Suburbia 2.0
I liked the idea of “urbanizing” suburbia before even walking into architecture school. I remember going to Myrtle Beach to visit family that lived in Seagate village, a community originally developed for military housing in the 60s. It was a cool place to visit because it was within walking distance of a newer community, Common Market, that is a mixed-used development which includes green spaces, pedestrian paths, stores, restaurants, and a theater. I really enjoyed the idea of having all the amenities that it offers and often wondered how it would look in different towns or cities.
Now that I have learned more about the philosophy and risks associated with retrofitting suburbia, I can look at places like Common Market through different lenses and begin to ask questions that deal with the bigger picture of development in relation to the city, context, history, sustainability, authenticity, etc. I like the intention of what “instant architecture” has to offer but I do believe that it needs a more rigorous approach to design and would be more appealing if it becomes an extension rather than it's own entity floating in space.
the phrase "instant architecture" sends a chill down my spine. almost anything instant isn't worth it. instant mac and cheese, instant breakfast burrito - they taste good at first but probably have a cold middle and they can't sustain you.
ReplyDeleteAs you bring up the Myrtle Beach in this context, the first thing that comes to mind for me is the Ocean Lakes area of Myrtle. I wonder if it was developed in the same manner as your families community. Ocean lakes is now a community of like minded and look-a-likes.
ReplyDeleteI'm fascinated by the idea of urbanizing suburbia. I think that architects have the opportunity to revitalize suburbs that were planned in previous decades in order to breathe new vitality into them. While they will still have a sense of privatization and probably elitism, they can potentially offer more to more types of people.
ReplyDelete