Favelas vs. Seaside
As I was reading Giancarlo de Carlo's writings about the typical architect's role within society I couldn't help myself to think of Andres Duane of DPZ and Seaside. Specially when Giancarlo, in closing, criticizes the rigidity of city planning in the following quote: "If an authoritarian plan were really flexible and open to growth, it would become possible for everyone to manipulate and understand it: thus it would lose those characteristics of ineffableness and immaculateness which sustain and hide its classist purpose." The couple of times I've seen Andres talk about his work, in every occasion he has boasted about the rise in property value that has been a result of his New Urbanist developments. In many ways, I think Duane's work create places like the one's Giancarlo describes as sustaining and hiding a classist purpose. Its interesting to me because the value's of New Urbanism a return to more traditional city planning, human scale, mixed uses, pedestrian cities accessible to all, mix of classes through density, etc. in Duane's work translate to maybe some of the most clear example's of Giancarlo's worries. Although Duane's work follows these values of "good" urban planning the end result is rigid places both socially, economically, and architecturally.
So, if we look at the complete opposite of Duane's work, the favela. Opposite in terms of economic forces and urban planning (the lack thereof). Such a lack of framework that even basic infrastructure lines such as sewer systems are missing. These favelas which when looked at architecturally alone, create a variety of interesting spaces, forms, and live/work conditions which would be the envy of any new urbanist purist. These places have generated new regional architectural styles which a new urbanist development would never be able to do. Yet they are grown organically from the economic and social forces which push people onto the outskirts of modern cities without the intervention of an architect or "master plan". Why is it that more interesting places are created when there's a lack of intelligent design? Is there something about this lack of control that we can learn from as a profession?
So, if we look at the complete opposite of Duane's work, the favela. Opposite in terms of economic forces and urban planning (the lack thereof). Such a lack of framework that even basic infrastructure lines such as sewer systems are missing. These favelas which when looked at architecturally alone, create a variety of interesting spaces, forms, and live/work conditions which would be the envy of any new urbanist purist. These places have generated new regional architectural styles which a new urbanist development would never be able to do. Yet they are grown organically from the economic and social forces which push people onto the outskirts of modern cities without the intervention of an architect or "master plan". Why is it that more interesting places are created when there's a lack of intelligent design? Is there something about this lack of control that we can learn from as a profession?
Comments
Post a Comment