This is very good. I am awaiting the description of the zoning code that does this well, especially as recently I am becoming less sure zoning can effectively produce good design given the headwinds against (financing, building materials, etc.)
I do worry that planners and urban designers often focus too much on the first two floors. Yes, they are critical. Yes, eyes head there more. But the upper floors are also visible; too often the buildings are really bland and dull overall.
Great article. I think porosity is necessary but not sufficient to create a great place. To get to the level of granularity and personality imbued on a space that you desire, I think people need to have a literal ownership of the place. Some 5-over-1's give each street-level unit a small porch and a staircase down to the sidewalk but it doesn't make the street all that lively because the people living there have no incentive or are banned from doing any work on it themselves. Jane Jacobs talked about how public housing projects have lifeless streets while privately owned "slums" inhabited by the owners were extremely lively and ultimately well-kept:
"When I saw the North End again in 1959,I was amazed at the
change. Dozens and dozens of buildings had been rehabilitated.
Instead of mattresses against the windows there were Venetian
blinds and glimpses of fresh paint. Many of the small, converted
houses now had only one or two families in them instead of the
old crowded three or four. Some of the families in the tenements
(as I learned later, visiting inside) had uncrowded themselves by
throwing two older apartments together, and had equipped these
with bathrooms, new kitchens and the like. I looked down a narrow alley, thinking to find at least here the old, squalid North
End, but no: more neatly repointed brickwork, new blinds, and a
burst of music as a door opened. Indeed, this was the only city
district I had ever seen—or have seen to this day—in which the
sides of buildings around parking lots had not been left raw and
amputated, but repaired and painted as neatly as if they were intended to be seen. Mingled all among the buildings for living were
an incredible number of splendid food stores, as well as such enterprises as upholstery making, metal working, carpentry, food
processing. The streets were alive with children playing, people
shopping, people strolling, people talking. Had it not been a cold
January day, there would surely have been people sitting."
(Death and Life of Great American Cities)
Porosity is definitely important here, but I think the main effect she's discussing is that a given street in the North End in Boston consists of hundreds of individual owners each contributing their own work and personality to the streetscape and having the full freedom to recreate each building to fit their personal or entrepreneurial needs. This simply won't happen in Public Housing or large scale market rate housing operated by an institution, no matter how porous the built environment is.
Great comment - I mostly agree. You're right that porosity as defined here is only one part of what great places, which is why we seek novelty events (through diverse ownership, multitudinous stimuli, etc. as mentioned in the article) to achieve them
The thesis proposes three quantitative measures of "lively urban form": place density (what you're getting to here), enclosure, and street-orientation.
Looking back I think place density is probably the most important one, since if you have enough of it it probably gets you acceptable enclosure and street-orientation.
My block is made interesting by the wildly varying sidewalk quality (and presence), a wide range of different overgrown (occasionally thorny) plants, rusted-out cars, random junk, and angry political yard signs. It still gets decent foot traffic, so I wonder if the interestingness of it is outweighing the unpleasantness.
I recently read Alicia Pederson's essay on how setbacks have negatively impacted urbanism in the US. While I agree that small setbacks can create good porosity I also recognize that some of the best urbanism is in the form of courtyard blocks that have very little porosity on the street. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
I think the courtyard block works best when it is composed of various buildings and forms an emergent courtyard. The baugruppen collective housing in Germany is a great example. bo01 in Malmo is also another great example. I think anything that is all built at the same time, by one developer, and one collective owner is still not preferable to incrementally developed communities that reflect the minutiae of the inhabitants in the neighborhood. It’s that vitality that is hard to replace when development is done at large scale, regardless if it is courtyard or not. That’s why our model places high importance on diverse ownership and narrow lot footprints. These two collectively create more dynamic places.
This is very good. I am awaiting the description of the zoning code that does this well, especially as recently I am becoming less sure zoning can effectively produce good design given the headwinds against (financing, building materials, etc.)
I do worry that planners and urban designers often focus too much on the first two floors. Yes, they are critical. Yes, eyes head there more. But the upper floors are also visible; too often the buildings are really bland and dull overall.
Great article. I think porosity is necessary but not sufficient to create a great place. To get to the level of granularity and personality imbued on a space that you desire, I think people need to have a literal ownership of the place. Some 5-over-1's give each street-level unit a small porch and a staircase down to the sidewalk but it doesn't make the street all that lively because the people living there have no incentive or are banned from doing any work on it themselves. Jane Jacobs talked about how public housing projects have lifeless streets while privately owned "slums" inhabited by the owners were extremely lively and ultimately well-kept:
"When I saw the North End again in 1959,I was amazed at the
change. Dozens and dozens of buildings had been rehabilitated.
Instead of mattresses against the windows there were Venetian
blinds and glimpses of fresh paint. Many of the small, converted
houses now had only one or two families in them instead of the
old crowded three or four. Some of the families in the tenements
(as I learned later, visiting inside) had uncrowded themselves by
throwing two older apartments together, and had equipped these
with bathrooms, new kitchens and the like. I looked down a narrow alley, thinking to find at least here the old, squalid North
End, but no: more neatly repointed brickwork, new blinds, and a
burst of music as a door opened. Indeed, this was the only city
district I had ever seen—or have seen to this day—in which the
sides of buildings around parking lots had not been left raw and
amputated, but repaired and painted as neatly as if they were intended to be seen. Mingled all among the buildings for living were
an incredible number of splendid food stores, as well as such enterprises as upholstery making, metal working, carpentry, food
processing. The streets were alive with children playing, people
shopping, people strolling, people talking. Had it not been a cold
January day, there would surely have been people sitting."
(Death and Life of Great American Cities)
Porosity is definitely important here, but I think the main effect she's discussing is that a given street in the North End in Boston consists of hundreds of individual owners each contributing their own work and personality to the streetscape and having the full freedom to recreate each building to fit their personal or entrepreneurial needs. This simply won't happen in Public Housing or large scale market rate housing operated by an institution, no matter how porous the built environment is.
Great comment - I mostly agree. You're right that porosity as defined here is only one part of what great places, which is why we seek novelty events (through diverse ownership, multitudinous stimuli, etc. as mentioned in the article) to achieve them
I love it! I undertook a similar effort for my Master's thesis. Wish I'd figured out how to use something like this in my professional career.
https://www.crozierian.com/_files/ugd/afcf1a_998310c8037d4847a846f4979b1226b3.pdf
The thesis proposes three quantitative measures of "lively urban form": place density (what you're getting to here), enclosure, and street-orientation.
Looking back I think place density is probably the most important one, since if you have enough of it it probably gets you acceptable enclosure and street-orientation.
My block is made interesting by the wildly varying sidewalk quality (and presence), a wide range of different overgrown (occasionally thorny) plants, rusted-out cars, random junk, and angry political yard signs. It still gets decent foot traffic, so I wonder if the interestingness of it is outweighing the unpleasantness.
I recently read Alicia Pederson's essay on how setbacks have negatively impacted urbanism in the US. While I agree that small setbacks can create good porosity I also recognize that some of the best urbanism is in the form of courtyard blocks that have very little porosity on the street. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-191028474
I think the courtyard block works best when it is composed of various buildings and forms an emergent courtyard. The baugruppen collective housing in Germany is a great example. bo01 in Malmo is also another great example. I think anything that is all built at the same time, by one developer, and one collective owner is still not preferable to incrementally developed communities that reflect the minutiae of the inhabitants in the neighborhood. It’s that vitality that is hard to replace when development is done at large scale, regardless if it is courtyard or not. That’s why our model places high importance on diverse ownership and narrow lot footprints. These two collectively create more dynamic places.