Hidden in History
David Harvey defines the right of the city as a collective
right for humans to make and remake cities themselves; the people should decide
what their city is and will become. And while it is such a beautiful idea, that
we would love to be true, history tells a different story. The beautiful,
historic, and architecturally rich cities that we love to admire and visit were
not built for the people, but rather for the governing powers that used
architecture as a means to control the people. These cities were built to
stifle the people from changing the identity of their city.
I thought the class discussions about the historic revolutions
and gentrification in Paris were particularly interesting because they
uncovered the underlying politics and controversies that are inherent in the
existence of almost any urban space, all around the world . It is interesting
to me that in architecture school, we are trained to design and think about
urban cities and public space as a place ‘for the people.’
However, we are rarely taught about the forces that resist and make it
challenging to design towards this utopian idea.
You bring up a good point about how in school we are taught to design spaces for 'the people' and to focus on what their needs are within a space and how they are going to use a specific space. In reality, its not so black and white. There are many obstacles to overcome such as power forces. What David was talking about today in Detroit and how all these riots took place and people lost their lives which in the end led to these beautiful apartment buildings... but the apartment buildings weren't for the african americans who lived in that area, no, they were pushed out and a bunch of white middle/upper class people moved in. So its just sad to see all the struggle that happens in order for a place to become more appealing in the eyes of who have power.
ReplyDeleteI agree I think it's hard to hear all of the hardship that went into the modern development of these cities that we now know and love, specifically Paris. BUT... I can't help but think what would Paris be like today if such extreme urbanization was not provoked? I think maybe in school they teach us to design for the people so that when we're faced with complex conflicts of urban renewal we can balance this civic duty of designing for the people and practicing some visionary expertise and knowledge, hopefully coming to a well rounded decision that in the end is the best for the public good.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda's comment in sense that even if the people have no control in the matter, as designers it is our responsibility to make the good decisions. A forceful decision doesn't have to be evil, and without them, maybe certain cities would not be as successful as they are.
ReplyDeleteWe should think of cities as systems. The people are a part of that system, along with architecture, economics, governing bodies, etc. In order for anyone to benefit, all components must work together. I tend to back away from the binary thinking of us/them or old/new and try to encourage something of a blended, collaborative approach. How can the people benefit from historic design? Do they? How can we make it work for most.
ReplyDeleteIts a little like the adage "history is written by the victors." In this case it should be "architecture is created by the powerful." And for most of history I would say that is true. I mean, we are paid large sums of money to carry out complex ideas for wealthy clients. But this is why it is important for the architecture profession to consciously take a stance and work to represent the interest of the end user even if the client doesn't acknowledge them. In my mind, the person who laid out the streets of Paris to better control public expression was one big stab in the back to society.
ReplyDelete