//A H

h I

Design of Urban Space

An Inquiry into a Socio-spatial Process

University Newcastle

of Newcastle, upon Tyne, UK

JOHN WILEY & SONS

Chichester New York Brisbar)e Toronto Singapore

Copyright 1996 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex P 0 1 9 lUD, England National 01243 779777 International ( + 44) 1243 779777 e-mail (for orders and customer service enquiries); cs-books@wiley.co.uk Visit our Home Page on http://www.wiley.co.uk or http:/ /www.wiley.com All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a hcence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W I P 9HE, UK, without the permission in writing of the publisher.

Contents
Introduction PART O N E Chapter 1 PERSPECTIVES INTO U R B A N SPACE Understanding Urban Space D i l e m m a s o f space A b s o l u t e a n d relational s p a c e Space and mass P h y s i c a l a n d social s p a c e M e n t a l a n d real space A b s t r a c t a n d differential s p a c e S p a c e a n d time Space and place S p a c e a n d specialization Conclusion 4 4 7 10 12 16 20 23 26 28

Other Wiley Editorial

Offices

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012, USA Jacaranda Wiley Ltd, 33 Park Road, Milton, Queensland 4064, Australia John Wiley & Sons (Canada) Ltd, 22 Worcester Road, Rexdale, Ontario M9W I L l , Canada John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clement! Loop #02-01, Jin Xing Distripark, Singapore 129809

Library of Congress Cataloging~in-Publication

Data Chapter 2 Structural Frameworks of Urban Space Socio-spatial geometries of u r b a n space Natural space Created space U r b a n f o r m and historical processes T h e city as a w o r k of art T h e city as a n e m b o d i m e n t of functions E c o l o g y o f u r b a n structure T h e internal structure of the city Urban morphology Political e c o n o m y of u r b a n structure Conclusion 31 31 35 38 39 43 45 48 49 53 56 60

Madanipour, Ali Design of Urban Space: an inquiry into a socio-spatial process / Aii Madanipour p, cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-471-96672-X (cloth).~ISBN 0-471-96573-8 (pbk). 1. Space (Architecture). 2. City planningHistory20th century. 3. Architecture and societyHistory20th century. I. Title. NA9053.S6M33 1996 7ir,4dc20 96-21431 CIP

British Library Cataloguing in Publication

Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0-471-96672-X (cloth) ISBN 0-471-96673-8 (paper) Typeset in 10/12pt Palatino from the author's disks by Mackreth Media Services, Hemel Hempstead, Herts Printed and bound in Great Britian by Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd. This book is printed on acid-free paper responsibly manufactured from sustainable forestation, for which at least two trees arc planted for each one used for paper production. Chapter 3

People in the City E n v i r o n m e n t a l cognition A b e h a v i o u r a l a p p r o a c h to s p a c e Mapping urban images

63 63 65 66

Contents

Contents

vii

Meaning and u r b a n semiotics Perspective of everyday life Order and difference in urban space City of strangers Fear and c r i m e in urban space W o m e n in urban space Conclusion PART T W O Chapter 4 THE MAKING OF URBAN SPACE U r b a n D e s i g n Process W h a t is urban design? Ambiguities o f urban design Macro- or micro-scale urban design? Urban design as visual or spatial m a n a g e m e n t ? Urban design as nice images Urban design as the aesthetics of the urban environment Urban design as social or spatial management? Process or product? Professional divide A public or private sector activity? Objective-rational or subjective-irrational? Urban design as a technical process Urban design as a social process Urban design as a creative process Conclusion Chapter 5 Production of t h e Built E n v i r o n m e n t Urban design and the d e v e l o p m e n t process M o d e l s of the development process S u p p l y - d e m a n d models Equilibrium models Event-sequence models A g e n c y models Political e c o n o m y models C a p i t a l - l a b o u r models S t r u c t u r e - a g e n c y models Use value and exchange value Structures and agencies U r b a n development process and urban form A m o d e l of the development process Impact of c h a n g e in the d e v e l o p m e n t process on urban space Commodification of space a n d standardization of design Globalization of the d e v e l o p m e n t industry Privatization of public s p a c e W h a t is p u b h c space?

69 73 75 78 80 83 87

Public s p h e r e theories Public s p a c e in a s h o p p i n g mall? Conclusion Chapter 6 R e g u l a t i n g U r b a n Form T h e state, the market and s p a c e production Planning a n d design Design control Design control or aesthetic control? Does aesthetics matter? Aesthetic judgement: subjective or objective? W h o sets the aesthetic s t a n d a r d s ? G o o d urban form Planning d o c u m e n t s and design G o v e r n m e n t advice D e v e l o p m e n t plans Design guides Design briefs Other experiences of design control Conclusion Chapter 7 Images of Perfection Utopia Urban context Urbanism of the metropolitan paradigm Modernist urban design Post-modern urbanism Anti-urban paradigm Suburbanism Planned anti-urbanism Socialist anti-urbanism Broadacre City Micro-urbanism of the s m a l l town paradigm Garden cities N e i g h b o u r h o o d unit Radburn Planned decentralization of London British n e w towns New Urbanism Conclusion D e s i g n of U r b a n S p a c e

148 150 153 155 155 158 160 161 163 165 167 169 171 172 172 174 175 177 181 183 185 186 188 188 192 196 197 200 200 201 201 202 204 205 206 206 209 213 215 223 237

91 91 92 94 97 97 99 102 104 107 109 110 113 113 115 117 119 119 122 . 123 123 124 126 127 127 128 130 132 135 136 137 137 141 144 146

Chapter 8 Bibliography Index

H o w d o w e m a k e sense of a city w h e n w a l k i n g a l o n g a n y of its streets, thinking about the complexity of w h a t w e see b e f o r e our e y e s and w o n d e r i n g about that which lies behind the facades of the b u i l d i n g s and b e y o n d the b e n d of the street? H o w do w e read and interpret the tangle of o v e r l a p p i n g and intertwined stories that this collection of people, objects and e v e n t s offers? A s w e walk d o w n w h a t seems to be an endless labyrinth, we m a y w o n d e r a b o u t c h a n g e in this u r b a n scene. We m a y be conscious of a constant t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of this landscape, or rather cityscape, around us, a m u t a t i o n that w e h a v e c o m e to associate with livelihood. Without m o v e m e n t and c h a n g e , w e h a v e learnt, there is no life. If this change seems so essential, h o w d o w e u n d e r s t a n d it and h o w d o w e relate it to the urban society and u r b a n space? W h a t kind of c h a n g e is inevitable and what kind of change do w e w a n t to h a p p e n ? If there are c h a n g e s that w e prefer to take place, how do w e p r o m o t e and a c h i e v e t h e m ? H o w d o w e relate to others and to c h a n g e s they want to see h a p p e n ? Is it possible, o r desirable, to shape and reshape this apparently a m o r p h o u s c o m p l e x i t y a m i d the diversity of interests and preferences? W h a t d o w e d o to prescribe c h a n g e and to i m p l e m e n t it? W h a t kinds of processes can transform the urban e n v i r o n m e n t ? W h a t are the nature and scope of the design of the built e n v i r o n m e n t ? In this book, I set out to understand u r b a n design and the space it helps to shape. As I will show, there is a need to look at space, as a c o m b i n a t i o n of people and objects, from a variety of interconnected perspectives. I will a r g u e that this space is best understood in the process of its creation, a n d that political, economic and symbolic factors closely interact in s u c h a process. T h e interdisciplinary activity of urban design is an important constituent part of this creation. T o understand urban design we will need to u n d e r s t a n d the u r b a n space and the processes that produce it. This b o o k is an attempt to delineate the subject areas of u r b a n design in response to three interlinked d e m a n d s . First, there is a d e g r e e of a m b i g u i t y and uncertainty about the nature and s c o p e of urban d e s i g n . Its interdisciplinary nature has led to a lack of clarity in its relationship to u r b a n p l a n n i n g , architecture and landscape design, among a n u m b e r of disciplines that are i n v o l v e d in the design and development of urban space. Second, there is a g r o w t h of interest in u r b a n design. A s widely reflected in professional journals, u r b a n design has i n c r e a s i n g l y b e e n seen by architects, landscape architects, and planners as an i m p o r t a n t a n d exciting area for personal

Introduction

Introduction

xi

and professional development. Despite the s l o w - d o w n in p r o p e r t y development, i interest in urban design h a s g r o w n , p a r t l y d u e to a rising awareness of \ environmental issues and concern for the q u a l i t y of urban e x p e r i e n c e , especially as j widely publicized debates about u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t s h a v e attracted public | attention. T h e launch of n e w p o s t g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m m e s in universities and of n e w j urban design journals are indications of this g r o w i n g attention. Yet there is a dearth ' of published material on the subject. T o u n d e r s t a n d the n a t u r e of urban design, I there is an increasing and u r g e n t d e m a n d for m o r e analysis and d e b a t e . Third, and directly linked to the other t w o , there is a d e m a n d for research in ' urban design. A s a practical subject matter, w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h related a c a d e m i c | fields, urban design has not been sufficiently s u p p o r t e d b y research. As a re- ; emerging enterprise, h o w e v e r , it requires a research a g e n d a to be established, ; which w o u l d provide it w i t h the m u c h - n e e d e d conceptual s u p p o r t . This study is meant to offer a platform that will contribute to this agenda a n d h e l p to identify the [ possibilities of further research. T h e task is being u n d e r t a k e n to b r i d g e a g a p that exists in the approaches to ; urban design. T h e existing literature is m o s t l y written w i t h i n the architectural traditions and frames of reference, h e n c e a p p r o a c h i n g n o r m a t i v e l y the physical dimensions of the built e n v i r o n m e n t . T h i s h a s clearly led to a lack of mutual ; understanding between those e n g a g e d in social d i m e n s i o n s of space, i.e. planners, i urban geographers and u r b a n sociologists a s well as u r b a n designers. T h e b o o k ; .^ntends to address both physical and social d i m e n s i o n s of the built environment in I an integrated way. T h e r e f o r e , it targets all g r o u p s w h o are involved in the ! relationship between society and space. T h e a i m is to p r o v i d e information a n d insight into the dynamics of the design a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of u r b a n space, without ' claiming to offer a c o m p r e h e n s i v e treatment o f the subject b u t w i t h a hope to offer : coherent perspectives and platforms for d e b a t e . A b o o k on urban design can be written in several \vays. O n e approach is to see '] urban design as a technical process, b r i n g i n g together the scientific information ; needed in this process. Information about r o a d s t a n d a r d s , o p e n s p a c e requirements, ' trees and plants in the u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t , lighting, infrastructure, patterns of access, m o d e s of transport, pedestrianization s c h e m e s , for e x a m p l e , is needed in the ; design of urban areas. A n u r b a n design b o o k could a s s e m b l e this information or ; concentrate on any o n e of these areas. T h i s is a valuable approach that has generated an abundance of material, in the f o r m o f design m a n u a l s and standards : or in the form of engineering research a n d expertise. B y following this route, ; practical solutions for s o m e urban p r o b l e m s can b e sought. H o w e v e r , it does not ] lead to an understanding o f the nature a n d s c o p e of the process in which this technical k n o w l e d g e is e m p l o y e d , nor to an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of its product. A n o t h e r approach is to see urban design a s a creative process. This approach, ' which has b e e n widely u s e d in architectural writing, brings together a collection of \ examples of urban space, w h e r e design h a s b e e n considered successful, and d r a w s \ conclusions in the form of design principles. This n o r m a t i v e approach has a i number of advantages, as it tends to record a n d to p r o v i d e a store of good e x a m p l e s ; for designers. The selection of e x a m p l e s a n d principles takes place on the basis of ' the accumulated w i s d o m of previous a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y generations, to b e ; interpreted through the a u t h o r s ' e x p e r i e n c e a n d k n o w l e d g e , and put forward f o r :

new interpretation and application in new circumstances. T h e approach concentrates on models, and on finding themes on which variations can be m a d e . One difficulty with this approach is that the outcome can b e personal and descriptive, rather than analytical and exploratory. A n o t h e r difficulty is its relationship with social practices within urban space. It tends to a s s u m e that m a n y aspects of human understanding and behaviour are relatively timeless; the examples are collected from throughout history, and fail to address the c h a n g e s in socially constructed forms of behaviour and environment, which vary with time and place. This prescriptive concern, therefore, needs to be supported b y an analytical one, a better understanding of the context for w h i c h norms are being proposed, and of the nature of the process in which urban space is m a d e and transformed. A third alternative, which I have adopted in this book, is to see urban design as a socio-spatial process. It is in this arena, I have found, that the nature of urban design can be explored. As it is rooted in political, economic and cultural processes and involves a n u m b e r of agencies interacting with socio-spatial structures, urban design can only be understood in its socio-spatial context. F r o m this perspective, the technical, creative and social elements of urban design all come together to provide insight into this complex process and its products. In m y analysis of urban design and space, I have used the term "urban s p a c e " not merely to refer to the spaces between buildings, i.e. v o i d s as distinctive from corporeal mass: I have used the term in a broad sense, to encompass all the buildings, objects and spaces in an urban environment, as well as the people, events and relationships within them. In this analysis, I have f o u n d a n u m b e r of key concepts useful: the necessity of a broad approach to urban design (Lynch, 1981), of seeing urban space as the space of urban regions rather than city centres (Charter of Athens, 1933, cited in Sert, 1944), and through many architectural historians, seeing urban space in a historical context. Analyses of the treatment of space as a c o m m o d i t y , the notions of social space and production of space (Lefebvre,1991), the relationship between political economy analysis and e v e r y d a y life perspectives (Habermas, 1987; Lefebvre, 1991) and between structures and agencies in social processes (Giddens,1984) have provided powerful insights into urban space and its transformation. The same is true of the notion of how different forms of use, and user expectations, can create conflicts of interest in the production, exchange and use of the built environment (Logan & Molotch,1987). I start by studying urban space, as the context in which urban design takes place and as the potential product of the design process. This is the subject of Part O n e , complemented b y Part T w o , which looks at the urban design process itself. Part O n e analyses the ways in which we look at cities and our perceptions and understanding of them. The key word here is our knowledge of cities: our descriptive and analytical approaches to the city, which form the basis of our ways of designing the-urban space. It is subdivided into three chapters. Chapter 1 looks for a meaning of u r b a n space, searching for a concept that is not confined within disciplinary boundaries. It examines the dilemmas and gaps in our understanding of space, and suggests overcoming the dilemmas and bridging the gaps by concentrating on the process of creating urban space. Chapter 2 looks at how urban space is structured. T w o main approaches to the geometry of urban space are identified: o n e that

xii

Introduction

concentrates on the city as an artefact and another that sees a city as spatial relationships. These are, however, perspectives to study the city from above, detached and objective. Chapter 3 offers another perspective, from below, looking at everyday life. Here the issues of meaning, behaviour and difference are discussed, as exemplified by the experiences of strangers and w o m e n in urban space. Together these three chapters offer an understanding of urban space as a socio-spatial entity that needs to be studied both objectively and subjectively, at the intersection of space production and everyday life. Part T w o concentrates on the urban design process as a constituent part of urban space production. Following the study of our knowledge of urban space in Part One, Part T w o is devoted to the ways in which urban space is shaped and produced. T h e key word here is the action that is taken in the urban design process: the prescriptive approach to the creation of future urban space. Part T w o is subdivided into four chapters. Chapter 4 tries to confront ambiguities in the scope of urban design and to find a definition for it. Chapter 5 looks at the relationship between urban design and the urban development process. A model of the development process is proposed, and the changing nature of development agencies and their impacts on urban space are examined. S o m e of these impacts, such as the standardization of design and the privatization of space, are then briefly discussed. Chapter 6 focuses on the relationship between urban design and the planning system. It evaluates the question of design and aesthetic control, and reviews the means by which the planning system, mainly in Britain, deals with design. After examining economic and political contexts of urban design, w e turn our attention to the images and ideas used to shape urban space. Chapter 7 discusses Utopias as a strong influence on urban design thinking. It identifies three main trends in twentieth century urban design: urbanism, anti-urbanism, and micro-urbanism. In urbanism, with its modernist or post-modernist tendencies, the focus of attention is on shaping and reshaping urban space. In anti-urbanism, the intention is to abandon urban areas and to colonize the countryside. Microurbanism, as exemplified in the British new towns or the American N e w Urbanism, has confronted and combined both urbanist and anti-urbanist tendencies. Chapter 8 brings the various elements together and offers s o m e conclusions.

PART OlUE
Perspectives into Urban Space

CHAPTER 1

Understanding Urban Space

The t h r e e c h a p t e r s in this part concentrate on understanding urban space as an a g g l o m e r a t i o n of p e o p l e , objects and events. In this chapter, the concepts of space and their relationship w i t h urban design will be explored. In Chapter 2, w e will look at h o w this u r b a n space is structured. Chapter 3 then focuses on the people within t h e s e structures and on h o w understanding urban space will not be complete w i t h o u t l o o k i n g at it from b e l o w , as well as from above. Together, these three c h a p t e r s offer an insight into urban space. Part 2 will follow this u n d e r s t a n d i n g b y analysing urban design as one of the processes that produce this urban s p a c e . This c h a p t e r will focus o n space as the m a i n subject matter of urban design and a n u m b e r o f other disciplines and professions. It will explore some of the main a p p r o a c h e s to, a n d the d i l e m m a s associated with, the concept of space. At the risk of o v e r s i m p l i f y i n g c o m p l e x concepts in the limited space of a chapter, 1 will search for a m e a n i n g of space, w h i c h can be u s e d in urban design and can be shared with other spatial arts and sciences. This chapter will look at the way various disciplines involved in the s t u d y a n d transformation of space tend to understand it. Disciplines such as g e o g r a p h y , planning and architecture, whose primary concern is with space, h a v e d e v e l o p e d concepts of space from different, but inevitably interrelated, perspectives. In their theorizations, they have often benefited from debates in p h i l o s o p h y , p s y c h o l o g y , sociology, m a t h e m a t i c s and physics, to name a few. These perspectives v a r y w i d e l y , including seeing space as a physical phenomenon, a condition of m i n d , or a product of social p r o c e s s ^ A brief review of some of these conceptualizations will serve us in a variety of ways. It will offer an awareness of the d i m e n s i o n s of space, with keys to a better understanding of the debates about space w i t h i n different disciplines. This will help us to position ourselves and to find our w a y in u n d e r s t a n d i n g the intricate m a z e of urban space and the discussions about it. T h e s e a r c h for a m e a n i n g of space is a necessary step to take as it is crucial that before m o v i n g into the normative realm of design, w e explore the realm of the descripti\'e and analytical, in other w o r d s , to understand urban space before attempting to t r a n s f o r m it. T h e highly prescriptive and practical nature of design requires a set of i n f o r m a t i o n to be a s s e m b l e d , often too quickly due to time limits.

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

and be e m p l o y e d in a solution-finding exercise. Far too m a n y such exercises take place on the basis of a s s u m p t i o n s that are in need of a critical evaluation and a more i n f o r m e d approach to the existing urban space. This is therefore an urgent task, despite theoretical and practical problems inherent in the relationship between k n o w l e d g e a n d action, especially in an a r e n a as complex as urban space, in a process as so often mystified and potentially controversial as design. A s w e quickly find out b y a brief look at s o m e of these conceptualizations of space, there is a multiplicity of gaps and fragmentations in understanding space. T h e s e c o n c e p t s are d o m i n a t e d b y dilemmas a n d conflict of perspectives, conveying the impression that space is contested in almost every sense. A framework with w h i c h to confront these divides and to b r i d g e some of these gaps will be put f o r w a r d , with the aim of m o v i n g towards a m o r e coherent understanding of space. It is only with such understanding that urban design as an interdisciplinary activity can p r o m o t e a c o m m o n discourse between fragmented circles of professions and disciplines (Madanipour, 1996).

of absolute space w a s d e v e l o p e d b y Isaac N e w t o n , w h o s a w space (and time) as real things, as "places as well of t h e m s e l v e s as of all other t h i n g s " (quoted in Speake,1979: 308). S p a c e and time w e r e "containers of infinite extension or duration". Within t h e m , the whole succession of natural events in the w o r l d find a definite position. T h e m o v e m e n t or r e p o s e of things, therefore, w a s really taking place and was not a m a t t e r of their relations to c h a n g e s of other objects (Speake,1979; 309). B e f o r e N e w t o n , Aristotle had described space as the container of all objects (Wiener,1975; 297). T h e ancient Greeks, h o w e v e r , did not create a space of logical, ontological or psychological perceptions. N e i t h e r did they develop a general conception of space for geometry and geometrically oriented analysis, as they c o n c e n t r a t e d on s p a c e in cosmology, p h y s i c s a n d theology (Bochner,1973). The relationist theories w e r e developed as a critique of the concept of absolute space. T h e first major opposition was that of y ? i b n i z , ^ w h o J i e l d J l i a t space_merety consisjgd in relations b e t w e e n non-spatial, mental items (Speake,1979: Smart,1988). Leibniz s a w space as " t h e order of coexisting things, or the order of existence for all things that are c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s " (quoted in Bochner,1973: 297). Another major opposition was that of Kant, w h o s a w space as belonging to the subjective constitution of the m i n d a n d not arT empirical conce^pt d e n v e d T r b m outward__ experiences (1993] 48--68). W e can s p e a l T o f space only from t h e " h u m a n point of view. Beyond our subjective condition, " t h e representation of space has no meaning whatsoever", as it " d o e s not represent any property of objects as things in themselves, nor does it represent them in their relations to each o t h e r " (1993: 52). Space (and time) " c a n n o t exist in themselves, but only in u s " (1993: 61). From this viewpoint, therefore, " w h a t we call o u t w a r d objects, are nothing else but mere representations of our sensibility, w h o s e form is s p a c e " (1993: 54). Whatever the nature of objects as things in themselves, our understanding is confined to our own mode of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us. Other relationists have tried to preserve the reality of space (and time) b y asserting that they are merely relations between physical objects and events and that, therefore, "the container is not logically distinct from the things it is said to contain" (Speake,1979:309). T h e theories of relativity and relationist theories of space are both opposed to the Newtonian concept of absolute space, but, as Smart (1988) argues, it is important to distinguish them from each other. He believes that some have been misled into thinking that the theory of relativity supports a relational theory, as the special theory of relativity maintains that lengths and periods of time are relative to frames of reference. On the contrary, both special and general theories of relativity appear to be perfectly c o m p a t i b l e with an absolute theory of space-time. Yet Albert Einstein (1954: xiii-xv) gives us another impression. Ho contrasts the two concepts of relational and absolute space as, " s p a c e as positional quality of the world of material objects" versus " s p a c e as container of all material objects" (Figure 1.1). The former meaning, h e maintains, is rooted in the concept of place, which w a s older and easier to grasp: material objects have a place in the world, i.e. a small portion of the earth's surface or a group of objects. T h e latter is a more abstract meaning, seeing space as "unlimited in extent", framing and containing all material objects, a concept that Einstein rejected on the basis of field theory and the concept of fourdimensional s p a c e - t i m e .

Dilemmas of space
W e frequently hear a b o u t " s p a c e " , a term that w e use easily and in a variety of contexts. W e use it as if the meaning of the term is free from any problems and contradictions, as if w e all agree what space m e a n s . Yet most would be surprised by the multiplicity of its m e a n i n g if we monitored our own usage of the term. The Oxford English Dictionary gives n o fewer than 19 meanings for the term, including a " c o n t i n u o u s expanse in w h i c h things exist a n d m o v e " , an " a m o u n t of this taken by a particular thing or available for particular p u r p o s e " , and an "interval between points or objects". T h e s e m e a n i n g s reflect s o m e aspects of the term's c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g as used in daily life. They also illustrate the complexity of the concept a n d refer to deeply rooted debates about it, which have been running for a long time.

Absolute and relational space

It m a y m a k e sense to start o u r search for approaches to space at the core of the social sciences. H o w e v e r , despite the signs of increasing attention (e.g. G i d d e n s , 1 9 8 4 ; Gottdicnor,1994), so far there has hardly been a strong interest in s p a c e b y sociologists. T h i s is clearly reflected in the absence of the term from most sociology reference b o o k s (Hoult,1969; Fairchild,1970; Mitchell,1979; Abercrombie, Hill & Turner,1984; B o u d o n & Bourricaud,1989; Marshall,1994). Perhaps sociologists have seen the concerns about space as metaphysical, as philosophers h a v e tended to do for a long time. Or perhaps it has been considered to belong to the realm of natural sciences, as shown in the theories of space in physics. Yet there is a strong link between the debates about space in philosophy and physics, where s p a c e h a s b e e n a long-standing concern (Jammer,1954). T h e philosophical d e b a t e s about space in the last three centuries have b e e n d o m i n a t e d b y a d i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n absolute versus relational theories. The theory

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

context that focuses on the characteristics of places, a s in the e a r l y travellers' descriptions of unfamiliar areas (Goodall,1987). We might ask ourselves whether the d i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n absolute a n d relational or relative space is a m e r e difference i n the w a y w e s e e t h i n g s , a d i f f e r e n c e w h i c h at best can be treated as various aspects of a pluralist u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the w o r l d , or at worst be left aside as a scholastic, metaphysical d e b a t e o n l y g o o d for armchair theorists. W e might compare the d e b a t e to two w a y s of d e s c r i b i n g the same phenomenon: a half-filled glass or a half-empty one. A f t e r all, it w a s A l b e r t Einstein (1954) himself w h o said that both concepts of s p a c e , " a r e free creations of the human imagination, means devised for easier c o m p r e h e n s i o n of o u r sense experiences". But w e are quickly r e m i n d e d that m a j o r b a t t l e s h a v e b e e n fought in natural sciences over the primacy of these two c o n c e p t s o f space. T h i s d e b a t e can be traced to see h o w it has been p o w e r f u l e n o u g h to i n s p i r e a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of our built environments.

Space and mass

The absence of the term space from the sociology r e f e r e n c e b o o k s m a y seem understandable, considering the a b s e n c e of interest in s p a c e o n t h e part of the sociologists. But its absence from architectural r e f e r e n c e b o o k s (Hat]'e,1963; Harris and Lever,1966, 1993; Y a r w o o d , 1 9 8 5 ; P e v s n e r , F l e m i n g & H o n o u r , 1 9 9 1 ; Sharp,1991; Curl,1992) is quite noticeable. T h e o n l y exception I c o u l d find w a s an old text, which defined space as "the area at the corner o f a t u r n i n g s t a i r " (Sturgis,1989, originally published in 1 9 0 1 - 2 ) . This s e e m s to b e s u r p r i s i n g in a discipline where space is considered b y m a n y of its distinguished m e m b e r s as its e s s e n c e (Zevi,1957; Giedion,1967; Tschumi,1990). O n e o b v i o u s explanation f o r such a d r a m a t i c absence could be that architects' conception and use of the t e r m space are so clear and universally accepted a m o n g them that n o need h a s b e e n felt to e x p l a i n a taken-forgranted term. This simple explanation, h o w e v e r , fades a w a y w h e n we learn that the term is relatively n e w , in the context of the long h i s t o r y of architecture, and that it has become a controversial concept in recent d e c a d e s . P e r h a p s it is not in the dictionaries and encyclopaedias that w e should e x p e c t to find a definition of the concept of space in architecture. Tschumi (1990:13) reminds us that there are two a p p r o a c h e s to defining space: the first is "to make space distinct", a n o r m a t i v e dimension in which art and architecture are concerned; the second is "to state the precise n a t u r e of s p a c e " , a descriptive dimension that is the concern of philosophy, m a t h e m a t i c s and physics. It is, of course, the enclosure of space, rather than space itself, w h i c h is the focus of attention. Bruno Zevi (1957) sees space as the essence of architecture: " T h e f a c a d e s a n d walls of a house, church or palace, no matter h o w beautiful they m a y b e , are only the container, the box formed by the walls; the content is the internal s p a c e " (1957: 24). This is a concept that is still widely accepted. A c c o r d i n g to Van der Laan (1983), for example, architectural space comes into being by t h e e r e c t i o n of two walls, creating a new s p a c e i n between them, which is separated from t h e natural space a r o u n d them. Zevi (1957) follows the s a m e definition for u r b a n s p a c e , w h e r e streets, squares, parks, playgrounds and gardens are all " v o i d s " that h a v e b e e n limited or defined to

F i g u r e 1.1.

Is space the container of all the objects we see or is it the positional quality of France)

these objects? {Cannes,

T h e distinctions in philosophy a n d physics between absolute a n d relationist theories can also be f o u n d in geography, even if not always specifically referred to (Clark,1985; Small & Witherick,1986). In geography, however, there is a tendency to u s e t h e term relative space for w h a t philosophy calls relational space, perhaps d u e to the influence of the theory of relativity. According to J. Blaut (1961), the absolute conceptions of space refer to "a distinct, physical and eminently real or empirical entity in itself". A generation later, these meanings are still echoed in the definition of the concept. For e x a m p l e , absolute space has been defined as "clearly distinct, real, and objective s p a c e " ( M a y h e w & Penny,1992). A b s o l u t e space, o r "contextual s p a c e " is "a dimension which focuses on the characteristics of things in terms of their concentration a n d dispersion". It is this aspect of space that can be traced back to the early map~inakers and their concern with precise measurement of locational relationships, continued in the contemporary geographer's interest in spatial analysis (Goodall,1987). In contrast, the relative conceptions refer to space as " m e r e l y a relation b e t w e e n events or an aspect of events, and thus b o u n d to time and process" (BIaut,1961). It is "perceived b y a person or society" ( M a y h e w & P e n n y , 1992). Relative, or " c r e a t e d " s p a c e is perceptual and socially produced, a

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

create a n _ e n c l o s e d j p a c e . _ " S i n c e e v e r y architectural v o l u m e , every structure of walls, constitutes a b o u n d a r y , a p a u s e in the continuity of space, it is clear that every building functions in the creation o f t w o kinds of space: its internal space, completely defined b y the building itself, and its external or urban space, defined b y that building and the others a r o u n d i t " (Zevi, 1957: 30) (Figure 1.2). In the creation of urban space, h o w e v e r , other objects are involved; objects that are not often identified as architecture, such as bridges, obelisks, fountains, triumphal arches, groups of frees, and the f a c a d e s of buildings. T h e central role that these objects play is the w a y t h e y enclose^ s p a c e and define it in n e w w a y s . For Zevi, therefore, the essence of architecture " d o e s not lie in the material limitation placed on spatial freedom, but in the w a y s p a c e is organized into meaningful form through this process of limitation" (quoted in Scruton,1979: 4 3 ) . T o define space in architecture, therefore, m e a n s " t o d e t e r m i n e b o u n d a r i e s " within " a uniformly extended material to be m o d e l l e d in v a r i o u s w a y s " (Tschumi,1990: 1 3 - 1 4 ) .

The concept of architectural space, as "something prexistent and u n l i m i t e d " , "a positive entity within ivhich the traditional categories of tectonic form and surface occurred" (Colquhoun, 1989: 225) was probably first formulated b y August Schmarsow at the end of the nineteenth century. Ever since this influential definition, which is strictly phenomenological and psychological, t h e ideas of continuity, transparency and indeterminacy have been given n e w values (Colquhoun,1989: 225). The emergence of the idea of space coincided w i t h the first m o v e m e n t of modernist architecture, art nouveau (Van de Ven,1993). T o the m o d e r n i s t s , the concept of space, the relations between interlocking spaces, b e c a m e accepted as the essence of architecture. Sigfried Giedion (1967) was o n e of the most influential advocates of m o d e r n i s m and of the concept of space as the essence of architecture. He identified three stages in the conception of space throughout the history of architecture. In the first stage, as exemplified in ancient Egypt, S u m e r and Greece, architectural space was created by the interplay of volumes, paying less attention to the interior space. In the second stage, which began in the middle of the R o m a n period, architectural space was synonymous with the hollowed-out space of the interior. The third stage started at the beginning of the twentieth century with the abolition of the single view of perspective, which brought about an optical revolution. T h e profound consequences of this development on our perception of the architectural and urban space were the appreciation of the " s p a c e - e m a n a t i n g qualities of free-standing buildings", and finding an affinity with the first, ancient stage of space conception (Giedion, 1967: Iv-lvi). This notion of " a n abstract undifferentiated space", however, c a m e u n d e r attack by the post-modern urban criticism (Colquhoun,1989: 225). Seeing space as "a uniformly extended 'material' that can be 'modelled' in different w a y s " was criticized as "naively realistic" (Norberg-Schulz,1971: 12). Critics s a w the limitless, abstract space as a main feature of the modernist city with its tendency to blow apart the perceptible urban space. It had become a habit of thought in the modern city to conceive buildings as "simple-shaped volumes, floating in a sea of ill-formed space" (Alexander et al.,1987; 67). The concept of space has been questioned since the 1970s by p o s t - m o d e r n i s t s , who have s h o w n a renewed interest in corporeal m a s s and its m e a n i n g s (Van de Ven,1993). This reflects the long-lasting dilemma b e t w e e n mass and v o i d , between empirical and conceptual, between real and abstract. It is a d i l e m m a b e t w e e n physical space, w h i c h can be understood immediately by the senses, a n d mental space, which n e e d s to be interpreted intellectually. A n example of this challenge to abstraction is Scruton (1979: 4 3 - 5 2 ) , w h o criticizes the concept of architectural space on the g r o u n d s that it fails to give an account of all that is interesting in buildings. In St P a u l ' s , for example, w e can speak a b o u t the " s p a t i a l " grandeur, but there are also "deliberate and impressive effects of light and s h a d e , of ornament, texture and m o u l d i n g " . Scruton b e h e y e s that the experience_ of architecture and its " s p a t i a l " eiects depends on significant details arid a r g u e s that the reduction of the effects to space is a misrepresentation of the entire n a t u r e of our experience. H e goes as far as suggesting that the concept of s p a c e " c a n b e eliminated from most critical writings which make use of it without any real detriment to their m e a n i n g " (Scruton, 1979: 4 8 ^ 9 ) . Despite these criticisms, the

F i g u r e 1.2. "Since every arcliitectural volume, every structure of walls, constitutes a boundary, a pause in the continuity of space, it is clear that every building functions in the creation of t w o kinds of space: its internal space, completely defined by the building itself, and its external or urban space, defined by that building and the others around it." (Zevi, 1957: 30). (Turin, Italy)

10

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

11

concept of space as the essence of architecture remains p o w e r f u l , and the question of the relationship b e t w e e n container and contained, b e t w e e n mass a n d s p a c e , an o p e n one. But what are we to think of this dilemma between m a s s and void in dealing with urban space? Is it not an exaggerated dichotomy in which no one wins? A s w e walk^ in the streets, d o we merely see the people, buildings, pavements, bridges, traffic lights, signs, etc., and their relationships? Or are we walking in a space that exists independent of these material objects? Does it not m a k e sense to say that in our walking in the street w e have both a spatial experience, in which enclosures are different from open spaces and streets are different from squares, and an experience of the material objects which shape or condition this space? W e could argue, then, that mass and void are interrelated and, in our experience, interdependent. After all, o u r interpretation of our environment draws upon o u r sensory impressions as well as our more formal abstractions. But is this experience sufficient to explain the c o m p l e x relationship between human beings, who are agents of transforming space, a n d space and the material objects within it, i.e. the relationship between social and physical space?

city as an epiphenomenon of social functions, resulting in a particular kind of urban space". In doing so, he takes side with the post-modern critics w h o tend to dissociate the physical and social space, by concentrating on the f o r m e r as " a n autonomous formal system" (Colquhoun, 1989: 224). T h e relationship between physical and social space, i.e. b e t w e e n form and function in modernist architectural language, has been one of the key t h e m e s of the post-modern challenge to modernism. The modernist formula, " f o r m follows function", related the social and physical space in a r a t i e r _ _ s i m p l i s t i c _ a n d d e t e r m i n i i t i c ' w a y (Figure 1.3). T h e post-modern' challenge, in contrast, has attempted to disengage this relationship and to concentrate on the physical space. However, neither the narrow linear way that social and physical spaces were combined in modernist architecture and planning, nor the political escapism associated with a post-modernist disregard of social space, can b e maintained in a socially concerned approach to urban environment. In the m e a n t i m e , the divorce between physical and social space has widened the gap between architecture and social sciences with their different conceptions of space.

Physical and social space

C o l q u h o u n (1989: 223) defines the term urban space in two senses: social space and^biult space. T h e social space is "the spatial implications of social institutions" a n d is studied b y sociologists and geographers. This is a viewpoint that tends to see the physical characteristics of the built environment a s " e p i p h e n o m e n a l " . T h e built space, on the other hand, focuses on the physical space, "its m o r p h o l o g y , the w a y it affects our perceptions, the way it is used, and the meanings it can elicit", w h i c h is the concern of architects. "This v i e w " , C o l q u h o u n maintains, "is subject to t w o a p p r o a c h e s t h a t which sees forms as independent of functions, a n d that w h i c h .sees functions as determining forms". It is in this interconnection of function and form that the latter perspective tends to approach that of the g e o g r a p h e r and sociologist. Unlike them, however, " t h e architect is a l w a y s finally interested in the forms, however these may be thought to be g e n e r a t e d " ( C o l q u h o u n , 1989: 224). A n example o f this interest in form is the work of R o b Krier (1979a), w h o begins with an attempt not to introduce new definitions of space but "to bring its original meaning back into currency" (1979a: 15), a meaning on which, to avoid value judgement, no aesthetic criteria are imposed. He therefore identifies urban space as the "external s p a c e " , "all types of space between buildings in towns and other localities". This is a purely physical space, which is "geometrically b o u n d e d by a variety of elevations". His analysis of urban space is therefore confined to a m o r p h o l o g y , enumerating the basic elements of urban space, street and square, and its basic forms, square, circle and triangle, with a number of possible variations and combinations. Colquhoun reasserts the conventional distinction between physical and social space by reliance on the role of social functions. H e criticizes the modernist tendency "to take a historicist and relativist view of architecture and to regard the
F i g u r e 1.3. The changing function of the buildings over time shows the complexity of the relationship between social and physical space. Designed and built for Fiat car production, Lingotto is now used for exhibitions and cultural events. {Turin, Italy)

12

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

13

M e n t a l and real space

Another manifestation of the debate between absokite and relational s p a c e is the one b e t w e e n mental a n d real s p a c e concepts. In this debate, real s p a c e , as understood through the senses, is differentiated from h u m a n b e i n g s ' intellectual interpretations of the world, which create a mental construct. A representation of the dilemma of mental versus real space is m a d e b y B e r n a r d

Tschumi (1990). Following the Surrealist author Georges Bataille, Tschumi concentrates on the relationship of concepts and experience in the n o r m a t i v e realm of architectural theory. He identifies this relationship as the main p a r a d o x of architecture. T h e conceptual approach is visualized b y a pyramid, " t h i s ultimate model of r e a s o n " (Figure 1.4). In order to state the nature of space, architecture becomes dematcrialized, a theoretical concern, in which the modernist avant-garde felt free to act. In this way, the "domination of idea over matter" is eiisured by a rational, theoretical approach to understanding and transforming space.

F i g u r e 1.5. Inside the labyrinth, our understanding of space is through immediate experience. We cannot have an overview of the space beyond. {Isfahan, Iran)

F i g u r e 1.4. A pyramid is an "ultimate model of reason", transforming space through a theoretical approach and a rational geometry. {Louvre Museum, Paris, France)

Against this theoretical approach, there is a sensory approach to space. From this perspective, our experience of space is "a sensuous event". This involves m o v e m e n t , a m o v e m e n t that creates "a kaleidoscope of changing impressions, of transitions b e t w e e n o n e spatial sensation and another" (Porter & G o o d m a n , 1 9 8 8 : 6).

14

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space t

15

Tschumi uses the i m a g e of a labyrinth to represent this experience of space from within (Figure 1.5). F r o m this viewpoint, "space is real, for it seems to affect my senses long before m y reason" (Tschumi,1990: 20). This view, that "seeing comes before w o r d s " , had b e e n known by Surrealists: " T h e child looks and recognizes before it can s p e a k " (Berger,1972: 7). This gap can b e traced in another sense in that, "It is seeing which establishes our place in the surrounding w o r l d " . Yet there is an unsettled relationship between what w e see and what w e know: "Each evening we see the sun set. W e know that the earth is turning a w a y from it. Yet the knowledge, the explanatioTv, n e v e r quite fits the s i g h t " (Berger, 1972). This gap between words and seeing, b e t w e e n reason and senses, was vividly portrayed by the Surrealist painter Magrite in his paintings such as The Key of Dreams. Within T s c h u m i ' s labyrinth, with its ambiguities and dark corners, we cannot have an overview of the space around us. T h e only w a y to relate to it is through immediate experience of space with the help of our senses, an empirical understanding of real space. Therefore, the paradox of architecture, according to Tschumi, is the "impossibility of questioning the nature of space and at the same time making or experiencing a real s p a c e " . It is a paradox between rationalist and empiricist approaches to space. A s he puts it, " W e cannot experience and think that we experience"; it then follows that, " t h e concept of space is not in s p a c e " (Tschumi, 1990: 27). The only w a y out of this d i l e m m a , he maintains, is to shift the concept of architecture t o w a r d s the building development process, as exemplified b y the work of Henri Lefebvre. In this way, the philosophical gap between ideal space, which is an outcome of mental processes, and real space, which is produced b y social praxis, can be bridged. S p a c e is created in a historical process that produces and conditions both ideal and real aspects of space. Yet Tschumi hesitates to go along this route to bridge the gap. Instead, he prefers to treat physical space and the events and functions within it separately. T h e r e is a disjimction between these two, between physical and social space, which he s e e m s eager to retain. A n interesting e x a m p l e of the relationship b e t w e e n mental and real space can b e found in architecture and film, t w o spatial arts w h o s e often asymmetrical relationship ( D e a r , 1 9 9 4 ) has been w i d e l y discussed (Vidler,1993; Toy,1994). What :5 generally held to link them is that, " T h e actual experience of architectural space by an observer w i t h i n that space h a s m a n y similarities to the v i e w e r ' s perception of a chosen s e q u e n c e within a f i l m " ( T o y , ! 9 9 4 : 7 ) . W h e r e a s the former invites the observer to participate in its spatial narration, the latter's narrator tells "spatial stories" ( 0 ' H e r l i h y , 1 9 9 4 : 9 0 ) . It is in this transition, f r o m m o v e m e n t in real space to m o v e m e n t in i m a g i n a r y space, that Eisenstein, writing in the late 1930s, identified architecture as the film's ancestor. H e m a p p e d the t w o contrasting p a t h s of the " s p a t i a l e y e " : the " c i n e m a t i c " , w h e r e there are "diverse impressions passing in front of an i m m o b i l e s p e c t a t o r " ; and the "architectural", where "the spectator m o v e d t h r o u g h a series of carefully d i s p o s e d p h e n o m e n a which he absorbed in o r d e r with his visual s e n s e " (quoted in Vidler,1993: 5 6 ) . It is this proximity that h a s inspired designers such as Jean Nouvel, for whom " A r c h i t e c t u r e exists, like c i n e m a , in the d i m e n s i o n s of time and m o v e m e n t . One conceives a n d r e a d s a b u i l d i n g in t e r m s of s e q u e n c e s . T o erect a building is to predict and seek effects of contrast and linkage through which one passes" (quoted in R a t t e n b u r y , 1 9 9 4 : 3 5 ) .

It appears that this perspective reduces both architectural and cinematic experiences to visual experiences, abandoning, in Rattenbury's words, "the last lingering attempt to explore the objective existentialism of the b u i l d i n g " (1994: 36). As Mallet-Stevens p u t it, "Real life is entirely different, the house is m a d e to live [in], it should first respond to our n e e d s " (quoted in Vidler,1993: 5 6 ) . It is important to p r e s e r v e the distance between the imaginary world of film (and by extension video a n d the cyberspace of computer i m a g e s ) , and the real space of architecture. This is in the face of the trend in which "buildings and their spatial sequences are d e s i g n e d more as illustrations of implied m o v e m e n t s , or worse, as literal fabrications of the c o m p u t e r ' s eye v i e w " (Vidler,1993: 56). H o w e v e r the gap between these t w o spatial arts, as D e a r (1994) argues, can be bridged through the socio-spatial dialectic that the spatial science of geography offers. T h i s can be achieved b y understanding the shared purpose of architecture and film, i.e. "to forge new t i m e - s p a c e relationships", and that they share in " d i s t a n c i n g " , i.e. the distance b e t w e e n the observer and the observed and between the author and the representation, a l l o w i n g the difference to be explored and recognized (Dear, 1994: 13-14). Sack (1980) a r g u e d , within a geographical frame of reference, that discussions about the duality between ideal and real space should be broadened to encompass the differences in our understanding of space. The meanings of space are differenj^ because our p e r c e p t i o n ^ a n d ^ s c r i p i i o n i a i i h e ] ^ ! ^ a m o n g things are~aifferent in different situati concepts of space, he sees both the absolute and relational aspects of space as its obje(rtTve~meanlngs, distinctive from subjective approaches to space. His broadened outlook includes the aesthetic, the child's view, the practical, the mythical-magical, and the societal views of space. T o explore the interrelationship of these conceptions, he relies on two sets of distinctions to build u p a general framework: distinction between objective and subjective and b e t w e e n substance and space. He then identifies two broad patterns: o n e in which these distinctions occur (sophisticated-fragmented) and one in w h i c h they are absent (unsophisticated-fused), signifying their differences in their different use of symbols. Soja (1989:123) is not convinced by Sack's approach to space, which he classifies as neo-Kantian, a n d criticizes it as divorced from materialized social realities. Soja identifies two c o n c e p t s of space: the first is the physical space of material nature, under which he (wrongly) classifies the classical debates about absolute versus relative theories (Soja, 1989: 120). T h e second concept (which is indeed the relational c o n c e p t ) is the mental space of cognition and representation, which includes the a t t e m p t s to explore the personal meaning and symboUc contents of mental m a p s and landscape i m a g e r y . He then, following Lefebvre, introduces a third concept of social space and a r g u e s that one of the most formidable challenges to c o n t e m p o r a r y social theory is to define the interconnections of these three spaces. Soja's analysis, similar to T s c h u m i ' s (1990) and partly Dear's (1994), draws upon the powerful analysis of social space by the philosopher Henri Lefebvre, whose work, as outlined in his major w o r k The Production of Space (1991), has influenced both modernist and post-modernist interpretations. While Lefebvre offers us ways of bridging the g a p between mental and real space, however, he introduces another

16

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

17

d i l e m m a : between differential and abstract s p a c ^ a dilemma that lies at the heart of the post-modernism versus modernism debate.

Abstract and differential space

Lefebvre's starting point is the gap between mental a n d real space. H e criticizes the trend in modern epistemology, and its predecessors in philosophical thought, w h i c h see space as a " m e n t a l thing" or a "mental p l a c e " . H e directs his criticism especially towards semiology, the systematic study of signs, which is " a n incomplete body of k n o w l e d g e " :
Wlien codes worked up from literary texts are applied to spacesto urban spaces, saywe remain, as may easily be sfiown, on the purely descriptive level. Any attempt to use such codes as means of deciphering social space must surely reduce that space itself to the status of a message, and the inhabiting of it to the status of a reading. This is to evade both history and practice."

(Lefebvre, 1991: 7) In its original context o f linguistics and literary theory, this criticism h a s been similarly raised against semiology, or semiotics, which coincides and overlaps with structuralism. F o r structuralists, as Eagleton (1983: 109) puts it, "there w a s no question of relating t h e w o r k to the realities of which it treated, or to the conditions w h i c h produced it, or to the actual readers w h o studied it, since the founding gesture of structuralism h a d been to bracket off such realities". Structuralism held that "Reality w a s not reflected b y language but produced b y i t " (1983: 108), a n d as such, it was "hair-raisingly unhistorical" (1983: 109). Lefebvre's a i m w a s to confront this shortcoming b y contextualizing semiology, on t h e o n e h a n d , a n d b y introducing subjectivity into the political a n d economic understanding, on the other: in other words, b y integrating mental space into its social a n d physical contexts. H e argues that these dimensions of spacemental, physical a n d socialshould not b e kept separate, and sets out to formulate a " u n i t a r y t h e o r y " of space. A "unitary t h e o r y " that brought together the physical space of nature, the mental space of logical and formal abstractions, a n d the practico-sensory realm o f social space. In his attempt, h e was partly inspired b y the search in physics for unity, where space, time and energy are interlinked; a n d b y Surrealists, w h o h a d b e e n searching for a junction between the inner and the outer w o r l d s of h u m a n beings. T o bridge the traditional duality between real a n d mental space, Lefebvre introduces the concept of social space, the space of social life, of social and spatial practice. H e then uses the Hegelian notion of production to arrive at a unitary theory of space. Social space, he argues, is a social product. Every society, and m o d e of production, produces its o w n space. It is only through such understanding that the duality between mental and real space can be confronted. It is this production process that should b e the object of interest, rather than things in space, although b o t h process and product are inseparable. T h e concept of the production of space has a central role in Lefebvre's thinking, " s p a c e as a social a n d political product, space as a product that one buys a n d sells" (quoted in Brgel et al.,1987 : 2 9 - 3 0 ) . It w a s based on the notion that

commodification, w h i c h is f u n d a m e n t a l to the analysis of capitalist order, is extended to space to entangle the physical m i l i e u in the productive s y s t e m of capitalism as a w h o l e . H e further a r g u e d that the organization of e n v i r o n m e n t and society, and t h e l a y o u t j 3 f J a w r L S _ a n d . r e g i o n s , . a r , e J l l d j p e r ^ the production of space a n d its role in the r e p r o d u c t i o n of the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c forrruition. David Harvey (1982, 1985a^b)~FoIIows L e f e b v r e By e l a b o r a t i n g on this commodification process, outlining t h e contradictions w i t h i n the p r i m a r y circuit of capital, w h e r e the capitalist p r o d u c t i o n process takes place. H e r e the drive to create surplus value by competing capitalists leads to o v e r - a c c u m u l a t i o n . T h i s b e c o m e s manifest in the over-production o f c o m m o d i t i e s , w i t h falling prices a n d surpluses o f labour and capital. Trying to o v e r c o m e the contradictions, these extra resources are switched into a s e c o n d a r y circuit o f capital, w h e r e i n v e s t m e n t is m a d e in the built environment, creating a w h o l e physical l a n d s c a p e for the p u r p o s e s o f production, circulation, e x c h a n g e a n d c o n s u m p t i o n . T h e r e is also a switch o f flows to the tertiary circuit o f capital w h e r e i n v e s t m e n t is channelled to research and development a n d to i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e l a b o u r force. H o w e v e r , the switch is cyclical, d u e to the cyclical nature o f o v e r - a c c u m u l a t i o n , a n d t e m p o r a r y , d u e to the crisis rising f r o m o v e r - i n v e s t m e n t i n t h e built e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e implications of these contradictions for the s p a c e s created u n d e r capitalism are, therefore, devaluation o f structures to b e p u t to u s e later a n d t h e destruction of the existing landscapes to o p e n u p fresh r o o m for a c c u m u l a t i o n . Lefebvre identifies a triad o f p e r c e i v e d , c o n c e i v e d a n d lived spaces a s the "three moments of social s p a c e " , w h i c h h a v e dialectical interrelationships (Lefebvre, 1991: 3 8 ^ 0 ) . T h e first m o m e n t is spatial practice, w h i c h refers to the w a y space is organized a n d u s e d . U n d e r n e o c a p i t a l i s m , spatial practice " e m b o d i e s a close association, w i t h i n perceived space, b e t w e e n d a i l y reality (daily routine) a n d urban reality (the routes a n d n e t w o r k s w h i c h link u p the places set aside for work, 'private' life a n d l e i s u r e ) " . T h e s e c o n d m o m e n t is representations of space, which refers to the " c o n c e p t u a l i z e d space, t h e s p a c e o f scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic s u b d i v i d e r s a n d social e n g i n e e r s " . T h i s is " t h e d o m i n a n t space in a n y society", tending " t o w a r d s a s y s t e m o f verbal ( a n d therefore intellectually worked out) signs". T h e third m o m e n t is that o f representational space, " s p a c e as directly lived through its associated i m a g e s a n d s y m b o l s , a n d h e n c e the space o f 'inhabitants' a n d ' u s e r s ' " , a s p a c e u n d e r s t o o d through non-verbal means. Representational s p a c e is " t h e d o m i n a t e d a n d h e n c e passively e x p e r i e n c e d space", overlapping physical space a n d m a k i n g s y m b o l i c use of its objects. Lefebvre argues that these three m o m e n t s s h o u l d b e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d , as w a s the case in the Western t o w n s f r o m the Italian R e n a i s s a n c e t o t h e nineteenth century (Figure 1.6). The historical s p a c e of the city, h o w e v e r , w a s t a k e n over b y the abstract space, " t h e space of bourgeoisie a n d of c a p i t a l i s m " (Lefebvre, 1 9 9 1 : 57), which a p p r o a c h e d the natural, historical a n d religio-political sphere negatively. T h e p r e d o m i n a n c e of abstract space m e a n s "that the place o f social s p a c e a s a whole has b e e n usurped b y a part of that s p a c e " (Lefebvre, 1 9 9 1 : 5 2 ) . T o confront this, a n e w space, a "differential s p a c e " , will need to e m e r g e , " b e c a u s e , inasmuch as abstract space tends towards h o m o g e n e i t y , t o w a r d s the e l i m i n a t i o n .of..existing differences..oj pecTilianties,^^^ a n e w space cannot be_ born^ (produced) unless it accentuates differences" (Lefebvre," 1991)."

18

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

19

F i g u r e 1 . 6 . Lefebvre argued that before the twentieth century, the ways in which space was perceived, conceived and lived were interconnected. {Oxford, UK) L e f e b v r e ' s first t a s k , therefore, is to b r i n g together objective and subjective u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of s p a c e by tracing t h e m botli back to the process in which space is p r o d u c e d . H e q u e s t i o n s the vaHdity of a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of space that is not r o o t e d in the p o h t i c a l e c o n o m y of its production. At the s a m e time, to strike a b a l a n c e w i t h the p o l i t i c a l e c o n o m y of space production, h e resorts to everyday life, a " p e r s p e c t i v e " that, as Maffesoli (1989a,b) explains, is set to address the s u b j e c t i v e , and i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e , aspects of social life, w h i c h have been undermined b y the traditional e m p h a s i s of social sciences on objective understanding. A s such, it is a critical r e s p o n s e to the "crisis of totalizing classical sociologies" ( B o v o n e , 1 9 8 9 : 4 2 ) , a n d b r i n g s into attention the i m p o r t a n c e of meaning and d i f f e r e n c e in s o c i a l inquiry. A n u m b e r of a p p r o a c h e s h a v e attempted to i n c o r p o r a t e the e v e r y d a y life p e r s p e c t i v e into the w i d e r perspectives of social p r o c e s s e s , as e x e m p l i f i e d b y Alfred S c h u t z (1970), w h o b r o u g h t together sociology a n d p h e n o m e n o l o g y , a n d J r g e n H a b e r m a s (1987), w h o outlined the relationship b e t w e e n s y s t e m s a n d lifeworld. H a b e r m a s , for e x a m p l e , separates everyday life f r o m the s y s t e m s of m o n e y a n d p o w e r , stressing that these systems tend to penetrate and colonize everyday life through monetarization and

bureaucratization. B y widening the s c o p e of reason, h e argues for a rationally constructed, c o m m u n i c a t i v e action b e t w e e n individuals, w h i c h enables everyday life to resist such penetration. A c c o r d i n g to G i d d e n s (1984), the d i c h o t o m y between structures and individuals is the central p r o b l e m of social theory, as reflected in functionalism and structuralism on the o n e h a n d , and h e r m e n e u t i c s and the various forms of interpretive sociology on the other. A s h e rightly observes, h o w e v e r , the difference b e t w e e n the t w o v i e w s can be e x a g g e r a t e d (Giddens, 1989: 7 0 4 - 5 ) . He argues (Giddens, 1984) that social structures, as recursively organized sets of rules a n d resources, refer to structural properties of social systems. T h e structures, w h o s e transmutation or continuity leads to reproduction of social systems, are not external to individuals a n d exert constraining as well as enabling p o w e r s upon them. T h e r e is a process of " d o u b l e involvement" of individuals and institutions: " w e create society at the s a m e time as we are created b y it" (Giddens, 1 9 8 2 : 1 4 ) . Urban sociologist Mark Gottdiener (1994), following Lefebvre, argues that reconciling political economy with everyday life c o m p e n s a t e s for the shortcomings of the two predominant approaches to urban analysis, h u m a n ecology and political economy. H u m a n ecology appreciates the role of locations in social interaction, but theoretically does not develop this role and approaches social processes by adopting one-dimensional and technologically deterministic explanations. Political economy, on the other hand, offers a better understanding of the social processes that produce urban space, but is limited in that it treats space as a container of economic activities and ignores the importance of spatial relations. U r b a n sociosemiotics (Gottdiener & Lagopoulos,1986) is o n e interpretation of this reconciliation: relating semiotics to a concrete context through social processes. An example is to see h o w successfully shopping malls h a v e translated commercial interests into new^urten^Torms (Gcjtfd^^ of urbahism (1994) thus brings together three aspects of the semiotics of place: the way environments are understood, through mental m a p p i n g and urban socio-semiotic analysis^Jhe p a t t e r n s j ) f j ) ^ ^ and its associated sociaLnetsmaiks. A second, but closely linked with the first, task in Lefebvre's project is to argue for differential space, for the "right to be different" (1991: 64). Difference in the city is as old as the city itself, as it was k n o w n from the ancient times that, in Aristotle's words, " A city is composed of different men; similar people cannot bring a city into existence" (quoted in Sennett,1994: 13). Especially since the nineteenth century and the unprecedented growth of cities, the issue of difference and diversity has become a central feature of urban life. In his theory of urbanism, for example, Louis Wirth (1964: 69) saw heterogeneity, along with population size and density, as a determining feature of the city. E m p h a s i s on heterogeneity of urban life is evident in the discussions about strangers in the city, which have occupied a prominent place in sociological inquiries, to the extent that city life has been seen as a world of strangers (Karp, Stone & Yoels,1991). There is no simple, deterministic relationship b e t w e e n social, psychological and physical dimensions of space. T h e overarching formula of the modern movements in architecture, " f o r m follows function", attempted to show such a direct deterministic relation. According to this normative formula, the social dimension of

20

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

21

space, its functions, should determine its physical form. T h e attempt to integrate the social and physical dimensions of space, or in other w o r d s to contextualize the physical space into h u m a n practices, is an important step in our understanding of s p a c e . W e cannot identify our e n v i r o n m e n t as an unrelated collection of material objects, as exemplified in the tendency to equate cities with their buildings. O n the other hand, we cannot understand our space as merely a container of social relations without a physical dimension. In their attempts to introduce space into social theory, some geographers s e e m to have moved towards a concept of nonphysical, mental space, which is merely a by-product of social relations, and which w e can understand only through verbal means, denying the non-verbal forms of understanding with which we relate to our space. At any point in time, our conceptualization of space will need to focus on both its physical and social dimensions. The physical space that w e perceive, create and use is embedded in our daily practices and it is through charting the process of its making that we can understand this environment. Inherent in the notion of making is the relationship of space with time.

the objects could b e seen simultaneously from several points of \'iew. In this approach, the Cubists introduced a principle that, a c c o r d i n g to G i e d i o n (1967: 4 3 6 ) , is "intimately b o u n d u p with m o d e r n life s i m u l t a n e i t y " . T h e F u t u r i s t s also attempted to enlarge the conventional optical vision b y i n t r o d u c i n g j n o v e m e n t _ i n ^ their-paintings-and^archttectural d r a w i n g s ; ' a ^ b e s r ' s K o w n in A n t o n i o S a n t ' E l i a ' s projcctTor h i i "Citt N u o v a " , in which high-rise a p a r t m e n t s are c o n n e c t e d by various means of movement at different levels (Figure 1.7). T h i s w a s an i m a g e vividly portrayed later in Fritz L a n g ' s film Metropolis. C i n e m a , as " t h e m o d e r n i s t art of space par excellence", offered an exciting opportunity for i n c o r p o r a t n g t i m e into space (Vidler,1993; 4 6 ) . As early a s 1912, Abel G a n c e w a s f a s c i n a t e d b y "that admirable synthesis of the m o v e m e n t of space and t i m e " (quoted in V i d l e r , 1993), which was made possible by film. In 1920, Scheffauer w r o t e of " t h i s p h o t o g r a p h i c c o s m o s " giving birth to a fourth dimension; " S p a c e hitherto c o n s i d e r e d and treated as something dead and static, a mere inert screen or f r a m e , o f t e n of n o m o r e significance than the painted balustrade-background at the village p h o t o g r a p h e r ' s has been smitten into life, into m o v e m e n t and c o n s c i o u s e x p r e s s i o n " ( q u o t e d in Vid!er,1993; 4 6 - 4 7 ) .

Space and time

T h e w a y that we use w o r d s and expressions that describe space (e.g. short or long, thereafter, always and before) in order to indicate periods of time shows that space w a s probably an object of consciousness before time (jammer,1954: 3 - 4 ) . In the English language, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term " s p a c e " has had, at least since around 1300, both temporal and spatial meanings. Until the beginning of this century, these two senses of the word had always been separately conceptualized. Space and time were, however, both dominated by one c o m m o n paradigm; "the mathematical linear c o n t i n u u m " (Bochner,1973: 301). Ever since the development of the special and general theories of relativity, the separate concepts of space and time h a v e increasingly been approached as a combined concept of s p a c e - t i m e (Smart,1988). According to Hermann Minkowski, w h o suggested the concept in 1908, s p a c e - t i m e is a four-dimensional continuum, w h i c h unites the three dimensions of space with one of time (Winn, 1975; 297). Every object, therefore, must not only have length, width and height, but also duration in time. Albert Einstein, w h o incorporated this concept into his special theory of relativity, contended that, as opposed to the Newtonian theory, a separation of space and time in an absolute w a y is not possible, but is relative to a choice of a coordinate system. " T h e universe of four dimensions includes space with all of its events and objects as well as time with its changes and m o t i o n s " (Winn,1975; 297). There were parallels to this conception of s p a c e - t i m e in art and architecture, by concentrating on movement within space. T h e Cubists, for example, used the concept of the fourth dimension by moving round their objects, rather than trying to represent them from a static viewpoint. T h e y offered a n e w conception of space by enlarging the way space is perceived. By breaking from the Renaissance perspective, which presented objects in three dimensions, the Cubists added a fourth dimension of time. They v i e w e d objects relatively, dissecting them so that

F i g u r e 1.7. An early example of integrating high-rise buildings and movement at different levels in urban space, offering a new experience of space and time. (Chicago, USA)

22

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

23

T h e s e appreciations of movement, as a representation of the f o u r t h ciimension, were to be used in the f a m o u s Charter of Athens in 1933. H e r e m o v e m e n t is seen as o n e of the main four functions of the m o d e r n city (Sert,1944); o n e that, as w e h a v e n o w experienced, was most instrumental in the transformation o f the built environment during the past 50 years. T o free the m o v e m e n t p a t t e r n s w i t h i n the city and to break with the Renaissance optical perspective, the m o d e r n i s t s a i m e d to abolish the urban streets. " T o d a y w e m u s t deal with the city f r o m a n e w aspect, dictated by the advent of the automobile, based on technical c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and belonging to the artistic vision born out of our period s p a c e - t i m e " ( G i e d i o n , 1967; 822). T h e outcome was high-rise buildings set within m o v e m e n t n e t w o r k s , allowing < people to experience space while m o v i n g around the buildings. The dramatic transformation that this viewpoint brought to the cities has been criticized by a generation of post-modern commentators. Trancik (1986), for example, referred to the vast open spaces thus created as "lost s p a c e s " . There w e r e attempts to introduce movement into our understanding of space without a call for radical transformation of space, as exemplified b y Gordon CuUen's "serial v i s i o n " (1971). Furthermore, there are those who have not been convinced that the four-dimensional notion of space can have any scientific basis in, or usefulness for, architectural design (Cowan,1973; Scruton,1979). After all, as Sack (1980) reminds us, at the geographical (and architectural) scale, physical space is still seen as the familiar three-dimensional space of Euclidean geometry. This is in line with a s i m u l t a n e o u s u s e of the Newtonian, absolute space and the relative space-time in various branches of scientific inquiry according to their area of involvement (Bochner,1973). Yet the space-time concept, in which the duration in time is i n c l u d e d , and the dynamism that this fourth dimension brings to space, continues to b e attractive to architects (Van de Ven,1993) and to geographers (Massey,1994) alike. A " r e d i s c o v e r y " of the concept of space-time may be attributed to the denial of s o m e social scientists of the relevance of space in social processes. In the nineteenth century, a century obsessed with history, "space was treated as the dead, the fixed, the undialectical, the i m m o b i l e " (Foucault, quoted in Soja,1989;10, as if himself quoting Scheffauer). Reasserting the role of space in social theory remains one of the main preoccupations of the contemporary period. Foucault, with his well-known "spatialized thinking" (Flynn,1994), intended to prove the fundamental importance of space in " a n y form of c o m m u n a l life" and "any exercise of p o w e r " (FoucauIt,1993:168). By seeing space as a social product, as "constituted out of relations", the spatial b e c o m e s social relations "stretched out". There is, however, a d y n a m i s m in social relations, w h i c h needs to be extended to spatial analysis. It is here that the concept of s p a c e - t i m e is employed to allow such dynamism to be introduced into socio-spatial relations. A s Soja points out, we should not intend "to replace historicism with an equally s u b s u m p t i v e spatialism, but to achieve a more appropriate trialectical balance in which neither spatiality, historicity, nor sociality is interpretively privileged a priori" (1993: 115). T h e central argument in the approach to space therefore b e c o m e s to conceptualize space integrally with time (Massey,1994: 2). There is no doubt that this interpretation can be as appealing to us t o d a y as it was to the avant-garde artists at the beginning of this century. W e m a y h a v e a different outlook now, but we are equally fascinated by the freshness of the extraordinary perspectives that it opens up. Yet w e will have to b e aware of the distinctions

between this interpretation in social and aesthetic understanding and that of the theory of relativity. In the latter, the space and time become interdependent at scales .md speeds beyond our limited scope and slow pace of daily experience and beyond our even slower social and historical processes. The w a y we can meaningfully introduce the fourth dimension of time into space is by concentrating on the process of its evolution and change. FoUo^ving the way space has been niade and transformed allow us to add a fourth dimension to our spatial understanding. On the one hand, we will need to study space in the context of the political and economic processes that have produced it. On the other hand, by seeing space as an outcome of, and a contributor to, the daily practices that constitute social relations, we can broaden our spatial understanding to incorporate the fourth dimension. The lived experience of space is one in which time is inherent. The question to ask is whether there are any fixities in this dynamic conception of space.

Space and place

Whereas space is seen as an open, abstract expanse, place is part of space that is occupied b y a p e r s o n or a thing and is endowed with meaning and value (Goodall,1987; M a y h e w & Penny,1992). It is the interaction of people with this immediate e n v i r o n m e n t that gives it characteristics distinct from those of the surrounding areas (Clark,1985). Place is a centre of "felt v a l u e " , associated with security and stability, where biological needs are met. This is in contrast to the openness and f r e e d o m of the undifferentiated space. 2f^gaceJs_aUowingjiMm:ilient to occur, place p r o v i d e s a pause. H o w e v e r , despite this contrast between place and space, between security and freedom,' the meanings of the two concepts often merge, requiring each other for their definition, as " w e are attached to the one and long for the o t h e r " (Tuan,1977; 3 - 6 ) . The notion of place as an enclosed particular space with fixed identities and meanings has b e e n challenged as lacking dynamism. It is through social relationships and not the qualities of a piece of land that places are defined. "The reality of a p l a c e " , therefore, "is always open, making its deterniination an inherently social p r o c e s s " (Logan & Molotch,1987: 47). Critics have stressed that associated with the staticJiaturc^o.place,iirejittentjcm react9na]5IjDiHc^(Harvey,19^^ Massey (1994) argues that the nationalist, regionalist and localist claims to exclusive places, and those who identify places as "sites of nostalgia", as well as the critics of locaUty studies in geography, are all resting their cases on a static view of place. They all conceptualize place as timeless and b o u n d e d , with a singular, fixed and unproblematic, authentic identity. Massey, however, a r g u e s that if the d y n a m i s m of the concept of space-time is employed, place can be u n d e r s t o o d as open a n d porous. Place becomes a moment in the network of ever-changing social relations at all scales. T h e identity of a place is a particular mix of social relations, hence always becoming "luifixed, contested and multiple". T h e particularity of a place, she maintains, is "constructed not by placing boimdaries around it and defining its identity through counterposition to the other w'hich lies b e y o n d , but precisely (in part) through the specificity of the mix of Knks and interconnections to that "beyond'" (Massey, 1994: 5).

24

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

25

F i g u r e 1.9. The slow process of change in the peripheral regions means a more stable relationship between people and space and more fixed identities. {Zavareh, Iran)

F i g u r e 1.8. The centre of a world city is often a fast-moving place, with a multiplicity of identities and a potential for plurality. {Paris, France)

Conceptualization of place as a contested space with multiple identities offers a d y n a m i s m in our understanding of places. It allows us to grasp the diversity and difference of particular spaces within themselves a n d in relation to their larger contexts. It s h o w s h o w to contextualize, without fixing, the characteristics of a place. Richard Sennett (1995: 15) convincingly argues that "Place-making based on exclusion, s a m e n e s s , or nostalgia is socially poisonous, and psychologically u s e l e s s " , and asks for the u s e o f " m o r e diverse, denser, impersonal human c o n t a c t s " in place-making. There are, however, limits to the fluidity and flexibility that this m o d e l offers. Its d y n a m i s m can be limited w h e n the variety of speed of c h a n g e in various locations around the world is studied. T h e centre of a world city is often a fast-moving place, with a multiplicity of identities and a potential for plurality and therefore fragmentation of social relations. This befits a large concentration of people and the headquarters of political and economic decisionm a k e r s (Figure 1.8). T h e same, h o w e v e r , cannot be said about the remote villages o f peripheral countries, w h e r e people and places h a v e hardly been touched by m o d e r n technology and b y commodification processes (Figure 1.9). Here the speed of change is slower and the dialectical d y n a m i s m of the metropolis is absent.

Conflict and contrast often find forms of manifestation other than a rapid c h a n g e of socio-spatial identities. Here a place may have a more fixed, but far from dead, meaning. T h e slow pace of change here means a slower pace of identity change and a m o r e coherent set of relations between social and physical space. This m a y mean a perpetuation of various forms of exploitation and inequality. This is w h y a nostalgic view of this apparent socio-spatial coherence needs to be balanced with a critical stance towards its component parts, to prevent a simplistic, static view of a given circumstance. O n the other h a n d , as Herman (1982) has skilfully shown, socio-spatial d y n a m i s m , resulting from the dislocation and evershifting configurations of the modernization processes, can be painful and disruptive. There is little d o u b t that dynamic conception of place would more realistically represent the multiplicity of social practices and identities. There w o u l d be, however, fixities at a n y point in time, as change takes place over time in relation to the existing frames of reference. These are frames that would inevitably change but not all at once. T h e identities of places, therefore, will be defined and redefined constantly in relation to constant changes in historical time. This conceptualization explains why individuals are capable of making decisions in spite of their constant change of circumstances. W e should also b e aware of the difficulties in conceptualizing place as a decentred locality. Following the arguments that see the human subject as

26

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

27

decentred, as a site for the interaction of external currents, place m a y b e seen as one such decentred site. H u m a n beings a n d places can b o t h b e seen a s sites for the interaction of diverse social processes. This approach s e e m s to r e d u c e t h e physical and social dimensions of space (and of human beings) to a d i s c o u r s e at an intellectual level, w h e r e our k n o w l e d g e is achieved b y abstract p r o c e s s e s and discourses, rather than concentrating o n the lived experiences. A r g u i n g against basing knowledge on linguistics, Lefebvre draws our attention to t h e connection between the abstract body, which is simply understood as "a m e d i a t i o n b e t w e e n 'subject' and 'object'", and another b o d y , " a practical a n d fleshy b o d y c o n c e i v e d of a totality complete with spatial qualities (symmetries, a s y m m e t r i e s ) a n d energetic properties (discharges, economies, w a s t e ) " (Lefebvre,1991: 6 1 ) . A l t h o u g h it is potentially misleading to compare h u m a n agency w i t h space, a s i m i l a r argimient might apply to place, where a physical stock exists w i t h all its s o c i a l a n d spatial qualities and which, despite its o p e n n e s s to constant change, reasserts its material totality and interconnections at any m o m e n t in time. W h e n v i e w e d in its social context and through its production process, space c a n h a v e multiple identities a n d | yet be embedded in particular circumstances.

