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.
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.
"Is the space useable?" The question that you highlight as the determining factor for success in Urban Design does not encompass all of the qualities that define success of a place. Functionality is a huge aspect of a successful design, but the true test of good design is less tangible. I think that is really how the rest of your article reads, even explicitly stated when you write “Emotion is what determines the success of urban design.” Perhaps your personal question is the one you ask at the end, “. . . how can we make the space usable AGAIN?” It is a question that does not define success necessarily, but one that can help to direct functionality when combined meaningfully with emotion, historical significance, etc.
ReplyDeleteI probably didn't pose that correctly, but I think "is the space usable?" defines how all architectural space is defined. Yes there's other factors that need to be considered, but "does it work?" it the ultimate question. And functionality and usability I believe are one in the same. How a space is used defines it's function. And how a space functions determines how it can be used.
DeleteI completely agree that "success" in any form of design can not be defined in such a black in white manner. Just like urban design itself, it does not have one distinct definition and can ultimately only be defined by the viewer. Which was the point I was trying to portray by building on the original question of "is a space usable" and transforming it into "how can we make this space usable AGAIN?". Both personal questions that are completely up for interpretation.
Urban design products are unfinished projects resulted from the process of the dynamic forces for change to urban environment.
ReplyDeleteMegan, I enjoyed your writing style and how you truly questioned what urban design was and drove into a deeper understanding of the field. When considering future development and how a how a user interacts with the space is an important component to creating a sense of place and making sure our designs are integrated appropriately. But when re-designing existing spaces, that sense of place can become blurred. I'm curious as to how when working on historical preservation,for instance, what "emotion" or sense is trying to be drawn out/ given to the space?
ReplyDeleteI feel like it depends on the space and the intent of the new use. If it is truly a preservation project then the sense and emotion of the space is supposed to stay consistent with the original design. Since the actual design (sense) of the space isn't changing and is only being maintained. But if it is an adaptive reuse project than it is more about finding a balance between the new use and the original character. It's an extremely hard task to achieve and I feel only really works when historical features in the space are highlighted and used as ornamentation rather than for their function. The new sense of space is now more typically focused on the evolution of the building.
Delete