Showing posts with label public spaces. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public spaces. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Arts Districts and the Power of Swerve

We walk through cities everyday but rarely do we ask how this messy mix of buildings, people and infrastructure come to be. Who planned this?

Planning used to be fairly straight forward. It came from a man with a vision. A planner would look at a public space, decide the best use for it, and then tell the public.

We’re all familiar with the spaces created by these men of vision. Pierre L’Enfant and his Washington DC. Lucia Costa and his Brasilia. Walt Disney and Tomorrowland.


But the problem with public spaces is that the public insists on using them.

So for every famous man who plans a pedestrian mall lined with monuments celebrating democracy, you've got a much less famous man who decides that’s the perfect place to sell t-shirts.


The problem is, cities are places where people live and because of that they are constantly adapting, molding, and reinventing their surrounding to fit their needs, not the vision of the planner. And that’s exactly what makes a city interesting—the ways people use it. I would argue that any public space that isn't being adapted by the public is, simply put, a poorly designed space.

Planners eventually got the message and the planning process shifted to incorporate the public. And in a nicely ironic twist, they gave this process a name no member of the public understands. They called it a charrette—which is apparently French for groups of people sitting around tables drawing on maps.

And that’s exactly how it works. The planner opens his doors to the public and they all sit in groups, drawing on maps and making lists of what they’d like to see. Ideally, the best ideas should rise to the top and the resulting space is one that will be used by the public because the public help create it.

I've participated in more of these than I can count and interestingly enough, regardless of the city, the area within the city, and the people involved, it’s pretty much the same list. People always want a farmers market, and usually a grocery store as well. Everyone wants to see artist studios, galleries, and public art. Loft apartments always make the list as does green space. Everyone wants a park.

So the planner takes all these ideas, put them in a well organized plan with lovely sketches of the streetscape, complete with 40 year old trees and fashionable people sitting in sidewalk cafes, and then puts it all in a binder and proudly hands it over to the community--here is your publicly-generated plan.


And the community says “thank you” and then puts it on a shelf and that’s where it usually stays.

There’s many reasons for this. Often these plans aren't much more than a community’s wish list. Market forces are glossed over, supply and demand are ignored, and funding sources are non-existent.

Our time would have been better spent writing a letter to Santa.

This type of planning is well-intentioned but it misses the key point. This is not how great cities are made.

Cities are messy, they’re alive and most of the time, the planners are struggling to keep up with changes that are happening naturally all around them. Great cities happen from the bottom up. Think New York City versus Irvine, California. A random encounter on the sidewalk can have a greater effect on the structure of the city than a formalized plan.

Author Steven Johnson describes these random encounters as “the swerve.”

How does this work? People travel through the city in set routes. There’s a well worn path between my office the nearest coffee shop. But if you see something interesting just off your route, you swerve. A new shop, a sidewalk cafĂ©, an art installation. Pretty soon, traffic patterns change. That little bubble is incorporated into the larger whole.

Then the next guy comes along and decides he’d like to take advantage of all the new traffic. So he decides to open a business just outside this area—usually because that’s where the rents are low and vacancies are high. And people swerve again. And then the next person comes along and she decides to open up a restaurant and more people swerve. And over time, you've created a busy urban street where there wasn't anything before.

Who plans this? According to Johnson, No one--and everyone. There is no leader. It’s nothing more than a series of small, independent decisions but together, they become a whole.

You may as well ask, “who planned the web?” Google may offer us a directory but that’s like referring to the phone book as an urban planning document.

So given this, what’s the best way to plan? And if cities are created from the ground up, what’s the role of the planner? Part of it is adapting to what’s happening organically, on the street level.

The idea that some types of areas could emerge organically first took root with something called Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities or NORCs. It used to be that we’d create planned retirement communities with easy access to all the necessary health and social services. And then we’d pack up all the seniors and move them to this community. There’s a much easier way to do this though. Residential neighborhoods age at fairly consistent rates. A neighborhood is built and everyone moves in at the same time, they all have children at the same time, and they all retire at the same time—naturally creating a retirement community. A much better idea is to move the needed services into these neighborhood, leaving the people in place.

It’s the same thing with Naturally Occurring Arts Districts. These are areas that emerge organically from an existing base of community assets. They are formed naturally, by the swerve.

We’ve got one here in Columbia—the North Village Arts District. Seven or eight years ago, when my organization was doing some downtown planning, we drew a circle around one underused section of downtown—the North Village—and said “this is our arts district.”

It was utter hubris on our part. We had no plan, no funding, and no marketing campaign. But we had what we thought was a good foundation of existing assests. The area had historically been the bohemian counterpart to the rest of downtown—the Strollway where women shopped in hats and white gloves. Susan Taylor Glasgow, a nationally recognized glass artist, was doing some really interesting things with public art. And of course, there was Mojo’s so we had a steady stream of live music.  We started recruiting arts-friendly businesses to the area.

And then one day Mark Timberlake walked into my office and said, "I just bought an old roofing company over on Orr Street. What should I do with it?" I had been fielding calls for months from artists looking for affordable space so I didn't hesitate. "Artist studios."

To my surprise, he listened--and then he talked to people.  Artists. Contractors. He learned about adaptive reuse. And soon, we had Orr Street Studios. Artists leased space. They hung paintings on the walls. Hosted events. Turned the doors themselves into works of art. And soon, people started to swerve.

Enough that Mark bought the diaper factory next door and started to work on that. Then, John Ott bought some property in the area and started recruiting artists there as well. Lisa Bartlett opened Artlandish  Gallery and runs the Catacombs, a collection of artists in a warren of tunnels underneath her shop. More people began to swerve.


And then we worked with the city to improve infrastructure--undergrounding utility lines, installing street lights, adding crosswalks and bike racks, hanging banners. 

It expanded to all sorts of creative types--dance companies, graphic designers, photographers, web developers. Mojo’s grew and Forest Rose Park was born. And one day, the Cafe Berlin packed their entire restaurant into a caravan of bikes and moved into the old gas station. More swerve.


And then PS Gallery, a well-established gallery on Broadway, learned they had to relocate. The first question everyone asked was, “Are you moving to the North Village Arts District?” The answer was yes. Swerve.

So now you walk through the North Village Arts District and yes, we have both a Farmers Market and a grocery. We have artist studios and galleries and public art. We have a park. And we even have those loft apartments. 


But not because a planner, sitting by himself, envisioned this neighborhood in exactly this way. It’s because the artists and the business owners and the property owners and all of us had small, individual ideas on how to take advantage of the swerve. 

So we ask the question again. Who planned the North Village Arts District? The answer is no one. And everyone.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Public Space v. Online Space


We've all seen them as we stop into the local coffee shop for a mid-morning pick-me-up. The tables are full of people busily working their laptops, iPads and cell phones. (How does one, I wonder, get those types of jobs?) They're definitely engaging in conversations, just not with the people immediately beside them.

Photo courtesy of Cleveland.com
How did  this happen? Coffee houses were once hotbeds of discussion and interaction. True third-places, they were the wellspring of insightful dialogue, like-minded networking, and political posturing.

As The Economist points out:
"The coffee-houses that sprang up across Europe, starting around 1650, functioned as information exchanges for writers, politicians, businessmen and scientists. Like today's websites, weblogs and discussion boards, coffee-houses were lively and often unreliable sources of information that typically specialised in a particular topic or political viewpoint."
Today, this type of interaction has nearly been supplanted by online communities where like-minded people meet to exchange ideas. But new technology is not just changing the way we share ideas, it's changing how we use our public spaces. As today's coffee shops--and parks and plazas--go wireless, are we moving into an era where public spaces are, paradoxically, the places we go to ignore people?

Photo courtesy of Utne.com
Keith N. Hampton, assistant professor, Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, is studying how these technological changes are affecting public spaces. Just like with popular third places, popular online sites give people access to a more diverse network of people. The question is, can online spaces ever be a substitute for actual physical spaces?

Hampton found that internet use alone is about the equivalent of 7 coffee shops visits a month. Heavy internet use is about equal to 2 church visits a month. Social networking sites are about equal to 3 park visits a month. However, if you combine technology and public spaces, the diversity of your network increases significantly. In fact, he found that half of the social benefit of new technologies comes from combining them with a traditional public space.

So for instance, Hampton discovered that 25% of the people in a typical public spaces would not have visited before wireless was available and 70% said they came more often because of wireless access. The average laptop user makes 2, one hour visits to a public space per week if wireless is an option.

