Most of the non-architect people that I know just don't see why standard suburbia is a problem. Smart people with professional degrees and they just don't get it. When I point things out to them they usually come around, so there is hope.
Back in the day, the general public was unaware of the impact of deforestation, extinction, etc...But organizations like the WWF and the Sierra Club brought those issues into the public debate. Now, most people support conservation efforts. They get why it is important. They understand what we need to do.
My question is how we can better educate the public on issues surrounding urbanism, sustainability, and architecture.
The AIA has done nothing. I think that it is time to start some kind architectural equivelent to sierra club, or wwf? An organization that educates the public on issues of sustainable development, architecture and urbanization.
We need to talk to the public in english. We need to create a platform and an alliance with political and social power so we can fight the KB developers or engage them to create better places for the future. Now is the time.
What would we do?
-go to schools and give presentaions
-increase public awareness so that they will fight the walmart that is replacing local business.
-raise money for community projects like urban farming
-lobby to ease laws preventing vendors (that can offer a healthy alternative to Mcdonalds crap)
-lobby state and federal govt. to adopt more sustainable urban policies
-support the conservation of important structures
-etc.
???
I just thought of this, and haven't really worked out the details, so please don't call me an idiot. If anyone is interested in doing something like this respond.
The "core-crashed donut" model of suburban sprawl is being driven by socio-political forces that seem to be unique to western-style democracies. In contrast, Singapore or Shanghai are large, dense, centralized, orderly, and generally safe.
The central urban cores of most major American cities began a long decline into barbarism many decades ago. So long as that barbarism persists and spreads, anybody with the means to escape it toward the periphery will do so. They are voting with their feet (well, tires mostly), and the plebiscite is a rejection of most of what we have allowed our cities to become.
That's the structural problem you have to overcome if you want to reverse suburban sprawl. Not developer decision-making (they simply build where they can sell). Not homebuyer "ignorance" (they are being very rational in their choice about this - they want to live where they can afford to be safe). To really fix suburban sprawl in America, you need to re-civilize the urban cores. Right now, that's politically impossible, so no amount of public awareness is going to fix the problem.
On the other hand, the technological factors that allowed the sprawl to expand as fast as it did are changing. High gas prices are turning exurbs into ghost towns. But they're also forcing businesses to relocate closer to their employees and customers.
It's not just about density. Low density can be made more sustainable. Urban cores are becoming more and more gentrified and most people just can't afford to live in the city. I think the opposite of what you claim is happening. Suburbia is becoming the new landscape of the poor.
Anyway, I am talking about a more general public awareness campain on many different fronts. Not necessarily with any specific or single agenda. Yeah may just result in a protest, but at least it will get these issues out of the ivory tower and into the barber shop. I am talking about the equivilent of, say the sierra club organising a protest against a new fracking site. Simple stuff to ruffle the feathers of power geared more towards issues surrounding architecture, urbanization....
Definitely a dumb idea. Talk about a waste of resources. Why don't you do something productive? Pick one of those topics you don't like and offer an alternative. Walk the talk so to say instead of just telling other people how wrong they are.
As much as you don't like it, Walmart is huge because they are cheap... and lots of people like cheap. Go ahead and start a new box store that is everything walmart is and includes your principles. You can call it Enviro-mart!
Definitely a dumb idea. Talk about a waste of resources. Why don't you do something productive?
Engaging the public is a dumb idea?
I just feel that these issues we argue about on the internets and in the university rarely make it into the public discourse. If there was a backlash from the public, maybe some political pressure would push developers in a better direction.
Maybe the architect of the future will be engaged in shaping the public will rather than just accepting that "architecture is the will of the epoch."
Maybe architects can be more than just people who build stuff, and become activists for the people and advocates for better communities and cities.
Also, I do think that being the developer is the best solution. Introduce choice and out compete the competition. I am all for that, but I also think that the discourse needs to become more public and less archi-babble self-fulfilling BS.
I recently hung out in a conservative christian community. They seemed pretty convinced that dense urban cities make people turn gay and do strange/unnatural/immoral things. They referenced a book from the 60's called "The Human Zoo"
Sadly, this viewpoint is largely outdated, given the malleability of human evolution.
Nevertheless, I'm sure it's believed in some circles.
I don't think you can really get rid of the suburbs, but you can redesign them.
jla-x, it's easy to have ideals and dreams of a better urban society, but the working out of the details is where things get tough. The biggest hurdle is that, in America at least, part of the dream is to own property. I never really bought into that dream, but most people still want to own a house with land. There is an appeal to picking a neighborhood that fits your lifestyle and to living in lower density. Yes it creates sprawl and terrible traffic problems, but the opposite of living in a concrete canyon doesn't appeal much to anyone.
So what I think you are trying to say is that we need to design our cities better. Well that's easy to say but really hard to do. How do you come up with a plan (with the details) that works, and then even harder is to get people to agree with your plan. How do you pay for this plan, we already complain about taxes.
So someone has to own these big buildings, and then we rent from those owners. In Dallas at least it can get pretty expensive to rent in some of these revitalized urban areas. We can't really expect the government to build these buildings and give us rooms for cheap. That's just not going to happen in this lifetime.
So these ideas that you talk about have been around awhile, we talked about the same things 30 years ago when I was in school, they were probably talked about 60 years ago when my parents were in school. Some things have been done to improve some urban areas. In Dallas we have lots of money to do these things, but what do you do about Detroit? These projects are centered around lots of money with a plan to make the owners of the property even more money. It's not a matter whether you like capitalism or not, it's just a reality.
I am not trying to bust your bubble jla-x, I more or less agree with you, it's good to discuss these things. What we really need is the plan and the details of how to make it work. That is going to take big changes to society and tons of money and hard work. Even then there are people that still want a house with a yard regardless.
JsBach, I am not talking about getting rid of the suburbs. I understand that they are not going anywhere, and that is why I want to engage them and improve them. Some suburbs are better than others by far. Some are actually pretty decent places. I am talking about improving suburbia to make it more sustainable, economically empowering, and enriching. I am talking about really simple no brainer solutions like proper solar orientation for new developments, rainwater harvesting, informal markets (lifting bans on street food and urban farming) Better built suburban homes like The Norris house instead of those horrible KB homes. It can be done. The technology is there, and these are things that can actually save money. I don't count on the govt. doing a damn thing which is why I think that it is time we begin to engage and educate the public. Without demand these things will never happen.
Demand/change can be generated in 2 ways. We need both!
1. grassroots activism (educate the public) - most people feel that something is missing but don't understand what the possibilities are. We need to educate people and give them the tools to argue for or against urban/architectural issues. Ex: in spain it is not uncommon to hear people talking about architecture and articulating arguments and critique over projects. People fight developments that destroy their communities. They understand the cost of bad poorly designed development, and they make their voices heard. Here in the US, there is almost zero discourse in the public.
2.Offer alternatives in the marketplace (be the developer) - demand for typical suburbia only exists because there are no realistic and practical alternatives in the same price range. If we build better stuff at the same price people will buy it. It can be done with high quality design and inexpensive materials.
Why'd you want to 'fix' suburbs? They are douchebag magnets. Burbs keep cities fun (Sun-Thur) like a mosquito repellent . The only knock is these people vote. A better time waster would be figuring out a point system that makes someone eligible to cast a vote. For instance, you get a point for knowing at least two people of different ethnicities/races for more than 5 years.
Isolation is what makes burb ideologues such dangerous creatures.
Rusty, I disagree. People forget that not all suburbs are white middle class gated communities. Ever been to wyandanch NY or cambria heights NY or flint MI or compton CA. Some suburban areas are very diverse and some have much greater poverty and crime than urban areas. I want to "fix" suburbs because they are a huge part of the built environment and the most unsustainable part of it. Just focusing on cities is not enough if we really want to make a more sustainable built environment.
I'm detecting a whole lot of the "is what it is" defeatism out there.
The fact is that the 50s & the 60s was a time of global urban planning holocaust, and its only a matter of having the social and political will to fight towards reversing most of those poorly-conceived policies & plans. Refer to Emily Talen's book "City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form". The 70s produced bountiful cultural criticism and offered great inspiration for alternative ways forward (ex. Alexander, Schumacher, Sale), but then came the 80s which somehow plowed all that under.
jla-x, increasing awareness, combined with tactical action and activism, is critical to changing attitudes and building 'social capital'. Activism is a real calling. One year of activism could be worth 50 years (or 500) of 9-5 office work.
I have to recommend Kirkpatrick Sale's epic tome "Human Scale". It will get you thinking differently about things. Also, look to Jan Gehl for a refreshing contemporary take.
Did we learn our lesson?
Most of the non-architect people that I know just don't see why standard suburbia is a problem. Smart people with professional degrees and they just don't get it. When I point things out to them they usually come around, so there is hope.
Back in the day, the general public was unaware of the impact of deforestation, extinction, etc...But organizations like the WWF and the Sierra Club brought those issues into the public debate. Now, most people support conservation efforts. They get why it is important. They understand what we need to do.
