Will Manhattan Swallow East Harlem?

Posted on by
2

The gentrification of modern neighbourhoods close to large city centers has become a prevalent topic in the modern world. As people continue to move into metropolises, the desire to change certain neighbourhoods into areas that represent “the city-as-stage” (Hall 387) concept changes the urban planning agenda. Gentrification within city planning has become important in the neighbourhood of East Harlem in New York to boost the real estate economy. East Harlem is right next door to Manhattan which boasts having one of the most expensive and highly sought after real estate markets in North America. This is exemplified by the “One Museum Mile” which is a newer area in Manhattan that sold a three bedroom apartment for 3.5 Million dollars (Goodman 22).

East Harlem has harboured a reputation in New York for being a lower end community that has had high crime rates in the past. Though the crime rates have diminished substantially in recent years, this neighbourhood is still portrayed as a sore spot for the New York Municipal government.  Alternatively, many East Harlem residents are steadfastly dedicated to remaining in the neighbourhood regardless of the crime rates because there is a substantial amount of culture in the area that is celebrated. The importance of East Harlem culture is reflected in the artworks that are plastered along the buildings in this area, from paintings that depict painful American memories such as slavery to graffiti depicting the modern day struggle of trying to find work in a diminishing industrial world (Goodman 53).

Interestingly, East Harlem’s housing originally arose from “old-law tenements” that were built with no government regulation in the late 1800’s (Morales par.8). The need for government regulated housing became essential in this neighbourhood when the housing in the area became flooded with immigrants and was extremely overpopulated. Thus, the creation of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was an important asset for the area. The first government regulated apartment building was created in 1941 and was known as”East River Houses” (Morales par.10). Though this housing initially helped many families in need, it was isolated from the community due to large park spaces surrounding the area and didn’t promote a sense of unity in the community. The most significant issue of the NYCHA housing in East Harlem however, was the lack of funding available to adequately take care of the area and it fell into disrepair without delay.

One of 143 vacant lots in East Harlem (Goodman 47)

This resulted in the modern day situation in East Harlem where many subsidized housing areas are abandoned due to lack of government funding to keep the buildings from becoming derelict. This has led to new incentives to recuperate these areas and use the valuable real estate space that is in such close proximity to Manhattan. The newest solution of the NYCHA is to sell developments to private entrepreneurs for reduced prices and in return, the investors must allocate 20% of the development to subsidized housing (Goodman 10). Though this idea is a possible solution in theory, many citizens of East Harlem are concerned that the new developments will destroy the culture and community of this neighbourhood as the city attempts to gentrify the area for profit. East Harlem is an example of many areas close to integral Real estate areas of large cities that is forcibly gentrified in order for the city government to profit from the land value. The unfortunate result of this urban planning scheme is that it tends to ignore the population living in these areas and destroys the well-developed sense of culture that many neighbourhoods take pride in. It remains to be seen whether East Harlem will become completely gentrified or if it will retain its sense of identity within new subsidized housing. If NYCHA hopes to respect the desires of the East Harlem dwellers, they must tread carefully and make sure to respect important cultural spaces in order to preserve an imperative area within the fascinating history of New York City.

Works Cited:

Hall, Peter. “The City of Enterprise”.

Morales, David. “East Harlem: A History of Housing Developments in New York City”. Not the Hudson: A Comprehensive Study of the East River. New York: Fordham University, 2011. http://www.eastriverhistory.webs.com/manhattan/eastharlem.htm

Goodman photo journal aon Gentrification of East Harlem: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorks-east-harlem-gentrification-photos-2013-9?op=1#ixzz2lpnxApHG

NYHCA Proposal to preserve cultural integrity of important areas in New York (interesting read): http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/plannycha.shtml

BCIT A Concrete Hell

Posted on by
4

I recently ventured to BCIT in Burnaby. The architecture of the campus was modernism at its worst. In every direction you walked there was a dilapidated concrete building accented by cold metal and glass. Finding my way through the campus was hellish, nothing separated one building’s appearance from the next. On frequent occasion I entered the incorrect building, I have never had to ask for directions so often. Those students roaming the campus seemed well versed in directing people through their concrete maze.

The architecture may have been functional or in vogue at some point. Alas in 2013 it epitomized the concept of bleak. I never believed that something as fundamentally secondary, in my books, such as aesthetics could have such a profound effect on me. From the moment I stepped on campus a depressive cloud set over me. That experience instigated an epiphany in me, I can only speculate how living in a world bedecked by cold steel and blank concrete could effect a person, could effect a society.

Those unlucky enough to inhabit those infamous prefab concrete housing complexes in post war Europe must have been adversely affected by their bleak surroundings. I am not the least surprised by the multitude of social issues, which arose in that atmosphere, a surrounding void of visual stimulus.

I count myself blessed to live in a time and location, which embraces diversity in architecture.

“Creating a New Urban Experience” in Edmonton, Alberta.

Posted on by
3

In the spirit of our recent PechaKucha presentations highlighting our varied utopian redevelopment schemes, I would like to introduce you to a current urban development project in Edmonton Alberta. The new community of Blatchford aims to house up to 30,000 residents and will include employment opportunities for up to 11,000. The project will cover 217 hectares of land and aims to transform the City Centre Airport zone into a ‘mixed-use urban community’ focused on sustainability. According to the city of Edmonton website, Blatchford ultimately aims to ‘raise the bar world wide for communities that will follow’ by exemplifying the potential of sustainable communities.

A central focus is the idea of sustainability, both at home and in the community, stressing that the development will use 100 percent renewable energy and feature plenty of green space. In this way, the development does present some affinities to Ebenezer Howard, who stressed that people require access to green space. For example, the community plans to feature a large public park and plans to allow room for urban agriculture. The vision for the city even includes plans for up to 600 community garden plots!

Interestingly, the plan also displays affinities to Le Corbusier. First the vision for Blatchford places significant emphasis on the importance of preserving historical sites. Second, the community downplays the need for vehicular traffic and places more emphasis on the importance of the pedestrian, promoting alternatives such as bicycling, walking, or utilizing public transit. According to the city website, “Residents will be able to walk or cycle and take transit rather than rely on cars”. Moreover, Blatchford will feature a number of trails throughout the community that will be connected to trails throughout the remainder of Edmonton, much like Le Corbusier’s ‘meandering pathways’.

Finally, the new development will feature an array of housing options catering to ‘all stages of life’. Blatchford will however place emphasis on providing family housing with a minimum of two bedrooms and featuring plenty of storage space. To appease Jane Jacobs, Blatchford even guarantees a ‘vibrant street life’. Moreover, to appeal to all families, regardless of income, the community will offer 20 percent affordable housing. Finally, these homes will also use less power and heat. This sustainability ultimately allows residents to decrease the size of their carbon footprint.

Blatchford appears to borrow the best from all utopian urban planners to create a seemingly flawless community nestle in the heart of a large city. After reading up on the development, it might even convince me to brave those cold Edmonton winters! What do you think? Would you live in Blatchford?

Construction will begin in 2014.

Note: All information comes from the City of Edmonton website. For more information please consult the following link:

http://www.edmonton.ca/blatchfordedmonton/about-blatchford.aspx

Port Moresby – A Study in Contradictions

Posted on by
3

As some of you know, I spent much of my childhood growing up in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where my parents served in missions.  PNG is a 3rd world country, often considered to be one of the world’s ‘final frontiers’.  With over 700 distinct languages, rugged terrain, and tribal customs, the nation is one of the most undeveloped and primitive in the world.

Papua New Guinea political map  PNG Flag

This backwards, primitive image rapidly changes, however, when one visits the nation’s capital.  The capital city of PNG is Port Moresby, and is truly the gateway to the nation.  I have visited the city many times, and can attest that it is a truly fascinating place.  Port Moresby is a booming metropolis that is growing incredibly wealthy due to huge growth in its business sector and major investment (mainly from Australia and China) in PNG’s vast natural resources of oil and gold.  The city’s population is burgeoning rapidly, and its cost of living has skyrocketed.

 

The urban planning and structure of Port Moresby is a study in contradictions.  On the one hand, the wealthy and developed areas of the capital are similar to any modern-day city.  High-rise buildings, luxurious hotels, and modern apartments dominate the downtown landscape.  Port Moresby is also home to PNG’s only international airport, served by the national carrier Air Niugini.  Jackson’s International Airport and Air Niugini facilitate the transport of businessmen and investors from all over the world to engage in PNG’s vibrant resource industry.

 
Esterno  File:Air Niugini Boeing 757-200 SYD Zhao.jpg

On the other hand, Port Moresby IS the capital of a 3rd world nation, and the poverty and underdevelopment that characterizes the rest of the nation is readily visible in certain sectors of the city.  Standing in stark contrast to the wealthy downtown core, the outlying areas of the city are filled with run-down settlements, shantytowns, and primitive villages – areas unknown to tourists, ignored by the government, and forgotten by the businessmen and wealthy elite of Port Moresby.  Crime and violence run rampant, and the city has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

File:Port Moresby 080805-N-9689V-004.jpg  File:Poor coastal housing at Hanuabada in Port Moresby2.jpg  File:Squatters at Rubish Tip in Port Moresby.jpg 

The stark contrast between rich and poor in Port Moresby’s urban atmosphere is often hidden, but the two sometimes intersect in visible ways.  The photos below capture this reality, revealing the modern downtown core in the background, with primitive village huts built over the water in the foreground.

Moresby 

For Port Moresby’s architects and urban planners, the current challenge is to find a way to bridge the gap between the modern, wealthy sectors of the city and the primitive, village-like areas.  City planners must attempt to find a way to bring wealth and development to all areas of the city, focusing on modernizing architecture and infrastructure in the shantytowns of Port Moresby.  Rather than simply focusing on the modern downtown core, a city-wide development focus must be employed if true improvements are to come to the city as a whole.

© Image by Clinton Jackson|/images/details/876166|Buy

SOURCES FOR IMAGES:

– http://geology.com/world/papua-new-guinea-satellite-image.shtml

– http://devpolicy.org/png-37-years-after-independence-the-question-of-leadership-20121109/png-flag/

– http://www.llns.com.pg/our_firm.php

– http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=63447

– http://wikimapia.org/1803466/Parliament-House

– http://islandmeri.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/views-of-port-moresby-on-a-dull-day/

– http://www.placesonline.com/detail_information/3362669/crowne_plaza_hotel_port_moresby.asp

– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Air_Niugini_Boeing_757-200_SYD_Zhao.jpg

– http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Port_Moresby_080805-N-9689V-004.jpg

– http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poor_coastal_housing_at_Hanuabada_in_Port_Moresby2.jpg

– http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Squatters_at_Rubish_Tip_in_Port_Moresby.jpg

– http://livingtravel.com/pacific/papuanewguinea/portmoresby/portmoresby.htm

– http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/port-moresby-wired-for-change/story-e6frg6z6- 1226027895290

– http://www.smec.com/Default.aspx?aProjId=708

– http://www.emporis.com/city/portmoresby-papuanewguinea

The Folly of Jane Jacobs

Posted on by
4

I definitely agree with Jane Jacobs’ belief in the self-policing nature of a city, she essentially had faith in the safety of a crowded street of strangers. When walking late at night vulnerable in the darkness it is a relief to be in the company of a crowd of strangers. What turns me off of Jane Jacobs is her utter disdain for urban planners, more specifically Ebenezer Howard. Her ideas are more the product of common sense and empirical observation, not of any particular urban theorist brilliance.

Jane Jacobs’ attacks on Ebenezer Howard are based on misguided opinions of him and a general dislike for city planners. In her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs claims that Howard “hated the city.” I completely disagree with that sentiment. Howard did not hate the city, he simply acknowledged the squalor that eroded London, squalor resulting from the dense urban slums. He did not hate the city he sought to heal it. He sought to save it from the cancerous slums that were destroying it from the inside out.

Jane Jacobs also chastised Howard for his ignorance regarding the self-policing that she obsessed about. But her judgements of Howard’s city planning priorities are based on nothing more than her own urban experiences, she had no legitimate education or experience in the field of urban planning. Had she experienced 19th century London perhaps she would have looked more kindly at Howard’s Garden City urban scheme.

Jane Jacobs’ greatest gift regarding urban theory was her distinct ability to chronicle seemingly mundane urban happenings and make them significant to her readers. She could articulate herself very well. I just wish she could have put herself in the shoes of Howard, then she could have understand his motivations.

Fast Food in Historic Buildings – A Disgrace to Architecture

Posted on by
3

Ever since our brief discussion in class regarding the use of historic buildings for modern purposes, I have been thinking a lot more about this issue and how much it bothers me!  The jumping off point for our discussion was the Athens Charter and Le Corbusier’s discussion of historic sites.  He points out that the old and the new must not be mixed in architecture, for do to so would be to mix the false with the genuine.  I completely agree with this aspect of his views.  In housing, I get very annoyed when new homes are built in a historic or ‘retro’ style.  Kelowna’s Kettle Valley is a perfect example – 21st century homes built to look hundreds of years old in architectural design!

To me, the most visible example of mixing the historic with the modern is the use of historical sites for fast food restaurants.  The phenomenon of ‘fast food’ has only come into existence in the last half-century or so, and to me it is one of the ultimate symbols of our modern, 21st century age.  Fast food is a revolution (and not necessarily a good one!), not only in the food industry but in the entire habit of food consumption.  Even 60 years ago, there was no way to receive a (grease-laden) burger and fries in a matter of seconds.  Even more radically modern is the possibility of purchasing this food from the comfort of one’s automobile thanks to the invention of the drive thru.  Fast food is an ultimate symbol of the fast-paced, yet sedentary, lifestyle that has become the norm in our modern, technological world.  Now, I am not opposed to fast food as such – to be honest, I quite enjoy a McDonald’s Double Quarter Pounder or Wendy’s Baconator from time to time!  However, I get downright upset when I see fast food restaurants in historic buildings.  In my mind, the placement of McDonalds restaurants in centuries-old marvels of architecture is to violate the sanctity of these historic sites, which have stood the test of time, and impose on them something from our modern era.  This blatant blend of the historic and the modern is an outright violation of this ancient architecture.

Let fast food restaurants be placed in modern-style buildings, and I wish them all the success in the world!  I have no bone to pick with them.  But please, let the historical buildings of our world remain historic, preserved in all their glory as relics of a by-gone era.  To convert them into nothing more than a peddler of fast food, an iconic symbol of the modern age, is a serious degradation.

  McDonalds – Budapest, Hungary

  McDonalds near London, England

  Pizza Hut – Kensington High Street, London, England

SOURCES FOR IMAGES:

– http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=mcdonalds+in+old+buildings&um=1&safe=active&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1342&bih=555&tbm=isch&tbnid=WP6Oa61i1j-syM:&imgrefurl=http://andrewandnikkioverseas.blogspot.com/2013/06/more-budapest-buildings.html&docid=YdUo9vHJtu0PBM&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J2sB3v8tMBU/UbSZVFS17WI/AAAAAAAADLk/gY3mEd2_vJo/s1600/P1160085.JPG&w=1200&h=1600&ei=KJptUti7CqXxigKko4GgBQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:71,s:0,i:298&iact=rc&page=5&tbnh=189&tbnw=133&start=64&ndsp=17&tx=83&ty=113

– http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=mcdonalds+in+london&um=1&safe=active&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1342&bih=555&tbm=isch&tbnid=TLBfOZsB1yRerM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/waviolette/4975509970/&docid=AH55NFV2npCzrM&imgurl=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4125/4975509970_41c674446e_o.jpg&w=1080&h=840&ei=0JptUvDlNInMiQK7qoHICg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:49,s:0,i:232&iact=rc&page=4&tbnh=179&tbnw=230&start=40&ndsp=15&tx=153&ty=107

– http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=pizza+hut+in+london&um=1&safe=active&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1342&bih=555&tbm=isch&tbnid=IkEFaOc3zr0PoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/688239&docid=FA4yJsnY-iIU0M&imgurl=http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/68/82/688239_44272930.jpg&w=479&h=640&ei=rJptUpSGGI_viQLsmIGYAw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:13,s:0,i:116&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=180&tbnw=149&start=0&ndsp=16&tx=52&ty=119

