Great Cities
Great Cities Have:
Civic Allegiance:
People need to belong, to a work place, a community, a way of life. Out of that emerges love and loyalty. A city with these qualities is a perpetual motion machine. It is prosperous because it has city spirit. This spirit is seductive to investors and visitors. It makes for a livable town.
Pier Giorgio DiCicco
Poet Laureate of the City of Toronto
Civic Bonding:
No one in the history of the world ever washed a rental car.
Lawrence Summers, former President of Harvard University
The question of what constitutes a great city has been asked many times and answered in many different ways. The variety of responses suggests that great cities can be identified but not described, at least not in terms that are totally, or even generally, satisfying. In fact, when it comes to defining great cities, it’s fair to conclude that two overlapping aphorisms apply. The first is that, like the Supreme Court’s definition of pornography, you know it when you see it. And the second is greatness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Yet, as elusive as a definition may be, urbanophiles never tire in the pursuit. Cities have been quantified in doctoral dissertations and parsed in demographic studies. Books on cities have focused on per-capita-income, the breadth and depth of industrial clusters and the percentage of residents with bachelor degrees or higher. But no single approach can capture a city’s complex dynamism.
William Hudnut, a ULI fellow who has experienced the workings of cities from the inside as mayor of Indianapolis, notes the practical and spiritual duality of successful cities. “A good city is one that works,” he wrote in a recent article. “The trash is picked up, snow is plowed, potholes are filled, streets and sidewalks are cleaned, calls for emergency help are promptly answered.” At the same time, he adds, a city is “a cradle of culture, an organ of memory, the enactment of the human drama, transmitting human achievement and insight from generation to generation.”
Pier Giorgio DiCicco, the official poet laureate of Toronto, insists that great cities create a civic spirit that ultimately translates into economic success. “In the future, all cities will be distinguished by one thing only. The nature of their enthusiasm,” DiCicco said in an address delivered at an economic conference in Toronto. “An aesthetic of the city is more than its expertise in innovation. Besides which, innovation begins on the street in the casual genius of civic encounter.”
Identifying Great Cities
Although finding a consensus definition of a great city is difficult, most people – particularly ULI members -- have a notion of what it is. Proceeding on that assumption, it was decided that it would be both interesting and enjoyable to challenge ULI members to put their thoughts into words. What is it about a great city that evokes a visceral reaction the moment one enters? Many foreign cities have distinctive auras that have become the stuff of fables, but what about U.S. cities? Are there any similarities? Do they have auras that inspire stories? In search of answers, a questionnaire was sent to ULI coordinators around the country asking them to distribute it to willing members in their districts.
It was assumed that all participants would have a favorite foreign city and a favorite North American city. (Canadian cities were considered domestic for survey purposes.) Respondents were asked to name their favorite foreign city and then attempt to describe what it is about that city that appeals to them. They were then asked to name a U.S. city that exhibits the same qualities, in whatever proportion. The survey expressly excluded New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles on the theory that these megalopolises are so large and diverse that virtually anything said about them would be true. The idea was to examine next-tier-down U.S. cities that in the eyes of respondents have a distinctive feel; cities that work on both the practical and visceral plane; cities that tempt you to find a seat in a central vantage point and just watch the show.
In order to avoid receiving a laundry list of civic assets such as museums, orchestras and sports teams, respondents were instructed to think of a great city in metaphorical terms. It was suggested that a reasonable, if imperfect, metaphor would be to consider a great city as a comfortable shoe, which was explained as follows:
“The sole and the uppers are the infrastructure that provides basic support and style. The laces are the intangibles – the symphonies, sports teams, history, architecture, food – that pull everything together. A city like Paris may be a delicate shoe made of soft leather; London wing tips; Berlin army boots. Buffalo and Pittsburgh could be thought of as sturdy work shoes, while Portland is sneakers. They all work in their way because the sole, uppers and laces are harmonious. In the end, great cities are those that work well for the people who live in them. Tourists visit to see the interaction between place and busy, industrious, creative, and ultimately happy inhabitants.”
Respondents were then asked the following questions:
1. Which city outside North America do you most admire?
2. What aspects of this particular city make you feel good about it?
3. Please describe the city’s inhabitants. Are they as serious as bankers or as jolly as bakers or somewhere in between?
4. When you visit these cities, what do you do? Sight-see? Or sit in a sidewalk café and observe?
5. Which domestic city (excluding Chicago, New York and L.A.) exhibits some of the qualities, in whatever proportion, that the foreign city you admire has?
6. A great city is the sum of its parts but it’s the way parts hold together – the laces – that makes the difference. How are the parts in your city held together?
Great Cities, Home and Abroad
It was not surprising that the majority of the respondents were architects, landscape architects and urban planners. Yet the choice of foreign cities was far from predictable. The list of course included Paris, London and Rome, as well as the iconic cities of Prague and Venice. But also named were Barcelona, Madrid, Siena, Florence, Vienna, Lugano, Dublin, Istanbul, Rio di Janeiro, Mexico City and Kyoto.
Noah Bly, an urban planner with the Minneapolis-based firm UrbanWorks Architecture, decided that since New York City was excluded as a domestic choice he would put it in the “foreign” category. “New York isn’t really part of the U.S.,” he wrote, clearly intending a compliment. New York City’s economy, said Bly, is the “laces” that bind the city together. There is “a constant struggle to survive but also to excel. Everyone is in on it.” Bly put his finger on the unmistakable “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere,” feeling that strikes with the first footstep on Manhattan Island.
The list of domestic cities was equally wide-ranging. As expected, many respondents chose Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Seattle. But also named were Detroit, Miami, Washington, D.C., San Diego, Portland San Antonio, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, Providence, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Many distinctive domestic cities – Las Vegas, for example – were not mentioned. But their exclusion undoubtedly has more to do with lack of time to respond than the absence of passionate advocates.
Distinctive Qualities
Kathy Leahy Born, senior associate at Cambridge, Mass.-based architectural firm, Arrowstreet, named London, Zurich and Dublin as her favorite foreign cities, but focused on London in her analysis. “London has good juxtapositions,” she said in a follow-up interview. “There are tensions created by variety – the old beside the new, lively retail districts, small and large, and a broad ethnic mix.” Londoners, she said, have a realistic approach to life and an ordered community ethos as evinced by the willingness to cue up whenever appropriate. Physically, London is brought together by defining features like large parks, historic architecture and the Thames River.
Born said Boston shares many of these qualities. “It has good public transportation, memorable public spaces, distinctive neighborhoods and a killer waterfront.” Bostonians are far from orderly (jay-walking is an art form), but, says Born, there’s an intellectual energy and “a passionate partisanship based in diverse cultural roots” that is almost palpable.
Paul Fontain and Cheryl Zuellig, senior urban designer and senior landscape architect, respectively, at JJR with offices in Ann Arbor, Chicago and Madison, chose Mexico City, Istanbul, Prague and Venice. Mexico City, they wrote, has layers of history, secret neighborhoods and grand boulevards that tie it all together. Istanbul has “bustling people places – the Grand Bazaar (Kapali Carsi) and the promenades along the Bosphorus.” Prague has historic integrity – “Old Town (Stare Mesto) and the Castle District (Hradcanska).” In Venice, “streets widen, narrow and turn creating suprises at every turn.”
Fontain and Zuellig, then made a case for Detroit even while acknowledging it’s current problems. “The ability to redefine itself is a signature of a great city,” they wrote. “Detroit, though its history is shorter than the other cities mentioned, is transforming itself.”
David Knapp, a designer with Detroit-based Albert Kahn Associates, also made a case for Detroit. His foreign choices are Munich (pedestrian-scaled density), Vienna (immaculate), and Prague (Second to none in architectural preservation). Knapp is a twenty-seven-year-old architect who grew up in a Detroit suburb, but who is now living in the city, restoring a duplex home. Knapp noted Detroit’s diversity, distinctive neighborhoods and commerce along the Detroit River, across which lies Canada. “American cities are generic,” said Knapp in an interview. “Detroit has unique architecture – its pre-depression highrises – and its neighborhoods are filled with authentic ethnic food, restaurants and bars.” On the other hand, he adds, “Detroit is fragmented in more ways than one. It is the links that are missing to bring this city into a cohesive whole.”
Susan Baltake, ULI’s Philadelphia Coordinator, chose Rome and her home city. Rome, she wrote, is “walkable” and generally easy to get around by bus or subway. She describes Romans as “just beautiful, inside and out. They know how to enjoy life.” On visits to Rome she explores local markets and enjoys the spontaneous entertainment that appears on the streets. Domestically, she likes older cities with history, a category that includes Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia. What binds Philadelphia into a coherent whole is “the stuff you can’t see – what the history means, the local color and characters. It should also be political leadership, but that’s not currently one of our strengths.”
Michael Polsinelli, president of Talon Development Group, Bloomfield Hills, MI, chose Madrid for its attention to historic preservation and the attitude of its inhabitants, who run the gamut from serious bankers to jolly bakers. When he visits, his favorite spot is a sidewalk café or an “open-air” night club. Madison, he wrote, has similar activity and vibrancy but on a “much smaller scale.”
Allen Trousdale, a principal with Newark-based GRAD Associates, likes Venice because “It is wholly a city for people, completely separated from vehicular interference.” It also has “wonderful spaces, from narrow canal-side walkways to St. Mark’s Square.” Trousdale had difficulty describing the nature of Venitians, because, “sadly, they are disappearing” and Venice is “inundated with tourists.”
For similar reasons, Trousdale is enamored with Savannah. “On the small scale, Savannah has a grid of squares, each one with its own unique characters, landscaping and surrounding historic buildings, as well as the entirely different experience on its riverfront.” The “conscious and unconscious” design of the squares, Trousdale says, binds Savannah’s neighborhoods. They connect Savannah’s districts “into a coherent entity that provides constant pleasures for the pedestrian and never lets the pedestrian lose out to traffic.”
Eric Keplinger, an architect with MEB General Contractors in Hampton Roads, chose Lugano, Switzerland, and Siena, Italy, because, “I most admire smaller cities that still offer a significant urban density.” They have “a feeling of place,” he adds. Both cities are defined in part by their physical settings. Lugano, he says, is influenced by the hillside bowl effect; the entire town around the lake.” In Siena, the city is organized around Il Compo square. As far as the inhabitants, “the Swiss are more on the banker side and the Italians on the baker side.”
San Francisco’s physical setting made it one of Keplinger’s domestic choices. “San Francisco is built on a hill overlooking the harbor and the ocean, and that’s unusual,” said Keplinger in an interview. “Standing on the hill you can see most of the city and the feeling you get is warm and inviting.”
The physical setting of Vancouver influenced Steve Lovett to name it his favorite “foreign” city, even though the rules included Canadian cities in the domestic category. “Vancouver is connected to the natural environment – water, mountains, parks and open spaces,” said Lovett, an urban planner with Jacksonville-based Lovett & Miller. And because they are so close to the natural elements, Vancouver residents “are less formal, less rigid; they have a greater sense of adventure.”
For his domestic city, Lovett chose Jacksonville, while acknowledging it “hasn’t realized it potential.” He noted that the St. John’s river runs north/south through Jacksonville, “narrowing downtown to just the right proportion.” After years of “passive neglect,” he says, Jacksonville is beginning to “refocus orientation to the river and downtown.” Lovett made the distinction between cities that are great places to live versus those that are good places to visit. Jacksonville is in the former category, he says, although it is evolving, “emerging as a place to visit as well.”