Trying to find a meaning:
Everyday Urbanism - an approach to Urbanism that finds its meanings in everyday life”. Charleston, a historic city thrived with Maritime industries. The historic city was shaped by the everyday activity of life in and around the city. The streets are sized to fit the size of a trade boat from those days. These streets run straight into the markets where the cargo is unloaded. These water alleyways shaped the buildings and location of the windows and doors to be able to easily load and unload the boat. It is still evident with the buildings from those periods. It may not be serving the same purpose, but it was created around the social life of those times.
If we flip the coin, the developments in the upper peninsula have no relation to the life in and around the neighborhood. All the streets are indifferent. They have the same sidewalk and palmetto tree. In a sense one can argue that the streets offer a lot of social activity. But I think that is the minimum requirement for any place or city.
The idea of globalism and universal design has adversely affected the connection between architecture and society. It ripped off the importance to everyday life and culture of the place. Different cultures have different ways of living. And there cannot be such a thing called universal design. Attesting to Hayden’s post, I think the notion of public space has changed and become a commodity. The idea of public space is completely alien to a generation of people. Modernism shaped cities and paved the way for public space becoming a commodity. It no longer provides access without any restriction as it is reserved for a specific group.
It is tough to make architecture special to a place since the constraints that once created specific needs is far less prevalent. Any material can be sourced to any place and although local craftmanship plays a part in construction we have streamlined building so that it can be mass produced. There are many good things about this, but new styles are no longer created from constraints of a place they are often created by arbitrary guidelines that mimic the styles of the past.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your analogy about Charleston, SC. Although I do agree that there is not well thought out design of the development of northern Charleston. I also believe that the historic preservationist are limiting the possibilities of modern contemporary design to occur. It for this reason that the idea of globalism and universal design will not come to flourishing.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are places that may be more "appropriate" to the idea of globalism and universal design than others, which ironically starts with the past of that place. For example, Charleston's history has been made through the community from that region and that region alone. The character of the city may have evolved but the architecture still relates. On the other hand, Chicago's history began with architects designing new building types, and letting designers from all over the world to come and shape the city. In this case, Chicago is more appropriate for global and universal design.
ReplyDeleteIt's strange to see how north Charleston and Charleston have become so different with such different missions. There is a strong political divide between those who want new contemporary buildings vs. those who want historial and 'old' buildings. The new buildings should relate more to the past, there is too much of a disconnect from modern Charleston buildings to historical low country buildings.
ReplyDelete