Ali Mad Ani Pour S Design of Urban Space An Inquiry Into A Socio Spatial Process Marked

//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.
Other Wiley Editorial
Contents
Introduction
Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue,

New York, NY 10158-0012, USA
Jacaranda Wiley Ltd, 33 Park Road, Milton,
Queensland 4064, Australia
PART O N E
PERSPECTIVES INTO U R B A N SPACE
Chapter 1
Understanding Urban Space
John Wiley & Sons (Canada) Ltd, 22 Worcester Road,

Rexdale, Ontario M9W I L l , Canada
4
7
P h y s i c a l a n d social s p a c e
10
M e n t a l a n d real space
12
A b s t r a c t a n d differential s p a c e
16
S p a c e a n d time
20
Space and place -
23
S p a c e a n d specialization
26
Conclusion
28
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
31
Socio-spatial geometries of u r b a n space
31
Natural space
35
Created space
38
U r b a n f o r m and historical processes
39
T h e city as a w o r k of art
43
T h e city as a n e m b o d i m e n t of functions
45
E c o l o g y o f u r b a n structure
48
T h e internal structure of the city
49
Urban morphology
53
Political e c o n o m y of u r b a n structure
56
Conclusion
60
People in the City
63
E n v i r o n m e n t a l cognition
63
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
65
Mapping urban images
66
Data
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
A b s o l u t e a n d relational s p a c e
Space and mass
John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clement! Loop #02-01,
Jin Xing Distripark, Singapore 129809
Library of Congress Cataloging~in-Publication
D i l e m m a s o f space
Chapter 2
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
Contents
Contents
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
THE MAKING OF URBAN SPACE
Chapter 4
U r b a n D e s i g n Process
Chapter 5
69
73
75
78
80
83
87
91
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
91
92
94
97
97
99
102
104
107
109
110
113
113
115
117
Production of t h e Built E n v i r o n m e n t
119
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?
Chapter 6
119
122
. 123
123
124
126
127
127
128
130
132
135
136
137
137
141
144
146
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
vii
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
148
150
153
R e g u l a t i n g U r b a n Form
155
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
155
158
160
161
163
165
167
169
171
172
172
174
175
177
181
Images of Perfection
183
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
185
186
188
188
192
196
197
200
200
201
201
202
204
205
206
206
209
213
D e s i g n of U r b a n S p a c e
215
Bibliography
223
Index
237
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
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 :
xi
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
1.
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
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).
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
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 .
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
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
these objects? {Cannes,
France)
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
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
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).
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)
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
10
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?
11
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
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
13
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
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 ) .
Understanding Urban Space t
15
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
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
17
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
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
19
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 newûrten^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
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.
21
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-andârchttectural 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
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
23
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 staticJiaturcô.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
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
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
27
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
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.
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
29
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
30
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
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
33
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
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
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
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.
36
Figure 2.2.
Structural Frameworl<s of Urban Spac
37
Castles on hilltops are the best examples of the control of topography by the
powerful. (Warkworth,
Northumberland,
UK)
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
39
to the short w a l k in the city, a brief look at many of our institutions, daily activities
Created Space
and beliefs w o u l d reveal their historical roots.

created
Generations of p e o p l e have m a d e a n d remade numerous sets of ideas, practices and
environments and social forms, accumulated through time, all together making the
artefacts, some fading away within a short time while others outlive their creators.
urban space. The city is therefore a socio-spatial phenomenon with an inherent, but
Every new generation
visible, temporal dimension. It is a "product of time" (Mumford,1940: 4 ) , a "historical
maintains some other parts. Bv this they ensure a permanent but dynamic coexistence
creation" (Benevolo,1980; 5), the "embodiment of history" (01sen,1986) and hence
of different social
itself a "historical p r o c e s s " (Blumenfeld,1982:51).
institutions to daily routines, cultural habits and physical fabrics of the cities. This
Transforming
the
natural
space,
and
overlaid
upon
it, are layers
of
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
and
abandons
spatial
some
forms,
part of its socio-spatial

from different
inheritance
modes of production
and
and
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 ^
in r e p e a t a g o n l y j i ^ i n g l e
bcafhârd 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.
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
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

