sign in sign up
<<
Home , Environmental history

and Precedent in History and Precedent in Environmental Design

Amos Rapoport University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Plenum Press • New York and London Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Rapoport, Amos. History and precedent in environmental design / Amos Rapoport. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ). Includes indexes. ISBN-13: 978-0-306-43445-7 e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4613-0571-2 001: 10.1007/978-1-4613-0571-2 1. Environmental engineering - History. 2. City planning - History. 3. Streets-Design and construction-History. I. Title. TA170.R37 1990 90-7271 CIP

Drawings and photographs, unless indicated otherwise, were prepared by the author.

© 1990 Plenum Press, New York Softcover reprint of the hardcover I st edition 1990 A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation 233 Spring Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher "For many anti scientists objectivity is not so much impossible as reprehensible." -John Passmore, and Its Critics, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, .1978, p. 91.

"With its deconstructionists in literary criticism, its ordinary language and other philosophers, and its novelists, our age may one day come to be known in for its role in the advancement of techniques to prove that reality doesn't exist." -Joseph Epstein, "The sunshine girls," Commentary, Vol. 77, No.6, June 1984, p. 67. Preface

This book is about a new and different way of approaching and studying the history of the and the use of historical precedents in design. However, although what I am proposing is new for what is currently called architectural history, both my approach and even my conclusions are not that new in other fields, as I discovered when I attempted to find supporting evidence. * In fact, of all the disciplines dealing with various aspects of the study of the past, architectural history seems to have changed least in the ways I am advocating. There is currently a revival of interest in the history of architecture and urban form; a similar interest applies to theory, vernacular design, and -environment relations. After years of neglect, the study of history and the use of historical precedent are again becoming important. However, that interest has not led to new approaches to the subject, nor have its bases been examined. This I try to do. In so doing, I discuss a more rigorous and, I would argue, a more valid way of looking at historical data and hence of using such data in a theory of the built environment and as precedent in environmental design. Underlying this is my view of Environment-Behavior Studies CEBS) as an emerging theory rather than as data to help design based on current "theory." Although this will be the subject of another book, a summary statement of this position may be useful. Since EBS began as a new discipline, I have tried to see it as a basis for developing a new theory of design. In so doing I have differed in several important respects from most of the work in that field. From the beginning I have stressed the need to develop theory even at the level of EBS itself, and I have thus emphasized synthesis and scholarship rather than application and "relevance." In the majority view, EBS is seen as a more or less "scientific" way of helping designers through programming, evaluation, or providing a data base. My own minority view is that EBS can go conSiderably beyond that: It can become the basis for the development of a new kind of theory of design• one based on a science rather than an art metaphor (Rapoport 1983b, 1986e). That is, it can replace traditional approaches. Note that I do not say architectural theory because

·"New" is somewhat of a misnomer even in my own case. I proposed a course on architectural history at Berkeley in 1964 which is, in outline, essentially the argument of this book.

vii viii PREFACE

this new theory needs to deal with all designed environments, using the term design most broadly as any purposeful change to the face of the earth-a matter of great importance in this book. One consequence is that even "natural" landscapes are now effectively designed: Nearly all landscapes are cultural landscapes. This is a very differ• ent, and much more fundamental, kind of endeavor in which one tries to apply our growing knowledge about humans to an understanding of built environments and ultimately to the design of better environments. In developing theories, generalization is of great importance. However, I have long argued that valid generalizations about people and environments can only be made if based on the broadest possible evidence. I have thus insisted that this evidence must include the full range of what has been built: preliterate, vernacular, popular, and spontaneous (squatter) environments as well as the more familiar high-style settings; one must also include the relationships among these different environments; all , so that the evidence must be cross-cultural; and the full time span of built environments so that the evidence must, therefore, be historical. Moreover, I have pOinted out that the latter means not just the last few centuries in Europe and the United States, or even the 5,000 years of traditional architectural history, but rather a period of close to 2 million years all over the globe. Only in these ways can one be certain of being able to trace patterns and regularities as well as detect Significant differences and hence make valid generalizations. In working at this emerging grand synthesis, I have tended not to engage in empirical work but in the scholarly analysis and synthesis of work already in existence in a wide variety of disciplines as well as the actual environments themselves-or descriptions of them. In that respect, the characteristics of my work seem close to those that are generally accepted as broadly describing the humanities. As I understand it, the subject of the humanities at its broadest is the product of all human culture wherever or whenever created. Each new interpreter builds on the work of those who have preceded him or her, and this enterprise needs to be not only historical but interdisciplinary and multicultural as well. This is the way EBS should proceed, while taking a more ex• plicitly "scientific" approach. As environment-behavior studies have developed, they have tended to diverge from what could be termed· mainstream design theory. This divergence seemingly has become even more marked during the past few years with the development of so-called postmodemism and its successors. * One of the characteristics of these is a revived interest in . Yet, paradoxically, it is preCisely this unlikely, and apparently completely contradictory, development that, I believe, may provide an opportunity for some relationship between mainstream design "theory" and EBS-based design theory. This is not only an example of the critical importance in scholarship of establishing commonalities among apparently unrelated areas. It also provides a possibility of providing a valid base for addressing some of the very real criticisms of design raised by postmodernist critics that, however, they have not re• solved successfully. This potential link is the interest in history shared by architectural "theorists" and designers and also central to my approach to EBS to be discussed in this book. I believe

·"Fashions" in architecture seem to change as rapidly as in dress; the half-life of current architecture is very short. Moreover, these changes are rather superficial and "cosmetic." PREFACE ix

that taking an EBS approach will provide both the rigor and the data that current interest in history lacks. * The central question being addressed is clearly the relation among past, present, and future-in this case the possible lessons of history for environmental design theory and how these lessons might be learned. Four broad positions are possible on this, as also in looking at vernacular design or other cultures. Such material can be ignored; it can be rejected as irrelevant; it can be copied directly; or one can learn from it by deriving lessons through the application of various models, concepts, and principles to the material in question. My suggestion is that some of the models, concepts, and principles that have been developed in EBS will help provide valid lessons when based on the great body of environmental evidence that we possess. This is the purpose of this book: to develop more rigorous ways of deriving lessons from historical precedents for the purpose of generalizing more validly about human and humane environments, thus leading to a new theory of deSign. It had been my original intention to write a single book about both because they are so intimately linked. However, as both projects, particularly the one on theory, grew, this became impossible. Thus the subject of this new theory will be the topic of another book to follow this one. Consequently, the argument about history will have to stand on its own. I hope that the argument here proposed is sufficiently self-contained to do so. I also hope that the connection to theory will be clear-at least implicitly. In addition to general questions, I have also been working over the past few years on some more specific studies that try to identify the lessons that the past (in the broad sense described) can have for design theory. These include studies about vernacular design, about appropriate ways of designing for Third World countries (seen as a paradigm for design generally), about the origins of buildings and settlements, and lessons from traditional environments for energy efficiency. There have also been brief studies on the characteristics of urban open spaces and pedestrian streets. The last of these is the topic of the specific case study used to illustrate the general argument of this book. In order to develop the idea of a new kind of history of the built environment, three major topics needed to be addressed: the subject matter of such history, the purpose of studying it, and how it needs to be studied. These comprise Part I (Chapters 1-3) and were written first. The case study in Part III is intended to be a preliminary example rather than a complete illustration of the approach. I have been concerned with this topic on and off since my undergraduate days and have written much about it. Finally, because an important part of my argument (and my work generally) concerns the need not to start from scratch nor to reinvent the wheel (as architects are want to do), it became necessary to know what comparable work has been done. This com• prises the supporting argument in Part II (Chapters 4 and 5) and was written last. In subsequent rewrites, of course, material was partially rearranged.

AMOS RApOPORT

*While doing the final revisions of the , I came across a literary critic's comment about history as "a source of imaginative quotation in the sketchy, self-centeredly unserious way it is sometimes invoked in postmodern architecture" (Iannone 1987, p. 62). Acknowledgments

Materials of the case study have been collected for over 20 years. Some research funds from the Royal Institute of British Architects and the University of London, awarded in 1968, helped purchase some city plans and other material. Many people have kindly sent me such materials or suggested sources; they are listed here. Some summer sup• port from the Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, helped provide time to collect much additional material in the library. The rather random collection was efficiently organized before the theoretical work was begun by a work• study student, Cheryl Holzheimer, funded by the Urban Research Center-UWM. The specific development of the theoretical framework began during 1982-1983 while I was a Visiting Fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge. This was made possible by a fellowship from the Graham Foundation, a Senior Sabbatical Fellowship from the National Endow• ment for the Arts, and a sabbatical from UWM. The first draft of this theoretical work was also completed at Clare Hall in the summer of 1985 with the help of a grant from the Graduate School of UWM. Some of the data in the case study had their scales changed and were redrawn by a PhD student, Aniruddha Gupte, who was supported by funds provided both by the Graduate School-UWM and Dean Carl Patton of the School of Architecture and at UWM. While he was redrawing these data, I was writing the second, third, and fourth drafts of this manuscript. Typing was most efficiently and helpfully done by Donna Opper, supported by funds volunteered by the chairman of the Department of Architecture, Robert Greenstreet. Paul Olson, of the departmental photo lab, most ably converted my slides into black and white prints suitable for publication. My wife, Dorothy, undertook the monumental task of preparing the index. Finally, a number of people and organizations helped with information, slides, plans, and references. In no particular order this is to acknowledge the help of S. K. Chandhoke (New Delhi), Paul English (Austin, Texas), D. E. Goodfriend (New Delhi), Carol Jopling (Alexandria, Virginia), Nancy]. Schmidt (Cambridge, Massachusetts), Hans Hartung (Guadalajara, Mexico), E. E. Calnek (Rochester, New York), P. H. Stahl (Paris), ]. Antoniou (London), Charles Correa (Bombay), S. Greenfield, R. Eidt, D. Buck, D. Carozza, H. Van Oudenallen (all at UWM),]. Hansen (Copenhagen), P. T. Han (Taichung, Taiwan), E. Montoulieu, T. Marvel (Puerto Rico), D. Schavelzon (Buenos Aires), P. P. Polo Verano and]. Salcedo Salcedo (Bogota, Colombia), H. Geertz (Prince-

