"Would you ever consider putting a bench in this space; i.e beginning a design?, or would this ruin it for you?"
in my view, clearly, no. these spaces simply happen. they are wonderful, but cannot be recreated or improved upon. the moment they become "designed" they lose the spontaneity that made them unique in the first place. that's why there is very little that can be learned from these spaces.
jkalinski, i'd be curious to hear examples of how you see someone like koolhaas being "everyday." to me, this is a contradiction as the moment koolhaas creates space it is no longer everyday. perhaps this is simply a disagreement in semantics.
the everyday is clearly an urban/social phenomenon, but not something within the architect's sphere of expertise. architects design and shape space. why not concentrate on the things that we do best?
yeah but when you are designing you take certain "anticipations" into account. for example, if you're designin a screen porch you may have a horizontal 2X. you must consider hmmmm. lets put that horizontal member at 30" aff and make it a 2x6. the height allows for an unimpeded view from seated person to outside and the 2x6 is wide enough to set a beer on.
vado, aside from the commonplace materials, i'm not sure i would consider your example everyday, but once again, perhaps this is just a semantic difference.
jafidler, you are getting to the heart of my own questions and my own design paralysis that too often assumed that if you designed it you ruined it. However, as I get over my own inhibitions I realize that some are compelled to design and some are not. This is another way of saying that the act of putting a bench in a left over space, while not a discriminating act in terms of the history of architecture or urbanism, is an act of design in the same sense that Mies designed, albeit with great discrimination, the plaza in front of the Seagram. I have always admired those Koolhaus projects such as the Kunsthall (sp?) in Rotterdam that are explicit urban streets turned into buildings. Recently I saw the IIT building and while I was not as impressed as by the project in Rotterdam, I still felt that the basic approach was working socially as well as architecturally. Both work so much better than say the ramp to nowhere at the Carpenter Center at Harvard, which while I enjoy its sensuousness, does not really seem to embrace the metaphor or campus urbanity as much as the stimulus of motion for motion's sake. Though I suppose it could be argued that in the future the ramp anticipates some future project. Still it seems a bit odd to go up to go down on a flat scape. Yes this is a question of semantics. I think we are talking about design and the everyday with a small "e", not some supposed movement that shapes design like Brutalism (one of my favorites). I think the issue is also formed by time. A left over space has a bench put in it. Later someone paves it. Perhaps someone else plants a tree. Maybe at some point people get together and demand that a government entity improves the space. From humble beginnings maybe a designed place emerges. The history of cities is full of examples like this. from markets to parks to town halls. Why can't this type of accrued design decision-making be a more formalized part of our existing planning and urban design processes? I would hope that it could be a "high" as well as a "low" process and that sometimes the two would merge. Also, Vado is onto an esssential, that design does matter in these cases, knowing how to choose a material or combine them to address a human need is important. Still, I am interested in what are great examples of everyday places and wonder why I am so unfamiliar with the cases, designed with clear intent, where this type of thinking has been applied.
[i'll get out of my bad lower case habit for a line or two]
Everyday Urbanism is a term coined by Margaret Crawford; it has a specific meaning and applies to a specific form of urbanism. I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing as she uses it.
anyway...i love your examples, jkalinski, of the kunsthall and iit. i believe they are both radical new forms of successful urban space that in many ways redefine what urbanity is, but instead of calling them "everyday" (i believe they are in fact far from), i think what you're getting at is something closer to the exchange citizen and i had over the relationship of people to space. it seems you are really interested in what makes people attracted to a particular space, how space can be designed to bring people together, or how the accrual of action (design) over time creates space that is attractive to people.
Architphil: yes, I interpreted your note on the leftover space very narrowly.
And, thinking about these leftover spaces again actually gave me another idea about the concept of everyday urbanism: If we assumed, just for a moment, that everyday urbanism was a form of design practice, then these leftover spaces you are speaking of would not exist or at least not need to exist. The things we do in those places would happen in the realm of the designed space - within the design of the city there would be places to meet informally in the street, places where George the builder and his family would sit after work every day - and the spaces would be occupied by the actual design.
The difference between the "everyday design approach" and other design approaches therefore is the scope of the program. The everyday program encompasses the full scale of human activity; if an urban dweller is going to do it, there is a working design for it.
So much for the theory. I see there is much skepticism within this forum that such a design approach would be viable and probably a sense of fascism associated with anyone making such a claim. But there are many examples of where this works.
