1) I found Lynch’s reading to be a rather admirable one, primarily because he always seems to know exactly what questions to ask and then vividly pursue the answer(s). His big question of the relationship between environmental change and social change is one that tends to vary drastically based on several factors, all of which he elaborates on quite elegantly. One thing that I did think was missing, though, was an initial, concrete explanation/definition of what exactly he thought environment and social changes to be. The reason I say this is because I believe there to be a sense of ambiguity, or perhaps diversity, of what everyone believes them to be. For example, the term environment can have several different conations associated with it; such as an organic/ecological connection versus several different scales of ‘surroundings’ (i.e. the room I am sitting in versus the building I am in versus the street that I am on versus the city I am in, etc.). As I began to read further, it seemed to me that Lynch simply was using the term in its broadest sense (merely being the general surroundings we find ourselves in). I wonder though, what would have Lynch stumbled upon if he would have addressed the changes that occurred on various scales of environments, more specifically, the exponential hierarchy of scales that Jan Gehl addressed in the earlier reading of this semester. Perhaps then Lynch would have been able to result in more concrete outcomes, as opposed to the several indirect conclusions that he tends to culminate with.
2) A second point I found provoking was his correlation to the environment as a stabilizer. My first thought after reading this section was to my initial approach towards architecture as I was first entering its realm. It made me realize that one of the many reasons I have always been drawn towards architecture is because it is such a significant amount of our environment, and therefore one of the most opportunistic methods to being able to better the world we live in. Referring to my first comment, if we were to view this term of environment as being architecture, then I believe it to most certainly have a direct influence on social change. Throughout history it has been utilized as a means of displaying power, beliefs/religion, technology, leisure, innovation, etc.; and has always been viewed as a way to better understand the era and society during which it existed (just think of how much knowledge we have acquired throughout history from buildings). Lynch sparked my second thought more from the ‘predictable repetition’ comment. I immediately thought back to our Theories of Architecture course when we were addressing Formal Rationalism, as well as the many forms architecture has been known to take. What is so fascinating to me, though, is how no matter how repetitive and/or ritualistic things become, humans seem to always be able to relate to it (either positive or negatively, but relating nonetheless). As a simpler explanation, we are always able to recognize a chair as a chair, regardless of how simple or elaborate, intentional or unintentional it is. For example, my thoughts were directed back to the video we watched of The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces and how people viewed steps and ledges as seating, although that may not have been their specific intention. It is all just a testament to how adaptable we are as humans; and part of the reason behind adapting it directly applicable to how we perceive the environment around us, thus I believe environmental changes always affect social change/tendencies (however minimal or drastic).
3) With regards to the Hayden reading, I could not help but to ponder about the idea of a repetitive model community and how it eventually declined given the transition from rural to urban environments. It made me question if that implies that rural areas can be viewed as a neutralized, or rather, consistent environment regardless of location, whereas urban cities do not (cannot?) cater to identical, repetitive model communities, thus confirming Beinart’s theory of city identities. Simply put, what I mean to say is that in a way, I believe this significantly suggests that rural environments are the same throughout the world, a case that is clearly not the same for cities. Cities are known for the myriad of attributes/culture/people they possess, whereas rural areas are consistently marked the same, whether in Iowa or Italy. Would others agree with this point? I wonder what further conclusions could be made by expanding on this topic.
4) I had another thought from the Hayden reading, however it is a little more far-fetched than most of my other comments tend to be (so bare with me!). The reading begins by describing how the Shaker tradition was initially begun by Ann Lee as a result of her many failed births. By combining 2 concepts from previous readings/classes I came up with what follows:
Just as in the City of Bits reading where cyber space was viewed as an urban environment, as well as in the Robert Moses presentation, I began to wonder what (if anything) could be taken away by viewing the notion of religion (rather than cyberspace) as an urban entity, and the idea of having a singular Super Figure (Robert Moses/Ann Lee) be able to influence it in it’s entirety.
In a way, that is precisely what happened in the case of the Shakers. One person was able to create an entire belief system, consisting of followers, families, and eventually model “urban” environments. Can the success and failures of both the Shakers and New York City be compared? Is one simply a success, where the other is a failure? Or are there glimpses of both in each of the two situations? What moral issues are brought up in each case?
5) I briefly alluded to the Beinart reading in a previous comment, however I had another thought when reading it. I find his ideas of a city each having/creating its own image to be very significant and true. As he mentions in detail, there are numerous ways in which to promote/repel/create a specific image as related to a specific city, but what I was more interested in were the effects that globalization and technology have on modern-day cities. He mentions that there are 3 primary ways that city images are formed (oral, books, and incentives), however I feel as if these are dated. Historically, these three are extremely accurate and astute, however now that factors of technology and globalism are drastically significant/advanced, our views of cities have changed considerably. We can now literally virtually experience an entire built city via Google Earth (3D Buildings) without ever leaving our pillow. While there is clearly no doubt that ‘street views’ of Florence hardly amount to actually walking the Italian stone roads, there is also no doubt that it most certainly influences/alters our perception of that city image. What does this mean? Are city images simply more difficult to ‘fudge,’ as they were in the past? Or perhaps these advances make city images that much more deceiving.
2) A second point I found provoking was his correlation to the environment as a stabilizer. My first thought after reading this section was to my initial approach towards architecture as I was first entering its realm. It made me realize that one of the many reasons I have always been drawn towards architecture is because it is such a significant amount of our environment, and therefore one of the most opportunistic methods to being able to better the world we live in. Referring to my first comment, if we were to view this term of environment as being architecture, then I believe it to most certainly have a direct influence on social change. Throughout history it has been utilized as a means of displaying power, beliefs/religion, technology, leisure, innovation, etc.; and has always been viewed as a way to better understand the era and society during which it existed (just think of how much knowledge we have acquired throughout history from buildings). Lynch sparked my second thought more from the ‘predictable repetition’ comment. I immediately thought back to our Theories of Architecture course when we were addressing Formal Rationalism, as well as the many forms architecture has been known to take. What is so fascinating to me, though, is how no matter how repetitive and/or ritualistic things become, humans seem to always be able to relate to it (either positive or negatively, but relating nonetheless). As a simpler explanation, we are always able to recognize a chair as a chair, regardless of how simple or elaborate, intentional or unintentional it is. For example, my thoughts were directed back to the video we watched of The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces and how people viewed steps and ledges as seating, although that may not have been their specific intention. It is all just a testament to how adaptable we are as humans; and part of the reason behind adapting it directly applicable to how we perceive the environment around us, thus I believe environmental changes always affect social change/tendencies (however minimal or drastic).
3) With regards to the Hayden reading, I could not help but to ponder about the idea of a repetitive model community and how it eventually declined given the transition from rural to urban environments. It made me question if that implies that rural areas can be viewed as a neutralized, or rather, consistent environment regardless of location, whereas urban cities do not (cannot?) cater to identical, repetitive model communities, thus confirming Beinart’s theory of city identities. Simply put, what I mean to say is that in a way, I believe this significantly suggests that rural environments are the same throughout the world, a case that is clearly not the same for cities. Cities are known for the myriad of attributes/culture/people they possess, whereas rural areas are consistently marked the same, whether in Iowa or Italy. Would others agree with this point? I wonder what further conclusions could be made by expanding on this topic.
4) I had another thought from the Hayden reading, however it is a little more far-fetched than most of my other comments tend to be (so bare with me!). The reading begins by describing how the Shaker tradition was initially begun by Ann Lee as a result of her many failed births. By combining 2 concepts from previous readings/classes I came up with what follows:
Just as in the City of Bits reading where cyber space was viewed as an urban environment, as well as in the Robert Moses presentation, I began to wonder what (if anything) could be taken away by viewing the notion of religion (rather than cyberspace) as an urban entity, and the idea of having a singular Super Figure (Robert Moses/Ann Lee) be able to influence it in it’s entirety.
In a way, that is precisely what happened in the case of the Shakers. One person was able to create an entire belief system, consisting of followers, families, and eventually model “urban” environments. Can the success and failures of both the Shakers and New York City be compared? Is one simply a success, where the other is a failure? Or are there glimpses of both in each of the two situations? What moral issues are brought up in each case?
5) I briefly alluded to the Beinart reading in a previous comment, however I had another thought when reading it. I find his ideas of a city each having/creating its own image to be very significant and true. As he mentions in detail, there are numerous ways in which to promote/repel/create a specific image as related to a specific city, but what I was more interested in were the effects that globalization and technology have on modern-day cities. He mentions that there are 3 primary ways that city images are formed (oral, books, and incentives), however I feel as if these are dated. Historically, these three are extremely accurate and astute, however now that factors of technology and globalism are drastically significant/advanced, our views of cities have changed considerably. We can now literally virtually experience an entire built city via Google Earth (3D Buildings) without ever leaving our pillow. While there is clearly no doubt that ‘street views’ of Florence hardly amount to actually walking the Italian stone roads, there is also no doubt that it most certainly influences/alters our perception of that city image. What does this mean? Are city images simply more difficult to ‘fudge,’ as they were in the past? Or perhaps these advances make city images that much more deceiving.
