Original Article A typology of Urban Design theories and ... · Original Article A typology of Urban Design theories and its application to the shared body of knowledge Hooman Foroughmand

Original Article

A typology of Urban Design theories and its applicationto the shared body of knowledge

Hooman Foroughmand Araabi

Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, Central, House 14 Upper Woburn Place,London, WC1H 0NN, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract This article consists of two parts. The first part suggests a typology for urban design theories in orderto provide a new way of understanding the nature and function of the, seemingly opposing, debates existing inthe field. This typology is based on distinguishing between subjects, object and knowledge of urban design. In thesecond part, the typology is applied to the shared body of knowledge. In order to do so, this article attempts togive an overview of the current shared body of knowledge in the field of urban design. The reading lists of urbandesign theory courses, drawn from different universities in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, areanalysed to identify common texts. These texts are then considered to be one reading of what constitutes theshared body of knowledge. A comparison is made between this list of titles and those texts offered in variousurban design readers to provide a better overall picture of the shared body of knowledge. Finally, a chronologicalanalysis is made to illustrate the development of the three types of urban design theory.URBAN DESIGN International (2016) 21, 11–24. doi:10.1057/udi.2015.6; published online 3 June 2015

Keywords: Urban design theory; typology; shared body of knowledge

The online version of this article is available Open Access

Introduction

Communicating ideas in any field requires a levelof common understanding of the professionallanguage. Usually, a number of influential texts,recognized as describing key concepts, generatethe shared professional language. This commonunderstanding of the professional language is bothderived from and informs the shared body ofknowledge of the field.

Certain scholars have tried to provide a list ofkey texts of urban design. Moudon (1992), in herepistemological map of urban design debates,shows and categorizes texts she considers impor-tant for different topics in urban design, Ellin’s(1999) The Postmodern Urbanism provides a chron-ological map of texts and events that inform urbandesign debates, More recently, Cuthbert (2007a)proposed 40 influential texts of mainstream urbandesign. These attempts suggest a need to defineand understand what the important texts are. Forthese scholars, the texts they consider important

are those they think make up some of the sharedbody of knowledge. While useful, there are twopertinent issues with these texts. First, as knowl-edge develops, the picture will require updating.Second, the methodology behind the choice of textsis not clear. Therefore an updated and system-atically selected view of the key texts is required.Providing an overview of the knowledge is chal-lenging. As fundamentally different types of textsare gathered under the title of urban design it isnecessary to have a model to interpret the existingliterature.

Knowledge being broader than theory, it is thetheory that gives meaning to knowledge andmakes it applicable. Therefore, in mapping theknowledge of urban design, the first part of thearticle focuses on theories. It is necessary here toclarify what is meant by urban design theory andhow it differs from scientific theory. Scientifictheory is mostly based on generalization andrefutation (Curd and Cover, 1998). The concept ofrefutability has been applied to urban design

© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 21, 1, 11–24www.palgrave-journals.com/udi/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/udi.2015.6

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/udi

(Cuthbert, 2007b), but this is problematic becauseeach case of urban design has its own particularconditions. As urban design strives to make betterplaces, the concept of a good place (normativeaspects) recurs throughout the literature. The pro-blem with applying the concept of refutability andthe inclusion of normative direction means urbandesign theory is not a pure scientific theory.Despite this, urban design theory can still achievesome of the expected goals of a successful scientifictheory, such as ‘a method of organizing andcategorizing’, ‘prediction of future events’, ‘expla-nations of past events’, ‘a sense of understanding’and ‘the potential to control events’ (DavidsonReynolds, 2007). This definition puts theory at theheart of knowledge. The typology offered in thefirst part of this article is one model for mappingknowledge. This typology relies on distinguishingbetween subjects, object and knowledge of urbandesign.

The second part of this article explores moregeneral understanding of the knowledge of urbandesign. It is important to recognize that the sharedbody of knowledge will, by its very nature, consistof texts selected using a variety of criteria and willsometimes reflect opposing aims or approaches.Nevertheless, the shared body of knowledgeplays an important role in both the legitimizing ofthe profession and the emergence of professiona-lized institutes. The shared body of knowledgeand the institutionalization of knowledge arethus mutually reinforcing. In this article, texts areonly considered as belonging to the sharedbody of knowledge if they are commonly recom-mended by numerous universities. The universi-ties scrutinized were from the United States,United Kingdom and Australia. These universitiesuse literature in the English language even thoughthey are located in different political economies.A comparison of common texts reveals somedifferences in what is being regarded as urbandesign in different countries. After providing itsreading of the shared body of knowledge, thisarticle demonstrates an application of the typologypresented in the first part to the shared body ofknowledge.

Each part of this article is presented discretely soas to allow room for thinking about further appli-cations of both the shared body of knowledge andthe typology. As Inam (2014) mentioned, one of thereasons for mapping bodies of knowledge is toenable the asking of critical questions (p. 9). In theconclusion, further possibilities for such criticalresearch are suggested.

Part one – Typology

Introduction: Necessity for structure

In order to have a comprehensive understandingof theoretical debates within the field, a structureconnecting discrete theories is needed. Such astructure would be derived from studying theexisting knowledge rather than imposing pre-exist-ing categories. Typology is a method of classifica-tion which meets most of the requirements for auseful structure. The typology suggested here isderived from the literature but does not purport tobe comprehensive. Instead, the aim is to present amodel that makes sense of different functions oftheory in the domain of urban design.

Typology is a familiar concept in the field ofurban design – different typologies of space, beha-viours, processes and products are present withinthe literature (Lang, 2005; Krieger and Saunders,2009). Yet the word ‘typology’ is ambiguous. In itspurest sense it refers to ‘the study and theory oftypes and of classification systems’ (Lang, 2005,p. 43). Classification systems and the idea of typehave long been used by human beings in order tomake sense of the world. ‘Theories of typology canbe traced back to concepts of Platonic ideal formand to the Enlightenment practice of botanicalcategorization and encyclopedic method’ (Lariceand Macdonald, 2007, p. 251). The idea of typologyis most helpful when some similarity existsbetween phenomena. However, typology does notjust act to highlight similarities – it also shows thedifference between types.

The development of the typology being pre-sented here was not a linear process. It was derivedthrough testing and retesting how the model fitswith the literature. Therefore, the typology couldhave been presented after the shared body ofknowledge in this article. However, the currentorder was chosen because it makes clear that thistypology is only one possible model with which toorganize different sets of urban design theories.

A typology is generally considered successful ifit is based on a method of classification that resultsin exhaustive and exclusive categories. It is helpfulif the typology can have uses beyond basic classi-fication (Davidson Reynolds, 2007). Owing to thenature of urban design debates, an absolutelyexhaustive and exclusive typology is not possible.Nevertheless, a typology of urban design can stillsucceed by meeting three basic objectives: correct-ing misconceptions and confusion by systemati-cally classifying related concepts, effectively

Foroughmand Araabi

12 © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 21, 1, 11–24

organizing knowledge and facilitating theorizing(Allmendinger, 2009, p. 34).

Three types of urban design theory in theliterature

There are numerous possible criteria for develop-ing categories in order to produce a typology oftheories. Examples are political direction, philoso-phical approach, language, product and scale.Each of them might be useful for a specificpurpose. The typology proposed here classifiestheories based on their aims rather than theirapproaches, strategies or philosophical perspec-tives. This results in a more practical overview ofthe knowledge because the theories that try toachieve similar goals fall into one category. Thefollowing categorization has been done by answer-ing the question: ‘What is this theory about?’

The analysis examining the subjects of urbandesign theories led to three distinguishable typesof theory as: theories about the subjects within urbandesign, theories about the object of urban design andtheories about the knowledge of urban design. In orderto clarify the categories within the typology, thefollowing descriptions use examples of appropri-ate texts to present one among many possiblereadings of the literature.

Type one: theories about the subjects within urbandesignThis type of theory focuses on the subjects withinurban design. Such a theory usually says whatneeds to be done in order to achieve an intendedresult. For example, The Image of the City (Lynch,1960) explains what to do in order to achieve aclearer mind map of cities. Type one theories areakin to ‘what-if’s – they provide ‘the potential tocontrol events’. However, their understanding isonly about one specific aspect of real city life.In actual practice, designers tend to adjust suchtheories in order to adapt them for specific cases.Theories in this category often start by explaining areal problem of the built environment, and endwith some general concepts that explain a relationbetween two or more parameters which could beapplied in different cases.

Texts of this type do not tend to use the termtheory in their discussions. They also tend to reflectwidely accepted values, such as democracy, safety,justice or common sense. This type of theory hasone or more cohesive concepts at its core. But eachtext has a different background, reflected in the

human knowledge and research strategy support-ing it. Some categories of this type include:

● Theories of composition of mass and space (such asCity Planning According to Artistic Principles(Sitte, 2013), Collage City (Rowe and Koetter,1978), Space Syntax (Hillier and Hanson, 1984)and Finding Lost Space (Trancik, 1986)) – thesetheories are those that explain how the physicalshape of cities should be drawn on the map. Thiscategory traditionally involves only two dimen-sions, but sometimes three dimensions are con-sidered. In other cases, the social impact of thecity grids and shape are also considered. Thereare rich examples in the literature of texts on thistopic and various strategies are demonstrated inthem. (The strategy of space syntax is based on ascientific study of city spaces, although for Sitte,artistic values are of greater importance.) Thesetheories are close to morphological debates(Larkham, Conzen, and Lilley, 2014).

● Theories about visual aspects of public spaces (suchas Townscape (Cullen, 2012)) – these theoriesexplain how three-dimensional design shouldhappen. There are many theories about a build-ing’s facade and the composition of new build-ings within their context. Traditionally,architectural design feeds this category, butmore recently it has been informed by semioticstudies and visual anthropology.

● Theories of the image of the city (such as The Imageof the City (Lynch, 1960)) – Lynch’s work wasdeeply influential in the field. His theories exam-ine mental maps of cities and people’s percep-tions of the built environment. Following thepublication of his book, the study and improve-ment of the image of cities became an importanttopic in urban design.

● Theories of safety (such as The Death and Life ofGreat American Cities (Jacobs, 1984)) – thesetheories suggest different strategies, such aslighting spaces to supporting mixed land useand eyes on the street to bring about securityand safety. These theories have been affected byenvironmental studies as well as critical apprai-sals of modern cities.

● Theories to evoke social interaction (such as TheSocial Life Of Small Urban Spaces (Whyte, 1980)and Life Between Buildings (Gehl, 2011)) – thesetheories try to enhance social interaction andmake public places more convivial. It seems that,historically, this type of urban design theory hasbecome more and more inclusive; nowadaysdebates about different groups in public spaces

A typology of Urban Design theories and its application to the shared body of knowledge

13© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 21, 1, 11–24

and public interactions as social capital fall intothis type.

● Theories to enhance identity, studying history andthe meaning of cities (such as Urban Space (Krier,1993), Collage City (Rowe and Koetter, 1978) andThe City Shaped (Kostof, 1999)) – these theoriesare concerned with the history of a city and itsmeaning for people currently using it. Theoriesin this category try to grasp a sense of identityand enhance it through design principles. Thesetheories see the built environment as a tool withsymbolic potential for communicating the sociohistorically built meanings. General classicexamples of the theory of the meaning of thebuilt environment are usually close to politicaltheories on the built environment, and recentones typically talk about different actors andpower in the post-modern context.

There are other influential subcategories for thistype which do not often feature in the shared bodyof knowledge (discussed in the second part of thisarticle). Some examples are theories about econ-omy of urban design, health as impacted by urbandesign, urban design management and sustain-ability. By having different methodology and aims,various categorizations are possible. The logicbehind the categorization in this article is high-lighted because it facilitates navigation in theliterature.

Type two: theories about the object of urban designTheories of the first type do not allow a compre-hensive view of urban design, nor do they providea theoretical context for the field of urban design.In order to have such a field, another kind oftheoretical debate is needed, one which makessense of all the separate theories. Therefore, thesecond category is that of theories which portrayurban design as a cohesive field. These theoriesexplain how designing as a conscious activity formsurban places. While type one could be seen astheories in urban design and type two as theoriesof urban design, following Faludi’s (1986) classifi-cation for planning theories it is possible to con-sider type two theories as theories about the object ofurban design.

Theories about the object of urban design arebased on theories from the first layer. Type twotheories try to integrate theories that can improvespecific aspects of public space, to create a compre-hensive field that can improve public spaces ingeneral. Attempts at theorizing the object of urbandesign can be divided into two categories: those

that provide a comprehensive view of what urbandesign object is about (descriptive emphasis) andthose that try to explain how to improve the objectof urban design (prescriptive emphasis). This cate-gorization does not mean that the subcategoriesare fundamentally discrete, but a successful pre-scription relies on a proper description. Nonethe-less, since the aims of the texts falling intosubcategories are fundamentally different, it ishelpful to distinguish them here.

● Comprehensive view of what urban design object isabout (descriptive emphasis): Even though scholarshave different understandings of the object ofurban design, texts falling into this subcategorydeeply reflect the existing literature in responseto the object of urban design. A Theory of GoodCity Form (Lynch, 1981) and Public Places UrbanSpaces (Carmona et al, 2003) are examples of thissubcategory. Despite the fact that they do notpropose a manual, they are insightful for under-standing of the topic.

● How to improve the object of urban design (prescrip-tive emphasis): Texts belong to this subcategorytry to operationalize discussions from theprevious categories. Responsive Environments(Bentley, 1987) is one of the earliest texts thatcan be allocated to this subcategory. Since thepractice of urban design has been in a highdemand of guidelines, there are many textswritten with similar intention. In some casesthese texts provide generic solutions for genericproblems, for example, the permeability(Bentley, 1987). When applying these genericsolutions, it is important not to let theory dom-inate the first-hand understanding of the pro-blems. Otherwise, generic solutions imposed onthe contexts may well generate more problems.In other words, unquestioning application of ageneric solution could restrict new thinking.

Type two theories provide an understanding ofurban design as a combination of a wide range oftheories, some of which may be contradictory.In order to present an integral understanding ofurban design, type two theories need theoreticalarguments to connect the sometimes controversialtheories they use. For example, Making People-Friendly Towns (Tibbalds, 2000) applies the conceptof place as the key concept that binds the theory.

Comprehensiveness distinguishes the first typeof theory from the second. However, being com-prehensive is a relative concept. Texts consideredcomprehensive when published can later beregarded as incomprehensive. One example of a

Foroughmand Araabi


re-evaluated text is Finding Lost Spaces (Trancik,1986).1 Once regarded as a comprehensive theoryof urban design, the development of urban designarguments means it can no longer be placed in thesecond category. A dynamic typology of knowl-edge reflecting time and place is clearly needed.

In allocating a theoretical text to this type, therecan be a problem of deciding whether a bookprovides a new theory or is a new combination ofold theories. Urban design handbooks (Llewellyn,2000; Cowan, 2002) and readers (Carmona andTiesdell, 2007; Larice and Macdonald, 2007) areexamples of this point.

Are they merely a new amalgamation ofprevious theories, or are they suggesting newarguments? There might not be a robust answer tothis question. There are texts that might be seen asfalling on the borderline between a collection oftheories and an integral theory. This article con-siders them to fall into type two.

Type three: Theories about the knowledge of urbandesignThe third type of urban design theory includestheories that consider the actual knowledge of urbandesign as the subject of their study. They arerelatively less concerned with specific case studiesand may not have a direct impact on designingcities.

Generally, type three theories emerged after thesecond type. An example of type three is Design ofUrban Space (Madanipour, 1996) where it is arguedthat urban design derives from both spatial andsocial processes. As another example, in UrbanDesign (Lang, 2005) the author proposes a theore-tical framework in order to make sense of projects,procedures and paradigms that are currently exist-ing in urban design.

Theories belonging to type three can be criticizedas unhelpful to actual urban design practice. Con-sidering the practical nature of urban design, theremight be some reluctance to consider these theoriesas urban design theories. Nevertheless, becausethey provide ‘a sense of understanding’ of the fieldof urban design, they are considered in this articleas valid theories.

Type three texts are intellectual studies of the-ories falling into the categories of type one or two.As a result, applications of this type are typicallyfound in theoretical endeavour, such as in post-graduate courses and research.

There are two subcategories distinguishablewithin this type. Both attempt to construct theories

about urban design, but their aims are slightlydifferent. The first subcategory of this type consistsof texts that are trying to study urban designknowledge in connection with other disciplines.The second focuses on urban design from withinits own theoretical domain.

● Theorising urban design knowledge from the perspec-tive of other disciplines: Texts in this type aretrying to define the discipline by applying morefundamental concepts from other disciplines,usually social sciences. For example, in Design ofUrban Space (Madanipour, 1996) the concept ofspace, which is seen from a social science per-spective, is the key element. In this example,space is seen as a social production, and itsinevitable relation to power and economy is ofextreme importance. Texts belonging to thissubcategory generally explain the forms of citiesand the knowledge related to them as the exten-sion of socio-economic forces. They are often lessinterested in studying the physical forms ofurban spaces than texts falling into the secondsubcategory.

● Theorising urban design knowledge from within:Texts that fall into this subcategory are groundedwithin the existing problems of the urban designdiscourse. However, these arguments may beinformed by discussions from various fields.Owing to the theoretical stance of texts belongingto this category, they are concerned with theactual space and the ways in which it changes(such as Carmona, 2014). These texts are lesscritical of the existing body of knowledge com-pared to the previous subcategory of this type.However, there is a limited number of texts thatcan fall into this subcategory.

How do the three types interact? A three-tieredmodel of urban design theories

The type of urban design theory suggested hererests on the idea of layers: to have a second layer,the first layer is necessary, and for the third, thefirst two are needed. This means that these typesare working as layers upon which the next layerforms. Urban design as a field became establishedonly when a comprehensive knowledge claimingto improve public places for people – the secondtype theories – emerged. Institutes and universitiesthen legitimized this new field.

Understanding the interaction between the threetypes of theory can provide a framework for



following their application in practice and acade-mia. The typology proposed here could alsoimprove general understanding of theories ofurban design. Theories that have been used inurban design date back to different periods, but atheoretical framework of urban design that seesthese theories in a cohesive manner (the secondlayer) emerged in the second half of the twentiethcentury. The proposed typology can help toexplain the development of urban design theorymore comprehensively. This is explored in thesecond part of this article.

There is potential in this typology to highlightthe connection of urban design theories to otherdisciplines. Theories of type one can be borrowedfrom other fields, but the borrowing of entiretheories from other fields is less likely with thesecond type. In many cases, theories of the thirdtype assist urban design to define its relationshipwith other fields.

Part Two – The Shared Body of Knowledge

Knowledge is a general term. Individuals, whetherprofessional or not, have their own knowledge. Butstudy for a profession requires awareness of aspecific and commonly recognized body of knowl-edge. The second part of this article draws onurban design courses at universities in the UnitedStates, United Kingdom and Australia, and on thecontents of urban design readers to present ashared body of knowledge.

Universities

Universities have two complementary but distinc-tive roles in relation to the shared body of knowl-edge: teaching and research (Ringer, 1990). Bothroles are discrete despite encouraging interaction(Robertson and Bond, 2001, p. 6). Teachinginvolves educating (transferring knowledge) andtraining. In addition to transferring knowledge,good education should foster critical thinking,possibly leading to innovation in both practiceand theory. Training is more concerned withdeveloping established skills and methods, whichmay have no implications in terms of the develop-ment of theory. These categorizations are subjec-tive, nevertheless they can be helpful inhighlighting the different aspects of teaching andtheir relation to the development of theory.

Research is of two kinds: exploring areas thathave not previously been investigated, and docu-menting existing processes using current theoriesand discourses. The shared body of knowledgepresented here is concerned with teaching in thesense of transferring knowledge (educating), andresearch in the sense of documenting existingprocesses.

Teaching and research are generally defined inrelation to theories of the discipline. Researchcontributes to the shared body of knowledge byexpanding the available theories or generating newtheories, whereas teaching involves disseminatingthe shared knowledge. Predominantly, it could beconcluded that research aims to develop theoryand teaching aims to develop practice. Thus, look-ing at the shared body of knowledge can be adeparture point for studying the interactionbetween the theory and practice of urban design.

Despite universities with urban design courseshaving similar functions, they have developeddifferent approaches. The political economy ofcountries, as well as the individual views of aca-demics, have contributed to this. Consequently,urban design in different contexts and countriesdeveloped different focuses. Postmodern Urbanismhas examples of how the European and Americanaxes of urban design developed in response totheir contexts (Ellin, 1999). What universities teachand research differs according to the individualcontext.

The co-evolution of universities and the sharedbody of knowledge is traceable by studying whenand why certain texts became important. Manyinfluential books about urban design were eitherintended for or actually produced by universitiesthemselves. Madanipour’s book (1996) is mostlythe result of research into developing an urbandesign course for the university of Newcastle. Theideas of students have contributed greatly to sev-eral books, such as those by Alexander (1987),Bentley (1987) and Rowe and Koetter (1978).

Given the function of universities in relation toknowledge, it is useful to start the study of theshared body of knowledge by examining thatbeing disseminated by universities. Similaritiesand differences between what is taught at thevarious universities must be noted to map theknowledge of urban design. It should also berecognized that influential works can appear out-side of the university, but this falls outside of thescope of this article.

In order to map the knowledge of urban design,this article investigates the approach to urban

Foroughmand Araabi


design theory at different universities and exam-ines what common ground there is between uni-versities’ reading lists. The result reveals themainstream urban design texts. This study needsto be understood in its historical and geographicalcontext. The conclusions of this part of thisresearch show differences in the preferences ofreading lists, depending on whether the course isone offered in Australia, the United States or theUnited Kingdom.

The shared body of knowledge at universities

The reading lists used for this research came fromcourses at both BA and MA level. The list ofuniversities was derived from two sources: thearticle on pedagogical traditions of urban design(Banerjee and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2011, pp. 41–52),and the list provided by RUDI (2014). The majorityof universities have modules on urban designtheory, while some have modules on theory andhistory or theory and methods. Where the univer-sity did not have a module explicitly on urbandesign theory, the reading list for its most relevantmodule was requested. This was to expand on themethodology of a previous study (Klosterman,2011), which restricted the courses studied to onlythose explicitly titled urban design theory.

Thirty-three universities with urban designcourses were asked for their reading lists, and25 reading lists were obtained. The reading lists ofsome universities were already available online,but others needed to be asked via email. All thelists acquired are for the academic year 2013–2014.

A first analysis showed that different universi-ties have different approaches towards providing areading list. Some universities (for example, BallState University in the United States) do notprovide a set reading list of book for students; BallState said that it ‘focus[es] on practice, with theorybeing taught as an integral part of studio andmethods courses’. At this university, the coursetutors hold that since the majority of their studentsgo into practice, they do not need theoreticaldebates over and above urban design projects atstudios.

A challenge that arises in the analysis of the listsis that of comparing them. The number of books indifferent reading lists varies dramatically from asfew as five to more than 120. However, it is thebooks common to the reading lists which are beingidentified here. Therefore, even if there are dispa-rities in the number of titles recommended on any

particular list, they do not prevent identification ofthose shared texts which can be considered as theshared body of knowledge.

A count of all titles suggested by the reading listsrevealed 817. Of these, 650 appeared only once.Since the majority of texts were not repeated acrossthe reading lists, it suggests that an immensevariety of texts are not part of the shared body ofknowledge.

Table 1 shows the books that appear mostfrequently in reading lists. It is not possible tojudge whether this shows strong agreementbetween professionals on the shared body ofknowledge or not. In fact, the most frequentlysuggested text (The Image of the Cities) was absentfrom 32 per cent of the reading lists. This does notnecessarily mean that there is not a commonunderstanding of urban design. If the same studywere to be carried out in the future, a comparisonwould reveal whether or not the basic vocabularybetween academics is getting stronger – bookspresent on reading lists in the future that arealready popular now must be seen as the absolutecore of urban design. A comparison with a similarstudy on planning theory at various universities(Klosterman, 2011, p. 323) shows that the list aboveis more up-to-date and specific.

Table 1 shows that there is some consensusamong universities on certain key texts of urbandesign – texts mostly written between 1960 and1980. Indeed, many texts recommended by morethan 25 per cent of universities worldwide areeither from more than 40 years ago or are compre-hensive texts that provide an overall view of urbandesign (type two). Finally, the table shows whichtexts can be associated with which type of thetypology presented earlier in this article.

Despite the fact that some of the texts in this listhave had influential impact on other fields,2 theywere all originally written for urban design. Thissuggests that urban design is producing its mainreferences, and is not merely a subsection ofanother area of study.

Comparing the shared body of knowledge in theUS, UK and Australia

Considering the list of texts common in US uni-versities, it seems that it is not a priority for USuniversities to define urban design as a compre-hensive body of theories. They pay far less atten-tion to texts that try to show what urban design iscompared with texts which consider practical and



historical debates about urban design. Courses atUS universities seem to place emphasis on histor-ical texts, whereas in the United Kingdom theemphasis is more on normative aspects. It seemsthat in the United States and the United Kingdomtwo different questions are being addressed. Theshared body of knowledge in the United Statesfocuses on how urban design knowledge andtheories have emerged; in the United Kingdomthere is more emphasis on how theory informsdesign.

The predominant theoretical debates in the Uni-ted States are close to what are called theories inurban design or theories that are focused on oneaspect of urban design (type one). They do notnecessarily provide an overview of the theoretical

debates. It could be concluded that in the UnitedStates the literature is more problem-based, pro-viding the historical context of the problem and thetheories related to it. In the United Kingdom theliterature is more knowledge-based, in that it triesto provide the students with an overview of thebody of knowledge which supposedly will enablethem to apply proper methods when addressing aproblem. (Table 2)

Compared with universities in the United King-dom and Australia, universities in the UnitedStates use more varied texts for their courses, andthe agreement and repetition of texts betweentheir universities is far less. Lists from US univer-sities refer more to US writers than those fromuniversities outside America. This confirms that

Table 1: Shows the texts that are repeated in university reading lists. The last column shows what type the text is

Title Author Year Frequency Present inreaders

Type

The Image of the City Lynch, Kevin 1960 17 • 1The Death and Life of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs 1961 15 • 1Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban

DesignCarmona, M, Heath T, Oc T & Tiesdell S 2003 12 • 2

Townscape Cullen, G 1961 11 • 1The Architecture of the City Rossi, Aldo 1966 10 • 1Responsive Environments : A Manual for Designers Bentley I. and others 1985 10 X 2City Planning According to Artistic Principles Sitte, Camillo 1889 10 • 1Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space Jan Gehl 1971 9 • 1Urban Design Compendium 1 Llewellyn Davies 2000 8 X 2Collage City Rowe, C and Koetter, F 1978 8 • 1A New Theory of Urban Design Alexander, C 1987 7 • 1Urban Space Krier, R (trans. C. Czehowski and G

Black)1979 7 • 1

The Urban Design Reader Larice, Michael, and ElizabethMacdonald

2007 7 — 3

A Pattern Language Alexander, Christopher 1977 7 • 1Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of

Architectural FormVenturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown 1977 6 • 1

The City Assembled Kostof, Spiro 1999 6 X 1Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design Cuthbert, A (ed) 2003 6 — 3Urban Design Reader Carmona, M, & Tiesdell S (ed) 2007 6 — 2Town Planning in Practice Unwin, Raymond 1909 6 • 1The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces Whyte, W H 1980 6 • 1The City of Tomorrow and its Planning Le Corbusier 1924 6 • 1Making People-Friendly Towns: Improving the Public

Environment ins and CitiesTibbalds, Francis 1992 6 • 2

Cities for People Gehl, J. 2010 5 — 1Garden Cities of To-Morrow Howard, Ebenezer 1902 5 • 1Design of Urban Space Madanipour, A 1996 5 • 3Finding Lost Space – Theories of Urban Design Trancik, R. 1986 5 • 1A Theory of Good City Form Lynch, K 1981 5 • 2Urban Design Guidance – Urban Design Frameworks,

Development Briefs and Master PlansCowan. R 2002 5 X 2

Urban Design: Methods and Techniques Moughtin, J.C, Rafael Cuesta, ChristineSarris, Paola Signoretta

2003 5 X 2

Urban Design – Street and Square Moughtin, C. et al 2003 5 X 2The City Shaped Spiro Kostof 1993 5 • 1

Foroughmand Araabi


universities in different contexts are crystallizingdifferent trends. Some classical texts, mostly fromarchitecture, are advocated frequently in US uni-versities. There, Le Corbusier’s work is regularlycommented on in the literature of urban design; inother countries, universities rarely put his books onthe reading list. (Table 3)

UK universities have much more agreementbetween their reading lists. Just as US universitiespay more attention to American authors, universi-ties in the United Kingdom refer more to Britishwriters. Whereas Moughtin (2003) is not suggestedby urban design courses in the United States, in theUnited Kingdom his books are considered to beimportant to theoretical debates. (Table 4)

The core body of urban design in Australianuniversities draws from both UK and US literature

and trends, and could be seen as a synthesis ofboth. Though only four Australian universitieswere surveyed for this article, the agreementbetween their lists as to what constitutes key textsis high.

The shared body of knowledge in urban designreaders

Readers on urban design are books that try toselect the most important texts of the field fromthe editors’ point of view. For example, Carmonaand Tiesdell’s reader ‘presents a selection of keytexts’. The authors declare their intention is ‘toproduce a ‘ “useful” reader that includes a goodrange of “classic” or “staple” texts – that is, those

Table 2: shows the texts that are recommended at universities in the US and the number of times they repeat in the lists

Title Author Year Frequency

The Image of the City Lynch, Kevin 1960 4The Death and Life of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs 1961 4The Urban Design Reader Larice, Michael, and Elizabeth Macdonald 2007 3The City of Tomorrow and its Planning Le Corbusier 1924 3City Planning According to Artistic Principles Sitte, Camillo 1889 2Collage City Rowe, C and Koetter, F 1978 2Town Planning in Practice Unwin, Raymond 1909 2The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces Whyte, W H 1980 2Garden Cities of To-Morrow Howard, Ebenezer 1902 2A Theory of Good City Form Lynch, K 1981 2The History of the City Benevolo, L 1980 2Suburba Duany, Andres, et.al 2000 2

Table 3: Shows the texts that are recommended at universities in the UK and the number of times they repeat in the lists


The Image of the City Lynch, Kevin 1960 10Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design Carmona, M, Heath T, Oc T & Tiesdell S 2003 9The Death and Life of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs 1961 8Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers Bentley I. and others 1985 8Townscape Cullen, G 1961 7City Planning According to Artistic Principles Sitte, Camillo 1889 6Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space Jan Gehl 1971 6Urban Design Compendium 1 Llewellyn Davies 2000 6Making People-Friendly Towns: Improving the Public

Environment in Towns and CitiesTibbalds, Francis 1992 6

The Architecture of the City Rossi, Aldo 1966 5A Pattern Lan Alexander, Christopher 1977 5A New Theory of Urban Design Alexander, C 1987 5Urban Design Guidance – Urban Design Frameworks,

Development Briefs and Master PlansCowan. R 2002 5

Urban Design: Methods and Techniques Moughtin, J.C,Rafael Cuesta, Christine Sarris, PaolaSignoretta, Raf Cuesta

2003 5

Urban Design – Street and Square Moughtin, C. et al 2003 5



that are referred to again and again’(Carmona andTiesdell, 2007, p. 3). This article shares with theeditors of urban design readers the goal of findingkey texts. Thus, the content of readers has beenstudied to see if the same picture of the textsmaking up the shared body of knowledge emergesfrom the readers as is found by the earlier analysisof the reading lists of universities.

There are many urban design readers attemptingto incorporate important texts (Cuthbert, 2003;Watson, 2003; Carmona and Tiesdell, 2007; Lariceand Macdonald, 2007; Banerjee, 2013), almost allpublished in the last 12 years. Indeed, Cuthbert(2010) believes ‘that the market is nearing satura-tion point’.

The various readers on urban design providedifferent collections of texts and serve differentpurposes, even if a number of well-known writerscan appear often. Time-Saver Standards of UrbanDesign (Watson, et al, 2003), an extensive book with

a broad scope, is the only reader which includes afocus on practical debates. Designing Cities(Cuthbert, 2003) looks at urban design from theangle of political economy. Urban Design Reader(Carmona and Tiesdell, 2007), not to be con-fused with The Urban Design Reader (Larice andMacdonald, 2007), focuses on dimensions of urbandesign as defined in the authors’ previous book.The Urban Design Reader is published in two edi-tions, both of which try to represent the keydebates. The first is more concerned with debateswithin urban design (Larice andMacdonald, 2007),and the second considers classic texts as well asmore recent debates in order to provide a holisticview of urban design (Larice and Macdonald,2013). Urban Design Reader attempts to identifytexts which are considered as the main core ofurban design. Urban Design is the latest and themost comprehensive collection of the literature,with 99 texts located in various chapters according

Table 4: shows the texts that are recommended at universities in Australia and the number of times they repeat in the lists


The Image of the City Lynch, Kevin 1960 3The Death and Life of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs 1961 3Townscape Cullen, G 1961 3The Architecture of the City Rossi, Aldo 1966 3Collage City Rowe, C and Koetter, F 1978 3Design with Nature Mc Harg, I 1969 3Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design Carmona, M, Heath T, Oc T & Tiesdell S 2003 2City Planning According to Artistic Principles Sitte, Camillo 1889 2Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers Bentley I. and others 1985 2Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space Jan Gehl 1971 2Urban Space Krier, R 1979 2A New Theory of Urban Design Alexander, C 1987 2The Urban Design Reader Larice, Michael, and Elizabeth Macdonald 2007 2Town Planning in Practice Unwin, Raymond 1909 2Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of

Architectural FormVenturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown 1977 2

The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces Whyte, W H 1980 2Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design Cuthbert, A (ed) 2003 2Urban Design Reader Carmona, M, & Tiesdell S (ed) 2007 2Garden Cities of To-Morrow Howard, Ebenezer 1902 2The Next American Metropolis Calthorp, Peter 1993 2Urban Design: the American Experience Lang, J 1994 2Everyday Urbanism Chase, John et al 2008 2A City is not a Tree Alexander, C 1965 2Invisible Cities Calvino, I 1974 2The City as a Growth Machine Harvey Luskin Molotch 1980 2Space is the Machine Hillier B 1987 2Emerging Concepts in Space Design Broadbent G 1990 2Recombinant Urbanism: Conceptual Modeling in Architecture,

Urban Design and City TheoryShane D.G 2005 2

The Endles Burdett R and Sudjic D (Eds) 2007 2

Foroughmand Araabi


to their topics (Banerjee, 2013). This massive collec-tion might not be generally accessible to manyurban designers, student or professional, becauseof its high price, but it still contributes to thestructuring of knowledge by its choice and cate-gorization of content. Because it is generally heldthat the editors of the readers are aware of otherreaders, all of them together can be assumed tocover the key debates of urban design.

Almost every text that is common betweenuniversity reading lists is also represented in urbandesign readers. Table 1 shows which texts arefound in readers as well as the reading lists. Thisrepetition supports the idea that a common under-standing of a shared body of knowledge exists.However, some titles that appear frequently in thereaders do not feature regularly in universities’reading lists. Examples of such texts are those byRelph (1976), Zukin (1995, 2010), Oldenburg(1999), and Hayden (1997). This means that thereis a shared body of knowledge in the readersthat is not considered important in the readinglists. This could have two explanations. The urbandesign theory course tutors may exclude thesetexts from their reading lists because the texts werealready reflected in the readers, or this may repre-sent the slightly different perspectives of editorsand the tutors. It is interesting that the editors’views have some similarities that seem not to beshared by the majority of professors teachingurban design theory courses. This shows again thepossibility that different groups have slightly dif-ferent understandings of what constitutes urbandesign.

Analysis of the shared body of knowledge

Consideration of the date when common textswere published helps with mapping the develop-ment of the shared body of knowledge. Thekey debates of urban design are generally held tohave emerged during the 1960s. This is usuallyexplained as a response to the post-war builtenvironment (Moudon 1992; Krieger andSaunders, 2009; Mumford, 2009).

More recent texts appear more often in univer-sity reading lists, but at the same time, are repeatedless across the reading lists – few lists have them incommon. In contrast, fewer older texts appear onthe reading lists, but when they do, they are seenon the reading lists of several universities. Thisshows that the core body of knowledge was estab-lished over time, with key texts proving relevant

decades after publication. This process can be seenas the institutionalization of the knowledge.

As indicated, the total number of texts in thereading lists was 817. Figure 1 is the histogram ofthe dates of publication of all 817 texts. It is clearthat in reading lists, recent texts are generallysuggested more frequently than older ones.

Figure 2 shows from which decades the textscommon to university reading lists come. Thegeneral trend confirms that more recent texts aremore popular. Texts from the last decade, despitebeing highly reflected in the reading lists, were ofgreater variety, meaning that lists had fewer textsin common. This would be expected because itreflects the idea that a text must stand the test oftime before being accepted into the shared body.

Worth noting is that texts from the 1960s are notgreater in number on the lists than texts from thelater decades. It could therefore be argued thatwhile key debates emerged in the 1960s, texts fromlater decades discuss them more usefully. Thepublication dates of the texts included in the read-ers follow the same trend.

Historical analysis of the texts shows a pre-ponderance ofmore recent texts. The very emergence

Figure 1: Shows the percentage of texts appearing in differentuniversities’ reading lists, by decade of publication date.

Figure 2: Looks at those books common to more than oneuniversity reading list. It shows the percentage of the list eachdecade of publication date makes up.



of readers in the last decade could be seen asreflecting a growth in urban design writing. Read-ers become necessary when there are many textson the topic, as some sort of structure or selectionhelps to make sense of the volume of ideas(Foroughmand Araabi, 2014).

Figure 3 shows when texts belonging to differenttypes were first published. The types have beenmentioned in Table 1. In general, the texts belong-ing to each type appear to have emerged consecu-tively; type one texts emerged before type twotexts, which in turn emerged before type threetexts. This is not merely a coincidence and isbecause of the fact that the earlier types arenecessary for the formation of the later types.

The number of texts that could be allocated totype three is considerably less than type two,which in turn is considerably less than type one.However, texts from all three types appear invarious reading lists. This suggests that there is acommon understanding among numerous profes-sors who teach urban design theory of the need tointroduce all types of theory to students.

Conclusion

This article tackles important issues concerning therole of theory in urban design by offering a modelfor understanding various functions of theorywithin the literature. The article opens up twomain areas for discussion. The first is that ofpossible applications, criticism and developmentof the typology. The second encourages furtherdebate about what forms the shared body ofknowledge in urban design should take, andways in which to structure and understand theknowledge.

If different types of theory are considered tohave their own specific functions, it would followthat they should also have different applicationswithin the various sectors involved in producingand applying the knowledge of urban design.

However, this could only be tested through furtherresearch. Thus, this article should be considered asan introduction to the topic which also raisesfurther questions to be answered.

This article analytically maps a set of key textson urban design. Readings of the shared body ofknowledge can vary through different methodolo-gies, contexts and times. In this article, a study ofuniversity reading lists for urban design theorycourses provides a view of the shared body ofknowledge. This view is supported by what isselected by editors for inclusion in urban designreaders. This indicates some agreement aboutwhich texts are the key texts of urban design. Butis this agreement inspiring for the practice of urbandesign or does it reflect an orthodoxy within theprofession? What is the function of the texts whichcould be considered as the non-shared body ofknowledge? These are important questions thatremain to be answered.

In order to enhance an understanding of theshared body of knowledge, the suggested typologyis applied. A chronological analysis confirms thatdebates from the second and third types are morerecent than debates from the first, almost certainlybecause the previous type was necessary for thesecond and third types to develop.

The suggested typology paves the way for morecritical analysis. Established ‘accepted’ knowledgeis required before testing of such knowledge cantake place. This reading of the shared body ofknowledge and the typology is not intended tostifle creative urban design thought and activities,but rather to provide a basic vocabulary for com-munication between professionals and a departurepoint for future research.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. MatthewCarmona and Alex McDonald for their invaluablesuggestions and encouragements

Notes

1 Following the logic of this typology, The Death and Life ofGreat American Cities (Jacobs, 1984) could be considered tobelong to the first type since, despite addressing variousaspects of urbanity, it does not have a theoretical argumentthat comprehensively theorises the object of urban design.

2 For example Jacobs (1961) is frequently referred to in the fieldof sociology, Lynch (1960) is used in architectural studies, andAlexander (1987) has been referenced in many different fields– from architecture to gaming.

Figure 3: Shows texts belonging to different types and decades.Blue is type one, red is type two and green is type three.

Foroughmand Araabi


References

Alexander, C. (1987) A New Theory of Urban Design. New York:Oxford University Press.

Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning Theory, 2nd edn. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.

Banerjee, T. (2013) Urban Design, 1st edn. New York: Routledge.Banerjee, T. and Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (eds.) (2011) Companion to

Urban Design. London, New York: Routledge.Bentley, I. (1987) Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers.

Vol. Book, Whole London: Butterworth-Architecture.Carmona, M. (2014) The place-shaping continuum: A theory of

Urban design process. Journal of Urban Design 19(1): 2–36.Carmona, M., Heath, T., Tiesdell, S. and Oc, T. (2003) Public Places,

Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford:Routledge.

Carmona, M. and Tiesdell, S. (2007) Urban Design Reader.Amsterdam; Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Cowan, R. (2002) Urban Design Guidance: Urban Design Frame-works, Development Briefs and Master Plans. London: ICEPublishing.

Cullen, G. (2012) Consise Townscape. New York: Routledge.Curd, M. and Cover, J.A. (1998) Philosophy of Science the Central

Issues. New York: W.W.Norton & Company.Cuthbert, A. (2003) Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban

Design. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Cuthbert, A. (2007a) The Form of Cities: Political Economy and

Urban Design. Vol. 47. Oxford: Blackwell.Cuthbert, A. (2007b) Urban design: Requiem for an Era – review

and critique of the last 50 years. URBAN DESIGN Interna-tional 12(4): 177–223.

Cuthbert, A. (2010)Whose Urban design. Journal of Urban Design15(13): 443–448.

Davidson Reynolds, P. (2007) A Primer in Theory Construction.revised edition. Boston: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Ellin, N. (1999) Postmodern Urbanism. Vol. revised edition. NewYork: Princeton architectural press.

Faludi, A. (1986) Critical Rationalism and Planning Methodology.London: Pion Limited.

Foroughmand Araabi, H. (2014) The Urban design reader(second edition). Journal of Urban Design 19(2): 266–267.

Gehl, J. (2011) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Vol. 6.Washington DC: Island Press.

Hayden, D. (1997) The Power of Place, Urban Landscapes as PublicHistory. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inam, A. (2014) Designing Urban Transformation. New York:Routledge.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities.New York: Random House.

Jacobs, J. (1984) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vol.Book, Whole Harmondsworth: Penguin in assoc. with Cape.

Klosterman, R. (2011) Planning theory education: A thirty-yearreview. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31(3):319–331.

Kostof, S. (1999) The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meaningsthrough History. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Krieger, A. and Saunders, W.S. (eds.) (2009) Urban Design.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Krier, R. (1993) Urban Space. New York: Rizzoli.Lang, J.T. (2005) Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and

Products: Illustrated with over 50 Case Studies / Jon Lang.Oxford; Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.

Larice, M. and Macdonald, E. (2007) In: M. Larice andE. Macdonald (eds.) The Urban Design Reader. New York:Routledge.

Larice, M. and Macdonald, E. (eds.) (2013) Anthony Vidler. In:The Urban Design Reader. Vol. Second. London: Routledge.

Larkham, P.J., Conzen, M.P. and Lilley, K.D. (eds.) (2014)Shapers of Urban Form: Explorations in Morphological Agency.New York: Routledge.

Llewellyn, D. (2000)Urban Design Compendium. London: EnglishPartnerships.

Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of City. Cambridge: MIT press.Lynch, K. (1981) A Theory of Good City Form. Cambridge: MIT

Press.Madanipour, A. (1996) Design of Urban Space, an Inquiry into a

Socio-Spatial Process. Chichester ; New York: Wiley.Moudon, A.V. (1992) A catholic approach to organizing what

Urban designers should know. Journal of Planning Literature6(4): 331–349.

Moughtin, C. (2003) Urban Design: Method and Techniques / CliffMoughtin ... [et al]. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Mumford, E. (2009) Defining Urban Design: CIAM Architectsand the Formation of a Discipline, 1937–69. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Oldenburg, R. (1999) The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops,Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart ofa Community. New York [Berkeley, CA]: Marlowe; Distribu-ted by Publishers Group West.

Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness. London: PionLimited.

Ringer, F.K. (1990) The Decline of the German Mandarins: TheGerman Academic Community, 1890–1933. Hanover, NH:University Press of New England.

Robertson, J. and Bond, C.H. (2001) Experiences of the relationbetween teaching and research: What do academics value?Higher Education Research & Development 20(1): 5–19.

Rowe, C. and Koetter, F. (1978) Collage City. New edition.Cambridge: MIT Press.

RUDI. (2014) University Courses in Urban Design and RelatedSubjects Overseas | RUDI – Resource for Urban DevelopmentInternational, http://www.rudi.net/pages/9074, accessed14 May.

Sitte, C. (2013) The Art of Building Cities: City Building Accordingto Its Artistic Fundamentals. Translated by Charles Stewart-Martino Fine Books.

Tibbalds, F. (2000) Making People Friendly Towns: Improving thePublic Environment in Town and Cities. New edition. London,New York: Taylor & Francis.

Trancik, R. (1986) Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design.Vol. Book, Whole New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Watson, D. et al (Eds.) (2003) Time-Saver Standards for UrbanDesign. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Watson, D. (ed.) (2003) Time-Saver Standards of Urban Design.McGraw-Hill Professional.

Whyte, W. (1980) The Social Life Of Small Urban Spaces.Washington DC: Project for Public Spaces Inc.

Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Zukin, S. (2010) Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic UrbanPlaces. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution 3.0

Unported License. The images or other third party



http://www.rudi.net/pages/9074

material in this article are included in the article’sCreative Commons license, unless indicated other-wise in the credit line; if the material is notincluded under the Creative Commons license,

users will need to obtain permission from thelicense holder to reproduce the material. To viewa copy of this license, visit http://creativecom-mons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Foroughmand Araabi


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Documents

Original Article A typology of Urban Design theories and ... · Original Article A typology of Urban Design theories and its application to the shared body of knowledge Hooman Foroughmand