Old European cities: within the confinement of the city wall there is practically no un-designed space. Every corner, every notch with a bench in the side of a building was a willful decision made by the parties with a stake in it (owner, mason, user). And again we encounter the aspect of time in the incremental changes bringing about these complex and intriguing results.
Of course there are also examples in this country, mainly on the East Coast. I think the spaces created a high cultural achievement, which can only be achieved from a usage standpoint of the city rather than from a development standpoint.
I think there are two factors that made these designs possible: Building technology allowed for subsequent changes and alterations of design - it was possible to alter a building to accommodate for a bench, to move a facade into the street to form an arcade. And, design within the city implicitly came with a responsibility for the surroundings.
If we therefore were to think about an improvement of current design thinking by the means of an idea of “everyday urbanism” it is not that of an absolute design process but an open design process, a process leaving more opportunities for adaptation. And it would not be the solution of less design but of more design, a more subtle design, bothering to understand and accommodate for everyday program.
i'd definitely put a bench in the described space above. if it's an improvement then it will work and people will continue to use it. if it's a mistake then the current users will either leave or they'll change the space themselves by removing the bench. all of these scenarios pick at my curiosity enough to give it a try (and under this example the consequences are very low).
the other aspect of successfully designed spaces/places is not just a matter of whether people use it or not...but what kind of people use it. spaces that get heavy traffic from drug dealers, skateboarders, the homeless and other anti-system deviants are hardly un-peopled yet are rarely considered desirable.
perhaps someone has studied this. or perhaps someone can. ie how do accidental/leftover/nondesigned/ et al spaces become places of use. what are the conditions? are they consitent can they be documented? conversely what are the designed spaces that don't become places even though they were meant to be places?
Sharkee, you are close to my definition of everydayness as opposed to Everyday Urbanism. Also, I think there is an emerging history of cities which describes as intentional much of the landscape that was formerly assumed to be happenstance in the sense that you have discusssed. jafidler, I do believe that it is possible that "the accrual of action (design) over time creates space that are attractive to people". Also consider the possibility that it will incrementally get worse when there is a soley instrumental purpose (this is typically a concern with infrastructure). You are also right to state that Koolhaus per se is not everyday but the consideration of the street does suggest interest in the everyday that suggests that the approach transcends categorizations of schools of thought. Its an attitude that flows in and out of work. Puddles question of how some marginalized folks claim space reminds me of the earlier examples of favelas where informal processes lead to formalized results. Perhaps there are ways of better channeling this energy that Puddles notes.
It seems that all conclude that placing the bench within the space is an act of design without reference to good or bad. I am feeling too preachy here and apologize if this is too apparent.
I love the example of the bench in the space, its very philosophic though I can't remember whether it is Aristotelian (probably) or Platonic, perhaps both. Vado, there were some books in the 80's that covered the topics that you mentioned. Think one was by a fellow named Roger Transic but can not find reference. Lot's of contemporary photographers have documented these spaces. I always liked Lewis Baltz or perhaps Allan Sekula. I also agree with your questions. What are designed spaces that do not work. Here is an example. Pershing Square in LA.
"these spaces simply happen. that's why there is very little that can be learned from these spaces."
They happen, yes, but usually not simply. People come and go, claim space for a minute or an hour; merchants put out signs, or tables, or merchandise, then take it in; kids tramp through; it gets dark, the lights come on; you get the idea.
I think these are things we CAN observe about successful urban spaces, small or large, and put into our knowledge about designing pieces of the city. Hopefully at some point we'll have the chance to use some of them, if they seem appropriate in time and place (and budget, of course).
designed places that don't work are probably easier to find than the other way round.
I think kostoff makes a strong argument for the idea that design and form and "liveliness" are not always connected. OR at least that a grid can work as well as an organic plan when it comes to making good places. On other hand he seems to imply that it requires inhabitation to do so. And I think a certain willingness to allow change to happen. Which is very hard for architects and planners to deal with, especially if they believe (with a capital B) they have an answer already worked out. Conviction in this way is such a double edged sword.
I wonder if the covered gallery in Milan (next to il duomo) counts as everyday urbanism? It is certainly very lively and feels fresh in spite of its age (so does the duomo, for that matter) , but is also very clearly designed. AND it has the benefit of being the place that inspired Gruen to invent the american shopping mall. Which is a kind of warning in itself. What we learn from history is not always the right thing ;-)
there is something incredibly clumsy about just "placing the bench in the space." i wouldn't even call it design. it's what a city parks and recreation department would do.
or another way of putting it, when non-designers "design" a space, they come up with a long list of things they want - "oh, a fountain would be nice. how 'bout an herb garden? with a sundial! etc." each of these things addresses an immediate need or desire, but does not constitute design in and of itself. everyday urbanism is similar in that it takes existing conditions and adds to it in an immediate manner without consideration of a more comprehensive understanding of site and its circumstances. premeditation is what in my view constitutes the difference between design and simply "placing the bench" and why it's a bit specious to say that we can learn anything about design from everyday urbanism.
"everyday urbanism is similar in that it takes existing conditions and adds to it in an immediate manner without consideration of a more comprehensive understanding of site and its circumstances."
this is just so wrong jafidler.
from my perspective, everyday urbanism demands (ok - politely asks) that the designer(s) suspend their ego(s) from the solution and just try to see. the scale of the gesture becomes less meaningful at that point.
Thinking that we have little or nothing to learn from how people occupy and use urban space fuels the popular notion that architecture and architects are out of touch.
Urban designers and planners designing high-rise public housing and huge single-use, downtown civic centers and plazas in the 1960s sincerely believed they knew best. We scorn them now, but that was the "best practices" of the best architectural talent at that time. We've learned the hard way that such projects require more nuance, more research, and more participation by those who will actually occupy them in order to improve the chances for successful use.
Good intentions and good education are not enough to produce good urban spaces. Good information and good experience are needed as well.
"...everyday urbanism is similar in that it takes existing conditions and adds to it in an immediate manner without consideration of a more comprehensive understanding of site and its circumstances..."
jafidler, you have a much narrower definition of everyday urbanism than me. My point in asking the question in this thread was to ask in the context of an everyday tool such as a blog if everyday urbanism could be better related to design, or, was it consigned to design by default. The goal was to build a collective response as opposed to a constructed response by one author.
You would seem to fall on the default side of the question, a position that most critics of the idea agree on, but I still get the sense that you acknowledge that there is a design act implicit in the everyday when you state, "...adding to it in an immediate manner...". This is your default. However, I feel you are missing a part of the case raised first by Vado Retro. My query to him was based on placing a bench in an urban space because you previously observe that the space is used and that you can ameliorate the act of sitting in the space and inspiring the use and socialization of the space by placing the bench in the space. This would seem to me to be not, "without consideration". There seems to be a type of design consciousness here, however simple. Now I may be parsing your larger point a bit unfairly but it is precisely the point at which the unconscious making-do act becomes conscious that the everyday act leads to the potential of everyday design.
My use of the everyday is thus broader in this thread than your definition which I acknowledge that others share. My objective is to explore how it becomes a tool for the conscious and the consequent design uses.
An aside; my understanding is that the use of the term everyday urbanism was a play on both de Certeau's "The Practice of Everyday Life" and Lefebvre's "Critique of Everyday Life". Margaret Crawford who was interested in the theory which was published in English in the 1980s was initially teaching a design studio in the early 90's at SCI-Arc that was called "Quotidian Bricolage" which explored how the techniques of the everyday could be bridged over into design. I believe that the term Everyday Urbanism was a term collectively arrived at and utilized by the editors of the subsequent book to describe a series of practices and phenomenon that they thought could be related to urbanism in general. The attempt to more specifically relate the concepts to a design practice, at least with regard to the editors, was and is a continuing effort of all the editors, hence publishing the design results of design studios in the book. I would be curious if you have a different understanding of the issue.
With regard to examples; my goal in asking for examples (and thanks to all that have provided them and any who might provide them) was to begin a process whereby I could better understand the range of what I needed to be aware of in 2007. Truth be told, my life is stuck, albeit happily in Los Angeles, and I hardly see enough of what is out there and remarkable. The Archinect Forum has proven to be a most collaborative means to do this, to reach beyond my own limited understanding of the strong experiences that people are learning from and using.
jkaliski, thank you for bringing up the question of what Everyday Urbanism actually is. In trying to come up with examples of great everyday places I got stuck. Whenever I think of a place I appreciate, I reconsider and ask myself the question, is this really an everyday place?
Many of the formally designed places I think of seem too formal and seem not to meet the somehow implicit criteria of being guerilla. The term everyday evokes images of favela, subversive design intention and the like – and I am sure to know that that Everyday Urbanism encompasses more than this.
But if this is so, where does it end? Is Everyday Urbanism a theory that will essentially encompass all great designs, just as most other theories do, and explain them from another standpoint?
Since I am getting tangled in my own thoughts and don’t have my books here to reread things I will supply another example and see what this forum thinks:
When I was working in Frankfurt (Germany) not too long ago I commuted to Darmstadt every day. It was a 25 min. commute in the local train. On some mornings, when I was really fed up with everything and I needed to brighten my mood I took a detour. I would take the subway to Frankfurt main station and take the express from there (an extra 10 minutes).
I loved being in the station’s terminal – ceilings probably 30 meters high, hundreds of commuters from Stuttgart, Mannheim, Mainz and other cities pouring out of the trains to go to work. Right at the heads of the trains (it was a train cul-de-sac, whatever that is called) there is a row of shops, food places, flower shops. There are three newsstands with the best selection in the country. And I just enjoyed standing there for a few moments, felling the buzz and the noise and the hecticness. And when you looked out towards the tracks, this maybe on a hazy Sunday winter evening, the tracks intertwining you could get the feeling they could take you anywhere.
Yes, and someone designed it initially and over time. Also, there are stations that are equally busy that do not embody this buzz. Constructing a theory of what creates the buzz is part of the task. It's more than putting people in the space. The everyday can certainly flow in and out of all architectures and for me at least is not solely confined to guerrilla actions, favelas, or the streets of skid row though there is much to be learned from each of these examples.
don't know if you got my email last week but, separate from the jackson square example that it described (as i noted above), in the piece i sent you i used the book 'cultural selection' by gary taylor as a starting point.
taylor's writing is pretty pedestrian and i'm not sure his study of what he's pursuing is as rigorous as it could be, but my interest was captured by his book because it seems to get at the same questions you and sharkee are asking. i'd recommend you check it out, if only for the questions he raises.
his starting point is personal to him, not architectural at all: as a shakespeare scholar he wondered why, if shakespeare and marlowe were contemporaries and marlowe's writing was considered better at the time, was it shakespeare's writing that captured the imaginations of generations and became such a cultural touchstone while marlowe's is all but unknown.
over the course of the book you can't help thinking about each of his ruminations having a parallel in understanding why some spaces work and others might not work as well.
"But if this is so, where does it end? Is Everyday Urbanism a theory that will essentially encompass all great designs, just as most other theories do, and explain them from another standpoint?"
i won't get too much more involved in this, other than as an interested spectator, because i'm not sure what i have to offer is quite what you are looking for out of this discussion. i sympathize with sharkee's sentiment that what you seem to be interested in has few limits or ends; it's a bit of a theory of everything. any space that evokes a moment of delight or excitement would seem to be "everyday" by your definition. i do think we agree that there's a lot design can do and a lot it can't. perhaps our disagreement is really only a matter of scale, but when all is said and done, i would prefer not to attempt to appropriate the casual (albiet often beautiful) and call it design.
can urban design become 'everyday' at the (indefinable) point at which the design becomes coopted/absorbed into community life so integrally that the designed-ness of it no longer matters?
i have to say that the difficulty of your/crawford's/chase's book for me was that my studio students latched onto it and tried to USE it in the development of a urban neighborhood project. while its a fascinating book, i learned that it's more a series of observations of things which happened - some of which involved intentional design -but that these observations/case studies defy (or at least make VERY difficult) any translation into architectural strategies. they're ultimately results of cultural, social, political, economic phenomena that happen to 'take place' in spaces.
Steven, your point beautifully illustrates the important difference between urbanism and urban design. I think that this is what has been highlighted in this thread. UD is a more or less controlled, intentional subset or aspect of the much more complicated and contingent process of urbanism.
Thank you for all your input. It was all very meaningful. I wanted to provide a reference to the book I mentioned; I found it in my library.
"Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design", Roger Trancik (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1986) - the book appears a bit dated at this point but I always liked the title.
