Read "Defensible Space" by Oscar Newman. Of the same era as Jacobs's "Death and Life," it tells the story of design thinking and research applied to a generation of "best" planning practices shaping the worst of public housing and urban renewal projects. It's had a tremendous impact on urban design, and on urban and housing policy, over the last several decades.

most/all of the high modernists/CIAM members wrote about the relationship between architecture and urbanism...

corbusier - urbanisme
sert - can our cities survive
etc.

then there are the responses to modern urbanism from the 60s & 70s

team 10
archigram
the situationists
koolhaas - delirious new york
tschumi - manhattan transcripts
venturi et al - learning from las vegas
rossi - the architecture of the city

this idea is even touched upon in all of the big architectural treatises

alberti
vitruvius
etc.

more contemporary stuff would be
new urbanism (andres duany or peter calthorpe)
landscape urbanism (charles waldheim, jim corner, etc.)

go out and walk around...and really look!

There's a lot of building/urbanism going on in the essays of V Scully.

Peter Bosselmann, of the UC Berkeley Urban Design department, specializes in just this. Read his books, specifically "Urban Transformation: Understanding City Form and Design"

not very "researchy" and you probably already know of it, but italo calvino's invisible cities offers a poetic and deeply perceptive personal view of the city

i would start all the way back in the 1300's... look at relations ships between where the church was located inside city walls. It was always in the center of the city with most road leading to it.

That changed with the renaissance, where people moved away from the church because of the advances in science. They formed new heirarchy within society and all of a sudden what was in the city of the city? The main governmental building.

These are references to the "Ideal City."

Perhaps a venture into modernism and how car / industrialzation changed cities.

You could also check out Life Between Buildings and New City Spaces by Jan Gehl, one of the godfathers of urban design. In terms of built projects, Borneo Sporenberg (West8) and the Malmo complex around the Calatrava building would also be good examples.

I highly recommend "Defensible Spaces". It's an amazingly thorough book and it really points out many of the urban design problems with housing projects. It doesn't only focus on the negative though.

Although the architecture is questionable (in my opinion) New Urbanism provides great opportunities to study and understand a city/neighborhood/etc.

The Surrealist City is a good book for Urban Design research too. All of these books were mentioned above, but I will definitely second that motion.

Architecture of Fear is another book that I would add to this list. It is a series of essays edited by Nan Ellin. I own it, but I carried it with me too much to the point of it exploding.

Wow! Thanks everyone for the suggestions so far, I see that I have a lot of books to read! Would you all say that this is an accurate assessment: urban design informs architecture, or at least it should ???

It definitely does. It is another scale of design. Just as a simplified way to put it. The use, mass, plan/shape, opacity, color and relationships of one material next to another greatly affects an architectural design. On a larger scale the use, mass, plan/shape, opacity and relationships from one building to the next greatly affects the urban space around it. Using these ideas in an architectural design can highlight, recede or connect a design to its surroundings. It is a really important tool that separates successful projects from unsuccessful projects.

I think you should stop thinking of "urban design" and "architecture" as these two discrete forces which somehow act upon one another in quantifiable ways. In fact, they are fundamentally indivisible: the space of urban design is the space without and between buildings. At the same time, "architecture" doesn't stop at the edge of a building's footprint.

In practice, even if a given project failed entirely to consider its context, the "urban design" around it, the viewer will never be able to consider it without that context, and will generally be standing in the midst of that context while viewing the building. Thus, the "urban design", as you're calling it, is informing the experience of the "architecture" whether or not that interaction was intentional.

Lastly, as someone who is currently in school, I don't think reinforcing the somewhat outdated idea of the dichotomy between "architecture" and "urban design" will necessarily prove fruitful, either as an admissions strategy or as a avenue of academic inquiry. More and more, especially at the top schools, I think the pattern has been an effort to understand these things as inextricably involved.

I can't speak with certainty of any of the other programs, but at my school a student would be harshly criticized if they designed a building without designing that building's interface with its surroundings. In that way, the work of urban design is actually becoming another facet of the project of producing architecture.

All of this is not to say that Urban Design isn't its own (impossible to define) discipline, just that it might not be as clearly delineated from architecture (or planning or landscape) as you seem to be envisioning it.

njohn. I understand your points and it can be summarized in my previous fragment sentences, "It is another scale of design. Just as a simplified way to put it." I think we can all understand that urban design isn't as easily defined by the title that its given. But, there are programs that focus more on larger scale relationships, urban environments and issues that some programs call "urban design". There are also some schools that focus on "sustainable", "new urbanist" or "traditional" architecture. You could argue that all of the specialized programs in "architecture" are not a complete in their approach to the designed environment. But that doesn't mean that you will get that type of education at all schools. The "better" schools you speak of, (probably Ivy League) are not the only places that you can explore this.