Space and specialization

In social sciences, there has been a process of structuration of disciplines in the postwar period. It evolved from w h e n " m a n y w i n d o w s [were] looking out o n the same S landscape" to when " T h e social sciences cut u p the l a n d s c a p e and f o u n d a series of different aspects shapes of w i n d o w s and kinds of lighting to g a z e at their specific segment". This, although exciting at the beginning, led to rigidities and parochiaUsm, where "Paradigms b e c a m e narrow-vision looking g l a s s e s w h i c h miss a wide range of p h e n o m e n a " (Dahrendorf,1995: 5 - 7 , 1 2 ) . T h e same d e v e l o p m e n t can be traced in spatial arts and sciences, w h e r e specialization has c a u s e d a collapse of ^ communication and restricted visions. T h e disciplines involved in the study of space h a v e witnessed a g r o w i n g gap between their interests in physical and social dimensions of space, a g a p that has made it increasingly more difficult for cross-disciplinary c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e general process of evolution of geography, for e x a m p l e , has seen t h e separation of h u m a n geography from physical geography. Associated with this -ividening gap has been an increased emphasis on cognitive and social space, as distinct f r o m physical space. Interest in the physical characteristics of the built e n v i r o n m e n t , w h i c h was expressed in early regional geography and urban m o r p h o l o g y , h a s diminished sharply (Johnston,1991). Closely related to this loss of interest in p h y s i c a l space, there has been a rising enthusiasm for studying the relations b e t w e e n social processes and space. For many sub-areas of human geography, interest in physical space remains minimal. In " n e w " cultural geography, as M c D o w e l l (1994) notes, a revival of interest in the study of landscape is a major trend, as e x e m p l i f i e d by the work of Dennis Cosgrove (Cosgrove,1984,1985; C o s g r o v e & D a n i e l s , 1 9 8 8 ; C o s g r o v e & Duncan,1994). An equally important, parallel trend in cultural g e o g r a p h y , influenced by Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall, has been a c o n c e n t r a t i o n on social relations, rather than on physical space and its representations. T h i s change

in the balance of interest in physical and social space has been a significant feature in the d e v e l o p m e n t of human geography. N o w , it s e e m s , space, as well as Hme, is treated by s o m e geographers as an all-embracing concept, an almost invisible dimension to w h i c h n o overt reference needs to b e made: "Given that everything e.xists in space as well as time, there is no m o r e reason to doubt that it has a .-eographical d i m e n s i o n " ( D i a m o n d , quoted in Richards,1995). However, Johnston argues that to p r o m o t e the study of place, which is central to geography, the fragmentation of the discipline must be restrained in order to bring specialists together (Johnston,1991: 253). The evolution of architecture has also seen the development of a gap between social and physical space. Designers look at space to shape it, tending to be practical and normative in their study of space. F o r e x a m p l e . Porter & G o o d m a n (1988; 6-7) begin their introductory text to design with a brief description of the way our senses perceive the space around us. This is immediately followed by an example of how space is being manipulated in oriental gardens in relation to our sensory experiences. A n o t h e r example is C o l q u h o u n (1989), w h o sets out to outline the twentieth century concepts of urban space. In explaining these concepts, however, the narrative concentrates on w h a t the designers h a v e wished the city space to be, rather than analysing the results of urban transformation. This is especially apparent w h e n post-modern criticisms are introduced. In design writing, knowledge a n d practice are tightly related, so that at times they are used interchangeably a n d difficult to distinguish. T h e architects of the modern m o v e m e n t approached cities in a rather coherent and c o m p r e h e n s i v e way. These designers saw their space as an integrated one, in

F i g u r e 1.10. The failure of earlier solutions for social problems led the architects to withdraw from social concerns. (Tyne & Wear, UK) (Photograph by Stuart Cameron)

28

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

29

its various scales a n d with its physical and social dimensions. They designed b u i l d i n g s , and objects inside them and landscapes around them, hoping, rather optimistically, that shaping space w o u l d lead to the creation of a better society. Despite their e m p h a s i s on the physical fabric of the city, they were similarly c o n c e r n e d with its social conditions. A s evident in the Charter of Athens, it was the social problems of the cities that urged them to seek planned action (Sert, 1944). The exhaustion of the m o d e r n m o v e m e n t , however, led to the abandonment of the social dimensions of space, leaving the architects concentrating on the built form (Figure 1.10). By the 1980s, the design professions had largely lost their interest in the social dimensions of built form. In their withdrawal from social engagement a n d concern with formalism, m u c h of architecture b e c a m e , in the words of Allan J a c o b s and Donald Appleyard (1987: 114), " a narcissistic pursuit, a chic component of high art consumer culture, increasingly remote from most people's everyday lives". T h e disciplinary fragmentation and specialization that followed the integrated approach of the m o d e r n m o v e m e n t needed an increasing multiplicity of .1 professionals to be involved in shaping the environment. This created and enlarged a divide between architecture and other disciplines. Fragmentation of this kind can be seen as a positive development, as it allows a deeper understanding of each subarea in the transformation of the built environment. Reacting against specialization m a y b e , as M o o r e (1992: x) suggests, " a romantic absurdity". On the other hand, fragmentation potentially leaves large conceptual gaps between these sub-areas. U r b a n sociologists, urban geographers, planners, architects, engineers, landscape designers and interior designers, a m o n g others, find themselves with different and, at times, contradictory concepts of the space they intend to understand and transform. T h e compartmentalized specialists feel at ease within the precincts of their o w n territories, protected from outside intrusions by the walls of jargon, exclusive academic circles and protective professional institutions. Communities of interest and understanding that develop in this manner help a further fragmentation of approach to overarching concepts such as space. Inevitably, tension arises w h e n a not only necessary but vital link is being sought across these divides. The d i l e m m a of dealing with space here is whether to accept the conventional borders of specialists and to act within them, with or without the collaboration of other specialists in teams, or to m o v e across the boundaries to benefit f r o m the multiplicity of ideas and approaches to space. If it is possible to a r g u e that a unitary concept of space could be encouraged, then these various fields of interest can be linked conceptually but approached independently.

understand space and relate to it? Does it exist b e y o n d our cognition or is it conditioned by it? D o w e relate to it by our reason or our senses? Is space a collection of things and people, a container for them, or are they e m b e d d e d in it? Is it representing o p e n n e s s or fixity? Do we understand and transform space individually or socially? H o w do w e relate space and time? In our response to these questions, we find ourselves divided between rationalism and empiricism, between materialism and idealism, between objective and subjective understanding, between reason and emotion, between theory and practice, between uniformity and diversity, and b e t w e e n order and disorder. In this sense, space could be seen as an abstract substitute for the world around us, for what we generally m e a n b y our built and natural environments. So what is the space of urban design, amid these dilemmas and fragmentations in the conceptions of space? Which side of these dilemmas should we identify with if we are engaged in designing and shaping urban spaces? It is possible to leave these gaps and fragmentations as they h a v e developed and as we find them. W e could listen to a word of w i s d o m that w a r n s us against generalization tendencies: "the concept of space is so ubiquitous, and is reached by so m a n y avenues and channels, that it would be stifling and sterile to force upon it metaphysically a single logical schema, which, even if acceptable today, might b e c o m e unsuitable t o m o r r o w " (Bochner,1973: 3 0 0 ) . In this case, w e will have to seek a pragmatic notion of space, one that would be suitable for our immediate task of urban space design. In doing so, we may h a v e to either use a very narrow, practical conception of space, leaving other conceptions aside as irrelevant to our specialist interests, or have to live with the fragmentation and divide in the concepts of space, especially when dealing with complex problems of urban space, and risk loss or disorientation. Yet we are a w a r e s o m e h o w , at least instinctively, that we cannot afford to remain in a cocoon of our o w n or of our discipline, profession or tribe. From across our differences, w e n e e d to communicate and to arrive at a mutually understandable narrative. T o b e trapped in difference and not see the common threads that link human beings will deprive us from creating a better social and physical environment. It is therefore not only possible but also necessary to try to find a more unified approach to space. This does not need to be necessarily building up a grand narrative, disregarding the g a p s and conflicts, arrived at a priori and imposed on a diverse range of concrete situations. A unified concept of space could be arrived at by realizing that m a n y aspects of the dilemmas of space are exaggerated and can be b r i d g e d , as we have s h o w n in this chapter. W e are a w a r e of the differences that exist in urban space and in our approaches to it. So w e m a y not arrive at a completely unitary concept of space, as Lefebvre would have wished. Yet we know that to h a v e an "objective" grasp of the difference, w e will have to negotiate constantly with our social and physical environments in our everyday experiences. It is b y concentrating on this process of daily Ufe, at its intersection w'ith the political e c o n o m y of urban development, through which space is made and remade, that w e can expect to m o v e towards a wider, more d y n a m i c platform of understanding. It is only in a fragmented, static concept of space that we see social processes as separate from the physical and mental space. If, however, physical and mental spaces are both socially produced, then both are subject to the process of production

Conclusion
T h e d i l e m m a s of space appear to lie in the way w e relate to it: the w a y we i m d e r s t a n d , and therefore transform, it. The debates between absolute and relational space, the dilemma b e t w e e n physical and social space, between real and mental space, b e t w e e n space and mass, between function and form, between abstract and differential space, b e t w e e n space and place, between space and time, can all be seen as indicators of a series of open philosophical questions: how d o we

30

Design of Urban Space

of space. They are, b y definition, the c o m p o n e n t parts of a more c o m p r e h e n s i v e conception of space; a physical space that is produced b y complex bureaucratic and financial systems of a development process and is u s e d and attributed with m e a n i n g through everyday life. There will be no need to use the conventional dualities of physical versus mental or physical versus social space. A m o r e unified approach can see space as the objective, physical s p a c e with its social and psychological dimensions. It will be an integrated concept in which the w a y s societies perceive, create and use space are addressed simultaneously. This concept of space will be the most direct approach to offset the limitations of the dematerialized conceptions of space b y offering a social and psychological context for the material space. This conceptualization, however, will not be complete without taking the dimension of time into account. By analysing the social processes involved in the m a k i n g of space and place, the element of time will be integrated into our understanding. The conception of space arrived at in this w a y is dynamic; space at all its possible scales, from global space to the micro space of daily routines, are all constantly changing yet e m b e d d e d in their social context, allowing multiple but interrelated identities. It is this d y n a m i c conception of space that w o u l d allow design with change and for change while e m b e d d e d in concrete social and physical contexts. It is with such a dynamic conception of space that charges against urban design can be challenged: charges that see it as a reactionary set of activities, seeking only visual improvement of small urban places and aiming at aestheticizing social processes and political concern in urban d e v e l o p m e n t processes. W i t h this conception, w e can h o p e to arrive at a c o m m o n platform in understanding urban space, one that could link various g r o u p s w h o are interested and involved in explanation, interpretation and transformation of space, allowing them to enter into a dialogue. In our search for a concept of space, we h a v e concluded that an understanding of u r b a n space will need to take into account its physical, social and symbolic dimensions simultaneously. In the next two chapters, we will expand on these themes and will explore h o w w e can m o v e towards such understanding.

CHAPTER 2

Structural F r a m e w o r k s of U r b a n Space
In Chapter 1 w e searched for a m e a n i n g of space, arguing that to understand the space of the city, w e need to g r a s p its three aspects (physical, social and symbolic) in an integrated w a y and in the p r o c e s s of space production. In this chapter, we will look at h o w w e u n d e r s t a n d the structure of urban s p a c e , with its social and physical geometries. T h i s s t u d y of the structures of urban space will be complemented in Chapter 3 b y a n inquiry into the w a y h u m a n agency interrelates with these structures. Part T w o will seek to understand the formation of urban space, b y analysing the political e c o n o m y of space production and the aesthetic and symbolic notions of s p a c e m a k i n g . In our s e a r c h for structural patterns of differentiation in urban space, w e look for ways to u n d e r s t a n d cities a n d their form, and to gain an awareness of the urban socio-spatial c o n t e x t and its d y n a m i c s of change. W e concentrate on approaches to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of urban s p a c e structure. T h e city is a socio-spatial context to which w e can e n t e r as individuals or groups and interact with it to use or change it. The interaction b e t w e e n urban planners and designers with urban residents and urban space l a r g e l y influences the form of this context. W e start b y searching for a definition of urban form, followed by two perspectives i n t o u r b a n structure: o n e that sees it as a collection of buildings and artefacts, and the o t h e r that sees it as a site for social relationships. It will be argued that our p i c t u r e of urban structure will only m a k e sense w h e n a socio-spatial perspective e m e r g e s to replace these two disjointed views.

Socio-spatial geometries of urban space

The term " u r b a n f o r m " has been defined from m a n y different points of view. Reviewing t h e literature in search of an explicit definition. Bourne (1982; 29) recounted that h e had encountered an " i m m e n s e diversity and frustrating inconsistency" in the way researchers use terms such as urban form and spatial structure. O n e r e a s o n for this diversity is that urban form has been studied by a variety of d i s c i p l i n e s , each following a variety of different approaches to its understanding w i t h different definitions and conceptual frameworks. After

32

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

33

a t t e m p t i n g to ciefine urban form, w e will review the approaches to urban space and f o r m in urban architecture and urban geography, disciplines that have contributed to the development of urban planning and design. U r b a n form h a s b e e n equated with the term " t o w n s c a p e " , developed by S m a i l e s (1955) as the u r b a n equivalent of landscape, comprising the visible forms of the built-up a r e a s . Its three m a i n c o m p o n e n t s are street plan or layout, architectural style of buildings and their design, and land use (Herbert & T h o m a s , 1 9 8 2 ) . Ever since, a l o n g the s a m e lines, the geometry of each of these component p a r t s , or s o m e of their m o r e detailed aspects, has b e e n defined as urban form. A v a r i a t i o n on this t h e m e with m o r e sensitivity to detail is the work of Shirvani ( 1 9 8 5 ) . In search of the d o m a i n o f u r b a n design, h e identifies the physical elements of u r b a n f o r m as l a n d use, b u i l d i n g f o r m and massing, circulation and parking, o p e n space, pedestrian ways, activity support, and signage. Interest has also been s h o w n in larger-scale c o m b i n a t i o n s of these c o m p o n e n t parts and their functional roles. T h e architectural interest often concentrates on the physical fabric of the city a n d its aesthetic a n d functional d i m e n s i o n s . T h e city is an act of will, a w o r k of art m a d e u p of t w o e l e m e n t s o f t h e architecture of m o v e m e n t and the architecture o f r e p o s e (Bacon,1975: 3 2 2 ) . S o m e a u t h o r s urge u s to define urban form in two d i m e n s i o n s , in t e r m s of its physical extent, street pattern and different areas; and a l s o in three d i m e n s i o n s , in its sculptural expression of different heights and s h a p e s ( L o w n d e s & M u r r a y , 1 9 8 8 ) a n d its skyline ( H e d m a n & Jaszewski,1985). M o r p h o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t s of u r b a n s p a c e are identified as streets and squares (R. K r i e r , 1 9 7 9 a , b ) , b l o c k s (L. K r i e r , 1 9 7 8 ) , w h i c h h a v e b e e n geometrically typified, q u a r t e r s (Ungers et al.,1978; L. K r i e r , 1 9 7 9 ) , and other forms of urban division (Kostof, 1992). In architectural history, urban f o r m s of the past are studied t h r o u g h their m o r p h o l o g i c a l c o m p o n e n t parts such a s castles and m a n o r s , walls a n d gates, streets a n d circulation s p a c e s , market-places, churches, and the mass of g e n e r a l town b u i l d i n g s (Morris,1979; M u t h e s i u s , 1 9 8 2 ; Lloyd,1992). Attempts to c o m b i n e this m o r p h o l o g i c a l interest w i t h a functional dimension can b e seen in R e e k i e (1972), for e x a m p l e , for w h o m the town consists of buildings and other structures, open a n d enclosed spaces, and vehicular and pedestrian circulations. T h e s e are a r r a n g e d in the central core, a n d in residential, industrial and recreation areas. A n o t h e r , mainly geographical, strand stresses the land use as the fundamental constituent o f u r b a n form, a n d takes on a functionalist interpretation of urban space. Scargill (1979) defines the form of cities on t w o distinct scales. There is the f o r m that the e l e m e n t s of the city's physical fabric take: dwellings and the more specialized structures in which retail, office and manufacturing functions are h o u s e d . There is also the form that "assemblages of structures" take, which leads to another, more limited, definition of urban form as, " t h e juxtaposition of land use z o n e s in an urban area, regarded as the response to variety in accessibility" (Clark,1985: 667). Rogers (1971: 210) defines the theory of urban spatial structure as b e i n g concerned w i t h the disposition of human socio-economic activities in urban areas, with the goals of discovering, explaining and ultimately predicting regularities that exist in people's adaptation to city space. For Brotchie et al. (1985: 5), urban form is " t h e pattern of residential and non-residential urban activities and

their interactions as expressed by the built environment which accommodates them". Criticizing the attempts that equate urban spatial structure with physical arrangement of land use. Bourne (1982) tries to elaborate on the definitions of virban form and urban spatial structure to allow for both spatial and aspatial dimensions of the city. Relying on the systems theory, Bourne defines urban form as the spatial pattern or " a r r a n g e m e n t " of individual elements within a city system. These elements include built environment, buildings and land uses, as well as social groups, economic activities and public institutions. Through interactions, these individual elements are integrated into functional entities or subsystems. The patterns of b e h a v i o u r and interaction within subsystems, when overlaid on urban form and combined with a set of organizational rules that link the subsystems into a city system, constitute the urban spatial structure. Each of the stated definitions seems to refer to one or more aspects of a multifaceted p h e n o m e n o n . I n d e e d , the diversity in the definitions of urban form stems mainly from the fact that urban fabric is both a physical and a social artefact (Harvey,1985a: 226). A s G o t t m a n n (1978) interprets, the built environment is a "hardware" in w h i c h the socio-economic system w o r k s as " s o f t w a r e " . Interpreting the relationship between people and the built environment in this w a y m a y be too mechanistic, as they interact in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, any s t u d y of urban form should address these t w o interrelated dimensions or, if focused on certain aspects of form, be able to locate the focus with due considerations towards these two major dimensions. Physically, u r b a n fabric might b e seen as a grouping of built spatial units. Here the study of form can, at different scales and in both two and three dimensions, refer to single buildings, blocks, urban quarters, and the whole urban fabric as the combination of these physical c o m p o n e n t parts. It is also possible to focus on the space between these parts w h e n studying the pattern of streets and squares. The social dimension of urban form deals with the spatial arrangement and interrelationship of the characteristics of the people who build, use and value the urban fabric. H e r e the study of urban form refers to the w a y t h e urbanits, individually or in groups, relate to each other in space. Social and physical dimensions of urban form have a dynamic relationship. Physical fabric is produced and conditioned b y different social procedures. At the same time, the form of urban space, once built, can exert influence u p o n the way these procedures recur. ^ O n these bases, it is possible t o envisage urban form as the geometry of a sociospatial continuum (Figure 2.1). In this continuum, individual elements, with both physical and social dimensions, are combined progressively through their interrelationships shaping c o m p l e x combinations. In other words, the city as a whole might be seen as formed by a spectrum of structures at various scales down to the level of a single element. At all levels, physical and social dimensions of the structures are interwoven, though distinguishable and modifiable in the degree and the extent of their linkage. A study of urban form therefore refers to the way physical entities, singly or in a group, are produced and used, their spatial arrangements, and their interrelationships, and also how monetary and symbolic values are attributed to them.

34

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

35

with the d e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n of single b u i l d i n g s , extended its s c o p e to cover whole cities. T h o u g h different in their subject matter, these t w o lines of in\'estigation of u r b a n f o r m h a v e f o u n d their o v e r l a p in the prescriptive fields of urban p l a n n i n g a n d u r b a n d e s i g n . Despite this v i c i n i t y , their different a p p r o a c h e s to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of urban phenomena, a s r e f l e c t e d in their different areas of interest, h a v e k e p t them apart, leaving a l a r g e g a p in b e t w e e n . W h e r e a s u r b a n architecture tends to see the city as a physical e n t i t y , u r b a n g e o g r a p h y , along with u r b a n sociology, h a s shifted its focus m o r e o n t o t h e p e o p l e w h o live inside this fabric. In this w a y , urban -geography c o n c e n t r a t e s on t h e s t u d y of urban spatial structure rather than the study of the u r b a n fabric, w h i c h is the d o m a i n of u r b a n architecture. A n attempt to link t h e m h a s b e e n m a d e b y u r b a n m o r p h o l o g y w h i c h has c o m b i n e d elements of both. A m o r e s y s t e m a t i c a p p r o a c h to link, a n d to benefit f r o m , the insights offered b y t h e s e d i s c i p l i n e s is, a s a l r e a d y discussed, to concentrate o n the process of making t h e c i t y . T h i s p r o c e s s inevitably starts f r o m the physical space of nature.

Natural space
The physical e n v i r o n m e n t of n a t u r e is the m a i n c o m p o n e n t part of u r b a n space, the first c o n t e x t in w h i c h the b u i l t e n v i r o n m e n t takes shape. T h e recognition of the impact of n a t u r e o n p h y s i c a l a n d social qualities of u r b a n space, h o w e v e r , should not be m i s t a k e n f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e t e r m i n i s m , w h o s e tenet w a s to stress "that the e n v i r o n m e n t c o n t r o l s the c o u r s e of h u m a n a c t i o n " ( L e w t h w a i t e , quoted in Johnston, G r e g o r y & S m i t h , 1 9 8 6 : 1 3 1 ) . It is e v i d e n t that s o m e qualities of urban environment a r e t h e o u t c o m e s of a n interaction b e t w e e n h u m a n action and the physical s p a c e o f n a t u r e . B y i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h this natural space t h r o u g h time, social p r o c e s s e s c r e a t e the h u m a n s p a c e . T h e particular features of h u m a n space are thus l a r g e l y d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h this interaction b e t w e e n particularities of the natural s p a c e a n d t h e social characteristics of the p e o p l e w h o h a v e occupied and transformed it. The i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n h u m a n societies a n d their environments can influence urban s p a c e in t w o d i f f e r e n t w a y s : o n the o n e h a n d , natural space h a s an impact on physical a n d s o c i a l qualities of h u m a n space. O n the other h a n d , human societies h a v e a f f e c t e d n a t u r e b y the d e v e l o p m e n t of u r b a n space. T h e i m p a c t o f n a t u r e o n p h y s i c a l qualities of urban space can be seen throughout t h e h i s t o r y of cities. Especially in the case of the early human settlements a n d a g r a r i a n societies, b u t also in the n e w e r cities of the industrial era, urban f o r m h a s b e e n l a r g e l y i n f l u e n c e d , a m o n g other factors, b y climate, topography, w a t e r r e s o u r c e s a n d agricultural l a n d . C o m p a r i s o n s between settlements in m o u n t a i n s a n d o n flat plains, b e t w e e n those in hot and cold climates, a n d b e t w e e n t h o s e a l o n g the r i v e r b a n k s and on p i e d m o n t s w o u l d show how the built f o r m c a n b e d i f f e r e n t according to the conditions of the natural setting. This d i v e r s i t y o f p h y s i c a l f o r m a n d n a t u r a l q u a h t i e s have in return influenced the social q u a l i t i e s of u r b a n s p a c e . In the historical process of creating cities.

F i g u r e 2.1.

Urban form is the geometry of a socio-spatial continuum. {Dublin,

Ireland)

A p p r o a c h e s to t h e s t u d y of urban f o r m h a v e been as varied as the a p p r o a c h e s to its definition. Y e t it is possible to identify two basic explanatory a p p r o a c h e s w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k s of the disciplines of g e o g r a p h y and architecture. The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the descriptive nature of the former and the prescriptive n a t u r e of the latter is m i n i m i z e d w h e n they focus on the urban p h e n o m e n a . G e o g r a p h y , w h i c h h a d started b y describing the p h e n o m e n a on the earth's s u r f a c e , narrowed d o w n to the level of intra-urban studies in the field of u r b a n g e o g r a p h y . O n the other h a n d , architecture, which initially was mainly c o n c e r n e d

36

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworl<s of Urban Spac

37

Figure 2.2.

Castles on hilltops are the best examples of the control of topography by the
Northumberland, UK)

powerful. (Warkworth,

these c o n d i t i o n s h a v e often b e e n e m p l o y e d , s y m b o l i c a l l y and practically, to institute d i f f e r e n c e a n d s e g r e g a t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , t o p o g r a p h y is a specific tool frequently u s e d t h r o u g h o u t h i s t o r y to express spiritual and temporal p o w e r (Figure 2 . 2 ) . In t h e ancient M e s o p o t a m i a , the n a t u r a l and artificial raised p l a t f o r m s w e r e u s e d to h o u s e citadels, the seats of the rulers and at times priests. In G r e e c e , the h i l l t o p s , w h i c h w e r e t h e sites of the prehistoric settlements, w e r e d e v o t e d to the g o d s , o v e r l o o k i n g the life of the city f r o m their temples. Higher points in t o w n s w e r e f a v o u r e d b y the better-off a n d the powerful for reasons of safety and s e c u r i t y a s well as for the quality of e n v i r o n m e n t . In the M i d d l e East and Central A s i a , w h e r e v e r the d e v e l o p m e n t of q a n a t s had made the p i e d m o n t s habitable, the w e a l t h i e r g r o u p s t e n d e d to o c c u p y the higher ground, w h e r e they c o u l d ^ a v e t h e b e s t a c c e s s to fresh w a t e r from u n d e r g r o u n d streams, as w a s the case in H e r a t . E v e n w h e n n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s h a v e permitted more flexibility in u r b a n s t r u c t u r e , t h e old distinctions h a v e c o n t i n u e d . A n example is the city of T e h r a n , w h e r e t h e h i g h e r - i n c o m e g r o u p s live o n h i g h e r grounds even w h e n the water s u p p l y is n o l o n g e r d e p e n d e n t o n wells a n d u n d e r g r o u n d s t r e a m s (Figure 2.3). T h e o c c u p a t i o n of strategic p o i n t s in urban l a n d s c a p e by powerful institutions and individuals h a s continued to this d a y , as exemplified by the hilltops in parts of California, w h e r e the wealthier g r o u p s live in large residences, at a relatively s a f e d i s t a n c e f r o m o t h e r u r b a n a r e a s w i t h higher c r i m e rates and atmospheric pollution. A h i l l t o p location, h o w e v e r , is not a l w a y s associated with p o w e r and wealth, as can b e s e e n b y the hilltop s h a n t y towns of S o u t h America and the hills

Figure 2 . 3 . Even when reliance on underground water streams has disappeared, the social geography continues to be influenced by topography. {Tehran, Iran) surrounding K a b u l , A f g h a n i s t a n . H e i g h t , in s o m e cases, can be an obstacle, a barrier to accessibility, m a r g i n a l i z i n g s o m e g r o u p s from urban services and opportunities. Natural s p a c e exerts a n o t h e r influence o n urban space as a c o n s e q u e n c e of human interaction. Since v e r y e a r l y times, transformation of the biophysical environment b y h u m a n societies h a s occurred in two distinctive ways: deliberate, which we call " e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t " today, and accidental, n o w called "environmental i m p a c t " . T h e k e y p h a s e s in this process included the development of the ability to m a n a g e fire, w h i c h allowed h u m a n societies to change the f o r m and c o m p o s i t i o n o f m a n y e c o s y s t e m s . Another k e y stage was acquiring the ability to d o m e s t i c a t e plants and a n i m a l s , which, since 3 0 0 0 BC, led to the d e v e l o p m e n t of c o m p a c t cities as concentrations of material and energy, which had to b e largely b r o u g h t in f r o m outside their boundaries, a n d waste, all of which altered the e n v i r o n m e n t o f the city a n d its surroundings. T h e s e transformations of the e n v i r o n m e n t h a v e intensified since the use o f fossil fuels enabled the d e v e l o p m e n t of large u r b a n areas. In addition to noticeable alterations to the lower a t m o s p h e r e , the l a n d s u r f a c e a n d the aquatic and ecological systems have been a l m o s t totally t r a n s f o r m e d b y m o d e r n cities. By reaching out for resources and depositing their w a s t e , urban areas are major agents of environmental c h a n g e both w i t h i n their b o u n d a r i e s a n d well b e y o n d ( S i m m o n s , 1989).

38

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

39

Created Space
Transforming the natural space, and overlaid upon it, are layers of created environments and social forms, accumulated through time, all together making the urban space. The city is therefore a socio-spatial phenomenon with an inherent, but visible, temporal dimension. It is a "product of time" (Mumford,1940: 4 ) , a "historical creation" (Benevolo,1980; 5), the "embodiment of history" (01sen,1986) and hence itself a "historical p r o c e s s " (Blumenfeld,1982:51). The historicity of urban fabric can be illustrated by a short walk in any old city anywhere in the world, where buildings and street patterns of various past periods stand side by side (Figure 2.4). Even newer cities have an inherent historicity: their creation is rooted in historical processes and concepts; and their relative durability could promise the beginning of future historical significance through the accumulation of populations and material artefacts. The city's social forms are also historical creations, as cities and the people who build and use them are both "embodiments of the past" (Moholy-Nagy,1968:11). The multitude of layers, which are produced over long periods of time to constitute the cities of today, are formed not only of artefacts but also of ideas and practices. Similar

to the short w a l k in the city, a brief look at many of our institutions, daily activities and beliefs w o u l d reveal their historical roots. Generations of p e o p l e have m a d e a n d remade numerous sets of ideas, practices and artefacts, some fading away within a short time while others outlive their creators. Every new generation of different social and abandons spatial some part of its socio-spatial from different inheritance and and maintains some other parts. Bv this they ensure a permanent but dynamic coexistence forms, modes of production institutions to daily routines, cultural habits and physical fabrics of the cities. This coexistence would not imply that the present is a prisoner of the past, as each new generation transforms and interprets, a n d therefore recreates, its inheritance in its own image. On the contrary, it allows the city a degree of freedom so that, as M u m f o r d put it, "By the diversity of its H m p - s t n i r t i i r e s ^ J l i p _ r i t y ^ j n parj escapes t h e tyranny nf a single present, a n d ^ t h e m o n o t o n y ^ F ^ bcafh^ard in the p a s t " ( M u m f o r d , 1 9 4 0 : 4). In this way w F m a y acqliire a^sTsf the historicity of the city. But h o w can we understand this historical city with its complex socio-spatial layers? Perhaps we should seek our answer from the historians of urban space to see if they could unpack these layers and explain them one b y one. Urban historians, architectural historians and historical geographers claim an uiiderstanding of the constitution and evolution of urban form. We therefore concentrate o u r attention on approaches to urban form in search of explanations for the complexities of urban space and the way it has been structured. in r e p e a t a g o n l y j i ^ i n g l e

Urban f o r m a n d historical processes

The role of architectural h i s t o r i a n s , according to Girouard (1992: 1 1 - 1 2 ) , is to interpret b u i l d i n g s a n d m a k e t h e s e interpretations accessible to others. Introducing his methodology, G i r o u a r d states that: "I w o r k on an ad hoc basis: o n e subject leads to another; i d e a s , t h e m e s o r h y p o t h e s e s occur to m e , and I follow them up. Sometimes they l e a d m e into w i d e r fields than just architecture, s o m e t i m e s a w a y from architecture a l t o g e t h e r , b u t it is from b u i l d i n g s that I start, a n d to buildings that I return". I h e tjuestion, ho\s'ever, r e m a i n s as to which buildings to choose to interpret. N i c h o l a s P e v s n e r ( 1 9 6 3 ) offers a formula h e had used to distinguish between b u i l d i n g s a n d a r c h i t e c t u r e : " N e a r l y everything that encloses space on a scale sufficient for a h u m a n b e i n g to m o v e is a building; the term bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture architecture" applies only to b u i l d i n g s d e s i g n e d w i t h a view to aesthetic a p p e a l " . In this way, " A (Pevsner,1963: 15). T h e p r o c e s s of selection and interpretation of buildings m a y lead to an illumination of artistic s t y l e s a n d aesthetic trends. It offers us a k n o w l e d g e of the m o n u m e n t s a n d other i m p o r t a n t buildings of the past. Flowever, it fails to address the cities in their totality. P e r h a p s this is w h y Kenneth F r a m p t o n feels obliged to a p o l o g i z e to " a l a r g e n u m b e r of small to medium craft practitioners throughout the w o r l d " , w h o s e w o r k h e h a d not included in his history of modern architecture ( F r a m p t o n , 1 9 9 2 ; 7 ) . In o u r quest for understanding cities, w e must ask whether c o n c e n t r a t i n g on b u i l d i n g s , or on w o r k s of architecture, is sufficient.
Figure {Columbus, 2.4. Ohio, Old and new stand side by side, even in the cities of the "new world" USA)

To

understand

cities, it f o l l o w s , w e

will need to consider architecture as all the

component p a r t s o f the built e n v i r o n m e n t (Roth,1993; Gorst,1995) (Figure 2.5).

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

41

and the subsequent rise in population in each p e r i o d . T h e c h a n g e in physical environment, which is influenced b y all other aspects of civilization a n d in turn influences them itself, and the w a y c h a n g e s are h i n d e r e d b y the m o n u m e n t s of the past and hastened b y the buildings of the m o d e r n era are subjects of s t u d y . Morris (1979) aims to s t u d y the most significant e x a m p l e s of u r b a n form, t h r o u g h their morphological c o m p o n e n t parts, a n d to establish the factors w i t h great determining effects on urban form, especially the "politics of p l a n n i n g " . The planned versus organic growth m o d e l s of urban d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h formed a major line of a r g u m e n t against m o d e r n i s t p l a n n i n g in the 1970s (Vance,1977; Morris,1979), are taken up and e x p a n d e d b y K o s t o f (1992) in his a c c o u n t of the relationship b e t w e e n historical processes and urban form. He identifies three processes that lead to urban c h a n g e . T w o of these processes are forceful and sudden: the natural and h u m a n disasters such as earthquakes, fires a n d wars. Another example w o u l d be the large-scale intervention of the authorities in urban development, w h i c h h e calls H a u s s m a n n i z a t i o n , referring to Baron H a u s s m a n n ' s redevelopment of Paris in the nineteenth century. T h e third category is the incremental change, where a city is transformed through thousands of small-scale alterations and adjustments. There have b e e n other attempts of this kind to i n t r o d u c e overriding principles and processes determining urban form, as exemplified by M u m f o r d (1975), who views the cities o f all times a s expressions o f v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s of two principles: accumulation and c o n q u e s t (Tilly,1984). A n o t h e r version of this approach might b e that of Eisenstadt and S h a c h a r (1987) w h o identify two processes, concentration and centrality, at w o r k in the formation of the cities and urban systems. T h e city is seen as a mosaic, each part of which is the o u t c o m e of different environmental orientations, and w h o s e concrete form is influenced by these orientations in different c o m b i n a t i o n s (Cohen,1976; Eisenstadt & Shachar,1987). For Gottmann (1978), the city, as a social and political phenomenon, exists with the c o n c u r r e n c e of three c o m p o n e n t s : a large n u m b e r of people, their built environment, and a combination of models of life. H e argues that the life and form of the cities are directly and indirectly affected b y the forces that modify the society, categorized traditionally u n d e r four titles: demographic forces, economic forces, the impact of technological c h a n g e , and cultural variation. Scargill (1979) envisages the processes that s h a p e the city in t w o principal categories: the historical processes, focusing on the impact of the former patterns of land ownership on the growth of the city; and the political processes, involving the role of politicians and planners. A c c o r d i n g to R a v e t z (1980: 13), h o w e v e r , the stress is on "the ideas or deliberate policy and design . . . the technology (building) . . . and the influence of cities as m e c h a n i s m s for the control of s o m e people by other g r o u p s " . W e can n o w see clearly h o w these interpretations of the w a y cities have taken shape tend to e m p h a s i z e s o m e factors and u n d e r m i n e others. If we see urban space as a physical space with social and psychological dimensions, our analysis of the processes that s h a p e d it will therefore need to account for these dimensions. Another trend in historical analysis of the city sees it as a "natural" p h e n o m e n o n , comparing its historical transformation to the biological evolution of the natural world. The city as a natural p h e n o m e n o n , a concept which Tafuri (1980) traces back

F i g u r e 2.5. To understand urban space, we need to consider architecture as all the component parts of the built environment. {Salmmbe, UK)

T h e relationship o f historical processes with u r b a n f o r m is one of the k e y debatr a m o n g historians. O n e line of a r g u m e n t , as represented by Watkins (1978,1980) for . e x a m p l e , m a i n t a i n s that it is futile to try to relate individual works of art to their | c o n t e m p o r a r y political, e c o n o m i c and cultural conditions. These works, it is argued, c a n b e best u n d e r s t o o d in connection with their concrete situations and with the I artist w h o created t h e m , a n d at the most general level, in the context of an aesthetic || tradition or m o v e m e n t . A counter-argument is put forward by those w h o cannot d i s r e g a r d the r e l a t i o n s h i p of artistic styles with their contemporary political forms, s o c i a l institutions, e c o n o m i c practice and ideological convictions (01sen,1986). As " a n o n v e r b a l f o r m of c o m m u n i c a t i o n " , architecture is "a mute record of the culture that p r o d u c e d i t " , a n d can b e " r e a d " in the s a m e w a y that written history and literature are r e a d (Roth,1993: 3 ) . It becomes, therefore, possible to deal with identifying the architectural styles and the development of various urban forms in historical p e r i o d s w i t h an attempt to explain the relation between societal processes a n d these d e v e l o p m e n t s (Vance,1977; Morris,1979; Benevolo,1980). B e n e v o l o (1980: 56) tries to explain the d e v e l o p m e n t of cities on t h e basis of the " m a j o r c l i a n g e s in p r o d u c t i v e organization that h a v e transformed e v e r y d a y life",

42

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

43

to the century of E n h g h t e n m e n t and the development of capitalism, is reflected in a [ number of design approaches. Ecological methods w e r e applied in which the city : | was understood as a form that is derived from "geological and biological evolution, ' existing as a sum of natural processes and adapted by m a n " (Mcfiarg,1969: 175). T h e historic d e v e l o p m e n t of the city is also perceived as a sequence of cultural adaptations that reflect in the city plan and its constituent buildings both individually and in groups. Alexander et al. (1987: 13) identify a shared feature between the old t o w n s and "all growing organisms", which is a "self-determined, inward-governing, growing w h o l e n e s s " . For Smith (1977), the city of the past has evolved according to universal principles in which growth is the result of transactions b e t w e e n organism and environment on the basis of a fixed rule. O n e of the main problems with this comparison between urban transformation and biological evolution is their different time-scales, w h e r e changes in the former are short term and involve human beings whose behaviour does not necessarily follow the physical laws of nature laws that govern the very long-term, evolutionary process of the latter. 'j Different b r a n c h e s of the historical approach h a v e tended to study the m o r p h o l o g y of cities or their parts to provide a w a r e n e s s , criticism or practical |l advice. S o m e p r o v i d e a critical f r a m e w o r k for understanding and evaluating the present or the past a p p r o a c h e s to urban form. Tafuri, for e x a m p l e , explains the d e v e l o p m e n t of u r b a n form and architectural styles through the d e v e l o p m e n t of capitalism (Tafuri,1980: 178). T h e r e f o r e , m o d e r n architecture is regarded as an attempt to resolve the imbalances, contradictions and retardations that characterize the capitalist reorganization of the w o r l d market and productive d e v e l o p m e n t . The appreciation of the collective m e m o r y through the m o n u m e n t s of the past (Rossi,1982), and t h e identification of the pre-industrial urban e l e m e n t s of the street, the square a n d the quarter, form a basis on which the re-integration of public realm contributes to the struggle against capitalism (L. Krier,1979; R. Krier, 1979a,b; GosHng & Maitland, 1984). Others aim to u s e historical studies to provide advice for future policies concerning urban f o r m , such as preservation and conservation, or design guidance (e.g. Moughtin,1991a,b). Lessons of the past are studied to offer guideUnes for the future. T h e question that is then raised is which period and w h i c h context offers the best examples for today. F o r example, for Westfall (1991: 2 8 6 ) , "Renaissance theory and practice provided all that one ought to k n o w to design cities, although the form that theory and practice takes today is different b e c a u s e current circumstances surrounding building in cities is different". As against views of this nature, Attoe and L o g a n argue that European urban design theories are not sufficient for addressing A m e r i c a n urban context. For them, " M u c h recent urban development in the United States has b e e n based on a pragmatic picking and choosing among European theories and precedents", to which they object (1989: xi). Whatever their differences, these approaches s e e m to share the notion of the j historicity of urban fabric. This notion has been developed out of the belief that since cities are built over long periods of time, any approach to urban form should take account of this historical evolution (Flealey & Madanipour,1993). However, it should be noted that since urban fabric has social, physical and symbolic dimensions, only those views of historical evolution of urban form that address

these d i m e n s i o n s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y will be useful in o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of urban space. In this way, b y considering that u r b a n fabric is t h e o u t c o m e of a historic process of development, it will be p o s s i b l e to establish l i n k s between f o r m and general societal processes b y focusing on this d e v e l o p m e n t process. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t process, as the social process t h r o u g h w h i c h u r b a n fabric is p r o d u c e d , finds a central i m p o r t a n c e in the s t u d y of the built form. It is through tracing this process that the course o f the d e v e l o p m e n t of a p a r t i c u l a r urban f o r m a n d hence its rationale a n d its d e t e r m i n a n t s c a n b e identified. R e s e a r c h e r s of u r b a n form, along with those i n v o l v e d in the c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of the city, are thus required, as J a c o b s (1985: 137) p r o p o s e s , to k n o w h o w cities h a v e g r o w n and developed physically and h o w this h a s been r e l a t e d to their social a n d e c o n o m i c history. This, h o w e v e r , is a n o t i o n that the d e s i g n approach, d u e to its specific concentration o n physical d i m e n s i o n s of u r b a n fabric, h a s not sufficiently developed. In o r d e r to find c o n c e p t u a l f r a m e w o r k s that address the development process as a social process, other a p p r o a c h e s to u r b a n form, from u r b a n geography and urban sociology, should also b e t a k e n into c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

The city as a w o r k of art

The architectural approach to t h e s t u d y of u r b a n f o r m might c o n v e n i e n t l y be called the " d e s i g n " a p p r o a c h (Eisenstadt & S h a c h a r , 1 9 8 7 ) , a s it is essenfially normative. It deals with the plan of the city, t h e v a r i o u s c o m p o n e n t parts of u r b a n space, and their functional a n d aesthetic a s p e c t s . T w o s t r a n d s in the studies of u r b a n form in architecture can b e identified: t h o s e w i t h a s t r o n g prescriptive content, which are often carried out b y designers to a n a l y s e u r b a n s p a c e in order to transform it; a n d the work of architectural historians w h o s e s t u d y of t h e urban forms of the past is more descriptive a n d has often o n l y an indirect relationship to design practice. Both approaches, h o w e v e r , mainly s e e k to explain u r b a n form w i t h an ultimately practical aim of b e i n g an aid to the d e s i g n p r o c e s s , a n d hence their dividing line can be blurred. Another dividing line, w h i c h can b e m o r e clearly distinguished, is between the way the functional and aesthetic a s p e c t s of the city arc a p p r o a c h e d . D u e to the presence of aesthetic aspects in architectural c o n c e r n s , the city in s o m e of the designers' analyses tends to be e x p l a i n e d t h r o u g h a set of subjective values. The city is seen as a " d r a m a t i c event in the e n v i r o n m e n t " , a gathering of p e o p l e w h o create "a collective s u r p l u s of e n j o y m e n t " and a g a t h e r i n g of b u i l d i n g s that can collectively give visual pleasure ( C u l l e n , 1 9 7 1 : 7 - 8 ) . T h e purpose of this gathering in the city is to offer pleasure and p s y c h o l o g i c a l welfare instead of stultification (Smith, 1977: 2 6 1 ) . T h e city is a w o r k of art ( B a c o n , 1 9 7 5 ; 01sen,1986), it "fosters art and is a r t " ( M u m f o r d , 1 9 4 0 : 4 8 0 ) . T h e city is seen as an architectural, and therefore an artistic, creation. Architecture c l a i m s superiority o v e r other f o r m s of visual art. P e v s n e r (1963) maintains that w h a t distinguishes architecture f r o m other arts such as painting and sculpture is its spatial quality. B u t it also i n c o r p o r a t e s elements of these art forms and therefore is the most c o m p r e h e n s i v e of visual arts. H e also believes in the social

44

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

45

In Britain, a strong concern for an artistic interpretation of the city can b e found in the Townscape movement. This tradition, whose origins k n o w n as Picturesque go back to the eighteenth century, occupied the centre of architectural debates during the two decades that followed the S e c o n d World W a r (Banham,1968). T h e editorial board of the Architectural Review, w h o were a m o n g the major a d v o c a t e s of the Picturesque, saw architecture and planning as essentially visual arts. Distinguished figures such as Nicholas Pevsner endorsed visual planning as the only suitable approach to the city, which is in line with English traditions. N e w Brutalism, the British version of modernist architecture, was criticized by the T o w n s c a p e movement as lacking aesthetic and emotional dimensions (Bandini,1992). It therefore studied the historical evolution of cities as a concern for preservation and conservation against the threats of modernist r e d e v e l o p m e n t ( S h a r p , ! 9 6 8 ) . Gordon CuUen's influential analysis of urban space was a major w o r k in the Townscape movement. Its main claim was that it had "assisted in charting the structure of the subjective world" (Cullen,1971:194). T o d o this, he concentrates on our personal and emotional reactions to the environment. W e acquire these responses by the "faculty of sight", as the environment is apprehended "almost entirely through vision" (Cullen,1971:8). He then introduces his serial vision technique, in which he recreates a walk in the environment, recording the existing and emerging views of a moving observer. These are to be complemented with an understanding of our reactions to the position of our bodies in our environment, an awareness of space, and its mood and character. Another dimension to our emotional reactions to the environment is our awareness of the contents of a place, i.e. the urban fabric with its colour, texture, scale, style, character, personality and uniqueness. T h e environment is created either by means of c o m m o n sense principles of health, amenity, convenience and privacy: objective values which CuUen sees as thriving and not in need of investigation. The environment can also be created through the subjective values of its occupants, an aspect about which he is concerned and finds the situation "disturbing". With an understanding of the sights of the city, he reasserts, w e can begin to manipulate it, to "mould the city into a coherent d r a m a " (Cullen,! 971:9). The reduction of urban experience to only o n e of its aspects, the visual experience, h o w e v e r , can hardly satisfy us in our search for an analysis that entails a use of more than one sense. W e h a v e been searching for a combination of verbal and non-verbal means of communication. As Bandini (1992), following Ferrai, mentions, the methodological grounds of the w h o l e of the Picturesque and Townscape enterprise were ambiguous and questionable. They lacked an interest in urban scale concepts and forms, and w e r e largely perceived to b e involved in the manipulation of the elements b f ' landscape and streetscape for environmental improvement.

F i g u r e 2.6.

The city as "the largest work of art possible". {Florence,

Italy)

superiority of architecture over other forms of visual and plastic art, as w e are surrounded b y architecture, u n a b l e to avoid b u i l d i n g s and "the subtle but penetrating effects of their c h a r a c t e r " (Pevsner,1963: 16). As w e live in the environments s h a p e d b y h u m a n artifice, architecture becomes " t h e unavoidable a r t " (Roth,1993). A s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d conclusion from this equation of city with its architecture is t h e n that the city is interpreted as " t h e largest work of art possible" (01sen,1986; 4) ( F i g u r e 2.6).

The city as an embodiment of functions

The Townscape approach to the city was a critique of an earlier attempt to understand urban space objectively through its functions. The latter had been developed in the inter-war period b y a group of avant-garde intellectuals who made up C I A M , the International Congress for M o d e r n Architecture. Their famous

Design of Urban Spac0

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

47

F i g u r e 2 . 7 . Following the motto, "form follows function", modernist design gave priority to the way space is produced and used, rather than how it looked. {Dublin, Ireland)

m o t t o , " f o r m follows function", m e a n t to subordinate the aesthetics of environment to its functions (Figure 2.7). T o find solutions for urban problems of the time, which | t h e y s a w as increasing congestion, spreading blight and intensifying chaos, they d e v e l o p e d a f r a m e w o r k that w o u l d enable them to analyse and compare the living conditions in contemporary cities. A c c o r d i n g to this analytical framework, which t h e y used in undertaking case studies of 33 major urban areas, cities w e r e sites of four elementary functions; dwelling, work (or production), recreation and transportation (Sert,1944). Their findings were then e m p l o y e d in the production of a t o w n planning chart in 1933, k n o w n as the Charter of Athens, in which they suggested w a y s of reorganizing these functions hoping for a better fulfilment of the cultural role of cities. T h e strength of the Charter lay partly in its integrated approach to urban p h e n o m e n a . It insisted that t o w n s and cities cannot b e studied out of their regional context that constitutes their natural limits and environments. A city is part of a g e o g r a p h i c , eccmomic, social, cultural and political unit, a regional unit upon w l i i c h its d e v e l o p m e n t d e p e n d s and in which t o w n a n d country m e r g e into one a n o t h e r . Since then, these functional d i m e n s i o n s of urban structure h a v e been w i d e l y studied, accumulating a vast literature o n urban studies, and the

prescriptions of the Charter h a v e b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d . This modernist vision in creating better cities and the n a r r o w n e s s of its functionalist analytical f r a m e w o r k , h o w e v e r , w e r e w i d e l y q u e s t i o n e d b y a g e n e r a t i o n of commentators. This is reflected in a major d i c h o t o m y that d o m i n a t e d the architectural debates during the 1970s a n d 1980s: the contrast b e t w e e n m o d e r n i s m , the established postwar approach to design, and p o s t - m o d e r n i s m , w h i c h e m e r g e d as a reaction to it (Jencks,1973, 1992). This contrast h a s deeply a f f e c t e d the w a y u r b a n form and phenomena have been explained. T h e m o d e r n i s t a p p r o a c h to h i s t o r y w a s to develop an evaluation and a critique of the past w i t h w h i c h to establish m o d e r n solutions as an achievement of the age ( G i b b e r d , 1 9 5 9 ; G i e d i o n , 1 9 6 7 ; Le Corbusier,1971). T h e urban form of the past w a s s t u d i e d to p r o v e its inability to cope with the requirements of the m o d e r n civilization ( S e r t , 1 9 4 4 ) , or to offer lessons for modern d e v e l o p m e n t s ( M o h o l y - N a g y , 1 9 6 8 ) . As a reaction to this, the p o s t - m o d e r n i s t historical a n a l y s i s w a s c o n c e r n e d with urban forms of the past for d e v e l o p i n g a critique o f t h e m o d e r n i s t d e v e l o p m e n t s and propositions for the future. T h e r e w a s a r e v i v a l of interest in an approach developed by Sitte (1945, originally p u b l i s h e d in 1 8 8 9 ) . Sitte w a n t e d to extract "universal principles out of the array of specific e x a m p l e s that old cities p r e s e n t " (Collins &L ColIins,1986; 64). It had b e e n criticized b y m o d e r n i s t c o m m e n t a t o r s as breaking from the time (Giedion,1967), returning to m e d i e v a l v a l u e s a n d to the praising of aesthetics, w h i c h w a s u n a c c e p t a b l e in " a n a g e of m o t o r - c a r s " (Le Corbusier, 1971). W i t h the revival of interest in old cities, " t h e traditional syntax of the cities" w a s appreciated, since it h a d b e e n d e v e l o p e d o v e r millennia and w a s entirely sensitive to a wide r a n g e of p s y c h o l o g i c a l n e e d s a n d aspirations (Smith,1977). This form of faith in traditional cities, h o w e v e r , h a s b e e n open to criticism on g r o u n d s that it reinforces its a r g u m e n t " w i t h all the nostalgia and authority which this view of the past can p r o v i d e " ( G o s l i n g & M a i t l a n d , 1984: 29), and that it can b e anachronistic w i t h its lack of a t t e n t i o n to the social f o r m s and urban dynamics of today. Both Morris (1979) and V a n c e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , in their historical research, focus on the contrasting categories of towns that have been d e \ e l o p e d o n a " p l a n n e d " or "preconceived" basis as against the " o r g a n i c g r o w t h " . T h i s v i e w e x p r e s s e s a debate on the role of planning in the d e v e l o p m e n t of u r b a n areas. It is similar to the contrast between " b l u e p r i n t " and " p r o c e s s " p r i n c i p l e s of d e s i g n identified by Bourne (1982), or to " u t o p i a n " as o p p o s e d to " n a t u r a l " (Gosling & M a i t l a n d , 1 9 8 4 ) . It is manifest in t h e ' contrast b e t w e e n " m o d e r n i t y " a n d " t r a d i t i o n " , b e t w e e n "revolution" and " e v o l u t i o n " i(Smith,1977), b e t w e e n centralized authority and the people, and b e t w e e n laws and m a s t e r plans with p i e c e m e a l g r o w t h ( A l e x a n d e r et al., 1987). Other aspects of this d i c h o t o m y are the d i f f e r e n c e in the scale and the scope: the universal plan as against specific \vorking details (Collins & ColIins,1986), and in the battle a g a i n s t and for the r e v i v a l of aesthetics (Scruton, 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 7 9 ) . These are the lines of a r g u m e i i t of p o s t - m o d e r n i s m against m o d e r n i s m that were criticized for their stress o n " t e c h n o l o g y , authoritarian u t o p i a n i s m , and mega-scale t h i n k i n g " (Collins & C o l l i n s , 1 9 8 6 : 125). This dichotomy has its c o u n t e r p a r t in social p h i l o s o p h y , as exemplified in the discussions of H a b e r m a s and L y o t a r d ( D e w s , 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e transition from high-

48

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

49 \

m o d e r n i s m to p o s t - m o d e r n i s m fias b e e n linked w i t h the transition f r o m highFordism, the post-war socio-spatially centralized s y s t e m legitimized by grand narratives of progress and e m a n c i p a t i o n , to p o s t - F o r d i s m as a socio-spatially decentralized system w h o s e characteristic is the " e x h a u s t i o n of Utopian energies" (Habermas, in Albertsen,1988). H a r v e y (1989: 2 5 6 - 2 5 7 ) refers to m o d e r n i s m as the Utopian p r o g r a m m e to transform s o c i e t y b y t r a n s f o r m i n g space, a p r o g r a m m e w h o s e failure had linked m o d e r n i s m to capital accumulation through mass production. M o d e r n i s m w a s r e p r e s e n t i n g corporate p o w e r , and, with the changing circumstances, p o s t - m o d e r n i s m gained ground to represent the flexible accumulation of capital. O n e of the early b r a n c h e s w h i c h d e v e l o p e d as a c o u n t e r - m o v e m e n t towards m o d e r n i s m with the a i m of h u m a n i z i n g its a p p r o a c h e s to urban form, w a s a search for the image of the city and its " l e g i b i l i t y " ( L y n c h , 1 9 7 9 ) . It stimulated extensive research on patterns of b e h a v i o u r a n d m e n t a l m a p p i n g of the cities and held a strong position in the d e v e l o p m e n t of criteria for m o r p h o l o g i c a l studies and design (Bentley et al.,1985; J a c o b s & A p p l e y a r d , 1987; T i b b a l d s , 1 9 8 8 ) . Cultural imperatives in the development of u r b a n f o r m ( R a p o p o r t , 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 7 ) and symbolic meanings attributed to the site o f a city o r a p a r t i c u l a r structure w i t h i n it (Tuan,1977; Harvey, 1985a; Harbison,1991), and to the allocation of different areas in the city to various g r o u p s (Tuan,1982), and the a l i g n m e n t of walls, gates and major road axes (Wheatley, in Eisenstadt & S h a c h a r , 1 9 8 7 ) h a v e constituted major lines of investigation of urban form. D e s p i t e the e x t e n s i v e literature o n t h e d e s i g n a p p r o a c h , Eisenstadt a n d S h a c h a r (1987) argue that it h a s p r o v i d e d a l m o s t n o p a r a d i g m , and that m a n y of the s t u d i e s in this a p p r o a c h , a i m i n g a t i d e n t i f y i n g t h e u n i q u e features o f the city structure for a given period or p l a c e , are i d i o g r a p h i c . It s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, that, although the a p p r o a c h m a y n o t h a v e d e v e l o p e d a coherent conceptual f r a m e w o r k , it h a s g e n e r a t e d w i d e r cultural d e b a t e s . It has also p r o v i d e d a considerable a m o u n t of i n f o r m a t i o n o n a r c h i t e c t u r e a n d urban f o r m , w i d e n i n g the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of u r b a n d e s i g n a n d b a s i c e l e m e n t s o f the internal s t r u c t u r e of the cities. Moreover, the relationship of m o d e r n i s m with pre-modern and post-modern schools of design and thought, a n d the attempts w h i c h have tried to put these relationships into c h a n g i n g societal c o n t e x t s , have p r o v i d e d valuable insights to the d y n a m i c s of socio-spatial contexts. A n y s t u d y of u r b a n form, therefore, d u e to the p r e d o m i n a n c e of m o d e r n i s t t h i n k i n g in a large part of the present century throughout the w o r l d , will h a v e to take it into consideration. It will h a v e to address its impact on the p r o d u c t i o n of that p a r t i c u l a r urban f o r m , along with its associated societal processes, and the types of reaction to it.

The demand for a better understanding of the economic, political, social and cultural contexts of the city has been growing within urban g e o g r a p h y during the second half of the twentieth century. Before the 1950s, the traditional geographical approach mainly dealt with synthesizing separate features into a regional unity (Hall,1984). In addition to this regionalism, two earlier paradigms can b e identified: exploration and environmentalism. The latter at times reached the stage o f determinism, investigating the ways in which the physical environment affects the functioning and development of societies (Herbert & Thomas,1982). F r o m the 1950s onward, the conceptual bases of urban geography experienced a rapid evolution. New paradigms reoriented the perspectives of urban geographers, mainly resulting in a greater regard for the philosophies of the social sciences. T h e p a c e of the emergence of n e w paradigms resulted in tensions, and a situation in which no paradigm was totally discarded (Herbert & T h o m a s , 1 9 8 2 ) , resulting in a diversification of interest and focus (Johnston,1991,1993; Gregory, Martin & Smith,1994). T h e evolution of geographical thought during the p o s t - w a r p e r i o d h a s taken the form of a m a i n strand which studied urban spatial structure, a n d t w o later strands w h i c h d e v e l o p e d as a critique of t h e m a i n s t r e a m . T h e s e t w o strands, behavioural studies and radical g e o g r a p h y , i n t e n d e d to d e e p e n a n d b r o a d e n the scope of u r b a n investigation b y paying attention to subjective and political-economic considerations of urban p h e n o m e n a . T h i s pattern, associated with the g r o w i n g social m o v e m e n t s after the late 1 9 6 0 s , s h o w s b r o a d consistency with other social sciences and w i t h u r b a n a r c h i t e c t u r e ' s a p p r o a c h e s to the study of urban form.

The internal structure of t h e city

The study of the internal structure of the cities started from the C h i c a g o school's descriptions of urban structure, generalized in three models, concentric, sector and multiple nuclei. It then developed to a combination of these models in the form of social area analysis through the methodology of factorial ecology (Bourne,1982). In this approach, patterns of urban land use are described on the basis of models relating location and accessibility through price m e c h a n i s m . T h e a p p r o a c h is called "neoclassical-functional description" (Johnston,1982), "empirical-analytical" (Bourne,1982) or "quantitative-theoretical" (Herbert & T h o m a s , 1982). It focused on documentation of the spatial organization of society and was strongly linked with the "quantitative revolution" (Hall,1984). W i t h "spatial a n a l y s i s " as its paradigm, it b e c a m e the dominant approach in p o s t - w a r geography (Herbert & Thomas,1982). The earliest classical model of the city structure, developed in 1925, suggested that the growth o f a city takes place concentrically. Inspired b y the study o f plant and animal ecology. Burgess envisaged the outward growth of the city resulting from invasion and succession, providing a descriptive framework to study both the spatial organization of land use in the city and its change over time, and the relationship between population mobility and social organization (Scargill,1979; Herbert & Thomas,1982) (Figure 2.8).

Ecology of urban structure

T h e ecological analysis that the C h i c a g o school of sociology proposed in the interw a r period has occupied a p r e d o m i n a n t position in social sciences ever since. U r b a n sociology's c o n c e r n with u r b a n spatial structure w a s widely influential in the d e v e l o p m e n t of urban geographical t h o u g h t .

50

Design of Urban Space

Structural Franneworks of Urban Space

51

Figure 2.8.

The ecological approach to urban structure explained the spatial organization USA)

and the outward growth of the city through waves of invasion and succession by different groups. {Chicago.

perfect competition. T o c o m p e n s a t e for these s h o r t c o m i n g s , i m p o r t a n c e of factors such as t o p o g r a p h y , directions of u r b a n g r o w t h , e n v i r o n m e n t a l quality and historical factors w e r e later empirically e s t a b l i s h e d in n u m e r o u s studies (Korcelli,1982). In 1939, Hoyt formulated a sector m o d e l on the basis of rent levels in residential neighbourhoods. According to h i m , the residential areas w e r e not d i s t r i b u t e d in the form of concentric rings, but as pie-shaped sectors. "If o n e sector of t h e city first develops as a high, m e d i u m , or l o w rental residential area, it will tend to retain that character for long distances" as t h r o u g h the p r o c e s s of a city's g r o w t h , the sector extends from the city centre along transportation r o u t e s (Hoyt, in N e l s o n , 1971: 79). These two models w e r e modified b y a third, the m u l t i p l e nuclei m o d e l , w h i c h was developed b y Harris and U l l m a n in 1945. T h e y a r g u e d that the city g r o w s around not a single centre b u t a number of centres which are, in n u m b e r a n d specialization, proportionate to the size of the city. These models w e r e tested extensively in m a n y cities with n o c o n c l u s i v e results. The pattern of intra-urban population density, d e s c r i b e d as a n e g a t i v e exponential decline of density w i t h distance from the city c e n t r e , w a s also a n o t h e r supportive theory which w a s n e v e r invalidated (Korcelli,1982). T h i s has b e e n e x p l a i n e d in t w o ways; that cities are subject to de-concentration p r o c e s s e s as a result of the passage of time and g r o w t h in size; and that the d e - c o n c e n t r a t i o n p r o c e s s e s , linked to certain economic, technological a n d cultural factors, are a f e a t u r e of the m o d e r n world. The three m o d e l s of urban structure w e r e d e v e l o p e d in a certain period in America and often failed to b e a p p l i c a b l e to o t h e r t i m e s and p l a c e s . A s regards their declining relevance. Berry (1971) a r g u e d that in each city a different combination of three classic principles of u r b a n l o c a t i o n o p e r a t e : cities as the sites of special functions; cities as the e x p r e s s i o n s of t h e layout a n d the character of transport n e t w o r k s ; and cities as central p l a c e s . H o y t (1971) a t t e m p t e d to summarize the effects of urbanization, of w i d e s p r e a d o w n e r s h i p a n d u s e of the car, high-rise construction for office and residential use, and o t h e r social and technological c h a n g e s on the distortion of the traditional p a t t e r n s . F o r Nelson (1971), some of the most significant factors c o n t r i b u t i n g to the u r b a n structure in American cities included rapid a n d m a s s i v e g r o w t h , a h e t e r o g e n e o u s population, the desire for a single family d e t a c h e d h o u s e , a n d the c h a n g i n g f o r m of urban transportation. B l u m e n f e l d (1982: 5 1 ) s a w u r b a n f o r m a result of " t h e interaction of situation, function, and site". It also results " f r o m t h e c o n c e p t s in the m i n d s of its citizens and from the types of s t r u c t u r e they b u i l d , b o t h d e r i v e d f r o m pre-urban roots; and from the reaction of t h e s e on situation, function, a n d site, and on subsequent h u m a n activity". B o u r n e (1971) called for attention to b e p a i d to the additional effects of changes in attitudes a n d in political a n d institutional organization. Korcelli (1982) identifies six m a j o r a p p r o a c h e s f r o m v a r i e d a n d previously unrelated disciplines which h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d to the b o d y of t h e o r y on urban spatial structure a n d growth. T h e s e a p p r o a c h e s are ecological c o n c e p t s from sociology; theories of urban l a n d f r o m e c o n o m i c s ; u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n density models from d e m o g r a p h y ; m o d e l s of i n t r a - u r b a n f u n c t i o n a l p a t t e r n s (or spatial interaction m o d e l s ) from urban p l a n n i n g ; s e t t l e m e n t n e t w o r k (or s y s t e m ) theories;

This theory w a s supported b y u r b a n land rent theory, which assumes the centre of the city as highly desirable, a n d that, d u e to shortage of land supply, the users will m a k e competitive bids for a site here (Alonso,1971). T h e theory w a s criticized d u e to its static-equilibrium form and the a s s u m p t i o n s which tend to simplify reality, such as the location of all the service and e m p l o y m e n t opportunities at a single city centre, a symmetric pattern of transport costs and the condition of

52

Design of Urban Space

Structural Franneworks of Urban Spac e

53

and models of spatial diffusion o n a n i n t r a - u r b a n s c a l e , both from g e o g r a p h y . The theoretical u n d e r p i n n i n g s o f t h e a p p r o a c h w e r e l o c a t i o n theory, w h i c h w a s previously developed in G e r m a n y a n d dealt w i t h t h e m a p p i n g o f e c o n o m i c costs onto geographic s p a c e ; a n d t h e g r a v i t y m o d e l a n d its later m o r e sophisticated derivatives. B o r r o w e d f r o m N e w t o n i a n p h y s i c s , t h e latter a r g u e d that the interaction b e t w e e n a n y t w o p o i n t s o n t h e e a r t h ' s s u r f a c e would b e f o u n d to be directly proportionate to the size o r m a s s of t h e p l a c e a n d inversely proportionate ^ to t h e distance b e t w e e n t h e m . F o r t h e u r b a n g e o g r a p h e r , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of location theory a n d spatial p h y s i c s r e s u l t e d in t h e s e a r c h for the u n d e r l y i n g order | in urban b e h a v i o u r in t h e f r a m e w o r k o f a social s c i e n c e . Urbanits, p r o d u c e r s or 4 c o n s u m e r s , w e r e rational b e i n g s w i t h p u r e e c o n o m i c objectives w h o confronted ' the "friction of d i s t a n c e " in g e o g r a p h i c a l s p a c e . T o o v e r c o m e this, they created spatial regularities, in v a r i o u s f o r m s o f u r b a n s p a c e , patterns of land u s e , a n d the distribution of inter- a n d i n t r a - u r b a n trips, that w e r e the expression of basic universal laws. A b s e n t f r o m this a p p r o a c h w a s a n explanation o f urban g ' p h e n o m e n a w h e r e sociological, p s y c h o l o g i c a l , c u l t u r a l a n d political factors came in (Hall,1984). T h e central feature of t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e a p p r o a c h to spatial analysis w a s an explicit philosophical position, logical p o s i t i v i s m ; a trend t o w a r d s the development of g e o g r a p h y o n t h e b a s i s of a q u a n t i f i e d form o f theory such " m o d e l s " ; and s u b s e q u e n t l y tested t h r o u g h e m p i r i c a l observation (11,1984). T h e e description of t h e earth's s u r f a c e w a s replaced b y an attempt to search for underlying laws g o v e r n i n g t h e distribution of c e r t a i n features on t h e space of the earth. T h e explanatory m o d e l s o f t h e a p p r o a c h s t e m in part from those o f B neoclassical e c o n o m i c s , e m p h a s i z i n g t h e price-fixing m e c h a n i s m s through | competition in t h e free m a r k e t s , i n t o w h i c h t h e e x t r a costs of crossing distance are 1 introduced b y t h e g e o g r a p h e r ; a n d f r o m t h e functionalist sociology o f Talcott 1 Parsons with its d e m o g r a p h i c n o t i o n of s o c i a l structure (Johnston,1982). ^ Characteristics o f t h e post-war scientific d e v e l o p m e n t s in A m e r i c a w h i c h were transferred to u r b a n g e o g r a p h y a s spatial a n a l y s i s included an e m p h a s i s o n j general trends a n d patterns a n d i n t e r p r e t i n g specifics within a theoretical matrix instead of focusing o n the u n i q u e a n d e x c e p t i o n a l ; a n application of numerical m e t h o d s to a n a l y s e data a n d s o b e c o m i n g " s c i e n t i f i c a l l y " respectable; a n d an apparently predictive p o w e r c a p a b l e o f b e i n g u s e d in the d e v e l o p m e n t of public policy (Herbert & T h o m a s , 1 9 8 2 ) . A s a proposition o n the n a t u r e o f structural g r o w t h of the city. B o u r n e (1982: 3 7 - 3 9 ) introduces " d e s i g n e r p r i n c i p l e s " a s a d d r e s s i n g t h e "rules, both explicit and implicit, that act to 'design' t h e s t r u c t u r e " of t h e city. These principles pose the essential questions o f " w h y cities a r e laid o u t t h e w a y they are? W h o then determines o r d e s i g n s t h e spatial f o r m o f t h e c i t y ? a n d o n w h a t criteria?" He identifies in the literature three sets of designer principles: blueprint, process and relational principles. Blueprint principles describe a p r e m e d i t a t e d p r o c e s s o f planning a n d reflect the presence of a c o m p l e t e m o n o p o l y o v e r the instrviments of design. In the process principles, the g r a d u a l evolution o f u r b a n structure is emphasized w h i c h has taken place through a s e q u e n c e o f t h o u s a n d s o f events, a c t i o n s and decisions in which the parts fit together through a d a p t a t i o n , or trial a n d error. Three types of such

processes are identified: competition, as reflected in land market a n d territorial claims, which generate contradictory processes of co-operation a n d m o n o p o l y ; socialization/stratification, as reflected in the process o f social clustering, networks and organizations; and institutions, a s reflected in the formalized patterns and rules of behaviour. The third set of designer principles include viewing the urban spatial structure as based on s o m e physical analogue, incorporating principles o f least effort, minimization o f the friction of distance, maximum entropy, allometric principles, or biological analogies. Bourne argues that in contemporary times, a n y u r b a n area is, to some degree, subject to all these rules of design, thus "the internal structure of the city mirrors a complex interplay of pressures that derive from c o m p e t i n g i f not contradictoryattempts to 'design' a structure that fits s o m e o n e ' s image and/or interests". The extensive literature which the studies of the internal structure o f cities have provided are a rich source of theoretical and practical approaches to u r b a n form. However, any attempt to utilize these approaches will need to take into account the limitations inherent in their conceptual bases, as referred to earlier and a s discussed further in Chapter 5. The quantitative techniques, which study t h e locational behaviour of individuals and their impact on determining the urban structure, will then b e o f p r i m e importance w h e n coupled with the consideration o f their interactions w i t h what constrains their actions in t h e form of social structures and systems.

Urban morphology
A major trend involved in the study of urban form in urban geography is urban morphology. T h e term morphology means " t h e science of f o r m " (Slwrter Oxf rd o Dictionary,970), which studies the "shape, form, external structure or arrangement, especially as an object of study or classification" {Supplement o the Oxfo rd t English Dictionary, 1976). It has been mainly used in biology for the study " n o t only of shape a n d structure in plants,- animals a n d microorganisms, b u t also o f t h e size, shape, structure, and relationships of their parts". Although it is typically contrasted with the study of functions of organisms and their parts, i.e. physiology, their separation is somewhat artificial due to t h e close interrelation of the function and structure o f organisms {The New Encyclo paedia Britannica,^984). Urban morphology is the systematic study of the form, shape, plan, structure and functions of the built fabric of t o w n s and cities, and of the origin a n d the w a y in which this fabric has evolved o v e r time (Clark,1985; Small & Witherick,1986; Goodall, 1987) (Figure 2.9). Fo r Gordon (1984: 3 ) , morphology entails "plots, buildings, u s e , streets, plans, t o w n s c a p e s " . It is dealt with mostly in urban geography which studies spatial aspects of urban development from t w o interurban and intra-urban viewpoints. In the case of the latter, "urban areas are studied in terms of their morphology, producing concepts and generalizations related to the character and intensity of land u s e within the urban area a n d . to the spatial interactions of o n e part of the urban area with another, i.e. internal structure a n d processes" (Goodall,1987).

