Journal ofUrban Design,Vol. 7, No. 1, 35– 58, 2002

Meaningful Urban Design: Teleological/Catalytic/Relevant

ASEEM INAM

ABSTRACT Thepaper begins with a critique ofcontemporary urban design:the Ž eldof urban designis vague because itis an ambiguousamalgam of several disciplines, includingarchitecture, landscapearchitecture, urban planningand civil engineering; it issuperŽ cial because itisobsessedwith impressions and aesthetics ofphysical form; and itis practised as an extensionof architecture, whichoften impliesan exaggerated emphasison theend product. The paper then proposesa meaningful(i.e. truly consequential to improvedquality of life) approach to urban design,which consists of: beingteleological (i.e. driven by purposes rather than deŽ ned by conventional disci- plines);being catalytic (i.e. generating or contributing to long-term socio-economic developmentprocesses); andbeing relevant (i.e. grounded in Ž rst causes andpertinent humanvalues). The argument isillustratedwith a number ofcase studiesof exemplary urban designers,such asMichael Pyatok and Henri Ciriani,and urban designprojects, such asHorton Plazaand Aranya Nagar, from around the world. The paper concludes withan outlineof future directionsin urban design,including criteria for successful urban designprojects (e.g. striking aesthetics, convenient function andlong-term impact) anda proposedpedagogical approach (e.g. interdisciplinary, in-depth and problem-driven).

Provocations In the earlypart of 1998,two provocative urban design eventsoccurred at the Universityof Michigan in Ann Arbor.The Žrstwas an exhibition organizedas partof aninternationalsymposium on ‘ City,Space 1 Globalization’. The second wasa lecture by the renowned Dutch architectand urbanist, Rem Koolhaas. By themselves,the eventsgenerated much interestand discussion, yet were innocu- ous,compared to, say, Prince Charles’s controversialcomments on contempor- arycities in the UKorthe gathering momentumof the New Urbanism movementin the USA. Bothevents, however, did provokevisceral reactions in thisobserver about the superŽciality of current approaches to urban design. The twoevents were sadlysymptomatic of traitswhich render mosturban design projectsinsigniŽ cant within the broadercontext of criticaland fundamen- talurban challenges. Koolhaasis so provocative (but notnecessarily either particularlyprofound ormeaningful) thathis writings on cities have been analysedby academicscholars (see Saunders,1997). Koolhaas (1995, p. xix)

Aseem Inam, TaubmanCollege of Architectureand Urban Planning,University of Michigan,2000 Bonisteel Boulevard,Ann Arbor, MI48109–2069, USA. Email: [email protected]

1357–4809 Print/1469–9664 Online/02/010035-24 Ó 2002 Taylor &Francis Ltd DOI:10.1080/ 13574800220129222 36 A. Inam admitsthat architects are “ confrontedwith an arbitrary sequence ofdemands, withparameters they didnot establish, in countriesthey hardlyknow, about issuesthey areonly dimly awareof, expected todeal with problems that have provedintractable to brains vastly superior to their own”, yet purportsto analysecomplex urban conditionsin developing countriessuch as China. For example, hisslide showin Ann Arbor—derived fromHarvard University’ s Projecton the City—was an aggregation of spectacular images (e.g. cranes hovering abovegiant construction projects), shallow impressions (e.g. that contemporarycities are largely unplanned) andnovel vocabulary(e.g. Bigness) in describing the citiesof the PearlRiver Delta of China.Students ofcities, especially architects,are easily dazzled by the impressionistic,spectacular and novel descriptionsof contemporary cities by architectssuch as Koolhaas. How- ever, while these observationsare perceptive, arethey useful in anymeaningful fashion? Koolhaasover-reads and romanticizes many of the urban phenomena thathe atthe sametime so sharply and originally perceives: Coney Island,skyscrapers, Manhattan(ism),congestion, Radio City Music Hall, the Berlin Walland so on. Koolhaasthe contrarianis determined tobe unconventional(which isre ective ofthe tyrannyof noveltyin the design Želds), andthus reverses expectations thatEuropeans will view Americanscondescendingly. HatingEuropean snob- bery andeffeteness, he goes,at times, to an opposite extreme andbecomes a gullible, bedazzledidealizer of the USA andits associated phenomena: blank- ness,the ordinary,the unself-conscious,the self-indulgent, the ugly, the crude, the banal(Saunders, 1997).Furthermore, in hisideas about Bigness, Generic Citiesand globalization, Koolhaas commits the logicalfallacy of presenting part ofthe truthas the whole:presenting certainconditions— such as those in new Chinese cities—as the conditions. Likewise, the ‘City,Space 1 Globalization’exhibition purported todisplay new andexciting ideasas well asprojects about the future city.However, the exhibition wasdominated by spectacularimages, novel vocabularyand projects that were in citiesbut clearlynot about cities.The exhibition presented recent workby Michael Rotondi,Michael Sorkin, RemKoolhaas and other architects whotend toapproach the urban problematicprimarily from an aesthetic perspective, focusing onstriking impressions and images of cities. Their mis- placed,and primarily architectural, obsession with form tends to gloss over the complex(e.g. political)and multiple (e.g. economic)factors which actually shape acityand make it an enriching (e.g. social)experience. Forexample: The agorawas funky,notthe kind ofcentralizing, symmetrical space thatone imaginesin classicalantiquity. It’ s stilla goodmodel. The agoradescribed the sizeof a tractablebody politicand offered the possibilityof assemblyin avarietyof registers,modalities, and settings. The agorasupported bothefŽ cient passageand organized encounters while simultaneouslyoffering innumerable routesand hence innumer- able circumstancesfor chance, unstructured, and accidental, and serendipitousencounters. (Sorkin, 1997,p. 13;emphasis added) There isno attempt in the passageabove to more fully understandor explain exactlyhow and why the spaceof the agoraworked, or for that matter, did not work,the wayit was intended. Thisaesthetic obsession is further enhanced by Sorkin’s drawingsof ‘Neurasia’, aclever play ofwordsthat is akin to Koolhaas’s MeaningfulUrban Design 37 peculiar inventions,Bigness andGeneric Cities.The drawings(e.g. shifting formsin orangeand green) andwords (e.g. ‘funky’) certainlycatch our atten- tion,but dothey provide anymeaningful understandingof contemporary cities, ora useful meansof intervening in them?Probably not.The drawingsand spatialimpressions demonstrate an over-eagerness to be unconventionaland spectacular,at the costof being penetrating andmeaningful; whichconsequently implies alackof deep understandingand a lackof patience— symptomatic of architects’view ofcities in termsof images. The present authorargues for a movementaway from this obsession with the architect’s focuson image in urban design; towarda focusthat is more on the ‘urban’than on the ‘design’in urban design; andfor an urban design thatbegins andends withthe complexand rich dynamics of the contemporarycity rather thanwith physical form. Thus, an urban designer isnot simply anarchitect, landscapearchitect or planner whohas an interestor hasbuilt projectsin cities, but one whohas a sophisticatedand deep understandingof citiesand of the substantivecontribution that urban design canmake to cities.

SigniŽcance The Želd ofurban design isin astateof  ux.Variously described asan ambiguousoverlap of the Želds ofarchitecture, landscape architecture, urban planning andcivil engineering onthe one hand,and as a generalistthat helps design citieson the other,urban design lacksa cleardeŽ nition (and hence, a useful understanding) anda cleardirection (and hence, auseful purpose). Simultaneously,countries such as the USA arewitnessing an urban revival,as demonstratedby renewed interestin revitalizinginner cities,an expanding marketfor urban housing,the prominence ofcities in popular magazinessuch as Time and Newsweek,popular televisionprogrammes such as Seinfeld, Žlms such as BridgetJones’ s Diary ,aresurgence ofurban design curriculaat leading universitiessuch as Berkeley andSouthern CaliforniaInstitute of Architecture (SCI-Arc) anda recent inux ofinternational urban design journals,including the Journal ofUrban Design , Urban DesignInternational and Urban DesignQuar- terly.Seminal books,including TheNext American Metropolis (Calthorpe,1993), Great Streets (Jacobs,1993) and Post-modern Urbanism (Ellin, 1996),have attracted much attentionin the pastdecade. Several large-scaleurban projectshave been built recently orare currently under wayin metropolitanregions such Detroit (e.g. DetroitLions and Tigers stadiums, Renaissance Center renovations,new casinosand airport expansion), in the USA (e.g. GettyCenter in LosAngeles, neo-traditionalresidential developments andconversion of militarybases and obsoleteindustrial areas) and in the world(e.g. London’s Docklands,Hong Kong Airportand the rebuilding ofBeirut andBerlin). Unfortunately,much ofthis recent interestin urban design repeatsthe familiardeŽ ciencies ofthe past:a focuson the superŽcial aesthetics and the picturesque aspectsof cities (instead of what role aesthetics play, say, in communitydevelopment processes),an over-emphasison the architectas urban designer andan obsession with design (insteadof a moreprofound interdisci- plinary approachthat addresses fundamental causes), an understanding of urban design primarilyas a Žnished product(instead of an ongoing long-term processintertwined withsocial and political mechanisms) and a pedagogical processthat is comfortably rooted in architectureand design (ratherthan in the richexperiences, processesand evolution of cities). 38 A. Inam

