The public realm of

1 cities and urban design

Almost all definitions of urban design state that it has something to do with the
public realm (or the public domain or with public space) and the elements that
define it. One of the best is:

Urban design draws together the many strands of place-making, environmen-

tal responsibility, social equity and economic viability; for example – into the
creation of places of beauty and identity. Urban design is derived from but tran-
scends related matters such as planning and transportation policy, architectural
design, development economics, landscape and engineering. It draws these and
other strands together. In summary, urban design is about creating a vision
for an area and the deploying of the skills and resources to realise that vision
(Llewellyn-Davies, 2000: 12).

The last sentence is particularly important. Here is another statement:

Urban design should be taken to mean the relationship between different build-
ings; the relationship between buildings and streets, squares, parks and waterways
and other spaces which make up the public domain . . . and the patterns of move-
ment and activity which are thereby established; in short, the complex relation-
ships between the elements of built and unbuilt space (DoE, 1997: paragraph 14).

Urban design consists of multi-building projects that vary in size from building
complexes to precincts of cities to whole cities. Sometimes urban design includes
the design of the buildings themselves, but often it impinges on the architecture
of buildings only to the extent that their uses and façades, particularly on the
ground floor, define the public domain. But what then is the public domain?
Human organizations consist of public and private components. The distinc-
tion is not always clear because there are also semi-public and semi-private behav-
iours and places. In addition, what is considered to be private and what is
considered to be public varies from culture to culture and within cultures over
time (Madanipour, 2003). For professionals involved in any of the environmental
design fields the public realm is comprised of two parts. The first deals with the
public components of the physical environment (artificial and natural) in which

6
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

behaviour occurs and the second specifies how communal decisions are made by
governments and in the marketplace as defined by a country’s constitution (or in
the case of the United Kingdom by precedent). The first affects perceptions of the
elements of urban design and the second, the process of urban designing.

The Physical Public Realm

Does the physical public realm simply consist of all the open spaces outside the pri-
vate domain of building interiors, secluded courtyards, and gardens? Is it every-
thing that can be perceived (seen, smelled, heard or touched) from places to which
everybody has right of access? Does it consist of all those elements that have an
impact on the quality of publicly owned open space and/or space to which the pub-
lic has freedom of access? All answers to these questions are politically charged.
The physical public realm is not necessarily conterminous with publicly
owned property. In a society where property rights are sacrosanct and where
individuals have the right and freedom to build what they desire, the public realm
and public open space – spaces to which the public has right of entry – may refer
to the same thing. The definition has, however, often been extended to include all
publicly owned property, such as schools and libraries, whose location is deter-
mined by the public sector.
In an editorial (27 December 2002), the French newspaper, Le Monde, took the
position that anything visible in situ should be part of the public realm in terms
of photography work. The position taken here is that the public realm consists of
those places to which everybody has access, although this access may be con-
trolled at times. It consists of both outdoor and indoor spaces. The outdoor
spaces include streets, squares and parks, while the indoor may include arcades,
and the halls of railway stations and public buildings, and other spaces to which
the public has general access such as the interiors of shopping malls.
The problem is that the nature of many ‘public’ places is ambiguous because
although the public has relative freedom of access to them they are under
private ownership. As the common domain of cities is increasingly privatized
(or rather, the private domain is providing public spaces), this ambiguity is likely
to continue. If past history is any guide, attitudes towards what is private and
what is public will follow a cyclical pattern in the future. The scope of what is
regarded as public will wax and wane. The perceived need to control or not con-
trol in the name of the public interest what is designed will follow as political atti-
tudes vary.

The Elements of the Physical Public Realm

Any statement of what constitute the elements of the public realm of built forms
is likely to evolve over time. It will depend on a political stance and help to define
that stance. In the 1930s, Le Corbusier wrote that the basic elements of urban
design are: ‘the sun, sky, trees, steel, cement, in that order of importance’

7
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

Figure 1.1 Sixteenth Street, Denver in 1993.

