skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Earlier this week I posted a blog about the component parts of a thriving Metropolis environment. This got me to thinking about what a modern city should look like and there were some cities that came to mind. Tokyo, for one was top on the list. But, also, even American cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Philidelphia and D.C. all came to mind in varying degrees as examples of what to do and what not to do in designing a new modern metropolis.
As you know, I live in Jacksonville, so I feel that my efforts and theoretical works should lend themselves to making this place into the modern marvel that I wish all cities of the future to be. And, so, I've now begun thinking, "What is a Skyscraper?"
And this is the heart of what I think will make the new modern Metropolis for our generation. But not just in a single skyscraper, mind you. What I am proposing is a complete redesign of an existing city structure in such a way as to connect everything with those component parts mentioned previously; commercial interests, transportation, housing. These are the building blocks of the Vertical City. Over the next few weeks I'll be posting a series of blogs investigating how an existing city structure can be transformed into a new vertical city completely connected within itself and it's surroundings.
The area that I've chosen for this little experiment is an area of downtown Jacksonville known as La Villa. It is an area of the city West of the downtown center just off of an existing elevated train line.
As you can see in the aerial above, La Villa is a neighborhood comprised of several city blocks bordered by a main highway to the West, the elevated train to the South, and two other main automotive arteries to the North and East. At an almost central location is the La Villa School of the Arts, a magnate elementary school. This will be the center of the New La Villa as you'll see in posts to come.
I welcome any and all comments or suggestions. Please, critique at will.
The question is: What does it take to sustain a thriving downtown metropolis?
Today I went to get a trim. This is quite possibly the most unlikely place to find an answer to such a unique political/architectural/socioeconomic question, but i found one. So, the obvious answer to the questions can be found in several parts as follows:
Commerce - first and foremost, I think, is the need for "downtown" to be a destination. There has to be a reason for people to spend time downtown. This includes, among other things, restaurants, shops, groceries, bars, nightclubs, etc.
Housing - second, adequate and affordable housing is needed to sustain those who would live/work/play downtown. Currently Jacksonville has plenty of housing downtown, but few units are affordable.
Transportation - this is the most crucial for a successful downtown metropolis. Those living and working downtown need a reliable way in and around the downtown area. Reliable public transportation should be the ultimate goal of any city that wishes to grow into a functioning metropolis.
Our city is a prime example of what NOT to do with public transportation. Though Jacksonville is one of the largest cities in the US due to it's land mass. Everything is spread so far out that effective public transportation becomes a colossal undertaking. And, currently, the city is totally unwilling to spend the time and money required to investigate such a thing.
Jacksonville, even with it's geographic short comings, has a downtown that is rapidly on the rise. But it is limited by the shortsightedness of it's governing bodies. If Jacksonville is going to realize it's potential as a thriving metropolis than change has to be affected. And it needs to be affected by the Architecture community. It is falling to our responsibility to re-educate the public, the clients, the developers and the city officials on good and responsible design for the future of Jacksonville.
I've been preaching about this for months it seems, but it holds true. There are projects on the boards that can go a long way to beginning this process, but they are too few and too far between. There have been others, like the Maritime Museum, that could springboard real change in areas that need something to help sustain them. It's time to show people what can really be done no matter how small the budget. I put it to all Architects and Designers, re-educate your clients. Show them the value of good design; show them what is possible when you use just a little bit of budget and a lot of imagination.
In today's architecture we are bombarded by, what I like to call, "POP Architecture". That is to say, Architecture that is simply there to look good. We've all seen it, we've all been walking down the popular streets in our own cities and seen the Architecture that tends to be overly complex in it's design and shape.
I've begun to wonder why that is? Is it necessary in an architectural expression to add on layer upon layer of artifice to make the edifice? What has happened to the audacity and simplicity of the modern movement? Architects like Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Peter Eisenman and Richard Meier have shaped their individual times and locals with built works that are beautiful in their simplicity and economy of form and space. Take into consideration Meier's Ackerberg House in Malibu, California. At first glance all of Meier's work appears similar almost to the point of being carbon copies. Even the chosen color, always white, has in it myriad variations as the sun makes it's trek across the sky. And this is something that hasn't been seen since the days of the Villa Savoye.
Is it the clients? Have our clients become ingendered with this apathy towards good design versus the cost of construction? Is everyone of the mind that high design comes with a high cost? Recently I attended a lecture hosted by my local AIA chapter by Marlon Blackwell. For those of you not familiar with his work, visit his website for more information.
I recently came had a discussion with some coworkers about "architecture". The breadth of the discussion was mostly about the difference in taste between architects like Frank Gehry and, say, Paul Rudolph. I bring up Rudolph because during the discussion one of his works at Emory University in Atlanta Georgia came to mind. It came to me because this simple chapel is an example of architecture that I think embodies a vertain amount of the purity of design, the simplicity and moderation that I've been discussing here.
In the image you can see the simplicity and honesty that i'm referring to. There you can see the exposed concrete, the rough lines of the forms used to shape the walls and even exposing the connection of the roofing at the archway. These are honest and true expressions of an architectural language. And this is the true nature of Architecture: To be honest and true in the representation of Material, Connection and Craft in today's environment.
On the cover of Architectural Record this month is the title statement "Altered Perceptions of Space", and in this month's issue is a series of critical articles on Record interiors. I must say that the projects profiled in this issue are remarkable, as are all works that appear in Record. And listed are works by some renowned architects such as Tadao Ando and Rene Gonzales. But what struck me first about this issue was not the content but simply the title of the expose, "Altered Perceptions of Space". This got me to thinking about Architecture and about Space. We, as Architects, design Space; we shape the world and mold the way in which we experience and interact with that world. And looking through history one can see in the works of our best and brightest how architects and designers have used many different ways to alter how we perceive and interact with the world around us. This, I think, is a profound challenge for all Architects.
If you look at the work of one of the great masters of this age, Le Corbusier 
. He set out not only to change our perceptions of space, but to create a "Machine for Living".
And in this machine for living, Corbu also began to change the way we perceived the spaces within the home. Much as Frank Lloyd Wright also did with his Prairie Style. But where Wright centralized the public spaces and secluded the private, Corbu opened the entire plan and made one space seperated by non-load bearing partitions or "screans". Many of us have grown up in McMansions all over the US and abroad so we are familiar with the compartmentalizing of the traditional house: a central living space with kitchen and dining adjacent, the master suite secluded to one side and the children's area tucked away in yet another corner of the building. This creates a sense of seperation within a single space. Corbu exploded that seperation and drastically changed how we perceive the interaction of individual spaces within the home. And this should be applied more than it is today, more than half a century later.
How can we bring about this change in the thinking of designers and Architects to take into consideration, not only the human scale,
but also the human experience? Walking down the streets of Jacksonville, Florida you see the disinterest and lack of interaction of pedestrians and buildings. There is no human scale, there is no way to experience what is around us, accept from above. What is the solution? I put it to you.
