Streetscape masterplans, screwing up one city at a time

Discussions of green versus regional design become interesting when compared and contrasted to the modern design typology. Concurring with Peter van Dijk's supposition that modern design (ie. a box glass or otherwise) could be built anywhere due to our building environment controls (Bauhaus in America discussion last Saturday) makes one question whether far reaching movements are responsible design regardless of how interesting they may appear. Regional vernaculars have evolved in a fashion to fit a specific culture and society and show be respected. I know this is an over reaching generalization for today but I am struck by the amount of projects that appear around the world that do not respect a native vernacular. I am not suggesting that we close up our borders and live in fear of change but rather regional design is at least investigated when large projects are being considered. It has become rather simple to build large blocks of glass because we can heat and cool the space inside, it just becomes a dialogue of what has more import, the aesthetic value or the energy used to make the space functional. I am not completely disowning 'crystal' structures because they are typically designed with an attempt to use specialized glass to mitigate the requirements of the HVAC system, I am just stating that there has to be a comprehensive understanding of the cause and effect relationships that every aspect of design involve in order to protect the integrity of the project.

I suppose I am a little off track. I really wanted to just raise awareness of the simple exercise of walking about your city. Recently it has come to my attention that Kauffman Park in Lakewood is in danger of being developed and equally importantly that the strip mall in front of Kauffman Park on Detroit Avenue is facing undergoing the type of change that actually scares me. I don't understand where this mis-appropriation of 'new urbanism' stem from but I am finding it increasingly annoying that 'lifestyle centers (ie, malls you live at) are being billed as living the 'urban lifestyle (without the horrible city around you)' and that communities around the urban core are re-interpreting these lifestyle centers and attempting to adjust their streetscapes to match it by creating false vistas, termini and creating homogeneous, monotonous commercial districts.

Knock it off.

Design of urban (and to an extent exurban/suburban) spaces requires one to visit the idea of how buildings frame the street, creating public rooms for movement, collection, identification and experience. If every room looks the same then how do you know where you are? The worst possible answer to this would be to take a viable commercial strip (such as Detroit or Madison Avenue) and fragment it into segmented miniature districts that somehow are supposed to follow prescribed rules of intent such as an entertainment district or art district. The before mentioned commercial strips are not of such length as to necessitate the inclusion of gateways or banners for one to remember where they are. If a person cannot tell immediately and continuously locate oneself then one starts to re-evaluate the greater area as a whole. This also allows for an intermingling of commercial opportunity (without district typology restrictions) which increases walkability and pedestrian desire. I know that to some of our amazing urban designers this comes as a compete shock that the hanging baskets, lights and banners do very little to make a district successful if the commercial and residential infrastructure isn't there in the first place.

I plan to touch on this topic a little bit more in the future and hopefully include some photos and finger pointing (yes, I plan to name some names, not that anyone will be surprised at that). In the meantime there was a rather fun article in the Metroblog section of the Plain Dealer on footpaths which I found not only interesting but rather timely as one imagines how spaces are interpreted from outside of the automobile.