Urban Design Starts with Social Design - Essay Example

Urban Design Starts with Social Design Introduction Urban design and placemaking have always been intertwined terms both in definition and application. This is evident in that their definitions point at them as the multidisciplinary and collaborative processes of creating (or shaping) the physical being for human life in villages, towns, and cities (Urban Design 2011, n.p.). The only difference between them is that urban design is mostly concerned with the design of physical spaces such as buildings, landscapes, and all frameworks that contribute to successful improvement. On the other hand, placemaking will take into consideration both physical design and other non-physical elements that contribute to the well-being and improvement of human living. As such, it is sufficient to conclude that these two work hand in hand. The relationship between urban design and placemaking does not stop at their definition or application; the sharing is extended to their elements. Concisely, they share the same guiding principles. One of the most important elements perceives the community as the centre of placemaking or urban design. As such, all frameworks should aim at the good of the target community. The second element of urban design and placemaking is that a vision should guide the overall process. In short, the processes should have an end purpose. Third and very important is that these processes should attract or lobby for communal support if success is to be achieved. It would be impossible to come up with a good place or design if the target community rubs against the idea. Last but not least is the element of triangulating. Triangulating in this case refers to the location of elements in a manner that promotes their usage or related activities. For instance, a bus stop is a perfect place to locate a coffee or drink kiosk. Controversy lingers on whether urban design (and placemaking) can only be created out of social design. Better put, does urban design start with social design?This is not always the case, reason being that if urban design is constructed from social design, it would be impossible to impose change on a society using urban design (Abramson 2008, p.197). Change is one of the key purposes of urban design. For instance, if a certain community is affected by insecurity, urban planning would have to come up with a framework that boosts security rather than impose change by creating means of eradicating crime such as creating employment. In the light of these, the following study text will seek to support that urban design does not necessarily start with a social design. Rather, it would be better off starting with the end vision in mind since in some cases, changing the social design is what guarantees successful urban design. Negatives and positives of social design as a start to urban planning Social design is the use of a people’s way of life to come up with frameworks that improve their livelihood and well-being. These includeplacemaking and urban design. Basing placemaking and/or urban design on social design will have its own positive and negative implications. One detrimental factor is that more time would be consumed in understanding the social fiber of a community before a “respective” framework that matches with it is created. Second, it would be impossible to inflict change on a community if a proposed urban design is based on its cultures. Culture is a notorious factor in hindering change (Knieling&Othengrafen2012, p.3). Thirdly, if the designers have to keep going to the roots of social design and replicating the old cultures into a new urban design, the vision would take longer to achieve or worse still; never be attained. Finally, basing urban design on the social aspect is likely to add up to non-professionalism because the professionals would be limited in applying their skills. On the other hand, starting urban design from social design has its advantages. First, the target communities (community voice and overall stakeholders) would have direct or indirect contribution to the proposed design. This would not only ensure effectiveness, but also make the design and implementation process much simpler. As such, the consumers are likely to benefit more from it. Second, basing placemaking on the social design sort of “grants permission” or gives the green light to its implementation. In this case, less resistance or friction would occur between the target communities and the implementation of the proposed urban design. Why it is not necessary to start with a social design According to Jackson (2003, p.192), the United States, one of the world’s biggest economies, is undergoing mortality and illness from factors that did not exist in the past. In contemporary America, allergies, heart disease, asthma, obesity, animal-transmitted diseases, airborne illnesses, and multiple mental illnesses are common epidemics. The chief reason why these modern disorders erupted lies in the lack of regulated safe environments, food production processes, workplace safety, factory waste, and public sanitation. Collectively, these factors have placed the natural environment under siege leading to the emergence of the above epidemics. As is evident here, the reason why America (and the world at large) is suffering is caused by detrimental social conduct. Humans have polluted the air, invaded wetlands, dumped waste into oceans, and generally offered a blind eye to the consequences of their conduct. In the light of the above revelation, it makes sense that if the social aspect is anything to go by in urban design, then the existing destruction would be transferred into the future. In a nutshell, new cities would be designed in a manner that ignores air quality, trees would not make much sense, public sanitation would not be offered the criticality it requires, and safe environments would not exist. Evidently, new places would be made the culture of looking down on the natural environment would persist. As such, the epidemics would persist and worsen with time. If this was the case, then the urban design would not meet its core objective which is the improvement and sustenance of human well-being (Giddings et al. 2002, p.187). In addition, green spaces are being substituted with paved spaces and artificial recreational facilities which as Kuo et al (1998, p.823) states, is detrimental to the formation of social ties among people. Grass and trees, as they add, when incorporated into identical housing models, boosts the rate of socialization between neighbours. Therefore, if the current social design was to be used in predicting a future urban design, less green spaces would result, meaning worse social ties in the future. This sufficiently proves that social design should not necessarily be used in initiating placemaking. The second reason why basing placemaking on social design is not a good idea suffices in the fact that modern social capital is of low fiber. Social capital in this case refers to physical and emotional relationships between persons (William & Durance 2008, n.p.). Clearly, social capital has been deteriorating with time; similar to what the natural environment has been experiencing. Putnam (2000, p.65) reports that premature deaths, cancer, depression, stroke, heart attacks and colds amongst other chronic illnesses are influenced to a large extent by the quality of familial and social ties that one leads. He adds that similar to the danger presented by physical inactivity, high blood pressure, and obesity; poor social capital has the capacity to present the same. Considering these factors and relating them to the current lifestyles that people in the modern world are leading, it is clear that founding urban design on the social design is suicidal. Today, people are turning to mean lifestyles where one will acquire a piece of land, build a home, and employ a hedge to keep themselves inside and others at bay. This discourages maximization on informal contact among residents, thus the state of deteriorating social capital. Berman (1996, p.347) presents studies that support the above statement. In studies conducted by urban design advocates on the effect of mixed land use and higher residential densities, it was revealed that they foster bicycle and pedestrian activity. Bicycle and pedestrian activity on their part increased open space, physical exercise (CDCP 1996, n.p.), and most importantly social contact. Going by the evidence previously presented, these would reduce the emergence of health disorders that are optimized by weak social capital evident in today’s societies. In support of the argument, if the current social design was to be carried forward as it is into establishing future urban designs, the results would be devastating as more premature deaths would occur in addition to more cases of obesity, heart disease, cancers, stroke, and depression to mention but a few. The final necessity why urban design should not always be determined by social design is that urban design can itself influence the social aspect. Better put, urban design can determine the way that people perceive of their lives, or how they choose to live. If landmarks and public buildings were to be embedded in a logical pattern, improved human health and welfare would result (Kaplan 1998, p.73). Pathways and visual landmarks will enable people to find their destinations thus easing one’s psychological effort of navigating foreign territory as well as a feeling of being safe. This adds up to human well-being. Recent research has proven that when patients of recidivism accessed community centers, churches, libraries and other public spaces, the doctors reported a decrease in the condition (Corboun 2007, p.674). The idea is that in such public spaces, the madness of the urban rush and excessive noises of traffic are shut out allowing the patients mental calm. Therefore, public spaces set away from the modern fast life are critical ingredients in fostering human capital thus improved livelihood which is the key objective of placemaking and urban design. Evidently, this sufficiently proves that urban design should not necessarily start from social design. If urban design can positively influence or transform social design, then it means that urban design might as well act as a starting point for placemaking. In application, an urban designer would consider incorporating pedestrian paths in a city or real estate model. This would encourage the townsfolk or dwellers to use the footpaths. In walking, physical exercise and higher chances of socializing occur and collectively, they contribute to the well-being of society by strengthening the social capital and preventing health disorders (Brownson et al. 2001, p.1997). In this way, effective urban and social design would be achieved, this time not based on the social, but on urban design. What to start with and why The above sections justify that social design is not the only point from where urban design can develop. This though does not entirely rule out social design as a potential starting point for the same, rather, it proves that different approaches exist that can be used in the same. Owing to the reducing factors highlighted such as deteriorating social capital and lack of concern for the natural environment, it is recommended that