Theory of urban Design Michael de Beer 1 2 Introduction In 1956 a Harvard conference assembled some of the greatest urban thinkers of its time. The conference confirmed a paradigm shift that sought to establish common ground between the disciplines of the built environment in an effort to address rapid urbanization patterns. The outcome established the new cross-disciplinary practise of urban design. Sixty years later, the discourse remains obscured through its lack of definition and the smorgasbord of contributing voices in the debate. K iege s 9) synopsis, Territories of Urban Design, offers a point of departure in understanding the varied means practitioners engage in and facilitate urbanism. The article focused on forming clarity within the discourse by introducing ten territories in which urban design is practised. The following paper argues that although K iege s 9) ten territories are valid fields of practise, there are two primary and contradictory territories that all others relate to and can be categorised as; Visionary and Reflective urbanism. Visionary urbanism is defined by the notion of ho e ought to o ga ize spatiall i communities and not simply accept the ways we do K iege , 9). It challenges current thinking and existing morphologies as it aspires to the transformation of space into a perceived better future. The position views the urban designer as an agent/ champion of change. Reflective urbanism, on the other hand, often critiqued as nostalgic, aspires for better urban environments that respect their current situation and context. It advocates a mindfulness of the varied and often conflicting landscape in which the professions of the built environment work within. The position emphasises the role of the urban designer as mediator which can largely be 1 attributed to the practise of review . The two territories are a means to practise urban design as well as a way of thinking, underpinned by theory and an approach to urbanism. Both endeavour to create good urbanism however, 1 Review: An independent and impartial evaluation process that is comprised of a panel of experts from the built environment. The process aims to review projects of public significance by offering feedback that may lead to amicable outcomes. 3 their objectives and means in doing so differ. This pape s a al sis ai s to e gage ith the te sio s that arise between visionary and reflective urbanism as a means to clarify the discourse surrounding urban design. The debate is critical in framing the purpose of urban design work while unearthing the discord that arises in practise to ensure amicable outcomes within cities. The study is broken into six sections. The first to forth segment frames the inception of urban design while contextualizing the debate surrounding territories. The fifth draws on case examples in order to expose the varied work within the proposed territories. The sixth, and final, section consolidates the study in the definition of urban design as a way of thinking governed by visionary and reflective urbanism. Civic life and a spirit of revolt In order to understand the discourse surrounding urban design we begin with the early rumblings of discontent expressed by José Luis Sert who, in 1953, was inaugurated as the dean of the Graduate School of Design (GSD) at Harvard and paved the way for the hallmark urban design conference of 1956. In 1942 Can Our Cities Survive? An ABC of Urban Problems, Their Analysis, Their Solutions (Sert) was published. The book sought to introduce the teachings of the Congrès Internationaux d A hite tu e Mode e (CIAM) to an American audience. It was profound as it advocated a change in terms of the p ofessio al s role in dealing with the established ills of the city. Sert s alternative perspective contextualized the principles of CIAM with a renewed emphasis on the importance of the ordinary everyday life (Marshall, 2009). His position differed from the broad-stroke and indifferent approach of Le Corbusier and the monumental focus of the City Beautiful movement s p i iples. Sert (1942) argued that these urban visions/aries and current urbanisation patterns negated communities and has failed to recognise the importance of urban context. Reminiscent of the teachings of Sociologistplanner Patrick Geddes, Sert nominates the town planner as the coordinator and facilitator, able to address the then current pattern of decentralization by forming neighbourhood centres. This approach stemmed from the acknowledgement that urbanity is defined not by a singular act of the monument but rather the interplay between numerous and dynamic components. His position bridged the divide between regional planning and the detailed concerns of architects in emphasising the need to develop and sustain communities. Richard Marshal (2009) notes that the attributes that Sert associates with the town planner resembled those deemed necessary for the later established urban designer. across the world. It is to no surprise that the following conference in Britain was titled the Heart of the City. In the article Centres of Community Life (1952), published as part of the Heart of the City conference, Sert revisits the role of the town planner. For the first time he publicly acknowledges the need for a new disciplinary protagonist, the architect-planner. The a hite t- planner can only help to build the frame or container within which this community life could take place. We are aware of the need for such a life, for the expression of a real civic culture which we believe is greatly hampered today by the chaotic conditions of life in our cities. Naturally, the character and conditions of such awakened civic life do not depend entirely on the existence of a favourable frame, but are tied to the political, social, and economic structure of every o u it . -J. Sert, J. Tyrwhitt, E. Rogers (1952) Centres for community Life. Cited in Richard Marshal (2009) Richard Marshal (2009) poignantly refers to the e t a t a o e i e p essi g “e t s hu le futu e vision of the urban designer as Sert articulates the limitations of the field. Sert envisioned a discipline not marked by authority but rather mediation between a variety of processes related to the built environment, acknowledging the role of both politics and economy. This mediation would endeavour to remain cognisant of the public realm and the building of communities as Ci i Life beca e the fo us of “e t s o k. In 1949, as CIAM s p eside t at the ti e, “e t evocatively opened the CIAM 7 conference in Be ga o, Ital . He o pa ed the hu a s ale of Be ga o to that of g eat ode ities, victims of the chaos resulting from their disorderly development and lack of planning. He defined the o k of CIAM as the esult of a spi it of e olt against [the then current] situation (Mumford, 2009). The conference expressed much of the frustration at the time of decentralization of cities 4 Urban design: a field of common ground? Sert reinvigorated by his new position as dean of Harvard s GSD, 1953, vociferously began to promote urban design as a paradigm shift. His prior writing had brought forward two primary notions; a need to address what he defined as the f ightful ills of deplo a le u a izatio patte s that contradi ted Ci i Life a d the eed o ability for designers to influence and reorganise everyday life (Marshal, 2004). A year later Sert, with the help of Sigfird Giedion, established two new courses at the Harvard GSD, Histo of U a Desig a d U a Desig . The courses were des i ed as the ph si al e p essio of it pla i g Mu fo d, 4) and laid the foundation for the role of design in shaping cities. Reminiscent of his prior papers on the architectplanner, o o g ou d between the respective disciplines of the built environment became a central theme to the newly defined field. It would se e as a la o ato he e the u e [to the f ightful ills of ities] ould e de eloped (Mumford, 2009). Yet the otio of o o g ou d i ediatel ought ith it a iguit i defining what the role of urban design would be. In a bold move Sert initiated the first Urban Design conference in 1956, with an aim of defining the field. The success of the conference was largely due to the diversity of disciplines taking part. It effectively yielded consensus on the need for unity and lifting general standards in the practise of design. There were no disparities in regard to what good u a desig looks like, however a divergence formed in regard to what urban design would become; a discipline within itself or an unified approach between all disciplines to better cities. Unbeknown to Sert, the issue would later yield the departure of some disciplines from the debate. The conference was celebrated as a great success. Its p e edi g s were published in Progressive Architecture, which were carefully tailored in forming a sense of momentum to the debate. It gave Sert the rally call which he had been searching for and led to the launch of several conferences thereafter. The 1956 conference however, did not manage to create the definition of the field that Sert deemed e essa . He late des i ed the de ate as a fog of a ia le ge e alities (Marshal, 2004). The 5 conferences to follow were defined by territorial claims as Sert attempted to narrow the scope of debate. Marshall (2009) points out that the a o i g of the dis ussio a a f o thi gs that othe s ight ha e so e autho it o e to a limitation to only those things that design p ofessio als ha e o t ol o e , ega to eate a sense of diversion. Practitioners segregated into disciplines and the once unified condition regressed. “e t s ideolog ould late e fi ge ed fo lai i g territory u de the guise of o o g ou d . Figure 2, below, illustrates the divergence that occurred as urban design brought into question; the role of planning, engineering, sociology and landscape architecture. This threatened the roles of key disciplines and resulted in their departure from the debate. Thereafter, only architects primarily remained in defining the role of urban design. Figure 2: The Departure Ho e e o o g ou d as ot lost. Although the following conferences became architecturally dominant, the discourse took on a renewed vigour. Co t i utio s su h as the The Death and Life of American Cities Ja e Ja o s (1961), a planning theorist, alig ed to the otio of i i life a d the ability of design to reorganise cities. This, and others, greatly assisted in sustaining the needed momentum and ethos of common ground. The profound effect of the movement culminated in the 97 s (Shirvani, 1981), when cities globally began instituting design guidelines and review processes that confirmed the establishment of urban design as a discipline. Defining urban design It is time to wrestle urban design away from the ad pa e ti g of a hite ts , the opening line of E il Tale s 4 espo se to Mi hael “o ke s pai ed assess e t The End(s) of Urban Design (2004) highlights the current frustration in the field. Talon stresses a fundamental difference between architecture and urban design; as architects celebrate the originality of an object while urban design focuses on the ordinary components of a city. Urban Design Now: A discussion, in the form of a roundtable debate at Harvard GSD in 2006, was reminiscent of the 1956 discussion. It voiced the concerns of practising and theoretical urban designers along with architects, landscape architects and planners. The discussion highlighted that the GSD, being in a position of influence, had not addressed the issue of the architect dominating the urban design 2 debate, both in its teachings and forums . This had restricted the development of the discourse, rehashing the sense that common ground is critical in the success of urban design. William S. Saunders emphasised that the definition of urban design seem[ed] up for grabs. [Raising] the question of how and where and even if u a desig happe s? His poig a t e a k sparked a debate that focused on two categories; the first focused on forming definition and clarity in regard to territories of urban design while the second focused on identifying case studies as examples of urban design. From the ambulatory 2006 proceedings we can infer that urban design is a field that is centred in forming space for the public. Authorship takes the form of design but ownership is that of the public s. This notion acknowledges the layered character of cities, as interventions take on a life of their own. The definition to follow is concerned with what urban designers actually do and expands on the concern of the public realm. It offers summation of 2 The discussion also expressed concern that the history of the GSD conferences architectural i flue e est i ts the de ate, hile “e t s common ground was actually a territorial claim and needs to be re-envisaged. what the 2006 discussion had not been able to say in so many words. Urban design draws together the many strands of place-making, environmental responsibility, social equity and economic viability; for example – into the creation of places of beauty and identity. Urban design is derived from but transcends related matters such as planning and transportation policy, architectural design, development economics, landscape and engineering. It draws these and other strands together. In summary, urban design is about creating a vision for an area and the deploying of the skills and resources to realise that vision. (Llewellyn-Davies, 2000) Cited in J. Lang, 2005 The description above forms definition in regards to the aims, objectives, limitations and outputs of urban designers. Expanding on this notion the 2006 discussion offers several insights. The first is that urban design is not a territorial claim within other disciplines but rather serves as point of conversion, respecting the roles of other professions. Thus, urban design translates these often conflicting positions into a unified vision. Julia Czenerick, a GSD urban design professor and planning theorist, in the 2006 discussion offers the humbler notion that urban design is merely an agent of transformation. In saying so she has highlighted a limitation that had been frustratingly expressed as a concern in the issues of agency and power. In response to Czenerick, the discussion identified advocacy as the primary role of the urban designer. Czenerick expands this to define urban design as being cognisant of time, as it is involved in strategic feedback loops defined by pre-design; representation, advocacy, communication and consensus building. Unlike the community advocacy movement, the issue is placed poignantly towards the professional to form and promote design solution(s). A final and most critical aspect of the debate had been how the role of the urban designer manifests spatially. Although the 2006 discussion explored many case examples, Krieger s (2009) Territories of Urban Design offers a clear summation and categorization of urban design work. He introduces ten categories of urban design which he moves through in such a way that implies overlap 6 between the classifications. However, the most profound point is made in the conclusion; urban design is a way of thinking. This point is reflective of the notion of common ground and stems from the perspective that urban design manifests itself not only within the urban design profession. Thus, urban design is practised everyday by architects, planners, landscape architects, engineers and the piecemeal efforts of the greater public. It introduces the definition that u a desig [is] a process of design that produces or enhances ur a it . K iege , 9 However, Tale s f ust atio e ai s relevant as urban design is a unique discipline unable to be successfully practised by those who are not urban minded. The notion of a way of thinking proposed by Krieger is not unique as it is echoed in the writing of Richard Marshal, Joan Busquets, Jon Lang and others. Richard Marshal (2004) emphasises u a desig s u i ue alue stems from its ague ess… [and] by its nature urban design defies neat categorization. Thus one can infer that urban design is a way of thinking and matter of action which is focused on urbanisation. It is not defined by professional accreditation but rather professional engagement. Urban design is a separate field of knowledge underpinned by synthesis. It defies distinction and seeks connection. What defines the urban designer is thus an approach to urbanism, unique as it enables a role that bridges specialized design efforts and acknowledges the complexity of the urban condition. 7 Two territories Expanding on the notion that urban design is a a of thi ki g , this paper offers two key territories from which urbanism can be approached. Namely, Visionary and Reflective urbanism. The 2006 discussion at the GSD offers an interesting insight into the position proposed. Although visionary urbanism is not mentioned, the dialogue draws predominantly on transformative case examples such as Millennium Park, Chicago (figure 3) and Battery Park, New York (Figure 4-5). These cases are underpinned by how urban design is able to spatially organise communities. Not simply accepting the current situation, it challenges current thinking and the existing morphologies of cities as it aspires to the transformation of space. Visionary urbanism thus positions the designer as an agent/ champion of change and the projects produced are predominantly focused on becoming catalytic. In contrast, reflective urbanism aspires for better urban environments which are respective of their situation. It advocates a mindfulness of the varied and often conflicting urban conditions. The position emphasises the role of the urban designer in the maintenance of urbanity, facilitating u a is a d ediati g the pu li eal . K iege s 2006 input highlights the work of the urban designer engaged on behalf of neighbourhood groups. Acknowledging that their work may seem invisible, the sum of all the parts is far larger than any one high profile project, such as Millennium Park. This is also true for the process of review while design interventions are predominately focused on the ordinary framework of the city and are often characterised by being responsive. The two territories, visionary and reflective, expressed here are juxtaposed. However, the paper suggests that overlap occurs. Thus proposing that no urban design is either-or but rather performed in a manner of approach deemed appropriate. Expanding on this way of thinking, the paper suggests that the efforts of 3 Krieger, Jordan Taylor , Joan Busquets4 and others, to form territories of urban design could be either categorised under visionary or reflective urbanism, or as an approach between these two standpoints. In the following section, the paper expands on these two categorically dominant territories using case examples. Figure 3: Millennium Park, Chicago Figure 4: Battery Park, New York Figure 5: Battery Park from South Cove, New York 3 Jordan Taylor from the urban land institute suggest four opportunities/ mandates for urban designers: transport as a forcible determinant of the world; density as the antithesis of sprawl; open space and the public realm; inclusionary housing. 4 Jordan Taylor introduces 10 types of urbanistic projects. 8 Case one: Visionary Urbanism Medellin, Columbia Medellin is a linear city situated within a narrow valley with steep slopes and train line running its length. Its population swelled from 358,000 in 1951 to 1,071,000 in 1973 due to militia activity in the rural areas of the country. The predominantly poor rural migrants jostled for space on the narrow valley, which resulted in locating according to access to opportunity; along the city boundary and on the unbuilt steep slopes. The rapid urbanization resulted in an un-serviced and extremely dense fine grained morphology. Commuter times were long as it took a minibus over an hour to reach the bottom of the built valley slopes. The then new mayor, Serjio Fajardo (2002) centred his campaign on social urbanism. His position was di e ted at pa i g a k the histo i al so ial debt - owed to the poo est o u ities DNP, 2010 cited in Canon-Rabiano 2010). Although the agency for change had been established the means in which to upgrade the poor areas was not. The 99 s se e ed as a p e ede t as se e al interventions, upgrading rivers and services, laid the ground work for work to come. The success of the projects had been that the process was transparent; with contributions from government, NGO s, p i ate se to a d the o u ities. It stimulated the formation of Intergrated Urban Projects (PUI : Proyecto Urbano Integral), 2004. The new postion focused on an acupuctural technique where schools, libraries and public spaces were build through the same transparent method between all stakeholders established in the 99 s. The project however only gained momentum when the rail company aproached government to help with an intiative to bolster the number of cummuters using the train. Their objective aligned with that of the work of PUI and a combined intiative took form. The p oje t s sought to make the most impact through as little physical changes to the slum as possible acknowledging that the process of incremental housing had already taken form and was sacrosanct. By using a gondola system they could connect the train stations to the slums, without large scale redevelopment of the morphology, reducing cummuter time to 4 minutes from the top of the valley to the train stations. However the stregnth of the project was that it was entirely multifaceted. The aproach took the form of Figure 7: Medellin, Columbia 9 creating urban centres that had highorder public facilities of an high standard. The notion was sought to influence development by focusing on investment on the public realm. The success of the projects had been the momentum from which they had been concieved and addressed the issue of agancy. It also meant that the role of advocacy had already been established prior to the project which assisted the numerous designers in forming a response. The project was underpinned by change as the interventions sought to transform the existing urban fabric. The projects took a catalytic position (figure 7) as their intentions had been to fundamentally impact the surrounding morpholgy by uplifting the majoritly poor population. This ould fall u de K iege s catogory of urban design as infastructure ho e e it s the visionary aproach to urbanism that defines it. The success of the project has formed a precedent for future projects of this form as in the work of Urban Think Tank in Carcass, Venezuela (2006 2010) whom also implemented the same strategy, figure 8 & 9. Figure 8: Urban Think Tank in Carcass, Venezuela (2006 -2010) Figure 9:Urban Think Tank in Carcass, Venezuela (2006 -2010) Figure 7: The intervention in Medlin Columbia 10 Case two: Visionary and reflective Santa Caterina Market E i Me alles s Santa Caterina Market, renownd for its vivid undulating roof, serves as a case example of a way of thinking indicative of a middle ground between the two fields of thought. Me alles highlights that the first mistake is to talk about old and new. Whatever has managed to survive into the present is current, useful, and contemporary. And it permits us to move back in ti e i o de to o ti ue fo a d. This embodies the approach to the enormously complex project involving social housing for the elderly, the renovation of the 1848 covered market, the archaeological findings of Santa Caterina Church and Convent restored as a museum function and the numerous mixed use functions from market, retail, restaurants to waste disposal and treatment plant. The development project is part of a larger, Ba elo a i itiati e to e a ket the otio of the market space as the centre of a neighbourhood and civic life. It is established from a tradition of market spaces being the epicentre of community life. However the post-war period saw these spaces fall into disrepute as new malls offered a convenience that the market did not. Thus the objective is not only rejuvenating a principal centre to a district within the city but giving new life to an old tradition. The project is visionary not in the archetype that manifested but in the objective laid out here. Figure 10 (top): front elevation with roof cascading over preserved old market façade. Figure 11(centre): Aireal view. Figure 12(bottom): Ceramic tiled roof 11 In contrast the archetype is reflective for several reasons. The first and fundamental notion is that it is respective of its context and role within the space, namely being a centre condition. This is profoundly evident when looking at the threshold conditions and surrounding road, pavement, placement of social housing and peripheral square upgrading, while justifying the purpose of the roof as spatial gesture. These spaces serve a support role to that of the market. The second notion ste s f o the Me alles s observation of the old and the new offering the standpoint that there is a continuation between its lineage and future and should not been seen as separate elements. This is profoundly evident in the design as the efu ish e t fo s a u if i g ole et ee old a d e . The fo a d o e e t of the p oje t is also reflective in how it acknowledges old movement patterns of the site. Function is also key to the notion, the project has introduced many new uses to the conception of the market space however the paper argues that this is of its time (contemporary thinking) and does not wish to redefine the role of a market space. The project serves as case example where overlap and middle ground is evident. Although Meralles may disagree, claiming originality as field of visionary thinking, the paper has looked at the project s urban response and in this sense, unlike in architecture; the projects archetype is responsive and sensitive to its condition. Finally, noting that it is the projects objective and inception, outlined in the brief by city authorities, which has garnered a sense of visionary work. Figure 13: Expolded drawing of Santa Catarina Market 12 Case Three: Reflective Urbanism Chiado renovation Lisbon A fire burned down 17 buildings in Chiado, a central district of Lisbon in 1988 (Figure 14). The incident formed a turning point for the decaying neighbourhood as it promoted the city council to react. They invited Alvaro Siza to create a strategic plan to restore the damaged area of Chiado and further promoted the development of integrated revitalization programme that would initiate a revival of the districts past character. The on-going project has been led by Alvaro Siza not only restoring the burnt down buildings but engaged in a larger revitalization project within the district. The improvement has seen the area dramatically change as the residential population has been increased and the business/ retail functions returned. A corner stone in the de elop e t had ee “iza s fo us o the pu li realm. Through intensive investigations of the existing streetscapes, public squares and architecture in Barcelona, he had been able to define a typological approach indicative of the larger cities character. a recovery project is always a dry, u fi ished p oje t … it should e a open project, in time, quite naturally and in the midst of many different contexts, aims and desires, allows space for the sort of life of structures to exist. -Alavro Siza talking of Chiado The above quote highlights the layered nature of cities to change and the role of the designer to be responsive. This project serves as good example of urban designs role in the maintenance of urbanity and those engaged on behalf of the neighbourhood. Noting that the work done is seemingly invisible, this case draws heavily on the renovation of the burned down buildings in serving as i di atio of “iza s g eate o k ithi the district. Siza employs several techniques in the restoration of the burned down buildings. His focus on the public realm had introduced the notion that city blocks internal quarters are public domains as much as the street is. The redeveloped increased the size of the internal public spaces by decreasing the width of the buildings, pushing the façade on the internal side several meters back. He then forms several connections through to the internal Figure 14 (top): Chiado district fire of 1988. Figure 15(centre): Only facades remain, 1988. Figure 16(bottom): renovatied street in Chiado 13 Figure 17 (top): Plans; sections and elevations. 14 Figure 18: Chiado renovatioN, street view courtyards while employing the use of a sky bridge to negate the steep terraced site. The internal connections allow for the city fabric to become permeable and varied, which is a technique that has used elsewhere in the district. The project has also implemented mixed use functions, with retail on the ground floors facing onto the pedestrian areas and accommodation and commercial space above. The variety in uses stems from the notion of activation in the area as a varied population uses space for different reasons. In defining the character of the district a design code drawn from the earlier studies has informed the building work. This has been highly successful as the development seems undistinguishable from the surrounding fabric. The work of Alvaro Siza in this project is ultimately indicative of the reflective way of thinking. Although mandated in the brief, the project could have manifested in many ways. Often, rejuvenation projects attempting bring new life to a district, takes the form of radical gentrification or a catalytic and transformative role that is aligned to isio a u a is . Ho e e , “iza s app oa h defined a responsive sensitivity to the urban condition which has been its success. Figure 19: Chiado renovation of the burnt down buildings. Yellow highlights the internal courtyards 15 Consolidation and conclusion The paper has covered seventy years of urban design from the i itial hu le g ou ds of “e t s town planner to that of existing discipline it is today. In doing so the paper has sought to form clarity within the discourse that has been fraught with frustration and ambiguity. Along with the narrative in the paper the world has transformed and the role of the urban designer, as Sert envisaged it as the noble agent of change, is faced with increasingly wider difficulties. Yet, urban design has remained animated in its dedication to civic life a d the pu li eal . It s role has formed a cross-disciplinary field, creating a platform of common ground and multidisciplinary engagement. This has enabled the urban designer to form informed visions respective of the complexity of the urban condition. In concluding the paper argues that the effort of both practising and academic urban designers and other fields to define urban design as a discipline is a f uitless e dea ou as it s u i ue ha a te is it nebulousness. The discourse has illustrated a general consensus in regard to how urban design manifests its self in a plethora of ways, which can be categorized and analysed as i K iege s te territories. However, with resounding emphasis the paper asserts that urban design is practised by the urban minded and is an aid to other professions. In defining the work of urban designers the paper draws on an approach of a way of thinking but acknowledges that all urban design work exhibits ulti ale t Je k s, 1980) aspects. The case examples contextualize the introduction of two new governing territories, Visionary and Reflective urbanism, as a way of thinking and a matter of action. The Medellin example is a large city wide catalytic infrastructure project that aims to create social change through defining centres, increasing accessibility and providing civic facilities. It is visionary both in its acupunctural approach and the transformation it aims to create. E i Me alles s Santa Caterina Market serves as a visionary approach by the city authority to redefine the lost role of the market within the city. However the actual project is reflective as it is mindful of its role within the city and its surrounding urban fabric. Thus the case serves as an example of a situation where both territories are present. The Chiado renovation in Lisbon is an example of reflective urbanism as it is responsive to its environment while sustaining the character of the district. It highlights the role of the urban designer in the maintenance of urbanity. A final aspect which has not been expanded upon in the paper is the process of review, which is born of the notion of reflective urbanism as it endeavours to aid in fo i g good u a is though i flue i g outcomes in development. 16 17 Bibliography          A. Krieger, S. Suanders (2009) Urban Design. University of Minnesota Press. Mineapolis  The First Urban Design Conference: Extracts. Pg. 3- 14  E, Mumford. The Emergence of Urban Design in the Breakup of CIAM. Pg. 15-37  R, Marshall.The Elusiveness of Urban Design:The Perpetual Problem of Definition and Role. Pg. 38-57  A. Krieger. Where and How does Urban Design Happen | Ten Territories of urban design. Pg. 113130  J. Busquets. Defining the Urbanistic Project:Ten Contemporary Approaches. Pg. 131-134  M. Sorken. The End(s) of Urban design. Pg. 155 -182  E. Talon. Bad Parenting. Pg. 183- 185  Urban Design Now. pg. 297-325 J. Lang (2005) Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. Architectural Press. Oxford F. Brigitte (1992) Alvaro Siza. Kirkauser Verlag AG. Germany C. Jencks (1980) Modern Movementsin Architecture. Butler & Tanner Ltd, Britain H. Shirvani (1981) Urban Design Review: A Guide for Planners. Planners Press. Chicago D. Gosling (1996) Gordan Cullan: Visions of Urban Design. Academy Group LTD. London Canon-Rubiano. L (2010) Transport and Social Exclusion in Medellín. Potential, Opportunities and Challenge. University College London C. Castanheira (2009) Alvaro Siza The Function of Beauty. Phaidon. New York J. Jacobs (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities: The Failure of Town Planning. Pelican Books. U.S.A Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Cover: Compiled by Author The Departure: Drawn by Author Anon, (2014). [image] Available at: http://www.bestourism.com/items/di/1161?ti tle=Millennium-Park&b=181 [Accessed 17 May. 2014]. Battery Park: Battery Park. (2014). [image] Available at: http://travelbieber.com/sugarcane-cafeteriatrays-help-battery-park-city-school-go-green/ [Accessed 17 May. 2014]. Battery Park: J. Lang (2005) Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures and Products. Architectural Press. Oxford Medellin Columbia: Edited by Author Morphology: drawn by Author Urban Think Tank: Metro cable. (2014). [image] Available at: http://utt.com/projects_Metrocable.html [Accessed 18 May. 2014]. Urban Think Tank: Metro cable. (2014). [image] Available at: http://utt.com/projects_Metrocable.html [Accessed 18 May. 2014]. front elevation with roof cascading over preserved old market façade: Market. (2014). [image] Available at: http://www.mirallestagliabue.com/project_b. asp?id=59 [Accessed 18 May. 2014]. Aireal view: Market. (2014). [image] Available at: http://www.mirallestagliabue.com/project_b. asp?id=59 [Accessed 18 May. 2014]. Ceramic tiled roof: Market. (2014). [image] Available at: http://www.mirallestagliabue.com/project_b. asp?id=59 [Accessed 18 May. 2014]. Exploded Drawing: Drawn by Author F. Brigitte (1992) Alvaro Siza. Kirkauser Verlag AG. Germany F. Brigitte (1992) Alvaro Siza. Kirkauser Verlag AG. Germany Google Maps: edited by Author C. Castanheira (2009) Alvaro Siza The Function of Beauty. Phaidon. New York Google Maps: edited by Author C. Castanheira (2009) Alvaro Siza The Function of Beauty. Phaidon. New York (Edited by Author) Nolly Map: From Piet de Beer Archive 18