Home?

Have you ever thought what is Home? Where is it for you? How does it make you feel? 

Every city has a special element that plays a significant role for each resident or visitor to comfortably develop a connection with that city. That one special element is always directly or indirectly connected to the city's quality of public life. 
The standards and expectations of public life vary for every one of us dwellers -from the amount of green/open space, to having many cultural and entertainment choices, high quality restaurants and dining options, etc. And if a city can manage to hold as many of those options to satisfy as many residents and visitors (lest not forget about the tourists) as possible, then it becomes an ideal place to live for numerous people. 

Which is one of New York City's best attributes: always aiming to please.There is always something interesting and enticing for any type of resident or visitor around any corner of the city. But it’s never enough. 

We can never limit the quality of a city's public life to a particular capacity, as every person, every user group, every ethnic group, is constantly evolving as time goes by. Consequently the public needs and expectations are changing, and therefore the quality of public life, which is significantly defined by the city's public spaces, must also evolve at that pace. Clearly innovative design strategies and implementation methods are the core steps of for accomplishing such success, but the key factor is to take an inclusive and well-informed approach. Which for designers means: do your homework, not only study the space but also study the potential user-groups' needs, the community's culture, the social standards, and of course opportunities and limitations of the city's rules and policies. 

In light of the upcoming major developments in NYC, such as Hudson Yards, Midtown-East Rezoning, West Chelsea, Downtown Brooklyn, and (sadly, as rumor has it) Chinatown, a new city culture and placemaking shift could be upon us quite quickly. As each of the neighborhoods go through new changes, due to the new developments imbedded in them, the sense of place goes through an alteration. This could potentially change (enhance or diminish), the naturally developed sense of attachment for existing residents and frequent visitors. And at the same time, a new sense of place is created for those to come. All these changes are mainly directed by not only the design of the (to-be) built environment, but most importantly, its integration with the existing city fabric and culture that surrounds the neighborhoods undergoing such change.


Consequently, it could also be a perfect opportunity to evolve our city’s culture by injecting innovative design strategies and programmatic policies that not only could introduce new features to our daily public culture, encourage productive social interactions, increase physical activities, but overall, contribute to increasing the quality of our social and public health. Especially, considering the cultural shift that we are going through nowadays, caused by our vast technological advancement. The rapid development of digital dependency, from social media to online shopping that we are all guilty of these days, has normalized a peculiar type of social isolation that is ultimately increasing every year. 

So, back to: Home.
How do you describe and measure your sense of home, your emotional and mental attachment to a place, and your expectations of any new changes to that sense of attachment? 

One of the most fascinating reasons why NYC holds such a special place in my heart is because of its great resemblance to Tehran, while being significantly different at the same time.  NYC holds many of the desirable features that Denver and Tehran commonly have (the two cities that I grew up in), while excluding some unpleasant factors that I always had a hard time with while living in those two cities. However, ultimately, NYC has become what I wanted it to become for me, while perhaps my personal expectations and requirements for developing a deeper sense of attachment exceeded the capacity which Denver and Tehran could hold. 

Photo by: آرش آشوری نیا

The point is, we have an active role in the process of developing a mental/emotional connection to the space and built environment that we live in. Whether a community, neighborhood, or city, becomes desirable for us to live in, or even visit, the image is what we make of it ourselves. 

What do you want from a city to feel like home, or for many of us, for it to become your “home away from home”? 

Sandy and Our Building Structures

An interesting conversation came up during the Q&A session of a panel discussion that I presented at last week: Sustainable Building & Energy Infrastructure Forum 2013. 

In regards to natural disasters and #SuperStormSandy, a gentleman in the audience was stating that if we build our buildings with more substantial structural materials (concrete, brick, steel, etc.) like European countries, our cities and buildings could potentially be more resilient to hurricanes and storms such as #Sandy. The counter-argument from my dear colleague Steven Winter, president of Steven Winter Associates Inc., was that structures with lighter materials (wood, foam, drywall, etc.) are more manageable during disasters like earthquakes and fires i.e. the big earthquake in Los Angeles, CA. Indeed, both are quite valid arguments. 

As super storm #Sandy has definitely become a wake-up call for our local/national governments, as well as the sustainability/architecture/engineering industries, should we start rethinking not only the way we 'design' our cities and buildings, but also, the materials we 'build' them with?
My [partial] response to the gentleman in the audience was that: Its tricky. I come from Iran, and 10 years ago we had a devastating earthquake in the southeast region originating from a small suburban city, Bam, leading to a death toll of 26,000+ and some 30,000+ injured. Had it not been for the heavy and "substantial" building structures of brick and concrete, perhaps numerous civilians and children could have survived under the ruins. On the other hand, if the houses in Far Rockaway, Queens, NY, or Staten Island, NY, most of which were located along the waterfront, had a stronger and more resilient structure, perhaps the aftermath of #Sandy wouldn't have been so destructive and devastating. 

Granted, we wont know what to expect and be prepared for unless we experiences it once, unfortunately. 

Computer vs Pencil

The days of hand-drafting/drawing/writing seem to be coming to an end soon. What could be the negative impacts of a (possible)100% digital and computerized era on the future generation's understanding of space and human scale? Interesting.

http://archinect.com/forum/thread/56689885/computer-vs-pencil

The Controversy of Paul Rudolph and the "Ugly Building"

It's one thing to critic a piece of architecture or art based on personal opinions/feelings but it's another to simply call it "ugly" and stop caring for it.

Paul Rudolph's Orange County Government Center in Goshen, New York has become an "ugly" controversy these days. To an extend that next month -May 2012, might just be the most important month in the building's 45 year long lifetime, as it's fate might sadly (and in my opinion, unreasonably) come to an end. Even though it was approved for demolition about 6years ago, the recession bought the building more time. Today, Orange County executive, Edward Diana, is highly in favor in demolishing it, which may please many residents of the area. But, to what cost?

Photo © Chris Mottalini

http://iamwhatipublish.tumblr.com/

A collective group of architectural structures create the city's built environment, which as a result, contribute to building the city's history. Is it truly fair to criticize the work of artists (Architects in my perspective are also artists) so harshly that it ultimately supports the decision of demolishing their work and pretending that it never existed? Architects and artists that have contributed their skills and resources to the development of our living environment, with an intention of making a lasting positive impact. 

Brutalist concrete structures was Paul Rudolph's style, just as Deconstructivism (or post-structuralist) is the nature of Frank Gehry's style. New Yorkers often have mixed feelings about the recently built Beekman Tower (aka the New York by Gehry) in lower Manhattan, as it could perhaps be considered as a misfit to the skyline, or probably a step towards a fresh facade for NYC. Regardless of our judgement of the tower's height, complex curves vs. contrasting simple west side, etc., it's there and it will become an iconic element of NYC's skyline in the near future; Just as the Twin Towers and the Empire State when they were born (though, not as high-profile as the latter two). 

Shreve and Lamb's distinctive Art Deco style for the Empire State quickly became one the most famous symbols of NYC. Is it a success? Yes. Does everyone like it? Probably not 'everyone'. But, after 81 years it still stands as an icon in NYC's history. On the contrary, even though Vanity Fair refers to Gehry's IAC building in Chelsea as one of the most attractive office buildings in world, after 5 years, it still has failed to find a place in many New Yorkers heart. But, has it impacted the built environment in Chelsea? Yes. Is is a success? Maybe. Does everyone like it? Not 'everyone'. 

What is the socioeconomic cost of preserving our city's history vs. losing it? What can we consider as a strong/reasonable rationale in order to justify turning a city's history in to a constantly changing target? Leigh Benton, a resident of Goshen, NY in regards to Rudolph's Government building says: "I just don’t think it fits with the character of the county seat and the village of Goshen... I just thought it was a big ugly building." 

