Blogs

Something from Something

Submitted by Naytin on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 21:23

Eeriness of the PlannedEeriness of the PlannedIt all seemed very clear to me that this was a great idea. A planned community that was intended to function similarly to a small town sounded like a revolution in the way we think. As I was merrily waving the flag of my approval, brandishing it in the parade in my head to welcome this revolution, I realized that many of my peers disagreed. In fact, they were disturbed merely by the concept, let alone the eeriness of its existing counterparts.
People were having a hard time expressing what exactly was wrong with the place, but it was for them definitely bad. I think their reactions share some similarities with Kunstler’s repulsion to Corbusier’s Radiant City. Corbusier planned on creating a space where people wouldn’t be able to make real choices. Different forms of transportation, activity, and beauty were to be separated, with almost no links or grey areas. This city would be a stagnant entity while people shifted within it. In the planned community, like Seaside, many of these elements are similar. The streets and zoning codes would enforce a strict buildup of certain things in certain places that would create a certain effect. Of course the zoning codes would allow for some growth, and for organic planning to take shape beyond the reach of predetermined streets. But on the other hand, I’m sure Le Corbusier would have been happy to extend his Radiant city over more of the helpless Parisian landscape.
What they have in common is that there seems to be some master planner that espouses to know all. He wants to make “something from nothing”, a concept Kunstler loathes. But he seems to love it when it comes to creating communities that will actually function. So what is the difference between the two? Le Corbusier is obviously more obsessed with the car, and traffic flow, but he really did think he was going to help people. He imagined his raised Paris as a Utopia. He was a visionary of his time and now we tear him apart. Though I do disagree vehemently with what Corbusier planned to construct, I wonder if these perfect planned communities are just the contemporary version of his Modernist approach. Will my children think this idea is as laughable, and frightening, as my classmates do? I hope not. I really hope that this is moving in the right direction. While it of course isn’t as charming as the organic buildup of a medieval town, it creates a space where many of the things people require, but have lost, are taken care of for them. Hopefully, this will function as a learning tool. People will experience these places and take with that an appreciation for its benefits, without simply discounting it for the eerie feeling some of its inhabitants may foster (armies of families all trying to be far too perky can really do that). Maybe then we will finally get something from something.

Planners in Perspective

Submitted by Evan on Tue, 05/05/2009 - 20:42.

(OK this is a make-up comment, which is why I'm posting on something written in February.)

I have a tendency to unquestionably reject large scale, utopian plans for urban redevelopment--particularly ones with the aesthetics of Le Corbusier. This post does a good job acknowledging the fact that sometimes our personal objections might obscure the actual ideas behind the plans themselves.

Here's another way to do that, which the post alludes to: place these planners in their historical context. Le Corbusier, for example, had an unquestioning faith in the machine (and more general modern technological progress) that someone of the post-war era (the horrors of modern genocide and the atomic bomb) cannot. The house was to be a machine for living, and his theories for cities followed the same logic.

There's more to say here, but anyway, you get the idea.

I don't know that it's an

Submitted by bvo12585 on Thu, 02/12/2009 - 00:48.

I don't know that it's an eeriness of a plan that repulses people, it's the question of who is doing the planning and for what purpose. I mean, I like a good plan as much as anybody, but if it's a plan put forth by someone with no intention but to take advantage of government loopholes to make millions of dollars, then I don't feel so good about it.

What I found pretty interesting about Waldie's Lakewood is that, though it was among the original modern suburbs, it's much different than the suburbs of today. There was much more concentration, and in part because of that, a community was created. Contrast that with the suburbs of today. Maybe you know your next door neighbors, but there's not a very good chance you know the neighbors two doors down.

I think you missed it

Submitted by Naytin on Thu, 02/12/2009 - 17:15.

I think you missed what I was talking about. I wasn't posting on Waldie at all. This was about the last section of Kunstler when he's discussing new solutions and a response to the videos that were shown in class about new urbanism. I agree that the suburb where Waldie lives was created for bad intentions and don't necessarily by his conception of it.

I don't know that it's an

Submitted by bvo12585 on Thu, 02/12/2009 - 00:47.

I don't know that it's an eeriness of a plan that repulses people, it's the question of who is doing the planning and for what purpose. I mean, I like a good plan as much as anybody, but if it's a plan put forth by someone with no intention but to take advantage of government loopholes to make millions of dollars, then I don't feel so good about it.

What I found pretty interesting about Waldie's Lakewood is that, though it was among the original modern suburbs, it's much different than the suburbs of today. There was much more concentration, and in part because of that, a community was created. Contrast that with the suburbs of today. Maybe you know your next door neighbors, but there's not a very good chance you know the neighbors two doors down.