This past week, I was doing a little research on the pros/cons of new urbanism. It seems every colleague I've talked with has a different idea as to what New Urbanism is and whether it's overall effect on community is postive or negative.
So, to further muddy the waters for me, what do you think New Urbanism is?
read the charter of the new urbanism (located under 'about cnu')...these are the guidelines set up by the congress of the new urbanism several years ago.
New-Urbanism is now often referred to as 'traditional neighborhood design.' It turns out that the word 'urban' in new-urbansim was scaring away people from the suburbs as well as turning off local politicians.
it does go beyond suburban crap. the chicago metropolis 2030 plan was generated by peter calthrope along with the re-writing of the zoning plan goes torward supporting these wishes and desires,
while some of the planning premisses such as transit oriented development are great, along with reduce sprawl, it is bad neo-traditionalist crap with the goal of mandating design standards. thats it.
i asked myself the same question and read a book from the lib by doug kelbaugh called 'repairing the american metropolis' out of umich.
i was flabergasted to say the least about what was written in this book with many of his arguments to put forth a new urbanist agenda stated almost as tested scientific fact such as the oversimplification of approaches to urbanism; new v. everyday [venturi and such] and post urbanism. he slams to the highest level architects such as koolhaas and states 'post urbanism is stylistically sensational because it attemps to wow and increasingly sensational consumer and in and of the built enviorment with ever wilder and more provacative architecture and urbanism. he goes on to state that museums like bilbao with its abstract language with little reference to surrounding physical or historical surrounding context [clearly hes not been here or doesnt get it]
'it is sometimes hard to know if it emplys shock for its own sake or wheather the principla motive is to inspire the personal belief in the possibility of changing the status quo and of resisting controls and limts that are thought to be too predictable even tryannical.'
he goes on that the aestetic aspects of a building make people comfortable and therefore people want that type of architecture. i think he needs to come to chi town, look at the wow at millenium park and tell me honestly if people dont enjoy this architecture. they do. he is wrong.
after reading this book i have put umich at the bottom of my list.[less football]
the direction of the program is orchistrated by this guy the students wont know of his impact directly and i agree -- worthless - never the less clearly must be effective.
michigan is too important and prestigious of an institution to keep an ineffective guy in such an important role.
i really felt i was reading some facist propaganda while going through his book. and he calls himself an educator? it really made me want to turn in my membership card.
Shalak - i do agree with many of the premises of NU and worked closely with the metroplis 2030 [was 2020] as a facilatator around chicago at 6 workshops. i dont know norquist but will seek him out.
an underlying principle to the aestetic aspects of nu is neo-traditionalist apporach which they write and state is required. its these hard aspects v. the soft ones that i completely disagree with [density is part of the congress, walkable cities yes, what i consider the soft aspects].
i do not believe the word 'hierarchy' as the only plausible term to descibe 'traditional neighborhood designs' tnd as they speak it. i do not believe in community design guideles that prescibe the required aestics of communities -- lets be twi.
whats going on in chi town with regard to mediocrity has much more to do with the architects doing the work; be it no energy, low fees, we dont want to fight the city or the bad developers they are working for. design guidelines will only dumb down the process again to an even lower level.
in addition to the kelbaugh book, i read 2 other nu base books in the last month and when you look at the details of nu, that what it seeks. look at metroplis 2030 plan, the plan states to be effiective, you need to have design guidelines. i am not interested in having flunky unqualified arch and planners who never made a decient building and couldn make it as an architect on their own, sit back in city hall and make judgements on my projects. i already have gone up against them when they thought i should make mey building red brick once to match the one next door.
look at he new zoning code. it now introduces 'aestetics' in the formula --
like how to 'hold the corner'....ooooo i fancy this!!
image curtesy of mayor daley's new urbanistic zonin code.
but more scary .... how to approach high rise design....
1.Buildings should have a clearly defined vertical appearance, comprised of a base, midsection, and top.
2. The bases and upper stories of high-rise buildings should be in the same vertical plane along all building façades fronting public streets.
3. Upper-story setbacks should be used to reduce the apparent mass and bulk of tall buildings. Such setbacks should convey a sense of sculpting to the tower and the top floors of the building.
where would 900-910 lsd be in the zoning review process? i will ask mr. norquist when i run into him....
the uk is also embracing NU but the best bits, density diverstiy etc. look at alsops master plans -- they are considered new urbanism san the nei-traditionalist crap. or perhaps neo-traditionalist uk style....
cant talk architecture or planning in chi town without the chairman. like it or not, everyone in the city is terrified of him. he rules
its the us interpretation of the presciptive requirements of the movement that is not present in the uk that make a huge difference. making things look like the past is safe. the brits learned how stagenet this makes society from their experience in the 70-80 and early 90's when the royal fine arts commission would thumbs down any project next to another be it a historic piece of crap because it wasnt so called 'contextural' they are gone and the uk is much more forward thinking with groups such as cabe working with planners on the 'soft aspects' of NU.
get ahold of the book i mentioned, look at the metroplis 2030 plan and look hard at the new zoning code paying close attention to the word 'must'. thinking architects in the city should unite and protest at city hall for what it contains. i think you may feel differently about some specifics of the movement once you look at it. we are looking backwards. i think i will write a new pattern book for architects to use for their new buildings.
if the city was really serious about walkable cities [and it does embrace this aspects in some ways] they would never have issued the central area plan which puts so much parking on the west side of the loop we wiill need to double the road system to get there [the metropolis folks were very disappointed to have the city go this path - to be strong on walkable be strong against parking -- reduce the required parking ratio in downtown areas to .5 cars / du] no. mr. daley would anger the developers who sell spaces at some $40k /space
"he goes on that the aestetic aspects of a building make people comfortable and therefore people want that type of architecture. i think he needs to come to chi town, look at the wow at millenium park and tell me honestly if people dont enjoy this architecture. they do. he is wrong."
millenium park is a complete joke, it is all shock value, do u think people really care at all bout the design. if you put any freaking fountain that kids could play in they would want to go. The little kids don't care, adults don't drive by it with a sense of pride, people go cause it is new and weird, once u drive by it every day it is not new anymore and it is not weird, just dumb.
they spent all that money on nothing and the south side needs serious help. if that is not bullshit i don't know what is, this city needs direction. Too many don't know chicago, they only see the one the stops at the south loop. Lets spend 400 million on a boring park (to me it is boring, looks like a metal crane threw up) and disregard everything else. as long as the downtown looks nice, the world is a great place.
I don't understand any of it at all.
as a born + raised south sider, i too would also love to see more bucks put there, but one has to credit and acknowledge new schools, police stations, fire stations, lib, the connect of the south lake front to the neighborhoods [well a try at least], lots of infratcture [sewers road and such] the bungalow program and new homes for chi town, the latter have helped the ss more than anywhere. tons on brownfield cleanup, calumet and south works. being supportive of urban slashes doesnt make me anti-neighborhood development -- both are necessary.
i do support daley with always putting forth a forward looking best foot forward attitude to the city with big projects being a major component of it; mccormic, the airports, museium campus, soldier, lakefront reconstructon and grant park plus lots of green inititive like heat island, solar panels on all museums, etc; he understands that if people percieve its an active vibrate economy, money, jobs, conventions tourism follow. 'jobs...its all about da jobs....' we have lots of bad weather that could keep people away. he tries to counterbalance this. a city has to have big and small and reflect a strong vibrant economy.
non arch i know speak highly of the park and have visited it multiple times; go there on the weekend, its packed. it puts architecture on the dinner table.
having been to bilbao which has an amazing relationship to activating the urban plan crowds flock to see the building not the museum. i am amazed.
lookling at the books on the detailed goals of new urbanism, they completely trash ghery and alike in almost a voilent way. if we didnt have the ghery piece, daley still would have built the park, perhaps the som beaux arts scheme and we would be probalbly debating if that column was doric or corinthian.not.
the weekness in the park is the plan and conections of the pieces a remnant of the som plan. the scheme deserved to have more fluidity and elasticity.
‘the uk is also embracing NU but the best bits, density diversity etc. look at Alsop's master plans -- they are considered new urbanism san the neo-traditionalist crap. or perhaps neo-traditionalist uk style....’
No, we are not embracing this drivel.
Alsop has had his day in the sunshine. This pretentious bolocks may be the word amongst journalistic circles but the rest of the UK profession (my colleagues) consider this style to have little relevance to the situation on the ground.
Alsop's latest scheme to be shelved is the Cloud scheme in Liverpool.
He (Alsop) would do well to pay some attension to urban context.
Much of America still cannot implement the simple urban design drivers that have been established by key practitioners such as Sennett and Lynch. I would hold back on the ‘NU’ and get with the old.
i just can't seem to understand how MP creates tourism.
there is a bandstand, ok, fine concerts and what not
people don't really care if f gerhy created that bandstand or not, they will not go see a concert they don't care about because gerhy designed that mess. I know the impact at bilbao but can u honestly say that bandstand has perpetuated the same results? Honestly when i ask people if they have visted mp most say "what is that" or "why."
It is not that these people are not intellegent, it is just that they don't care. I completely support the idea of creating this park, a bandstand, the fountains for kids, a scupture, if a private invester put that money together i'd say fine build your vison, but instead I PAYED FOR THAT. My tax dollars at work, why did it cost so many millions? did it need to? ask yourself that guys, don't critic it based on your opinion of the design. If the city gains profits because of the creation of that park and it out weighs the cost then of course i'm full of shit, but i don't know if that is the case. There are many buildings i do and do not like and maybe i presented personal taste too much, that i appologize for.
you and i ted could have design that park with all the features present and even if it did not get the architectural press that mp has gotten the public wouldn't care. How many people even know who f gehry is? ask people, you'd be surprised.
btw while many of the programs you talk about have good intentions the CHA's negative impact alone destroys all of them. The chi homes project, come on.
have to split for a bit after an all nighter but a few words...
archit84, its not about folks comming to see the 'frank' [now the bean is the best thing in the park by the way]. but it is a body of bits that attract a group to the city [be it conferance goers or dave mathews needing to empty his bus] the conventions will come to the city if the cost is reasonable [which it is not] and the other attractions are there also. chicago is know as a tourist desination for its once high status as an architectural mecca for mies, and great blues. its still is there. and you have to admit, it does create an uplifting spirit to see so many people down there, no matter what personal reasons. the city feels alive.
BOTS, if cabe isnt new urbanism then no one is. they are doing it much better than the cnu is with nationalized framework planning tools and works with local authorites and says on its web site....basicly denouncing the use of design codes
"CABE would like to see the use of
design codes that help to address the
characterless homogeneity of much of
our recent housing development. But they
should also give ample room for the UK
architectural and landscape architectural
professions to work creatively with
communities to shape their neighbourhoods
to meet their own needs and desires.
In other words, CABE favours codes that
ensure we get the fundamentals right but
are not so prescriptive that they give too
little scope for distinctive architectural
expression. Coding can and should exert
architectural discipline, in the same way
as a good client brief, but it should not
smother creativity. Our pursuit is for quality
regardless of choice of style. Since CABE
was created, we have commented
positively on a number of developments
that reflected a traditional architectural
vernacular, executed with great
craftsmanship and use of relevant quality
materials. We have also commented
positively on contemporary approaches
that abide by key urban design principles
but provide a contrasting architectural
response to their context.
CABE believes that the UK has the best
architects in the world, representing a
broad mix of architectural traditions and
philosophies. We therefore see one of our
key roles as ensuring that we draw out
the benefits of the whole architectural
community. Consequently, one of our fears
about the use of codes is that they could
be used to favour only one form of
architectural expression, be that traditional
or modern. This would give licence to an
architectural fundamentalism that could
lead to artificial homogeneity, and
development that would undoubtedly be of a higher quality than the mass housing
produced in the last 20 – 30 years, but
which would produce excessive uniformity."
via or 'lord rogers' towards a urban renaisance'
look beyond the alsop eyewash as thats all rendering with masterplans are. willy is basicly boxes. but the process of involvment with the community the divesity and density of proposed programs for the community, the respect for public access to light, vent and the river edge are all making livable communities.
and Shalak, i was having a meal shortly after the congress was in town with 6 well respected archs, one who presented at the congress. none of them could clearly difine what nu is [even the bloak that presented]. i was shocked and went on a mission.
..."Most Starchitects today want nothing more or less than more and bigger commissions. We think of them as Modernists, but for their social sins the early Modernists like Gropius and Le Corbusier would disown them.
How should we build our cities today? New Urbanists would say by studying why we love the places we love."
----i say god bless us or perhaps god help us! is this the way to be critical about arch and urban design? shows a true lack of understanding on their part about what these projects are purseing. i am not a fog fan, although bilbao is amazing, and i many not agree with their design but generally they [stars] have pursued strong thesis, research and ideas in the development of their craft.
doesnt statements like this scare you as the basis of the so-called movement leaders....??
the scary thing is with the patriot act and the constant terror threat we have but our self in as a nation, the aspects of nu that we archs are not aware of along with the positive things like livable cities [who do you know would be against livable cities???] will be embraced by all in the blink of an eye with no turning back. for the good of the people.
OK THEN, im picken up my automatic weapon before that little guy puts some powerful piece of traditional whatever through the city council, getting on my bike [think green] and having a word or two with that little twat richy....are ya with me? '68 yahoo....here we come!
well we really dont have to worry, scott faewell's taking ryan down, give it a year in the court system, ryan will take richie down after micheal segal takes richie and 2/3rd of the city council down.....the empire is crumbling before our eyes. then we can take back the city
the day of the renewal awaits us, come 1 nove our city will greatly improve with the likes of quality visible sidewalls and such
and new bonus set back rules to carry on the prescriptive context and charater of some of our best arch such as mr. gearge shittoright or lowenburg! cant wait to test the bonus goals>>>>>>. no more modern shit for this town.....full steam ahead...hey isnt this building built already somewhere between chicago and division?
Buildings with upper-level setbacks are eligible for a floor area bonus, provided they
meet the following minimum standards:
1. The site for which the floor area bonus is requested must be located in a dash
12 or dash 16 “D†district.
2. In residential buildings, floor area bonus may be granted only for upper-level
setbacks that occur above the lowest floor in the building that is occupied
exclusively by residential dwelling units.
Figure 17-4-1013-A2
3. In order to qualify for a bonus, upper-level floors must be set back at least 1 feet from the face of the building at the floor immediately below.
4. Each setback must be at least 250 square feet in area.
5. No floor area bonus may be granted for any other ground-level amenity that is already receiving a bonus, including plazas, parks, Riverwalk improvements, widened sidewalks, and outdoor through-block connections.
6. No floor area bonus may be granted for setbacks on floors that are obtained from floor area bonuses.
7. Setbacks that are improved with planting terraces or green roofs may be eligible for additional bonuses in accordance with 17-4-1014 and 17-4-1015.
8. Floor area bonuses for upper-level setbacks may not be granted on LaSalle Street b etween Madison Street and Jackson Boulevard, unless the upper-level setbacks occur at a height above 175 feet.
9. Floor area bonuses for upper-level setbacks may not be granted on State Street or Wabash Avenue between the Chicago River and Congress Parkway, unless the upper-level setbacks occur at a height above 55 feet.
While I was at Univ. Of Minnesota (sorry michigan was just too far from the west coast) I took a class from a guy named bill moorish (drafted the charter for the CNU, said Duany-Plater Zyberk was a failed architect that had to find some other way to make money(not in those exact words)). I am in the Bay area (San Francisco) home of Calthorpe and where Gov. Terminator just gave the green light to "form" based zoning (as opposed to use based). To say that the addition of New Urbanist developments is better than any other suburban development is a joke. Block after block of colonial is just as bad as block after block of ranch houses or levittown cods. As much as I like the core principles of walkable cities, density ... The only thing being adopted by cities are the form codes, paint palettes and roof lines and pitches. I have yet to see developments that work with existing mass transit (most don't even have bus stops, but the "porch" ballustrade pasted to the front wall is sooooo cute). Anyway, NU is nothing new and it is barely urban (it really is an outflow of an earlier suburban movement out of the squallor of the dirty, icky, industrial inner cities, look at ebenezer howard and the garden city movements for the real deal on city planning). What would be really great is if all of us out here that like the planning portion of NU and don't like the stylistic portion would get together and form the RU or Real Urbanists and stick to the way that all of those real cities we like were formed, by accretion, addition subtraction and time, with guidlines that keep the people, and environment safe and working together.
Sep 17, 04 6:29 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.
What is New Urbanism?
This past week, I was doing a little research on the pros/cons of new urbanism. It seems every colleague I've talked with has a different idea as to what New Urbanism is and whether it's overall effect on community is postive or negative.
So, to further muddy the waters for me, what do you think New Urbanism is?
read the charter of the new urbanism (located under 'about cnu')...these are the guidelines set up by the congress of the new urbanism several years ago.
http://www.cnu.org/
New-Urbanism is now often referred to as 'traditional neighborhood design.' It turns out that the word 'urban' in new-urbansim was scaring away people from the suburbs as well as turning off local politicians.
it does go beyond suburban crap. the chicago metropolis 2030 plan was generated by peter calthrope along with the re-writing of the zoning plan goes torward supporting these wishes and desires,
while some of the planning premisses such as transit oriented development are great, along with reduce sprawl, it is bad neo-traditionalist crap with the goal of mandating design standards. thats it.
i asked myself the same question and read a book from the lib by doug kelbaugh called 'repairing the american metropolis' out of umich.
i was flabergasted to say the least about what was written in this book with many of his arguments to put forth a new urbanist agenda stated almost as tested scientific fact such as the oversimplification of approaches to urbanism; new v. everyday [venturi and such] and post urbanism. he slams to the highest level architects such as koolhaas and states 'post urbanism is stylistically sensational because it attemps to wow and increasingly sensational consumer and in and of the built enviorment with ever wilder and more provacative architecture and urbanism. he goes on to state that museums like bilbao with its abstract language with little reference to surrounding physical or historical surrounding context [clearly hes not been here or doesnt get it]
'it is sometimes hard to know if it emplys shock for its own sake or wheather the principla motive is to inspire the personal belief in the possibility of changing the status quo and of resisting controls and limts that are thought to be too predictable even tryannical.'
he goes on that the aestetic aspects of a building make people comfortable and therefore people want that type of architecture. i think he needs to come to chi town, look at the wow at millenium park and tell me honestly if people dont enjoy this architecture. they do. he is wrong.
after reading this book i have put umich at the bottom of my list.[less football]
don't put michigan at the bottom, kelbaugh has no presense in the architecutre school or program. he is seen in studio about 2x/semester.
but kelbaugh is dean! has to migrate these attitudes in policies of program. else he would be worthless.
he wrote a op-ed piece in this months issue of journal of arc ed. i was angry again when i read it but will look at it again.
he is worthless, ask the architecture students
the direction of the program is orchistrated by this guy the students wont know of his impact directly and i agree -- worthless - never the less clearly must be effective.
michigan is too important and prestigious of an institution to keep an ineffective guy in such an important role.
i really felt i was reading some facist propaganda while going through his book. and he calls himself an educator? it really made me want to turn in my membership card.
but mich football is great.
Shalak - i do agree with many of the premises of NU and worked closely with the metroplis 2030 [was 2020] as a facilatator around chicago at 6 workshops. i dont know norquist but will seek him out.
an underlying principle to the aestetic aspects of nu is neo-traditionalist apporach which they write and state is required. its these hard aspects v. the soft ones that i completely disagree with [density is part of the congress, walkable cities yes, what i consider the soft aspects].
i do not believe the word 'hierarchy' as the only plausible term to descibe 'traditional neighborhood designs' tnd as they speak it. i do not believe in community design guideles that prescibe the required aestics of communities -- lets be twi.
whats going on in chi town with regard to mediocrity has much more to do with the architects doing the work; be it no energy, low fees, we dont want to fight the city or the bad developers they are working for. design guidelines will only dumb down the process again to an even lower level.
in addition to the kelbaugh book, i read 2 other nu base books in the last month and when you look at the details of nu, that what it seeks. look at metroplis 2030 plan, the plan states to be effiective, you need to have design guidelines. i am not interested in having flunky unqualified arch and planners who never made a decient building and couldn make it as an architect on their own, sit back in city hall and make judgements on my projects. i already have gone up against them when they thought i should make mey building red brick once to match the one next door.
look at he new zoning code. it now introduces 'aestetics' in the formula --
like how to 'hold the corner'....ooooo i fancy this!!
image curtesy of mayor daley's new urbanistic zonin code.
but more scary .... how to approach high rise design....
1.Buildings should have a clearly defined vertical appearance, comprised of a base, midsection, and top.
2. The bases and upper stories of high-rise buildings should be in the same vertical plane along all building façades fronting public streets.
3. Upper-story setbacks should be used to reduce the apparent mass and bulk of tall buildings. Such setbacks should convey a sense of sculpting to the tower and the top floors of the building.
where would 900-910 lsd be in the zoning review process? i will ask mr. norquist when i run into him....
the uk is also embracing NU but the best bits, density diverstiy etc. look at alsops master plans -- they are considered new urbanism san the nei-traditionalist crap. or perhaps neo-traditionalist uk style....
cant talk architecture or planning in chi town without the chairman. like it or not, everyone in the city is terrified of him. he rules
its the us interpretation of the presciptive requirements of the movement that is not present in the uk that make a huge difference. making things look like the past is safe. the brits learned how stagenet this makes society from their experience in the 70-80 and early 90's when the royal fine arts commission would thumbs down any project next to another be it a historic piece of crap because it wasnt so called 'contextural' they are gone and the uk is much more forward thinking with groups such as cabe working with planners on the 'soft aspects' of NU.
get ahold of the book i mentioned, look at the metroplis 2030 plan and look hard at the new zoning code paying close attention to the word 'must'. thinking architects in the city should unite and protest at city hall for what it contains. i think you may feel differently about some specifics of the movement once you look at it. we are looking backwards. i think i will write a new pattern book for architects to use for their new buildings.
if the city was really serious about walkable cities [and it does embrace this aspects in some ways] they would never have issued the central area plan which puts so much parking on the west side of the loop we wiill need to double the road system to get there [the metropolis folks were very disappointed to have the city go this path - to be strong on walkable be strong against parking -- reduce the required parking ratio in downtown areas to .5 cars / du] no. mr. daley would anger the developers who sell spaces at some $40k /space
and one of my first comments in my first post was...
...while some of the planning premisses such as transit oriented development are great, along with reduce sprawl,....
the CNU folks believe to get this you must be very prescriptive...very contectual
I have an aversion to such happy-horseshit, on a purely artistic level.
Mooo
ted
"he goes on that the aestetic aspects of a building make people comfortable and therefore people want that type of architecture. i think he needs to come to chi town, look at the wow at millenium park and tell me honestly if people dont enjoy this architecture. they do. he is wrong."
millenium park is a complete joke, it is all shock value, do u think people really care at all bout the design. if you put any freaking fountain that kids could play in they would want to go. The little kids don't care, adults don't drive by it with a sense of pride, people go cause it is new and weird, once u drive by it every day it is not new anymore and it is not weird, just dumb.
they spent all that money on nothing and the south side needs serious help. if that is not bullshit i don't know what is, this city needs direction. Too many don't know chicago, they only see the one the stops at the south loop. Lets spend 400 million on a boring park (to me it is boring, looks like a metal crane threw up) and disregard everything else. as long as the downtown looks nice, the world is a great place.
I don't understand any of it at all.
as a born + raised south sider, i too would also love to see more bucks put there, but one has to credit and acknowledge new schools, police stations, fire stations, lib, the connect of the south lake front to the neighborhoods [well a try at least], lots of infratcture [sewers road and such] the bungalow program and new homes for chi town, the latter have helped the ss more than anywhere. tons on brownfield cleanup, calumet and south works. being supportive of urban slashes doesnt make me anti-neighborhood development -- both are necessary.
i do support daley with always putting forth a forward looking best foot forward attitude to the city with big projects being a major component of it; mccormic, the airports, museium campus, soldier, lakefront reconstructon and grant park plus lots of green inititive like heat island, solar panels on all museums, etc; he understands that if people percieve its an active vibrate economy, money, jobs, conventions tourism follow. 'jobs...its all about da jobs....' we have lots of bad weather that could keep people away. he tries to counterbalance this. a city has to have big and small and reflect a strong vibrant economy.
non arch i know speak highly of the park and have visited it multiple times; go there on the weekend, its packed. it puts architecture on the dinner table.
having been to bilbao which has an amazing relationship to activating the urban plan crowds flock to see the building not the museum. i am amazed.
lookling at the books on the detailed goals of new urbanism, they completely trash ghery and alike in almost a voilent way. if we didnt have the ghery piece, daley still would have built the park, perhaps the som beaux arts scheme and we would be probalbly debating if that column was doric or corinthian.not.
the weekness in the park is the plan and conections of the pieces a remnant of the som plan. the scheme deserved to have more fluidity and elasticity.
‘the uk is also embracing NU but the best bits, density diversity etc. look at Alsop's master plans -- they are considered new urbanism san the neo-traditionalist crap. or perhaps neo-traditionalist uk style....’
No, we are not embracing this drivel.
Alsop has had his day in the sunshine. This pretentious bolocks may be the word amongst journalistic circles but the rest of the UK profession (my colleagues) consider this style to have little relevance to the situation on the ground.
Alsop's latest scheme to be shelved is the Cloud scheme in Liverpool.
He (Alsop) would do well to pay some attension to urban context.
Much of America still cannot implement the simple urban design drivers that have been established by key practitioners such as Sennett and Lynch. I would hold back on the ‘NU’ and get with the old.
i just can't seem to understand how MP creates tourism.
there is a bandstand, ok, fine concerts and what not
people don't really care if f gerhy created that bandstand or not, they will not go see a concert they don't care about because gerhy designed that mess. I know the impact at bilbao but can u honestly say that bandstand has perpetuated the same results? Honestly when i ask people if they have visted mp most say "what is that" or "why."
It is not that these people are not intellegent, it is just that they don't care. I completely support the idea of creating this park, a bandstand, the fountains for kids, a scupture, if a private invester put that money together i'd say fine build your vison, but instead I PAYED FOR THAT. My tax dollars at work, why did it cost so many millions? did it need to? ask yourself that guys, don't critic it based on your opinion of the design. If the city gains profits because of the creation of that park and it out weighs the cost then of course i'm full of shit, but i don't know if that is the case. There are many buildings i do and do not like and maybe i presented personal taste too much, that i appologize for.
you and i ted could have design that park with all the features present and even if it did not get the architectural press that mp has gotten the public wouldn't care. How many people even know who f gehry is? ask people, you'd be surprised.
btw while many of the programs you talk about have good intentions the CHA's negative impact alone destroys all of them. The chi homes project, come on.
have to split for a bit after an all nighter but a few words...
archit84, its not about folks comming to see the 'frank' [now the bean is the best thing in the park by the way]. but it is a body of bits that attract a group to the city [be it conferance goers or dave mathews needing to empty his bus] the conventions will come to the city if the cost is reasonable [which it is not] and the other attractions are there also. chicago is know as a tourist desination for its once high status as an architectural mecca for mies, and great blues. its still is there. and you have to admit, it does create an uplifting spirit to see so many people down there, no matter what personal reasons. the city feels alive.
BOTS, if cabe isnt new urbanism then no one is. they are doing it much better than the cnu is with nationalized framework planning tools and works with local authorites and says on its web site....basicly denouncing the use of design codes
"CABE would like to see the use of
design codes that help to address the
characterless homogeneity of much of
our recent housing development. But they
should also give ample room for the UK
architectural and landscape architectural
professions to work creatively with
communities to shape their neighbourhoods
to meet their own needs and desires.
In other words, CABE favours codes that
ensure we get the fundamentals right but
are not so prescriptive that they give too
little scope for distinctive architectural
expression. Coding can and should exert
architectural discipline, in the same way
as a good client brief, but it should not
smother creativity. Our pursuit is for quality
regardless of choice of style. Since CABE
was created, we have commented
positively on a number of developments
that reflected a traditional architectural
vernacular, executed with great
craftsmanship and use of relevant quality
materials. We have also commented
positively on contemporary approaches
that abide by key urban design principles
but provide a contrasting architectural
response to their context.
CABE believes that the UK has the best
architects in the world, representing a
broad mix of architectural traditions and
philosophies. We therefore see one of our
key roles as ensuring that we draw out
the benefits of the whole architectural
community. Consequently, one of our fears
about the use of codes is that they could
be used to favour only one form of
architectural expression, be that traditional
or modern. This would give licence to an
architectural fundamentalism that could
lead to artificial homogeneity, and
development that would undoubtedly be of a higher quality than the mass housing
produced in the last 20 – 30 years, but
which would produce excessive uniformity."
via or 'lord rogers' towards a urban renaisance'
look beyond the alsop eyewash as thats all rendering with masterplans are. willy is basicly boxes. but the process of involvment with the community the divesity and density of proposed programs for the community, the respect for public access to light, vent and the river edge are all making livable communities.
and Shalak, i was having a meal shortly after the congress was in town with 6 well respected archs, one who presented at the congress. none of them could clearly difine what nu is [even the bloak that presented]. i was shocked and went on a mission.
i came accross a blog site a blog site that i cant be bothered to write the name down for this link by a dude who states he is a founding member of the congress. some bizarre statements here...for freebee reads.....like 'flamboyant frank'......
..."Most Starchitects today want nothing more or less than more and bigger commissions. We think of them as Modernists, but for their social sins the early Modernists like Gropius and Le Corbusier would disown them.
How should we build our cities today? New Urbanists would say by studying why we love the places we love."
----i say god bless us or perhaps god help us! is this the way to be critical about arch and urban design? shows a true lack of understanding on their part about what these projects are purseing. i am not a fog fan, although bilbao is amazing, and i many not agree with their design but generally they [stars] have pursued strong thesis, research and ideas in the development of their craft.
doesnt statements like this scare you as the basis of the so-called movement leaders....??
the scary thing is with the patriot act and the constant terror threat we have but our self in as a nation, the aspects of nu that we archs are not aware of along with the positive things like livable cities [who do you know would be against livable cities???] will be embraced by all in the blink of an eye with no turning back. for the good of the people.
ok, you win
go sox.
OK THEN, im picken up my automatic weapon before that little guy puts some powerful piece of traditional whatever through the city council, getting on my bike [think green] and having a word or two with that little twat richy....are ya with me? '68 yahoo....here we come!
no more modern shit for this town.....full steam ahead...hey isnt this building built already somewhere between chicago and division?
well we really dont have to worry, scott faewell's taking ryan down, give it a year in the court system, ryan will take richie down after micheal segal takes richie and 2/3rd of the city council down.....the empire is crumbling before our eyes. then we can take back the city
the day of the renewal awaits us, come 1 nove our city will greatly improve with the likes of quality visible sidewalls and such
and new bonus set back rules to carry on the prescriptive context and charater of some of our best arch such as mr. gearge shittoright or lowenburg! cant wait to test the bonus goals>>>>>>.
Buildings with upper-level setbacks are eligible for a floor area bonus, provided they
meet the following minimum standards:
1. The site for which the floor area bonus is requested must be located in a dash
12 or dash 16 “D†district.
2. In residential buildings, floor area bonus may be granted only for upper-level
setbacks that occur above the lowest floor in the building that is occupied
exclusively by residential dwelling units.
Figure 17-4-1013-A2
3. In order to qualify for a bonus, upper-level floors must be set back at least 1 feet from the face of the building at the floor immediately below.
4. Each setback must be at least 250 square feet in area.
5. No floor area bonus may be granted for any other ground-level amenity that is already receiving a bonus, including plazas, parks, Riverwalk improvements, widened sidewalks, and outdoor through-block connections.
6. No floor area bonus may be granted for setbacks on floors that are obtained from floor area bonuses.
7. Setbacks that are improved with planting terraces or green roofs may be eligible for additional bonuses in accordance with 17-4-1014 and 17-4-1015.
8. Floor area bonuses for upper-level setbacks may not be granted on LaSalle Street b etween Madison Street and Jackson Boulevard, unless the upper-level setbacks occur at a height above 175 feet.
9. Floor area bonuses for upper-level setbacks may not be granted on State Street or Wabash Avenue between the Chicago River and Congress Parkway, unless the upper-level setbacks occur at a height above 55 feet.
While I was at Univ. Of Minnesota (sorry michigan was just too far from the west coast) I took a class from a guy named bill moorish (drafted the charter for the CNU, said Duany-Plater Zyberk was a failed architect that had to find some other way to make money(not in those exact words)). I am in the Bay area (San Francisco) home of Calthorpe and where Gov. Terminator just gave the green light to "form" based zoning (as opposed to use based). To say that the addition of New Urbanist developments is better than any other suburban development is a joke. Block after block of colonial is just as bad as block after block of ranch houses or levittown cods. As much as I like the core principles of walkable cities, density ... The only thing being adopted by cities are the form codes, paint palettes and roof lines and pitches. I have yet to see developments that work with existing mass transit (most don't even have bus stops, but the "porch" ballustrade pasted to the front wall is sooooo cute). Anyway, NU is nothing new and it is barely urban (it really is an outflow of an earlier suburban movement out of the squallor of the dirty, icky, industrial inner cities, look at ebenezer howard and the garden city movements for the real deal on city planning). What would be really great is if all of us out here that like the planning portion of NU and don't like the stylistic portion would get together and form the RU or Real Urbanists and stick to the way that all of those real cities we like were formed, by accretion, addition subtraction and time, with guidlines that keep the people, and environment safe and working together.
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.