The Landscape Urbanism / New Urbanism debate continues...

I just read with interest this article on the debate between landscape urbanists and new urbanists.  It made me want feel like saying "Meanwhile, over here in the real world, here is what we are actually doing"...I am working on a greenways and connectivity plan for my city at the moment, and we try to incorporate principles of walkability, TND, NU, and livability over a base map of environmental conditions, namely wetlands and floodplain areas. 

For me, as a city planner with a background in landscape architecture, we should adhere to all of these concepts and find the common ground between these different philosophies.  Landscape Urbanism and New Urbanism are not mutually exclusive.  Landscape architects are uniquely positioned to analyze site and environmental factors including wetlands, floodplain, topography, etc: Features that some architects and planners tend to dismiss or diminish in importance.  But likewise, the vast majority of us do NOT support a car-centered suburban culture.  I strongly believe that our current suburbs need to be provided with small centers and connectivity to encourage walkability.  Yes, the suburbs are probably here to stay, but that doesn’t mean that they have to remain as they are right now.  And high-density is not always the answer.  Medium or even low density is desirable in some situations.  Driving is sometimes necessary, but that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to encourage other options and make our suburbs less car-centric. 

The New Urbanists have made it clear that they are threatened by Landscape Urbanism.  And they should be, because frankly, we are right…the environmental conditions beneath our cities and suburbs are incredibly important and deserve to be accounted for in urban design strategies.  But please don’t assume that just because I, as a Landscape Urbanist, don't agree with all of the CNU theories, that I go to the opposite extreme and desire things to remain car-centric.  I want walkability and fewer carbon emissions and many of the same results that they want – I just think we should go about doing it differently than the New Urbanist approach has done. Every site is unique and needs to be examined on its own terms, not as part of some rote formula. 

In my opinion, the New Urbanists are trying to paint Landscape Urbanists in this light because, frankly, we are ousting them from their previous position as rulers of the urban design universe.  This article suggests that they are employing scare tactics and scrambling to regain credibility by twisting facts.  The New Urbanists have to learn to play with others in order to achieve what is ultimately everyone's goal - better designed communities.


You can read the article I am referring to here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/30/green_building/?page=full

Left:  An aerial of one of our city's busiest corridors, with floodplain going right through the middle of it.  Redevelopment of this type of site must be done in an environmentally sensitive manner, not only because of ethical reasons but because Federal mandates require this.  Ideally, because this is where the proposed greenway crosses the commercial corridor, this would be a perfect place for a walkable mixed-use node.  But this must be done with extraordinary care because you cannot add impervious surfaces or most types of new buildings to a floodplain area.  This is a perfect example of having to meet in the middle between achieving walkability and respecting environmental conditions.

Graffiti Walls

I heard about this last year and thought it was pretty interesting. Apparently in some urban parks they now include a wall specifically intended for graffiti art, in an attempt to give would-be vandals a place to outlet their artistic impulses.

I think this is a really great idea, and is particularly appropriate adjacent to a skate park, for example. I do have some questions, however...

1. Is it appropriate to establish a set of rules for content of graffiti? For example, are racial slurs or X-rated material permitted?

2. Should the walls be periodically painted white, providing a blank slate for a fresh set of art? Or, should the art just be built in layers until eventually older work is obscured by newer material?

Here is a good graffiti site to peruse:

http://www.graffiti.org/

And here are some descriptions about places where legal walls have been installed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series2/graffiti_vandalism_tags_spray_paint.shtml

http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/newcastle/200505/s1376470.htm

(From http://www.nograffiti.com/files/freewalls.htm)
Rockford, Illinois. The Aldeen Dam, located in a Rockford Park, was previously a place where high school students, with a permit, could spend all night decorating the walls with boasts about their schools. In July, 1997, with the arrival of hip-hop taggers in Rockford, the Aldeen Dam became entirely dominated by hip-hop taggers only. Almost all graffiti at Aldeen is done by the same taggers and crews that vandalize the residences, businesses, billboards, railroad cars, and signage of Rockford. Further, the number of tags at Aldeen is proportionate to a crew or tagger’s frequency of vandalism on the streets of Rockford. This fact alone would seem to disprove the claim that a “free wall” might be an effective tool to combat graffiti. Aldeen also displays the “spread-to-all-adjacent-areas” characteristic which other free walls manifest: at Aldeen, in the areas adjacent to the free wall, there is graffiti on light poles, the grass, trees, the parking lot, trash containers, park benches, and walking trails through the woods. (Jim Powers)

The following comments were received as a result of our discussions on free walls from a very involved Law Enforcement officer specializing in tagger suppression.........

When I was a part of the team in the Long Beach undercover sting operation, I suggested an area of free walls back in 1991. None of the taggers were interested. The reasons why they were not interested:

1 The "establishment" was making them conform to rules.
2 Taggers have no rules and they are anti-establisment, like the crew names depict: YPN(Your Property Next) or MAK(Murderers Assassins Killers).
3 If it isn't vandalism its not graffiti. It would be like asking gang members to be gang members Monday thru Friday from the hours of 3:30 pm to Midnight and not on weekends.
Free walls will always attract the taggers that will not respect the concept and you have a Huntington Beach situation all over again. The only reason why there is a persistence to make this "free wall" mistake again is someones ego is getting in the way of common sense. If a person goes to the Venice "pit" where it is similar to a free wall, all you have to do is look around the neighborhood and its got graffiti on it. The taggers did not limit it to the pit.

I hope the folly of free walls begins to sink in, those people that say it is a success often times hide the disaster it causes. I would like to visit a city the size of LA and see where a free wall concept is working. Whats really working and not working may boil down to from whose perspective.

I am very interested in hearing of more communities where these walls have been installed, and whether they are successful in giving young people an artistic outlet, or as this last article implies, whether they are NOT successful.

I venture to guess that a free wall would work best in a small community or town where the teenagers need an outlet such as this, rather than trying it in an area where gangs are going to be a problem. And if, in a small community, it is made clear to those using the space that if it is abused the privilege will be removed, maybe it will work. Also, putting it in a place where it is highly visible might provide passive policing. In a park, near a playground for example, where not only will vandalism of other elements besides the wall be observed immediately, but inappropriate content will be noticed by parents and reported to park officials who can paint over it.

Frog Crossings

One of my professors told us that in parts of Europe (I want to say he told us the Netherlands, although I could be wrong) people have installed "frog crossings" under roads so that frogs and other small critters can cross safely. They are apparently gridded to allow some light through, and have fences on either side to direct the critters to the tunnel.

I am also interested in larger wildlife corridors across interstates. The fragmentation we are creating with major roads is severely impacting the distribution of wildlife, especially for animals that must try to cross these roads on foot. I think this is a very important step for us to take in reconnecting the currently isolated ecosystems.
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing)

Isolated wetlands

In recent years a supreme court decision took the power of designating isolated wetlands away from the US Army Corps of Engineers. This has resulted in many important wetland areas being developed. The Corps simply has to 'walk away' if there is no surface water connection to a wetland. States have the power to override this and designate isolated wetlands on their own. I will expand on this topic further later on, but it is important for us to all write to our congressmen and urge them to explore the issue. Development in my state has increased at a very rapid pace, especially in coastal areas, and I have personally seen coastal wetlands disappear because of this loophole.

This photo was taken of a wetland in coastal South Carolina months before it was filled and townhouses were built on the property. The US Army Corps of Engineers could not protect it because of the issue I speak of.