This article ran yesterday in the Sunday Challenger
, a weekly free paper for northern KY. The bent of the article is to promote people moving back to city centers, and i appreciate that good things are happening to that effect, but i've got some real problems with where this is heading.
What is being built is suburbs, they just happen to be located in a traditional urban location. Look at -this- render (the big image) and the 2006 photo in the article. Vehicle scaled buildings, setbacks that create objects in space rather than space making objects, singularly useful city blocks with programs that lead to even a Skyline Chili to shut down at 5p. And that plaza in front of danny's new building, you think the old businesmen they are marketing to are going to use that? no, that's going to be a dearth of concrete.
The 1984 picture shows human scaled buildings lining the street. You can touch them when you walk by, you want to touch them when you walk by (at least i do). In them could be located many tenants with different programs. And not frivolous destination retail, enough art galleries, give me a f-in grocery store with a deli. There is no "real" urbanism going on here, just another office park.
It's frustrating to see thoughtless development invading the 'urban core'.
Oh no I agree with him too, I just like to give him crap. He definitely should send it into the paper, but nobody would get it. This area that he's talking about suffers from a complete lack of planning, Bill Butler came in and just started buying and building. Most people in this area would just think, "well it's an office building. And lots of people work there." When you see people walking around here at lunch time, none of them are thinking to themselves, well I have to walk to the Skyline, but I really wish the journey was more pleasing. Most of them aren't thinking about it because they don't want what they don't know about. The area suffers from a severe case of tunnel vision, perpetuated by a lack of visionary leadership. Which is why we're always 5-10 years behind.
Steven, I also like that you are calling him Mr. Heavy. I'm going to call him that from now on and confuse the hell out of our coworkers.
What is being built is suburbs, they just happen to be located in a traditional urban location...Vehicle scaled buildings, setbacks that create objects in space rather than space making objects
SH, those are great points and I would think if any part of your rant were to be published you would want to make sure those points were included.
As encouragment, my partner recently wrote a "letter to the editor" regarding Indy's Show House/Governors Residence fiasco. It was long - 10-12 paragraphs, and elucidated every issue clearly and completely. We both joked that it would never be published as letters to the editor are supposed to be soundbites. Well not only was it published, but they didn't put him in the letters section at all: insted it was on the editiorial page in a column titled "My View" or something like that.
Oh and I feel your pain. (I mean about the piss-poor "development" of urban fabric, not about the red light incident because I don't know what that was...)
Cosmopolitanism exists in all spatial geographies, regardless of the architectural environment. The suburban refugee can now gorge themselves on the cultural buffet of the city without even leaving their back yard. Likewise, the ubran gorilla can find safe-haven in the surveiled theme park that has become the city.
The urban fabric you speak of has been turned inside out and has transformed into a poplin dress shirt from the Gap.
The city is a feeling not a place, just as the suburbs are an calcification of what city-dwellers secretly pine for: security, and an abundance, of blank space of expression.
Flint is exactly the same way, Mr. Heavy. Did a big tour of all the 'revitalization' efforts going on in the downtown last summer and left them bewildered and stupified by the questions I was asking.
Me: "Why did you build a massive, large-lot suburb in the geographic center of the city right next to the downtown core? Didn't anyone think of using a denser, finer grain development typology?"
Them: *blank stare* "Uh.... I don't know. Does anyone live here, let's ask them!"
Them: "You're lookiing at the old Chevy plant which the Land Bank and Kettering Univeristy are going to develop into a University Village connecting Kettering to downtown and rehabilitate the Flint River!"
Me: "Excuse me? I actually know that project very well. The last I knew, most of the development calls for a massive, vehicle-oriented office/research park and includes an alternative where the river is left as it is. And didn't the mayor just adamently state last week that no city money would be used in a way that didn't guarentee a large return on the investment, thereby assuring that traditional, high profit, low risk development would take place?"
Them: *blank stare* "Uh... I don't know about any of that. I just know that Third Avenue is going to be turned into a university boulevard!"
now your world it is beautiful
i'll take the subway to your suburbs sometime
i'll seek out all the places that must
have been magic to your little girl eyes
now as a little girl you must have
been magic
i still get jealous of your boyfriends in the suburbs sometimes
and when i walk down the street
there'll probably be tears in my eyes
i cant stand what you do
sometimes i cant stand you
but im in love with this power
in your eyes...
i don't really think it's nostalgia. that implies sentiment, which would be more like missing your first car even though it was rusted, missing a bumper, and smelled like cats.
this is about a better solution to problems that these planners have already chosen to address. and if it is a genuine revitalization of an urban neighborhood they seek, they should know that what is being promised by these developers may not lead them to those goals.
i don't disagree that it is the new iteration of cities, can you perceive of something with the density of manhattan or scale of brooklyn being created fresh here in the states?
not that that's the best solution either. i guess it's just that everything has it's faults, if you can and you care, you make things better.
... (from Part III of Howl by Allen Ginsberg, 1955-56)...
I'm with you in Rockland
where we hug and kiss the United States under our
bedsheets the United States that coughs all night and
won't let us sleep
I'm with you in Rockland
where we wake up electrified out of the coma by our
own souls' airplanes roaring over the roof they've come
to drop angelic bombs the hospital illuminates itself
imaginary walls collapse O skinny legions run out-
side O starry-spangled shock of mercy the eternal war
is here O victory forget your underwear we're free...
Here's an idea. Maybe the reason people move to the suburbs is that the the houses in the city aren't built better. We need buidings that are more acoustically aware. That way we can buffer some of the road noise. Next the reason people don't live in the cities is because there are not enough places for the elderly or the children. Where do children come into play in the cities? Where are the schools? Where is the day care?
I am not saying that all cities are this way.However if we lead by example and make the cities better, then people will naturally follow. If we make the cities so incredibly great that people don't want to live in the suburbs, then no one will.
Next if you see one developer dominating the downtown, then do something about it. Go to the city planning commision and get them to require that these developers build schools... don't leave it to the school system. They already don't have enough funding as is. Get them to create setbacks for developers that are creating schools, places for the elderly, and allowing for daycare. We need to go out there and do something. That is the only way that we can help create solutions. If you are intelligent and know right from wrong when it comes to development and cities, cool, hop on the city planning board and get active. Talk to people in the community, go to meetings, inform the public. I am sure that they would love your help. You are better at defending these concepts then they are. Keep up the good work.
We architects have the "right answer", J? Mm hmm. Not in this f-ing lifetime. Most architects pretty well fuck up solving one building with just one client. You're now suggesting that these same morons are going to then solve problems at the city scale? Ya... But hey, I'm all ears -- enlighten me with the "right answer".
Anyway, the best thing on this thread thus far are the Modern Lovers lyrics... well played, Vado.
revitalizing the 'urban core'. a case study in my frustration.
This article ran yesterday in the Sunday Challenger
, a weekly free paper for northern KY. The bent of the article is to promote people moving back to city centers, and i appreciate that good things are happening to that effect, but i've got some real problems with where this is heading.
What is being built is suburbs, they just happen to be located in a traditional urban location. Look at -this- render (the big image) and the 2006 photo in the article. Vehicle scaled buildings, setbacks that create objects in space rather than space making objects, singularly useful city blocks with programs that lead to even a Skyline Chili to shut down at 5p. And that plaza in front of danny's new building, you think the old businesmen they are marketing to are going to use that? no, that's going to be a dearth of concrete.
The 1984 picture shows human scaled buildings lining the street. You can touch them when you walk by, you want to touch them when you walk by (at least i do). In them could be located many tenants with different programs. And not frivolous destination retail, enough art galleries, give me a f-in grocery store with a deli. There is no "real" urbanism going on here, just another office park.
It's frustrating to see thoughtless development invading the 'urban core'.
good rant, superheavy. a little editing and you should send it to the sunday challenger and other cinci area papers. you're exactly right.
one thing, though. a "dearth of concrete" would mean "not enough concrete". dearth: a falling short of an essential or desirable amount or number.
growl.
that will haunt me.
i usually talk real good n stuff.
D'oh!
You just got told.
(I'm going to file this one in the same folder as the red-light running incident.)
actually more appropriately filed along with my 'hunnard' incident.
wasn't meaning to get anybody 'told'. i really do agree with mr. heavy. and i really do think he should put it out there.
Oh no I agree with him too, I just like to give him crap. He definitely should send it into the paper, but nobody would get it. This area that he's talking about suffers from a complete lack of planning, Bill Butler came in and just started buying and building. Most people in this area would just think, "well it's an office building. And lots of people work there." When you see people walking around here at lunch time, none of them are thinking to themselves, well I have to walk to the Skyline, but I really wish the journey was more pleasing. Most of them aren't thinking about it because they don't want what they don't know about. The area suffers from a severe case of tunnel vision, perpetuated by a lack of visionary leadership. Which is why we're always 5-10 years behind.
Steven, I also like that you are calling him Mr. Heavy. I'm going to call him that from now on and confuse the hell out of our coworkers.
SH, those are great points and I would think if any part of your rant were to be published you would want to make sure those points were included.
As encouragment, my partner recently wrote a "letter to the editor" regarding Indy's Show House/Governors Residence fiasco. It was long - 10-12 paragraphs, and elucidated every issue clearly and completely. We both joked that it would never be published as letters to the editor are supposed to be soundbites. Well not only was it published, but they didn't put him in the letters section at all: insted it was on the editiorial page in a column titled "My View" or something like that.
Oh and I feel your pain. (I mean about the piss-poor "development" of urban fabric, not about the red light incident because I don't know what that was...)
We've been here before.
Aren't the suburbs and city the same place now?
Cosmopolitanism exists in all spatial geographies, regardless of the architectural environment. The suburban refugee can now gorge themselves on the cultural buffet of the city without even leaving their back yard. Likewise, the ubran gorilla can find safe-haven in the surveiled theme park that has become the city.
The urban fabric you speak of has been turned inside out and has transformed into a poplin dress shirt from the Gap.
The city is a feeling not a place, just as the suburbs are an calcification of what city-dwellers secretly pine for: security, and an abundance, of blank space of expression.
