City Planning, Design and Evolution Concepts

Stephen Marshall

This note illustrates four pairs of key concepts whose full explanation is given in
CitiesDesign and Evolution (S Marshall, Routledge, 2009). 1. City design versus urban order
City planning usually implies some combination of a plan (as in intention) and plan (as
ingraphic depiction of future intended layout) (after Peter Hall, 2002, Urban and
Regional Planning ). But we can also identify two further components typically associated
with cityplanning: city design and urban order.
City design refers to the design or planning of a city in a definite form at a given pointin time,
as a finite, whole unit. This sense of design is equivalent to the design of abuilding, or
machine, or any other artefact, as a whole unit, for a particular purpose. Aswell as city design,
we can recognise design at other levels of urban unit: town design,neighbourhood design,
village design, and so on. In each case, ‘design’ implies creation of a single finite product,
that once designed is then constructed, and hence ‘finished’.
Urban order refers to the consistency of urban components and their relationships.This is
referred to as urban (rather than town or city) ordering, since it is independentof settlement
type: this kind of order would apply whether relating to a development of a few buildings or a
large city or urban region. Urban order could apply in the case of aconsistent type of street
block pattern, where there were consistent, orderedrelationships between each block, but
where the same kind of order could contribute todifferent overall designs. This is equivalent
to the way that in architecture, there may betypical ordered relationships between building
components, that could be used to create

2different overall designs – for example, for a given kind of ordered brickwork
(or‘bond’).Urban order can contribute to city design, but urban order may exist without a
finitedesign being involved. For example, an ‘unplanned’ settlement may be ordered at
thelocal level, but not designed as a whole. City planning in its most comprehensive
sensewould include both city design and urban order (as well as planning-as-intention
andplan-as-graphic-depiction). But we need to break away from the idea that in order
forsomething to be properly planned, it needs to be definitely designed. This is not to saywe
can’t have planned, designed cities, but simply to say that we can have planned urbanorder
without a fixed overall design.
2. Corporate versus collective
Urban theorists have often contemplated the nature of what a city is, and how it isdifferent
from a building. Here, was can recognise the difference between somethingthat is corporate
and something that is collective.2.1 A
corporate object

is a unitary whole composed of complementary sub-units. In acorporate object, the

component sub-units are subordinate to the whole and supportthe purpose of the whole. This
is like the proverbial cog in the machine, where the cogexists in order for the machine as a
whole to function. Or, it is like an individual cell ororgan in the body of an organism.2.2 A
collective entity
is an aggregate of many individual components, where eachcomponent has its own purpose
that is not subordinated to purpose of the whole. Itmay act in a way that appears to be the
action of a whole – such as a flock of birds or‘body of people’ – but crucially each individual
is acting independently to its own agenda.While an individual computer would be a corporate
object, the world-wide web is acollective entity. A building is typically a corporate object, in
the sense that it hasdifferent sub-components – different rooms such as living room, kitchen,
bathroom – that are complementary to each other and support the functioning of the whole.
But, acity, while often conceived as if it is a corporate object, is arguably better
conceptualisedas a collective entity.A corporate object is a suitable product of design. A
collective entity need not bedesigned as a whole – but may be ordered.

3
3. City as organism versus city as ecosystem
Cities are often regarded as possessing some kind of ‘organic’ quality that is not found
indesigned objects such as artefacts, machines or individual buildings. Accordingly,
urbanplanning is permeated with various kinds of organic metaphor. But there is more
thanone way for a city to be organic. Just because a city is organic does not mean it
issomehow an organism. Instead, we could better conceptualise a city as an ecosystem.3.1
The
city as organism
implies that a city is an organic, corporate whole. It is typicallyinterpreted as implying
something with a definite boundary, an optimum size; somethingcomposed of sub-
components (such as organs, cells, and so on) that are complementaryand cooperative that
serve the functioning of the whole.
3.2 The
city as ecosystem
interprets the city as an organic, collective entity. Thecomponents may be related and inter-
dependent to some degree, but are not in a fixedcooperative relationship but may be in
competition with each other. The componentsare not subordinate to the whole, but the whole
is rather the aggregate of thefunctioning of the components. There may be typical
relationships betweencomponents, and typical patterns to the overall whole, but there is no
fixed or optimalstructure.
4. City development versus urban evolution
Just as we can distinguish between two ways of conceiving of cities in organic terms –
asorganism or ecosystem – we can distinguish two ways of conceiving of the process
of urban change. In effect this is the distinction between city development and
urbanevolution.4.1
City development
implies that a city grows, like an organism, according to some kindof developmental
programme or life-cycle (birth, growth, maturity, death). Theimplication is that certain things
will happen in an expected order, and that if theincipient type is known then an typical mature
optimal form will be expected. This is theequivalent of planning and acorn and anticipating
that the resulting plant will be an oak tree.
4.2 Urban evolution
implies that urban change over time is open-ended. Like anecosystem, a city is composed of
co-evolving components. As with biological evolution,there is no set direction of progress,
change can be gradual or rapid and can go in an

direction, and there is no knowable future optimal form. This is the equivalent of notbeing
able to anticipate whether a fish will evolve into a mammal or a bird.
Conclusions for understanding urbanism and city planning
Conventionally city planning has often tended to regard a city as a corporate whole, as if it
were a designable object, as if it were a large, complicated building. Even when theorganic
qualities of cities have been recognised, city planners have often tended tointerpret the city as
if it were an organism, implying a rather definite kind of programmeof development to reach
an overall knowable optimal form.However, the argument here is that a city is better regarded
as a collective entity. Thisimplies that city planners should consider forms of intervention that
allow the creationof urban order – through individual components and their relationships –
rather thannecessarily attempting to design a city as a finite whole.Moreover, the city is more
like an ecosystem than an individual organism; it comprises aseries of components (such as
roads, buildings, land uses, institutions, and so on) thatare co-evolving. Therefore urban
change is more like evolution than development, andplanners should pay attention to the
mechanisms by which urban evolution could besteered through a combination of generative
processes and selective controls.This is not to say that cities should not be planned; but it
implies a kind of planning thatis less like the design of a finite object such as a building. It
implies attention to the waythat design codes and development control, but without
necessarily fixed master plans.Although a master plan may promise order rather than chaos, it
may be too rigid tohave a fixed physical product at a given time in the future, but it may be
preferable tohave something whose overall form is not fixed in advance, but whose
componentsexhibit ordered relationships, that ensure flexibility and functionality into the
future.Stephen MarshallBartlett School of Planning, UCL09.05.09

direction, and there is no knowable future optimal form. This is the equivalent of notbeing
able to anticipate whether a fish will evolve into a mammal or a bird.
Conclusions for understanding urbanism and city planning
Conventionally city planning has often tended to regard a city as a corporate whole, as if it
were a designable object, as if it were a large, complicated building. Even when theorganic
qualities of cities have been recognised, city planners have often tended tointerpret the city as
if it were an organism, implying a rather definite kind of programmeof development to reach
an overall knowable optimal form.However, the argument here is that a city is better regarded
as a collective entity. Thisimplies that city planners should consider forms of intervention that
allow the creationof urban order – through individual components and their relationships –
rather thannecessarily attempting to design a city as a finite whole.Moreover, the city is more
like an ecosystem than an individual organism; it comprises aseries of components (such as
roads, buildings, land uses, institutions, and so on) thatare co-evolving. Therefore urban
change is more like evolution than development, andplanners should pay attention to the
mechanisms by which urban evolution could besteered through a combination of generative
processes and selective controls.This is not to say that cities should not be planned; but it
implies a kind of planning thatis less like the design of a finite object such as a building. It
implies attention to the waythat design codes and development control, but without
necessarily fixed master plans.Although a master plan may promise order rather than chaos, it
may be too rigid tohave a fixed physical product at a given time in the future, but it may be
preferable tohave something whose overall form is not fixed in advance, but whose
componentsexhibit ordered relationships, that ensure flexibility and functionality into the
future.Stephen MarshallBartlett School of Planning, UCL09.05.09