The Historical Ideology of the Athens Charter as a Collaborator in Modernism’s Death

Posted on by
3

Initially when the modernist architecture movement began to gain momentum, many of the Utopian thinkers under the modernist umbrella came under fire for being careless about the historical architecture already in place. Many urban dwellers feared absolute destruction of cities in order to create a new and industrialized plan that coincided with the growing technology of the 20th century. Many of these fears of Modernism requiring complete discontinuity from the past were misconstrued as many modernist architects were actually dedicated to preserving some historical buildings in their new and modern city concepts. The Athens Charter created from the modernist group CIAM demonstrates this dedication as the manifesto describes that, ““whenever this measure [building anew] is attended by the destruction of genuine architectural, historical or spiritual assets, then it is unquestionably better to seek another solution”*. The historical portion of the Athens Charter reflects the necessity of saving historical buildings while trying to build. Therefore, modernism does not typically utilize the building styles of the past but does attempt to salvage as many monuments and buildings as they can.Interestingly today, an issue arises concerning saving the modernist creations of these once considered coming-of-age thinkers. Who is trying to save modernist buildings in today’s world? Many modernist buildings are being torn down to make way for newer buildings that have more contemporary styles associated with them. This process is exemplified by Riverview School in Sarasota, Florida. Riverview School was torn down in 2009. The school was built in 1958 by Paul Rudolph, the leading architect of the Sarasota School of Architecture**.

Though the school was an important piece of modernist architecture, it was destroyed to make way for a newer and more contemporary building.
Riverview School is one of many examples of modernist buildings that are being destroyed because there are not deemed worthy of saving. This could be because modernist structures tend to have a “lack of ornamentation makes people say it’s factory-like”*** or were also poorly built in many cases.

Alternatively, there are many groups that do desire to salvage modernist projects for their historical emphasis despite their somewhat ugly appearance. World Monuments Fund contributes to saving some modernist projects in danger of being destroyed and also hosts seminars to raise awareness of modernist architecture’s historical integrity. This fund was responsible for documenting the case of Riverview School and comparing it to a similar German modernist project that was in jeopardy. The seminar that arose from this comparison was called “Modern Solutions for Saving Modern Landmarks”**** and is a fascinating photo-journal about these two modernist buildings. Overall, Riverview School was still destroyed yet the German project, an engineering school, was saved from being torn down due to “its heightened cultural significance”.

Overall, it is shown that saving Modernist landmarks is not a central goal in most communities. The buildings are still relatively recent designs which perhaps devalues their sense of history in the common eye. The modernist viewpoint that emphasized that progress did demand destruction to an extent could ease the pain of tearing down old modernist buildings also. The Athens Charter stated, “Death which spares no living creature also overtakes the works of men”*****. The attitude of building destruction as applied to the lack of caring given to many destroyed modernist buildings could be because of the ideologies behind the necessitated destruction within the modernist movement itself. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether modernist structures gain more prevalent importance in the community as time passes or simply disappear altogether.

Footnotes:

*Athens Charter, pp. 88.

**Stockbridge-Pratt. “Sarasota School of Architecture”, pp.1.

***Bubil, Harold. “Preserving Our Father’s Architecture”, pp.1.

**** Very Interesting Website about the two modernist projects. http://www.dcp.ufl.edu/galleries/modernism-at-risk

*****Athens Charter, pp.86.

World Monuments Fund Website: http://www.wmf.org/dig-deeper/wmf-articles?page=4

Glazed Facades

Posted on by
6

It seems very ironic to me that America, following WWII, would have put together a propaganda campaign that portrayed Modernism as something well-suited to democracy. (1)  One of British philosopher Richard Wollheim’s arguments in favor of democracy is that “the ordinary human being is the best judge of her own interests.  Only by controlling government through a democracy do these best interests prevail.” (2)  Modernist planning, on the other hand (in the schemes we have been looking at, at least) entails a system where the only interests that prevail are those of the master planner, the architect, or the engineer – in a word, the elite.  This view can perhaps be summed up as: the ordinary person is not a scholar, a scientist, or a technician, and therefore is not the best judge of her own interests.  As James Scott points out, Le Corbusier wrote of his plans as being “correct, realistic, [and] exact,” yet created “well away from the frenzy in the mayor’s office or the town hall, from the cries of the electorate…” Yet the plans somehow still miraculously manage to contain, according to Le Corbusier, “nothing but human truths.” (3)

Le Corbusier’s “correct” plans, however, are frequently nothing more than wildly subjective expressions of his own personal aesthetic tastes. (4)  He claims, for example, that “we rarely care to look at the silhouette of houses seen against the sky; the sight would be too painful… the silhouette seems a gash, a ragged, tumultuous line with jutting broken forms.  And our need of delight and enthusiasm finds nothing to evoke it in this incoherence…” (5) Also read: “What would it matter if… behind the screen of trees there stood the tremendous silhouettes of the sky-scrapers?  They would supply a background bathed in light, radiant with their glazed facades…” (6) In these passages, Le Corbusier is expressing his own aesthetic tastes and nothing more.  It may indeed come as a great surprise, then, to someone so proud of being tucked “well away” from public opinion, that many people actually find, in shambolic skylines, a “delight and enthusiasm” that they would say is often evoked by looking upon scenes of wide-ranging detail and variety.  On the other hand, there are those who, obviously unknown to Le Corbusier, feel bored, dehumanized, anxious, or out of touch when in the shadow of a monolithic, uniform slab of glass and concrete.  Why would these people shun straight lines and absurdly simple layouts; are they just pack donkeys, or are they humans with more on their mind than just machine functions?

What elite Modernist thinking ignores is that ordinary people have had a wide variety of empirical experience with different living conditions, many of which the elite planner knows nothing of.  This reservoir of workaday empirical experience is something that would prove immensely useful to any planner or designer trying to build places where people can not only function, but feel comfortable, happy, nostalgic, gregarious, contemplative, spiritual, creative… all the other things that life includes.  I would argue that Modernist planning is inherently undemocratic in that it explicitly and proudly ignores the diverse empirical experiences of ordinary people (that is, where it doesn’t seek to reroute them completely in the name of “social engineering”).  Ordinary citizens are not allowed to have plans for the Modernist city; on the contrary, the city has very detailed, rigid, and uniform plans for them, and for what their houses and workplaces and many of their actions will look like.  Beyond the master planner or architect, there is no room for an individual who might want to express her own emotions or ideas of beauty through architecture.

Christopher Alexander is one contemporary architect, designer, and urban theorist whose use of ordinary empirical experience might come as incredibly refreshing to anyone fed up with the continuing elitism of architects who pat each other on the back for monolithic projects that often come off as inscrutable, bland, and depressing to many of the ordinary people who have to live in or near them.  Even a cursory glance at Alexander’s A Pattern Language will reveal a way of planning that is, in its emphasis on actual human interaction and emotions, very much at loggerheads with Modernism.  For instance, his warning never to build “large monolithic buildings,” is backed up with many empirical observations to support the claim that “the more monolithic the building is, the more it prevents people from being personal, and from making human contact with other people in the buildings.” (7)  Or contrast with Modernism his assertion that “building set-backs from the street, originally invented to protect the public welfare by giving every building light and air, have actually helped greatly to destroy the street as a social space.” (8)  He instead outlines other ways to ensure air and sunlight, such as height limits and building wings, all while preserving spaces for vibrant and varied social interaction.

Alexander’s ideas are brilliant and benevolent for their observations of how people actually use and relate to buildings; his plans create more human and less machine-like spaces. Alexander’s work addresses questions like: What kind of rooms and lighting do people gravitate towards? What kind of environments facilitate easy and friendly interactions?  What kind of staircases, outside building walls, and columns connect you to your environment, or can you lounge on and feel comfortable and not stifled? (Some possible solutions, by the way, include open stairs connected to the ground, building edges with places to sit and lounge, and thick columns (9)).  These questions can be answered by ordinary people everywhere – who have all sorts of different traditions, emotions, and preferences, and who use buildings and cities everyday – much better than they can be answered by solitary and dispassionate mathematicians and architects.

 

1) See “Science, Technology, and the International Style” in Cor Wagenaar, ed. Happy: Cities and Public Happiness in Post-War Europe, 78-79.

2) Richard Wollheim’s ideas are from “Democracy,” Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (1958): 225-42, especially 241-2, summed up in H.B. McCullough, Political Ideologies (Don Mills: OUP, 2010),  65-66.

3) These quotes are from Le Corbusier, The Radiant City: Elements of a Doctrine of Urbanism to Be Used as the Basis of Our Machine-Age Civilization, trans. Pamela Knight (New York: Orion Press, 1964), 154, quoted in James Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 112.

4) James Scott corroborates this often in Chapter 4 (“The High-Modernist City”) of Seeing Like a State.

5) Le Corbusier, The City of To-morrow and Its planning, trans. from 8th French ed. of ‘Urbanisme’ by Frederick Etchells (New York, Dover, 1987), 232.

6) Ibid., 240.

7) Alexander et al., A Pattern Language (New York: OUP, 1977), 468-472: Pattern 95: Building Complexes.

8) Ibid., 593-595: Pattern 122: Building Fronts.

9) Ibid., specifically see 740-744; Pattern 158: Open Stairs, 752-756: Pattern 160: Building Edge, and 1064-1067: Pattern 226: Column Place.

Also See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language (I highly recommend looking at this book if you’re interested in design for anything from cities down to individual houses, rooms, and yards.  It’s very accessible and easy and fun to read and contains about a million good and simple ideas that anyone could use, and there are a couple copies at the UBCO library.)

Literal Garden City: Peter Vetsch’s ‘Earth House’

Posted on by
3

If you’ve ever wanted to “not to live under or in the ground, but with it”, then here’s the neighbourhood for you: architect Peter Vetsch’s ‘Earth House’ development located in Switzerland.  After looking through a few photos of the developments, one could argue that the ‘Earth House’ development is a true Garden City… in the literal sense.

Clearly, the idea of living in harmony with nature (or a tamed version of it) has been of central importance to several urban planners throughout the years. Thus the ‘Earth House’ is especially interesting when compared to urban planning schemes and utopian fantasies of the past century. Unsurprisingly, the fixation on natural light, green space, ventilation, space for recreation, and affordability remain central concerns for architects and urban planners. It is with these factors, coupled with the modern day preoccupation of environmental consciousness and ecological concerns, that Vetsch has created a new sustainable settlement. This new development consists of single-family homes covered by a blanket of earth and grass and surrounding an artificial lake in Dietikon Switzerland.

                   The ‘Earth House’

Vetsch focuses on promoting his unique style of architecture as environmentally friendly and financially savvy, two major concerns today. In recent years there has been an especially decisive shift towards environmental sustainability, and the ‘Earth House’ is the epitome of this movement. The ‘Earth House’ is surrounded by ground, which acts as insulation to keep the heating costs low while still protecting dwellers from adverse weather conditions. Vetsch designs these unique developments to preserve the natural landscape and he moulds each house according to the environment. This allows for organic arches to characterize the interior of the home; creating an environment highly effective for insulation that can result in energy savings up to 50%! Moreover, this unique structure also allows for a plethora of natural light in several rooms.

The ground enveloping the home also acts as a cocoon to protect it from rain, wind, and abrasion. According to Vetsch, these homes are also very well protected from earthquakes, fire hazards, and severe windstorms due to the fact that they’re built into, opposed to on top, of the ground. This may provide additional reassurance to some as we navigate the unpredictable terrain of climate change. Finally, the ‘Earth House’ also provides ample room for green space as the ‘roof’ of the home can be used as a gardening space or a terrace.

I personally think the idea is fascinating, environmentally conscious, and whimsical. I love the idea of having an environmentally friendly home focused on renewable energy as an option in a society that’s growing at an unprecedented rate. Having said that, I can see how it wouldn’t appeal to everybody considering that it’s clearly not conducive to city living. What are your thoughts on this style of development?