TRUWinnipeg.org

Urbanist Principles

The humane-built environment

By Robert Galston

“The urban experience is a physical one, not a strictly visual one.”
–Nikos Salingaros, Principles of Urban Structure

Were its buildings set back 30 to 50 feet for parking spots, Corydon Avenue–even with the same high levels of car traffic–would cease to be a vibrant pedestrian area. Subconsciously, the pedestrian can sense what is a welcoming-built environment, and what is an unwelcoming one. Standing at the corner and King and McDermot isn’t like standing at the corner of Donald and York. At the former, the pedestrian feels a sense of belonging; at the latter, he might feel more at home in a car.

Modernism’s failure

During the latter half of the 20th century, architects and planners did a good job of destroying cities, rebuilding them completely wrong, and turning them into places that do nothing to welcome human activity. Modernist planning and building fads have attempted to turn our streets into over-regulated, single-use places based on oversimplified and abstract ideas about human behavior. They have tried to do away with the complexities of vibrant cities, the humanity of their streets and architecture, by levelling them to build monolithic megaprojects. (Ironically, these are usually done with the hope that they will bring vibrancy back to the area.) In Winnipeg, examples abound: the Portage & Main barriers, Portage Place, the Civic Centre (City Hall, Public Safety Building, Concert Hall & Museum).

This kind of planning pleases only the automobile and the architects’ ego; visual order and local tradition of the urban fabric no longer matter. Instead, the builder uses a cult-like theme to excuse the building’s unwelcoming and odd form. A Modernist building pays no mind to the sidewalk or the pedestrians who use them, defying the surrounding architecture, scale, and continuity. Instead, the Modernist building stands alone, rather than part of a street, neighborhood, or city. Entrances can be placed wherever the builder decides–regardless of what tradition, geometric correctness, or human needs would suggest. Windows are simply an afterthought, and often horizontally rectangular. (Windows subconsciously frame the human figure; horizontal windows give the impression that the building’s inhabitants are either sleeping or dead.) The result–chaotic, disorganised and unwelcoming streets.

Modernist buildings might look nice on a photograph, or from the window of a car speeding by, but they are useless and unwelcoming to those on the street.

Pedestrian-friendly

Central Winnipeg will only rise out of its relative stagnation if pedestrian activity is once again returned to its streets. For this to happen, there need be standards ensuring the construction of buildings that welcome further pedestrian activity:

Buildings must meet the sidewalk. This defines space, drawing a clear line between private space (the buildings) and public space (the sidewalk). When there are setbacks (some kind of “open space” or parking spots), the line between private and public becomes muddled. Setbacks for parking suggest that the businesses exist exclusively for auto users; the pedestrian is unwelcome. Setbacks for plazas or green or open space create dead, quasi-private space that pedestrians will often feel unwelcome to use. (In spite of conventional planning theory’s best intentions.) And even for the pedestrian who must walk by this setback, the loss of defined space makes the public sidewalk itself seem unwelcoming.

Buildings should stand higher than one storey. This further defines space, enhancing the welcoming feeling of enclosure that all city streets should offer. On traditional residential streets found everywhere in central Winnipeg, the elm trees and the orderly row of houses provide a sense of enclosure tantamount to being inside a cathedral. On busier streets of mixed-use, however, trees cannot grow as large as they can on residential streets, and so the facades of the buildings must provide the “wall” for the users of the street. This occurs when the building’s heights stand in good proportion to the width of the street, at ratios of 1:2, 1:1, or higher. This sense of enclosure is especially important on high-traffic streets, because without it, the vehicle traffic seems dangerous to a pedestrian.

For example, walking along the eight-lane Portage Avenue is not as enjoyable (and therefore is rarely seen) in the low-rise, single-use, set-back area of Westwood. Yet on Portage Avenue within Downtown–where it is still eight lanes wide, and traffic volumes are just as high–the buildings meet the street, and nearly all rise higher than one storey. This causes the street to better serve as an “outdoor room” for pedestrians, who feel welcome to use the streets. This sense of enclosure can also be felt by vehicle drivers, who have the tendency to drive slower in built up places. (Particularly if the streets are vibrant).

Building codes

TRU Winnipeg recognises the effect the built environment has upon those using it. Winnipeggers won’t gravitate to pedestrian and transit-based lifestyles if the environment is unwelcoming. Thus we call for building codes dictating:

–No horizontally rectangular windows. Windows must be rectangular in a vertical position, or square.

–No “blank faces” towards the street. Buildings will have at least one entrance facing every street it stands on.

–No buildings set back from the sidewalk on mixed-use streets. The frontage of the buildings must meet the sidewalk entirely. Exceptions can be made for important public buildings such as a city hall, museums, libraries, schools, churches, etc.

–No single-storey building construction on mixed-use streets within central Winnipeg. On local mixed-use streets (Westminster, Lilac, Euclid, etc.), regional mixed-use streets (Selkirk, Corydon, Ellice, etc.), and on major streets that run into Downtown (Main, Portage, Notre Dame, etc.), building heights shall be proportional to the width of the street by a minimum ratio of 1:2.

For example, new buildings along a four-lane (66 feet wide) Sherbrook Street, must stand a minimum of 33 feet (three storeys). Whereas along the eight lane (132 feet wide) Portage Avenue, buildings must stand a minimum of 66 feet (4-6 storeys). Within the bounds of the Central Business District itself, the minimum height of buildings shall be directly proportional to the width of the street, at a ratio of 1:1. For example, on Garry Street, buildings shall not be built under 66 feet, and on Main Street, 132 feet (8-10 storeys) is an ideal minimum. As with setbacks, these rules exclude important civic buildings such as a city hall, museum, church, etc.

Target: surface-level parking

Surface-level parking downtown should be targeted for elimination and rezoned for mixed-use development. New buildings should be architecturally sensitive to the city’s heritage. (For example, the red-brick building in the far right of this photo was constructed in the 1990s, while the two to its left were erected in the early 1900s.)

The subway’s completion will provide an alternative to bringing vehicles into the Central Business District while spurring development on former surface-level parking lots. Yet insofar as the subway will reduce demand for parking, it is expected that a newly vibrant downtown will draw in many suburbanites, plenty of whom will insist upon driving. New parking garages should be multi-storey, preferably below ground, and part of a mixed-use building (above ground parking garages can have stores at bottom; mixed residential-commercial buildings can have underground parking).

When the spectre of Modernism has been banished from our downtown, when the holes comprised of parking lots and “open space” have been filled with mixed-use development, our downtown will again bustle and welcome the pedestrian.

Comments