Postmodern Speaking. Urban Saturday Urban
Imagineurbanistwhich proposes to asphalt lawns, arrange a carriageway from the sidewalks, and build a plant on the site of the park. That would be very strange, wouldn’t it? Although nothing contrary to the concept of "urbanism», Which can be read in dictionaries, is not here. But topicalurbaniststhey do everything just the opposite.
"This is our homeland, son". Postmodern does this with many concepts. It floods the meaning fields, concepts float in this slush. From them remains only what is visible on the surface. Formally, there is a lower part, but they do not talk about it. Haram To build a factory is modern, and modern has drowned.
A similar focus, for example, occurred with the word "ecologist." This, after all, means a biologist who specializes in the study of ecological systems. But not this punk, who is trying to dig a oil tanker with a nail, a wrong hippie who made a temporary escape into a dirty hut without electricity, and not even a hysterical Bundestag deputy.
Urbanism has been a process of organizing and developing cities since ancient times.And the postmodern urbanism is the theory and methodology of urban destruction.(I will call her"Urban Sabbath") You have to prove such a bold thesis? I will use the method of limit states.
What is the ideal city in terms of urban?Here is the most comfortable and cozy urban environment? This is a small tourist town. Must have an ancient castle, the historic center with streets, town hall. It should be pedestrian streets, preferably all. Restaurants, family hotels, exhibitions of contemporary art. Residents and guests should have a lot of sites for the activity, so that it would be useful and interesting for them to occupy their endless leisure time.
And the opposite is industrial horror.Mines with waste heaps, factories smoke, trucks rumble along the streets, rows of monotonous sleeping panels, and entertainment — a wine-vodka shop. A terrible picture.
But the industrial city is arranged in order, two orders of magnitude more difficult. There is a railway junction, branches stretch into factory workshops, wagons, empty, sorting. Large power plant or powerful power lines.Fuel bases, warehouses, auto enterprises. All this is dusty, chomping dirt, producing mountains of waste. It is connected by thousands of threads with other cities, regions and countries. Finally, all these plants themselves cost a lot of money. This is a very complex mechanism.
What about our paradise? The hotel has a hundred rooms - the largest and most complex object. And the number of such hotels, restaurants does not complicate the structure at all. It is horizontal, controlled independently at the level of each small unit without any high requirements. Such a city is just like a wooden box.
Urban Sabbath is the desire for simplification.
Industrial cities feed civilization. It happens, it happens, someone else. And the source of the existence of an ideal urban city is parasitism. Tourism and financial services (so you can call racketeering and other annuities) provide resources for a very developed urban environment. Although it can be said better. Wednesday is a working day, and this urbanism is about leisure.
Urban Sabbath creates a city Saturday, not an urban environment.
Have you noticed that in the urban discourse, adepts prefer to ignore infrastructure issues? For some reason, they consider skating boards and various benches with flower beds as infrastructure.This is a quirk because no one is surprised? And they are ready to destroy the real infrastructure for the sake of their fantasies.
If you live in the megalopolis, then it must be visited daily by hundreds of trucks, just to bring you food. Here are these nasty cars with smoky engines on these terrible roads and streets. And will you still work? If only to sit in the office. So every morning several million people must somehow cross the city. In transport, and nothing else is impossible. In public or in person - another question. But traffic must move and move fast. The priority here is for transport, and not at all for pedestrians, who for some reason do not need to work and work.
Urban Sabbaths against infrastructure.
And they use the methods of comparison. The working quarter of Salekhard does not look as beautiful as a Swiss ski resort. Yes, Sophia Loren in an evening dress with a diamond necklace and heels is gorgeous. You, Fraulein, can not compare with it when you go to the subway service. Do we need to draw conclusions from this and catch up?
But what is all "comfortableWednesday"? - This is a purely comparative characteristic.Did urbanists formulate absolute parameters? Unless they can equally approach both to Sochi, and to Chelyabinsk, and to Adelaide? It remains only to compare. Competition with Vanderbildih is possible if you are Rothschildich. And if not, then we will hang a tea strainer instead of a necklace - we will seal up a piece of the street fashionably, with fancy benches.
Urban Sabbath - is to look, not to be.
No, I'm not an extremist, of course. Certainly not like this:
“When you are shown that it is possible to live better and more conveniently, you should not throw feces into such a person, but think better. Why are only his comparisons of border cities: Russian and Finnish. Obviously, those who live completely in the mud, and those who live as a person.
It's time to learn to be more self-critical and draw conclusions from this, at least to bring the world around you into an acceptable structure. ”
It is foolish to argue that a beautiful and convenient city is good. The point is priorities. Resources are always limited. And they must be divided every time between the development of infrastructure, the development of what gives bread, and the desire for beauty, for the conditions of rest from getting daily bread. The priority, perhaps, should be production (even in its post-industrial form), and not entertainment in free time.The problem of entertainment in the form of creating a "comfortable environment" in front of whom is in full growth? Is it really right in front of the citizens of Perm?
And even worse, when you have to distribute not only money or cement, but urban areas. There is no way to share in some shares, then someone takes the square meters entirely. The mayor may show a new pedestrian street with fountains and granite tiles - this is visible and tangible. And if, instead, the travel time of the townspeople is reduced by an average of 11%, then how can you boast of such? It is clear that he will choose. But is this true?
The discourse on Urban Sabbaths leaves no choice, it is categorical and adamant. You should understand the nature of its impact on the information space, on the minds, you should see its hidden underwater part. And consciously prioritize.