I always thought that urbanism, at it's core, was designing where we live for people - i.e. putting the person and community before the technology. It's asking what does the individual need/want in order to do X in an efficient, comfortable, and successful manner.
I think, given the option to design what they want from the ground up, a lot of people would like to be on foot... but that's my pro-pedestrian side coming through.
I think the first 3 can be defined as allowing people the option to walk and for it to be a pleasant experience. There are places I've found that I'm willing to walk but it is next to a street that people fly down; if my friends and I were less able-bodied or had children with us then we may be hesitant to be walking in those areas. Restaurants and retail below density allow people to exit out and grab something quickly from the store nearby or pick up dinner without it feeling like a struggle. Even for people visiting the neighborhood, the ability to walk past places where people are eating or shopping or returning back to their apartments/condos is something I've always found pleasant to be around. It gives you something different to look at and adds to the positive feeling of a place
Yes. I was just reading (Henry Grabar's book on parking) how people will walk far longer than they think they want to when the walking experience is pleasant. So much of what we don't like about urban stuff actually comes down to cars.
My town is trying to redesign its "main street" to be pedestrian friendly. They've slowed the cars down and added a bike lane... but there are still large stretches that feel very "exposed" as a walker (ie. street on one side, parking lot on the other), which makes it unpleasant unless the weather is perfect.
I like the phrase "cities aren't loud, cars are loud" for exactly this reason. Activating more neighborhoods as pedestrian and cyclist friendly would help both on making the populace healthier but encourage businesses to open and cater to the increased foot traffic
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. It's the fourth of your ideas I don't properly understand. Europe is full of walking cities, densely populated, where there are few cars or none. Is that not a classic form? Perhaps you were referring only to North American cities. I've recently returned from Montreal, which has a much bigger population (three million as against 350,000) but has many of the same walkable and bike-able qualities in the centre, as well as a metro (Wellington has electric overground trains, but a smaller network). Anyway, 1-3 are fine; 4 I don't follow.
Yes, those are all classic forms. Maybe I should have explained this one a bit, but I'm thinking about bona-fide suburban areas that have urban characteristics in a sense: I wrote about that here:
My thought being, maybe what we recognize as "cities" are not the most important places urbanists have to think about for the next 50 years, but rather figure out how these "urbanist suburbs" can incrementally grow up into true urban environments over time.
"Commerce at a small scale" This represents something I believed in the past. I am less certain about it now. I would replace with this with "accessibility to a broad range of goods and services," where accessible means proximate enough for a short trip walking or in a wheelchair. In theory, this could be achieved with many small specialty shops or with a large retailer with great selection, but large retailers are not accessible. Can a large store be accessible? In any case, zoning code makes this difficult in many US cities and impossible in others. German zoning has a different definition for their residential zones that allows for small-format retail.
I think the last one is phrased in a way that sounds more intellectual and inaccessible than it has to be - I'd rephrase it as something like "looking for ways to make cities better to live in that is not necessarilythe classic or traditional way we plan cities". Or maybe replace "better" with something more specific, if you can think of a good thing to put there.
The idea that there are places that lack what we think of as an urban form but that feel a lot like what we think of as urban places. The sense of energy, the entrepreneurial spirit, the diversity of many kinds of people living in close proximity, etc. And how these places may be more important than some "actual" cities as places to incrementally improve in an urbanist direction over time.
The way you phrase it is a distinct and interesting idea. How is classic urbanism maybe *not* necessarily what good urbanism looks like in America over the next, say, 50 years? Interesting.
I sometimes backslide when I talk about this. Urban places are heterogenous in form. However, in the post-car era, it seems like anytime there is too much undeveloped space, it creates distances leading people to drive or is too much of a temptation to force parking into it. So it might be that going forward that we might need to be more formally rigid to create urban places.
I always thought that urbanism, at it's core, was designing where we live for people - i.e. putting the person and community before the technology. It's asking what does the individual need/want in order to do X in an efficient, comfortable, and successful manner.
Ooh I like that - it sidesteps the question of form, per se. Interesting!
I think, given the option to design what they want from the ground up, a lot of people would like to be on foot... but that's my pro-pedestrian side coming through.
I think the first 3 can be defined as allowing people the option to walk and for it to be a pleasant experience. There are places I've found that I'm willing to walk but it is next to a street that people fly down; if my friends and I were less able-bodied or had children with us then we may be hesitant to be walking in those areas. Restaurants and retail below density allow people to exit out and grab something quickly from the store nearby or pick up dinner without it feeling like a struggle. Even for people visiting the neighborhood, the ability to walk past places where people are eating or shopping or returning back to their apartments/condos is something I've always found pleasant to be around. It gives you something different to look at and adds to the positive feeling of a place
Yes. I was just reading (Henry Grabar's book on parking) how people will walk far longer than they think they want to when the walking experience is pleasant. So much of what we don't like about urban stuff actually comes down to cars.
My town is trying to redesign its "main street" to be pedestrian friendly. They've slowed the cars down and added a bike lane... but there are still large stretches that feel very "exposed" as a walker (ie. street on one side, parking lot on the other), which makes it unpleasant unless the weather is perfect.
I like the phrase "cities aren't loud, cars are loud" for exactly this reason. Activating more neighborhoods as pedestrian and cyclist friendly would help both on making the populace healthier but encourage businesses to open and cater to the increased foot traffic
Hi Addison
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. It's the fourth of your ideas I don't properly understand. Europe is full of walking cities, densely populated, where there are few cars or none. Is that not a classic form? Perhaps you were referring only to North American cities. I've recently returned from Montreal, which has a much bigger population (three million as against 350,000) but has many of the same walkable and bike-able qualities in the centre, as well as a metro (Wellington has electric overground trains, but a smaller network). Anyway, 1-3 are fine; 4 I don't follow.
Yes, those are all classic forms. Maybe I should have explained this one a bit, but I'm thinking about bona-fide suburban areas that have urban characteristics in a sense: I wrote about that here:
https://thedeletedscenes.substack.com/p/urbanism-without-cities
And here: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/17/the-taco-truck-and-the-thrift-store
My thought being, maybe what we recognize as "cities" are not the most important places urbanists have to think about for the next 50 years, but rather figure out how these "urbanist suburbs" can incrementally grow up into true urban environments over time.
Much clearer now, thanks.
"Commerce at a small scale" This represents something I believed in the past. I am less certain about it now. I would replace with this with "accessibility to a broad range of goods and services," where accessible means proximate enough for a short trip walking or in a wheelchair. In theory, this could be achieved with many small specialty shops or with a large retailer with great selection, but large retailers are not accessible. Can a large store be accessible? In any case, zoning code makes this difficult in many US cities and impossible in others. German zoning has a different definition for their residential zones that allows for small-format retail.
I think the last one is phrased in a way that sounds more intellectual and inaccessible than it has to be - I'd rephrase it as something like "looking for ways to make cities better to live in that is not necessarilythe classic or traditional way we plan cities". Or maybe replace "better" with something more specific, if you can think of a good thing to put there.
The specific thing I'm referring to is this from this piece: https://thedeletedscenes.substack.com/p/urbanism-without-cities
The idea that there are places that lack what we think of as an urban form but that feel a lot like what we think of as urban places. The sense of energy, the entrepreneurial spirit, the diversity of many kinds of people living in close proximity, etc. And how these places may be more important than some "actual" cities as places to incrementally improve in an urbanist direction over time.
The way you phrase it is a distinct and interesting idea. How is classic urbanism maybe *not* necessarily what good urbanism looks like in America over the next, say, 50 years? Interesting.
I sometimes backslide when I talk about this. Urban places are heterogenous in form. However, in the post-car era, it seems like anytime there is too much undeveloped space, it creates distances leading people to drive or is too much of a temptation to force parking into it. So it might be that going forward that we might need to be more formally rigid to create urban places.