the first illusion is that urban planners, urban designers, and architects are the main agencies shaping the urban space. so we see such wide spread criticism of these professionals for the post-war urban development schemes and their perceived failures. another illusion to be challenged is that the developers -or clients in architectural language- are those who make the main decisions and the role of designers is merely to provide 'packaging' for these decisions. Due to this illusion, we see the widespread criticism of design as an associate of the business interests, without any other merits. it is argued that urban design and property development are independent but closely interrelated activities. any understanding of urban design will not be complete without an understanding of the development process. similarly development process will not be fully understood without an insight into the dynamics of …show more content…
such awareness of the development process will help designers from the outset to gain a deeper understanding of the context in which they operate, and of the mechanisms which would eventually implement their design proposals. although such realism could be a hindrance to the creativity and innovation of designers, the history of urban space evolution shows that realism will be beneficial to the producers and users of space. it will be also helpful to the designers themselves by preventing a repetition of the historical mistakes in urban development. investors may never see the development they promote or buy. the design decisions are therefore seen to be secondary considerations in the property development process. However if design is understood as a process of choosing possible form, we may conclude that many decisions that are made by investors, surveyors and developers before designer is