"Ugly". What is an "ugly building"? Is it truly an architecture/art failure, or more of personal analysis of the facade and exterior? 

Merely because the Empire State became such a successful tourist [and local] attraction and the IAC building hasn't, is it fair enough to label the IAC as an "ugly" building? Or is it rather sad and disrespectful to (hypothetically) support the demolition of it (IAC) because it somehow does not meet the "beautiful building" criteria? Should we just simply disregard all the time and skills that an architect put into her/his creation, with the intention of making it a noble addition to the city's history? 

“Preservation is not simply about saving the most beautiful things... It’s about saving those objects that are an important part of our history and whose value is always going to be a subject of debate.” -Mark Wigley, dean of Columbia’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation.

Think about it. 

The “Unintended Consequence” of Edison's Creation.

 One hundred and thirty years ago, September of 1882, the lives of 59 New Yorkers in lower Manhattan had drastically changed after operations of the Pearl Street power-generating station officially began. At the age of 35, Thomas Alva Edison, an American inventor, scientist, and businessman, quickly became one of the world’s top prolific inventors after his Pearl Street generating station's electrical power distribution system was switched on. Since then, the world as we know it has become awash in electric light, which officially marked the beginning of the modern era of lighting.

Today, New York City streets, parking lots, billboards, sport fields etc. are all flooded with light creating a bright orange colored layer glowing over the city that is visible from tens of miles away. While business and office building windows remain lit, New York City’s commercial sectors continue to glow throughout the night by powerful lamps. This orange glow floating over the city is visible from an airplane thousands of miles away from the city, not only above New York but also most of the world’s large urban centers. Since the advent of street lighting, electrical technology, and rising global population, this sky glow has been increasing every year. And as a result, the sky has slowly become more polluted by light pollution over time. As discussed in previous chapters, light pollution refers to excessive or disruptive use of artificial light mostly caused by inefficient lighting design and inappropriate fixture installations. People most commonly associate the negative impacts of artificial lighting at night with how it interferes with birds, sea turtles, and insects. However, the effects of light pollution are far more common, widespread, costly, and serious than generally realized. It is often quite difficult to perceive excessive artificial light as a form of pollution, since other than being unnecessary at times, light as a pollutant seems no different from useful light. Considering the many negative externalities of light pollution, useful artificial lighting is distinct from the pollutant, as light pollution generates significant costs including negative impacts on human health, wildlife, astronomy, and wasted energy.

In the past century, the benefits of light at night have been explicit as it has been utilized to address our safety and productivity needs. Very few would argue that the advent of artificial light has not made our lives easier and more pleasant, enabling us to do and enjoy a multitude of tasks and activities that would otherwise be impossible. Streetlights, porch lights, shopping malls, security lighting, night-time work lights, parking lot lights, traffic lights, billboards, store fronts, neon signs etc. have all been either created or modernized using Edison’s brilliant invention as a fundamental basis of development. Since then, artificial light has become a pivot point for evolving human civilization and allowing arts, architecture, and city design to progress around the world. However, while lighting up the Manhattan Island over a century ago, had Thomas Edison expected such great enhancement to the lives of millions of dwellers around the world? Indeed. Had he envisioned today’s magnificent skyline to become one of the most significant symbols of New York City? Possibly. Did he foresee the adverse impacts of such a revolutionary invention on human life, wildlife, and their living environment? Probably not. Could it be considered as an “Unintended Consequence”? Indeed.

 

Times Square, NYC

...to be continued.

Life with community vs. life without lights

Fascinating that lack of artificial light in a small village in Ghana after all these years has not affected the sense of community and sense of place for it's inhabitants. Granted they are burdened with immense inconvenience, but they still say "we are happy [in life]"
Click on the title of this post to watch a short video: "Life Without Lights" by Green.tv Technologies Podcast.

Education and poverty

School's out
Education of the poorest varies widely among countries
Jan 22nd 2010
From Economist.com

This is quite interesting and sad... especially the RED dots!

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15375081&sa_campaign=facebook