1) As discussed in the Kingsley David article, the success/climax of urban areas tends to be rather brief and appear in stages, or cycles, due to the issue of population fluctuation. This being the case, my primary question/concern is how, then, can we create urban environments that promote birth and growth (families) in order to reduce the reliance of population waves and migrations as a means of replenishing the city? Most all urban cities coincide with the 20-30 year old demographic with restaurants, clubs, and overall entertainment and night life, as opposed to locales in which family is a priority.
2) An interesting concept that was addressed in the Kostof reading was the notion that cities have always been designed as ‘ideal’ locales, or ‘utopian’ settings. I found it to be a very intriguing and true assessment. What is our fascination with creating the most heavenly and perfect city? Is it because we all tend to want to live in cities, we just don’t believe we have successfully addressed all the issues yet?
As a sub-question to this reading, it was also noted that throughout history cities have came and went in accordance to the birth/death of kings or primary leaders. Given the state of the world today, this can most certainly not be the case, so I then ask what is it that really sparks to birth or death of a modern day city?
3) A concern that I have always had is the rapid progression of technology in modern society, as well as the social effects it causes. One of the most successful urban times was caused by the Industrial Revolution, and as discussed in Mumford’s writings we now exist in a realm of technology and evolution/innovation. With all of the benefits that develop with the progression of technology (which are most certainly a crucial aspect of modern day) come the concerns of social changes. The industrial age allowed for the employment of countless workers, who were in turn able to work hard for money and then return it to the economy. Nowadays, with the technological realm, people are encouraged not by working hard for money, but rather a notion of extreme convenience. We rely on the some 2% of the population that is intelligent enough to create these amazing technological advances to give us more and more while we able to sit back and reap the benefits. Technology promotes the exact opposite of what the industrial boom did, and I just hope that the outcome is not the exact opposite also.
4) For some reason I found myself often offended and more defensive than usual when reading the Levittowners in America chapter. Throughout the pages he makes very bold conclusions on the residents of the suburban culture, which caused me to wonder what research was done on his behalf to arrive at said conclusions (i.e. suburbanites “do not develop lifestyles or ambitions”). Throughout the reading it seemed to me that his concerns tended to be with society in general, rather than the dwellers of Levittown. What threw me the most, though, was at the end of the chapter (of which he spent blatantly pointing out the, what seemed to be, infinite amount of suburban downfalls) when he states that, “whatever its imperfections, Levittown is a good place to live.”
5) Coney Island: the Technology of the Fantastic. Wow, what a reading! I think we could all agree that this was by far the most entertaining of the given readings. I was not aware of the circus that took place in the creation of Coney Island. It does, though, make numerous interesting points in terms of social experiment and the effects of technology/innovation. A major question I had after reading is whether or not the reading is a testament to mankind in general, or rather just American society. It constantly deals with this idea of consumption, and creating more and more until we are no longer satisfied, in which case we destroy and rebuild to entertain. It is the basis on which Las Vegas stands. I cannot help but to think that it is simply the American mentality, rather than mankind; and that it is no wonder why Americans are so universally hated, given then circumstances of so many other ‘lesser’ countries in current day. I appreciated the fact that in the end, the circus act was burned and replaced by parks and greenery, perhaps as if to suggest the future of America’s priorities on the global scale.
2) An interesting concept that was addressed in the Kostof reading was the notion that cities have always been designed as ‘ideal’ locales, or ‘utopian’ settings. I found it to be a very intriguing and true assessment. What is our fascination with creating the most heavenly and perfect city? Is it because we all tend to want to live in cities, we just don’t believe we have successfully addressed all the issues yet?
As a sub-question to this reading, it was also noted that throughout history cities have came and went in accordance to the birth/death of kings or primary leaders. Given the state of the world today, this can most certainly not be the case, so I then ask what is it that really sparks to birth or death of a modern day city?
3) A concern that I have always had is the rapid progression of technology in modern society, as well as the social effects it causes. One of the most successful urban times was caused by the Industrial Revolution, and as discussed in Mumford’s writings we now exist in a realm of technology and evolution/innovation. With all of the benefits that develop with the progression of technology (which are most certainly a crucial aspect of modern day) come the concerns of social changes. The industrial age allowed for the employment of countless workers, who were in turn able to work hard for money and then return it to the economy. Nowadays, with the technological realm, people are encouraged not by working hard for money, but rather a notion of extreme convenience. We rely on the some 2% of the population that is intelligent enough to create these amazing technological advances to give us more and more while we able to sit back and reap the benefits. Technology promotes the exact opposite of what the industrial boom did, and I just hope that the outcome is not the exact opposite also.
4) For some reason I found myself often offended and more defensive than usual when reading the Levittowners in America chapter. Throughout the pages he makes very bold conclusions on the residents of the suburban culture, which caused me to wonder what research was done on his behalf to arrive at said conclusions (i.e. suburbanites “do not develop lifestyles or ambitions”). Throughout the reading it seemed to me that his concerns tended to be with society in general, rather than the dwellers of Levittown. What threw me the most, though, was at the end of the chapter (of which he spent blatantly pointing out the, what seemed to be, infinite amount of suburban downfalls) when he states that, “whatever its imperfections, Levittown is a good place to live.”
5) Coney Island: the Technology of the Fantastic. Wow, what a reading! I think we could all agree that this was by far the most entertaining of the given readings. I was not aware of the circus that took place in the creation of Coney Island. It does, though, make numerous interesting points in terms of social experiment and the effects of technology/innovation. A major question I had after reading is whether or not the reading is a testament to mankind in general, or rather just American society. It constantly deals with this idea of consumption, and creating more and more until we are no longer satisfied, in which case we destroy and rebuild to entertain. It is the basis on which Las Vegas stands. I cannot help but to think that it is simply the American mentality, rather than mankind; and that it is no wonder why Americans are so universally hated, given then circumstances of so many other ‘lesser’ countries in current day. I appreciated the fact that in the end, the circus act was burned and replaced by parks and greenery, perhaps as if to suggest the future of America’s priorities on the global scale.