Nature, community, and participation in urban design

This is another reading response for the course Urban Design Theory given by David Monteyne at the University of Calgary.

The readings I have chosen for this week are about the ecological, social, and participatory aspects of urban planning and design. A common theme–which may be utterly obvious–is that urban (design) processes are complex and are therefore to be treated by designers and planners with great care and compassion. While this complexity may call for professionals, I argue that it requires the public as protagonists not mere participants. At the end of this little text I argue for an–also possibly utterly obvious–intervention that integrates those aspects.

I started with the ‘ecological’ readings and was baffled by the idea of treating the city as an ecosystem and bringing nature back into the city. First it seemed to me that the city is everything but nature. Reading along McHarg’s [6] argument, I started to appreciate the idea of considering the functions that could be fulfilled by natural processes. One of the considerations he ends the article with is the comparison of nature and art; here I think he actually provides an intriguing alternative way for bringing nature into the focus, as a ‘subject’ of art that may lift up human spirits and open horizons. Spirn’s [7] account of urban ecosystems extends the conception of integrating natural and human processes, by ‘classifying’ everything as nature with differing degrees of wilderness.

Similar to the neglect of nature, the authors writing about social aspects of public space criticize the neglect of sociality and community as a key parameter for urban design. I found Whyte’s chapters [1] quite entertaining, in particular the observation of self-congestion was particularly interesting to me (have a look at this YouTube video of his study). Contrasting this to motorist traffic where congestion is not really something desirable, people (we) behave so interestingly when there are not separated by concrete or steel. Gehl’s [2] classification of activities and varying degrees of social interaction tie back to class discussions on spontaneous sociality and how certain environments may support it. He presents interesting guidelines to support richer and more diverse modes of social interaction. Complementing observations and guidelines, Marcus and Francis [3] present a nice typology of currently existing plazas and squares that may inspire new types of public space.

Scheer [5] and Carmona et al. [4] address issues of participation in the design and planning process. Thinking of last class and the discussion around the role of professionals and lay people, I found these readings quite interesting, however, they don’t go far enough in my view, even though the ideal of public participation is lauded by both. It is rather assumed that architects/professionals with global knowledge innovate, while the public holding local knowledge reacts. To me, the public has a broader knowledge and experience going beyond the ‘local’ and theoretical specialization of designers and architects. The question is how could innovation and participation go hand in hand? How could the public enter the realm of active creation,invention, and design? And what would the role of professionals? Carmona et al. mention the Web as a communication medium; we’re seeing now that it is evolving into a collaboration medium that may provide completely new configuration of crowd design. As the dominant forms of representations (mapping and 3d modelling) are becoming already far more accessible, the conflict between “view from above” and “ground-level view” could be easier to bridge than assumed.

If we would like to respond to some degree to ills of society, what should we address? Scheer [5], for example, talks about greed, consumption, and natural deterioration. Considering last week’s discussion about Benjamin’s [8] critique of the city as an array of commodities and images and the environmental, social, and administrative issues raised by some of the readings this week, I think a particular charming intervention is the community garden. In its small scope, it gives interesting answers. It is small scale and is doable without having to understand the whole complexity of the city. A group of committed people is required and not necessarily the endorsement by the city council, professionals, or developers. In addition to the many mentioned functions parks fulfill, community gardens provide food and sociality. Community gardens may actually be a prime social, ecological, participatory approach to public space in a city.

[1] W. H. Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, ch. “Introducton”, “The Life of Plazas”, “Sitting Space”, and “Sun, Wind, Trees, and Water”. 1980.
[2] J. Gehl, Life Between Buildings, ch. “Three Types of Outdoor Activities” and “Life Between Buildings”. 1987.
[3] Marcus and Francis, People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space, ch. Urban Plazas. 1998.
[4] T. O. Matthew Carmona, Tim Heath and S. Tiesdell, Public Places – Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design, ch. The Communication Process. 2003.
[5] B. C. Scheer, Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control, ch. The Debate on Design Review. 1994.
[6] I. McHarg, “The place of nature in the city of man,” Annals of the American Academy, vol. 352, pp. 1–12, March 1964.
[7] A. W. Spirn, The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design, ch. “Prologue” and Chapter 1 “City and Nature”. Basic Books, 1984.
[8] W. Benjamin, Reflections, ch. Paris, Capital of the Nineteenth Century, pp. 146–162. Harvest/HBJ, 1979.