Advertisement

URBAN DESIGN International

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 257–271 | Cite as

Science, pseudo-science and urban design

  • Stephen Marshall
Original Article

Abstract

Urban design theory has been criticised for being incoherent and insubstantial. It is suggested that this is partly because urban design theory is not robustly based on a fully scientific underpinning. In so far as urban design theory appears to be scientific, it is in danger of being pseudo-scientific. This article explores the relationship between science and pseudo-science, and questions the extent to which urban design theory could be called pseudo-scientific, by considering the hypotheses underlying four classic urban design theory texts. It is found that although the individual texts are more or less scientific, the way the field as a whole combines and uses these can be interpreted as pseudo-scientific. The article reflects on the interpretation of pseudo-science and suggests the need for urban design to have a better system of validation and critical assimilation of scientific knowledge.

Keywords

urban design science pseudo-science theory planning 

References

  1. Alexander, C. (1965) A city is not a tree. Architectural Forum 122 (1): 58–61, (Part I); and 122(2): 58–62 (Part II).Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. (2002–2005) The Nature of Order. An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe. Berkeley, CA: The Center for Environmental Structure.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, C. and Huggins, A.W.F. (1964) On changing the way people see. Perceptual and Motor Skills 19 (1): 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Kodmany, K. (2001) Supporting imageability on the World Wide Web: Lynch's five elements of the city in community planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 (6): 805–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aragones, J.I. and Arredondo, J.M. (1985) Structure of urban cognitive maps. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1985 (5): 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banai, R. (1999) A methodology for ‘The Image of the City’. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 (1): 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barabasi, A.-L. (2003) Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything else and what it Means. New York: Plume.Google Scholar
  8. Batty, M. (1980) Limits to prediction in science and design science. Design Studies 1 (3): 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Batty, M. (2012) Building a science of cities. Cities 29 (Supplement 1): S9–S16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bettencourt, L.M.A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kuchnert, C. and West, G.B. (2007) Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104 (17): 7301–7306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bollen, J. et al (2009) Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS ONE 4 (3): e4803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Börner, K., Chen, C. and Boyack, K.W. (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37 (1): 179–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bunge, M. (1984) What is pseudoscience? The Skeptical Inquirer 9 (1): 36–46.Google Scholar
  14. Bunge, M. (2011) Knowledge: Genuine and bogus. Science and Education 20 (5–6): 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carmona, M. and Tiesdell, S. (eds.) (2007) Urban Design Reader. London: The Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  16. Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T. and Oc, T. (2010) Public Places Urban Spaces. The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  17. Childs, M.C. (2010) A spectrum of urban design roles. Journal of Urban Design 15 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Claramunt, C. and Winter, S. (2007) Structural salience of elements of the city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34 (6): 1030–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conroy Dalton, R. and Bafna, S. (2003) The syntactical image of the city: A reciprocal definition of spatial syntaxes. In: International Space Syntax Symposium, London: UCL, http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/1104/1/SIC.pdf.pdf, accessed 1 March 2012.
  20. Coppens, T. and van Geel, H. (2012) Urban and architectural design and scientific research: How to save an arranged marriage? Paper presented at the AESOP (Association of European Schools of Planning) conference; 11 July, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  21. Cross, N. (2001) Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues 17 (3): 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cross, N., Naughton, J. and Walker, D. (1981) Design method and scientific method. Design Studies 2 (4): 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cullen, G. (1961) Townscape. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cullen, G. (1971) The Concise Townscape. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  25. Curd, M. and Cover, J.A. (1998) Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  26. Cuthbert, A. (2010) Whose urban design? Review of A. Krieger and W. Saunders (eds.) ‘Urban Design’. Journal of Urban Design 15 (3): 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cuthbert, A.R. (ed.) (2003) Introduction. In: Designing Cities. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  28. Cuthbert, A.R. (2007) Urban design: Requiem for an era – Review and critique of the last 50 years. Urban Design International 12 (4): 177–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. de Jong, T.M. and van der Voordt, T.M. (eds.) (2002) Ways to Study and Research. Urban Architectural and Technical Design. Delft, the Netherlands: DUP Science.Google Scholar
  30. de Jonge, D. (1962) Images of urban areas, their structure and psychological foundations. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 28 (4): 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Derksen, A.A. (1993) The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24 (1): 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Faludi, A. (1973) Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Feyerabend, P.E. (1998) How to be a good empiricist – A plea for tolerance in matters epistemological. In: M. Curd and J.A. Cover (eds.) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co, pp. 922–949.Google Scholar
  34. Fowler, E.P. (1987) Street management and city design. Social Forces 66 (2): 365–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gans, H.J. (2006) Jane Jacobs: Toward an understanding of ‘Death and Life of Great American Cities’. City and Community 5 (3): 213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Garwood, C. (2008) Flat Earth. The History of an Infamous Idea. London: Pan.Google Scholar
  37. Glaeser, E. (2012) Triumph of the City. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
  38. Goldacre, B. (2009) Bad Science. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  39. Goldbard, A. (2010) Nine ways of looking at ourselves (looking at cities). In: S.A. Goldsmith and L. Elizabeth (eds.) What We See: Advancing the Observations of Jane Jacobs. Oakland, CA: New Village Press, pp. 57–67.Google Scholar
  40. Goldsmith, S.A. and Elizabeth, L. (eds.) (2010) What We See: Advancing the Observations of Jane Jacobs. Oakland, CA: New Village Press.Google Scholar
  41. Grabow, S. (1983) Christopher Alexander. The Search for a New Paradigm in Architecture. Stocksfield, UK: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
  42. Grant, J.L. (2011) Time, scale and control: How new urbanism (mis)uses Jane Jacobs. In: M. Page and T. Mennel (eds.) Reconsidering Jane Jacobs. Chicago, IL: Planners’ Press, pp. 91–104.Google Scholar
  43. Hanson, J. (2010) Editorial. Journal of Space Syntax 1 (1): i–v.Google Scholar
  44. Harary, F. (2011) The city is a tree; the real world is not a tree! Geographical Analysis 43 (4): 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harary, F. and Rockey, J. (1976) A city is not a semilattice either. Environment and Planning A 8 (4): 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harris, R. (2011) The magpie and the bee: Jane Jacobs's magnificent obsession. In: M. Page and T. Mennel (eds.) Reconsidering Jane Jacobs. Chicago, IL: Planners’ Press, pp. 65–82.Google Scholar
  47. Hill, D.R. (1988) Jane Jacobs’ ideas on big, diverse cities: A review and commentary. Journal of the American Planning Association 54 (3): 302–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P. and Bedford, M. (1976) Space syntax. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 3 (2): 147–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hospers, G.-J. (2006) Jane Jacobs: Her life and work. European Planning Studies 14 (6): 723–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hume, D. (1739) A treatise of human nature, http://www.davidhume.org/texts/thn#T3.1.1, accessed 1 March 2012.
  51. Inam, A. (2002) Meaningful urban design: Teleological/catalytic/relevant. Journal of Urban Design 7 (1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Isaacs, R. (2000) The urban picturesque: An aesthetic experience of urban pedestrian places. Journal of Urban Design 5 (2): 145–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  54. Jarvis, R.K. (1980) Urban environments as visual art or as social settings? A review. The Town Planning Review 51 (1): 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kirby, A. (2012) Introduction to a new meta-journal in urban studies. Cities 29 (Supplement 1): S1–S2.Google Scholar
  56. Klaasen, I. (2007) A scientific approach to urban and regional design: Research by design. Journal of Design Research 5 (4): 470–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Krieger, A. (2009) Where and how does urban design happen? In: A. Krieger and W. Saunders (eds.) Urban Design. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 113–130.Google Scholar
  58. Kuhn, T.S. (1970) Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In: I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Ladyman, J. (2002) Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lakatos, I. (1998) Science and pseudoscience. In: M. Curd and J.A. Cover (eds.) Philosophy of Science. The Central Issues. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Co, pp. 20–26.Google Scholar
  61. Lang, J. (1994) Urban Design: The American Experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  62. Larice, M. and Macdonald, E. (2007) The Urban Design Reader. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Laudan, L. (1983) The demise of the demarcation problem. In: R.S. Cohen and L. Laudan (eds.) Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Essays in Honor of Adolf Grunbaum. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Riedel Publishing Company, pp. 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Laudan, L. (1984) The pseudo-science of science? In: J.R. Brown (ed.) Scientific Rationality. The Sociological Turn. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Riedel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  65. Laurence, P.L. (2007) Jane Jacobs before Death and Life. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 66 (1): 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lehrer, J. (2010) A physicist solves the city. New York Times magazine, 17 December, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/magazine/19Urban_West-t.html, accessed 1 March 2012.
  67. Lilienfeld, S.O. (2005) The Ten Commandments of helping students distinguish science from pseudoscience in psychology. Association for Psychological Science Observer 18 (9): 1–6.Google Scholar
  68. Lloyd-Jones, T. and Roberts, M. (1996) An urban design canon. Urban Design Quarterly 59: 23–24.Google Scholar
  69. Lugg, A. (1987) Bunkum, flim–flam and quackery: Pseudoscience as a philosophical problem. Dialectica 41 (3): 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Lynch, K. (1984 [2007]) Reconsidering the image of the city. In: M. Carmona and S. Tiesdell (eds.) Urban Design Reader. London: The Architectural Press, pp. 108–113.Google Scholar
