mardi 4 décembre 2012

LOS ANGELES : don't throw the baby with the bathwater


You can't figth urban sprawl. It keeps coming.

Whereas in most european cities urban sprawl is a relative recent problem, as we're witnessing, powerless, our cities merging into eachother like one big urban ocean, distance and gigantism are constitutive of Los Angeles from its very begining. 

Los Angeles is born big, people started to go from distant places in the moutains to others close to the sea very early. Distance, ambition, no limit, are part of the spirit.

European cities reach gigantism in reverse mode. They kept extending from their little historical center through the centuries, and now cities that were used to be units on their own merge into eachother. Hello neighbours, my old ennemies.

The superiority of LA will then appear very soon in its capacity to hide the best bar in the middle of the least expected areas. Behind warehouses, at the crossing of some freeway exits, or regular pavillons.

Here in Europe, we still don't know how to make those new urban zones entertaining. We know its bad to separate functions, we know that what's good about historic centers is the fact that they combine a lot of different activities, still we can't help to reproduce the same mistakes.

LA spirit, please save us from ourselves.

In Stockholm, they got it right : they start to have great clubs with hundred of people under freeways bridges, at Trädgården/ Under bron

Soon this blog will provide the proof that LA contains the best exemple of city life, where nature, banana trees, freeways, fancy modern houses, modest wood houses, hispanic families, successful directors, struggling ones, successful actors, struggling ones, bars, cafes, cheap supermarkets,  second hand stores, great hispanic food restaurants, great chinese restaurants, offices, and scooter garages who are also bars, live in harmony.

I name, hereby, Echo Park.

AP


dimanche 16 septembre 2012

A POETIC GIFT TO URBAN PLANNERS FROM STAMEN DESIGN


This design agency in San Francisco called STAMEN DESIGN created a awesome free tool on line to automaticaly generate water colors maps from Googlemaps....It is amazing, and so kind of them.

Cities have shapes, they have a body, that grew over time, over centuries, like an living organism : the roads are their bones, their squeletons.

This tool makes you realize this in such a obvious and charming way : its like water color paintings from the sky, satellite water paitings of landscapes.

Thanks to STAMEN DESIGN. This is Heaven. Check this out. (the orange and red are the roads, the scales are not the same on each paiting but doesn't matter for now)


LONDON

PARIS

STOCKHOLM

NEW YORK


SAN FRANCISCO

MARSEILLE

ISTANBUL

AP

jeudi 2 août 2012

Why is LA so awesome ? Part I : the Industry


Los Angeles does not only have a very specific industry that gives a lot of jobs to every social classes, it also manages, through this very special industry, the film industry, to keep alive the orignal spirit that gave birth to the city itself, this outrageous ambition and endless fantasy that once was the californian dream. 

(Apart, to Mike Davis : did you just forget to mention that ?)

Note : The reading of this post should follow the reading of the prior post "Why is LA so awesome ? An introduction"

1. Some spice in your economic life


Every city has what they call a "residential economy" which is basicaly the economy that exists just by having people standing there : people need education, medical care, public services, and shops where to buy all kind of products (food, clothes, computers, phones).  Those sectors are usually huge, and proportionnal to the population, but they don't tell anything about the economic dynamism of a city. 

Then, huge metropolitan areas have advanced business services and hi-tech departements in different kind of fields (energy, TIC, biomed, etc). 

Some cities, lucky ones, have one industry bigger than all the other that makes them very special and gives them an identity. But this tends to disappear, like shipyard industry for exemple (in Belfast in England or in St-Nazaire in France). 

Los Angeles has all those metropolitan attributes :  it has lots of firms, research departments from UCLA, Berkeley, the influence of the Silicon Valley near by, plus a military industry, and Long Beach, a massive harbor connected to the whole world. 

And it has this extra-thing more important than all the others, an industry that no other city has, not in nature and not in dimension : the film industry. 

Its not an hobby, or a cultural side dish. Its an 
industry*, which means its structural impact on the city and the employment situation is massive.  Check out the numbers** : Motion pictures is the 4th leading employment sector, before the "Wholesale trade (durable and non-durable goods)", "Engineering and management service" and way ahead of "Legal services"' for exemple. 