But SuperHeavy- you should send it in. If we are taking the time to reply John-Q public would certainly be interested in your words.
is pomotrash from houston?
Either Houston or South East Michigan.
Flint is exactly the same way, Mr. Heavy. Did a big tour of all the 'revitalization' efforts going on in the downtown last summer and left them bewildered and stupified by the questions I was asking.
Me: "Why did you build a massive, large-lot suburb in the geographic center of the city right next to the downtown core? Didn't anyone think of using a denser, finer grain development typology?"
Them: *blank stare* "Uh.... I don't know. Does anyone live here, let's ask them!"
Them: "You're lookiing at the old Chevy plant which the Land Bank and Kettering Univeristy are going to develop into a University Village connecting Kettering to downtown and rehabilitate the Flint River!"
Me: "Excuse me? I actually know that project very well. The last I knew, most of the development calls for a massive, vehicle-oriented office/research park and includes an alternative where the river is left as it is. And didn't the mayor just adamently state last week that no city money would be used in a way that didn't guarentee a large return on the investment, thereby assuring that traditional, high profit, low risk development would take place?"
Them: *blank stare* "Uh... I don't know about any of that. I just know that Third Avenue is going to be turned into a university boulevard!"
yeah pomotrash, nothing new, just its happening in my back yard this time and i was ranting.
driftwood, your q&a there made me laugh. i don't know if i have the patience for a full tour but we'll see about sending that letter in.
and i may get to address this further, i'm applying to rice for grad school.
Actually, I grew up in the burbs in Florida and live near Downtown Los Angeles- the 3rd largest city in the US.
Not to be trite, but you guys are so nostalgic for "old world" urbanism it's pathetic. Go watch Mon Uncle by Jacque Tati and have a good cry.
I think what is going on in KY is just a new iteration of cities can become.
To write off the project under discussion as well as others like it is an attempt to revive an urbanism that no longer exists.
And by the way. Houston is fucking bad-ass.
now your world it is beautiful
i'll take the subway to your suburbs sometime
i'll seek out all the places that must
have been magic to your little girl eyes
now as a little girl you must have
been magic
i still get jealous of your boyfriends in the suburbs sometimes
and when i walk down the street
there'll probably be tears in my eyes
i cant stand what you do
sometimes i cant stand you
but im in love with this power
in your eyes...
i don't really think it's nostalgia. that implies sentiment, which would be more like missing your first car even though it was rusted, missing a bumper, and smelled like cats.
this is about a better solution to problems that these planners have already chosen to address. and if it is a genuine revitalization of an urban neighborhood they seek, they should know that what is being promised by these developers may not lead them to those goals.
i don't disagree that it is the new iteration of cities, can you perceive of something with the density of manhattan or scale of brooklyn being created fresh here in the states?
not that that's the best solution either. i guess it's just that everything has it's faults, if you can and you care, you make things better.
... (from Part III of Howl by Allen Ginsberg, 1955-56)...
I'm with you in Rockland
where we hug and kiss the United States under our
bedsheets the United States that coughs all night and
won't let us sleep
I'm with you in Rockland
where we wake up electrified out of the coma by our
own souls' airplanes roaring over the roof they've come
to drop angelic bombs the hospital illuminates itself
imaginary walls collapse O skinny legions run out-
side O starry-spangled shock of mercy the eternal war
is here O victory forget your underwear we're free...
J,
I think you're over-generalizing about urban planners, developers, and even politicians.
Urban development is far too complicated to be "solved" by any one profession. It requires the colaboration between many different professions.
Here's an idea. Maybe the reason people move to the suburbs is that the the houses in the city aren't built better. We need buidings that are more acoustically aware. That way we can buffer some of the road noise. Next the reason people don't live in the cities is because there are not enough places for the elderly or the children. Where do children come into play in the cities? Where are the schools? Where is the day care?
I am not saying that all cities are this way.However if we lead by example and make the cities better, then people will naturally follow. If we make the cities so incredibly great that people don't want to live in the suburbs, then no one will.
Next if you see one developer dominating the downtown, then do something about it. Go to the city planning commision and get them to require that these developers build schools... don't leave it to the school system. They already don't have enough funding as is. Get them to create setbacks for developers that are creating schools, places for the elderly, and allowing for daycare. We need to go out there and do something. That is the only way that we can help create solutions. If you are intelligent and know right from wrong when it comes to development and cities, cool, hop on the city planning board and get active. Talk to people in the community, go to meetings, inform the public. I am sure that they would love your help. You are better at defending these concepts then they are. Keep up the good work.
Bad ass Houston. Right on, Pomotrash.
We architects have the "right answer", J? Mm hmm. Not in this f-ing lifetime. Most architects pretty well fuck up solving one building with just one client. You're now suggesting that these same morons are going to then solve problems at the city scale? Ya... But hey, I'm all ears -- enlighten me with the "right answer".
Anyway, the best thing on this thread thus far are the Modern Lovers lyrics... well played, Vado.
"We don't live around this mess, we live under it" from Guy Forsythe's song Long Long Time
dont trash the 'nati
Daniel Liebeskind sucks
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.