You will not get "urban design" experience at every school and if it is something that interests you, pursue it. My college experience at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) explored many issues including urban design and in Chicago (grad school), not so much.

Architects design lots, Urban designers design blocks and urban planners design neighborhoods.

I had projects in architecture school where I designed full blocks and neighborhoods.

Seconded, 21Ronin, which was my whole point, I believe.

And it's not just in schools - take a look at things like Borneo Sporenburg by West8, Vastra Hamnen in Malmo, or the ongoing infill of Copenhagen's harbor area for examples of the breakdown of these categories.

Also, to 21Ronin: I would totally agree that the amount of exposure to these ideas you get will vary wildly from school to school, and that an important component of choosing a school is knowing what kind of pedagogy you're going to have access to.

But I'll stand by my statement that the trend at many of the top schools has been towards increased awareness and cross-pollination. And I didn't just mean the Ivies - I go to Berkeley, which I think is doing some of the best work in this regard.

"i would start all the way back in the 1300's... look at relations ships between where the church was located inside city walls. It was always in the center of the city with most road leading to it."

I would start back even further.

Try Roman. The design of many European villages and towns... even those that eventually became adorned with churches are often based off a pretty standard concept.

As Rome expanded, new settlements were often the byproduct of legions (part-time military).

The basic component of a roman military outpost was the formation of a crux or two main intersection roads, a development of a wall around the cross and then further development of civil buildings on one road and religious and governmental buildings on the other.

This concept had expandability as well as any new major road could be added as long as it intersected another major road.

To stabilize population and make some dough, these main streets and civic areas were often prime for the building of insulae (mixed use-apartment buildings) that housed the cities lower-middle and middle-classes along with merchants occupying the bottom floor.

As Christianity rose and paganism fell, many of the old civic buildings were simply redeveloped. But the common trend of development has more or less stayed the same for nearly 2700 years.

I suppose the only main difference between roman towns and modern day towns was that romans were smart enough to have at least two main streets.

This is essentially what urban planning teaches you-- not the nuisance of buildings or architectural styles but the reason perhaps why building types exist.

21ronin, you may have done visual planning... but I fail to see very few architectural students planning by the ledger.

That is to determine the facts, figures and numbers of the projects you are building.

In your planning, did you ever do sales tax receipt estimations? Did you ever do the pre-tax value and the growth of property tax over a 5 year period given the stipulations on development?

Did you forecast the cost of infrastructural improvements and their lifecycle?

Did you determine the profits on a 100-year lease period on parking coupled with the cost of amortizing financing on a parking structure? Did you determine the cost per parking space, the peak parking demand or the net generation of vehicle fees of new residents vs displaced residents?

Did you measure the overall productive loss in leaks developed in gasworks? Or the loss generated by static through transmission lines? Or how to write and process a bond to afford a transformer over a 30-year period?

Did you compare the multiplier effect of style over existing infrastructure over expected growth? Did you find that there was any necessity for the value added by good architectural design services?

Did you break down the cost and collections of EUDs over a 10-year period? How about the necessity of expanding city services due to growth forecast and density requirements?

I would like to know who does this under your prescription?

"Architects design lots, Urban designers design blocks and urban planners design neighborhoods."

Orochi, what the hell is your point? I know a lot of city planners (professionals, not students) who also don't work through all of that minutiae when developing a proposal to "design neighborhoods" as you put it. In terms of the broad strokes of design (zoning, usage, programming), that is something that architects are increasingly being trained to do and think about.

Of course most architects don't do all of the things you mentioned. Why should we? In an actual project environment, no one is going to do all of that work, in addition to all of the "visual planning", in addition to all of the architectural design by themselves, in a vacuum. Projects require teams of people and firms with various backgrounds and focuses.

So I guess I sort of fail to see how your post is an indictment of architects. Instead, it reads as a semi-hysterical defense of the byzantine domain of planners as the only ones who could possibly do the work you're talking about.

At the same time, your question of the "necessity for the value added by good architectural design services" is exactly why this process needs to be more cross-disciplinary. There's plenty of ugly shit in the world already - do we need more of it? Does good design need to justify itself in terms of economic value added?

That type of thinking is how we wound up with strip malls and big box stores.

