A Critical Comparative Analysis of Two Architects Roger And Wright in Urban Planning

A Critical Comparative Analysis of Two Architects Roger And Wright in Urban Planning

This essay is aimed at redefining the concept of public space which will be attained through the comparison of two distinct architects by looking at their architecture and plans. In the contemporary world, the public space is established as being regarded as just a space that should be created for the convenience of all individuals or space for the public. Besides, in the recent period, public places have been witnessed to be established by individual developers (Lewicka, 2011). It has come to the attention that the realm of the public does not belong to the government any longer. It is instead the public and private sector that have recently been involved in the public realm. An architect is taken into consideration as the one which led to the development of the urban centres through the use of ideal theory and plan. In this case, both Rodgers and Wright are considered possible subjects of comparison regarding urban planning, particularly in the creation of public space. In addition, the contemporary technology that is reflected on the plans that they employ will also be tackled in the essay, as it will be useful in creating an understanding of how the two architects established their concept for to create a new ideal space that will be beneficial to the future generation during that time.

The shape and function of architecture are clearly presented as having been regularly transformed with the effort of responding to society. Besides, the plan and function of the city also witnessed changes. During the modern era, architects were involved in designing house not merely for resident, although as a representation of the entire picture of the city that they deeply took into consideration. The interesting factors in their plan and deign include the multiple experiments and interpretations that some of the architects made concerning spatial qualities. Such interpretations and experiments can be associated with social problems, including population density as well as environmental problems (Rollero & De Piccoli, 2010). It can be deduced that contemporary architects try to develop some sort of physical, social, and ideal space for the public. For instance,  Le Corbusier, who is commonly known for the city plan skills, he suggested a new utopia city plan. Nevertheless, his suggestions were not successful. His proposal drew more attention which is explained by the fact that the plan was not just a fantastic notion, but a city plan that took into consideration the socioeconomic impact. The suggestion of Le Corbusier allowed for the freedom of pondering over the relationship that existed between urban development and humans.

Public space is an aspect of contemporary movement and is taken into consideration as an interesting subject to contemplate because it has a key role in the formation of society (Banerjee, 2001). According to wazer, public spaces possess distinct forms of descriptions. Gehl (2010) proposed that public spaces could potentially be identified as of two kinds, including those which are open-minded space and those which are single-minded.  The public spaces are found to originate from the square. Generally, the square was seen as forming the older parts of the town. For instance, St. Mark’s square, which is located in Venice is a public space. This place was used for social assemblies where individuals would often meet and engage in the exchange of news (Jones, 2009). The social function of the town has been now replicated in a range of urban open spaces.

Therefore, the concern is the effects of the oldest types of open that they have passed on to the modern world. During the start of the twentieth century, the world experienced the destruction and devastation attributable to World War One. The moderns movement in architecture started taking shape, and it is during this time that the architects believed that the buildings they planned could potentially contribute to solving the problems across the world. With the availability of new materials including iron, glass and steel that were availed by the industrial revolution, the contemporary architects resorted to their drafting tables where they began imagining entirely new cities that would back the utopian ideals and which were devoid of the bourgeois sentiments that were corrupted and in most cases faced with blames for the majority of the dilemmas witnessed in society (Guermazi, 2014). in this sense, Wright is seen as the most consistent American philosopher, especially of the environmental design and built environment. The social vision adopted by Wright was a revelation of population density, economics, as well as dispersion and congestion of the rural and urban that saw its rise as the social problems during that time. Wright also adopted a utopian idea that addressed to some extent, the real issue. It also demonstrates that his suggested plan was significantly constructive and radical.

The early architecture of Wright, who is among the Prairie School members, was influenced by the movement of arts and crafts that occurred in Europe. His late style of architecture such as the utopian houses that demonstrate a notable sense of ease and naturalness but yet a simultaneous conceptual rigour seemed as sharing some elements of the Prairie style. A mentor of Wright known as Louis Sullivan, was also influenced the architectural thought of Wright.

Both of them contemplated the existing relationship between democracy and a new community. According to Wright, every person could become agrarianized by being offered an acre per individual. Therefore, the earlier aim of the city plan was to attain decentralization and democracy of the individuals who could be achieved through the allotment of an acre. Besides, Wright asserted that there exist three primary innovations for community development and decentralization.

Wright contrived the Broadacre city, which is considered as more than a mere city plan. He emphasized that the existing metropolis was not in a position of representing a true democracy, and therefore, he attempted setting what it really was as well as putting its spirit in the ideal plan he developed. As a social thinker, Wright attempted to attain redefinition of the role of an architect. Through his plan, which was known as the architect king, the architects are considered as the agent and usually manage the Broadacre as landlords. Nevertheless, Wright needed to have established more practical ways if he was focused on ensuring that individuals lived in a truly democratic society. In addition, his plan demonstrated paradoxical ideas. Consequently, it was seen as essential was that he attempted to overcome and at the same time, understand it. The new urban society plan that included democracy realization via agrarianism was the original concept of Wright, which considerably contributed to his architectural language. It included a plan for society taking into consideration as well as stressing on the existence of all kinds of social aspects including school, institution, among other aspects.

Rogers wrote ‘A Modern View’ where his belief of architecture was established as determined and firm. Rogers was considerably interested in technology and innovation that modern provides instead of the style of architecture. He was involved in the global competition focused on open space in the central city. During this time, the city required to have open space that would be located in the central area that would serve as among the inspiring cities across the world. The site was halfway used entirely for public space. Therefore, Rogers attempted developing space for both the specialists and individuals who came from other countries, where he bore it in his mind. Is now found to have a vast exterior frame structure made of steel serving as a dynamic place of meeting that provided multiple activities. Besides, space was designed to be utilized for commercial purposes and also for public purposes. This was very successful. Space was established to have become the vibrating place where individuals would come and leave, enjoy the pace due to his music and street parade as well as a place they would meet and hangout. In addition, the place became a public space where both modern and history coexist. This explains why the Pompidou centre was seen to draw a lot of attention as well as evoking sensation in the entire world. The building was placed taking into consideration to how individuals came and attended the place through the old historical buildings that were found to surround Pompidou centre. Rogers’ aim was that all individuals could ultimately enjoy the space. This place was no longer under the government or any private organization. Eventually, space was not just a building that revealed its interior materials, although a cultural complex that serves as a flexible space.

It is interesting to understand how the plan by Wright and Roger had a common aspect, where they both attempted finding a new ide of space for individuals who lived in the modern era. However, they also had distinct viewpoints regarding public space. Based on the plan advanced by Wright, public space was a sociopolitical scheme that stated that every American household would receive an acre of land and where society would be established. The concept of Wright for new utopian depended on democracy design. On the contrary, Rogers was aimed at developing space for a range of individuals and demonstrate how contemporary technology potentially brings new life, especially to public space.

The public space is established to no longer belong to anyone.  Nevertheless, I, to some degree concur with Wright where he notes that some architects associated with pubic space would ultimately dominate the space, either now or in future. This is because the architect understands best their business. However, compromise is a considerable task that is directed to all modern individuals. The individuals who live in the modern era have responsibility for the public space because it is a reflection of history as well as the development of society’s aspect.  Both Wright and Rogers managed to address public space with its context, taking into consideration the existing social issues. It is undoubtedly that it enriched their architectural practice, and thus they both are highly recognized in the architecture field.

References

Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places. Journal of the American planning association, 67(1), 9-24.

Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people Island Press. Washington DC.

Guermazi, I. (2014). An Archeology of Postmodern Architecture: A Reading of Charles Jencks’ work (Doctoral dissertation).

Jones, P. (2009). Putting architecture in its social place: a cultural, political economy of architecture. Urban Studies, 46(12), 2519-2536.

Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?. Journal of environmental psychology, 31(3), 207-230.

Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 198-205.