Quoting Jan Gehl, “a liveable city is a city that is lovely to it’s people”. It felt half warm – half ironic listening to this statement, as my time exploring urban design I struggled to identify a “good enough” city that ticks off the boxes, perhaps it should be perceived more lightly as a progress checklist rather a final ones. The Economic Assessment Toolkit shared by Professor Oswell undoubtedly is eye opening to me as an architecture student. However, I struggle to not mentioned the tension and possible contradiction between the criteria. which contributes to consequences seen in certain cities today, despite each plays a crucial role in attempting urban design.
According to my observation, an economical driven urban projects are often vulnerable to becoming the victim of capitalism in today’s context. Firstly, the 300 metre demolition of ancient house in Strada Nova to mark the beginning of mass tourism in Venice, housing to airbnb and hotels; grocery to souvenir shops, transportation to tourist attraction. By focusing on maximizing economic gain and exploiting bold local culture, Venice has given up being lovely to it’s people pursuing profit. 38:1 (tourist resident ration) in Venice, 11:1 in Barcelona and 6:1 in Santorini (Statista, 2024), the conflict of achieving equilibrium between the criteria seems to be utopia to me. It is the negotiating and prioritizing with a right mind that matters.
“A city can die when the inhabitants themselves lose their memory and become foreigners in their own city.” (Settis, 2014)
Elaborating on the Liziba station as mentioned in the blog, I was aware of it’s innovation that attracts oceans of tourists and I was lucky to be one of them last summer. However, the pursuit of “tourismization” has proven to commercialize / materialize the culture, (Grigo, J., & Laely, T. (2022)) which what I believe is called the “tourist trap” today which is often flooded with people for a picture. A tutor once said, “museum marks the beginning of cultural decline”, the statement has stayed with me for a long time, and I do certainly resonate with the scenario to some extent. A range of scholars and museum practitioners have questioned and critically examined processes of “patrimonialization and museumization which have resulted in reductions, even downright mutilations, of cultural heritage in the separation of material culture from its contexts, its history and origins” (Chantraine R. et al ., 2019)
Demographic-driven approach is also reflected in the decline of Edinburgh’s church architecture. With up to 30-40% of church selling off in the next few years. Perhaps we follow the vines, closing churches to make way for more Tesco, Sainsbury’s and student accommodations, what will remain for our descendants once the cultural bank is depleted?
Living in an economy-driven era today, it is hard to resist prioritizing profit in every intervention. However, as a designer I aspire to be the resistance of becoming the victim of monetization. Analysis and survey are undoubtedly crucial for staying relevant, but I believe architecture, or any design, should be radical in the sense of shaping or inaugurating a new vernacular. It’s important not to be blinded by trends or profit; instead design should be sensual and balanced. Learning from Ruskin, to lay a stone where our descendant will thank us and be proud of us for, and to make tomorrow a little bit better than today.
References
1.Joseph Rykwert, 1982. “ The Necessity of Artiface: Learning from the Street” pg 102-113
2.Settis, S. (2016). If Venice dies. New Vessel Press.
3.Grigo, J., & Laely, T. (2022). Attempts to decolonize knowledge production in museum practice. Recherches Sociologiques Et Anthropologiques, 53–2, 119–151. https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.5709
4.Alvarez Cl., 2001 Recapturing Worlds. The Original Multiversity Proposal ,
5.http://vlal.bol.ucla.edu/multiversity/Right_menu_items/Claude_proposal.htm
6.McDonagh, M. (2024, June 7). Scotland’s religious collapse. The Spectator.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scotlands-religious-collapse/
Quoting Jan Gehl, “a liveable city is a city that is lovely to it’s people”. It felt half warm – half ironic listening to this statement, as my time exploring urban design I struggled to identify a “good enough” city that ticks off the boxes, perhaps it should be perceived more lightly as a progress checklist rather a final ones. The Economic Assessment Toolkit shared by Professor Oswell undoubtedly is eye opening to me as an architecture student. However, I struggle to not mentioned the tension and possible contradiction between the criteria. which contributes to consequences seen in certain cities today, despite each plays a crucial role in attempting urban design.
According to my observation, an economical driven urban projects are often vulnerable to becoming the victim of capitalism in today’s context. Firstly, the 300 metre demolition of ancient house in Strada Nova to mark the beginning of mass tourism in Venice, housing to airbnb and hotels; grocery to souvenir shops, transportation to tourist attraction. By focusing on maximizing economic gain and exploiting bold local culture, Venice has given up being lovely to it’s people pursuing profit. 38:1 (tourist resident ration) in Venice, 11:1 in Barcelona and 6:1 in Santorini (Statista, 2024), the conflict of achieving equilibrium between the criteria seems to be utopia to me. It is the negotiating and prioritizing with a right mind that matters.
“A city can die when the inhabitants themselves lose their memory and become foreigners in their own city.” (Settis, 2014)
Elaborating on the Liziba station as mentioned in the blog, I was aware of it’s innovation that attracts oceans of tourists and I was lucky to be one of them last summer. However, the pursuit of “tourismization” has proven to commercialize / materialize the culture, (Grigo, J., & Laely, T. (2022)) which what I believe is called the “tourist trap” today which is often flooded with people for a picture. A tutor once said, “museum marks the beginning of cultural decline”, the statement has stayed with me for a long time, and I do certainly resonate with the scenario to some extent. A range of scholars and museum practitioners have questioned and critically examined processes of “patrimonialization and museumization which have resulted in reductions, even downright mutilations, of cultural heritage in the separation of material culture from its contexts, its history and origins” (Chantraine R. et al ., 2019)
Demographic-driven approach is also reflected in the decline of Edinburgh’s church architecture. With up to 30-40% of church selling off in the next few years. Perhaps we follow the vines, closing churches to make way for more Tesco, Sainsbury’s and student accommodations, what will remain for our descendants once the cultural bank is depleted?
Living in an economy-driven era today, it is hard to resist prioritizing profit in every intervention. However, as a designer I aspire to be the resistance of becoming the victim of monetization. Analysis and survey are undoubtedly crucial for staying relevant, but I believe architecture, or any design, should be radical in the sense of shaping or inaugurating a new vernacular. It’s important not to be blinded by trends or profit; instead design should be sensual and balanced. Learning from Ruskin, to lay a stone where our descendant will thank us and be proud of us for, and to make tomorrow a little bit better than today.
References
1.Joseph Rykwert, 1982. “ The Necessity of Artiface: Learning from the Street” pg 102-113
2.Settis, S. (2016). If Venice dies. New Vessel Press.
3.Grigo, J., & Laely, T. (2022). Attempts to decolonize knowledge production in museum practice. Recherches Sociologiques Et Anthropologiques, 53–2, 119–151. https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.5709
4.Alvarez Cl., 2001 Recapturing Worlds. The Original Multiversity Proposal ,
5.http://vlal.bol.ucla.edu/multiversity/Right_menu_items/Claude_proposal.htm
6.McDonagh, M. (2024, June 7). Scotland’s religious collapse. The Spectator.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scotlands-religious-collapse/