(Le Corbusier, 1934). Certainly the sun and sky are of importance everywhere
and have been commodities with which to bargain in recent urban design work.
Nevertheless, Le Corbusier’s list is not a particularly helpful one in thinking
about the nature of the public realm.
A fruitful way of looking at the public realm is to consider it as a set of behaviour
settings – a term coined by ecological psychologists in the 1960s (see Lang, 1987).
A behaviour setting consists of a standing (or recurring) behaviour pattern, a milieu
(pattern of built form) and a time period. The milieu must have the affordances for
the behaviour to occur, but because the affordances are there does not mean that a
specific behaviour will take place there. What actually occurs depends on the predis-
positions, motivations, knowledge and competencies of the people involved. Thus
the same pattern of built form may afford different patterns of behaviour for differ-
ent people at different times of the day, week or year. Some of the patterns may
be occurring frequently on a daily basis or even throughout the day or year, while
others may occur only on special occasions (e.g. the celebration of national days).
The milieu consists of the floor of the ground, the surfaces of buildings and
other physical elements, and the objects that both bound it and structure it intern-
ally. The variables are diverse and their attributes even more so. Of particular
importance in urban design are such concerns as the sequential experiencing of
the environment as one moves through it, the ground floor activities, or lack of
them, that are housed in the milieu, and the attributes of the enclosing elements
of spaces. In the urban scenes shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, the physical public
realm consists of the elements of the artificial environment around a person. In

8
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

Figure 1.2 Orchard Road, Singapore in 2003.

the former it consists of the square, the trees, the façades of buildings, the ground
floor uses, and the entrances onto the open spaces. On a more typical street
(Figure 1.2) the elements are essentially the same but take on a different form. If,
however, urban design is concerned with the whole nature of human experience
it has to address the nature of the activities and the people who engage in them
as well. It is the set of behaviour settings and how the milieu affords activities and
simultaneously acts as an aesthetic display that is important.
In 1748 Giambattista Nolli drew a figure–ground plan of Rome (see Figure
1.3). It shows the public space of the city at the ground level during the time of
Pope Benedict XIV. Much interior space (principally of churches) and courtyards
was accessible to the public. It also illustrates the amount of open space that
existed in cities of that time. Much of it is not discernible from the streets.
As important as the figure–ground relationship is the nature of the façades that
form these spaces. What are they made of and how are they fenestrated? What
are the uses that face onto the open space? How frequent are entrances along the
streets and squares? What is the nature of the pavement, or sidewalk? How tall
are the buildings that enclose the spaces? How are the spaces illuminated? What
are they like at night? What are the activity patterns that take place in the spaces?
Who are the people engaged in them? These are the variables that distinguish
one place from another – one city from another, and one precinct, or neighbour-
hood, in a city from another. The bird’s eye perspective of the Banking District
of Mumbai and the cut away ground floor plan tell much about the nature of the
public realm (see Figure 1.4). They tell little about the life of the place, although

9
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

Collection of the author

Figure 1.3 The Nolli Map of Rome, 1748.

it is possible to speculate on what it is. The functions afforded by the pattern are
very different from that provided by Double Bay in Sydney (see Figure 1.5).

The Functions of the Physical Public Realm

Conceptually, the functions afforded by the built environment have not changed
over the millennia. What has changed is what its users, policy-makers and
designers consider important. Designers seldom consciously include more than a
limited set of the potential functions that the built environment can serve in their
analyses and designs. The world is too complex for every function of built form
to be considered simultaneously. The same patterns of the physical public realm,
either as surroundings or as objects, will, almost certainly, serve different func-
tions for different people. One of the major functions of the components of the
built environment is as a financial investment. All designers know this but it is
seldom clearly articulated as a function of buildings in architectural theory.
Architectural critics seldom write about it.
Many urban development decisions are made on fiscal grounds. For banks and
other lending institutions, and for their owners, buildings represent an invest-
ment on which they hope to make a profit. The public realm, in this case, is only
important to the extent that it affects investment decisions. Property developers
may, however, voluntarily or under public coercion use their own funds to
improve those aspects of the public realm that their developments affect or that
affect their developments. Public agencies may use tax income to improve the
public realm created by buildings in order to increase the value of properties and
increase the inflow of tax revenues. These revenues are then used to support
other governmental activities. For architects, landscape architects and sculptors

10
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

Drawing by Yudi Prastowo

(a)

Drawing by Oleksandra Babych

(b)

Figure 1.4 Horniman Circle, Mumbai in 2003. (a) Bird’s eye view and (b) cut-away ground
floor plan.

11
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

Collection of the author

(a)

Collection of the author

(b)

Figure 1.5 Double Bay, Sydney in 2001. (a) Bird’s eye view and (b) cut-away ground floor plan.

12
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

their professional work is not only a means of income but also an advertisement
of their tastes and skills that, they hope, will yield additional income in the future.
In summary, there are three basic amenities that the milieu can provide. It can
afford activities, provide shelter, and act as a display that communicates meanings.
The design concerns thus range from ‘(1) instrumental aspects which are the most
manifest through, (2) how activities are carried out, (3) how they are associated
into systems, to (4) their meanings, their most latent aspect’ (Rapoport, 1997).
These functions can best be understood within a model of human needs. There
is nothing new in this statement. It was central to the thinking of the Modernists.
Our models are, however, much richer than those they had.

Human Purposes and the Functions of the Public Realm

There are a number of models of human needs. None is perfect but that devel-
oped by Abraham Maslow is held in the highest esteem because it seems to
explain the most (Maslow, 1987). Maslow suggested that there is a hierarchy of
human needs from the most basic (survival) to the most abstract (aesthetic). These
needs trigger motivations to behave in one way or another and inspire people (and
communities) to own valued objects and to be in settings that display specific
characteristics. These motivations may result from inner drives but they are
culturally shaped and often define a culture. This observation is one reason that
urban design patterns developed within one culture are not necessarily transfer-
able to others with success.
A model relating Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs to the functions of built
form is presented in Figure 1.6. The model specifies that both needs and the
mechanisms to fulfil them have to be perceived within a social order. In urban
design, the polar extremes of social order are represented by autocratic and demo-
cratic societies. In the former, decisions are centralized in the hands of an
individual or a coterie of people; in the latter it is more diverse and, ultimately
subjected to the opinions of the population concerned.
The diagram shows that the mechanisms (or patterns of built form) for achiev-
ing many needs are interrelated. The most basic needs, according to Maslow, are
physiological. The fundamental need is for survival, which means that the envir-
onment has to afford us shelter. It must also protect us from life-threatening
events. Some of these events, such as earthquakes, are natural phenomena, but
we humans have created others. The perception of the potential occurrences of
such events very much shapes what we demand of the built environment.
Once basic physiological needs are at least partially met, people are motivated
to seek a sense of safety and security. Physiologically, safety and security needs
are highly related to the need for survival. How best to segregate pedestrian and
moving vehicles is a recurrent issue in urban design. Dealing with crime and now
terrorism has become a constraint on what we can do to celebrate cities. Providing
for people’s psychological sense of security involves them having appropriate
levels of privacy and their being in control over their social environments. People

13
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

Adapted from Lewis (1977) and Lang (1994, 2000)

Figure 1.6 Human needs and the functions of the built environment.
Adapted from Izumi (1968)

Figure 1.7 Anthropozemic and anthropophilic environments.

