Our Right to the City
*This post is in regards to the previous week's reading by David Harvey, "The Right to the City"
I can't help but think of Greenville and some of the development I see happening there after reading this. I think sometimes we get caught up in all of the changes that we see happening and feel out of touch with the place we inhabit. We can say that something similar has happened to us on campus or even in the city of Clemson. People always refer to the "good ole days" where all was well and in their control. Development in my opinion is good for a city. While I acknowledge the difference between good and bad development, development as a whole is the exciting way for a city to progress and move forward. The big cities we see and love are only that because of the exciting amount of activity that is happening there. So when we see our small towns grow up "too fast" or "inappropriately" I question the actions that those critics are taking. The NorthPointe development off Wade Hampton & Stone in Greenville is a prime example of the right to the city that WE have. Design Boards have been set up to judge and critique new projects that come into play. While politics exist and back door deals can be made, we as a community have a right to our city and can voice that right. That is what was done in the example. Problems arose where the design failed to address the gateway to downtown Greenville. This failure resulted in a rejection to the proposal, where they had to turn around and revise their plans. A simple step taken in the early process of design, made with the right of the people, helped define a better architectural prospect. In my opinion, we all have the right to the city, especially us as architects. The question is, do we all exercise it?
I can't help but think of Greenville and some of the development I see happening there after reading this. I think sometimes we get caught up in all of the changes that we see happening and feel out of touch with the place we inhabit. We can say that something similar has happened to us on campus or even in the city of Clemson. People always refer to the "good ole days" where all was well and in their control. Development in my opinion is good for a city. While I acknowledge the difference between good and bad development, development as a whole is the exciting way for a city to progress and move forward. The big cities we see and love are only that because of the exciting amount of activity that is happening there. So when we see our small towns grow up "too fast" or "inappropriately" I question the actions that those critics are taking. The NorthPointe development off Wade Hampton & Stone in Greenville is a prime example of the right to the city that WE have. Design Boards have been set up to judge and critique new projects that come into play. While politics exist and back door deals can be made, we as a community have a right to our city and can voice that right. That is what was done in the example. Problems arose where the design failed to address the gateway to downtown Greenville. This failure resulted in a rejection to the proposal, where they had to turn around and revise their plans. A simple step taken in the early process of design, made with the right of the people, helped define a better architectural prospect. In my opinion, we all have the right to the city, especially us as architects. The question is, do we all exercise it?
Evil Developer
Our Right to the City
Comments
Post a Comment