Streets for people; streetscapes for engineers?
For many years past, LTT and RUDI mates have organised an annual shindig called the Quality Streetscapes Conference. By my reckoning, this June's event will be the 13th such occasion. However, my purpose this month is not to speculate about whether or for whom this may be unlucky but, rather, to pose the following simple, but leading, question: What does 'streetscape' mean to you?
Before and after images of a ‘Streetsfor People’ project in London show itwas little more than a resurfacing joband the seemingly random applicationof new street furniture elements
Edinburgh’s guide effectivelycombines both street andstreetscape design
The reason I ask this is because I think that a great deal of confusion abounds concerning the answer and, just in case you were wondering, official/dictionary definitions - like 'An artistic representation of a street' and 'Surroundings composed of streets' - get us almost nowhere.
This, I take it, is because 'streetscape' is a word that professionals have collared relatively recently (a little over 13 years ago?) in order to apply to something we didn't previously have a handy term for.
A great example of the muddle in this regard is presented by an internal report of a London council that I came across entitled Street Design Guide, which in its first paragraph referred to the 'Streetscene Design Guide' and shortly thereafter to the 'Streetscape Design Guide'.
These were not three distinct documents, by the way. Streetscene and Streetscape may indeed be close to interchangeable words but I think it is wrong to consider Street and Streetscape as synonyms.
This isn't because I'm some kind of language elitist moonlighting for the etymology police, it's simply because it leads to confusion, not merely in print but on the ground, where it really matters.
So what is the practical difference between 'street' and 'streetscape'? Well, if you'll permit me, I'll answer that question by talking about 'street design' and 'streetscape design' and by saying that I consider the former to be about how a street is laid out and the latter to be about how a street is fitted out.
Very broadly, I see the design of the street as more of a planning task and the design of the streetscape more of an engineering task.
At this point let me make absolutely plain that I am not here advocating the rigid compartmentalising of different but related tasks - indeed, quite the opposite.
This is not least because I consider silo-style thinking and practice to be at the root of much that is wrong with the design of streets and the transport system generally and have worked hard over recent years to address this problem.
Street design and streetscape design are both very important tasks, they're very closely related and they need to be informed by one another. But they're not the same thing.
In designing streets, the key challenge is to work out how best to balance the different movement and other demands in the light of the space available, the surrounding built environment and the relationship of the street in question with others in the area.
What is the nature and scale of the different demands? Which are our priority users/uses? What kind of place do we want this street to be? How can we deal with demands that there is no room for or no desire to accommodate? These are typical questions that should be answered.
Now, in coming to conclusions about layout, especially in situations where a delicate balance in the provision for different user groups is being struck, it is important to consider how, physically, the street will ultimately be fitted out.
Concept design should, in short, be based on some understanding of detailed design. This is where street designers sometimes go wrong. In their minds and on their plans the street will work like a dream, but in practice unpleasant issues relating to things such as drainage, tree pits, basements and the robustness of materials can turn it into a nightmare.
Additional, unplanned-for street kit might be found necessary to deal with matters that the street designers hoped wouldn't materialise or simply failed to give thought to.
But just as street design must consider streetscape design, so must the latter consider the former. Far too many Streetscape or Streetscene Design Guides (or, indeed, misnamed Street Design Guides) of my acquaintance aren't much more than product catalogues.
I agree that it's a very good idea for any authority to think clearly about the materials and other kit it wishes to see in its streets but to encourage a focus on these in a way that risks exclusion of broader considerations of street design is a mistake. You might think that's obvious but plainly it isn't to all (or, I fear, all that many).
Let me refer you to a scheme I encountered in London a few years back, one that was funded through Transport for London's 'Streets for People' programme, the purpose of which, inter alia, is to 'improve peoples' movement… promote the use of walking…' and generally implement the Mayor's priority to 'manage local streets as Streets-for-People areas emphasising their function as social spaces'.
With this in mind, take a look at the two photos provided! This particular 'Streets for People' scheme was little more than a resurfacing job and the seemingly random application of new street furniture elements.
It's most charitable to believe that the designers can have given no thought to how the footway is actually used, as the layout is a disaster from the point of view of the movement of the obvious priority users - pedestrians. No street design, all streetscape design. There may have been all sorts of constraints, of course, such as pre-existing elements and private forecourts, but the resulting 'scheme' is only really attractive to skateboarders…I'll finish by referring to one of the design guides that I think effectively combines both street and streetscape design matters, and indeed the essential purpose of bothering with either.
It's Edinburgh's Standards for Streetsdocument which (a) I had nothing to do with and (b) I commend despite the fact it occasionally uses the word 'principal' when it means 'principle'!
John Dales is on the Commission for Architecture & Built Environment's enabling panel and is responsible for helping to deliver CABE's 'Streets for People' programme of urban design training for highways and tranportation professionals. He is director of transport and movement at urban design consultant Urban Initiatives. This series of articles was originally commissioned by and published in Local Transport Today magazine.