14
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

have an expectation of privacy for every activity pattern in which they engage as
individuals or groups. Many of these expectations are subtle and depend on the
personalities of the people involved.
The diagram also shows that the socio-physical mechanisms used by people to
attain a feeling of self-worth are closely related to the achievement of safety and
security. The built environment is very much an indicator of people’s social sta-
tus. It acts as a symbol of who we are. One of the debates in current urban design
is whether to create images that refer to specific locales or to create international
images favoured by the institutions of the global economy. (Compare for instance
the designs of Battery Park City, Canary Wharf, Lujiazui and Paternoster Square
as described in Chapter 8). For many people the layout of the built environment
being in accordance with spiritual beliefs also meets these needs. It is important
to recognize that the built environment, public and private, is a symbol of who
we are and/or who we aspire to be.
The highest level in Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs is that for self-
actualization – to be what one can be. The design implications for this level of
need are unclear. Cognitive and aesthetic needs, however, have more under-
standable implications. They are manifest throughout our lives. We need to be
able to learn to survive as well as to make advances in life so learning is present
in achieving all our basic needs. Aesthetic needs not only have to do with the
symbolic meanings of the environment as they refer to status and aspirations but
also, for some people, to the understanding of designers’ logics. For instance,
understanding the nature of deconstruction philosophy and seeing it applied in
the creation of architectural and landscape forms (as in the design of the Parc de
la Villette; see Chapter 5) is meaningful to some observers. For most people,
however, it is what they perceive and not the logic behind its creation that is
important.
It is not only we humans that have needs but also the biological world of other
animate species as well as, implicitly, the inanimate. Vegetation and animals serve
many purposes in defining a healthy world but machines often rule. Kyoto Izumi,
a Canadian architect, drew a diagram that distinguishes between those settings
where questions of meeting human motivations are paramount (anthropophilic
environments) and those in which the needs of machines are most important
(anthropozemic environments) (see Figure 1.7; Izumi, 1968). Machines, it must
be remembered, serve human lives. This book is primarily concerned with
anthropophilic environments in Izumi’s terms. Tank farms could certainly be
regarded as an urban design product type but their design really falls into the
domains of engineering and ergonomics.

Multiplier and Side Effects: The Catalytic Function of

Urban Design Decisions
Multiplier effects generally refer to the positive impacts of particular investment
decisions and patterns of the built environment on their surroundings; side

15
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

effects generally refer to the negative. The urban design concern is with the cata-
lytic effect both have on future developments. Do they start trends in investment
policies or not? Do they establish new aesthetic attitudes? Many of the case stud-
ies presented in this book show how specific buildings (e.g. the Guggenheim
Museum in Bilbao) and building complexes (e.g. Pioneer Place) have been
successful in this sense (see Chapter 6).
A prime function of many urban designs is to enhance the quality of the urban
environment by changing investment patterns. Unfortunately some urban design
paradigms have been inappropriately applied and have had unanticipated nega-
tive impacts. The ‘de-malling’ of many streets that had been converted to pedes-
trian ways is an example (e.g. Oak Park, Illinois; see Chapter 5). Of great public
concern nowadays is the impact of the built environment on the natural environ-
ment but it has yet to be reflected in urban design on any large scale. Although
there have been some preliminary explorations, the paradigms for designers to
follow have yet to be clearly articulated.
Buildings and other hard surfaces change the patterns of winds and breezes
flowing through the environment, the processes by which water tables are cre-
ated, and heat is reflected and absorbed. They, in particular, create heat-islands
changing local climatic patterns. We are only just beginning to be conscious of
these matters in urban design and in most localities the political will to deal with
them has yet to emerge. In addition, our science is still poor on many dimen-
sions. For instance, our knowledge of how winds move through cities flushing
out pollutants is in its infancy. We are much better off in dealing with issues of
energy consumption.

