1) I found The Ancient Chinese City to be a rather refreshing read in terms of what we have read thus far in the course. I believe this to be true due to the way the reading addresses the notion of urban form not in terms of mere grid layout, but rather a “delineation of spaces” or “bio-astrale.” By referring to it as such, it emphasizes the more intellectual concept of architecture and urban design, especially when detailing this idea of a rhythm of spaces and/or new patterns of social/spatial organization. This all inevitably seemed to bring to mind the aspect of narrative, which as designers we are all very familiar with. The author then ties in another interesting idea of divinity and its influence of landscape. Although I was little unsure of how literal or figural this comparison was, I found it most enticing when reality was compared to an imitation of celestial archetype, especially when considering the fact that no human in fact knows/understands fully the notion of the heaven or cosmos, but rather creates an idea of it in his/her mind. I think it is a noteworthy idea to compare the relationship of celestial cities versus the other urban concepts we have discussed were it seemed to be created, instead, in the image of man.
2) Theory of Good City Form was rather surprising to me, primarily because I was not so aware of the full history of the city of Boston. For being such a prominent urban environment nowadays, it was shocking to learn of its extremely complex and burden-filled past. The idea of it beginning as an ‘inside out’ city due to the world trade habits after the American Revolution was such a unique happening in terms of urbanism up until that point. In going along with this concept, the reading addressed the fact that permanent plants and industry were eventually moved out to the suburbs, and everything began to become its own separate entity. My question, then, is what are the advantages and disadvantages of this? Being that we are all aware that an urban environment is a compilation of numerous systems (or entities), is it in fact best to separate each system so that it was able to function on its own, or would the contrary of overlaying multiple entities be most beneficial? An example that came to mind was a project by NBBJ during which they re-analyzed a Boeing (plane) plant’s infrastructure and wound up doubling production efficiency simply by renovating the manufacturing plant so that it was able to house the engineers/designers (which used to be located in a separate building on the opposite side of the city).
3) The second aspect of the Theory of Good City Form that I was particularly drawn to was the effect of intense immigration into this Boston port. It alluded to the vast amounts of Irish immigrants who came the city to work, and how they were absolutely necessary in order for the city to function, yet epidemics of Cholera and disease spread wildly due to the some 5 families living in one apartment. The paradox then arose of the Irish being so hated yet so crucial to the city’s existence. Boston seemed to be the epitome of the American city after the revolution due to its ‘melting pot’ demographics, but yet we then realize the intense amount of problems this causes for an urban environment (once a certain boundary/limit is crossed). They then start eating away at the natural environment in order to make room for suburbs, which for the first time seemed to have a slight positive connotation in this reading due to the refuge it created for the problematic city.
4) I would like to start off by thanking Rybczynski for having the audacity to state the truth that nobody wants to hear or agree with, yet inevitably cannot disagree with. The notion of malls being micro-cities at first seems so artificial and implausible (perhaps due to their connection with suburbia), yet when he states all of the beneficial aspects of why people are drawn to them it is exactly how we, as urban designers, think of a city environment (in terms of involving community/people). Cities are constantly trying to promote intense areas of mixed-use program, high amounts of public access/involvement, safety and policing, etc. yet these are all the reasons people retreat to malls. The only truly ‘artificial’ aspect of malls is the sense of enclosure, or rather the separation of natural weather (AC/Heating). It is almost as if it is out of pure jealousy that malls are hated by urbanists. For example, picture a typical scene of Legacy Village or Crocker Park. They tend to have this negative connotation in our eyes due to vast parking lots and the seemingly artificial/pre-planned atmosphere. However, now picture Legacy Village directly across from East 4th street, and we have now suddenly created this absolutely magnificent urban environment that draws people from miles around. Is it possible that cities, in some ways, should aspire to be more like the modern American malls?
5) What would have happened to America had the personal automobile never been invented? Would we have crumbled due to lack of connection? Or would we have simply applied our creative and technological efforts towards public transit instead? Is the car, much like the Irish in Lynch’s reading, a necessary evil for American culture? These were the sorts of boggling thoughts I was having while reading Rybczynski’s chapter due to his statements of personal mobility causing the current state of American cities. Why, as Americans, are we so strictly attached to personal mobility? Is it Selfishness? Or perhaps our obsession with convenience? His points of mobility affecting our use of time/space, our interaction/contact with others, and problem solving (or lack there of) were so simple, yet profound and true. It was so refreshing to read in the beginning that Plattsburgh was not in decline due to the reasons we typically default to: depopulization, crime, de-industrialization, and suburbs, but rather the simple idea of the car and the emphasis we place on it. I honestly believe that until we are able to wean the American mindset away from the automobile (not necessarily completely), we will continue to see these declines in urbanization throughout the US.
2) Theory of Good City Form was rather surprising to me, primarily because I was not so aware of the full history of the city of Boston. For being such a prominent urban environment nowadays, it was shocking to learn of its extremely complex and burden-filled past. The idea of it beginning as an ‘inside out’ city due to the world trade habits after the American Revolution was such a unique happening in terms of urbanism up until that point. In going along with this concept, the reading addressed the fact that permanent plants and industry were eventually moved out to the suburbs, and everything began to become its own separate entity. My question, then, is what are the advantages and disadvantages of this? Being that we are all aware that an urban environment is a compilation of numerous systems (or entities), is it in fact best to separate each system so that it was able to function on its own, or would the contrary of overlaying multiple entities be most beneficial? An example that came to mind was a project by NBBJ during which they re-analyzed a Boeing (plane) plant’s infrastructure and wound up doubling production efficiency simply by renovating the manufacturing plant so that it was able to house the engineers/designers (which used to be located in a separate building on the opposite side of the city).
3) The second aspect of the Theory of Good City Form that I was particularly drawn to was the effect of intense immigration into this Boston port. It alluded to the vast amounts of Irish immigrants who came the city to work, and how they were absolutely necessary in order for the city to function, yet epidemics of Cholera and disease spread wildly due to the some 5 families living in one apartment. The paradox then arose of the Irish being so hated yet so crucial to the city’s existence. Boston seemed to be the epitome of the American city after the revolution due to its ‘melting pot’ demographics, but yet we then realize the intense amount of problems this causes for an urban environment (once a certain boundary/limit is crossed). They then start eating away at the natural environment in order to make room for suburbs, which for the first time seemed to have a slight positive connotation in this reading due to the refuge it created for the problematic city.
4) I would like to start off by thanking Rybczynski for having the audacity to state the truth that nobody wants to hear or agree with, yet inevitably cannot disagree with. The notion of malls being micro-cities at first seems so artificial and implausible (perhaps due to their connection with suburbia), yet when he states all of the beneficial aspects of why people are drawn to them it is exactly how we, as urban designers, think of a city environment (in terms of involving community/people). Cities are constantly trying to promote intense areas of mixed-use program, high amounts of public access/involvement, safety and policing, etc. yet these are all the reasons people retreat to malls. The only truly ‘artificial’ aspect of malls is the sense of enclosure, or rather the separation of natural weather (AC/Heating). It is almost as if it is out of pure jealousy that malls are hated by urbanists. For example, picture a typical scene of Legacy Village or Crocker Park. They tend to have this negative connotation in our eyes due to vast parking lots and the seemingly artificial/pre-planned atmosphere. However, now picture Legacy Village directly across from East 4th street, and we have now suddenly created this absolutely magnificent urban environment that draws people from miles around. Is it possible that cities, in some ways, should aspire to be more like the modern American malls?
5) What would have happened to America had the personal automobile never been invented? Would we have crumbled due to lack of connection? Or would we have simply applied our creative and technological efforts towards public transit instead? Is the car, much like the Irish in Lynch’s reading, a necessary evil for American culture? These were the sorts of boggling thoughts I was having while reading Rybczynski’s chapter due to his statements of personal mobility causing the current state of American cities. Why, as Americans, are we so strictly attached to personal mobility? Is it Selfishness? Or perhaps our obsession with convenience? His points of mobility affecting our use of time/space, our interaction/contact with others, and problem solving (or lack there of) were so simple, yet profound and true. It was so refreshing to read in the beginning that Plattsburgh was not in decline due to the reasons we typically default to: depopulization, crime, de-industrialization, and suburbs, but rather the simple idea of the car and the emphasis we place on it. I honestly believe that until we are able to wean the American mindset away from the automobile (not necessarily completely), we will continue to see these declines in urbanization throughout the US.
