Friday
Sep282012

Go Play Outside

Fiona Reynolds, writing for The Guardian, on getting kids outside:

No one organisation, or even one sector, can alone reconnect children with nature. Education policy, urban design, health provision, insurance provision, retailers, naturalists and more all have their part to play, working together. We need the right public policies, but no less important is the creativity and resources of the private sector. A shared commitment to solving a shared problem.

One of the paradoxes of compact settlement patterns is that access to truly wild nature (or artificially wild like large scale parks) can actually improve over suburban sprawl. Suburbia privatizes natural space so that each residence has its tiny slice of nature that is often nearly identical to the neighbor’s yard. Because everyone already has a yard, parks aren’t seen as necessary - at least to the same degree as in more compact patterns. This means that natural variety is almost nonexistent and kids have a very limited scope of exploration.

In traditional development patterns there is a greater emphasis on good public open space. There is opportunity for large parks that incorporate lots of variety and curated nature as well as regularly spaced and readily accessible smaller parks, playgrounds, and athletic facilities. Combined these create a rich network of nature in various forms that is accessible to all. In addition, compact settlement patterns concentrate population on a smaller footprint which results in more true nature preserved and better proximity to nature for a lot of people.

Friday
Sep282012

Inspired B+W

DigitalCamFan has a great collection of inspiring black & white photos:

This week on Learn by Doing Photography our assignment was black and white photography! You can learn so much about your color photographs by stepping back and seeing your picture in black and white. It helps you see your photograph in all it’s beauty without the distraction of color. You see light different, contrast, tones, it’s very eye opening. Not to mention absolutely beautiful…

Image by Wilson Chong

Friday
Sep282012

How to Have Your Dream House

Richard Taylor, writing for Yahoo/Zillow, on the Seven Ways to Beat High Costs of Home Building:

All this time you’ve assumed that you can’t afford the home you really want: The cozy, comfortable house with all the neat features that you want to get your hands on, stuff like slate countertops; the island range with the stainless steel hood; the rustic beams on the ceiling.

Sounds like the typical intro to a typical Yahoo fluff piece, right? 7 little steps and you can have the house of your dreams! That’s what I thought, but I kept reading and was pleasantly surprised at the good advice coming from the article. Here is what Richard is advocating:


  1. Smaller is better

  2. Efficient use of building materials

  3. Use it where it counts, don’t where it doesn’t

  4. Design for low maintenance

  5. Lower your energy bills - dramatically

  6. Boxy is beautiful

  7. Good design sells

There is a restrained elegance in many simple houses - a beauty in efficiency. Careful attention to detail, proportion, and scale can result in a better design for less cost than trying to create interest in an overly complex design.

Wednesday
Sep262012

Neighborhoods for Kids

Brent Toderian, writing for Planetizen:

So should we want families downtown?

I strongly believe we should. They’re a big part of complete, mixed, vibrant and lively downtown neighbourhoods. Singles, seniors and couples downtown may be great, but kids and baby-strollers make communities more real, more human. They also support a broader local economy, and make the community safer.

Brent has some good suggestions for how to create dense, compact neighborhoods that work for families but I think his larger point is best - if we don’t design with families in mind we won’t attract any families. Families need amenities that aren’t as important for other demographics. Kids need parks and playgrounds, parents need schools and day cares. Accessible public open space is extremely important for denser neighborhoods that don’t have private yards. With the proper amenities and design, any neighborhood can be great for families and the addition of kids always makes a neighborhood more vibrant.

Tuesday
Sep252012

Walkscore to Include Intangibles

Tanya Snyder, writing for Streetsblog, reports on Walkscore’s foray into the qualitative:

“Nobody knows your neighborhood better than you do,” said Josh Herst, CEO of Walk Score. “Every day we hear from people telling us how special their neighborhoods are, pointing out their wonderful tree-lined sidewalks, outdoor spaces, nearby restaurants and locally owned shops.”

[…]

Herst says that by adding this “rich local insight” to Walk Score, they’ll be able to provide more accurate depictions of different areas, all toward their goal of allowing people to “drive less and live more.”

This is a good step forward for Walkscore. Walk Appeal is an important part of walkability and it is great to see Walkscore broaden its scope to include qualitative analysis as well as the current quantitative metrics.

Monday
Sep242012

Efficient or Orderly

Chuck Marohn, on the difference between order and efficiency:

And all that “order” is making us dumb, unable to even question the obvious, let alone have the flexibility to adapt and optimize our situation. If we want the experiment of human settlement to progress, what we need is to introduce a little chaos. We need to unleash us all, allow us to adapt, to find different ways to solve the same problem and, in doing so, automatically optimize the experience of humanity for everyone.

I think Chuck’s distinction between order and efficiency is right on. Order is easy. Order is predictable, rational, logical. But efficiency is hard. Efficiency can be unpredictable, messy, even chaotic. Efficiency can be counterintuitive and even seem irrational.

One might argue that our suburban system of transportation is analogous to, even based on maybe, the human circulatory system - a hierarchy of paths leading to a central destination. While this may be true, it is a bad model for transportation. The human circulatory system is not a transportation network but a distribution system - more analogous to irrigation than transportation. The circulatory system is efficient because it is dealing with predictable volumes and flows, is relatively consistent, and there is no bias in destination (no choice). A transportation network has many more variables than a distribution system and therefore requires a more complex solution. It’s about time we realize that transportation isn’t a distribution network but is something much more complex and organic - perhaps even a little chaotic.

Sunday
Sep232012

10 Principles for Great Public Spaces

Mackenzie Keast, writing for Urban Times, reports on the Project for Public Spaces handbook:

10 fundamental principles for placemaking have been identified by PPS as the keys to vibrant, safe, and attractive public spaces:


  1. Improve Streets as Public Spaces

  2. Create Squares and Parks as Multi-Use Destinations

  3. Build Local Economies Through Markets

  4. Design Buildings to Support Places

  5. Link a Public Health Agenda to a Public Space Agenda

  6. Reinvent Community Planning

  7. Power of 10

  8. Create a Comprehensive Public Space Agenda

  9. Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper: Start Small, Experiment

  10. Restructure Government to Support Public Spaces

I haven’t had a chance yet to review the entire report, but I like where it is headed. In particular, I think linking public health with the built environment is extremely important. We have separated for too long the effect the built environment has on our lifestyles and in turn the effect our lifestyles has on our health.

The draft Placemaking and the Future of Cities is available for download from the Project for Public Spaces.

Friday
Sep212012

An Old Sac of Urban Wisdom

Last weekend I took a family excursion to Old Sacramento. This is something we do every so often to enjoy the history, architecture, and great placemaking that is Old Sac. 

Cut off from the lifeblood of the city by the greatest mistake Sacramento has ever made, I-5, Old Sacramento is often appropriately criticized for being the exclusive domain of candy shops, touristy novelty shops, and a “Disney” like environment of historicism complete with the horse and buggy rides. In a somewhat ironic situation, the very thing that dooms Old Sac to an existence of irrelevance as a fully functioning, productive place is also the thing that works to preserve it as an amazing example of what Sacramento was when it was the thriving heart of gold country prosperity: Interstate 5. This freeway cuts through the city just blocks in from the riverfront isolating both Old Sacramento and the riverfront as an island separated from the other parts of the city by the river of water on one side and the river of cars on the other. There are ways across both rivers, but alas, the separation is too much for the district to overcome and Old Sac is destined to be just a touristy museum piece for what Sacramento used to be.

This is not to say that Old Sac isn’t quite wonderful. Quite the contrary, Old Sac is a great example of quintessential California urbanism where the boardwalks flourish under the protection of the porches and the buildings are charming yet functional. This is the Old Sac I want to explore in this post. This is the Old Sac I love and the great place that pulls people back again and again, if only as tourists.

 

 

 Covered sidewalks, whether the boardwalks of the Old West or the arcades of the Old World, are extremely functional and provide a great, delightful environment for people at the street level. In Sacramento, we have two climatic concerns. Summers can be quite hot with temperatures regularly pushing triple digits with a good handful of over 100 days every year. On these days, the shade provided by these covered sidewalks is not just a relief from the strong sun but actually indispensible in creating a tolerable atmosphere. With the addition of fans and/or misters these sidewalks could actually become downright pleasant on even the hottest days. 

The other condition we have a lot is rain. Not the kind of misty rain that defines our neighbors to the north but real, torrential downpour, rain. We have lots of sunny days throughout the winter but when it rains, generally we get some good rainfall. Covered sidewalks work well for those days as well. Many times we get rain but the temperatures aren’t overly cold. If you bundled up a little and stayed dry you could be quite comfortable running erands or even window shopping along a covered sidewalk in even the most torrential downpour. 

Another great thing about covered sidewalks is they enable a way to capture useable space within the right of way. In the picture above there is great outdoor dining directly because of the covered sidewalk. Now many places have outdoor dining but if you look closely, the outdoor dining is actually on the second floor overlooking the street which leaves the sidewalk completely unencumbered as a place for people to inhabit on a more temporary basis. Even without capturing the second level terrace for didning, there is still great opportunity to create private balconies or other uses over the sidewalk. In the case of many arcades around the world, there is actual usable interior space built out over the sidewalk. These are all good options and they all create more utility for the land used while actually improving the human experience of using the sidewalk. These techniques have the added benefit of visually narrowing the street which also helps create a more pleasant environment for people.


The other great thing about Old Sac is the exceptional quality of the buildings. The architecture is marvelously human in scale, detail, proportion, and quality. It feels good to be around these buildings. There are lots of little flourishes that add to the delight of the place. There is lots of variety and visual interest. For the most part, these are great buildings by which I mean these are great citizen buildings. These buildings don’t have any pretense in trying to outdo one another but rather work together to achieve a greatness no single building could achieve on its own. That, to me, is the best thing to be said about a great place. The sum is truly greater than the parts. I’ll finish off with some shots of the great architecture that makes Old Sac what it is.

Friday
Sep212012

Real Like Disneyland

Scott Doyon:

The prevailing sentiment in these objections seems to be that something reminiscent of another time yet freshly constructed is, in and of itself, suspect. And maybe it is. But surely there is a point where the exploitation of memory ends and the incorporation of collective wisdom begins.

[…]

Instead, we cast scrutiny upon efforts to restore these connections, as though that’s where the real threat is. The strip mall or the subdivision is what we’ve come to expect, which has apparently set the bar for how real something is. But I disagree. To me, the litmus test for real should reflect different priorities. Namely, how well does something connect to lessons learned over generations, especially as they relate to climate and landscape, while still addressing our unique place in history? How well does it connect us to each other and to our ability to live richly varied lives in shared, interdependent proximity?

I’ve often heard the “Disneyland” accusation and it always surprises me. There is a strange cult of the authentic in the design community - a belief that designing within a historical framework is somehow a nostalgic illusion of the past. However, there is always some illusion in building. There is always some willful twisting of reality to achieve an artistic effect. I think it is hard to argue that traditional architecture is any less authentic than a modern building that stretches engineering to its limits in its denial of gravity or that shutters on the windows is less real than the “folded plane”. [1] In fact, I would say that the success of Disneyland, the ability of Disney to make money by charging people to inhabit a quasi-real place, actually helps the argument that not only do we need more great places, we need to make them relatable to humanity. Perhaps the Disneyland accusation is actually a complement?

To me, the definition of “real” has less to do with aesthetics and more to do with function. Does a place support the living of life? Does it nurture human activity? Are people able to thrive? In the vein of Chuck Marohn over at Strong Towns, is the place productive? Does it support and nurture value? These are the kinds of questions I think are worth asking. Aesthetics, form, typology, style - these are all important concepts but only as vehicles to support the higher goal of making places for humans. Places where people can thrive as they go about their daily lives. If I have the choice of thriving in Disneyland or suffering in the banality of soulless sprawl, to me the choice is clear.




  1. The folded plane, a ubiquitous feature of modern architecture, is the glorious application of a ceiling material on the wall at one end of the same ceiling (or vice versa with a wall material on the ceiling).  ↩




Wednesday
Sep192012

A Conservative's Manifesto Against Sprawl

Kaid Benfield, on first discovering the Strong Towns ideals as espoused by Chuck Marohn:

I was intrigued, because this economic argument, while not entirely new, was coming from a new voice, and from someone who had not, as far as I could tell, come up through the usual channels of planning schools and smart growth activism.

[…]

Chuck is now a star among people who think about towns and cities, in great demand as a consultant and speaker, which he clearly enjoys. In my opinion, his emergence as someone worth paying attention to is not just because he is such an earnest, nice guy (although that’s part of it), but also because his plain, easy-to-understand logic about public spending and return on investment is so consistent, and insistent. Somewhere along the line he and the Congress for the New Urbanism discovered each other, and that has been to the benefit of both.

I think what makes Chuck so compelling is his ability to take these pretty complex concepts and weave a coherent, logical, and simple narrative throughout the various facets of making great places. I love that Chuck provides an entirely different perspective on the issues but arrives at generally the same conclusions. That, to me, is proof that creating great places is not a political issue but a human issue. We need ideas from all sides and we may find that even though we start at opposite ends of the spectrum we all end up closer together than we thought.

I’m looking forward to reading Chuck’s new book: Thoughts on Strong Towns - even more so after reading Kaid’s great overview and review of the book.

You can get the paperback version or the kindle version from Amazon.