"This book, of course, is not a manual, it contains fundamental knowledge, but what I like about such books is that everyone can create their own practical guide based on it."
Andrey Gnezdilov, chief architect of the State Unitary Enterprise "Research and Development Institute of the General Plan of Moscow".
(A source)
Did you know that "more pernicious than the unconditional kingdom of the car for the health of the city center can only be a complete ban on car traffic"? An unexpected statement for the author of a book called "A City for Pedestrians", isn't it? In the "general theory of pedestrianism" developed by Jeff Speck, there are many positions that seem paradoxical at first glance. How did he come to such conclusions?
After working under renowned urbanist Andrés Duany at his Duany Plater Zyberk & Company for about 10 years, Speck first became known to the general public as the co-author of Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, 2001), which contains consistent and well-founded criticism of the spontaneous growth of the suburbs. The authors themselves called this work "an architectural version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and readers perceived it as a logical continuation of the ideas of Jane Jacobs, outlined in her famous book "Death and Life of Large American Cities."
In 2003, Speck became director of design for the National Endowment for the Arts, an independent agency under the US government that supports not only pure art, but also applied disciplines, including the development of initiatives to improve urban Wednesday. To this end, the agency operates the Mayors' Institute on City Design (MICD), in which regular meetings of mayors of American cities with experts and joint search for solutions to pressing urban problems are held. Working with this institute has become one of Speck's key responsibilities. In an interview with usa.streetsblog.org about the 2012 release of Cities for Pedestrians, he described the inception of his "pedestrian theory":
“I did not come to this in a direct way. I am a designer, city planner. I have never had much interest in walking, not even in terms of health or relaxation. But then I started working with a lot of mayors. I have supervised MICD for four years. Meetings were held every two months with the participation of eight mayors and eight designers. Each mayor talked about his main urban planning task. Listening to them, one by one, expounded their idea of what a successful city is, I realized that the best criterion for a prosperous city and the best means of achieving prosperity is a developed street life, or, in other words, pedestrian traffic. It became obvious to me that improving pedestrian performance helps to solve all other problems. Of course, this is not the only way. You can talk about the same problems in terms of New Urbanism, but it scares the conservatives, or neo-traditionalism, but then the liberals will turn their backs. And no one has any objections to walking."
It is worth making a small digression here. Translation of books on urbanism from English is associated with considerable difficulties, because many terms do not have unambiguous analogues in Russian. Translator V. Samoshkin and scientific editor of the publication Irina Kokkinaki, on the whole, have adequately overcome these difficulties. In particular, the Russian version of the name - "City for a pedestrian" - I think is successful, but still it does not reflect one important nuance. The point is that Walkable city is like this
in the original the book is called - this is a city not only for pedestrians. It literally means "a city walkable", but this translation does not fully convey the meaning. Perhaps most accurately, the author himself explained in the interview cited above, saying that walkability is a developed street life.
The already published opinions about the Russian edition of the book are diametrically different on one issue. Some consider it almost a direct guide to action, while others speak of it more as a source of fundamental knowledge. I would rather agree with the second opinion. After all, it is not for nothing that the English edition of Cities for Walking has a subtitle linking this book to American soil (How downtown can save America). The book is equipped with a mass of examples from Speck's American practice, and not all of them are applicable to Russian realities. But even for those examples that are applicable, I would treat with a certain degree of caution. “Designers have been wrong so many times over the years that now that they are mostly right, their opinions are ignored,” the author complains in the foreword. Probably, the same complaints could be heard from the designers of previous generations.
However, in case of such mistakes, Speck also has a recipe. “Don't waste money on luxury barricades against cars,” he writes. “Better set up temporary bollards, bring potted trees and swivel chairs, as was done in Times Square. Build this set for Saturday and Sunday, and if it works out, lengthen the event by another day and another day. These words of his relate to the arrangement of pedestrian zones, which, according to Speck, do not always contribute to the very pedestrian, that is, developed street life. But, it seems to me, they should be attributed in general to all experiments with the urban environment, to which our city authorities are generous now: let these experiments be inexpensive.
Experiments, Speck believes, are, in principle, necessary. In his interview, which I have already quoted above, he says that "the biggest mistake many cities make is to change themselves only on the basis of complaints received by the municipality." The leadership of an effective city, in his opinion, should show and encourage creative initiative.
Speck's recipes, by the way, do not claim to be universal. He is well aware that cities are different, and what is good for one, for another may be harmful, and this also justifies with specific examples. In my opinion, there are even a lot of examples, and numbers in general, in the book. Much of what is familiar and understandable to American readers may be empty words for you and me. However, it is still worth wading through this jungle - for the sake of the sometimes controversial, but interesting principles of pedestrianism, as performed by its main advocate and popularizer.
The Russian edition of "Cities for Pedestrians" was published,
according to the portal of the Moscow Architectural Council, at the initiative of the chief architect of the city, Sergei Kuznetsov. He also provided the book with his comments, the purpose of which is to compare Speck's ideas with Moscow realities. In addition, the book is preceded by two introductory words: one from Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, and the second from Deputy Mayor Marat Khusnullin. The latter is especially surprising, given that the urban planning policy pursued by Khusnullin in many respects diametrically contradicts Speck's ideas. But surprising only at first glance. After some thought, I would like to express my respect for the leaders of the city who encourage the spread of views that do not coincide with their own. And although such a broad outlook is observed so far only in one specialized area, for the city this area is one of the most important. A variety of opinions, the ability to compare different ideas and experiment almost always benefits cities.
J. Speck. City for the pedestrian.
M., Art-XXI century, 2015.
ISBN 978-5-98051-136-4
Format: 140 × 215
Volume: 352 p.
Circulation: 1500 copies
