Can Urban Planners Learn From Steve Jobs?
I’ve been a Macintosh fan since first using an SE/30 in a college computer lab in the late 1980s. I’m also a huge fan of Steve Jobs, the Apple c0-founder who died last week.
In watching old videos and reading quotes since Wednesday I began to think some of what Jobs was saying could be applied to Urban Planning. Specifically to public participation.
“It’s not about pop culture, and it’s not about fooling people, and it’s not about convincing people that they want something they don’t. We figure out what we want. And I think we’re pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too. That’s what we get paid to do. “So you can’t go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There’s a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, ‘If I’d have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me “A faster horse.” ‘ ” (Fortune)
We do tend to ask people what they want and we get the faster horse type of answer. Still, you can’t ignore the end user.
“I think really great products come from melding two points of view—the technology point of view and the customer point of view. You need both. You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new. It took us three years to build the NeXT computer. If we’d given customers what they said they wanted, we’d have built a computer they’d have been happy with a year after we spoke to them—not something they’d want now.” (Inc Magazine)
But focusing solely on the customer won’t create the best product.
“But in the end, for something this complicated, it’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them. That’s why a lot of people at Apple get paid a lot of money, because they’re supposed to be on top of these things.” (Businessweek)
In the past architects & planners would come into areas and completely redesign it (Urban Renewal). In the backlash to Urban Renewal the opposite has happened — the few remaining residents were the only persons to have any say about what an area should become.
To Steve Jobs design wasn’t just superficial:
“In most people’s vocabularies, design means veneer. It’s interior decorating. It’s the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.†(Fortune)
Steve Jobs, however, was far from being a Jacobsonian urbanist. No, the Jobsian planner is very much a Californian. Steve Jobs’ last public appearance wasn’t an Apple keynote — it was a presentation to the Cupertino City Council for a new Apple building & campus not from from their longtime campus nearby.
The site was the former headquarters of Hewlett-Packard, all existing buildings would be razed:
Notwithstanding Jobs’ emphasis on heavy landscaping and subsurface parking, Philip Langdon has criticized the proposal in urbanist circles for its fenced, office park setting of glass and the auto-centric suburbia of old. Familiar architectural critics have also cross-examined the premise of London’s Foster+Partners’ design. The Los Angeles Times’ Christopher Hawthorne termed it nothing short of a “retrograde cocoon,” while Paul Goldberger in The New Yorker last month questioned whether the building’s enormity would leave Jobs’ last contribution to his company as the least meaningful of his career. (The Atlantic w/video)Â
Cupertino doesn’t have a small-block street grid but even one existing through street would be removed. So I’m not suggesting we emulate this campus plan — please don’t. Instead, think about his approach to design. Thinking about the user experience — making it simple and intuitive. A direct pedestrian path — not a complicated journey from A to B.
– Steve Patterson
Interesting questions and interesting observations and quotes. My thoughts would be yes and no. Obviously, the Spaceship is weird. Demolishing the entire HP campus sure ain’t green, and a circular building isn’t very scalable – it can’t expand or contract as business questions change. But on the bigger-picture question, of giving customers what they really want / need, not just what they say they want, it seems to be a particular hurdle here in St. Louis and the midwest. Urban living and green living requires higher densities, which implies mixed uses and less dependence on the single-occupant vehicle. Unfortunately, we’re not seeing a lot of great mixed-use design solutions being offered, so we get back to that old chicken-or-egg question, are people buying vinyl-sided single-family homes because that’s “all that’s available” or because that’s where developers perceive the only demand to be?! Then again, how do the negative perceptions of urban crime and education hinder the success of the loft district (probably the most design-savvy part of town)? Why is there so little new transit-oriented development near Metrolink stations, unlike what’s occurring in places like Portland, Dallas and Denver? And, why does New Town St. Charles seem to continue to be attracting buyers despite / in spite of either its location or density. Some examples: http://www.lunasolapartments.com/  http://www.newtownatstcharles.com/ http://www.architectureweek.com/topics/mixed_use-01.html http://www.railvolution.org/
Interesting questions and interesting observations and quotes. My thoughts would be yes and no. Obviously, the Spaceship is weird. Demolishing the entire HP campus sure ain’t green, and a circular building isn’t very scalable – it can’t expand or contract as business questions change. But on the bigger-picture question, of giving customers what they really want / need, not just what they say they want, it seems to be a particular hurdle here in St. Louis and the midwest. Urban living and green living requires higher densities, which implies mixed uses and less dependence on the single-occupant vehicle. Unfortunately, we’re not seeing a lot of great mixed-use design solutions being offered, so we get back to that old chicken-or-egg question, are people buying vinyl-sided single-family homes because that’s “all that’s available” or because that’s where developers perceive the only demand to be?! Then again, how do the negative perceptions of urban crime and education hinder the success of the loft district (probably the most design-savvy part of town)? Why is there so little new transit-oriented development near Metrolink stations, unlike what’s occurring in places like Portland, Dallas and Denver? And, why does New Town St. Charles seem to continue to be attracting buyers despite / in spite of either its location or density. Some examples: http://www.lunasolapartments.com/ http://www.newtownatstcharles.com/ http://www.architectureweek.com/topics/mixed_use-01.html http://www.railvolution.org/
Public planning requires public participation and that can be messy and is often inefficient. Ramming something down people’s throats is not democratic, and it smacks of elitism. That is ok when it is in a marketplace and people can buy another product, or choose to buy no product at all. Urban planning effects people’s lives in all kinds of ways and while the Apple way of doing things works in a world where people have choice, tinkering/rebuilding people’s neighborhoods should not be done from the top down. You may end up with an ‘inferior’ space, but people’s choices must be respected.
Public planning requires public participation and that can be messy and is often inefficient. Ramming something down people’s throats is not democratic, and it smacks of elitism. That is ok when it is in a marketplace and people can buy another product, or choose to buy no product at all. Urban planning effects people’s lives in all kinds of ways and while the Apple way of doing things works in a world where people have choice, tinkering/rebuilding people’s neighborhoods should not be done from the top down. You may end up with an ‘inferior’ space, but people’s choices must be respected.
Ive only had an iPad for a few weeks, my first Apple product. It feels nice and I like doing some things on it, but it’s limitations are driving me crazy. For example, file management is a bit of a nightmare because it seems Apple has dictated the user can only move files in and out through iTunes or the “cloud”. I appreciate that makes the experience simpler but I resent the experience is so proscribed. It’s pretty much a very old dichotomy in design. On one side is a Wrightian visionary who creates marvelous things but who you must ask permission if you want to move the dining table. The other is basically making these empty boxes that anyone can take and stack or paint or whatever, and if the design is good you find the boxes are the right dimension for stacking in infinite ways and are primed. I think there will always be a market for the former, the fetishized object, the perfect glass box (Apple Store). But in terms of places and especially urban design, I much prefer the latter approach.
Ive only had an iPad for a few weeks, my first Apple product. It feels nice and I like doing some things on it, but it’s limitations are driving me crazy. For example, file management is a bit of a nightmare because it seems Apple has dictated the user can only move files in and out through iTunes or the “cloud”. I appreciate that makes the experience simpler but I resent the experience is so proscribed. It’s pretty much a very old dichotomy in design. On one side is a Wrightian visionary who creates marvelous things but who you must ask permission if you want to move the dining table. The other is basically making these empty boxes that anyone can take and stack or paint or whatever, and if the design is good you find the boxes are the right dimension for stacking in infinite ways and are primed. I think there will always be a market for the former, the fetishized object, the perfect glass box (Apple Store). But in terms of places and especially urban design, I much prefer the latter approach.
You can call me what you want, but I find Apple’s products to be more than just a fetishized object or the perfect glass box. From a use standpoint, my Macbook Pro and iPhone drastically outpace every other computer and phone I’ve ever owned.  They are extremely user friendly and simplistic in layout…yes they have apps and can have as many bells and whistles as one likes, but at their core…they are basic.  The designs are sleek and elegant. Giant pieces of glass (or plastic or whatever the screens are) placed on a smooth modern slab of aluminum (or whatever metal they use).   It’s so modern yet elegant I just love the way they look.  I wish St. Louis has more buildings of this style: lots of open glass with modern yet elegant lines.  I wish St. Louis had an Apple store downtown like other major cities (open one in BPV?!)Â
You can call me what you want, but I find Apple’s products to be more than just a fetishized object or the perfect glass box. From a use standpoint, my Macbook Pro and iPhone drastically outpace every other computer and phone I’ve ever owned. They are extremely user friendly and simplistic in layout…yes they have apps and can have as many bells and whistles as one likes, but at their core…they are basic. The designs are sleek and elegant. Giant pieces of glass (or plastic or whatever the screens are) placed on a smooth modern slab of aluminum (or whatever metal they use). It’s so modern yet elegant I just love the way they look. I wish St. Louis has more buildings of this style: lots of open glass with modern yet elegant lines. I wish St. Louis had an Apple store downtown like other major cities (open one in BPV?!)
What BPV?
What BPV?
I think the essence of Job’s design philosophy is make it simple for the end user. Which is often a very complicated thing for a designer to do–but as Jobs said above that’s what they’re paid to do. I don’t think modern designers have a problem with the dictatorial nature that they see in Jobs approach, but they mistake it as self serving when in reality it was in service of the end user. If you look at Apple’s best designs, it’s often something you’ve never thought of, but as soon as you see it you say “of course! why would it be any other way?” How often have you had that reaction to urban design or a building design? Â
I think the essence of Job’s design philosophy is make it simple for the end user. Which is often a very complicated thing for a designer to do–but as Jobs said above that’s what they’re paid to do. I don’t think modern designers have a problem with the dictatorial nature that they see in Jobs approach, but they mistake it as self serving when in reality it was in service of the end user. If you look at Apple’s best designs, it’s often something you’ve never thought of, but as soon as you see it you say “of course! why would it be any other way?” How often have you had that reaction to urban design or a building design?