My question is how we can better educate the public on issues surrounding urbanism, sustainability, and architecture.
The AIA has done nothing. I think that it is time to start some kind architectural equivelent to sierra club, or wwf? An organization that educates the public on issues of sustainable development, architecture and urbanization.
We need to talk to the public in english. We need to create a platform and an alliance with political and social power so we can fight the KB developers or engage them to create better places for the future. Now is the time.
What would we do?
-go to schools and give presentaions
-increase public awareness so that they will fight the walmart that is replacing local business.
-raise money for community projects like urban farming
-lobby to ease laws preventing vendors (that can offer a healthy alternative to Mcdonalds crap)
-lobby state and federal govt. to adopt more sustainable urban policies
-support the conservation of important structures
-etc.
???
I just thought of this, and haven't really worked out the details, so please don't call me an idiot. If anyone is interested in doing something like this respond.
The "core-crashed donut" model of suburban sprawl is being driven by socio-political forces that seem to be unique to western-style democracies. In contrast, Singapore or Shanghai are large, dense, centralized, orderly, and generally safe.
The central urban cores of most major American cities began a long decline into barbarism many decades ago. So long as that barbarism persists and spreads, anybody with the means to escape it toward the periphery will do so. They are voting with their feet (well, tires mostly), and the plebiscite is a rejection of most of what we have allowed our cities to become.
That's the structural problem you have to overcome if you want to reverse suburban sprawl. Not developer decision-making (they simply build where they can sell). Not homebuyer "ignorance" (they are being very rational in their choice about this - they want to live where they can afford to be safe). To really fix suburban sprawl in America, you need to re-civilize the urban cores. Right now, that's politically impossible, so no amount of public awareness is going to fix the problem.
On the other hand, the technological factors that allowed the sprawl to expand as fast as it did are changing. High gas prices are turning exurbs into ghost towns. But they're also forcing businesses to relocate closer to their employees and customers.
It's not just about density. Low density can be made more sustainable. Urban cores are becoming more and more gentrified and most people just can't afford to live in the city. I think the opposite of what you claim is happening. Suburbia is becoming the new landscape of the poor.
Anyway, I am talking about a more general public awareness campain on many different fronts. Not necessarily with any specific or single agenda. Yeah may just result in a protest, but at least it will get these issues out of the ivory tower and into the barber shop. I am talking about the equivilent of, say the sierra club organising a protest against a new fracking site. Simple stuff to ruffle the feathers of power geared more towards issues surrounding architecture, urbanization....
maybe it's a dumb idea, just throwing it out there.
Definitely a dumb idea. Talk about a waste of resources. Why don't you do something productive? Pick one of those topics you don't like and offer an alternative. Walk the talk so to say instead of just telling other people how wrong they are.
As much as you don't like it, Walmart is huge because they are cheap... and lots of people like cheap. Go ahead and start a new box store that is everything walmart is and includes your principles. You can call it Enviro-mart!
Definitely a dumb idea. Talk about a waste of resources. Why don't you do something productive?
Engaging the public is a dumb idea?
I just feel that these issues we argue about on the internets and in the university rarely make it into the public discourse. If there was a backlash from the public, maybe some political pressure would push developers in a better direction.
Maybe the architect of the future will be engaged in shaping the public will rather than just accepting that "architecture is the will of the epoch."
Maybe architects can be more than just people who build stuff, and become activists for the people and advocates for better communities and cities.
Also, I do think that being the developer is the best solution. Introduce choice and out compete the competition. I am all for that, but I also think that the discourse needs to become more public and less archi-babble self-fulfilling BS.
I recently hung out in a conservative christian community. They seemed pretty convinced that dense urban cities make people turn gay and do strange/unnatural/immoral things. They referenced a book from the 60's called "The Human Zoo"
Sadly, this viewpoint is largely outdated, given the malleability of human evolution.
Nevertheless, I'm sure it's believed in some circles.
I don't think you can really get rid of the suburbs, but you can redesign them.
Have you actually read "The Human Zoo?" It's worth a look if you haven't. Morris' previous book, "The Naked Ape" is also pretty good.
jla-x, it's easy to have ideals and dreams of a better urban society, but the working out of the details is where things get tough. The biggest hurdle is that, in America at least, part of the dream is to own property. I never really bought into that dream, but most people still want to own a house with land. There is an appeal to picking a neighborhood that fits your lifestyle and to living in lower density. Yes it creates sprawl and terrible traffic problems, but the opposite of living in a concrete canyon doesn't appeal much to anyone.
