Cooper 2
Cooper 2
design decision-making
Prof. Rachel Cooper, Dr Christopher Boyko
Lancaster University, UK
Urban designers and planners are increasingly being asked to create and maintain communities that are
more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as the Department for Communities and Local Government (formerly Oce of the
Deputy Prime Minister), the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Aairs (formerly comprised of
portfolios from the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions) and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, have published numerous reports and policy documents outlining
the relationship between sustainability and urban design. ese reports and documents provide information and practical and aspirational guidance about the value of good design and the delivery of sustainable
communities. To achieve the high expectations set out by Government and aliated organisations, some
decision-makers have been exploring how buildings and open spaces come to be, that is, how they develop
from an idea to nished project and beyond. Knowing who is making decisions, what tools they are using
to make decisions and whether or not they are considering sustainability can help those involved in the
process of urban design to understand the complexities and tradeos surrounding when and how to incorporate sustainability into projects. is paper begins by discussing our current state of understanding
about the urban design process as reviewed in the relevant literature. To do this, the elds of architecture,
business, design, engineering, manufacturing and planning were surveyed to understand how processes
are depicted, how they function and what similarities and dierences exist between those processes and a
plausible process for urban design. Research conducted as part of the VivaCity2020 project is presented
next, highlighting case studies from three major UK citiesLondon, Manchester and Sheeldand what
we have learned from understanding the urban design process in-practice. e above processes are then
compared, illustrating that sustainability and the tools used to make decisions are not often consistently
considered by decision-makers in the process. To this end, a revised urban design process was created
and validated by experts in design, planning, regeneration and sustainability that attempts to consider sustainability at each stage of the process. Along with the process is a suite of tools, developed during the
VivaCity2020 project, that can be used when making decisions about a broad range of sustainability issues,
including mixed-use, land-use diversity, environmental quality, housing choices, and public conveniences.
A series of tools and the process, consisting of ve stages, tasks and reviews, will be explained, all of which
decision-makers can utilise and follow to create more sustainable urban design projects.
Keywords: decision support, design process, tools, urban design, urban sustainability
Introduction
Conventional wisdom states that nothing worth doing comes easy. is is true for many
things, including designing cities. A raft of guidance from Government and nongovernmental organisations tells us what we should do to create sustainable communities.
Local authority planners attempt to enact this guidance while wrestling with the everyday
realities of people and places in their area. Private sector decision-makersarchitects,
developers, landowners, investorshave their own bottom lines to worry about (e.g.,
making money, acquiring sites for development, designing great buildings and spaces).
Residents want neighbourhoods that they like, feel attached to and are safe for their
families. In short, the process for designing places is complex and fraught with endless
tradeos and negotiations between the multitude of stakeholders over the short-,
medium- and long-term.
Does this mean, then, that cities cannot be designed in five easy steps? Probably not, but
knowing more about this processwhat are the stages and actions involved in designing
cities, who makes decisions, what tools are used to make decisions and what issues are
discussedcan help to shed light on the complexity of designing cities and, in particular,
more sustainable urban design projects within these cities. e EPSRC SUE project,
VivaCity2020, explored the process for urban design projects in the wider context of
sustainability over 5 years, conducting an extensive literature review and case studies in
London, Sheeld and Manchester. e result was a baseline process taken from the
literature, three case study processes of urban design decision-making in-practice and a
revised generic process that incorporated valuable information and lessons learned from
the baseline and case study processes (i.e., sustainability and decision-making tools were
not applied consistently throughout the lifetime of urban design projects). is paper
briefly reviews the urban design literature and outlines the baseline process. Case studies
are discussed next, followed by a presentation of the revised urban design process with
tools that decision-makers can use to make more sustainable urban design decisions.
Dynamic art stresses creativity as well as context. While urban design may be comprised
of a relatively generic set of principles, people, such as architects and artists, may reinterpret these principles into innovative ideas that best suit the context in which they are
working (see Rogers & Power, 2000, for a description of context). Increasingly, the
community is becoming more involved in shaping the urban design of an area, in line with
the UK Governments remit for creating more sustainable communities (CLG, 2006;
ODPM, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006).
Process stresses the following of a method, procedure or series of actions that lead to the
accomplishment of a result (Atkin, Borgbrant, & Josephson, 2003; OED, 2005). is
method, procedure or series of actions is often complex, iterative and non-linear (Rowley,
1994), involving many dierent people and issues throughout the lifetime of an urban
design project. Illustrating a generic, conceptual guide adds value to the individual parts
and people in the process; thus, the resulting whole becomes greater than the sum of its
parts (Carmona & Tiesdell, 2007).
A generic process for urban design allows the dynamic art to be articulated. Such a
process can demonstrate potential creativity in urban design projects by giving decisionmakers the opportunity to be innovative amidst a multitude of constraints (e.g., site,
financial). A generic process also is capable of incorporating context-specific issues into
the set of specific stages and actions that decision-makers can follow.
A review of the relevant literature highlighted that a precise process for urban design did
not exist. us, a generic process was created from an amalgamation of existing design
processes to begin to understand the complexity of urban design decision-making. Inpractice urban design processes could then be compared to the generic process to
understand whether the conceptual model fits with what occurs in the real world.
From a consultation of design processes in architecture (RIBA, 1999), business (Smith &
Jackson, 2000), manufacturing, construction, engineering (Austin et al., 2001; Cooper et
al., 2005; Woodhead, 2000), non-governmental organisations (English Partnerships, 2000;
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2000), planning (Bressi, 1995; Nelessen, 1994; Okubo, 2000;
Roberts, 2003; Wates, 1996, 1998) and urban design (Biddulph, 1997; Canadian Institute
of Planners, 2000; Rowland, 1995; see also Macmillan et al., 2002), the following generic
process was created with four stages and four transition stages:
Stage 1: Creating teams, appraising the situation and forming goals. is is when
decision-makers begin thinking about an urban design project. During this stage, teams
are formed, the project site and its context are assessed through a variety of ways (e.g., site
survey, valuation of surrounding sites), project objectives are written, stakeholders are
identified of the project, funding is sought and timescales are drafted.
Stage 2: Designing and developing. Here, decision-makers are designing dierent
options for the project. is action will be based on a design brief developed by the team
as well as an evaluation and testing of ideas in the brief and, ideally, stakeholder feedback.
Stage 3: Evaluating, selecting and creating a plan. e urban design options are assessed
in light of the objectives in Stage 1 and decision-makers will chose an option. is option
will be evaluated further, stakeholders will be consulted on the option and a plan including
timescale will be devised.
Stage 4: Implementing, monitoring and following up. e decision-makers implement
their selected option via the construction process. Once built, the urban design project
will be monitored and a group (e.g., management company) will be set up to manage the
project.
In between the stage are transition stagesContinuing to understand the context,
Continuing to think about alternatives, Re-creating a plan and Continuing the
processthat act as soft gates for decision-makers to re-evaluate their past actions and
plan for the next stage (Kagioglou et al., 1998). e transition stages also support the idea
that the process is iterative, as decision-makers may use the transition stages to amend
actions from a previous stage before moving on to the next stage.
e next section highlights three case studies, undertaken for the VivaCity2020 project.
e case studies represent real world examples of urban design processes from dierent
urban design projects in the United Kingdom.
Scaleofdevelopment
Typeof
Processtimescale
development
Clerkenwell,London Urbanblock
In9ill,mixeduse, 10years
(BrewhouseYard)
contemporaryand
listedbuildings
Shef9ieldcitycentre Neighbourhood/quarter Repairandrecovery,25years
(DevonshireQuarter)
mixeduse(leisure,
of9ice,residential,
retail)
Manchester/Salford 7,200hectares,seven
Urbanregeneration 3years
(CentralSalford)
boroughs
Urban design processes were mapped for each project, based on the gathering of multiple
sources of information (e.g. archival materials, interviews, questionnaires, observations)
from a range of decision-makers and stakeholders (e.g., academics, architects, developers,
government, residents). Each process told a story about urban design decisions and who
made those decisions; tools used in decision-making; who the stakeholders were, and;
what were the major issues involved in the urban development site, including
sustainability.
1995
1995-97: Client buys site,
brings in architects.
Architects appraise site,
identify requirements from
Planning and develop
objectives. Pre-design
discussions begin.
1998: Architects design for
outline planning permission,
consulting stakeholders, and
communicate their objectives
to Planning. They work on
designs with Case Officers
and submit applications.
1998: RSL is approached by
client to provide affordable
housing. RSL seeks funding.
1998: Planning evaluated
applications using Site brief,
design strategies and other
policies.
1998: Client granted planning
permission. A new value is
generated for the land and
the client sells site.
Period 2
Period 3
2000
1998: New client buys site,
brings in international
architects, informally consults
Case Officer about site and
forms objectives.
