Visions of Place

Palm Desert, Google Earth, 2016

I once spent a few days in what could be considered my personal Hell.  Leaving from Los Angeles, another level of Hell, I drove over the dry and vacant San Jacinto Mountains on Highway 74.  Upon cresting the mountain and winding down the steep hill, a lush artificial landscape comes into view that spills across the Coachella Valley.  There is no visible center of activity, just a myriad of tightly packed houses designed around countless golf courses, each with their own wall to either keep the insiders in or the outsiders out or maybe both.  Welcome to Palm Desert.

This city did not arise haphazardly; it was carefully designed and developed, one vision of Utopia.  It provides security, entertainment, privacy and community—at least I imagine that’s the thought.  It is also an ecological disaster, a mind-numbing bore, and a Placeless escape for rich retirees who live elsewhere.  Neither sustainable nor useful in the sense of societal gains, Palm Desert is an example of why Utopian visions are not ideal models. 

But what is?

At one time we thought it was the suburbs, a less extreme and arguably more functional form than the Palm Desert example.  As our automobile society developed and our cities deteriorated, families flocked beyond city edges.  Greater city areas sprawled across acres and miles, each person getting their own patch of lawn, paved driveway and three bedroom two bath house to maintain.  Never mind the commute to work, the drive to the grocery store, the additional time to take the kids to daycare and school—not to mention our disappearing rural landscape.  While the suburbs did provide each family with space, the tradeoff was often in the loss of Place.

Innovatively explored by Edward Relph in Place and Placelessness (1976), this concept has come to be a driving factor in designing areas that promote connection to people, community and place.  Simple in concept but complicated in implementation, theories of creating Place abound.

One common feature amongst theories to effect successful design in regard to Place is through participatory efforts.  Design that involves the communities which it affects not only empowers the community but results in outcomes that are reflective of the specific, unique area.  Two designers come to mind:  Randolph T. Hester and Randall Arendt. 

©Rudolph Hester: Map of Sacred Places

In Design for Ecological Democracy (2006), Hester employs a myriad of different concepts to reach a model for design.  He explores ideas of sacredness, diversity, adaptability, naturalness, stewardship, status seeking, among others, in a participatory involved way.  “The ability to judge what is true, right, or the best course of action for one’s community is a rare talent.  Wisdom comes with experience, dwelling in a place over a long time, being especially attuned to and able to empathize with people and landscape, suffering, and having the capacity to separate the nonsense from visionary insight” (p. 338).

©Randall Arendt: Traditional v Conservation Subdivision

Arendt follows a very democratic process to change policy and affect economic outcomes of changes in design.  In his book, Rural by Design (1994), Arendt describes the process by which communities can preserve their character and open space by reconfiguring density, all while increasing economic potential for developers.  Again, the interaction with the affected community ensures a unified vision for the future, and accounts for the unique sense of Place.  This speaks not only to the phenomenological side of design, but also gains approval through a more top-down involvement. 

So what does this all have to do with the city and Urban Design?  Rural character, sprawl, retreats from the urban—these are all affected by what is done in the city, by design that enables or alienates.  The theories that apply outside the city are relevant within the city and vice versa.  Though no formula can exist due to the incredible uniqueness of each community, we can draw from examples that work and take lessons from those that do not.  The form the city and its surrounds take will influence our future.  Regardless of the approach we take, whether we follow a New Urbanist model to rein in sprawl or perhaps look to condition society through smart design to accept increasing densities within the city core, it is imperative that we employ intelligent, intentional, and conscious design.

“Form matters to ecological democracy.  City form influences our daily lives.  City form concretizes our values and reflects them back to us.  City form can make us a more resilient society and more fulfilled individuals.” (Hester, 2006, p. 7)

Arendt, R., Brabec, E. A., Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Environmental Law Foundation (Montpelier, Vt.), & University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (1994). Rural by design: Maintaining small town character. Chicago, Ill: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

Hester, R. T. (2006). Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Relph, E. C. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.