Comments on: Cities, buildings, architecture 1

By: dzwonki

dzwonki — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:58:55 +0000

Mein Hobby ist es Gästebücher zu besuchen. Das ist immer ganz interessant und widerspiegelt so, was die Leute im Internet wirklich denken. War auch interessant bei Dir ! Bis zum nächsten Mal. All The Best OfNew Year. Sorry for my english i’am from Germany.

By: Van der Leun

Van der Leun — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:57:16 +0000

Not at all. There’s a cult of Brand going around, not growing as fast as it once was, that tends to take what he writes as writ and gush accordingly. Count me in as another who couldn’t get through the book. I kept thinking, “Well, this is belaboring the obvious with a club.” and “The book is an example of carefully selecting specific examples to prove an overly generalized point.”

By: JRoth

JRoth — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:53:27 +0000

OK, this may sound defensive, so I’ll start with a caveat and some background. Caveat: I couldn’t get very far in Brand’s book; it was pissing me off, and I had other things to read. Background: I am an architect. Kind of explains the response. But I want to be clear that I am an architect in fundamental agreement with Brand. I despise much “high style” design. I believe in designing flexible buildings that are driven by how people might want to live in them. I adore adaptive reuse, and was up until midnight last night demolishing a bathroom in my 90 year old house. The reason Brand made me so angry was his dismissal of design – of the application of human intelligence to the creation of human habitat. Sure, he’s not quite that much of a bomb-thrower, but the subtext that screamed out to me was, “architects are useless; specialized knowledge brings nothing to the improvement of buildings.” Frankly, many architects don’t bring very much to their designs. But a good (competent, thoughtful) architect is a problem-solver first, and has, in addition to a good spatial sense and technical expertise, the ability to synthesize data and create spaces and buildings that work. A good architect designs a building that accomplishes much of what Brand is touting for pure vernacular, while simultaneously increasing physical comfort, mental well-being, and social interaction. Oy. Too defensive? Hope not.

By: Loren

Loren — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:08:49 +0000

“both The Uses of Disorder and the Corrosion of Character struck me as unfocused and self-indulgent. The books seemed to be more about him than about their putative subject matter.” Yeah, tight analysis and focused argument it ain’t. But there are a few nice stories and intriguing conjectures hidden away—or so I’ve found.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:44:46 +0000

I’ve never managed to get on with Sennett. I’ve not read The Conscience of the Eye, but both The Uses of Disorder and the Corrosion of Character struck me as unfocused and self-indulgent. The books seemed to be more about him than about their putative subject matter. Could just be a temperamental incompatibility!

By: Ruth Feingold

Ruth Feingold — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:51:49 +0000

As a friendly amendment to Chris’s Amazon link above, I’d like to suggest that those interested in buying Brand’s book consider ordering it from the Seminary Co-op Bookstore, in Chicago. The link for the paperback edition is: http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0140139966 The Co-op is independent, co-operativedly owned, and is probably the premier academic bookstore in the country. Yes, Amazon’s easy and can be cheap, but if you want to preserve the kind of bookstore that won’t offer you “sponsored links” to country home decor outlets when you look at a book on 19th-c. settlers in Australia, then browse http://www.semcoop.com or call 1-800-777-1456. You’ll get more information, better customer service, and a much better selection of the weird and intellectual. (Disclaimer: No, I don’t work there. But I do own $100 worth of stock).

By: Loren

Loren — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:33:29 +0000

“… who takes much more seriously people’s lived experience of institutions, plans, projects and buildings (devised by ‘experts’) and who has more of a focus on rules of thumb, practice, ‘knowing how’, tacit knowledge, “satisficing”, skill, craft and so on.” I’m guessing, then, that you think highly of Richard Sennett’s writings, especially The Uses of Disorder and Conscience of the Eye? I think I share much of your sense about the built forms of cities, but I wonder if the great cities of ancient republics and empires might remain moving places just because of the tension between planned grandeur and unplanned settlement—the agora surrounding the temple. A conjecture, not a claim of fact, of course; but it’s worth wondering whether a vigorously democratic metropolis could ever inspire a sense of loyalty to a public, rather than, say, to one’s neighborhood and community. More critically, could such a cacophonous, unplanned region reliably exhibit the sort of planning required for long-term adaptability to distant (and not so distant) ecological and demographic conditions? Not sure.

By: Charlie B.

Charlie B. — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:39:25 +0000

Ever try getting builders to do some elementary renovation to a nineteenth century house? takes another valium

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:37:30 +0000

One of mine too. I’ve had to buy several replacements through imprudent lending. I highly recommend Berman’s reply to Perry Anderson’s review from NLR about 20 years ago.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:30:13 +0000

Did you ever read “All That is Solid Melts Into Air” by Marshall Berman? (my favourite book)