xi xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ton, New Jersey), D. G. Parab (Bombay), K. Noschijs (Lausanne), D. Kornhauser (Hono• lulu), D. Garbrecht (Zurich), City Planning Department (Zurich), University of Texas, Center for Middle East Studies (Austin), The Melville]. Herskovits Library of African Studies, Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois), Y. Tzamir (Haifa), K. Jain (Ahmedhabad), L.]. Kamau (Chicago), Y. Ben Aryeh (Jerusalem), M. Turan (Ankara and Pittsburgh), N. Inceoglu (Istanbul), P. L. Shinnie (Calgary), D. Nemeth (Mt. Pleas• ant, Michigan), S. Raju (Gwalior, India), R. A. Smith (Liverpool), S. I. Hallet (Wash• ington, DC),]. Hardoy (Buenos Aires), R. Ohno (Kobe), and C. Bastidas (Quito). I am grateful to all the individuals and organizations mentioned as well as those listed in the case study. Without the time and help they made possible I could not have completed the task. Contents

Introduction ...... I

PART I THE ARGUMENT

Chapter I • History of What? ...... 9 Introduction ...... 9 The Subject Matter of Environmental History ...... 11 Subdividing the Domain...... 19 Methodological Implications ...... 22

Chapter 2 • History for What? ...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 Approaches to History ...... 29 Some Examples ...... 39 Implications for Theory ...... 50

Chapter 3 • What History? ...... 57 Introduction ...... 57 Being "Scientific" ...... 58 Broad Outline of the Approach ...... 66 Art History and Architectural History ...... 71 Changes in the Study of Art: The Case of Rock Art ...... 75 From the Study of Art to the Study of the Built Environment ... 80 The Relation between Past and Present ...... 81 Inference ...... 85 Inference in Science and History ...... 102 Uniformitarian Assumptions...... 108 Conclusion...... 119

xiii xiv CONTENTS

PART II THE SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS

Chapter 4 • Supporting Argument I ...... 123 Introduction ...... 123 The Supporting Argument from the Social ...... 125 The Supporting Argument from History ...... 139 Introduction ...... 139 Some Specific, Implicit Supporting Arguments ...... 143 Explicit Supporting Arguments ...... 148 The Supporting Argument from the "Historical" Sciences ...... 156 Introduction ...... 156 Science in General...... 158 ...... 159 Life on Earth-The Biological and Evolutionary Sciences .. 162 Paleontology ...... 168 Human Evolution ...... 171

Chapter 5 • Supporting Argument 2: /Prehistory...... 185 Introduction ...... 185 A Conscious and Explicit Concern with Epistemological Issues.. 191 Redefining the Domain ...... 195 Posing Clear and Explicit Questions ...... 197 Explicitness, Rigor, Logic, Clarity, and Precision ...... 198 Objectivity ...... 201 Rigorous Mutual Criticism ...... 202 Self-Correction, Cumulativeness, and Rapid ...... 203 Need for an Empirical Base ...... 205 The Handling of Data ...... 207 Methodological Sophistication, Multiple Methods, and Taxonomy...... 211 Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Approaches...... 213 Search for Pattern ...... 214 Generalization, Explanation, and Theory ...... 215 Controlled Use of Analogies ...... 218 Prediction...... 224 The Development of Theory ...... 226 Models and Model Testing ...... 228 Inference ...... 230 Some Examples ...... 235

PART III CASE STUDY: PEDESTRIAN STREETS

Chapter 6 • Pedestrians and Settings ...... ~ ...... 243 Introduction...... 243 CONTENTS xv

Environment-Behavior Studies ...... 245 Pedestrian Behavior ...... 248 Walking and Settings ...... 251 Review ...... 253 Chapter 7 • The Perceptual Characteristics of Pedestrian Streets: The General and Specific Hypotheses ...... 261 Introduction ...... 261 Complexity ...... 262 Noticeable Differences ...... 272 Effects of Speed of Movement...... 277 The General Hypothesis ...... 282 The Specific Hypotheses ...... 287

Chapter 8 • The Evidence: The Sample and the Method ...... 297 Introduction ...... 297 The Evidence ...... 298 The Sample ...... 305 The Method ...... 307

The Data ...... 313

Conclusion 453 Implications of the Case Study...... 454 What Do the Data Show? ...... 454 What Do the Data Mean? ...... 456 What Are the Implications of the Case Study? ...... 461 Implications of the Book as a Whole ...... 464

References ...... 469

Index...... 501