Coming home from LA with the strong feeling that everybody there was working with movies, I was ready to get defeated by reality after confronting my personnal experience with an objective analysis of the city economy,  as I thought my perception could be distorded by the fact that I myself could act as a filter, only meeting people working in this field.

But check this out and feel the breeze :

Economy - District 13 (Echo Park's district) updated 2011

The ten largest employers in the district are (in order):
  1. Paramount Pictures Corporation (approximately 5,000 employees)
  2. Kaiser Permanente Hospital (5,000)
  3. Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles (3,600)
  4. Sunset Gower Studios (2,500)
  5. Los Angeles City College (2,271)
  6. St. Vincent’s Medical Center (1,800)
  7. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center (1,550)
  8. City of Angels Medical Center (900)
  9. Nielsen Entertainment (700)
  10. Deluxe Laboratories, Inc. (600)

Nowhere else in the world you find those kind of statistics in a big city, there's never one single specific industry that comes on top of all the others like that. Except mining industry a century ago. And that's precisely my point.

Of course one could say this is a well known fact : LA is the city of Hollywood, the city of  movie making and famous studios since 1912 and the innumerable chase scenes from Mack Sennet's Keystones comedies, Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp and the ambitious productions of D.W Griffith, "the iconic Hollywood director, dressed in quasi-military style (jodhpurs and riding boots, epaulets on his shirt),  directing large-scale films in the studio or outdoors like a general in campaign"**.

In 1916 D.W Griffith movie's Intolerance hired 60 000 actors, extras, technicians and workers.



Its not like that anymore because extras are made digitaly but still, who knows an industry that was so influencial in 1916 and that is still today ? I don't.

Making movies is a extremely rewarding industry when it comes to create jobs : it needs people in a lot of different fields. Directors, scriptwriters, producers, all kind of fine arts people, lightguys, cameramen, soundguys, make up artists, stylists, architects but also truck drivers, craftmen, carpenters, dog trainers, animal keepers, warehouse owners (to keep all the furnitures you might need), engineers, insurances people, bricklayers, spot-locaters, explosive experts and as various as it can be : actors, and extras. A whole world of people***. 

When they go to the mountains just to record a small 5 seconds scene, its serious, they go there with five trucks full of equipment :





Even the police works with movies, policemen days are booked to protect the set : 




Movies, TV series of course, and also commercials. It doesn't matter  they don't do master pieces or profound meaningful creations all the time. What matters is that they play around, building fake, fantasized versions of the world as a day job. This is their serious business. 

Such an embodied relationship between the history, the identity and the economy of a town is a great model and a priceless chance for a city that every mayor should dream of at night, waking up in sweat thinking "I have an idea". 

2. And here comes the beautiful part


Imagination. Endless ambition and gigantic projects. That's the spirit that created Los Angeles (and California) in the first place, even before the film industry started to settle down, lifted by an energy grounded in "biblical resonnances of making the desert bloom"*****. 

Enjoy those short choosen extracts from chapter 7 of 
CALIFORNIA, A HISTORY by Kevin Starr called "Great expectations : Creating the Infrastructures of a Mega-State" : 

"For California to become inhabitable and productive in its entirety would require a statewide water system of heroic magnitude. (...) Why not build a gravity canal, tap the Colorado River, let its waters flow westward, and turn the Salton Sink into a reservoir for the use of southeastern California ? It took ten years and three trips to Europe for Rockwood and Chaffey to organize and capitalize the California Development Company, but a mere five months to dig the canal once construction had started. Late in the morning of May 14, 1901, George Chaffey ordered the last headgate to be lifted, and water from the Colorado flowed into the Salton Sink, now renamed the Imperial Valley : imperial as in empire, for millions of acres of arable land would soon be reclaimed from the desert. (...)