Everyday Urbanism - Design and/or Default
"Would you ever consider putting a bench in this space; i.e beginning a design?, or would this ruin it for you?"
in my view, clearly, no. these spaces simply happen. they are wonderful, but cannot be recreated or improved upon. the moment they become "designed" they lose the spontaneity that made them unique in the first place. that's why there is very little that can be learned from these spaces.
jkalinski, i'd be curious to hear examples of how you see someone like koolhaas being "everyday." to me, this is a contradiction as the moment koolhaas creates space it is no longer everyday. perhaps this is simply a disagreement in semantics.
the everyday is clearly an urban/social phenomenon, but not something within the architect's sphere of expertise. architects design and shape space. why not concentrate on the things that we do best?
yeah but when you are designing you take certain "anticipations" into account. for example, if you're designin a screen porch you may have a horizontal 2X. you must consider hmmmm. lets put that horizontal member at 30" aff and make it a 2x6. the height allows for an unimpeded view from seated person to outside and the 2x6 is wide enough to set a beer on.
vado, aside from the commonplace materials, i'm not sure i would consider your example everyday, but once again, perhaps this is just a semantic difference.
jafidler, you are getting to the heart of my own questions and my own design paralysis that too often assumed that if you designed it you ruined it. However, as I get over my own inhibitions I realize that some are compelled to design and some are not. This is another way of saying that the act of putting a bench in a left over space, while not a discriminating act in terms of the history of architecture or urbanism, is an act of design in the same sense that Mies designed, albeit with great discrimination, the plaza in front of the Seagram. I have always admired those Koolhaus projects such as the Kunsthall (sp?) in Rotterdam that are explicit urban streets turned into buildings. Recently I saw the IIT building and while I was not as impressed as by the project in Rotterdam, I still felt that the basic approach was working socially as well as architecturally. Both work so much better than say the ramp to nowhere at the Carpenter Center at Harvard, which while I enjoy its sensuousness, does not really seem to embrace the metaphor or campus urbanity as much as the stimulus of motion for motion's sake. Though I suppose it could be argued that in the future the ramp anticipates some future project. Still it seems a bit odd to go up to go down on a flat scape. Yes this is a question of semantics. I think we are talking about design and the everyday with a small "e", not some supposed movement that shapes design like Brutalism (one of my favorites). I think the issue is also formed by time. A left over space has a bench put in it. Later someone paves it. Perhaps someone else plants a tree. Maybe at some point people get together and demand that a government entity improves the space. From humble beginnings maybe a designed place emerges. The history of cities is full of examples like this. from markets to parks to town halls. Why can't this type of accrued design decision-making be a more formalized part of our existing planning and urban design processes? I would hope that it could be a "high" as well as a "low" process and that sometimes the two would merge. Also, Vado is onto an esssential, that design does matter in these cases, knowing how to choose a material or combine them to address a human need is important. Still, I am interested in what are great examples of everyday places and wonder why I am so unfamiliar with the cases, designed with clear intent, where this type of thinking has been applied.
[i'll get out of my bad lower case habit for a line or two]
Everyday Urbanism is a term coined by Margaret Crawford; it has a specific meaning and applies to a specific form of urbanism. I'm not sure we're all talking about the same thing as she uses it.
anyway...i love your examples, jkalinski, of the kunsthall and iit. i believe they are both radical new forms of successful urban space that in many ways redefine what urbanity is, but instead of calling them "everyday" (i believe they are in fact far from), i think what you're getting at is something closer to the exchange citizen and i had over the relationship of people to space. it seems you are really interested in what makes people attracted to a particular space, how space can be designed to bring people together, or how the accrual of action (design) over time creates space that is attractive to people.
Architphil: yes, I interpreted your note on the leftover space very narrowly.
And, thinking about these leftover spaces again actually gave me another idea about the concept of everyday urbanism: If we assumed, just for a moment, that everyday urbanism was a form of design practice, then these leftover spaces you are speaking of would not exist or at least not need to exist. The things we do in those places would happen in the realm of the designed space - within the design of the city there would be places to meet informally in the street, places where George the builder and his family would sit after work every day - and the spaces would be occupied by the actual design.
The difference between the "everyday design approach" and other design approaches therefore is the scope of the program. The everyday program encompasses the full scale of human activity; if an urban dweller is going to do it, there is a working design for it.
So much for the theory. I see there is much skepticism within this forum that such a design approach would be viable and probably a sense of fascism associated with anyone making such a claim. But there are many examples of where this works.
Old European cities: within the confinement of the city wall there is practically no un-designed space. Every corner, every notch with a bench in the side of a building was a willful decision made by the parties with a stake in it (owner, mason, user). And again we encounter the aspect of time in the incremental changes bringing about these complex and intriguing results.
Of course there are also examples in this country, mainly on the East Coast. I think the spaces created a high cultural achievement, which can only be achieved from a usage standpoint of the city rather than from a development standpoint.
I think there are two factors that made these designs possible: Building technology allowed for subsequent changes and alterations of design - it was possible to alter a building to accommodate for a bench, to move a facade into the street to form an arcade. And, design within the city implicitly came with a responsibility for the surroundings.
If we therefore were to think about an improvement of current design thinking by the means of an idea of “everyday urbanism” it is not that of an absolute design process but an open design process, a process leaving more opportunities for adaptation. And it would not be the solution of less design but of more design, a more subtle design, bothering to understand and accommodate for everyday program.
One book I would like to mention:
Bernhard Rudofsky: Streets for People
i'd definitely put a bench in the described space above. if it's an improvement then it will work and people will continue to use it. if it's a mistake then the current users will either leave or they'll change the space themselves by removing the bench. all of these scenarios pick at my curiosity enough to give it a try (and under this example the consequences are very low).
the other aspect of successfully designed spaces/places is not just a matter of whether people use it or not...but what kind of people use it. spaces that get heavy traffic from drug dealers, skateboarders, the homeless and other anti-system deviants are hardly un-peopled yet are rarely considered desirable.
perhaps someone has studied this. or perhaps someone can. ie how do accidental/leftover/nondesigned/ et al spaces become places of use. what are the conditions? are they consitent can they be documented? conversely what are the designed spaces that don't become places even though they were meant to be places?
Sharkee, you are close to my definition of everydayness as opposed to Everyday Urbanism. Also, I think there is an emerging history of cities which describes as intentional much of the landscape that was formerly assumed to be happenstance in the sense that you have discusssed. jafidler, I do believe that it is possible that "the accrual of action (design) over time creates space that are attractive to people". Also consider the possibility that it will incrementally get worse when there is a soley instrumental purpose (this is typically a concern with infrastructure). You are also right to state that Koolhaus per se is not everyday but the consideration of the street does suggest interest in the everyday that suggests that the approach transcends categorizations of schools of thought. Its an attitude that flows in and out of work. Puddles question of how some marginalized folks claim space reminds me of the earlier examples of favelas where informal processes lead to formalized results. Perhaps there are ways of better channeling this energy that Puddles notes.
It seems that all conclude that placing the bench within the space is an act of design without reference to good or bad. I am feeling too preachy here and apologize if this is too apparent.
I love the example of the bench in the space, its very philosophic though I can't remember whether it is Aristotelian (probably) or Platonic, perhaps both. Vado, there were some books in the 80's that covered the topics that you mentioned. Think one was by a fellow named Roger Transic but can not find reference. Lot's of contemporary photographers have documented these spaces. I always liked Lewis Baltz or perhaps Allan Sekula. I also agree with your questions. What are designed spaces that do not work. Here is an example. Pershing Square in LA.
One of my favorite everyday urban places was actually mostly the inside of my car?
I disagree with one of your points, jafidler.
"these spaces simply happen. that's why there is very little that can be learned from these spaces."
They happen, yes, but usually not simply. People come and go, claim space for a minute or an hour; merchants put out signs, or tables, or merchandise, then take it in; kids tramp through; it gets dark, the lights come on; you get the idea.
I think these are things we CAN observe about successful urban spaces, small or large, and put into our knowledge about designing pieces of the city. Hopefully at some point we'll have the chance to use some of them, if they seem appropriate in time and place (and budget, of course).
This is a great thread, by the way.
Like Koolhaas said, Luxury is "Rough", but I really don't miss the everyday at all.
And I'm sure it's that time of year again.
non-event cities wo bist du?
vado... i'm working on it...
designed places that don't work are probably easier to find than the other way round.
I think kostoff makes a strong argument for the idea that design and form and "liveliness" are not always connected. OR at least that a grid can work as well as an organic plan when it comes to making good places. On other hand he seems to imply that it requires inhabitation to do so. And I think a certain willingness to allow change to happen. Which is very hard for architects and planners to deal with, especially if they believe (with a capital B) they have an answer already worked out. Conviction in this way is such a double edged sword.
I wonder if the covered gallery in Milan (next to il duomo) counts as everyday urbanism? It is certainly very lively and feels fresh in spite of its age (so does the duomo, for that matter) , but is also very clearly designed. AND it has the benefit of being the place that inspired Gruen to invent the american shopping mall. Which is a kind of warning in itself. What we learn from history is not always the right thing ;-)
?
there is something incredibly clumsy about just "placing the bench in the space." i wouldn't even call it design. it's what a city parks and recreation department would do.
or another way of putting it, when non-designers "design" a space, they come up with a long list of things they want - "oh, a fountain would be nice. how 'bout an herb garden? with a sundial! etc." each of these things addresses an immediate need or desire, but does not constitute design in and of itself. everyday urbanism is similar in that it takes existing conditions and adds to it in an immediate manner without consideration of a more comprehensive understanding of site and its circumstances. premeditation is what in my view constitutes the difference between design and simply "placing the bench" and why it's a bit specious to say that we can learn anything about design from everyday urbanism.
"everyday urbanism is similar in that it takes existing conditions and adds to it in an immediate manner without consideration of a more comprehensive understanding of site and its circumstances."
this is just so wrong jafidler.
from my perspective, everyday urbanism demands (ok - politely asks) that the designer(s) suspend their ego(s) from the solution and just try to see. the scale of the gesture becomes less meaningful at that point.
back to my sage and crystals now....
Thinking that we have little or nothing to learn from how people occupy and use urban space fuels the popular notion that architecture and architects are out of touch.
Urban designers and planners designing high-rise public housing and huge single-use, downtown civic centers and plazas in the 1960s sincerely believed they knew best. We scorn them now, but that was the "best practices" of the best architectural talent at that time. We've learned the hard way that such projects require more nuance, more research, and more participation by those who will actually occupy them in order to improve the chances for successful use.
Good intentions and good education are not enough to produce good urban spaces. Good information and good experience are needed as well.
"...everyday urbanism is similar in that it takes existing conditions and adds to it in an immediate manner without consideration of a more comprehensive understanding of site and its circumstances..."
jafidler, you have a much narrower definition of everyday urbanism than me. My point in asking the question in this thread was to ask in the context of an everyday tool such as a blog if everyday urbanism could be better related to design, or, was it consigned to design by default. The goal was to build a collective response as opposed to a constructed response by one author.
You would seem to fall on the default side of the question, a position that most critics of the idea agree on, but I still get the sense that you acknowledge that there is a design act implicit in the everyday when you state, "...adding to it in an immediate manner...". This is your default. However, I feel you are missing a part of the case raised first by Vado Retro. My query to him was based on placing a bench in an urban space because you previously observe that the space is used and that you can ameliorate the act of sitting in the space and inspiring the use and socialization of the space by placing the bench in the space. This would seem to me to be not, "without consideration". There seems to be a type of design consciousness here, however simple. Now I may be parsing your larger point a bit unfairly but it is precisely the point at which the unconscious making-do act becomes conscious that the everyday act leads to the potential of everyday design.
My use of the everyday is thus broader in this thread than your definition which I acknowledge that others share. My objective is to explore how it becomes a tool for the conscious and the consequent design uses.
An aside; my understanding is that the use of the term everyday urbanism was a play on both de Certeau's "The Practice of Everyday Life" and Lefebvre's "Critique of Everyday Life". Margaret Crawford who was interested in the theory which was published in English in the 1980s was initially teaching a design studio in the early 90's at SCI-Arc that was called "Quotidian Bricolage" which explored how the techniques of the everyday could be bridged over into design. I believe that the term Everyday Urbanism was a term collectively arrived at and utilized by the editors of the subsequent book to describe a series of practices and phenomenon that they thought could be related to urbanism in general. The attempt to more specifically relate the concepts to a design practice, at least with regard to the editors, was and is a continuing effort of all the editors, hence publishing the design results of design studios in the book. I would be curious if you have a different understanding of the issue.
With regard to examples; my goal in asking for examples (and thanks to all that have provided them and any who might provide them) was to begin a process whereby I could better understand the range of what I needed to be aware of in 2007. Truth be told, my life is stuck, albeit happily in Los Angeles, and I hardly see enough of what is out there and remarkable. The Archinect Forum has proven to be a most collaborative means to do this, to reach beyond my own limited understanding of the strong experiences that people are learning from and using.
jkaliski, thank you for bringing up the question of what Everyday Urbanism actually is. In trying to come up with examples of great everyday places I got stuck. Whenever I think of a place I appreciate, I reconsider and ask myself the question, is this really an everyday place?
Many of the formally designed places I think of seem too formal and seem not to meet the somehow implicit criteria of being guerilla. The term everyday evokes images of favela, subversive design intention and the like – and I am sure to know that that Everyday Urbanism encompasses more than this.
But if this is so, where does it end? Is Everyday Urbanism a theory that will essentially encompass all great designs, just as most other theories do, and explain them from another standpoint?
Since I am getting tangled in my own thoughts and don’t have my books here to reread things I will supply another example and see what this forum thinks:
When I was working in Frankfurt (Germany) not too long ago I commuted to Darmstadt every day. It was a 25 min. commute in the local train. On some mornings, when I was really fed up with everything and I needed to brighten my mood I took a detour. I would take the subway to Frankfurt main station and take the express from there (an extra 10 minutes).
I loved being in the station’s terminal – ceilings probably 30 meters high, hundreds of commuters from Stuttgart, Mannheim, Mainz and other cities pouring out of the trains to go to work. Right at the heads of the trains (it was a train cul-de-sac, whatever that is called) there is a row of shops, food places, flower shops. There are three newsstands with the best selection in the country. And I just enjoyed standing there for a few moments, felling the buzz and the noise and the hecticness. And when you looked out towards the tracks, this maybe on a hazy Sunday winter evening, the tracks intertwining you could get the feeling they could take you anywhere.
Now, is this an everyday place?
Yes, and someone designed it initially and over time. Also, there are stations that are equally busy that do not embody this buzz. Constructing a theory of what creates the buzz is part of the task. It's more than putting people in the space. The everyday can certainly flow in and out of all architectures and for me at least is not solely confined to guerrilla actions, favelas, or the streets of skid row though there is much to be learned from each of these examples.
jkaliski -
don't know if you got my email last week but, separate from the jackson square example that it described (as i noted above), in the piece i sent you i used the book 'cultural selection' by gary taylor as a starting point.
taylor's writing is pretty pedestrian and i'm not sure his study of what he's pursuing is as rigorous as it could be, but my interest was captured by his book because it seems to get at the same questions you and sharkee are asking. i'd recommend you check it out, if only for the questions he raises.
his starting point is personal to him, not architectural at all: as a shakespeare scholar he wondered why, if shakespeare and marlowe were contemporaries and marlowe's writing was considered better at the time, was it shakespeare's writing that captured the imaginations of generations and became such a cultural touchstone while marlowe's is all but unknown.
over the course of the book you can't help thinking about each of his ruminations having a parallel in understanding why some spaces work and others might not work as well.
from sharkee:
"But if this is so, where does it end? Is Everyday Urbanism a theory that will essentially encompass all great designs, just as most other theories do, and explain them from another standpoint?"
i won't get too much more involved in this, other than as an interested spectator, because i'm not sure what i have to offer is quite what you are looking for out of this discussion. i sympathize with sharkee's sentiment that what you seem to be interested in has few limits or ends; it's a bit of a theory of everything. any space that evokes a moment of delight or excitement would seem to be "everyday" by your definition. i do think we agree that there's a lot design can do and a lot it can't. perhaps our disagreement is really only a matter of scale, but when all is said and done, i would prefer not to attempt to appropriate the casual (albiet often beautiful) and call it design.
can urban design become 'everyday' at the (indefinable) point at which the design becomes coopted/absorbed into community life so integrally that the designed-ness of it no longer matters?
i have to say that the difficulty of your/crawford's/chase's book for me was that my studio students latched onto it and tried to USE it in the development of a urban neighborhood project. while its a fascinating book, i learned that it's more a series of observations of things which happened - some of which involved intentional design -but that these observations/case studies defy (or at least make VERY difficult) any translation into architectural strategies. they're ultimately results of cultural, social, political, economic phenomena that happen to 'take place' in spaces.
Thanks Steven, I will look into this. I also am reading a book with similar themes, Clive James' , "Cultural Amnesia".
Steven, your point beautifully illustrates the important difference between urbanism and urban design. I think that this is what has been highlighted in this thread. UD is a more or less controlled, intentional subset or aspect of the much more complicated and contingent process of urbanism.
Dear Friends,
Thank you for all your input. It was all very meaningful. I wanted to provide a reference to the book I mentioned; I found it in my library.
"Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design", Roger Trancik (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1986) - the book appears a bit dated at this point but I always liked the title.
John
will you let us know what comes of this exploration you've done, john?
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.