Social Media Makes My City Smaller

[Source: Yurbanism]

Besides cities and urbanism, my other main passion is social media: From blogging for a variety of sites, to Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Yelp and LinkedIn the list goes on and on.

While Twitter is often criticized for being narcissistic, this point of view shows a misunderstanding of what the application is really about. Indeed, if that is how you look at Twitter (or any other social media platform), then it’s no wonder you don’t like it.

I use tools like Twitter and Whrrl to reach out beyond the people I would otherwise know and go to places and events I wouldn't otherwise attend. This helps me get to know my city better. As my social network grows, my city shrinks.

Creating Community

I went from “being lost in the urban desert” three years ago, to “finding my way through the urban desert” last year, to “creating community in the urban desert” right now. This evolution of my tagline shows how social media has provided a roadmap to navigate through the vast spawltopia that is Phoenix. Through social media, I have met others that share similar interests and similar values and built an urban ‘tribe’. I have discovered new and cool places, I have even begun repositioning my career. Would this have been possible without social media? Perhaps; but not as quickly and definitely not as deeply.

Connection Devices

“The feeling of being connected, more so than the feeling of being mobile, provides the necessary context from which to be productive, both in terms of work and social life.” —Eric Gordon

Part of the misunderstanding fog social media is how we define in it. First too many people put the emphasis on the MEDIA part of it, instead of the SOCIAL. To me, Social Media is all about the people, the tech are just tools to facilities the social. Indeed I view tools like Facebook and Twitter the next step in a long chain of social tools From town criers to neighborhood bulletin boards to telephone trees, the current crop of social media applications stand on their shoulders.

Another definition problem is the use of the term ‘mobile devices.’ While mobility is indeed a huge part of their functionality, their true power comes from their power to connect not only with each other, but with our surroundings. As Ezra Goldman points out:

people are likely as mobile today as they ever were. What’s different is that we’re more accessible and connected when we do move around.

Engagement Devices

Social media provides us with the ability, not simply to ‘check in,' but to pay attention to not only where we are, but what (and who) is around us. By using location-based apps, we are pausing, if only for a moment, to engage with our social network AND physical surroundings. We are connecting where we are with what we are doing with who we know. Our experience becomes richer because of such engagement.

Sure, like any tool, connection devices are misused. They can draw us away from the immediacy of our surroundings, alienating ourselves from those who are with us physically. But their power to connect us and draw attention to things that matter around us outweighs this side effect. And instead of critiquing the devices and their users our time would be better spent developing ways to enhance our understanding of our surroundings while at the same time encouraging un-mediated interpersonal interaction.

The modern American city has never been bereft of these complications — from the hand-held camera at the end of the nineteenth century to the mobile phone at the end of the twentieth, the city has always been a mediated construct. The city enters into the cultural imaginary as a hodgepodge of disconnected signifiers, often organized by the technologies that produce them. —Eric Gordon, Urban Spectator

Conclusion

Far from isolating me somewhere in cyber-space, social media has allowed me to engage my city—and my friends—at a far deeper level than was possible before. It has made my city smaller, more interesting and more friendly and my life would be poorer without it.

NOTE: The title of this post was borrowed from a post written by Vancouver journalist and blogger Lisa Johnson. I tried to come up with my own, but couldn’t top it. I hope Lisa doesn't mind!

Urban Savoir-Faire

[Source: Yurbanism]

I first heard of the term ‘urban savoir-faire’ in a podcast by Adam Greenfield—the same podcast I learned about Schelling points. Adam describes how the increasing networked world we are living in, and the near ubiquity of smart phones is coming at the cost of traditional urban aspects of serendipity, solitude and anonymity. Together these aspects form the makings of ‘urban savoir faire.’ Such aspects are the intangibles of living in an urban environments. They give people an innate ability to navigate their city with a polished refinement.

Before ubiquitous computing, it took years, if not decades to understand the rhythm of a city; including such things as the true (vs. published) transit schedule, or the dive bar with the great grilled cheese. But once you understood it, you gained a panache and sense of accomplishment, and felt connected to the city in a unique way. Now, people don’t head to the light rail station until their iPhone tells them the next train is moments away, and use services like Yelp to find the great ‘hole in the wall.’ that is now packed with suburban ‘tourists.’ In other words, our increasing networked society has diminished the concept of urban obscurity and added a new level (and meaning) of transparency to the urban environment.

This in and of itself is not a bad thing. Our lives are a bit better, and definitely run smoother because of this shared knowledge. From a personal perspective, I would not have been able to get up to speed on the ins and outs of downtown and central Phoenix so quickly without such networked information. However, the soul of the city is in danger of being lost in this efficiency.

In this interview, Adam mentions sociologist’s Richard Sennett argument that what makes urbanity is "precisely the quality of necessary, daily, cheek-by-jowl confrontation with a panoply of the different." I agree. When anybody can navigate a city easily, it becomes less of an authentic experience and more, for a lack of a better word, a suburban one. Ubiquitous computing smooths the rough edges from the urban experiences and eliminates many of the intangibles that make city life unique.

The challenge is: how do we take advantage of the benefits of the networked city, while keeping the concept of urban savoir-faire alive?

There-apist's Dictionary: Commute

Commute

Commuting is popularly defined as 'regular travel between one's place of residence and place of work or full-time study.' Somewhat ironically, given our current dependance on the automobile to ‘commute’ between home and work, the term originated during the early days of rail transit. People who travelled form the new fangled ’suburbs of cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago would buy ‘commutation tickets’ (what we now call ‘bus’ or ’transit’ passes) that commuted ('changed,' from Latin commutare) a bunch of daily fares into a single payment. In other languages, the term for commuting is typically a variation of ‘pendulum.' (HT: Language Hat)

Rethinking Mixed-Use Urbanism

The Magic is in the Mix

'Mixed-use' is one of the most over-used, yet most misunderstood phrases in urban development. In recent years, ‘mixed-use buildings’ has become the new planning dogma, just like ‘specialized buildings’ was before it.

Many cities have invested a lot of money in developing mixed-use buildings, streets and neighborhoods, but haven't achieved the urban vibrancy they want. This is often times because their underlying urban fabric remains coarse (i.e. large and monotonous).

In most new urbanist mixed-use developments the residential units are often all high-end condos and the retail is usually a series of chain stores. Moreover, little in the neighborhood is more than a few years old. Thus, although the uses may seem mixed, the culture is monolithic. At the same time, many arts districts face the same fate of attracting monolithic culture (albeit completely different from the previous example). A block of live work galleries doesn't make for a vibrant neighborhood bur rather an artists ghetto.

Looking for a Phx

In downtown Phoenix, these two extremes are seen in the artist collectives and bars that have functioned, but never flourished along Grand Ave for the past decade or so on one hand; and the monotonous collection of upper middle-class restaurants and retail outlets being rolled out at CityScape on the other.

The reason that these types of mixed-use areas fail to live up to expectation is that they are too economically—and therefore, functionally limited—to be lively, interesting and convenient for a range of people. They lack the intermingling of class and functionality that offer the stimulation and interest essential to a vibrant urban core.

So the question remains: If mixed-use isn’t the answer, what it?

Urban Diversity

Perhaps a better way of looking at mixed use, is ‘diversity’. This was a basis tenet of Jane Jacobs in her classic tome, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Diversity, according to Jacobs, isn't simply a mix of uses but an integration of business types:

“True diversity requires the “mingling of high yield middling yield, low yield, and no-yield enterprises” —Jane Jacobs

To me, “mixed use” means more than mixing residential and commercial. It also means proximity to other uses like schools/universities, parks, museums, courthouses, industries, meditation, train stations, etc. The reality is that not every building needs to have multiple uses or tenants but each block should and each neighborhood must.

These kinds of destinations help to define a city’s identity. They do so through the variety of uses and public spaces that highlight local assets and unique talents and skills of the community—educational, cultural, and commercial—that are all open and available to all visitors to enjoy for free.

Such neighborhoods allow residents to visit, become involved and stay awhile. They are not defined by architecture, but rather the uses that are front and center and the buildings and design elements that support them.

Replacing Mixed with Multiple

“It is fatal to specialize... the more diverse we are in what we can do the better.” —Jane Jacobs

Perhaps then it is time to move beyond the simple concept of ‘mixed use’ to a more robust style of development. The time of simply thinking of urban development as “Starbucks over condos, maybe with a train that comes every day” has passed.

Instead we need to start thinking of creating neighborhoods that build authentic places through multiple uses that are intimately related, interconnected and interdependent. After all, true urban diversity comes from the relationships between uses, tenants, and the organizations within a place.

Genius Loci and Adaptive Reuse

[Source: Yurbanism]

Recently, I've explored the concept of genius loci. I started with a look at the theoretical underpinnings of the concept. Next I looked at genius loci in practice. Today, I would like to look at a concrete example of how genius loci is being preserved and enhanced in Phoenix.

One concrete area where the City of Phoenix has made some baby steps in promoting authentic urbanism is with their adaptive reuse policy. The concept of adaptive reuse grows directly from genius loci. Before the days of cookie cutter developments often designed in corporate offices thousands of miles away, buildings were designed by local architects and builders who became deeply familiar with the site that there were building on. As well, often the original owners of these building were local business people who were familiar with the history and nature of the site. As such, most historic buildings are, at the very least, sympathetic to their site, and in many cases have become an integral part of their place.

When the original use of a structure changes or is no longer required, as with older buildings from the industrial revolution, architects can change the primary function of the structure, while retaining some of the existing architectural details that make the building unique. In many cities, adaptive reuse has come to define the character of many neighborhoods, and in some instances, creates neighborhoods where none existed before.

While Phoenix is late to the game, having lost the majority of our original buildings in the downtown core, in one of their more lucid moments, Phoenix City Council passed one of the nation’s most advanced adaptive reuse ordinances. The program is far from exhaustive, however, as, even the City continues to tear down buildings with importance cultural and historic significance but it is a step on the right direction and an important part of preservation what little ‘genius loci the city has left. In total, the program has supported 30 total adaptive reuse projects in the past 18 months, although a few of them did not proceed past plan review due to the economy.

One example of adaptive reuse that will be familiar to many Phoenicians is modifying an older building structure for use as a restaurant or bar. Notable examples include Tuck Shop, The Lost Leaf, The Roosevelt, Paisley Town, Hula’s Modern Tiki, The Vig, Postino, The Parlor, St. Francis and The Duce.

Such projects help impart spirit of place in two main ways. First, they help keep the existing ‘spirit of place’ by building on what is already there. Second their use as new, and often unique businesses add a new level of genius loci to their neighborhood, in a way simply not possible with the ubiquitous series of cookie cutter chain restaurants. As Peter Koliopoulos, the designer of The Vig Uptown has noted, this new wave of adaptive reuse projects is just the beginning of Phoenix becoming a real city with its own identity and character instead of an anonymous series of chain restaurants and big-box stores.

Genius Loci in Practice

Via Yurbanism

Earlier, I introduced the concept of ‘genius loci.’ Today, I’d like to begin to explore it’s practical application in cities.

Every place has its own unique qualities, not only in terms of its physical makeup, but of how it is perceived. As I discussed yesterday, these unique qualities help make up the genius loci of a place. In principle, it is the responsibility of the stewards of the city—whether they be politicians planners, business owners or developers—to be sensitive to these qualities and strive to enhance them.

Alas, too often in the ‘real world’ these same people work to destroy them. Rather than adapting their visions to the genius of their place, they try to force their own vision (usually a vision borrowed from another place) on the city. These so-called stewards are preoccupied with the physical lens of the city and concentrate only on its built form, neglecting what makes their city special.

Indeed, these leaders need to take a step back and begin to appreciate residents use the streets and spaces of their city from hour-to-hour, day-to-day and throughout the year. They need to do a better jobs honoring the resident spirit of a place and understand how residents, from ALL walks of life interact with the city and have adapted their daily patterns to what already exists. By doing so, it is possible to create a powerful genius loci in almost any neighborhood, and indeed with almost every project on almost any property.

Building a strong genius loci in a city or neighborhood begins by paying attention to the spirit of place already there. Rather than pointing to a place on a map and planning to build something solely because the property is available, affordable or conveniently located, it is important to consider what already exists. The first step, therefore, is to find the abiding character that inhabits the site—no matter how subtle.

A sensitivity to what is already there tells you what would be appropriate or inappropriate when planning and deciding what should be added. The character and atmosphere of the neighborhood or surrounding properties and any existing building styles are often as important as the planned use and design for the site. Aspects as varied as the surrounding land, the history of the neighborhood or district, and how the property interfaces with the larger geographic area all need to be considered, and indeed should offer the starting point and creative inspiration for any development.

Coming soon: One area where the City of Phoenix is making progress in developing ‘genius loci.’

Do you have a favorite place in the city or your hometown? What characteristics makes it special or memorable? Can you name any recent developments, here or elsewhere that have done a good job at incorporating an existing ‘spirit of place’?

What is Genius Loci?

Genius Loci = Spirit of Place

To live in a city is to live in two places at once. The physical city of roads, buildings, parks, and related infrastructure. This is where work live, eat, and play on a daily (and routine) basis. It is the world of planners, politicians and developers. Hovering beside the physical city is the contextual city. It is the realm of people: citizens, residents and visitors. It is what gives cities their ‘life’ and directly shapes our urban experience.

Each city has a unique ‘spirit of place,’ or a distinctive atmosphere, that goes beyond the built environment. This urban context reflects how a city functions in ‘real time’ as people move through time and space. Viewed through this lens, the architecture and physical infrastructure of a city give way to the rhythms of the passing of the day and transition of the seasons. This provides the ‘temporal spectacles’ that define a city.

This context of a city is more formally known as ‘genius loci,’ or the genetic footprint of a place. Latin for ‘the genius of the place,’ this phrase refers to classical Roman concept of the protective spirit of a place. In contemporary usage, genius loci usually refers to a location’s distinctive atmosphere, or the afore-mentioned ‘spirit of place,' rather than a guardian spirit.

The concept of genius loci falls within the philosophical branch of ‘architectural phenomenology.’ This field of architectural discourse is most notably explored by the theorist Christian Norberg-Schulz in his book, Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture.

Via Yurbanism