I've written about this subject before but I can't resist another try. Are there any professionals more clueless than architects? Why are they always foisting sterility (above) on us? Can't they get it through their heads that no one wants to live that way?
My guess is that most people would prefer a nice place on a quiet street (above) to an apartment in a megastructure.
Even so you have to admit that city living has some advantages. All those bright people living in close quarters! Anything is possible in a place that! My prediction is that in my own lifetime we'll see holographic robots and dinosaurs roving the city streets, visible to fans of holographic art who wear the right glasses.
I think people would much rather live in an aquarium than visit one. Big cities should have an abundance of everything that's interesting in the world. Let's have sea turtles and giant squids swimming in places that we visit frequently.
Both cities and suburbs should be full of bridges: iron bridges, wooden bridges, covered bridges, Chinese and Japanese bridges, high and low foot bridges, safe bridges, unsafe bridges...and there should be something interesting below the bridges. Waterways? Rapids? Urban kayak canals? Trees? Animals? Trolley cars? Waterfalls? Houses?
Let's plant giant trees and have tree houses (above)! I want to live in the Tarzan treehouse in Disneyland!
And let's figure out a way to bring exotic animals into urban environments. I'm tired of seeing dogs, cats and pigeons. I want free-roving monkeys and lions and ostriches. If we put our minds to it, we can figure out a way to make that happen, can't we? I mean some way that doesn't require capturing animals in the wild.
Let's have fun transportation! Can we take a submarine or a sailboat or a ferry to work instead of a bus?
Horseback riding is just about the most fun transportation there is. Can we make that possible for millions of suburbanites?
Can we have real, urban transportation like the kind we find in water parks? Can rapidly flowing water be made to channel through cities?
Why did we do away with trestles and steam trains? People like stuff like that! Can we bring these to the suburbs and cities?
Ever since I heard that Bangcock (spelled right?) uses urban kayak canals as a means of serious transportation I've been chomping at the bit to see them. Is that really possible? We have to wait for floods (above) to get our urban kayaking in.
Horse-drawn coaches of all kinds make great transportation. Not for the freeways of course, but they'd be great in the suburbs. And while we're at it, let's have affordable convertable sports cars.
Vincent said weird hippie vehicles slowly cruised all over the Burning Man festival area. They went slow enough that anyone could get on or off without the vehicle stopping. Maybe the hippies are on to something.
Somehow we've got to make cheap, safe, silent private airplanes available for urban use. I want to explore the caverns in cotton-candy clouds then land in my backyard in time for dinner. I guess if everybody did that the planes would blot out the sun. I haven't the slightest idea how to make this practical. Airplane buses, maybe?
A while back I read that one way to keep jobs from being outsourced is to make American cities so exciting and attractive that employers and skilled workers won't want to leave them, even if they can make more money some place else. Let's put that idea to the test!
Ooh! I want to live in the bustling metropolis of Eddiesburg!
ReplyDeleteWhat I learned from this post- Samuel L. Clemens is still alive and he flies around in a small airplane.
ReplyDeleteHey, we have free-roaming urban monkeys here in Japan. But sometimes they throw cans and trash at cars passing by. Which to me is one of the many benefits of having free-roaming urban monkeys.
Imagine what rhinos would do! How can we, as Uncle Eddies' Theory Corner readers, contribute to making this future a reality?
Urrrggghhh... I put that apostrophe on the wrong side of the "S." I didn't mean to imply there are multiple Uncle Eddies. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteWhere did you read that outsourcing idea?
ReplyDeleteLooks like a fun vision of the future, Eddie. Perhaps someday, EDCOT will become a reality!
ReplyDeleteLove the ideas, Eddie!
ReplyDeleteI would love it if cars sounded just like those in the Jetsons ... what a satisfying sound! They don't even have to fly. I'm sick of the tired ol' internal combustion engine rumble.
Damn right about the bridges. I want more levels! That's why I live on a hill.
ReplyDeleteTrolley-buses too, in all sorts of exotic shapes. With monkeys driving them.
That reminds me actually - my friend has been getting the boat to work (from Greenwich to Waterloo in London) in the mornings... but he stopped because he says he found it becoming routine and he was appreciating the view less and less.
I like these ideas. I think below the bridges there should be roving gangs fighting each other in certain areas. That'd be wild! Then you could drop stuff on them...anything from non-lethal weaponry involving angora yarn to bottles of water to small potted flowers.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe not.
I'm still waiting for my jet pack and routine trips to Mars.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought the only two places to live are 1) in the open countryside, and 2) in the heart of a great city. All else is compromise and substitute. But each lacks what the other has: interesting people, beauty. Eddie's great idea: why not combine them? Indeed, why not?
ReplyDeleteJust give me floating, hydrogen powered cars... that's all I ask. Oooh, and solar power and wind turbines on all buildings. Set me free from foreign oil. That's what I want to see in the future city. But, I will say that I doubt the sterile city of the future will ever exist. The preferences of too many individuals are at play. We buy and sell one piece of property at a time to different people. The all encompassing city plan could only work in a dictatorship, where the tastes of one person shape the entire lay of the land, i.e. Rome, any time A.D. In my opinion, it will be architectural higgledy-piggledy for the foreseeable future. But, the drive to modernize almost always means "Ugly." You can't beat the look of an Italian villa or an Irish country house, or a New England Barn house. Why did we ever get away from these types of structures? Thanks for the Post Eddie.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that the cold sterile environment of a city is pretty off-putting. Living around that kind of mass of people is awesome though.
ReplyDeleteAlso, rope bridges are the way to go. Think of the suspense just going to a grocery store if you have to walk across a rickety, old worn out wooden rope bridge! People need that kind of adventure in their lives.
I completely agree with you about the unfriendly nature that the sterility of modern architechture elicitis. Completely soul-less. I like things rustic and antiquey myself. Things with heart. Nice post. Best, Lainey
ReplyDeleteHow about bringing back zepplins. I thought after 9/11 we'd see a resurgance of lighter-than-air craft slowly drifting from airport to airport. I'd love to look up and see a sky full of zepplins.
ReplyDeleteI always expected the "big city" to look like a cross between Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" and "Blade Runner." Boy am I disappointed.
I agree with brilliantpants about wanting to live in Eddiesburg. But hey ... what would an "Uncle Eddiesland" themepark look like?
I hate to beat this subject to death, but: flying cars!
ReplyDeleteAnd no helmet law. I will wear a fedora & smoke a pipe.
Wow great ideas!
ReplyDelete"Both cities and suburbs should be full of bridges: iron bridges, wooden bridges, covered bridges, Chinese and Japanese bridges, high and low foot bridges, safe bridges, unsafe bridges..."
You should try Amsterdam ;)
There are alot of bridges and you see alot of strange stuf when you're going trough the canals.
Besides that I like to live in a city, you can do so much in a city.
There is still one really cool antique narrow gauge steam train that runs back and forth over some of the most beautiful country in the USA. The route is from Durango, Colorado to Silverton, Colorado and back. The trip takes about a full day and it's well worth doing. You can't point a camera in any direction without taking a spectacular shot during that trek.
ReplyDelete"My prediction is that in my own lifetime we'll see holographic robots and dinosaurs roving the city streets, visible to fans of holographic art who wear the right glasses."
ReplyDeleteYaaa! Then everyone else will see what see everyday!
Sounds good to me :)
ReplyDeleteWhile I can appreciate the large modern structures and open spaces, you are right, it would be pretty dull and sterile living there.
so many cool ideas in this post!
ReplyDeleteThe thought of Eddie living in a tree house brings a warm smile to my face.
(1) Bangkok. Or Krung Thep, if you're Thai.
ReplyDelete(2) The big problem with steam trains today would be the emissions if it's a coal-burning engine. Steam engines also used to emit all sorts of sparks. There was a whole area of law in the 19th century dealing just with fires set by railroad locomotive smokestacks. Park Avenue in New York was created because the city barred the use of steam locomotives in Manhattan, requiring them to go electric (which created all sorts of oddities even as late as the 1930s, when trains were electric in NYC, but steam all the way else to Chicago.)
(3) It's interesting how "future" cities share common themes. Not much of a distance between the Jetsons and, say, 1930's "Just Imagine."
Eddie, for a really interesting vision of the future, check out Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge. Your "holographic robot" idea reminded me of it.
ReplyDeleteOne of his ideas is that people wear computers in their clothing, with the computer's display in contact lenses. As you look around the world, various things can be "overlaid" in your field of vision--like if you're trying to find an address, you might see arrows on the ground leading the way. Or, if you're into the 1950s, you could get an overlay that makes everything around you look like it's the 1950s. Or, if you're into giant robots, you might see giant robots wandering the streets.
Have you read Delirious New York by Rem Koolhaas? More interesting than the buildings he went on to design, the book includes the theory that Coney Island was the laboratory where all the essential concepts of modern Manhattan were first developed.
ReplyDeleteHe also writes about Manhattan's urban congestion being superior to the spaced out urban plans of Le Corbusier. (Your first image looks like the artist swiped from Corbusier, throwing in a couple of curves.)
Hey, I liked that first pic. But I agree, it is quite cold. I'd love to live in a megastructure, the pinnacle of cizilization.
ReplyDeleteI don't like the idea of wild animals roaming the streets. It'd take away their exoticness if they were always around.
My dream is to live in a purely modern city with buildings that look like this or THIS!
...but we'd have to fix those colors.
Of course we'd all ride mechanical dinosaurs, lupines, and sabretooth cats, that transform into cars, tanks, jets, and other vehicles, which transform into mecha humanoid robots that fly No more traffic congestion!
Our exoskeleton power suits would have detachments that can turn our bodies into motorcycles and helicopters. I recommend a maximum amount of sprocket holes for the biggest variety of detachments. We could wear these underneath our suits and trenchcoats, cowboy hats and fedoras. Then our power suits would connect to our transforming vehicles for easy ignition.
All adults would smoke 100& healthy tobacco. I'll take a pipe.
I was thinking the same thing, Mr. Costello. That image Uncle Eddie led with today bears a strong resemblance to the master shot used in 1930's "Just Imagine", starring that unique thespian, El Brendel.
ReplyDeleteHaving worked in architectural firms, I can attest by far that the #1 thing keeping architecture sterile is...
ReplyDelete...the public. Architects are busting at the seams to create flamboyant works. Any truly interesting building is inevitably kaboshed by conservative, penny-pinching clients who fear risk. Try building an interesting house sometime.....your neighbors and city will completely tie your hands.
Architects are not to blame for boring architecture. After all, they got into architecture because they were excited by its possibilities.
Remember about the Kinkade Effect: John Q. Public's aesthetic taste is extremely bland. If you think trying to pass a funny cartoon past a board of studio execs is tough, try passing an interesting or fun design for a building past a paying business client or a local city council of your neighbors.
>>One of his ideas is that people wear computers in their clothing, with the computer's display in contact lenses. As you look around the world, various things can be "overlaid" in your field of vision--like if you're trying to find an address, you might see arrows on the ground leading the way. Or, if you're into the 1950s, you could get an overlay that makes everything around you look like it's the 1950s. Or, if you're into giant robots, you might see giant robots wandering the streets.<<
ReplyDeleteGood lord I hope this doesn't happen! A city full of hallucinating citizens with no innate sense of direction, that sounds like Hell. My city is bad enough with jerk-offs not paying attention to where they are going while listening to iPods.
I'd go for a Swiss Family Robison style city, or maybe like a denser version of summer camp. We could be close to Nature and the finest civilization has to offer. And as a bonus if the bums really want to get something to eat and not vodka nips they can go foraging for figs and berries instead of panhandling. In my fantasy city everyone's a winner!!
In order to get better cities we'd need easier to manage populations. If some sort of catastrophe doesn't do it we'd have to wait thru generations of family planning. in any case the world population should probably nevr top about 5 or 6 billion. but if we really want to spread out and go flying along crazy landscapes.
ReplyDeleteAnyway as we have seen time and tiem again the general population basically hates modern architecture and most people would rather have romantic looking cottages. Therefore i think the real future of cities will be 4 acre apartments stacked upon each other each with a little isolated looking house with picket fences and landscaping and trees full of butterflies and hummingbirds. But you can still take the elevator down to the bodega and get pretzels in the middle of the night.
I remember reading in book when I was very young that science fiction is tomorrow's reality; that pretty much anything man can imagine can become real in some way, shape, or form.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe it. I can imagine riding a bolt of lightning across the universe. Make it happen, somebody!
Off-topic, but for all you visual folks, does this test make any sense to you? It's supposed to tell you whether you're right brained or left-brained. Whatever, it's pretty fascinating. Any theories, Unc?
ReplyDeleteWhy did we do away with trestles and steam trains?
ReplyDeleteI love steam locomotives. The look, the sounds, the smells, everything. We still have a few around here, but they're used mostly in parks.
Here's what Wiki says about the end of the steam locomotive:
The introduction of diesel-electric locomotives in the first part of the 20th century spelled the end of steam locomotives, though they were used in North America and Europe to mid-century, and continued in use in other countries to the end of the century. Steam locomotives are in general simple machines, which can be maintainable under primitive conditions and consume a wide variety of fuels. They are as a rule inefficient compared to modern diesels, requiring constant maintenance and labour to keep them operational. Water is required at many points throughout a rail network and becomes a major problem in desert areas, as are found in some regions within the United States, Australia and South Africa. In other localities the local water is unsuitable. The reciprocating mechanism on the driving wheels tend to pound the rails (see "hammer blow"), thus requiring more maintenance. Steam locomotives require several hours' boiling up before service and an end-of-day procedure to remove ash and clinker. Diesel or electric locomotives, by comparison, commence working from the first turn of the key and do not require the labour-intensive cleaning, raking and servicing after a shift. Finally, the smoke from steam locomotives is objectionable; in fact, the first electric and diesel locomotives were developed to meet smoke abatement requirements.
It's posts like this that just make my day! It's always self-affirming to know there are much smarter people that are just as excited about the future as I am.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know your thoughts on this-
www.acabion.com
Do note that their conviction is as strong as their ambition. It's batshit.
Eddie you've done it again. I've grown up in the suburbs and if there's one thing I like in the cities, it's trains! Above ground on bridges, below in tunnels, on the street surface next to cars! They're just so much fun! But what I'd really like to see is that rolling marble highway thing they had in Robots. That would just be my dream come true.
ReplyDeleteHey, there's a little suburban community near where I live that everyone uses horses to walk around the neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has small houses with small back yards, and they keep their horses back there.
It's funny and weird, it's not like a cowboy thing or something to that effect. It's mostly a black neigborhood with cheap suburban homes.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about steam engines is true BUT diesel locomotives must frequently be kept running in idle when not in service, burning fuel, because it burns even more fuel to start them up. There must be a greener method of rail propulsion within our technological grasp.
chrisheadrick:
ReplyDeleteI had to google "Kincade effect" & found this little utopia:
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/style/2002/03/18/kinkade_village/index.html
The advertising shows that they, at least know what the customer wants. What he gets is....well, it's probably better than that modernist Fordian monstrosity at the top of the post. Both projects have the bare minimum of man/hours from architects. The high rise is just more dogmatic about mass-production, but the principle's the same.
I hate Mies's to pieces!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWill the future contain amusing, well-crafted, hand-drawn cartoons, Eddie?
ReplyDeleteWill it, huh, will it?
And if so, will special glasses be required to view them?
LOL! that is awesome eddie. Man, when mankind can really do all that we'll be all set.
ReplyDeleteYou know who's an architect that made really fun buildings? Gaudi. I also heard about this Japanese guy that makes buildings based on ant architecture...his stuff looks really crazy.
Tweed. Everyone would wear tweed sports jackets.
ReplyDeleteThat's the only proper garment for the future. Of course, those silver suits would look awfully good in the flying cars.
Leather interior?
I saw this suburb on TV once where nobody had cars and the street signs were on short posts. Everyone had wide garages and there were no roads, only taxi ways and landing strips. People had planes!
ReplyDeletePS: I would totally take the Nautilus to work every day if I could..
Taber: Rolling highway? Do you have a picture?
ReplyDeleteWilliam: That looks like a car, not an airplane. Can it fly?
Pappy: I couldn't find tha article on the Salon site but I'll try googling it.
Anon: Durango to Silverton? Wow! Sounds great! I may actually try to do it! Thanks!
Brian: Many thanks for the interesting Wiki article. So THAT'S what happened to the steam train! Well, maybe modern designers could make steam more efficient. Where there's a will there's a way!
ReplyDeleteChris: Fascinating! Now I feel guilty for knocking architects. Are there architecture magazines or sites where good modern architects go for solace?
Matty: Read Steward (spelled right?) Brand's book on architecture at the old Radar Lab at MIT.
ReplyDeleteEric: Boy, I'd like to see "Just Imagine."
Andrew: A theme park of my own? Wow! That would make a great post! I'll think about it!
Mark: Rainbow's End? Thanks for the tip!
Kellie: I read Delerious New York! It brought up an interesting subject but disappointed because there were so few pictures!
Jorge: Interesting idea! Giant buildings that morph into robots and walk all over the place!
ReplyDeleteeddie:
ReplyDeleteSorry, I couldn't get that link to work either. If you go to salon.com & do a search for ticky-tacky, the article should come up.
I'm a cyber-oaf.
"Just Imagine" is something of a misfire, although generally speaking, the only prints available are either low-end PD DVDs or tapes off very rare TV broadcasts. The film was believed to be lost until about 1970, when a print turned up.
ReplyDeleteThe visuals are stunning, however, and there are a few good songs, like "The Drinking Song" and "Never Swat a Fly!"
And misfire it may be, one has to say that anyone trying to write a sci-fi musical deserves credit for trying to be original and different. The film should be seen, if you get a chance (and hell, I'll mail you my VHS copy, if you want).
Pappy--yes, I'm familiar with the horrors of the Village at Hiddenbrooke.....to those not in the know, it's a planned community of pre-fab houses whose designs were "inspired" by Thomas Kinkade paintings. Yes, there is a "Kinkade-ville".
ReplyDeleteOn a far less sinister note, there's a small town in Florida that was planned by architects to bring back picket fences, front porches, town squares and such, but all painted pastel colors. The idea was to re-create an idealized small American town.....it's called Seaside, Florida. Do a search. To build there, you must follow extremely strict style codes. As a result, the entire community has a "look".
I would also like to take a moment to defend Mies Van De Rohe, Walter Gropius, and other founders of the International Style. At the time Mies and others created their works, they were striking and beautiful....much like peaceful Japanese pagodas. Mies' work, in particular, is beautifully minimalist. This style is also extremely CHEAP to build. As a result, it immediately became the favored style of every business in the world. It is not Mies who is the villain: after all, he and other minimalists were extreme visionaries of their time......it is the endless, less-inspired knockoffs that plague our cities everywhere you turn...and the reason this style stays popular is not because architects like minimalism, it's because cold, unadorned boxes of glass are CHEAP. Any curved line.....any brick or decorative plasterwork....any odd angle costs money, and clients don't want to pay it. Think of the bankers and accountants you know: now think of them designing buildings. That is what happens, and I saw it again and again in architecture. Architects are often very embittered, frustrated artists with little or no outlet for their vision.
Eddie: there are fantastic publications on visionary, expressive and wonderful architecture everywhere! I just came from Scotland, where--in Edinburgh--I toured the Scottish Parliament. Talk about flamboyance! Google The Scottish Parliament by Enric Miralles, find some good photos of it, and put out your own eyes!
And Eddie--get a big photo book of works of Antonio Gaudi!
A cionstantly moving vehicle doesn't sound vey hippie-ish. Think of the carbon footprint!
ReplyDeleteI've never understood why the word "future" seems to impel architects to design sterile, oversimplified Jetson buildings, though I've often thought the V-collared knit unitards would make everybody's lives easier. It would force The Gap into bankruptcy at the very least, which would please me.
ReplyDeleteThere is a major trend in homebuilding, however, as evidenced by publications like New Old House and reclaimed wood-mania and countless home furnishings companies pushing the "shabby chic" look, pre-abusing your furniture for you so that you can pretend you inherited it from yoiur grammaw's farmhouse instead of being stuck with what she actually left behind, her Montgomery Ward dinette set.
Since this sort of furniture has been gobbled up for several years now and the trend isn't going anywhere, it suggests to me that Americans are demonstrating a keen desire for a history, either a personal one or a national one--not a problem for folks in Europe--and are just not interested in "the future" when it comes to their homes. (Technology isn't a problem, of course; No "patinated" new-old Pottery Barn credenza is complete these days without a cubby for one's PDA.)
LeoBro: I tried that left/right brain test, and the spinning lady just kept spinning clockwise and counter-clockwise, back and forth. It was weird. What does that signify??
chris:
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt you but I was under the impression that due to engineering & the cost of materials the glass towers were not any cheaper to build than a decorative structure. Either way, I do believe that the central purpose of a glass skyscraper (phallic symbolism aside) is to project an AESTHETIC of functionality. That's why it's so universally popular & a potent international symbol of international capitalism.
If this sort of architecture was truly functional, it would be impossible to make a less-inspired knock-off because the form follows the function & the aesthetic flows from its functionality. The dividing line is the budget.
The theories seem more purely represented in the ranks of vertical slums in the heart of our great cities. Because they really are cheap, their functionality is merely oppressive & it emphasises the idea that you're one of the "masses".
And by the by, I'd love to visit Eddieland, and its sister project, EDCOT.
ReplyDelete