See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338516268

What is urban design? A proposal for a common understanding

Article  in  Journal of Urban Design · January 2020

DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1705776

CITATIONS READS

9 1,936

5 authors, including:

Stefano Cozzolino Jan Polivka

Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development RWTH Aachen University & ILS Research Institute for regional and Urban Develop…
19 PUBLICATIONS   169 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Runrid Fox-Kämper Olivia Kummel

Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development Landscape Conservation Association Potsdamer Kulturlandschaft
45 PUBLICATIONS   265 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Growing Bad - The Regional Sub-Urban Housing Challenge. International Research Perspectives Symposium in Aachen, Germany, 06-07 September 2018 View project

Call for Abstracts: Home sharing. Short-term rentals affecting local housing markets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefano Cozzolino on 09 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Urban Design

ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20

What is urban design? A proposal for a common

understanding

Stefano Cozzolino, J. Polívka, R. Fox-Kämper, M. Reimer & O. Kummel

To cite this article: Stefano Cozzolino, J. Polívka, R. Fox-Kämper, M. Reimer & O. Kummel
(2020): What is urban design? A proposal for a common understanding, Journal of Urban Design,
DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1705776

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1705776

Published online: 10 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN
https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1705776

DISCUSSION

What is urban design? A proposal for a common understanding

Stefano Cozzolino , J. Polívka, R. Fox-Kämper, M. Reimer and O. Kummel
Department of Spatial Planning and Urban Design, ILS – Research Institute for Regional and Urban
Development, Dortmund, Germany

ABSTRACT
The lack of a common understanding of what urban design is about
is an issue that needs to be resolved. This paper analyzes some
relevant contemporary definitions of urban design. Based on this
analysis, it first identifies certain general features of this discipline.
Then, it provides a general definition, and finally, it clarifies poten-
tial misunderstandings. In this paper, any discussion of what makes
good urban design is avoided. The main goal is to provide
a reasonable definition that can help to navigate the longstanding
indeterminacy of this field.

Introduction: do we need a common understanding?

One might say that the concern of urban design has existed since human settlements were
first consciously designed (Kostof 1991; Cuthbert 2007). However, in contemporary literature,
it has been acknowledged that urban design – as an independent field of research – remains
a recent conquest. Moudon (1992, 439), Palazzo (2011, 42) and Rowley (1994, 180), for
example, maintained that the official discipline emerged in the USA in the 1950s. In those
times, the ambition was to strengthen the bridge between planning and architecture (Krieger
and Saunders 2009) and to combine art and science (Mumford 2009). During that period,
significant studies were published by Lynch (1960), Cullen (1961), Jacobs (1961) and
Alexander (1965), to name a few, which have contributed to the consolidation of this
important, but as yet opaque, field of research.
Over time, the field of urban design has experienced pessimistic views and challenges,
which have been continually remarked upon in the literature. Today, a consensus on what
urban design is about seems particularly elusive. For example, Palermo (2014) contended
that urban design culture does not express a single coherent position, while Sternberg
(2000, 265) stated that urban design lacks cohesive theoretical foundations. Marshall
(2012, 257) stressed that ‘urban design theory is not robustly based on a fully scientific
underpinning’ (see also Rapoport [1990] 2013). Cuthbert (2007, 1777) stated that ‘urban
design theory is anarchistic and insubstantial’, and Sorkin (2013) suggested that urban
design had reached a dead end. In brief, several criticisms have been presented in the
literature posing serious dilemmas about the consistency of urban design definitions and
theories. Moreover, some scholars believe that researchers should abandon their attempts
to define urban design. For example, according to Rowley (1994, 195), ‘it is pointless to

CONTACT Stefano Cozzolino [email protected]

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. COZZOLINO ET AL.

search for a single, succinct, unified and lasting definition of the nature and concerns of
urban design’.
However, the literature is not only pervaded by pessimistic views but also by attempts
to reorganize this field. Cuthbert (2007), despite his severe critiques, provided a beneficial
theoretical framework in which large parts of the literature were comprehensively reor-
ganized. Likewise, there are other interesting in-depth analyses of different theories and
approaches that have helped reframe the field of urban design. Good examples are, to
name a few, the works of Moudon (1992), Ellin (1999) and Araabi (2016). As evidenced by
the growing number of publications (see Figure 1), academic discourse on urban design
has increased exponentially (see also Madanipour 2006). Nevertheless, the lack of
a common understanding of urban design throughout the discipline remains a problem
identified in the literature. In short, the absence of a simple and clear definition of urban
design is a problem that should be explored and solved. Cuthbert referred to this as ‘the
endless problem of defining urban design’ (2007, 180).
The need to find a common understanding of urban design can be dated back to the
dawn of the discipline (Tibbalds 1984). In particular, as argued by Frick (2008), this
enduring indeterminacy raises certain epistemological questions that become even big-
ger when scholars and practitioners from different parts of the world interact, each of
them with their own longstanding cultural backgrounds. Quoting Lang (2006, xx), the
majority of experts avoid having to define urban design; ‘[they] talk about it with others
without having a common understanding’.
Giving serious consideration to this issue, the main aim of this paper is to provide
a general, simple and hopefully workable definition of urban design. Clear definitions are
necessary to resolve the inevitable misunderstandings that arise within a community of
interlocutors. The presence of good definitions is an indispensable pre-condition for the
formation of an intersubjective framework that enables the collective processes of inter-
action and learning among experts. However, this is not the only reason to have

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018

Figure 1. Number of publications in the field of urban design since 1998 (source: Web Science).
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 3

a workable definition. Having a clear common understanding can also enable the parti-
cipation of society in design processes and bring local communities closer to decision
making. Therefore, in contrast to the views of some scholars, this paper proposes that
researchers should attempt to define urban design. Note that even Cuthbert, one of the
most critical authors regarding attempts to define urban design, tried to provide
a definition that can be further clarified: ‘Urban design is the production and reproduction
of urban forms’ (2007, 185).
Before beginning, it is important to specify two points. First, in saying that the goal is to
provide a simple and general definition of urban design, this article doesn’t wish to make
the complexity of this topic banal. Second, compared to some recent attempts, this article
is disinterested in the analysis and/or promotion of any particular normative statement
concerning what makes good urban design. Rather, its main interest is to reach a certain
level of generalization and provide a reasonable definition that captures the common
ground within a highly fragmented field of study.
First, the article analyzes some relevant definitions of urban design (‘Definition of urban
Design’ section). Second, it proposes certain features of urban design from which
a general definition of urban design can be derived (‘Proposal for a Shared Ground’
section). Third, it specifies certain potential misunderstandings (‘Specification Remarks’
section). Finally, it presents some final considerations for future research prospects
(‘Conclusion’ section).

Method
During a preliminary investigation, different ideas of what constitutes urban design have
been noticed, so the search of pleasing definitions of urban design in the literature
became necessary. After discussing and analysing some articles it became clear that the
problem to define urban design was also largely shared by scholars in the literature. This
was the main trigger cause behind the decision to actively contribute to the debate with
this article.
The process was as follows: first the main criticisms presented in the literature were
collected. Then, authors and articles considered relevant were selected and analysed. In
this selection were included only articles published in the last twenty years by authors
who are widely known and quoted in the field of urban design. After recognizing certain
peculiarities and differences among the selected authors, their common ground and
connections were explored and investigated. This was possible through the identification
of four themes, each with two sub-categories, through which the literature were reorga-
nized. After that, the emerging results of the analysis were interpreted with certain
general features, which were then condensed into one comprehensive definition. After
refining the definition, also some certain potential misunderstandings were first recog-
nized and then clarified.
This research method has many positive aspects but presents some limitations as well.
First, the proposed definition was not directly compared with other definitions of urban
design. Second, only 12 scholars were selected for an in-depth analysis. Third, not all
papers of the selected authors were analysed but only a minimal selection. Fourth, the
choice of themes, categories and features, although carefully selected, was inevitably
arbitrary.
4 S. COZZOLINO ET AL.

Definitions of urban design

This section analyzes some relatively recent definitions of urban design provided by 12
contemporary scholars: Biddulph, Carmona, Childs, Cuthbert, Dovey, Lang, Madanipour,
Marshall, Moughtin, Neuman, Sternberg and Talen. Readers must bear in mind that this
selection is based on a limited number of authors and definitions out of numerous
possibilities (on this issue, see Bahrainy and Bakhtiar 2016). Nevertheless, it represents
an illustrative – yet not totally comprehensive – picture of today’s definitions of urban
design, as these are papers and authors that easily reach the hands of scholars and
researchers who want to explore the same question raised in this paper.
Before presenting the analysis, it is important to specify two points. First, in writing this
article the investigation goes beyond the 12 scholars selected. Other references were
considered before and during the development of the paper. Second, in order to show
certain recurrent aspects in the definitions of urban design, the analysed definitions have
been reorganized thematically in Table 1. The selected themes are: dimension (tangible
and intangible), scale (local and supra-local), interest (public and private), and process
(governance and rules). This reorganization has created a significant framework in which
certain key similarities and differences have been highlighted. Lastly, it is important to
underscore that the proposed table inevitably offers a simplified overview of the argu-
ments and contributions of the 12 authors selected. Its main scope is to shed light on
recurrent relevant themes and topics.
All selected authors paid particular attention to the tangible dimension of urban design,
that is, its material relevance in the shaping of urban forms. A minority underscored the
relevance of its intangible dimension (that is, its social, cultural and symbolic relevance).
For example, Childs (2010, 1) maintained that the main concern of urban design is ‘the
shaping of parts of settlements such as the relationships between multiple built-forms,
building typologies, public space, streets and other infrastructure’. Biddulph (2012, 1–12)
suggested that urban design is a practical and creative activity dealing with built-form
qualities. Moughtin [1999] 2003, 1) saw urban design as the art of city building, which has
its main focus in the creation of built forms that express social and collective values.

