USS 300 Thus Far

I’ve noticed that none of our blog topics thus far have been about our actual outings while in Chicago, so I’d like to spend this blog catching up on that.  During week one, we went out and took a look at architecturally significant buildings along the loop.  One of my favorite buildings we looked at was the Carson, Pirie, Scott, and Company Building, which had a beautiful leafy structure around the bottom floors.  The fact that it is so historically and architecturally significant made it interesting when we were discussing how the building will now house a Target which wants to exceed the already extended entrance.  Urbanization, commercialism, and capitalism can get me really mad because of this.  Their want for newer, bigger, and better things surpasses the importance of history and time.  

During week one, I also found the architecture of the older buildings quite interesting.  When we looked at the base of some buildings, we were able to see how the windows had to be close to four feet inside the actual walls.  This was due to the time period and the height and weight of the building, which I found incredibly interesting.  I really wish we were able to focus more on one or two buildings though, like the Chicago Cultural Center, and other very significant places for people who aren’t familiar with the city.  As an urban and suburban class, I feel that we should have gotten more oriented with our surroundings and possibly compared them to Naperville, a more suburban area.  

Week two brought about more interesting architecture, around Michigan Avenue and on Burnham-related sites.  My favorite part of the class this day was being able to stop at the Tribune Tower.  In eighth grade I researched this building, and ever since I’ve been highly fascinated with it.  The stones from significant places are probably most interesting.  Correspondents from the Chicago Tribune brought back pieces from the pyramids in Giza, the Great Wall of China, etc. and they are all built into the building.  

Unfortunately I missed last week, due to some illnesses, however, I know the Gold Coast would’ve been just as interesting socially and architecturally.  What I’m really looking forward to is a more socially diverse tour of areas in Chicago, such as Cabrini Green (which we get to see today), and other areas near or in a poverty stricken condition.  This would really give a realistic example of what urban life consists of:  not just the pretty, eye catching, upper-class areas, but the working class and poverty entrenched areas in need of social programs and funding.

Make No Small Plans?

Although Burnham makes a valid point in the beginning of his quote, “At no period in its history has the city looked far enough ahead...”  The city itself has never truly make plans that can be used hundreds of years in the future, however, I believe that it is crucial that we consider a sociological perspective on this as well.  Lefebvre, who we’ve been studying about in SOA 494, theorized that a space only consists due to how it is conceived, perceived, and lived.  However, how a space is conceived, perceived, and lived can all be quite different from one another.  Even if the city planned, say 200 years in advanced, there is no guarantee that their plans will be carried out how they intended, and if they are, the space may not be “lived” in the same way.  For example, in Hyde Park, where the World’s Fair took place, was developed into a space that they believed would branch out and continue to be a fairground for residential, educational, and successful life.  Hyde Park still is quite that, containing one of the last buildings from the World’s Fair (The Museum of Science and Industry), and the University of Chicago.  However, the areas surrounding Hyde Park are poverty stricken or of working class citizens.  I would not call that a very successful execution of a plan.  

I also disagree with Burnham’s second part, “…There can be no responsible fear lest any plans that may be adopted shall prove too broad or comprehensive.”  A plan can certainly be too broad or comprehensive.  Trying to obtain or achieve too much within one plan can cause disastrous or unorganized outcomes.  A plan needs to be concise and achievable, not over-the-top and unreachable.  

What I believe the city would need, again from my sociological perspective, is not necessarily a plan dealing with architecture and space, but a plan regarding social regulation, improvement of social programming, etc.  The plans that are the problem today, that Burnham did not see 100 years ago are dealing more with economic and political issues.  I don’t want to go too far on a tangent, but what the people of Chicago need is a way to put money in their pocket, good schools, and honest politicians who will actually set out to achieve what is needed for the city.  If Burnham could come up with a plan to solve these problems, then maybe we could move on to the organization and architectural dynamics of Chicago.