Traditional Urbanism

[James Brown]

Interesting twitter deck on traditional urbanism:

"Traditional urbanism has short blocks. No building takes more than 3-4 seconds to walk past, providing interesting colors, shops, textures....

Modern dis-urbanism means massive buildings, long block: takes minutes to walk past with nothing to distract or relieve the tedium...."

Lots more at the link.

 

[bilby]

Traditional urbanism doesn't have 'blocks' at all. Most European cities follow the cues of the landscapes upon which they are founded, and reflect the gradual merging of many smaller settlements. Between the end of the Roman Empire and the founding of the New World, a rectilinear (or, occasionally, other symmetrical) layout for a town or city was almost unheard of.

Streets wind to avoid steep hills, or to follow watercourses or other natural barriers. Parcels of land owned by powerful people or organisations must be bypassed; Damage caused by disasters such as fire or flood may be repaired or infilled with completely dissimilar patterns to what was there before.

Straight lines are tedious no matter how small the blocks.

 

[Toni]

Traditional urbanism doesn't have 'blocks' at all. Most European cities follow the cues of the landscapes upon which they are founded, and reflect the gradual merging of many smaller settlements. Between the end of the Roman Empire and the founding of the New World, a rectilinear (or, occasionally, other symmetrical) layout for a town or city was almost unheard of.

Streets wind to avoid steep hills, or to follow watercourses or other natural barriers. Parcels of land owned by powerful people or organisations must be bypassed; Damage caused by disasters such as fire or flood may be repaired or infilled with completely dissimilar patterns to what was there before.

Straight lines are tedious no matter how small the blocks.

Points made in twitter deck linked.

 

[bilby]

Traditional urbanism doesn't have 'blocks' at all. Most European cities follow the cues of the landscapes upon which they are founded, and reflect the gradual merging of many smaller settlements. Between the end of the Roman Empire and the founding of the New World, a rectilinear (or, occasionally, other symmetrical) layout for a town or city was almost unheard of.

Streets wind to avoid steep hills, or to follow watercourses or other natural barriers. Parcels of land owned by powerful people or organisations must be bypassed; Damage caused by disasters such as fire or flood may be repaired or infilled with completely dissimilar patterns to what was there before.

Straight lines are tedious no matter how small the blocks.

Points made in twitter deck linked.

I don't even know what a 'twitter deck' is. Nor does it strike me as something I need to learn.

 

[Toni]

Traditional urbanism doesn't have 'blocks' at all. Most European cities follow the cues of the landscapes upon which they are founded, and reflect the gradual merging of many smaller settlements. Between the end of the Roman Empire and the founding of the New World, a rectilinear (or, occasionally, other symmetrical) layout for a town or city was almost unheard of.

Streets wind to avoid steep hills, or to follow watercourses or other natural barriers. Parcels of land owned by powerful people or organisations must be bypassed; Damage caused by disasters such as fire or flood may be repaired or infilled with completely dissimilar patterns to what was there before.

Straight lines are tedious no matter how small the blocks.

Points made in twitter deck linked.

I don't even know what a 'twitter deck' is. Nor does it strike me as something I need to learn.

Nope. No need to learn anything at all. Or even to read the OP or the link.

 

[Random Person]

Interesting twitter deck on traditional urbanism:

"Traditional urbanism has short blocks. No building takes more than 3-4 seconds to walk past, providing interesting colors, shops, textures....

Modern dis-urbanism means massive buildings, long block: takes minutes to walk past with nothing to distract or relieve the tedium...."

Lots more at the link.

They're building an older style urban setting in the suburb I live in. Looks pretty cool although I think the idea is to get urban amenities without the urban people.

 

[bilby]

I don't even know what a 'twitter deck' is. Nor does it strike me as something I need to learn.

Nope. No need to learn anything at all. Or even to read the OP or the link.

I read the OP.

I avoid having anything to do with Twitter.

If you have something to say about my response to the OP that isn't just a pointless whine about the fact that I don't care for Twitter, then say it. I honestly don't care if someone else already said what I said elsewhere - it just shows that they and I are in agreement, which in no way alters the sense or value of my post.

For you to decide that my coincidental agreement with something I haven't read, somehow reflects poorly on me, is truly bizarre.

I don't need your advice on how or where to get my information. I am not your student, nor am I your subordinate.

 

[Toni]

I don't even know what a 'twitter deck' is. Nor does it strike me as something I need to learn.

Nope. No need to learn anything at all. Or even to read the OP or the link.

I read the OP.

I avoid having anything to do with Twitter.

If you have something to say about my response to the OP that isn't just a pointless whine about the fact that I don't care for Twitter, then say it. I honestly don't care if someone else already said what I said elsewhere - it just shows that they and I are in agreement, which in no way alters the sense or value of my post.

For you to decide that my coincidental agreement with something I haven't read, somehow reflects poorly on me, is truly bizarre.

I don't need your advice on how or where to get my information. I am not your student, nor am I your subordinate.

Even without being familiar with or liking twitter, very little effort was required to see that your point was one made in the link provided.

That’s all.

 

[bilby]

I read the OP.

I avoid having anything to do with Twitter.

If you have something to say about my response to the OP that isn't just a pointless whine about the fact that I don't care for Twitter, then say it. I honestly don't care if someone else already said what I said elsewhere - it just shows that they and I are in agreement, which in no way alters the sense or value of my post.

For you to decide that my coincidental agreement with something I haven't read, somehow reflects poorly on me, is truly bizarre.

I don't need your advice on how or where to get my information. I am not your student, nor am I your subordinate.

Even without being familiar with or liking twitter, very little effort was required to see that your point was one made in the link provided.

That’s all.

The link I didn't click, for the reason I have already given? Thanks for providing that valuable insight.

Why would I know or care what point(s) were or were not made at a link I didn't click? Those points make not one iota of difference to my actual response to the OP.

 

[ruby sparks]

Interesting twitter deck on traditional urbanism:

"Traditional urbanism has short blocks. No building takes more than 3-4 seconds to walk past, providing interesting colors, shops, textures....

Modern dis-urbanism means massive buildings, long block: takes minutes to walk past with nothing to distract or relieve the tedium...."

Lots more at the link.

'Traditional' urbanism is still alive and (fairly) well in the UK and Europe more so than in the USA, I think, for a variety of reasons, possibly to do with the former having had in many cases a more compact and intact (despite world wars) 'organic' heritage on which to accrete new or replacement forms. Many North American towns began as planned grids. On top of that, 'middle-class'American suburbanism developed along slightly different lines, with large plots being more commonly aspired to.

Urban environments in Western Europe (even modern ones) have not been 'designed for the car' as much as in the USA. And I think it's also fair to say that many of the examples in the OP link are pre-car.

Europe is nonetheless no haven of traditional, varied, compact urbanism. The car has heavily impacted here too. As has technology. A simple thing like 'maximum span' dictated a lot of 'traditional' urban forms (and this applied to both whole buildings and their components, such as doors and windows).

One emerging trend, which may continue, is that living in (pedestrianised) urban centres may become more fashionable and attractive, as vehicular (or merely long-distance) journeys become more expensive, more environmentally unfriendly and perhaps also because urban centres are changing. Shops are facing a difficult time, partly because of increased internet shopping. More and more land may become available in urban centres and it has been suggested that having more of that land given over to housing, possibly as part of a live/work paradigm (as in the 'old days' when most people lived where they also worked) might be a good idea.

Finally, I think architects and town planners have a lot to answer for, especially since the emergence of (minimal) 'modernism' about a hundred years ago. Buildings and townscapes have often not been designed 'for people' (even though the designers often claim they have). Rather, in too many cases, 'people' are left to wander about in the (often too wide) gaps in between large, plain buildings. One can't blame designers too much though. In the end, an architect more or less has to work from a brief he or she is given by a client, and the economics of large buildings in repetitive, simple forms has meant that clients generally discourage the sort of fiddly, quirky (read: interesting) small-scale designs that are arguably most rewarding to live among.

In other ways, we all to some extent get the sort of buildings and urban landscapes we deserve. If most people go to large, out of town shopping centres because of convenience, value and greater choice, they can't also be surprised if town centres become less appealing visually.