Table 1. Common themes, main similarities and differences among selected authors and papers.
Themes
Dimensions Scale Interest Process
Supra-
Tangible Intangible Local local Public Private Governance Rules
Authors Biddulph (2012) X / / / X / X /
Carmona (1996, 2016); Carmona X / X / X / X X
et al., (2006); Carmona et al.,
(2012)
Childs (2010) X / X / / / / /
Cuthbert (2006, 2007) X X / / / / / /
Dovey and Wood (2015) X / X / X X / X
Lang (2006) X / X / X / X /
Madanipour (1999, 2004, 2006) X X X X X / X /
Marshall (2016) X / X X X X / /
Moughtin ([1999] 2003) X X / / X / / /
Neuman and Zonneveld (2018) X / / X / / X /
Sternberg (2000) X / X / X X / /
Talen (2009) X / / / X X / X
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 5

Madanipour (2004, i) defined urban design as an activity that ‘adjusts the structural space
by producing new spatial organization’. Finally, Cuthbert (2006, 21–25) defined urban
design as ‘the social production of space in its material and symbolic dimensions’, that is,
the production of urban meanings in certain urban forms (see also Cuthbert 2007).
In discussing the issue of scale, most authors underscored the local relevance of urban
design, while others extended its reference to higher, supra-local scales. For example,
Sternberg (2000, 265) saw urban design as an activity that operates ‘at scales larger than
a single building or a single plot of land’. Marshall (2016, 401) freed the scale of urban
design interest ‘to any kind of design of the built environment at varied scale, from the
design of manhole covers to grade-separated freeway intersections’. Neuman and
Zonneveld (2018, 1) underlined the idea that the increase in mobility and interconnectiv-
ity of contemporary life are driving urbanization processes at the city-region level. In their
view, ‘regional design’ is indispensable (see also Kempenaar and van den Brink 2018).
Another important theme is the interests of urban design and, more specifically, the
dialectic between private and public interests in the production of urban forms. Referring
again to Sternberg (2000, 275), urban design can be seen as a practice that transcends
individual (private) property and takes place in the public realm. The main goal, as
maintained by Marshall (2016, 400), is the ‘composition of multiple urban elements to
create collective ensembles’. Dovey and Wood (2015) also emphasized the dialectic
between private and public interest. In particular, he pointed out that the relationship
between public and private spaces is a crucial urban design concern and one of the main
factors influencing the functioning of cities.
Following the selected authors and papers, the recognition of publicly relevant urban
assets is a crucial aspect of urban design practices. In this sense, what is considered
collectively relevant must be designed. From this perspective, Biddulph (2012) main-
tained that the scope of urban design is to improve the form and character of the public
realm. Moughtin [1999] 2003, 11–12) believed that the discipline of urban design deals
mainly with the structuring of certain collective spaces that make up the public face of
settlements. Carmona (1996, 57) stated that ‘urban design is taken to mean the relation-
ship between elements that make up the public domain’. In brief, as suggested by
Madanipour (1999, 879) the main interest in urban design is the creation and manage-
ment of publicly relevant spaces. This idea was strengthened by Carmona (2016, 705),
who asserted that urban design concerns not only the definition of the physical outcome
in the name of the public interest but also the process that shapes it.
This last point introduces another important theme suggesting that urban design is
a process of ruling and governing the production of and changes in the built environment.
In this regard, Lang (2006) saw the practice of urban design as a coordination process of
multiple interests in designing new settlements or redesigning existing ones. The impor-
tance of urban designers as mediators was underscored by Biddulph (2012). In his view,
urban designers are experts working along open processes in which a multiplicity of
stakeholders and interests are involved. This point was also stressed by Carmona et al.
(2012, 258–259), who maintained that urban designers should defend the civic purpose of
projects through analyses of contingent territorial circumstances, the creation of work-
able scenarios and, more importantly, the governance of processes through which
abstract ideas are turned into effective plans. Madanipour (2006, 176–188) stressed this
point by arguing that urban designers’ task is to adjust the spatial organization of cities
6 S. COZZOLINO ET AL.

towards a ‘socially integrative and responsible urban form’. He maintained that this can
happen only if the collective dimension is taken into consideration. In other words, he
believed that urban design deals not only with physical appearances but also, more
importantly, with the ‘processes of shaping cities’ (Madanipour 2004, 1).
These last points emphasize the role urban designers play in guiding and defining the
design process by including multiple interests and collective concerns in city develop-
ments. Nevertheless, guiding and negotiating urban changes by intermediating between
multiple interests is not the only way through which urban designers shape design
processes. Talen (2009, 144) pointed out the relevance of the legal/normative sphere
that influences the development of future transformations. This happens with the intro-
duction of rules about building forms. Rules of this kind deal specifically with the concrete
physical organization of spaces and are also applied to private developments to intercept,
include and defend the public interest in the transformation of the built environment. In
this regard, Carmona, Marshall, and Stevens (2006) stated that rules are specific urban
design tools that might deliver better quality development and to integrate the contribu-
tions of different urban actors.

Proposal for a shared ground

The analysis of different urban design definitions, which has been summarized in Table 1,
helps us to generate a common ground describing eight main features of urban design.
The aim here is to create an umbrella under which most existing definitions and discus-
sions of urban design fit. Moreover, as explained in the previous section, the novel aspect
of this proposal is that it omits normative statements concerning how urban design
should be done or any idea of the good city form. The goal is to generate a definition
that includes different approaches and ethical perspectives. Note that these features
cannot be directly derived from the selected works but are introduced after a long trial
and error process of reinterpretation, rethinking and debate within the research group.

Feature 1: urban design deals with the production and adaptation of the built
environment
The practice of urban design deals with the production and adaptation of the built
environment, both in terms of built structures and the open spaces in between. It is
a practice that works with the material dimension of the urban fabric and implies physical
changes in the existing states of affairs. While urban design may also have social effects or
pursue social goals, if it does so, then it is mainly by moulding the material dimensions of
settlements.