1998: Leases Berry House to
Internet company.
2000: Dot-com bust. Client
loses money on Berry House.
2000: Client sells residential
part of site to new client.
2005
Figure 1. e urban design process for the London case study. Source: VivaCity2020.
West One is
designed & built
1980
1990
Inner-city housing grants fund
living on Devonshire Street
2000
Devonshire Quarter
Association is created
Figure 2. e urban design process for the Sheeld case study. Source: VivaCity2020.
2002
Selection of team
2004
2005
2nd stage briefing & conceptual
design
Figure 3. e urban design process for the Manchester case study. Source: VivaCity2020.
Looking across the three case studies, relevant findings surfaced about the urban design
processes, sustainability and tools. Each of these issues will be discussed in turn.
e Process
All three case studies highlighted the lack of an explicit urban design process being
followed (e.g., written down, visual, tabular). Rather, decision-makers employed an ad hoc
process, particularly in London and Sheeld, shaped by past experiences, knowledge,
policy, private sector needs and the public sector planning process. ese ad hoc
processes were shared implicitly within individual organisations (e.g., architecture firm),
but not necessarily between organisations (e.g., local authority and developer).
In the Manchester case study, a process for forming an urban regeneration company
(URC) was observed. e team involved with the URC used guidance from English
Partnerships, additional guidance documents and past experiences from established URCs
to help consider dierent strategies. e URC team was following a process (i.e., for
establishing a quasi-governmental body to consider urban regeneration), albeit not a
process for more sustainable urban design in the regeneration area.
Tools
Decision-makers employed a variety of tools in the three case studies. ese included
general government guidance, interpersonal skills, personality traits, planning documents
and temporal/structural issues. Rarely mentioned was computer-based support. is
could be because the interviewees often had technical help to assist them when needed.
Nonetheless, the increasing ubiquity of such tools indicates that they will continue to play
a critical role in decision-making.
In London, decision-making tools were a mix of both human- and policy and planningcentred. Public sector planners mentioned that the right team, comprised of good-quality
planners to achieve a local authoritys goals, was fundamental. Team members also
needed to have good brief-writing and design strategy skills, know suitable government
policy, be conversant with the historical area and planning context and hold pre-planning
application meetings to negotiate planning-related issues and develop a good, long-term
working relationship with applicants. Private sector decision-makers said that holding
internal design review meetings were key, particularly for architects who wanted
constructive feedback from colleagues before showing client teams any designs.
In Sheeld, the local authority mainly referenced government policies and programmes
when making decisions. ey also read academic journals and trade magazines about
various issues (e.g., city centre housing) and had an intimate knowledge of the economic
climate in the city, which was helpful when making decisions about new development
opportunities. Private sector decision-makers used their knowledge and prior experiences
in Sheeld to find the best development opportunities. is often took the form of relying
on gut feelings, rather than using common research studies to make decisions.
Nonetheless, they always tried to have a good working relationship with public sector
planners.
In Manchester, many of the local authoritys decision-making tools were people- and
characteristics-based. is is likely because the process was just beginning; thus, reflection
was needed to think about leadership, the team, goals and value systems. Central Salford
had a visionary leader who had strong conviction and fervour to take forth an urban
regeneration vision. e leader also knew that he had to surround himself with the right
team, so he first hired a media-savvy person who was passionate about Central Salford.
Together, they employed a team with experience and knowledge in academia, brief
writing, business, government, planning, regeneration, and the city, itself. ey all shared
a similar value system (i.e., increasing quality of life).
Sustainability
e three case studies demonstrated that sustainability was explicitly considered in
decision-making. However, it was considered by dierent decision-makers, at dierent
times and at dierent levels of detail.
Decision-makers
Most of the decision-makers who made decisions about sustainability were in local
authority planning departments. ey were responsible for examining the robustness of
the planning applications within context. Such assessments included a range of fine-
grained decisions about building details (e.g., the style of pointing used between bricks)
and more strategic design decisions (e.g., the legibility of a site in a built-up borough), all
of which impacted on the sustainability of the urban design projects.
Private sector developers and architects made sustainability decisions, often in
consultation with clients, landowners, financiers and insurance actors. e level of
decision was mostly at the building-level (e.g., use of local building materials) and rarely
encompassed sustainability decisions at the neighbourhood level and beyond. When the
latter decisions were made, local authority often strongly guided decision-makers to do so.
