The Hows and Whys of Urban Design, Part One: What does “urban” really mean?

In an effort to properly introduce Fort Worth to classic urban design and New Urbanism, Fort Worthology is planning a series of educational posts on the subject. We’ll be using the Charter of the New Urbanism as a base to help the public understand what this whole “urban” thing is all about, and why “urban” doesn’t mean skyscraper. Let’s begin with an introduction to urban design, and what makes it different from the typical suburban sprawl so many people are familiar with.

A fantastic way to illustrate the differences between suburban sprawl and traditional neighborhood design is with this classic illustration, conceived by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk:

On top, you have suburban sprawl - you’ll probably recognize most of the various forms involved. On the left, the big mall surrounded by a sea of parking and a few strip centers. Next, a strip center fronting the big arterial road, with apartments behind isolated on their own collector road with plenty of parking lots. Next, the usual housing subdivision, isolated on a collector road that wanders back and forth without reason, featuring housing clustered around cul-de-sacs. Finally, a big office park with its own collector road and parking lot.

In suburban sprawl, each type of land use is isolated, seperate from all the other uses. All are tied to one arterial road, with collector roads to feed it. The design of sprawl essentially forces car trips for anything, from a quick trip to the market to a night out on the town to heading to the park. Even in cases where the two uses of land are nearby, they are often closed off by walls and kept distant by winding roads. Besides, even if you felt like making the trek on foot, you’ll still have to contend with pedestrian-unfriendly suburban design - wide roads designed to move traffic as quickly as possible with no regard for pedestrian traffic, homes with front-facing garage doors that present cold facades to the street, retail centers pulled back from the street and fronted by seas of parking, and in some cases a lack of sidewalks. This also has negative effects for children - rather than being able to walk to school or the park, they must be shuttled back and forth in cars, tied to others for their mobility.

Not only is suburbia an unpleasant place for anybody who isn’t driving, but it actually makes the driving experience worse as well. By forcing all traffic onto a handul of collectors and one big arterial, all traffic is forced to travel the same streets to go from anywhere to anywhere. Anybody who has attempted to fight the traffic on Bryant Irvin and Hulen during busy times of day should be able to see the results of this school of design.

In contrast, traditional urbanity is presented on the bottom half of the illustration. All of the same types of land use are there, but the arrangement is radically different. Rather than isolating land uses from each other, traditional urbanity mixes uses in close proximity. This does not involve the typical stereotype of “cramming everybody into skyscrapers” that most suburban dwellers get when they hear the word “urban.” Urban design has nothing to do with skyscrapers - it has everything to do with the layout and orientation of streets, buildings, and public space.

The streets, for example, do not follow the suburban “arterials and collectors” model. Rather, streets form an interconnected grid that allows easy navigation via multiple routes. No one road is depended upon for all traffic, easing congestion. Because uses are mixed, trips are usually much shorter, and thanks to the grid it’s easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate their way to destinations in short order. In addition, since traffic is more easily distributed along the grid, streets can be much narrower, resulting in a more pleasant space for pedestrians (narrower streets are easier to cross on foot, and slow traffic down), with the side benefit of making drivers more careful.

A grid alone is not enough, however - the street must be a comfortable place to walk. This is accomplished primarily through the design and positioning of buildings. People don’t like walking if they don’t have a sense of place and enclosure. Suburban design does not give this sense - a wide road filled with speeding cars on one side and a big blank parking lot on the other side serves to isolate pedestrians and make them uncomfortable. In urban design, buildings are brought right up to the street. Buildings open onto the sidewalk, not parking lots. Massive height is not required - an urban commercial row can be quite friendly and welcoming using buildings no taller than three or four stories as long as the buildings are positioned up against the street and parking is hidden either behind the buildings or in parking structures. Multi-floor buildings on commercial streets should be mixed-use, featuring retail and restaurants on the ground floor and office space or apartments/condos on the upper floors. This serves to create constant human presence, making the neighborhood safer and more comforting. In sections of the neighborhood with single-family homes, homes should be closer to the street than in the suburbs and feature friendly designs, often with large front porches, and place garages in the back, preferably accessed by means of a rear alley. Designs of most buildings should be simpler - variety should occur not at the building scale, but at the neighborhood scale between multiple buildings. Important structures such as schools, government buildings, churches, and the like should be of grander design and be placed on sites reserved for prominent buildings, such as the termination of a street.

In future installments, we’ll be taking a more in-depth look at various aspects of urban design, utilizing the Charter of the New Urbanism as our guide. You can read the Charter by clicking on the new “Charter of the New Urbanism” link on the navbar to the left.