gabrielfey.com

1)   The Cultural Role of Cities entry entitled “Whose Culture? Whose City?” was one that I felt applied directly to what our past studio project investigated.  The idea of cultural consumption coordinated exactly with Robert Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class book, which deals with the emergence of a new type of economy that is heavily fueled by creative professions (which make up an estimated 1/3 of our working class).  A question that came up in many of our discussions on this matter, though, was exactly how influential and realistic this idea is.  For example, while it is both fantastic and necessary to have certain creative entities, such as restaurants, art galleries, coffee shops and the like, in a given urban environment, one has to eventually question the longevity of a place consisting solely of the ‘creative economy.’  The reading raised the question of how important location is in the consideration of this Cultural Consumption, and whether it is sufficient enough to carry a place such as Cleveland, or rather if it is only applicable in heavily tourist areas such as Italian and other European cities.  Too often designers are seduced by a certain nostalgic quality that galleries, restaurants, and coffee shops possess, when in reality they are not always the best solution.  I believe it all comes down to the challenge of balancing all the types of various consumption/economy, rather than focusing solely on a single entity.

2)   Another question I had while initially reading Whose City? Whose Culture? was how do globalism and America’s “Melting Pot” mentality affect this role of Cultural Identity?  Later on in the reading this issue is gently touched upon, and ultimately culminates with a quote from Patrick Buchanan addressing how ‘we’ must take back our cities and ‘we’ must take back our culture.  The title of the reading then struck me all at once and the reading finally began came together.  In our current state of being, everything is becoming more and more of a hybrid and less of a singular identity due to advances in technology and accessibility, in addition to a more open-minded society.  While a debate could easily be brought to the table on the advantages and disadvantages of each side, I believe a more significant discussion would be on the matter of how to exploit this fact to its fullest potential, seeing as how it is clearly happening regardless of the benefits/consequences.  Given that these globalistic ideals are rapidly taking over, how are we currently handling the idea of ‘cultural consumption?’  Is it simply enough for cities to have China Towns and Little Italy’s?  Or is there more than can be taken into consideration from the ever-growing diversity and density on our planet today?

3)   Lastly, given some of our past class discussions I could not help but to take note of the reading’s mentioning of how in the 60’s urban shopping centers began to copy suburban shopping malls by “developing a clean space according to a visually coherent theme.”  With Arthur’s re-occurring argument that suburban malls are now always mimicking urban environments, do we begin to see a sort of cyclical process in how we desire spaces to be?  The reading then goes on to mention how at that time urban shopping began to take on a role of ‘cultural entertainment’ in order to attract the previously mentioned ‘cultural consumers.’  I could not help but to wonder if this was the beginning of cities starting to become these ‘drive-thru’ destinations where consumers would constantly be coming and going, but never staying to contribute heavily to the urban well-being.  While it is true that recently we have reciprocated back to the majority of the world’s population living in cities, I feel as if that is heavily swayed by denser third world countries, while American cities are still suffering drastically.  What can be done to rejuvenate the idea of a city in America?  Is it possible to make American cities a destination with the notion of consumption being the city’s primary role?   

4)   The Cultural Roles of Cities reading was one that was significantly challenging and confusing to comprehend.  A main concept that I was attempting to grasp was their notion of city’s of Orthorenetic Transformation vs. Heterogenetic Transformation.  While I attempted to create several examples in my head, I continued to find conflicting characteristics no matter what city I thought of and therefore was unsure of the exact meaning behind the two.  From my understanding Orthogenetic cities have traits of historical influence as well as being cities of culture, which I ultimately decided would be most similar to European cities; whereas Heterogenetic cities tend to be current and globalized cities, which I thought to be more closely to related to cities such as New York and/or Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing and the like.  Are these conclusions accurate?  If so, I cannot help but to notice tendencies of each type. For example, Orthogenetic tend to be heavily focused around tourism/consumption, where are Heterogenetic tend to be heavily reliant upon societal aspects.  What do these observations mean?

5)   Another thought sparked from the Cultural Role of Cities reading was derived from the discussion of Primary Urbanization and Secondary Urbanization.  Again, I was a little unclear of exactly which each consisted of; however I believe the topic of City and Country is directly related, with Primary corresponding to Country and Secondary with City.  This being the case, though, I believe the authors are missing a primary tertiary factor: Suburbs.  The reading alluded to the fact that there is an inevitable gap between City culture and Country culture and left it at that.  However, I think now that gap has been filled with this third vision of culture being the suburbs.  What does this 3rd realm mean?  Now that it is not necessarily just the peasant and the literari, how has our society changed?  I think this middle ground of the suburbs creates an entirely different relationship, being that it is not longer about 2 extremes correlating.  In our Forces that Shape Cities class we discussed a reading that said how nothing it necessarily created in cities, but rather it “centralizes creation,” implying that cities are essentially middlemen.  Which is a more appropriate analogy, the city as a middleman or the suburbs as a middleman?

