- Orr states there is an appropriate velocity for water in a given landscape (based on geology, soils, vegetation, and ecological relationships). He also says there are appropriate velocities for money and information. IF he is right (and you can disagree(let us know), but still give this an attempt) then is there an obligation on our part to determine that velocity? Would there be an absolute? Would cultural and geographical differences influence this 'appropriate velocity'? What would this look like? - Take a stab.
- Orr states that "Our assumptions about time are crystallized in community design and architecture." (Bottom pg 51) On page 52- he mentions a "New Urbanism" - develop what you think might be a 'hypothetical community' that you - as an architect/designer propose. Use Broad strokes and some specific elements that highlight principles of interrelation that might address a new 'velocity'
Monday, December 1, 2008
Chapter 4 Speed- "The Nature of Design"
There is much in this chapter that you may agree with or take issue with. Please be open- and thoughtful when doing this assignment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I don't really agree with Orrs arguement because I think people should embrace change and not limit new technology or advancement. If you would want to live in a slower moving envirement there are places in this world where you can do that and be happy. Orr gives the example of the Omish.Just because you want your world to move a little slower, does not mean you should penialize people who want to move forward.
Even if he is right, I feel that determine that velocity will nation/internation bring confrentation. Not everyone is going to have the same opinion on how fast these things should be moving. I do not feel that this is an oblication, but a right of a communitity if they want to pursue determining such a velocity. People living outside the community effected should not have the right to determine the appropriate velocity for that community. I believe that a society that puts appropriate velocities on everything from water flow to information would be like a prison.
A way to slow down the velocity would be to out law electronic dievices. This would revert communation back to the ways of the 1800s and make building stuctures and goods take a lot longer and slowing live down in general. It would practically slow every sort of activity down. Another thing you could do to create a new veleocity would to be just continueing at the pace we are developing now. Every new developement makes things easier (at least in the long run) for human life and would speeds up life processes.
First of all, let me just say that I'm not quite sure whether I agree or disagree with Orr's overall argument about an ideal velocity for money and information. His argument about an appropriate speed for water makes sense, purely from a physical or ecological standpoint, though I think it is hard to pinpoint the exact velocity necessary and easier to simply say "Velocity should be below X." I understand Orr's argument that the fast exchange of information and money can do harm and be bad for everyone, but I also think fast communication and exchange of information and money is also beneficial to society. I also honestly don't think the world would ever be willing to return to a time when communication and exchange were slower, especially not now that we've seen how fast and efficient it can be.
1.) If Orr is right, and there are ideal velocities for money and information, I think society is obligated to find them. As a whole society, I believe it is our responsibility to do, or at least try to do, what is best for our world and our environment. If determining the appropriate velocities for information and money is what is best for society as a whole, then we have an obligation to do it. I definitely think cultural and geographical differences would conflict, influencing whether the appropriate velocities could be found and affecting what numbers were found. There could never be an absolute number because people in different parts of the world would calculate it differently because of their different beliefs and an emphasis on different important factors. I don't think communication needs to be slower and more difficult than it is now, so I can't picture an ideal velocity for it. I think that the speed of communication now means that ideas can be exchanged at a faster rate, which can be good for the global community. Developments across the globe take less time to reach even Earth's obscure corners.
2.) In Orr's discussion of a "new urbanism," he talks about "open space development and smarter planning that create proximity" between many of the places central to life: housing, employment, recreation... I would this definition in designing a community to fit his standards. If a community was smaller, "high-velocity transport" would be unnecessary because everything would be within walking distance. Only minimal public transportation would be necessary. Smaller cities also mean that everything is in much closer proximity, so workers wouldn't face ridiculously long commutes to their offices everyday. Orr also highlights the benefits of growing your own food, like the Amish, something that would ideally be great, but that might be slightly unrealistic even in a small city. Growing food also cuts out the problems of transporting food over long distances.
--Samantha H.
I've actually given this idea a lot of thought in the past, and I am going to say outright that I disagree with it for the most part. Back when books were invented, people were afraid that this would be the end of social interactions and travel as people would just sit at home and read books. When cars were invented, people cried about the demise of the quietness of horses and the crudeness of motor vehicles. When TV was invented, people said the same thing they said about books. And the same for the internet. People are always reluctant to change and progress, and, in most cases, it scares them. But, there is nothing to do to stop it that would not severely hamper the human race as a whole. Fo Pett's idea of outlawing electronic devices would definitely slow our "velocity" back down, but it would also send humanity back to the 1800's. As Jo Zippoli once said, "Sure, everyone wants to live in a Jane Austin novel. Think of how beautiful, quiet, and unpolluted everything was. Sitting on a hill, looking at the sunset, while you die at the age of 35 and clutching your gut with gout." In hindsight, everything looks prettier, but the benefits of new technology so far outweigh the faults that I don't even know why it is a question. Maybe Orr should go live with Amish people. Sure, they are peaceful and live at harmony with nature and everything, but what significant or useful thing have they every invented?
-Jordan
I've actually given this idea a lot of thought in the past, and I am going to say outright that I disagree with it for the most part. Back when books were invented, people were afraid that this would be the end of social interactions and travel as people would just sit at home and read books. When cars were invented, people cried about the demise of the quietness of horses and the crudeness of motor vehicles. When TV was invented, people said the same thing they said about books. And the same for the internet. People are always reluctant to change and progress, and, in most cases, it scares them. But, there is nothing to do to stop it that would not severely hamper the human race as a whole. Fo Pett's idea of outlawing electronic devices would definitely slow our "velocity" back down, but it would also send humanity back to the 1800's. As Jo Zippoli once said, "Sure, everyone wants to live in a Jane Austin novel. Think of how beautiful, quiet, and unpolluted everything was. Sitting on a hill, looking at the sunset, while you die at the age of 35 and clutching your gut with gout." In hindsight, everything looks prettier, but the benefits of new technology so far outweigh the faults that I don't even know why it is a question. Maybe Orr should go live with Amish people. Sure, they are peaceful and live at harmony with nature and everything, but what significant or useful thing have they every invented?
-Jordan
I've actually given this idea a lot of thought in the past, and I am going to say outright that I disagree with it for the most part. Back when books were invented, people were afraid that this would be the end of social interactions and travel as people would just sit at home and read books. When cars were invented, people cried about the demise of the quietness of horses and the crudeness of motor vehicles. When TV was invented, people said the same thing they said about books. And the same for the internet. People are always reluctant to change and progress, and, in most cases, it scares them. But, there is nothing to do to stop it that would not severely hamper the human race as a whole. Fo Pett's idea of outlawing electronic devices would definitely slow our "velocity" back down, but it would also send humanity back to the 1800's. As Jo Zippoli once said, "Sure, everyone wants to live in a Jane Austin novel. Think of how beautiful, quiet, and unpolluted everything was. Sitting on a hill, looking at the sunset, while you die at the age of 35 and clutching your gut with gout." In hindsight, everything looks prettier, but the benefits of new technology so far outweigh the faults that I don't even know why it is a question. Maybe Orr should go live with Amish people. Sure, they are peaceful and live at harmony with nature and everything, but what significant or useful thing have they every invented?
-Jordan
I guess Jordan really has given it a lot of thought in the past since he posted it three times.
I apologize for my digression…
1. Before I delve into the realms of our velocity responsibilities, I would like to address this concept as a whole. Orr begins the chapter by comparing Oberlin, Ohio, a town to which I have been, to an Amish society. Criticism of Orr’s Amish fetish aside, this comparison is intrinsically flawed. The Amish have the luxury of forming a sub-society where financial flow stays relatively enclosed within its own community. Orr’s mention of the benefits of keeping economics local is a valid point, yet Orr fails to establish how decreasing velocity would help maintain local economics. Destroy all the computers in the world and give the 38% of Oberlin that lives below the poverty line a horse and buggy, and there lives won’t get any easier and our environment won’t be any more sustainable. I have one question for Orr, when someone has a heart attack in an Amish village, does every one sit around and watch in horror wishing that defibrillators had been invented in the 1800s? No, they rush the cardiac victim to a hospital, where doctors are sending pages and receiving information at a million miles per minute so that grandpa can live to be 85. Orr must remember that slow velocity is a luxury that can solve some problems, yet it creates others in and of itself. Personally, I wouldn’t give up 21st century healthcare to be buying my milk from a local farmer rather than a Wal-mart, but that’s just me. In conclusion, no, there should not be an absolute velocity or a limit to the speed of daily life. If you don’t like computers don’t buy a computer. If you want to grow your own food, grow it. And if you think the Amish are the best thing since sliced bread, go live with the Amish and don’t try to make everyone else change their (disease curing, information exchanging, and cheap food eating) ways.
2. I’m not sure if I completely understand this section of the writing prompt. If I were to design an architectural structure to create a hypothetical community and foster the development of “new urbanism” I would probably build A huge field of open space and let every person have a plot of land to grow their own food. Then one day a week, on Sundays of course, everyone goes around and takes whatever food they want to eat from anybody’s patch. If any gluttonous gatherers are caught, they will be reprimanded. Also, if I wanted to place a limit on velocity, I would create a library/eating center in the middle of every town that has a huge magnet on top that blocks out all electronic devices. Say goodbye to your iphones and blackberrys and say hello to conversation. The reality is, I’ll probably be sitting alone in the kids section of my library-eatery-building reading chicka chicka boom boom and eating a home grown carrot, cucumber, and humus sandwich on seven grain rye bread, while everyone else in town goes to Borderstm to txt message while they do as they please.
-Nick K.
*Borders (the store) not Borderstm
I don't agree with Orr's option that communication should be more expensive to make people send less insignificant messages. Or that cell phones and other devices that enable faster communication have made everything into an emergency and made our lives more frantic. Insignificant messages are based on people's opinions. Orr may think that an one line email being sent to a grandmother about her grandson's christmas gift list as well as his new favorite comic book character may seem insignificant to Orr, but will probably be greatly appreciated by grandma. Cell phones and other devices have not made everything into an emergency, and have prevented many emergencies. While one could cope with out cell phones, it makes things easier and gives people more freedom. Instead of having to devise a plan of when everyone will meet back in the front of costco and who will get what, a family can just call each other. Although cell phones made it okay for friends to show up late, because the person they're waiting for won't have to wait on the street corner until they show up, so there is less guilt. And one doesnt need to have a set plan. He also argues that the internet isolates people in front of their screens, and they play computer games. But the world isn't the same as it was half a century ago. And there are not many places where children can reach their friends on their own. While most of America lives in the suburbs, not everyone always knows each other, and friends could be a car ride away. The people I know in the suburbs do not take their bikes to ride to go see a friend, they either get their parents to drive them, or are lucky enough to have older friends who have cars and who can drive, or get to be one of the older people with a car.
Although automobiles help allow malls and strip malls to exist. Rather than driving to Main st. to buy a wrench at a hardware store, barbies at the toy store, a new shirt at a clothing store, they choose to drive to a mall to get it all in one place, with out realizing the effects it has on their town. Malls themselves are not even that bad. They could be filled with stores owned by the townspeople. But the stores inside them are large chain stores.
I don't think we should try to control the velocity of information. I cannot imagine a system that would be able to do this, and any system that would seems as if it would impede on people's rights. The velocity of money is somewhat controlled by the state of the economy, but I think people should be educated about who they are giving their money too, and that they should preserve their Main Streets. Although for some people the discounts of a large chain are the only economically viable option, although spending money at large chains, therefore having smaller stores, that would pay their employees better, close down, only perpetuate the cycle.
I liked Orr's idea of building a community that had public space within walking distance of homes and offices. People who live in large cities have access to some parks, but sometimes their access is very limited. If New York City didn't have Central Park, there would be a great lack of public space. Krakow, Poland, just has a small sad little park that circles the city. Although it has other public spaces like town squares. Orr's new urban space seems like the ideal space.
-Liaa
Like most people seem to be saying, I strongly disagree with Orr on this one. I don't think that we as human beings should think that we are able to decide what is an "appropriate" velocity for things in nature -- or things in general. Architecture is a way of exploiting things of nature to our advantage -- the more we want to risk it, the more we may gain. Being willing to "risk it" gets us things like New York City -- a place where humanity has defied all logic and sense of nature, heirarchy, and order. However, we are sometimes violently reminded of what is actually controlling everything (think Tacoma Narrows Bridge). So, there is no human-decipherable appropriate level of risk (e.g., velocity -- the faster you go, the more efficient, but the more trouble if something goes wrong), only odds. We must risk it to advance our society -- that's what architecture is, coming up with new ways of risking it -- but there is nothing to determine what is appropriate for a given situation. Playing the odds is getting more and more beneficial -- sure, the Amish have never died from the collapse of a bridge, but many have died from preventable diseases, the cures of which came about by risking it in a way the Amish aren't willing to do. With great power comes great responsibility -- our advances in architecture and increasing willingness to risk it have dug us into a great hole with the environment and with horrifyingly powerful weapons that (in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis) could wipe the human population off of the Earth thirteen times over, and now architecture and risking it will have to dig us out with new environmental solutions and weapon control initiatives. Velocity can be whatever we want it to be, but there is always the risk of a grave consequence, and the faster we move, the more likely and grave the consequences will be -- but the odds are on our side. We are no longer dying at around 35, but instead at around 85. Let's keep pushing it, and be more responsible with our actions -- but most of all, be ready to take the consequences should our risks be "returned to sender." But, the risk is worth it, as we are just ants on the Earth trying to do the best we can. And we're generally succeeding.
--Steve
A1: Orr's argument about determining an appropriate velocity of growth sounds like a good idea, but in reality, is extremely hard to accomplish. Orr is suggesting that geology, soil, vegetation, and ecological relationships are necessary to predict appropriate velocity, but doing so requires many people to limit their technological accomplishes. In addtion, Orr's argument is bias because it's solely from his own perspective. He feels that our "velocity" as a nation is progressing at an exponetial rate, but in reality, the nation might disagree with his opinions. Personally, I disagree with Orr's response because a person should not be afrid to freely express their accomplishments with society. I know it's a gross overstatment, but if the person capable of curing aids he/she would be afraid of experssing his/her acomplisments with the greater society because he/she is concerned about the velocity of the nation. In my opinion, that is unacceptable.
A2: My ideal community keeping "velocity" in mind would consist of a series of communities. Each community would be enclosed in a spherical dome(an idea first proposed by Buckminster Fuller). Each community would be responsible for their "geology, soil, vegetation, and ecological footprint". Unlike Orr's i would increase the nations technoligcal advances so that maintaing his/her perspective community is as simple chore like taking out the trash. Within each dousing dome, there would be series of house that utilizes geothermal energy for heating and are powered by natural energy sources. This idea is still in its "drawing board" phase but my objective is too purpose a community that relies less on goods from china and the middle east.
J-Dog.Enjoy.
I do not fully agree with Orr's argument about the velocity of money and technoligy in today's world. I found Orr's comparison of how water moves through an environment intriguing. Also, I liked his discussion about how the velocity of the water can be effected and how the rate the water moves at can have certain effects on the environment. I do somewhat agree that money moves too quickly from our local neighborhood economy to other locations where that money benefits other economies and neighborhoods. I can relate to Orr's words having lived in a neighborhood where there are not alot of local stores for a variety of goods and money is spent in other locations outside of my neighborhood. This greatly effects communities like mine who don't bring in alot of revenue. This can have adverse effects on other aspects of ones life. For instance, because my community does not bring in alot of revenue do to the presence of large superstores in nearby neighborhoods there is not alot of funding for the public schools in my district (funding for public schools is based off the tax revenue for that specific district the school is located in).
Also, though the velocity of communication has rapidly increased, I think it is a necessity in our modern day world. One might argue that it decreases the amount of intellectual and meaningful conversations between beings but one might also say it increases the strenght of relationships because it allows communication to happen more often and on a basic and pure level.
-D.Gibbs
1. I am undecided as to whether I agree or disagree with Orr on this issue. I feel that speed is good and bad, I’m sure all of you do too. I would like to think that it is not our job/obligation to determine the velocity, but that we choose to do it in ways that make our lives better. I think that the speed things are “meant” to go in can change naturally and forcedly so it’s impossible to choose one speed that is the best for everyone in the universe and for the world. I am absolutely not an expert on this so I may be completely wrong and my opinion may change in a week. With that said. I would like the speed of water to be based on the environment, not on the people in it because we can work with what we’re given, except in desert areas or places where water is not easily accessible and therefore its speed should be controlled. Only in where it needs to be though. Money should run fairly fast, as fast as is needed to get food everyday but decisions about money should be made slowly as to avoid complications such as this minor one that just happened… for information, I think speed is good. I like getting emails and the news paper everyday. I guess it’s not that much of an issue for me the type of information he is talking about, it may become more of an issue at a later time in life.
2. The world in which I want my architecture to take place is a very fun yet relaxed place, if that is possible. Design is a fun process, but building things and the business behind it is not exactly. ( I worked in an architecture firm for a short while so I sort of know what it is like). I also spent some time in Mexico working with a relative painting a house and boy oh boy do things take twice as long over there. I don’t want that to happen where the process is slow and sluggish, but I want it to be slow enough that no one rushes and messes up or anything. I have heard of problems like this before as well: sewage issues, foundation issues, blah blah. All in all, I want the perfect world! And although I know that cannot happen I think that how I approach the situations and act as an architect can effect how quickly and funly (I know its not a word, but it works) the process goes.
Nora
I really liked this essay. Even if I disagreed with some of it, I really thought that the ideas were interesting. Personally, as someone who thinks a lot, I really agree with Orr that there is a problem with the way that we handle information. This information is also in a very different form then what was available to us 4 or 5 years ago. The way that we used to get information, was that trained journalists, who attempt to be free of bias, would go out and research a story for weeks, months and even years. After all the research, they would have a pretty good understanding of the topic, and then they would write an article, trying to educate the public on how they saw the issues. This type of information is refined and carefully thought over by people who make their living by processing and reporting on information. What we have now, though not necessarily worse, is information that is mostly raw and can be put up by anyone. This means that it is more up to the reader to interpret the information and try to weed out the good from the bad and so on, meaning that you need to do the reporting and interpretation yourself, and rely less upon the author for analysis. The problem, is that people are treating this raw and less refined information like it is the refined and carefully thought over information that in far less prevalent now a days. Essentially, I believe that it is not the speed that we can get information at that is the problem, but rather that we don’t have time to totally analyze and interpret the sheer volume of raw information that is at our disposal. Then the problem come when the raw information is interpreted like the refined information, leading to incorrect conclusions and interpretations that would be insane if the information was presented as it used to be. I think therefore, that we need to become used to determining the amount of information that we can process and try to regulate ourselves to that amount, but it should only be ourselves because we all have different speeds at which we can analyze and process information. Therefore, any factor that would affect how fast and well we interpret data would be our responsibility, and not anyone else’s
If I was to design a community, there are a few aspects that would be important to me. First, I would want there to be a lot of windows and skylights, because I believe that light is very important to thinking. However, I like thinking about different issues in many places, because sometimes a change of scenery can make you realize something different, or reexamine a certain conclusion, one of the reasons I enjoy swimming so much. This would mean that there would be diverse amounts of scenery or at least different interior environments, so you could go other places to think. Also, it would be important to have gatherings of people to discuss ideas, because other people have different conclusions and interpretations of the same data, and it is important to use their conclusions to reexamine your own conclusions to see if you misinterpreted or missed something. Finally, there would need to be a lot of places for physical activity, because I believe that consistent physical activity makes your mind work better, because it has very little to do with thinking, allowing you mind to rest and recuperate, allowing it to work better later on. (not sure this is what you were looking for, but here it is)
Ack: my dad is the ex-general counsel of the Wall Street Journal, and I have had long conversations about the differences in information over the last few years.
I really liked Orr's fourth chapter. I agreed with almost everything he had to say. There is no denying that animal population, forestation, and water supply has severely decreased since "Columbus sailed the ocean blue". I think it would be incredibly difficult, but the world and the natural economy would much improve if we slowed things down. We are the cause of all of this, and our ecosystem has faltered considerably. I do not think that we need to slow everything down, such as transportation and technology, but we really do need to work on overpopulation, so as to not ruin all plant life in the whole country to make way for more housing and such. If we could find a way to reduce overpopulation, I think that both the economy and the ecosystem could make a comeback. If we slowed down (in some ways), in my opinion we would not need to worry about many of the problems we face today.
KMac
Post a Comment