54

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Spac

55

has focused on t o w n plan analysis and building form. A theoretical f r a m e w o r k w a s \vorked out which described the creation of m o r p h o l o g y b y referring to " a c t o r s " in "stages" (Gordon,1984). Whitehand a r g u e s that for a m o r e realistic p e r s p e c t i v e , it is necessary to "set individual decision makers into a wider f r a m e w o r k of morphogenetics, economics, property interests a n d artistic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s " (VVhitehand,1988: 288). He s u m s u p the research questions of o n e o f the most important lines of investigation in British urban m o r p h o l o g y in the 1 9 8 0 s a s dealing with the location of the individuals and the firms involved in the d e v e l o p m e n t process, their relationship with each other, a n d the i m p l i c a t i o n s of these relationships for the change of building form. These are the questions in r e s p o n s e to which new studies h a v e been carried out (Larkham,1986). The social geography of the nineteenth-century cities is studied on t h e b a s i s of the ecological theory of the Chicago school and social area analysis ( D e n n i s & Prince,1988). T h e spatial structure of a city is reconstructed and c o m p a r e d with a few standard types: Sjoberg's pre-industrial city. B u r g e s s ' s c o n c e n t r i c a l l y zoned city, and Hoyt's sectors. It b e c o m e s then possible to locate the city in question somewhere along a transition f r o m "pre-industrial" to " m o d e r n " . I n the 1970s, when the studies w e r e still principally descriptive, the observed c h a n g e s w e r e accounted for only b y the most general of processes such as m o d e r n i z a t i o n . But over time, the concept of modernity has b e c o m e less unilinear and m o r e historical through observation of modern attitudes, perceptions, political p h i l o s o p h i e s and forms of class consciousness, together with spatial patterns (Dennis & P r i n c e , 1988).
F i g u r e 2 . 9 . Urban morphology is the systematic study of the form, shape, plan, structure ai function of the built fabric of towns and cities, and of the origin and the way in which this fabric has evolved over time. {Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

Until the 1960s, the main concern o f urban geographers was the internal structure of the city focused on morphology, w h i c h plotted the ages and types of buildings a n d identified different historical components of town plans (Dennis & Prince,1988). Urban morphology in its most active period was emphasizing the classification of subrogions within individual cities in relation with the phases of u r b a n growth (Herbert & T h o m a s , 1 9 8 2 ; Baker & Slater,1992). U r b a n morphology in the G e r m a n - s p e a k i n g world was flourishing in the interw a r years and remained an integrated part of urban geographical research in the post-war period (Whitehand,1988). Architects and historians as well as geographers liad contributed to develop urban morphology. T h i s line of central European research was introduced to Britain m a i n l y through the work of M. R. G. Conzen (1960), who tried to explain the present structure of a town plan by examining its historical development.

|, 1

In Germany, recent studies on u r b a n growth during the nineteenth c e n t u r y often proceed to investigate processes a n d the agentspolitical, functional, social and economicthat lay behind such u r b a n expansion (Denecke,1988). D e t a i l e d studies have focused on urban fragments, their m o r p h o g e n e t i c and f u n c t i o n a l change, especially during the nineteenth a n d twentieth centuries. Individual sections of towns, as representatives of the w h o l e , are studied, reflecting the p r o c e s s e s that the town underwent. T h e researcher is thus allowed to go into detail a n d to follow threads, which finally knit everything together on a m o r e general a n d theoretical level. With these characteristics, is it not urban m o r p h o l o g y that s e e m s to p r o v i d e the necessary frameworks for the study of urban form? T h e extensive e m p i r i c a l studies of this line of enquiry have p r o d u c e d useful information about p a r t i c u l a r urban landscapes and h a v e shed light on s o m e crucial relationships b e t w e e n physical space and social actors, such as that between the d e v e l o p m e n t a g e n c y ' s location and the building form they produce. Nevertheless, there are s o m e b r o a d e r issues which this tradition, in its highly focused, empirical research, leaves u n a d d r e s s e d . Despite the recent emergence of interest in the study of urban l a n d s c a p e , urban morphology is sdll on the margins of architecture (Bandini,1992) a n d g e o g r a p h y (Whitehand & Larkham,1992b). T h i s is w h e r e it can b e distinguished f r o m t h e m o r e critical approaches to urban l a n d s c a p e (Knox,l 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 3 ) , which try t o relate the changes in physical space to the fundamental social change which t h e cities have undergone. Urban morphology tradition remains sceptical of these a t t e m p t s , as it believes, "Causal links b e t w e e n post-modern landscapes a n d economic restructuring h a v e still to be convincingly s h o w n " (Whitehand & L a r k h a m , 1 9 9 2 b 9). Although focusing on the operation of agencies w i t h i n certain structures, it doe:

s | | 'f, i |

In the 1960s, with the rise of interest in functional classification and the economic b a s e s of urban systems, urban m o r p h o l o g y was severely criticized as being mainly i descriptive, lacking in good m e a s u r e m e n t techniques and faihng to develop a general theory, and focusing m e r e l y on the observable and the inanimate (Herbert & Thomas,1982). Following a period of quiescence, since the 1970s there has been a resurgence of research activity in urban m o r p h o l o g y (Whitehand, 1988,1992; Slater,1990; Whitehand & Larkham,1992a). In its revived form, urban morphology

56

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

57

not seem interested in addressing the general p r o c e s s e s a n d contexts in which these operations are carried out. This i m p h e s that despite its apparent a t t e m p t s to Imk urban form with w i d e r societal contexts, it has only concentrated on certain aspects of urban form in relation to certain characteristics of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t process and its agencies. It has, however, f o u n d growing s u p p o r t a m o n g u r b a n design a n d conservation circles. Urban m o r p h o l o g y , as an empirical form of s t u d y a p p r o a c h e d by urban geographers, is considered to be offering c o n s i d e r a b l e opportunities for t h e "understanding and appreciation of historical a n d morphological context" 1 (Lowndes & M u r r a y , 1988). M o r p h o l o g i c a l rules of t h u m b have b e e n proposed to study the urban form at three levels of basic c o m p o n e n t s : elements, a n d historical and contemporary characteristics. H e r e the positive contribution of u r b a n design is seen to confine its i d e a s to small a n d m a n a g e a b l e a r e a s such as b l o c k s , streets or, buildings. This approach to u r b a n f o r m has b e e n criticized as leading to environmental determinism, ignoring the e c o n o m i c , political and cultural context within which buildings have b e e n p r o d u c e d . W h a t is called for are the guidelines which translate "all our understanding about the c o n t e m p o r a r y w a y s the built environment is p r o d u c e d , used and v a l u e d " ( H e a l e y , 1 9 8 8 : 4 ) .

approach which focuses only on statistical associations between various aspects of the socio-economic system and the models emphasizing individual choice; a n d in the subjective approach which studies only the perceived world of individuals w h o ffiay well be only dimly aware of these constraints. The positivist claims of being objective, value-free and politically neutral w e r e criticized as w o r k i n g to serve the existing social system and enable its survival. T h e other main themes of criticism were the assumption of consensus a r r a n g e m e n t s between conflicting and unequal social groups; the descriptive role of the quantitative a p p r o a c h and the mechanical way in which it could predict within the prescriptions of existing orders; and the reductionism of subjective approaches. Hall (1984) identifies the role of the liberals in this approach. Their focus on the question of " w h o got what in the contemporary c i t y " , led to the s t u d y of the distribution of m o n e y income, and of access to private and public services, followed by a look at the political processes within the city to understand h o w inequalities arose. The Marxists rejected the logical positivist philosophy that the liberals and the quantifiers s h a r e d , and adopted the view that objective knowledge of reality, as the product of a given socio-economic formation, can only be achieved b y understanding the historical laws that govern the rise and fall of such formations. The institutional approach a r g u e s that the m a i n determinant of locational behaviour is p o w e r , particularly economic power, and identifies the core of problems facing geographers as being the structural analysis of capitalism and its spatial manifestations (Johnston,1982). Despite the criticisms of the existence of "hidden s t r u c t u r e s " (Scruton,1985), the value of structural approaches should b e stressed as pointing towards the broader contexts within which urban spatial structures and social problems must be studied. Herbert and T h o m a s (1982: 41) describe structuralism as "a diffuse tendency rather than a really consistent doctrine", which w a s concerned with grasping the meaning of underlying structures. It was a holistic scheme which viewed patterns and processes as largely affected b y "structural imperatives" (Herbert & Thomas,1982: 41). Points o f departure occur at more detailed levels of understanding, where local factors need to be considered. This has led, within the framework of structures, to the study of "symbolic" or social values and the impacts of more localized organizations and institutions, as well as the study of " m a n a g e r s " in the societal system (Herbert & Thomas,1982). T h e r e have been attempts to integrate the different approaches as "openings" which lead to the flexibility of Marxist thought, as inspired b y the w o r k of Gramsci. A n early example of this flexibility h a s been Pickvance (1974), w h o suggests that the m o d e of production exercises a general rather than a specific effect upon the social content of spatial forms. As a response to the increased awareness of the influence of social processes on urban form, the need to relate "shapes on the ground to the shapes in s o c i e t y " (Carter & Wheatley,1979: 237) and the need to reconcile the social and physical space (Shaw,1979), focus on the relationship between pattern and the underlying social, economic and political processes has been stressed by social geographers (Pooley & Lawton,1987). During the last two decades, other social sciences, e.g. sociology (Saunders,1981), political science (Agnew,1987) and urban history (Tilly,1984), h a v e f o u n d a much greater awareness of the need for the recognition of the role of space in the comprehension of human behaviour. As King (1990: 1) puts

Political economy of urban structure

T h e main rival to h u m a n ecology in spatial analysis a n d social scientific inquiry has^ b e e n the political e c o n o m i c analysis. In the late 1 9 6 0 s , a wide-ranging discontent with the p r e d o m i n a n t spatial analysis a p p r o a c h started to d e v e l o p . It was|| discovered that the complexity of spatial c h a n g e in t h e a d v a n c e d industrial societies could no longer be explained b y the simplified m o d e l o f neoclassical theory, with its "myopic focus on individual firms, in perfect c o m p e t i t i o n and responding blindly, and perfectly, to market f o r c e s " ( M a s s e y , 1 9 8 4 : 3 ) . It w a s the pattern of job losses and plant closures, rather than the g r o w t h of u r b a n areas, which had remained unexplained but obviously influential in d e t e r m i n i n g the spatial qualities and i relationships. ^, A major criticism of spatial analysis w a s that it did not pay attention to t h e f l subjectivity of the social actors. This led to research into individuals' cognition and ? behaviour, which will be discussed in the next c h a p t e r . Another a p p r o a c h , called the institutional approach ( J o h n s t o n , 1 9 8 2 ) , " r a d i c a l " or "socially concerned'' geography (Hall,1984), "structuralist" or "political e c o n o m y " (Herbert & Thomas, 1982), originated from the social m o v e m e n t s of the late 1960s, and w a s a reaction to the estabUshed spatial analysis a p p r o a c h e s . By the e a r l y 1980s, this approach had almost b e c o m e the standard geographical a p p r o a c h (Hall,1984), before being challenged in favour of a problem-solving g e o g r a p h y or one w h i c h combines h u m a n and physical geography (Johnston,1991). It attacks the other two a p p r o a c h e s of spatial a n a l y s i s and behaviouralism for ignoring the realities of h u m a n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , a n d focuses on the "constraints that society as a w h o l e , and particularly certain g r o u p s within it, i m p o s e s on the behaviour of i n d i v i d u a l s " (Johnston,1982: 8 1 ) . T h e institutional constraints are disregarded in both other a p p r o a c h e s : in the positivism of the quantitative

58

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

59

it, "physical and spatial urban form actually constitute as well as represent much of the social and cultural existence". -M Within the general framework o f behavioural research, a branch concentrated o n j the behaviour of organizations a s the main agents of spatial change. R a t h e r than t h e individual's presumed rational e c o n o m i c behaviour, w h a t needed explanation w a s j the behaviour of the large-scale business organizations, whose turnover could b e ' larger than most nation states (Dicken & Lloyd,1990). The decision-making of the managers and boards of the large business organizations h a d more impact on t h e spatial organization of a locality than the models which attempted to explain individual choices in s free, symmetrical space. T h e significance o f these organizations in developing an oligopolistic e c o n o m y can he seen from a description of the industrial landscape of America, which, "would begin with a vast plain of millions of tiny pebbles, representing all the economically powerless, monopolistically competitive business firms. At the centre of this enormous plain would rise a f e w hundred colossal towers, representing the important oligopolistic corporations. These few hundred towers w o u l d b e so large that they would make insignificant the entire plain below t h e m " (Hunt and.^ Sherman, quoted in Dicken & Lloyd,1990: 259). A similar undertaking would show h o w the landscape o f the world e c o n o m y is d o m i n a t e d b y a n u m b e r o f giant multinational firms, at the top of a hierarchy of smaller firms in a segmented economy. In this landscape, the p r i m e movers o f t h e economy a n d therefore the! main agents of spatial change c a n b e seen as these large business corporations.' Through their location decisions a n d a whole host of other forms of investment decision-making, organizations influence t h e geography o f economic activity. The' location of the headquarters of large corporations is especially important as they: constitute the control and administrative centres of these business empires. These; tend to concentrate in large urban areas, where information is readily available and; direct contact with other firms is easiest. The world cities such as L o n d o n and New York a r e such centres, where t h e accumulation o f these headquarters intensifies their influence in the economic landscape of large parts of the world. T h e location of the headquarters in the existing concentrations of financial and political power h a s f helped to prolong the distinctions between core and periphery in that decisions and innovations from the centre have significant impacts o n the entire economic system. | Also, a change in the spatial structure of a firm, w h e n the nimiber, size, function and geography o f a firm's activities change, can h a v e a direct influence on the local J economies and their spatial characteristics. r] By opening u p the analysis of location in space to the w a y l a r g e - s c a l e ! organizations are structured and h o w they behave, n e w insights w e r e introduced into an earlier, narrower realm of inquiry. Yet this perspective was itself not broad i enough in that it failed to address the larger social and economic contexts in which they operated. T h e task n o w w a s to link the geography of industry and ' employment to t h e wider, underlying structures of society (Massey,1984) (F igure t 2.10). The inequality of employment in various regions demanded an investigation of spatial organization of the social relations of capitalist production, rather than mapping the distribution of jobs. It w a s the change in spatial structures of production that h a d caused a c h a n g e in the e c o n o m i c landscape o f Britain and m a n y other industrialized economies. This change w a s more than an accidental

problem of a specific city or region: it was a deeply rooted feature o f c a p i t a l i s m . It was argued that, a s mechanisms f o r resource distribution in a capitalist e c o n o m y , cities were unfairly structured (Badcock,1984). T h e individual p a r t s o f t h landscape of capitalism, which is " a seamless g a r m e n t " , could o n l y b e u n d e r s t o o d in relation to t h e dynamics of t h e w h o l e (Scott,1990: 2 1 6 ) . It creates a n d d e s t r o y s urban space in its restless drive for expansion and c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f n e w parts o f life, at the expense of reorganizing the old.

F i g u r e 2.10. Some analysts have tried to explain the rise and fall of ec onomies and their impact on urban structure through politic al economy of industrialization and deindustrialization. {Dessau, Germany)

The new spatial division of labour therefore represents h o w activities in different places find new sets of relations, new spatial patterns of social organization, n e w dimensions of inequality a n d n e w relations o f d o m i n a n c e a n d d e p e n d e n c e (Massey,1984). Analysis of the division o f labour, with its c o m p l e x p a t t e r n s a n d dynamics, offers a key to the understanding of the e m e r g e n c e of u r b a n p r o c e s s e s . It analyses t h e forces which govern t h e internal a n d external organization o f u r b a n economies, forces which mobilize citizens to b e deployed in p r o d u c t i v e w o r k . T h e process of industrialization, therefore, can explain t h e d y n a m i c s o f this p r o c e s s o f agglomeration in urban areas and the form it takes (Scott,1990).

60

Design of Urban Space

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

61

In the industrialization process, the specialization of industrial establishments creates a dense w e b of interlinkages b e t w e e n t h e s e e s t a b l i s h m e n t s , giving shape to an interconnected complex of industries which tend to locate n e a r o n e another to keep the cost of their externalized transactions d o w n . T h e l o c a l i z e d production complexes come into being as a result of the e x p a n s i o n of the social division of labour and the increased size of the market, together with the i n n o v a t i o n process, industrial diversification and locational activity. A n interlocking n e t w o r k of activities evolves w h e n a number of these c o m p l e x e s a n d their satellite peripheries, all with their associated communities of workers, c o m e together to f o r m an urban area (Scott,1990). This perspective offers an insight into the m a k i n g of urban form ^ b y giving an account of the production processes w h i c h g o v e r n the growth and decline of older industrial cities. Yet it fails to a n s w e r w h y n e w u r b a n forms are shaped as they are. A n obvious e x a m p l e is O r a n g e C o u n t y , w h e r e S c o t t ' s analysis is . limited to the "self-evident o b s e r v a t i o n " that the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a high technology complex in O r a n g e C o u n t y relies o n the initial d r i v e b y fecieral d e f e n c e and space contracting (Scott,1990; 202). O r a n g e C o u n t y ' s m o n u m e n t a l industrial growth in a very low-density u r b a n sprawl w i t h o u t a n y visible t o w n c e n t r e c o m p l e x has been described as an entirely new pattern of u r b a n f o r m ( S o r k i n , 1 9 9 2 ) , and as the archetype of post-modern urbanism (Dear,1995). Yet the analysis of industrialization on its own seems to be hardly sufficient to e x p l a i n w h y its space h a s been structured in this u n p r e c e d e n t e d w a y . Political e c o n o m y analysis offers valuable insights into the w o r k i n g s of the social processes and structures. It is an integrative a p p r o a c h w h i c h g o e s b e y o n d the confines of politics or economics in explaining social phenomena (Dahrendorf,1995). H o w e v e r , it is restricted in that it o f t e n u n d e r m i n e s the importance of cultural factors in socio-spatial analysis. A s it h a s b e e n stressed in a number of branches of h u m a n i t i e s and social sciences, e.g. cultural studies (Williams,1981), urban sociology (Gottdiener,1994) and social philosophy (Lefebvre,1991), that the study of political e c o n o m y will not b e c o m p l e t e without a study of the related cultural factors. In other w o r d s , agencies are a s important as the structures which frame their action ( G i d d e n s , 1 9 8 4 ) .

space of material objects according to the w a y we use it now. Hence, w e adopt a spatial classification, arriving at a land-use organization of space. T h e r e are areas in cities where land uses tend to mix, as in the city centres, and areas where single uses prevail, as in the suburban housing estates. In addition to the patterns of use, we can look at the intensity of use in urban space. T h e general picture s e e m s to be a more intense u s e of space in the city centres, where it overlaps with the mixture of uses, and a diminishing density towards the outskirts of urban core in the suburbs, where single use is the predominant feature. Attached to this familiar urban structure are n e w agglomerations in the suburbs and exurbs, where the land uses which w e r e characteristics of the city centres, such as office and retailing, h a v e created n e w b u t disperse landscapes. In this sense we can see urban space as metropolitan space, at a regional scale, and the diversity and complexity which occurs throughout a large urban area. The relationship between these various areas, as physically exemplified b y transport networks, gives us another v i e w to urban structure, w h e r e spines and nodes in the movement patterns are primary elements in the constitution of urban structure. W e can also see how urban space was produced by u r b a n development processes and by the construction industry. In this way our understanding of the w a y urban space is structured will correspond to the patterns of its production, rather than consumption. We can also see the city as an agglomeration of people. W e can look for what brought t h e m together in the first place and the forms that this congregation has taken. For e x a m p l e , we m a y look at the industrialization and its impact on urbanization, w h e r e industrial production processes attracted workers, giving rise to large agglomerations. T h e urban space is therefore structured b y capital and labour markets a n d the d y n a m i c s of organization and reorganization of production, by the rise and agglomeration of units of production. Putting these relationships in the wider context of the world economy and the role an urban area plays in the world system gives us another dimension. Here we see how the m o v e m e n t of capital and labour, and the g o o d s and services they produce, across the world can restructure cities in new w a y s . W e can also look at the patterns of consumption in the city space. T h e w a y social classes relate to each other becomes a criterion to find out how urban space is structured. The way housing areas are organized and their relationships give us a picture of urban structure from another angle. Another way to understand urban space is in terms of the public-private relationships, which structure the u r b a n space by allowing some people to have access to s o m e places and activities w h i l e constraining access to others. W e can look at urban space in terms of the people's different patterns of creating a diversity of places and neighbourhoods, where rich and poor are separated from each other through land and property market mechanisms. We can see how this spatial segregation has taken different social and spatial forms. It is also possible to look at h o w cities are structured along the lines of ethnicity, gender and age, where specific areas are, out of choice or desperation, identified with this diversity. Alternatively, w e can see urban space from the viewpoint of individuals who, in their subjective capacity, understand cities differently. In this way, we could arrive at as many understandings of urban space as there are individuals, or could see how broad cultural patterns e m e r g e out of a seemingly infinite variety. It has not b e e n intended here to produce an exhaustive list of all possible ways of

Conclusion
As nodes of h u m a n societies, u r b a n areas are a g g l o m e r a t i o n s of people and material objects. A n agglomeration of this kind, a n d the s p a c e it occupies and reshapes, can be seen from a variety of angles. W e can see the city a s a collection of artefacts: buildings and our material possessions therein. T h e w a y this urban space is structured is therefore u n d e r s t o o d to be a m a t t e r of classifying these material objects into meaningful groups a n d exploring o u r relationships w i t h them. For example, w e can see urban space a s a created, as distinctive f r o m natural, space, and see h o w it relates to the natural processes w i t h i n and w i t h o u t it. W e can concentrate on it as the built e n v i r o n m e n t , classifying b u i l d i n g f o r m s and street patterns according to their ages a n d styles: a t e m p o r a l classification of urban space, which gives us a sense of h o w u r b a n space is structured historically and how its current character is affected by this historical evolution. W e can classify the urban

62

Design of Urban Space

understanding urban structure. W e m a y find it convenient to classify these into those which focus on the environment and those which focus on the people within it, set within larger physical and social environments. Y e t it is important to know that at all levels, the two foci and their contexts are closely intertwined. Various approaches to urban space may h a v e different e m p h a s e s , which often a l l o w s them | to explore oiie of the many aspects of a multi faceted p h e n o m e n o n . In our ' understanding of urban space and the way it is structured, however, w e will need to overlay these different insights to get a clearer p i c t u r e of the city w e intend to , deal with. Each holder of these viewpoints seems to b e convinced that w h a t they are showing us is the best way the urban p h e n o m e n o n c a n be u n d e r s t o o d . Yet we . will have to realize that only a combination of social a n d physical d i m e n s i o n s of space, of objects and people, will offer us a balanced v i e w of the structures of urban space, despite the complexity that such a combined v i e w asks for. A socio-spatial j viewpoint, in which these two dimensions with their complexities are intermeshed, will allow us to see h o w spatial structures express the social formations a s well as affecting them. T h i s picture, however, will not be c o m p l e t e without realizing that I the way w e understand structures of urban life a n d space will need to be complemented w i t h another layer of awareness. W h a t is n e e d e d is an^ understanding of the small-scale, unstructured d i m e n s i o n s of h u m a n behaviour within cities and the w a y symbolic interaction with u r b a n space e n d o w s it with meaning.!

CHAPTERS

People in t h e Cit^
This chapter investigates m e a n i n g and behaviour in urban space. It starts by looking at the w a y the patterns of meaning and b e h a v i o u r define u r b a n space at its different scales, a n d how these interact with structural d i m e n s i o n s o f the city's physical and social space. This leads on to a discussion of differences, of people and their life patterns, in urban space. W e address the complexity of e v e r y d a y life, which stands against the notions of order as advocated bv urban planners a n d designers. W e have already looked at the w a y urban space and structure are u n d e r s t o o d from the more abstract, intellectual viewpoints. W e discovered that there are two perspectives f r o m which to analyse the urban space to find out h o w it is structured; one that concentrates on people and the other on buildings and objects. Both, however, w e r e views from above. In this chapter, w e leave these abstract levels of urban structures and concentrate on the everyday life in the city. It is at this level that the diversity and spontaneity of life can be observed. It is also at this level that the patterns of behaviour in the city can be analysed in relation to the symbolic processes, m e a n i n g of the environment, and the relationship of individuals with others in public places and with their environments.

Environmental cognition
As individuals, w h a t do we k n o w about the socio-spatial world a r o u n d us? M o o r e (1983) believed that finding an a n s w e r to this question, i.e. finding the contents of people's cognitive representations of large-scale environments, is an impossible task. Instead, h e suggested we concentrate on the differences b e t w e e n individuals and groups of people in their environmental knowing. After all, the basic assumption of research on environmental cognition has been that different people interpret their environments differently, according to their b a c k g r o u n d and experience. A c c o r d i n g to this basic assumption, " T h e r e is no o n e ' e n v i r o n m e n t ' rather, 'environment' is a mental construct" (Moore,1983; 22), and its nature is understood b y h u m a n s not directly but through a complicated process of interpretation. Fundamental to this interpretive process, M o o r e maintained, are s o m e basic images that inform the cognitive maps and linguistic conceptions of the city. These

64

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

65

can be broadly divided into those which see the city as a site of o p p o r t u n i t y and interaction, and those which see it as a place of deprivation and alienation. Literature shows a body of research on the variety of w a y s in which individuals differ and the impact of this difference on their environmental cognition. "People seem to differ not only in terms of what and how much they k n o w but also in terms of the way they organize what they- know, and they change over time in clear developmental stages" (Moore, 1983: 28). Individual differences, therefore, can be found in relation to ethnicity, age, gender, lifestyle, length of residence in an area, and travel mode within the city, all affecting the way environment is perceived. For example, research has shown that m e n ' s image of the city is more composite whereas women's image of their immediate surroundings is more detailed and they define a larger territory as their home area than men do (Moore,1983). Another study of a housing project, whose inhabitants were predominantly poor African Americans, showed that the residents' view of their environment was far m o r e restricted and confined than that of the white population who lived around them. This w a s found to be the outcome of an anxiety of moving beyond the racially mixed areas into white neighbourhoods (LaGory & Pipkin,1981). Environmental cognition will vary depending on the mode of travel (Figure 3.1). Walking is m o r e intimate to the environment and therefore allows a more articulated process of interpretation and

remembering. Cycling and active car driving come next. At the last stage, in which no active contact is made with the environment, is the experience of passive passengers in a car or on public transport. As research has shown, the latter group are least able to remember their routes and to draw a coherent map of the urban road system they use. The relationship between children and their environment (Ward,1978) and the way they acquire information about the envirohment has been extensively studied, to see h o w and in w h a t ways human beings develop their environmental awareness. Although s o m e have argued that age has no notable impact on environmental awareness, Piaget's influential views on children's development maintain that they grow through stages in which their development of intellectual abilities parallels changes in their relationship to space. The mapping accuracy of individuals develops in distinct stages, from "action-in-space", w h e n they are able to handle "'egocentric' spatial relations based on self"; to "perception-of-space", when they can deal with "'objective' spatial relations based on objects"; and finally to " c o n c e p t i o n - a b o u t - s p a c e " , when "'abstract' spatial relations based o n coordinates" are understood (Walmsley,1988; 19).

A behavioural approach to space

In the late 1960s, as a counter-movement to the quantitative methods of research, a general shift occurred t o w a r d s a much more individually oriented, small-scale approach to urban studies (Hall,1984). The approach attacked the quantitative approach as being mechanistic, aggregative, "dehumanizing", failing to separate fact from v a l u e , and reducing place and space to abstract geometries in which the human b e i n g is a "pallid entrepreneurial figure" (Ley in Herbert & Thomas,1982: 34). T h e " b l a c k b o x " n o w b e c o m e s the subject of study and the role of h u m a n values of s p a c e are re-asserted. Location theory is no more a series of equations which w e i g h cost and distance. It was advocated that the strictly rational and economic assumptions should give way to h o w thoughts, images and impressions affected action and behaviour (Moore,1983). It was argued that the "environment in the h e a d " is important because "it is the subjective environment which influences b e h a v i o u r " (Rapoport, 1980) (Figure 3.2). The behavioural approach increasingly accepted the broad frameworks of p h e n o m e n o l o g y as defined b y Husserl, who argued that the world could only b e understood through a k n o w l e d g e of the attitudes and intentions which motivated human b e h a v i o u r . A proposed narrower concept focuses on the ideas and beliefs that lie b e h i n d human action and argues that behaviour must be understood through the m i n d of the " a c t o r " at the point in time and space in which it occurs (Herbert & T h o m a s , 1 9 8 2 ) . Behavioural studies are identified more as a critique rather than a precise methodology with a cohesive structure (Herbert & Thomas,1982). It has been seen as "insufficiently complex" to be used as a method of inquiry into modern sociefies (Habermas,1987: 375). T w o intellectual developments resulted which did not produce major traditions, although they did prove interesting. In the first one, individual behaviour, a n d individual perceptions as a key to that behaviour, were stressed. This was reflected in the work on mental mapping of individuals and groups (Hall,1984).

Figure 3.1.

There is a dose relationship between the mode of travel in urban space and Frar)ce)

environmental cognition. {Frejus,

66

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

67

The technique of mental m a p p i n g became widely known w h e n Kevin Lynch used it in his serhinal work The Image of the City (1979). H e w a s c o n c e r n e d with the visual quality of the American city through citizens' mental images of their cities. Inhabitants of three cities, Boston, Jersey City and L o s Angeles, were a s k e d to evoke their images of their physical environment by descriptions and sketches and b y performing imaginary trips in their cities. The o u t c o m e of the research was that, with reference to physical forms, images of the city can be classified into paths, edges, districts, n o d e s and landmarks. Paths, such as streets, w a l k w a y s , canals and railways, are m o v e m e n t channels and form the predominant e l e m e n t s in people's image of the city. Lynch believed that other elements relate to, and are organized around, paths. Edges, such as shores, edges of development, walls, etc., are the boundaries of areas. Districts are the sections o f the city and are mentally recognized as having some identifiable character. N o d e s are the focal points in the patterns of development, such as junctions or squares and street corners. Another type of focal point in the city are physical objects such as buildings, signs, mountains, etc., w h i c h w e k n o w a s landmarks. L y n c h concluded that creating environments with "apparent clarity or 'legibiUty' of the cityscape" (Lynch,1979: 2)

Figure 3.2. Rather than rational economic assumptions, behavioural research concentrated on how the subjective environment influences behaviour. (Liverpool, UK)

In this strand, sophisticated quantitative techniques are used to analyse large data sets collected from individual respondents. The stress in the second development was on the cognition of the individual as a guide to his or her culture. The concern is more with a verbal, instead of quantitative, presentation of the ways in which people experience the world around them (]ohnston,1982). Although little empirical research was carried out, it led to a rediscovery of regional geography, interpreted in terms of individuals' perceptions of time and space. This was a phenomcnological approach in which the researcher, to avoid the imposed conceptual strait-jacket of the positivist thinkers, needed to get inside the individual actor (Hall,1984).

M a p p i n g urban images
T o understand h o w we come to know our environment, research has focused on the w a y w e r e m e m b e r our environments. The main technique used to capture this is m e n t a l mapping, i.e. uncovering the mental image of the environment which individuals develop and use in their behaviour in the city.

Figure 3.3. Landmarks act as mental anchor environment. {Isfahan, Iran)

points

in our

mental

maps of

urban

^ r , Ci- .jroan Space

People in the City

69

>''5S ce 3 main concern. Therefore, cities in which t h e s e five elements w e r e clearU .ecier, offered more visual pleasure, emotional security, and a h e i g h t e n e d potential ce^tr. snd intensity of human experience. xesesrch by others (e.g. Golledge,1978), however, h a s s h o w n that i n d i v i d u a l s first -fisr-tjrxations, including landmarks, which act as m e n t a l anchor p o i n t s (Figure - - - --'=> then learn Hnks between locations, which correspond to L y n c h ' s paths, ="C r.r,aly the areas surrounding groups of locations. Other r e s e a r c h e r s have =f.ovm that we remember our daily physical e n v i r o n m e n t s in gross t e r m s . Rather

, ' |

P^y^ng attention to subtle design factors, w e recall environments first in terms * v/hat we and others do there, i.e. " u s e significance", a setting for acti\'ities which I f " - r^'sonally meaningful for us. T h e n w e remember w h e r e they are, i.e. visibility, : ir-C5t:on and siting considerations. At the last stage w e recall what they l o o k like, i.e. i physical form and the detailed architectural considerations s u c h a s contour, dj ^Fiape, size, etc. Furthermore, w e s e e m to r e m e m b e r objects in o u r e n v i r o n m e n t rsore easily if we attach a Unguistic term to them rather than an architectural form j or deteil CMoore,! 983). f LvTich's five elements of urban images have been w i d e l y used in u r b a n design to construct more ' l e g i b l e " environments, as exemplified b y a v a r i e t y o f design r^r.dcooks and projects actually implemented. It is possible, h o w e v e r , t o a r g u e that tKis approach is another attempt to i m p o s e some form of imaginary o r d e r onto the orbsn fabric. This is especially valid for the concept of districts, w h i c h h a s been t^s<bd to create subdivisions in urban space. This s h o w s a similarity w i t h crime prevention measures that promote raising barriers a n d gating n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , Both subdivisions for legibility o r for s e c u r i t y present t h e d a n g e r of CKmtegration of urban space into fragmented, exclusive entities, c r e a t i n g new social and spatial barriers and failing to address the interface b e t w e e n s t r a n g e r s and inhabitants. LvTich's technique is limited in that it reduces the understanding of signification in urban environment to "a perceptual knowledge o f physical f o r m " ( G o t t d i e n e r & L8g<-4X3ulos,1986: 7). His emphasis o n the five e l e m e n t s of paths, n o d e s , edges, dwtricts and landmarks m a y have led to a better, m o r e informed u r b a n design. - '^-V- elements, however, imply the use of e n v i r o n m e n t only t h r o u g h m o v e m e n t . Lirut (quoted in Gottdiener & Lagopoulos,1986), for example, sees this w a y of analysing human behaviour as being no different f r o m analysing the b e h a v i o u r of animals in a maze: both are adapting to their e n v i r o n m e n t . In contrast, h e believes, | urban residents h a v e a more active role in the production and use of u r b a n fabric by ' feng involved in urban practices. Ths clearly indicates h o w m e n t a l m a p p i n g is limited in s c o p e . It stresses urbanits' perception of their e n v i r o n m e n t , w h e r e a s p e o p l e ' s c o n c e p t i o n of urban environment is f o r m e d of a functionalist element, o n the basis of w h a t they do there, and a s y m b o l i c element. F u r t h e r m o r e , the m e a n i n g of e n v i r o n m e n t is s^AJght inside individuals, m i n d s , depicting an i m a g i n a r y picture o f t h e city. It therefore tends to i g n o r e that such a picture is s o c i a l l y p r o d u c e d a n d its nature, a representation of social p r o c e s s e s , is i d e o l o g i c a l . T h e m e n t a l m a p p i n g rt-v^-arch, however, is u n w i l h n g to a c c e p t this i d e o l o g i c a l nature a n d to recognize that even its p r i m a r y data are " a n i d e o l o g i c a l p r o d u c t " ( G o t t d i e n e r & I^gopoulos,1986: 11). 2 1 ^ ^ I ' i 1 :'

Later d e v e l o p m e n t s in environmental cognition research have shown a move towards accepting s o m e of the social dimensions of difference in understanding the environment. T h e s e studies and others have s h o w n how conceptions of space are different for different people, b o t h in objective and concrete terms and in subjective and symbolic t e r m s . What is seen b y one person as a "slum" is considered by another as an " u r b a n village". Despite these differences, however, there are consistencies w i t h i n socio-economic and cultural groups which make them sharply distinctive from other groups (Moore,1983). The existence of such differences shows clearly that environmental cognition is essentially a social product, as it is learnt b y individuals and is shaped and conditioned by their social environment. In other words, the mental m a p s of individuals largely d e p e n d on their real or perceived place in social a n d economic hierarchies.

Meaning and urban semiotics

Another, c o m p l e t e l y different, approach to the meaning of environment has been to concentrate on the role of objects, events and appearances, which send messages to us to convey m e a n i n g . At the heart of this approach lies the concept of sign. In our relationship to t h e environment around us, we take appearances as signs of other things: a light i n s i d e a house at night is a sign of the house being used, of the presence of life there. This, h o w e v e r , is an interpretation which may not be shared by another p e r s o n in another f r a m e of mind or in another social and cultural context. T h e s t u d y of signs, or semiotics has three basic elements: (1) the sign, which is the light in this case; (2) the referent, or that which it refers t o the presence of humans in the h o u s e in our e x a m p l e ; and (3) the user of the sign (Sless,1986; Fiske,1990). Semiotics, as Sless (1986) put it, is " a point of view, a vantage point from which w e survey our w o r l d " , used when w e ask how we understand and communicate w i t h the world a r o u n d us. According to Alfred Schutz (1970), following Husserl, the concrete form of marks, indications, signs and symbols a p p e a r s as things to b e seen, sounds to be heard, etc. They must therefore be something physical, which w e can perceive with our senses. At the s a m e t i m e , however, Schutz maintains that the physical form of signs and symbols, etc., is rather accidental. These physical appearances are not marks, but "merely a potential vehicle of meaning. Whatever shape it takes, a physical appearance b e c o m e s mark or sign solely by virtue of the meaning some human, or group of h u m a n s , attaches to it. T h e r e are no marks or signs as such, but only marks or signs for s o m e b o d y " (Wagner, 1970: 19). There are t w o m a i n traditions in semiotics: that which is associated with the American philosopher Charles Peirce, and the other with the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Peirce s a w a sign as standing for something, its object, creating in the m i n d of s o m e b o d y another, perhaps a more developed, sign, which he called an interprtant (Fiske,1990). Rather than this concern for the sign and its relation to objects, Saussure was preoccupied with signs themselves. H e saw language as a system of signs and held that a sign consisted of a signifier and a signified. T h e physical appearance of the sign that w e perceive with our senses is a signifier and the mental concept or

70

;es.ga o: Urban Space

People in the City

71

2:.e&ing to which it refers is a signified. The signified, or meaning, is shared by all "rr.ce v.-ho speak the same language. The relationship between signifier and i iT.ried, therefore, is a matter of cultural convention, and therefore there is no 'i^^rstantial" relationship between the two. The meaning of each sign is determined -,r,h- by its difference from other signs. The meaning of the word " c a t " , for example, :- r.:r determined in itself but by being different from " c a p " or " c a d " or "bat" i -.is systematic study of sign, which was closely associated with structuralism as :be study of structures and their underlying laws, w a s later used in contexts other i'z- linguistics. AH objects and activities could be seen as a text, as a system of ITS, which could b e analysed and understood in a new light. A s this approach ' not stress the relationship between the sign and the object, the text b e c a m e an i'-tonomous object, detached from its surroundings. In the w o r d s of Terry i-Ieton, "You do not need to go outside the poem, to what you k n o w of suns and moons, to explain them; they explain and define each other." (1983: 9 4 ) . Meaning V'-as developed on the basis of the shared means of communication, the language cr a group of people, rather than originating in their minds first and then arbculated in the form of tongues and scripts. In other words, "Reality was not r^r'cted by language but produced b y it" (Eagleton,1983: 108). M e a n i n g therefore -ririated outside the human subject, as language predates any living human Tb.e advances of structuralism included a dmystification of the arts and bterature and an exploration of the way meaning is constructed not as a private experience but as an outcome of identifiable processes of signification. Its major j problem, however, w a s its tendency to detach the text from both the h u m a n subject j and from the real object. What w e see in a text is a system of underlying rules and 1 structures, rather than concrete actors, objects and situations. ; .-.nother critique of structuralism questioned its concept of a clear, identifiable relationship between the component parts of the sign: the signifier referred to the iigr.ii-ied. Post-structuralism argued that there is no such clear relation between the The signified, or the meaning, to which a signifier is referring, is yet another - i>-i;rier. This means that there is a flexible and endless chain, or rather web, of ' ifiers that we go through in search of a meaning. Meaning becomes undecidable .'. e follow such a w e b of signs (Figure 3.4). Architectural semiotics used the linguistic model extensively, partly based on the | much debated idea of seeing architecture as a language. Attempts w e r e therefore ' made to use the basic concepts of semiotics sign, signifier and s i g n i f i e d in s'alysing urban form. For example, architectural codes and their transformation ---re discussed, as was the nature of meaning in architecture and its functional or non-functional basis (Broadbent et al.,1980). Despite their useful insights into the study of meaning of environment, architectural semiotics were limited in their tendency to cluster together different types of people. All, from finance capitalist and real estate developers to the working class and teenage graffiti sprayers, could be seen as the s a m e group of citizens, ignoring the w a y social stratification affected their conception of the city (Gottdiener & LagopouIos,1986). As against the cognitive research, which is based on the private understanding of Sne environment b y individuals, urban semiotics has the advantage of offering a

F i g u r e 3.4. Objects, events and appearances can be analysed as signs sending messages and conveying meanings. These messages, however, may refer to fantasies, themselves signs of other things. {Disneyland, Los Angeles, USA)

socially constructed, symbolic meaning for urban form (Pipkin,!983). Nevertheless, it is limited in that it creates a symbolic system which is autonomous from the reality that it symbolizes. It tends to reduce social action to a language and social relations to a communicative system, leaving it unable to address the constant change of urban s p a c e (Castells,1977). Lefebvre (1991: 5 - 7 ) rightly maintained that the application of semiotics to urban space becomes a merely descriptive enterprise. Space is thus reduced to a " m e s s a g e " , and in " r e a d i n g " it we evade history and practice. In describing space, this m a y provide "inventories of what exists in space, or even generate a discourse on s p a c e " , but it "cannot ever give rise to a knowledge of space". Furthermore, this leads to a mental realm detached from the reality of space with its physical and social dimensions. To compensate for the shortcomings of semiotics, Gottdiener and Lagopoulos (1986) suggest the adoption of an urban socio-semiotic approach. Socio-semiotics attempts to relate semiotics to a concrete context through social processes. Semiotics in this w a y is put in the context o f material conditions of everyday life, where space is produced. They argue that semiotic systems are not produced by

72

us.Gn of Urban Space i

People in the City

73

4
~t~.eives and are rooted in non-semiotic processes of social, political and ecor.omic practices of society. T o a d d an analytical dimension to t h e descriptive :iarure of semiotics, they suggest adding a new layer to urban s i g n s one that r c T c r s to the substance behind their form. According to Gottdiener a n d Lagopoulos, other semioticians' analysis of urban sign is only b a s e d on the f o r m a l components ; f a sign. They argue that there is a substance b e y o n d the form, w h i c h relates the rcnr. to non-semiotic elements of its social context. Therefore, they b r e a k d o w n the *

tvs'O c o m p o n e n t p a r t s of a sign, signifier or expression and signified or content, each into two l e v e l s o f form and substance. The resulting four levels of a sign, therefore, stand in such a relationship (Gottdiener,1986). A s o c i o - s e m i o t i c s analysis of an urban sign w o u l d therefore be based on a collection of o b s e r v a t i o n a l data o n both the substance (focusing on describing the material u r b a n s p a c e ) and the form (focusing on specific spatial elements as vehicles of signification) of the expression. It is at the same time based on cultural research which d o c u m e n t s the form and substance of the content. In this way, the core of the socio-semiotics a p p r o a c h is its concentration on "differences among semiotic systems d u e to a n d explained by differences in the social position of the corresponding social a g e n t s " , w i t h their different ideologies influencing the production a n d c o n s u m p t i o n of u r b a n space (Gottdiener &c Lagopoulas,1986; 19). An e x a m p l e of a socio-semiotic analysis of an u r b a n sign can b e seen by h o w successfully s h o p p i n g malls h a v e translated c o m m e r c i a l interests into new urban forms (Gottdiener,1986;1994) (Figure 3.5). The signs and symbols which refer to dense s h o p p i n g districts of urban centres have been used in a low-density suburban location in an introverted design, with blank external facades surrounded b y parking. A w h o l e series of familiar logos, themed areas and food courts convey the meaning of a p l a c e with shopping and related supporting activities. In this way, the intended m e a n i n g of m a n y n e w developments such as theme parks, n e w n e i g h b o u r h o o d s a n d gentrified districts can b e unravelled. This a n a l y s i s a n d the m e n t a l - m a p p i n g analysis s h o w how symbolic processes affect our b e h a v i o u r in urban environments. To elaborate these symbolic processes, Gottdiener ( 1 9 9 4 ) brings together three aspects of the semiotics of place to offer a new theory of u r b a n i s m . T h e w a y environments are understood, through mental mapping a n d u r b a n socio-semiotic analysis, the patterns of behaviour in pubhc places, and the s e n s e of c o m m u n i t y and its associated social networks are the three component p a r t s of this new t h e o r y of urbanism.

ij

Perspective of everyday life

The way social sciences and humanities tend to understand urban environment is often b y s e e k i n g to find out h o w society and space are structured. They try hard to see the city f r o m above, in abstraction, and hence tend to see it in terms of its physical a n d social structures. In parallel with this, urban planners and designers think of w a y s of structuring the city so as to turn it into a manageable collection of orderly c o m p o n e n t parts. Both in our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the city and in our prescriptions for it, w e aspire to see order and to g i v e order to the complex array of objects and e v e n t s that w e c o m e across in the city (Figure 3.6). An alternative w a y of seeing the city, however, is to l e a v e this abstract, theoretical position and to look at daily life, w i t h its spontaneity, difference and disorder. This alternative view will add n e w d i m e n s i o n s to our understanding of u r b a n space by acknowledging the different g r o u p s a n d life forms that can only develop in the city. The e v e r y d a y life perspective is a view from below, which "makes reality visible", o f f e r i n g " n e w insights and possibilities for transcending the artificial g a p between p r o d u c t i o n and reproduction and to see the existence as a whole" (The

Figure 3.5.

Shopping malls exemplify how signs can be successfully manipulated to create

Ireland)

' & / / urban forms and meanings. {Dublin,

74

Design of Urban Spac^

People in the City

75

It is clear that urban space and our interaction with it cannot be fully understood without an account of the diversity of urban life. This involves an account of the difference o f life patterns and the w a y this is translated into the m e a n i n g that w e ascribe to our urban environments. It is at the same time clear that this perspective, by concentrating on details, is unable to address the material conditions and the overarching processes which affect this difference in patterns of urban life and meaning. A number of approaches rightly attempt to put the sensitivity of observation of everyday life into-wider perspectives of social processes. Anthony G i d d e n s (1984), for example, stresses the importance of both structure and agency in social processes. J r g e n Habermas (1987) gives this realist viewpoint a normative dimension. H e separates the everyday life from the systems of m o n e y and power, stressing that these systems tend to penetrate and colonize everyday life through monetarization and bureaucratization. After an attempt to widen the scope of reason, he argues for a rationally constructed, communicative action between individuals w h i c h enables the everyday life to resist this penetration. Mark Gottdiener (1994), following Henri Lefebvre (1991), tries to bring a unified understanding to urban analysis. H e introduces a socio-spatial approach to urban analysis, in w h i c h he emphasizes the symbolic processes within the context of political a n d e c o n o m i c forces w h i c h shape urban structures. T h i s approach, h e argues, c o m p e n s a t e s for the shortcomings of the t w o predominant approaches to urban analysis, political economy and human ecology. Human ecology appreciates the role of locations in social interaction, but theoretically does not develop this role and approaches social processes b y adopting one-dimensional and technologically deterministic explanations. Political economy, on the other hand, offers a better understanding o f social processes w h i c h make a n d r e m a k e the city, but is limited in that it treats space as a container of economic activities and ignores the importance of spatial relations.

Figure 3.6.

Only looking fronn above offers a limited understanding of social and spatial' France) i

'elationships. {Paris,

Research Group for the N e w E v e r y d a y Life,1991:13). T h e sociology of everyday life j brings together a range of "micro-perspectives". These include symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, phenomenology, ethnomethodology and existential sociology. This diversity and absence of systematic integration between its subfields ' make it a difficult task to offer a brief outline of its focus and scope (Adler, Adler & ^ Fontana,1987: 2 1 7 ) . The theme of everyday life, as Maffesoli (1989a) asserts,! involves putting the social p h e n o m e n a in a certain perspective, and as such cannot be^ taken as referring to a specific content. This approach has three basic requirements: that the researcher takes the position of a participant, rather than a detached observer; that it takes account of experience, with all the feelings and emotions associated with it; and that it questions the validity of political-economic analysis as sufficiently explaining the social life. This perspective is set to address the subjective, a n d the intersubjective, aspects of social life which have been undermined b y the traditional emphasis of social sciences on objective understanding (Maffesoli,1989b). A s such, it is a critical response to the "crisis of totalizing classical sociologies" (Bovone,1989: 42), and brings into attention the importance of meaning and difference in social inquiry.

Order and difference in urban space

The battle b e t w e e n modernist and post-modernist thinking partly dwelt upon the dichotomy b e t w e e n order and disorder (Madanipour,1995a,b), a dichotomy which can be traced b a c k to the ancient Greeks, as exemplified by the tension between Plato and Aristotle, between reason and the senses as the source of our understanding of the world. It w a s also reflected in the ancient G r e e k s ' cities. Whereas Athens was a diverse city with a disordered geometry, Hippodamus, who was k n o w n as the father of town planning, put forward his famous plan for Miletus, a rational layout of streets and urban blocks, envisaging a carefully planned socio-spatial structure. A similar contrast can be seen between the overall disorder of R o m e and the camp towns around the Roman empire (Morris,1979; Benovolo,1980). Such attempts to impose geometrical order onto the disordered growth of t o w n s and cities can be followed throughout history in the design and development of n e w settlements. Such desire for the domination of reason is as evident in Miletus of the fifth century BC, as in the British N e w Towns two millennia later. From the Enlightenment period on, this desire has been

76

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

77

accompanied by an aspiration for liuman emancipation through the imposition of o r d e r and reason. Inevitably, there have always been critical reactions towards such a stance by those who have questioned the validity of reason as a sufficient tool m understanding and managing the w o r l d , and those w h o have doubted the outcome ' j of rationalistic endeavours. Such criticism is represented by Michel Foucault, for ' example, who maintained that, rather than rejecting the reason, we should critically ^ evaluate it: "I think the central issue of philosophy and critical thought since the j eighteenth century has always been, still is, and will, I hope, remain the question; I What is this Reason that we use? W h a t are its historical effects? W h a t are its limits, J and what are its d a n g e r s ? " (Foucault,1993; 165). It was o n the basis of the rationality s of social Darwinism that racism and N a z i s m developed. In the planning and design ^ of cities, the approach of modernism was based on the use of reason, to rationalize J urban spatial structure; and its outcome, as we know n o w , was partly displacement, 1 disruption to lives and communities, and loss of built environment ( B e r m a n , 1 9 8 2 ; ^ Harvey,1985a,b). Critics of rationalism, therefore, invite us to look at o u r ; ! environments through different glasses. In his analysis of Los Angeles, D e a r (1995) introduces three ways of reading thisM city: one in which Los Angeles is seen as constituting four basic ecologies of beach ^ cities, foothills, plains and freeways (Banham,1973); another which sees the city as ^ essentially structured b y its b o u l e v a r d s (Suisman,1989); and a third which'^ illustrates the city as a decentred and decentralized agglomeration of fragmented t h e m e parks (Soja,1989). Dear argues that all these three are studies of the city looking at it with a detached voyeuristic gaze from the top, offering inherently modernist representations of the city. W h a t he invites u s to be armed with is a post- , modernist sensibility, concentrating on the extremely finely grained i microgeography of the city, and discovering that there is no c o m m o n narrative, no i single reality to the city. ^ In this w a y of reading the city. Dear is drawing upon Michel d e Certeu's invitation to concentrate on everyday life, as opposed to abstract visualizations of the city. An example of this abstraction, one that is not unfamiliar to planners and urban designers, is what do Ccrteu (1993) describes when looking at Manhattan from the 110th floor of the World T r a d e Center. A s w e look down on it to see its " w h o l e " , the gigantic mass of the city becomes immobilized before o u r eyes; we totalize this h u m a n context, as if it w e r e a picture (Figure 3.7). De Certeu invites us to leave this abstract position, in w h i c h we only " s e e " things, to go d o w n to the street level, where daily life is practised. Here, walking in the street provides us an elementary form of experienceing the city. Walkers are those, "whose b o d i e s follow the thicks and thins of an urban 'text' they write without being able to read it". The complexity of lives and movements in the city creates paths that elude legibility, stories without author or spectator, and "practices that are foreign to the 'geometrical' or 'geographical' space of visual, panoptic, or theoretical construction" (de Certeu,1993; 154). A "migrational" or " m e t a p h o r i c a l " notion of the city is therefore put in front of the orderly clarity of the planned city. What we enter here is the lived space of everyday practices, as distinctive from a programmed and regulated field of operation. T o find out about the lived space of everyday practices, de Certeu traces the

Figure 3.7.

Views from above tend to reduce urban space to an abstraction. {Cincinnati,

USA)

footsteps of p e o p l e w h o m o v e a r o u n d the city. A n abstract representation of this movement, h o w e v e r , s u c h a s t h e s u r v e y s w h o s e thick and thin lines show the volume of p e d e s t r i a n flow, cannot replace the reality of movement, "the act itself of passing b y " (de C e r t e u , 1 9 9 3 : 157), which can b e walking, wandering or window shopping. In this m o v e m e n t and in response to the names of urban places, people invent stories a n d attribute m e a n i n g to spaces they enter, meanings that challenge the alienated a n d sterilized c h a r a c t e r o f the city. The walkers in the city, representing spontaneity and a challenge to the established o r d e r , are best exemplified b y the mid-nineteenth century flaneurs (strollers, loiterers) of Paris. Their m a i n interest w a s the microscale aspects of street life, rather than the official public city that Baron H a u s s m a n n and Napoleon III had created ( W i I s o n , 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e t h e m e of t h e m o v e m e n t o f people in cities is taken up by Sennett (1994), w h o reasserts the importance of the spatial relations of human bodies in the w a y they see, hear, touch and relate to each other. T h e dilemma of the city, h o w e v e r , is that the individuals move around freely without a physical awareness of o t h e r h u m a n b e i n g s . T h e r e is " a divide between inner, subjective experience a n d o u t e r , physical life", \vhich has caused the "reduction and trivialization of t h e city as a stage of Ufe" (Sennett,1993: xii). T h e speed of

74

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

75

F i g u r e 3.6.

relationships. {Pahs, France) Research G r o u p for the N e w Everyday Life,f 991; 13). T h e sociology of everyday lift brings together a range of "micro-perspectives". These include symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, phenomenology, ethnomethodology and existential 4 sociology. This diversity and absence of systematic integration between its subfields 5 make it a difficult task to offer a brief outline of its focus and scope (Adler, Adler & | Fontana,1987; 217). The theme of everyday life, as Maffesoli (1989a) asserts,; involves putting the social p h e n o m e n a in a certain perspective, and as such cannot be i taken as referring to a specific content. This approach has three basic requirements: ? that the researcher takes the position of a participant, rather than a detached . observer; that it takes account of experience, with all the feelings and emotions associated with it; and that it questions the validity of political-economic analysis as sufficiently explaining the social life. This perspective is set to address the subjective, and the intersubjective, aspects of social life which have been undermined b y the traditional emphasis of social sciences on objective understanding (Maffesoli,1989b). A s such, it is a critical response to the "crisis of totalizing classical sociologies" (Bovone,1989: 4 2 ) , and brings into attention the importance of meaning and difference in social inquiry.

Only lookin

above offers a limited understanding of social and spatial

It is clear that urban space and our interaction with it cannot be fully understood without an account of the diversity of urban life. This involves an account of the difference o f life patterns and the w a y this is translated into the m e a n i n g that we ascribe to our urban environments. It is at the s a m e time clear that this perspective, by concentrating on details, is unable to address the material conditions and the overarching processes which affect this difference in patterns of urban life and meaning. A number of approaches rightly attempt to put the sensitivity of observation of everyday life into-wider perspectives of social processes. Anthony G i d d e n s (1984), for example, stresses the importance of both structure and agency in social processes. Jrgen Habermas (1987) gives this realist viewpoint a normative dimension. H e separates the everyday life from the systems of m o n e y and power, stressing that these systems tend to penetrate and colonize everyday life through monetarization and bureaucratization. After an attempt to widen the scope of reason, he argues for a rationally constructed, communicative action between individuals which enables the everyday life to resist this penetration. Mark Gottdiener (1994), following Henri Lefebvre (1991), tries to bring a unified understanding to urban analysis. H e introduces a socio-spatial approach to urban analysis, in which he emphasizes the symbolic processes within the context of political and e c o n o m i c forces which shape urban structures. This approach, h e argues, c o m p e n s a t e s for the shortcomings of the t w o predominant approaches to urban analysis, political economy and human ecology. Human ecology appreciates the role of locations in social interaction, but theoretically does not develop this role and approaches social processes b y adopting one-dimensional and technologically deterministic explanations. Political economy, on the other hand, offers a better understanding o f social processes which make and r e m a k e the city, but is limited in that it treats space as a container of economic activities and ignores the importance of spatial relations.

Order and difference in urban space

The battle b e t w e e n modernist and post-modernist thinking partly dwelt upon the dichotomy b e t w e e n order and disorder (Madanipour,1995a,b), a dichotomy which can be traced b a c k to the ancient Greeks, as exemplified by the tension between Plato and Aristotle, between reason and the senses as the source of our understanding of the world. It w a s also reflected in the ancient G r e e k s ' cities. Whereas A t h e n s was a diverse city with a disordered geometry, Hippodamus, who was k n o w n as the father of town planning, put forward his famous plan for Miletus, a rational layout of streets and urban blocks, envisaging a carefully planned socio-spatial structure. A similar contrast can be seen between the overall disorder of R o m e and the c a m p towns around the Roman empire (Morris,1979; Benevolo,1980). Such attempts to impose geometrical order onto the disordered growth of t o w n s and cities can be followed throughout history in the design and development of n e w settlements. Such desire for the domination of reason is as evident in Miletus of the fifth century BC, as in the British N e w T o w n s two millennia later. From the Enlightenment period on, this desire has been

76

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

77

accompanied by an aspiration for biuman emancipation through the imposition of order and reason. Inevitably, there have always b e e n critical reactions towards such a stance by those who h a v e questioned the validity of reason as a sufficient tool m understanding and managing the w o r l d , and those w h o have doubted the outcome of rationalistic endeavours. Such criticism is represented by Michel Foucault, for e x a m p l e , w h o maintained that, rather than rejecting the reason, we should critically evaluate it; "I think the central issue of philosophy and critical thought since the eighteenth century has always been, still is, and will, I hope, remain the question: What is this Reason that we use? W h a t are its historical effects? W h a t are its limits, and what are its d a n g e r s ? " (Foucault,1993:165). It w a s on the basis of the rationality of social Darwinism that racism and N a z i s m developed. In the planning a n d design of cities, the approach of modernism was based on the use of reason, to rationalize urban spatial structure; and its outcome, as we k n o w n o w , was partly displacement, disruption to lives and communities, and loss of built environment (Berman,19h2; Harvey,1985a,b). Critics of rationalism, therefore, invite us to look at our environments through different glasses.

a; I i : j

$ 1

In his analysis of Los Angeles, D e a r (1995) introduces three ways of reading this city: one in which Los Angeles is seen as constituting four basic ecologies of beach cities, foothills, plains and freeways (Banham,1973); another which sees t h e city as essentially structured by its boulevards (Suisman,1989); and a third which illustrates the city as a decentred and decentralized agglomeration of fragmented t h e m e parks (Soja,1989). Dear argues that all these three are studies of the city looking at it with a detached voyeuristic gaze from the top, offering inherently..| modernist representations of the city. W h a t he invites us to be armed with is a post- i modernist sensibility, concentrating on the extremely finely grained | microgeography of the city, and discovering that there is no c o m m o n narrative, no J single reality to the city. ^ In this w a y of reading the city. Dear is drawing upon Michel de Certeu's invitation to concentrate on everyday Ufe, as opposed to abstract visualizations of ^ the city. An example of this abstraction, one that is not unfamiliar to planners and ,< urban designers, is what de Certeu (1993) describes when looking at Manhattan from the 110th floor of the World T r a d e Center. A s w e look d o w n on it to see its " w h o l e " , the gigantic mass of the city becomes immobilized before our eyes: we totalize this h u m a n context, as if it w e r e a picture (Figure 3.7). De Certeu invites us :i to leave this abstract position, in which w e only " s e e " things, to go d o w n to the street level, where daily life is practised. Here, walking in the street provides us an elementary form of experienceing the city. Walkers are those, " w h o s e bodies follow the thicks and thins of an urban 'text' they write without being able to read it". The complexity of lives and movements in the city creates paths that elude legibility, stories without author or spectator, and "practices that are foreign to the 'geometrical' or 'geographical' space of visual, panoptic, or theoretical construction" (de Certeu,1993; 154). A "migrational" or " m e t a p h o r i c a l " notion of the city is therefore put in front of the orderly clarity of the planned city. What we enter here is the lived space of everyday practices, as distinctive from a programmed and regulated field of operation. T o find out about the lived space of everyday practices, de Certeu traces the

F i g u r e 3.7.

Views from above tend to reduce urban space to an abstraction. {Cincinnati,

USA)

footsteps of p e o p l e w h o m o v e a r o u n d the city. A n abstract representation of this movement, h o w e v e r , such a s t h e surveys w h o s e thick and thin lines show the volume of p e d e s t r i a n flow, c a n n o t replace the reality of movement, " t h e act itself of passing b y " (de C e r t e u , 1 9 9 3 ; 157), which can b e walking, wandering or window shopping. In this m o v e m e n t a n d in response to the n a m e s of urban places, people invent stories a n d attribute m e a n i n g to spaces they enter, meanings that challenge the alienated a n d sterilized character of the city. The w a l k e r s in the city, representing spontaneity and a challenge to the established o r d e r , are best exemplified b y the mid-nineteenth century flaneurs (strollers, loiterers) of Paris. Their main interest w a s the microscale aspects of street life, rather than the official p u b l i c city that Baron H a u s s m a n n and Napoleon III had created ( W i l s o n , 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e t h e m e of the m o v e m e n t of people in cities is taken up by Sennett (1994), w h o reasserts the importance of the spatial relations of human bodies in the w a y they see, hear, touch and relate to each other. T h e dilemma of the city, h o w e v e r , is that the individuals m o v e a r o u n d freely without a physical awareness of o t h e r h u m a n b e i n g s . There is " a divide between inner, subjective experience a n d outer, physical life", which has caused the "reduction and trivialization o f the city as a stage of life" (Sennett,1993; xii). T h e speed of

78

Design of Urban Space

I
People in the City 79

m o v e m e n t in t h e city tends to r e d u c e our contact v^'ith the urban fabric, as, in Sennett's w o r d s , " w e now m e a s u r e urban spaces in terms of how easy it is to drive ^ through them, to get out of t h e m " (Sennett,1994: 1 7 - 1 8 ) . This lack of contact, with other people and with urban space, h a s profound impacts on our understanding of urban space and our approaches to its design. For Sennett, pedestrian movement in the city is not proving sufficknt, .a^Jhe_ab5iLnce_of_^ontaxLM such as st?eeti7^^aTes^ department stores, or in public transport, tbecome^"pjaces of the~gaze"faTlrefTRafrscenes of d i s c o u r s e " (Sennett,1994: 358). Seed^_escape_and pa]mty7 a i r a s s o c i ^ e d ^ i t h widen the gaps and fragmentations ' b c f w e e n ~ i n d i v i d u a l s r - W h e n confronted with -differenGe,-with-strangerSj, people become* passive "as t h e stranger d o e s not fall into general categories and social stereotypes. R a p i d m o v e m e n t , m a d e possible b y cars and other vehicles, and . fragmented g e o g r a p h y , where land-use zones a n d social classes are set apart, j enhance this passivity and provide the possibihty of escaping from difference, from the other. Losing t h e ability to live with the difference is a major problem of the . m o d e r n city. E v e n where a willingness b y different people to live next to each other has developed, as Sennett believes has been achieved in Greenwich Village, NewYork, a shared fate is absent.

City of strangers
Difference in t h e city is as old a s the city itself, as it was known from the ancient times that, in Aristotle's w o r d s , " A city is c o m p o s e d of different kinds of men; similar people cannot bring a city into existence" (quoted in Sennett,1994: 13). Especially since t h e nineteenth century and the unprecedented growth of cities throughout the world, the issue of difference and diversity in the city has become a central feature of urban life (Figure 3.8). In his theory of urbanism, for example, Louis Wirth (1964: 69) s a w heterogeneity, along with population size and density, as a determining feature of the city. H e defined the city as a "melting-pot of races, peoples, a n d cultures, and a m o s t favourable breeding-ground of n e w biological , and cultural h y b r i d s " . In this context, it is difference rather than similarity that is essential. T h e city, therefore, " h a s not only tolerated but rewarded individual | differences". ^ Emphasis o n the heterogeneity o f urban life is clearly evident in the discussiord| about strangers in t h e city, which h a v e occupied a prominent place in sociological M inquiries, to t h e extent that city life has been seen as a world of strangers ( K a r p , l Stone &L Yoels,1991). A stranger, a s Georg S i m m e l (1950) interprets, is one whose * formal position lies in a unity of nearness a n d distance, involvement and indifference, b y being a m e m b e r of a group and at the same time outside it. There he sees a positive role for the stranger who can maintain a degree of objectivity by not being fully committed to t h e group's unique ingredients and tendencies. This objectivity can b e defined as freedom, not out of non-participation, but due to the absence of c o m m i t m e n t s w h i c h would jeopardize an objective perception, understanding a n d evaluation. T h e stranger's actions are not tied d o w n by "habit, piety, a n d p r e c e d e n t " (Simmel,1950: 405). W e m a y see here a similarity between what S i m m e l appreciates as the objectivity of the stranger, who can "experience and

Figure 3.8.

Cities are places of difference and diversity. {Chinatown,

San Francisco,

USA)

treat even his close relationships a s though from a birds'-eye v i e w " (Simmel,1950), and the view f r o m the top of t h e W o r l d Trade C e n t e r that was s h o w n to us b y d e Certeu. U n l i k e d e Certeu, however, the philosopher Alfred Schutz (1970) maintained that this view o f the cultural c o m m u n i t y from outside, b y the stranger, is the only objective meaning of the group membership. T h e stranger that Schutz a n d S i m m e l analyse i s typified b y the immigrants' experience o f living in and m o v i n g between cities a n d countries, and their relation

80

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

81

to the approached groups. They maintain that these strangers are well placed to question all the unquestionable and taken-for-granted norms and practices of the group they enter. Yet Schutz (1970: 9 4 ) , who himself had fled to A m e r i c a in the wake of the Nazi occupation of Austria, argues that the stranger remains "a 'marginal man', a cultural hybrid on the verge of two different patterns of group life, not knowing to which of them h e belongs". The relationship of the n e w c o m e r to an approached urban society is only one aspect of the heterogeneity and a n o n y m i t y of urban life. It was analysed on the basis that there is a period of transition in the experience of the immigrant, from a newcomer to a more integrated m e m b e r of the social group. We see, however, that this basis is too narrow for a m o r e pluralist condition in which social groups are more and more fragmented and approach the mainstream more aggressively, as distinct from the quiet suffering of an immigrant on the road to the adoption of the host community's cultural patterns. The experiences of other groups who find ' themselves marginalized from the mainstreams of social life, such as w o m e n , the elderly, the poor, and children; the multiplicity of lifestyles and sexual orientations within apparently homogeneous groups; and the anonymity of life experienced by almost all urbanits in public spaces in cities, are all aspects of seeing the city as a world of strangers. A s Elizabeth Wilson puts it, " w h a t w a s once seen as marginal b e c o m e s the essence of city l i f e " (Wilson,1991: 5). Along with the economic restructuring processes and a reorganization of class and household structures, w h e r e the middle classes and the number of single-person households grow in cities, diversification of lifestyles increasingly finds a centre stage. In the modern city, where commodification of social relations is strong, everyone is an individual and potentially a stranger. At this scale, plurality b e c o m e s the norm and tolerance of "the o t h e r " the key to social relationships. T h e way urbanits deal with the city, make sense of it, and m a n a g e public encounters with strangers in large numbers, is a major, but neglected, aspect of sociological inquiry. The w a y persons relate or fail to relate to each other in a n o n y m o u s public settings is a central concern of u r b a n social psychology (Karp, Stone & Yoels, 1991). Another equally important concern in studying people in the city is to see h o w urban persons relate or fail to relate to the built environment in which they find themselves.

associated w i t h crime and v a n d a h s m . With their criticism, they paved the way for a number of h a n d b o o k s , often offering c o m m o n sense advice on h o w to ensure safer environments (Fennelly,1989; N o b l e , 1 9 8 9 ; C r o w e , 1 9 9 1 ; Clarke,1992; Cheetham,1994). A crime is considered to h a v e f o u r dimensions: an offender, a victim or a target, a law d i m e n s i o n , a n d an e n v i r o n m e n t a l dimension w h i c h environmental criminology focuses u p o n ( B r a n t i n g h a m & Brantingham,1991; Bottoms,1994). Different approaches to envirorunental d e s i g n , e.g. crime prevention through urban design

Fear and crime in urban space

T h e a n o n y m i t y of the city has b e e n paralleled with a rise in crime. C r i m e and the fear of criminal victimization in turn have led to a tendency to w i t h d r a w a l from u r b a n life. U r b a n i t s ' range of psychological and behavioural reactions to crime includes "distrusting others, a v o i d i n g particular places, taking protective action, c h a n g i n g their daily activities, and participation in collective action" (Miethe,1995), T h e last two decades have seen a rise of interest in environmental design as an instrument against crime. A line of widely known works, by Jane Jacobs (1961), Oscar N e w m a n (1972), Alice C o l e m a n (1985) and others, criticized the modernist designs which had apparently generated alienation from the environment and were

2?r^'l

safety and security from cnme and harsh climate, but only through segregation of urban space. (Cincinnati, USA) ^

82

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

It is extraordmari/ tiiat unplanned growth sliould produce a better global order titan planned redevelopment, but it seems undeniable. The inference seems unavoidable that traditional fi/stems work because they produce a global order that responds to the reqidrements of a dual (iiihabdants and strangers) interface, ivhile modern systems do not work because they fad to produce it. The principle of urban safety and liveliness is a product of the way both sets of relations are co}tstructed by space. Strangers are not excluded but are controlled. As fane facobs noted many years ago, it is the controlled throughput of strangers and the direct viterface with inhabitants that creates urban safety. We shoidd state this even nwrc definitely: it is the controlled presence of passvig strangers that polices space; while the directly iiiterfachig inhabitants police the strangers. For this reason, "defensible space", based on exclusion of strangers and only on surveillance of spaces by inhabitants can never work.

83

a n d situational crime prevention, are now a constituent part of environmental criminology. Environmental d e s i g n ' s advice on crime prevention has generated a variety of responses. While it has been widely used in the development of new environments o r the m a n a g e m e n t of the existing ones, m a n y h a v e considered its focus as too n a r r o w ( E k b l o m , 1 9 9 5 ) . It is a r g u e d that environmental design will have to see d e s i g n as a w i d e r process, c o m b i n i n g a concern for b o t h physical a n d social aspects of crime prevention. T o prevent c r i m e , urban d e s i g n ' s advice can create conflicts of interests, most notably b e t w e e n openness and safety, between freedom of choice and movement a n d security (Figure 3.9). Perhaps the first area of conflict is the definition of deviant behaviour, w h i c h affects the role o f design. It has been argued, for example, that graffiti is a manifestation of black urban culture a n d is an art form, rather than a form of v a n d a l i s m (Ferrell,1993). W h e r e does urban design, with its concern for the promotion of art in public places, s t a n d in relation to this claim? In his b o o k Defensible Space, G s c a r N e w m a n (1972) argued that in the anonymous 1 s p a c e of metropolitan areas, w h a t is needed is a medium-density, defensible space, w h e r e residents are in control a n d hence prevent criminal behaviour. B y the use of i m e c h a n i s m s s u c h as real and s y m b o l i c barriers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved opportunities which for surveillance, the design of the residential en\'ironments c a n b e effective in c r i m e prevention. F o u r elements of physical design are then identified contribute to the creation of secure environments: territorial definition of space t h r o u g h subdividing it into zones, w h e r e private, semi-private a n d public space a r e clearly identified and are under the residents' = influence; positioning of w i n d o w s to allow surveillance; use of building forms w h i c h are not stigmatized; a n d careful location within urban areas. N e w m a n was a^vare of the criticisms against the notion "that crime, born of a poverty of means, opportunity, education, and representation, could be prevented (Newman,1972: behaviour. O n e of the principles of N e w m a n ' s defensible space was the idea of defining and protecting the b o u n d a r i e s o f a n environment, to k e e p the strangers, and therefore the risk of c r i m e , a w a y . This idea has now culminated in gated neighbourhoods, of which N e w m a n himself is an a d v o c a t e . An e x a m p l e is Dayton, Ohio, where 11 m o n t h s after the plan's i m p l e m e n t a t i o n in a u t u m n 1993, violent crime fell by 50% a n d property values rose b y 1 5 % , but where the plan is criticized b y residents who feel "locked i n " or "locked o u t " (Anon,1995). W h i l e effective in crime prevention, this d e v e l o p m e n t entities, can potentially further subdivide the urban space into segregation and fragmented Fortress city as we promoting social exclusion. 11), but argues that environment architecturally" has an undeniable effect on

(Hillier and Hanson,1984; 140) The segregated e n v i r o n m e n t reduces mobility a n d accessibility in urban space, allowing fewer choices of routes, a n d is less democratic. In the context of a locality, effective design m a y reduce vulnerability to crime. In a wider context, however, it could merely lead to a displacement of crime. Another conflict that c r i m e prevention through environmental design creates is associated with surveillance. Again it was one of N e w m a n ' s principles to organize space in such a w a y that surveillance b e c o m e s possible. This principle has now, with the help of new technologies, developed into the wide use of closed-circuit television c a m e r a s , an issue w h i c h has created concern for civil liberties (Honess & Charman,1992). An a r g u m e n t against surveillance is that it takes away the "shadowed s p a c e s " , the s p a c e s without which, Denis W o o d (1991: 95) argues, it "would b e a d e a d world i n d e e d " . " O n e w a y to take care of n i g h t m a r e s " , he goes on, "is to stay a w a k e . O f course, that also takes care of the dreams. O n e w a y to take care of d e v i a n c e is to clear a w a y the shadowed spaces. Of course that also takes care of hfe". N o t only the d v i a n c e s of our parents and grandparents, but also philosophy, science and art a n d the policies of public government " w e r e once practised in the d a r k " . T h e intention is not to find murder or kidnapping or abduction or bodily assault tolerable, but to argue that, "if the cost of prohibiting these is the loss of the s h a d o w e d spaces, that cost is intolerably high". These conflicts s h o w h o w effective design can be, resulting in the permanent transformation of built e n v i r o n m e n t s into contested spaces. An average annual increase of 5 % since 1918 in Britain {The Guardian, 28 September 1995) shows its historical p r e s e n c e . Crime, however, is a major contemporary concern, as exemplified b y the political parties' race to a n n o u n c e measures against it as a cornerstone of their agendas. T o use design to disintegrate the civil society into medieval factions, however, cannot b e the proper contribution of urban design. This contribution is still to be developed, a contribution which fights crime while promoting tolerance and social integration, rather than segregation and divide. The starting point for this d e v e l o p m e n t will have to be seeing crime not as an isolated event but o n e in a wider socio-spatial context.

n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , which h a v e multiplied in the U S (Davis,1992) and to a lesser extent in Britain and e l s e w h e r e , c a n indicate the disintegration of the difference. Yet a city is a place of difference, of strangers. It is through allowing an interface b e t w e e n the strangers and the inhabitants of an area that safety can b e secured and not through segregation. Hillier a n d Hanson (1984: 140), among others, stress the importance of such an interface: k n o w it, t h r o u g h restriction o f access, a decline of public space, and a fear of

Women in urban space

The diversity a n d difference in the large city offer an exciting assortment of people with different patterns of life, often making the city a fascinating a n d stimulating

84

le.gn of Urban Space

People in the City

85

--i-

T-e

other side of this diversity, however, is anonymity, where p e o p l e who <

-larren to be in the same public place, in the shops, restaurants and streets, are 1 strar.giTs to each other. S o m e studies have shown h o w urban conditions which , promote this anonymity can also promote violence (Karp, Stone & Yoels, 1991). This : can creste a risk of personal harm and danger to those who are physically more '| ^'ul-eraile, such as women. Urban space for ^vomen, therefore, will not have the sae e-citement as it does for men. It can be a more frightening, alien place, and that is why, as Elizabeth Wilson (1991) reminds u s , with disagreement, many J feminist writers are against cities. A TOwerful argument by s o m e feminist writers maintains that cities are historically built and run by men. As in other spheres of life, w o m e n have been marginalized in the process of planning and organization of urban s p a c e (Figure i 3.10). Examining some popular u r b a n history b o o k s , Richter (1982) s a w little i reference made to women's role in building American cities, especially where the physical development of urban fabrics w a s involved. Apart from prostitutes and entertainers, w o m e n were absent from these studies. ^ Along with the poor, the elderly and the ethnic minorities, w o m e n have been ' seen as a threat to the order prescribed for and imposed on cities. Elizabeth W i l s o n j (1991), for example, explores h o w the shape of contemporary cities has been determined by underlying assumptions about w o m e n , their roles a n d their place in

urban space. S h e sees the n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y town planning as an organized campaign to e x c l u d e w o m e n , c h i l d r e n , w o r k i n g classes and the poor. S h e argues that the city m a k e s possible w h a t is feared a n d desired: an u n t r a m e l l e d sexual experience. T h e w o m e n ' s p r e s e n c e in the city thus b e c o m e s a p r o b l e m , an irruption and a s y m p t o m of the a b s e n c e o f o r d e r , as it is associated with sexuality, a source of ambiguity a n d disorder. T h i s a s p e c t of the m a l e - f e m a l e relationship, a perpetual struggle b e t w e e n m a l e o r d e r a n d f e m a l e disorder, lies at the heart of u r b a n life. T h e " m a s c u l i n e " city, with "its r i g i d , r o u t i n i z e d o r d e r " reflected in "its triumphal scale, its towers a n d vistas a n d arid industrial r e g i o n s " , is constantly c h a l l e n g e d by the " f e m i n i n e " city, w i t h its " p l e a s u r a b l e a n a r c h y " , reflected in its " e n c l o s i n g e m b r a c e " and its " i n d e t e r m i n a n c y a n d l a b y r i n t h i n e u n c e n t r e d n e s s " (Wilson,1991: 7 - 8 ) . But h o w is it that w o m e n find themselves marginalized in the city? W h a t Karp, Stone & Yoels (1991: 153) call t h e " g e n d e r e d nature of urban s p a c e " can b e seen in the way urban s p a c e restricts w o m e n ' s mobility: physically through an imposition of patterns of m o v e m e n t and b e h a v i o u r based on fear and restricted access, and socially through a s s u m p t i o n s about w o m e n ' s role in urban society. There is a variety of ways in which w o m e n ' s freedom o f m o v e m e n t in u r b a n space is restricted, creating barriers to their mobility in the city. A structural constraint is that created by the expansion of suburbs, forcing \vomen to stay a w a y from the centres of activity and reducing their opportunities, especially due to their heavy dependence on public transport. Separation of h o m e f r o m w o r k in the industrialization process and the suburbanization of city life increasingly prevented women from social and geographical mobility. T h e p l a n n e d suburbs and n e w towns of the twentieth century, which have h o u s e d an ever i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r of households, have created spatial barriers for w o m e n , especially of m i d d l e classes, who were assumed to remain housewives. T h e major c o n t r i b u t i o n of w o m e n to the quality of u r b a n life, however, has not often b e e n properly a p p r e c i a t e d , as it has not been in the form of paid labour, and hence h a s remained " a n invisible w o r k " (Karp, Stone & Yoels,1991: 139). Women's w o r k such as the d o m e s t i c upkeep, the care of children and the elderly, maintaining family ties and their o v e r w h e l m i n g role in voluntary associadons have been seen a s " n a t u r a l " a n d " u n p l a n n e d " , as opposed to " r e a l " w o r k with more visible outputs. W i t h the i n c r e a s i n g integration of women in the economy as paid labour, h o w e v e r , these spatial b a r r i e r s work against their access to opportunities and jobs. As the traditional role of w o m e n as unpaid housewives changes and their contribution to the formal e c o n o m y finds m o r e and more importance, both they and the economic system as a w h o l e m o v e t o w a r d s an inevitable renegotiating and reorganizing of w o m e n ' s p a t t e r n s of access and mobility. Marginalization of w o m e n f r o m s p a c e p r o d u c t i o n has been in parallel with their role as the c o - o r d i n a t o r s of t h e d i f f e r e n t areas of fragmented lives and spaces. T h e y have been " r e s p o n s i b l e for l i n k i n g together the home, the market, and the institutions" ( T h e Research G r o u p for the N e w Everyday Life,1991: 12). T h e functional a n d spatial s e g r e g a t i o n of activities has meant that there is a need for someone to c o - o r d i n a t e these s p h e r e s of life. H e n c e the w o m e n ' s "invisible" work, which " e x t e n u a t e s the n e g a t i v e effects of the functional division, a n d smoothens the hard e d g e s o f t h e present e x i s t e n c e . . . W o m e n are obliged to find individual solutions to collective p r o b l e m s " (The R e s e a r c h G r o u p for the N e w Everyday Life,1991:12).

F i g u r e 3.10. Women argue that cities are built and run by men, marginalizing women in the process of planning and organizaton of urban space. {Dublin, Ireland)

82

Design of Urban Space

and situational crime prevention, are now a constituent part of environmental criminology. Environmental design's advice on crime prevention has generated a variety of responses. While it has been widely used in the development of new environments or the m a n a g e m e n t of the existing ones, many have considered its focus as too n a r r o w (Ekblom,1995). It is argued that environmental design will have to see design as a w i d e r process, combining a concern for both physical and social aspects of crime prevention. T o prevent crime, urban design's advice can create conflicts of interests, most notably between openness and safety, between freedom of choice and movement a n d security (Figure 3.9). Perhaps the first area of conflict is the definition of deviant behaviour, w h i c h affects the role of design. It has been argued, for example, that graffiti is a manifestation of black urban culture a n d is an art form, rather than a form of vandalism (Ferrell,1993). W h e r e does urban design, with its concern for the promotion of art in public places, stand in relation to this claim? In his book Defensible Space, O s c a r N e w m a n (1972) argued that in the anonymous s p a c e of metropolitan areas, w h a t is needed is a medium-density, defensible space, w h e r e residents a r e in control a n d hence prevent criminal behaviour. B y the use of mechanisms s u c h as real and symbolic barriers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved opportunities for surveillance, the design of the residential environments can b e effective in crime prevention. F o u r elements of physical design are then identified which contribute to the creation of secure environments: territorial definition of space through subdividing it into zones, where private, semi-private a n d public space a r e clearly identified and are under the residents' influence; positioning of w i n d o w s to allow surveillance; use of building forms w h i c h are n o t stigmatized; a n d careful location within urban areas. Newman was a w a r e of the criticisms against t h e notion "that crime, born of a poverty of means, opportunity, education, and representation, could b e prevented architecturally" ( N e w m a n , 1 9 7 2 : 11), b u t argues that environment has an undeniable effect on behaviour. O n e of the principles of N e w m a n ' s defensible space was the idea of defining and protecting the boundaries of a n environment, to keep the strangers, and therefore the risk of crime, away. This idea h a s now culminated in gated neighbourhoods, of which N e w m a n himself is an advocate. A n example is Dayton, Ohio, where 11 m o n t h s after t h e plan's implementation in autumn 1993, violent crime fell by 50% a n d property values rose b y 1 5 % , but where the plan is criticized b y residents who feel "locked i n " or "locked o u t " (Anon,1995). While effective in crime prevention, this development can potentially subdivide the urban space into fragmented entities, promoting further social segregation and exclusion. Fortress neighbourhoods, which have multiplied in the U S (Davis,1992) and to a lesser extent in Britain and elsewhere, can indicate the disintegration of the city as we k n o w it, through restriction o f access, a decline of public space, and a fear of difference. Yet a city is a place of difference, of strangers. It is through allowing an interface between the strangers and the inhabitants of an area that safety can b e secured and not through segregation. Hillier a n d Hanson (1984: 140), among others, stress the importance of such an interface:

People in the City it is extraordmari/ that unplanned growth should produce a belter global order tlian planned reda'elopnient, but it seems undeniable. The inference seems unavoidable that traditional systems work becatise they produce a global order that responds to the requirements of a dual (inhabitants and strangers) interface, whde modern systems do not luork because they fail to produce it. The principle of urban safety and liveliness is a product of the way both sets of relations are constructed by space. Strangers are not excluded but are controUed. As fane facohs noted many years ago, it is the controlled throughput of strangers and the direct hiterface zoith inhabitants that creates urban safety. We shoidd state this even more definitely: it is the controlled presence of passing strangers that polices space; while the directly interfacing inhabitants police the strangers. For this reason, "defensible space", based on exclusion of strangers and only on surveillance of spaces by inhabitants can never work.

83

(Hillier and Hanson,1984:140) The segregated environment reduces mobility a n d accessibility in urban space, allowing fewer choices o f routes, a n d is less democratic. In the context of a locality, effective design m a y reduce vulnerability to crime. In a wider context, however, it could merely lead to a displacement o f crime. Another conflict that crime prevention through environmental design creates is associated with surveillance. Again it was o n e o f N e w m a n ' s principles to organize space in such a w a y that surveillance becomes possible. This principle has n o w , with the help o f n e w technologies, developed into the wide use o f closed-circuit television c a m e r a s , an issue w h i c h has created concern for civil liberties (Honess & Charman,1992). A n a r g u m e n t against surveillance is that it takes away the "shadowed s p a c e s " , the spaces without which, Denis Wood (1991: 9 5 ) argues, it "would b e a d e a d world i n d e e d " . " O n e w a y to take care of nightmares", he goes on, "is to stay a w a k e . O f course, that also takes care o f the dreams. O n e way to take care of d e v i a n c e is to clear a w a y the shadowed spaces. O f course that also takes care of life". N o t only the d v i a n c e s of our parents and grandparents, but also philosophy, science and art a n d the policies o f public government " w e r e once practised in t h e dark". T h e intention is not to find murder or kidnapping or abduction o r bodily assault tolerable, but to argue that, "if the cost of prohibiting these is the loss o f the s h a d o w e d spaces, that cost is intolerably high". These conflicts show h o w effective design can b e , resulting in the permanent transformation of built e n v i r o n m e n t s into contested spaces. An average annual increase o f 5 % since 1918 in Britain (The Guardian, 28 September 1995) shows its historical presence. Crime, however, is a major contemporary concern, as exemplified b y the political parties' race to a n n o u n c e measures against it as a cornerstone o f their agendas. T o u s e design to disintegrate the civil society into medieval factions, however, cannot b e the proper contribution of urban design. This contribution is still to b e developed, a contribution which fights crime while promoting tolerance and social integration, rather than segregation and divide. T h e starting point for this development will have to b e seeing crime not as a n isolated event but o n e in a wider socio-spatial context.

Women in urban space

S t ' h ' ^ a T ' ' ^ " " ' ' difference in the large city offer a n excitmg assortment of people H.th different patterns of hfe, often making the city a fascinating and stimulating

84

Ja.gn of Urban Space

People in the City

85

place. Tne other side of this diversity, however, is anonymity, w h e r e people who happen to be in the same public place, in the shops, restaurants and streets, are stTar.giT5 to each other. S o m e studies have shown h o w urban conditions which proLr.oie this anonymity can also promote violence (Karp, Stone & Yoels, 1991). This can creste a risk of personal harm and danger to those who are physically more ^T^'.eriile, such as \\'omen. Urban space for ivomen, therefore, will not have the same efdtement as it does for men. It can be a more frightening, alien place, and thai is why, as Elizabeth Wilson (1991) reminds u s , with disagreement, many feminist writers are against cities. A powerful argument by s o m e feminist writers maintains that cities are historically built and run by men. As in other spheres of life, w o m e n have been marginalized in the process of planning and organization of urban space (Figure 3.10). E.xamining s o m e popular urban history books, Richter (1982) s a w little reference made to women's role in building American cities, especially where the physical development of urban fabrics was involved. Apart from prostitutes and entertainers, w o m e n were absent from these studies. Along with the poor, the elderly and the ethnic minorities, w o m e n have been seen as a threat to the order prescribed for and imposed on cities. Elizabeth Wilson (1991), for example, explores h o w the shape of contemporary cities has been determined by underlying assumptions about w o m e n , their roles and their place in

urban space. S h e sees the n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y town planning as an organized campaign to e x c l u d e w o m e n , c h i l d r e n , w o r k i n g classes and the poor. S h e argues that the city m a k e s possible w h a t is feared and desired; an untramelled sexual experience. T h e w o m e n ' s p r e s e n c e in the city thus becomes a problem, an irruption and a s y m p t o m of the a b s e n c e o f o r d e r , as it is associated with sexuality, a source of ambiguity and disorder. T h i s a s p e c t of the m a l e - f e m a l e relationship, a perpetual struggle b e t w e e n m a l e o r d e r a n d f e m a l e disorder, lies at the heart of virban hfe. T h e " m a s c u l i n e " city, with "its rigid, routinized o r d e r " reflected in "its triumphal scale, its towers a n d vistas and arid industrial r e g i o n s " , is constantly challenged by the "feminine" city, w i t h its " p l e a s u r a b l e a n a r c h y " , reflected in its "enclosing e m b r a c e " and its " i n d e t e r m i n a n c y and l a b y r i n t h i n e u n c e n t r e d n e s s " (Wilson,1991: 7 - 8 ) . But how is it that w o m e n find themselves marginalized in the city? W h a t Karp, Stone & Yoels (1991; 153) call the " g e n d e r e d nature of urban s p a c e " can be seen in the way urban space restricts w o m e n ' s mobility; physically through an imposition of patterns of m o v e m e n t and b e h a v i o u r based on fear and restricted access, and socially through a s s u m p t i o n s about w o m e n ' s role in urban society. There is a variety of ways in which w o m e n ' s freedom of m o v e m e n t in urban space is restricted, creating barriers to their mobility in the city. A structural constraint is that created by the expansion of suburbs, forcing -(vomen to stay a w a y from the centres of activity and reducing their opportunities, especially due to their heavy dependence on public transport. Separation of h o m e f r o m w o r k in the industrialization process and the suburbanization of city life increasingly prevented women from social and geographical mobility. T h e p l a n n e d suburbs and n e w towns of the twentieth century, which have h o u s e d an ever increasing number of households, have created spatial barriers for w o m e n , especially o f middle classes, who were assumed to remain housewives. T h e major contribution of w o m e n to the quality of urban life, however, has not often b e e n properly a p p r e c i a t e d , as it has not been in the form of paid labour, and hence h a s remained " a n invisible w o r k " (Karp, Stone & Yoels,1991; 139). Women's w o r k such as the d o m e s t i c upkeep, the care of children and the elderly, maintaining family ties and their over\vhelming role in voluntary associations have been seen a s " n a t u r a l " and " u n p l a n n e d " , as opposed to " r e a l " w o r k with more visible outputs. W i t h the increasing integration of women in the economy as paid labour, h o w e v e r , these spatial barriers work against their access to opportunities and jobs. As the traditional role of \vomen as unpaid housewives changes and their contribution to the formal e c o n o m y finds more and more importance, both they and the economic s y s t e m a s a w h o l e m o v e t o w a r d s an inevitable renegotiating and reorganizing of w o m e n ' s patterns of access and mobility. Marginalization of w o m e n f r o m space p r o d u c t i o n has been in parallel with their role as the c o - o r d i n a t o r s of t h e different areas of fragmented lives and spaces. They have b e e n " r e s p o n s i b l e for l i n k i n g together the home, the market, and the institutions" ( T h e Research G r o u p for the N e w Everyday Life,1991; 12). T h e functional a n d spatial s e g r e g a t i o n of activities has meant that there is a need for someone to c o - o r d i n a t e these s p h e r e s of life. H e n c e the w o m e n ' s "invisible" work, \vhich " e x t e n u a t e s the n e g a t i v e effects of the functional division, and smoothens the hard edges of the present e x i s t e n c e . . . W o m e n are obliged to find individual solutions to collective p r o b l e m s " (The Research G r o u p for the N e w Everyday Life,1991:12).

F i g u r e 3.10. Women argue that cities are built and run by men, marginalizing women in the process of planning and organizaton of urban space. {Dublin, Ireland)

86

Design of Urban Space

People in the City

87

T h e global restructuring p r o c e s s , in w h i c h s o m e parts of the world J | d e i n d u s t r i a l i z e w h i l e s o m e o t h e r s industrialize, redefines the relationship of men S a n d w o m e n a n d their socio-spatial roles. W i t h large-scale changes in economic I s t r u c t u r e s , w h e r e services h a v e g r o w n and traditional industries h a v e declined, fl n e w roles for w o m e n are e m e r g i n g in the social division of l a b o u r . As old i n d u s t r i e s decline, the role of the w o r k i n g class m a n as the b r e a d w i n n e r of the f a m i l y is c h a n g i n g . A l t h o u g h w o m e n are still seen a s candidates for low-paid, p a r t - t i m e jobs, their increasing purchasing p o w e r and their rising rate of e m p l o y m e n t h a v e started to affect the w a y urban space is o r g a n i z e d . As the m traditional r o l e of w o m e n as h o u s e w i v e s providing unpaid, d o m e s t i c labour is K b e i n g replaced b y o n e in w h i c h w o m e n w o r k both inside and outside the home, a w h o l e range of n e w patterns of activities h a v e e m e r g e d . From fast food shops to s h o p p i n g m a l l s , w h i c h s u p p o r t t h e n e w , d o u b l e r o l e o f w o m e n a s paid workers * a l o n g s i d e their traditional role of looking after d o m e s t i c needs of the household, a ^ n e w l a n d s c a p e is d e v e l o p i n g in which w o m e n are increasingly a s s u m i n g new roles and powers (Gottdiener,1994). A s the s u b u r b s h a v e m a t u r e d a n d middle class w o m e n have e n t e r e d the formal e c o n o m y in l a r g e n u m b e r s , the spatial organization of the suburb a n d the picture of w o m e n t r a p p e d in the s u b u r b s begin to c h a n g e . T h i s change c o u l d b e a reason for the p o p u l a r i t y a n d growth o f s u b u r b a n s h o p p i n g malls, w h i c h offer a more c o n v e n i e n t s h o p p i n g e n v i r o n m e n t as well as an escape from the h o u s e and the n e i g h b o u r h o o d . T h e majority of visitors to M e t r o C e n t r e , Gateshead, w h i c h claims to b e the largest s u b u r b a n s h o p p i n g centre in E u r o p e , are w o m e n (MetroCentre M a r k e t i n g , 1 9 9 3 ) . A l s o , the d e v e l o p m e n t of office a n d industrial concentrations in the s u b u r b s offers n e w o p p o r t u n i t i e s to the m i d d l e class women of the suburbs. A t the s a m e t i m e , this s p r e a d of opportunities and activities in the suburbs r e d u c e s further the chances of the lower i n c o m e g r o u p s and the p o o r w h o hve in 1 the city. T h e i r a c c e s s to jobs a n d facilities is seriously challenged b y a n e w spatial ' barrier. * It is not o n l y in the s u b u r b a n shopping malls that women predominate in * n u m b e r s . With the primacy of retailing in the city centres in Britain, a n d two-thirds ^ of retail e m p l o y e e s throughout Britain being female, women are likely to form the ^ majority of the population in central areas during the day (Worpole,1992). Both as s h o p p e r s and s h o p workers, a n d for social meetings and voluntary activities, M w o m e n are the major users of t h e city centres. Yet the main emphasis in the design flj of these areas is still on car parks, rather than on public transport, w h i c h is a major concern for w o m e n , or on childcare facilities, play areas, toilets or scats. m T h e proportion of men and w o m e n changes substantially during the night. This m is a time w h e n w o m e n m a y be afraid of going to town centres, a n d (especially J y o u n g ) m e n claim these areas as their own territory. A study in Woolwich, for * e x a m p l e , s h o w e d that 6 5 % of w o m e n were afraid of going out at night for fear of attack. T h e r e w e r e 3 6 % w h o w e r e even afraid during the day for fear of mugging and robbery. A n o t h e r study, in Edinburgh, showed how women felt dissatisfied with the t o w n centre d u e to dirty and poorly lit streets, inadequate b u s services and childcare facilities, and a fear of sexual harassment. A study of night life in 12 British t o w n s and cities found that w o m e n ' s view of urban life was fundamentally different from that of men. Its conclusion was that these problems will not be solved 1

by the provision of better poUcing and security only, but also by " a genuine choice of activities, entertainment and places where w o m e n can meet in towns and cities at night, and provision for children w h e r e necessary" (Worpole,1992; 6 5 ) . The problems of w o m e n in urban spaces are even more severe in the United States, which has a rate of rape seven times higher than in Europe. A study of the 125 largest S t a n d a r d Metropohtan Statistical Areas in the United States has shown higher rates of rape in larger metropolitan areas and in areas with higher percentages of persons divorced o r separated. A n o t h e r study has indicated h o w property crime and violence are associated with urban areas with large populations and high densities of single individuals and apartment houses. W o m e n ' s vulnerability to such crimes is revealed in another study, in which the female respondents, " w e r e about 8 times more likely than men to restrict their solo nighttime walking, about 13 t i m e s more likely to avoid going alone to bars and clubs after dark, and about 6 times more likely to avoid going d o w n t o w n alone after dark" (Karp, Stone & Y o e l s , 1 9 9 1 : 1 5 1 ) .

Conclusion
In this chapter w e h a v e looked at urban space from below, from the perspective of individuals and groups. W e h a v e seen how urban space finds different meanings for the variety of life experiences and backgrounds. This perspective refreshes our understanding of urban space and offers us new insights, challenging the notions of objectivity, g e o m e t r y , structure a n d order, and finding them in need of critical assessment. But w e find one m a j o r problem with this emphasis on the subjectivity and spontaneity of everyday life. W e can be trapped in difference, in relativism, unable to c o m m u n i c a t e with each other, as our increasingly pluralistic circumstances might entail. T h i s perspective contrasts and c o m p l e m e n t s the perspective offered in the previous chapter, which analysed urban space from above, from the viewpoint of the experts and scientists, as agglomerations of people and material objects. As Lefebvre has argued, our understanding of urban space will need to c o m b i n e both these perspectives. What the three chapters in this part offer, therefore, can be summarized in the following notions. T h e first notion is that urban space is the material space with its social and psychological dimensions, and urban form is the geometry of this space. The dilemmas associated with the concept of space can be bridged by this notion, allowing different parties to e n g a g e in a dialogue on space. It means that our m a p of the city has to have overlapping layers to show its physical, social and psychological geometry at the s a m e time. This is consistent with socio-spatial approaches in social philosophy, urban geography, urban sociology and architecture which address these dimensions simultaneously and focus on the dynamic interrelationship of these aspects. The second notion is that to understand urban space, we need to look at it both from above and from below. F r o m above, w e have the perspective of political economy, w h e r e systems of m o n e y and power are at work to create built environments and w h e r e scientific inquiry offers an objective understanding of urban space. F r o m below, w e h a v e the perspective of ever\'day life, where disorder

43

I^es.gn of Urban Space

and spontaneity can take over and wliere human behaviour in, and use of, urban space endows it with meaning. Tne third notion is that understanding urban space, with all its dimensions, is :est made possible by tracing the process of its development. It is through this development process that w e can relate the physical geometry with social and 5>"rr.bol;c geometries, and relate the world of artefacts with the world of people. It items from the traditions of urban architecture and urban morphology, which have -eveloped the idea of historicity of urban fabric. Another source of this notion is the tradition in social sciences which tends to link space with the w i d e r context of general societal processes. It also stems from the notion which regards thei development process and urban form as both o u t c o m e s of, and contributors to, the production and reproduction of social systems. It is this process of development, with its political, economic and aesthetic dimensions, that w e turn our attention to in the second part. W e e x a m i n e in some detail these three moments of the development of the built environment and the role of design as one of its main component parts.

PART TWO
ie Making of Urban Space

CHAPTER 4

Urban Design Process

In Part One, w e looked at u r b a n space, the p r o d u c t of the urban development process. W e analysed the d i l e m m a s of urban s p a c e and looked at the various approaches to the analysis of u r b a n environment a n d its form. These concentrated on either the spatial or the social aspects of urban areas. W e argued that a sociospatial approach to urban space is needed, o n e w h i c h integrates views from above with those from the everyday life perspective. In the second part, we concentrate on the urban development process itself, to find the place a n d role of urban design. W e will explore the economic, political and symbolic aspects of the urban development process from an urban design point of view. To do this, w e will look at the relationship between urban design and mechanisms and agencies of production, regulation, and with the images of ideal environments. Four Chapters in Part T w o analyse the urban development process from a sociospatial viewpoint and in relation to urban design concerns. Chapter 4 looks at urban design definitions and processes. Chapter 5 reviews the urban development process, the role of developers, and their relationship to the shaping of urban environment. C h a p t e r 6 looks at the way planning regulations set the parameters for the shape of urban space. C h a p t e r 7 is devoted to urban design ideas in the twentieth century as urbanist, micro-urbanist and anti-urbanist trends. A combination of the two parts, the process and the product, will draw a complete picture of urban design, its dynamics and its contexts. This will offer a socio-spatial insight into urban design, which addresses both the processes which shape the built environment and the products of this process.

What is urban design?

Despite its frequent appearance in educational and professional literature, urban design is still an ambiguous term, used differently b y different groups in different circumstances. Yet the growing attention to the subject and the rising number of academics and professionals w h o are engaged in urban design have brought to the surface a pressing need for a clearer definition of what they do. This chapter will begin by analysing those aspects of urban design which have caused such ambiguity and will then look for a definition that would address these uncertainties.

92

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

93

Ambiguities of urban design

Urban design is a far from clear area of activity. Signs of the need for a clear definition of urban design can b e seen in a variety of sources. The a d e q u a c y of the existing definitions is still doubted, as is evident in a recent conference on research and teaching in urban design (Billingham,1995). This indicates w h y the search to find a satisfactory definition of u r b a n design continues (Kindsvatter & Von Grossmann,1994; Rowley,1994; D o E , 1 9 9 5 ) . A brief look at this search s h o w s that it is still at an early stage. An e x a m p l e is a recent attempt which, after reviewmg a n u m b e r of definitions of urban design, concludes that finding " a short, clear definition . . . simply is not p o s s i b l e " (Rowley,1994: 195). Instead, Rowley suggested w e s h o u l d focus on the substance, m o t i v e s , m e t h o d s and roles of urban design. D o w e need a short, clear definition for urban design at all? T h e r e are manv ambiguities a b o u t s o m e disciplines and professions as they inevitably overlap w i t h each other. C o n t r o v e r s y a n d n e v e r - e n d i n g discussions a b o u t what constitutes architecture, as distinctive from b u i l d i n g s , can be t a k e n as one e x a m p l e . It m i g h t b e said that a m b i g u i t y offers a w i d e r scope for i n n o v a t i o n and d e v e l o p m e n t ; o n c e w e h a v e clearly defined a subject w e h a v e d e n i e d it some flexibility. But h o w can w e c l a i m to b e seriously e n g a g e d in urban d e s i g n if wc are not even able to define it? W h a t w e n e e d to r e m e m b e r is to separate

complexity f r o m a m b i g u i t y . In o u r search for t h e m e a n i n g o f u r b a n d e s i g n , w e should be able to a d d r e s s c o m p l e x i t y , b u t also d o o u r b e s t to c l a r i f y a m b i g u i t i e s . VVe can see these ambiguities in a n u m b e r of a t t e m p t s to find a definition for urban design. F o r example, w e can examine the list o f definitions collected b y the late Francis Tibbalds, a past president of the R o y a l T o w n P l a n n i n g Institute and a passionate supporter of urban design (Tibbalds,1988). T h e s e s h o w a puzzling variety of views o n urban design, including "lots of a r c h i t e c t u r e " , " s p a c e s b e t w e e n buildings", "a thoughtful municipal policy", " e v e r y t h i n g that y o u c a n see out of the window", or " t h e coming together of business, g o v e r n m e n t , p l a n n i n g , a n d d e s i g n " (Figure 4.1). T h e more plausible definitions i n c l u d e " t h e i n t e r f a c e b e t w e e n architecture, t o w n planning, a n d related p r o f e s s i o n s " ; "the t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l design of places for people . . . and their s u b s e q u e n t c a r e and m a n a g e m e n t " ; " a vital bridge, giving structure and reality to two d i m e n s i o n a l m a s t e r p l a n s a n d abstract planning briefs, before detailed architectural or e n g i n e e r i n g design can take p l a c e " ; "the design of the built-up area at the local s c a l e , including t h e g r o u p i n g of buildings for different use, the m o v e m e n t s y s t e m s and services associated with them, and the spaces and u r b a n landscape b e t w e e n t h e m " ; a n d " t h e creative activity by w h i c h the form and character of the u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t at the local scale may be devised". Here, as in other attempts to define u r b a n design (Shirvani, 1985), we see a variety of foci: s o m e are dealing w i t h t h e d o m a i n s o f u r b a n design, especially with its involvement w i t h the physical fabric of the city. O t h e r s h a v e focused on its scale, its points of departure from, or c o n g r u e n c e w i t h , planning and architecture, its political and m a n a g e m e n t a s p e c t s , or its place in the planning process. To arrive at a definition for u r b a n design, w e will n e e d to take i n t o account these various attempts, and identify the elements w h i c h create c o n f u s i o n a n d ambiguity. We could be then on our way to a clearer conception o f w h a t u r b a n d e s i g n is about. To review the areas of confusion and ambiguity, I p r o p o s e to a n a l y s e at least seven arenas in which different definitions fall; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the scale of urban fabric w h i c h urban design addresses; the visual or spatial e m p h a s e s of urban d e s i g n ; the spatial or social e m p h a s e s of urban d e s i g n ; the relationship between process and p r o d u c t in the city d e s i g n ; the relationship between different professionals and their activities; the public o r private sector affiliation of u r b a n design; and the design as an objective-rational or e x p r e s s i v e - s u b j e c t i v e p r o c e s s .

An examination of these arenas, I argue, will i l l u m i n a t e the d u a l i t i e s a n d tensions within virban design and will s h o w h o w a w a y can be s o u g h t to clarify the definition of u r b a n design and its roles and areas of i n v o l v e m e n t . These areas of ambiguity can be broadly g r o u p e d u n d e r p r o c e s s and product of urban design. T h e first three a r e n a s address the a m b i g u i t i e s about the outcome of urban design: urban space. T h e last three arenas concentrate o n u r b a n design as a

94

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

95

process anci the a m b i g u i t i e s this h a s created. T h e issue of process arid product, a central area of a m b i g u i t y , is d i s c u s s e d separately b u t in conjunction w i t h these two sets of concerns.

Macro- or micro-scale urban design?

A main area of c o n f u s i o n is in the scale of urban fabric in which urban design is e n g a g e d . Definitions o f u r b a n design refer both to the design o f cities and settlements as a w h o l e a n d to t h e design of s o m e parts of urban areas. T h e issues and considerations a d d r e s s e d in these t w o m a c r o - and micro-scales of urban design, h o w e v e r , a r e v e r y different from each other. W h e r e a s the d e s i g n of cities a n d settlements h a s f o c u s e d o n the broad issues of organization o f space and functions, m i c r o - u r b a n d e s i g n h a s concentrated o n t h e public face of architecture, on public s p a c e in parts o f the cities, and more detailed considerations of design at that scale. W h e n o b s e r v e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , as in t h e definitions of u r b a n design,' they could create a l a r g e d e g r e e o f ainbiguity. Such a m b i g u i t y c a n b e s e e n in a comparison b e t w e e n two sets o f definitions. ]

Francis Tibbalds' (1988) preferred definition is t h e o n e which describes urban design as " t h e physical design o f public r e a l m " (Figure 4 . 2 ) . T h e term "public realm" often refers to the space in the city w h i c h i s not private, the space outside the private realm of buildings, the space b e t w e e n the buildings. But does this lead to a lack of attention to the private space w h i c h m a k e s u p the bulk of every city's space? If " u r b a n " is merely the public parts o f the city, w h a t should w e call the totality of urban space with its both public a n d private dimensions? H o w do w e compare this micro-scale urban design with K e v i n Lynch's b r o a d e r definitions? In one attempt he defined urban design as dealing with " t h e form o f possible urban environments" (Lynch,1984). H e offered an even broader definition elsewhere (Lynch,1981: 290), as " t h e art of creating possibilities for the use, m a n a g e m e n t , and form o f settlements or their significant p a r t s " (Figure 4.3). The latter is a definition of urban design w h i c h is very close to city planning, albeit with a particular interest in the physical fabric and its form. If w e compare this with the Royal Town Planning Institute's definition of planning as the "management of change in the built and natural e n v i r o n m e n t s " (RTPI,1991), the similarity b e c o m e s evident. O n t h e other side o f t h e spectrum, however, where urban design is seen as the design of small u r b a n places, it b e c o m e s close to the aesthetic and spatial concerns of arts and architecture.

Figure 4.2.

Is urban design the "physical design of public realm"? {Paris, France)

F i g u r e 4 . 3 . Is urban design "the art of creating possibilities for the use, management, and form of settlements or their significant parts" ? {Frejus, France)

95

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

97

T h e large and small scales of e n g a g e m e n t are rooted in much deeper debates a b o u t the nature and concept of s p a c e , as discussed earlier. It was partly reflected in the modernist-post-modernist confrontations. T h e modernists concentrated on the design of an abstract but integrated space. T h e post-modern reaction to such abstraction was an attention to smaller-scale urban places and their m e a n i n g . This shift of attention reflects a broad range of shifts a n d transformations in political, e c o n o m i c and cultural circumstances of the time. In Britain, the abolition of metropolitan authorities and their fragmentation is a prime example of how attention has shifted from the cities a s a w h o l e to parts of them. Economically, there has been a reduction in the resources w h i c h could be spent on cities as a w h o l e , leading to policies and projects which concentrate on some parts of the city. Culturally, there h a v e been strong reactions to the blanket treatment which the comprehensive planning and large-scale urban d e v e l o p m e n t have imposed on individual and group differences. It is in relation to these fundamental changes that macro-urban design has b e e n largely a b a n d o n e d in areas confronting e c o n o m i c decline. Yet at the same time, where g r o w t h pressure has b e e n on the rise, such as in the sunbelt cities of the United States a n d in the fast-de',-eloping e c o n o m i e s and their rapidly expanding cities, m a c r o - u r b a n design has remained a ] pressing need. O n e solution is to a c k n o w l e d g e this d i v i d e a n d to m a i n t a i n that there are two d i f f e r e n t types of u r b a n design: a m a c r o - u r b a n d e s i g n and a micro-urban d e s i g n , w i t h different concerns a n d foci. T h i s d i v i s i o n could offer a d e v e l o p m e n t of s p e c i a l i s m s in dealing with u r b a n fabric a n d w o u l d lead to a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the processes a n d p r o d u c t s i n v o l v e d at each level. Yet the two l e v e l s h a v e so m u c h in c o m m o n a n d are so i n t e r r e l a t e d that w e m a y see t h e m as b e l o n g i n g to the s a m e process of d e s i g n i n g the u r b a n space. T h e b r o c h u r e for M a s t e r of U r b a n D e s i g n degree at U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, calls it the " P r o g r a m in the D e s i g n of U r b a n P l a c e s " . D e s p i t e this e m p h a s i s on the places, it e x p l a i n s that u r b a n d e s i g n e r s s h o u l d w o r k a t all scales of u r b a n space: " d e s i g n e r s are n e e d e d w h o can w o r k effectively in multidisciplinary teams, across a large r a n g e of scales . . . T h e s e p r o f e s s i o n a l s m a y shape the f o r m and s p a c e o f specific p l a c e s , or d e s i g n city w i d e s y s t e m s " . For another s c h o o l , the u r b a n design p r o g r a m m e "is i n t e n d e d to a u g m e n t traditional professional training in architecture for those w h o w i s h to f u r t h e r investigate the physical a s p e c t s of u r b a n i s m . ' U r b a n D e s i g n ' is seen a s an activist, social art; m o r e than a s i n g u l a r representation of physical scale, the t e r m defines a c o m m i t m e n t to d i s c o u r s e at all scales of design a c t i v i t y " ( C o l u m b i a University Bulletin, 1992: 2 9 ) . S m a l l e r scales of design activity can also a d d r e s s rural areas a n d smaller s e t t l e m e n t s . T h i s is w h y L o z a n o ( 1 9 9 0 ) preferred the t e r m " c o m m u n i t y d e s i g n " to a d d r e s s design at a variety of s c a l e s and e n v i r o n m e n t s , from villages to large u r b a n areas. T h e degree of overlap and c o m m o n a l i t y between the two scales of urban design, therefore, could b e convincingly treated within the s a m e definition, to see urban design as "an interdisciplinary approach to designing our built environment" (Vernez Moudon,1992: 331). B y adopting a broad definition, we will have acknowledged the similarities and differences b e t w e e n the shaping of urban space and urban place-making as two parts of the same process.

A s urban design deals with all scales of u r b a n s p a c e , it has c a u s e d a m b i g u i t y about its role a n d areas of i n v o l v e m e n t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , w h a t l i n k s t h e s e different scales of i n v o l v e m e n t is the central feature that t h e y all collectively m a k e u p the urban space, and u r b a n design is the activity w h i c h s h a p e s t h e u r b a n s p a c e . In this sense, it m i g h t b e b r o k e n d o w n into d i f f e r e n t a r e n a s in w h i c h different designers could concentrate. The time-scale and issues involved in masterplanning f o r n e w s e t t l e m e n t s are i n e v i t a b l y different f r o m t h o s e i n v o l v e d in details of street design. At the height of modernism, a designer could design all the p h y s i c a l objects which made u p a development: the buildings, the l a n d s c a p e a r o u n d t h e m , their interiors, and the objects within the buildings, s u c h as the furniture a n d even the artworks inside a n d outside the buildings. This w a s a n attempt for a total design of an environment a n d , if i m p l e m e n t e d , meant that all these objects w o u l d b e created within a relatively short period of time. T h i s integrated d e s i g n o f a total environment w a s a hallmark of the modernists, as b e s t exemplified in the teachings of Bauhaus. T h e s e roles are n o w performed b y s e v e r a l specialisms of u r b a n and regional planners, urban designers, architects, lansdscape architects, interior designers, furniture and product designers, a n d artists such a s p a i n t e r s and sculptors. As discussed in Chapter 1, I a r g u e that an integrated concept of s p a c e is needed, one in which an o p e n interpretation of place is a d o p t e d . F o l l o w i n g this line of argument, we should stress that although a d e g r e e o f specialization t h r o u g h the separation in scale of engagement can be useful, the n a t u r e of b o t h p r o c e s s e s should be seen as closely interrelated. O n l y in this w a y c a n w e avoid a f u r t h e r d i v i d e in the scope of those dealing with u r b a n space. T o c o n f r o n t the a m b i g u i t y a b o u t scale, therefore, we should conclude that urban design d e a l s with u r b a n s p a c e at all its scales.

Urban design as visual or spatial m a n a g e m e n t ?

Another source of ambiguity is the perception o f u r b a n design a s dealing with visual qualities of urban environment, which contradicts a b r o a d e r v i e w of urban design as addressing the organization of urban space. This m a y b e t h e m a i n source of confusion about, and the m a i n area of criticism against, u r b a n design b y its opponents, at least in Britain. T o confront this c o n f u s i o n , w e n e e d to address t w o tendencies: one w h i c h sees urban design as an e x e r c i s e in p r o d u c i n g nice images, and the other w h i c h sees urban design as only a t t e n d i n g the aesthetics of urban environment.

Urban design as nice images

At a recent conference on town centre m a n a g e m e n t , Peter Hall a s k e d for the traditional idea of urban design to be a b a n d o n e d : " T h e concept of u r b a n design should not be t a k e n in its old-fashioned sense p r o d u c i n g nice d r a w i n g s to pin o n the w a l l " (quoted in Hirst,1995: 6). But why, w e m a y w o n d e r , s h o u l d u r b a n design be associated only with drawings and not with realities? (Figure 4 . 4 ) .

98

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

99

Attention to the social anci economic problems of cities has often sidelined the design activities as irrelevant, or at best as unaffordable luxuries. At a time when n o development w a s in sight, it was felt that no attention should be paid to design. For a project to be implemented, there m a y be several designs and designers involved, each producing drawings to c o m m u n i c a t e their ideas. These ideas, however, m a y never be implemented, as the m o n e y m a y rtm out or the decisions be changed. A s they are about cities, and cities take a long time to evolve and change, these designs m a y be implemented but over a very long period of time, with inevitable changes and adjustments in a changing political and e c o n o m i c context. However, the abundance of beautiful but potentially u n i m p l e m e n t a b l e images, especially at a time of economic difficulty, has a p o w e r f u l impact on non-designers, who see design as merely images rather than ideas for spatial transformation. Even if they see these ideas, the element of innovation and " f u t u r i s m " inherent in design may convince the viewers of the designs' irrelevance to the reality and its constraints. This view of design, as an elitist, artistic enterprise which has n o relationship to the real, daily problems of large sections of urban societies, has led to a reduction of urban design to a visual activity. This confusion h a s been especially strengthened by the w a y design communicates through visual, rather then verbal, means. Furthermore, designers' understanding of social and economic issues of cities has not always b e e n their major point of strength. The way out of this confusion is to realize that design is an activity proposing ideas for spatial transformation. If it communicates m o r e through visual rather than verbal means, its content should not be equated w i t h its means. In design, as in other forms of communication, form and content are very closely interrelated. But confusing the form and means of c o m m u n i c a t i o n with the content of communication is an avoidable mistake. Can we mistake, for e x a m p l e , urban policy for just nice w o r d s ?

Urban design as the aesthetics of the urban environment

This is a m o r e profoimd problem. To sec urban ciesign as dealing \vith the \isual rather than the spatial aspects of environment is a widespread tendency (Figure 4.5). This can be an understandable mistake, since w h e n we try to understand space our first encounter is a visual experience. W e first see the objects in front of us and then begin to understand how they relate to each other. If our understanding is limited to a visual understanding, w e only concentrate ort shapes. If, however, we go beyond appearances, we start a spatial understanding, a three-dimensional experience. W e can enter this space, rather than just see it. The s a m e applies to the design of spaces. W e do not create mere appearances but spaces that w e can use for different purposes. In an interview on spatial arts, Derrida asserts that "I do say 'spatial' more readily than 'visual' . . . because I a m not sure that space is essentially mastered b y . . . the look . . . Space isn't only the visible" (Derrida, quoted in Brunette and Will.s,1994: 24).
Figure 4 4 Is urban design "nice drawings to pin on the wall", or ideas for change? Aenal view of the proposed Great Northern Square in Manchester, by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. ( 1 9 9 6 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Inc. Reproduced with kind permission.)

An example of treating urban design as a visual concern is E d w a r d Relph (1987; 229) who, following Barnett (1982), sees urban design as attending to the visual qualities of u r b a n environments. For him, urban design focuses on "the coherence

100

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

101

utihtarian aesthetics, the Picturesc^ue tradition was strong in Britain, a s e x e m p l i f i e d by the post-war resentment against m o d e r n i s m and the n a m e it was given in Britain: N e w Brutalism. The tendency to equate urban design with t o w n s c a p e m a n a g e m e n t , h o w e v e r , also draws u p o n another major trend in the past t w o d e c a d e s w h a t B o y e r (1990) calls the return of aesthetics to city planning. This process, she a r g u e s , is part of the commodification of culture, through which " e v e n t u a l l y even c i t y s p a c e a n d architectural forms become c o n s u m e r items or p a c k a g e d e n v i r o n m e n t s that support and promote the circulation of g o o d s " (Boyer,1990: 101). T h e return o f capital to the city centres as the real estate investment is what lies behind the c r e a t i o n of specially designed environments and spectacles, leading to aestheticization of evers^day life. Visual i m p r o v e m e n t of the cities has been used to market cities a s a w h o l e , as increasingly cities have to c o m p e t e in the global m a r k e t s to attract i n v e s t m e n t . T h e investment m a y be made b y companies searching for better r e t u r n s o n their investment and a better quality of life for their e m p l o y e e s . I n v e s t m e n t m a y also b e made by the employees and b y middle classes returning to the cities l o o k i n g for new hfestyles. A s urban design e m e r g e d in the 1980s along these t r e n d s of u r b a n marketing and middle class colonization of parts of the cities, it h a s g e n e r a t e d a critical reaction, reducing it to a merely aesthetic enterprise. C o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e seen it as a n e w packaging for u r b a n environments, henoe its visual e m p h a s i s . There are t w o mistakes that can be corrected. T h e first correction is that u r b a n design is not merely dealing with visual qualities of urban e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e w a y out of this confusion is to realize that visual qualities are o n e a m o n g the spatial qualities of the built environment. T o separate and e m p h a s i z e the v i s u a l qualities of urban space is to ignore the major role of design as the generator of i d e a s for spatial change. As S h e r w i n Greene stresses, " T h e ultimate purpose of c o m m u n i t y design is to improve the function and aesthetic quality of the built e n v i r o n m e n t for its u s e r s " . As such, it " m u s t translate utility into art and simultaneously r e s p o n d to both public and private interests while enduring political, economic, a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e challenges (Greene,1992: 186). T h e second correction is that urban d e s i g n as spatial management is a tool. If it has b e e n used to m a x i m i z e i n v e s t m e n t return a n d exchange value, it is not the tool that should be b l a m e d . This tool can b e equally used to m a x i m i z e use value, to b e at the service of all citizens rather t h a n o n l y s o m e sections of urban society. For e x a m p l e , it is to use this capacity of u r b a n design that Peter Hall asks urban designers to "reconcile the huge constraints, b o t h technical and property-based, which are placed on the c e n t r e s " (quoted in H i r s t , ! 995: 6). In this case, I w o u l d suggest, the terms innovative, -rather than f a s h i o n a b l e , and spatial, rather than visual, can be used to define u r b a n design. Whatever the role of urban designers in this process, the aesthetic, visual qualities of the urban environment and the organization of urban space are b o t h quahties which are addressed by urban design, both dimensions of u r b a n space and reflecting the circumstances of the people w h o p r o d u c e and use it. A s H a r v e y (1989: 56-67) puts it, " H o w a city looks and how its spaces are organized f o r m s a material base upon which a range of possible sensations a n d social practices can b e t h o u g h t about, evaluated, and a c h i e v e d " . It will be a limited view to see u r b a n design as dealing with only o n e of these aspects, as w a s predominant in the 19S0s, or to see it outside the social practices of w h i c h it is a part.

F i g u r e 4.5.

Is urban design attention to the aesthetics of the environment? {Turin,

Italy)

of townscape, including heritage districts, the relationship between buildings both old and new, the forms of spaces, and small-scale improvements to streets". A n o t h e r example is the policy guidance given to the planners on design in the planning process (DoE,1992), which appears to treat design as mainly dealing with the appearance of the built environment. T h e long-standing tradition of Picturesque in Britain, which p a y s special attention to the visual qualities of the environment, m a y be seen as a fundamental drive in this case. Even at the height of m o d e r n i s m , which p r o m o t e d more

102

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

103

Urban design as social or spatial m a n a g e m e n t ?

W e argued that urban design deals w i t h spatial, rather than merely visual aspects o f ' urban environment. But d o w e m e a n b y this that t h e r e is no social dimension involved? Do w e m e a n that u r b a n d e s i g n is all a b o u t transforming spatial arrangements and not dealing w i t h aspects of u s e a n d m a n a g e m e n t of those environments? Are there not m o r e d e e p l y seated social and cultural relatiora b e t w e e n society and s p a c e that u r b a n d e s i g n addresses? (Figure 4.6.) .4

This view is n o w widely discarded. But what is increasingly finding acceptance by social sciences as well as spatial arts and sciences, is that there is a strong interaction between space and the social processes. There are, however, commentators who see u r b a n design as m e r e l y a spatial involvement without a social dimension. This is particularly the case w h e n the visual element of urban design work is emphasized. W h a t needs to be argued here is that spatial transformation will be caused by, and in turn will cause, social change. This m a y happen at a variety of scales and degrees of impact. T h e correlation, however, is inevitable. This is especially felt when aspects of urban design such as the management of urban environments or change in land use are dealt with. M o r e broadly, the social and psychological significance of the built environment is w h e r e the connection between the t w o can be observed. The way society and space are interrelated is a m a i n concern of u r b a n design education. T h e Urban Design Source Book (Billingham,1994) offers a list of eight urban design programmes in Britain. Some of the p r o g r a m m e s , which are based in the planning and architecture departments and built environment schools, have outlined their definition of urban design and the objectives of their p r o g r a m m e s . One p r o g r a m m e ' s focus is "on the relationship b e t w e e n on the o n e h a n d , the economic, social and political forces shaping u r b a n renewal and on the other, physical opportunities, constraints and changes, including the design of physical developments" (Billingham,1994: 21). For another programme, " U r b a n design is concerned with the physical form of cities, buildings and the space b e t w e e n them. The study of urban design deals with the relationships between the physical form of the city and the social forces which produce it" (Billingham,1994: 24). Other programmes analyse the socio-spatial relationship by concentrating on the physical and social contexts of urban design. For o n e programme, " U r b a n design is concerned with the creation, regeneration, e n h a n c e m e n t and m a n a g e m e n t of the built environments which are sensitive to their contexts and sympathetic to people's needs" (Billingham,1994: 18). Similar concern for the context is expressed by another school's urban design programme, which "is based on a morphological approach, with a particular regard to context, and an assumption that traditional ideas of urbanism can help to generate socially and ecologically successful urban environments in the future" (p.19). Others see urban design as having "an important role to play in influencing the development of local urban a r e a s " (p.22), and with their training aim "to produce urban designers able to m a n a g e the increasingly complex problems.of developing u r b a n space, and urban f o r m " (p.27). The urban design programmes in the United States also show similar emphases on the relationship between physical fabric of the city and the processes which shape it. O n e school's urban design programme "explores the multiplicity of social, cultural, economic and political factors which play a role in the city's evolution, as well as other more qualitative aspects related to understanding the city as a spiritual and cultural artifact" (Pratt Institute in N e w York City, poster). At Harvard, the urban design programme provides " k n o w l e d g e of urban issues and concepts, preparing architects and landscape architects for leadership in the design of environments for human settlement" (Harvard University,! 994: 30). T h e programme's foundation core is a design studio which "emphasizes the development of a critical awareness of how the physical city affects and is affected

F i g u r e 4.6.

Is urban ciesign concerned with spatial or social managennent? {Dublin,

Ireland)

A s we have discussed in Part O n e , social and spatial aspects are intertwined in our understanding of u r b a n space. T h e s a m e applies to the transformation of urban space. W h e n w e are e n g a g e d in s h a p i n g the urban s p a c e , we are inevitably dealing with its social content. T h e modernist design had the a m b i t i o n of c h a n g i n g societies through changing space. This, w h i c h b e c a m e k n o w n as e n v i r o n m e n t a l determinism and social engineering, w a s a too mechanistic v i e w of h o w society and space are interrelated.

104

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

105

by social, cultural, and economic factors" (Hodge et al.,1994: 2 8 ) . F o r another ^ school, seeking a non-conventional approach, " T h e premise of the program is | investigation, exploration, experimentation, a n d representation of ideas and ' proposals regarding the development of the city". T h e curriculum, therefore, "is ' designed for the questioning o f the existing connections and searching for I alternative ideologies and proposals for the city's architecture" (University of Colorado,undated; 10). Policy-makers have also shown interest in broadening the scope of urban design. ^ After stating that a "single common definition of urban design" is not available, the i DoE's urban design campaign offers a definition which addresses several i relationships: "between buildings a n d the streets, squares, parks a n d other open spaces which make up the public d o m a i n ; the relationship of o n e part o f a village, town or city with other parts; and t h e interplay b e t w e e n our evolving environment j of buildings and the values, expectations a n d resources of people: in short, the complex inter-relationship between all the various elements of built a n d unbuilt ^ space, and those responsible for t h e m " (DoE,1995: 2). | Urban design can be seen as a socio-spatial m a n a g e m e n t of urban environment I using both visual and verbal means of communication a n d engaging in a variety of J scales of urban socio-spatial phenomena. O n e aspect of the relationship between social and spatial dimensions o f urban design h a s been formulated as the ! relationship between process and product. i

urban design is not a product, but it is interested in its p r o d u c t , the built environment. A m o r e precise w a y of putting it m a y b e as follows: u r b a n design is a process that deals with shaping u r b a n space, and a s s u c h it is interested in b o t h t h e process of this shaping and the spaces it helps to shape. In a sense this two-sided nature is reflected in the t w o c o m p o n e n t parts o f t h e term: " u r b a n " a n d "design", the former referring to the product a n d t h e latter to the process. T h e ambiguity of the scales of urban design refers to a m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l question: what is urban? What parts of the ever-increasing u r b a n areas a r e addressed b y urban design? T h e dominant trend in Britain s e e m s to b e to a d d r e s s the city centres a s the main urban space (for e x a m p l e , see W o r p o l e , 1 9 9 2 ) , leaving the rest o f the cities as mere peripheries w h e r e t h e l o w e r densities o f p o p u l a t i o n and activities appear to make t h e m less interesting. There has been a decline in large-scale urban redevelopment o r d e v e l o p m e n t o f new settlements. This explains to a large degree, especially in Britain, w h y u r b a n design is generally concentrated o n a micro-scale o f u r b a n space, p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h place-making. In the United States, where s o m e areas h a v e e x p e r i e n c e d phenomenal growth pressures, large-scale urban development, as reflected in t h e New Urbanist movement, has also been a m a i n feature. Parallel with t h e predominance o f retailing in the city centres in Britain a n d in the n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y as a whole, urban design b e c o m e s pressed to concentrate o n creating a n d supporting environments in which shopping, o r consumption in g e n e r a l , is t h e main attraction to pull the c r o w d s , leaving aside other uses a n d places a s o f secondary importance. The drive for regeneration o f decayed i n n e r areas o f t h e cities has also led to such concentration on the city centres, taking t h e attention away from the urban region as an integrated space. The urban space, however, is m o r e than the city centre (Figure 4 . 7 ) . It includes t h e suburbs, where large numbers of urbanits live. A s these s u b u r b s h a v e m a t u r e d and new nuclei of services and employment have developed on the outskirts o f t h e cities, any engagement with the city which disregards the suburbs is t u r n i n g a b l i n d eye to a substantial portion of urban space (Gottdiener,1994). In t h e case o f t h e larger cities in Britain, multinucleated urban regions h a v e evolved either t h r o u g h development of n e w shopping and office centres in the suburbs, or h a v e g r o w n b y engulfing the older, smaller settlements into the urban whole. T h e u r b a n space w i t h which urban design is engaged is therefore the space o f an urban region, including the centre a n d its peripheries. Restricting urban design to the city centres w o u l d deprive urban design of a broader perspective, a n d the urban space o f a potentially powerful tool for its transformation. As for the definition of design, w e come across a fairly wide r a n g e o f m e a n i n g s . For example, the dictionary definitions of the w o r d refer separately to a s e q u e n c e o f distinguishable moments in a process: from w h e n there is only a n intention, to when the ideas a r e conceived in mind, to when preliminary sketches a r e p r e p a r e d , to when they are formulated as a set of instructions for making s o m e t h i n g w h i c h leaves the details to b e worked out, and to m a k i n g plans and d r a w i n g s n e c ^ s a r y for the construction of a building etc., which the w o r k m e n have to follow {Oxford English Dictionary; Watson,1968). Each of these definifions is given a s a n independent definition for design. Yet if we p u t t h e m all together, they still m e a n design, or rather the design process.

Process or product?

T h e sources of ambiguity between macro- or micro-scale of urban design and \ between urban design as visual o r spatial m a n a g e m e n t refer to urban design as dealing with its product, the urban space. This leads u s t o a fundamental source of potential confusion in defining urban design: w h e t h e r the term refers to a process or a product. Architects have historically been interested in the product of their design and not in the administrative a n d urban development processes through which designs are implemented. O n the other h a n d , planners have shifted from an interest in the physical fabric of the city to the policies a n d procedures o f change in the environment (Dagenhart & Sawicki,1992). A s urban design stands between architecture a n d planning, it relates to the p a r a d i g m s of both, which can create i overlaps a n d reduce clarity of scope. Depending o n the commentators' standpoint, 4 they might have a tendency to one o r the other of these paradigms, preferring to see urban design as only a product o r a process. Yet urban design, as m a n y urban designers have stressed, refers to b o t h a process a n d a product: " i t is defined by what urban designers d o as much as it is b y w h a t they p r o d u c e " (Kindsvatter & Von Grossmann,1994: 9 ) . For o n e university p r o g r a m m e , "Urban design can be thought of as both a product and a process. A s a product urban design occurs at scales ranging from parts of an environment, such as a streetscape, to the larger wholes of districts, towns, cities, o r regions . . . A s a process and a conscious act, urban design involves the art of shaping the environment which has b e e n built over time b y m a n y different actors" (University o f Washington,undated: 1). But h o w can w e say that urban design is both a process and a product? Surely,

106

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

107

Professional divide
A major area of ambiguity s e e m s to be w h e r e w e expect a practical clarity to reign. W h e r e should we look for definitions of u r b a n design a n d find out w h a t urban d e s i g n e r s do? W e w o u l d expect the best people to g o to w o u l d b e the professionals, as they should h a v e a clear idea of w h a t they do. T h e r e are 54 U K based firms m e n t i o n e d in the Urban Design Source Book ( B i l l i n g h a m , 1 9 9 4 ) , varying in size and s c o p e of their activity, from international firms to s m a l l c o n s u l t a n c i e s . These are firms that have indicated that they offer " a n urban d e s i g n or a related service". T h e y offer a variety of services in relation to the built a n d natural environments, with many services and subjects overlapping each other. T h e s e include masterplanning, d e v e l o p m e n t f r a m e w o r k s and concepts, c o n c e p t design, d e v e l o p m e n t briefs, design guidelines, urban design in d e v e l o p m e n t control, urban design training, environmental and visual impact a s s e s s m e n t , site appraisal and context studies, e n v i r o n m e n t statements, environmental i m p r o v e m e n t , building and area enhancement, t o w n centre r e n e w a l , p u b l i c r e a l m design, transport and traffic m a n a g e m e n t , pedestrianization, infrastructure strategies, c o m p u t e r modelling, project m a n a g e m e n t , e n g i n e e r i n g , interior, graphic a n d p r o d u c t design, l a n d s c a p e design, architectural design, u r b a n design, town p l a n n i n g , land-use planning, policy formulation and p r o m o t i o n , strategic planning s t u d i e s , local planning, public inquiries, conservation, n e w design in historic c o n t e x t s , planning in historic and sensitive areas, d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n strategies, a d a p t i v e re-use, enabling d e v e l o p m e n t , i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , u r b a n regeneration, small town and village regeneration, integrated r e g e n e r a t i o n of streets a n d buildings, c o m m u n i t y participation, civic a n d community architecture, n e w settlements, large-scale site planning, l a n d s c a p e planning, physical p l a n n i n g , urban housing, shopping, e m p l o y m e n t , t o u r i s m , recreation and leisure, u r b a n parks and spaces, urban squares, waterfront b u i l d i n g s and strategies, m a r i n a s , planning for pedestrian c r i m e prevention a n d security, and energy efficient design. This diversity adds to the ambiguity of u r b a n design as an activity; w h e r e do we d r a w the boundaries b e t w e e n these w i d e ranging but overlapping activities? T h e U r b a n Design Group is the main forum dealing with the subject in Britain, largely b r i n g i n g together urban design professionals. T o p r o d u c e a m a n i f e s t o for urban design, initiated in 1986, the G r o u p p r o p o s e d a seven-point a g e n d a , an agenda w h i c h aimed at " m a k i n g explicit what u r b a n designers d o , or s h o u l d d o " (Billingham,1994; 38). As such, it is referring to the realms of descriptive and prescriptive simultaneously, w h i c h is often a characteristic of d e s i g n literature. There are also other boundaries that are crossed in the seven points of the agenda; disciplinary boundaries b e t w e e n architecture a n d planning, b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n developer's goals and a c o m m u n i t y ' s needs, b e t w e e n p r o m o t i n g and enabling development a n d controlling it. Urban d e s i g n , as outlined in this agenda, is an interdisciplinary activity, occupying " t h e central g r o u n d between the recognized environmental professionals". It is "concerned with the careful stewardship of the resources of the built e n v i r o n m e n t " and with "helping the users and not only the p r o d u c e r s of the urban e n v i r o n m e n t " . Therefore they " m u s t understand and interpret

Figure 4.7.

Is urban design merely the design of city centre space? {London,

UK)

N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e s e d e f i n i t i o n s fail to i n f o r m u s of all the m o m e n t s in the s e q u e n c e of the d e s i g n p r o c e s s o r o f t h e p r o c e s s a s a w h o l e . O n the o t h e r hand, a t t e m p t s that h a v e b e e n m a d e t o p r o v i d e a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e definition of d e s i g n h a v e f o u n d an entirely d i f f e r e n t f o c u s . F o r e x a m p l e , in his e n t r y for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, K e v i n L y n c h (1984) o f f e r e d a definition o f design as " t h e i m a g i n a t i v e creation of p o s s i b l e f o r m i n t e n d e d to a c h i e v e s o m e human p u r p o s e ; social, e c o n o m i c , a e s t h e t i c , or t e c h n i c a l " . E l s e w h e r e ( L y n c h , 1 9 8 1 : 290), h e elaborates on this d e f i n i t i o n o f d e s i g n a s " t h e playful c r e a t i o n a n d strict evaluation of the p o s s i b l e f o r m s o f s o m e t h i n g , i n c l u d i n g h o w it is t o b e m a d e " . H e r e the f o c u s is o n a n a c t i o n , t h e c r e a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e f o r m , w h i c h is not m e n t i o n e d in o u r d i c t i o n a r y d e f i n i t i o n s , w i t h a reference to its mode, mechanisms and areas of concern. T h e relationship b e t w e e n p r o c e s s a n d p r o d u c t goes b e y o n d this formal analysis. A s w e h a v e d i s c u s s e d in Part O n e , t h e y are closely i n t e r t w i n e d . To u n d e r s t a n d u r b a n s p a c e , w e a r g u e d f o l l o w i n g H e n r i Lefebvre, w e n e e d to look at the processes w h i c h p r o d u c e t h e s p a c e . U r b a n d e s i g n is a m a j o r c o m p o n e n t part of these p r o c e s s e s a n d it is c o n c e r n e d w i t h c i t i e s a n d w i t h h o w to shape and m a n a g e them. H o w e v e r , t h e r e a r e m a n y p r o f e s s i o n a l s w h o are i n v o l v e d in this process of s h a p i n g . W h e r e d o u r b a n d e s i g n e r s s t a n d ?

108

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

109

c o m m u n i t y needs and a s p i r a t i o n s " , as well as " u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d u s i n g political and financial p r o c e s s e s " . In short, urban d e s i g n e r s operate " w i t h i n the procedures of urban d e v e l o p m e n t to achieve c o m m u n i t y objectives". Following this principle, " U r b a n design education and research must b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the d y n a m i c s of c h a n g e in the urban environment a n d h o w it can b e a d a p t e d to b e responsive to the w a y s in which people's lives a r e l i v e d " (Billingham,1994: 34). A list of " a n irreducible m i n i m u m " o f the criteria for the form of t h e " g o o d city" concludes the agenda. T h e s e criteria, derived from a variety o f s o u r c e s , include attention to variety, access, security and comfort, opportunity for personalization, and clarity. But are these concerns exclusive to urban designers? Can other environmental disciplines and professions not claim to have similar concerns? T h e first point in the Urban Design G r o u p ' s agenda, however, explains more: "Urban design has emerged as a discipline, primarily because it is able to consider the relationships ' between the physical form and function of adjacent sites, unlike the Architect who is constrained b y site boundaries and client intentions and the Planner w h o has been reluctant to address issues appertaining to t h e physical design agenda" (Billingham,1994: 34). D o e s this principle imply that urban design is t h e physical design of more than a site, b u t o f a group of adjacent sites (Figure 4.8)? After all.

interest in physical design was the first principal objective of the U r b a n Design Group, as published in its first issue of Urban Design Group News in July 1979. T h e Group w a s being established, " T o provide a f o r u m for those w h o believe that planning should b e more concerned with improvement of the design of t h e physical environment a n d the quality of places and to encourage all t h e professions to combine to this e n d " (quoted in Linden & Billingham,1994: 30). It is clear after all that urban design is a n interdisciplinary activity. If professionals from different disciplines of built, natural and social e n v i r o n m e n t s work together in teams, they create an urban design process. Similarly, if urban space is to b e shaped and m a n a g e d b y any professional, there will b e a need for multidisciplinary concerns and awareness. T h e k e y is to go b e y o n d the n a r r o w boundaries of professions and disciplines and to approach u r b a n s p a c e from a n interdisciplinary, socio-spatial perspective.

A public or private sector activity?

Another area of confusion, which on the surface is in close connection with professional divides, is the affiliation of urban design with public or private sectors. The question is: which camp does it belong to? W h o performs it? W h o d o e s it serve? Is it mainly performed by, or serving, the private developer or the city council? T h e confusion can therefore extend to urban design's political role, w h i c h potentially could be a conflicting duality. If urban d e s i g n is seen as the visual m a n a g e m e n t of the city c e n t r e s o n l y to maximize returns o n private sector investment, then it is i n t e n d e d t o s e r v e a minority interest (Figure 4 . 9 ) . S o m e criticisms of u r b a n regeneration undertakings in Britain h a v e taken this view a n d h a v e therefore a s s o c i a t e d u r b a n design with t h e interests of private c o m p a n i e s . A s visual m a n a g e m e n t is then seen as a l u x u r y w h e n m o r e basic n e e d s of health, education a n d h o u s i n g a r e at stake, urban d e s i g n h a s b e e n considered as r e a c t i o n a r y o r at b e s t irrelevant. If, however, u r b a n design is practised b y the p u b l i c sector, it h a s b e e n h e l d to b e at the service o f the public at large, contributing to the i m p r o v e m e n t o f the quality of the urban e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e question is, w h i c h side d o w e identify u r b a n design with? W e may confront this ambiguity b y stating that as a technical, social and aesthetic process, urban design can b e practised b y any a g e n c y large e n o u g h to initiate o r deal with urban development projects. Furthermore, with the increasing role o f public-private partnerships in urban development and regeneration, it m a y b e difficult to locate the camp to w h i c h urban design belongs. W e will return to this ambiguity in Chapter 5 when discussing the relationship between u s e value and exchange value in urban space production. At this stage, however, it m a y suffice to say that urban design is not necessarily bound to t h e public or private sectors. Each of these sectors m a y be engaged in urban design a n d , depending on w h o performs it, it may have different roles and serve different interests. Performed b y whichever camp, urban design is the process that shapes a n d manages the u r b a n space. Such urban space will inevitably reflect the values and aspirations of those w h o produced it.

F i g u r e 4.8.

Is urban (Jesign the physical design of more than one site? {Newcastle. UK)

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

Figure 4.9.

Are visual improvements of city centres aimed to maximize returns on private

Figure 4.10.

Is design the imposition of a rational order? (Stockf)olm,

Sweden)

investments? (San 7o5e, California, USA)

:|
Objective-rational or subjective-irrational?
W e have looked at the ambiguities about the a s p e c t s o f the p r o d u c t with which urban design deals. W e h a v e c o m e across a m b i g u i t i e s about its role as a professional activity a n d its association with different sectors o f t h e poUtical i economy. W e also need t o b e a w a r e o f t h e a m b i g u i t i e s about t h e n a t u r e of the > process. W c need to k n o w w h a t kind of process u r b a n design is. Is it a n objective and rational process performed b y a n u m b e r of p e o p l e or is it a subjective process performed b y an individual designer (Figure 4.10)? Ren Descartes, w h o w a s " t h e greatest rationalist e v e r " (Gellner,1992: 1 ) , had a firm belief in design a s a rational e n d e a v o u r . H o m i s t r u s t e d " c u s t o m a n d example", and hence the gradual growth o f the cities a s a representation o f t h e irrational custom and e x a m p l e . Flis rationalist principle w a s that, " w e o u g h t n e v e r to allow ourselves to b e persuaded of the truth of a n y t h i n g unless o n t h e e v i d e n c e of our reason" (quoted in Gellner,1992: 1 ) . F o r him, the best buildings, legal systems and opinions were those designed b y a single a u t h o r . O n this basis, h e held that, "ancient cities . . . are usually b u t ill laid o u t c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e regularly

constructed t o w n s which a professional architect h a s freely planned o n an open plain" (quoted in Gellner,1992: 4). This view of design as a rational undertaking was based on a classicist, individualist and bourgeois notion of reason and rationality, which came u n d e r attack b y later generations of empiricists and idealists. A contemporary and m o r e complex notion of rationality is offered b y Jrgen Habermas's m o d e l s of action a n d rationality. In his communicative action models Habermas (1984) attempts to address, simultaneously, all three objective, social a n d subjective issues that the social actors are involved in. These models are identified as the teleological model in which the actor relates to an objective world cognitively and volitionally as rationalized b y "truth" and "success"; the norm-guided model in which the actor is related to a normative, social context as rationalized b y "normative correctness" or legitimacy; a n d the dramaturgical model in which action is related to the subjective world o f the actor as rationalized through "truthfulness" or "authenticity" (McCarthy,1978; Dews,1986; Whito,1988). T h e notions of action and rationality provide us with an insight into the dynamics of each action in t h e series of actions which constitute the urban design process. They focus o n h o w individuals relate to their objective, subjective a n d social contexts. Drawing u p o n the communicative action theory, w e can analyse t h e urban design

112

Design of Urban Space

Urban Design Process

113

process as a combination of three distinctive and yet interwoven threads: the stage w h e n designers are interacting with the objective world through application of science and technology; the stage when designers are involved with other individuals and institutions constituting their social setting which is somehow involved in the process; and the stage when designers are interacting with their o w n subjective world of ideas and images. Depending on the circumstances, however, these analytically distinctive stages are usually closely interlinked to constitute a single, complex process.

Urban design as a technical process

VVe can look at urban design as a purely technical process, in which specific skills from town planning, architecture and engineering, among others, are employed to utilize resources in the production and management of space. Designers often need to ensure an effective use of the rules and resources in the preparation and implementation of the design. In doing so, a high level of scientific k n o w l e d g e and technical competence is required; from understanding the rules and regulations with which the design process deals, to analysing the circumstantial conditions, to developing alternative approaches, and to formulating a final solution for a specific task. In the majority of design a n d development projects, the technical approach has been dominant. Entirely n e w settlements w o u l d be built as physical objects which are the product of a technical process (Figure 4.11). Especially in the periods of rapid e c o n o m i c expansion, the technical approach tends to p r e d o m i n a t e . T h e whole project of the modern m o v e m e n t in architecture was based on technological necessity, as the built e n v i r o n m e n t was required to be m a d e fit for the m a c h i n e age. The main concern in urban design has often been the transformation of physical space. In this technical process, an instrumental rationality is used to evaluate each segment of the action against its aims and context. Any action which is not corresponding to functional expectation, technological capability or financial capacity has been regarded as irrational. Designers rely on knowledge and skills of their own and of other related professionals of the built environment to utilize the available resources. But there are limits to the rationality that can b e employed. A n y change in o n e of the structures, which may be largely out of the agency's influence, could turn the rationality of a decision into an irrationality. The introduction of a n e w technology, for example, w o u l d make a solution obsolete and in need of revision, whereas at the time of decision-making, it w o u l d have been thoroughly rational. Other examples include changes in administrative organizations, a change in interest rate or a crisis of over production, which can all lead to render what looked rational into irrational.

# I

Urban design as a social process

We can also look at the urban design process as a social process due to the involvement of a large n u m b e r of actors with various roles and interests w h o interact in different stages of the process. A design is often prepared b y a group of designers interacting with other professionals, with the agencies w h o control resources and rules such as landowners, financiers, planning authorities and politicians, with the users of the space, and with those who would be affected by it. The interaction continues with the parties involved in the implementation phase. According to instrumental rationality, the process would only be rational if it ends in the purpose that was expected from it. A s distinct from that, the form of rationality used here is one which aims at consensus between the players involved, and is in general making reference to nornas and values shared by them as a point

Figure 4

.11.

Are tecfinical concerns predominant in design? {Beaubourg,

Paris,

France)

114

Design of Urban Space j

Urban Design Process

115

zi departure. However, the patterns o f rationality of the process a n d its o u t c o m e are :ceri to distortion d u e to the p o w e r relations i n v o l v e d . A n y d i s r u p t i o n in this iialogue would either end in the b r e a k u p of the process o r w o u l d lead to a new ^evei of practical discourse where consensus is s ou g ht. If, h o w e v e r , all levels of T.teraction are not open to rational discourse, then the distortions m i g h t p u t any -ccsnnal consensus at risk. --..-I example of the absence of c o n s e n s u s b e t w e e n t h e players h a v i n g disastrous results is the post-war planning policy and implementation o f s l u m clearance .s"liiiout consulting the communities (Figure 4.12). T h e modernist rejection of rjntext can be seen as the manifestation of instrumental action, w h i c h h a s been a T.a:or feature of the scientific a n d technological a g e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , its :!pponent, contextualism, can b e s e e n a s focusing o n t h e social i n t e r a c t i o n , which employs the norm-based rationality.

Since the product of urban design is the manifestation of a set of policies or interests a s solidified in physical space o r its management, it b e c o m e s evident h o w the role o f u r b a n designers c a n b e important. They could act a s intermediary players in a c o m p l e x interactive process. Their ability to convince others through all forms of presentation will have strong impacts on the process as a w h o l e .

Urban design as a creative process

There is also a third angle: to look at urban design as a creative process, what Lynch (1981,1984) called a playful a n d imaginative creation of possible form (Figure 4.13). In this process, designers a r e interacting with their own subjective world and, b y employing their aesthetic understanding a n d graphic skills, express their spatial concepts in the form of an appropriate scheme.

Figure 4 . 1 2 . Only in a nninority of developments, such as Gleneagles Court, was there a chance "'or tne public to participate in the design process. ( & Wear, UK) (Photograph by Phil Dyer) It can be argued that arriving at a consensus w o u l d not necessarily g u a r a n t e e the rationality of t h e action. It seems that consensus in technical-rational a c t i o n is more readily available since the point of departure in a n y discourse will b e only the available technology a n d scientific knowledge, even though scientific knowledge might be contestable or alternative technologies at c o m p a r a b l e costs b e available for any specific task.

Figure 4 . 1 3 .

Is design the playful and imaginative creation of possible form? {Paris, France)

H e r e , a m o n g t h e i d e n t i f i a b l e s t r u c t u r e s , w i t h which the a g e n c y interacts, a r e the s u b j e c t i v i t y of the d e s i g n e r a n d t h e m e d i u m o f expression. T h e subjectivity of the d e s i g n e r h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h contacts with the o u t s i d e world. It

115

Descn of Urnaa Soace j

Urban Design Process

117

includes a "library" of images a n d a r r a n g e m e n t s in the real w o r l d , w h i c h iiu designer sees as appropriate a n d beautiful. D e s i g n e r s often m a k e frequent references to this library in the d e s i g n process. T h r o u g h a process o f adaptation and adjustment, trial and error, designers set the stored i m a g e s , or new combinations of them, against a concrete context and arrive at the required ro.-m. Interacting with the m e d i u m of expression can h a v e different l a y e r s . O n the one hand, according to the r e q u i r e m e n t s of the task at h a n d , a p p r o p r i a t e forms , of expression and presentation a r e chosen. G r a p h i c and verbal techniques of communication are employed to c o n v i n c e the o t h e r agencies, a n d first of all the client, of the worth of the d e s i g n . O n the other h a n d , the traditions in a design profession have their own n o r m a t i v e powers a s to w h a t is a c c e p t a b l e . A t this level, there is always an o n g o i n g discourse b e t w e e n the m e m b e r s of a design 7 profession, which not only i n v o l v e s the present m e m b e r s of the p r o f e s s i o n , but'''" also embraces historical p e r i o d s and their representatives. T h r o u g h these interactions, conventions are d e v e l o p e d , which b e c o m e a source of influence on, and if needed suppression of, lay j u d g e m e n t s . From a Habermasian v i e w p o i n t , the form of rationality here is the authenticity ivith which the ideas are b e i n g expressed. In the subjective realm, the authenticity of expression m i g h t p r o d u c e a m o m e n t of truthfulness, b u t it would hardly accotmt for the plurality o f such m o m e n t s as produced b y plurality of personalities and interests. It can b e seen how expressive rationality can have an adverse effect on rational c o n s e n s u s . Any attempt to reach a consensus in expression naight be threatened b y attempting to standardize the richness of expression and experience that a combination and variety of individuals and periods can offer. O f course, this p o i n t cannot b e overstressed since there is an optimtmi level of variety that p e o p l e can accept, beyond w h i c h there is tendency to simplicity and h o m o g e n e i t y rather than plurality. ^ M a n y have tended to look at u r b a n design f r o m only one of the three angles that we have analysed. S o m e t e n d to see it as only a technical process and therefore equate it with b i g a r c h i t e c t u r e or big engineering. S o m e s e e it o n l y as a : social interaction to reach n e w institutional arrangements, and so tend to focus on its management capacities rather than on production of space. Yet others tend to see it as an artistic activity w h i c h should b e taken up only b y talented designers. Such uni-dimensional focuses w o u l d naturally lead to narrow ; definitions and viewpoints at the cost of u n d e r m i n i n g the reality of the process and its plurality of aspects. It is quite obvious from this analysis that each segment in the urban design process can h a v e at the s a m e t i m e an involvement of three f o r m s of action and rationality, e a c h having a d i r e c t impact o n the other f o r m s . Despite the limitations of such an attempt t o w a r d s making a multidirectional a p p r o a c h to the analysis of the urban design p r o c e s s , it can provide a powerful analytical and normative tool in complex situations. It can contribute to gaining an insight into the urban design process a n d its c o m p o n e n t parts. It can also b e useful in the practical design processes b y u r g i n g the designers to b e constantly a w a r e of the multiplicity of the d i m e n s i o n s o f the process in which they p l a y a significant part.

Conclusion
Urban design, as w e have seen, still suffers from a lack of clarity in its definition, partly due to its coverage of a wide range of activities. We have also seen that a broad definition is needed to deal with these ambiguities. Rather than being confined b y the differences and minutiae of these activities, it is still possible to see it as a process through which w e consciously shape and m a n a g e our built environments. U r b a n designers are interested and engaged in this process and its product. By using this broad definition, we can avoid seeing urban design as merely being engaged in t h e visual qualities of small urban places, or, on the other side of the spectrum, in the transformation of an abstract urban space. It is only through broad definitions that w e can encompass the range of interests and involvements of urban design, in all its macro- and micro-scale, process and product, and visual and spatial aspects dimensions. Urban design therefore can be defined as the multidisciplinary activity of shaping and managing u r b a n environments, interested in both the process of this shaping and the spaces it helps shape. Combining technical, social and expressive concerns, urban designers u s e both visual and verbal means of communication, and engage in all scales of the u r b a n socio-spatial continuum. Urban design is part of the process of the production of space. T o understand this process, as an e c o n o m i c , political and cultural process, we concentrate o n these three processes in the next three chapters. W e will explore urban design's relationships with the markets, w h e r e development of the built environment takes place, and with the state, where this development is regulated. W e will also analyse the images of g o o d urban environments that the designers use in their w o r k .

CHAPTER 5

Production of t h e Built Environment

The concept that connects the chapters of I^art T w o is that urban design is an integral part of urban space production. Chapter 4 explored some of the main ambiguities a b o u t urban design as an activity and sought a definition for it. This chapter looks at h o w the nature of the land and property development prcKess, and the nature of the agencies involved, have a major impact on the process and product of u r b a n design. T h e m a i n relationship u n d e r consideration is that between urban d e v e l o p m e n t and urban design, between developers and designers. T h e chapter starts by challenging two c o m m o n l y held, but contradictory, views about the p r i m a c y of professionals or of property developers in shaping urban environments. T h i s challenge is followed by a search for a conceptual basis for the analysis of land and property development process and the role of urban design in this process. T o d o so, we look at various models of the development process and offer a m o d e l that addresses u r b a n design as an integral part of the process. The discussion continues with an exploration of the changing nature of development agencies and the impact of this c h a n g e on urban design and urban form. T h e t e n d e n c y towards standardization of design and privatization of public space are t w o aspects of this c h a n g e which are discussed.

Urban design and t h e development process

Our search for a relationship between urban design and urban development process begins by challenging two illusions. The first illusion is that urban planners, urban designers, and architects are the main agencies shaping the urban space. It is because of this illusion that we see such widespread criticism of these professionals for the post-war urban development schemes and their perceived failures. Another illusion to be challenged is that the developers (or clients in architectural language) are those who m a k e the main decisions and the role of designers is merely to provide " p a c k a g i n g " for these decisions. Due to this illusion, we see the widespread criticism of design as an associate of the business interests, without any other merits. These two illusions are often the outcome of n a r r o w definitions of these agencies and professionals and of the nature of design. It is argued here that urban design and property d e v e l o p m e n t a r e independent but closely interrelated activities. A n y

120

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

121

understanding of urban design will not be complete without an understanding of the development process. Similarly, development process will not be fully understood without an insight into the dynamics of design. H o w far is design related to land and property development? M a n y would say they have no relationship whatsoever. Design, they w o u l d argue, is the process by which designers express their aesthetic creations and find solutions for functional needs. They would argue that this is very far from the realm of property development, where the main concerns of investors and developers are markets and profit margins. These t w o groups, designers a n d developers, are fluent in different languages, communicate in different ways, and have different aims. This chapter, however, challenges this view b y offering a perspective that sees both propert}' development and urban design as different aspects of the same-| process. The land and property development process is the vehicle through which! the built environment is produced. The .shaping of this environment through design is an essential part of this process. Contributing to the shaping of urban space, by a proposing new forms or by regulating such proposals, by enabUng development or controlling it, urban design is an integral part of urban space making. To

understand the urban design process, therefore, it is essential to gain an understanding of the property development process (Figure 5.1). This is not to say that this awareness can be a substitute for working in teams with sociologists, economists, architects, urban planners, community representatives and others. There is n o doubt that the outcome of such teamwork will inevitably be more informed than a design exercise without consultation. What is stressed here is that the designers' awareness of the development process would give them an initial platform from which to communicate with other parties engaged in the process. Without such awareness, designers will only be involved in the creation of a form without being coiisciously related to its complex contents and processes. A good example is the work of Rob Krier. In a postscript to his monograph on architecture and urban design, he accuses the development process of failing him to some degree:
This book can unfortunately only hint at what I would like to have achieved in practice, during my 30-year struggle for a valid conception of urban development structures and integrated clear housing typologies. For many years, vehement criticism of my work and defamatory public disputes consumed an excessive amount of my energy and time. When I did get the chance to build, the modest budgets (for the social housing for example), along with the undermining of the architect's authority in the construction process, effectively ensured that my ideal concepts were realized only in schematic form.

(Krier, 1993; 144) This may be interpreted as a reaction to a short-sighted approach to new ideas. It may equally be interpreted as meaning that the works have remained on paper due to his disregard for the mechanisms of the urban development process. Such awareness of the development process will help designers, from the outset, to gain a deeper understanding of the context in which they operate, and of the mechanisms w h i c h would eventually implement their design proposals. It might be argued that s u c h realism could b e a hindrance to the creativity and innovation of designers. Nevertheless, the history of urban space evolution shows that realism will be beneficial to the producers and users of space. It will be also helpful to the designers themselves by preventing a repetition of the historical mistakes in urban development, m o s t notably undermining the needs and aspirations of those w h o were to use or inhabit these developments. It is generally held that developers are unaware of design issues. In M a y 1995, the Royal Fine Arts Commission shortlisted 16 buildings for the Building of the Year Award. N o t a b l e in this selection w a s that there w a s no commercial office or factory on the list. T h e successful buildings were initiated by the public sector or by the private sector m o n e y - m a k e r s in their private capacity. This has led to the conclusion that developers are not perceived to see design as an important aspect of their work. There are, however, those who argue that companies can benefit from a strong design statement {The Economist, 3 June 1995). Investors m a y never see the development they promote or buy. The design decisions are therefore seen to be secondary considerations in the property development process. H o w e v e r , if design is understood as the process of choosing possible form, w e m a y conclude that many decisions that are made by investors, surveyors and developers before a designer is involved, are all design decisions.

F i g u r e 5 . 1 . To understand the urban design process, it is essential to understand the property development process. {Newcastle, UK) (Photograph by Phil Dyer)

122

Design of Urban Space

Prociuction of the Built Environment

123

affecting tlte form of the property and the urban space it helps to p r o d u c e . That the investors or developers m a y not be engaged, or even interested, in the design of a development may be further evidence for the lack of a relationship between these two arenas. It may also be an indicator of the marginality of design in the development process, implying that design is seen as merely a non-essential aspect of the development. This would then reduce design to either an activity which gives form to the decisions of the investors and developers, or to a free-floating cosmetic addition. In the latter case, it might be assumed that the development agencies can live without such a cosmetic and, at time.s, expensive activity. At best, its potential is to increase the rent or sale of the development without necessarily being an integral part of the development process. Against this view, it should b e argued that design, as a cultural factor, is not entirely subordinate to the e c o n o m i c s of the development process. It is an integral part of this process which can affect, and be affected by, the decisions of investors and developers. When defined b r o a d l y as the shaping of urban environment, urban design can be performed not only by designers, but by those who do so without a conscious engagement or professional training. History has seen m a n y cities shaped b y non-designers. Land and property markets are very important in shaping the social a n d s p a t i a l ; qualities of cides. But to see them as the sole determinants of urban space would be questionable. For Logan and Molotch (1987:17), for example, "the market in land and buildings orders urban phenomena and determines what city life can b e " . Although this statement carries a powerful explanatory capacity, it would be too n a r r o w a focus to equate cities with their space and see the shaping of the physical fabric and the spatial distribution of social phenomena as the ultimate framework for " w h a t city life can be". It is true that markets can stratify social space, create and enhance social and geographical segregation, and therefore be of primary importance in the structuring of urban life. At the same time, it is true that the responses of individual agencies, of the lifeworld, to these structures vary enormously. T h e picture of the social space will not therefore be complete without overlaying these two sets of insights and information: about the structural imperatives of the state and the markets, and the individual responses and initiatives of the individuals and firms. -J i Designers and developers are agencies within, and interacting w i t h , the wider processes of urban space production. To understand this process, w e n o w turn our attention to the models of the development process, attempts to m a k e s e n s e of this complex process.

offers a m o d e l of the d e v e l o p m e n t process w h i c h discusses design as an integral part of the u r b a n development process.

Supply-demand models
Equilibrium models Most of the real estate literature relies on the equilibrium models of the neoclassical economy a n d the Chicago school of h u m a n ecology. For this school and its successors, t h e analytical basis for understanding urban systems is spatial relations. The d e v e l o p m e n t of these spatial relations, which include the physical shape of the city and the relations between urban areas and individuals, takes place within a free-market f r a m e w o r k . T h e underlying assumption is that the land and property market is in equilibrium b e t w e e n supply a n d d e m a n d . Buyers and sellers are a u t o n o m o u s individuals engaged in a competitive bidding process. To satisfy the c o n s u m e r s ' d e m a n d s , n e w or recycled supplies of land and property enter the market. C o n s u m e r s are then free to choose a m o n g those supplies according to their taste, the price a n d the quahty of the development (Figure 5.2). The best land and buildings will inevitably attract m o r e d e m a n d , which will be reflected in their

Models of t h e development process

Two main sets of models have described the development process. The first set analyses actors and institutions working within a market organized on the basis of supply and demand. Here Healey (1991) identifies three strands in theorizing the models of development process: equilibrium models, event-sequence models, and agency models. The second set of models, which is Healey's fourth strand, are models which rely on political economy analysis to explain the urban development process. W e identify two models of capital-labour and structure-agency within this set of models. This section reviews these main models, explores h o w design relates to them, and

Figure 5.2. According to supply and demand analysis, the more desirable a place, the higher its density and price. {Chicago, USA)

126

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

127

Although these models offer insights into the d e v e l o p m e n t process b y describing its stages and identifying potential blockages, they fail to address the participating actors and their interests. Furthermore, the sequence of events m a y v a r y widely in different cases a n d circumstances. Agency models A third set of m o d e l s concentrates on actors, their roles, and their interests in the development process (Figure 5.4). Actors such as developers, l a n d o w n e r s and planners are identified and their relationships with each other a n d with the development process in general are traced and described.

give w a y to intermediate actors (e.g. builders, developers, realtors and investment c o m p a n i e s ) a n d to final c o n s u m e r s (e.g. householders, firms, government agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s ) . S e c o n d a r y actors include planners, politicians, institutions, realtors a n d l a w y e r s . These actors are involved in the process of moving from nonurban u s e to a transitionary stage, in which development pressure is mounting and urban interest is seen in land purchases. It then leads to the active purchase of r a w land, a c t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t and active purchase of developed land (quoted in Healey,1991: 227). I n t e g r a t i o n o f actors and e v e n t s gives a clearer perspective to see the designer and the d e s i g n as part of the development process. An analysis of the actors a n d stages of d e v e l o p m e n t process can include designers, whose role concentrates o n the s h a p e o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . It s h o w s very clearly that designers, their roles and interests, c a n n o t b e studied independently f r o m this process. Evidence for this a r g u m e n t is the frequency of changes to a design in its preparation and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . W h e t h e r b a s e d on technical considerations or as a matter of policy in relation to i n v e s t m e n t and u s e considerations, a design is often altered even after the formal c o m p l e t i o n of the design process. This is an indication of the necessity of c o m p r o m i s e , w h e r e d e s i g n e r s ' efforts are only o n e part of an interactive process that i n v o l v e s a large n u m b e r of actors in a c o m p l e x sequence of events. T h e a g e n c y m o d e l s and o t h e r s which take into account the sequence of events are often l i m i t e d in their scope, as they concentrate on describing the details of the d e v e l o p m e n t process. T h e y fail to address the driving forces of the process, which act as its s t r u c t u r a l imperatives.

Political economy models

A n u m b e r of models can b e identified within a broad definition of political e c o n o m y . Earlier, Marxian, analyses dealt with structures of the market and the conflict b e t w e e n capital a n d labour. H o w e v e r , these models, did not address sufficiently t h e role of actors and institutions within the broad frameworks and structures. In response, a n u m b e r of models h a v e been proposed which can be called s t r u c t u r e - a g e n c y m o d e l s , i.e. models which explain the social phenomena in the interaction b e t w e e n social structures and agencies. Although these models are critical of t h e traditional political e c o n o m y approaches, they are listed here under the g e n e r a l title of political e c o n o m y . T h e reason for such classification is that the underlying a s s u m p t i o n s w h i c h inform their analysis are often within a political economy perspective. F i g u r e 5.4. Buildings and parts of urban space are bought and sold by a variety of actors, as other goods and services, in the market-place. {London, UK) O n e of tfie m a i n sfiortcomings of an analysis of actors is an u n d e r m i n i n g of the time dimension. Some analysts have therefore integrated actors w i t h events to propose a model of the development process. For example, Bryant et al. (1982: 56), in an analysis of the land conversion process in urban fringe, identify a sequence of events, and within each event a number of primary and secondary agents. Primary actors include predevelopment owners (e.g. farmers and non-farm residents), who Capital-labour models Rather t h a n the neoclassical emphasis on price mechanisms of the markets and the relationship b e t w e e n s u p p l y and d e m a n d , the political e c o n o m y approach focuses on the w a y m a r k e t s are structured and the role of capital, labour and land in this process. M a r x s a w l a n d o w n e r s h i p within the context of feudalism, and failed to pay attention to t h e role of space in general, and land and property in particular, in capitalism. A n u m b e r of scholars, however, have extended political economy

128

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

129

f r a m e w o r k s into the analysis of space. According to this analysis, under capitalism, J | space is a c o m m o d i t y and its production is subject to the s a m e processes as other"1H goods and services. This explanation places the development of the buUt J|| environment in the general context of capitalism and offers a convincing explanation for space making. H o w e v e r , it tends to rely on a set of abstractions without explaining the more finely grained relationships which are also imporlanf in the process.' T h e r e is a t e n d e n c y to see the conflicts in urban space as mere reflections of the tension b e t w e e n capital and labour. T h e structural imperatives of the accumulation process, therefore, find primacy in the configuration of space " T h e only actors w h o matter, if a n y actors matter at all", write Logan and Molotch (1987: 11), " a r e the corporate capitalists, whose control of the means of production appears to m a k e them, for all practical purposes, invincible." ^ '

. ^ *

T h e implications of this treatment of actors for design is that it is seen as an 4k unimportant element in a process signified b y the conflict between capital and * labour. In this battle, the design, a n d the development it leads to, will take side with ^ one or the other of these adversaries. And as the development of the built ' S environment takes place in the secondary circuit of capital (the first circuit being the i production circuit), the design process is one tool, a m o n g many, used to ensure the ^ smooth operation of capital in its restless expansion. , "S Structure-agency models T o give a m o r e detailed account of the development process, Ambrose (1986) proposes a m o d e l in which the m a i n political and economic forces of the state, the ' finance industry and the construction industry are subdivided into a number of actors with different roles (Figure 5.5). The finance industry is an industry which " d e a l s in o n e c o m m o d i t y m o n e y " (Ambrose,1986: 80). It lends or invests money that is b o r r o w e d through deposits, savings, and pension and insurance contributions. Its main actors are building societies, pension funds, life insurance houses, personal investment agents and the banking system. T h e investment decisions of these actors play an important part in the development or dereliction of an area. For e x a m p l e , if the building societies, which dominate the housing market, decide to avoid lending in certain inner city areas, then they foster the deprivation and decay present in those areas. T h e amount of land and property that financial institutions hold and the relative importance of their investment decisions indicate h o w they influence the market rather than respond to its trends. T h e state, the political force in the political e c o n o m y of the development process, can be subdivided into central and local government. The central government agencies in Britain, the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Department of the E n v i r o n m e n t , and the local g o v e r n m e n t agencies and their finance, estates, housing and planning departments, can each influence the production of the built e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e s e range from planning regulations, which prefer s o m e forms of d e v e l o p m e n t to others, through public spending policies, to tax incentives and direct spending, all of which can result in different socio-spatial forms. W h i l e the state and the finance industry regulate and invest, it is the construction industry w h i c h develops the built environment. This is a fragmented industry w h e r e the small firms are predominant in the production process. Ambrose (1986)

F i g u r e 5.5. The public and the private sectors are both involved in the production of the built environment. (Newcastle, UK) (Photograph by Phil Dyer)

identifies six functions within the industry: speculative housebuilding, property developing, general contracting, public authority direct works, plant hire, and material supply. While large firms may be involved in all of these functions (apart from public w o r k s ) , smaller firms m a y perform only one or more of these functions. The size, structure and scope of these agencies have wide-ranging impacts on the built e n v i r o n m e n t they produce.^ Healey (1991) is not convinced that this m o d e l explains the driving forces in the relationship b e t w e e n the state, the construction industry and the finance industry. Instead, she proposes an institutional m o d e l of the development process (Healey,1992). This is a universal model which, she argues, addresses the agencies, events, and the diversity of processes in different conditions. Drawing upon Giddens (1984) and earlier w o r k (Healey & Barrett,1990), the m o d e l is based o n the identification of the agencies, the roles they play, and their strategies and interests. These roles, strategies and interests are then related to the rules, resources and ideas that govern the development process. The process is therefore related to the wider societal contexts of m o d e s of production a n d regulation and ideology. These

130

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

131

relationships are examined through the sequence of events in the production (e.g. identification of development opportunities, land assembly, project development, ' site clearance, acquisition of finance, organization of construction, organization of infrastructure, a n d marketing/managing the end product), roles in production (e.g. land, labour and capital as factors o f production) and consumption (e.g. material values, property rights, and guardians of environmental quality). M a n y models o f the development process tend to under-represent the complexity of the process, as they only e m p h a s i z e s o m e of its aspects. T h e models of development process which aspire to give a comprehensive account o f the process, on the other h a n d , often tend to b e c o m e too c o m p l e x and difficult to u s e in an analysis of the process. According to Healey (1992: 4 3 ) , using such models in empirical research can b e "quite d e m a n d i n g " . After all, the urban development process is a process which involves a large number of agencies and is deeply rooted in the general constitution of the social and economic processes.

These models d o not often refer to design as a distinctive m o m e n t in the development process. Design is either not mentioned or is seen as o n e of the roles played b y the developers in assembling a number of actors in the development of the new built environments. At best, it appears, design is considered as a tool in th l ' ? ! development process, a symbolic representation of the economic a n d political interests and decisions. Despite these limitations, the strength of the ' s t r u c t u r e - a g e n c y perspective encourages us to seek an approach which addresses design as an integrated element of the urban d e v e l o p m e n t process. T o d o this, we first look at the crucial relationship between use and exchange values.

Use value and exchange value

Rather than seeing the city's spatial relations as the outcome of an equilibrium between supply and demand, as advocated b y neoclassical economics, or a conflict between capital a n d labour, as analysed by Marxist economics, Logan and Molotch (1987) suggest w e concentrate o n the relationship between use value a n d exchange value. A single place can have both these types of values: a building m a y be a place to live in for s o m e (use value) and a generator of rent for others (exchange value) (Figure 5.6). There is a potential tension between these two values. " F o r some, places represent residence or production site; for others, places represent a c o m m o d i t y for buying, selling, or renting to s o m e b o d y else". This contrast can r e a c h its sharpest form in the relationship between "residents, w h o u s e place to satisfy essential needs of life, a n d entrepreneurs, w h o strive for financial return" (Logan & Molotch,1987: 2 ) . They a r g u e that the conflict between use a n d exchange values in the cities "closely determines the shape of the city, the distribution of , people, and the w a y they live together". As the urban development process occurs at a local level and involves local actors, they ask for primary attention to be paid to these "parochial actors", whose strategies, s c h e m e s , needs and institutions are hnked to "cosmopolitan political a n d economic f o r c e s " (Logan & Molotch,1987:12). Design can b e seen as a means of maximizing e x c h a n g e value. Playing this role, it serves the investors and entrepreneurs in their money-making capacity. It can also be a means of increasing the u s e value. Playing this role, it serves t h e users and

F i g u r e 5.6. A place can have two potentially conflicting values: as a place to live in (use value), and as a generator of rent (exchange value). {Frejus, France)

their r e q u i r e m e n t s . T h e r e a r e o b v i o u s overlaps b e t w e e n the t w o roles of design. T h e design o f a h o u s e c a n b e e x p e c t e d to maximize its value in the market-place, at the same time a s s e r v i n g its users b y its functional a n d aesthetic competence. There are, however, p o t e n t i a l conflicts b e t w e e n use and e x c h a n g e values, which, according to Logan a n d M o l o t c h ( 1 9 8 7 ) , lie at the heart o f the urban development process and shape the p h y s i c a l a n d social fabric of the cities. W h e n d e s i g n is c o n s i d e r e d as a tool, it is a n integral part of an industry, a

132

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

133

"construction" or "development" industry which "produces" the built e n v i r o n m e n t . It is then possible to compare this industry with any other industry a n d its d e s i g n p r o c e s s with a n y other, serving the production of a product and its sale in the market. T h e shape of a product therefore becomes a matter of its technical efficiency as well as its aesthetic appeal. A car, for example, is expected to l o o k g o o d and to function well. It is produced and sold as a commodity and is used often as a necessary means of transport. Design becomes a major factor of p r o d u c t i o n and consumption. B u t h o w far is a car comparable to urban space? Is , u r b a n s p a c e p r o d u c e d and sold for profit, or b o u g h t for functional and symbolic u s e ? T h e a n s w e r is that urban s p a c e is similarly b e i n g treated as a c o m m o d i t y in the market-place. A p p l y i n g the logic of c o m m o d i t y production, exchange and consumption of s p a c e m a y o n l y b e an economistic interpretation of the evolution and life of cities. / T h i s o u t l o o k , h o w e v e r , s h o w s the extent of the commodification of space. Yet we are a w a r e of the major differences between space a n d other commodities. Unlike cars, t h e r e is a limit to the a m o u n t of land that can be supplied in response to a g r o w t h in d e m a n d , as the s u p p l y of this part of n a t u r e is finite. This explains why ^ the recycling of property, w h i c h m a y increase its intensity of use, is widespread. R a t h e r than generating n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s , land and property markets are involved in r e n t i n g and re-renting, selling a n d re-selling these commodities. T h e market for this c o m m o d i t y is also "inherently monopolistic", as the owners have almost total control over its s u p p l y . Unlike mass-produced cars, every parcel of land is differentT h e price of l a n d and property in the market is determined not only by supply and d e m a n d b u t also b y the location of the d e v e l o p m e n t in urban space (Logan & Molotch,1987). T h e m a s s production of cars m a y result in a f e w designs serving a global market. T h e d e s i g n of buildings and u r b a n environments, however, will be somewhat different f r o m t h e design of mass-produced commodities such as cars. This is s h o w n b y the idiosyncratic n a t u r e of the land a n d property market, where land p a r c e l s are different, and the fragmented nature of the development industry, w h e r e s m a l l firms are strongly represented.

important implications. It implies that none of the valuable insights which the reviewed m o d e l s h a v e offered need to b e discarded. Bearing in m i n d their limitations, it will be possible to take advantage of their developments. On this basis, those trends w h i c h emphasize the supremacy of the individual in social and spatial processes will be of special value when the actions of individuals are being studied. Simultaneously, the trends which stress the importance of social structures will be helpful in understanding the social processes from a wider point of view. The crucial point, h o w e v e r , will be to acknowledge the importance of each of these trends without ruling o u t the importance of others. This a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t will, therefore, b e a major contributor to an approach which identifies a sociospatial process as an interaction between h u m a n agency and social and physical structure within a particular p l a c e . At the level of structures, in investigating the way these structures influence the agencies by framing their actions, the concepts of commodification of space and the flow of resources into the built environment are of fundamental importance to the study of urban process. T h e concept of the production of space was introduced by Lefebvre: "space as a social and political product, space as a product that one buys and sells" (in Brgel et al.,1987: 2 9 - 3 0 ) . It was based on the notion that commodification, which is basic to the analysis of capitalist order, is extended to space to entangle the physical milieu in the productive system of capitalism as a whole. Lefebvre further argued that the organization of the environment and society, and the layout of towns and regions, are all dependent on the production of space and its role in the reproduction of the socio-economic formation (Lefebvre,1991). Bearing in mind these structural frameworks, it will be then possible to move on to the level of agencies. Here the concepts developed by the supply-demand approach, i.e. that socio-spatial patterns are the outcomes of competition between individuals, will enable us to look at the dynamics of agencies' actions. Furthermore, models of the development process often undermine the design dimensions of development. Focusing on the psychological and cultural aspects of development, however, will help to further our understanding of the processes by which urban form is produced. Although such a combination of these separately developed conceptual frameworks w o u l d address the two required levels of analysis, the agency and the structure, they are not yet referring to the d y n a m i c interrelation between the two. It appears that special attention should be paid to this interrelation, which Giddens (1982,1984) identifies to be of central importance to the social processes. To tackle this important issue, w e need to try to investigate the interaction of the human agency, individual or collective, and the structures, resources, rules and ideas. These are the resources which the agencies draw upon, the rules they acknowledge, and the ideas t h e y assert in the course of their action. Structures and agencies m a y be analysed as the properties of social systems, focusing on the interaction b e t w e e n individuals and their social environment. They may also be analysed in terms of their interaction with the physical environment: both people and objects. T h e double involvement can also be observed here. Therefore, individual additions to urban space can be seen as creating urban space as well as being conditioned b y it. Social and physical environments are produced and reproduced through the interaction of agencies and structures, objects and contexts (Figure 5.7).

Structures and agencies

T h e d i c h o t o m y between structure and individual is a central problem of the main theoretical a p p r o a c h e s to social inquiry. This is reflected in functionalism and s t r u c t u r a l i s m o n the o n e h a n d , and hermeneutics and the various forms of " i n t e r p r e t i v e s o c i o l o g y " on the other (Giddens,1984). Nevertheless, as Giddens o b s e r v e s (1989: 7 0 4 - 7 0 5 ) , the differences between the two views can be exaggerated. ^^ . H e a r g u e s (Giddens,1984) that social structures, as recursively organized sets of rules a n d resources, refer to structural properties of social systems. T h e structures, w h o s e transmutation or continuity leads to reproduction of social systems, are not e x t e r n a l to individuals and exert constraining as well as enabling powers upon t h e m . T h e r e is a process of " d o u b l e i n v o l v e m e n t " o f individuals and institutions: " w e create society at the s a m e time as w e are created by it" (Giddens,1982: 14). Ackno^vledging the double involvement of individuals and structures has some

134

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

135

Urban d e v e l o p m e n t process and urban form

To find out w h y a particular u r b a n f o r m is as it is a n d how it is likely to change, a methodology c a n be used in w h i c h d e v e l o p m e n t agencies, the structures they interact with, a n d the rationalities t h e y u s e can be investigated. T h i s w o u l d provide an analytical f r a m e w o r k with w h i c h to approach the development process and its product, the u r b a n fabric. This a p p r o a c h will be basically f o u n d e d on four interrelated notions: that urban form has physical, p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d social d i m e n s i o n s ; that the study of urban form is best m a d e possible b y t r a c i n g the process of its d e v e l o p m e n t ; that the development p r o c e s s , as a social p r o c e s s , will be best understoocl b y addressing both individual actions and the s t r u c t u r e s which f r a m e these actions; and that the understanding of this p r o c e s s will not be c o m p l e t e without addressing the social and physical c o n t e x t s in w h i c h it t a k e s place. T h e first n o t i o n is consistent w i t h the a p p r o a c h e s in urban geography and architecture w h i c h try to a d d r e s s b o t h physical and social aspects of urban fabric simultaneously a n d focus o n the d y n a m i c interrelationship of these aspects. The second n o t i o n , the n e c e s s i t y of the observation of the d e v e l o p m e n t of urban form, s t e m s m a i n l y from t h e traditions of u r b a n architecture and urban morphology, as r e v i e w e d earlier, w h i c h h a v e d e v e l o p e d the idea of the historicity of virban fabric. A n o t h e r s o u r c e o f this notion is the tradition in social sciences which tends to link space w i t h t h e w i d e r context of general societal processes. It also stems f r o m the notion w h i c h r e g a r d s the d e v e l o p m e n t process and urban form as both an o u t c o m e of a n d a c o n t r i b u t o r to the production and reproduction of social systems. T h e third notion, the r e c o g n i t i o n of both structure and action in the development process, s t e m s m a i n l y from t h e theoretical a p p r o a c h e s in social sciences which avoid the d e t e r m i n i s m a s s o c i a t e d w i t h stressing the supremacy of individuals or structures in social processes. It a l s o s t e m s from the fact that the traditions in urban geography (quantitative, s u b j e c t i v e and institutional) have provided valuable insights into the process, w h i c h s h o u l d not b e disregarded. At the structural level, this will, therefore, e n a b l e us to draw u p o n the notions of the institutional a p p r o a c h in social sciences which focuses on the f r a m e w o r k s which condition h u m a n b e h a v i o u r . A t the individual level, it will be possible to take advantage of the insights of b o t h quantitative a n d subjective a p p r o a c h e s . At this level, it will also b e a p p l i c a b l e to dwell u p o n the tradition in social philosophy which tends to a p p r o a c h a social process with a combination of three models of action and rationality to a d d r e s s objective, social and subjective issues simultaneously. T h e s e m o d e l s w i l l e n a b l e u s to investigate the forms of rationality with which the d e v e l o p m e n t is b e i n g u n d e r t a k e n . T h e fourth notion, the n e c e s s i t y o f the study of the social and physical contexts, stems from t h e fact that the u r b a n fabric is, d u e to its nature, fixed in a certain location. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e s s takes place within a locality with certain social and physical characteristics. In a d d r e s s i n g the disparity between localities, we rely upon the n o t i o n s in social s c i e n c e w h i c h focus o n the emergence, expansion and transformation of capitalism. It also relies upon those architectural studies which are concerned w i t h regional characteristics of urban form.

F i g u r e 5.7.

Individual additions to urban space change urban space and are at the same time UK)

conditioned by It. (London.

Furthermore, it is important to k n o w what type of rationaHty the agencies use in their actions. In the development process, the Habermasian notions of rationality can offer interesting insight (McCarthy,1978; Dews,1986; W h i t e , f 9 8 8 ) . The instnmiental rationality of the teleological m o d e l is the channel through which the actor, the development agency, seeks self-interest from the course of development. T h e norm-guided model offers a social rationality for this course of action, in which a social, as distinct from individual, gain would result. These two rationalities, in.strumental and social, along with the subjective rationality of the dramaturgical m o d e l , are especially important notions which s h o u l d be identified if a n y course of development, a s a social process, is to be thoroughly understood. T h e study of the development process and its relationship with urban form would not be complete without the study of the contexts in which these processes take place. Therefore, there is an emphasis to be put on the social systems of which the studied structures are a constituent part. This runs parallel with G i d d e n s ' (1984) recognition of differentiation between structure and system. Another context to study is the physical context which, together with the social context, m a k e s a sociospatial context.

136

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

137

O n these bases, the d e v e l o p m e n t process can be analysed by identifying its c o m p o n e n t parts, the w a y they interact, and the impact of this on the u r b a n fabric a n d its form. It is argueci that, in a d e v e l o p m e n t process, there are "development a g e n c i e s " who o p e r a t e through certain " d e v e l o p m e n t factors" within interrelated social and spatial " c o n t e x t s " ; and that any configuration of urban form is directly affected b y variations o f these c o m p o n e n t parts of the development process and their interrelationship. This constitutes a conceptual f r a m e w o r k to approach specific urban fabrics to investigate the c a u s e s of their existing and changing forms. It shares the idea of a g e n c i e s with the f r a m e w o r k d e v e l o p e d b y British u r b a n morphologists. However, the difference lies in the recognition in this approach of the development factors and its emphasis on the b r o a d contexts in which the development takes place.

Development

process

New

development

7\

A model of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t process
W h a t h a v e b e e n identified so far as the c o m p o n e n t parts of the developmei!: p r o c e s s are illustrated in Figure 5.8. A s it shows, it is a simplified m o d e l of the p r o c e s s of production of urban fabric. In the model, each of the c o m p o n e n t parts of ^ the process, i.e. d e v e l o p m e n t agencies, development factors (resources, rules and i d e a s ) , and their c o n t e x t s , are s h o w n in both aggregate and disaggregate forms. The succession of s h a d e d figures (Figure 5.9) refers to the stages of the development process.

Physical ( n a t u r a l ) environment

Physical ( b u i l t ) environment

Social

environment

Development agencies

Development resources

factors:

Development r u l e s , ideas

factors:

F i g u r e 5.9. Physical environment

ev^opment agencies

Component parts of the development process

Impact of change in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t process on urban space

We can identify several forms of c h a n g e in the d e v e l o p m e n t process, each with a different impact on urban space. M o s t notable are the commodification of urban space and the increasing size and s c o p e of d e v e l o p m e n t agencies. T h e s e have given rise to standardization of design a n d to privatization of urban space.
Figure 5.8. A development process model of the '

Social environment

Built environment

Commodification of space and standardization of design

The intersection between agencies, structures and contexts is w h e r e the built environment is produced. T h e nature of d e v e l o p m e n t agencies and their expectations of a development h a v e a large impact o n its form. A s s p a c e has been increasingly produced and e x c h a n g e d as a c o m m o d i t y , its qualities are largely influenced b y this transformation. Therefore, commodification of space, the changing nature of development agencies and the evolving socio-spatial structures will all be reflected in the urban design process and its product. T h e commodification of space h a s led to a close relationship between space production and the cyclical n a t u r e of the markets, resulting in cycles of urban development (Figure 5.10). T h e cyclical nature of land and property development

T h e two m a i n constituent parts of this process are the social a n d physical contexts. T h e m o d e l is therefore divided into t w o parts, each representing one of t h e s e contexts. W h e r e these t w o , social and physical, contexts overlap, there is the built environment. D e v e l o p m e n t factors, as structural properties of these contexts, are framed within them. Therefore, the resources are shown as s t e m m i n g mainly f r o m the physical e n v i r o n m e n t b u t also as being incorporated into the social e n v i r o n m e n t . Similarly, rules a n d ideas are s h o w n as mainly s t e m m i n g from the social e n v i r o n m e n t but also being located within the physical environment. W h e r e these t w o , the resources and the rules and ideas, overlap, the development agencies are s h o w n to b e involved in the production of n e w urban fabric.

138

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Buiit Environment

139

Figure 5.10. USA)

A city's skyline can clearly show the cycles of urban development,

{Boston,

means that most urban fabrics are produced during the periods of building boom,"!! vvnile the periods of slump witness a more limited rate of building activity. Increasingly, these periods are of a global nature, affecting larger areas in the global economy. Whitehand identifies h o w these cycles, which may vary according to geographical location, have a different impact on different types of land use. M o s t ' notably, while residential developments follow the b o o m and slump patterns of the market, non-residential uses are less affected, partly due to the public sector involvement. Despite this variety, " t h e urban l a n d s c a p e is a cumulative, albeit incomplete, record of the succession of booms, s l u m p s and innovation adoptions within a particular locale" ( W h i t e h a n d , 1 9 8 7 : 1 4 5 ) . There is a direct relationship between the size of the agencies w h o control the property and the form it takes in the development process. Larger organizations have historically tended to prefer large-scale developments. Whitehand (1988) shows that since the early 1950s, the frontage of n e w buildings has b e c o m e wider, increasingly exceeding 10 m. Another feature of large organizations is their tendency towards standardization of design. An example is the large-scale retail chain-stores which started to develop their branches around Britain in the 1930s.

Their insistence o n a h o u s e style resulted in a standardization of high street appearances t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y . Examples of this s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n in h o u s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t in Britain a b o u n d since the dawn of speculative h o u s e b u i l d i n g . T h e h e i g h t o f such standardization was the mass production of housing in t h e p o s t - w a r p e r i o d , creating high-rise and highdensity housing. N o w the v o l u m e b u i l d e r s a n d their housing d e s i g n s , w h i c h are often variations o n a very limited n u m b e r of d e s i g n s , s h o w this continuing trend. Whitehand's (1988) study of N o r t h a m p t o n a n d W a t f o r d sheds light on the impact of the changing nature of d e v e l o p e r s on the standardization of design. This happened w h e n local d e v e l o p e r s , w h o often c o m m i s s i o n e d local architects, w e r e driven out b y the growing i n v o l v e m e n t of the n a t i o n a l property and insurance companies. T h e result of this p r o c e s s , w h i c h s t a r t e d in the 1930s a n d has grown rapidly since the 1950s, w a s the i n v o l v e m e n t o f o u t s i d e designers and developers who would i n t r o d u c e n e w architectural st\Tes i n t o the local t o w n s c a p e s . T h e predominance of fewer large-scale national firms, W h i t e h a n d argues, has led to a spread of investment and r e d e v e l o p m e n t activity across a n u m b e r of cities. Compared to w h e n local d e v e l o p e r s p r e d o m i n a t e d , however, this has led to the involvement of a m o r e diverse set of d e s i g n e r s a n d a wider stylistic diversity for localities, but m o r e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n and h o m o g e n i z a t i o n at inter-urban and international levels. T h e increasing c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n of space a n d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a g e n c i e s ' attempts to reduce the conflict b e t w e e n u s e value a n d e x c h a n g e value largely explain the standardization of design. P r o p e r t y h a s i n c r e a s i n g l y b e e n seen as a vehicle of investment b y the finance i n d u s t r y , w h i c h h a s c o m e to d o m i n a t e the property market in Britain. T o m a k e the m a r k e t o p e r a t i o n s m o o t h e r , the property itself is expected to b e c o m e as flexible as possible, to find a larger potential market. This has meant standardization in d e s i g n , a r e q u i r e m e n t which coincides with the technological possibility of m a s s p r o d u c t i o n of b u i l d i n g s . Conflict could arise out of a necessity to m a r r y the flexibility in p r o d u c t i o n a n d marketing of a building with the post-modern expectation of stylistic diversity. In the last t w o decades, c o m m e r c i a l p r o p e r t y in Britain has increasingly been dominated b y large financial institutions. A f t e r the 1973 property crash, minor property c o m p a n i e s and the s u r p l u s c o m m e r c i a l p r o p e r t y on the m a r k e t were taken over by large-scale players l o o k i n g for n e w i n v e s t m e n t opportunities. By the early 1980s, s o m e 8 3 % of all p r o p e r t y i n v e s t m e n t w a s controlled by a relatively small number of large financial institutions, a l t h o u g h this was reduced in the 1980s. Investment b y l a r g e financial institutions, w h i c h control most of the institutional sector's U K p r o p e r t y holdings, h a s led to a h i g h e r t u r n o v e r of property, increasing from less than 2 % before 1980 to 1 0 % a n n u a l l y in the late 1980s (Pratt & Ball,1994). This treatment of property b y the finance i n d u s t r y h a s had specific implications for industrial property: an i n c r e a s e in the d e v e l o p m e n t of high-tech science parks, a concentration of investment in e c o n o m i c a l l y g r o w i n g areas rather than declining ones, and the standardization of design. T h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s h a v e led to the widespread u s e of " s h e d s " for industrial use. T h e s e strvictures p r o v i d e spaces with maximum flexibility for a n y potential user. T h e standardization of design is thought to r e d u c e the risk of l o w valuation, a n d t h e r e is a tendency to group these units together for valuation p u r p o s e s . A s such, it a p p e a r s that the purpose-built

140

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

141

industrial property, designed to a c c o m m o d a t e a specific production process, has - J become less c o m m o n in Britain (Pratt & Ball,1994). Pratt and Ball argue that the demand for an industrial building is not met b y s u p p l y in m a n y cases. T h e y show s that "the interests of property d e v e l o p m e n t and investment m a y not, at any I particular site, c o i n c i d e with t h e n e e d s of the industrialists". Traditionally, a industrial estates h a d b e e n d e v e l o p e d b y both private and public sectors. The smaller units in t h e s e estates w e r e rented, but the larger units w e r e built by the occupants. T h e split between u s e a n d exchange w i d e n e d when, in the 1970s, the industrial buildings " e m e r g e d as an investment vehicle, beyond the interest of specialist d e v e l o p e r s " (Pratt & B a l l , 1 9 9 4 : 5). Such standardization of design, w e may therefore argue, is the o u t c o m e of attempts to reduce the gap between exchange value and use v a l u e , in a process w h i c h has increasingly commodified space. <v* The impact of this p r e d o m i n a n c e of financial capital and the subsequent high turnover in the p r o p e r t y market h a s b e e n significant for the built environment. Town centres in Britain, m o r e t h a n in France, G e r m a n y or the Netherlands for example, have w i t n e s s e d r e d e v e l o p m e n t and transformation. In Britain, new shopping centres h a v e replaced t h e old physical fabric at the core of the cities. The pattern of investment b y financial institutions, w h i c h prefer safe, conventional -

locations and spatial forms, has shaped this r e d e v e l o p e d physical landscape of town centres and has had huge impacts on suburban developments. An example of this conservatism of financial capital is its dislike of what is known as "festival" and speciality retailing, as it relies on independent retailers, short-term leases, and a deliberate avoidance of major anchor tenants. In North America, where developers are concerned that city centre locations are not attractive to shoppers, the idea of festival retailing h a s been p r o m o t e d successfully in the last two decades. Faneuil Hall in Boston is a w i d e l y - k n o w n e x a m p l e , where in 1976 some nineteenth-century wholesale market buildings w e r e converted to retail space (Figure 5.11). This conversion w a s substantially s u p p o r t e d b y the Boston city administration, due to the reluctance of other sources of funding. The scheme included small-size units which were leased, on short-term b a s e s , to local businesses rather than major retailers. Pedestrian access, a combination of open and enclosed space, an abundance of restaurants and fast food outlets, and the possibility of informal entertainment were other features of the s c h e m e . E n c o u r a g e d by its success, the scheme's developer, a c o m p a n y called Rouse, created similar developments in Baltimore, N e w York and Miami. In Britain, w h e r e city centre retail can be profitable without government subsidy, similar trends h a v e been slow to follow. A n u m b e r of schemes, however, such as C o v e n t Garden in L o n d o n , have been developed (Guy,1994).

Globalization of the development industry

In the context of the American real estate market, Logan (1993) notes an increasing linkage, in the last two decades, between d e v e l o p m e n t process and the broader capital markets. T h e savings and loans institutions, which historically provided about half of residential mortgage funds, have n o w been replaced b y pension funds, life insurance companies and large commercial banks. In the a b s e n c e of other opportunities, these institutions found real estate an appropriate venue for investment. Of equal importance, a more direct link to the broader capital markets is established through a process called "securitization". Property m a r k e t s are riskier than "securities", i.e. stocks and b o n d s . Property prices are subject to fluctuations in local circumstances and the property market is not comparable to the stock exchange, where the price of stocks and b o n d s is determined through millions of transactions. Also the trade in securities on the stock exchange is m u c h easier than in property with its complex stages of purchase and disposal. T o m a k e investment in property safer, and therefore m a k e it attractive to global financial markets, rating services or credit enhancement schemes have b e e n introduced. These are known as securitization, i.e. "converting an asset into a financial obligation that has readily identified characteristics and can be accordingly rated to risk in the international capital markets" (Logan,1993: 3 8 ) . Corresponding to the involvement of these m a r k e t s in the urban development process, there h a s been a growth in the size of development c o m p a n i e s , whose engagement in national and international m a r k e t s has fostered changes in organizational relationships. T h r o u g h these changes, development c o m p a n i e s have established financial subsidiaries, set up long-term financial partnerships with

Figure (Sosfon,

5.11. USA)

Conversion of wholesale market buildings to retail space in Faneuil Hall

142

Design of Urban Sp ace

Production of the Built Environment

143

insurance c o m p a n i e s , a n d captured savings and loans institutions. While these changes have enabled the d e v e l o p m e n t companies to gain access to capital markets % around the world, they have blurred t h e traditional distinction between developers i and financiers. j This trend, in w h i c h large-scale d e v e l o p e r s operate at national and international -| levels a n d h a v e access to international capital markets, can b e called globahzation \ of real estate. H o w e v e r , Logan a r g u e s that there is a local dimension to this I process, a n d doubts t h e o m n i p o t e n c e o f these global players in transforming local . landscapes. M o s t o f these international agencies have local partners w h o are 1 familiar with local m a r k e t s a n d t h e local planning authorities a n d regulations, n W i t h o u t a local c o m p o n e n t , therefore, t h e globalized development industry cannot operate properly, a s is evident in t h e workings o f t h e American companies in i Europe. I n other w o r d s , d u e t o t h e real estate's strong local character, its | globalization r e m a i n s different f r o m t h e globalization of manufacturing, which has epitomized the global production patterns. ^ This picture c h a n g e d somewhat at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, * with t h e failure of s o m e global developers, such a s Olympia & York over the C a n a r y W h a r f d e v e l o p m e n t in L o n d o n Docklands (F igure 5.12). Despite t h e s e " ^ failures, t h e general pattern o f commodification o f land and property h a s not reversed. F urther integration o f real estate into global capital markets has m a d e the * property m a r k e t s m o r e volatile a n d h a s promoted regional imbalances. The u n p r e c e d e n t e d capacity for d e v e l o p m e n t which has been thus created continues to colonize and transform locaUties b e y o n d recognition. , An o u t c o m e o f this globalization process, it h a s been feared, could b e cultural ' homogenization. If t h e d e v e l o p m e n t agencies were to act globally, then what we ,. w o u M see in future w o u l d b e similar landscapes everywhere. H o w e v e r , it should b e r e m e m b e r e d that even before t h e recent globalization wave, the standardization process w a s in place. T h e modernist developments around the world bear witness to this trend. j The spread of concepts o f space, a n d subsequent similarities of urban form between different places, can b e traced back even further, for as long a s human 1 settlements ha\'e existed. Wherever communication was made possible, through the administration of centralized states a n d empires, o r through trade a n d cultural J exchange, images and practices o f shaping urban environments found their ways to * distant lands. T h e m o d e r n day spread of urban images and styles may therefore be j interpreted a s yet another manifestation of how innovation can be diffused through ,^ communication across geographical artd -political divides. What distinguishes the modern d a y practices, however, is t h e scale of transformation and t h e speed of ; diffusion o f ideas, which are unprecedented in history. Another major characteristic of current developments is the treatment of the built environment as a commodity. This has m e a n t a disjunction b e t w e e n control of the built space and the locality, as '1 has happened through a higher turnover of owners, and through absent and/or i corporate owners based elsewhere. T h e new commodified urban landscapes can be : therefore linked to local population o n bases which are narrower than ever before. ; Rather than local elites w h o used t o b e largely influential in shaping local urban_J environments, it is n o w the international elite of corporate institutions which play a ' major role in shaping localities without any physical or emotional contact with them, i

ttllll ElBMIIIIIIIin

m 111 * ! " i i " ' i ; i ; '^lliSSIISISiSBii Ij,

gl|iiai!iiiitiiii|l,r'-. ,11 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i t i ,

,!| l l l l i l l l l i l l l l l i ,
.11 S I S I S I I I I I I I I l i , i y i i i i s s i i i i i i i i l l ,

u.niiiiiiiitiiiaiii, iiiiiiiviBaiBiif:
^ . U I I I I I C I I I V I I I I I I . L

HH.ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 , i ^ i l l i i i i i i i i i i i i i i | l , ll- I I I I S X I f I I IIIl a i i s s i i i i i i i i II,. I 3 S I S 2 S S I S J 3 5 S! "

Figure 5.12. (London, UK)

Transformation of the urban landsc ape by global developers in Canary Wharf.

144

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environnnent

145

Privatization of public space

T h e c h a n g i n g n a t u r e of d e v e l o p m e n t c o m p a n i e s and the e n t r y of the finance industry into b u i l t e n v i r o n m e n t p r o d u c t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t h a v e partly led to w h a t is w i d e l y k n o w n a s the p r i v a t i z a t i o n of s p a c e . Large-scale developers and financiers e x p e c t their c o m m o d i t i e s to be safe for investment a n d maintenance; hence their inclination to r e d u c e a s m u c h as p o s s i b l e all the levels of uncertainty which-could threaten their i n t e r e s t s . T h i s is part of the process of c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n of s p a c e , in w h i c h s p a c e is a p p r o a c h e d , a n d treated, as a~ c o m m o d i t y . T h i s trend is p a r a l l e l w i t h the increasing fear of crime, rising competition f r o m s i m i l a r d e v e l o p m e n t s , a n d the rising e x p e c t a t i o n s of the c o n s u m e r s , all e n c o u r a g i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of totally m a n a g e d environments! W h a t has e m e r g e d is a n u r b a n s p a c e w h o s e increasingly l a r g e sections-are m a n a g e d b y p r i v a t e c o m p a n i e s , a s distinctive f r o m those controlled b y public' authorities. E x a m p l e s of t h e s e f r a g m e n t e d a n d privatized s p a c e s are gated n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , s h o p p i n g m a l l s , a n d city centre w a l k w a y s , u n d e r h e a v y private surveillance a n d s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e p u b l i c r e a l m b y controlled access and clear boundaries. W i t h the o n g o i n g c h a n g e o f b a l a n c e b e t w e e n the public a n d the private in cities, social a n d p h y s i c a l u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t s a r e being radically transformed. T h e f r a m e w o r k that o r g a n i z e s a c t i o n in a social e n v i r o n m e n t is p a r t l y formed by the w a y the s o c i e t y d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n the p u b l i c and the p r i v a t e . This has an impact on r e g u l a t i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n s , practices, activities a n d aspirations of a culture. T h r o u g h o u t h i s t o r y , t h e way u r b a n s p a c e has b e e n d i v i d e d into public and private h a s reflected, a n d i n f l u e n c e d , social relationships. In the last two centuries, p u b l i c s p a c e as a n a r e n a for a s t r e n g t h e n i n g civil society has found m o r e a n d m o r e s i g n i f i c a n c e . Y e t r e c e n t l y , t h e private creation and control oC public u r b a n s p a c e h a s b e e n a n e m e r g i n g t r e n d . Public s p a c e h a s b e e n a l o n g - s t a n d i n g c o n c e r n of the s t u d e n t s of cities and societies. R e c e n t l y , in social s c i e n c e s a n d h u m a n i t i e s , interest in the subject has g r o w n c o n s i d e r a b l y , p a r t l y d u e t o the o n g o i n g changes in w e s t e r n societies, w h e r e a d e c l i n e of p u b l i c s p h e r e h a s b e e n noted. (Sennett, 1977,1993; T h o m a s , 1 9 9 1 ; C a l h o u n , 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e w a v e of d e v e l o p m e n t a n d r e d e v e l o p m e n t of cities in the 1 9 8 0 s also a t t r a c t e d t h e attention o f u r b a n g e o g r a p h e r s , planners and architects to the central r o l e o f p u b l i c s p a c e in urban areas (Carr et al.1992; Bussell,1992; F i s h e r , 1 9 9 2 ; G l a z e r , 1 9 9 2 ) . A n o t h e r reason for the rising interest in the public s p h e r e h a s b e e n t h e e m e r g e n c e of, o r struggles to establish, new d e m o c r a c i e s in E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n d o t h e r parts of the world. In t h e s e societies, the d e v e l o p m e n t of a civil s o c i e t y , a s a n a r e n a i n d e p e n d e n t of the state, has been an urgent task ( H u a n g , 1 9 9 3 ) . In t h e a b s e n c e of institutionalized arenas of public debate, p u b l i c s p a c e h a s p l a y e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e role as a m e e t i n g point and a" container for social m o v e m e n t s . M u c h of t h e u r b a n d e s i g n a n d p l a n n i n g literature stresses the importance of public s p a c e ( G l a z e r & L i l l a , 1 9 8 7 ; V e r n e z M o u d o n , 1 9 9 2 ; S o r k i n , 1 9 9 2 ; Tibbalds, 1992; W o r p o l e , 1 9 9 2 ) , w h e r e s o c i a l interaction a n d the daily e x p e r i e n c e of urban life take p l a c e . P u b h c u r b a n s p a c e is s p a c e that is not controlled b y private individuals o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a n d h e n c e is o p e n to the general public. This space

is characterized by the possibility of a l l o w i n g different g r o u p s of p e o p l e regardless of their class, ethnicity, gender a n d age, to i n t e r m i n g l e . T h i s is distmctive from the private a n d semi-private s p a c e that is controlled b y o n e group, k e e p m g other g r o u p s at a distance. W h e r e v e r political and e c o n o m i c developments h a v e led to the segregation of social g r o u p s , s p a t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t has followed this trend and h a s contributed to that segregation.

Figure

communication. {Pisa. Italy)

5.13.

In pre-modern urban settings, public spaces provided

arenas for public

146

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

147

In p r e - m o d e r n urban settings, public spaces such as urban squares and marketplaces played the role of arenas for public communication. These w e r e places wherein s o m e form of social interaction by large n u m b e r s of people w a s made possible (Figure 5.13). The growth of the m o d e r n cities into a collection of segregated neighbourhoods h a s led to a decline in the use and vitality of some of these centres of activity and communication. As the stratifications generated by industrialization have increasingly ceased to be meaningful, there has re-emerged a strong d e m a n d for correcting the segregation processes and moving towards more coherent physical and social e n v i r o n m e n t s (Healey et al., 1995). This can be partly seen in the attacks on modernist redevelopments and their destructive effects on ' city life. H o w e v e r , the critics have argued that regeneration policies h a v e tended to gentrify the existing public space through privatization or restriction of access ' (Smith,1992). T h e widening gap b e t w e e n social strata has been associated with the rising fear of c r i m e and concerns about safety in cities. At the s a m e time, the escalating costs of the provision and maintenance of public space as a public service have parallelled an inability or reluctance by public authorities to meet these costs. In this way, social and e c o n o m i c processes, sanctioned by public poHcy, have deepened the spatial and social segregation. M a n y of the new developments h a v e ' ^ b e e n created with a degree of private control over the supposedly public space. In other w o r d s , the post-modern era has seen the continuity and intensity of threats to the public urban space, and the privatization of urban space has b e c o m e a main .t area of concern (Punter, 1990a; Loukaitou-Sideris, 1993). ;

What is public space?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (1933), the term public means, "in general, and in most of the senses, opposite of P R I V A T E " . The definition includes " o f or pertaining to the people as a whole; that belongs to, affects, or concerns the c o m m u n i t y or nation". In the most recent edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990), a similar definition, " o f o r concerning the people as a w h o l e " , is followed by " o p e n to or shared by all p e o p l e " ; " d o n e or existing o p e n l y " ; and "provided by or concerning local or central g o v e r n m e n t " . Relying on these definitions, a public street, for e x a m p l e , belongs to and concerns the people as a whole, is o p e n to them, exists openly, and is provided b y or concerns the government (Figure 5.14). These concepts are echoed in various definitions of public space. C a r r et al. (1992: xi) regard public space as " t h e c o m m o n g r o u n d where people carry out the functional and ritual activities that bind a c o m m u n i t y , whether in the normal routines of daily life or in periodic festivities". It is "the stage upon which the drama of c o m m u n a l hfe u n f o l d s " (Carr et al.,1992: 3). For VValzer (1986: 470), "Public space is space w e share w j d L s t r j i n g e r s ^ g e o p l e w h o a r e n ' t our relatives, f n e n d i T o r v\;ork.assQciates^Jt is s p a c e . f o r p o l i t i c s , i^gion,-commercer^portrspaire for peaceful c o e x i s t e n c e . a n d ^ m p ^ r s o n ; d j m c o u n t e r " . T h e character of public space "expresses and also conditions our public life, civic culture, everj'day discourse". Fjrancis Tibbalds (1992: l))saw the public realm as, "all the parts of the urban fabric to which tiie public have physical and visual access. Thus, it extends from the streets, parks a n d squares of a town or city into the buildings which enclose and :lose and line t h e m . " T h e public realm is, therefore, " t h e most important part of our towns urjowns

Figure 5 14. A public street belongs to and concerns the people as a whole; it is open to them, exists openly, and is provided by or concerns public authorities. (Oxford, UIQ

and c i t i e s J M s w J i e r e J h e _ g r e a t e s t a Place-T^ =:;;-...,

of h u m a n contact a n d interaction takes

A review of the.^law u L c i r t i u i e KjownrsDictionary of ofEnglish Lmo; Strands literatur^ Qoiuitts " < = ^ \ ' " " ulcaonary tnglisti Lnw; Strouds Judicial Judicial Dictionary of Words and -Phrascs;-Words and Plirases Legally Defined; V e r n e z - M o u d o n 1992), shows that in legal t e r m s . J i a space_is_considered a public space, ownership

148

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

149

.an.djdgb|_of_access_caimo^e^eea.asob^^ despite their inherent restrictions i g r public acces^. Even in a primarily p n v a t e p l a c e , public access may be achieved most~oTt'RF'tiriie, and if denied, may be sought legally. Public places cannot legally prohibit interaction with other users, only the nature of those interactions. It appears that the definitions of public space e m p h a s i z e open access to either the : j space or the diversity of activities, most notably the social interaction, taking place in 'I it as caused by this open access. T h e dimension of access to space and its activities ?an be complemented by two other dimensions of a g e n c y and interest (Benn & Gaus, 1983a,b). A public space can therefore be defined as space that allows all the people to have access to it and the activities within it, w h i c h is controlled b y a public agency, and which is provided and m a n a g e d in the public interest.

reason that explains why he is m o r e entitled to the resource than the questioner i s " (Ackerman, quoted in Benhabib, 1992: 81). This dialogue i s b a s e d on a n u m b e r of constraints, of which the^most significantJs^theuaeutjglit^_ollhe participants, a notiQrTclerivedjrom the modern legal systeirLaccordLaKJ.ajivhiclLthe'la'w remairi_s neutral irTthe debates between individuals and groups. However, this notion h a s been challenged as being too restrictive, closing the issues to rational debate by the participants in a dialogue, in which new grounds for consensus could b e arrived at (Benhabib,!992). The relevancfc nf puhUc-Sj)here theories to investigations on spaceJs_becQhling p a r a n w u n L i H o w e l l J 5 2 3 L Thejr_relevance to_a s t t i d y l J p u b l l c s p a c e l i e s mainly in tTieiranalysis of the constitution and transformation_of public sphere, which provides mformairon_ aj^ut'trie^Qiual and._political.processes thatjake^^place in the physical public realm. T h e public space, as a constituent part of the pubric~sphere, can be betterjundefstood^^jth such an insight. At a more detailed level, its relevance l i e s J n the ^ a t i a l dimension^of the intersubjgctiye__commuriLcal^^ debgfebjCaiuacf^^gTOlifTFig)^ dimension of these theories has the ability to be empirically used in the analysis of the public space.

Public sphere theories

In social and political t h o u g h t i l h r e e m a i n c u r r e n t s ) h a v e been identified which offer concepts of public sphere ( B e n h a b i b ; t 9 9 2 ) r T h B s e ^ u r r e n t s correspond to the works' of Jrgen H a b e r m a s ^ H a r ^ widIy~inHijintiaI ~theory ' o f p u b l i c sphere ( C a l h o u n J 9 9 2 ; R o s e n a u , ! 992)^_aj f o r m u l a t i d l i y Jrgen H b e r m a s T l 9 8 9 ) , a publk^sphere, where interactiyediscourse Hkes^pjaciindependent^of^the private sphexe, r r e i s e n t i i l T o r a l i e a l t h v poIityTlts i existence in a d e m o c r a c y m e a n s that decisions a r e macte_tlijaughjatQnal:<ritical 5^ debate a n d jnJfirsbjetYeZQm 1 where they,can.be.pubhdy^reviewgd, . The other distinguished political thinker of the twentieth century, who has theorized public sphere is H a n n a h Arendt. In her m a j o r theoretical w o r k . The Human ! Condition ^Arendt,.!958), she offers_a^_critue]]oOE^^ public realm._VVhereas H i b e r m a s tends t o a r i a l y s e ^ a i i d i n d e e d i d e a U z e , the modern bourgeois public spher'e toi"B'vfpTns j i o ^ ^ public realBrin'theX^eiripolis. T h e r e the e c o n o m i c activities related to individuals' lives anci the "survival of the s p e c i e s " , and w e r e non-political, household affairs (Arendt,1958: 29). In the m o d e r n a g e , h o w e v e r , the h o u s e k e e p i n g - a n d its related activities, problems anci organizational devices h a v e risen from the_^'shadowy i n t e r l o r l r f the household i n t o the light of the-public-spIiS":^(Afentlt;i958: 38). The rise of a social realm has led to an interflow of th pubHc^^nd p r i y a t e ^ h f t f ^ n d to substantial transformation of their m e h i n g ^ n a ^ i g n i f i c a n c e ( A r e n d t , ! 9 5 8 : 29-38). TTiejiOcial realm thajLlLaS-emerged_is_,neither^ p u b l i c nor private. T h e m a s s society, vyith its drive for equality, has conquered.the p u b l i c realm. rendt-ancl-Haberma5-betragree~on-the-lossothe.distinction b e t w e e n the public and private spheres an^jhemegatiye_effects-oTthis^prpess_or\_pjjblic_sphere/riiey I b Q t g J H l i a z T R i T m a s s society^with which they associate the declJTie_ofJhe public ' sphere J ^ o t K Z I E w | v e r r a r ^ others,..the_femimsts_for^t3r_ idealization of..the distmction b e t w e e n public a n d private s p h e r e s i F r a s e r , 1 9 8 9 ) . ^enn and G a u s (1983a) believe that the liberals h a v e a general a a m m i t m e n t to an equilibration'of the public and private spheres of life. T h e n o r m a t i v e model of public sphere^fht^r'ce"ckermari"offers focuses on legitimation of p o w e r through" public dialogue: " W h e n e v e r a n y b o d y questions t h e legitimacy of another's power7 the p o w e r holder must r e s p o n d not b y s u p p r e s s i n g the questioner but b y giving a * = ^

Figure 5.15. Public space is a spatial manifestation of intersubjective communication. {Stockholm, Sweden)

public sphere,

place for

150

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Envlrcr.r.ent

151

Public space in a shopping mall?

T o study t h e changing relationship between the public a n d the private in urban space, it would b e appropriate to look at the new additions to urban areas. A s largescale schemes constitute a large proportion of n e w u r b a n fabrics, o n e such scheme, the M etro Centre in Gateshead, a suburban development with urban claims, can be c h o s e n as a n example (M adanipour,1995c) (Figure 5.16). M u c h has b e e n said about

the suburban shopping malls in North A m e r i c a (Whyte,1988; C r a w f o r d , ! 992), which have competed with city centres b y taking a w a y their social a n d e c o n o m i c livelihood. In Britain, however, t h e development o f gigantic s u b u r b a n s h o p p i n g malls has been a less widespread p h e n o m e n o n . A l t h o u g h k n o w n as a n o u t - o f - t o w n shopping centre, the scale of the M e t r o Centre has h a d a far-reaching i m p a c t o n t h e metropolitan region in which it is located. B y following t h e p r o c e s s of its development, the publicness of its public spaces c a n b e evaluated. F o l l o w i n g t h e five stages of planning, design, development, m a n a g e m e n t a n d u s e s h o w s h o w public spaces in this development have been p e r c e i v e d , d e v e l o p e d a n d u s e d b y different agencies and groups. W e n e e d to find out to w h a t degree t h e s e s p a c e s a r e public, and w e need to understand the relationship b e t w e e n t h e d e g r e e o f publicness of space, and the stages o f development a n d u s e . Gateshead M etro Centre is an out-of-town s h o p p i n g a n d leisure c o m p l e x w i t h 5.5 km of shopping malls and 24 million visitors p e r year g e n e r a t i n g a n a n n u a l turnover of 500m. It is located o n t h e A l trunk r o a d 5 k m f r o m t h e centre of Gateshead a n d Newcastle upon T y n e . The size o f t h e Centre has help>ed t o create the image of a city. The Metro Centre Official Guide ( M e t r o C e n t r e , 1 9 9 1 : 7 ) calls it "Metrocentre Shopping and Leisure City", c o v e r i n g 1 3 5 acres, w i t h 12 c a r parking spaces a n d "its o w n security team, fire protection s y s t e m s , c o m m u n i t y rooms, and even a chaplain". The five stages of planning, design, development, m a n a g e m e n t a n d u s e in t h e Metro Centre all s h o w similar qualities in a p u b l i c - p r i v a t e relationship. I n relation to the three indicators of agency, interest and control, a study of t h e s e s t a g e s s h o w s a strong private dimension. Within a semi-privatized planning e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e stages of design, development and control were all u n d e r t a k e n b y p r i v a t e firms f o r private interest. It is used b y private individuals w h o g o there f o r s h o p p i n g o r leisure. T h e public space in the Centre m a y a p p e a r to b e similar to a h i g h street or a town square populated b y promenading a n d r e l a x i n g people. T h i s is a " p u b l i c space" with a clear functional role: it is o w n e d b y private c o m p a n i e s , allowing private individuals to u s e it for certain purposes. P u b l i c space h e r e h a s a leisure function associated with shopping, rather than contributing to a n a c t i v e social function such as intersubjective communication. U s e r s can b e seen as p)rivate individuals entering a trading space whose leisure fvmctions e s s e n t i a l l y serve trading interests. Its qualities of a w e l l - m a n a g e d , climatically p r o t e c t e d , secure shopping environment correspond to, a n d invite, t h o s e social, g e n d e r a n d a g e groups w h o use it for predetermined purposes. Yet there are several dimensions in which the d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e C e n t r e can b e seen to have public roles. Its, albeit adverse, i m p a c t o n the s u r r o u n d i n g t o w n centres, its ability to earn taxes, and its provision of j o b s , with w h a t e v e r quahties, create a public significance for the Centre as reflected in the public m o n e y spent o n access roads a n d in the public policies of G a t e s h e a d Borough C o u n c i l . M o s t important of all is t h e large n u m b e r of visitors t o t h e Centre, w h o c r e a t e a public space with dynamics of its own. It m a y not cater for t h e diversity a n d n e e d s of all social groups. But that it is used b y millions o f people each y e a r gives it a considerable public dimension. It m a y not b e designed for intersubjective communication, but the presence of t h e people in these spaces r e n d e r s it a site f o r such actions. Besides, it appears that its pubhc spaces are, in legal t e r m s , considered

Figure 5.16.

The "public" space In a shopping mall is owned by private companies, allowing Centre Gateshead. UK)

individuals to use it for private purposes. {Metro

152

Design of Urban Space

Production of the Built Environment

153

public and the restrictions of o w n e r s h i p or access w o u l d n o t prevent them from being so. ,^.. O n a functional basis, a n d on the basis of o u r t h r e e indicators, it m a k e s sense to compare the Metro Centre to its equivalents in N e w c a s t l e ' s city centre, such as the 1970s' Eldon Square, or even an older e x a m p l e of a closed s h o p p i n g environment, the nineteenth century's G r a i n g e r Market (Figure 5 . 1 7 ) . B o t h of these spaces were developed to offer attractively decorated, climatically protected a n d securely controlled environments for trading. T h e y m a y s h a r e similar principles in their developments, b u t what m a k e s t h e M e t r o Centre different is its s u b u r b a n location, which adds a further, exclusive, d i m e n s i o n t o it. A n o t h e r m a j o r difference is its scale, and its desire and claim to c o m p e t e with t h e city centre, w h i c h makes it in s o m e sense comparable to the w h o l e of the city c e n t r e rather than t o some of its parts. When c o m p a r e d with the m o r e traditional city c e n t r e s , h o w e v e r , this public space would rate as semi-public d u e to its limitations. In a city centre such as Newcastle's, t h e ranges of u s e a n d of users a r e w i d e r . It is true that t h e ! predominance of shopping in the city centre h a s r e d u c e d i t s diversity, which brings

it close to shopping centres like the Metro Centre. But there are still other activities in the city centre that make it functionally more diverse. If the city centre space is heavily monitored through security cameras, it still can afford to b e a site for a w i d e range of m o r e spontaneous activities and events, where street vendors c a n b e seen side b y side with political campaigners. T h e same diversity can b e observed with the type of visitors. By definition, the town centre is a focal point for t o w n s p e o p l e from a variety of age, gender a n d social groups. If some parts o f the city centre favour the m o r e affluent groups, there are other parts that cater for the less affluent. All these points lead to the conclusion that the city centre space, despite its o w n limitations, offers a more genuine public space. It is a space that is controlled b y a public agency in the public interest and is accessible to all citizens at all times. It might b e a r g u e d , however, that this is a too formal analysis of the public a n d the private space, as these spheres are intermeshed a n d the three indicators of access, interest a n d control are not distinguishable within these two spheres. O r it might b e argued, along with Habermas, that the public and private should be separated so that the lifeworld could b e protected from the political and economic systems. This may lead to urban public space being considered a part of the civil society, to b e protected f r o m state intervention, implying that a space controlled b y the state is not necessarily a public space. This argument m a y thus equate the public space in Newcastle city centre with that in the Metro Centre, as both are controlled b y t h e systems of p o w e r and money. In response, it could b e argued that, as shown here, the city centre offers a wider range of possibilities to a larger part of the public a n d hence is a m o r e democratic space. That developments such as the Metro Centre are the new additions to the u r b a n space means that the degree of publicness found in the city centre is not desirable by the developers. Besides the traffic problems of a city centre, the coexistence of a wide range of potentially conflicting interests in the public sphere, especially in a n increasingly polarizing social environment, makes the choice of semi-public space appealing to the developers a n d corporations. This is coupled b y the local authorities' reluctance, a n d inability, to add to the public urban space, due to their financial limitations. T h e authorities are also restricted b y political a n d administrative limitations, as exemplified in the diverse planning en\'ironments where their control is challenged and confined. T h e Enterprise Zone in which the Metro Centre w a s developed, or the areas controlled by the D e v e l o p m e n t Corporation, w h e r e many n e w additions to the city space are made, are examples of these challenges. T h e result is that urban public space is increasingly contested b y semi-public, totally managed environments created for some social groups a n d excluding others, a s caused by, and causing further, social and spatial segregation.

Conclusion
As w e have argued before^iriton_spacean b e best understoodJJTrough_thejprocess of its making. T o understand, o n a macro-scale, the social and economic processes that shape a n d reshape cities, it is best to concentrate on the urban development processes w h i c h create a n d transform the city's socio-spatial fabric. Tracing the production o f space through time integrates the social and temporal aspects of

Figure 5.17.

A comparison of the new suburban shopping malls and the nineteenth-century UK)

covered markets shows a degree of similarity. {Grainger Marlcet, Newcastle,

154

Design of Urban Space

space, bridges the gaps in our spatial understanding, and offers a dynamic perspective with which to gain k n o w l e d g e about t h e built environment. Armed with such knowledge, designers engage in t h e transformation of the built environment in a more informed w a y . If w e can explain the spatial phenomena, our ability to transform the built environment will i m p r o v e . To m a k e sense o f j h e j p m p l e x process of urban development, w e have reviewed ' modelsTwhich describe or explain~this process.~We^Iiave concluded^tbat-the^bi^t^ \vl^;30"Tmderstan'd"urb'ari'aevelopmeiif ^^^ ^^ i s j o ^ c o n c e n t r a t e orNdevelopmentNi ^agenciilJTfteJffiraurSTKeyTnr of resources^'nHiSs^aha'TagaS; j -and-the'sbcial a i i d ^ a T i a F c o n t e x t s i n which fhey_operate. We have looked af the changing nature of the development agencies and at the way land, a natural resource, is treated as a c o m m o d i t y . A n implication of this treatment has been a growing g a p between t w o t y p ^ j o f j y a h r e j i t t a d i e d j g ^ propertyj_.use value a n d j x c h a n g e value. To retluce t h e g a p between t h e two, and to r e s p p n d J o j T i e changmg naJure.of iny.e.sjmentj3p,pp_rjunjt h a s b e e n a_rnQye towards^ s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n ^ f design and privatization of _space. Along with globalizationT5f theproperty mdustTyTthesFcKangeS^fiave had far-reaching impacts on urban landscapes and on the processes w h i c h produce them. In the next tvvp a" chapters, w e will explore the rules and ideas that ai'e involved in the urban design ' and urban development process.

CHAPTER

Regulating Urban F o r m
Following o u r look at the relationship b e t w e e n urban design a n d the u r b a n development process, w e n o w turn our attention t o the relationship b e t w e e n u r b a n design and t h e regulatory f r a m e w o r k of t h e planning system. C h a p t e r 5 w a s concerned with urban design a n d the markets. T h i s chapter concentrates on u r b a n design a n d the state. In Chapter 5 w e looked at t h e w a y t h e c h a n g i n g n a t u r e of development companies has h a d a n impact o n u r b a n form. In this chapter w e s e e h o w the changing nature of t h e plarming s y s t e m , resulting f r o m a c h a n g e in state-market relationships, can influence urban f o r m and its design. The debates on design control form only a part of the general question of t h e relationship of state and markets in space production. In this general context, t h e predominant tendency has been to see design as attending m o r e to the aesthetic qualities of the built environment, i.e. the a p p e a r a n c e of the u r b a n fabric. A s w a s discussed in Chapter 4, this is a rather narrow v i e w which u n d e r m i n e s the role of urban design as deahng with form, use a n d m a n a g e m e n t of cities. Nevertheless, in this chapter w e follow these debates and the m e c h a n i s m s the British p l a n n i n g system has devised to deal with design issues. W e also look briefly at these concerns in s o m e other countries.

The state, t h e market and space production

The role of the plarming system is defined b y t h e Royal T o w n Planning Institute as the m a n a g e m e n t of change in the built and natural environments (RTP1,1991). T h i s management role, played by the local and central go v e rn m e n ts, is o n e a m o n g m a n y forms of state intervention in t h e economy. A s it deals with the production a n d transformation of space, it occupies a central role in the interface b e t w e e n t h e state and the market. T h e relationship of the state a n d the m a r k e t in t h e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e b u i l t environment is complex and can b e analysed f r o m a w i d e variety of angles. A t t h e most general level of analysis, the state a n d t h e market f o r m the t w o m a i n component parts of a single political e c o n o m y . T h e production of t h e built environment occurs within this poliHcal e c o n o m y and helps to e n s u r e its continuity. Therefore the relationship of the t w o structures of state a n d m a r k e t c a n be seen as m u t u a l l y supportive a n d ultimately u n p r o b l e m a t i c . H e r e w e s e e h o w

156

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

157

Lefebvre's assertion, i.e. tfiat every society creates its o w n space, m a k e s sense. No matter liow the production of s p a c e is regulated, it is an o u t c o m e o f the whole' political e c o n o m y . If we leave this bird's eye v i e w , h o w e v e r , and l o o k at the p r a c t i c a l details of tliis relationship, w e see constant c h a n g e and a d j u s t m e n t in the f o r m o f confrontatioii/ negotiation and collaboration b e t w e e n different parties. T h e d e b a t e s about the production of the built e n v i r o n m e n t often take p l a c e within this s p h e r e . At this other end of the spectrum, it is the details of their relatioitships t h a t matter, the institutional relationships b e t w e e n the agencies i n v o l v e d in s p a c e p r o d u c t i o n . The regulation of space p r o d u c t i o n is a central t a s k of the p o l i t i c a l economy, employing a large n u m b e r of a g e n c i e s and i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h a v a r i e t y of sociospatial structures. T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e state, the m a r k e t and space production can therefore b e a n a l y s e d in t e r m s of the s t r u c t u r e - a g e n c y relationship. The history of the e m e r g e n c e o f the planning s y s t e m and its development in Britain after the Second World W a r shows a c h a n g i n g relationship between the state and the market. The planning system w a s an effective tool f o r the post-war Keynesian emphasis on increasing d e m a n d for c o n s u m p t i o n a n d increasing state intervention in different spheres of life to e n s u r e the c o n t i n u i t y of societal structures. In the urban arena, this intervention a n d e m p h a s i s o n c o n s u m p t i o n was partly reflected in the large-scale r e d e v e l o p m e n t of urban fabrics. T h e powerful state could employ new technologies in massive r e d e v e l o p m e n t s , a i m i n g at social and spatial engineering. T h e planning system w a s at the operating e n d of a gigantic bureaucratic organization w h i c h attempted to s t i m u l a t e a n d , at t h e same time, control the change in the built environment. T o u n d e r t a k e this task m o r e effectively, ever more sophisticated m e t h o d s were d e v e l o p e d and e m p l o y e d . During this period, a relative harmony b e t w e e n the state a n d the m a r k e t supported the operation of the planning system. However, the relatively h a r m o n i o u s relationship b e t w e e n t h e state and the market was disrupted by major c h a n g e s in w e s t e r n e c o n o m i e s a f t e r the 1960s. The end of the post-war b o o m and a n e w global e c o n o m y with a multiplicity of new players forced the break-up of the Keynesian coalition. T h e n o d e s of this coalition, e.g. the planning system, needed redefining. T o s u r v i v e the global competition, the only alternative was seen in the 1980s to be a liberalization of t h e economy. The political and administrative structures which w e r e r e m a i n d e r s of t h e past and could prevent this liberalization w e r e destined for restructuring. .*i This w a s a pressure from a b o v e on the p l a n n i n g s y s t e m , d e m a n d i n g it to disappear or to play a more flexible role. T h e r e w a s another p r e s s u r e from below, demanding more flexibihty and sensitivity. T h e large-scale r e d e v e l o p m e n t s of the post-war years had caused c o m m u n i t y d i s p l a c e m e n t and disruption. Urban development processes were criticized for their lack of u n d e r s t a n d i n g for urban communities. To use the H a b e r m a s i a n terminology, the lifeworld w a s protesting against the systems of power and m o n e y against their penetration (Figure 6.1). The protest movements after the late 1960s were rejecting the p r o d u c t i o n of the built environment as it had happened after the S e c o n d W o r l d W a r . In L e f e b v r e ' s (1991) terms, there w a s a d e m a n d for differential s p a c e , to confront the a b s t r a c t space that was being imposed on everyday life.

F i g u r e 6 . 1 . The large-scale redevelopment of urban areas was a result of harmonious relationships between the state and the market (Photograph by Wallace Pace) These two sets of pressures were pulling the planning system in different directions. T h e structural pressure from above was aimed at loosening the grip of the planning system in order to help the growth of the economy through the growth of the private sector. It was therefore expecting to emphasize the exchange value of the built environment as an incentive for economic growth. On the other hand, the pressure f r o m below was demanding an e m p h a s i s on use value, on improving the quality of environment for the users and inhabitants of the built environment. Under these pressures, the planning system has adopted a more flexible, conciliatory role. There has b e e n an introduction of a document-led planning system, leading to the redefinition of the planning system's discretionary powers. The m o v e towards a plan-based planning system, where the requirements of the locality are more clearly d o c u m e n t e d by the state, offers a sense of security to the potential developers. In this sense, the flexibility of the planning system can be seen to be reduced, and yet the planners are seen to b e providing a more flexible service. The n e w flexibility is thought to have the potential to solve numerous conflicts which m a y arise in a period of substantial change. One example would be the contradiction between societal reproduction, w h i c h now seems to be supported with m o r e flexible planning, a n d environmental reproduction, which requires a

158

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

159

more cJirect form of state intervention and control. W h e r e there has b e e n no attempt to adjust, there has been a conflict between w h a t has been called a modernist planning system and a post-modern reality {Dear,1995). T h e disruption to the communities caused b y the modernization projects has been widely acknowleged. These examples of the unintended consequences (Giddens,1990) of instrumental rationality (Habermas, 1984), amongst others, required a process of adjustment in what was once a set of s o m e w h a t harmonious relationships. T h e planning system, as a locally based activity, had to adjust its relationships with the markets and the state. T h e nature and extent of control by the state through the planning system needed to be readjusted. Within the political economy, the planning control needed to prove o n c e again its legitimacy and capabihty in contributing to societal and environmental reproduction. T h e outcome of these pressures to adjust has b e e n an increased flexibility in the planning process. The state is no longer the sole player in the major urban development schemes. Local government's slow and reluctant response to restructuring has resulted in direct action by central government. This has taken the form of development corporations and public/private partnerships. On the other hand, the traditional local planning system has been encouraged to adopt a softer^ ' less interventionist form of control through negotiation and enabling. T h e planner as an enabler is now expected to respond equally to the structural pressure for space production and to the local pressure for public participation and betterquality built environments.

built e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e form that the structural pressures from a b o v e took in the 1980s led to a n e w boom, hence a new cycle of space production a n d n e w attention to the qualities of the built environment. This p h a s e coincides with a rising interest in urban d e s i g n within the town planning field. The gradual shift of attention in planning, from physical artefacts to spatial relations to social relations to the built environment, has created imbalances of focus. However, these imbalances and shifts of focus should be seen in their close connection with the cycles of space production. Attention to the built environment, and hence to environmental design, has been closely associated with the intensity of producing space. This can be observed in the fast-growing regions of the world especially, where a surplus of capital is directed towards the development of the built environment. T o c o m p e n s a t e for the previous neglect of the built environment, t o w n p l a n n i n g has now turned its attention to urban space. T h e n e w emphasis on u r b a n design should be a balancing act, bringing to the town planning agenda spatial as well as social coi\cerns. In many cases, however, it a p p e a r s that urban design is seen m e r e l y as a visual concern largely replacing or masking the earlier social concerns. It is in these circumstances that urban design is seen as the return of aesthetics to city planning (Boyer,1990) (Figure 6.2).

Planning and design

The relationship of planning and design can be traced against this brief outline of the changing role of urban planning in a changing political economy. T o w n planning had evolved as the branch of architecture dealing with urban design. The architect's approach to space production tended to concentrate on the " h a r d w a r e " , on the physical fabric of the city, rather than on the "software". During this early period, design had a central role in the town planning agenda, as best exemplified in the 1933 Charter of Athens. However, large-scale state intervention in the city was a complex process and needed administrative management as well as the support of the new science and technology. As a result, planning as an independent activity emerged, seeing the city as a site of spatial relationships, rather than merely a collection of artefacts. There was a shift of role for the planner from design to management. As a result of the post-1960s reduction in large-scale urban development and the rise of c o m m u n i t y pressure groups, this tendency for bureaucratic management of space had to be abandoned. Economic decline led to a slowing d o w n of space production, driving attention a w a y from the built environment and its qualities. During a period of crisis and change, the decay of the built environment was seen as inevitable and therefore design was seen as an unaffordable, or irrelevant, luxury. T h e economic crisis and the grass-roots pressure for change demanded the tools of the state be deployed in job creation and public participation. The structural change in the economy, from m a s s production for a m a s s society to flexible production for a fragmented society, brought about a n e w interest in the

schemes. (San Jose, California, USA)

Figure 6.2.

The return of aesthetics to town planning is leading to visual improvement

160

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

161

To uncierstand the relationship between the state and the market and its reflection in planning and urban design, we n e e d to look at a m o r e detailed level at the relationship between planners and designers.

Design control
Design control is the interface b e t w e e n planners and designers. In the process of development control, the production of space is often reviewed m a i n l y from an aesthetic point of view. T h e design review takes place within t h e g e n e r a l context of the state-market relationship. T h e questions often put forward in this relationship are wide ranging. Should design b e controlled at all? H o w m u c h intervention is appropriate? Is it possible to i n t e r v e n e in a field perceived to b e l a r g e l y subjective?*: W h o should intervene and w h o sets the standards? (See Figure 6.3.) In 1993, in an RIBA exhibition in London called "Before and After Planning", examples of projects which had passed through the p l a n n i n g s y s t e m were displayed. T h e projects varied w i d e l y in their topics and c i r c u m s t a n c e s . H o w e v e r , .

what they all shared was that the appearance of the schemes had been altered noticeably as a result of the planners' comments. O n e housing association project had been rejected because of its horizontal shape and the use of inappropriate roof materials. T h i s had been replaced by a revised scheme costing substantially more. In another project the architects were asked to change the curved roof to a pitched roof. A n o t h e r project with a flat roof was criticized, calling for a "more traditional design" that " w o u l d o v e r c o m e reasons for refusal". These are revisions which, according to the reporter (Welsh,1993), contributed to "urban dyslexia", the schemes' former sense of scale and proportion being undermined and their points of interest reduced. The question posed was whether "the public, represented by a planner, or, more abstractly, the city, represented by a facade, (should) really concern itself with somewhat obscure architectural principles". This exhibition has been only a part of an ongoing debate between the planners and architects over design control. The legitimacy and usefulness of design control have been studied and discussed for decades. The debate has often been expanded to cover the w h o l e of the planning agenda, even to the extent that the post-war planning s y s t e m has been severely questioned (Manser & Adam, 1992a,b). T h e debate about design control often has several dimensions. At one level there is the tension between architects and planners on issues of aesthetic control, at the heart of w h i c h lies the tension between freedom of expression versus public control. This occurs within a b r o a d e r framework of the tension between the development (or the developer) and the local communities, between exchange value and u s e value. This can relate to the debate between the economic necessity of a development and its relationship to the quahty of environment. It can also focus on the tension between freedom of individual action versus public accountability. T h e focal point of the debate m a y be the private interest as distinct from public interest and the relationship of these t w o sets of, at times, contradicting interests. Within an even b r o a d e r framework, the debate is between the state and the market on the production of the built environment. This entails economic, political, social and aesthetic considerations and debates, which have formed the agenda of design control a n d , in a wider sense, planning control.

Design control or aesthetic control?

This question of design control or aesthetic control should be seen as being closely related to the discussions in Chapters 1, 2, and 4, where the ambiguities and differences b e t w e e n visual a n d spatial aspects of design were addressed. T h e difference b e t w e e n these t w o terms, design control and aesthetic control, is often ignored as they are used interchangeably. The Annex A to P P G l (DoE,1992) is titled "Design C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " . H o w e v e r , the Annex begins with the sentence, " T h e appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are material considerations." This is clearly an indication of the tendency to equate design with appearance. A l t h o u g h A n n e x A later denotes the broader, and therefore, as it sees it, more relevant, design concerns of the planners as "scale, density, height, massing, layout, landscape, and access", the main focus of the guidance is the aesthetic dimension of the appearance of developments.

Figure 6.3.

Would the development on the left-hand side be permitted today in a design Italy)

control process? (Florence,

162

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

163

which only one, albeit important, dimension is aesthetic. Yet it is clear that the design control process or to use the American term, design review, is not i n t e n d e d to interfere in all of those stages. In practice, h o w e v e r , the interaction b e t w e e n the designers and the planners, in w h i c h the design of a d e v e l o p m e n t is b e i n g discussed, tends to cover both the functional a n d aesthetic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of t h e proposal. Aspects of design such as density and access, as m e n t i o n e d in A n n e x A, have a w i d e range of implications, each with a potential aesthetic iiigredient. This clearly s h o w s that the term "design c o n t r o l " addresses a m u c h w i d e r set of considerations, w h i c h includes aesthetic control. A t this scale, the design control process can be seen as an active c o m p o n e n t of urban design. N e v e r t h e l e s s , regarding the g o v e r n m e n t ' s a d v i c e as well as the arguments against d e s i g n control, the aesthetics has f o r m e d the focal point of the design c o n t r o l c o n c e r n s and debate so far.

Does aesthetics matter?

H o w substantial are the aesthetic considerations iii a d e v e l o p m e n t ? Is the aesthetic control really an important part of the p l a n n i n g process? Is it m e a n i n g f u l to hinder a d e v e l o p m e n t , which can be potentially beneficial to a local e c o n o m y , on aesthetic g r o u n d s ? In the face of the e n o r m o u s difficulties that t h e restructuring of the global e c o n o m y has inflicted upon individuals a n d households, and therefore collectively on t o w n s a n d regions, the m a i n issue s e e m s to be the battle for survival for the more d i s a d v a n t a g e d regions. Is it realistic to give any significance to aesthetics as distinctive from or, in s o m e cases, a s opposed to job creation and the well-being of a c o m m u n i t y ? In the context of the depressed e c o n o m i e s all over the world, is aesthetics not a p r e o c c u p a t i o n of the more p r o s p e r o u s economies? E v e n within a relatively wealthy society, is it not more a concern of the middle classes whose m o r e secure standard of living a l l o w s them to concentrate on cultural matters? These questions are part of a long-standing cultural debate. T h e relationship of aesthetics and the social and e c o n o m i c considerations is a crucial part of cultural studies ( H u t c h e o n , 1 9 9 2 ) . T o a d d r e s s these q u e s t i o n s , one approach w o u l d b e to trace the evolution of a m a s s culture as distinct from, and challenging, high culture. Within the context of the cultural forms w i t h which large sections of communities readily identify themselves, and its challenge to the aesthetics of the establishment, w e can look for s o m e answers to these questions. W h a t n e e d s stressing, h o w e v e r , is the i m p o r t a n c e of aesthetic experience to h u m a n b e i n g s , which is of equal significance within the contexts of both high and m a s s cultures. M u c h of the m o d e r n thinking about aesthetics h a s been influenced b y K a n t , who divided the mental faculties into theoretical, practical a n d aesthetic. H e suggested that the sense of b e a u t y is a distinct a n d a u t o n o m o u s e m p l o y m e n t of the h u m a n mind comparable to moral and scientific understanding (Scruton,1979). An example of the continuity of this conceptual a p p r o a c h is the w o r k of Jrgen H a b e r m a s , w h o s e models of action and rationality are set out to address the instrumental, social and aesthetic d i m e n s i o n s of the h u m a n actions simultaneously (McCarthy,1978; Dews,1986; W h i t e , 1 9 8 8 ) .

Figure 6.4.

Should design control only address the appearance of developments? {Cannes,

France) T h i s long-standing tendency of central g o v e r n m e n t to see aesthetic control as dealing with the appearance of buildings, and more specifically their elevations, h a s b e e n n o t e d b y some observers (Punter,1990b) (Figure 6.4). Punter a r g u e s that the tensions b e t w e e n this v i e w p o i n t and the wider definitions of aesthetics, design and e n v i r o n m e n t a l quality are " a t the heart of the d e b a t e about design control" (Punter,1990b: 3 ) . His suggested definition of aesthetic control is, " t h a t aspect of : the regulation of d e v e l o p m e n t that seeks to control the physical attributes and u s e s of n e w b u i l d i n g s , and the spaces between them, so as to ensure a rewarding s e n s u o u s e x p e r i e n c e for the p u b l i c w h o use the environment thus created" (Punter,1990b: 2 ) . This definition, which is m u c h wider, is obviously focusing on t h e aesthetic experience, as reflected in its aim of achieving "a rewarding s e n s u o u s e x p e r i e n c e " . The definition has been given under the title " T o w a r d s a definition of design or aesthetic control", which uses the t w o terms interchangeably. Urban design has been defined as some, or all, stages of a process and the product it p r o d u c e s , as w e s a w in Chapter 4. Any of the definitions mentioned there w o u l d s u g g e s t that the design as a process has a variety of dimensions, of

164

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

165

T h e aesthetic choice in individual a n d collective life m a y b e significant, b u t where does it figure in our list of priorities? In other w o r d s , are cultural identity and quality of the environment as important as economic development a n d the more material and immediate needs of life? When formulating public p o l i c y o r taking collective action, w h a t a r e the chances that the quality o f the e n v i r o n m e n t will be properly addressed? T h e answer is bound to b e that, based only on instrumental rationality, these chances a r e less significant than w h e n social a n d aesthetic concerns are taken into account. Apart from severe crises, it would b e a grave simplification of h u m a n natvire to hold the view that below a certain level of income a n d living s t a n d a r d s , aesthetic choice disappears or loses its meaning, to b e replaced with desperation. W h a t looks from the outside to be poverty of m e a n s and a battle for survival, a l w a y s contains a process of aesthetic judgement. Examples of this aesthetic choice c a n b e found everywhere: from choosing which route to take w h e n passing t h r o u g h t h e town or the countryside, to choosing which piece of bread to eat first. This is true in the case of those educated within the high culture, whose taste is cultivated t h r o u g h critical reasoning and careful elaboration. It is also true w h e r e the taste is f o r m e d through mass consumption of prefabricated images and objects. It is true in t h e c a s e o f pre-

modern cultures where relationships and tastes are based on long-standing traditions. It is also true w h e r e these traditions h a v e been broken down and n o clear cultural patterns are in place. N o matter what the circumstances, aesthetic choice can b e found in almost all h u m a n conditions as an important part of understanding and action (Figure 6.5). T h e aesthetics of daily actions and the choices made within that framework m a y not be acceptable when judged b y the standards of the high culture. Nevertheless, it is not possible to deny altogether the existence of such ingredients in daily experience. A p a r t from the most extreme cases of individual and social crises, w h e n the r h y t h m o f life is entirely disrupted b y disasters, human beings are involved in a mental o r actual process o f aesthetic j u d g e m e n t and choice. This is a crucial c o m p o n e n t part o f individual a n d collective identity and the absence of it could lead to alienation and a crisis of identity.

Aesthetic j u d g e m e n t : subjective or objective?

A large part o f the debate over aesthetic control involves the issue of subjectivity or objectivity o f aesthetic judgement. M a n y h a v e tended to disregard the debate altogether o n the grounds that it is a matter of taste and so it belongs to the realm of subjectivity, a private realm in which individual choice matters most and w h e r e there is n o place for direct public intervention. Individuals may be influenced b y the society a r o u n d them, b u t they often m a k e their aesthetic selections freely, from a w i d e r a n g e o f possibilities open to them, as required by an open society. For this viewpoint, this is the end of the discussion. This v i e w c a n also b e heard b y those w h o d o not have an interest in aesthetic matters, w h o therefore dismiss a n y further discussions on the subject simply d u e to lack of interest. T h e same level of freedom that people enjoy in the way they dress themselves s h o u l d apply to the w a y they erect, embellish and organize their buildings a n d environments. W h y does design control not keep up with the other trends in society? There h a s b e e n a significant liberalization of public behaviour since the Victorian period, with its strict moral values and attitudes, and with the advent of t h e post-war social movements. It should naturally follow that the appearance o f the buildings, like the appearance of the people, should be judged o n a more liberal basis (Figure 6.6). In addition to those w h o think aesthetic understanding and choice are private matters a n d s h o u l d remain in t h e realm of subjectivity of the individuals, there a r e those w h o think it should remain there because of its creative dimensions. T h e y maintain that design is a creative process in w h i c h designers as individuals express their subjective w o r l d a n d therefore the aesthetic choice is an integral part of this highly mystified process. H e r e the aesthetic control is challenged on the grounds that it restricts artistic creation. This viewpoint is often defended by designers, w h o are t h e m s e l v e s involved in this creative process and see any restrictions as irrelevant, d u e to the subjective element of the design. "What is good or bad design remains largely subjective", as "there is n o 'correct' approach, in any context" (Manser & A d a m , 1 9 9 2 b : 24). Beauty, or ugliness, of the environment simply lies " i n the eye of the b e h o l d e r " (Earl of Arran, quoted in Hillman,1990: 2).

Figure 6.5. Apart from severe crises, aesthetic choice can be found in almost all human conditions as an important part of understanding and action. {Newcastle, UK)

166

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

167

especially of public arts such as architecture, could b e changed through a r g u m e n t and critical reasoning. Our aesthetic judgement tends to change as w e k n o w m o r e about the subject of judgement. This can happen through reflecting u p o n our direct experience of that object, or through reading criticisms about it. It is the involvement of reason in this process which m a k e s it an objective process. A s Scruton (1979: 237) puts it, aesthetic judgement is in a sense objective, "for it a i m s to justify that (individual) experience, through presenting reasons that are valid for others besides oneself". It is certainly b e y o n d the level of individual preference that societies are f o r m e d for the protection of a building and for the conservation a n d preservation of certain areas. O v e r the years, governments h a v e listed buildings that h a v e b e e n regarded as b e i n g worthy of preservation, h a v e designated c o n s e r v a t i o n areas, and h a v e selected areas of outstanding natural beauty. These activities h a v e all been based on s o m e principles shared by large n u m b e r s of p e o p l e , a c o n s e n s u s reached at through s o m e form of reasoning, h e n c e giving the j u d g e m e n t an objective validity.

W h o sets t h e aesthetic standards?

We have seen h o w the aesthetic experience is important and how the aesthetics of the environment can form a c o m m o n , and therefore objective, concern. T h e next step would be to set up a f r a m e w o r k for collective action that would address this common concern. T h e question to ask will then b e , is it the job of the planners to set the aesthetic standards? If that is the case, w h o s e tastes do they represent? Are the planners representing an elite which produces these standards and spreads them throughout the society? Are they the guardians of the canons of good taste as set b y the high culture and enforced b y an administrative system which is the operational device of a polidcal economy? Planners have frequently been accused of elitism, especially in their modernist interventions in the urban areas, disregarding the identities and cultural preferences of the local communities and iniposing on them alien standards of good taste and good design. Planners are also constantly being criticized b y architects as not having the proper c]ualifications for making aesthetic judgements. This has led to attempts to clarify the boundaries and responsibilities as well as the educational requirements. In many design control debates, it appears that the architects represent the high culture, attacking planners for their allegedly poor tastes. On the other hand, both planners and architects have been accused of being elitist in their association with the post-war urban development. It was after the 1960s, with the criticisms of modernism and the gradual rise of post-modernism, that architects and planners started to see themselves as part of the mass culture. By using ornaments, historical reference and double coding (Jencks,1991), post-modern architecture tried to denounce its elitist past and bridge the gap between architecture and popular culture. In planning, attempts to democratize the planning process were among the most important signs that the elitist tendencies of high culture were being challenged. Both planners and architects attempted to acquire a degree of embeddedness in their social and physical contexts; hence the rise of interest in public

F i g u r e 6.6.

How should one building relate to others around it? {Boston, USA)

So is this assertion of the subjectivity of aesthetic judgement a definitive statement agreed upon b y everyone? Is aesthetic judgement an individual experience w h i c h cannot be objectively shared by others? The a n s w e r to these questions can b e found in the attempts that are made to share this individual experience with others. In our arguments to convince others of the validity of our choice, w e try to use reasons that are acceptable to them. This attempt gives the aesthetic j u d g e m e n t an objectivity, which is beyond the subjectivity of individual experience. It can be noted that our aesthetic understanding a n d judgement,

168

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

169

participation, communicative action, community architecture and contextuahsm. Nevertheless, today as before, planners m a k e decisions about the organization and appearance of the built environment on the basis of s o m e , sometimes undefined, criteria. The question is still open: w h o s e taste do p l a n n e r s represent and where does their aesthetic j u d g e m e n t originate? T h e p o s t - m o d e m notion of pluralism, with its associated relativism, has m a d e the aesthetic j u d g e m e n t ever more difficult. In the relative absence of the modernist canons of good taste, planners and architects are left to judge a variety of styles and f o r m s which are proudly presented as eclectic. To confront the symptoms of disappearing canons, the notion o f context has played an increasingly important role in the aesthetic judgement of u r b a n planners, urban designers and architects. M o s t urban design guidelines and m a n u a l s of the last two decades have emphasized adherence to the urban context. T h e starting point of design process and design control has b e c o m e the context in which the development takes place. Respecting the existing context is a w a y o f humanizing and democratizing any new proposal. It is also a safe way out of m a k i n g aesthetic judgements (Figure 6.7).

This c o n s e r v a t i s m in taste has been prolonged due to a decline of confidence in exploring n e w territories a n d an absence of intense real estate development. However, as this century d r a w s to a close, n e w developments, such as a new faith in technology a n d a hope in the future of a unified Europe, have prompted a n e w atmosphere of confidence. W i t h this n e w confidence, the contextualism of the postmodern p e r i o d is increasingly being questioned.

Good urban f o r m
No discussion of design control w o u l d be c o m p l e t e without finding out what the final aim of t h e design control is. W h a t is the i m a g e in the m i n d of the planner of the final f o r m of a town? Is this intervention in the appearance of growing and changing cities carried out according to a set of clear images which would together make a c o h e r e n t vision of the future of a town? It could b e a r g u e d that t h e r e is n o n e e d for s u c h an i m a g e as an urban form is so c o m p l i c a t e d a n d d y n a m i c that it w o u l d b e futile to envisage a final form for it. A n y a t t e m p t t o visualize t h e final, or a n ideal, f o r m of a t o w n w o u l d be either unrealistic o r too rigid to b e e v e n w o r t h a c h i e v i n g . Utopian ideals of the past have all f a i l e d to materialize. S o w h y s h o u l d w e try to find an answer to the question a b o u t an overall i m a g e of the " c o n t r o l l e d " urban f o r m in the mind of the planner? S h o u l d design c o n t r o l b e a p r a g m a t i c intervention which is flexible enough to a c c o m m o d a t e e a c h c a s e w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r i l y having a vision of the final outcome? This m i g h t s e e m to be realism. M a n y decisions are made according to arguments of this k i n d . But design control is a c o n t i n u o u s process in which any n e w development is being j u d g e d against s o m e criteria. What are these criteria for judging the u r b a n form? W h a t are the m e a s u r e s for evaluating the increments to urban fabric? A s distinct f r o m these, or in relation to them, are there any criteria for judging the u r b a n form as a w h o l e ? After a p e r i o d of design control, there will b e a cumulative effect of individual cases on u r b a n form in general. In the long term, it might be argued, the urban.form will be largely transformed in relation to the intentions of the actors involved in the design control process. If this is the case, then w e should be able to search for a vision of this future o u t c o m e in the mind of the design controllers. This is a vision which m i g h t b e consciously k n o w n or u n c o n s c i o u s l y held. Without even a vague idea of the w h o l e of urban fabric, or at least parts of it, at the m o r e identifiable scale of urban p l a c e s and n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , it w o u l d not be possible to make a clear decision a b o u t a n y new d e v e l o p m e n t . There are convincing arguments that urban design s h o u l d contribute to the development of " a n ideal long-term hypothesis", which w o u l d b e used as a yardstick to measure the values of the built environment (Gregotti, 1 9 9 2 ) . The a r g u m e n t here is not that w e need to h a v e such a vision in the design control process, w h i c h is quite a valid argument. M y point is that whoever is controlling the design of the d e v e l o p m e n t s already has that mental image of the good city form, and the d e c i s i o n s are being m a d e with reference to that image or set of images. For example, the t w o contrasting approaches to the context of a n e w development, i.e.

Figure 6.7. Respecting the existing context is a way of humanizing and democratizing any new proposal. It is also a safe way out of making aesthetic judgements. {London, UK)

170

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

171

whether the context is to b e treateci with respect or be ciisregarded, both rely on mental libraries of possible images. Whereas o n e set of references aims to perpetuate t h e character of the context, the other seeks to alter it to a new form. Both approaches, however, share the act of making references to a set of images in the m i n d of the designer as well as the planner w h o is involved in development control.

Planning documents and design

The British planning system deals with design issues through three sets of documents: development plans, design guides and design briefs. These documents rely on the advice from the Department of the Environment on design considerations.

choice. {Stockholm,

Figure 6.8.

A library of idealized images accumulates in our mind, influencing our aesthetic

Sweden)

A library of i m a g e s can b e f o u n d in every person's m i n d (Figure 6.8). It is a very interesting process t o see h o w people acquire their mental images a n d h o w t h e y u s e t h e m in their aesthetic understanding and choice. This process often takes p l a c e in the c o u r s e of daily life a n d c a n b e influenced a n d changed by c o m m u n i c a t i o n , interaction a n d even manipulation. Aesthetic choice in a p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y , h o w e v e r , h a s often a limited effect at a large scale. This is not t h e c a s e for the design a n d planning professionals w h o s e decisions can h a v e a l o n g - l a s t i n g influence o n the built e n v i r o n m e n t . It is surprising then to see h o w f e w d i s c u s s i o n s a r e t a k i n g place around this aspect of planning, which could p l a y a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e in shaping the future form of the urban environments. W e will d i s c u s s the i m a g e s of good u r b a n f o r m in the next chapter. Before c o n c l u d i n g this chapter, h o w e v e r , w e discuss t h e documents the planning system uses to control design.

W^eZtstfe^K)^^''^'

'""P"'''"*

'^^"^'"9^ themselves.

172

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

173

Government advice
T h e main government advice on design is the Annex A to Planning Policy Guidance 1 (DoE,1992). This one-page document, which was a product of collaboration between RIBA and R T P I and endorsed by the government, sets out the guidelines for planners on h o w to deal with design. It invites planners to show more flexibility and involvement at larger, rather than more detailed, scale issues of developments. It invites the planning permission applicants to aim for good design, a consideration for the context, and for better communication with the planning system. The importance of "the a p p e a r a n c e of the proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings" is stressed at the beginning of the document. The buildings as well as the "spaces b e t w e e n and around buildings" should be carefully jj, set in relation to the context around them (Figure 6.9). To ensure good quality design, planners are encouraged to recognize and seek expert advice and to avoid imposing their tastes on the applicants for planning permission. T h e balance that the document seeks to achieve is b e t w e e n development and its control, drawing the boundaries of intervention in design matters. W h e n they outline their requirements^'? planners should concentrate on " b r o a d matters of scale, density, height, massing, layout, landscape and access", avoiding "excessive prescription and detail". This g o v e r n m e n t advice is o n e indication of the structural pressures on the planning system to become m o r e flexible by reducing the potential obstacles to the development market. It parallels an emphasis on the speed of operation. O n the first page of the Planning Policy Guidance: General Policy and Principles (DoE,1992), this becomes evident: "Unnecessary delays in the planning system can result in extra costs, wasted capital, delayed production, reduced employment opportunities, and lost income and productivity." At the same time, it tries to strike a balance between the ease of space production with the quality of the space so produced. T h e DoE advice on design considerations h a s been widely preparation of the planning d o c u m e n t s by the local authorities. used in the

detailed c o v e r a g e or p r e s c r i p t i o n " , and failed " t o relate design policy to context". Only slightly m o r e than o n e in ten plans had a " v e r y well-developed design policy throughout", a s e x e m p l i f i e d b y plans for Leicester, Bristol, Westminster, Guildford, Sheffield, R i c h m o n d and H a r i n g e y (Punter et al.,1994). Sheffield's U n i t a r y D e v e l o p m e n t Plan starts with its strategic vision of the city. In ten years' time, it is intended that the city will b e "a place that offers everybody a good quality of life; a p l a c e w h e r e people can find suitable w o r k ; a better place to

Development Plans
Development plans are the d o c u m e n t s prepared by the local authorities "to provide a firm basis for rational and consistent decisions on planning applications and appeals". These documents are " t h e primary m e a n s of reconciling conflicts between the need for development, including the provision of infrastructure, and the need to protect the built and natural environments" (DoE,1992, para. 17). In nonmetropolitan areas, development plans can be structure plans or local plans, setting out strategic policies or detailed development policies. In metropolitan areas, a unitary development plan combines these roles. Research into the design content of development plans found that m a n y plans in its 73 samples, "displayed a very low emphasis on design" (Punter et al.,1994: 217). It noted an overall lack of general design strategies or strategic design considerations. Design issues appear to be treated as marginal, dispensable considerations, concentrating heavily on individual buildings rather than being integrated into the plan's overall strategy. Most plans, it concluded, avoided "either

Figure 6.10. Areas. {Durham,

More detailed attention is paid to spatial and visual qualities of Consen/ation UK)

174

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

175

live, work, b r i n g u p children, s p e n d your spare time whoever you are; a profitable place to invest in; and a good place to visit for business or pleasure" (Sheffield City Council,1991; 10). Within this framework, design is treated as an integral part of the approach to the built environment. " H o w buildings are designed, the w a y s they are g r o u p e d together, the spaces between them, and trees, seats and paving these all help to form the character of Sheffield. . . Our responsibility is to cherish this character for the benefit of present and future Sheffielders" (Sheffield City Council,1991: 136). The section on the built environment is divided into t w o subsections. In the first subsection, "townscape and d e s i g n " , t h e aim is for a high-quality townscape through policies on environmental improvement in city centre and other areas, building design requirements, art and design, access to buildings, design for vehicles, design of streets, pedestrian routes, c y c l e w a y s and public spaces, and advertisements. The second subsection, "buildings and areas of architectural and historical interest", concentrates on Conservation A r e a s and Areas of Special Character and the d e v e l o p m e n t s and alterations within them. In these areas, building materials, h i g h w a y s , listed buildings, and archeological m o n u m e n t s and sites are subjects of m o r e detailed policies (Figure 6.10). -

A more recent, well-known e x a m p l e of urban design guidelines in Britain is Birmingham's u r b a n design s t u d y (Tibbalds, Colbourne, Karski, & W i l l i a m s , ! 9 9 0 ) . It was the first in a series of studies on the city, with the aim of presenting " a robust, coherent, apolitical vision of h o w the physical environment of B i r m i n g h a m ' s Central Area can be gradually improved over the next 30 years or s o " (Tibbalds et al.,1990: 1). T o do this it introduces a set of guidelines, against which n e w developments can b e assessed. Its first main concern is to help people find their way around; that is, a concern for legibility of the urban structure, and for increased accessibility within it. T h e means to a c h i e v e this include identifying transport nodes as gateways to the city centre; m a k i n g the m o v e m e n t around the city easier; marking places and spaces by landmarks; and promoting livelihood in the city at night as well as day. T o enhance a legible i m a g e of the city, the second main task is to develop and protect views to the landmarks, which will e n h a n c e the legibility of the city through a clearer image. Yet another task is to rediscover the topography of the city, which w a s ignored by the post-war d e v e l o p m e n t s , to enhance the image of the city. Further remedial work to the post-war redevelopments is the recreation of the streets a n d blocks, those which structured the traditional cities but have been swept away. W h a t is hoped to be the o u t c o m e is a tight-knit urban fabric with carefully created and managed public spaces a n d landscapes. Other visual improvements to be undertaken include sweeping a w a y the clutter, softening the city and enhancing open space. In line with the i m p r o v e m e n t of the city core, other areas of character are also identified as in need of e n h a n c e m e n t .

Design Guides
Design guides are documents prepared by the local planning authorities as additional information and g u i d a n c e regarding design matters. As distinct from d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s , which h a v e statutory status, design g u i d e status is s u p p l e m e n t a r y planning guidance. Design guides and design briefs are both classified b y the PPG12 as s u p p l e m e n t a r y planning g u i d a n c e . There is, however, a major difference in that design guides are not site-specific, whereas design briefs are. W h e r e design guides h a v e been p r e p a r e d , they are often of a general nature and will cover almost every eventuality. T h e y deal with large areas or with specific topics, such as shopfronts, security grilles, and advertisements. As distinct from these design guides, and ideally within their framework, design briefs deal with specific sites and more specific issues. W h e r e such overall design guides d o not exist, design guidance may be limited to the general design principles within the local plan. In such cases, design briefs are produced in an ad hoc manner. However, the brief does not necessarily b a c k u p the local plan, as the planning conditions rarely refer to design matters. Esse.x C o u n t y Council's design guide (County Council of Essex, 1973) was a major d o c u m e n t which influenced a generafion of design guides across Britain. It wa:. prepared for residential areas in response to the intensive suburbanization processes of t h e time. T h e g u i d e ' s design policies were clearly divided into physical and visual policies. Under physical design policies, the envelope and curtilage of the house, its services and s t a n d a r d s and maintenance were discussed. In its visual design policies, attention was shifted to the principles of spatial organization and the design of the buildings within an urban framework. T h e principles of spatial organization distinguished three types of development: urban, rural and suburban. T h e former t w o were to be strengthened and the latter discouraged.

Design Briefs
There is a variety and an apparent lack of clarity in the use of the term "design brief". Different planning authorities use different terms, including planning brief, development brief, principles of development, planning guidance, planning framework, etc., along with design brief. One of the common characteristics of the different definitions of briefs is that they are detailed development guidance for specific sites, distinguishing them from design guides which focus on areas (Madanipour, Tally & U n d e r w o o d , ! 993). The Royal T o w n Planning Institute (RTPI,1990) acknowledges this variety, stating that, "briefs are non-statutory documents and there are no regulations specifying their role a n d f o r m a t " . H o w e v e r , it attempts to offer s o m e clarifying frameworks in terminology as well as in the preparation and use of the briefs. T h e RTPI suggests the term " d e v e l o p m e n t b r i e f " as a general term to cover these various areas of concern. It includes the d o c u m e n t s called "planning briefs", which deal with planning, land use and transportation matters; "developers' briefs", which address financial a n d land m a n a g e m e n t aspects; and "design briefs", which cover townscape and other design aspects, and aesthetics. However, in practice, as it notes, and depending on the circumstances, s o m e or all of these matters are combined in such documents. A design brief has been defined as incorporating "the full range of requirements specified by the local planning authority for the development and design treatment of particular sites, with explicit emphasis on the appearance of the development"

176

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

177

(Owen,1979: 1). T h e RTPI's definition of the development brief is "a summary statement of the author's policy position on development matters relating to the site and/or p r e m i s e s " , and any other relevant material (RTPI,1990). This is largely in line with an earlier DoE (1976: 25) definition suggested in the context of housing development: " A brief for a site is a detailed statement of what development the local authority would like on that particular site a l o n e " . A brief is often prepared for sites which are economically, socially or architecturally sensitive; for local authority sites that are being released; and for m a n y residential developments. Apart from design briefs prepared by the planning authority, briefs are also prepared b y the architects as the beginning stage of a project, covering the requirements of the client for a site or even putting forward ideas for the client. A design brief in this context is therefore "information, both general and specific, assembled for the p u r p o s e " , which clarifies the circumstances and requirements (Powell,1980: 374). It is "the factual foundation of the project" (Cox & Hamilton, 1991: 221). Conventionally, the architects have the task of producing a design which, in their judgement, satisfies the client's brief completely ( T h o m p s o n , ! 990: 95). In this sense, the meanings of the design brief for architects and for planners overlap, with the difference that these two professions have different positions regarding the preparation and implementation of briefs. W h e r e a s the planners prepare the brief as a framework for development, architects and developers work within this framework and a framework of their own. T h e r e are t w o major c o m p o n e n t parts in a brief: 1. a descriptive part which contains information on the characteristics and the context of the site, and 2. a prescriptive (to varying degrees) part in w h i c h the intentions of the planning authority for the site are spelled out. The contents of a brief are largely determined by the nature of the site and the range of issues that the authority wishes to address in the brief. Both of these vary widely. Briefs can be very broad and short or very specialist and detailed. S o m e briefs cover almost everything from planning background to design content, which can include density, size of development, amount of open space, highway access, relationship to neighbouring properties, landscaping, and designing out crime. T h e building design content could stipulate the form, massing, scale, context a n d materials, but rarely the actual style of the development. T h e brief could- also contain some element of community gain in the form of play areas, creche facilities, community rooms and access for the disabled. S o m e briefs tend to categorize their requirements into essential and preferred. The preferred category could contain the desirable elements which are not essential for the site. Design briefs are documents through which the intentions of the planning authority for the development of a site are being expressed. The level of certainty with which the planners can express these intentions varies widely according to circumstances. In most cases, however, documenting these intentions provides a framework for negotiation with the potential developers. The outcome of such a

negotiating process again d e p e n d s on circumstances. Success or failure of the briefs, if judged b y their resistance to c h a n g e and therefore asserting the original intentions, might not be always the m a i n task in their evaluation. If, however, they are evaluated according to their being an instrument of negotiation, then they have a potentially promising capacity. In this s e n s e , the design briefs are a part of a planning process in which attempts are m a d e to m a n a g e the change and development in the built environment. T h e y can be c o m p a r e d to the development plans, which are seen b y the government as negotiating frameworks, although at different levels of iiwolvement and statutory power. T h e d e s i g n briefs, design guides and development plans can b e seen as c o m p l e m e n t a r y devices in the planning process.

Other experiences of design control

In the U n i t e d States, the d e s i g n control process, o r design review, deals with u r b a n design, architecture, a n d the v i s u a l impact of proposed developments. It is "the process b y w h i c h private a n d public d e v e l o p m e n t proposals receive independent criticism u n d e r the s p o n s o r s h i p of the local government unit, whether through informal or f o r m a l i z e d p r o c e s s e s " (Lightner,1992: 2). A survey of 370 planning agencies s h o w e d that 787o of the t o w n s and cities had some form of design review process. T h i s h a s b e e n a n i n c r e a s i n g l y p o p u l a r process for the planning authorities, as 6 0 % of the r e s p o n d e n t s h a d a d o p t e d it since the beginning of the 1980s. It also found that a l m o s t t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of the A m e r i c a n cities and t o w n s use the design review p r o c e s s for b o t h h i s t o r i c a n d other parts of their urban areas. Design review procedures are largely ( 8 2 % ) m a n d a t o r y a n d legislated. S o m e 4 0 % rely on design guidelines, w h i c h are a s s e m b l e d b y planners from different sources and are legally binding, a l t h o u g h m o r e t h a n one-quarter h a d no d o c u m e n t e d guidelines. T h e design is r e v i e w e d b y a s p e c i a l design r e v i e w board (36%) or b y the planners themselves. P u b l i c participation is relatively rare (only 17%) and the elected officials participate in 2 8 % o f t h e r e v i e w s , although without a heavy influence w h e n c o m p a r e d to the p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n of design review boards, planners, or zoning commissioners ( L i g h t n e r , 1 9 9 2 ) . Despite signs of con\'erging trends, the main difference between the British and the American planning and design control is that the former is discretionary, whereas the latter is b a s e d on written regulations. The main method of regulation, with most influence on the shape of the cities, is the zoning system of land-use control. A classic example is the Chicago Z o n i n g Ordinance, .which lists 22 types of use-district and 71 categories of floor-area ratio. T h e bulk of this ordinance deals with prescribing dimensions, b e y o n d w h i c h there is n o other reference to design and aesthetic objectives. A n alternative w a y of controlling design is to follow a "stylistic imperative", where the developments are asked by the planning authority to harmonize with the surrounding architectural styles. A call for stylistic harmony can also be seen w h e n l a n d o w n e r s act as the planning authority: subdividing their land and asking the individual developers to follow s o m e design rules. The status of design review b o a r d s m a y v a r y in legal a n d administrative terms: s o m e m a y be appointed b y a mayor, s o m e m a y b e p r o v i d e d for in local ordinances or in State legislation. The courts have the capacity to interfere in the design review process (Delafons,1992).

178

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

179

T h e potential importance of the courts in design control, especially in the context of the controversies and debates around whether aesthetic control runs against the freedom of speech, can be exemplified by the rulings of S u p r e m e Court Justice W i l l i a m Brennan (I,ai,1992). In two rulings, h e a s k e d for a comprehensive effort by the municipality to address the problems of environmental aesthetics, rather than e m p h a s i z i n g single buildings o r issues. In the first case, Metromedia Inc. v. Cify of San Diego in 1 9 8 1 , he wrote.
Of course, it is not for a court to impose its own notion of l>eauty on San Diego. But before deferring to a city's judgement, a court must be convinced that the city is seriously and comprehensively addressing aesthetic concerns with respect to its environment. Here, San Diego has failed to demonstrate a compreljensive coordinated effort in its commercial and industrial areas to address other obvious contributors to an unattractive environment. In this sense the ordinance is underinclusive. Of course, this is not to say that the city must address all aesthetic problems at the same time, or none at all. Indeed, from a planning point of view, attacking tlie problem incrementally and sequentially may represent the most sensible solution. On the other hand, if billboards are batmed and no further steps are contemplated or likely, the commitment of the city to improving its physical environment is placed in doubt. By showing a comprehensive commitment to making its physical environment in commercial and industrial areas more attractive, and by allowing only narrowly tailored exceptions, if any, San Diego could demonstrate that its interest in creating an aesthetically pleasing environment is genuine and substantial. Tins is a requirement where, as here, there is an infringement of important constitutional consequence.

'] !

with design, Delafons (1992: 58) finds design guidance very promising, especially when it is focusing on b r o a d e r issues of "building's context, not only on its design concept". In A m e r i c a n cities, he argues, it is design guidance rather than regulatory controls w h i c h is leading to the most successful examples of design policy. Design guidance has three stages. First, it relies on a detailed analysis of the existing urban space, identifying the local, character of districts and neighbourhoods. It includes an assessment of the area's location in the city, the form and mixture of uses and types of businesses that generate that character, and its spatial and architectural characteristics. Second, on the basis of this analysis, and with the help of the local community, design policies are developed for each area. T h e third stage is the implementation of the design guidelines through negotiation with developers and their architects. A successful example of this type of aesthetic control is Portland, Oregon. T h e design guidelines of the city, " f o c u s on relationship of buildings, space and people. They are u s e d to coordinate a n d enhance the diversity of activities taking place in the d o w n t o w n area. M a n y w a y s of meeting a particular guideline exist, and since it is not our intent to prescribe a n y specific solution, the Commission encourages a diversity o f imaginative solutions to issues raised by the guidelines" (quoted in Delafons,1992: 55). As a result, the city's comprehensive attempts to maintain a well-designed and w e l l - m a n a g e d city centre h a v e attracted the support of the developers a n d businesses. F o r Delafons, this is "surely the best approach to aesthetic c o n t r o l " . In D e n m a r k , there is no p r o c e d u r e equivalent to the US design review process, as it appears that a consensus h a s existed for designers to respect the local traditions and the z o n i n g requirements. This consensus was rooted in the first half of the twentieth century and survived the post-war urbanization and industrialization of the country a n d the building b o o m s of the 1960s and 1970s. H o w e v e r , it is n o w in danger of falling apart due to the current cultural pluralism (Mammen,1992). Several attempts have b e e n made to ensure the design quahty of new developments. For example, the Danish National Agency for Physical Planning has developed a method of S u r v e y i n g Architectural Values in the Environment (SAVE), with a h e a v y emphasis on historic city centres, aiming to provide a complete picture of the characteristic architectural qualities of a locality. This w o u l d then help the local politicians and p l a n n e r s as well as the local residents in their decisionmaking in relation to the protection of these qualities. A Municipal Atlas is produced w h i c h maps the u r b a n relationships and registers individual buildings. In this voluntary co-operation between the Ministry of Environment and local authorities, data are collected b y professional architects and planners, and local architectural and historical values are assessed in close collaboration with local organizations and individuals. Another attempt b y the Danish Building Research Institute intends to brings urban architecture into the local government's planning and daily administration. It approaches the mapping of physical structures and registration of buildings in a similar way to the S A V E system, but its analysis is based on visual-historic registration of the town and its buildings. Analysis of the existing fabric leads to the generation of design guidelines, demanding the physical shape, skyline, streetline, building proportions, prevaihng building materials and details to be respected in future developments (Mammen,1992).

-'~

(quoted in Lai,1992:219)

T h r e e years later, in City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, in a dissent from the majority, h e w r o t e against the city ordinance, w h i c h was prohibiting the posting of political signs on pubhc property to avoid "visual clutter":
In cases like this, where a total ban is imposed on a particularly valuable method of communication, a court should require the government to provide tangible proof of the legitimacy and substantiality of its aestlietic objective. Justifications for such restrictions articulated by the government should be critically examined to determine whether the government has committed itself to addressing the identified aesthetic problem. In my vieiv, such statements of aesthetic objectives should he accepted as substantial and unrehUed to the suppression of speech only if the govenunent demonstrates -that it is pursuing an identified objective seriously and comprehensively and in ways that are unrelated to the restriction of speech. Without such demonstration, I ivould invalidate the restriction as violative of the First Amendment. By requiring this type of shozuing, courts can ensure that governmental regulation of the aesthetic environments remains within the constraints established by the First Amendment. First, we would have a reasonably reliable indication that it is Jiot the content or communicative aspect of speech that the government finds unaesthetic. Second, when a restriction of speech is part of a comprehensive and seriously pursued program to promote an aesthetic objective, zve have a more reliable indication of the government's own assessment of the substantiality of its objective. And finally, when an aesthetic objective is pursued on more than one front, we have a better basis upon which to ascertain its precise nature and thereby determine whether the means selected are the least restrictive ones for achieving the objective.

(quoted in Lai,1992:220)

It is in response to such calls that design guidelines and urban design plans are p r o d u c e d b y s o m e cities and towns as comprehensive strategies for enhancing the aesthetic qualities of an environment. Searching for a democratic process of dealing

180

Design of Urban Space

Regulating Urban Form

181

In France, the demand for protecting the character of areas under hea\'y development pressure has led to n e w forms of design control, as exemplified by the plan for Ansieres sur Oise (Samuels,1995). Ansieres, a settlement of 2400 people at the northern edge of the lie de France, 35 k m a w a y from Paris, has b e e n identified b y developers as a desirable location for new residential development. The new houses, however, tend to be in the form of paviUions, detached single family houses, the suburban m o r p h o l o g y of which contrasts with the existing character of the

town: traditional streets lined w i t h c o n t i n u o u s buildings. T o prevent the suburbanization of the town, the n e w m a y o r h a s b e e n influential in devising a n e w system of design control, w h i c h h a s b e e n e n d o r s e d b y the French minister of the environment and has been used in three other c o m m u n e s in the He de France. T h e French land-use plan, the Plan d'Occupation des Sols, or POS, is a legally binding document and if a proposal m e e t s its r e q u i r e m e n t s , it must b e a p p r o v e d . M a n y of the plans, h o w e v e r , are not sufficiently sensitive to the character of the localities they deal with. The new P O S for Ansieres d r a w s u p o n the Italian morphological approach and the British design guides to a n a l y s e the local c h a r a c t e r and to specify the preferred forms which w o u l d maintain this character. Through direct observation, discussions w i t h local experts, a n d desk r e s e a r c h , the n e w P O S analyses the morphology of the settlement at six different l e v e l s of resolution: districts, streets and blocks, plots, building form, a n d e l e m e n t s of construction. A t each level, a range of acceptable varieties are then put f o r w a r d . A t the district level (altogether eight districts in the settlement), a r a n g e of a c c e p t a b l e land uses and plot types are identified. Within each plot type (with its m i n i m u m dimensions, plot proportions, buildable area and plot c o v e r a g e ) , there a r e , typically, three to five acceptable building types. T h e two e l e m e n t s of construction, roofs and walls, include details of acceptable types of chimneys, d o r m e r s , o p e n i n g s , d o o r s and w i n d o w s . T h e range of choice at the l o w e r level of resolution, i.e. the d e t a i l e d elements of construction such as doors and w i n d o w s , is far m o r e restricted t h a n t h e higher levels, w h e r e there are more choices for plot size a n d b u i l d i n g a r r a n g e m e n t . This is in contrast to the housing developers' formula to achieve d i v e r s i t y in their d e v e l o p m e n t s , w h e r e details m a y vary within a limited range of b u i l d i n g form and plot type (Figure 6.11). There are also c o m m o n a l i t i e s to be o b s e r v e d w i t h i n districts and between them. In each district, for example, t h e r e is a c o m m o n r a n g e of possibilities for length of facades, type and degree of roof pitch, length o f gable wall, a r a n g e of permitted storeys and of proportion b e t w e e n b u i l d i n g height and building depth. T h e c o m m o n range of details for all districts c o v e r s gutters, chimneys, dormers, facade opening arrangements, types of d o o r and w i n d o w frame and shutter, wall and roof materials, and even hedging s h r u b s ( S a m u e l s , 1 9 9 5 ) .

Conclusion
The advent of major c h a n g e s in the w e s t e r n economies has redefined the relationship b e t w e e n the state, the m a r k e t , a n d society. The planning system, w h i c h was the o u t c o m e of a coalition b e t w e e n the state a n d the market, has had to adjust itself to these n e w relationships. It has b e c o m e m o r e flexible as a result of structural pressures f r o m above, r e g a r d i n g its role in s p a c e production, and from b e l o w , regarding its role in e v e r y d a y life. To s h o w m o r e flexibility, the p l a n n i n g s y s t e m h a s moved t o w a r d s a documentbased structure. A range of d o c u m e n t s , f r o m central g o v e r n m e n t advice to development plans, design g u i d e s and design b r i e f s address the design concerns. These concerns, which are p r e d o m i n a n t l y a e s t h e t i c concerns, h a v e been the subject

Figure 6.11.

The rhythm of detailed elements can contribute to the coherence of townscape.

{Florence, Italy)

182

Design of Urban Space

of intense d e b a t e s about the scope of design control and the role of planners in this process. O n e m a j o r criticism has b e e n m a d e by those w h o see design as a subjective issue, and w h o see the d o c u m e n t s as a stifling innovation, restricting individual rights, and controlled by planners unfit to m a k e aesthetic judgements. Planners h a v e c o u n t e r - a r g u e d that aesthetic concerns are objective, as w e try to convince others about these values. T o find an objective basis for their aesthetic judgements, p l a n n e r s h a v e resorted to the u r b a n context and h a v e argued for the need for accountability to the public. T h e main question, h o w e v e r , remains open; how much design control a n d on what bases? T h e relationship of planning a n d design has b e e n changing from a large degree of overlap to a large gap in the middle. What is n e e d e d now, after these shifts of focus, is a t o w n planning which adopts a socio-spatial approach, emphasizing both social and spatial relationships in close connection with each other. This town p l a n n i n g will b e an essential part of the political e c o n o m y , but will have to address the concerns of the lifeworld in the face of overwhelming pressure by bureaucratic and financial s y s t e m s . At its strongest, the contribution of urban design to this evolution is to bring back to the urban planning agenda the attention to the built e n v i r o n m e n t , creating a balance b e t w e e n its social and spatial concerns. Similarly it can bring to architecture m o r e interest in social processes and relationships, leading t o a m o r e b a l a n c e d , socio-spatial approach. A t its weakest, however, it is seen as m e r e l y a t t e n d i n g to the visual qualities of the built environment, being blamed for aestheticizing the space production and becoming a substitute for social concerns.

CHAPTER 7

Images o f P e r f e c t i o n
In its search for new forms and possibilities, design is an exploratory activity. Through the generation of a variety of ideas a n d testing them against the concrete situation in which they operate, designers aim to perform their task. In most cases, the scope o f the search is w i d e ranging, allowing designers to find a solution from whatever source: from historic precedents, f r o m theoretical constructs, or from everyday scenes and events.. This is w h y designers show interest and sensibility to a wide range of social and e c o n o m i c as well as aesthetic and artistic issues. Without constant exploration for new w a y s of understanding and expression, designers' potentials w o u l d be left unfulfilled. However, open-ended and pragmatic as this may seem, designers in their explorations are often influenced b y s o m e conventions, paradigms, fashions and styles that are prevalent at the time. Directly o r indirectly, these paradigms enter the process of design and influence it. In a w a y , many design tasks b e c o m e variations on themes, explorations within paradigmatic boundaries, or conscious and unconscious attempts to change these p a r a d i g m s . The paradigms therefore act as structures with which designers interact, enhancing or transforming them, in a Giddensian interaction between structure and agency. Design p a r a d i g m s , and the w o r k of designers in relation to them, can all be seen as the sot of ideas and images that designers develop and promote for a better environment. If urban design is a conscious attempt to transform and improve urban space, then urban designers are expected to have an idea of what that good environment m a y look like. This m a y run counter to the idea of design as exploration. But as we h a v e stressed, this exploration takes place not in a void but in response to s o m e paradigm, s o m e image of an ideal environment. Images of ideal environments m a y be p r o d u c e d in a fragmented, pragmatic way, in response to the situation in which the design takes place. These fragments, however, can find a coherence w h e n interconnected and theorized in the form of Utopian d r e a m s of good cities and societies. T h e paradigms that the Utopian projects of the garden cities and the modern m o v e m e n t in architecture produced formed formidable forces that largely transformed the built environment of our time. This chapter reviews the desirable and ideal environments that the good design aims to achieve, the Utopian paradigms in which designers have operated. Throughout the history of cities, these i m a g e s of perfection have been very

184

Design of Urban Space

images of Perfection

185 i

important, as paramount in tfieir influence upon the form of the built environment produced. These images relate to the political context, in which the state regulates the shaping of environment, and the economic context, in which the development process produces space. The twentieth century has witnessed three m a i n paradigmatic approaches towards cities. T h e first is u r b a n i s m of a metropolitan paradigm, focusing on the city by either trying to change it, as in modernist design, or to preserve or celebrate it, as in the conservation m o v e m e n t and post-modern designs. T h e second is antiurbanism, as signified by the criticism and a b a n d o n m e n t of cities. T h e suburbs, arguably the main feature of the twentieth-century Anglo-American "urban" development, exemplify this trend. T h e third trend, micro-urbanism of the small towns paradigm, has been a conscious criticism of the other two trends by offering an alternative that is more m a n a g e a b l e than metropolitanism, and m o r e collective than anti-urbanism. What all these trends share is their response to the challenge of the cities, these ever larger agglomerations of p e o p l e and objects. A n o t h e r shared dimension closely related to the first, is their Utopian roots, all reflecting images of perfection in human settlements. -"M

Utopia
The idea of ideal e n v i r o n m e n t s , Utopias, has b e e n a r o u n d for p e r h a p s as long as h u m a n beings have thought of possible a l t e r n a t i v e s to their existing c i r c u m s t a n c e s . As a response to the reality of their lives, w i t h all their possible deficiencies, h u m a n beings have thought, throughout history, a b o u t an ideal world, w h e r e their i m a g e s of perfection w o u l d prevail. T h e s e i m a g e s c o u l d r e m a i n as dream.s, offering an escape from the difficulties of the real w o r l d . T h e ideal e n v i r o n m e n t s so conceived could remain a fragmented collection of i m a g i n e d r e s p o n s e s b y i n d i v i d u a l s to the real world. T h e y could also b e d e v i s e d as s y s t e m s o f t h o u g h t , d r a w i n g an overall picture of a c o m p l e t e socio-spatial system w h i c h could b e actively p u r s u e d , in search of an ideal society a n d a g o o d life ( F i g u r e 7.1). Especially after the R e n a i s s a n c e , w e see a s t r e a m of Utopian thinkers, following the h u m a n i s t s ' belief that h u m a n b e i n g s h a v e t h e c a p a c i t y to take control of their lives a n d s h a p e them in a n y c h o s e n form. A n e a r l y , b u t i m p o r t a n t , e x a m p l e is T h o m a s M o r e ' s Utopia (1964), w h i c h w a s first p u b l i s h e d in Latin in 1516 and w i d e l y influenced later generations of Utopian t h i n k e r s . T h e ideal cities of the Renaissance period reflected a Utopian desire for order a n d r a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of space. W i t h their star-shaped, polygonal, m a s s i v e fortifications, their designs reflected the n e w defensive r e q u i r e m e n t s of a t i m e of p r o g r e s s i v e i m p o r t a n c e of firearms (Argan,1969; R o s e n a u , 1 9 7 4 ) . In the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , p o s t - E n l i g h t e n m e n t thinkers such as G o d w i n , Fourier, O w e n a n d S a i n t - S i m o n d e v i s e d their Utopias, which w e r e their responses to the rising social diseases of early capitalism. Their c o m m o n starting point w a s the idea of " p e r f e c t i b i l i s m " , b e l i e v i n g in the possibility of creating a perfect society, a n d seeing society as " a h u m a n artefact open to rational i m p r o v e m e n t " ( G o o d w i n , 1 9 7 8 ; 1 ) . T h e i r c o m m o n e n d w a s to create social h a r m o n y , free from conflict, c r i m e and m i s e r y . U t o p i a as t h e " e x p r e s s i o n of desire for a better way of b e i n g " w a s so essential in political life that for O s c a r W i l d e ,
A map of tiie world thai does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at ivhich Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks at out, and seehig a belter country, sets sail

(quoted in Levitas, 1990: 5) In the twentieth century, a n u m b e r of s t r e a m s of Utopian thinkers a n d m o v e m e n t s emerged, each e m b o d y i n g the ideal e n v i r o n m e n t s f r o m a particular social and ideological stance. Bolshevism a n d the w e l f a r e state, for e x a m p l e , were different versions of an essentially labour utopia (Beilharz,1992). The Soviet theorists, however, w e r e reticent to give a n y portrayal of their Utopian c o m m u n i s t society. But as the most important principle in the c o m m u n i s t society w a s to b e collectivism, the physical environment of communism had to foster and encourage "ties, interdependence, and constant and close interrelation of the m e m b e r s of the s o c i e t y " (Gilison,1975: 152). The c o m m u n e s each h a d s e v e r a l thousand m e m b e r s and selfsufficient services, and the " l a r g e c o m p l e x e s o f i n t e r c o n n e c t e d apartment houses, with large indoor and outdoor areas designated for public f u n c t i o n s " , all promoting
F i g u r e 7 . 1 . Utopias were the foundation of modern urban planning and design, [A new town outside 5tocl<holm, Sweden)

"togetherness" (Gilison, 1975: 1 5 2 ) . T h e social m o v e m e n t s a n d polidcal change in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet U n i o n showed h o w this utopia failed.

185

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

187

to be replaced b y a capitalist Utopia, one that is based not on market but on " c o n s u m p t i o n " . A c c o r d i n g to G e o r g e Steiner (quoted in Beilharz,1992: 126), observing the events in Eastern E u r o p e , "American standards of dress, nourishment, locomotion, e n t e r t a i n m e n t , housing are today the concrete Utopia in revolutions". Despite s u c h p a r a m o u n t failure of Utopias and exhaustion of Utopian ideas, some c o m m e n t a t o r s c o n t i n u e to b e l i e v e that Utopia is " n o t escapist nonsense but n significant part o f h u m a n c u l t u r e " (Levitas,1990: 2 ) , and a fruitful device through which w e can d i s c u s s the question of good society (Beilharz,1992). T h e greatest service of Utopian thinkers has b e e n " t h e articulation of social alternatives", offered to the " p r i s o n e r s o f the prevailing i d e o l o g y " , w h o " l a c k the imagination to escape even in spirit" ( G o o d w i n , ! 9 7 8 ; 2 0 4 ) . W h a t is n e e d e d , however, is not "an exact picture of a d e s i r a b l e f u t u r e " , as this can be " a suspect activity". History has shown that " T h e r e a d y - m a d e ' U t o p i a ' is b y its very n a t u r e authoritarian". Instead, "an unfinished ' U t o p i a ' " is required; " o n e that offers a direction rather than defining the g o a l " . Its s t r e n g t h Ues in helping u s "to discover the possibilities already existent in our daily life" ( T h e Research G r o u p for the N e w E v e r y d a y Life,1991: 3 5 ) . W e can identif)' three strands of Utopias in the twentieth century that directly articulated alternative environments. They have all been responses to the growth of \ the cities and urban regions and have been widely influential movements contributing to the planned transformation of the human settlements. These Utopias were confronted by a series of critical reactions: the modernist urban Utopia challenged by post-modernist sensibilities; the small town ideal abandoned and then revived as n e w u r b a n i s m ; and suburban sprawl continuing to be rejected or accepted as part of urban regions. These are different reactions to the urban context and often fall,within our t h r e e Strands of urbanism, anti-urbanism and micro-urbaiusm.

revolution" (Thomas & Cresswell,1973: 6). This fear of cities coincided w i t h admiration for cities, as seen in the writings of the Victorians who regarded their time as the " a g e of great cities". In 1858, the
Chambers' Edinburgh Journal wrote,

Manchester streets may be irregular, and its trading inscriptions pretentious, its smolce may be dense, and its mud tdtra-muddy, but not any or all of tlicse things can prevent the image of a great city rising before us as the very symbol of civUization, foremost in the march of improvement, a grand incarnation of progress

(quoted in Briggs,1968: 88) In Newcastle, a politician and n e w s p a p e r proprietor, J a m e s Cowen, wrote in 1877,
The gathering of men into crowds has some drawbacks, yet the concentration of citizens, like the concentration of soldiers, is a source of strength . . . we can hear the songs of children who are fed and clad, and the acclaim of a world free . . . Wlien people declaim in dolefid numbers against the noise and dirt of the busy centres of population, they should remember the liberty we enjoy as a consequence of the mental activity and enterprise which has been generated by the contact of mind with mind brought together in great tozvns.

_ (quoted in Briggs,1968: 67; Figure 7.2)

Urban c o n t e x t
T h e context in w h i c h all three f o r m s of Utopias developed was the nineteenth century city, w h e n the process of industrialization led to a rapid growth of cities in Western E u r o p e a n d North A m e r i c a . London's population grew from one million in 1 8 0 ! to m o r e t h a n six and a half million in 1 9 0 ! ( H a l l , ! 9 7 5 ) . In England (outside L o n d o n ) and W a l e s , b y the end of the century, there were 23 cities with populations of 1 0 0 0 0 0 or m o r e , as c o m p a r e d to none a century earlier (Briggs,1968). This rapid g r o w t h c a u s e d a n a c c u m u l a t i o n of capital and labour in the cities, which became- sites of e x t r e m e s of wealth and poverty, generating simultaneous reactions of admiration a n d fear. After all, this w a s a time w h e n polarization of social classes could urge c o m m e n t a t o r s to see t w o nations inhabiting the s a m e small island (Disraeli, t p o t e d in B r i g g s , 1 9 6 8 : 1 7 ) . T h e w o r k i n g - c l a s s housing stock erected a r o u n d the new industries was often uncontrolled, w i t h poor materials on insecure foundations, without a n y drainage or water s u p p l y ( G i b s o n & Langstaff,1982: 40). T h e overcrowding and the "absence of amenities, the b r u t a l d e g r a d a t i o n of the natural environment and inability to plan and often to c o n c e i v e the city a s a w h o l e " led to "appalling living conditions" (Briggs,1968: 1 7 ) . A l l shades of political opinion s e e m e d to agree that cities were " p l a c e s of o v e r c r o w d i n g , p o v e r t y , crime, disease, insanitary condition and potential

Figure 7.2. The industrial cities of the nineteenth century created fear and admiration. {Liverpool, UK)

188

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

189

This duality of fear and admiration inspired the visions for, and the practice of, the urban transformation that followed. T h e fear of crime, disease and revolution led to a coiistant concern for the control o f crowds and for the quality of urban life. The city was at the same time exciting and the source of newly emerging wealth and power of western nations. T h e m i d d l e classes, whether colonizing the city, as on the continent of Europe, or a b a n d o n i n g it for the suburbs, as in England and America, wanted a reformed city. In France, the most notable undertaking of this kind was by Baron Haussmann and N a p o l e o n III, w h o transformed the dense fabric of Paris. In Britain, the responses to u r b a n conditions included the demolition of back-to-back and courtyard houses and the development of bye-law streets, a "noteworthy innovation", where rows of h o u s e s flanked straight streets (Bayley,1975: 20).

Urbanism of the metropolitan paradigm

This paradigm foaises on the city, finds it valuable but in need of care and attention, and attempts to offer solutions for the whole, or parts of, the city. The._ . growth of cities in the nineteenth century had created centres of n e w economic** vitality and political power on the o n e hand, and centres of congestion, disease and misery on the other. To find a solution for these difficulties, the metropolitan paradigm, mainly represented b y the modernist movement in arts and architecture,'" advocated a radical urban transformation. It is also represented b y post-modern criticisms against such transformations, with their concentration still on the city but , offering different solutions. This m a k e s these opposing approaches to the city distinguishable from the anti-urban stance, which turns its face away from the city, and the micro-urbanism of the small town paradigm, which creates parallel alternatives to it.

Figure 7.3.

The modernist vision was to create vertical cities. {Boston,

USA)

Modernist urban design

- The modernists believed that the technological advances of the age, brought about by the process of industrialization a n d urbanization, were capable of eradicating the urban problems. In his b o o k . The City of Tomorrow (1971, first published in 1924), Le Corbusier sees the cities as " a h u m a n operation against the nature", which is now "ineffectual". " T h e lack of order to b e found everywhere in them offends us; their degradation wounds our self-esteem and humiUates our sense of dignity. They are not worthy of the age; they are n o longer worthy of u s " (Le .Corbusier,1971: 1). He then explains h o w he, w h e n caught in the middle of traffic in Paris, begins to see the advantages and the power of n e w technologies to confront the problem:
Motors ill all directions, going at all speeds. I was overwhelmed, an enthusiastic rapture filled me. Not the rapture of the shining coachwork under the gleaming light, but the rapture of power. The simple and ingenuous pleasure of being in the centre of so much power, so much speed. We are part of it. We are part of that race whose dawn is just awakening. We have confidence in this new societii, ivhich will in the end arrive at a magnificent expression of its power. We believe in it. Its 'power is like a torrent swollen by storms; a destructive fury. The city is crumbling, it cannot last much lom^er; its time is past. It is too old.

This destructive fury b e c a m e the c o r n e r s t o n e of Le C o r b u s i e r ' s idea of town planning a n d , as it w a s w i d e l y accepted b y others, led to large-scale u r b a n transformations around the world, changing the u r b a n l a n d s c a p e s of the twentieth century (Figure 7.3). In the existing cities, h e s u g g e s t e d , " c o r r i d o r streets" s h o u l d be eliminated from the city space, as they p o i s o n the h o u s e s w i t h noise and dust and deprive t h e m of light, a n d that the current n u m b e r of intersections creates traffic congestion. Instead, a hierarchy of roads a n d high-rise b u i l d i n g s should b e built, which ease the m o v e m e n t of traffic, increase the density of the city centres, and allow the dwellings to b e a w a y from the streets a n d looking to large parks and open spaces. Le Corbusier's recipe for u r b a n t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w a s first outlined in his plan for A Contemporary City of Three Million Inhabitants, s h o w n in an exhibition in 1922 in Paris. In it he introduces four basic principles for arriving at the plan of the city: to "de-congest the centre of o u r cities"; to " a u g m e n t their d e n s i t y " ; to "increase the means for getting a b o u t " ; and to " i n c r e a s e parks a n d o p e n s p a c e s " (Le Corbusier,1971). Le Corbvisier (1971: 7) e n c o u r a g e s architects to follow e n g i n e e r s , as the latters' aesthetics is "inspired b y the law of E c o n o m y and g o v e r n e d b y mathematical

(Le Corbusier,! 971: 3-4)

190

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

191

"the first urban function", were to occupy the best sites, with m i n i m u m exposure to the sun and a fixed density, using modern b u i l d i n g technology to build high, widely spaced apartment blocks a w a y from traffic thoroughfares. A s for recreation, it asked for clearance of slums, devoting their sites to open spaces and recreational purposes. Workplaces were to b e located in special zones, industrial zones to b e separated from the residential areas by green b a n d s or neutral z o n e s , and central business districts to be linked to industrial and residential areas. Transport problems were to be solved b y a universal use of motorized transportation, and a new street system was to b e classified according to the function and speed of movement in the streets. Traffic w a s to b e concentrated in the great arteries, separated from the buildings of all kind by green b a n d s . These images of ideal, ordered environments w e r e so powerful that the public authorities, with whatever ideology, and the private sector developers all subscribed to them. A Soviet writer, for e x a m p l e , imagines the c o m m u n i s t city of the future along similar patterns:
Imagine, reader, that we are ivalking with you doxvn one of the streets of the future city. There are wide, well-lit thoroughfares which nowhere cross each other at the same level; hurrying automobiles, resembling rockets, pass by us at great speed. You have noticed that they do not raise any dust, for the streets are absolutely clean; as a system of drawing off dirt by suction, binlt directly into the roadway, solves this problem rather well. Look how freely the great buildings are placed amidst gardens and parks. Only in a section preserved from the old city like a museum rarity does there remain a few blocks of closely bunched houses . .. The city freely and deeply breathes zvith each part of its great lungs, for there is not a single ' corner which does not receive plenty of fresh air and life-giving sunshine. Yoji see around you not only the grandeur of the city and of nature, but, what is most important, the splendid people, with traits of high nobility and good breeding, proud ivorking people of the neiv society, of the new life.

Figure 7.4. Ornament was rejected for simplicity and functionalism. {Bauhaus, Germany) (Photograph by Simin Davoudi)

Dessau,

c a l c u l a t i o n s " , a n d t h e r e f o r e c a p a b l e of achieving " h a r m o n y " (Figure 7.4). This praise for the simplicity of f o r m and functionalism of engineering technology is evident in his C o n t e m p o r a r y C i t y . A s w e a p p r o a c h it in our fast car, w e see "the repetition a g a i n s t the s k y of t w e n t y four sky-scrapers", and " l o w buildings of a horizontal k i n d " , l e a d i n g the e y e to the trees (Le Corbusier,1971: 177). When this m o d e l is a p p l i e d in a c o n c r e t e situation, as in the " V o i s i n " scheme for the centre of Paris, the result is,
. . . instead of a flattened-oul and jumbled city such as the airplane reveals to us for the first time, terrifying in its confusion . . , our city rises vertical to the sky, open to light and air, clear and radiant and sparkling. The soil, of xvhose surface 70 to 80 per cent has till now been encumbered by closely packed houses, is tww built over to the extent of a mere 5 per cent. The remaining 95 per cent is devoted to the main speedways, car parks and open spaces. The avenues of trees are doubled ami quadrupled, and the parks at the foot of the sky-scrapers do, in fact, make the city itself one vast garden. (Le Corbusier,1971: 280-281)
\,

(Lifanov, quoted in Gilison,1975:158-159) The d r e a m was similarly powerful in the West, where the post-war period saw large-scale urban transformation schemes to c a r v e u p the cities in these new images. The Second World War provided a decisive occasion for the M o d e r n M o v e m e n t concepts to spread around the world, especially in the European cities large parts of which had been devastated b y the war. In Britain, urban fabrics were largely seen as a remainder of the polluted and congested industrial cities of the Victorian period (Briggs,1968), as ugly structures to be demolished (Burns,1963; Holliday,1973). Moreover, the inter-war b u i l d i n g boom had created the muchdebated urban sprawl and ribbon development (HaU,1975; Gibson & Langstaff,1982). These issues had caused a concern for the re-planning of towns (RIBA,1943), in order to build a "rationally p l a n n e d , more egalitarian brave n e w post-war w o r l d " (Ambrose,1986: 36). The post-war generation accepted redevelopment as a w a y of re-shaping the cities and towns. Attacking slums had already started in the preceding two decades. This was especially the case w h e r e they faced two apparently major problems: traffic congestion and worn out physical structures. It was argued that, "if we are to have any chance of living at peace with the m o t o r car, we shall need a different sort of city". One influential solution w a s to t r a n s f o r m the city into a cellular structure consisting of environmental areas set within interlacing distributionary highways

A g r o u p of a v a n t - g a r d e architects and town planners, called C I A M (International C o n g r e s s for M o d e r n A r c h i t e c t u r e ) , elaborated these urban visions and presented them as the C h a r t e r of A t h e n s in 1933. For C I A M , town planning was "the organization of the f u n c t i o n s o f collective life", and the city performed four main functions: d w e l l i n g , w o r k , recreation and transportation, the latter connecting the others (Sert,1944; 242). T h e C h a r t e r asked for a radical transformation of these functions a l o n g the lines L e C o r b u s i e r had described in his plans. T h e dwellings.

192

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

193

(Buchanan et al.,'1963: 4 1 - 4 2 ) . T h e trust in technology (Crosby,1967), which was manifest in plug-in cities ( R o w e & Koetter,1978), helped to develop a trend towards comprehensive redevelopment to create modernized "total environments" (Gibson & Langstaff,1982: 4 2 ) . In the older parts of the town centres, any arrangement could be questioned, "the street layout, the general distribution of major uses, even the traditional size or location of the centre" (Ministry of Housing,1962: 2). People who Uved in slums w e r e regarded as those with "no initiative or civic pride . . . satisfied with their miserable environment" whose groupings had to be broken (Burns,1963: 94). Proximity to others w a s seen as their main desire (Tuan,1977: 63). W h a t replaced the old structures w e r e large-scale, high-rise office blocks and h o u s i n g schemes, a n d supermarkets, the latter reflecting the change in retail i n d u s t r y as well as the modernist concepts of space and land use.

The aesthetic as image, representing fasiiionable tastes, became indispensable to tiie economy of serial repetition. Museums became totalized environments selling culture through their shops, restaurants, condominiums, and gigantic extravaganzas. The recycling of old market areas of the city, waterfronts and river fronts, main streets, frontier towns, whatever historic inoutd could be found - these became the background environments or containers for neio shopping malls and food-oriented entertainment zones. These culture markets produced secondary effects as well. The neiv professional classes expected to be entertained ivhile they shopped, so that more and more money was diverted to the decoration of faddish boutiques, luxurious restaurant interiors, refurbished department stores, pliantasmagoric hotel, theatre, shoppir.g contaiiiers untd the city took the appearance of a gigantic spectacle. This aestheticization of everyday life, the spreading out of designed environments, had another effect as well: the further fragmentation and hierarchicalization of urban space into luxury and non-luxiiry areas.

(Boyer,]990: 107) Some, such as Jameson (1991), see these p h e n o m e n a as part of a f u r t h e r integration of aesthetic production into commodity production processes, a n d h e n c e define post-modernism not only as a n e w aesthetics, but as part of a m u c h m o r e significant change in society. Post-modern space, or multinational space a s J a m e s o n calls it, shows h o w late capitalism has destroyed the s e m i - a u t o n o m y of the cultural s p h e r e . Sharon Zukin (1988: 437) quotes a developer; " M y buildings are a p r o d u c t . T h e y are a product like Scotch T a p e is a p r o d u c t . . . T h e packaging of that p r o d u c t is the first thing that people see. I am selling space and renting space a n d it h a s to b e in a package that is attractive enough to be financially successful." It is possible to trace h o w the reactions to modernist d e v e l o p i n e n t s h a v e c h a n g e d in nature. T h e first criticisms w e r e m a d e to protect c o m m u n i t i e s against the destructive fury of modernization and r e d e v e l o p m e n t ( J a c o b s , 1 9 6 1 ; B e r m a n , 1 9 8 2 ) . This critical stance gradually found widespread support, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n the massive redevelopment projects seemed no longer financially feasible. T h e n c a m e a new wave, defining the aim of urban d e v e l o p m e n t as catering for m o r e affluent urbanits and accommodating their tastes and n e e d s . This w a v e e m p l o y e d the postmodern ideas, devoiding them from any critical capacity. H o w e v e r , it is also possible to see how the n e w principles of u r b a n design are s h a r e d b e t w e e n s u c h apparently disparate groups and forms of reaction to m o d e r n i s m . It w a s s u c h similarities and related de\'elopments beyond the domain of d e s i g n that led to the notion of a post-modern approach to design a s a representative of a p o s t - m o d e r n age. A s a concept, post-modernism has been very a m b i g u o u s . O n the o n e h a n d , it is seen as a historical period which follows m o d e r n i s m and s o is called postmodernism. O n the other h a n d , it is seen as a " m o o d " ( D o c h e r t y , 1 9 9 3 ) , " a state of m i n d " (Bauman,1992), "a question of expression of t h o u g h t " ( L y o t a r d , 1 9 9 3 ) , "a refusal, a rupture, a renouncement, much m o r e than a simple c h a n g e of d i r e c t i o n " (Rose,1991; 153). While Baudrillard and Lyotard associate p o s t - m o d e r n i s m w i t h post-industrialism (Featherstone,1988), H a r v e y (1989) sees p o s t - m o d e r n i s m as associated with post-Fordism. Post-Fordism, the flexible a c c u m u l a t i o n of capital which led to flexibility in the patterns of production and pluralism in c o n s u m p t i o n , is seen therefore as a replacement for Fordism, which w a s b a s e d on m a s s production and central planning, in parallel with modernism. A s H a s s a r d (1993: 3) interprets, this change is a fragmentation of the social and e c o n o m i c structures that have been reproduced since the industrial revolution into " d i v e r s e n e t w o r k s held

Post-modern urbanism
T h e modernist images of perfection, w h e n i m p l e m e n t e d , s t a r t e d to create resentment and disenchantment, partly through t h e u n i n t e n d e d consequences of modernity (Giddens,1990). F r o m the late 1960s, the drive to transform cities in the modernist image slowed d o w n and w a s a b a n d o n e d . It w a s a r g u e d that the change of physical environment h a d little i m p a c t on the values a n d the pattern of b e h a v i o u r of their inhabitants ( G a n s , 1 9 6 8 ) . Urban m o t o r w a y s and r e d e v e l o p m e n t schemes w e r e seen as favouring the m i d d l e class c o m m u t e r s at the cost of the low-income r e s i d e n t s of the i n n e r areas (Blowers,1973) who suffered from dislocation a n d social disorganization, a m o n g s t other things (Clarke,1973). T h e high-rise h o u s i n g for l o w - i n c o m e groups w a s a b a n d o n e d due to its costs and social p r o b l e m s (Barnett,1982) a n d a r g u m e n t s w e r e made that high density was also achievable b y low-rise b u i l d i n g s (Martin,1975). T h e critics saw the Utopian images of high-rise housing in the parks as " p l a n n e d by a paternalistic authority, which offered hopes of i m p r o v e d s t a n d a r d s b u t also ran the risk of trapping p e o p l e in d w e l l i n g s not of their o w n choosing" (Coleman,1985; 6). In short, w h a t had once b e e n a "romantic vision of modern technology, freeing individuals f r o m tradition" w a s later c o n s i d e r e d as suitable for " m i n d l e s s bureaucratic repetition, and the cost cutting of profit-motivated e n t r e p r e n e u r s " (Barnett,1982: 8). From the early 1970s, partly as a result of an economic crisis and a shift of attitude, conservation, i m p r o v e m e n t and regeneration of the existing urban fabric replaced redevelopment. T h e e m p h a s i s shifted to the problems of employment, public transport, and housing (Gibson & Langstaff,1982; Holliday,1983). Improvement took the forms of upgrading and gentrification (Clay,1979), the latter seen as attracting the suburban middle class b a c k to the city (Bradway-Laska & Spain,1980) in response to an e n e r g y crisis ( O w e n s , 1 9 8 6 ) . In the 1970s and 1980s, the flow of capital, in the form of land and property development, returned to the city, creating entirely n e w e n v i r o n m e n t s s u p e r i m p o s e d on and juxtaposed to the older, degenerating areas. T o attract n e w professional classes to the city, investment concentrated on the re-imaging of the urban environment with a new aesthetics:

194

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

195

together by information t e c h n o l o g y a n d u n d e r p i n n e d by . . . a 'postmodern sensibility'". Modernism has b e e n related to t h e project of the EnHghtenment (Habermas,!993), which stresses the u s e of reason for the emancipation of human beings from the dark forces of nature. A s a reaction to this optimism, post-modernism s h o w s a decline of confidence in a linear history of p r o g r e s s . Lyotard (1993: 47) follows Gregotti when he characterizes the difference b e t w e e n m o d e r n i s m and post-modernism as "the disappearance of the close b o n d that o n c e linked the project of m o d e r n architecture to an ideal of progressive realization of social and individual emancipation encompassing all humanity. P o s t m o d e r n architecture finds itself condemned to undertake a series of minor modifications in a space inherited from modernity, condemned to a b a n d o n a global reconstruction of the space of h u m a n habitation." But what are the p o s t - m o d e r n u r b a n design principles? A short answer is that they are mostly a reversal of w h a t m o d e r n i s t design is about. Modernist urban design concentrated on endre cities, a s is evident f r o m Le Corbusier's projects and from the subsequent d e v e l o p m e n t of city planning. T h e city was seen from above, in an abstract w a y , as an eiitity in s p a c e which n e e d e d ordering and management. In contrast, the post-modern u r b a n d e s i g n only concentrates on parts of the city, on the visible places and on their m e a n i n g and vitality, arguing against the abstractions and totalizations of m o d e r n i s m . It s h o w s a move from the modernist avant-garde w h o p r o m o t e d high c u l t u r e to a celebration of popular culture by the post-modernist. Modernist urban d e s i g n is socially concerned and believes that new technologies offer a solution for social problems. Post-modern urban design is not involved in social problems a n d sees t h e m as b e y o n d its remit, regarding such concerns as Utopian. H o w e v e r , there has b e e n a strong pressure for public participation in the process of d e s i g n , as a r e s p o n s e to the redevelopment schemes of the moderidsts, though this p r e s s u r e concentrates on local rather than universal issues. Post-modern urban design rejects the m o d e r n i s t emphasis on reason, order and geometry, a n d strives for d i v e r s i t y and difference. Post-modern urban design favours a m i x t u r e of land u s e s , to give vitality to urban places, as against the modernist desire to separate land u s e in rationally organized zones. Post-modern urban design is eclectic in style and b o r r o w s from various historic periods, seeing the city as a historical and spatial c o n t i n u u m , w h e r e a s modernist design breaks its links with the past and only l o o k s to the future. Post-modern urban design claims to give,priority to the context in w h i c h design takes place, as opposed to the modernist disregard of the context and the existing urban socio-spatial fabric. Post-modern urban design f a v o u r s o r n a m e n t , d o u b l e - c o d i n g a n d colour, as distinct from the purity of form in m o d e r n i s m a n d its appreciation of the colour white. Post-modern urban ciesign e n c o u r a g e s pedestrian m o v e m e n t a n d a degree of control on cars in the city space, as against the m o d e r n i s t urban design which saw the cars as central to the city and concentrated o n r o a d - b u i l d i n g activities. Post-modern urban design argues for a return to the city of streets, squares and low-rise buildings, as against the modernist vision of high-rise buildings in the parks (Bentley et al.,1985; T i b b a l d s , 1 9 8 8 , ! 9 9 2 ; C o l q u h o u n , ! 9 8 9 ; Punter,1990c; J e n c k s , ! 9 9 1 , ! 9 9 2 ; Lyotard,!992a,b; A n d r e a s P a p a d a k i s Ltd,1993; K n o x , ! 9 9 3 ) (Figures 7.5 and 7.6). Unlike m o d e r n i s t urban d e s i g n , w h i c h w a s put forward b y a group of likeminded colleagues and w a s a r g u e d as a coherent theory, post-modern urban design

is a collection of reactions and sensibilities developed over time in response to modernism. These responses range from outright rejection to a request for humanizing the abstract notions of modernism. What modern and post-modern urban design both share, is a claim over the city, each attempting to transform urban space in a different w a y . T h e r e f o r e , w e can see both emphasizing the "urban s p a c e " , rather than leaving it altogether, as the antiurbanists believe, or proposing to create alternatives to it, as in the small town paradigm. T h e urban paradigm acknowledges the importance of the city and fights

Figure 7.5.

Road networks in cities were meant to ease the vehicular movement. {Boston,

USA)

196

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

197

Figure 7 . 6 . Repairing tfie urban fabric after being cut across by a road network: The removal of the central artery is intended to link the urban fabric and the pedestrian movement within it to the waterfront. {Boston, USA)

Figure 7 . 7 .

Anti-urbanists have sought to move away from the city. {Cincinnati,

USA)

to shape it in an ideal image. Whatever the i m a g e and whoever the i m a g e maker, it is part of a battle over the ever-contested space of the cities as h u g e accumulations of people a n d objects too important to be left a b a n d o n e d . Modernist and post-modernist urban design both started as critiques of the existing practices and built environments, s h o w i n g new sensibilities and new perspectives. They were both, however, " a p p r o p r i a t e d " b y the development industry, which commercialized them and d e p r i v e d them of their critical stance. Although such commercialization has meant a degree of success for these design theories, it has also meant a decline in their vitality and innovation.

form suburbanism have b e e n a sustained, w i d e s p r e a d m o v e m e n t p r o m o t e d b y t h e middle classes. Furthermore, this movement h a s been fully integrated within t h e financial and administrative frameworks of the built environment production. A s a result, the majority of the population in Britain and the United States n o w live in what are considered suburbs (Figure 7.7). There h a v e been some attempts to channel the anti-urbanist d e v e l o p m e n t s , e i t h e r by practical solutions, such as Radburn pattern, or b y grand visions, such as F r a n k Lloyd W r i g h t ' s Broadacre City. Another e x a m p l e is A b e r c r o m b i e ' s post-war p l a n for London, proposing a planned decentralization of the city. H e r e s t a t e intervention has been employed to reduce the urban density, and t h e r e f o r e effectively promote suburban living.

Anti-urban paradigm
It is widely held that there is an anti-urban tendency among the English and the North Americans, where the expansion of urban areas in the past century has been dominated b y suburban developments. Whereas urbanism a n d micro-urbanism have been promoted by visionaries and experts, anti-urbanism and its most famous

-Suburbanism
Suburbia is "an archetypal middle-class i n v e n t i o n " , e m b o d y i n g t h e ideal of a n e w , private, family life. The basic unit of the suburban form is the single family h o u s e . It is usually a detached (in America) or a semi-detached (in Britain) h o u s e built on a relatively large garden plot. Together, these h o u s e s and their access roads m a k e a

198

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

199

low-density suburban sprawl, w h o s e characteristics sharply contrast those of the towns. Peter R o w e (1991) a r g u e s that this contrast of city and countryside, "urbs cl rus", has n o w given w a y to "sub-iirbs in rure". H e therefore calls the suburbs and exurbs a " m i d d l e l a n d s c a p e " , i.e. one that is located b e t w e e n the city and the countryside. The s u b u r b s ' contrast w i t h cities and w i t h countryside, and their restless expansion, h a s created r e s e n t m e n t a n d criticism b y experts, such as architects and planners, and by the u p p e r classes, to the e x t e n t that suburbia b e c a m e "a dirty w o r d " ( E d w a r d s , 1 9 8 1 : 1). S p e c u l a t i v e m e g a l o p o l i t a n sprawl, which is the hallmark of our time, h a s been saici to r e d u c e u r b a n d e s i g n to " a virtual non-sequitur" (Frampton,1992: 7 ) . A major criticism of the s u b u r b s focused on their appearances. Suburbs h a v e b e e n criticized a s b e i n g " m o n o t o n o u s , featureless, without character, indistinguishable from o n e a n o t h e r , infinitely b o r i n g to b e h o l d " ( T h o m p s o n , ! 9 8 2 : 3 ) (Figure 7.8). S e m i - d e t a c h e d h o u s e s w e r e " h o r r i d little red m a n t r a p s " for D. H. Lawrence and the w a y they w e r e isolated f r o m each other r e m i n d e d W . H. Auden and Christopher I s h e r w o o d of " c a s e s of f e v e r " ( q u o t e d in 0 1 i v e r , 1 9 8 1 : 11). But they were also criticized on social g r o u n d s , as t h e y w e r e seen as, " w a s t e l a n d s of housing as settings for dreary, petty lives w i t h o u t s o c i a l , cultural, or intellectual interests, settings w h i c h fostered a p r e t e n t i o u s p r e o c c u p a t i o n with o u t w a r d appearances, a fussy attention to the trifling details of g e n t e e l living, and absurd attempts to conjure rusticity out of m i n u t e g a r d e n p l o t s " ( T h o m p s o n , 1 9 8 2 ; 3 ) . A s early as 1876 a

F i g u r e 7.8.

Suburbs are resented as being dull and monotonous. {Newcastle,

UK)

c o m m e n t a t o r expressed his "distinct and unmitigated h a t r e d " for the L o n d o n suburbs, w h i c h he saw as " a place which is neither one thing nor the other, w h i c h had neither the advantages of the town nor the open freedom of the country, but manages to combine in nice equality of proportion the d i s a d v a n t a g e s of b o t h " (quoted in Edwards,1981: 2 2 3 ) . Not all the commentators h a v e criticized suburbs; for Cesar D a l y , w h o w r o t e in 1864, suburban architecture revealed "the spirit and character of m o d e r n civilization" (quoted in Fishman,1987: 3). This fascination with the suburbs seems to be to s o m e extent shared b y the millions of people w h o live in s u b u r b s n o w . T h e r e is of course a "conflict of v a l u e " between those w h o choose to live in the s u b u r b s and those professionals w h o criticize it (01iver,1981: 9 ) . T h e form of the city, Fishman ( 1 9 8 7 : 1 2 ) argues, "rests ultimately u p o n the values and choices of the powerful groups within the city". It was therefore the decisions made by the bourgeoisie in the early industrial cities of England that set the pattern of Anglo-American suburban growth. This is comparable to the decisions of their counterparts made in the 1850s and 1860s in Paris, and supported by the government intervention, to live in the city centre in flats, which created the " m o d e r n continental-style c i t y " ( F i s h m a n , ! 9 8 7 : 1 2 ) . Suburbanization in England started in the eighteenth century, a century in which the n u m b e r of urban dwellers rose from one million to three million. H o w e v e r , these n e w suburbs, although socially and geographically distinguishable from the town, had urban appearances: terraced houses flanking streets and squares. It w a s only after the early nineteenth century that the pattern of the modern suburbs began to be established. H a l f a century before the arrival of c h e a p mass transit, around the 1890s, the largest English towns such as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield and London, were suburbanized and socially segregated. W h e n c o m p a r e d to the Scottish and continental Europe's compact cities, w h e r e the town's extension was vertically accommodated, it b e c o m e s evident that suburbanization was an English development. Even in most American cities until the 1870s, compact fabric of "walking" cities grew without suburbanization or pronounced social segregation (Thompson,1982). Suburbia are described as "bourgeois Utopias", as the "collective creation of the Anglo-American middle c l a s s " (Fishman,1987: x), as the "collective effort to live a private l i f e " (Mumford, quoted in Fishman,1987: x). Their creation was, and is, associated with a separation of home and workplace, and the introduction of masses of commuters. It w a s associated with an emerging sense of cultural identity of the m i d d l e class families in the nineteenth century, with the " c o d e of individual responsibility, male economic dominance and female domestic subordination, and family-nurtured morality" that was expressed in this particular physical f o r m ( T h o m p s o n , ! 982: 13). T h e criticisms of the inter-war suburban sprawl in Britain led to the establishment of the planning system and to the introduction of new t o w n s . This preveiited a massive suburban sprawl, and channelled new development into urban forms such as dormitory towns and urbanized villages or the transformation of older suburbs. What has remained, in the face of the planners' efforts, is the separation of h o m e and w o r k and hence c o m m u t i n g (Thompson,! 982). In the United States, suburbs have "succeeded too w e l l " , creating new urban

200

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

201

forms which are no longer dependent on urban cores (Fishman,1987: xi). The extent of low-density growth across the countryside is such that these n e w suburbs, as best exemplified by Orange C o u n t y in Southern California, are no longer relying on the city centres. Suburban workplaces, shopping malls and residential areas mean that suburbanites can work, s h o p and live without visiting the city. F o r a long time, these trends have continuously undermined the cities and their centres. Suburbs continue to be criticized today, this time as anachronistic: " w e continue to build post-World W a r II suburbs as if families were large and had only one breadwinner, the jobs were all downtown, land and energy w e r e endless and another lane on the freeway would end traffic congestion" (Calthorpe,1994: xii). Suburbs have grown in m a n y parts of the world, wherever a middle class has emerged with a demand to separate itself from the rest of the society. For example, the suburbs in the former socialist countries are growing fast, with the breakdown of state control and the emergence of new rich and middle classes, especially wherever the Anglo-American cultural patterns are influential. Spatial segregation seems an inevitable companion of social segregation. A journalist calls the current suburbanization in Russia " a new revolution" (Scott,1995). T h e new Russian bourgeoisie can afford to flee the city, from its cramped flats, its horrendous pollution, and its rising crime. They are n o w "embracing suburbia with an enthusiasm unparalleled anywhere in the w o r l d " . According to Alexander Zubkov, a Russian real-estate developer, "Moscovites are sick of living in Soviet flats where they can't choose their neighbours". For them, Scott argues, "Suburbia . . . means space, grass, freedom to build whatever additions you can afford, no zoning restrictions that cannot be solved with a bribe, and an escape from the smog and congested traffic of the capital. And it is less obvious driving a B M W when everyone else in the neighbourhood has one, t o o " .

Soviet revolutionaries in the 1920s and 1930s mistrusted the cities as places for accumulation of wealth. A m o n g them were " d e u r b a n i s t s " , w h o w a n t e d to d e m o l i s h Moscow eventually (Hall,1988: 201). T h e socialist countries of the T h i r d W o r l d , such as Cuba, used these arguments for their anti-urban policies. T h e d e p o p u l a t i o n of the cities in Vietnam, and the disastrous effects of such policies o n u r b a n lives in Cambodia, are now well k n o w n (Government of Vietnam, 1985; Lefebvre, in Brgel et al.,1987).

Broadacre City
Sharing a mistrust of large cities with Soviet revolutionaries and socialist reformers, but from the viewpoint of individualism, was the American architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. Like them, he maintained that big cities were unhealthy concentrations of power and wealth, which had to be dismantled. Disintegration w a s , h e b e l i e v e d , the future of the metropolis, as the wide use of cars and telephones w o u l d m a k e it anachronistic (reminding us of a new generation of technology enthusiasts w h o believe the Internet will abolish the need for cities). Concentrations of people and centralized institutions could therefore be spread across the countryside, decentralizing the greatest barrier to human progress: the m o n s t r o u s metropolis. Frank Lloyd Wright's ideal city, Broadacre City, as exhibited in 1935 in N e w York, was a plea to abolish the metropolis. T h e city was decentred and scattered over the countryside to the extent that the town and c o u n t r y w e r e not distinguishable from each other any more. W h a t was left of this decentralization was buildings in the countryside: it was not e v e n possible to see the city at all. Covering 250 km^ or more were hundreds of homesteads, each set within a minimum one acre of land. All modern institutions, such as schools, factories, stores and cultural centres, were small-scale institutions scattered a r o u n d the settlement. Each citizen was strongly attached to land and would be a part-time farmer, but also a part-time mechanic and a part-time intellectual. In this way, h e s a w Broadacre City as "the plastic form of a genuine d e m o c r a c y " , in w h i c h there is no difference between urban and rural lifestyles (Fishman,1977: 9 1 - 9 6 , 1 2 2 - 1 3 4 ) .

Planned anti-urbanism
As against the continuous growth of the suburbs, a number of initiatives have been taken to introduce some degree of control on this process. W h a t is shared between these measures and proposals, despite their different origins and orientations, is their anti-urban stance. W e look at a few of these measures.

Socialist anti-urbanism
An anti-urban debate w a s d e v e l o p e d in the early years of the Soviet Union, after the 1917 revolution. It was argued that large modern cities were products of capitalism and had no place in a communist Utopia, where such accumulations of people and wealth w e r e not needed. At the same time, industrial production and the workers' collective lives formed the central concerns of the Bolsheviks, w h i c h meant some form of population agglomeration was seen to b e necessary in order to achieve a communist society. The distrust of the large cities ran in parallel with a distrust for rural populations, who showed hostility towards the revolution and w h o s e patterns of production and ownership did not favour a collective Utopia. These anti-urbanist tendencies led to proposals for a deconstruction of the central business districts and eventually to a preference for small cities as the cities of workers (Bater,1980).

Micro-urbanism of the small t o w n paradigm

As a reaction to the alienation and degradation of the metropolis, and to the individualism of suburban growth, the small t o w n paradigm has b e e n a p o w e r f u l m o v e m e n t in the last two centuries. This p a r a d i g m has been b a s e d on idealizing small communities, on the small town a s a place w h e r e intersubjective communication is still possible. T h e rejection of the large city a n d the idealization of the small town has been used b y some of its proponents to romanticize p r e - m o d e r n urbanism. It has also been used as a c o m p r o m i s e between u r b a n i s m and antiurbanism. Micro-urbanism is a trend searching for a challenge to the excesses of the metropolis and for a form of control on the growth of s u b u r b s . Its political standpoint is often reformist, as can be seen f r o m the long line o f micro-urbanists. From the early socialists' utopianism to E b e n e z e r H o w a r d ' s path to social r e f o r m .

202

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfectio n

203

from the Soviet rejection of large cities as sites of capital accumulation and exploitation of workers, to the A m e r i c a n N e w U r b a n i s m ' s rejection of suburbs as an unsustainable waste of time, s p a c e a n d resources, this trend h a s a n argument to make. The small town p a r a d i g m c a n also b e isolationist and ultra conservative, as portrayed in m a n y films a n d stories. A c h a r a c t e r in a J o h n U p d i k e story, for example, brings together all that h e sees as the e s s e n c e of being an American; "I'm an American. Eleventh-generation G e r m a n . W h i t e , Protestant, Gentile, small-town middle-class. I a m pure A m e r i c a n " ( U p d i k e , 1 9 9 5 ) . W h a t e v e r the format of the small town paradigm, it seems to d r a w upon s o m e form of collective, rather than individualistic, ideals. W h e n confronting the m e t r o p o h s , with its pluralism and diversity, however, m i c r o - u r b a n i s m h a s t h e potential to collapse into a reactionary position. The design o f small towns reflects this c o m m u n i t a r i a n i s m and its challenge to the individualism o f the suburbs a n d t h e a n o n y m i t y o f the metropolis. T h e major trend in this century which represented this trend w a s t h e garden cities and new towns movement. It is n o w being f o l l o w e d b y n e w u r b a n i s m .

Garden cities
T h e idea of garden cities w a s introduced b y E b e n e z e r H o w a r d in 1898. As with other major urban ideas of this century, its o r i g i n s lie in the conditions of the industrial cities of the nineteenth century, for w h i c h the garden cities w e r e thought to b e a remedy. T h e Industrial Revolution h a d caused a rapid urbanization in Britain in the first half of the n i n e t e e n t h century. F r o m 1860 on, surburban railway helped .London's spread a c r o s s t h e s u r r o u n d i n g countryside (Hall, 1975). Unprecedented densities d e v e l o p e d , with all their w e l l - k n o w n social a n d physical consequences. A s places of c r i m e , disease, a n d p o v e r t y , cities w e r e criticized by most commentators. In this context, Ebenezer H o w a r d , w h o is r e g a r d e d as t h e midpoint in line between nineteenth-century Utopians a n d twentieth-century planners (Camhis, 1979: 27), put forward his g a r d e n cities proposal. In his Three M a g n e t diagram, he introduces positive and negative elements in town a n d country, and suggests their marriage as a solution ( H o w a r d , 1 9 6 0 : 48). T h e t o w n is a place of social opportunity and amusement, with high w a g e s a n d more c h a n c e s of e m p l o y m e n t . O n the other hand, it is closing out nature a n d is o v e r c r o w d e d ; there are high rents and prices, excessive hours of toil; distance f r o m w o r k a n d t h e "isolation of c r o w d s " ; fogs, draughts and slums. T h e c o u n t r y magnet, a s c o m p a r e d with t h e town magnet, offers beauty a n d wealth; l o w rents; fresh air, s u n l i g h t and health; while there the hands are out of work, t h e w a g e s are l o w , a n d t h e lack of public spirit and amusement is felt. A c o m b i n a t i o n of these t w o m a g n e t s w o u l d b e free from the disadvantages of either ( H o w a r d , 1 9 6 0 : 4 6 ^ 7 ) . H o w a r d ' s proposal is a city o f 30 inhabitants in a circular form, to b e built in 1000 acres, surrounded b y a rural area of 5000 acres in which 2000 more live. His ideas were influenced b y t h e m o d e l industrial settlements, the first of which was built b y Robert O w e n in N e w L a n a r k in Scotland at the beginning of the nineteenth century. T h e s e model t o w n s w e r e built f o l l o w i n g t h e idea that " g o o d work could only b e expected from w e l l - f e d , w e l l - c l o t h e d , a n d educated workers"

LeTO4vJ0B.Ta:

IKlOUlTRlAi- 5

Figure 7.9. The two garden cities of Welwyn and Letchworth were developed on the basis of Ebenezer Howard's ideas

204

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

205

(Trevelyan,1964: 244). In many model towns, the urban form followed the ideal cities of the Renaissance (Argan,1969; Rosenau,1974), offering a spatial structure for a Utopian, " p e r f e c t " social order, expressed in "perfect" geometrical forms of circles and squares. H o w a r d ' s project is economically based on the concept of changing the value of land, to be achieved by the migration of a considerable number of people to a certain area, thus leading to a rise in the value of the land so settled upon. When the town is fully inhabited, H o w a r d proposes a system of multiplication of settlements. H e introduces, under the n a m e of "Social Cities", " a cluster of cities . . . grouped around a Central City". Here, every inhabitant lives in a small town of small size and gets "all the fresh delights of the country", while living in, and enjoying all the advantages of, a great city (Howard, 1 9 6 0 : 5 5 , 1 4 2 ) . With his ' s u p p o r t e r s and colleagues, Howard founded the Garden City Association in 1899 and began the preparations that led to the building of the garden cities of Letchworth in 1903-1904 and W e l w y n in 1919-1920 (Figure 7.9). The design of the garden cities was influenced b y garden suburbs. Raymond Unwin, the architect of the first garden city, had introduced his fundamental design principle in N e w Earswick garden suburb: that the main road should be straight and that m i n o r roads should bend. This was completed by cul-de-sacs, which reflected a n e w attitude to the design of houses in relation to the streets, creating a sense of enclosure and intimacy (Bayley,1975:18). T h e plan of Letchworth, 55 km north of London, was designed b y Unwin and Parker, with great attention paid to landscaping. It is a largely radial scheme but is far from a geometrical or rigid form. Welwyn, the second garden city, was founded in 1 9 1 9 - 1 9 2 0 , and designed b y Louis de Soissons. For the design of the housing areas in both garden cities, the density of 12 houses per acre was seen as ideal, with a widespread use of cul-de-sacs, and constantly changing street scenes. The roads could be built hghtly due to the lack of heavy traffic and the greater possibility of organizing the sewer plan. The cul-de-sacs allowed a reduction in the main road frontage for the authorities to maintain. Every close was planned to accommodate anything b e t w e e n 12 and 30 houses. De Soissons applied a ruling principle that the shops should not be farther than three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km) from any urban

interests, rather than on specialised vocations and conscious affiliations" (Mumford,1954). Its basis was what the German sociologists called Gemeinschaft, as opposed to Gesellschnft. Its two other points of origin were related to "social impoverishment" and to "an attempt at social integration". An e x a m p l e of such tendencies w a s the Social Unit movement in Cincinnati, seeking to rehabilitate democratic institutions at the neighbourhood level. Perry defined "a n e w generalized urban pattern" that would change the basic unit of planning from the city block or the avenue, to the more complex unit of the n e i g h b o u r h o o d (Mumford,1954: 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 ) . The concept was widely successful, was adopted in many s c h e m e s and gave rise to discussions about the degree of isolation in a neighbourhood unit, its size, the mixture of classes and its consequences (Mumford,1954). Gradually, however, the neighbourhood unit concept, with its social objective, was attacked o n the grounds that it was essentially anti-urban, attempting to idealize the form of village life, a n d that it w o u l d fail to face u p to the modern structure of urban life (Goss,1961).

Radburn
Between the world wars, influenced by Howard and by the experiences of U n w i n and Parker, the Radburn idea was developed in the United States. This idea, w h i c h became widespread throughout the world, has been adopted as a device that could give s o m e order to the apparent disorder of the suburban sprawl. About 25 k m a w a y from N e w York in N e w Jersey, Radburn was planned to be a new town. H o w e v e r , not being able to provide the green belt a n d the industrial zone, it remained a mere suburb. Its planners, Clarence Stein and Flenry Wright, had previously travelled to Britain to explore n e w ideas. The original idea for the layout of Radburn, however, was proposed by a young general m a n a g e r , Herbert Emmerich, in 1928 (Stein,1966: 39). The R a d b u r n pattern is widely accepted as being a superblock with a park at its centre. T h e entire block is encircled by a service road, from w h i c h roads lead inwards to cul-de-sacs giving access to groups of houses. The idea w a s based on the functional separation of vehicles from pedestrians. Accordingly, the spatial organization of the house was functionally divided into a service zone and a living zone. T h e living side of the house, living room and as many as possible b e d r o o m s , was facing pedestrian ways running through the central park and its social facilities in the middle. T h e service side of the house, incorporating the kitchen and the garage, faced the road. T h e complete separation of pedestrian and vehicular routes is strengthened b y using bridges and underpasses in connection with other superblocks (Stein,1966: 3 7 - 7 3 ) . A s M u m f o r d mentioned, although the superblock and continuous inner park had been employed before by U n w i n and Parker in Hampstead G a r d e n Suburb, these were not used systematically or universally (Stein,1966: 16). Furthermore, s o m e changes had been introduced. These included the separation of the neighbourhood access road from the main traffic arteries, as outlined by Perry's neighbourhood unit concept; and the school and swimming pool set in the park, as the civic nucleus of a neighbourhood. At the s a m e time, what s e e m e d to undermine these changes was the retention of the conventional suburban house (Mumford,1975).

Neighbourhood Unit
A widely influential idea, developed in the United States during the 1920s, was that of the " n e i g h b o u r h o o d u n i t " . It was based on the concept of the catchment area of a primary school, within a radius of a quarter to half a mile (0.4-0.8 k m ) , bounded with main arteries, to provide a safe area for children to reach the school. The primary school w a s to be used at nights by adults as a c o m m u n i t y centre. The population of such a neighbourhood unit was, according to the standards of the overcrowded N e w York, to be about 10000. Clarence Perry first developed this idea in the Regional N e w York Plan, inspired by the social concerns of the time. It stemmed, on the scientific side, from Charles Horton C o u l e y , w h o emphasized the part played by "the intimate, face-to-face c o m m u n i t y , o n e based on the family, the c o m m o n place, and general shared

206

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

207

Tfie I^adbum pattern remained essentially a s u b u r b a n pattern. It has been abandoned by the N e w Urbanists w h o , in s e a r c h of n e w u r b a n f o r m s for the suburban growth, have rejected anti-urban, l o w - d e n s i t y solutions and have preferred a return to the urban g r i d .

Planned decentralization of London

A s a reaction to the inter-war u r b a n sprawl and t h e d a m a g e that occurred during the Second World War, the G r e a t e r London Plan of 1944 (Abercrombie,1945) was based on the assumption that m o r e than one million inhabitants of L o n d o n should b e moved to the outskirts to release the congested a r e a s of the centre. However, this w a s not a recipe for urban s p r a w l b u t a " m e t h o d i c a l o r m a s s decentralization and dispersal". It was to be achieved b y adding to the p o p u l a t i o n of existing towns and b y setting u p n e w settiements o u t s i d e London. The plan criticized the "lack of focal p o i n t s " in the n e w s u b u r b a n developments, which had b e c o m e "tragically e v i d e n t " ( A b e r c r o m b i e , 1 9 4 5 : 2). T h e m a i n feature of the inter-war growth had been " s p o r a d i c growth a n d sprawl over the countryside". T h e plan put forward the case for " o r d e r e d g r o w t h a n d reconstruction on a basis of c o m m u n i t y planning" (Abercrombie,1945). The ideal of small communities as the centre-piece of the plan can b e seen in its d e m a n d for preservation of the existing villages a n d t o w n s and the grouping of new growth into existing or n e w communities. T h e n e w c o m m u n i t i e s that the plan was asking for b e c a m e part of w h a t is generally k n o w n as the British n e w towns.

FIRST Gene RAT

2.

British new towns

N e w towns can be undoubtedly identified as o n e of the main t h e m e s of urban development in the twentieth c e n t u r y ( M a d a n i p o u r , 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 9 3 ) . F o r decades, the approaches to the design and d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e built e n v i r o n m e n t around the world w e r e largely influenced b y the experience of the British g a r d e n cities and new towns, which attracted " g r e a t international interest" from sociological, architectural and planning v i e w p o i n t s (Fleming et al., 1984; 227). T h e arrival of the new t o w n s and their importance w a s c o m p a r e d , b y Lewis M u m f o r d , with the invention of the aeroplaiie (in H o w a r d , 1960: 2 9 ) . It has b e e n said that two major m o v e m e n t s have been influential in forming the s h a p e of the built environment in the twentieth century; New T o w n s and M o d e r n M o v e m e n t in architecture (Jacobs & Appleyard, 1987). In Britain, the n e w towns are those developed d u r i n g the p o s t - w a r period under the 1946 Act. They were "purposefully founded, p l a n n e d a n d d e v e l o p e d . . . as an alternative . . . to city overgrowth and c o n g e s t i o n on the o n e h a n d and unduly sparse or scattered human settlement on the other h a n d " (Osborn & Whittick, 1963: 7). Hxcluding the four new t o w n s of Northern Ireland, the 2 8 n e w towns have added just over a million people to the original p o p u l a t i o n of the designated areas, creating nearly half a million extra jobs within those a r e a s (Nuffield Foundation,1986; 10). T h e general approaches to, a n d principles u s e d in the design of, the new towns changed over the period of their d e v e l o p m e n t , in line with the changes in the

M i a o u

K6M6s.- AccEssioXiT/
Four main stages can be identified in the design of the British new towns

Figure 7.10.

208

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

209

wider contexts of which they were a part. Although each of the new towns attempted to solve the design problems of a specific case, it is possible to make s o m e generalizations that w o u l d allow us to typify the design approaches in four main stages (Figure 7.10). T h e first stage is that of isolated, small towns with a limited mobility and a radial, dispersed pattern of form. T h e second is a more compact u r b a n entity which, under the influence of vehicular movement, has found a linear form. The third is a synthesis of these two opposites, and the fourth stage is the introduction of an open matrix of roads to which urban fabric is freely adapted. 1. In the first stage, the aim was to create a healthy and relaxed environment as opposed to the overcrowded city and its potential conflict of social classes. The design brief was to lay out a small settlement whose inhabitants, with their supposedly simple and predictable activity patterns, were expected to form wellintegrated communities. In the first generation of the new towns, such as in Stevenage, Crawley and H e m e l Hempstead, the influence of garden cities is visible. T h e town consists of separate, relatively independent neighbourhood units of low density, gathering together around a town centre. The density is not high and it is possible to walk to the s h o p p i n g centre or workplace in a few minutes. The industrial zone is often concentrated at one or two points, served by railway and major roads, and the town centre is nearby. T h e design of the town centre is based on the pattern of the market square. One- or two-storey cottages are standing on either side of winding roads and cul-de-sacs. Each neighbourhood unit, formed of one or more superblocks, has the required population to support a primary school that has been located in the middle of the superblock for easy and safe access, and not far from the community centre. Green space fills the distance between n e i g h b o u r h o o d units. T h e socio-spatial system is arranged according to the idea of clusters a n d centres, which is seen as a means to social integration of the townspeople (Osborn & Whittick,1963; Chermayeff & Tzonis,1971; LlewelynDavies,1972; Gibberd,1972,1982; Champion et al., 1977; Aldridge,1979). 2. An increase in the target population of the new towns leads to the problems and needs of larger towns. A change in scale causes changes in transportation: from pedestrian and bicycle to public transport and private car, signifying an increase in mobility. A limited, self-supporting town changes to being a town set in a regional context. A change appears in social behaviour: mobility renders the concept of social contact within a neighbourhood unjustified and obsolete. T o allow for the greater mobility resulting from the use of private cars, and in response to the demand for urbanity, as opposed to suburban dispersal, the radial dispersal form of the first generation was later changed to a compact linear form, as exemplified b y Cumbernauld n e w town and the planned new town. H o o k (Greater London Council, 1965). This second type of town w a s related to its regional context but in contrast to its immediate surroundings. It had a strong concentrated linear centre from which all the inhabitants w e r e housed within walking distance. The pattern of the town centre changed, becoming dominated by covered shopping streets with multilevel vehicular and pedestrian access. Separate neighbourhoods w e r e eliminated and the heights of buildings were

increased. T h e population target became higher and the industrial zone tended to be spread over the town. 3. C o m b i n i n g these ideas puts forward the third stage in the evolution of design concepts in the new towns. In the second generation, such as in Runcorn, Redditch and Irvine, a town is formed of separate residential units of certain size connected with each other b y a public transport route, around whose stopping points local facihfies are concentrated. Each unit shows a radial scheme based on walking distance, but a number of units, producing the whole town, are g r o u p e d in a linear form around a public transport route as the generator of urban form. A network of roads encompasses these c o m p o n e n t parts of the town structure, connecting them to each other (Wilson & Womersley,1966; Ling,1967; Irvine N e w T o w n Corporation,1971). 4. W h e n the situation and d e m a n d s changed, as society became wealthier and m o r e mobile, the problem was no longer one of simply providing m i n i m u m acceptable standards; the question was n o w about striving for a better quality of hfe. In these circumstances, with higher levels of car ownership, freedom of choice and flexibility were sought. T h e design approaches had to be adapted to the ever changing conditions, or be regarded as outdated or paternalistic prescriptions belonging to previous ages, especially at a time when the rationale behind a s c h e m e might be subject to change, even before the s c h e m e had b e c o m e operational. In the fourth stage of the evolution of n e w town design, exemplified b y W a s h i n g t o n and Milton Keynes, these ideas are reflected in the complete p r e d o m i n a n c e of the private car over the town structure, and the car becoming a crucial factor in design. The grid network as a large flexible infrastructure is the main characteristic of the most recent new towns. In the course of change, the private car has shifted the local centre from the heart of the residential area to its b o u n d a r i e s just to make it accessible from the road network (Llewelyn-Davies, W e e k s & partners,!966; Llewelyn-Davies,1972; Walker,1982; Holley,1983). Nearly all these transformations in 30 years of n e w town design might be seen to be related to the increasing importance of mobility as the cardinal feature of the Zeitgeist. W h a t remained unchanged in these developments, however, was the search for s o m e form of social interaction through design. Even though its systematic use as a means of social engineering becomes discredited, the essence of cul-de-sac a n d cluster housing continues its centrality in the design approaches in the n e w towns. The use of superblocks and abundant green space are other u n c h a n g e d features, although considerable changes in detail are traceable. T h e functional segregation of access, vehicular and pedestrian, remains approximately the same, although less vigorous than in the early stages.

New Urbanism
T h e N e w Urbanism is a movement in the United States which challenges urban sprawl b y arguing for the channelling of suburban growth into the creation of small towns and settlements. In putting this proposal forward, it relies heavily on a revival of the town-planning concepts developed in the early twentieth century, but

210

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

211

adjusted for the patterns of m o d e r n hving. h d r a w s its appeal o n t h e popular preference for living in small towns. According to a Gallup s u r v e y i n 1989 and published in the N O T York Times (11 September 1 9 9 0 ) , 3 4 % of t h o s e questioned preferred to live in a small town. This was followed by a 247c p r e f e r e n c e for a suburb, 2 2 % for a farm, and 1 9 % for a city (in Krieger & Lennertz, 1 9 9 1 ) . In focusing on small towns, therefore, the N e w Urbanism is responding to a p r e s e n t d e m a n d . It is also drawing upon a nostalgia for the A m e r i c a n Dream, a n d as such "K represents a rediscovery of planning and architectural traditions t h a t h a v e shaped some of the most livable, memorable communities in A m e r i c a " ( B r e s s i , 1 9 9 4 ; xxv). It is a demand for what some see as "a cherished A m e r i c a n icon: that o f a compact, close-knit c o m m u n i t y " (Katz,1994: ix) (Figure 7.11). The work of Florida-based architects Andres D u a n y a n d Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, especially their design of Seaside, has been widely considered a s pioneering an expanding movement. Duany and Plater-Zyberk's approach, w h i c h was first known as "traditional neighbourhood d e v e l o p m e n t " or T N D , h a s b e e n used in resort settlements, the redevelopment of shopping centres, mobile h o m e parks and suburban settings. The basic unit of their approach is a n e i g h b o u r h o o d , w h i c h is.

sized (from 40 to 200 acres) and configured (a radius of no more than one-quarter mite) so that most of its homes are within a three-minute walk of neighbourhood parks and a five-minute walk of a central square or common. There, a meeting hall, child-care centre, bus stop and convenience store are located. Each neighbourhood would include a variety of housing types and income groups

(Bressi,1994: xxxii) This is put forward as a reaction to the "congested, fragmented, unsatisfying suburbs and the disintegrating urban centres of today" (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Chellman,1989: 71). These, they argue, are not "the products of laissez-faire" or " t h e inevitable results of mindless greeci", but "are thoroughly planned to be as they a r e " . T h e zoning and subdivision ordinances are "virtual recipes for urban disintegration" as they "dictate only four criteria for urbanism: the free and rapid flow of traffic; parking in quantity; the rigourous separation of uses; and a relatively low density of b u i l d i n g s " ( D u a n y , Plater-Zyberk & Chellman,1989: 71). Their vision of the N e w Urbanism, in contrast, is one which, "offers an alternative future for the building and re-building of regions. Neighbourhoods that are compact, mixed-use and pedestrian friendly; districts of appropriate location and character; and corridors that are functional and beautiful can integrate natural environments and man-made communities into a sustainable w h o l e " (Duany & Plater-Zyberk,1994: xx). T h e y identify the fundamental organizing elements of the N e w Urbanism as the n e i g h b o u r h o o d , the district and the corridor, a n d then offer principles of design for each. A n ideal neighbourhood should have (1) " a centre and an edge"; (2) a n " o p t i m a l s i z e " of " a quarter mile from centre to edge"; (3) a "balanced mix of activitiesdwelling, shopping, working, schooling, worshipping and recreating"; (4) " a fine n e t w o r k of interconnecting streets", which organizes building sites and traffic; (5) priority for " p u b l i c space and the appropriate location of civic b u i l d i n g s " ( D u a n y & Plater-Zyberk,1994: xvii). T h e district, the second fundamental element, is " a n urbanized area that is functionally specialized". Rather than an area with o n e function, it is an area in which a function predominates and other functions are clustered a r o u n d it, as is the case in tourist districts with their associated hotels, retail and entertainment units. Districts and neighbourhoods are spatially organized on similar principles. T h e third fundamental element, the corridor, is connecting, and at the same time separating, the other two. A corridor, which can include wildlife and railways, is not " t h e haphazardly residual space that remains outside subdivisions and s h o p p i n g " . It is true that "it is defined by its adjacent districts and neighbourhoods and provides entry to t h e m " , but it should be seen as " a n urban element characterized b y its visual continuity" (Duany & Plater-Zyberk,1994: x i x - x x ) . This continuity is partly ensured through the use of grid-like street patterns. T h e y argue that frequent connections in street networks would p r o v i d e a choice of paths and so ease traffic congestion, while controlling the speed of cars (Bressi,1994: xxxii). T o ensure that their design of settlements maintains the essential character of the environment and at the same time allows the participation of various designers, they have produced n e w ordinances and codes, which h a v e become their hallmark ( D u a n y , Plater-Zyberk & Chellman,1989). A n o t h e r major figure in N e w Urbanism is Peter Calthorpe, who applies n e w urbanist ideas at the regional scale. T h e Environmental Design Research Association's advance notice for the 1996 events introduced him as being named b y

Figure 7 . 1 1 . German Village is an example of the kind of American sma'l town that New Urbanists try to recreate. [Columbus, Ohio, USA)

212

Design of Urban Space

Images of Perfection

213

Neiusweek magazine as one of 25 "innovators on tfie cutting e d g e " for his work redefining the models of urban and suburban growth in America. The Environmental Design Research Association describes Calthorpe as one of "100 visionaries that could change your life". Calthorpe defines urbanism through "diversity, pedestrian scale, public space and structure of bounded n e i g h b o u r h o o d " . He then argues that these principles should be applied at all scales of a metropolitan region and in all locations. Whether we are dealing with n e w growth, the suburbs, regeneration of the inner cities, or with the region as a whole, all should be (re)organized according to the characteristics of urbanism. Although these principles of urbanism have been understood and applied inside the cities, w h a t needs attention now is suburbia and the urban regions (Calthorpe,1994: xi). In this w a y , Calthorpe is asking for "urbanism of the pieces" and "urbanism of the w h o l e " . T h e latter refers to a n e w order for the urban sprawl, so that the edge cities and the suburban settlements acquire the "fundamental qualities of real towns; pedestrian scale, an identifiable centre and edge, integrated diversity of use and population and defined public s p a c e " (Calthorpe,1994: xv). In the urbanism of the w h o l e , the principles u s e d to design a neighbourhood should be appUed to a whole metropolis;
There should be defined edges (i.e., Urban Growth Boundaries), the circulation system should function for the pedestrian (i.e., supported by regional transit systems), public space should be formative rather than residual (i.e., preservation of major open-space networla), civic and private domains should form a complementary hierarchy (i.e., related cultural centres, commercial districts and residential neighbourhoods) and population and use should be diverse (i.e., created by adequate affordable housing and a jobs/housing balance).

(Wilson & Womersley,1966) and Irvine (Irvine N e w T o w n Corporation,1971) newtowns. A l t h o u g h there is a clear difference in the economic b a s e of the N e w Urbanist settlements and the garden cities, there are a large n u m b e r of similarities between them. O n e difference is in the wide u s e of Radburn cul-de-sacs in the n e w towns, as o p p o s e d to the use of grids in n e w urbanist settlements. A n o t h e r difference b e t w e e n them is the conscious use of historic architectural styles and traditional visual qualities in N e w Urbanism. Garden cities and the British N e w T o w n s , on the other hand, w e r e new developments which embodied progress and modernity at the time of their introduction. A point of contradiction is, therefore, that N e w U r b a n i s m uses the s a m e functionalist language of modernism, but wears a traditional appearance, especially in the works of Duany and Plater-Zyberk with their picturesque renderings. The strength and vitality of N e w Urbanism has predominantly s t e m m e d from its critical stance towards m o d e r n i s m and suburban sprawl. In their theorizations, the new urbanists tend to p r o m o t e a social and environmental mix, as a reaction to the socio-spatial segregation which is the hallmark of the suburbs. This theorization, however, takes place within a market mechanism which is capable of using these ideas as a selling device without taking their social content too seriously. With the market success of N e w Urbanist settlements, as they become increasingly popular with middle-class h o m e buyers, the aspiration of the designers to offer a social mix would be adjusted to the "realities" of the market. This was also the case with modernist ideas, which started as a critique and ended in their widespread u s e b y commercial interests. Commercialization of the N e w Urbanist ideals, in a similar way, w o u l d m e a n that it too can become part of a market operation which does not welcome a mixture of different social groups, as it jeopardizes the comfort of the middle classes b y opening u p their space to the potentially "undesirables". A s Audriac and Shermyen (1994) argue, the social consequences of neotraditional design are problematic.

(Calthorpe,1994: xi) This formulation by Peter Calthorpe has led to a basic template known as "transitoriented d e v e l o p m e n t " or T O D , which is "a dense, tightly woven community that mixes stores, housing and offices in a compact, walkable area surrounding a transit station" (Bressi,1994; xxxi). A direct relationship between the pattern of public transport and the land use is therefore established. The main idea being "Put more origin and destination points within an easy walk of a transit stop and more people will use transit" (Bressi,1994; xxxi). Attempts to apply the n e w urbanist ideas to regions are a major challenge facing this m o v e m e n t , as a conference early in 1995, entitled " N e w Regionalism", explored. T h e n e w urbanist settlements are increasingly designed and built, and their codes finding application in wider contexts. For example, in the redevelopment of the H u l m e district of Manchester inner city, a modified version of Duany and Plater-Zyberk's codes has been used. T h e first statement of n e w urbanism can be seen to be Leon Krier's entry in the La Villette competition, which won the second prize in 1976. N e w Urbanism draws heavily u p o n Garden Cities, the neighbourhood unit concept, and the British New T o w n s , although the latter often fail to be mentioned. For example, Ebenezer H o w a r d had proposed the idea of Social Cities, where a cluster of garden cities were interlinked. This was the basis for s o m e n e w towns to use public transport as the spine of the development of compact settlements, as exemplified by Redditch

Conclusion
The main characteristics of urban form in the twentieth century have been the growth of metropolitan areas and the spread of suburbs. Urban design has offered three forms of evaluation and response to these characteristics. O n e trend has accepted a n d appreciated the metropolis. U r b a n i s m , in its post-modern or m o d e r n versions, w h e t h e r celebrating the plurality and diversity of the city or attempting to give order to it, has focused on the city. The decline of the city centres has been a generator of, and a serious threat to, the urbanist Utopias. Another, anti-urban, trend has b e e n the gradual retreat of the m i d d l e classes from the metropolis to its outskirts. Suburbanization has created an individualist utopia for the bourgeoisie, a Utopia which is in decline, threatened by social disintegration, rising crime and infrastructure costs. A s against this suburbanization, and its extreme form, exurbanization, and against the anonymity of the metropolis, the small towns have been celebrated and promoted as the hallmarks of collective living, offering an alternative utopia of micro-urbanism. As against the other two trends, which are integrated into the political and economic systems of the western cities, micro-

214

Design of Urban Space

urbanism has always been p r o m o t e d b y visionaries a n d Utopians, a n d has largely remained a marginal, but influential, enterprise in the development of cities. What these three trends have not c o m e to terms with is the fact that suburbs are n o w parts of a larger entity which incorporates the city itself. T h e city centre and the suburbs together make u p the urban region and it is at this scale that cities should b e theorized and m a n a g e d . Urbanism therefore should not e x c l u d e suburbs. The suburbia have matured e n o u g h , and house a large enough population, to be considered as an integral part of the city. If urban design is p r o m o t i n g urbanism (and micro-urbanism), then it will h a v e to address the whole u r b a n region. Urban design is not merely a tool for the beautification of the city centres; it is a tool with which to address the urban regions and their constituent parts.

CHAPTERS

Design of urban space

H o w can w e bring together the various discussions w e have had so far on u n d e r s t a n d i n g urban space and urban design? T h e variety and wide scope of issues entail clarifying the interrelationship b e t w e e n these discussions and to show h o w , on the b a s i s of these discussions, we can m o v e towards developing consistent perspectives into urban space and urban design. W e h a v e explored how urban desigri is directly related to the w a y w e u n d e r s t a n d urban space, our perspectives into it, o u r potential u s e of space, the role of urban designer, the nature of design, the scale of designers' e n g a g e m e n t , the place of design in administrative and e c o n o m i c s y s t e m s , and the images of ideal environments that designers and patrons pursue. It is time n o w to bring these together to offer a matrix of relationships w h i c h are at w o r k in the process of urban design. T h e n a t u r e of urban design is conditioned by the way we understand it as a process a n d its product, which are interdependent. Space can be best understood, w e can a r g u e , following Lefebvre, b y tracing its development. In this way, by concentrating on space production processes, w e combine space and time in our investigation. Space and time, the product a n d the process, integrate closely in an investigation into the nature of urban design: to understand space w e must u n d e r s t a n d the processes which produce it. Similarly, to understand these processes, which include urban design, we need to h a v e an understanding of their product. T h e context and the o u t c o m e of the urban design process, its (potential) product, is u r b a n space. O u r a p p r o a c h to urban design is directly related to the way w e a p p r o a c h space. D e p e n d i n g on whether w e understand space as appearances, as the p h y s i c a l organization of objects, or as a container for social relationships, the nature a n d the o u t c o m e of our urban design will b e different. S p a c e is a central concern for a number of spatial arts and sciences, which have g e n e r a t e d a range of s o m e t i m e s opposing definitions and conceptualizations of the subject. A t the heart of these opposing views lies a single dichotomy. As w e saw in C h a p t e r 1, Albert Einstein described this d i c h o t o m y as being between "space as c o n t a i n e r of all material objects" versus " s p a c e as positional quality of the world of material objects". T h e s e formulations, or as Einstein put it "these free creations of h u m a n i m a g i n a t i o n " , h a v e had profound effects on spatial arts and sciences during the past century. T h e d i c h o t o m y between absolute and relational concepts of space, a subject of debate for philosophers and physicists for the last three centuries, has c o m e to h a v e a dramatic impact on the twentieth-century urban environments.

216

Design of Urban Space

Design of Urban Space

217

The dichotomy was between understanding space as a mental construct or a real p h e n o m e n o n as understood b y the senses; b e t w e e n a pyramid, which we grasp from outside, a n d a labyrinth, w h i c h w e understand from inside. It was translated in urban design into a dichotomy between void and corporeal mass, between space as an unlimited entity, in which buildings and other objects occurred, and space as the relationship between these objects. The modernist transformation of urban space in the twentieth century and the post-modernist reaction to this transformation represent the two sides of this d i c h o t o m y . For modernists, it was the space that mattered, and to e n v e l o p and shape this space into a useful entity, buildings and objects were n e e d e d . Their undertaking was to radically transform space to take on new characteristics. Post-modernists, on the contrary, asked for new sensibilities against such abstract thinking. T h e y demanded an emphasis on visible, corporeal mass, on buildings, their details and their relationships, including the spaces b e t w e e n buildings. The dichotomy in understanding space and its impact on the nature and outcome of urban design can be seen in a variety of w a y s . If w e stress that understanding space is only through visual m e a n s (for example, as the Townscape movement did), then our u r b a n design w o u l d tend to deal with appearances. What can be seen, therefore, matters most and u r b a n design b e c o m e s a beautification exercise, an attempt to give visual delight. Urban design becomes only an aesthetic undertaking. W h i l e this m a y b e a n important undertaking, it is b y no means the only role urban design plays. T o o m u c h emphasis on the aesthetic role of urban design w o u l d m a s k the w i d e array of other issues that it deals with. It also undermines the fact that our spatial understanding is not merely through the faculty of sight. If w e accept that space is m o r e than its a p p e a r a n c e s , then w e would have a n o t h e r f o r m of u r b a n design. If w e u n d e r s t a n d s p a c e a s the container for, and the organization of, material objects, our urban d e s i g n b e c o m e s a transformation of this space. In this sense, u r b a n design b e c o m e s a technical process engaged in w h a t is n e e d e d in such t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . Inevitably, such an undertaking has substantial technical requirements. However, too m u c h emphasis on u n d e r s t a n d i n g space as a physical entity w o u l d m a s k the fact that this space also h a s a social dimension. In its q u e s t for i n s t r u m e n t a l gains, therefore, the urban design p r o c e s s can u n d e r m i n e the social d i m e n s i o n of space and be no more than an engineering undertaking. W e m a y go b e y o n d understanding space as appearances or spatial organization and look at its interrelationship with people w h o inhabit this space. A major tendency is to concentrate on the w a y w e utihze this space, on functional space. This enables u r b a n design to m a k e the best use of resources for utilitarian gains. H o w e v e r , w e m a y realize there can be a conflict between different functions of space. Space can have an exchange value, for those w h o use it as a commodity and a vehicle for investment, and a use value, for those who use space for any other purpose. Emphasizing the e x c h a n g e value and s o m e forms of use value means approaching space for instrumental gains. The question becomes: which function of space should urban design p r o m o t e ? Furthermore, concentrating on instrumental gains can u n d e r m i n e the deeply rooted social a n d psychological significance of space.

