His style is a bit crude and abrasive for my taste, but he makes some good points about the sad state of our suburban landscape and the case for mixed-use development in America.
i read a bunch of his stuff last year for a class i took called the urban crisis. i think he does a good job pointing out problems, but i find his apocalyptic predictions of the future to be pretty unreasonable.
I am currently reading his Geography of Nowhere, I think it is great so far but have not had time to process it yet.
I hate when only pessimism is supplied though, we need to be able to look forward. Maybe he is giving us the bad news and is taunting us to design the good news.
ahh, yes kunstler. i think he is something with an adept mind, but no creativity or interest in it. in the end his solution to suburbia is, well suburbia. he just wishes they tried a little harder to build it better. hence why he's so damn pessimistic. if you can't propose any solution to a problem except more of the same, well....you'd get pretty miserable as well.
i've had a few email exchanges with him in the past. he's quite approachable. but impossible to actually converse with.
I emailed him a few years ago because I was impressed with his writing. I asked him what he thought the solutions to the problems he points out were.
His response (which, dammit, I can't find) was a classic. He essentially said "fuck you, you architect. You're automatically a part of the problem. If you can't figure out solutions, then pick a new career. I'm not here to solve your problems for you."
I've emailed him a bit about an article he wrote a few years ago. We exchanged daily emails for about a week or so.
I felt many of his arguements through our email exchange were simply rooted in his dislike for modern architecture. I tried to expain that one can still embrace a successful built environment that works in human scale while designing in a non-traditional or neo-classical manner. He essentially wanted nothing to do with any form of modernity because it is always. without a doubt, a 'cold and sterile environment.'
he's living in the past. he basically wants us to throw up our hands in the face of environmental, demographic, and economic challenges and go back to living much the way we did in the late 1800's (ignoring all the nasty stuff that was happening back then too). he seems to be waiting in eager anticipation of the last oil well drying up which he seems to think will suddenly cause us all to turn our backs on 100+ years of technological advancement, demographic shifts, and geopolitical changes.
PETA is a good analogy. I was going to compare him to Ann Coulter, but I figured that would be a bit harsh since she's seriously lacking in the valid points department.
This is a 5-part video series Kunstler did a short while back that I found interesting. He's definitely an extreme cynical thinker - but I find his perspective interesting to think about - whether or not I agree w/ everything he says. I also think his writing is quite entertaining - which is more than I can say for a lot of books that might address the same issues.
He may be an alarmist, but I think that his points are certainly valid. Though not especially well-written, I really enjoyed reading "The Long Emergency", and look forward to reading more of his books. I agree wholeheardtedly with Quillian that he may be challenging our perceptions and encouraging change, no matter how shrill his voice may be.
With the fractured Detroit Metropolitan area as my future home and site of study/work for the next two years, his ideas seem relavant to the (sub)urban conditions there. Did anyone read the article on Detroit in the July issue of Harper's magazine? Some of Kunstler's ideas might not be so far off the mark.
kunstler is a competent writer and good at manipulation information to make points he would like to get across...but he is not honest, and he is often misinformed, willfully and willingly. His opinion often gets in the way of intelligent analysis and his opinion often gets in the way of proper discussion...his opinion has a life of its own. which is a pity cuz he could be quite persuasive if i didn't know better.
i have all of his books, as well as the major works by all the new urbanists and other urban theorists (i don't include him in their midst). so i have had ample opportunity to compare his opinion with research and factual information by actual experts. it is clear to me that he tends to pick, choose, and abuse information as he sees fit. it is interesting for example that he will see corbusier as evil but simultaneoulsy insist that hauffman and napoleon were genius servants of their nation...
on other hand he does have a number of valid points. and i would suggest anyone interested in suburbia read his work, just to get a feel for the major (negative) issues involved...as long as he is taken with big grain of salt he is a useful source of info.
Kunstler lives in Sarasota Springs, NY, although I have heard him use Mpls as an example of sprawl several times. I love his "Eyesore of the Month" and find his humor often good, even when sometimes I enjoy the designs he's bashing.
While he is pessimistic and doesn't provide solutions to "suburbia" I don't feel he needs to. He's a writer and not an architect/planner. We're the professionals.
He is a fan of platter-zyberk and the new urbanism like Seaside, FL, which I'm skeptical about. I do agree that zoning laws are mostly stupid and mixed use and higher density is desireable. All things he does celebrate.
What I think the guy is most valuable for is trying to get publicity to the fact of peak oil and what it means for America. While I don't have a crystal ball as to when oil will run out, I have no doubt it someday will. When that happens Kunstler is right that suburbia will be largely worthless.
I think a lot of his pessimism comes from the fact that Washington is asleep at the wheel. He's a critic of Cheney and his famous line about our way of life being "non-negotiable" which I applaud him for. But I also like how he rails on the democrats for being equally worthless. He's right that nobody in politics wants a change in how things are, suburbia, energy use, etc. I completely understand how it's hard to be optimitic.
i'm a fan of kunstler (much to the chagrin of some of my friends) but other than his dislike of modern architecture i don't really have any problems with most of what he says. granted i also feel that he tends to only focus on a nearly worst-case scenario of the consequences of reduced oil supply, but that scenario is not necessarily as far-fetched as we sometimes think it is.
it's easy to forget how tenuous modern civilization can be. the flooding of new orleans should be a lesson in just how quickly things can turn upside down. new york city survived a couple of days of electricity black out back in the summer of 2003, but what if that had lasted a week or longer? how ugly might it have gotten in that city? so with that in mind, kunstler's assessment that if you take cheap oil out of the equation then american life becomes very difficult to maintain seems pretty reasonable to me. and although he hasn't done much in the manner of offering "solutions" to the predicament of peak oil, he has repeatedly suggested that we invest as much as in trains and railroad infrastructure as we currently do in our auto-centric lifestyle and landscape...regardless, of the peak-oil argument, i wholeheartedly agree with diversifying transportation options in america.
The guy is a jackass and somehow manages to criticize folks for being elitist while remaining entirely condescending to anyone who talks to him. Regrettably, I'm sympathetic to many of his arguments, but feel that he actually does a disservice to those who promote responsible land use by employing unverifiable (or just false) anecdotes and evidence in his writings. There was an infamous exchange with a blogger a few years ago after he characterized the Alsop building in Toronto as "avant-garde faggotry". Tragically stupid and not isolated. He regularly says things that could easily come from someone's racist grandparent only to accuse anyone who questions his language as being some sort of PC member of the thought police. All in all, I think the world would be better without him.
i think he's comparable in many ways to the early 20th century manifestos of architecture--a bit too quick and closed in their conclusions, but good for recognizing problems and as a springboard to the next level. i think his strength is in identifying and explaining the problem, and even though he does so with the worst-case scenario and maybe not the best solutions in mind, in a way his radicalism serves a purpose in providing a point from which to craft a more nuanced (and realistic) set of solutions.
As someone who has worked on several public school buildings I laugh everytime he calls out the design of school buildings, comparing them to prisions. Mostly because he's right. I've leterally had a principal request a central office with sightlines down "every corridor to see what's happening." Yes warden.
I also like how he looks at design from the pedestrian perspective. I laugh when he editorializes that only a "wino" would sit there.
And on this one I cannot completely disagree with him. In my book context counts and that quote from the architect is what I more kindly refer to "talkatecture bullshit." I'm guessing 99% of archinectors could never get away with a line like that with real world clients.
aqua, I agree to some extent but I think this is a pretty good assessment: the architects developed a building design that embodies a contemporary interpretation of the rock outcroppings from that quote. And this is my real problem with Mr. Kunstler or other academics who know little about architecture but speak on it with a sort of authority: In other words, forget about urbanism, forget about the civic relations between a monumental building and the context of the city, forget about urban landscape typology. The existing building was not part of the urban landscape typology, it maintains (and enhances, I'd argue) the "civic relations between a monumental building and the context of the city" and he wouldn't be opposed to it if it followed the same bulky, gaudy, neoclassical bullshit of the original building. His point about feminism is interesting, but misplaced I think. What is more feminine about new urbanism? Futhermore, the new building is certainly no less feminine than the existing, and perhaps more so w/ it's large opening (to borrow directly from what he says is lacking) and the smoothness of the facade, but I think in reducing feminine/masculine simply to aesthetics is missing the point a bit. Again, he has a simplistic conclusion good only for jumping off of, but not good for a semi-nuanced critique of modern architecture, which he is attempting. I think he should save his critique for planning, social theory, urbanism, etc, which I think he has some authority on and can make valid points to, and not aesthetics and design theory.
FrankLloydMike - good points, and I'll admit that wasn't the best example of Kunstler's criticism of modern architecture. Often I don't agree with him on his criticism of modern architecture since I think there are a myriad of fine examples out there. However, I do feel it often is plopped down into the wrong context. It works in a steel and glass downtown context, but next to a neo-classical building or into a neighborhood of victorian houses? I disgaree with that, but it's just my POV. I certinally don't look to Kunstler to make design decisions. That's for sure.
no, i think you're right and i think those ar e valid points, but the way he makes them or the ones he makes aren't the best. i also agree with a lot of his criticisms on there.
spending a good 15 (formative) years in Irvine, I have enormous disdain for the 'burbs as I know what it's like to live in a place "...not worth caring about". To worsen matters, now I live in the San Fernando Valley- home of the single-story strip mall. I agree with virtually everything Kunstler says and, though I'd like it if he offered solutions, he is a critic. Like Michael Moore, they are both brilliantly and succinctly point out travesties, but it's up to us to find solutions. His contempt for modernity makes me wonder if he thinks the only solution is to go back to the organization of Parisian arrondissements, or can solutions be found within contemporary theories and architecture.
they are not legitimate. ive spent the last 4 years tudying the topic and have changed my mind about him. i have all his books and thought they had valid points, but am now convinced kunstler is a babbling moron who needs to move aside so people who actually care can address the problem. he is merely narcisist. don't even bother reading his stuff. end of suburbia is so full of holes it is a joke.
read a 1000 barrels a second for legitimate view of hubbert's peak. he is more positive than kunstler but there is not doubt our energy use patterns are going to be changing in near future. how that will affect the way we live is anyone's guess but i am guessing we will not be going back to the future nor that suburbia will end. more likely it will evolve. that is what usually happens with cities.
The notion that the end of oil = the end of suburbia i feel is too short sighted. Electric cars, fuel cells, and renewable energy will ensure cities continue to grow wider and wider.
side note on the link aquapura presented above... I can't stand it when someone simply equates 'curves' with 'feminine.' That's so ridiculous. A curve is inherently 'feminine'? If I put curves in my building--regardless of any other context (who designed it, who built it, who paid the money for it -- probably all male; who will inhabit it and make decisions about how it gets used -- probably mostly male; who built the context it sits in -- male) it is then suddenly feminine? That's complete bullshit.
Otherwise I find him along the lines of Michael Moore... interesting and useful in the sense that he gets people to think--mostly because we can all immediately spot the holes in his arguments, and then we discuss them, and probably end up thinking critically about something we wouldn't have thought of in the first place. So, I don't want him to disappear--I like that he exists, like Michael Moore. Also, his lecture was one of the most entertaining I've ever seen, and there's some value to being entertained!
his greenwich, ny kmart makes me very sad. for me it really captures the end of an era, an era i grew up in. i took many trips to a kmart like that. i never found it particularly beautiful, or even ever thought that much about it at all, but it becomes a part of you, and when it's gone, it feels like you've lost a part of yourself.
Kunstler is like Michael Moore, hmm, I'll have to think about that one for a while.
I agree that Kunstler is alarmist, but on topics that the general public does not see as a concern. So in essence he comes across as a kook, while my belief is that he's probably more legitimate than most.
Michael Moore is much better at playing to peoples emotions on hot button topics that the general public does have concerns over, health care, Iraq, etc. Still think he's an "activist" only for the $$$. Not saying that Kunstler hasn't profited from his pet topics either, just MM has made a lot more cash at it.
Problem is, if Kunstler is right, all of Michael Moore's pet issues are irrelevant. If Kunstler is wrong, Michael Moore's issues are still just the latest fad topic of discussion, nothing more.
the problems of environmental degredation, of peak oil, of sustainability (social/physical, etc) are all discussed by other people who actually place those ideas at the top of their respective lists.
i would suggest that for kunstler the agenda is ultimately about aesthetics and a fervent wish that someone would make him into haussman, so he could dictate the correct version of the world to everyone. the rest of his schpeel is just a vehicle. i think if he didn't write another word the world could perhaps hae a better chance cuz we could all focus a bit on the actual problems.
ie, the problem is energy use, negative externalities, etc. lets solve those issues, and put aside the principle of the porch and sidewalks and the automobile for another day. the connection is not a real one...
if the problems really are part of a long emergency then we should prioritise. to me that means fucking eyesore of the week might be more useful if it were replaced with a blog about how he has helped the environemt this week, or something kool someone did somewhere to help make the world a better place. lets face it the guy just wants to hate and conflate. the latter is much more the worse crime, in my book.
If Kunstler is right about the end of fossil fuel energy.
I don't think his agenda is directly about aesthetics, but more about the way car-centric culture has affected the way we live.
I think he believes if we didn't have the automobile we wouldn't have drive-thru fast food or big box retail. He sees the car as the cause of bad architecture. That's where I disagree with him...but dont't disagree with some bad land planning that was developed around the automobile.
But, Kunstler talks about a future where gasoline is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain. Where the electrical grid is sporadic at best. International or even interstate trade is crippled. So on and so forth.
Not sure I buy his "end of the world" vision, but, if that comes true my point was nobody is going to give a shit about Michael Moore harping on the US healthcare system or gun control. As for Iraq, I think most Americans will want to give the president free reign to do whatever just to bring back the normalcy we now have, including stealing Iraq's oil. Thus, I don't see MM and JHK similar at all.
The guy makes me think of the old joke about the hypochondriac putting on his tombstone "I told you I was sick!"
It has been a while since I read "the Geography of Nowhere" but he seems to aim his vitriol more at architects than at developers or planners, who have more control over what he hates. His eyesore of the week is always a building, when he gets around to talk about planning and development, he goes right back to how the buildings are ugly. Almost as if he believes that if the buildings were prettier (more curves = more feminine = more sustainable?) this problem would sort itself out, or something.
I agree with Janosh who pointed out that while he calls all the architects and planners out there - you know, doing their job - elitist, he feels perfectly fine telling everybody else how to do their job. You want to make a difference in the world addicted to oil and you know better than everybody else (especially all those elitist bastards who think they're so smart) then run for office, or at least get on your local zoning board where you can actually put your ideas into practice (and witness first hand how your cherry-picking books do in the real world.) Until then I will look at you as a crank, and not a particularly lovable or entertaining one.
personally, I don't read kunstler's indictment of architects as an aesthetic issue at all. i think his primary concern is behavior and the way in which architecture/planning impacts behavoir. When he references the end of suburbia it's not so much an architectural typology that he is saying is doomed but the lifestyle of those living in a suburban mindset that will end.
and in a world of increasing competition for finite resources the energy issue is a very real fact of life that is already seriously eroding the premise of cheap energy that the suburban minset was built upon. i don't think that he has ever claimed the end of the world (except maybe that whole y2k thing...oops!) but the argument that hardship will become an increasing part of daily life for most people does seem to already be playing out.
but the hardship is not a result of the city planning. that is where his faith is overcoming his willingness to test it.
look, i live in a city with 33 million people, very dense, trians up the wazoo, walkable like nobodies business, and this is not any more sustainable than atlanta. the problems are not ones of form.
a study was done last year by a swiss planner/researcher, i can't find it just now, but basically he showed how reduce energy use in suburbs was accomplishd simply by designing the buildings better, with better orientation, insulation, etc etc etc. throw in some go-generation, local waste-management with living systems, wind power, etc, and it turns out that suburbia is not only as sustainable in physical terms it is also without the very serious negative externalities which keep people away from city centres to begin with. thing is there is no right way to deal with the world we live in, and picking one out mostly because of nostalgia is not a serious way to deal with the real issues at hand.
and to be honest, even at todays high energy costs and use we are not going to suddenly run out of fuel. check out tertzakians's website for a realistic picture of what will likely happen. the guy is an optimist but even he says we are going to have to come to terms with a non-oil based energy world...but the tone is very different and more realistic than the clusterfuck man.
the future may involve hardship. it may also involve opportunity. me, i think this is our time to show how to make cities more liveable, not wail and gnash about our doom.
Apr 7, 08 9:23 pm ·
·
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.
James Howard Kunstler: The Tragedy of Suburbia
What does everyone think of his urban design theories/rantings?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121
His style is a bit crude and abrasive for my taste, but he makes some good points about the sad state of our suburban landscape and the case for mixed-use development in America.
i read a bunch of his stuff last year for a class i took called the urban crisis. i think he does a good job pointing out problems, but i find his apocalyptic predictions of the future to be pretty unreasonable.
I am currently reading his Geography of Nowhere, I think it is great so far but have not had time to process it yet.
I hate when only pessimism is supplied though, we need to be able to look forward. Maybe he is giving us the bad news and is taunting us to design the good news.
not everything has to have an 'active impermeable membrane'. so when he says:
Example A=good
Example B=bad because it's not A
makes me think that he just doesn't get it...
i heard that wrong...he meant "active and permeable membrane"...which makes more sense
ahh, yes kunstler. i think he is something with an adept mind, but no creativity or interest in it. in the end his solution to suburbia is, well suburbia. he just wishes they tried a little harder to build it better. hence why he's so damn pessimistic. if you can't propose any solution to a problem except more of the same, well....you'd get pretty miserable as well.
i've had a few email exchanges with him in the past. he's quite approachable. but impossible to actually converse with.
I emailed him a few years ago because I was impressed with his writing. I asked him what he thought the solutions to the problems he points out were.
His response (which, dammit, I can't find) was a classic. He essentially said "fuck you, you architect. You're automatically a part of the problem. If you can't figure out solutions, then pick a new career. I'm not here to solve your problems for you."
I've emailed him a bit about an article he wrote a few years ago. We exchanged daily emails for about a week or so.
I felt many of his arguements through our email exchange were simply rooted in his dislike for modern architecture. I tried to expain that one can still embrace a successful built environment that works in human scale while designing in a non-traditional or neo-classical manner. He essentially wanted nothing to do with any form of modernity because it is always. without a doubt, a 'cold and sterile environment.'
he's living in the past. he basically wants us to throw up our hands in the face of environmental, demographic, and economic challenges and go back to living much the way we did in the late 1800's (ignoring all the nasty stuff that was happening back then too). he seems to be waiting in eager anticipation of the last oil well drying up which he seems to think will suddenly cause us all to turn our backs on 100+ years of technological advancement, demographic shifts, and geopolitical changes.
He is to cities what PETA is to animals: some valid points too often drowned out by religious zeal and staunch refusal to discuss nuance.
PETA is a good analogy. I was going to compare him to Ann Coulter, but I figured that would be a bit harsh since she's seriously lacking in the valid points department.
This is a 5-part video series Kunstler did a short while back that I found interesting. He's definitely an extreme cynical thinker - but I find his perspective interesting to think about - whether or not I agree w/ everything he says. I also think his writing is quite entertaining - which is more than I can say for a lot of books that might address the same issues.
He may be an alarmist, but I think that his points are certainly valid. Though not especially well-written, I really enjoyed reading "The Long Emergency", and look forward to reading more of his books. I agree wholeheardtedly with Quillian that he may be challenging our perceptions and encouraging change, no matter how shrill his voice may be.
With the fractured Detroit Metropolitan area as my future home and site of study/work for the next two years, his ideas seem relavant to the (sub)urban conditions there. Did anyone read the article on Detroit in the July issue of Harper's magazine? Some of Kunstler's ideas might not be so far off the mark.
i've always been along the lines of a sarcastic arschlauch like kunstler...
thanks to him i ended up using the word abortion instead of clusterfuck, gets a lot of stares, but i enjoy devaluing the word the right loves to hate.
Oops. I meant *relevant*. My spelling falls apart both late and night and early in the morning.
kunstler is a competent writer and good at manipulation information to make points he would like to get across...but he is not honest, and he is often misinformed, willfully and willingly. His opinion often gets in the way of intelligent analysis and his opinion often gets in the way of proper discussion...his opinion has a life of its own. which is a pity cuz he could be quite persuasive if i didn't know better.
i have all of his books, as well as the major works by all the new urbanists and other urban theorists (i don't include him in their midst). so i have had ample opportunity to compare his opinion with research and factual information by actual experts. it is clear to me that he tends to pick, choose, and abuse information as he sees fit. it is interesting for example that he will see corbusier as evil but simultaneoulsy insist that hauffman and napoleon were genius servants of their nation...
on other hand he does have a number of valid points. and i would suggest anyone interested in suburbia read his work, just to get a feel for the major (negative) issues involved...as long as he is taken with big grain of salt he is a useful source of info.
Where does Kunstler live? Minneapolis?
Kunstler lives in Sarasota Springs, NY, although I have heard him use Mpls as an example of sprawl several times. I love his "Eyesore of the Month" and find his humor often good, even when sometimes I enjoy the designs he's bashing.
While he is pessimistic and doesn't provide solutions to "suburbia" I don't feel he needs to. He's a writer and not an architect/planner. We're the professionals.
He is a fan of platter-zyberk and the new urbanism like Seaside, FL, which I'm skeptical about. I do agree that zoning laws are mostly stupid and mixed use and higher density is desireable. All things he does celebrate.
