How Frank Lloyd Wright Tried to Solve the City(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
How Frank Lloyd Wright Tried to Solve the City
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/05/frank-lloyd-wright-tried-to-solve-the-city.html
12 comments
Walter Burley Griffin did this - it's Australia's capital city Canberra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Burley_Griffin
These turn of the century architects lived at the birth of the affordable motor vehicle. To them the motor car was no doubt a symbol of the future and of marvelous connection with the world around them not unlike how I feel about the way I have seen the internet grow in my lifetime.
Canberra today - whilst still a beautiful city is too big for itself even with only a 0.5mil populous. The city is now too large in area and choked with congestion relying on buses as the only form of public transport. There is no longer anyway the city could feasibly afford to install any supplementary public transport like light rail.
The idea of a a dispersed city is idealistic, but a dense city is functional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Burley_Griffin
These turn of the century architects lived at the birth of the affordable motor vehicle. To them the motor car was no doubt a symbol of the future and of marvelous connection with the world around them not unlike how I feel about the way I have seen the internet grow in my lifetime.
Canberra today - whilst still a beautiful city is too big for itself even with only a 0.5mil populous. The city is now too large in area and choked with congestion relying on buses as the only form of public transport. There is no longer anyway the city could feasibly afford to install any supplementary public transport like light rail.
The idea of a a dispersed city is idealistic, but a dense city is functional.
To clarify: these are examples of what NOT to do, and Alexander stated them as such.
I disagree. I can't ride a human to work. :-)
That's the point: bad city planning forces you to use a car.
Compare that to a city like Groningen:
https://vimeo.com/76207227
Compare that to a city like Groningen:
https://vimeo.com/76207227
Groningen, a city of less than 200,000, is not scalable for the biggest cities in the world, which is the problem. Biking across New York or L.A. is not even remotely feasible. I'm not saying better cities are not possible, but just putting everyone on bikes is not even close to a solution. You'd be better off going back to horses.
While I wouldn't necessarily want to cross NYC in its entirety by bike on a frequent basis, remember that most trips are three miles or less--a perfectly cromulent distance for a bike. Most people don't need to cross an entire city all the time. Also, mass transit works rather well when paired with walking and biking.
I agree that the solutions for Groningen do not scale on their own, but as others suggested a good public transportation system would go a long way.
I really don't see how horses would be better than bikes though.
I really don't see how horses would be better than bikes though.
Well 1 horses are dangerous (horse riding is a high risk sport) 2 the removal of the horse poop becomes a major issue.
I cant see a problem in riding across New York - I have done cross central London a few times.
I cant see a problem in riding across New York - I have done cross central London a few times.
And you are of course, elderly or handicapped, correct? Or you need to travel with two small children? And when you say you biked 'across New York', you mean from Long Island or Yonkers to Manhattan or some similar commuter trek, correct?
Across manhatten yes done that distance many many times in London its surprising how quickly you can get from a train terminus in the north over the river on a bike.
You can get kids bike seats and trailers I see a tandem with a kids trailer do a commute from my village to the local town (3 miles quite often)
You can get kids bike seats and trailers I see a tandem with a kids trailer do a commute from my village to the local town (3 miles quite often)
No, but getting across NYC on the subway is probably the fastest way to do it.
Just as an arbitrary data point, I've biked from Hollywood to Santa Monica. It's doable, and with a fraction of the effort spent on building and maintaining infrastructure for cars the bike-ride might even be pleasant. Re: New york, I have not biked there, but the new bike rental program seems to indicate that biking there is becoming more friendly.
Singapore does it just fine. I bike in NYC often and I think it could support mass bike ridership in combination with the subway.
Singapore has a population density of 13,600 people per square mile, where the US has 75. They do NOT "do it fine". It is a mass of teeming people crawling all over each other.
Don't be disingenuous. NYC has a density of 27k people per square mile. Farms in Idaho do not factor into the discussion about cities.
Move nearer to where you work then!
This is not a practical solution for many people. If I lived nearer to where I work, I'd be living on the streets.
Yes, but isn't that the whole point? If a city is designed for cars, you're gonna need a car. Which has all kinds of downsides.
I have to admit I often thumbed my nose at 'those Americans and theird cars', but only until I spent some time in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Once there, I realized that it's pretty much impossible to do anything without a care! It shocked me.
I have to admit I often thumbed my nose at 'those Americans and theird cars', but only until I spent some time in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Once there, I realized that it's pretty much impossible to do anything without a care! It shocked me.
I like the Dart, though. I've window shopped employment in the DFW area. Problem is all the major companies are in suburbs like Plano, where there is no metro access.
At least they build the roads to accommodate down there. 4 lanes each side for regular avenues, and the travel density justifies them. Up in the northeast some major interstates and roads like i78 and route 22 are two lanes with the traffic of a 3 lane each side highway.
Whenever I move next, though, I'm moving where I can take public transport commutes to any office I work at (if any at all, I'd prefer remote, maybe one in office day a week). The monetary investment and insane risks with cars is just way too much to justify.
At least they build the roads to accommodate down there. 4 lanes each side for regular avenues, and the travel density justifies them. Up in the northeast some major interstates and roads like i78 and route 22 are two lanes with the traffic of a 3 lane each side highway.
Whenever I move next, though, I'm moving where I can take public transport commutes to any office I work at (if any at all, I'd prefer remote, maybe one in office day a week). The monetary investment and insane risks with cars is just way too much to justify.
well there is weather, cities rarely are designed to protect you from adverse weather. Usually it what ends a lot of people's new found idea of, lets bike to work. One day its too hot, its too cold, its wet, its windy, oh I need to take x, and on and on and on, now we have a nice garage ornament.
Biking to work is fine, I just wish people quit implying its an alternative to cars or mass transportation when its very weather dependent. Got a change of clothes at work? Not where I work you don't, top it off where I am going to put the bike though I did have a nice folding BMW one awhile back.
Biking to work is fine, I just wish people quit implying its an alternative to cars or mass transportation when its very weather dependent. Got a change of clothes at work? Not where I work you don't, top it off where I am going to put the bike though I did have a nice folding BMW one awhile back.
It's not weather dependent though. Just look at Denmark. Cold, wet, snowy in winter and yet basically the same number of people are biking to work year round.
That said, Americans in particular are used to being in a "comfortable" environment all the time. It's a cultural thing, and those take forever to change, but there's nothing inherent in the calculus of weather and biking (with a few obvious exceptions).
That said, Americans in particular are used to being in a "comfortable" environment all the time. It's a cultural thing, and those take forever to change, but there's nothing inherent in the calculus of weather and biking (with a few obvious exceptions).
The reason it isn't a practical solution is partially because of city planning, which is the problem Alexander was addressing.
I must recommend Jan Gehl's masterpiece, Life Between Buildings http://amzn.to/1jwFtcP
Saw a talk he gave at Berkeley a few months ago. He's a fascinating character and has done a tremendous amount of research about how cities function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Gehl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Gehl
I'd recommend Leon Krier's Architecture of Community if you want a better look at this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Architecture-Community-Leon-Krier/... He gets somewhat repetitive and preachy, IMO, and I don't feel the book delivers on its promises, but it's a much more in-depth look at the ideas faintly alluded to in the article.
Differently, check out Vishaan Chakrabarti's A Country of Cities, which disagrees with Krier (and thus agrees with Wright) on the skyscraper: http://www.amazon.com/Country-Cities-Manifesto-Urban-America... It suffers, IIRC, from not enough citations but is otherwise pretty strong on its argument.
I tend to lean towards agreeing with Chakrabarti and Wright more on the vertical space issue, largely because Krier never quite managed to form a coherent argument against density except that it was being done badly. Krier, on the other hand, highlights the idea of the poly-centric city which is at least a reality in Seattle (where I live).
Differently, check out Vishaan Chakrabarti's A Country of Cities, which disagrees with Krier (and thus agrees with Wright) on the skyscraper: http://www.amazon.com/Country-Cities-Manifesto-Urban-America... It suffers, IIRC, from not enough citations but is otherwise pretty strong on its argument.
I tend to lean towards agreeing with Chakrabarti and Wright more on the vertical space issue, largely because Krier never quite managed to form a coherent argument against density except that it was being done badly. Krier, on the other hand, highlights the idea of the poly-centric city which is at least a reality in Seattle (where I live).
The article mentions that his spread out, one-acre-per-person city "would be connected by a complex design of streets and highways."
Is anyone familiar with his highway plan? My impression of city planning is that roads are the hard, boring part, so I'm curious if Wright's roads were just a thing he drew between his beautifully arranged buildings and parks, or if he had an actual plan for how to move people efficiently around his cities.
Saying "everyone should live close to their workplace" only works if you have a single, mega-office/industrial park, with all of the housing arranged tightly around it. Once you have two places people can work, changing jobs requires people to change houses, and only people who work together can live together. So in practice you need to have a transportation system that allows everyone in the city to commute between work and home in a short amount of time during a small window of time in the morning and afternoon.
Sitting in traffic in a beautifully designed city does not sound particularly more fun than sitting in traffic in a poorly designed city.
Is anyone familiar with his highway plan? My impression of city planning is that roads are the hard, boring part, so I'm curious if Wright's roads were just a thing he drew between his beautifully arranged buildings and parks, or if he had an actual plan for how to move people efficiently around his cities.
Saying "everyone should live close to their workplace" only works if you have a single, mega-office/industrial park, with all of the housing arranged tightly around it. Once you have two places people can work, changing jobs requires people to change houses, and only people who work together can live together. So in practice you need to have a transportation system that allows everyone in the city to commute between work and home in a short amount of time during a small window of time in the morning and afternoon.
Sitting in traffic in a beautifully designed city does not sound particularly more fun than sitting in traffic in a poorly designed city.
I'm not familiar with his highway plan, but unless he figured out a way to transcend limitations of spacetime, providing transportation to an insane land use of one acre per person would be intractable. The common wisdom is that, due to latent demand, you can't really build your way out of congestion. That would be extra problematic under the land use you mention, as you'd be forcing everyone to drive everywhere (mass transit and walking are difficult when populations are diffuse and distances are vast).
So, yeah, this strikes me as being a utopian vision by a talented architect dabbling in something outside his expertise.
So, yeah, this strikes me as being a utopian vision by a talented architect dabbling in something outside his expertise.
> Saying "everyone should live close to their workplace" only works if you have a single, mega-office/industrial park, with all of the housing arranged tightly around it.
You're assuming zoning.
Check this out: office. And then put a house on top.
More reasonably, do what I ended up having to do in SimCity: zone a couple spaces as commercial, then zone another couple spaces as residential, and then zone another couple spaces as commercial, and keep flipping back and forth.
You're assuming zoning.
Check this out: office. And then put a house on top.
More reasonably, do what I ended up having to do in SimCity: zone a couple spaces as commercial, then zone another couple spaces as residential, and then zone another couple spaces as commercial, and keep flipping back and forth.
It doesn't matter if you have zoning or intermingled commercial/residential.
I work at Industrial Widgets, it's in an intermingled commercial/residential building, there's an apartment free on the three floors up from the very office.
My wife currently works at Consolidated Sprockets across town. There's an apartment across the street. However, it's just an internship at she hopes to get a job at Conglomerated Weevils in a few months. It's located in a third location.
Where should we live?
I work at Industrial Widgets, it's in an intermingled commercial/residential building, there's an apartment free on the three floors up from the very office.
My wife currently works at Consolidated Sprockets across town. There's an apartment across the street. However, it's just an internship at she hopes to get a job at Conglomerated Weevils in a few months. It's located in a third location.
Where should we live?
[edit] I wrote a thing about transportation, but I didn't realize you were criticizing Wright's plan, so nevermind; I've actually never found a reason to admire Wright and the article didn't really do anything for that.
I recommend everyone to visit his masterpiece building: Fallingwater tucked in the Pennsylvania countryside, and also a nearby smaller house Kentuck Knob. I visited both twice. During my second visit I stood breathless before the Fallingwater and weeped, so beautiful and perfect it was.
Seconded. I wrote up a little piece about my visit to Fallingwater and why it particularly fascinates me, as a software engineer:
http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/fallingwater/
(Kentucky Knob is also really interesting, and so close that it's certainly worth visiting both if you're in the area.)
http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/fallingwater/
(Kentucky Knob is also really interesting, and so close that it's certainly worth visiting both if you're in the area.)
It's a gorgeous building that I plan to visit soon.
Interestingly, at construction it had severe structural and environmental deficiencies. For example, mildew was a huge problem for many years, and the perfect cantilevers were not strong enough and sagged until they were repaired in the early 2000s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallingwater#Repair_work
Interestingly, at construction it had severe structural and environmental deficiencies. For example, mildew was a huge problem for many years, and the perfect cantilevers were not strong enough and sagged until they were repaired in the early 2000s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallingwater#Repair_work
No discussion of cities and reimagining them is complete without referencing Jane Jacobs.
Her approach was almost the direct opposite of Wrights (and of many urban reformers). Her focus was the street and interactions between residents, shopkeepers, and other inhabitants of the city. Her realization (mirrored well by Garrison Keillor in a biographical documentary I caught a year or so back) was that cities are collections of neighborhoods or villages. rglover her contrasts his impression of Chicago with the small towns of Ohio in which he grew up. My experience with large cities is that frequently their downtowns are impersonal (though even there I've found my niches), but it's in the neighborhood that their character really shows. Sometimes it's a character you don't much care for, but often there's a sense of place and community, even in dynamic and rapidly changing cities, which can persist for years, decades, or even generations. It does take time to appreciate and find, though.
Back to Jacobs: finding her The Life and Death of Great American Cities was a watershed for me (and I can still remember the marginalia in my uni's copy at one of her common-sense observations: "God bless you, Jane"). Cities and the Wealth of Nations and The Economy of Cities changed many of my perceptions of what economics was about and where its real centers lay (it's rarely nations or states, cities and metropolitan areas, yes).
Wright's interesting. But he's no authority on cities or urban planning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
Her approach was almost the direct opposite of Wrights (and of many urban reformers). Her focus was the street and interactions between residents, shopkeepers, and other inhabitants of the city. Her realization (mirrored well by Garrison Keillor in a biographical documentary I caught a year or so back) was that cities are collections of neighborhoods or villages. rglover her contrasts his impression of Chicago with the small towns of Ohio in which he grew up. My experience with large cities is that frequently their downtowns are impersonal (though even there I've found my niches), but it's in the neighborhood that their character really shows. Sometimes it's a character you don't much care for, but often there's a sense of place and community, even in dynamic and rapidly changing cities, which can persist for years, decades, or even generations. It does take time to appreciate and find, though.
Back to Jacobs: finding her The Life and Death of Great American Cities was a watershed for me (and I can still remember the marginalia in my uni's copy at one of her common-sense observations: "God bless you, Jane"). Cities and the Wealth of Nations and The Economy of Cities changed many of my perceptions of what economics was about and where its real centers lay (it's rarely nations or states, cities and metropolitan areas, yes).
Wright's interesting. But he's no authority on cities or urban planning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs
Frank Lloyd Wright tried to solve the city by destroying the city. His Broadacre design experiment is pretty much affluent, planned suburban America.
No thanks.
No thanks.
I grew up in suburban Ohio and have lived in Chicago for the past two years. Before I moved, there was a longing to join the energy of the city. Ohio, by and large, is pretty slow moving. It wasn't until I got to Chicago that I realized the effect that change of pace had.
In order to both live and function in the city, I had to rewire my brain. I recall the first few months in the city being absolutely terrifying. Not because of any one thing in particular, but your sense of self starts to evaporate. You start to see the boundaries between you and the universe. You feel small.
Occasionally, my girlfriend and I travel back to her home town. An honest to goodness town, too. It's classified as a "village." When I'm there, I often take walks around the entirety of the town. The change of pace is incredible. Even compared to where I grew up, there's a sense of serenity, not just in the immediate experience, but in the people.
The behavior you see there is a total 180 from what you experience in the city – a cold, dismissive brood that makes you feel entirely too insignificant.
When I moved to Chicago I made it a point to visit FLW's home and studio in Oak Park (about 20-30 minutes outside of the city). Though the area he built in has changed dramatically (based on the descriptions told as a part of the tour), there was something really serene about it all. His home was directly adjacent to his studio. Seeing this, the whole time I thought "yeah, I could dig this."
This article makes his vision sound akin to the modern day suburb, which, while there are similarities, doesn't feel like an accurate interpretation. If you get the chance to experience some of his more rural-based work, I would check it out. There's a certain flow to the buildings he designed that elicits a feeling of peace. I can imagine his plans outlined in this article were to accomplish that on a much bigger scale.
In order to both live and function in the city, I had to rewire my brain. I recall the first few months in the city being absolutely terrifying. Not because of any one thing in particular, but your sense of self starts to evaporate. You start to see the boundaries between you and the universe. You feel small.
Occasionally, my girlfriend and I travel back to her home town. An honest to goodness town, too. It's classified as a "village." When I'm there, I often take walks around the entirety of the town. The change of pace is incredible. Even compared to where I grew up, there's a sense of serenity, not just in the immediate experience, but in the people.
The behavior you see there is a total 180 from what you experience in the city – a cold, dismissive brood that makes you feel entirely too insignificant.
When I moved to Chicago I made it a point to visit FLW's home and studio in Oak Park (about 20-30 minutes outside of the city). Though the area he built in has changed dramatically (based on the descriptions told as a part of the tour), there was something really serene about it all. His home was directly adjacent to his studio. Seeing this, the whole time I thought "yeah, I could dig this."
This article makes his vision sound akin to the modern day suburb, which, while there are similarities, doesn't feel like an accurate interpretation. If you get the chance to experience some of his more rural-based work, I would check it out. There's a certain flow to the buildings he designed that elicits a feeling of peace. I can imagine his plans outlined in this article were to accomplish that on a much bigger scale.
I think you're a harsh judge of cities if Chicago is your only example. I had similar thoughts about Chicago on a brief visit; that it's big, cold both physically and emotionally, windy... generally, somewhat hostile to the senses. I'm sure there are a lot of great activities going on that I don't know about, but that was my surface impression.
I live in Buffalo, New York which to me is a "just right" sized city. I can walk around the urban core as one might walk around a village. It's busy enough to feel lively on a business day, and relatively quiet in the evening.
Having grown up in the suburbs, I only now realize how isolating boulevards and strip malls can be. I like walking and biking. I see my neighbors more. I get more exercise. I create less pollution. I feel more connected and more alive.
I'm not shy to the charm and serenity of country living. The stars alone can entertain me for hours at night. It can be so enriching to have some space, some quiet, some separation, some peace. Some time to think and to work.
Wright's family-per-acre spread seems neither urban, nor rural; technically, 'sub urban' - but not our current suburbia. Still, it seems to lose sight of the value of density. The highways he proposes would mean cars, noise, pollution, and isolation.
Buffalo has a trove of FLW treasures: his boathouse, gas station, mausoleum, Martin house, Graycliff. There is definitely something to them, a sense of space and elegance.
Having warmed to Buffalo's urbanism, the appeal of FLW's 'city' vision is lost on me. But his freestanding works are unique and worth experiencing.
I live in Buffalo, New York which to me is a "just right" sized city. I can walk around the urban core as one might walk around a village. It's busy enough to feel lively on a business day, and relatively quiet in the evening.
Having grown up in the suburbs, I only now realize how isolating boulevards and strip malls can be. I like walking and biking. I see my neighbors more. I get more exercise. I create less pollution. I feel more connected and more alive.
I'm not shy to the charm and serenity of country living. The stars alone can entertain me for hours at night. It can be so enriching to have some space, some quiet, some separation, some peace. Some time to think and to work.
Wright's family-per-acre spread seems neither urban, nor rural; technically, 'sub urban' - but not our current suburbia. Still, it seems to lose sight of the value of density. The highways he proposes would mean cars, noise, pollution, and isolation.
Buffalo has a trove of FLW treasures: his boathouse, gas station, mausoleum, Martin house, Graycliff. There is definitely something to them, a sense of space and elegance.
Having warmed to Buffalo's urbanism, the appeal of FLW's 'city' vision is lost on me. But his freestanding works are unique and worth experiencing.
Chicago is the only major city I've lived in. I didn't mean to articulate my feelings toward all cities. There are parts of New York City that feel incredibly homey (strange as that may sound). There's definitely a size of city that's just right, like you've described here. I also used to live in Ann Arbor, MI. Considered a city, but also has a nice hometown feel to it.
I agree on the isolation of boulevards and strip malls. I prefer areas where there's a microcity/downtown area, but a lot of grassy residential space close by. The modern mega suburbs (with Best Buy's, Wal-Marts, and every fast food imaginable) are terrible.
I agree on the isolation of boulevards and strip malls. I prefer areas where there's a microcity/downtown area, but a lot of grassy residential space close by. The modern mega suburbs (with Best Buy's, Wal-Marts, and every fast food imaginable) are terrible.
I think your experience describes your feelings in the city. As someone who grew up half in a city and half in the country, I feel more at home and more significant in an urban environment.
Definitely. Didn't want my sentiments to apply to all cities. See my reply above. A lot of places that embody the spirit of a city, without the "shut out" feeling.
Certainly depends on the person. Which, whether FLW's desire or not, is why forcing an option on everyone and assuming it's the best for each person is a pretty weak way of doing things.
That's actually my favorite part of humanity: there are a lot of different ways of life/attitudes. Just a matter of finding the one you sync up with best.
Certainly depends on the person. Which, whether FLW's desire or not, is why forcing an option on everyone and assuming it's the best for each person is a pretty weak way of doing things.
That's actually my favorite part of humanity: there are a lot of different ways of life/attitudes. Just a matter of finding the one you sync up with best.
As mentioned in the article, there's an exhibit right now at NYC's MoMA on Wright's ideas about the city: http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1448
I saw it last week, and it's really great. They have the scale model he built there along with a lot of his drawings. A lot of fascinating ideas in there. I just wish I could locate some of his writings on the subject without dropping $200-$300 on an out of print copy of a portion of his autobiography or papers. :(
I saw it last week, and it's really great. They have the scale model he built there along with a lot of his drawings. A lot of fascinating ideas in there. I just wish I could locate some of his writings on the subject without dropping $200-$300 on an out of print copy of a portion of his autobiography or papers. :(
Wasn't Frank Lloyd Wright the inspiration for the main characer of Ayn Rands 'The Fountainhead?' She uses him to draw a figure, mocked by regular architects, fighting against the 'fake' style of that day: architects trying to build 'classic' buildings from Greek times with columns and all. In the novel 'man' is what the buildings are about, if I'm correct. I don't know for sure, but I imagine Frank got his share of ridiculement as well.
From Wp[1]: "The character of Roark was at least partly inspired by American architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Rand described the inspiration as limited to "some of his architectural ideas [and] the pattern of his career".[19] She denied that Wright had anything to do with the philosophy expressed by Roark or the events of the plot."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead#Howard_Roark
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead#Howard_Roark
Hey thanks! I'd never realised they were from the same time-frame and knew each other. From the same article: "Rand's denials have not stopped other commentators from claiming stronger connections between Wright and Roark.[21][22] Wright himself equivocated about whether he thought Roark was based on him, sometimes implying that he was, at other times denying it.[23] Wright biographer Ada Louise Huxtable described the "yawning gap" between Wright's philosophy and Rand's, and quoted him declaring, "I deny the paternity and refuse to marry the mother."[24]"
i can recommend Urbanized. a documentary about urban city planning. it covers lots of current ideas, and has interviews with many leading architects and urban planners.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1701976/ http://urbanizedfilm.com/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1701976/ http://urbanizedfilm.com/
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Niemeyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BAcio_Costa
and their work on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Niemeyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BAcio_Costa
and their work on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia
Lived in Brasilia for about a decade. Hated the way the city was planned. Everyone needed cars, only a handful of local commerce close to you, no real downtown, everything spread out so people ended driving everywhere, and public transport was only for the poor who lived in surrounding cities, so the busses sucked big time (same thing with subway, was built to take workers in and out of the city, only run until 9 p.m. or earlier).
One more who I particularly admire, responsible for the planning of Yerevan, Armenia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tamanian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tamanian
I lived in Rio for 3 years and every time I saw a building or design that didn't seem to fit, invariably it was a Niemeyer work or inspired by Niemeyer. You can still find the old Portuguese architecture in spots but you really have to look for it <sigh> maybe I'm just not modern enough.
Lived in Rio for long time and always go there to visit. Agree with you, Niemeyer stuff is just out of place, and some just look like badly aged sci-fi. Here in Sao Paulo there's this little mall on the first floor of one of his buildings, and none of the stores have bathrooms. I was told by an architect that Niemeyer, being a communist, wanted bathrooms to be collective. So you have to go up a flight of stairs and pee in this dark, dungeon-like cave that nobody uses anyway.
I've heard the name lots of times in a Simon & Garfunkel song but I didn't know who he was.
As someone who studied architecture for years, this made me literally groan out loud. Frank Lloyd Wright is usually the one architect whom people at least have heard of. One of the issues which has discouraged me from pursuing computer programming in the past is my impression that a lot of people involved in technology-related careers (ie my would-be future peers) have narrow perspectives on the world due to their reduced levels of interest in a wider liberal arts education, and it is annoying when I see something which confirms that. I really hope that I don't sound like a troll, but I also value giving and receiving honest feedback, and my guess is that some of you could probably benefit from looking away from the computer screen once and a while and exploring something new.
Well I am British and his work seems largely American although Wikipedia mentions a few buildings in Japan. I did like the Guggenheim when I visited NY over 20 years ago but didn't know/remember the artist's name.
If you asked me to name a few architects I would probably have come up with Wren, Mackintosh, Gaudi and Norman Foster. I'm sure that there are a few others that I would go "ohh yeah" to.
Architecture isn't really my thing on the liberal arts side of things, I'm more an Economics and Politics man.
If you asked me to name a few architects I would probably have come up with Wren, Mackintosh, Gaudi and Norman Foster. I'm sure that there are a few others that I would go "ohh yeah" to.
Architecture isn't really my thing on the liberal arts side of things, I'm more an Economics and Politics man.
> Frank Lloyd Wright is usually the one architect whom people at least have heard of.
Simpsons did it.
On a more serious note -
> people involved in technology-related careers (ie my would-be future peers) have narrow perspectives on the world due to their reduced levels of interest in a wider liberal arts education
Not any more or less than any other field. It's funny, people are individuals, they often act individually.
Simpsons did it.
On a more serious note -
> people involved in technology-related careers (ie my would-be future peers) have narrow perspectives on the world due to their reduced levels of interest in a wider liberal arts education
Not any more or less than any other field. It's funny, people are individuals, they often act individually.
What are you talking about? Here in HN people are aware of and interested in a bunch of different subjects. Plus, unlike the liberal arts/artist crowd, they have tachnical knowledge and are usually more rational about their opinions and conclusions. So one person says he hadn't heard of Wright in the middle of many more people commenting the article, and you say hackers need to look more at the arts?
I'm not necessarily talking about HN, but about people I have known in person - classmates in college, people I knew socially afterwards, and (this probably has skewed my judgement somewhat) an ex-boyfriend. I also personally suspect that the phenomena may even be making some hard-to-trace contribution (through reduced opportunities to practice communication skills, limited peer groups, and less time spent studying human diversity and other cultures in general) to the headlines which keep popping up about how sexist the technology field is. I know that concern may sound extreme, and I really hope that it can be proven wrong. Obviously (and thankfully) none of that can be generalized, but the original poster's example was so shocking to me that I felt compelled to say something warning people that the situation is in some cases possible.
I also don't know what you mean when you say that people with technical knowledge (which I have some of) are "more rational about their opinions and conclusions" - I sincerely believe that taking a literary theory class and learning about often-vilified (perhaps not here) ideas such as postmodernism and deconstruction improved my decision-making ability by allowing me to better understand both sides of an issue.
I also don't know what you mean when you say that people with technical knowledge (which I have some of) are "more rational about their opinions and conclusions" - I sincerely believe that taking a literary theory class and learning about often-vilified (perhaps not here) ideas such as postmodernism and deconstruction improved my decision-making ability by allowing me to better understand both sides of an issue.
neither did Simon when he wrote it.
What amazed me after reading some of his books are the physical effects of today's cities on humans (and animals).
Some examples:
Living higher than 4 stores: there is evidence that this will disconnect you from the life happening on ground level.
Streets made for cars: cars are more important than humans.