Goldhagen's praise for Landscape Urbanism gets it all wrong

via dirt.asla.org:

Sarah Williams Goldhagen, architecture critic for The New Republic argues that America’s public realm is best served by physical urban spaces that can enable “non-structured and non-goal-orientated” interactions among many kinds of people. The best places for these types of interactions? Great urban parks….She outlines the rise of landscape urbanism, a theory that may be encouraging designers to better serve the public realm……The interest in street and neighborhood design started with Jane Jacob’s and continues on in new mixed-used, pedestrian-friendly urban developments.  However, streets can’t provide a true social meeting space; “there’s too much chance of injury.” Cultural institutions and malls may help shape the public space, but perhaps to our detriment: they are causing the “commodification” of the public realm. Also, people may too busy looking at art or shopping to communicate with each other in a meaningfulway.

Instead, public spaces actually need to be designed for interactions that are “unstructured and non-goal-oriented, because humans, wired to concentrate on goals when goals are set before them, will focus on people whom they might not otherwise see (or whom they might otherwise choose to ignore) only if the pursuit of concrete goals is withdrawn.” Goldhagen argues that only in places that have been designed to foster these social interactions can people once again enjoy the company of strangers not interested in your specific “community of interest.” The obvious physical space for the public realm then is public parks, in all their forms, but particularly, the “great urban parks.”   (italics added)

I believe that the author is more than somewhat off-base. Of course Goldhagen is correct that 'spaces actually need to be designed for interactions that are “unstructured and non-goal-oriented." 

But her idea that streets are dangerous ("too much chance chance of injury") is incorrect, unless she meant a driving lane. Nor is it accurate that "great urban parks" encourage casual and unstructured meeting.

Big parks (or even small ones) may or may not encourage social interaction. But either one must have within them small, enclosed spaces where people can encounter each other with a sense of safety. 

Parks for social interaction only work for people who already know each other. People do not meet, for the first time, in big parks -- the spaces are too great and so approaching someone (they have never met) close enough for a conversation is threatening.

Do you really think that the serendipitous encounter is promoted by such a large space? As lovely as it is? (below) In your own case? Certainly not when people are old enough to learn fear of social danger.

Imagine you are a man walking across a broad field (in a park.) No one else is around until you notice someone, emerging from a wood, perhaps 300 yards away. You recognize it's a woman walking by herself. Unless there was some sort of emergency, do you think it likely you would approach her? Extremely unlikely as you, are in our day, might fear to alarm her. 

Or if you are the woman and notices an unknown man -- let's not even get to ugly issues of ethnicity -- and then changes his course when he sees her, what will her reaction be? Probably a sense of heightened caution mixed up with having to feel that way. And a man could certainly feel the same way when someone, or perhaps a group of young men, might see others changing course and have an increase awareness of potential danger.

If you think that is paranoia then I suggest you get a little more cautious about life and more realistic about others' reactions.

It is not that every such encounter would be unpleasant. The young men across the field may be studying butterflies and in the vast majority of cases, the encounter will be benign. But I believe that growing out of our long evolutionary past, encounters with others breed caution and when you are alone, such caution is increased.

Large open spaces are wonderful but they are not a venue for the chance meeting, by any number of people but particularly lone individuals.

So how does the serendipitous encounter come about?

I believe that it is small tight enclosed spaces whether in a small park or in a large one or even at house party (where do people end up in the kitchen?) Or in close proximity in a cafe. (Though not a subway car where mobility is limited.)

Serendipitous conversation comes up only with such factors as 
1. people are close enough -- 4-6 feet -- to be able to interact with little effort
2. people are more-or-less in place, not moving, such as on a bench in a crowded park (if the park wasn't crowded you wouldn't sit on the same bench) or a cafe, coffee shop, some plazas etc.
3. one can encourage or deter the approach by another without much effort.

Lots more but the idea that casual unstructured social interaction is fostered by "great urban parks" has no foundation. It is well-peopled small contained spaces — whether park or not — which encourage the chance encounter.