To serve as advertising manager of the company, Chaffey appointed publicist L.M Holt. (...) Holt
promoted the Imperial Valley as the Egyptian delta of the United States, with the Colorado River serving as its Nile. Skillfully, Holt advanced a biblical scenario. Going down to the Imperial Valley, Americans were reenacting the going down in to Egypt of Joseph and his brethren, called by the Lord to a life of missionary improvment, in this case the irrigation and cultivation of millions acres of desert. (...) In time, Southern California would develop into a landscape of irrigated fields, vineyards, orchards, and orange groves ; townships planted in trees; comfortable homes awash in vines and flowers. (...)

In each city, a talented city engineer - William Mulholland of Los Angeles and Michael O'Shaughnessy of San Francisco - pushed a major water project to a successful conlusion by tapping, in each case, a river - the Owens for Los Angeles, the Tuolumne for San Francisco - and bringing its water to the city through a system of dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts that took years to construct.(...)

It took more than six years to construct the Los Angeles Aqueduct -235 miles of canals, conduits, tunnels, flumes, pendocks, tailraces and siphons - from its intake point twelve miles above the town of Independance on the Owens River in Inyo County on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, to its last spillaway in the San Fernando Valley, where the water at long last arrived ont he morning of Wednesday, November 5, 1913, welcomed by a crowd of thirty to forty thousand, many of whom had brought along tin cups to take their first drink.(...) 

"The San Fernando Valley". I just love this. "San Fernando" ? What ? Spanish ? Yes. Los Angeles. that's spanish too. The story never ends.

Of course, this tremendous energy and ambition was abusive in many ways :

"In each instance, the water system involded almost equally momumental damage to the environment : (...) in the case of Los Angeles, the desiccation and devastation of the once-fertile Owens Valley when the Owens River was siphoned off to Los Angeles. Each project, morever, was plagued by claims of deception, double-dealing, and conflict of interest that became the subject of many histories, novels, and films - to include the Oscar-winning Chinatown (1974) - in the decades to come". 

Still. There's something good in this. Something exciting. Like when you say  : 
"Tomorow, we're shooting". Let's do it, huge, insane, and why not ? 

Which means that architecture, urban planning, movie directing and politics have something in common : 

Having a vision.

AP


** Those numbers are from 1993 and if you're interested you can check the ones from 2011 at the end of this post, but since they're not as well put in order, it was less convenient to use them at the begining of the article, as Im concerned to not bore everyone too fast. Crisis has been there, but proportions are still the same.

** I think those 1993 statistics are even a bit underestimated cos they put "advertizing" in "Business services" 
because the money cycle they come from is not the same, but a lot of advertisements are about making videos. So I think they should be counted as what I would call the movie industry together with the "motion pictures"together anyway, as an urban activity that has a similar impact on the city. Forr now we'll just have to cope with an incertitude of 11 000 jobs, which doesn't really matter as it doesn't change the main point : motion picture is the 4th biggest employer in LA, before foodstores and legal services. You can check out the statistics from 2011 (one by one, no list)

*** 
California : a history,  Kevin Starr,  A Modern Library Chronicles Books, 2005, New-York, p276
**** Which means that in the 2011 LA county employment data that mentions "Motion pictures and sound recording" you should add some % from "Truck transportation" and "Transport and warehousing" as well as some of the "Independent artist, writers and performers", and so on, to get a real picture of the whole impact this activity has on the city.
***** California : a history,  Kevin Starr,  A Modern Library Chronicles Books, 2005, New-York, p167

mercredi 25 juillet 2012

TIPS TO USE IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT "ILLEGAL" DOWNLOADING

Sometimes it can happen to discuss with people the legitimacy of downloading movies from the internet. This is not an article about what to think about illegal downloading. Its a retranscription of several conversations about illegal downloading mixed into one. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. 


A : One striking thing about this illegal thing compare to others illegal things, its the easyness and the facility with which you can do it. Respectable and powerful professional firms provide you all the means you need to do this illegal action, offering internet deals with which you can download unlimited amount of megabytes....That's why music industry people tried to get some money back from the internet providers, cos their responsability in this new way to consume music and movies is very obvious. 

B : yeah, but people sell you cars that can go very fast, and there's a speed limit. You can go over it with your car if you want, but you don't cos its forbidden. And if you do, you get a fee.

