If we take all the previous principles and apply them to making a place, we will probably make somewhere which functions reasonably for people, regardless of what architectural style we pick for the buildings. However, if we make a series of subtle but significant adjustments to the urban structure, we can make the place far more interesting. Take the two plans below; assuming all the buildings are identical, we can make the place far more interesting if we change the plot structure and location of the buildings within each plot even if all the buildings are the same:
Again, looking below assuming identical buildings, if we make some subtle changes to the road structure it alters the plot structure and substantially affect the feel of the place, particularly if we add a few trees to a road with curvature and off set junctions.
Which of the above would you rather live in? Don’t forget that we are still designing the city from the perspective of a pigeon here, whereas we live at street level. If you were stood in the street, I suspect you would probably prefer to live in one of the last two.
There are a variety of ways to make places more interesting at a structural level and we have made a video on this, so please watch video 6 on creating character before reading further.
Off set to junctions
One of the simplest ways to make new urban places interesting is if we slightly off set the junctions and slightly stagger the set back of the buildings as is illustrated below. Which makes the most interesting place?
By off-setting the junction we cut off the street scene- so it doesn’t look like the road runs forever, we provide a point at the junction to draw the eye to. Because we can see something in front of us rather than a never-ending vista, the street feels shorter, more intimate, and we are more likely to be willing walk to experience it or to get somewhere.
Remember this:
Height to width ratio of the street
The ratio of the height of the buildings to the width of the street is probably the most important factor in determining the character and feel of any street. Changing this ratio is particularly difficult once the urban structure has been created. Although the heights of individual buildings can be raised or lowered through individual redevelopment, this rarely happens comprehensively and won’t change the width of the whole street if that is the problem.
If we look at historic cities, you will often find narrow streets and buildings of 4-6 levels. In villages you will find wider streets, larger front gardens and building heights of 1-2 levels. The post war city will often have much wider streets, they will often have either 1-2 storey buildings in suburbia or giant modern or brutalist buildings adjoining them in an urban context. In all cases it is that relationship between the height and width that is responsible for the varying character and feel of the street.
The concept of the wide boulevard from the post-war era remains enduringly popular, particularly at concept stage, but the boulevard creates a street that is particularly wide, usually faced with low buildings. The resulting feel is a place that is not intimate and often feels dominated by traffic. Sunset Boulevard in LA is probably the most iconic boulevard:
Click here for Streetview
Click here for Streetview
With that last picture, wouldn't the green centre strip be more use down one side- to separate a pedestrian and cycle path from vehicles? It may be green, but being in the middle of the road no one is ever going to use it as open space.
In reality, Sunset Boulevard is little more than an urban expressway with multiple lanes dominated by cars. There is no space to cycle on much of it, barely any space to walk, it is an unpleasant place to be a pedestrian. It has green space at the centre that no one can get to, so serves no purpose. But doesn't it look great in movies where it is filmed from a drone with the sky-scape of LA in the background?
Where Sunset Boulevard runs through greener more suburban locations, we find most of the buildings at either side don’t interface with the street, but instead have large barriers erected, which again function akin to the defences one may find surrounding a castle.
If you are providing a new street and decide you want it to have a certain character, whether that is a boulevard or the narrow winding street, it is possible to recreate the character by recreating the height to width ratio of the street you want to copy and then apply pretty much any architectural style of your choosing.
So if we take Stonegate in York, that street is about 5 metres wide and the buildings are generally of 3 levels, so say 9 metres high, therefore the ratio is about 9:5. So imagine we are making a new street which must be wider, say 10 metres because we need two way traffic, but we want the street to have a similar intimate character. We can achieve similar character if we make the buildings about 18 metres or approximately 5-6 levels high. This retains a comparable height to width ratio as can be seen comparing the two streets below:
Approx 9m: 5m Stonegate CLICK HERE for Streetview
Approx 18m:10m Wimpole Street CLICK HERE for Streetview
Or have a watch of the video below and see of the character of the street changes as the hight to width ratio changes several times in a short stretch:
Once you have found the height to width ratio required to deliver the street feel you seek, you can look at other initiatives to improve its feel. Initiatives such as planting trees, reducing the number of cars and better surfacing all improve the feel but are less important than the height to width ratio.
If the street feel works well it is generally possible to finish the street with pretty basic low-cost materials and still achieve a great place. Delivering the appropriate urban structure can reduce the cost of delivering, finishing and maintaining the street in the long term.
