ANALYSIS OF EXCLUSIVE AND INCLUSIVE DEMARCATION CHARACTERISTICS IN URBAN DESIGN
Keywords:
exclusive demarcation, inclusive demarcation, spatial characteristicsAbstract
Background and Objectives: The delineation of spatial boundaries and the organization of activities in urban design reflect both the underlying intentions of development and the inhabitants’ way of life. In particular, exclusive and inclusive demarcations represent two fundamental approaches illustrating shifting paradigms in urban design and planning, particularly aimed the volatility of economic, social, and environmental transformations. This article aims to examine the characteristics of these two demarcation types within a conceptual framework that views the fluctuation between exclusive and inclusive boundaries as a reflection of the intentionality driving urban community development.
Methods: This study employed a qualitative approach, combining a review of conceptual and policy literature on spatial demarcation at city, neighborhood, and site levels with the analysis of eight case studies. These cases were examined, focusing on both physical characteristics and development intentions, to compare the attributes and interrelationships between exclusive and inclusive forms of spatial demarcation.
Key Findings: The analysis reveals that exclusive demarcation is characterized by clearly defined, controlled boundaries that reflect an intention to create order and regulate space. In contrast, inclusive demarcation exhibits blurred and flexible boundaries that accommodate a diversity of users, emphasizing connectivity and the integration of multiple land uses. Additionally, the study identifies hybrid spaces that combine attributes of both exclusive and inclusive demarcation types.
Implications of the Study: The distinction between exclusive and inclusive boundaries is critical to understanding the social and physical dynamics of urban space. Recognizing the fluctuating nature of these boundaries offers insights into the deeper intentions behind urban development and provides a conceptual foundation for evaluating spatial justice, accessibility, and adaptability in planning.
Conclusions and Future Study: This study proposes that urban development frameworks should consider hybridized or integrative boundaries that balance order and openness. Future research should explore diverse socio-geographic contexts to refine typologies of boundary-making and inform inclusive design criteria for sustainable, equitable urban futures.
Downloads
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. Retrieved January 8, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01944366908977225
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. US: Princeton Architectural Press.
Carmona, M. (2010). Public places, urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. London: Routledge.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Tiesdell, S., & Oc, T. (2021). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Dovey, K., & Pafka, E. (2020). What is walkability? The urban DMA. Urban Studies, 57(1), 93-108. Retrieved January 7, 2025, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 0042098018819727
Dovey, K., & Wood, S. (2015). Public/private urban interfaces: Type, adaptation, assemblage. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(1), 1-16. Retrieved January 7, 2025, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17549175.2014.891151
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. California: North Point Press.
Fischel, W. A. (2015). Zoning rules!: The economics of land use regulation. US: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 71-84. Retrieved December 17, 2024, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 01944360208977192
Hall, P. (2014). Cities of tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design since 1880 (4th ed.). New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hirt, S. (2014). Zoned in the USA: The origins and implications of American land-use regulation. US: Cornell University Press.
Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. London: Spon.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419-436. Retrieved December 19, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
Kostof, S. (1991). The city shaped: Urban patterns and meanings through history. London: Thames & Hudson.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. US: Blackwell.
Low, S., & Smith, N. (2006). The politics of public space. London: Routledge.
Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
Perkins-Eastman. (n.d.). Battery park city. Retrieved December 19, 2024, from https://www.
perkinseastman.com/projects/battery-park-city/
Rowe, C., & Koetter, F. (1978). Collage city. US: MIT Press.
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Talen, E. (2012). City rules: How regulations affect urban form. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Trancik, R. (1986). Finding lost space: Theories of urban design. US: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
