http://www.press.ierek.

com

ISSN (Print: 2537-0154, online: 2537-0162)

International Journal on:

The Academic Research Community Publication

DOI: 10.21625/archive.v3i1.435

Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in the Urban

Design Process: Towards a Multi-disciplinary Approach
Moureen Asaad1 , Marwa Khalifa2 , Ahmed S. Abd Elrahman3
1 BSc, Urban design and planning Department, Ain Shams University
2 Professor Dr. , Urban design and planning Department, Ain Shams University
3 Associate Professor Dr. , Urban design and planning Department, Ain Shams University

Abstract
The city is a complex living organism mostly affected by decisions taken whether they are political, organizational,
or design decisions. Such decisions vary in scale starting with planning, urban design, and architectural scales.
Urban design has been commonly agreed to occupy a hypothetical intersection between planning and architecture.
It emerged to bridge the disciplinary gap between architecture and planning. Since 1960s urban design literature
attempted to define what good urban design and good city form is, and the process to achieve it; yet in practice the
endproduct doesn’t always achieve high quality in terms of urban design initial objectives.
Over the last decades, the gap between disciplinary dreams in theory and real outcomes translated as urban design
product of different practices has been growing in the field of urban planning and urban design. Since the urban
design product does not meet its expected objectives in theory then something must be wrong with it, and a
thorough investigation must come in order to perceive such gap.
The Research aims to answer two main questions regarding urban design through examining the Urban Design
Process; the first is whether the urban design process is capable to bridge the multidisciplinary gap? And the
second question is with the little knowledge and lack of success criteria for the urban design process; how can the
success of urban design be measured?

© 2019 The Authors. Published by IEREK press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords
Urban Design Process; Gap; Multi-disciplinary; Success criteria

1. Introduction
Urban design has been commonly agreed in literature as the bridge between architecture and urban planning
(Lang, 2005) yet literatures has recently been discussing the many problems faced in practices of urban design,
and mentioned the existing gap between theories and practices of urban design and planning that affects the form
of the city (UN-Habitat, 2013; Ghonimi, El zamly, Khairy, & Soliman, 2010; Palermo & Ponzini, 2012; Palermo,
2014). The urban design product in the city has fallen behind the disciplinary theoretical dreams of its own
objectives, appearing in disconnected cities, and cities which lack livability. Literature is filled with many cases
and discussions about low quality of the urban product which leads to questioning the reasons behind this. (Steino,

pg. 115
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

2003)
If urban design is incapable of achieving its own objectives then we cannot blame it on the city, but something
must be wrong with it. “if a car cannot drive, we do not blame it on the road. And if urban design cannot design
cities we should not blame it on the city” (Steino, 2003, p. 2)
The paper discusses two main questions; the first is whether the urban design process can bridge the multidisci-
plinary gap -which was the main purpose for urban design’s emergence-? This question requires a background and
theoretical overview on urban design term, its objectives, process and how it is viewed as a bridge to the multidis-
ciplinary gap between various disciplines in literature. The second section of the paper is a practical check and a
critique to the theoretical expectations, through a literature review to the expectations and reality of the relation-
ship between urban design status and relationship with other disciplines, and whether literature agrees that urban
design in practice has satisfied the purpose of its emergence yet. The final section provides answers to the second
question: what can be considered good urban design regardless of the multidisciplinary gap?
Whether the gap still exists according to some literature, or not, how can we evaluate a city in terms of good
urban design; and how can we reach a city able to overcome the multi-disciplinary gap. The following will be done
through an examination of literature to extrapolate some considerations that ensure quality urban design in practice;
as well as some considerations developed by the UN-Habitat which ensures high quality urban design, and finally
verifying these developed considerations with 2 successful cities in terms of urban design and its relationship with
other disciplines of urban development.

2. Defining the Urban Design Process: a literature review

Cities have always been the focus of design theory and practices; the different design practices have been labeled
into disciplines according to the scope of design including architecture, landscape design, urban planning, civil
engineering and recently urban design as a new discipline. (Kreiger, Territories of Urban design, 2006; Meadows,
1980; Lang, 2005). The term “Urban Design” became popularized during the 20th century in 1956 Chicago
international conference. (Kreiger, Territories of Urban design 2006)
Urban design is concerned with a few aspects that characterizes towns and cities such as culture, environment,
scale of activities, functions, spaces and building types and their privacy; hence it can be theoretically considered
the design field with the highest impact on the nature of the cities. (Shahreen, 2010)
Defining and evaluating any process -including the Urban Design process- to evaluate its success factors requires
an agreement to some aspects of the process; first is defining the term of the process itself, as in defining urban
design as a term. Second, to evaluate a process it is required to understand what type of product it should produce,
what is the expected end-product of this process. This can be defined through the urban design objectives, which
leads to the evaluation of the process according to such objectives. Third, is the human factor involved in such a
process, in terms of involved actors and stakeholders and finally, defining the process taken to produce any urban
product.

2.1. Urban Design “Term”

Urban Design term has originated from the Latin word ‘urbs’ meaning ‘city’ (Cuthbert, 2006; Elshater, 2014). It
was first identified in the Harvard conference of 1956. Urban design was commonly agreed as a discipline that
occupies a hypothetical intersection between architecture and planning; thus, bridging any perceived gaps between
those two disciplines. However, urban design has held various definitions by theorists and practitioners according
to their different backgrounds, contexts, profession, practices and perception. (Kreiger, Territories of urban design,
2006; Lang, 2005; Steino, 2003)
The first definition agreed upon in the proceedings of Chicago international conference urban design as the part of
city planning concerned with the physical form of the city. It also described urban design as a wider scope with

