i didn't think steve was being pompous. i thought we were both being pretty casual really. no worries. no need to make sense even, just chatting about something that is hard to make sense of...
anyhoo...
i live in the inner suburbs of tokyo, but they are DENSE. like the early suburbs before the landscrapers got involved (damn you olmstead!!), and my particular bit of the burbs is a good copy of le ville radieuse. but nice. really, really nice. which is weirdness squared, cuz none of the above are what we were taught about.
i live 2 minutes from the station, but my home is quiet, birds are by far the loudest noise source around. and i can walk everywhere for anything.
the thing that i am learning from my research here is pretty much what LB writes above, that the most important thing is choice. the burbs of america lack it, which is too bad. but maybe not so hard to rectify. unfortunately that ain't gonna happen til something big happens. til then it is probably a waiting game.
in the meantime it is worth ruminating and studying the efficacy of the experimenters, like the new urbanists. so far their work is a mixed bag. people don't walk that much more in their communities and they don't see people much more either (according to a few studies published in the american journal of planning), but they sure do offer the opportunity to do so. and that is a start. too bad about the truman show aspect of the movement, but then again reglar suburbia ain't much different...
"people don't walk that much more in their communities and they don't see people much more either (according to a few studies published in the american journal of planning), but they sure do offer the opportunity to do so."
The new urbanists are a little heavy on physical determinism. But then again, my experience is that most architects are. I think it's pretty ironic to hear them saying things like, "I've measured Charleston and it works." What the hell? What works? I know those guys were literally measuring street dimensions... not pedestrian counts or interviewing people!
On the other hand, I completely agree that at least they are providing opportunities for walking, meeting, etc. Thing is, I've been looking at a couple appraches to suburbia in Denmark this past year, and it's definitely possible to design in a way that actively provides opportunity for human interaction in a way that is superior to what the new urbanists offer. It's actually pretty easy. Start by talking to people and studying how they behave rather than with a Nolli plan and visit to a cafe in the Piazza Navona...
i don't know what's happening in denmark, rpsnino, but west 8's projects borneo/sporenburg in the east (?) of amsterdam offered some pretty good examples, too.
765: Could I get an espresso along with that nolli? Thanks.
SW: I think the Borneo and Java Island stuff is pretty good too. I'm not sure about the behavioral aspects though... The best Danish stuff isn't as current... mostly from the 60s, 70s and 80s, but there are some real gems and ammunition for suggesting alternatives to the new urbanism. Also, Bo01 in Malmö, Sweden is pretty interesting, especially from a sustainability perspective. There's a project underway here that involves case studies of some of these projects like borneo and bo01 since they sort of represent an approach that is in-between the neo-traditional stuff and the so-called avante garde stuff. Pretty cool, but it makes me realize how little there is. It's also tough to compare these projects to the new urbanism in some ways because the new urbanism is so comprehensive... it's an ideology, not just a project. But even so, it's nice to see some interesting alternatives.
rpsnino, are you speaking of the danish cooperative communities from the 60's etc?
as for the West 8 development in Amsterdam, they are a bike ride away from the train station and other amenities etc, but the community itself lacks programmatic variety. It's pretty much housing and open space, no commercial space or civic functions were evident when I visited less than a year ago...
interestingly, zoka zola is proposing a spoerenborg-esque version of chicago that makes some sense...
rpsnino. yeh, research into new urbanism is usually pretty fake, but in particular an article by Hollie Lund called "TESTING THE CLAIMS OF NEW URBANISM",
and one by Chang-Moo Lee and Kun-Hyuck Ahn called "IS KENTLANDS BETTER THAN RADBURN" (both from the Journal of the American Planning Association, 2003) begin to take a reasoned look at new urbanism, using interviews and typological comparisons.
still preliminary, but with expected conclusions. Culture has much more impact on how people live than on th typology of the site. Typology is merely opportunity and shouldn't be sold as anything more....
How about a granita instead, nino? It's getting hot out there.