Proposed sketches of 4 separate, tentative projects throughout the downtown Cleveland area.  Conceptual propositions have been discussed in great detail with the Mayor of Cleveland as a way to revitalize the image and performance of this Midwestern Urban region.  The professional charette summary was then analyzed and the above sketches were made as an individual interpretation of what Cleveland's image could become. 

1)   I found Lynch’s reading to be a rather admirable one, primarily because he always seems to know exactly what questions to ask and then vividly pursue the answer(s).  His big question of the relationship between environmental change and social change is one that tends to vary drastically based on several factors, all of which he elaborates on quite elegantly.  One thing that I did think was missing, though, was an initial, concrete explanation/definition of what exactly he thought environment and social changes to be.  The reason I say this is because I believe there to be a sense of ambiguity, or perhaps diversity, of what everyone believes them to be.  For example, the term environment can have several different conations associated with it; such as an organic/ecological connection versus several different scales of ‘surroundings’ (i.e. the room I am sitting in versus the building I am in versus the street that I am on versus the city I am in, etc.).  As I began to read further, it seemed to me that Lynch simply was using the term in its broadest sense (merely being the general surroundings we find ourselves in).  I wonder though, what would have Lynch stumbled upon if he would have addressed the changes that occurred on various scales of environments, more specifically, the exponential hierarchy of scales that Jan Gehl addressed in the earlier reading of this semester.  Perhaps then Lynch would have been able to result in more concrete outcomes, as opposed to the several indirect conclusions that he tends to culminate with.    



2)   A second point I found provoking was his correlation to the environment as a stabilizer.  My first thought after reading this section was to my initial approach towards architecture as I was first entering its realm.  It made me realize that one of the many reasons I have always been drawn towards architecture is because it is such a significant amount of our environment, and therefore one of the most opportunistic methods to being able to better the world we live in.  Referring to my first comment, if we were to view this term of environment as being architecture, then I believe it to most certainly have a direct influence on social change.  Throughout history it has been utilized as a means of displaying power, beliefs/religion, technology, leisure, innovation, etc.; and has always been viewed as a way to better understand the era and society during which it existed (just think of how much knowledge we have acquired throughout history from buildings).  Lynch sparked my second thought more from the ‘predictable repetition’ comment.  I immediately thought back to our Theories of Architecture course when we were addressing Formal Rationalism, as well as the many forms architecture has been known to take.  What is so fascinating to me, though, is how no matter how repetitive and/or ritualistic things become, humans seem to always be able to relate to it (either positive or negatively, but relating nonetheless).  As a simpler explanation, we are always able to recognize a chair as a chair, regardless of how simple or elaborate, intentional or unintentional it is.  For example, my thoughts were directed back to the video we watched of The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces and how people viewed steps and ledges as seating, although that may not have been their specific intention.  It is all just a testament to how adaptable we are as humans; and part of the reason behind adapting it directly applicable to how we perceive the environment around us, thus I believe environmental changes always affect social change/tendencies (however minimal or drastic).



3)   With regards to the Hayden reading, I could not help but to ponder about the idea of a repetitive model community and how it eventually declined given the transition from rural to urban environments.  It made me question if that implies that rural areas can be viewed as a neutralized, or rather, consistent environment regardless of location, whereas urban cities do not (cannot?) cater to identical, repetitive model communities, thus confirming Beinart’s theory of city identities.  Simply put, what I mean to say is that in a way, I believe this significantly suggests that rural environments are the same throughout the world, a case that is clearly not the same for cities.  Cities are known for the myriad of attributes/culture/people they possess, whereas rural areas are consistently marked the same, whether in Iowa or Italy.  Would others agree with this point?  I wonder what further conclusions could be made by expanding on this topic.



4)    I had another thought from the Hayden reading, however it is a little more far-fetched than most of my other comments tend to be (so bare with me!).  The reading begins by describing how the Shaker tradition was initially begun by Ann Lee as a result of her many failed births.  By combining 2 concepts from previous readings/classes I came up with what follows:

Just as in the City of Bits reading where cyber space was viewed as an urban environment, as well as in the Robert Moses presentation, I began to wonder what (if anything) could be taken away by viewing the notion of religion (rather than cyberspace) as an urban entity, and the idea of having a singular Super Figure (Robert Moses/Ann Lee) be able to influence it in it’s entirety.

In a way, that is precisely what happened in the case of the Shakers.  One person was able to create an entire belief system, consisting of followers, families, and eventually model “urban” environments.  Can the success and failures of both the Shakers and New York City be compared?  Is one simply a success, where the other is a failure? Or are there glimpses of both in each of the two situations?  What moral issues are brought up in each case?



