Difference between revisions of "New urbanism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= New urbanism = |
= New urbanism = |
||
| + | '''New urbanism'''<ref>E.g. P. Calthorpe/W. Fulton: The Regional City: Planning for the End of the Sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.</ref> |
||
| − | Following the rise of the paradigm of '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism New Urbanism]'''<ref>E.g. P. Calthorpe/W. Fulton: The Regional City: Planning for the End of the Sprawl. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001.</ref>, architecture and planning have essentially included the theme of society. [[Security]] aspects obviously have an influence on how built environment is changed and developed. Conversely, the way in which built environment is changed and developed influences the security of infrastructures, and of society as a whole, both in manifest and in latent ways. This interrelationship falls under what the school of New Urbanism has termed the [[Sociospatial_perspective|sociospatial perspective]] – which emphasizes that urban space and society interact. |
||
| + | * is the main frame of reference for addressing social and culture aspects in urban planning |
||
| + | * is the conceptual integration of society into urbanity |
||
| + | * links approaches from urban planning as well as social sciences and humanities. |
||
| + | |||
| + | [[Security]] aspects obviously have an influence on how built environment is changed and developed. Conversely, the way in which built environment is changed and developed influences the security of infrastructures, and of society as a whole. New urbanism |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | |||
| + | # urban structure has an impact on social processes; |
||
| + | # urban space and society interact, and “social space operates as both a product and a producer of changes in the metropolitan environment” ([[sociospatial perspective]]). |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| Line 14: | Line 32: | ||
| + | |||
| − | == Architecture, planning and society == |
||
| ⚫ | |||
== Criticism == |
== Criticism == |
||
| + | |||
| − | However, this conceptual integration of society into urbanity does not always well reflect the new levels of social density that will be reached and that may change urban cultures, including the social and cognitive foundations for the [[Perception of (in)security|perception of (in)security]] and fear by the citizens. Another criticism is that while '''New Urbanism''' is committed to a reconciliation of physical infrastructure and community building, it follows a sort of physical determinism in that it assumes that informed, progressive architectural design per se meliorates human behavior, reduces insecurity as well as citizens’ feeling thereof and increases societal [[Resilience|resilience]]. |
||
| + | However, this conceptual integration of society into urbanity does not always well reflect the new levels of social density that will be reached and that may change urban cultures. New urbanism does not |
||
| + | |||
| + | * respect the foundations for the perception of insecurity and fear by the citizens. |
||
| + | *It follows some sort of physical determinism: Social behaviour cannot be directed by physical design: “Residents of communities do not behave in certain ways simply because well-known architects direct them to do so.”<ref>Gottdiener, M./Hutchison, R. (2011): The New Urban Sociology. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview. p. 331.</ref> |
||
| + | |||
| + | ==Security related aspects and benefits== |
||
| + | * Design can impact (anti-social/criminal) behaviour in a positive or negative way; |
||
| + | * Design can impact social behaviour and reactions to threats and risks; |
||
| + | * Social behaviour cannot be solely directed by design – it depends on socio-cultural roots, [[Security culture|security/risk culture]], [[Perception of (in)security|perceptions]] etc. |
||
| + | |||
| + | ==Approaches how to address it== |
||
| + | * Consider social needs; |
||
| + | * Consider interactions of society with urban space; |
||
| + | * Involve citizens in planning projects (citizen participation); |
||
| + | * Integrate society into urban planning and into urbanity; |
||
| + | * Integrate approaches and findings from social sciences and humanities. |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related aspects== |
||
| + | *[[Sociospatial perspective]]; |
||
| + | *[[Ecological perspective]]; |
||
| + | *[[Environmental psychology]]; |
||
| + | *[[Resilience]], societal resilience; |
||
| + | *[[Perception of (in)security]] and the criticality of infrastructure. |
||
Revision as of 13:18, 11 October 2012
Contents
New urbanism
New urbanism[1]
- is the main frame of reference for addressing social and culture aspects in urban planning
- is the conceptual integration of society into urbanity
- links approaches from urban planning as well as social sciences and humanities.
Security aspects obviously have an influence on how built environment is changed and developed. Conversely, the way in which built environment is changed and developed influences the security of infrastructures, and of society as a whole. New urbanism
New Urbanism sets out to overcome the zoning of certain functional areas (typical of the industrial age) that separate residential from economy and other use. Nowadays, planning should aim at a mix of residential and economy-related functions and eliminate regional sprawl, because
- urban structure has an impact on social processes;
- urban space and society interact, and “social space operates as both a product and a producer of changes in the metropolitan environment” (sociospatial perspective).
Related aspects
Important trains of thought of practical relevance for the consideration of “soft” security in urban planning include the following:
- Sociospatial perspective;
- Ecological perspective;
- Environmental psychology;
- Resilience, societal resilience;
- Risk research on perception of the criticality of infrastructure.
Criticism
However, this conceptual integration of society into urbanity does not always well reflect the new levels of social density that will be reached and that may change urban cultures. New urbanism does not
- respect the foundations for the perception of insecurity and fear by the citizens.
- It follows some sort of physical determinism: Social behaviour cannot be directed by physical design: “Residents of communities do not behave in certain ways simply because well-known architects direct them to do so.”[2]
- Design can impact (anti-social/criminal) behaviour in a positive or negative way;
- Design can impact social behaviour and reactions to threats and risks;
- Social behaviour cannot be solely directed by design – it depends on socio-cultural roots, security/risk culture, perceptions etc.
Approaches how to address it
- Consider social needs;
- Consider interactions of society with urban space;
- Involve citizens in planning projects (citizen participation);
- Integrate society into urban planning and into urbanity;
- Integrate approaches and findings from social sciences and humanities.
Related aspects
- Sociospatial perspective;
- Ecological perspective;
- Environmental psychology;
- Resilience, societal resilience;
- Perception of (in)security and the criticality of infrastructure.
Footnotes and references
MAP
<websiteFrame> website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=New_urbanism height=1023 width=100% border=0 scroll=auto align=middle </websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