bicycle
shed
is
building;
Lincoln
Cathedral
is
piece
of
architecture"
(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)
understand
cities, it f o l l o w s , w e
To
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).
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.
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",
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
42
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
43
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
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).
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 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.
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
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
47
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
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.
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 .
49 \
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).
50
Structural Franneworks of Urban Space
Figure 2.8.
The ecological approach to urban structure explained the spatial organization
and the outward growth of the city through waves of invasion and succession by different
groups. {Chicago.
USA)
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
51
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;
52
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
Structural Franneworks of Urban Spac e
53
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
o rd
Dictionary,970),
which studies the "shape, form, external structure or arrangement,
especially as an object of study or classification" {Supplement ot the Oxfo rd
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
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
|
|
'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
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:
56
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 ) .
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
57
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
58
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
59
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
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 ) .
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
61
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
62
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
People in the City
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
65
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 ) .
Figure 3.1.
There is a dose relationship between the mode of travel in urban space and
environmental cognition. {Frejus,
Frar)ce)
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).
66
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
People in the City
^ r , Ci- .jroan Space
>''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.
2
1
^
^
I
'
i
1
:'
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
sÂJght 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).
69
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
People in the City
us.Gn of Urban Space i
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 *
73
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
Figure 3.5.
Shopping malls exemplify how signs can be successfully manipulated to create
' & / / urban forms and meanings. {Dublin,
Ireland)
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
74
People in the City
Design of Urban Spac^
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.
Figure 3.6.
Only looking fronn above offers a limited understanding of social and spatial'
'elationships. {Paris,
France)
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.
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.

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
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
People in the City
F i g u r e 3.6.
Only lookin
above offers a limited understanding of social and spatial
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 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.
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.

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
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.
People in the City
77
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
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_ôntaxLM
such as st?eeti7^âTes^ 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
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.
People in the City
81
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
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.
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)
^
People in the City
82
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
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.
(Hillier and Hanson,1984; 140)
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
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
which
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:
11), but argues that environment
architecturally"
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 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
promoting
further
subdivide the urban space into
social
segregation
and
fragmented
exclusion.
Fortress
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
city as we
83
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.
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

