14 February 2015
Theme 1: Background of the “field”
All the efforts to define
the what, why, theories, scope, scale, and how of urban design seems to me to
come down to place-making. It all
centers around and leads to attempting to make better places and make places
better – better for the uses, for the users, and for the community. The real question to me is - what really
works? What design principles create
quality places that are used and liked? What
are the universal principles coming out of all the theories actually work,
whether they are the current trend or not, and why do they work. What design ideas don’t work, no matter how
fantastic they look on paper, and why don’t they work. What is going to work in different places and
situations? How can we apply, as William
Hosley, (Placemaking – History, Practice, & Philosophy), quotes Wendell
Berry, “The concept of solving for pattern is the process of finding solutions
that solve multiple problems while minimizing the creation of new problems.”
In the article “Roles and Challenges of Urban
Design,” Ali Madanipour states, “The role of urban design is to add flesh to
the bones of broad visions and general policy statements; it offers the chance
of imagining what the future might look like” (2006). I have been looking at the Oregon Trail
Parkway Plan for Boise Avenue in Boise, Idaho.
The vision of the plan is the “Oregon Trail Parkway will celebrate
Boise’s heritage, improve pedestrian access, and enhance the surrounding
neighborhood” (2001). The ‘flesh’ of the
design includes 7’ tall Cor-ten steel obelisk monuments placed in landscaped triangle
parks and other micro-park areas.
The
parks are to be connected by a linear park and tree-lined avenue with limited
vehicle access. Historic signage and
lighting, repaired sidewalks and pathways for pedestrians and bicycles,
underground utilities, and brick pavers at intersections as village entrances
were also part of the design. Some of
these have been implemented (the triangle parks, monuments, and pathways) and
others are in the process (linear park) or not at all (underground utilities,
brick pavers, limited vehicle access).
So, does the design work?
Has a ‘place’ been created? Only
somewhat in as far as it has been implemented.
The monuments and parks are visually noticeable and attractive as
individual mini-places but there is no sense of overall connection along the
avenue as a historical or community place.
I will make some guesses why it is not working. The majority of Boise Ave. (east of Broadway
Ave.) has been widened to accommodate more traffic rather than restrict vehicle
access.
A sidewalk and a bicycle lane
were added but neighborhood destinations are over a mile apart along a busy
street. The bicycle connection to the
foothills is great but a walk along a busy street is not appealing.
The other section of Boise Ave. (west of
Broadway Ave.) has not been widened but improvements have not been completed.
The sidewalks and trees along the street, the
triangle parks, and walking distance are nice.
But the utility lines are still above ground and there is no bike path
on a street with more vehicular traffic than is really safe for bicyclists in
the street. And none of the village
entrance markers or unifying elements such as historic signage and lighting have been
installed. But I think the biggest issue is how limited this plan is because it was conceived by neighborhood associations without the knowledge, experience, and guidance of a professional urban designer. They did well enough but as “’unknowing’ urban designers” (Urban Design Today) they did not understand the value of professional design in creating good urban design. Nor did the decision making agencies (also ’unknowing’ urban designers”) who made decisions counter to the design vision of enhancing the surrounding communities.
References
Hosley, W. (2013). Placemaking
– History, Practice, & Philosophy. (video). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=W22BOuPD5Oo
Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and Challenges of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design 11:2, 173-193.