| |
Everyday
Urbanism edited by John Chase, Margaret Crawford,
and John Kaliski
Monacelli
Press, 2008
Paperback, 224 pages
What is "Everyday Urbanism?"
Taken at face value the terms point to a contradiction,
the unplanned grouped with the planned. As a movement of
urban design it sounds suspect, as if the everyday cannot
be designed for, that it is what takes place regardless
of urban design, not because of it. Or as one critic has
painted it: "it is urban design by default rather than
by intention." The expanded edition of 1999's Everyday
Urbanism attempts some elucidation of the goals and
means of the movement, while broadening its reach beyond
the predominantly Los Angeles examples. All tolled the editors
supply the majority of the content, pointing to a limited
field of practitioners and scholars taking everyday urbanism
seriously. Even more so than urban design -- also seen as
a vague field -- everyday urbanism is aided and burdened
by its lack of specificity and consistency of method, arising
from the importance it values on locality and the day-to-day
actions taking place within them.
Split into three parts -- the first
two from the 1999 book -- reading the book in order reveals
the LA focus the editors acknowledge. The essays on the
streets, alleys, street vendors, Latinos and other places
and people of the metropolis initially makes one think that
everyday urbanism is specific to LA. East coast and European
additions to the expanded edition address this perception,
though they are accompanied by essays on mini-malls and
signs in everyday urbanism's apparent west coast home. Does
this mean LA is the penultimate example of everyday urbanism,
stemming from its ethnic and economic diversity? Actually
this geographical preference is due more to the location
of proponents of everyday urbanism more than anything, but
it can be said that they are responding to what they see
around them, the daily lives expressed in public.
Living in New York I see the same
thing occur every day, especially in the summer months when
people leave their hot apartments for respite in the outdoor's
breezes, shade and water. It could be said that New Yorkers,
more than anybody in the United States, metaphorically extend
their living rooms into the streets. The apparent social
vibrancy and diversity of the place is not only apparent,
it is its greatest asset. But how much of the public realm
can be said to be designed for the everyday happenings of
all the city's inhabitants? Do the streets designed
for vehicular traffic really address the lives of people
who live on this or that block? And does the closing
of sections of Broadway in Times Square cater to more
than tourists? It's easy to applaud the mayor when he takes
a strong pro-pedestrian positions, but it's harder to push
further and ask the questions that need to be asked so more
residents can enjoy the benefits of safer and more beautiful
streets.
An everyday urbanism in New York
might resemble the LA examples found in this book, in method
more than form. The closings of Broadway to cars, for example,
is a top-down measure without any community input; democracy
was missing from the process. This is not everyday urbanism.
If it were such it would probably be in another location,
and it would involve local residents and merchants in the
planning of the spaces, instead of merely adding some lawn
chairs and paint. So when returning to this review's initial
question, everyday urbanism is two things: the expression
of residents' exploitation of the economic, political and
social situations (the bottom-up result); and the incorporation
of the everyday into the designs and decision-making of
urban designers and their clients (the top-down result).
A synthesis of the two is key. It is what would have made
street closings in New York more than just a spectacle in
a place already saturated with spectacles.
or 
|
