gabrielfey.com

1)   The Cultural Role of Cities entry entitled “Whose Culture? Whose City?” was one that I felt applied directly to what our past studio project investigated.  The idea of cultural consumption coordinated exactly with Robert Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class book, which deals with the emergence of a new type of economy that is heavily fueled by creative professions (which make up an estimated 1/3 of our working class).  A question that came up in many of our discussions on this matter, though, was exactly how influential and realistic this idea is.  For example, while it is both fantastic and necessary to have certain creative entities, such as restaurants, art galleries, coffee shops and the like, in a given urban environment, one has to eventually question the longevity of a place consisting solely of the ‘creative economy.’  The reading raised the question of how important location is in the consideration of this Cultural Consumption, and whether it is sufficient enough to carry a place such as Cleveland, or rather if it is only applicable in heavily tourist areas such as Italian and other European cities.  Too often designers are seduced by a certain nostalgic quality that galleries, restaurants, and coffee shops possess, when in reality they are not always the best solution.  I believe it all comes down to the challenge of balancing all the types of various consumption/economy, rather than focusing solely on a single entity.

2)   Another question I had while initially reading Whose City? Whose Culture? was how do globalism and America’s “Melting Pot” mentality affect this role of Cultural Identity?  Later on in the reading this issue is gently touched upon, and ultimately culminates with a quote from Patrick Buchanan addressing how ‘we’ must take back our cities and ‘we’ must take back our culture.  The title of the reading then struck me all at once and the reading finally began came together.  In our current state of being, everything is becoming more and more of a hybrid and less of a singular identity due to advances in technology and accessibility, in addition to a more open-minded society.  While a debate could easily be brought to the table on the advantages and disadvantages of each side, I believe a more significant discussion would be on the matter of how to exploit this fact to its fullest potential, seeing as how it is clearly happening regardless of the benefits/consequences.  Given that these globalistic ideals are rapidly taking over, how are we currently handling the idea of ‘cultural consumption?’  Is it simply enough for cities to have China Towns and Little Italy’s?  Or is there more than can be taken into consideration from the ever-growing diversity and density on our planet today?

3)   Lastly, given some of our past class discussions I could not help but to take note of the reading’s mentioning of how in the 60’s urban shopping centers began to copy suburban shopping malls by “developing a clean space according to a visually coherent theme.”  With Arthur’s re-occurring argument that suburban malls are now always mimicking urban environments, do we begin to see a sort of cyclical process in how we desire spaces to be?  The reading then goes on to mention how at that time urban shopping began to take on a role of ‘cultural entertainment’ in order to attract the previously mentioned ‘cultural consumers.’  I could not help but to wonder if this was the beginning of cities starting to become these ‘drive-thru’ destinations where consumers would constantly be coming and going, but never staying to contribute heavily to the urban well-being.  While it is true that recently we have reciprocated back to the majority of the world’s population living in cities, I feel as if that is heavily swayed by denser third world countries, while American cities are still suffering drastically.  What can be done to rejuvenate the idea of a city in America?  Is it possible to make American cities a destination with the notion of consumption being the city’s primary role?   

4)   The Cultural Roles of Cities reading was one that was significantly challenging and confusing to comprehend.  A main concept that I was attempting to grasp was their notion of city’s of Orthorenetic Transformation vs. Heterogenetic Transformation.  While I attempted to create several examples in my head, I continued to find conflicting characteristics no matter what city I thought of and therefore was unsure of the exact meaning behind the two.  From my understanding Orthogenetic cities have traits of historical influence as well as being cities of culture, which I ultimately decided would be most similar to European cities; whereas Heterogenetic cities tend to be current and globalized cities, which I thought to be more closely to related to cities such as New York and/or Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing and the like.  Are these conclusions accurate?  If so, I cannot help but to notice tendencies of each type. For example, Orthogenetic tend to be heavily focused around tourism/consumption, where are Heterogenetic tend to be heavily reliant upon societal aspects.  What do these observations mean?

5)   Another thought sparked from the Cultural Role of Cities reading was derived from the discussion of Primary Urbanization and Secondary Urbanization.  Again, I was a little unclear of exactly which each consisted of; however I believe the topic of City and Country is directly related, with Primary corresponding to Country and Secondary with City.  This being the case, though, I believe the authors are missing a primary tertiary factor: Suburbs.  The reading alluded to the fact that there is an inevitable gap between City culture and Country culture and left it at that.  However, I think now that gap has been filled with this third vision of culture being the suburbs.  What does this 3rd realm mean?  Now that it is not necessarily just the peasant and the literari, how has our society changed?  I think this middle ground of the suburbs creates an entirely different relationship, being that it is not longer about 2 extremes correlating.  In our Forces that Shape Cities class we discussed a reading that said how nothing it necessarily created in cities, but rather it “centralizes creation,” implying that cities are essentially middlemen.  Which is a more appropriate analogy, the city as a middleman or the suburbs as a middleman?

Proposed sketches of 4 separate, tentative projects throughout the downtown Cleveland area.  Conceptual propositions have been discussed in great detail with the Mayor of Cleveland as a way to revitalize the image and performance of this Midwestern Urban region.  The professional charette summary was then analyzed and the above sketches were made as an individual interpretation of what Cleveland's image could become. 

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.       

Our last class sparked a conversation regarding the issue of time as related to ecological and sustainable design.  So often there is a gap between human actions and natural processes, which in turn causes a level of unsatisfaction due to mankind's desire for immediate gratification.  While most default to creating systems and structures that will influence people immediately, the Meghalayas have a different method of cultivating natural processes as a means to influence not necessarily their children, but their children's children.  There is a lesson of true ecological design that can be taken from this video, and can be implemented in each and every one of our designs today.  

1)   I must admit that I was not very enthralled with Ian McHarg’s The Place of Nature in the City of Man excerpt.  While he of course acknowledges and creates several valid points, I could not help but to be sidetracked by his negative and condescending demeanor (especially when immediately contrasting it with Anne Spirn’s writing; see below).  Rather than continuing this comment in a hypocritical manner though, I will focus my efforts on the few intriguing points that he did make.  Towards the end of his excerpt he brings to fruition an idea of the “bare minimum environment,” which immediately stood out to me as something to imagine.  What would life be like if it was ‘lived’ using the bare minimum environmental needs?  Conversely, what would life be like if it was lived using the minimum artificiality (or whatever you see best fit as the opposite of environment)?  To me, both images depict an atmosphere that I would not prefer to be subjected to in full.  Of course, there are moments when I love being surrounded by nothing by nature, as well as being totally encompassed in a Dave&Busters, surrounded by nothing by artificial technology/entertainment.  As I am writing this, I am realizing more and more my overall dilemma with the reading, and that is the fact that it is not about picking extremes, but rather creating a balance/co-existence.  While I feel as if McHarg’s overall message may not be to do away with urban environments completely, his method of writing and portraying his argument almost makes it appear as such.

2)   Another point of the McHarg’s reading I wanted to make note of was his acknowledgement of Japan’s human ecosystem and their ability to include agriculture in their urban environments.  The main thing I took away from this was mankind’s innate ability to “make due.”  As countless examples can be found all over the world (and in many aspects), there is an unlimited amount of possibilities when it comes to mankind acting of out necessity.  In terms of ecosystems and agriculture, there cannot be a direct comparison of Japan and America because they are 2 totally different environments.  Japan has always been rooted in density and geographically dominated regions, whereas miles of open square footage are practically stumbled upon in America’s sprawl.  Had America stayed the geographical size of its original 13 colonies, there is not doubt in my mind that we would have developed ways to adapt to our surroundings and succeed.  I think our issue in America has always been the fact that we have such a surplus of territory that there is an extensive gap in terms of our actions and the time of their respective consequences; whereas a country as limited in real estate as Japan cannot afford similar actions because it would be the demise of their social, urban and natural environments.                         

3)   Unlike McHarg’s writing, I was very pleased with the Sprin reading as well as her overall approach to urban areas in terms of natural ecosystems.  I had a strong appreciation for how she still acknowledged the city as an ecosystem in and of itself, in addition to using non-pessimistic words like “opportunities” and “molding” versus some of the more harsh contrasting language of McHarg.  Her explanation of the limitations of nature influencing urban form (as in New York’s utilization of bedrock) was a point that seemed to really resonate with me, perhaps because it was such a different perspective of viewing the natural world.  It helped reiterate the fact that ‘ecology’ and ‘natural environment’ do not always constitute an open green park filled with foliage.  A second great point was her mentioning of what nature took some 10,000 years to create, mankind was able to vastly influence in 150 years.  While this is clearly not the first time this notion has been addressed in the past, the way she structures her writing sparked a new thought process for me.  It made me question that if the key to ecological success was somehow directly related to time (i.e. in terms of evolution and progress).  While this at first seems very tempting to agree with, I could not help but to snicker at the thought primarily because if that were the case it would be almost impossible for humans to ever be truly ecological (as we are all well aware of mankind’s ‘patience’).  However, I then started to wonder “is nature perfect?”  Clearly we know that mankind is not, but is nature even?  What would these writings be like if they were analyzing the history of natural processes with the same tenacity and intensity as they do human trends?  Instead of harping on grid layouts and the erection of concrete/steel towers, it would be criticizing the colossal ice glaciers that covered entire landmasses, moving at a half a snails pace and allowing for no implication life.  What sort of thoughts would this spur, I wonder?  (Keeping in mind I am not anti-nature by any means, but rather just enjoy re-envisioning how we perceive things sometimes)

4)   Another Spirn quote that sparked and idea was her mentioning of “settlers harnessing the power of the sea…”  Perhaps it was simply her word choice here, however it made me think back to last week’s conversation of ‘tools’ (i.e. Mitchell’s reading); however this time in terms of nature rather than the internet/technology.  How exactly do we view nature? Do we view it as a tool, as Spirn alludes to in her quote?  Or do we place it at a higher level of significance (whatever that may be)?  Perhaps our current struggles are a result from the fact that we view nature simply as a tool, rather than giving it the respect that it deserves and perceiving it as an organism or process (i.e. placing the same value of mankind on nature).

5)   I was also a big supporter of Pollak’s reading and her many ideas of overlapping architecture, landscape, and urbanism.  It has a great deal to do with our Theories of Architecture course, in which we recently discussed Rem Koolhaas’s Theory of Bigness (which Pollak later alludes to). I especially enjoyed her comparison of figure/ground versus constructed ground, by which opposition is avoided and overlapping is promoted.  Her addressing of multiple scales as a means to eliminate exclusiveness provoked a comparison to Jane Jacob’s idea of mixed-use program as a way of diversifying.  While I agree with some of Jacob’s notions of using program to vary certain entities, we have discussed some of the flaw in our Forces that Shape Cities course and I now feel that Pollak’s scalar solution is much more successful in diversifying.  By properly including a range of scalar or hierarchical components to design, the best of all worlds involved have a potential to shine successfully simultaneously (not excluding, but including)(i.e. her ‘suppressing the car in order to promote bikes’ example).     

With the recent birth of the 7 billionth person a lot of people are beginning to question the rate at which the modern day population is growing.  As the simple, clean, graphically pleasing video above shows, the significance of urban designers is now at an all-time high.  The responsibility of successfully designing and planning efficient urban environments for the future is one that lies in our hands.  Considerations of natural resources, food, water, and energy will inevitably dictate the success/failure of our future generations (of which will be an astounding 10 billion by the year 2100), thus placing even more emphasis on the efficiency and resiliency of urban systems.