# data[].attributes.body
Both Mead and Tyrwhitt stress the importance of keeping a human scale in city design. Mead talks more about social and emotional needs, while Tyrwhitt focuses on practical design details like street width and walking distances that support those same needs. I agree with their shared belief that cities should be shaped around people, not cars.

What I find a bit idealistic though is Mead’s longing for traditional community bonds, it feels harder to apply in today’s diverse fast-moving cities. Still, her point about needing a sense of connection is timeless.

These texts fit well with thinkers like Jane Jacobs, who also fought for walkable, people-centered neighborhoods. For me as a future architect, the takeaway is clear: good design isn’t just about aesthetics or efficiency, it's about creating spaces where everyday life feels safe, connected, and human.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite the fact that both texts grapple with the relationship between safety and experience in a neighbourhood, they do so from totallly diferent logics. While Tyrwhitt doesn't explicitly mention that a child's and a mother's safety is the most important aspect of a neighbourhood, she leads me to believe so, through her argument that a residential area must perserve its human scale by isolating danger factors from the most frequented paths. I think her main point is that neighbourhoods should feel convenient, but above all safe. And while she recognizes a child's thrill for variety and acitivity, she states that this must occur in a safe environment, which to me personally comes across as if she envisions an isolated environment masked with artifical danger for the children's joy. Margaret Mead on the other hand, argues that children should engage with risky, real worl environments, and in order to do so, they should be granted freedom of movement. I personally resonate more with Mead, and I also believe that in today's day and age, overprotecting children isolates them from real life textures and makes them less adaptable. In my opinion, it would also endager them more in a potential real danger scenario.

# data[].attributes.body
While reading Margaret Mead and Jacqueline Tyrwhitt, I liked how both search for a sense of humanity within the overwhelming scale of the modern metropolis. Mead who writes as an anthropologist, looks at the city almost like a social organism. She’s less interested in form than in the relationships it enables. She talks about the neighborhood as something that should protect privacy but also allow continuity between generations. In her opinion, children should grow up in environments where they can learn to live with diversity and not be isolated by their core family. She focuses on how space shapes behavior and belonging.

Tyrwhitt who comes from urban planning starts from a different angle but ends up in a similar place. Her Tokyo study is almost like an experiment in measuring the human scale. For example how far people are willing to walk, where women stop to talk or where children play in the streets. For me what stood out was her sensitivity to the lived reality of the city. How sidewalks can be unsafe, narrow streets or social rhythms that didn’t fit the modernist ideals.

For me both women reject abstraction. They bring planning back to the human scale, to human needs: Women who are shopping, children playing, commuters walking half-asleep to the station.

Beneath their different methods runs the same concern: how to keep human life visible and connected in cities that keep expanding beyond measure.

# data[].attributes.body
Margaret Mead and Jacqueline Tyrwhitt both analyses how urban environments influence and are influenced by fundamental human needs. Mead argues that in order for social cohesion to exist as well as to provide a suitable framework for children to grow up in, modern cities must “feel small” again. Since humans are made to live in small, face-to-face groups the idea/theory arises of what a “good” group size is. Oftentimes, a group size reminiscent of a family is given as the answer: a group of about 5-7 people, as it does not carry a feeling of anonymity but rather of familiarity. Tyrwhitt approaches a similar question from the observation of Tokyo. She addresses how cities, which allow for a rather small-scale, walkable, irregular way of life strengthen social interaction and human comfort better than rigid, artificial, car-dominated grids/cities do. Both writers choose an approach rather based on anthropological and even psychological urban planning aspects in contrast to a purely textbook and practical approach. I believe there should be a much stronger focus in urban planning on designing for human scale instead of for mass production. Furthermore, I think architectural education often dismisses or lacks to properly teach what “human scale” and good group sizes” mean in lived experience.