A : True. Going at 230 km is forbidden but its forbidden because its also dangerous. When should a state legiferate and interfere with individual's daily life and private activities ? When something its dangerous for them or others, its written on the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. Downloading never killed anybody, so this exemple is not relevant.

B : but... what ? ppf grrmm  

A : Im just saying there are better exemples to use as there are actually lots of  things that are forbidden by society without being  life threats.

Its forbidden to build a house without a permit,  to break a contract,  or to rob a bank for exemple.

B : Then, like for those things, downloading should be forbidden on the base that it is prejudiciable to society and its economy.

A : Except its not. First, internet connexion deals generate billions. Second, its not bad in any way on a social level, on a contrary, its excellent on a social and cultural level. Anywhere in the world, even in the smallest village where nothing happens, you can download all kinds of movies, rare ones, easy ones, all the seasons of any TV series, that you could never buy, either cos they don't even think about selling it in your village or because it would cost 65 euros the DVD package. 

Downloading is close to a model of dynamic universal educative system, and the industry of internet infrastructures that goes with it just switches where all the money goes to. Its hard to take for some people precisely the ones from which the money switches....

C : Personnaly I think that in the case where peer-to-peer downloading would be forbidden on the base that it is prejudiciable to society and its economy, then the legal weight should be put on the companies that allows you to download, not their clients. 

We can not find a company that offers you a rob-a-bank kit, the codes to the safe and a helicopter to get away.... they wouldn't be allowed. So why 100 Mb deals are allowed to be sold ? 

What is this organized set up ?

B : Again, its not because something is displayed in front of you and easy to take that you have to steal it. For exemple, if you're at a friend's place and there's a painting on the wall, you're not gonna take it right ? 

A : ????

C : ?? what does this has to do with aynthing ? which friend ? which painting ? 

A : ok, let's go with your exemple. This exemple, as weird as  it can sound,  is actualy useful to introduce an other essential distinction : free downloading can not be compared to stealing BECAUSE you can not steal a thing that doesn't disappear.

If you steal the painting at your friend's place it doesnt come back infinitely after you took it. Its gone. There's only one. But a dematerialized file,  you can take it and it comes back just as it was, for ever after. So, since its still there, nobody stole anything. Nothing changed.

The people trying to disqualify downloading have to think about that to :  the consequences that dematerialization bring to the world, the concept of unlimited copies. You don't have to stock, you don't have to reprint or rebuild Cd or DVD, its there for ever, it regenerates, as a source of itself.

B : You're so full of shit its amazing.

C : yeah but this is a complex problem, and I think there's one very important thing we should keep in mind in order to choose what to do : this phenomenon that allows people to share their files around the world can not be a bad thing, its great. It won't kill culture, on the contrary, it will make it huge.  So we need to keep it and adapt to it, not try to erase it.

A : Exactly. And artists will be safe, they will still exist, they will just change the names of their bosses, from Universal to internet providers. Internet providers will have producers and artistic departments. This is gonna happen soon.  

Its just a lobbying war right now. The people who are dismissing free downloading on the internet (ie labels and editors) are mad to see the money going in an other direction than theirs. They're not concerned about culture and artists, they're just concerned about their own asses. 


 B : May be. 

C : Let's get the bill. 


AP




mercredi 18 juillet 2012

LES FRANCAIS, QUI SONT-ILS VRAIMENT ?



En hommage au titre d'une anthologique, bien que méconnue,  émission radio d'Armel Hemme sur Radio Nova intitulée "Les Français, qui sont-ils vraiment?", ce post vous permet aujourd'hui de sonder les profondeurs de l'esprit citoyen, en publiant quelques unes des nombreuses lettres reçues  par le centre de la redevance audiovisuelle du Trésor Public de Toulouse en l'an 1997.











Merci d'avance
AP

dimanche 1 juillet 2012

Patrimonialization as a symptom of society lack of trust in the future



Yesterday an old industrial mining landscape in north of France (Pas-de-calais) became a UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE. It joined the rest of the 953 others sites sharing an exceptionnal and universal cultural value, like the Versailles palace or the Statue of liberty.
check the list


This choice is very interesting as it is very symptomatic of our time and our worrying infatuation for patrimonialization (953 sites ?).
It also shows the drift in the patrimonial object's nature. They're not spectacular natural or architectural pieces anymore, they can be ugly and depressing flat landscapes because we now try to put value into somethingelse, something new we're scared of loosing and therefore choose to cherish in our past : the structuring power of industry, the strong feeling of identity it manages to give to a whole region, the number of jobs and the social community it creates, the ingenieering perfomances it achieves.
It is in a way hard to understand the UNESCO decision, as it had already saved for posterity the english mining landscapes in Cornwall and in the west of Devon, also the one in Blaenavon, etc. Does humanity need to remember all the mining sites of every country ?    
Of course this industrial french site has a lot of historical value, old machines, underground galleries, deep mine shafts, specific landscapes, and strong social community. But it feels a bit extreme to bring it to the world level, and not just keep it on a local scale. 
Morever, this mining area in north of France is the national reference for the most terrible environnement and working conditions since Emile Zola wrote Germinal  in 1885, telling the story of Etienne Lantier, young man travelling to the northen mines to find a job (12 hours work in the dark, bad food, bad housing, bad weather, mean bosses).  Mining industry doesn't feel like a successful exemple of an industry, but more something you want to avoid to reproduce. 
Where does this urge for patrimonialization come from ? (it started in the 70's)
Françoise Choay (acclaimed historian of urban forms), wrote in 1996* that never before in the history public authorities had been concerned with keeping traces of the past. On the contrary, civilizations and kingdoms have always destroyed and rebuilt  through the ages, feeling confident in the superiority of what they had to propose. 


We don't.
This is a new thing about us since the 70's, witnessing all the damages we've done so fast and still not convinced we can stop ourselves from doing more, we protect what we can, we save it from ourselves, because we're scared otherwise we will continue to mess everything up.
In other words, this disproportionate interest in heritage feels like a symptom, among others, of a deeper  pathological condition : a profound lack of confidence in the present and the future, a  lack of projects and visions, which makes us turn into world heritage even the french northen mining site....
Check it out : 
Ville de Oignies - Pas-de-Calais, France
My first reaction was "wow, is that world heritage level ? Is the  situation that bad ?"
Its not about how it looks obviously. Somehow I think we miss those hard working times where workers were happy to be part of a team, because something important was there, solidarity, team work, action, going down in the mine shaft, manipulating machines. 
So this new entry in the UNESCO best shots is both worrying as it means that our civilisation is very insecure about its own capacities, otherwise we wouldn't care about praising this (bad) exemple, but at the same time this new patrimonial choice is good. It shows that the world institutions decided to value the capacity of industry to socialy organize cities. 


As the research worker Alain Bourdin wrote almost 20 years ago**..."we select in the past the symbols we need to build a speech on what we want to promote in the present". 
We obviously want to promote the good sides of industry (not environnemental damage and exploitation of workers).


I agree. Industry is the key. We can not just sell and insure things. We need to build something big, do something big, that takes place, and need machines.

AP
* ”De la démolition”, Françoise Choay, extrait de Métamorphoses parisiennes, ouvrage collectif, Liège, 1996.
** Article : "Sur quoi fonder les politiques du patrimoine urbain? - Professionnels et citoyens face aux témoins du passé", Alain Bourdin, Les Annales de la recherche urbaine, n°72, septembre 1996, p6-13.



mardi 26 juin 2012

Why is LA so awesome ? An introduction
























Mike Davis's essays did a lot of damages to our collective consciousness about Los Angeles over the last decade, unfairly turning it into the most famous exemple of urban Hell and disqualifying it as a potential source of inspiration for future urban planning.

In France, his writings are the most well known references on the subject, and its very rare to hear alternative voices or references about Los Angeles, like Reyner Banham for exemple, an architecture critic, who praised the qualities of LA in a great book  : Los Angeles, the architecture of four ecologies (1971) and several videos : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlZ0NbC-YDo

Mike Davis earned a bit of authority as an academic, but those popular essays don't respect any scientific criteria, they are simply his opinions, his restrictive opinions about Los Angeles.

It is not relevant to have choosen LA to denounce what's bad about every occidental city (the dependance to automobile, the urban sprawl, the pollution, the out-of-law suburbs, the gap between rich and poor quarters) because gigantism is not the issue : problems are the same, even worst, in much smaller cities. 

It is also very unfair and unprofessional of Mike Davis to remain silent about what is completely unique and special about Los Angeles, and never mentionned all the qualities that others cities don't have and desperately try to create : 
- an embodied relationship between a very active industry and an urban life that actually makes the city works as an economic and urban system   (see future post Why is LA so awesome ?  Part I - The industry)
- successful exemples of interactions between houses, Nature and infrastructures generating an unmatched life quality in any cities of comparable size  (see future post Why is LA so awesome ?  Part II - Echo Park)
- An incredibly rich and diverse architecture (hispanic history, cheap californian pavillons to the best exemples of modern architecture mouvment (Richard Neutra, etc)) (see future post Why is LA so awesome ?  Part III- Houses)

In order to show that the nature of the defects described by Mike Davis are in no way specific to LA,  here is a comparaison of a few caracteristics with the city of Marseille, which is not in the US but in the south of France (metropolitain area of around 2 millions people, same sunny climate, similar geographical position between moutains and sea).





AP

samedi 26 mai 2012

RECURRENT RIGHT WING NONSENSE


No later than this morning on the french national radio channel, a right wing essay writer was denunciating the abusive influence of islamic culture in some parts of our cities, that supposedly threatens our "french culture". 

The funny thing with right wing people is that they always use the same argument to compete with   oppressive signs of arabic culture such as women's veil : they bring out the best of french history from two hundred years ago. Its always about Racine, Voltaire, Rousseau, the French Revolution, the ideals, the great philosophers. 

They don't talk about the great culture of botox and fake breast, which would be the relevant exemples to compare arabic women condition to, not Voltaire or Diderot.

As it is completely legitimate to criticize oppressive tendancies in islamic culture, it should be done in a fair and relevant way, by opposing and comparing them to something comparable :  external visible signs that would illustrate french culture and women condition as it is today, not historic references of  something that doesn't exist anymore. Or if one could say that what our present time is somehow a product of Voltaire and Rousseau writings, there is a lot more factors that should be taken in consideration to define what "french culture" has become.

French culture of today is nothing to be proud of, as it is an unexciting mix of materialistic concerns and TV fame, people main cultural references being the most embarassing tv shows and hosts, and as for women (since their oppression by the veil seem to gather all the attention) we're so ahead of our time its amazing :  G-strings now available for 8 years old, the apology of being young and sexy, and probably more exemples of women destroyed and ridiculed by esthetic surgery than we have women in veil.

Don't see no Racine or Diderot anywhere.

It is absurd to focus on one oppressing sign (the veil) to dismiss arabic culture and compare it, not to our own deviances and oppressive signs of domination, but to the best exemples of our cultural history.

Right wing thinkers seem to be in denial of their own illusion about what french culture really is. 

Their incoherence doesn't just stop here : they can simultaneoulsy mention their atttachment to the XVIIIe century philosophers in order to disqualify islam and mention their attachement to our catholic tradition (as Sarkozy did), which doesnt make much sense as Voltaire and Diderot were precisely the ones who drove us free from the catholic system by doubting about God existence and the legitimacy of kings rights to rule....

In the end, my personal position is that the veil tradition doesnt threaten me or french women more than the underlying pressure for "being sexy". On the contrary it broadens the scale of choices. We can happily go from one extreme manifestion of male domination to an other.

Lucky us.

AP





mardi 8 mai 2012

STUFFED TO DEATH


Previous posts (A LIFE LESSON - 13 of april 2012  and 21/04/2012) mentioned and briefly introduced the intrinsic relation linking economy to urban forms. 


As zoning seems to have been the inconscious urban consequence of an economic rationality based on division of labor and efficiency, it could be instructive to study different contemporary urban projects to see what they have in common, and see if any underlying and hidden economic tendancy (hidden as "not being part of the project official purposes") could sweat out of those similarities.


In others words to what are we adapting the city nowadays ? 


Exemples from France are pretty interesting as all the biggest urban projects of the last decade,  in Paris but also in Lyon, Le Havre and Marseille, built to replace large empty spaces left by old industries, occupy the last rare spots available inside the city. This privileged location gives them even more importance as an illustration of how city life is conceived for the years to come.


Les Docks Vauban - Le Havre - opened in 2009
Old docks have been transformed into a "shopping, leisure, culture" center. 60 000 m2 shops and restaurants, one Gaumont cinema, one supermarket, one exposition center. 
 

La ZAC de Bercy - Paris 1995, opened in 2001
The whole project contains a parc (very successful lanscaping job), housing (also successful), but the core activity is, as the project quotes "a shopping village, animated all year by the recreative and cultural programmation of the Altarea company". Waw, sounds like fun. It also has a Gaumont cinema.  The project presents itself as "an art de vivre dedicated to culture, gastronomy, nature and adventure". Gastronomy ? chain restaurants like "Hippopotamus", "La Compagnie des crêpes". The adventure ? Yes. Indeed. There's a travel agency where you can buy trips to everywhere in the world. So exciting.



Lyon-Confluence, Lyon - 2007
Massive project (70 hectares), with a care for some mixity, with housing and offices. Core project : a shopping-leisure center, "le pôle des loisirs". Designed by a great architect Jean-Paul Viguier, but still a just a mall.


Les terrasses du port, part of the Euroméditerranée program - Marseille - 2014
"une offre inédite", "a completely unique and original offer" with lots of shops and restaurants completely unique and original, managed and promoted by the giant Hammerson, real estate compagny who spread the same kind of mall all around the world.
From those 4 exemples, something can be said about the way city life is pictured for the future :
we only eat and shop. This is our main activity, organised for us by people with good intentions. 

Its not like we needed more places like this, we already have them, we already can buy perfume and smartphones in large quantities. The stressing thing is our complete incapacity to create something else than a mall when we decide to build a brand new part for the city.

Of course one could argue that eating, drinking and buying is what you do in a city but you don't want to do it when it is orchestrated on purpose from the begining like that, like you're some labs rat with identified needs and predictable behaviour. 

Those places are not built for the citizens and their leisure time. Its a money machine pretending to be the new place for fun. Its actualy funny to see it as a factory, and the customers as workers, producing wealth.

Despite the improvements in environnemental standards, the efforts made in architecture, the "respect of the historical context" (they kept the old rails, the old walls, etc) and some functionnal mixity by adding housing here and there, those urban projects are still problematic : they support a bad economic model and a bad idea of what a city should be. 


The funny thing is that by following this completely sterile path for our national economy and our own industry, we look like the third-world when it comes to malls. Look what they do in Singapore as a "leisure center", that's what I call a "leisure center".
Garden´s Bay, Marina Bay, Singapore, Malaysia, 2012

Marina bay, Singapore, Malaysia


We can not compete right now on the leisure center side obvisouly, since unlike Malaysia we don't feel the insane happiness of being suddenly very rich and modern and the urge of showing it in the most outragious way, so we might as well try to follow a different way.

AP




mercredi 25 avril 2012

GLOSSAIRE IDEALISTE DE L'URBANISME






                                                                                                                                                    
1ère section
Dans laquelle quatre mots seront étudiés

BONHEUR : Notion méprisée à l´échelle sociale, à peine plus crédible qu´un horoscope. Niaiserie incompatible avec la gravité des véritables enjeux que seuls certains hommes très raisonnables et bien nourris savent déterminer. A n´utiliser sous aucun prétexte à l´échelle collective.

« Il y a chez Aristote une doctrine cohérente du bonheur conçu comme l´activité rationnelle vertueuse. Le bonheur est donc le but de l´éthique, science pratique qui n´a pas pour seule  fin de connaître le bien, mais aussi de « rendre bon ». Le fait même que l´éthique soit, dans le domaine pratique, subordonnée à la politique, entraîne de grandes conséquences pour le bonheur lui-même. C´est en obéissant à de bonnes lois que l´on devient vertueux, de sorte que ce sont le législateur et les gouvernants qui sont les garants de la vertu dans le corps social. Aristote va beaucoup plus loin, en a ffirrmant, notamment dans Les Politiques, que la vie en cité est la condition même du bonheur, et le bonheur est le moteur ultime, et inconscient, qui pousse les hommes à former des cités. » Dictionnaire Aristote, Pierre Pellegrin, Ellipses, Paris, 2007, p40.


CITE : Modèle d´habitations existant à des centaines d´exemplaires identiques portant chacun des noms de fleurs ou de desserts pâtissiers : «Les mimosas», «Les pins», «Les millefeuilles». La rumeur recommande d´éviter de s´y perdre en voiture et même en camion pompier. Observée avec effroi par les hommes actuels comme le produit et l´expression matérielle des valeurs de la société productiviste. Avant, habitée par les Dieux.

« La cité est, selon Aristote, la forme suprême des sociétés humaines naturelles. Il y a, en e ffet, chez les hommes une tendance à la réalisation complète de leur humanité en parvenant à un état d'épanouissement, qu´Aristote, après bien d´autres, appelle le bonheur (eudaimonia) ou le « bien-vivre » (eu zèn). Le stade de la cité est atteint lorsque les membres de la communauté en question mènent une vie autarcique, un concept particulièrement important dans la philosophie pratique aristotélicienne. Aristote, lui aussi, connaît le sens économique du mot « autarcie », le seul que nous employons, et il parle alors d´autarcie «pour les choses indispensables ou nécessaires » (Politiques VII, 4, 1326b4), mais «l´autarcie complète » dépasse largement la sphère économique. Une communauté est autarcique, auto-suffi sante, quand elle constitue une entité économiquement, politiquement, et humainement autonome. Elle est composée d´un nombre restreint mais su ffisant de citoyens, de manière à ce qu´ils se connaissent à peu près tous – un réquisit repris par Rousseau – elle se donne ses propres lois, elle forme les citoyens selon les valeurs esthétiques compatibles avec sa constitution. Aristote répète plusieurs fois que cette autarcie est condition de la vie heureuse.» Dictionnaire Aristote, Pierre Pellegrin, Ellipses, Paris, 2007, p32.


LIEU : Seuls les arbres, les montagnes et les bâtiments n´en changent jamais. Quelques bâtiments exceptionnels sont quelquefois transportés d´un pays à un autre sans altération ontologique. Par exemple, la maison d´été du Roi de Suède, démontée et transportée à Paris pour l´exposition universelle de 1900, à la facade en écailles de bois caractéristique des églises protestantes scandinaves, aujourd´hui remontée et ancrée dans un quartier nord ouest de Stockholm, Bergshamra. 
Stockholm, 2008
« Le lieu d´Aristote, n´est pas une étendue neutre et homogène. Il est lieu de tel corps, et plus précisément, « la limite du corps enveloppant à l´endroit où il touche le corps enveloppé» (Physique IV, 4, 212a5). Aristote le compare aux parois d´un vase contenant l´objet dont il est le lieu. Il faudrait d´ailleurs dire « des lieux » car telle chose qui est dans cette maison est aussi dans Athènes. Mais chaque chose a son « lieu propre » qui est celui qui l´enveloppe comme telle et n´enveloppe qu´elle. L´espace aristotélicien n´est donc en rien l´étendue cartésienne. La théorie du lieu est en accord avec un trait fondamental de la philosophie d´Aristote. La réalité est, pour Aristote, un ensemble d´unités ontologiquement autonomes dont l´autonomie est première par rapport aux relations qu´elles ont entre elles. Le fait que chaque chose, et plus précisément chaque substance, ait son lieu, participe de son autonomie. » Dictionnaire Aristote, Pierre Pellegrin, Ellipses, Paris, 2007, p130.


PLACE : Témoin anonyme de la vie publique, n´étant pas plus affecté par l´insignifiance que la gravité des actions qui s´y déroulent. Espace vide dont la forme est déterminée par celle des bâtiments qui l´entourent, son centre de gravité est souvent matérialisé par une construction verticale, tel un obélisque, plus rarement par un trou dans le sol.



Pourcentage de rationalité : 75%
Alpha Papa