A lot to consider
I had never considered the city as “a space of conflict”
until Tuesday’s lecture, when we learned how that’s been a fitting way to
describe cities (among many, many other things) from B.C. to present day.
Lately there has been expansive conversations in the media about the current
state of American cities: there is too little supply of housing, rents are too
high, homelessness, transportation, and so on.
Here, here, here, here, and here are a few articles from the
past month…. just from The New York Times.
As us intellectuals like to say, there’s a lot to unpack
here, and sometimes I have a difficult time trying to make sense of all of
these issues in how they relate to our architecture career.
It’s clear that cities need more housing to reign in soaring
rental costs, and I’m 100% all for it. But I should acknowledge there is some
self-interest involved in my beliefs.
At the same time, I understand the argument (in some cases)
about the resistance to taller structures in some areas and the fight to keep a
neighborhood’s historic character. I would be devastated to see the destruction
or significant modification of historic row homes on Capitol Hill or the
Victorians lining Alamo square.
And I understand both sides surrounding the click-bait topic
of gentrification. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to displace people from their
longtime neighborhoods, and I would certainly resent outsiders trying to change
the community I grew up in and continue to want to live in. But should that
prevent the construction of some of the most influential and creative projects
– the NY Highline, Atlanta Beltline – from happening? If so, we would not
really have careers. And should people be confined to always live in their hometown?
I completely recognize the appeal of urban areas to rural and suburban natives.
For me, the city is a space of internal conflict as well.
However, as naïve as this may sound, I’m hopeful for the future and am excited
to be entering a career that is so influential in shaping cities.
Charlotte, conflict does seem inevitable in cities. I think you are right that though there is conflict, a lot of times good improvements occur as well. We just have to make sure that as a city changes for the better that the spaces we design are still accessible to everyone from all races and economic backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteThe comment about people staying in their hometowns is interesting. America is infamous for its "mine" mentality when nothing in this country belongs to anybody (except the Native Americans I suppose). Some cities are worse than others, but often times a city feels like a lot of people got together and collectively said this is how we live and act. Anybody that is not like that should go back to "their" hometown. An example being Charleston's less than welcoming attitude toward the Midwest.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of conflict in a city is so common now. It seems like the architect must be the one to push for the innovative and creative projects in those areas. The only way I can see it working is by sharing that ownership with the people of those neighborhoods so that they feel the projects are being done for and/or with them rather than imposed upon them.
ReplyDeleteI agree conflict is very much unavoidable in the city. The spaces that are created between buildings and amongst the sidewalks not only stem from public interaction but rather tactical urbanism... a forced reality from designers.
ReplyDelete