Space planning is a crucial aspect of home design, focusing on establishing smooth traffic flow and circulation patterns within a room. The “Connect the Spaces” concept extends beyond individual structures and is used in commercial settings. This guide explores the process of space planning, starting with conceptual and functional aspects. In home design, the art of space planning involves finding the right balance between form and function. Urban planners use space planning principles to design public spaces that promote social interaction, economic vitality, and environmental sustainability. Effective space planning goes beyond allocating desks and cubicles; it involves optimizing every square foot to support collaboration. Incorporating communal spaces like public squares within spatial planning can cultivate social interaction and community engagement. Implementing layout and space planning principles through fit-out design can deliver multiple benefits. A good public space reflects diversity and encourages people to live together effortlessly, creating the necessary conditions for a harmonious environment.
📹 7 principles for building better cities | Peter Calthorpe | TED
More than half of the world’s population already lives in cities, and another 2.5 billion people are projected to move to urban areas …
What are the principles of space planning?
Effective space planning requires careful consideration of design principles such as harmony, emphasis, rhythm, balance, and scale to create aesthetically pleasing interiors. The scale and proportion of interiors should be related to the human frame’s scale and proportions. Skillful use of design elements like shape, mass, light, line, pattern, color, and texture is crucial for achieving a balance between functionality and aesthetics in space planning.
What are the important considerations in space planning?
In the design of spaces, architects must consider the crucial elements of lighting, ventilation, and accessibility. These elements are of particular importance in the creation of spaces that are accessible to people with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs or face other mobility challenges.
What are space making principles?
Space planning principles are essential for creating a functional, stylish, and comfortable living space. They are divided into three categories: zoning, circulation, and furniture arrangement. Zoning divides a space into functional areas, circulation refers to the flow of movement through a space, and furniture arrangement is the arrangement of furniture. Mid-century modern design, originating in the 1940s and 1950s, emphasizes open floor plans, natural light, and multi-functional furniture.
Pastel shades are another trend in home design, creating a calming atmosphere and visually expanding small spaces. Understanding these principles can help create a cohesive color scheme throughout the home. Whether you’re designing a small apartment or a sprawling mansion, understanding these principles can help create a well-designed home.
What are the 7 principles of interior design?
Interior design principles are guidelines used by designers to create functional and aesthetically pleasing spaces. These principles include balance, harmony, rhythm, proportion and scale, emphasis, contrast, and details. Balance is crucial in creating an equilibrium by evenly distributing furniture and decorative objects within a room. It involves careful analysis of line, shape, color, and texture of objects. There are three types of balance: formal, informal, and radial. These principles can be applied to any room in a home, from the living room to the bathroom.
How best can plan for the given space?
Effective space planning involves measuring workspace usage and occupancy, understanding workplace strategies, defining occupancy profiles, and deploying space planning software designed for hybrid work. This post explores the importance of space planning in the age of hybrid work, its effectiveness, and the steps space planners should take to model the future workspace in the age of flexible, remote working. The number of people using office spaces is uncertain, making it a new challenge for organizations to create effective space plans.
What are the 5 principles of space law?
The “five United Nations treaties on outer space” address issues such as non-appropriation of outer space by any one country, arms control, freedom of exploration, liability for damage caused by space objects, safety and rescue of spacecraft and astronauts, prevention of harmful interference with space activities and the environment, notification and registration of space activities, scientific investigation, exploitation of natural resources in outer space, and dispute settlement. These treaties emphasize the importance of enhancing the well-being of all countries and humankind, promoting international cooperation, and promoting international cooperation in outer space.
What are the key principles of spatial planning?
The four spatial principles of definition, scale, flexibility, and intensity of space-use are the defining characteristics of positive settlements. In these environments, public space is defined by the presence of buildings, walls, and planting.
What are the fundamentals of space planning?
Space planning involves three fundamental principles: size, shape, and function. Size refers to the square footage of a room and the items within it, which can affect the overall design. Measure room dimensions and furniture to maximize space. For example, a sectional couch facing towards a television can be placed in a corner to maximize space.
Shape can change how we perceive a space, giving it more personality and balance in interior design. For example, a circular coffee table can provide more space in front of a sectional couch, giving the surrounding area a more open and welcoming feeling. By considering these principles, you can maximize the design of your space and create a more comfortable and functional environment.
What are the principles of space design?
The space principle in design is a concept that places emphasis on the surrounding areas of other design elements. It is employed by artists and graphic designers to create a three-dimensional perception within a two-dimensional medium, such as paper or canvas.
How to do space planning?
Space planning is crucial for creating a purposeful and functional home. It involves considering the layout, needs, and design of each room, ensuring that the space is balanced and that the intended room use is considered. Design decisions should be human-centered, considering existing elements in a room, creating defined sections in larger spaces, considering multiple rooms at a time, and layering lighting.
By following these tips, interior designers and homeowners can create a cohesive sense of form and function in their homes. It is essential to consider the intended room use when planning, as it can significantly impact the overall design and functionality of the space.
What are the principles of spacing design?
Proper spacing in design prevents clutter and ensures enough breathing room around each component, making it look professional and allowing users to focus on content without feeling overwhelmed. It also saves time by allowing for easy application across designs, reducing the need to rethink spacing for each project or component, thereby streamlining workflow and allowing focus on other important design elements.
📹 How To Think Like An Architect: The Design Process
Santa Barbara architect Barry Berkus takes us through the process he used to design the Padaro Lane Residence in Southern …
For me the best example of a well design city is Amsterdam. Everyone is either riding a bike, walking or taking the trams there. You hardly see anyone in cars because the city is so well optimized for other means of transportation, especially biking. I would love to see my city here in Silicon Valley become more like Amsterdam.
What I find ironic is people had it figured out in the past. I live in an old part of my city, there’s a grocery across the street, buck store, lots of little shops, gas station, banks, restaurants with in a short walking distance, plus there’s parks, walking trails, plus we have a river, I can walk to go fishing and experience nature too. I couldn’t imagine moving to a new subdivision, then having to drive everywhere… plus that chews up a lot of time. It does build community because you are always going to the same places, you get to know people which is great.
