//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);
[email protected] 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 planning—History—20th century. 3. Architecture and society—History—20th century. I. Title. NA9053.S6M33 1996 7ir,4—dc20 96-21431 CIP
British Library Cataloguing in Publication
4
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
X
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.
4
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
Understanding Urban Space
5
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 .
6
Design of Urban Space
Understanding Urban Space
7
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
8
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 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 ) .
Understanding Urban Space
9
The concept of architectural space, as "something préexistent 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 " eiïects 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
Design of Urban Space
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?
Understanding Urban 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
Design of Urban Space
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
Understanding Urban Space í
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
Design of Urban Space
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
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 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 spaces—to urban spaces, say—we 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 space—mental, physical a n d social—should 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 Bürgel 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
Design of Urban Space
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 ü 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
Understanding Urban Space
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 new^urten^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
Design of Urban Space
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.
Understanding Urban Space
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-and^archttectural 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 "Città 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 ì 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).
m
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Understanding Urban Space
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 staticJiaturc^o£.place,iirejittentjcm reactÌ9na]5IjDÌiHc^(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
Design of Urban Space
Understanding Urban Space
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 à 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
Design of Urban Space
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
Understanding Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Understanding Urban Space •
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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 urbanités, 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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
I
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
Design of Urban Space
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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 â ^
in r e p e a t a g o n l y j i ^ i n g l e
bcafh^ard 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^sëïTsëôf 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
a
building;
Lincoln
Cathedral
is
a
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).
Design of Urban Space
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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: 5—6) 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
Design of Urban Space
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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
Design of Urban Space
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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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 .
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
I
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
Design of Urban Space
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 . Urbanités, 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 яаШ " 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 (На11,1984). 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 Щ 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 È 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 Щ 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 î
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 contradictory—attempts 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,ì970), 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
Design of Urban Space
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
s • | | 'f, i Î |
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 agents—political, functional, social and economic—that 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
Design of Urban Space
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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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). Ц 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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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 é 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
Design of Urban Space
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
Structural Frameworks of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
^ ç 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 .eçcier, 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,aîly 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 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)? René 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 Jürgen 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
Urban Design Process
Design of Urban Space
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
Urban Design Process
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 ^evei of practical discourse where consensus is s ought. 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. (Гуле & 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 é: 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.
Urban Design Process
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
j
The concept that connects the chapters of I^art 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
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Production of the Built Environment
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
Production of the Built Environment
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."
3
^ '
. ^ *
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
Design of Urban Space
Production of the Built Environment
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 thé l ' î ? ! 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
Design of Urban Space
Production of the Built Environment
"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 Bürgel 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
Production of the Built Environment
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
Production of the Built Environment
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
ev^opment 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
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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. 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 ООО 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
Production of the Built Environment
Design of Urban Space
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 before^iriton_space£an 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
Design of Urban Space
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.~We^Iiave 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 ^agenciilJTfteJffiraurSTKeyTnr of resources^'nHiSs^aha'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
6
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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.
Regulating Urban Form
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
Design of Urban Space
Regulating Urban Form
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
Regulating Urban Form
Design of Urban Space
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 Jürgen 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
Design of Urban Space
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-
Regulating Urban Form
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
Regulating Urban Form
Design of Urban Space
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
Regulating Urban Form
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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.
Regulating Urban Form
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.
W^eZtstfe^ÒK)^^''^'
'""P"'''"*
'^^"^'"9^ themselves.
172
Design of Urban Space
Regulating Urban Form
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
Design of Urban Space
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.
Regulating Urban Form
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
Design of Urban Space
(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
Regulating Urban Form
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
Design of Urban Space
Regulating Urban Form
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
Regulating Urban Form
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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
Design of Urban Space
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