Archinect
anchor

spreading like a virus...(discuss)

212
won and done williams

sans, the best way to fix that is to contribute something tasteful, pointed, and wasteless (?) as a parisian boulevard.

Aug 8, 07 10:41 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

rita aint time for a name change?

Aug 8, 07 10:47 am  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

not joking. please remember my context from before, that many suburbanites would be better off and better contibutors to society in a small city where they can raise their kids, find large affordable housing with big yards and garages... yet they pick the suburbs because they associate their burb with the city that it chokes and IT'S culture and advantages, when clearly it falls quite short. How many times do you hear of someone who is from Chicago (but not really, they are from Wheaton.) It is the amerikan mentality of having your cake and eating it too, but the cake isn't even good when you get it that way. Am I coming off totally crazy then?
When and if I make the choice to move out of the city, this is the reasoning I will use, and will find myself in the center of a small city, rather than the outskirts of a large one.

Aug 8, 07 10:59 am  · 
 · 

jafidler, I appreciate what you wrote too.

I'm not really looking for fixes of the suburbs/sprawl, rather I'm exploring it, learning from it, gradually coming to understand it and even enjoying it. It's a much different dynamic then what I've personally known and lived within for the last half century, and now that I live much closer to it, a lot of it I find refreshing.

vado, perhaps you should change your name to stale.

Aug 8, 07 11:00 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

if thats the best you've got you should really not get in my dish.

Aug 8, 07 11:05 am  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

I haven't heard any good arguments FOR the suburbs yet. Better schools, less violence, more house for your money... all those things occur in small cities too.

Aug 8, 07 11:09 am  · 
 · 

There really doesn't have to be any argument for the suburbs, they already have the power and the draw. For the most part that's the reality.

Aug 8, 07 11:13 am  · 
 · 

i'm interested in how this conversation could be shaken up so that it amounts to something other than the position vado took vs the position i took. is the pap the new urbanists have proposed the only new vision for suburban development that we have?

here in ky the same product that's been built for 15 years is still being built, despite the fact that the home builders assn has been advocating for different visions. the product is not market-driven (an argument i know would come up) because the builders/developers are building a LOT, eating up a lot of agricultural land, and in a much more speculative way, just deciding to deal with the fact that these vanilla boxes will sit on the market for a while. somehow that's still lucrative. seems even crap that noone wants will EVENTUALLY sell.

what can anybody offer that's different in the face of this advance/speculative overbuilding?

Aug 8, 07 11:13 am  · 
 · 

No one has yet mentioned the overwhelming desire for newness (parsed with a moderate-to-strong dislike/distrust of things old) which plays a key role most of modern societies choices. Sprawl offers that newness. Even small cities have to make themselves "new" to become attractive again.

Aug 8, 07 11:20 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

*this is not my personal position, just playing devil's advocate. personally i don't like cities or suburbs very much.

Aug 8, 07 11:20 am  · 
 · 
Philarch

Desire for newness and dislike/distrust of things old? I don't think most people care about whether its new or not - (personally I like the old). Doesn't it really boil down to the quantifiable ownership one has - 2000 SF, 2 acres of lawn, 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms - vs. the price?

Aug 8, 07 11:35 am  · 
 · 
won and done williams

aw, shucks, sans.

Aug 8, 07 11:36 am  · 
 · 

that would explain why real estate agents pretty much work by reeling off an inventory of stuff.

Aug 8, 07 11:36 am  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

I don't like stuff. I really don't. I don't like managing the stuff. I only have what I need. My life is uber simple.

I've been arguing with my brother, the bachelor, who is searching for a house. Everytime he sends me a property he is interested in, I challenge him, ask why he "needs" a 4 bedroom 3 bath house with a 3 car garage on 2 acres? He sleeps on an air mattress and owns 3 towels, plus he travels 1/2 the week for his job.

Does his realtor have something to do with it?

Aug 8, 07 12:02 pm  · 
 · 

[googled "redesigning newness" and received no results]

Redesigning Newness: Architecture's Search for an Answer to Sprawl





Philarch, 2 acres of lawn? I think you'll find that those two acres (from years ago) are being subdivided these days. I lived in a house (for 48 years) that hadn't changed much in 70 years. As far as I could tell, I was prety much a small minority.

Aug 8, 07 12:03 pm  · 
 · 

I wouldn't confuse the issue by right away associating 'newness' with 'stuff'. Concentrate on the newness factor, whether it's a brand new home or a renewed central business district, and start to imagine how newness can be somehow packaged differently.

Aug 8, 07 12:11 pm  · 
 · 
Philarch

Actually the 2 acres was just a random figure to represent it being quantified. My parents own 30 acres of land, but it has been deemed a part of the "green belt" by the state so no development on that land. Although the financial value decreased (severely), there is value there that isn't quantifiable by any means. That was really my point. About it being a "quantifiable" ownership. I've said it before, how do you own something that is going to last longer than you?

Aug 8, 07 12:14 pm  · 
 · 

All ownership is quantifiable, and yes that means it's all a business. That's a given that really can't be ignored or ideologically brushed aside when it comes to trying to figure out what to do ablout sprawl.

Aug 8, 07 12:21 pm  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

the new becomes old, so we make more new, which is stuff.

Aug 8, 07 12:23 pm  · 
 · 

come on, everything is 'stuff' be it old or new. If you really want to discuss 'stuff' look at the operation of 'planned obsolescence'. There's a real problem with the notion of making new stuff that is already designed to not last long. And when it comes to homes, even the best utilities won't last forever.

Aug 8, 07 12:30 pm  · 
 · 
JMBarquero/squirrelly

Im with you Straw.....

btw, great to see the discussion is going strong.

I know i have not read every single entry, but has the notion of new sub-city centres been discussed? By that I mean, the idea of nodes, that aren't the city centre, but withing close proximity to it, in essence becoming their own "new" (sorry Straw) city centre, or centre of concentration for that area.

I know this was an idea that was written about or discussed somewhere I either read or was privy to.

discuss amongst yourselves........discuss......

Aug 8, 07 12:32 pm  · 
 · 

yeah, the pros and cons of 'stuff' won't do much for the discussion. with my realtor/inventory comment above i was attempting point out that a lot of people fail to differentiate between simply naming the stuff that they want in their domain and thinking about what the stuff actually is, whether it's good, useful, of decent quality, worth having or - on the other hand - destructive, wasteful, only for appearances/status, enabling laziness, etc.

Aug 8, 07 12:36 pm  · 
 · 

example: 'tray' ceilings in master bedrooms which serve very little purpose except that the realtor can list 'tray ceiling in the master bedroom' and somehow stand for/take the place of design. do you think someone out there really loves these, wants them, or have they just been conditioned to think that they have value or meaning?

Aug 8, 07 12:38 pm  · 
 · 

but new stuff = more stuff, whereas old stuff was already here. Old stuff is now a constant, while new stuff increases the overall quantity of stuff, which is why when many of us think about too much stuff, we focus on the new.

Aug 8, 07 12:41 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

if a condition is "reenacted" enough ie tray ceiling, double height entry way, it does take on meaning. it's really about the politics of desire. how does one manufacture a product without creating desire for it? the inessential becomes essential if one thinks they need it bad enough. and as far as old stuff goes, look at appliances for the home. its cheaper to buy a new toaster ( and any number of things, tvs, stereos, coffee makers, than to fix an old one. so to correct what people on this thread see as wrong you really need to have a little cultural revolution. of course, many of you would be sent to the countryside for reeducation.

Aug 8, 07 12:50 pm  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

steven, yes, hence my example of my bachelor brother looking at 4 bd/3ba houses with vaulted ceilings. He is falling for all those realtor tricks.

Aug 8, 07 12:54 pm  · 
 · 

To: design-l
Subject: re: King of Prussia marble?
Date: 2002.03.10 20:43

Nic [now aka Miss Representation]:

I know the Crate & Barrel building/store you ask of (I was in it earlier this year), but I don't know who designed it. You're right, it is a very fine design, and really "works" well and looks good in its "unique" context. I was taken there specifically by one of my friends because he (as a non-architect) really liked the design. He said, "I want a house that looks like that."

I'm just now becoming regularly familiar with the whole King of Prussia Mall environment, so I'm no "expert". So far what I like about the place more than anything is the rolling hill terrain--sometimes all "all natural" and sometimes all "human-made". I also like the "not planned mish-mash" mostly because it seems to work OK. I've been meaning to go photograph the whole place for a couple of years now.

Another thing I've noticed so far is that the Mall environment is really the town center now. It's not just shopping, but lots of busy restaurants and bars all the time, business offices, gyms, movie theaters, etc., etc. -- everything except churches, municipal buildings, and places to live.

Steve




Aug 8, 07 1:03 pm  · 
 · 
won and done williams

again, why try to resist the fact that people like stuff? they want more stuff whether they need it or not. frankly that's how our economy works. make new stuff, buy new stuff.

planned obsolesence to me seems like the architect's solution to the problem. when we can admit that stuff has a life cycle and does not last forever, we can start to design to meet that lifecycle, maybe avoiding that stuff winding up in a heap of other old stuff in a landfill. this is true from product packaging to suburban housing.

resisting human nature isn't helping anything.

Aug 8, 07 1:09 pm  · 
 · 

well, yeah, actually resisting that big of human nature can help the planet quite a lot. Where do you think all that stuff comes from, much less the infrastructure to get everyone out far enough from the city that they have room for all that stuff? It all has a negative impact on the planet.

Aug 8, 07 1:22 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

For Schopenhauer, the Will is an aimless desire to perpetuate itself, the mainspring of life. Desire engendered by the Will is the source of all the sorrow in the world; each satisfied desire leaves us either with boredom, or with some new desire to take its place. For Schopenhauer, a world in thrall to Will must necessarily be a world of suffering. The mind can only create the world of representation, opposed to the Will; but since the Will is the source of life, and our very bodies are stamped with its image and designed to serve its purpose, the human intellect is, in Schopenhauer's simile, like a lame man who can see, but who rides on the shoulders of a blind giant.

Aug 8, 07 1:24 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell

I read that entire paragraph above misreading Wii for will. I think it makes more sense that way ;-)

Aug 8, 07 1:30 pm  · 
 · 
Philarch

To vado's credit, that is one eloquently worded post.

Aug 8, 07 1:34 pm  · 
 · 

and in the meantime sprawl moves on.

Aug 8, 07 1:36 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

yeah well i copied and pasted it.

Aug 8, 07 1:42 pm  · 
 · 
Philarch

I don't really get your angle sans. If you're taking the "walk the walk, don't just talk the talk" angle please notice that this thread is named "spread like a virus...(discuss)" in the "General discussion" section of the "Discussion forum" of a website created to connect architects through the web - which would be done primarily through discussion.

Aug 8, 07 1:52 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell

I want to chime in with one slightly off-topic comment here: This is a valuable discussion, even if it isn't heavy on new ideas, if we keep in mind that there are young architects here who may not be hearing this discussed in school or certainly in their professional lives.

I've been worrying about sprawl since 1986, when I took my first urban design course. Twenty years later I still don't see any easy answers.

There are all kinds of options for how to live and how to grow in the US (and other places, of course). This type of awareness-building discussion is always a good thing to have.

Aug 8, 07 1:52 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

well for all those who would like to do some sort of design idea charrette this might be a challenge to tackle.

Aug 8, 07 1:56 pm  · 
 · 
Philarch

I would assume this charrette would require a specific site in mind correct? Can there be a generic solution - or would that be hypocritical?

Aug 8, 07 2:01 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

a real world condition would be preferable.

Aug 8, 07 2:02 pm  · 
 · 

...and would that site be on a greenfield, on an existing subdivision site where we'd demolish everything, on an existing subdivision site where we'd work with what's there, or what? seems that would be a key starting point that could stymie the whole operation if it's not answered in an appropriate way.

Aug 8, 07 2:05 pm  · 
 · 

liberty, I guess I'd have to say I've been worried about sprawl since about 1993, even though I didn't know how to put words to it then. I lived the sprawl, and it sucked, and I knew it, without any architectural education. And this makes me suspect that there are a lot of other people that know something's wrong, and can't quite put a finger on it because they haven't been educated in this area of life, they don't know that there's any alternative.

Aug 8, 07 2:07 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

well perhaps a particular community could be found that is looking for some help.

Aug 8, 07 2:11 pm  · 
 · 
strlt_typ

how about those mentioned in the article posted by squirell-meister?

Aug 8, 07 2:16 pm  · 
 · 

Philarch, you're right, you don't get my angle, and that's because I don't have an angle. I'm just trying to be objective, rather than subjective. Plus, I have genuinely added to this discussion. Perhaps, you should come to terms with you're angle (against me?).

Aug 8, 07 2:18 pm  · 
 · 
eastcoastarch03

you input one little thing about your own opinion on the suburbs and it gets bashed to hell. wow, what a discussion.

Aug 8, 07 2:40 pm  · 
 · 
Philarch

Are you serious? I don't have anything against you because I don't know you. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from so I can understand what you were saying. By the way, a lot of your posts were clearly intended to derail a lot of the constructive discussion that has been going on here.

Anyways, is it really the suburban environment itself or is it its isolation and relationship to everything else? How can a design charette affect that?

Aug 8, 07 2:40 pm  · 
 · 
emaze

what seems to be the issue with sprawl is that historically cities were platted, and the city provided the infastructure and planned out where the growth would happen next. The city had a downtown, parks, single residential areas, a small farm here and there, and then would bump into another town. it seems that now municipalities have no groth strategy, just write down some minimum standards, and when the developers sell the lots annex them for the tax base. no up front risk for the city, get the tax money, then attempt to pass a bond for where the new school should go.

Aug 8, 07 2:57 pm  · 
 · 
Ms Beary

good points emaze. when did real estate development come about? I have asked some architects this, and none of them knew. We just accept it.

Aug 8, 07 3:19 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell

In terms of a design charette, perhaps it's more of an analysis project: take an existing site, say 1/2 square mile of housing developments outside Phoenix, and looking at the region, construction techniques, design of buildings and streets, political structure, job locations, infrastructure, climate, shopping patterns etc. figure out what is wrong with it as a cohesive whole, then propose solutions to those problems.

It's easy to see how/shy sprawl is only minimally a design problem and moreso a planning and political problem.

Aug 8, 07 3:53 pm  · 
 · 

How did I (intend to) derail this discussion? Did this discussion even get derailed?

What little opinion of mine regarding the suburbs got blasted to hell?

And what have I written here that is not understandable?

Regarding real estate development, as far as Pennsylvania is concerned, it started before Willian Penn even got here--he sold a lot of the land sight unseen in England.

Aug 8, 07 4:01 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.

  • ×Search in: