Downtown San Francisco has many alleys that feel great; nicely scaled, lots of buildings around, and the roadways are small enough that the cars move very slowly, or not at all. I felt perfectly comfortable walking down the middle of the street. Maiden Lane is a pretty well known small street, but even though I’ve walked it many times it always reveals more interesting details. It’s also surprisingly calm given the fast-paced traffic that exists on Grant and Kearny, and all the other surrounding streets.

The next few are from Oakland. Just west of Broadway 13th street turns into a pretty interesting pedestrian street. The BART station leads right onto this street, and it runs from there to Preservation Park, which is another interesting block to explore another time. The federal building is a constant presence, and if you walk down the street you walk right through the large atrium. Taking a photo around there attracted lots of security guards, so I kept moving.

This next stretch has an interesting little amphitheater. Until relatively recently, the building on the left was an abandoned construction site, an apartment building that ran out of financing in the economic crash. But someone rescued it, and it really makes this walk pretty pleasant.

Downtown Oakland has lots of great things happening these days, it is becoming decidedly more urban, in a good way, and the streets are becoming increasingly activated. Though the stretch above was sparsely populated the day I took these photos.

Note the apartment entryway tucked between the shops.

Below is another of my photoshopped series of narrow streets. Having weird filters allows the amateur and quick photoshopping to not be a huge issue. I would love it if we had places like this in Berkeley; walkable places with no car traffic at all. We can still have cars, and plenty of spots to park them, let’s just make sure they are in the right places.

Another narrow street in Berkeley. Yay!

Here’s Matthew Yglasias discussing how the preservation status is being used to block a transit project in Washington, D.C.

Langston Terrace / Wikimedia Commons

Apparently this qualifies as a landmark.

Within the article referenced above is a link to this article by Ben Adler in Architectural Record, where he discusses the essence of the conflict.

I wholly support the preservation of historic buildings, and even of some buildings that may not have huge significance, but still have value. However, landmark committees are increasingly being used to block development that “concerned citizens” don’t like. Even if this is happening because the planning and zoning departments of cities have become toothless in helping residents feel empowered to have a voice in the shaping of their City, using landmark rules to obstruct development weakens the landmark committee’s legitimacy.

Cities must evolve and grow, and sometimes this means removing the old to make way for the new. A healthy city has a wide variety of buildings, old and new, and is continuously changing and adapting. Excessive landmarking can create staid and uninteresting places, and can backfire in many ways.

There was some debate in Berkeley a few years ago whether this building should be a landmark. As far as I know, the powers that be decided against this building as a designated landmark. Whew.

Take 2

The French village of Eguisheim

I find this to be a brilliantly simple distillation of many ideas that are out there. Transit oriented development, bike friendly, pedestrian scaled. All of these things are easily accomplished by simply building really narrow streets. How narrow? Think of any great City you’ve travelled to, and imagine the historic district. Rome, Santorini, Venice, Bath, Tokyo-they all have streets that are sized primarily for people to walk. And they wind up being about 15-20 feet wide. The genius of this is that there is simply no accommodation for cars. Cars can pass on some narrow streets, but it is clearly not their environment, so they do not dominate the landscape.

Because the buildings are so close together, it is pretty easy to walk wherever you want. The compact city can fit enough stuff within an easy walking radius. This allows transit to make sense, once the landscape is filled up with buildings and people instead of roads and free (or inexpensive) parking.

The village of Uzes

Miraculously, no one complains about how crappy these traditional cities are. Would it be at all possible to do something like this in the United States? For whatever reasons, we built our cities with very wide streets, even before the landscape was dominated by cars. Christopher Alexander and his team designed a school campus in Tokyo, and this idea is readily apparent in the photos.

Christopher Alexander's Eishin Campus outside Tokyo

It’s hard to even imagine something like this in the United States. We only have a few cities that have traditional cores, such as Boston. Most of our cities are enslaved by the grid, most have huge roadways and tons of surface parking lots. I won’t even bother talking about the suburban development. Why is this important? Because the entire country seems at risk of becoming a giant automobile slum. For most American towns, does anyone bother to visit them because the town-scape is so lovely? Probably not. Does anyone take pictures of the streets? Maybe the buildings, but surely not the streets. Traditional towns have embedded in them the secret to making significant places. These are places that people care about, that have thriving communities, and that reinforce and establish strong social connections. In the US, we have to dutifully get in our cars to maintain our social connections. And that time has no secondary benefit, and rarely is the journey part of the pleasure. It’s all destination, and they are becoming increasingly costly, both in money and in time.

