from an entry to a competition that I was thinking about that got lost in the pile. note that I don't go into all the nitty gritty, but my main idea stems from the concept of the city as place rather than the concept of the city as people.
The talk is big for urban design that fits in with the new buzzword, "green." Now, admittedly I am not much of a fan of fads, or buzzwords, but all the green talk is at least getting people to think. It is making homeowners, commuters, business owners, politicians, everyone become more aware of the benefits of a more energy efficient lifestyle.
But thinking is not enough, nor taxes from Washington to curb our use on domestic oil supply. The bottom line is not how much we drive, but why we drive so much. And it doesn't get solved by solar panels on homes or carbon taxes. Nor will it be solved by creating even more new places in the US to fill the lush, green lands between the conurbations. We could only wish the solution would be a new city dropped from the sky into the cornfields of Iowa. We can effectively brainstorm how to continue responsible growth and act on those conclusions, but looking at our cities which already exist and thrive is more important.
Population of a City Changes in Any Given Day
I am from Maryland, where I get to see the best of both DC and Baltimore traffic. As a child raised in the suburbs, driving was a pastime. I drove from the eastern shore to the Shenandoah, and even once to Cleveland. In order to truly understand how to tackle greener urbanism, we need to stop cropping our views to a clean crisp box. The harsh reality is many people who work in DC, live elsewhere. Many who work in New York, commute. What can we gain from this is important. Think about how much energy and time we spend to get to work and back. The cropped image of a city is false -- it is really a vast network of roads and smaller towns. This is a key to addressing a major part of the congestion and energy consumption of the most frequent trip of the middle class.
If the man and woman who own a home are working to earn an honest living by commuting a shared 100 miles a day, rather modest in Maryland, what does a carbon tax do? What does incentives for hybrid cars do now? Arguably, our cars are the one luxury item that isn't quite the luxury item. People simply don't have access to public transit to get to the places they need to work. It is easy to proclaim, "Just move to the city," but there isn't always room, the costs can be high, and it may not work into the lifestyle choices of those who yearn for it.
A possible solution: trains. It is funny how a concept that started in the 19th century can still be true. But old can also be good. Exceptionally when matched with new technology, more energy efficient and for the populous. Just a trip to Japan taught me the tactfulness in planning the train network and bus lines to get from each of the locations on my two week trip. No cab rides needed, only buses and trains. The United States needs to revisit the train as a mode of transit.
I feel like this should spawn a new conversation between engineers and architects. It is easy to assume this is solely an engineering problem, but the stations and methods of access are what needs to be looked at.
Why do we lie to ourselves about the planning of these over sized parking lots, equipped with plenty of spaces, nice green medians, and trees and this and that...when you can just glance over a hill to see the massive interchange. More about parking lots and their design implications in a future post...
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
104a: Pittsburgh General Notes
Have you ever traveled to Pittsburgh? Let me tell you I have gone twice now and I have to say unlike other cities there are immediately notable things:
The first time I drove into Pittsburgh from the Pennsylvania Turnpike via I-279, which was the most spectacular way to come into the limits. You meander in the hilly terrain of the middle of nowhere in PA, only to come across a tunnel that borrows underneath a large steep hill with many residences adorning the top. The trip at this point is miles long, leaving room for many to wonder just how far the city is from the turnpike. But then, as you exit the long subterranean pipe, a burst of light floods your brain as you struggle to take in the many sights. To your right, the cascading planes that manage to rush up the hills. in your immediate site, numerous roads, only to be outdone by the bridges, skyscrapers, and the backdrop of the lush green landscape. So many levels on so many dimensions, it was a big shock to a person who had never been. SO the second time I had a lot more reason and was able to articulate what I saw...
Imagine any river of significant size, where the waters are of an unknown depth and wider than a quick swim. The river beds are below your feet and obviously even deeper than the majority of the trails. The further you journey from the water's edge, the higher you climb, meeting all sorts of trees and assorted brush.
This is not too different from most places where their are large bodies of water, but imagine now two large bodies forming an ever larger one winding into the distance between a valley of steep inclines. The nature is omnipotent and inevitable to the eyes of any onlooker. That is why it is incredible any settlement of people can occur in a place of so much overwhelming nature.
Juxtaposed with the river and the precipitous landscape, Pittsburgh is certainly one of the more unique cities. Most cities merely either coexist with the fringes of a waterfront or incorporate a sliver of trees in a dense urban fabric. Perhaps many examples of such confluences are noted in the thick of wooded wilderness of America -- older and smaller towns like Harper's Ferry, WV certainly enjoy the picturesque nature as well. But Pittsburgh achieves it's stance as a city more than a simple city along the waterfront. No, this large city manages to preserve the greatness of the river and overcome it all at once.
Baltimore, MD and New York, NY are cities that have a fair amount of water near them. But in general, the water lacks the gravity to encourage reflection or leisure, the cities place more pedestrians on the inner networks, or encourage a more piecemeal engagement of the water, such as with overly commercialized spectacles on a less than scenic port. Pittsburgh in its complexity as a landscape offers a more simple solution to the incorporation of green space. Consider it the opposite to Central Park in NY...an oasis that is the effort of the planners and designers of the city. Here, rather, the land will only permit so much building to efficiently and comfortably exist. The result is phenomenal.
In just a few places you travel, you are not too far from a wall of trees. Walk along the south side flats and you have to see the hillside of Mt Washington. Or the walk along the strip and you cannot avoid glancing at the hill side of the thick brush hiding Bigelow Blvd and Polish Hill. Unlike many cities where districts may follow the arbitrary and ever shifting lines of demographics, the permanence of the landscape will create a differing genus loci per location, no matter who may flood the streets. This creates an interesting question of how did zoning laws impact this city...because in a location where you only truly have so much of a flat building surface, it raises the question of the procedural history. Unlike other places that may need arbitrary and standards for development and growth, the natural boundaries of the site could provide a scope that Pittsburgh is the way it is and will remain that way. The facade and the vistas are actually relatively timeless, with a majority of the high rise structures dating around 40 years ago.
Perhaps a map users nightmare, these dips, valleys, hills, and steep drops even inform the flattest areas, such as the Central Business District with it's relative even presence. The road heights do vary, but only to accommodate the eventually unforgiving drop along the edge of Southside slopes. Liberty bridge needs to be on an entirely different level. This contrasts a majority of the bridges on the over the Allegheny river and all the others over the Monongahela Valley. Driving by the streets can be easy enough if you have the third dimension in mind.
The cities balance of the induction of fast paced interchanges and bridges into the busier parts of town is not imposing. All sites from the city's CBD are not overwhelmed with sites of concrete and asphalt. The most obvious location of this saturation is notably the location for the stadiums. I am quite struck on the ability for pedestrians to share the bridge with the high speed Interstate traffic over the Fort Duquesne Bridge. Not just this bridge, but noteworthy is that unlike the unfriendly notion of the pedestrian in many municipalities, there is a great deal of foot traffic encouraged by the aesthetics and form of the bridges in the city.
Walking in the CBD was much like any other city, which the grid fairly easy to follow...but noteworthy is the brick paved Grant street which is diagonal to the Penn and Liberty Avenues as they have to eventually take you up the strip. The strip itself is sadly the victim of much abandonment, but look past the emptiness pass 20th street, and gladly take in the old storefronts, cultured joints, and elaborate streetscape. It is different across the Monongahela River, but the old architecture remains, but inside a different vibe. The street culture is not as present on Carson Street, but surely the stores and hustle is there for anyone to take in.
The impression one leaves with is finally a city where perhaps the notion of an identifiable skyline is not all that matter, but rather the product of the environment and it's inhabitants as a whole. After all, take away the hills and the water and leave the skyline, you may not be able to guess it is the Steel City. But perhaps if you took away everything that was a high-rise and left the landscape, you would be able to. How many cities have we all traveled to in which we can do that?
Monday, June 8, 2009
206: urbānus + "ics" = Study of the City
..."If thought can corrupt language, then language can corrupt thought"...
(George Orwell)
Urbanism is a concept that is confusing. Simple as this fact seems, it is not a word that has much history, strict definition, or even recognition among most. Unlike other fields of study – ones that end in -omics, -ture, and ign, urbanism ends in ism, and is therefore a school of thought. But the word itself is used to imply a large array of items that are basically pertaining to a city.The more I think about the concept of urbanism, which sounds more and more like a school of thought than a discipline, I come to see that it is a very rich study that has a broad subject base. For instance, if I were to argue that New York City is poorly planned, this is obviously in the umbrella of an urbanism discussion. Furthermore, if I were to argue a part of the history of the city, when planners did so and so, again, obviously a part of urbanism. Moreover, what if I were to discuss a plaza design. Or a policy decision to enforce plazas. Or a discussion on who lives in what parts of a city. But what if I postulate for you readers a concept that urbanism is more than a school of thought, a discipline of study, or an aggregate of other topics, but an approach to these topics.
Historians can go in depth about politics of the national level governance – but many more specialize in topics of media and art and so on. Cities, in their abundance, have their historians too – who can recount and see the clear path their local jurisdiction has taken. But not all cities have this sort of documentation. Some are, seemingly, uninteresting, trite, and at worst, ignored. But as all things have a past, all things must have a history.
History, I will argue, is a key component of looking at Urbatics, Not Urbanism. But the way a city is standing, what makes the city what it is. Not the way people wish it can be changed or enriched. Many times in design class we have the notion of Urban Design, how a city is thought to be ideal, how a city is contrived, and how a city yields from that intervention decades previous. But what about the notion that there is more than just philosophy that goes into constructing large centers of people? What if I were to argue there is a benefit in examining even the small centers of people?
Urbanism forces the reader and myself to infer a basic assumption: that there is a thought process to all design, universally understood and applied. But we all know that in a field of study so complicated as politics, the amount of isms are far from short supply. These isms themselves are important to understanding history of the world. How can one examine Soviet-era politics without Marxism. Vietnam without Communism. The US without Federalism or Republicanism. And going out of politics into Architecture, where there are Modernism, classicism, etc. The point is that Urbanism is a misnomer, for it applies a philosophical and academic approach that so surreptitiously sneaks in with the way we examine the history.
There is a monopoly on thought, application, and process with the same term. I was taught there is only one good way to do things in a city. Nodes, access to amenity, and so on. The issue I take with this is that it’s a very universal analysis. What about the more tedious, the more minute. This again points to the issue of all these ideas coming under the term Urbanism. How can one go into the more complex without digging into other approaches, large and small?
Perhaps it is because the term is in its infancy that it has not been more widely debated. Below is a quote for it’s possible origins:
‘Urbanism’ in English gains its contemporary meaning as a translation of the French expression l'urbanisme, which can be translated as ‘town planning’. But it has implications which go beyond this translation. Urbanism suggests an approach which comprehends the city as a whole and contains a theory which seeks to explain urban relations. Perhaps the most influential such theory has been the neo-Marxist development, by such writers as Manuel Castells and Henri Lefebvre, of urbanism as a set of spatial relations which have distributive and class consequences independent of those generated by industrialism (the mode of production).
— Lincoln Alliso
Mr. Alliso’s quote furthers the point that the idea of (1)‘town planning’ is the word’s true origin. But then goes on to coattail the definition to also mean (2) the study of the city and (3) the impact of the physical make up of the city on the people who live there. Urbanism, therefore, is a complicated concept. Urbanism is implying much more than simply a study. More than just architecture with its theory’s below, but a full set of theory along with it’s analysis.
The phrase “New Urbanism” should be an immediate cry for help that more vocabulary is used in the field of Urbatics. Unlike the study of cities and spatial interactions with people, New Urbanism promotes itself like a treatise. Just as Marx had his doctrine and Adam Smith had his, the bottom line is that isms are schools of thought. So in this piece, I will use my own term, Urbatics, deriving from urb, latin for city, and tic, meaning pertaining to – Urbatics. This is to contrast Urbanism, which in it’s root ism infers it has a doctrine, a system, or a theory behind it.
When discussing philosophies it is important to address these notions. Vocabulary is the first step in a new understanding of a topic. And with all understandings, it is important to separate the objective facts from the subjective thoughts. Let us go on to discover Urbatics.
So what is an urbanist? I would argue just like an architect that struggles for his style may himself wish to be called a Modernist, an Urbanist can have a school applied to his name. But it is important to not any good modernist be well versed in all schools of urbanism after learning about the fundamentals of urbatics.
Now with these differences at hand you can more readily apply what way Le Corbesier thought as he drew, versus what Rouse envisioned with Columbia. All of them will fall under the umbrella of Urbatics.
402a: Columbia Chases Windmills
A note before I unleash this beast: I have done a lot of work looking and thinking about Columbia...it is the biggest 'city' near me. I have a lot to write on it, but this is the latest.
IS ROUSE OFFICIALLY DEAD?
A Commentary and Brief History of Columbia, MD
The Columbia Board of Residents is meeting to discuss yet again plans to introduce a ‘downtown’ feeling to the suburban planned city. If the board thinks they want to keep his vision alive, maybe they should go back and just see how dead Rouse’s vision actually is today.
Columbia wants to bring the downtown idea of the city to their mall centered suburban (city). Columbia wants it, needs it. That is what they say.
I am a firm believer in the adage from Karl DuPuy of knowing what you want, and then knowing how to get it. I think the primary question is often glanced over with little trepidation, as it is more excited to postulate, dream, and imagine a future space or scenario that is
favorable.
"Booming downtown with lights, shopping, residences, and great times."
Or more in their words from the article
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/howard/bal-columbia0515,0,2111083.story
It is easy to make assumptions that there is truth to the classic line from field of dreams "If you build it, they will come." Usually they will come, and sometimes, come full force, but there is a difference between success of volume of population, and the success of the spaces themselves.
I was struggling for a few weeks to figure out why the idea of Columbia having lofty goals for a not so distant scheme in their future would be ironic. And it is because Columbia itself was that a mere 45 years ago when Rouse dreamt up his thesis in the rough of Howard County in the mid 60s. A city to revolutionize the idea of diversity, make great communities for all economic statuses and walks of life. To make a great suburban space that was more than just a Levittown, an exit off the expressway.
But when we look at the success of such a scheme, it is a mixed result. Columbia is afluent, many people live there. But how successful is it as a city. The car dependent citizens would argue that the connectivity and ability to use town centers and village centers has failed with impeccable precision. And the quality of those town centers themselves is highly suspect.
So when we have a board of people who think they know what they want and there for how to get it, I have a few recommendations in mind.
Columbia is a case study in the point I make with all New Urbanists I come across. NUs are great people, who know what a city needs, we may differ on what it takes to get there and the correct amount of policy intervention, but they are correct with data and sociology on there side -- for starting places from scratch.
I argue Columbia, like most sprawling conurbations and even locales in the boondocks, such as my last two houses, is an established place. People live there, and if that isn't enough, they live there in large numbers. So it is often a lot harder for a NU to make a claim that with New Urbanism, or as I prefer, good urbanism, we can transform space. Columbia is too big. And like many systems, like Baltimore and Baltimore's Metro area, the system is complex and depends on looking at the flux of the people who go in and out.
Columbia's major systemic flaw is that if you were to argue the village centers are successful in providing the needed ammenities to their residents, it is more difficult to lay claim to such for the Town Center. The vision, as I have read, was to have a place that anchors the city where people can gather. It has a central library, a location for meetings and concerts, a lakefront for public view, and of course, the mall.
I love Columbia on a cynical level not only because it is a city that has a mall as it's central core. It is because the road system, the artery that is to bring people in, Little Patuxent Parkway, loops around it, making the cities infrastructure itself based around the mall. The office buildings that form an electron shell around the vast deserts of asphalt and painted lines. To protect, the mall on the inside.
But I fear I am focusing much too much on the town center proper. The main vein of the ideas that lived on in Rouse’s vision have disappated. One can argue that diversity has preserved in Columbia, but then again, it has in many other cities that did not take such radical measures to ‘diversify’ in the first place. Another notable remark is the lack of a proper transit system, which of course Rouse fought for. Where are the committees requesting such a system be created to make a more efficient and equitable, if not just esuriently, means travel in the ‘city.’
Because of the car-oriented design, Columbia is such an ardent failure in achieving the goal of a downtown because of its complete disregard for the bipedal types, the ones on bikes and on their feet, given that from all sides, the mall requires a hike up a series of stairs and hills, through some garages, between the light posts, and finally, you come inside.
Just imagine if you would have exported the parking of the mall on LPPkwy from the get go. Take the Macy's, JCPenny, the bath and body and place it on the main avenue. Replace the center of the asphalt park with a real park. A park that unlike Centennial park, is in the real heard of town. You could take advantage of the hills, mix the pedestrians with the cars, bring in a natural element that is indeed surrounded by the active part of the city center.
But that isn't the case. The mall is so ingrained and so permanent. What downtown main street appeal would you place on LPPkwy? What gravitational pull could make people wish to walk along side such a unpedestrian friendly avenues that snakes around a bigger commercial center. After all, a sidewalk on the side of a fast paced thruway doesn't equal mainstreet appeal. And who wants to walk across the parking lot to the bistro of LPPkwy when you have an extensive food court already installed.
Lesson: Nothing is in a vacuum. You can't treat LPP like it is all alone without the gigantic monstrousity of the mall. The Mall (of Columbia) is so successful, itself presents the issue of the injected downtown. Which begs the question, what came first, the downtown, then
the city? Or the city, then the downtown? If you argue the mall is the downtown that lead to the city that lay today, I would agree with you. If you suggested that Columbia’s been somehow devoid of a downtown until these discussions, I’d be less inclined to see that.
All these factors need to be considered before the wild dreams of board members that want this new look to occur for their city. I am sad because most of the angst this is generating is not about my concerns, but because of the potential deforestation of a part of symphony woods. I have never been in there, aside for concerts. And now they are debating making the Columbia area more accessible from the South via 29. The car will dominate all the more. And downtown areas need to control the amount of cars. Look how many people love walking along side route one.
This is not to say there aren't ways to accomplish the goal. But the goal needs to be less dependent on the human condition and more realistic on the cause and the effect, which I fear, could be minimal.
IS ROUSE OFFICIALLY DEAD?
A Commentary and Brief History of Columbia, MD
The Columbia Board of Residents is meeting to discuss yet again plans to introduce a ‘downtown’ feeling to the suburban planned city. If the board thinks they want to keep his vision alive, maybe they should go back and just see how dead Rouse’s vision actually is today.
Columbia wants to bring the downtown idea of the city to their mall centered suburban (city). Columbia wants it, needs it. That is what they say.
I am a firm believer in the adage from Karl DuPuy of knowing what you want, and then knowing how to get it. I think the primary question is often glanced over with little trepidation, as it is more excited to postulate, dream, and imagine a future space or scenario that is
favorable.
"Booming downtown with lights, shopping, residences, and great times."
Or more in their words from the article
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/howard/bal-columbia0515,0,2111083.story
"To me, it should be a city, but how big a city?" Citaramanis said. "I want it to be a city downtown, and the urban core of Howard County."
She and other citizens fear that too dense a downtown might produce unwelcome crowding and congestion that current residents might hate, while the plan's boosters see those objections as potential roadblocks to a bright fulfillment of founder James W. Rouse's original vision.
It is easy to make assumptions that there is truth to the classic line from field of dreams "If you build it, they will come." Usually they will come, and sometimes, come full force, but there is a difference between success of volume of population, and the success of the spaces themselves.
I was struggling for a few weeks to figure out why the idea of Columbia having lofty goals for a not so distant scheme in their future would be ironic. And it is because Columbia itself was that a mere 45 years ago when Rouse dreamt up his thesis in the rough of Howard County in the mid 60s. A city to revolutionize the idea of diversity, make great communities for all economic statuses and walks of life. To make a great suburban space that was more than just a Levittown, an exit off the expressway.
But when we look at the success of such a scheme, it is a mixed result. Columbia is afluent, many people live there. But how successful is it as a city. The car dependent citizens would argue that the connectivity and ability to use town centers and village centers has failed with impeccable precision. And the quality of those town centers themselves is highly suspect.
So when we have a board of people who think they know what they want and there for how to get it, I have a few recommendations in mind.
Columbia is a case study in the point I make with all New Urbanists I come across. NUs are great people, who know what a city needs, we may differ on what it takes to get there and the correct amount of policy intervention, but they are correct with data and sociology on there side -- for starting places from scratch.
I argue Columbia, like most sprawling conurbations and even locales in the boondocks, such as my last two houses, is an established place. People live there, and if that isn't enough, they live there in large numbers. So it is often a lot harder for a NU to make a claim that with New Urbanism, or as I prefer, good urbanism, we can transform space. Columbia is too big. And like many systems, like Baltimore and Baltimore's Metro area, the system is complex and depends on looking at the flux of the people who go in and out.
Columbia's major systemic flaw is that if you were to argue the village centers are successful in providing the needed ammenities to their residents, it is more difficult to lay claim to such for the Town Center. The vision, as I have read, was to have a place that anchors the city where people can gather. It has a central library, a location for meetings and concerts, a lakefront for public view, and of course, the mall.
I love Columbia on a cynical level not only because it is a city that has a mall as it's central core. It is because the road system, the artery that is to bring people in, Little Patuxent Parkway, loops around it, making the cities infrastructure itself based around the mall. The office buildings that form an electron shell around the vast deserts of asphalt and painted lines. To protect, the mall on the inside.
But I fear I am focusing much too much on the town center proper. The main vein of the ideas that lived on in Rouse’s vision have disappated. One can argue that diversity has preserved in Columbia, but then again, it has in many other cities that did not take such radical measures to ‘diversify’ in the first place. Another notable remark is the lack of a proper transit system, which of course Rouse fought for. Where are the committees requesting such a system be created to make a more efficient and equitable, if not just esuriently, means travel in the ‘city.’
Because of the car-oriented design, Columbia is such an ardent failure in achieving the goal of a downtown because of its complete disregard for the bipedal types, the ones on bikes and on their feet, given that from all sides, the mall requires a hike up a series of stairs and hills, through some garages, between the light posts, and finally, you come inside.
Just imagine if you would have exported the parking of the mall on LPPkwy from the get go. Take the Macy's, JCPenny, the bath and body and place it on the main avenue. Replace the center of the asphalt park with a real park. A park that unlike Centennial park, is in the real heard of town. You could take advantage of the hills, mix the pedestrians with the cars, bring in a natural element that is indeed surrounded by the active part of the city center.
But that isn't the case. The mall is so ingrained and so permanent. What downtown main street appeal would you place on LPPkwy? What gravitational pull could make people wish to walk along side such a unpedestrian friendly avenues that snakes around a bigger commercial center. After all, a sidewalk on the side of a fast paced thruway doesn't equal mainstreet appeal. And who wants to walk across the parking lot to the bistro of LPPkwy when you have an extensive food court already installed.
Lesson: Nothing is in a vacuum. You can't treat LPP like it is all alone without the gigantic monstrousity of the mall. The Mall (of Columbia) is so successful, itself presents the issue of the injected downtown. Which begs the question, what came first, the downtown, then
the city? Or the city, then the downtown? If you argue the mall is the downtown that lead to the city that lay today, I would agree with you. If you suggested that Columbia’s been somehow devoid of a downtown until these discussions, I’d be less inclined to see that.
All these factors need to be considered before the wild dreams of board members that want this new look to occur for their city. I am sad because most of the angst this is generating is not about my concerns, but because of the potential deforestation of a part of symphony woods. I have never been in there, aside for concerts. And now they are debating making the Columbia area more accessible from the South via 29. The car will dominate all the more. And downtown areas need to control the amount of cars. Look how many people love walking along side route one.
This is not to say there aren't ways to accomplish the goal. But the goal needs to be less dependent on the human condition and more realistic on the cause and the effect, which I fear, could be minimal.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
205:
Note: You'll see overtime I am an erratic writer. I will usually go all over the board and at times just disappear. It is certainly an indicator of who I am and how I work best.
I haven't been in much of a conclusion based writing mood these days; I have several pieces that are under construction, awaiting edits and images. Personally, I am not worried. This blog is coming together nicely.
This morning I ranted on camera about what I think architecture is and how this will ultimately tie into any work I produce, not just for the blog, but in general. This entry, more than the others, I would appreciate feedback and conversation on what other people think. The typical longwinded essay of my mouth ties the theory of what arch should be, how that ties to urbanism, and how do we best represent it.
What is Architecture/Urbanism to you?
*** *** ***
Content:
architecture as process, architecture as solution, differences between art and architecture
Art - made for reaction,
but architecture needs to have activation and action, in addition to the reaction
the flaws of looking at merely the outside of the building to say it is 'good architecture'
Importance of social impact, and learning from the sociology of the spaces already made
Friday, February 6, 2009
401a: Asia Town
I am writing from the office on lunch break, so please understand I cannot elaborate fully on the topic at this time.
For all those who listened to my piece on Chinatown in Washington, DC with the picture presentation, I came to a conclusion that cities love to think they have a say in who lives where for image sake. We want 'good jobs and good homes' here and 'a booming downtown.' Well, through tax incentives and well meaning plans, these ideas can come to life, but I have come across a piece from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) that bothers me in a paragraph. My boss in Frederick today sent me a link (http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek09/0206/0206d_bta.cfm) which if one leads in it's entirety, could discover a concept for a 'Asia Town.' He called it to my attention and now I feel I need to look at this more closely. The exerpt is from by Zach Mortice, Associate Editor:
"The northernmost section of Charles North is slated to grow into Asia Town, a Pan-Asian community of Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Middle-Eastern residents and entrepreneurs. Though there is already an Asian presence in the neighborhood, it will require the dominant landowner in the area to attract such people to the neighborhood in much greater numbers for such a distinct cultural district to emerge. This could be a difficult task, as a traditional “Chinatown” has never taken root in Baltimore. Similar to the Backstage District, this area will contain a mix of uses and hundreds of thousands of flexible retail, gallery, studio, and office spaces, as well as incubator spaces. The master plan also calls for row houses to be reconceived as Asian-style shop houses, where business owners split work and living space in one building. "
I highlighted the key phrases in this passage. The notion of 'requiring' more people is not a minor one. In fact, the idea should be questioned before this idea has any credence. DC is proof enough that centrally planning who lives where is not successful. Maybe once upon a time DC had a large Chinese population, but there is no way to keep that. But arguably, people claim they want to hold on to a piece of history and culture. That is a good idea, but how? Through signage, through Chinese archways? How about focusing on key Chinese people...parks for chinese figures in the town. That way it can have a sense of historical permanance. We seem to forgot about people when we are designing. Chinatowns are worldwide, and they never needed people to plan them. They have them in Japan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, New York, LA, San Francisco, London, and Paris...
But back to Baltimore. They NEVER had a Chinatown, why? Because Chinese people never formed a group large, cohesive, and culturally evident to present itself. It is not like NYC said "chinese people will move here, here, and here." Heck, the actual district in NYC flucuates with the years...and looking to other cultural locales, like Harlem, that thing has changed from group to group. Why not name it "Little Puerto Rico?" Case and point.
Another luxury taken in the piece is one of cultural ignorance. Asia Town assumes a lot of things, that people want to be grouped together based on nationality, heritage, etc, and also that people want to be grouped by continent. Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese living together could work, but if it did, wouldn't it have already happened. Architecture should never inform who lives where, but the people who live there can inform the architecture.
So I stress that if there is barely an Asian presence in that part of Baltimore, making Chinese signs, making Asian style buildings, and herding Asian people to live there will not make this area successful, at least as a cultural center. Culture depends on people...people who activate it with music, language, clothing, customs, and the like. Let's stop pretending we can pick who lives where, because frankly, we shouldn't do that to begin with. It makes the Asians a puppet of a grand plan, a pawn of some municipal concept. That is nothing like Chinatown
I intend to talk about the rest of the article in a future discussion.
400 series will be for current events in urban design
For all those who listened to my piece on Chinatown in Washington, DC with the picture presentation, I came to a conclusion that cities love to think they have a say in who lives where for image sake. We want 'good jobs and good homes' here and 'a booming downtown.' Well, through tax incentives and well meaning plans, these ideas can come to life, but I have come across a piece from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) that bothers me in a paragraph. My boss in Frederick today sent me a link (http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek09/0206/0206d_bta.cfm) which if one leads in it's entirety, could discover a concept for a 'Asia Town.' He called it to my attention and now I feel I need to look at this more closely. The exerpt is from by Zach Mortice, Associate Editor:
"The northernmost section of Charles North is slated to grow into Asia Town, a Pan-Asian community of Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Middle-Eastern residents and entrepreneurs. Though there is already an Asian presence in the neighborhood, it will require the dominant landowner in the area to attract such people to the neighborhood in much greater numbers for such a distinct cultural district to emerge. This could be a difficult task, as a traditional “Chinatown” has never taken root in Baltimore. Similar to the Backstage District, this area will contain a mix of uses and hundreds of thousands of flexible retail, gallery, studio, and office spaces, as well as incubator spaces. The master plan also calls for row houses to be reconceived as Asian-style shop houses, where business owners split work and living space in one building. "
I highlighted the key phrases in this passage. The notion of 'requiring' more people is not a minor one. In fact, the idea should be questioned before this idea has any credence. DC is proof enough that centrally planning who lives where is not successful. Maybe once upon a time DC had a large Chinese population, but there is no way to keep that. But arguably, people claim they want to hold on to a piece of history and culture. That is a good idea, but how? Through signage, through Chinese archways? How about focusing on key Chinese people...parks for chinese figures in the town. That way it can have a sense of historical permanance. We seem to forgot about people when we are designing. Chinatowns are worldwide, and they never needed people to plan them. They have them in Japan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, New York, LA, San Francisco, London, and Paris...
But back to Baltimore. They NEVER had a Chinatown, why? Because Chinese people never formed a group large, cohesive, and culturally evident to present itself. It is not like NYC said "chinese people will move here, here, and here." Heck, the actual district in NYC flucuates with the years...and looking to other cultural locales, like Harlem, that thing has changed from group to group. Why not name it "Little Puerto Rico?" Case and point.
Another luxury taken in the piece is one of cultural ignorance. Asia Town assumes a lot of things, that people want to be grouped together based on nationality, heritage, etc, and also that people want to be grouped by continent. Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese living together could work, but if it did, wouldn't it have already happened. Architecture should never inform who lives where, but the people who live there can inform the architecture.
So I stress that if there is barely an Asian presence in that part of Baltimore, making Chinese signs, making Asian style buildings, and herding Asian people to live there will not make this area successful, at least as a cultural center. Culture depends on people...people who activate it with music, language, clothing, customs, and the like. Let's stop pretending we can pick who lives where, because frankly, we shouldn't do that to begin with. It makes the Asians a puppet of a grand plan, a pawn of some municipal concept. That is nothing like Chinatown
I intend to talk about the rest of the article in a future discussion.
400 series will be for current events in urban design
Sunday, January 18, 2009
204: Roads of Sprawl
Examples of the roads that are 'strip roads,' are Route 1, Liberty Road, and Route 40. These roads are pretty well known and the way we feel about them. They have the characteristic that boils down to: during rush hour, you do not want to be making left turns. In fact, most of these roads make turning on to these thruways very painful.
I got lazy and decided to rant about it on tape instead of just write it...but this is a good primer to my way of thinking about College Park, MD.
I got lazy and decided to rant about it on tape instead of just write it...but this is a good primer to my way of thinking about College Park, MD.
103a: College Park, MD
Route 1. Baltimore Avenue.One cannot discuss CP without going in depth into the road that is the main source of traffic to and from the campus of the University of Maryland. The road is a prime strip road, where business off the artery tend to create a very uncompromising picture and lifestyle for the pedestrian. Please check the website for more information on this specific proposal.
(click on the image to the left for the link to the rollover script of the design solution)
Saturday, January 17, 2009
102a: Washington, DC - Chinatown
Practically in my backyard, I will discuss Washington, DC in depth rather easily. I will begin with material I have already compiled on a very specific region of the city -- and it is not unique to Washington (colloquially 'DC' from now on). The District has a Chinatown, much like other cities in the world, and is actually a very commercially successful place. But do not be fooled, because if you have been to Manhattan's Chinatown, you will immediately notice the difference.
My first long term exposure to "Gallery Place/Chinatown" was for my first project as a senior architecture student. We were to design a mediatheque/library space and like all other projects before it, the syllabus demanded a thorough site analysis. But everytime I would go with classmates I was displaced and confused. I needed to go back. The result was waking up at 6am to ride the mtro into town. I felt getting an 'early look' at the city was a good call. I had a run in with authority (they didn't like the fact I was taking so many pictures). That is a funny story for another time perhaps. I do not think I can summarize my findings any better than what I wrote in my piece for class to describe the thinking at the beginning stages of my project.
Site Response
Quality Check
Since I lack a metric to describe precisely how cities make me feel (a series of adjectives, perhaps, sometime in the future) the Gallery Pl. area is fundamentally sound in terms of it's genus loci. Sure, I may have a bone to pick about the lack of a China aspect to the package, but when you are there, the buildings of old and the buildings of today seem to mingle in a rather cohesive way. The amount of people in the area is a given because it is near a series of bars, restaurants, and the Verizon Center. Not to mention the Metro stop. All this with the fact it is in an area where offices are left and right, making it a dynamic space for commuters and a destination spot for others. I love the place, personally, for what it offers. The bones I have to pick with the area are that of the mislabeled name.
Spatially Speaking
I had mentioned in the video that 7 and H mark the center of Chinatown, proper (as DC would like you to think). This one is a no-brainer, because the Arch is placed before this intersection. But more private enterprise has helped make this a dynamic corner, including the AA&T digital screen that illuminates the square. As with most intersection's that would be defining a locale from all sides, it is not unusual that this would be busy, all day it seems pedestrians and cars alike desire to get through the signal. It is still a far cry from Hachiko Square in the Shibuya District of Tokyo, Japan, mostly because it does lack the office center-laden population of Shibuya.
My first long term exposure to "Gallery Place/Chinatown" was for my first project as a senior architecture student. We were to design a mediatheque/library space and like all other projects before it, the syllabus demanded a thorough site analysis. But everytime I would go with classmates I was displaced and confused. I needed to go back. The result was waking up at 6am to ride the mtro into town. I felt getting an 'early look' at the city was a good call. I had a run in with authority (they didn't like the fact I was taking so many pictures). That is a funny story for another time perhaps. I do not think I can summarize my findings any better than what I wrote in my piece for class to describe the thinking at the beginning stages of my project.Site Response
The site is one of a great degree of diversity. There is not one sense of identity in that when I go, the genus loci isn’t really focused on one particular space. Therefore, I feel that regardless how I handle the building, I don’t want to have it attract too much attention programmatically or aesthetically and blend into the eclectic environment.I had come to this conclusion rather clearly after assembling a map of my work, then exhaustively dissecting the area into parts to try to figure out where Chinatown really is, if it even exists. The following is a montage of the site collection and then my images for data collection:
The name ‘Chinatown’ is solely a connection to the past of the environment and the environment today is suffering from a lack of cultural identity. The part of the city that we are assigned to work in lacks a certain culture that is associated with most other Chinatowns of the world.
So the question is: Do you wish to implant a building that tries to inject the concept of what Chinatown should be based on the architypes of the other cities. Or should this Chinatown stand alone on the realm of what the nation’s capital wants it to be. A Chinatown of its very own. Perhaps this china town is about the fusion of other cultureal elements with a Chinese base.
Define the street edge, to fit in the urban fabric as a building…announce the civicness
The only other option could be to capitalize on what the zeitgeist of what Chinatown is. That is looking past the cheapness of the signage and facades of the time to see that the area is just a hot pocket of diversity and should have a new building reflecting such. To se the german, the Spanish, the Italian the franchise, the mom and pop shops, all places as a diverse mixture of not just people, but programs and buildings.
So in terms of additional programmatic need, my response is either to play up a bit of what most Chinese towns have and harbor (Chinese rest, taichi, martial arts hall, music hall for folk performance, special Chinese collections, etc). Or to have a multicultural response.
Culture is:
Food, music, art, dance, etc...that sort of thing.
Language is already on the signs, but the others are kind of neglected. It is a shell of what is wants to be, a name to insist a way of experience. A title to form the perception, devoid of any material backing or design. The worst of the sort, because it is merely a label.
Quality Check
Since I lack a metric to describe precisely how cities make me feel (a series of adjectives, perhaps, sometime in the future) the Gallery Pl. area is fundamentally sound in terms of it's genus loci. Sure, I may have a bone to pick about the lack of a China aspect to the package, but when you are there, the buildings of old and the buildings of today seem to mingle in a rather cohesive way. The amount of people in the area is a given because it is near a series of bars, restaurants, and the Verizon Center. Not to mention the Metro stop. All this with the fact it is in an area where offices are left and right, making it a dynamic space for commuters and a destination spot for others. I love the place, personally, for what it offers. The bones I have to pick with the area are that of the mislabeled name.
Spatially Speaking
I had mentioned in the video that 7 and H mark the center of Chinatown, proper (as DC would like you to think). This one is a no-brainer, because the Arch is placed before this intersection. But more private enterprise has helped make this a dynamic corner, including the AA&T digital screen that illuminates the square. As with most intersection's that would be defining a locale from all sides, it is not unusual that this would be busy, all day it seems pedestrians and cars alike desire to get through the signal. It is still a far cry from Hachiko Square in the Shibuya District of Tokyo, Japan, mostly because it does lack the office center-laden population of Shibuya.
Friday, January 16, 2009
203a: The Vignette From Scratch
That New City Smell
The Rio and Washingtonian Center in Gaithersburg, MD is a classic case of the city that has that ‘look.’ You know, analogously the only way to describe it is a newly power washed item, there is not significant wear and tear, and there is a certain loftiness in the air. As if you could drive two tractor trailers though the space and not have a single problem. It reminds me of any shopping strip that is new, except it is a city. A few miles stretching in Bethesda in Wisconsin Ave. Downtown Silver spring.
It make you wonder that if cities ever could naturally look like this. It isn’t bad, but to me is a little more off-putting. Mostly, it is a psychological issue with fewer eyes on the street. In all the specific examples, you seem to have a majority of stores without residences and more commercial chains. The lack of individuality is key, where you can in theory be dropped into any of these New Town USAs and not really know where you are.
We all know that well capitalized companies that have the diviersity of income streams from various locations, chains, brand names, and franchises will be more willing to put up capital and invest in a new area. This also guarantees name recognition, spawning not only new jobs, but places people can simply see and already identify.
But that leaves you with a void. As in Frederick, MD where the streets seem to be filled predominately with fresh small business endeavors and a few for sale leasing signs, it’s the polar opposite in these other locales. The Rio, has a potbelly, a pizza place, and chain restaurants off the boardwalk. Yes, boardwalk. It asks a new chicken/egg allegory mixed with Kevin Costner flick appeal: if you build it, do they come? Or do they come, so you build it? These places have the appeal of the item, not the city. You go to the movies, or you go to eat. At least it is designed, right?
The benefit of a place like Rio will be described in detail in another entry, but it does have a sense of place. The theatre is a central component, but the ‘city’esque feeling and genus loci is attributed to a main stretch of road, a good start. But you realize the Disneyland fraud of it all…surrounded almost completely in parking lots, this is an avenue that basically starts from a parking lot, and ends in a parking garage. The car, once again, wins this battle.
The point remains, what is the impact, spatially and socialogically of a new city. A new sequence of spaces? Centrally planned or not, designed from the first brick to the edge of each mullion or not, there is something different *gazes sharply*. I intend to find out.
The Rio and Washingtonian Center in Gaithersburg, MD is a classic case of the city that has that ‘look.’ You know, analogously the only way to describe it is a newly power washed item, there is not significant wear and tear, and there is a certain loftiness in the air. As if you could drive two tractor trailers though the space and not have a single problem. It reminds me of any shopping strip that is new, except it is a city. A few miles stretching in Bethesda in Wisconsin Ave. Downtown Silver spring.
It make you wonder that if cities ever could naturally look like this. It isn’t bad, but to me is a little more off-putting. Mostly, it is a psychological issue with fewer eyes on the street. In all the specific examples, you seem to have a majority of stores without residences and more commercial chains. The lack of individuality is key, where you can in theory be dropped into any of these New Town USAs and not really know where you are.
We all know that well capitalized companies that have the diviersity of income streams from various locations, chains, brand names, and franchises will be more willing to put up capital and invest in a new area. This also guarantees name recognition, spawning not only new jobs, but places people can simply see and already identify.
But that leaves you with a void. As in Frederick, MD where the streets seem to be filled predominately with fresh small business endeavors and a few for sale leasing signs, it’s the polar opposite in these other locales. The Rio, has a potbelly, a pizza place, and chain restaurants off the boardwalk. Yes, boardwalk. It asks a new chicken/egg allegory mixed with Kevin Costner flick appeal: if you build it, do they come? Or do they come, so you build it? These places have the appeal of the item, not the city. You go to the movies, or you go to eat. At least it is designed, right?
The benefit of a place like Rio will be described in detail in another entry, but it does have a sense of place. The theatre is a central component, but the ‘city’esque feeling and genus loci is attributed to a main stretch of road, a good start. But you realize the Disneyland fraud of it all…surrounded almost completely in parking lots, this is an avenue that basically starts from a parking lot, and ends in a parking garage. The car, once again, wins this battle.
The point remains, what is the impact, spatially and socialogically of a new city. A new sequence of spaces? Centrally planned or not, designed from the first brick to the edge of each mullion or not, there is something different *gazes sharply*. I intend to find out.
301: Finding A Metric
Beginning to Discover a Metric
Metrics are typically heard of in economics -- they are a way of measuring the health of the economy. Well, I propose in these blog I develop a metric (or even a few). I am not quite sure what that metric really is exactly, but I think I can start to chisel it down. For instance, when speaking on the human condition in the city, the first should be centered on the human, unabated, in the world. So no car or anything that serves as a condition other than the permanent existing fabric around a person. Le Corbusier has an interesting illustration that I like to think about whenever I go about the design of a space in a building. 'The Modular Man,' is just his illustration the concept of modular space creation based on the human form. This makes a lot of sense, but it is not typically what we do. The example I always think about is just a difference in units...why is three feet and not two feet 11 inches and a fraction? Well, if you were to argue that this slightly shorter distance is more humanistic, the argument usually loses to the ease of construction. In Britain, handles can be a meter above the grade. In the US, a yard. Why does this difference exist? Frankly, it is only because of the arbitrary setting of a unit of national measure. But looking at the typical human proportion can inform design with a lot more precision, as it is based on the conditions of people all around the world. Looking at proportions is nothing new of course, but the notion of making it an organic system based on the human seemed refreshing. I believe the span of a human's stride and what stature a person is walking with in a city is beneficial for a metric.
A Bone to Pick with Oversimplification of Maps
On a more urban scale, this humanistic metric can also tie in the infamous
designers '5 minute walk/10 minute walk' circles. Since cities must be occupied by individuals who not have always have access to mass transit (be it unavailable of unaffordable) it is most be a city that keeps the walker in mind. Usually we do it solely by looking at the circles on maps for .5 mile radii. That satisfies the lot, but not me. I instead would look at the quality of the space in the circle. I don't view it as clean cut. For instance (show drawing) let's say we start in the middle of Popkinapolis' Main Street and Osada Avenues. Well, if you were to go North or South along the avenue, sure, the .5 mile mark is pretty accurate. If you were to go East or West, again, sure, using the main axes will prove the walk to be efficient. But going on the diagonals, the other points will be somewhat tougher. To some this is splitting hairs, but try to cross the lake...that will cut the circle short. But this example is very simple...what about real cities? We all know that not all cities can be like Manhattan, with a strict grid, with almost guaranteed means of crossing any road at any time. The terrain is also relatively flat in New York. But try drawing a 10 minute map in Pittsburgh. That would be funny to someone in Architecture school who is just quickly plotting out diagrams. But the river, and then the other river, the limited access to the roads cars have access too, and of course, the precipitous inclines. All these prove to somehow throw a wrench into the 10 minute walk theory. It would be wholly inaccurate for someone to stand at the Point where the rivers converge and simply plot a circle. It would in turn be much more nebulous.
This more nebulous form that would be plotted would provide a lot more insight to the way it works on foot. And then I would propose a similar way of looking at vehicular traffic. If you were to look at the .5 mile/10 minute radius for people, with an average speed limit of 30mph in city centers, I would propose a blob to show the 1 minute circle of cars, looking into the traffic patterns and stoppages speed limits and all. The results in Pitt would probably be very interesting. Of course this would require much more in depth research.
Why is this important?
Because if you can see the variations in the shape, it will help you see the things that humans pick up invariably when living in the city. Things that come through conversations like "no, let's not go that way, because crossing walnut will take forever...the light never changes!" or "that's got a steep hill, let's go this way." While the grading would only have a slight impact on the 10 minute nebulous formation, which I will call the '10-minute cloud' from now on.
(300 series will be on discussions related to or about metrics of Urbanism)
Metrics are typically heard of in economics -- they are a way of measuring the health of the economy. Well, I propose in these blog I develop a metric (or even a few). I am not quite sure what that metric really is exactly, but I think I can start to chisel it down. For instance, when speaking on the human condition in the city, the first should be centered on the human, unabated, in the world. So no car or anything that serves as a condition other than the permanent existing fabric around a person. Le Corbusier has an interesting illustration that I like to think about whenever I go about the design of a space in a building. 'The Modular Man,' is just his illustration the concept of modular space creation based on the human form. This makes a lot of sense, but it is not typically what we do. The example I always think about is just a difference in units...why is three feet and not two feet 11 inches and a fraction? Well, if you were to argue that this slightly shorter distance is more humanistic, the argument usually loses to the ease of construction. In Britain, handles can be a meter above the grade. In the US, a yard. Why does this difference exist? Frankly, it is only because of the arbitrary setting of a unit of national measure. But looking at the typical human proportion can inform design with a lot more precision, as it is based on the conditions of people all around the world. Looking at proportions is nothing new of course, but the notion of making it an organic system based on the human seemed refreshing. I believe the span of a human's stride and what stature a person is walking with in a city is beneficial for a metric.
A Bone to Pick with Oversimplification of Maps
On a more urban scale, this humanistic metric can also tie in the infamous
designers '5 minute walk/10 minute walk' circles. Since cities must be occupied by individuals who not have always have access to mass transit (be it unavailable of unaffordable) it is most be a city that keeps the walker in mind. Usually we do it solely by looking at the circles on maps for .5 mile radii. That satisfies the lot, but not me. I instead would look at the quality of the space in the circle. I don't view it as clean cut. For instance (show drawing) let's say we start in the middle of Popkinapolis' Main Street and Osada Avenues. Well, if you were to go North or South along the avenue, sure, the .5 mile mark is pretty accurate. If you were to go East or West, again, sure, using the main axes will prove the walk to be efficient. But going on the diagonals, the other points will be somewhat tougher. To some this is splitting hairs, but try to cross the lake...that will cut the circle short. But this example is very simple...what about real cities? We all know that not all cities can be like Manhattan, with a strict grid, with almost guaranteed means of crossing any road at any time. The terrain is also relatively flat in New York. But try drawing a 10 minute map in Pittsburgh. That would be funny to someone in Architecture school who is just quickly plotting out diagrams. But the river, and then the other river, the limited access to the roads cars have access too, and of course, the precipitous inclines. All these prove to somehow throw a wrench into the 10 minute walk theory. It would be wholly inaccurate for someone to stand at the Point where the rivers converge and simply plot a circle. It would in turn be much more nebulous.
This more nebulous form that would be plotted would provide a lot more insight to the way it works on foot. And then I would propose a similar way of looking at vehicular traffic. If you were to look at the .5 mile/10 minute radius for people, with an average speed limit of 30mph in city centers, I would propose a blob to show the 1 minute circle of cars, looking into the traffic patterns and stoppages speed limits and all. The results in Pitt would probably be very interesting. Of course this would require much more in depth research.
Why is this important?
Because if you can see the variations in the shape, it will help you see the things that humans pick up invariably when living in the city. Things that come through conversations like "no, let's not go that way, because crossing walnut will take forever...the light never changes!" or "that's got a steep hill, let's go this way." While the grading would only have a slight impact on the 10 minute nebulous formation, which I will call the '10-minute cloud' from now on.
(300 series will be on discussions related to or about metrics of Urbanism)
202a: Highway Design/Civil Engineering
Highways. Loosely defined, seemingly even more so loosely placed into an environment. If you have not traveled by car to Newark Airport, then you do not have the right to tell me that the aesthetics of the highways, byways, freeways, and thru ways of America are in the interest of the public eye.
But this isn't an essay about sound walls to prevent the (insert sarcasm) insanely loud trucks and unsightly pavement. It is more a testament to why we think as residents we deserve anymore than just seeing in a city.
Baltimore, Jersey Turnpike, Cleveland, you name it, the car is the major engine to the flow of travel. Even in many train dependent cultures, like the Japanese, we see a steady influx of traffic daily.
What is the purpose of this structure...is a thruway...an express route to get people only through the city...is it a means of getting people out and in? How can civil engineering to one of the highest powers, but most frequently needed infrastructure capacities be held in step with the needs for design?
Transition is a key principle taught in design...so why all these expressways that suddenly end in a light, much like 395 to Conway and Howard in Baltimore. The confusion or the abrupt nature of this condition is notable…you have to drastically reduce your speed around a bend to meet the light near the Convention Center. As a pedestrian, there is this unusual zone where one can walk, and then suddenly notices it leads to a seemingly unforgiving sky bridge of a highway, towering over the city.
You cannot simply place A next to C...a B is needed to, with simple regard to tell cars and people alike a change is occurring. In one example, take the radical idea of having to place parkland near the place where freeways begin. No one likes to live near a highway, but perhaps it makes a lot more sense to attempt a park where people see it, but don't have to be inconvenienced by it. In section, make it obvious 'pedestrians stop here.' Anything to stop them from continuing down a road not meant for them. Or change it so it IS meant for them. Merely ideas, why not play with forms with the human in mind. Why is this branch so, untouchable? In the end, you have to live and coexist with these chunks of metal, concrete and steel, don't you?
From my Urbanism class, the idea is that all cities have generators of ‘urban form.’ Brasilia for instance, was the car, as it was built as a Utopian, advanced society. Only cars needed (this will be discussed further when I write about semiotics) so no sidewalks. “Olde Towne USA”s around the country will be small and walkable, because, they had to be in order for people to get around. So on and so forth. But the car has dominated in our years for the past two generations. Has convenience usurped quality, safety, and design?
The questions to ask are how can the aspects that define our cities just as much as our buildings, the road systems, the public transit, where the tracks are and so on, impact our perception. Do you really mind a city that is so heavily loaded to make shadows occupy the street level at almost all hours? The train tracks that give rise to a ‘dead zone’ in cities? Loaded questions, I know, but we see these instances a lot. Perhaps the notion of civil engineering + architecture is more than a communication based relationship. Perhaps a synthesis of the ideals of both efficient and aesthetic design choice can occur. Next entry will focus more on the specific ways roads come through our lives, not just in dense areas, but in general. From there, we all can see what has the ability to change.
But this isn't an essay about sound walls to prevent the (insert sarcasm) insanely loud trucks and unsightly pavement. It is more a testament to why we think as residents we deserve anymore than just seeing in a city.
Baltimore, Jersey Turnpike, Cleveland, you name it, the car is the major engine to the flow of travel. Even in many train dependent cultures, like the Japanese, we see a steady influx of traffic daily.
What is the purpose of this structure...is a thruway...an express route to get people only through the city...is it a means of getting people out and in? How can civil engineering to one of the highest powers, but most frequently needed infrastructure capacities be held in step with the needs for design?
Transition is a key principle taught in design...so why all these expressways that suddenly end in a light, much like 395 to Conway and Howard in Baltimore. The confusion or the abrupt nature of this condition is notable…you have to drastically reduce your speed around a bend to meet the light near the Convention Center. As a pedestrian, there is this unusual zone where one can walk, and then suddenly notices it leads to a seemingly unforgiving sky bridge of a highway, towering over the city.
You cannot simply place A next to C...a B is needed to, with simple regard to tell cars and people alike a change is occurring. In one example, take the radical idea of having to place parkland near the place where freeways begin. No one likes to live near a highway, but perhaps it makes a lot more sense to attempt a park where people see it, but don't have to be inconvenienced by it. In section, make it obvious 'pedestrians stop here.' Anything to stop them from continuing down a road not meant for them. Or change it so it IS meant for them. Merely ideas, why not play with forms with the human in mind. Why is this branch so, untouchable? In the end, you have to live and coexist with these chunks of metal, concrete and steel, don't you?
From my Urbanism class, the idea is that all cities have generators of ‘urban form.’ Brasilia for instance, was the car, as it was built as a Utopian, advanced society. Only cars needed (this will be discussed further when I write about semiotics) so no sidewalks. “Olde Towne USA”s around the country will be small and walkable, because, they had to be in order for people to get around. So on and so forth. But the car has dominated in our years for the past two generations. Has convenience usurped quality, safety, and design?
The questions to ask are how can the aspects that define our cities just as much as our buildings, the road systems, the public transit, where the tracks are and so on, impact our perception. Do you really mind a city that is so heavily loaded to make shadows occupy the street level at almost all hours? The train tracks that give rise to a ‘dead zone’ in cities? Loaded questions, I know, but we see these instances a lot. Perhaps the notion of civil engineering + architecture is more than a communication based relationship. Perhaps a synthesis of the ideals of both efficient and aesthetic design choice can occur. Next entry will focus more on the specific ways roads come through our lives, not just in dense areas, but in general. From there, we all can see what has the ability to change.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
201: Instruction vs. Instinct
Signs, Signs, SignsWhen we drive we are used to seeing all sorts of signs. This is an acceptable reality because the roads can be a dangerous place and it has a required amount of order needed. In the image to the left, a rather humorous one invokes a few questions. Why does stopping put me in any sort of danger? If there were threats, shouldn't they be dealt with by good security. The notice alone makes me have more fear in general. Imagine you'll drive on this road and your tire blows out. What then?
All jokes aside, signs are the law of the land. You have to obey the speed limits, you have to do as they say. But there are signs like this that are for pedestrians too. Signs that really are supposed to come up with the short fall of bad design (like unsecured prison cells).
Take this sign from Milwaukee. If the building was designed in a way to call for the much expected ice and snow from the eaves of the building on the street level, there would never be a sign asking the population to do the impossible. In fact, this is just guaranteeing nothing more than a means of recourse of a potential lawsuit. Signs like this exist all over, just to prevent liabilities; the lawsuits rarely care for the wellbeing of the public that will occupy the spaces...then there would be a net or something (which in Milwaukee, there are on some buildings). Obviously this is a consideration individual architects should take into account when designing, but even factors on the street level could be changed to make it less dangerous. This site has a very narrow sidewalk, so it gives people little to no leeway of squeezing by the 'danger zone.'
Assumptions of the Public Realm and the People Who Will Regularly Ignore them.
Here is a little audio I recorded of my thoughts on jay walking.
101a: Mount Airy, MD
Home.
We write about what we know, so I will begin these blogs with a bit of description work, sans (I will use french without warning) any analysis formally. So this means I will begin with Howard County's places of interest, namely Columbia, Ellicott City, and of course, Mount Airy.
Mount Airy is in the far reaching northwest corner of Howard County, in fact being part of other counties neighboring it. I reside in a location that I will often joke as 'not quite Mount Airy, not quite Lisbon, but pretty much still in the middle of nowhere.' It was a similar situation where I wasn't really near anything that was associated with Ellicott City when I used to live in 'Ellicott City.' In other words, the boondocks, or the 'boonies.' I do not know what other definitions people use to describe the boondocks, but let's say it is the suburbs of the suburbs. To put it: the outer layers of a already unknown place (to someone from, let's say out of town).
Most Americans know what I mean. It means you need to encounter a 30 mile per hour speed limit, a few four way stops, perhaps. Along the way you'll see corn or cows. Then, randomly, a development, or a slew of single family homes that are next to one another on smaller plots of land. Even though you were about a mile south of Interstate 70, you would think you were in the middle of nowhere without any major indication of where to go next. That is where I currently live, sort of Mount Airy, but not really.
What implications does this have for me, as a resident? Not being able to really understand where I am, have any major place to go, and so on. It means I need a car. The only buses that come through this area are yellow school buses in the mornings and afternoons. But they do not take anyone to schools in the area, that is for sure. It would take me about 4 minutes down the main road here to the next town of Lisbon to find a business: a liquor store. A few other needed establishments are there as well: dentist, veterinarian, and barber. Two gas stations are mere yards further down the same street.
To get to the city in which I am legally a part of, a need to go in the opposite direction, make a few turns, over Interstate 70, and then go down a series of windy roads and viola! Mount Airy. And since I wrote it, let's go into what this Eureka moment is -- it is not a mere expression, but a formal and spatial understanding I am entering Mount Airy as I would know it.
Where does Mount Airy really begin?
Post 001: Posting System
I tend to be rather prolific in my writings, so I figured it would be of great benefit to myself and anyone else who may wish to read these posts a way of going about my findings, pictures, drawings, et cetera.
Post numbers are catalog numbers which will describe the content; the intro is an unmarked 000:
000 - Website related comments, personal notes, and so on
100(a-z) When writing about spaces, I will not go in alphabetical order, so I want to recall in what order I travelled to places. Also, this number will allow me to go back to places and give a new entry with the same number and a different letter if more information is acquired.
200 - General rants on urbanism not specifically related to findings
These numbers will be the only labels on certain posts, to make it easier for me. Any city on the list on the bottom of my blog will become a link when I begin to write about it, and will have it's catalog number along the side. I hope this will allow me to keep some organization of this endeavor with time.
Thanks for reading!
A Brief Introduction
Urban.More academic minded individuals like to begin with a definition of terms, so I will start by saying what I mean when I say 'urban realm.' Many will picture towering buildings over bustling roads, others will see industry, some traffic jams and noise. Urban is frequently associated with cities, large or small, with grid streets, lots of pedestrians, public transportation, et cetera. I am not disagreeing with these individuals, but I say that urban environments are pretty much any environment where people coexist and thrive. Some may take issue with this definition, because that would be suburban developments are urban. That would mean small farm towns are urban. And I would argue, indeed they are. They are just urban forms at a different scale, because in the end, if people are using spaces and infrastructure that was designed to be used by the public, that is pretty much the crux of an urban setting.
Why? Why Write About This?
I am not much of a reader; people cannot get me to read books even if my life depended on it. But as far as I can see, the best way to learn is from experience, from going to a place and 'feeling it.' Architects are familiar with the phrase genus loci, which can be generalized to mean sense of place, the feeling a space gives you and so on. I described in my side bar note that designers of structures are supposed to keep in mind that drawings and models and even walk through movie clips cannot do justice. Even a full scale model, in a way, cannot do what a building will do when it is built. Architects are supposed to imagine, foresee, and build upon a vision to make it a reality. It is no easy task, and I argue still to this day many fail at fully recognizing design flaws because of it. But who can blame them?
When you are in a classroom looking at slides of the Roman Pantheon, or getting lectured on the layout of Central Park, we get a very programmatic, analytical take on the design. This left side of the brain approach is very important, but it appears that when talking about Urban forms, the left side arguments take over much more. I am too lazy to remove notes from a box in a room a few rooms away, so I will draw on my memory. The memory of my only urban theory class, full of graduate students with a few of the undergraduates like me. "Access equals value," "define the edge of the street," and "generators of urban form," are phrases that come to mind. But they lack a right side element. I find that walking through cities this is left to a sort of spontaneous order, which then in turn gives us the final form.
To make my argument more clear, it is as if I learned only how to bubble diagram a city. I am not regarding bubble diagrams as worthless. In fact, quite the contrary. Bubble diagrams prove to be strong foundations for any plan of design, but the articulation is where the devil can come into play. Who cares if the public can access a park, if the access if unattractive, blocked, uninviting. The immediate historical precedence of a well-intended policy to spawn a better city environment was discovered in New York after the Seagram Building (Mies Van der Rohe) was erected with it's large public plaza. Policy shifted to include plaza design as an incentive of more building rights of developers, which resulted in a slew of new plaza designs around the city. Many were terrible -- they were cold, uninviting, and a pure example of how the left brain can get the best of the right brain.
Intent
But what is a good right side design? In an urban environment, I argue you need strong precedence. Cities in general have many good examples of spaces that 'work' and many that do not. By traveling to just a single city, one can deduce what even well known spaces could benefit from. What clandestine spaces are to be discovered? And more importantly, a discovery of what makes any space in any city successful. A look at how a place looks on foot, by car, and who knows what else...I am excited. I hope you will join me on this shot in the dark approach to design critique.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
