We need design champions to sort out the depressing mess left by urban architects. Should we appoint an architect-in-chief for each city? Someone with the taste and vision to veto the worst and encourage the best?
If a building takes months of research, planning, and development, why can’t that much time and effort be put into the modern urban centers developing haphazardly each day? Maybe an architect-in-chief isn’t the answer, but there has to be a solution to the chaos that is today’s cities. Perhaps a board of design “champions†is required to decide which plans will improve the overall makeup of the city and move to advance its design. Cities are forever evolving and must have a distinct direction to travel in; however, they must not forget where they came from. Historical preservation should be a main concern in any city center and any new construction should aim to compliment these treasures, not compete with them. The only problem is where do you find someone truly capable of understanding the capacity of a city and in essence mapping its future? It is a responsibility I wouldn’t want on my shoulders.
What makes you think today's cities are choatic? they have become by products of the economic forces that they thrive off of... cities don't need to be dense and centralized anymore due to the networks of distribution of good and services, internet, telecommunications, highways... the traditional city is just a nostalgia, that's why many urban cores are failing these days. cities and suburbia's are extremely non-chaotic, very ordered and may appear choatic due to underlying forces which you are not aware of (political, social, economic, etc.)
Another question you should ask is what is urban... is it the buildings which make the city urban or is it something else, interaction, public space, people?
A city cannot survive unless it is operating properly. Most of the well established cities are functioning, so they must maintain some form of order, but what about the cities which have failed, or are failing now? When a large population (read: money) moves out of a city and into suburbia, what is left? Abandoned buildings barely clinging to life, and developers salivating over cheap real estate. Many are in such a hurry to put in strip malls and parking garages, they don't estemate the impact they will have on the surrounding areas. They don't take the time to study such things as traffic patterns, pedestrian paths, water egress, environmental impact, etc. This is exactly why a board of people who are aware of each area's independant qualities to make educated decisions about what is best for a city and essentially its people.
This could be posted in the "Current Book Obsessions" thread also, but check out Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning by M. Christine Boyer, a professor at DSD.
so then architects should take a greater repsonsiblity for and role in the development of the urban - not just tout their individual design. A government appointed design leader is kind of an interesting idea. I'd prefer a design collective, not a single voice. But I've always been a bit of a Pinko.
I invloke CIAM. Or if you're more of a humanist - Team X. Their rhetoric is beside the point in this specific argument, but it is undeniable that CIAM had a potent impact on architecture at the time, most would say to the dertriment of society but, as I said, my only point is they exist as a precedent.
This could be the activist counterpart to the AIA. A more radical organization expounding the virtues of architectural design.
Cities already have way too many groups, boards, councils and committiees making decisions about nearly every and all aspects of life, including design and planning. These groups are often comprised of well qualified, well educated, well intentioned people but the result of their combined iniativies rarely rises above the level of the hopelessly banal.
The problem with cities is not that they have become too haphazard, but that every ounce of haphazardness is slowly being squeezed out of them...by committee.
I think a design collective would probably be a better direction than relying on a single voice. One voice is kind of precarious, don't you think? And architects should take more responsibility for development as a whole – not just their own…
"Richard Meier’s design for the Ara Pacis was publicly burnt in the streets by an enraged critic, who described it as “an indecent cesspit by a useless architectâ€".
I never said I advocated a single voice. I don't support the whole idea at all. Less regulation of the design and construction industry is the answer, not more.
One other thing: many downtowns in the US are already part of historic districts or urbal renewal districts where new construction is required to undergo review by a committee. These committiees are, in effect, design collectives since they are comprised largely of architects and planners. I don't see many great buildings going up in these areas.
Bryan4arch - by committe indeed, by committees of real estate developers, politicians, civic action groups, etc, etc. And blees them all - really they should be out there yelling and hollering about what they want. I lament that fact that we do not do the dame. Individual voices from time to time speak out but usually only in reference to their own deisgn - if it being attacked by one of these groups.
B4A your point of view saddens me. It smacks of resignation or isolation, of the lone wolf genius creator that previals above all. So heroic! So tragic. Life is dirty, politics are dirty, cities are dirty. I want a voice in the melee but I'm too small and my voice too weak so I want someone to role up their sleeves and got a few jabs in - I don't even care if I agree with them, but they should be there, and they should be driven by the desire for beauty in the urban.
And in democratic fashion perhaps they should be elected by the profession from within the profession.
Or maybe we should all live on farms. It could go either way.
I say again - they should be driven by the desire for beauty in the urban. That should be their central focus, not heritage, not real estate speculation, not the law, not how they look on the front page, not kids afterschool programs, not...
Excellent, excellent. then they can argue for the proliferation of beautiful suburbs everywhere! I love it! I want some passion, some fists waving in the air - Screw you New Urbanists I want my acre of lawn! Ah but alas I fear because of our cultural climate, I doubt that person would be elected as architectrue design boss. Too bad for them, we could really use some beautiful suburbs.
I wonder if someone fought for that development on the basis of its beauty -- I doubt it. but if they did, I'd like to have that conversation with them. It's quite a lovely image, but perhaps not such a lovely place.
A suburb has no intrinsic value, it's contents give it value, well actually our judgements of its contents give it value. Whatever. We can play it that way. Are suburbs good? Are suburbs bad? I don't know. Not the conversation I want to have.
Did someone argue for beauty? Did someone defend the value of beauty in that developpment? Why the fuck not.
More acrage is dedicated to the agriculture of suburban lawns then anyother crop in the US of A. Lawns promote stormwater runoff and urban flooding, increase the levels of pollution in the watershed, generate a significant amount of air pollution from all those lawn mowers and weedwakers, are poor habitat for our wild critters, and the list goes on...
So why do we love those verdant monocultures? maybe it's just the best place to play croquette and golf!
Do our cities need lawns or is this just an suburban phenomina?
Mexico City has some great affordable housing project! Thanks Chili for the pic.
I think city design / maintenance boils down to politics.
The three underpinning methods I'm aware of at present are:
Economics: free makes makes the urban form: a sort of Darwinianism.
Legislative: strict control over historic centres; powerful planning departments.
Socialist: centrally-funded city development
The first implies that small-scale generative forces are a sufficient generator of form (in the widest sense of that word.)
The second implies that history is the primary wisdom behind formal development.
The third implies that a governing 'vision' is of sufficient wisdom to steer the lives of others.
Solidred - sure there are lots of factors involved in creating/maintaining a city. Shouldn't architects be interested in their specific role in this complex arrangement? I'm not a politicians, nor developers, nor lawyers, nor a whole list of other things. I'm an architect. What role can I have have in the making of cities? My experience thus far has led me to believe that I have very little role - I design buildings (in conjunction with a bunch of other people) for specific locations - I think about the urban as it relates to each specific project,
But I would like to think that the profession could have a larger role in the deveolpement of the urban The AIA is my only representation professionally, and they have a role, but at the moment it doesn't seem like much of an advocation role, it is more bureaucratic. I would like to see an organization with a greater leadership role at higher levels, an organization that has the same concerns I do, if not necessarily the same ideas about those concerns.
Chili - I'm not talking about the function of a city, I wouldn't feign to be so grandiose, I only mean the form - the design of things on an urban scale. Obviously form/function have a serious romantic relationship with each other but, I think the functioning of a city is just way beyond any single person/organization's reach.
And buildings do impact the city, and "...how it functions" the AOL Time Warner buidling in NYC creates a visual impact form numerous points in the city, it marks Columbus Circle. It provides a destination, more people come to Columbus Circle, which puts more pepople on the trains coming to this area. It has an immediate relationship to Central park and 59th street which totally changes to the flow of pedestrain traffic.
And typology ios based on culture, not pure civics.
My point is not that building's are ineffectual at effecting the urban environment - my point is that it seems to me that there is no concentrated voice from the profession on HOW buildings should affect the city.
Could anyone educate me on the AIA role – for example, when someone considers building a community, how is the AIA involved? Are they required to review the plans and sign off on them; do they mandate changes; do they participate passively, etc? I understand the vision and mission of the AIA, but when it comes down to it, are they the ones that have the final say? Alternatively, are they only one of many voices that can make a decision?
Now what if the Architect were to take on a more proactive role by working closer with governing bodies (e.g. AIA and such). Would this place too much burden on the Architect? Do most Architects believe this is not their job? Just curious.
Katze - check the AIA website for the official rhetoric. The simple fact of the matter is the AIA is a bureaucratic body that purports to be the heart and soul of the profession but in fact is generally regarded as an annoyance and jusged to be completely ineffectual.
As far as governance, they only have power over their members, and that power is limited and mostly focuses on meting out punishment for disobeynace of code and law. They do have a code of ethics, which dictates how a professional architect is supposed to ethically practice.
One need not be an AIA member to be a registered architect. You could practice your entire life and never have anything to do with the AIA. They have no offical power.
So I should amend my reference to them as a "governing body" because in practice their governance is well, seems, non-existent. But they are the closest thing to a governing body that the profession has - most architects don't give a shit. As Steven has shown the AIA is commonly dismissed as a "Them", an outsdie group of ridiculous paper pushers who wouldn't know good Architecture if it pinched them ini the butt and said "hello, sweetie."
The AIA is the profession;'s only organized voice in the political realm that I know of.
don't put words in my mouth, lost. i wasn't dissing the aia. i'm a member and i respect the organization for what it does to support us. i use its resources a lot. it does require participation, i.e., you only get out what you put in, but that's a different discussion.
i was merely pointing out that the aia doesn't review anything or enforce anything having to do with what gets built. that is up to local planning and zoning and metropolitan development bodies.
the not giving a shit and 'them' and paper pusher aspects of the aia are unfortunately how a lot of people see the organization - but probably not if they're actually involved.
Ok. I guess I misinterpreted the mission and vision (and this is why I asked). I assumed they played a larger role beyond being a club. I think it is sad that they don't play a larger role.
CD, for what its worth: "Vision Statement: Through a culture of innovation, The American Institute of Architects empowers its members and inspires creation of a better built environment".
Fair enough - I was reacting to your tone - and the words were most certainly all mine.
So Steven can you then expand on what the AIA is to you as a member? not being one, I'm mostly regurgitating a commonly held opinion as my brain is too small to formulate my own.
I know there have been numerous AIA conversations on architect prior to this so please feel free to reference one of those - I didn't see anything specifically answering this question. I want to get beyond the rhetoric if possbile, what role do they provide to you as a professional?
LIS – thanks for the clarification on the AIA. This clarifies things a bit. Going back to your comment regarding the AIA being the closest thing to a governing body that the profession has - wouldn't it be advantageous if they take on a bigger role…
I am perplexed that this is not part of their objective.
the power to control things is a municipal, state, or federal power - one conferred by the general population or our representation in a legislative body.
the aia is a club - an association by general agreement of its members. while i'm sure that the aia as a group of people would love to have the power to enforce what gets built, i'm sure a lot of the general population would take issue.
does the american medical association make drugs legal? no. the fda does.
does the bar association establish law? no. congress and state legislatures do.
i'll get back to you, lostinspace. i've argued the aia case before, but i have to formulate my thoughts.
ncarb is an enforcement body of sorts. but their authority comes from the state boards that accept their judgments. and the state boards are given their enforcement power by state regs.
But NCARB just dishes out licenses. What else do they do? They're gate keepers. True - they do govern all of us, in that they make the rules and poolicies which we must all abide by in order to get a license. By strict definition it is governance.
I'm looking for more. Maybe I should stop looking. Maybe everything is just fine the way it is. but, you know, I ...I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
there have been circumstances in the past in which certain people or organizations became the arbiters of what made a city good and/or beautiful. problem is that we're a democracy. anyone given that much authority is probably a political appointment and when the politicians change....
i'm thinking that if you thought through the implications of what you're wanting, you'd see that it is not compatible with a democratic society fueled by capitalism. what if the authority in charge had a completely different idea of what effective design and beauty were than the ideas you have? for me, if andres duany was that person - and i don't doubt that his resume would make him among the most qualified - his impact on our urban environments would be disastrous. jane jacobs had the same problem with robert moses.
so what we have instead is a series of checks and regulations on what gets developed. here in louisville that includes a metro planning and design department that makes recommendations to a planning and zoning commission. metro planning and design manages the various smaller community regulations, neighborhood plans, etc and helps facilitate new ideas and plans, while also reviewing those new projects which are proposed for compliance with standing planning decisions. planning and zoning then becomes the enforcement body. even planning and zoning decisions can be overturned, however, through appeal to the metro council.
and to clarify where all the players come from:
the director of metro planning and design is a mayoral appointee. staff under the director are hires.
planning and zoning are appointees from a variety of stakeholder groups. they have more long-term appointments, bridging across administrations.
metro council is an elected body.
this isn't ideal and, you're right, it could be so much cleaner and 'designed' if it fell under a single vision. problem is, the person with that vision is often either a megalomaniac or works for one: haussmann, speer, etc. democracy is messy.
City plans? Hand me the matches!
We need design champions to sort out the depressing mess left by urban architects. Should we appoint an architect-in-chief for each city? Someone with the taste and vision to veto the worst and encourage the best?
If a building takes months of research, planning, and development, why can’t that much time and effort be put into the modern urban centers developing haphazardly each day? Maybe an architect-in-chief isn’t the answer, but there has to be a solution to the chaos that is today’s cities. Perhaps a board of design “champions†is required to decide which plans will improve the overall makeup of the city and move to advance its design. Cities are forever evolving and must have a distinct direction to travel in; however, they must not forget where they came from. Historical preservation should be a main concern in any city center and any new construction should aim to compliment these treasures, not compete with them. The only problem is where do you find someone truly capable of understanding the capacity of a city and in essence mapping its future? It is a responsibility I wouldn’t want on my shoulders.
What makes you think today's cities are choatic? they have become by products of the economic forces that they thrive off of... cities don't need to be dense and centralized anymore due to the networks of distribution of good and services, internet, telecommunications, highways... the traditional city is just a nostalgia, that's why many urban cores are failing these days. cities and suburbia's are extremely non-chaotic, very ordered and may appear choatic due to underlying forces which you are not aware of (political, social, economic, etc.)
Another question you should ask is what is urban... is it the buildings which make the city urban or is it something else, interaction, public space, people?
A city cannot survive unless it is operating properly. Most of the well established cities are functioning, so they must maintain some form of order, but what about the cities which have failed, or are failing now? When a large population (read: money) moves out of a city and into suburbia, what is left? Abandoned buildings barely clinging to life, and developers salivating over cheap real estate. Many are in such a hurry to put in strip malls and parking garages, they don't estemate the impact they will have on the surrounding areas. They don't take the time to study such things as traffic patterns, pedestrian paths, water egress, environmental impact, etc. This is exactly why a board of people who are aware of each area's independant qualities to make educated decisions about what is best for a city and essentially its people.
This could be posted in the "Current Book Obsessions" thread also, but check out Dreaming the Rational City: The Myth of American City Planning by M. Christine Boyer, a professor at DSD.
so then architects should take a greater repsonsiblity for and role in the development of the urban - not just tout their individual design. A government appointed design leader is kind of an interesting idea. I'd prefer a design collective, not a single voice. But I've always been a bit of a Pinko.
I invloke CIAM. Or if you're more of a humanist - Team X. Their rhetoric is beside the point in this specific argument, but it is undeniable that CIAM had a potent impact on architecture at the time, most would say to the dertriment of society but, as I said, my only point is they exist as a precedent.
This could be the activist counterpart to the AIA. A more radical organization expounding the virtues of architectural design.
Cities already have way too many groups, boards, councils and committiees making decisions about nearly every and all aspects of life, including design and planning. These groups are often comprised of well qualified, well educated, well intentioned people but the result of their combined iniativies rarely rises above the level of the hopelessly banal.
The problem with cities is not that they have become too haphazard, but that every ounce of haphazardness is slowly being squeezed out of them...by committee.
I think a design collective would probably be a better direction than relying on a single voice. One voice is kind of precarious, don't you think? And architects should take more responsibility for development as a whole – not just their own…
"Richard Meier’s design for the Ara Pacis was publicly burnt in the streets by an enraged critic, who described it as “an indecent cesspit by a useless architectâ€".
I agree about Meier
I never said I advocated a single voice. I don't support the whole idea at all. Less regulation of the design and construction industry is the answer, not more.
One other thing: many downtowns in the US are already part of historic districts or urbal renewal districts where new construction is required to undergo review by a committee. These committiees are, in effect, design collectives since they are comprised largely of architects and planners. I don't see many great buildings going up in these areas.
Bryan4arch - by committe indeed, by committees of real estate developers, politicians, civic action groups, etc, etc. And blees them all - really they should be out there yelling and hollering about what they want. I lament that fact that we do not do the dame. Individual voices from time to time speak out but usually only in reference to their own deisgn - if it being attacked by one of these groups.
B4A your point of view saddens me. It smacks of resignation or isolation, of the lone wolf genius creator that previals above all. So heroic! So tragic. Life is dirty, politics are dirty, cities are dirty. I want a voice in the melee but I'm too small and my voice too weak so I want someone to role up their sleeves and got a few jabs in - I don't even care if I agree with them, but they should be there, and they should be driven by the desire for beauty in the urban.
And in democratic fashion perhaps they should be elected by the profession from within the profession.
Or maybe we should all live on farms. It could go either way.
I say again - they should be driven by the desire for beauty in the urban. That should be their central focus, not heritage, not real estate speculation, not the law, not how they look on the front page, not kids afterschool programs, not...
some people think the suburbs are beautiful....
the suburbs are beautiful
...but i wouldn't want to live there
Excellent, excellent. then they can argue for the proliferation of beautiful suburbs everywhere! I love it! I want some passion, some fists waving in the air - Screw you New Urbanists I want my acre of lawn! Ah but alas I fear because of our cultural climate, I doubt that person would be elected as architectrue design boss. Too bad for them, we could really use some beautiful suburbs.
Here ya go.
oh, pretty - and so uniform!
I wonder if someone fought for that development on the basis of its beauty -- I doubt it. but if they did, I'd like to have that conversation with them. It's quite a lovely image, but perhaps not such a lovely place.
A suburb has no intrinsic value, it's contents give it value, well actually our judgements of its contents give it value. Whatever. We can play it that way. Are suburbs good? Are suburbs bad? I don't know. Not the conversation I want to have.
Did someone argue for beauty? Did someone defend the value of beauty in that developpment? Why the fuck not.
I'd hate to see the association bylaws, too! (I assume they have one:)
Im waiting...
So why do we love those verdant monocultures? maybe it's just the best place to play croquette and golf!
Do our cities need lawns or is this just an suburban phenomina?
Mexico City has some great affordable housing project! Thanks Chili for the pic.
How'd you make your text green, treekiller? Or are my eyes just deceiving me :)
Its very easy to become green..become rich ,
just plant trees
or
wait endlessly for a special one to give you a look !
go ask kermit.
Kermit says "Go plant more trees"
I think city design / maintenance boils down to politics.
The three underpinning methods I'm aware of at present are:
Economics: free makes makes the urban form: a sort of Darwinianism.
Legislative: strict control over historic centres; powerful planning departments.
Socialist: centrally-funded city development
The first implies that small-scale generative forces are a sufficient generator of form (in the widest sense of that word.)
The second implies that history is the primary wisdom behind formal development.
The third implies that a governing 'vision' is of sufficient wisdom to steer the lives of others.
Any other options?
well done K! so do you have a light?
Certainly do...!
Ok, looks like you have 13 more posts before you reach 300. Better get with it:)
i'm working on it- thanks for the encouragment!
ok, only 9 more to go...
Solidred - sure there are lots of factors involved in creating/maintaining a city. Shouldn't architects be interested in their specific role in this complex arrangement? I'm not a politicians, nor developers, nor lawyers, nor a whole list of other things. I'm an architect. What role can I have have in the making of cities? My experience thus far has led me to believe that I have very little role - I design buildings (in conjunction with a bunch of other people) for specific locations - I think about the urban as it relates to each specific project,
But I would like to think that the profession could have a larger role in the deveolpement of the urban The AIA is my only representation professionally, and they have a role, but at the moment it doesn't seem like much of an advocation role, it is more bureaucratic. I would like to see an organization with a greater leadership role at higher levels, an organization that has the same concerns I do, if not necessarily the same ideas about those concerns.
Instead of a city dictating building typology, why can't the inverse hold true, and we design buildings to impact how a city functions.
Chili - I'm not talking about the function of a city, I wouldn't feign to be so grandiose, I only mean the form - the design of things on an urban scale. Obviously form/function have a serious romantic relationship with each other but, I think the functioning of a city is just way beyond any single person/organization's reach.
And buildings do impact the city, and "...how it functions" the AOL Time Warner buidling in NYC creates a visual impact form numerous points in the city, it marks Columbus Circle. It provides a destination, more people come to Columbus Circle, which puts more pepople on the trains coming to this area. It has an immediate relationship to Central park and 59th street which totally changes to the flow of pedestrain traffic.
And typology ios based on culture, not pure civics.
My point is not that building's are ineffectual at effecting the urban environment - my point is that it seems to me that there is no concentrated voice from the profession on HOW buildings should affect the city.
Could anyone educate me on the AIA role – for example, when someone considers building a community, how is the AIA involved? Are they required to review the plans and sign off on them; do they mandate changes; do they participate passively, etc? I understand the vision and mission of the AIA, but when it comes down to it, are they the ones that have the final say? Alternatively, are they only one of many voices that can make a decision?
Now what if the Architect were to take on a more proactive role by working closer with governing bodies (e.g. AIA and such). Would this place too much burden on the Architect? Do most Architects believe this is not their job? Just curious.
AIA has no role in reviewing or enforcing anything. They are a professional organization - a club. It is definitely NOT a governing body.
Doesn't sound like you really understand the vision or mission of the AIA.
Vision? When did the AIA get a vision?
Katze - check the AIA website for the official rhetoric. The simple fact of the matter is the AIA is a bureaucratic body that purports to be the heart and soul of the profession but in fact is generally regarded as an annoyance and jusged to be completely ineffectual.
As far as governance, they only have power over their members, and that power is limited and mostly focuses on meting out punishment for disobeynace of code and law. They do have a code of ethics, which dictates how a professional architect is supposed to ethically practice.
One need not be an AIA member to be a registered architect. You could practice your entire life and never have anything to do with the AIA. They have no offical power.
So I should amend my reference to them as a "governing body" because in practice their governance is well, seems, non-existent. But they are the closest thing to a governing body that the profession has - most architects don't give a shit. As Steven has shown the AIA is commonly dismissed as a "Them", an outsdie group of ridiculous paper pushers who wouldn't know good Architecture if it pinched them ini the butt and said "hello, sweetie."
The AIA is the profession;'s only organized voice in the political realm that I know of.
don't put words in my mouth, lost. i wasn't dissing the aia. i'm a member and i respect the organization for what it does to support us. i use its resources a lot. it does require participation, i.e., you only get out what you put in, but that's a different discussion.
i was merely pointing out that the aia doesn't review anything or enforce anything having to do with what gets built. that is up to local planning and zoning and metropolitan development bodies.
the not giving a shit and 'them' and paper pusher aspects of the aia are unfortunately how a lot of people see the organization - but probably not if they're actually involved.
sorry for the digression.