pg. 116
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

common basis of three professions; architecture, landscape architecture and city planning. (Kreiger, Territories of
Urban design, 2006; Mumford, 2002). Other approaches to defining urban design have been taken afterwards. To
mention some names with different approaches: Luis Sert (Cuthbert, 2006), John Levy (Levy, 2009), Michael C.
Cunningham (Cunningham, 1972), and Francis Tibbalds (Tibbalds, 1988) have agreed upon the initial approach of
urban design as a bridge between architecture and planning that concerns the physical aspect in the city.
Richard Marshall (Marshall, 2009), Willo von Moltke (Kreiger and William, Urban Design 2009), UDG (Urban
Design group, 2011) Marion Roberts and Clara Greed (Greed & Roberts, 2014) defined urban design as an even
wider scope process, in terms of a multidisciplinary complex process that confines more than architecture and
planning only. Others like Peter Buchanan, DETR defined urban design in terms of the relationship between built
and unbuilt space; while Peter Webber, Doug Paterson, Rafael Cuesta, Cliff Moughtini, Christine Sarris and Paola
Signoretta had a more aesthetic approach to define urban design; they defined it as the art and qualities of the city
form and values.
Another human scale approach was by Carmona, Heath, O,c and Tiesdell, Alex Krieger, Jerry Spencer, DETR
& CABE, Jonny Mc, and David prichard, who defined urban design as the art of making places for people in
the public life. A more generic and ambiguous approach was the definition given by Peter Batchelor, Richard
Marshall (Marshall, 2009) and David Lewis who defined it as a way of thinking. Others have gone to the approach
of defining urban design as only the spaces between buildings.
The attempts to define Urban design can possibly be as many as the number of urban design writers and practi-
tioners; (Frey, 1999; Madanipour, 1997; Mumford, 2002; Levy, 2009; Marshall, 2009; Carmona M. , 2010; Steino,
2003; Kreiger, Territories of Urban design, 2006; Bahrainy & Bakhtiar, 2016) which makes urban design a very
confusing and wide term (Lang, 2014; Lang, 2005); yet an urban design process’ success should be evaluated
through fulfilling its own definition according to each context.

2.2. Stakeholders

The Urban Design stakeholders have been categorized in various models; one of which was by (Madanipour, 2006)
who categorized them into 3 groups by order of the process.
The first group are the regulators: those are the bodies involved on much higher levels than urban design itself
but are responsible for regulating urban design, all those who are involved within the institutional framework,
governmental bodies, economy and planning. They regulate the process in terms of decisions taken that should be
put to action.

Figure 1. Stakeholders according to type (Madanipour, 2006)

The second group are producers; who are mainly responsible for the implementation phase of the urban design

pg. 117
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

process. They follow the regulations and produce what we can call the urban design product. Those can be
identified as developers, financers, construction companies and professional team of designers.
The Third and final group are the users of the product; within the urban society, and everyone who lives, works or
visits the city. They are the main target for the entire process and the product assessment is done through the users’
satisfaction of the urban product.
Other factors that can be identified from the above categorization of urban design stakeholders is how they can
be contributors to urban design success through the amount of involvement of users, interaction between different
stakeholders, and the degree by which regulators ensure that producers work on users’ satisfaction to ensure a
successful process.

2.3. Objectives and Principles

Most writings on urban design identify a number of basic objectives that are most commonly embedded within any
new development plan of a city. (Lang, 2005)
Kevin Lynch (Lynch, 1981), Hamid Shirvani (Shirvani, 1985), Allan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard (Jacobs & Ap-
pleyard, 1987), Francis Tibbalds (Tibbalds 1992), CABE (Carmona M. , 2010), Alex Kreiger (Kreiger, Territories
of Urban design 2006), and Jon Lang (Lang, 2005) ,as well as many others identified the basic objectives of urban
design in different terminologies, but they can all be summarized as 8 major objectives that urban design aims
to achieve in the city: Livability, sense of community and quality of public realm; Suitability for human scale;
Efficient, durable and adaptable; has identity, character and Aesthetics in terms of city; diversity of activities and
mix use; control; accessibility and connectivity; and Environmental sustainability
Such objectives are then translated into principles and design guidelines for different cities according to the city’s
context and own interpretation to these objectives, how to achieve them, as well as priorities to achieve them.
The objectives of Urban design can be considered a second base point to evaluate whether the process has fulfilled
its purpose.

2.4. The Urban Design Process

The urban design process has been under development throughout the past years, where many efforts have been
exerted to model the process by different theorists and writers. This section is going to present a review to a few
models which have been theorized in urban design literature about the process; reaching a generic model that can
be commonly agreed upon as what most literature presents.
The urban design method as a process in practice can be described as a series of linked decisions forming a
sequence of analysis, synthesis, appraisal and decision. this series is mostly explained in other literature as well
that covers urban design process. the process is repeated for more detailed levels of design. (Moughtin, Cuesta,
Sarris, & Paola, 1999)
Analysis includes some basic information gathering on local planning scope, visual survey, and functional analysis
including classifications of goals and objectives and information patterns. Synthesis is the analysis of constrains,
potentials, problems leading to idea generation stages, followed by appraisal which is an evaluation to the solution
against initial objectives and goals, costs and other constrains, and finally a decision is made based upon evaluation
findings for implementation. The decision taken is not a linear process, but it holds many return loops between
different stages. It is very crucial to view the process as iterative, and not only within the single process of urban
design, but between what precedes it and follows it as well. (Moughtin, Cuesta, Sarris, & Paola, 1999)
The following collective urban design processes presents different literature concerning the steps of the urban
design process, it appears that according to Lawson (2005) urban design is expected to follow a systematic process
connecting knowledge through data analysis to actions to be implemented through steps of concept generation and

pg. 118
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

developing options guiding the entire process into realization.

Table 1. Urban Design Process according to various writers and theorists Authors based on(Palazzo & Steiner, 2011; Shirvani,
1985; Levy, 2009; Urban Design group, 2011; Greed & Roberts, 2014)
RIBA Hamid Hamid Hamid John M. Barry Clara Tony Lloyd Resulting
practice Shirvani Shirvani Shirvani Levy Young Greed & Jones process
(Palazzo (synop- (Incremen- Fragmen- (Levy (Urban Martin (Palazzo (Authors’
& tic) 2009) Design Roberts & Steiner, Conclu-
Steiner, (Shirvani, tal) tal group (Greed 2011) sion)
2011) 1985) (Shirvani, (Shirvani, 2011) &
1985) 1985) Roberts,
2014)
Data Data Decisions Data Data Col- Problem 1.Data
Collec- Collec- and Ob- Collec- lection & Definition Collec-
tion tion jectives tion analysis tion
Problem Data Data Data Data Rationale 2.Data
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis devel- analysis
(General opment
study) (Analysis)
Goals & Goals & Goals & Synthesis Define Vision, Potentials 3.Setting
objec- objectives objec- (Problem Physical goals & Vision,
tives tives analysis design and ob- constrains goals &
and princi- jectives objec-
develop pals tives
Concept Concept Concept options) Perform- Strategies Conceptua- 4.Concept
Develop
Genera- Genera- Genera- genera-
options
tion tion tion ance lization & tion and
criteria Evaluation strategies
Elaborate Elaborate Design 5.Develop
Translate
Con- Con- options options
to plans
cepts cepts to (from
to solu- solutions concepts
tions to solu-
tions)
Evaluate Evaluate Evaluate 6.Evaluation
Present Transfer Transfer Details Guidelines 7.Transfer
options to plans to plans to Imple- Briefs to plans/
ment imple-
menta-
tion

The above processes show that various literature describes the same process only with different terminologies and
sometimes merged parts of the process.
The design process maps explored for different practices such as industries, town planning, engineering, archi-
tecture and even urban design tend to show similar agreement in terms of the process steps; which suggests that
perhaps the design process is the same in all fields. The famous process maps include similar steps to the traditional
problem-solving technique (Lawson, 2005).
When the RIBA Architectural design process is inspected compared to all the previous urban design process steps;
it is found that the similarity is very high with any given urban design process with regards to the existing iterative

pg. 119
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

loops.

Figure 2. a map of the design process according to RIBA Architectural practices (Moughtin, Cuesta, Sarris, & Paola, 1999)

The process of translating plans and goals into designs should be interactive rather than linear; where the urban
design informs both the architecture and planning which should not be fixed unless the physical aspect is considered
(Creiger 2006). The linear presentation of the urban design process never meant for it to actually work in a linear
manner; but within the process itself there are many iterative loops the more it gets informed, which might update
its goals and objectives or affect its evaluation criteria and so on. Decisions at higher scales should inform the
design process at lower scales; from regional to town planning, to urban design and to buildings. It would make
more sense when all components fit within the framework of the higher order.
buildings are designed to fit within the urban design scheme of higher order, however, it is not a one-way process
from large to smaller scale. It is argued that an individual building could have an impact on the larger scale of
urban design scheme; which could as well inform the planning of the city as a whole; hence iterative loops of
design process between planning, urban design, architecture, and different scales is a key element to successful
process of design (Moughtin, Cuesta, Sarris, & Paola, 1999)

Figure 3. TheDesign Process for Urban Development (Moughtin, Cuesta, Sarris, & Paola, 1999)

3. The truth about urban design; the unbridged gap

Over the last decades, the urban design literature has been filled with criticism towards urban design; the gap be-
tween the disciplinary dreams and real outcomes translated in the urban design product has been widely discussed
(Palermo, 2014). The theories, and principles promote various ways and objectives to achieve good urban design;
yet this doesn’t always ensure that the end-product achieves high urban design quality (Steino, 2003). This sec-
tion discusses the criticism urban design has faced concerning its theoretical literature and practices outcomes to
understand the reality of what literature of urban design presents.
In theory; the attempts to define urban design as mentioned previously have been too many; maybe even as many
as those who wrote in the urban design literature; this caused a confusion in the term itself, and its main purpose.
The term is very poorly defined to the point that it seems it was intentional that urban design remains undefined
(Lang, 2014); it is also very inaccurate to try and define urban design as one term and a set of specifications (Arida,

pg. 120
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

2002; Madanipour, 1997; Cuthbert, 2006).

Richard Marshal states that “Urban design has always had no clear role, territory, and authority. . . . In this context,
perhaps urban design’s unique value stems from its vagueness or rather from its provision of an overarching
framework that can bridge more specialized design efforts.” (Marshall, 2009, p. 55)
When it comes to the urban design process in practice; although literature is filled with writings on how cities
should be, it doesn’t have enough to provide information on how it should come into being (Steino, 2003). The
history of urban design provides many examples that have changed during the implementation, or even left un-
completed. It has been relatively common that urban design projects may not turn out as intended. (Steino, 2003;
Moor, 2006)
Urban design literature promotes the idea of urban designers being the “shapers of the city” which in citizens’
minds is not the case. Although Urban designers are viewed as those concerned with daily needs and tangible
problem solving, they are still not perceived as the decision makes, yet planners are; since their profession operates
in the broader spheres of policy formulation (Kreiger, Territories of urban design, 2006; Steino, 2003). Urban
design and planning are in theory strictly separated disciplines; in which there is hardly any feedback from the
design process to the planning process despite the fact that in practice both disciplines operate and cannot be
separated from the same physical public realm (Devries, Tabak, & Achten, 2005; Steino, 2003). The ambiguous
relationship between urban design, and urban planning, policies, regulations etc. . . has caused more concerns and
clamps which hinder urban design than it has already presented in its theories. (Carmona 2010).
Different practices especially in developing countries shows a lack of proper urban planning and design strategies
capable of facing the challenges in the growing cities; the evidence to such poor strategies shows in ineffective
urban policies, poor connectivity, excessive zoning, insufficient accessibility and lack of appropriate urban design.
Such state for cities is not satisfactory for users neither their well-being which is considered the core value for
urban design objectives (UN-Habitat, 2013).
The above criticism directed to urban design, and its relationship with other disciplines hints out that the multidis-
ciplinary gap has not been bridged by urban design’s emergence; since urban design itself is still a confusing term
that has no clear connections to the planning and policy processes, either in theory or in many practices.

4. What makes a successful urban design Process?

4.1. Considerations from Literature Review:

The above interpretation to the urban design process is not the only issue of question; but the main question is how
to evaluate a good urban design process in the light of all the criticism directed towards urban design theory and
practice. Understanding successful urban design requires an assessment to the previous theoretical understanding
of what the urban design process is in terms of definition and achieving its purpose, objectives, stakeholders’
relationships and following the process itself. Yet literature had a lot to say about what makes good urban design
in practice as well -since theoretical application to urban design alone cannot achieve successful urban design-
and every presented factor to what constitutes successful urban design can be extrapolated as a consideration for
success.
From a theoretical perspective; Urban Design’s ambiguous nature as a term, and a discipline as described in
literature makes it very challenging to set clear cut boundaries to evaluate what is “good urban design” (Lang,
2005). Our knowledge is still primitive and disorganized when it comes to implementation and urban design
practice, (George, 1997; Steino, 2003). The lack of awareness to tactics influencing the urban design decisions
leads to uninformed urban designers to construct proper solutions, which explains why successful urban places are
rarely created (George, 1997).
Extrapolating some criteria for success through what literature has presented leads to answering the main question;
What can be considered Good urban Design? The question of “Good” urban design is a very subjective matter; it

