Ecological Urbanism?
Is there such a thing as ecological urbanism? Right now, I would say no. Humans have pushed nature out of their inner
cities to make more room for roads and sidewalks and high rises. Take Manhattan: it’s an ocean of concrete
with a few tiny islands of green with the exception of Central Park, though
even Central Park looking at a map and walking (virtually) around it feels like
it belongs somewhere else.
Seriously, the street may as well be dividing two planets
rather than two areas of the same city.
And I don’t think you can argue an “overall feel of the city” with this
one. Sure, the shots from above are
wonderful and beautiful and it’s nice to see nature poking (however
artificially) out of the concrete jungle, but that’s not the human experience;
if you’re one street over, you have absolutely no indication of the 1.3 square
miles of nature that has been so carefully injected into Manhattan’s heart.
Does that mean I’m arguing there should be city and nature and never the twain shall meet? No. Absolutely not. That’s dangerous for everyone’s health, including the planet’s. But I think they need to be integrated better. I don’t think it’s enough to carve out a large rectangle and designate that as the only space where nature thrives. I think there needs to be much more integration… ecological urbanism, the marriage of nature and humanity, can exist, it just doesn’t yet. But I think Renaudie was onto something. Mostavfavi in his article states that “Renaudie designed his buildings according to a complex geometric pattern that placed as much emphasis on the outdoor areas-the terraces and gardens between the apartments-as it did on the apartments themselves.”
I think “Ecological Urbanism” is going to take more interconnection
between building and nature like Renaudie’s apartments…It might look even more like
Milan’s Bosco Verticale—the Vertical Forest.
This is a great critical analysis of Mustafavi’s thoughts on urbanism and its take on ecology. I do feel however that, much to his point, cities should take a step back and observe what nature is doing to become self-reliant. If we were to take your example and transfer it to an individual building that has all these sustainable features (LEED, Living Building, ETC.), you see that it is getting merit for sustaining itself, not the city. A huge problem Mustafavi points out in his writings is how the world around us relies on micro to macro to sustain its life, thus meaning the smallest kink in the system ruins that biomes sustainable potential. Looking forward, I believe, as cities expand, we need to look towards smarter cities and not only smarter buildings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, on the premise that, I do not believe in the terminology 'Ecological Urbanism'. Places such as Central Park, are one of many examples of places that feel like they've been dropped in the midst of chaos. Is it truly sustainable to have a flourishing park in the middle of Manhattan's architectural disaster? Cities like these are built up to be a remarkable city but it actually embodies new built on top of old structures, rather than an influx of reconditioned spaces to help improve the city.
ReplyDelete