The essen­tial point is that a par­tic­u­lar con­fig­u­ra­tion of build­ings is nei­ther “good” nor “bad” in absence of a seri­ous exam­i­na­tion of the social rela­tions respon­si­ble for the con­struc­tion of those build­ings and the greater social process­es that con­tin­ue to shape the greater com­mu­ni­ty in which those build­ings exist. In oth­er words, urban­ism is not about an object, but about a set of over­lap­ping, con­sti­tu­tive process­es that pro­duce a wide range of phys­i­cal forms. The phys­i­cal form is large­ly a reflec­tion of these greater process­es and forces.

The Inad­e­qua­cy of “Good” Urban­ism

Not much to add here—it’s always good to remem­ber good urban­ism can’t be reduced to rec­om­men­da­tions that are “design-based or cen­tered on mod­i­fy­ing the urban form”.

Published by

Kars Alfrink

Kars is a designer, researcher and educator focused on emerging technologies, social progress and the built environment.