Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Gibbs vs. Whyte

Gibbs approached city design from a more specific perspective than Whyte. In the article, Gibbs gave specific, concrete descriptions of what works and what does not work in street design. When reading the Gibbs article, it seemed as if Gibbs was sitting on a bench in the middle of a downtown area, explaining all of the elements he saw that contributed to either efficient or inefficient design. He was very focused in his approach and looked at the subject in black and white: there was no middle gray to Gibbs' main points. For example, Gibbs explained that restaurants should not face west while retail stores should not face south. Gibbs also talked about sidewalk material, window display size, and bench location in Main Street areas. All of Gibbs' points are derived from his belief that Main Street areas should borrow as much as possible from mall design in order to prosper financially. Contrastingly, Whyte presented his information in a jumbled, much less organized format. Unlike Gibbs' focused approach, Whyte seemed as if he was sitting in his office, trying to recall details of effective design from his memory. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the order in which he presented his points. Instead, he jumped around from example to example haphazardly. The Whyte article also made points that were very unclear. For example, Whyte talked about the inefficiently designed entrance at Bloomingdale's in New York City. These doors often held up large crowds of people on the sidewalk, and created an area of heavy congestion. However, based on our conversation in class today, it was unclear whether this inefficient design actually had a positive or negative impact on the store. While I thought that the inconvenient doors were an asset to Bloomingdale's, others like Shelbi thought that the doors hurt the store. While Gibbs assumed the perspective of a thoughtful city planner, Whyte assumed the perspective of a critic or analyst. Overall I found Gibbs' article more convincing than Whyte's. Gibbs presented a model of a successful shopping mall and tried to show how its elements can be applied to a downtown area. In other words, he took something that worked and tried to apply it to something that did not work as well. This gave his arguments credibility. Meanwhile, Whyte's arguments seemed to be less professional and less based on fact. The points that he made often seemed arbitrary and incomplete.

One of the most important elements of an urban area for me is the safety and crowd-level. I am much more willing to spend time in a crowded, busy urban area than a deserted, vacant one. Growing up, the big city that I most frequently visited was Detroit, Michigan. This city is known for being very dangerous, and as I grew older, I became much more reluctant to go into the city because I did not feel safe or comfortable there. While Detroit does have several very nice attractions, including a baseball stadium, football stadium, numerous theaters, casinos, and Greek Town, these hot spots are scattered throughout the large city. This makes it very uncomfortable to walk through the city, since there are many vacant, unpopulated areas that are unsafe. On the other hand, a city that I have spent a great deal of time in over the years is Birmingham, Michigan. Birmingham has a medium sized downtown area, and from the morning until late at night, there are always people in sight. The constant flow of people makes the city seem like a popular place to spend time in, and bolsters the feeling of safety. Another very important element of urban design is the appearance of height and large size. Most of the buildings in Birmingham are two to three stories tall, while other apartments and large office buildings tower high above the surroundings. The multiple stories are very important because they give the city vitality. In many cases, the second story developments are apartments. The fact that there are people living in the city make it feel like the city is always alive, and that there will always be a stream of people moving in and out of the city. One final urban design element that attracts me is small trees and plants along the sidewalks. These elements show that despite the urban nature of the development, the natural element is still present. In addition to displaying wildlife, trees along the sidewalks also serve as a great decoration at night if Christmas lights are hung through the branches. The image of lighted trees lining the sidewalk of a downtown area triggers a strong visceral and reflective reaction in my mind. Apart from the beauty of this display, it reminds me of Christmas shopping as a child with my family, and creates nostalgia. On the other hand, one element of urban area that strongly repels me is the presence of homeless people. I feel terrible for saying this, because homeless people are often perfectly kind people who were dealt an especially hard hand in life, but I feel very uncomfortable walking past or being approached by a homeless person on the street. There are many homeless people living on the streets in Detroit, which is not only very sad, but also frightening. This is another reason I usually avoid going into the city. Another repelling element of an urban area is an old-fashioned appearance. Some downtown areas try to maintain an "old-country" feel which I do not find attractive. This may be a reflective reaction, since I usually associate old cities with dirty, dusty cities of the old-West. I much prefer cities that try to blend old elements with new ones.

No comments:

Post a Comment