Defining Human Scale
July 10th, 2008, by Jeremy Krygsman
In order to build an enjoyable environment on a human scale, we first need to know what people enjoy, and then what they need. This combination of two variables, esthetics and functionality, is important. Even the most conceptually unique space won’t be used by normal people if it is not functional. Similarly, people will not want to spend time in an extremely spartan space that is only about function.
A building in Seattle demonstrates human
scale in its built form.
The city of Seattle has a series of design guidelines, including a section detailing how make a place human-friendly. Basically, the details are most important. Greenery to provide shade, details in building and window mouldings, awnings, and good lighting, all contribute to making a space appealing. However, all these features work together to make sure that a space does not appear too large. Awnings and moldings act as an imaginary outdoor ceiling, and trees contribute to this.
My previous blog talked about how commercial big box stores, with their giant parking lots, are just about the worst example of human scale planning in our everyday lives. How can they be better?
The fact is, the Big Box is simply too big. Before any of the detailing mentioned above can be incorporated, that box needs to be broken up into smaller, more realistically sized portions that are stacked on top of each other to a minimum of two storeys. That doesn’t mean they have to be tiny, but they shouldn’t be much deeper than a typical building in a city’s downtown. That means an average depth about 40 metres (130 feet). The Walmart store alone in your average Walmart supercentre is over 100m (330ft) deep, not to mention around 170m wide!
Reducing the horizontal size of these developments is the first step toward human scale design. Check back next time for a look at the environmental and economic reasons why modern shopping centres are way too big.
More relevant items related to The Walmart Effect
I joined your website, because I also am interested in city/societal planning. I recently had the privilege to watch the major motion picture 1984. Of course, I had read the book many times since adolescence. When I watched the film, I tried to understand, “How can we make the organized/Orwellian/authoritarian society more user-friendly? What are the critiques of the organized society?” I am a moderate/centrist. I see a lot of critique of Wal-Mart, but also a lot of misunderstanding about the plight of low-income individuals. I don’t know much about Seattle, as I have never been there, but a lot of the people I know who shop at Wal-Mart do so because they can conveniently complete all their shopping (usually at low prices) from one destination. Sure, they should be walking and taking monorails, and be using floating cars, but those things are not available in the Houston area.