Michael Mehaffy arrived in Moscow at the invitation of Strelka KB to participate in the My Street program: this is a large-scale project of the Moscow government, within the framework of which about four thousand city streets will be landscaped by 2018. KB Strelka provides methodological support for the program. The bureau develops standards for city improvement and pre-design solutions. More information about the program can be found here and here.
Archi.ru:
First, a few questions about Moscow. Is this your first time here?
Michael Mehaffi:
- Yes, for the first time.
What is your general impression of the city? What, in your opinion, is its biggest problem? The main advantage?
- I have worked in many cities around the world, and every time, when I find myself somewhere for the first time, I conduct a brief analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the city. This is a good way to get your bearings quickly.
Moscow has surprisingly clean streets. When I tell Muscovites about this, they are surprised: "Wait, what are you talking about?" But, believe me, there are many big cities, I will not name them, which are far from Moscow in terms of cleanliness and order. There is much less visual clutter from advertisements and signage destroying the cityscape. In London, for example, visual pollution is stronger.
Another advantage of Moscow is that the city has a very clear and logical form. The system of radial highways is, of course, a problem as well, because the territories on the outskirts of the city are very weakly connected with each other. The city has a hierarchical, "tree-like" structure, which Christopher Alexander describes in his article "A city is not a tree". However, cities with such a structure are much better suited for creating additional connections between territories, including for the integration of new multimodal transport systems, than cities that are chaotic or less formal.
Now about the weaknesses. In the city, especially on its periphery, there are many open spaces. Some of them are landscaped and picturesque, but even they are not very walkable due to long distances and functional segregation inherent in the modernist planning model. This layout provokes excessive use of cars by residents. And I think this trend will continue to grow for now, because people do not have other, more convenient, opportunities to move.
The Moscow authorities have been actively expanding roads lately. First of all, there are radial, so-called “outbound” highways. How do you feel about such events?
- There is an old saying: "A carpenter with a hammer looks at any problem like a nail." Likewise, road planners: they want to improve traffic and for this they widen the roads. It seems to me that they should first ask themselves: "Will we achieve our goal or will we only create new problems, because we do not take into account all the factors?" Examples of many cities prove that it is impossible to find a way out of the problem of traffic jams by building roads, and these measures are sometimes fantastically expensive. The widening of roads only encourages the use of private cars. The wider the highways, the more cars they fit, and the more difficult it will be to correct the situation later.
On the other hand, a large city needs a basic road network, including high-speed corridors. There are methods to integrate such a network into the pedestrian urban fabric. My "homework" was just to suggest one of these methods. For example, to separate transit roads from local traffic and pedestrians by placing them on a different level.
Of course, any street network accommodates a limited number of cars, you need to be aware of this. Jane Jacobs used the expression attrition of automobiles. It does not mean that cars should be banned altogether, it just should not be allowed to dominate. Car use needs to be balanced with other modes of transportation. Traveling by car, public transport or walking should be equally comfortable. It is known from experience that a city dominated by cars is not very attractive either for tourists, or for residents, or for business development. That is, neither economically nor ecologically, such a city will not develop sustainably.
Are there cities that are equally convenient for both pedestrians and drivers?
- Yes. One example is my hometown Portland, Oregon. There is a good network of pedestrian-friendly streets, as well as high-speed corridors with fairly free traffic. But these corridors are located on a separate level, below the city streets, and do not break the continuous fabric of the pedestrian city. This situation allows a developed system to exist that includes different types of transport and allows you to move at different speeds, from the slowest - pedestrians, cyclists, leisurely driving cars, to the fastest - transit cars and trucks. The Portland example shows that all types of urban traffic can coexist peacefully.
“But Portland seems to be six or eight times smaller than Moscow. Does size matter?
- Size matters. But we can also name larger cities that are developing in the same direction. For example, London is a city that does not give up cars, but restricts their movement by using a paid entrance to the center. In addition, there are also road and rail corridors hidden underground. Another example of a metropolis where there are transport corridors that exist separately from the urban fabric is Paris.
– Above you mentioned article «A city is not a tree». In it, Christopher Alexander introduces the concepts of "artificial" and "natural" city and compares their structure, respectively, with a "tree" (tree) and semilattice. Moscow, in these terms, is more of a “natural” city, and yet you have compared it to a “tree”. In this regard, I would like to ask two questions: first, have large "natural" cities become more like "trees" over the past 100-150 years, when their planning was carried out by scientific methods? And secondly, haven't “artificial” cities like Brasilia gradually become more like “half-grids”?
- This is an important question. Indeed, in Brasilia, for example, informal, “lattice” ties have formed over the years. Trade gradually came to areas that were originally planned to be purely residential. This is a natural process: there are residents who need shops, and there are people who are ready to satisfy this demand …
We've learned a lot about networking over the past hundred years. At the beginning of the twentieth century, we naively believed that we should get rid of the clutter in cities by creating neat hierarchical schemes: the center, then the suburbs, which, in turn, split into even smaller formations, and so on. This is, in a mathematical sense, "tree". But then we did not realize that in this way we limit the possibilities for human interaction and for the formation of complex self-organizing structures. Meanwhile, self-organization is the key to social interaction, economic growth and other aspects of development that cities provide us with. Cities are the basis for all these positive trends, and the more we limit them with hierarchical structures, the slower this development progresses.
But you are absolutely right: connections that break the hierarchy will form spontaneously in any case. And I think that we planners should take this process into account. You should not fight with him, and you should not be afraid of him either. But this does not mean that you need to give up and let everything take its course. I read that we need to create a foundation for self-organization. But not to design simulacra of self-organized cities, but to use design strategies that would promote the development of the "natural complexity" about which Christopher Alexander wrote in his article.
Planning decisions can be very simple. For example, a conventional orthogonal street grid can be very effective. I'll mention Portland again. It has a typical boring rectangular layout, and I do not consider it a masterpiece of urban planning at all, but from the point of view of self-organization it is quite successful. But the size of the quarters is very important here. If it is comparable to the human scale and the scale of pedestrian accessibility, it is then that spontaneous, informal connections between things add up to a structure that is much more complex and interesting than the hierarchical “tree”.
I don’t think it is necessary to completely abandon the use of tree structures in city planning. It is just worth remembering that the city is not only a “tree”, and that the opportunities for forming connections outside the hierarchy cannot be blocked. And one way to take care of this is to use a smaller scale and ensure the highest possible density of connections between urban areas.
Yesterday I visited several neighborhoods. One of them was relatively small, ten hectares. The rest were much larger - from 40 to 60 hectares. This is a very important distinction. The larger the territory, if there are no transport links within it, the more intensive traffic becomes along its borders, and the more difficult it is for a pedestrian to cross these streets and avenues. There are ways to mitigate this problem, but as the size increases, the effectiveness of these methods decreases and the pedestrian connectivity deteriorates. Large neighborhoods and neighborhoods should be made permeable, at least for pedestrians. A continuous network of pedestrian paths promotes networking and social development, which are the main strengths of cities. This is what Jane Jacobs had in mind when she spoke of the importance of ordinary sidewalks as places of communication and interaction. Improving the social environment begins with such changes. Within micro-districts, there is also often no commercial function, all trade and services are thrown back to the borders of micro-districts, or even further.
The concept of a functionally segregated city goes back to Ebenezer Howard and his idea of a Garden City. Then there was Clarence Perry, who developed the principles of "neighborhood" (neighborhood unit) and Le Corbusier, under the influence of theories of which emerged the Soviet microdistrict planning. That is, it was based on the ideas of the early twentieth century that linking different functions to different parts of the city can be effective. Now we understand that in fact the opposite is true. It leads to an excess of movement for residents, complicates the interaction between different functions and their self-organization.
As you said, the size of the block is of great importance. The quarters on the outskirts of Moscow are indeed very large, but in the center of the city they are also not too small in comparison with the centers of other megacities. In this regard, how do you feel about the practice of creating completely pedestrian streets? Perhaps it would have been enough to simply restrict movement?
“We see more and more evidence of how important it is to keep vehicles in transit if we want to have a truly functional system. Sharing space between cars and pedestrians can be beneficial. Suppose in some cases it will be only taxis, patrol and city services. I often argue about this with colleagues who advocate the creation of completely pedestrian zones. They give examples of historic towns and castles somewhere in Italy, and I answer them: "Do you know that, in fact, entry into these places is allowed, but not during those hours when you were there?" So often the question is not whether cars should be allowed into the territory at all, but when and what cars should be allowed. And in general, we must move towards greater diversity, including transport, even in the conditions of small neighborhoods.
