Pseudo-Rural Solutions
One
of the things I've been thinking about a lot in regards to the idea of
ecological sustainability is how it could possibly work with rural America. As
I mentioned in class the other day, the rural parts of the country have
generally been in economic and often environmental decline in the last several
decades, which is part of what has led to the current divided political
leanings within the US. Just look at a map from the recent election and you'll
realize that it wasn't a battle between different states, even though that's
the way of the electoral college. Rather, it was a divide between urban and
rural.
2016 Presidential Election Results by County
Industrialization
and technology have changed the balance of who lives and works in rural America.
As cities boom, the country becomes more desolate. Not only is the overall population
in decline, but the overall level of education in such areas is low. Those with
advanced degrees often leave small towns for urban centers, taking with them
the knowledge and skills that are lacking in rural regions.
But
what is the solution? I don’t have an answer, and because the philosophy of
ecological sustainability pertains to a system and not a building, I don’t know
what role or how large of one architecture can play in that. In a New York Times
article I read last week, as I noted, Twin Falls, Idaho is touted as a rural
economy on the upswing and, as the tagline notes, is “bucking the pattern, and
the perception, of rural struggle.” What is disappointing, though, is that the
author dances around the fact that Twin Falls is doing this by gentrifying and
getting larger, becoming not a rural town but rather a modest city.
CLIF
Bar and Chobani have both put very large plants in Twin Falls, which in turn
has resulted in people from adjacent areas slowly migrating to Twin Falls and
in essence suffocating smaller communities nearby. The author even notes that
one measure of rural success for a small town is “being near a larger city”, is
that really a success? That people have to be rural but not too much in order
to be able to sustain their homes? I would suggest to this New York Times
writer Mostafavi’s article and that he really consider carefully what “rural” America
actually means rather than oversimplifying a complex problem and ignoring trends
of gentrification.
The New York Times Article I discuss:
Comments
Post a Comment