Sustainable Urban Design – Principles to Practice1

Matthew Carmona
The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL
[email protected]

This paper attempts to make the connection between the theory of sustainability and
the practice of urban design. In doing so it draws from a wide body of literature to
establish ten universal principles of sustainable urban design. These it relates to some
of the widely accepted precepts of sustainable development. In linking theory to
practice consideration is given to how these principles impact across the range of
different spatial scales: building, space, quarter and settlement-wide. The paper
concludes by briefly examining how more sustainable patterns of design might be
delivered and by whom. It argues that fundamentally good urban design is
sustainable, but this implies much more than simply reducing energy use and carbon
emissions. Instead it implies a much more profound basis upon which to make
decisions which impact on the social, economic and environmental sustainability of
the built environment.

Key words: urban design, sustainability, principles, practice

Introduction

Urban design as a discipline gradually emerged throughout the second half of the 20th
century as part of a critique of the contemporary urban situation and of the perceived
failure of the established built environment professions – architecture, planning, civil
engineering, landscape architecture and the property professions – to deliver places of
‘quality’. In a well-worn phase, it developed to fill the gaps left by the other
professions, and in particular to consider how their various interventions might be
better coordinated to deliver more than the sum of their constituent parts. In essence
urban design is concerned with establishing the integrating fabric of urban areas that
allows them to become real places for people rather than simply collections of
unrelated projects.

The sustainable dimension of urban design has steadily emerged throughout and even
before this period. Many ideas about the interpenetration of town and country, for
example, can be traced back to the pioneers of the planning movement like Howard,
Geddes and Unwin, as can notions of local social and economic sustainability.
Nevertheless, the recent proliferation of writing on concepts of sustainable
development has firmly shifted the urban design agenda (like spatial planning with its
more strategic focus) towards broader environmental concerns. This sustainable
agenda is giving the discipline a new and broadly accepted legitimacy, and one that it
highly compatible with a discipline that emerged, at least in part, as a reaction to the
unsustainable (anti-urban) development models of the mid and late 20th century.

1Reference for bibliographic purposes: Carmona M (2009) “Sustainable Urban Design:

Definitions and Delivery” International Journal for Sustainable Development, 12(1): 48-77
Most conceptualisations of urban design now include explicit reference to a
sustainable dimension, so that sustainable urban design now fits four-square within a
theoretical framework for urban design that already embraces well established visual,
morphological, social, perceptual, temporal and functional concerns (Carmona et al
2003). In the UK, for example, the ten general design principles for creating more
liveable places identified by the Urban Task Force (1999, p71) demonstrated a clear
emphasis on environmental concerns, concerns which have gradually been adopted
into policy (HM Government 2005, HM Government 2007, DCLG 2007). Similar
process have been apparent across the developed world (EU 2004), and increasingly
in the developing world (Romaya & Rakodi 2002).

Unfortunately, nothing is straightforward in this fast developing field, and arguments

can be made both for and against many of the new policy directions that have
subsequently emerged; both from the perspective of whether sustainable principles
are as laudable as much of the literature would have us believe (Mantownhuman
2007), but also as regards the potential for state intervention to make any difference
(Cuthbert 2006, pp168-170). In his most recent book, the influential economist
Nicolas Stern (2009) dismisses all such critiques as misguided voices of the
uninformed, arguing instead that there is no serious doubt that emissions are growing
as a result of human activity and that more greenhouse gases will lead to further
global warming. There is no space to explore these arguments here, suffice to
observe that an overwhelming consensus has gradually emerged amongst writers on
many aspects of a sustainable design agenda, giving added legitimacy to developing
policy in this area. This paper aims to unpick this agenda and unscramble some of the
confusing and overlapping language used to describe sustainable urban design. It
traces the scope and nature of the field, the application of the principles across
different spatial scales, and concludes by briefly postulating on the difficulties of
delivering more sustainable urban design.

The Environmental Impact of Design

Some argue that planning and to a lesser degree urban design have always pursued
notions of sustainability and that their public interest raison d’être implies that
concerns for environment, economy and society should be balanced. The reality is
that even if such notions have existed in theory, more often than not they are largely
absent in practice. Instead they are compromised by the need to deliver outcomes
largely through market processes, by public political agendas that prioritise economic
growth coupled to social (rather than environmental) well-being, and by private
agendas that too often see the environment as of little concern. Nevertheless, as the
damage being wreaked on the environment both locally and globally has become
more apparent, notions of sustainability have moved up the public and political
agenda and have led to a renewed questioning and refocusing of most professional
remits; amongst them urban design.

Therefore, although an explicit sustainable goal is a relatively recent concern in urban

design practice, it is arguably also the most important amongst design objectives.
Unfortunately, urban designers have been primarily concerned with changing the
physical world so that it better fits a set of human needs. Hence, like all built
environment professionals (at least those operating in the private sector), the urban
designer’s primary responsibility has tended to be first to his/her client and only
second to the wider community and natural environment (Lang 1994, p15).

Consequently, when the design process operating within most Western economies is
considered, the major effort goes first into achieving the functional requirements of
the client - within the economic constraints set by the budget. Second, to a concern
for the visual, contextual and social impact of the development - to the extent that it is
either financially prudent or a requirement brought about by public intervention in the
design process. Last (usually) it will focus on broader environmental concerns which
tend to feature poorly in both private and public agendas, and responsibility for which
is frequently highly fragmented (Carmona & de Magalhaes 2007, pp60-62). The
result can too easily be a token engagement with sustainability, rather than a serious
attempt to reflect a more holistic sustainable urban design agenda (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Sustainable tokenism, wind turbines in a sea of car parking

The problem stems from the failure of Western development processes to fully reflect
environmental impact (and therefore environmental cost) within the development
process (Rees & Wackernagle 1994). This is because any one development has a
much larger environmental impact than is immediately apparent. At first sight the
imprint may appear small, just the impact on the site on which the development sits.
But, when the environmental capital inherent in the construction of that development
is considered - the energy and resources expended in the manufacture and transport of
materials, the energy required to prepare the site and construct the development, the
energy required to expand the above and below ground infrastructure to service the
site, and so forth - a hidden, but much larger environmental impact is apparent.

Subsequently, when the development is in occupation, the ongoing energy and

resources expended to sustain the development - the maintenance requirements, the
energy requirements of the development (heat, light, electricity, etc.), the waste
disposal requirements, and the travel requirements of the occupants - the impact
extends even further. Thus, even in a ‘very’ efficient building, ongoing energy use
over the lifetime of a building will represent four times that of the embodied energy
used in the construction process (Barton et al, 1995, p27). Finally, when the
development reaches the end of its life, the energy required to alter or demolish the
development and to deal with the resulting site and materials completes the lifetime
environmental costs of that development, so extending the environmental impact
further and far beyond that originally perceived impact. This concept is fully
reflected in the literature on environmental footprints which argues that in Western
developed economies, we are typically unaware of the true environmental impact of
our lifestyles (Wackernage M & Yount J D 2000). This is certainly the case in most
Western development processes where the original developer is often only concerned
with the direct development and construction costs - costs which directly impact on
the project’s economic viability - but rarely with the subsequent environmental
impacts (or even management costs) over time. In the UK, for example, the footprint
per person per year is 5.4 global hectares, whilst recent research suggests that this
needs to reduce by two thirds to 1.8gha to meet ‘one planet living’ objectives;
moreover that sustainable design can be used to allow residents to achieve this
(BioRegional & CABE 2008, p11 & 8).

To achieve a more sustainable urban design, the aim should be to reduce the lifetime
environmental impact of any development by reducing the energy and resources used
and waste produced at each stage of the development life cycle - construction,
occupation and if necessary demolition. This can be achieved through reducing
dependence on the wider environment for resources and reducing pollution of the
wider environment by waste products - in other words by making any development
both in its original construction, and throughout its lifetime, as self-sufficient as
possible (Barton et al, 1995, p12).

Figure 2: Nesting Spheres of Influence (Barton et al, 1995, p12)

World/Biosphere/Gaia

Country/Sea/Airspace

City/Region/River

Neighbourhood/
Farm/Industry

Individual
Building/
Dwelling

In this context, self-sufficiency is relevant at a range of scales from the individual

building to the city region, and although most urban design interventions are
relatively minor, the succession of minor changes can add up to major modifications
to the overall natural systems of the neighbourhood, town, city-region and eventually
to the earth’s biosphere. The city in this sense is a complex interconnected system in
which any intervention impacts on the sustainability of the whole (Philips 2003, p29).
Therefore, if each scale is visualised as a sphere of influence, then according to this
analysis, at each level the designer should attempt to maximise the degree of
autonomy by reducing the impact of the inner spheres on the outer spheres. Alongside
architects and planners, urban designers will have an important direct role to play in
the first three of the spheres identified in Figure 2. Therefore, at whatever scale they
are working, built environment professionals - architects, urban designers, planners,
property managers, surveyors, engineers, and developers - all have an important role
to play in creating and maintaining sustainable urban form.

Towards Sustainable Design Principles

Whilst space does not permit a debate about what sustainable development is, or is
not, a number of commonly agreed tenets can be identified in the literature that
underpin notions of sustainable development (see, for example, Carew-Reid et al
1994). These include:

 Futurity - because we owe future generations an environment at least as rich and

opportunities at least as good as those available today;
 Environmental diversity - because maintenance and enhancement of various forms
of natural capital underpin notions of sustainability;
 Carrying capacity - because by remaining within the carrying capacity of
environments, activities can be accommodated in perpetuity;
 The precautionary principle - because environmental impacts are by their nature
uncertain and because prevention is better than cure;
 Equity / quality of life - because sustainability extends to the needs of people in
that environments which fail to meet human needs and in which resources are
poorly shared are unlikely ever to be sustainable;
 Local empowerment - because sustainability is a process as much as an objective,
requiring the acquiescence and preferably the active involvement of communities;
 The polluter pays - because those responsible should pay for the consequences of
their actions.

But how do such general principles relate to urban design? Lang (1994) has argued
that sustainable approaches to urban design should first avoid the misconception that
dealing with the environment is merely ‘an engineering problem’ to be overcome by
technology; and second, that designing to meet people’s social needs is appropriate at
the expense of the natural environment. Unfortunately, in the presence of cheap
energy, theorists have long argued that the urban environment is being shaped by a
technology whose goals are economic rather than environmental or even social. The
result has been the alienation of city from the country through a misuse of urban and
rural resources and an alienation of urban dwellers from the natural processes which
in earlier times dictated so much of the flux of life. In the 1960s McHarg (1969)
argued that towns and cities were still part of a wider, functioning ecosystem - no
matter how distorted - and that decision makers should understand the altered but
nevertheless functioning natural processes still operating within the city.

Thus settlements can be viewed as natural ecosystems. In this regard, a settlement is

like a living organism which has the capacity to reproduce or renew itself (in part
through urban design); which ingests quantities of food, fuel, water, oxygen and other
raw materials and which ejects waste fuels, solids and atmospheric emissions.
Therefore, just “as ecology has now become the indispensable basis for
environmental planning of larger landscape ... an understanding and application of the
altered but none the less functioning natural processes within cities becomes central to
urban design” (Hough, 1984, p25).

Lang (1994, p348) has also written of a ‘pragmatic principle’ for urban design: “The
pragmatic approach for urban designers to take in dealing with the biogenic
environment is to ask what is the human self interest in the long run. The urban
design objective is then to avoid creating patterns of built form that might ultimately
harm people by leading to a deterioration in the quality of life”. Given this position
and the fact that future needs are unpredictable, Lang argues that the wise position for
urban designers to take is an environmentally benign one and not to assume that
humans will always find technological ways out of any bind. He suggests “Necessity
may be the mother of invention, but the invention that may well be necessary is for
urban designers to have a conservation ethic”.

If only for selfish reasons therefore, it can be argued that the human race has an
interest in reducing its collective impact on the planet. A number of theorists have
identified design principles to help achieve this. Hough (1984), for example, has
identified five ecologically sound design principles which seek the integration of
human with natural processes at their most fundamental level:

 The concepts of process and change - in that natural processes are unstoppable
and change is inevitable and not always for the worse;
 Economy of means - that derives the most from the least effort and energy;
 Diversity - as the basis for environmental and social health;
 An environmental literacy - that begins at home and forms the basis for a wider
understanding of ecological issues;
 A goal that stresses the enhancement of the environment as a consequence of
change - and not just damage limitation.

Others have simplified the philosophical argument for sustainable urban design. For
example, Bentley amended and extended the principles from ‘Responsive
Environments’ (Bentley at al, 1985), to take on board one of the omissions of the
earlier work - sustainability. He termed this ‘ecological urban design’ and argued that
at the cultural heart of modern industrial societies lie the values of freedom and
consumer choice. These, he suggested, find expression through consumerist
lifestyles, but that the urban expression of such lifestyles is essentially ecologically
destructive. In an extension to the ‘pragmatic principle’ he reasoned that urban
designers cannot ignore these values but must seek to balance human desires with
their ecological effects.

Bentley (1990) defined eight qualities which together cover the key issues for
designing places which are both ‘sustainable’ and ‘responsive’. At the same time the
European Commission’s Green Paper on the Urban Environment (CEC, 1990)
emphasised the concept of ‘green urban design’ and with it a set of broader concerns
emphasising the link between green urban design and green planning processes to
secure sustainable design across the different spheres of influence. More recently the
European Union updated thinking through the auspices of their Working Group on
Urban Design for Sustainability. Greatly expanding the agenda, they argued that
“Sustainable urban design is a process whereby all the actors involved work together
through partnerships and effective participatory processes to integrate functional,
environmental, and quality considerations to design, plan and manage a built
environment that” (EU 2004, p39):

 Is beautiful, distinctive, secure, healthy and which fosters a strong sense of pride,
social equity, cohesion, and identity
 Supports a vibrant, balanced, inclusive and equitable economy
 Treats land as a precious resource; reusing land, promoting compactness at a
human scale and concentrated decentralisation regionally
 Supports city regions as functioning integrated networks and systems, with an
integrated view of the urban and regional landscape
 Strategically locates new development to address resource conservation,
biodiversity, public health needs and public transport efficiency
 Promotes mixed use development to maximise the benefits of proximity, vitality,
security and adaptability of the built form
 Has sufficient density to support public transport and services, whilst maintaining
privacy and avoiding pollution
 Has a green structure to optimise the ecological quality of urban areas, including
their microclimate, and to give access to nature
 Has high quality public infrastructure, including public transport services,
pedestrian and cycle networks, and an accessible network of streets and spaces
 Makes use of state of the art resource saving and recycling technology
 Respects the existing cultural heritage and social capital of places, whilst avoiding
conservation for its own sake.

One line of research has focused upon the environmental stock as regards the global
ecology (air quality, climate, bio-diversity), regional resources (air, water, land,
minerals, energy resources) and the local human environment (buildings,
infrastructure, open space, aesthetics, cultural heritage), with Blowers (1993) arguing
that sustainability should focus on the satisfaction of basic human needs (shelter,
health, food, employment) and the retention of self sufficient ecosystems. Other work
has attempted to define now commonly-accepted principles of sustainable
development (Breheny M, 1992) and relate these specifically to urban design
(Haughton & Hunter, 1994), although perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of
sustainable design principles to date has come from Barton et al (1995; 2003;
summarised in Barton, 1996) who identify seven clear principles for the creation of
more sustainable urban design.

Other contributions develop many of the themes of the earlier work and to some
degree reflect the consensus emerging around a number of principles. Edwards
(2000, p30) focuses specifically on sustainable housing, espousing a predominantly
physical agenda around energy and resource capture and reuse, whilst also reflecting
broader social agendas of, for example, tenure mix, safety and social interaction. At
the local scale, Rudlin & Falk (1999; URBED, 1997) and Jabareen (2006) have
attempted to understand how to design the sustainable urban neighbourhood as an
alternative to ecologically destructive suburban sprawl. At the larger spatial scale
Richard Rogers (1997) in his 1995 Reith Lectures outlined his vision for the
sustainable city; analysis which culminated in a series of sustainable city principles,
whilst in one of the few empirically based studies of sustainable urban form across
macro and micro scales, Frey (1999, p32-33) has broken desirable sustainable
characteristics into their constituent parts:

 Physical properties of the city: containment, densities to support services, mixed

use, adaptability;
 Provisions of the city: readily available public transport, reduced and dispersed
traffic volumes, a hierarchy of services and facilities, access to green space;
 Environmental and ecological conditions: low pollution, noise, congestion,
accidents and crime, available private outdoor space, symbiotic town and country;
 Socio-economic conditions: social mix to reduce stratification, a degree of local
autonomy, a degree of self sufficiency;
 Visual-formal quality: imageability of the city and its constituent parts, a sense of
centrality and a sense of place.

Individually, all these contributions represent valuable conceptualisations of

sustainable urban design / form. Nevertheless, by placing them together it is possible
to identify a combined set of sustainable urban design principles that best reflect the
concepts identified in the literature (Table 1)2.

Returning therefore to the key tenets of sustainable development discussed at the start
of this section and to the question ‘how do these relate to urban design?’, the answer
is found in a complex web of inter-relationships represented in Figure 3, where each
tenet relates in turn to a range of sustainable design principles. So, for example, the
need to plan ahead and consider the impact of urban design today on the experience of
future generations (futurity) concerns the careful stewardship of the environment
through the ability of projects to enhance established environments and create
manageable places that people will want to look after. It relates to the need to design
for energy efficiency because energy and resources are finite. It concerns human
needs because sustainable environments are those that cater for human requirements
alongside other sustainable objectives. It requires that environments are resilient
because future needs remain unpredictable. It concerns attempts to reduce pollution
because irreversible changes to the environment will most likely undermine future
inheritance. It encompasses notions of local distinctiveness because what is special
about place can easily be undermined by insensitive development. And it requires
biotic (ecological) support, in that bio-diversity is often the first casualty of the over-
intensive human occupation of the environment.

2 Categorisations of this type are not perfect as the fuzzy and over-lapping nature of many of
the concepts make them difficult to categorise, or to place under one heading only. The
intention here is not to attempt a definitive categorisation, but instead to identify the
conceptual scope and complexity of the subject and to recognise some of the internal
contradiction and inter-linkages.
 Table 1: Sustainable Design Principles Combined
Hough Bentley CEC Breheny Blowers Haughton Barton URBED Rogers Frey Edwards Clarke EU (2004) Jabareen
(1984) (1990) (1990) (1992) (1993) & Hunter (1996) (1997) (1997) (1999) (2000) (2003) (2006)
(1994)
1. Stewardship enhancement integrated town centre a feeling of a creative city integrated land urban
through change planning rejuvenation stewardship use and management
transport focused on
planning sustainability
2. Resource economy of energy reducing public transport, land/ minerals/ economy of energy efficient minimal an ecological public transport, public transport, orientation for land reuse, sustainable
Efficiency means efficiency travel/energy CHP systems energy means movement, environmental city reduce traffic renewable solar energy, resource transport
reduction, resources, energy strategy harm volumes energy, rainfall public transport conservation, passive solar
recycling infrastructure & capture, low public transport design
buildings energy / water efficiency
use resource and
recycling
technology
3. Diversity and diversity variety, mixed mixed use variety, integration & a city of easy mixed use, mixed use, mixed use high vibrant, mixed mixed uses
Choice permeability development permeability permeability, contact, hierarchy of diversified streets, housing use, connected diversity in
a rich mix of a diverse city services and tenure mix, permeable streets housing types
uses facilities, block structure, and prices
social streets
4. Human Needs legibility aesthetics, security, human needs quality space, a just city, low crime, shelter and local secure, healthy,
human needs appropriate a framework of a beautiful city social mix, safety, open community equitable,
scale safe/legible imageability space for social facilities, cohesive, with
space interaction, surveillance, privacy,
healthy, secure, privacy, mixed supports social
comfortable and inclusive capital, human
communities scale, balanced
economy,
5. Resilience process and resilience flexibility ability to adapt adaptability adaptable, long-term adaptable built
change and change extendable maintenance form
6. Pollution cleanliness ameliorating climate/ water strategy low pollution pollution and pollution green urban
Reduction pollution water/air quality and noise waste strategies avoidance, drainage
through planting support
microclimate
7. Concentration vitality compact containment/ concentration linear a critical mass a compact, containment, high density polycentric compactness, Compactness
development intensification concentration of activity polycentric city densities to urban structure, density to density to
support services density support public support transit
gradients, transport
reduce parking
8. Distinctiveness regional identity heritage creative sense of place sense of beautiful, diverse
relationships, centrality, sense distinctive, architecture
organic design of place identity, sense
of pride,
respects heritage
9. Biotic Support open space urban greening open space, open space green space - ecological integrated greening,
bio-diversity networks public/private, wellbeing, landscape, biodiversity
symbiotic natural habitat biodiversity,
town/country integration green structure
10. Self environmental self sufficiency democracy, self sufficiency some local walkable integrated walking and
Sufficiency literacy consultation, autonomy, community, networks and cycling
participation some self shared surfaces, systems,
sufficiency participation pedestrian and
cycle networks
 Figure 3: Sustainable Tenets and Design Principles Compared

Futurity Stewardship

Resource Efficiency

Environmental Diversity •

Diversity and Choice

Carrying Capacity Human Needs

Resilience

The Precautionary Principle •

Pollution Reduction

Equity / Quality of Life Concentration

Distinctiveness

Participation •

Biotic Support

The Polluter Pays Self Sufficiency

From Theory to Practice

In theory therefore, urban design has a direct and potentially important role to play in
realising the fundamental aims of sustainable development. Moving from theory to
practice, however, what do sustainable urban design principles imply? Rowley (1994,
p186) has argued “Urban design considerations arise over a spectrum of spatial scales
extending from the very local to the metropolitan scale of urban form and city image”.

City urban design strategies often provide the best illustrations of the multi-levelled
nature of the discipline. In the UK, the best known design strategy - the ‘City of
Birmingham, City Centre Design Strategy’ (Tibbalds, Colbourne, Karski, Williams,
1990) - provides a case-in-point. The strategy develops a ‘spatial framework’ for the
city centre within which a set of urban design objectives are outlined. This recognises
the distinct character of individual areas in the form of a number of ‘city quarters’
(areas of character). Large scale city-wide ‘spatial’ qualities are then defined to
develop and protect existing and potential views across the city and to reinforce the
city’s topography. Medium scale principles are established next at the level of
individual urban spaces or groups of spaces, aiming to help people find their way
around the city by redefining a network of barrier-free streets with well articulated
public and private realms and activities at street level, and by softening and enhancing
the city’s open spaces. Finally, small-scale architectural and urban management
issues are discussed focussing on sweeping away the clutter and the enhancement of
prominent facades.

The second volume to the Urban Design Compendium confirms this approach,
arguing that urban design operates across building, block / street, neighbourhood,
town / village, city and regional scales (Roger Evans Associates, 2007, p6). The
remainder of this paper therefore turns to consider what the ten identified sustainable
principles of urban design (from Table 1) imply across the spatial scales, in this case
at the building, urban space, quarter and settlement-wide scales (summarised in Table
2). The paper concludes by briefly examining how more sustainable patterns of
design might be delivered and by whom.

Stewardship - Urban design, like architecture and planning represents a process, as

well as a series of end products, and an ongoing process through time that begins long
before a development is conceived and continues long after it is completed. Indeed,
urban design is concerned above all with the careful and ongoing stewardship of the
built environment through a myriad of contributions - public and private - only some
of which concern the actual development of new buildings and spaces. Thus,
processes of urban maintenance, traffic management, town centre management,
regeneration, planning and conservation, and individuals personalising their own
properties, all impact on the quality and therefore collective public perceptions of
particular places (Carmona & de Magalheas, 2007). In this regard, sustainable places
are those where at all scales of development, these ongoing processes of adaptation
and change are positively channelled in an integrated manner towards achieving a
better quality built environment. This requires “taking a broad and long-term view of
the cost and benefits of any change, and understanding what makes towns and cities
sustainable” (Urban Design Group, 1998, p45). Typically such an approach will need
to respond to any positive contextual characteristics of the building, space, quarter or
settlement and address any negative aspects. Sustainability implies recognising where
quality exists, achieving sustainable quality in new development and maintaining that
 quality thereafter. In turn this requires governance regimes that are able to establish
clear and measurable targets for each aspect of sustainability, whilst maintaining a
sense that each target contributes to greater, integrated, economic, social and
environmental goals (Roger Evans Associates 2007, 33).

Table 2: Sustainable Design by Spatial Scale

Buildings Spaces Quarters Settlements
Stewardship Responding to and Responding to and Design for revitalisation ‘Joining-up’ governance
enhancing context enhancing context Developing a long term regimes - design, planning,
Design for easy maintenance Managing the public realm vision transport, urban management
Allowing personalisation of Investing necessary Governance that supports
public space resources stakeholder involvement
Traffic calming
Resource Using passive (and active) Layouts to allow sun Reduced parking standards Investing in public transport
solar gain technologies penetration Urban block depths that infrastructure
Efficiency Design for energy retention Spaces that reduce vehicle allow sun and natural light Utilise more efficiently
Reduce embodied energy - speeds and restrict vehicle penetration and which before extending the
local materials and low circulation encourage natural ventilation established capital web
energy materials Design spaces that reduce Using combined heat and (infrastructure)
Use recycled and renewable wind speeds and enhance power systems
materials microclimate Local access to public
Design for natural light and Using local, natural materials transport
ventilation Capture and recycle water
Diversity and Provide opportunity to mix Mix uses along streets and in Mix uses within quarters Integrate travel modes
uses within buildings blocks Design a fine grained street Connect route networks
Choice Mix building types, ages and Design for walking and and space network (micro (macro scale)
tenures cycling scale) Centre hierarchy to boost
Build accessible, lifetime Combat privatisation of the Support diversity in choice
homes and buildings public realm neighbourhood character Variety in services and
Remove barriers to local Localise facilities and facilities between centres
accessibility services Remove barriers to
accessibility
Human Needs Support innovation and Provide high quality, legible, Design visually interesting Enhance legibility through
artistic expression in design public spaces networks of space quarter identity and
Design to a human scale Combat crime through space Enhance legibility through disposition
Design visually interesting design and management landmark and space Promote equity through land
buildings Enhance safely by reducing disposition use disposition
pedestrian/vehicle conflict Socially mix communities Build settlement image foster
Design for social contact and Support social capital sense of belonging
for safe children’s play
Resilience Build extendible buildings Design robust spaces, usable Design to allow fine grained Build a robust capital web -
Build adaptable buildings for many functions changes of use across infrastructure to last and
Build to last Design spaces able to districts adapt
Use resilient materials accommodate above and Robust urban block layouts Recognise changing patterns
below ground infrastructure of living and work
requirements
Design of serviceable space
Pollution Reuse and recycle waste Reduce hard surfaces and Match projected co2 Question ‘end-of-pipe’
water run-off emissions with tree planting solutions to water/sewerage
Reduction Insulate for reduced noise Design in recycling facilities Plant trees to reduce disposal
transmission - vertically and Design well ventilated space pollution Control private motorised
horizontally to prevent pollution build-up Tackle light pollution transport
On-site foul water treatment Give public transport priority Clean and constantly
using SUDs maintain the city
Concentration Design compact building Reduce space given over to Intensify around transport Enforce urban containment
forms to reduce heat loss i.e. roads intersections and reduce expansion
terraces Reduce space given over to Raise density standards and Intensify along transport
Bring derelict buildings back parking avoid low density building corridors
into use Increase vitality through Build at densities able to Link centres of high activity
Consider high buildings activity concentration support a viable range of
where appropriate uses, transport and facilities
Respect privacy and security
needs
Distinctiveness Consider surrounding Reflect urban form, Reflect morphological Protect any positive regional
architectural character when townscape and site character patterns and history - identity and landscape
designing in design incremental or planned character
Enhance locally distinctive Retain distinctive site Identify and reflect Utilise topographical setting
building settings features significant public Preserve archaeological
Retain important buildings Design for sense of place - associations inheritance
and heritage local distinctiveness Consider quarter uses and
Retain important building qualities
groups and spaces
Biotic Support Provide opportunities for Design in robust soft Provide minimum public Link public (and private)
greening buildings landscaping open space standards open space into a network
Consider buildings as Plant and renew street trees Provide private open space Green urban fringe locations
habitats Encourage greening and Create new or enhancing Integrate town and country
display of private gardens existing habitats Support indigenous species
Respect natural features
Resource Efficiency - underpins all notions of environmental sustainability, implying
care in the use of energy and care in the use of non-renewable or environmentally
destructive materials. For urban design this implies a concern for the use of both
energy and resources in and by the fabric of the built environment, and at the larger
scale, an increasing concern for energy use through preventing unsustainable spatial
patterns of building and their implications on energy consumption through travel
demands (Thorne & Filmer-Sankey 2003). It is clear that mainstream technological
means exist to reduce much of the current resource profligacy - in the use of more
sustainable building materials, in designing for natural light, sun and air and for solar
gain, in more efficient heating and power systems, and in more efficient use of
existing infrastructure (Mandix, 1996). It is also clear that many of these technologies
can be applied immediately across the various design scales to retrofit established
environments as well as in building more resource efficient new environments
(Terence O’Rourke plc, 1998). Active technologies such as the micro-generation of
power through wind turbines and installation of photovoltaic cells are increasingly
cost effective and widespread, with, for example, savings in energy consumption of
up to 80 per cent achievable if combined with passive technologies (Power 2008), but
even modest programmes of wall insulation and the fitting of modern boilers in
homes can reduce energy use by 50 per cent are relatively modest cost (Lowe and
Oreszczyn 2008).

However, in reviewing the take up of energy efficient technologies in the residential

sector in US, Sathaye and Murtishaw (2004) identify both market failure and
consumer preferences as decisive factors in limiting the take up of such measures.
The latter (consumer preference) stems from ignorance amongst consumers about the
resource choices they make, including, for example, a disconnect between their use
of, and the price paid for, energy (GoS, 2009, pp90-91). The former (market failure)
follows from this and reveals itself in resistance amongst market players to adopt
design innovations that are seen as costly to produce and for which there is no
corresponding up-lift in value, leading to potential market disadvantage. In this area
then, until the economic imperative reflects the sustainable one, either by market,
fiscal or regulatory means, the fact that it is cheaper over the short-term to build and
live unsustainably with destructive use of resources - particularly high energy
consumption - ensures that the incentive to look long-term and to reduce resource
consumption remains weak (Hatherway 2000). The challenge for urban designers will
be to convince their clients – as consumers and regulators – that the long-term
benefits outweigh the short-term costs.

Diversity and Choice - Environmental diversity is a key tenet of sustainable

development (see Figure 3). In a natural context this implies bio-diversity (see
below), and in the built context, diversity and choice. Choice is also frequently cited
as a key tenet of urban design, which in that regard seeks a freedom of choice in
movement, in the facilities and amenities available to people and in how they use the
public environment (Bentley et al, 1985, p9). In sustainable terms this implies the
need to tackle processes in the built environment which in the post war period have
acted to undermine choice. These include the increasing domination of urban areas
by cars at the expense of pedestrians and those without cars, the zoning of the
environment into mono-use areas with an associated reduction in diversity of use, and
the increasing ‘privatisation’ of parts of the public realm leading to the effective
exclusion from these areas of significant portions of society (Carmona et al, 2003,
pp110-111). These patterns are compounded by the ongoing ignorance of the design
needs of certain sections of society such as the elderly and disabled (Imrie & Hall
2001). At the various scales across which urban design acts, the reintroduction and
designing-in of diversity and choice in the built environment therefore represents a
key aim: through mixing uses and tenures; by removing barriers to access and
designing for walking; by connecting up the different spaces and networks that
constitute the public realm; and by supporting diversity in the character of what
results (Lang, 2005, p368-374).

Human Needs - Hand-in-hand with choice comes a concern for human needs.
Indeed, on the grounds that environmental needs are never likely to be met if human
needs are ignored, increasingly conceptualisations of sustainability have been
underpinned by notions of social and economic sustainability - equity, opportunity,
quality of life and participation (CAG Consultants, 1997, pp7-8). Drawing from
Maslow’s (1943) well used hierarchy of human needs, sustainable environments
should cater for physiological (warmth and shelter), safety and security, affiliation
(belonging and acceptance), esteem (status) and self-actualisation (expression and
fulfilment) needs in that order, although the most civilised societies will cater equally
for each (Lang 1994, pp156-162).

Relating such broad concerns to the sustainable urban design agenda, human needs
encompass access to varied economic opportunities, and also the creation of
comfortable environments that are of a human scale and visually interesting, that
allow safe and crime-free human contact, ease of movement and navigation
(legibility), that are socially mixed, and that through their design and the disposition
of uses are available to all (Montgomery 1998). At the larger scale of settlement and
quarter design, human needs can increasingly be met through positive image building
to foster the identification with place so necessary to build commitment to, and sense
of ownership of, the environment (Chaplin 2007). Taking just one example, with
global warming, increasingly inhabitants of urban areas suffer from the tendency of
hard built-up areas to store and retain heat longer than surrounding green areas.
These urban heat island effects (a form of environmental pollution) can leave city
centres 10 per cent warmer than surrounding suburban areas, and were blamed for
35,000 deaths across Europe in August 2003. The example illustrates one very direct
example of how environment can directly impact on human health and comfort, and
how simple design measures can help to rectify the situation, , for example increasing
tree cover by 10 per cent can reduce the surface temperature of a city by between
three and four degrees centigrade (CABE, 2009, p19). At the same time streets trees
can improve biodiversity, provide daily shade and shelter, filter dust and pollution,
and, critically, reduce CO2.

