Posts filed under 'Urban Design'
If you ever walked along a historic railroad and looked around, you might notice artifacts from an earlier time: abandoned telegraph poles, mechanical signals, and perhaps a watering station if you were lucky. Looking out further you see clusters of settlements, industries, and businesses that located next to the strategic iron highway. A walk along the railroad is an opportunity to perceive and understand our economic and social history through the built form. Some artifacts speak to our current setting: abandoned siding tracks, litter, and backwater houses.
Naomi Adiv, a doctoral student from U.C. Davis, is comprehensively documenting elements and their perceived meanings along the 170 mile Capitol Corridor from San Jose to Oakland, Sacramento, and Auburn, California for her dissertation. Reading just a little bit of her blog has resonated with my fascination of the railroad and formation on the landscape.
photo by compujeramey
March 6th, 2008
SoHo is clogged with streets and plenty of people lately, but people still find ways to enjoy a seat.
March 19th, 2007
“What do you think of People’s Park?”. Most Berkeley residents will feel mildly tolerant of it, but would never advise anyone to visit. The grove of redwoods at the east end and the community gardens at the west shelter dozens of homeless residents and sometimes open drug activity. To most Berkeleyans, it is an area to be avoided. Some official maps still don’t acknowledge its existence. To others, it represents the triumph of the struggle of the “people” versus the Establishment. It is a place where someone can do most anything they want to do. It is a place of beautiful foliage, and for many it is home.
This sovereign piece of U.C. Berkeley property was slated to become a superblock of undergraduate residential dorms, administration buildings, and a parking lot in the 1960’s. But the protest of students, activists, and flower children kept the land tenuously free of such development for 38 years. People’s Park stands today as a stark example of a mild anarchy, free of much police interference, and governed only by loose values of tolerance and personal liberty. This contrasts other public spaces such as shopping malls or even city parks where security guards and police have greater powers to regulate a person’s right of occupation.
Now to be perfectly honest: I don’t like People’s Park. Nor do I think it should even exist. I live one block from the park and I pass it on my way to many places. It feels unsafe. Too much illicit activity is tolerated there. It’s not an appealing place to visit. The park is kept in a scruffy, disorderly, and in a “Berkeley-like” appearance. The park was illegally seized from the University and there is a perfectly good park two blocks south.
The very existence of People’s Park in such near proximity has been a continual, unwelcome reminder to me of our society’s chronic homeless and drug problems. Since I’ve lived here, I have had to deal with the tension of my more than sufficient life juxtaposed with the more meager lives of those down the street. My response has been to ignore this scene.
When at last I took up an opportunity to distribute bagged lunches to homeless residents in People’s Park, my perspective of this place changed completely. I met genuinely nice people, most of a sound mind. I met people who worked hard: collecting cans, tending community gardens. I met people who cared and looked out for others. But unfortunately most of all, I met vulnerable people: people exposed to the elements; exposed to predators and drug pushers; exposed to disease and rot. In most respects, I met people a lot like you and me.
People’s Park is not some abomination, a refuge of strange people, or catastrophic failure of government. People’s Park is a TRANSPARENT place. There are a lot of normal people living in a home without walls. We can see everything that goes on and we don’t like it. First, we don’t like the fact that there are people living such miserable lives in this age of wealth and technology. But second, we don’t like to see the common struggles of society, such as substance abuse, disease, and violence in such plain sight. These things happen to people in all walks of life - in nice neighborhoods as well as bad - and perhaps in more subtle ways. But is it any better to have abuse or violence happen behind the facade of a cozy bungalow? Do we prefer to pretend that the cute porches of a traditional neighborhood represent the harmonious and happy existence of our society?
These are difficult questions to face, and if you have been able to face them without jadedness, I applaud you. Personally, I am content to believe that attractive urban form has its place and represents our aspiration as humans to live in a rich, harmonious existence (i.e. a desire for heaven). Why should we aspire to live or see people live in a dwelling other than one that reflects each person’s own sense of dignity?
However, the redemptive quality of People’s Park is that we see our society for what it is: not without its struggles and flaws. It is better to see the truth, however uneasy to face, than to hide it. If we see our blights in plain sight, and face up to it, we can perhaps tackle a real problem. And if we look a little harder, we can see a whole lot of good things happening in a place where we least expect.
