ABSTRACT
One possible explanation is institutional in nature. However, unravelling how this works
exactly (i.e. how institutions actually affect urban development) is a complex endeavour.
This article aims to clarify the mechanisms through which institutional environments influ-
ence urban form. It aims to bridge the gap between the discussions on planning traditions
(CEC, 1997), planning systems (Nadin & Stead, 2008, 2012) and planning cultures
(Sanyal, 2005; De Vries, 2008; Knieling &Othengrafen, 2009) on the one hand, and empirical
research into specific spatial developments and the driving forces behind these, on the other
(Conzen, 1960; Terhorst & Van de Ven, 1997; Blomley, 2004; Buitelaar & Segeren,
2011). It does so by presenting a comparison of national institutions that affect local practices
of urban development and their morphological outcome, more specifically the urban mor-
phology of residential areas in the Netherlands, Flanders and the German state of North
Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). By comparing these territories, the article examines whether and
how “differences in institutional environments contribute to differences in the urban mor-
phology of residential areas”. The nation-state is the focus of institutional analysis in the Neth-
erlands whereas the main focus of analysis in NRW and Flanders (both part of federal states) is
the “Land and Gewest”, respectively. The approach taken in this article is that the institutional
environment not only concerns the system of planning (defined as “the ensemble of territorial
governance arrangements that seek to shape patterns of spatial development in particular
places” by Nadin & Stead, 2008, p. 35) but also the housing system (Kemeny, 2001;
Haffner et al., 2009) and the system of property rights (Hong & Needham, 2007).
