http://www.thegoodcity.com/2008/04/philip-bess-what-is-a-city-for/ city, culture and church · Fort Wayne, Indiana Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:50:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.thegoodcity.com/2008/04/philip-bess-what-is-a-city-for/comment-page-1/#comment-235 Pietro Pagliardini Mon, 12 May 2008 13:48:45 +0000 http://thegoodcity.wordpress.com/?p=166#comment-235 I think that the definiton of a good city is VERY controversial, beacause the actual urban is dominated from he modernist vision, that excludes the city-definition how "A hierarchical network of blocks, through streets and squares, characterized by a reciprocal relationship between public spaces and more important and less important buildings". Rem Koolhas, a guru of contemporary architecture, an archistar, speaks about the city how Yunkspace that is the opposite of historic european city, and all the archistars think equal than him. I think that the definiton of a good city is VERY controversial, beacause the actual urban is dominated from he modernist vision, that excludes the city-definition how “A hierarchical network of blocks, through streets and squares, characterized by a reciprocal relationship between public spaces and more important and less important buildings”.
Rem Koolhas, a guru of contemporary architecture, an archistar, speaks about the city how Yunkspace that is the opposite of historic european city, and all the archistars think equal than him.

]]> http://www.thegoodcity.com/2008/04/philip-bess-what-is-a-city-for/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Barranda Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:55:37 +0000 http://thegoodcity.wordpress.com/?p=166#comment-234 Correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't think the actual definition of a good city was controversial. It was my understanding that most architecture schools just simply emphasize the foreground buildings because that is where they can build something that is more prominent and aesthetically pleasing. Whereas ND also puts an emphasis on background buildings in order to create the formal order of the city. In other words other schools recognize the concept, they just let ND folks build the boring background buildings. Am I incorrect? Correct me if I’m wrong. I didn’t think the actual definition of a good city was controversial. It was my understanding that most architecture schools just simply emphasize the foreground buildings because that is where they can build something that is more prominent and aesthetically pleasing. Whereas ND also puts an emphasis on background buildings in order to create the formal order of the city. In other words other schools recognize the concept, they just let ND folks build the boring background buildings. Am I incorrect?

]]>