Regional and Urban Design Committee

 View Only

  • 1.  Urban Design for All

    Posted 09-23-2011 04:49 AM
    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Do I hear an argument developing that wives of architects, enlightened pundits of sustainability, don't have a voice in the choice of location of their domicile?  That women, professionals and lay folk alike, lack a heightened concern for the nurturing of young children?  I would only point out that the stereotypical characterization I used, suburban, single family, garage, SUV, etc., is precisely the one most critics of sprawl use when exhorting the great unwashed to a more enlightened perspective.  I hear echos in the discussion suggesting that architects would choose the city as a preferable living environment if only it were nicer, cleaner, cheaper, and generally as amenitized as the suburbs.  Nobody wants to fess up to the general preference for cozy, tree lined streets linking nice single family homes with lawns, solid neighbors, and (normally) growing equity.

    The reality is that architects and planners talk mainly among themselves, preaching earnestly to the choir, but generally behaving like everybody else.  The glaring reality is that Mr. and Mrs. Suburbopolis don't read our tracts, manifestos, and glossies, or pay very much attention to us at all.  They simply don't appreciate cities except as business environments or adult playgrounds, because most modern cities are not really that convenient either for those who fear them (or who are stuck in them, as the likes of Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox never fail to point out), and nurture lifestyle conceits built on fantasys of country estates and lebensraum, even when the dingbat tract leaves only 10 feet or less between bathroom and bedroom windows.

    We professionals have in America done a generally lousy job of either conceiving or designing cities, even on the rare occasions when we've had the chance.  We've been very good at imposing our assumptions on other classes of people, often with disastrous results: Pruitt Igoe stands out glaringly, but there are also many default examples, not the least of which are evident in the commercial strips that link our cozy suburban enclaves with freeways leading to all those great cultural venues residing in dense commercial areas, and the towering trophy erections that surround them. 

    We are the handmaidens of the development industry, lacking the wealth or connections to be movers and shakers ourselves, and serving their preconclusions and financial models, most of which perpetuate sprawl, now likely to be gussied up with quaint service and entertainment nodes and TND warm fuzzies.

    If we are ever to have a dialogue with the Suburbopolis family about the sustainability of dense urban environments, we will need to have in mind a model they can be convinced  is superior to the idealized suburban one (you know: lacking crime, drug addiction, adolescent detachment, malaise and depression, poverty, ethnicity, congestion, polution, or political chicanery), an environment which they - and we - can accept in terms of not only issues of identity, privacy, defensibility, convenience, mobility, and security, but one that makes room for rearing children to an ethical adulthood.  If we cannot foster a cultural shift by acknowledging and dealing with those concerns, I think the current ongoing trend will not be reversed.  The fact is that dense cities are always going to be more expensive to build, at least in the short term, if not to live in and maintain.  Flat farmland, Chicago framing, building codes, and the automobile have just about cast that reality in stone.

    What the "new and improved" city might look and feel like seems to me to be our challenge. 

    -------------------------------------------
    Gary Collins AIA
    Principal
    Gary R. Collins, AIA
    Jacksonville OR
    -------------------------------------------
    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13


  • 2.  RE:Urban Design for All

    Posted 09-26-2011 02:34 PM

    I don't usually jump into these discussions - but as an architect, ex-wife of an architect (twice actually) and a mother I feel compelled to interrupt this debate. Like too many issues, we end up arguing from two sides as if one should be the 'winner' when in fact all have an appropriate place and time. As a mother I have faced these debates on breastfeeding vs. bottles, cloth diapers vs. disposables, staying at home vs. nannies vs. daycare. And like most people, I can check the "all of the above" box.  So maybe we can stop debating 'which' and start considering 'why' and 'where' and 'when' and even 'how' we provide appropriate, functional, high quality environments to better accommodate the full range of lifestyles which make up our communities.  

    When we had our first child we lived in a loft in mid-town Manhattan - let me tell you, NYC looks a lot different when you are pushing a stroller.  Manhattan is very walkable, but not so 'rollable' (as groups advocating for wheelchair accessibility can tell you).  Much of what I loved about the City was now off-limits or presented a major challenge.  Many of our friends were starting families and while a few stayed in Manhattan, most moved to more family-friendly environments. 

    When we chose to move to Minneapolis rather than the New Jersey suburbs, we debated the merits of a loft downtown or a house further out. Yes, as the mother and wife (and architect) I won that argument and we did not move into another loft.  As it turns out, we were able to live two blocks from the bus, in a very traditional house with a backyard and a big front porch and still be in the city - less than 6 miles from the heart of downtown.  But not many cities offer high quality housing in safe neighborhoods with good schools, good transit and a network of bike trails and open space that gave our city-life all the benefits traditionally ascribed to the suburbs.  Our children grew up with the unique experience of walking across the street to buy a candy bar and a comic book at the small corner market (which actually had no parking lot, just on street parallel parking); they took the bus to get to their summer theater program downtown; and today they still prefer transit over driving (only 1 of the three has gotten a driver's license).

    So now with my children out of the nest, did I move back into downtown?  Actually, no.  When I was laid off I followed job prospects to the Phoenix area, where the mix of urban-suburban-rural is even more of a patchwork quilt than most places. So I live in an old west horse town with three horses and a dog - and I hate the suburban sprawl that has overrun this formerly rural community.  I have a very small car and work from home half-time (and I've found other moms with horse trailers and trucks when I need one).  Now instead of working on transit-oriented development, I am advocating for preservation of open space and multi-use trails. But I know that denser development downtown, and smarter, more compact and walkable development in suburban neighborhoods will help preserve our agricultural areas, which will make buying local produce (and hay) much easier...... see how it's all connected?  I'm guessing that when I'm too old for riding, I'll be looking for a senior apartment in an affordable, walkable community - coming full circle.

    Gary, I agree that we need to focus on 'improved' (might not be so new...) cities and suburbs.  . But when we design our communities to better meet people's needs - real needs, like getting groceries home, safely getting three kids back and forth to school, access to safe outdoor play space, etc. - then we won't have a problem convincing people to live in these communities. There are good examples everywhere - Portland, Denver, even Minneapolis.  We have to keep fighting the good fight to get builders, developers, financiers, city planners and transportation engineers, even politicians on board - it's not easy but nothing worthwhile ever is.  So let's not waste energy fueling the angry 'city vs. the suburb' diatribes.  It's a red herring, a distraction at best.  Let's keep talking about how to make them all better!


    -------------------------------------------
    Carolyn Krall AIA
    Senior Associate
    Ayers/Saint/Gross Architects & Planners
    Gilbert AZ
    -------------------------------------------






    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13


  • 3.  RE:Urban Design for All

    Posted 09-27-2011 03:06 AM


    Thanks for sticking with the issues, Carolyn.  I would only point out that it would be difficult to reconcile your earlier preference for an urban domicile versus the urgency of the family dynamic that took you to suburban environments, absent your admission of a preference for suburban neighborhoods for family life.  I was raised in such neighborhoods in Toledo, Ohio, until I was 7 years old, when my dad took us briefly to a rural farming community in Michigan and an ancient brick home we all grew to love; bucolic to a fault: on a river, served by an old one-room schoolhouse, local store and gas station, grange hall, etc.  After five years, however, given my folks' economic itinerancy and essentially anti-urban attitudes - fairly well founded in reality - my parents and later my own family lived in a sequence of suburbias in the western U.S.
     
    I understand the appeal of a farm, ranch, and the identity and freedom they suggest (but don't necessarily deliver) - I now live on three forested acres on a hill within a small historic town with only five nearby neighbors.  However, with respect to the opportunity for such exclusivity, it is usually an elitist option.  I also drive two vehicles, neither of which is famous for fuel efficiency.  Few if any of us designers are likely to provide a model for the optimal citizen of a dense city, and there is no need for us to do so.  However, until those of us who purport to prefer city life are willing to confess that we actually prefer suburban neighborhoods while awaiting realization of the ideal city, we have no business criticizing Family Suburbopolis for the choices they make.  

    Families still really don't have a viable option, not only because virtually none are offered, but because the models they carry around in their heads for "city" have entirely negative connotations with respect to family life.  We all know the equations: low-density development + automobiles = sprawl.  Old dense city + ethnic poverty = social dysfunction.  Historically, both low-density development and the family car define the prefered American lifestyle.  Old news.   
     
    What we need to do as a profession, I think, is decide very subjectively, rather than restricting ouselves exclusively to accepted principles of urban design, what truly constitutes a sustainable city suitable as a habitat for everybody, to include some suburban neighborhoods.  Portland and Denver offer advantages for working adults not available elsewhere, but I've spent time in both cities, and would not be willing to turn my young grandchildren loose in the slummy, business, retail, or recreational districts of either.  Both, especially Portland, represent elements of sustainability and livability unavailable in most other American cities, certainly, but does either constitute a model for optimal design?  I hope not. If they are the best our imaginations as designers can envision, I fear for our ability to influence public conceptions - assuming we begin to talk to the public rather than only among ourselves - and for the future of sustainabilty.  I doubt very much that 0 carbon will be realized by technology alone.  If it can be, our urban planning services as an antidote to sprawl will become irrelevant except in very localized instances. 

    We also need to acknowledge the contribution of commercial and industrial development to sprawl.  Sprawl is not an exclusively residential phenomenon by any means, and that fact must be taken into consideration in any valid design conceptions.  Sprawl has been led by expanding rail lines, highways, and fringe commercial and industrial development in outlying greenfields many times.  Great wealth has accumulated in the process, and continues to be.
    -------------------------------------------
    Gary Collins AIA
    Principal
    Gary R. Collins, AIA
    Jacksonville OR
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message
    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13


  • 4.  RE:Urban Design for All

    Posted 09-28-2011 10:17 AM
    As architects we may have to design the bucolic farm as well as the urban tower, and we can't live in all places. It helps to have lived in a city, perhaps, to design one because some things are not apparent to the visitor. I have never lived in a highrise, but have lived in a rowhouse district in St. Louis with common walls between properties. I will never be a fan of condominium politics. I thought I would share some of my observations from those years.

    When I would go to parties in the suburbs, I would be asked "if there were any good properties they could buy to rent out to Section 8 in my neighborhood?", to which I would reply,  "aren't there any properties out here that you could manage that way?" The response, which I anticipated was that "they didn't want that kind of project near them" and I would then reply, "why do you think I want that near me?" I don't need to go on except to say, dispersion requires more neighborhoods, and groups to get involved with help and retraining the deprived class (or whatever we call them currently) in our society. Our neighborhood churches, schools and community centers in my St Louis Historic District all had food pantries and resume and retraining classes, after school daycare for those who could not afford it, to help people improve their lives. It was a huge effort for a small more privilaged population to administer.

    And there are pockets of poor all over cities and towns, perhaps even countrysides, not just in the downtowns. But this doesn't seem to be the public perception, or an issue to be addressed.

    What I learned living in St. Louis was that Puitt Igoe was only one of maybe 6? or more public housing projects which, after being built, choked the downtown core severely. At least two are still there today, though cleaned and updated. Puitt Igoe was not the only one in St Louis to be razed, just the one that received a prestigious award when built. I just realized this by accident doing research, it had been long forgotten.

    Successful community design is as much about social and economic programs, resident attitudes, and recreational events, as it is architectural form. The mistake is that many architects have been trained to actually believe they 'control' human behavior through their building design, which is a falsehood. The building loved by the first occupant, is often loathed by the last. While architecture contributes, and it is an important contribution, it is a small percentage compared to the social organization of that community.

    I apologize in advance if Walter already has this in his equations, as I have yet to digest all of the information in his postings. And I think this discussion is great, hope you enjoy my ramblings.

    -------------------------------------------
    Gregory Stock AIA
    Project Architect/planner
    Rogers, Lovelock & Fritz, Inc.
    Winter Park FL
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message
    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13


  • 5.  RE:Urban Design for All

    Posted 10-03-2011 07:49 PM
    All,

    The topic of Urban Design for All seems enticing, but is such a broad category that one could respond through a multitude of directions, on variations of themes, but without ever reaching a conclusion, let along consensus.  Gary presented the "challenge", but the "look" and "feel" of a city, as the other responders have noted varies upon one's personal experience, the ignorance of others and a perceived contrast of living within and without an urban setting.

    Gary points out in the start of this discussion "We professionals have in America done a generally lousy job . . ." - to be fair, it is a daunting task to conceive or design a city (let alone a neighborhood), and really is not the role of an architect to define, rein in, or otherwise set the scope for the development of a city.  Gregory's distaste for "condominium politics" would surely be a light afterthought in comparison to battles currently fought throughout this country to achieve, as Gregory puts it "Successful community design . . .".

    I agree with Gary that one primary goal could be to determine ". . . what truly constitutes a sustainable city suitable as a habitat for everybody.".  I would suggest that the very definition of sustainability is in flux, and would rather pare his statement down to "a city suitable as a habitat for everybody".  Even "habitat" may be in question, as there are many who work within a city who do not, nor ever have, lived in an urban setting.  Thus, it would seem, the argument for discussion might actually be "What is suitable".

    To try and compare New York City with Portland, or St. Louis, for example, may certainly be a worthwhile exercise, but I think the issues raised below revolve around long-term, unsolved issues - e.g., walkability, poverty, education - which I believe, if addressed, are most informative to the conceptualization of an Urban Design for All.

    -------------------------------------------
    Vernon Abelsen AIA
    SMR Architects
    Seattle WA
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message
    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13


  • 6.  RE:Urban Design for All

    Posted 09-27-2011 11:09 AM

    Carolyn,

    Given my often contrarian nature I read through your post twice. Nope. Couldn't find a single word I disagreed with. Would you please run for something on the national AIA level?

    The points that needs to be underscored most, I feel, are that we need to focus on livable communities (I'm sure I've heard that term before somewhere...) first and foremost and leave excessive fussing about city v. suburb to myopic political types or maybe planners fresh out of school.

    One element I would like to add in the quest for livable, family-friendly environments is about the role of architects in the equation. As my friend the late Larry Perkins used to say, "The word 'architect' is a collective noun." This is equally true in effecting change in the evolution of human development. From the comments in various RUDC fora we seem to have too many members suggesting that (sigh) if they - whoever "they" are - would just turn things over to us architects we could design our way past the obstacles to those more livable solutions.

    We need to engage the process, as a profession, both more realistically and more forcefully. We have important contributions to make in terms of aesthetics, scale, HSW and sustainability issues, to name only a few. Another critical club in our bag is the ability to develop visualizations of otherwise abstract urban design concepts. Architects are truly the only profession trained to clearly see a world that doesn't exist yet - and to develop doable plans to get us there.

    Our visualization skills, to follow that example, are critical - but just because we have them doesn't make us the ones in charge. We need to see ourselves, and to insist that we be seen, as critical members of the team, just not automatically the obergruppenfuhrer. At the table. Visualizations can help shape public opinion, clear away misgivings, and foster important discussions of issues in ways that otherwise would not occur. But just as most architects would not be comfortable turning the major design decisions over to the firm that does their more elaborate presentation renderings - or to their inexperienced, more computer-savvy junior staff - so our putative teammates are not about to just wait to be handed our wisdom from on high because we can draw pictures of it. Our profession's contributions are and must be about the larger shared effort if they are to have meaning beyond onanism.

    Besides, fully, maturely engaged civic discourse is essential to what makes the US (IMHO) the greatest invention in the history of humanity. We are the first country that exists because a group of people got together and came up with a plan to govern themselves, free of pre-emption through heredity or divine designation (beyond such blessings as may be seen to be for all people).

    Our only architect President (so far) knew this and fully intended for this country to be governed through principled deliberations in a meritocracy. Our shortcomings as a profession, our inability to be sufficiently part of that conversation, trace largely to a lack of nerve to act beyond our drafting tables or monitors. We need to build coalitions and marshal consensus.

    We must be ready for give and take; we must find synthesized, hybrid, both/and solutions in the larger urban development equation just as we do in our design work on individual buildings. Clarity of vision can be handy but is only paradigmatic; if we don't get it exactly the way we think it should be that's not a reason not to continue. Carolyn is a parent; I'm sure she understands when I invoke the 80% rule about this.

    We know we can build better, more livable communities. We need to get in the game, while keeping in mind that it's not just our game.

    -------------------------------------------
    Eric Davis AIA
    Oak Park IL
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message
    AIA26 San Diego June 10-13