Architecture can begin to insert the natural landscape back into the cityscape; renewing the original footprint.
The natural landscape can be defined with the following attributes; pure, sustainable, topographical and inducing movement. The cityscape is defined as man-made, gridded, layered, and shaping movement. By combining the qualities of each the natural landscape and cityscape, a new “scaping” can occur that brings back to life a new take on sustainability through natural means.
The creation of the natural landscape cannot be pure due to the fact that the “natural” cannot be made, yet it can be re-introduced. Using the technology of the city and advanced thought, the integration of the layers of each can begin to create a sub-natural or a neo-natural landscape and environment. How can architecture play a role to effect both the built environment and natural environment in a positive way? One can begin to see that by renewing the city’s footprint to its original state there is the chance to raise it, the city and the connections rather than simply expanding outward as the city grows. Architecture can begin to solve the problems of both growing cities and maintaining natural environments. The best place for this idea to be realized would be an unclean city situated near an extreme natural environment that could bring interesting and renewing qualities to the final result. The “scaping” could be implemented on a small scale that could then be realized at larger degrees over time. Rather than simply making a “green” city, I am focusing on utilizing the benefits of both the cityscape and the natural landscape to create a more sustainable city. Instead of creating new sustainable buildings, I am hoping to correct, through a new sustainability, the flaws of the current city.
Abby,
ReplyDeleteI think I understand what you are trying to say, but I find your proposal to be entirely too vaguely phrased and easily misconstrued. I don't think it's lacking in idea, just that the language that you are using isn't capturing your ideas nor doing yourself justice.
For example, you say that natural landscape "induces movement" whereas the cityscape "shapes movement." How are the attributes between these two categorizations? And what exactly is "technology of the city and advanced thought?"
Am I correct in thinking that at one point you are suggesting the possibility and potential of a vertically expanding city rather than a horizontally expanding one? Because that could be very interesting.
And I'm not sure that "focusing on utilizing the benefits of both the cityscape and the natural landscape" creates "a more sustainable city," it's probably just more visually integrated...when viewed from above. ...And I'm also not sure that anything we do can ever "correct" a wrong.
...but I think I'm really just saying that you should rephrase your proposal because I feel like you know what you want to say, it's just not coming across, which is selling yourself short!