Advertisement

URBAN DESIGN International

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 55–77 | Cite as

Active centers – interactive edges: The rise and fall of ground floor frontages

  • Conrad C Kickert
Original Article

Abstract

The ground floors of buildings are a key element of the urban experience, yet the dynamics that shape frontages are largely unknown. This article delves into the forces and patterns behind the transforming relationship between architecture and public space in Western urban cores over the past century. After defining a methodology for structurally measuring the interactivity of ground floor frontages over time, the study focuses on two case study urban cores of Detroit, Michigan and The Hague, Netherlands. Through a combination of narrative historiography, detailed mapping and statistical studies a set of recommendations is generated to help urban designers and planners better understand and counter frontage decline. The two seemingly disparate cities are demonstrated to have undergone remarkably similar patterns of frontage interactivity erosion, with outcomes diverging as a result of an often reinforcing set of forces. Only upon understanding frontages as social, economic, cultural, political and technological constructs with physical, functional and connotative effects on public space will the profession be able to effectively steer the future of the architecture of public life.

Keywords

interactive frontages urban morphology retail downtowns public space 

References

  1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. and Angel, S. (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amorim, L., Normando Barros Filho, M. and Cruz, D. (2009) Urban Texture and Space Configuration. Paper Presented at the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. (ed.) (1978) On Streets. Cambrigde, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Appleyard, D., Gerson, M.S. and Lintell, M. (1982) Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Binnenstadsmanagement, P. (2014) Juryrapport beste binnenstad 2013–2015, www.debestebinnenstad.nl, accessed 1 December 2015.
  6. Bobic, M. (2004) Between the Edges: Street-Building Transition as Urbanity Interface. Bussum, The Netherlands: Thoth Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Brenner, N. (2003) Stereotypes, archetypes, and prototypes: Three uses of superlatives in contemporary urban studies. City & Community 2 (3): 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, S. (1984) Retail Location and Retail Change in Belfast City Centre. The Queen’s University of Belfast.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, S. (1987) The complex model of city centre retailing: An historical application. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 12 (1): 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canter, D.V. (1977) The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  11. Canter, D.V. (1983) Putting situations in their place. In: A. Furnham (ed.) Social Behaviour in Context. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Clifton, K.J., Livi Smith, A.D. and Rodriguez, D. (2007) The development and testing of an audit for the pedestrian environment. Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (1): 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohassey, J.F. (1993) Down on Hastings Street: A study of social and cultural changes in a Detroit community 1941–1955, History, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  14. Conzen, M.R.G. (1960) Alnwick, Northumberland; A Study in Town-Plan Analysis. London: G. Philip.Google Scholar
  15. Conzen, M.R.G. and Slater, T.R. (1990) The Built Form of Western Cities: Essays for M.R.G. Conzen on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Day, K., Boarnet, M., Alfonzo, M. and Forsyth, A. (2006) The Irvine – Minnesota inventory to measure built environments: Development. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30 (2): 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. and Speck, J. (2000) Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.Google Scholar
  19. Van Duren, A.J (1995) De dynamiek van het constante: over de flexibiliteit van de Amsterdamse binnenstad als economische plaats. Utrecht, The Netherlands: J. van Arkel.Google Scholar
  20. Ellin, N. (1996) Postmodern Urbanism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Ewing, R. and Handy, S. (2009) Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design 14 (1): 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fogelson, R.M. (2001) Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, 1880–1950. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Frieden, B.J. and Sagalyn, L.B. (1989) Downtown, Inc.: How America Rebuilds Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gehl, J. (1986) Soft edges in residential streets. Housing, Theory and Society 3 (2): 89–102.Google Scholar
  25. Gehl, J. (1987) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  26. Gehl, J. (2006) Close encounters with buildings. Urban Design International 11 (1): 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gladwell, M. (2004) The Terrazzo Jungle. New York: The New Yorker.Google Scholar
