http://jpe.sagepub.

com/
Journal of Planning Education and Research
http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/28/1/61
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08321733
2008 28: 61 Journal of Planning Education and Research
Ajay M. Garde
Policy
Innovations in Urban Design and Urban Form: The Making of Paradigms and the Implications for Public

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

can be found at: Journal of Planning Education and Research Additional services and information for

http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jpe.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/28/1/61.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Aug 26, 2008 Version of Record >>

at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Introduction
How might innovations in urban design influence urban form?
1
This paper
focuses on two types of innovationsidentified here as degenerative variations and
integrative paradigmsto examine their impact on urban form and to discuss the
implications for public policy.
2
The paper begins with a presentation of how certain
types of innovations in urban design collectively transform important characteristics
of urban life and cumulatively generate an undesirable urban form.
3
Examples of
these innovations include gated communities, invented public places, suburban
shopping malls, and the Edge Cities (Banerjee et al. 1996; Blakely and Snyder 1997;
Cranz 1982; Crawford 1992; Garreau 1991; Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee 1993;
Sorkin 1992). These innovations involve variations on the initial concepts of resi-
dential areas, public open spaces, commercial areas, and the traditional concept of
cities. For lack of a better term, in this paper, they are identified as degenerative varia-
tions. While the physical manifestations of these innovations are somewhat different,
their implications are inextricably linked. Cumulatively, they facilitate and sustain
social and spatial segregation, intensify commodification of public space and urban
life, foster inequities in access to urban amenities, and generate an urban form that
is undesirable and not truly democratic in nature.
4
The paper then shows how other types of innovations in urban design are con-
ceived as paradigms in response to the problems of development of a particular
period. These paradigms are derived from contemporary social values and predomi-
nant intellectual thinking and involve the integration of a variety of reformist ideas
with the objective of addressing urban problems. These innovations are identified
here as integrative paradigms. Examples of integrative paradigms include New
Urbanism, Neighborhood Unit, and Garden City concepts. I compare the similarities
and differences between paradigms in urban design and paradigms in science, as dis-
cussed by Kuhn (1970), to illustrate that the conceptualization and diffusion of these
innovations in urban design are comparable to those of paradigms in science
(Figures 1 and 2). That is, degenerative variations and problems of development sub-
vert urban form, which in turn leads to integrative paradigms. The urban design par-
adigms are expected to induce a positive impact on urban form; however, they are
undermined by the realities of development.
The purpose of this paper is not to discuss the processes that lead to transforma-
tion of urban form. These processes are examined in detail by Logan and Molotch
Abstract
How might innovations in urban design
influence urban form? This paper focuses
on two types of innovationsidentified
here as degenerative variations and inte-
grative paradigmsto examine their
impact on urban form and to discuss the
implications for public policy. The paper
begins with a presentation of how degen-
erative variations collectively generate an
undesirable urban form. The paper then
illustrates how integrative paradigms are
conceived as a response to the problems
of development of a particular period
and the transformation of urban form.
These paradigms are expected to nurture
a collective vision and have a positive
impact on urban form; however, they are
undermined by the realities of develop-
ment. The paper concludes with a discus-
sion of the policy implications of
innovations in urban design.
Keywords: urban design innovations; para-
digms; urban form; public policy
Journal of Planning Education and Research 28:61-72
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08321733
2008 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
Ajay M. Garde, PhD, is an assistant professor
in the Department of Planning, Policy, and
Design at the University of California,
Irvine. He has worked on several design pro-
jects from concept to completion including
the District Center at Janakpuri, New Delhi.
His current research and teaching involve
urban design theory and practice.
Innovations in Urban Design and Urban Form
The Making of Paradigms and the Implications for Public Policy
Ajay M. Garde
61
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
(1987) and Frieden and Sagalyn (1989). In addition, Lang
(2005), using the case study method, already has discussed
the processes that influence urban design projects. The
main theme of the paper is that degenerative variations and
problems of development subvert urban form, which in turn
leads to the integrative paradigms. The paper focuses on
product categories, particularly on degenerative variations
and integrative paradigms, to examine their influence on
urban form. The paper concludes with a discussion of the
policy implications of innovations in urban design.
The literature on urban form is substantial and can be
traced to several distinguished writers. Lynch (1981) not only
posed the question What makes a good city? but also pro-
posed performance dimensions as normative criteria that could
be used to measure the relative goodness of urban spatial form.
Later, the focus in planning moved away from physical design,
substantive issues, and normative theory to make a commu-
nicative turn (Healey 1996) to embrace procedural issues,
process theory, and arguments for and against planning
(Banerjee 1993; Richardson and Gordon 1993). Much has been
written in recent years that has renewed the interest in good city
form. Sternberg (2000) has aptly captured how certain integra-
tive principles of urban design can transcend commodification
of urban space and lead to good city form. Berke (2002) has
reviewed the shift from physical design to process theory to
show how sustainable development, as a normative approach to
planning, can combine the positive aspects of both to offer a
new direction for planning and to promote good urban form.
Finally, Talen and Ellis (2002) have provided a review of litera-
ture on urban form and have reemphasized the need for a sub-
stantive theory of good city form. Arguing against the
persistence of relativism in planning theory, they have called for
normative theory and definitive criteria that they believe are
more valuable and meaningful to planning professionals. This
paper responds to the call to bring back normative and sub-
stantive issues to planning and design by focusing on innova-
tions in urban design and their implications for urban form.
Innovations in Urban Design as
Degenerative Variations
To make the nature of degenerative variations more
explicit, as well as to illustrate their cumulative impact on
urban form, I will discuss them as variations from
Neighborhood Unit to gated communities; from parks, play-
grounds, and promenades to invented public places; from
downtown commercial streets to suburban shopping malls;
and from City Beautiful to Edge Cities. These pairs are not
used here as examples of positive versus negative innovations
in urban design, discrete shifts, universal trends, or linear his-
torical trajectories; rather, they are used to highlight the ero-
sion of reformist ideas as well as the degeneration of civic
ideals over time. Each of these pairs involves an earlier ver-
sion of an urban type, which is compared with a later version.
The comparison illustrates that earlier versions facilitated
and sustained a complex mix of reformist ideas, public
responsibilities, social values, and market innovations.
Scholars have argued that the design and development of
these earlier urban types also involved certain elements of
economic distinction that contributed to the exclusion of cer-
tain groups (Boyer 1983; Domosh 1996), despite the under-
standing that these earlier versions were not conceived
primarily as exclusionary devices to increase social and spatial
segregation or to foster inequities in urban development
62 Garde
Anomalies
Subverted Paradigm A
Paradigm B
Conceived as a
Response to Anomalies
Paradigm Shift
Paradigm A
Degenerative Variations
and Problems of Urban
Development
Subverted Urban Form
Integrative Paradigms
Conceived as a Response
to Degenerative
Variations and Problems
of Urban Development
Good Urban Form?
Urban Form
Figure 1. A conceptual model of anomalies, paradigms, and
revolutions in science.
Figure 2. A conceptual model of degenerative variations, integrative
paradigms, and paradigmatic conceptualization and
diffusion of innovations in urban design.
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
(Cranz 1982; Perry 1929). Rather, it was the implementation
of these ideas that led to a degeneration of the original
concepts. The conceptualization and diffusion of the later
versions (degenerative variations) reflect an absence of
reformist ideas, as well as a degeneration of civic ideals that
formed the basis of much of the planning activity at the turn
of the twentieth century.
From Neighborhood Unit to Gated Communities
The Neighborhood Unit was originally developed as an
urban configuration that adequately serves the needs of its
residents. Although critics have argued that social homo-
geneity was an underlying theme in the formulation of the
Neighborhood Unit, and the implementation of the concept
eventually promoted lenders interests more than the ideal of
an integrated neighborhood (Isaacs 1948), the original idea
was not initially conceived as an exclusionary device. Rather,
reformist ideas and social values informed the conceptualiza-
tion of the Neighborhood Unit, which was invented to over-
come urban conditions and problems associated with the
rapid transformation of urban life and society during the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Perry 1929).
Perrys observations were in the tradition of reformers such
as Jane Addams, Robert Park, and John Dewey, who were con-
cerned about the weakening role of place and community in
the life of urban dwellers and who argued that some degree of
stability and continuity is necessary for the development of the
individual in a rapidly urbanizing and transforming society
(White and White 1962). Emphasizing the role of place and
community in the life of urban dwellers was seen as a legitimate
concern, and the inward orientation of the Neighborhood
Unit concept, with its focus on a neighborhood school, was
promoted as a solution to these problems (Figure 3). Thus, it
was conceived as an inward-oriented geographic unit, with a
focus on shared community facilities. Major streets that divided
the residential environments were seen as inevitable, but unin-
tended, boundaries of a Neighborhood Unit and not as an
explicit exclusionary device. The physical manifestation of the
Neighborhood Unit concept was intended to encourage vil-
lage-like interaction among the inhabitants. It was expected
that such configurations would reproduce connotations of sta-
bility and traditional ways of living found in the village com-
munity, which would serve the needs of rural migrants to the
city (Dahir 1947). According to Banerjee and Baer (1984, 7),
Perrys formulation of the Neighborhood Unit concept offered
designers, developers, and planners a way of organizing a vari-
ety of social, administrative and service requirements for satis-
factory urban experience.
Unlike the original concept of the Neighborhood Unit
that was influenced by reformist ideas and social values of the
time, private gated communities involve a variety of design
strategies that were intended to be exclusionary at the outset
(Figure 4).
5
The pursuit of status in addition to a desire for
security has contributed to the proliferation of gated com-
munities (Irazbal 2006; Low 2003). Their focus is on territo-
riality, walls, and gates. Blakely and Snyder (1997) have noted
that gated communities involve a segregated location, a mid-
dle- to high-income population, exclusionary amenities, and
fortress-like boundaries. They argue that in addition to priva-
tizing their own security, gated communities also involve pri-
vatization of public services and amenities such as parks and
playgrounds, street maintenance, and garbage collection that
were normally provided by municipal governments. Indeed,
community facilities such as parks and playgrounds that are
within the gated areas are not accessible to outsiders, who
have to rely on the declining services of municipal govern-
ments. Overall, the conceptualization and proliferation of
gated communities reflect an absence of reformist ideas and
an erosion of the social ideals and values that influenced the
formulation of the Neighborhood Unit. Thus, the gated com-
munities are a degenerative variation of the idea of
Neighborhood Unit. These degenerative variations are not
limited to gated communities, however. The physical mani-
festations of the ideas of spatial insulation, social exclusion,
and economic distinction are also noticeable in the design
and development of contemporary public spaces and
commercial areas.
Innovations in Urban Design and Urban Form 63
Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of the Neighborhood Unit as originally
conceived for the New York Regional Plan.
Source: Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs.
Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs (vol. vii). New York
(1929).
Note: Image used with permission.
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
From Public Parks, Playgrounds, and
Promenades to Invented Public Places
It has been argued that all urban open spaces, including
urban parks created in the late nineteenth century, involved
certain exclusionary elements and that control was exercised
in an overt manner (Banerjee 2001; Boyer 1983). Cranz
(1982) wrote about a certain class bias in activities that were
considered ideal for city dwellers of the time and were pro-
moted in public parks, as well as other activities that were
considered inappropriate and were discouraged. However,
she also has acknowledged that certain reformist ideas influ-
enced the design and development of these public places
(Figure 5). She has identified four broad themes in her book
on the history of the American park movementthe plea-
sure ground, the reform park, the recreation facility, and
the open-space system. She observed that each of these
types involved a different approach to park design, but all of
these variations were primarily intended to promote ideal
activities and to serve all elements of society (Cranz 1982).
We are witnessing a fundamental change in the conceptu-
alization and promotion of public open spaces in recent
years. This change can best be illustrated by comparing the
conceptualization and provision of traditional open spaces
such as parks, playgrounds, and promenades with those of a
variety of innovations identified here as invented public
places. These invented public places are essentially innovative
variations on the original idea of public open space, insofar
as they offer a variety of leisure and recreational activities and
behavior settings for public consumption. They include
negotiated plazas (Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee, 1993)
and invented and reinvented streets (Banerjee et al. 1996),
discussed briefly below. Loukaitou-Sideris and Banerjee
(1993) have defined negotiated plazas as public open spaces,
primarily in downtown areas, that are provided and main-
tained by developers on their private property as a part of
their negotiations with public authorities. Their examples of
negotiated plazas in California include Citicorp Plaza,
California Plaza, Bunker Hill Steps, and Figueroa at Wilshire
Plaza in Los Angeles, as well as Crocker Center, Grabhorn
Park, Rincon Center, and One Hundred First Plaza in San
Francisco. Developers receive incentives, such as an increased
floor area ratio (FAR), as a tradeoff for the provision and
maintenance of these public open spaces.
Meanwhile, invented and reinvented streets are defined
by Banerjee et al. (1996, 19) as primarily open air pedestrian
streets, designed and managed by the private sector to serve
as a destination for the public in search of entertainment,
food, and shopping. Their examples of invented and rein-
vented streets in Southern California include Two Rodeo
Drive in Beverly Hills, One Colorado in Pasadena, Horton
Plaza in San Diego, and CityWalk in Universal City (Figure 6).
Although the physical manifestations of these ideas of nego-
tiated plazas and invented and reinvented streets are quite
distinct, their functional and symbolic characteristics are
indistinguishable.
Transformations in the design, development, and func-
tional characteristics of public open spaces can be examined
by comparing invented public places with the traditional
public spaces. In the 1850s, the provision of public open
spaces was undertaken as a part of the park movement, and
municipal governments provided public initiatives and
resources to encourage such activities (Boyer 1983; Cranz
1982). Public open spaces, such as Manhattans Central Park,
were conceived as a part of the urban park system and as a
means to contribute to the quality of life of cities (Figure 5)
(Rybczynski 1999). As these public open areas gained wider
public interest, public initiatives to encourage these activities
also were extended. The park movement initially advocated
by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux was later
reinforced by the development of playgrounds and prome-
nades as public places. Innovation and promotion of
invented public places has changed this.
64 Garde
Figure 4. Entrance of a gated community.
Note: Photo by author.
Figure 5. Central Park, Manhattan, NY.
Source: Photo by Alex S. MacLean; 2008, Alex S. MacLean/
Landslides. http://www.alexmaclean.com/. Image used with
permission.
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Invented public places are secured places designed and
developed primarily to promote consumerism. Collectively,
they are reflections of the ever-increasing commodification of
public space and urban life. Moreover, they are managed and
controlled to restrict a certain set of activities to minimize unde-
sirable experiences (Banerjee 2001). In the process, the indi-
vidual experience of the idea of flnerie is transformed (Tester
1994). Change in the design, development, and provision of
public open spacesfrom parks, promenades, and play-
grounds to a variety of invented public placeshas resulted in
the restriction of the vigorous and spontaneous nature of
public activity and has minimized the collective public respon-
sibility that initially characterized these public spaces.
6
From Downtown Commercial Street
to Suburban Shopping Mall
In his book The fall of Public Man, Sennett (1977, 47)
stated, To understand the fall of public life requires that we
understand the times in which it was vigorous and the terms
on which it was maintained. A similar argument can be
made about the public character and responsibilities of con-
temporary commercial areas. To understand the diminishing
civic values and public responsibilities represented in con-
temporary commercial areas, we need to compare suburban
shopping malls with traditional shopping areas, exemplified
in downtown commercial streets. Indeed, urban historians
and geographers have argued that commercial areas were
always designed and developed for conspicuous consumption
and involved a certain amount of private control (Domosh
1996). But does this mean that there is no difference between
commercial areas in downtown versus suburban shopping
malls? While commercial areas always involved some private
control, much has changed in the conceptualization and
development of these areas over time.
Traditionally, commercial areas were located downtown and
were accessible to all (Figure 7). Their shoulder-to-shoulder
buildings were part of the larger urban fabric. The design of
these shopping areas reinforced the existing street pattern,
their overall built form accommodated a variety of public
activities, and commercial activities catered to a diverse clien-
tele (Sorkin 1992). Shops, restaurants, and stores in these
commercial areas had a strong connection with the adjoining
public streets, and it was acknowledged that commercial
activity constituted an implicit public responsibility. Unlike
todays shopping malls that are deliberately designed and
managed to exclude elements that are likely to cause annoy-
ance to consumers, activities in traditional commercial areas
accommodated (or at least tolerated) nuisance behaviors
(Crawford 1992). Such implicit acknowledgement of public
responsibility is no longer noticeable in the design and devel-
opment of contemporary commercial areas. Even critics such
as Domosh (1996), who argued that the commercial districts
of the late nineteenth century were developed primarily as
outlets for conspicuous consumption, have acknowledged
that certain civic values and public responsibilities influenced
the design and development of traditional commercial areas.
There is ongoing debate about the public role and
responsibilities of suburban shopping malls. Although they
are conventionally not understood as public places, it has
been argued that the variety of behavioral settings, social
functions, and public experiences offered by these malls are
Innovations in Urban Design and Urban Form 65
Figure 6. Invented public placeUniversal CityWalk.
Note: Photo by author.
Figure 7. People on a street in downtown Los Angeles.
Note: Photo by author.
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
analogous to those that occur in traditional public places and
that these must lead to public responsibilities as well
(Crawford 1992). The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
Marshall opined in favor of this position, affirming that the
public responsibilities of the mall cannot be separated from
the public settings that they have replaced (Crawford 1992).
However, public responsibilities and civic values are minimized
in the design and development of suburban shopping malls.
It is no surprise that suburban shopping malls are located at
the urban fringe, are privately produced and managed, and
offer a variety of shopping and entertainment. They are
designed, developed, and managed to minimize undesirable
experiences (Crawford 1992; Frieden and Sagalyn 1989).
7
Because they are deliberately located in urban peripheries,
access to these areas is often quite limited. In most cases, public
transportation does not connect these malls to residential areas
in the city. Moreover, Crawford (1992) has noted that the man-
agers of some of these malls have even identified the type of peo-
ple who shop there, and several stores cater exclusively to the
needs of this identified clientele (Figure 8). Finally, there is a
fundamental difference in the characteristics of downtown com-
mercial areas and suburban shopping mallsmalls are secured
places that are monitored and controlled solely to facilitate
unimpeded consumption. Surveillance cameras are used to
monitor public activities and private security is used to control
and minimize undesirable experiences. Even a simple innocu-
ous activity, such as taking a photograph, often requires prior
approval of the management of the mall. On the whole, these
malls do not cater to the larger public nor does their design con-
tribute to a comprehensive development of urban form.
While downtown commercial areas have faded in their
commercial value and lost ground in supporting public activ-
ities, suburban shopping malls have proliferated as fortresses
of conspicuous consumption.
8
On the whole, suburban shop-
ping malls have not just separated public activities from the
commercial street; they also have contributed to the segrega-
tion of public responsibility from these settings. In recent
years, however, considerable effort has been made to reinvest
in downtowns and to bring public activities back to downtown
commercial areas. But it will take some time before the public
realm of these areas is restored.
From City Beautiful to Edge Cities
Burnham stated, Make no little plans, for they have no
power to stir mens minds (Burnham quoted in Mumford
1961, 401). Although Burnhams call for grand designs was
questionable in its social purpose, this widely quoted phrase
is emblematic of an era in which physical planning and
design prevailed as a tradition for improving urban condi-
tions. We have come a long way from Burnhams call for
grand schemes for the design and planning of cities, to
expressions of hopelessness and despair, evident in Boyers
(1990, 98) stating:
The idea of guiding the citys overall development so that
an equitable and quality environment resultedthis idea
that people could rationally control the future, that soci-
ety was evolving progressively toward higher levels of civi-
lization, that rational instrumental action always moves
from a state of chaos toward that of control, these ideals
that stem from the Enlightenment, and which were the
very ideals that engendered the profession of city plan-
ning in the early 1900sthese ideals were dead.
These observations signify some of the fundamental changes
in the development of contemporary urban form. These changes
can best be illustrated by comparing the City Beautiful movement
with the rise of the nonplace Edge City phenomenon, initially
documented by Garreau (1991). The City Beautiful movement
had a great deal to do with the unprecedented growth of
American cities during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, which had contributed to overcrowding, urban
squalor, disease, and attendant social problems. Reformers,
including noted landscape architects and architects such as
Olmsted and Burnham, sought to address these problems by
proposing large-scale plans, grand schemes, bold layouts, and
classical architecture for the comprehensive development of
cities (Figure 9). The expectation was that the physical planning
and design ideas exemplified in the City Beautiful movement
would produce a more efficient, orderly, and hygienic city and
would simultaneously improve the esthetic qualities of the city
(Moore 1970). The vision and ideals promoted by the leaders of
the City Beautiful movement were integrated in urban design
projects in several American cities. Wilson (1989, 2) has noted
that the public initiatives undertaken during the heyday of the
City Beautiful movement continue to satisfy public needs by pro-
viding recreation, relaxation and repose.
Clearly, the days of grand schemes, large-scale plans, and bold
layouts are over (Figure 10). Earlier movements in planning and
66 Garde
Figure 8. Consumers in a suburban shopping mall.
Note: Photo by author.
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
design generated carefully devised comprehensive plans for the
development of cities that incorporated the ideals and visions of
reformers. Contemporary patterns of urban and suburban
growth defy the conventional modes and norms that were for-
mulated for the development of cities. According to Garreau
(1991, 4), this phenomenon is most visible in the evolution and
growth of Edge Cities that occurred in three phases, starting
with the suburbanization of America, followed by the malling
of America, and culminating in the rise of Edge City. He has
argued that it is difficult to predict the future of these Edge
Cities because they are neither governed by norms nor growing
in any particular pattern.
9
Although dismal planning and lack
of collective vision are the defining characteristics of Edge
Cities that have drawn criticism, their other implications are the
main cause of concern in this paper. Edge Cities are the physi-
cal manifestation of the trend that Reich (1991) has described
as a secession of the successful.
Overall, the degenerative variations in residential areas,
commercial areas, public open spaces, and in the traditional
concept of cities are inextricably linked in their meaning and in
their implications. While the conceptualization and diffusion of
these innovations may appear unimpressive or insignificant
when reviewed on a case-by-case basis, collectively, they tend to
facilitate and sustain an urban form that is undesirable and not
truly democratic in nature. These innovations are marked by an
absence of reformist ideas, as well as degeneration of civic ideals
that initially influenced the practice of urban design.
10
It is in
response to such degenerative variations and their impact on
urban form, as well as the problems of development of a period,
that the other types of innovations in urban design are con-
ceived as integrative paradigms.
Innovations in Urban Design as
Integrative Paradigms
In its standard usage, a paradigm is defined as an accepted
model or a conceptual pattern that can serve as an example
for replication. In the field of urban design, however, para-
digms are generally defined as exemplars of good design that
can be adapted to specific local contexts. Urban design schol-
ars differ in their categorization and identification of para-
digms, however. Madanipour (1996), for instance, defines
paradigms as images of perfection and identifies the three
main paradigms of the twentieth century as urbanism of the
metropolitan paradigm, anti-urbanism, and micro-urban-
ism of the small town paradigm. He has identified Garden
City, Neighborhood Unit, and New Urbanism as paradigms
and has classified them under micro-urbanism of the small
town paradigm, while Modernism and Postmodern urbanism
are classified under urbanism of the metropolitan para-
digm. Meanwhile, Lang (2005) has defined paradigms as
models of good design; however, he has placed them into
two different categoriesModernism and Postmodernism.
Specifically, he has categorized Garden City and Neighborhood
Unit under Empiricism, which in turn is categorized
under Modernism, and New Urbanism is categorized under
Neoempiricism, which in turn is categorized under Post-
modernism.
11
These differences in the identification and clas-
sification of paradigms are partly due to individual
preferences.
12
Given this, for the purpose of this paper, an
innovation in urban design needs to satisfy at least two con-
ditions to be identified as a paradigm: (1) it can serve as an
example for replication and (2) it is conceived and promoted
as a model of good design. This broad definition of paradigm
is generally consistent with the definition used by
Madanipour (1996) and Lang (2005).
In addition, to fully understand the significance of para-
digms in urban design, we need to examine them in the
Kuhnian framework of paradigms in science (Kuhn 1970).
This is because the conceptualization and the diffusion of
these innovations are paradigmatic (in the Kuhnian sense of
paradigm), and this important aspect of innovations in urban
design is often underestimated. Indeed, the Kuhnian frame-
work can be used to differentiate between paradigms and
Innovations in Urban Design and Urban Form 67
Figure 9. Influence of City Beautiful movement on plan of Chicago.
Source: Commercial Club of Chicago. Image used with permission.
Figure 10. Edge CityMonroeville, Pennsylvania (development along
the business corridor).
Note: Photo by author.
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
other product categories in urban design.
13
In the discussion
to follow, I will illustrate how the Kuhnian framework can
provide valuable insight into paradigms in urban design.
Kuhn (1970) observed that scientific research involves solv-
ing problems within a paradigm that is shared by members of
a group. However, when scientists come across anomalies that
cannot be solved using this framework, a new paradigm is
developed to address the problems. The new paradigm has a
relative advantage in solving a few of these anomalies. It may
not solve all the problems, however, and it may not solve even
a single problem completely. However, the new paradigm gov-
erns the admissible problems and legitimate solutions in sci-
ence and, in the process, it significantly influences the practice
of science. Kuhn acknowledged that the term paradigm may
have been used in several ways in his book and pointed out that
these inconsistencies are stylistic: Newtons Laws are some-
times a paradigm, sometimes a part of a paradigm, and some-
times paradigmatic (Kuhn 1970, 181). To clarify his usage of
the term, in the 1969 postscript of the original book, he noted
that a paradigm stands for the entire constellation of beliefs,
values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given
community (Kuhn 1970, 175).
Certain types of innovations in urban design are con-
ceived as paradigms in a similar manner. Urban design prac-
tice involves addressing urban problems within a framework
of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by professionals.
However, when experts encounter degenerative variations
and problems of development that transform the urban form
in such a way that it cannot be aligned with their beliefs of a
good urban form, the conceptualization of a new paradigm is
initiated. That is, degenerative variations and problems of
development subvert urban form, which in turn leads to a
new paradigm in urban design (Figures 1 and 2). The new
paradigm is derived from contemporary social values and
involves integration of a variety of reformist ideas to address
urban problems. The new paradigm also has a relative advan-
tage in addressing a few of these problems; however, it may
not solve all the problems or even solve a single problem
completely. It suggests new ways of addressing these problems
and, in the process, influences the practice of urban design.
Prominent examples of urban design paradigms include
New Urbanism, Neighborhood Unit, and Garden City con-
cepts. These innovations were conceived as integrative para-
digms in response to the problems of urban development of
the time. As a brief example, the conceptualization of New
Urbanism was initiated because a certain group of profes-
sionals believed that degenerative variations and contempo-
rary problems are transforming the urban form in such a way
that it cannot be aligned with their beliefs of a good urban
form (Katz 1994).
14
Advocates of New Urbanism have pointed
out that contemporary urban problems include social and
spatial segregation, waning of the public realm, limited access
to suburban shopping malls, and the lack of sense of place
apparent in Edge Cities (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck,
2000).
15
They further argue that sprawl contributes to these
problems. As a new paradigm, New Urbanism may (or may
not) solve these problems; however, it has influenced new
developments in the United States as well as in several other
countries. The conceptualization of the New Urbanism is
reminiscent of the Garden City and the Neighborhood Unit
concepts that were conceived as paradigms in response to the
problems of urban development of the time.
Similarities between paradigms in science and those in
urban design are noteworthy and deserve serious considera-
tion. There are three attributes of paradigms in urban design
that are similar to paradigms in science. First, problem solving
is an integral part of urban design activity, in which beliefs, val-
ues, and techniques of a group of specialists play a central role.
Innovations in urban design are conceived as paradigms (in
the Kuhnian sense), insofar as these shared models govern the
types of problems that are understood as admissible problems
and the types of solutions that are advocated as appropriate
solutions. That is, the important problems associated with
urban development and urban form are identified by mem-
bers of a certain group who share a paradigm derived from
contemporary social values and predominant intellectual
thinking. Members of this group then propose solutions to
these problems using this paradigm. In this manner, the new
paradigm in urban design defines the admissible problems and
the solutions. As a brief example, advocates of New Urbanism
consider sprawl and associated social and environmental prob-
lems as admissible problems and New Urbanist projects as a
solution (Congress for the New Urbanism 2000). Duany
(1999), in an interview with the author, argued that the New
Urbanism is fundamentally an antisprawl movement (Figure
11). Duany and other advocates of New Urbanism promote
New Urbanist projects as a solution to social and environmen-
tal problems associated with sprawl.
16
Second, a new paradigm in urban design has a relative
advantage in solving some of the problems associated with
urban and suburban development. This is because the new
paradigm suggests new ways of addressing a new set of prob-
lems.
17
It is argued that because of their compact design, New
Urbanist projects have a relative advantage over conventional
suburban developments in minimizing the negative impacts
on environmental quality. According to Berke et al. (2003),
New Urbanist projects are more likely to integrate watershed
protection techniques and consequently minimize the nega-
tive impacts on environmental quality, as compared to stan-
dard suburban developments.
18
In addition, it is argued that recent demographic changes
have created demand for alternative types of housing and
New Urbanist projects have a relative advantage over conven-
tional suburban developments in meeting this demand
(Myers and Gearin 2001). This is because New Urbanist pro-
jects are expected to include a mix of housing types that
68 Garde
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
caters to different income groups. In an interview with the
author, Duany (1999) noted that the two current models of
developmenturbanism and suburbanismare both inade-
quate in satisfying the diverse demands of housing and thus
New Urbanism is being promoted as the third alternative. In
addition, many New Urbanist projects are located in counties
that have experienced strong growth and have limited land
available for development. In these counties, New Urbanist
projects have a relative advantage over conventional subur-
ban housing projects owing to their higher-density and com-
pact designs as well as their compatibility with local
development goals (Garde 2006).
Third, the beliefs, values, and techniques of problem solv-
ing of a particular community of specialists attract a group of
supporters. This redefined group then promotes and sustains
the new paradigm. For instance, the popular appeal of New
Urbanism as a reform movement has provided advocates with
an opportunity for coalition building with other groups with
similar interests, which has generated wider support for pro-
motion of New Urbanist ideas. New Urbanists are working
with several interest groups, particularly with environmental
groups that espouse similar antisprawl ideas. In addition,
members of the Congress for the New Urbanism have assisted
in developing goals for the Smart Growth movement, an idea
increasingly adopted by several states as well as local jurisdic-
tions (Smart Growth Network 2001). More recently, advo-
cates of New Urbanism have become involved in identifying
and promoting the green development ideas currently
being developed by the United States Green Building
Council (2007). Indeed, New Urbanists are influencing
beliefs, values, and techniques of planning and designing
new projects, which in turn promote New Urbanism.
The influence of New Urbanism is evident in the diffusion
of New Urbanist ideas in recent neighborhood-scale projects.
In 2007, the author conducted a survey of planners in 180
cities (one planner in each city was surveyed, with a response
rate of 63.9%) in the five-county Southern California region.
In the survey, planners were asked to identify one innova-
tive and one typical project in their jurisdiction and to
respond to a set of questions about these projects. The results
of this survey suggest that a majority of innovative projects are
similar to New Urbanist projects, while a majority of typical
projects are similar to conventional suburban subdivisions in
this region. The influence of New Urbanism on new devel-
opments in the United States is also discussed by Schmitz
et al. (2003, 13) in a report published by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI):
The new urbanism has become a mainstream way of
designing communities. While not all projects follow the
new urbanist approach to the letter, most have moved in
that direction, providing more walkable street patterns,
more mixed uses, smaller residential lotsand, often,
alleys to keep driveways, trash collection, and utilities off
the more formal streets.
Meanwhile, there are certain differences between para-
digms in urban design and paradigms in science. A paradigm
in science is an object for further articulation and specifica-
tion under new or more stringent conditions and not an
object for replication (Kuhn 1970, 23). In urban design, how-
ever, a paradigm is also an object for replication. The useful-
ness of paradigms in urban design is partly due to their
relative advantage in addressing problems of urban develop-
ment and partly due to their replicability, which in turn
improves designers efficacy in addressing similar problems.
There is another important distinction between para-
digms in science and paradigms in urban design. Urban
design paradigms also involve integrating certain social val-
ues and reformist ideas of the time, and the diffusion of these
innovations is expected to generate a positive influence on
urban form. New Urbanist critiques of and solutions to con-
temporary urban problems have drawn significantly from
arguments and reformist ideas offered by scholars and writers
for a long time.
19
Downs (1973), for instance, has frequently
pointed out that new suburban developments are character-
ized by inadequate affordable housing and excessive travel
needs that intensify segregation by race and income.
Oldenburg (1989) has argued that most suburban develop-
ments have not been able to integrate amenities and services
or, in particular, third places for social gathering.
20
Sentiments about a lack of sense of community, a growing
sense of alienation, and declining civic engagement are
echoed in Putnams (2000) observations in Bowling Alone.
Innovations in Urban Design and Urban Form 69
Figure 11. Conceptual plan comparing conventional suburban develop-
ment pattern as sprawl and New Urbanist development
pattern as traditional town.
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. Used with permission.
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Ewing (1997) has aptly summarized arguments against
sprawl. According to protagonists, New Urbanist designers try
to address these problems in their projects.
Urban design paradigms are undermined by the realities
of development, however. Some important reformist ideas
and social values incorporated in these paradigms are com-
promised when urban design projects are implemented.
21
For
instance, New Urbanist design concepts were conceived to
lead to more sustainable growth by minimizing deterioration
of environmental quality, mitigating social and spatial segre-
gation and the like. However, affordable housing is incorpo-
rated in only a small proportion of New Urbanist projects,
despite the fact that ethnic and economic diversity is an
important goal identified in the Charter of the New Urbanism
(Congress for the New Urbanism 2000; Garde 2004).
While existing planning regulations are supposed to lead
to a good urban form, some of the social values incorporated
in urban design paradigms are compromised, in part, as a
result of these regulations and policies. For instance, existing
land use regulations restrict New Urbanist type develop-
ments, and the approval and permit process of New Urbanist
projects takes more time than that of conventional suburban
subdivisions (Garde 2006). These regulations and policies are
being revised to accommodate New Urbanist type projects.
However, it will take time before such policies are extensively
enacted and implemented.
Conclusions
This paper has explored two types of innovations in urban
designdegenerative variations and integrative paradigms
that will continue to shape urban development. It was pointed
out that there is a fundamental difference between these two
types of innovations in urban design. While integrative para-
digms involve reformist ideas and civic values, such attributes
are normally absent from degenerative variations.
I have argued that degenerative variations usually inten-
sify social and spatial segregation, foster inequities in access
to urban amenities, contribute to commodification of public
space and urban life, and collectively generate an urban form
that is not truly democratic in nature. In making this argu-
ment, the intention was not to suggest that such innovations
can never involve progressive ideas or that they cannot con-
tribute to a positive impact on urban form. Instead, the pur-
pose was to point out that for a variety of reasons, including
a narrow focus on individual projects, their private financing
and control, and current trends in urban and suburban
development, it has just not worked out this way. These
degenerative variations pose fundamental challenges for the
planning and design of the built environment and deserve
serious consideration. Although this will not be an easy task,
planners must develop innovative mechanisms and provide
incentives to encourage projects that lead to more equitable
development, as well as discourage projects that intensify
inequities. A regionwide evaluation of the cumulative impact
of these innovations can be a good starting point.
Integrative paradigms, as was pointed out, are conceived as
a response to degenerative variations and the problems of
urban development of the time. These paradigms are shaped
by contemporary reformist ideas and have a relative advantage
in addressing problems of urban development. On the whole,
these paradigms are expected to lead to good city form; how-
ever, they are undermined by the realities of development.
Clearly, a wholesale endorsement of integrative paradigms
is not warranted.
22
Furthermore, it would be neither realistic
nor desirable to bid them farewell, as paradigms are central
to innovations in urban design. Designers need the kind of
guidance that is provided by such models and, therefore, par-
adigms will continue to shape urban development. It would
be more prudent to conduct empirical research to validate
the claims of relevance and adequacy of principles incorpo-
rated in these paradigms. Then, if these principles are vali-
dated (as is being seen in the case of New Urbanism),
appropriate incentives will have to be provided through reg-
ulatory reform to promote such ideas. Otherwise, degenera-
tive variations will continue to shape the urban and suburban
development in a manner that is not desirable, and the
potential of integrative paradigms to have a positive influence
on urban form will be undermined.
Notes
1. Rogers (1983, 11) notes that in diffusion research, an inno-
vation is conceived as an idea, practice, or object that is per-
ceived as new by an individual . . . whether or not the idea is
objectively new. The definition of innovations used in this paper
is consistent with this definition.
2. Indeed, there are other innovations in urban design, but
these product categories provide a sense of trends that have con-
siderably influenced urban form. In addition, the paper focuses
on innovations in urban design within the context of the United
States and United Kingdom.
3. Here, the urban form is not conceived as just the physical form
of cities but as the overall built environment that is constitutive of
and reflects on its cultural and political-economic characteristics.
4. See Lynch (1981) for a discussion on good urban form.
5. Not all the gated communities are developed and main-
tained by private organizations, however. In some of the inner-
city neighborhoods that have high crime rates, residents are
permitted to close the public street and provide gates at the
access, primarily for security reasons.
6. Throughout this paper, the term public responsibility gener-
ally refers to the responsibility of the people toward other people.
7. See Irazbal and Chakravarty (2007) for a discussion on the
typology of shopping malls.
8. A wide variety of leisure and recreational activities and behav-
ior settings are acknowledged as public activities in this paper.
These activities include casual wandering or sitting on a bench, as
well as panhandling, loitering, or even causing a nuisance.
70 Garde
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
9. These Edge Cities have different development patterns
and therefore different forms.
10. Most innovations in urban design are influenced by mar-
ket forces; however, degenerative variations are not entirely the
fault of the market. Markets respond to factors such as demo-
graphic shifts and technological improvements in addition to
consumption preferences and other demand side forces. Thus,
these other factors also influence urban development and sub-
vert urban form. In addition, degenerative variations are espe-
cially influenced by changes in the public finance system,
particularly by changes from public initiatives and public invest-
ments to private initiatives and private investment. Finally, larger
political economic forces also influence urban development and
subvert urban form, as described by Logan and Molotch (1987)
and by Frieden and Sagalyn (1989). An in-depth discussion of the
processes that lead to degenerative variations is beyond the scope
of this paper. It is expected that the references cited in this paper
will suffice.
11. Other scholars and writers have discussed trendsEveryday
Urbanism (Crawford in Mehrotra, 2005), Post Urbanism, and
ReUrbanism (Kelbaugh 2005)that they or others may (or may
not) identify as paradigms. In addition, according to Crawford (in
Mehrotra, 2005), Everyday Urbanism is accretional; it is difficult
to characterize and it is not a design philosophy. Given this char-
acterization, it does not qualify as a paradigm.
12. For instance, Vanderbeek and Irazbal (2007) have ques-
tioned the status of New Urbanism as a paradigm.
13. Clearly, each and every innovation in urban design that is
identified as a paradigm by someone will not fit the Kuhnian
framework. However, most of the prominent paradigms can be
identified using this framework.
14. The origins of New Urbanism can be traced to a meeting
convened by Californias Local Government Commission at the
Ahwahnee Hotel at Yosemite National Park, which led to the
endorsement of the Ahwahnee Principles (1991, reprinted in
Fulton 1996, 5-6). Initially, a group of architects identified a set of
problems associated with current patterns of development and
recorded them in the preamble to these principles. Later, advocates
of New Urbanism documented additional problems associated with
current trends and proposed a set of principles in the Charter of
the New Urbanism (Congress for the New Urbanism 2000).
15. Advocates of New Urbanism initially discussed these issues
in workshops, conferences, and meetings. These issues were sub-
sequently summarized in recent books.
16. New Urbanism may (or may not) solve these problems but
it has influenced the practice of urban design. In addition, some
critics of New Urbanism do not see sprawl as a problem, and they
certainly do not consider New Urbanist projects to be a solution
to urban problems (Gordon and Richardson 1997). These dif-
ferences are partly due to the different ideological orientations of
different groups and partly due to the fact that urban design
problems are wicked problems by nature (Rittel and Webber 1973).
Indeed, the problems that urban designers attempt to address
cannot be definitively formulated and thus cannot be completely
solved, which makes the problem definition as well as the ideas to
address these problems open to challenge.
17. A paradigm shift in science usually indicates the inade-
quacy of an existing paradigm to solve anomalies that a new par-
adigm is better suited to solve under the same circumstances.
Thus, the new paradigm in science typically provides new insight
about the same phenomenon (the phenomenon remains
unchanged). However, a new paradigm in urban design
addresses a new set of problems that emerge from a different set
of circumstances. That is, the new paradigm in urban design sug-
gests a new way of solving a new set of problems associated with
urban and suburban development.
18. Other scholars have pointed out that New Urbanist ideals
have been compromised in some projects as a means to get them
implemented (Grant 2006; Vanderbeek and Irazbal 2007).
19. Many of these issues and problems were discussed earlier;
these concerns are also examined in recent articles.
20. Oldenburg has identified three types of places and associ-
ated activities in terms of how and where people spend a signifi-
cant amount of time. Private homes are identified as first
places, work environments are identified as second places,
while third places are centers for social gathering.
21. Integrative paradigms can end up as utopian concepts
unless the projects that involve these paradigms are modified in
such a way that they can be implemented.
22. Sometimes, paradigmatic solutions are prescribed as a for-
mula even after the reformist ideas and values incorporated in
these paradigms are outdated. For instance, the formulation of
the Neighborhood Unit concept was driven by the notion of
developing a basic residential unit that would incorporate the
good attributes of urban life (Perry 1929). However, the para-
digm was promoted through regulatory reform even after the
problems of urban development that led to the formulation of
the concept had changed significantly (Banerjee and Baer 1984).
Authors Note: I would like to thank Tridib Banerjee and Kristen Day for
their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article. I owe a spe-
cial note of thanks to Karen Christensen for her excellent suggestions to
improve the article.
References
Banerjee, T. 1993. Market planning, market planners, and
planned markets. Journal of the American Planning Association
59 (3): 353-60.
_____. 2001. The future of public space: Beyond invented streets
and reinvented places. Journal of the American Planning
Association 67 (1): 9-24.
Banerjee, T., and W. C. Baer. 1984. Beyond the neighborhood unit:
Residential environments and public policy. New York: Plenum.
Banerjee, T., G. Giuliano, G. Hise, and D. Sloane. 1996. Invented
and reinvented streets: Designing the new shopping experi-
ence. Lusk Review 1 (2): 18-31.
