Prepared by:
Ian Munro, Urban Designer and Urban Planner, B.Plan (Hons), M.Plan (Hons), M.Arch [Urb Des] (Hons); M.EnvLS (Hons); M.EngSt [Transport] (Hons), MNZPI, UDF
Lisa Mein, Director, Mein Urban Design and Planning Ltd., B.Plan, MA Urban Design, MNZPI, UDF (Current Co-Chair of Committee), IAP2 (Australasia), ICOMOS (NZ)
The authors are both qualified urban design practitioners, each with over 20 years’ of experience in the public and private sectors. Almost two decades since the publication by MfE of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (the Protocol), we have found ourselves increasingly facing questions on the validity of urban design as a field of expert knowledge and in terms of its relationship with other professions.
In this brief article, we set out our own reflections on this topic with the objective that it might spur an introspection amongst practitioners, others in built environment professions, and clients.
Origin and purpose of Urban Design
The term ‘urban design’ was established as distinct from planning or architecture at a 1956 conference at Harvard University[1]. Urban design’s origins, as acknowledged at the Harvard University Conference, can be traced back to movements of civic design, civil art and the first town planning school in Liverpool in 1906 (Lang, 2005 p xii).
In our opinion, urban design as it exists today arose in part as a response to two key ‘shifts’ that occurred in the second half of the twentieth century. These were:
- What had developed as “town planning” evolved into a more process-centric / regulatory field more generally called “planning”.[2] This has been closely associated with widespread adoption in the Western world of a community-based collaborative planning model instead of a technical guild-based prescriptive model.[3] As a result some planners trained today, based on the interactions we have experienced, have limited if any specific knowledge of spatial built form matters, including in some instances the general spatial consequences sought by planning documents themselves.
- The work of individual architects seems to have in some instances increasingly focused on the uniqueness or object-merits of singular physical built design outcomes[4], with little emphasis, based on the interactions we have experienced, sometimes placed on understanding or interpreting planning documents or prioritising the cumulative built form (public space-specific) outcomes they call for as part of the initial design context. We suggest that in part, within the New Zealand context, this may be due to the modern complexity of the resource management / effects-based model and the need to reflect on sometimes lengthy or complicated objectives and policies as design inputs instead of a simple list of numeric development requirements.
Our opinions above are not meant to generalise or criticise practitioners of planning or architecture, whom we both work with, respect greatly, and in part rely on in our own work. Our opinions have arisen as a direct consequence of the work that we are engaged to undertake by planners and architects, on a weekly basis, and reflect what it is and why that, in our opinion, planners and architects typically approach us for assistance.
Urban Design in New Zealand
Urban design has not, in our view, been well defined in a New Zealand context. It is not defined in any legislation. The Protocol definition of urban design is, in our opinion, closer in nature to a statement of what urban design is interested in rather than a concise statement of what it does. This is in part because, respectfully, we regard the Protocol as more in the nature of a manifesto promoting urban design to non-urban designers than a technical code or ‘how to’ manual for urban design practitioners.
At the time it was drafted, the emphasis was on highlighting the role urban design might play in improving the quality and liveability of towns and cities, and we would point out that in terms of that objective it has been very successful. However, it lacks the focus on the relationship of built form to public space, and explicit metrics or spatial outcomes to aim for, which would typically be a key objective for urban design. While the Protocol was helpful in setting a framework for quality urban design and assisting in understanding its value, there is a lack of direction or guidance at a national level as to how to apply the seven C’s and what they mean (or do not mean) at different spatial scales.
We would also make a brief mention of urban design panels, which have become popular in local government in the past 20-years. We suggest that this label can be misleading inasmuch as we are yet to encounter an urban design panel constituted solely as a panel of actual urban design practitioners. For this reason, we record that it would be perhaps clearer if such panels were instead regarded as ‘development review’ or ‘design review’ panels; their, at times, wide-ranging, multi-disciplinary inquiries do sometimes stray beyond what we would regard as properly confined urban design commentary. Such entities may be unintentionally adding confusion to the question of what it is that an urban designer, as a technical expert, does or should do.
What is Urban Design?
We consider that ‘urban design’, and the effectively interchangeable term ‘urban planning’[5], is the exercise of seeking to create quality urban places by maximising positive benefits, and minimising the adverse effects, of urban development cumulatively at the public space interface. This includes considerations of street and block configuration; site orientation and planning; the positioning and layout of buildings and open spaces on sites; and the design and appearance of buildings as they relate to public spaces. In short, it involves shaping the physical setting for public life in towns and cities. Such outcomes are of interest within District Plan policy frameworks.
The work of urban designers can be seen as focusing on the effective functioning of urban areas and developments in terms of the efficient use of land and buildings. It emphasises the creation of physical environments that are aesthetically pleasing, safe, accessible, generate a sense of place, and respond to local character.[6]
The above requires a combination of spatial design skills, land use planning skills, and statutory plan interpretation skills underpinned by a coherent theoretical framework. Because of their understanding of spatial built form effects, and despite it not being a key focus of theory, urban designers are also often asked to provide an evaluation of the built form effects of development on private (neighbouring) spaces as well as public spaces.
Our urban design education draws primarily from the practice of ‘town planning’. But our training also draws from a wide range of other professional sources including planning, architecture, landscape architecture, and traffic engineering.[7] We say this not to suggest that we are experts in those fields, but to acknowledge that urban design, and urban designers, stem from a variety of technical ‘starting points’[8].
