The following pictures were taken in Baldham and Vaterstetten, small suburbs of Munich, Germany:
I was familiar with these blue signs, likely from the year I spent living in Germany as a younger girl, but never really took a moment to think about what they actually meant, legal implications and all. After walking through a part of my neighborhood I'd never walked before and seeing a number of these signs, I decided to dig deeper. I was happy to find an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the "Living Street." The German legislation is as follows: "Vehicles should not travel faster than a pedestrian speed. If not same
grade then street usable by pedestrians. Parking is only allowed in
marked places. Pedestrians, including children, may use the entire
street and children are permitted to play in the street."
I grew up on what would definitely be considered a "living street." And not because a sign was posted determining a maximum car speed, but because the 80-some kids on my block made it a living street. So, I have a very personal perception of the function of a street, or what its function should be. Importantly, I believe - because I've witnessed it - the way people think about and act around streets has drastically changed in my lifetime and even since I was schoolkid.
This concept of a designated multi-functional street is relatively new, being introduced in the 1970s in the Netherlands and spreading to over a dozen countries since. And while I feel a very personal and direct connection to the idea of the living street, I nonetheless think these signs accompanied by laws are a fantastic idea! I grew up with our street as a play place, and the fact that streets (especially city streets) have become car-dominated and dangerous is quite frankly saddening to me.
My wish would be to create more "living streets" in cities and bring back the street
as a fun and safe social place and multi-use playground.
More pictures of multi-use streets in full effect in the downtown area of Passau, Germany:
David Christian: The history of our world in 18 minutes
This talk is worth each of the 18 minutes, but I especially love what he says towards the end:
"Collective learning is a very,
very powerful force,and it's not clear
that we humans are in charge of it.I remember very vividly
as a child growing up in England,living through the Cuban Missile Crisis.For a few days, the entire biosphereseemed to be on the verge of destruction.And the same weapons are still here,and they are still armed.If we avoid that trap,
others are waiting for us.We're burning fossil fuels at such a ratethat we seem to be undermining
the Goldilocks conditionsthat made it possible
for human civilizationsto flourish over the last 10,000 years.So what big history can dois show us the nature
of our complexity and fragilityand the dangers that face us,but it can also show us
our power with collective learning."
A Planetizen article published in 2011 uses the case study of Athens to explore a "city without suburbs."
Athens, Greece started eradicating its suburbs in the 1970s and continued this densification goal through the 80s. There were four main reasons for this push: 1) confined land space, 2) a capitalistic political system, 3) developer lobbying, and 4) increasing population pressure. In 1981 the municipality peaked at a population of 885,000 with a density of approximately 60,000 people per square mile. Although its population has been on the decline since the 2000s, it remains one of the most dense urban areas in the developed world.
As the city's compactness and so-called walkability in the suburbs grew, car ownership did not decrease, and positive impacts for modes of walking, cycling, and transit were not reported. Between 1990 and 2000, public transit actually fell while private transport increased. To paraphrase the conclusion from the Planetizen article: "Athens exemplifies every single urbanist approach, yet fails to deliver anticipated results. Elements in the Athenian version of natural urbanism have produced
unwelcome outcomes; the pinnacle of urbanisn that achieved the eradication of suburbs came at substantial quality of life and environmental costs. "Dysfunctional cases in any discipline trigger insights by demanding explanation. Athens is a case of dysfunctional urbanism and offers a true laboratory for testing assumptions, principles, and theories toward a more robust model of an urbane city." I will take it upon myself to address the last part of this article. The first and most important question is: was there a plan from the beginning? What was it? Was it simply to answer the demand for population increase, or were there additional, more comprehensive goals? At least from this article's information, the 4 reasons mentioned above seem to answer that question. The article points out that Athens ranks lowest on a quality of life ranking for Western European cities; it's filled with noise, traffic, and pollution. Traffic fatalities also rank among the highest comparatively. These are indications that the city may not have incorporated plans to manage the consequences of an increasing population.
My conclusion: Athens is not the case of dysfunctional urbanism, it's the case of dysfunctional planning, or lack thereof. The city's goal was to eradicate the suburbs and increase density - this was achieved. So it did succeed, if only in this way. It seems to me that quality of life was pushed under the rug in the attempt to attract and fit more people. Yet a place can immediately loose its appeal as social and environmental issues are sacrificed. Shelter alone won't cut it; people need connection and community as well. Athens may exemplify a few elements of urbanism very well, so while those can be used as a lesson, the case study as a whole can be used to see interconnectivity at work. And because of this dense web of connections, we will never get a complete story of the past, nor will we be able to predict the future. But we sure can plan with intention, holistic goals, and measurable targets towards better living situations and healthier lives for people in our cities and on this planet. Food for thought: "If you build it, they will come" ...
"The Brasilia Syndrome" - city planning from 5 meters above the ground
The people scale is completely neglected
The Planners: planning from above and from a distance
The Architects: more and more focused on form
The Traffic Planners: making rooms for the traffic, making cars happy
Who is looking after the people and the city at eye level?
The Human Dimension is essentially lost
2010: Fifty Years Later
Wanted: Lively, attractive, safe, sustainable, healthy city
How? Jan Gehl has some ideas
Cities for People: We must bring back the principles of planning at a Human Scale to make cities first and foremost a place for people once again. Jan Gehl is a world-renowned architect, urban designer, and author - see more about his approach in lectures and videos here! He is a founding partner of Gehl Architects, an "Urban Quality Consulting" firm that focuses on creating cities for people; mutually beneficial relationships between people's quality of life and their built environment. Re-orienting city design towards pedestrians and cyclists to improve quality of life for people has been a focus of Gehl's career. He is (among all the other people I highlight in my blog) amazing and someone I would dream to work with!
First Lecture by President Bill Clinton at Georgetown University in May 2013. Below I paraphrase parts of the lecture (it's long!) that resonate with me and fit well with the themes of this blog:
Twenty-first century citizenship requires us to do some public good as a private citizen - around the corner, or around the world, in public office, or out. Compose a life where service is important. It is important because the world is so interdependent and full of opportunities.
The world we are living in is clearly unsustainable. There is too much inequality and too much instability.
Public service work has four requirements. One, you should be obsessively interested in people, especially people who are different from you. You should want to understand them and understand how they perceive the world and understand what they need and what their dreams are. Two, you should care about principles - about the end of all this. What is the purpose of service? What's the role of government, what are the roles of the NGOs, how do you organize this in your mind, why are you doing this? Three, what are the policies that you believe will advance these purposes? And four, what are the politics of the situations? How are you going to turn your good intentions into real changes? People, purpose, policies, and politics. To me, the most important thing is the first.
This might be my favorite quote of this lecture. I am deeply motivated by people and purpose and these words substantiate my passion for serving people in the realm of urban design. And of course the policies and politics are also important when it comes to planning cities.
Most people get in real trouble and abuse power when they forget that the purpose of their power is not to impose their will on others but to let other people be empowered to live their own lives better, or as I always say, to have better stories.
Don't belittle people who know less than you do or have less than you do... what we have in common in our soul is important.
Americans are not hearing enough stories from other people, from people are are different from themselves. And it's a big mistake... We have one remaining bigotry in America: we just don't want to be around anybody that disagrees with us. People are organizing massive living patterns in this country around being with somebody that agrees with them.
The purpose of service is to help other people. Not
to make you feel good about yourself, although you will. Not to impose everything
you think should be done on other people. But to create a world where we can
all live together, because it’s so interdependent. If we don’t, the
consequences to us, to our families, to our future will be adverse and severe.
Every
place in the world where they’re trying to cooperate,
they’re doing pretty well. Every place in the world that elevate our
differences over our common humanity. Where we can no longer hear what people
who are different from us are saying, where our ears our closed and minds are
more closed – there is trouble.
I believe
that it’s very important that every person in
your generation have a worldview. We need a common understanding of what is
the nature of the modern world. What are it’s biggest challenges,
opportunities. What evidence do we have about how best we can deal with them.
