When I was in Berlin the U-Bahn and trams went on strike for a day and it was still fairly straightforward to get around using the S-Bahn. Compare that with Montreal where yesterday the city was crippled by a snow storm. After two centuries the city has yet to figure out a solution to snow.
Montreal suffers from the same problems as other American cities in the sense that it is not considered to be a serious business. Despite that people have stayed for the lifestyle, even if they have to cope with the collapsing overpasses and bursting water pipes. There's nowhere else to go. If Berlin faced these problems the entire population would have evacuated to other German cities.
Toronto appears to be in a better shape functionally, but its main problem, as you point out, is that it is generic. When you think Toronto no specific image comes to mind other than the CN tower. That's not such a bad place to start with, however.
Interesting commentary, Mathieu. I largely agree with your analysis, although, I have to confess, I am yet to travel to Berlin to see it with my own eyes.
What's your take on the two almost-Great cities north of the border, namely Montreal and Toronto? Even though Jacobs lived in Toronto for almost 40 years (and she, presumably, knew how to choose a good city or at least a neighborhood to live in), I can't shake off the feeling that it's a "me, too!" city just that tries to copy what others have done (Yes, we have a Libeskind building, too!)
Montreal, on the other hand, feels curiously alive and unique, even if not exactly booming. Do you see parallels between Berlin and Montreal? (Other than former/current divisions between east and west).
The picture at the top changes with the topics. Currently it is a picture of Old Dubai used to contrast against the dense sprawl of New Dubai, relating to the topic The challenge of dense sprawl.
Hi Mathieu,
I hope you are finding yourself well. My name is Oscar Lopez and I had left a post back in September.
I am looking in putting together a lecture on Architecture and Urbanism at Arizona State University, I would be talking about topics similar to those that you are researching. The question is, would you be willing to participate in a discussion? I am not sure what would be needed by you but I would gratefully appreciate it if you contacted me via email so that we can discuss about this is further detail. Thank you very much and I hope to hear from you soon.
Best Regards,
Oscar Lopez
Arizona State University
I am far from condemning New Urbanism either. It's obviously a good product that people seem to prefer to regular subdivisions. What I'm warning against is that the development system itself is what's wrong, and New Urbanists have not really produced any position on the matter.
Superficially and stylistically we can say that a TND harks back to pre-car America. It at least tries to imitate it. But there was no development at that scale in pre-car America. If we take for example the grid system of the 1811 New York Plan, you could not build a TND in that - the blocks would limit the size of your development to one block. Today the superblocks limit the size of development, but they also constrain the size of economic links between developments, creating unaffordability and lack of jobs.
The value of a true urban system is that it allows multiple people to build a city together in parallel. I can build my house to fit me while a company builds their office to fit them, and we don't need to know anything about each other for it to add up to a complex city. But a New Urbanist developer has to know how to make everything, and this adds an enormous economic strain that regular subdivision developers do not suffer. I'm afraid we're seeing a drift towards more and more housing in TNDs that is going to erase the pretense that those developments are not sprawl.
There is a place for big development in a big city, and in fact one of the major benefits of a big city is supporting large-scale events. But we can't build a city out of only big development, it has to be inserted between medium and small developments.
Since my words were flatteringly lifted from the New Geography website, allow me to perhaps extend the discussion a little further. The point is not to condemn these developments, but to try to keep the conversation a little more honest.
New Urbanists hark back to pre-car America, and design their cities to reduce its influence, but come on: the car is not going away. Let's accept the reality of the car and deal with it properly instead of hiding it.
The other reality is simply that New Urbanist developments end up competing with old urbanist developments for business. They have taken the easy way out by going for the revenue, rather than developing true communities that are available to all economic levels.
My point is that the New Urbanist development model is not the natural and economic way for urbanization to happen, which is why the developer needs to subsidize business in his development just to stand up to the mixed use standards of urbanism. These jobs will be even more car dependent because the real urbanism of the area is happening at a much bigger scale.
And what's your point? That if you live in Avalon Park you still need a car? Yeah, sure.
But if your theory was true, that employment opportunities can't exist within the town center, the developer wouldn't be actively building more office space AND giving away money to people who want to invet in businesses there:
http://www.rightbiz.biz/blog/news/avalon-park-developer-also-wants-to-in...
Chris
Emergence is about much more than market forces, it is the science that studies how individual actors cooperate under systems of rules to produce complex structures. The market economy is one instance of emergence, but not the only kind. Cellular automata and multicellular lifeforms are other, very enlightening instances of emergence. I've written many articles on different aspects of emergence. I invite you to explore the field in a broader perspective.
MH wrote:
I really don’t know what to answer if you don’t make more specific what you mean by emergence.
BH writes:
To me, in the context of emergent urbanism, "emergent" means something along the lines of something that is "unplanned." So I was thinking that "emergent urbanism" would be "unplanned urbanism." (This is especially true since I first ran across your blog on the "Market Urbanism" blog. And although I've just discovered this blog also, I get the impression that it is about urbanism that is shaped by market forces rather than by planners.)
- - - - - - - - - -
MH wrote:
[1] Alexander and Salingaros are more invested in architecture, [2] which is what I expect you mean by orthodox urban planning.
BH writes:
Regarding [1]: I'm glad you say that, because although I've only read very small bits and pieces of their writings here and there, that's the impression I've gotten also. So it's interesting to hear someone who is much more familiar with their work saying this also.
Regarding [2]: But that's not what I primarily mean by "orthodox urban planning," however. To me the defining quality of orthodox urban planning is, perhaps, the focus on the idea of "planning" itself (whether such planning is physical planning, or economic planning, or social planning, etc.) . In other words, it seems to me that "orthodox urban planners" are people who believe that cities should be shaped to a considerable extent by planners (and citizens) through the political process, rather than be allowed to shape themselves primarily through the marketplace (as they largely had before the advent of the city planning profession in the early 20th Century).
So although it seems to me that Alexander and Salingaros differ somewhat from the stereotype of the "big bad planner" (e.g., Robert Moses), as they provide for more community participation and seem to be interested in taking smaller planning steps, they still seem to me (from the statements that I’ve read here and there, and from an exchange of posts with Salingaros at the 2Blowhards blog) to believe to a significant extent in "planning" that is done through the political process. So, bascially at heart, they seem to me to be more allied with "orthodox urban planning," than to what I imagine to be "emergent urbanism."
However, from my readings of Jane Jacobs (i.e., looking at all the chapters of "Death and Life" and looking at all her other books too), it seems to me that Jacobs is a believer in cities (and economies) being shaped primarily through the marketplace, with only relatively small amounts of planning done through the political process (i.e., through government).
I really don't know what to answer if you don't make more specific what you mean by emergence. Alexander and Salingaros are more invested in architecture, which is what I expect you mean by orthodox urban planning.
Thanks for the quick reply! (Please don’t be offended if in the future I don’t reply as quickly!)
In addition to looking back at "Death and Life" and "Economy of Cities," I hope you will also get a chance to read Jacobs' other five books -- most especially "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" and "the Nature of Economies," as I think they especially have a lot to say about emergent cities and emergent economies. As a matter of fact, I think it might be a good idea to look at these books first, before going back to her earlier works, as I think they will shed new light on what she was actually getting at in her earlier works.
And I wouldn't overlook her book on ethics ("Systems of Survival"), or separatism ("The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty") either, as both also have a lot more to say about cities, economies, organizational theory, scale, etc. than one might think. (If I remember correctly, I thought I read somewhere on your blog that you are from Montreal, or at least French-speaking Canada, so I would think you might find "The Question of Separatism" to be particularly interesting. Two weeks ago I bought a copy of this out-of-print book over the internet for only US$3.33 (!), plus US$3.99 shipping and handling -- the original 1980 hardcover price was about US$9.00, I believe. Earlier today I wrote a bit more about this purchase in a comment that I submitted to the 2Blowhards blog.)
I hope you won't mind my slipping into the following dialog format, as I find it helps me write more quickly and easily.
- - - - - - - -
MH wrote:
Jacobs has been used by localist ideologues to promote the idea of the urban village as the one true form of urbanism.
BH writes:
I'm not exactly sure if I understand what you mean by this statement (and by some of the other statements in your post too) and I wonder if we may be using some words differently. But I certainly agree that a lot of people (many of whom seem to have read little more than a few quotes from only one of her books) greatly misunderstand what Jacobs was saying and therefore have her "saying" a lot of things that she never did say.
For one thing, it seems to me that Jacobs isn’t nearly as interested in urban villages as people make her out to be. What she was interested in was what makes cities (and economies) thrive / grow and what makes them stagnate / decay.
- - - - - - -
MH wrote:
I myself don’t see the contradiction between the metropolitan urbanism of Robert Moses and the local scale of the neighborhood.
