Utopias & Codes
Einat Manoff
The readings for this week include diverse visions & realities; codes &
conventions; utopias & distopias; voices & influences that take part in
writing about urbanisn and design. I hope that these texts open up possible
directions for your final papers. All will be discussed in length, but in
interim - please deposit your thougths. Looking forward, Einat
Sorkin, Michael. 1993. Local Code: the constitution of a city at 420N
latitude. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Koolhaas, Rem . 1994. What Ever Happened to Urbanism? In S,M,L,XL. OMA,
(with Bruce Mau). New York: The Monicelli Press, pp. 959/971.
Ward, A.1996. The Suppression of the Social in Design: Architecture as War,
in Reconstructing Architecture: Critical Discourses and Social Practices
edited by T.A. Dutton and L.H. Mann, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, pp. 27-70.
dave ludwig
I'm looking forward to discussing all this tomorrow!
The Suppression of the Social in Design: Architecture as War
I'm still working through this piece, but so I think it's incredibly
informative,eye-opening, and dense. Every paragraph has some grand
statement of how things have developed over time. He does a great job
painting a picture of how dominating views ands uses of architecture
have developed from medieval times to present day. The status quo, he
asserts, has been in place for all this time. His idea of
Architecture-As-An-Art-Object Paradigm, that is, the idea that fine
art (architecture) became a commodity for the aristocracy in that it
purported to act as a meta social phenomenon when it actually gave the
elite power and control over its societal value and influence, in turn
solidifying and magnifying that power. This “ownership” of art shifted
from its original craft base to an intellectual one and its “use
value” changed to an “exchange value”. This created a nonreflexive
dialectic that said, “high art is above social influence” so it cannot
be affected by social ideology.
There are so many examples of how this holds true, the most striking
of which is that modernism, while breaking from the classical
aesthetic, held intact the ideology of the socially superior designer
and treated functionality in the same way as traditional architects
treated other elements of style. After reading the example of William
Morris, it makes sense to look at the current “landscape” and ask
ourselves the same question he asked, “Is it possible to exclude
socio-political questions from the consideration of aesthetics?” Are
there even any good examples of truly social design?
Whatever Happened to Urbanism?
In his rant, Koolhaas picks up on this true nature of design and
architecture and points out that despite massive urbanization
throughout the world, urban architects and planners have failed
miserably to implement the promise of modernity – “to transform
quantity into quality through abstraction and repetition”. For
example, the new urbanists’ latching on to the values of the old city
only after sprawl has pervaded the landscape. Furthermore and to the
central point, urbanists and architects have failed to take a
collective stand on coding urban life. What are we to do? How do we
proceed knowing that urban growth continues with no chance of being
guided by a utopian principal? Whether we believe urban life is in a
state of chaos or not, whether we think there’s a crisis, or not, we
have to reposition our frame of view to feature our lack of control.
This will free us from and allow us to challenge convention. The new
urbanism will have to modify and make room for more.
If anything, Koolhaas inspires us to think outside of the box.
However, I think this piece comes across as being completely
dismissive of urbanists/architects contributions. Did not the city
beautiful movement make sanitation a priority? Hasn’t zoning made New
York a safer, better place to live? Haven’t architectural feats made
it possible for tiny Manhattan island to remain dense? Not to mention
New York’s grid system being a major factor in the city’s
functionality.
Local Code
Sorkin’s code is incredibly thorough and impressive in its scope. At
the end he attempts to qualify his grand stance on how urban life
should be by acknowledging that his code is a fantasy and hoping that
it’s useful to someone in some way. There is obviously a lot of value
in the vision he presents and it obviously could be used as a
reference by those who are planning and building, but I wonder how
much use this document has if its content is used a-la-carte, which is
must be unless building a city from scratch.
William Cawthern
“The Suppression of the Social in Design” critiques the way in which architecture as a discipline has strayed away from serving the non-powerful classes, to perpetuating the existing social hierarchy. Anthony Ward advocates that architecture instead should turn towards a “radical provisional morality,” meaning that utopian ideas are the process that creates community participation, and are not the end goals in and of themselves. In my own opinion, I think that architecture stands alone as the one form of expression that is the result of such deliberate and time-consuming efforts. It takes a lot of time, resources, and dedication to realize a vision, and so whoever is controlling architectural projects must be spellbound by his or her beliefs that what they are building is absolutely correct. In other words, architecture is a form of art in which there are no accidents in design – everything turns out as was planned.
On the flip side, Rem Koolhaus sees architecture – urbanism – as a futile attempt to resist chaos. Koolhaas argues that our concept of urbanism has remained in one place, opposing change, and leading urbanists to think of cities only in nostalgic terms. This prevents us from changing with the times and is only holding us back. He ends his essay by asking what if “we redefine our relationship with the city not as its makers but as its mere subjects, as its supporters?” This makes for a very worthwhile discussion, and Michael Sorkin chips in his vision for changing the city through his “Local Code: The Constitution of a City as 420N Latitude.”
Personally, I love the way Sorkin re-imagines the city. In any code is the ideological background that influences the whole thing, and Sorkin’s code is similar in that regard. He coins the terms Hab and Nabe, clearly because he wants to avoid using commonplace and loaded terms like “residential.” He steers us away from thinking of the city in our entrenched way, something that Koolhaas similarly argued against. While Sorkin’s code is only a list, we can tell where his priorities lie in creating an ideal urban environment, regarding space: space to move around, space to see, space to interact, etc. The call for the creation and maintenance of public space is not new in urban design, but what is new is Sorkin’s attempt to free us from our standard definitions that narrow our scope of understanding the urban.
Cindy Borrero
The Suppression of the Social Design: Architecture as War
Anthony Ward in, "The Suppression of the Social Design: Architecture as War" is describing how architecture has played a significant role in society and the arts. He also discusses the implications of architecture on human culture and society throughout the years and how it is intertwined with art.
Ward describes two kinds of in his literature: architecture and social architecture. He defines architecture as "a backdrop for everyday life" while social architecture having more to do with society and culture. Social architecture is a mechanism by which society can be revolutionized and its goal is to increase human dignity while decreasing suffering.
Ward points out that there are also two theories of architecture: architecture as an art and architecture as a science. As an art, it is more about personal taste and preference. As a science, it is more concrete, about what we know.
He goes on to explain the different roles of architecture throughout human history. It began as a "fine art" instrumental in colonization. It was synonymous with having great social power. Art and architecture both represented power. During the Enlightenment period, the roles of art and architecture, as well as other areas, became less ambiguous. Art, science, ethics and politics became more defined and there was a distinction made between mental and manual labor, as well as education and work. There was a transition from architecture as art to architecture as a science in the post war era. The emphasis was placed on helping the government and less on the society. There was more of a need for helping out the military and implementing operating systems.
Throughout history, there were many figures that saw the need for change and the importance of doing away with class systems. People like William Morris and Hannes Meyer saw the needs of the suffering and saw a need for "aligning" themselves with such people for the better of the society and economy, thus committing "social suicide."
Architecture has played a pivotal role for humanity. Not only is it necessary for city planning and urbanization but also for building on societies and human culture.
Whatever Happened to Urbanism?
In Rem Koolhaas's essay, he is asking, “Whatever Happened to Urbanism?” He is perplexed because, while there is in increase in urbanization, the profession of urbanism is practically disappeared. This is especially disconcerting for architects.
Architecture and urbanism go hand in hand and are both most of crucial importance when planning and building cities. The notion of "the" city appears to no longer exist. The art of architecture is still thriving.
Rem blames us humans and modernization for the death of urbanism. He suggests another way of thinking to take its place. We have to come up with new ideas to take over for urbanism, but still developing a new a different concept of the city.
Lea Dyrup
For some reason my pictures disappears - so I've attached them instead. Lea
Utopias & Codes
The need for change in city planning is evident in tomorrow’s text. In Michael Sorkins Local code: the construction of a city at 420N latitude he argues that we lack suitable theories of immanence, satisfying visions of how the modern city might be wonderful. He is describing an image of the ideal city, on how the city should be planned, emphasizing that the city should be like any complex ecosystem, where it should support and nurture the diversity it harbor.
Sustainable theories of the city is also being advocated for in A. Wards The Suppression of the Social in Design: Architecture as War, where he brings up the term “social architecture”, which is the use of architecture as an instrument for progressive social change. Using social architecture will help increasing human dignity and reduce human suffering. Ward argues that instead of using architecture as a social instrument, architecture has been celebrating those in power, and ends up saying that there is a need for radical change, if human dignity has to survive.
In What ever happened to urbanism by Rem Koolhaas, he criticizes urban sprawl and argues that urbanism has been unable to invent and implement the scale demanded by exploding demographics. Modernism has not turned quantity into quality, and has been an object of critique in city planning the last decade. On the other hand postmodernism is not providing any solution to how to build the ideal city. Now Koolhaas wants to redefine urbanism into an ideology: to accept what exists. To survive Koolhaas argues, urbanism will have to imagine a new newness. ”We have to take insane risks; we have to dare to be utterly uncritical; we have to swallow deeply and bestow forgiveness left and right. The certainty of failure has to be our laughing gas.”
Even though Koolhaas detest urban sprawl, and highways developed with a mindset of a modernist, he is still drawn to the idea of experimenting with utopian architecture. These notions together with Sorkins social architecture made me think of why a specific Danish architect is so popular in the moment – both in Denmark and worldwide. His name is Bjarke Ingles, the man behind BIG and two of the best residential buildings in the world. He tries to develop buildings, where people are almost forced to interact socially. An example is 8-Tallet, where the residents can meet each other on the running route on the rooftop.
Even though this building just won the best resident building of 2011, there still is a lot of empty apartments. Ingels experiments with how buildings can be used and how the architecture can lead to social activities, but in the same time, all these determined functions leaves less space for individual freedom – which seems to be a returning problem working with architecture and their physical boundaries.
Sara
odds with Koolhaas claim that “The” city is no longer a
distinguishable entity; that the city’s form and processes pervade.
Koolhaas identifies an opportunity where a “new” urbanism can
challenge and undermine the staleness and predictability existing
city. Koolhaas proposes an ahistoric assault on the inevitability of
the urban and the implementation of dynamism in urban processes that
lead to the unpredictable and pulls back from the absolutism of
architecture against the absence of urbanism in cities. Koolhaas
misses the complex urban processes described by Ward; he instead
demonstrates the impatience of an architect to influence the urban
environment. Ironically, by proposing that “we” reimagine ourselves as
the supporters of the city rather than its creators, he more
realistically portrays the pace of urbanism’s influence on the city.
To Koolhaas dismay, Sorkin designed specific codes for the creation of
a Utopian city by organizing physical development along an extensive
set of categories. Often whimsical, the detailed instructions are an
attempt to achieve a complexity in urban form and process using
conventional and restrictive planning tools.
The Ward reading reminded me of a past experience that disheartened me
toward politics and planning ethics. In my former role, I faced first-
hand a manipulation of power and advancement of the Architecture-as-
art concept in defense of Atlantic Yards. New York’s State review
process required the Empire State Development Corporation, the public
representatives of the project, to conduct several public review
opportunities including two public meetings featuring representatives
of the ESDC. Days prior to the second, yet unannounced, event, the
design trade organized for which I worked was invited to view the new
design of the Nets Stadium. We were asked to produce the event under
the pretense of a design presentation by the architects. I learned
only on the morning of the event that this meeting, where participants
could only screened questions pertaining to design, would count as the
ESDC’s second public interface. ESDC dissociated the design content
from the underlying neighborhood concerns about eminent domain,
neighborhood borders, access, traffic, and many other issues. Design
sanitized the politics and prevented confrontation while irritating
members of the public. Ward’s effort to connect policies and design is
too often ignored and persists in present-day urban transformations,
especially the most controversial of projects. Even if designers are
comfortable operating as if the world, a city, or a neighborhood is a
utopia, politics and power are ever-present contributors to the urban
experience.
On Nov 7, 6:45 pm, Lea Dyrup <leady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For some reason my pictures disappears - so I've attached them
> instead. LeaUtopias
> & Codes
>
> The need for change in city planning is evident in tomorrow’s text. In
> latitude*he argues that we lack suitable theories of immanence,
> of how the modern city might be wonderful. He is describing an image of the
> ideal city, on how the city should be planned, emphasizing that the city
> should be like any complex ecosystem, where it should support and nurture
> the diversity it harbor.
>
> Suppression of the Social in Design: Architecture as War*, where he brings
> instrument for progressive social change. Using social architecture will
> help increasing human dignity and reduce human suffering. Ward argues that
> instead of using architecture as a social instrument, architecture has been
> celebrating those in power, and ends up saying that there is a need for
> radical change, if human dignity has to survive.
>
> scale demanded by exploding demographics. Modernism has not turned quantity
> into quality, and has been an object of critique in city planning the last
> decade. On the other hand postmodernism is not providing any solution to
> how to build the ideal city. Now Koolhaas wants to redefine urbanism into
> an ideology: to accept what exists. To survive Koolhaas argues, urbanism
> forgiveness left and right. The certainty of failure has to be our laughing
> Even though Koolhaas detest urban sprawl, and highways developed with a
> mindset of a modernist, he is still drawn to the idea of experimenting with
> utopian architecture. These notions together with Sorkins social
> architecture made me think of why a specific Danish architect is so popular
> in the moment – both in Denmark and worldwide. His name is Bjarke Ingles,
> the man behind BIG and two of the best residential buildings in the world.
> He tries to develop buildings, where people are almost forced to interact
> socially. An example is 8-Tallet, where the residents can meet each other
> on the running route on the rooftop.
>
> there still is a lot of empty apartments. Ingels experiments with how
> buildings can be used and how the architecture can lead to social
> activities, but in the same time, all these determined functions leaves
> less space for individual freedom – which seems to be a returning problem
> working with architecture and their physical boundaries.
>
> 305KViewDownload
>
> 8 tllet.jpg
> 494KViewDownload
Juan Carlos Quiridumbay
explains how the field of architecture has being design to serve the
affluent society. This is also what we see today in our society and
how the powerful ones dominate the physical design of a city. Also I
like the idea of how Ward says, architecture, “the Mother of the
Arts.” I do believe that architecture has been a big influence in many
fields, especially urban planning, but yet architecture is the field
that has and will still dominate the physical structure and design of
many metropolitan cities, such as New York City. I also think that
architecture does not consider the social environment when developing
a project. Architecture has the ideology of having a well constructed
building that is aesthetically pleasing, functions well, but yet does
not consider the social space of a city.
In Rem Koolhaas articles, he talk about the disappearance of
urbanization. In part he blame us humans for the death of urbanism.
Koolhaas also mentions that architecture and urban planning have
failed to work together to design for urban cities and it citizens.
Koolhaas also mentions modernism is transforming “quantity into
quality.” I sort of agree with this because of the fact that
architecture solely design with an aesthetically mind, not considering
the social environment that can impact on.
In his “Local Code,” Sorkin has this ideal city environment. For
example, he imagines the a city with a lot of space to socialize and
maneuver around. He wants a perfect city. However, one of the things I
disagree is the idea of having a perfect city with his coding. In
order to have a perfect city as he imagines, we would have to start
from zero, which in my opinion would be impossible. On the other hand,
I like the idea of Sorkin giving an insight of alternatives cities
design and an understand of how a city should be design with social
space in mind.
Simon Mertner Vind
feel like clenching my fist and shout: Revolution! Okay, seriously: I
actually constantly thought of Occupy Wall Street while reading the Koolhaas
and Ward texts although I’m probably the character that Dylan sings about in
‘Ballad of a Thin Man’: “Something is happening and you don’t know what it
is. Do you, Mr. Jones?”. I know something is happening with the OWS but I
have no idea what exactly and whether it will have socio-economic influences
(I guess 99% know as little as I do). But since I’m clenching my fist anyway
it is because that Ward is reminding us about how history not just
happens/happened. Ward shows us how ideas/discourses/values/virtues have
changed through the years; and how these changes have enormous impact on
socio-economic politics; how changes in socio-economic changes the
distribution of goods; how the change of distribution of goods change the
role of cities; how planning and designed changes because of all of these
changes. Something is and has been, apparently, happening constantly:
Modernism was based on optimistic ideas about the capabilities of science
(how science can improve society):Architecture-As-An-Art-Object/positivism.
But throughout the 1960s the people/movements/youth lost belief that this
‘neutral’ designing was the right way of dealing with social reproduction
and the (dialectical) consequence to this was emancipatory oriented planning
and design. But this discourse was also in a dialectical relationship: The
Neoconservative/liberal Reagan and Thatcher era with all its cutbacks on
public activities such as public housing, poverty programs, etc. and all the
other evils
…and so on, and so on, and so on….
Well, well. I’m not in the right position to diagnose the current
socio-economic situation and its influence on current design – but I’m
pretty sure that it is not wrong to state that city planning is still/again
influenced by the neoliberal public-private partnership discourse: The City
Halls are providing Developer friendly zoning so the Developers can invest
and built (and since they work on market principles, they have to be….profit
orientated! ). To cut a long story short: luxurization one the one side,
gentrification on the other.
But back to Ward again: The text did show us how discourses and history not
just happen. They happen because of scientific breakthroughs (Kant,
Fordism); through charismatic leaders and movements (Peoples Rights
Movements, unions, Marx, Hitler (!), Mandela, Bloomberg(!?), Lennon,
Hippies, Yuppies, Foucault, feminists, etc. ).
And maybe, maybe, the socio-economic discourse and how goods should be
distributed will change through Occupy Wall Street. Something is, hopefully,
happening and I have no idea what it is (But the built environment will tell
me sooner or later).
Marc Pearce
we’ve come to assert their artificiality and the potential danger they
represent in real-life implementation.
It is hard not to feel repulsion for the oversimplification of
modernist theory. Today it is much more appealing to think of the
world that surrounds us as a complex, more organic system. The
unpredictability of human expression, the unlimited potential of chaos
in generating genuine life, is becoming a major theoretical and
methodological stand point.
However, if this quasi-aesthetical fascination for a more sensitive
planning/designing approach is very real, it is hard not to feel some
frustration when abandoning the more comprehensive and highly
functional models.
From playing simcity as a child to reading Le Corbusier today,
modeling a functional system, trying to identify rational and
systematic relationships between the different elements that compose
human society, has always been, for me, excessively pleasing and at
times even intellectually orgasmic. Although it may be a token from
the modernists, a vestigial mental reflex handed down from our
forefathers; it seems that, in order to represent all the elements
around us, there is some need to link them to systematic causal
patterns. Some satisfaction is born from the feeling of understanding;
a satisfaction that is the ultimate carrot, the ultimate recompense to
our creativity.
Through-out these past weeks, this frustration has been strong. But
reading Michael Sorkin’s text (or code) has brought some relief.
Although skeptical when going through the different rules and
codifications used in planning this hypothetical city, the
justifications that Sorkin gives are reassuring. Unlike the New
Urbanist's Smart Code, Michael Sorkin appreciates the importance of
distinguishing modeling as an ideal-typical tool for understanding
from a prescriptive means of enforcing an arbitrary and theoretical
belief.
Sorkin reminds us that “poised between fantasy and construction, codes
[…] can be the channels of urban invention.” He talks of the
importance of the theory of the desirable, not as practice but as a
frame for thought, and reminds us of its pedagogical value.
Codes and regulations can be dangerous when used in extreme ways, but
if they are sufficiently broad in order to respond to changes and
specific enough to answer correctly to the finer, more complex issues
of our fractured world, they become essential in the planning of a
truly democratic and responsible city.
Intelligently conceived codes (unlike Smart Code) can bring empirical,
more reactive ways of countering the ills of territorial inequalities,
the detrimental effects of architectural and urban branding, real
estate opportunism and the like, that abound in our globalized world.
One thing is certain, the plurality and complexity of the issues with
which we are faced with do not call for an “irresponsible urbanism”
that takes “insane risks”, one drugged on “our certainty to fail”.
William Cawthern
Einat Manoff
Thanks William.
Einat
From: intro-to-urban-desi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:intro-to-urban-desi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of William Cawthern
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:47 AM
To: intro-to-urban-desi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Utopias & Codes