"What are we doing to drive people to our places?" asks Rob Spanier, from the Canadian firm LiveWorkLearnPlay. He goes on to present the power of markets to generate local business: their data shows that typically 60-80% of neighbouring businesses report higher sales with the presence of a farmers market, and that while 800 people are generally needed to support one it can also drive several thousand visitors in a season.
I've been listening to Columbia Department of Planning's Kimberley Driggens give example after example of art and culture 'temporiums'. The point, is that they have all helped, as she describes it, "build a constituency for your plan".
With a department of planning grant, 34 crafters and artists came together to serve 800 people in the first hour, and generate $31,000 in sales in 24 consecutive days.
As one of four art and culture temporiums launched last summer, focused on four different communities, Lumen8 Anacostia used a
Sarah Susanka, architect and author of the Not So Big series of books that began with The Not So Big House, had two key messages for this audience of planners, urbanists, architects - and me (as none of the above) - at the CNU 21 this morning:
1. How do we make these ideas simple enough for people who aren't trained in this - that is architecture, planning or urban design - to understand and recognise that this is what they want; that this is the way to connect to their values.
2. What do I know (as a practitioner) and how do I bring that out into the mainstream?
Susanka, argues that everyone is searching for a sense of home. Emerging from architecture school, she tapped into that need - and
I've never really thought about who owns the streets before, I have to admit. Have you? But when you do think about it, we do. In fact, our streets aren't only owned by us, in many places they're also the bulk of our public space. (Chicago's streets represent 23% of land area and 70% of public space.) And, in places that are becoming more and more dense - something I love - that public space is key; after all, we've traded off the private space to get it.
So this is the context in which I'm listening to Victor Dover and John Massengale present at CNU 21, who are about to launch a book later in the year, called STREET DESIGN - the secret of great cities and towns. In the book - and here - they're challenging the notion of the complete street, arguing that complete doesn't mean it's
For many people in Australia, the term 'the new urbanism' is something of a dirty phrase. I'm not sure if it's because it conjures images of traditional architecture or something far deeper. However, perhaps the term proposed by keynote speaker Andres Duany, himself one of the founders of the new urbanism, may appeal more.
I'm sitting at the Congress of New Urbanism at the end of the 2013 Great Places tour with client RobertsDay. In a long presentation containing several complex arguments that I'll make no attempt to summarise, Duany pitched the ingredients of
Yesterday, I was listening to Victor Dover and John Massengale explain why a complete street doesn't necessarily mean a great place. So as I come back to write up my post from the "Streets of gold: High value via walkable urban thoroughfare design" session, I can't help but see it in a different light.
Firstly, if you come to a session called "The architecture of affordability", you might be forgiven for thinking that it will be about that: the architecture. But what I walked away with - reaffirmed from a previous tour of affordable housing projects here in the US in 2006 - is that the architecture they're really referring to is a financial one. It's about the maths.