I think you're right on, jump, about culture. Politics and ecomomics have a *lot* more influence on what-works-and-what-doesn't than urban form. It gets really tiring to see architects and urbanists blamed when society removes the support for the things that designers have produced. And people throw around such absurd stories about this stuff that a more scientific approach to research methodolgy is needed to clear up some of this madness.
On the other side, though, how can desigers, especially stateside designers, start to use their ability to define culture in more productive ways? The New Urbanist method is interesting exactly becuase it's an ideology. How can we learn from that and design better ideologies?
AP: The Danish co-op communities (mostly from the 70s and 80s) were one model I was referring to. But there is a bigger phase of building that came before it called "dense-low" that is also very interesting. There was a severe need for housing after the war and high-rises were acknowledged as flawed for various reasons... so architects began to build 1-2-3 story projects at the same densities and using the same state-sponsored building production methods.
--
jump: Thanks for those articles, I'm excited to check them out. Last Fall, Jan Gehl asked Duany why he hadn't done behavioral studies of any of the New Urbanist communities. "Because none of them are finished yet!" he said. Ha! What a cop out.
I was really inspired by the zoka zola project for Chicago. This is certainly one methodology for architects to use when proposing urban change. Really cool because it begins to blur the boundaries between form-making and policy-making. Also, as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, the project is only possible in part because of the visualization skills that architects are uniquely capable of.
i should point out that the articles don't say new urbanism is bad either, just qualify the rhetoric.
interestingly radburn is as good as kentlands at meeting the new urbanist goals, even though it is often seen as one of the founding typologies of modern suburbia...
it is very hard to quantify social activity i think, and in my own research i have decided to stay away from it as my training as an architect really leaves me underqualified.
duany et al, however, have no such excuse, as they could HIRE someone to do the studies...i think they are afraid of the possible outcome.
I agree, there are enormous challenges in researching social activity. On the other hand, you can learn a lot by with only a handful of simple observational studies. There are non-profits and offices that do provide this kind of work. I am sure you are right, the NUists are afraid of the consequences - otherwise they would be promoting themselves with this kind of data!
I'm not surprised the study found Radburn to successfully meet new urbanist goals - remember that the New Urbanism is very much inspired by the garden city plans...
Herbert Gans in _The Levittowners_ found that the social and civic behaviors of suburbanites in his sample did not differ markedly from that of city-dwellers. He also noted the east-coast, urban-elite orientation of most critics citing Levittown as the handbasket in which American society was going to hell.
that research in particular is what forced me to realise that architects are talking trash about other peoples living habits more often than not...
which is really really too bad, becasue there is a serious problem with suburbia in a general sense that needs to be addressed. unfortunately we tend to only provide solutions that throw the baby out with the bath water. and hence get nowhere.
i just read an interesting article in the times bout rebuilding biloxi that gives a critical account of the new urbanists and their attempt to rebuild the city/town on new urbanist lines. they were in the end sent packing by FEMA, but the truth is that they designed affordable housing that was not affordable to the people who lost their homes when rita passed through anyway...
they come across as a well meaning elite crew who really don't understand who they are (re-) building for.
the article pointed out that the new reality is that the casinos call the shots now about what kind of community is going to be built...and all the working class folk are gonna have to find a new way to live in their hometown...sucks. but its reality.
and duany didn't have the cajones to step up to deal with FEMA or the poor. what a huge hypocrite. aparently new urbanism is only for the middle class and upwards, AND it is only possible to do traditional design. when FEMA comes up with a powerfully enforceable rule to the effect that all new construction has to be on 12 foot stilts all duany and his dingbats can come up with is "but that would look silly. we can't make a town on stilts!" so much for architects being creative...;-)
my question is where is the NEW in new urbanism...is there really no room for the present?
Building Suburbia...... by Dolores Hayden - ?
oh, and keep the talk alive. it's been a great one to follow.
i work downtown and i live downtown and maybe i'd take a walk if would just stop rainin for five freekin minutes...
hahahh.
i didn't think steve was being pompous. i thought we were both being pretty casual really. no worries. no need to make sense even, just chatting about something that is hard to make sense of...
anyhoo...
i live in the inner suburbs of tokyo, but they are DENSE. like the early suburbs before the landscrapers got involved (damn you olmstead!!), and my particular bit of the burbs is a good copy of le ville radieuse. but nice. really, really nice. which is weirdness squared, cuz none of the above are what we were taught about.
i live 2 minutes from the station, but my home is quiet, birds are by far the loudest noise source around. and i can walk everywhere for anything.
the thing that i am learning from my research here is pretty much what LB writes above, that the most important thing is choice. the burbs of america lack it, which is too bad. but maybe not so hard to rectify. unfortunately that ain't gonna happen til something big happens. til then it is probably a waiting game.
in the meantime it is worth ruminating and studying the efficacy of the experimenters, like the new urbanists. so far their work is a mixed bag. people don't walk that much more in their communities and they don't see people much more either (according to a few studies published in the american journal of planning), but they sure do offer the opportunity to do so. and that is a start. too bad about the truman show aspect of the movement, but then again reglar suburbia ain't much different...
bumpity McBumperson
jump wrote:
"people don't walk that much more in their communities and they don't see people much more either (according to a few studies published in the american journal of planning), but they sure do offer the opportunity to do so."
The new urbanists are a little heavy on physical determinism. But then again, my experience is that most architects are. I think it's pretty ironic to hear them saying things like, "I've measured Charleston and it works." What the hell? What works? I know those guys were literally measuring street dimensions... not pedestrian counts or interviewing people!
On the other hand, I completely agree that at least they are providing opportunities for walking, meeting, etc. Thing is, I've been looking at a couple appraches to suburbia in Denmark this past year, and it's definitely possible to design in a way that actively provides opportunity for human interaction in a way that is superior to what the new urbanists offer. It's actually pretty easy. Start by talking to people and studying how they behave rather than with a Nolli plan and visit to a cafe in the Piazza Navona...
i don't know what's happening in denmark, rpsnino, but west 8's projects borneo/sporenburg in the east (?) of amsterdam offered some pretty good examples, too.
765: Could I get an espresso along with that nolli? Thanks.
SW: I think the Borneo and Java Island stuff is pretty good too. I'm not sure about the behavioral aspects though... The best Danish stuff isn't as current... mostly from the 60s, 70s and 80s, but there are some real gems and ammunition for suggesting alternatives to the new urbanism. Also, Bo01 in Malmö, Sweden is pretty interesting, especially from a sustainability perspective. There's a project underway here that involves case studies of some of these projects like borneo and bo01 since they sort of represent an approach that is in-between the neo-traditional stuff and the so-called avante garde stuff. Pretty cool, but it makes me realize how little there is. It's also tough to compare these projects to the new urbanism in some ways because the new urbanism is so comprehensive... it's an ideology, not just a project. But even so, it's nice to see some interesting alternatives.
rpsnino, are you speaking of the danish cooperative communities from the 60's etc?
as for the West 8 development in Amsterdam, they are a bike ride away from the train station and other amenities etc, but the community itself lacks programmatic variety. It's pretty much housing and open space, no commercial space or civic functions were evident when I visited less than a year ago...
interestingly, zoka zola is proposing a spoerenborg-esque version of chicago that makes some sense...
rpsnino. yeh, research into new urbanism is usually pretty fake, but in particular an article by Hollie Lund called "TESTING THE CLAIMS OF NEW URBANISM",
and one by Chang-Moo Lee and Kun-Hyuck Ahn called "IS KENTLANDS BETTER THAN RADBURN" (both from the Journal of the American Planning Association, 2003) begin to take a reasoned look at new urbanism, using interviews and typological comparisons.
still preliminary, but with expected conclusions. Culture has much more impact on how people live than on th typology of the site. Typology is merely opportunity and shouldn't be sold as anything more....
How about a granita instead, nino? It's getting hot out there.