Here’s a photoshopped image of what a local shopping district could look like if we used the 15-20 foot narrow street rule. Not bad, add some housing above, and a train station down the way, and we might be on to something.

Magically narrow street

I plan to talk about what homeowners need to know about the remodeling and additions process, including what to look for in an architect and why it’s usually a good idea to have an architect on the job. I also will discuss the value of design, what it takes to make good design and what makes a good client. Some of this seems obvious, but I have stories to tell that make me believe otherwise. We’ll also go through the steps involved in the project process.

We will also discuss what may be the next step in creating a sustainable living environment; namely a deeper focus on community. From creating common public space with neighbors, to informal sharing of resources, to an increased connection with other people, we’ll discuss strategies to live more sustainably by engaging with your community on a deeper level.

Also presenting:

Ericka Jennings of Green Key Real Estate, talking about trends that increase home values, and how to navigate the legal complexities.

Raines Cohen, who has long advocated for cohousing communities, aging in community, and how to create workable social structures.

Come join us!

The Can Van!

Great conversation on Kunstlercast this week about the future of cities. I agree with both of them.

Linea Carta; dinner party and dream house (note: dream house / dinner party house in question is one that I designed while at my old firm )

Dickson Despommier and the Vertical Farm.

Gregory Delaune launches his sustainable urbanism blog.

From Rough Type: Utopia is creepy (was that digital panhandling?)

Incredible.

Like beer? Like clever sustainability solutions? Then help The Can Van get rolling!

A gentle ramp makes the main space accessible and separated from the car traffic.

Fourth Street in Berkeley is one of the more successful urban spaces in this mid-density town. It does this without any fancy architecture, within the confines of the existing street grid, and without making extravagant gestures to parking. I think that these elements, rather than being detrimental, are critical to the shopping district’s success. Since I live just a few blocks away, I ride my bike or walk down there many times a week. Following are some of my observations.

One row of shops is vertically separated, which works well in this case.

Without getting too much into the history of Fourth Street, it is an area comprised of a few city blocks in the industrial part of town. The basic design took shape in the early ’80’s, and over the years it has been very successful. Other shopping districts in town have many empty storefronts, yet this area keeps chugging along, with an Apple store opening this past summer. The area attracts many businesses, of many shapes and sizes: global, national, regional, local. There are chains as well as singular enterprises, and many great places to eat.

Non-herioc architecture that helps form good urban space.

Denny Abrams was one of the developers, and the story that I’ve heard is that he crafted much of the central part of the area based on principles learned from Christopher Alexander and his seminal work A Pattern Language. In fact, Abrams is one of the co-authors of the Christopher Alexander book The Oregon Experiment.

Seating nooks in the public area, with the parking lot barely visible in the background.

Some of these patterns are easy to see, and help to create the pleasant environment. Low walls define space, and also function as impromptu seating allow people to take a load off, drink their coffee, and listen to street performers. One of the main public areas is right off of Fourth Street, and is a plinth that is raised above street level. Usually this is a bad move, serving to separate people from the sidewalk, but in this case the designers created plenty of open public space, with lots of movable chairs and tables. This public space is ringed by takeout food shops, coffee and tea shops, and is very well used. It is particularly effective at integrating access, as the main entrance to the upper level is a gently sloped ramp.

Here we are chatting with Manfred, who along with his wife Betty are proprietors of Bette's Oceanview Diner.

Other features that contribute to the good urban design are regularly spaced street trees, lots of convenient seating throughout, and consistent building edges and details that help to shape the public realm. One surprising thing is that the buildings themselves are very bland. Yet by being good urban buildings, they are way more successful at creating a sense of place than a collection of architecturally special buildings would be. The designers worked hard at making a place that is walkable without being hostile to cars, yet without making overly large gestures to them. While it can be challenging to find a parking space, the primacy of people, of the buildings, and of the public space are what make this area so comfortable. The cars have their lots, but these lots are tucked in the back of the blocks. Because there are so many people about, and there is a major crosswalk that is uncontrolled, the drivers on Fourth Street keep their speeds low, and are deferential to pedestrians (which seems increasingly rare).

It’s an area that is worth checking out if you’re in Northern California. The design helps to foster positive social interaction, and that makes it an interesting place to be. While it has its challenges, it is a vibrant destination, and a good model for mid-density urban space.