Urban ideologies: Theoretical backgrounds, dimensions, and measures

Abstract

In this paper, the concept of urban ideology – a cultural system that influences modern cities – is explored. Urban planning and development techniques alter urban environments not only physically but also in social dynamics and public interactions. Urban ideologies, which have their roots in historical, political, economic, and cultural elements, are crucial in determining the personality and course of development of a city. The article explores three contrasting urban ideologies: modernist (right), new (left), and hipster (third). In the 18th and 19th centuries, modernist urbanism, which was founded on efficiency and economic expansion, began to take shape. Top-down decision-making was given priority, leading to the high-density, industrialized urban areas typified by people like Charles Le Corbusier and Robert Moses. Jane Jacobs’ new urbanism, in contrast, places a strong emphasis on social cohesion, inclusivity, and communal well-being. To promote a sense of community among people, this ideology places a high priority on walkable communities, mixed-use areas, and decentralized decision-making. The hipster urbanism, or third urbanism, reconceives cities as venues for creative expression and sensory experiences. This philosophy, promoted by Jan Gehl, puts people first and creates pedestrian-friendly, lively surroundings where urban areas serve as venues for social interactions and activities. Recognizing that no city is defined by a single ideology, the article introduces dimensions and measures for each urban ideology. To understand a city’s prevailing ideology across different dimensions, including management, architecture, nature, control, lifestyle, and symbols, “ideal models” and a tool called “The Mayor” are presented.