The "Sitcom Suburbs" represent the widespread commodification of living which played on the desires of Americans to achieve the often talked about upward mobility of class. The suburbs were presented as the realization of the American Dream to a public who did not fully understand the big picture with regards to urban planning and development. It is in this context that Hayden's running themes of home, nature and community lie for the mid 19th century.
For the developers of the rapidly expanding suburbs in this era, the process of constructing and selling homes was strictly business. At this time the fiscal benefits of mass production and Taylorism reigned supreme in industry and business at-large. This bottom-line approach would be the type of thinking that would shape the design and construction of homes. Because of this homes were designed with little variation as a means to rapidly and efficiently construct neighborhoods while streamlining production costs and increasing profit for the developers. This resulted in the repetitious, uniform stamping of the landscape with virtually identical homes which has become the trademark of the suburbs.
Land was one of the few actual luxuries offered by the suburbs and as such received little attention from developers. Lots were commonly made as small as possible as a means to make room for more homes and ultimately extract more wealth from the land. The situation of the house on the land was decided in a similar fashion, with developers more focused on how they could save money on infrastructure, such as piping (if they even cared to include such things). Furthermore, yards were virtually barren aside from the grass. Occasionally the builders would include something like a small tree in the front yard. This is a far cry from the vision of suburban pioneers such as Downing; it is instead a cheap and inaccurate realization of suburban land dreams.
Community is perhaps the most spectacular failure of the Sitcom Suburbs. There simply was no room for such planning by developers since reserving room for municipal space (such as parks, schools and even shopping) meant sacrificing potential short term, bottom line profit. Though mass transit was absent in these communities, the popularity of the car made this feasible. Suburbs were homogeneous in the sense that they were usually composed of white families with males as the head of the household, but diverse in the way that previously isolated cultures now intermingled outside of the entrenched ethnic neighborhoods of the cities.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Niagara
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/101/niagara
This is a wonderful episode of a show I really enjoy - This American Life. The history of the American landscape is an overwhelmingly visual experience, but it really requires an understanding of the going-ons of the place or style being considered. Forces such as economics, available resources and culture (just to new a few) intermingle and shape the landscape of human settlement.
For Niagara Falls these dynamics have been embedded in the existence of the one of the worlds great wonders, yet the town as it stands today is not what one would expect. Is it uniquely American to exploit something so significant, make it cheap, and then throw it away?
The picture painted by the monologues and interviews is bleak. The narrators explain the Falls with stories of suicide, industrial ruin and failed politics. It may seem melodramatic but this is a very real part of Niagara Falls. The result is a town which a friend of mine describes as a "post industrial wasteland." Indeed, is how most people who live near the town feel about it and I would agree. This situation is the height of irony, but the American relationship with the falls was flawed from the get-go.
This is a wonderful episode of a show I really enjoy - This American Life. The history of the American landscape is an overwhelmingly visual experience, but it really requires an understanding of the going-ons of the place or style being considered. Forces such as economics, available resources and culture (just to new a few) intermingle and shape the landscape of human settlement.
For Niagara Falls these dynamics have been embedded in the existence of the one of the worlds great wonders, yet the town as it stands today is not what one would expect. Is it uniquely American to exploit something so significant, make it cheap, and then throw it away?
The picture painted by the monologues and interviews is bleak. The narrators explain the Falls with stories of suicide, industrial ruin and failed politics. It may seem melodramatic but this is a very real part of Niagara Falls. The result is a town which a friend of mine describes as a "post industrial wasteland." Indeed, is how most people who live near the town feel about it and I would agree. This situation is the height of irony, but the American relationship with the falls was flawed from the get-go.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Tourists
I'll start this entry with an excerpt from a German travel website:
This has been clumsily translated (making it rather funny to read), but sums up pretty well the way Europeans see the United States; a something-for-everyone adventure zone. A visitor could indulge in the chic urban glamor or explore the wilds. The phrase "the land of superlatives" is quite telling. The United States has always been known for it's "bigger is better" mentality, so this remark isn't very surprising.
Common images are San Fransisco and the Golden Gate bridge, NewYork city, the Grand Canyon, Seattle and vast open beaches.Country music also shows up a lot in the soundtracks on video tours. Below is a pretty good example of what Europeans expect to see when visiting the U.S.
This is a caricature of the United States, and to me not all that interesting. These things do exist, but they are a minute part of how we as a people live. So, surely this must be true of Europe. And how is it that we picture Europe?
I think this clip from an Eddie Izzard routine sums up the generalizations well:
Castles appear all over tourist information for Europe. People go to Europe to see political, artistic and religious history. It is revered by Americans as the height of sophistication and culture. This list from allwomenstalk.com ( ...not a website I frequent) is another good example of the scenes Americans dream of when they imagine Europe:
Rome:
Venice:
Paris:
Holiday in a cottage or an apartment USA USA: The land of superlatives, experience from their own holiday home USA. Nowhere else you will be given a richer contrast. The vastness of the prairie with a touch of Wild West romance of bygone days in Texas to do. Or you love the vibrant bustle of the city?New York, the shopping paradise of the east coast number 1. Combine a shopping trip with a visit to the Broadway musical. While away the evening in one of the bars with a delicious cocktail. Since you are ever in the East, follow the trail of the story and visit Boston in a house or an apartment USA USA. Let's you politically? In Washington, the Capitol and the White House waiting for you.
How about Los Angeles in the West? Maybe you will meet your favorite actor at a Hollywood tour. A visit with Mickey Mouse or Universal Studios is a must. Have not you always look behind the scenes of the film maker? An incomparable vacation is upon you.
This has been clumsily translated (making it rather funny to read), but sums up pretty well the way Europeans see the United States; a something-for-everyone adventure zone. A visitor could indulge in the chic urban glamor or explore the wilds. The phrase "the land of superlatives" is quite telling. The United States has always been known for it's "bigger is better" mentality, so this remark isn't very surprising.
Common images are San Fransisco and the Golden Gate bridge, NewYork city, the Grand Canyon, Seattle and vast open beaches.Country music also shows up a lot in the soundtracks on video tours. Below is a pretty good example of what Europeans expect to see when visiting the U.S.
This is a caricature of the United States, and to me not all that interesting. These things do exist, but they are a minute part of how we as a people live. So, surely this must be true of Europe. And how is it that we picture Europe?
I think this clip from an Eddie Izzard routine sums up the generalizations well:
Castles appear all over tourist information for Europe. People go to Europe to see political, artistic and religious history. It is revered by Americans as the height of sophistication and culture. This list from allwomenstalk.com ( ...not a website I frequent) is another good example of the scenes Americans dream of when they imagine Europe:
Rome:
Venice:
Paris:
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Urban Panoramas
Chicago vs. Madrid
For the task of exploring the city-scapes around the world I chose to use Google Earth. While not so hot on the detail side of things, it provides an excellent survey on a broad scale.
Madrid has a tight uniformity about it. Buildings are low, streets are narrow and there is a general hue of red throughout the buildings. The narrowness of these streets versus their American counterparts cannot be underscored enough; standing on a rooftop could very well give no picture of the road structures around the building. This works as a great advantage to jewel thieves who's livelihoods depend on roof jumping. If one were try to cross rooftops like this in Chicago, however, they would plummet to a sparkly, sparkly death. This is because large urban centers in the United States have very tall buildings which do not expand to the brims of property lines. The American city, therefore, is more spacious between buildings with wider roads.
If one were to approach Chicago from Route 90 they would see the city well before they reached it; giant towers looming on the horizon. This is not so with many European cities. Their low profile makes them indistinguishable from a distance. When looking across rooftops I also noticed church steeples bursting through at various points, making themselves stand out against the residential and commercial buildings which surround them.
Judging purely on looks of the cities, I would guess that Chicago would have a higher population, but it turns out that Madrid is actually ahead by about 500,000. Chicago: 2.8 million residents within 228 sq. miles. Madrid: 3.3 million within 234 sq. miles. European cities may be much shorter, but they support populations of equal size and in this case, more.
It's also worth noting that Chicago was founded in the 1770s while the settlement of Madrid dates back to before history. This is probably a major reason for the pronounced differences. Chicago was developed much later than Madrid and therefore was subject to different construction techniques and different social and cultural dynamics.
Here are a few more cities from around the world:
Sydney, Australia
4.5 million residents
Founded 1788
Shanghai
14 million residents
First settled in the 5th century
Madrid has a tight uniformity about it. Buildings are low, streets are narrow and there is a general hue of red throughout the buildings. The narrowness of these streets versus their American counterparts cannot be underscored enough; standing on a rooftop could very well give no picture of the road structures around the building. This works as a great advantage to jewel thieves who's livelihoods depend on roof jumping. If one were try to cross rooftops like this in Chicago, however, they would plummet to a sparkly, sparkly death. This is because large urban centers in the United States have very tall buildings which do not expand to the brims of property lines. The American city, therefore, is more spacious between buildings with wider roads.
If one were to approach Chicago from Route 90 they would see the city well before they reached it; giant towers looming on the horizon. This is not so with many European cities. Their low profile makes them indistinguishable from a distance. When looking across rooftops I also noticed church steeples bursting through at various points, making themselves stand out against the residential and commercial buildings which surround them.
Judging purely on looks of the cities, I would guess that Chicago would have a higher population, but it turns out that Madrid is actually ahead by about 500,000. Chicago: 2.8 million residents within 228 sq. miles. Madrid: 3.3 million within 234 sq. miles. European cities may be much shorter, but they support populations of equal size and in this case, more.
It's also worth noting that Chicago was founded in the 1770s while the settlement of Madrid dates back to before history. This is probably a major reason for the pronounced differences. Chicago was developed much later than Madrid and therefore was subject to different construction techniques and different social and cultural dynamics.
Here are a few more cities from around the world:
Sydney, Australia
4.5 million residents
Founded 1788
Shanghai
14 million residents
First settled in the 5th century
Monday, October 4, 2010
Buffalo's Lower East Side
The lower east side of buffalo has very interesting dynamics from an ethnic standpoint. If one were to walk the streets today they would see a high concentration of African American residents. In fact, during my brief tour through the area that was literally the only ethnicity I encountered. However, this is not the only story of the east side.
During the early 19th century this neighborhood was known for it's German population. The most obvious and enduring legacy of this lies in the names of the streets. As I traveled down the main roads of the area I passed streets with names such as Rohr, Kehr, Kiefer, Roetzer, etc. I'm guessing these street names were derived from the surnames of early settlers since these names show up with some frequency in the genealogy of the neighborhood during the late 19th century (here).
Street signs are not the only place which display the names of another time. Old business buildings from the German era still stand and in many cases were simply abandoned and never reoccupied:
I also found that many of these tombstones were adorned with what appeared to be a vase draped with some sort of cloth. The picture below shows three gravestones with this feature:
And this next one is a closer view but not as detailed:
I'm not sure if this is a common object to put on tombstones or if it is uniquely German.
A more subtle way the German immigrants and their descendants influenced the landscape of this area was in building and home designs. First, consider this image from a building in a rural area of southern Germany:
Elements of this style were often seen throughout the neighborhood. The most common German features could be seen in the roofing and the heavy lines which appear on the outside walls of the buildings.This is called timber framing in English. In German this style is known as Fachwerkhäuser and is generally associated with farm homes.
There was also this building which looks very European on the top and somewhat tastelessly references the German style on the groundfloor:
As revealed in the reading for this assignment, such self aware references are common. The best example of this in the Lower East Side (and a pretty good example of this phenomenon in general) is the St. Mary of Sorrows church on Genesee street:
This incredible building was completed in 1891 and was designed with the specific purpose of highlighting the areas German heritage. This was accomplished by borrowing heavily from the Romanesque architecture of the Rhineland in Germany. As a result the entire composition of this building can be explained by studying that specific style. Today the building houses the King Center Charter School.
The German occupancy of the lower East Side exists today only through these subtle architectural details.The shift in ethnicity has nearly erased evidence of a previous reality. It barely exists in memory, if at all. While exploring these landmarks I tried as often as possible to ask residents and employees if they could tell me something - anything- about what this neighborhood used to be. The only responses I received were wrinkled foreheads and confusion. Looking at past photographs of the area it's hard to believe that such a vibrant time could ever be forgotten.
During the early 19th century this neighborhood was known for it's German population. The most obvious and enduring legacy of this lies in the names of the streets. As I traveled down the main roads of the area I passed streets with names such as Rohr, Kehr, Kiefer, Roetzer, etc. I'm guessing these street names were derived from the surnames of early settlers since these names show up with some frequency in the genealogy of the neighborhood during the late 19th century (here).
Street signs are not the only place which display the names of another time. Old business buildings from the German era still stand and in many cases were simply abandoned and never reoccupied:
This time faded sign still reads ZIEBART, but it's purpose is not very obvious.
Across the street from this location sits another which was quite revealing of the past: the Concordia Cemetery. Nearly every tombstone here displays a German name.
I also found that many of these tombstones were adorned with what appeared to be a vase draped with some sort of cloth. The picture below shows three gravestones with this feature:
And this next one is a closer view but not as detailed:
I'm not sure if this is a common object to put on tombstones or if it is uniquely German.
A more subtle way the German immigrants and their descendants influenced the landscape of this area was in building and home designs. First, consider this image from a building in a rural area of southern Germany:
Elements of this style were often seen throughout the neighborhood. The most common German features could be seen in the roofing and the heavy lines which appear on the outside walls of the buildings.This is called timber framing in English. In German this style is known as Fachwerkhäuser and is generally associated with farm homes.
There was also this building which looks very European on the top and somewhat tastelessly references the German style on the groundfloor:
As revealed in the reading for this assignment, such self aware references are common. The best example of this in the Lower East Side (and a pretty good example of this phenomenon in general) is the St. Mary of Sorrows church on Genesee street:
This incredible building was completed in 1891 and was designed with the specific purpose of highlighting the areas German heritage. This was accomplished by borrowing heavily from the Romanesque architecture of the Rhineland in Germany. As a result the entire composition of this building can be explained by studying that specific style. Today the building houses the King Center Charter School.
The German occupancy of the lower East Side exists today only through these subtle architectural details.The shift in ethnicity has nearly erased evidence of a previous reality. It barely exists in memory, if at all. While exploring these landmarks I tried as often as possible to ask residents and employees if they could tell me something - anything- about what this neighborhood used to be. The only responses I received were wrinkled foreheads and confusion. Looking at past photographs of the area it's hard to believe that such a vibrant time could ever be forgotten.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Water Towers
Following a U.S. highway for a reasonable distance will just about always take one past those mammoth structures we call water towers. They are essential to every modern municipal water system and therefore incredibly common which causes them to be frequently taken for granted and overlooked. These structures have an incredibly long history which can be traced back as far as the Romans, Greeks and even King Solomon. However, before we explore the history, let's take a look at how exactly these towers work.
Because the most emblematic style of water towers is the man-made elevated reservoir we will begin by examining the functional aspects of that particular style.
This diagram shows water being pumped up (typically to a height of 120 feet) where it is collected in a large holding tank high above the nearby structures. The reason for this is that water which then drains from the bottom becomes pressurized by the weight of the water above it, enabling it to travel back up and in to homes and out of faucets, shower heads, etc. This style is best suited for areas where there is little variation in elevation and the landscape is generally flat. It should also be noted that the larger of the two pipes which connect to the water tower is the output, or pressurized water.
Another style which may be familiar to some is simply a giant tank on a hill:
Essentially the same concept without the tower stilts.
Why water towers?
Water towers essentially fulfill two needs in a water system: to provide a community or building with a reserve supply of water in case of emergency and, as previously discussed, to pressurize. Having a large reserve of water is useful in case of emergency (such as power outages and fires) and for handling "peak" times of water usage - i.e. morning and evening... or half time during the Super Bowl!
These are not the only forces which affect the way water towers look. In order to further explore the reasons that water towers look the way they do, let us consider those that have been tucked away high above the streets in New York City:
Notice how all of these towers are made from wood. The alternative is steel, but wood is less conductive of heat which enables the water reservoir to stay cooler in the summer and less likely to freeze in the winter. Additionally, steel tanks are much harder to maintain due to rusting. Some people swear by the wooden tanks because, they claim, the water tastes better too. This solution is relatively low-tech and thus has a long history as a pervasive style.
Although water towers are popular in NYC, they are remarkably absent from other American cities. Electric pumps are used in their stead, but are incompatible with New York's older infrastructure.
Another structure relating to water pressure that is also referred to as a water tower is a water standpipe. standpipes were used to equalize pressure and stabilize water flow in the system. They became outdated once rotary pumps (something like this) began to be widely used in municipal water systems in the very early 20th century. These structures were often well decorated landmarks such as the famous Chicago water tower:
Only 7 of the roughly 500 water tower stand pipes which used to exist in the United States still stand today; three of them are located in St. Louis. This is really rather unfortunate since they were usually beautiful structures:
Because the most emblematic style of water towers is the man-made elevated reservoir we will begin by examining the functional aspects of that particular style.
This diagram shows water being pumped up (typically to a height of 120 feet) where it is collected in a large holding tank high above the nearby structures. The reason for this is that water which then drains from the bottom becomes pressurized by the weight of the water above it, enabling it to travel back up and in to homes and out of faucets, shower heads, etc. This style is best suited for areas where there is little variation in elevation and the landscape is generally flat. It should also be noted that the larger of the two pipes which connect to the water tower is the output, or pressurized water.
Another style which may be familiar to some is simply a giant tank on a hill:
Why water towers?
Water towers essentially fulfill two needs in a water system: to provide a community or building with a reserve supply of water in case of emergency and, as previously discussed, to pressurize. Having a large reserve of water is useful in case of emergency (such as power outages and fires) and for handling "peak" times of water usage - i.e. morning and evening... or half time during the Super Bowl!
These are not the only forces which affect the way water towers look. In order to further explore the reasons that water towers look the way they do, let us consider those that have been tucked away high above the streets in New York City:
Notice how all of these towers are made from wood. The alternative is steel, but wood is less conductive of heat which enables the water reservoir to stay cooler in the summer and less likely to freeze in the winter. Additionally, steel tanks are much harder to maintain due to rusting. Some people swear by the wooden tanks because, they claim, the water tastes better too. This solution is relatively low-tech and thus has a long history as a pervasive style.
Although water towers are popular in NYC, they are remarkably absent from other American cities. Electric pumps are used in their stead, but are incompatible with New York's older infrastructure.
Another structure relating to water pressure that is also referred to as a water tower is a water standpipe. standpipes were used to equalize pressure and stabilize water flow in the system. They became outdated once rotary pumps (something like this) began to be widely used in municipal water systems in the very early 20th century. These structures were often well decorated landmarks such as the famous Chicago water tower:
Only 7 of the roughly 500 water tower stand pipes which used to exist in the United States still stand today; three of them are located in St. Louis. This is really rather unfortunate since they were usually beautiful structures:
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Real Life Stilgoe
While reading Stilgoes essay I was particularly interested in this portion:
A bit blurry, but I think it captures the feeling of the lot very well. I was surprised by how accurately Stilgoe described the setting and makeup.
Along some leafy street, surrounded by houses, sits a quarter acre of steel and copper transformers painted green or black, a dozen gray cabinets securely locked and decorated with bright yellow warning stickers, perhaps a pole or two, always one fitted with bright lightsWell, whaddya know, East Aurora has a place almost exactly like this! I've always found this militantly fenced off area to be sort of creepy and for that reason it has a very fond place in my memory. I took this picture as a result of reading the article:
A bit blurry, but I think it captures the feeling of the lot very well. I was surprised by how accurately Stilgoe described the setting and makeup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)