Use the Streetview links above again and take a look at the materials the streets are covered in. CLICK HERE to see Sunshine where the street is far too wide to be intimate and someone has instead tried to “bodge it” by spending a huge amount on the finishes of the pavements. Unfortunately it is far less successful than a narrower street would have been. The road in Sunshine is about 57 metres wide with buildings of about 6 metres so 6:57, without changing the width of the street to achieve something like the street feel of the more popular and more valuable Sydney Rd CLICK HERE in the same city it would be necessary to achieve something like 18 metres or 6 levels all the way along both sides of the road.
Setbacks
The setback is the distance between the edge of the street and the front of the facing building.
If we think of the typical American or Australian 1950's suburb, all the houses probably sit at the same distance to the street. Probably sat well back from the street with a large but little used front garden and adjoining 2 car garage or drive. If we vary the building setbacks on a street it results in the street becoming a more interesting place to move along, even if the buildings remain identical.
To make any place interesting we should have some variation in the setbacks, however we should be conscious that if the setback is more than about 5 metres, then the building will do little to activate the street. Large front gardens or setbacks are just a waste of space for front gardens are little used unless there is no back garden. Making front gardens smaller makes the street feel more intimate and provides more space at the rear for a bigger private garden or permits a greater density of development. So what's the point of a large front garden? Answers on a postcard please for I expect much disagreement, but also predict those who want a large front garden for themselves, will generally prefer the feel of streets of towns and villages where setbacks are less small.
Which would be a more interesting street?
Corners
Buildings on corners and junctions of streets face more than one street. The corner is a place where the building is important: if the building does not relate well to the corner the place just won’t feel right. Whether or not a corner functions well is more about how the building interfaces with the corner rather than design or appearance of the corner or building itself. Look at the video below of a corner in the new town of Harlow. The corner building is almost the same as all the others and it has left a building that does not integrate well with the corner.
With that corner in Harlow, what is the point of the open space? No one uses it, it reduces privacy to the homes, it would have been better as part of someone's gardens. It should have been split into the 2 gardens and at the very least a proper secondary active frontage should have been put on the side of the house rather than just a single window.
To solve the corner properly the the houses should also have been laid out so that they properly align with the street rather than leaving the awkward triangle shown where x marks the spot below.
Here is another: 2 pattern book houses that don't fit the corner and then we are left with an awkward square of rarely used open space where even ball games are prohibited according to the little sign.
There are several key rules that corner buildings in good places must achieve:
The buildings on a major or prominent corner should have 2 primary active frontages, one facing each street.
The corners of major or prominent streets provide the opportunity for landmark buildings, buildings that add interest to the street. Greater expense on a prominent corner building can deliver a more interesting place and even allow the remainder of buildings to be more utilitarian- and cheaper to build yet still create a great place.
On a more minor street, such as streets of houses, or a corner with a major and minor road, the corner building should have a primary and secondary frontage, both facing the appropriate adjoining roads.
Scale of public spaces
Think back to the height to width ratios of streets, well the same also applies to open spaces, for the buildings around any open space frame it. However, this ratio is slightly less important than the size of the area of the open space itself. Vibrancy of open space is linked to the number of people using the space and the density of the people in the space.
So if we take two open spaces one 7000sqm (100m x70M, which is roughly 1 football field or roughly the maximum size of a market square in a medieval town), and one which is 28,000sqm (200mX140m)- which is roughly 4 football pitches. If we put 100 people in each, the smaller one will feel a lot busier and more vibrant than the other, for the people will be together in a smaller space.
People tend to be attracted to vibrant places and tend to go there because there is activity, for activity draws and leads to other activity. Vibrant and overlooked places are also safer places. Huge empty open spaces will often stay empty, because they feel dead and they won’t inspire other activity. So if we know the sort of character we want to see in an open space we can design its size accordingly.
In the historic towns of Europe market squares are generally integrated into the street network and usually no larger than 80-100m in length. This is about as far as someone can see to make out the basic detail of a human at the far end, to see that person isn't a threat and it is the scale of space in which the human feels comfortable. Therefore, when we are designing public spaces we should consider scale, integrate the open spaces into the street network and if unsure, make them a tad on the small side to make them more vibrant.
Want to run through that again? Scroll back up to re-run video 6 on creating character or move on to section 11.
Comments