# data[].attributes.body
I like the idea that space should be measured in a more human-centric way by the use of distance over density or other statistical means, with measuring distances in units of time being even better. I believe that we should be designing cities based on the criteria that are important to the people who will eventually be living there, as their opinions are not only the most important ones in the process, but also because they are very easy to be left ignored, as they are among the actors with the least power over the final project. Beginning with these considerations restricts the range in which city planners and investors later operate in their realization of their ideas. Additionally, focusing on the pedestrian, without taking cars into consideration, is a more stable philosophy in the long term. Certain American cities have been built with cars in mind, and as the attitudes changed they remain dependent on them, making progress more difficult. Therefore, focusing on the human capabilities alone might make the designs the most flexible.

# data[].attributes.body
Both texts deal with how cities can stay human in scale and spirit.
Tyrwhitt, in The Pedestrian in Megalopolis, looks at how people move in big cities like Tokyo. She shows that even in a megalopolis, people still need small, walkable areas where daily life happens. I liked her idea that planning should start from the distance a person can comfortably walk — it’s a very physical, human way to think about the city.

Mead, in Neighbourhoods and Human Needs, looks more at the social side. She argues that neighbourhoods should help people feel connected and responsible for each other, especially for children and older people. She criticizes modern planning for breaking these social bonds.

I don’t fully agree with Tyrwhitt’s assumption that car ownership will always stay essential. Today, with new mobility systems and climate concerns, we can imagine cities that work well without cars.

Both texts come from the 1960s, when planners were reacting to the failures of modernist planning and trying to bring human needs back into focus. They connect well to authors like Jane Jacobs, who also argued for lively, small-scale urban life.

For my future work as an architect, I find both texts meaningful. They remind me that design starts from everyday movement and relationships — not just from form or efficiency.

# data[].attributes.body
04 Mead / Tyrwhitt

Unlike many of their contemporaries, Tyrwhitt and Meads’ core idea of urban design are constructed around the human experience.

Margaret Mead shifts the focus from the needs of all or the involvement of the government to the needs of infants in order to accomplish what she calls a (designed) neighborhood. Continuity in childhood and multi-sensory stimulation are crucial for a persons development; if continuity in childhood is given, variety in the environment is possible. By working out the needs of infants and building and designing with them in mind, a neighborhood that meets *all human needs can be achieved. Meads approach is unique when compared to her peers approaches; it almost reads like a parenting book, streaked with a deep understanding of what it means to be human - and to live like one. Tyrwhitt, too, brings her focus to the human scale within the sprawling megacity; she argues, like many others, that urban life must be reconstructed around pedestrian movement, especially that of housewives and children.

# data[].attributes.body
Mead’s "Neighbourhoods and Human Needs" and Tyrwhitt’s "The Pedestrian in Megalopolis: Tokyo", talk about how people can live well in big cities. Mead says that good buildings and city plans must care for people’s feelings and social needs, not only money or function. She thinks people need places where they can feel they belong, meet others, and build community. In the 1960s this was about people feeling lonely in modern cities; today it is still true with digital life and fast urban growth.

Tyrwhitt studied how people walk in Tokyo. She says that even in very big cities, we must keep a human scale — safe and easy walking areas, small shops, and friendly streets. She shows that good city design should make life safe for children, walkers, and old people, not just for cars.

For the future, both writers say that cities must be made for humans first. Architecture should help people connect, walk, and live together. It should not only be about tall buildings or technology. These ideas are even more importent today, with problems like climate change, traffic, and people losing contact with each other.

# data[].attributes.body
Although both texts address a similar topic, they read very differently to me.

Mead approaches the subject from an ethnographic perspective, which initially came as a surprise. However, after reading for a few minutes, her approach began to feel increasingly intuitive.

In contrast, Tyrwhitt’s text strikes a distinctly technical and scientific tone. I was impressed by the precision with which the research was conducted and documented.

I particularly appreciate how Mead highlights that contemporary planning practices are largely shaped by the norms we take for granted, and that they could be far richer if we allowed ourselves to imagine alternative ways of structuring society.

Tyrwhitt, on the other hand, appears more attached to the status quo, especially when she asserts that cars could never again be removed from our cities. From today’s perspective, I find this conformist position far less compelling than Mead’s somewhat idealistic — but imaginative — vision.