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:
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
--i-
le.gn of Urban Space
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
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)
People in the City
85
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).
82
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
83
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.
(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 hel p 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
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
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)
People in the City
85
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).
86
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
People in the City
87
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
Iês.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
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
93
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.
the scale of urban fabric w h i c h urban design addresses;
2.
the visual or spatial e m p h a s e s of urban d e s i g n ;
3.
the spatial or social e m p h a s e s of urban d e s i g n ;
4.
the relationship between process and p r o d u c t in the city d e s i g n ;
5.
the relationship between different professionals and their activities;
6.
the public o r private sector affiliation of u r b a n design; and
7.
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
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. ]
Figure 4.2.
Is urban design the "physical design of public realm"? {Paris, France)
95
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.
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
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.
97
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
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
101
utihtarian aesthetics, the Picturescûe 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 .
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
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.
102
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
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.
103
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
104
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
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,
105
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.
106
107
Professional divide
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 ?
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
108
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.
109
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?
F i g u r e 4.8.
Is urban (Jesign the physical design of more than one site? {Newcastle. UK)
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.
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
113
Urban design as a technical process
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.
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
Figure 4
.11.
Are tecfinical concerns predominant in design? {Beaubourg,
Paris,
France)
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
114
Design of Urban Space j
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
êvei of practical discourse where consensus is sought. 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.
115
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
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 .
r
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.
117
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 Iârt 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
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.
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.
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
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).
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)
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.
122
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.
Prociuction of the Built Environment
123
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
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.
127
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
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
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
"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.
133
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.
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
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
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).
134
135
Urban d e v e l o p m e n t process and urban form
F i g u r e 5.7.
Individual additions to urban space change urban space and are at the same time
conditioned by It. (London.
UK)
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.
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.
136
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.
Development
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.
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.
Built
environment
development
Physical ( n a t u r a l )
environment
Physical ( b u i l t )
environment
Social
Development agencies
Development
resources
Development
r u l e s , ideas
factors:
environment
factors:
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
evôpment
agencies
Social
environment
New
7\
F i g u r e 5.9.
Physical
environment
process
137
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 '
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.
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
138
Production of the Buiit Environment
Figure 5.10.
A city's skyline can clearly show the cycles of urban development,
{Boston,
USA)
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.
139
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
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 -
141
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 ) .
Figure
5.11.
(Sosfon,
USA)
Conversion of wholesale market buildings to retail space in Faneuil Hall
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
142
Design of Urban Sp ace
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
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.
Production of the Built Environnnent
145
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.
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
Figure
5.13.
In pre-modern urban settings, public spaces provided
communication. {Pisa. Italy)
arenas for public
146
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
literatur^ Kjownrs
Qoiuitts Dictionary
" < = ^ \ ' " "
u L c i r t i u i e
ulcaonary of ofEnglish
tnglisti Lmo;
Lnw;Strands
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
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).
.an.djdgb|_of_access_caimoêêea.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.
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^pjaciindependentôf^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 Ârendt,.!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'theXêiripolis. 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.
149
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_ ajût'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 dimensionôf the intersubjgctiye__commuriLcal^^
debgfebjCaiuacf^^gTOlifTFig)^
dimension of these theories
has the ability to be empirically used in the analysis of the public space.
*
=
^
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 ) .
ênn 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
Production of the Built Envlrcr.r.ent
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
Figure 5.16.
The "public" space In a shopping mall is owned by private companies, allowing
individuals to use it for private purposes. {Metro
Centre
Gateshead.
UK)
151
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
152
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
153
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
Figure 5.17.
A comparison of the new suburban shopping malls and the nineteenth-century
covered markets shows a degree of similarity. {Grainger Marlcet, Newcastle,
UK)
As w e have argued beforeîriton_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
154
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.~WeÎiave 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
âgenciilJTfteJffiraurSTKeyTnr
of resources^'nHiSsâha'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 g o v e r n 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
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
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.
159
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
Figure 6.2.
The return of aesthetics to town planning is leading to visual improvement
schemes. (San Jose, California, USA)
160
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 , .
161
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?
Figure 6.3.
Would the development on the left-hand side be permitted today in a design
control process? (Florence,
Italy)
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.
162
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?
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
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 ) .
164
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-
165
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).
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)
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).
166
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?
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,
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
168
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).
169
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 ) .
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)
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.
170
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.
Figure 6.8.
171
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.
A library of idealized images accumulates in our mind, influencing our aesthetic
choice. {Stockholm,
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.
WêZtstfe^K)^^''^'
'""P"'''"*
'^^"^'"9^ themselves.
172
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.
173
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
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
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
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).
-
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.
175
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 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
(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
177
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
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.
']
!
-'~
(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
179
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).
180
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
181
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.
Figure 6.11.
{Florence, Italy)
The rhythm of detailed elements can contribute to the coherence of townscape.
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
182
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
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
images of Perfection
185 i
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
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.
187
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
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.
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 lomêr; its time is past. It is too old.
(Le Corbusier,! 971: 3-4)
Figure 7.3.
The modernist vision was to create vertical cities. {Boston,
USA)
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
190
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:
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)
\,
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.
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.
(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
192
(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.
Post-modern urbanism
Hi
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:
193
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
194
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."
195
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
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
Figure 7.5.
Road networks in cities were meant to ease the vehicular movement. {Boston,
USA)
196
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)
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.
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
Figure 7 . 7 .
Anti-urbanists have sought to move away from the city. {Cincinnati,
197
USA)
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.
-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
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)
199
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
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).
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).
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 " .
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.
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).
Broadacre City
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 ) .
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
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
(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
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
205
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).
206
Tfie Iâdbum 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/
Figure 7.10.
Four main stages can be identified in the design of the British new towns
207
208
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
209
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
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.
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)
211
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
212
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).
(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.
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;
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.
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).
(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
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
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.
217
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
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
219
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
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
221
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
Bibliography
Design Of Urban Space
Buchanan, P. (Ministry of Transport) (1963). Traffic in Towns. London; HMSO.

Brgel, G., G. Brgel & M. G. Dezes (1987). An interview with Henri Lefebvre.
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-
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.
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.
London; Croom Helm, pp.1-14.
Brunette, P. & D. Wills (1994). The spatial arts; an interview with Jacques Derrida, in P.
Brunette & D. Wills (eds), Deconstruction
and the Visual
Arts:
Art, Media,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.9-32.

Bryant, C. R., L. H. Russworm & A. G. McLellan (1982). The City's Countryside.
Longman.
Architecture.
London:
225
Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 5: 27-38.
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
Shipman.
Collins, G. R. & C. C. Collins (1986). Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern
City Planning.
New
York; Rizzoli.
Colquhoun, A. (1989). Modernity
and the Classical Tradition:
Architectural
Essays
1992-94:
Graduate
1980-1987.
Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.

Columbia University
(1992).
Columbia
University
Bidletin
School
of
Architecture Planning and Preservation. New York: Columbia University.

Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). Almuick,
Northumberland,
A Study in Town-Plan
Analysis.
London;
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;
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
Bibliography
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.
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.
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.
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
New York; Harper Collins.

Docherty, T. (ed.) (1993). Postmodernism:
Geography.
A Reader. Hemel Hempstead; Harvester Wheatsheaf.
DoE (1976). Design Guidance Survey, Report on a Survey of Local Authority Design Guidance for
Private Residential Development.
London: Department of the Environment.
DoE (1992). Planning Policy Guidance: Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance,
PPGl.
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;
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.
Eiicylopaedia
Britannica
(1984).
The Neio
Encyclopaedia
Britannica.
Micropaedia
Ready
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;
Buttorworths.
Ferrell, J. (1993). Crimes of Stijle: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality.
Garland.
Fisher, T. (1992). The new public realm competition (the 10 award winners).
Architecture 73(10); 74-89.
New York;
Progressive
Fishman, K. (1977). Urban
Utopias in tlie Twentieth
Century:
Ebenezer
227
Howard, Frank Lloyd i
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;
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.
i
]
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:
Tlie Grozuth of a Nezo Tradition. Cambridge, j
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
76-98.
Goodall, B. (1987). The Penguin Dictionary ofHunmn
Goodchild, R. & R. Munton (1985). Development
Unwin.
Goodwin, B. (1978). Social Science
Sense of Time. London: Arnold, pp. j
Geography. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

and the landozoner. London: Allen and ;
and Utopia: Nineteenth-Century
Models of Social
Harmony.
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. '
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
Bibliography
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
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.
the American Planning Association 58(2): 177-189.

Gregory, D., R. Martin & G. Smith, (eds) (1994). Human
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.
Geography:
Society, Space and Social
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,
Property
and Planning.
London:
Routledge.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative
Action:
Vol.t: Reason and the Rationalization of
Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory
of Communicative
Action:
Lifeiuorld and System:
Critique of
Functional Reason. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural
Transformation
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:
Twentieth Century.
An Intellectual
History
of Urban Planning
and Design in the
Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbison, R. (1991). T;ie Built,
the Unbuilt,
and the Unbuildable:
In Pursuit
of
Architectural
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
Capitalist Urbanization.
and the Urban Experience:
Studies in the History and Theory of
Oxford; Basil Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (1985b). The Urbanization
of Capital: Studies
in the History and Theory of Capitalist
Urbanization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Harvey, D, (1989). Tîe 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.
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:
The Case for Design
Guidelines. London; HMSO.
Hirst, C. (1995). Urban design would halt dechne of town centres claims leading academic.
Planning
229
Week, 16 November 1995; 6.
HoUey, S. (1983). Washington:
Quicker
by Quango:
The History
of Washington
Nezo
Town
Modern China 19(2); 107.
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,
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
Oxford;
Geography.
Blackwell.
Johnston, R. J. (1993). The Challenge
of Geography:
A Changing
World, A Changing
Discipline.
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
and
Spatial
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:
Thames & Hudson.
The Elements
of Urban Form
through
History.
London:
230
Bibliography
Krieger, A. & VV. Lennertz (eds) (1991). Andres
Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk:
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
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
ernational
of the Inter
Symposhnn
on Design
2,000
Years
of Evolution.
The Political Economy
the
Design
and the Culture
Berkeley:
G. Smith (eds). Human
Explained:
of Cities: The Crossroad and the Wall.
Correspondence
1982-1985.
on Design
Review.
Cincinnati: University
of Cincinnati,
and the Geography of Production.
Geography:
Society,
Space,
and Social Science.
London; Macmillan, ;
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.
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
Symposium
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 & |
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
International
Massey, D. (1984). Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures
London; Victor
of Place.
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
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:
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 \
Washington, Tyne and Wear; Washington Development Corporation.

Towns:
elements). Current
Sociology: The Sociology of Everyday Life 37(1, Spring 1989); 1-16.
Llewelyn-Davies, Weeks & Partners (1966). Washington Neiv Town, Master Plan and Report.
of English
Sociology of Everyday Life 37(1, Spring 1989); v-vi.
Maffesoli, M. (1989b). The sociology of everyday life (epistemological
Reviezu. Cincinnati: University of
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.
Lloyd, D. (1992). The Making
231
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 ,
Minnesota;
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.
City: Social Science
Perspectives
on Urban
Design.
Albany: State University of New York j
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',
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).
Review 62(1): 51-77.
Planning Revieio 62(2); 153-199.
Moughtin, C. (1991b). The European city street; part 2; relating form and function. Town j
Mumford, L. (1940). The Culture of Cities. London; Seeker & Warburg.
232
Bibliography
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.
in Private Sector Housing
Schemes: A Study of Lazjout Design
Considerations. The Housing Research Foundation.

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, Space, & Architecture.
London: Studio Vista.
Nuffield Foundation (1986). Tozon and Country
A Report to the Nuffield
Plarming:
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:
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
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
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.
Rapoport, A. (1969). House Form and Culture.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form:

Urban Form and Design. New York; Pergamon.
Towards a Man-Environment
Approach to
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):
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
Noble, J. (1989). Safety and Securit)/
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.
233
and the Post-Industrial:
A Critical
Analysis.
Cambridge;
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,
London: The
History and Meaning.
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
2 . London; Royal Town
and General
Giddance
for
Academic
Institutions Offering Initial Education in Planning. London; Royal Town Planning Institute.
Sack, R. D. (1980). Conceptions
of Space in Social Thought:
A Geographic
Perspective.
London;
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
Relations,
the Division
of Labor
selected
writings.
Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Scott, A. J. (1990). Metropolis:
From
to Urban
Form.
Berkeley, CA;
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
& 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?
An ABC of Urban Problems,
Their Analysis,
Their
Solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sharp, D. (ed.) (1991). The Illustrated
Dictionary
of Architects
and Architecture.
London:
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,
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
Basil Blackwell.
the Face of the Earth: Culture,
Environment,
History.
Oxford:
234
Bibliography
Silte, C. (1945). The Art of Building Cities. New York: Iêinhold, (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.
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:
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.
Tibbalds, F. (1988). Mind the gap. The Planner March: 11-15.

4
^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
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.
235
Van de Ven, C. (1993). The theory of space in architecture, in B. Farmer & H. Louw (eds).
Companion
to Contemporary
Archdcctural
Thought.
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.
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.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitehand, J. W. R. (1987). The Changing
Face of Cdies:
A Study
of Development
Cycles and
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.
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
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
index
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
239
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
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
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
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
241
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

Ali Mad Ani Pour S Design of Urban Space An Inquiry Into A Socio Spatial Process Marked

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ali Mad Ani Pour S Design of Urban Space An Inquiry Into A Socio Spatial Process Marked

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

//A H

JOHN WILEY & SONS

Copyright 1996 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,

Other Wiley Editorial

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue,

PERSPECTIVES INTO U R B A N SPACE

Understanding Urban Space

John Wiley & Sons (Canada) Ltd, 22 Worcester Road,

Space and place -

Structural Frameworks of Urban Space

Socio-spatial geometries of u r b a n space

U r b a n f o r m and historical processes

T h e internal structure of the city

People in the City

Mapping urban images

British Library Cataloguing in Publication

Library of Congress Cataloging~in-Publication

Meaning and u r b a n semiotics

THE MAKING OF URBAN SPACE

Urban design and the d e v e l o p m e n t process

T h e state, the market and s p a c e production

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

and professional development. Despite the s l o w - d o w n in p r o p e r t y development, i

new interpretation and application in new circumstances. T h e approach

Design of 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

Absolute and relational space

Understanding Urban Space

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

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'

Space and mass

these objects? {Cannes,

T h e distinctions in philosophy a n d physics between absolute a n d relationist

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

Design of 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

Understanding Urban Space

The concept of architectural space, as "something prexistent and u n l i m i t e d " , "a

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 ,

Design of Urban Space

concept of space as the essence of architecture remains p o w e r f u l , and the question

Understanding Urban Space

city as an epiphenomenon of social functions, resulting in a particular kind of urban

Physical and social space

Design of Urban Space

M e n t a l and real space

Understanding Urban Space

Tschumi (1990). Following the Surrealist author Georges Bataille, Tschumi

Design of Urban Space

Tschumi uses the i m a g e of a labyrinth to represent this experience of space from

Understanding Urban Space t

It appears that this perspective reduces both architectural and cinematic

Understanding Urban Space

Design of Urban Space

d i l e m m a : between differential and abstract s p a c ^ a dilemma that lies at the heart

Abstract and differential space

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

Design of Urban Space

Understanding Urban Space

bureaucratization. B y widening the s c o p e of reason, h e argues for a rationally