I was wondering who actually gets to plan and design a city. With this I don't mean one main road or some group of buildings, but an entire district. For instance someone must have designed the main principles of La Défense in Paris (with the esplanade and the roads surrounding it). Or who planned how the Docklands should look like? Is this work done by somekind of city-planning consultancy (somekind of consulting agency) or does every city has its own planners who get to design the entire city?

If you're talking about the street layout, in the United States, cities were originally designed by the party that owned the land underneath it. For instance, Buffalo was originally laid out by Joseph Ellicott, a surveyor with the Holland Land Company, which once owned all of upstate New York. Many cities in the western United States were originally platted by railroad companies.

As the city grew and expanded beyond the original platted area, landowners would subdivide and sell their property, imposing a street grid that, in many cases, conformed to a master grid or pattern the underlying municipality required. This can be seen in Chicago, New York, and Denver, among many other places.

For very large, contemporary planned communities, usually the underlying property owner employs the services of a private planning firm. For small subdivisions with 10 or 20 houses, most developers hire an engineering and surveying firm. The layout of the streets must conform to subdivision regulations, access management requirements, and for major roads, a local comprehensive plan. Lot size and land use are controlled by local zoning requirements and the local comprehensive plan. However, small subdivisions -- splits with to to four lots, depending on the municipality -- aren't as strictly regulated in many communities. In exurban areas where many farmers divide a lot from their larger farm parcel every few years, the development pattern tends to be more haphazard than when a large parcel is subdivided and developed all at once.

In the US, government planners don't actually design neighborhoods or lay out streets (except in limited cases), but we write policy and regulations that govern how a neighborhood is designed. We don't say "this street must go here, and that street must go there," but rather "there must be a cross street every 200 meters", "dead end streets cannot be longer than 100 meters", or "15% of the land must be in open space". Increasingly government planners are writing regulations that require new urbanist communities (http://www.housingzone.com/topics/pb/legislation/pb03ia017.asp).

For very large, contemporary planned communities, usually the underlying property owner employs the services of a private planning firm. For small subdivisions with 10 or 20 houses, most developers hire an engineering and surveying firm

So there do exist private companies giving advise etc. on planning and designing neighbourhoods?

So there do exist private companies giving advise etc. on planning and designing neighbourhoods?

DPZ, Calthorpe, Urban Strategies, Civitas, URS, Sasaki Associates, and hundreds more, at least in the US and Canada.

For Singapore, the city is designed by the Urban Redevelopment Authority, (URA). They plan out everything before a single plie is driven into the ground. Everything is pre-planned, including the heights of buildings.

A normal city gets planned by time. As it develops, it changes and evolves. Also by its people who make up the city, they are the ones who create a character of a city. Architects only give the buildings, in other words, the very bone but it actually is the people who make give spirit and life to it.

As for planned cities, where everything is perfectly planned, city planners and designers are responsible for it. And also the government play a role in this part as well.

Seems like an awesome job to be a city planner, but as usual the decisions will be made by other big shots so in the end you probabely just plan what others say you to plan which doesn't leave too much space for a creative mind

There's this little activity for kids at the URA Centre, where they give you an empty wooden site of the New Downtown with the existing buildings of the CBD already glued on. Then there's this box of wooden buildings of varying heights for you to place on the piece of land and design your own future skyline!:D

Seems like an awesome job to be a city planner, but as usual the decisions will be made by other big shots so in the end you probabely just plan what others say you to plan which doesn't leave too much space for a creative mind

Exactly. That's what turned me off from being a planner. You're actual influence on how a city develops is nill.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ simple

you should ask CULAWALLA he works for the Sydney City council or the planning or something.

It's not a totally uncreative process for the urban planner. But to just say "I think this would look cool and nice someday" doesn't work. You have to build something that can sustain itself from a financial perspective and that means the detail is in the infrastructure, obeying bylaws, and enforcing certain building codes so property values aren't affected by bad neighbors , etc. Yup, that's boring stuff. This is where most of the work is done.
There are three main styles of planning in North America as a general rule. There is the grid plan (Cyburbia described this) Very practical in many ways but of course, it doesn't lend itself to a creative vision. Then there came Garden-Style which was the dominant form of residential street design from about the 50's to very recently. Aesthetically it was more pleasing and some parts of the idea were practical. However, there were just too many drawbacks. It pretty much encouraged sprawl and has proven to be economically untenable due to it's propensity for large lots and low density. The latest trend is the Urbanist revival movement. This idea is an incorporation of the best of the other two. Basically, it's old style lots with new style street configurations. Well, basically anyway. This new style holds a fair bit of promise because it encourages greater neighbourhood interaction and is far more pedestrian friendly than the suburbia you know. But because its a master planned community (unlike the old grid pattern) there are alotments for recreation and the usual suburban stuff you see now. Anyway, its meant to bring people back out onto their front lawns, relax the need for automobiles, keep sprawl in check, etc. It is also designed to increase densities significantly without putting up sun-blocking apartment blocks (based on residential units per acre of serviced land) Personally, I happen to think it is about time and its a wonder it wasn't an idea that was in use thirty years ago when it was becoming clear that Garden-Style was detrimental.

I was watching a programme about the chap that designs Formula One racing Tracks.

He said the first thing he designs is the car park, he said get that right and everything else fits around it - I think the same logic should apply for urban designs as well.

I was wondering who actually gets to plan and design a city. With this I don't mean one main road or some group of buildings, but an entire district. For instance someone must have designed the main principles of La Défense in Paris (with the esplanade and the roads surrounding it). Or who planned how the Docklands should look like? Is this work done by somekind of city-planning consultancy (somekind of consulting agency) or does every city has its own planners who get to design the entire city?

This is a good question you've posted and worth comtemplating on. Who really designs a city? I've tried to answer the question below, and found out that its probably more complex than one thinks.

Well for the first cities aren't designed as such, they are planned. Most countries require by national law that land use is thoroughly regulated on at least community and local levels. Sometimes areas are planned on a regionwide basis and even national, all depending on the country's legislation.

So if we regard a city being a single community or a municipality they are required to develop Masterplans (Municipal plan) for their city, covering the city's entire area. Elected city authorities have decision making capabilities on the land use and transportation presented in the Masterplan. Now what are Masterplans really? Masterplans are, as all plans, a general protocol laying out the city's goals and the means to get there. The goals are based on various stats involving population forecasts and political goals such as waste management. The Master Plan also regulates land-use based on that goal setting and that's where we probably close in on our answer. Municipalities usually have planning agencies or departments that handle all planning issues. Those departments usually employ professional urban planners that present suggestions to land use to the politicians to either accept or reject. Sometimes outside consultants are hired as well. MAster plans then also require, in some cases, approvement by a higher national authority such as a minister of the interior, a minister of the environment or whatever scenario is present in each country. Their influence on the planning of individual cities is however marginal.

Municipalities are usually also required to develop frame plans or local plans for smaller segments of the city, which lay out more detailed description of land uses and restrictions to certain factors, such as building heights, the number of minimum parking spaces and so on. The municipality's planning agencies or outside planners and architects design those local plans, but following certain directives laid out in the Masterplan and are finally approved by the city authorities.

Building projects and development can both be public, private or a combination of the two. In the first case it is the municipality that builds a public building such as a school or a concert hall. These are designed by architects and planners. Private developers can be real estate developers, companies or even individuals. They usually hire architects and landscape architects for the design of their buildings but have very much influence on the design of course, and often lay out guidelines for the architects to follow.

Designers of public space such as parks and squares are usually landscape architects and then there are of course designer of transportation systems and other infrastructure which are usually technicians and engineers.

I hope I've been able to cover what I believe are the designers of a city:
City authorities
National authorities (marginally)
Professional urban planners
Architects
Landscape architects
Private developers
Engineers

How cities come into existence in the first place is a whole different question that is equally interesting...

Is that a satisfying answer? What do you other people think? Am I off target somewhere in my analysis?

The original layout of Singapore's city centre, roads circa 1820s - 1950s were planned by the British.

This is a good question you've posted and worth comtemplating on. Who really designs a city? I've tried to answer the question below, and found out that its probably more complex than one thinks.

Well for the first cities aren't designed as such, they are planned. Most countries require by national law that land use is thoroughly regulated on at least community and local levels. Sometimes areas are planned on a regionwide basis and even national, all depending on the country's legislation.

So if we regard a city being a single community or a municipality they are required to develop Masterplans (Municipal plan) for their city, covering the city's entire area. Elected city authorities have decision making capabilities on the land use and transportation presented in the Masterplan. Now what are Masterplans really? Masterplans are, as all plans, a general protocol laying out the city's goals and the means to get there. The goals are based on various stats involving population forecasts and political goals such as waste management. The Master Plan also regulates land-use based on that goal setting and that's where we probably close in on our answer. Municipalities usually have planning agencies or departments that handle all planning issues. Those departments usually employ professional urban planners that present suggestions to land use to the politicians to either accept or reject. Sometimes outside consultants are hired as well. MAster plans then also require, in some cases, approvement by a higher national authority such as a minister of the interior, a minister of the environment or whatever scenario is present in each country. Their influence on the planning of individual cities is however marginal.

Municipalities are usually also required to develop frame plans or local plans for smaller segments of the city, which lay out more detailed description of land uses and restrictions to certain factors, such as building heights, the number of minimum parking spaces and so on. The municipality's planning agencies or outside planners and architects design those local plans, but following certain directives laid out in the Masterplan and are finally approved by the city authorities.

Building projects and development can both be public, private or a combination of the two. In the first case it is the municipality that builds a public building such as a school or a concert hall. These are designed by architects and planners. Private developers can be real estate developers, companies or even individuals. They usually hire architects and landscape architects for the design of their buildings but have very much influence on the design of course, and often lay out guidelines for the architects to follow.

Designers of public space such as parks and squares are usually landscape architects and then there are of course designer of transportation systems and other infrastructure which are usually technicians and engineers.

I hope I've been able to cover what I believe are the designers of a city:
City authorities
National authorities (marginally)
Professional urban planners
Architects
Landscape architects
Private developers
Engineers

How cities come into existence in the first place is a whole different question that is equally interesting...

Is that a satisfying answer? What do you other people think? Am I off target somewhere in my analysis?

Thanks for this great post!

I was also wondering how it all really worked as I'm torn between going into planning or going into urban design. I definitely don't like the political aspect involved in planning, but then again, the architects are also bound to what the politicians decide should happen.

Your post has helped me see how it all really works.

For a fascinating look at how "planning" and "architecture" differ and intersect (and sometimes come into conflict), read the section about Euralille in S,M,L,XL. Rem Koolhaas' firm OMA planned the major layout of Euralille, deciding where to put roads, train stations, the shape of the major public spaces, and even where buildings would go, but they did not design the actual buildings. The firms that did design the actual buildings sometimes worked well with the intentions of OMA (such as Jean Nouvel), or sometimes ignored them and their undeniably grand vision completely (such as a local architect who is now forever immortilized as a careless architect in a classic text. Sucks for him!)

Note that planning in this respect refers to a district of a city (a development bascially), but not to a city as a whole. The firm (OMA) is, of course, private, but they were hired by the City of Lille, and the article is also interesting in that it shows the relation between private architects and planners on the one hand and the governmental authorities who hire them on the other. In this case, Rem found Lille to be incredibly willing to accept the outragous plans of OMA, partly because that is a characterisitic of the French, and partly because the city director who dealt with OMA turned out to be something of a visionary himself, as is revealed in the fantastic final page of the article. This is a fantastic read, and it's one of the highlights of S,M,L,XL.

Note: Check the book out from a library. It's huge and expensive.

"Thanks for this great post!

I was also wondering how it all really worked as I'm torn between going into planning or going into urban design. I definitely don't like the political aspect involved in planning, but then again, the architects are also bound to what the politicians decide should happen.

Your post has helped me see how it all really works."

Well you're very much velcome. :) As I see it, in order for you to become known as a designer of an entire city, you have to be one of two things: either some sort of a ruthless dictator, capable of transforming an entire city after your ideas, such as Napoleon did with Paris and Hitler was planning to do with Berlin, or a stupendously rich developer who searches for and seizes an opportunity to construct an entire new city based on some strategic issues, a bit like Las Vegas or something. I suppose you had neither in mind or did you? ;)

Or other citys like Melbourne, were designed by one man in the beggining, well, basically one man, Mile by Half mile grid, for the CBD, and then all the other main roads around, he set out alot of parkland in the city, and then over the years the city has grown form a village into Australias second biggest city.

If there's one thing I've learned from Planning it's that planners really aid in deciding what is NOT allowed, as opposed to what IS allowed.

I'm from an very new and planed city. it's Wolfsburg in Germany andf has been found in the second world war. Hitler has build an huge factory for cars and some houses. After the war the british administration has decited to build a city. Alvar Aalto has made the masterplan and has user a lot of "lines of sight". The biggest street is build as an connection of the downtown and the castle. (It's not castle Wolfenstein) It looks very different to other Cities but the general system is the same like the traffic system of all other big cities. You have streets that are direct connections of the subburbs and the downtown and rings around the city. Berlin, Paris, london, Moscow, Warsaw. They are all build with this centralized system. Also the big american cities have this system. In Manhattan you have squares but in the surounding parts of the city you find big Highways centralized on Manhattan.
The diference between arcitecture and planing is really big. The general system is allways planned but a lot of cities have some kind of composition. Especially big capitols. just look at Washington and the capitol. All streets are leading you directly to the capitol and underline that the capitol as a sign of democracy is the centre of the capitol of the united states. It's the same thing with the champs elysees in Paris. It is the direct connection of the Louvre as the residence of Napoleon and the arc d'triomphe (don't know how i have to write it). It symbolizes that the french success is just the success of napoleon. But also it is nessesary for the centralized traffic system of Paris.
I know some other cities that are great examples how you can plan a perfect city. I like mostly Lodz (a 180 year old city in centra
l Poland). In the centre it has squares with really huge and long avenues that connect theatres operas etc in a wonderfull way but in the subburbs you have a good planned urbanism. This city has about one million inhabitants but no traffic jams.
In Europe you can study city-planning. If you study arcitecture here you have to choose fife categories out of ten. For example sky-scraper building, planing of public places and city planning.

Market forces are the main engine of city form nowadays. Especially true for anglo-saxon cities and latin american.

Even when the State intevenes, it is rarely against market forces but with them, to mitigate them a bit.

Market forces are the main engine of city form nowadays. Especially true for anglo-saxon cities and latin american.

Even when the State intevenes, it is rarely against market forces but with them, to mitigate them a bit.

True true ...