Well said. I do wonder whether we are to some degree missing the point on housing. Having lived in Canada for a long time, where the idea of home ownership is not limited to a certain number of bedrooms and a certain number of bathrooms, but rather the ideal of detached, or at least semi-detached with at least a patch of grass. However, most cities have no room for this type of housing, it is too expensive, requires too much infrastructure, too many cars and wider roads, etc., etc. If we don't have smart people who understand the alternatives, we will eat up more fertile land and fill it with terrible housing developments, our city centers will continue to die, or foot-print on this planet will grow ever bigger and more irreversible. Only by conserving and enforcing green belts around towns and cities do we drive new thinking - most of which will be about building up instead of out - and then maybe those who need to put on their thinking caps will do so and do the smart thing.
I broadly agree with you. The issue is that a suburban semi-detached house with a garden and two cars is still what many British people want, and they don't like being (as they see it) herded into more densely populated areas. It's a very difficult problem on a small crowded island.
Understood, however, there are lots of ways to skin this cat. Go back to Montreal and Habitat 67. Sure there are problems, but you can have the idyll with a small garden or large terrace and still be in higher density without being in the 'projects'. BIGs Mountain in Ørestad is another example of indoor outdoor space that has been stacked. This is what design could and probably should be about. I am a firm believer in laying iron rings around cities by way of green belts. Suburbia is too easy - and ugly to boot - to say nothing of the environmental impact.
This may be inviting some wild speculation, but what do you think is the way forward for our design? If modernism has generally failed and invited this reactionary desire for heritage design, how do you think we eventually find a vision again?
Is the way a continued ramble down trodden paths until we find a better way forward? Do we just need to start trying things and see what sticks? I’ve wondered about it for a while and would be interested to hear your thoughts
This is difficult to answer with architecture, because unlike consumer goods, there aren’t good mechanisms for producing a range of options that people can choose from. When there’s a housing shortage, people have to accept whatever the housebuilders give them (and design is definitely not their priority). The only way to express a preference is by blocking new projects completely. That’s how we end up with the state trying to define styles that they think will at least be palatable. The only way out I can see is to fund lots of experiments at a smaller scale and see if they produce any brilliant new ideas that people respond to. But this would also produce lots of failures, so it would require political courage!
Well said. I do wonder whether we are to some degree missing the point on housing. Having lived in Canada for a long time, where the idea of home ownership is not limited to a certain number of bedrooms and a certain number of bathrooms, but rather the ideal of detached, or at least semi-detached with at least a patch of grass. However, most cities have no room for this type of housing, it is too expensive, requires too much infrastructure, too many cars and wider roads, etc., etc. If we don't have smart people who understand the alternatives, we will eat up more fertile land and fill it with terrible housing developments, our city centers will continue to die, or foot-print on this planet will grow ever bigger and more irreversible. Only by conserving and enforcing green belts around towns and cities do we drive new thinking - most of which will be about building up instead of out - and then maybe those who need to put on their thinking caps will do so and do the smart thing.
I broadly agree with you. The issue is that a suburban semi-detached house with a garden and two cars is still what many British people want, and they don't like being (as they see it) herded into more densely populated areas. It's a very difficult problem on a small crowded island.
Understood, however, there are lots of ways to skin this cat. Go back to Montreal and Habitat 67. Sure there are problems, but you can have the idyll with a small garden or large terrace and still be in higher density without being in the 'projects'. BIGs Mountain in Ørestad is another example of indoor outdoor space that has been stacked. This is what design could and probably should be about. I am a firm believer in laying iron rings around cities by way of green belts. Suburbia is too easy - and ugly to boot - to say nothing of the environmental impact.
This may be inviting some wild speculation, but what do you think is the way forward for our design? If modernism has generally failed and invited this reactionary desire for heritage design, how do you think we eventually find a vision again?
Is the way a continued ramble down trodden paths until we find a better way forward? Do we just need to start trying things and see what sticks? I’ve wondered about it for a while and would be interested to hear your thoughts
This is difficult to answer with architecture, because unlike consumer goods, there aren’t good mechanisms for producing a range of options that people can choose from. When there’s a housing shortage, people have to accept whatever the housebuilders give them (and design is definitely not their priority). The only way to express a preference is by blocking new projects completely. That’s how we end up with the state trying to define styles that they think will at least be palatable. The only way out I can see is to fund lots of experiments at a smaller scale and see if they produce any brilliant new ideas that people respond to. But this would also produce lots of failures, so it would require political courage!