Overall looking at the readings the thing that I found most interesting was the multiple references to things being at odds with each other, mainly in science vs history and nature, humanity vs essentially machine, logic vs emotion etc. I think it sets up an interesting frame to think about how we move forward with architecture and urbanism. It is set up so that we can see what it is like if we fall all the way to one side or the other in the classical and activist utopias. Which to me, with the understanding that a utopia will never exist, at least can give us an understanding of what parts are important from each side and try to find a way to balance the two so that we can continue to progress into the future. I think that looking at urban planning through the gaze of a utopia is an interesting concept and it can be a good tool, but there were some things specifically looking at the “scientific” side that did not make sense to me. There were a lot of remarks about being able to make politics and history independent from “human will” or “human intervention” (Rowe and Koetter). I get it in terms of pretending that we can pin down the human condition to be subject to rules like physics, but I think there needs to be an understanding that it’s not possible because people are not always rational and so applying rational laws to it just does not make sense. As well, even if you are successful, what is the point? What is the point of politics and history if people are not involved? As I interpret it, when looking at the “scientific” side, if it tries to approach urban planning, it could create the “perfect city” but have a population of zero, it could be perfect but uninhabitable. And I guess therefore in a roundabout way it could be a utopia, just not for us.
Citation:
Rowe, Colin, and Fred Koetter. Collage City. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 1978.