thames town - London Meets Shanghai

[kennedy]

I just think it loses credibility by being and English development. Do the Chinese really want to live in an environment that developed out of a totally different culture? Architecture is a pretty accurate reflection of a society, and the Chinese have a different society than the English.

Sure, it's nice from an urban/pedestrian point of view. It just doesn't function as an appropriate Chinese suburb, which is a totally different animal than an English suburb. They serve totally different purposes.

 

[Patrick]

I read the posts, but your comment doesn't really make sense to me (perhaps because you were responding to his comment, which also didn't make sense to me). Nothing has really been shown here but pictures. No one linked to an article about new (or old) urbanism. No one has taken credit for anything, or marketed anything. How can a picture say "Hey, look at this novel idea. I invented this"? His comment was a response to pictures of a walkable, mixed-use, development with an old English style.

Kennedy then suggested that they should do something similar, but with an Chinese style.

Basically, none of the criticisms in this thread make any sense to me.

they don't make sense to you, or you don't agree with them? If you simply don't agree with the criticisms, I get that. This is a very nice looking development and more places should be like it. The thing is, though, and I think the critiques above get at this somewhat even if indirectly, that, especially in the western world, the developments are modeled on built environments that have always existed (and weren't leapfrog development patterns sprawling into the countryside next to gas stations and box stores) and now there seems to be this craze or even a fad with claiming to be new urbanist, which is, uh, nothing but what was originally practiced anyway, and not for a fad's sake, but because people weren't confused back then. Its like new urbanists are claiming, by their use of the word new, that they have made a novel advancement in urban planning, when in fact they have reinvented the wheel.

Bell bottoms came back in the 1990s. But they weren't new.

in addition, this is an urban form that often times, at least historically, was shaped by necessity (i.e. proximity to urban amenities and single route transit lines), and now what we see looks similar in these new developments, but they are modeled as they are for completely different reasons, for aesthetic purposes only, and the facades don't mask the fact that many of these new villages, seen from a bird's eye view in context with their surroundings, still leave a lot to desire by way of a regional approach to things.

that said, I am NOT advocating for ugly sprawl, and I think this development looks spectacular. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I think I get what he was saying when he said this sort of stuff is ridiculous.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

I just think it loses credibility by being and English development. Do the Chinese really want to live in an environment that developed out of a totally different culture? Architecture is a pretty accurate reflection of a society, and the Chinese have a different society than the English.

Sure, it's nice from an urban/pedestrian point of view. It just doesn't function as an appropriate Chinese suburb, which is a totally different animal than an English suburb. They serve totally different purposes.

Lots of rich Chinese have no taste, they just want to kowtow to their white masters (despite England having committed the 2nd worst atrocities on China out of all the imperialists). Sad, but true.

What is "an appropriate Chinese suburb" in your opinion? From my experiences, they are all kinds of widely disparate formats, though the most common is highrise towers in the park or commieblock rows. It depends on what one's needs are, these suburbs can be as car-dependent as the residents want, because, in the new capitalist society, you have total choice as to how you want to live.

 

[kennedy]

I'm no expert on China, but aren't the family structures different from English families? More focus on the extended vs. the nuclear model? Or is that changing with the capitalist shift too?

 

[bdurden]

I just think it loses credibility by being and English development. Do the Chinese really want to live in an environment that developed out of a totally different culture? Architecture is a pretty accurate reflection of a society, and the Chinese have a different society than the English.

Sure, it's nice from an urban/pedestrian point of view. It just doesn't function as an appropriate Chinese suburb, which is a totally different animal than an English suburb. They serve totally different purposes.

Coral Gables got playful and built villages that reflect different styles -- English, French, Dutch. Coral Gables is pretty much Miami's answer to Brookline. Does Coral Gables lose credibility because of it's English influences?

 

[bdurden]

Let me attempt to clarify, as I think I understand what you are saying (forgive me if I do not).

Basically he is saying that it is silly that practitioners of New Urbanism (which is actually Old Urbanism, if you think about it) are portraying their planned unit developments as if they are some sort of novel idea, and are doing so in a way that is almost comical by romanticizing the concept in the form of an English village. This is a commentary on how off track things have gotten since the advent of motorized travel, not a mocking of dense development.

When suburban development becomes so far removed from traditional urbanity, perhaps the new urbanism approach becomes a novel idea by right of practice. Seaside taught us that. There is a long history of romanticizing the architecture of the past in the present time. If the English weren't romanticizing the Gothic style of the 15th Century, they wouldn't have built the Gothic Revival House of Parliament in the 19th.

 

[Patrick]

Good point. But it still seems a bit odd don't you think? not wrong, but odd.

 

[a630]

I don't understand why people are so infatuated with Seaside. It is not really different from the planned unit developments that had been occurring around the country for nearly 30 years before it. It does nothing to challenge the dominant pattern of urbanization in all of its sprawling glory. It is completely dependent on it, just like any other subdivision of the privileged - it's no island, certainly no revolution.
It does vary in the details, but I don't think this qualifies what is really just a design schtick to be considered a paradigm of a "new urbanism."

 

[bdurden]

a630, Seaside is everything you are saying it isn't. It's hard to get to, have you been?

 

[Justin7]

they don't make sense to you, or you don't agree with them? If you simply don't agree with the criticisms, I get that. This is a very nice looking development and more places should be like it. The thing is, though, and I think the critiques above get at this somewhat even if indirectly, that, especially in the western world, the developments are modeled on built environments that have always existed (and weren't leapfrog development patterns sprawling into the countryside next to gas stations and box stores) and now there seems to be this craze or even a fad with claiming to be new urbanist, which is, uh, nothing but what was originally practiced anyway, and not for a fad's sake, but because people weren't confused back then. Its like new urbanists are claiming, by their use of the word new, that they have made a novel advancement in urban planning, when in fact they have reinvented the wheel.

Bell bottoms came back in the 1990s. But they weren't new.

in addition, this is an urban form that often times, at least historically, was shaped by necessity (i.e. proximity to urban amenities and single route transit lines), and now what we see looks similar in these new developments, but they are modeled as they are for completely different reasons, for aesthetic purposes only, and the facades don't mask the fact that many of these new villages, seen from a bird's eye view in context with their surroundings, still leave a lot to desire by way of a regional approach to things.

that said, I am NOT advocating for ugly sprawl, and I think this development looks spectacular. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I think I get what he was saying when he said this sort of stuff is ridiculous.

I will try again.

It has nothing to do with me agreeing or not. The criticism does not make any sense. You are criticizing something that is not there. Why are you talking about fads, new urbanists, and what they are claiming? This thread started with, again, pictures. Not claims. Not talk of new urbanism. Not fads. Not new ideas or old ideas. Just a pictures of a place with urban characteristics. If you want to criticize Thames Town for having these characteristics, then that would belong here, but you claim that that is missing the point. If you, however, have a problem with a group and their claims, then by all means, criticize away, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread or with this development.

I can't be any clearer than that.

 

[Patrick]

clearly

 

[bdurden]

Good point. But it still seems a bit odd don't you think? not wrong, but odd.

Yes, a bit.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

I'm no expert on China, but aren't the family structures different from English families? More focus on the extended vs. the nuclear model? Or is that changing with the capitalist shift too?

family structures are mostly the same as here. In rural areas sometimes multiple generations of a family live together while in urban areas it is the same nuclear unit found here. The extended family model in rural areas is sort of changing, many rural areas are becoming severely depopulated with only the elderly remaining, and the others finding work in the cities, so actually there is no traditional sort of family remaining.

 

[a630]

Justin7
I brought up New Urbanism because it came to mind, and that's ok. what forum stays exactly on track?
Bburden:
No. Tell me about it.

 

[Patrick]

family structures are mostly the same as here. In rural areas sometimes multiple generations of a family live together while in urban areas it is the same nuclear unit found here. The extended family model in rural areas is sort of changing, many rural areas are becoming severely depopulated with only the elderly remaining, and the others finding work in the cities, so actually there is no traditional sort of family remaining.

I believe it was Deng Xiaoping who said that rural China (the west, I guess, right?) was the biggest thing holding the country back. I heard recently that China actively pursues policies to get people from rural areas to flood cities, in order to keep wages down. Anyone know if there is any actual truth (as opposed to speculation) about this? And what sort of policies might they be? Supply and demand say the more workers, the more competition = the lower wages that have to be offered, so it makes sense, but I am wondering if this is an actual policy position of the government there, or just a function of economics in a more general sense. I heard many factories are moving from China to Vietnam now because the wages are actually starting to be too high in China compared to neighboring countries. Don't know if any of this is true, just heard it.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

I believe it was Deng Xiaoping who said that rural China (the west, I guess, right?) was the biggest thing holding the country back. I heard recently that China actively pursues policies to get people from rural areas to flood cities, in order to keep wages down. Anyone know if there is any actual truth (as opposed to speculation) about this?

I haven't heard this, but if you can link to the article where you read this, I can probably tell what the author meant. Anyway, as far as I know the migration from rural to urban areas is a natural function of economics, wages are 4x higher in urban areas and are rising rapidly (they are being kept down slightly but that is to ensure China's competitiveness, they are at least 2x the wage levels of 2000)

And what sort of policies might they be? Supply and demand say the more workers, the more competition = the lower wages that have to be offered, so it makes sense, but I am wondering if this is an actual policy position of the government there, or just a function of economics in a more general sense. I heard many factories are moving from China to Vietnam now because the wages are actually starting to be too high in China compared to neighboring countries. Don't know if any of this is true, just heard it.

Probably not an actual government position, but again, I'm not totally sure. Yes, many factories are moving from China to Vietnam but the cost to manufacture an item is actually lower in China than in most other developing countries due to the good infrastructure, high efficiency, and willingness of local officials to allow the factory to be built. However, China can't rely on manufacturing forever if it is to become a developed country, the wages are too low, and the lowering importance of the manufacturing industry in China is in my opinion, a good thing (though some regions may be severely affected and there will be some backlash and unrest).

 

[ablarc]

Wow -- I have to admit, this really looks good.

I agree, and the reason is that the meticulous attention to fairly authentically-reproduced form means that the function is reproduced as well. This is a walkable place, no more suburban than a village in England. And it is not a paraphrase but a serious attempt at recreating what we find delightful and useful in such places. This is done by not deviating much from the model; hence the designer doesn't wander off and get lost in the woods. So, as Radiohead said on Wired New York, FORM EQUALS FUNCTION.

This is a paradigm that can be reproduced anywhere (including China!). American examples include Celebration and Seaside, both walkable.

 

[kennedy]

Why couldn't it have been a walkable, Chinese neighborhood though? I don't know why I'm so hung up on the style, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[ablarc]

Why couldn't it have been a walkable, Chinese neighborhood though?

Culture.

Eons ago when I moved to the Sunbelt, I was charmed by the indigenous Craftsman style, which New England lacks. Designing McMansions for builders at the time, I tried to interest them in letting me try a few units in the locally prevalent Craftsman vernacular.

They were horrified.

"Those houses are for poor folks and Minorities," they sputtered, "this is exactly what we're trying to get away from! Give us a nice New England Colonial that won't remind us of our past."

I bet in China living in an indigenous Chinese house means you're mired in poverty, while your relatives, who have made it, drive to their English village in a brand new Buick.

But cheer up, kennedy, there's hope; what goes around comes around, in time. These days, when a local homebuilder approaches me for a McMansion design, guess what style he asks for.

 

[bdurden]

^How very true -- the old craftsman style prevalent in historic neighborhoods of Florida has made an enormous comeback. Thank goodness; what a fantastic style for them to embrace again. Of course this has also coincided with the return to the city movement. Even in a place as sprawling and manufactured as Orlando, people are starting to search for what makes where they live unique.