Building a Future Without a Blueprint

Wasthington Post ^ | January 1, 2006 | Denise Scott Brown

[Lorianne]

For most of the 20th century, the year for long-range urban planning was 2020. We called it the "perfect vision" year. Now we are asked to look forward another decade. Within the new time frame, architects will still, surely, look ahead, proclaiming the House of the Future, or the Ville Contemporaine as Le Corbusier did in the 1920s, or the New Urbanism as they do today. But their prophesies will be no more perfect than the previous ones, continuing to tell us more about their own time than about 2030, because cities rarely arise from visions.

To think realistically about housing and communities in 2030, we must see them as dependent variables that will owe their structure not to architects' dreams, but to forces at work within the society, technology and the natural world at the time they are built.

363,584,435 ___ This is the Census Bureau's projected U.S. population for the year 2030, based on current trends. That's 23 percent more than its estimate of today's population, which is 296.4 million. How will that growth change the country? Outlook asked six observers to offer their own projections.

D.C. By the Sea: Our Shrinking Home Territory The End of Plenty: Getting Resourceful About Resources Drawing Boards: Building a Future Without a Blueprint Concrete Future: All Paved Over, No Place to Go The Age of the Aged: When Experience Will Really Count Tuned In: Breaking Racial Sound Barriers

[proxy_user]

363,584,435 ?

They will find this is not so, because present trends will not continue. The world population will be declining by then, and there will be fewer immigrants into the US. In fact, there may be an outflow. With our heavily lopsided demographic, there will also be fewer children being born.

[Sonny M]

Without saying it directly (well, not to indirectly, its still clear), they are basically calling for more government city planning and basically hostile to the idea of ex-urbs.

Gee, I wonder why?

[miele man]

After seeing a picture of a typical "lilong" in Shanghai, it isn't a place I'd like to live in. Looks like China's version of "it takes a village". Interesting article.

[ClearCase_guy]

they are basically calling for more government city planning

Coincidentally, I believe Government Center in Boston just got selected as the worst designed place in the world. It is a product of Urban Renewal from 40-odd years ago. Wretched.

Trust in private property. Let property owners decide how to use their property. They will make few blunders.

[Sonny M]

Trust in private property. Let property owners decide how to use their property. They will make few blunders.

Remember the code words, "urban sprawl", "suburban sprawl", "ex-urbs", etc.

Code words for city planning, gov't knows best, and a nice way to force people to live in urban enivornments, even if they don't like it or want to.

Its government trying to control where people live.

This article is trying to steer that kind of thinking, slowly, or lead you towards it.

Conservatives aren't going to drink from that river.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

It is a product of Urban Renewal from 40-odd years ago. Wretched.

Heck, let's just dig up Robert Moses and let him have another shot at urban renewel.