SHRAPNEL URBAN PLANNING

Suite 18
336 Churchill Avenue
Subiaco
Western Australia 6008

ABN 37 139 283 692

The following is a modified version of an opinion I provided recently in a WA Town Planning Appeals Tribunal hearing. It represents my latest thinking on the application of urban design theory in relation to commercial development.

Urban Design and Commercial Development

Town Planning may be described as
"the art and science of ordering the use of land and the character and siting of buildings and communication routes so as to secure the maximum practicable degree of economy, convenience and beauty" (Lewis Keeble; Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning; Estates Gazette Ltd, 1969).

Urban design is that aspect of Town Planning primarily concerned with "the character and siting of buildings" and the role and nature of the spaces between buildings – particularly functional spaces such as streets (communication routes) and public open spaces.

The design of individual buildings is architecture. At its more detailed level (groups of buildings and public spaces) the practice of urban design overlaps with the profession of architecture and is often carried out by architects. However, urban design is also part of mainstream Town Planning, because it is simply not possible to effectively engage in the practice of Town Planning, without simultaneously engaging at some level in the practice of urban design.

Urban design is often quite prescriptive at the detailed level, but it may also be considered more broadly as illustrated, for example, in the following definition:
“Urban design is a loose term with many different meanings, but essentially it describes a process by which quality in the built environment is facilitated. The process involves many different people and interests; it extends over a range of spatial scales and a protracted timescale; and it involves exercising indirect rather than direct influence and control over design decisions.” (Urban Design Quarterly; The Journal of the Urban Design Group; Spring 2001 / Issue 78).

Some urban designers reject the prescriptive approach to urban design altogether, for example:
”Cities are not designed by making pictures of the way they should look twenty years from now. They are created by a decision-making process that goes on continuously, day after day…
”The day-to-day decisions about the allocation of government money according to conflicting needs and different political interests, or the economics of real-estate investment, are in fact the medium of city design, as essential to the art as paint to the painter”. (Jonathan Barnett; Urban Design as Public Policy pp. 5-6; Architectural Record Books, 1974).

One of the most highly esteemed urban planners and designers, the late Kevin Lynch had this to say:
”…I should also admit that city design is rarely practiced – or, more often, it is mispracticed as big architecture or big engineering: the design of whole towns as single physical objects, extended site plans or utility networks, to be built to precise plan in a predetermined time. True city design never begins with a virgin situation, never foresees a completed work. Properly, it thinks in terms of process, prototype, guidance, incentive, and control and is able to conceive broad, fluid sequences along with concrete, homely details.” (Kevin Lynch; A Theory of Good City Form, page 291; The MIT Press, 1981).

Like Town Planning, urban design can, with validity, be somewhat aspiring in nature. Evan Jones has described it as follows:
”Urban design includes consideration of aspects of the relationship of buildings one to another; the spaces between buildings; the public and private realms; and the use of the spaces created to enhance social interaction and exchange, amenity, and a sense of well being and community” (Witness Statement of Evan Jonathan Jones in relation to TPAT Appeal 160 of 2002).

However, while urban design specifically aimed at facilitating “quality in the built environment” is an important activity, it should, in my opinion give as much attention to practical matters, such as the economics of real estate development, as it does to aspirational matters such as a sense of well being. Where it does not get the balance right, design failure is likely.

New Urbanism

Today, the theory and practice of urban design has become strongly associated with what for the sake of simplicity and brevity may be termed the "new urbanism" movement. Essentially the rise of this movement was a reaction against the negative effects of modernism, of which there are numerous examples.

There are many strands to the new urbanism movement which have come together from different sources – both American and European – over a period of several decades. These strands have now more-or-less joined to form the main mode of thought in contemporary urban design.

At present the influence of this movement is so strong in urban design circles that new urbanism and urban design are more-or-less synonymous. “Mixed-use” development in a “main-street” format is the order of the day in urban design theory at present, and one queries this fixation professionally at some considerable risk of peer group disapproval.

However, this disapproval is not widely shared by the commercial world, where it is a well known fact that main street commercial development can potentially be an investment fiasco, does not suit every situation because it will not always be economical, convenient, and acceptable to commercial tenants and the general public. The fact is that main street development is not always a practical option.

Responsive Environments

One of the most influential strands contributing to the “new urbanism” movement (I am using “new urbanism” as a generic term to describe new urbanism itself and related concepts) is “Responsive Environments” (Bentley, Alcock, Murrain, McGlynn, Smith; Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd; 1985)

Essentially, responsive environments encompass the following qualities:

Permeability – a larger number of routes through an environment to choose from;

Variety – a larger range of uses and choice of experiences;

Legibility – the layout is easy for people to understand;

Robustness – the degree to which people can use a given place for different purposes;

Visual Appropriateness – the extent to which the appearance of the place makes people aware of the choices available;

Richness – a wide choice of enjoyable sensory experiences;

Personalisation – the extent to which people are able to put their own stamp on a place.

In urban design terms these desirable qualities have, understandably, attained the status of firm principles. However, almost all interpretations or illustrations of these principles that I have seen have taken the form of a grid-based street network and, insofar as they affect commercial development they have taken the form of main street shopping environments, sometimes incorporating residential development to produce mixed-use environments. Most examples in the literature strongly resemble pre-industrial European or historic American cities.

The reaction against poorly executed modernism is understandable, and the basic principles of the new urbanism are generally sound. However, I believe there is a problem in the interpretation of these principles as necessarily harking back to a by-gone era, where most development was at a much smaller scale and not many people used cars.

In my opinion it is a mistake to allow the concept of urban design per se, to be identified too closely with any particular design philosophy. This can lead to very poor results if, for example, “main street” shops in inappropriate positions under-perform or remain empty due to lack of commercial interest. The form of the shops might accord with a particular urban design philosophy, but specifically designed commercial development that is shunned by the commercial world due to its inappropriateness as tenantable commercial space clearly represents very poor design in my opinion.

27 July, 2004

Send any feedback or enquiries to ts@shrapnel.com.au
Last modified: December 27, 2007