When I think about why I ended up as a student of architecture I start to think of myself as a 3 year old boy sitting on the balcony watching the cars go by on the street below. When I was 4 years old I could tell the name of the car passing by. Since then I've been sketching cars like a maniac and I became quiet good at it to. But somehow the frequent car motif later changed to drawings of houses and cities... The fascinating cities... with streetlife... weirdos... and history...
Cities are more complex than most of us believe. Yes, it is common knowledge that cities are economic generators. But cities are seldom mentioned as generators of inspiration and because of that we forget to consider that aspect when we develop urban spaces. Why don't we? Many urban developments are sterile-lawn/parking-covered-infinities of unity. Is that a place to find inspiration? No it ain't - and that could be a possible and an invisible problem. Cause I think inspiring environments could generate a more than just ideas, I believe it could make people devote themself into specific things, such as charity work, science, or as in my case to architecture. That's my theory.
Probably the most famous person born in my home city, Uppsala, is the filmdirector Ingmar Bergman. And as a child he spent a lot of time in the city at his grandmothers apartment, which by the way was situated in the same block as three cinemas and theaters. Is it a coincidense that the filmdirector genious grew up close to those theaters? I don't think so. I believe that they could have played an crucial role in making a young Bergman not just interested, but also fascinated of film and theater.
In a globalised world where competition becomes harder, the development of knowledge is the most valueable resource for society. I think there's two ways of developing that extra valueable knowledge. The first is strict disciplinary education that in its extreme is represented by the "the chinese mother". The second way of developing higher knowledge is to build an environment where the organic genious, like Ingmar Bergman, can develop. In that context the built environment is a tool of competetivness.
The problem is that it would almost be impossible to prove this theory, because cities are so complex and there's so many factors that could inflict such a survey. But still I think we should stop building those sterile-lawn/parking-covered-infinities of unity and start to build something more complex and lively.
/Alexander Åkerman
Cities are more complex than most of us believe. Yes, it is common knowledge that cities are economic generators. But cities are seldom mentioned as generators of inspiration and because of that we forget to consider that aspect when we develop urban spaces. Why don't we? Many urban developments are sterile-lawn/parking-covered-infinities of unity. Is that a place to find inspiration? No it ain't - and that could be a possible and an invisible problem. Cause I think inspiring environments could generate a more than just ideas, I believe it could make people devote themself into specific things, such as charity work, science, or as in my case to architecture. That's my theory.
Probably the most famous person born in my home city, Uppsala, is the filmdirector Ingmar Bergman. And as a child he spent a lot of time in the city at his grandmothers apartment, which by the way was situated in the same block as three cinemas and theaters. Is it a coincidense that the filmdirector genious grew up close to those theaters? I don't think so. I believe that they could have played an crucial role in making a young Bergman not just interested, but also fascinated of film and theater.
In a globalised world where competition becomes harder, the development of knowledge is the most valueable resource for society. I think there's two ways of developing that extra valueable knowledge. The first is strict disciplinary education that in its extreme is represented by the "the chinese mother". The second way of developing higher knowledge is to build an environment where the organic genious, like Ingmar Bergman, can develop. In that context the built environment is a tool of competetivness.
The problem is that it would almost be impossible to prove this theory, because cities are so complex and there's so many factors that could inflict such a survey. But still I think we should stop building those sterile-lawn/parking-covered-infinities of unity and start to build something more complex and lively.
/Alexander Åkerman
Kommentarer
Skicka en kommentar