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).
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).
