In urban planning, the notion of "public order" refers to a city containing relatively empty (and orderly) spaces which allow for flexibility in redesigning the city's layout; such perceptions played an important role in the establishments of suburbs. According to this point of view, the traditional notion of a "downtown" is often seen as disorderly.

The creation of new streets and de-intensification of the same, particularly by creating enclosed streets, is another way to impose order on cities. This has been done in many cities, most notably perhaps in Paris in the 19th century. This is known as boulevardization (or Haussmannization after Baron Haussmann who was in charge of Paris's reorganization).

Recently such massive regeneration schemes have been criticized as constituting an imposition of bourgeois values on the entire city. The same criticism is leveled at contemporary city redevelopments where middle-class values are imposed.

For many urban planners, movement and heterogeneity, as opposed to settlement and homogeneity, are considered to be disorder. Many schemes, such as slum clearance, aim at removing this perceived disorder. Critics argue that this disorder is not disorderly as such, but is simply a different order.

Government intervention in the form of regulations controlling urban planning is not the only means to create "order" in cities. Spatial divisions that are often perceived as orderly can be created by markets or cultural affinity. Markets create order because certain areas are more expensive and thus segregate space because many people cannot afford to live in certain areas. Cultural affinity refers to the fact that people from cultural groups tend to cluster together. This can be along lines of religion, language, nationality, sexuality or profession. It has been suggested that cultural affinity is a means to find protection from the perceived disorder of the rest of the city. These mechanisms of division often overlap.

See also

• social order