pg. 121
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

can’t be addressed as an abstract ideal (CABE, 2003; Lang, 2005). The city is defined as “good” by some from
a merely aesthetic view,- regardless that aesthetics are valued differently by people-; others may value the city
from a more functional perspective, in terms of the city capacity to maintain a specific kind of business; others
may prioritize how a city meets their social, economic or cultural everyday requirements (Steino, 2004). Another
interpretation; it is a matter of creating the right conditions for a place to function well. Achieving this aim can’t
be done in a separate process from the planning system (CABE 2003).
In terms of working scope, Urban design works in a much larger sphere than its own sphere of work, due to the
responsibility of shaping cities, towns and villages. Being a multidisciplinary practice, it involves many stake-
holders as presented earlier. The variation of stakeholders controlling, designing, managing or using the urban
development always gives different perceptions and motives resulting in a different perception for urban design as
a whole for planners, politicians, architects, developers, and the users; such variation leads to different evaluation
of what is “good” for each stakeholder (Carmona, de Magalhães, Edwards, Awor, & Aminossehe, 2001); yet it
seems that the success of the product outcome depends on the effective efforts of all the involved stakeholders
through understanding the variety of agents mentioned. as hard as that may seem, it can be viewed as a kind of
success required for good urban design. (CABE, 2003; Knox & Ozolins, 2000)
Finding a balance for conflicting interests and objectives can be solved through policies set out by central and local
governments; which plays a great role in terms of its power to set the roadmap for developers and clearly iden-
tify the government’s aspirations for quality urban design (Washburn, 2013). The same factor was also discussed
as a current clamp of urban design; which is the inconsistent relationship with planning and lack of legislative
framework on national and sub-national scale (Carmona M. , 2010). Supportive policy and regulations can influ-
ence urban design at different scales, they contribute to sustainable urban design, while non-supportive policies,
regulations and process make it almost impossible to achieve. (Macdonald 2016) Urban design needs to reach an
awareness of the context in which the process operates including political, economic and social factors. (Sternberg
2000).
Promoting for quality urban design can be better controlled through design and planning guidance for different
scales starting local plans level, planning briefs, frameworks, guidelines, etc. . . . The more structured the guidance,
the better are the chances to achieve required qualities and the less possibility for developers to produce less quality
than expected. (Jones, 2006; Moughtin, Cuesta, Sarris, & Paola, 1999)

4.2. Success considerations according to the UN Habitat

The UN-Habitat has been working on developing a National Urban Policy framework for developed and developing
countries; in its document (Habitat III Policy paper: National Urban policy) presented in Habitat III conference
(UN-Habitat, 2016) it presented some challenges to consider for designing urban policies; which included urban
design. (Habitat III policy unit, 2016)
Urban and physical design are suffering insufficient public understanding of its critical role in people’s lives in
many cities around the world. Few cities take on urban design considerations on a larger scope than short term
investments, to include it in their local or national policies or plans. This is often a result to the lack of adequate
resources or professionals at city level. The New Urban Agenda of the UN-Habitat promotes for National Urban
policy and sets a high priority to quality urban design, which should satisfy the demands of people living in urban
areas (Habitat III policy unit, 2016)
The strategy for promoting urban design and planning according to the UN-Habitat document on national urban
policy has been reviewed to find that the overall objectives of the UN-Habitat guidance to urban planning and urban
design is to improve policies, plans and designs for better connected and integrated cities at all levels; national,
regional and city levels. The strategies provided by the UN-Habitat are evidence based from best practices and
experiences. (UN-Habitat, 2013)
Another document developed by the UN-Habitat was the toolkit for public space by the UN-Habitat provides

pg. 122
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

General policies and guidelines for cities to overcome the challenges of quality public space (which is an integral
part of urban design, and maybe the most neglected). These Policies included a 10-point policy to follow in order
to achieve high quality public space; along with the recommendations concerning the urban policy documents by
the UN-Habitat, they can be extrapolated as consideration for urban design success which will be represented in
the following collective criteria table.(UN-Habitat, 2016)

4.3. Developing Success considerations for verification:

The following table presents both, the criteria derived from literature as mentioned earlier, and the UN-Habitat
criteria for urban design and public space from its various documents. The analysis to such criteria shall be
categorized, summarized and further verified through 2 successful case studies.

Table 2. Categorizing and Summerizing the Urban Design success criteria from literature, and UN-HabitatAuthors based on
(Habitat III policy unit, 2016; UN-Habitat, 2016; UN-Habitat, 2013; Steino, 2003; CABE, 2003; Carmona, de Magalhães,
Edwards, Awor, & Aminossehe, 2001; Carmona M. , 2010; Sternberg, 2000; Macdonald, 2016; Moughtin, Cuesta, Sarris, &
Paola, 1999) (Jones, 2006; Knox & Ozolins, 2000; Lang, 2005; Washburn, 2013)
Categorization From Literature UN-Habitat Criteria Measuring criteria
Author’s concluding cri-
teria
Surveying the existing situa- Ability to assess the exist- 1
tion for public space ing situation and measure-
Functional and
ment tools for better future
context related
evaluation
considerations
Fulfils its own
Fulfilling its own
aim and definition
definition, objectives,
according to each 2
functionality and aesthetics
context
with response to context
Fulfil its context/ Planning Public space as a
city objectives system within policy; with
specific objectives for high
quality Public space objec-
tives
Aesthetics Ability to Measure the
Functioning space quality/ functionality of
and activities public space through a
Responsive and ad- measurement tool
equate to context
requirements
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ role: Participation of various stake- Stakeholders’ participation
3
users’ participation, rela- holders and satisfaction
considerations tionship
Meets aspirations Satisfying the Demands of
of users and differ- users
ent stakeholders
Continued on next page

pg. 123
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 2 continued
Understanding Anchoring public space Synergy within various 4
the interconnected within national urban policy stakeholders and govern-
relations and and seeking synergies within mental bodies
powers of stake- governmental bodies
holders through a
framework
Guided by in- Inclusion within the Na- 5
Governance and formed urban tional urban policy
multidisciplinary policies
Considerations Follow the process 6
in an iterative
manner (work
well within the
planning and ur-
ban development
framework)
Connected to the Guided urban planning The presence of iterative
7
planning process &urban design to imrpove loops in the process of ur-
policies, plans, &designs for ban design
Its ability to bridge better connected & integrated Urban design relationship
the gap between cities at all levels; national, with planning, and other
various disciplines regional, & city levels. disciplines and levels
The Presence of Ur- Political commitment through Political commitment level 8
ban design guides, a national vision in the na- (National., regional, city,
frameworks, etc on tional urban policy, local local, etc...)
local, city, or even government and planning The Presence of Urban
higher levels of policies, national building Design documents (guides,
governance, with codes, development and policies, codes and frame-
clear expectations housing frameworks works) on several levels
to the urban quality (national urban policy, re-
objectives. gional, city, and local gov-
ernment levels)
The legislations should be 10.Inclusion in Legislation 9
able to provide a secure public (definition, protection and
space; regulate its use; protect management)
and maintain the public space
from being misused.
Urban development Using Public Space as a 11.Urban design leadership
considerations leader to Development Strate- to urban development
gies
Funding through Leveraging 12.Economic aspect to ur-
Public Space as Resource ban development: funding
Multiplier

pg. 124
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

5. Case studies:
The case studies in the following section will focus on the criteria which may have contributed to success of urban
design in 2 countries as a verification step of the previous criteria analysis. According to (Palermo, 2014), UK,
Australia, and Netherlands are considered some of the countries successful in urban design.
The focus on the case studies shall be on the previously discussed success criteria that shall be further verified
through the case studies

5.1. Australia:

Australia’s Urban Design Protocol is the main guiding document for urban design in Australia, which has been
well known and established since 2011; it has been a product of the action plan produced by the national urban
policy principles.
The National urban policy included 10 principles for Australian cities; one of which was the aim for livability
within Australian cities. This could be achieved by supporting the community wellbeing, and improving the public
domain quality. The action plan for such objectives was to develop an urban design protocol which acts as a guid-
ing document to all Australian states and territories. The protocol is developed by the federal government level on
a national scale; yet the application of urban design practices on the local government scale is regulated through
each state specific guidelines and strategic planning approaches.
Various urban design guides exist for different states adopting the same principles from urban design protocol,
with a focus for enhancing the Australian cities relative to their context. For example, to mention some and not
exclusive to:
-New South Wales: Beyond The Pavement – RTA urban design policy, procedures and design principles
-Victoria: The urban design charter for Victoria
-South Australia: Public realm: urban design guidelines: by local government association of south Australia
-West Australia: Livable neighborhoods by western Australian planning commission
-Queensland: Next Generation Planning – A handbook for planners, designers and developers in South East
Queensland
(ASBEC, 2017)
The following table offers an explanation to some of the success criteria contributes to urban design in Australian
cities.

Table 3. Australian case study evaluation upon urban design success criteria. Authors based on (Department of Infrastructure
and Transport, 2011; Palich & Edmonds, 2013; Australian Government, 2011; Australian Government, 2015; Jensen Planning
& Design, 2014; ASBEC, 2017)
Categorization Success criteria Australian Case Study
1. The Presence of Urban - National Urban policy guide: Our cities, Our
Design documents: (guides, future
Governance and
policies, codes and frame- -National level (urban design policy): Places
multidisciplinary
works) on several levels (na- for people: urban design protocol for Australian
Considerations
tional urban policy, regional, cities
city, and local government -Regional and Local government: Various urban
levels) design guides and planning guides on local gov-
ernment scale of cities, and regional scales for
states and territories which follow the urban de-
sign protocol as a guiding roadmap, and has their
own context specifications and principles.
(ASBEC, 2017; Australian Government, 2011)
Continued on next page

pg. 125
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 3 continued
2.Inclusion within the Na- Urban Design Protocol, and liveability issue are
tional urban policy included on the National Urban policy scale.
The national urban policy framework for Aus-
tralia presented in the guide “Our Cities, Our
Future” constitutes 3 main goals translated into
10 principles and a set of objectives guiding the
decision-making process and translated into ac-
tion plans.
One of those principles is “Liveability” which
has been translated in the action plan into the
“Urban design protocol” prepared on the na-
tional urban policy scale, (federal government
level) (Department of Infrastructure and Trans-
port 2011)
3.Political commitment level High political commitment due to inclusion of
(National, regional, city, lo- urban design as a protocol on federal (national)
cal, etc. . . ) government level, and national urban policy
guides with flexibility to each state to the de-
tail of guidelines and legislative context. (De-
partment of Infrastructure and Transport, 2011)
(Jensen Planning & Design, 2014)
4.Urban design relationship Urban planning is not a direct responsibility to
with planning, and other dis- the federal government (policy level), the na-
ciplines and levels tional urban policy includes guidance for urban
planning and some legislations that impact na-
tional scale (Australian Government 2011). Ur-
ban design is included within the local govern-
ment guidelines, and guided by the urban design
protocol on National Urban policy level. Local
governments are responsible to ensure projects
delivery in accordance with the specified guides.
5.The presence of iterative One of the key principles of the urban design
loops in the process of urban protocol is “engagement” which allows provid-
design ing input and feedback at different key stages of
the process including the vision generation, de-
sign options feedback, and giving feedback dur-
ing the public exhibition
6.Inclusion in Legislation Variable according to each state since Australian
(definition, protection and government legislations are defined individually
management) by each state. Urban design attracts little atten-
tion on legislative level; yet despite little legisla-
tive compulsion, urban design is regularly used
in practice and guided by the protocol and docu-
ments of the local government. (Jensen Planning
& Design, 2014)
Continued on next page

pg. 126
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 3 continued
Stakeholders and users’ 7.Stakeholders’ participation Encouraging stakeholders’ participation and en-
considerations and satisfaction gagement is a key objective to the governance
principle in the national urban policy for Aus-
tralian cities; it promotes that engaging different
stakeholders and end-users in the planning, de-
livery and management will achieve better out-
comes for development. (Australian Govern-
ment, 2011)
One of the initiatives to engage them was creat-
ing an urban policy forum to advise on the na-
tional urban policy implementation. That Aus-
tralian government aims to include stakeholders
as well in the evaluation process of urban devel-
opment. (Australian Government, 2011)
Another community driven project is (ANDI)
Australian National Development Index; which
introduces a holistic progress measurement in
Australia for more than 40 community organi-
zations. (Palich & Edmonds, 2013)
Continued on next page

pg. 127
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 3 continued
8.Synergy within various Federal government
stakeholders and governmen- (legislative, judiciary, executive) responsible for
tal bodies urban policy formation on higher levels of fed-
eral government; on such scale, the national ur-
ban policy handbook called “our cities, our fu-
ture” is formulated, and includes a vision for
the entire country, sets principles and objectives
guiding the development process, and translated
into an action plan. One of those objectives is
Liveable cities; which was translated into an ac-
tion plan on the national scale of urban policy to
become translated into an urban design protocol
for Australian cities.
State and territory government:
Australian six states and 2 territories have the
power to form their own laws which doesn’t
bypass the federal law, yet they have their
own legislations, executive and judiciary bod-
ies. (Australian Government 2015) On the scale
of state government, effective planning becomes
the main responsibility, and they can directly
work with local governments of each city, en-
gage with the community, and different stake-
holders. They can also engage with higher lev-
els of federal government through COAG (coun-
cil of Australian governments) (Palich and Ed-
monds 2013)
Local Government:
Its responsibilities lie within the state govern-
ment; and their roles differ according to each
state. They work on community input to be de-
livered to the strategic planning process, and en-
sures the projects delivery in accordance with
adequate guidelines and recommendations of the
government’s policies.
Functional and context 9.Ability to assess the exist- By review to the above-mentioned guides; each
related considerations ing situation for better future guideline on the regional and local levels as
evaluation mentioned has its specific context criteria and
principles of good design, which can be measur-
able and evaluated.
10.Fulfilling its own defini- Urban design objectives have been translated
tion, objectives, functionality into 12 principles within the Urban design pro-
and aesthetics with response tocol entitled “Places for people”. The protocol
to context has been a by-product of the action plan of the
national urban policy liveability goal. (Depart-
ment of Infrastructure and Transport, 2011) .
Continued on next page

pg. 128
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 3 continued
Urban development 11.Urban design leadership to The Urban Design Protocol acts as a guide,
considerations urban development which promotes the concept of community par-
ticipation and leadership to development. (De-
partment of Infrastructure and Transport 2011)
12.Economic aspect to urban Urban design according to the protocol has a
development: funding great economic influence on success through
enhancing productivity, encouraging local busi-
nesses and entrepreneurship, attracting people to
live there, travel, give access to job opportuni-
ties, facilities and services. (Department of In-
frastructure and Transport, 2011)

5.2. UK:

The United Kingdom case study offers a successful example to urban design. Such success can be analyzed and
verified through examining its status with regards to the above considerations.
The UK government consists of policies on 2 main scales and other supplementary scales; National, and local
authorities are the mainly involved authorities with setting planning and urban design policies and principles.
The National scale offers a national urban policy which has been under development starting 2011-2016; its main
aim was to empower the local authorities for each city to take control over their own development.
The UK government has adopted this approach of local authority empowerment ever since it started its national
planning policy framework 2011; where the NPPF offers 12 core principles for planning across UK cities with
special considerations mentioned for urban design and planning policies which address the local authorities, and
empowers them to create their own planning policies and guidelines for each distinct context. Explained in
The Local planning authorities are mainly responsible for setting a vision for their cities, setting strategic planning
policies, preparing local plans and supplementary planning guidance including urban design codes and frame-
work; approving local proposals presented to them, and assessing projects in accordance with the higher planning,
national policies of the country.

Table 4. UK case study evaluation upon urban design success criteria. Authors based on (CABE, 2003; Homes and
Communities Agency; English Partnerships, 2007; UN-Habitat, 2016; UDG, 2012; Carmona M. , 2013; Department for
Communities and Local Government, 2012)
Categorization Success criteria UK Case study
Continued on next page

pg. 129
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 4 continued
1. The Presence of Urban -Urban Design Compendium 1: English partner-
Design documents, such as ships, 2000
Governance and
guides, policies, codes and -By Design: better places to live, department for
multidisciplinary
frameworks on several lev- transport, local government and regions, 2001
Considerations
els starting national urban -PPS 1: delivering sustainable development office
policy, regional, city, and of the deputy prime minister, 2005
local government levels -Building for life, English partnerships, 2005
-PPS 3: housing, office of the deputy prime minis-
ter, 2006
-Quality standards- Delivering Quality Places, En-
glish partnerships, 2007
-Urban Design Compendium 2, English partner-
ships, 2007
-World Class places- the government’s strategy for
improving quality of places, Department for com-
munities and Local government, 2009
-Design Council CABE 2011
-National planning policy framework, Department
for communities and Local government 2012
(Homes and Communities Agency; English Partner-
ships, 2007)
2.Inclusion within the Na- The National Urban policy of UK government has
tional urban policy taken an approach since 2011 towards decentraliza-
tion through an approach called “city deals” which
aims at empowering local governments to take re-
sponsibility for their development, business strate-
gies, and economic growth. (UN-Habitat, 2016)
The National Urban policy doesn’t address Urban
Design, or planning directly; yet it empowers the
local governments (which are responsible for urban
design) to be in control of their cities’ decisions and
urban development, guided by the national planning
policy. (UN-Habitat, 2016)
The National planning policy sets 12 principles for
local governments; where local governments are re-
sponsible for planning decisions for their cities.
The 12 principles include one that ensures high
quality of design; this can be translated through ur-
ban design codes that are generally formed for UK
and specific codes by each local authority. (UDG,
2012; Department for Communities and Local Gov-
ernment, 2012)
Continued on next page

pg. 130
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 4 continued
3.Political commitment Political commitment can be evaluated through the
level (National, regional, ability of local planning authorities to direct devel-
city, local, etc. . . ) opment; which is highly promoted and empowered
from higher national level.
A research by Matthew Carmona about design
codes effectiveness in UK showed very high and
positive outcomes and commitment to urban design
codes in practice. (Carmona M. , 2013)
4.Urban design relation- Urban design is included as a part of the national
ship with planning, and planning policy, and included in local planning,
other disciplines and levels and neighborhood planning. (CABE, 2003) which
builds very strong connections with planning.
5.The presence of iterative Developing the processes requires iterative dialogue
loops in the process of ur- with different stakeholders during several process
ban design phases.
6.Inclusion in Legislation The legislations involved in urban development are:
(definition, protection and planning acts 1990, 2004, 2008, 2011, 2013; Na-
management) tional planning policy framework, National policy
statements, and Building regulations.
The Urban design codes are not directly addressed
in detail in the above legislative documents; yet the
national planning policy framework includes within
its 12 core principles the necessity for high quality
design on local scale; which includes urban design
objectives and ensures its implementation. (De-
partment for Communities and Local Government,
2012). However, the urban design guidance effec-
tiveness depends on council officers of local plan-
ning authorities in each city, in developing their own
urban design guidance and approval of development
plans. (Carmona M. , 2013)
Stakeholders and users’ 7.Stakeholders’ participa- Stakeholder participation is highly promoted within
considerations tion and satisfaction all scales of urban development starting national
scale within the 12 core principles of National plan-
ning policy framework; and within the local author-
ities. (Department for Communities and Local Gov-
ernment, 2012)
Continued on next page

pg. 131
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

Table 4 continued
8.Synergy within various The scales for urban development start at national
stakeholders and govern- level (national planning policy framework), and
mental bodies then no regional scale authority for urban develop-
ment, preceded by sub regional partnerships; and
then local authorities each acting through their own
local development framework, including area action
plans, and a lower scale at neighborhood planning,
and then site development controls. (UDG, 2012)
The new National Urban policy (2011-2016) aims
toward better synergy between different govern-
mental bodies horizontally (among departments)
and vertically (between higher national, and local
authorities) through empowering the local authori-
ties to become fully responsible for their cities, but
through guiding principles for development. (UN-
Habitat, 2016)
Local authorities are responsible for setting out
policies for development which should be targeted
through a distinct vision for each city, but following
the basic urban design principles, and urban plan-
ning principles. (CABE, 2003)
Functional and context 9.Ability to assess the ex- In accordance to each urban design policy guide and
related considerations isting situation for better framework on local scale. (Local assessment)
future evaluation
10.Fulfilling its own Basic urban design objectives are set by “by design”
definition, objectives, and “urban design compendium” which local au-
functionality and aes- thorities must at least comply to. Further details are
thetics with response to provided merely as guidance for development. The
context local authorities reserve the right to add urban de-
sign guides and details of their own, which is more
appropriate to its given context, local community
needs and requirements. (CABE, 2003)
Urban development 11.Urban design leader- Urban planning is the discipline taking lead of the
considerations ship to urban development urban development; but includes within its princi-
ples on national and local scales urban design as an
essential factor. (CABE, 2003)
12.Economic aspect to ur- Adopting the approach of “city deals” in the na-
ban development: funding tional urban policy promotes economic empower-
ment and development through incentives for cities
to compete for better urban development, planning
and urban design. (UN-Habitat, 2016)

5.3. Findings:

Both case studies verify the criteria developed from literature and the UN-Habitat documents, in which it is found
that all success criteria is present, with different context variations in each case study. Regarding governance and
multidisciplinary considerations, the way of urban governance and how urban design is included in each case study

pg. 132
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

policy, it is noticed that Australia depends on national urban policy -higher level- empowerment to urban design
through its protocol which is prepared on national scale and binding to all Australian cities; yet encouraging its
states and territories to produce their own specific guides. While the case of UK presents a completely different
approach, which is empowering the local planning authorities -local empowerment-, through allowing each city
according to its context to set out the best scenario for its own development; including its planning and urban design
guides; with a guidance on national planning scale for each city to create its own urban design guides, giving out
a few documents as general guidelines to set the general principles for the entire country.
In terms of stakeholders and users’ considerations; both case studies present different approaches in including
stakeholders and providing techniques for feedback, yet it shows that it is very essential to the urban design and
development process. Functional and context considerations are subjective to smaller scale on city level, yet the
basic urban design objectives are always binding on the national scale whether in the case of Australia through the
urban design protocol principles, or in the UK through the guides in national planning policy concerning urban
design.
The Urban Development considerations were only promoted by the UN-Habitat; yet the importance of the eco-
nomic aspect is highlighted in both case studies. As for urban design taking lead for development it doesn’t apply
to both cases but it seems like it still plays an important role in leading development along with planning.

6. Conclusion:
Answering the question of whether urban design was able to be a bridge to the multidisciplinary gap brings a
necessity to assess its literature and theoretical aspect to the means of bridging such gap. The assessment of its
objectives, process, stakeholders and other factors shows that urban design is still a discipline in progress, which
promised more than it could achieve on its own; and literature is filled with criticism to urban design notions. These
results lead to the necessity to answer the following question; how can we assess any successful urban design if the
discipline in literature hasn’t been able to achieve its own purpose and bridge on its own to the multidisciplinary
gap?
The second question was analyzed through further literature about what successful urban design is, which turns out
to be extremely subjective and had no specific criteria developed, yet some criteria can be extrapolated from litera-
ture and from the UN-Habitat’s documents on urban design, and toolkit for successful public space. These criteria
through verification by application on successful case studies like UK and Australian cities- which are known for
high quality of urban design values- was able to give a general understanding to urban design success criteria. The
verification by reviewing case studies reaches a final conclusion that urban design as a discipline in practice cannot
fill all the gaps between various disciplines, yet its criteria of success can be broadly categorized to Governance and
multidisciplinary considerations; stakeholders and users’ involvement and empowerment; functional and context
related considerations; and urban development considerations. These considerations include many criteria points
as mentioned earlier and that still need further verification and development, but gives a basic guide to valuate and
ensure urban design success.

7. References
1. Arida, A. (2002). Quantum City. Routledge.
2. ASBEC. (2017, February 17). Leadership Context. Retrieved from Creating Places for People: An Urban
Design Protocol for Australian Cities: http://urbandesign.org.au/protocol-framework/principles/context/
3. Australian Government. (2011). Our Cities, Our Future: A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable
and liveable future. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure and Transport.
4. Australian Government. (2015, November 9). How Government Works. Retrieved July 4, 2017, from Aus-
tralian Government: http://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works

pg. 133
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

5. Bahrainy, H., & Bakhtiar, A. (2016). Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design. Tehran: Springer.
6. CABE. (2003). The councillor’s guide to urban design. London: urban initiatives.
7. Carmona, M. (2010). Public Places - Urban Spaces. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
8. Carmona, M. (2013). Design codes, diffusion of practice in England. Wordpress.com.
9. Carmona, M., de Magalhães, C., Edwards, M., Awor, B., & Aminossehe, S. (2001). The Value of Urban Design:
a research project commissioned by CABE and DETR to examine the value added by good urban design. London:
ThomasTelford.
10. Cunningham, M. C. (1972). Framework for historical explanation in urban design. Ekistics, 310-315.
11. Cuthbert, A. R. (2006). The Form of Cities: Political Economy and Urban Design. Oxford, Victoria, Malden:
Blackwell Publishing.
12. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. London:
Department for Communities and Local Government.
13. Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2011). Creating places for people: an urban design protocol for
Australian cities. Dept of Infrastructure and Transport.
14. Devries, B., Tabak, V., & Achten, H. (2005). Interactive urban design using integrated planning requirements
control. Automation in Construction, 207-213.
15. Elshater, A. M. (2014). Urban design redux: Redefining a professional practice of specialization. Ain Shams
Engineering Journal, 25-39.
16. Frey, H. (1999). Degining the city towards a more sustainable urban form. London and New York: Spon press.

17. George, R. V. (1997). A procedural explanation for contemporary urban design A Procedural Explanation for
Contemporary Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 143-161.
18. Ghonimi, I., El zamly, H., Khairy, M., & Soliman, M. (2010). Against the great divide between theory and
practice: Gated Communities versus Urban Liveability. REAL CORP 2010: Liveable, prosper, healthy CITIES
for everyone (pp. 18-20). Vienna: Tagungsband.
19. Greed, C., & Roberts, M. (2014). Introducing Urban design Interventions and Responses. London and New
York: Routledge.
20. Habitat III policy unit. (2016). National urban policy. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Devel-
opment (Habitat III). Surabaya, Indonesia: United Nations General Assembly.
21. Homes and Communities Agency; English Partnerships. (2007). Delivering quality places : urban design
compendium 2. London: Roger Evans Associates.
22. Jacobs, A., & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 112-120.
23. Jensen Planning & Design. (2014). PLANNING REFORM ISSUES PAPER: URBAN DESIGN. South Aus-
tralia: Jensen Planning & Design.
24. Jones, T. L. (2006). Globalising Urban Design. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (pp. 29-37).
London; New York: Routledge.
25. Knox , P., & Ozolins, P. (2000). Design Professionals and the Built Environment: An Introduction. London:
Wiley.
26. Kreiger, A. (2006). Territories of urban design. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (p. 20).
USA; Canada: Routledge.
27.Kreiger, A. (2006). Territories of Urban design. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (pp. 18-28).
London and New York: Routledge.
28.Kreiger, A., & William, S. S. (2009). Urban Design. Minnesota : University of Minnesota Press.
29. Lang, J. (2005). Urban Design: a typology of procedures and products. Oxford: Architectural Press.
30. Lang, J. (2014). Comments on ‘The Place Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process’. Journal
of Urban Design, 41-43.
31. Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Oxford: Elsevier.
32. Levy, J. M. (2009). Contemporary urban planning. Pearson Education.

pg. 134
 Asaad / The Academic Research Community Publication

33. Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Massachusetts and London: MIT press.
34.Macdonald, E. (2016). The planning dimension of sustainable urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 43-45.
35.Madanipour, A. (1997). Ambiguities of Urban Design. The Town Planning Review, 363-383.
36.Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and Challenges of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 173-193.
37.Marshall, R. (2009). The Elusiveness of Urban Design: The Perpetual Problem of Definition and Role. In A.
Krieger, & W. S. Saunders, Urban Design (pp. 38-57). Minnesota : University of Minnesota Press.
38.Meadows, R. (1980). URBAN DESIGN QUARTERLY. Urban Design journal.
39.Moor, M. (2006). Urban Design Futures. In M. Moor, & J. Rowland, Urban Design Futures (pp. 2-16). London
and Newyork: Routledge.
40.Moughtin, C., Cuesta, R., Sarris, C., & Paola, S. (1999). Urban Design: Method and Techniques. Oxford,
Aukland, Boston, Johannesburg, Melbourne, New Delhi: Architectural Press.
41.Mumford, E. (2002). Urban Design: Practices, Pedagogies, Premises. From CIAM to Collage City: Postwar
European Urban Design and American Urban Design Education, (pp. 5-12). New York.
42.Palazzo, D., & Steiner, F. (2011). Urban Ecological Design: A Process for Regenerative Places. In O. F. Ndu-
bisi, Ecological design and planning (pp. 379-389). Washington, DC: Island Press.
43.Palermo, P. C. (2014). What ever is happening to urban planning and urban design? Musings on the current gap
between theory and practice. City, Territory and Architecture.
44.Palermo, P. C., & Ponzini, D. (2012). At the Crossroads between Urban Planning and Urban Design: Critical
Lessons from Three Italian Case Studies. Planning Theory & Practice, 445-460.
45.Palich, N., & Edmonds, A. (2013). Social sustainability: creating places and participatory processes that per-
form well for people. Australian Institute of Architects.
46.Shahreen, F. (2010). Urban design theory and practice aimed at sustainability . The Liverpool Study Cases in
the United Kingdom planning system. Politecnico di Torino.
47.Shirvani, H. (1985). The urban design process. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
48.Steino, N. (2003, August). VISION , PLAN and REALITY. PhD Thesis.
49.Steino, N. (2004). Urban Design and Planning : One object – Two Theoretical Realms . Nordic Journal of
Architectural Research, 63-85.
50.Sternberg, E. (2000). An Integrative Theory of Urban Design. Journal of the American Planning Association,
265–278.
51.Tibbalds, F. (1988). Intentions in Urban Design 1. urban design quarterly, 11-12.
52.Tibbalds, F. (1992). ‘Places’ matter most. In M. Carmona, & S. Tiesdell, Urban Design Reader (pp. 18-20).
Architectural Press.
53.UDG. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework (England). England: Department of Communities and
Local Government.
54.UN-Habitat. (2013, September 5). Urban Planning and Design. Retrieved from UN Habitat for a better urban
future: https://unhabitat.org/expertise/2-urban-planning-and-design/
55.UN-Habitat. (2016). Global Public Space Toolkit: From Global Principles to Local Policies and Practice.
Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat).
56.UN-Habitat. (2016). The State of National Urban Policy in OECD countries. OECD AND HABITAT III.
57.Urban Design group. (2011). Retrieved from Urban Design Group: http://www.udg.org.uk/about/what-is-urba
n-design
58.Washburn, A. (2013). The Nature of Urban Design. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.

pg. 135