gabrielfey.com

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).     

1)    The City of Towers was quite a stimulating read, especially when considering the different topics that it covers.  Firstly, it was such a contrast (in a good way) in terms of analyzing Corbusier’s methods and mindset.  Studying at Kent State for the past 4 years of undergrad, we were constantly preached to about Corbusier and his ‘pure genius’ ways of design and urbanism.  It was so great to finally hear the other side of the argument, and I must say, I tend to agree with Peter Hall’s interpretation of Corbu’s methods.  He seemed to design purely for his own ego (as Jane Jacobs so eloquently realizes and states), as well as only for his own ‘self,’ in other words for upper to middle class white people with few to no children.  The other great point (that I had always wondered myself in the past) was his refusal to consider the environmental consequences of his vehicular dominated designs, and also the lack of attention to detail, for example garaging and/or parking.  With all these sorts of notions considered, I continuously found myself asking, ‘how/why was Corbusier found to be so influential and brilliant?’  It’s similar to the problem I’ve had with pure Theorism, and the fact that simply because something appears to work well in theory does not ensure its success in practice.  It relates directly back to the point we have brought up in class…as designers we can simply only influence, and not control.  The people are the ones who dictate and define how a space/building/city is used. 

2)     Secondly, I found myself comparing and contrasting Hall’s chapter with Wright’s article about Broadacres.  In both cases I felt as if the designers were coming very close to a concept of socialism or perhaps communism, in a way, yet I felt myself seeing more value in Wright’s concepts (primarily because they were to be only applied in American settings, thus taking into account culture/site unlike Corbu’s concept of a universal machine).  Then again, going back to my previous point of lack of concrete-ness in Theories, I wonder if either Wright’s notion of portioning off an acre of land to every citizen and Corbusier’s thought of establishing everyone an apartment based not on money but spatial norms would both be unsuccessful in practice, just as Socialism and Communism tend to be.  A very motivating question I kept thinking about while reading Wright’s article was that although I do not believe his Broadacres theory could be applied to current day, I do in fact believe that it could have very honestly been applied some 100+/- years ago, and if that were the case, what kind of country do you think America would be in current day if we had been based on that notion and developed it over the years?  I think we would be the true definition of American society and have our own culture of city rather than attempting to mold the more traditional city styles that primarily are attributed to more dense European style cities.  I think that is why we claim Wright as The AMERICAN architect.  Through all his designs, he was epitomizing all of what makes America the country it is.  We are a very fortunate and different country, to be able to sprawl in the manner in which we do and therefore I believe that our culture of cities should be equally different.

3)     The third matter I enjoyed of Hall’s chapter was his several references to Jane Jacobs and her theories of mixed-use program in urban centers.  I really admired her thought of how by having a myriad of programs in the same general area, you attract numerous types of users, and perhaps more importantly, at all different time schedules throughout the day, thus eliminated drastic peak hours.  I feel as if imagining a city in which people are constantly utilizing any and all amenities at all times of the day is a very successful idea (although considerations of organization and efficiency must be taken into account).  Tying into her concepts, as well as the end of the Hall text, I began to question ‘why does America seem to always build cheaply and only consider upfront costs (for example the Pruitt development)?’  I think it is a concept that is absolutely killing American design culture, especially when you consider that American buildings are found to have life expectancies of around 25-50 years, as compared to Europe’s, which tends to be upwards of 100 to 200 years.  A brilliant point was made about how the influences of surrounding physical environment fluctuate per social class, an idea that has been greatly overlooked in the past.

4)     The Brasilia reading, while a bit long in some parts, was still a very provoking reading.  At a point towards the beginning Epstein alludes to how moving the capital to a new location would not only give a new start, but a new mentality.  While I fully understand the idea that a new mentality can have great impacts, I wonder, ‘is there is anyway to quantify this kind of data, or a way to exactly see how much of an impact can occur?’  Were there any urban situations in the past that were ever drastically influenced purely by a new mentality?  Perhaps the Renaissance would be a fair comparison?  In which case would drastically prove the vast impact a new intangible mentality could have.  On the same level, it was mentioned that the primary problem of Rio was perhaps not design or layout, but rather the bureaucracy.  That being the case, are there any ways in which we as architects/urban designers can highly influence bureaucratic issues as opposed to only physical forms or layout?

5)     Another re-occurring theme in the Brasilia reading was the fact that Rio as the capital caused problems due to its coastal base and lack of centrality (or internal focus).  Initially I thought this to be a very valid point, however I then took a step back and realized that Washington D.C. could not be a more perfect counter argument for that point, especially when considering the size of the U.S.  In going along with the American comparison, I think that we strongly benefit from having several ‘country-defining’ cities.  Brazil seemed so caught up in this idea that the capital NEEDED to be moved to Brasilia in order for it to flourish, yet it never seemed to come up that they could simply begin to build up Brasilia as a typical metropolitan hub and utilize it for it what could be, a flourishing/thriving city.  What results would come if you polled people around the world on what America’s defining city would be?  I highly doubt that everyone would answer Washington D.C., or even that that would be their first answer.  Surely considerations of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc would be equally as influential.  In other words, my point is that it is very possibly for a non-capital city to have just as much influence on a country as a capital city. 

6)     In addition to the 5 comments/questions, I had an additional simple question as well as an additional comment.  First, my question was what exactly does Wright mean by the term ‘technoburbs’ as well as the reference to the ‘post-urban’ age.  Are both simply alluding to the idea of decentralization of cities? Secondly, I felt strongly in letting it be known that one of the reasons that I adore Wright’s article is the way in which is he able to simply relay even the most complex concepts.  For example, when he nonchalantly writes about organic architecture (which many people struggle so much to fully grasp) stating that: “the ground itself predetermines all features; the climate modifies them; available means limit them; and function shapes them.”  Through these 4 simple points he is able to fully describe what his essence of design was all about and the reader is immediately enlightened, something that I find truly remarkable.                          

A sketch analysis of the city of Cleveland's Public Square investigating layout, monuments, user paths, and overall city vision.