When it comes to transition, it seems there is a lot to learn in Moscow. I’m currently writing from there, after a day of walking around and taking a few pictures. The things that really stand out are the lasting marks left on the city from very different governing ideals: ornate metro stations, trees everywhere, aging apartment blocks, modernist masterworks, cars racing down streets that take an incredibly long time to cross. Everything Stalinist is gigantic.

Many public works have aged remarkably well. The metro stations are efficient and well maintained. The ones in the center of town have all kinds of architectural touches usually reserved for mansions, theaters, monuments, city halls, and museums. There is a basic sturdiness that prevents them from seeming too extravagant. Public green space lines the streets and fills the insides of apartment blocks. It’s very refreshing on summer days. Parks are full of young couples, new families, and elders reading or just watching people pass by. The ones I’ve seen so far have been clean but not highly manicured, which gives them a kind of wilderness atmosphere.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Originally posted to Where] Development, use, abandonment, reuse, demolition, redevelopment. Transition states. It seems that everything is in transition, but here I’d like to focus on the span of time between clearly defined places like factories and forests.

Development includes combining separate elements into new forms, like making something out of legos. Materials are assembled into buildings, which in turn form cities. This may fulfill a need or function based on reactions to things that came before. In this sense, new things embody the past.

When a thing no longer serves its purpose, it is often abandoned. At this point it can be reused in its current form, reassembled into something new, or destroyed. But it can never really be destroyed. Nearly imperceptible parts remain in circulation. They integrate with other things. They may haunt us in a way more tangible than the ways we haunt places. Smoke can be like a ghost that haunts us.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’d like to add a detailed post on the ideas of Peter Kropotkin in relation to environment and planning. For instance, Lewis Mumford noted his influence on Ebenezer Howard, and Paul Robbins has described him as a sort of grandfather to political ecology.

For now just an immediate thought on anarchy: it’s interesting that the word has come to mean chaos, even though (I think) at root it just means without a ruler. Is it possible to prevent chaos in the absence of a ruler? Anarchy also shares a root with architecture. Different connections between architecture and rule never stop fascinating me.

Credits: Photo of Peter Kropotkin from the Anarchist Library.

[Originally posted to Where] Camillo Sitte thoughtfully explained the interior qualities of his favorite public spaces. Though generally open to the sky, they were surrounded by varied building types and furnished with stairways, arches, and sculptures. They were intimate and often irregular, with engaging views on all sides. He lamented the abandonment of plazas as daily life moved increasingly indoors.

Today life moves increasingly online, but the places we inhabit — whether physical or virtual — are no less important. Even looking out the window affects our state of mind. This is hard to measure, but it’s fairly clear when we feel comfortable, depressed, inspired, fearful, or healthy in response to our surroundings.

Sitte envisioned outdoor space that didn’t feel desolate. When we think of The Great Outdoors, we usually mean forests, mountains, rivers — not cities. But in many ways forests have more in common with cities than with prairies or deserts. They are full of proximate activity, and contain many unique places. I wonder how cities might eventually be considered part of The Great Outdoors.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Originally posted to Where] Aesthetics seem completely subjective. Although some people have similar tastes (based partially on shared experience?), variation is more the rule. So when it comes to the look of common spaces, attempting to please everyone may not be the best approach.

Quality might be a better standard. By quality I’m thinking of things like healthy environments, strong materials, ease of use, sound construction, and responsiveness to changing needs. Maybe quality can be attended to by governing bodies, but the direction must come from those who live in an area.

Shared space reveals distinct and often conflicting values. There are many who aren’t concerned with the quality of urban settings. They may be more interested in maximizing profits, or just surviving from day to day. At the same time, they may have a high degree of influence over the way cities take shape. This combination often leads to inhospitable environments.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Originally posted to Where] Does it matter how a city or neighborhood looks? Many would say it does, though much less than, say, health or safety. So if it matters to some extent, what makes a place visually attractive? Are there any common characteristics, or is it only in the eye of the beholder?

Maybe “looks” is the wrong word. How about the way a place feels? This would include all the senses — the different variables that make an area appealing. Of course, people have unique tastes and I don’t know if there are any qualities loved by everyone. However, there are places generally considered attractive. They are usually in wealthier districts, but should extend to poorer communities as well. If we work towards achieving this throughout our cities, without displacing low-income groups, we might look back some day and wonder how we ever lived in some of the neglected areas we know today.

Read the rest of this entry »