I think you're right on, jump, about culture. Politics and ecomomics have a *lot* more influence on what-works-and-what-doesn't than urban form. It gets really tiring to see architects and urbanists blamed when society removes the support for the things that designers have produced. And people throw around such absurd stories about this stuff that a more scientific approach to research methodolgy is needed to clear up some of this madness.
On the other side, though, how can desigers, especially stateside designers, start to use their ability to define culture in more productive ways? The New Urbanist method is interesting exactly becuase it's an ideology. How can we learn from that and design better ideologies?
Viva el Urbanismo Nuevo!
AP: The Danish co-op communities (mostly from the 70s and 80s) were one model I was referring to. But there is a bigger phase of building that came before it called "dense-low" that is also very interesting. There was a severe need for housing after the war and high-rises were acknowledged as flawed for various reasons... so architects began to build 1-2-3 story projects at the same densities and using the same state-sponsored building production methods.
--
jump: Thanks for those articles, I'm excited to check them out. Last Fall, Jan Gehl asked Duany why he hadn't done behavioral studies of any of the New Urbanist communities. "Because none of them are finished yet!" he said. Ha! What a cop out.
I was really inspired by the zoka zola project for Chicago. This is certainly one methodology for architects to use when proposing urban change. Really cool because it begins to blur the boundaries between form-making and policy-making. Also, as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, the project is only possible in part because of the visualization skills that architects are uniquely capable of.
--
765: grazie
Are you a member? — http://www.latinonewurbanism.org/
rpsnino,
i should point out that the articles don't say new urbanism is bad either, just qualify the rhetoric.
interestingly radburn is as good as kentlands at meeting the new urbanist goals, even though it is often seen as one of the founding typologies of modern suburbia...
it is very hard to quantify social activity i think, and in my own research i have decided to stay away from it as my training as an architect really leaves me underqualified.
duany et al, however, have no such excuse, as they could HIRE someone to do the studies...i think they are afraid of the possible outcome.
jump:
I agree, there are enormous challenges in researching social activity. On the other hand, you can learn a lot by with only a handful of simple observational studies. There are non-profits and offices that do provide this kind of work. I am sure you are right, the NUists are afraid of the consequences - otherwise they would be promoting themselves with this kind of data!
I'm not surprised the study found Radburn to successfully meet new urbanist goals - remember that the New Urbanism is very much inspired by the garden city plans...
Herbert Gans in _The Levittowners_ found that the social and civic behaviors of suburbanites in his sample did not differ markedly from that of city-dwellers. He also noted the east-coast, urban-elite orientation of most critics citing Levittown as the handbasket in which American society was going to hell.
yeh that is the irony isn't it.
that research in particular is what forced me to realise that architects are talking trash about other peoples living habits more often than not...
which is really really too bad, becasue there is a serious problem with suburbia in a general sense that needs to be addressed. unfortunately we tend to only provide solutions that throw the baby out with the bath water. and hence get nowhere.
i just read an interesting article in the times bout rebuilding biloxi that gives a critical account of the new urbanists and their attempt to rebuild the city/town on new urbanist lines. they were in the end sent packing by FEMA, but the truth is that they designed affordable housing that was not affordable to the people who lost their homes when rita passed through anyway...
they come across as a well meaning elite crew who really don't understand who they are (re-) building for.
the article pointed out that the new reality is that the casinos call the shots now about what kind of community is going to be built...and all the working class folk are gonna have to find a new way to live in their hometown...sucks. but its reality.
and duany didn't have the cajones to step up to deal with FEMA or the poor. what a huge hypocrite. aparently new urbanism is only for the middle class and upwards, AND it is only possible to do traditional design. when FEMA comes up with a powerfully enforceable rule to the effect that all new construction has to be on 12 foot stilts all duany and his dingbats can come up with is "but that would look silly. we can't make a town on stilts!" so much for architects being creative...;-)
my question is where is the NEW in new urbanism...is there really no room for the present?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.