Intriguing essay. I especially like your distinction between architecture and urbanism, and the characterization of urbanism as "emergent". There's one important correction, though. The SmartCode is not a building code - it is a zoning and subdivision code. Zoning and subdivision codes have long been used to guide the emergent nature of urbanism, and in fact, are one of the drivers of the highway-related urbanism that you describe. For more information about the SmartCode, please see http://www.smartcodecentral.com
"We must invent the tool that makes it possible to see what is too large to see. "
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The problem as I see it is that the tools we have to do this, mainly maps, are inadequate and deceiving. Maps let planners see an area from above but in order for this to be possible all the information about the human interaction at street level is lost. Superblocks look great on a map because they simplify an area. The human element is never though of because it cannot be seen.
But what about interactive maps, such as Google Maps/Earth, that give you the ability to see places from many different angles at the same time? This seems like a step in the right direction. Maps aren't bad tools; they are some of the most useful tools ever invented. It just seems we are using them incorrectly, such as trying to cut a cake with a hammer.
If the problem of maps was the lack of information (which was really the point of maps, to show only the information you need), will maps showing total information be the answer? I don't think so, that is unless we just have real-time cameras at all places at all times.
I don't have an answer but I think this might be the right question.
-Andrew
I agree. Perhaps this short comment might also be of interest to your readership: http://www.human-assisted.info/2008/08/contemporary-architect-as-dumb-wa...
Rafael
"When metals and glass became massively affordable in the industrial revolution, architects faced a puzzle. Although the traditions succeeded at creating complex solutions, they were no longer solutions to problems that were relevant to anyone. "
Classical architecture had weathered a crisis like this before: the post-and-lintel Classicism of the Greeks was, initially, irrelevant to the vault- and arch-based architecture of the Romans. The solution was to adapt and extend the inherited patterns.
As you suggest, something similar seemed to be emerging in late-19th and early-20th century Western architecture, but was swept away by the Modernist revolution. Why? My guess is, nothing in the specific challenges facing architecture, but simply a desire for a radical break with the past - an almost universal phenomenon in the culture and politics of the time.
An excellent post, by the way.
Bonjour Mathieu,
J'ai trouvè ta note sur le site de John Massengale. Ton article est très bien ecrit, vraiment. Tu comprends la complexitè dans l'architecture et l'urbanisme.
Ecris-moi, s'il te plait, pour parler à propos du boulot.
Cordiellement,
Nikos
As an engineer, I'm very interested in this sort of take on urbansim. Keep up the good work.
But I can't find the RSS link. I can never remember to check in with good sites, so I subscribe to RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds to alert when someone makes a new post. If you have a feed set up, can you show me the link? If not, have a look. I'm pretty sure that Wordpress has good tools for that.
thanks.
In chaos theory, there is the idea that some systems aren't predictable exactly, in the sense that it cannot be known what exact state the system will be in at any point in time, but that nevertheless the system unfolds to certain patterns which can be predicted. See the Lorenz Attractor, for example.
But this isn't what I meant when I said that I don't know which processes should be put in place. The reason is that we can choose processes for their effects, and we may like one effect but not another, and really that choice is a matter of preference from one person to another. If I were to tell you what processes to run, I would really just be making an appeal to my personal tastes.
The observation that one place is placeful and the other placeless is the result of applying the theory, and personal intuition. We know how a subdivision is made, and we know how a shantytown is made, and we can feel that something is wrong with the subdivision but not with the other. If we combine the theory with our knowledge of how the subdivision and the shantytown were made, we arrive at those conclusions.
So, to cut to the chase, is the answer: "I don't know". I know what doesn't work, but I don't know what DOES work."?
Or, let's approach it differently, you posted two pcitures: placeless and placeful. On what is that observation based? Do you beleive we ahve ANY idea about how to obtain a placeful urbanity?
There's a very simple reason for that. There are an infinite number of different processes that will generate an even more infinite (pun intended) structures as outcome.
Try to conceive of all the resources that were invested to create the software processes you used to write your post. This much will have to be invested in urbanisation R&D before we can have the same confidence generating cities we do posting to blogs.
Very interesting. I not, however, that you do not expolicitly state what process(s) (as opposed to outcome) should be put into place to generate thsi sense of place?
There is in fact considerable literature as to why cities emerge. It's generally, as you point out, accepted that there is a benefit in physical proximity for certain activities (ranging from physical protection, to marketing, etc.).
Re. the granularity of buildings and organic vs. planned city issue, I would submit that there is a need for both and that both can complement each other. Generally, granular/organic works better and is more flexible but there are important programmatic needs that cannot be met purely through organic/small scale, gradual growth.
It seems to me that you are conflating the land subdivision process with the build-out process. What result had Levitt one the platting/lamd development and then sold off lots? Not exactly but if there was a zoning code in place then you'd get a great deal of uniformity of massing (which is the point of most codes.)
If you were to do that, you would then have two symmetrical buildings that clash with the greater context, instead of only one. You would also have to remove part of the context for that additional building. Eventually you would have to remove the whole neighborhood to match the Libeskind extension. How does that make sense?
That would be a good idea if one was building a new city from nothing, or building in a city with a lot of holes, let's say Houston. You could tell Gehry and Libeskind to go wild, and the result would be a highly symmetrical environment that would happen to be the grooviest place ever built. Twenty years later it would probably be a UNESCO heritage site. And what if someone wanted to build an exact replica of the Victoria and Albert museum in that city? That would break the symmetry and crash the street line.
If one is concerned about symmetry then maybe the solution would be to hire Gehry to do a building on the other side of the street. No?
Je suis d'accord. Marveilleux. The obvious first step is the elimination of zoning? Ah, but what then? I guess my question is, how do you define a context where the skyscraper fits next to the bungalow? How do you manage the escalation of bulk from houses to towers? Final thought, is the age of towers over, and could all buildings be of similar form soon, regardless of use?
a very nice post - and an excellent blog. I have been thinking along these lines for some time now - with the belief that city planning (and architecture)'s tendency to simplify and create codes and plans that project out status quo situations are ill equipped to meet the challenges of allowing for true urbanism.
So my question is, if we understand the need for codes/planning strategies that allow for complexity while creating harmony, what are the key elements they need to address. How important is built form in this equation? should codes focus on urban processes? I just haven't seen enough cogent thought on this to clearly see the way forward.
That said, I definitely agree that you are one of the few thinkers on urbanism that really get it. I hope to read many more of your posts and hope that you unveil more of your research threads.
I am very interested in what you are doing and pursuing a parallel path of research at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada. I will keep in touch.
This actually draws the line between the mainstream stuff you see coming up everyday.Brilliant collaboration.
I recently learned why the vernacular architecture pictured in your post will never be shown in architecture school. The people who built them, did so only for themselves, they have no need for academic support. For this reason alone, academics hate the 'untrained' independent. A classmate of mine recently left school because a side project he was working on went into construction. When he told the teachers he was leaving to build a project, they all became mad. They said he was not able to build yet because he did not have his degree yet. He said 'construction starts next week'
A wonderful article that encapsulates both the most significant problem our urban spaces contend with in regards to design, and the deceptively simple solution.
An important, insightful and urgent read.
Killer commentary, dude.
The future is unpredictable, and the unpredictable must be built somewhere. Should be the guiding words of planning.
The point I wanted to make is that a subdivision, by the way that it is produced and now the way it is administered as well, is indistinguishable from a building.