I think he's saying that we need to design with the benefits in mind and not stress over the features. Structures like malls, highways, skyscrapers, etc are, most of the time, created in order to signify the status of the city. We forget all about the social side of buildings and of the fact that these buildings are things that people should be able to interact with; architects should design structures which provide a immediate benefit to the people in that community.
He has a good point about the current philosophy of urban development pronouncing segration. Look at most big cities in the world, and you see people live in segrated communities. Children in rich communities do not have classmates of other economic classes, becuase of school district zonings, and vice versa. This segration is emphasized through highways, upscale/low-scale malls, upscale/low-scale suburbs, and so on. His point is this is not sustainable and some intervetion is needed
@RavinRamkissoon Hi Ravin. My apologies. I wasn't aware that an actual colleague/friend of the presenter was on this forum.. What I said was supposed to be academic commentary and not personal. In any case, I take back my previous comments. I think the lecturere is speaking on an important topic and I hope he keeps at it.
it surely is polarizing people and communities, done purposely by the corporation of the government and certain real estate monopolies, aiming to create a sense of privileges and one way to get the poors to look up at the areas where they can may be one day achieve, and mentally pushing them to take that as their aims so that the poors won't stop working toward their "unreachable goal". There's a lot in how a culture see its people in terms of the way they develop their cities.
@Haminette And, I meant to type architecture*. I should go nap. I'm all fatigued from cold or flu... Which is causing his mindless, pointless blabbering to just bei in one ear, out the other... If I were all here, I'd be getting pretty irritated at such a lack of a point.
It's very clear that he's from an architectural background, given the enormous number of meaningless buzzwords he likes to use. After sitting through the video 3 times I've learn absolutely nothing. Also, he appropriates the language of New Urbanism whilst totally misunderstanding how to get there. For example, he argues in favor of building more city parks, something closer to Robert Moses and 1950's Highway Planners than Jane Jacobs.
I think he's saying that we need to design with the benefits in mind and not stress over the features. Structures like malls, highways, skyscrapers, etc are, most of the time, created in order to signify the status of the city. We forget all about the social side of buildings and of the fact that these buildings are things that people should be able to interact with; architects should design structures which provide a immediate benefit to the people in that community.
good presentation.
He has a good point about the current philosophy of urban development pronouncing segration. Look at most big cities in the world, and you see people live in segrated communities. Children in rich communities do not have classmates of other economic classes, becuase of school district zonings, and vice versa. This segration is emphasized through highways, upscale/low-scale malls, upscale/low-scale suburbs, and so on. His point is this is not sustainable and some intervetion is needed
Truly inspiring.
love
Great Talk Mark !
Peace !
@RavinRamkissoon Hi Ravin. My apologies. I wasn't aware that an actual colleague/friend of the presenter was on this forum.. What I said was supposed to be academic commentary and not personal. In any case, I take back my previous comments. I think the lecturere is speaking on an important topic and I hope he keeps at it.
More room for activities!
@Haminette I mean, up to 7:24.
it surely is polarizing people and communities, done purposely by the corporation of the government and certain real estate monopolies, aiming to create a sense of privileges and one way to get the poors to look up at the areas where they can may be one day achieve, and mentally pushing them to take that as their aims so that the poors won't stop working toward their "unreachable goal". There's a lot in how a culture see its people in terms of the way they develop their cities.
@mshara1 HA ! i don't know anything about architecture and i was thinking it had to have been done in the 50's
@Song4Alex lol .... im getting the same impression as im listening this one now :P
So, let me get this straight. It would be nice if things were better?
From 7:24... All he is saying is Architecture... Is art=chitecture, and changes over time with trends, like fashion... No shit.
Very vague talk. Overall the message is a good one though.
@Haminette And, I meant to type architecture*. I should go nap. I'm all fatigued from cold or flu... Which is causing his mindless, pointless blabbering to just bei in one ear, out the other... If I were all here, I'd be getting pretty irritated at such a lack of a point.
get it straight...Things would be better if places felt nice.
steups
It's very clear that he's from an architectural background, given the enormous number of meaningless buzzwords he likes to use. After sitting through the video 3 times I've learn absolutely nothing.
Also, he appropriates the language of New Urbanism whilst totally misunderstanding how to get there. For example, he argues in favor of building more city parks, something closer to Robert Moses and 1950's Highway Planners than Jane Jacobs.
well maybe when you start - why not lead the way without talking about SELF and promoting SELF-Can you?
Only a fellow architect could find 20 minutes of meaningless buzzwords 'inspiring'.
So boring. I am sorry, but not worthy of top TED talks
this guy is terrible
save your time and don't watch this talk