University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series

Hossein Bahrainy · Ameneh Bakhtiar

Toward an
Integrative Theory
of Urban Design
University of Tehran Science
and Humanities Series

Series editor
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
The University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series seeks to publish a
broad portfolio of scientific books, basically aiming at scientists, researchers,
students and professionals. The series includes peer-reviewed monographs,
edited volumes, textbooks, and conference proceedings. It covers a wide
range of scientific disciplines including, but not limited to Humanities, Social
Sciences and Natural Sciences.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14538

Hossein Bahrainy Ameneh Bakhtiar
•

Toward an Integrative
Theory of Urban Design

123
Hossein Bahrainy Ameneh Bakhtiar
Faculty of Fine Arts University of Arts
University of Tehran Isfahan
Tehran Iran
Iran

ISSN 2367-1092 ISSN 2367-1106 (electronic)

University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series
ISBN 978-3-319-32663-4 ISBN 978-3-319-32665-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016937353

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or
part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way,
and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor
the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
Preface

A new field of the study (or an agglomerate of the old ones) has been
emerging in the United States and in other countries since the turn of the last
century. This is the field of ‘urban design’. Increasingly, however, questions
have been raised by academicians, theorists, and professionals concerning the
essence, legitimacy, knowledge base and content and methods of inquiry
of the field. Lynch (1984), for example, considers city-design as an artistic
activity, and based on the way it was taught and practiced in early 1980s calls
it as ‘immature arts’. Sorkin (2007, 2009), in two controversial statements on
the status and fate of urban design states: Urban design has reached a dead
end. To justify his claim, he continues: Estranged both from substantial the-
oretical debate and from the living reality of the exponential and transfor-
mative growth of the world’s cities, it finds itself pinioned between nostalgia
and inevitabilism, increasingly unable to inventively confront the morpho-
logical, functional, and human needs of cities and citizens. While the task
grows insurgency and complexity, the disciplinary mainstreaming of urban
design has transformed it from a potentially broad and hopeful conceptual
category into an increasingly rigid, restrictive, and boring set of orthodoxies.
Cuthbert (2007) believes that traditional Urban Design ‘theory’ is anarchistic
and insubstantial in the sense that there is no cement binding the pieces
together. This is, according to him, the situation, which has been ongoing for
the best part of 50 years, offering unprecedented opportunity for debate and
resurrection.
Cuthbert (2007) suggests that the discipline of urban design should not
seek to justify its existence through any of the normal channels adopted by
mainstream theory. It should avoid the vain attempt to generate an internally
coherent theory and instead reorient its efforts to making connections with
social science through the mechanism of political economy, a synthesis
discipline which already has a history of two and half centuries. Here in this
book, however, the synthesis discipline is language with a much longer
history and better qualifications to represent knowledge and construct an
integrative theory.

v
vi Preface

In many ways, however, the practice of urban design today may be more
widely recognized in the public and private sectors as a source of potential
solutions to urban problems than it has been over the past 50 years (Soja
2009; Schurch 1999). This is the case, where confusion as to the content,
purpose, knowledge base, and tools of urban design has influenced its ade-
quacy and effectiveness. In this regard Madanipour (1997, 2004) claims that,
in spite of growing attention to the subject and the rising number of aca-
demics and professionals who are engaged in urban design and widespread
popularity, the term is still suffering from ambiguities. Dualities of scale
(macro vs. micro), subject emphases (visual vs. spatial and spatial vs. social),
process versus product, public versus private, objective-rational versus
expressive-subjective, and also discipline versus interdisciplinary activity are
of major concern to the members of the society and others.
Inam (2002), criticizing the contemporary urban design as a vague,
superficial, and product-oriented field, because it is an ambiguous amalgam
of several disciplines, including architecture, landscape architecture, urban
planning, and civil engineering; obsessed with impressions and esthetics of
physical form and is practiced as an extension of architecture. He then
concludes that urban design lacks a clear definition (and hence, a useful
understanding) and a clear direction (and hence, a useful purpose). Lang
(2009), while believing that of all the design fields, urban design has the
greatest impact on the nature of cities and city life, regards the term ‘urban
design’ as confusing.
The illusiveness of its definition raises significant debate about exactly
what urban design is? From ‘large-scale architecture’ to ‘project-scale
design’, to architecture and urban design are but a single profession. Design
is at the heart of these efforts’, ‘an extension of architecture’, ‘urban design is
not architecture. The function of urban design, its purpose and objective, is to
give form and order to the future. As with the master plan, urban design
provides a master program and master form for urban growth. It is primarily a
collaborative effort involving other professionals (Marshal 2009). Since the
late 1860s, urban design as a discipline has flourished, and in recent years the
ideal of the synthesis of architecture, landscape architecture, and planning in
the three-dimensional design of urban environments has returned as a key
organizing concept for many designers in the field. A new interest has
emerged in the theoretical basis of this synthesis (Mumford 2009).
In recent years, the field’s physical scope and content and the way it touches
the human experiences have expended and also the kind of people with whom
urban designer joins forces has grown significantly (Brown et al. 2009).
Some 30 years ago Jonathan Barnett (1981) made this critical statement
that nothing is more frustrating than to watch the continuous misapplication
of huge sums of money that are spent in rebuilding of our cities and
developing the countryside. Thirty years later he rephrased his concern by
stating that the world is urbanizing faster than current city-design can keep
up; refer to three challenges of rapid urban change, climate change, and
natural and man-made disasters (Barnett 2011).
Preface vii

By addressing these fundamental issues, this book intends to, through an

epistemological approach, first identify the potentially unique knowledge base
of the field of urban design, and then introduce an appropriate medium to
construct urban design theory in a way to properly and adequately represent
that knowledge base. This knowledge base, which is represented here through
its language, has been sought in relation to the genuine goals and purposes
of the field of urban design as they have been historically established and are
currently modified on the basis of the contemporary needs and desires of
society. This knowledge base consists of two distinctive areas: substantive and
procedural elements. Substantive elements consist of urban form and space,
and urban activities, while procedural elements consist of intuitive and
scientific methods. Urban design, as proposed here, is the application of these
integrative rules and principles (as grammar) to substantive elements (as
vocabulary) in order to establish order in the physical environment (see
Alexander 1992, pp. 94–98). This may be considered as a plausible approach
to develop a general theory for urban design (Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 The interrelationship of the procedural and substantive elements of the language of
urban design
viii Preface

Fig. 2 Integrated rules are applied to the disordered environment, manipulating its ele-
ments to establish order
Contents

1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base

and Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 5
2.1 Urban Design Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 5
2.2 Existing Urban Design Knowledge Base. . . . . . . . . .... 7
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their
Rules and Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1 Park Movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.2 City Beautiful Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.3 Garden City and New Town Movements . . . . . . . 14
2.3.4 Modernism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.5 Megastructuralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.6 Team X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.7 Symbolism and Semiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.8 Behaviorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.9 Traditionalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.10 Postmodernism and Contextualism . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3.11 Practice Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3.12 Critical Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3.13 Just City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.14 Normative Ethical Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3.15 Smart Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.16 New Urban Design Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.17 Sustainable Urban Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.18 Urban Design for an Urban Century . . . . . . . . . . 28

3 Urban Design Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

3.1 Proposed Integrative Knowledge Base
of Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
3.2 What Is Theory and What Can It Do for a Profession? . .. 31
3.3 Theory of Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35

4 Urban Design Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.1 Language Definition and Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 Language as a Tool for Knowledge Representational . . . . 41

ix
x Contents

4.3 Language, Thought and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.4 Urban Design Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.5 Global and Local Languages of Urban Design. . . . . . . . . 47

5 Integrative Language of Urban Design . . . ............. 51

5.1 Formulating the Integrative Language
of Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 51
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language
of Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 54
5.2.1 Integrative Rules and Principles ............. 55

6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
 Introduction
From the time of early settlements, man, in
keeping with one of his basic natural needs, has
tried to gain control over his built environment.
This control, which was sought through various
natural, ritual and functional means, manifested
itself in some kind of order in the configuration,
form and pattern of settlements. Order is a fun-
damental principle which controls and sustains
all things. It is derived from nature and has been
applied to a wide range of human activities. For
example, it was used as the major term of
architectural planning throughout the Middle
Ages and beyond; it was central to the Tuscan
speculation on the nature of the city (Ackerman
1983). The city was believed to be dependent
upon order (Summers 1981). As humans, we all
form schemas that guide our behavior. Scientist
also try to bring order to their observations by
developing theories (Szostok 2003, p. 294).
Throughout history, these general goals of
control and order have always been with man,
but their meanings and the ways of interpreting
and achieving them undergone considerable
evolutionary and revolutionary changes1 from
one period to another. The nature of these goals,
their different meanings and interpretations and
the various ways and means to achieve them
have accumulated a repertoire to be referred to
1
Changes that took place before the early nineteenth
century are referred to as evolutionary. It is believed that
the Industrial Revolution caused revolutionary changes in
man’s conception of the urban environment.
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_1
1
and relied upon in the practice of urban design.
This repertoire is referred to here as the knowl-
edge of urban design. The primary focus of this
study is on this knowledge base of urban design
and the language representing it.
The activities of ‘settlement design’, as an art,
or modification of settlement as a human act,
began with the establishment of the early human
settlements in Mesopotamia in 5000 B.C. By
Summers (Fig. 1.1).
These type of settlements, which were then
followed by the Egyptians and Indians, had
generally unplanned arrangements—what is now
called organic growth. Organic growth of the
settlements implied that no deliberate and pur-
poseful actions were taken in order to achieve
certain predetermined goals and purposes: The
systematic Hippodamian method of planning
Greek City State (Fig. 1.2) (Morris 1979), the
entirely new and original artistic values of the
Roman Empire, a combination of planned and
organic towns in the medieval period. In
Renaissance, Italy set a pattern which was based
on the revival of interests in the classical art
forms of ancient Greece and Rome (Fig. 1.3)
(Sitte 1945).
Renaissance principles were then spread to
France and Britain and finally, to the rest of
Europe. A combination of these rules of civic
design were later brought into the United States
but assumed less significance, until the new
movement of the Colombian Exhibition in 1893
(Fig. 1.4).
1
2 1
Fig. 1.1 Plan of a portion of the ancient Sumerian city of
Ur, as it was about 1900 B.C. (From Lynch 1981, p. 56)
Fig. 1.2 Miletus: The general plan. Greek City State.
a Early fortified hilltop settlement, a form of acropolis;
b the main harbor; c the Agora complex; d theater and
other cultural/leisure activity facilities (Morris 1979,
p. 27)
So, town design or civic design until the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution was
regarded as an art based on certain rules and
principles derived from the needs and values of
Introduction
Fig. 1.3 Scamozzi, Ideal city plan (Morris 1979, p. 136)
the society. The most important and distinctive of
these goals was the beauty of the environment.
But besides beauty were defense, maintenance of
essential supplies such as food, and magical and
symbolic considerations such as religious and
ritual beliefs (Lynch 1962). The conception of
civic design as art was extended into the middle
of last century. In one of his early writings,
Lynch (1962), for example, states that ‘… what
counts is the artistic mastery that can be applied
to each new situation. For civic design is an art,
and not a science, however, heavy its intellectual
apparatus. Its focus is creative innovation and
subtle evolution.’ Sitte (1945) has reviewed
some of these artistic principles of city building
and threats them as the rules that govern the
relationship of buildings, monuments, public
spaces, squares, open space and so on. Civic
design was not considered an independent area of
art. It was believed to be an extension of archi-
tecture and art. Saarinen (1943), for example,
suggested that civic design is fundamentally an
architectural problem. Then he maintained that
like architecture, civic design follows some
principles which are of universal bearing.
As time passed, cities grew and the com-
plexity of the problems intensified. Civic design
correspondingly began to enter a new stage of
identity. Abercrombie (1959) described the new
1 Introduction
Fig. 1.4 World Columbian Exposition (1893). (Brown et al. 2009, p. 48)
activities of civic design as being something
more different than architectural design.
Due to socio-economic changes of early
twentieth century and the resultant circumstances
the artistic civic design lost its momentum and
declined. Social, economic and technological
goals took precedence over the considerations of
form and three-dimensionality of the earlier era
in civic design. During the second half of last
century, it was the environmental, as well as
political, economic and social issues that became
the most dominant issues in cities, and therefore,
urban planning and design.
Each period has had its own style of design—
a set of rules and principles to be used by prac-
titioners in making decisions and shaping the
environment.
These principles and rules of urban design
have been changing in time and are still changing
continuously; the need for some kind of order has
always existed. The alteration from one principle
3
of order to another and from one level of com-
plexity to another, goes on constantly, but the
alteration is never from order to the absence of
order. The general purpose of urban design has
always been to establish order in the physical
environment.
Today’s interpretation of order, however, has
changed drastically. This is because the urban
environment has gained unprecedented complex-
ity; process has taken the place of product; public
interest, values, citizen participation, equity, and
environmental sustainability have become major
issues and concerns in design; implementation
tools and processes have become by far more
complicated than before; legal, political and
decision-making processes have become integral
parts of any design process, and finally allocation
of scarce resources for variety of increasing needs
is now a major determining factor and constraint in
the urban design process.
 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge
Base and Principles 2

Madanipour (1997) claims that urban design is a

2.1 Urban Design Definition
far from clear area of activity. He further adds that
signs of the need for a clear definition of urban
One can possibly find as many definitions for
design can be seen in a variety of sources. Here we
urban design, as the number of writers and prac-
give only a few examples. Kreditor (1990) sug-
titioners of urban design (see for example: Pittas
gests that if one doubts the immaturity of urban
1980; Floyd 1978; Lynch 1981, 1984; Mackay
design as a serious field of study, the search for a
1990; Gosling and Maitland 1984; Tibblads 1984;
common definition or understanding of the term
Gosling 1984a, b; Barnet 1982; Colman 1988;
will be instructive, for there is none. He further
Goodey 1988; Levy 1988; Scott Brown 1990; The
adds that a lack of shared meaning undermines
Pratt Institute Catalogue 1988; Kreditor 1990;
appreciation and retards development. Cuthbert
Lang 1994, 2005; Relf 1987; Madanipour 1997;
(2007) reflects his frustration with urban design
Schurch 1999; Marshal 2009; Brown et al. 2009;
definition when he calls it the endless problem of
Mumford 2009). These varieties of definitions,
‘defining’ urban design. To Kreditor urban design
aside from some commonalities, reveal the very
is the institutionalization of our search for good
complex and multi-dimensional nature of the
urban form. It transcends visual perception. It is
subject matter of urban design. Schurch, in ana-
concerned with pleasure as well as performance,
lyzing some of these definitions, suggests that the
and it embraces traditional design paradigms with
fundamental problems with these definitions of
city building process (Kreditor 1990, p. 157).
urban design are that they lack breadth, cohesion
Some still have doubts as to the nature of urban
and consistency (Schurch 1999, p. 17). Over thirty
design as a scientific or artistic field of inquiry.
years ago Pittas (1980) emphasized on the
Kostoff, for example, maintains that urban design
importance of a clear definition to the success of
is of course an art, and like all design it does have
the profession. He, then, suggest seven parameters
to consider, or at least pay lip service to, human
that urban design deal with: (1) enabling rather
behaviors (Kostoff 1991, p. 9). Moughtin (1999)
than authorship; (2) relative rather than absolute
takes the same position when defines urban design
design products; (3) uncertain time frame; (4) a
as the art of city building, which concerned with
different point of entry than architecture; (5) a
the method and process of structuring public
concern with the space between buildings; (6) a
space in cities (Moughtin 1999, p. 1). But when he
concern with the three dimensional rather than
further describes the functions of urban design, he
two dimensional, and (7) principally public
ignores that definition to state that any discus-
activity. Tibbalds (1984) believes that there is no
sion of urban design which does not address
easy, single, agreed definition of urban design.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 5

H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_2
6 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
environmental issues has little meaning at a time
of declining natural resources, ozone layer
destruction, increasing pollution and fears of the
greenhouse effect. In these circumstances any
discussion of the aesthetics of city design in a pure
or abstract form unrelated to environmental con-
cerns could be described as superficial and rather
like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic
(Moughtin 1999, p. 1). There are also some who
take a more pragmatic position by saying that
urban design is what urban designers do.
According to this view to know who is an urban
designer is determined by appeal to historical and
sociological criteria. Also the answer to the
question of what constitutes good urban design,
the pragmatist believe must come from the urban
designer or the practices of urban design.
According to the Royal Institute of British
Architects (1970) urban design is an integral part
of the process of city and regional planning. It is
primarily and essentially three-dimensional
design but must also deal with the non-visual
aspects of environment such as noise, smell or
feelings of danger and safety, which contribute
significantly to the character of an area. Its major
characteristic is the arrangement of the physical
objects and human activities which make up the
environment; this space and the relationships of
elements in it is essentially external, as distinct
from internal space. Urban design includes a
concern for the relationship of new development to
existing city form as much as to the social, political
and economic demands and resources available. It
is equally concerned with the relationship of dif-
ferent forms of movement to urban development
(see Gosling 1984a, b, p. 7). But while RIBA’s
definition is comprehensive, Banham’s is too
narrow and specific, at least with regard to the
scale. Banham suggests that the intermediate field
of urban design is concerned with urban situations
about half a mile square (Banham 1976, p. 130). It
seems that Banham’s definition of urban design is
in fact large-scale architecture, and would most
likely deal with single design problems, single use,
single contractor, and most important takes place
in the private sector. Social, economic and
environmental problems are pressing forces in
almost all cities around the world, regardless of
their level of development, etc. Pollution (air,
water, soil, visual,…), traffic, waste management,
overcrowding, injustice, poverty, crime, alien-
ation, segregation, housing shortages,… urban
sprawl, blight are common problems in all cities
everywhere.
Gosling (1984a, b) suggests that urban design
is concerned with the physical form of the public
realm over a limited physical area of the city
and that it therefore lies between the two
well-established design scales of architecture,
which is concerned with the physical form of the
private realm of the individual building, and town
and regional planning, which is concerned with
the organization of the public realm in its wider
context (Gosling 1984a, b, p. 9). So it further
becomes clear that urban design deals essentially
with public realm, but its subject matter requires
artistic, as well as scientific approaches. Its con-
tent includes social, economic, demographic,
environmental, aesthetic, physical, spatial and
symbolic values, both as substances and proce-
dures of urban design. Economic factors are
extremely powerful determinant of land use pat-
terns, density, and urban from. The form of
today’s city tends towards three dimensional
representation of land values. Overcrowding,
injustice, lack of safety and security, crime and
violence, frustration, alienation, isolation, segre-
gation, delinquency, inequality, blight, social
stratification have their roots in the economic,
social and demographic factors. Beautification is
probably the oldest aspect of city design, which is
relatively well understood, not only by designers
and authorities, but also by the layman. The same
is also true with engineering factors, such as traffic
engineering and infrastructure, simply because
they are functional and their role can be under-
stood by all users, and any deficiency in these
elements is clearly reflected in the overall func-
tioning of the city. Along with, and as a conse-
quence of, urbanization and industrialization
environmental and ecological issues have become
increasingly critical in any urban design decision.
2.1 Urban Design Definition
Political, technical, technological, as well as cul-
tural and behavioral issues are also significant
forces in urban design. As we saw the city, its
inhabitants and functions are extremely compli-
cated phenomena whose problems interact in
complex ways. Now this constitutes the context
and the subject matter of today’s urban design.
Addressing some of the problems in defining
urban design, Anne Vernez-Moudon describes
concentrations of inquiry in this field, including
urban history studies, picturesque studies, image
studies, studies of environmental behavior, place,
material culture, topology-morphology and nat-
ure ecology, and provides a useful list of major
contributors in each area (Vernez-Moudon 1992,
pp. 331–49).
Richard Marshal (in Krieger et al. 2009) sug-
gests this definition for urban design in ‘The
Elusiveness of Urban Design’: “Urban design…is
a ‘way of thinking.’ It is not about separation and
simplification but rather about synthesis. It
attempts…to deal with the full reality of the urban
situation, not the narrow slices seen through dis-
ciplinary lenses.” In the same direction Douglas
Kelbaugh defines Urban Design as an art not a
science or an engineering discipline, but a social
and public art…Unlike a painter or sculptor, in
every aspect of my work I am responsible not
only to myself, but to my fellow man and to future
generations (cited in Brown et al. 2009, p. 4).
These open-ended, nonhierarchical stances are
especially important for the new approach pro-
posed in this book. Urban design may be regarded
as an art or technical practice involving the
physical organization of buildings and spaces,
towards a civic purpose (Marshall 2012).
2.2 Existing Urban Design
Knowledge Base
Any investigation of the knowledge base requires
the study of the theory of knowledge. The theory
of knowledge, or what is known in philosophy as
epistemology, deals with fundamental questions
that arise in conjunction with the emergence of a
new study area, or of an already established one
that is developing. Questions such as the
7
legitimacy of the field, nature, characteristics and
components of its knowledge base, its methods
and approaches and finally its jurisdiction and its
relationship with other areas and fields are
examples. These are the important issues in any
field, including urban design, which give an idea
of the subject a particular field deals with, the
body of knowledge it has constituted and the
tools one may employ to possess the field and be
able to communicate in it. Clarification of these
issues will define the field and set its boundaries.
Lack of such a clarification, on the other hand,
will result in confusion, frustration, and ineffi-
ciency in the professionals’ and practitioners’
efforts to achieve urban design goals.
Though urban design is the most traditional
field of planning, it sorely lacks cohesive theo-
retical foundations. Much writings takes the form
of guidebooks or manuals, which rely on rules of
thumb, analytical techniques, and architectural
ideas whose theoretical justifications are unclear.
At best we have a number of contending
approaches, such as Formalism and New
Urbanism, which tend to operate in a theoretical
vacuum, as if cut off from larger streams of
planning thought, and to invite dogmatic adher-
ence (Sternberg 2000, 265).
The contemporary practice of urban design,
according to Barnett (2003) began in the 1960 as
reaction against the failures of modernism to
produce a livable environment. To make cities
more livable, urban designers countered mod-
ernist ideology by protecting historic buildings,
by making the street the primary element of
urban open space, and by using zoning and other
development regulations creatively to put new
buildings into context and preserve a mix of
different activities (Barnett 2003).
Most of the existing urban design literature is
on urban form and its attributes. Some urban
geographers (Scargill 1979; Foley 1964), for
example, have looked at urban form from mor-
phological point of view, i.e., its physical fabric,
office and manufacturing functions, and the
assemblage of structures that are the spatial
expression of urban phenomena, such as eco-
nomic, social and political processes. Efforts
have also been made to develop appropriate tools
8 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
and methods which the physical environment can
be explained, analyzed, recorded and designed
effectively, systematically and rationally. The
majority of these methods deal with the rela-
tionship between man and his environment, and
the perceptual and visual aspects of urban form.
Among various efforts made in this regard,
Kevin Lynch’s works are especially distinct. His
well known book, The image of city (Lynch
1960), for example, is a tightly woven argument
moving between concepts of perception and
real-world research resulting in an explanation of
how different formal aspects of the city design
can be more or less manifested in the
environment.
For Kevin Lynch, the city designer had to deal
with the experiential quality of the city, what he
often called the “sensuous qualities” or simply
“sense” of place (Bannerjee and Southworth
1991, p. 6).
In another effort called, City design and city
appearance, Lynch (1968) suggests a general list
of perceptual criteria to be used in the analysis
and research of urban form. In a quite unprece-
dented effort, Lynch and Rodwin (1958) provide
a significant analytical methodology for the
analysis of urban form.1 For a systematic analy-
sis of urban form they suggest six criteria: Ele-
ment types, quantity, density, grain, local
organization and general spatial distribution. The
exceptional value of this method is that for the
first time an analytical method, and not a
descriptive one, is used to analyze and under-
stand the varied effects of different physical
forms. The most significant contribution of
Lynch, however, is his last book, A theory of
good city form (1981), which as a comprehensive
study on urban form, includes all his previous
findings. The most distinctive part of this study,
which seems to be the very core of the book, is
the normative criteria for the evaluation and
analysis of urban form. Wasting away by Kevin
1
In regard to normative aspects of urban form, for
example, Lynch has suggested the following seven
criteria, five of which he calls performance dimensions
and two meta criteria: Vitality, sense, fit, access, control,
efficiency, and justice. Kevin Lynch, A Theory of Good
City Form (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1981).
Lynch (1991) is in different direction than his
previous works. It is a dark study showing a
growing recognition that decay and waste are a
necessary part of contemporary life. A collection
of Lynch’s remaining unpublished work was
published in 1990 with great efforts of Tridib
Bannerjee and Michael Southworht: City sense
and city design: writings and projects of Kevin
Lynch.
In a related but different context, Thiel (1961)
has created a ‘space score’ which organizes the
physical forms perceived by a person in motion as
he/or she changes speed and direction. Thiel is one
the most significant contributors of notations,
perception, communication and participation in
design. His major work: people, paths and pur-
poses (Thiel 1997), which is based on extensive
study of over forty years, covers all these areas.
Appleyard et al. (1964) have also built upon this
technique, placing the elements seen along a
highway into such a ‘score’ as a way of developing
techniques for communicating both orientation to
place and the experience of the person in motion in
relation to his surroundings. Halprin (1964) has
established another technique for recording a
behavior circuit. Appleyard’s work, Livable
streets (1981), provides a broad range of tech-
niques for the evaluation and analysis of streets,
neighborhoods and their components. Kostoff,
through his tow remarkable books (The city shaped
1991; and The city assembled 1998) made a great
contribution to the analysis of urban patterns.
Katz (1994) gives an explanation of the
principles of the new urbanism, with twenty-four
case studies include the best-known and perhaps
most controversial development of the new town
of Florida, Seaside. In his “City of bits”, pub-
lished in 1996, William J. Mitchell described a
new vision of urban living. The use of the new
communication technology will have profound
impact on space and time relationship and
eventually the future shape of our cities.
Two other most important and valuable efforts
in this regard are Foley’s, An approach to
metropolitan spatial structure (1964), and Web-
ber’s The urban place and the nonplace urban
realm (1964). The result of Foely’s efforts is a
valuable conceptual framework that seeks to
2.2 Existing Urban Design Knowledge Base
bridge spatial and aspatial aspects and values and
the physical environment.
Among other designers who have contributed
to the development of methods to analyze and
synthesize urban form several others are worthy
of mention: Sitte’s The art of building cities…
(1945), Alexander’s Notes on synthesis of form
(1964), Pattern Language (Alexander et al.
1977) and A new theory of urban design (1987),
Venturi’s Learning from Las Vegas (1977),
Steinitz’s Meaning and the congruence of urban
form and activity (1968), Crane’s City Symbolic
(1960), Mitropoulos’ Space network: Toward a
hodological design for urban man (1975),
Choay’s Urbanism and semiology (1975), Bog-
donovic’s Symbolism in the city and the city as
symbol (1964), and Tugnutt and Robertson’s
Making townscape (1987).
In Camillo Sitte’s classic work City Planning
According to Artistic Principles (1965, first
published in Vienna in 1889) and much later in
Edmund Bacon’s The Design of Cities (1974),
good urban design was to be based on artistic
principles of good form. Though in each of their
works “art” is sometimes meant in the romantic
sense as the exercise to the artist’s inscrutable
genius, at other points, and more importantly for
present purposes, art also reflects principles that
can be explicitly communicated (Fig. 2.1). These
principles are based on the geometry of visual
perception, the scale of beholder’s body, and the
continuity of the beholder’s experience.
We can best understand the implications by
looking at Sitte’s major concern, the urban plaza.
The underlying principle is that the plaza should
Fig. 2.1 Florence, Piazza of the Signoria. The relation-
ship between buildings, monuments and public squares
(from Sitte p. 9)
9
be made into a cohesively observable whole. It is
in this respect that we should understand Sitte’s
dictum about proportion. He further asserts that a
noteworthy building that is taller than wide
should receive a deep plaza, while a building that
is wider that tall would benefit form a wide plaza.
Though these rules of proportion may seem
arbitrary, they reflect an implicit theory about the
cohesiveness of the beholder’s experience of the
plaza (Sternberg 2000, pp. 268–270).
Edmund Bacon (1974) adds a number of
additional guides to good form, demanding that
good design should interlock and interrelate
buildings across space. Bacon stresses that the
human experience of this articulated space hap-
pens along an axis of movement. To define this
axis, the designer may strategically place small
and large buildings to create scale linkages
receding in space; or insert in the landscape on
arch, gate, or pair of pylons that set the frame of
reference for structures appearing on a recessed
plane (Sternberg 2000, p. 271).
Christopher Alexander was committed to the
social nature of built space. His research in the
1960s was dedicated to finding ways of config-
uring social forms and relationships spatially. In
his books of 1970s, he reverted to a humanism,
similar to that of Mumford’s 1950s writing. In
particular, what emerged in A Pattern Language
(1977) was his commitment to the view that the
value of architecture is in its capacity to enable
individuals to realize their collective existence as
social beings.
The vocabulary Alexander used to describe
this, is interesting. “Towns and buildings”, he
writes, “will not be able to become alive, unless
they are made by all the people in society, and
unless these people share a common pattern
language”(x) (Alexander et al. 1977).
There are, however, increasing number of
theorists who explicitly oppose to Alexander’s
Pattern Language on the grounds of impracti-
cality, lack of test, etc. (see for example Moudon
1992, 2000).
On the other hand Dutch architect Hertzberger
(1991) suggests that just as mankind is distin-
guished by its use of language, so too does
mankind have the facility to adopt and give
10 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
meaning to spaces, like language, this is not
something that can be controlled by anyone
individual, but is negotiated socially. This led
Hertzberger to be strongly influenced by phe-
nomenology, and the assumption that architecture
is a means to revealing what it is to be in the world
as a social being.
Hertzberger’s descriptive language is bor-
rowed in part from linguistic theory–hence his
liking for “structure”–but in all other respects it is
heavily reliant on the conventional modernist
vocabulary: “form”, “function”, “flexibility”,
“space”, “environment”, “articulation” and
“users” are recurrent words.
Forty (2000) by questioning the capability of
language in two respects: (1) Limitation to
describe the “social” aspects of architecture and
(2) not having the capacity to show the relation-
ship between social practice ad physical space,
has put together a series of characteristics as
words or vocabulary of modern architecture.
As we know, the relationship between archi-
tecture and verbal language has not been much
talked about, even though, as one architectural
theorist, Tom Markus, recently pointed out, “lan-
guage is at the core of making, using and under-
standing buildings” (Markus 1993). Forty (2000)
suggests the following characteristics as the vo-
cabulary of modern architecture: Character, con-
text, design, flexibility, form function, history,
memory, nature, order, simple, space, structure,
transparency, truth, type and user. Obviously,
these are too general and vague to be of any use in
architecture–building meaningful and purposeful
buildings.
Christopher Alexander (Alexander et al. 1987)
in his “A new theory of urban design”, along with
his five other books, has claimed to have provided
a complete working alternative to the present ideas
about architecture, building, and planning. He has
considered the laws of wholeness as the main
quality of urban design. The task of creating
wholeness in the city, according to Alexander, can
only dealt with as a process, i.e., the centering
process. To achieve this goal he postulated one
overriding rule–wholeness, and seven rules of:
piecemeal growth, the growth of larger wholes,
visions and the basic rule of positive urban space,
layout of larger buildings, construction and for-
mation of centers. Heburther suggests that urban
design as “process” may be taken, in the economic
sense, as the response to the power of economic
forces shaping the structure of the city not as a
physical end but rather as part of a dynamic pro-
cess. Alexander maintained that it was the process,
above all, which was responsible for wholeness,
not merely the form. This “wholeness”, Alexander
said, can be provided by the definition of a number
of geometric properties with a centering process.
Gosling (2003) reviews the historical devel-
opment of the discipline and practice of urban
design in America during five decades of 1950 to
2000. Other efforts in this respect are: Gosling and
Maintland’s Concepts of urban design (1984),
Cullen’s The concise townscape (1971), Row and
Koetter’s Collage city (1978), Krier’s Urban
space (1979) and Leon Krier: Architecture and
urban design 1967–1992 (1992), Aravot’s From
reading of forms to hierarchical architecture: An
approach to urban design, Broadbent’s Emerging
concepts in urban space design (1990), Tibbalds’s
Making people-friendly towns (1992). Calthorpe
(1989) has suggested what he calls simple clusters
of housing, retail space and offices within a quarter
mile radius of transit station. Lang (1994) makes
an attempt to unite architecture and city planning,
and also enhance urban designers’ graphic and
verbal communication skills. According to Lang
contextual design is the most important element in
urban design because without context, the city
becomes fragmented. Lang examines the social
and environmental issues within the context of
American urban history. Lang proposes four types
of urban design: The urban designer as a total
designer, all-of-a-piece urban design, urban
designer as the designer of infrastructure, ad urban
designer as designer of guidelines for design.
Barnett (2003) states that urban design requires a
different process from designing a landscape or
building (a process involving government, com-
munities, investment and entrepreneurs).
According to Barnett urban designer should have
enough knowledge of the social sciences to be
able to make diagnoses about the social dynamics
of the community. Barnett’s main idea is urban
design as public policy (1874 and 1982), he later
2.2 Existing Urban Design Knowledge Base
suggests five principles as the basic principles for
city design: community, livability, mobility,
equity, and sustainability (Barnett 2003). Gosling
(2003) has called the techniques used by Cullen
theories of the picturesque or theory of ‘social
vision’—sequential three-dimensional experience
by moving through the city and annotating these
experiences in the form of sequential perspectives.
Hedman (1984) suggests that to achieve
design unity involved the establishment of seven
rules: building silhouette; space between build-
ings; setback from street property lines; propor-
tions of windows, bays and doorways; massing
of building form; location and treatments of
entryways; surface material; finish and texture;
shadow patterns from massing and decorative
features; building scale; architectural style; and
landscaping. Hedman regards conceptualism as
one of the current trends in urban design.
Postmodern Urbanism (Ellin 1996) covers
variety of writers of urban studies of the 20th
century, e.g.: Katz, Peter calthorpe, Robert Ven-
turi, Charles Jencks, Denise Scott Brown, Eliza-
beth Plater-Zyberk, Doug Kelbaugh, Frank
Gehry, Richard Sennett, Michael Graves, Paolo
Portoghesi, Peter Blake, etc.
In an ambitious, but interesting paper, Stern-
berg (2000) has proposed “an integrative theory
of urban design”. He, then, identifies the inte-
grative principles through which urban environ-
ments can transcend commodification. The
principles are: good form, legibility, vitality, and
meaning. He further also adds comfort to these
principles.
Sternburg points out that since all these
capacities to experience are combined in one
beholder, the designer’s task is that of integrating
them through the principles of composition.
Sternberg suggests foremost among these princi-
ples of composition is continuity. According to
Sternberg, participant’s experience of the city
coheres according to several integrative princi-
ples, which can be understood separately or in
combination. Nodes and enclosure, fine grain and
ascent into space, mixed use and myth, perme-
ability and relative proportion—guided by
explicit integrative principles, the urban designer
11
must compose across experiential domains to
produce a continuity of experience (Sternberg
2000, p. 275). Sternberg uses five criteria to be
met by his integrative theory: being inclusive,
substantive, based on human experience of built
form, commodifiability as well as uncommodifi-
ability, and to guide practice.
Without going into a lengthy discussion on
the plausibility and validity of Sternberg’s claim
on the integrative theory of urban design, a few
critical questions may be raised: (1) Isn’t the
Lynch’s suggested theory in good city form more
inclusive and practical than Steinberg’s? (2) as an
integrative theory it does not deal with proce-
dural issues, (3) the principles suggested are not
actually principles, but goals of urban design.,
(4) there are many other goals which could be
included in the list, such as: safety, security,
accessibility, environmental sustainability, etc.,
(5) and most of all the proposed theory does not
really do what a theory is expected to do for the
members of the discipline, as well as for practi-
tioners. All these problems might be referred to
the kind of definition Sternberg gives for urban
design and its knowledge base: “the human
experience that the built environment evokes
across private properties or in the public realm”,
which is too general and vague and does not
serve any specific purpose.
Claiming its roots in the history of theory, the
New Urbanism first exercised its influence by
building a supporting base in design practice. It
later added pedagogical dimension, with educa-
tional programs at the University of Miami and
in the Congresses (Moudon 2000, p. 42). New
Urbanism has gained prominence as an alterna-
tive to traditional U.S. suburban design, through
comprehensive urban design and planning, New
Urbanism seeks to foster place identity, sense of
community and environmental sustainability.
New Urbanism began as a modest experiment in
the 1980s, since then, its influence has grown
significantly (Day 2003, p. 83).
At the neighborhood level, New Urbanists
recommend that mixed uses (commercial, civic,
residential, public spaces, and other) be incor-
porated in each community. The goals are to
12 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
provide jobs near where people live and allow
residents to walk or bicycle to the places they
need to go. Similarly new urbanists recommend
that neighborhoods incorporate alternative forms
of transportation to decrease auto dependence.
The Charter further recommends that neighbor-
hood design should reinforce the unique identity
of each place by adopting a consistent and dis-
tinctive architectural style that draws on local
history, culture, geography, and climate (Con-
gress for the New Urbanism 2000).
New Urbanism’s highest profile “urban” pro-
jects include the HOPE (Housing Opportunities
for People Everywhere)IV renovating of public
housing. HOPE IV strives to reduce the con-
nection of poor families in public housing and to
develop neighborhoods with residents of differ-
ent economic and racial/ethnic groups.
The main principle (goal) is clearly stated by
New Urbanists is design for diversity. New
Urbanism promotes the end of segregation
between rich and poor (Congress for the New
Urbanism 2000).
Day (2003), analyzing the New Urbanism’s
goal of designing for diversity raises several
concerns: First, physical changes may not be the
best solution for the social problems these
neighborhoods may face. Furthermore, New
Urbanism ideas—“mixed use,” public space,
“and so on—may conjure different meanings for
different groups in the neighborhood. At the
same time, New Urbanist renovation may dis-
place low-income residents from the neighbor-
hood. Finally, New Urbanist participatory design
processes may not accommodate diversity.
Moudon (2000) on the other hand, seems to be
in support of the New Urbanism when she states
that “as a theory, New Urbanism is notably and
refreshingly free of the grand statements and
obscure rationale typical of many urban design
theories. As a movement, its focus is practical and
didactic, providing simple, clear and hand-on
directions and guidelines for designers, planners
and builders making towns” (Moudon 2000,
p. 38). But as she points out, it validity as an urban
design theory is to be investigated: “A logical next
enabling step would be to develop a research
program that would establish a substantive foun-
dation that would test and validate the move-
ment’s ideas, ground it into actual processes of
city building and contribute to its long-term via-
bility (Moudon 2000, p. 42).
Besides the designers, there have also been
experts and specialists from other areas and dis-
ciplines who have tried to develop methods and
theories for their own use and also for the use of
designers. Among these non-designers are
behavioral scientists such as Maslow (1957),
Mayo (1946) and sociologists such as, Sommer
(1969), Rosow (1974), Hall (1959) and Michel-
son (1970, 1975). Among these the efforts of
Michelson to develop a new approach for envi-
ronmental design is especially valuable. Among
this group there is Amoss Rapoport, who is the
leader in his efforts to delineate the relationship
of man and environment. His major contributions
are Complexity and ambiguity in environmental
design (1967), Human aspects of urban form:
Towards a man-made environment approach to
urban form and design (1977), and The mutual
interaction of people and their built environ-
ment: A cross-cultural perspective (1976).
There are also behaviorists such as: Francis
‘Mapping downtown activities (1984), Hubbard’s
Environment-behavior research—a route to
good design (1992), and Whyte’s The social life
of small urban spaces (1980) who, by linking
behavior patterns to space, have tried to find a
legitimate base for rational urban design.
A group of researchers at the University
College London have been working on space
syntax, which is best described as a research
program that investigates the relationship
between human societies and space from the
perspective of a general theory of the structure of
inhabited space in all its diverse forms: buildings,
settlements, cities, or even landscapes. The point
of departure for space syntax is that human
societies use space as a key and necessary
resource in organizing themselves. In doing so,
the space of inhabitation is configured—a term
that space syntax recognizes as an act of turning
the continuous space into a connected set of
discrete units (Bafna 2003, p. 17).
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles 13

2.3 Contemporary Urban Design

Movements and Their Rules
and Principles

Last century witnessed the emergence of variety

of urban design movements, their common pur-
pose which was to save the city and its quality
against the adverse impacts of industrialization. It
is obvious that the movements have the same
roots in urban planning as in urban design, and
Fig. 2.3 Central Park in Manhattan, the first real expe-
for the most recent ones the implication for urban
rience of the park movement, by Olmsted
design is to be seen in the future. Each movement
is based on certain rules and principles, which
will be reviewed briefly.

2.3.1 Park Movement

Park Movement was created as a response to the

deteriorating conditions of American cities in
19th century. The movement was based on the
revival of the relationship between man and
nature. When Barron Haussmann was busy with
the urban renewal of Paris, Frederick Olmsted
founded the Park Movement in the United States.
The success of Olmsted in building Central Park
in New York made him the prominent landscape
architect of his time.
One of the fundamental principles of this
movement was establishing parks in order to pre-
serve breathing space for the future of cities. The
second important principle was an effort to connect
city life with life in nature. Organic forms and
design, rather than geometrical shapes, natural
green spaces and lakes were the dominant elements
used under this movement (Figs. 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4).
Fig. 2.4 The kind of scenes in Western cities which led
to the creation of park movement
2.3.2 City Beautiful Movement
Sitte (1945) criticizes modern city planning as
lacking artistic taste and regards city design as
civic art. She has a romantic three-dimensional
view for the city, applying a mix of classical
Greek, Rome Empire, Italian Renaissance, Paris
Haussmann and Beaux Arts, as neo classicism
style of architecture. “Good of the Whole” was
the motto of the movement to produce unity and

Fig. 2.2 Central Paris as one of the greatest scheme of the city beautiful movement (Brown et al. 2009, p. 6)
14 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles

cohesion between the urban components and

elements. Balanced relationships between these
elements is regarded as beauty.
City center is the dominant element of urban
design and the core of the physical and cultural
aspects of the city. The centre is connected by
roads from all sides, visually and physically.
Public spaces are the identity of the city.
It is, however, Daniel Burnham who played
the key role in introducing the Movement to the
world. His vision of the city design is summa-
rized in the following statement:
men’s blood and probably will not be realized.
Make big plans, aim high in hope and work,
remembering that a noble, a logical diagram, once
recorded will never die…

Daniel Burnham’s more widely known 1909

City Beautiful Plan for Chicago, with a grand
boulevard system overlaid on local streets with
great waterfront parks and civic buildings, influ-
enced city development throughout the twentieth
century. Movement’s principles are: Urban
design as civic art, balance between urban ele-
ments to create a unified and cohesive unit, city
center is regarded as the dominant urban design
element and the physical and cultural center of the
city, visual and spatial connection of all city roads
to the center create a unified and centralized Fig. 2.5 Piazza San Pietro, Vatican City, 17th century,
structure, good of the whole, geometrical forms as the origin of city beautiful movement (Source Brown
et al. 2009)
and order.

2.3.3 Garden City and New Town

Movements

Ebenezer Howard proposed the landmark garden

city concept in 1898 that included self-contained,
self sufficient communities surrounded by green-
belts. Howards’s vision influenced several gener-
ations of urban designers in Europe and the United
States, including many elements of contemporary
new urbanism movement (Figs. 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8
and 2.9).
At the macro scale, garden city was based on Fig. 2.6 The pattern used by L’Enfant for the plan of
two principles: one to draw urban life into the Washington, D.C. (Source Morris 1979)
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles
Fig. 2.7 The pattern used in the reconstruction of part of
London which was damaged by fire in 1666 (Morris
1979)
Fig. 2.8 Central Paris as one of the greatest scheme of
the city beautiful movement (Brown et al. 2009, p. 6)
countryside, in order to create an environment
that combines city life advantages with the rural
beauty and this new settlement will replace
15
Fig. 2.9 Howard’s diagram of the Garden City (Fishman
1977)
existing cities. The second principle was decen-
tralization. At the micro scale Howard believed
in two principles of unity and symmetry.
Although Howard’s Garden City did not succeed
in application, it had significant influence on the
future movements of city planning and urban
design, including new town movement, urban
village, etc (Figs. 2.10 and 2.11).
Fig. 2.10 Diagram details for a proto-typical Garden
City—ward and Centre of Garden City–proposed by
Howard, as the main component of the Garden city.
School is located at the core of the neighborhood, where
is connected by a pedestrian Grand Avenue (Source
Dixon et al. 2009)
16 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles

Fig. 2.12 A scale model of the plan vision, 1925,

(Fishman 1977)

2.3.5 Megastructuralism

The most significant principle in mega-structural

Fig. 2.11 Welwyn Garden City, diagram of general design is putting variety of elements and their
town plan (Neal 2003)
relations in one point and one single building in
order to all elements and relations benefit from
2.3.4 Modernism each other. The proposed megastructure is free
from surroundings and designed in a way to
Modernism is the only movement in the 20th function independently.
century to grow and expand to become a uni- Metabolism, mega-form and collective form
versal school of thought. Several different factors (Figs. 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19,
justify this major shift: John Maynard Keynes’s 2.20 and 2.21).
ideas introduced economic justification, doc- The architecturally philosophical concept of
trine of Luther on Protestantism provided reli- metabolism dates back to 1960s. The leading
gious justification, international expos, introduce figures at the start of the Metabolitic movement
experimental justification, reconstruction of the were Kenzo Tange and Kisho Kurokawa as well
post-war Europe, was practical justification and as Kiyonouri Kikutake and architecture critic
cross subject application (in arts, literature, Noborou Kawazoe. Their architectural approach
architecture, and city planning) contributed to its linked the late modern, technologized New
universalization. The new science and technol-
ogy prepared the context for all these changes.
Various thinkers and theoreticians put these new
changes in the context to introduce theoretical
and philosophical justification for such a para-
digm shift.
Modernism principles were based on hygiene,
justice, modern technology, building materials
and techniques, speed, form efficiency and the
idea of form follows function, minimum aes-
thetics and avoiding decorative elements, ideal
city, high density, master design, expressways,
zoning, mass production and standardization Fig. 2.13 Waling City, as mega structure, By: Herron
(Fig. 2.12). (1964)
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles
Fig. 2.14 Metabolism, mega-form and collective form
Fig. 2.15 Mega form, Moshe Safdi: habitat. A commu-
nity of 25,000 (from Banz 1970, p. 108)
Brutalism with the concept of architecture as
analogous to biology.
In 1960, Kurokawa, together with Kikutake,
Fumihiko Maki, Mosato Otaka, and Kizoshi
Awazu published a manuscript entitled 1960—A
proposal for a new urbanism, which expressed the
basic outlook of the group members: We regard
human society as a living process (Taschen 2003)
(Fig. 2.22).
The city is divided into two parts: essential
and nonessential. The essential part (main struc-
ture) is fixed and stable in the short time, but the
rest will continuously undergo changes. This will
lead to a division of responsibility of the part of
public and private sector.
17
Fig. 2.16 Mega structure, a model of new Yokohama
2.3.6 Team X
Team X movement was emerged due to the
inadequacy of architectural and urban design
ideas that were presented in the framework of the
legacy of modernism and also the dissatisfaction
with the Garden City idea. Each generation
should be able to have the desired form for its own
place. The purpose was to find a new path and
method: a new start. A different style and feeling.
To know and feel today’s patterns, desires, tools,
transportation and communication modes in order
for the society to achieve its goals. But the path to
the future should be left open, because time
changes everything. This was a practical utopian,
and not a theoretical one. Clustering of residential
units will produce meaning and lead to the dom-
inance of man over his home. Human hierarchy
should replace functional hierarchy of Athens
Charter.
18 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles

Fig. 2.17 Rome was built in a day, by Mark Copeland

(1997)

City as a collective/public art. To revive the

sense of feeling toward the environment. To
eliminate the discontinuity of the city.
Non-Euclidian thinking. The emphasis will be on
differences, rather than commonalities. To build
the spirit of the time. A new definition for the
relation between man and his environment. Fig. 2.18 Ciudad Lineal, a linear city capable of exten-
According to this movement urban design sion across land. By: Arturo Soria Marta (1892)
should follow an organic process, based on the
main structure (backbone), which includes public secondary features, sequence of signs, scale, loca-
utilities, and cluster city, hierarchy, twin phe- tion, context, preventing redundancy (Fig. 2.26).
nomena (e.g. diversity vs. unity) concepts. The car
is halted at the appropriate point, and vertical
mechanical circulation is located at key pints in the 2.3.8 Behaviorism
scheme (Figs. 2.23, 2.24 and 2.25).
Giving priority to pedestrian movement in urban
spaces, mix uses, involving space users in
2.3.7 Symbolism and Semiology decision-making process and implementation,
paying attention to human needs and character-
The main ideas behind this movement are: Histor- istics are the principal ideas of behaviorism
ical continuity of sign, uniqueness, spatial domi- movement. One of the primary principles of this
nance, containing unique activity, containing movement is creating the kind of urban space
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles 19

Fig. 2.20 Shahestan Pahlavi as a mega structure devel-

oped for a new diplomatic centre of the city of Tehran, in
1970s (Source Barnett 1982)

Fig. 2.19 Mega structure in Isfahan during Safavid

period (Source Ardalan and Bakhtiar 1975)

that could secure behavior needs of people

completely and clearly. Urban spaces can be
preventive, in the same way that are provocative.
Territories are determinant factors in the design
of public spaces (Lang and Moleski 2011). Lang
has always believed that behavioral sciences
provide a great potential for developing archi-
tectural and urban design theories. In their recent
book, Lang and Moleski (2011) argue that the
model of ‘function’ and the concept of a ‘func-
tional building’ that we have inherited form the
20th century Modernists is limited in scope.
They propose a new model which responds to the
observations about the inadequacy of current
Fig. 2.21 An artist’s presentation of traffic problems and
ways of thinking about functionalism in archi- solutions following the industrial revolution in the cities
tecture and urban design. of the western world (Gruen 1964)
20 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
Fig. 2.22 Diagram, A.M.S. Greenspace compliments
streets-in-the-air patterns for dwellings. 1952 (Smithson
1974, p. 61)
Fig. 2.23 Two types of megaform, hierarchical structure
(left) and open-ended structure (right). Smithson (1974,
p. 84)
Fig. 2.24 Smithson (1974), p. 95
2.3.9 Traditionalism
Over the last several years, urban designers have
made a remarkably concerted movement toward
Fig. 2.25 The hierarchy of activities and spaces (Source
Team X)
Fig. 2.26 Symbolism in urban space. Anon, Deschwan-
den’s Shoe Repairs, Bakersfield, California (from Jencks
1979, p. 77)
healing their breach with past. What comes
through in many projects these days is a desire to
apply, to today’s circumstances, the traditional
urban framework of streets, squares, and
pedestrian-scale spaces (Fig. 2.27).
A key to the traditional city was its pedestrian
orientation, and urban designers are energetically
reaffirming this shoe-leather view of community
structure. Key elements of traditional urban
design include: Human ecology, territory,
man-environment relationship, patternization,
unity-multiplicity (order-disorder), sign and
symbol, duality and contrast, balance, economy,
and hierarchy.
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles
Fig. 2.27 A cul-de-sac in the old section of the historical
city of Tunis (photo by: authors)
2.3.10 Postmodernism
and Contextualism
Ethics and change in meaning and concept of time
and space and uncertainty towards future are the
corner stone of Post-Modernism movement. It
may be regarded as Post-Fordism and Post
Industrialism. Diversity, pluralism, difference,
parts and fragments, heterogeneity, paying atten-
tion to women and minorities, in search of a guide
in a changing world, doubt on the value of money
and capital, return to realism and uniformity and
totality. It is process-oriented, based on decon-
structivism, decentralization, discontinuity, dif-
ference, and pluralism. It supports democratic
forms, open and disjointed process, weak centers,
traditional and new, and collective identity.
The last three decades have witnessed a growing
awareness and engagement by a number of plan-
ning and design theorists with what has been called
‘postmodernity’ and ‘postmodernism’. These tex-
tual excursions, in what can accordingly be termed
a ‘postmodern turn’, have taken variety of forms,
largely as a result of different readings of ‘the
postmodern’ and planning and design (Fig. 2.28).
Jenks was one of first to transfer the term
‘post-modern’ from literary expression, where it
was first used in 1975, to architecture. He regar-
ded metaphor as an architectural form and
21
Fig. 2.28 Michael Grave’s landmark building in Port-
land, Oregon (Photo by: authors)
contended that architectural language of form is
made up of words (established motifs and ele-
ments like the column and the pitched roof)
Taschen (2003).
Diversity and multiplicity, contextualism, par-
ticipation, small-scale, process-oriented, eclecti-
cism, city as a landscape, mix uses, priority of
pedestrians, decoration, dialogue, decentraliza-
tion, and discontinuity are regarded as some of
postmodern urban design.
2.3.11 Practice Movement
A 1974 article by Martin Krieger sets out many of
the basic concepts that were later to inform the
practice movement. Krieger questioned the desire
for formal generalized models of planning that
remain at the level of generalization and that are
contextual. He goes on to argue that a model that is
not formal, but rather one that incorporates people
and that makes sense, is the model of the everyday
life of the community. He suggest sources of
theory that could be drawn on to develop this
model: phenomenology, language philosophy
(Wittgenstein), linguistics, ethnomethodology,
and idea put forward by Habermas (Krieger 1974).
Pragmatism or practice movement is concerned
with the practical application of ideas and with
22 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles

what is evidently useful in an instrumental sense.

Some of the key characteristic include: a recogni-
tion2 of the fallibility of knowledge, an emphasis
on the outcomes of knowledge rather than on the
relationship of knowledge to the ‘truth’, an
emphasis on experience rather than on abstracted
theory, a rejection of the dichotomies of modern
science and philosophy, for example, belief/action,
theory/practice, facts/values, intellect/emotions;
the centrality of community and social relation-
ships; and a recognition of the importance of lan-
guage in creating realities and in shaping social
practice (Thayer 1968; Seigfried 1995). Gradually
Fig. 2.29 Robert Venturi’s postmodern architecture and
a number of planning and design theorists have urban design. Seattle museum of modern art (Photo by the
come to accept the conceptual openness and radical authors)
indeterminacy of pragmatist thought. The follow-
ing movements are directly or indirectly influenced
by the pragmatist thought (Watson 2002). Hoch
(2007) describes the pragmatist approach of how
meanings are made to understand “comprehen-
siveness: in a systemic rather than an analytic way
through analogy and metaphor writes: instead of
using comprehensiveness to mean complete, we
can use it in this pragmatic sense to describe a
richer and more meaningful grasp of unfamiliar
relationships in terms of more familiar ones. The
pragmatic approach makes room for practical Fig. 2.30 Various forms of symbolic application of
wisdom, public sentiment, and imaginative con- cross in Christianity
jecture as these add value to the meaning of the
consequences that ensue as people act on a com-
prehensive plan (Hoch 2007, pp. 278–279)
(Figs. 2.29, 2.30 and 2.31).

2.3.11.1 New Urbanism

The last few decades have seen what must be one
of the most dramatic reversals in urban design
theory from modern urban order in the decades
following the Second World War, to a neo-
traditional urbanism, which can be described as
the philosophy and practice of recreating the best
of traditional urbanism for today. This was per-
haps the most significant movement in urban Fig. 2.31 Robert Krier’ plan for part of Stuttgart,
planning and design in recent decades, because it Germany (1979). (From Brown et al. 2009, p. 73)

2
Human knowledge is defined by Hegel as the ‘result or
product of a process called cognition, which is the process
or act of knowing. G.W.F. Hegel, quoted in Problems of
Knowledge by Earnst Cassirer (New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1950), p. 3.
constitutes a clearly identifiable movement, with
well-defined aims and methods, and principles
set out in the Charter of the New Urbanism (see
Marshall 2009).
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles 23

New Urbanism is a philosophical and practical 2.3.11.2 Transit-Oriented

way to recreate the best traditional urban form for Development (TOD)
today, such as court yard and mixed use streets. It Transit-oriented development, emphasis on city
is a neo traditional movement based on pragma- centre, regional development, historical preserva-
tism, which focuses on public realm, relation tion, green buildings, safe streets, redevelopment of
between work and living, environmental sus- brownfield lands, self-sufficient neighborhoods,
tainability, product (rather than process, which is neighborhood centers. Variety of building types,
contrary to communicative planning) and quality mixed uses, intermingling of housing for different
of life. Some regard New Urbanism more as an income groups, and a strong privileging of the
ideology, rather than theory. “public realm.” The basic unit of planning is the
New urbanism refers to a design-oriented neighborhood, which is limited in physical size, has
approach to planned development and may regard a well-defined edge, and has a focused center
it as one of the movements of the practical move- (Figs. 2.33 and 2.34).
ments. According to this movement development
should be based on compact pattern and a mix of 2.3.11.3 Urban Village
different housing types, and mix uses. Land uses The ‘urban village’ is another model of
should be distributed in a way to let people walk to neo-traditional development that appeared first in
their destinations easily and in short time. New
Urbanism involves an urban form that stimulates
neighborliness, community involvement, subjec-
tive feelings of integration with one’s environment,
and aesthetic satisfaction. As a theory, New
Urbanism is free of the grand statements and
obscure rationales typical of many urban design
theories. As a movement, its focus is practical and
didactic, providing simple, clear and hands-on
directions and guidelines for designers, planners
and builders making towns (Fig. 2.32).
The Congress for New Urbanism has formulated
some principles under the Charter of New Urban-
ism in three categories of: The region: Metropolis, Fig. 2.33 Generic plan for a transit-oriented develop-
City, and Town; The Neighborhood, the District, ment (Calthorpe 1993)
and the Corridor; and the Block, the street, and the
Building (Congress for New Urbanism 2001).

Fig. 2.32 Seaside (Florida) by Dauny @ Plaer-Zyberk in Fig. 2.34 Celebration Park, Florida, a New Urbanism
1983 (from Kostof 1991, p. 277) project, 1994
24 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
the early 1980s in the UK and in the late 1980s in
the United States (Aldous 1992; Neal 2003). The
popular idea of sustainable development in the
1990s contributed to the formation of the goals of
the urban village. According to the Urban Villages
Forum, an urban village is a settlement created on a
greenfield or brownfield site, or out of an existing
development. Its features are high density; mixed
use; mix of housing tenures, ages, and social
groups; high quality; and walkability (Aldous
1992). Citing examples from the United States and
Canada, Kenworthy (1991) states that the urban
village is a trend that attempts to respond to an
emptiness in community life and fulfills deeply felt
needs for convenience, efficiency, beauty, and
connection to a larger portion of humanity. Other
reasons for the trends toward the urban village
include factors such as traffic congestion, pollu-
tion, infrastructure costs, and low quality of life.
Urban village principles: a development of
appropriate size and density, walkability, appro-
priate combination of uses and job opportunities,
diversity of architecture, sustainable urban form,
mixed income of residents, income producing
uses, providing basic needs of shopping, health
and education, relative self-sufficiency, lower
car-dependency, citizens participation in
decision-making (Fig. 2.35).
Fig. 2.35 The key components of a mixed-use and
integrated neighborhood proposed by the Urban Task
Force (Neal 2003, p. 8)
2.3.11.4 Traditional Neighborhood
Development (TND)
Traditional Neighborhood development move-
ment is counter-revolution and against suburban
sprawl. It uses morphology and typology and
focuses on spatial order, as well as diversity, by
using traditional concepts of urban design. The
design base unit is neighborhood, which is
defined, limited and has specific center. Unique
identity of each place is emphasized (architec-
tural style is derived from local history, culture,
geography and climate), and the sense of neigh-
borhood is promoted.
A subset of urban villages comprises tradi-
tional neighborhood developments. Typically
new construction, often built on greenfield sites,
TNDs are more compact than the usual subdi-
vision, favor walking over driving, mix uses
where possible, and provide narrower roads, few
or no cul-de-sacs, and common greens and
squares (Fig. 2.36).
2.3.12 Critical Theory
Critical theory is an evaluative attitude towards
reality, a questioning rather than an acceptance of
the world as it is, a taking apart and examining
and attempting to understand the world. It leads
to a position not only necessarily critical in the
sense of negative criticism, but also critically
exposing the positive and the possibilities of
change, implying positions on what is wrong and
needing change, but also on what is desirable and
needs to be built on and fostered (Marcuse 2009).
Critical theory which is also placed under the
headings of “communicative” and “collaborative”
Fig. 2.36 Form-based development
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles
modes, has provided the main theoretical and
philosophical foundation.
Public domain is where political life and par-
ticipation in political activities is open to all citi-
zens and all people. Three kinds of interests may
be found: Instrumental interest, which determines
the relationship between humans and nature and
physical and material environment. Practical
interest, which deals with understanding, com-
munication and also inter-mind relationship. And
emancipating interest, which represents the ability
and capability of humans in critical thinking,
self-knowledge and rational action. A knowledge
which lead to the increase of independency and
responsibility. In the same way, critical theory
relies on communicative action, rather than
instrumental or deliberate rational and strategic
actions. But in the case of knowledge, the three
kinds of knowledge are used together: practical
knowledge, which governs the method of control
and intervention in the environment. Experimental
knowledge, which deals with the social interaction
among humans. And the emancipating knowl-
edge, which deals with emancipating the control-
ling forces of his/her decisions—self knowledge.
Within the practice movement, the commu-
nicative theorist appear currently to hold a domi-
nant position, largely inspired by the writings of
Habermas. This approach focuses broadly on
processes of communication and knowledge
producing in planning and design. Critics of
modernity, rely on communicative rationality,
mix of science, ethics and art, continuous criti-
cism, education, duality, and normative princi-
ples. Communicative model, which is the result of
communicative rationality, means practices that
allow people to shape the places in which they
live. In communicative action, process design is
participatory, transparent, and evolutionary. The
goal is to enhance the quality of deliberation and
lead to consensus-based decisions. Seeks to
approach conditions for undistorted communica-
tion and discover and reconcile issue frames.
Meeting leader actively manages deliberation
processes. The goals are innovative plans and
building social and intellectual capital. In the case
25
of implementation, it pays attention to the “story”
of the design effort and attends to relationships
that will support participation. The term collabo-
rative planning feature as an increasingly promi-
nent part of the vocabulary used in the range of
planning and design literature.
Critics of modernity, rely on communicative
rationality, mix of science, ethics and art, con-
tinuous criticism, education, duality, and nor-
mative principles. Communicative model, which
is the result of communicative rationality, means
practices that allow people to shape the places in
which they live. In communicative action, pro-
cess design is participatory, transparent, and
evolutionary. Collaborative planning is regarded
as a theory of practice (Harris 2002). There are,
of course, some who believe that Critical Plan-
ning Theory is inadequate as a design and plan-
ning theory (Mantysalo 2002).
2.3.13 Just City
In the coming years, designers, as well as plan-
ners will face decisions about where they stand
on protecting the green city, promoting the eco-
nomically growing city, and advocating social
justice.
Just City concerns the development of an
urban vision that also involves material
well-being but that relies on a more pluralistic,
cooperative, and decentralized form of welfare
provision than the state-centered model of the
bureaucratic welfare state.
2.3.14 Normative Ethical Theory
Ethical theory arouse out of attempts to give an
account of moral goodness and the morally good
life. Normative Ethical Theory has been divided
into two levels—substantive and procedural. Sub-
stantive ethical theory advocates actual normative
ethical principles and judgments. These principles
are applied to judge the rightness or wrongness of
specific social institutions, actions, plans, policies,
26 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
etc. Procedural ethical theory is a level above sub-
stantive theory (Harper and Stein 1992).
2.3.15 Smart Growth
While there has been a strong association of urban
design with “downtowns,” demand for suburban
growth management and reinvestment strategies
for the older rings around city centers has gathered
many advocates. Indeed, to protect urbanism, not to
mention minimize environmental harm and need-
less land consumption, it is imperative, many argue,
to control sprawl and make environmental stew-
ardship a more overt part of urban thinking. Since a
high percentage of development takes place at the
periphery of existing urbanization the urban
designer should be operating there, and, if present,
advocating “smarter” planning and design. Con-
versely, ignoring the metropolitan periphery as if it
were unworthy of a true urbanist or limiting one’s
efforts to urban “infill” may simply be forms of
problem avoidance (Krieger 2009). The principles
are: mixed uses, compact buildings, wide range of
housing types, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods,
building attractive settlements with a strong sense
of place, preserving open spaces, agricultural lands,
reclaimed lands, water sources, air quality, histori-
cal districts, natural assets, alternative transport,
cost-effective and transparent decision-making for
development, encouraging interest groups and local
residents to participate in the development
decisions.
2.3.16 New Urban Design Theory
Christopher Alexander (Alexander et al. 1987) in
his book ‘New Urban Design Theory’ suggests
one overriding and seven intermediate rules for
urban design. According to him The overriding
rule: every act of construction, every increment
of growth in the city, works towards the creation
of wholeness. The seven intermediate rules are:
piecemeal growth, the growth of larger wholes,
visions, the basic rule of positive urban space,
layout of large buildings, construction, and for-
mation of centers.
2.3.17 Sustainable Urban Design
The requirements of sustainable development are
compatible with, and closely mirror, the Post
Modern agenda in urban design. The current
pre-occupations of urban designers are with the
form of urban space, the vitality and identity of
urban areas, qualities of urbanity, respect for
tradition and preference for medium rise devel-
opment of human scale. These and other features
in the best of Post Modern urban design can be
absorbed within the schema of sustainable
development. The two movements—sustainable
development and Post Modern urban design—
are mutually supportive: Indeed, they are both
expressions of current philosophy which has
rejected the grand development strategies of the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s together with the mod-
ernist architecture which gave those strategies
form. Post Modern urban design gives form to
the ideas of sustainable development while in
return it is given functional legitimacy. Without
this functional legitimacy and the discipline it
imposes on the urban design process, post
modern urban design, like some of the buildings
of post modernism, may develop into the whimsy
of another esoteric aesthetic. The foundation of
urban design is social necessity. The social
imperative of today is an environmental crisis of
global proportions and it is coming to terms with
the efforts of this crisis on cities which gives
purpose and meaning to urban design (Moughtin
1996, pp. 1–2).
Sustainable Development attempts to weave
together multiple values to confront the chal-
lenges of reversing environmental degradation
and reducing overconsumption and grinding
poverty. These values are sometimes referred to
as the three Es of sustainable development:
environment, economy, and equity. Sustainable
development has implication at international,
national, state, regional, and local levels. Smith
et al. (1998) suggest the following practical fea-
tures of sustainable development that can be
implemented directly in policies aimed at the
built environment.
Environmental limits: The environment
imposes thresholds for certain human activities in
2.3 Contemporary Urban Design Movements and Their Rules and Principles
terms of resources, absorption of waste and
maintenance of life support serving such as
temperature and protections against radiation.
These resources are intrinsically of value to
humanity and should not be ‘traded’ against the
benefit of a particular development or a particular
activity as a whole (Fig. 2.37).
Demand management: involves more subtle
and responsive planning to meet basic objectives
rather than some derived demand. Hence it is
possible, for example, to reduce energy con-
sumption by a variety of conservation and effi-
ciency measures as an alternative to building new
power station.
Environmental efficiency: means ‘the
achievement of the maximum benefit for each
unit of resources and waste products’. This could
be achieved increasing durability; increasing the
technical efficiency of resource conversion;
avoiding the consumption of renewable natural
resources, water and energy faster than the nat-
ural system can replenish them. Closing resource
loops: by increasing reuse, recycling, simplifying
Fig. 2.37 The evolutionary trend of sustainability concept (Source Daniel 2009)
27
and avoiding the need for resource use
(non-renewable).
Welfare efficiency: expresses the direct
equivalent of environmental efficiency and
describes the objective of gaining the greatest
human benefit from each unit of economic activ-
ity. It requires a much more diverse social and
economic system with many more possibilities for
satisfying lifestyle requirements than at present.
Equity: Environmental policies have the
potential to deliver significant improvements in
the quality of life, health and job prospects of the
marginalized, dispossessed and socially excluded
in the society. Even the narrow notion of physi-
cal sustainability implies a concern for social
equity between generations, a concern that must
logically be extended to equity within each
generation (Smith et al. 1998, pp. 18–20).
Berke and Manta-Conroy (2000) propose three
conceptual dimensions [System Reproduction,
Balance between Environmental, Economic,
and Social Values; and link local to global
(and regional) concerns] and six operational
28 2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles
performances principles (harmony with nature,
livable built environment, place-based economy,
equity, polluters pay, and responsible regionalism)
for sustainability. These principles are expected to
play a key role in guiding evaluations by designers
of the potential environmental, social, and eco-
nomic impacts of urban forms and ensuring that
design solutions integrate a balanced, holistic
vision of sustainability (Berke 2002).
2.3.18 Urban Design for an Urban
Century
Brown et al. (2009, 102–111) suggest five gen-
eral urban design principles for what they call
‘urban century’, each of which is broken down
into more specific guidelines:
Build community in an increasingly diverse
society
i. Create places that draw people together
ii. Support social equity
iii. Emphasize the public realm
iv. Forge strongest connections
Advance sustainability at every level
v. Forster smarter growth
vi. Address the economic, social and cultural
underpinnings of sustainability
Expand individual choices
vii. Build densities that support greater choice
viii. Build interconnected transportation
networks
ix. Provide choices that enhance quality of
life
Enhance personal health
x. Promote public health
xi. Increase personal safety
Make places for people
xii. Respond to the human senses
xiii. Integrate history, nature, and innovation
xiv. Emphasize identity
xv. Celebrate history
xvi. Respect and engage nature
xvii. Introduce innovation
A review of the contemporary urban planning
and design movements and their relevant prin-
ciples indicates that most of them are piecemeal
and disintegrated ideas focusing solely on some
aspects of the subject matter of urban design,
often substantive issues, disregarding the rest.
Integrative theory (language) of urban design, as
will be proposed later, will include all aspects of
urban design—substantive, as well as procedural.
(For more information on contemporary urban
design movements see: Bahrainy et al. 2006.
Analysis of Contemporary urban design theories.
Vol. 1: from late 19th century to 1970s. Tehran:
UT Press).
 Urban Design Theory
3

are the language of urban design. Both episte-

3.1 Proposed Integrative
mological concepts deal with the very foundation
Knowledge Base of Urban
of a field.
Design
It is not surprising that some thirty years ago
Pittas (1980) stated that most of the now disci-
A review of the urban design literature indicated
plines came into being through the establishment
that so far no serious effort has been made to
of a set of governing paradigms which formed
comprehensively identify the knowledge base of
the theoretical underpinnings of discipline based
urban design. Rather, there have been some
knowledge. These paradigms, developed through
piecemeal and narrowly defined approaches and
the consensus of practitioners, are constantly
rules of thumb developed by individual profes-
tested and retested so that the theoretical under-
sionals and theorists in special circumstances and
pinnings can and do change over time. He further
for special purposes, which do not seem to
believes that the first great leap into establishing
qualify as the comprehensive knowledge base of
a consensus among practitioners, researchers and
urban design. Although urban design is seem-
educators of urban design has emerged and we
ingly embarrassed by a wealth of design theories,
can expect that a truly coherent discipline may
these seldom amount to anything more than
evolve in the future.
statements of beliefs put forward by leading
Sommer (2009) poses a very critical question:
practitioners and academics in the field. Thus it
Isn’t the value of a professional or academic dis-
appears that the theoretical basis for modifying
cipline—and urban design can be no exception—
the environment is impoverished in the extreme,
that it advances and curates a critical body of ideas
and that there is little systematic positive theo-
and distills them into an array of methods and
retical basis for design practice (Lang 1987,
techniques that challenges entrenched assump-
1994; Lynch 1984). From a British planner’s
tions and transform practices? For urban design to
perspective, writes Punter (1996), the short
endure as a serious practice, it must claim, criti-
answer to the question as to whether urban
cally reassess and renew a discrete set of concepts
design has an adequate theory is no! Punter
that have evolved since the field first emerged as a
presents many evidences for his claim.
discipline in the mid-twentieth century.
For a study of the knowledge base of urban
The universal need for order in the physical
design, the analysis of these concepts seems to be
environment has established certain communal
relevant and necessary. Such an analysis is nee-
goals and desires within each society. An aggre-
ded to justify goals and indicate the means to
gate of these societal goals, desires and aspira-
achieve goals and the tools to develop and learn
tions can be used as the overall purpose of urban
the means. ‘Means’ are the knowledge and ‘tools’

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 29

H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_3
30
design—to identify the knowledge base of urban
design and also to recognize its components.
Urban design is defined here as the purposeful
decisions and actions which aim at establishing
functional and formal order in the physical envi-
ronment. It is obvious that this definition implies
some abstract and value-free elements such as the
decisions and actions involved and the formal and
functional orders sought. In fact, the nature,
characteristics, and interpretations of these ele-
ments normally change from one context to
another. They can, therefore, be defined specifi-
cally only in a particular context or culture.
It is intrinsic to this definition that urban
design deals primarily with the urban physical
environment which is the container of urban
activities and hence, that urban activities, as the
content, are also the concern of urban design; and
that there are certain deliberate and purposeful
decisions, actions and processes to be followed
in order to achieve the desired goals. Urban
physical environment in this definition implies
urban form and all its attributes such as percep-
tual, visual and aesthetic processes, and urban
activities refer to the systems of activities which
involve individuals, groups and organizations in
the urban environment. Urban design, therefore,
deals with form as well function, and its purposes
are efficiency as well aesthetics.
This general definition, which is based on the
universal purpose of urban design, may lead us to
the nature and components of the knowledge
base of urban design. According to this defini-
tion, urban design concerns substantive areas, or
the ‘know-what’ of the knowledge base. Dealing
with these substantive areas (i.e., understanding,
explaining, [analysis], predicting, evaluating and
synthesizing), requires certain tools, methods and
processes which may be called procedural areas,
or the know-how of the knowledge base. The
knowledge base of urban design, therefore,
consists of these two areas of know-what and
know-how, which are reciprocal in nature.
In the substantive area, urban form deals with
the objects in the urban environment–their dis-
tribution in space, their relationship with each
3 Urban Design Theory
other, and their relationship with man. The way
of knowing that fits this area has to be holistic,
subjective and qualitative. It involves an intuitive
process. Urban activities, on the other hand, deal
with all the economic, social, cultural, recre-
ational and political activities of man in the urban
environment. They aim at efficiency, justice and
equity, which will eventually lead to the general
welfare of the individuals in a society. In contrast
to the elements and attributes of urban form,
urban activities are normally quantitative,
objective, and subject to measurement, decom-
position and analysis. They, therefore, require
tools, methods, and processes appropriate to
dealing with these characteristics. They require a
scientific method.
In the same way that urban form and urban
activities are interwoven together and cannot be
separated, so also are their methods and pro-
cesses, i.e., intuitive and scientific methods.
There are certain aspects of urban form, such as
patternization, which may be explained and
examined analytically and systematically through
the application of scientific methods. There are
also certain functional areas or stages in the
analysis and decision-making processes of urban
activities which require a holistic view of all the
issues and parts which are simultaneously
involved. This aspect of urban design can be
dealt with by the intuitive method. The integra-
tion of intuitive and scientific methods which
will provide a powerful tool of analysis and
synthesis seems quite essential in urban design.
The Knowledge base of urban design consists
of urban form, urban activities, and the integra-
tion of intuitive and scientific methods. Knowl-
edge is intrinsically sporadic, complicated, ever-
growing and unstructured. No one may possess
or be sure to have possessed all the knowledge in
one area. This is true in the case of ‘urban design
knowledge’, where the diversity of the subjects
involved and the interrelationships between them
prevent one from knowing everything in the
field. Language as an effective instrument of
communication and representation, seems to be
an appropriate tool for solving this problem.
3.2 What Is Theory and What Can It Do for a Profession?
3.2 What Is Theory and What Can It
Do for a Profession?
Random House Dictionary of the English
Language (1988) gives this definition for theory:
a coherent group of general propositions used as
principles of explanation for a class of phenom-
ena: Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (P. 1967).
A theory, says Hanson, is a pattern of conceptual
organization which explains phenomena by
rendering them intelligible (Hanson in Suppe,
p. 166).
According to instrumentalist view, theories
are merely instruments which enable us to de-
duce phenomena from prior phenomena: a rule
or a set of instructions (Suppe, p. 167). Theories
have as their subject matter a certain range of
phenomena and they are developed for the pur-
pose of providing answers to a variety of
questions about the phenomena in that range.
These questions may include request for expla-
nations, the nature of regularities among the
phenomena, and so on. Theories provide the
means for answering the questions by responding
generalized descriptions for aspects of the
phenomena. For a theory to be adequate not only
must these generalized descriptions be true, but
also they must be capable of answering the
questions the theory is committed to answering
(Suppe, p. 212).
Each theory carries with it its own standards
of adequacy. Gibbs (1972) maintains that the
primary criteria for assessing sociological theo-
ries is the predictive power.
Need for a “higher order” standards for
assessing adequacy of theories.
Although it is said that there is no reason why
the same standards should prevail for all theories,
some claim that there should be certain common
standards for assessing the adequacy of all the-
ories—provide empirically true descriptions or at
least be empirically confirmed by the facts
(Suppe, p. 216).
These explanations, as Stroud points out, are
general answer to questions, a “general way of
knowing,” through sense-perception (Stroud,
2000). No agreement seems to exist even between
philosophers as to what qualifies as a clear-cut
31
example of scientific theory. Some would main-
tain that the theories in physics are scientific, but
those in sociology are not.
The job of a theory, according to Suppe, is to
specify the expected patterns of behavior and to
explain deviations from them. Theory presents an
ideal of natural order—a principle.
It is characteristic of scientific theories that
they systematize a body of empirical knowledge
by means of a system of interrelated concepts
(Suppe 1977, p. 64). Suppe regards theories as
the vehicle of scientific knowledge (Suppe 1977,
p. 3). The function of science, Suppe writes, is to
build up systems of explanatory techniques; a
variety of representational devices, including
models, diagrams, and theories is employed to
describe and reason about phenomena. Accord-
ing to Suppe, theories consist of ideals of natural
order (which provide ways of looking at or rep-
resenting phenomena), laws, and hypothesis
which are stratified nondeductively via meaning
relationships (p. 670). Theoretical realms main-
tains that the function of theories is systematic
description and explanation and that to be
adequate, all aspects of a theory’s descriptions
must be correct. Reductionism further requires
that nonobservable content be reduced to the
observable or some other empirical basis. Instru-
mentalism construes the function of theories to
be prediction of directly observable phenomena
and requires only adequate description of directly
observable aspects (Suppe in Encyclopedia of
Philosophy 1996, p. 521). But as Gale (1979)
suggests generalization is another main function
of theories. It is generally believed that one of the
chief function of scientific research is to discover
new truth about the physical universe and then to
state these truths in the form of generalization.
Generalization of this nature are often called
“scientific laws” or “laws of nature,” (Gale 1979,
p. 42).
As for the structure of theories, Suppe states
that, theories utilize specialized concepts and are
expressed in technical language, and often
invoke mathematical structures. Different philo-
sophical analysis (operationalism, syntactic
analyses, semantic conceptions, and structuralist
approach) give each feature priority (Suppe in
32
Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1996, pp. 521–3).
According to Suppe a theory contains at least
two distinct components: (1) ideals of natural
order; and (2) other laws which are used to
account for phenomenal deviations from the
ideals. Theories are not true or false; rather they
are ways of representing phenomenon (Suppe,
p. 131). How can we know if a theory is fruitful?
Suppe maintains that if the discovered scope of
the theory is such that the theory can explain a
large variety of phenomena and answer a sub-
stantial portion of the questions about the phe-
nomena which are counted as important, then the
theory is fruitful—for the meantime (Suppe,
pp. 131–2).
Further investigations, changes in presump-
tion, changes in intellectual climate, and so on
may cause the fruitfulness of a theory to diminish
in that further restrictions in scope are discovered
or new questions are held important which the
theory cannot answer (Suppe, p. 132).
Theories provide methods for representing
phenomena.
Possession of a common disciplinary matrix is
the mark of a scientific community. Without this
the crisis occurs: The breakdown of the scientific
community through the loss of a shared disci-
plinary matrix. Exemplars + disciplinary matrix
= paradigm.
The meaning of a word is context-dependent
(Hanson in Suppe, p. 161).
Every scientific theory is a system of sen-
tences which are accepted as true ad which may
be called laws or asserted statements. In mathe-
matics these statements follow one another in a
definite order, and in accordance with certain
principles… In view of these principles, the
statements are generally accompanied by argu-
ments whose purpose is to demonstrate their
truth. Arguments of this kind are referred to as
proofs, and the statements established by them
are called theorems (Tarski 1994, p. 3). The
principles…serve the purpose of assuring …the
highest possible degree of clarity and certainty.
From this point of view a method or procedure
might be considered ideal if it allowed us to
explain the meaning of every expression occur-
ring in this science and to justify each of its
3 Urban Design Theory
assertions (Tarski 1994, p. 109). The method of
constructing a discipline in strict accordance with
the foregoing principles is known as deductive
methods, and the disciplines constructed in this
manner are called deductive theories (Tarski
1994, p. 111). Deductive method is justifiably the
ideal among all methods which are employed in
the construction of sciences. …the application of
this method will give the desired results only if
all definitions and all proofs fulfill their tasks
completely, that is, if the definitions make clear,
beyond doubt, the meaning of all the terms to be
defined, and if the proofs convince us fully of the
validity of all the theorems which were to be
proved (Tarski 1994, p. 123).
Examination of the various uses of the term
“theory” in science indicates that it means vari-
ous things in various contexts–including scien-
tific field. But one very central use of “theory”
involves an epistemic device which is used to
characterize the state-change behavior of isolated
systems within a general class of phenomena
(Suppe 1977, p. 658). Suppe (1977) regards
theory as linguistic formulation (p. 221).
Scientific theories have as their subject matter
a class of phenomena known as the intended
scope of the theory. The task of a theory is to
present a generalized description of the phe-
nomena within that intended scope which will
enable one to answer a variety of questions about
the phenomena and their underlying mecha-
nisms; these questions typically include requests
for predictions, explanations, and descriptions
of the phenomena (Suppe 1977, p. 223). Stroud
(2000) in giving a definition for knowledge states
that if knowing something could be defined
solely in terms of knowledge or experience in
some unproblematic, prior domain, then that
definition should be fulfilled even if you didn’t
know that knew anything in that domain (Stroud
2000, p. 110).
But even in science there are doubts as to the
level of generalization. Generalization in biol-
ogy, for example, is said to not have features
traditionally required of scientific laws: they are
never exception less. Biological theorizing has
restored to the development of models with local
applicability. Biological theory is a sequence of
3.2 What Is Theory and What Can It Do for a Profession?
models that vary in the domains of phenomena to
which they apply.
In physics, Einstein created two theories of
Relativity, known as the special and the general
theory. Each involved new conceptions of space
and time. Special theory was based on two
principles: principle of relativity and the princi-
ple of constancy of the speed of light. Relativity
principle was derived from both experiments and
symmetry considerations. Einstein’s general
theory of relativity was to incorporate a gener-
alization of his earlier principle of relativity to
cover all states of motion, accelerated as well as
uniform.
Is the definition of theory much different in
non-scientific fields? In sociological context, for
example, a theory is defined as a set of preposi-
tions or theoretical statements. It may be a path
diagram, an axiomatic theory, or even a single
hypothesis (Hage 1972, p. 172). Hage further
adds that these statements or concepts have to be
in the form of …a set of interrelated concepts.
Hage (1972, p. 173) suggests that a theory needs
six parts or components, each of which makes a
unique contribution to the whole theory:
Theory Contribution
1. Concept names Description and
classification
2. Verbal statements Analysis
3. Theoretical definitions Meaning
4. Operational definitions Measurement
Theoretical linkages
plausibility
Operational linkages
testability
5. Ordering into primitive and Elimination of
derived terms tautology
6. Ordering into premises and Elimination of
equations inconsistency
(Source Hage 1972)
It is interesting to note that even philosophers
do not take the notion of theory quite serious.
Hamlyn, for example, states that, cynics have
sometimes said that when the term “theory” is
used in philosophy it should be treated as a
danger signal, a sign that something pretentious
33
but not very informative is going to be presented
to us (Hamlyn 1970, p. 3). This might be true in
areas which their knowledge base is not clear
enough and therefore it involves confusion. In
philosophy these kind of knowledge are called
weak knowledge (see: Malcom in: Pojman 1994,
p. 67).
A shift from the universal criteria of posi-
tivism may be seen in social sciences. There are
three main ideologies that have been invoked by
social scientists in the scientific legitimation of
their enterprise: social science as an explanatory
enterprise of culturally universal validity, an
enterprise that is interpretively neutral, and an
enterprise that enjoys evaluative interdepen-
dence. Post modernists reject all three on the
ground of objectivity. But the meta ideologists of
social science have claimed many reasons to
question the possibility of any universalist, or at
least any straightforwardly universalist, theory.
Hermeneutic philosophy, which has long been
dominant in Germany, and the analytical tradi-
tion sponsored by the work of the later
Wittgenstein both suggest that any explanation of
human behavior has to start with the culturally
specific concepts in which people understand
their environment and cannot aspire, therefore, to
a substantive universality (McCarthy 1978,
p. 437).
Habermas introduced into critical theory a
fundamental shift in paradigms from the philoso-
phy of the subject to the theory of communication
and from means-ends rationally to communicative
rationally. Communicative action is the central
concept in Habermas’s attempt to displace the
subject centered approaches to reason character-
istic of modern western philosophy with an
approach based in a theory of communication.
Indeed, even today, a great deal of the infor-
mation we need for the normal conduct of our
lives is not the product of systematic scientific
inquiry but is usually designated as “common-
sense” knowledge (Morgenbesser 1967, p. 5)
(Figs. 3.1 and 3.2).
Theories in sociology can be started in many
ways. The simplest way to begin is to search for
some theoretical concepts to describe the social
phenomena that interests us (Hage, p. 9). There
34
Fig. 3.1 Using general
variables to find general
non variables: the case of
conflicts (Hage 1972, p. 29)
Fig. 3.2 The relationship
between sociological
knowledge and
sociological theory (Hage
1972, p. 183)
are several reasons why we are concentrating our
search for theoretical concepts on general
variables:
General variables, by being applicable to all
cultures and historical epochs, allow us the pos-
sibility of finding a universal law.
General variables also make classification
more subtle.
Although it is harder to demonstrate, general
variables make thinking much easier.
Theoretical concepts are the foundation of any
theory. The first task in constructing a theory, is
to find concepts to use in our theoretical state-
ments. The most helpful kind of theoretical
concept is the general variable, a continuum that
applies to any culture and that any point of time
(Ibid, p. 32).
Sociological theories are models of social real-
ity. Knowledge is a set of true laws that describe this
picture. Thus theories apply knowledge but they are
3 Urban Design Theory
never quite there: pieces, isolated theoretical con-
cepts, isolated pairs of pieces, and finally larger
combinations: Theories (Ibid, p. 181). Theories, it is
said, are best seen as approximation to knowledge
(p. 183). Theories are models of reality, not reality
itself. Knowledge is a limit towards which theories
move.
The role and function of theory in arts, how-
ever, are essentially different. In Schopenhauer’s
theory, our modes of knowledge and under-
standing, as well as the activities in which we
normally engage, are regarded as being deter-
mined by the will (The Encyclopedia of Philos-
ophy, vol. 7, p. 329).
Traditionally, the definition of “art“ has been
the focal point of theorizing about art and has
functioned as a kind of summary of a theory of
art. Ideally, such a definition is supposed to
specify the necessary and sufficient conditions
for being a work of art. This leads us to the
3.2 What Is Theory and What Can It Do for a Profession?
critical notion of aesthetic relativism. Relativism
is the view that there are two or more equally true
(valid) standards, or set of standards, of aesthetic
value. So relativism entails that aesthetic good-
ness and badness are not properties that objects
have independent of human beings.
The difficulty of defining art through aesthetic
experience and through other familiar criteria
(e.g. form, expression, etc.) intensified doubts
that art could be adequately defined in any strict
sense—that is, in terms of an essence or set of
necessary and sufficient conditions… These
arguments led to George Dickie’s institutional
theory (cultural context theory) of art, which
defines an artwork as “an artifact… upon which
some person or persons acting on behalf of a
certain social institution (the art world) has
conferred the status of candidate for apprecia-
tion” (Dickie 1971, p. 101). Aesthetic properties
include unity, balance, integration, lifelessness,
delicacy, dumpiness, loveliness, restlessness, and
powerfulness among many others. Aesthetic
properties can be defined epistemologically,
semantically (or semiologically), or in terms of a
connection with aesthetic value (Sibley 1965,
pp. 135–59).
3.3 Theory of Urban Design
In this section we start by raising the question of:
why do we need theory (theories) in urban
design, or why do we need to theorize urban
design? What happens if such theorizing is not
possible the same way as in scientific fields? And
if possible, what of theories should we expect in
urban design, with what characteristics and what
expectations.
Lynch (1981, p. 49) argues that a full theory
will be a long-range effort, if it is to be a theory
which deals with form and process, and which is
an understanding, an evaluation, a prediction,
and a prescription, all in one.
Kindsvatter and VonGrossmann (1994)
defines urban design theory as an argument
which validates the premises, then outlines the
decisions made in the design process. According
to them no theory is true or false, perfect or
35
correct, but rather establishes a hierarchical
framework for the various elements of a design
and their communication. Beyond that, they add,
a successful theory communicates convincingly
the quality and value of a design.
Cuthbert (2007) claims that traditional urban
design ‘theory’ is anarchistic and insubstantial.
This is a situation, which according to him, has
been going on for the best part of 50 years,
offering unprecedented opportunity for debate
and resurrection. Cuthbert further claim that the
superficial nature of urban design theory stems
from this one fact, that is, the separation of form
from content.
An analysis of the existing theories of urban
design indicates the inadequacy of the theories in
representing, explaining, interpreting, removing
puzzles, predicting and the growth of its knowl-
edge, therefore, a reassessment of its entire
knowledge is required.
Various writers have developed some kind of
theory in different aspects of urban design:
Davidoff 1968; Davis 1991; Abrams 1965;
Berry 1971; Harvey 1972; Webber 1974; Jacobs
1961; Taylor 1989, 1999; Sennet 1970; Lynch
1981; Alexander 1977, 1987; Lang (2005) states
that, like the mythical story of Rumi’s Elephant,
everybody has sought his/her interest, and
thereby interpretation, of theory.
In planning, Fainstein (2000) examines three
approaches to planning theory: The commu-
nicative model, the new urbanism, and the just
city. The first type emphasizes the planner’s role
in mediating among “stakeholders,” the second
paints a physical picture of a desirable planned
city, and the third presents a model of spatial
relations based on equity. Among these three
approaches, the new urbanism refers to a design-
oriented approach to planned urban development.
New urbanism is perhaps more ideology than
theory, its orientation resembles that of the early
planning theorists of Howard, Olmsted, and
Geddes. Its aim is to use spatial relations to
create a close-knit social community that allows
diverse elements to interact. The new urbanists
call for an urban design that includes a variety of
building types, mixed uses, intermingling of
housing for different income groups, and a strong
36
privileging of the “public realm.” The basic unit
of planning is the neighborhood, which is limited
in physical size, has well-defined edge, and has a
focused center, which according to Kunstler
(1996, p. 117) “the daily needs of life are
accessible within the five minute-walk”. Moudon
(2000) believes that as a theory, new urbanism is
notably and refreshingly free of the grand state-
ments and obscure rationales typical of many
urban design theories. According to Moudon,
new urbanism defines itself as a normative the-
ory, projecting a vision of what cities should be
in the future.
In architecture, Alexander (1979) believes that
the theory of architecture implicit in our world
today is bankrupt. Now, at last, he claims, here is
a coherent theory which describes in modern
terms an architecture as ancient as human society
itself. In order to define this quality in building
and in towns, he suggests, we must begin by
understanding that every place is given its char-
acter by certain patterns of events that keep on
happening there. He then calls his theory a pat-
tern language (Alexander 1979, p. 55).
Vitrivius, the fountainhead of architectural
theory maintains that “…architecture depends on
order, arrangement, eurhythmy, symmetry, pro-
priety and economy” (Vitrivius 1960, p. 13).
Zevi (1957), on the other hand, lists truth,
movement, force, vitality, sense of outline, har-
mony, gace, breadth, scale, balance, proportion,
light and shade, eurhythmics, solids and voids,
symmetry, rhythm, mass volume, emphasis,
character, contrast, personality and analogy (Zevi
1957, p. 21). Moughtin (1999) suggests order,
unity, proportion (scale and proportion, harmony
and proportion), symmetry, balance and rhythm,
rhythm, harmony and contrast.
Lang (1980) discussing the nature of theory
for architecture and urban design maintains that
“theory” is an ambiguous word. He continues in
order to develop a theoretical basis for urban
design we need to clarify what is meant by the
term. According to Lang, theory to most scien-
tists consists of descriptions and explanations of
reality. To architects, urban designers and other
action-oriented professions, theory consists of
design principles used in generating solutions to
3 Urban Design Theory
problems. Scientific or positive theories aim to be
value free. Architectural theories, in contrast, are
normative—they focus on what should be and
are thus ideologically base on some moral phi-
losophy of the nature of man, the nature of the
built environment and the role of the designer.
Accepting a positive statement as a normative
one means that one supports the status quo (Lang
1980, p. 41).
The important point Lange makes is that “the
answer to the question as to whether urban
design is a discipline in its own right depends
largely on perception of whether or not there is a
body of positive and normative theory unique to
it (Lang 1980, p. 41).
Gosling (1984a, b) in reviewing and criticiz-
ing what he calls “urban design theories”, con-
cludes that without a clear sense of formal
structure for the material he is attempting to
manipulate, the urban designer can make only
disconnected and arbitrary gestures. So it needs a
coherent basis with formal construct which can
guide the decisions. Theories to be effective,
Gosling claims, need. (1) defined elements to be
employed, (2) Rules for their association, and
(3) it must correspond with the functional orga-
nizations which inhabit it (formal +functional
structures).
Gosling (1984a, b) claims that there are two
sources of urban design theories: Tradition and
invention. He further adds that urban design theorists
have sought inspiration from idealizations of the past
in natural models, from idealizations of the future in
utopian models and from study of the present in
models drawn from the arts and sciences. These three
sources form the background to our examination of
urban design theories (Gosling 1984a, b, p. 25).
Gosling classifies Camillo Sitte, Raymond Unwin,
Bernard Rudofsky, Fuminiko Maki and Louis Kahn
under the Organic Models; and Campanella, Bacon,
Forier, Le Corbusier, Wright, Howard, More, Tafuri,
Krier, Vitruvius, Sant’Elia, Fuller, Y. Friedman
under the Utopian Models. Models from the arts and
sciences are the ones in which ideas are borrowed
from other fields in the form of analogy and trans-
lation, and are the important source of urban design
theory, examples are: machine, language, anthro-
pology, Gestalt, territory, law of proximity, walking
3.3 Theory of Urban Design
city, territoriality, behaviorism, defensible space,
Paul Klee’s works, etc.
Trancik (1986) maintains that three approa-
ches to urban design theory can be identified:
(1) figure-ground theory; (2) linkage theory; and
(3) place theory. These theories differ signifi-
cantly from each other, but taken together can
provide us with potential strategies for integrated
urban design (see Fig.) (Tancik 1986).
Ellin (1999) in Postmodern Urbanism describes
the urban design theory on the European continent
to consist of: NEORATIONALISM (Aldo Rossi,
Le Corbusir, Krier, Culot) NEOCLASSISM(Bel-
mont, Bofill), and FRENCH VERSION (Huet,
Panerai, Castex, Portzamparc, Dollé, Buffi, Castro,
Naizot, and Le Dantec). Ellin classifies urban
design theory of, what he calls, the Anglo-
American Axis as: The townscape movement (A.
Jacobs, Appleyard, Cullen, Oscar Newman, Robert
Goodman, Lynch, Moore, Alexander, Norberg-
Schulz, Barnett), advocacy planning, community
participation, environmentalism, and feminism
(Alexander, Davidoff, Gans, Mazziotti, Kaplan,
Peattie, Hague, Hester, Callohan, McHarg, Schu-
macher, Russel, Van der Ryan, Calthorpe, Bartone,
Hayden, Wright, Hasan Fathi), regionalism and
vernacular design(Geddes, Mumford, Rudofsky,
Carter), Venturi and Contextualism(Colin Rowe,
Jencks, Cohen), historical eclecticism(Stern,
Jencks), Historic preservation and Gentrifications
(Relf, Gleye, Zukin), master-planned communities,
gated communities and defensive urbanism
(Brown, Oser, Guterson, Newman, McMillan,
Gordon, Flusy), New traditional urbanism or the
New Urbanism (Katz, Kelbaugh, Calthorpe, Ellin),
Edge Cities(Leinberger, Lockwood), postmodern
arch. vis-a-vis urban design(Harvey, Jencks, Stern,
Klotz) (Ellin 1999).
Donald Appleyard and Allen Jacobs’ toward
an urban design manifesto supported the phe-
nomenological views espoused by Kepes and
Lynch, while at the same time rejecting not only
the manifesto of CIAM and the Modernist
Movement, but also the Garden City ideals
(Appleyard and Jacobs 1982). With the rejection
of the modern movement and the eruption of
postmodernism, the 1980s was a period of vari-
ous new factions in architecture and urban design,
37
the emergence of pluralism. It was Charles Jencks
who was responsible for the introduction of the
concept of postmodernism t the architectural
world. The emergence of a new design theory
best epitomized in the work of Eisenman and
Gehry, may be based on the critical philosophy of
the French writer, Jacques Derrida, which drew
upon structuralism and phenomenology in a
post-Mietzschean world. William Whyte’s
research, Street life project, in which examined
urban space from a social standpoint, following
another work called City: Rediscovering the
center (1988). Garreau in his Edge city (1991)
examines the transformation of major American
metropolitan areas. Jon Lang in his book Urban
design: The American experience (1994) main-
tains that contextual design is the most important
element in urban design because without context,
the city becomes fragmented. Lang, by taking a
user-oriented approach to design, was interested
in the creation of livable, enjoyable built urban
environment. Allen Jacobs’ Looking at cities
(1985) and Observing and interpreting the urban
environment (1982) both take analytical approach
(Fig. 3.3).
Greenbie and Trancik examined the social and
environmental issues in 1986. Trancik published
Finding lost space: Theories of urban design.
Trancik examined traditional urban space in terms
of the theories, vocabularies and issues of urban
spatial design (Trancik 1986). Trancik pro-
nounced three theories of urban spatial design.
First was the recognition of “Figure-ground”
studies based on the environmental pattern of
solids and voids, with voids as entry or foyer
space, inner block voids, streets, squares, parks,
gardens and linear open space. Second, the “link-
age theory” is based on lines connecting objects
such as streets and other linear open spaces. The
system of connections is thus created in a network
that establishes a structure of ordering space.
Finally “place theory” adds the component of
human needs and culture to physical design, taken
from Lynch’s theory of continuity with the past
and the response to time and place.
Hage (1972) maintains that when disciplines
do not have theories or even what kuhn (1962)
would call a paradigm, then they usually have
38
Fig. 3.3 Diagram of urban
design theories (From
Trancik 1986, p. 98)
what might be labeled theoretical orientations
(Hage 1972, p. 188). The questions raised by
Lang (2005) is “if urban design can be defined in
terms of its areas of concern, is there a body of
knowledge that is unique to doing urban design
well—in putting together projects?” and thus is it
a discipline in its own right or simply a field of
professional design work?” Lang (2005, p. 392)
further claims that urban design is increasingly
taking on the form of a discipline. He, then,
suggests the hallmark of a discipline is a body of
unique literature, journals and its own processes
3 Urban Design Theory
of socializing new members into its ranks—into
its norms of behavior.
All these show that there have been different
interpretations of the tem “theory” in urban
design, and therefore, there exist some piecemeal
and sporadic statements developed by different
people for their specific needs and interests. Now
turning into the main subject of the book, a
philosophical framework will be developed in
the next chapter, on its basis which, the desired
integrative theory of urban design will be
introduced.
 Urban Design Language
4

From Morris’ definition of language, we may

4.1 Language Definition
conclude that there are two basic elements nec-
and Requirements
essary to constitute a language: A vocabulary
(lexicon) and a grammar (syntax). Each of these
A universal definition of language is suggested by
elements, in turn, should cover certain require-
Charles Morris. Morris’ definition is broad
ments such as the ones suggested by Morris for
enough to fit all the non-linguistic applications of
signs.
the term. Morris has suggested five criteria for a
It is quite logical to expect that a language has
language: First, a language is composed of a
the same characteristics of the knowledge that it
plurality of signs. Second, in a language each sign
is representing and vice versa. This is part of the
has a signification common to a number of
intrinsic nature of a language. If we could iden-
interpreters. Third, the signs constituting a lan-
tify the two minimum elements of vocabulary
guage must be comsigns, that is, producible by
and grammar in an area of knowledge, we could
the members of the interpreter-family and have
easily form the language of that particular area of
the same signification to the producers which they
knowledge. It is on this basis that Langer has
have to other interpreters. Fourth, the signs,
argued that the arts, for example, do not have a
which constitute a language are plurisituational
language. The reason, as Langer suggests, is that
signs, that is, signs with a relative constancy of
the arts have no vocabulary, that is, no body of
signification in every situation in which a sign of
signs with an assignable signification, no words
the sign family in question appears. Fifth, the
and symbols with fixed meanings. Langer argues
signs in a language must constitute a system of
that since there are no words or symbols, there
interconnected sings combinable in some way
can be no dictionary of fixed meanings for line,
and not others to form a variety of complex
shading, colors, and the other elements of artistic
sign-processes. Using these requirements, Morris
technique. Therefore, there cannot be a dic-
achieves the proposed definition of language.
tionary to translate, bit-for-bit, one area of the
A language is a set of plurisituational sings with
arts into another. Rather, the meaning for all of
interpersonal significance common to members of
the artistic elements is completely subject to
an interpreter-family. Particular combinations of
context; there are no fixed meanings apart from
the signs that are produced can result in com-
and independent of context (Langer 1942).
pound signs. Or more simply, Morris defines
The reason that forming a language for some
language as a set of plurisituational comsigns
of the areas of knowledge, such as arts, is
restricted in the ways in which they may be
problematic, is that these areas do not have a
combined (Morris 1946).

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 39

H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_4
40
series of laws that govern the practice and
application of the methods and techniques of
those areas of knowledge. Any product or cre-
ation in an area of knowledge with an established
language, must be a composite of symbols with
resultant new meanings. Therefore, language
must have permanent units of meaning which are
combinable into larger units, must have fixed
equivalences that make definition and translation
possible, and finally, must have connotations that
are general. Architecture, on the other hand, can
have a language since there can be known units
of meaning—architectural words (such as doors,
windows, columns, etc.), and architectural syn-
tax, or the rules for combining the various words
in order to produce larger meanings (Jencks
1977, p. 52).1
According to Morris’ definition of language, a
series of qualified signs, as was discussed earlier,
is the basic requirement for a language. The
qualified signs of a language not only comprise
the essential units by which larger forms of that
language may be built, but they also suggest the
kinds of laws and rules that are required to build
those larger forms. But still more important, the
qualified signs of a language determine and
specify the family or group that an interpreter-
family can use to interpret the signs of the lan-
guage. Signs are capable of identifying the
qualified members of the interpreter-family and
hence of pinpointing those that do not belong to
the interpreter family. According to this expla-
nation, it would seem that the degree of com-
monality and plurality of the signs will dictate
the degree of commonality of the language they
represent. The more specialized the signs, the
smaller and more restricted the interpreter-family
will be. The size of such a family may range
from a minimum of one member, (as in the case
of a person who invents his own arbitrary lan-
guage known only to himself), to a maximum of
a family that could include all of humanity (as in
the case of the language of nature). When this is
the case, is there any minimum acceptable size
for the interpreter-family to justify the legitimacy
1
The units in architecture, for example, may be identified
as architectural space and architectural activities.
4 Urban Design Language
of the language used? In other words, how pri-
vate can a language be and still be called a lan-
guage? What factors should be considered in
delineating the size of an interpreter family? Is
the size of such a group controllable by the
members of the family or by somebody or
something else? Can anyone learn the language
and become a part of the family?
Since a language represents an area of
knowledge, it will contain all the characteristics
and attributes of the knowledge it represents.
Questions concerning the size of the interpreter-
family (all those who can understand the lan-
guage), its degree of plurality, and so on, all
depend on the nature and characteristics of the
particular knowledge area involved. What is
important here is the formation of the two min-
imum requirements of the language on the basis
of a careful realization of their requirements.
On the basis of what was discussed above, the
following guidelines may be used in formulating
the language of urban design:
Language is used here in its broad sense
which goes far beyond the definition of lan-
guage as a linguistic tool.
Language is regarded as the medium and the
key to knowledge.
Language as an instrument can be used to
express thoughts, communicate ideas and
develop new areas of knowledge.
The general definition of language given by
Morris will be adopted for the purpose of this
study. This definition is: Language is a set of
plurisituational comsigns restricted in the
ways in which they may be combined.
A language requires at least two basic ele-
ments: A vocabulary (sings) and a grammar
(syntax).
The signs of a language should satisfy five
requirements which are also the requirements
for a language: A plurality of signs, a com-
monality of signification, comsigns, plurisit-
uational signs and interconnected signs which
are combinable in some ways but not in
others.
Language has the same characteristics as the
knowledge that it represents, and vice versa
(Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).
4.2 Language as a Tool for Knowledge Representational
Fig. 4.1 Transmission of information from point A to point B
Fig. 4.2 The three-level hierarchy of word, sentence, paragraph and text
4.2 Language as a Tool
for Knowledge
Representational
Language, by means of symbols, presents images
and ideas to the mind—by sounds in speech, by
visual signs in written language. By smile or
analogy or association there is the additional
symbolism of an idea or image standing for or
suggesting another, and this often a powerful
means of expression (Whittick 1960, p. 368).
Edward Hill (1966, p. 8) states that language
functions as a means of collecting, ordering,
relating, and retaining experience. We house our
memory-thoughts in words and faint images; and
the maze of sensations and perceptions that enter
in upon our mind are given a form through lan-
guage, the first instrument of order. According to
Hill language is both incentive and means to
pursue and understanding of experience.
Civilization, the process of man’s develop-
ment beyond mere animal existence, has been
achieved largely by his ability to use and invent
symbols. Communication depends on the sym-
bolism of language, and thus man becomes aware
of another’s thought by means of symbols. By
language combined with his propensity to dream,
plan and speculate, which is in part a further type
41
of symbolism, man extends his thought beyond
his own time and place, a detachment indispens-
able to the enlargement of his activities. ‘By this
act of detachment and abstraction,’ says Lewis
Mumford, ‘man gained the power of dealing with
the non-present, the unseen, the remote, and the
internal: not merely his visible lair and his daily
companions, but his ancestors and his descen-
dants and the sun and the moon and the stars:
eventually the concepts of eternity and infinity, of
electron and universe: he reduced a thousand
potential occasions in all their variety and flux to
a single symbol that indicated what was common
to them all’ (Mumford 1950). Carlyle (1939)
believes in the dependence of civilization on
symbolism. He suggests that it is in and through
symbols that man, consciously or unconsciously,
lives, works, and has his being.
Knight (1981) maintains that any design can
be understood, in a syntactic or compositional
sense, as a complex of shapes and relationships
between these shapes. In formal terms, this kind
of understanding corresponds to viewing a
design in terms of a vocabulary of shapes
occurring in the design and a set of spatial
relations between these shapes. Here, a shape is
defined as a finite collection of lines, a vocabu-
lary as a set of shapes no two of which are
similar, and a spatial relation as a collection or
42
arrangement of shapes. Knight further concludes
that a set of shape rules and an initial shape
determine a shape grammar. A shape grammar
generates a language of designs. The designs in a
language are syntactically alike in that their
compositions are governed by the same spatial
relations (knight 1981, pp. 213–14). Later Knight
claimed that a language could be transformed
into a new one by altering basic elements (shapes
and spatial relations between them) of the com-
positional structure of designs in the language
(Knight 1983, pp. 125–28).
One of the fundamental concepts of modern
architectural theory is the idea that architecture is
a form of language (Lavin 1992). According to
Lavin Quatremere de Quincy used language to
provide architecture with a conventional rather
than natural model, a conceptual transformation
that led him to equate architecture’s capacity for
progressive development with its sociality (see
also: Collins 1965; Saisselin 1975; Guillerme
1977; Stafford (1979). Lavin suggests that to
regard architecture as language means, above all,
to see architecture as woven into the fabric of
society. According to Lavin (1992), Quatremere
has repeatedly stated that architecture is lan-
guage. In his view all architectures are languages
and individual languages only have value relative
to their particular contexts (Lavin 1992, p. 185).
Lavin does not specify the structure and form of
the language of architecture. But concludes that
if we accept that architecture is language this has
the effect of assigning to society the task nature
has traditionally fulfilled as the progenitor of
architectural meaning (Lavin 1992, p. 176).
According to Quatremere, language and archi-
tecture each had innate operating systems such
that “columns, cross beams, capitals, and other
things that are the natural elements of the art of
building are, consequently, and to all architec-
tures throughout the world, the same as the ele-
ments of universal grammar are to diverse
languages (Lavin 1992, p. 97).
Architects use forms and materials as symbols.
Composition is as characteristic of a style as its
details; it unites the details in a system which may,
with a stretch of the imagination, be compared to a
language. The “words” of such a language are the
4 Urban Design Language
elementary and characteristic forms, such as col-
umns, pilasters, entablatures and moldings; com-
position is its “grammar”. Both the details and the
composition carry a meaning. Different styles are
different languages, often as hard to understand for
a modern spectator as a foreign language (Park
1968). Park finds three concepts in architecture:
place, space, and structure. Then he suggests:
proportion, size, angularity, regularity, and plas-
ticity as the main attributes of form. Structure has
two main characteristics: Homogeneity and con-
tinuity. Spatial compositions consist of position
(location and connection) and similarity (Park
1968). Park, however, does not put these elements
together in order to construct a language, which
has its vocabulary and grammar.
The semilogist Umberto Eco (Guillerme 1977)
has seen “architectural language” as an “authentic
linguistic system obeying the same rules that
govern the articulation of natural languages”.
Following Eco, A. Silipo has applied a conven-
tional definition of grammar to architecture, in his
words: “considering architecture activity to be a
set of operations designed to establish cognitive
relationships by means of spatial realities, and
(considering) the architectonic organism as a
structure, an instrument of communication and of
knowledge, grammatical analysis becomes the
principal critical instrument at the disposal of
whoever seeks not only to grasp the entire range
of signification of a particular spatial structure,
but also to “historicize” it by going back to the
methodological matrices that have been deter-
mined this structure, and by grasping the rela-
tionships that exist among the figurative,
technological and functional elements that make
up the structure and the more general historical,
social and economic, and artistic context to which
it refers” (Guillerme 1977, p. 21).
Spirn (1998, p. 4) believes that language of
landscape is the principal language in which I
think and act; my conviction that there is such a
language arises first from that fact. It is also the
language used skillfully by designers. To Spirn,
language of landscape is our native language.
Landscape was the original dwelling; human
evolved among plants and animals, under the
sky, upon the earth, near water. Everyone carries
4.2 Language as a Tool for Knowledge Representational
that legacy in body and mind. Humans touched,
saw, heard, smelled, tasted, lived in, and shaped
landscapes before the species had words to
describe what it did. Landscapes were the first
human texts, read before the invention of other
signs and symbols (Spirn 1998, p. 15). Land-
scape, as language, makes thought tangible and
imagination possible. Through it humans share
experience with future generations, just as
ancestors inscribed their values and beliefs in the
landscapes they left as legacy. Spirn believes that
landscape has all the features of language. It
contains the equivalent of words and parts of
speech—patterns of shape, structure, material,
formation and function. All landscapes are
combinations of these. Like the meanings of
words, the meanings of landscape elements
(water, for example) are only potential until
context shapes them. Rules of grammar govern
and guide how landscapes are formed, some
specific to places and their local dialects, others
universal (Spirn 1998, p. 15).
Nelson Goodman’s trailblazing language of
art reorients aesthetics. Active engagement, not
passive contemplation, marks the AESTHETIC
ATTITUDE. Understanding rather than appreci-
ation is its goal. Works of art are symbols that
require interpretation. Languages of art provides
a taxonomy of syntactic and semantic systems
deployed in the arts and elsewhere, detailing their
strengths and limitations (Goodman 1976).
‘Symbol’ is really a generic term, and in the
modern sense includes all that is meant by a sign,
mark or token. It is generally regarded, in various
spheres of thought—sociology, art, philosophy—
as that which stands for something else. The
Greek word from which the term symbol is
derived appears to have meant a bringing toge-
ther, and this meaning is the logical antecedent of
the modern meaning, for symbolism is a bringing
together of ideas and objects, one of which
expresses the other. The symbol is either an
object that stands for another object, or an object
that stands for an idea. Muller (1965) contended
that without language, or signs that correspond to
language, thought is impossible.
Symbols are conventionally divided into four
classes: (1) Symbolism of a concrete object or
43
group of objects by approximate or conventional
imitation, and of a part of an object to represent
the whole; (2) Symbolism of an idea, activity,
occupation, or custom by an object associated
with it; (3) symbolism of an idea by an object
which by its nature, analogous character, func-
tion or purpose suggests the idea; (4) symbolism
of an idea by the relationship of two or more
objects; and (5) symbolism of an idea or concrete
object by shapes incorporated in the design
which suggest or express the idea or object. This
last one is exceedingly important in artistic
expression, therefore, we now turn into the dis-
cussion of symbols in architecture.
Adherents to the different positions may argue
that linguistic theories provide the most precise
way of characterizing particular languages.
A theory, or a grammar, supplies a set of rules
describing the semantic properties of the basic
expressions and their permissible syntactic
combinations into meaningful wholes (Encyc.
p. 287).
As to the interpretation of linguistic theories
and the nature of the linguistic objects and
properties they describe, mentalist’s (such as
Chomsky) ideas seem to be more relevant to the
purpose of this study. Mentalists see linguistics as
a branch of cognitive psychology and take lin-
guistic theories to be about the psychological
states of processes of linguistically competent
speakers. Chomsky insists that the best account of
speaker’s actual languages should fit the facts
about the meanings and structures individuals
actually give to expressions: Theories of language
should be tailored to the contours of linguistic
competence. Thus for Chomsky, a theory of
language is a theory of a speaker’s knowledge of
language. For mentalists, language is not in the
world. The world contains only marks and
sounds. Language is in the mind of speakers and
consists in the assignments of meaning and
structure given to particular marks and sounds.
For Chomsky, a grammar is a theory of the
speaker’s linguistic competence: an internalized
system of rules or principles a person uses to map
sounds to meanings. This is a body of tacit
knowledge that the speaker puts to se in the
production and comprehension of speech. It
44
contains a largely innate, and species-specific,
component common to all human language users.
The workings of this component are described by
universal grammar (Chomsky 1986).
But is language static, stable, and fixed?
Keller (1994) suggests that language change
follows Adam Smith’s proposal of the invisible
hand—an evolutionary theory of the develop-
ment of language based on a cultural model, such
as that of the invisible hand. The justification for
calling a process of historical change an evolu-
tionary process derives from the fulfillment of
three conditions. The first is that the process
should not be a teleological one: in language
change there is no definite preset goal that has to
be achieved. The second is that it should be
accumulative process of small changes: it is
brought about by entire populations and not by
individuals. The third is that the dynamics of the
process must be based on the interplay between
variation and selection: a natural language is an
instrument for exerting influence upon others.
Linguistic competence is the cluster of hypothe-
sis from which we choose the form most ade-
quate to the circumstances, and only those forms
that partially or totally fail will lead to
modifications.
In this regard, Stein and Harper (2012) believe
in the ‘fluid nature of language’ and claim that
this fluidity will foster creativity and innovation.
According to them if planner/designer views
language as fluid, dynamic and flexible, his/her
interpretation of planning/design language will
be more adaptable to changing environments.
Considering that language is a human artifact,
the linguistic acts of human beings can bring
about the evolution of natural phenomena and of
artifacts. Language is then a “custom of influ-
ence” which emerges “invisibly handed”, with-
out a plan or the intention to create it, through the
natural behavior pattern of humans.
Given the absolute centrality of language for
all forms of social life, it is hard to imagine that a
theory of action that excludes communication
could have more than limited applicability.
A general theory of rational action must give
some account of all rational activities (Heath
2001, p. 3). In Habermas’ view, the ultimate
4 Urban Design Language
source of validity is language. Certain key
practices associated with language use have a
special sort of normative authority, because lan-
guage is a vehicle of thought (Ibid, p. 27).
4.3 Language, Thought
and Knowledge
One of the most important developments in the
contemporary social and human sciences is “the
turn to language.” Since Aristotelian times,
poets, and philosophers, physicists, and psy-
chologist—most of human kind, in fact—have
recognized that there is a relationship between
language and thought. Aristotle’s view, widely
adopted in the centuries since, was that language
was a medium thorough which to communicate
thought. The science of language itself—modern
Western linguistics—ironically, has seemed slow
in responding to this language project but has
remained largely preoccupied with its perennial
search for general notions and rules of the sen-
tence or the text. Shi-Xu (2000) has taken up the
discourse of linguistic theorizing as the focus of
attention, especially the ways in which basic
assumptions about language are formulated and
discussed. One of the significant findings of this
study is that the very object of linguistic inves-
tigation is a social discursive construction and
that therefore there is profound kinship of the
language of inquiry with inquiry itself.
Coseriu (1981) claims that language is
essentially a cognitive faculty and cognitive
activity, realized by the creation of symbolic
signs. As language is ontologically knowledge, it
cannot reify its object; the linguistic sign there-
fore does not have a unitary ontological status. It
is argued that the cognitive status of language is
habitual, not operational or objective—inten-
tional, and that a unified theory of language
depends on the identification of the habits to
which each verbal expression strictly corre-
sponds(Garcia Turza and Claudio Sobre 1999,
pp. 33–68) (Fig. 4.3).
Language as part of the mind is essentially
Chomsky’s idea. He claims that we know the
grammatical principles of our language in pretty
4.3 Language, Thought and Knowledge
Fig. 4.3 The relationship between reality, thought and language (after Morris 1955)
much the same sense that we know ordinary
things about the world (e.g. facts), a view about
linguistic knowledge that is called “cognitivism.”
(Knowels 2000, pp. 325–353). Chomskyan the-
ory has always emphasized language as a prop-
erty of the mind rather than a social behavior.
The first goal of linguists is to establish what an
individual human mind knows—linguistic com-
petence. Hence the term “Grammar” is more
fundamental than the term “language”; language
is an artificial generalization to do with society,
and epiphenomenon; what the individual mind
know is a grammar.
Language knowledge takes the form of uni-
versal principles common to all languages and
parameters with values specific to a particular
language. These elements have quite different
properties from other cognitive systems and do
not develop out of them. Hence language is
claimed to be a separate mental faculty of its
own, quite distinct from other faculties of the
mind. The language faculty is held to be the
unique generic endowment of the human species.
Universal Grammar (UG), the part of the
mind common to all human beings that enables
them to know and acquire languages. The
important things are the general properties that
languages have in common rather than the
idiosyncratic ways in which they differ. Lan-
guages are basically very similar, differing lar-
gely in the actual lexical items and their behavior
(Encyc. 1998, pp. 37–38). Therefore, as Stohr
(1996) has stated, not only do we make use of
45
language to fix our thoughts and to communicate
our knowledge; we also think in our language, so
that the structure of our thought reflects the
logical forms of our language.
Davidson (1975) argues that there can not be
thought without language: in order to have
thoughts, a creature must be a member of a
language communities.
What is the nature of linguistic meaning?
There are two dominant views on this, one
regards linguistic meaning as conventional, and
other compositional. Conventional in the sense
that instead of the notion of an explicitly for-
mulated rule we can make use of the notion of a
convention, defined as a rationally self-
perpetuating regularity (Lewis 1969). The com-
positional position believes that the meanings of
sentences depend on the meanings of words and
phrases (semantic theory) (Davis 1991). Are
these two views mutually exclusive or they can
be fused into one?
George Gale (1979) insists on the need for a
precise language. He states that every field of
study has its own special language, with it own
special words, meanings, and concepts. The
reason for this is not too difficult to find: Each
discipline looks very closely and precisely at a
restricted part of the universe. This sort of close
inspection and precision requires a clarity of
linguistic function far beyond that found in
everyday language. Thus we are forced into
technical, manufactured languages for each dis-
cipline. The theory of science, therefore, has
46
developed its own technical language. The fun-
damental elements of this technical language
have been borrowed from modern formal logic
(Gale 1979, p. 25).
Carruthers (1996) considers whether natural
language is merely a tool for communication
between individuals or whether it is also, within
the individual, a medium for thought. Carruthers
adopts a version of the latter hypothesis: he argues
that human thinking consists in sequences of nat-
ural language sentences: and that sentences do not
merely encode thought, they constitute them.
4.4 Urban Design Language
It is becoming more and more common in a vast
variety of fields and disciplines, to use the term
language to imply different meanings and to serve
a wide range of purposes (Kepes 1944; Cooke
1957; Hoskin 1968; Abrams 1971; Alexander
1977; Jencks 1977; Zevi 1978; Bahrainy 1981,
1995; Lavin 1992; Ishizaka; Yanagida 1995; Van
Zanten 1996). It seems clear from such diverse
applications of the term language, that the term
now has moved far from its original meaning as a
speech tool; language now has come to mean also
an effective analogical tool of communication,
expression and representation. It is the broader
sense and meaning of the term language that has
attracted the attention of experts in many fields.
According to Jencks (1977, p. 39) for example,
there are various analogies architecture shares
with language. If we use terms loosely, we can
speak of architectural ‘words’, ‘phrases’, ‘syntax’
and ‘semantics’. Eisenman (1986) has also seen
architecture as “a second language”, the first
which is ordinary speech and writing.
Norberg-Schulz (1963) suggest that we can liken
city to a language and seek insights from the
discipline of linguistics, either in terms of syn-
tactic structure or else, through the study of the
meaning of signs, in semiotics. Gosling (2003)
suggests that linguistic theory has major applica-
tion in urban design. He refers to American writer
Safire’s (1990) suggestion that the ideas of icon
(used extensively in architectural language) have
4 Urban Design Language
their roots in “semiotics, the theory of the rela-
tionships of signs in language” (Gosling 2003,
pp. 218–19). One of the fundamental concepts of
modern architectural theory, Lavin maintains, is
the idea that architecture is a form of language
(Lavin 1992). Lavin believes that Quatremere de
Quinsy used language to provide architecture
with a conventional rather than natural model, a
conceptual transformation that led him to equate
architecture’s capacity for progressive develop-
ment with its sociality (see also: Collins 1965;
Saisselin 1975; Guillerme 1977; Stafford 1979).
What is the relationship of an area of knowl-
edge and its language? Language, it is said, is the
medium and key to knowledge. Knowledge of
any nature is formulated and conveyed in a lan-
guage—i.e., in a medium of signs and symbols.
Without the language of a particular field, one
can neither possess the knowledge of that field
nor effectively communicate with the members
of the knowledge community.
Language functions like an instrument. To
form a language means to invent an instrument for
a particular purpose on the basis of certain laws
and requirements. The purpose of this instrument
is to express thought, to communicate ideas and to
develop and add new knowledge to the already
existing body of knowledge. To understand a
language, therefore, means to be the master of the
techniques or to use the instrument properly.
Any knowledge is, by nature, unstructured,
diversified and sporadic. This is, of course, much
more true in the case of the knowledge of urban
design which is still young, undeveloped and
unformed when compared to the knowledge of
more established disciplines. Development in
each area of urban design is taking place inde-
pendently of developments in other areas of the
field. This situation makes it impossible for the
practicing urban designer to possess and apply
the unstructured knowledge of urban design.
Developing a language, therefore, will be of
critical help. This language will be a tool or
instrument which will represent the knowledge
of urban design, facilitate communication in the
field and provide guidelines for the practice of
urban design.
4.5 Global and Local Languages of Urban Design
4.5 Global and Local Languages
of Urban Design
Although cities were first emerged and evolved
in the East and particularly the Middle East, but it
was the West, and specially the United States,
that created the new urban design in
mid-twentieth century, and later spread to other
parts of the world. No doubt most of the con-
temporary literature on urban design comes from
the US and certain other western countries.
Cuthbert (2007), for example, shows that the
majority of classic texts which have been pub-
lished on urban design from 1960 on are from
United States and then England. In order to know
the appropriate level(s) of urban design we need
to first know the nature of the field of inquiry.
Using Kuhn’s terminology this is called “urban
design paradigm”. According to Kuhn “a para-
digm is what the members of a scientific commu-
nity, i.e. the practitioners of a scientific specialty,
and they alone, share. Those members must first be
recognized as having an independent existence,
which will make community affiliation possible
and meaningful. Bound together by common ele-
ments in their education and apprenticeship, they
see themselves and are seen by others as the men
responsible for the pursuit of a set of shared goals.
Such communities are characterized by the rela-
tive fullness of communication within the group
and by the relative unanimity of the group’s
judgment in professional matters”.
What is more important and, of course more
relevant to our discussion, is the level of urban
design theory, i.e. global or local, or both.
According to Kuhn, such communities may exist
at numerous levels: groups and subgroups. Our
claim here is that urban design may be regarded
as one such community. Urban design paradigm
will identify the shared elements to account for
the relatively unproblematic character of
Fig. 4.4 The role of culture on urban activity patterns, urban form and space. Local-global language (Bull et al. 2007,
pp. 228–229)
47
professional communication and for the relative
unanimity of professional judgment. To elaborate
on this, Kuhn uses the phrase ‘disciplinary
matrix’.
Now we use the Kuhn’s story of a small child
visiting a zoological garden and identifying
swans, geese, and ducks. In Fig. 4.5 the three
groups of birds are mixed together to make a
general group with some common features, and
shared characteristics, in spite of differences,
among members. This general group may be
considered as the global community of urban
design—paradigm of universal application. In
Fig. 4.6, the birds have clustered, based on
similarities and differences (in form and behav-
ior), in discrete sets with appreciable distances
between them. Each of these groups, with
defined boundaries, could represent culture/local
specific urban design. General shared rules,
general shared substance and specific shared
rules, with specific shared substance (Fig. 4.4).
One sense of ‘paradigm’ is global, embracing
all the shared commitments of a scientific group;
the other isolates a particularly important sort of
commitment and is thus a subset of the first.
Such a shared commitments or commonality
often needs to be expanded to deal with practical
planning/design problems, most obviously in
transcultural contexts. Fortunately, there is
always sufficient base for commonality, which
arises from our shared experience of being
human, and of a common world (Stein and
Harper 2012, 13).
A formula (disciplinary matrix) with fixed
characters of x1, y1, … and variables of a1, b1,…
may represent the global and local urban design.
The characters, fixed and variables, represent the
substance of urban design which include: urban
form, urban space and urban activities. The signs
in the formula represent the rules or grammar of
urban design (Fig. 4.7).
48 4 Urban Design Language

Fig. 4.5 General urban design language (global/universal) (Kuhn 1977, p. 476)

Fig. 4.6 Three specific urban design languages (local/culture specific) (Kuhn 1976, p. 476)

Fig. 4.7 Substantive and procedural elements of the integrative language of urban design

In 1979 Mandelbaum published a paper titled:
“A complete general theory of planning is
impossible”. That paper and cogently presents
his and others (Rittel and Webber 1973; Cooke
1983; Poulton 1991a, b) logical reasons why no
single integrated model of planning could meet
the requirements of a normative and positive
planning theory.
In the case of urban design, Cuthbert (2007)
suggests that rather than pursuing the quest for an
integrated theory which has little possibility of
success, a better outcome already exists in spatial
economy, itself a somewhat anarchistic pursuit,
but one of better quality. The framework of ideas
which it encompasses offers urban design both
legitimation and theoretical coherence.
4.5 Global and Local Languages of Urban Design
Alexander (1998) suggests that if we consider
a contingent framework, a general theory of
planning is not impossible. He further suggests
that while no single planning paradigm can be
complete general theory of planning, a contin-
gent framework can offer a useful basis for
thinking about planning—a kind of ‘public
order’ in the planning theory community.
Alexander (2000) has presented an integrative
theory of urban design, which he believes is in its
incipient and preliminary form. The suggested
principles which are solely substantive include:
form, legibility, vitality, and meaning.
Moudon (1992) has made the first attempt at
building an epistemology for urban design, by
introducing an organizing framework, through a
review of the urban design literature from 1920s
to 1980s, titled: ‘A catholic approach to orga-
nizing what urban designers should know’. She
proposes nine areas of concentration to encom-
pass research useful to urban design. They
include: urban history studies, picturesque stud-
ies, image studies, environment-behavior studies,
place studies, material culture studies, typology-
morphology studies, space-morphology studies,
and nature-ecology studies.
Characteristics of contemporary urban design
practice and its context include trends towards
practice at an increasing range of territorial scales
(from the neighborhood to the regional) in an
increasing variety of cultures and geographies.
The context for that work is characterized by
increasingly complex relationships between
49
global phenomena (tourism, sub-urbanization,
commercialization and post-industrialization)
and local conditions: increasing degradation of
landscapes and urban areas (recognizing the
increasing importance of functioning natural
systems within the urban matrix): and increas-
ingly complex and rapid decision making,
delivery and urban management processes.
Urban design teams operating in culturally sen-
sitive environments need, as a result, to develop
working capacities that detect and respond to
such issues. For these circumstances urban
designers should learn to be:
Reflective in their practice
Accepting of an able to work respectfully
with ‘difference’ and ‘the other’
Cultural, and cross-cultural, practitioners as
well as technical experts
Effective communicators able to develop
‘greater dialogues’ across diverse group
Able to access, analyze and learn from an
emerging and increasingly diverse range of
international experiences in urban design
Able to understand and model the many
processes that manifest the physical and
social phenomena in both global and local
cultures
Knowledgeable about the range of method-
ological models available to effect change,
and
Able to imagine script and choreograph com-
plex processes of interaction to effect physical
and social change.
 Integrative Language of Urban
Design 5

signs of the language must be common signs,

5.1 Formulating the Integrative
i.e., their meanings and interpretations must be
Language of Urban Design
shared by all the parties involved. To achieve this
goal, the language of urban design must include
The general guidelines outlined above will be
both the language of the physical environment–
used in the formulation of the language of urban
formal and functional– as well as the procedural
design. Among these, the requirements and
language which deals with the process of design
qualifications mentioned in points five and six
itself. The formal language of the environment
are critically important. Still more important are
deals with space, form, perception and vision; the
the signs and their qualifications, since they
functional language is concerned with the con-
represent the substance of the knowledge base of
tent of urban form, i.e., with the activities that
urban design. The knowledge base of urban
take place in the urban environment.
design, as suggested above, is an integrated,
From the four areas of the knowledge base of
complex knowledge consisting of intuitive-
urban design, substantive elements are equivalent
scientific procedural elements and formal-
to the vocabulary or signs and procedural ele-
functional substantive elements. The language
ments are equivalent to the grammar or rules of
of urban design as a method of communication
the language. Vocabulary, therefore, will repre-
and a symbolic and representation tool, should
sent element of (1) urban form and space, and
represent all the individual components of the
element, and (2) urban activities. Rules, on the
knowledge base of urban design, its attributes
other hand, will represent the integrative, intu-
and points of focus as well as the overall com-
itive and scientific principles applied in urban
plexity, unity and interrelationship of the various
design (see Fig. 5.1).
aspects of the knowledge base. In order to
Signs, which represent the substantive ele-
qualify as a language, these factors must be
ments of knowledge are to be the smallest com-
reflected in the two basic elements of the lan-
plete and meaningful units (such as words in a
guage devised.
speech language), which can be combined with
We now proceed to construct the language of
other units, according to certain rules, to form
urban design by exploring the equivalent of the
larger structures (such as sentences). As men-
two language elements and by testing them
tioned above, it is absolutely essential for these
against the five criteria adopted earlier. The two
signs to thoroughly represent the substantive
basic requirements are: A vocabulary, or a set of
elements of urban design. To do this, they have
signs, and a grammar, or a set of rules.
to be defined exclusively and inclusively in order
To fill the significant roles of representation
to be differentiated from similar signs which
and communication efficiently and properly, the

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 51

H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_5
52
Fig. 5.1 The interrelationship of the procedural and substantive elements of the language of urban design
represent other areas such as architectural and
regional spaces and activities, which, although
they maintain a reciprocal and hierarchical rela-
tionship with urban space and activities, contain
different level of complexity and size which
represent different areas of environmental design
(see Fig. 5.2).
The smallest complete unit of urban form is
urban space. Urban space has been under broad
investigation by many researchers and writers,
due to its determining role in urban design (see
for example: Ross King, G. Broadbent, Chris-
toph Lindner; Stephan Carr, Mark Francis,
Leanne G. Rivlin and Andrew M. Stone; Rob
Krier, Matthew Carmona, Geoffrey Broadbent,
John Morris Dixon, Mike Crang, Tridib Baner-
jee, etc.
Urban space is defined here as the container of
the average daily circuit which is composed of
urban activity systems. The aggregate of the
daily circuit of urban activity systems, which
Fig. 5.2 Hierarchical relationship of the substantive elements in three areas of environmental design
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
represents the smallest complete unit of urban
activities in the language of urban design is
defined here as the average of a person’s daily,
weekly or yearly routine of activities in the urban
environment. These activities include such things
as recreational activities, shopping, driving to
work, going to church, walking to school, visit-
ing, etc. Repetitive patterns of such activities are
called urban activity patterns, examples of which
are: shopping patterns, home to work commuting
patterns, recreational patterns, and so on
(Figs. 5.3 and 5.4).
Urban space and the circuit of urban activi-
ties which represent urban form and urban
activity systems correspondingly, comprise the
signs or units, or the vocabulary of the urban
design language; these satisfy the first require-
ment for a language of urban design. It should be
pointed out that urban space is static by nature as
is each activity in its own particular location. The
relationship between the activities, however, is
5.1 Formulating the Integrative Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.3 Examples of urban spaces a–c: different urban destinations
Fig. 5.4 Urban activity
pattern
dynamic and creates movement in the urban
environment. This occurs because of the spatial
distribution of activities in the environment
which may be represented by the distance
between the activities or its proxy in time. This
factor is the basis of the circuit of activities.
As mentioned earlier, the two units—urban
space and activity circuit—have to meet certain
requirements in order to qualify as the signs of
the language. To this end, they will be tested here
against the five criteria adopted earlier. This test
has, of course, only a general validity because it
does not consider the cultural differences in the
meaning and interpretation of these signs. The
resultant language of urban design will obviously
require a great deal of modification of the signs.
53
First, the plurality of signs criteria is met here
because each set of signs may be repeated
numerous times. An activity circuit is the unit of
urban activity systems; it is what people do in the
urban environment. The repetition of an activity
circuit leads to an urban activity pattern. The unit
of urban space is also repeatable and its repetition
leads to a larger physical environment.
Second, the significations of the signs are
shared by the users and participants. Since the
units represent the activities people engage in
and the space in which these activities take place,
their significations are shared by the participants.
Third, the signs are producible by the partic-
ipants and users, and when produced will convey
a common meaning. Producibility, is in fact, the
54
result of the two previous elements of plurality
and the common signification of signs. In other
words, when signs have the characteristics of
plurality, they are producible; when they have
common significations, the produced signs will
convey a common signification.
Fourth, the signs have a relatively constant
signification. The units of urban space the
activity circuit do not belong to any specific
environment. Rather, they are abstract and their
significations, therefore, are also universal. The
signs simply represent the urban physical envi-
ronment. Although one may see many similari-
ties between the various daily activities of the
inhabitants of different cultures, what is more
critical and valuable are the dissimilarities and
differences between the units in different places
and different times. Some of these differences
have been already investigated cross-culturally
(examples are the meanings and uses of spaces).
The meanings and significations of signs, there-
fore, are culturally bound and subject to signifi-
cant changes (Bahrainy 1995).
Finally, signs are combinable on the basis of
certain rules. In the case of language of urban
design, these are the integrative rules and prin-
ciples of the discipline. These integrative rules
and principles satisfy the second requirement for
a language of urban design. The idea behind
searching for the units and constructing the lan-
guage is to eventually control and guide the
formation of the larger structures on the basis of
certain general rules and principles. In other
words, in order to achieve certain desired goals in
the physical environment, the process of building
the environment has to be based on these rules
and principles. These rules govern the relation-
ship between nature and the built-environment,
between man and the environment and between
man and man himself.
To qualify as the rules of language of urban
design, the rules must: thoroughly represent the
procedural elements of the knowledge base of
urban design, which is the integrative-intuitive
and scientific methods applied in urban design
(elements 3 and 4), and (2) must have the
capacity to construct larger structures out of the
units (urban space and activities); these larger
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
structures must fit the general characteristics and
qualifications of the signs or units that were
given before. This set of criteria requires that the
rules of the language be derived form or based on
the contents and characteristics of the substantive
elements of urban design, i.e., on urban form and
urban activity systems. Efforts, therefore, have
been made to explore a set of rules and principles
which can best represent the complexity and di-
versity of the methods and processes applied in
urban design.
5.2 Rules and Principles
of the Language of Urban
Design
Art and science are both necessary, should exist,
but both need significant integration if we are to
succeed in specific and coordinated urban design
knowledge (Cuthbert 2007).
Procedural rules are carefully extracted from a
variety of concepts, principles, theories and rules
which have been commonly applied in urban
design or which have the potential of being
commonly applied in the future. Again, the
aspect of commonality should be emphasized
here because it is essential for the formulation of
a common language. As a real representation of
the integrated methods and processes of urban
design, these rules and principles must also be
integrated into a unified set of rules and princi-
ples. The integration of these rules, however,
should be considered a mental activity which
may be realized through intuition. The successful
application of the language urban design is
heavily dependent on such an intuitive integra-
tion of these rules.
There are three points to be explained here
with regard to these rules and principles. First,
this list is not to be considered a complete and
exhaustive one. There may be some principles
which have not been included and others that
have yet to be developed. Second, the principle
are derived from three different sources of
knowledge (see Fig. 5.5). (1) From the available
relevant meta theories (or philosophy), such as
critical theory, sustainability, normative ethical
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.5 Three ways of
formulating the integrative
theory of urban design
Fig. 5.6 Formulating the
language (theory) of urban
design
theories, etc., and (2) from the field or the prac-
tice of urban design. (3) From both 1 and two.
Third, the principles should not be seen as
independent and complete in and of themselves.
They are interrelated and interdependent mem-
bers of the family of the language of urban
design. This language represents the integrated
knowledge base of urban design (Figs. 5.6
and 5.7).
Fourth, based on what was suggested before,
the activities of urban design may be divided in
two levels: global and local. In many cases,
however, due to some common characteristics—
such as religious, socio-economic, and climatic
features—in certain regions, on the one hand,
and significant differences due to micro climatic
conditions and other factors, on the other,
another level may be recognized as regional. The
local level is in fact the culture specific ones and
best fits the unique characteristics of each set-
tlement or a group of settlements. The following
rules and principles are presented in two cate-
gories: global and local. For local we used the
55
cities in the hot and dry region in the central
plateau of Iran, which includes the cities of
Isfahan, Yazd, Kashan, etc.
5.2.1 Integrative Rules
and Principles
5.2.1.1 Patternization
An orderly repetition of a form, event or state is
pattern and an orderly repetition of pattern is
patternization. This general and broad definition
covers many different kinds of patterns which are
all of basic significance in the activities of man
and hence, in the field of urban design (Figs. 5.8
and 5.9)
Patterns and patternization are essential to the
functioning of all the human senses and to the
human intellect. They are the basis of human
senses and human perception, knowing and
understanding: seeing, hearing, and perceiving. It
is the mother principle in a way that all other
principles are, in one way or another, related to this
56
Fig. 5.7 Integrative rules
and principles of urban
design language
principle. They have been the subjects of extensive
scientific study under the heading of invariance.
A special form of invariance is called symmetry.
Symmetry is so prevalent that we expect a certain
degree of symmetry in everything.
Symmetry signifies rest and binding, while
asymmetry signifies motion and loosening. One
is order and law, the other arbitrariness and
accident. The one is formal rigidity, constraint
and principle while the other is life, play and
freedom. Symmetry establishes a wonderful
cousinship between objects, phenomena and
theories, which are outwardly unrelated. Patt-
ernization also deals with simplicity, regularity,
stability, balance, order, harmony and homo-
geneity. A classical exemplification of the law of
patternization in urban design is perceptual
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
organization, or the tendency to maximize regu-
larity in our perceptual system.
The urban environment is constituted by pat-
terns, such as patterns of settlements, patterns of
ecology, patterns of behavior, patterns of per-
ceptual and visual continuity, the rhythm and
pattern of events, sequences of space, views and
motions, geometrical forms and patterns such as
the central place theory and grid system, the
patterns of cities, and so on (Fig. 5.10).
5.2.1.2 Quantization
Quantization is based on the Quantum Theory
(Max Plank 1900) and is one aspect of patternza-
tion. It deals with continuity/discontinuity
concepts. Its application can be seen in all
areas to explain, measure, and control change
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design 57

Fig. 5.8 The

interrelationship of the
procedural and substantive
elements of the language of
urban design

Fig. 5.9 Integrated rules

are applied to the
disordered environment,
manipulating its elements
to establish order
58 5 Integrative Language of Urban Design

Fig. 5.10 a An orderly repetition of a form, event or state is pattern and an orderly repetition of pattern is patternization.
b Patterns and patternization are essential to the functioning of all the human senses and to the human intellect

(visual quality). Visual characteristics such as:
attraction, complexity, richness, legibility, and
cohesion; against dullness, simplicity, poorness,
boredom, monotony, ambiguity, confusion,
chaos, and repetition can be studied analytically
through this principle. Desired change and
repetition, continuity, balanced, movement, di-
versity, cohesion. It is based on the concepts of
continuity and discontinuity. In the physical en-
vironment one can find complementary aspects of
continuity and discontinuity in the form of fluc-
tuations in the level of information. In the struc-
tures made of these fluctuations (or waves), there
are the complementary aspects of repetition and
variation. The bundles of these waves are com-
bined in the total structure to produce organic
complexes that are more than the sum of their
component parts. The physical environment pro-
vides patterns, which follow the quantization
rules. These rules will provide new insights into
the correlation of ideas and concepts in urban
design. Quantization in urban form deals with the
visual quality of the built environment and with
people’s perceptions, preferences and tastes. The
quantization principle makes it possible to quan-
tify measure, explain, predict and control the
rhythmic changes of the visual quality of the
environment. It is the form, size and frequency of
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.10 (continued)
these rhythmic changes (waves) that make an
environment exciting, complex, rich, legible,
identifiable and cohesive or boring, monotonous
and confusing (for more information see
Appendix) (Fig. 5.11).
5.2.1.3 Centrality
Centrality is a very common form of patterniza-
tion, which can be applied to almost any subject
including that of urban design. Many examples of
such an application may be found in environ-
mental design for the urban core, central business
district, nodes, commercial centers, inner city,
town centers, etc.
59
Any urban design activity deals with the pat-
terns of centering, subcentering, and
non-centering as the form expressions of different
actions and reactions to the environment. From
the market standpoint, for example, it is always
possible to apply the central place theory and to
identify the central activity cluster within each
physically identifiable urban node. However,
more sophisticated approaches must be sought to
distinguish each center’s place in the hierarchy of
centers according to the extent of the territorial
market establishments that are located there.
It is a basic psychological need to erect cen-
ters. This must be considered in the layout and
60
Fig. 5.11 Quantization deals with continuity/discontinuity concepts
formation of activity centers in cities. This need
might manifest itself either in real world centers
or in the centers of the inner world. One, how-
ever, reflects the need for the other.
Centrality in urban design may be said to
originate from many sources such as religious
impulse, economic forces and cultural and sym-
bolic factors. It is said, for example, that if man is
to orient himself in the world, he must somewhere
erect a fixed point, a center. It seems, therefore,
that a centering process is capable of generating
wholeness in the three-dimensional constellation
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
of spaces which form a building, in a garden, or a
street, a neighborhood, and even a city (Fig. 5.12).
5.2.1.4 Boundaries
Related to both quantization and patternization is
the presence of boundaries of one kind or
another. The undelimited field emphasizes con-
tinuity while boundaries emphasize discontinu-
ity. Consequently, systems, which have been
described as, bounded regions in space-time with
an interchange of energy among their parts,
possess boundaries, which may be simple and
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design 61

Fig. 5.12 a Centrality is a very common form of patternization. b Centrality in urban design may be said to originate
from many sources such as religious impulse, economic forces and cultural and symbolic factors

clear-cut, as in the case of a tree, or non-material.
Boundaries define spaces in the physical envi-
ronment, which will in turn lead to identity,
safety, security and freedom.
Boundaries are involved in the making of
choices. In the natural landscape, geometrical
discontinuities will often provide such bound-
aries and these physiographical boundaries are
retained or directly related to man’s goal-seeking
within that environment, and to his technological
capabilities to attain such goals.
Boundaries provide diversity of choice and
opportunity in the form and function of the
environment. Boundaries, either spatial or tem-
poral, make the environment live and dynamic,
since they are the source of change and movement.
Boundaries in urban form may appear in the form
of edges, surfaces, lines, etc. which differentiate
two or more different but adjacent urban forms.
These differences in urban form can be in density,
height, topography, intensity, style, color, mate-
rials, relationships or any combination of these and
other elements. In the case of perceptual processes,
there could be boundaries that might not be tan-
gible or sensible to some observers but which
could be sensible and identifiable to others.
62
Fig. 5.12 (continued)
Perceptual boundaries, therefore, can be images
rather than concrete forms. An optimum combi-
nation of these elements in the physical environ-
ment results in complexity, diversity and
cohesiveness (Fig. 5.13).
5.2.1.5 Territories
Territories are also part of the principle of
boundaries. They deal with the division of the
environment into spatial or temporal regions,
symbolically controlled by various individuals or
groups, within which certain types of behavior
are expected. A simple and familiar example is
the division of the environment into private and
public spaces.
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
This principle deals with boundary, borders,
domain, realm, sphere, privacy, and sense of
belonging, sense of place, possession, ownership,
and defensible space. This division could be
temporal or spatial, i.e. I world versus others’
(it) world. One can also find natural, political,
administrative, economic, and functional
boundaries in the environment. Some territories
are simply visible, while others are only per-
ceptual (invisible). There are various tools in
architecture and urban design to define and
divide territories, such as walls, fences, doors,
gates, etc.
Main characteristics of territories include:
Identity, defining and limiting, allocation, defining
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.13 Related to both quantization and patternization is the presence of boundaries of one kind or another
the role of “self” in space, orientation, cognition,
movement, change, diversity/choice, excitement,
sense of belonging, sense of possession,
familiarity/knowing, safety and security, calm.
One of the positive aspects of territories is inte-
gration which could take place by: focusing on
public realm, public space celebrated, shared
spaces, mixed use, externalized facilities, unifying
elements, integrating neighbor-hoods (through
activity corridors, continuous parks, permeable
boundaries, and symbolic borders).
Territories may also lead to segregation by
focusing on private realm, privatization of public
Space, separation of land uses, separation of
63
neighborhoods, fortification, fortified boundaries,
physical borders, special zones, and gated
communities.
Man can consciously retain his identity within
the perceptual field by imposing physical and/or
conceptual boundaries which enable him to dif-
ferentiate himself as a self-conscious, conceptu-
alizing being form the external characteristics of
his environment. The idea of a territory, therefore,
implies the awareness of the self as something
unique in an I and it world. It relates to the images
that man makes for himself of the world,
images that are hierarchically ordered according
to the degree of closure. The principle of
64
territories provides man in the environment with a
sense of identity, orientation, self-awareness,
self-direction, imagibility, movement, change,
excitement, security, familiarity and so on.
Territoriality in urban form implies that the
area which is identified and encircled by its
physical, perceptual or visual boundaries, share
certain formal, perceptual, visual and aesthetic
attributes. These shared elements differentiate
one territory from another and give the members
of a territory certain privileges such as view,
security, prestige, etc. There are also territories,
which are identified with intangible and invisible
boundaries such as the social group of a neigh-
borhood (Fig. 5.14).
Fig. 5.14 a Territories are also part of the principle of boundaries. b Territories deal with the division of the
environment into spatial or temporal regions
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
5.2.1.6 Binary
The binary principle deals with either/or
judgments and choices of an extreme nature.
Binary oppositions may be temporal, spatial
or both. The principle of binary opposition divides
the world into two contradictory parts such as
inside/outside, good/bad, big/small, round/square,
open/closed, simple/complex, symmetrical/
asymmetrical, public/private, dispersed/
condensed, void/full and tall/short.
There is also another binary form which
rejects the either/or condition and suggests the
both/and form. The basis of this binary form is
hierarchy, which yields several levels of meaning
among elements with varying values. Some
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.14 (continued)
examples of the binary principle in this form are:
inside and outside, simple and complex, round
and square, big and small, tall and short, open
and closed, wide and narrow, etc.
The binary principle may be applied to both
the functional and formal elements of the urban
environment. Binary forms, which contain
extreme contrasts of height, size, form or history,
might become landmarks. Functional binary
forms, at the extreme level, may result in
incompatible uses and activities such as fast
traffic versus slow traffic, manufacturing activi-
ties versus residential activities, high rise versus
single family structures, etc (Fig. 5.15).
65
5.2.1.7 Hierarchy
Both/and binary forms are the basis of hierarchy.
The notion of hierarchy lies in the nature of very
complex and evolving systems. Hierarchical
organizations can be usefully applied to the
understanding, design and control of complex
systems such as the physical environment. In the
case of the physical environment the theory of
hierarchies is an open one which can continu-
ously grow and evolve to form new levels.
Hierarchical order is the most natural way for
ordering dynamic phenomena.
It means movement and change, diversity,
choice.
66
Fig. 5.15 Binary principle deals with either/or judgments and choices of an extreme nature
It implies putting contracting phenomena
together: thermal, visual, spatial. Urban structure:
Functional, mental, perceptual, visual. This
principle can be used in the analysis as well as in
the synthesis of urban design activities to explain
complex systems involved. The system can be
decomposed into its component levels or inter-
acting levels. The complex systems are not
comprehensive unless we simplify them by using
alternative levels of description.
Hierarchical orders are seen in natural, social,
technological, human and physical organizations
such as physics, biology and society.
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
They are, however, especially applicable to
the subject or objects which involve evolutionary
process and developmental stages such as the
hierarchy of goals, the hierarchy of systems and
the hierarchy of values. In its application to
architecture and complex systems, hierarchy
simply means a set of Chinese Boxes. Opening
any given box in a hierarchy discloses not just
one new box with in but a whole series of boxes.
The best example of a hierarchical system can be
seen in nature—a tree.
Central Place Theory is a well-known case of
the application of the hierarchical concept to
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.16 a The notion of hierarchy lies in the nature of very complex and evolving systems. b Hierarchical order is
the most natural way for ordering dynamic phenomena
regional planning. The essence of this principle
has been applied on a smaller scale to city
design. The hierarchy of movement system in
downtown Philadelphia and the concept of
the essential/nonessential are two examples
(Fig. 5.16).
5.2.1.8 Equilibrium
This principle deals with all the dynamic and
organic systems in the environment. The rela-
tionship of man to his environment is subject to
continual and restless change from generation to
generation, from year to year, and from instant to
67
instant. This relationship is in danger of becom-
ing disequilibrated.
There is n static equilibrium between Man and
his environment or between inner and outer
reality. The process of equilibrium is equilibra-
tion. Manipulative forms of equilibrium require
the presence of two kinds of feedback, one neg-
ative (deviation-corrective) and the other positive
(deviation-amplifying). Negative feedback tends
to dominate the maintenance of equilibrium
(socio-cultural, for example) at any given level.
Positive feedback is required to move from one
level to another.
68
Fig. 5.16 (continued)
Both negative and positive forms of equilib-
rium are always at work in the environment.
Knowledge of the way in which they function in
the decay and growth of metropolitan complexes
is vital for urban designers.
The equilibration process governs the relation
of man to his environment. Inorganic and
Organic phenomena alike exist simultaneously in
time and space and indeed with in a fused Time
—space continuum. In progressively organizing
and controlling his environment, Man has,
therefore, involved himself with the continuous
interplay of phenomena on the temporal and
spatial dimensions. When human functions relate
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
primarily to the spatial dimension, man Con-
ceptualized models and fabricates tools essen-
tially to attain environmental control by using
techniques for the organization of space.
Techniques to attain environmental control
deal with the relationship of Man-to-environment
and Man-to-Man. Hence, these techniques are
related to temporal as well as to biological fac-
tors. The social techniques comprise the tools or
methods by which a community seeks to orga-
nize and retain environmental equilibrium.
Examples of these are religious and philosophi-
cal concepts, legal codes, administrative systems,
caste systems, ecclesiastical hierarchies,
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design 69

educational systems, economic institutions, etc.
The principle of equilibrium implies that indi-
viduals, societies and their natural and built
environment, as dynamic systems, are always in
the process of change and self-correction.
Self-correction is in the direction of equilibrium
but equilibrium is not, of course, stable. The
principle can also be applied to the evaluation of
physical environment. The form of the city is
subject to change and evolution. Some of the
controls are deliberate and planned, but in gen-
eral they go through incremental changes. When
the conditions of disequilibrium are amplified,
this might cause a shift to the next level of
equilibrium. This, of course, would only be
temporary. Urban design plays a significant role
in the process of control and amplification.
The changes that take place in the environ-
ment are orderly, i.e., they move and fluctuate
within bounds. To go beyond the limits that are
set (culturally, naturally, and ecologically) is to
bring about destruction out of which, however,
arise new bounds, restored equilibrium and a
new order. Contrasting binaries of lack of full-
ness, openness, and closure create balance and
counterbalance. These conditions are not static or
mechanical. In the process of living in the envi-
ronment, individuals and institutions adjust to the
environment and tend toward a state of harmony
and equilibrium (Fig. 5.17).

Fig. 5.17 a Equilibrium deals with all the dynamic and organic systems in the environment. b The equilibration
process governs the relation of man to his environment
70
Fig. 5.17 (continued)
5.2.1.9 Cybernetics
or Environmental
Feedback
Cybernetics or the science of feedback and control
has tremendous potential for application in the
urban design of the future. This is so because it is
based on the ability to rapidly process an enormous
amount of information and thus facilitate the
making of appropriate decisions. It further con-
forms to the principle of self-correction. Such a
device compares a current state offunctioning with
desired goals and adjusts performance on the basis
of the observed differences.
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
Urban cybernetics, or the concept of envi-
ronmental feedback, is indispensable in the
complex environment of today. Each individual
in this environment is in the midst of receiving,
interpreting and sending huge numbers of signals
and symbols as messages. The channels through
which these communications flow are many and
diverse, ranging from the very primitive devices
of traditional cities to the most advanced elec-
tronic media of today. All of these sophisticated
and complicated processes are sources and
channels of actions and reactions, which result in
the formation of the urban environment.
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
From the formal standpoint, urban cybernetics
implies the transmission of visual and perceptual
signals and reactions, which lead to decisions
and actions which eventually change the physical
environment. It also seems that this principle will
be helpful in analyzing certain urban processes
such as growth and locational decisions in which
feedback plays an important role.
5.2.1.10 Unity/Multiplicity or Order/
Disorder
Unity-multiplicity and order-disorder are binary
sets which, in this form, are not contradictory but
rather, complementary.
Unity implies order, rule, discipline, continu-
ity, cohesion, certainty, and stability. While
plurality means disorder, change, diversity,
freedom, choice, flexibility, and discontinuity.
What is important is an optimum combination of
these two principles to make a balance between
the two. The dominance of any one over the
other would lead either chaos or imposed order,
neither, which are desirable. What is desirable is
bounded change, which means accepting change
in limited boundary. Without one, the other is
meaningless. The Greeks who used the word
polis for city, used the same word for a dice- and
-board game that, rather like backgammon,
depends upon interplay chance and rule (Joseph
Rykwert, the Seduction of place).
Unity in societal actions and environmental
forms means order and discipline; multiplicity,
which is disorder, implies diversity, choice,
freedom and openness. Unity stands for consis-
tency and continuity and multiplicity stands for
change, discontinuity and inconsistency. The
essence of this principle is ordered change or
change within certain bounds. These two entities,
unity-multiplicity and order-disorder, may exist
together in a complementary form of unity in
multiplicity or order in disorder. Order and unity,
in this sense, are dynamic and flexible, rather
than static and fixed. Such an order achieves its
form through fluctuation and multiplicity.
While order is a principle which controls and
sustains all the parts of a system, disorder high-
lights the existence of order through contrast. If
there were no disorder, order would not be
71
apparent. Order signifies a unity or purpose that
transcends the parts or activities of a system.
Unity transcends diversity and order pertains to
the realm of unity and form. From the earliest
times, order has been recognized as a principle
apart from symmetry. Order has been regarded as
beautiful and pleasant, disorder and excess as
ugly and displeasing. From birth onward, Man
struggles to establish a fragment of order in the
infinite variety of his environment. The order
attains results from the coalescence and trans-
mission of diversified information. Common
order is derived from the common symbol sys-
tems of a culture while multiplicity is left
untouched.
Each of psychological, biological, physiolog-
ical and physical systems of the human envi-
ronment possesses a certain type of order. When
the level of disorder in any of these systems
exceeds a certain limit, it will lead to some kind
of negative attitude toward the situation.
This, in turn, will lead to the demand for
change in the environment. A valid order should
also be able to accommodate the circumstantial
contradictions of a complex reality.
Order and unity belong to higher levels in the
hierarchy of a society, whereas disorder and
multiplicity are maintained at lower levels.
Bacon has differentiated these levels into what
calls the “essential-nonessential”. Essentials can
be controlled to create order while non-essentials
maybe left to individuals to create multiplicity
and diversity. The infrastructure, public facilities,
and the like are examples of essential elements.
Non-essentials are elements such as residential
and related activities. This principle, therefore, is
closely tied to the hierarchy principle.
This principle of unity-multiplicity and order-
disorder will provide control and spontaneity,
correctness and ease, complexity and contradic-
tion in the urban environment. The domination of
either one of these two elements over the other,
either by exceeding or falling short of the
imposed order, will result in disequilibrium in the
environment.
A good example of this is the case of stan-
dardization in cities brought about by legal
(zoning ordinances) and economic (commercial
72 5 Integrative Language of Urban Design

forces) which have created a monotonous and 5.2.1.11 Man-Environment

homogeneous environment.
Concepts of this principle are invaluable in
urban design. They combine realistic ideas for
combining discipline and control with flexibility
and freedom and thereby help to identify the
scope of the authority and influence of urban
design on public activity. The principle can also
help to define the extent and kind of intervention
in urban design (Fig. 5.18).
Relationship
This relationship is characterized by the interac-
tion between observers and observed. Man
relates to his environment through his sensory
experiences. To the elements of sensory experi-
ence belong the visual, aural and tactile elements.
These experiences are transmitted to the mind by
the nervous system through diverse receptor
organs. These organs receive stimuli which are

Fig. 5.18 a Unity-multiplicity and order-disorder are binary sets which, in this form, are not contradictory but rather,
complementary. b Unity implies order, while plurality means disorder
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.18 (continued)
apprehended by the mind as the experienced
sensations of color, shape, sound and texture.
5.2.1.12 Semantics, Metaphor
and Analogy
Semantics (semio-logy) is the theory of signs and
their meanings. The fundamental idea of semi-
ology and meaning in urban design is that any
form in the environment or design in the lan-
guage, is motivated or is capable of being moti-
vated. Any form, even if it were initially arbitrary
and non-motivated, becomes motivating because
of its subsequent use. If a person is motivated by
a form it means that the form conveys meaning
73
and, therefore, fulfills a function. Urban semiol-
ogy helps to ease the communication between
man and his environment through signs, sym-
bols, and their connotations.
Metaphors and analogies are similar. They
both help to understand the world through
interpreting certain regularities in imagination
and creative thought.
Metaphor is, fundamentally, a bringing toge-
ther of images that have certain features in
common and which are yet different, and more
usually than not, drawn from different contexts,
so that the juxtaposition of images per se and the
significance of this juxtaposition stands out in
74
clear relief. It is the imaginative representation of
one thing in the form of another.
While metaphor is a species of analogy, it is
predominantly figurative. Analogy, like meta-
phor, is iconic, but its iconicity derives from
more obvious or patent correspondences rather
than on figurative extensions. Analogies between
processes, events and objects can be useful tools
for thinking in urban design. Using the real or
seeming similarities of one thing and another, in
attempting to describe what is less known from
what is already known, the description by anal-
ogy provides, in miniature, a picture of their
association, of what is assumed to be the
important aspect of the relationship of different
things. The most convincing analogies are drawn
from nature, because nature is a harmonious
order in which many analogies are expressed
between the different aspects of nature. In nature,
the operation of all the parts comprise the har-
mony of the whole.
Application of these elements is especially
critical in that part of the design process where
seeking the appropriate form to meet the estab-
lished goals (which are normally of a
socio-economic nature) is the major task of the
urban designer. At this stage the urban designer
attempts to translate words into form. Metaphors,
semantics, and analogies, therefore, can be of
great help in providing general ideas and con-
cepts (Fig. 5.19).
5.2.1.13 General Systems Theory
The principle of the general systems theory is to
facilitate the analysis and synthesis by way of
reason and intellect. The idea of systems in urban
design allows the analyst to study the context
analytically as well as rationally. It helps him
locate the problem and the appropriate solution
to the problem. There are two valuable charac-
teristics the significance of which is extremely
helpful vis a vis our understanding of the envi-
ronment and the problems that are associated
with it. These characteristics are, the idea of
holism and the idea of rationality.
According to the idea or concept of holism, a
system and the sub-systems and elements that
constitute it are held together in such an integral
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
manner that the entities thus held are bound
together by an inseparable relationship. Ration-
ality pertains to the principles by which these
relationships and their characteristics are defined
and accounted for. Rationality is regarded as
being deterministic.
5.2.1.14 Organization of Human
Ecology
This principle deals with the behavior of people in
the social context. The relationship of man to man
within the physical, social, economic and spiritual
systems is the subject of this principle. It con-
siders the systems that are important in the lives
of people. People’s spiritual spaces, interests and
ambitions, values, needs and priorities, hopes,
expectations, myths and responsibilities are some
of the issues to be addressed by this principle.
Human ecology attempts to explain man’s
organized and collective relationship to his
environment. It intends to explain social net-
works which depend on people’s various means
of physical mobility in getting to work, shop-
ping, attending school, and their various degrees
of economic mobility, depending on age, edu-
cation, race, and income.
5.2.1.15 Gestalt
Gestalt phenomenon (or organized structures) are
based on the claim that the meaning of the whole
is greater than the sum of its components, or
stated differently, that whole is greater than the
sum of its parts. Gestalt theory argues against the
validity of a systems approach because it holds
that a system is not completely decomposable
into its elements. Intuition, according to this
principle, is the only approach that is capable of
dealing with complex systems because it protects
the meaning and integrity of the whole.
This principle has a significant application to
urban design activities, especially with regard to
the perceptual, visual and semantic aspects of the
environment.
The Gestalt principle aids the understanding
of problems by applying insight, which is a
specific phase of productive thinking. It indicates
that seeing into a problematic situation reveals its
intrinsic structure.
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design 75

Fig. 5.19 a The fundamental idea of semiology in urban design is that any form in the environment is motivated or is
capable of being motivated. b Semantics, metaphor and analogy help to understand the world through interpreting
certain regularities in imagination and creative thought

Insight is the understanding that occurs when
the situations reorganized in such a way as to
become transparent—that is, when the essential
features and the reciprocal relations are clearly
and directly apprehended (Fig. 5.20).
5.2.1.16 Context and Culture
(Localization)
The principles mentioned here as the rules and
principles of urban design language, were
intentionally thought of and formulated in such a
way as to be abstract, general and universal.
Their application in a specific environment,
however, requires that great effort be made to
modify them for that particular environment. In
fact, there are very few of these principles that
have universal applicability in the form in which
they have presented here. Most of them, rather,
are general principles which might be meaning-
less in certain environments unless they are
modified and tested specifically for that specific
culture or context. Each principle is described in
an open and flexible way which can take on a
variety of forms. It is the culture or context that
makes them particularly meaningful (Ozgood and
Tzeng 1990).
76
Fig. 5.19 (continued)
Lynch (1981, p. 101) states that physical
patterns may have predictable effects in a single
culture, with its stable structure of institutions
and values. But it is not possible to construct a
cross-cultural theory. It is even dangerous, since
it will inevitably be used to impose the value of
one culture on another. Each culture has its own
norms for city form, and they are independent of
those of any other.
Since the behavior patterns of different groups
of individuals in different cultures varies, we
may, therefore, conclude that their ways of
life, their relationships with space and their
interpretations of it also differ. This will imply
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
the eventual need for specific rules and principles
which are based on the value systems, aspira-
tions, needs and problems of a particular culture.
Depending on the culture in question, for
example, the formal patterning of space and
activities can take on varying degrees of impor-
tance and complexity. The organization of space,
territory, boundaries, etc., is an important aspect of
urban life which is closely tied to the attributes of
the culture. It is for example, known that privacy
can be defined only in a specific cultural context.
What is regarded, as a private place in a particular
culture might be considered semi-private or even
public in another.
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design 77

Fig. 5.20 Gestalt principle is based on the claim that the meaning of the whole is greater than the sum of its
components, or stated differently, that whole is greater than the sum of its parts

A similar cultural variability governs the
interpretation and meaning of the space that
contains the activities.
Culture is represented by certain shared values
and interests. It comprises all aspects of a shared
appreciative system, which is carved out by
interests, structured by expectations and evaluated
by standards of judgment. It is also a communi-
cation system of shared value. It is the shared
values that modify these principles for the purpose
of local application. Common symbol systems
may be used as a clue to those values and interests.
A culturally specific urban design requires a
culture-specific language of urban design based
on culturally modified principles.
A characteristic of the present time is that
worldviews must come to terms with the increas-
ing exaggeration of both the global and the local.
Urban designers should be in command of fol-
lowing knowledge and skills (Bull et al. 2007,
p. 228):
• The ecology and dynamics of natural and
urban systems at a global, regional and local
scale,
78
• The technologies of conservation, manage-
ment and construction in the urban, suburban
and natural domains (including ‘sustainable
technologies’ as they evolve)
• The history and theory of practice, including
the failures and successes of various projects
in conserving, managing and constructing
natural and urban areas
• Spatial analysis of the processes of change
that are manifest as urban areas and land-
scapes globally, regionally and locally; past
and present
• Conceptualizing the form and function of
future, alternative territories et al. scales
Fig. 5.21 Application of principle in a specific environment requires that great effort to modify them for a particular
environment
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
• Converting concepts into realizable urban
projects, whether a the strategic or site scale
• Communicating as cultural and cross-cultural
practitioners across a wide range of territo-
ries; and
• The organization, legal framework and ethics
of practice, globally and locally (Fig. 5.21).
5.2.1.17 Sustainability
Sustainable urban design is vital for this century,
our health, welfare and future depends on it. We
will need to develop flexible ways to ‘shape’
and design our future cities. Sustainable urban
design is about balance—in uses, density,
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
transport, diversity, and natural and man-made
environments.
To some sustainability implies self-
sufficiency. There have been attempts to build
self-sufficient villages often in remote rural areas.
These are described by the Gaia Foundation as
‘human scale, full featured settlements which
integrate human activity harmlessly into the
natural environment’ a worthy goal for any urban
neighborhood (Eco-Village Foundation, 1994).
These settlements grow their own food, generate
their own power, and recycle their waste; coming
as close as it is possible to an environmentally
benign human settlement. But these are too small
in scale and demand time and commitment from
their members. In the case of cities, however,
there are many who believe that cities are envi-
ronmental disasters and have no place in a sus-
tainable future that is until we consider
alternatives. More than half of the world’s pop-
ulation now live in cities so that it is hopelessly
unrealistic to postulate a city-free sustainable
future (Rudlin and Falk 2009).
Some principles are:
• Reducing input
• Using local resources
• Minimizing waste
• Making use of urban economies
• Walkability
• Personal safety
• Legibility
• Taming the car
• Creative congestion
• Higher density
• Public transport
• Reducing energy use
• Recycling
• Providing green space
• Mixed uses
Some of the urban design principles suggested
for sustainable urban environment are (Thomas
2003):
• Sustainable urban structure, which deals with
urban regions, the town or city and its rural
and/or coastal hinterland.
• The walkability
• Planning and design implications and
opportunities
79
• Streets and street blocks, to enable direct
pedestrian movement
• Optimizing development density
• Some density rules of thumb
• Some broader issues and key points, such as
socially mixed and inclusive communities,
provision of services and facilities that meet a
range of needs, engaging local communities in
discussion about how they see their neigh-
borhood and their priorities and aspirations for
the future, provision of quality public transport
services, the delivery of excellent local facili-
ties and services, recognition that long-term
management and maintenance are as important
as the initial design and the vision of new
development as catalyst for the improvement
of existing areas (Thomas 2003, p 23).
Bioregionalism has emerged as the new
framework to study the complex relationships
between human communities and the natural
world. Bioregionalists believe that as members of
distinct communities, human beings cannot avoid
interacting with and being affected by their
specific location, place and bioregion (Mc Ginnis
M. V. 1999).
One of the principles outlined by Berg and
Dasmann (1977) for bioregionalism is living-in-
place, which means following the necessities and
pleasures of life as they are uniquely presented by a
particular site, and evolving ways to ensure
long-term occupancy of that site. A society which
practices living-in-place keeps a balance with its
region of support through links between human
lives, other living things, and the processes of the
planet—seasons, weather, water cycles—as
revealed by the place itself. So one has to learn to
live-in-place in an area that has been disrupted and
injured through becoming aware of the particular
ecological relationships that operate within and
around it. A bioregion can be determined initially
by use of climatology, physiology, animal and
plant geography, natural history and other
descriptive natural sciences (See also: Atkinson
1992 and Aberley 1994) (Fig. 5.22).
5.2.1.18 Economics
Today the city is more than ever shaped by
economic forces (Frey 1999, p. 1). Today’s city
80
Fig. 5.22 Sustainable urban design is vital for this century. Our health, welfare and future depends on it
is shaped by the communications and transport
technology we use, and by market forces. In
England, urban areas provide for 91 % of the
total economic output and 89 % of all the jobs
(Final Report of the Urban Task Force 1999). So
valuation for sustainability cannot be separated
from idea 0f actions whose effect is to sustain
this or that form of life—in the cultural as well as
ecological—economic sense (Abazaand Bar-
anzini 2002, p. 33). It is for this reason that
maintaining and improving the economic
strengths of the towns and cities is therefore
critical to the competitive performance of the
country as a whole.
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
The planner’s triangle, a model of sustainable
development designed by Scott Campbell
(1996), is based on three pillars: ecology, econ-
omy and equity. A knowledge of the structure
and functioning of the urban economy is, there-
fore, fundamental to all urban design analysis
and decisions. The density of an urban center is
controlled by the extent and character of its
productive and income-producing activity and its
general vitality. Most metropolitan areas flourish
because they serve as centers for production and
distribution of goods and services, production
and distribution functions create jobs, and
employment opportunities attract people.
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Crookston (1996) raising the question of:
Urban design and urban economics: just good
friends? From a review of a small group of set-
tings concludes that urban design thinking has
made a real and integral contribution. Three
things have to be done: Urban design needs to be
better integrated into consultants’ teams than it
often is, sitting alongside urban economics as a
discipline; and the successful projects show that
it can. Urban design needs to be better integrated
into the development control process than it often
is. Urban economist need to be part of that
integrated, collaborative approach too, working
in a positive way to define the financially feasible
and the economically sustainable, helping to
overcome problems not just pointing out their
existence.
• Land uses
• Activity locations
• Density
• Quality and quantity of infrastructure
• Job opportunities
• Taxation
• Financial resources
• Information and telecommunication
technology
The marriage between telecommunications
and computing along with the infrastructural
networks for digital transformation of data,
voice, image, and video—collectively known as
information and telecommunications technolo-
gies (IT)—is increasingly gaining relevance as a
new dimension of cities. This dimension is partly
physical and partly invisible and is forcing a
reconceptualization of traditional urban models
of city form and growth (Audirac 2002). These
transformations posit a new kind of city that Hall
(1997) describes as: globalized (connected to
other cities in global networks); tertiarized and
even quaternarized (dependent almost entirely
for economic existence on advanced services);
informationalized (using information as a raw
material); and polycentric (dispersing residences,
and decentralizing employment into multiple
centers or edge cities. IT will affect the locational
decisions of firms and households by dissolving
the importance of distance and permitting foot-
loose economic activity to relocate to lower-cost
81
exurban, rural and offshore areas. Telecommut-
ing is working as a substitute for commuting
trips. Workers substitute some or all of their
working day a remote location (almost always
home) for time usually spent at the office
(Wheeler et al. 2000). Firms will reduce office
space costs, whereas telecommuters will have
more freedom of choice in residential location.
Depending on the density and frequency of
office-trip substitution, telecommuting can con-
tribute to the lowering of traffic congestion and
ultimately to fewer carbon emissions.
Among the information and telecommunica-
tion tools the Internet has had the greatest, far
reaching, and most permanent impact on the
world economy and the transformation of society.
As Castells puts it: our historic time is defined by
the transformation of our geographic space.
Within cities, cyberspace contributes to a
substantial reconstruction of urban space, creat-
ing a social environment in which ‘being digital’
is increasingly critical to knowledge, wealth,
status, and power.
Castells (2000) has introduced a particular
model of spatial organization, which, according
to him, is characteristic of the Information Age,
as the space of flows. He defines space of flows
as the material arrangements that allow for
simultaneity of social practices without territorial
contiguity. It is made up of: (1) technological
infrastructure of information systems, telecom-
munications, and transportation lines; (2) nodes
and hubs; (3) habitats for the social actors who
operate the network; (4) comprises electronic
spaces such as Web sites, spaces of interaction,
as well as spaces of one-directional communi-
cation. The growing use of telecommunications
systems is doing far more than influence where
people work and live, but is actually changing
the character of activities that occur in the home,
workplace, automobile, and the street. Telecom-
munications has made the fundamental elements
of urban life—housing, transportation, work and
leisure—far more complex logistically, spatially,
and temporally (Moss, and Townsend 2000).
It seems, therefore, quite essential to consider
IT and Telecommunications as an integral part of
any urban design decision, and take their
82
implications on urban design elements into
considerations.
5.2.1.19 Globalization
The essence of globalization could be defined as
the unrestricted movements of money, people,
information, and culture. These agencies will
have their effects on the components of urban
form—urbanism, image and identity, spatial
organization and structure, social ecology, public
realm, scale and pace of development, and archi-
tectural vernacular. This process is especially
significant in the case of the third world countries,
where the conventional model of city becomes
obsolete and cities are beginning to look more and
more like that in the West (Pizarro et al. 2003).
Capital flows across the globe have markedly
increased; a vast array of cultural products from
different countries have become available in one
place; and the nation-state is no longer the only
entity that affects people’s political life and ideas.
Economy, culture, and polity are being trans-
formed, reshaped and reworked to produce a
more global world and a heightened global
consciousness. Globalization takes place in cities
and cities embody and reflect globalization.
Global processes lead to changes in the city and
cities rework and situate globalization. Contem-
porary urban dynamics are the spatial expres-
sions of globalization, while urban changes
reshape and reform the processes of globalization
(Short and Kim 1999).
5.2.1.20 Process
Design is inherently a procedural entity, or a
process. The concept of a process is widely
present in various literature and design manuals,
which attempt to produce a definition for design
in general or urban design in particular. Intact,
the concept of process is the core element of all
these definitions. A process, which is normally
considered as a continuous action, operation or
series of changes that take place in a continuous
manner, seems to be very relevant to any design
activity. What is important is that design is a
purposeful process that starts with some sort of
objectives, and ends up with an outcome that
responds to them.
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
Design process has always been a problematic
and sensitive subject for designers. Many
designers emphasize the art of design; that is,
they seek expression of the intuitive and creative
design capabilities of the individual designer.
Others emphasize various systematic processes
and take a philosophical approach to design
(Shirvani 1985).
There have been a number of efforts to model
the process and procedures of urban designing
(see for example: Barnett 1966; 1982; Shirvani
1985; Steinitz 1979; Halprin 1969; DeChiara and
Koppelman 1982; Bahrainy 1998; Lang 2005).
Most generic models suggest a rational
step-by-step procedure that moves from percep-
tions of a problem to post-implementation eval-
uation of a completed work. While the models
give some structure to our thinking and to our
design of the decision-making appropriate to a
job at hand, urban design does not take place in
the neat sequential manner that the models sug-
gest. Urban designing is an argumentative pro-
cess in which participants in it learn as they go
along. They learn about goals and means as
perceived by different stakeholders, they learn
from the evidence that each provides for its
views. Application of process in urban design
makes public involvement possible, prevents
mistakes, makes generating alternatives and
choice possible, makes issues understandable to
the public and authorities, helps resolving con-
flicts and make consensus, facilitates implemen-
tation and effectuation, and finally it is inevitable
for an activity as complex as urban design
(Fig. 5.23).
5.2.1.21 Participatory
and Collaborative
As there is a move toward equitable distribution
of resources and opportunities, there is a move
toward a broader consensus on the control and
distribution processes. This ultimately leads to
the ‘user,’ or citizen, and can take the form of
participatory planning and design (Smith 1973).
There is a clear trend not just towards public
consultation in design matters, but towards the
public defining the principles of control and
contributing to the administration of the control
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design
Fig. 5.23 Design is inherently a procedural entity, or a process
process itself. Such ventures provide a mecha-
nism for managing disputes, and for giving the
community far greater ‘ownership’ of the control
mechanism (Punter 1999, p. 503). Community
involvement in the process of urban design is
increasingly promoted as a means of overcoming
—or at least reducing—the professional-
layperson, powerful powerless and designer-
user gaps. Participation takes many different
forms, broadly conceptualized as top-down or
bottom-up approaches (Carmona et al. 2003,
p. 485, see also Bahrainy and Aminzadeh 2007,
p. 241–270)
Participation makes dialogue, as ‘the free flow
of meaning between communicating parties,
possible. There are some who emphasize the
creative nature of dialogue as a process of
revealing and then melting together the rigid
constructions of implicit cultural knowledge.
Forester (1989, 119–133) has addressed the issue
of participation with the concept of ‘designing as
making sense together’. With the concept he
refers to the notion of designing as a shared
interpretive sense-making process between par-
ticipants engaged in practical conversation in
their institutional and historical settings.
According to Forester, such design work is
both instrumentally productive and socially
reproductive. Participants, however, may share a
concern, but arrive at it through different cultural,
societal and personal experiences. They belong
83
to different ‘systems’ of knowing and valuing
that will remain nearer or farther from each other
in relation to access to each other’s languages.
Design communication should therefore focus on
reaching an achievable level of mutual under-
standing for the purposes at hand, while retaining
awareness of that which is not understood
(Healey 1992, p. 154).
The term collaborative design feature as an
increasingly prominent part of the vocabulary
used in the range of planning and design litera-
ture. According to Healey (1997) collaborative
planning and design is about why urban regions
are important to social, economic and environ-
mental policy and how political communities
may organize to improve the quality of their
places. Collaborative design is intended to serve
as both a framework for understanding and as a
framework for practical action.
Dobbins (2009) states that’ the people who
live where place improvement is happening must
be involved; the disciplines whose work shows
up in the process must coordinate; and the
public-private partnerships that drive design and
development in the public realm must work more
aggressively to include the community voice.
From the practical point of view, Brown et al.
(2009, p. 111) explain how public involvement
in the decision-making process was actually
taking place in the case of AIA Urban Design
winning projects. The process, they explain,
84
began by identifying the kinds of participants to
be included and laying out an approach intended
to draw them into the process. Common mech-
anisms included community task forces, work-
shops, regular public meetings, charrettes, or
some combination of all of them.
5.2.1.22 Methods of Inquiry—
Qualitative, Artistic
and intuitive methods
The last two principles have a two-fold function
in the urban design language. One is the role they
play a specific tools of analysis and synthesis.
More important, however, is the role they play as
the modes of thinking, the ideological framework
of urban design process, decision and action.
Intuition, as both a method of analysis and
synthesis, plays a critical role in urban design. As
a method of analysis and synthesis, it can be best
applied to those areas of urban design, which are,
by their nature, subjective, qualitative and subject
to personal interpretation, modification and atti-
tude. The perceptual, visual and aesthetic aspects
of urban form, and these processes which govern
the relationship between man and environment
are in the realm of intuitive analysis and
judgment.
As a way of thinking, intuition plays a still
more critical role in urban design. It attempts to
integrate and unify all the various scientific and
non-scientific methods into an integrated and
unified language of urban design. Intuition in this
regard, provides a holistic and gestalt perspective
of the subject (urban form and urban activity
systems), i.e., it considers all its parts and links
simultaneously. It is thus a model of analysis and
synthesis which stands against reductionism and,
therefore, properly represents the reality and
complexity of urban life. Intuition weaves the
diversified methods and processes of urban
design together as integrative tools and makes
them more effective in their application.
5.2.1.23 Methods of Inquiry—
Quantitative, Scientific
and Objective Method
According to Fecht (2012) urban designers tra-
ditionally have doubted the role that science can
5 Integrative Language of Urban Design
play in describing or predicting or fixing a city.
They assert that cities have an emergent com-
plexity those results from the interactions among
people as well as between people and the envi-
ronment, and that there is an element of human
behavior that cannot be reduced to an equation.
To survive Marshall (2012) argues that the field
needs to incorporate scientific training into its
educational curricula, and cultivate “a concern
for testing and validation, critical assimilation of
scientific findings from disparate sources, and
dissemination of the most reliable, up-to-date
findings.” But as cities grow and researchers
continue to elucidate the influence of design on
factors such as carbon dioxide emissions, phys-
ical activity and quality of life, there will be an
inevitable shift toward scientific thinking. The
basic need for urban design to make use of ‘ur-
ban science’ (Moudon 1992) or the ‘science of
cities’ (Batty 2012) is for practical purposes
uncontested.
The scientific method also plays a two-fold
function in the process of urban design. As a way
of thinking, the scientific method provides urban
design language with rationality, perception and
clarity. Given the complexity of the present
urban environment as well as the nature of the
democratic decision-making processes, the need
for processes based on the scientific method is
evident.
The scientific method, therefore, provides
urban design with the reasoning aspect of
thought. The interpretation of intuitive and rea-
soning modes can, however, create a more
powerful, productive and creative context of
thinking and ideology for urban design. The two,
one with subjectivity, holism, originality and
creativity and another with objectivity, rationality
and universality can complement each other’s
deficiencies and shortcomings. This would imply
the integration of emotion, feeling, and senses
with the intellect, understanding and rational
thought.
The second role of the scientific method in
urban design is its effectiveness in providing
effective tools and techniques for analysis,
explanation, prediction, verification and evalua-
tion of issues in urban design.
5.2 Rules and Principles of the Language of Urban Design 85

Applying these rules and principles, we may disciplines—descriptive social sciences, history,
now define urban design as: The process of aesthetics, legal, ethnographic literary and so forth
purposeful application of these integrative prin- are classified by Habermas as belonging to the
ciples to the substantive elements of urban space domain of the practical. And (3) Emancipatory
and urban activity circuits to construct larger knowledge: the emancipator domain identifies
urban structures with the goal of creating formal ‘self-knowledge’ or self-reflection. This involves
and functional order in the urban environment. ‘interest in the way one’s history and biography
Scientific thinking as logical thinking, as has expressed itself in the way one sees oneself,
problem solving, as induction and as everyday one’s roles and social expectations. Emancipation
thinking (Kuhn et al. 1988). But as Kahn (1969) is from libidinal, institutional or environmental
says ‘the measurable is only a servant of the forces which limit our options and rational control
unmeasurable, and ideally the two would be over our lives but have been taken for granted as
developed together. beyond human control. Insights gained through
critical self-awareness are emancipator in the
5.2.1.24 Integrative Methods of sense that at least one can recognize the correct
Inquiry reasons for his or her problems. ‘Knowledge is
It should be pointed out that according to Haber- gained by self-emancipation through reflection
mas it is a combination of three cognitive areas in leading to a transformed consciousness or ‘per-
which human interest generates knowledge that spective transformation’. Examples of critical
could lead to better understanding (analysis) and sciences include feminist theory, psychoanalysis
design (synthesis). They are: (1) work knowledge and the critique of ideology, according to
which refers to the way one controls and manip- Habermas.
ulates environment. This is commonly known as Summary of Habermas’ three domains of
instrumental action—knowledge is based upon knowledge
empirical investigation and governed by technical
rules. The criterion of effective control of reality
Type of human Kind of Research methods
direct what is or is not appropriate action. The interest knowledge
empirical-analytic sciences using Technical Instrumental Positivistic sciences
hypothetical-deductive theories characterize this (prediction) (causal (empirical-analytical
domain. Much of what we consider ‘scientific’ explanation methods)
research domains—e.g. physics, chemistry and Practical Practical Interpretive research
(interpretation (understanding) (hermeneutic
biology are classified by Habermas as belonging
and methods)
to the domain of work. (2) Practical knowledge: understanding
the practical domain identifies human social Emancipatory Emancipation Critical social
interaction or ‘communicative action’. Social (criticism and (reflection) sciences (critical
knowledge is governed by binding consensual liberation) theory methods)
norms, which define reciprocal expectations about (See: Roderick 1986; Schroyer 1973; Healey 1996; Forester
1993)
behavior between individuals. Social norms can
be related to empirical or analytical propositions,
but their validity is grounded ‘only in the inter- Summary of Habermas’ three domains of
subjectivity of the mutual understanding of knowledge Habermas’ three domains of knowl-
intentions’. The criterion of clarification of con- edge their related methods have very strong and
ditions for communication and intersubjectivity meaningful implication for the practice of urban
(the understanding of meaning rather than design. In fact the very nature of the field of
causality) is used to determine what is appropriate urban design makes the integrative application of
action. Much of the historical-hermeneutic these methods inevitable.
 Conclusion
There is ample evidence today to show that man,
from the beginning of civilization and throughout
history, has sought to gain some kind of control
and impose some sort of order on his/her phys-
ical environment. Although these general goals
of control and order have basically remained the
same in time, their meanings, interpretations and
means through which control and order are
attained, have been constantly changing. In every
period of history, the needs, preferences and
aspirations of a society have been the determi-
nant factors that defined and specified the means
to and ends of those general goals. The Industrial
Revolution brought about a turning point in the
nature of the means and ends pursued in urban
design. The traditional artifact gave way to the
giant megalopolis: the artistic subject of civic
design was transformed into the scientific area of
urban design and city planning; and the purpose
of designing cities changed from magnificent
levels of achievement and artistry to practical
efficiency, comfort and justice in the cities.
Today the subject matter of urban design
includes form as well as function, aesthetics as
well as efficiency and process as well as product.
The means to these ends have to be also modified
accordingly.
The knowledge base of urban design contains
the means for achieving the established goals.
Recognition of this knowledge base and its
components seems to be a significant step toward
a better understanding of the ends, the means and
means-ends relationship in urban design.
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_6
6
The knowledge base of urban design, as any
other field, consists of two major elements: Pro-
cedural elements, which deal with the know-how,
and the substantive elements, which deal with the
know-what of urban design. Against the traditional
view it was argued that intuitive methods should
be applied to formal elements and scientific
methods to functional elements. Moreover, it was
suggested that the integration of intuitive and
scientific methods can result in a more powerful
and effective tool for urban design.
It was suggested in Chap. 2 that the primary
concern of urban design is with formal aspects,
i.e., urban form and its perceptual and visual
attributes. But urban form, as the container of
urban activities, is not separable from its content,
because there is always a reciprocal but complex
relationship between the two. Urban activities,
therefore, are regarded as the secondary concern
in urban design. The knowledge base of urban
design, therefore, consists of urban form, urban
activity systems and the integrated intuitive and
scientific methods.
The bulk of knowledge in any area of disci-
pline is generally too vast and unorganized to be
mastered by anyone interested in a particular
area. There is need for an instrument or tool to
facilitate the acquisition of this knowledge, the
ability to communicate with it, develop it and
apply it. It is only language, in its broad sense,
that can play such a critical role. Language is the
key to knowledge. It is the tool of communica-
tion and representation. The knowledge base of
87
88
urban design, therefore, may be represented by
the language of urban design. There are certain
requirements and qualifications to be met by this
language in order to be acceptable. The minimum
requirements of any language are: Vocabulary,
which are the smallest meaningful signs; and
grammar or syntax, which are sets of rules and
principles to be used in building larger structures.
Besides these two requirements, there are also
certain criteria to be met by those signs and rules
if they are to qualify as legitimate elements of
language. The language of urban design is for-
mulated on the basis of these general definition,
requirements and qualifications of language, and
it is believed to exhaustively represent its
knowledge base.
The vocabulary of the urban design language
consists of two groups of signs, each represent-
ing one of the substantive areas of urban design.
The first is urban space which represents urban
form and its attributes. The second, the urban
activity circuits, represents urban activity sys-
tems. Both of these are the smallest complete
units of the subjects they represent, i.e., urban
form and urban activity systems, and therefore,
include the same characteristics.
The critical role of these signs is that they
identify exclusively and inclusively, the very
subject matter (substance) of the field by differ-
entiating between the signs that represent urban
design and other similar signs, such as architec-
ture or urban planning. These signs will indicate
the primary focus of the field as well as other
related areas.
While signs of the language identify the
specific scope and concern of the urban design,
grammar or rules, on the other hand, provide
the procedural tools to be used in the
decision-making and action-taking of urban
design. These rules deal with both formal and
functional elements of urban design and are an
integration of intuitive and scientific methods
and processes. The rules are heavily interrelated
and interdependent and, therefore, must be
applied in an integrated manner.
6 Conclusion
The process of integrating these rules and also
their applications to the substantive elements of
urban design—urban space and activity circuits
—require a unifying element. This we find in
intuition. We may conclude here by pointing out
that this study and its findings must be regarded
as an introductory efforts which intends to
introduce the knowledge base and language of
urban design as a new approach to the develop-
ment of the urban design theory. Extensive study
is, however, needed to develop these findings
further. Such efforts are particularly felt in the
case of proposed rules and principles, in order to
extend their practical and operational applica-
tions to an effective and meaningful level.
As mentioned earlier, the signs and rules were
defined and formulated here in such an abstract
form to represent the universal language of urban
design. They are, therefore, value-free and their
application in a particular environment is mean-
ingless unless they are modified on the basis of
the local conditions.
We may conclude by presenting a summary of
the main points discussed in the book:
1. An integrative knowledge base of urban design,
as the repertoire of the field, was introduced.
2. The global (universal), and local languages
(theories) of urban design, and their related rules
and principles were proposed on the basis of
logical definition, with structures and criteria
drawn from philosophy and linguistics.
3. The subject matter, realm, and scope of urban
design was defined exclusively and inclusively.
4. The traditionally contradictory areas of form
and function, and science and intuition were
proposed to be integrated into a unified
knowledge and language of urban design.
The proposed language (or theory) of urban
design may be called integrative because it
includes substantive (urban form, urban space
and urban activities), as well as procedural (sci-
entific, artistic and intuitive) elements. It is also
integrative because it covers at least two levels of
practice domain: global (universal) as well as
local (culture-specific)
 Appendix
Practical Implication of the
Proposed Language of Urban
Design
The principles of Quantization and Main Struc-
ture (as an implication of the unity-multiplicity
and order-disorder principles).
The purpose of this part of the book is to show
how some of the principles and rules mentioned
as the components of the integrative theory of
urban design may be applied in the practice of
urban design. Several of those rules are fre-
quently used by practicing urban designers,
others, however, are not quite known to them.
Here the principle of quantization, which is least
known and applied by practitioners, and also the
Main Structure concept, which has numerous
potential applications, will be explained.
A. Quantization is based on two concepts of
continuity and discontinuity. The concept of
discontinuity was first introduced in nature by
Quantum Theory7 of Max Plank in 1900. The
theory has since extended from mechanics to
physics (radiation), chemistry (see Andrew
and Kokes 1965) (electron, proton, and neu-
tron), aggregated (crystals), thermodynamics,
biology (Kendrew 1966), music (Rayleigh
1945), and art and architecture (Thiel 1968).
In the physical environment one can find the
complementary aspects of continuity and
discontinuity in the form of fluctuation in the
level of information (Buchanan 1974). In the
structures made of these fluctuations (or
waves), there are the complementary aspects
of repetition and variation. The bundles of
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8
these waves are combined in the total struc-
ture to produce organic complexes that are
more than the sum of the component parts
(Gestalt). We will see that the physical envi-
ronment provides patterns which follow the
quantization rules. These rules will provide
new insights into the correlation of ideas and
concepts in urban design. Patterns and patt-
ernization are essential to all human senses
and intellect. The ear becomes quasi-deaf to a
continuous tone. Also, scanning is necessary
to have any sensation of vision at all. The
brain also demands patterns.
Neither a steady flux nor an unpatterned ran-
dom flux can be organized into experience. Non
patterned experience would most likely stall
man’s perspective and intellective processes.
For the purpose of this book, Quantization
deals with the perceptual and visual aspects of the
environment. Since some of the principles of
information theory and communication theory
will be used in this part, a brief description of the
basic definitions and concepts of these two the-
ories seem necessary. The fundamental idea in the
information theory is that of stochastic process.
A stochastic process is any system which gives
rise to a sequence of symbols to which probability
laws apply. A stochastic process is characterized
by some degree of redundancy between 0 and
100 %. At the zero-redundancy extreme, all the
symbols generated have equal probability of
occurrence, and nothing that we may know about
the history of the sequence makes the next sym-
bol any more predictable. At the opposite
extreme, at 100 % redundancy, symbols are
89
90
Fig. A.1 The minimum and maximum level of redundancy
generated in an altogether lawful and regular
sequence, such that one can predict with complete
certainty what the next symbol will be (Fig. A.1).
Although the most interesting sequences fall
somewhere between these two extremes, it is
instructive to consider the variety of ways in
which a sequence may be completely redundant.
The simplest kind of complete redundancy
occurs when one symbol has a probability of
one, and others have zero probability, so that the
sequences is of the form AAAAAAAA… This
may be called the first order of redundancy,
while ABABABABAB… Is the second order of
redundancy, and, AABBAABBAABB… is the
third order redundancy, and so forth, to the Nth
order of redundancy. Prediction of a given
symbol depends upon a knowledge of the one,
two, three, etc. of the preceding ones. Commu-
nication theory was first formulated systemati-
cally by Claude Shannon in a paper entitled ‘A
mathematical theory of communication’ (Shan-
non 1949). The flow of information, of all kinds,
is the source of activities and actions changing
our environment. On the basis of what we per-
ceive from our environment we modify our
actions which lead to changes in that environ-
ment. This is of course a mutual and reciprocal
relationship (Rapoport 1976). We change the
environment according to our needs and desires,
but at the same time we are affected by envi-
ronment in many ways. It is a dynamic and
ongoing activity. In general terms, we have
communication wherever one system, or a
source, influences the states or actions of another
Fig. A.2 Four elements of a communication process
Appendix
system, choosing the destination or receiver by
selecting among alternative signals that can be
carried in the channel connecting them (Ozgood
et al. 1957, p. 272). On the basis of this defini-
tion, therefore, there will be at least four elements
which are involved in a communication activity.
This mode of communication is the one-to-
one mode, while there are also several other
types of communication commonly used:
one-to-many (TV messages), one-to-himself (one
individual being simulated by the symbols he
produces himself), and, many-to-one (one person
using all sources of information: parent, teacher,
TV, media, etc.).
All of these modes will be working in our case,
in one way or another. The relationship between
person and environment is multi-dimensional and
complex. It is more of a cybernetics nature, than
single linear one (Fig. A.2).
Transmission of a message from S to R
requires using signs10 and symbols (sign sys-
tem)11. Actually, the message itself is a group of
signs and symbols put together in a certain order.
The sender encodes the message or the infor-
mation through the channel he is using and the
receiver decodes that. The signs used for this
purpose should have the same significance
(meaning) for the sender and receiver, otherwise
communication is not complete.
Meaning is certainly involved at both the ini-
tiation (the intentions being encoded by the
source) and the termination (the significances
being decoded by the receiver) of any communi-
cation act. Meaning is related to mutually
Appendix
Fig. A.3 Characteristics of two extreme levels of redundancy
understood information rather than to
self-information. But what is meaning? Anything
acquires meaning if it is connected with, or indi-
cates, or refers to, something beyond itself, so that
its full nature points to and is revealed in that
connection (Cohen 1944, p. 47).
Aesthetics may be said to be a kind of com-
munication. The source (artist, designer, com-
poser, writer, poet, etc.) encodes in the medium
of his special talent, presumably expressing his
own meanings or intentions by his selections
among alternatives (colors, texture, tempo, har-
monies, metaphor, word-choices, etc.). There is
aesthetic communication to the extent to which
receivers (the audience) experience correspond-
ing meanings, or significances upon decoding the
signs produced by the source. The built envi-
ronment may be also used as a strong source of
information for communication purposes
between people and the environment and even-
tually between people themselves.
Transmission of information between S and R
is only when there is a gap of information
between S and R. In other words, this occurs
when the level of uncertainty (lack of informa-
tion) concerning certain subject, in R is more
than S, or the level of certainty (information) in S
is more than R. Uncertainty is a situation where
we are not sure of how an activity will happen. In
tossing a coin, for example, the level of uncer-
tainty is 1/2, where in tossing a dice it decreases
to 1/6, and in falling predicting when the sky lab
pieces would fall in 1979, it was 1/2,000,000.
The uncertainty, therefore, may be measured
mathematically through probability theories and
91
stochastic methods12. If information, then, is
measured in terms of the uncertainty which the
message events remove, it still remains to choose
a unit of measure. In terms of the uncertainty
which the message events remove, it still remains
to choose a unit of measure.
Two extreme poles may be said to exist
regarding the level of information, or certainty,
as shown in Fig. A.3.
In 0 % redundancy, whatever happens was not
expected to happen, and all what happens is new.
The level of uncertainty (new information) is
maximum, which is called ‘nullifying’. In this
situation it is impossible to predict what will
follow the present event. It leads to a situation of
illusion, in which no complete perception of the
system is possible. In one hundred percent
redundancy, on the contrary, whatever happens
was expected in advance, and nothing that hap-
pen is new. The new information is minimum. No
differentiation is possible in this case, because the
content is homogenous. It is similar to playing a
recorded message many times14. After the first
few hearings, although it still remains meaning-
ful, it ceases to convey any new information. Its
reiteration is without any surprise, it ‘tells us
nothing new,’ it removes no uncertainty; its
probability is close to 1, which is maximal.
Information is directly related to the degree of
freedom of choice by which symbols are selected
from a source-alphabet. If anything at all may
occur next, information (level of uncertainty) is
high: ‘we do not know what to expect.’ But every
limitation imposed on selectivity results in a
decrease in the quality of information which the
92
selected symbols contain. As the average uncer-
tainty or entropy of the symbols decreases,
redundancy increases, and the sequence (or
sequences) begin to ‘make sense!
Perception is an open-ended process. A thing
presents itself as real to the extent to which its
features include indications for future perception,
and those indications continue to be fulfilled by
actual subsequent perceptions. If they are not
fulfilled or if they are fulfilled in a wholly unex-
pected way, the meaning of the whole process of
perceiving this object is transmitted: it becomes
an illusion or a perception of a different object.
The existence of a world is the correlate of
certain experiences—patterns marked out by
certain essential formation. The existence of each
real thing and of the world as ‘the totality of
object that can be known through experience is
thus presumptive or contingent in the sense that
no complete fulfillment of the system of implicit
references is possible. If none of the ‘potential’
aspects of current experience (aspects which
constitute the meaning of the perceptual object)
were fulfilled from moment to moment, the
world—the regular unrolling of ordered patterns
—would exist no longer.
Fig. A.4 Two extreme field of colors: color constancy and regular pattern. Neither of which is efficient in conveying
Fig. A.5 The meaningless points of communication
Appendix
Such a process would cease to make sense as
the uncertainty about subsequent moments
increased. The information-content would be
maximal because it would be impossible to pre-
dict what would follow. Experience would be
meaningless since, ‘reality and world…are just
new information. The titles for certain unities of
meaning, namely the Markovian perceptual pro-
cess. Meaning, therefore, may be said to be
redundancy in a stochastic process (Fig. A.4).
Both extremes are undesirable, from the
standpoint of efficient communication. Sending
more, or less, information than the capacity of the
channel is certainly not efficient and will not be
desirable. Every physical channel has, as Shan-
non (1949) suggests, a definite numeral capacity
for conveying information. When the rate of
information transfer is less than the channel
capacity, it is possible to ‘code’ the information in
such a way that it will reach the receiver with
arbitrary high fidelity. Or conversely, if the rate of
information transfer exceeds channel capacity,
then the surplus information will inevitably be
lost in the transmission (Fig. A.5).
To achieve reliable communication this
requires that the source rate be reduced to a point
Appendix
between channel capacity. Since information in
the technical sense is a priori uncertainty, the
information rate of a source is just the uncertainty
per second of the symbols which it generates.
Both extremes are meaningless. One, the maxi-
mal information is called the ‘nullifying’ of the
world, and the other, an ‘undifferentiated per-
ceptual field’.
This means that a really homogeneous area
offers nothing to perception. Such an area has a
complete lack of perceptual differentiation. One
literally does not see anything new. The infor-
mation content is minimal. Nothing changes;
there is nothing to explore visually; every
moment is exactly like its predecessors. One way
for the source to lower its information rate is to
reduce the number of symbolic per second
without reducing the uncertainty of each symbol.
Second, to generate as many symbols as origi-
nally with less uncertainty per symbol. In such an
instance, the source, symbol is determined in
large part by the symbols that have gone before
and those that follow: The context will provide
clues. When the second method of source rate
reduction is chosen, the source will be using
more symbols than are needed simply to hold the
information. A ‘code’ consists of rules by which
a context is created among the symbols, and the
redundancy of the code is the percentage of
‘extra’ symbols that result from the creation of
context. Less information is spread over more
Fig. A.6 Information. Uncertainty removed per second in order to reduce that information and make communication
more efficient
93
context15. Pattern a is a homogenous one, where
its configuration is made of “A” patterns, which
includes continuity, but lack diversity and com-
plexity, and, therefore, is undesirable to make the
environment exciting and diversified. Pattern b,
on the other hand, is neither completely hetero-
geneous to provide diversity and complexity, nor
is completely homogenous to provide continuity.
It is, therefore, also undesirable. Pattern c, which
is a heterogeneous one, includes diversity, com-
plexity and also continuity, and, therefore, can be
regarded as a desirable pattern. The implication
of these patterns may be seen in two different
layouts in a hypothetical neighborhood (see
Figs. A.6, A.7 and A.8).
This is the same way in which musical notes
are made. If the channel or medium is overloaded
with information, then effective communication
is not possible. It is clear, as the technical term,
‘channel-capacity’ suggests, that it is information
with which the music is overloaded and that this
is precisely why it does not make sense, or does
not convey any meaning. The third alternative of
transforming information is what is appropriately
achieved by our built environment. If Rapoport
(1967, 1970, 1977) and others (Arnheim 1966;
Venturi 1966) talk about the necessity of ambi-
guity and complexity in the environment, this
example will justify their claim. The quantization
concept can be applied to urban design in the
same way that the linguistic approach was
94 Appendix

Fig. A.7 Two undesirable situations of information frequency in the environment (1 and 2), and a desirable one (3)

Fig. A.8 The undesirable and desirable situations in the environment based on three different forms of information
frequencies (a, b and c)

applied earlier. Let us start with the same house and the characteristics of its residents. On
assumption that there could be a direct relation- the basis of this assumption, then, each house
ship between the physical characteristics of a will be a reflection and representation of its
Appendix
inhabitants. It is natural to believe that each
group of residents (of a house) are unique in their
values, needs, wants, desires, and other charac-
teristics. The second house next to the first one,
therefore, will have some physical features which
are different from the first one, based on these
differences. The same will be true for the third
house, and so on. A viewer or perceiver will be
exposed to a different level of uncertainty by
looking at these houses. Each house will give
new information to the viewer, but there will be
also some shared information between two
adjacent houses, which provides continuity and
consistency in the information one receives.
Information may be, then, equated with meaning.
According to Gestaltists, therefore, the combi-
nation of two houses creates a meaning, greater
than the sum of the individual house. It is such
accumulation of information, or meaning that
create the sense of neighborhood.
Fig. A.9 Two different layouts (a, up and b, down) in a neighborhood, based on two different levels of information
created
95
It is not only the symbolic appearance of
houses which will be the sources of information
(to remove uncertainty), but also the pattern and
structure of the block or neighborhood may be
designed and arranged in a way to enhance the
amount of information it gives to a certain
desirable level (Fig. A.9).
In (b), for example, the layout of the block, or
district, does not provide any new information.
In the second case—(a)—another dimension of
new information has been added to the previous
one—that is the perception and feeling of space
as one moves through the space. In b, although
the individual units are sources of new infor-
mation, because of the way they are lined up
along two straight lines, they lose a lot of
information because the channel of transmission
is overloaded. This will eventually lead to an
inefficient perception, and communication (high
degree of redundancy). In b, on the other hand,
96
the amount of information the viewer receives in
any point in the path is limited to a certain level,
and therefore, its efficiency is very high. The
most important point about this approach is that,
by application of stochastic models and the
Markovian chain, we can measure and quantify
the perceptual aspects of the environment. The
volume of information is called entropy, and
comes in bits. Perceptual variables, of all kinds,
may be translated into measurable information
units. At each point, then, we will be able to
determine the probability range of what come
next. At a still further stage we may also be able
to include another variable into the model. The
perceptual process also depends on the speed of
the viewer (see Arnheim 1969; Appleyard et al.
1964; Halprin 1969). The higher the speed of
the viewer, the more the amount of information
one receives, and vice versa. The redundancy
level will be, therefore, different for a path
designed for pedestrians, and the one designed
for motor vehicles. A path designed for pedes-
trians might be redundant and uninteresting for
drivers, simply because the amount of informa-
tion one receives from the environment in each
case is different. B. Main Structure will be
explained through a hypothetical design process
for a neighborhood. Neighborhood planning
and design have gained special value for urban
designers, not only because the essence of
neighborhood is lost in today’s cities, but also
because it is the social and physical foundation
for higher level (scale) of urbanization. A neigh-
borhood may be considered as an ‘open system’,
with its all characteristics and rules. In any sys-
tem, or any discipline, there are some kind of
individual or unit, which is the smallest complete
structure in that system and is the basis for the
construction of any larger structures, such as the
electron, virus, cell, plant, animal, man, family,
firm, note, and so on. Each individual or unit
exhibits behavior which relates it to the
Fig. A.10 Transmission of information for point A to B
Appendix
environment—that is, with other individuals with
which it comes into contact or into some
relationship.
The house may be considered as the smallest
complete unit of a neighborhood. The residents
of a house (the family) and all their activities and
relationships outside and also with the physical
structure of the house constitute the desired
individual or unit in this case. This unit may be,
of course further broken down into smaller units
and components, the same way that an atom is
broken down into electron and neutron. Such a
decomposition, however, will not be of any use
here. It is necessary here to make a utopian
assumption that there is a direct relationship, as is
used to be in the case of the preindustrial city,
between the characteristics (value, needs, de-
sires, etc.) of the inhabitants of the house and its
physical structure. In other words, that the
physical structure (size, form, style, color,
materials, symbols, etc.) of the house is a direct
and complete manifestation of different charac-
teristics of those who live in the house. The
house, according to this assumption, is a
dynamic and living (organic) structure which
evolves and changes in time to reflect the chan-
ges that occur in the inhabitant’s value systems.
Using the analogy of linguistics, the house, as
the smallest unit of neighborhood, may be com-
pared with a ‘word’ (and not a letter, of course).
Word is the smallest meaningful unit of a lan-
guage, in the same way that house is the smallest
meaningful unit of a neighborhood. Both word
and house have their own independent meanings,
based on their reasons for being. Bearing mean-
ing means the transformation of information from
point A, for example, to point B (see Fig. A.10).
A word, however, plays a very distinctive
rule, along with other words, in constructing a
‘sentence’. We are now beginning to make use of
another integrative principle of urban design—
the hierarchy principle. A sentence—a collection
Appendix
Fig. A.11 The three-level hierarchy of word, sentence paragraph (and text)
of several words based on some specific rules
(grammar or syntax)—conveys a meaning
(message) which, according to Gestalt principle,
is greater than the sum of the individual mean-
ings of words. Each word, through its meaning,
helps the construction of the sentence. The
meaning of the sentence, however, is indepen-
dent of the meaning of individual words. It is
obvious that the formation of the general mean-
ing of a sentence depends not only on the inde-
pendent meaning of each and every individual
word, but also on a meaningful relationship
between all the words in the sentence. These
relationships should follow certain rules to be
meaningful. In our linguistic analogy here, sen-
tence may be considered to be equivalent to a
‘block’. A block is a group of houses built next
to each other with some interrelationships (socio-
economic, religious, cultural, etc.) based on
certain rules and principles. A block, like a
sentence, has its independent meaning, which is
greater than the sum of the individual meanings
of the comprising houses. Meanwhile, each
house, through its meaning and on the basis of
the certain rules adds to the construction of the
general meaning of the block. This, as in the case
of sentence, requires some kind of relationships
between the individual houses. Lack of such a
relationship between the individual houses will
result in a gap which will eventually damage the
whole meaning of the block, or the sentence.
A block built on the basis of certain rules and
relationships between the units will undoubtedly
be understandable to each member of the block,
because each member has helped to the construc-
tion of the whole meaning and its meaning is part
of the whole. Each unit contributes to the whole
97
meaning, although the whole is relatively inde-
pendent of each individual member. The block is
not a fixed, static and dead structure. It evolves,
grows, and decays in time. People’s values in each
house changes in time and so do what they rep-
resent—symbols. This is a two-way relation-
ship. Each member of the block contributes to the
evolution of the block, but is also affected by such
an evolutionary trend. The changes in the block are
usually not very drastic. The block has its relative
stability, continuity and consistency.
Sentences make the paragraph. Each sentence,
it may be also said, bears meaning relatively
independent of the paragraph. Each sentence,
through the meaning it conveys, contributes to
the construction of the general meaning of the
paragraph, which again is greater than the sum of
the meanings of all the individual sentences.
A meaningful relationship between the sentences
is again a prerequisite for the construction of a
meaningful paragraph. Such a relationship
should be based on certain commonly accepted
rules and principles.
In the same way blocks construct a neigh-
borhood (Figs. A.12 and A.13). The meaning
(message) a neighborhood conveys is greater
than the block. This meaning8 is also more
complete than the meaning of the block, indi-
vidually and collectively. This hierarchical sys-
tem moves toward perfection and self-
sufficiency. They cumulate upward, and the
emergence of qualities marks the degree of
complexity of the conditions prevailing at a
given level, as well as giving to that level its
relative autonomy. The higher the level, the
greater its variety of characteristics. A higher
level cannot be reduced to the lower. According
98 Appendix

Fig. A.12 Three level hierarchy of house, block, and neighborhood

Fig. A.13 Conceptual sketches of house, block, and neighborhood

to the hierarchy principle, therefore, basic needs
which are in demand more frequently than others
may be provided at the neighborhood level,
while specialized goods and services, may be
provided at the city, regional or national levels.
Hierarchical linguistic concepts may be further
applied on a larger scale, such as to cities,
metropolitan areas, regions, and so on. We will,
however, limit our discussion here to the neigh-
borhood level (Fig. A.11).
Although it was mentioned earlier that the
meaning of a sentence or a paragraph is relatively
independent of the meaning of individual words
or sentences (in the case of a paragraph),
exceptions, however, should be made to this
principle. There are certain words (or a group of
words) in each sentence and certain sentences in
each paragraph that bear an important and critical
meaning and, therefore, play an essential role in
constructing the general meaning of the sentence
or paragraph. The words with such critical role
are, in linguistic term, called ‘deep structure’9.
Since this concept has several strong implica-
tions for urban design practice, therefore, it will
be discussed here in more details. Deep structure
is that part (word) of a sentence, or a paragraph,
which conveys most of the information, or
meaning of a sentence or paragraph. The equiv-
alent of deep structure in the block may be easily
found, by looking for the elements in a sentence
Appendix
or paragraph which conveys most of the infor-
mation in the environment: a landmark, a mos-
que or a church, a neighborhood shop, a single
tree, a square, etc. Deep structure holds rela-
tionship with all or most of the members of the
block or neighborhood, and therefore, it is the
focal point and the point of identity, unity, con-
tinuity, and order for a neighborhood. Each
member of the neighborhood has minimum, but
continuous and frequent relationship with the
main structure, which will make it more powerful
and meaningful than any other single unit.
The concept of deep structure has been
applied as the main structure in urban design by
several theorists (see for example: Maki 1964;
Bacon 1967). From what was said before, we
might now conclude that the idea of deep or main
structure has a very significant implication in the
practice of urban design, because we can actually
create such a structure in a neighborhood delib-
erately to establish some sense of unity, identity,
stability, cohesiveness, diversity, complexity,
legibility, and order. This may be done by rec-
ognizing the common values, needs and desires
of the members of a neighborhood. These are
that part of the values, needs, or any other
characteristics of the individuals which will be
expressed and reflected outside the house. These
common values and characteristics may be
accumulated and reflected in a structure of any
nature, as the main structure of the neighbor-
hood. To form a deep structure, therefore, (a) the
shared and common characteristics (religious,
social, cultural, economic, etc.) must exist; and
Fig. A.14 a Formation of one single main structure—centralization. b Formation of the three elements of the main
structure—Poli centers
99
(b) each individual must participate in giving its
share to the structure and taking from it. In other
words, communication or transmission of infor-
mation must occur.
It is desirable, of course, as in the case of the
preindustrial city, to see the main structure being
formed naturally, gradually and spontaneously
through the evolutionary processes of the soci-
ety. The role of urban designer, however, is to
help this happen, if it does not by itself. The main
structure, because of its critical and sensitive role
can and should be in the realm of public interest
and control. It may be used as a source of con-
trol, guidance, and stability for a neighborhood
or a city. Using Paul Klee’s drawings as analogy,
main structure means discipline, while surface
structure is freedom. Discipline in the main
structure consists of the same rules and principles
that govern the formation of a sentence or a
paragraph. In linguistic terms, they are called
grammar or syntax. While the main structure
should remain in the control of public sector, or
urban designer, surface structure, or the rest of
the block or neighborhood, may be left to the
individual residents, private interests, and archi-
tects. This concept provides a very simplified
distinction between the role of urban designer
versus the role of architects in urban planning
and urban design (Figs. A.14 and A.15).
Deep structure, as it was mentioned earlier,
may appear in a variety of forms to fulfill a
variety of economic, social, religious, cultural
and recreational functions. These functions of the
deep structure which is shared by all or most of
100
Fig. A.15 Variety of forms in main structure
the neighborhood residents, provides unity and
wholeness, and a strong overall theme for a
neighborhood. This feeling of togetherness, and
wholeness is very essential for the realization of
a meaningful neighborhood. The principles of
hierarchy will determine the size, location, and
also the nature of the main structure. The lin-
guistic concept used in the previous analysis is
similar to the information theory and communi-
cation theory. The only difference is in the tools
and approaches used in each theory. The lin-
guistic concept relies on intuition and common
sense for the analysis and justification, while the
information theory tries to measure and quantify
the relationships (through the information trans-
mitted) and, therefore, rationalize the processes,
decisions, and actions
Note
1. Changes that took place before the early
nineteenth century are referred to as evolu-
tionary. It is believed that the Industrial
Revolution caused revolutionary changes in
man’s conception of the urban environment
(see Marshall 2009)
2. Human knowledge is defined by Hegel as the
‘result or product of a process called cogni-
tion, which is the process or act of knowing.
Appendix
G.W.F. Hegel, quoted in Problems of
Knowledge by Earnst Cassirer (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1950), p. 3.
3. Urban design is defined here as those pur-
poseful decisions and actions which are
intended to establish functional and formal
order in the physical environment. As such,
it involves a highly organized mental process
capable of manipulating various types of
information, and blending them together to
generate a coherent set of ideas for ordering
the physical environment.
4. The subject matter of epistemology is human
knowledge. The word epistemology is
derived from the Greek words of episteme
(knowledge) and the logos (speech, thought).
Other terms used synonymously with epis-
temology are theory of knowledge and
criteriology. Epistemology may be defined as
that branch of philosophy which studies the
value or truth of human knowledge. It is a
philosophical examination of knowledge
in an endeavor to enlighten us as to its
worth. The constructive aspect of epistemol-
ogy, then, is the study of knowledge as
knowledge. See Barron, Elements of Episte-
mology (New York: The McMillan Co.,
1931, p. 2).
5. The units in architecture, for example, may
be identified as architectural space and
architectural activities.
Appendix
6. In regard to normative aspects of urban form,
for example, Lynch has suggested the fol-
lowing seven criteria, five of which he calls
performance dimensions and two meta cri-
teria: Vitality, sense, fit, access, control,
efficiency, and justice. Kevin Lynch, A
Theory of Good City Form (Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press, 1981).
7. Quantum Theory explains the variation
(quantization) of intensity with wave length in
black body radiation.
8. Meaning represents information, which in
turn, represents the existence of activities or
the results of activities.
9. Deep structure of a sentence contains the
information necessary to represent the basic
meaning of that sentence. In other words, it
is possible to interpret the meaning of a
sentence from its deep structure.
10. A sign is something that makes something
other than itself present to knowledge, or to
symbolizes something.
11. This is based on a concept called ‘equilib-
rium’ in physics and chemistry.
12. The Markovian Chain, for example. For
application see: (Bell 1975).
101
13. Row Public housing is a good example in
urban design, which is 100 % redundant,
because it is one plan built many times, or
this form seems to be maximally meaningful.
It makes sense, produces no surprises, and
requires a minimal amount information to
define its shape. It is boring because nothing
new is happening. This form is a differenti-
ated perceptual field, and therefore, has a
sense. Each part arouses the expectation of
more than it contains, and this elementary
perception is therefore, already charged with
meaning (based on Gestaltists).
14. It is, for example, said that there are two
ways of conveying information to students.
One is by going slowly with a very compact
presentation, the other going with a rapid
rate, with redundancy, using examples,
illustrations, rewording, etc.
15. Regarding the discontinuity of the messages,
Peckam’s (1976) contention is that the
function of the artist is to produce a shock of
surprise: ‘his role requires him to create an
unpredicted situation.’ His book’s central
thesis is: the work of art comes into being by
‘discontinuity.’ The violation of form or
more exactly of the receiver’s expectation.
 References
Abaza, H., and A. Baranzini. 2002. Implementing
sustainable development: Integrated Assessment and
participatory decision-making processes. United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
Abercrombie, P. 1959. Town and country planning. 3rd
ed. Revised by Rigby Childs D. London: Oxford
University Press.
Aberley, D. (ed.). 1994. Futures by design: the practice of
ecological planning. Gabriola Island: New Society
Publishers.
Abrams, C. 1965. The city is the frontier. New York:
Harper Colophon Books.
Abrams, C. 1971. The language of cities: a glossary of
terms. New York: The Viking Press.
Ackerman, J.S. 1983. The Tuscan-Rustic order; a study in
the metaphorical language of architecture. Journal of
the Society of Architectural Historians 42(3): 311.
Alexander, C. 1964. Notes on synthesis of urban form.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building.
Oxford University Press
Alexander, C. 2002. The nature of order: an essay on the
art of building and the nature of the universe. Book
one: The phenomenon of life. Berkeley: The Center for
Environmental Structure.
Alexander, C., S. Ishikawa, and M. Silverstein. 1968. A
Pattern language which generates multi-service cen-
ters. Berkeley: Center for Environmental Structure.
Alexander, C., et al., 1977. A pattern language, towns,
buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University
Press
Alexander, C., H. Neis, A. Anninou, and I. King. 1987. A
new theory of urban design. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Appleyard, D. 1981. Livable streets. Berkeley: University
of California.
Appleyard, D., and A. Jacobs. 1982. Towards an urban
design manifesto. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and
Regional Development, University of California.
Appleyard, D., K. Lynch, and J.R. Myer. 1964. The view
from the road. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Aravot, I. 1996. From reading forms to hierarchical
architecture: An approach to urban design. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research 13–2: 107–118.
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8
Ardalan, N., and L. Bakhtiar. 1975. The sense of unity.
The University of Chicago.
Arnheim, R. 1966. Order and complexity in landscape
design. In Toward a psychology of art, 123–35.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Atkinson, A. 1992. The urban bioregion as ‘sustainable
development paradigm’. Third World Planning
Review 14(4): 327–354.
Audirac, I. 2002. Information technology and urban form.
Journal of Planning Literature 17(2).
Bacon, E. 1974. Design of cities. New York: Penguin.
Bafna, S. 2003. Space syntax: a brief introduction to its
logic and analytical techniques. Environment and
Behavior 35(1): 17–29.
Bahrainy, H. 1981. Recognition of the knowledge base
and language of urban design. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Washington.
Bahrainy, H. 1995. Persian-Islamic language of urban
design. In Proceedings of the congress of the Iranian
history of architecture and urbanism. Cultural Her-
itage Organization of Iran, Ark Bam, Kerman, Iran,
February 1995.
Bahrainy, H. 1998. Urban space analysis and design in
relation to users’ behavior patterns. Tehran: Univer-
sity of Tehran Press. (in Persian).
Bahrainy, H. 1998. Urban design process. Tehran:
University of Tehran Press. (in Persian).
Bahrainy, H., and B. Aminzadeh. 2007. Autocratic urban
design: the case of the Navab Regeneration Project in
Central Tehran. International Development Planning
Review 29(2).
Banham, R. 1976. Megastructure: Urban futures of the
recent past. London: Thames and Hudson.
Bannerjee, T., and M. Southworth (eds.). 1991. City sense
and city design: Writings and projects of Kevin Lynch.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Barnett, J. 1974. Urban design as public policy. New
York: Architectural Record Books.
Barnett, J. 1982. An introduction to urban design. New
York: Harper & Row.
Barnett, J. 2003. Redesigning cities: Principles, practice,
implementation. Chicago: Planners Press.
Barnett, J. 2011. City design, modernist, traditional, green
and systems perspectives. New York: Routledge.
103
104
Baron, J. 1931. Elements of epistemology. New York: The
McMillan Co.
Batty, M. 2012. Building a science of cities. Cities 29
(Supplement 1): S9–S16.
Bell, E.J. 1975. Stochastic analysis of urban development.
Environment and Planning.
Berg, P., and R. Dasmann. 1977. Rein habiting Califor-
nia. The Ecologist 7(10): 399–401.
Berke, P., and M. Manta-Conroy. 2000. Are we planning
for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30
comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Plan-
ning Association 66(1): 21–33.
Berry, B., and L.S. Bourne (eds). 1971. General features
of urban commercial structure. In International struc-
ture of the city. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bogdanovic, B. 1975. Symbols in the city and the city as
symbol. Ekistics 232, 140–147.
Broadbent, G. 1990. Emerging concepts in urban space
design. London: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Brown, J.L., D. Dixon, and O. Gillham. 2009. Urban
Design for an urban century, place making for people.
New Jersey: Wiley.
Bull, C., et al. 2007. Cross-cultural urban design: Global
or local practice?. New York: Routledge.
Calthorpe, P. 1989. The pedestrian pocket book: A new
urban strategy. New York: Princeton Architectural
Press.
Carlyle, T. 1939. The best of Carlyle selected essays and
passages, ed. Herbert Le Sou. New York: T. Nelson
and Sons
Carmona, et al. 2003. The communication process. In The
urban design reader. Urban Reader Series, ed Larice,
M. and E. Macdonald (2007). New York: Routledge,
pp. 479–489.
Carruthers, P. 1996. Language, thought and conscious-
ness: an essay in philosophical psychology. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cassirer, E. 1950. Problems of knowledge. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Castells, M. 2000. Grassrooting the space of flows. In
Cities and telecommunications age—The fracturing of
geographies, ed. Wheeler, J.O. New York: Routledge,
pp. 18–27.
Choay, F. 1969. The modern city: Planning in the 19th
century. Translated by Marguenrie Hogo and
George R. Collins. New York: George Brazil.
Choay, F. 1975. Urbanism and semiology. Ekistics 232.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature,
origin and use. Westport, CT
Collin, P. 1965. Changing ideals in modern architecture,
1750–1950. Montreal.
Colman, J. 1988. Urban design: A field of broad
educational innovation. Ekistics 55(328–330).
Congress for the New Urbanism. 2000. Charter of the
new urbanism. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cooke, D. 1957. The language of music. London: Oxford
University Press.
Coseriu, E. 1981. Lecciones De Lienguistica General.
Madrid: Greedos.
Crane, D. 1960. The city symbolic. JAIP 26: 280–292.
References
Crookston, M. 1996. Urban design and urban economics:
just good friends? Built Environment 22(4): 300–305.
Cullen, G. 1971. The concise townscape. New York: Van
Nostrand.
Cuthberth, A.R. 2007. Urban design: requiem for an era
—review and critique of the last 50 years. Urban
Design International 12: 177–223.
Daniel, L.T. 2009. A trail across time: American
environmental planning from city beautiful to sustain-
ability. JAPA 75(2).
Davidoff, P. 1968. The urban experience: A people-
environment perspective.
Davidoff, P., and S. Anderson, eds. 1968. Normative
planning. In Planning for diversity and choice.
Cambridge: MIT Press
Davidson, D. 1975. Thought and talk. In Mind and
Language, ed. Gutternplan, S. Oxford.
Davis, S. 1991. Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford.
Day, K. 2003. New urbanism and the challenges of
designing for diversity. Journal of Planning Educa-
tion and Research 23: 83–95.
DeChiara, J., and L. Koppelman. 1982. Urban planning
and design criteria, 3rd ed. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
Dickie, G. 1971. Aesthetics. New York.
Dobbins, M. 2009. Cited in Brown, L. J. et al. 2009.
Urban design for an urban century, placemaking for
people. New Jersey: Wiley.
Eco-Village Foundation. 1994. Proposal prepared by the
Gaia Trust, May 1994.
Eisenman, P. 1986. Moving arrows, eros and other
errors: An architecture absence. London: The Archi-
tectural Association.
Ellin, N. 1996. Postmodern urbanism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1996. D. M. Borchert,
Editor in chief, McMillan Reference, New York: Vol 7.
Ellin, N. (1999). Postmodern Urbanism (rev edn).
Oxford: Black wells.
Fainstein, S.S. 2000. New directions in planning theory.
Urban Affairs Review 35(4): 451–478.
Fecht, S. 2012. Urban legend: Can city planning shed its
pseudoscientific stigma? Scientific American.
Folley, D.D. 1964. An approach to metropolitan spatial
structure. In Explorations into the urban structure, ed.
Melvin, M. Webber. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the face of power.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Forester, J. 1993. Critical theory, public policy and
planning practice. Albany: State University of New
York press.
Forty, A. 2000. Words and buildings: A vocabulary of
modern architecture. London: Thames and Hudson.
Francis, M. 1984. Mapping downtown activities. Journal
of Architectural and Planning Research 1: 21–35.
Gale, G. 1979. Theory of science: An introduction to the
history, logic, and philosophy of science. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Gale, J. 1979. Techniques and problems of theory
construction in sociology. New York: Wiley.
References
Garreau, J. 1991. Edge city: Life on the new frontier. New
York: Doubleday.
Gibbs, J.P. 1972. Sociological theory construction
(Chap. 3). Oak Brook: The Dryden Press, Inc.
Goodey, B. 1988. Making places: Urban design in
Britain. In The design profession and the built
environment, ed. P.L. Knox. New York: Nichols.
Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of Art. 2nd ed. India polis.
Gosling, D. 1984a. Definitions of urban design. London:
St. Martin’s Press.
Gosling, D. 1984b. Definitions of urban design. Archi-
tectural Design 54(1–2): 31–37.
Gosling, D. 2003. The evolution of American urban
design: Archeological Anthology. New York:
Wiley-Academy.
Gosling, D., and B. Maitland. 1984. Concepts of urban
design. London: Academy Editions/St. Martin’s Press.
Guillerme, J. 1977. The idea of architectural language: A
critical inquiry. Oppositions 21–26.
Gruen, V. 1964. The heart of our cities. The urban crisis:
Diagnosis and cure. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Hage, J. 1972. Techniques and problems of theory
construction in sociology. London: Wiley.
Hall, E. 1959. The silent language. Garden City:
Doubleday.
Hall, P. 1997. Modeling the post-industrial city. Futures
29(4/5): 311–322.
Halprin, L. 1969. Creative process in the
human-environment: The RSVP cycles. New York:
George Braziller, Inc.
Hamlyn, D.W. 1970. The theory of knowledge.
Double-day and Co. Inc.
Hanson, N.R. 1977. The meaning of Waltanschauungen
views. In The Search for philosophic understanding of
scientific theories, ed. Suppe, F. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, pp. 64–635.
Harper, T.L., and Stanley M. Stein. 1992. The centrality
of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning
theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research
11: 105–116.
Harris, N. 2002. Collaborative planning, from theoretical
foundations to practice forms. In Planning futures:
New directions in Planning theory, ed. Allmendinger,
P., and Tewdwr-Jones, M. London: Taylor and
Francis.
Harvey, D. 1972. Social processes. Spatial form and the
redistribution of real income in an urban system. In
The city: Problems of planning, ed. Murray Stewart.
Hardmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Healey, P. 1992. Planning through debate: The commu-
nicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning
Review 63: 143–162.
Healey, P. 1996. The communicative turn in planning
theory and its implications for spatial strategy forma-
tion. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 23: 217–234.
Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning: Shaping places
in fragmented societies. Planning, environment and
cities series. Houndmills: Macmillan.
105
Heath, J. 2001. Communicative action and rational
choice, Cambridge. Mass: The MIT Press.
Hedman, R., and A. Jaszewski. 1984. Fundamentals of
urban design. Washington D.C.: Planners Press.
Hertzberger, H. 1991. Lessons for students in architec-
ture. Rotterdam: Vitgeverij.
Hill, E. 1966. The language of drawin. Englewood Cliffs:
Printice-Hall, Inc.
Hoch, C. 2007. Pragmatic communicative action theory.
Journal of Planning Education and Research 26:
272–283.
Hoskin, F.P. 1968. The language of cities. New York:
Mc- Millan.
Hubbard, P.J. 1992. Environment-behavior research—A
route to good design? Urban Design Quarterly 42: 2–
3.
Inam, A. 2002. Meaningful urban design:
Teleological/catalytic/relevant. Journal of Urban
Design 7(1). Philosophical Psychology 13(3): 325–
353.
Kostoff, S. 1991. The city shaped: Urban patterns and
meaning throughout history, vol. 6. Boston: Little
Brown, pp. 64–71.
Kreditor, A. 1990. The neglect of urban design in the
American academic succession. Journal of Planning
Education and Research 9: 155–163.
Krieger, A. 2009. Where and how does urban design
happen? In Urban design, ed. Krieger, A. et al.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 113–
130.
Krier, R. 1979. Urban space. New York: Rizzoli.
Krier, L. 1992. Leon Krier: Architecture and urban
design 1967–1992. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Kuhn, D., et al. 1988. The development of scientific
thinking skills. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. Second thoughts on paradigms, in
Suppe, F. 1977, The Structure of scientific theories,
2nd ed. Urbana
Kunsttler, J.H. 1996. Home form nowhere. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Lang, J. 1980. The nature of theory for architecture and
urban design. Journal of Urban Design 1(2).
Lang, J. 1987. Creating architectural theory: The role of
the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lang, J. (ed.). 1974. Designing for human behavior:
Architectural and the behavioral science. Strouds-
burg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Lang, J. 1994. Urban design: The American experience,
35–58. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Ishizuki, M., and R. Yanagida. 1995. Digital urban
design. Space Design 8(371): 77–88.
Jacobs, A.B. 1982. Observing and interpreting the urban
environment. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regio-
nal Development, University of California.
Jacobs, A.B. 1985. Looking at cities. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
106
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American
cities. New York: Vintage.
Jencks, C.A. 1977. The language of post-modern archi-
tecture. New York: Rizzoli.
Johnson, K. and H. Johnson, eds. 1998. Encyclopedic
dictionary of applied linguistics. A handbook for
language teaching, 37–38. UK: Blackwell publishers.
Kahn, L. 1969. Silence and light: Louis I. Kahn in Heinz
Ronner, et al.: complete work 1935–74, Institute for
the history and theory of architecture. The Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, 1977,
pp. 447–449.
Katz, P. (ed.). 1994. The new urbanism: Toward an
architecture of community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kelbaugh, D. 2009. Cited in Brown, L. G. et al. (2009).
Urban design for an urban century: Place making for
people, 4. New Jersey: Wiley.
Kepes, G. 1944. The language of vision. Chicago:
P. Theobold.
Kepes, G. 1961. Notes on expression and communication
in the cityscape. Winter: Deadalus.
Kindsvatter, D., and G. VonGrossmann. 1994. Beyond
the design process: What is urban design? Urban
design Quarterly 1994: 11.
Knight, T.W. 1981. Languages of designs: From known
to new. Environment and Planning B 8: 213–238.
Knowels, J. 2000. Knowledge of grammar as
propositional
Knowels, J. 2005. Urban design: A typology of proce-
dures and products, illustrated with over 50 case
studies. New York: Architectural Press.
Lang, J., and W. Moleski. 2011. Functionalism revisited:
Architectural theory and practice and the behavioral
sciences. Ashgate.
Langer, S. 1957. Philosophy in a new key: A study in the
symbolism of reason, rite, and art. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Lavin, S. 1992. Quatremere de Quncy and the invention
of a modern language of architecture. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Levy, J.M. 1988. Contemporary urban planning. Engle-
wood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Lewis, D.N. (ed.). 1971. The growth of cities. London:
Elek Books.
Lewis, D. 1983. How to define theoretical terms.
Philosophical Papers, vol. 1. New York.
Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Lynch, K. 1962. Site planning. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Lynch, K. 1980. City design: What it is and how it might
be taught. Urban Design International 1(2).
Lynch, K. 1981. A theory of good city form. Cambridge
Mass: MIT Press.
Lynch, K. 1984. The immature arts of city design. Places
1(3): 10–21.
Lynch, K., and L. Rodwin. 1958. A theory of urban form.
JAIP 24(4): 201–214.
Mackay, D. 1990. Redesigning urban design. Architect’s
Journal 192(2): 42–49.
References
Marcuse, P. 2009. From critical urban theory to the right
to the city. City 13(2–3).
Marshal, R. 2006. The elusiveness of urban design.
Harvard Design Magazine, 24: 25.
Marshal, R. 2009. Shaping the city of tomorrow: Jose’
Luis Sert’s urban design legacy. In Joseph L. Sert, E.
Mumford and H. Sarkis, eds.
Marshal, R. 2009. The elusiveness of urban design: The
perceptual problem of definition and role. In Urban
design, ed. Krieger, A. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, pp. 39–57.
Marshall, S. 2009. Cities, design and elevation. New
York: Routledge.
Marshall, S. 2012. Science, pseudo-science and urban
design. Urban Design International 17: 257–271.
Madanipour, A. 1997. Ambiguities of urban design. TPR
68(3).
Madanipour, A. 2004. Viewpoint: Why urban design?
TPR 75(2).
Madanipour, A. 2007. Designing the city of reason:
Foundations and frameworks. New York: Rutledge.
Mantysalo, R. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning
theory. Town Planning Review, 73(4).
Mc Ginnis, M.V. (ed.). 1999. Bioregionalism. London:
Routledge.
Michelson, W. 1970. Man and his urban environment.
Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley.
Michelson, W. (ed.). 1975. Behavioral research methods
in environmental design. Stroudburg: Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross.
Morgenbesser, S. 1967. Philosophy of science today. New
York: Basic Books.
Markus, T. 1993. Buildings and power. London:
Routledge.
Maslow, P. 1957. Intuition versus intellect. Valley
Stream: Life Science Press.
Mayo, E. 1946. The human aspects of industrial civiliza-
tion. Boston: Harvard University.
McCarthy, T. 1978. The critical theory of Jurgen
Habemas, Cambridge, MA.
Michelson, W.M. 1970. Man and his urban environment:
A sociological approach. Reading: Addisson-Wesley
Publication Co.
Mitropoulos, E.G. 1975. Space network: Toward
hodological space design for urban Man. Ekistics
232: 199–207.
Morris, A.E.J. 1974. History of urban form: Prehistory to
the Renaissance. New York: Wiley.
Morris, A.E.J. 1979. History of urbanism: Before the
Industrial Revolution, 2nd ed. London: George Good-
man Limited.
Morris, A.E.J. 1979. History of urban form, before the
Industrial Revolution. New York: Wiley.
Morris, C. 1946. Signs, language and behavior. New
York: Princeton Hall Inc.
Moss, M.L., and A.M. Townsend. 2000. How telecom-
munications systems are transforming urban spaces. In
Cities in the telecommunications age—the fracturing
of geographies, ed. Wheeler, J.O., et al., pp. 31–41.
New York: Routledge.
References
Moudon, A.Vernez. 1992. A catholic approach to orga-
nizing what urban designers should know. Journal of
Planning Literature 64(4): 331–349.
Moudon, A.Vernez. 2000. Proof of goodness: A substan-
tive basis for New Urbanism? Places 13(1): 38–43.
Moughtin, C. 1996. Urban design: Green dimensions.
Butterworth Architecture: Oxford.
Moughtin, C. 1999. Urban design: Street and square, 2nd
ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Muller, M. 1965. Lectures on the science of language.
Monshi Ram Manohar Lal: Delhi.
Mumford, L. 1950. The city history. New York: Penguin
Books.
Mumford, E. 2009. Defining urban design: CIAM archi-
tects and the formation of a discipline, 1937–69. Yale.
Norberg-Schulz, C. 1963. Intentions in architecture.
Allen and Unwin: University Press.
Ozgood, C.E., et al. 1957. The measurement of meaning.
University of Illinois Press
Ozgood, C.E., and O. Tzeng, eds. 1990. Language,
meaning, and culture. The selected papers of C.E.
Ozgood. Praeger Publishers.
Park, N.L. 1968. The language of architecture, a
contribution to architectural theory. Paris:
Mouton-The Hgue.
Peckam, M. 1976. Man’s rage for chaos: Biology,
behavior, and the arts. New York: Schocken Books.
Penn, A. 2003. Space syntax and spatial cognition or why
the axial line? Environment and Behavior 35(1): 30–65.
Pittas, M.J. 1980. Defining urban design. Journal of
Urban Design 1(2).
Pizarro, R.E., L. Wei, and T. Banerjee. 2003. Agencies of
globalization and third world urban form: A review.
Journal of Planning Literature 18(2).
Pojman, L.P. 1994. The theory of knowledge. New York:
Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Punter, J. 1996. Urban design theory in planning practice:
The British perspective. Built Environment 22(4):
263–277.
Punter, J. 1999. Design guidelines in American cities:
Conclusion. In The urban design reader, ed. Larice,
M., and E. Macdonald (2007). New York: Urban
Reader Series.
Random House Dictionary of the English Language.
1988. By Jess Stein, editor in chief and Laurence
Urdang, Managing Editor, Random House.
Rapoport, A. (ed.). 1976. The mutual interaction of
people and built environment: A cross-cultural per-
spective. Chicago: Muton.
Rapoport, A. (ed.). 1977. Human aspects of urban form:
Towards a man-made environment approach to urban
form and design. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Rapoport, A., and Robert E. Knater. 1967. Complexity
and ambiguity in environmental design. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 33(4): 210–221.
Rapoport, A., and Ron Hawkes. 1970. The perception of
urban complexity. Journal of American Institute of
Planners 36: 106–111.
Relf, E. 1987. Place and placeness. London: Pion.
107
Roderick, R. 1986. Habermas and the foundation of
critical theory. N.Y.: St. Martin’s.
Rosow, I. 1974. Socialization to old age. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Rowe, C., and F. Kotter. 1978. Collage city. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Royal Institute of British Architects, Board of Education.
1970. Report of the urban design diploma working
group.
Rudi, K. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand
in Language. London: Routtedge.
Rudlin, D., and N. Falk. 2009. Sustainable urban
neighborhood, building the 21st century home.
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Saarinen, E. 1943. The city: Its decay, its future. New
York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation.
Sasselin, R.G. 1975. Architecture and language: The
sensationalism of Le Camus de Mezieres. The British
Journal of Aesthetics 15(1975): 239–254.
Scargill, D.I. 1979. The form of cities. London: Bell and
Hayman.
Schroyer, T. 1973. The critique of domination: The origin
and development of critical theory. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Schurch, T.W. 1999. Reconsidering urban design:
Thoughts about its definition and status as a field or
profession. Journal of Urban design 4(1) (Science,
pseudo-science and urban design).
Scott-Brown, D. 1990. Urban concepts. London, New
York: Academy Editions, St. Martin’s Press.
Sennet, R. 1970. The uses of disorder: Personal identity
and city life. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Xu, Shi. 2000. Linguistics as metaphor: Analyzing the
discursive ontology of the object of linguistic inquiry.
Language Sciences 22(4): 423–446.
Sibley, F. 1965. Aesthetic and nonaesthetic. Philosoph-
ical Review 74.
Sitte, C. 1945. The art of building cities; or city building
according to its artistic principles. Translated by
Charles, T. Stewart. New York: Reinhold Publishing
Co.
Smith, R.W. 1973. A theoretical basis for participatory
planning. Public Sciences 4: 275–295.
Smithson, A. (1974). Team 10 Primer. MIT Press.
Soja, E.W. 2009. Designing the postmetropolis. In Urban
design, ed. Krieger A., et al., pp. 255–269. Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sommer, R. 1969. Personal space: The behavioral basis
of design. Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.
Sommer, R. 2009. Beyond centers, fabrics, and cultures
of congestion: Urban design as a metropolitan enter-
prise. In Urban design, ed. Krieger, A. et al., pp. 135–
152. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sorkin, M. 2007. The end(s) of urban design. Harvard
Design Magazine 25: 17.
Sorkin, M. 2009. The end(s) of urban design. In Urban
design, ed. Krieger, A., pp. 155–182. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Spirn, A.W. 1998. The language of landscape. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
108
Stafford, B.M. 1979. Symbols and myth: Humbert de
supervilles essay on absolute signs in art. Cranbury.
N.J: University of Delaware.
Stein, S.M., and Thomas L. Harper. 2012. Creativity and
innovation: Divergence and convergence in pragmatic
dialogical planning. Journal of Planning Education
and Re- search 32(1): 5–17.
Steinitz, C. 1968. Meaning and congruence of urban form
and activity. JAIP 34(4): 233–248.
Steinitz, C. 1979. Defensible processes for regional
landscape design. LATIS 2(1).
Sternberg, E. 2000. An integrative theory of urban design.
APA Journal 66(3): 265–278.
Stohr, A. 1996. In The Encyclopedia of philosophy, ed.
Edwards, P., vol. 8, p. 18. New York: The McMillan
Co. & The Free Press.
Stroud, B. 2000. Understanding human knowledge.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Summers, D. 1981. Michelangelo and the language of
art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Suppe, F. 1977. The search for philosophic understand-
ing of scientific theories. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Szostok, Rick. 2003. A schema for unifying human
science. Interdisciplinary perspectives on culture,
294. Cranbury: Rosemont Publishing and Printing
Corp.
Tarski, A. 1994. Introduction to logic and to the
methodology of the deductive sciences, 4th ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taschen. 2003. Architectural theory: From renaissance to
the present. London: Taschen.
Taylor, M.C. 1989. Deadlines approaching architecture.
In Restructuring architectural theory, ed. Diiani, M.,
and C. Ingraham, pp. 18–25.
Taylor, N. 1999. The elements of townscape and the art of
urban design. Journal of Urban Design 4(2).
Thiel, P. 1961. A sequence-experience notation for
architectural and urban spaces. Town Planning Review
32(1): 33–52.
Thiel, P. 1997. People, paths, and purposes: Notations
for a participatory envirotecture. Seattle: University
of Washington Press.
Thomas, R. (ed.). 2003. Sustainable urban design: An
environmental approach. New York: Spon Presss.
Tibbalds, F. 1984. Urban design—Who needs it? Places 1
(3): 22–25.
References
Tibbalds, F. 1988. Urban design: Tibbalds offers the
Prince his ten commandments. The Planner 74(12): 1.
Tibbalds, F. 1992. Making people-friendly towns:
Improving the public environment in towns and cities.
London: Harlow.
Toon, J. 1988. Urban planning and urban design. Ekistics
55(328–330): 95–110.
Trancik, R. 1986. Finding lost space: Theories of urban
design. New York: Van Norstrand Rehinhold Co.
Tugnutt, A., and M. Robertson. 1987. A Making town-
scape contextual approach to building in an urban
setting. London: Batsford.
Turza, G., and S. Sober. 1999. On the essence of
language. Moenia 5: 33–68. (SPA).
Van der Ryn, S., and S. Cowan. 1996. Ecological design.
Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Van Zanten, D. 1996. Quatremere de Quincy and the
invention of a modern language of architecture.
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historian 55
(1): 99–100.
Venturi, R. 1966. Complexity and contradiction in
architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art.
Venturi, R., et al. 1972. Learning from Las Vegas.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vitrivius. 1960. The ten books of architecture (Book 1,
Chap. 2). New York: Dover Publication.
Watson, V. 2002. Do we learn from planning practice?
The contribution of the practice movement to planning
theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research
22: 178–187.
Webber, Max, et al. 1964. Explorations into urban
structure. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Webber, M., et al. (eds.). 1974. “ Permissive planning” in
the future of cities. London: Hutchison Educational
and open Univ. Press.
Whittick, A. 1960. Symbols, signs and their meaning,
368. London: Leornarld Hill Limited.
Whyte, W.H. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces.
New York: The Conservation Foundation.
Whyte, W.H. 1988. City: Rediscovering the center. New
York: Doubleday.
Zevi, B. 1957. Architecture as space. Translated by
Gendel, M. New York: Horizon Press.
Zevi, B. 1978. The modern language of architecture.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
 Index

A Bogdonovic, B., 9
Abaza, H., 80 Boundaries, 61, 62
Abercrombie, P., 2 Broadbent, G., 10, 52
Aberley, D., 79 Brown, J.L., 5, 28, 37, 83
Abrams, C., 35, 46 Bull, C., 77
Ackerman, J.S., 1
Alexander, C., 9, 10, 26, 35, 36, 46
Ambiguity, 36, 58 C
Anderson, S., 35 Calthorpe, P., 10
Appleyard, D., 8, 37 Carlyle, T., 41
Aravot, I., 10 Carmona, et al., 83
Architecture, 16, 17, 21, 26, 36, 37, 42, 46 Carruthers, P., 46
Arnheim, R., 93 Cassirer, E., 100
Art, 9 Castells, M., 81
civic design as, 2 Centrality, 59
definition of, 34 Choay, F., 9
urban design as, 5, 7, 14 Chomsky, N., 43, 44
Artistic principles, 2, 9 City
Atkinson, A., 79 appearance, 8
building, 2, 5, 12
design, 6, 8, 11, 13, 67
B form, 6, 8, 11, 76, 81
Bacon, E., 9, 36, 71 sense, 8
Bafna, S., 12 shaped, 8
Bahrainy, H., 28, 46, 54, 82, 83 symbolic, 9
Banham, R., 6 Civic design, 1–3, 87
Bannerjee, T., 8 Cognitive, 42–44, 85
Baranzini, A., 80 Collage city, 10
Barnett, J., 5, 7, 10, 11, 37, 82 Collin, P., 42, 46
Barron, J., 13, 100 Colman, J., 5
Behavior, 19, 44, 62 Communication, 8, 10, 17, 25, 30, 33, 35, 41, 46, 47, 51,
circuit, 8 81, 83, 87
patterns, 12, 56, 76 Complexity, 2, 12, 51, 52, 54, 62, 76, 84
Behaviorists, 12 Conceptual, 31, 83
Bell, E.J., 101 Conceptual framework, 8, 11, 22, 27, 42, 63, 68
Berg, P., 79 Concise townscape, 10
Berke, P., 27 Conclusion, 87
Berry, B., 35 Configuration, 1
Binary principle, 64 Congress for the New Urbanism, 12

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 109

H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design,
University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8
110 Index

Congruence, 9 Gestalt/Gestaltists, 36, 74, 84

Consistency, 5, 71 Gibbs, J.P., 31
Cooke, D., 46, 48 Globalization, 82
Coseriu, E., 44 Goodey, B., 5
Cowan, S., 37 Goodman, N., 37, 43
Crane, D., 9 Gosling, D., 5, 6, 10, 11, 36, 46
Criteriology, 100 Grammar, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 51, 88
Crookston, M., 81 Guillerme, J., 42, 46
Cullen, G., 10, 37
Cuthbert, A.R., 5, 35, 47, 48, 54
Cybernetics, 70 H
Hage, J., 33, 37
Hall, E., 12
D Hall, P., 81
Davidoff, P., 35, 37 Halprin, L., 8, 82
Davidson, D., 45 Hanson, N.R., 31
Davis, S., 35, 45 Harmony, 28, 36, 56, 69, 74
Day, K., 11, 12 Harper, T.L., 26, 44, 47
DeChiara, 82 Harris, N., 25
Decomposition, 30 Harvey, D., 35, 37
Deep structure, 98, 99, 101 Healey, P., 83
Dickie, G., 35 Heath, J., 44
Disciplinary matrix, 32, 47 Hedman, R., 11
Discipline, 7, 11, 26, 29, 36, 38, 45, 46, 54, 71, 81, 85 Hertzberger, H., 9, 10
Disorder, 20, 71 Hierarchy, 65, 66, 68, 71
Diversity, 12, 18, 21, 24, 54, 58, 62, 65, 71, 79 Hill, E., 41
Dobbins, M., 83 Hoch, C., 22
Homogeneity, 42, 56
Hubbard, P.J., 12
E
Economics, 79
Eco-Village Foundation, 79 I
Eisenman, P., 37, 46 Image, 7, 41, 63, 73
Ellin, N., 11, 37 Inam, A., vi
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 31, 32, 34 Imagibility, 64
Environment, 1, 3, 8, 15, 26, 29, 30, 37, 51, 52, 58, 63, Information, 81, 82
67, 70, 71, 84 Information and telecommunications technologies (IT),
Environmental design, 12, 59 81
Environmental feedback, 70 Integrative methods of inquiry, 85
Epistemology, 5, 7, 49 Intuition, 54, 74, 84, 88
Equilibrium, 67, 69, 71 Intuitive process, 30, 51, 54, 82, 84, 87, 88
Ethics, 21, 25, 78 Ishizuki, M., 46

F J
Fainstein, S.S., 35 Jacobs, A.B, 37
Falk, N., 79 Jacobs, J., 35
Foley, D.D., 7, 8 Jaszewski, A., 11
Forester, J., 83 Jencks, C.A., 11, 37, 40, 46
Forty, A., 10
Francis, M., 12
Freedom, 56, 61, 71, 72 K
Kahn, L., 36, 85
Katz, P., 8, 11, 37
G Kelbaugh, D., 7, 11, 37
Gale, G., 45 Kepes, G., 37, 46
Gale, J., 31 Kindsvatter, D., 35
Garreau, J., 37 Knight, T.W., 41, 42
General system theory, 74 Knowels, J., 45
Index 111

Koetter, F., 10 Normative Ethical Theory, 25

Koppelman, L., 82 Normative principles, 25
Kostoff, S., 5, 8 Normative theory, 36
Kreditor, A., 5
Krieger, A., 7, 26
Krieger, Martin, 21 O
Krier, R., 10, 36, 37, 52 Order, 71
Krier, L., 10 Organic growth, 1
Kuhn, D., 85 Organization of human ecology, 74
Kuhn, T.S., 37, 47 Ozgood, C.E., 75
Kunsttler, J.H., 36

P
L Park, N.L., 42
Lang, J., 5, 10, 19, 29, 35–38, 82 Patternization, 30, 55, 59, 60
Langer, S., 39 Pattern language, 9, 36
Language, 10 Peckam, M., 101
definition, 39 Perceptual process, 8, 61
requirements, 39 Pittas, M.J., 5, 29
tool for knowledge representation, 41 Pizarro, R.E., 82
Lavin, S., 42, 46 Planning, 35, 49
Levy, J.M., 5 Pojman, L.P., 33
Lewis, D.N., 45 Practical knowledge, 85
Linguistic competence, 43–45 Practice Movement, 21
Linguistic formulation, 32 Procedural areas, 30
Lynch, K., 2, 5, 8, 11, 29, 35, 37, 76 Procedural rules, 51, 54
Process, 10, 44
Profession, 31
M Punter, J., 29, 83
Mackay, D., 5
Madanipour, A., 5
Main structure, 17, 18 Q
Man-environment relationship, 72 Quantization, 56
Mantysalo, R., 25
Markovian, 92, 96, 101
Markus, T., 10 R
Maslow, P., 12 Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 31
Mayo, E., 12 Rapoport, A., 12
McCarthy, T., 33 Redundancy, 18
Mc Ginnis, M.V., 79 References, 92
Methods of inquiry, 84, 85 Regularity, 31
Michelson, W.M., 12 Relf, E., 5, 37
Mitropoulos, E.G., 9 Robertson, M., 9
Morgenbesser, S., 33 Roderick, R., 85
Morris, A.E.J., 1 Rodwin, L., 8
Morris, C., 39, 40 Rosow, I., 12
Moss, M.L., 81 Rowe, C., 37
Moudon, A. Vernez, 7, 9, 11, 12, 36, 49, 84 Royal Institute of British Architects, 6
Moughtin, C., 5, 6, 26, 36 Rudlin, D., 79
Muller, M., 43
Multiplicity, 71
Mumford, E., 5 S
Mumford, L., 9, 37, 41 Saarinen, E., 2
Saisselin, R.G., 42, 46
Scargill, D.I., 7
N Schroyer, T., 85
Neighborhood, 24 Schurch, T.W., 5
New Urbanism, 7, 8, 11, 12, 22, 35, 36 Scientific methods, 30, 54, 84, 87, 88
Norberg-Schulz, C., 37, 46 Scott-Brown, D., 5
112 Index

Semantics, metaphor, signs, symbols, and analogy, 73 U

Sennet, R., 11, 35 Undifferentiated, 93
Settlement Unity, 11, 13, 15, 18, 35, 36, 51, 71
design, 1 Urban Activities, 30, 47, 51, 52, 87, 88
pattern, 1, 56 Urban century, 28
Shape, 8, 25, 41, 43, 78 Urban Design
Shi-Xu, 44 culture-specific, 77, 88
Sibley, F., 35 Definition, 5–7, 10, 11, 30
Sign, 18, 20, 33, 39, 43 global knowledge, 1, 5, 7, 10, 25, 29, 30, 38, 88
Simplicity, 56 integrative knowledge base of, 29, 88
Sitte, C., 1, 2, 9, 13, 36 integrative principles of
Smith, R.W., 26, 44, 82 binary, 64, 65, 71
Sobre, S., 44 boundaries, 60, 63
Soja, E.W., v centrality, 59
Sommer, R., 12, 29 collaboration, 24, 25, 82, 83
Sorkin, M., v communication technology, 8, 81
Space score, 8 cybernetics, 70, 71
Space Syntax, 12 disorder, 20, 71
Spatial structure, 8 economics, 79, 81
Spirn, A.W., 42 environmental feedback, 70
Stability, 56, 71 equilibrium, 67, 69
Stafford, B.M., 42, 46 general systems theory, 74
Stein, S.M., 26, 44, 47 gestalt, 36, 74
Steinitz, C., 9, 82 globalization, 82
Sternberg, E., 7, 9, 11 hierarchy, 65, 66
Stohr, A., 45 IT, 81
Stochastic, 89, 91, 92, 96 man-environment-relationship, 6, 20
Stroud, B., 31, 32 multiplicity, 20, 71
Substantive elements, 51, 54, 85, 87, 88 order, 22, 31, 36, 71
Summers, D., 1 organization of human ecology, 74
Suppe, F., 31, 32 participation, 8, 21, 24, 25, 83
Sustainability, 3, 11, 23, 28, 54, 78, 80 patternization, 20, 55
Symbol, 20, 41, 43, 71, 77 process, 6, 12, 18
Symmetry, 15, 33, 36, 56, 71 quantization, 56, 60
Syntax, 12, 39, 40, 88 semantics, metaphor, signs, symbols and analogy,
Szostok, Rick, 1 73
sustainability, 78
territories, 62
T unity, 71
Tarski, A., 32 knowledge Base, 1, 7, 11, 29, 30, 33, 51, 54, 87, 88
Taschen, 17, 21 language, 9, 22, 39, 40, 42, 45, 51, 54, 55, 88
Taylor, M.C., 35 local language of, 47, 88
Taylor, N., 35 movements
Technology, 8, 16, 80, 81 behaviorism, 18, 37
Territories, 19, 62 city beautiful, 13–15
Theory, 7–12, 21–26, 28, 31–38, 43–49, 55, 59, 66, 73, Garden City & New Town, 14, 15, 37
74, 78, 90, 100 Megastructuralism, 16
Thiel, P., 8 metabolism, mega form & collective form, 16, 17
Thomas, R., 79 modernism, 7, 16, 21, 37
Thought, 21, 41, 43–45, 75 new urban design, 26, 47
Tibbalds, F., 5, 10 normative ethical, 25, 54
Town design, 2 park, 13, 14
Townsend, A.M., 81 postmodernism, 21, 37
Trancik, R., 37 practical movements
Transmission, 71 collaborative communicative, 24
Tugnutt, A., 9 critical theory, 24
Turza, G., 44 new urbanism, 22, 23
Index 113

urban village, 23 Vitrivius, 36

sustainability, 79 Vocabulary, 9, 10, 25, 39–42, 51, 52, 83, 88
Symbolism and Semiology, 18
Team X, 17, 20
Traditionalism, 20 W
rules and principles, 2, 3, 5, 13, 51, 54, 56, 75, 85, 88 Watson, V., 22
theory, 12, 22, 26, 35, 36, 47, 88 Webber, Max, 8, 35, 48
universal, 48, 88 Wei, L., 82
Urban space, 10, 12, 18, 20, 26, 37, 47, 52–54, 81, 85, 88 Whittick, A, 41
Whyte, W.H., 12, 37
Word, 32, 36, 39, 41, 43, 51, 71, 74
V
Van der Ryan, S., 37
Van Zanten, D., 46 Z
Venturi, R., 9, 11, 22, 37 Zevi, B., 36, 46