Ok. I guess I misinterpreted the mission and vision (and this is why I asked). I assumed they played a larger role beyond being a club. I think it is sad that they don't play a larger role.
CD, for what its worth: "Vision Statement: Through a culture of innovation, The American Institute of Architects empowers its members and inspires creation of a better built environment".
Fair enough - I was reacting to your tone - and the words were most certainly all mine.
So Steven can you then expand on what the AIA is to you as a member? not being one, I'm mostly regurgitating a commonly held opinion as my brain is too small to formulate my own.
I know there have been numerous AIA conversations on architect prior to this so please feel free to reference one of those - I didn't see anything specifically answering this question. I want to get beyond the rhetoric if possbile, what role do they provide to you as a professional?
sorry "architect" shoudl be archinect.
and what role do they play, not provide.
Unless they like role playing, like you be Pierre Jeanneret and I'll be Eileen Grey...
but now I digress
LIS – thanks for the clarification on the AIA. This clarifies things a bit. Going back to your comment regarding the AIA being the closest thing to a governing body that the profession has - wouldn't it be advantageous if they take on a bigger role…
I am perplexed that this is not part of their objective.
the power to control things is a municipal, state, or federal power - one conferred by the general population or our representation in a legislative body.
the aia is a club - an association by general agreement of its members. while i'm sure that the aia as a group of people would love to have the power to enforce what gets built, i'm sure a lot of the general population would take issue.
does the american medical association make drugs legal? no. the fda does.
does the bar association establish law? no. congress and state legislatures do.
i'll get back to you, lostinspace. i've argued the aia case before, but i have to formulate my thoughts.
I think NCARB could be considered a governing body.
ncarb is an enforcement body of sorts. but their authority comes from the state boards that accept their judgments. and the state boards are given their enforcement power by state regs.
But NCARB just dishes out licenses. What else do they do? They're gate keepers. True - they do govern all of us, in that they make the rules and poolicies which we must all abide by in order to get a license. By strict definition it is governance.
I'm looking for more. Maybe I should stop looking. Maybe everything is just fine the way it is. but, you know, I ...I still haven't found what I'm looking for.
steven, I look forward to your response - thanks.
I dedicate this to LIS he he!
lost-
there have been circumstances in the past in which certain people or organizations became the arbiters of what made a city good and/or beautiful. problem is that we're a democracy. anyone given that much authority is probably a political appointment and when the politicians change....
i'm thinking that if you thought through the implications of what you're wanting, you'd see that it is not compatible with a democratic society fueled by capitalism. what if the authority in charge had a completely different idea of what effective design and beauty were than the ideas you have? for me, if andres duany was that person - and i don't doubt that his resume would make him among the most qualified - his impact on our urban environments would be disastrous. jane jacobs had the same problem with robert moses.
so what we have instead is a series of checks and regulations on what gets developed. here in louisville that includes a metro planning and design department that makes recommendations to a planning and zoning commission. metro planning and design manages the various smaller community regulations, neighborhood plans, etc and helps facilitate new ideas and plans, while also reviewing those new projects which are proposed for compliance with standing planning decisions. planning and zoning then becomes the enforcement body. even planning and zoning decisions can be overturned, however, through appeal to the metro council.
and to clarify where all the players come from:
the director of metro planning and design is a mayoral appointee. staff under the director are hires.
planning and zoning are appointees from a variety of stakeholder groups. they have more long-term appointments, bridging across administrations.
metro council is an elected body.
this isn't ideal and, you're right, it could be so much cleaner and 'designed' if it fell under a single vision. problem is, the person with that vision is often either a megalomaniac or works for one: haussmann, speer, etc. democracy is messy.
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.