ABSTRACT

Peter Marcuse This essay takes up three related concepts: site, study area, and area of concerns. The first two are in common usage in architecture and urban planning; the third is not, and this essay argues that it should be-indeed, it should be the starting point for professional involvement in any project. As commonly used, site simply refers to the bounded piece of property on which a particular project is to be undertaken;1 the extensive ramifications of the term, suggesting meanings and implications that go far beyond this common understanding, comprise the subject matter of this book. This essay, however, focuses on the other two related terms. For urban planners, a study area is generally defined in terms of a given geographical unit-a neighborhood, street, or zoning district, usually selected on the basis of a problem presented by the client-poverty, blight, conflicting proposals, congestion, environmental quality-that is then given a geographical definition. I use the term area of concerns here to denote the set of problems a given project is intended to or should address. “Area of concern” may be read as a “potential study area,” but leaving open the question of whether it should be geographically defined. I say “intended to or should” deliberately, because I conclude with a normative statement of the appropriate approach for professionals in dealing with sites and study areas, an approach that may frequently differ from that in common planning practice, and I use the approach taken

in planning for the World Trade Center site as an example of what I mean.