Arriving in Odessa is like a trimmed down Barcelona, all grid system and wide mature tree lined boulevards. Instant differences, though, lots of crows, for a seaside resort strange not to be intimidated by low flying Seagulls. Also, if your up early enough people gathering the newly fallen Autumn leaves and sweeping the streets, two to each street corner. Apparently large numbers of people are given a little bit of money to spend and hour or so a day to clear a little patch of street, old people, or people with other jobs to go to afterwards. This all leads to an immaculate street level environment within the city, seemingly good relations between neighbors, a little cash for those who might need it and, an awkward path to transverse between piles of leaves and rubbish, while carrying a big bag and with not much sleep from the night train just before.
This cleanliness ends at the cities edges. The inland lakes and marshlands, areas of such stunning natural beauty are strewn with rubbish of all kinds. We witnessed people dumping all sorts, an old lady appeared during one exploration with a bin full of plastic bottles over her shoulder, calmly she stepped a little way into a patch of reeds and tipped them out, right in front of us.
I could relate these to the typology of the nearby built form. A Soviet era suburb, a long procession of slightly differing housing blocks, thirteen stories high on average, with a road running out of the city and tram lines. All separated by strips of green space. Behind them slightly smaller blocks at around nine stories. Then a sharp contrast, down to private housing, some quite old, most newly built. Many different materials used, aggrandized frontages with bizarre references to classical form amongst many other styles. Seemingly the newer the house, the larger its surrounding fence, the larger the fuel capacity of its promenading car, the gaudier its architectural references.
The rubbish collection seems to still take place around the flat blocks, and everywhere little stalls selling allsorts, from spanners to cigarettes. These are particularly clustered around the various tram stops, the tram being the main course of access at the time of construction with little car ownership. Now many of the green patches down the centre of the blocks, buffering the road and tram lines as well as public walking and resting areas are taken up by tin forts with guard towers and barbed wire, storage for the locals’ cars. This is a shame as it blocks eyesight at street level across the boulevard between the blocks on either side. Patches where the original layout is retained feel more connected, more like a street, even though it is so wide.
The rubbish would have been at one time burnt in the furnaces of the centralised heating systems around the city, providing heat for the unitary blocks. Carbon output, and its associated implications for upgrading the system has pretty much stopped this.
Locations of the rubbish low-level architecture seem to correlate directly with highest levels of dumping.
We had the chance to talk to a few locals while on the trip, and especially the students of the University. Their feelings on the housing were that the old Soviet era blocks were dilapidated and ugly, yet they had lasted with little maintenance for many years and were all very much occupied. One girl talked about her newer private house, built 12 years previous, she liked it very much, though, through some pressing she did say that it was suffering itself, even with the amounts of maintenance they were willing to attribute it, doors were warped and drafty, salt ingresses through thin walls and it could get very cold in the winter. All practical considerations but what wasn’t mentioned was why the need for a security guard at the gate for the development, high fences, loud dogs, private cars, and why was there no proper route to the beach?
It was even more of a shame to see development now in the hands of large companies, building blocks at the edge of the city, beyond its previous limit, with poor access to transport, no balconies, seemingly a big no-no in Odessa and no built-in amenity spaces.
Friday 26 November 2010
Working With Planners
I was confused to hear that Shoreditch is in Tower Hamlets, the area I know as Shoreditch is mainly in Hackney, I don’t know if you agree? That area is to which I referred when asking a question in the ‘Working With Planners’ lecture with Jamie Ounan and Leigh Herington, about Shoreditch LAP 1 and 2. The actual document seems very noble in its outlook but the way it was described and seemingly its only practical application would be that of a developer’s brochure for the area. So this is progress from the UDP. The area has developed with seemingly little strategic intervention from planners from a dilapidated quarter to that of a extremely vibrant one, with many different cultural and economic centers and a good range of interest. This process did not come to being because of any planning consideration but market factors. It is rather a waste of energy to try and squeeze out some more value when it is very capable of fostering its own growth and development. Instead, there are many areas of the country and especially a Borough such as Tower Hamlets which could do with some support and crucially better understanding to aid improvement. Particularily further East in places like Bow, Stepney, Shadwell, Limehouse, Millwall, Blackwall. Already, the Shoreditch effect is spreading this way but these places have individual character of their own, perhaps you could encourage the development aspect but promote its existing qualities here, before it is lost.