# data[].attributes.body
The Pedestrian in Megalopolis is a Text by Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, that portrays a small case study of two city districts in Tokyo. It’s a hands-on study, where they directly questioned citizens on certain aspects of walkability and how safe and comfortable it feels to move within the district. The text is easy to follow and a nice switch up from other scientific papers, that are not so easy to understand. What I find a bit misleading is how the author states, that we “shouldn’t fool ourselves” with believing that we can’t live in small (or human) scale cities, but then goes on and presents what I don’t perceive as very big scale city environment.

In the text of Margaret Mead, she describes human nature and how one should understand it in relation to city planning. More specifically she states that humans are supposed to be brought up with the ability to react to a changing environment. She exemplifies this in different ways, such as that a child with few relatives will not be as adaptive as one with many. In a broad sense, I agree with her. From personal experience, the kids that were brought up protected by their parents are also those that ended up being either the weirdest or the ones that later couldn’t handle “real life”. I can see how that can be an important aspect of city planning. Tbh it’s kinda hard not to agree, that children in a very broad sense need to be able to explore the world in their own way, still in a protective enough environment, where no child has to die unnecessarily (like by car).

Both texts are very interesting. While one explores a concrete case of urban planning, another one becomes almost a bit abstract alltought still comprehensible.

# data[].attributes.body
Jaqueline Tyrwhitt

I think surveys are a good source of information, especially when combined with observation and when you really try to get an answer from everyone. I think she gave us a good understanding of the people living there—where they feel safe and which routes they use. There are a few social groups that could be added; for example, the elderly and teenagers. Also, people with disabilities and homeless people should be considered in such surveys.

In her conclusion, she says that we have to build the streets in a pedestrian area in a way that they will never be able to be transformed into car streets (too narrow). That’s quite a remarkable thought - thinking about the future and the lobbies that have a strong voice compared to others. On the other hand, building things that can’t be transformed isn’t very sustainable. How can we know what the world and its needs will look like in 50–100 years?

Margaret Mead

Mead raises an important point about the care and upbringing of children. Children are the adults of the future and, therefore, represent the foundation and pulse of humanity. So if we ensure the well-being and proper development of children, society as a whole will benefit. She approaches this topic from a psychological perspective, making me wonder how modern psychologists would view her ideas today. What does the perfect city for raising children look like according to modern psychologists?

# data[].attributes.body
This week I really enjoyed both texts because I found that they compliment each other really well. In Jaqueline Tyrwhitt's piece, she provides a concise comparison of two Japanese neighborhoods. She proposes to analyze the success of these neighborhoods through the angle of its inhabitants' distance by foot to their daily needs and desires. In the unfolding of her analysis, we understand that depending on whether the neighborhood plan follows a regular grid (Kamiogi) or whether it takes on a more organic network of narrow streets (Amanuma), the inhabitants integrate the spatial qualities of their environments into their behaviour. I appreciated how she voices the experience of the users, like for example the children's preference for busy, entertaining streets to play on despite the higher risks to get hurt. This shows that listening to the city's users to inform your planning can sometimes be more valuable than drawing up general concepts of logic and efficiency and slapping them onto any and every neighborhood. In Margaret Mead's "Neighborhoods and Human Needs", she argues that the most successfull planning of neighborhoods should provide a balance of familiarity and continuity allied with variety and even potential dangers. This rich and diverse environment would best assure a fulfilled childhood to the neighborhood's youngest residents. Then, as a result of curious, adaptable and open youth growing into street smart adults, the entire community would be content with their surrounding city. Though I believe we shouldn't entirely dismiss the adult's constantly evolving perception of their environment, I am quite convinced that bringing the focus onto the children's urban experience would allow a more sensitive approach to planning cities.

# data[].attributes.body
In her text Neighbourhoods and Human Needs, Margaret Mead argues that neighbourhoods should be design to bring up children. Neighbourhoods should simultaneously provide places that are safe and exposed to danger and they should offer the possibility of a multi-sensorial development for children. In her text The pedestrian Metropolis: Tokyo, Jacqueline Tyrwhitt recommend dimensions to design human scale neighbourhoods by looking at needs of children, commuters, women and car drivers. I have no point of disagreement with both authors. In light of the historical context, Tyrwhitt was pragmatic regarding car ownership increase and car as an object of comfort. However, her pedestrian planning approach do not achieved to be broadly adopted. Similarly, Mead planning approach for children has not be widely adopted. We could draw parallels with Jane Jacobs text for the idea of understanding the human before the technical and economic aspects. For my future architecture work, I consider highly relevant the provision of space for children to discover Nature and be confronted to their urban environment. I also consider very interesting the distances that we are willing to walk and the form that can emerge for a pedestrian neighbourhood, which can increase social interactions in our always more individualistic society.

# data[].attributes.body
In "The Neighbourhoods and Human Needs" by Mead, trying to find a way to design through the lens of a child made a lot of sense to me. The importance of variety in experience for children is an often forgotten part when it comes to the needs of children, especially the foreign, the mysterious, and the dangerous. One can learn more about these types of things as a grown-up, but if curiosity and adaptability were not a part of someone's socialization, it can be easy to stay in one's bubble - in my experience. Also, stressing the possibility of adapting her idea to various living situations and cultures struck me as especially important, as it highlights how all humans share these fundamental needs, even if they appear vastly different from the outside. Although I always find it a bit problematic to only see through a child's or family's perspective - but I'm sure her thinking goes further than this. Because a child's happiness does not ensure a lively world for adults. Nevertheless still a very grounded and holistic approach.

Jaqueline Tyrwhitt also advocates the human scale without losing sight of the growing ownership of private cars. Using a scientific approach to set up general rules for living areas, as to prevent vehicles from usurping the place of the pedestrians. Having lived in unwalkable places, I can really relate to the needs of the people of her study in Kamiogi and Amanuma. Unwalkable places feel unlivable and dead. We cannot lose sight of pedestrian practicality, but many cities are already reimagining a more pedestrian friendly city.

Mead and Tyrwhitt's texts stress the importance of not losing sight of the experience on the human pedestrian scale during a time of growth, especially transportational.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading both texts I had very different experiences. Margaret Mead's text seems more like a narrative. It shows based on tribes and previous generation how we influence the future generations and how our behavior influenced them and gives them the ability to adapt to the city. On the other hand Jaqueline Tyrwhitt's approach seems more scientific and gives insight on existing neighborhoods. She tries to redefine the bottom up scale which is hard to preserve in a fast growing urban environment. The approach of the human community by Doxiadis spoke to me even though I didn't quite like her idea of densifying shopping areas into one area. Both texts put the pedestrian, especially the child and in Tywhitt's text also de housewife into focus. It shows the people who spend the most time in the neighborhood.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading the two texts together shows how social and spatial design are linked. Mead explains what people need on a psychological and cultural level, and Tyrwhitt demonstrates how these needs can be supported through urban form. Both emphasize that planning should begin with an understanding of how people actually live, move, and grow. Their ideas suggest that human-centered design is essential for creating environments.

In Mead’s text, the main idea is that neighbourhoods play a central role in human development. She describes how children learn from the people and surroundings around them. She believes that children need a sense of continuity and security, but they also need to experience difference and risk to build adaptability and tolerance. She criticizes the isolation of modern families and argues that a child’s social environment should include a wider circle of people. I found her point about how exposure to diversity helps children understand equality very relevant.

Tyrwhitt’s text looks at similar human needs from a more practical and spatial perspective. She studies how pedestrians move and behave in Tokyo to understand what makes urban life comfortable and safe. Her research shows that people prefer short walking distances, safe crossings, and small streets where they can meet others. She concludes that cities should be organized around pedestrians instead of cars. I think her focus on everyday movement and small-scale spaces shows how design decisions directly affect how people feel and live in a city.

# data[].attributes.body
I think these two texts really broadened my view on the importance certain implementations in cities have on social behaviour. I really liked the text from Jaqueline where she compared two different neighborhoods, Amanuma (with the narrow winding streets) and Komiojo (with more wider grid iron streets). The different human behavior, where in Komiojo they try to find the safest route, and in Amanuma the shortest way to the train station, which was really intriguing to me. The same for the example that 'women consider walking alongside traffic more dangerous, than occasional obstacle of crossing a traffic street' was something I never really thought about. I think it has to do with unconscious accidents and conscious accidents, as Tyrwhitt also later explains with car routes. What I found interesting about Margaret Mead her text, is that she explains how human behaviour is created during childhood, and how for instance children that experienced a lot during their childhood, are more likely to be 'resistant' against all the new incentives from the big city. Where as children who didn't grew up with a lot of different circumstances, have a harder time to adapt, and have a higher need for continuity. But I'm not sure if I fully agree on that, since as a young adult you can also learn to adapt, in my experience.

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting to read Jaqueline Tyrwhitt's and Margaret Mead's texts as a dialogue on human scale within the modern city. In The Pedestrian in Megalopolis: Tokyo, Tyrwhitt reflects on how rapid urban expansion and the domination of motorized transport have altered the experience of moving through the city. She observes that the pedestrian, once central to the rhythm of urban life, now struggles to find space and safety in an environment shaped by speed and congestion. Her reflections are rooted in the idea of human scale, particularly centred around children, perhaps because they embody both vulnerability and the promise of what the city’s future might become.

In Neighbourhoods and Human Needs, Margaret Mead explores similar questions through an anthropological lens. She is concerned with how urban environments can either support or undermine basic human needs such as belonging, identity, and emotional security. Mead also touches on the idea of the unfamiliar and the anonymity that characterise city life, suggesting that while a certain degree of distance and privacy can be enriching, it should not go so far as to erase social connection. Her reflections also return to the human scale, emphasizing how the design of neighbourhoods can nurture children’s growth and social development.

Both texts ultimately raise the question of how motorised movement and human presence can coexist. What stands out to me in both authors is their shared children centred perspective and attention to human potentialities.

# data[].attributes.body
In their writings, Margaret Mead and Jacqueline Tyrwhitt emphasize the need for a human-scale approach in the planning of growing metropolises. Both underline the perspectives of women and children, often neglected in modernist planning.

Early 20th-century models such as the Garden City promoted the separation of urban functions, leading to suburbanization and what Tyrwhitt calls places of boredom. Instead, she refers to C.A. Doxiadis’s concept of the “human community,” a pedestrian-based unit. Its size depends on the economic situation of a country—an idea which can be questioned from todays perspective. Through surveys comparing two middle-class neighborhoods in Tokyo, Tyrwhitt shows how automobiles shape community life and behavior.

Margaret Mead similarly identifies key neighborhood needs, putting emphasis on privacy and the continuity of human relationships, particularly for children, who in her eyes require environments in which they learn how to deal with urban diversity. She notes that increasing dependence on the nuclear family heightens this need for community support.

Both authors recognize children as active urban actors, yet even decades later, they remain often excluded from urban planning processes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bell Tyrwhitt1972_Human Identity in the Urban Environment

# data[].attributes.body
The Pedestrian in Megalopolis: Tokyo (1968), pp. 73-79

Published in: Ekistics Vol. 25, No. 147

# data[].attributes.body
Neighbourhoods and Human Needs (1966), pp. 245-251

Published in: Human Identity in the Urban Environment

# data[].attributes.body
Post your reading response to both texts until 30.10.25 13:00 on this Padlet

Suggestions for the Reading Response:

-What are the most important arguments and suggestions that you can take away from the texts?

-Which arguments would you disagree with the author on, and why?

-How do you evaluate the texts in light of its historical context?

-How could these texts be related to other texts already read in this seminar?

-Which arguments do you consider significant for your future work as an architect?