the mission ahead: recalibrating “urbandwidth”

Writing and conversing about the urban experience has made one thing clear. Short of the word “urbanism” and its modified variants, there is no one English word which holistically captures the qualities of livable cites or the associated metrics that many commentators tout and exemplify.

Portland’s Jason King supports this point in his wonderful article,”[Fill in the Blank] Urbanism,” which I noted in March. King’s article profiled the range of paired terms which modify the basic urbanism premise–and asked readers to name a favorite.

Others have described the inadequacy of commonly used catchwords. Writing in the Washington Post, on May 8, architect Roger Lewis called for terms far more descriptive than “transit-oriented development” (TOD) to describe the qualities of walkable cities, calling for “multimodal TOD’s”.

Similarly, the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Preservation Green Lab Director, Liz Dunn, working with Walk Score’s Matt Lerner, have advocated for a Jane Jacobs-based comprehensive metric, the Jane Score, to more completely measure urban diversity and “granularity” and supplement the increasingly recognized Walk Score tool.

With such ever-expanding and thoughtful efforts to diversify the measures applicable to a renewed, compact, walkable, and multimodal urban fabric, it would help to have one word to describe the phenomenon.

I suggest that we are talking about recalibrating urbandwidth around the world.

Consider the recalibrated urbandwidth of City Square in Melbourne, Australia

(This article appears in slightly different form in seattlepi.com on July 21, here. Thanks also to Planetizen for incorporating the original form of this article under the headline “For Lack of a Better Term,” here.)

31 thoughts on “the mission ahead: recalibrating “urbandwidth”

  1. Pingback: myurbanist

  2. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  3. Pingback: CivicTEC

  4. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  5. Pingback: Jane's Walk Phoenix

  6. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  7. Bill B

    thank you. we so-called “NIMBYs” have been arguing for a “complete neighborhood” perspective rather than just units per acre. now we have something to talk about…

  8. Pingback: Anton Peters

  9. Pingback: Emile HOOGE

  10. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  11. Pingback: Emile HOOGE

  12. Pingback: Sharon Jenkins-Owen

  13. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  14. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  15. Pingback: Jan Wherren

  16. Pingback: The Philips Center

  17. Pingback: “Urbandwidth” : Great City

  18. Pingback: Cindy FrewenWuellner

  19. Pingback: Jonathan Hiskes

  20. Pingback: GroupeChronos

  21. Pingback: Utopies Concrètes

  22. Pingback: Emile HOOGE

  23. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  24. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  25. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  26. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  27. Pingback: Ana Maria Manzo

  28. Pingback: urbanyst

  29. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  30. Pingback: crwolfelaw

  31. Pingback: Mark Bradley

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.