Week 2 Reading Discussion

Reading: DESIGN WITH THE OTHER 90%: CITIES - Cynthia E. Smith; SOCIAL URBANISM - Alejandro Echeverri; and THE ORDER OF THE AMERICAN CITY: ANALYTIC DRAWINGS OF BOSTON - Mario Gandelsonas

These readings are chiefly concerned with examining design solutions that address coping with rapid urban expansion.  Smith and Echeverri specifically examine the informal city, areas that expand at a greater rate than supporting infrastructure development, while Gandelsonas provides graphical analysis of the ordering systems in place of a 'formal' city structure: Boston.

How do we deal with rapid expansion (population and population density)? To what degree do design interventions assuage our cities' social problems resulting from rapid population expansion? To what degree do these interventions create/perpetuate these same problems?

Gandelsonas would argue that Boston provides an excellent example of how a city can address areas of high density by implementing expansion joints at the urban scale to accommodate relatively unpredictable growth.  His drawings of the radial grids seen in the 'neck' of Boston provide an ordering system that allows for infinite expansion along grid guidelines yet still conform to the radial ordering of the city (which addresses the historical informal urban expansion initiated from the city's birth).  The design intervention at the heart of Boston's urban ordering system is transportation infrastructure.  Roads, highways, rail systems, waterways and the civil infrastructural supporting these systems enable reliable access across the city and positions Boston to accommodate urban expansion because this infrastructure datum allows city planners to predict with relative accuracy where expansion occurs and how direct resources to support expansion.

Should we accept Gandelsonas' argument that transportation infrastructure is the most effective means for urban organization and order? His graphical analysis strongly links building design and building characteristics, and even urban expansion, as dependent to transportation infrastructure (whether it be waterways, underground rail, highway, main road or side street).  This makes sense in a city with heavy reliance on automotive power and the resources to support and operate a broad spectrum of transportation infrastructure, but how does this apply to a city without access to these resources?

Smith suggests that the most effective means of coping with rapid urban expansion seen in informal cities isn't necessarily built projects, instead it is flexible policy.  Instead of these impoverished communities relying solely on government resource allocation, city and federal governments create flexible policies aimed at legitimizing solutions derived within these impoverishment areas. More specifically, allowing non-government groups (frequently foreign) to act within these environments to bring resources, raise funding for construction projects and raise international support per localized circumstance.  This pro-globalization stance brings us to a very interesting arrival: If the world's poorest urban communities are being formalized by international firms, should there be an international model for addressing informal cities?  This would theoretically undercut the influence local communities have over legitimizing improvised solutions, and basically renders Smith's argument a paradox.  This situation would only arise if there is substantial investment in global organizations operating in informal cities, though is it possible any real improvement in these areas is possible without major intervention?

Echeverri's argument offers a possible solution: Educational infrastructure governed and organized organically, with the capacity to reach out to the global institutions for resources, will empower communities to better understand and cope to their urban plight.

The question still remains: How do we (as a local urban planner) address rapid population growth?  How does this change from a global perspective?