thenOriginally posted by TradArch12
Schooled. Linda's rocking. \m/ \m/
There is a blog out there somewhere that is written by someone who uses historicity to frame development patterns, and the thesis is that NU tries and fails to mimic old patterns, because the old patterns were random and arose organically out of local processes. These heterogeneous patterns cannot be replicated because they are emergent and not determinant or consequent.
That is complete bull... Yes, we know that things like the traditional old patterns were random, but you CAN design for that, and you CAN enforce that. We have to move away from Euclidean Zoning, and we have to move away from the repetitive grid. (in addition to the idiotic suburban model)
That's what a Masters degree in American history with a concentration on 19th century social history gets you ... impressive historical knowledge about arcane subjects ... which is why about 30 years ago I went back to school to learn computer programming and make a respectable living.
It's not complete bull. What you refuse to understand is that the "traditional designs" you think that NU is claiming to encompass weren't "designs" at all. These patterns that you think are so great have nothing to do with Euclidean zoning since they predate the movement.
Moreover, Euclidean zoning wasn't set up to promote automobiles. Zoning stemmed from the Progressive reform movement that began in the 1890s and ended with WW I. It's purpose was to bring order into the development/redevelopment of urban areas. NYC passed the first zoning ordinance in 1916, when cars were still primarily rich men's toys. Before 1916, anybody could buy some land anywhere in the US and build whatever he wanted on it, no matter how that impacted his neighbors.
Contrary to what you believe, Euclidean zoning is mostly what people want, even in cities. Even before zoning became the norm for cities, urban neighborhoods were segregating into residential versus commercial because people didn't want to live next door to livery stables or factories or taverns. The common pattern was for businesses to be located along main thoroughfares with the side streets all residential. Developers built neighborhoods like this because that's what people wanted!
The only neighborhoods that resembled something like the "mixed use" as advocated by NUers were working class neighborhoods where most of the housing was tenements or boarding houses. Middle class people who could afford better lived in residential neighborhoods.
I'm sorry, but "designed randomness" is inherently not the same. It's a paradox. There will always be differences between an NU style development and an organically developed area and it will always be more sterile in it's outcome (at least initially before the passage of time allows for change and entropy to occur) simply because of the fact that it IS designed. Master planned developments will always be a reflection of human nature's desire to produce order.
"When life gives you lemons, just say 'No thanks'." - Henry Rollins
It doesnt matter what people want, what matters is what is best for the community, and what is good for them, and what is best for our society and the environment. We can't be doing what people "want", people tend to make bad decisions, and when it comes to urbanism and architecture, that means their decisions effect the overall community.
Euclidian zoning is wrong, it's a new innovation that has screwed up our country and has helped lead to the disaster we now have. In the 1900s, cities were dirty and industry polluted, a lot. Now we have the ability to force industries to be clean.
As for some of your other points. I would point out that American towns were mixed use. You had multistory buildings with retail on the first floor and residential and offices above. That matches the European model, which makes sense because most Americans came from Europe.
It's that same type of rationale that gave us stuff like what Le Corbusier produced. You can see how well that turned out with the public housing he inspired.
I was just reading an article in the NYT yesterday about how people wanted to create some $300 houses for the slums in Mumbai. Due to the complex social realities in Mumbai though, those houses would actually be detrimental to their inhabitants. The houses were meant to address a perceived need, not an actual need. The same can be said with new urbanism.
However, you forget that our ideas are based upon older models. They aren't based upon "new" ideas.
Traditionalism is based entirely upon what humans have done for thousands, upon thousands of years. We aren't trying to reinvent the wheel, which is what modernists like Le Corbusier and others since him have tried to do.
There is a reason cities all across the world developed in similar ways, even though for years many of them didn't always have contact with one another.
Look at places like Athens, Rome, Constantinople and Jerusalem in more ancient times. Or early medieval London and Paris.
They all, while their architecture was unique to the region, were at their core, extremely similar in urban design and form. (even though they, for the most part, weren't entirely designed)
Human nature has that kind of urbanism written into it. Yet for the past century, we've decided to rebel against that and totally reject it as being "old" and "outdated".
Reconstruction of ancient Athens:
http://www.harrys-greece-travel-guid...ercolor-lg.jpg
Reconstruction of Constantinople: (though it was never this complete, and never this perfect)
http://www.arkeo3d.com/byzantium1200/index.html
Reconstruction of ancient Rome:
http://www.romanguide.com/images/map-ancient-rome.jpg
Reconstruction of ancient Jerusalem:
http://www.welcometohosanna.com/JERU...lemDrawing.jpg
And yes, I realize city walls had a lot to do with their urban form. But I think a UGB would serve the same purpose and would do the same for the urban form.
Traditionalism is also not stagnant. It evolves and expands. Andres Duany, when talking about the classical canon at Notre Dame, said that what we do (and need to do) is just expand that classical canon. What the modernists did was completely break it open (and some threw it away completely).
Traditionalism can be expanded upon and evolved, and ought to, especially for each locale. However, we still must work within it's framework.
When I'm saying that we must enforce the traditional model. I'm not talking about a static, dead model. I'm also not suggesting that it is perfect and can't be improved upon. But what I am saying, is that the post 1900s model is wrong, and expands too much on the traditional model. (to the point of abandoning it entirely)
It's a balancing act, imagine this scale:
--------radical conservatism--------|-----------traditionalism-----------|----------modernism---------
I argue that we must stay within the middle there... it can expand like so:
--------radical conservatism--------|------------------------traditionalism-------------------------|----------modernism---------
but we cannot leave those boundaries. I know, it's a very elementary, simplistic model, but I'm just trying to illustrate my point.
Last edited by TradArch12; 02 Jun 2011 at 2:13 PM.
Traditional development never had to contend with massive population growth, the automobile, or tremendous rural to urban migration. All those things really came about in the last century. Our system was forced to change to accommodate all the substantial changes in the last century. Simply put, the old system of doing things just wasn't sufficient so change was necessary. The current system most definitely has its flaws but we have it for a reason.
And I'm arguing that we aren't doing it right.
Population growth should be managed differently. We don't need these massive cities that sprawl out. (nor should we have them)
Also, the automobile belongs on the highway, in the city, it needs to play second fiddle to the pedestrian. Cities should accommodate the car, but they shouldn't be made for it. Cities aren't the place for the car, it's realm is the highway. Cities are made for the pedestrian, for the bike, for the moped/scooter, for the horse & buggy... They aren't made for the automobile, and the automobile isn't made for them.
When you get down to it, humans today are the exact same as the humans 200 years ago, 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, etc...
Just because we have cars and a growing urban population doesn't mean we have to abandon the old model. Like I said, the old model just needs to be slightly adapted and evolved. What we've done in the last century is completely abandon the old model, and completely open it up to something new.
Ever since cities emerged, they've been growing, and the urban population has steadily been increasing over the rural. It's not anything new. Yes, the urban-rural ratio has changed to favor cities, but that doesn't mean things are "totally different" than they were.
If we adapted the old model, and just expanded it, the urban population of the world, while making up the majority, would still only occupy 70,000-80,000 square miles of the whole world. Yet we are sprawling out and consuming more and more of the world's area. So not only is our rural population declining, but we are also consuming more and more rural land.
Ppppfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.....aaaaaaa.hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111one!
Hooo...boy....let me catch my breath...oh, boy...
Oh, that ...um...that...is...BaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa.... ahhhh...ah......ffffFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFffffffff...pppppppHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhaaaaaa....hahahahhahahahahahhahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Oh, man! DA COMRADE! High--larry--isssss!!!
Good one! Comedy! How long will you be here with this standup routine?
Yer a hoot, son. That was funny as h---. You are a comic genius. You had me going for a while there. Joke's on us! What. A. Hoot.
Comic genius. Srsly. Playing off the Repub Socialism. No way I could pull off that hilarity.
Actually I see myself as a Democratic Socialist... (though I also believe Monarchy to be a good form of government)
Also keep in mind that I believe Communism to absolutely disgusting and unacceptable... Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing.
Last edited by TradArch12; 02 Jun 2011 at 11:25 PM.
Regulating dangerous animals through zoning
Quote