The Cultural Dimension

‘All people have the same needs’ Le Corbusier observed. Assuming that the
models for designing the built environment can be reduced to a number of uni-
versal paradigms has proven to be a costly error. The ordering of needs, as
Maslow perceived them, may be universal but the ways we strive to meet them
show considerable variability. The activity patterns, from those of everyday life
to the most obscure ceremonies, depend on our stage in life cycle, our gender,
and our social roles, within specific cultural contexts. What we are accustomed to
do and the environments we are accustomed to inhabit very much shape what we
seek in the future. We are habituated to what we know. Departures from the
norm, particularly major departures, can be highly stressful. Yet history is replete
with examples of attempts, sometimes successful, sometimes not, to change the
face of society through radical architectural and urban changes.
It is not only the activity patterns that vary from culture to culture, but also con-
cepts of privacy and territoriality and attitudes towards public displays of status
and wealth. In some societies there is considerable social dislocation and high
crime rates and in others much less. Patterns of the environment, the materials
of what they are made, their colouring and the whole manner in which they are

16
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

illuminated carry meaning based on learnt associations. In some societies, the cod-
ing of status through design is readily observable and in others it is highly subtle.
Possibly the most important culturally based variable for urban design is the
attitude towards individualism and cooperation. Much-admired urban places
such as Piazza San Marco in Venice were built piece-by-piece over the centuries
with each new developer and architect being conscious of fitting in with what had
already been built. They had, what architectural historian Peter Kohane calls, a
‘sense of decorum’. The same attitudes were a hallmark of traditional Islamic
societies where a host of unwritten laws drawn from the Koran governed the
design of individual components of the environment, ensuring an integrated
whole. Such attitudes do persist but they are not a significant characteristic of the
societies in which the case studies included in this book exist. The reason urban
design has emerged as a field of professional endeavour has been in order to seek
cooperative procedures that will enhance the quality of specific areas of cities.
Cultures evolve; they are not static. In an era of globalization, not only of the
economy but also of information, various patterns of the public realm are per-
ceived by officials as symbolically desirable because of what the international
media promote as desirable. The desire for universal images in the public realm
of cities often means that the requirements of many local activity patterns are
overridden in the search for international symbolic patterns that enhance
people’s self-image. Many professionals receive their education, particularly at
the advanced level, in societies other than their own and they bring home the
patterns appropriate to their host societies as part of their intellectual equipment.
They take time to readapt to facing their own societies’ needs. Some never do!

The Public Realm of Decision-making

The obligations that members of a society have to each other establish the
respective roles of governments and individuals in the conduct of their lives. The
debate over what is private and what is public, and what the rights of individual
are versus the rights of the community (however one defines the term) is central
to urban design. The debate is over the rights of individual property owners to
build what they want versus the rights of their neighbours and the broader soci-
ety to impose restrictions on those rights in the name of the public interest.

The Scope of Concern of Public Sector Decision-making

Perceptions of what should be public concerns and what private vary over time.
The twentieth century saw the flow and ebb of the welfare state. The late 1980s
saw the beginning of the second capitalist revolution and a greater emphasis being
placed on the individual and individual rights than earlier in the twentieth century.
The belief is that personal freedom of action benefits everybody. In many ways the
translation of this ideology into action has been highly successful especially at the
global marketplace level of finance. The processes of change have, however, been

17
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

a painful experience for many people and laissez faire approaches to urban devel-
opment have had many opportunity costs associated with them.
‘To what extent should the public sector decision-makers intervene in the
property development process?’ ‘Should it be only to control development to
ensure public health and safety?’ or ‘Should it be to promote public amenities?’
In other words, should the public sector be concerned with the use of sticks or
carrots or both in shaping the nature of human settlements, and their compon-
ents? ‘How far can the public sector support, through legislation or subsidies,
private profit making investment actions that are perceived to be in the public
interest?’ In the United States, recent court cases (e.g. Southwestern Illinois
Development Authority versus National City Environmental, 2002) have limited the
power of governments to use the power of eminent domain to acquire land to be
sold on for private uses even though the public amenity of any ensuing develop-
ment might have highly beneficial consequences.
The case studies included in this book show a wide variety of roles of the gov-
ernment in property development. In some cases the development has been part
of a national policy to redistribute a population. These policies have been imp-
lemented through the acquisition of land, the creation of a development pro-
gramme, the hiring of a designer or set of designers, and the implementing of a
design for whole cities. In other cases the whole development process has been
entirely privately funded and subject only to standard zoning controls. Many
urban development projects have involved the public and private sectors of an
economy in a partnership that has set the requirements for a scheme, organized
the process of its development and its funding, and then implemented it (Frieden
and Sagalyn, 1991; Garvin, 1995).
The scope of the public’s concern about the cities they inhabit (as represented in
a government’s rights to make decisions on everybody’s behalf ) has varied over time.
Recently, for instance, it has been seen as the government’s role to be concerned
about the health of the planet Earth. Inevitably this concern raises questions about
the shape of cities, policies for reducing pollution and the heat-island effect of large-
scale developments and the use of breezes to flush cities. Dealing with such issues all
requires communal action. So do the broad questions about the liveability of cities.
As the twentieth century progressed governments intervened more and more in
the ways cities are developed. Municipal authorities have, for instance, been deter-
mining land-use policies, where and how the infrastructure necessary for develop-
ment should be provided, and they have been ensuring that what is built is safe and
healthy. They have also intervened in determining the aesthetic nature of the
environment, from the ambient quality of streets and public spaces to the appear-
ance of buildings. In using their power to do so, they have had, in the United
States at least, to demonstrate that the goals they establish are in the public inter-
est and that the mechanisms they use to achieve those goals are constitutional and
are based on evidence that they work (see Daubert versus Merrell Dow, No. 92-102,
1993; and Dolan versus the City of Taggert, 1994; Stamps, 1994). In an even more
recent hearing (the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of City of

18
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

Los Angeles versus Alameda Book, 2002) it was stated that a municipality ‘cannot get
away with shoddy data or reasoning.’ These legal decisions are not universally
applicable but the implied suggestion is that designers should seek evidence
before claiming what the outcomes of design decisions will be. Knowing the
outcomes of previous urban design efforts is one source of supportive evidence.

The Quasi-public Role of Property Developers

The entrepreneurs creating large-scale property developments often play a
quasi-public role in the development of cities. This observation is particularly
true of the 1980s and even more so of the 1990s. Public institutions now rely
heavily on private sector investments in developing the public realm. Simultane-
ously there is demand for regulation on what these private sectors entrepreneurs
seek to achieve and how they seek to achieve it.
It is the private sector that sees opportunities for investing profitably in new
buildings or building complexes. They, like the banks who sponsor their works,
want what they do to be a financial success. To be a financial success there must
be some public demand for the products they are creating. At the same time,
developers often have to be cajoled into building items that are perceived to be in
the public interest but are not as profitable as other types of development. It
requires public sector incentives to make the private sector take on such less-
profitable ventures (see Chapter 9).
Property developers generally look at the city in terms of the opportunities for
creating what they are used to building. For instance, a developer of office build-
ings will look for opportunities for building office buildings; one interested in
parking garages will look for opportunities for building parking garages. Few ask
the question ‘What is the best use of this site?’ or ‘How will the way I do this
building improve the cityscape and the amenity for pedestrians?’ The conserva-
tive political view is that this process of individuals ‘doing their own thing’ bene-
fits us all and should only be interfered with on health and safety grounds.
Developers’ attitudes vary considerably and they do not represent a common
block of thought. Some are vitally interested in the common good; others are
not. They do, however, have one thing in common. They have to make a profit
on their investments. They are not necessarily opposed to governmental controls
over their work provided the controls make sense and do not inhibit their work
arbitrarily. Developers have a history of supporting design guidelines if the
improvements the guidelines lead to ensure that their own investments are suc-
cessful. Most developers, nevertheless, like architects, have powerful egos – they
want to do things their own way.
A major debate nowadays in thinking about urban design is over how compre-
hensive a set of concerns it should encompass. What should be subject to public
control and what should be left to the prerogative of the individual? The case stud-
ies included in this book vary considerably in their answers to this question. Much
depends on the context of a project and the goals that it is supposed to fulfil.

