for our last class
Einat Manoff
Dear All,
Our seminar meeting tomorrow will take the form of an editorial board and
organize around your papers. As suggested previously, I would like each of
you to send out 2-3 pages from your (draft) papers by 6 PM today.
In preparation, please read through and make note of
comments/suggestions/edits on everyone's drafts and be prepared to talk
about your own paper for 3-5 minutes.
I hope this discussion will wrap up our seminar in a fruitful and productive
way and will convey your analytic capabilities along with the multiple
voices and perspectives you have shared throughout the semester.
I will bring treats. See you all tomorrow,
Einat
Tess Bath
Occupy
Public consciousness has been reawakened to the word ‘occupy’ over the past three months, with the persistence of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its sister occupations spreading across the country and across the globe. And just like the OWS movement its meanings are dense and layered, coming slowly and through process. Lacking a universal definition its potency arises out of its plurality, and its infinite reworking and adaptability. In this paper I will tease out some of the meanings of ‘occupy,’ in an attempt to build a foundation upon which my own engagement with the word may rest.
Michael Sorkin has stressed the importance our bodies being present in physical (as opposed to virtual) space. He argues that democracy is contingent upon presence, as presence opens up opportunity for friction, through which we test boundaries, explore differences, and gain a better (or sometimes worse) understanding of one another. Planning that prevents the interaction of persons with differing experiences stunts all potential for tolerance and understanding, precluding all conflict in an effort to sustain ‘peace.’ However, unfortunately this ‘peace,’ upon closer examination is found to be artificial and highly unstable. As Sorkin so aptly observes:
“Racial tolerance is never conceived in the absence of the other, which is why anti-Semitism and racism of all forms, thrives where there are no Jews, no racial others, in sight.”
In order to dissolve historic prejudices and inequities it is essential that we occupy space, together, not separately in the privacy of our own homes or from our computers. We must bring our bodies to the streets and squares and acknowledge both our dependency on one another and our difference simultaneously (something more w/ Butler here).
It has been argued that the lack of occupied space is in many ways the product of its commodification and subsequent privatization (Boddy, date). The overwhelming trend of elevated and isolated walkways has detracted significantly from (foot) traffic on the streets, those historic cites of democratic and participatory civic life. These privatized walkways relegate the decision of who is able to occupy to their owners, effectively creating spaces of exclusion where it is highly unlikely for much of any friction to take place. By calling attention to this appropriated image of the street, stripped of all meaning, he is exposing the slippery and insidious descent into the privatized city. These enclosed spaces drain traffic from places of exchange that allow us any control over what our urban experience looks like, streamlining movement through a series of shopping centers and dumping us at the nearest transportation hub. If we hope to move towards a more participatory system it is essential we reject these spaces of exclusion, hindering our ability to occupy together.
Marc Pearce
William Cawthern
here is what I have so far -- I hope it makes sense and is as thought-provoking as i want it to be!....
Preference
The United States is the land of opportunity, where any person can pull themselves up by their bootstraps while leading a “successful” life, working a 9-5 job, retiring, then dying. But – we don’t all live this way. Thankfully. What happens along the way? Sure, there are plenty of people following that prescribed – “ideal” – existence. But not all people do. There are workaholics and lazy people. People who make big families, and bachelors-for-life. People who are cheap, and people who live poor because they donate their time and money to causes they believe in. Modernists, postmodernists, anarchists, feminists, neocons, fundamentalists, atheists, sadists. Our decisions don’t always match our preferences, for there are structural limitations. For example, a middle-aged couple works in the city, but don’t want to have their child going to a public school, so they pay for attendance at a city private school, or a boarding school in the suburbs. In contrast, a suburban teenager wants to get away from the humdrums of small town life, and seek excitement in the city. So, people prefer a wide array of ideas, lifestyles, settings, flavors – the variety is probably more than our imagination can grapple. Cities are the meeting places of such different preferences, itself a quality that makes cities appealing in certain ways to certain people.
Urban Layout: Good City Form- Lynch; New Urbanism- Ward; Radiant City; Garden City
Preferences: density, lifestyle, neighborliness
Aesthetics: Suppression of the Social- Ward; New Urbanism- Ward
Preferences: appearances, self-image
Lifestyle: Building the Analogous City-Sorkin; Gated Communities
Preferences: safety/security, modes of transportation, home size
Of course each of the preferences can probably fit other categories. For example, preferences for modes of transportation can fit in to urban layout, or even aesthetics. It is important to bear in mind that urbanized areas, and the people within them, are like a pile of sticks: you can’t move one without affecting the others. In her book called “Everyday Urbanism,” Margaret Crawford sees the field of “urbanism” as one that encompasses urban design, urban planning, urban studies, theory, and other dimensions of cities. Everyday Urbanism, as a train of thought, emphasizes that the things worth studying in a city are the small, normal, day-to-day occurrences of individuals and groups. These everyday behaviors, out of the official sight of urban planners and architects, demonstrate people’s social uses and space and time. It is in the everyday urbanism that the organic, impromptu, and entertaining happen.
Crawford argues that cities are inexhaustible, and so can never be captured with a single understanding. This same thought applies to our preferences: the motivations for preferring one thing can be rooted in multiple factors. The range of reasons that drive people to prefer certain things are what makes an individual different. Indeed, one could say that our preferences are what make us human: preferences are emotion, and emotion drives action.
Experiment
Now let us suppose that we can conduct an experiment. Albert Einstein was a famous proponent of a process called thought experiments. Thought experiments are sort of like brainstorming sessions, where the imagination can take hold of known laws and manipulate them. By freely imagining, “What if….” using thought experiments allow us to examine the consequences of certain actions. A famous example toys around with the idea of a “Twin Earth” – somewhere out there in the universe is a planet like Earth in every regard, even has twins of everybody to have lived on “real” Earth. Except on Twin Earth there is no water; instead, Twin Earth’s version of water looks a lot like H2O, but is a different molecular compound. Now, if an Earth person meets his or her Twin Earth counterpart, would they know each other’s version of the liquid isn’t the same as what they’re used to? Problems arise when the twins meet. It’s (probably) an impossible situation, but this thought experiment makes us think about philosophies of meaning, as well as the nature of life itself.
I propose we do a couple thought experiments ourselves, dealing with people’s preferences for urban space. Everyone on Earth is given their own planet, to develop however they like. However, each person is not aware of previous arguments for or against urban designs. They don’t know about the ill effects of sprawl, experts’ critiques of street grid patterns. How would each person design their planet? Would they all look alike in some way? All unique? With time, how would they evolve/devolve?
bradley brashears
During the 1970s and 1980s, a major shift occurred that directly affected the concept of social reproduction in the United States. The country shifted from a strong focus on state intervention (especially regarding welfare programs and housing subsidies for the poor) to the ideology of a weakened state with limited intervention administered. The country had undergone a drastic shift from a state of egalitarian liberalism to the new world order of neoliberalism: a profound reorganization in economic, political, cultural and social life that came to define the neoliberal state ushered in by the Reagan Administration in the United States and the Thatcher Administration in the United Kingdom. Key components of neoliberalism centered around the decrease – and often the complete withdrawal – of public subsidies for the poor, healthcare, education and infrastructure investment. Increased interest rates, privatization of public agencies, and a deregulated open market undermined the needs of the public with global aspirations in mind. The regimes believed that, with a diminished public sector accompanied by a deregulated private sector, the needs of the public good would be better met in a constantly shifting economy; however, the very citizens that needed protection and assistance were the ones to suffer the most. Neoliberalism had contradicted what it originally set out to do: help the disenfranchised. Instead, those with the most resources available were to benefit the most. Those in power were able to sustain themselves while the majority of lower and middle class citizens found it extremely difficult to socially reproduce due to a lack of financial, political and social power. Susan Saegart of Vanderbilt University states, “Social reproduction refers to the social arrangements and processes that reproduce both economic, political, and social system of a society and its individual members. The use of the term social reproduction emphasizes that the economic and other social arrangements that make life possible do not change the distribution of power and resources but rather replicate it” (Saegart, 301). Neoliberalism, however, has changed the distribution of power and resources and has failed to replicate economic and social arrangements for all of society. Neoliberalism has fostered a “Retreat from Social Reproduction”, a term coined by Professor Cindi Katz to infer that the role of the state has become so diminished that it has transformed social reproduction and made it extremely difficult for those rendered powerless to participate in today’s economic, cultural and social climate.
Massive restructuring had strong implications on the design and form of the built environment resulting in the uneven dispersion of social reproduction. Minority groups, mainly African Americans, women and the poor have endured stifling hardships resulting from neoliberal policies that can be seen throughout the built environment. In Dolores Hayden’s What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work, Hayden explores the issues of inequalities endured by women in an environment that has failed to physically change as they have changed. The division of labor has changed since the introduction of neoliberalism as more women have had to enter the workforce to help support their families in a climate of economic instability. Many households today are female-headed, many of which are single-parent homes. Hayden argues, “Dwellings, neighborhoods, and cities designed for homebound women constrain women physically, socially, and economically. Acute frustration occurs when women defy these constraints to spend all or part of the work day in the paid labor force. I contend that the only remedy for this situation is to develop a new paradigm of the home, the neighborhood, and the city; to begin to describe the physical, social, and economic design of human settlement that would support, rather than restrict, the activities of employed women and their families” (Hayden, 171). Hayden points out that these design flaws can be observed in suburban and urban settings alike. Because much of the population she describes lives in a suburban environment where zoning practices exist that call for the separation of land uses, life becomes inherently more difficult for the overscheduled, multi-tasking working woman. Contemporary urban design produces living space that requires “someone to undertake private cooking, cleaning, child care, and usually private transportation if adults and children are to exist within it. Because of residential zoning practices, the typical dwelling will usually be physically removed from any shared community space – no commercial or communal day-care facilities, or laundry facilities, for example, are likely to be part of the dwelling’s spatial domain” (Hayden, 174). Even though men are increasingly assisting their female counterparts in areas of the home, women are still largely socially responsible for the majority of the household’s functional needs.
dave ludwig
The City Block
This class has been largely about imagining ways to break free of the
constrictions of the set of rules that govern our daily lives as seen
through the lens of urban design. For this project I have chosen to
explore the term “City Block”. This paper will answer the questions,
“How can design improve peoples lives at the block level?”. First,
I’ll provide a classic definition of the term. Then I’ll explore
problems, challenges, and issues which play out at the block level.
Finally, I will present existing visions for block design and will
suggest a new definition that addresses the defined problems.
For the purpose of this paper, I will set the physical parameters of
the city block as both sides of the closest four connecting streets
that contain at least two residences and exist within a metropolitan
region. The definitions and prescriptions explored in this paper will
be at the scale of my own block and will need to be modified for
different densities, scales, and built environments. I am using my
own block as an example because the definitions of a city block I will
use are based on the daily needs of its residents, that is, the
functional role that the block (the physical, social, and economic
components located within the stated parameters), plays in the
processes of daily life. I have formed the ideas presented in this
paper through consideration of the readings covered this class in the
context of my own block and therefore want to present them within that
context rather than attempting to reduce them to a set of universal
components, although I hope that needs presented will be universal.
Classic Definition
The classic definition of a city block offers nothing beyond the
physical parameters. Whether a square block or just both sides of a
street from one cross street to another, there is very little in terms
of social or economic activity that takes place in an organized way at
this level. Individual residential arrangements take place at the
unit (single apartment) or lot (single family house, coop, condo, or
apartment complex) level. Economic activity also takes place at this
individual level. Individuals patronize businesses and utilize
resources (park our cars, receive garbage service, gas/electric,
postal service, buy, cook, and eat food, etc.).
Beyond the block, we take part in school and work, receive medical
care, and interact with friends and family in our own extended
networks (albeit, many urban blocks contain strong familial and social
networks for residents. However, these are often threatened by
various forces – large scale such as urban restructuring, small scale
such as job loss or relocation).
Block associations exist in varying degrees of efficacy and influence.
In general, they don’t provide immediate benefits to all block
members and are guided by personal agendas of those who have the time
and resources to be most active. Community based organizations can do
a lot of good, but are exclusionary by nature. They must have a
purpose such as youth or elderly services or religious affiliation
that alienates other block residents.
Challenges
The purpose of this paper is to envision a new approach to urban life
at the block level that will meet the needs of its residents in
economic, social, and physical/environmental terms; all of which are
interrelated and necessary components of realistic prescription for
change and improvement. Before getting into specifics, it is
beneficial to layout the needs in each of these areas and to
synthesize those needs into a statement that justifies radical
restructuring of life at the block level.
In the United States and around the world, the gap between the rich
and poor is expanding. Those places with a well established middle
class are experiencing a decline in those that fit that category.
Places without a middle class are increasingly unwilling to accept the
status quo as evidenced by the Arab Spring in the Middle East.
At the same time as people around the world are pushing to gain the
comfort and security of middle class status, environmental concerns of
many kinds are requiring that we recalibrate our standards of resource
usage and comfort. These concerns range from the ubiquitous challenge
we face with energy/global warming to widespread degradation of our
built environment.
Floating above these two easy-to-grasp and quantifiable needs are a
host of social needs that are not being met. We struggle to access
reliable, holistic, humanistic healthcare services. The medical
profession feeds a general disconnectedness from our inevitable
mortality and is consequentially disconnected from realistic end of
life treatments. Many of us live and work far from loved ones and
struggle to make ends meet from within our primary familial
structures; in isolation (e.g. I see my two young children for 14
waking hours per work week and pay a nanny over $30K to spend 45
waking hours with them so I can afford to own my apartment, pay my
bills, and advance my career).
The overarching principal that addresses these three problem areas is
Localism in the truest, and unfortunately clichéd, sense of “it takes
a village”. The concept of localism has been lingering in the scope
of liberal theory for some time and in the small circles of the
liberal elite, it has become fashionable to eat and buy local. This
is like putting a band-aid over a knife wound. The following are
prescriptive ideas to create meaningful localism.
People
People need to live in the same residence or on the same block with
some critical mass of their loved ones whether friends and/or family.
We need to experiment with collective living in a variety of ways that
will work for various people. “Ownership of use”, etc. Diversity is
important at the community/neighborhood level, but we need to feel
connected and supported at the residential level.
Economy
-blocks need to define a communal engine for generating economic
benefit. Growing their own food, establishing childcare networks,
running a collective business, etc.
Richie Alicea
know that we are part of a community, that we help to build them,
cultivate them, make them succeed. But what exactly does the community
consist of? How are they built and cultivated? Why do they succeed or
not succeed? Planning theorists have written and debated the community
for years, specifically as it relates to the built environment. Some
argue for specific design elements to exist in order for the community
to become vibrant while others argue for a more human element.
Regardless of the arguments and different schools of thought that
surround the issue, essential to the building of the community is
public space, places like coffee houses, taverns, parks, and other
places where people can interact not only with those in their
already-existing family and support structures, but where they can be
enabled to meet new people, share thoughts and debate, and expand on
those societal structures. These spaces allow one to risk an encounter
with someone who is different, someone who they may not otherwise meet
(Ruddick, 133). This is what makes all the difference, and what makes
cities unlike any other environment where people can interact, because
it it natural and, at the same time, necessary and unavoidable.
Jane Jacobs wrote extensively on the proliferation of the community
through public interaction among people within them. Her classic work,
The Death and Life of Great American Cities, ushered in a period of
the study of urban planning in which those outside of the lower
socioeconomic classes looked somewhat favorably on the street and
street life, particularly as a major source of social interaction and
community building. (Ruddick, 134). Furthermore, the street was even
viewed as an expression of urban health rather than an indicator of
urban downfall. It is this sense that the community is only as vibrant
at the streets that surround it and run through it. The community
exists in these streets, and within the people who inhabit them, and
it does so organically. Rarely does one sit and think about going
through interactions with strangers in the interest of community
building in the long-term. Many times, it is simply to get to know
someone they see on a daily basis, or sometimes it’s a means of
opening up to someone new, and sometimes it’s because there’s no other
choice. Whatever the reasons, the effect is the same.
These interactions are what form and maintain social identities,
which is the crux of community building. Because the streets that Jane
Jacobs describes force people in neighborhoods to interact with one
another, intentionally or not, the public spaces in which these
interactions take place are not a passive arena, but an active medium
for constructing new class cultures and identities (Ruddick, 135).
It is this this dynamic that creates identities and new communities
that encompass them, whether they are communities based on
socioeconomic characteristics, gender, race, sexual orientation, or
any other social characteristic. The city, and specifically the public
spaces that compose it, creates the environment and conditions that
bring together people. They share some of these social
characteristics, but it is the differences between them that allows
the actual community to take shape and grow. A further examination of
the writings by planning theorists will illustrate the way that public
spaces and the interactions that take place within them help to
cultivate communities of people.
Lea Dyrup
Image
As a foreigner coming to New York for the first time I already had a specific image of how the city would be and look like. This image was produced through stories about New York, photos, music, films and readings from and about the city. But when I finally arrived to the big apple, its people, traffic, buildings, trees, light, density and noises was acting beyond my expectations and challenged the image I had produced from home. This made me reflect about the importance of images when one perceives a city, and how these images is being reproduced in reality.
In this paper I will firstly seek a definition of image by examining the complexity of how images can be perceived physically, mentally and as an economic tool. I will do this by looking at how the understanding of an image has changed from modernism, through Lynch’s mental mapping (and meaning of imageability) in the sixties, until today where cities worldwide compete against each other to attract workforce and tourists through city branding. After seeking to understand the complexity of the image, I will discuss how images effect us now days by asking: whose images are being shown? Whose images are not being shown? And how will this effect reproductions of images in everyday life? And Finally I will put forward strategies on how the image can be used as a tool in city planning, to obtain a more just and equal society.
The aesthetics of an image
Le Corbusier: Radiant City, Towards an Architecture; Ebenezer: Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Koolhaas: Deliriuos New York. Keywords: Aesthetics, static, masterplan, editing in pictures
Mental mapping
Lynch: The image of the city; Rowe & Koetter: Collage City if possible McDonough: The Situationists and the City. Koolhaas: Delirious New York. Keywords: mental mapping → perceive and organize spatial information, not static, imageability, focus on the individual, Hegel: phenomenology → space is constituted by and constitutive of the drama of self-consciousness and mutual recognition
City branding
Goodman: After Planners; Angotti: New York for sale; Azcárate: Thanks God, this is not Cancun (Maybe bring forth Saegert and thier example of the image of The American Dream – which is deflating). Keywords: neoliberalism, city branding for turists and developers, Change of I ♥ NY campaign, What is being branded through images – and for who,
Discussion
If images can effect our reproduction of contemporary patterns, the images we see in the city, the media and in tourist brochures contains powerful forces. What then happens when New York is branding itself on shopping and real estate development? It will appeal to rich tourist and developers, who will use the city’s luxury facilitations and maybe they will invest in real estate development in Chinatown. This could enforce the luxury industry and force Chinese people who cannot afford living in new apartments to move elsewhere. In this way the city branding could enforce segregation and unequal development in the city…
Lea Dyrup
Image
As a foreigner coming to New York for the first time I already had a specific image of how the city would be and look like. This image was produced through stories about New York, photos, music, films and readings from and about the city. But when I finally arrived to the big apple, its people, traffic, buildings, trees, light, density and noises was acting beyond my expectations and challenged the image I had produced from home. This made me reflect about the importance of images when one perceives a city, and how these images is being reproduced in reality.
In this paper I will firstly seek a definition of image by examining the complexity of how images can be perceived physically, mentally and as an economic tool. I will do this by looking at how the understanding of an image has changed from modernism, through Lynch’s mental mapping (and meaning of imageability) in the sixties, until today where cities worldwide compete against each other to attract workforce and tourists through city branding. After seeking to understand the complexity of the image, I will discuss how images effect us now days by asking: whose images are being shown? Whose images are not being shown? And how will this effect reproductions of images in everyday life? And Finally I will put forward strategies on how the image can be used as a tool in city planning, to obtain a more just and equal society.
The aesthetics of an image
Le Corbusier: Radiant City, Towards an Architecture; Ebenezer: Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Koolhaas: Deliriuos New York. Keywords: Aesthetics, static, masterplan, editing in pictures
Mental mapping
Lynch: The image of the city; Rowe & Koetter: Collage City if possible McDonough: The Situationists and the City. Koolhaas: Delirious New York. Keywords: mental mapping à perceive and organize spatial information, not static, imageability, focus on the individual, Hegel: phenomenology à space is constituted by and constitutive of the drama of self-consciousness and mutual recognition
Simon Mertner Vind
Well, my idea is probably a little weird. I think I will write about “exclusion” in my final paper – but it relates heavily to “social reproduction” I think. I am for some reason always focused on the negative sides of urban design, I can sometimes only see “the dark side of planning” but I do not feel like writing a shrilled paper where “everything is unfair, and the rich is getting richer”.
Instead – and this is the weird part - I was thinking about writing my final with inspiration from the Rolling Stones song “Sympathy for the Devil”. The song is tour de force through history of mankind – told by the devil (!?) in a ironic and humorist tone:
"I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
Who killed the kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste"
I am not planning to write a song or anything (I am not THAT weird), but I was thinking about going through urban design history as/through the voice of the devil/anti marx/mr. neoliberal, and emphasize how and why different urban design initiatives benefits the already privileged even though they started with good intentions. In other words, I will write a paper about how urban design deliberately and successfully caused exclusion and social reproduction. As we all know, he Devil's greatest achievement was in convincing us he does not exist, so I will probably write two sections
1) Urban design that unintentionally cause exclusion/social reproduction
2) Urban design that intentionally cause exclusion/social reproduction
Key text will be Ward, A.1996. The Suppression of the Social in Design because of
1) Urban design that unintentionally cause exclusion/social reproduction
Modernistic planning/design: Le Corbusier, radiant City, Brasilia (?)
Planning and design of urban “Nature” (Katz, Cindi. 1998. Whose Nature, Whose Culture?)
2) Urban design that intentionally cause exclusion/social reproduction
Access to the city and strategic (excluding) design (Boddy, T. 1992. Building the Analougous City ,
Sorkin, Michael. 1999. Traffic in democracy):
New Urbanism: http://www.cnu.org/
If my idea is not too silly, I would like to discuss in class the best examples of exclusion and social reproduction in urban design :-)
2) Urban design that intentionally cause exclusion/social reproduction
Access to the city and strategic (excluding) design (Boddy, T. 1992. Building the Analougous City ,
Sorkin, Michael. 1999. Traffic in democracy):
New Urbanism: http://www.cnu.org/
-----------------------------
If my idea is not too silly, I would like to discuss in class the best examples of exclusion and social reproduction in urban design... :-)
Sara
as a central component to the legibility of a city, linking the
structures of a street and the social interaction among urbanites in
the public realm. The preservation movement in America began around a
few years after the release of Image of the City and Jacob’s Death and
Life in the mid-sixties after a losing campaign to protect the
original, Beaux Arts Penn Station building from demolition in 1963.
The New York City Preservation law adopted in 1965 out of the
revolutionary spirit of that decade ultimately gained legitimacy in a
U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the principle permitting
governments to attribute public value to private property with
historically or architecturally significant. From the same
revolutionary spirit encouraged by Smith, the movement has settled
into New York’s political choreography as an established process
supported by an aging population of supporters.
Le Corbusier and his modernist contemporaries had abandoned industrial
cities for adjacent or rural countryside to avoid making soft
transformations in trouble cities, instead favoring the mass
production of homes and communities outside of chaotic urban centers.
Preservation diverges from this approach by identifying community
assets that can be reserved to maintain or revitalize a community. It
can limit future building potential and often a transfer of
development rights allows for the growth of out-of-scale structures in
the process of saving architectural relics.
On the other hand, preservation echoes modernism in its disregard for
the function of individuals in its structures. The process is almost
always strictly applied to the exterior of a building, freezing its
appearance in time and subjecting changes to review by the commission.
Bringing landmarked buildings into compliance with new building codes
(eg. New York’s 2009 Green Codes and ADA regulation) can be a
challenege. They also may not contribute anything but an aesthetic
function in a community. **Identify the negative impacts preserving
space can have on “labor” and use Hayden’s visual approach to linking
the suburban homes to transform the daily experience of women in
suburbs. Basis for a design response**
The arguments for preservation today are crafted in terms of its
staunchest opponents rather than in the pure ideological terms of
social good and respect of the architectural merits of the past. The
capital-driven caveat of proven financial hardship that enables owners
to demolish valued buildings prioritizes capital and development over
preservation. In spite of some efforts, a clear calculation of the
financial benefits of preservation is not readily available. The dream
of preservation advocates, such a document frames the struggle for
preservation in the monetary terms of its opponents. The movement has
most recently been chameleonic in its co-option of the sustainability
argument: the existing building is the greenest building. Preserving a
building does reduce construction waste significantly but not all
existing buildings are in such a condition to function efficiently
over the long-term. Attaching to these outside values, whether
financial or environmental, obfuscates a critical analysis of the role
of preservation in the urban environment.
Not all building owners oppose building designation. In fact, some
owners recognize the cultural significance of preserved buildings
while others anticipate the financial value that can come to a
restored structure. The question of standards for the significance is
central the implementation of a preservation policy. First, to carry
the logical behind preservation to its logical extreme, one would have
to advocate for the preservation of all structurally sound buildings
as all built structures are relics of our built past. However, the
discretion of the landmarks officials refines the pool of eligible
buildings but setting certain criteria for historical significance and
architectural quality. The overseeing Landmarks Preservation
Commission is composed of mayoral appointees expert in architecture,
history, planning and related fields who, in concept, recommend
buildings for designation in the interest of preserving the public
realm. This process inherently places a value on the physical
structures from specific eras, styles, architects, or neighborhoods
and renders others unworthy of prolonged existence. Other factors
influencing the city’s agenda may adulterate an assessment too.
Working through these ideas (some will be dropped):
**Sagert’s psychological paradigm in housing can be extended to apply
to historic property designation as it alienates individual
homeowners, burdening them with the responsibility to maintain
buildings considered to have broader social value to the neighborhood.
Similar to the social pressures felt by homeowners who made irrational
sacrifices to maintain that status, outside influences implore the
owner of an historic building to be a caretaker in the public
interest. That investment may pay off handsomely; however, a building
in poor condition can instead be a money pit protected from
demolition.**
**Relate trouble with top-down preservation with Goodman’s outline for
neighborhood-scale planning. Can a neighborhood determine what should
be preserved or destroyed or are those buildings citywide places of
interest? This question brings in cross-cultural conflicts where
former ethnic groups may retain a connection to place but may no
longer be located in a particular area.**
**Katz’s reference to preserves, setting aside places for nature as
narrowing the concept of what historically significant buildings are
and where they are located rather; individual landmark status and
district designation sets specific buildings apart from the broader
urban fabric. Capital forces may advocate against or for historic
designation or may make it possible or impossible.**
On Dec 12, 5:21 pm, Simon Mertner Vind <simon.mertner.v...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Well, my idea is probably a little weird. I think I will write about
> “exclusion” in my final paper – but it relates heavily to “social
> reproduction” I think. I am for some reason always focused on the negative
> sides of urban design, I can sometimes only see “the dark side of planning”
> but I do not feel like writing a shrilled paper where “*everything is
> unfair, and the rich is getting richer”.*
>
> *
> *
>
> Instead – and this is the weird part - I was thinking about writing my
> final with inspiration from the Rolling Stones song “Sympathy for the
> Devil”. The song is tour de force through history of mankind – told by the
> devil (!?) in a ironic and humorist tone:
>
> "I watched with glee
> While your kings and queens
> Fought for ten decades
> For the gods they made
> I shouted out,
> Who killed the kennedys?
> When after all
> It was you and me
> Let me please introduce myself
> I'm a man of wealth and taste"
>
> I am not planning to write a song or anything (I am not THAT weird), but I
> was thinking about going through urban design history as/through the voice
> of the devil/anti marx/mr. neoliberal, and emphasize how and why different
> urban design initiatives benefits *the already privileged* even though they
> started with good intentions. In other words, I will write a paper about
> how urban design deliberately and successfully caused exclusion and social
> reproduction. As we all know, he *Devil's greatest achievement** *was in
> convincing us* *he* **does not exist**,* so I will probably write two
> sections
>
> *1) **Urban design that unintentionally cause exclusion/social
> reproduction*
>
> *2) **Urban design that intentionally cause exclusion/social
> reproduction*
>
> Key text will be Ward, A.1996. *The Suppression of the Social in
> Design*because of
>
> *1) **Urban design that unintentionally cause exclusion/social
> reproduction*
>
> Modernistic planning/design: Le Corbusier, radiant City, Brasilia (?)
>
> Planning and design of urban “Nature” (Katz, Cindi. 1998. Whose Nature,
> Whose Culture?)
>
> *2) Urban design that intentionally cause exclusion/social reproduction*
>
> Access to the city and strategic (excluding) design (*Boddy, T. 1992.
> Building the Analougous City , *
>
> *Sorkin, Michael. 1999. Traffic in democracy): *
>
> New Urbanism*:*http://www.cnu.org/
>
> If my idea is not too silly, I would like to discuss in class the best
> examples of exclusion and social reproduction in urban design :-)
>
> * *
>
> *2) Urban design that intentionally cause exclusion/social reproduction*
>
> Access to the city and strategic (excluding) design (*Boddy, T. 1992.
> Building the Analougous City , *
>
> *Sorkin, Michael. 1999. Traffic in democracy): *
>
> New Urbanism*:*http://www.cnu.org/
>
> -----------------------------
>
> If my idea is not too silly, I would like to discuss in class the best
> examples of exclusion and social reproduction in urban design... :-)
>
> 2011/12/12 Lea Dyrup <leady...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > HI guys. I would wish that I have more time, but I hope you will
> > understand some of my thoughts and keywords:
>
> > *Image*
>
> > As a foreigner coming to New York for the first time I already had a
> > specific image of how the city would be and look like. This image was
> > produced through stories about New York, photos, music, films and readings
> > from and about the city. But when I finally arrived to the big apple, its
> > people, traffic, buildings, trees, light, density and noises was acting
> > beyond my expectations and challenged the image I had produced from home.
> > This made me reflect about the importance of images when one perceives a
> > city, and how these images is being reproduced in reality.
>
> > In this paper I will firstly seek a definition of image by examining the
> > complexity of how images can be perceived physically, mentally and as an
> > economic tool. I will do this by looking at how the understanding of an
> > image has changed from modernism, through Lynch’s mental mapping (and
> > meaning of imageability) in the sixties, until today where cities worldwide
> > compete against each other to attract workforce and tourists through city
> > branding. After seeking to understand the complexity of the image, I will
> > discuss how images effect us now days by asking: whose images are being
> > shown? Whose images are not being shown? And how will this effect
> > reproductions of images in everyday life? And Finally I will put forward
> > strategies on how the image can be used as a tool in city planning, to
> > obtain a more just and equal society.
>
> > *The aesthetics of an image*
>
> > Le Corbusier: Radiant City, Towards an Architecture; Ebenezer: Garden
> > Cities of Tomorrow. Koolhaas: Deliriuos New York. *Keywords*: Aesthetics,
> > static, masterplan, editing in pictures
>
> > *Mental mapping*
>
> > Lynch: The image of the city; Rowe & Koetter: Collage City if possible
> > McDonough: The Situationists and the City. Koolhaas: Delirious New York. *
> > Keywords*: mental mapping → perceive and organize spatial information,
> > not static, imageability, focus on the individual, Hegel: phenomenology →
> > space is constituted by and constitutive of the drama of self-consciousness
> > and mutual recognition
>
> > *City branding*
>
> > Goodman: After Planners; Angotti: New York for sale; Azcárate: Thanks God,
> > this is not Cancun (Maybe bring forth Saegert and thier example of the
> > image of The American Dream – which is deflating). *Keywords*:
> > neoliberalism, city branding for turists and developers, Change of I ♥ NY
> > campaign, What is being branded through images – and for who,
>
> > *Discussion*
mqu...@hunter.cuny.edu
The complexities of the use of urban space conger up various ideas about the
freedoms we possess as residents of the city and the full range of possibilities
and experiences. The term "access" hits the nerve of our political sensibilities
being agents in a participatory democracy, it relates to our rights, what we are
able to do, with whom and where. Access is indicative of the capacity of
individuals and/or groups to obtain, use, and wield space, resources, knowledge
and other elements of the city to their benefit. Design has a role in the interplay
of individuals and the city, how the built environment is crafted has specific
implications regarding the dynamics of power and how resources are managed.
Urban design influences city residents’ access to space, resources, and
knowledge, affecting how we conduct ourselves socially, orient ourselves
intellectually, and assert ourselves politically. I will argue that design has
profound ability to enhance an inclusionary and participatory-oriented notion of
access, or to restrict it as a repressive mechanism.
“Traffic In Democracy” looks at the importance of the nature of movement within
the urban environment, how measures for enhancing efficiency have
consequences in democratic life. Sorkin argues that streamlined transportation
systems that set a hierarchy of mobility and inhibit the free flow of pedestrians
and therefore their ability to interact with fellow citizens. It is in this type of
negotiated movement that is the basis for a participatory democracy possible in
urban environments. Mobility relates to the capacity of individuals to choose
how to navigate the built environment without hinderance, and to associate with
whom one chooses along the way. The hierarchical efficiency-oriented model of
traffic planning disregards this notion and restricts the type of mobility that
enhances access to space.
Essential to this discussion is the notion of public space, space open for the use
of all residents. Design has de-emphasized the importance of truly public space,
and its political and social elements. Boddy looks at the construction of the
"analogous city" and the segregation of downtown pedestrian routes. Skywalks
and underground malls are built to replace the sidewalk and street: the
traditional setting of social contact and intercourse. White collar workers move
around in a sanitized realm, divorced from reality. Access to this realm is
regulated by private security following not exactly the law, but rather a code of
preserving the middle/upper middle class ambiance of work and consumption.
The “analogous city” seeks not to replicate the social negotiation and intercourse
present in the accessible city, but to redirect its actors with disposable income
to access another space.
Design has colluded with forces of militarization and security to come up with
what Mike Davis calls the “fortified city.” He describes Los Angeles to be the
cutting edge for a design aesthetic that is introverted, defensive and at times
downright hostile, merging architectural elements of embassies and military
bases to the civilian residence. Homes are introverted, providing only the gaze of
security devices toward the street as a welcome to passers-by; this arrangement
casts the pedestrian or any outsider as an intruder from the sidewalk. Public
areas of Los Angeles are the site of restrictive design, or what Davis has coined
as “sadistic street environments.” These environments restrict basic amenities,
like public lavatories and benches, in an effort to deter the homeless from using
this space. Accessible bathrooms are impossible to find in certain downtown
areas and benches are configure to prevent anyone to lay on them. All this in the
name of defending affluence and providing a sanitized, contrived urban
environment.
Access to resources is an important element take into consideration when
discussing power dynamics in the urban context. Saegert and Fields provide the
history of the neo-liberal economic restructuring as it relates to the increasing
rates of home-ownership. The expansion of the homeowner market was an
policy effort to expand the access of loans to previously discriminated groups,
promote social integration, all with market-based approaches. Yet this
promoted negative equity when sub-prime borrowers came to the realization
that they owed much more than their houses were worth. It is true that this
expansion of access to credit came with strings attached, strings that defrauded
the realization of their American Dream.
A.Baruch Tauber
Baruch Tauber
URBP 723 Intro to Urban Design
My term is beautiful/ugly.
· What have the writers and their subjects defined as beautiful or ugly?
· How is their perception changing or debated in the article?
· At times ugly/beautiful can be confused with good/bad. I hope to distinguish between them by illustrating how the perception of what is ugly/beautiful about cities plays in to the perception of what is good/bad.
· I have yet to determine if I will stay true to the physical ramification of ugly/beautiful, or extend it to the perception of what is ugly/beautiful in society. The two are strongly linked in our readings. Again, I will try to distinguish between them.
|
Overview |
Words |
Quotes |
Conclusions |
|
In The Modernest City, James Holston explores the vision of utopian Brasila and where the plan fell short of the planees |
The planners: modernization, erasure and reinscription, modernization, imagined, utopia, futurism, equal, facade, perfect social coexistence, dehistoricization, exclusive zones, green, traffic, urban crowd, Le Corbusier The Brasilienses: unfamiliar, anonymous, cold, clarity, things function, job security, economic opportunity, convenient, tranquil, security |
1.”The design and organization of Brasilia were meant to transform Brazilian society... by implicit comparison with and negation of existing social conditions”.(1.3) 2.”The people who inhabit their buildings will be “forced” to adapt the new forms of social experience... their architecture represents.” (ibid) 3. “Although Brasilia was conceived to create one kind of society, it was necessarily built and inhibited by another - by the rest of Brazil the former denied.” (1.4) 4. Brasilia negated “old Brazil’s underdevelopment and its urban life. Although Brasilienses rejected the defamiliarization of the latter, they accepted the negation of the former.” (ibid) 5. The existence of the satellite cities highlights the contradiction to the Plano Piloto’s founding premise, “ it reproduces the distinction between privileged center and disprivileged periphery... one of the most basic features of the rest of urban Brazil’s underdevelopment. (final page) |
1. and 3: Beautiful is clean, new, pure. Beautiful cannot contain ugliness. To create Beautiful, Ugly must go. To think like a modernist, free your mind of the past. 2: The City Beautiful will make the people beautiful 4.People adopt to undesirable conditions. In the end they will stay if the bad is not worse than their other options. eg. Suburbanites may not realize their soul is dying because they have too many perks to keep them distracted from the emptiness of homogenization. 4 and 5: Underdevlopment can be perceived as ugly because of its baggage, disregarding its potential and energy. |
|
In Underground and Overhead; Building the Analogous City, Trever Boddy describes the economic and social catastrophes of indoor and simulated cities |
The analogous city: Simulated, Prosthetic, hermetic, filtered, prefitted, monolithic, nostalgic, ersatz visuals, downtown everywhere, fortress, refuge, suburbanization, privatization, Le Corbusier The city city: the messy vitality of the metropolitan condition, (126), reality, diverse, tolerant |
1. “Our age everywhere prefers simulation to reality” (125) 2. “Half a century [post Rockefeller Center] this notion of spending a day in a downtown mixed-use complex without once encountering a real urban street is finally banal.” (132) 3. Downtown mega structures allows “circulation on quarry tile and indoor-outdoor carpet, never encountering the sober realities of concrete.” (135) 4. “with new urban skyways and tunnels, fear has become architectural.” (139) 5. During the severe winter of 1980, Calgary’s prostitutes from the streets to the bridges and passageways.” 6. The continuous connection of the Montreal underground rivaled the streets above. it flourished as a retail success 7. The analogous city will continue to grow “because too many of us- especially at the highest level of corporate an political life- have lost faith in the possibility of a socially diverse, multicultural, tolerant, public urban realm.” (152) 8. “Architects and planners, blinded by their skills and goaded by short term objectives, have only too readily acquiesced to the analogous city” (ibid) |
3. This is desirable because it is beautiful or because this hides the ugly? 5. The purpose of the tunnels eventually exposed the ugliness they attempted to make invisible. NIMBYism is too ironic not to be self destructive. 6. Single use downtowns can work overground or under so long as they are well funded and all goes according to plan, but theres no plan B. “one can easily imagine a scenario of rapid decline” (148) 8. Is the 99% innocent of participating in the vicious cycle of the fear of ugliness? Is the way to break the cycle to fix the ugliness or to learn not to try and fix whats not broke? which one is more feasible?
Is the analogous city and the New Urbanist city synonymous? or is one worse than the other? |
|
|
|
|
|
<Abraham Baruch Tauber>
Cindy Borrero
Cindy Borrero 1st Draft
Term: Fabrication
Streetwork: An Exploding School
Colin Ward and Anthony Fison were trying to convey the importance of an education outside of the classroom. They speak about the idea and system in place that represents this idea of anarchy. Everything is being controlled from the top down. They are told what to do, what to teach, how and where to teach it. So there is this need to break away from what has been created and enter a place of no governance. The social constraints but into this society was one that was not helping the students, according to Ward, understand and relate to the true life experiences, and those they concluded that a more of “hand on” experience would break away from this system.
The Modernist City
-The notion that the City was created to transform Brasilia society.
-Architect and Government had influence over the creation.
-Government intervention was needed to bring up the plans.
- The real Gap; government vs. the actual people of the state.
- The Master plan was to create segments ie: living space; ie: gated communities which would lead to no social class and eventually eliminate the economic gap among society.
- Who fabricated this way of life? Gated communities, work was to be considered separate and away from the home, yet once people are home, there is no actual enjoyment, it becomes limited due to the lack of activities, overall, to do. No streets, don’t want people connecting, communicating just relies on centralize power, no real human interactions. Told what to build, told where to build it, how to build it, yet those who built it are shun away from these homes because they cannot afford it, so who is this really aimed at?
The Culture of Nature by Alexander Wilson
-Nature has become a mechanism of profit, not only do we have to maintain this BUILT environment, but we also have to purchase products which further increases the profits of those selling these products. The nature that we live in is manmade, not authentic. It has become culturally constructed. For example to all those who live in a nice suburban house with a green lawn have been trapped into this idea of the suburban landscape concept, which can be considered a sort of built environment.
Pulling away from the idea: devil’s advocate:
After the Planners by Robert Goodman
-Proposing that the planners should be those same people that come from and live in the neighborhood. They are the one that can see what they need and who to create it, and how it would better suit them. Why have someone who is an outsider come in and create and change their style to merely satisfy the needs of the few? Suggestion of self-governance, the people within the neighborhood should become more informed, let the people plan their own space, and those outsiders that come in should have to consult first with the people who live there. Also brings in the idea of hierarchy and who tells who what to do and who benefits from what.
Futher developing idea to incorporate Cindi Katz: Whos Nature, Who’s Culture?
Samuël Poisson
Le 12/12/11 18:54, A.Baruch Tauber a �crit�:
Baruch Tauber
URBP 723 Intro to Urban Design
�
�
����������� My term is beautiful/ugly.�
��������� What have the writers and their subjects defined as beautiful or ugly?
��������� How is their perception changing or debated in the article?
�
��������� At times ugly/beautiful can be confused with good/bad. I hope to distinguish between them by illustrating how the perception of what is ugly/beautiful about cities plays in to the perception of what is good/bad.
�
��������� I have yet to determine if I will stay true to the physical ramification of ugly/beautiful, or extend it to the perception of what is ugly/beautiful in society. The two are strongly linked in our readings. Again, I will try to distinguish between them.
�
�
�
Overview
Words
Quotes
Conclusions
�
In The Modernest City, James Holston explores the vision of� utopian Brasila and where the plan fell short of the planees
The planners: modernization, erasure and reinscription, modernization, imagined, utopia, futurism, equal, facade, perfect social coexistence, dehistoricization, exclusive zones, green, traffic, urban crowd, Le Corbusier
The Brasilienses: unfamiliar, anonymous, cold, clarity, things function, job security, economic opportunity, convenient, tranquil, security
1.�The design and organization of Brasilia were meant to transform Brazilian society... by implicit comparison with and negation of existing social conditions�.(1.3)
2.�The people who inhabit their buildings will be �forced� to adapt the new forms of social experience... their architecture represents.� (ibid)
3. �Although Brasilia was conceived to create one kind of society, it was necessarily built and inhibited by another - by the rest of Brazil the former denied.� (1.4)
4. Brasilia negated �old Brazil�s underdevelopment and its urban life. Although Brasilienses rejected the defamiliarization of the latter, they accepted the negation of the former.� (ibid)
5. The existence of the satellite cities highlights the contradiction to the Plano Piloto�s founding premise, � it reproduces the distinction between privileged center and disprivileged periphery... one of the most basic features of the rest of urban Brazil�s underdevelopment. (final page)
1. and 3: Beautiful is clean, new, pure. Beautiful cannot contain ugliness. To create Beautiful, Ugly must go. To think like a modernist, free your mind of the past.
2: The City Beautiful will make the people beautiful
4.People adopt to undesirable conditions. In the end they will stay if the bad is not worse than their other options. eg. Suburbanites may not realize� their soul is dying because they have too many perks to keep them distracted from the emptiness of homogenization.
4 and 5: Underdevlopment can be perceived as ugly because of its baggage, disregarding its potential and energy.
In Underground and Overhead; Building the Analogous City, Trever Boddy describes the economic and social catastrophes of indoor and simulated cities
The analogous city: Simulated, Prosthetic, hermetic, filtered, prefitted, monolithic, nostalgic, ersatz visuals, downtown everywhere, fortress, refuge, suburbanization, privatization, Le Corbusier
The city city: the messy vitality of the metropolitan condition, (126), reality, diverse, tolerant
1. �Our age everywhere prefers simulation to reality� (125)
2. �Half a century [post Rockefeller Center] this notion of spending a day in a downtown mixed-use complex without once encountering a real urban street is finally banal.� (132)
3. Downtown mega structures allows �circulation on quarry tile and indoor-outdoor carpet, never encountering the sober realities of concrete.� (135)
4. �with new urban skyways and tunnels, fear has become architectural.� (139)
5. During the severe winter of 1980, Calgary�s prostitutes from the streets to the bridges and passageways.�
6. The continuous connection of the Montreal underground rivaled the streets above. it flourished as a retail success
7. The analogous city will continue to grow �because too many of us- especially at the highest level of corporate an political life- have lost faith in the possibility of a socially diverse, multicultural, tolerant, public urban realm.� (152)
8. �Architects and planners, blinded by their skills and goaded by short term objectives, have only too readily acquiesced to the analogous city� (ibid)
3. This is desirable because it is beautiful or because this hides the ugly?
5. The purpose of the tunnels eventually exposed the ugliness they attempted to make invisible. NIMBYism is too ironic not to be self destructive.
6. Single use downtowns can work overground or under so long as they are well funded and all goes according to plan, but theres no plan B. �one can easily imagine a scenario of rapid decline� (148)
8. Is the 99% innocent of participating in the vicious cycle of the fear of ugliness? Is the way to break the cycle to fix the ugliness or to learn not to try and fix whats not broke? which one is more feasible?
�
Is the analogous city and the New Urbanist city synonymous? or is one worse than the other?
�
�
�
�
�
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Marc Pearce <pearc...@gmail.com> wrote:
I cut it up in�several�"chapters". I specified with each one which references i will use and, as best i could, either text or some description of what it will say.�
See you tomorrow
Marc
--
<Abraham Baruch Tauber>
"How wonderful�it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world" -Anne Frank
Samuël Poisson
http://vimeo.com/6621826