Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in the Urban Design Process: Towards a Multi-disciplinary Approach

Moureen Asaad; Marwa Khalifa; Ahmed S. Abd Elrahman

doi:10.21625/archive.v3i1.435

Moureen Asaad ⁽¹⁾, Marwa Khalifa ⁽²⁾, Ahmed S. Abd Elrahman ⁽³⁾

(1) BSc, Urban Design and Planning Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt, Egypt,

(2) Professor, Urban Design and Planning Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt, Egypt,

(3) Associate Professor, Urban Design and Planning Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt, Egypt

https://doi.org/10.21625/archive.v3i1.435

Issue
Vol. 3 Issue 1 (2019): Energy Efficiency and Built Environment in Developing Countries

Submitted
February 7, 2019

Published
February 7, 2019

Keywords:

Urban Design Process, Gap, Multi-disciplinary, Success criteria

XML PDF

Abstract

The city is a complex living organism mostly affected by decisions taken whether they are political, organizational, or design decisions. Such decisions vary in scale starting with planning, urban design, and architectural scales. Urban design has been commonly agreed to occupy a hypothetical intersection between planning and architecture. It emerged to bridge the disciplinary gap between architecture and planning. Since 1960s urban design literature attempted to define what good urban design and good city form is, and the process to achieve it; yet in practice the end product doesn’t always achieve high quality in terms of urban design initial objectives. Over the last decades, the gap between disciplinary dreams in theory and real outcomes translated as urban design product of different practices has been growing in the field of urban planning and urban design. Since the urban design product does not meet its expected objectives in theory then something must be wrong with it, and a thorough investigation must come in order to perceive such gap. The Research aims to answer two main questions regarding urban design through examining the Urban Design Process; the first is whether the urban design process is capable to bridge the multidisciplinary gap? And the second question is with the little knowledge and lack of success criteria for the urban design process; how can the success of urban design be measured?

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Arida, A. (2002). Quantum City. Routledge.

ASBEC. (2017, February 17). Leadership Context. Retrieved from Creating Places for People: An Urban

Design Protocol for Australian Cities: http://urbandesign.org.au/protocol-framework/principles/context/

Australian Government. (2011). Our Cities, Our Future: A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure and Transport.

Australian Government. (2015, November 9). How Government Works. Retrieved July 4, 2017, from Australian Government: http://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works

Bahrainy, H., & Bakhtiar, A. (2016). Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design. Tehran: Springer.

CABE. (2003). The councillor’s guide to urban design. London: urban initiatives.

Carmona, M. (2010). Public Places - Urban Spaces. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.

Carmona, M. (2013). Design codes, diffusion of practice in England. Wordpress.com.

Carmona, M., de Magalhaes, C., Edwards, M., Awor, B., & Aminossehe, S. (2001). The Value of Urban Design: a research project commissioned by CABE and DETR to examine the value added by good urban design. London: ThomasTelford.

Cunningham, M. C. (1972). Framework for historical explanation in urban design. Ekistics, 310-315.

Cuthbert, A. R. (2006). The Form of Cities: Political Economy and Urban Design. Oxford, Victoria, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.

Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2011). Creating places for people: an urban design protocol for Australian cities. Dept of Infrastructure and Transport.

Devries, B., Tabak, V., & Achten, H. (2005). Interactive urban design using integrated planning requirements control. Automation in Construction, 207-213.

Elshater, A. M. (2014). Urban design redux: Redefining a professional practice of specialization. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 25-39.

Frey, H. (1999). Degining the city towards a more sustainable urban form. London and New York: Spon press.

George, R. V. (1997). A procedural explanation for contemporary urban design A Procedural Explanation for Contemporary Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 143-161.

Ghonimi, I., El zamly, H., Khairy, M., & Soliman, M. (2010). Against the great divide between theory and

practice: Gated Communities versus Urban Liveability. REAL CORP 2010: Liveable, prosper, healthy CITIES

for everyone (pp. 18-20). Vienna: Tagungsband.

Greed, C., & Roberts, M. (2014). Introducing Urban design Interventions and Responses. London and New York: Routledge.

Habitat III policy unit. (2016). National urban policy. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III). Surabaya, Indonesia: United Nations General Assembly.

Homes and Communities Agency; English Partnerships. (2007). Delivering quality places : urban design compendium 2. London: Roger Evans Associates.

Jacobs, A., & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association, 112-120.

Jensen Planning & Design. (2014). PLANNING REFORM ISSUES PAPER: URBAN DESIGN. South Australia: Jensen Planning & Design.

Jones, T. L. (2006). Globalising Urban Design. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (pp. 29-37). London; New York: Routledge.

Knox , P., & Ozolins, P. (2000). Design Professionals and the Built Environment: An Introduction. London: Wiley.

Kreiger, A. (2006). Territories of urban design. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (p. 20).

USA; Canada: Routledge.

Kreiger, A. (2006). Territories of Urban design. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (pp. 18-28). London and New York: Routledge.

Kreiger, A., & William, S. S. (2009). Urban Design. Minnesota : University of Minnesota Press.

Lang, J. (2005). Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Lang, J. (2014). Comments on ‘The Place Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process’. Journal of Urban Design, 41-43.

Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Oxford: Elsevier.

Levy, J. M. (2009). Contemporary urban planning. Pearson Education.

Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Massachusetts and London: MIT press.

Macdonald, E. (2016). The planning dimension of sustainable urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 43-45.

Madanipour, A. (1997). Ambiguities of Urban Design. The Town Planning Review, 363-383.

Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and Challenges of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 173-193.

Marshall, R. (2009). The Elusiveness of Urban Design: The Perpetual Problem of Definition and Role. In A. Krieger, & W. S. Saunders, Urban Design (pp. 38-57). Minnesota : University of Minnesota Press.

Meadows, R. (1980). URBAN DESIGN QUARTERLY. Urban Design journal.

Moor, M. (2006). Urban Design Futures. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (pp. 2-16). London and Newyork: Routledge.

Moughtin, C., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C., & Paola, S. (1999). Urban Design: Method and Techniques. Oxford,

Aukland, Boston, Johannesburg, Melbourne, New Delhi: Architectural Press.

Mumford, E. (2002). Urban Design: Practices, Pedagogies, Premises. From CIAM to Collage City: Postwar European Urban Design and American Urban Design Education, (pp. 5-12). New York.

Palazzo, D., & Steiner, F. (2011). Urban Ecological Design: A Process for Regenerative Places. In O. F. Ndubisi, Ecological design and planning (pp. 379-389). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Palermo, P. C. (2014). What ever is happening to urban planning and urban design? Musings on the current gap between theory and practice. City, Territory and Architecture.

Palermo, P. C., & Ponzini, D. (2012). At the Crossroads between Urban Planning and Urban Design: Critical Lessons from Three Italian Case Studies. Planning Theory & Practice, 445-460.

Palich, N., & Edmonds, A. (2013). Social sustainability: creating places and participatory processes that perform well for people. Australian Institute of Architects.

Shahreen, F. (2010). Urban design theory and practice aimed at sustainability . The Liverpool Study Cases in the United Kingdom planning system. Politecnico di Torino.

Shirvani, H. (1985). The urban design process. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Steino, N. (2003, August). VISION , PLAN and REALITY. PhD Thesis.

Steino, N. (2004). Urban Design and Planning : One object – Two Theoretical Realms . Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 63-85.

Sternberg, E. (2000). An Integrative Theory of Urban Design. Journal of the American Planning Association, 265–278.

Tibbalds, F. (1988). Intentions in Urban Design 1. urban design quarterly, 11-12.

Tibbalds, F. (1992). ‘Places’ matter most. In M. Carmona, & S. Tiesdell, Urban Design Reader (pp. 18-20).

Architectural Press.

UDG. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework (England). England: Department of Communities and Local Government.

UN-Habitat. (2013, September 5). Urban Planning and Design. Retrieved from UN Habitat for a better urban future: https://unhabitat.org/expertise/2-urban-planning-and-design/

UN-Habitat. (2016). Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice.

Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).

UN-Habitat. (2016). The State of National Urban Policy in OECD countries. OECD AND HABITAT III.

Urban Design group. (2011). Retrieved from Urban Design Group: http://www.udg.org.uk/about/what-is-urban-design

Washburn, A. (2013). The Nature of Urban Design. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.

Authors

Moureen Asaad

BSc, Urban Design and Planning Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt

moureen[email protected] (Primary Contact)

Marwa Khalifa

Professor, Urban Design and Planning Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt

Ahmed S. Abd Elrahman

Associate Professor, Urban Design and Planning Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt

Asaad, M., Khalifa, M., & Abd Elrahman, A. S. (2019). Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in the Urban Design Process: Towards a Multi-disciplinary Approach. The Academic Research Community Publication, 3(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.21625/archive.v3i1.435

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

With the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher's final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher's request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author's own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:

The Work is the Author's original work;
The Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
The Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
The Work has not previously been published;
The Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
The Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author's breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 7 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher's use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Article Sidebar

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Article Details