There is an identifiable difference between what Christopher Alexander describes as a "natural city (spontaneous)" and an "artificial city (planned)". Canberra definately falls into the category of the "artificial city", lacking the charm of Melbourne and the elegance of Sydney.
Is it possible that planned city's are designed from a bird's eye perspective, in comparison to the spontaneous, natural cities that develop from a human scale perspective. Perhaps the artificial city lacks the element of surprise, something that arrises from the forgotten spaces, for example, the laneways of Melbourne. Although once run-down, now add character, and promote creativity.
Like moving into a brand new home in a housing estate, everything is complete and to a good standard, so much so that people are not offered the chance to use creativity, everything is stagnant; compared to moving into a run-down old Queenslander, where you feel 'free' to make significant changes and experiment.
Similarily to the ideas from 'How a building Learns', Vernacular buildings offer the sense of freedom for the building to adapt and change over time, so there is a sense a fluidity in the development.
Through my travels, the most successful element in each city (Europe) is the square. The scale, materials, history, water fountains, churches and significant buidings that surround it, markets, the activity...all contribute to the life and attraction to the space.
Levittown, from what I know about it, was unsuccessful due to the homogeneity and the discrimination. Designing for a variety of users adds to the success of a space or town.
Aim: search for 'the abstract ordering principle which the towns of the past happened to have, and which our modern conceptions of the city have not yet found' (p,3)
A tree structure: 'it means that within this structure no piece of any unit is ever connected to other units, except through the medium of that unit as a whole' (p, 9)
Image: Alesander, C. A city is not a tree.
Semi-lattice: 'is the structure of a complex fabric; it is the structure of living things' (p,10)...'A living city is and needs to be a semi-lattice' (p, 10)
Image: Alesander, C. A city is not a tree.
**'To have structure, you must have the right overlap' (p, 16)**
In reflection of the concepts of the 'tree' and the 'semi-lattice', the ideas make sense. Overlapping adds a sense of life to a space, like the European Square, where it acts as a market, cafe, playground, shops, church, meeting place, celebrations space, protest space etc.
In relation to Canberra, a city made up of segregated parts and Parliament, which basically only exists on Capital Hill; can the capital city and Parliament be distributed in a way that add layers of activity and involvement to existing places around Australia?
The two main elements of Parliament, transparency and accountability, are ideas that would benefit from a Parliament that is distributed throughout Australia. It could be distributed by having each city govern itself or simply a virtual element that connects the people to the activites of Parliament in a way that is genuinely engaging and interactive.
No comments:
Post a Comment