2 Urban Design Definition, Knowledge Base and Principles 2.1 Urban Design Definition One can possibly find as many definitions for urban design, as the number of writers and prac- titioners of urban design (see for example: Pittas 1980; Floyd 1978; Lynch 1981, 1984; Mackay 1990; Gosling and Maitland 1984; Tibblads 1984; Gosling 1984a, b; Barnet 1982; Colman 1988; Goodey 1988; Levy 1988; Scott Brown 1990; The Pratt Institute Catalogue 1988; Kreditor 1990; Lang 1994, 2005; Relf 1987; Madanipour 1997; Schurch 1999; Marshal 2009; Brown et al. 2009; Mumford 2009). These varieties of definitions, aside from some commonalities, reveal the very complex and multi-dimensional nature of the subject matter of urban design. Schurch, in ana- lyzing some of these definitions, suggests that the fundamental problems with these definitions of urban design are that they lack breadth, cohesion and consistency (Schurch 1999, p. 17). Over thirty years ago Pittas (1980) emphasized on the importance of a clear definition to the success of the profession. He, then, suggest seven parameters that urban design deal with: (1) enabling rather than authorship; (2) relative rather than absolute design products; (3) uncertain time frame; (4) a different point of entry than architecture; (5) a concern with the space between buildings; (6) a concern with the three dimensional rather than two dimensional, and (7) principally public activity. Tibbalds (1984) believes that there is no easy, single, agreed definition of urban design. Madanipour (1997) claims that urban design is a far from clear area of activity. He further adds that signs of the need for a clear definition of urban design can be seen in a variety of sources. Here we give only a few examples. Kreditor (1990) sug- gests that if one doubts the immaturity of urban design as a serious field of study, the search for a common definition or understanding of the term will be instructive, for there is none. He further adds that a lack of shared meaning undermines appreciation and retards development. Cuthbert (2007) reflects his frustration with urban design definition when he calls it the endless problem of ‘defining’ urban design. To Kreditor urban design is the institutionalization of our search for good urban form. It transcends visual perception. It is concerned with pleasure as well as performance, and it embraces traditional design paradigms with city building process (Kreditor 1990, p. 157). Some still have doubts as to the nature of urban design as a scientific or artistic field of inquiry. Kostoff, for example, maintains that urban design is of course an art, and like all design it does have to consider, or at least pay lip service to, human behaviors (Kostoff 1991, p. 9). Moughtin (1999) takes the same position when defines urban design as the art of city building, which concerned with the method and process of structuring public space in cities (Moughtin 1999, p. 1). But when he further describes the functions of urban design, he ignores that definition to state that any discus- sion of urban design which does not address © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 H. Bahrainy and A. Bakhtiar, Toward an Integrative Theory of Urban Design, University of Tehran Science and Humanities Series, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32665-8_2 5