5)    I briefly alluded to the Beinart reading in a previous comment, however I had another thought when reading it.  I find his ideas of a city each having/creating its own image to be very significant and true.  As he mentions in detail, there are numerous ways in which to promote/repel/create a specific image as related to a specific city, but what I was more interested in were the effects that globalization and technology have on modern-day cities.  He mentions that there are 3 primary ways that city images are formed (oral, books, and incentives), however I feel as if these are dated.  Historically, these three are extremely accurate and astute, however now that factors of technology and globalism are drastically significant/advanced, our views of cities have changed considerably.  We can now literally virtually experience an entire built city via Google Earth (3D Buildings) without ever leaving our pillow.  While there is clearly no doubt that ‘street views’ of Florence hardly amount to actually walking the Italian stone roads, there is also no doubt that it most certainly influences/alters our perception of that city image.  What does this mean?  Are city images simply more difficult to ‘fudge,’ as they were in the past?  Or perhaps these advances make city images that much more deceiving.       

Our last class sparked a conversation regarding the issue of time as related to ecological and sustainable design.  So often there is a gap between human actions and natural processes, which in turn causes a level of unsatisfaction due to mankind's desire for immediate gratification.  While most default to creating systems and structures that will influence people immediately, the Meghalayas have a different method of cultivating natural processes as a means to influence not necessarily their children, but their children's children.  There is a lesson of true ecological design that can be taken from this video, and can be implemented in each and every one of our designs today.  

1)   I must admit that I was not very enthralled with Ian McHarg’s The Place of Nature in the City of Man excerpt.  While he of course acknowledges and creates several valid points, I could not help but to be sidetracked by his negative and condescending demeanor (especially when immediately contrasting it with Anne Spirn’s writing; see below).  Rather than continuing this comment in a hypocritical manner though, I will focus my efforts on the few intriguing points that he did make.  Towards the end of his excerpt he brings to fruition an idea of the “bare minimum environment,” which immediately stood out to me as something to imagine.  What would life be like if it was ‘lived’ using the bare minimum environmental needs?  Conversely, what would life be like if it was lived using the minimum artificiality (or whatever you see best fit as the opposite of environment)?  To me, both images depict an atmosphere that I would not prefer to be subjected to in full.  Of course, there are moments when I love being surrounded by nothing by nature, as well as being totally encompassed in a Dave&Busters, surrounded by nothing by artificial technology/entertainment.  As I am writing this, I am realizing more and more my overall dilemma with the reading, and that is the fact that it is not about picking extremes, but rather creating a balance/co-existence.  While I feel as if McHarg’s overall message may not be to do away with urban environments completely, his method of writing and portraying his argument almost makes it appear as such.

2)   Another point of the McHarg’s reading I wanted to make note of was his acknowledgement of Japan’s human ecosystem and their ability to include agriculture in their urban environments.  The main thing I took away from this was mankind’s innate ability to “make due.”  As countless examples can be found all over the world (and in many aspects), there is an unlimited amount of possibilities when it comes to mankind acting of out necessity.  In terms of ecosystems and agriculture, there cannot be a direct comparison of Japan and America because they are 2 totally different environments.  Japan has always been rooted in density and geographically dominated regions, whereas miles of open square footage are practically stumbled upon in America’s sprawl.  Had America stayed the geographical size of its original 13 colonies, there is not doubt in my mind that we would have developed ways to adapt to our surroundings and succeed.  I think our issue in America has always been the fact that we have such a surplus of territory that there is an extensive gap in terms of our actions and the time of their respective consequences; whereas a country as limited in real estate as Japan cannot afford similar actions because it would be the demise of their social, urban and natural environments.                         

3)   Unlike McHarg’s writing, I was very pleased with the Sprin reading as well as her overall approach to urban areas in terms of natural ecosystems.  I had a strong appreciation for how she still acknowledged the city as an ecosystem in and of itself, in addition to using non-pessimistic words like “opportunities” and “molding” versus some of the more harsh contrasting language of McHarg.  Her explanation of the limitations of nature influencing urban form (as in New York’s utilization of bedrock) was a point that seemed to really resonate with me, perhaps because it was such a different perspective of viewing the natural world.  It helped reiterate the fact that ‘ecology’ and ‘natural environment’ do not always constitute an open green park filled with foliage.  A second great point was her mentioning of what nature took some 10,000 years to create, mankind was able to vastly influence in 150 years.  While this is clearly not the first time this notion has been addressed in the past, the way she structures her writing sparked a new thought process for me.  It made me question that if the key to ecological success was somehow directly related to time (i.e. in terms of evolution and progress).  While this at first seems very tempting to agree with, I could not help but to snicker at the thought primarily because if that were the case it would be almost impossible for humans to ever be truly ecological (as we are all well aware of mankind’s ‘patience’).  However, I then started to wonder “is nature perfect?”  Clearly we know that mankind is not, but is nature even?  What would these writings be like if they were analyzing the history of natural processes with the same tenacity and intensity as they do human trends?  Instead of harping on grid layouts and the erection of concrete/steel towers, it would be criticizing the colossal ice glaciers that covered entire landmasses, moving at a half a snails pace and allowing for no implication life.  What sort of thoughts would this spur, I wonder?  (Keeping in mind I am not anti-nature by any means, but rather just enjoy re-envisioning how we perceive things sometimes)

4)   Another Spirn quote that sparked and idea was her mentioning of “settlers harnessing the power of the sea…”  Perhaps it was simply her word choice here, however it made me think back to last week’s conversation of ‘tools’ (i.e. Mitchell’s reading); however this time in terms of nature rather than the internet/technology.  How exactly do we view nature? Do we view it as a tool, as Spirn alludes to in her quote?  Or do we place it at a higher level of significance (whatever that may be)?  Perhaps our current struggles are a result from the fact that we view nature simply as a tool, rather than giving it the respect that it deserves and perceiving it as an organism or process (i.e. placing the same value of mankind on nature).

5)   I was also a big supporter of Pollak’s reading and her many ideas of overlapping architecture, landscape, and urbanism.  It has a great deal to do with our Theories of Architecture course, in which we recently discussed Rem Koolhaas’s Theory of Bigness (which Pollak later alludes to). I especially enjoyed her comparison of figure/ground versus constructed ground, by which opposition is avoided and overlapping is promoted.  Her addressing of multiple scales as a means to eliminate exclusiveness provoked a comparison to Jane Jacob’s idea of mixed-use program as a way of diversifying.  While I agree with some of Jacob’s notions of using program to vary certain entities, we have discussed some of the flaw in our Forces that Shape Cities course and I now feel that Pollak’s scalar solution is much more successful in diversifying.  By properly including a range of scalar or hierarchical components to design, the best of all worlds involved have a potential to shine successfully simultaneously (not excluding, but including)(i.e. her ‘suppressing the car in order to promote bikes’ example).     

With the recent birth of the 7 billionth person a lot of people are beginning to question the rate at which the modern day population is growing.  As the simple, clean, graphically pleasing video above shows, the significance of urban designers is now at an all-time high.  The responsibility of successfully designing and planning efficient urban environments for the future is one that lies in our hands.  Considerations of natural resources, food, water, and energy will inevitably dictate the success/failure of our future generations (of which will be an astounding 10 billion by the year 2100), thus placing even more emphasis on the efficiency and resiliency of urban systems.

1)   I found Mitchell’s City of Bits reading to be particularly successful in depicting parallel concepts between physical space and ‘cyberspace.’  The overall concept of viewing the Internet as a venue for urbanistic values was one that I found extremely unique, which led to me to wonder how criticized it is by others.  Right off the bat, I enjoyed the comparison of the Internet to the feats of Rome, primarily because I think it’s reassuring to know that you are a part of a significant historical era.  What I liked most, though, was how Mitchell depicted the technological realm to be one with class and sophistication (especially with his ‘digital cocktail party’ metaphor).  The alternative description, which is one that we so often hear, describes technology to be this numbing substitute for real life which requires foreign objects and probes in order to function.  It is so easy to portray technological aspects as alienating, which is why I had a strong appreciation for the fact that Mitchell did just the opposite.  That being said, an intriguing question that was prompted by this reading was at what point is a ‘place’ known for its physical attributes versus its ‘people’?  Mitchell brings up this notion that the Internet creates ‘places’ by culminating common interests of people, which in return creates a successful venue of communication (just as a local coffee shop or diner).  If this is the case, then, what makes the Internet so different?  It made me begin to question all the spaces we interact with on a daily basis.  Why do we enjoy/dislike the spaces that we are in?  Is it because of the actual space?  Or is it in fact more strongly based on the other users or program within that space to define it?  Example: I sit across from a friend at a coffee shop, enjoy our conversation, and then leave the coffee shop with a certain perspective of that place (however subliminal or apparent it may be).  If I instead bring my laptop and video chat with that same individual, at the same coffee shop, and at the same table, would I then come away with a different perception of that place?          

2)   While reading Mitchell’s chapter I could not help but to try and make comparisons with Rem Koolhaas’ Technology of the Fantastic, especially when he began to talk about MUD’s.  He mentions how they are cyberspace’s renditions of urban neighborhoods and how oftentimes they can be utilized as escapes (i.e. gaming, avatars), which immediately sparked a recollection of our discussion on Coney Island and how it was also utilized as an escape, and sometimes even as a ‘test dummy’ for real urban design back in Manhattan.  Being that both readings are in regards to Technology, this surely cannot be a coincidence.  Perhaps the most appealing aspect of technology is that no matter how close to real it becomes, there will always be a CTRL-Z.  I started to question how much credibility a computer programmer would receive for designing a city (let’s say, for gaming) versus an urban designer who creates a masterplan (say, for the city of Cleveland or Milan.  My assumption was not very much, because I think the digital realm does not hold as much weight as reality.  There is no CTRL-Z in real life.  However, I began to wonder if technology is then only a one-way street.  For example, as designers, think of how much we now rely on Revit/CAD and other technological advances for our designs; yet this seems never to hinder or discredit our ability, but rather enhance it.  Going along with this thinking then, should the Internet (or technology in general) only be used as a tool as opposed to ever being utilized as a destination?   If so, how do we justify ‘places’ such as twitter and facebook which were initially meant merely as tools for social connection, but eventually wound up being exploited and turned into destinations (just as in the case of Coney Island).     

3)   At first when reading Gandy’s chapter I was initially baffled at the statement that parkways “synthesized nature, technology, and landscape design.”  After further reading, though, I realized exactly why.  It was because growing up during the turn of the century, I have only been exposed to the modern day concrete mammoth connectors that we currently call highways, as opposed to what was originally designed to amble through a rural landscape presenting never-seen-before vistas while simultaneously connecting urbanites to otherwise remote locations.  The rapid and drastic transformation in parkway design is one that is unprecedented given the amount of change that has occurred in the very limited time that they have been around.  After glancing at the picturesque parkway image on page 120, I almost laughed when I compared it to what I would drive on currently; which is basically the antithesis of nature.  Artificial concrete ‘branches’ that tear through the natural landscape, mowing down trees and carving hundreds of feet into hills to expose the thousands of years of geology underneath.  While I realize that they are an integral part of our vehicular-driven society today, I cannot help but to loathe them in some way; perhaps due to the fact that we now all know the environmental consequences of vehicular-dominant urbanization (in addition to all other consequences).  I then read the quote by Clarke that brought to the table “at what point do highways lose their effectiveness?”  The answer is simple: highways lost their effectiveness as soon as they started to become static in use; which is to say, when they began building highways solely for the use of connection.  By disregarding the multi-faceted concepts of leisure, vistas, natural/landscape enhancement, and connection that they initially had, they rendered themselves ineffective.  Part of me wonders if suburbs are really to blame.  Prior to the 50’s/60’s these natural parkways meandered through rural areas to connect 2 larger urban nodes; however, once the tertiary program of suburbs started to fill this rural landscape, the highways then became all about connection (and by any means necessary).   

4)   I found the LA reading to be very fascinating, primarily because it is one of the cities that I have always wanted to visit, yet have not had the chance to.  The initial section about the river situation that LA has formed over time was so interesting given its uniqueness compared to most all other cities (and took viewing a river as infrastructure to a whole new level).  I think the situation is a prime example of mankind’s obsession with control (which we all hope people are beginning to realize the consequences of).  At first, I found it ironic that the concrete river was initially designed to avoid the sporadic flooding, or “park + floodplain”, situation.  I say this because I constantly kept picturing what we are consistently leaning towards now, with constructed wetlands.  What we once were desperately trying to avoid, we now desire more than anything in terms of sustainability.  Now of course, my initial observation was ruined a little when I continued to read to find that most of the excess river water would have been sewage water, however I thought it a noteworthy observation nonetheless.  As I continued reading I began to grow disinclined with the whole conception of LA’s concrete river “conduit” (which I compared to a linear inverse-dam).  I could not get away from the notion of how synthetic/man-made it inevitably seemed.  I began to question how long such an artificial city could last (but then again the metaphor of a plastic bag comes to mind).  However, it then started to grow on me when it delved into the fact that the river then acted as this multiplex of urban infrastructure, doubling as a catalyst for water, cars, trains, freight, trucks, and electricity.  I of course then instantly fell in love when reading about the potential notion of it turning into a 50-mile linear park (which would be phenomenal!).   An overall question I felt continued to go answered through the reading though, was what caused LA to treat their river situation so different from every other US city? While most cities prize their riverfront properties and aesthetics, LA has hidden theirs at all costs.  Is it really all due to the avoidance of sporadic flooding?  What would have happened if LA had initially designed with the environment (similar to how we now develop constructed wetland sites with program) as opposed to the exact opposite?   

5)   The Street chapter in Barden’s reading also turned out to be rather provoking in terms of thinking about sprawl in cities.  It refers to LA as a city without a center.  Are there many other cities like this in the world?  What exactly defines a city as a city, if it is not in fact about a dense central core?  Again, I think the fact that I have not been fortunate enough to visit LA drastically hinders my judgment in this situation, given that I am unable to base my opinion of LA as a city vs. suburbia on personal experience.  Surely, the comparison to London comes to mind, as we have studied it often.  Yes, while London has been considered to have included its suburbs as a part of a massive/expansive city, it did so while still keeping a central core.  Another question it caused was what is the relationship of a linear city vs. a sprawled city?  Are they not opposites?  Is there such a thing as linear sprawl?  I do not think there is, primarily because I think if something is linear then, by nature, it will eventually transform into a connection rather than sprawl.  What is it that caused LA to shift from its original linear origins to the massive expanse that it is today?                 


(A look at a new perception of LA's River)

A sketching analysis of the relationship of solid vs void in the urban environment.

1)    I must admit that I was a little weary of the Jane Jacobs reading at first after reading the title of ‘The Uses of Sidewalks,’ however I could not have be happier that I was proven wrong.  Right from the start the reading sparked numerous thoughts and motivating comparisons.  Towards the beginning of the reading I was hesitant to accept a few of her examples, more specifically the North End of Boston and the New York projects Christmas tree.  The reason I wasn’t fully convinced about the North End example was because I felt as if she was alluding to the fact that diversity guarantees safety (a statement I find too bold).  In terms of the NY Christmas tree, I found myself questioning the validity/relativeness, however later I came to realize the consequences that open space can have.  A great aspect about the reading was the notion that sidewalks are really, in a way, the heart of the city and one of the most crucial aspects (although often times they tend to be overlooked) being that they are where a vast amount of interactions occur (or should/can occur).  Sidewalks are a transitional fabric interwoven throughout any and every city and the reading made me realize that more effort should be focused on the design of them, beyond simply animating them with trees and planters.  A question that I had, though, was in regards to her mentioning the success of activating sidewalks with shops, bars, restaurants, and the like.  While I fully agree with the high rate of success of this, she never quite addresses the fact that we simply cannot afford to open shops/restaurants on every sidewalk in the city (especially in this economy).  What are the alternatives?  Going along the same idea, another question was what would happen if we made sidewalks private property rather than under ownership of the city?  This would create more freedom for business/shop owners to design additional real estate how they saw fit, thus activating sidewalks even further and elevating the amount of security they provide as she so greatly noted in the readings.

2)     2 further points I thoroughly enjoyed from the Jane Jacob’s reading were 1) the acknowledgement that people love people.  People love to people watch and go where other people go.  If one goes, they all follow.  How, then, can designers influence (not control) this notion to it’s utmost potential?  I could not help but to think of designs; relating the sidewalk to a ‘fishbowl’ and/or viewing the sidewalk as a gallery space of ‘live art.’  When thought of in these terms I feel that it entices people/designers to a whole new level of thought on the impact that sidewalks can have. The second point I appreciated was the depiction of 3 consequences: a) letting danger exist (projects/low income housing), b) taking refuge in vehicles (African safari tourists), and c) the turf system (in terms of gangs).  While all of these points are very valid, I kept focusing on the third and last comment of turf wars and gangs, more specifically her example given thereafter.  Where/how is the line drawn?  Clearly the community attempting to create ‘pacts on turf’ was a very legitimate way to address the REAL problem; however of course there is then the issue of discrimination and encouragement of gangs.  As designers, it is always easier to simply analyze the theory behind what the community did and label it as wrong or unsuccessful, but it is so easy to get lost in theory and never address the REALity of a situation.  In parts of many cities ganglands are very real and need to be addressed in some way, and ultimately I tend to lean to the idea that perhaps pacts on turf is a decent solution for the time being. 

3)    The Gehl reading was one of my favorite readings we have had thus far.  It touched on a variety of different important aspects that I feel are often never realized, or rather never quantified/documented.  The first acknowledgement was the importance of outdoors due to that being the locale where most all interaction occurs was such a simple concept, yet for some reason seemed to open my eyes more to it.  While he addressed the fact that interaction is heavily dependent upon similar economics, politics, and ideals (and I strongly agree), I wondered if some others would consider this ‘discrimination’ or singling out a particular group of people to design for.  Again, I go back to the idea that the world is not all “roses and puppies” and often times it is most successful to design for a particular social/economic/political group rather than always trying to mould everything together (not to be mistaken for discrimination).  In addition to these 3 factors of interaction, he brilliantly brings into play the impact that designers can have on the success, or failure, of interaction.  He helped me make the correlation that although we, as designers, may not always directly design for such interactions, what we create almost always indirectly influences how people interact with the physical space/limits around them.  The whole notion of life and processes between buildings was brilliant!  Throughout the entire reading I could not help but to think of possible installation designs or pop-up alley events that our studio could research and create in order to help others come to this realization also.  One question this did raise, though, was what exactly does he mean by processes?  I fully understand the overall concept of what he is writing about, however he never mentions directly what exact ‘processes’ he means (unless it is as simple as interaction being the process). 

