Excellent point Wessie about "negative feedback loops in perception". I had not thought of that before but it makes so much sense. This dynamic not only forms when you begin to notice ugly or degrading things but also when you are exposed to the good (like the work Create Streets are doing). When exposed to the better, you begin to see how most of that which is around you does not conform to that standard - even if you thought that these buildings (for instance) were "ok" before.
Another example would be the Lake District. Most (including me) see this landscape as rugged and sublime - but increasingly vocal environmentalists are crying it is "sheepwrecked" and depressingly bleak - and now people are beginning to question the aesthetics of other national parks (I don't agree with the sheepwrecked argument, though I can see their point from an ecological perspective)
A bit off topic, but on the subject of America's homogenization in the world that you mentioned, I remembered about an interesting book I have, however, which I haven't read yet!
"Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche" by the journalist Ethan Watters.
What I could dig taking a rapid look here is that Ethan talks how the american psychiatric establishment has influenced all over the world, with its ideas of mental health, its faulty diagnosing and questionable labels like the oversaturated "PTSD" —all from DSM-5.
Of course this is a limited summary, the book (that I haven't read yet) is probably much more rich and interesting.
Now you see, USA was capable of influencing over the world, how people, be patients be professionals see their inner selves, this might change your idea that downplays american homogenization.
Wessie, Interesting, as always, but I think the politics is a bit underdone. First, it might be nice to think but it is not at all clear that patterns of social/economic stratification are inherently unstable. Haussmann started his work on Paris -- displacing folks, no doubt -- in 1853. 170 years on, seems pretty stable. When didn't London have such enclaves? NYC has always had neighborhoods of various levels of wealth and ethnicities, long before there was any talk of gentrification because there was still land left.
Pope is just the usual cant that seems de rigeur among architects. As somebody who occasionally lives/teaches in Manhattan, LOTS of people leave, and they aren't all pushed out into "suburban oblivion," with the hackneyed photo of some Levittown. The suburbs have huge advantages -- as do small towns/cities, as I know you know -- and lots of people who can afford to, retire to a villa. Greenwich is really nice. So is Blankenase, or Boitsfort, or Druid Hills, or Cambridge (either) or . . . . As they have since the Romans. Or a modest house in a less swanky neighborhood, but at least you can have a dog and your kid can have her own room. And yes, lots of suburbs have lots of parks and public spaces. I'm not a huge fan of market driven arguments, but if folks (especially with families, for some reason) wanted to live in high density settings, we would build more of them. If you can afford a bit more space, and still get to work . . . to see all these people as merely victims of gentrification is more than a little snobbish.
Which brings up technology. The argument assumes that the city, in some relatively modern form, is the vessel of civilization. And there are roots to it, the polis, agora, and all that. And I love what are now old fashioned cities. But the city glorified by architects, especially with the focus on public space, is the city that affords architects the opportunity to do their thing. (That is, the snobbishness is often self interested.). Not exactly the same thing as civilization, indeed one suspects that these democratic protests are in bad faith, given what good architecture costs, and how much is paid for by government with tax dollars . And once people could start taking the train, they did.
Now we have the internet. I do still think people will come together in cities. I do, when I'm not in the mountains or a college town. But the difficulty of living full time in the core of a 19th or even early 20th century city (I'm thinking about New York and London) may mean that "cities," in that classic sense, are mostly playgrounds for the ultrarich, the young bourgeoisie, and tourists. And seats of government, etc.
I wrote about these issues at some length, and over the years before during and after the pandemic, in the context of NYC in an essay, "Supertall, Maybe Falling." With pictures!
Excellent point Wessie about "negative feedback loops in perception". I had not thought of that before but it makes so much sense. This dynamic not only forms when you begin to notice ugly or degrading things but also when you are exposed to the good (like the work Create Streets are doing). When exposed to the better, you begin to see how most of that which is around you does not conform to that standard - even if you thought that these buildings (for instance) were "ok" before.
Another example would be the Lake District. Most (including me) see this landscape as rugged and sublime - but increasingly vocal environmentalists are crying it is "sheepwrecked" and depressingly bleak - and now people are beginning to question the aesthetics of other national parks (I don't agree with the sheepwrecked argument, though I can see their point from an ecological perspective)
A bit off topic, but on the subject of America's homogenization in the world that you mentioned, I remembered about an interesting book I have, however, which I haven't read yet!
"Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche" by the journalist Ethan Watters.
What I could dig taking a rapid look here is that Ethan talks how the american psychiatric establishment has influenced all over the world, with its ideas of mental health, its faulty diagnosing and questionable labels like the oversaturated "PTSD" —all from DSM-5.
Of course this is a limited summary, the book (that I haven't read yet) is probably much more rich and interesting.
Now you see, USA was capable of influencing over the world, how people, be patients be professionals see their inner selves, this might change your idea that downplays american homogenization.
This one is lovely also:
https://www.salon.com/2013/07/31/living_in_america_will_drive_you_insane_literally_partner/
Wessie, Interesting, as always, but I think the politics is a bit underdone. First, it might be nice to think but it is not at all clear that patterns of social/economic stratification are inherently unstable. Haussmann started his work on Paris -- displacing folks, no doubt -- in 1853. 170 years on, seems pretty stable. When didn't London have such enclaves? NYC has always had neighborhoods of various levels of wealth and ethnicities, long before there was any talk of gentrification because there was still land left.
Pope is just the usual cant that seems de rigeur among architects. As somebody who occasionally lives/teaches in Manhattan, LOTS of people leave, and they aren't all pushed out into "suburban oblivion," with the hackneyed photo of some Levittown. The suburbs have huge advantages -- as do small towns/cities, as I know you know -- and lots of people who can afford to, retire to a villa. Greenwich is really nice. So is Blankenase, or Boitsfort, or Druid Hills, or Cambridge (either) or . . . . As they have since the Romans. Or a modest house in a less swanky neighborhood, but at least you can have a dog and your kid can have her own room. And yes, lots of suburbs have lots of parks and public spaces. I'm not a huge fan of market driven arguments, but if folks (especially with families, for some reason) wanted to live in high density settings, we would build more of them. If you can afford a bit more space, and still get to work . . . to see all these people as merely victims of gentrification is more than a little snobbish.
Which brings up technology. The argument assumes that the city, in some relatively modern form, is the vessel of civilization. And there are roots to it, the polis, agora, and all that. And I love what are now old fashioned cities. But the city glorified by architects, especially with the focus on public space, is the city that affords architects the opportunity to do their thing. (That is, the snobbishness is often self interested.). Not exactly the same thing as civilization, indeed one suspects that these democratic protests are in bad faith, given what good architecture costs, and how much is paid for by government with tax dollars . And once people could start taking the train, they did.
Now we have the internet. I do still think people will come together in cities. I do, when I'm not in the mountains or a college town. But the difficulty of living full time in the core of a 19th or even early 20th century city (I'm thinking about New York and London) may mean that "cities," in that classic sense, are mostly playgrounds for the ultrarich, the young bourgeoisie, and tourists. And seats of government, etc.
I wrote about these issues at some length, and over the years before during and after the pandemic, in the context of NYC in an essay, "Supertall, Maybe Falling." With pictures!
https://davidawestbrook.substack.com/p/podcasts-not-writing-nyc-fathers
As always, keep up the good work!