Lost in Mapping World
Posted by: amber
This weekend I decided I needed to stop reading and actually get started on producing something. The catch is, every time I try to put something down on paper, I realize I don't know enough yet, and I have to go read some more Jane Jacobs, or Christopher Alexander, or William H. Whyte. In fact, I could continue researching for a long time, and still feel like I barely understand anything about urban planning.
Nonetheless, I need make some art, because I am a maker. So make I will.
Block #1: It's hard to know where to start. With the theory, or with the design? Does theory come from action, or should it be the other way around?
It feels shaky to start designing a neighborhood without establishing rules to work by; on the other hand, it's hard to make rules without imagining a landscape on which to play it out.
In order to keep myself moving, I have allowed myself to casually, sloppily flip-flop between creating my own version of an urban planning theory and designing an ideal neighborhood.
Block #2: I think Jane Jacobs is right when she says that planning itself doesn't necessarily make a place work. I think Christopher Alexander is right in questioning the urban planning idea of establishing plans then filling in slots. Not to mention the fact that my imaginary citizens never had a say in designing the place they will live. So should I just stop? Should I forget about creating the ideal neighborhood, since it will inevitably be flawed anyway?
No. I view this project as a tool for more deeply understanding various ideas of urban design and planning. I consider it an investigation into the structure of places that work for people's well-being. Creating my own version of an ideal place is an important part of that investigation. Therefore, I will continue, with consideration payed to Jacobs and Alexander. The idea is not to be perfect. The idea is to keep thinking, and keep working.
Oh, and working is really fun, too. Me and maps and proportion equations were made for each other. Thank you Ed Murrell, for teaching me basic algebra.
Alexander's New Theory of Urban Design
Posted by: amber
Not so new at this point (nineteen years later), but still interesting to think about.
It's so good when you get to be faculty and have your students venture on an experiment that you made up. Christopher Alexander (of A Pattern Language and The Nature of Order fame) did just that. He had this theory that he wanted tested. So he got a group of students together, and they tried it out. Then he worked with a few of them to publish a book about it.
Alexander's theory (better described in the book) consisted of One Big Rule and seven detailed rules that back the first one up. Here's a quick overview, then some commentary:
The One Rule:
-Every increment of construction must be made in such a way as to make the city whole. To "heal" it.
The Seven rules that follow describe how that can happen:
1. Piecemeal Growth-Development takes place piece by piece over time, and is determined by what the community needs.
2. The Growth of Larger Wholes-Cultivate the centers. (more on this later)
3. Visions- Every project should come from heartfelt vision.
4. Positive Urban Space- Every building must create coherent and well-shaped public space next to it. The buildings are there to serve the public space, not the other way around. The public space is more important.
5. Layout of Large Buildings (I didn't take notes on this rule. It was lots of technical details.) The diagrams of the buildings were interesting to me, though. The layout was supposed to take into consideration the public spaces within the buildings, and allow the floorplans to be formed around them.
6. Construction- (I really didn't take notes on this one. Sorry, guys.)
7. Formation of Centers- (this is the "more" I promised earlier) Every "whole" must be center within itself, and must also produce a system of centers around it. So overall, projects themselves are centers, and as more projects are added, larger centers are created.
Okay, maybe my notes are a bit sparse, and I have to admit that the diagrams and photos in the book were essential to my understanding of the theory.
The process that Alexander's students went through was this- they visited an actual site in the Bay Area, then created a theoretical development based on the site. They drew up plans, made proposals, and once the proposals were accepted, made models of the projects. All this cool visual information is in the book. The basis for the acceptance of the proposals was whether or not they followed all the rules.
Here are my thoughts on this theory:
I really like the idea of building projects piece by piece. I like that it permits the residents of a neighborhood to determine what they need in their own place. It seems like that creates a relatively natural construction process (rather than a muddy gash of construction like those new fangled suburbs they have these days. You know, the ones with drainage ditches the size of swimming pools?)
I really am fascinated by the idea that buildings are primarily designed to form public outside spaces. In the book's photos, it is very clearly seen that this creates a puzzle of oddly shaped buildings. 90 degree angles are hard to find.
I found the last section of the book (a critique of the experiment) to be very engaging, and it reconciled a lot of the questions I had while reading. (i.e "Come on, would this really work?" "I don't know, it seems awfully idealistic, to just make up a town. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I'm doing in my own art project.")
I found it extremely helpful when Alexander broke down current development ideas, describing how they worked against his theory.
zoning-imposes fixed rules with no concern for the emerging whole.
planning-tries to create the whole by establishing plans, then filling in slots.
real estate theory/bank lending policies-define the highest, best use of property according to profit.
How simple, really, the goals of the structures that get in the way of innovative thinking.
The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces: My new favorite movie
Posted by: amber
I just watched my new favorite movie for the second time. I'll happily watch it again with anyone who wants to come over and fire up the dinosuar VCR with me.
Here's the story. Back in the 70's in New York City a smart guy named William H. Whyte convinced the planning commission that if his team could determine what makes good open spaces work, they would change the zoning laws to require that those elements be part of public plazas.
Whyte's team, The Street Life Project, got to work. They selected plazas and parks that were well used. Then they set up cameras. They made diagrams. They wandered around and collected information about how people used the spaces. They documented the act of people eating lunch, shaking hands, moving chairs, and talking to themselves. Then they sorted through it, producing quantitative results. The final outcome was that the city accepted the research, and wrote a new zoning resolution for open spaces that reflected The Street Life Project's conclusions.
There are many endearing things about this project. Whyte identified a solvable problem. He figured out engaging ways to find a solution. He worked within the system to make change for the better. But the best thing about this project is that it is a scientific study about the art of hanging out on the sidewalk. I happen to love hanging out on the sidewalk. So I was pleased to be given cold, hard facts about what the optimum concrete lounge experience would look like. Here's what you need to have:
SITTING SPACE
Not just any sitting space. Long, wide ledges and steps are better than benches. People like to have a choice. They like to be able to move their chair if they want.
RELATIONSHIP TO STREET
Open to the action, but slightly away from the street. Definitely at street level, and no fences to trap people inside.
SUN
Not neccesarily direct sun, but natural light of some kind (even if it's reflected off of skyscrapers).
WATER
The kind you can actually dip your feet in if you want to.
TREES
Need I say more?
FOOD
The social interaction is good. Squeezing the tables together is better than spreading them out.
TRIANGULATION
Give people things to talk about with each other. Strangers will meet on common ground to discuss a weird piece of art or watch a juggler.
The project was brilliant. The movie of the project is also incredible. The film footage meticulously illustrates the elements, and William H. Whyte narrates with a crisp sense of humor. Oh, and the 70's fashions are to die for.
You can believe me, but you should also watch it yourself. If you live in Portland, you can get it from the library. (You'll have to put it on hold, though, since it's currently in my living room.)
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.
