This is my first series of blog sites and in the attempt to not recreate a very well written article, I will regurgitate my margin mania of thought I created while reading.
In Susan Bickford’s article “City Spaces and the Architecture of Citizenship” there are many key points in which I agree, and a few I don’t. I used to work for the “developer” and “builder” designing houses (I can already hear the oohs!). I have since moved on to another field of architecture so say what you will about the industry. A little background of my experience include certain elements of the job that were frustrating, like selecting 8 shades of brown, and others very rewarding (being able to use white trim!), not that bad... really. We never created a gate in front of the community main drive and sold to everyone. Especially with the housing market being as terrible as it is now. Some ideas Bickford focuses too strongly on, I feel, are the segregations of race and how housing is the leading factor for this. What drives the housing market in my opinion is pre-existing location social structure. Nobody moves to a large home in “Pleasantville” without established school district(s) and “community,” restaurants, retail, and services. I find in the development timeline that the Mall comes first, the School second, and the Homes immediately after.
From experience, everyone has an idea where they want to live. That can be described by what school district your kids will attend, how close the grocery store is, what mall you are near, and does the gas station down the street have bars on the windows. After those key factors, 50% of the “community” will feel comfort about anywhere.
I believe our society has two types of people. Those who can walk up to a perfect stranger and talk to them, whereas others wont, and this is absolutely facilitated by architecture, environment, and atmosphere. I would converse with 107 different people at a festival before stopping in the parking garage at 10:00 PM to see how someone is enjoying their walk to the car like myself.
Bickford states “…I argue that the architecture of our urban and suburban lives provides a hostile environment for the development of democratic imagination and participation.” and I agree with this statement. I look downtown at the buildings while I walk to lunch after reading this article and have noticed that not many are inviting to enter, especially government buildings. They seem very separated by architecture from other structures and have no public outreach to citizens. How is this reflected on the citizen’s moral while in the urban environment? Is this casting a shadow over our built environment “sphere” in which we work and live?
Our best example of “community” in Columbus, Ohio, existing in the downtown environment is the newly constructed Arena District. It does segregate the rest of downtown by using streets as gates, but accomplishes an atmosphere individuals can enjoy at almost anytime. Hockey, Concerts, Restaurants, Bars, Courtyards, and Festivals fill this area of town almost every weekend. How does this help reverse “the fall of public man?” A bar atmosphere sets this in an interesting environment where the intimate self more comfortable in one's home is placed in a just slightly less private situation where they may or may not decide to express public communication. Is the modern movement in residential design satisfying the public scale internal to one’s comfort of “home” with larger rooms, taller ceilings, and more lights? Allowing each to invite guests to converse ideas in their controlled public space of opinion?
Arendt stated very clearly “The reality of the public realm relies on the simultaneous presence of innumerable perspectives…” How can we achieve this in design? I’ve seen change in a few areas of our city commonly referred to as “Pocket Parks.” A simple renovation like this has produced a surprisingly diverse atmosphere of conversation and activity.
Short North Community "Pocket Park"
As Bickford describes “Gentrified areas are characterized by ‘boutique retailing, elite consumption, and upscale housing’; poor and working-class residents are displaced as rents go up and low-income housing is destroyed or converted.” I have seen evidence that re-vitalizing an area in the city results in the displacement existing residents due to rent increase but how is it accomplished that a neighborhood could be redefined to the "public" as desirable without redesigning what lacks in the social activities, thus giving reason to raise rent?
Does this revitalization attract crime?
I agree that Suburbs can cripple urban life and atmosphere. Each creates an island of wealth which feeds the “mainland” of community for these people... city and school. What I think comforts individuals that reside behind “gated” protection is knowing that each is equal economically to one another. I have noticed at community events, being invited into from the “outside”, opinions are voiced among neighbors and unknowingly, strangers. Do we as a society need to feel equal to one another before freely expressing our ideas and opinions?
I will save my further experiences with mall wars and public transportation choking “community” for my next post. I look forward to reading and responding to everyone’s opinion! Please post!
1 comment:
I like your point that "everyone has an idea where they want to live. That can be described by what school district your kids will attend, how close the grocery store is, what mall you are near, and does the gas station down the street have bars on the windows."
I think, though, that not everyone can fulfill those ideas. When I worked in Oakland, we examined the location, size and performance of the Oakland Unified School District's elementary schools (about 60 of them). Now, Oakland is, for the most part, economically segregated by elevation. The poorest people live in the flatlands, middle-income folks in the foothills, and wealth up on the Coast Range ridgline. What we found is that the number of students per school declined as elevation rose, with all of the hillside schools being in the 250-400 student range and the flats schools running between 600 and 1300. The overcrowding of the buildings went along with that, from 80% capacity in the ridgline to 160% in the flats. And, as you might expect, the schools rankings on the state's Academic Progress Index co-varied right along -- all of the hill schools were 9s and 10s, and the flats schools were 1-4.
All were taxpayers in the same school district, governed by the same Mayor and Council and school board. But real estate is its own gate, as many have mentioned here.
Post a Comment