Cities Ignore Design at Own Risk
by
Thomas Fisher
Much of the conflict in modern life stems from bad design: fragmented
design that ignores contexts or consequences; ad hoc design that loses
sight of goals, complicated design that wastes time, energy and money.
And, in the Twin Cities, such bad design will soon begin to hurt us
if we aren't more proactive in building the very best metropolitan area
we can imagine.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich best articulated the challenge
in his book "The Work of Nations," arguing that information workers
are the key to wealth production and job creation in a new global economy.
The implication is clear. Technology allows these information workers,
these wealth producers, to live anywhere, whether in a city or on a
mountaintop.
The fact is, however, these workers are not living just anywhere. They're
moving to places with a high quality of life -- low crime, clean air,
ample cultural and recreational opportunities, a distinctive character
-- all of which design helps to create.
Design, then, has shifted from a marginal pursuit to something central
to the economic life of communities and the quality of life of families.
Communities that ignore design place at risk their ability to compete
for jobs and wealth production. Just as global companies already have
learned, metropolitan areas are learning that good design adds the essential
value that distinguishes one place from another.
Long before the global economy, the urbanist Jane Jacobs foresaw the
emergence of city-based regions as the main economic unit of the future.
Those regions would sort themselves into winners and losers. Winners
would tend to be dense, efficient, high-quality cities, those best able
to replace imports and develop exportable products and services, and,
as a result, retain personal, social, economic and political benefits.
Winners would understand this calculation and pursue policies to achieve
this new success.
Putting Reich and Jacobs together, then, we begin to see why design
matters so much in the future of metropolitan life. Designing the physical,
cultural and environmental infrastructure has become essential to attracting
and keeping highly mobile information workers. Designing public policies
that reinforce this infrastructure is crucial. Understanding that city-based
regions around the world are competing with one another, and that some
will rise and some will fall, is essential.
These trends have been difficult to grasp because they collide with
the conventional wisdom of the old industrial economies. There, winners
tended to be places that stressed low taxes, lax environmental laws,
few aesthetics and meager public investments. Now, all that has changed
even in the South, where cities are realizing that companies with good
jobs now avoid places that lack aesthetic and cultural benefits.
Design is being rediscovered in a postindustrial world that neither
Karl Marx nor Adam Smith would recognize. Neither could have imagined
the shape design has taken in providing economic and community vitality.
Marxism, after all, erred in thinking that an entire economy could be
planned, as if by a single design. But, as every good designer knows,
design's power lies in solutions tuned to the particular needs of people
and place. There are no universally valid designs.
Capitalism's invisible hand didn't quite get it right either. While
allowing for diverse paths to multiple goals, it assumed that individuals
pursuing self-interest would find the best solution. The American suburb
refutes that claim. As it turned out, giving people maximum freedom
wastes natural resources, burns money, robs families of time spent in
traffic and, yes, produces an ugly countryside which, as it turns out,
is important to avoid if a city is to compete in the new economy.
Seeking the distinct
Indeed, suburban sprawl does nothing to enhance the competitiveness
of a region. Every suburb looks and is like every other, and offers
little to attract people who can live and work anywhere. And when you
can live anywhere, you want to live somewhere, some place with a distinctive
quality of life. Cities that preserve their unique qualities -- historic
buildings, natural landscapes, cultural identity, educational institutions
-- will emerge as winners.
The marketplace cannot do that alone. The economics and politics of
city-based regions must be designed to maximize the strengths and natural
advantages of place. This demands neither central planning nor laissez-faire
economics, but the deft hand of designers, public and private, nonprofit
and volunteer. It involves designers of all disciplines working together
to build the same competitive advantage.
While a city-based region can tolerate some internal competition, too
many petty rivalries soon become counterproductive. A region's strength
is sapped by internal bickering, whether it's Minneapolis vs. St. Paul,
or city vs. suburb, or metro vs. outstate. It's like moving deck chairs
while the ship goes down.
Leadership, not only from elected officials but from the professions,
the media and corporations, must prevent that from happening here.
The Twin Cities region, including all of Minnesota and parts of adjoining
states, has some distinct advantages, among them: well-maintained parks,
intact neighborhoods, vital educational and research institutions, and
strong county and regional governments. Our isolation even helps us
stand out, keeping us from being absorbed into the strings of adjoining
metro-plexes that blur the identities of many coastal cities.
Still, we do many things here that run counter to our interests. I
cochaired a committee two years ago to rewrite the Minneapolis preservation
code. We discovered that, while the city had one of the first such codes,
it conflicted directly with other parts of the building and zoning ordinances.
As a result, Minneapolis has allowed developers to tear down much of
its distinct physical fabric so that now it resembles any number of
other cities -- which raises the question of why someone who can live
anywhere would choose this place.
Petty rivalries pose another threat. St. Paul politicians last year
tried to kill light-rail transit altogether unless they received guarantees
that their city would get the next rail investment. The tussle over
the Minnesota Twins is another example of how sibling competition wastes
time, money and energy without adding to the regional effort.
Wealth producers considering the Twin Cities do care about sports,
and might be impressed that we have two superb orchestras, two good
newspapers, a coordinated park and transit system, an exceptional range
of educational and cultural opportunities. These investments deserve
cooperation and coordination.
The ways it helps
How can design help? First, design helps us see the relationships among
things. Every project we build, every policy we write, every plan we
make in this region should have the whole region in mind. Second, design
helps us keep the desired end always in sight. What sort of community
do we want in the end?
Where do our efforts lead? The most important role of leadership --
both political and professional -- involves asking and finding answers
to such design-oriented questions. Third, design helps us visualize
the future. This is where the dismissal of aesthetics is so misplaced.
We often go wrong in public policy and economics because of our inability
to actually picture the world we're about to create with new policies.
Design often seems like the Rodney Dangerfield of disciplines. Typically
treated as an add-on or afterthought to make things attractive, design
gets no respect. But it has become a central tool in the global, information
economy, and key to the creation of a metropolitan life that we all
want.
If we don't want ours to become the Rodney Dangerfield of regions,
we must begin to consider design in new ways.
Thomas Fisher is
professor and dean of the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
at the University of Minnesota, editor of Architectural Research
Quarterly, and former editorial director of Progressive Architecture.
|