Berke, P. R. 2002. Does sustainable development offer a new
direction for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first cen-
tury. Journal of Planning Literature 17 (1): 21-36.
Berke, P. R., J. MacDonald, N. White, M. Holmes, D. Line,
K. Oury, and R. Ryznar. 2003. Greening development to pro-
tect watersheds: Does new urbanism make a difference?
Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (4): 397-413.
Blakely, E., and M. G. Snyder. 1997. Fortress America: Gated commu-
nities in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Boyer, C. M. 1983. Dreaming the rational city: The myth of American
city planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
. 1990. The return of aesthetics to city planning. In
Philosophical streets: New approaches to urbanism, ed. D. Crow,
93-112. Washington DC: Maisonneuve.
Congress for the New Urbanism. 2000. Charter of the new urbanism,
ed. M. Leccese and K. McCormick. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cranz, G. 1982. The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in
America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crawford, M. 1992. The world in a shopping mall. In Variations on
a theme park, ed. M. Sorkin, 3-30. New York: Noonday.
Dahir, J. 1947. The neighborhood unit plan, its spread and acceptance:
A selected bibliography with interpretive comments. New York:
Russell Sage.
Innovations in Urban Design and Urban Form 71
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Domosh, M. 1996. Invented cities: The creation of landscape in nineteenth-
century New York and Boston. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Downs, A. 1973. Opening up the suburbs: An urban strategy for
America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Duany, A. 1999. Interview with author, April 19, 1999, Kentlands,
Maryland.
Duany, A., and E. Plater-Zyberk. 1991. Towns and town-making prin-
ciples. New York: Rizzoli.
Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck. 2000. Suburban nation:
The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York:
North Point.
Ewing, R. 1997. Is Los Angeles style sprawl desirable? Journal of the
American Planning Association 63 (1): 107-26.
Frieden, B. J., and L. B. Sagalyn. 1989. Downtown Inc. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Fulton, W. 1996. The new urbanism: Hype or hope for American com-
munities? Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Garde, A. 2004. New urbanism as sustainable growth? A supply
side story and its implications for public policy. Journal of
Planning Education and Research 24 (2): 154-70.
. 2006. Designing and developing new urbanist projects in
the United States: Insights and implications. Journal of Urban
Design 11 (1): 33-54.
Garreau, J. 1991. Edge city: Life on the new frontier. New York:
Doubleday.
Gordon, P., and H. W. Richardson. 1997. Are compact cities a
desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning
Association 63 (1): 95-106.
Grant, J. 2006. Planning the good community: New urbanism in theory
and practice. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Healey, P. 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and
its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 23:217-34.
Irazbal, C. 2006. Localizing urban design traditions: Gated and
edge cities in curitiba. Journal of Urban Design 11 (1): 73-96.
Irazbal, C., and S. Chakravarty. 2007. Comparative study of
entertainment-retail centers in Hong Kong and Los Angeles.
International Planning Studies 12 (3): 237-67.
Isaacs, R. 1948. The neighborhood unit is an instrument of seg-
regation. Journal of Housing 5:215-19.
Katz, P. 1994. The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kelbaugh, D. 2005. Preface. In Everyday urbanism: Margaret
Crawford vs. Michael Speaks, ed. R. Mehrotra. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Lang, J. 2005. Urban design: A typology of procedures and products.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Architectural.
Logan, J. R., and H. L. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: The political
economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and T. Banerjee. 1993. The negotiated
plaza: Design and development of corporate open space in
downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco. Journal of Planning
Education and Research 13:1-12.
Low, S. 2003. Behind the gates: Life, security and the pursuit of happi-
ness in fortress America. New York: Routledge.
Lynch, K. 1981. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. 1996. Design of urban space. New York: Wiley.
Mehrotra, R. 2005. Everyday urbanism: Margaret Crawford vs.
Michael Speaks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Moore, C., ed. 1970. Plan of Chicago. New York: Da Capo.
Mumford, L. 1961. The city in history: Its origins, its transformations,
and its prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Myers, D., and E. Gearin. 2001. Current preferences and future
demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy
Debate 12 (4): 633-59.
Oldenburg, R. 1989. The great good place. New York: Paragon House.
Perry, C. A. 1929. The neighborhood unit (Monograph I). In
Neighborhood and community planning, of the regional survey of
New York and its environs (vol. 7). New York: Committee on
Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs.
Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Reich, R. B. 1991. Secession of the successful. New York Times
Magazine (January 20): 16-17.
Richardson, H. W., and P. Gordon. 1993. Market planning:
Oxymoron or common sense? Journal of the American Planning
Association 59 (3): 347-52.
Rittel, H., and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning. Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155-69.
Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rybczynski, W. 1999. Why we need Olmsted again. Wilson
Quarterly 23 (3): 15-21.
Schmitz, A., P. Engebreston, F. Merrill, S. Peck, R. Santos,
K. Shewfelt, D. Stein, J. Torti, and M. Utter. 2003. The new
shape of suburbia: Trends in residential development. Washington,
DC: Urban Land Institute.
Sennett, R. 1977. The fall of public man. New York: Knopf.
Smart Growth Network. 2001. Governors on smart growth2000.
http://www.smartgrowth.org/ (accessed July 24, 2002).
Sorkin, M., ed. 1992. Variations on a theme park. New York: Noonday.
Sternberg, E. 2000. An integrative theory of urban design. Journal
of the American Planning Association 66 (3): 265-78.
Talen, E., and C. Ellis. 2002. Beyond relativism: Reclaiming the
search for good city form. Journal of Planning Education and
Research 22:36-49.
Tester, K., ed. 1994. The flneur. New York: Routledge.
United States Green Building Council. 2007. LEED for neighborhood
development rating system, pilot version. https://www.usgbc
.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2845/ (accessed November 5,
2007).
Vanderbeek, M., and C. Irazbal. 2007. Urban design as a catalyst for
social change: A comparative look at modernism and new urban-
ism. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 19 (1): 41-57.
White, M., and L. White. 1962. The intellectual versus the city: From
Thomas Jefferson to Frank Lloyd Wright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press and the MIT Press.
Wilson, W. H. 1989. The city beautiful movement. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
72 Garde
at Universitaetsbibliothek Dortmund on April 23, 2014 jpe.sagepub.com Downloaded from