in its entirety :
By ROBIN POGREBIN
Published: September 14, 2005
Even as the federal government and local developers push to resurrect New Orleans as quickly as possible in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some architects and urban planners are contemplating the larger question of what form the city should take - whether restored, reimagined or something in between.
"I hesitate to say there is a silver lining," said Michael Sorkin, director of the City College of New York's graduate urban design program. "But it would be a wasted opportunity if one didn't think in a systematic way about the 21st-century city."
Among the questions facing architects are whether the city's footprint should be irrelevant, given that so many residents may not return; whether surviving industries should be pivotal to what is built; whether preservation should trump other priorities; and whether bold new architecture can or should rise from the muck and devastation.
Many experts also warned against moving too quickly, arguing that being away from the city could help residents clarify what was most valued and should be reclaimed.
"This is one of the few moments in time in which the entire population of a city can tell you what they miss about it," said Mark Wigley, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. "It's like when people sit around a room wearing black talking about the person who's gone. The French Quarter is probably one of the smallest elements of what people treasure."
"Any city that only tries to preserve itself is already dead," Mr. Wigley added. "The great tragedy would be to embalm New Orleans by simply rebuilding it the way it was."
Alexander Garvin, an urban planning professor at Yale University, said: "Here we have a chance to look at the street system, public open space, to ask ourselves what are the things there we want to keep of great historic and cultural significance."
"If you start with what you want to retain," he added, "you have a framework."
Most architects and planners say preservation should be a priority. "There was a very unique vernacular," said Angela O'Byrne, president of the New Orleans chapter of the American Institute of Architects. She pointed to the city's mix of Greek Revival, Italianate and Creole styles, and to its cottages and bungalows with porches suited to the climate, adding, "As much as possible, all of it needs to come back."
Steve Dumez, another New Orleans architect, agreed: "We fundamentally believe New Orleans is too important a city to be a throwaway. We intend to work hard to make certain that it does come back."
The French Quarter, with its mix of Spanish and French influences, wrought-iron balconies and ornate cornices, is on high ground and was therefore largely spared from the flooding. Damage to the historic Garden District was similarly limited.
But some architects cautioned that the historic quarters should not be the only focus. "New Orleans - along with San Francisco - is the greatest collection of 18th-, 19th- and early-20th-century residential architecture in the United States," said Reed Kroloff, the dean of the School of Architecture at Tulane University in New Orleans. "You're talking about miles and miles of historic properties.
"But saving the historic context does not mean necessarily rebuilding everything in it," he added. "I don't think you build a bad 21st-century copy of a brilliant 19th-century building."
Architects and planners worry that developers might try to recreate some fairy-tale version of the city, compromising its 300-year-old character. "My big concern is that it will become a Disneyland," said Raymond G. Post Jr., a Baton Rouge architect. "If we come up with a plastic New Orleans, then you've got a plastic New Orleans. You lose the charm and the quaintness and the crooked walls and the old shutters."
Without the rejuvenation of the city's varied industries, and with too much reliance on tourism, the city could become something of a stage set where people work but do not live, some experts said. "That's a recipe for a Venice," said Terence Riley, chief curator of the Museum of Modern Art's architecture and design department, who described that city as being "on life support."
Trula Remson, president of the Louisiana chapter of the American Institute of Architects, pleaded for deliberation and care. "I'm concerned that particularly residentially, it may be built back cheaply and quickly," she said. "You don't want to build something that's not going to stand the test of time."
At the same time, the sense of a clean slate offers an opportunity to improve on what was poorly conceived or constructed, and to aim for some contemporary architectural distinction. "I hope we see some progressive design," Ms. Remson said.
Some architects and planners urged a rethinking of New Orleans's sprawl, arguing that the city should be consolidated. Indeed, given that New Orleans may be uninhabitable for six months to a year, many residents are likely to put down roots elsewhere, planning experts say, greatly reducing what was a population of nearly 500,000.
"The most difficult thing to do might be the planning of the shrinking of the city," said Mr. Riley, the MoMA architecture curator.
If the population contracts sharply, he said, any effort to duplicate the city's former footprint will leave some areas largely deserted, robbing the metropolis of its overall texture and vitality.
Others emphasize that the city's low-income housing was due for an overhaul long before the hurricane. "I think this is an opportunity to rethink some of the urban planning," Ms. O'Byrne said. "Some of the blighted areas probably needed to be bulldozed anyway."
If there is any social dividend from the hurricane, some architects and planners said, it is the view the storm afforded of how the other half lives, the areas that are not in the guidebooks. "We have to get past the standardized image," Mr. Wigley said. "It didn't include any of the poor people - any of those neighborhoods that we only know now because they're filled with water."
Any discussion of aesthetics, experts agree, must come second to improving the city's infrastructure. New regulations may be established, for example, about building higher and about where a building's first habitable floor should be.
"The city needs to be understood as a wetlands that's been drained, with new elevations that move people out of harm's way," said Dan Williams, an urban and regional planner who helped rebuild South Florida after Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
"At what point do you decide, like San Francisco did, like Seattle in the early 1900's, to build up and over an existing structure?" Mr. Williams asked. "It's important to talk right now about strategies in terms of long-term planning."
Ms. Remson of the architectural institute said: "We're going to try to educate our architects about the technology available now for making things flood-proof. So much will have to be torn down, we're going to want to build better."
|
By ROBIN POGREBIN
Published: September 14, 2005
Even as the federal government and local developers push to resurrect New Orleans as quickly as possible in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, some architects and urban planners are contemplating the larger question of what form the city should take - whether restored, reimagined or something in between.
"I hesitate to say there is a silver lining," said Michael Sorkin, director of the City College of New York's graduate urban design program. "But it would be a wasted opportunity if one didn't think in a systematic way about the 21st-century city."
Among the questions facing architects are whether the city's footprint should be irrelevant, given that so many residents may not return; whether surviving industries should be pivotal to what is built; whether preservation should trump other priorities; and whether bold new architecture can or should rise from the muck and devastation.
Many experts also warned against moving too quickly, arguing that being away from the city could help residents clarify what was most valued and should be reclaimed.
"This is one of the few moments in time in which the entire population of a city can tell you what they miss about it," said Mark Wigley, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. "It's like when people sit around a room wearing black talking about the person who's gone. The French Quarter is probably one of the smallest elements of what people treasure."
"Any city that only tries to preserve itself is already dead," Mr. Wigley added. "The great tragedy would be to embalm New Orleans by simply rebuilding it the way it was."
Alexander Garvin, an urban planning professor at Yale University, said: "Here we have a chance to look at the street system, public open space, to ask ourselves what are the things there we want to keep of great historic and cultural significance."
"If you start with what you want to retain," he added, "you have a framework."
Most architects and planners say preservation should be a priority. "There was a very unique vernacular," said Angela O'Byrne, president of the New Orleans chapter of the American Institute of Architects. She pointed to the city's mix of Greek Revival, Italianate and Creole styles, and to its cottages and bungalows with porches suited to the climate, adding, "As much as possible, all of it needs to come back."
Steve Dumez, another New Orleans architect, agreed: "We fundamentally believe New Orleans is too important a city to be a throwaway. We intend to work hard to make certain that it does come back."
The French Quarter, with its mix of Spanish and French influences, wrought-iron balconies and ornate cornices, is on high ground and was therefore largely spared from the flooding. Damage to the historic Garden District was similarly limited.
But some architects cautioned that the historic quarters should not be the only focus. "New Orleans - along with San Francisco - is the greatest collection of 18th-, 19th- and early-20th-century residential architecture in the United States," said Reed Kroloff, the dean of the School of Architecture at Tulane University in New Orleans. "You're talking about miles and miles of historic properties.
"But saving the historic context does not mean necessarily rebuilding everything in it," he added. "I don't think you build a bad 21st-century copy of a brilliant 19th-century building."
Architects and planners worry that developers might try to recreate some fairy-tale version of the city, compromising its 300-year-old character. "My big concern is that it will become a Disneyland," said Raymond G. Post Jr., a Baton Rouge architect. "If we come up with a plastic New Orleans, then you've got a plastic New Orleans. You lose the charm and the quaintness and the crooked walls and the old shutters."
Without the rejuvenation of the city's varied industries, and with too much reliance on tourism, the city could become something of a stage set where people work but do not live, some experts said. "That's a recipe for a Venice," said Terence Riley, chief curator of the Museum of Modern Art's architecture and design department, who described that city as being "on life support."
Trula Remson, president of the Louisiana chapter of the American Institute of Architects, pleaded for deliberation and care. "I'm concerned that particularly residentially, it may be built back cheaply and quickly," she said. "You don't want to build something that's not going to stand the test of time."
At the same time, the sense of a clean slate offers an opportunity to improve on what was poorly conceived or constructed, and to aim for some contemporary architectural distinction. "I hope we see some progressive design," Ms. Remson said.
Some architects and planners urged a rethinking of New Orleans's sprawl, arguing that the city should be consolidated. Indeed, given that New Orleans may be uninhabitable for six months to a year, many residents are likely to put down roots elsewhere, planning experts say, greatly reducing what was a population of nearly 500,000.
"The most difficult thing to do might be the planning of the shrinking of the city," said Mr. Riley, the MoMA architecture curator.
If the population contracts sharply, he said, any effort to duplicate the city's former footprint will leave some areas largely deserted, robbing the metropolis of its overall texture and vitality.
Others emphasize that the city's low-income housing was due for an overhaul long before the hurricane. "I think this is an opportunity to rethink some of the urban planning," Ms. O'Byrne said. "Some of the blighted areas probably needed to be bulldozed anyway."
If there is any social dividend from the hurricane, some architects and planners said, it is the view the storm afforded of how the other half lives, the areas that are not in the guidebooks. "We have to get past the standardized image," Mr. Wigley said. "It didn't include any of the poor people - any of those neighborhoods that we only know now because they're filled with water."
Any discussion of aesthetics, experts agree, must come second to improving the city's infrastructure. New regulations may be established, for example, about building higher and about where a building's first habitable floor should be.
"The city needs to be understood as a wetlands that's been drained, with new elevations that move people out of harm's way," said Dan Williams, an urban and regional planner who helped rebuild South Florida after Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
"At what point do you decide, like San Francisco did, like Seattle in the early 1900's, to build up and over an existing structure?" Mr. Williams asked. "It's important to talk right now about strategies in terms of long-term planning."
Ms. Remson of the architectural institute said: "We're going to try to educate our architects about the technology available now for making things flood-proof. So much will have to be torn down, we're going to want to build better."
- bill 9-14-2005 6:54 pm