Is urban planning an art or a science? I’ve asked myself that question ever since I undertook studies in the field. I still don’t have an answer, but I seem to go back and forth, depending on the project I happen to be undertaking (or the book I’m reading, documentary I’m watching, person I’m talking to) I don’t think it can be considered completely scientific (in a rigid sense) because there are too many variables to account for every different environments in the world. You can’t apply the same planning techniques in two different cities, let alone in an urban and rural environment. For example, it has been proven over and over again that social diversity (and diversity of uses) is important to any urban environment, but I think all areas have at least SOME kind of primary use. Although a district may be oriented primarily towards retail, it may have some housing or professional buildings, or vice versa. I don’t think it would efficient to have COMPLETE diversity in ALL parts of a city, since a certain amount of geographical cohesion is needed between businesses for example. A retailer often needs to be close to distributors, accounting firms, suppliers, temporary work agencies, etc. But, to promote diversity, some residences have to be mixed in as well. Well, that sort of planning could not equally be used in an industrial park for example, because people are not willing to live between a foundry and steel mill.
But is it an art? People do say that beautiful cities attract tourists and raise quality of life. But I don’t think architecture and public art alone can create lively cities. These cities aren’t beautiful because someone said “let’s put a unique tower here and some statues there”. That type of beauty came naturally, from planning that was not restricted to only one type of use. Art in itself, although nice to look at, does not serve much real function or on it’s own raise quality of life. However, in an environment that has promoted diversity, where beauty comes naturally, this type of art can serve a purpose. Landmarks don’t have to be deliberate, they just have to stand out. An historic building, a uniquely painted housing complex or even a simple corner store can provide enough beauty in itself (while also being functional) to create an attractive area. Once these places have been deemed functional (when people start using them), art and architecture can help in making them even more unique.
Well, I hope it seems obvious at this point that urban planning is neither entirely one nor the other. Each compliment each other to create unique environments in both their looks and functions. For this reason, the field of urban design should not be approached from uniquely a “design” perspective, for we are not creating places for people to look at, we are creating environments for people to live, work and enjoy. The social aspect of planning is what separates this field from both science and art, for it is people that create diversity and beauty in and of itself.
PS: In the example I have shown above, of a section of the Berlin wall, you can see a perfect example of how an urban environment has been added to a beautiful (and obviously historic) landmark, and not the other way around. Although people are not attracted to this area of Berlin simply because of the wall itself, they enjoy it as something that adds value to the scenery.
