An Engineer’s Aesthetic

Elevating Chicago

grant_and_pine_san_francisco_chinatown_street_signs_thumb_200x150_160883.jpgChicago’s bike racks should be as iconic as San Francisco’s street signs, says this engineer. (Photo: Elevating Chicago)

Perhaps I’m in the minority on this issue.  (It wouldn’t be the first time.)  Perhaps my stubborn preference for subtle consistency is preventing me from full-throated support of a worthy city program.  Whatever it is, I find myself disagreeing with Scott’s post yesterday about the new artsy bike rack program.  I understand that it is a program which combines support for local arts with livable infrastructure at a minimal cost to the city.  I’m just not convinced it’s the right thing to do.

I look at this program and don’t see Cows on Parade or the city couches.  I see a piece of infrastructure which should be distributed equitably around the city that will instead go only where patrons will finance it.  A bike rack is no different than a car’s parking space.  As the city’s parking meters have gone the way of the dodo–drastically slashing the available bike parking throughout the city–we’re losing a public good and hoping for private funds to pick up the slack.  I know that they will in certain parts of the city, but those aren’t the only parts of the city where residents should be able to reach their destination without worrying about finding a secure place to lock their bike up.

Also, as much as I hate the word, a bike rack is an easy opportunity for branding.  Many cities have a subtle piece of infrastructure which becomes iconic by its ubiquity.  Think of New York City’s yellow taxicabs, or San Francisco’s black and white street signs, or even suburban Evanston’s slender black street lamps.  Each of these is particular to its place, and immediately gives residents and visitors a sense of place–no small feat in today’s mass produced world.

(You could argue that the orange lights of Chicago’s sodium vapor street lamps already is that unique piece of infrastructure, but I don’t think that sickly glow is how we want to be remembered–and the fact that the city has mostly rid the loop of them in favor of brighter, whiter lamps tells me they agree with me.)
These bike racks, in contrast, will only be particular to their neighborhood, not the whole city.  I’m sure some people have more affinity for their neighborhood than Chicago at-large, but bicycling should know no bounds.
Ultimately, this comes down to the basic aesthetic tug-of-war between form and function.  One side (Scott) sees these bike racks as public sculptures which are an attraction unto themselves, and their use as racks–while it determines their basic shape–is secondary.  The other side (me) sees bike racks as vital infrastructure first, and whatever beauty they have should be derived more by their usability and ubiquity than by the shape of any single design.
So here’s that compromise I would advocate for: make this a trial program.  Commission these racks in very limited numbers, and in two varieties: ones that are specific to the neighborhood (to sate those in the first camp) and ones eligible to be mass produced and placed around the city.  Use the trial phase of maybe 1-2 years as an in situ contest.  At the end of that time, narrow the choices for a new city-wide design down to about a dozen options based on their usability, manufacturability, and beauty.  Then, let the people vote.  From then on, whenever a bike rack is replaced or added in Chicago by the normal process, use the new, soon-to-be-iconic design.  Sound fair?