My instincts regarding the analysis of each reading so far rely heavily on the practicality of the presented arguments. I focus on realism rather than idealism because the ultimate goal is to produce the architecture in these theories in real life. All three readings this week are theories that are fundamentally based in reality rather than idealism.
In Kevin Lynch’s book, The Image of the City, Lynch writes, “as will quickly become apparent to the reader, this study is a preliminary exploration, a first word not a last word, an attempt to capture ideas and to suggest how they might be developed and tested. Its tone will be speculative and perhaps a little irresponsible: at once tentative and presumptuous.” (Lynch). He is grounded in the fact that a good theory can never truly be complete because a good theory is open-ended, questions itself, and begs for augmentation rather than asserting its components as the absolute truth.
The book, A Pattern Language, also provides an emphasis on the incomplete nature of its presented theory. The authors write, “Each solution is stated in such a way that it gives the essential field of relationships needed to solve the problem, but in a very general and abstract way—so that you can solve the problem for yourself, in your own way, by adapting it to your preferences, and the local conditions at the place where you are making it.” (Alexander). The goal is not to force ideas upon the reader but to provide details that deepen understanding and make connections between theory and practice.
Jane Jacobs is grounded in the same sense. She values observation as the main force for analyzing a city and developing a theory. In her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she explains that focusing on realism begs theorists to dissect the past successes and failures of a city in order to develop a working theory for improving a city (Jacobs). Architects and urban planners like Le Corbusier, the Decentrists, and Ebenezer Howard, focus on idealism which makes their theories impractical for actual use but appealing due to their simplistic nature. Regarding Le Corbusier’s theories, Jane Jacobs writes:
“Furthermore, his conception, as an architectural work, had a dazzling clarity, simplicity and harmony. It was so orderly, so visible, so easy to understand. It said everything in a flash, like a good advertisement. This vision and its bold symbolism have been all but irresistible to planners, housers, designers, and to developers, lenders and mayors too. It exerts a great pull on “progressive” zoners, who write rules calculated to encourage non project builders to reflect, if only a little, the dream. No matter how vulgarized or clumsy the design, how dreary and useless the open space, how dull the close-up view, an imitation of Le Corbusier shouts “Look what I made!” Like a great, visible ego it tells of someone’s achievement. But as to how the city works, it tells, like the Garden City, nothing but lies.” (Jacobs)
Idealist theories are plainly accepted for two reasons; primarily, they accepted because they are presented by widely accepted ‘masters’ of architecture, secondarily, they are accepted because they present a quick and easy fix. Nobody wants to fix what’s broken, they want to throw it away and get something new instead. For these reasons, Le Corbusier’s theories tend to be appealing to city planners.
The issue that these theories present is when they are put into use, the products are a failure to the people. Since a city’s success is dependent on the connection (emotional meaning) to and function (usefulness) for its people, theories based on idealism are the true enemies of city development. One example where we can see the impact of this enemy in Jacobs’ book is in a particularly moving statement about The New York’s East Harlem Housing Project made by one of its tenants:
“Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place. They threw our houses down and pushed us here and pushed our friends somewhere else. We don’t have a place around here to get a cup of coffee or a newspaper even, or borrow fifty cents. Nobody cared what we need. But the big men come and look at that grass and say, “Isn’t it wonderful! Now the poor have everything!” (Jacobs)
This statement emphasizes that by ignoring the needs of the people when idealized theories are actualized, they create disconnected, unhappy, and anxious dwellers who have no interest in uplifting their community. One cannot force value to be placed on a dwelling or an area, and so, the forced relocation of individuals into a housing project will not produce a functional or productive community. On the other hand, people who feel attached and connected to their community have a vested interest uplifting it and therefore produce significant efforts to maintain and improve it. A good example of this is the North End in Boston. Jacobs described the area that was once the worst slum in Boston, as “the healthiest place in the city”(Jacobs). To her surprise, she learned that “the rehabilitation work had been almost entirely financed by business and housing earnings within the district, plowed back in, and by skilled work bartered among residents and relatives of Residents.” (Jacobs)
This brings us back to how idealism is the true enemy of the city. Creating a clean slate to work on is the ideal condition for developing theoretically ideal housing developments. By creating a clean slate to work on, the emotional connection to the area is lost, and by putting in theoretically ideal buildings, the actual needs of the people are ignored. Without meaningful connections and useful functions, the city is a failure. Realism urges city planners to work with that they have and develop existing areas and to create solutions for the observed issues.
Citations:
Jacobs, The Death and Life of the Great American City (1961):
Lynch, The Image of the City (1960)
Alexander, A Pattern Language (1977)