Much of the best urban design has been done by architects and I certainly see them as key contributors. But I also see urban design as an activity which should not be over-professionalised, because it needs contributions for lots of different kinds of experts. You are also right that one has to start somewhere and one of the logical routes is 2D>3D>4D. I set out my own views at greater length in a book on City as landscape: a post-postmodern view of planning and design (1996). I am sorry that some illustrations are missing and some links are not working but you can find much of the text here: http://www.gardenvisit.com/history_theory/library_online_ebooks/architecture_city_as_landscape
Tom

-If all those methods of planning are a mistake then you have basically just dismissed the entire architectural profession and a few others as insignificant. I’d be surprized if that is your intention. You have to start somewhere, 2D and 3D designs are useful and do address time. When an architect designs at the very least they should be thinking about how the building is used, interaction with sun light and the movement of people. There are also some existing ideas on how to make new construction flexible for adaptive-reuse in the future, but I admit more research needs to be done in this area. Flexible buildings, and by extension the city would be adaptable to changing use and therefore conceived in your fourth dimension of time. Keep in mind this is also never the product of a single individual.

-Without knowing more about your “garden design concept” I will not continue to comment but I would ask yourself to consider if you have not collapsed the idea of city building too quickly and over simplified the issues.

-I would like to see how garden planning is going to solve all our problems. You have some suggested readings?

I agree that ‘city building is a never ending process and there is no perfect design’. This is also true of garden design, which is one of the aspects which makes it such a good model for the urban development process. Regarding cities:
– ‘planning’ them in two dimensions, on plans, is a great mistake
– ‘designing’ them in three dimensions, perhaps as digital or physical models, is a lesser mistake, but still a faulty procedure
Cities should be conceived in four dimensions, with TIME being the fourth dimension. This is more than a matter of scale. It is a deeply inter-generational conceptual framework for decision making. And it is intrinsic to the practice of garden design.

I think you are all missing the main point and that is city building is a never ending process and there is no perfect design and final solution. Cities constantly adapt (Read Ken Greenberg “Walking Home”) This one of the reasons why new cities such as, Chandigarh or Brazilia fail. Historically you can’t really build from scratch no matter how much up front design you put in.

You also can’t design and test completely from a “garden scale” either and cities are too complicated to test for everything. I would also argue today cities are too large to develop organically. You can also never account for every individual actor imprinting their own desires at different times. Therefore cities must be flexible and this is where modernist master planning with universal zones is weak.

I agree there is a scale gap between master planning and “garden scale”. I talk about this in my thesis in terms of planning for the pedestrian, and there is critical theory (involving density, mixed use and how these are organized) that come together to create the pedestrian environment. Which I consider a prerequisite for ANY and ALL urban sustainability to begin.

After that you can look at PLEA (passive low energy architecture) and alternative energy technologies.

Pedestrians have needs that must be planned for but these needs must be examined from both perspectives of the master plan looking down and from side walk level looking up. It involves both architecture and planning.

Fengshui is interesting and I believe courtyards are good but again there is no universal answer as these are culturally and climatically specific, and must be adapted to local conditions.

Regards:

“Throughout history of the Caribbean, coastal locations have been preferred for siting cities. Some of the earliest towns, such as Trinidad in Cuba, Spanish Town in Jamaica, and St. Joseph in Trinidad, were exceptions. They were established inland mainly to avoid the unhealthy conditions of swamp areas on the coasts. Even though any of them was far from the sea, their importance was greatly reduced after establishing coastal cities, the location of which was more suitable for commercial activities (Hudson 1998: 77). Roseau, as do most of the major cities in the Caribbean region, has a coastal location. It is situated on a round headland in the SW part of Dominica. Unlike many other Caribbean capitals, e.g. Castries in St. Lucia, or St. Johns in Antigua, Roseau does not have a sheltered harbour. It is. however, situated on the Leeward (West) coast of the island, which is more sheltered than the Windward (East) coast facing the trade winds (see Figs. 8 and 9).”

Major concerns when siting the city were health and commerce. Health concerns giving priority to inland locations (avoiding swamps) and commerce promoted by coastal locations which afford a sheltered harbor.

In a contemporary context other concerns are important. As Peter Daughtery Tyson suggests in ‘Global-regional linkages in the earth system’, the siting of cities in coastal locations makes them particularly vulnerable to sea level rise due to climate change.

If you were to found a city how would you choose the site?