Compare and contrast Frank Lloyd Wright's "Broadacres" with either Le Corbusier's city in the park or Jane Jacob's New York City. Please pay attention to not only physical design but the implications for social life.
Wright’s Broadacre City envisions technology as way to ruralize a community while maintaining urbanesque mixing. Broadacre City can be seen as a way to mask the planning of a city by spreading it out. Wright writes “in Broadacres all is symmetrical but it is seldom obviously and never academically so.” Broadacre marries the metropolitan services and cultural amenities of a city (zoo, stadium, water, electricity) with the bucolic majesty of rural life. Wright’s ambition is to solve the ills of the modern city with the inventions of the modern city. The “general mobilization of the human being” in the form of automobile permits the modern man to spend different parts of his day in different density. Standardized machine-shop production will now permit what they originally ended, the individual artisan. Wright’s ideals of little things, “little farms, little homes, little factories . . .” is a discourse against both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. “The landlord is no happier than the tenant,” writes Wright.
Broadacres is a classless society that does more to upset the financial fabric of society, as we know it than Le Corbusier’s “Contemporary City” by a long shot. Corbusier’s city still involves a workforce that uses transit into the city and he plans for luxury housing. Corbusier’s model expedites the capitalist workforce and does little to address how the residents of this new city would life. I believe Corbusier doesn’t delve into this because I don’t think he sees it changing in that many foundational ways. The only real claim is that they would live more efficiently. In contrast Wright saw the burgeoning technologies of his day as an invitation to slow down the pace of life. Success is “excess” to Wright and Broadacres is a leveling tool, a way to miniaturize the means of production.
Stylistically I see Corbusier and Wright as defending style through equally draconian measures. Wright sees style as “organic” character. Wright’s arbiter of style is the county architect. This county architect really seems like the city officials who tell residents of nice neighborhoods to put numbers up on their garage and keep their grass to cut. Wright might be so convinced of the easy enforcement of a stylistic ethos because he enforced one so effectively for over half a century as America’s leading architect. Towards the end of his piece Wright wrote, “unwholesome life would get no encouragement”. Wright’s utopian view of society is hard to compare next to Corbusier’s because it is like comparing a blueprint to a manifesto. Wright saw the world change under his blueprints and Corbusier had no such luck. His ideas had to be watered down and adjusted by the real city designers of his time. But in their writing I believe it is Wright who needs to reassess the powers and potential of a city design. I question whether the classless, socialistic society that Wright laid out would be as respecting of his vision as the high-class curators of the rest of his career.
Corbusier’s vision has the hunger of someone who hasn’t been listened to properly. In the preface to his piece he explains that he is answering questions so can “have the happy assurance that his [reader’s] astonishment will no longer be stupefaction nor his fears mere panic.” Corbusier and Wright’s plans are both universal, needing little to no adjustment to work in different. Both plans do put great demands upon the land beneath them. It is in fact in this great demand that they find their universality. These plans would theoretically work anywhere, not because of their malleability but because of their unflagging commitment to their own ideals.
Both plans share to differing degrees a redistribution of land. In a sense Wright granting every household at least one acre gains the same effect of guaranteeing every household no acres. Land ownership is muted as a part of the social hierarchy due its redistribution (or in Corbusier’s case, it’s reappropriation for public use).
Wright’s plan called for an end to the compartmentalization of work and took a page out of the anarchist Kropotkin’s playbook by anticipating a mixed workday filled with both manual and intellectual work. This flies in the face of Corbusier’s desire to “classify these divisions”. Although Corbusier’s thrust for classification in this section is geographic his desire for people to have a defined job and location of job is inherent in the divisions he sees in the “contemporary” city.
The difference I find most simple between Corbusier and Wright is the directionality of their expansion. Wright’s expansion is horizontal, with society reaching out across the landscape and remaining intimate through the use of technology. Corbusier sees cities expanding horizontally and remaining intimate in the way humans have remained intimate since they have been in cities, proximity. Both of these desires can be compared against Wirth’s assertion that physical proximity can create larger gulfs between people. I doubt Wirth would defend the telephone as a better means of creating intimacy between people. I think the truth is that intimacy between cells, regardless of whether these cells are families in a small apartment (Corbusier) or families on an acre (Wright) is low on the priority of both of these planners.
There is a reason that Frank Lloyd Wright is considered “America’s greatest architect” and not “America’s greatest city planner. As a design major, I have studied Frank Lloyd Wright numerous times. In terms of designing spaces that are organically intertwined with nature, master the concept of prospect refuge (i.e., the ability to see without being seen), and efficiently laid out — Wright is a rock star! However, in terms of planning a city that meets the needs of all “individuals,” Wright’s plan fails to live up to his buildings. It is not surprising then, that the one part of Wright’s plan that is truly desirable is the houses — or at least the ideas behind them.
The houses Wright proposes are in some ways standardized (e.g., “stacked utilities, the use of fireproof synthetic materials”—p.329). However, he recommends using “older-nature” materials when given the opportunity and throughout his city plan emphasizes individualization. I am intrigued by the idea of standardization that allows for individualism. In a perfect world, everyone could live in the house of their dreams and it would be a unique expression of who they are. But obviously, this cannot be, and ultimately – is not all that important. What is important is that people can function, feel safe and secure, and ultimately enjoy living in their homes. I am not an environmental psychologist, but from the little I do know, environment affects individuals on multiple levels (social, psychological, etc.) and makes a difference in behavior.
Recently, I read an article about how architects should be more involved in affordable housing, specifically in the rebuilding of New Orleans. In general, architects are much less involved in home building than they have been in the past. And when they are involved, it is typically with luxury homes. However, they have the knowledge and expertise to design truly efficient, stable, and authentic homes. The role of the architect in Wright’s plan is desirable. However, in order for it to truly work, architects and designers need to get more involved in the field of home design at an affordable level (e.g., through developing plans for plan books).
One aspect of Wright’s plan that I found peculiar was the underlying assumption that everyone is an individual, but deep down we all want to live in a spread out city, a good distance from each other, with limited contact with one another, but enough to create a community (p. 325). And Wright believed, that if society provided that for us, we would see an “automatic end to unemployment” and “unwholesome life would get no encouragement.” It is almost an oxymoron, assuming that all individuals will ultimately adapt to the same way of living.
There are many reasons that Wright’s plan would never work in today’s society. He was, first and foremost an architect, and his incorporation of architects in city planning is noble (even if it does seem self-promoting at times). However, he failed to consider numerous aspects of city planning and even his own desire to promote individuality did not come across in his plan. Ultimately, I think he could probably design a pretty astonishing prototype for affordable housing that would ideally, fit into someone else’s plan.
Wow... almost looks like an insect colony doesn't it? I just seems way too alien with not enough... humanity? There should definitely be TONS of pollution due to all the vehicles around, but maybe in the future we'll fix that problem. I certainly would like to step into F.L.W.'s world and poke around for a while, maybe cause some havoc or something *devil grin*
Wow that is pretty far out in a groovey way. It reminds me alot of star treck or one of those sci fi shows. If history has tought us anything its that if we can dream it up then there is a good chance that we can build it. 100 years from now (maybe sooner) we will see flying cars. With capitalism the way it is there is a never ending ceiling of possibility and with all the cars most major cities will eventually run into a serious traffic problem that will need a cure. As for those cars... lets just say ol Wrighty might want to consider a desighn that looks less like twig and berries.
I also found those same pictures of Broadacres, and after I saw them I felt a little silly for liking Wrights ideas on this community. I had something totallly different pictured in my head when I was reading, but after I saw those pictures...no way man. Too weird.
OBE 2 :Wright...the city...Jacobs..the city...me...the city
Wright and Jacobs want community and safety, yet they have drastically different ways in implementing the changes needed. They both believe in the philosophy of local government and residential participation as a way to reinforce safety and protect the citizens of a space. However, the substantial difference between the two theorists is the issue of architecture although they contextually view the ideals of a community similarly. Jacobs critiques the ideals of urban sprawl. Rather than completely changing the landscape of the urban city, she calls for a change in the organization of neighborhoods. Wright prefers the sprawl of the city that is “nowhere but everywhere”.
Wright emphasizes decentralization as a core concept of “Broadacres”. Jacobs and Wright have comparable perspectives when discussing decentralization. Jacobs views the city as simplified into sidewalk squares both metaphorically and literally. There is no need for centralized power when the city is maintained acre by acre. For example, Jacobs believes that the police have a purpose, but they are not as efficient as people protecting each other. Wright also agrees that the most effective social control would be from the bottom to the top. He wants every county to be a “minor government” (327). The small businesses Jacobs describes as a way for keeping neighborhoods alive is a similar concept to Broadacres’ small machine-shops supplying support for local artisans. The need for community involvement at a smaller level is necessary to make the city function properly and safely.
