Applying Critical Thinking to Urban Design Methodology: Clarifying Theoretical and Practical Challenges

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD student in Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Kish International Campus, Kish, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture, Faculty of Fine Arts, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Urban design, as a complex and multidimensional field, requires the application of advanced cognitive and analytical approaches to address contemporary social, spatial, and institutional challenges. The systematic application of critical thinking theories within urban design methodology faces challenges such as the gap between theory and practice, as well as institutional and professional constraints. Within the literature review, the role of critical thinking in explaining and mitigating theoretical and practical challenges has been less developed as an integrated and coherent framework.
This study aims to elucidate the role of critical thinking in urban design methodology and to analyze its capacity to address theoretical and practical challenges. The research methodology adopts a qualitative approach grounded in an interpretive paradigm. Through conceptual analysis and a systematic review of the literature, data were collected via documentary analysis and examined using thematic and comparative analysis to identify key components and themes.
The findings reveal three principal themes- “reconsideration of design assumptions,” “strengthening analytical logical reasoning and decision-making transparency,” and “management of institutional and social complexity”- as central to the application of critical thinking in urban design. The results suggest that the systematic integration of critical thinking into methodological processes can strengthen the connection between theory and practice and improve the quality of design decisions.
This study positions critical thinking as the cognitive foundation of urban design methodology, offering an effective framework for analyzing complex issues and enhancing decision-making processes. From an applied perspective, strengthening critical thinking education skills and institutionalizing analytical approaches within urban management organizations are proposed as strategies to increase the effectiveness of urban interventions. Future research may employ empirical methods and case studies to evaluate the practical impacts of applying critical thinking models in urban design implementation and to develop more precise operational frameworks.

Highlights

-The gap between theory and practice in urban design methodology is articulated as a major issue in applying critical thinking.

-The objective is to explicate the role of critical thinking in reflecting on the urban design process in the face of theoretical and practical challenges.

-The findings identify three core themes: reconsidering design assumptions; enhancing reasoning and decision‑making transparency; and managing institutional and social complexity.

-The systematic integration of critical thinking into the stages of problem identification, solution generation, and evaluation strengthens decision‑making quality and reinforces the linkage between theory and practice.

-Critical thinking, as the cognitive infrastructure of urban design methodology, is presented as essential for strengthening education and institutionalizing its application within the design profession.

Keywords

References

  • Bahrainy, H. (2003). Urban Design Process. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [In Persian]
  • Berčič, T., Bohanec, M., & Ažman Momirski, L. (2024). Integrating multi-criteria decision models in smart urban planning: A case study of architectural and urban design competitions. Smart Cities, 7(2), 33.
  • Bibri, S. E. (2021). Data-driven smart eco-cities and sustainable integrated districts: A best-evidence synthesis approach to an extensive literature review. European Journal of Futures Research, 9(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-021-00181-4
  • Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
  • Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312.
  • Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. (2010). Public places, urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design (2nd ed.). Oxford: Routledge.
  • Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford: Berg.
  • Doğu, T., Mengi, O., & Köse, Ş. (2024). Where do temporary urban design interventions fall on the spectrum of public participation? An analysis of global trends. Cities, 152, 105164.
  • Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.
  • Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52.
  • Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184.
  • Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). Millbrae, CA: American Philosophical Association.
  • Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
  • Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: Unfolding the design process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • M. (2010). Description of Intellectual Trends in Architecture and Urban Planning in Contemporary Iran (emphasis on the period 1978–2004). Tehran: Cultural Research Bureau. [In Persian]
  • Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
  • Karimi, K., Zhand, S., Simons, G., Abdeldayem, W. S., Charalambous, N., & Giraud, I. (2025). Framing evidence-based design and planning: An analytical, multi-scalar and iterative framework for urban design and planning. Urban Science, 9(11), 457.
  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.
  • Madanipour, A. (2010). Whose public space? International case studies in urban design and development. London: Routledge.
  • Marshall, S. (2012). Science, pseudo-science and urban design. Urban Design International, 17(4), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2012.22
  • Martyniuk-Pęczek, J., & Pęczek, G. (2024). Reflective practice as a basis for building a sustainable public space: The case of Kartuzy. Urban Design International. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-024-00246-3
  • J. (2014). Guide to designing urban spaces in Iran (7th edition). Tehran: Shahidi publication, Ministry of housing & urban development. [In Persian]
  • Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2013). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson FT Press.
  • Peker, E. (2025). Framing the values of teaching urban design in planning education. plaNext – Next Generation Planning, 15, 137–146.
  • Reyes-Norambuena, P., Martínez-Torres, J., Nemati, A., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2024). Towards sustainable urban futures: Integrating a novel grey multi-criteria decision making model for optimal pedestrian walkway site selection. Sustainability, 16(11), 4437.
  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 February 2026
  • Revise Date: 02 May 2026
  • Accept Date: 16 May 2026
  • First Publish Date: 16 May 2026
  • Publish Date: 21 June 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics