Carmel, IN Development News

[CG5]

Recent post in the CEOs for Cities blog:

The following, from a speech by former Winnipeg Mayor Glenn Murray, provides a wonderful perspective on placemaking...

"Winnipeg started as a city that had a huge sense of possibilities. The first people who arrived there were trying to attract the railroad so they built grand railroad stations. They built beautiful Carnegie libraries and grand boulevards with beautiful trees. There was a sense that beauty had to be necessary and a necessity had to be beautiful and that when you walk down the main street of your city, what things looked like were a reflection of your values, your sense of civic pride, sense of identity and a celebration of the intellect, the imagination, the culture and the success and prosperity of the community. You wore it on your sleeves.

"The idea was also about the pulic good. People like Carnegie were putting money into libraries because they thought it was important that places of knowledge and learning were open and accessible for people who might feel the library was a much more extraordinary and beautiful place than they would ever be able to own. The public realm had to be beautiful and to be shared, so we could all have something greater together than any one of us could own individually.

"One of the changes in values in the suburbanization of our culture is that what's on our property matters most.... You cannot talk about change or culture unless you deal with the values that are associated with it."


And then a dictionary entry:

cre·a·tiv·i·ty
1. the state or quality of being creative.
2. the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination.
3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability.


You can keep arguing about matters of taste, if you like, but pretentious historicist architecture has no place in the public realm. While it may comfort people and tickle their sense of nostalgia, it does nothing to challenge or energize them. It is not "good" architecture, especially in the civic sense, because it says very poor things about citizenship. It sends a "follow-the-leader" message and placates the people that it is supposed to bring up and bring together.

That may sound like overstatement, but I don't think it is at all. Civic structures used to reinforce the idea that society is about working together toward an outcome that is greater than the what its individual members could achieve on their own. Architecture is a direct reflection of societal values, though people have become convinced (through apathy generated by these very types of designs, that the built environment does not affect them in any important way.) To say that it is solely a matter of opinion -- though opinion plays its part -- is to deny the importance of architecture in the public realm, and vice versa.

[Unionstation13]

older styles of newer architecture has a place. It reminds us of what we were, the past, and it honers history, and our past, our building blocks of what we are today. If we were to abandon the idea of having newer older styles than it would be masses of glass and steele in newer areas. Newer buildings and neighborhoods should share a mix of old and new ideas. Older designs respect what made us what we are today. Alot of craftsmanship is coming back as a trend, along with modern styles, I think this is a good mix of old and new.

[CG5]

No, actual old buildings remind us of what we were in the past. Ripping off those buildings and combining elements of their design willy-nilly to create some plasticine knockoff insults and cheapens the original work. It's a simple matter of supply and demand: the more there is of something, the less important each individual piece of that something is.

And why the assumption that, just because a building is an original, inspired piece of architecture it has to be a modernist steel and glass box? Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying -- context is all in architecture, and it is very important that architects take their cues from the existing environment when creating a new building. Have you never heard of Moshe Safdie? Antoine Predock? "Traditional" materials like wood and stone are alive and well in contemporary (not "modernist," which is a style, not an era) architecture.

[Unionstation13]

If the new/older structure is done tastefully it does remind us of what we were. And that is important, but when you construct it tastefully it respects the past. Like the newer/old styled buildings in Berlin, that are done very tastefully and very nicely. But some just looks plain and fakish. Dont get me wrong, I think that modern architecture is important, but so is reviving older fashions.

[CG5]

Post some images of what you are talking about in Berlin.

[Unionstation13]

Well, they arent all neccarely in Berlin, but many new designs that I think we in Indianapolis could use, with a mix of post-modern structures aswell. a couple of examples.

Painter's Yard, Chelsea



Downing College, Cambridge


Baker Street, Marylebone




Richmond Riverside



Corinthian Villa, Regent's Park


Gothic Villa, Regent's Park


Great Canfield, Essex


Forbes House, Ham Common


198 Piccadilly


Poundbury


Schermerhorn Symphony Center, Nashville



Jakriborg, Malmo

[CG5]

Ok, so that proved nothing.

Anyway, I'm more interested in what arenn has to say.

[Indyman]

@ union station. Some of those buildings dont look new. They appear to have been there a long time (some anyways).

[Unionstation13]

Thats becuase the developers wanted that, they managed to make them look snugged. I like the designs, becuase of the detailing.

[arenn]

Many of the buildings in Europe are much newer than they appear. In particular, you may note that Germany was all but destroyed during WWII. They build new buildings to look old there, exactly what CG5 seems to hate. Interestingly, much of the US Capitol building is older than the Houses of Parliament in London.

CG, what were you looking for me to comment on?

[Indyman]

Originally Posted by Unionstation13

Thats becuase the developers wanted that, they managed to make them look snugged. I like the designs, becuase of the detailing.

Well if thats that case I am truely impressed. They did a great job.

[Unionstation13]

Well these structrues were constructed from the 1960s forward. Newer older styled buildings. And alot of them were also recently constructed. I am very impressed how they rebuilt alot of Germany, making it seem as if they never were bombed, especially in Dresden. They just reconstructed a massive stone cathedral and it is a beauty! When a community works hard enough together they can make beautiful things.

[CG5]

Originally Posted by arenn

Many of the buildings in Europe are much newer than they appear. In particular, you may note that Germany was all but destroyed during WWII. They build new buildings to look old there, exactly what CG5 seems to hate. Interestingly, much of the US Capitol building is older than the Houses of Parliament in London.

CG, what were you looking for me to comment on?

I was hoping for a response to what you had posted earlier. I prefer to spar with people who can construct complete sentences, is all.

And please don't paint me as a mindless hater. I'm going to the trouble to explain why I have a problem with this type of architecture; give me some credit.

[arenn]

By the way, union, the same architect who designed the Schermerhorn Symphony Center in Nashville is the designer of the Carmel Performing Arts Center.

[Unionstation13]

Thats really interesting, I love his designs.
When is the Carmel Performing arts center set for construction?

[arenn]

Originally Posted by Unionstation13

Thats really interesting, I love his designs.
When is the Carmel Performing arts center set for construction?

I'm not sure when construction on the PAC itself is scheduled to start, but I believe it is supposed to be open by 2010.

[arenn]

Originally Posted by CG5

You can keep arguing about matters of taste, if you like, but pretentious historicist architecture has no place in the public realm. While it may comfort people and tickle their sense of nostalgia, it does nothing to challenge or energize them. It is not "good" architecture, especially in the civic sense, because it says very poor things about citizenship. It sends a "follow-the-leader" message and placates the people that it is supposed to bring up and bring together.

That may sound like overstatement, but I don't think it is at all. Civic structures used to reinforce the idea that society is about working together toward an outcome that is greater than the what its individual members could achieve on their own. Architecture is a direct reflection of societal values, though people have become convinced (through apathy generated by these very types of designs, that the built environment does not affect them in any important way.) To say that it is solely a matter of opinion -- though opinion plays its part -- is to deny the importance of architecture in the public realm, and vice versa.

I agree completely that architecture is to a great extent a reflection of the values of a society. But what I've had to fight in myself over the years is a tendency to view my values as universal. I don't like generic suburban environments much at all. But there are obviously huge numbers of people for whose values are reflected perfectly by them. A lot of people's values are accurately reflected by this type of throwback architecture.

Consider creativity, your example. This is something that certainly hasn't been been equally as valuable in all places and times. I don't think creativity per se really is a universal value or inarguably good. We've become so used to the idea of progress and creativity that it seems like the natural order of the universe to us, but to others, many who might have been as happy or happier than we are, it wasn't so. (I'd actually argue that with all this talk about the "creative class" we've gotten to the point of fetishization of creativity when there are arguably far more important virtues out there).

I think the idea behing nostalgia based architecture is quite different from they way you portray it. I think the idea is to harken back to a simpler day when people didn't lock their doors, neighborhs helped out neighbors, and their really was a sense of community, not just this hyperaccelerated world we are in today. The 19th century vision of a small town may not be perfect by any means, but there are a lot of good things in it.

I agree with your statement about the impact of society of architecture and vice versa. As they say, "We shape our buildings, then they shape us." But you appear to be almost suggesting that we use a forward looking type of architecture in an attempt to mold society in a better vision. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but I think the underlying issue is still that there's a value conflict, not merely an architecture conflict. Obviously we all think our values are the best or we wouldn't hold them, but remember that other people feel the same way about theirs. Perhaps values is a better term than taste, though certainly there is at least some of the latter involved in a value set.

[CG5]

What is the purpose of humanity if not to progress?

[Unionstation13]

Progress doesent neccarely mean we have to have modern designs, you can maintain timeless styles while moving forward in human progress. Massive goverment buildings can be constructed in timeless styles and still continue progress. Progress doesent neccarely mean moving into the future and latest styles.

[arenn]

Originally Posted by CG5

What is the purpose of humanity if not to progress?

Progress implies a forward motion towards a destination. The real value conflict isn't rarely between change and statis, but rather about what is the vision to be sought after - namely, values.

It would take a book to talk about progress, but one highly readable account that I think really fleshes out the issues is the classic "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. He argues that there is actually not, strictly speaking even progress in a field like science.

I'd argue that much of what passes for progress in the realms of urban planning and architecture is really no such thing, but is in reality more akin to fashion trends: endless change, some probably arguably better than others, but not getting any closer to any sort of real destination.