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.
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.
