• Mumford, “Landscape and Townscape” from The Urban Prospect
• Lynch, “What is the Form of a City, and How is it Made?” and “Between Heaven and Hell” from A Theory of Good City Form
• Colburn et.al, “Here, There, and Everywhere” from Our Stolen Future
David Fothergill
ReplyDeleteReaction to readings 714/09
“A Theory of Good City Form”; Lynch
Judging the passage by the title, I was expecting an education on criteria that makes good city design. However it was more of an abstract process of decision-making that might lead to better city design. I can’t say that I completely understood “Normative Theory” but it seemed reasonable enough. I especially like the consideration of absent clients, i.e. the unborn. This adds a twist of preservation that I don’t believe the contemporary “form givers” are too keen on. I agree with incorporating the views of the primary clientele whom actively use the site, but sometimes I believe unfavorable decisions might be in the overall best interest. For example there is a park in Louisville KY which is undergoing a master planning exercise. The number one concern, which is driven by the primary clients, is parking for automobiles. I sincerely believe that restricting automobile access to the park and almost forcing alternatives (bikes, walking, etc) will benefit public health and future generations. The idea of a city as a pattern of relations is interesting.
“Our Stolen Future”; Colburn et al
Scary. This passage makes me want to move to Alaska and consume only the food I grow or hunt. I have heard this story before and it is perplexing why it hasn’t received more attention than it has. Probably because production of synthetics are inextricably linked to our economy, and our economy always trumps all other concerns. The scariest thing is not only our unwillingness to face the music but our lack of inquiry into the problem; it as if we don’t even want to know- like an ostrich sticking its head into the sand. Where you live and lifestyle choices might be the best preventive medicine.
“The Urban Prospect”; Mumford
Preserving open space is a good idea, and I would much rather have an agricultural setting than suburbs; however agricultural lands are not the same as natural reservations. Natural reservations when large enough and ecologically intact enough don’t require the maintenance that the author suggests. I like the vision of the new city- both culture and ecology. My wife and I have enjoyed walking through the neighborhoods where we have lived. Even though the majority of the surrounding landscape is not public, the experience is still enjoyable. In fact the unique mosaic of structures and yard treatments sometimes make observing more interesting. I agree that relaxation derived from open spaces should be integrated into everyday life and not just weekend affairs.
Mike Weir
ReplyDeleteReading: Landscape and Townscape
I liked this reading because it reemphasized some points other articles have brought up, namely the inclination of man to misunderstand natural places and in an effort to provide access to them, create an automobile centric, unsustainable model that clogs our national parks with weekend warriors instead of focusing on local, urban opportunities to provide access to nature. It is disturbing to learn more about the ubiquitous impact of the automobile in regard to American life and the public’s understanding and experience of nature….quite ften confined to the window of the speeding car. On another issue, I especially liked the analogy the author used to describe suburban sprawl, “…a large mass of undifferentiated, low-grade urban tissue…”, here again centered on the automobile and the ability of people to drive to a plethora destinations to satisfy their every whim. I agree with the author’s ideas on how to move more away from this automobile-centric environment to one that is more socially focused.
Mike Weir
ReplyDeleteReading: What is the Form of a City, and How is it Made?
This article did a good job of giving the reader a primer on the forces that help shape and form cities. Many of these forces, or actors as the author refers to them, are monolithic organizations who’s impersonal quest to optimize the monetary capability of the planning process results in outcomes that sacrifice community and the social fabric they result in that makes cities habitable and healthy. I found it very interesting that no matter how noble they say their intents are, they are more often than not addressing solely a perceived (likely poorly understood) problem versus a solidly-researched and documented surge to the community. Inevitably, when you tackle the wrong problem, the solution is not relevant. Like other articles we have read in the past week, the author applauds the power of community involvement in coming up with outcomes far better than an isolated bureaucrat or state planning commission could produce. I agree with the author on one of his closing points regarding understanding a complex whole system like a city insofar that to truly achieve that goal, you must fully understand its parts first.
Mike Weir
ReplyDeleteReading: Here, There, and Everywhere
This article was an easy read compared to the other readings because it had an edge of mystery to it regarding the experimentation that the two scientists were undertaking and their mysterious results. As my wife is in the public health field, I was already aware of the concept of consumer plastics leaching dangerous chemicals when exposed to certain harsh solvents / cleaners. For example, Nalgene bottles like the ones you can get at REI are made of a plastic that has been proven to leach endocrine disruptors when washed in the dishwasher. We use stainless steel bottles now for our outdoor adventures. I think this article has just reinforce what I have suspected for a while, that mankind has produced a whole host of nasty products in the name of progress and capitalism, without a hint of caution as to potential health ramifications. I say this from the perspective that I believe industry casts a blind eye (or should I say ignorant eye) to the potential health implications of the products it makes, all for the sake of making a buck. Hopefully, as more research is performed and published by academia, the GE Plastics, the Cornings, etc. will be held accountable for what they unleash in the name of capitalist progress.