keronsystems.blogg.se

I think the “Radiant City” ideal was sort of floating in the ether in the 1920s, but one guy who had his cultural antenna particularly attuned to this trend was a French guy who called himself “Le Corbusier” (born Charles-Edouard Jeanneret-Gris). If you take a suburb, and swap out the McMansions for glass high-rises, you pretty much have the “Radiant City.”

The “Radiant City” is basically “Skyscraper Suburbs.” Just look at the list. Also, there is a strong flavor of the rising influence of the United States in world affairs - combined with a more “American” influence on urban ideals, which meant Small Town America. The “Radiant City” idea got started in the 1920s, as a response to the newfound ability to make very tall buildings, combined with a general discontinuity in civilization (in so many ways) in Europe following World War I. But not good enough to bother with, really. Compare this to the typical “glass pyramid” construction of today - surrounded by landscaping, parking, and large roadways.Īlso, I think the “Radiant City” is better than the Suburban Disaster. Rockefeller Center also works quite well. You’d have to lean back and look up to even know that you’re looking at the tallest building in the city. The Empire State Building is a very tall building, but at street level, it fits right in. I do think it is possible to build tall buildings within the context of the Traditional City, with the New York City skyscraper construction of the 1920s and 1930s a pretty good example of this. Whatever happens is in spite of the “Radiant City” design, which is contrary to such activities by its construction. “You can’t keep them on the farm once they’ve seen Paris.” The “Radiant City” may have some life, art and excitement going on, but the city design itself does not contribute to this, but rather prevents it. It should be clear that I prefer the Traditional City to the “Radiant City.” The Traditional City can be a cesspool, but it can also be a center of great life, art and excitement. Streets are often on a rigid grid design, or if not a grid, at least a pattern that looks very well-thought-out when observed in a scale model. Buildings typically not built to the edge of the sidewalk/roadway, but rather surrounded by some sort of “landscaping,” either grass or a paved “plaza.” Streets are widely spaced, and “blocks” are large. Very large buildings, typically glass-walled high rises of ten to one-hundred stories tall. The “Radiant City”: Very large streets, suitable for several lanes of automobile traffic. Streets are often crooked and non-rectilinear. Many parks, some stand-alone plazas, but no “landscaping.” Little to no parking for cars. Building height traditionally at the limits of stair-climbing, about seven stories maximum. Streets are plentiful and “blocks” - the area between the streets - are small (though there are typically some big ones too.) Buildings usually side-by-side, almost touching. Buildings usually built right at the edge of the street/sidewalk. The Traditional City: Many small streets, suitable for walking but hard to drive. The other is the “Radiant City.” The differences are:

October 7, 2007: Let’s Take a Trip to Veniceīut what are the alternatives? There are two basic templates for “dense urban design” today. Only in the recent period - after World War II - have people begun to make cities which are near-impossible to walk in, essentially making everyone a handicap case requiring motorized wheelchairs to get around, and thus leading to a number of problems that won’t be solved until this form of construction is abandoned.ĭecember 2, 2007: Let’s Take a Trip to Tokyo People have been living in dense cities since the beginnings of recorded history. The basic characteristic of real cities is that it is easier to walk (or bike or take the subway/streetcar etc.) than it is to drive.