1) I must admit that I was a little weary of the Jane Jacobs reading at first after reading the title of ‘The Uses of Sidewalks,’ however I could not have be happier that I was proven wrong. Right from the start the reading sparked numerous thoughts and motivating comparisons. Towards the beginning of the reading I was hesitant to accept a few of her examples, more specifically the North End of Boston and the New York projects Christmas tree. The reason I wasn’t fully convinced about the North End example was because I felt as if she was alluding to the fact that diversity guarantees safety (a statement I find too bold). In terms of the NY Christmas tree, I found myself questioning the validity/relativeness, however later I came to realize the consequences that open space can have. A great aspect about the reading was the notion that sidewalks are really, in a way, the heart of the city and one of the most crucial aspects (although often times they tend to be overlooked) being that they are where a vast amount of interactions occur (or should/can occur). Sidewalks are a transitional fabric interwoven throughout any and every city and the reading made me realize that more effort should be focused on the design of them, beyond simply animating them with trees and planters. A question that I had, though, was in regards to her mentioning the success of activating sidewalks with shops, bars, restaurants, and the like. While I fully agree with the high rate of success of this, she never quite addresses the fact that we simply cannot afford to open shops/restaurants on every sidewalk in the city (especially in this economy). What are the alternatives? Going along the same idea, another question was what would happen if we made sidewalks private property rather than under ownership of the city? This would create more freedom for business/shop owners to design additional real estate how they saw fit, thus activating sidewalks even further and elevating the amount of security they provide as she so greatly noted in the readings.
2) 2 further points I thoroughly enjoyed from the Jane Jacob’s reading were 1) the acknowledgement that people love people. People love to people watch and go where other people go. If one goes, they all follow. How, then, can designers influence (not control) this notion to it’s utmost potential? I could not help but to think of designs; relating the sidewalk to a ‘fishbowl’ and/or viewing the sidewalk as a gallery space of ‘live art.’ When thought of in these terms I feel that it entices people/designers to a whole new level of thought on the impact that sidewalks can have. The second point I appreciated was the depiction of 3 consequences: a) letting danger exist (projects/low income housing), b) taking refuge in vehicles (African safari tourists), and c) the turf system (in terms of gangs). While all of these points are very valid, I kept focusing on the third and last comment of turf wars and gangs, more specifically her example given thereafter. Where/how is the line drawn? Clearly the community attempting to create ‘pacts on turf’ was a very legitimate way to address the REAL problem; however of course there is then the issue of discrimination and encouragement of gangs. As designers, it is always easier to simply analyze the theory behind what the community did and label it as wrong or unsuccessful, but it is so easy to get lost in theory and never address the REALity of a situation. In parts of many cities ganglands are very real and need to be addressed in some way, and ultimately I tend to lean to the idea that perhaps pacts on turf is a decent solution for the time being.
3) The Gehl reading was one of my favorite readings we have had thus far. It touched on a variety of different important aspects that I feel are often never realized, or rather never quantified/documented. The first acknowledgement was the importance of outdoors due to that being the locale where most all interaction occurs was such a simple concept, yet for some reason seemed to open my eyes more to it. While he addressed the fact that interaction is heavily dependent upon similar economics, politics, and ideals (and I strongly agree), I wondered if some others would consider this ‘discrimination’ or singling out a particular group of people to design for. Again, I go back to the idea that the world is not all “roses and puppies” and often times it is most successful to design for a particular social/economic/political group rather than always trying to mould everything together (not to be mistaken for discrimination). In addition to these 3 factors of interaction, he brilliantly brings into play the impact that designers can have on the success, or failure, of interaction. He helped me make the correlation that although we, as designers, may not always directly design for such interactions, what we create almost always indirectly influences how people interact with the physical space/limits around them. The whole notion of life and processes between buildings was brilliant! Throughout the entire reading I could not help but to think of possible installation designs or pop-up alley events that our studio could research and create in order to help others come to this realization also. One question this did raise, though, was what exactly does he mean by processes? I fully understand the overall concept of what he is writing about, however he never mentions directly what exact ‘processes’ he means (unless it is as simple as interaction being the process).
4) Secondly, I felt as if the Gehl reading corresponded perfectly with the Jane Jacob’s reading, as I continuously found myself drawing parallels between the two. I think the most interesting correlation I made was when Gehl began to expand on there being a lack of transition (or ‘middle ground’) within urban environments (more specifically dwellings). Now having lived in Cleveland for a few months, this could not be truer in my experience. While I’m sure it is true that many higher end apartment complexes have grand lobbies, often it is simply a zone for elevators and mail to be received (and something that rarely lives up to the potential it has). That being the case, then, I wonder if we could utilize sidewalks for this transitional space. I mentioned in the Jacobs reading how it could be fascinating if sidewalks were private space rather than city-owned; but now after reading this, I think we could take that even further and create the sense of hierarchy that Gehl is constantly referring to and apply it to sidewalk experience. In addition to the vast design possibilties of this notion, is the bonus of having the transition space also act as the prime space of interaction within the city. Overlapping these two crucial programs would create on of the most successful spaces within an urban fabric (and could be applied throughout the entire scale of the city!). Lastly, I found Gehl’s reading to be intriguing in the way that he was able to convey his ideas. Between his simple ‘inhibiting/promoting contact’ diagrams and his quantification of designer data, I was almost able to fully understand the whole reading again just from those 2 aspects. The whole “1+1=3” and the “number vs duration” equation is genius. It reminded me of the filming of the Avenger’s movie here in Cleveland. There were swarms of people all over East 9th, Euclid, and Prospect; however, I now realize the deceiving perception that can create. “The number of people or events does not, then, in itself give a real indication of the activity level in an area.” It has to deal with duration also (i.e. walk to E. 9th now between Euclid and Prospect now and………nothing). With all things considered, then, how can we as designers more heavily influence the duration of our creations? How can we take public installations and pop-up events even further so that they become more substantial and not forgotten a mere 2 weeks later as in the Avenger’s case?
5) I was amazed at both the level and amount of detail Allan Jacobs displayed in his reading. Not only did he go as far as to sketch paving details of roads, he does so while analyzing countless streets (hundreds!). Again, I think this is a great example of how simple a lot of these concepts can be, it just takes someone to go out and both recognize and document the physical world around them. I appreciated that he acknowledged the fact that there are a myriad of factors that can define a street as a “great street;” which to think anything otherwise would just be silly, considering the vast amount of cultures, city environments, uses, and scales that exist in the world. As he so eloquently notes, one of the most important parts of analyzing great streets is to compare as many aspects of as many streets as you can (which he CLEARLY does). I think one of the most significant things to take away from this reading was his notion of the intrinsic value of streets. Much like how we discussed the indirect value of parks/green spaces in urban environments, streets are the same way (a prime example being the tax-payers of San Francisco for Market street). With streets being nearly a third of EVERY city, it is almost impossible to quantify the amount of potential that they have! The interplay of human activity and physical space that he denotes is one that I think is the most influential and important aspects of life (i.e. the reason for my wanting to become an architect/urban designer). Because streets so clearly define the culture of a city, I am now continuously asking myself what street defines Cleveland (if any)? Is it East 9th? The only true north/south axis throughout the city. Is it West 6th? The bar district that is booming, but only during peak hours and peak seasons? Is it Euclid Avenue? The primary transit corridor, where many of the old shops used to be. Is it East 4th? A great ‘alleyway’ of sort that is full of culture. Or maybe, is it along the Detroit/Superior Bridge? Basically what I am getting at is does a city have to have one street (or street layout/template) in order to define the city’s success? Are there any unifying factors that all of these Cleveland streets possess? Or is that perhaps that problem?
2) 2 further points I thoroughly enjoyed from the Jane Jacob’s reading were 1) the acknowledgement that people love people. People love to people watch and go where other people go. If one goes, they all follow. How, then, can designers influence (not control) this notion to it’s utmost potential? I could not help but to think of designs; relating the sidewalk to a ‘fishbowl’ and/or viewing the sidewalk as a gallery space of ‘live art.’ When thought of in these terms I feel that it entices people/designers to a whole new level of thought on the impact that sidewalks can have. The second point I appreciated was the depiction of 3 consequences: a) letting danger exist (projects/low income housing), b) taking refuge in vehicles (African safari tourists), and c) the turf system (in terms of gangs). While all of these points are very valid, I kept focusing on the third and last comment of turf wars and gangs, more specifically her example given thereafter. Where/how is the line drawn? Clearly the community attempting to create ‘pacts on turf’ was a very legitimate way to address the REAL problem; however of course there is then the issue of discrimination and encouragement of gangs. As designers, it is always easier to simply analyze the theory behind what the community did and label it as wrong or unsuccessful, but it is so easy to get lost in theory and never address the REALity of a situation. In parts of many cities ganglands are very real and need to be addressed in some way, and ultimately I tend to lean to the idea that perhaps pacts on turf is a decent solution for the time being.
3) The Gehl reading was one of my favorite readings we have had thus far. It touched on a variety of different important aspects that I feel are often never realized, or rather never quantified/documented. The first acknowledgement was the importance of outdoors due to that being the locale where most all interaction occurs was such a simple concept, yet for some reason seemed to open my eyes more to it. While he addressed the fact that interaction is heavily dependent upon similar economics, politics, and ideals (and I strongly agree), I wondered if some others would consider this ‘discrimination’ or singling out a particular group of people to design for. Again, I go back to the idea that the world is not all “roses and puppies” and often times it is most successful to design for a particular social/economic/political group rather than always trying to mould everything together (not to be mistaken for discrimination). In addition to these 3 factors of interaction, he brilliantly brings into play the impact that designers can have on the success, or failure, of interaction. He helped me make the correlation that although we, as designers, may not always directly design for such interactions, what we create almost always indirectly influences how people interact with the physical space/limits around them. The whole notion of life and processes between buildings was brilliant! Throughout the entire reading I could not help but to think of possible installation designs or pop-up alley events that our studio could research and create in order to help others come to this realization also. One question this did raise, though, was what exactly does he mean by processes? I fully understand the overall concept of what he is writing about, however he never mentions directly what exact ‘processes’ he means (unless it is as simple as interaction being the process).
4) Secondly, I felt as if the Gehl reading corresponded perfectly with the Jane Jacob’s reading, as I continuously found myself drawing parallels between the two. I think the most interesting correlation I made was when Gehl began to expand on there being a lack of transition (or ‘middle ground’) within urban environments (more specifically dwellings). Now having lived in Cleveland for a few months, this could not be truer in my experience. While I’m sure it is true that many higher end apartment complexes have grand lobbies, often it is simply a zone for elevators and mail to be received (and something that rarely lives up to the potential it has). That being the case, then, I wonder if we could utilize sidewalks for this transitional space. I mentioned in the Jacobs reading how it could be fascinating if sidewalks were private space rather than city-owned; but now after reading this, I think we could take that even further and create the sense of hierarchy that Gehl is constantly referring to and apply it to sidewalk experience. In addition to the vast design possibilties of this notion, is the bonus of having the transition space also act as the prime space of interaction within the city. Overlapping these two crucial programs would create on of the most successful spaces within an urban fabric (and could be applied throughout the entire scale of the city!). Lastly, I found Gehl’s reading to be intriguing in the way that he was able to convey his ideas. Between his simple ‘inhibiting/promoting contact’ diagrams and his quantification of designer data, I was almost able to fully understand the whole reading again just from those 2 aspects. The whole “1+1=3” and the “number vs duration” equation is genius. It reminded me of the filming of the Avenger’s movie here in Cleveland. There were swarms of people all over East 9th, Euclid, and Prospect; however, I now realize the deceiving perception that can create. “The number of people or events does not, then, in itself give a real indication of the activity level in an area.” It has to deal with duration also (i.e. walk to E. 9th now between Euclid and Prospect now and………nothing). With all things considered, then, how can we as designers more heavily influence the duration of our creations? How can we take public installations and pop-up events even further so that they become more substantial and not forgotten a mere 2 weeks later as in the Avenger’s case?
5) I was amazed at both the level and amount of detail Allan Jacobs displayed in his reading. Not only did he go as far as to sketch paving details of roads, he does so while analyzing countless streets (hundreds!). Again, I think this is a great example of how simple a lot of these concepts can be, it just takes someone to go out and both recognize and document the physical world around them. I appreciated that he acknowledged the fact that there are a myriad of factors that can define a street as a “great street;” which to think anything otherwise would just be silly, considering the vast amount of cultures, city environments, uses, and scales that exist in the world. As he so eloquently notes, one of the most important parts of analyzing great streets is to compare as many aspects of as many streets as you can (which he CLEARLY does). I think one of the most significant things to take away from this reading was his notion of the intrinsic value of streets. Much like how we discussed the indirect value of parks/green spaces in urban environments, streets are the same way (a prime example being the tax-payers of San Francisco for Market street). With streets being nearly a third of EVERY city, it is almost impossible to quantify the amount of potential that they have! The interplay of human activity and physical space that he denotes is one that I think is the most influential and important aspects of life (i.e. the reason for my wanting to become an architect/urban designer). Because streets so clearly define the culture of a city, I am now continuously asking myself what street defines Cleveland (if any)? Is it East 9th? The only true north/south axis throughout the city. Is it West 6th? The bar district that is booming, but only during peak hours and peak seasons? Is it Euclid Avenue? The primary transit corridor, where many of the old shops used to be. Is it East 4th? A great ‘alleyway’ of sort that is full of culture. Or maybe, is it along the Detroit/Superior Bridge? Basically what I am getting at is does a city have to have one street (or street layout/template) in order to define the city’s success? Are there any unifying factors that all of these Cleveland streets possess? Or is that perhaps that problem?