Feature 2: urban design introduces spatial order

When changes in the built environment are the result of urban design projects, these do
not happen randomly but are based on certain principles through which designers aim to
impress order in space, whether functional, aesthetic or otherwise. Thus, urban design is
a practice that not only implies certain material changes in settlements but also organizes
them according to certain principles.
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 7

Feature 3: urban design acts in the name of the public interest

Urban design is a practice acting in the name of the public interest, which pursues
collective ambitions. For this reason, urban design is a politically relevant activity.
Indeed, the recognition of publicly relevant urban assets is a process that follows the
typical political discussions and procedures. In short, the main scope of urban design is to
develop, improve and defend the public realm in the production and adaptation of the
built environment.

Feature 4: urban design expresses social values

Urban design is a practice that expresses social values in the construction of built forms. It
is of interest to underscore here that the public interest is not only related to public spaces
but also to collective values and cultures expressed physically also in private transforma-
tions. This point is of interest, as the values through which different societies recognize
and express themselves evolve over time, but their physical materialization in cities – if
and as far as maintained – persists from generation to generation, transferring uses,
customs and practices. In brief, the practice of urban design is bound to culturally-
specific contexts holding longstanding values.

Feature 5: urban design works at scales larger than a single building and across
properties
Urban design is a practice that extends beyond single plots, working across multiple
properties at scales larger than a single building. For instance, urban design may occur at
the precinct level or beyond. Hence, urban design considerations may arise over
a spectrum of spatial scales extending from the very local (for example, a small square
or one local street) to the metropolitan scale. However, in the analysed literature, urban
design was mostly perceived as a local practice related to places, and only a minority of
scholars extended its scale of reference, for instance, to the regional level.

Feature 6: urban design is a creative, goal-oriented activity

The practice of urban design is a purposeful act, organized and managed by urban
designers, whose goal is to introduce, guide and moderate changes in the existing state
of affairs. The practice of designing, as opposed to something that emerges sponta-
neously by itself without central coordination, requires human intellect, ideas, plans and
steered processes, and therefore, someone capable of generating and conceiving its
contents. It is an intentional, goal-oriented activity operating for the attainment of specific
objectives. For this reason, urban design is often presented as a work of art or technical
practice.

Feature 7: urban design is performed directly and indirectly

Urban design can be performed in a direct or indirect way. In the first case, the concern of
urban design is the creation of projects in which specific solutions are visualized. In this
8 S. COZZOLINO ET AL.

case, a visualization-based approach (that is, drawings, modelling, renderings or similar)

to organize concrete spatial arrangements is emphasized. In the second case, urban
design’s concern is with regard to the normative sphere, that is, the introduction of
rules (and/or guidelines) that restrict, specify or suggest what and within which limits
other urban actors (for example developers, households, builders and so on) can act
independently to create future spatial solutions and arrangements they like. In
this second case, a legalistic approach is emphasized.

Feature 8: urban design is a practice requiring multiple skills

Urban design is a practice requiring three main capacities: (i) the capacity to comprehend
contingent territorial circumstances, (ii) the capacity to hold certain normative positions
as regards the way in which space should be organized and transformed and (iii) the
capacity to organize not only the final outcome but also the process through which it will
be possible to reach the intended outcome. This means, for instance, being able to work
within certain socio-political conditions, such as working with different stakeholders who
have different interests and possess the technical expertise required to make abstract
ideas into workable and feasible plans.

A possible definition of urban design

To conclude and trying to sum up the above features, the following general definition of
urban design is suggested:
Urban design is a creative and purposeful activity with collective and public concerns
that deals with the production and adaptation of the built environment at scales larger
than a single plot or building. Its main scope is to impress a certain degree of order in the
shaping of new physical developments and in the creation and management of the public
realm. It operates in two main ways: first, by visualizing the physical outcome of particular
projects through drawings or, second, by providing rules to deal with the physical forms
of future transformations. This practice requires the capacity to analyse the current state
of affairs, sketch out possible workable scenarios and implement them in reality.

Specification remarks
In advancing one general definition of urban design, four specifications are needed to
avoid misunderstandings, specify the field of interest and recognize the limits within
which the discipline of urban design operates. In this regard, the following issues are
worth exploring: (i) the differences and overlaps between urban design, urban planning
and architecture; (ii) the multi-level institutional framework within which urban design
occurs; (iii) the differences and complementarities between urban design and self-
organizing processes of change in the built environment and (iv) the unavoidable
relativity of public interest concept, which is fundamental in defining the scope of
urban design interventions.
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 9

Differences and overlaps between urban design, urban planning and architecture
Following Cuthbert (2007, 188–190), urban design has specific peculiarities that make it
different from other disciplines, such as architecture and urban planning (see also Lang
2006, 59–144; Rowley 1994, 195). First, in contrast to typical works of architecture, urban
design is not concerned with single buildings but with multiple buildings and collective
physical structures. Second, in contrast to urban planning, urban design is more focused
on visualizing the results of transformations, giving priority to the quality of the physical
space (Gunder 2011), while urban planning is more focused on the quantity and func-
tional performance of urban systems, remaining generally more flexible regarding specific
physical outcomes (Needham 2006). From this perspective, urban design can be seen as
a specific sub-field of urban planning, as in many cases, it defines in more detail what has
already been addressed at a larger scale (Cowan 2005, 416). Alternatively, as commonly
happens, urban design can also be intended as the interface between architecture and
planning (Moughtin [1999] 2003, 1). In this context, it is probably irrelevant to draw
precise boundaries between these disciplines. What matters is that while these disciplines
maintain their own characteristics, they are often interconnected and, above all, their
relation is mutable and variable according to specific circumstances.

Urban design happens within a complex institutional framework that shapes

design outcomes
A second specification concerns the normative/legal side of urban design. Within the
community of urban designers there is an underestimation of the importance of legal
frameworks (Porta and Romice 2014; Bobkova, Marcus, and Berghauser Pont 2017).
Indeed, in addition to being influenced by certain informal territorial social factors, such
as cultures, values and customs, the practice of urban design takes place within formal
legal frameworks depending on different institutional levels (for example, national, regio-
nal, and municipal) and different sources (for example, public sources in the case of
building codes and land-use plans and private sources in the case of covenants and
private contracts) that influence the range of possible actions and designs in space
(Andersson and Moroni 2014; Slaev 2016; Moroni et al. 2018). Such a legal framework is
not only composed of rules directly concerning the field of urban design but also of those
dealing with other disciplines and fields of interests, such as environmental laws, trans-
port and mobility codes, civil codes and so on. Rules of this kind can be so prescriptive
that the factual creative design space is confined to a very restrictive framework. For
example, if today designers try to recreate the same physical patterns of the traditional
city, then they would be largely prevented by the presence of numerous prescriptions
regarding, for example, minimum road widths, minimum distances between buildings,
minimum areas of designated parking, low building densities, minimum spaces for green
areas and other standards that reduce the creative design space (Romano 2010; Hakim
2014; Cozzolino 2019; Cozzolino et al. 2017).
Furthermore, a crucial part of such institutional frameworks relates to the distribution
of property rights in space (Akbar 1988; Blomley 2016; Kropf 2018). The presence of
diverse and fragmented properties in a city confines the space of urban design projects
within precise spheres of competence and generates complex patterns of design
10 S. COZZOLINO ET AL.

responsibilities composed of and enjoyed by different independent urban actors

(Bobkova et al. 2019; Cozzolino 2019). Such frameworks do not only confine urban design
projects within certain boundaries but also mould them to a certain degree.

Differences and complementarities between urban design and self-organization

Cuthbert (2007, 219) stated that urban design is ‘the social production of urban forms
which in turn is the outcome of the social production of space in its material and symbolic
dimension’. The main problem with this definition is that it fails to account for the fact that
sometimes, certain city elements or ensembles of elements are intentionally designed,
while at other times, they are not. In this sense, a third crucial specification relates to the
differences and complementarities between the intentional product of urban design
projects and the unintentional self-organizing processes and patterns that emerge over
time in the urban realm (Kropf 2009; Marshall 2009; Ikeda 2017; McGreevy 2017; Cozzolino
2018; Rudlin and Hemani 2019).
Self-organization in the urban realm implies that spatial configurations evolve over
time via purely emergent spontaneous processes, which are the result of multiple not
centrally coordinated intentional actions of urban actors (Portugali 2012; Buitelaar, Galle,
and Sorel 2014; Rauws 2017; Moroni and Cozzolino 2019; Moroni, Rauws, and Cozzolino
2019). In the field of urbanism, this process is often referred to as organic, informal,
spontaneous, bottom-up, and incremental. Instead, design implies the exact opposite:
that spatial order is generated by designers as a result of a rational and intentional
construct. Nevertheless, self-organization and design can also be intended as comple-
mentary rather than contradictory elements, as spontaneous spatial configurations may
continuously emerge within intentionally created design frameworks (Marshall 2009;
Kelso, Stolk, and Portugali 2016). This point has also been addressed by Carmona (2014,
10–11), who saw urban design as a place-shaping continuum characterized by four
processes: design, development, management and the usage of space (see also Rosner-
Manor et al. 2019).
This complementarity works as a trade-off between total design and total spontaneity in
the urban realm. Total spontaneity could be represented by the configurations of informal
settlements, where an overall intentional design coordination is absent, while total design
could be represented by New Towns, Chinese ghost towns, typical Soviet neighbour-
hoods or cities like Brasilia and Chandigarh (see Lang 2006, 149–203; see also Bertaud and
Renaud 1997; Rudlin and Hemani 2019). In most cases, however, settlements are neither
totally designed nor totally spontaneous but the result of a more balanced relationship
between design and spontaneity. For instance, the infrastructural grids of New York,
Barcelona and Amsterdam were largely designed, but the spontaneous way in which
blocks have been fulfilled and reshaped over time has been largely spontaneous, albeit
framed by certain rules. The same type of complementarity is visible at different scales, for
instance, at the neighbourhood level or in smaller urban elements, such as squares and
streets.
The complementarity between design and spontaneity sheds light on the unpredict-
able way in which designed elements undergo spontaneous processes of adaptation over
time regarding their uses and shapes, which cannot be taken into account by the initial
designer (Brand 1995). In short, only some of the existing built environment is, strictly
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 11

speaking, the product of rational expectations and urban designs. Large part of what is
visible in cities has emerged spontaneously over time, also within the physical framework
created by designers. In this regard, how urban designers relate themselves and their
projects to self-organization can make a great difference. This spectrum goes from an
open urban design approach that creates room for spontaneous developments, to
a closed approach that defines everything in advance and great detail (Porqueddu 2018).

The unavoidable relativity of the public interest

The last specification concerns the issue of the public interest in the production and
adaptation of the urban realm. As seen above, the goal of urban design should be
primarily to generate and give quality to the so-called public realm. This highlights two
main issues that need clarification: first, who generates what is generally referred to as the
public realm and second, what urban designers mean by public interest in the urban
realm.
At first glance, the fact that the goal of urban design is primarily to generate quality in
the public realm suggests that publicly relevant spaces can only be the product of designs
driven by public bodies, such as government agencies. In practice, however, the creation
of the public realm can be the result of both public and private initiatives. In other words,
it is not only the ‘public’ that creates publicly relevant spaces. Rather, the public realm
may also be the result of private development. In analysing the qualities of public spaces
in London, Carmona (2014, 12) showed that many of the most successful contemporary
public spaces were once designed for private purposes and then evolved into their
present public use. In discussing the public relevance of urban spaces, Moroni and
Chiodelli (2013, 169) showed that the public realm may take many forms as in the case
of privately-run public spaces or privately-owned collective spaces. In their view, the
public realm is not necessarily conterminous with publicly-owned property. They believe
that the public realm may consist of private or public places to which everybody has
access. An interesting view on the production of the public realm has been offered by
Webster (2007, 81), who argued that public realm configurations often emerge residually
over time as minimal elements necessary to supply particular shared consumption
benefits in society. This view is interesting, because it offers a clear justification of urban
design as an indispensable societal function to anticipate such residualization processes
and guarantee the necessary spaces for a collective life (this point has also been stressed
by Bertaud 2018). This, however, remains a tricky issue. In fact, the questions of the kind of
public spaces that must be defined by means of design activities and why inevitably
remain open to multiple interpretations and different ideas of the good. Some may
believe that only certain streets and open spaces, such as parks and squares, must be
defined and designed in the name of public interest, while others may believe that the
architectural style of buildings or even their functions and uses are also relevant public
matters. In brief, although experts constantly refer to the public realm as the main goal of
urban design, in practice, this remains a loose concept open to different perspectives and
ethical approaches that depend on different cultures. Moreover, what constitutes the
elements of the public realm and what is considered in the public interest today is not
only subject to different views and perspectives but also is likely to evolve over time as
changes occur in society (Lang 2006, 7).
12 S. COZZOLINO ET AL.

Conclusion
Urban design is now facing an increasingly widespread popularity. However, the devel-
opment of a simple and clear common understanding of urban design is still a matter of
dispute. In contrast to other scholars, this article considers that contemporary debates can
benefit from sharing a workable definition of urban design. Otherwise, it may be difficult
for experts to have fruitful discussions on what constitutes good urban design, especially
if they are not referring to the same subject. Moreover, given the public relevance of the
discipline, without a workable understanding of urban design concerns and responsibil-
ities, it is difficult for the general public to participate in design processes. In short, having
a common understanding is an indispensable pre-condition for the formation of an
intersubjective framework that enables interaction, learning processes and exchanges in
society.
This article has presented this enduring indeterminacy and the main challenges
associated with it. Then, it presented and analysed relevant definitions of urban design
provided by 12 contemporary scholars. Using these definitions, it was possible to gen-
erate a common ground and, hopefully, a simple definition of urban design. This defini-
tion excluded normative statements concerning how urban design should be done or any
idea of good city form and focussed merely on urban design as a phenomenon.
Findings suggested that there are two main ways/levels of discussing urban design;
one regarding a general understanding of urban design, i.e., its definition, while the other
concerns how urban design should be done. The article showed that while it is possible to
provide a general common understanding of urban design, urban designers’ subjective
values inevitably complicate the discourse. In other words, this paper has shown that it is
possible to clarify the field and interests of urban design, but how urban design should be
done remains an issue open to different subjective interpretations based on different
ideas of the collective and public good.
This article has also proposed certain specifications to avoid possible misunderstand-
ings. In particular, it has stressed the differences and overlaps between urban design,
urban planning and architecture. In addition, it has addressed the relevance of the legal
framework in shaping urban design outcomes, the differences and complementarities
between urban design and self-organization and the unavoidable looseness of what is
relevant, and why, to consider in the design of the public realm. All these issues raise
interesting questions and would deserve further investigation.
Especially, deepening the understanding of the following aspects on urban design will
be of interest in future research. First, to bridge theory and practice, it would be fruitful to
explore how far this definition of urban design is connected to urban designers’ under-
standing of the discipline. Then, it would be helpful to understand how urban designers
interpret the concept of public interest, as well as how they relate to self-organization.
Finally, to understand contemporary paths and trends in urban design practice, it
would be of interest to examine current/ongoing projects and investigate the various
existing positions and ideas. However, it is only possible to answer these questions if
scholars agree on a general definition of urban design, which suggests that this paper was
justified. From this perspective, in future research it would be also of interest to interpret
urban design as a continuously evolving practice while generally remaining phenomen-
ologically the same subject.
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 13

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Stefano Cozzolino http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8873-1868

References
Akbar, J. 1988. Crisis in the Built Environment: The Case of the Muslim City. Singapore: Concept Media
Pte Ltd.
Alexander, C. 1965. “A City is Not a Tree.” Architectural Forum, Vol. 122, No. 1, 58–62.
Andersson, D. E., and S. Moroni, eds. 2014. Cities and Private Planning: Property Rights,
Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Araabi, H. F. 2016. “A Typology of Urban Design Theories and its Application to the Shared Body of
Knowledge.” Urban Design International 21 (1): 11–24. doi:10.1057/udi.2015.6.
Bahrainy, H., and A. Bakhtiar. 2016. Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design. Berlin: Springer.
Bertaud, A. 2018. Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities. Cambridge: Mit Press.
Bertaud, A., and B. Renaud. 1997. “Socialist Cities without Land Markets.” Journal of Urban Economics
41 (1): 137–151. doi:10.1006/juec.1996.1097.
Biddulph, M. 2012. “The Problem with Thinking about or for Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design
17 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1080/13574809.2011.646251.
Blomley, N. 2016. “The Territory of Property.” Progress in Human Geography 40 (5): 593–609.
doi:10.1177/0309132515596380.
Bobkova, E., L. Marcus, and M. Berghauser Pont. 2017. “Plot Systems and Property Rights:
Morphological, Juridical and Economic Aspects.” In 24th ISUF International Conference. Book of
Papers, 177–185, April. Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València
Bobkova, E., L. Marcus, M. Berghauser Pont, I. Stavroulaki, and D. Bolin. 2019. “Structure of Plot
Systems and Economic Activity in Cities: Linking Plot Types to Retail and Food Services in London,
Amsterdam and Stockholm.” Urban Science 3 (3): 66. doi:10.3390/urbansci3030066.
Brand, S. 1995. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. London: Penguin.
Buitelaar, E., M. Galle, and N. Sorel. 2014. “The Public Planning of Private Planning: An Analysis of
Controlled Spontaneity in the Netherlands.” In Cities and Private Planning. Property Rights,
Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs, edited by D. E. Andersson and S. Moroni, 248–268.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Carmona, M. 1996. “Controlling Urban Design—Part 1: A Possible Renaissance?” Journal of Urban
Design 1 (1): 47–73. doi:10.1080/13574809608724370.
Carmona, M. 2014. “The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process.” Journal of
Urban Design 19 (1): 2–36. doi:10.1080/13574809.2013.854695.
Carmona, M. 2016. “Design Governance: Theorizing an Urban Design Sub-Field.” Journal of Urban
Design 21 (6): 705–730.
Carmona, M., S. Marshall, and Q. Stevens. 2006. “Design Codes: Their Use and Potential.” Progress in
Planning 65: 209–289. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2006.03.008.
Carmona, M., T. Heath, T. Oc, and S. Tiesdell. 2012. Public Places-Urban Spaces. London: Routledge.
Childs, M. C. 2010. “A Spectrum of Urban Design Roles.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (1): 1–19.
doi:10.1080/13574800903429357.
Cowan, R. 2005. The Dictionary of Urbanism. 67 vol. Tisbury: Streetwise Press.
Cozzolino, S. (2018). "Reconsidering Urban Spontaneity and Flexibility after Jane Jacobs: How do
they work under different kinds of planning conditions?" Cosmos and Taxis 5 (3+4): 14–24.
14 S. COZZOLINO ET AL.

Cozzolino, S. (2019). "The (anti) adaptive neighbourhoods. Embracing complexity and distribution of
design control in the ordinary built environment." Environmental Planning B. doi:10.1177/
2399808319857451.
Cozzolino, S., E. Buitelaar, S. Moroni, and N. Sorel. 2017. “Experimenting in Urban Self-organization.
Frameworkrules and Emerging Orders in Oosterwold (Almere,The Netherlands).” Cosmos and
Taxis 4 (2): 49–59.
Cullen, G. 1961. The Concise Townscape. London: Architectural Press.
Cuthbert, A. 2006. The Form of Cities: Political Economy of Urban Design. London: Blackwell.
Cuthbert, A. R. 2007. “Urban Design: Requiem for an Era–Review and Critique of the Last 50 Years.”
Urban Design International 12 (4): 177–223. doi:10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000200.
Dovey, K., and S. Wood. 2015. “Public/Private Urban Interfaces: Type, Adaptation, Assemblage.”
Journal of Urbanism 8 (1): 1–16.
Ellin, N. 1999. Postmodern Urbanism. revised ed. New York: Princeton architectural press.
Frick, D. 2008. Theorie Des Städtebaus: Zur Baulich-räumlichen Organisation Von Stadt. Tübingen:
Wasmuth.
Gunder, M. 2011. “Commentary: Is Urban Design Still Urban Planning? An Exploration and
Response.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 31 (2): 184–195. doi:10.1177/
0739456X10393358.
Hakim, B. S. 2014. Mediterranean Urbanism. Berlin: Springer.
Ikeda, S. 2017. “The City Cannot be a Work of Art.” Cosmos + Taxis 4 (2): 79–86.
Jacobs, J. 1961. Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Kelso, J. S., E. Stolk, and J. Portugali. 2016. “Self-Organization and Design as a Complementary Pair.”
In Complexity, Cognition, Urban Planning and Design, edited by J. A. Kelso, E. Stolk, and J. Portugali,
43–53. Zürich: Springer.
Kempenaar, A., and A. van den Brink. 2018. “Regional Designing: A Strategic Design Approach in
Landscape Architecture.” Design Studies 54: 80–95. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.006.
Kostof, S. 1991. The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings through History. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Krieger, A., and W. S. Saunders, eds. 2009. Urban Design. London: Minnesota Press.
Kropf, K. 2009. “Aspects of Urban Form.” Urban Morphology 13 (2): 105.
Kropf, K. 2018. “Plots, Property and Behaviour.” Urban Morphology 22 (1).
Lang, J. 2006. Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. London: Routledge.
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT press.
Madanipour, A. 1999. “Why are the Design and Development of Public Spaces Significant for Cities?”
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 (6): 879–891. doi:10.1068/b260879.
Madanipour, A. 2004. “Why Urban Design?” Town Planning Review 75 (2): i–iv. doi:10.3828/tpr.75.2.1.
Madanipour, A. 2006. “Roles and Challenges of Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design 11 (2):
173–193. doi:10.1080/13574800600644035.
Marshall, S. 2009. Cities, Design and Evolution. London: Routledge.
Marshall, S. 2012. “Science, Pseudo Design and Urban Design.” Urban Design International 17 (4):
257–271. doi:10.1057/udi.2012.22.
Marshall, S. 2016. “The Kind of Art Urban Design Is.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (4): 399–423.
doi:10.1080/13574809.2015.1133226.
McGreevy, M. P. 2017. “Complexity as the Telos of Postmodern Planning and Design: Designing
Better Cities from the Bottom-Up.” Planning Theory 17 (3): 355–374. doi:10.1177/
1473095217711473.
Moroni, S., and F. Chiodelli. 2013. “The Relevance of Public Space: Rethinking its Material and
Political Aspects.” In Ethics, Design and Planning of the Built Environment, edited by C. Basta and
S. Moroni, 45–55. Berlin: Springer.
Moroni S., and Cozzolino S. 2019. “Action and the City. Emergence Complexity, Planning.” Cities 90
(2019): 42–51. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.039.
Moroni, S., E. Buitelaar, N. Sorel, and S. Cozzolino. 2018. “Simple Planning Rules for Complex Urban
Problems: Toward Legal Certainty for Spatial Flexibility.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research. doi:10.1177/0739456X18774122.
 JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 15

Moroni, S., W. Rauws, and S. Cozzolino. 2019. “Forms of Self-Organization: Urban Complexity and
Planning Implications.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. doi:10.1177/
2399808319857721.
Moudon, A. V. 1992. “A Catholic Approach to Organizing What Urban Designers Should Know.”
Journal of Planning Literature 6 (4): 331–349.
Moughtin, J. C. [1999] 2003. Urban Design: Street and Squares. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Mumford, E. 2009. Defining Urban Design: CIAM Architects and the Formation of a Discipline,
1937–1969. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Needham, B. 2006. Planning, Law and Economics: The Rules We Make for Using Land. London:
Routledge.
Neuman, M., and W. Zonneveld. 2018. “The Resurgence of Regional Design.” European Planning
Studies 26 (1): 1–15.
Palazzo, D. 2011. “Pedagogical Traditions.” In Companion to Urban Design, edited by T. Banerjee and
A. Loukaitou-Sideris, 41–52. London. Routledge. chapter 3.
Palermo, P. C. 2014. “Whatever is Happening to Urban Planning and Urban Design? Musings on the
Current Gap between Theory and Practice.” City, Territory and Architecture 7 (1). doi:10.1186/2195-
2701-1-7.
Porqueddu, E. 2018. “Toward the Open City: Design and Research for Emergent Urban Systems.”
Urban Design International 23 (3): 236–248. doi:10.1057/s41289-018-0065-0.
Porta, S., and O. Romice. 2014. “Plot-Based Urbanism: Towards Time-Consciousness in Place-Making.”
In Dortmunder Vorträge zur Stadtbaukunst [Dortmunder Lectures on Civic Art], edited by W. Sonne.
Sulgen, DE.
Portugali, J. 2012. Self-organization and the City. Berlin: Springer.
Rapoport, A. [1990] 2013. History and Precedent in Environmental Design. Berlin: Springer.
Rauws, W. 2017. “Embracing Uncertainty without Abandoning Planning.” The Planning Review 53 (1):
32–45. doi:10.1080/02513625.2017.1316539.
Romano, M. 2010. Ascesa E Declino Della Città Europea. Milano: Cortina.
Rosner-Manor, Y., S. G. Borghini, B. Boonstra, and P. Silva. 2019. “Adaptation of the Urban Codes–A
Story of Placemaking in Jerusalem.” Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science
doi:10.1177/2399808319867712.
Rowley, A. 1994. “Definitions of Urban Design: The Nature and Concerns of Urban Design.” Planning
Practice and Research 9 (3): 179–197. doi:10.1080/02697459408722929.
Rudlin, D., and S. Hemani. 2019. Climax City: Masterplanning and the Complexity of Urban Growth.
London: Routledge.
Slaev, A. D. 2016. “Types of Planning and Property Rights.” Planning Theory 15 (1): 23–41.
doi:10.1177/1473095214540651.
Sorkin, M. 2013. “The End (S) of Urban Design.” In The Urban Design Reader, edited by M. Larice and
E. Macdonald, 638–654. London: Routledge.
Sternberg, E. 2000. “An Integrative Theory of Urban Design.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 66 (3): 265–278. doi:10.1080/01944360008976106.
Talen, E. 2009. “Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpinnings of Form-Based Codes.” Journal of
the American Planning Association 75 (2): 144–160. doi:10.1080/01944360802686662.
Tibbalds, F. 1984. “Urban Design - Who Needs It?” Places 1 (3): 22–25.
Webster, C. 2007. “Property Rights, Public Space and Urban Design.” Town Planning Review 78 (1):
81–101. doi:10.3828/tpr.78.1.6.

View publication stats