a slightly different and all-inclusive approach should be utilized to start urban design with. It should incorporate all the desired outcomes plus every element which when included in the planning would contribute to effectiveness in placemaking (Berke& Conroy 2000, p.21). This would resolve the loopholes observed in the event that social design was used as the only approach to starting urban design. The new approach should put into consideration the fact that a community and a place are both necessary for urban design to happen and that one without the other results in ineffectiveness or inadequacy. These said, it suffices that the best alternative to starting with social design would be establishing an overall vision and working upwards towards it. The vision should recognize the ultimate objective of placemaking which is the improvement of human livelihood and well-being. Additionally, it should consider all the discussed features termed as supporting the achievement of the objective, such as the environment and healthy living. In a nutshell, an urban design can start from the vision part of it. The vision aspects in urban design would be an excellent point to start from since it addresses the design’s meaning, uses, activities, and character in relation to the target community. In short, the vision will have to be laid down first and all demands, requirements and opinions chipped in from all involved stakeholders. Professionalism would also be incorporated in coming up with the vision for the urban design’s proposal. In this way, the community will have what they need included then professional assistance would polish everything into an all-round package. The reason why professional assistance is critical is that professionals understand what needs to be included in the placemaking process which would otherwise be unknown to the target communities (Handy& Clifton 2001, p.317). A vision will always come with a mission. In the design case, the mission aspect represents the activities to be executed in achieving the vision. For instance, if an urban design’s vision is to eradicate crime in a chosen region, several approaches can be used. First, the design will have to explain the cause of insecurity in the chosen area which may include lack of employment to the young people. In this case, the mission would include, amongst other activities coming up with an urban design that supports more economic activities. This activity would create more jobs and in the end, the new city would not suffer from insecurity. Second, starting from the vision part would define the design’s expected character and uses. In this way, all the involved stakeholders would have an understanding of what to expect once the placemaking kicks off. This is important in that it is at this point that the stakeholders and the implementing professionals convene at a common table and brainstorm on issues both ways (Manzo& Perkins 2006, p.335). The stakeholders would present their opinions and demands to the professionals. The professionals would reciprocate by presenting their intended paths. Once they have reached agreements on the urban design, the issue of friction and ineffectiveness outlined earlier would not exist. In having a ready vision as a starting point in urban design and meeting with the stakeholder’s the implementers will get to understand their target population. If a particular area is mostly populated by the aged, they would adjust the plan to come up with a calm environment with minimal disturbances such as nightclubs and busy highways. Again, footpaths would not have to be raised too high, and more quiet green spaces would do. Additionally, the community would understand the meaning of every detail included in the placemaking proposal. Professional assistance would play an important role in coming up with the vision especially when it comes to the discussed detrimental implications of contemporary life. As earlier discussed, the natural environment remains under human siege. Similarly, the social aspect of humans is deteriorating fast. Collectively, these factors are working against human livelihood and well-being through shortened lifespans and multiple health disorders. A proper vision would address issues such as conserving the environment or reinstating healthy living. In most cases, the stakeholders will be unaware of what building benches in tree pits or burning plastic material would cost them (Jacquiline et al. 2010, p.6). However, the urban design professionals understand such details in depth. They would therefore come up with characters in the vision that would not only see placemaking succeed but also incorporate the effective means of conserving the environment and keeping the people healthy (Hoehner 2003, p.14). For example, the vision of an urban design may be improved lifestyles. One activity in the design might be increasing the distance which one has to walk from their homes to access public transport. In explanation, the longer walking distance would be to reduce pollution by motor vehicles, make healthier bodies, and permit development of social capital. As Costa et al. (1988, p.371) reveals there are higher rates of accidents and work absenteeism in Europeans who commute long distances by vehicles. Commuting time, they add, reduces to a great extent the rate of community involvement. In this case, the vision of healthy lifestyles would be achieved by increasing the walking distance. To avoid any friction or complains from the target population, the designers would explain this to them. This would not be the case if the placemaking was initiated without the stakeholders’ involvement then alterations would have to be made long after the urban design has been implemented. It would likelier to generate friction and be costlier in the long run. In conclusion, it is clear that the difference between starting urban design from social design and starting it from the vision aspect is that fewer errors would be imminent in the second case. In addition, the vision approach would allow brainstorming among all involved parties. Both of these factors define the vision-first approach as being clearer, safer, more supported, and inclusive of all factors deemed as necessary in attaining the ultimate goal of urban design as compared to the social design approach (Umemoto 2001, p.17). The social approach is likelier to carry forward detrimental elements into urban design since culture is transferrable. However, starting from a vision provides a fresh setup which if effectively applied would see change for the better come upon the target population thus better livelihood. Conclusion In this study text, evidence is provided against the statement that urban design has to necessarily start from social design. It is further justified that apart from social design, urban design can itself be a starting point to social design. Social design is seen as being disadvantaged by factors such as carrying forward of old cultures thus resisting change and longer time being needed to attain an urban design goal. It however has advantages such as attracting less friction from the target population. Social design would not necessarily be a starting point because the social aspect in it has put nature under siege. Worse still, it has destroyed the social ties between humans. Collectively, these have contributed to the occurrence of chronic diseases and decreased lifespan. The alternative offered as a starting point is using an urban design’s vision to come up with the roadmap towards meeting its objectives. In this approach, all the details about a proposed design are highlighted and brainstorming permitted between the implementers and the stakeholders. In this way, they can refine the roadmap so that it fits both parties in a good way. In this case, the target population understands the entire urban design process and even become participatory. In the end, the professionals help the target population to live better, and urban design attains its goal of human livelihood and well-being without necessarily starting from social design. Bibliography Abramson, D 2008, “Urban Planning in China: Continuity and Change: What the Future holds might Surprise You”, Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (2): 197-215. Berke, P & Conroy, M 2000, “Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?”, Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (1): 21-33. Berman, M 1996, “The Transportation effects of neo-traditional development”, Journal of Planning Lit.10 (4): 347-363. Brownson, R, Baker, E, Houseman, R, Brennan, L &Bacak, S 2001, “Environmental and Policy Determinants of Physical Activity in the United States”, American Journal of Public health 91(12): 1995-2003. CDCP 1996, “ Physical activity and Health: A report of the surgeon general”, US Department of Health and Human Services. Corburn, J 2007, “Reconnecting with our Roots: American Urban Planning and Public Health in the Twenty-first Century”, Urban Affairs Review (42): 688-795. Costa, G, Pickup, L & Di M 1988, “Commuting- a further stress factor for working people: evidence from the European community”, International Occupation and Environmental Health Journal 60 (1): 371-376. Giddings, B, Hopwoodm B & O’Brien, G 2001, “Environment, Economy and Society: Fitting then together into Sustainable Development”, Sustainable Development 10: 187-196. Handy, S & Clifton, K 2001, “Local Shopping as a Strategy for reducing automobile Travel”, Transportation 28(1): 317-346. Hoehner, C, Brennan, L, Brownson, R, Handy, S &Killingsworth, R 2003, “Opportunities for integrating public health and urban planning approaches to promote active community environments”, The American Journal of Health Promotion 14-22. Jackson, L 2003, “The Relationship of Urban Design to Human Health and Condition”, Landscape and urban Planning, 64 (1): 191-200. Jacqueline, W, Erika, S, Campbell, L, Greenfeld, J, Braden, J, King, K &Falxa-Raymond, N 2010, “Biological, Social, and Urban Design Factors Affecting Young Street Tree Mortality in New York City”, Cities and the Environment 3(1): 1-15. Kaplan, R, Kaplan, S & Ryan, R 1998, “With people in mind: Design and Management of Everyday nature”, Environmental Behavior (5): 72-82. Knieling, J &Othengrafen, F 2012, “Spatial Planning and Culture- Symbiosis for a better understanding of cultural differences in planning systems, traditions and practices”, Ashgate Publishing.1-13. Kuo, F, Sullivian, W, Coley, R & Brunson, L 1998, “Fertile Ground for Community: Inner City Neighbourhood Common Spaces”, American Journal of Communication Psychology 26 (6): 823-851. Manzo, L & Perkins, D 2006, “Finding common ground: The importance of attachment to community participation and planning”, Journal of planning Literature 20: 335-352. Putnam, R 2000, “Bowling alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”, Journal of Democracy. 65-78. Umemoto, K 2001, “Walking in Another’s Shoes: Epistemological Challenges in Participatory Planning”, Journal of Planning Education 21 (1): 17-31. Urban Design 2011, “What is urban design?” Urban Design Group, available at http://www.udg.org.uk/about/what-is-urban-design [6 Feb, 2015]. Williams, K &Durrance, J 2008, “Social Networks and Social Capital: Rethinking Theory in Community Informatics”, The Journal of Community Informatics 4(3). Read More