BH writes:
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by the word "contradiction" in this particular context. I do think its accurate to say a) that Moses was in favor of regional planning (although he may not have been in favor of the particular regional plans offered up by the accredited, "ivory tower" planners of the day) and b) that Jacobs is basically anti-planning (either regional or local) and more in favor of individualized problem solving and the marketplace creating settlements / cities.
- - - - - - -
MH wrote:
ESTABLISHING [emphasis mine -- BH] a balance between scales is the entire point of complexity.
BH writes:
Again, I'm not sure if I understand precisely what you mean here. But, at first glance, this sounds to me to be a statement more reflective of an orthodox urban planning point of view (the idea that balance has to be planned or “established” by a planner) and less reflective of a Jane Jacobs point of view, or what I understand to be emergent urbanism point of view.
- - - - - -
MH wrote:
The conflict over New York resulted from an attempt to wipe out one scale to impose another, and the victory of the localists over Moses has had the same outcome, only the victor was changed.
BH writes:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it seems to me that you may be referring in a general way to Jane Jacobs' criticisms of particular Robert Moses projects (e.g., the Lower Manhattan Expressway, various Title I urban renewal schemes, etc.). If this is what you mean, I would have to say that I disagree in that Jacobs wasn’t against Robert Moses projects “in general” and was not against large-scale projects per se. For instance, regarding large-scale projects, she never criticized, as far as I am aware, projects like Pennsylvania Station (and its train yards), Grand Central Terminal “city,” Tudor City, etc. – and she even greatly praised large-scale Rockefeller Center. What she was against were particular projects that she saw – correctly so it seems to me – as being bad, anti-city projects, regardless of scale.
As you are probably aware, there were recently some New York City exhibits on both Moses and Jacobs and a number of panel discussions and newspaper and internet writings about the exhibits and catalogs. It seems to me that there is actually a great deal of misunderstanding regarding what BOTH Jacobs and Moses actually stood for (and therefore also a great deal of misunderstanding regarding how they stand in relation to one another), and I eventually hope to write an article about it.
- - - - - -
MH wrote:
I’d be interested in a review of Jacobs’ works if you have written one.
BH writes:
Unfortunately, I haven’t (yet) written the kind of review that I think you are looking for. But, in case you’re interested, I have posted a great deal of bits and pieces about Jacobs on the web -- and links to two of them are somewhat handy. Just above your Sept. 26th post on the “Market Urbanism” blog, I posted a comment that includes links to two threads on the 2Blowhards blog, where I posted comments about Jacobs vs. Nikos Salingaros (“’Burb Thoughts, Info, Questions” – my four comments in this thread don’t begin until about half-way down the page) and Jacobs vs. Christopher Alexander (“The Alexander Effect”). (I’ve also posted other comments about Jacobs there also, as well as on David Sucher’s “City Comforts” blog, the Norman Oder’s “Atlantic Yards Report” blog and the New York Times’ “City Room” blog – but the links to those comments aren’t as handy.)
Given that your “blogroll” includes links to websites connected with Salingaros and Alexander, I suspect that you may strongly disagree with what I’ve written in the 2Blowhards threads referred to above. But, it seems to me that Salingaros and Alexander actually have more in common with orthodox urban planning (and, more obviously, the New [Sub-]Urbanism that you seem to criticize) than they do with either Jane Jacobs or, what I understand to be, emergent urbanism. This is part of what I was referring to yesterday when I wrote that it seemed to me that, “On the one hand, you seem to be coming from a Jane Jacobs perspective, yet on the other hand you seem to be coming from what might be seen as the orthodox urban ‘planning’ perspective also” (which is how I see Salingaros and Alexander).
It has been a long time since I've read Jacobs. I remember going through Death and Life and The Economy of Cities while doing my undergraduate. It would be a good idea to go back this year and place her works back into context. Jacobs was in many ways a precursor of complexity science, having known about the upstart DNA science when writing Death and Life.
Jacobs has been used by localist ideologues to promote the idea of the urban village as the one true form of urbanism. I myself don't see the contradiction between the metropolitan urbanism of Robert Moses and the local scale of the neighborhood. Establishing a balance between scales is the entire point of complexity. The conflict over New York resulted from an attempt to wipe out one scale to impose another, and the victory of the localists over Moses has had the same outcome, only the victor was changed.
I'd be interested in a review of Jacobs' works if you have one written.
Hi! I just discovered your interesting “Emergent Urbanism” blog via a positive comment about it on the “Market Urbanism” blog. As someone who is great admirer of the work of Jane Jacobs (not just of her first book, “Death and Life . . .,” but of her six, or so, other books as well), I’m a big believer in emergent urbanism, emergent economies, self-organizing systems, etc.
I’ve skimmed through a number of the articles on your blog, and I’m both intrigued and puzzled. On the one hand, you seem to be coming from a Jane Jacobs perspective, yet on the other hand you seem to be coming from what might be seen as the orthodox urban “planning” perspective also. Whenever you get the chance, I hope you will write more about how the work of Jane Jacobs (especially her larger oeuvre) fits in with your idea of “emergent urbanism.”
-- Benjamin Hemric
nteresting essay; sorry to be coming to it so late.
I am certain you are onto something when you talk about the “emergence” problem of the New Urbanism.
It would be interesting to contrast the approach of TND development with the generative approach of Christopher Alexander and his colleagues. Not being a planner, I am hesitant to comment too specifically on the differences, but one thing seems to stand out: for all it's progressive ideals, New Urbanism has tended to rely on the conventional mechanisms of financing through big developers and banks.
Alexander's approach, by contrast, is more “bottom up” (as you know).
It will be interesting to see how these contrasting approaches will play out as the U.S. and the world as we continue in this period of dramatically contracting credit and we cross over into the post-peak oil era. We may be entering a period when nothing (or almost nothing) will be built top-down, and everything will be emergent, not by choice but by necessity.
I'm sorry a different Andrew but you are reading the opposite of what I have said.
A couple of points/questions:
You say, "... New Urbanist TNDs are no different than the regular, economically-unsustainable subdivisions."
While there are indeed difficulties that the new urbanism faces as it tries to undo many decades of poor planning, it must be recognized that defining a new type of neighborhood is an initial step in the right direction. Will we ever be able to reverse what has been done in the suburbs? Absolutely not. But, does that mean we shouldn't try to salvage what we can? Following that logic then shouldn't we also give up trying to reduce our carbon footprint and minimize emmission of greenhouse gases?
You also say that flight to the suburbs was enabled by new urbanism. I’d love to hear the explanation of this, as this comment surely hasn't been thought through. If anything the new urbanism arose as a response to suburban sprawl. I would encourage you to read Suburban Nation, for more information on this.
To say that the SmartCode is "antimarket" simply shows that you have either never read the document or do not comprehend its inherent flexibility. The SmartCode designates building forms as they relate to their place within a community/town. While it does have some regulations regarding use, it is vastly more flexible that typical zoning codes. It allows for the adaptive reuse of buildings over time, which is something that has occurred in great cities worldwide.
Hi, I am a first year graduate student at Arizona State University and I found your website/blog while doing research on Parametric Urbanism and how Chaos Theory can be used as a good model to better understand Intricacy and Urbanism while taking into consideration both the Grid and the Organic. I find your research and ideas very interesting and applaud your work and truly hope that it continues. I am thinking about writing my Thesis on Chaos Theory and its role in Urbanism and would love to discuss this topic with you in further detail. I truly hope you stay in touch and good luck with your future endevours.
Sincerely,
Oscar Lopez
Arizona State University
Designer
Does that mean we need to run city simulations? SimCity's if it were?
Andrew, maps show the large scale but they are still within the dimension of a single human mind. Cities are not built by a single human mind.
The military men make maps as well, but to see what happens in the emergent dimension, they run war games.
I realize I am getting off subject here (and slipping into the old Montreal vs Toronto rant), but I just wanted to comment on what you said...
Functionally, yes, Toronto is more "together". However, its generic nature is not its only problem. My feeling is that its main problem is the lack of density in the downtown area.
Outside the Financial District and a few pockets of high-rises, Toronto is not only low-rise (that wouldn't necessarily be so bad), it largely consists of detached or semi-detached houses! Sure, there are exceptions, but it's shockingly easy to walk into a "neighbourhood" that's 90% detached homes in just minutes from all the skyscrapers!
The result is a city where commerce can exist only on main streets, where distances (almost) preclude walking and where most residents returning home late will not see ANYBODY on their block.
In Montreal, Le Plateau is still too sparse for my liking, but it probably beats most Toronto neighbourhoods 2:1 or 3:1 as far as densities are concerned. Little surprise then, that Le Plateau has a lively restaurant and shopping scene.
That's just one example and there are many other neighbourhoods that are either lively now or can at least POTENTIALLY be turned into lively areas.
With much of Toronto, I am not even sure it's possible...