1) It was quite a struggle to get through Rykwert’s reading at first, and ever after reading it in it’s entirety I was unsure of what exactly to take away from it. After revisiting my notes I realized a few interesting ideas/topics that were touched on, however I felt as if the article as a whole was rather confusing, and for lack of a better term, A.D.D. Somehow, in these 20 pages or so, it seemed as if every culture, time period, and/or civilization was addressed at one point or another, and with minimal coagulation. I suppose, then that I shall react with my initial feelings towards the opening pages of the chapter. What was the significance, or rather what was to be learned, by the discussion of the Indian Parallel? Perhaps it was primarily due to my lack of knowledge or experience with the Indian culture, but being that I still consider myself to be rather well-rounded and open to new concepts, I found it all still to be extremely metaphorical, and so much so that it was no longer even applicable to urban relations. For example, it mentioned how since the bull is representational of the moon, so the city represents the sun, and therefore can be either square or circle???
2) Referring back to my first comment though, I thought it wise for me to mention the minor aspects of the Parallel reading that I found to be intriguing. Firstly, I found the notion that any act of building or development is ‘unnatural’ to be one that caused considerable amount of contemplation. In some ways I agree with this perception, but yet I still found myself wanting to address the idea of sustainability and utilizing natural concepts in order to further develop cities (or architecture in general) rather than unnaturally disposing of them. And secondly, whether partially related to my first point or not, I found myself asking what is to be learned from all of these extremely primitive cultures the author is addressing? A metaphor I could not help but to think of was ‘it’s like asking an infant for advice.’ Is it not true that in today’s day and age we are so far removed from this notion of a city being a tortoise due to its square bottom and domed top, that no more is to be gathered from said primitive cultures?
3) While I thought The Neutral City could have done without the attempted Puritan correlation, I found it to be a truly fascinating read. Whether I agree with most of the points made, I am not sure yet, but what I enjoyed was the contemplation of such ideas, more specifically the discussion of the city grid. While I admired the paralleling of the street grid to capitalism and the true competitor’s mindset (which I hope we discuss in class), I thought it would be most appropriate for this assignment to simply address my question of how we constantly analyze, research, document, and discuss city street layouts, yet when is the last time a city was created from scratch (layout and all)? The only comparisons would be cities like Berlin, Chicago, or New Orleans (all of which resulted from disasters, whether natural or man-made). Does this then mean that we are simply relying on catastrophes to occur so that we as urban designers are able to truly ‘re-design’ a city? Or would our efforts better spent analyzing ways to integrate existing characteristics of cities with future improvements.
4) A criticism I had of The Neutral City was the constant portrayal of misery on behalf of the Puritans. The author repeatedly addresses the idea that Puritans had it so much harder than Catholics in that they were struggling internally rather than dealing with the existing world. Before even addressing that, my question is since when did religion become a competition of suffering? We suffer more than you, so that means we’re holier. What a ridiculous mindset. Religion is a CHOICE. It is not a culture or ethnicity (i.e. something that we ARE regardless of what actions we take). Therefore, it is something that should never be complained about, let alone attempted to boast about by whoever complains the most.
5) Imitation was a concept brought up in both the Parallels and The Economy of Cities, and it relates to a struggle that I have had over the past 5 years of designing. In both readings it is mentioned how copying (or imitation of some kind) is a constant reappearance throughout more every historical epoch. With this being the case, is there really such a thing as original thought anymore? Can anything we ever design now be considered purely creative and original? Or are we to a point in time during which everything fundamental has been explored and/or figured, and from which everything else derives?
2) Referring back to my first comment though, I thought it wise for me to mention the minor aspects of the Parallel reading that I found to be intriguing. Firstly, I found the notion that any act of building or development is ‘unnatural’ to be one that caused considerable amount of contemplation. In some ways I agree with this perception, but yet I still found myself wanting to address the idea of sustainability and utilizing natural concepts in order to further develop cities (or architecture in general) rather than unnaturally disposing of them. And secondly, whether partially related to my first point or not, I found myself asking what is to be learned from all of these extremely primitive cultures the author is addressing? A metaphor I could not help but to think of was ‘it’s like asking an infant for advice.’ Is it not true that in today’s day and age we are so far removed from this notion of a city being a tortoise due to its square bottom and domed top, that no more is to be gathered from said primitive cultures?
3) While I thought The Neutral City could have done without the attempted Puritan correlation, I found it to be a truly fascinating read. Whether I agree with most of the points made, I am not sure yet, but what I enjoyed was the contemplation of such ideas, more specifically the discussion of the city grid. While I admired the paralleling of the street grid to capitalism and the true competitor’s mindset (which I hope we discuss in class), I thought it would be most appropriate for this assignment to simply address my question of how we constantly analyze, research, document, and discuss city street layouts, yet when is the last time a city was created from scratch (layout and all)? The only comparisons would be cities like Berlin, Chicago, or New Orleans (all of which resulted from disasters, whether natural or man-made). Does this then mean that we are simply relying on catastrophes to occur so that we as urban designers are able to truly ‘re-design’ a city? Or would our efforts better spent analyzing ways to integrate existing characteristics of cities with future improvements.
4) A criticism I had of The Neutral City was the constant portrayal of misery on behalf of the Puritans. The author repeatedly addresses the idea that Puritans had it so much harder than Catholics in that they were struggling internally rather than dealing with the existing world. Before even addressing that, my question is since when did religion become a competition of suffering? We suffer more than you, so that means we’re holier. What a ridiculous mindset. Religion is a CHOICE. It is not a culture or ethnicity (i.e. something that we ARE regardless of what actions we take). Therefore, it is something that should never be complained about, let alone attempted to boast about by whoever complains the most.
5) Imitation was a concept brought up in both the Parallels and The Economy of Cities, and it relates to a struggle that I have had over the past 5 years of designing. In both readings it is mentioned how copying (or imitation of some kind) is a constant reappearance throughout more every historical epoch. With this being the case, is there really such a thing as original thought anymore? Can anything we ever design now be considered purely creative and original? Or are we to a point in time during which everything fundamental has been explored and/or figured, and from which everything else derives?