Resilience - relates to the need for resource efficiency, in that built form once
constructed represents a considerable investment in energy and resources.
Furthermore, if all the embodied energy in the infrastructure of a typical a town or
city is calculated it will represent many times more energy than the ongoing processes
of development and redevelopment consume over decades. For their part, buildings
will continue to use energy once constructed – studies of conventional new houses
indicate that the accumulated energy costs in use exceed the embodied energy of the
actual basic construction within five years (Barton et al, 1995, p133) – but as more
energy efficient construction techniques are adopted, so the energy and resources
invested in the construction process become more and more significant. Building to
last also reduces the pressure on sources of construction materials, reduces the waste
from, and energy used in, demolition, and encourages the construction of more
adaptable buildings, spaces, urban forms and infrastructure (Moughtin & Shirley
2005, pp36-39). This last concern is significant because to be long-lasting, patterns of
development need also to be adaptable, in the case of buildings to be able to adapt to
different functions and to be extendible if required; in the case of public space, to
cater for the many overlapping and sometimes inconpatible functions required of
urban areas; and in the case of quarters and settlement patterns, to be able to adapt
over time to changing technologies, patterns of life and work, and movement (Barton
2000, pp130-132).

Research conducted for the British Government has concluded that public spaces will
have a key role in the future delivering resilience of another type – energy resilience –
through hosting micro-generation technologies (wind, photo-voltaic and heat pump)
as countries search for ways to reduce their reliance on high carbon fuel sources
(Government Office for Science, 2008, pp148-150). It is likely, however, that
whatever measures are put in place to reduce climate change, the delayed effects of
greenhouse gas emissions will be increasingly felt; in Western Europe, for example,
ushering in more extreme weather conditions, including hotter and drier summers,
warmer and wetter winters, rising sea levels and flooding. This will require the
design of buildings and spaces now that can adapt to these changed circumstances
over time, and still provide comfortable environments, For CABE (2008, p1) this
requires working with the natural processes of the city (see Sustainable Inset 4):
“Spaces that are softer, greener, more organic and natural will store water and are
critical to modifying urban temperatures. Green spaces with a generous planting of
trees link to form a network offering cooler, cleaner air. Adaptation demands that we
start really understanding how our towns and cities work naturally. How water
courses through a town, for instance, and so how to manage it”.

Pollution Reduction - If settlements are viewed as living organisms which ingest

resources and eject waste products, then reducing waste emissions represents a key
role of sustainable urban design - to use resources more efficiently, to reduce the
impact of development on its surroundings and to reduce the energy expended in
waste removal and disposal (Ritchie 2003). Pollution reduction potentially also has
an important role to play in improving quality of life in urban areas. This is because
some of the most negative collective perceptions about urban areas and a major factor
driving migration out of cities to more suburban and rural areas concerns the
pollution, dirt and noise characteristic of many central areas (Mulholland Research
Associates Ltd, 1995).

The key objective across all spatial scales is to tackle pollution by reducing it in the
first place - insulating against noise, ventilating against fumes, designing-out light
pollution, designing-in filtration by trees, and investing in public transport whilst (as
far as possible) controlling private car use. Following reduction efforts, the reuse and
recycling of waste products (energy, water, materials etc.) should form a second
objective (Edwards, 2000, pp12-29). Where possible this should occur on site, for
example the filtration of foul water through Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS)
schemes, or in the local neighbourhood, such as the collection and burning of waste as
a fuel source for local combined heat and power stations. Removal of waste from
sites should be a last resort, although investment in cleaning and maintenance is a
necessary dimension of good urban management as well as a necessary component of
urban renewal (Carmona et al, 2004). To take just one example, the purification of
water is an expensive and energy intensive process, yet only 7% of purified water
provided to homes in England is used for drinking and cooking, a third is simply
flushed down the toilet. At the same time, most storm water is washed into sewers
(CABE, 2009. P18). Pollution reduction will therefore require urban designers far
more attuned to the first three ‘R’s, ‘reduce’, ‘reuse’ and ‘recycle’, ‘removing’ only
when necessary.

Concentration - is perhaps the least straightforward of the design principles.

Concentration across spatial scales is widely held to be a desirable strategy to reduce
travel demand, energy use and land-take and to increase the vitality and viability of
established centres. Nevertheless, in a challenge to those advocating higher density
living it has been argued that a renewed emphasis on higher density development
could mean more congestion and pollution and probably the demolition of at least part
of the historic fabric (Hall, 1995). Furthermore, that higher-density living, although
technically sustainable in the short term, may be individually unacceptable and
perhaps unsustainable in the long term as working at home becomes more the norm,
as non-polluting motorised transport is developed and as the reduced supply of
greenfield sites drives up densities at the expense of open space in established urban
areas (Davison, 1995). Research sponsored by the retail industry has even shown that
in some circumstances new out-of-town shopping development can result in a
reduction in car journeys over town centre alternatives on the basis that customers
will travel to such developments come-what-may, and therefore that the more such
developments there are, and the closer they are to each other, the less individuals will
need to travel to reach them (JMP Consultants, 1995).

Despite the debates, Breheny (1992) has reflected a broad consensus on these issues
by arguing that urban containment policies should continue to be adopted and
decentralisation slowed down and that this should go hand-in-hand with the
rejuvenation of existing urban areas, with intensification prioritised around transport
nodes, but with extreme ‘compact city’ proposals rejected as unreasonable. Later
work confirmed this advice, arguing that if nothing else, intensification can support
urban living and reduce land-take, although the case for widespread compaction has
yet to be convincingly made (Jenks et al, 1996, p342). Furthermore, concentration
can help to reduce space given over to the cars and increase pedestrian movement and
the viability of public transport, therefore helping to support other sustainable urban
design objectives such as reducing the need for personal travel (Clarke 2003, pp19-
21). At the building scale, compact building forms such as terraces are clearly more
energy efficient than, for example, detached ones (the higher the ratio of floor area to
external skin area, the lower the loss of energy – Chalifoux in Farr, 2008, pp189-92),
whilst factoring in all consumption patterns has shown that denser patterns of housing
design act to reduce the environmental footprint of housing due to differences in
household size, private lawns and parking (Moos et al 2006). The variation in impact
that the concentration of urban form can account for is illustrated by Newman (2006,
p285) who concludes that most Chinese cities consume around two GJ [gigajoules] of
transport energy per person at population densities of around 100 persons per hectare.
By contrast, Atlanta in the USA consumes 103 GJ per person through its density of
six persons per hectare. Thus the 200 million Chinese who moved into cities between
1996 and 2006 are equivalent to just over one Atlanta with its 4 million people.

Distinctiveness - Supporting local distinctiveness as an objective is intimately tied to

achieving other sustainable objectives: to careful stewardship, in that conservation of
the built fabric is a process of management and maintenance through time; to the
delivery of human needs, because perceptions of place are intimately tied to the
familiar and cherished local scene; and to resilience, because distinctiveness
inevitably requires that built and natural assets are valued over the long-term. It also
represents a key objective of progressive planning systems through legislation
covering the protection and enhancement of valued buildings, townscapes and natural
landscapes (English Heritage, 1997). Fundamentally, however, distinctiveness is
concerned with the preservation and enhancement of what is special about places
(Clifford & King, 1993), in that places can be viewed as constructs of often unique
geographic, physical and environmental characteristics, combined with unique
cultural circumstances manifest in a settlement’s original form and purpose and
subsequent human interventions over time – the interconnected parts, as described by
(Philips 2003, p42-45). The result are environments of distinctive character in
building design, space composition, mix of uses and spatial layouts, which once
damaged are difficult to repair. This should not imply that change is inappropriate
and should be resisted, merely that to be sustainable the precautionary principle
should be applied (Biddulph 2007, p70) and careful consideration given to identifying
what is special, to resisting ubiquitous pressures for homogenisation, and to ensuring
that new development across all scales respects and enhances the best of what already
exists (Moughtin & Shirley, 2005, pp25-30).

Biotic Support - is fundamental across the different design scales in meeting the
challenge of maintaining environmental diversity. Landscape design is often the
forgotten dimension of the urban environment, too often being treated as an
afterthought or as a purely visual concern, for example, to reduce the impact of ugly
buildings or acres of parking, or alternatively forced and overly conceptual, loosing in
the process its human connection (Denton-Thompson 2005, p126). However, more
fundamental approaches to landscape have long been advocated in which urban areas
are seen as just one part of a wider functioning ecosystem, and in which the biotic
environment (fauna and flora and space for it to flourish) exist side-by-side, and even
dictate the form of the human-made environment (McHarg, 1969). Therefore, like the
associated need to reduce pollution and the use of natural resources, the need for
biotic support equates to support for the ongoing natural processes in and around
human settlements. CABE (2009, p21), for example, argues that in a context where
urban gardens often feature greater biodiversity than surrounding intensively farmed
countryside, space needs to be consciously provided for flora and fauna within urban
areas to supplement the already important role these areas perform in supporting
wildlife.

At the level of buildings and spaces, this might include the integration of soft
landscaping and trees and the nurturing of habitats in new and established
developments, the revised Urban Design Compendium 1, for example, argues that
urban blocks of about 90 by 90 metres allows for permeability whilst providing
adequate space for biodiversity and wildlife support (Llewelyn Davies, 2007, p58).
At the scale of the urban quarter, the concern extends to respect for existing and
provision of new open spaces within settlements and to their nurturing as natural
habitats (Wooley 2003, pp36-44). Finally, at the settlement-wide scale, the concern
relates to the integration of town and country through the design of open space
networks and the careful transition between town and country at the urban fringe
(Von Borcke 2003).
Self-sufficiency - relates back to human needs, but also encompasses issues of
resource management. Pre-twentieth century, development of the built environment
was in the main slow and incremental with most lives centred on local areas and
utilising local resources - both human and natural. With increasing
internationalisation and greater ease of communications and travel, patterns of living
and development processes take place on an ever-expanding stage. The implications
are unsustainable because of the loss of identification with place through development
processes, because of the homogenisation of building types, forms, styles and
landscapes, and because of the increasing distances that populations and resources
need to travel to cater for everyday needs (Hopkins, 2005, p28-29). Although
patterns of life will be difficult to change over the short term, design has a potentially
important role to play in providing people the choice to lead more self-sufficient
lifestyles in the future. This may include physical measures such as providing for
cyclists to encourage greater self sufficiency in travel, providing fast internet
connections to allow home working, or simply allowing space for local food
production in less dense urban areas (Hopkins, 2000). More fundamentally, it will
require key stakeholders and local populations to have a greater active involvement in
developing a vision for their locality and in its ongoing management (Stewart, 2000).
Participation (going beyond consultation) therefore represents a key tenet of self-
sufficiency as it does of sustainable development more widely. It extends to the
notion that in a democratic society, the actions of the few should not impact adversely
on the amenities enjoyed by the many. This implies that development through its
design should be environmentally benign, or that recompense be made locally to
redress the balance (Dunster 2006). Inevitably not all members of the community will
be engaged to the same degree in environmental behaviours, but it may be that urban
design processes can encourage greater participation. A 4Es model (DETR 2006) can
be utilised to mazimise the likelihood of enduring behavioural change:

1. Engaging – by providing opportunities for the public to participate in debates,

through community and social networks and marketing
2. Encouraging – by rewarding certain behaviours and discouraging others, for
example through local award schemes, fiscal incentives or legislative controls such as
on parking
3. Enabling – by delivering the infrastructure that allows sustainable behaviours to
occur, for example the provision of safe, attractive routes to key local destinations, or
space to store recycling bins.
4. Exemplifying – by actively demonstrating through exemplar schemes and local
leadership.

Delivering Sustainable Design

Discussion of the ten sustainable design principles at their different scales has
revealed the complexities inherent in developing - let alone delivering - a sustainable
urban design strategy. It also reveals the aspirational nature of much of the agenda
which inevitably contains internal overlaps and contradictions that can only be
resolved through practice. For example, the desire for more concentrated patterns of
development might unintentionally design-out opportunities for increasing bio-
diversity or for sustainable drainage, design for passive solar gain may require more
south-facing development, whilst human needs for a more sociable environment may
necessitate a permeable grid. The principles outlined above can only ever represent a
start of a design process, therefore, with principles needing to be reconciled on the
basis of local contextual factors and development aspirations.

More fundamental questions have also arisen about whether this new imperative for
the design agenda can be addressed within the making places tradition of urban design
that now dominates the theory and practice of urban design, and to which this article
broadly subscribes, or whether an entirely new orthodoxy is required, one that places
sustainability, rather than place-making, at its heart. One of the best known
‘sustainability exemplas’, BedZED in London (Figure 4), for example, is based on a
continuous structure of south-facing terraces that deliberately eschews its suburban
context and in effect establishes itself as a self-contained zero-carbon enclave. Other
models are increasingly being put forward by high-profile architects that either see
sustainable urban design as a return to object-architecture, for example Ken Yeang’s
vertical ‘green’ skyscrapers, or as technology-driven settlements on a ‘Total design’
model (Lang, 1994, pp78) with designed lifestyles to match, for example Arups’ zero
carbon city in Dongtan, Shanghai. Foster and Partners’ Masdar city in Abu Dhabi
combines both where the whole city is viewed as a single object in which technology
enables residents to live carbon-neutral lives in the middle of a desert.

Figure 4: Looking from one residential enclave to the next

All these examples suggest a break with urban design as place-making, at least to the
extent that form and impact rather than people and place are the priority. However,
none of the sustainable urban design principles outlined above necessarily imply that
concerns for place-making can not also be met. Ritchie (in Ritchie and Thomas,
2009, p92), for example, concludes that ‘we need to analyse the ingredients that make
a successful ‘place’ and work with them once again … [whilst be aware that] … we
are now dealing with modern issues that affect the recipe: a changing climate and the
need for more people to live in a more humane city environment’. The authors of the
Urban Design Compendium 2 (Roger Evans Associates, 2007, pp72) conclude that
‘There is a common misconception that a conflict exists between principles of good
urban design … and an optimal approach to environmental sustainability’. They
argue, for example, that it is perfectly possible to engage with street-based design
whilst also achieving optimal thermal performance.

What may be required, however, is a more sophisticated and multi-functional view

about urban environments and their constituent elements: people using their own
homes to generate power, green open spaces used for water recycling,
neighbourhoods accommodating multiple land uses, and public spaces supporting
wildlife, etc. (Thwaits 2007). Moreover, with climate change now impacting on and
changing local environments around the world, there will be need for flexibility, and
to learn the lessons from history about what characteristics of urban form can be used
in different climatic circumstances to modify local climates. Golany (1996), for
example, argues that urban morphology can be designed to cool or warm temperatures
in urban areas as appropriate, without the need for active, energy-intensive
technologies. He concludes, for example, that whilst in stressful climates (which with
climate change may become more widespread) compact city forms will be generally
desirable, continuous street grid systems will best suit hot climates to encourage air
penetration deep into the city with closed irregular street systems more suitable in
cooler climates. Golany (1996, p464) concludes that we need to combine innovation
born through research with an in-depth knowledge of how our ancestors coped with
climate – good urban design and modern good technology combined.

Clearly however, any conceptualisation of sustainable urban design is of little value

unless it can be implemented. The drivers encouraging more active approaches to
delivering sustainable design are well accepted and relate to the potential for lasting
damage wreaked by increasingly unsustainable patterns of life and development and
to a recognition that mankind holds both the potential to irreversibly damage the
natural environment or to repair and enhance it. The decisions are essentially moral
ones to be debated through international, national and local political processes for
delivery through associated processes of development and governance.

The barriers to delivery are, however, formidable and may sometimes seem
impossible to overcome. Some have already been mentioned, but together they
encompass:

 Established patterns of living - which are frequently ingrained and difficult to

change, for example, the reliance on car-borne modes of travel and the layout of
the urban environment based on that premise;
 Public awareness and aspirations - which often aspire to unsustainable, high
consumption modes of living, including aspirations (particularly in the Anglo-
Saxon world) for low density housing and to own a car (and sometimes two or
three);
 Economic and governance systems - which rarely reflect the true costs of
development (particularly the environmental and social costs) and which tend
towards decisions based on short-term economic gain rather than long-term
investment;
 Lack of political will - to influence development processes because of the over-
riding pressures to deliver, first, economic goals, second, social ones, but only a
poor third, environmental objectives;
 Lack of skills and vision - in either the public sector or the private sector to
innovate new solutions and think beyond tried and tested - but often unsustainable
- development processes;
 Selfishness - because too many stakeholders see the environment as ‘someone
else’s problem’ and therefore fail to consider (and sometimes actively dismiss) the
potential role they might play;
 Lack of choice - because many individuals have little or no choice in the way they
lead their lives because of cultural, economic, educational and physical
constraints;
 The scale of the problem - in that turning around unsustainable patterns of living
and development is a massive long-term process dependent on fundamental
changes to attitudes and to co-operation between many different stakeholders
across spatial scales. In such a context, it is easy to think that individual
contributions will have little impact and that positive action can be put off for
another day.

This last point is significant and helps to illustrate the complexity of the task. Thus,
even to deliver just one part of the wider sustainable development agenda - better
urban design - a whole series of stakeholders are required to support a shared vision
of a more sustainable future. Yet as the EU Working Group on Urban Design for
Sustainability concluded, obstacles are widespread, commonly relating to a “lack of
political will and awareness; difficulties with planning and administration systems,
legislation and procedures; the need for appropriate training and education; lack of
appropriate knowledge sharing systems; the persistence of the traditional, sector-
based approach to urban planning and design; the complexity of the holistic vision of
sustainable development and planners reluctance to accept it” (EU, (2004, p41).
Clearly, therefore, the barriers are both international and endemic and extend across
public and private spheres of responsibility.

Actual processes of urban design are diverse, sometimes led by the private sector and
sometimes by the public, and increasingly through a partnership of public and private
stakeholders. In this regard the private sector brings to the table expertise, resources
and the drive to deliver inspired by the profit motive. The public sector acts as
regulator, coordinator, manager, and often as landowner. Both will be involved in
almost every urban design intervention although the balance of power between each
and their exact roles and relationships will vary profoundly depending on local
circumstances and development processes.

Table 3 attempts to identify the diversity of stakeholders who need to be engaged in

the delivery of sustainable design, as well as the diversity of means across spatial
scales through which to influence its delivery. The table demonstrates – in particular
– the wide range of public sector agencies and potential influences on sustainable
design, as well as the diverse interests across the four spatial scales of public, private
and community sectors. It confirms the need for ‘joined-up’ approaches to
governance in this area (perhaps above all others) where responsibility is spread so
thinly. It also confirms the important role of agencies with plan-making and grant-
making powers – planning authorities, highways authorities and regeneration agencies
– in a central co-ordinating role to join-up public sector contributions and deliver a
partnership of public and private interests focused on delivering sustainable urban
design.
 Table 3: Delivering Sustainable Design - Stakeholders and Influences
Buildings Spaces Quarters Settlements
Private Sector
Design Building design Urban design Urban design Urban design
Urban design Landscape design Landscape design Design vision
Professionals Design vision Design vision Design vision
Developers Building Urban developments Urban developments New settlements
developments Public/private Public/private Public/private
partnerships partnerships partnerships
Investors Project financing Project financing Project financing Project financing
Long-term investment Long-term investment Long-term investment
Public Sector
Planning Local plan policy Local plan policy Local plan policy Strategic planning
Design guidance Design guidance Design guidance policy
Authorities Design briefs Design briefs Design frameworks Local plan policy
Development control Development control Development control Design strategies
Planning gain Planning gain
Highways Road construction Highways layout Transport plans
standards standards Traffic management
Authorities Road adoption Road adoption
procedure procedure
Building Control Building controls
Fire Authorities Fire spread standards Fire spread standards Fire prevention access
standards
Environmental Noise control Refuse disposal/ Vehicle emissions Pollution control
control control
Health
Housing Social housing Design Housing strategies
provision/subsidy standards/quality
Authorities/ Design standards indices
Providers
Parks & Open space Open space provision/ Landscape/open space
maintenance preservation strategies
Recreation
Departments
Police Architectural liaison Architectural liaison Public order bylaws
Public order
Authorities Traffic control
Regeneration Design guidelines Design guidelines Land reclamation Public/private
Gap-funding/grants Gap-funding/grants partnerships
Agencies/ Public/private Public/private
Authorities partnerships partnerships
Conservation Gap-funding/grants Enhancement Enhancement
Listed building schemes/funds schemes/funds
Agencies designations/controls Conservation area Conservation area
designations/controls designations/controls
Urban Managers Urban streetscape Urban promotion/
management/ co- management/ co-
ordination ordination
Public/Private
Utility Providers Road/pavement repair Infrastructure
standards provision
Public Transport Public transport Public transport Public transport
management provision integration
Providers
Educational Local engagement Raising environmental
awareness
Institutions/
Sector
Community Based
Voluntary Consultation response Actively engaging Campaigning Campaigning
(participation, urban Actively engaging
Groups/ management) (design, appraisal,
Communities participation)
Local politicians Statutory powers Statutory powers Statutory powers Statutory powers
Spending priorities Spending priorities Spending priorities
Lobbying Lobbying
Individuals/ Home/building Lifestyle choices Civic responsibility
maintenance Civic responsibility
Private
Companies
However, of greatest importance to deliver more sustainable urban design is the need
to first establish an impetus for change. In delivering this objective not all is doom
and gloom as increasingly, international, national and local government agendas are
recognising that change is not only desirable, but is both necessary and inevitable
(EU, 2004, pp30-38). In this, the paper has argued, sustainable urban design across
all scales has a central role to play, whilst delivery is a shared public / private
responsibility. Initiatives such as the LEED for Neighborhood Development rating
system from the US Green Building Council, the UK Government’s Sustainable
Building Code, or CABE’s www.sustainablecities.org.uk are beginning to put the
necessary tools in place to deliver on the challenge.

Conclusion

Fundamentally, good urban design is sustainable, but as the paper has shown this
implies much more than simply reducing energy use and carbon emissions. Instead it
implies a much more profound basis on which to make decisions which impact on the
social, economic and environmental sustainability of the built environment.

It is also important to recognise that sustainable urban design is just part of the
broader sustainable development agenda that seeks to create sustainable places:
economically, socially, and environmentally. Allmendinger and Tiesdell (2004) have
suggested that this requires getting the people (skills, resources and commitment,
social infrastructure, and economic infrastructure) and place factors (communication,
physical resources, economic structure, location, quality of life opportunities and local
governance) right. Urban design relates to all of these, but is only part, albeit an
important part, of this agenda. It is nevertheless vital that the contribution of good
design is fully recognised in both the theories and practice of sustainable
development.

Around the world, policy agendas (if not always practice) have been recognising this.
Taking two examples from different sides of the world, New Zealand’s Urban Design
Protocol (Ministry for the Environment 2005) situates urban design within the
country’s Sustainable Development Programme of Action, calling for towns and cities
which are competitive, thriving, creative and innovative, whilst being liveable and
environmentally responsible. Similarly the UK’s national planning policy now
stipulates that “Good design ensures attractive, useable, durable and adaptable places
and is a key element in achieving sustainable development” (ODPM 2005, para.33).

In the latter case, the ten design principles discussed above are now reflected across
the national benchmark for well-designed housing and neighbourhoods – Building for
Life (2008). This sets 20 questions that developers can use to write development
briefs, or for local authorities to demand higher design standards. Table 2 can be used
in a similar fashion as a simple means to assess whether urban design proposals are
sustainable, and to indicate the range of relevant issues applicable at different spatial
scales. Planners, designers, developers and other stakeholders might usefully ask:

1. Do proposals enhance their context, effectively join-up the range of contributions

and therefore help to carefully steward in change over time?
2. Are proposals efficient in their consumption and long-term use of energy and
natural resources?
3. Do proposals support diversity and choice in movement, access and land use mix?
4. Do proposals support human needs for security, social contact, comfort and
artistic fulfilment?
5. Are proposals resilient enough to withstand and adapt to changes over time?
6. Do proposals minimise pollution of the wider environment both in their
construction and long-term management?
7. Are proposals concentrated to reduce land take and energy use and increase urban
vitality and viability?
8. Do proposals respect what is distinctive about their environment and help to build
or preserve local sense of place?
9. Do proposals support the biotic environment through the careful integration of
built and natural resources?
10. Are proposals likely to support the establishment of more self sufficient, involved
local communities?