We talk a lot in our field about ways to draw more people to public spaces. Perhaps the answer is not to hark back to a golden age of public spaces, but to find new ways of layering public spaces with technology.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

How Public Spaces Succeed

Last week, I talked about the ways a public space can fail. The obvious question, then, is, "what can bring this space back to life?"


Here are a couple of suggestions, many of which are already being acted upon in regards to the public square here in my home town:

  1. Keep up with maintenance and repairs. A touch of urban decay shows that an area is actually being used but obvious neglect can create a downward spiral. I once lived in a neighborhood with a crumbling, inoperative fountain at its entrance and regardless of how well the houses were maintained, it sent a certain message to passersby. If no one is taking care of the space, why should individual members of the public work to do so? In the case of this square, crews are working on repairs the pavement and that should help the overall look of the area. At the very least, it should demonstrate that people still take pride in this space.
  2. Repurpose the space. Our community is justifiably proud of our private adaptive reuse projects. An old roofing company becomes art studios. An abandoned railway station is now a restaurant. Buildings gain new life with new uses. Reworking one of the fountains in this square to create a series of community gardens is a clever way to change the use and the feel of the area, but what else can be done? Can the amphitheater be used for outdoor movies? Can the open space be turned into an outdoor patio with tables and chairs? What about adapting the landscape into a botanical garden?
  3. Encourage informal gatherings. As I mentioned before, relying on programming to bring life to a space is not enough--a great public space needs activity even when nothing official is happening. All these adaptive reuse ideas are ways to bring people into the space on their own. For instance, both our city hall and our library have coffee bars in their lobby. Combine this with cafe tables, potted flowers, and a kiosk for public announcements and you have an instant, people-friendly space. These simple moves mean that more people are hanging out there--and in this case, "hanging out" is just what's needed. 
  4. Listen to the people. I've often found that consultants become so enamored with the the structure of a space, they forget about the public. I've been to numerous meetings where a consultant says, "this is the perfect space for a festival or a farmer's market" while neglecting the fact that these activities may already be established elsewhere. Spaces should be designed to be successful right out of the box. We need to ask--what makes other spaces in our city successful? What do people in our city like to do? How can we make that activity more pleasant for them? After all, isn't that the ultimate goal of all public spaces?





Friday, October 7, 2011

How Public Spaces Fail

About 15 or so years ago, a massive community effort was launched in our city to close a section of a street running by the historic County Courthouse. The goal? A traditional public square. The idea was to have a gathering place in the downtown area, one that could be used for festivals, concerts and other community events.

Walking through the square on a mild September afternoon, I could see that the reality wasn't quite matching the dream. The two fountains were non-operational, the sidewalk was cracking along the decorative pavers and worst of all, it was completely empty.



It's about 5:30 on a weekday and this public space is empty.



The sidewalk is cracking and the fountain itself is not operational.

A second fountain is inoperative as well and filled with leaves and moss.

There are many reasons why a public space fails--here's just a few:
  1. Relying on programming to add activity to a space. The worst thing a city can do is rely on a city employee or non-profit group to create a never-ending stream of events designed to draw people to the area. We've got streets in our downtown that are always full of activity--but naturally occurring activities like shopping, people-watching and just generally hanging out.
  2. Failing to create a maintenance fund. Fountains are notoriously touchy and often need maintenance. And in climates known for weather involving frosts, thaws and refreezing, pavers and other decorative sidewalk elements don't always make it. (To their credit, they've got someone out there fixing the cracks in the sidewalk.)
  3. Ignoring the micro climate of the space. This is an open space designed for activities but the design makes it problematic in another way. There are trees off to the side but the bulk of the space is open concrete that's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It needs to be a perfect day for someone to truly enjoy sitting out on one of those benches. 
  4. Closing off the street to cars. One of the great downtown debates involves pedestrian malls. They work in some areas but in my home state of California, turning downtowns into pedestrian-only malls only served to kill some great downtowns. Cars add activity and driving past a business helps remind people it's there. Turning a street into a pedestrian mall has to work with the community; you can't force one on a community.
  5. Forgetting that people need something to do. It's your lunch break, is this the place you choose to go? Of course not. Nothing is happening here. No sidewalk vendors, no pedestrians, and nothing to look at.
The good news here? There's still some active programming so the space isn't lost--festival and concerts still occur here. And this just in--the long fountain running the length of the walkway may be turned into a community garden. What a great, out-of-the-box idea and a good way to make over a downtown space that's currently underutilized. I can't wait for tomato season.