Urban Design: Beyond Pseudo-Science?

Do we ever put theories about towns and cities to the test? Dr Stephen Marshall,Reader in Urban Morphology and Planning at the UCL Bartlett School of Planning,will reflect upon his paper that was featured in Scientific American and consider how we might make science and theory work better for urban design.

The original paper was published by Palgrave in 2012 and is free to view on-line.

Science, pseudo-science and urban design

Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, Wates House, 22 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0QB

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.

View the full paper on this link