19
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

The Objectives of Urban Design

A number of generic objectives can be identified in the writings on urban design.
The built environment should be efficient in the way it handles the variables
described in Figure 1.6. It should be designed to encourage economic growth. It
should provide a sense of historic continuity to enhance people’s self-images. It
should help sustain the moral and social order of a society and should be designed
with a sense of justice for all to the extent that these are physical design concerns
(see Harvey, 2003).
The broad goal of urban design is to provide opportunities, behavioural
and aesthetic, for all the citizens of and visitors to a city or one of its precincts.
These opportunities have to be accessible. What, however, should the opportu-
nities be and how does one deal with accessibility? Who decides? The market-
place? The public policy question is ‘How far should the public sector intervene
in the marketplace in providing opportunities for what range of people?’ and
then ‘How accessible should the opportunities be?’ ‘For whom?’ ‘People in
wheelchairs?’
Secondarily, if one accepts Maslow’s model, there is a need for people to feel
comfortable in engaging in the activities they desire and that are regarded by
society as acceptable. Comfort has both physiological and psychological dimen-
sions. The concern is with the nature of the microclimate and with the provision
of feelings of safety and security as people go about their lives. Safety and secur-
ity are related to feelings of control over one’s privacy levels and over the behav-
iour of others towards one. How much privacy are we prepared to give up in
order to feel safe because we are under public surveillance? Safety concerns are
also related to the segregation of pedestrians from vehicular traffic flows and the
construction quality of the environment around us.
One design concern is to enhance the ambience of links (streets, arcades and
sidewalks) and places (squares, parks and roofs). The ambience of places and links
is related to the provision of a sense of security as well as to feelings of self-worth
and being part of a worthwhile society. Ambience is also related to the aesthetic
qualities of a place, its layout and illumination, the activities that are taking place
there, and to the people engaged in them.
The artificial world does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in terrestrial niches
formed by the climate, geology, and flora and fauna of a place. One of the object-
ives of urban design is certainly to ensure that this niche is not destroyed. The
concern is, or should be, with improving its quality so that it functions better as
a self-sustaining system that, in return, enriches human experiences.

The Issues
The basic urban design question is always ‘What makes a good city?’ The ques-
tion is asked at both a global and at a detailed level. ‘Who should decide?’ ‘Once
decisions are made, who should be responsible for implementing them?’ ‘Is a good

20
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

city the product of a whole set of individual decisions largely uncoordinated, or

does one attempt to coordinate them?’ ‘What are the opportunity costs for work-
ing one way or another?’
Secondly, ‘How far should the controlling authority (public or private) go in
defining the specification of ends and means?’ The corollary is ‘What are the
limits, if any, to the rights of individual developers and their architects to build
what they want, where they want, and how they want?’ ‘What is in the public
interest?’ ‘What is the public interest?’ It has been notoriously difficult to define.
It is represented in democracies by the stands that politicians take but they are
hardly disinterested parties. Presumably, the goal is to design for the welfare of
all concerned but, at best, any design product should represent the interests of
particular parties without harming the interests of others. What is in the public
interest will always be a bone of contention.
Thirdly, although in an age of fiscal pragmatism one might argue that it is the
primary issue, is the concern for return on capital invested. In capitalist societies,
property developers (private or public) take the lead or have to be coerced into
building the city piece-by-piece. One of the objectives of urban design is indeed
to ensure fiscal responsibility. Another is to develop carrots and sticks through
incentives and penalties for developing cities in particular ways: to create specific
facilities in specific locations.
Fourthly, how is development to be phased? ‘Where does one begin?’ ‘How
disrupted will the lives of those who inhabit the first phase be as the project
moves into another phase of construction?’ ‘Whose responsibility is it to ensure
that those people’s lives are disrupted as little as possible?’
The goal of this book is to show through case studies how architects, landscape
architects and city planners have addressed these issues in urban design projects
of various types. Having done so it will be possible at the end of the book (in
Chapter 11) to return to this discussion and ask the questions: ‘What concerns
have really been addressed in the urban designs of the past 50 years as
represented in this book?’ and then ‘What will the issues be in the future?’ Many
of them will continue to be the ones that we have addressed in the past and are
addressing now. Some will be a surprise.

The Design Professions and Urban Design

All three of the major environmental design fields use the term ‘urban design’ to
describe aspects of their own work. Civil engineering has yet to do so even
though infrastructure design is a key element in urban design. To many people
urban design and urban planning are the same thing but the products they
produce are very different (see Chapter 4). Often, however, urban planning is
concerned primarily with the distribution of land uses in relationship to trans-
portation networks. It has focused on economic development regardless of the
physical design consequences. Yet, at its best city planning does consider the
third and fourth dimension of cities rather than allowing them to be by-products

21
THE NATURE OF URBAN DESIGN AND URBAN DESIGNING

of other decisions. Urban design as a separate design activity arose largely

because city planning neglected the built environment in its deliberations of
urban futures.
The quality of the urban landscape is a major contributor to perceptions of the
qualities of cities. A city’s physical character is defined by the nature of its streets,
squares and other open spaces in terms of how they are shaped by enclosing elem-
ents (Goldfinger, 1942). The biological health of cities depends on the inter-
actions between the natural and the artificial. Few landscape architects since the
era of Olmsted have, however, engaged themselves in urban design. They have
tended to shy away from dealing with more than designing open spaces. They
have been concerned only with select types of products (see Chapter 5).
Architects, as architects, too have looked at urban design in terms of specific types
of products: buildings as objects rather than as space makers (see Chapter 6). The
leadership in developing urban design as a professional field has, nevertheless, come
from architects with broader concerns. They have been interested in the design of
complexes of buildings, and what cities and neighbourhoods might be like. Some of
their ideas and conceptual schemes have been based on rationalist thought and
others on empirical observations about cities. Still other architects have, however,
been highly pragmatic. They have been concerned only with how to get projects ini-
tiated and carried through. Some of the projects reviewed here may have been
whimsical ego-trips but most, I would argue, have been based on a sense of idealism.
Part of the difficulty in defining the scope of urban design today is that each of
the professions wants to claim it as its own. Architectural societies give urban
design awards to single buildings, landscape architects to squares, and city plan-
ners to a wide variety of items. Urban design, however, involves all these matters,
not individually but in concert. It is a collaborative effort between public and pri-
vate sectors, between professions, and between practitioners and researchers. It
deals with the four-dimensional inhabited world.

Commentary
Urban design covers a multitude of professional activities. It does involve design.
Defining the context, political and physical, of urban design work with precision
is difficult. The model of the purposes served by the public realm and the built
environment in general as shown in Figure 1.6 provides a framework for consider-
ing what variables have been of importance in the different cases to be covered in
this book. The more multipurpose the public realms in the case studies covered
here are supposed to be and the more varied their contexts, the more complex the
issues and the process of decision-making. Many more actors are involved. The
more open and diverse a society, the more intricate and involved are the debates
over ends and means and the more diverse the opinions about the results
achieved. Collaborative work dealing with planning, landscape architecture and
architectural concerns as well as those of various types of engineering in a polit-
ically volatile context is difficult and, often, highly stressful.

22
 THE PUBLIC REALM OF CITIES AND URBAN DESIGN

The goal of this chapter has been to set the scene for the discussion of the vari-
ous types of urban development work that have been subsumed under the rubric
of urban design by somebody or other. The objective of the next chapter is to
present a framework for considering urban design procedural types and the
understanding of the mechanisms available for shaping design ends and means.
Its goal, in turn, is to provide a typology for understanding the range of urban
design work that has been conducted over the past 50 years and is being
conducted today – the subject matter of Chapter 3.

23