The other point being that actual Shoreditch, as I would define it lies in Hackney, East of Old Street Station to around Kingsland Road. This area consists of arterial routes, populated by the drinking dens of the youngish middle class population, with the bits in-between these arteries and behind the pubs being housing estates of extremely low deprivation, relative to anywhere in the country. For the shining beacon of the report to be the regeneration of Bishopsgate Goods Yard is very frustrating. As I said then, let developers build what they want and demolish the arches, let them pay out of their ears in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy money and do something worthwhile in these estates.
The other point being that actual Shoreditch, as I would define it lies in Hackney, East of Old Street Station to around Kingsland Road. This area consists of arterial routes, populated by the drinking dens of the youngish middle class population, with the bits in-between these arteries and behind the pubs being housing estates of extremely low deprivation, relative to anywhere in the country. For the shining beacon of the report to be the regeneration of Bishopsgate Goods Yard is very frustrating. As I said then, let developers build what they want and demolish the arches, let them pay out of their ears in Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy money and do something worthwhile in these estates.
T24 Start Again 1
I really wanted to ask this question, it was touched on a bit in the discussion but I was too shy:
‘All the speakers touched on the use of narrative as central to their work. In my limited experience I have seen the same narrative being used as the basis of proposals of very different nature. One architect could use the story to propose the planting of a strawberry bush where as the other could use the same narrative to justify a proposal for a whopping great big tower on a site. 1:1 intervention is becoming ever more popular and is often the interpretation of an individual or group and, though, often based on a narrative themselves can be an imposed intervention with no specific reference to or understanding of a site. A tool for communication, engagement or a set purpose.
Socially engaging architecture, if that’s what you propose, depends more on the will of the architect. Norman Foster doesn’t build a tea trolley to engage Somali newcomers and more historic residents in Liverpool, both famed for tea consumption by volume. Studio Weave haven’t built many large office complex, where as Lynch is…
Got a bit lost there and kind of answered my own question but, is it equally fair for architects to impose much larger buildings on the city?
People don’t know what they want until you tell them? We can see through statistical approaches that questions and answers are easily manipulated, I’ve done it myself with a questionnaire on ‘Livable Streets’ where everyone drove to work, the shops, even the local park yet ask the right question and the residents could be seen to want the roads to be taken up.
It’s very hard to imagine something different. We don’t have time. You can’t predict how a building will really be used, particularly at larger scales. I found this recently with Unit 10 in Odessa; I thought it would be rough, cold and aggressive. I found it to be none of these, cars seem to stop to let you cross the road every now and again, people were friendly and open, it was a pleasant city-even more so the poor areas, less affected by encroaching capital markets on a day to day basis but more so in a structural economic way, and in terms the correlation of receding government. I suppose the weather was just a bonus. (will write more separately, signposts of language?)’
Perhaps the question was a bit long. Any answers, I would like to know what people think to the main question: ‘Is it fair for good architects to impose large buildings on the city?’
Of course this brings up lots more questions, who chooses the ‘good’ architects, would that category of architects be capable? I think any architect with the right team is capable. Back to capital. I suppose this is the point Signy raised so won’t go into that much further.
Another good remark was Robert Mull’s, (he’d obviously been thinking about it for a long time-hahaha) ‘Individual conversation to discover communal perspective’. As was elaborated by Maurice Mitchell, where, ‘the particular beats the unusual.’ As was highlighted here, narrative is used for the purpose of the architect to highlight a collective need or an individual taste. ‘Taste’, now that’s a good one, Brutalism only!
I, therefore, will strive for vagueness in my own work, who knows, it might be used well.
P.S, didn’t particularly like much of the work on show.
‘All the speakers touched on the use of narrative as central to their work. In my limited experience I have seen the same narrative being used as the basis of proposals of very different nature. One architect could use the story to propose the planting of a strawberry bush where as the other could use the same narrative to justify a proposal for a whopping great big tower on a site. 1:1 intervention is becoming ever more popular and is often the interpretation of an individual or group and, though, often based on a narrative themselves can be an imposed intervention with no specific reference to or understanding of a site. A tool for communication, engagement or a set purpose.
Socially engaging architecture, if that’s what you propose, depends more on the will of the architect. Norman Foster doesn’t build a tea trolley to engage Somali newcomers and more historic residents in Liverpool, both famed for tea consumption by volume. Studio Weave haven’t built many large office complex, where as Lynch is…
Got a bit lost there and kind of answered my own question but, is it equally fair for architects to impose much larger buildings on the city?
People don’t know what they want until you tell them? We can see through statistical approaches that questions and answers are easily manipulated, I’ve done it myself with a questionnaire on ‘Livable Streets’ where everyone drove to work, the shops, even the local park yet ask the right question and the residents could be seen to want the roads to be taken up.
It’s very hard to imagine something different. We don’t have time. You can’t predict how a building will really be used, particularly at larger scales. I found this recently with Unit 10 in Odessa; I thought it would be rough, cold and aggressive. I found it to be none of these, cars seem to stop to let you cross the road every now and again, people were friendly and open, it was a pleasant city-even more so the poor areas, less affected by encroaching capital markets on a day to day basis but more so in a structural economic way, and in terms the correlation of receding government. I suppose the weather was just a bonus. (will write more separately, signposts of language?)’
Perhaps the question was a bit long. Any answers, I would like to know what people think to the main question: ‘Is it fair for good architects to impose large buildings on the city?’
Of course this brings up lots more questions, who chooses the ‘good’ architects, would that category of architects be capable? I think any architect with the right team is capable. Back to capital. I suppose this is the point Signy raised so won’t go into that much further.
Another good remark was Robert Mull’s, (he’d obviously been thinking about it for a long time-hahaha) ‘Individual conversation to discover communal perspective’. As was elaborated by Maurice Mitchell, where, ‘the particular beats the unusual.’ As was highlighted here, narrative is used for the purpose of the architect to highlight a collective need or an individual taste. ‘Taste’, now that’s a good one, Brutalism only!
I, therefore, will strive for vagueness in my own work, who knows, it might be used well.
P.S, didn’t particularly like much of the work on show.
Saturday 6 November 2010
T18 Manifesto MarkII
More than Planning Policy makes up how a City looks or develops.
The ideal is unattainable.
We all have different ideas about society and even the narrowest principle difference can mean a huge difference in lifestyle (relative to what I think is the narrow band of human lifestyles). So, an ideal society would be different in the imagination of us all, or more importantly how we aim to achieve it. Perhaps some people think the society we live within is ideal-they’re wrong.
This is my aim in architecture, a big ask maybe.
An emerging idea in urban change at the moment is change in perception. For instance, in the city do we need guard rails in the middle of the road to stop pedestrians crossing intermittently. Could we slow the cars down or make new, better crossing points? The drivers are speeding because they feel safe, shouldn’t pedestrians and cyclists be helped to feel safe within the law. Should we act within the law to change?
Perception is important. We have seen this in lectures where buildings that come under the categories of good architecturally and bad architecturally have different perceptions again to those who live/work there and those who have no direct interest apart from knowing of the building.
Localism is dangerous-how do we prove this and attack it?
Jumble, jumble, jumble, jumble. Nothing works, can we build anything?
Making good proposals is worthwhile, something often comes of it and that is good.
Perhaps we can set up the SPUD flying-picket, going to planning consultations and arguing a point. Would we be welcome? Could we agree amongst ourselves? Importantly-would it help? Perhaps we could choose a proposal we didn’t like and try and stop/change it, would that be a good exercise…
The ideal is unattainable.
We all have different ideas about society and even the narrowest principle difference can mean a huge difference in lifestyle (relative to what I think is the narrow band of human lifestyles). So, an ideal society would be different in the imagination of us all, or more importantly how we aim to achieve it. Perhaps some people think the society we live within is ideal-they’re wrong.
This is my aim in architecture, a big ask maybe.
An emerging idea in urban change at the moment is change in perception. For instance, in the city do we need guard rails in the middle of the road to stop pedestrians crossing intermittently. Could we slow the cars down or make new, better crossing points? The drivers are speeding because they feel safe, shouldn’t pedestrians and cyclists be helped to feel safe within the law. Should we act within the law to change?
Perception is important. We have seen this in lectures where buildings that come under the categories of good architecturally and bad architecturally have different perceptions again to those who live/work there and those who have no direct interest apart from knowing of the building.
Localism is dangerous-how do we prove this and attack it?
Jumble, jumble, jumble, jumble. Nothing works, can we build anything?
Making good proposals is worthwhile, something often comes of it and that is good.
Perhaps we can set up the SPUD flying-picket, going to planning consultations and arguing a point. Would we be welcome? Could we agree amongst ourselves? Importantly-would it help? Perhaps we could choose a proposal we didn’t like and try and stop/change it, would that be a good exercise…
T17 Glossary of Terms MarkII
1. Planning - A negotiation between factors affecting the built environment with the aim of steering develoment.
1a. Rationalise - Make according to certain guidelines/the prevailing rational.
2. Spatial Planning - Purposeful arrangement of objects within a given space. Often, with varying consideration to the relationship between object, space and use. Sadly mostly fixed when in situ.
3. Design - Exploring new possibilities in creation/reworking an object for a given purpose.
4. Urban Design - Attempt at managing the process of change within the built environment.
4a. Urbanity - One road in isolation is no different from another, whether it be in a city or countryside; all built things have some sense of urbanity.
5. Dissemination - Taking ideas and proposals to those who will be affected by them to develop ways to put them into practice; also, to receive a critical response. With the aim of using feedback to positively improve the project or process.
6. Pilot Projects - Smaller scale testing’s of larger design principles. Should be on small scale as larger process is subject to change.
7. Public Art - An attempt at focusing of the perception of an area and the attention of its inhabitants to a given identity. Waste of time.
7a. Inhabitants - Those who occupy/have a bearing on the use of, a given space. Could be considered that wider society and therefore everyone is included.
8. To Consider - Make a judgment on an appropriate course of action relative to the objectives, opinions and principles of those who consider. Otherwise: To deny others from the decision making process.
9. Masterplan - Collection of studies which are brought together and conclusions made for the continued development of an area. Otherwise: Ongoing conclusions of a process to alter an area.
10. Map. A specific description of an area using symbolism.
1a. Rationalise - Make according to certain guidelines/the prevailing rational.
2. Spatial Planning - Purposeful arrangement of objects within a given space. Often, with varying consideration to the relationship between object, space and use. Sadly mostly fixed when in situ.
3. Design - Exploring new possibilities in creation/reworking an object for a given purpose.
4. Urban Design - Attempt at managing the process of change within the built environment.
4a. Urbanity - One road in isolation is no different from another, whether it be in a city or countryside; all built things have some sense of urbanity.
5. Dissemination - Taking ideas and proposals to those who will be affected by them to develop ways to put them into practice; also, to receive a critical response. With the aim of using feedback to positively improve the project or process.
6. Pilot Projects - Smaller scale testing’s of larger design principles. Should be on small scale as larger process is subject to change.
7. Public Art - An attempt at focusing of the perception of an area and the attention of its inhabitants to a given identity. Waste of time.
7a. Inhabitants - Those who occupy/have a bearing on the use of, a given space. Could be considered that wider society and therefore everyone is included.
8. To Consider - Make a judgment on an appropriate course of action relative to the objectives, opinions and principles of those who consider. Otherwise: To deny others from the decision making process.
9. Masterplan - Collection of studies which are brought together and conclusions made for the continued development of an area. Otherwise: Ongoing conclusions of a process to alter an area.
10. Map. A specific description of an area using symbolism.
T19 Belfast
Thus far we are agreed that it is not just the physical context but also the social and political which informs the City. We also admit that all these driving forces cannot be predicted and we must make assumptions and assertions.
Belfast is an acute example where certain of its social and political factors can be pointed to, to explain particular physical factors. These physical objects include, Peace Walls, fortress like RUC barracks and housing estate layouts.
The lecture was very thorough in describing Belfast’s make-up, without necessarily, pictures of key buildings but descriptions of social or political events. Also, its geography, which along with the collective prejudice of the settlers/landowners/factory owners lead to ghettoisation of the Protestant and Catholic working classes. The Catholics with their lower paid, less skilled and, therefore, less secure jobs within the mills on the fast-flowing river edges of the hills to the North. The Protestants living on the flat, with more skilled jobs in the shipyards. The ship owners living in London, some of the very few able to travel aboard the ships in any dignity.
Please see: ‘Titanic’, James Cameron, 1997. A wonderful film-so romantic.
This is if the Catholics were allowed to work at all; Protestants got first priority. So, it can’t be blamed that easily on the Protestant working class.
It is a testament to how successful the social control had been that it took the large scale burning out of Catholic populations from mixed Catholic/Protestant areas to kick the Catholic working class into action.
The description of how the plantations affected land organisation was very interesting compared to the existing system of townland.
Could get carried away on two fronts here with the politics, so will go back to the built.
In some ways I liked the idea of making the big roads into more active streetscapes but with so much land and piecemeal development you wonder if there aren’t better sites-not necessarily centrally, and could it be interesting o retreat from the road or make a hierarchical buffer?
To finish on the term I liked the most: ‘Critical Reconstruction.’
Belfast is an acute example where certain of its social and political factors can be pointed to, to explain particular physical factors. These physical objects include, Peace Walls, fortress like RUC barracks and housing estate layouts.
The lecture was very thorough in describing Belfast’s make-up, without necessarily, pictures of key buildings but descriptions of social or political events. Also, its geography, which along with the collective prejudice of the settlers/landowners/factory owners lead to ghettoisation of the Protestant and Catholic working classes. The Catholics with their lower paid, less skilled and, therefore, less secure jobs within the mills on the fast-flowing river edges of the hills to the North. The Protestants living on the flat, with more skilled jobs in the shipyards. The ship owners living in London, some of the very few able to travel aboard the ships in any dignity.
Please see: ‘Titanic’, James Cameron, 1997. A wonderful film-so romantic.
This is if the Catholics were allowed to work at all; Protestants got first priority. So, it can’t be blamed that easily on the Protestant working class.
It is a testament to how successful the social control had been that it took the large scale burning out of Catholic populations from mixed Catholic/Protestant areas to kick the Catholic working class into action.
The description of how the plantations affected land organisation was very interesting compared to the existing system of townland.
Could get carried away on two fronts here with the politics, so will go back to the built.
In some ways I liked the idea of making the big roads into more active streetscapes but with so much land and piecemeal development you wonder if there aren’t better sites-not necessarily centrally, and could it be interesting o retreat from the road or make a hierarchical buffer?
To finish on the term I liked the most: ‘Critical Reconstruction.’
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Royal Albert Basin
The piecemeal development of the Docklands seems to have lead to some very different places in spatial terms. As mentioned in the lecture, the development at the Royal Albert Basin is fringed by The University of East London, the low density estates of Beckton and Gallions Reach, a drive-in shopping centre to the North. As well as its adjacency to the river and basin itself.
The University has no links to the area of Beckton. The only crossing of the tracks at Cyprus DLR station is when the students who live on campus do their shopping at Asda. Because of the Asda store being at the heart of Beckton and the Beckton DLR station close by, the people who live there tend not to bother crossing the busy dual carriageway to get to the huge Tesco and various stores of Gallions Reach. The students of the University choose in the main not to go to Gallions reach and either do their shopping at the Beckton Asda or even jump on the DLR at Cyprus station and go to Canary Wharf. The road infrastructure again is very problematic with no footpath along the side of the Royal Docks Road dual carriageway with the other options, to risk going through Winsor Park (scrubland beside the road) or along the desolate roads of the Royal Albert Basin site and beyond. By comparison Gallions Reach DLR station (the featured station in the lecture) is a quarter of the way to Gallions Reach from the University.
I suppose we can use the analogy of the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’, built to access the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge. There are big opportunities and many things in place in the Royal Albert basin area, which could be interesting and influential to the different parties but without the actual link it’s isolated, oversized and oversimplified and redundant to the cause of better place.
For the site itself, the lecture showed what a complicated story it has been to date and gave a great insight into the workings of any development of such size in a developed world city. Its very exciting the possibilities of using the tools at hand to influence a decision, whether that be friendliness with an individual or a commanding grasp of planning law. Perhaps most importantly being able to understand the interested parties agenda’s, and taking this into consideration while developing an approach for a better space.
I didn’t follow the final part about procurement too well, will have to ask further about that.
Did it feel like the current set of ‘advanced infrastructure’ was too much of a mirror to the advanced infrastructure of the past. That time nothing came of the surroundings, now little will be done in the short term and the site conditions may change all over again?
At least this round is more concerned with the local than the inter-local. Perhaps more can be done to address some of the issues mentioned above-I wouldn’t want to live there.
The University has no links to the area of Beckton. The only crossing of the tracks at Cyprus DLR station is when the students who live on campus do their shopping at Asda. Because of the Asda store being at the heart of Beckton and the Beckton DLR station close by, the people who live there tend not to bother crossing the busy dual carriageway to get to the huge Tesco and various stores of Gallions Reach. The students of the University choose in the main not to go to Gallions reach and either do their shopping at the Beckton Asda or even jump on the DLR at Cyprus station and go to Canary Wharf. The road infrastructure again is very problematic with no footpath along the side of the Royal Docks Road dual carriageway with the other options, to risk going through Winsor Park (scrubland beside the road) or along the desolate roads of the Royal Albert Basin site and beyond. By comparison Gallions Reach DLR station (the featured station in the lecture) is a quarter of the way to Gallions Reach from the University.
I suppose we can use the analogy of the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’, built to access the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge. There are big opportunities and many things in place in the Royal Albert basin area, which could be interesting and influential to the different parties but without the actual link it’s isolated, oversized and oversimplified and redundant to the cause of better place.
For the site itself, the lecture showed what a complicated story it has been to date and gave a great insight into the workings of any development of such size in a developed world city. Its very exciting the possibilities of using the tools at hand to influence a decision, whether that be friendliness with an individual or a commanding grasp of planning law. Perhaps most importantly being able to understand the interested parties agenda’s, and taking this into consideration while developing an approach for a better space.
I didn’t follow the final part about procurement too well, will have to ask further about that.
Did it feel like the current set of ‘advanced infrastructure’ was too much of a mirror to the advanced infrastructure of the past. That time nothing came of the surroundings, now little will be done in the short term and the site conditions may change all over again?
At least this round is more concerned with the local than the inter-local. Perhaps more can be done to address some of the issues mentioned above-I wouldn’t want to live there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)