italian school of planning typology. Urban Morphology, 6(1), 3-14.
Conzen M. R. G. (1960). Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Cowan, S. E. (2010). Democracy, Technocracy and Publicity: Public Consultation and British Planning, 1939-1951.” Dissertation of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture, University of California, Berkeley.
David G. S. (2011). Urban Design Since 1945: A Global Perspective. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hall, P. (1988). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Blackwell Publishing.
Hillier, B. & J. Hanson (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: fabric construction theory. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Hofmeister, B. (2004). The study of urban form in Germany. Urban Morphology, 8(1), 3-12.
Moudon, A. V. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban morphology, 1(1), 3-10.
Nigel Taylor. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. Sage.
Pesaresi, M., & Bianchin, A. (2001). Recognizing settlement structure using mathematical morphology and image texture. In J.-P. Donnay, M. Barnsley, & P. Longley (Eds.), Remote sensing and urban analysis (pp. 55–67). London: Taylor & Francis.
Pont, M. B., & Haupt, P. A. (2004). The Spacemate. The spatial logic of urban density, Delft: DUP Science.
Rowe, C., & Koetter, F. (1983). Collage city. Mit press.
Sabri ALPER. (2009). Quantitative analysis of urban morphology: exploring ethnic urban formations and structure in the city of Izmir. A thesis submitted to the graduate school of engineering and sciences of Izmir Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PH.D. in City Planning.
Taylor N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. SAGE Publications.
Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space: theories of urban design. John Wiley & Sons.
Whitehand, J. W. (2001). British urban morphology: the Conzenion tradition. Urban Morphology, 5(2), 103-109.
Whitehand, J. W. (2007, June). Conzenian urban morphology and urban landscapes. In 6th International Space Syntax Symposium.Yang T. (2004). MORPHOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE OLD CITY OF BEIJING AFTER 1949.
Whitehand, J. W. R., & Gu, K. (2010). Conserving urban landscape heritage: A geographical approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6948-6953.
Whitehand, J. W. R., Gu, K., Whitehand, S. M., & Zhang, J. (2011). Urban morphology and conservation in China. Cities, 28(2), 171-185.
Van Nes, A., Berghauser Pont, M., & Mashhoodi, B. (2012, January). Combination of Space syntax with spacematrix and the mixed use index: The Rotterdam South test case. In 8th International Space Syntax Symposium, Santiago de Chile, Jan. 3-6, 2012. PUC, Santiago, Chili.
Yoshida, H., & Omae, M. (2005). An approach for analysis of urban morphology: methods to derive morphological properties of city blocks by using an urban landscape model and their interpretations. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(2), 223-247
王貞穎. (2010). 探討聚落空間形態在都市規劃過程之演變-以永康鹽行地區舊聚落為例. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-96.
李瑞陽, & 林士強. (2006). 利用空間技術與景觀生態指數分析墾丁國家公園土地覆蓋變遷影響之研究. JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHICAL SCIENCE, 46, 31-48.
李嘉祥. (2006). 鄭荷勢力在台灣消長之研究. 成功大學歷史學系學位論文, 1-78.
李琦華、林峰田(2007). 臺灣聚落的空間型構法則分析. 中華民國建築學會「建築學報」第60期, 27-45.
李盈潔. (2008). 景觀指數在都市土地使用變遷上的分析應用. 黎明學報20期, 71-81
呂宗盈, & 林建元. (2002). 由制度面探討台灣土地使用管理制度變遷之研究. 建築與規劃學報, 3(2), 136-158.
谷凱. (2001). 城市形态的理论与方法—探索全面与理性的研究框架. 《城市规划》. 2001年,第12期.
林人偉. (2011). 臺灣, 美國, 日本土地使用分區管制制度架構與歷史演進之比較研究. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-112.
林子瑜. (1973). 臺灣之都市計畫與區域計畫. 《台銀季刊》, 第24卷, 第3期, 30-41.
徐若書. (2004). 皇民化運動之研究－以對台灣文化之影響為中心. 輔仁大學日本語文學系碩士論文.
許銘峰. (2008). 台灣地區都市型態特徵之比較研究. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-103.
張逸民. (2009). 計畫管制與實際開發的都市形態差異—從高雄市內惟埤文化園區特定區內住宅開發商運作邏輯的角度. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-120.
張剛維. (2007). 土地使用分區管制制度之執行與制度變遷--財產權觀點之分析. 政治大學地政研究所博士學位論文.
张蕾. (2010). 国外城市形态学研究及其启示. 人文地理, (3), 90-95.
陳文亮, &王惠君. (2003) 道路交通建構與都市發展互動關係之研究─以台中市為例. 2003-10-20都市計畫學會研討會.
陳明竺. 2009. 城市設計理念演化的「思」與「變」. 經濟前瞻124期, 106-115.
陳君宜. (2007). 都市閱讀與書寫-好的都市形態探討. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-97.
黃世孟. (1987). 日據時期台灣都市計畫範型之研究. 台北: 台灣大學土木工程所都市計畫研究室.
黃世孟. (1988). 台北都市計畫史年表. 台北市：遠流出版公司.
黃世孟. (1993). 日治時期臺灣都市發展及史料分析. 台北市：自立晚報社.
曾健瑋. (2010). 以空間形構法則探討台南市街道路網結構變遷之研究. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-103.
鄔建國. (2003). 景觀生態學: 格局, 過程, 尺度與等級. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
賴宗裕、邱品方，2005，市地重劃實施過程中衝突化解之研究，碩士論文，國立政治大學地政研究所
鄭欽方. (2005). 清代至日治昭和中期 (1684~ 1937) 臺灣地方城市文脈變遷之研究. 中原大學建築學系學位論文, 1-179
劉克智, & 董安琪. (2003). 台灣都市發展的演進―歷史的回顧與展望. 台北, 台灣: 人口學刊.
劉兆庭. (2010). 從都市形態角度下探討舊市中心更新單元劃設之研究-以高雄市鹽埕區為例. 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文, 1-162.