Economic feasibility was another reason for private sector decision-makers to consider
sustainability.
Timing of decisions
Decision-makers made sustainable urban design decisions throughout the process. In
particular, decisions were made during brief preparation (by local authorities), while
designing and developing the urban design sites (by local authorities and the private
sector) and when evaluating and selecting a design for planning approval (by local
authorities) (see Figure 1). us, local authorities had more opportunities to consider
sustainability at many stages of the process than did decision-makers in the private sector.
sustainability was found under regeneration, which mostly concerned economic growth.
us, design competition teams did not know the full extent of the sustainability
challenges in the deprived area. Moreover, during the judging of the design competition
entries, sustainability took a back seat to value for money, how the entries looked,
creativity, market awareness, compatibility with government and aspiration.
1Alegacyarchiveisadeviceusedtostoreknowledge,informationandrecordeddecisionsfromanurban
designproject.Decisionmakerscanlookattheinformationtohelpthemmakedecisionsontheircurrent
projectandfutureprojects.
various types of housing that have been built in the UK from the 1820s until the
present day
Liveability postal survey: based on the Government's liveability agenda to capture
residential satisfaction in an area. It comprises 24 questions, divided into four
themes: upkeep and management of public space and buildings, road trac and
transport-related issues, abandonment or non-residential use of domestic property
and anti-social behaviour
Night-time economy and crime case studies: explores the relevant literature in
detail as well as the night-time economy and crime in London, Manchester and
Sheeld
Retail and crime case studies: explores the relevant literature in detail as well as
retail and crime in London, Manchester and Sheeld
Space Syntax analysis: shows the relationship between street layout and residential
property value using Council Tax Bandings, locational variables, age, property size
and ambient density; shows the value and formation of urban centres by exploring
the Space Syntax theory of Centre Formation, comparing dierent high streets
using graphical representation and statistical analysis
*Toilet user personas: each persona is an archetypal user, created in collaboration
with user groups in research about city centre toilet provision
*Toilet user surveys: used to indicate peoples feelings about how provision meets,
or fails to meet, the local communitys needs
*Urban design and the creative arts: using data from the research, two artists
created videos and prints, giving an alternative insight into sustainability and the
urban experience of city users and residents
Stage 2: Design & Development. In Stage 2, the actions of the Development Team
correspond to stages/phases in construction management and architectural processes
(e.g., Phase 4, Outline Conceptual Design, of the Process Protocol; Stage C of the RIBA
Plan of Work). During this time, the Development Team begins designing their plan and
considering design and development issues pertaining to sustainability.
Sustainability Tasks. Between the first and second Sustainability Reviews, the two teams
will generate Sustainability Advice as part of pre-planning application meetings. is task
gives both teams an opportunity to give and seek advice about the sustainability of the
project, and discuss sustainability tradeos. e tradeo discussions may lead to a reranking of sustainability issues and a revised Sustainability Agenda, to be presented at the
second Sustainability Review.
Sustainability Review. e Project Sustainability Group will discuss tradeos and agree
the re-ranking of the Sustainability Agenda with the Development Team. is allows both
teams to be involved in the process and understand what sustainability issues are being
considered in the project. e Project Sustainability Group also will examine and agree
the Development Teams preliminary designs.
Tools to use between Stages 2 and 3:
Environmental quality case studies: see above
*Inclusive toilet hierarchy: identifies a hierarchy of provision in reference to awayfrom-home toilets; used to inform debates about the number and types of
accessible toilet cubicles in any context
I-VALUL: a presentation, exploring residential burglary and street robbery and the
value of personal and property security
*Hulme case study: looks at the New Urbanist regeneration of Hulme, assessing
whether the area has become a safer and more sustainable place to live
Open Space Strategy: quantitative data for 30 housing schemes, including figure/
ground ratios of buildings and open spaces, the extent and type of non-residential
uses, the public/private designation of open spaces, the local street hierarchy and
the type, height, transparency and permeability of building faades and secondary
boundaries (e.g., walls)
Spatial data analysis: used to map economic, social and land-use diversity in the
case study areas using GIS. Can be used with Space Syntax to identify street and
pedestrian routes and on-street surveys to identify pedestrian movement (data
available for London and Sheeld)
*Toilet user personas: see above
*Toilet user surveys: see above
External tools:
o Complex Built Environment Systems: a group interested in developing
solutions to practical design, construction and managements problems
Sustainability Tasks. Once the project is built, both teams will consent to a Strategy for
Sustainability Monitoring, which outlines management and maintenance plans for the site
and the surrounding context in the short- and long-term. e strategy should incorporate
a budget, timeline and a list of stakeholders who will manage and maintain the project
over its lifetime.
Sustainability Review. e two teams will review and assess the Strategy for
Sustainability Monitoring, using the legacy archive and the Project Sustainability Reviews
to guide assessment. is assessment oers a formal benchmark against which future
urban design decisions can be compared and evaluated.
Tools to use between Stages 3 and 4:
Urban design process case studies: discussed in this paper
Spatial data analysis: see above
Conclusions
is paper has demonstrated that, while cities cannot be designed in five easy steps,
showing how urban design projects come to be and understanding where the gaps in
knowledge lie certainly can help to illuminate a complex process and improve it. From the
literature and the case studies, it was evident that sustainability and the tools used in
decision-making were not made explicit nor considered consistently. e revised generic
process takes these lessons and incorporates them into each stage, adding sustainability
tasks and reviews for decision-makers to undertake. is gives stakeholders an
opportunity to holistically evaluate sustainability within urban design projects and see
where tradeos and negotiations lie. Having a consistent suite of decision-making tools to
use at each stage of the process also helps in making more informed decisions about
specific sustainability issues. e legacy archive can be utilised to capture the above
information and store it for current and future use on urban design projects on that site
and in the area. Finally, the generic process provides sucient detail for sustainable
decision-making without being too prescriptive, allowing for context-specific urban
design that follows a loose series of actions. Perhaps it is not so dicult after all?
References
Atkin, B., Borgbrant, J., & Josephson, P.-E. (Eds.) (2003). Conclusions. In Construction
Process Improvement (pp. 292-298). Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Austin, S., Steele, J., Macmillan, S., Kirby, P., & Spence, R. (2001). Mapping the
conceptual design activity of interdisciplinary teams. Design Studies, 22 (3),
211-232.
Barnett, J. (1982). An introduction to urban design. New York: Harper & Row.
Biddulph, M. (1997). An urban design process for large development sites. Town and
Country Planning, 66, 202-204.
Boyko, C. T., Cooper, R., & Davey, C. (2005). Sustainability and the urban design
process. Engineering Sustainability, 158 (ES3), 119-125.
Boyko, C. T., Cooper, R., Davey, C. L., & Wootton, A. B. (2006). Addressing
sustainability early in the urban design process. Management Of Environmental
Quality, 17 (6), 689-706.
Bressi, T. (1995). e real thing? Were getting there. Planning, 61 (7), 16-21.
CABE & DETR (2000). By design. Urban design in the planning system: Towards better
practice. London: omas Telford.
Carmona, M., & Tiesdell, S. (Eds.) (2007). Introduction. Urban design reader (pp. 1).
Oxford: Architectural Press.
Canadian Institute of Planners. (2000). e urban design process. Retrieved 24 June
2004 from http://www.cip-icu.ca/English/aboutplan/ud_proce.htm
CLG. (2006). Strong and prosperous communities- e local government White Paper.
London: TSO.
Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Lee, A., Wu, S., Fleming, A., & Kagioglou, M. (2005). Process
Management in Design and Construction. Oxford: Blackwell.
English Partnerships. (2000). Urban design compendium. London: English Partnerships.
Gosling, D. (2002). e evolution of American urban design. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Heritage Lottery Fund. (2000). Building projects: Your role in achieving quality and value.
London: Heritage Lottery Fund.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M., & Sheath, D. M. (1998). A
generic guide to the design and construction process protocol. Salford: University of
Salford.
Macmillan, S., Steele, J., Kirby, P., Spence, R., & Austin, S. (2002). Mapping the design
process during the conceptual phase of building projects. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 9 (3), 174-180.
Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Visions for a new American dream: Process, principles, and an
ordinance to plan and design small communities (2nd ed.). Chicago: Planners Press.
ODPM. (2002). Sustainable communities: Delivering through planning. London: ODPM.
ODPM. (2003). Sustainable communities: Building for the future. London: ODPM.
ODPM. (2004). Diversity and planning: Research report on planning policies and
practice. London: ODPM.
ODPM. (2005a). Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering sustainable development.
London: ODPM.
ODPM. (2005b). Sustainable communities: People, places and prosperity. London:
ODPM.
ODPM. (2006). e Oce of the Deputy Prime Ministers Sustainable Development
Action Plan. Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable development
strategy. London: TSO.