دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی مطالعه موردی در طراحی شهری اولیه: تورنتو - تیلور و فرانسیس 2018

ABSTRACT

This is a study in the practice of postwar urban design in Toronto, Canada, based on archival documents and interviews with participants. The narrative begins with the hiring of one British-trained architect/urban designer, Raymond Spaxman, by the City of Toronto Planning Board in 1966. Spaxman then set up a new division of staff that he filled with five or six other architect/urban designers of various national and institutional origins. The study describes the work carried out by these urban designers, identifies the principle themes apparent in it, and relates this to published literature on the founding principles of postwar urban design. In most ways, the study’s findings fit the current understanding of the early discipline – concern for pedestrians, sympathy for historical preservation – but in others not – it was different from but not antagonistic towards planning. The findings are then considered as an example of the international transfer of postwar planning ideas. The process of idea transfer in this case looks to have been more chaotic, and less definable, than existing paradigms suggest, but this might have been fairly common in second-rank, immigrant-receiving cities.

Conclusions

As a case study in early urban design practice this history offers no major surprises. Who these urban designers were, what they did, and what they thought is largely in keeping with prevailing understanding of the profession. They were graduates of urban design programmes. They focused on the central area rather than peripheral suburbs, paid close attention to the pedestrian experience, believed in mixed use and a multi-functional urban fabric, concerned themselves more with the big picture than with small aesthetic details (reflecting Sert’s initial conception of the discipline), supported though did not necessarily promote historical preservation, retained some connection to modernism, and planned in a top-down manner. They came from architecture, not planning, which is notable but may reflect Raymond Spaxman’s personal preferences and experience more than anything else. They had moved decisively into urban design and seem to have identified individually as urban designers, and the focus of their work differed significantly from that being done by others, but the fact that they worked in a planning department alongside other planners and often called themselves ‘planners’ cannot be entirely overlooked. It is hard, all told, to see their practice as entirely distinct from planning, and Richard Marshall’s notion of urban design as a ‘way of thinking’ seems, in this case, to be closer to the mark.

Two observations might be slightly surprising: the complete absence of landscape architecture, possible reasons for which are offered above, and the reasonably harmonious relationship between the urban designers and the planners. This latter point may say more about Toronto than about early urban design. The aspects of planning that urban designers elsewhere found wanting, at least according to the commentators cited above, never predominated in Toronto, while the course of Toronto’s political history was such that both the New Left social planners and the urban designers were brought to the fore by the same reform movement and, for a time anyway, pursued kindred goals. But it does raise questions about the fairly widely accepted notion of urban design being a reaction to planning having gone astray. Might its genesis be a reaction to problems in cities rather than problems in the planning profession?