Sailing in a Rustic Ocean
“What we are doing now is to complete an
inventory of the remains of a millenarian society where the countryside
dominated the city, and whose ideas, values, taboos and prescriptions were
largely agrarian, with rural and ‘natural’ dominant features. A few sporadic
cities hardly emerged from a rustic ocean. Rural society was (still is), a
society of scarcity and penury, or want accepted or rejected, of prohibitions
managing and regulating privations…. A decisive remark: for the crisis of the traditional
city accompanies the world crisis of agrarian civilization, which is also
traditional.” ―Lefebvre, Right to the City (1968)
In 2010, the last federal census revealed about 19% of the United States population living in rural areas, but more than 54% of those rural residents actually lived within the boundaries of metropolitan areas (Census.gov). In the map below, urban areas are shaded in orange or rust, but they share the purple-shaded metro areas with large swaths of rural space.
A second map shows
that rural populations, shaded from light gold for lowest rural density to dark
brown for highest rural density, are generally adjacent to urban areas.
LeFebvre narrowed the definition of the “right
to the city” to a “right to urban
life,” rejecting traditional ways even when “the urban fabric encloses the countryside and what
survives of peasant life.”
So, what does this mean for architects and planners working
in South Carolina in 2020?
In ARCH 8620, some of us read and discussed Harwell Hamilton Harris’ 1954 criticism of “Regionalism
of Restriction” that reinforced traditional values and social structures while stagnating architectural
innovation. While Harris described New Orleans, our class easily found parallels in
our own state.As South Carolina's urban areas expand, change is inevitable; however, I predict that it will come slowly, just as examples of Modern Architecture were slow to come to the state. Some innovative architecture might emerge, but I also see a large number of projects that continue to salute the state’s agricultural history—repurposed cotton mills, neighborhoods with farmhouse or plantation architecture, and New Urbanism that draws on nostalgia for an ill-remembered past.
If you continue to work in South Carolina, will you have flexibility to push against traditional architectural styles or will you be at the mercy of agrarian tastes and values?
I completely agree that change will continue to come slowly. The South has this way of holding onto the past, whether it be for good or for bad. It seems to stem from some matter of pride. There's some good in history and it's character but with changing times places like Greenville, SC or Charlotte, NC will be looked to for a little push elsewhere in the Carolina's for example.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if at some point "money is power" will kick in, and the few places with money will cause a "money is innovation" scenario?
This is something that rarely gets fought in the realm of architecture, especially with today's respect for preserving history. I do also feel this question can strongly pertain to Charleston, SC. It's style is like no other in the US and has inspired other architects within the new urbanism movement (Andres Duany) whether it is good or bad is another question. In my opinion, there comes a time when architecture needs to make a change to progress mankind, and if we constantly keep retrofitting
ReplyDeleteAudrey and Cody, to your points, I am conflicted about the good and bad. As they age, some structures acquire warm patinas that I find beautiful. On the other hand, when I think critically about their historical context, I know that some buildings cannot be separated from the marginalization, exclusion, and exploitation large groups of people, and I would be stunned if members of these groups do not view these buildings differently. I don't know the answer, and LeFebvre does not help. In the same paragraph where he explained that "the city historically constructed is no longer lived" and that structures become "culture consumption for tourists," he wrote that "the past, the present, and the possible" cannot be separated (p. 148). The challenge is moving forward without denying the past.
ReplyDelete