Keywords

1 Introduction

1.1 The Divergence of Research and Practice

There is a widely recognised problem of persistent disassociation between research and practice in the field of urban studies. The most influential text shaping urban design and planning practice has limited scientific rigour and relies on a normative interpretation of subjective observations. [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This gap has been addressed in almost every research paper dealing with the urban environment in the past two decades, regardless of its main topic, indicating the gravity of the issue.

Most authors agree that the greatest challenge to the application of theoretical knowledge lies in the practice’s irreducible nature, which arises from its two distinguishing traits. First is the complex nature of the object of inquiry—the urban environment itself. The practice of urban studies is typically multilayered and multiscalar in structure and explores the intertwined relationship between urban form and its social implications. The second challenge stems from the dynamic nature of the city, the indirect and multidisciplinary forces that form the urban environment, and the reciprocal relationship between its social and spatial conditions.

1.2 Challenges in the Study of Complex Urban Environments

The different layers and scales of urban structure, the interplay between space and human behaviour, and the complicated and indirect process of its formation and transformation make research of the urban environment extremely challenging. When confronted with the complex and dynamic urban reality, the pursuit of rigour, validity, and consistency in research design poses a challenge to the practical application of knowledge due to the inherent loss of information. Researchers often grapple with the trade-off between data quantity and granularity and the dilemma of rigour vs. relevance [7].

This article highlights the need to actively address the complexity of the urban environment and its formative processes. It relies on the author’s background in both theory and practice to identify the limited applicability of theoretical claims due to the spatial and procedural complexity of today’s cities. This applicability of theoretical knowledge can be significantly improved by considering the factors that relate the uncovered principles and patterns to their adequate spatial and procedural context.

2 Case of Urban Interface

2.1 The Interface as an Intersection of Different Realms

In order to illustrate the challenge that the complexity of the urban environment poses to the application of normative research in the field of urban theory, this article focuses on a particular element of the environment: its interface. “Urban interface” is a term used in this paper to describe the spatial configuration delimiting a public space from a building block. The broad theme of the urban interface appears in the theoretical literature under different terms ranging from “street edge” to “transition zone.” This field of urban theory and the topic on the interface itself have become more prominent in past decades due to the increased interest in public spaces in general. The specific social and morphological role of the interface was discussed in the most influential texts in urban planning theory, as the details of its configuration, for example, its permeability, articulation or setback, can have a major impact on the liveability of the space on both sides of the border [8,9,10]. The interface is one of the elements that co-shapes the image of the city [9, 11,12,13,14] and can be interpreted as a reflection of society.

Interface is a place where opposing interests tend to collide—a physical manifestation of a dividing line—but also a vibrant zone shared by the two realms in between which it stands. The public/private interface can be viewed as a symptomatic space for many current urban issues, as it is conceptually a space between public and private interests characterized by shifts of values and powers. Transversing different spatial scales from architectural detail to urban macro-morphology and extending across different realms of influence, the public/private interface illustrates both abovementioned challenges: 1/ the process of balancing interests of individual actors and the public interest, and 2/ the consideration of the local and global context.

2.2 The Causal Relationship Between Interface Configuration and Human Perception and Behavior

The majority of available literature on urban interface focuses on the causal relationship between the physical parameters and spatial configuration of the interface and its social effects on users of the space—both their perception of the space and their behaviour within it.

Two examples of influential theoretical claims concerning interface attributes and configurations were analysed for their practical applicability using urban planning and design tools. These claims were selected based on previous literature reviews and represent different spatial characteristics and perceived values.

  • “Ground floor visual permeability and the frequency of openings reinforce safety.” These features allow for natural surveillance and deter potential criminality through a concept described by Jane Jacobs as the “eyes on the street” [15, 16]. Transparency also increases the capacity for visual exchange between the public and private realms, which promotes social interaction and activity and creates a sense of openness [10].

  • “Rhythm and articulation of facades can increase diversity and significantly influence a pedestrian’s perception of a space.” People naturally prefer streets with relatively shorter facades, as they conform to the “human scale” in relation to their walking speed [10, 17, 18].

2.3 Conflict and Contradiction

Despite the progress in planning theory, it seems that the practical application of such knowledge is rather underdeveloped. The aforementioned theoretical understanding of the impact of the public-private interface on urban social life has led to the development of specific design and planning tools. These tools span from the overall spatial and functional regulations promoting the legibility of a space, such as a “building line” and setback from the street line, to the detailed parametrical design codes promoting the human scale, which prescribe, for example, the maximal length of a façade or the number of entrances. Yet there are still many cases, even in very recent city development, where the interface configuration of new buildings does not positively contribute to the creation of a high-quality environment.

The problem is often attributed to a lack of knowledge or care on behalf of the planning authority, investor, or architect. Despite a general advancement in knowledge, the prevalence of such issues indicates that there might be inherent conflicts and misconceptions that can be avoided or at least mitigated when taken into consideration. Through analysing such cases, we aim to outline the most important factors that might have been omitted in the process.

Our investigation of unfavourable urban interfaces is divided into two main lines of inquiry that correspond to the two previously outlined problems, namely, the complexity of the urban environment and its indirect formative processes. The first question is connected to the issue of information loss in the description of a complex urban environment: If the theoretically defined principle was applied in urban development, why did the spatial configuration not have the intended effect? The second question concerns the complex spatial development process: Why do valuable characteristics not occur naturally within the new development?

3 Disregarded Factors, Limits, Moderators and Mediators

3.1 The Indirect Process of Translating Theoretical Knowledge into Practice

The research and theory that are so closely allied to the applied fields of urban design and architecture have a strong tendency toward a normative approach that is directly implemented in practice. Due to the inevitable information loss in scientific analyses of complex urban environments, it is crucial to avoid oversimplification. A typical pitfall of strictly morphological analysis is the omission of the role of non-spatial factors in the actual formation of an urban environment.

A declared objective of many research projects is “informing policy-making” or “developing a knowledge base for urban designers and planners,” with the overall goal of ensuring vitality, safety, comfort, etc., establishing best practices, or developing toolboxes to help design a “successful” or “good” space. The idea is that gaining a better understanding of the particular effects of specific spatial configurations on positively interpreted human behaviour (for example, intensities of movement or visual engagement) by replicating or avoiding that configuration will have a positive effect on the urban environment. This process of implementation is based on a prevalent but incorrect view of the design profession as applied planning theory. It assumes a similar approach to knowledge dissemination through the “translation model” that is typical in the natural sciences, where theory can be directly applied to new technology, as opposed to the more indirect “enlightenment model,” wherein knowledge is disseminated to multiple relevant audiences [1].

The specifics, overlaps and ambiguities of a rather new theoretical field [3] that is, at least partially, in the process of development of its general theoretical framework and vocabulary [2]. The specific knowledge from focused inquiries lacks a rigid theoretical anchor and is vulnerable to seemingly opposing interpretations, misconceptions and improper uses. The aim of theory should be to develop a more robust and inclusive method for building up a shared theoretical framework by synthesising particular pieces of knowledge. It is also imperative for the design of normative research to understand the formation and adaptation processes shaping the urban environment and the limited role of a practising architect or planner within these processes. The following simplified diagram outlines the complexities of the mechanism linking the research outcomes with their impact in reality (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

A conceptual diagram of the theoretical knowledge application process in urban planning and design. By author.

Full size image

3.2 Scale and Context

The answer to the first of the previously formulated questions, “ If the theoretically defined principle was applied in urban development, why did the spatial configuration not have the intended effect?” is shown on the left side of the conceptual diagram. There is a possible omission of scale and context moderator in the relationship between space and effect, as the configuration might have been applied in the wrong scale or context.

The instinctive tendency to use design codes and effectively apply specific knowledge as a universal problem-solver leads to the overuse of specific regulations or designs in larger areas without considering specific spatial or functional settings, morphologies or land-use regulations. For example, there are cases of planning documentation prescribing a specific setback across entire municipalities. It is also not unusual to encounter such suggestions within the research papers or theoretical literature. For example, the usage of active frontage is recommended “whenever possible”, while other studies suggest that “the more windows and doors into the public realm the better”[19]. Such recommendations disregard the actual urban context or land use of a ground floor. The application of too-specific or too-universal rules might prevent planners and designers from finding the right solution at the right scale.

3.3 Actors and Processes

The second question connected to the process of spatial development, “Why do the valuable characteristics not appear naturally?” is slightly more complex and touches on the role of the urban planning and urban design professions among the conflicting interests of specific actors. The answer lies in a confusion of effect and value—notions often used interchangeably despite the relativity of value according to different actors, judgments and motivations. The motivations and intentions of different actors naturally do not perfectly align at the borderline. Given the multiplicity of roles and meanings of an interface, it is only natural that numerous contradictions and paradoxes arise. The diagram illustrates the necessity of professional insight into the formative processes and the multiplicity of actors, their power and motivation. These elements are crucial to balancing the interests in a particular context, safeguarding the public good, steering the architectural process, and mediating the discussion to achieve a balanced, adequate and sustainable spatial and functional configuration.