MeaningfulUrban Design There areseveral critiques of the mannerin which urban design istaught, practisedand researched at present. The conventionalapproach to deŽ ning the Želd ofurban design ismorphological; that is, according to the wayit is structuredand organized. Thus, urban design isoften regardedas anambiguous combinationof architecture,urban planning, landscapearchitecture and civil engineering. ThisdeŽ nition puts urban designers atodds— over power and resources—with architects, planners, landscape architects and civil engineers. Anotherproblem withcurrent urban design thoughtand practice is the sense thatit is architecture, only atalargerscale. In thisschool of thought, there isfar toomuch emphasison ‘ design’(e.g. aesthetics)and not enough ofan under- standingof ‘ urban’(e.g. howcities actually work). The architecturalapproach to urban design isre ected inanalysisthat is purely conceptual(e.g. vectors ying off in allkinds of directions)or too abstract (e.g. quotationsfrom the latest French philosopher in vogue). Attempting todesign acityas one designsa building isclearly misleading and dangerous, because unlike individual build- ings,which tend tobe objects,cities are highly complex,large-scale, organic entities,and contain a bewildering multiplicity ofusers. Furthermore,few contemporaryurban designers demonstratea fundamental understandingof the complexways in which citiesfunction. Especially glaring area naivetyat best, an acceptable ignorance, and a resistanceat worst, in understandingpower structures (i.e. howand why criticaldecisions are made aboutthe patternof investment in cities,and who makes them) andwhere urban designers Žt(i.e. usually marginalized)within such a powerstructure, domi- natedas it is by elected ofŽcials, local bureaucrats and prominent developers. Onthe basisof anew synthesisof existing ideas (for example, see Loukaitou- Sideris, 1996),the present authorproposes a meaningful approachto urban design (i.e. one thatis truly consequentialin improvingquality of life) that consistsof: being teleological(i.e. driven by purpose ratherthan deŽ ned by disciplines); being catalytic(i.e. generating orcontributingto long-term develop- mentprocesses); and being relevant(i.e. grounded in Žrstcauses and pertinent humanvalues). In thisnew synthesis,urban design iscircumscribed primarily by urban scaleand complexity, and rests upon an interdisciplinary setof skills, methodologiesand bodies of knowledge.

Teleological In thisnotion of urban design, itis an ongoing processwith built formproducts (e.g. open spaces,blocks, streets and neighbourhoods) alongthe way.Primarily, however,the purpose of urban design isto be astimulusto other goals which aremore critical to society and to the substantivechallenges facing contempor- arycities. These goalsand purposes include communitydevelopment (e.g. empowerment andsocial integration of marginalized populations), economic development (e.g. inner cityrevitalization), international development (e.g. cross-culturallearning andcollaboration), environmental sustainability (e.g. efŽcient landuse) andfecund urban environments(e.g. neighbourhood safety, range ofurban formchoices and interconnected types). Such anunderstanding of urban design isteleological; that is, it is driven by purpose andnot by morphology(i.e. conventionalstructures of Ž elds and MeaningfulUrban Design 39 disciplines). Thus,the phenomenon ofurban sprawland its attendant problems (e.g. cost,resources and social fragmentation) would be agoaland a challenge involving notonly design, but alsoeconomic efŽ ciency, public policy,social behaviour,cultural understanding and political processes. There wouldbe a purpose-driven (ratherthan discipline-driven) urban design processfor increas- ing density in aculture ofsprawl that addresses important concerns such as privacy/publicness anda sense ofhome.This would be done formore efŽ cient use ofa scarceresource (i.e. land),for greater convenience ofaccess and to create greaterand more usable green spaces. In thisview, the primarypurpose ofurban design wouldbe the improvement ofthe fundamentalquality of life (i.e. socio-economicdevelopment), ratherthan justthe qualityof urban form.The qualityof life isnot concerned asmuch with whata built environment looks like, aswith how a built environment works, in termsof the community,the economyand increasing mutually beneŽ cial inter- nationalexchange. Forexample, anurban design project shouldempower its users(i.e. communitydevelopment), strengthen the localeconomy (i.e. economic development) andfoster international understanding, opportunity and exchange (i.e. internationaldevelopment). Table 1further articulatesthese purposes of teleologicalurban design, andthe casestudies which follow illustrate these ideas. SpeciŽcally, a teleologicalurban design wouldaddress three criticalaspects of the urban experience, which arethe relationshipsbetween the cityand the economy,the cityand society and the cityand power. The relationshipbetween the cityand the economyconsiders the economicfunctioning ofthe city, including the cityas a pointin the productionlandscape as well asa siteof investment,the changing internationaldivision of labour and the consequent effects onthe speciŽc urban economies.The relationshipbetween the cityand societyfocuses on the cityas an arena of social interaction, the distributionof socialgroups, residential segregation, the constructionof gender andethnic identitiesand patterns of classformation. The relationshipbetween the cityand poweris the representationof urban structureand political power, and consid- ersthe cityto be asystemof communication, a recorderof the distributionof powerand an arena for the socialstruggles over the meaning andsubstance of the urban experience.

Catalytic Urbandesign projectsand processes would generate orcontribute signiŽ cantly tothree types ofsocio-economic development processes—community develop- ment,economic development andinternational development— while simul- taneouslyenhancing the built environmentof cities.

Urban Designand Community Development Urbandesign asa catalystfor, or as an active component of, community development consistsof intelligent communityparticipation in projectsfacili- tatedby dialogue between communityrepresentatives and urban designers and communityleadership thatis representative of communityviews, institutional partnerships(e.g. between privateand non-proŽ t sectors)and decision-making structures(e.g. simulationsand games) that lead to enabling urban environ- 40 A. Inam s , e ) i t a 8 i n 9 n c f o 9 o l i y o 1 ) e t d ( l r s r 2 g c l t a n a g a e o r 9 r i a n s h n t a r t n n d i a 9 c c o e i i d c n u o u i t n s 1 B o a b i e i e d n s o s ( l l r e t s I a , s n e c v m a n r a ) l a i i n r s m , e l l ) a n l a o e t 7 n t u d e n r g g o l t r g a 2 e o t S c l s i n 9 o r u s l e e p c n 9 e i l n e e , e t g 9 o e r i i o j a t i m u n ) 9 t r t B a l l t c v 1 e S u r s h w z a p o c l r 0 1 o ( o a n a i n e , t s n r y o d ( u f i o a e n 0 G i u t e b e f S n g l l o g s r P t n n o M 0 s f f n l b o e A o i o n a n a n e e e m l 2 l i i u o i l D o o e & t c t c u v H ( o d t r r C i g o r i g e p n . l t d a f n c / e r t t t t a a a d l e n i p - a e i e o o r n c c o e y p v i f d V f e o l l i n d s r v v i r f g l e e a a l l r p s u e s a h h m r i o . l o n e o s m a b t t n e e p p l a b o e v n y l s i p a i d p A R A B r a e t d e l i r o e h e e h r a e m m n n W d I I T C I R D I O R T S S C G M F M D s d N l M s r ) l n , n i , e 6 n s , a A r g e 9 n o ) i a r r l i 9 s 9 g t g M e n a n o i 1 e 8 i e d , s u s ( s o o g t n 9 t i t r M d ) i b m e s e n i V a t t n a c i 1 i d a t n 9 t i o o t s ( t d a i a e j p n l c s s n l i t 8 j r l n m g s w l a e v . s a a a e 9 n j i r n o e e r m o r i n b r g o r 1 c i L B e r l o i y n n . o t d a r t ( i , l a f r p B b , o , a e e o n f a a s u w a g f G c s e p o , t b n g e i ( z i b d l g n t n n , i r s m e d l O c a n i t i i t n l ) e a b a n n i r r s a m u i s i g l i n a e G 5 s n s S e s a e a g c g c t o a : ) o u r e e i r 9 g i e a e i G s r t i n s Y s n i g d n o 9 m o L s h d i e n e v & t C d S t m r i m o g r o n 1 h e p c e r p m g t n i i u a ( c m p e m y a m r n t & e y e t a e a e a Y t p j e n a n d h o t o d r y r e a r e i b S t a k l t l r w d r o i o s m l e r e c i N g r g e a d o e h e r n g k t k h p o e y t o o d n r t o i o e e e m r v c e s t i s l s t p l c w R B S S o i t r Y e u t a a a e m a h r o r t n b W d G E P B I S N D C T P C F A r u l , u ) f 5 s A A s g 9 ) e ) e ) 9 C C 0 c t n y y 4 s n k i t 1 s 9 i t , , t : n c 9 ( i i g p e v e A e 9 g i i t n r 9 n r o o f c 1 h s C i y n p h n C a c 1 o e ( a o t i a i c e i ( r e s s e i s , r h t s a m l e h r r i e d r e l i r c d o a u b s s d e e e i d c e e d S n i t r g p , n o e y n m n n h n e v i s T k n . h e l e t s a d b y h i u c e a g g a e : t a a r o g S f t d i i l b . n o k t i o u n t a u S n n r a n s D r o i e c H a a r C F n e n a e C , e a p ( g e & u k o t - , i a l y ) n b u v p t ) s n l l e s a s l 1 n f n , m p P & a s h e y t x e 7 s a a i o M e e e t e 6 e m e o i i S g l t e , e 9 m i r n n z n m r l d 9 o s - r H o u s K e t , l 9 d l n m l m u o o a t e s 1 e p g r e n a g i i t o 1 e k ( r u o k n i o e S r p g t t n u a ( n r t c o o t h e d g r h a c g e i e o l i i s m u y ) i u u p c t S e o l u e e l m s b p o A t t o i r a l v 8 b o r e l m i e i i h h i r r n i m n s a o e x t l g t t y 9 t t o e c t e w s e s u v i d s u e p a E S M D h e t s s c 9 i e n c o r a o e h h E c n n n a 1 W d I I I D O A T D H T J ( C S K M R . 1 e l b t d a r e a r s k T g , e s r a - t t s c e e t b w i s i n t u - b t e r u i h k a o s y t p : x i a y t i n r l t e p t ) s S c e s i P . o Z a i t m e a 7 e p n o , - n s i c , r c 7 o Y n v y s r s i s o g v l g u e t g n c s 9 r e o n e i n n d e i e t e o d 1 c : , s i g w S o l r m d A ( n a l p i s s h o i l n e l s o o r t r s c o . n e r n e o i d m t l c a P m r a e d c t t a N i e L o a n o : t e a i n o o S d b i , g ) c , n n i C a t d ) y t r , r r I h e t 1 l ) k g , a g 1 e n b s I n y i t i y p i u i e r o 9 a 6 c e r 8 c a w c a e g b r s s r i a c i 9 e 9 c m s d 9 b o i t g , e e e n t K n d e l 1 P 9 l r o y a i m n g 1 e g n a ( d d d ( o g m n 1 u c a e i h u n n n h ( o g y y d i n f n n n b u c l t k a d y a A n n r r f h o e m d i r d a t v o s g g e a r l o a u o e c a a l h i i t o h r l e s a x e n c o v t t e t s s s m b b o n a t e o l r e s a e v m t a o D C M u e r e e r l i o o h e v a a r h y e h U T D D C U S E B M P B T L M A H K C S s t c e j o r s s s p r e k i e s f o g s n o n o o e y o o l l s r i b i c s t o t e a i i l s l l t t a d a m e r p s p c z l y o s n i a h c a s a g i r e l i h c l m m r c o e t l a r u y p i a e i i r m p g e t a o e o c x x k e a c e e d s d S M T C a E E S K e e r p n S a P P R MeaningfulUrban Design 41 ments,and the soft-programmingof urban design (e.g. incorporationof public expressionand cultural identity, and activities, events, programmes and services integratedwith the built forms). Forthe urban designer, design communicationis inherent in the actof design, bothas internal communication in the thinking process,and as an external communicationwith the client,user orbroader community. The people within agiven context,such as homeowners in aresidentialneighbourhood orbusiness ownersin acommercialdowntown, are the agentsof change, aided by a communicationprocess that speaks to the formalaspects of their environment. The better thiscommunication process of design, the higher the level ofpublic awarenessand sense ofownership, the better the internaldecisions of change. There areconventional public involvementformats such as public hearings,city councilmeetings andplanning commissionpresentations. There arealso infor- malmeetings, workshops and brainstorming sessions. One ofthe mostpowerful andeffective mechanismsfor active and intelligent communityparticipation is the charette. Acharetteis a shortand intense workshop,of a dayor at the mosta few days, in whichthe urban design teamworks with a localcommunity and its social, economicor political leaders to arrive at a conceptualand implementation strategyfor a particularproject (Kasprisin& Pettinari,1995). The processusually begins witha consortiumof local citizens and organizations inviting ateamof private(e.g. anarchitectural Ž rm)or non-proŽ t (e.g. the AmericanInstitute of Architects)urban designers toparticipate, often alongwith a localtask force. The communityand team leaders then prepare forthe short,intense workshop by arrangingfor publicity, studentparticipation, work locations and supplies. The workshopitself maysubsequently consistof meetings withdifferent repre- sentatives,site tours, open townhall meetings, personal interviews with various stakeholders,detailed work sessions in groups,a writtenand graphic report and apresentationof Ž ndings (see Figure 1).In somecases, there isa follow-up abouta yearlater, in which the urban designer meetswith the communityto assessthe successof the processand provide additionaladvice. The effectiveness ofthis community participation methodology and the often surprising resultsit generates havebeen well documentedby Kelbaugh (1997)in aseriesof charettes in the Seattle region.Similarly, the UrbanDesign Group (1998)provides a seriesof clear,concise and extremely useful community participationforums, including innovativemechanisms such as street stalls and interactivedisplays carried out in different partsof the UK. The popularityof the computerprogram SimCity, a citybuilding simulator, atteststo the possibilityof designing urban simulationmodels with broad public appeal.Whether one isteaching urban processesand structures, analysing speciŽc urban problemsor, most importantly, involving the public in urban design andplanning processes,SimCity displaysa vast,untapped potentialof urban design gamesand simulations. These examplespoint to creative,engaging andbeneŽ cial forms of not only communityparticipation but also,more signiŽcantly, community development, because they increasecommunity aware- ness,generate communitystrategies and suggest modes of community interven- tionin the future oftheir ownenvironments. Anotherapproach to long-term processesof community development is illustratedby the HismenHin-nu Terracehousing project inOakland,CA (Jones et al.,1995).With a grantfrom the Cityof Oakland, the architecturalŽ rmof 42 A. Inam

Figure 1. Community-basedcharette for an urban design plan forthe commercial revitalizationof Bagley Avenue in Detroit,MI.

Pyatokand Associates studied development scenariosfor housing andneigh- bourhoodservices on several sites in the city.The San AntonioCommunity Development Council,serving AfricanAmerican, Latino and Native American residents,expressed interestin developing affordablehousing forfamilies and seniorson one of the sites,and joined withthe EastBay Asian Local Develop- mentCorporation, which serves the AsianAmerican community. Pyatok and Associatesorganized a seriesof workshops using participatorymodelling kitsto help over30 neighbourhood participantsto design plansfor the siteand to understandthe implicationsof density. The 92housing unitsin the project nownot only house familiesand elderly citizenswith low and very lowincomes, but alsohelp mend adeteriorating neighbourhood by restoringits main boulevard with housing overshops. Family housing witha daycare centre aroundquiet courtyardsbuilt behind aground- oormarket, niches forstreet vendors and a job trainingcentre allcontribute to communitydevelopment in the neighbourhood. Amulti-ethnic mixof tenants is depicted in exteriormurals, frieze panels,decorative tiles and steel entry gates in the formof a burstof sunshine. The artis intended toprove thatthe USA’s culturaldiversity is a sourceof energy forcreating community, rather than a sourceof con ict.

Urban Designand Economic Development Urbandesign asacatalystfor, or asan active component of, economic develop- mentinvolves designing projectsthat generate employment ona long-term basis,attract investment into deprived areasand increase business andtax revenues. In thiscontext, a cityis not only aspatialconcentration of a large number of people, but alsocontains a density of economicactivities. Urban MeaningfulUrban Design 43

Figure 2. HortonPlaza in San Diego, CA,hasnot only generated jobsand successfully attractedcustomers and tourists, but hasalso helped revive the surroundingareas. designers canbe moreeffective if they understand,and indeed encourage, beneŽcial economic activities through physical projects. The HortonPlaza, a highly successfulshopping centre in San Diego, CA, generated jobsfor local residents, when cityofŽ cials utilized their positionas investorsin the project tonegotiate for positions (Frieden &Sagalyn,1989). The mayorof the cityturned tothe PrivateIndustry Council of San Diego County, atrainingand placement organization,to Ž nd jobsfor low-income and unem- ployed San Diegans in HortonPlaza and other city-assisted development projects.The councilthen servedas the mainemployment ofŽce forHorton Plaza.By March1986, store openings hadcreated nearly 1000new jobs,and the councilŽ lled half ofthem (see Figure 2).Of the people placed by the council, 70%were minorityworkers, and 60% came from high-unemployment, low-in- comeneighbourhoods targeted for recruitment. LowerDowntown, Denver’ s mostexciting commercialsub-market in recent years,provides one modelfor the economicreinvestment and revitalization of otherhistoric commercial districts (Segal, 1995).The successof thisarea is based onan understanding of fundamentalchanges in the marketplaceand public policiesdesigned tocomplement market forces, and represents anincremental, project-by-project development approachthat urban designers canadopt. In 1987,the DowntownDenver Partnership,a non-proŽt business leadership organization,established the LowerDowntown Business Support OfŽce to provide servicessuch as: business counselling todevelop business plans,mar- keting strategiesand management expertise; leasing referralsto direct prospec- tivetenants to available space; and the design andimplementation of public/private,layered Žnancing strategiesfor individual projects. Financial supportwas provided by the cityof Denver, the stategovernment’ s job training ofŽce andcorporate and foundation grants. 44 A. Inam

Figure 3. Outdoorseating for cafe ´sispart of the urban design strategywhich contributedto the economicrevival of a historicarea in the LowerDowntown area ofDenver, CO.

Ahistoricdistrict ordinance contributed to Lower Downtown’ s successby creatingcertainty in the marketplace.Small business andentrepreneurial in- vestorswere lured tothe areaby itsscale and historic character, and the knowledge thatit will remainthat way (see Figure 3).The city’s investmentof $1.9million in streetscapeimprovements, including new lighting, pavements andstreet furniture, whichwas contingent upon the adoptionof the historic districtordinance, also reinforced privateinvestment in LowerDowntown. Districtstakeholders, including developers andproperty owners,are repre- sented onthe Žve-member design review committee,which is now seen as beneŽcial to the areabecause ofits localized control. In 4years,the Lower Downtownarea, through the variousstrategies described above,has attracted morethan $15 million in new investment,500 jobs and a nearby baseball stadium. Urbandesigners canlearn to design environmentsthat increase revenues by studying the strategiesadopted by the often maligned oroverlooked designers ofshopping centres,gambling casinosand amusement or theme parks.All of these environmentsare successful to their ownersand operators when they increaserevenues, often in aremarkablemanner. The USlandscapearchitect RobertGibbs isone suchmember ofthis rare breed (Lagerfeld, 1995).According toGibbs, a town’s retailplanning shouldbegin where ashopping centre’s does; farfrom the selling oors.For example, itis disadvantageous to locate a shopping centre in aplace where commutershave to make a left turn.People tend toshop on their wayto work, and they areless likely tostop if itinvolves makinga turnagainst trafŽ c. MostsigniŽ cantly, shopping centre designers knowthe averageshopper (as the urban designer shouldknow their clientele andconstituencies), and under- standthat most shoppers stroll at about 3– 4 feet per second,thus walking past MeaningfulUrban Design 45 astorefrontin about8 seconds.That is how long ashopowner has to attract a consumer’s attentionwith an arresting window display. Downtown merchants mustadapt to the same8 secondrule, but they alsohave to sell topassing motorists.Sophisticated retailers use avarietyof subliminal clues toattract shoppers,whether itis a high-priced stationerystore implying anupscale lifestyle througha windowdisplay of anold wood desk embellished with expensive writinginstruments, or a small,preciously encloseddisplay that jewellers use tosuggest high qualityand prices tomatch. These arebut afew ofthe examplesof the mannerin whichshopping centre,gambling casinoand theme parkdesigners understandhuman behaviour and create environments thatencourage certaintypes ofbehaviour such as consumer spending; however, urban designers canfocus on other types of behaviour,such as the creationof exciting neighbourhoodsthat foster greater social interaction and mutual under- standingamongst different ethnic groups.

Urban Designand International Development Urbandesign asa catalystfor, or as an active component of, international development takesthe guise ofsensitivityto context,the generationof cross-cul- turallearning anddirectly addressing issues which arise out of the continuing phenomenon ofeconomic globalization. Aseminalessay which suggests an approach which is sensitive to local contextwithout resorting to mimicry, and which is contemporary without being ageneric modernism,is Frampton (1992a). The contemporaryparadox of sensi- tivityto context is that on the one hand,the region orlocality has to root itself in the soilof its past, forge aregionalspirit and display this spiritual and culturalresistance before the modernistpersonality. However, in orderto fully participatein moderncivilization, it is necessary at the sametime to take part in scientiŽc, technical and political rationality, something which very often requires the abandonmentof majorportions of awhole culturalpast. Thus, how cancontemporary urban design celebrate anancient tradition and return to sources,while simultaneouslybecoming modernand participating in universal civilization? Drawingupon the workof the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur,Frampton (1992b)proposes a processof assimilationand reinterpretation, wherein sustain- ing anykind ofauthentic culture in the future depends upon ourcapacity to generate vitalforms of authenticculture (e.g. viaurban design) of regional culture while appropriatingalien inuences atthe level ofboth the localand the global.Alvar Aalto’ s workis exemplary ofsuch processes, especially the SaynatsaloTown Hall in Finland (Inam,1992). The collectivememory evoked by the SaynatsaloTown Hall refers totwo fundamental cultural traditions: the indigenous, largely agrarianone; and an alien, essentially classical one. With its steps,overgrown with grass and weeds, its variations of silhouetteand its weatheredmaterials, Saynatsalo has the airof anancient complex of buildings whichhad grown slowly. Indeed, Aaltohad identiŽ ed thisrather unique parti of a‘growingruin’ in his1941 essay ‘ Architecturein Karelia’, by suggesting thata “dilapidatedKarielan village issomehow similar in appearanceto a Greek ruin, where, alsothe material’s uniformity isa dominantfeature, though marble replaceswood” (cited in Inam,1992, p. 63). 46 A. Inam

Figure 4. The CouncilChamber of SaynatsaloTown Hall, Finland, which re ects the powerof cross-cultural symbolism.

Apartfrom evoking the memoryof indigenous environments,Aalto remained faithful tothe belief thata motifborrowed from a different contextand transplantedwith sufŽ cient convictiononto Finnish soilbecame genuinely Finnish. The ItalianRenaissance was for Aalto an inalienable partof hisheritage andphilosophy oflife. In hisview, providing the inhabitantsof Saynatsalowith asettingin whichthey couldlive much asthe inhabitantsof 14th-centurySienna didwas a naturalact. When the members of the municipal boardof building inquired if asmall,poor community like theirsreally needed tobuild acouncil chamber17 mhigh, especially since the brick wasexpensive, Aaltoresponded thatthe world’s mostbeautiful andfamous town hall in Sienna hada council chamber16 mhigh, andthus he proposedto build the one atSaynatsalo 17 m high (see Figure 4)!Moreover, Aalto explicitly referred tothe courtyardas a piazzain spite ofthe factthat it is domestic both in natureand in scale. Acontemporaryexample ofsensitivity to context through a processof assimilationand reinterpretation is the workof the Portuguese architectAlvaro Siza(Frampton, 1992b). Siza has grounded hisbuildings in the conŽguration of aspeciŽc topographyand in the Žne-grained textureof the localfabric. To this end, hispieces ofthe built environmentare tight responses to the urban,land andmarinescape of the Portoregion. Otherimportant factors are his deference towardslocal material, craft work and the subtleties oflocal light; a deference whichis sustained without falling intothe sentimentalityof excluding rational formand modern technique. The generationof cross-culturallearning arisesout of understandingand applying, in asympatheticand appropriate manner, urban design methodolo- gies, processesand forms from different culturalcontexts (Inam, 1997). An instanceof this would be the woeful historyof large-scale, low-income housing (i.e. public housing) projectsbuilt by the governmentin variousurban contexts in the USA. The government’s questto provide no-frills housing (e.g. built atthe MeaningfulUrban Design 47 lowestcosts on cheap, often undesirable, land),combined withthe private sector’s unrelenting demandsthat public housing be different (e.g. minimal accommodationswhich are overly modest and austere) from the restof the housing stock,undermined the notionthat public housing couldalso be attract- ive housing,and possibly, even contributeto the surroundingurban contexts (Bratt,1986). Henri Ciriani’s socialhousing projectsin France,which are the equivalent of public housing projectsin the USA, serve asademonstrationof howlarge-scale, low-incomehousing projectsbuilt by the governmentcan constitute positive contributionsto the urban environmentinstead of being eyesores.La Courdan- gle isa largesocial housing project (i.e. 130apartments, 230 parking spacesand adaycare centre) outsideParis in SaintDenis (Ciriani,1997). The seven-storey building withits striped cladding and geometric frieze risesabove the muddle ofneighbouring streetsand forms a cornerin anotherwise loosely structured urban space.By creatinga visuallystrong plan of geometricalprecision, the projectinspires astill-life compositiondevice in urban design. Transformedinto apicture plane, the variousfree-standing buildings aswell ashigh-rise buildings thatsurround the project integrateinto a moreharmonious urban setting.The courtyardside ofthe building isa pure, right-angled Žgure containinga perfectly deŽned squarespace. The layering ofthe facadesfacilitates the articu- lationof the decreasingvolumes, contains the apartments’balconies and terraces andmediates between the architectureof the building andthe urbanityof the neighbourhood. In thismanner, La Courdangle constitutes a low-incomehous- ing projectthat is rich in architecturalspaces and detail, while helping deŽne andenhance the urban spacearound it. The phenomenon ofincreasingeconomic globalization is rapidly growingand hasbeen encouraged atthe urban level. Forexample, in UScitiessuch as New York,Los Angeles, Houstonand Minneapolis, where foreign investorshave been activein buying realestate, downtown real estate interests— brokers, commercialbanks, real estate consultants and property owners—have welcomed internationalproperty investment.Throughout the 1980sthe infusion offoreign capitalinto the buying andselling ofexisting buildings andthe constructionof new building bolsteredcommercial property marketsby raisingrents, increasing property valuesand generally expanding business opportunities.The interaction offorces operating at various spatial scales, especially the urban,can be illustratedin avarietyof ways: the constructionof an ofŽ ce building fora foreign bank using materialsfrom around the world;the dynamicsof a major researchuniversity whosearchitecture and urban planning facultyconsult locallyas well asinternationally;and the corporateplan locationand contracting strategiesof multinational corporations such as Nike andCoca Cola, as they balancelocal labour conditions, regional locational advantages, national markets andinternational investment opportunities (Beauregard, 1995). The ongoing phenomenon ofglobalizationsuggests some strategies for urban designers.Urban designers mustbe able tounderstand and react to in uences impinging ontheir communities,regardless of where thosein uences originate (e.g. WorldBank funded housing projectsin developing countries)and which actorsare responsible (e.g. USarchitecturalŽ rmsdesigning ofŽce complexesin London).Furthermore, urban designers mustdevelop associationsand networks thatextend beyond their spatialreach through collaborative endeavours and thereby provide anothermechanism for responding tothe multitude ofactors 48 A. Inam whoshape their communities.For example, the Indian architectB. V.Doshi utilizedan institution, the Vastu-Shilpa Foundationfor Studies andResearch, to develop aninternationally(i.e. WorldBank) funded local(i.e. in the cityIndore) housing project in India,Aranya Nagar (Serageldin, 1997).The project hasbeen largely asuccessdue tothe Vastu-Shilpa Foundation,which carried out con- siderable research,including surveysto understand the physicaland economic factorsthat determine the size,type anddensity ofthe housing plotsthat were speciŽc tothe localcontext.

Relevant Urbandesign thatis relevant is urban design thatis pertinent tomattersat hand (e.g. criticalurban issues),and that is based on fundamental human and natural conditions.In thissection, three suchrelevant approaches to urban design are highlighted: (1) ahistoryof urban formthat analyses the determinantprocesses andhuman meanings of form; (2) atheoryof urban formthat is normative and basedon human values; and (3) adesign methodologyof urban formthat is empirically basedand derived frompatterns of humanbehaviour. These three approachesare discussed by illustratingthem with the workof Spiro Kostof (Kostof,1991), Kevin Lynch (Lynch, 1981)and Christopher Alexander (Alexan- der et al.,1977),but by nomeans does this suggest that these arethe only such approachesin urban design. Indeed, there existother relevant approaches to urban design (for example, see Rowe,1991), but forthe illustrativepurposes of thispaper, the three examplesmentioned abovewill sufŽce. Kostof(1991) studies the phenomenon ofcity making in ahistoricalperspec- tive,to consider how and why citiestook the shape they did.Amalgams of the living andthe built, citiesare repositories of cultural meaning. Behind the arbitrarytwist of a lane orthe splendid eccentricityof a new skyscraperon the skyline lies ahistoryof previous urban tenure, aheritage oflong-established socialconventions, a stringof often bittercompromises between individual rightsand the public will.In aseriesof discussionsof urban patternssuch as the grid andthe cityas diagram, Kostof adopts a truly interdisciplinaryapproach by drawingupon architecture,cultural geography andsocial history to interpret the hidden orderascribed in these patterns. Urbanform is related directly to urban process,i.e. the people, forcesand institutionsthat bring abouturban form(Kostof, 1991), and a wayto examine thisprocess is to ask probing researchquestions, which are the basisfor truly understandingcities. For example, whoactually designs cities?What procedures dothey gothrough? What are the empowering agencies andlaws? The legal and economichistory is an enormous and often overlookedsubject. Itinvolves ownershipof urban landand the landmarket, the exercise of eminent domain, whichis the powerof government to take over private property forpublic use, the institutionof legally binding masterplans, building codesand other regula- tions,instruments of funding urban change,such as property taxesand bond issues,and the administrativeand, more importantly, the powerstructure of cities.Urban designers need notknow all of thisinformation, but they do need torealize the importanceof it,why itis important, to know where toturn to obtainit, and to consider it in their project designs. Urbanprocess also refers tophysical change throughtime. The tendency all toooften isto see urban formas a Žnite thing anda complicatedobject. MeaningfulUrban Design 49

However,thousands of witting and unwitting actsevery dayalter a city’s lines in waysthat are perceptible only overa certainstretch of time. City walls are pulled downand Ž lled in;once rational grids are slowly obscured; a slashing diagonalboulevard is run throughclose-grained residential neighbourhoods; railroadtracks usurp cemeteries andwaterfronts; and wars, Ž resand highways annihilatecity cores (Kostof, 1991). Asan example, let usconsider the grid.The grid isby farthe commonest patternfor planned citiesin history,and it is universal both geographically and chronologically(Kostof, 1991). No better solutionrecommends itself asa stan- dardscheme fordisparate sites, or as a means forthe equal distributionof land, orthe easyparcelling andselling of realestate. The advantageof straight through-streetsfor defence hasbeen recognizedsince Aristotle, and a rectilinear streetpattern has also been resortedto in orderto keep under watcha restless population.However, ubiquitous asthe grid hasalways been, itis also much misunderstood,and often treatedas if itwere one unmodulatedidea that requires littlediscrimination. On the contrary,the grid isan exceedingly exible anddiverse systemof planning, andhence itsenormous success in urban design andplanning. About the only thing thatall grids have in commonis that their streetpattern is orthogonal; that is, the rightangle rules,and street lines in both directionslie parallelto each other. Furthermore,the politicalinnocence ofthe grid in the Westis a Žction.In the earlyGreek colonies,for example, the grid,far from being ademocraticdevice employed toassure an equitable allotmentof property toall citizens, was the meansof perpetuating the privileges of the property-owning classdescendent fromthe originalsettlers, and for bolstering a territorialaristocracy. The Žrst settlerswho made the voyageto the sitewere entitled toequal allocationsof landboth inside andoutside the citywalls. These hereditaryestates were inalienable; the ruling classstrictly discouraged a landmarket. The estateswere huge, asmuch as2.5 acres (about 1 hectare) forsome families. They were then sub-divided by the owner.Within the city,private land could only be used for housing.Any alienationof land or any agitation for land reform was severely dealtwith and could be punishable asfor murder (Kostof,1991). The pointis made regularly thatgrids, especially in the USA, besides offering simplicityin landsurveying, recordingand subsequent ownershiptransfer, also favoureda fundamentaldemocracy in property marketparticipation. This did notmean that individual wealth could not appropriate considerable property, but ratherthat the basicinitial geometry of landparcels bespoke asimple egalitarianismthat invited easyentry intothe urban landmarket. The reality, however,is much lessadmirable. The ordinarycitizens gained easyaccess to urban landonly ata preliminary phase,when cheap ruralland was being urbanizedthrough rapid laying out.To the extent thatthe grid speeded this processand streamlined absentee purchases,it may be consideredan equalizing socialdevice. Once the landhad been identiŽed withthe city,however, this advantageof the initialgeometry of landparcels evaporated, and even unbuilt lotsslipped outof common reach. What matters most in the long run isnot the mystique ofthe grid geometry,then, but the luck ofŽ rstownership (Kostof, 1991). However,for the conventionalurban designer, agrid isa grid isa grid (Kostof,1991). At best it is a visualtheme upon whichto play variations:he or she mightbe concernedwith issues like using atrue checkerboarddesign vs. 50 A. Inam syncopatedblock rhythms,with cross-axial or othertypes ofemphasis,with the placement of open spaceswithin the discipline ofthe grid,with the widthand hierarchyof streets.To Kostof and the meaningful urban designer, onthe other hand, how,andwith what intentions,the Romansin Britain,the builders of medievalWales and Gascony, the Spanish in Mexicoor the IllinoisCentral RailroadCompany in the prairiesof the Mid-west employed thisvery same device ofsettlement is the principal substanceof a review oforthogonal planning. In fact,the grid hasaccommodated a startlingvariety of social structures—including territorialaristocracy in Greek Sicily, the agrarian republicanism ofThomas Jefferson andthe cosmicvision of Joseph Smith in Mormonsettlements like SaltLake City,Utah— and of course, capitalist specu- lation. There havebeen few seriousattempts at a comprehensive andnormative theoryof urban form. GoodCity Form (Lynch, 1981)is an impressive and courageousattempt by Kevin Lynch asa “systematiceffort tostate general relationshipsbetween the formof a place andits value” (Lynch, 1981,p. 99). Lynch (1981,p. 108)emphasizes “ thosegoals which are as general aspossible, andthus do notdictate particular physical solutions, and yet whoseachievement canbe detected andexplicitly linked tophysical solutions. This is the familiar notionof performancestandards, applied atthe cityscale” . Lynch generalizes performancedimensions, which are certain identiŽ able characteristicsof cities due primarilyto their spatialqualities and are measurable scales along which different groupsachieve different positions.These performancedimensions are basedon the followingthinking: The goodcity is one in whichthe continuityof [a] complexecology is maintainedwhile progressivechange ispermitted. The fundamental goodis the continuousdevelopment ofthe individualor the small group andtheir culture: aprocessof becoming morecomplex, more richly connected,more competent, acquiring and realizing new pow- ers—intellectual, emotional, social and physical … So thatsettlement is goodwhich enhances the continuityof a culture andthe survivalof its people, increasesa sense ofconnection in timeand space, and permits orspurs individual growth: development, withincontinuity, via open- nessand connection … [asettlement which is] accessible,decentralized, diverse,adaptable, and tolerant to experiment. (Lynch, 1981,pp. 116– 117) In Lynch’s theoryof good city form, there areseven dimensions(Lynch, 1981). Firstis vitality; the degree towhich an urban formsupports the vitalfunc- tions,the biologicalrequirements, the capabilitiesof humanbeings, andprotects the survivalof the species (e.g. adequatethroughput ofwater, air, food and energy). Second issense; the degree towhich anurban formis clearly perceived andmentally differentiated aswell asstructured in timeand space, and the degree towhich thatmental structure connects with the residents’values and concepts(e.g. distinctidentity andunconstrained legibility). Thirdis Ž t;the degree towhich urban formmatches the patternand quantity of actions thatpeople usually engage in orwould like toengage in (e.g. compatibility between function andform). Fourth is access; the abilityto reach other people, activities,resources or places, including the quantityand diversity of the elements thatcan be reached(e.g. easeof communicationand transportation). MeaningfulUrban Design 51

Fifth iscontrol; the degree towhich the creationof, access to, use of,mainte- nanceof and modiŽ cation to urban spacesand activities are managed by those whouse, workor live in them(e.g. localpower). Sixth isefŽ ciency; the costof creatingand maintaining an urban form(e.g. lessenergy-demanding processes). Seventh isjustice; the wayin whichurban formcosts and beneŽ ts are dis- tributed amongpeople, accordingto aprinciple suchas intrinsicworth or equity (e.g. equal protectionfrom environmental hazards such as cars). These dimen- sionsare applicable in awide range ofurban contextsbecause they arederived fromfundamental human values, and serve aspowerful measuresof what a ‘good’urban design project mightbe. ChristopherAlexander (Alexander et al.,1977)adopts a problem-solving approachto design andexplicitly renders the design methodology,but more importantly,describes how a meaningful urban designer mightdraw directly fromempirical evidence (ratherthan, say, idiosyncratic impulses) andextensive researchas asourceof design. The bookis most useful asa seriesof thoroughly analysedand empirically basedguidelines, whichare broad enough tobe adaptedto different contextsand architectural styles. Each suggested solutionis described in awaythat provides the key relationships(e.g. between human behaviourand spatial setting) needed tosolve the problem, but in ageneral enough mannerto allow for adaptation to particular lifestyles, aesthetictastes andlocal conditions. Each pattern describes a problem whichoccurs repeatedly in the built environment;archetypal problems of urban form,for example. The longestportion of the descriptionof each pattern describes the empirical backgroundof the pattern,the evidence forits validity and the range ofdifferent waysthe patterncan be manifestedor designed. The Žrst94 patterns deal with the large-scalestructure, including the urban, ofthe environment:the growthof city and country; the layoutof roads and paths;the relationshipbetween workand family; the formationof suitable public institutionsfor a neighbourhood; andthe kinds ofpublic spacerequired tosupport these institutions(Alexander et al.,1977).The followingtwo examples ofurban patternsillustrate the value ofthis design methodology:identiŽ able neighbourhood; andpublic outdoorroom. Accordingto Alexander et al. (1977),and the scientiŽc researchthey cite, people need anidentiŽ able spatialunit tobelong to.They wantto be able to identify the partof the citywhere they live asdistinct from all others. Available evidence suggests,Ž rst,that the neighbourhoodswhich people identify withhave extremely smallpopulations; second, that they aresmall in area;and third, that amajorroad through a neighbourhood destroysit. What,then, isthe rightpopulation for a neighbourhood? The neighbourhood inhabitantsshould be able tolook after their owninterests by being able toreach agreement onbasic decisions, such as about public servicesand common land, andto organize themselves to bring pressure onlocal governments. Anthropo- logicalevidence citedby Alexander et al.(1977)suggests that a humangroup cannotusually co-ordinateitself toreachsuch decisions if itspopulation is above 1500.The experience oforganizing community meetings atthe locallevel suggeststhat 500 may be amorerealistic Ž gure. Asfaras the physicaldiameter is concerned, in Philadelphia, PA,people who were askedwhich area they really knew usually limitedthemselves to a small area,seldom exceeding the twoor three blocksaround their house.One-quarter ofthe inhabitantsof an area in Milwaukee, WI,considered a neighbourhood to 52 A. Inam be anarea no larger than a block,around 300 feet (about90 metres). One-half consideredit to be nomore than seven blocks. The Žrsttwo features of the neighbourhood, smallpopulation and small area, arenot enough by themselves.A neighbourhood canonly havea strongidentity if itis protected from heavy trafŽc. Research cited by the authorssuggests that the heavier the trafŽc in anarea,the lesspeople think ofit ashometerritory. Not only doresidents view the streetswith heavy trafŽc asless personal, but they alsofeel the sameabout the housesalong the street:“ It’s nota friendly street… People areafraid to goout into the streetbecause ofthe trafŽc …Noise fromthe streetintrudes into my home”(cited in Alexander et al.,1977,p. 83). Thisstudy, conducted by the Universityof California at Berkeley, found that withmore than 200 cars per hour,the qualityof the neighbourhood begins to deteriorate. Therefore, the proposedstrategy suggests helping people deŽne the neigh- bourhoodsthey live in,not more than about 300 yards (270 metres) or so across, withno more than 500 inhabitants or so and, in existingcities, encouraging local groupsto organizethemselves to formsuch neighbourhoods, and keeping major roadsoutside these neighbourhoods.While one maydisagree with the dimen- sionssuggested in thispattern, one hasto acknowledge thatpopulation size, physicalarea and trafŽ c oware critical considerations for the design of contemporaryneighbourhoods. In the public outdoorroom pattern, Alexander et al.(1977)suggest that there arevery few spotsalong the streetsof moderntowns and neighbourhoods where people canhang outcomfortably for hours at a time.Men often seek cornerbars and pubs, where they spend hourstalking and drinking; teenagers, especially boys,choose special corners too, where they hang around,waiting fortheir friends. Elderly people like aspecialspot to go to, where they can expect toŽ nd others;small children need sandpits,mud, plants and water to play within the open; young motherswho go to watch their children often use the children’s play asa opportunityto meet andtalk with other mothers; andso on for a varietyof groups. Because of the diverse andcasual nature ofthese activities,they require aspacewhich has a subtle balanceof being deŽned andyet nottoo deŽ ned, sothat any activity which is natural to the neighbourhood atany given timecan develop freely andyet hassomething to start from. Whatis needed isa frameworkwhich is deŽ ned justenough sothat people naturallytend tostop there; andso that curiosity naturally takes people there, andinvites them to stay.A smallopen space,roofed, with columns, but without wallsat leastin part,will provide the necessarybalance between being open and enclosed.Examples of this pattern were built withthe assistanceof architecture studentsin Cleveland, OH,onthe groundsand on public landsurrounding a localmental health clinic. According to staff reports, these placeschanged the life ofthe clinicdramatically: many more people thanusual were drawn outdoors,public talkwas more animated and outdoor space that had been dominatedby carsbecame morehuman. In addition,in the 12thand 13th centuries,there were manysuch public structuresdotted through the towns,and whichwere the scene ofauctions, open-air meetings andmarket fairs. Therefore, in neighbourhoodsand work communities, the authorssuggest makinga piece of the commonland into an outdoor room— apartly enclosed place,with a partialroof, columns, without walls, perhaps witha trellis;placing MeaningfulUrban Design 53

Figure 5. Acontemporaryexample ofasuccessfuloutdoor room which re ects the guidelines ofthe outdoorroom pattern— Citywalk in LosAngeles, CA. itbeside animportant path and within view of housesand workplaces. In this andthe otherpatterns in the book,the authorsoutline anurban design methodologythat is based on archetypal problems (e.g. public outdoorspaces), analysesof built examples,descriptions of historical precedents andthe explicit unpacking ofdesign solutionssuch that they areclear, relevant and thoughtful (see Figure 5).The basisfor the design patternswas extensive andthorough researchcarried out over an 8-year period. Today, there iscurrent and volumin- ousresearch, for example onenvironment and behaviour (for example, see Moore& Marans,1997), that is highly relevantand useful forurban designers.

Future Directions in UrbanDesign Urbandesigners (e.g. Beckley, 1998)are beginning toquestion what in factis ‘urban’in the contemporaryenvironment. However, few will argue with 54 A. Inam deŽnitions two decades old that are still relevant today: a cityis a “relatively large,dense, andpermanent settlement[or network of settlements]of socially heterogeneous individuals”(L. Worthcited in Kostof,1991, p. 37),and a “point [orpoints] of maximum concentration for the powerand culture ofa com- munity”(L. Mumford citedin Kostof,1991, p. 37).The urban designer’s impera- tive,then, isto understand cities. On the one hand,the mostenduring feature ofthe cityis its physical build, whichremains with remarkable persistence, gaining incrementsthat are responsive to the mostrecent economicdemand and reective ofthe lateststylistic vogue, but conservingevidence of pasturban culture forpresent andfuture generations.On the otherhand, however, urban societychanges more than any other human grouping, economicinnovation usually comesmost rapidly andboldly in cities,immigration aims Ž rstat the urban core,forcing upon citiesthe criticalrole of acculturating refugees from manycountrysides and the windsof intellectual advanceblow strong in cities (Vance citedin Kostof,1991). Basedon the new synthesisof ideas proposed in thispaper, there arethree levels ofsuccess of an urban design project.These include, Žrst,the purely aestheticallyinformed notionof urban design asa Žnished product(e.g. Doesit lookgood?). The secondis the sense ofthe projectas anautonomousobject that functionsin anaffordable, convenient andcomfortable manner for its users (e.g. Doesit work?). The third,and new, ideais to have the urban design project generate orsubstantially contribute to socio-economic development processes (e.g. Doesit produce long-term qualityof life impacts?).In thissense, urban designers andurban design projectsbecome catalystsfor community betterment, economicimprovement and international understanding. Consequently, urban designers shouldfocus more on the ‘urban’of urban design, andbecome lessinfatuated with the ‘design’of urban design. Urban design mustbegin withcities: how they workand change; and what impacts they havein creatingenabling vs.destructive impacts. For example, urban design has tobe seen withinthe frameworkof investment and development policies,and asa shaperof thosepolicies: Crane’ s (1966)capital web ofinvestmentdecisions; andLai’ s (1988)invisible web oflawsand norms that guide people’s behaviour. Atthe sametime, design andform play acriticalrole because they area language andvocabulary for analysing and intervening in cities. Atthe mostfundamental level, allurban design shouldbe responsible for creatingan environment that satisŽ es, informs and inspires itsusers (i.e. the community).This is an urban design thatpossesses an articulatecommunicative proŽciency. Urbandesign ofprofound signiŽcance has a poeticquality. By the meansof compressing its meanings into a conciseformal expression, a poetic urban design project drawsthe mindto a level ofperception concealedbehind the conventionalpresentations of urban form.The mosteffective symbolsare thosewhich, while operatingwithin a given setof conventions, are imprecise, sparseand open-ended in their possible interpretations,tending moreto the metaphorthan the simile.Such anapproach requires deep culturalunderstand- ing andsocial sensitivity.

Implicationsfor Education The pedagogicalapproach to meaningful urban design will be interdisciplinary (e.g. examining citiesfrom the perspectives of architects,landscape architects, MeaningfulUrban Design 55 urban planners,policy makers,social workers and business interests),teleologi- cal(e.g. driven by the express purpose ofaddressing critical urban challenges suchas uncomfortable and unsafe built environments,community powerless- ness,economic deprivation and fragmented interventions),critical (e.g. basedon in-depth understandingof urban design problemsand promises through analysisof urban design practiceand case studies) and catalytic (e.g. the formulationof effective urban design strategiesthat include afocuson urban design productssuch as building complexesand public spaces,but alsoinclude the generationof long-term communityand economic development processes). The primaryimpact on this type oflearning forstudents will be anunder- standingof the urban designer asa leader.Through anin-depth analysisof urban issues,an interdisciplinary approach to urban problem solvingand skills thatfocus not only onissuesof urban aestheticsand form but alsoon purposeful interventiongenerated by long-term processes,students will gaina profound andempowering understandingof meaningful urban design. Students ofurban design will alsogain humility andconŽ dence by studying the powerstructures ofcities (and realizing just how little power urban designers actuallyhave), practisingcritical thinking andlearning tobe politicallysavvy in orderto accomplishtheir goals.A secondaryimpact on learning forstudents will be a unique opportunityfor them to shape the future directionof urban design throughreadings, research, discussions, case-study analyses and project designs thatwill focuson speciŽ c urban challenges, examine deŽciencies in current urban design approachesand projects in addressingthose challenges and formulatealternative, more meaningful, urban design strategies. In orderto reachsuch goals, an urban design programmeshould focus on two majorsets of skills:understanding how cities work; and learning toshape cities. Understandingcities includes their conception(e.g. urban theoryand form), their evolution(e.g. historyof urban form),their decision-makingprocesses (e.g. urban politicaleconomy) and their use andexperience (e.g. urban sociology). Learning toshape citiesincludes design methods(e.g. basedon empirical evidence andcommunity participation) and communication skills (e.g. graphic, verbal,written and computer-based). The goalof a meaningful urban design pedagogicalinitiative would be toattractstudents of the built environment(e.g. architects,landscape architects and urban planners) whowill become sophisti- catedpractitioners and in uential leadersof urban design in architecturaland planning Žrms,community organizations, public agencies andinternational institutions.The initiativewould thus involve: (1) teachingof exploratory seminarsand studios in new urban design methodologies(e.g. international studios);(2) researchinto the relevantroles of professionals,especially architects andplanners, in the urban design ofcontemporary cities (e.g. institutional structures);and (3) professionalwork, in the formof community outreach and project analysis(e.g. evaluatingNew Urbanism). In summary,a meaningful pedagogicalapproach to urban design shouldhave the following characteristics:(1) small(i.e. selective)—focus on key urban design challenges, e.g. inner cityrevitalization; (2) focused (i.e. depth)—develop exper- tisein the urban design/urban development nexus; (3) distinct(i.e. cutting- edge)—experiment withnew studioformats, projects and research, e.g. internationalcollaboration and cross-cultural learning; and(4) existingresources (i.e. breadth)—build upon otherdepartments, e.g. socialwork, business, natural resourcesand environment. 56 A. Inam

The criticalquestion that guides thismeaningful future ofurban design is simply:So what?That is, what consequential purpose hasbeen achieved by particularurban design theories,urban design methodologies,urban design practicesand urban design practitioners?The implicationof suchprobing questionsis that it is far from adequate to consider urban design projectsas successfulif they areonly physically appealing orthought-provoking.

Conclusion In conclusion,the authorwould like toreturn tothe provocationsthat were referred toatthe beginning ofthis paper. While bothRem Koolhaas and Michael Sorkin areemblematic of the image-based,architect-driven urban design that permeatesmuch ofthe worldand especially the USA, they arealso contributors toan urban design strategythat is realistic, and contrary to the nostalgiaevoked by the New Urbanismand neo-traditional movements. Thus, for Koolhaas:

If there isto be a‘new urbanism’it will notbe basedon the twin fantasiesof order and omnipotence … but aboutdiscovering unnam- able hybrids [asis the casewith Los Angeles] …RedeŽned, urbanism will notonly, or mostly, be aprofession,but awayof thinking, an ideology:to accept what exists. We were makingsand castles. Now we swimin the seathat swept them away. (Koolhaas, 1995, pp. 969–971)

Koolhaasthus encourages us, Ž rst,to accept the contemporaryurban condition (insteadof seeing itthrough rose-tinted lenses), andsecond, as architects,urban designers andplanners, to understand and work with the contemporaryurban forces(instead of imagining aworldwithout cars or highways). Similarly,Sorkin extolsus tolearnfrom those urban design projectsand urban environmentswhich are successful in termsof the designer’s objectives of attractingpeople tothese environmentsand the vibrantuse of these environ- mentsby people. Even if the objectives were todiffer, say,in termsof greater socialinteraction and co-operation in aneighbourhood, the designers ofshop- ping malls,gambling casinosand amusement parks at least understand human behaviouras itrelates to entertainmentand consumption— lessons which can be used forother, perhaps morenoble, projects.Thus, according to Sorkin (1997, pp. 29–31):

Disneyland …isforemost a playground ofmobility, its entertainments largely thoseof pleasured motion.And, there issomething to be learned here. Itseems undeniable thatfor all of its depredations, all of itsregimentation, surveillance, and control, part of whatwe experience asenjoyable atDisneyland isthe passagethrough an environment of urban densityin whichboth the physicaltexture and the meansof circulationare not simply entertaining but standin invigoratingcon- trastto the dysfunctionalversions back home. One extractsfrom Disneyland ashredof hope, the persuasiveexample thatpedestrianism coupled withshort distance collective transport systems can be both efŽcient andfun, canthrive in the midstof anenvironmentcompletely otherwiseconstituted, and that the spaceof low, sufŽ ciently deceler- ated,can become the spaceof exchange. MeaningfulUrban Design 57

Figure 6. The design of Disneyland in LosAngeles, CA—albeit‘ artiŽcial’ and designed tofoster consumption— offers deeper lessonsfor understanding human behaviourand creating exciting environments—for, say, multicultural interac- tion—based on such understanding.

The ‘shredof hope’offered by Disneyland (see Figure 6)isconstituted by such lessonscarefully andcritically collected from numerous examples of contempor- aryurban design projects,and articulated— via relevant history, theory and methodology—into a meaningful approachto urban design.

Acknowledgement Thispaper wasthe secondplace winner of the 1999Chicago Institute for Architectureand Urbanism (CIAU) Award.This award, administered by the Skidmore, Owings& Merrill Foundationon behalf ofthe CIAU, isfor unpub- lished papers andis intended toencourage writingand research on the question ofhow architecture, infrastructure, urban design, andplanning cancontribute to improvingthe qualityof life of the Americancity. For more information about thisaward, the Foundationcan be contactedat , [email protected] . .

References Alexander,C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M.,Jacobson,M., Fiksdahl-King,I. &Angel, S.(1977) A Pattern Language:Towns, Buildings, Construction (New York,Oxford University Press). Attoe, W.&Logan,D. (1989) American Urban Architecture:Catalysts inthe Design of Cities (Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress). Beauregard,R. (1995)Theorizing the global–local connection, in:P. Knox& P.Taylor(Eds) World Cities ina WorldSystem (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press). Beckley, R.(1998)[Dean Emeritus andProfessor of Architecture andUrban Planning, College of Architecture andUrban Planning, University of Michigan]Written interview. Bratt,R. (1986)Public housing:the controversy andthe contribution, in:R. Bratt,C. Hartman& A. Meyerson(Eds) CriticalPerspectives in Housing (Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press). Calthorpe,P. (1993) TheNext American Metropolis:Ecology, Communities, andthe American Dream (New York,Princeton Architectural Press). 58 A. Inam

Ciriani,H. (1997) Henri Ciriani (Rockport, MA,Rockport Publishers). Crane,D. (1966) Planningand Design in New York: AStudyof Problems andProcesses of its Physical Environment (New York,Institute of Public Administration). Ellin, N.(1996) Postmodern Urbanism (Cambridge,MA, Blackwell). Frampton,K. (1992a)Critical regionalism:modern architecture andcultural identity. Frampton,K. (1992b) ModernArchitecture: A CriticalHistory ,3rdedn (London, Thames & Hudson). Frieden,B. &Sagalyn,L. (1989) Downtown, Inc.:How America RebuildsCities (Cambridge,MA, MIT Press). Garvin,A. (1996) TheAmerican City:What Works, WhatDoesn’ t (New York,McGraw-Hill). Gilbert, A.&Gugler,J. (1992) Cities,Poverty, and Development: Urbanization inthe Third World , 2nd edn (New York,Oxford University Press). Hester,R. (1990) CommunityDesign Primer (Mendocino,CA, Ridge Times Press). Inam,A. (1992)The urban monument: symbol, memory, presence, master’s thesis in urbandesign, WashingtonUniversity, StLouis. Inam,A. (1997)Institutions, routines, andcrises: post-earthquakehousing recovery in Mexico City andLos Angeles, doctoral dissertation in urbanplanning, University of SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles, CA. Jacobs,A. (1993) Great Streets (Cambridge,MA, MIT Press). Jacobs,J. (1961) TheDeath andLife of Great American Cities (New York,Random House). Jones,T., Pettus, W.&Pyatok,M. (1995) Good Neighbors:Affordable Family Housing (New York, McGraw-Hill). Kasprisin, R.&Pettinari, J.(1995) Visual Thinkingfor Architectsand Designers: Visualizing Context in Design (New York,Van Nostrand Reinhold). Kelbaugh,D. (1997) Common Place:Toward Neighborhoodand Regional Design (Seattle, WA, University of WashingtonPress). Koolhaas,R. (1995) Small,Medium, Large, Extra Large (Rotterdam,010 Publishers). Kostof, S.(1991) TheCity Shaped: Urban Patterns andMeanings through History (Boston,MA, BulŽ nch Press). Krumholz,N. &Clavel, P.(1994) ReinventingCities: Equity Planners Tell Their Stories (Philadelphia, Temple University Press). Lagerfeld,S. (1995)What Main Street canlearn from the mall, AtlanticMonthly , November, pp. 110–120. Lai,R. T.(1988) Law inUrban Designand Planning: The Invisible Web (New York,Van Nostrand Reinhold). Loukaitou-Sideris, A.&Banerjee,T. (1998) Urban DesignDowntown: Poeticsand Politics of Form (Berkeley,CA, University of CaliforniaPress). Lynch,K. (1981) Good CityForm (Cambridge,MA, MITPress). Moore,G. &Marans,R. (Eds)(1997) Advancesin Environment, Behavior, and Design: Toward the Integrationof Theory,Methods, Research, and Utilization (New York,Plenum Press). Porter, M.(1995)The competitive advantageof the inner city, Harvard BusinessReview ,73,pp. 55–71. Rowe, P.(1991) Makinga MiddleLandscape (Cambridge,MA, MIT Press). Rowe, P.(1997) CivicRealism (Cambridge,MA, MIT Press). Sandercock,L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planningfor MulticulturalCities (Chichester, NY,John Wiley). Sassen,S. (2000) Cities ina WorldEconomy ,2ndedn (Thousand Oaks, CA, Pine ForgePress). Saunders,W. (1997)Rem Koolhaas’s writing oncities: poetic perception andgnomic fantasy, Journal of ArchitecturalEducation ,51,pp. 61–71. Savitch, H.V.(1988) Post-IndustrialCities: Politics and Planning in New York, Paris andLondon (Princeton, NJ,Princeton University Press). Schneekloth,L. &Shibley,R. (1995) Placemaking:The Art andPractice of BuildingCommunities (New York,Wiley). Segal,M. B.(1995)An old commercial district goesfrom cold to hot, Urban Land,54(11),pp. 16–18. Serageldin,I. (Ed.)(1997) TheArchitecture of Empowerment: People,Shelter and Livable Cities (London, AcademyEditions). Short,J. R.(1996) TheUrban Order: AnIntroduction to Cities,Culture, and Power (Cambridge,MA, Blackwell). Sorkin,M. (1997) TrafŽc inDemocracy ,1997Raoul Wallenberg Lecture (AnnArbor, MI, College of Architecture andUrban Planning, University of Michigan). UrbanDesign Group (1998)Involving local communities in urbandesign, Urban DesignQuarterly , 67, pp. 15–38.