April 2002

The Urban Form as Art

I've recently come around to the viewpoint that the urban landscape, and our living environment in general, is one of man's most dominant, and certainly tactile, works/forms of art. I look around and see some communities and cities that inspire. Then I turn around and see places that are nothing but depressing, or bland at best. I suppose that this isn't any different from any other for of art, whether it be painting, sculpture, literature, or music. It can inspire or even depress. But the urban landscape, or the environment that we create for ourselves, is something that we cannot escape.

I think this is something that has become more and more obvious in the recent past. It may be something that mankind knew of long ago, while creating great cities, then forgot shortly after millions fled to the suburbs. It would appear that after 50 years in the suburbs, we are starting to realize the aesthetic value of the environment we live in, in spite of the size of our yards.

The fact that older communities thrive and are seen as a good thing (often as indicated via incredible property values) is an indicator of this mindset. People love to live in places like Annapolis, Georgetown, Federal Hill, and Old Town Alexandria and so forth. Good older communities with traditional planning and growth patterns exist and are recognized, quite often, as superior places. But developers are able to get away with building shit, so most of what is new turns out in the new soulless style of suburban sprawl. However, some people have started developing sustainable and aesthetically pleasing communities in the suburbs and they are catching on.

The difference between neighborhoods like Georgetown and one of the thousands of bland suburbs surrounding our cities is remarkable. Like all art, some is more inspiring than others.

Generally speaking, us humans have organized our civilization around large population centers. In the center of this mass of people is the city. The high density environment was surely originally built out of the need for commerce and safety. Over the centuries humans have transformed this environment from huts to skyscrapers. For some reason we decided that if we were going to live in such an environment, it should serve our artistic senses just as much as our need for commerce.

This, I suppose, is the attitude that has lead us to constructing so many beautiful cities around the world.

However, just as not everyone has the same taste in music or sculpture, not everyone has the same taste in a place to live. But I'm not just taking about New York, Chicago, Miami, and the likes. The urban environment is tactile and when done right, inspiring in the truest sense of the word. Because these are places people want to be. NYC and Chicago have a multi-faceted appeal. Some places there is singular and grand architecture (midtown), while in others a unified feel in a community (neighborhoods in Brooklyn, among others). If you look on the lower east side and it's pretty seedy, yet you want to be there because of the way that people have learned to beautify and respect their environment.

By the same token you have places like Charleston and Santa Fe. Still the same canvas, but a different piece of art is produced and each inspire in their own right.

To further my point, just look at a well put together city and a poorly put together place. Compare, say, Portland Oregon and New Jersey. They are almost complete opposites. People love living in Portland. They have a visible pride and sense of well being that comes from living in a good work of art. Now look at New Jersey. Outside of Princeton, just about all of it sucks and everyone knows it. While residents may grow to appreciate it, it generally repulses the visitor.

I think what I am saying applies to small towns, suburbs, and metropolises alike. I am certain that people gain or lose something akin to the artistic experience just from walking around in our communities.