Wright’s architectural designs support the overall decentralization. He desires organic architecture, supporting natural environmental changes. Regimentation is the antithesis of his plan; strict control over people leads to exploitation. Instead, Wright believes that every person has the right to an equal amount of land. Throughout the description of Broadacres, “little” is revolutionary to Wright. His aim is to create small functional spaces to create opportunities of labor and a sense of community. It is idealistic—as if the farm rural land reproduced with the suburbs. Wright portrays the city as a solution to all social crises. Social stratification does not disappear when everyone is allotted an equal plot of land as Wright suggests. He claims this city would be sufficient for all people. Unemployment as well as classism would not be problematic because of the equal distribution of resources such as land (and cars?). Children would be able to cross the streets safely, and all would be well. The city is beautiful, a street ballet. Condensation is not necessarily the evil in the writings of Jacobs. The sprawl that Wright describes is just what Jacobs describes as the environment that creates barbarism.
Jacobs’ design focuses on the intermixing of small businesses and residences. Unlike Wright, she defines the city as unlike the suburbs and small towns because of the amount of strangers who reside within the various buildings. She wants to rid the city of interior spaces that discourage people from using the street. Rather than making the city more spread out, she believes that the public should become more active in creating community and democracy. Jacobs is in love with the city, as a place that encourages street dramas for neighborhoods to enjoy. She acknowledges the destructive forces in the city, but wants to work to improve the city rather than turning it into a strictly organized plot by plot city with “five person houses”.
OBE #3 - Frank's view: an interesting interpretation
After reading this article, I am convinced that Frank Lloyd Wright was an awesome person and I would have loved to have known the man. However, his idea of Broadacre City is an odd one, making sense in the imaginary world of his head but seeming crazy in mine. It is an idealistic and socialistic idea dependent upon decentralized everything and the organic flow of individual. While the idea is a crazy one, I still find it fascinating.
First of all, I would like to point out the one idea that both Frank Lloyd and Le Corbusier seemed to have in common which I found hilarious: the aero-taxi. What is it about city idealists in the first half of the 20th century that makes them believe that flying personal vehicles are going to be common in the “near” future? Silly people of the past…
One item of concern I have with Frank’s article is the dependency on automobiles. Frank’s city is obviously spaced out pretty well, and so I can see why Frank said “Every Broadacre citizen has his own car” for the purpose of traversing the distance from one neighbor to another. He even spoke of houses which have as many as five cars! However, in the modern world this seems destructive and wasteful. With our new knowledge of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, and our utter dependency on the non-renewable and highly valuable resource we call gasoline, it seems as though modern idealists see a world of electric cars and renewable energy, and in this way Frank’s writing is certainly dated.
Something that I whole-heartedly agree with Frank on is his philosophy of designing a city where growth is a fundamental aspect. In our world of modern medicine, it is inevitable that birth rates will be higher than death rates, so we should always be prepared to grow over time (until of course we reach max capacity, in which case we will populate Mars or something). The nice thing about Broadacre is that there cannot be any urban sprawl because the whole city is already sprawled out, so any sprawl appears to be just another part of the organic growing city.
Another aspect of Frank’s article that I enjoyed was his goal to hide all unsightly piles of raw materials, such as coal. I mean, who wants to be walking down a beautiful street and suddenly come across a giant pile of ugly coal? Not me. Fortunately, this does not happen very often in the real world, but in Frank’s world of organic aesthetic beauty, a pile of coal would be a major buzz-kill.
Overall, Frank had an interesting idea for his perfect city, and his intentions were great (personally I found his last paragraph to be inspiring and heartfelt), but when placed in today’s modern society Mr. Wright’s ideas begin to fall apart. While Frank Lloyd Wright was considered one of the world’s greatest architects, it seems that his knowledge of technology and the persistence of people was limited. If Frank’s city was developed somewhere in America today, I do not believe it would remain the city Frank dreamed of very long.
ha! i love that you're on a first name basis with good ole frankie. but i have to agree, although he does want every american to reconnect with the earth, i do think that his ideas seem a little out of reach. the whole 5-car family thing also surprised me. hello carpooling?
I think that Webber has it fully right when he states, "our failure to draw the rather simple conceptual distinction between the spatially defined city or metropolitan area and the social systems that are localized there clouts current discussions about the "crisis of our cities." I think that this stands very true for those who are not living in the city. Those that live away from the city, meaning 3-4 hours away, think that the city is a dangersous places. There only experience of the city are those who have been there or through the media.
Frank Lloyd Wright had a Utopian view of how Broadacre was going operate under is plan. In the article “Broadacre City: A New Community Plan,” Wright believes that dispersing an acre of land to every person in the community is the key to solving the issues around unemployment and class struggle. The support for this argument that everyone is motivated to work out of their own self interest. Wright also thought that architecture should work with the natural ground. Where form was equal to function. In the center of Wright’s design was a school to keep the small groups of buildings bunched together.
Le Corbisier believed in centralizing. He thought that regimenting the streets into neatly spaced rows was functional. Rather than have architecture be apart of nature, he argured for geometric shaped buildings. In contrast to Wright’s idea of viewing the functionality of growing crops as a beautiful site, Le Corbisier planned circle surround the bottom of the skyscrapers. In these open spaces were areas of retail. One could shop, eat, or stroll through the luxury shops, cafes, and gardens. The center of the his town would be the railway station. The station acted as a hub that worked well for clearing out the city.
OBE 3 - Broadacre City: Dispersing Urban Issues Into the Urban-Rural?
Wright’s “Broadacre City” was “A New Community Plan” to reorganize the urban landscape which steered away from the 19th century’s high density city model by dispersing businesses, schools, and homes throughout the landscape. Urban sprawl merged rural and city landscapes together to create the suburban landscape and this plan wouldn’t have been devised if it were not for the automobile. Despite how successful Wright was with his “new community plan” by changing the landscape throughout America with the suburban concept of “Broadacre City,” I will further discuss how negligent Wright was to the implications of social life with his new plan without giving mind to cost and affordability.
Todays post city age is pretty crazy with all of the suburbs gettin bigger and bigger. I wonder if the growth and exodus from the city's will continue or eventually people will start to move people out of the cities as gentrification continues.
Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City focuses on the decentralization of the modern American city. In contrast to Jane Jacob’s “sidewalk ballet” model city, Wright places heavy focus on isolation among individuals, while still maintaining a sense of communication and contact with the use of modern transportation such as cars and trains, as well as telecommunication devices such as the telephone. Jacob’s would argue this creates a highly impersonal sense of community and connectivity, which is the basis for all interactions both primary and secondary.
Wright proposes that cities must become much lower in density in order to function properly. According to Wright, he suggests that every person be allotted a minimum of one square acre of land, with more being giving to larger families. By allocating land use in this way, Wright suggests that the family property is to become the basis for most day to day activities, interactions, and concerns. Again, Jacobs’ would find this model lacking the necessary means for fulfilling contact with individuals, in order to maintain the energy and livelihood of a city.
The layout of Wright’s residential district emphasizes the “architectural reintegration.” By encompassing all of the housing units within several square miles of each other, you force people to either become unified simply based on the proximity of closeness in which they live, or utilize the personal space allotted to you and become detached and isolated.
I find Wright’s overall perspective of a broadacre city to be non-practical to say the least. He talks about transportation and how every inhabitant will own his own car if not multiple ones, traveling on twelve lane multi-level, multi-purpose highways. Flying cars capable of speeds of 200+ mph that replace the airplane are also a focus of the broadacre mode of transportation. As impractical as these aspects may seem, the aesthetic value that Wright suggests with the use of tree-line streets, open air parks and zoos, minimizing the amount of raw materials used, and utilizing resources is a pleasing thought to consider in the broadacre city.
I like the comparison between Jacobs and Wright. I agree that Jacobs focuses more on the communication between people while Wright thinks that family space and interaction are more important. There is not much "sidewalk ballet" in Wright's Broadacre City, but to compensate, I think, he finds it important to ensure the natural environment and tries to build as close as possible to organic materials. How that benefits the urban environment will be interesting.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.
February 27, 2007
Sean McPherson OBE #4 on Wright
Sean McPherson OBE #4 (The Low Density Model)
Wright’s Broadacre City envisions technology as way to ruralize a community while maintaining urbanesque mixing. Broadacre City can be seen as a way to mask the planning of a city by spreading it out. Wright writes “in Broadacres all is symmetrical but it is seldom obviously and never academically so.” Broadacre marries the metropolitan services and cultural amenities of a city (zoo, stadium, water, electricity) with the bucolic majesty of rural life. Wright’s ambition is to solve the ills of the modern city with the inventions of the modern city. The “general mobilization of the human being” in the form of automobile permits the modern man to spend different parts of his day in different density. Standardized machine-shop production will now permit what they originally ended, the individual artisan. Wright’s ideals of little things, “little farms, little homes, little factories . . .” is a discourse against both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. “The landlord is no happier than the tenant,” writes Wright.
Broadacres is a classless society that does more to upset the financial fabric of society, as we know it than Le Corbusier’s “Contemporary City” by a long shot. Corbusier’s city still involves a workforce that uses transit into the city and he plans for luxury housing. Corbusier’s model expedites the capitalist workforce and does little to address how the residents of this new city would life. I believe Corbusier doesn’t delve into this because I don’t think he sees it changing in that many foundational ways. The only real claim is that they would live more efficiently. In contrast Wright saw the burgeoning technologies of his day as an invitation to slow down the pace of life. Success is “excess” to Wright and Broadacres is a leveling tool, a way to miniaturize the means of production.
Stylistically I see Corbusier and Wright as defending style through equally draconian measures. Wright sees style as “organic” character. Wright’s arbiter of style is the county architect. This county architect really seems like the city officials who tell residents of nice neighborhoods to put numbers up on their garage and keep their grass to cut. Wright might be so convinced of the easy enforcement of a stylistic ethos because he enforced one so effectively for over half a century as America’s leading architect. Towards the end of his piece Wright wrote, “unwholesome life would get no encouragement”. Wright’s utopian view of society is hard to compare next to Corbusier’s because it is like comparing a blueprint to a manifesto. Wright saw the world change under his blueprints and Corbusier had no such luck. His ideas had to be watered down and adjusted by the real city designers of his time. But in their writing I believe it is Wright who needs to reassess the powers and potential of a city design. I question whether the classless, socialistic society that Wright laid out would be as respecting of his vision as the high-class curators of the rest of his career.
Corbusier’s vision has the hunger of someone who hasn’t been listened to properly. In the preface to his piece he explains that he is answering questions so can “have the happy assurance that his [reader’s] astonishment will no longer be stupefaction nor his fears mere panic.” Corbusier and Wright’s plans are both universal, needing little to no adjustment to work in different. Both plans do put great demands upon the land beneath them. It is in fact in this great demand that they find their universality. These plans would theoretically work anywhere, not because of their malleability but because of their unflagging commitment to their own ideals.
Both plans share to differing degrees a redistribution of land. In a sense Wright granting every household at least one acre gains the same effect of guaranteeing every household no acres. Land ownership is muted as a part of the social hierarchy due its redistribution (or in Corbusier’s case, it’s reappropriation for public use).
Wright’s plan called for an end to the compartmentalization of work and took a page out of the anarchist Kropotkin’s playbook by anticipating a mixed workday filled with both manual and intellectual work. This flies in the face of Corbusier’s desire to “classify these divisions”. Although Corbusier’s thrust for classification in this section is geographic his desire for people to have a defined job and location of job is inherent in the divisions he sees in the “contemporary” city.
The difference I find most simple between Corbusier and Wright is the directionality of their expansion. Wright’s expansion is horizontal, with society reaching out across the landscape and remaining intimate through the use of technology. Corbusier sees cities expanding horizontally and remaining intimate in the way humans have remained intimate since they have been in cities, proximity. Both of these desires can be compared against Wirth’s assertion that physical proximity can create larger gulfs between people. I doubt Wirth would defend the telephone as a better means of creating intimacy between people. I think the truth is that intimacy between cells, regardless of whether these cells are families in a small apartment (Corbusier) or families on an acre (Wright) is low on the priority of both of these planners.
Posted by Sean McPherson at 01:09 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (2)
Comments
This Broadacre City sounds somewhat like Chicago to me with the fixed transport trains.
Posted by: Kathy | March 5, 2007 09:39 AM
Can I just say that was such an incomplete comment?
It reminds me of Chicago because the fixed transport trains in Broadacre City and the "L" in Chicago sound somewhat similar.
(That was a better comment, yes?)
Posted by: kathy | March 5, 2007 09:40 AM
March 05, 2007
OBE #3: The Architect's Role in City Planning
There is a reason that Frank Lloyd Wright is considered “America’s greatest architect” and not “America’s greatest city planner. As a design major, I have studied Frank Lloyd Wright numerous times. In terms of designing spaces that are organically intertwined with nature, master the concept of prospect refuge (i.e., the ability to see without being seen), and efficiently laid out — Wright is a rock star! However, in terms of planning a city that meets the needs of all “individuals,” Wright’s plan fails to live up to his buildings. It is not surprising then, that the one part of Wright’s plan that is truly desirable is the houses — or at least the ideas behind them.
The houses Wright proposes are in some ways standardized (e.g., “stacked utilities, the use of fireproof synthetic materials”—p.329). However, he recommends using “older-nature” materials when given the opportunity and throughout his city plan emphasizes individualization. I am intrigued by the idea of standardization that allows for individualism. In a perfect world, everyone could live in the house of their dreams and it would be a unique expression of who they are. But obviously, this cannot be, and ultimately – is not all that important. What is important is that people can function, feel safe and secure, and ultimately enjoy living in their homes. I am not an environmental psychologist, but from the little I do know, environment affects individuals on multiple levels (social, psychological, etc.) and makes a difference in behavior.
Recently, I read an article about how architects should be more involved in affordable housing, specifically in the rebuilding of New Orleans. In general, architects are much less involved in home building than they have been in the past. And when they are involved, it is typically with luxury homes. However, they have the knowledge and expertise to design truly efficient, stable, and authentic homes. The role of the architect in Wright’s plan is desirable. However, in order for it to truly work, architects and designers need to get more involved in the field of home design at an affordable level (e.g., through developing plans for plan books).
One aspect of Wright’s plan that I found peculiar was the underlying assumption that everyone is an individual, but deep down we all want to live in a spread out city, a good distance from each other, with limited contact with one another, but enough to create a community (p. 325). And Wright believed, that if society provided that for us, we would see an “automatic end to unemployment” and “unwholesome life would get no encouragement.” It is almost an oxymoron, assuming that all individuals will ultimately adapt to the same way of living.
There are many reasons that Wright’s plan would never work in today’s society. He was, first and foremost an architect, and his incorporation of architects in city planning is noble (even if it does seem self-promoting at times). However, he failed to consider numerous aspects of city planning and even his own desire to promote individuality did not come across in his plan. Ultimately, I think he could probably design a pretty astonishing prototype for affordable housing that would ideally, fit into someone else’s plan.
Rachel Bickel
Posted by rachel at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Wright drawings of Broadacre City
Is this mother earth?
More photos at: http://www.fba.fh-darmstadt.de/lehrinhalte/Allgemein/Fachgruppen/Darstellung/Geometrie/Plakate/images/
Posted by Kathy Xiong at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (3)
Comments
Wow... almost looks like an insect colony doesn't it? I just seems way too alien with not enough... humanity? There should definitely be TONS of pollution due to all the vehicles around, but maybe in the future we'll fix that problem. I certainly would like to step into F.L.W.'s world and poke around for a while, maybe cause some havoc or something *devil grin*
Posted by: Eric Tissot | March 5, 2007 01:09 PM
Wow that is pretty far out in a groovey way. It reminds me alot of star treck or one of those sci fi shows. If history has tought us anything its that if we can dream it up then there is a good chance that we can build it. 100 years from now (maybe sooner) we will see flying cars. With capitalism the way it is there is a never ending ceiling of possibility and with all the cars most major cities will eventually run into a serious traffic problem that will need a cure. As for those cars... lets just say ol Wrighty might want to consider a desighn that looks less like twig and berries.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2007 11:36 PM
I also found those same pictures of Broadacres, and after I saw them I felt a little silly for liking Wrights ideas on this community. I had something totallly different pictured in my head when I was reading, but after I saw those pictures...no way man. Too weird.
Posted by: Ashley D | March 7, 2007 12:20 PM
OBE 2 :Wright...the city...Jacobs..the city...me...the city
Wright and Jacobs want community and safety, yet they have drastically different ways in implementing the changes needed. They both believe in the philosophy of local government and residential participation as a way to reinforce safety and protect the citizens of a space. However, the substantial difference between the two theorists is the issue of architecture although they contextually view the ideals of a community similarly. Jacobs critiques the ideals of urban sprawl. Rather than completely changing the landscape of the urban city, she calls for a change in the organization of neighborhoods. Wright prefers the sprawl of the city that is “nowhere but everywhere”.
Wright emphasizes decentralization as a core concept of “Broadacres”. Jacobs and Wright have comparable perspectives when discussing decentralization. Jacobs views the city as simplified into sidewalk squares both metaphorically and literally. There is no need for centralized power when the city is maintained acre by acre. For example, Jacobs believes that the police have a purpose, but they are not as efficient as people protecting each other. Wright also agrees that the most effective social control would be from the bottom to the top. He wants every county to be a “minor government” (327). The small businesses Jacobs describes as a way for keeping neighborhoods alive is a similar concept to Broadacres’ small machine-shops supplying support for local artisans. The need for community involvement at a smaller level is necessary to make the city function properly and safely.
Wright’s architectural designs support the overall decentralization. He desires organic architecture, supporting natural environmental changes. Regimentation is the antithesis of his plan; strict control over people leads to exploitation. Instead, Wright believes that every person has the right to an equal amount of land. Throughout the description of Broadacres, “little” is revolutionary to Wright. His aim is to create small functional spaces to create opportunities of labor and a sense of community. It is idealistic—as if the farm rural land reproduced with the suburbs. Wright portrays the city as a solution to all social crises. Social stratification does not disappear when everyone is allotted an equal plot of land as Wright suggests. He claims this city would be sufficient for all people. Unemployment as well as classism would not be problematic because of the equal distribution of resources such as land (and cars?). Children would be able to cross the streets safely, and all would be well. The city is beautiful, a street ballet. Condensation is not necessarily the evil in the writings of Jacobs. The sprawl that Wright describes is just what Jacobs describes as the environment that creates barbarism.
Jacobs’ design focuses on the intermixing of small businesses and residences. Unlike Wright, she defines the city as unlike the suburbs and small towns because of the amount of strangers who reside within the various buildings. She wants to rid the city of interior spaces that discourage people from using the street. Rather than making the city more spread out, she believes that the public should become more active in creating community and democracy. Jacobs is in love with the city, as a place that encourages street dramas for neighborhoods to enjoy. She acknowledges the destructive forces in the city, but wants to work to improve the city rather than turning it into a strictly organized plot by plot city with “five person houses”.
Posted by Christina Barber at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #3 - Frank's view: an interesting interpretation
After reading this article, I am convinced that Frank Lloyd Wright was an awesome person and I would have loved to have known the man. However, his idea of Broadacre City is an odd one, making sense in the imaginary world of his head but seeming crazy in mine. It is an idealistic and socialistic idea dependent upon decentralized everything and the organic flow of individual. While the idea is a crazy one, I still find it fascinating.
First of all, I would like to point out the one idea that both Frank Lloyd and Le Corbusier seemed to have in common which I found hilarious: the aero-taxi. What is it about city idealists in the first half of the 20th century that makes them believe that flying personal vehicles are going to be common in the “near” future? Silly people of the past…
One item of concern I have with Frank’s article is the dependency on automobiles. Frank’s city is obviously spaced out pretty well, and so I can see why Frank said “Every Broadacre citizen has his own car” for the purpose of traversing the distance from one neighbor to another. He even spoke of houses which have as many as five cars! However, in the modern world this seems destructive and wasteful. With our new knowledge of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, and our utter dependency on the non-renewable and highly valuable resource we call gasoline, it seems as though modern idealists see a world of electric cars and renewable energy, and in this way Frank’s writing is certainly dated.
Something that I whole-heartedly agree with Frank on is his philosophy of designing a city where growth is a fundamental aspect. In our world of modern medicine, it is inevitable that birth rates will be higher than death rates, so we should always be prepared to grow over time (until of course we reach max capacity, in which case we will populate Mars or something). The nice thing about Broadacre is that there cannot be any urban sprawl because the whole city is already sprawled out, so any sprawl appears to be just another part of the organic growing city.
Another aspect of Frank’s article that I enjoyed was his goal to hide all unsightly piles of raw materials, such as coal. I mean, who wants to be walking down a beautiful street and suddenly come across a giant pile of ugly coal? Not me. Fortunately, this does not happen very often in the real world, but in Frank’s world of organic aesthetic beauty, a pile of coal would be a major buzz-kill.
Overall, Frank had an interesting idea for his perfect city, and his intentions were great (personally I found his last paragraph to be inspiring and heartfelt), but when placed in today’s modern society Mr. Wright’s ideas begin to fall apart. While Frank Lloyd Wright was considered one of the world’s greatest architects, it seems that his knowledge of technology and the persistence of people was limited. If Frank’s city was developed somewhere in America today, I do not believe it would remain the city Frank dreamed of very long.
Posted by Eric Tissot at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (2)
Comments
ha! i love that you're on a first name basis with good ole frankie. but i have to agree, although he does want every american to reconnect with the earth, i do think that his ideas seem a little out of reach. the whole 5-car family thing also surprised me. hello carpooling?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 6, 2007 02:00 PM
yup, that was me.
Posted by: Corrie Halladay | March 6, 2007 02:01 PM
Truth in Webber's Writings
I think that Webber has it fully right when he states, "our failure to draw the rather simple conceptual distinction between the spatially defined city or metropolitan area and the social systems that are localized there clouts current discussions about the "crisis of our cities." I think that this stands very true for those who are not living in the city. Those that live away from the city, meaning 3-4 hours away, think that the city is a dangersous places. There only experience of the city are those who have been there or through the media.
Posted by Jesse Kortuem at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
March 06, 2007
OBE #3 Centralization or Decentralization
Frank Lloyd Wright had a Utopian view of how Broadacre was going operate under is plan. In the article “Broadacre City: A New Community Plan,” Wright believes that dispersing an acre of land to every person in the community is the key to solving the issues around unemployment and class struggle. The support for this argument that everyone is motivated to work out of their own self interest. Wright also thought that architecture should work with the natural ground. Where form was equal to function. In the center of Wright’s design was a school to keep the small groups of buildings bunched together.
Le Corbisier believed in centralizing. He thought that regimenting the streets into neatly spaced rows was functional. Rather than have architecture be apart of nature, he argured for geometric shaped buildings. In contrast to Wright’s idea of viewing the functionality of growing crops as a beautiful site, Le Corbisier planned circle surround the bottom of the skyscrapers. In these open spaces were areas of retail. One could shop, eat, or stroll through the luxury shops, cafes, and gardens. The center of the his town would be the railway station. The station acted as a hub that worked well for clearing out the city.
Karah Barr
Posted by Karah Barr at 02:22 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE 3 - Broadacre City: Dispersing Urban Issues Into the Urban-Rural?
Wright’s “Broadacre City” was “A New Community Plan” to reorganize the urban landscape which steered away from the 19th century’s high density city model by dispersing businesses, schools, and homes throughout the landscape. Urban sprawl merged rural and city landscapes together to create the suburban landscape and this plan wouldn’t have been devised if it were not for the automobile. Despite how successful Wright was with his “new community plan” by changing the landscape throughout America with the suburban concept of “Broadacre City,” I will further discuss how negligent Wright was to the implications of social life with his new plan without giving mind to cost and affordability.
Continue reading "OBE 3 - Broadacre City: Dispersing Urban Issues Into the Urban-Rural?" »
Posted by Kathy Xiong at 05:55 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Webber the post city age
Todays post city age is pretty crazy with all of the suburbs gettin bigger and bigger. I wonder if the growth and exodus from the city's will continue or eventually people will start to move people out of the cities as gentrification continues.
Posted by Cannon at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE#3 Wrights Broadacres
Posted by Ashley Day at 01:06 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #2
Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City focuses on the decentralization of the modern American city. In contrast to Jane Jacob’s “sidewalk ballet” model city, Wright places heavy focus on isolation among individuals, while still maintaining a sense of communication and contact with the use of modern transportation such as cars and trains, as well as telecommunication devices such as the telephone. Jacob’s would argue this creates a highly impersonal sense of community and connectivity, which is the basis for all interactions both primary and secondary.
Wright proposes that cities must become much lower in density in order to function properly. According to Wright, he suggests that every person be allotted a minimum of one square acre of land, with more being giving to larger families. By allocating land use in this way, Wright suggests that the family property is to become the basis for most day to day activities, interactions, and concerns. Again, Jacobs’ would find this model lacking the necessary means for fulfilling contact with individuals, in order to maintain the energy and livelihood of a city.
The layout of Wright’s residential district emphasizes the “architectural reintegration.” By encompassing all of the housing units within several square miles of each other, you force people to either become unified simply based on the proximity of closeness in which they live, or utilize the personal space allotted to you and become detached and isolated.
I find Wright’s overall perspective of a broadacre city to be non-practical to say the least. He talks about transportation and how every inhabitant will own his own car if not multiple ones, traveling on twelve lane multi-level, multi-purpose highways. Flying cars capable of speeds of 200+ mph that replace the airplane are also a focus of the broadacre mode of transportation. As impractical as these aspects may seem, the aesthetic value that Wright suggests with the use of tree-line streets, open air parks and zoos, minimizing the amount of raw materials used, and utilizing resources is a pleasing thought to consider in the broadacre city.
Posted by Dave N at 02:11 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
I like the comparison between Jacobs and Wright. I agree that Jacobs focuses more on the communication between people while Wright thinks that family space and interaction are more important. There is not much "sidewalk ballet" in Wright's Broadacre City, but to compensate, I think, he finds it important to ensure the natural environment and tries to build as close as possible to organic materials. How that benefits the urban environment will be interesting.
Posted by: Abha | March 7, 2007 11:49 AM
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.