Urbanity as Diversity

Urbanity is a frequently but often vaguely used notion in both urban design and social science. My intention is to contribute conceptually and programmatically to attaining a richer urbanity by analysing its traditional character and some literature treating it, such as Jane Jacobs’s classical work. The assumption behind my conceptual clarification and conceptual development is thus that the current confusion of ideas not only hampers informed public and academic discussion on planning objectives but also adversely affects its results, even in cities with a strong planning organisation, such as Helsinki. In elucidating the concept, I shall distinguish between architectural and social urbanity. One may identify a rudimentary variant of the former centring on efficient land-use and (rough) functional synergy. A more sophisticated conception, supporting a socially well-working environment, requires an account in design terms including notions such as efficiency and synergy but also the key concept of diversity, vital for urbanity in a social sense. Complications still appear when concretising the notion: different types of diversity may conflict, there may be competing diversity-related values, and diversity may degenerate into chaos or meaningless discord. Scale may affect the relative benefits of diversity and homogeneity. To clear up some of the puzzles, I shall present a minimal but strict interpretation of architectural urbanity building on prototypical traits of the traditional European city and compare the account especially with Jacobs’s discussion. Key elements of such prototypical urbanity are the public street space delimited by perimeter blocks, communicating ground floors and small building units. While the ideal-typical character of the description entails some normativity of sorts in picking up features considered essential, it should be intuitive enough not to be easily dismissed. Nonetheless, if genuine urbanity is sought for, the account, once accepted, takes on a more clearly normative role, shifting the burden of proof to anyone suggesting solutions deviating from it. This also holds for Jacobs’s ideas, if not refuted. Thus, if one acknowledges her prescriptions as scientifically rational and the nature of such knowledge as professionally binding, architectural solutions contradicting it are unacceptable, even when resulting from apparently diversity-generating artistic freedom. Respecting the guiding function of analytical, theoretical and empirical arguments is important not to let tangible interests and strictly sanctioned technical, economic and juridical requirements alone condition urban design and planning. However, if social scientists, too, disregard or deny the value of such knowledge, important questions will remain unexplored. Among them are architectural urbanity as a precondition for social urbanity and mechanisms impeding its realisation. Concerning the procedural issue of how to generate architectural diversity and urbanity, Jacobs sometimes comes close to rejecting planning, trusting spontaneous order to emerge from interaction and free enterprise. Alternatively, however, detailed steering might have the desired effect. A presupposition for successfully using available political or organisational means for producing a truly urban and socially well-working city, is a clear comprehension of the ends pursued. The treatment tries to contribute to such an understanding. However, the task remains of more unambiguously connecting architectural to social urbanity.