City Planners should be artists

dave lackey

dave lackey

Veteran
Local time
7:31 PM
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
9,486
Location
Atlanta, Ga
View My Gallery
Seriously. Having been in the profession since 1971, fought the battles with politicians and developers, suffered the slings and arrows and faced the ultimate disappointment upon looking back on the lack of progress, I have now evolved to the point that city planners should first of all study art and become proficient photographers, if for no other reason than to keep their sanity.

After all, when one reaches the end of his career and looks back, has he really made a difference? Have unintended consequences overwhelmed what little progress a city planner was able to effect?

It is depressing to think of the thousands of projects in which I have been involved only to feel that one or two were ever really worthwhile. All because no one cared what the eyes of future generations will see or what they will experience... maybe one day I will catalog these failures, probably not. But there are striking examples everywhere:🙁 If only the decision makers (and city planners are not decision makers) had been positively influenced by city planners trained in art. Oh, excuse me, I have been down that dirt road:bang:... I should change that statement to "if only decision makers were artists and photographers", maybe the built environment would not be so bad.

Interesting case in point:

http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/dq/duos.php?langue=1&duo=1
 
I believe city planning is only effective in a homogeneous society or community. Yes, the planner should be an artist, but even more important, the government administration and public need to comprehend and support their work. Democracy diffuses the power necessary to control anything beyond "practical" long-term civic programs (roads, bridges and tunnels) and it seems that all great, beautiful, planned works in the world were done under monarchy/oligarchy/feudal rule.

Robert Moses, the greatest builder in the history of the world (really), controlled nearly all construction, road-building and parks development in New York City and State for 75 years by effectively establishing himself as the Lord of parks, roads and building contruction by subverting the controls of government. NYC and much of the State is configured to his desire and will be for a very long time, for better or worse. "The Powerbroker" (Caro) documents it magnificently.

The bright spot is that, after generations, the picture generally evolves and improves.

.
 
Last edited:
Not an expert on the topic, but looking around the square where I live now and which has been built mostly in last 10 years (and is being built and developed further) I can only say that the local city planners (and architects on top of that) do not only lack artistic education, but sanity too. This quarter, once the last free ground will be taken by the last 3 to 4 floor tall multi-family house will be left with roads which can not handle the traffic and way to few parking lots which (those that are just on the side and parallel to the roads) are way too narrow so every time you want to get in or out of your car you risk to get driven-over. Luckily our house has its own underground parking lot ...
 
bigeye said:
I believe city planning is only effective in a homogeneous society or community. Yes, the planner should be an artist, but even more important, the government administration and public need to comprehend and support their work.

The bright spot is that, after generations, the picture generally improves.

.
Click to expand...


Ah, but there is the rub... it is the old "boiling the frog" game. As my grandchildren and their descendants live their lives, what once was becomes irrelevant and their new reality is what they become comfortable with...

...until, one day, their blindness is shocked by the bright light of a photograph from the past such as the one posted and by then it is far too late. What we city planners and crooks (er, politicians) do today affect generations profoundly. Just think about your own urban/rural ugliness...it did not happen by accident, it happened through the purposeful will of individuals and we are now stuck with it.😱 As an aside, my students at the univesity had never heard of the concept "boiling the frog"... LOL.

So, should I document the changes such as shown above in my own area? A noble project indeed but I don't know if I have the energy or time left for such a major undertaking.

BTW, the sounds accompanying each image in the link above are cool. Adding another sensory input to the photograph.🙂
 
Last edited:
An awareness that specialist pseudo-disciplines are too specialist is also addressed in this month's RSA Journal. The examples they analyze are economists and architects.

Don't take 'pseudo-discipline' as an insult. We need specialists. The problem comes when specialists lose sight of everything except their own disipline. Generally, the better they are at ignoring the real world, and at looking at everything through the prism of their own discipline, the higher they rise and the harder they are to dislodge.

People with a better grasp on reality (like you, Dave) tend to get ignored...

Addendum: actually, where I live, there's almost no planning, and because the centre of the village is a site classé (conservation area) there's a limit to how big a f*-up is possible. The new school gymn is hideous but it's hidden behind a decently indifferent 19th century school. Do you read Private Eye? Their Nooks and Corners of the New Barbarism is dedicated to abysmal 'urban planning' and the wanton destruction of good, old buildings. The hospital in Loudun is a wonderful example of the opposite approach. They're currently building a new extension, the 4th or 5th to be added to the original hospital buildings, a 17th century Carmelite nunnery.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
dave lackey said:
Ah, but there is the rub... it is the old "boiling the frog" game. As my grandchildren and their descendants live their lives, what once was becomes irrelevant and their new reality is what they become comfortable with...

...until, one day, their blindness is shocked by the bright light of a photograph from the past such as the one posted and by then it is far too late.
Click to expand...

Dave, I don't disagree with you at all. (I was careful to write the positive, but lame, "improves.") There rarely black & white in public policy, only shades of gray. In the end, all you can hope is to drive by a place and be proud that you were part of improving it.

- Charlie
 
dave lackey said:
It is depressing to think of the thousands of projects in which I have been involved only to feel that one or two were ever really worthwhile.
Click to expand...

That sounds very depressive, indeed. And it's very selfish too. When you have thousands of projects then there are numerous people who consider each project a success, only the reasons may differ. Being a city planner is something with a long term idea in mind. But today few people think in long terms. That's a natural clash of interests.
 
Selfish? Hardly... how can one make an objective evaluation of his/her own work only to find that the results did not measure up?

City planning is indeed a long-term process and when one looks back over 40 years of work (I consider that long-term), and see nothing but ugly urban sprawl in the same venues that were, in part or wholly, my responsibility, well, how can that be selfish? Selfish because I received recognition for good design and well-thought-out plans only to find out they made no real difference 30-40 years later?

Reality is what it is. Nothing subjective or selfish about that.:bang:
 
dave lackey said:
Reality is what it is. Nothing subjective or selfish about that.:bang:
Click to expand...

Selfish is of course a hard word. But you said that only 1-2 projects in a large number of projects are a success. If you take all people ever involved in those projects then I think the majority of people will see them as success because they look differently on the topic or have other interest. So maybe you are the only person that sees it that critical.
 
wpb said:
How about Václav Havel?
Click to expand...

He was a playwriter, not a visual artist. There have been other writers, and even actors and musicians. Think Ronald Reagan and Nero!

Adolf Hitler is the only visual artist I know if in history who ever ruled a country. He was rejected when he applied to art school with the suggestion that he study architecture instead of painting, but the architecture school in Vienna required a high school diploma, and Hitler was a dropout. Imagine if he'd been accepted into the art academy and became a successful artist, how the tragic history of the 20th century might have been different! Though he failed as a professional artist, he was still an artist.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Selfish is of course a hard word. But you said that only 1-2 projects in a large number of projects are a success. If you take all people ever involved in those projects then I think the majority of people will see them as success because they look differently on the topic or have other interest. So maybe you are the only person that sees it that critical.
Click to expand...


Could be.🙂

It may be that the number of professional projects that I feel are "keepers" even correspond to the images that I have made and that I think are complete just as they are... who knows?
 
Roger Hicks said:
An awareness that specialist pseudo-disciplines are too specialist is also addressed in this month's RSA Journal. The examples they analyze are economists and architects.

Don't take 'pseudo-discipline' as an insult. We need specialists. The problem comes when specialists lose sight of everything except their own disipline. Generally, the better they are at ignoring the real world, and at looking at everything through the prism of their own discipline, the higher they rise and the harder they are to dislodge.

People with a better grasp on reality (like you, Dave) tend to get ignored...

Addendum: actually, where I live, there's almost no planning, and because the centre of the village is a site classé (conservation area) there's a limit to how big a f*-up is possible. The new school gymn is hideous but it's hidden behind a decently indifferent 19th century school. Do you read Private Eye? Their Nooks and Corners of the New Barbarism is dedicated to abysmal 'urban planning' and the wanton destruction of good, old buildings. The hospital in Loudun is a wonderful example of the opposite approach. They're currently building a new extension, the 4th or 5th to be added to the original hospital buildings, a 17th century Carmelite nunnery.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Ah, the Brutalist architecture (1950-1970's) that we baby-boomers have grown up with and abhor to this day. The Brutalist architects like Erno Golfinger who gave Ian Fleming grief about using his name in the James Bond novel. BTW, Ian threatened to rename his character "Goldprick"... Makes for good reading, thanks for reminding of that, Roger!🙂
 
It never fails, Godwin's law!

You should come to Japan. Here we don't have city planners but spiritual mediums who consult ghosts, spirits and divining rods to complete *******ize the flow of traffic and road systems. The plots of land here look like they were made with a jigsaw.
 
I can tell you I am so BORED with 20th century design in buildings...
A few artist types raise up among the ranks, but, the politics/budget/lack of taste, quickly quench these people.

In Indianapolis, IN., like most older cities, the newer building are boring compared to the older buildings.
And, you can tell, as the decades pass, the buildings get simpler in looks and less visual to look at..
800LS%2BCR-P1030007_filtered.tn.jpg
 
dave lackey said:
As an aside, my students at the univesity had never heard of the concept "boiling the frog"... LOL.

So, should I document the changes such as shown above in my own area? A noble project indeed but I don't know if I have the energy or time left for such a major undertaking.
Click to expand...

Two thoughts, Dave.

1) Have you considered structuring this project to use your students -- this might address both your concern about your own time and your concern for their education in art -- or history.

2) Your post and the replies seem to focus on the aesthetics of the task -- but there is also the functioning of the result to consider. Artists, architects, and city planners have often developed theories suggesting that the design of space can, by itself, control (strong word) behavior.

Giorgio
 
I've been in the City Planning biz since the late 1970s. My observations: most people in this field rarely do any actual planning. Mainly, we work on permits. Architects, engineers and lawyers often do more planning than us planners. In the 30+ years I've been doing this, I've had an impact on the built environment in only a handful of projects. <end of rant>
 
pagpow said:
2) Your post and the replies seem to focus on the aesthetics of the task -- but there is also the functioning of the result to consider. Artists, architects, and city planners have often developed theories suggesting that the design of space can, by itself, control (strong word) behavior.

Giorgio
Click to expand...

I don't see how aesthetics can influence function?
aesthetics is the "Exterior" look and finish. The "Interior" function can be whatever you want. There are many many older buildings that get complete "Interior" workovers, without distroying the "Exterior", except maybe to renovate it without destroying the original looks in most cases. Maybe new windows will affect some change in looks, but, the brick or stone work can be cleaned and repaired, along with any woodworking detail needed. I see this locally in Franklin, IN. and Plainfield, IN. as I type.

The worker is renovating the trim between the brick and glass. The windows are new, but the window size are the same.
The building is over 50 years old, and the Interior has been changed several times over the years to suit the renters.

800LS-P1040083_2.tn.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom