In my own office, for instance, two firms, Synthesis Design + Architecture and Freeland Buck, are carrying out their only major projects in places like China and Thailand. A former office mate, Platform for Architecture and Research (P-A-R), is pursuing most of its work in Europe and Asia. If you move up to LA’s most established design firms, they’re doing the exact same thing. Where are Frank Gehry, Thom Mayne, and Neil Denari doing most of their projects? The Middle East, China, and Europe. — archpaper.com
57 Comments
jla-x, you are being a bit reductive and very 20th century. Cities have not always been built on "industry and land scarcity." This is a post-industrial assessment. If you look at cities historically, if there is any sort of economic theme to their invention, they are in fact built upon commerce, going back to the agora or the Medici. Why does this distinction matter? First, I actually agree with you that 21st century cities are destinations, "held together by preference alone, experiential and qualitative without functional necessity," but at its root, isn't that also the nature of the 21st century economy? Digital tools, infrastructure, the "matrix," or whatever you prefer to call it, has allowed us the freedom to locate where we want; globally, this is by in large in urbanized areas. Instead of a world population sitting numbly in front of a computer screen as your conception would have it, I would posit that in fact we are moving towards a more digitally connected world that allows us to do business in parks and coffee shops, experience culture and creativity, interact with our friends and neighbors; the city facilitates the lifestyle. At least this is the world I would prefer to live in, and I don't believe that I am alone in that preference.
Suburban cities are growing at a rate faster than urban areas. Much faster. Most large cities are seeing a decline in population or a very small growth rate. The growth rate of sunbelt suburbs is highest even post recession. Irvine had a growth rate of 17% where NYC was under 2. The number of suburban cities is far greater, so even though the population increase may be lower in real (2% of ny may be more than 20% of irvine) numbers they add up.
While some people may desire cities, the truth is most Americans still want the house with the white picket fence. Technology will make this easier. Technology is fueling this to an extent. Studies show that working remotely will dominate the future. 40% of people will work remotely by 2020 according to the stats. While they may desire to work remotely from a beautiful apartment in a urban area, the cost of doing such is too great for most. Suburbia is cheaper. When you remove the burden of commute time through new technological means (and existing ones) this only further fuels the fire. Also, are there any "cities" that have been born in recent years in the us? No. We are inhabiting the cities that were born from the industrial era. Also, I would love to see a study of the demographic of people moving to cities vs suburbs. I'm sure most are not working class families of 4. Most are likely young people with little overhead and a fairly decent profession.
The city is becoming culturally homogenous while suburbia is becoming more diverse. Again, I don't think this is a good direction, but I can't see it changing. But you are correct that it is also a policy issue. Policy plays a big role. If we had a tax structure that took footprint into account we may be able to influence this. Don't know if I agree it disagree with that idea morally but it may work. Other than that, why not at the very least try to make suburbia less shitty? Architects seem to dismiss the suburban world which occupies the majority of the land rather than looking for ways to improve it. Suburbia does not need to be so bad. It's not an all or nothing scenario.
This has been a fascinating discussion, and so far jla-x is actually making a lot more sense than the opposing arguments, which are more based on wishful thinking than on what's really going on. It' not like I want the changes that jla-x describes to happen, but certain patterns with regards to urban and suburban development seem to have accelerated as time goes by. I don't particularly agree with everything jla-x has said, especially pertaining to virtual reality and even the fate of the suburbs, but I applaud his being able to posit something quite different about what's going on compared to the architects' more sentimental biases about our love for places and cities.
I second the notion that the traditional urban centers such as NY, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago and SF are transitioning into resorts for the elite, and have deliberately rid themselves of industries and the blue collar communities that used to be the bulwark of a city's existence. They have become to be about living a certain lifestyle and offering an aesthetic urban experience than about attracting middle-of-the road businesses and even less manufacturing. They also depend heavily on their architectural heritage to pull this off, much of it dating from before the second world war, and should offer a clue to those who think that all- modern environments can ever achieve the same effect. When aesthetics and lifestyle become your city's raison-d'etre, it becomes obvious why these traditional urban centers seem to foster a 'critical culture', since they growingly rely on their cultural prestige as their main source of value. It's no surprise the architects with an eye for high-design gravitate towards these places and then assume that every other city should develop a taste for progressive design.
But I do think that this 'critical culture' is essentially a monoculture, that despite its cosmopolitan characteristics, is proudly intolerant of the viewpoints and lifestyles of all kinds of people and what they value in their lives. Sure, there are many ideas shared and digested within a critical culture, but they all belong within a spectrum of consensus, where there are firm agreements on the current problems, the root of those problems, and the inevitability of a grand solution. To disagree on what those problems are, where and why they are there, and whether or not the problem could ever be resolved, is to be immediately shunned from polite debate and be subjected to ad-hominem attacks. The universities are naturally extensions of this urban critical culture, and have over the years become complete monocultures themselves, to the point of suppressing the right for students and faculty to engage in any kind of real debate. It's important to understand that this critical culture is, despite its claims, not inclusive and thus results in it occupying a relatively small section of society, and appears less relevant to the lives of average people living and working in the many communities and cities that lack this 'critical culture'.
And so we have these highly progressive designers who find that their home countries are too small, too limited in 'critical culture' for their outsized ambitions. It's not just American architects having to go abroad to developing countries for work; It's happening to ambitious architects in Europe, Australia, Japan and countries with rich cultural legacies yet poor economic opportunities like Spain and Argentina. Rapidly growing countries in the Persian Gulf and Asia are eager to build works of critical resonance out of a simple yearning for cultural prestige and nothing more. Should we blame these designer's home countries for not catering to their progressive inclinations, or should we should we blame them for not catering their home markets? It's a choice they've made, and they knew full well that their commitment to progressive design was going to force them to look abroad for opportunities. Their commitment is to their personal passion, not to national loyalty, so it's difficult to imagine average people really accepting every idea on offer by their fellow designing citizens who reveal little interest in reinforcing national identity.
jla-x, I'm not really sure why you are turning this into a city v. suburbs debate. It seems irrelevant. I think what matters most here is the larger definition of "city" as a metropolitan region. Core city and suburbs simply represent different types of urban form, providing a continuum of lifestyle choices.
Perhaps to bring this back more to the original article, young design talent makes a decision to live in a certain place at a post-graduation crisis point. That crisis point sucks thousands of young designers into a handful of cities: New York, LA, SF, Boston, and a few others. After the crisis has subsided, the next few years and in many ways decades plays out as a series of lifestyle choices. A small number of designers will continue to bounce from one high-end design firm to another, but the vast majority will make that next set of locational decisions based on lifestyle. Cities that provide a range of amenities that have the broadest appeal to a diverse range of lifestyles will thrive while those that do not will struggle. From an urban standpoint, the challenge is not to provide the most high end design employment opportunities (this only addresses the crisis), but rather to provide the range of amenities that it will take to nurture a designer through the next phases of his or her life. Just for point of reference, look at the writing of Bruce Katz; he does a very eloquent job of explaining the future role of cities.
jla-x,
I think you're right about most people prefering a white picket fenct with a little plot of land, but I think you're getting caught up in this false dichotomy between suburb and city like won and done points out. Surveys have shown that people would like that white picket fence with all the amenities one associates with cities, namely transit, walkability, and a sense of community. These things are migrating to the suburbs as well as coming back to cities thus making the most successful suburbs just another urban neighborhood. It comes down to how one defines a city. Is it a suburban conglomeration like many parts of the SW have or is it a small town in the NW with an abandoned mainstreet? I don't think for this purpose it realy matters becasue both will be defined from one's individual perspective. What seems important for architects is to analyze what pattern of live many people are chosing and what implications that has on the built environment, irrispective of how much time one spends shopping online or not. People don't chose to be with eachother, they need to be with eachother. Just look at any elementary school playground to see how we function.
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.