We would also note that urban design has been taught at the post-graduate level internationally since 1959[9], and in New Zealand since 2004 at the University of Auckland. It is currently taught at many of the world’s leading universities including Harvard University, University College London, University of California (Berkeley), the universities of British Columbia, Sydney and Melbourne to name but a few.
Is urban design a stand-alone profession?
Due to its focus on the quality of the built environment as a cumulative physical creation, since its inception urban design has sought to help bridge the gaps created between other built environment professions as their own practices have moved and changed with the times. While urban design builds on and between, it remains strongly linked with planning and architecture, and also landscape architecture, traffic engineering, and other fields. At this time, we do not consider that urban design could be regarded as a stand-alone profession. This is because it lacks a professional organisational body or institute in practice. Such a professional body would be necessary to ensure professional standards are upheld, and a code of ethics is followed.[10]
We would accept that because anybody who wishes to can name themselves an urban designer, there is a wide and inconsistent baseline of facts presented to decision-makers and that this is not helpful or desirable.
Despite not having an operational professional body in place, we do consider that suitably educated and experienced urban designers are still able to provide RMA decision-makers with valid, admissible opinions as independent expert witnesses under the Evidence Act 2006 based on their understanding of a specialised field of technical built form expertise.
We do suggest that possessing a full Master’s Degree and at least 5-years of New Zealand work experience be expected in this regard, or at the very least a post-graduate university qualification (such as a diploma) and 10-years of New Zealand work experience, whereby the practitioner has been thoroughly exposed to both the theory and practice of urban design. But we accept that there are very experienced architects, planners and landscape architects (and others) in practice who could also lay claim to being a suitably competent urban design practitioner without having obtained a formal qualification. It is not our intent to deny those persons’ skills and experience.
Our reasons for our opinions above are that:
- As noted above, we consider that urban designers are primarily trained in planning, architecture, or landscape architecture, and then specialise via post-graduate university education in urban design. We are each trained as planners and are Full Members of the New Zealand Planning Institute (“NZPI”). We each hold an additional Master’s Degree in urban design. We consider that we each possess a suitable level of specialist education in urban design, and we are each a senior practitioner. But although working as urban designers / urban planners, we follow, uphold and adhere to the NZPI code of ethics. This is an important baseline of professional integrity and conduct.
- The body of urban design-specific literature that we have been trained in is substantial. It includes a rounded theoretical basis; a comprehensive and active role for critique and self-analysis; and a wide body of corroborating data by way of many case studies, reviews, and research projects. Taken as a whole we consider that urban design is supported by a distinguishable and robust body of specialist knowledge.
The Urban Design Forum of Aotearoa (“UDF”) is an incorporated society of which we are both members[11]. It was established as a Special Interest Group (“SIG”) within the NZPI but it departed the NZPI to become a stand-alone entity and was formally constituted in 2014. This was, in our opinion, largely in response to the interest in and contribution to urban design practice made by non-planning-trained urban designers (usually architects and landscape architects) that could not join the UDF when it was an NZPI SIG due to not being members of the NZPI as a pre-requisite. The UDF remains a body that accepts general membership and for that reason cannot be regarded as a professional institute. But it does organise regular events that in our opinion would qualify as relevant and credible continuing professional development courses for practitioners.
- The UDF considers there are both specialist practising urban designers who have been fully trained, and related design professionals with an interest in the built environment. UDF has been discussing with its members for at least 5-years the formation of an internal division specific to urban design practitioners including a constitution, code of ethics and practice, specifications for membership, and requirements for ongoing training. We have to date supported this process but have urged caution due to a shared view that this step will only be useful or relevant if it serves to improve the quality of urban design in practice in a New Zealand context. This remains an ongoing hot topic amongst the UDF membership.
In summary and in conclusion, we are of a shared view that urban design remains a valid area of technical knowledge relevant to many resource management questions. We do not consider that urban designers should be regarded as competing with planners or architects or others, but rather as specialists complementing each group.
We agree that urban design should not at this time be regarded as its own profession although this is something that may change in the near term as momentum for a professional institute continues to build. This is a key question for practitioners to reflect on in light of the broader context of resource management reform and the emphasis being placed on urban environments.
At this time, we would advise it prudent to consider accepting the evidence of individual urban design practitioners on a case-by-case basis as individual subject matter experts under the Evidence Act 2006.
[1] Lang, J (2005), Urban Design: A Typology of Procedure and Products, Architectural Press, Oxford, U.K.
[2] More. M., in More. M., and Rowland, J. (eds), 2006, Urban Design Futures, Routledge, New York, U.S.A.
[3] Allmendinger, P., 2009, Planning Theory (2nd Ed), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, U.K.
[4] Cowan, R., 2021, Essential Urban Design, RIBA Publishing, London, U.K.
[5] We propose that the distinction is one of spatial scale and development timeframe, and whether the output being focused on is a specific development proposition (urban design), or a framework to achieve one (urban planning). But both would be guided by the same theoretical framework and design principles.
[6] Couch, C. (2016). Urban Planning: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 240-267). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[7] Carmona, M., 2014, Explorations in Urban Design: An Urban Design Research Primer, Routledge, London, U.K.
[8] English Partnerships, 2000, Urban Design Compendium, Llewelyn Davies, London, U.K.
[9] https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/publication/urban-design/ 24 June 2021.
[10] Australian Council of Professions, What is a Profession, www.professions.org.au/what-is-a-professional/, accessed 25 June 2021. Also, Professional Standards Councils, What is a Profession, www.psc.gov.au/what-is-a-profession, accessed 25 June 2021.
[11] Lisa Mein is a current Co-Chair of the UDF committee