What should be done with industrial zones? In Moscow, this is a very serious factor that worsens the cohesion of the urban fabric: neither passage nor travel through them, as a rule, is possible. Vast industrial areas are located not only on the periphery, but also quite close to the center. Now many of them are changing their function. But at the same time, in most cases, they retain their integrity, and sometimes even remain inaccessible to outsiders. What do you think should be done with them?
- Such territories go back to the module popular at the beginning of the twentieth century - the superblock - a very large territory that has one function. It could be a huge university, a huge factory, a huge residential area, and so on. If the function changes, but the structure remains, then all the disadvantages generated by the spatial separation of functions remain. In such conditions, network connections are not formed and self-development, which I mentioned above, does not occur. I think it is very important for the stakeholders to understand that it is necessary to mix different groups of people, different types of economic activity, different ways of moving. Jane Jacobs and Christopher Alexander have talked about this more than once. The network of urban spaces comes alive at the pedestrian level only through the possibility of random encounters and quick access. Therefore, wherever possible, pedestrian accessibility should be restored and tied to the streets.
And divide the space into small blocks?
- Yes, break up into small neighborhoods laced with a network of pedestrian-friendly streets.
The next question is about the conflict between pedestrian accessibility and privacy. Recently, in Moscow, there are fewer and fewer intra-block areas open for through passage. People feel safer in a fenced-in area. But is it really so?
“The conflict between accessibility and security is a hundred years old. The privatization of public space, the closure of access to previously public courtyards is a growing negative trend. In new buildings around the world, you can often find completely closed territories, fortified like fortresses. They represent the most extreme variant of a functionally divided residential area, where there is no trade, no interaction of social groups and various types of cultural activities. This is dead and unproductive territory.
According to Oscar Newman's “defensible space theory,” fencing a residential area is the best way to keep it safe. But what if the criminal is already inside? That's when you really get into trouble.
Another way is to take advantage of visual permeability. The best security is provided by the "old eyes" looking at the street (old eyes in the street). Openness significantly increases the pedestrian connectivity of the urban environment. If security is ensured locally, within each individual building, an open pedestrian system can form around. There are studies that confirm that the safest environment is a pedestrian-permeable, open city with well-established social interaction. In such cities, social capital is higher and the crime rate is lower. One of the authors of such studies is Bill Hillier. He investigated the relationship between pedestrian permeability and crime, and was able to refute the "theory of protected space."
You are known as a consistent supporter and popularizer of the ideas of Jane Jacobs, stated, first of all, in her book "Death and Life of Large American Cities." But this book first saw the light of day more than 50 years ago. Perhaps Jacobs' theories require adaptation to changed living conditions? And are they generally applicable to all cities?
- Of course, she wrote about New York in the 1950s, and this should not be forgotten. And you shouldn't mechanically transfer her proposals to other cities. But, having said that, I will say something else: in Death and Life and other Jacobs books there are many surprisingly accurate observations that apply to all large cities in one form or another. In part, these were only speculations, often immature and limited, not supported by research. But many of them have now been confirmed. Renowned physicist Jeffrey West of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) once told me, "You know, in a sense, what we're doing here is Jacobs plus math," and I I like very much such evidence that the guesses that she had in the area of urban dynamics are now being substantiated and continued.
For example, economists have taken up her ideas about how knowledge spillovers take place in cities. This is partly due to public space networks that emerge in the urban space as a result of communication between people of different professions and from different communities. For example, you are walking down the street with a friend, you meet another friend, introduce them to each other. This is how a social network is formed: suddenly someone talks about an interesting vacancy or a new business that he is starting up, and so on. Of course, this is not the only way to spread information and increase creativity in cities, but this informal way is the most natural. The rest of the methods require much more resources, for example, much more fuel for the cars on which people get to their offices, conferences and the like.
Here it is appropriate to recall the fundamental question - why are we building cities at all? Why do we live in them? Obviously, cities attract us for their economic advantages. And where are the economic benefits from? The fact is that we have collected in cities all types of businesses that create jobs. Why does business create jobs? Because companies in cities are tightly pressed to each other and interact, as well as the people employed in them interact.
Unfortunately, there is now a strong downward trend in the average density of urbanized places. According to forecasts, by 2030 the area of urbanized territories around the world may increase threefold. The population of the Earth will also grow, but not at such a rate. Consequently, this new urbanization will be driven mainly by the spontaneous growth of the suburbs. This means that resource consumption will only increase: higher energy consumption, more greenhouse gases, a less sustainable economy. All of these things are interconnected. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed first. And it is about how to develop cities in such a way that they remain livable, economically attractive and productive. I think Moscow now has a chance to take the lead in this process by creating an advanced growth strategy. At the very least, decide how to improve the quality of life and accommodate the people who come here. And they will come because the cities are economically attractive, for the same reasons that we discussed above.
Please tell us about your current work in Moscow and the My Street program
- Now we are working on creating a methodology for assessing the quality of streets. It will make it possible to identify problem areas, those places where either the geometric parameters are unsatisfactory, or there are functional problems. We are interested not only in the material properties of space, but also in its qualitative characteristics, as well as intangible properties such as identity (individuality), “sense of place”, and the quality of interaction.
We usually ask people - city officials, residents, other stakeholders - to assess the quality of the streets and tell us what parameters everything is going well, and what kind of intervention is required. What we do is not only quantitative but also qualitative analysis.
Some of the questions can be left at the mercy of professionals, they know enough about the width of the sidewalks and the like. Some of the issues need to be resolved with local residents, local small business owners and other people who are somehow connected with the local community. There are different levels and different points in time when the public should be involved and asked for help in the analysis. One of the methods we are currently discussing is crowdsourcing: people could report problems on their street, and by collecting this data, we would quickly get a map of areas that really need change. Various complementary methods of collecting information and opinions of people at different stages of project development are needed. This is what we are discussing now.
Will your work concern only the center of Moscow, or will the periphery also be affected?
- The whole city, pretty much. It is important to note that our possibilities are not unlimited and it will be impossible to deal with all the streets at once. Instead, streets in different parts of the city, not only in the center, will be selected as pilot projects.
Are there already specific candidates for pilot projects?
- It's too early to name them. It may be worth giving preference to areas requiring urgent intervention, or the most typical. There is a whole set of parameters that need to be built first before we can decide which locations are best suited for pilot projects.
How do you plan to take into account the opinion of ordinary citizens? What questions should they be asked?
- It is important to have multiple ways of involving the public and other interested parties. There is not enough formal research or workshop in which some people will participate and others will not. An Internet poll is one of the most important tools for studying public opinion. But the questions should be composed correctly so as not to persuade people to a certain answer. They don't have to imply a monosyllabic answer: "Is your street good enough?" But "What are the characteristics of your commute?" or "Where do you not feel safe?"
Of course, this work is far from complete, but I think it is important to note that KB Strelka is making a breakthrough by developing this new standard for street improvement. In my opinion, it should include methods for the qualitative assessment of what we call generativity. That is, I hope that it will be a generative standard that will describe not static elements, but processes. Society, professionals and city officials will be able to use it to improve the quality of space, taking into account its changes over time. Similar innovations are already being applied in other areas such as software development and product engineering. This is commonly referred to as “agile methodology”. Its main principle is to optimize the process and improve the result by influencing the process. In software development, as in industrial design, Agile has become a very important tool. Now she is returning to the process of designing cities. I say "comes back" because Christopher Alexander has already applied it in this area. His "pattern language" has found applications in both design and programming, and now we are bringing those techniques back into the design of cities and design codes. I'm just trying to figure out how we could create a new generation of urban planning codes. As I already said, the task is to ensure that projects provide for the possibility of self-organization and self-development. This is not about getting rid of the designer altogether. On the contrary, he acquires a more important role, managing the processes of self-organization.
Many of my architectural friends do not like norms, they are offended by the idea that their work can be limited by some kind of standard. But after all, today's world rests precisely on various restrictions, and creativity does not at all imply that they can be neglected. Rather, it implies a creative response to constraints.
In addition, the norms themselves can also be designed. Designers should think about how to turn codes into another useful tool. And this is what I especially like about Strelka's current work on the My Street program: if everything goes well, it will be a new generation standard, a generative standard for urban environment design. This, it would seem, is nothing new, because in other areas of knowledge these techniques have been used for a long time, but for the urban environment this is a real innovation. And I am happy to be a part of this work. ***
Michael Mehaffy is an American urbanist, researcher, and educator. Graduated from Evergreen College, Olympia, Washington in 1978 and the University of California, Berkeley in 1981. Worked with Christopher Alexander and led the Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment for the Prince of Wales. Heads consulting firm Structura Naturalis Inc. and the Sustasis Foundation, holds the position of project manager at Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, teaches at universities around the world.
