Theme 4: Urban Form, design, and human experience

Urban form

physical makeup of a city, including its buildings and streets

Urban fabric

small-scale detail, street patterns, and human experience

What does successful urban design shape?

form and fabric by linking policy design and social meaning

The modern city 

Combination of Haussmann’s Paris & city beautiful

Haussman’s Paris

centralized authority, uniformity, and modernization

The “city beautiful” movement

Chicago, beautification as social order

the modern city 

relationship between the public and private realm 

Utopian architecture

focuses on function over aesthetics, clean, geometric

Le Corbusier’s Radiant city

vertical, efficient, but socially sterile

Frank Lloyd Wrights Broadacre city 

decentralized, organic, and democratic 

modernist ideals

efficiency, separation of functions, planning as a social tool

Modernist ideals (drawbacks)

ignored history, shattered community ties, overlooks social and cultural realities

y

y

Interdisciplinary nature of urban design

bridges urban planning, architecture, transportation planning, and landscape architecture

Richard Sennett (the open city)

urban spaces should reveal, not hide social tension

Camillo Sitte

emphasized urban aesthetics and organic, irregular city forms 

Urban density

people, dwellings, or rooms per unit area

y

y

y

y

what does density not show

the quality of housing or community experience 

Howards garden city vs. Corbusier’s radiant city

Balance town and countryside vs. vertical efficiency

Intensification

how space is used & the level of activity and experience of a place (ground floor engagement)

Density ≠ intensity 

both must align to have successful urban design  

Urban form & urban fabric

city’s skeleton, city’s texture and life

urban tissue

neighborhood structure, coherence, identity

Heritage as social and cultural capital

this preserves memory and identity

Balancing development with conservation 

ensures continuity 

challenges of urban heritage

pressures from urban development, maintenance, seismic requirements, bias in “official heritage”

urban form as power

spatial design expresses authority (Haussmann) or democracy (jacobs)

Modernist paradox

rational efficiency can alienate people from a place

urban aesthetics

beauty can shape pride and social behavior

heritage ethics

conservation supports communities and sustainability

NZ urban design protocol 

emphasizes context, character, choice, connections, creativity, custodianship, and collaboration 

Special character areas

heritage zones in Auckland and Dunedin maintain a sense of place and cultural heritage

NZ debate

NZ has a tradition of low-density, detached housing, but younger generations value compact, high-quality urban living
1. National policy statement on urban development - increase housing, promote compact, transit oriented cities
2. NZ policy shifts toward compact, resilient growth
3. must consider that density ≠ intensity unless well designed

Model of UF: Garden city (Howard) 

self-contained communities w/greenbelts > early vision of sustainable planning

Model of UF: Regional organic planning (Geddes)

place-work culture > context-based planning

Model of UF: Concentric zone (Burgess)

cities grow in rings from the CBD > urban land use pattern

Model of UF: Sector (Hoyt)

growth along transport routes > importance of infrastructure

Model of UF: Multiple nuclei (Harris & Ullman) 

cities have several centers > decentralized/suburban hubs

Models of UF: Urban vitality (Jacobs)

cities as living, social spaces > human-scale designs

Models of UF: Lefebvre

citizens participation in urban life > social equity emphasis