New book announced; now persuade author to desist

UPDATE: Duh...It looks like the "Three Rules" PDF which I ask you to download in the paragraphs which follow is corrupt. I apologize. I will try to get a fresh, healthy one up as soon as possible.

•••

There. I just said it.

I have decided to write a new book. Well maybe "think really seriously about writing a new book" would be more accurate. And maybe "assemble" or "edit" might be a better term as most of what I do is brief commentary on photos so there is not a whole lot of writing involved. (As an aside,while "a picture is worth a thousand words." I suggest that "a picture and a few sentences are worth ten thousand.")

Anyway, the new book might be titled something like

The Three Rules
of Urban Design:
Close to everything you need to know
about creating a pedestrian-friendly city.

It would be an expansion of the third chapter (of City Comforts) which you can find here. By way of work-plan, I would start by reviewing the posts on this blog; a few posts would become grist for the new book  And you'd see a category something like "For the new book."

•••

Now, before I spend a whole lot of time on this new venture, even just thinking about it, I would ask a favor from you, the reader. Please read that third chapter on The Three Rules. (You can download it here or, better, you can read it in a hard copy -- inscribed! -- which you can purchase here.  Just tell me you'd like it inscribed.)

If/when you have read the chapter I would ask you to write and explain to me and the rest of the world, if you like, why I am all wet...why The Three Rules are not the starting point for understanding, much less re-forming American cities. In the most polite way possible, I challenge you to challenge me. I will listen carefully. (In fact, I'll keep a continuing link to this post in the sidebar so that the comments can be continually accessible.)

I am not joking. You will be doing me a great favor if you can convince me thatThe Three Rules are merely a minor sideshow, and that I have got it all wrong -- such as this Timely criticism attempts -- and that I have grossly simplified the way cities work, have ignored "root causes" and "fundamental relationships" etc etc and whatever else. If you can convince me then I can happily give up this new book as a foolish venture and a waste of time and paper.

Michael Blowhard has cautioned anyone who contemplates Writing a Book. His words are sage. For those who have never embarked on a book project, I can assure you, a new book is very time consuming, expensive and gets in the way of doing this sort of urban research:

Salt Lake City as seen from inside the warming hut on the summit of Snowbird Resort. 

Comments

[Brian Miller]

Where you are all wet is your assumption that anyone in America wants a pedestrian-friendly place. :)

You are also wrong that people want a public realm, a civic life. That would interfere with the Big Screen 500 channel Plasma Entertainment suite which is the American dream. :)

[Barry]

Just letting you know that the PDF of chapter 3 is corrupt. I am unable to open the file at all.

You may want to re-create the PDF file.

[Glen Raphael]

I think you should write the book. (You should also fix the pdf link, since it still doesn't seem to be working.) There are a few areas I'd like to see you flesh out a bit more in the sequel. First there's the political dimension of the thing:

(1) What are your goals and/or policy prescriptions for the Three Rules? Are you trying to make them mandatory - reform zoning policy around them - or are you just trying to get the information out there (in a libertarian fashion) so future architect/designers can make use of it?

(2) What existing laws/regulations/customs most /prevent/ the 3 Rules from being used to their potential? If you could make one change to the way projects get designed and approved, what would it be? What existing law would you most want to repeal and why? What new law would you most want to enact?

Then there's the caveats:
(3) when should the 3 rules /not/ be followed? Are there any situations you (or your detractors) can think of where they would be more of a liability than an asset? Explain/elaborate/expound.

[Joe Moraca]

Well I bought your book -- which by the way I really enjoyed.

To your challenge on the 3 rules I am very hard pressed to find anything wrong. They are a very simple easy way to look at a city and most places that work follow the rules and many places that don't work don't follow the rules.

I have been using your book as a way to have discussions about what works in my home town Sarasota, FL. Simple is always a good way to get your point across. Pictures are even better. Oh wait your book is easy to read and full of pictures!!

You provide a framework to show why the "pretty" building with the big setbacks and parking all around are not at home in an urban setting...

Put me down for a copy of book 2.

[David Sucher]

Thank you very much, Joe. Glad you liked it.

And there are some subtleties/claificatiosn which a book-length treatment would allow. For example, to what degree do we require non-profits -- everything from government office buildings to schools, hospitals, museums, fire stations, libraries, etc etc and etc -- adhere to the Rules? Everyone of those institutions will insist that "No we are special..." and try to create some sort of precious object building. So where do we stop? That's a political question and one which I would examine in a book.

[AF]

I gave my copy away. As a gift it's a twofer of a hit.

A seductive challenge. Seed is planted.

BUT - while you're solicitating contrarians...my mother likes buildings with mirrored glass when they reflect something beautiful: ocean, trees, scenery, etc. You may have mentioned this in your book, if so I ask you read the first sentence of my comment and please forgive.

[David Sucher]

AF, thanks so much. Just bear in mind please, that the stricture against mirrored glass is only in terms of its impact on the "town-ness" of a place. I, too, can like dramatic mirrored surfaces and a bit of it, as an exception, can even be one of those "raisons in the oatmeal" which gives diversity to a streetfront.

[Glen Raphael]

to what degree do we require non-profits -- everything from government office buildings to schools, hospitals, museums, fire stations, libraries, etc etc and etc -- adhere to the Rules? Everyone of those institutions will insist that "No we are special..." and try to create some sort of precious object building.

That may be largely a question of imagination. People will say "we must do it this way, because this way works and I can't imagine a better way to do it." You've already hit on the best way to respond to that objection, which is to go out and find the better ways. So you've mostly done retail in the last book. Now go get pictures of and discuss the best examples of good design in each of these special cases. Either you'll find that they do work well under the Rules, or you'll come up with the next best thing, a set of design patterns specific to these new categories.

Maybe it'll turn out there are *5* rules that apply to hospitals, or maybe there are still 3, but it's not the same three that apply to retail.

[David Sucher]

Thanks very much, Glen.
That is great feedback.