Thoughts on Gehl

Okay so I started typing this title, only to realize I know nothing about the author. So before I give my thoughts on Gehl's writing, I'd like to know this... who is Gehl? Hang tight while I Google this.

-Insert Jeopardy theme song here-

And I'm back! Turns out Gehl's first name is Jan, and he's a Danish architect and urban planning consultant. He's received multiple awards for his work on conscientious planning, and counts Jane Jacobs as a major influence of his.

Alright, with that taken care of, let's move on to my thoughts on chapters one and three from Gehl's book, "Cities for People." First and foremost, I like the title of his book. As I read into chapter one, I realized that this title is a major tenant of his work-- cities truly are for people, and should be designed as such. They should be designed in a way that honors citizens, and in turn, encourages citizens to honor the city. I truly believe, and apparently Gehl does too, that when people feel connected to their surroundings, they treat them better. If a citizen feels engaged and valued within their city, they're likely to in turn contribute positively to that community-- whether it's avoiding the nasty habit of littering, attending community events, contributing to the local economy by keeping their consumption within the city, encouraging their peers to also value their habitat, etc., etc.

So, what makes a city worth caring about and caring for? For Gehl, this type of city must be lively, safe, sustainable, and healthy. I was reminded of the "triple bottom line" concept when I read this part of the chapter. Although, I must say I like Gehl's quadruple standard better than the trio model. I think that the four categories offer more guidance and accountability than the traditional "society, economy, environment" do. Okay, so let's now touch on what to do in order to make a city meet these quota. Mainly, Gehl proposes making a city walkable! What a simple idea, with such complex repercussions! What does walking do for a city? Here's a nifty list courtesy of Gehl and myself.

-Engages citizens with their environment, as they see their surroundings at a slower, more intimate level than they would via automobile
-Encourages discussion and interaction between citizens as they socialize on the sidewalks-- even if it's just a smile
-Increases opportunities for citizens to participate in their local economy, as they pass local venues for groceries, clothing, gifts, etc. that they may not have noticed/been nearby otherwise
-Aids community discussion in what needs to change-- as people walk, they notice strengths and shortcomings of their community, which they can in turn advocate for/against
-Heightens safety of the city as there is increased citizen surveillance of the streets, and as people feel more attached to their space/less likely to deface and degrade it
-Contributes to healthy lifestyles for citizens-- walking is an excellent health benefit, and likely once people begin to engage in exercise, they're likely to seek it via other outlets as well
-Contributes to healthy ecology-- fossil fuel combustion generates nasty greenhouse gases, which among other negative results, contributes to a warming world by trapping heat. Walking/biking/public transit reduces these emissions.

So there you have it-- walkable cities may be the answer to the prayers of a community in distress. Moving on, I'd like to discuss Gehl's words on "edges." As prompted by Professor Goldsmith, this post should include thoughts on surprising facts and unlikely relationships within Gehl's work. For me, edges met this criteria. I'd never thought much about edges-- until I read this and realized I notice them everywhere. Within a city, an edge can take multiple forms. It can be the edge of a metropolis against more rugged, natural terrain. It can be the edge of one city against another. Or as Gehl focuses on, it can be the edges pedestrians encounter as they walk-- storefronts, façades, and corners. Edges matter! Edges that are interesting make people stop and notice. Edges that are inviting make people want to go inside and explore local shops and cafes. Edges that are comforting make people feel safe in their city. There is a directly positive relationship between well thought-out edges and a flourishing (lively, safe, sustainable, healthy) city. While reading this section, I was reminded of past readings I've done on edge habitats within woodland ecosystems. I believe it was in William Cronon's "Changes in the Land," that I first encountered the concept of edge habitat, and its merits. In a forest, there are two primary areas-- there's the dense, tightly wooded sections and the low, grassy meadows. But in between these two swaths, there's edge habitat. This transition zone provides a habitat for many creatures-- plant, animal, bacteria, you name it! Essentially, this area gives food, shelter, and water to beings that struggle to find it in the trees and in the meadows. In the words of Duncan McCollin, "Edge effects encompass a complex panoply of biotic and abiotic phenomena across woodland borders."

So, it appears that edges are important everywhere. Perhaps there are more similarities between cities and nature than we think.