WHAT IS URBAN DESIGN

There seems to be no commonly – agreed definition of Urban Design.

It has been described as (Barnett)                     

• PROCESS AND PRODUCT OF MAKING CITIES
• DESIGNING OF CITIES WITHOUT DESIGNING BUILDINGS
• WRITING RULES FOR SIGNIFICANT CHOICES THAT SHAPE THE CITY WITHIN AN INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK THAT CAN BE MODIFIED AS TIMES AND NEEDS CHANGE
• ........ PART OF THE PROCESS WHEREBY SOCIETY ACHIEVES THE CREATION, RENEWAL AND MAINTENANCE OF THE URBAN FABRIC AND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE.

- Lack of clear, succinct definition of Urban Design lead to explanation of distinguishing parameters.  (Pittas)

 Some DISTINGUISHING PARAMETERS of Urban Design hawe been identified to be:

• IT HAS CIVIC DIMENSION – FOCUS ON PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT.
• IT HAS LONG RANGE TIME FRAME OF ACTION AND INDEFINITE PRODUCT.
• ENABLES ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, NOT AUTHORIZES IT.
• ANONYM  PRODUCT
• PLURALISTIC CLIENT – PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS.
• FOCUS ON SPATIAL, THREE DIMENSIONAL FORM.(UNLIKE PLANNING)

Parameters are based on conceptions:

Some CONCEPTIONS of Urban Designare: (Bartholomew)

• DESIGN IN AN URBAN CONTEXT
• DESIGN OF THE PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT
• DESIGN OF LARGE – SCALE ARCHITECTURE
• BROADLY DEFINED ARCHITECTURE.
• PHYSICAL ASPECT OF CITY PLANNING
• NEW SEPARATE PROFESSION BETWEEN FIELDS OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING.                        

Concepts fail to define U.D. but establish nature and scope of U.D. and suggest criteria for its definition.

The explict and implicit suggestion of these parameters and CONCEPTIONS relate to.

1. Position of U.D. within the spectrum of established professions:

• LARGE –SCALE, BROADLY DEFINED ARCHITECTURE,
• PHYSICAL ASPECT OF CITY PLANNING,
• SEPARATE PROFESSION BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING.

Some reject all of these to argue that:

URBAN DESIGN IS: (Robertson)

• THE CRUCIAL AND CENTRAL DISCIPLINE LINKING THE PLANNING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF .... CITIES AND COUNTRYSIDE.
• ....... PRECISELWHAT ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ARE CONCERNED WITH.
• PLURALISTIC CLIENT – PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS.
• FOCUS ON SPATIAL, THREE DIMENSIONAL FORM. (UNLIKE PLANNING)

2. The nature of Urban design: Art or Science or an Activity or Discipline.

Some consider Urban Design as Science (Wallace)

• SUCCESSIVE APPROXIMATIONS OF FUTURE STATES (HYPOTHESES),

“TESTED”, “VERIFIED” AS TO “FEASIBILITY”, “VALIDITY” OR “DESIRABILITY” OF THE OUTCOMES IN A SCIENTIFIC MANNER.

Some consider ıt Art (Lynch, Brewer, Robertson)

Some consider ıt  Discipline:

• “CRUCIAL AND CENTRAL DISCIPLINE LINKING PLANNING, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CITIES AND COUNTRYSIDE”. (Robertson) 

Some consider it as Activitiy:

• “ ....... LOCATED IN A “GRAY AREA BETWEEN PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE” (L.Davies)

• “....... COVERS THE MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THE PROFESSIONS OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING –THE AREA THAT IS LEFT OUT, NOT WELL FILLED BY EITHER PROFESSION”.(J.Barnett)

It has been suggested that criteria for definition should ınclude the following: (Bartholomew)

• INCLUDE CONCERN WITH PRIVATE & PUBLIC REALMS OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT
• INCLUDE WORK IN SUBURBAN, RURAL AND URBAN CONTEXT
• IGNORE SIZE, SCALE OR COMPLEXITY AS THE DEFINERS OF SCOPE OF URBAN DESIGN.
• DO NOT DISTINGUISH URBAN DESIGN BY METHODS OR PROCESS APPLIED
• DO NOT DEFINE URBAN DESIGN BY GIVING IT A POSITION IN THE SPECTRUM OF ESTABLISHED PROFESSIONS.

 Suggested definition of Urban Design: (Bartholomew)

“URBAN DESIGN IS THE ART OF DESIGNING LARGE PARTS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AT A GENERAL LEVEL PRIOR TO THE DESIGN OF A PARTICULAR BUILDING OR OTHER COMPONENT IN DETAIL.”

 Some of the above statements, parameters and conceptions concerning the nature and scope of U.D. carry important implicit and explicit reasons why a commonly – agreed language of urban design is difficult to achieve.

• The “civic dimension” of urban design
• Its “facus on public environment”
• The idea of “designing cities without designing buildings”

places urban design “outside” the concern of the architects designing “private” buildings of their clients.

Yet, the definition of urban design as:

• “Large- scale acrhitecture”
• broadly-defined architecture” or, the suggested
• “Concern with both private and public realms”
• “Ignoring its psition in the spectrum of established professions”
• Ignoring size, scale or complexity as the definers of its scope”

suggest the relevance of all means, i.e. “established languages” of communication relevant and useful in urban design studies. This is generally valid for several analytical studies and design images to be portrayed.

The level of complexity / diversity and the broad scope of urban design necessitate an equally complex and diverse “language” for design expressions, for communication of ideas and ultimately for instructions and regulations for implementtation. On one hand, a whole metropolitan area can be “shaped” and expresed in its macroform, upto the scale of 1/50.000; or, policies and strategies can be expressed in written form; or, a pavement or city furniture, signs can be expressed in minute details up to 1/1 scale.

 There is a wide range of literature on the subject of communicating design ideas to a variety of clientele through a rich variety of media. Howover, the difficulty arises when the “shop drawings” of a complex urban design study is to be prepared and communicated.

Especially so, considering the nature of urban design as being:

• “enabling rather than authorising”
• “having long - time frame of action for implementation”
• “having multitude of clients, e.g. the politicians and general public”
• “having an indefinite product”
• “writing rules for significant choices that shape the city within an institutional framework that can be modified as times and needs change”.

All these aspects suggest an “elusive”, indefinite nature of urban design conceptions and challenge a straightforward interpretation of design ideas leading ultimately to an “institutionalized” form of urban design “language” to be used for communication among all parties involved (from students to professionals to general public) and for legally – binding official documents of implementation.

Obviously, when a total design of an urban fabric, a large scale project is undertaken, the question of the language approximates that of associated professions, i.e. architecture, planning, landscape architecture.

 However, since very large scale urban design projects are seldom undertaken and /or require long time for implementation (and yet the city continues to be built) a means, a “language” should be devised  ensuring the conveyance of the design conceptions for the building of the urban environment according to those conceived designs and images.

 The question of whether a uniform, all –encompassing, institutionalized urban design language of communication is desirable or possible needs to be addressed before taking on the challenge. Especially, considering the fact that urban design undertakings involve long time frame and multitude of clients / decision makers at different times, is it possible to write or specify rules of design for architects of laters years or even generations. The answer to this question is to be “yes” for without an affirmative answer in this regard, we might end up denying the use of long range city planning / design. The challenge can then be transformed into one of “appropriate” “urban design language(s)” that can be employed for different circumstances – ranging from pedagogic to professional to public.