Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
What is urbanism? Etymologically, it is grounded in that now-so-titillatingly word urban, of or having to do with cities (from urbis, meaning city), and therefore not with suburban (less than urban, or better yet "next to" urban) or even rural ("open").
Such divisions are of course abstract and apply a binary inside/outside to any discussions of proximity and density, which seem to me as being the primary factors. Needless to say, any measurement of these factors would reveal a continuous gradient, and enclaves of low and high density in unexpected places. Yet another case where linguistics have failed to communicate the texture of a highly complex and articulated scenario.
What I want to talk about is the confusion we have now in relationship to density, or more appropriately worded as all of the things that "have been brought into close proximity to ourselves". Thomas Friedman is evangelizing a newly 'flattened' world (a global network of shipping containers and fiber optic lines), social networking sites have collapsed spatial relationships, augmented reality technologies that have created virtual worm-holes between disparate locations. Adjacency still matters, but technologies, standards and increasing efficiencies are finding new ways to bring us all into a workable proximity, sometimes uncomfortably so. The next age is shaping up to be a battle to keep some degree of space to ourselves, even if it is only our mind space.
A few broad questions, which might bracket my own contributions:
Is spatial density still the primary factor in urbanism? In our consumption and management of resources? In our attitudes towards others and inclusiveness towards other viewpoints? In creating critical masses for innovation?
Do technologies benefit and find more traction to the degree that they correlate to and extend existing spatial practices (augmented reality, GPS) or to the degree that they collapse or replace those distinctions (social networking's own version of proximity, degrees of separation through contacts)
How does a language of mathematics, via scripting, agents, mapping, or parametric design work to both modify, structure or otherwise reveal a more diverse and textured condition of urbanity, rather than course linguistic divisions that too easily slips into self-satisfaction, marketing or boosterism?
Clearly, urbanism is on the rise. The questions is how the values of previous forms continue into the new flavors, especialy those that are highly structured along the lines of global capital (talked about too much), technological innovation, communication technologies (not talked about enough within architecture) and modern construction technologies (both software and hardware). To be continued!
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The article by Haya El Nasser entitled Modern Suburbia not just in America Anymore describes how many countries are sending government officials, urban designers, architects, and developers over to the US to study suburbs and other planned communities in infamous areas such as Phoenix, Atlanta, and the “original” edge city, Tyson’s Corner. The opening paragraphs describe a delegation from Beijing arriving in Phoenix and examining a “a quintessential American residential development in Buckeye…[studying] the streetscape, the golf course, the spa, the cybercafé, the health care amenities and the design of the single-family homes at Sun City Festival, a 3,000-acre, planned community for people over 55. They commented on the cleanliness and orderliness of it all…Their mission: study American suburbia with an eye toward replicating it back home.”
Proposed suburb in China, via http://burb.tv
Now, I grew up in the American suburbs and I have fond memories of it all—playing with the neighborhood kids, rummaging through the backyard forests, the Friday Night Lights—all of it good, clean fun. Okay, so maybe it’s not as clean as we thought after all, huh? While the relative merits of the concentrated vs. the dispersed city are constantly being debated, it is mostly agreed upon that “sprawl “, generally defined as suburban style, auto-dominated, zoned-by-use development spread thinly over a large territory, especially in an untidy or irregular way, has produced incredibly negative impacts on the environment. Other arguments against sprawl and unruly suburban development often include aesthetic (god…it’s so…ugly!!), sociological (isolationist tendencies), lifestyle (god…it’s soooo…boring!) and rising issues of health concerns (god..they’re sooo…fat!), but the environmental arguments tend to remain the most compelling and the most marketable (who doesn’t want ot be a little more green these days, right?).
Now, before I run off into pedantry, (oh wait, I just did), let me get to my point. Worldwide suburban development is happening at breakneck speed. The polar ice caps are melting almost as fast. I suggest that before all of our ice caps are but a distant memory of a bygone era, we architects and urban designers put on our thinking caps and start coming up with new ideas for the suburbs. Hopefully with the impending recession in the US there will be some architects with more time on their hands willing to look into this (except there is always another icon to be designed in the middle east I guess). Because at the moment there are too many architects focused on high end luxury condos and not enough on real issues of housing and development—what are the new prototypes of high density, mixed use, (sub)urban development that contend with emerging conditions of the 21st century? Who will be the Victor Gruen's of the 21st Century, developing new typologies that respond to the new social, cultural, and physical contexts of the developing world?
There are of course people doing this—the Smart Growth, Transit Oriented Development, and New Urbanist advocates in the US have been studying these issues for some time. But their efforts tend to be either too retroactive or too focused on the American context. And to be honest, too little too late. There are some interesting explorations in the Netherlands as well, by people like MVRDV, et al. The Integrated Urbanism group at Arup recently designed Dongtan in China to be the world’s first sustainable city. But I think that globally there need to be more people studying the phenomenon in a more nuanced way—focusing on the unique cultural, ecological, and historical characteristics of a given locale to develop sensitive, yet prototypical, responses to these issues.
To close, here are some key quotations from the USA Today article:
“Across China, entire suburban cities are being built at a dizzying speed to keep up with population growth. Outside Beijing and Shanghai, tract-home developments designed to mimic Spanish or Italian architecture have all-American names: Yosemite and Napa Valley.”
“For many developing nations, however, the suburban ideal is stuck in circa 1980: a sea of lookalike single-family homes and shopping malls on the edge of the city. It's a model that many Americans increasingly are rejecting.”
" ‘Most of the developers (worldwide) are not doing it the right way. … We have a professional responsibility. Future generations will not forgive us if we don't do it right.’ " - Saeed Ahmed Saeed
China, where major cities are choking on stifling pollution, is striving to build the world's first sustainable city — Dongtan, which broke ground last summer. Designed by a London-based global consulting company and built on an island outside Shanghai, Dongtan, ultimately to house 50,000, will ban cars that pollute (even hybrids), grow its own food, recycle almost everything — including wastewater — and create its own energy from wind, the sun and human and animal waste.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
More discussion to follow. I just wanted to post something quickly so my blog does not look so blank.