Or rather, what is the value of using the traditional tools, processes and sensibilities of architecture, urban planning and related disciplines to the processes and practices of producing cities?
In particular, I'm trying to focus on the idea of 'identifying the right questions', rather than letting discipline-based thinking or unthinking define answers to what may be the wrong questions
— City of Sound
Responding to the Australian Government's release earlier this year of their National Urban Policy discussion paper, Dan Hill writes about the missing vision for Australian cities. His post (which is reprinted with permission from an earlier article, written originally for Architecture Australia) focuses on the need for a strategic rethinking of how Australian cities are produced. His two key frames for suggesting improvements revolve around the concepts of hyper-locality and un-building (or re-construction). Moreover, Hill suggests that what is needed is a move away from thinking about cities in form(al) terms and more within the context of urban services. Particularly if one recognizes the need to make our urban areas more resilient.
No Comments
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.