Speaker
Description
Over recent decades, urban design has been consistently critiqued for its growing disparity between its theoretical aspirations and practical outcomes, with the process often failing to deliver the high-quality results it promises (Elrahman and Asaad, 2021). This persistent disconnect raises a pivotal question: can theories transcend their prescriptive frameworks to act as transformative forces in reshaping cities? In this context, this paper critically examines the role and value of planning theory in urban design, interrogating its potential to navigate the tension between the city of possibility and the city of ideality.
The global crises of urban sprawl, climate change, and the neoliberal dismantling of regulatory frameworks have necessitated an urgent re-evaluation of urban design practices (Logan et al., 2022). In response, emerging models such as superblocks, low-traffic neighbourhood plans, doughnut models, and their hybrids have gained traction, with the x-minute city (15-minute city, and its variations) garnering particular momentum (Moreno et al., 2021; Nieuwenhuijsen, 2021). However, these models frequently rely on fragmented interpretations of established planning paradigms. Notably, while x-minute city frameworks are often presented as innovative, their theoretical underpinnings often trace back to established concepts, particularly the Neighbourhood Unit (NU) theory introduced by Clarence Perry in 1923. This study positions the NU as a foundational yet contested lens for understanding the enduring role of theory in shaping urban design research and practice.
This research begins with the theoretical debates within the urban design discipline. Drawing on the first tier, it positions urban design as a temporal process of spatial-social change. This perspective underscores urban design’s dual nature: as a structured yet evolving framework that mediates between top-down strategies and everyday activities, reshaping urban spaces in response to the temporal rhythms of cities. The second tier explores urban design as a form of activism, reimagining it as a platform for social transformation and resistance against neoliberal urban policies. Building on these debates, the study situates its analysis within the wider paradigms of post-modernism, where urban design is increasingly characterised by pluralistic, contextual, and relational approaches that interrogate the fragmentation and socio-spatial divides perpetuated by modernist planning.
Beyond engaging with two-tier theoretical debates, the research uses Alberti and Radicchi’s (2023) comprehensive analysis as a departure point, the study situates NU within interdisciplinary frameworks, including Central Place Theory and Proxemics Theory, to critically assess how the concept has adapted to the socio-temporal complexities of urban life. It explores how NU has shifted from a spatially deterministic model to a dynamic socio-spatial construct. However, this shift is not without challenges; proximity-based models often obscure socio-spatial inequalities, perpetuating exclusionary practices under the guise of inclusivity. The study critiques the commodification of terms like “proximity”, which, despite their rhetorical appeal, risk-reducing urban design to mechanical frameworks detached from lived realities.
By reinterpreting NU theory’s evolution from static, isolated forms to relational, interconnected frameworks, this study argues that the enduring value of planning theory lies in its dual function: as an intellectual scaffold that organises the complexity of urban design processes and as a provocative force that disrupts and reimagines entrenched paradigms. The ambiguity inherent in longstanding theories, far from being a limitation, serves as a fertile ground for critical debate and transformative imagination. It identifies a shift from static, prescriptive urban models to dynamic and adaptive frameworks that contribute to the ongoing redefinition of planning paradigms, aligning with the transformative aspirations of urban design in an age of unprecedented global challenges.
References
Alberti, F., Radicchi, A., 2023. From the Neighbourhood Unit to the 15-Minute City. Past and Recent Urban Models for Post-COVID Cities, in: Alberti, F., Matamanda, A.R., He, B.-J., Galderisi, A., Smol, M., Gallo, P. (Eds.), Urban and Transit Planning, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20995-6_15
Elrahman, A.S.A. and Asaad, M., 2021. Urban design & urban planning: A critical analysis to the theoretical relationship gap. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(1), pp.1163–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.04.020
Logan, T.M., Hobbs, M.H., Conrow, L.C., Reid, N.L., Young, R.A., Anderson, M.J., 2022. The x-minute city: Measuring the 10, 15, 20-minute city and an evaluation of its use for sustainable urban design. Cities 131, 103924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103924
Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., Pratlong, F., 2021. Introducing the “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities 4, 93–111. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2021. New urban models for more sustainable, liveable and healthier cities post covid19; reducing air pollution, noise and heat island effects and increasing green space and physical activity. Environment International 157, 106850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106850
| Keywords | urban design; planning theory; neighbourhood unit; proximity-based models |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
