City of the Future... in 1925

[Robocommie]

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1mzrrl/www.sadanduseless.com/image.php?n=658

Obviously this didn't exactly come to pass, but what do you guys think? I think it's kinda cool. We have some features of course, like subway tunnels in the major metropolises, but I really like the idea of the top layer being reserved for pedestrian boulevards and scenic views.

[Angry Young Man]

I'm campaigning for Bristol to be the first city to have a rollercoaster internal transport. ooooo-wooooaaah! Oooooo-woah! Ooooo-wwwwaaah! The next station stop is the Fountains.

[Lobotomy]

It's actually not that far off, aside from the multiple levels and the airports on the tops of buildings.

[Jalapeno Enema]

where I live looks kinda like that. The pavement peeling apart so you can see underneath the street, I mean.

[ckaihatsu]

It never came to pass because people saw the 'spiral escalators' part and said, ehhhhhhhhhh, never mind....

[Ligeia]

That's not too strange. It's just city-planning functionalism projected onto another level, the vertical level. I think somewhere in 1930s, architects officialy proposed to design cities according to functionality.
This is a LeCobusier-city-model which resembles the Popular science monthly one:

http://ciudadpedestre.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/ville_radieuse.jpg

But just like the one above, they never really came into existence. Only bits and pieces were used in real life.

[Bright Banana Beard]

WOW!! I love functionalism, why did the architects abandoned it? Is there a good book that talks about city functionalism and is there a current version of functionalism?
It is just sad to see when some architects decided to build gated community and suburb, why does this happened?

[Fawkes]

I'd love to have the pedestrian level, I fucking hate cars in the city.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

if urban planners actually got to plan cities then cities would be a lot nicer
unfortunately in capitalism real estate interests, speculation and other private interests like car manufacturers trump functionality

[ckaihatsu]

The city is a world reference for urban planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasilia

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

lol
i believe we have a user here who lives there
it may be renowned internationally, but i dont believe it's particularly well-planned tbh
there are surely better examples of planned cities

[ckaihatsu]

I've never been that crazy about the '60s "mod" look, in any aspect....

Good to know the "grand plan" thing can be done, though, instead of the default capitalism real estate interest, speculation, etc., haphazard way that we all know all too well....

Does kinda get you wondering about how a post-capitalist society might do such a thing -- the imagination boggles since it would all be about detail at that point....

[Bright Banana Beard]

As I said, is there a good book about city-planning functionalism, it current status, and the history of it? I like to be an architect one day....

[Ele'ill]

As I said, is there a good book about city-planning functionalism, it current status, and the history of it? I like to be an architect one day....

You know what I'm seeing? Diverse interests- each user stepping up and stating what they're good at and what their goals are. We're like the planeteers but better.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

http://progressiveboink.com/b/images/hanna/mati.jpg

[Ligeia]

WOW!! I love functionalism, why did the architects abandoned it? Is there a good book that talks about city functionalism and is there a current version of functionalism?
It is just sad to see when some architects decided to build gated community and suburb, why does this happened?
Suburbs are actually often directly influenced by functionalism. Functionalism in this context can be many things. It can be the division of the entire city into specific units e.g. work, recreation, residence, circulation (classic four divisions). It can also be made on a vertical level, the division of buildings into different units e.g. education, residence, recreation, work….or it can be used tridimensionally. Suburbs are residence units within a city, apart from the downtown work-unit…for example. Of course, there are different types of suburbs, e.g. those with individual houses like in the U.S., or others like the Parisian suburbs which are not only functionally allocated but also their buildings are heavily influenced by functionalist architecture (may be you know the banlieuese?).
According to functionalism design and aesthetics aren’t important but, I’d say there can’t be “no-design” creation of buildings. Even the rectangular forms which are characteristic here, have its own aesthetic and may appeal to some and to others not so much.
Another point, Le Corbusier (being the founder of functionalist city planning) actually aimed at trying to defuse social unrest through this kind of planning: “The various classes of workers in society to-day no longer have dwellings adapted to their needs…. It is a question of building which is at the root of the social unrest of to-day; architecture or revolution.” And maybe you know the expression “machine for living in” also coined by him.

Is there a current version? I’m not too informed on this subject but it seems to me that there’s no current city planning wave influenced by functionalism. In architecture and furniture design this current is still very popular. Modernist design is the international design. But speaking of city planning,…..nowadays it’s more about mixing all kinds of currents and often taking care of old historic buildings (not to forget, private investors play a major role in shaping landscapes; not all the things we see are really “planning”). Another current is “sustainability”.
And suburbs and gated communities…why do they exist……with the advent of individual motorization, people could settle at the outskirts of the city, could expand and that’s what some did. And some choose to put walls around their homes or communities, because it makes them feel safe or special or whatever…. With the growing gap, growing social polarization, tension is build…literally build in the environment for everybody to see.


unfortunately in capitalism real estate interests, speculation and other private interests like car manufacturers trump functionality
Exactly. Though for a city to be planned in a good way, residents, engineers…and so on…all should be taken into account.

As I said, is there a good book about city-planning functionalism, it current status, and the history of it? I like to be an architect one day....
You could read „Le Corbusier in Detail“ by Flora Samuel if you want to know something about Functionalism in detail. Or just grab any book about the basics of Urban planning, Urban studies and Urban geography. They tackle functionalism. It’s mandatory to learn about it if you study something like that, anyway.


Does kinda get you wondering about how a post-capitalist society might do such a thing -- the imagination boggles since it would all be about detail at that point....
That’s for sure…..there are so many many questions which could be raised on this subject.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks, Ligela.

It's always seemed to me that the exterior "look" of urban surroundings must always lag behind actual civilizational developments in other fields of general society. Sure one could argue that nothing should be disposed of before it's fully used-up, as with buildings, particularly, but perhaps there might be a way of making well-built, long-lasting structures in such a way as to be *transient*, so that the exterior world can be rapidly redesigned and updated according to constantly-changing social needs and ways of living.

For instance the conventional center-city-business-hub-and-surrounding-residential-suburbs model may not even be appropriate anymore *at all*, due to deindustrialization and now the everyday ubiquitous Internet appliance for work-from-anywhere and manage-from-anywhere networking. Yet we still have urban and suburban layouts from over 100 years ago, with architectural styles that may span from anywhere within that historical expanse.

In a more collectively rational societal co-administration (post-capitalist) we might have developed materials technology that could be used in the construction of earthquake-proof residences, yet could also be quickly disassembled and biodegraded back to the earth as social needs and tastes change so that we're not "held hostage" to architectural creations from many decades past. Personal customization would be another consideration, too, as well as community-collective co-creative efforts, so as to empower and bring people together through active roles over their immediate common environments, rather than being boxed in by them.

[manic expression]

That's not too strange. It's just city-planning functionalism projected onto another level, the vertical level. I think somewhere in 1930s, architects officialy proposed to design cities according to functionality.
This is a LeCobusier-city-model which resembles the Popular science monthly one:

But just like the one above, they never really came into existence. Only bits and pieces were used in real life.Le Corbusier was the worst thing to happen to architecture and urban planning since the fall of the Roman Empire.

One of the biggest differences between the Corbusier model and the one in the OP is that automobiles are clearly dominant in Corbusier's. Corb basically wanted cities to be nothing but giant parks with giant skyscrapers and cars used almost exclusively as transportation. Too bad he didn't anticipate parking, or energy issues, or a myriad of other problems; too bad he didn't understand what makes a city a city. In essence, Corbusier didn't really care about community, or cultural dynamism, or multi-layered urban life, or human interaction...he cared about making the city an un-city.

It is quite simple: would you rather eat a pizza's ingredients separately (first the cheese, then the dough, then the sauce...), or would you rather eat them together as a finished product? Pizzas objectively taste better than collections of pizza ingredients. However, contrary to this obvious fact, Corbusier wanted to "zone" every function of a city as a section onto itself, dividing commercial sectors from residential and civic ones and so on. This made for vacuous, deserted areas.

The sad part is that Corbusier's drivel was used quite a bit in real life: suburban sprawl, as other posters pointed out, followed his theoretical lines quite closely. The abject failure of the result is clear for all to see.

[Ligeia]

However, contrary to this obvious fact, Corbusier wanted to "zone" every function of a city as a section onto itself, dividing commercial sectors from residential and civic ones and so on. This made for vacuous, deserted areas.

The sad part is that Corbusier's drivel was used quite a bit in real life: suburban sprawl, as other posters pointed out, followed his theoretical lines quite closely. The abject failure of the result is clear for all to see.

I mentioned those two points (and more) in my second post.




In a more collectively rational societal co-administration (post-capitalist) we might have developed materials technology that could be used in the construction of earthquake-proof residences, yet could also be quickly disassembled and biodegraded back to the earth as social needs and tastes change so that we're not "held hostage" to architectural creations from many decades past. Personal customization would be another consideration, too, as well as community-collective co-creative efforts, so as to empower and bring people together through active roles over their immediate common environments, rather than being boxed in by them.

That's something I thought about,too. At the moment, we have this "rule of persistence" where the environment lags behind actual development. It surely would be intresting to find ways to circumvent this problem.
Then again, the most important issue is to not impose top down structures onto everybody, just like that.
That's why I also don't like all that functionalism stuff, it emerged with the technical knowledge and development of its time, now things have already changed enough(as to search for different ways to plan the places where people will live in) and surely there'll be much more advances e.g. in transport and building materials.

[Fawkes]

Le Corbusier's towers in the park and Robert Moses's continuation of his ideals had a horrible effect on cities, turning them into depressing, monochromatic, automobile-dominated places (Cabrini-Green anyone?). Though I disagree greatly with her emphasis on free markets, Jane Jacobs was right in stating that mixed-use neighborhoods are far more conducive to a good living environment than 100-story identical high rises surrounded by a couple of trees and patches of grass and 6 different highways.

[ckaihatsu]

That's something I thought about,too. At the moment, we have this "rule of persistence" where the environment lags behind actual development. It surely would be intresting to find ways to circumvent this problem.
Then again, the most important issue is to not impose top down structures onto everybody, just like that.
That's why I also don't like all that functionalism stuff, it emerged with the technical knowledge and development of its time, now things have already changed enough(as to search for different ways to plan the places where people will live in) and surely there'll be much more advances e.g. in transport and building materials.


To put it simply it just seems that consumer "empowerment" should extend up to our own dwellings and greater surroundings -- even *animals* seem to currently have more sovereignty that way than we do as compartmentalized denizens in our own, human society...(!)

While this line could be breezily dismissed as a privileged-consumerist-type rant, I think it's fair to say that it has *political* implications, since currently only those with *economic* (financial) wherewithal are in any kind of position to exert a mastery over physical surroundings -- by default most of us are *contained* by them.

Really this systematic disempowerment from the socialized physical world begs the issue of private property completely -- might there be some *other* means by which we could commonly exert our human-conscious-enabled physical control over the latitude of the world we've been born into? Certainly technological advances, as in transport and building materials, should somehow be made immediately available to *ourselves*, essentially, so as to confer options for the continuous re-creation of our own human habitat world around ourselves.

[Ligeia]

While this line could be breezily dismissed as a privileged-consumerist-type rant, I think it's fair to say that it has *political* implications, since currently only those with *economic* (financial) wherewithal are in any kind of position to exert a mastery over physical surroundings -- by default most of us are *contained* by them.

Quite true.
I remember when I went to Polanco (wealthy area in Mexico City), apart from this area being a different world than the rest of Mexico, I've never seen so many different architectural styles at one place. You had old colonial style houses side by side with modernist glass houses and cubist designer houses while there was a german style 50s residential building nearby. This was the residential zone.

So yes, actually, only those with capital can shape their residential environment. The rest is exposed to whatever is on the agenda of their living place.
And for this to change, the grounds, spaces need to be owned by all.

Before Functionalism, there was another model called "Garden City" which proposed communal ownership of the land, everybody would pay rent, but this would be used for the city's infrastructure which would be decided upon by all. Though this is not enough, I thought I just point out how fast things changed from 1910s to 1930s. Both are considered utopian concepts, nowadays it's all about reacting to the "market".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've seen that picture before, and it's full of good ideas - as long as you replace the airports with helicopter pads and airship moorings. I can't imagine it being too restful living under an airport that services jet engines.

A bit more greeenery and it would be close to ideal.

[Princess Luna]

Not to sound paranoid , but what about fires , earthquakes , and bombs? compacting everything like that seems a bit like a death trap.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not to sound paranoid , but what about fires , earthquakes , and bombs? compacting everything like that seems a bit like a death trap.

Steel-reinforced concrete is a very sustainable and durable method of construction. With no need to support motor vehicles and no exposure to the elements, building interiors could be constructed of lightweight materials in a modular fashion that would also enable a mass producible yet customisable construction.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Not to sound paranoid , but what about fires , earthquakes , and bombs? compacting everything like that seems a bit like a death trap.

youd probably rather live in the suburbs with your cars and your decadent bourgeois excesses

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

there's a park downtown with an avenue and a subway line that run beneath it
those images sort of remind me of it
it's like a pedestrian-only street except massive

http://img7.echo.cx/img7/1313/anhangabau32fr.jpg

[manic expression]

Steel-reinforced concrete is a very sustainable and durable method of construction. With no need to support motor vehicles and no exposure to the elements, building interiors could be constructed of lightweight materials in a modular fashion that would also enable a mass producible yet customisable construction.
Where did you learn this? Perhaps I am mistaken but I am quite sure that reinforced concrete is very susceptible to deterioration and corrosion. High-quality masonry is far more durable and sustainable, from what I've heard and seen.

[the last donut of the night]

lol
i believe we have a user here who lives there
it may be renowned internationally, but i dont believe it's particularly well-planned tbh
there are surely better examples of planned cities

here i am. brasilia, in more pragmatic terms, isn't that well-planned at all -- primarily because the current population that drives cars is much higher than it was ever planned to be. it's a fucking mess precisely because the corrupt officials here (and by corrupt i mean corrupt) never really built an efficient subway and bus system that helped people (usually working class) get around. so it's not a timely city, nor really a pretty one, either

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

even the plano piloto part of brasilia ive been told is car-dependent unwalkable and shit

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where did you learn this? Perhaps I am mistaken but I am quite sure that reinforced concrete is very susceptible to deterioration and corrosion. High-quality masonry is far more durable and sustainable, from what I've heard and seen.

During World War Two, the Nazis built U-boat bases in France. At least two of them are still standing despite repeated bombing campaigns during the war and looking a bit shabby after 60-odd years of exposure to sea air and salt water:

St Nazaire (http://www.uboat-bases.com/en/St-Nazaire/photos.html)

La Rochelle (http://www.uboat-bases.com/en/La-Rochelle/la-rochelle-u-boat-base-photo-gallery.html)

Of course, they don't have to share the bases' dull decor.

[manic expression]

During World War Two, the Nazis built U-boat bases in France. At least two of them are still standing despite repeated bombing campaigns during the war and looking a bit shabby after 60-odd years of exposure to sea air and salt water:

Of course, they don't have to share the bases' dull decor.
Interesting, that has stood up to war and time quite well, although 60 years isn't all that much in building-years. There are Roman bridges and aqueducts that are still being used after over 1,500 years of wear and tear, yet in a city I was in last year, a parking garage of reinforced concrete had to be torn down after about 25 years of use because the steel rebars had compromised the structure. I wonder if these u-boat bases were constructed differently, and how, and if there is perhaps corrosion to the structure that we can't see. I admit that I haven't studied the specifics of materials too closely, though, I'll try to put this question to someone more educated in architecture than myself sometime soon.

And yes, concrete is not to be left naked, unless one wants to celebrate ugliness (the Pantheon ceiling is an exception, mostly because of the coffers...but it originally had bronze tiles). To be honest, those u-boat base remains look about as warm and appealing as most brutalist architecture (which is to say, not at all). Go Modernism! :lol:

[the last donut of the night]

even the plano piloto part of brasilia ive been told is car-dependent unwalkable and shit

yeah it's ridiculous

[Martin Blank]

The picture reminds me of downtown Chicago, in many ways.

[Magón]

I wish I lived in that city, that'd be so cool. Stupid people and their stupid inefficiency. :o

[Bright Banana Beard]

Is there a socialist city planning design?

[ckaihatsu]

Is there a socialist city planning design?


Why, what've you got in mind...?


= )

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

theres stalinist architectural style which is horendous

there were also a buncha commies and socialists in thw whole functionalism modernism scene

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Interesting, that has stood up to war and time quite well, although 60 years isn't all that much in building-years. There are Roman bridges and aqueducts that are still being used after over 1,500 years of wear and tear, yet in a city I was in last year, a parking garage of reinforced concrete had to be torn down after about 25 years of use because the steel rebars had compromised the structure. I wonder if these u-boat bases were constructed differently, and how, and if there is perhaps corrosion to the structure that we can't see. I admit that I haven't studied the specifics of materials too closely, though, I'll try to put this question to someone more educated in architecture than myself sometime soon.

I'm pretty sure that the garage's structural integrity had been compromised by some form of sloppy construction - I imagine the consequences for getting caught using third-grade materials to construct car parks is considerably less than that of fortifications.

We should be building our homes with the same diligence and attention to detail that we demand of fortresses! For they may be one and the same sometimes.


And yes, concrete is not to be left naked, unless one wants to celebrate ugliness (the Pantheon ceiling is an exception, mostly because of the coffers...but it originally had bronze tiles). To be honest, those u-boat base remains look about as warm and appealing as most brutalist architecture (which is to say, not at all). Go Modernism! :lol:

I do admit having a certain fondness for brutalistic architecture, but I also like the way bare concrete surfaces are brightened up by graffiti:

http://www.detroitmoxie.com/storage/dc%20graf%20art.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=125 1867452223

[ckaihatsu]

The only ethically morally righteously *pure* approach to construction would be to build everything up using only our own shit. And no taking anyone else's...!!


x D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The only ethically morally righteously *pure* approach to construction would be to build everything up using only our own shit. And no taking anyone else's...!!


x D

Oh wow you are so wacky lol :rolleyes:

[ckaihatsu]

Oh wow you are so wacky lol :rolleyes:


Yeah, I know that if this was *your* sub-forum that post of mine would be in the trash already, but it's also a valid political point, if you haven't noticed....

Organic equivalency of personal sovereignty, and of birthright proportional agency over the natural / material world -- all the rest is politics...(!)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, I know that if this was *your* sub-forum that post of mine would be in the trash already, but it's also a valid political point, if you haven't noticed....

Organic equivalency of personal sovereignty, and of birthright proportional agency over the natural / material world -- all the rest is politics...(!)

There are damn good reasons not to construct buildings out of shit - chiefly its poor structural strength, plus the fact it decomposes. And that's assuming the smell goes away.

Pragmatism trumps politics.

[ckaihatsu]

There are damn good reasons not to construct buildings out of shit - chiefly its poor structural strength, plus the fact it decomposes. And that's assuming the smell goes away.

Pragmatism trumps politics.


Yeah, I'll be looking for your scholarly article on *that* one.... Note that I was making a *political* point, *not* an engineering one....

[Bright Banana Beard]

Anything that socialists had draw up so far.

I would say we should keep the block of avenue/street while have 4 boulevard for traffic.

What I am really looking forward is to see a city that have great train/subway public transportation with many street that are mainly for walking. It is just annoying to see car taking up large space of a city. Also I would tolerate bicycles, but it should be mass produced so there no point in stealing it.

Also, give us underground city that you won't have to see sunlight for many days.

[Ligeia]

Is there a socialist city planning design?
Well, I can't tell you if there's "one" but I can tell you a little bit about the ones I read about....at least if by socialist you are reffering to e.g. the soviet Union or something like that (like asking if they acted totally different in comparison to others).
Just like there was the functionalist "Charta of Athens"which influenced city planning in the following decades, there was the "Charta of Moscow" which was used for the Soviet Union City Planning as well as for say, East-Germany.
It was mainly about centrality and vertical structures....well, kind of modernist. The main reason for this development was that such "unites d'habitation"-type of buildings could be build industrially, somehow cheap and fast. Every residiential-quarter was equipped with the same amount of different facilities (Kindergarden,hospital, market...etc.).
In the early 50s though the GDR's style of architecture still tried to find an own character by incorporating traditional architectural styles into the city-design. Just in the 60s, the planning began to be solely modernist in outlook. So in the 50s it was all about the "beautiful city", later on it was all about the "functional city".

So much about these times and places.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Where have you heard them from? I want to read that book or articles, etc.

[Ligeia]

Where have you heard them from? I want to read that book or articles, etc.
In geography books about city planning or urban geography/studies.
So for a start I'd recommend you to read something like this:
Urban (http://books.google.com/books?id=oCMFY_ZaqTcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=urban+geography&hl=de&ei=mblRTZTePMGA5Aa33IGiCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
In near future you can read something like this,...something more specific:
spatial structures in a divided city (http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=h8gNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=gdr+city+planning+berlin+frankfurter+tor&source=bl&ots=LJ8hCibKXZ&sig=eiT0misSrKUQZYQvX1fFF_rl42c&hl=de&ei=2bhRTbbUPM7NswbnxPTsBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

That's just an example. It's obviously not architect-oriented but that's what I read (or have to read in my studies, I'm not an architect).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, I'll be looking for your scholarly article on *that* one.... Note that I was making a *political* point, *not* an engineering one....

The only other reading of your comment seems blindingly obvious to me - if by "shit" you just meant "stuff".

Of course, that doesn't explain the garble in the second sentence of your first reply to me...

[Dimentio]

I am thinking those cities would probably become terribly vandalised by frustrated people.

[ckaihatsu]

The only other reading of your comment seems blindingly obvious to me - if by "shit" you just meant "stuff".


Okay, let's pick through this shit....

No, I can see that I wasn't clear, but I originally meant 'shit' in the sense of 'feces' -- that's why it's the only way that's entirely "pure", amusingly enough....





The only ethically morally righteously *pure* approach to construction would be to build everything up using only our own shit. And no taking anyone else's...!!


x D





Of course, that doesn't explain the garble in the second sentence of your first reply to me...





Organic equivalency of personal sovereignty, and of birthright proportional agency over the natural / material world -- all the rest is politics...(!)


In other words, we're all born as individual persons -- at the basic, organic level we all have our own individual personal sovereignty this way. And, with our species-specific ability to manipulate the material world around us in creative ways it is our birthright, each and every one of us, to do that in *some* kind of way to the natural / material world.

The *details* of *how* this is done, and to what extents by whom, is politics -- beyond one's own feces, that is. (Apologies to the reader, but it clarifies things to make that statement.)

[progressive_lefty]

It would have been great if that's how our cities turned, but obviously capitalism got in the way.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Everyone knows that Miami demonstrates the best city-planning possible with an international airport right in the middle of its rectangular-like city area. This makes North-South traffic run smoothly while reducing transportation time. Another feature is the great segregation based on ethnic and racial lines. In this manner, every culture and race can get what they deserve: a fair piece of the pie. And lastly, being Latin-America's penthouse, the quality of the people's values are supreme.

Miami: Will Smith sung about it.

[Bright Banana Beard]

It is hard to detect sacrasm over the internet.

[the last donut of the night]

It is hard to detect sacrasm over the internet.

not really

[Red Commissar]

We should destroy all forms of transportation and replace it with mules and donkeys.

[ckaihatsu]

We should destroy all forms of transportation and replace it with mules and donkeys.


Another example of sarcasm, I hope.... (?)

[Red Commissar]

Another example of sarcasm, I hope.... (?)

Sarcasm? Comrade you have yet to witness the glory of the donkey and mule revolution!

lu1p9kzDRFM

[ckaihatsu]

Sarcasm? Comrade you have yet to witness the glory of the donkey and mule revolution!


Impressive! How long did it take you to learn that parallel parking trick? But why are you merely obeying your masters?


= )