While I did not do those tasks, I did do the following:

-study the function of all buildings in the neighborhood
-study the use of buildings during different times of the day
-study zoning regulations, restrictions, funding programs for redevelopment, community organizations that had mission statements that meshed with the direction that I was taking my project
-categorically study the history of neighborhood as well as major transformations to the built environment.
-study school programs in the city and neighborhood
-determine what programs were needed in the neighborhood where we were working
-study mass transit (bus, train, car and foot traffic) and integrate the data to improve the infrastructure not by simply designing bus shelters, but by locating important structures in appropriate locations to reinforce the neighborhood's strengths and also improve its shortcomings.
-develop a program that addressed needs of the neighborhood based on school programs, mass transit needs, historic sites and cultural institutions that remedied the urban conditions which were failing.

Oh yeah.....and then after all of that, I designed structures to address the data that I collected in my research.

Orochi, I would like to see how studying the things that you mention turns into something substantial, physical and real. You can do all of the research in the world, propose something based on numbers and it can easily fail if you do not have the appropriate resources, services, connections, infrastructure, commercial support (among others). And even if you have all of the supporting factors above, a plan addresses the info you listed, can easily fail based on the actual design.

You do all those things to sell the "product" to sell it.

You do the break down of whether or not "wasted space" is wasted space.

Does a store need a grand foyer? What is the loss of operating square footage? Is that architectural feature absolutely necessary?

When you dedicate floor space for artistic expression, you lose valuable sales space-- at least in a business environment.

Where also does this help? In the government scheme of things, you can get tons of free money for meeting some pretty simplistic requirements on the federal and local level.

If a store bases its employment on one employee for every 250 square feet of floor space and you need to create 15 employees for a grant and a tax credit, you're looking at 4000 square feet. I want an architect who can balance that space out perfectly and not give me 1000 square feet of art. That 1000 square feet (assuming a cost of 300 per square foot) of art is not only costing me the ability of meeting quotas... it's also costing me 600,000 dollars a year of income.

It's also costing me 2500 a month in rent/loans and about 6000 a year in taxes.

"Of course most architects don't do all of the things you mentioned. Why should we?"

Becuase local governments will cut deals with people who do their work for them. You don't like impact fees? Well, they're there for a reason. Because the government pays a sizable chunk of those fees for other people to do them.

If you build a $30,000,000 dollar property in Any City, USA... your im pact fees should be between 3.5 to 6.5 million dollars.

Let's say the planning board gives you a 30% reduction for doing all these things by yourself. Assuming it takes 40 hours worth of work at standard architectural rate and also hiring a real estate lawyer, we can assume this work will cost between 800-1000 dollars an hour.

Even at a 1000 dollars an hour, it'll cost the interested party 40,000 to hire you to do all this work. So, if you can swing it, 40,000 dollars worth of work will save your client 1.2 million.


Finally, "Does good design need to justify itself in terms of economic value added? That type of thinking is how we wound up with strip malls and big box stores."

Do some research, crooked governmental programs, tax breaks and cheap county land had more to do with the development of strip malls and big box stores than not having architects.

If you don't know planners who do this, they aren't doing their jobs and should be fired immediately.

"Orochi, I would like to see how studying the things that you mention turns into something substantial, physical and real. You can do all of the research in the world, propose something based on numbers and it can easily fail if you do not have the appropriate resources, services, connections, infrastructure, commercial support (among others). And even if you have all of the supporting factors above, a plan addresses the info you listed, can easily fail based on the actual design."

Go to your city's accounting office, the tax collectors office or the economic development agency of your town.

Determining profitability and the tax basin makes all the things you do happen.

Ok. You didn't answer my question. How does anything you listed turn into anything real, other than hiring someone else (like an architect, urban designer or planner)? Also, your number crunching is a dead way of planning or designing. Actually, its not designing at all.....its analyzing the financial conditions involved in purchasing, regulations on developing property, etc. All of the information that you are talking about has nothing to do with design. You are talking about the inner workings of the government, accounting and asset analysis.

If you don't want to hear about innovative ways to design, think or approach the BUILT environment, then I think you may be in the wrong place. I don't think anyone here is claiming that architects or urban designers are involved in the things that you are speaking about.

[Finally, "Does good design need to justify itself in terms of economic value added? That type of thinking is how we wound up with strip malls and big box stores."]-

While I think I see your point that the lack of good design created strip malls; I think it is easy to see that design was ignored in strip malls and that the focus on profitability, economics and capitalism was the driving factor in strip malls. If you studied the built environment near strip malls, you would see the effects of these eye soars which kill any sense of place.

Businessmen don't like designers because it doesn't "directly" make money. It is an after thought and I don't expect people that talk the way you do to understand that.

Correction: Businessmen don't like designers because they don't "directly" make money. To them, design is an after thought, disposable and I don't expect people that talk the way you do to understand that.

curious exchange.

once you get a job in your field of study (it was planning wasn't it?) orochi i would be shocked if you maintained your point of view. design by numbers very seldom works, especially the particular set you are setting down. they don't even work as business, or at least not the sustainable type. many developers understand the value of quality in attracting higher rents, so it is hardly a universal truth that everything comes down to the factors you describe...


urban planning and architecture are not done together usually, but there are benefits in crossing the barriers. someone mentioned sporenborg above and that is fantastic example of an outcome, though to be honest the public spaces in that particular instance are not as good as they might have been. the thing about urbanism however is that it is not static so if there are failings it can be ameliorated, even transformed over time.

in that sense the real gap between planning and architecture is the scale of time, not space. cities are fluid over decades, buildings are static (more or less) so it can be hard to make them connect in obvious ways, especially with plans.

the books already listed above are pretty good ways to start thinking about the overlap though. i would also recommend looking at the berlage institute for more real-time documentation of the topic. if you are interested in the subject the school is probably one of the best places in the world to get an education focusing on urbanism and architecture as a pair.

jump, the reason that the public spaces don't work so well is that adriaan geuze's concept for the project was that there would be no public space... he conceived of the houses as bunkers from the outside world and thus atomised the public space and swallowed it up into the fabric of the housing in the form of 'voids' (i.e. gardens and patios) which were required to make up at least 30% of the volume of each individual house... however, the fact that the project is built at the end of an 'island' means that the streets are all dead ends so the traffic isn't too bad which in turn allows the streets to function as public space...

i have always found it a bit strange that someone who essentially makes a living at creating public spaces would conceive of a project in which there was no public space... but even given that i think that it is a terrific project.

i knew about that concept architphil but didn't realise he intended it to be a trade-off. i love his work, as does my architect partner (who did m.arch under geuze and is very biased), but my planner partner really tore it to bits when we were examining it not so long ago.

our planner got his diploma in germany under Albert Speer, Jr. so is definitely conservative in many ways, but the points he had were pretty strong. He would argue that Geuze's concept was irresponsible if it really was conceived as a tradeoff, and that the public realm affects the interior profoundly so cannot be ignored. Its like making a slum from scratch just so you can have a shithole to turn your back on. somehow i don't think that was the idea, but never know...;-)


We have been doing a series of serious planning proposals for the last half year or so now. We get along very well and share work across the board, without distinction between professions, but was surprised a few months back when our planner-guy said he found the work very interesting because he had never worked so closely with architects before and he liked how it changed the equation. That was surprise to me because he had worked in very large starchitect office before (as an urban planner) and then in a major global-reach kind of corporate planning office before going on to do phd and joining us. which is to say if anyone had an opportunity to do work that spanned both realms it was him. But it had never come up - until he joined us. Which is crazy.

In many ways planners and architects keep to themselves and do their own thing in their own way. Maybe that is why sprorenborg went a bit rabbit-eared with the public space issue. or maybe he simply decided to see what would happen on its own in 50 years and didn't think it was necessary to plan public space beyond throwing in a few roads...?

i didn't know that y'all had a third partner... is that a recent development?

i totally agree about the fact that most people in each discipline prefer to do their own thing... i'm currently trying to assemble a team for a big student competition through the ULI that requires a team of 5 including people from at least 3 different disciplines... trying to find a team of people that are actually willing to share what they see as their own territory is surprisingly difficult... i've been becoming increasingly jaded about the whole academic (and somewhat professional too) discussion about cross-disciplinarity... everyone talks about it but no one actually seems to do it.

yes. we asked a planner to join us to help us chase down planning projects this year. still just getting started but we hope in a year or two it will pay off. my archi-partner and i both did phd research on planning so we understand theory of planning and have interest in the job but needed someone with actual experience to run the show for those projects.

i know what you mean about the inter-disciplinary thing architphil. we have tried it before and it didn't work until we found someone who was not jealous of territory. it helps that he is as knowledgeable about architecture as we are, and that we have a pretty good understanding of his field too. so there are no big gaps in terms of ideas and theories when we discuss approaches to projects, and we are entirely happy to bow to experience and knowledge when it comes to details.

we were lucky to find someone that can work that way.