Is the urban fascination backfiring?
The Koolhass’
text made me reflect about the many aspects of current city urbanization, but
the topic that struck me most was when he said, “Manhattan is considered the archetype of the metropolitan condition,
to the point where the two are often interchangeable.”
It is interesting
to think how technology creates an urban fascination that draws a population to
already congested urban sites. Even though congested areas can be so rich
programmatically speaking, I wonder if the New York metropolis formula was applied
in other parts of the world successfully. For example, are the slums exponential
growth a malfunction of this “metropolis” formula already applied in other
parts of the world? Is living in urban areas a camouflaged technocrat dictation?
A forced way of living? According to the United Nations, the world urban
population will grow by 84 percent by 2050 (“from
3.4 billion in 2009 to 6.3 billion in 2050”). What kind of formulas are we (as
architects) applying right now that may backfire in the near future?
www.reddit.com
Neza-Chalco-Itza is the largest slum in the world with
roughly four million people
www.stylehiclub.com
Rocinha located in the National Park of Tijuca in Rio de
Janeiro.
I think NYC's physical growth is a direct result of economic forces over imposed on a frame created through policy. Entrepreneurs trying to outshine each other by building the tallest and shiniest tower within the boundaries of what they could build on. The city's grid was drawn pretty much as it is before anyone had the slightest idea of how big the city was going to be. In the slums case the same economical forces are present within no policy to control them. It's interesting to see what the physical results are for better or worse. There's physical spaces created within the slums that outshine the best programmed spaces planned by the best architects in NYC.
ReplyDelete