Australia has a huge issue with sprawl as well. I live in a suburb just a few kilometres outside of Melbourne but it’s very isolated and sterile. It’s particularly hard being here because literally everything is just houses near a busy main road. Most of the time, I just stay home and it can get very lonely. I would love something that has more personality! Even just a night market, and collated, commercial zone with personality and a super connected public transport into the main city would be amazing!
I live in one of the larger Scandinavian cities; I have a five minute bike ride to work, 10 minutes to downtown for bar and restaurant areas/main train station/sports arena/concert venue and so on. I have two major grocery stores within a few minutes walk, as well as an urban train station with a ten minute ride from the big box outlets on the other side of town. Not to mention there are at least three schools and numerous kindergardens within a few minutes walk. This is all in a mixed area of apartment buildings and single family housing. When I visit my dad in Tampa, Fl; within a ten minute walk there is nothing, twenty minutes you get to the nearest Starbuck’s, a Papa Johns, a licquor store and a couple of gas stations. The nearest major grocery store is at least 45 minutes away on foot, mostly along heavily congested roads. There’s absolutely no sense of community, and pretty much every house has a big empty yard, a beautiful porch with an empty porch swing. ‘Tis the saddest place in the world.
My vision is to have walkable interesting hubs, “parts-of-cities” and then a subway of tram -system to get easily between them. You would then live in a community, but have easy access to other communities with services and working places. I live in Europe and that has been basically my experience my whole life from the 60’s onward
Here’s right in that cities he talks about are nice to visit. Personally, though, I don’t like living in dense urban areas. I decided to move to a town about 30 minutes away from the downtown area where I work because I wanted to live in nature, have my own private space and enjoy some quiet time when I got back home. Given the popularity of suburbs, I’m not the only one who thinks this way. A lot of urbanists, I find, ignore the notion of personal preference, or outright disregard it. There’s a reason why a lot of people decide not to live inside large cities, which aren’t always related to money.
I enjoyed this article. As a player of City Skylines, which is a single player city simulation game, I’ve come to realize just how bad traffic is. This article will make me rethink public transportation. I also believe that making small decorations, like trees on the side and in the middle of the road, is better for the environment, it makes the city look nicer, especially with variation, and they can act as sound barriers.
Mega projects like rain harvesting or transforming a city into a sponge city will change our relationship for the better between nature and man. Biotechnology will also have its debut by showcasing its potential use of harnessing of replicating the power of nature. But it’s time we build a not just a better city, but a better world. This can not be done solely with money or with resources, but with ideas. We like to think that it is money that makes the world go round but fundamentally it’s human cooperation which society should capitalize on.
Americans need to understand is they can keep their quiet, low-rise, suburban environments, but still make them more walkable and integrate commercial districts within walking distance. In my experience, this only contributes to the communal feeling of their neighborhood, which is what proud suburban Americans always say they like about their suburbs.
Personal vehicles are the antithesis of cities, he’s right about that. Mass transit and walkable communities need to be the focus of developers everywhere. But what traffic will remain on the roadways should benefit from autonomous vehicles- which reduce the rates of accidents and GREATLY bring down the costs of tax service (one of the main costs is labor), allowing more people to forego cars and amortizing the costs of vehicles over many rides, thus favoring electric vehicles for their fuel-savings (battery-exchange points, like was once pursued by Project Better Place, could also help keep electric taxis moving without long recharge times…) and reducing urban smog/pollution.
Cars should always be available to the people. Taking away cars from the people or raising the cost too much is taking away peoples freedom. The thing is that people should be able to choose not to take the car unless for example leaving the city and going out in the woods, shopping, family trips etc. For people to choose not to take the car just to the barber or to work the city needs to be a perfect place to walk, bike or take a subway/bus. But then still have a plan that people will need the car for the freedom of movement. For example freeways are still needed as well as good and efficient roads between the city and freeway, same with good parking for the cars. People don’t want to be trapped within their city or within the paths that the bus/train goes.
Great article. Thank you. Sometimes i feel blessed to actually know these problems and solve these problems in computer games like Cities Skylines or Anno. Also i do observe that in many European cities all of the problem solves are already implemented from our ancestors… Green streets, bike lanes, huge car-free walkways with promenades and low density stores… Thank you for inspiration that this is the way
people in metro manila are just now starting to see the benefits of car free streets, in my opinion it all started when Ayala lands started the “car free Ayala Sundays” where they’d close up the streets of Makati CBD every Sunday morning for joggers, cyclists, skaters and other activities, and the reception was astonishingly positive that it developed its own community where people interact, exercise and bond together, Car Free Sundays was supposed to only be till the end of 2023, but the reception was so good that it still continues today and the best part is other cities are starting to pick up on this as well, very recently Pasay City started the “Car Free Pasay” every Sunday as well, with its already established cycling community it will no doubt help foster even more cities to do it as well, finally there have been a cry from various cyclists, joggers and other activity goers for the most bike friendly, BGC to advocate for Car Free weekends as well
Azay, well said, I lived in the US for 3 decades but traveling around the world my experience explains that most Americans must travel outside to learn the real world. American culture based on blind education a dramatic of Hollywood limelight and believes that their cities are the greatest. But if they start to travel the world with the right attitude then they begin to grow up. The great city is based on ordinary people, not build by the rich corporation for profit, ego, luxury but very lonely town; NY, LA, and Chicago as the example. These are the death cities people hate each other and danger all around you. The developer does not know a thing but the dollar like Trump. The city must be based on culture, harmony b/ people and nature, friendly and compassion economy. Small scale with quality and safety design and most clean env. and not packed more than one million population. The big city creates problems and pollution and is a great place to hide and crime and pollution. Mother nature is the greatest architect, human just a coordinator, a great architect use his design to adapt with nature and it’s become a part of living. American addicted to the ego, show-off and materialistic, it is a kid attitude with a loud mouth and ugly elegant. The great people cities from my experience: Tuscany, Florence, Southern France, Antibe, Vienna, Yunnan Lijian in China, Wuzhen, Small towns of Shanghai and several cities in the EU.
What annoys me about this comments section is that so many people are talking about how we need “better designed cities” forgetting that the wonderful cities they keep aspiring to imitate were by and large built before city planning was even a thing, back when people didn’t have a choice but to walk, the free market made sure things were in walking distance. Obviously, city governments played a role in corralling the excesses of the market, as they should, but the truth is that America’s terrible cities (particularly the ones in the Western US) were designed to be that way. They were designed by city planners that had their own ideas on what a city should be like (for example, every family owns a car). What we need is more freedom for businesses, civic centres, and residential areas to mix and mingle, creating the messy yet endearing sort of compact living that we desire.
As cities and towns continue to grow in terms of size and population, there is increasing demand for planners to manage these changes. Planners frequently work with other professionals such as engineers, architects, building surveyors, economists, developers, politicians, scientists, and environmental scientists.
Lots of good information here. I particularly like the greening of the waterways which………needs to be done world wide. It helps keep the waters clean and gives all people access to water for recreation. Privatising waterlines is silly. One problem I have with this idea is it really doesn’t account for the primary reason cities exist. Jobs. Most cities grew up around ports, or natural resources, or industrial complexes that have very specific locations. So while a lot of domestic and service jobs can be rezoned into these better planned areas, the majority of people still need to get to the major economic centres. You can’t break a mine or a factory up into many small ones, as an example. It’s also very difficult to transform older cities into this formula since people already own their lands and won’t want to give them up. I think cities on the whole would have to completely change their future zoning laws………which is going to reek havoc on real estate investments and values and face a HUGE push back from those large markets and the bankers that manage them. Focusing on new growth is probably a better way to start, and at least set the president. Once that’s successful(if it’s successful), converting older infrastructure will be an easier sell. Those wealthy property owners aren’t going to take it sitting down though.
Great presentation with a ton of valuable insight but one subject that I wish Peter would have focused more attention on is cities plans for their waterfronts. I don’t think that “a green edge” encompasses the complexity of ways that future cities will utilize their waterfront. With electric commuter ferry’s proving to be efficient modes of mass transportation and the FAA’s new guidelines for passenger drones I believe that the future of our waterfronts are poised to become incredibly complex walk-able city centers that offer opportunities for open green space interwoven with commercial/mixed uses and transportation hubs.
These are good options. I have seen neighborhoods like this when I have traveled overseas. I saw something quite similar with Hong Kong. At the end of the Vietnam War, Hong Kong, like so many other nations in the area, had a huge number of refugees. As a very high density city/country, they were overwhelmed. They figured out an excellent solution. They built high rises with grocery and retail space on the lower floors, then childcare, then schools up to middle school, if I recall correctly, and then about 20 or so stories of very compact apartments. Good urban planning also tends to include a good mix of green space, and it could also be useful to have small farms and even gardens that the residents can work in.
1. PRESERVE: Preserve natural ecologies, agrarian landscapes and cultural heritage sites. 2. MIX: Create mixed-use and mixed income neighborhoods. 3. WALK: Design walkable streets and human scale neighborhoods. 4. BIKE: Prioritize bicycle networks and auto-free streets. 5. CONNECT: Increase density of road netowrk, limit block size. 6. RIDE: Develop high quality transit and affordable BRT (Bus Rapid Transit). 7. FOCUS: Match density and mix to transit capacity. REASONS TO BE HOPEFUL for OVERCOMING URBAN SPRAWL: 1. “Most people get it. They understand intrinsically what a great city can and should be.” 2. “The kind of analysis we can bring to bear now allows people to connect the dots, allows people to shape political coalitions that didn’t exist in the past. That allows them to bring into being the kinds of communities we all need.”
Some idea – government should play a bigger role in this issue, limit the licence to be issued to business/housing development based on certain criteria, core idea is to do it against the current, the more popular is the area, the less incentive convenience and development priority should go the that area, government should use it power to direct the flow of density from area to area, not by letting the economic and businesses to director the flow.
I agree with him on most points, but I disagree in that I see autonomous driving networks to be a critical part of transportation in the future and the technology can also be used for transit. Denser forms of transportation are more useful in denser corridors and this will most likely not change in the future. However, there will still be large parts of the world where the density does not make trains or even buses more efficient and thus would need point-to-point transportation instead which can be covered by an level 5 autonomous network. I also see no reason why you only need to use one form of transportation too and I can easily see the autonomous network as being integrated with the wider transit network e.g. taking a car from your house to a subway station which will then take you downtown. In that sense, that network will largely replace the largely empty and inefficient bus routes that serve suburbs and low-density areas. I am all for denser communities, walkable communities, and transit-oriented-development, but it is important to remember that you can’t demolish all the sprawl that was already constructed nor assume none will get built the future, thus you cannot ignore how to improve transportation efficiency in these areas.
10:17 This entire model will only work in America if people stop with the economic segregation. Middle class Americans love to cosplay as upper class Americans. So many people want to shop for $17 imported gourmet olives at Whole Foods even though they should be shopping for affordable olives at Aldis. Then they sit back and complain that the poor are so violent, when it’s these types of “white flight” urban planning policies that CREATED the urban sprawl and blight that creates high crime areas. If rich and middle class people lifted everyone up instead of running away, we could easily put some of these principles Peter mentioned in place. There are only 300 million people in America. We have the chance to get this right. We have money, we have people eager to try this stuff out. We just need to get over ourselves & our fear of the poor.
I saw a lecture 3 years ago by LA architect Julie Eizenberg where she noted that the ever worsening traffic in Los Angeles has indirectly lead to more walkable, distinct and commercially diverse neighborhoods because, for example, while 20 years ago one might be willing to drive after work from Culver City to Hollywood for…say…great sushi, today it is out of the question. As a result, you can now find the goods and services that you need right in the specific neighborhood you live or work in.
Mass transit has a way of driving wages down along transit lines and downtown cores as low-medium skilled workers have greater access to the job market hence creating competition for limited employment. If you want to create “sustainable cities,” building a mix of various housing within a given area that is inclusive of income classes and absent of mass transit will provide greater distribution of income. When low-medium skilled workers are in short supply, wages will rise, wealthier class will pay more for their services, thus mitigating the “Class Stuggle.” The problem with Architects and Urban Planners is that they have little or no training in Political Economy, so much that their awareness of distributive economics is limited to connecting stores and businesses with mass transit lines.
Some of the ideas are good but I feel that we need to completely rethink how we want to live as a society. Maximizing walking, living where you work, excellent public transport, lots of trees/greenery and best use of available resources is just a start. One way to really connect with others is to eat together. Having a common place to eat would really help. Economic factors are not that important really! We CAN live without shops, businesses and corporations. We actually have more human resources than the tasks that need to be done. We can design cities that minimize travel (thus reducing traffic), maximize resources, bring people closer together and take care of people’s basic needs.
I think it really depends on the society if there will be fewer cars and more bikes or public transport on the streets. If we take Amsterdam for example. People prefer bikes more than cars, although in some American cities this is not the case. There, people prefer cars and big pickup trucks rather than public transport. All I want to say is that changes like this begin in the mindset of every human being before they are put into reality.
“In other words, business areas should be on the edges of the city, not in the center.” Even though the comment below was written for another country, it seems to be related to the subject of this article. According to the city regulation proposed in this article, large vehicles will be left in a secure parking lot 1 or 2 km away from the house. Therefore, it is necessary to walk approximately 1 or 2 km from home to the vehicle or, for example, use an electric bike. Small vehicles such as folding bikes can then be placed in the trunk of the vehicle. Even if the following city example is ideal, it is of no use if pedestrians are not safe due to crime. In such cases, cars continue to be used for safety reasons! ~~~ Turn cities into paradise and set an example to the world! As it is known, all cities in the world today look similar to each other. The two main features of these cities are streets and buildings. There are also small gardens and parks in the city. However, such cities cannot fully meet the needs of people living in the city. Because such cities are full of traffic and many other problems. For this reason, newly developing countries do not need to take old city systems as a model when establishing new cities. Instead, they should focus on creating other types of living spaces that will work in the long term. It should not be forgotten that establishing a city is costly and that it is almost impossible to correct a city that is built incorrectly later. Therefore, before planning the city, it is necessary to determine what kind of lifestyle is desired for people.
Cities seem to generate and trap stagnant air. You can see the trapped filth on the skirting boards of buildings, under window ledges and on roofs. I wonder whether cities with more flora to agitate the airflow and smaller, more concave or convex architecture with domed roofs would facilitate better circulation of airflow?
YES ! Planners and Politicians knew exactly what they were doing when they built these inefficient urban areas. It’s much easier to turn short-term profits from this type of development. This type of malevolent development will always be present in a Capitalist Economy. ALL of the problems in society can be solved by 1 CHANGE. Which is an implementation of a new economic and governmental structure. This structure would be a hybrid system, maintaining the benefits of the Free Market while being governed by a social/cooperative. The governing body would NOT be made up of elected officials but rather a Centralized A.I engine (for lack of a better term). The A.I engine would gather data on every socio-economic indicator and determine the most effective policy to implement. THe A.I would then publish these results with a recommendation on what policy could be implemented to bring about maximum long-term utility. When recommendations are made the public would vote in a online poll that updates in real-time for transparency. Only when the majority of the public approves would a policy be implemented. This will allow for efficient wealth distribution and maximum social gains. Example: City is forecasted to experience population explosion in 10 years time. The A.I engine illustrates exactly what infrastructure needs to built and where, such as schools, hospitals, P.T add-ons, etc. IN this scenario urban development decisions are not influenced by profit but instead logic, reason and maximum social gain.
Hi people. how are r you? This is just a suggestion ok? Today’s houses and buildings almost don’t have happy colors anymore, and the colors they use today are some depressing, or irritating colors, they don’t bring joy and they don’t make the environment happy or lighter. They only use gray, black ored cream color now. These colors in excess of depression or irritate people. They could use more cheerful colors in the painting, just like in the old days. More cheerful colors, a light orange, peach, yellow, red or other green, blue. If they painted those colors it would be great. The bars too, coulded paint white, or blue, green, orange, not just black or gray. The colors above that I narrated last, peach, orange, yellow, red bring joy and so I think people will be encouraged to have a little more joy. The peach color for me is the one that stimulates me the most. Mainly or much more the warm colors. And this also refers to everything or other areas as well that paint things, such as appliance manufacturers, among others. That now also do everything just in those colors of black, gray and white, there’s no more color. A hug. And not everyone is like that and we can’t generalize, okay? But most of these builders of huge buildings, skyscrapers, they ruined and still are sometimes like this, several neighborhoods, among them the old and calmer ones. From São Paulo and several other places. It left them chaotic and full of people from so many skyscraper buildings that they raised. They don’t just build 1 or 2 buildings.
I don’t think you can compare that city in China to cities in the US because most families have 2 cars. We like our independence and want to be able to drive freely without traffic. Planning a city with one lane will not be planned well in the long run as the city grows bigger. I do like the other principles you shared though.
Key ways to have a 20 billion people planet. #1: low impact cities(think skyscrapers sticking out above a forest canopy or farmland) #2: Locally boosted production, only ship it if it’s not native. Bananas to New York for example #3: Use space, we have the technology and it’s time to make use of our solar system. The moon has no nature to hurt so put the factories there. If we use earth for the things that cant be done elsewhere, Such as food production and living. #4: Use the oceans for something other than a food and a trash can. Floating cities. Sea based production. #5: Change how the economy and society works. Currently the other only way we can survive like this is if someone invents a warp drive and we spread out across the galaxy like a cancer, stripping planets bare and killing off alien ecosystems.
Bruh, people will literally say *everything* before they say the word “C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M” when it comes to describing the problems we face today. On today’s episode: “Sprawl”. Sprawl is just one of MANY symptoms we see because we are still living under the primitive economic model known as capitalism. It is capitalism which encourages the nuclear family (the “smallest economic unit”) to be at the foundation of society rather than the neighborhood (local community) being at the heart of it. That’s what causes the isolation, the absurd land-use enclaves, the separation from nature, etc. Capitalists need it to be that way so that they can ensure the reproduction of more workers to exploit as well as having a justification to produce more than necessary (simply because it’s more profitable for them). It is capitalist/bourgeois ideology that perpetuates the whole “I want my own bubble away from it all with a white picket fence” mentality.. to think of oneself first and foremost rather than your relation to your direct neighbors. To want your own pool and your own jacuzzi and your own woodworking garage and your own billiard table and your own gym room and your own cinema and your own giant garden with a treehouse and so on and so on.. rather than how socialist city planning approaches the problem: recognizing and prioritizing the COLLECTIVE (not individual) needs and desires and making those facilities readily accessible to everyone. Y’all need to read more Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
I think at the end of the talk he is a little short sighted about autonomous vehicles. His example of an av picking up a fast food order makes no sense because we will have drones for that. Many more people will choose not to own cars because one can av taxi everywhere, fewer parking garages will be needed as avs shuttle people everywhere and have little downtime, freeing up that space for other things. I agree with him that we need more walkable cities, but I think he’s wrong about the impact of avs.
Hahaha, I didn’t expect the photos of China used by this speaker to be full of stereotypes and slander. It doesn’t matter, China has been hacked for so many years. By the way, are you tired ？？？When discussing urban issues, Chinese detailed photos were used instead of American zoning photos as an example. I am truly ashamed of you all
As an American that grew up in a sprawl and now lives in a part of that city that is relatively walkable, I feel like we have all been hoodwinked! We just accept that living in these isolated suburbs is ok! We accept that pouring your life’s worth into a car loan, rising gas prices, and ridiculous car insurance is ok! We accept that pushing for better communities is too hard! That’s not a place I want to live in
1) half of the united states is empty desert. build cities there with eco-friendly strategies from the start and you can double the population with near zero impact. 2) society should be more “sprawling” not less. we carve out and destroy nature for our residential properties when we should be living in nature, more spread. 3) we have the internet now. more offices should be virtual. we should be able to work either from home or from a general, shared office building in a community market space. only those in the immediate community would need to drive there, short distance. less driving, more productivity.
Good luck riding a bike or using public transportation when you need to: -make big shopping – travel to a few different parts of a city in a single day – generally transport something – travel when it’s really hot, travel when it’s really cold – another problem with bikes- gl riding them when it’s raining or snowing. – multiple other problems There is a reason why when people can afford it they prefer cars rather than public transportation or bikes
7:31 “the desire of people to get it right is there. We just have to get the planners and the politicians on board” NO!!! Planners and politicians were the ones who created the problem in the first place. A few seconds before in this same article you said it yourself. People were illegally setting up shops near their homes. Who made that illegal?? If you want better cities… leave the planners and the politicians out of it!
Traffic in a a ideal city should only be done by commuters and tourist passing through. Office bridges, transportation tunnels\\high-ways, more commercial delivery and at home schooling programs. Put parks in the middle of streets that are to wide. Public designated outdoor sleeping areas with out door shower heads
What if we put all the cars underground? A dense city, big buildings standing face-to-face, but everything above the ground is just like one big park, just pedestrians, trees and the fresh air. All of the transportation (mostly autonomous I guess) is down below, the roads and parking are being built at the same time with new buildings and city blocks. Things that are being built systematically & routinely become way less expensive
One of the biggest ErrorsThese experts make is when they disregard the difference between diverse societies and non-diverse societies.I live in a very homogenous Society right now And it’s stunning how much people will tolerate each other. They’ll squeeze together on public transportation, They’ll gather together And work out problems at school. There is not even a dangerous part of town., American families are not willing to live in compact areas unless they feel the people there are like them. This is why so few families live in the cities. To achieve our need to reduce, we must allow ethnic neighborhoods to flourish again.
What happens when city authorities use infill development without any concern for the people living in the area? Meaning no parks, recreation, proper tree planting etc. In one case the city removed over 20 hectares of coniferous forest canopy replacing a part of it with deciduous trees in a cold climate area.
We train and subway daily transport 30 million people. Yes, the lines are obsolete, but they manage. We just do not have enough of a high-speed tram crossing the whole city. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Central_Circle Problems in the city create private cars and parking the government builds 100 kilometers of highways a year and more traffic jams. The court turned into two rows of flogging. Personally, I see exit to the transition and toll roads. Because now for the money of taxpayers roads are being built which, apart from problems, do not create anything.
A lot of people in the comments cite european cities, and that’s exactly right! But it’s important to recognize that some time in the recent past, european cities also struggled with automobile congestion and a lack of walkability. They recognized the problems caused by a driving centered environment and they solved those problems. America is still in the problem phase. That’s all.
Cities are horrifying. It might be my social anxiety and agoraphobia though. Living in rural areas is much safer feeling to me because I don’t have neighbours perusal everything I do. But maybe the community-building is part of helping to overcome some of that. Neighbours might not feel so nosy or judgemental and would instead feel helpful and supportive in a closer-knit community. But how do you get close to people when you’re afraid to leave your house or interact with other humans? It’s ultimately a chicken/egg question. Do our poorly structured city environments create emotional distance and anxiety, or do mental health struggles create distance and the need for those isolated bubbles to feel safe?
3 years later homelessness increases 35%. Did they write that in the plan? I must be in some kind of mood but this presentation was so weak—he’s just saying to drive less. Completely agree but where’s the innovation? I was expecting a blueprint for the most sustainable city to date, instead I get mixed-use properties?—pulling out my hair over here lol
an architect perusal this is a corona lockdown world. a world where billions are forced to live and work locally . cars and travel is limited where walking and the bicycle has become the norm, where homeworking is evolving, where pollution levels are dropping, where physical distancing is revolutionizing human interaction, where online technology is still bringing us together, where health and food are the focus of our lives, where we see the price of crude oil drop where pharmaceuticals are the oli barons of the future. where the anti city and local highs treet makes more sense than city hubs which are empty, where the supermarket is our new cathedral of gathering. where buses are free and bicycles are everywhere and cars are left in parking bays and pollution levels across the planet are dropping.please please when the pandemic is over let us look back to look forward
I really don’t get it, what he proposes is already in place in Europe, and it’s really not great. I have lived in Europe where they try to pack as many people possible in tiny spaces. You have tiny shops at hand, but usually the prices are very high and choices are limited, so people still have to travel long distances to reach bigger stores (hence the creation of malls). This type of urbanisation is what I call European Ghettos. Nobody likes living there and you really don’t want to raise a family in them. In Canada now, I live in an area with public transit, but it takes double the time to get from home to work compared to taking my car. The transit is packed, so there is no way I can work during that time, so no gain at all for me, just loss. The real challenge is to make a transit that makes sense, encourage business development in a way that makes use of today’s technology and cities/politicians that understand the big long term picture (not what will get them elected in a couple of years). First transit: I don’t want to be pushed in against the wall, so some else can fit in the metro. I don’t want to watch my pockets every half seconds to make sure I am not being mobbed. I don’t want to be worried that I will be sick because someone cough in a small air space and everyone got the germs. I don’t want a public transit designed with down town convergence in mind, as long as it is designed this way, it will fail. If I go through the effort of using public transport, it must be rewarding: more personal time, faster travel, be safe, more reliable than my car.
Farmers are not “concerned” with sprawl. They make bank from getting out of farming when their property values jump because people want to make them into developments. We are overstocked with farms. The overproduction of food is impoverishing farmers in a number of industries because there is just too much supply for the demand. The amount of land under cultivation declined dramatically during the 20th century as marginal areas were abandoned and cultivation concentrated in the richest, most productive areas.
Cities are called “city centers” because people from all over travel to them for commerce. Need to bear it in mind that someone arriving by plane, taking a cab, and then being put on a bicycle to get to a business is more likely to just choose a business in a more accessible location. Cities are nothing without commerce. Getting rid of most of the cars is great for locals, but could constrict the lifeline of commerce which feeds those cities.
I strongly agree about what he mentioned about China. However, I wonder if sprawls can change easily. It is true that there are lot of problems, from environment to all mankind. China is struggling with massive population and many American cities like Los Angles have to cope with automobile problems. Changing sprawls into a better one is important but there will be more other important social problems that should be solved first, like political, economical ones coincidently happening in South Korea. In my opinion, ‘Making a better city project’ is secondary.
I agree fully. When you think of great cities around the world they are walkable. The US is an outlier though. Most move to the suburbs for better schools and fear of crime. Until education is funded the same rather than by zip code not much will change. It’s not just $$$, time and environmental reason for mixed living environments. Parents will do what they believe is best for their kids.
Imagine waking up in the morning, preparing to get to work or school, college, whatever. And instead of taking your keys to drive your own car, you can simply step on a train that passes through your neighborhood every 10 minutes or so. There, you would get faster to your destination, be able to enjoy the travel and even share the ride with other people that are doing the same thing as you!!! Imagine the collaboration, the conversations, all humans relationships in a big city being more and more connected, into a community that is way bigger and complex than simply your own family bubble. Oh, god, I love this future, but why can’t it be my present? 😊
Almost all of US cities are wrongly built then. They are all built for car and individual bubbles. They are built to be unsustainable. Your society is very individual, maybe societies build cities that go with their personality. In Europe, our cities are more human, we walk, bike, have public transportation and small neighborhood retail stores. I like to think that they are more human than in the US (some cities in the US are too). It strikes me that Peter Calthorpe has only talked about US and China cities, and only as bad examples. what city is a good example of those 7 principles?
The greatest challenge for city designers is not how to build better cities but how to revitalize existing cities. Midwest Rust Belt cities are decaying, we need to breathe new life into cities like this not to build new. Sprawl is bad because it’s repetitive. It turns complex ecosystems into an array of manicured lawns, houses, and concrete driveways. It’s uncreative and it’s the reason cities are failing. If you’ve been to a small town in any city in America you’ve been to them all. Sprawl is also finite, improved concentrated urbanization is also finite but less so because we can keep building up where skyscrapers are appropriate for the scenery and down where they are not.
7:12 I am sorry but this part is BS. I’ve lived in China for 9 years, in Shenzhen, a very dense city. Almost ALL of the buildings have ground floor commerce. It’s very convenient. You have almost all amenities within walking distance. Yes, it’s crowded because of high-rise buildings, yes, you don’t know anybody in your block. But he is plain wrong about the ‘sterility’ of this kind of environment. And no one is ‘setting up shops in their garages’, these are designated places for shops on the ground floors of each highrise, you have food, barbers, delivery, pharmacies, and whatnot all in these ground floor spaces. You can see this in his presentation at 10:19 and at 11:09 it is what both old and new Chinese buildings look like.
I see a fair few of these articles (urban planning is my special interest) and they’re usually by North Americans, and the solutions they propose are often the basic models for European cities. As a European, I’m grateful to already live in a desirable place, don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t take it for-granted, however, that’s not to say there aren’t issues with the European model. I appreciate being able to walk wherever I want to go instead of having to drive, and the abundance of trees and green spaces, but let me tell you, there ARE issues with European cities just as there are with anywhere else. I would certainly love to see people much smarter and more experienced than me look at city planning from a European perspective and address the issues such as crowding, heat, snow days (where 2 inches sees everything grind to a halt) and many more I haven’t mentioned. If anyone shares my interest, and could recommend any articles or websites I would be very appreciative: thanks!
What about India….here there is not even planning….and the planners are fools. Indian cities are messy and we can really not call any of them as cities but just sub-urbans and mostly rural. They are far from being sustainable, today’s status of Indian cities is that of 1980’s of South East Asia, China
7 principles for building better cities | Peter Calthorpe 1. PRESERVE preserve natural ecologies, agrarian landscapes and cultural heritage sites. 2. MIX Create mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods. 3. WALK Design walkable streets and human scale neighborhoods. 4. BIKE Prioritize bicycle networks and auto-free streets. 5. CONNECT Increase density of road network, limit block size. 6. RIDE Develop high quality transit and affordable BRT. 7. FOCUS Match density and mix to transit capacity.
Bullshit! Build now, plan later. It’s so much easier! Just ask ancient builders of the day. They just figured on city size, location, and safety, then they put the buildings up, and the reasons for the city’s existence. Figure on how many lakes and streams it will have. You need four cemeteries, 10 parks, depending on size, four police and fire departments, a huge downtown, hospitals in each section of town, a city hall, several stadiums for concerts, streets with the usual stuff on it, and have them be wide, trees enough to shade most of the city. Ancient builders built before they planned and it made it easier. Who wants to plan the air and someday, I’ll show you what I mean. City building’s hard work; don’t screw it up!
It’s all nice but ultimately LA isn’t riding the bus more, they’re still in cars. In Bulgaria where I’m from public transit is well developed, in Sofia they’re pouring billions for underground metro, and yet Sofia is on track to hit 1000 cars per 1000 residents with no signs of slowing down. The hot selling and most desirable properties are now houses with yards on the outskirts because people don’t want to be crammed in condos
Let make it simpler, the principles of ideal neighborhood. Five plus N’s will make a city, are defining every N? or every N has to have 7 things? we actually don’t know because we didn’t concentrate. Simple real examples from europe, in Germany cities are centralized, means a small circle that grow bigger and bigger. In Switzerland a flat city is the typical ideology, means a street has shops in one of its neighborhoods while other one elsewhere. I have no idea how many principle in one city except one which is a city.
hey, I’m really much interested in that topic, and a little more sources of the numbers you’re using could be useful ! For example I didn’t quite get were you got the charts from Urban Footprint (what were the 2 locations of the sprawl and of the smart growth…?) Later on, at 9:08, you mention that only 30% of people have cars. Which population are we talking about, I’m not sure I followed if it’s still about Chinese whole population or about inhabitants of a specific town. However my goal is far from highlighting the flaws of your presentation since I totally agree with your point.
This is good thinking, in theory. However, when the planners actually try to execute some of these concepts, they wind up creating more traffic, more frustration and less mobility. An intersection close to where I live was converted from two lanes, plus a turn lane to one lane and a turn lane plus a rather large bike lane. Across the intersection there was now instead of two lanes, one lane and a sort of lane which merges into the one lane. They made it so the light at the intersection only lets maybe four or five cars through. So there’s a huge single line of traffic, conflicting with entrances and exits from the stores. It’s supposed to make us calmer.
Maybe we need to begin with the smallest possible unit, THE BRICK,,,, What if we redesigned the shape size and structure of the main building material used so the brick it self was a technology of sorts,,, thus the brick will determine a totally different range of solutions that are specific to high rise blocks of flats…
When he tries to say that going or being “urban” is the solution, he may be just chasing the coat tails of powerful politicians who want more urban sprawl. Urban sprawl being exactly what we have now car centric neighborhoods with no third places, and no walkable pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. You need to be careful of what concepts and words you use to argue a point; you may be using the same language that those who want more car centric neighborhoods want you to use. “urban sprawl” can be defined according to Wikipedia as: “Urban sprawl (also known as suburban sprawl or urban encroachment) is defined as “the spreading of urban developments (such as houses, dense multi family apartments, office buildings and shopping centers) on undeveloped land near a more or less densely populated city”” Tom Sisson
All that transit Sounds like a place for homeless people to congregate. Why don’t we put 4 m towards outlawing homelessness,offering social help for homeless within the confines of jail(a controlled environment), a good rentry program, and then making a city more appealing to businesses relocation and startups ?
Gg, handicapped people… Gg, going to Ikea.. Gg,moving in, moving trucks cant get there Cars replaced horses, and they are now a mechanical extension of our selfs. I was hoping to see legit future city planning, without the removal of cars. My idea is to seperate All the different types of traffic. Build skywalks with multiple decks, for pedestrians and bicyclist. Remove intersectiin lights, A. I doesn’t need those. Make a car law, that by 2050, your car must be an Electric car with hive-mind software. And declare large Urban areas for ” auto-pilot zone only”, hive-mind software takes care of All traffic like they were a school of fish.
It doesn’t work everywhere. For example where i live in the UAE the weather is extremely hot reaching 50 degrees C in summer. No one would dare to step outside and walk unless its a shaded path and for a walk that won’t take more than five minutes. I live in the sprawls and what i like about it is how quit and uncrowded it is especially for someone who’s always driving like me. The bad thing is that you have to take the car in order to get groceries unlike the city where everything is mostly in a walkable distance.
“get the politicians on board” those are the magic words. unless we get rid of the current way of doing government and install one that KNOWS we arent going to take any more of their self serving crap and/or make it obscenely profitable, we will NEVER see anything that TRULY benefits mankind in any meaningful way.
The monetary system is problem it self its outdated it doesn’t response this centuries need. You need the factory, house ect. you have resources and work power you can’t construct your need becouse lack of money, it’s realy stupidly. We are wasting great potential minds, and put a handicap before them. We need to chage money to mesurement system which is mesure the contribution to comunity. Like a high score on game. When the game over,put their name to Hall of Fame.
Cities are constantly rebuilt, and they always have been, except for monumental public works. You don’t have to get it right the first time–and you CAN’T. What works in 2020 isn’t going to be what is needed in 2520. Some of the stuff that we build to be beautiful will last. 99% won’t. That’s okay. We’re not psychic, and we can’t pretend to be. Street layouts tend to endure. If we look past our obsessions with dead ends with no pedestrian/cycling connection AND our obsession with a rigid grid, we have a shot at making some layouts that work long term. If we fail, then the city will slow down. If it literally stops (Inn of Court, I’m looking at you), something will be demolished to make way, or it will die a natural death. Thus it’s always been.
All very convenient if you can ride a bike (I can’t) or stop people from being dicks on public transport (haven’t figured that one out yet, either). Maybe you could have a quiet pod within buses/trams/monorails like you do on trains. If I could afford an automatic vehicle (I can’t drive, either!), I’d let others use it. Of course, you’d need some sort of referral, deposit or rating service, so that you’re not letting bad people use your vehicle. It COULD reduce some traffic- imagine you could send your vehicle out alone at 3am to pick up a package instead of having to go during the day. Having a safe hatch to put goods into wouldbe awesome.
Just designing a city properly could solve so many health and climate-related problems. Soon people will realize how important this TED talk really is. Just like how people realized the importance of Bill Gate’s TED talk after the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Sadly, unlike the coronavirus which will eventually go away, climate change and the health effects of urban pollution are largely irreversible.
Sometimes walking and biking is better than personal vehicles that emit harmful substances. And, it’s also good for your health, as well, because you’re using them everyday. I just wish that these two methods of transportation (along with MRTs and subways) are the only thing that I see in my country.
Velomobiles and the motorized version. Individual commuting vehicles that reduce the carbon footprint. It also reduces the physical footprint in size and weight. These vehicles will still allow you the freedom of travel in a dry and warm environment at reasonable speeds, would save wear and tear of road surfaces and bridges and if electric would allow you to drive into or through structures. Single seat three wheeled with side bags built into the vehicle powered by pedals, electric or small gas engine. Designed to carry a 240lb or smaller passenger and 100lbs of cargo compared to a car that carries 1200lbs of passengers and 500lbs of cargo the motor, brakes and structural components are designed for the much smaller payload and therefore can be more delicate in structure and weight giving s further savings. During the morning commute when most cars traditionally have only one occupant you can have 3 or 4 velomobile/scooters in the same footprint reducing congestion and traffic jams. In high conjestion urban areas you can design them to fit together in larger carriers so that each passenger is in effect in his own capsule protected from each other allowing the passenger to read his tablet or talk on their cell. Just food for thought.
Idk if this guy has ever been to China, but those 小区 “little districts” or super blocks work pretty well in China. Idk what’s your problem in not having shops with the little district. You only need to walk 100 to go out of the gated area and you’re surrounded by shops and restaurants. You want calm and serenity within your neighborhood.
If we want to achieve high density with a high quality of life, the public policy answer is two-fold: (a) exempt all buildings and other property improvements from the tax base; these are depreciating assets the maintenance of which is penalized by the conventional property tax; and (b) impose an annual charge on land equal to the potential annual rental value of whatever land is held; this will bring an end to sprawling development, will remove the profit from speculating in land, and provide a financial incentive for owners of land to bring the land they hold to its highest, best use.
I’m studying urban planning in Detroit and your ideas about using space for different things and public transportation are spot on. I think each city should grow in its own way. We should also work on making jobs, treating everyone fairly, and having homes people can afford. This way, people will want to live in cities because they like it, not because they have to.
some principles are too idealism, not realistic and should be adapted according to different situation in different countries. actually, I can not imagine a city there are a lot of space left for bike. considering the size of city, and just take some modern cities, like NYC, Beijing, Tokyo, London, etc. not al the people can live near their work. thus, they need quick transportation mode to pick them to their work. urban planning today is a hard work, for the configuration of cities are solid, which means many things should be considered when planning. but for one point, I agree the opinion that transportation plays a great role in future urban life.
I disagree with his final take on autonomous cars at the end here. Not only will they be good for automatically moving aside for emergency vehicles especially if they communicate together and each car understands where the other will pull aside but I think he’s wrong about the congestion. I don’t think most people are just going to add onto the amount of trips they’re taking just because they can work from their car. That being said there will likely be new car owners jumping on board because they previously didn’t like to drive. However the need for multiple cars in one family will decrease. If you work different hours of the day then your spouse you can have the car running back on it’s own to pick up the second person. It is the cheaper option so you actually might see people trying to coordinate in this way over buying another vehicle. Currently there are probably millions of house holds with 2 or even 3 vehicles. If that were to cut down to mostly 1 for each house that could actually do a great difference. They can be regulated to only go a top speed inside the city. I’m actually surprised vehicles haven’t been programed to do that already to eliminate speeding and causing dangerous situations. Whether you program them to a top limit or to always follow the speed limits. I dont know why they havent done this yet. It reduces the presence and cost for policing it. Speaking of which there’s a whole computer system with sensors that could be installed in cop cars that would make their jobs a whole lot easier but I’ll save that for another comment.
Can’t say I agree… I immagine autonomous vehicles powered by the sun that weigh only a few hundred lbs that run errands, pick up dry cleaning or groceries anf that use leave little to no carbon footprint. Best of all they stay on their own little lanes no wider than a bike lane. One day I also hope to see graphine replace most components in a car making them so lite that their energy efficiency goes through the roof
Automobile free doesn’t work when you need to pickup, move, and deliver objects like sofas and beds which we all need. Ancillary aspects of life would need to change in tandem or ahead to allow for the changes in transit. These changes would need to be instituted by progressive, efficient governmental systems that don’t yet exist.
Nothing will work until we begin educating children to expect a different world than what they live in. It does nothing for a child or adult to watch or listen to dreamy wishy washy ideas, if they don’t begin to implement them in their daily lives. Expectations must change. The children that are born today can not consume at the rate their parents do.
How to shaping city I am bearing a unusual idea . Plan is simple start a infrastructure at the point of the near the folk land are of Argentina and this connection goto the USA Canada Russia China Israel Egypt South Africa Nigeria. Now new cities start building with the connection in line if any cities you build in a line it is easy to conveyed logistics at low cost .