What I think the guy is most valuable for is trying to get publicity to the fact of peak oil and what it means for America. While I don't have a crystal ball as to when oil will run out, I have no doubt it someday will. When that happens Kunstler is right that suburbia will be largely worthless.
I think a lot of his pessimism comes from the fact that Washington is asleep at the wheel. He's a critic of Cheney and his famous line about our way of life being "non-negotiable" which I applaud him for. But I also like how he rails on the democrats for being equally worthless. He's right that nobody in politics wants a change in how things are, suburbia, energy use, etc. I completely understand how it's hard to be optimitic.
i'm a fan of kunstler (much to the chagrin of some of my friends) but other than his dislike of modern architecture i don't really have any problems with most of what he says. granted i also feel that he tends to only focus on a nearly worst-case scenario of the consequences of reduced oil supply, but that scenario is not necessarily as far-fetched as we sometimes think it is.
it's easy to forget how tenuous modern civilization can be. the flooding of new orleans should be a lesson in just how quickly things can turn upside down. new york city survived a couple of days of electricity black out back in the summer of 2003, but what if that had lasted a week or longer? how ugly might it have gotten in that city? so with that in mind, kunstler's assessment that if you take cheap oil out of the equation then american life becomes very difficult to maintain seems pretty reasonable to me. and although he hasn't done much in the manner of offering "solutions" to the predicament of peak oil, he has repeatedly suggested that we invest as much as in trains and railroad infrastructure as we currently do in our auto-centric lifestyle and landscape...regardless, of the peak-oil argument, i wholeheartedly agree with diversifying transportation options in america.
The guy is a jackass and somehow manages to criticize folks for being elitist while remaining entirely condescending to anyone who talks to him. Regrettably, I'm sympathetic to many of his arguments, but feel that he actually does a disservice to those who promote responsible land use by employing unverifiable (or just false) anecdotes and evidence in his writings. There was an infamous exchange with a blogger a few years ago after he characterized the Alsop building in Toronto as "avant-garde faggotry". Tragically stupid and not isolated. He regularly says things that could easily come from someone's racist grandparent only to accuse anyone who questions his language as being some sort of PC member of the thought police. All in all, I think the world would be better without him.
i think he's comparable in many ways to the early 20th century manifestos of architecture--a bit too quick and closed in their conclusions, but good for recognizing problems and as a springboard to the next level. i think his strength is in identifying and explaining the problem, and even though he does so with the worst-case scenario and maybe not the best solutions in mind, in a way his radicalism serves a purpose in providing a point from which to craft a more nuanced (and realistic) set of solutions.
i also really liked The End of Suburbia despite the tagline being a quote of his in which he says literally when he clearly meant figuratively
three years later and archinect continues to travel in circles
As someone who has worked on several public school buildings I laugh everytime he calls out the design of school buildings, comparing them to prisions. Mostly because he's right. I've leterally had a principal request a central office with sightlines down "every corridor to see what's happening." Yes warden.
I also like how he looks at design from the pedestrian perspective. I laugh when he editorializes that only a "wino" would sit there.
And on this one I cannot completely disagree with him. In my book context counts and that quote from the architect is what I more kindly refer to "talkatecture bullshit." I'm guessing 99% of archinectors could never get away with a line like that with real world clients.
aqua, I agree to some extent but I think this is a pretty good assessment: the architects developed a building design that embodies a contemporary interpretation of the rock outcroppings from that quote. And this is my real problem with Mr. Kunstler or other academics who know little about architecture but speak on it with a sort of authority: In other words, forget about urbanism, forget about the civic relations between a monumental building and the context of the city, forget about urban landscape typology. The existing building was not part of the urban landscape typology, it maintains (and enhances, I'd argue) the "civic relations between a monumental building and the context of the city" and he wouldn't be opposed to it if it followed the same bulky, gaudy, neoclassical bullshit of the original building. His point about feminism is interesting, but misplaced I think. What is more feminine about new urbanism? Futhermore, the new building is certainly no less feminine than the existing, and perhaps more so w/ it's large opening (to borrow directly from what he says is lacking) and the smoothness of the facade, but I think in reducing feminine/masculine simply to aesthetics is missing the point a bit. Again, he has a simplistic conclusion good only for jumping off of, but not good for a semi-nuanced critique of modern architecture, which he is attempting. I think he should save his critique for planning, social theory, urbanism, etc, which I think he has some authority on and can make valid points to, and not aesthetics and design theory.
FrankLloydMike - good points, and I'll admit that wasn't the best example of Kunstler's criticism of modern architecture. Often I don't agree with him on his criticism of modern architecture since I think there are a myriad of fine examples out there. However, I do feel it often is plopped down into the wrong context. It works in a steel and glass downtown context, but next to a neo-classical building or into a neighborhood of victorian houses? I disgaree with that, but it's just my POV. I certinally don't look to Kunstler to make design decisions. That's for sure.
no, i think you're right and i think those ar e valid points, but the way he makes them or the ones he makes aren't the best. i also agree with a lot of his criticisms on there.
random tangent alert:
anyone a fan of the showtime show weeds?
I just found a link to the music.
Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky-tacky, Little boxes, little boxes, Little boxes, all the same.
spending a good 15 (formative) years in Irvine, I have enormous disdain for the 'burbs as I know what it's like to live in a place "...not worth caring about". To worsen matters, now I live in the San Fernando Valley- home of the single-story strip mall. I agree with virtually everything Kunstler says and, though I'd like it if he offered solutions, he is a critic. Like Michael Moore, they are both brilliantly and succinctly point out travesties, but it's up to us to find solutions. His contempt for modernity makes me wonder if he thinks the only solution is to go back to the organization of Parisian arrondissements, or can solutions be found within contemporary theories and architecture.
Kunstler and Prince Charles. Made for each other.
I haven't read Kunstler's book yet but how does it compare to Suburban Nation?
>>
I had to revive this thread because I just found End of Suburbia on youtube. Anyone seen it?
I'm not a huge fan of Kunstler, but find some of his claims to be legitimate, albeit alarmist in delivery.
they are not legitimate. ive spent the last 4 years tudying the topic and have changed my mind about him. i have all his books and thought they had valid points, but am now convinced kunstler is a babbling moron who needs to move aside so people who actually care can address the problem. he is merely narcisist. don't even bother reading his stuff. end of suburbia is so full of holes it is a joke.
read a 1000 barrels a second for legitimate view of hubbert's peak. he is more positive than kunstler but there is not doubt our energy use patterns are going to be changing in near future. how that will affect the way we live is anyone's guess but i am guessing we will not be going back to the future nor that suburbia will end. more likely it will evolve. that is what usually happens with cities.
i just like his paintings
The notion that the end of oil = the end of suburbia i feel is too short sighted. Electric cars, fuel cells, and renewable energy will ensure cities continue to grow wider and wider.
side note on the link aquapura presented above... I can't stand it when someone simply equates 'curves' with 'feminine.' That's so ridiculous. A curve is inherently 'feminine'? If I put curves in my building--regardless of any other context (who designed it, who built it, who paid the money for it -- probably all male; who will inhabit it and make decisions about how it gets used -- probably mostly male; who built the context it sits in -- male) it is then suddenly feminine? That's complete bullshit.
Otherwise I find him along the lines of Michael Moore... interesting and useful in the sense that he gets people to think--mostly because we can all immediately spot the holes in his arguments, and then we discuss them, and probably end up thinking critically about something we wouldn't have thought of in the first place. So, I don't want him to disappear--I like that he exists, like Michael Moore. Also, his lecture was one of the most entertaining I've ever seen, and there's some value to being entertained!
Also, did I read correctly in the contributer tag of the latest Metropolis that he actually has a novel coming out?!
The paintings are actually great, almost makes me take him seriously. Almost.
in my experience kuntsler and michael moore have a tendency to make people stop thinking more than start
his greenwich, ny kmart makes me very sad. for me it really captures the end of an era, an era i grew up in. i took many trips to a kmart like that. i never found it particularly beautiful, or even ever thought that much about it at all, but it becomes a part of you, and when it's gone, it feels like you've lost a part of yourself.
Kunstler is like Michael Moore, hmm, I'll have to think about that one for a while.
I agree that Kunstler is alarmist, but on topics that the general public does not see as a concern. So in essence he comes across as a kook, while my belief is that he's probably more legitimate than most.
Michael Moore is much better at playing to peoples emotions on hot button topics that the general public does have concerns over, health care, Iraq, etc. Still think he's an "activist" only for the $$$. Not saying that Kunstler hasn't profited from his pet topics either, just MM has made a lot more cash at it.
Problem is, if Kunstler is right, all of Michael Moore's pet issues are irrelevant. If Kunstler is wrong, Michael Moore's issues are still just the latest fad topic of discussion, nothing more.
if kunstler is right about what?
the problems of environmental degredation, of peak oil, of sustainability (social/physical, etc) are all discussed by other people who actually place those ideas at the top of their respective lists.
i would suggest that for kunstler the agenda is ultimately about aesthetics and a fervent wish that someone would make him into haussman, so he could dictate the correct version of the world to everyone. the rest of his schpeel is just a vehicle. i think if he didn't write another word the world could perhaps hae a better chance cuz we could all focus a bit on the actual problems.
ie, the problem is energy use, negative externalities, etc. lets solve those issues, and put aside the principle of the porch and sidewalks and the automobile for another day. the connection is not a real one...
if the problems really are part of a long emergency then we should prioritise. to me that means fucking eyesore of the week might be more useful if it were replaced with a blog about how he has helped the environemt this week, or something kool someone did somewhere to help make the world a better place. lets face it the guy just wants to hate and conflate. the latter is much more the worse crime, in my book.
If Kunstler is right about the end of fossil fuel energy.
I don't think his agenda is directly about aesthetics, but more about the way car-centric culture has affected the way we live.
I think he believes if we didn't have the automobile we wouldn't have drive-thru fast food or big box retail. He sees the car as the cause of bad architecture. That's where I disagree with him...but dont't disagree with some bad land planning that was developed around the automobile.
But, Kunstler talks about a future where gasoline is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain. Where the electrical grid is sporadic at best. International or even interstate trade is crippled. So on and so forth.
Not sure I buy his "end of the world" vision, but, if that comes true my point was nobody is going to give a shit about Michael Moore harping on the US healthcare system or gun control. As for Iraq, I think most Americans will want to give the president free reign to do whatever just to bring back the normalcy we now have, including stealing Iraq's oil. Thus, I don't see MM and JHK similar at all.
The guy makes me think of the old joke about the hypochondriac putting on his tombstone "I told you I was sick!"
It has been a while since I read "the Geography of Nowhere" but he seems to aim his vitriol more at architects than at developers or planners, who have more control over what he hates. His eyesore of the week is always a building, when he gets around to talk about planning and development, he goes right back to how the buildings are ugly. Almost as if he believes that if the buildings were prettier (more curves = more feminine = more sustainable?) this problem would sort itself out, or something.
I agree with Janosh who pointed out that while he calls all the architects and planners out there - you know, doing their job - elitist, he feels perfectly fine telling everybody else how to do their job. You want to make a difference in the world addicted to oil and you know better than everybody else (especially all those elitist bastards who think they're so smart) then run for office, or at least get on your local zoning board where you can actually put your ideas into practice (and witness first hand how your cherry-picking books do in the real world.) Until then I will look at you as a crank, and not a particularly lovable or entertaining one.
personally, I don't read kunstler's indictment of architects as an aesthetic issue at all. i think his primary concern is behavior and the way in which architecture/planning impacts behavoir. When he references the end of suburbia it's not so much an architectural typology that he is saying is doomed but the lifestyle of those living in a suburban mindset that will end.
and in a world of increasing competition for finite resources the energy issue is a very real fact of life that is already seriously eroding the premise of cheap energy that the suburban minset was built upon. i don't think that he has ever claimed the end of the world (except maybe that whole y2k thing...oops!) but the argument that hardship will become an increasing part of daily life for most people does seem to already be playing out.
but the hardship is not a result of the city planning. that is where his faith is overcoming his willingness to test it.
look, i live in a city with 33 million people, very dense, trians up the wazoo, walkable like nobodies business, and this is not any more sustainable than atlanta. the problems are not ones of form.
a study was done last year by a swiss planner/researcher, i can't find it just now, but basically he showed how reduce energy use in suburbs was accomplishd simply by designing the buildings better, with better orientation, insulation, etc etc etc. throw in some go-generation, local waste-management with living systems, wind power, etc, and it turns out that suburbia is not only as sustainable in physical terms it is also without the very serious negative externalities which keep people away from city centres to begin with. thing is there is no right way to deal with the world we live in, and picking one out mostly because of nostalgia is not a serious way to deal with the real issues at hand.
and to be honest, even at todays high energy costs and use we are not going to suddenly run out of fuel. check out tertzakians's website for a realistic picture of what will likely happen. the guy is an optimist but even he says we are going to have to come to terms with a non-oil based energy world...but the tone is very different and more realistic than the clusterfuck man.
the future may involve hardship. it may also involve opportunity. me, i think this is our time to show how to make cities more liveable, not wail and gnash about our doom.
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.