References
Allmendinger P & Tiesdell S (2004) “Making Sense of Sustainable Communities”,
Town & Coutry Planning, November, pp313-316
Barton H. (1996) “Going Green by Design”, Urban Design Quarterly, Issue 57,
January, pp13-18
Barton H (2000) “The Design of Neighbourhoods” in Barton H (Ed) Sustainable
Communities, The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods, London, Earthscan, pp216-229
Barton H, Davis G & Guise R (1995) Sustainable Settlements: A Guide for Planners,
Designers, and Developers, Luton, Local Government Management Board
Barton H, Grant M & Guise R (2003) Shaping Neighbourhoods, A Guide for Health,
Sustainability and Vitality, London, Spon Press
Bentley I (1990) “Ecological Urban Design” Architects’ Journal, Vol.192, 24
October, pp69-71
Bentley I, Alcock A, Murrain P, McGlynn S, Smith G (1985) Responsive
Environments: A Manual for Designers, Oxford, Butterworth Architecture
Biddulph M (2007) Introduction to Residential Layout, Oxford, Architectural Press
BioRegional & CABE (2008) What Makes an Eco-town? A Report for BioRegional
and CABE Inspired by the Eco-towns Challenge Panel, London, CABE
Building for Life (2008) Evaluating housing principles step by step,
http://www.buildingforlife.org/
Blowers A (1993) Planning for a Sustainable Environment, London, Earthscan
Publications Ltd
Breheny M (1992) Sustainable Settlement and Urban Form, London, Pion Ltd
CAG Consultants (1997) Sustainability in Development Control, A Research Report,
London, Local Government Association
Carew-Reid J, Prescott-Allen R, Bass S & Dalal-Clayton B (1994) Strategies for
National Sustainable Development: A Handbook for their Planning and
Implementation, London, Earthscan Publications
Environmental Quality: A New View on Measurement, London, Department for
Communities and Local Government
Carmona M, de Magalhaes C, Blum R, Hammond L (2004) Living Places: Caring for
Quality, London, RIBA Enterprises
Carmona M & de Magalhaes C (2007) Local Environmental Quality, A New View on
Measurement, London, CLG
Carmona M, Heath T, Oc T & Tiesdell S (2003) Public Spaces Urban Spaces, The
Dimensions of Urban Design, Oxford, Architectural Press
Chaplin S (2007) “Places” in Evans B & McDonald F (Eds) Learning from Place 1,
London, RIBA Publishing, pp104-121
Clarke P (2003) “Urban Planning and Design” in Thomas R (Ed) Sustainable Urban
Design, An Environmental Approach, London, Spon Press, pp14-24
Clifford S. & King A. (1993) Local Distinctiveness: Place, Particularity and Identity,
London, Common Ground
CABE Space (2008) Public Space Lessons, Adapting Public Space to Climate
Change, London, CABE
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2009) Hallmarks
of a Sustainable City, London, CABE
Commission of the European Communities (1990) Green Paper on the Urban
Environment, EUR 12902, Brussels, CEC
Cuthbert A (2006) The Form of Cities, The Political Economy and Urban Design,
Oxford, Blackwell
Davison I. (1995) “Viewpoint: Do We Need Cities Any More?”, Town Planning
Review, Vol.66, No.1, ppiii-vi
Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) Homes for the Future:
More Affordable, More Sustainable, London, The Stationery Office
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006) An Environment
Behaviours Strategy for DEFRA, London, DEFRA
Denton-Thompson M (2005) “The Environmental Agenda: A personal View” in
Harvey S & Fieldhouse K (Eds) The Cultured Landscape, Designing the Environment
in the 21st Century, London, Routledge, pp125-146
Dunster B (2006) “What is the ‘New Ordinary’?” Moor M & Rowland J (Eds) Urban
Design Futures, London Routledge, pp122-134
Edwards B (2000) Sustainable Housing, Principles & Practice, London, E & FN Spon
English Heritage (1997) Sustaining the Historic Environment: New Perspectives in
the Future, London, English Heritage
European Union Working Group on Urban Design for Sustainability (2004) Urban
Design for Sustainability, www.lebensministerium.at
Farr D (2008) Sustainable Urbanism, Urban Design with Nature, New Jersey, John
Wiley & Sons
Fieldhouse K (Eds) The Cultured Landscape, Designing the Environment in the 21st
Century, London, Routledge, pp25-54
Frey H. (1999) Designing the City, Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form,
London, E & FN Spon
Golany G (1996) “Urban Design Morphology and Thermal Performance”,
Atmospheric Environment, Vol.30, No.3, pp455-465
Government Office for Science (2008) Powering Our Lives: Sustainable Energy and
the Built Environment, London, GoS
Hall P. (1995) “Planning and Urban Design in the 1990s” Urban Design Quarterly,
Issue 56, pp14-21
Hatherway T (2000) “Planning Local Movement Systems” in Barton H (Ed)
Sustainable Communities, The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods, London,
Earthscan, pp216-229
Haughton G. & Hunter C. (1994) Sustainable Cities, London, Regional Studies
Association
HM Government (2005) Securing the Future, The UK Government Sustainable
Development Strategy, London, HMSO
HM Government (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future, White Paper, London,
HMSO
Hopkins J (2005) “Music-makers and the Dreamers of Dreams” in Harvey S &
Hopkins R (2000) “The Food Producing Neighbourhood” in Barton H (Ed)
Sustainable Communities, The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods, London,
Earthscan, pp199-215
Hough M (1984) City Form and Natural Process, London, Routledge
Imrie R & Hall P (2001) Inclusive Design: Designing and Developing Accessible
Environments, London, Spon Press
Jabareen Y (2006) “Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models and
Concepts” Journal of Planning Education and Research Vol.26, No.1, pp38-52
Jenks M, Burton E & Williams K (1996) The Compact City, A Sustainable Urban
Form?, London, E&FN Spon
JMP Consultants (1995) Travel to Food Superstores, London, JMP Consultants
Lang J (1994) Urban Design: The American Experience, New York, Van Nostrand
Reinhold
Lang J (2005) Urban Design, A Typology of Procedures and Products, Oxford,
Architectural Press
Llewelyn Davies (2007) Urban Design Compendium 1, London, English Partnerships
& The Housing Corporation
Lowe R and Oreszczyn T (2008) “Regulatory Standards and Barriers to Improved
Performance for Housing”, Energy Policy Special Issue, Vol.36, No.12, pp4475-4481
Mandix (1996) Energy Planning: A Guide for Practitioners, London, Royal Town
Planning Institute
Mantownhuman (2008) Manifesto: Towards a New Humanism in Architecture,
www.mantownhuman.org
Maslow A. (1943) Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper and Row
McHarg I (1969) Design with Nature, New York, Doubleday & Company
Ministry for the Environment (2005) New Zealand Urban Design Protocol,
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/urban/design-protocol/index.html
Montgomery J (1998) “Making a City: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design”, Journal
of Urban Design, Vol.3, No.1, pp93-116
Moos M, Whitfield J, Johnson L & Andrey J (2006) “Does Design Matter? The
Ecological Footprint as a Planning Tool at the Local Level” Journal of Urban Design,
Vol.11, No.2, pp195-224
Moughtin C and Shirley P (2005) Urban Design Green Dimensions, Second Edition,
Oxford, Architectural Press
Mulholland Research Associates Ltd (1995) Towns or leafier Environments? A
Survey of Family Home Buying Choices, London, House Builders Federation
Newman P (2006) “The Environmental Impact of Cities” Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 18, pp275-295
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1:
Delivering Sustainable Development, London, The Stationary Office
Philips C (2003) Sustainable Place, Chichester, Wiley-Academy
Power A (2008) “Does Demolition or Refurbishment of Old and Inefficient Homes
Help to Increase our Environmental, Social and Economic Viability?” Energy Policy
Special issue, Vol.36, No.12, pp4487-4501
Rees W & Wackernagle M (1994) Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities can not
be Sustainable – and why they are the Key to Sustainability, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, Vol. 16, pp223-248
Ritchie A (2003) “Waste and Resources” in Thomas R (Ed) Sustainable Urban
Design, An Environmental Approach, London, Spon Press, pp100-108
Ritchie A (2009) “Summary” in Ritchie & Thomas (Eds) Sustainable Urban Design,
An Environmental Approach, Second Edition, London, Taylor and Francis, pp92-94
Roger Evans Associates (2007) Delivering Quality Places, Urban Design
Compendium 2, London, English Partnerships & The Housing Corporation
Rogers R. (1997) Cities for a Small Planet, London, Faber and Faber
Romaya S & Rakodi C (2002) Building Sustainable Urban Settlements, Approaches
and Case Studies in the Developing World, London, ITDG Publishing
Rowley A. (1994) “Definitions of Urban Design: The Nature and Concerns of Urban
Design” Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp179-197
Rudlin D. & Falk N. (1999) Building the 21st Century Home: The Sustainable Urban
Neighbourhood, Oxford, Architectural Press
Sathaye J and Murtishaw S (2004) Market Failures, Consumer Preferences, and
Transaction Costs n Energy Efficiency Purchase Decisions, Sacramento, California
Energy Commission
Stern N (2009) A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change ad
Create a new Era of Progress and Prosperity, London, The Bodley Head
Stewart M (2000) “Community Governance” in Barton H (Ed) Sustainable
Communities, The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods, London, Earthscan, pp176-186
Terence O’Rourke plc (1998) Planning for Passive Solar Design, Watford, BRECSU
Tibbalds, Colbourne, Karski, Williams (1990) City of Birmingham, City Centre
Design Strategy, Birmingham, Birmingham City Council
Thorne R & Filmer-Sankey W (2003) “Transportation” in Thomas R (Ed) Sustainable
Urban Design, An Environmental Approach, London, Spon Press, pp25-32
Thwaits K, Porta S, Romice O, and Greaves M (2007) Urban Sustainability through
Environmental Design: Approaches to Time-People-Place Responsive Urban Spaces,
London, Routledge
Urban Design Group (1998) Urban Design Source Book, Blewbury Oxon., UDG
Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance, London, Urban Task Force
URBED (1997) “The Model Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood?” Sun Dial, Issue 4,
pp2-5
Von Borcke C (2003) “Landscape and Nature in the City” in Thomas R (Ed)
Sustainable Urban Design, An Environmental Approach, London, Spon Press, pp33-
45
Wackernage M & Yount J D (2000) “Footprints for Sustainability: The Next Steps”
Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 1 March, pp23-44
Woolley H (2003) Urban Open Spaces, London, Spon Press