4)    Secondly, I felt as if the Gehl reading corresponded perfectly with the Jane Jacob’s reading, as I continuously found myself drawing parallels between the two.  I think the most interesting correlation I made was when Gehl began to expand on there being a lack of transition (or ‘middle ground’) within urban environments (more specifically dwellings).  Now having lived in Cleveland for a few months, this could not be truer in my experience.  While I’m sure it is true that many higher end apartment complexes have grand lobbies, often it is simply a zone for elevators and mail to be received (and something that rarely lives up to the potential it has).  That being the case, then, I wonder if we could utilize sidewalks for this transitional space.  I mentioned in the Jacobs reading how it could be fascinating if sidewalks were private space rather than city-owned; but now after reading this, I think we could take that even further and create the sense of hierarchy that Gehl is constantly referring to and apply it to sidewalk experience.  In addition to the vast design possibilties of this notion, is the bonus of having the transition space also act as the prime space of interaction within the city.  Overlapping these two crucial programs would create on of the most successful spaces within an urban fabric (and could be applied throughout the entire scale of the city!).  Lastly, I found Gehl’s reading to be intriguing in the way that he was able to convey his ideas.  Between his simple ‘inhibiting/promoting contact’ diagrams and his quantification of designer data, I was almost able to fully understand the whole reading again just from those 2 aspects.  The whole “1+1=3” and the “number vs duration” equation is genius.  It reminded me of the filming of the Avenger’s movie here in Cleveland.  There were swarms of people all over East 9th, Euclid, and Prospect; however, I now realize the deceiving perception that can create.  “The number of people or events does not, then, in itself give a real indication of the activity level in an area.”  It has to deal with duration also (i.e. walk to E. 9th now between Euclid and Prospect now and………nothing).  With all things considered, then, how can we as designers more heavily influence the duration of our creations?  How can we take public installations and pop-up events even further so that they become more substantial and not forgotten a mere 2 weeks later as in the Avenger’s case?    

5)    I was amazed at both the level and amount of detail Allan Jacobs displayed in his reading.  Not only did he go as far as to sketch paving details of roads, he does so while analyzing countless streets (hundreds!).  Again, I think this is a great example of how simple a lot of these concepts can be, it just takes someone to go out and both recognize and document the physical world around them.  I appreciated that he acknowledged the fact that there are a myriad of factors that can define a street as a “great street;” which to think anything otherwise would just be silly, considering the vast amount of cultures, city environments, uses, and scales that exist in the world.  As he so eloquently notes, one of the most important parts of analyzing great streets is to compare as many aspects of as many streets as you can (which he CLEARLY does).  I think one of the most significant things to take away from this reading was his notion of the intrinsic value of streets.  Much like how we discussed the indirect value of parks/green spaces in urban environments, streets are the same way (a prime example being the tax-payers of San Francisco for Market street).  With streets being nearly a third of EVERY city, it is almost impossible to quantify the amount of potential that they have!  The interplay of human activity and physical space that he denotes is one that I think is the most influential and important aspects of life (i.e. the reason for my wanting to become an architect/urban designer).  Because streets so clearly define the culture of a city, I am now continuously asking myself what street defines Cleveland (if any)?  Is it East 9th? The only true north/south axis throughout the city.  Is it West 6th?  The bar district that is booming, but only during peak hours and peak seasons?  Is it Euclid Avenue?  The primary transit corridor, where many of the old shops used to be.  Is it East 4th?  A great ‘alleyway’ of sort that is full of culture.  Or maybe, is it along the Detroit/Superior Bridge?  Basically what I am getting at is does a city have to have one street (or street layout/template) in order to define the city’s success?  Are there any unifying factors that all of these Cleveland streets possess?  Or is that perhaps that problem?        

1)    Having read some of Camillo Sitte’s writings in other classes, I was already familiar with some of his view points and critiques, however this week’s reading assisted in lending me a better understanding of Sitte.  While I am still unsure of my personal opinion towards his thoughts, I did gain a stronger appreciation for him considering that the reading alluded to the fact that Sitte was not a negative critic, but rather simply in search of what creates a harmonious space/city (especially in regards to Antiquity).  My primary apprehension, though, is his constant reference to the ‘artistic’ and the ‘(a)esthetic.’  For someone who was highly regarded as an intellectual, Sitte constantly seems blinded by the physical appearance of things, placing a drastic emphasis on the visual.  Other than his implication of Antiquity locating statues/monuments on the periphery of piazzas for efficient traffic, I feel as if he rarely further investigates the numerous other characteristics that architecture concerns.  Ironically, his writing closely touches on Tommy and I’s discussion of art vs architecture from the previous class.  I feel as if Sitte places the fields architecture, painting, and sculpting as identical.  Mind you, I am no way implying that one is of a high demeanor than the other, but rather protesting that while these 3 most certainly do have similarities, architecture is concerned with a drastically higher amount of detail and influence.  In paintings and sculpture, just as in architecture, emotions are provoked and meaning is displayed through the aestethic, however architecture is the only of the 3 that has additional factors to take into account.  Art revolves solely around the visual for its duty, whereas architecture is a compilation of aesthetics, function, emotion, narrative, theory, space, construction, methods, urban influence, etc.  I suppose my question, then, is exactly how much value can be placed on the aesthetic?  For painting and sculpture I believe, say 90 to 100% is based off this, however in architecture perhaps only...30? 40? 50?

2)             Another aspect of Sitte’s reading that stood out to me was the notion that as diversity is gained, local traits begin to become lost.  It is an issue that European countries have constantly struggled with, given the fact that each country does not want to converge with all other and lose its own identity (which is clearly very understandable).  However, when this concept is applied at the smaller scale of architecture within a city, as opposed to an entire country, I feel that it comes dangerously close to discrimination.  When creating hybrid architecture (merging 2 different styles) Sitte refers to it as “no longer having character” (unless of course one of the 2 styles is Classical in nature).  My question is at what point does creating a new style that is influenced by several others become its own unique style, rather than a character-less one?  I feel that Sitte is so tied to Antiquity that if a more modern style is merged with another, as opposed to merging with a more classical one, then it is unsuccessful and shallower.  Does considering traits based on the principle of success in history necessarily ensure it success in present? (Clearly Sitte thinks so, however I am unsure)

3)    The Soaring Twenties was quite a fun read, possibly due to the fact that it read more like a story rather than a theoretical article.  It’s emphasis on the childish ego battles that sparked the quest for the tallest building was one of extreme entertainment.  To think that some of the modern world’s greatest achievements were honestly carried out primarily due to ego of men is as equally mind-boggling as it is comical.  Although the chapter does realize that building the tallest building does in fact have benefits of advertisement, success, economics, and publicity, ego is most certainly a primary focus.  This lead me to wonder what Jane Jacobs and Peter Hall’s thoughts on this matter would be.  Surely, it is easy to side with their opinions of audacity and narcissism in terms of Corbusier’s sheer neglect of site-specific culture (etc.), however what becomes of ego when it is vastly responsible for some of man-kind’s greatest achievements?  The reading itself alluded to the fact that it allowed America to begin break away from Europe and create its own identity.  Is ego, then, such a bad thing?? Or is that simply the narcissist in me talking?

4)    The chapters of Old New York were fascinating in some of the points that they brought up, especially when describing a ‘young and innocent’ New York (something that is surely laughable nowadays).  The reading, which was more of a history lesson than an argumentative one, had several profound thoughts hidden within it, the most notable one being that within the process of urbanization New Yorkers began to “learn to live in the city.”  I thought this was a rather noble thing to point out, mostly because we rarely think of people as having to ‘learn how to live,’ however it could not be truer.  I personally have experienced this transition over the past 3 months, having moved into Cleveland for school.  I think the main aspect to take away from this idea is that there is always a requirement of effort when it comes prosperity.  Through something as simple as apartment housing, it is realized the effect that innovative design/architecture and effort (from the people of the city) can have on a city that is struggling to define itself.  The success of New York could not be a more prime example of such. 

5)    The second interesting thought that was brought to mind from Old New York was in regards to the description of Union Place (now Union Square).  While referred to as the “inevitable product of progress and prosperity” for its time, I could not help but to notice the similarities the description had to depicting modern day suburbs; the ‘flaunting of wealth,’ ‘new formed streets,’ dances, quirky attire, diverse entertainment/restaurants in a way all apply to how we utilize suburbs today.  Does that then allude to the fact that suburbs are a product of progress and prosperity?  What is to be gained or lost by specializing in designing the tertiary zones of suburbs vs urban centers?  In addition to this, the article discusses how apartment houses were a draw for young couples, widows, and artists.  With the prominence of the suburbs nowadays, who are the prime candidates? Not young couples, true, however young families most certainly are (who are technically the future of the population).  Yet another correlation to suburbs is the reading’s mentioning of New York’s early housing as ‘depicting mundane values.’  This made me think of how houses can be considered as insignificant, or mundane, due to the fact that they are all so similar in style (and have changed very little over time).  That being said, houses are the fabric of regions; the highest percentage of building in most all areas.  Does that then speak of our current status as being mundane/insignificant?

6)    I found the Kevin Lynch reading to be one of the most applicable readings we have addressed thus far.  While Lynch’s research runs parallel with Sitte’s, in that they were both searching for elements that create harmony with users, I feel as if Lynch was far more successful in his analysis.  Not only was Lynch able to come up with the 5 primary elements and explain in detail, but he also succeeded in investigating the psyche behind urban and architectural elements within the city.  He addresses the physical traits, such as landmarks and districts, similar to how Sitte would/did, however his notion of the intangible (i.e. paths, edges, and nodes) are what really set him apart from others.  Being that Lynch’s reading has been one of the more recent readings we have encountered, I wonder about the longevity of his results.  I personally believe that his 5 elements and methods are ones that are, in a sense, timeless and will be applicable for most all cities from now until….forever? I am hesitant in this thought, though, because I also wonder if my relation/respect for his research is primarily due to its modern/’up-to-date-ness,’ therefore making it easier for me to relate (especially when compared to others such as Sitte, whose work is some 100 years older).