So what I think you are trying to say is that we need to design our cities better. Well that's easy to say but really hard to do. How do you come up with a plan (with the details) that works, and then even harder is to get people to agree with your plan. How do you pay for this plan, we already complain about taxes.
So someone has to own these big buildings, and then we rent from those owners. In Dallas at least it can get pretty expensive to rent in some of these revitalized urban areas. We can't really expect the government to build these buildings and give us rooms for cheap. That's just not going to happen in this lifetime.
So these ideas that you talk about have been around awhile, we talked about the same things 30 years ago when I was in school, they were probably talked about 60 years ago when my parents were in school. Some things have been done to improve some urban areas. In Dallas we have lots of money to do these things, but what do you do about Detroit? These projects are centered around lots of money with a plan to make the owners of the property even more money. It's not a matter whether you like capitalism or not, it's just a reality.
I am not trying to bust your bubble jla-x, I more or less agree with you, it's good to discuss these things. What we really need is the plan and the details of how to make it work. That is going to take big changes to society and tons of money and hard work. Even then there are people that still want a house with a yard regardless.
gwharton,
Actually I'm in the middle of reading "the human zoo."
It's really enjoyable so far.
But I have qualms about how it was interpreted by the community I was just in.
"Naked Ape" is definitely next, cheers.
JsBach, I am not talking about getting rid of the suburbs. I understand that they are not going anywhere, and that is why I want to engage them and improve them. Some suburbs are better than others by far. Some are actually pretty decent places. I am talking about improving suburbia to make it more sustainable, economically empowering, and enriching. I am talking about really simple no brainer solutions like proper solar orientation for new developments, rainwater harvesting, informal markets (lifting bans on street food and urban farming) Better built suburban homes like The Norris house instead of those horrible KB homes. It can be done. The technology is there, and these are things that can actually save money. I don't count on the govt. doing a damn thing which is why I think that it is time we begin to engage and educate the public. Without demand these things will never happen.
Demand/change can be generated in 2 ways. We need both!
1. grassroots activism (educate the public) - most people feel that something is missing but don't understand what the possibilities are. We need to educate people and give them the tools to argue for or against urban/architectural issues. Ex: in spain it is not uncommon to hear people talking about architecture and articulating arguments and critique over projects. People fight developments that destroy their communities. They understand the cost of bad poorly designed development, and they make their voices heard. Here in the US, there is almost zero discourse in the public.
2.Offer alternatives in the marketplace (be the developer) - demand for typical suburbia only exists because there are no realistic and practical alternatives in the same price range. If we build better stuff at the same price people will buy it. It can be done with high quality design and inexpensive materials.
Why'd you want to 'fix' suburbs? They are douchebag magnets. Burbs keep cities fun (Sun-Thur) like a mosquito repellent . The only knock is these people vote. A better time waster would be figuring out a point system that makes someone eligible to cast a vote. For instance, you get a point for knowing at least two people of different ethnicities/races for more than 5 years.
Isolation is what makes burb ideologues such dangerous creatures.
Rusty, I disagree. People forget that not all suburbs are white middle class gated communities. Ever been to wyandanch NY or cambria heights NY or flint MI or compton CA. Some suburban areas are very diverse and some have much greater poverty and crime than urban areas. I want to "fix" suburbs because they are a huge part of the built environment and the most unsustainable part of it. Just focusing on cities is not enough if we really want to make a more sustainable built environment.
http://gawker.com/5535293/suburbs-the-new-slums
I'm detecting a whole lot of the "is what it is" defeatism out there.
The fact is that the 50s & the 60s was a time of global urban planning holocaust, and its only a matter of having the social and political will to fight towards reversing most of those poorly-conceived policies & plans. Refer to Emily Talen's book "City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form". The 70s produced bountiful cultural criticism and offered great inspiration for alternative ways forward (ex. Alexander, Schumacher, Sale), but then came the 80s which somehow plowed all that under.
When the 50s & 60s threatened the Dutch way of life, they fought back with a decade-long campaign for the well-being of people in opposition to automobile-centric planning. http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/.
jla-x, increasing awareness, combined with tactical action and activism, is critical to changing attitudes and building 'social capital'. Activism is a real calling. One year of activism could be worth 50 years (or 500) of 9-5 office work.
I have to recommend Kirkpatrick Sale's epic tome "Human Scale". It will get you thinking differently about things. Also, look to Jan Gehl for a refreshing contemporary take.
Activism for the sake of activism? Some activists are really just trying to call attention to themselves, it's a good way to meet girls:)
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.