Module 2

It is difficult to say which approach to urban design is best between the three theories put forth in the lecture.  However I have a moral opposition to the Garden City movement and what it spawned in the form of suburbs.  The idea of having a semi-urban space in conjunction with semi-countryside green space is greedy.  Modern suburbs are rooted in garden cities, wanting to have your own plot of land and a family home.  Unfortunately suburbs have run rampant and destroyed thousands of acres of land which would take decades to return to land that can be farmed if we ever did try to reclaim it.  The desire for the American dream has destroyed land and promoted the car over the pedestrian.  

Modern environment design, however; has moved passed the garden city and focuses on actually helping cities grow more sustainably.  Recently cities have been bringing more green space into the city and trying to reestablish themselves as places where one can easily live a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.  London, for example, has taken huge steps in making it a sustainable city; bringing in bike sharing programs, increasing the amount of green space, aiming to be the first ultra-low emissions city, etc. 

What really intrigued me from the beginning of this module was the lecture focusing on Urban Design Theories and Philosophy.  Architects are responsible for essentially designing the world we live in.  It is incredibly important that they understand the weight of that and have an understanding of how they can create better lives through the built environment.  I have always thought that all architects and even civil engineers should be required to take philosophy courses about place and the affect of the urban.

Bringing semiotics into urban design has always made complete sense to me.  While generally applied to language semiotics can have a huge impact on architecture.  Roland Barthes, who is well known for his study of semiotics, wrote extensively on how semiotics could be applied to other field including architecture.  In Semiology and the Urban Barthes explores how the city works as a language and how we speak the language of our city by living in it.  

“The city is a discourse and this discourse is truly a language: the city speaks to its inhabitants, we speak our city, the city where we are, simply by living in it, by wandering through it, by looking at it.” (Barthes, Semiology and the Urban).

When people truly embrace their city they are becoming readers of the city.  They learn how the grammar of the city works by learning all the smallest details.  To me good urban design encourages this sort of intense study of a city.  

Urban designers have to be aware of the language they are using when they design, how it fits into the context of what is existing and how their language will impact the way the city is read.  Every part of architecture; program, material, scale, has connotations ingrained in them and need to be chosen as carefully as every word of a novel.  

Just as with semiotics I don't think there can be an absolute when it comes to the rules of design.  No two cities work in the same way or have the same environment to react to.  You can't treat Rome the same way as Los Angeles.  All cities are unique and have a different life to them that cannot be predicted or forced into cooperation.  When you try to solve all problems with the same answer you end up with a much bigger problem.  Each city, every urban design has to be evaluated and approached in a unique way.