Architecture and Urban Design

[speed]

The built environment seems to escape all philosophical attenton (apart from the highly specialized field of Architectural and Urban Planning theory), yet it is quite important to our everyday lives. (This thread relates entirely to the United States)

The built environment in many ways directly reflects the cultural values of the times. Over the last fifty years in the United States, architecture and design have essentially become profit maximizing and suburban. Countless houses and strip malls dot the land, offering little to no architectural value, and elimanating any sense of community. In addition these new developments are not sustainable: the taxes received from such developments do not pay for the services and infrastructure required to service them. The houses are poorly constructed, quickly built, and are considered investments. Strip malls, restaurants, malls, etc, are built with equally no sense of architecture; are placed on main throughfares, and have no sense of cohesiveness. In addition, all of the aforementioned buildings and developments are not built for the long term--many especially the businesses have expected lives of less than 20 years. Meanwhile the architecturally significant cities become more and more hollowed out and deserted.

Now what is the result of such a cheapening and suburbanization of the built environment: a total lack of community, complete reliance on cars, a fattening of the population--no walking, financial strains on local governments, and the overall sterilization of the populace.

Is change in architecture, design, only possible with a corresponding change in culture? There are a few places and movements that seek to build sustainable walking communites, as well as serious efforts to save historic neighborhoods and buildings within the last twenty years. But for the whole, is our environment a direct result of our profit maximizing individualist philosophy? Does anyone else agree with my aforementioned contentions?--and if not, why?

 

[Justin S.]

But for the whole, is our environment a direct result of our profit maximizing individualist philosophy?

Absolutely, but you already new that when you "asked" .

Actually, Ive seen a lot, and read some, philosophical works explicitly concerning themselves with architecture or, more generally, construction and bounding of space (Foucault comes to mind immediately, although thats probably because Im not as well read in the area as I should be).

This issue is one of the most fundamental (personally, Im obsessed with it), and is the best example of "applied" philosophy (hate that term)- the total psychological, aesthetic, spiritual, biological and historiological effect/relationality of an environment.

 

[speed]

Absolutely, but you already new that when you "asked" .

Actually, Ive seen a lot, and read some, philosophical works explicitly concerning themselves with architecture or, more generally, construction and bounding of space (Foucault comes to mind immediately, although thats probably because Im not as well read in the area as I should be).

This issue is one of the most fundamental (personally, Im obsessed with it), and is the best example of "applied" philosophy (hate that term)- the total psychological, aesthetic, spiritual, biological and historiological effect/relationality of an environment.

I changed it, to make it more of a question.

Heidegger also mentions space quite a bit too.

I wrote this thread to show how practical things can be influenced by the prevailing cultural philosophy. However, within the urban planning and architecture fields, there is a bizarre notion that changing the physical space and design to something more pleasing, or more mixed use, will in turn produce a better neighborhood, happier residents, reduce poverty, crime etc. I think this is nonsense. What do others think?

 

[hibernal_dream]

But for the whole, is our environment a direct result of our profit maximizing individualist philosophy? Does anyone else agree with my aforementioned contentions?--and if not, why?

Yes, for the most part. I do think there is a change in architectual values, but this is more a result of the need for large, practical buildings which accommodate large numbers of people and can be built quickly and easily. But I see this change driven more by the practical needs of our time rather than profit-maximisation. Modern cities are in a constant state of flux, with residents and businesses moving in and out, whereas 100 years ago the limits of transportation meant a more sedentary population allowing a greater sense of community to develop. I don't think it's accurate to say that 100 years ago the architectual values we lack now were firmly in place. Yes, most bulidings back then were beautiful but was this because of the greater value placed on community and architectual aesthetics or the simply due to the technical limitations of consturction? I'm sure that if advanced civil engineering as well as cheap and tough materials like concrete were available centuries ago we would not have the same architectual icons. Further, remember that it is likely the less attractive buildings from eras past were destroyed while the icons were retained.

As for the suburban ugliness today, I place part of the blame on a building industry which takes on a far greater role in design and construction than it previously did. For the most part these developers are not trained architects and take advantage of the fact that most people see little benefit to hiring an architect, it is simply added expense. Advancements in engineering meant that architects are not needed as consultants, so instead we see less qualified developers building unsustainable houses which are ugly and have no character, make little use of natural light, are impractical to live in and which are demolished several years later. Where I live there is no real approval process in place for new developments, instead a process whereby individuals can object to certain developments. In practice this turns out to be overly bureaucratic and ineffective, and I'd prefer some sort of qualified architectual body to oversee new developments to ensure their proper integration into the architectual fabric of the city. Since the late 90's I believe we are seeing some sort of a shift back to interesting architecture and I'd like to see that trend continue.

 

[RookParliament]

the taxes received from such developments do not pay for the services and infrastructure required to service them.

Could you back that up with evidence? I personally have no idea if this is true or not.

Otherwise I would mostly agree with you, although individualism comes before profit seeking as the suburbs were just a place to get away from the urban ara and the services followed this new economic opportunity. Any society will have the same development when an economic opportunity is presented.

However it is sad how the suburbs have few cultural hearts that define communities. There is one interesting cafe, a few bars/breweries that aren't too bad, and absolutely no architecture that is not designed without a commercial intent around my home. Living just an hour north of one the greatest cities in the world is a faint comfort when faced with the ineffeciency and boredom of the suburbs. As well as a bog that makes for good walking.

Modern America is built around cars and cheap gasoline. And if cheap gasoline gets to a point where it isn't cheap enough than the market will shift to something else .

And the fat rolls on, over the belt and flopping next to the knees.

Edit: Those last two paragraphs were meant to be connected in idea.

 

[RookParliament]

Yes, for the most part. I do think there is a change in architectual values, but this is more a result of the need for large, practical buildings which accommodate large numbers of people and can be built quickly and easily. But I see this change driven more by the practical needs of our time rather than profit-maximisation. Modern cities are in a constant state of flux, with residents and businesses moving in and out, whereas 100 years ago the limits of transportation meant a more sedentary population allowing a greater sense of community to develop. I don't think it's accurate to say that 100 years ago the architectual values we lack now were firmly in place. Yes, most bulidings back then were beautiful but was this because of the greater value placed on community and architectual aesthetics or the simply due to the technical limitations of consturction? I'm sure that if advanced civil engineering as well as cheap and tough materials like concrete were available centuries ago we would not have the same architectual icons. Further, remember that it is likely the less attractive buildings from eras past were destroyed while the icons were retained.

As for the suburban ugliness today, I place part of the blame on a building industry which takes on a far greater role in design and construction than it previously did. For the most part these developers are not trained architects and take advantage of the fact that most people see little benefit to hiring an architect, it is simply added expense. Advancements in engineering meant that architects are not needed as consultants, so instead we see less qualified developers building unsustainable houses which are ugly and have no character, make little use of natural light, are impractical to live in and which are demolished several years later. Where I live there is no real approval process in place for new developments, instead a process whereby individuals can object to certain developments. In practice this turns out to be overly bureaucratic and ineffective, and I'd prefer some sort of qualified architectual body to oversee new developments to ensure their proper integration into the architectual fabric of the city. Since the late 90's I believe we are seeing some sort of a shift back to interesting architecture and I'd like to see that trend continue.

There's also a growing interest in green buildings that use recycled materials and utilize natural light, rainwater collection, etc... I hope this trend gains vast momentum as people realize the economic and aesthetic benefits

Edit: I was thinking in particular of some skyscraper built in New York recently. Can't be bothered to figure it out.

 

[speed]

Could you back that up with evidence? I personally have no idea if this is true or not.

Otherwise I would mostly agree with you, although individualism comes before profit seeking as the suburbs were just a place to get away from the urban ara and the services followed this new economic opportunity. Any society will have the same development when an economic opportunity is presented.

However it is sad how the suburbs have few cultural hearts that define communities. There is one interesting cafe, a few bars/breweries that aren't too bad, and absolutely no architecture that is not designed without a commercial intent around my home. Living just an hour north of one the greatest cities in the world is a faint comfort when faced with the ineffeciency and boredom of the suburbs. As well as a bog that makes for good walking.

Modern America is built around cars and cheap gasoline. And if cheap gasoline gets to a point where it isn't cheap enough than the market will shift to something else .

And the fat rolls on, over the belt and flopping next to the knees.

Edit: Those last two paragraphs were meant to be connected in idea.

Well there's been a plethora of studies about the cost of development, from just about any planning/or land economics institution. Since this is what I do as a profession, I can say that residential--depending on the place--generally costs the local government providing infrastructure and services between 1.30-1.70 per 1.00 of revenue generated; commercial is a net gain, with costs of .30-.60 per 1.00 of revenue; and farmland is also a net gain, with a similar ratio as commercial. Why, well the community has to pay for extending services to all of these new subdivisions, and almost no community has high enough property taxes to cover the true costs. Whereas agriculture costs essentially very little in infrastructure and service cost, and commercial (especially office; everything but fast food and walmart) earns a good deal of revenue.

 

[RookParliament]

Well there's been a plethora of studies about the cost of development, from just about any planning/or land economics institution. Since this is what I do as a profession, I can say that residential--depending on the place--generally costs the local government providing infrastructure and services between 1.30-1.70 per 1.00 of revenue generated; commercial is a net gain, with costs of .30-.60 per 1.00 of revenue; and farmland is also a net gain, with a similar ratio as commercial. Why, well the community has to pay for extending services to all of these new subdivisions, and almost no community has high enough property taxes to cover the true costs. Whereas agriculture costs essentially very little in infrastructure and service cost, and commercial (especially office; everything but fast food and walmart) earns a good deal of revenue.

I see. I didn't realize you were talking about homes not providing enough revenue.I had not idea that it was such a cost Although I would think that the cost of creating homes, attaching them to utilities, is an acceptable loss when you are creating a consumer base to bring in business into the region.