Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Uniformity v diversity, central planning v freedom/anarchy

Expand Messages
  • Mike Lacey
    ... Well said! May I attempt to put forward 3 criterian that may help with the above. This is by no means a panacea, just possible guidelines 1) Uniform lot
    Message 1 of 3 , May 8, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@c...>
      wrote:
      > Integrity is what's really required. It's hard to define,
      > hard to implement, and easy to recognize when achieved.

      Well said! May I attempt to put forward 3 criterian that may help
      with the above. This is by no means a panacea, just possible
      guidelines

      1) Uniform lot sizes
      2) Freedom of design, choice of material, height (within limits)
      3) Constrained by requirement that buildings should front directly
      onto the sidewalk/footpath therefore defining the street rather than
      some bland feature such as garage, parking lot or front lawn.

      In general I think the smaller the lot frontage the better since this
      helps to build a richer / finer grained fabric and adds to the number
      of doors / entranceways on the street (a good measure of urbanity).
      Narrow streets also help to create a human scale.

      These features occur frequently in Victorian-era American Cities and
      contemporary Northern European Cities and the results are, in my
      experience, almost always pleasing.

      Any comments, other ideas?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.