Contemporary Urban Design Theories

After reviewing the assigned readings for this week my understanding of urban design and the theories (that I’ve heard thus far) that construct them, are even more muddled.  On one hand, most theories focus more on the philosophical side of a theory, while the other takes direct examples from history to explain why certain events/concepts occurred.  Although one is fact based and the other more focused on “mind and body” concepts, it gets me questioning theory in general.  Are all theories derived from interpretation?  Or can a theory actually explain the full “being” of a subject?  Do these theories presented actually define urbanization or is it an ever evolving subject that never stays constant enough to understand it’s full purpose?

Place and Placelessness explains Edward Relph’s experimentation of urban design, and it seems that his conclusions are closely related to my theories on the subject.  Relph explains that space isn’t necessarily a place, it is more defined by how people experience it.  As I tried to explain in Module One, I believe the success of a design is directly related to how a person inhabits a space and if it is usable.  To take it one step further, Relph goes on to say that in order for a place to hold significance it needs to be understood.  Once the understanding of a place is lost, consideration for maintenance, usage and restoration are lost. 

I wonder if “understanding” can be better described as “admiration”.  When he states that once understanding for a place is lost, the consideration for its well-being is absent.  For example, when a house is worn down to the point that it is abandoned, the admiration for the space is lost and it is no longer a home, rather just a shell of a building. 

As Relph stated, the more profoundly inside a place someone is, the more they identify with it.  It isn’t enough to just be present in a space, you have to be “one” with the place in order completely identify/understand its potential.  But regardless of time period, geographical location, or economic standpoint, “people will always need place” because it helps define who we are as humans.  Which is why I think people have the ability to see the future possibilities of spaces, even though they may never have seen it in its original condition.  Place isn’t defined by a space, it is defined by the individual that can identify with its true potential.

To relate this all back to urban design itself, The City as Text: Architecture and Urban Design explained that architecture and urban design are linked in the dynamics of urban change and spatial organization.  While the physical arrangement of the built environment provides a sense of stability during times of change, the connection of person to nature has been the main focus of urbanization for quite some time.  And according to the article, having a relationship with the outdoors was almost considered "American" during the Industrial Age.  During a time when the automobile and machinery were trying to take over, it was the theory that open space and that a connection between place and the natural environment were crucial to our future.  In order to urbanize, all theories must take into consideration the present issues at hand, as well as the future consumption/needs of the population.  What is urbanization without a future?  And what is the built environment without nature?

x

DEFINING URBAN DESIGN

Defining urban design is no simple feat.  And honestly, a very biased task.  Just like everything design related, success and failure are determined by the opinion of the viewer.  There is no right and wrong.  But there is (arguably) good and bad. 

Is the space usable?

This question is ultimately the deciding factor as to whether a space is successful or not.  No matter what the design program is, whether it be a new park, mixed use building or total reconfiguration of an entire city center, is the space usable has to be answered.

Before you can categorize urban design I think you have to define what a city is, and what its meaning is to you, before determining what its overall design and layout should be.  To me, a city isn't a place.  It's a person.  Personality, appearance, comfort are not just qualities you search for in a companion, but also in the environment you reside.  I believe cities are the "organs" of our country. They are where our economy (our lifeline) thrives.  There are a number of ways to support the production of an economy (and the human body), and the best way is typically strengthening the inside first.  That's how I view urban design.  Strengthening communities, or the inner foundation of a city, and finding ways to make them thrive.  In return you will create the success of the city in which it is located.

Urban design isn't created by just one individual or designer.  It is influenced by every individual that inhabits the space at any point in time.  And unlike architecture or landscape architecture, it's end goal isn't to present a product, but rather a way of life.  Emotion is what determines the success of urban design.

Urban planning on the other hand is often related to urban design and many think they are one in the same.  But to me, urban planning relates more to the future development of a space and the built elements that will need to be introduced to create a new use.  While, urban design is how the user interacts and feels while in the space.  For example, Robert Moses thought that introducing major roadways into cities were the answer to creating a more thriving downtown.  While Jane Jacobs felt that creating densely populated community cores, allowed for the residents to create safe, user friendly spaces through the natural in-habitation of the space.  One planned to incorporate major renovations to "enhance" communities.  While the other, utilized what was already in place and showed people that by using the resources right in front of them, they could create their ideal community.

That last example gets me questioning everything we know about urban design...and actually might be what my thesis will be on.  "Utilizing what is already in place", I view as historic preservation, which is actually one of the six basis's for defining urban design according to the Institute of Urban Design (1).  Although I feel "adaptive reuse" is a more accurate term...it gets me questioning not only is the space usable, but also how can we make this space usable AGAIN?  Urban design isn't necessarily about introducing new elements to make a place better.  It is also about reinventing the spaces that we already have, to make a place great again.

Urban design is an ever evolving task that I don't feel can be defined.  Urban developers themselves can not be defined as architects, landscape architects, theorists, engineers, etc.  How are we supposed to define a design movement that can't even define it's participants?  Urban design is always changing and would need to be redefined continuously.  The only constant that I can find in urban development and the built environment itself is, how is the space used and does it work?  The practicality and function of the space in that moment is what defines it.

1     Polakit, Kasama.   Urban Design | The "Field". [PowerPoint slides].  Retrieved             from https://bblearn.uidaho.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_63923_1&content_id=_1181869_1