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.

The main theme throughout the readings for me was the significance and the divergent interpretation of open streets and squares as public spaces. It was particularly interesting to read how Baudelaire (as discussed by Berman [4]) sees Paris’ boulevards as a place where people of different classes would eventually come together again, whereas Engels understood Manchester’s thoroughfares as a “hypocritical plan” to hide the misery and poverty present in workers’ districts [1]. What troubled me reading this, is that his description of how Manchester is structured along class divisions, still applies to most cities of the world. People living in gated/suburban communities and those living in poorer neighbourhoods are not really bumping into each other on great common boulevards—instead, they probably stand bumper to bumper separated by steel, glass, fumes and noise.

It is also interesting to see how the different lifestyles over time and culture may lead to completely different types of streets and city layouts. The Gies’ describe the streets of the medieval town Troyes based on need and everyday practice: streets are often named after the trades that were located therein [3]. While the cities of British America four centuries later also heavily relied on trade, the naming and layout of the streets show the rejection of the dense European city in favour the ‘green country town’ with Oake and Pine Streets laid out after a rather spacious grid (Girouard [5]). To me it was striking how British and French city planning tended to favour open streets and squares for leisurely strolling (mostly by the privileged), as evidenced in Calcutta’s esplanade, Paris’ boulevards, and Williamsburg’s main street, whereas the Spanish plazas in Latin America must have been planned rather for churches, markets, and celebrations (Girouard [5])—possibly oriented more towards common/communal needs of city inhabitants. Ironically, the wide open streets of British America turned out to be particularly practical for motorist traffic, so that the envisioned seeing and being seen happens less during strolling through cityscapes, but during the rush hours of car traffic.

When reading about how cities and spaces have been designed and restructured by ‘great’ thinkers and doers, such as Michelangelo with Capitoline Hill in Rome [2] and Haussmann with the boulevards in Paris [4], I wondered who really was part of the planning process and—maybe more importantly—who should it be in the future. Bacon mentions the ‘principle of the 2nd man’ and thus alludes to a process of many actors throughout the planning process of urban space. I would argue that planning, changing, improving neighbourhoods should be a much more interactive and participatory process. After all, city planners and architects may not live in the spaces they create and envision. We have seen many provocative works that certainly contributed to artsy and intellectual discourse, but what about the people actually living in such urban spaces? Should they have a say? How could this ‘say’ be transformed into practical participatory planning? I could imagine that a more inclusive approach towards planning could also be a catalyst for community building. Wouldn’t people relate more to each other, if the built environment has been conceived and created together in a collaborative process? I would assume that shared experiences relating both people and built artefacts may better support a richer social fabric in contrast to the often anonymous relations in our cities.

[1] F. Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, ch. The Great Towns. 1845.
[2] E. N. Bacon, “Upsurge of the renaissance,” Design of Cities, pp. 9–16, 1967. From The Urban Design Reader (Routledge, 2007).
[3] J. and F. Gies, Life in a Medieval City. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1969. Chapter “Troyes: 1250″ (23-33) and “A Medieval Housewife” (46-52).
[4] M. Berman, “”the family of eyes” and “the mire of the macadam”,” All That is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity, 1982. From The Urban Design Reader (Routledge, 2007).
[5] M. Girouard, Cities and People, ch. 11 The City as Export. Yale University Press, 1985.

Ich spiele ja mit dem Gedanken übers Wochenende nach Utrecht zu fahren. Hat wer Interesse mitzukommen?

via we make money not art: City Wipeout

Considering appropriation of built architecture as turning the use of public space upside down, a vast basket of urban activities during the recent years and decades pops up: Parkour, Graffiti/Streetart, Culture Jamming, and Critical Mass – to name a few. A growing number of people seek to challenge the existing mode of living and moving in the city. They don’t do this just because it is fun, but also do this as an act of resistance.

Looking at the motorized and concreted Santiago many types appropriation can be seen. Last Sunday i was biking around in Santiago and encountered quite a big gathering of skateboarders in front of the Moneda. They were asking the president for skateboarding parks where they could show and improve their skills. Upcoming Saturday there will be a big bicyclists manifestation in Santiago with the motto Compartamos la ciudad (let’s share the city). And then their are very practical appropriations of land and buildings, e.g. the Casa OkupArte AKÍ.

Appropriation is everywhere. It is organically questioning from the bottom what is dictated from the above. It shapes democratically what should have been democratically in the first place. Furthermore it has the effect that it either makes the professionials – architects, politicians, designers, programmers, …. – angry or – which is even better – think.

Giancarlo De Carlo once said: “In reality architecture is too important to be left to architects.”

A Polish group, called M-City, has taken this isometric architecture onto street level. As I have entered their site I was overwhelmed by their creativity and slickness. Until this point I just knew that it was possible to combine stencils, yet I didn’t know how far you could take the concept of constructing a large piece by joining ’several’ smaller parts. The people of M-City have done about 100 architectural objects so far and:

“Thanks to such a technique printing the stencil is much easier, moreover it allows printing a single fragment of the building. All of the buildings can be joined in multiple ways with author’s imagination as the only limit. It’s easy to customise the buildings by mixing the roofs and elevations - parts of different stencils. All of the objects have a brighter left face and a darker right face which adds them the depth and vividness. After the sketch is done it’s being enlarged to A2 format and laminated on both sides. The late guarantees long-term resilience of the stencil, proofing it against absorption of the paint. As the layers of the paint get too thick it’s easy to tear them down and use the stencil again (some of the stencils were used hundreds of times). Finally the stencil is being cut out.”

“… a promotion of groups of people who work together for society. These include independent media, charities, non-governmental organisations, off theatres etc. Most of the project realisations are on especially chosen walls and matching the historical or architectural context of the surroundings.”

Btw, I have found this group via the visual resistance blog, which seems to be a good ressource, too.

All stencil images from http://www.m-city.org