To confront this shortcoming, w e may concentrate on the individual significance of urban space, h o w individuals and groups interpret and use space. Our urban design b e c o m e s sensitive to the yneaning of places, to the relationship between individuals and small-scale spaces or the impact of large-scale changes on them. This gives u s an insight into t h e psychological significance of space for individuals and groups and their behaviour within space. T o o much emphasis on this aspect, however, u n d e r m i n e s the b r o a d social contexts in which individual and psychological significance develop. Our urban design becomes sensitive, but only in a limited sense. By analysing the psychological significance of space for individuals and groups, we see h o w different places h a v e different identities. Rather than an abstract notion of space, in w h i c h space e v e r y w h e r e has similar characteristics, w e become m o r e sensitive to local circumstances in which different people live. Understanding the way space is appreciated and u s e d by people will help urban design acquire a degree of sensibility, which w o u l d help to maintain and enhance these local identities. A n a r r o w approach to identity, h o w e v e r , means to see places as having fixed identities, undermining their constant change. Knowing the identity of places without k n o w i n g the impact of time and change on them would lead to an urban design that limits opportunities and freedom of choice. Allowing for multiple identities and flexibility for transformation is w h a t can be missed in design for fixed identities. To o v e r c o m e the abstract, functionalist notions of space, we m a y give priority to difference and disorder. W e m a y question the validity of conventional urban design, for its attempts to look from a b o v e and impose o r d e r onto the diversity of everyday life. This imposition of order is prevalent in the modernist version of urbanism, where urban space has been transformed b e y o n d recognition. It is also inherent in the anti-urbanist approaches: in the individualist version of suburbs which show an escape from difference, or in the bureaucratic version of Soviet anti-urbanism which sought to abolish difference. W e m a y see urban design as part of the political and economic systems which d o m i n a t e the western societies, and which intend to dominate in the rest of the w o r l d . Therefore, w e m a y resist any orders that these systems m a y want to impose on the lifeworld. W e would then argue for a view from b e l o w , from the everyday life perspective, where difference prevails. T o o much e m p h a s i s on difference, however, m a y lead to a breakdown of relationships between different groups, and to an urban design which follows tribal interests and identities. Ultimately, it w o u l d b e an urban design of relativism. Without s o m e broader f r a m e w o r k s , such relativism m a y lead to a total collapse of all forms o f social action, of which urban design is one. There are clear limitations in concentrating on psychological significance of space without addressing its wider contexts. W e m a y confront this limitation by paying attention to the large-scale societal processes and mechanisms which deal with space, ranging from land e c o n o m i c s to political conflicts over space. W e concentrate on social significance of space a n d on social, political and economic relationships within space. O u r urban design would be sensitive to structural frameworks of urban society and environments. With too m u c h emphasis on these broad issues, however, w e m a y lose our sensibility towards aesthetics of space, or space as a physical entity, or the psychological significance of space. Our urban design w o u l d

218

Design of Urban Space

Design of Urban Space

219

tend towards management of spatial relationships, undermining spatial Organization a n d form. Looking at social relationships means to address the d y n a m i s m and change within urban space. Taking into account the factor of time can b e a substantial improvement in our understanding of space and our urban design undertakings. To understand space more fully, w e need to follow its evolution and c h a n g e over time. T h e production of space, in a historical as well as a short-term perspective, becomes a key in understanding space. T o see space integrated w i t h time offers u s a dynamic approach w h i c h analyses p h e n o m e n a as constantly changing, leading to design with change and for change. T o o m u c h change and too fast a p a c e of change, however, w o u l d lead to a disintegration of identities and loss of control over objects and events. A clear w a y out of these limitations is to see u r b a n space as a socio-spatial entity and to see urban design as a socio-spatial process. In this way w e m a y take into account the social and psychological significance of physical space in our understanding of space and in transforming it. W e m a y see space in a dynamic relationship with time, so that our urban design would be an open exercise rather than a limiting procedure. It has b e e n argued here that understanding urban space and understanding the nature of urban space are best possible at the intersection between space production and everyday life. This is an intersection between the systems and lifeworld, between structure and agency, between exchange value and use value. To understand these intersections and to be able to design within them, we need to k n o w about the political, e c o n o m i c and cultural processes that p r o d u c e and use urban space. Urban designers are among the agencies involved in urban development process, interacting with other agencies a n d with rules, resources and ideas which form a social and spatial context and therefore frame the process. T h e changing nature of development agencies and the treatment of space as a commodity h a v e far-reaching impacts on the w a y space is understood and m a n a g e d . A gap has developed and widened b e t w e e n exchange value and use value of space, as best exemplified by the privatization of public space in the cities. For the market to operate, there needs to b e a b a l a n c e between exchange value and use v a l u e . T h e built e n v i r o n m e n t which is developed must b e useful enough to be marketable. T h e n a t u r e of the market, h o w e v e r , is to tend m o r e towards maximizing the exchange value. T o reduce the g a p and to respond to changes in investment opportunities, the d e v e l o p m e n t industry has m o v e d towards a standardization of design, a c h a n g e often associated with m a s s production of commodities. Modernist u r b a n i s m attempted to utilize the logic of mass production and standardization at the service of use value. This w a s , however, a narrow notion of use value, undermining the diversity of the lifeworld beyond instrumental gains. Tlie role of urban designers w h o are aware of the development industry's tendency towards maximizing exchange value therefore becomes to emphasize the use value in a sensitive way. Yet they should be a w a r e that they often operate at the intersection between these two values. Urban designers can bo in a position to maximize the exchange value of space, or to help the lifeworld develop its

i n d e p e n d e n t s p h e r e s of activity. At the intersection between the systems and the lifeworld, b e t w e e n e x c h a n g e v a l u e and use value, between space production and everyday life (intersections w h i c h correspond b u t d o not necessarily overlap), they will u l t i m a t e l y h a v e to try to strike a balance. Striking a b a l a n c e of this kind, between the market and civil society, has traditionally b e e n d o n e b y the state, especially through the planning system which w a s an o u t c o m e of a coalition between these players. The transformation of this coalition, a s a result of major changes in western economies, has redefined the relationship b e t w e e n t h e state, the market and civil society. T h e planning system has been u n d e r pressure, f r o m a b o v e , from the market and the central government, to be m o r e flexible and a l l o w the market to o p e r a t e in a less restricted way. At the s a m e t i m e it h a s b e e n u n d e r pressure from b e l o w , from the lifeworld, to pay m o r e attention to t h e u s e value. T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t o w n planning a n d urban design has been changing, from w h e n t h e y largely o v e r l a p p e d to there b e i n g a large gap in between them. A s , urban d e s i g n is u n d e r t a k e n b y both the private and public sectors, it often falls in a : rather v a g u e a r e a in the relationship b e t w e e n the state, the market and civil society. If the u r b a n d e s i g n e r s ' contribution is to support and enhance the use value of space w h i l e r e s p o n d i n g to the dynamics of exchange, then it can redefine its relationships w i t h both t o w n planning and d e v e l o p m e n t industry. Urban design's e m p h a s i s o n u r b a n s p a c e can bring to architecture and town planning agendas a sensibility a n d a b a l a n c e b e t w e e n social and spatial concerns. Rather than being blamed for r e p l a c i n g social concerns with aesthetic concerns, urban design can p r o m o t e a socio-spatial a g e n d a in which both social and aesthetic concerns matter. In this w a y , it can provide arenas in which u s e value of urban space can be better understood and enhanced. It m a y b e a r g u e d that u r b a n design is c o n d u c t e d only within the spheres of the state and t h e m a r k e t a n d as such its contribution to maximizing use value can be limited. T h e q u e s t i o n therefore b e c o m e s w h e t h e r there is an urban design by civil socictyl T h i s requires m o r e active participation b y civil society in the production and r e g u l a t i o n of s p a c e . In the current pattern of space production, only the largescale d e v e l o p e r s and the g o v e r n m e n t s can afford controlling urban development b e y o n d a s i n g l e site. U r b a n design is a tool only at the disposal of large-scale, organized p l a v e r s . It is either an undertaking by the state to regulate the e n v i r o n m e n t a l f o r m and function, or it is that part of a large-scale developer's job to co-ordinate a large-scale u r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t project. But w h a t happens if these t w o political a n d e c o n o m i c s y s t e m s decide against urban design? Where the state appears to b e w i t h d r a w i n g its services, but tightening up its control mechanisms, what is the h o p e for the future of urban design? Similarly, the development industry m a y h e o n l y interested in m a x i m i z i n g returns on their financial investment in single sites, w i t h o u t p a y i n g attention to social and environmental contexts. If urban d e s i g n is the p r o c e s s with which w e s h a p e our urban environments, there must b e a m e c h a n i s m to e n s u r e the continuity of this vital enterprise at the service of citizens a n d the social a n d environmental quality of their cities. At the moment, civil society h a s little direct impact on the creation of urban form, except b y individual, often u n r e l a t e d , actions. In Britain, it appears that many civic societies that interfere in u r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t h a v e a concern for preservation and

220

Design of Urban Space

Design of Urban Space

221

conservation, rather than a role in the future s h a p e of urban areas. What are the m e c h a n i s m s in which a civil society can influence o r even manage urban space and its transformation? Public participation in the planning and design process may only be a small step towards such an undertaking. There are those, such as Cfu-istopher Alexander, w h o p r o m o t e the idea of changing altogether the way space is being produced, to return to self-help development processes. But the extent to which this can relate to the c o m p l e x division of labour and the highly organized processes of production and advanced technologies is unclear. Another trend in giving a voice to civil society has been to focus on public spaces of cities. These have b e e n idealized as sites for intersubjective communication, to strengthen the arenas in which a civil society can develop. Against the current of socio-spatial polarization and privatization of urban space in the building b o o m s of the 1980s, e m p h a s i s on public space in the cities grew, as another manifestation of a search for social and spatial cohesion. A t the same time as the urban space was being developed by private c o m p a n i e s and sold to the middle classes, public spaces within the city became a selling point for attracting potential customers. The drive for public space found a d o u b l e role, as m a n y other urban design ideas which had developed as a critique, w e r e utilized by the development industry once the industry recognized some c o m m e r c i a l value in these ideas. T h e t w o trends of public participation in planning and design and the emphasis on urban public spaces are both reactions by the civil society to the pressures that the systems of power and m o n e y have created in urban development. Yet these major trends h a v e remained largely marginal as their impact on space production patterns has b e e n relatively insignificant. For civil society to have a stronger role in space production, there m u s t b e either a substantial change in the way space is p r o d u c e d , through a restructuring of the construction industry, or there should be a change in the w a y space production is regulated and controlled. In the absence of such changes, the role of civil society in space production may only be limited, as it is n o w , to the role of c o n s u m e r s w h o interact, often on an individual basis but in increasingly sophisticated w a y s , with the systems of supply in the marketplace. Access to this market exchange, however, is limited to those w h o have sufficient resources. As such, a lack of resources means social and spatial marginalization and therefore the disintegration of urban space. It w a s partly against a fear of sociospatial disintegration that w e see the emergence of a micro-urbanist trend by urban designers in the last two centuries, seeking to create orderly, manageable towns and n e i g h b o u r h o o d s . This has often been a communitarian attempt in the face of individualistic tendencies of suburbanism and the amorphous mass of the cities. H o w e v e r , combined with land and property markets subtext, in which socio-spatial hierarchies and segregation are established according to access to resources, the effect of micro-urbanism has remained marginal, or even leading to further sociospatial disintegration. In this book, it has been a r g u e d that we need to confront the ambiguities of urban design b y a broad definition, rather than a n a r r o w delimitation of the subject matter. It has b e e n argued that w e should see u r b a n design as the multidisciplinary activity with which we shape and manage u r b a n environments. Urban designers are interested in the process of shaping urban space and in the product of this process, the space they help to shape. They need to be familiar with all scales of

these processes and products. T o do this, they need to address technical, social and expressive concerns, through visual and verbal m e a n s of communication. The twentieth-century application of Cartesian rationality in the transformation of urban space has been w i d e l y associated with a disregard for and displacement of the lifeworld. In response, w e cannot afford to abandon rationality, as design is by definition a rational conduct. W h a t we can do, however, is to broaden the scope of rationality and to conduct u r b a n design accordingly. It has b e e n argued here that to transform urban space through urban design, w e need to understand urban space. This understanding is best m a d e possible b y concentrating on the intersection between space production and everyday life, between e x c h a n g e value and u s e value, b e t w e e n the systems of m o n e y and power and the lifeworld, b e t w e e n the socio-spatial structures and the agencies interacting with them. U r b a n designers operate at these intersections and the nature of their work is best understood in this context. T o b e aware of this position means that urban designers can and s h o u l d pay attention to their role, which can at best be helping the o n e side in the intersection which is often most at risk of being undermined. To b e able to make this contribution, it is crucial to see urban space in a sociospatial context, i.e. the physical space with its social and psychological significance. Urban design as a socio-spatial process has to approach this context very broadly and dynamically. Any n a r r o w concentration o n one of the aspects of this complex context a n d process w o u l d lead to an undermining of the important roles that urban design can play.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abercrombie, N., S. Hill & B. Turner (1984). The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Abercrombie, P. (1945). Greater London Plan 1944. London: HMSO. Adler, P., P. Adler, & A. Fontana (1987). Everyday life sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 13: 217-235.
Agnew, J. (1987). Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society. Boston:

Allen & Unwin. Albertsen, N. (1988). Postmodernism, post-Fordism, and critical social theory.
and Planning D: Society and Space 6:339-365. Aldridge, M. (1979). The British Nezu Towns: A Programme

Environment

Without a Policy. London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul. Alexander, C , H. Neis, A. Anninou & I. King (1987). A New Theory of Urban Design. New York: Oxford University Press. Alonso, W. (1971). A theory of the urban land market, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.154-159. Ambrose, P. (1986). Wliatever Happened to Planning? London: Methuen. Andreas Papadakis Ltd (ed.) (1993). Terri/ Farrelh Urban Design. London and Berlin: Academy Editions/Ernst & Sohn. Anon. (1995). Special report: defensible space steps to center stage. Engineering News Record 234 (17): 18-22. Arendt, H. (19D8). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Argan, G. (1969). The Renaissance City. London: Studio Vista.
Attoe, W. and D. Logan (1989). American Urban Architecture: Catalysts in the Design of Cdies.

Berkeley: University of California Press. Audriac, I. and A. Shermyen (1994). An evaluation of neotraditional design's social prescription: postmodern placebo or remedy for suburban malaise? Journal of Planning
Education and Research 13: 161-173.

Bacon, E. (1975). Design of Cities. London: Thames and Hudson. Badcock, B. (1984). Unfairly Divided Cities. Oxford; Blackwell. Baker, N. J. and T. R. Slater (1992). Morphological regions in English medieval towns, in
]. W. R. Whitehead & P. ]. Larkham (eds). Urban Landscapes: International Perspectives.

London: Routledge, pp.43-68. Bandini, M. (1992). Some architectural approaches to urban form, in J. W. R. Whitehand & P. J. Larkham (eds). Urban Landscapes: International Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp.133-169. Banham, R. (1968). The revenge of the Picturesque: English architectural polemics,
1945-1965, in J. Summerson (ed.). Concerning Architecture: Essays on Architectural Writers

and Writing Presented to Nicholas Pevsner. London: Allen Lane, pp.265-273 Banham, R. (1973). Los Angeles: Archdecture of the Four Ecologies. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Barnett, J. (1982). An Introduction to Urban Design. New York: Harper & Row. Bater, J. H. (1980). The Soviet City. London: Edward Arnold.

224

Design Of Urban Space

Bibliography

225

Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge. Bayley, S. (1975). Tiic Garden City. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press.
Beilharz, P. (1992). Labour's Utopias, Botsliei'ism, Fabianism, Social Democracy. London-

Buchanan, P. (Ministry of Transport) (1963). Traffic in Towns. London; HMSO. Brgel, G., G. Brgel & M. G. Dezes (1987). An interview with Henri Lefebvre.
and Planning D: Society and Space 5: 27-38.

Environment

Routledge. Benevolo, L. (1980). Tlie History of tlie City. London: Scolar Press. Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition, and Jrgen Habermas, in C. Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press pp.73-97. Benn, S. & G. Gaus (1983a). The liberal conception of the public and the private, in S. Benn & G. Gaus (eds). Public and Private in Social Life. London: Croom Helm, pp.31-65. Benn, S. & G. Gaus (1983b). The public and the private: concepts and action, in S. Benn & G. Gaus (eds). Public and Private in Social Life. London: Croom Helm, pp.3-27. Bentley, I., A. Alcock, P. Murrain, S. McGlynn & G. Smith (1985). Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of Seeing. London: The British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.
Berman, M. (1982). All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. London: Verso.

Berry, B. (1971). Internal structure of the city, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.97-103. Billingham, J. (ed.) (1994). Urban Design Source Book 1994. London: Urban Design Group. Billingham, J. (1995). Urban designers facing research identity crisis. Planning (N0.1119, 19 May 1995): 20-21. Blaut, J. (1961). Space and process. The Professional Geographer. 13:1-7. Blowers, A. (1973). Planning residential areas. Planning and the City. Urban Develpoment Unit 29. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, pp.91-139. Blumenfeld, H. (1982). Continuity and change in urban form, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.49-56. Bochner, S. (1973). Space, in P. Wiener (ed.). Dictionary of the History of Ideas. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Vol.4, pp.295-307. Bottoms, A. E. (1994). Environmental Criminology, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.580-656. Boudon, R. & F. Bourricaud (1989). A Critical Dictionary of Sociology. London: Routledge. (Originally published in French, 1982). Bourne, L. S. (1971). Patterns: descriptions of structure and growth, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.69-74. Bourne, L. S. (1982). Urban spatial structure: an introductory essay on concepts and criteria, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.28-45. Bovone, L. (1989). Theories of everyday life: a search for meaning or a negation of meaning?
Current Sociology: The Sociology of Everyday Life. 37 (1): 41-49.

Bums, W. (1963). New Towns for Old. London; Leonard Hill. Bussell, A. (1992). Visions for the public realm; ideas for a more socially conscious architecture. Progressive Architecture 73(4); 63-68. Cadman, D. & L. Austin-Crowe (1978). Property Development. London; Spon. Calhoun, C. (ed.) (1992). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. Calthorpe, P. (1994). The region, in P. Katz (ed.). The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Commimity. New York; McGraw Hill, pp.xi-xvi. Camhis, M. (1979). Planning Theory and Phdosophy. London; Tavistock. Carr, S., M. Francis, L. Rivlin & A. Stone (1992). Pi(f>/ic Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, H. & S. Wheatley (1979). Fixation lines and fringe belts, land uses and social areas; nineteenth century change in the small town. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 4: 214-38. Castells, M. (1977). The Urban Question. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. Champion, A. G., K. Clegg & R. L. Davies (1977). facts about the New Towns. Corbridge, Northumberland; Retailing and Planning Associates.
Cheetham, D. W. (1994). Dealing with Vandalism: A Guide to the Control of Vandalism. London;

Construction Industry Research and Information Association/Thomas Telford Services. Chermayeff, S. & A. Tzonis (1971). Shape of Community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clark, A. N. (1985). Longman Dictionary of Geography. Harlow; Longman. Clarke, B. (1973). Urban renewal. Planning and the City. Urban Development Unit 28. Milton Keynes; The Open University Press, pp.41-90.
Clarke, R. (ed.) (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York; Harrow

and Heston. Clay, P. (1979). Neighbourhood Renewal. Lexington, MA; Lexington Books. Cohen, E. (1976). Environmental orientations; a multidimensional approach to social ecology. Currettt Anthropology 17(1); 49-70.
Coleman, A. (1985). Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing. London; Hilary New

Shipman.
Collins, G. R. & C. C. Collins (1986). Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern City Planning. Essays Graduate Analysis.

York; Rizzoli.
Colquhoun, A. (1989). Modernity and the Classical Tradition: Columbia University Bidletin Architectural 1992-94: 1980-1987. School of

Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.

Columbia University (1992).

Architecture Planning and Preservation. New York: Columbia University.

Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). Almuick, Northumberland, A Study in Town-Plan London;

Boyer, M. C. (1990). The return of aesthetics to city planning, in D. Crow (ed.). Philosophical Streets: New Approaches to Urbanism. Washington, DC: Maisonneuve Press, pp.93-112. Bradway-Laska, S. & D. Spain (1980). Back to the City. New York; Pergamon Press, Brantingham, P. J. & P. L. Brantingham (eds) (1991). Environmental Criminology. Prospect Heights, IL; Waveland Press. Bressi, T. (1994). Planning the American dream, in P. Katz (ed.). The Neiv Urbanism: Toward an Archdecture of Community. New York: McGraw Hill, pp.xxv-xlii. Briggs, A. (1968). Victorian Cities. Harmondsworth; Penguin. Broadbent, G., R. Bunt & C. Jencks (1980). Signs, Symbols and Architecture. Chichester; John Wiley. Brotchie, J., P. Newtown, P. Hall & P. Nijkamp (eds). (1985). Introduction. The Future of
Urban Form: The Impact of the Neiu Technology. Brunette & D. Wills (eds), Deconstruction London; Croom Helm, pp.1-14. and the Visual Arts: Art, Media, Architecture.

IBG. Cosgrove, D. (1984). Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Cosgrove, D. (1985). Prospect, perspective and evolution of the landscape idea. Transactions
of the Institute of Brdish Geographers 10: 45-62. Cosgrove, D. & S. Daniels (1988). The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic

Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cosgrove, D. & J. Duncan (1994). Editorial. Ecumene: A Journal of Environment, Culture,
Meaning 1(1): 1-5.

County Council of Essex (1973). A Design Guide for Residential Areas. Essex; County Council of Essex. Cowan, H. (1973). Dictionary of Archdcctural Science. London: Applied Science Publishers.
Cox, S. & A. Hamilton (eds) (1991). Architect's Handbook of Practice Management. London;

Brunette, P. & D. Wills (1994). The spatial arts; an interview with Jacques Derrida, in P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.9-32. Bryant, C. R., L. H. Russworm & A. G. McLellan (1982). The City's Countryside. Longman. London:

RIBA. Crawford, M. (1992). The world in a shopping mall, in M. Sorkin (ed.). Variations on a Theme Park. New York: Hill and Wang, p.3-30. Crosby, T. (1967). Architecture: City Sense. London; Studio Vista.
Crowe, T. D. (1991). Crime Prevention Arclutectural Design and Space Management through Environmental Design: Applications Concepts. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. of

226

Design Of Urban Space

Bibliography

227

CuUen, G. (1971). The Concise Townscape. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture (reprinted in 1994). Curl, J. S. (1992). Encyclopaedia of Architectural Terms. London; Donhead. Dagenhart, R. & D. Sawicki (1992). Architecture and planning: the divergence of two fields.
Journal of Planning Education and Research 21:1-16.

Fishman, K. (1977). Urban

Utopias in tlie Twentieth

Century:

Ebenezer

Howard, Frank Lloyd i

Dahrcndorf, R. (1995). Whither Social Sciences? Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council, The 6th ESRC Annual Lecture 1995. Davis, M. (1992). Fortress Los Angeles: the militarization of urban space, in M. Sorkin (ed.) Variations on a Theme Park. New York: Hill and Wang, pp.154-180. De Certeu, M. (1993). Walking in the City, m S. During (ed.). The Cultural Studies Reader. London: Routledge, pp.151-160. Dear, M. (1994). Between architecture and film. Architectural Design, Profile 112: Architecture and Film 64(11/12): 9-15. Dear, M. (1995). Prolegomena to a postmodern urbanism, in P. Healey, S. Cameron, S.
Davoudi, S. Graham & A. Madanipour (eds). Managing Cities: The Nezv Urban Context.

Wright, and Le Corbusier. New York; Basic Books. ; Fishman, R. (1987). Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York; Basic Books. Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to Communication Studies. London; Routledge. Fleming, J., H. Honour & N. Pevsner (1984). The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Flynn, T. (1994). Foucault's mapping of history, in G. Gutting (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, pp.28-46. Foucault, M. (1993). Space, power and knowledge, in S. During (ed.), Tlie Cultural Studies Reader. London; Routledge, pp.161-169. ; Frampton, K. (1992). Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London; Thames & Hudson. I
Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory.

Minnesota; Minnesota University Press. Cans, H. (1968). People and Plans. New York; Basic Books.
Gellner, E. (1992). Reason and Culture: The Historic Role of Rationality and Rationalism. Oxford;

Chichester; John Wiley, pp.27-44. Delafons, J. (1992). Democracy and Design. International Symposium on Design Review, October, University of Cincinnati pp.48-58. Denecke, D. (1988). Research in German urban historical geography, in D. Denecke & G.
Shaw (eds). Urban Historical Geography: Recent Progress in Britain and Germany. Cambridge;

Cambridge University Press, pp.24-33. Dennis, R. & H. Prince (1988). Research in British urban historical geography, in D. Denecke & G. Shaw (eds), Urban Historical Geography. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, pp.9-23. Dews, P. (ed.) (1986). Jurgen Habermas, Autonomy and Solidarity. London; Verso.
Dicken, P. & P. Lloyd (1990). Location in Space: Theoretical Perspectives in Economic Geography.

Blackwell. Gibberd, F. (1959). Town Design. London; The Architectural Press. j Gibberd, F. (1972). The Master Design; Landscape; Housing; Town Centres, in E. Evans (ed.), Nezv Towns: The British Experience. London; Charles Knight, p.88-101. Gibberd, F. (1982). Hariow; the design of a New Town. Toiun Planning Reviezo 53: 29-50. [ Gibson, M. & M. Langstaff (1982). An Introduction to Urban Renezml. London; Hutchinson. Giddens, A. (1982). Sociology, A Brief hut Critical Introduction. London; Macmillan Press. '
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

New York; Harper Collins. Docherty, T. (ed.) (1993). Postmodernism: Private Residential Development.

A Reader. Hemel Hempstead; Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Cambridge; Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1989). Sociology. Cambridge; Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge; Polity Press.
Giedion, S. (1967). Space, Time and Architecture:

i ]

DoE (1976). Design Guidance Survey, Report on a Survey of Local Authority Design Guidance for

Tlie Grozuth of a Nezo Tradition. Cambridge, j

London: Department of the Environment.

PPGl.

DoE (1992). Planning Policy Guidance: Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance,

London; Department of the Environment, HMSO.

DoE (1995). Quality in Town and Country: Urban Design Campaign. London; Department of the

Environment. Duany, A. & E. Plater-Zyberk (1994). The neighbourhood, the district, and the corridor, in P. Katz (ed.). The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York; McGraw Hill, pp.xvii-xx. Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk & C. Chellman (1989). New town ordinances & codes, in A. Papadakis (ed.). Prince Charles and the Architectural Debate. London; Architectural Design. Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary Theory: an Introduction. Oxford; Blackwell.
Edwards, A. (1981). The Design of Suburbia: A Critical Study in Environmental History. London;

MA: Harvard University Press, 5th edn (1st edn 1941). j Gilison, J. (1975). The Soviet Image of Utopia. Baltimore; The Johns Hopkins University Press. i Girouard, M. (1992). Town and Country. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. | Glazer, N. (1992). Our cultural perplexities. 1. Subverting the context; public space and i public design. Public Interest(No.W9): 3-21. '. Glarer, N. & M. Lilla (eds) (1987). The Public Face of Architecture. New York; Free Press. \ Golledge, R. G. (1978). Learning about urban environments, in T. Carlstein, D. Parkes & N. i
Thirft (eds). Timing Space and Spachig Time: Making Sense of Time. London: Arnold, pp. j

Pembridge Press. Einstein, A. (1954). Foreword, in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.xi-xvi. Eisenstadt, S. & A. Shachar (1987). Society, Culture, and Urbanization. Newbury Park, CA; Sage. Ekblorn, P. (1995). Less crime, by design. Annals, /4APSS(No.539) May; 114-129. Reference, 15th edn, Vol.8, pp.334-335. Chicago; The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Fairchild, H. P. (1970). Dictionary of Sociology. Westport, CT; Greenwood Press, (originally published in 1944). Featherstone, M. (1988). In pursuit of the postmodern; an introduction. Theory, Culture &
Society Fennclly, 5:195-215. L. (ed.) (1989). Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime Prevention. Boston; Eiicylopaedia Britannica (1984). The Neio Encyclopaedia Britannica. Micropaedia Ready

76-98. Goodall, B. (1987). The Penguin Dictionary ofHunmn Goodchild, R. & R. Munton (1985). Development Unwin.
Goodwin, B. (1978). Social Science

Geography. Harmondsworth: Penguin. and the landozoner. London: Allen and ;

Models of Social Harmony.

and Utopia: Nineteenth-Century

New Jersey: Humanities Press. Gordon, G. (1984). The shaping of urban morphology, in D. Reeder (ed.). Urban History > Yearbook 1984. Leicester; Leicester University Press, pp.1-10. Gorst, T. (1995). The Buildings Around Us. London; E & FN Spon. ; Gosling, U. & B. 'Maitland (1984). Concepts of Urban Design. London; Academy Editions/St ; Martin's Press. Goss, A. (1961). Neighbourhood units in British New Towns. Tozon Planning Reviezu 32: 62-82. Gottdiener, M. (1986). Recapturing the center; a semiotic analysis of shopping malls, in M.
Gottdiener & A. Lagopoulos (eds). The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics. '

Buttorworths.
Ferrell, J. (1993). Crimes of Stijle: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality. New York;

Garland. Fisher, T. (1992). The new public realm competition (the 10 award winners). Architecture 73(10); 74-89.

Progressive

New York: Columbia University Press, pp".288-302. Gottdiener, M. (1994). The Nezo Urban Sociology. New York: McGraw Hill. Gottdiener, M. & A. Lagopoulos (1986). Introduction. The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp.1-22. Gottmann, J. (1978). forces Sliaping Cities. Newcastle upon Tyne; University of Newcastle, ; Department of Geography. Government of Vietnam (1985). Vietnam, Ten Years After. Hanoi: Foreign Languages; Publishing House. \

228

Design Of Urban Space

Bibliography

229

Greater London Council (1965) The Planning of a New Town. London: Greater London Council. Greene, S. (1992). Cityshape: communicating and evaluating community design, journal of
the American Planning Association 58(2): 177-189. Gregory, D., R. Martin & G. Smith, (eds) (1994). Human Geography: Society, Space and Social

Hodge, B., N. Maitless, S. Newbury, L. Pollock, P. Rowe & C. Verzone (eds) (1994). Studio Works 2 . Cambridge, MA; Harvard University, Graduate School of Design.
HoUey, S. (1983). Washington: Quicker by Quango: The History of Washington Nezo Town

Science. London: Macmillan. Gregotti, V. (1992). Valore politico del disegno urbano / The political value of urban desii^n CflsM/n(No.596, December 1992): 2-3 & 68.
Guy, C. (1994). Tire Retail Drcelopment Process: Location, Action: Property and Planning. London:

Routledge.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Vol.t: Reason and the Rationalization of Lifeiuorld and System: Critique of

Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural of Communicative Transformation Action:

Functional Reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.

of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press. Habermas, J. (1993). Modernity an incomplete project, in T. Docherty (ed.). Postmodernism: A Reader. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp.98-109. Hall, P. (1975). Urban and Regional Planning. London: Newton Abbot. Hall, P. (1984). Geography, descriptive, scientific, subjective, and radical images of the city, in L. Rodwin & R. Hollister (eds). Cities of the Mind. New York: Plenum Press, pp.21-36. .... ,
Hall, P. (1988). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual the Unbuilt, History of Urban Planning In Pursuit and Design in the of Architectural

1964-1983. Washington, Tyne & Wear; Washington Development Corporation. Holliday, J. (1973). City Centre Redevelopment. London; Charles Knight & Co. Holliday, J. (1983). City centre plans in the 1980s, in R. L. Davies & A. G. Champion (eds), The Future of the City Centre. London; Academic Press, pp.13-28. Honess, T. & E. Charman (1992). Closed Circuit Television in Public Places. Crime Prevention Unit Series, Paper No.35. London; Home Office. Hoult, T. F. (1969). Dictionary of Modern Sociology. Totowa, NJ; Littlefield, Adams & Co. Howard, E. (1960). Garden Cities of To-morrozo. London; Faber & Faber. Howell, P. (1993). Public space and the public sphere; political theory and the historical geography of modernity. Envirormient and Planning D: Society and Space 11(3); 303-322. Hoyt, H. (1971). Recent distortions of the classical models of urban structure. In L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York; Oxford University Press, pp.84-96. Huang, P. (1993). Symposium Public sphere civil society in China Editor foreword.
Modern China 19(2); 107.

Twentieth Century.

Oxford: Blackwell.
and the Unbuildable:

Harbison, R. (1991). T;ie Built,

Meaning. London: Thames & Hudson. Harris, J. & J. Lever (1966). Illustrated Glossary of Architecture: 850^1830. London: Faber & Faber. Harris, J. & J. Lever (1993). Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture: 850-19U. London: Faber & Faber. Harvard University (1994). The Official Register. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Graduate School of Design. Harvey, D. (1982). The Limits to Capital. Oxford; Basil Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1985a). Consciousness and the Urban Experience: of Capital: Studies Studies in the History and Theory of

Hutcheon, L. (1992). Theorising the postmodern, towards a poetics, in C. Jencks (ed.). The Post-Modern Reader. London: Academy Editions, pp.76-93. Irvine New Town Corporation (1971). Irvine Nezo Tozon Plan. Irvine, Scotland: Irvine New Town Corporation. Jacobs, A. (1985). Looking at Cities. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press. Jacobs, A. & D. Appleyard (1987). Towards an urban design manifesto. Journal of American Planners Association, Winter 1987; 112-120. Jacobs, ] . (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York; Vintage Books.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London; Verso. Jammer, M. (1954). Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics. Cambridge,

Capitalist Urbanization.

Oxford; Basil Blackwell.

in the History and Theory of Capitalist

Harvey, D. (1985b). The Urbanization

MA: Harvard University Press. Jencks, C. (1973). Modern Movements in Architecture. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jencks, C. (1991). The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. London; Academy Editions. Jencks, C. (ed.) (1992). The Post-Modern Reader. London; Academy Editions. Johnston, R. J. (1982). Urban geography; city structures, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York; Oxford University Press, pp.80-89.
Johnston, R. J. (1991). A Question of Place: Exploring the Practice of Human A Changing Geography. Oxford; Discipline.

Urbanization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Harvey, D, (1989). T^ie Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hassard, J. (1993). Postmodernism and organizational analysis: an overview, in J. Hassard & M. Parker (eds). Postmodernism and Organization. London; Sage, pp.1-23. Hatje, G. (1963). Encyclopaedia of Modern Architecture. London; Thames & Hudson. Healey, P. (1988). Thinking about urban design. The Planner 74(5): 4. i _ Healey, P. (1991). Models of the development process: a review. Jouriml of Property Research 8: *^ 219-238. H e a l e y , P. (1992). An institutional model of the development process. Journal of Property Research 9: 33-44. Healey, P. & S. Barrett (1990). Structure and agency in land and property development process; some ideas for research. Urban Studies 27(1); 89-104. Healey, P., S. Cameron, S. Davoudi, S. Graham & A. Madanipour (eds) (1995). Managing
Cities: The Neiv Urban Context. Chichester: John Wiley.

Blackwell.
Johnston, R. J. (1993). The Challenge of Geography: World, A Changing

Oxford: Blackwell. Johnston, R. J., D. Gregory & D. M. Smith, (eds) (1986). The Dictionary of Human Geography. 2nd edn. Oxford; Blackwell. Kant, L (1993). Critique of Pure Reason. London; J. M. Dent (first published in 1781). Karp, D., G. Stone & W. Yoels. (1991). Being Urban: A Sociology of City Life. New York; Praeger.
Katz, P. (ed.) (1994). The New Urbanism: Tozvard an Architecture of Community. New York;

McGraw Hill. Kindsvatter, D. & G. Von Grossmann (1994). What is urban design? Urban Design Spring/Summer 1994; 9-12.
King, A. D. (1990). Urbanism, Capitalism, and the World-Economy: Foundations of the World Urban System. London; Routledge. Cultural

Quarterly
Spatial

and

Healey, P. & A. Madanipour (1993). Routes and Settlement Patterns, in B. Farmer & H. Louw (eds). Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought, London: Routledge, pp.90-94. Hedman, R. & A. Jaszewski (1985). Fundaynentals of Urban Design. Chicago; Planners Press. Herbert, D. & C. Thomas (1982). Urban Geography. Chichester: John Wiley. Hillier, B. & J. Hanson (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilhnan, J. (1990). Planning for Beauty: Planning The Case for Design Guidelines. London; HMSO.

Hirst, C. (1995). Urban design would halt dechne of town centres claims leading academic.
Week, 16 November 1995; 6.

Knox, P. (1992). The packaged landscapes of post-suburban America, in J. W. R. Whitehand & P. J. Larkham (eds). Urban Landscapes: International Perspectives. London; Routledge. pp.207-226. Knox, P. (1993). The postmodern urban matrix, in P. Knox (ed.). The Restless Urban Landscape. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall, pp.207-36. Korcelli, P. (1982). Theory of intra-urban structure; review and synthesis, in L. S. Bourne (ed.), Internal Structure of the City. New York; Oxford University Press, pp.93-110.
Kostof, S. (1992). The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form through History. London:

Thames & Hudson.

230

Design Of Urban Space

Bibliography

231

Krieger, A. & VV. Lennertz (eds) (1991). Andres

Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk:

Towns and

Town-Making Principles. New York: Rizzoli. Krier, L. (1978). Fourth lesson: analysis and project for traditional urban block. Lotus Intertmtiona], No.19, June: 42-55. Krier, L. (1979). The cities within the city: II Lu,xembourg. Architectural Design 49(1): 18-32. Krier, R. (1979b). Typological and morphological elements of the concept of urban space.
Architectural Design 49(1): 2-17.

Krier, R. (1979a). Urban Space. London: Academy Editions. Krier, R. (1993). Rob Krier: Architecture and Urban Design. Architectural Monographs, Richard Economakis. London: Academy Editions. LaGory, M. & J. Pipkin. (1981). Urban Social Space. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Lai, R. (1992). Can the process of architectural design review withstand legal scrutiny?
Proceedings of the Inter ernational Symposhnn on Design Reviezu. Cincinnati: University of

Madanipour, A. (1995a) Reading the City, in P. Healey, 5. Cameron, S. Davoudi, S. Graham & A. Madanipour, (eds). Managing Cdies: the neiv urban context. Chichester: John Wiley, \ pp.21-26. i Madanipour, A. (1995b) Postwar reconstruction in southwest Iran; new settlements or new i identities?, in Eric Watkins, (ed.). The Middle Eastern Environment. Cambridge: St Malo \ Press, pp.209-219. Madanipour, A. (1995c) Dimensions of Urban Public Space; the case of the Metro Centre, ; Gateshead, Urban Design Studies, Vol.1, 45-56. Madanipour, A. (1996) Urban Design and Dilemmas of Space, Environment and Planning D, I Society and Space. V o n 4 , pp.331-55. : Maffesoli, M. (1989a). The everyday perspective: Editorial Preface. Current Sociology: The j
Sociology of Everyday Life 37(1, Spring 1989); v-vi. J

Maffesoli, M. (1989b). The sociology of everyday life (epistemological

Sociology: The Sociology of Everyday Life 37(1, Spring 1989); 1-16.

elements). Current

|
|

Cincinnati, pp.210-222. Larkham, P. (1986). Tlw Agents of Urban Change. Occasional Publications No.21. Birmingham: Department of Geography, University of Birmingham. Le Corbusier (1971). The City of To-morrow, and Its Planning. London: The Architectural Press. Lefebvre, H. (1991). Tlie Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell. Levitas, R. (1990). The Concept of Utopia. Hemel Hempstead: Philip Allen. Lightner, B. (1992). Setting the stage for debate. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Revieio. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati. Linden, A. & J. Billingham (1994). History of the Urban Design Group, in J. Billingham (ed.). Urban Design Source Book 1994. London; Urban Design Group, pp.30-33. Ling, A. (1967). Runcorn Neiv Toivn, Master Plan. Runcorn; Runcorn Development Corporation. Llewelyn-Davies, L. (1972). Changing goals in design; the Milton Keynes example, in E. Evans (ed.), Neiv Towns: The Brdish Experience. London: Charles Knight & Co, pp.102-116.
Llewelyn-Davies, Weeks & Partners (1966). Washington Neiv Town, Master Plan and Report.

Mammen, H. (1992). equalities and values in urban design; the rhetoric of cities: ' transformations in traditional Danish culture and of the city of 'moderns'. Proceedings of \
the International Symposium on Design Review. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati,

pp.377-388. 1 Manser, M. & R. Adam (1992a). Restoration of democracy mooted as architects remodel system. Planning, No.983, 28 August 1992; 16-17. Manser, M. & R. Adam (1992b). Putting planning in better shape?" Planning, No.984, 4 ' September 1992: 24-25. j Marshall, G. (ed.) (1994). The Concis^ Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford; Oxford University Press. ; Martin, L. (1975). The grid as generator, in L. Martin & L. March (eds). Urban Space and \ Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.6-27. 5
Massey, D. (1984). Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production. ,

Washington, Tyne and Wear; Washington Development Corporation.

Lloyd, D. (1992). The Making of English Towns: 2,000 Years of Evolution. London; Victor

Gollancz/Peter Crawley. Logan, J. (1993). Cycles and trends in the globalization of real estate, in P. Knox (ed.). The Restless Urban Landscape. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp.33-54.
Logan, J. & H. Molotch (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley:

London; Macmillan Education. j Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge; Polity Press. \ Mayhew, S. & A. Penny (1992). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Geography. Oxford; Oxford j University Press. McCarthy, T. (1978). The Crdical Theory of furgen Habermas. London; Hutchinson. McDowell, L. (1994). The transformadon of cultural geography, in D. Gregory, R. Martin & |
G. Smith (eds). Human Geography: Society, Space, and Social Science. London; Macmillan, ;

LJniversity of California Press. - Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1993). Privatization of public open space. Town Planning Review 64(2); 139-167. Lowndes, M. & K. Murray (1988). Monuments dilemma and the development of rules of thumb for urban designer. The Planner 74(3 March 1988): 20-23.
Lozano, E. (1990). Community Design and the Culture of Cities: The Crossroad and the Wall.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, K. (1979). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. Lynch, K. (ed.) (1984). Urban Design. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Macropaedia, Vol.18, 15th edn.
Lyotard, j . F. (1992a). The Postmodern Explained: Correspondence 1982-1985. Minnesota;

pp.146-173. McHarg, L L. (1969). Design with Nature. Garden City, New York; The Natural History Press. | MetroCentre Marketing (1991) MetroCentre Official Guide. Gateshead: Metrocentre. | MetroCentre Marketing (1993). MetroCentre Factfile. Gateshead: MetroCentre Marketing. i Miethe, T. (1995). Fear and withdrawal from urban life. Annals, AAPSS. (i\o.539) May: 1 4 - 2 7 . Ministry of Housing (1962). Town Centres, Approaches to Renewal. London; HMSO. Mitchell, D. (ed.) (1979). A New Dictionary of Sociology. London; Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Moholy-Nagy, S. (1968). Matrix of Man: An Illustrated History of Urban Environment. London; < ,

Pall Mall Press. Moore, G. (1983). Knowing about environmental knowing; the current state of theory and i research on environmental cognition, in J. Pipkin, M. La Gory & J. Blau (eds). Remaking the ,
City: Social Science Perspectives on Urban Design. Albany: State University of New York j

University of Minnesota Press. Lyotard, J. F. (1992b). Answering the question; what is postmodernism?, in C. Jencks (ed.). The Post-Modern Reader. London: Academy Editions, pp.138-150. Lyotard, J.-F. (1993). Note on the meaning of Post-, in T. Docherty (ed.). Postmodernism, A Reader. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp.47-50.
Madanipour, A. (1992) Principles of Urban Design in the British New Towns, Working Paper 15,

(Department of Town and Country Planning, Newcastle University). Madanipour, A. (1993) Urban Design in the British New Towns, Open House International, Vol.18, No.3, 32-47. Madanipour, A. (1993) (with Matthew Lally & Geoff Underwood), Design Briefs in Planning Practice, Working Paper No.26, Working paper series, (Department of Town and Country Planning, University of Newcastle upon Tyne).

Press, pp.21-50. Moore, R. I. (1992). Editor's preface, in E. Gellner, (ed.). Reason and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.ix-xi. More, T. (1964). Utopia. E. Surtz (ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press (originally in Latin in 1516). i Morris, A. E. J. (1979). History of Urban Form. London; George Goodwin. Moughtin, C. (1991a). The European city street; part 1; paths and places. Town Planning', Moughtin, C. (1991b). The European city street; part 2; relating form and function. Town j
Planning Revieio 62(2); 153-199. j Review 62(1): 51-77. ]

Mumford, L. (1940). The Culture of Cities. London; Seeker & Warburg.

232

Design Of Urban Space

Bibliography

233

Mumford, L. (1954). The neighbourhcxxi unit. Town Planning Reviezo 24: 256-270. Mumford, L. (1975). Tfie City in History. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Muthesius, S. (1982). The English Terraced House. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Nelson, H. J. (1971). The form and structure of cities: urban growth patterns, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.75-83.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York:

Macmillan.
Noble, J. (1989). Safety and Securit)/ in Private Sector Housing Schemes: A Study of Lazjout Design

RIBA (1943). Rebuilding Britain. London: Royal Institute of British Architects. Richards, H. (1995). Geography looks for its place on the map. The Times Higher Education Supplement, 13 January 1995; 5. Richter, L. (1982). The ephemeral Female; women in urban histories. International Journal of Women Studies 5 (September/October 1982): 312-328. Rogers, A. (1971). Theories of intra-urban spatial structure; a dissenting view, in L. S. Bourne (ed.), Internal Structure of the City. New York; Oxford University Press, pp.210-215.
Rose, M. (1991). The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial: A Critical Analysis. Cambridge;

Considerations. The Housing Research Foundation. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, Space, & Architecture.
Nuffield Foundation (1986). Tozon and Country Plarming:

London: Studio Vista.

A Report to the Nuffield Foundation.

London: Nuffield Foundation. O'Herlihy, L. (1994). Architecture and film. Architectural Design, Profile 112: Architecture and Fi/m 6 4 0 1 - 1 2 ) : 90. Oliver, P. (1981). Introduction, in P. Oliver, I. Davis & I. Bentley, Dunromain: The Suburban Semi and Its Enemies. London: Barrie & Jenkins, pp.9-26.
Olsen, D. (1986). Tlie City as a Work of Art: London, Paris, Vienna. New Haven and London:

Cambridge University Press. Rosenau, H. (1974). The Ideal City: Its Architectural Evolution. London; Studio Vista. Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences. Princetown, NJ; Princeton University Press. Rossi, A. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.
Roth, L. (1993). Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History and Meaning. London: The

Yale University Press. Osborn, F. & A. Whittick (1963). The Nra' Tozons: The Anszver to Megalopolis. London: Leonard Hill. Owen, S. (1979). The Use of Design Briefs in Local Planning. Department of Town and Country Planning: Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology. Owens, S. (1986). Energy, Plarming and Urban Form. London: Pion. Pevsner, N. (1963). An Outline of European Architecture. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Pevsner, N., J. Fleming & H. Honour (1991). A Dictionary of Architecture. London: Penguin Books. Pickvance, C. G. (1974). On a materialist critique of urban sociology. Sociological Review, N522:203-219. Pipkin, J. (1983). Structuralism and the uses of cognitive images in urban planning, in J.
Pipkin, M. LaGory & J. Blau (eds). Remaking the City: Social Science Perspectives on Urban

Herbert Press. Rowe, C. & F. Koetter (1978). Collage City. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. Rowe, P. (1991). Making a Middle Landscape. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press. Rowley, A. (1994). Definition of urban design; the nature and concerns of urban design.
Platzning Practice and Research 9(3); 179-197.

RTPI (1990). Development Briefs, Practice Advice Note No.8, Appendix Planning Institute.
RTPI (1991). The Education of Planners, Policy Statement Sack, R. D. (1980). Conceptions of Space in Social Thought:

2 . London; Royal Town

Giddance for Academic London;

and General A Geographic

Institutions Offering Initial Education in Planning. London; Royal Town Planning Institute.
Perspective.

Macmillan. Samuels, I. (1995). Better by design. Planning Week, 3(28), 13 July 1995,18-19. Saunders, P. (1981). Social Theory and the Urban Question. London: Hutchinson. Scargill, D. I. (1979). The Form of Cities. London; Bell & Hyman.
Schutz, A. (1970). On Phenomenology and Social the Division Relations, of Labor selected writings. Form. Chicago: The Berkeley, CA;

University of Chicago Press.

Scott, A. J. (1990). Metropolis: From to Urban

Design. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp.51-76. Pooley, C. & R. Lawton (1987). The social geography of nineteenth century British cities: a
review, in D. Denecke & G. Sha\s- (eds), Urban Historical Geography: Recent Progress in

Britain and Germany. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, pp.159-174. Porter, T. & S. Goodman (1988). Designer Primer, London: Butterworth Architecture. Powell, J. (ed.) (1980). Handbook of Architectural Practice and Management. London: RIBA. Pratt, A. & R. Ball (1994). Industrial property, policy and economic development: the research agenda, in R. Ball & A. Pratt (eds). Industrial Property: Policy and Economic Development. London; Routledge, pp.1-19. A^^_.__iPunter, J. (1990a). Privatization of public realm. Planning Practice and Research 5(3).
Punter, J. (1990b). Design Control in Bristol 1940-1990, The Impact of Planning Office Development in the City Centre. Bristol: Redcliffe. on the Design of

University of California Press. Scott, C. (1995). Moscow's new rich flee city for suburban paradise, US style. The Sunday Times, 12 November 1995. London. Section 1, 27. Scruton, R. (1979). The Aesthetics of Architecture. London: Methuen. Scruton, R. (1983). The Aesthetic Understanding. Manchester: Carcanet Press. Scruton, R. (1985). Thinkers of the Nezv Left. Harlow; Longman. Sennett, R. (1977). The Fall of Public Man. New York; Knopf
Sennett, R. (1993). The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities. London: Faber

Punier, J. (1990c). The ten commandments of architecture and urban design. The Planner, 76(39), 5 October, 10-14. Punter, J., M. Carmona & A. Platts (1994). The Design Content of Development Plans.
Planning Practice and Research 9(3); 199-220.

& Faber. Sennett, R. (1994). Flesh and Stone. London; Faber & Faber. Sennett, R. (1995). Something in the city; the spectre of uselessness and the search for a place in the world. The Times Literary Supplement No.4825, 22 September 1995:13-15.
Sert, J. L. (1944). Can Our Cities Survive? Sharp, D. (ed.) (1991). The Illustrated An ABC of Urban Problems, of Architects Their Analysis, Their

Solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dictionary and Architecture. London:

Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Towards a Man-Environment Approach to

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form: Urban Form and Design. New York; Pergamon.

Headline. Sharp, T. (1968). Tozon and Townscape. London: John Murray. Shaw, M. (1979). Reconciling social and physical space: Wolverhampton 1871. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 4:192-213. Sheffield City Council (1991). Sheffield, A City for People, Sheffield Unitary Development Plan,

Rapoport, A. (1980). Neighbourhood heterogeneity or homogeneity. Archil. & ComportlArchit. & Behav. 1; 65-77. Rattenbury, K. (1994). Echo and Narcissus. Architectural Design, Profile 112: Architecture and
Film 6mi-12): 34-37.

Ravetz, A. (1980). Remaking Cities. London; Croom Helm. Reekie, R. F. (1972). Design in the Built Environment. London; Edward Arnold. Relph, E. (1987). The Modern Urban Landscape. London; Croom Helm.

Draft for Public Consultation. Sheffield; Department of Land and Planning, Sheffield City Council. Shirvani, H. (1985). The Urban Design Process. New York; Van Nostrand Reinhold. Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology ofGeorg Siinmel. New York; The Free Press.
Simmons, 1. G. (1989). Changing the Face of the Earth: Culture, Environment, History. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

234

Design Of Urban Space

Bibliography

235

Silte, C. (1945). The Art of Building Cities. New York: I^einhold, (originally published in German, in 1889). Slater, T. R. (ed.) (1990). T)ie Budt Form of Western Cities. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Sless, D. (1986). In Search of Semiotics. London: Croom Helm. Smailes, A. E. (1955). The Geography of Towns. London: Hutchinson. Small, J. & M. Witherick (1986). A Modern Dictionary of Geography. London: Edward Arnold. Smart, J. J. C. (1988). Space, time and motion, in G. H. R. Parkinson (ed.). An Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, pp.256-274. Smith, N. (1992). New city, new frontier, in M. Sorkin (ed.). Variations on a Theme Park New York: Hill and Wang, pp.61~93. Smith, P. F. (1977). The Syntax of Cdies. London: Hutchinson.
Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory.

Van de Ven, C. (1993). The theory of space in architecture, in B. Farmer & H. Louw (eds).
Companion to Contemporary Archdcctural Thought. London: Routledge, pp.357-360.

Van der Laan, D. (1983). Archdectonic Space. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Vance, J. E. (1977). This Scene of Man. New York: Harper's College Press. Vernez Moudon, A. (ed.) (1991) Public Streets for Public Use. New Y'ork: Columbia University Press. Vernez Moudon, A. (1992). A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should
know, fournal of Planinng l.derature 6(4): 331-349.

London: Verso. Soja, E. (1993). Postmodern geographies and the critique of historicism, in J. P. Jones III, W.
Natter & T. Schatzki (eds). Postmodern Contentions: Epochs, Politics, Space. New York: The

Guilford Press, p.113-136.

Sorkin, M. (ed.) (1992). Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public

Space. New York: Hill & Wang. Speake, J. (ed.) (1979). A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Macmillan. Stein, C. (1966). Towards New Towns for America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sturgis, R. (1989). Sturgis' Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture and Building, an unabridged

reprint of the 1901-2 edn. New York: Dover Publications. Suisman, D. R. (1989). Los Angeles Boulevard. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design.
Tafuri, M. (1980). Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development. Cambridge, MA:

Vidler, A. (1993). The explosion of space: architecture and the filmic imaginary. Assendilage N0.21:45-59. Wagner, H. (1970). Introduction, in A. Schutz, On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.1-50. Walker, D. (1982). The Architecture and Planning of Milton Keynes. London: Architectural Press. Walmsley, D. J. (1988). Urban Living: The Individual in the City. Harlow: Longman. Walzer, M. (1986). Pleasures and costs of urbanitv. Dissent, Public Space: A Discussion on the Shape of Our Cities Fall: 470-475. Ward, C. (1977). The Child in the City. London: The Architectural Press. Watkins, D. (1978). MoraUty and Architecture. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Watkins, D. (1980). The Rise of Archdectural History. London: Architectural Press. Watson, O. C. (ed.) (1968). Longmans English Larousse. Harlow: Longman. Welsh, J. (1993). Whose line is it anyway? Building Design, 22 January: 16-17. Westfall, C. W. (1991). Cities, in R. J. van Pelt & C. W. Westfall, Architectural Principles in the Age of Historicism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp.279-314.
White, S. (1988). The Recent Work of furgen Habermas, Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cycles and

MIT Press. The Research Group for the New Everyday Life (1991). The New Everyday Life Ways and Means. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Thomas, M. J. (1991). The demise of public space, in V. Nadin & ]. Doak (eds). Town Planning Responses to City Change. Aldershot: Avebury, pp.209-224. Thomas, R. & P. Cresswell (1973). The New Town Idea. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Thompson, A. (1990). Architectural Design Procedures. London: Edward Arnold. Thompson, F. M. L. (1982). Introduction: the rise of suburbia. The Rise of Suburbia. Leicester: Leicester University Press/ St Martin's Press, pp.2-25. Tibbalds, Colbourne, Karski & Williams (1990). City Centre Design Strategy, Birmingham
Urban Design Studies, Stage t. City of Birmingham.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitehand, J. W. R. (1987). The Changing Face of Cdies: A Study of Development

Tibbalds, F. (1988). Mind the gap. The Planner March: 11-15.

^Tibbalds, F. (1992). Making People-Friendly Towns: Improving the Public Environment in Towns

and Cities. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Tilly, C. (1984). Notes on urban images of historians, in L. Rodwin & M. Hollister (eds). Cities of the Mind. New York: Plenum Press, pp.119-132.
Toy, M. (1994). Editorial. Architectural Design, Profile 112: Architecture and Film 64(11-12): 6-7. Trancik, R. (1986). Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: Van Nostrand

Urban Form. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Whitehand, J. W. R. (1988). Recent developments in urban morphology, in D. Denecke & G. Shaw (eds). Urban Historical Geography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.285-296. Whitehand, J. W. R. (1992). The Making of the Urban Landscape. Oxford: Blackwell. Whitehand, J. W. R. & P. J. Larkham (eds) (1992a). Urban Landscapes: International Perspectives. London: Routledge. Whitehand, J. W. R. & P. J. Larkham (eds) (1992b). The urban landscape: issues and perspectives. Urban Iximiscapes: International Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp.1-19. Whyte, W. (1988). Cdy: Rediscovering the Centre. New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books. Wiener, P. (1975). Space, in D. Runes (ed.). Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefields, Adams & Co, p.297. Williams, R. (1981). Culture. London: Fontana.
Wilson, E. (1991). The Sphinx in the City: Urban Life, The Control of Disorder, and Women.

Reinhold. Trevelyau, G. M. (1964). Illustrated English Social History. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Tschumi, B. (1990). Questions of Space. London: Architectural Association, Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London: Edward Arnold. Tua::, Y. F. (1982). American cities: symbolism, imagery, and perception, in L. S. Bourne (ed.). Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.73-79. Ungers, O. M., R. Koolhaas, P. Reimann, H. Kolhoff & A. Ovaska (1978). Proposals of the Sommer Akademie for Berlin: cities within the city. Lotus International No.l9: 82-97. University of Colorado (undated). School of Archdecture and Planning. Denver: University of Colorado. University of Washington (undated). Urban Design Program. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Architecture and Urban Planning. Updike, j . (1995). Sunday Teasing. Friends from Phdadelphia and Other Stories. London: Penguin Books, pp. 12-21.

London: Virago Press. Wilson, II. & L. Womersley (1966). Redditch Nrw Town, Planning Proposals. Rcdditch: Redditch Development Corporation. Winn, R. (1975). Space-time, in D. Runes (ed.). Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefields, Adams & Co, p.297. Wirth, L. (1964). On Cities and Social Life: Selected Papers. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Wood, D. (1991). In defence of indefensible space, in P. J. & P. L. Brantingham (eds). Environmental Criminology. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, pp.77-96. Worpole, K. (1992). Tozons for People: Transforming Urban Life. Buckingham: Open University Press. Yarwood, D. (1985). Encyclopaedia of Architecture. London: B. T. Batsford. Zevi, B. (1957). Architecture as Space: How to Look at Archdecture. New York: Horizon Press. Zukin, S. (1988). The postmodern debate over urban form. Theory, Culture & Society 5: 431-446.

Page numbers in bold refer to figures. Abercrombie, P. 197 access 148,153,161,172,175-6,197,205, 208-9,220 Ackerman, B. 148 admiration for cities 187-8 aesthetic control 161-3,165,179 aesthetic judgement 165-9,182 aesthetics 46-7,97, 99,124,131-2,159-70, 175,177-8,181-2,189,192, 216-17, 219 African Americans 64 Alexander, C. 42,220 Ambrose, P. 128 Anglo-American 184 Ansires sur Oise 180-1 anti-urbanism 184,186,195-201,205,217 Arendt, H. 148 Aristotle 5,19,75,78 art 43-4,82-3, 95-6, 9 9 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 ^ , 167 Austria 80,188,215 Baltimore 141 Barnett,]. 99 Baron Haussmann 41, 77,188 Battaile, G. 13 Baudrillard,]. 193 Bauhaus 97 behaviour 58,63, 65-6, 68, f 3,192,217 Benevolo, L. 40 Benn,S. 148 Berkeley, Ca 96 ' Berman, M. 25 Birmingham 175,199 Blau,]. 6 Bolshevism 185,200 Boston 67,141 Bourne, L. 31,33,47,51-2 Brennan, W. 178 Bristol 173 Britain 45,54-5,75,82-3, 86, 96-7,100-1,

103,105,107,109,128,136,138,140,151, 156,171,174-5,181,188,191,197,199, 202, 205, 219 Broadacre City 197, 201 California 36,96,200 Calthorpe, P. 211-12 Cambodia 201 Canary Whari 142 capitalism 17,42, 57-9,127-8,133,135, 185-6,193,200 Central Asia 36 character 174,179-81,199 Charter of Athens xi, 22, 28,46-7,158,190 Chicago 4 8 - 9 , 5 5 , 1 2 3 ^ , 1 7 7 children 65 CIAM 45,190 Cincinnati 205 civil society 144, 219 Coleman, A. 80 collective action 167 collectivism 185 Colquhoun, A. 9-10, 27 commercial property 139 commodification 17, 24, 59, 80,101,132, 137-42, communism 185,191, 200 communitarian 202,220 construction industry 128-9,132, 220 context 170,172,182,186-8,194 contextualism 114,168-69 contrast 14,180,198 Conzen, M. 54 Cosgrove, D. 26 Covent Garden 141 Crawley 208 creative process 115-16,165 crime 80-3,144,146,176,186,188, 200, 213 Cubism 20-1 Cullen, G. 45 cultural homogenization 142

238

Index

index

239

Cumbernauld 208 cyberspace 15 Daly, C. 199 Dayton, Ohio 82 de Certeu, M. 76,79 De Soissons, L. 204 Dear, M. 15, 76 decentralization 201,206 decentred locality 25-6, 76 definition of urban design 91,117, 220-21 Delafons, J. 179 Denmark 179 Derrida, J. 99 Descartes, R. 110,221 design brief 174-7,181 design control 160-82 design guidance 174-5,179,181 design process x-xi, 93,104,110-16,121, 125,127,128,162,183, 215-16, 220 design review 177-9 development agencies 135-7,139,154, 218 development briefs 175-7 development industry 132,196, 218-20 development plan 172^, 177,181 development process 43, 61, 88, 91,104, 119,130-54,156,184, 220 models of 122-30,136-7 difference 17-19, 23, 29, 36, 63-4, 69, 74,78, 82-3, 87,96,145,194,217 DoE 104,128,171-2 Duany, A. 210,213 Eagleton,!. 16,70 Edinburgh 86,187 Egypt 9 Einstein, A. 5,7,20, 215 Eisenstein, S. 14 Eidon Square 152 elitism 167 emancipation 194 empiricism 14,111 England 186,188,196,199 Enlightenment 42, 75,185,194 environmental cognition 63-5 environmental criminology 81-2 environmental determinism 35, 56,102 equilibrium 123-4 Essex 174 Europe 42, 54, 86-7,142,144,169,185-6, 188,191,199 evervday life 18-19,29-30, 71, 73-6,87-8, 156,181,193, 217-19, 221 exchange value 101,130-2, 139-40,154, 157,161,216,218-19,221 exurbs 198

Faneuil Hall 141 fear 80-3,144,146,187,188 feminism 84,148 film and architecture 14-15, 21 finance industry 128-9,139^2,144 Fishman, R. 199 flaneurs 77 Florida 210 Fordism 48,193 Foucault, M. 76 fourth dimension 20, 22-3 frames of reference 25 Frampton, K. 39 France 140,180-1,188 functionalism 45-8,52, 132, 190, 213,217 garden cities 1 8 3 , 2 0 2 ^ , 2 1 3 gated neighbourhoods 82,144 Gateshead 86,150-1 Gaus,G. 148 gemeinschaft 205 geometry 5,22,31,33, 65, 75-6, 87,204 Germany 52, 54-5,140, 205 gesellschaft 205 Giddens, A. xi, 19, 7 5 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 2 ^ , 183 Giedion, S. 9,21 Girouard, M. 39 globahzation 141-2,154,163 Gottdiener, M. 19,71-3,75 Gottmann, J. 33, 41 Grainger Market 152 Greece 9,36,75,148 Greene, S. 101 Greenwich Village 78 Guildford 173 Habermas,;, xi, 18,47, 75, 111, 116, 134, 148,153,156,163 Hall, P. 57,97,101 HaIl,S. 26 Hampstead 205 Haringey 173 Harvey, D. 17, 48,193 Healey, P. 122,129,130 Hegel 16 Hemel Hempstead 208 Herat 36 hermeneutics 132 high culture 163-5,167,194 Hippodamus 75 historicity 38-9,42, 88,135 Horton Couley, C. 205 Howard, E. 201-2,205,212 Hulme 212 human ecology 19,48-9,55,75,123-4 Husserl 65,69

ideal environments 183,185-6, 215 identity 23-6,30,164-5,199, 217 He de France 180-1 individualism 201-2, 213, 220 industrial property 139-40 industriaUzation 59-61, 85-6,146,179,186, 188 innovation diffusion 142 intersubjective communication 148,151, 201, 220 Irvine 209,212 Italy 181 Jacobs, J. 80, 83 Jameson, F. 193 Jersey City 67 Kabul 36 Kant 5,163 Krier, L. 212 Krier, R. 10 La Villette 212 labyrinth 14,216 Le Corbusier 188-90,194 Lefebvre, H. xi, 14-19,26, 29, 71, 75,87,106, 133,156, 215 Leibniz 5 Leicester 173 Letchworth 204 Ufeworld 153,156,182,218-19,221 Lincoln Cathedral 39 Liverpool 199 Lloyd Wright, F. 197,201 location theory 52, 58, 65 Logan, J. xi, 122,128,130-2,141-2 logical positivism 52 London 58,141-2,160,186,197,199,202, 204, 206 Los Angeles 67,76,178 Lynch, K. xi,67-8,95,106,115 Lyotard, J.F. 4 7 , 1 9 3 ^ Maffesoli, M. 18,74 Magri te, R. 14 Manchester 199,212 Manhattan 76 Marx, K. 127 Marxism 57,130 mass 7-10,216 mass culture 163,167 mass society 148,158 Massey, D. 23 meaning 25,30,57,63,88,194,214 mental map 63,66, 73 Mesopotamia 36

Metro Centre 66, 8 6 , 1 5 0 - 3 Miami 141 micro-urbanism 184,186, 201-13, 220 Middle East 36 Miletus 75 Milton Keynes 209 Minkowski, H. 20 modernism 9 - 1 1 , 1 3 , 1 ^ 1 6 , 19, 27-8, 47-8, 75-6,80, 96-7,100, 113,142,158,167 184,188-92, 206, 2 1 ^ 1 8 modernization 2 5 , 1 9 3 Molotch, H. xi, 122,128,130-2 Moore, G. 63 More, T. 185 morphology 10, 26, 3 2 , 3 5 , 53-6, 88,135-6, 180-1 Morris, A.EJ. 41,47 Moscow 201 movement 1 3 - 1 4 , 2 0 - 3 , 32, 61, 76-8, 82,175, 189,191,194, 208-9 Mumford, L. 41,206 Napoleon III 188 natural environment 35-7, 62-3, 65 neighbourhood unit 204-5,208,212 neoclassical economics 52,127,130 Netherlands 140 New Brutalism 45,101 New Earswick 204 New Lanark 202 new towns 2 0 6 - 9 , 2 1 2 - 1 3 Neiv Urbanism 105,186, 202,206, 209-13 New York 5 8 , 7 8 , 1 0 3 , 1 4 1 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 4 Newcastle 152-3,187 Newman, O. 80, 82-3 Newton, I. 5, 20, 22, 52 North America 141,151,186,196 Northampton 139 Northern Ireland 206 Nouvel, J. 14 objectivity 15, 57, 74, 78-9, 87, 93,110-16, 135,165 Olympia & York 142 . Orange County 60, 200 order 73, 75-8, 83-5, 87,185,194, 205, 213, 217 Owen, R. 202

paradigm 183 paradox of architecture 13-14 Paris 4 1 , 7 7 , 1 8 0 , 1 8 8 - 9 0 , 1 9 9 Parsons, T. 52 Peirce, C. 69 perfectibilism 185 Perry, C. 204-5

240

Index securidzation 141 security cameras 153 semiology/semiotics 16,19, 69-73 Sennett, R. 23,77-8 serial vision 45 Sheffield 173-4,199 Shin'ani, H. 32 shopping mall 73, 86,144,150-3, 193, 200 sign 69-70,72-3 signification 68 Simmel, G. 78-9 simultaneity 21 Sitte, C. 47 smalltown 186,195,201-13 Smart, J. 5 social process 103,113-15,149 social realm 148 socialism 200-1 Soja,E. 15,22 South America 36 Soviet Union 185,191,200-1,217 space and architecture 7,10-11,22, 27,32, 3 4 - 5 , 3 9 - 4 0 , 4 4 , 5 5 , 87,135 space and geography 6-7,10,15, 20,22-3, 26-7, 32, 34-5, 49,53-5,135 space and philosophy 4-5, 87 space and sociology 4,10,35,57, 74, 80,87, 121,135 space absolute 4 - 7 , 1 2 , 1 5 , 2 1 5 abstract 16-20, 96,156 created 6,38-9 defensible 82-3 differential 16-20,156 mental 12-16,216 multinational 193 natural 35-7 organization of 101,174,185, 205, 216,218 physical 10,15, 55, 62 production of 16,18, 26, 29, 85,113,119, 133,144,153,155,158-9,172,181-2, 215, 218-19, 221 public 94,144-54, 212, 218, 220 real 12-16,216 relational 4 - 7 , 1 2 , 1 5 , 2 1 5 social 10,15, 62,122 unitary theory of 16, 29 space-time 20,22-3 spatial analysis 49, 52 spatial division of labour 59-60 spatial eye 14 spatial management 102 spatial segregation 83, 85,122,145-6,153, 200, 213 spatial structure 31, 33,35,48-53, 55,57 specialization 26-8,97

Index

241

Pevsner, N. 39, 43-5 phenomenology 18, 65-6, 74 Piaget,]. 65 Picturesque 45,100-1 place 23-6 planning and design 158-82, 219 planning process 100,163 planning system 156-8,171-7,181, 219 Plater-Zyberk, E. 210, 213 Plato 75 pluralism 168,179,193,202 political economy 19,29,56-60, 70, 75, 87, 122,155-6,158,167,182 Portland, Oregon 179 positivism 56-7,66 post-Fordism 48,193 post-industrialism 193 post-modernism 9,11,15-16, 22,27,47-8, 60, 75-6, 96,158,167,169,184,192-6, 216 post-structuralism 70 power 36,57,148,156,188,201,220 privatization 137,144-54, 218, 220 product 93,104-6,215,220 public participation 177,194, 219-20 public realm 95,107,144,146,148-9 public sphere 148-9 pyramid 13-14,216 Radburn 197,213 reason/rationalism 13-14,19, 2 9 , 7 5 - 6 , 9 3 , 110-16,134-5,148-9,158,164,167,185, 194, 221 Redditch 209,212 redevelopment 1 9 1 ^ regulation 155,162,184, 220 relativism 168,217 Relph, E. 99 Renaissance 17, 20, 22,42,185, 204 RIBA, Royal Institute of British Architects 160,172 Richmond 173 Rome 75 Royal Fine Arts Commission 121 RTPI, Royal Town Planning Institute 93, 95, 155,172,175 Runcorn 209 Russia 200-1 Sack,R. 15,22 San Diego 178 Sant'Elia, A. 21 scale 94,96,104,152,161,172,176,192, 220 Schmarsow, A. 9 Schutz, A. 18,69,79,80 ScoOand 199,202 Scruton, R. 9,167

sprawl 186, 198,205,209,212 St Paul's 9 standardization 116,137-41,154,218 state 155-8,181,219 Stein, C. 205 Steiner, G. 186 Stevenage 208 stranger 19,68,78-80,82^,146 structuralism 16,19,55,57,70,132 structure and agency 132-5,137,157,183, 218, 221 subjectivity 15,57,74,87,93,110-16,135, 160,165,182 suburbs 85-6, 105,141, 150-2,174,180, 184, 186,188,192,196-200,202,204-6, 209-10,212-14,220 Sumer 9 superblock 205,208-9 Surrealism 13-14,16 Switzerland 69 Tafuri, M. 41-2 taste 164-5,167-9,172,193 technical process 113,216 Tehran 36 theory of relativity 20, 23 Third World 201 Tibbalds, F. 93,95,146 time 5,14,16,20-3,27,30,126,153,215, 217-18 topography 36,175 townscape 32,100-1,139,174-5 Townscape movement 45,216 Traditional Neighbourhood Development 210 traffic congestion 189,191, 200, 211 Transit-Oriented Development 212 Tschumi, B. 7,8,13,15 United States 42,51 -2,58, 67,69, 80, 82,84, 87, 96,103,105,142,163,177,179,186, 188,197, 199,202,204-5,209-10 Unwin, R. 204-5

urban design education 103-4,108 Urban Design Group 107-9 urban form 3 1 - 5 , 4 0 , 4 2 , 4 7 , 4 9 , 51, 53-4,70, 87,134,135,142,169-70, 209 urban land theory 50-1 urban regeneration 107,192,212 urban region 105 urban structure, classical models 49-50 urbanism 19, 73,103,184,186,188-96, 211-14, 218 use value 101,130-2,139-40,154,157,161, 216, 218-19, 221 Utopia 169,183,185-6,199 Van der Laan, D. 7 Vance, J. 47 Victorian 187,191 Vietnam 201 vision 169,175,190,192,194,197, 211 visual communication 99,117,221 visual management 109,159,175,177,182 void 7-10,216 walkways 144 Walzer, M. 146 Washington 209 Watford 139 Watkins, D. 40 Welwyn 204 Westminster 173 Whitehand, J. 138-9 Wilde, O. 185 Williams, R. 26 Wilson, E. 80,84 Wirth, L. 19, 78 women 64,83-7 Woolwich 86 worid cities 58 Worid Trade Centre 76, 79 Wright, H. 205 Zevi, B. 7, 8 Zukin, S. 193