City and suburb differ in many ways. Suburbs are car-dependant, while in the city it is your choice if you drive a car, take a buss or use your feet. Pedestrian culture is a primary quality in the city. William H.Whyte and Jane Jacobs described the importance of pedestrian life in the city as critically important. Whyte declared that sidewalks are a kind of public space and in some parts of the city more than just predescription of the primary function.
Sidewalks are perfect for meeting someone= acquintances/friends/family and then for a little chit-chat or as Whyte called it `schmoozing`. Jacobs on the other hand claimed that active city life excludes active `crime life`. Her dead certainity came from her own Manhattan, Greenwich Village experience, where lively street life ment commercial businesses open late into the night & coming and going inhabitants. Jacobs was convinced that mixture of urban land uses generates more activity for day and night.
Another contrast between the city and suburb is housing. Suburbs are filled wiht single family homes + (1+n)garage. High rise buildings are probably not on the scene contarary to the city. In the cities the neighbourhoods are separated by (high)ways, while in the suburbs ´bushes´ have that role.
Contrasts in the city are caused by different `eras`. `Modernist urbanism` was triggered by capitalist industrialization and exemplified by architects and planners. Industrialization caused considerable relocation of rural inhabitants. They changed the free life of a countryman for a working class life. It was believed that modern life is guaranteed by living in a `cultural capital` like Paris.
International Style (LeCorbusier, Cropius, van der Rohe) was victorious. `Ornament was a crime` and clean geometrical forms were `must do`. Planning was conducted by modernist principles: transportation corridors, skyskrapers and zoning. Le Corbusier practiced ´clean sweep´ philosophy – which was ment for the whole city. Monolithic blocks of houses and fast motorways were a hit. Le Corbusiers two main principles show very well were he was aheaded: ´The plan must rule´ & ´Dissapearance of the street´!
Quite opposite to modernist thinking is Christopher Alexander - he had a belief that natural cities are more interesting and successful than those modern sterilized ´artificial cities´.
After modernists had done their deeds, a lot of criticism and dissapointment was burst open against this ´urban nightmare´.`Get us out of this hell` is more picturesque, than any other form of criticism.
In the 60s & 70s a lot of urban planning theories were conceived – planning theory was shattered into many different theories. Some of them more diversial than others. After Le Corbusiers ´crimes´ in the city planning everyone had an opinion and it was shouted out or writed on the banner.
Also emerged an understanding that planning is an ongoing – continuous process, hence the rejection of blueprint planning. Another important step was made by Paul Davidoff who suggsested that public should have the opportunity to participate in the planning. Sherry Arnstein composed even a ladder of citizen participation, which was quite extreme, because on the bottom of this ladder was nonparticipation and on top the ladder was citizen control.
In the 70s begun a new era of postmodernism. Ornamentation of the exterior and cultural traits were revived again. Pedestrian friendly and full service districts were prefferred instead of car-adoring & pedestrian discouraging modernism. Legacy of both eras is visible to us with its dissimilarities and the contrast is quite strong. ´Sustainable development´ is also a keyword of 70s. Industrialization changed the world in many ways. Negative impacts on the environment are becoming more visible. Altough principles of sustainable development comprises reducing negative impacts of technology production and managment, control of global population growth, protection of natural resources, ensuring employment, food, energy, safe water and sanitary services for all population and changes in planning and policy making, there is something that everyone can do. Everything that is concerning recycling, transportation and household is befitting for everyone.
Sidewalks are perfect for meeting someone= acquintances/friends/family and then for a little chit-chat or as Whyte called it `schmoozing`. Jacobs on the other hand claimed that active city life excludes active `crime life`. Her dead certainity came from her own Manhattan, Greenwich Village experience, where lively street life ment commercial businesses open late into the night & coming and going inhabitants. Jacobs was convinced that mixture of urban land uses generates more activity for day and night.
Another contrast between the city and suburb is housing. Suburbs are filled wiht single family homes + (1+n)garage. High rise buildings are probably not on the scene contarary to the city. In the cities the neighbourhoods are separated by (high)ways, while in the suburbs ´bushes´ have that role.
Contrasts in the city are caused by different `eras`. `Modernist urbanism` was triggered by capitalist industrialization and exemplified by architects and planners. Industrialization caused considerable relocation of rural inhabitants. They changed the free life of a countryman for a working class life. It was believed that modern life is guaranteed by living in a `cultural capital` like Paris.
International Style (LeCorbusier, Cropius, van der Rohe) was victorious. `Ornament was a crime` and clean geometrical forms were `must do`. Planning was conducted by modernist principles: transportation corridors, skyskrapers and zoning. Le Corbusier practiced ´clean sweep´ philosophy – which was ment for the whole city. Monolithic blocks of houses and fast motorways were a hit. Le Corbusiers two main principles show very well were he was aheaded: ´The plan must rule´ & ´Dissapearance of the street´!
Quite opposite to modernist thinking is Christopher Alexander - he had a belief that natural cities are more interesting and successful than those modern sterilized ´artificial cities´.
After modernists had done their deeds, a lot of criticism and dissapointment was burst open against this ´urban nightmare´.`Get us out of this hell` is more picturesque, than any other form of criticism.
In the 60s & 70s a lot of urban planning theories were conceived – planning theory was shattered into many different theories. Some of them more diversial than others. After Le Corbusiers ´crimes´ in the city planning everyone had an opinion and it was shouted out or writed on the banner.
Also emerged an understanding that planning is an ongoing – continuous process, hence the rejection of blueprint planning. Another important step was made by Paul Davidoff who suggsested that public should have the opportunity to participate in the planning. Sherry Arnstein composed even a ladder of citizen participation, which was quite extreme, because on the bottom of this ladder was nonparticipation and on top the ladder was citizen control.
In the 70s begun a new era of postmodernism. Ornamentation of the exterior and cultural traits were revived again. Pedestrian friendly and full service districts were prefferred instead of car-adoring & pedestrian discouraging modernism. Legacy of both eras is visible to us with its dissimilarities and the contrast is quite strong. ´Sustainable development´ is also a keyword of 70s. Industrialization changed the world in many ways. Negative impacts on the environment are becoming more visible. Altough principles of sustainable development comprises reducing negative impacts of technology production and managment, control of global population growth, protection of natural resources, ensuring employment, food, energy, safe water and sanitary services for all population and changes in planning and policy making, there is something that everyone can do. Everything that is concerning recycling, transportation and household is befitting for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment