Moving
onward with my New Year’s “Intro to Urbanism”, today will be a discussion of
public spaces. (From those coming to the
series late, the earlier parts are at one, two, three, four, five, and six.)
In effective
urban settings, public places have subtly but crucially different roles than
they do in drivable suburban places.
Parks and plazas aren’t only for visiting on Sunday morning with a newspaper
and a fresh coffee; they’re also the places one traverses on the way to a
transit stop or to daily shopping.
Sidewalks aren’t only for getting from one place to another; they’re
also places for chatting with friends or for grabbing lunch at sidewalk cafés.
But the
transformation of public spaces into urban roles isn’t always easy, and the design
failures have been frequent. The
failures occur because we put public places in the wrong part of the design
process. In the words of Jan Gehl,
Danish architect and urban designer, “First life, then spaces, then
buildings. The other way around never
works.”
Of course,
the other way around is often how development occurs. The function of the building dictates the building
footprint, with the leftover land becoming a plaza. The subdivision is configured to maximize the
lot count, with the awkward leftover chunk becoming a park, even if it falls in
a location inconvenient to the new residents.
Gehl, and urbanists everywhere, correctly argue for a different
approach.
William H.
Whyte, Jr., renowned for his detailed observations of public plazas in
Manhattan, noted the frequent failures of public space planning, consistent with
Gehl’s expectation, when he wrote, “It’s hard to design a space that will not
attract people. What is remarkable is
how often it has been accomplished”.
Within an
introduction to public spaces of only a few hundred words, it’s not possible to
share the breadth of insightful thinking about public spaces and examples of
successful spaces, although resources to help fill that gap will be provided in
the post-“Intro” syllabus.
However, as
a way of illustrating the careful considerations that go into public space
design, I can offer the lessons that I’ve found most pertinent in my work with
public spaces.
First, it’s
not possible to design effective spaces by listening exclusively to either the
general public or consultants. The
public will offer thoughts based on their idealized vision of how they use
public spaces, not how they actually use them.
And consultants will have their own idealized visions, or perhaps the
need to create pretty pictures for a website, that may not adequately consider
the community.
The only
effective design approach is to synthesize the thoughts of both, combined if
possible with the actual and surreptitious observation of the community using
current places. Watching actual people
using actual parks can be remarkably insightful, as Whyte proved with his work
in Manhattan.
Second, to
the extent possible, people should be allowed to make the space their own. This is an observation made originally by Whyte,
but I’ve regularly noted proof of his conclusion. Whyte tells the story of a plaza user taking
an untethered chair and moving it back and forth several times to find the
perfect spot from which to listen to a free concert. After the last move, the chair was in almost
the exact spot where it began but, in her perception, she has shaped the plaza
to meet her needs in a way that a fixed bench couldn’t have accomplished.
Obviously,
loose chairs aren’t possible in most parks unless the park owner has an unlimited
budget to replace missing furniture and a desire to furnish the backyards of homes
around the park. But a collection of
different seating options will allow the public to find ways to use the seating
in ways that will surprise and hopefully delight the designers.
Lastly, it’s
important to remember that different demographic segments will use parks in
different ways. The more affluent, with
extra rooms and spacious backyards at home, may use parks only for active
recreation that requires more space, such as tossing a football. But the less affluent, with less inside and
backyard space, may look to parks for group gatherings, for quiet time away
from the bustle of an overly-full home, or for time with friends away from
parental oversight. All the uses are
valid. Careful design is required to
accommodate each of them.
This is a
thin and unsatisfying introduction to a rich and important subject, but it’s a
start. The syllabus will provide further
resources.
(Note: The
photo is of Manhattan’s Times Square in July 2010. Less than nine months later, the City of New
York, having found success with an experimental diversion of traffic, made the
change permanent, turning over the square completely to pedestrians.
Predictions
of traffic nightmares were unfounded.
Consistent with the theory of induced traffic, commuters quickly found
other routes or left their cars home, taking bicycles or transit instead.
It’d be nice
to say that the success of Times Square led to similar exclusions of vehicle
from public places elsewhere in the country, but it hasn’t happened that
way. Although more conversions will
certainly come, it’s likely that each will be battled by drivers just as at Times
Square.)
Next time,
I’ll write about the roles of streets in urban places.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment