Radford, A (2010) Urban design, ethics and responsive cohesion. Building Research & Information, 38(4), pp. 379-389. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The processes and products of urban design are examined in terms of philosopher Warwick Fox's proposition that responsive cohesion is the foundational value in a general ethics. Recognizing an ethics of responsive cohesion places emphasis on connection (not separation), on collaboration (not individualism), and on design as sustaining context (not creating set-piece entities). The discourses of urban design contain many principles and assertions that support these emphases, but they tend to do so by examining and advising on particular sub-areas of the discipline. Fox's work links the analysis and advice in these separate areas and shifts the grounding and authority of the advice from instrumental strategy to ethical value. Drawing on some well-known literature, three scales and themes in urban design are linked together: the city (with systems theory), the neighbourhood (with new urbanism), and the street (with urban aesthetics). Responsive cohesion offers a useful integrating principle for urban design that can be explained and justified as a basis for decisions, whether or not its ethical pre-eminence is accepted.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design; ethics; place-making; responsive cohesion; system theory; urban design |
| Index terms: | collaboration, urbanism, strategy, ethics, aesthetic, systems theory, urban design, cohesion, drawing |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, factor and component analysis, urban design, structural engineering, management, theoretical framing, ethical practice, cities and urban places |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here