February 23rd, 2007
I went to West Midtown a couple weekends ago, looking for spots of refuge from the heavy avenue traffic. I’ve been apartment hunting so something that I look for in a neighborhood is whether there are informal or formal places to hang out outside of the apartment, which will inevitably be very small. I really like some of the buildings out there, and I really wanted to like this park, which was soaking some of the sun on the very cold day.
But something about it made me stop and not want to go in. This is the entrance.
It’s OK. I didn’t know that it was a Balsley Park, but there it is. The gesture is to have the doors wide open. However, the real eye-catching element as you approach the park is actually this concession stand:
This large green structure is what I saw first, and it threw me off. I think it was the fact that Italian Ice was the largest font, and it was such a cold day that it didn’t appeal to me. Also, the cold drinks. And that the color of the concession stand matches the color of the trash can and both are similar in shape. I didn’t want to buy anything from this stand..but then I saw the coffee and thought maybe. As I got closer to the park, it turns out the concession stand was closed, so I looked in:
Yikes, those gates, does it look like a drive-way entrance…
Cold seats that don’t allow the sitter to look at anything…
…except the on-ramp. Was it me or did it seem that this was not meant for people, but for small vehicles? There is that guy who found a spot in the sun.
I loved the look and sound of this park on the Thomas Balsley Associates web site:
The description of the park makes it a public space success: there was community consensus, the “right” string of programming to make the space successful, including food, activities and seating. But the park doesn’t work. At least on this day, it didn’t. The photos on the designer’s web site are taken from the opposite end of the park, so maybe I just approached it from the “wrong” spot. It was the dead of winter, and maybe the park was built several years ago and is starting to show signs of wear. However, there shouldn’t be a wrong way to get into the park. And enduring the tests of time and seasons are what make public spaces successful experiences for people.
February 20th, 2007
It felt like we walked from one car-infested development to another in Brooklyn all day Saturday, so it was a pleasure to run into this experiment started last summer. Willoughby between Adam and Pearl Street in downtown Brooklyn is closed to cars and has been transformed into a mini public square with some moveable seating, some non-moveable seating, big planers and randomly (or strategically?) places trash cans. The purpose is to test the feasibility of closing it permanently to cars.
It was a cold and gray day, so no one was out on the metal furniture.
But a few people took advantage of the furniture to stop and adjust their bags…or maybe look for some spare change.
Though the square was mighty empty, there is an ancillary benefit to setting up people-oriented amenities within it, even in the middle of winter. It is a little island of brightness in the middle of many many streets and lanes of cars, buses and trucks. We looked lost all along our walk from Borough Hall to Adams Street, and it was in front of this friendly place that a woman stopped us to ask us if we needed directions. Lovely!
January 29th, 2007
This might be old news for some of you in planning… but it’s interesting to think about it from a people-centered place design perspective. Several European cities are trying a new experiment…
Getting rid of all traffic signs results in… safer streets?
The premise is that by accommodating people’s natural interactions with each other and inherent behaviors (e.g. people’s tendency to be more cautious and courteous when they aren’t being forced to) instead of forcing them into an artificial construct of control, people will behave better naturally.
An interesting example of designing places around people’s natural behaviors, supporting and capitalizing on these behaviors rather than coercing them! And the more interesting part? It seems to work — resulting in less accidents.
“The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We’re losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior,” says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project’s co-founders. “The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people’s sense of personal responsibility dwindles.”
LINK: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html
[via http://archinect.com/]
November 30th, 2006
“The increasing deployment of sensors and hand-held electronics in recent years is allowing a new approach to the study of the built environment. The way we describe and understand cities is being radically transformed - alongside the tools we use to design them and impact on their physical structure.
Studying these changes from a critical point of view and anticipating them is the goal of the SENSEable City Laboratory, a new research initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”
“[This] project (Real-Time Rome) aggregated data from cell phones, buses and taxis in Rome to better understand urban dynamics in real time. By revealing the pulse of the city, the project aims to show how technology can help individuals make more informed decisions about their environment.”
LINK: http://senseable.mit.edu/
RELATED POSTS: Personal Paths Through Cities
September 25th, 2006
Part of the vision behind “This Place Is…” is to encourage ordinary people (not just urbanists and planners) to think critically about the places around them. I haven’t seen a better resource for getting started than the excellent primers from the Project for Public Spaces:
Why Many Public Spaces Fail
William H. Whyte once said, “It is difficult to design a space that will not attract people - what is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished.” Today, many public spaces seem to be intentionally designed to be looked at but not touched. They are neat, clean, and empty - as if to say, “no people, no problem!” But to us, when a public space is empty, vandalized, or used chiefly by undesirables, this is generally an indication that something is very wrong with its design, or its management, or both.
The following pairs of photographs illustrate some of the most common problems of public spaces.
Lack of places to sit - Many public spaces don’t even provide a place to sit. So, in their protracted quest just to be comfortable, people are often forced to adapt to the situation in their own way. Sometimes they simply give up (below), or have to sit on briefcases (second image below).
A lack of good places to sit is an equally important issue. For example, a choice of seats in sun or shade can make all the difference in a place’s success, depending on its climate and location. Allowing people to sit near a playground or within view of other activities is also crucial.
Lack of gathering points - This includes features people want or need, such as playgrounds, or places where varying elements–bus stop, vending cart, outdoor seating–combine to create a gathering point. Food is often a critical component of a successful gathering point.
Paris’ Parc de la Villette (top) has seats that force people to sit in unsociable ways, and signs that ask them not to climb on the sculpture. Though located along a stretch of the Pacific Coast Highway, this park at Laguna Beach (near top) has loads of activities, food, and places to sit. It is a busy, healthy gathering place.
Poor entrances and visually inaccessible spaces - If a space is to be used, people need to see it and they need to be able to get to it.
A dark or narrow entrance such as those that used to be at New York City’s Bryant Park (top) keeps people out instead of inviting them in. The same entrance (near top), redesigned to be more inviting and open, has kiosks that sell coffee and sandwiches, and the interior of the park is visible from the street.
Dysfunctional features - Oftentimes features are designed simply to punctuate the space, serving a use more visual than functional, instead of encouraging activity to occur around them - as at this waterfront park in Barcelona, below.
Good features, such as the friendly gorilla at the Berlin Zoo (above), encourage activity to occur around them.
Paths that don’t go where people want to go
Paths that lead to nowhere are useless, as demonstrated at this Phoenix, Arizona park (top). The Luxembourg Gardens in Paris, however (near top), show the art of making a path that pulls people along it, or allows them to stop and relax.
Domination of a space by vehicles - There may be a lack of crosswalks, or streets that are too wide, or lacking sidewalks.
A main street is not a highway. One should not fear crossing the street so much that the activity needs to occur in groups, as on George Street in Sydney, Australia (top). Crossing the street should be an easy, comfortable activity. Even if you have to wait (near top, Paris, France)
Blank walls or dead zones around the edges of a place - The area around a space is as important to its success as the design and management of the space itself.
The blank wall (near top) contributes nothing to the activity of the street. In fact, it doesn’t even seem real.
Inconveniently located transit stops - Bus or train stops located in places where no one wants to use them are a good recipe for failure.
A transit stop located in a busy, active place can not only make that place better, but also increase transit use.
From the Project for Public Spaces’ article, Why Many Public Spaces Fail
So do you know of any places that make these mistakes (or that do these things well)? We’d love to see (and post!) your snapshots on This Place Is!
Ready for more? Now that you’ve thought about what makes a place fail…
The Project for Public Spaces is at the forefront of people-centered place design. The PPS is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting a people-centric rather than project-centric approach to creating places. Their website is rich in resources for those interested in this subject. We’ll be posting other highlights soon.
September 12th, 2006
The author calls his collection of panoramas, “suburban sprawl and other calamities,” but I’m curious whether everyone looking at these photos would see “calamity” captured therein.
I’ll admit — my first reaction was that some of these look like beautiful, safe places to live (some people who live there must have thought so) — and that it’s got to be debatable how bad all of this is.
To tie this back into the purpose of this site… I’ll pose the question, exactly what are the effects of sprawl from a user experience perspective? Do people choose to live there because there’s something positive about the experience, or do they see living there as a necessary evil? (And does it even matter if it’s not sustainable?)
LINK: Suburban Sprawl Panoramas (left side)
LINK: East Bay Sprawl Panoramas
Thanks for the link, Jess!
September 7th, 2006