4 ms·

It's fascinating how many problems urban development architecture can actually solve. When a citys population grows, the economy grows even faste. Drug and ment

It's fascinating how many problems urban development architecture can actually solve. When a citys population grows, the economy grows even faste. Drug and mental problems can be solved by giving people better housing conditions.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago
These are daring statements! In the light of the gigantic failure of 20th century early modernist architect's to solve many social problems, despite their loud claims to the contrary. What did early modernist architects give us? Brutalism, car-friendly and pedestrian-repelling architecture following the blueprint of Le Corbusier "Radiant City" [1] and the Athens Charter [2]. Some solution to social problems ... In the light of the extreme failure of most of 20th century's modernist architecture, the burden of proof is firmly in the architects & urban planner's court. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse
- tome 8y ago
  [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Charter
  - YorkshireSeason 8y ago
    Thanks.
- jhbadger 8y ago
  That's exactly the sort of thing Jacobs was against, though. She believed a functioning city needed to have a mixture of uses -- not just residential or just commercial and that great cities had discovered that by accident. She was a proponent of "New Urbanism" which (at least in the US) is a popular trend -- new developments aren't just residential suburbs or shopping malls but often have things like apartment/condo buildings with stores and restaurants in the lower levels making pedestrianism a practical option.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    She generally favored cities developing somewhat organically (little plans as the headline says) and in keeping with the needs and wishes of the residents. Today I think you see a certain cherry-picking of Jacobs' beliefs going on. A lot of people latch onto her opposition to running a highway through Washington Square Park because they don't like car-centric culture. That's all well and good. But, as you suggest, she also tended to be against other types of large-scale urban planning. She probably would have been skeptical of the school of thought that the SF housing situation would be so much better if they'd just bulldoze the Mission and build residential towers.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago

These are daring statements! In the light of the gigantic failure of 20th century early modernist architect's to solve many social problems, despite their loud claims to the contrary. What did early modernist architects give us? Brutalism, car-friendly and pedestrian-repelling architecture following the blueprint of Le Corbusier "Radiant City" [1] and the Athens Charter [2]. Some solution to social problems ... In the light of the extreme failure of most of 20th century's modernist architecture, the burden of proof is firmly in the architects & urban planner's court. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse

tome 8y ago
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Charter
- YorkshireSeason 8y ago
  Thanks.
jhbadger 8y ago
That's exactly the sort of thing Jacobs was against, though. She believed a functioning city needed to have a mixture of uses -- not just residential or just commercial and that great cities had discovered that by accident. She was a proponent of "New Urbanism" which (at least in the US) is a popular trend -- new developments aren't just residential suburbs or shopping malls but often have things like apartment/condo buildings with stores and restaurants in the lower levels making pedestrianism a practical option.
- ghaff 8y ago
  She generally favored cities developing somewhat organically (little plans as the headline says) and in keeping with the needs and wishes of the residents. Today I think you see a certain cherry-picking of Jacobs' beliefs going on. A lot of people latch onto her opposition to running a highway through Washington Square Park because they don't like car-centric culture. That's all well and good. But, as you suggest, she also tended to be against other types of large-scale urban planning. She probably would have been skeptical of the school of thought that the SF housing situation would be so much better if they'd just bulldoze the Mission and build residential towers.