{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022395326192794548, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.586956521739131, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Framing with Images

In policy analysis, the concept of framing has become an idea of good currency. In planning, framing means giving shape, not only in a figurative but also in a literal sense of the word. So, drawn images are used to support verbal statements of policy, or they directly express policies. In this paper I will first discuss framing. Then I will focus on images. Recognising the power of images as the glue holding policy together could all too easily lead to the acceptance of the urban designer's claim for preeminence in planning. This claim rests on the alleged creativity of designers and/or their unique ability to encapsulate in their designs the totality of urban life. Although such claims are rejected in this paper, the autonomy of urban design as a field of endeavour is nevertheless recognised. The issue arising is that of crossing frames between urban designers, planners, and their clients, the public. This is all the more urgent because urban design, like planning, is in the public domain.