III II !I
ltt llll n ltiH• h, t •ll~ l111 tll lt' tt l IIH• 111 os t tll t'l lllllt p, ltd lill t '' ''li·ll ltt ll l td tiii Htll stru cllll t', ii Htl nl rvl11 1111t'l O tstt• ll s' now ico ni t.: hook 1'/J, , 11,{1,/lf ( 11/t'.~ flu u , first pllhlt Nii t·d 111 ill't' IH.:Ii in I 972 . M tc r its English dch11t in I 1)7'/, it !W I itI motion a d,•IHtt t· l. ts ti1111 th e next ten yea rs over th e idea of a CO il t.:eptu nll y va lid 'urban IH iology', o nt• rh nt· still reso nates today, although much of the territory has now l ~t •t • ll Cll pt urt·d by urban geography. So I will continue to deploy the term 'urban' I1H't' it I'Cin ains n more relevant and conceptually challenging term than either 'l ivit-' or 'ci ty' wh en applied to design, one whose meaning will hopefully ht 'CII III l~ den rer over the remainder of this chapter. 1'1 '11~\'·ess toward s developing some substantial theory of urban design in the fnt'lll of n satisfactory hypothesis, a set of guiding constructs or principles, or a II 'IINII II l'd mani fes to of ideological practices has been absolutely glacial. Virtually dl dt•l'i nit·ions begin and end in dogma, and 'the crisis in urban design', like the l'lld lt•ss \ •ri sis in ur ban planning' continues, fuelled by a dearth of critical and d ll dt•l'tit:n l thinking, an emballage of anarchistic practices, an obsession with I. ill hnst· d lea rnin g and a continuing belief in physical determinism. Here two I'III H'I'N stnnd out simply because of their titles: David Gosling's 1984 paper ' I >t•lln it io ns o f urban design' and Alan Rowley's paper of the same name exactly 11'11 yt'I II'H Inte r (more recent examples are represented in Punter 1996 and St llltt'L'h 1999 ). In his paper, Gosling has adopted a wholly architectural perIH'l'livt•, as if only architects had any right to define the discipline. While it may '1'111 un fo ir to criticise this paper, now twenty years old, it remains significant pn•l'ist· ly beca use it represents the most powerful and enduring ideologies still do tllht nting the field of urban design. The paper is an articulate manifestation of 1 who ll y o ne-sided, ideologically biased and atheoretical example of the genre, dil'll:l l i11g every major theorist concerned with urban development, structure 111d lo n11 . Simil arly, potential models of urban design (e.g. as a definition of the p11hl k ren lm , as a spatial matrix, as inversion, revitalisation, iconography) are Wl'll ppt•d and made accessible only in and through the work of architects and tiH•i1· critics. Sil nilur cri ticisms can be applied to Alan Rowley's paper. On the first page (lwv•tl y yen rs a fter the hu ge debates about the term 'urban' raged within urban odo l o~y, in vo lving some of the best social theorists of the time) we are still pn ~H t' ltl l'd wid1 a de finition of 'urban' as something (we know not what) in 1 tlll lt'ns l to ' rurnl' development. Quoting Ruth Knack, we are informed that '' l't yi 11l\ to defin e urban design is like playing a frustrating version of the old ptlt'lo r· gn mc, lwenty qu esti ons' (Rowley 1994: 181). In 'Definiti ons of urban d (·~IJ•, n ', Row lt.'y co nclud es with ten definitions, by whi ch po int it sho uld be II Pi hl t'l' llt to th e intellige nt reader th at the di scipline is in Hl't'ioii N t•·o uhk. The ltt ~J I o l tl wse notes that urban design edu cation (knwtHI H litr ' l't ll y 111 tl w social 1it • 11 n~s, lnw, t•co nomi cs, publi<.: po li cy nnd hti H irii ·~N ll iltl ti lll ij ft 111 111 1, lllllll' of w lw l1 tlt't' 1itopl oyt·d in t'lw pnpvt·. '1'1 11' prn hl t•ttl wlllt nil it!' d 11 •I 1111 III(I IN 10 d1 •illll' 111h11 11 dt•Sif\11 is th 11 1 iiH'y 1111 ' dl' ptld l'ltlll tll ll l iii!Jij itlhln i"!l' 11111\' li lf', \IS fn 1Wt ll'd, t"H 1'(11 jH' t'lt ll pH itH o tllt ntl11•1 1111 111' ~fl' dl 1d h.tll li vn ltt r · lltlltllnnlil qwditit•t;, dt•tH tlpt lvt• l"''l'' ''lt l''l, I'• tl ll tll lftllii" tll"'''l l•ill'll Iii nil11 1 •PI· illl lltivl
Jllll l\ ll ll f','l th lll' Ill'(' \I HIII ill y t llllll ll ,I Ill lt l\'1 lll liVt'i'N :tl Nlp,ll i lkll ll~'(', Stll h 11 11 •P I""'" It iH ttld tt to I'Uillling 1111 1l11• ""'' '"I' ttl tt Nph t• rL'. Al so nt t• poi t\1 , '""I 011 1 1 111tltl lll hnH iH, yo u have to '"·rl vl' I H~t l· wiH•t'l' yo u sl'nt·ted. So th t• ti VI' I'fl ll l"' dtl r• ltl l't• tll ll tii H. In the abse nt.:c ol' 11 1t y Hlthll lll lll'i nl thco rcticn l frnmcwo•·k tlt11 1 ll11l 111 111 h11 11 dt·s ign activity to tbc hi swri cn l pi'Ocess, to social dcveloplll l' llt nnd to ,,ti ll 1 pmft•sH ion s, the same basic positio ns and approaches will be cndilosH I 11 '1 It l1•d,
Ul'llim Design: 'Theory' It !11 11t1l my in tention here to write a normative history of urban design hul 111 .~ I I'' lt vl' ly illustrate some of the more influential and prototypical di scout'N t' tl ltll lt•J•,i titlli se traditional theory from forty texts. All are classics in their ow•' 1IJ',Itl , nnd co nstitute significant markers in the journey towards an improvt•d lllldt•l'tl lil tldin g of urban design (see table 1). Historically, each text represe nt n l '' IIHijlll' 11 11'e1npt to correct what was considered a dominant problem at th e ti1n t: il 1\'11"1 wl'i lt t: n. Despite what I have said above, much practical criticism conrnint•d lulwt•t• tl th eir covers will remain valid for years to come, for the simple rcasott tl11t l t•vt•n basic principles remain widely ignored decades after they were pt't' t•ll lt•d, :tH in Gordon Cullen's Townscape for example. As we approached th~ I Ill I II r (he second millennium, however, three things became very clear. ' I'IH· fi rst· was that the positions represented in the collective corpus tr aditioll dl y I\NHOt.:i:1tcd with urban design had lost most of their explanatory powt' l, tvl tii iY of these marked, in a very real sense, the last significant breath of tl11• llltH it•l'lli sr position, twenty years after postmodernism had started to flouri sh i ll 111 IHIII design. Second, over the last ten years, a new era in urban design dwo• 111\ll tHII'fnt.:ed, although this remains to be articulated in any significant mntll\1'1. N11 11 1\llin's book Postmodern Urbanism (1996) and Ross King's EmancifJt!l/11~: Sflrlt't' ( 1996 ) are among the few memorable texts written in the intcrv t• ttltt p, JH'I tlld, Ihe latter being notable due to its rare dialectical relationship to t·lll'o i'Y• l'lti n l, th e upsurge in things urban in disciplines that had previously bee n wh oll di ta·otll ll'Ctcd to the design of cities began to produce a significant corp1111 nl w•• tlc llrhnn sociology, economics and geography, cultural studies, ar t hi HIOI y, htlldN~·n pc architecture and other disciplines from anthropology to philosoph Wt' l'l' ttl I involved. Urban sociology and hutnan geography have been th e two k1• plllyt• I'H si11CC the early 1980s. l'h iH pmgrcssion results in the incvir:d1k ohHt'rvnlion th at more signifir11 111 tl tl 'lll't•tk: d pnradi gms abou t th e shnpt• :11td ltt llll rtl lll'hnn Hpncc nrc origirlllli''l\ llltt ll out'sidc d1 c di scipline of L~rb:'ln dt•Hip, tl l tlti H~I' 1lti1ll 11'11111 th t· •itiHidl•. It n h~tt ttii i'I'H n pnrt·inl cx pbn nti on ns to wlt y 1111 l1w l{t')' ii1'i l"' 11 11 lll'hnn dcs igal h,1v1 l'll ll'l'f',l' tl. 'J'Iw o ld pnnuli gm hn s w,· H'll'd ttWtt)" l!!!d d1 t lt i'W I111N 1tot yt• l tll kt•ll lt11ld . Ill /)t•sl1{11ill~ Citlt•ii, I tht•t t•ft ~• 11 111tlt' 11 l hw •.11 ll 1tt Ill t il lwtwl'l' ll wl111 1 I , nnNHi t•t' 111 lw II OI'III II tivt• tlu•III Y /(r \,\ l.!_ 11 1 i_ lr~ini• llVl• d u i\ il 1I Y Yl'll l pt•tl~td 111 11 11 1'I 110 1t 1'" 11tt1td II) 110 11 11tl tl 11 11tl u 1~. ..0.,. 1r li H•.i! lilt 11 11 i di r y r-'/' 111 IHill dr • lp.11
li,