Urban Designer?
Adapted from ‘Emergence’ by Steven Johnson .
The form of cities has historically been driven by the ever evolving requirements of its people. There is an equilibrium at work, with new buildings (or adaptations of existing buildings) introduced to meet the changing needs and aspirations of its population. A city will always be in flux, adapting to the individual requirements of those living and working in it. The faster the rate of change in a population’s requirements the larger the changes required in the built environment to accommodate them. But whatever the speed of change, time is a critical factor. The organic growth of a city is the result of its inhabitants continually making personal decisions about the suitability of the built environment to assist them in the pursuit of their own goals. Importantly, there is no notion of an overall plan or end state in the development of a traditional city, simply a need to meet individual requirements at a given point in time.
Town planning was originally a response to the conflicts that arose between a city’s inhabitants as a result of this uncoordinated, highly individualised response to the built environment. This arises from the close proximities that are necessary to benefit from the potential efficiencies that cities offer. In this way town planning was originally an extension of the justice system, ruling on disputes associated with the built environment to maintain order. Many of these were then formalised through building regulations and codes. Importantly, the purpose of these codes was not to plan for the long-term organisation of the city, nor did they interfere with the process of individual adaptation of the built environment by its population.
With the success of the Industrial Revolution, many now viewed traditional cities as archaic, irrational, inefficient places which could be improved with the new techniques developed as part of the machine age. Central to this was the idea of a single vision that would rationalise the layout of the city. The role of town planning went from that of mediator to that of designer and in doing so all but removed the evolutionary development of cities that had previously responded to the individual requirements of its people. In its place was an all encompassing plan designed to solve the “problem” of the city.
But the organisation and compartmentalisation of cities into proxies of machines was soon being questioned. The results produced sterile places, unloved by their inhabitants. This lead to a call for a “New Urbanism”, one that returned to the traditional forms of the city with streets, blocks and mixed uses. Crucially, this latest approach neglected to address or even identify the greatest failing of the previous attempts to design cities, continuing to focus on the product rather than the process. New Urbanism was still about an end state, rather than about facilitating the inhabitants of a city with the necessary tools to help them to develop the built environment such that it could respond to their own needs. Simply trying to imitate the end state of existing, successful cities ignores the vital importance of the process that created them.
The form of a traditional city is the result of innumerate individual decisions spread over generations in response to current and predicted personal needs. By contrast modern town planning has been almost wholly focused on urban form as the starting point. It is this personalisation of the environment in traditional cities that gives them a sense of history and of longevity, and its people a sense of attachment. By contrast, mass production of the built environment, conceived from a single blueprint, leaves its inhabitants as nothing more than consumers of cities where they were once creators.
Current attempts at planning cities continue to focus on the product as an output. We must once again find a way to enable the processes of traditional city creation to flourish. It must be about the lightest possible touch that facilitates a cities population to create a sustainable environment. Over the last 10 years Urban Designers have been quick to point out the failings of other built environment professions, often self-righteous in the apparent knowledge that they have all the answers when it comes to creating attractive places. But their track record has been less than glorious; still unable to match the success of life in traditional cities that have developed organically. Despite now knowing what qualities make for a successful place, the profession still seems unable to grasp that it is the processes that create these qualities that are all important. Even the title Urban Designer suggests a lack of understanding about how cities work, failing to recognise the need for stewardship rather than control.
Town planning was originally a response to the conflicts that arose between a city’s inhabitants as a result of this uncoordinated, highly individualised response to the built environment. This arises from the close proximities that are necessary to benefit from the potential efficiencies that cities offer. In this way town planning was originally an extension of the justice system, ruling on disputes associated with the built environment to maintain order. Many of these were then formalised through building regulations and codes. Importantly, the purpose of these codes was not to plan for the long-term organisation of the city, nor did they interfere with the process of individual adaptation of the built environment by its population.
With the success of the Industrial Revolution, many now viewed traditional cities as archaic, irrational, inefficient places which could be improved with the new techniques developed as part of the machine age. Central to this was the idea of a single vision that would rationalise the layout of the city. The role of town planning went from that of mediator to that of designer and in doing so all but removed the evolutionary development of cities that had previously responded to the individual requirements of its people. In its place was an all encompassing plan designed to solve the “problem” of the city.
But the organisation and compartmentalisation of cities into proxies of machines was soon being questioned. The results produced sterile places, unloved by their inhabitants. This lead to a call for a “New Urbanism”, one that returned to the traditional forms of the city with streets, blocks and mixed uses. Crucially, this latest approach neglected to address or even identify the greatest failing of the previous attempts to design cities, continuing to focus on the product rather than the process. New Urbanism was still about an end state, rather than about facilitating the inhabitants of a city with the necessary tools to help them to develop the built environment such that it could respond to their own needs. Simply trying to imitate the end state of existing, successful cities ignores the vital importance of the process that created them.
The form of a traditional city is the result of innumerate individual decisions spread over generations in response to current and predicted personal needs. By contrast modern town planning has been almost wholly focused on urban form as the starting point. It is this personalisation of the environment in traditional cities that gives them a sense of history and of longevity, and its people a sense of attachment. By contrast, mass production of the built environment, conceived from a single blueprint, leaves its inhabitants as nothing more than consumers of cities where they were once creators.
Current attempts at planning cities continue to focus on the product as an output. We must once again find a way to enable the processes of traditional city creation to flourish. It must be about the lightest possible touch that facilitates a cities population to create a sustainable environment. Over the last 10 years Urban Designers have been quick to point out the failings of other built environment professions, often self-righteous in the apparent knowledge that they have all the answers when it comes to creating attractive places. But their track record has been less than glorious; still unable to match the success of life in traditional cities that have developed organically. Despite now knowing what qualities make for a successful place, the profession still seems unable to grasp that it is the processes that create these qualities that are all important. Even the title Urban Designer suggests a lack of understanding about how cities work, failing to recognise the need for stewardship rather than control.
