Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2011/05/02/Jan_Gehl_Cities_for_People Jan Gehl, architect, urban planner, and author of Cities for People, discusses what he calls "bird shit architecture," a trend in urban planning that originated in the 1950's and persists to the present day. This type of architecture, he explains, is designed to look good from a plane, but not practical for the actual residents of a city. ----- An important paradigm change happened around 1960. City planning, as a concept, took off on a huge scale in response to the challenge of fast-growing cities. At the same time, traffic planning took over the planning at eye level to address the rapid influx of cars. In the rough and tumble of all this, caring for the people who use cities was completely left behind. By 1961, people like Jane Jacobs raised her voice about this new situation in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. But, not much happened for three or four decades. The idea of "Cities for People" became an overlooked and forgotten dimension. This is the story told by Jan Gehl in his new book. He describes why looking after people is crucial for the quality of cities in the 21st century, how it can be accomplished and how it is actually done by now in more and more projects in more and more cities. The transformations carried out in such cities as Copenhagen, Melbourne, Sydney, Amman and New York will serve as examples of this new people-oriented direction in planning. - Australian Broadcasting Corporation Jan Gehl is a trained architect and Professor of Urban Design in The School of Architecture at The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts in Copenhagen. Gehl has been awarded the "Sir Patrick Abercrombie Prize for exemplary contributions to Town Planning" by The International Union of Architects as well as an honorary doctors degree from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh.

Comments

1. Jan Gehl,you-must-visit-Brasilia.Your-speech-shows-lack-of-intelligence-and-knowledge
2. AT LAST...a man who thinks like me! My hobby is travelling around England gathering ideas for my own city.....i've been drawing buildings , designing my own gigantic structures for over 30 years. I know for a fact New York is shit - never been there, but the shit grid like layout of the city and the packing like sardines of tall buildings is enough evidence that its shit.
   Las Vagas is shit - just a mass of colourful light bulbs.
   The Emirates is shit - just copying the worst in Western cities.
   Bath in England was sort of the Dubai of its day....If i were world dictator, i would demolish 80% of Bath and start again.
3. Speaking (critical) of Brasilia is easy. Everyone talks about it today, but praised in the 70s. This is the evolution of criticism in city planning theory. Like to see Gehl, immensely, saying that too on Los Angeles, London, Toronto, Sydney or Melbourne. Are dispersed cities too! But rich, buy lectures. But I agree with the academic vision, technique, not in debauchery to win the audience.
4. Wtf man. Aerial planning seems to be the smart way to do it, and we have metrics to make the math of spacing something of the past. I have no idea what this man is arguing. He didn't use numbers, he didn't use realistic examples. He pointed out how the city looks good from above but that it's too spaced out? One city poorly planning their architecture around their means doesn't point out the problem with aerial city planning - we have vehicles now. He doesn't mention how far the buildings are, or what's really bad about them so I don't know what to say.
5. Vc vai tomar um café a pé em Brasilia? visita um amigo a pé? porque atravessar uma rua (auto-estrada) em Brasilia é duro. Vida na rua não existe, é disso que ele fala. Lojas em rua triste, se não for no shopping. Espaços vastos dificeis de manter, ocupados por estacionamentos. O conceito é fascinante, mas anulou a vida urbana, de todas as cidades pré-modernas. de longe achei Brasilia linda, mas para andar e visitar, senti vazio e cansaço. A elegante arquitectura de Niemeyer salva a monotonia
6. O que vc refere é verdade, a floresta transportada para o centro da capital. Mas o que vc descreve é também bem elitista. O primeiro resort/condominio a grande escala inventado! Se não tem dinheiro para ter carro, tem que gastar muito em taxi. Senão, impossivel viver em Brasilia, sai muito caro ao cidadão.
7. This guy is awesome. As much as I love spending time in New Quay melbourne, it is defenitely not for the architecture. But I just happen to know people around that area. DockLands area of meloburne is not realy "Bird Shit Architecture" but just a crass mess.
8. lol so true, when you're in brasilia its takes a while to understand that its a plane haha
9. That´s true!! I am a brasilian guy, i was born there, and i tell the bull shit nacionalists that Brasilia is terrible to live, to walk, to cross, and whatsoever damm needs, except, if you have a car, which is by the distance legs, too, too fuel expensive.
10. Brazil! Rich country!
11. I think it's important to consider the original planning itself. Brasilia is a product of modernism ideals and, unquestionably, bird's-eye planning. Brasilia was fundamentally flawed by utopian idealism (à la Le Corbusier) that did not consider the experience from a resident's POV – Brazilians themselves thought the same thing. "[Vai] a pé numa cidade em que as vias públicas são desprovidas de equipamentos urbanos para o pedestre...onde a sola do sapato positivamente não tem vez."-Márcio Cotrim
12. This is a laughable critique of the city. I bet he has never been there. Of course the modernist principles governing urban planing in the 50's are not succesful at all and problems arise from the low density and urban fabric dispersion. However it is preposterous to state that the city was planed from above without regards to the floor level! The integration between urban planing, landscape and architecture in Brasília is masterful!
13. ...it is hard to implement an efficient transportation system due to insufficient population density in the central area and high density in peripheral areas. There are other issues that could be discussed but I definitely wouldn`t go as far as to say that people are unhappy with the city.. on the contrary.
14. Well... Although I understand this guy`s point, I disagree with it. I have lived my whole life in Brasília and 4 months ago I came to live for half a year in Europe so I`d like to input some views from a genuine Brasilia citizen. First of wall, I think the city looks just nice from the ground level as much as from the air and I think most of the guys who live there think the same. As for quality of life, there are some difficulties mainly regarding public transportation. It is hard...
15. Your face looks like shit! Brasilia is simply the best city of the world.
16. @topperheartramada FEGELEIN FEGELEIN FEGELEIN
17. 52 min ad!
18. Some pictures of how it looks from the ground would be good.
19. @phrenological I love it when people do not respond to my arguments, but instead respond with only insults. I know then that one or more of these is probably true: 1) My insulter is not smart enough to come up with a rational rebuttal of my position 2) My position is actually correct. Care to help me figure out which is the case? Or would you rather just make yourself look worse by insulting me more? :)
20. @jackthetriper The government created those slums as well, by excessive regulation on small business, high tax rates, lack of defense of property rights for the poor and govt corruption and the necessity of bribes to get anything done. The govt made it harder for the poor to get jobs, or harder for them to start small businesses. Either of these are the main ways people get out of poverty. So govt created these slums. A better example of cities with only minimal planning is Houston, TX.