Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code

Mandy Martin, Puritjarra 2, 2005. For further information on MANDY MARTIN, refer here: http://www.mandy-martin.com/
If there are diverse kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing place, then we need to learn to value the different ways each of us sees a single place that is significant, but differently so, for each perspective.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Thinkers/Critics/etc
WEBLOGS
Australian Weblogs
Critical commentary
Visual blogs
CULTURE
ART
PHOTOGRAPHY
DESIGN/STREET ART
ARCHITECTURE/CITY
Film
MUSIC
Sexuality
FOOD & WiNE
Other
www.thought-factory.net
looking for something firm in a world of chaotic flux

successful cities « Previous | |Next »
March 10, 2008

Deyan Sudjic, director of the Design Museum, has an op-ed in The Observer on cities entitled Cities on the edge of chaos in which he explores the kind of lives we are creating in our cities and asks will citizens - and cities - cope with the fierce pressures of this new urban age.

MelbourneCrowd.jpg Gary Sauer-Thompson, Flinders/Swanston St, Melbourne, 2008

Sudjic says that we do not belong to a generation that has the shared faith that the pioneer architectural modernists had when they chartered a liner to cruise the Mediterranean and drew up their vision of what the modern city ought to be, the 1933 Charter of Athens written by Le Corbusier.

Its ideas are well known. It's main purpose was to erase pedestrian urban life as defined on vibrant city streets in prewar European capitals. We were offered seductive images of skyscrapers sitting in vast parks long with the strict segregation of uses.

Sudjic adds:

They divided their ideal city into functional zones, shaped by slabs arranged to maximise the sunlight falling on the ground between them.Theirs was a generation that was freed from the luxury of self-doubt. Ours is not and that is why we struggle now when we try to think what cities should be. We have seen too many soured urban utopias that were invented by the architects on that liner, and propagated by a political system that measured success in the number of new buildings that it could deliver each month.

Politicians love cranes; they need solutions within the time frames of elections and cranes deliver them. But there are only a limited number of problems that are susceptible to this kind of time scale. He says that:
The result is a constant cycle of demolition and reconstruction that is seen as the substitute for thinking about how to address the deeper issues of the city.Visions for cities tend to be the creation of the boosters rather than the theorists or the policy-makers. City builders have always had to be pathological optimists, if not out-and-out fantasists. They belong to a tradition that connects the map-makers who parcel up packages of swamp land to sell to gullible purchasers...Cities are made by an extraordinary mixture of do-gooders and bloody-minded obsessives, of cynical political operators and speculators. They are shaped by the unintended consequences of the greedy and the self-interested, the dedicated and the occasional visionary.

The cities that work best are those that keep their options open, that allow the possibility of change. The cities that work best are those that keep their options open, that allow the possibility of change. Successful cities are the ones that allow people to be what they want; unsuccessful ones try to force them to be what others want them to be.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:46 AM | | Comments (2)
Comments

Comments

Gary,
In this paper by Nikos A. Salingaros it is stated that:

We cannot solve the present crisis [in our cities] until we acknowledge that the architecture and urbanism of the twentieth century had as its principal goal the isolation of people, from buildings and from each other. That admission necessitates the even more difficult acknowledgment that the idols of modernism were false gods, and that several generations of planners and politicians were deceived into destroying our cities by applying inappropriate urban principles.We now face an urban Europe partially destroyed... today we look upon inhuman city cores surrounded by a suburban cancer eating into the countryside. The cities (and countryside) require a radical reorientation if they are to survive in urban terms.

Modernist urbanism, Salingaros says, is easily recognizable once you know what signs to look for. Some of its principal characteristics are: monolithic buildings and vast open spaces; geometrical alignment to arbitrary rectangular axes; elimination of the intermediate and smaller scales; insistence on industrial materials; insistence on the "purity" of form and surfaces.

This goes hand in hand with an intolerance of whatever helps to reinforce the urban fabric, such as pedestrian spaces, semi-enclosed urban spaces, permeable interfaces, folded urban boundaries, remnants of the past, modestly-sized structures, street furniture, and anything that "clutters" an empty minimalist geometry.

Pam,
Sudjic closes his op-ed closes saying that:

in the end, a city is about the unexpected, it's about a life shared with strangers and open to new ideas. An unsuccessful city has closed its mind to the future.

Adelaide cannot afford to close its mind to the future. It is located in semi desert conditions, is facing a future of long and hot temperatures and dwindling water supply. It is time to bring the natural environment back into the design of the city.

To do so we need to question the way we have been mesmerized by visions of skyscrapers, freeways, and centrally-planned industrial cities--- the paraphernalia of modernist urbanism---and to challenge those politicians who continue to be beholden to the urban "experts", who promise them quick technological fixes and who claim that society can free itself from the constraints of the ecological environment.