Urbanism

I don't know what I think about Urban Design.

Urban Design is at the crossroads of Architecture and other disciplines like civil engineering and Sociology. So, as a Product Design Engineer, it is rather out of my ballpark. Regardless, I have taken quite an interest in it. Studying both Leon Krier and Le Corbusier, perhaps the most divided views on this subject, I have arrived at quite a complex situation. I have also ended up getting myself halfway though both 'housing design quality', a rather dry academic view at the policy and economic aspect of the situation, and Deyan Sujic's 100 Mile City.

Krier, for the uninitiated, is regarded as an ardent Neo-Traditional, who, though a selection of witty drawings, and passionate articles, argues for us to reclaim our Architectural history, and forget Modernist persuasions. He argues that visually, we should use both local vernacular, and monumental Neo-Classicism. But more importantly, he argues that we should aim to re-create the cityscape of traditional european cities consciously, that is to say, that the effect of the tangled roads of places like London and old Barcelona should be planned out, in order to deliver good quality public space.

Corbusier, swept up in the vibe of the early 20th century, argued something completely different. He believed that the automation and efficiencising of industry would liberate people with more free leisure time. He planned his cities based on the idea that we would all sleep and eat in vertical tower blocks, connected by efficient highways to our work and to each other. His conceptual city plans, such as 'Ville Radieuse', spaced out blocks in generous parkland. Theoretically, to provide efficient connection to our essential needs, but also to enable us to, with the time provided by said efficiency, connect to our surroundings and nature.

Now obviously, retrospectively, there is a huge amount on negative impact in Le Corbusier's legacy. One spawn of his impact is the 'tower in the park', a design that was wholeheartedly accepted by the developers, politicians and social engineers of the post-war period, as a way to cheaply, effectively, and efficiently deal with slum conditions, and lack of housing in the lower classes. Living in Glasgow, I can confidently say that yes, this was a failure. The sight of these blocks literally scares me. A lot of these, in Glasgow, have been demolished. Most of the infamous Gorbals are gone, and Red Road is to be got rid of soon. They seem to have isolated and compartmentalized their residents, whist the middle classes are happy to continue the sprawl outwards into the greenery.

Another condition I believe to be relativly unadressed, is that it seems our current particular breed of 'starchitecture' was conceived by Le Corbusier. The postmodernists of the 80's thought they had torn modernism to shreds when they put a silly roof on a skyscraper, but what they failed to address was the actual impact this kind of architectural D*ck-measuring was having on the cityscape. Again, bringing it back to Glasgow, the recent Clydeside development, contributed to by the likes of Zaha Hadid, and presented as a vision of the new, cultural Glasgow, is actually a barren wasteland as far as I can see; broad, tall,  magnificent, neo-futuristic, concrete and glass structures emerge from nowhere from the neighboring car-parks. An area with 2 TV studios, 2 Museums, a National Convention center and a gigantic auditorium is basically empty besides the peak flows just before an event. This tradition stems from the monumentalism first delivered by Corbusier's Ronchamp Chapel, his state buldings in Chandigarh, and projects such as Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim.

Now, there is some nuance here, the BBC Scotland building, the most 'modernist' of them all at the Clydeside, is the only one I haven't got tired of. And with regard to the concrete tower block, it was adopted because it was cheap, and those 60's blocks have ignored the sensitivity that Corbusier seems to have adopted with his built Unite d'habitation blocks. But the point remains that he was essentially wrong. No amount off well proportioned interior space can convince the majority to give up their gardens and quiet roads. And it doesn't seem that many of those modernist architects themselves would have. 

Leon Krier attempts a different Post-Modernism than the likes of Zaha Hadid and Rem Koolhaas. His argument is propely in favor of traditional development. Although I haven't been there, Poundbury, Krier's plan sponsored by the Prince of Wales, in Dorset, seems to be at least an exceptionally interesting place. The road network is consciously scattered, and the homes are a blend of vernacular and classical, fronting directly on the roads, and forming squares and other interesting linear public spaces. This is a total departure from modernism, and it is convincing. It seems like 'normal' people wouldn't mind living in places like this. Krier has dropped a random city center into the middle of a field, and it seems to work.

This is actually very confusing though. Inspired mainly by great Product Design, I am in admiration of many of the modernists. I do believe that neutral, uncluttered spaces are both livable and comfortable. But the confusing junction that is Urbanism is the big tear at the seams. Should I still wear all black?!?

No, i'll still wear all black, it makes me feel cool and intelligent. And yeah I still think that both Postmodern and traditional product design tend towards the ugly. There is however, in conclusion, a quote from each that I can fully agree with. Krier Says:

"The city is the focus and purpose of design, the giver of meaning; individual buildings are born out of its order and requirement. They are never isolated works of art in and of themselves. The city is the work of art. Otherwise sick to sculpture and painting, which is private... and achievable.

Corbusier states, on a slight different topic:

"The styles of Louis XIV, XV, XVI or Gothic, are to architecture what a feather is on a woman's head, they are pretty sometimes, but not always, and nothing more."

This would place me, ideologically, if I was to be so brash at this early stage of my career, somewhere close to David Chipperfield, in terms of visual Architectural language; but in very close agreement with Krier over the overall shape and form of what a city should be.

It seems unfortunate to ditch the moral conclusivity of the early modernists, but it does seem that rectangles can't be the solution to everything.

Icons

The DK book 'Great Designs' outlines the history of design through over 100 design icons. These iconic pieces of design will be familiar, and are mostly the same as the ones featured in many other books, documentaries and films on the history of design.

Looking at what is featured in the book however, it seems that there is an issue, in that hardly any of the featured designs have ever made it into the homes of a significant amount of consumers. Don't read this as a criticism of the book though, or even a criticism of the attitudes of the design community, the problem is that good design has a genuinely hard time squeezing it's way into the hands of the majority of the population.

Looking at the last two paragraphs of the book, which includes the selected icons of design from the 1980's onwards, we see the following:

Carlton Bookcase - Ettore Sottsass	The Face magazine - Neville Brody	Whistling Bird kettle - Michael Greaves
Wood Chair - Marc Newsom	Carna Wheelchair - Kazuo Kawasaki	Bookworm Bookshelf - Ron Arad
85 Lamps chandelier - Rory Graumans	Vermelha Chair - Campana Brothers	Dyson DC01 - James Dyson
Verdana Typeface - Matthew Carter	Brick Shelving System - Bourollec Brothers	Fjord armchair - Patricia Urquiola
Garland Light - Tord Boontje	Lover Sofa - Pascal Mourgue	Miura stool - Konstanrin Grcic
Evolute lamp - Matali Crasset	Spun Chair - Thomas Heatherwick	Apple iPad - Jony Ive
	Masters chair - Phillipe Stark

Now these designs are certainly significant, and all are generally genuinely good design, but out of the 20, I could only say that The Face, bird kettle, DC01, Verdana, Spun chair and iPad, have made any kind of impression on the mainstream.

A realistic 'hall of fame', with respect to what is actually, or at least has been, present in our environment, would look something like this :

IKEA KALLAX shelving system	The Face magazine - Neville Brody	Whistling Bird kettle - Michael Graves
IKEA IVAR wooden chair	NHS issue self-propelling wheelchair	Built in bookshelves - Anon
Homebase 'Milan' light fitting	IKEA POÄNG chair	DC01 Vacum - James Dyson
Verdana Typeface - Matthew Carter	B&Q 'Maple Effect' Floating Shelf	Vantage 2 Lever office chair
Round paper light fitting - Anon	NEXT Alexis Leather Chair	Traditional stool - Anon
Lloytron Flex Lamp	Spun Chair - Thomas Heatherwick	Apple iPad - Jony Ive
	Series E Chair - Robin Day

Now i'm not saying that these products are neccesarily a better option, but this is my impression of what the market as a whole has selected. In design school, along with all the things on form and function, we are taught that our design output should attempt to be beneficial, or at least not harmful, to society as a whole; along with going through a design process with sympathy for both cost constraints, and other corporate interests. The classic iconic designs,  if they reach no-one besides collectors, or the upper middle class, are clearly failing at one or both of these objectives.

Much of the world of 'design icons' is an interesting look into the ebbs and flows of 'contemporary' art and design history. But the house of the layman has hardly changed, besides the addition of an obnoxiously large TV, in 30 years. The world of modernism, post modernism, and whatever comes after that is almost completely detached from reality. To take an exert from Papanek's 'Design for the Real World':

"In his novel Magister Ludi, Hermann Hesse writes about a community of intellectual elites who have perfected a mystical, symbolic language, called the 'Bead Game', that has reduced all knowledge to a sort of unified field theory. The world outside the community is convulsed by riots, wars, and revolutions, but the players of the Bead Game have lost all contact. They are engaged in exchanging their esoterica with one another in the game. There is a disturbing parallel between Hesse's game and the aspirations of the contemporary artist when he speaks of his goals in the exercise of his private visions. He discourses on space, the transcendence of space, the multiplication of space, the division and negation of space. It is a space devoid of man, as though mankind did not exist. It is, in fact, a version of the Bead Game. "

I do think that the arguments that have been exchanged in the last century are extremely important, and as a new generation of design students it is extremely important that we study the 'masters' and learn of their motivations and their mistakes.

But if design genuinely has anything to offer to the people, our motivation should, in a large way, be focused on dragging good design from the elite and delivering it to the people. It has already been proven that good design is not impossible, and there is no reason why it should be any more expensive. But if we'd prefer to waste our time on another round of the bead game, no wonder the moneymakers are looking elsewhere for inspiration.



A large proportion of these images have been stolen from the internet with disregard to copyright, clicking on such images will link to what I can best make out to be the original source.

Painting - Prague

It's done! After starting this painting in my first year of university, on the cardboard back of an old sketchpad, I have finally finished, or at least told myself to stop, this painting of a scene in Prague. Looking over Charles Bridge to the Cathedral, it is a view me and my girlfriend took the pleasure of taking in, in the summer of 2013. The photo it is based on is stolen from somewhere online (wikimedia).

It was a larger undertaking than I first imagined, my paintings prior to this have had a landscape/architectural focus, but have either been much simpler, or at a much larger scale. The painting is roughly A3, and fitting such a complex image onto such a small space ended up requiring a challenging amount of precision! I ended up using a wooden skewer to add some of the finer details.

A fairly complete collection of my paintings since 2012 can be found on my portfolio or on coroflot.