  28. Hannigan, J. (1998) Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hanson, J. and Zako, R. (2007) Communities of co-presence and surveillance: How public open space shapes awareness and behaviour in residential developments. Paper Presented at 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  30. Heffernan, E., Heffernan, T. and Pan, W. (2014) The relationship between the quality of active frontages and public perceptions of public spaces. Urban Design International 19 (1): 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hillier, B. (1996) Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Horwood, E.M. and Boyce, R.R. (1959) Studies of the Central Business District and Urban Freeway Development. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  34. Isenberg, A. (2004) Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacobs, A.B. (1993) Great Streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  37. Jakle, J.A. and Sculle, K.A. (2004) Lots of Parking: Land Use in a Car Culture. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Brown, T. (1989) Environmental preference. Environment and Behavior 21 (5): 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaplan, S. (1987) Aesthetics, affect and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19 (1): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kooijman, D. (2000) Het recreatieve einde van Christaller. Rooilijn 39 (3): 123–130.Google Scholar
  41. Lesger, C. (2013) Het winkellandschap van Amsterdam. Stedelijke structuur en winkelbedrijf in de vroegmoderne en moderne tijd, 1550–2000. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren.Google Scholar
  42. Lopez, T.G. (2003) Influence of the public-private border configuration on pedestrian behaviour. The case of the city of Madrid, La Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid, Madrid.Google Scholar
  43. Lowe, J.R. (1967) Cities in a Race with Time; Progress and Poverty in America’s Renewing Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  44. MacCormac, R. (1983) Urban reform: MacCormac’s Manifesto. Architects Journal 15: 59–77.Google Scholar
  45. MacCormac, R. (1987) Fitting in offices. The Architectural Review 181 (1083): 62–67.Google Scholar
  46. Madanipour, A. (2003) Public and Private Spaces of the City. London; New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mehta, V. (2009) Look closely and you will see, listen carefully and you will hear: Urban design and social interaction on streets. Journal of Urban Design 14 (1): 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Montgomery, J. (1998) Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design 3 (1): 93–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moudon, A.V. (1986) Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space; Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Newman, O. Rutgers University. Center for Urban Policy Research., & United States. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Policy Development and Research. (1996) Creating Defensible Space. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.Google Scholar
  52. Nieland, P. (2012) Retail issues and shop re-parcelling. In: M. Glaser, M.v.t. Hoff, H. Karssenberg, J. Laven and J.v. Teeffelen (eds.) The City at Eye Level – Lessons for Street Plinths. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.Google Scholar
  53. Nolli, G. (1784) Pianta Grande de Roma. Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  54. Palaiologou, G. and Vaughan, L. (2012) Urban rhythms: Historic housing evolution and socio-spatial boundaries. Measuring walking: Towards internationally standardised monitoring methods of walking and public space. Paper Presented at Space Syntax Symposium 8, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  55. Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W. and McKenzie, R.D. (1925) The City. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sauter, D., Hogertz, C., Tight, M., Thomas, R. and Zaidel, D. (2010) Measuring Walking Pedestrians’ Quality Needs. Final report of the COST project 358, Cheltenham: Walk21.Google Scholar
  57. Scheerlinck, K. (2012) Depth Configurations. Proximity, Permeability and Territorial Boundaries in Urban Projects., Architecture, URL Barcelona, Barcelona. Spatial configuration and vulnerability of residential burglary: A Case study of a city in Taiwan. Paper Presented at the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London, UK.Google Scholar
  58. Shu, S. and Huang, J. (2003) Spatial configuration and vulnerability of residential burglary: A Case study of a city in Taiwan. Paper Presented at the 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London, UK.Google Scholar
  59. Siksna, A. (1998) City centre blocks and their evolution: A comparative study of eight American and Australian CBDs. Journal of Urban Design 3 (3): 253–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smit, J.G. and Beukers, E. (2004) Den Haag: geschiedenis van de stad. Zwolle, The Netherlands: Waanders.Google Scholar
  61. Steadman, P. (1983) Architectural Morphology: An Introduction to the Geometry of Building Plans. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  62. Sugrue, T.J. (1996) The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Thomas, J.M. (1997) Redevelopment and race: Planning a finer city in postwar Detroit. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Van Nes, A. and López, M.J.J. (2007) Micro scale spatial relationships in urban studies: The relationship between private and public space and its impact on street life. Paper Presented at the 6th Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  65. Whitehand, J. (1988) Urban fringe belts: Development of an idea. Planning Perspectives 3 (1): 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whitehand, J.W.R. (2001) British urban morphology: The Conzenean tradition. Urban Morphology 5 (2): 103–109.Google Scholar
  67. Whyte, W.H. (1988) City: Rediscovering the Center, 1st edn. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  68. Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Zukin, S. (2004) Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed American Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Conrad C Kickert
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Planning, College of Design, Art, Architecture and Planning, University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations