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)
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)
