ADDENDUM (part 5/4)
Posted by: amber
I have a confession to make. I realized this morning, after railing on New Urbanist planners for their high and mighty dictation on the design of other people's neighborhoods, that I had forgotten to consider or mention an important aspect of New Urbanism. One of the practices of New Urbanist planners is to hold planning meetings with people who live in the places where future development will happen. Thus, in an ideal planning process, community members are part of the discussion, and their wishes are considered in the final design.
Perhaps it's easier to write extreme, rash essays complaining about things that are not perfect. Perhaps I am still outraged that New Urbanists like Peter Calthorpe are selling out by creating wasteful design schemes such as palm-shaped islands in Dubai.
New Urbanism does present a lot of good ideas, and I don't mean to write off the whole philosophy just for its flaws. I am gaining plenty of useful information by researching New Urbanism, and I am appreciative of what I am learning.
I still feel velcro-stuck on the disparity of privilege in our society. There are people who have the power to design a neighborhood. Then there are people who are lucky if they can have a job and walk to a grocery store in their neighborhood. I realize that the issue of inequity is far greater than the business of neighborhood planning. The issue is ever-present, however, in the process of figuring out how to fit everyone in to the spaces we all share.
WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AFTER ALL? (part 4/4)
Posted by: amber
On a more grounded note (more grounded, at least, than digging new ground out of the bottom of the ocean), I would like to revisit some of the simple elements in order to create a healthy, livable community. Remember back when I noted the outcomes of 'ideal neighborhood' interviews? People often mentioned things such as being able to shop close to where they lived, having parks and community gathering places, and having accessible public transportation.
Angela Glover Blackwell , who founded the economic and social equity organization PolicyLink , suggests these necessary neighborhood components:
Supermarkets
Parks and Open Space
High Quality Schools
Homes near job opportunities
Public Transportation
Although they are almost precisely the same elements, somehow when Blackwell lists them, they lose the fancy designer edge that New Urbanism lends. They become basic needs of living, without the architectural renderings. Blackwell is working to strengthen communities of color and low income communities. She doesn't have 80 acres of unbuilt Florida coastline at her fingertips. Somehow, the lofty design firms lose some sharpness to their integrity when it comes down to actual racial and economic equity.
I just began reading Jane Jacobs' book The Death and Life of Great American Cities . In its introduction, Jacobs calls upon people to notice the difference between how a city is actually working vs. how the planners say it should be working. Considering Jacobs' suggestion, the overly planned portions of a city may still be dead places, whereas ignored neighborhoods may actually be vibrant and lively.
On the other hand, it seems like the overly planned neighborhoods , the ones that get the attention as well as the resources (the transit stops, grocery stores, parks, etc.) seem to come by those amenities relatively easily. A neighborhood that simply needs a grocery store, however, may have to work extremely hard to get one.
I will now go back to my question "Is quality urban planning just for rich people?" I don't think I'm ready to commit to an answer, however. Rich people may have access to their own beachfront property on a manmade island. They may get more choice in where they live. Rich people just plain get more of everything. But I've seen enough transit-oriented development in my research to think that it's not only rich people who benefit from from quality planning projects.
More importantly, considering Jane Jacobs' idea, being rich or selecting from the choicest picks of urban development does not guarantee a person the utmost in a livable neighborhood. The colored pencil flourishes of an urban planner are not neccesarily required in order to create a vibrant community.
FROM THERE TO HERE- WHERE ARE THE DESIGNERS TODAY? (part 3/4)
Posted by: amber
So how have these idealistic urban planners used their socially progressive philosophies in their careers?
DPZ has designed regions, towns, neighborhoods, and buildings internationally, including a 760 acre island in British Columbia. The firm has designed a number of transit-oriented projects that push beyond their original vision. They have also planned quite a few developments that they categorize as "affordable housing." What I notice about DPZ's version of affordable housing is that either the housing isn't quite as affordable as my standards demand, (one little development in Florida appears quite posh, in fact - additional searches on the St. Hugh Oaks Village project only came up with articles on how the affordable housing system in Miami isn't working) or the housing is affordable, but seems to compromise quite a bit on the amenities. Granted, designers must work within a budget. Granted, DPZ is taking on projects such as housing for migrant workers. Nonetheless, is it really true that only wealthier clients are privy to green spaces?
Peter Calthorpe and Associates
Peter Calthorpe and his associates are another matter. They've got plenty of projects under their belt. They've worked with regional committees to develop growth plans. They've worked on developing neighborhood centers around transit stations. They've even helped design Portland's streets. (They have also helped design the future hub of Portland social life, the Gateway district. Have you heard of it yet?)
All of these projects pale in comparison to Calthorpe's recent offshore project in Dubai. This "neighborhood" in the United Arab Emirates is actually a series of manmade islands formed in the shape of a palm. Apparently the many fronds are intended to maximize personal waterfront property.
WHAT?
I am fairly outraged that a design firm whose philosophy "focuses on creating communities that are diverse, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly" would take on a project designing a new world in the middle of the ocean. I wonder how Calthorpe sees The Palm Deira fitting into the scope of redressing "the extreme overprivatization of life in post-war suburbia."
This project in particular has led me to question the gap between idealistic theory and actual practice in current progressive urban design. Does success really go to people's heads? Is it truly so easy to forget your ideals once endless opportunity opens up to you? Maybe owning a design firm and being paid to dictate the construction of someone else's town is just too tempting a position to be in.
I'm not giving up on idealistic urban planning theories. I am interested in bringing it back to the basics, though. On the next installment of Field Report, we will revisit what people might actually want and need in their own neighborhoods.
AN ALL-TOO-BRIEF (and totally incomplete) HISTORY OF NEW URBANISM (part 2/4)
Posted by: amber
Duany and Plater-Zyberk
Way back in the 1980's, before there were cell phones, Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk planned an 80 acre beachfront town in Florida. They called it Seaside. Their whole idea in planning this town was to create their version of a livable neighborhood. To them, this meant that none of the houses had exclusive beachfront property, the neighborhood had a public center with services such as a post office, grocery store, and restaurant, and the streets were designed with pedestrians rather than cars in mind. With the success of this development, Duany and Plater-Zyberk wrote up a program based on the elements of Seaside. They called it Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND).
Since that time, Duany and Plater-Zyberk have designed many a region, neighborhood, and housing development based on the TND philosophy. I will come back to them in part three of this writing.
Peter Calthorpe
Peter Calthorpe is another guy who took a crack at reinventing neighborhoods. He came up with the idea of Pedestrian Pockets, a scheme that is designed around neighborhoods having essential services within walking distance as well as access to public transportation. According to James Howard Kunstler in his book Geography of Nowhere, "Calthorpe's overall aim is to create a decent public realm so that Americans can have a decent public life, to redress the extreme overprivatization of life in post-war suburbia."
Calthorpe's current design philosophy, posted on his website, "focuses on creating communities that are diverse, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly."
I present these wretchedly oversimplified explanations of these designers because it is important for you as a reader to have a minute fraction of background knowledge in order to continue with me on my swervy intellectual path. Here's why:
While examining examples of New Urbanism in practice, a new question emerged. I began to wonder: Is quality urban planning just for rich people?
This question arose after perusing the current websites of Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) as well as Calthorpe and Associates. Both groups of designers have philosophies centered around social and economic diversity, access to public services, and human scale walkability. Both groups have had great success in their work, and have had opportunities to design large-scale projects.
So how have they used their socially progressive philosophies in their careers?
Find out in the next installment of Field Report.
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT? (part 1/4)
Posted by: amber
When I began my project on urban design a month ago, my original question was this: What essential elements are needed in order to create a livable neighborhood?
That question has launched a thousand internet searches. Through investigating current theory and practice in urban design and planning, I have found a network of theorists and practitioners who are connected by a history of forging new paths in their field.
One design philosophy that links many of these people is called New Urbanism. The Congress for the New Urbanism has written a charter that outlines ideal principles to guide public policy, development practice, urban planning, and design. The Charter of the New Urbanism follows the idea that physical surroundings are a major factor in a community's health.
Here are some of the main physical structures that New Urbanism calls for:
-Infill development rather than oozing urban sprawl
-Affordable housing distributed throughout a region
-Framework of transportation alternatives, including easy access to transit stops
-Compact, pedestrian friendly, mixed-use neighborhoods
-Walking distance to daily activities such as school, shopping, etc.
-Parks of all sizes within neighborhoods
-Cars accommodated in a way that respects pedestrians
The principles of New Urbanism seemed very much in line with results of recent interviews I did with people at Pioneer Courthouse Square in downtown Portland. The three questions I asked were:
-What do you love about the place where you live?
-What would you change about it?
-If you could design your own town, what would you make sure was part of it?
Here are some snippets of what interviewees loved or wanted in their communities, organized according to New Urbanism principles:
Neighborhoods should be diverse in use and population-
"diverse community...not just one type of person." -Kyle K.
"a bunch of different people, experience different cultures." -Christian G.
"multi-use environment, living upstairs and retail or creative art space below, tying it all into a community where people are involved with each other, bringing it all back to neighbors, planned community in an urban environment as opposed to a sprawl environment." -Michael Wa.
"housing for people who need it." -Dan Gr.
Communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as well as the car-
"mass transit everywhere." -Joseph G.
"a non-car zone." -Rebecca B.
"(to) walk to wherever I want to go." -(declined to give her name)
"transportation alternatives for people." -Michael Wo.
Cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and universally accessible public spaces and community institutions-
"lots of parks, lots of places where people could get together as a community" - Laura S.
"a big meeting place where people can come together, something that can be a (central) point (in) the town" -Kyle K.
"a giant festival area, with a park around it. It would be in the center of town, and everyone would congregate there." - Ryan H.
"proximity to urban conveniences like stores and coffee shops" -Rebecca B.
"access to parks, recreation, multicultural events, the waterfront festivals" -Michael Wa.
"...swimming pool, park, big library..." -Anne M.
"grocery shopping in the middle of the city" -Louisa D.
Urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate, ecology, and building practice-
"clean air" -Dan G.
"warm lakes and clean rivers." -Michael Wa.
"architectural diversity." -Len R.
The Charter of the New Urbanism seems relevant to present day citizens. It is also similar to my personal views on urban planning. Therefore, I began researching some of the Congress for the New Urbanism's cofounders and their current projects. In the next installment of this writing series, I will outline a few of them.
