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