4 Illustrative Case Studies

To further explain the contradiction originating in a misconception of the role of factors such as “scale and context” and “actors and processes”, the claims about urban interface configuration derived from the theoretical literature, as outlined in chapter 2.2, will be examined. It is, however, important to mention that the cases were not selected to disprove these statements but are extreme exceptions to the rule, outlining the limits of simplified fragments of theoretical knowledge taken out of context. By studying limits and outliers, we can better understand the intricacies of the research–practice interaction and help formulate a corrective mechanism. The following cases also show the importance of “relational” research.

4.1 Case Study 01: Limits of Visual Permeability

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Case 01: Ground floor visual permeability and the frequency of openings reinforce safety. Left: Amsterdam, 2018; right: Prague, 2020 (Photographs by Šárka Jahodová)

Full size image

Scale and Context:

The macro-morphological setting is critical to many safety-improving strategies. Permeable façades do not achieve the intended impact in quiet, low-density residential areas or service side streets (Fig. 2 right) that lack sufficient through-movement [15, 20] and tend to reinforce the preceding concept of “defensible space” [21]. More extensive studies also indicated that critical micro-morphological aspects such as inter-visibility, entrance density and orientation, topological distance and ground floor use have a substantial impact above and beyond the transparent façade [16].

Actors and Processes:

This case also shows that there is no singular “client” in urban planning and design. The interface can be interpreted in two directions: on the one hand, it protects the public space from private interference, and on the other hand, it protects the private, intimate space from outside views [13], so the people occupying the different sides may have opposing perceptions of privacy, usually resulting in the adaptation of the physical form by blinding and covering the openings (as seen in the right part of Fig. 2). The balance at the borderline also varies based on a particular cultural context.

4.2 Case Study 02: Rhythm and Scale

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Case 02:Rhythm and articulation of facades can increase diversity. Left: Malmö, 2016; right: Prague, 2020 (Photographs by Šárka Jahodová)

Full size image

The excessive pursuit of architectural articulation and formal detail without understanding the mechanisms of human perception or the underlying economics of large-scale development can result in paradoxically mismatched urban scenes (Fig. 3).

Scale and Context:

Visually, there is a tipping point where the rhythmic articulation of a façade passes from a structural property to an indefinite decorative pattern uniformly coating a building. That threshold is relative to the observer’s distance and speed of movement. Recent research points out the need for a shift in focus from formal façade design and detailing towards the structural aspects behind the subdivision of a street edge [18]. In this approach, the segmentation of a ground floor façade is linked to distinct territorial units [22].

Actors and Processes:

The aesthetic motivation for a short façade usually does not align with the current economic and operational reality of most prevalent typologies. The concern with human scale is a rather recent movement within urban theory, originating as a reaction to the increase in large-scale development and the economic aggregation and densification that go hand-in-hand with a major shift in ownership structure. A wide range of design codes and policies regulate the maximal length of a façade and support its detailed articulation, often disregarding the building structure and volume and its typological and economic reality. It is important to choose the right tool that conforms to the economic and typological context, as any fragmentation could increase the cost of a project, complicate the usability of a building or lead to a decorative pastiche resulting in a “Potemkin village” effect.

5 Conclusion and Summary

The implicit pursuit of rigour, validity and consistency in research design poses a challenge to its subsequent applicability when the confronted with a complex urban reality. The examples presented above indicate that the information loss inevitable in scientific analyses of complex urban environments can be mitigated by considering scale and context through relational, multiscalar, or multidisciplinary research. Complementing the investigation of urban detail with the impact of its wider context and enriching macro-morphological research with information about configuration at a micro-morphological level can help to indicate their interrelationships. Such an approach can be beneficial in consolidating the theoretical framework by linking specifically focused inquiries and thereby increasing the scientific integrity of the broad field of architectural and urban design theory. Moreover, a prerequisite for the successful application of acquired knowledge is consideration of the actors and processes affecting the urban form. A conceptual understanding of the tools and methods used in practice and an acknowledgement of the different actors, motivations and priorities within the development process increase the relevance of the applied knowledge.

The aforementioned systematic, incremental enhancement of both theoretical and practical perspectives can further clarify the apparent contradictions between theoretically defined values and subsequent practices. The presented case studies indicate that the implementation of theoretical knowledge in urban design and planning can be significantly improved by considering factors relating the discovered principles to their spatial and procedural contexts. Such act of refinement can help in practice to create not just vaguely good but more thoughtfully adequate and sustainable spaces.