Fear of a Black Pedestrian
Jesse Walker | March 5, 2007, 5:23pm
In
The New York Times, Nicolai Ouroussoff
points to a practice he calls "21st-century medievalism," in which "architects are being enlisted to create not only major civic landmarks but lines of civic defense, with aesthetically pleasing features like elegantly sculpted barriers around public plazas or decorative cladding for bulky protective concrete walls":
After 9/11, a craving for the solidity of walls reasserted itself. And the wars on terror, and fractious peaces, enforced it. The Green Zone in Baghdad, Jerusalem's separation barrier, the concrete bollards that line corporate headquarters on Park Avenue -- all are emblems of an unintended new mentality....That mentality has become acceptable in relatively stable cities as well, including London, where a debate has now arisen over what do to with the concrete barricades that
surround the United States Embassy in historic Grosvenor Square. Some suggest that they should be replaced by a permanent, more visually appealing barrier, as if better design could somehow negate the notion that we are surrendering to the inevitable. And in downtown Miami, federal marshals have suggested that the barricades originally included in the plans for a park designed by Maya Lin as part of a new courthouse complex might have to be reinforced, even as people begin to move into the building.
The most chilling example of the new medievalism is New York's Freedom Tower, which was once touted as a symbol of enlightenment. Designed by David Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, it rests on a 20-story, windowless fortified concrete base decorated in prismatic glass panels in a grotesque attempt to disguise its underlying paranoia. And the brooding, obelisk-like form above is more of an expression of American hubris than of freedom.
Part of me wants to nod my head, and part of me wants to complain that "medievalism" really isn't the best term for the trend. Most of me, though, wants to turn the microphone over to
Lester Spence, who adds a little historical perspective:
While very specific design elements may have become more commonplace after 9/11, many of
them had been in place for the last thirty years or so. The first modern urban threat remember was not the Arab terrorist, but the black rioter. Buildings like Detroit's Renaissance Center were noted not only for their use of curves as opposed to angles, but also for [their] use of military style bunkers to keep urban (read: black) denizens out. The bunkers have since been removed, but the first thing that I thought of as a young kid looking at it was the Morlocks. The curves (the building is in effect a series of connected tubes) served to disorient people rather than welcome them -- which of course makes sense if the only population the designers want in the building in the first place are people who know where they are going. And the use of surveillance cameras were first popularized in the US in Baltimore, while dealing with a crime spree associated with young black male criminals.
If someone were to study the shifts in these design elements over time in response to what is in effect racialized fear, it'd be hot. And if they could combine a study of building design with car design they'd be really onto something.
rob | March 6, 2007, 9:04am | #
I also love how joe has nothing but disdain for a building project whose purpose was sepcifically designed to do to of the things he supports, namely to "quell the white flight which increased, following the social unrest from the 12th Street riot in 1967. The project was intended to revitalize the economy of Detroit."
In other words, it's an example of urban planning of the sort that joe would normally laud (anti-white flight, pro-urban revitalization).
Except that this particular project draws his ire because it was built by a guy and his corporation, rather than by tax money taken by the gov't.
That and the fact that because it was a private project, the gov't wasn't able to force the project down people's throats.
See, all right-thinking people understand that the everyone would be happier if they were told where and how to live by by "expert city planners" who earnestly believe they know how to create an urban paradise. All those planners need is sufficient gov't funding (everyone else's tax dollars) and the power to decide where - and more importantly HOW - everyone should live.
Props to Spence for the "Morlocks" reference.
I'd say the odds of an utter dystopia seem more likely to occur in gov't-controlled & planned urban environments, rather than in suburban and rural areas that are pretty much beyond the controlling reach of such "for your own good" meddling.
Maybe it's just an amazingly bad example to use, because one example of a private corporation engaging in this sort of "aesthetically offensive, defensive design" doesn't come anywhere near to matching the number of such designs created by gov't city planners.
rob | March 6, 2007, 10:48am | #
Some telling quotes about city planners from the Princeton Review's Career Profile:
"City planners help design cities and make such determinations as the height of buildings, the width of streets, the number of street signs, and the design and location of street 'furniture' (everything from bus stops and lampposts to newsstands and wastebaskets)."
Nothing wrong with that, right? Oh, but that sort of thing simply isn't grandiose enough:
"Deciding how a city is set up involves creativity, and a career in city planning demands the knowledge of basic engineering principles, the ability to compromise, political diplomacy, and financial acumen... [SNIP] This last consideration factor can be difficult— urban-planning projects nearly always run over budget and past deadline, and even the most frugal design can be expected to run into opposition from some quarter."
What a shock - city planning is often so disconnected from concerns about actual cost that even the career description refers to how financially inefficient the field is. Best to prepare the little darlings for the reality that their utopian designs will take longer to complete than they expect because they'll inevitably have to get taxpayers to cough up more money.
"Strong analytic skills and sheer force of will are required to be a successful urban planner."
Because a successful city planning project is truly "A Triumph Of The Will." It takes a lot of will power to be able to tell other people how and where to live.
"Every building or structure must be designed with an understanding of its relationship to other elements of the city, such as coordinating the construction of water and power facilities, while still allowing people access to light, heat, and fresh water, or designing housing complexes that will be close to public transportation. Aesthetic design, another feature that the planner must consider, can be the subject of hot debate."
See where accomodating human beings comes into that list, right? Dead last. And of course, public transportation is one of the cornerstones of the field. And of course, some small-minded group of non-experts - who obviously don't have city planning degrees! - are sure to disagree with the city planner's "brilliant aesthetic design."
"The urban planner has to design with an understanding of the policies of the city and create economically viable plans."
Or at least come to the understanding that they have an unlimited budget because the people the tax money is coming from can't tell them "no" or "that's too expensive," or even, "why do we need a monorail system?"
"The planner begins by surveying sites and performing demographic, economic, and environmental studies to assess the needs of the community and encourage public participation in the process. If the planner is redeveloping an area (as opposed to groundbreaking or landfilling it), he or she must evaluate existing buildings and neighborhoods before determining what can be done to change the standing structures."
As seen in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, starring Joe as Prosser:
"MR. L. PROSSER, an overweight, weary and red-faced man with graying black hair sighs deeply. He is leaning on the edge of the bulldozer and looking down at ARTHUR, who lies in the mud with his arms crossed.
NARRATOR: Mr. L. Prosser, as they say, is only human.
ARTHUR looks back up at PROSSER with an intense distaste and defiance.
NARRATOR: In other words, he was a carbon based, bipedal life form descended from an ape. To be precise, he was forty, worked for the local council, and was irritated that his bulldozer was being blocked, quite stubbornly, by Arthur Dent. Curiously enough, he was unknowingly a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, although intervening generations, racial mixing and whatnot had juggled his genes enough to erase any Mongolian characteristics. The only traces of Mr. Prosser’s ancestry remaining was a stoutness about the stomach and a predilection for little fur hats.
PROSSER tries to put on a steely-eyed look, but fails somewhat miserably...
PROSSER: You know, you were entitled to make suggestions or protests at the appropriate time.
ARTHUR looks furious.
ARTHUR: Appropriate time!? APPROPRIATE TIME!? The first time I heard of this was when a workman came by my house yesterday! I asked him if he’d come to clean the windows, but no, he said he’d come to knock the house down! And that was only after he’d wiped down a few windows and charged me a fiver.
PROSSER: But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
ARTHUR: Oh, yes, soon as I heard of this plan, I went straight around to see them yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call much attention to them, had you? Such as maybe telling someone about them?
PROSSER looks more uncomfortable.
PROSSER: Well, the plans were on display –
ARTHUR: On display? I had to go down to the cellar to find them!
PROSSER: That’s the display department.
ARTHUR: With a flashlight.
PROSSER: Well, the lights had probably gone.
ARTHUR: So had the stairs.
PROSSER: Er – well – you did find them, didn’t you?
ARTHUR: Oh, yes. Yes, I did. The plans were on display, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door reading “Beware of the Leopard.”
PROSSER seems stunned by this. He pauses to think for quite a long time. ARTHUR settles down a little bit.
PROSSER: (quietly) Well...it’s not like it’s a particularly nice house.
ARTHUR: I beg your pardon! It’s my house! Sorry, but I happen to like it!"
"Recent graduates should look to their state’s Department of Transportation or look into civil engineering courses sponsored by the United States Army Corps of Engineers..."
This bit would be more aptly titled "Your Exciting Career As A 'Bold Bureaucrat!'"
"Urban planners should have an undergraduate degree in an area such as civil engineering, architecture, or public administration."
(Caveat to aspiring city planners: The first two actually require intelligence and mental discipline, so stick to public administration.)
"Most schools do not offer undergraduate degrees in structural engineering, but many employers look favorably on candidates who have studied structural engineering at the master’s level."
Because actually understanding whether the structure will stand is of tertiary importance at best!
"A master’s degree in city or regional planning or structural engineering is the highest laurel and respected by all employers."
Except employers who know what city planners actually do.
"One 30-year structural engineer noticed that many recent graduates handle textbook problems wonderfully, but are less apt at identifying and coping with real-life problems."
Say it isn't so! A guy with 30 years of structural engineering experience has found most recent city planning grads have no idea what is actually useful in the real world? Well, he probably doesn't even have a degree in public administration, much less city planning! He's no expert!
"After four years of working full-time, urban planners are eligible to take a step-one licensing test. There are two of these tests (step one and step two); which one a planner takes depends on his or her interests and area of expertise. After getting this license and working for four additional years, serious candidates take another test to obtain the title of professional engineer. These certifications are not required, but they are respected within the profession. Generally, acquiring these licenses leads to a promotion and increases in salary."
Because to prove expertise in a field that doesn't require any actual expertise usually means a licensing process. Those who get this sort of license usually get a hefty pay raise and promotion, because gov't agencies like to have some sort of metric - any sort, really - to point to.
City planners - the guys they should have put on the Golgafrincham ships with the telephone sanitation engineers...
rob | March 6, 2007, 11:26am | #
"I must have missed the part where the conversation turned into a debate of the merits of urban planning/planners." - Number6
Really? Here I thought this thread was about urban design... Who is it that normally perpetrates "urban design?" Might it be "city planners?"
"Perhaps you meant that we should ignore Joe because he is an urban planner. I doubt that I need to name that particular fallacy for you." - Number6
No, but that's a good place to start. Another would be not to trust a city planner who is so uniformed about architectural design that he thinks "the name 'brutalism' comes from the effect of the architecture on the viewer's mind and soul."
And not, as has already been correctly pointed out: "The term Brutalist Architecture originates from the French béton brut, or 'raw concrete', a term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material. In 1954, the English architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term, but it gained currency when the British architectural critic Reyner Banham used it in the title of his 1954 book, 'New Brutalism,' to identify the emerging style.[1]"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism
In other words, Brutalism is exactly the sort of thing joe normally supports, but because of his "My Little Pony-ish" lack of understanding of both the architectural style and its historical use, he comes down against it. To be fair, he has also come out against Cabrini Greens, another city planning nightmare that had the best of intentions and similar reasoning, so at least he's consistently against city planning projects that turn into notoriously horrible slums.
Anyone who has read joe's posts on the wonders of modern urban planning will recognize echoes of plenty of his urban planning statements in this:
"Brutalism as an architectural style also was associated with a social utopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism
Unsurprisingly, these city planning debacles failed to become utopias:
"The failure of positive communities to form early on in some Brutalist structures, possibly due to the larger processes of urban decay that set in after World War II (especially in the United Kingdom), led to the combined unpopularity of both the ideology and the architectural style... Combined with the socially progressive intentions behind Brutalist 'streets in the sky' housings such as Corbusier's Unité, Brutalism was promoted as a positive option for forward-moving, modern urban housing."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism
rob | March 6, 2007, 12:44pm | #
"Rob- You appear to be right about the origins of the term brutalism, although Joe's interpretation makes a sort of intuitive sense, given how fugly the buildings are." - Number6
Only if you are completely unaware of the two styles until this thread began. (Actually, that sort of ignorance would normally make me wonder if the writer had actually worked in the field they claim expertise in, but ignorance is not really a barrier to working as a city planner, in my experience).
Actually, Speer's buildings were very "classical" and Brutalism very "modern." (Speer's buildings wouldn't look too out of place in Washington, D.C., really.) The fact that they were both spawned by misguided at best (psychotic and harmful at worst) utopian fantasies - much like the overwhelming majority of city planning - is a superficial link. But stylistically they are totally dissimilar and the utopian motivations they were based upon were actually so completely different as to be incompatible (even if socialist is part of "National Socialist").
"So why couch that point in insults and invective?" - Number6
When my insults slip into homophobic rage at people who disagree with me, like joe's post at 11:23, I'll take the lecture you're trying to hand me.
"Why slip into Coulterspeak? ... most of us come here to get away from that kind of thing." - Number6
The fact that I find most city planners in general, and joe's approach in particular, to be despicable and based on thoroughly discredited authoritiarian and socialist premises, is hardly "Coulter-speak." I haven't used a single profanity, nor have I insulted anyone's sexuality in terms that are also derogatory towards homosexuals. So how, exactly, have I said anything "Coulter-esque"?
In fact, which statement of mine has got you so upset? I re-read my posts and I just don't see it...