  72. Madanipour, A. (2006) Roles and challenges of urban design. Journal of Urban Design 11 (2): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. March, L. (ed.) (1976) Logic of design and the question of value. In: The Architecture of Form. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
  74. Marshall, R. (2009a) The elusiveness of urban design: The perpetual problem of definition and role. In: A. Krieger and W. Saunders (eds.) Urban Design. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 38–60.Google Scholar
  75. Marshall, S. (2009b) Cities Design and Evolution. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Marshall, S. and Çalişkan, O. (2011) A joint framework for urban morphology and design. Built Environment 37 (4): 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Merton, R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Montgomery, R. (1998) Is there still life in The Death and Life? Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (3): 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Morello, E. and Ratti, C. (2009) A digital image of the city: 3D isovists in Lynch's urban analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36 (5): 837–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moudon, A.V. (1992) A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know. Journal of Planning Literature 6 (4): 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Orillard, C. (2009) Tracing urban design's ‘Townscape’ origins: Some relationships between a British editorial policy and an American academic field in the 1950s. Urban History 36 (2): 284–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Owers, D. (1997) Theory and practice in urban design. Built Environment 22 (4): 253–257.Google Scholar
  83. Page, M. and Mennel, T. (eds.) (2011) Reconsidering Jane Jacobs. Chicago, IL: Planners’ Press.Google Scholar
  84. Pearce, P. and Fagence, M. (1996) The legacy of Kevin Lynch: Research implications. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (3): 576–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Phelan, S.E. (2001) What is complexity science? Emergence 3 (1): 120–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Popper, K.R. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  87. Punter, J. (1997) Urban design theory in planning practice: The British perspective. Built Environment 22 (4): 263–277.Google Scholar
  88. Rapoport, A. (2000) Science, explanatory theory and environment-behavior studies. In: S. Wapner, J. Demick, C.T. Yamamoto and H. Minami (eds.) Theoretical Perspectives in Environment-Behavior. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Raynsford, A. (2011) Civic art in an age of cultural relativism: The aesthetic origins of Kevin Lynch's. Image of the City. Journal of Urban Design 16 (1): 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rowley, A. (1994) Definitions of urban design: The nature and concerns of urban design. Planning Practice and Research 9 (3): 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schmidt, C.G. (1977) Influence of land use diversity upon neighborhood success: An analysis of Jacobs’ theory. The Annals of Regional Science 11 (1): 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schurch, T.W. (1999) Reconsidering urban design: Thoughts about its definition and status as a field or profession. Journal of Urban Design 4 (1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schwarz, B. (2010) Gentrification and its discontents. Atlantic (June): 85–89.Google Scholar
  94. Scott Brown, D. (2009) Urban design at fifty. A personal view. In: A. Krieger and W. Saunders (eds.) Urban Design. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 61–87.Google Scholar
  95. Shneider, A.M. (2009) Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 34 (5): 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Simon, H.A. (1969) Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  97. Sommer, R. (2009) Beyond centers, fabrics, and cultures of congestion: Urban Design as a metropolitan enterprise. In: A. Krieger and W. Saunders (eds.) Urban Design. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 131–152.Google Scholar
  98. Sorkin, M. (2010) Jane's spectacles. In: S.A. Goldsmith and L. Elizabeth (eds.) What We See: Advancing the Observations of Jane Jacobs. Oakland, CA: New Village Press, pp. xv–xviii.Google Scholar
  99. Southworth, M. (1989) Theory and practice of contemporary Urban Design: A review of urban design plans in the United States. The Town Planning Review 60 (4): 369–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sternberg, E. (2000) An integrative theory of Urban Design. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (3): 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Taylor, N. (1980) Planning theory and the philosophy of planning. Urban Studies 17 (2): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Taylor, N. (2009) Legibility and aesthetics in urban design. Journal of Urban Design 14 (2): 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Taylor, P. (2006) Jane Jacobs (1916–2006): An appreciation. Environment and Planning A 38 (11): 1981–1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thagard, P. (1998) Why astrology is a pseudoscience. In: M. Curd and J.A. Cover (eds.) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Co, pp. 27–37.Google Scholar
  105. Thoenes, C. (2003) Introduction. Architectural Theory. From the Renaissance to the Present. Köln, Germany: Taschen, pp. 8–19.Google Scholar
  106. Ulrich, R. (2008) Biophilic theory and research for healthcare design. In: S.R. Kellert, J. Heerwagen and M. Mador (eds.) Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  107. Weicher, J.C. (1973) A test of Jane Jacobs’ theory of successful neighborhoods. Journal of Regional Science 13 (1): 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Marshall
    • 1
  1. 1.Bartlett School of Planning, University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations