Richard Rogers writes about suburbs and its role to enhancing the urban. He starts with the contrast condition in Manchester’s urban as the cause of the new government’s turning point. While in the revitalized city centres you will see sustainable urban, in the sub urban there’s only shoddy housing and wasted land. Rogers argues it was government’s mistake to focus on quantity rather than quality.

What was he worried about is if government less targeting on derelict brownfield and greenfield land, a vital element to improving the quality of the city and keep the sub urban in good shape. Why he is very concern not only to the center of the city, but also the marginal? Because Rogers believes that good urban design is about paying attention to the spaces between buildings as well as the buildings themselves.

Let’s imagine how well if an architect designed not only about the aesthetic aspect; because enjoyable streets, parks, squares, gardens, neighbourhoods, terraces are came from well design, plan, and continous maintenance. Beauty doesn’t mean quality, as what architecture called architectural contain social, moral and political dimensions. And it already explained why quality matter, at least what I catched it from Rogers ~who also the chairman of the government’s Urban Task Force~.

The resolution

So our honest architect offers solution to make the sub urban work. It is how to balancing the population’s quantity. An architectural touch both to the city and the sub urban will cure the problem.

1. Dedicated public transport which linked to the city. It will ease the interaction between city and its sub urban.
2. Serious make use of greenfield and brownfield land. It isn’t really a debate about saving green space from development, but a debate about the future of our cities, about saving them from physical dereliction, social fragmentation and economic decline.
3. Urban planning to local shops and services so we just need to walking or cycling to reach it. Complicate these simple matters will only stimulate people to move to city which already provide it better.

Ironically, Architects and planners have often belittle sub urban potent. And count the government.

Does architect need urban design?

What a silly question, but we should answer it: in fact, almost all of them are not. Yes, I agree if a good building should concern its surrounding, but it is different with term ‘urban design’. Size does matter, while surrounding mean whatever near the building, urban design mean broader range: what is the city looks like. Design a building itself has surely made an architect’s head in pain, especially if the whole city is added.

So that’s why we need urban planner, a job to alleviating building planner. Bigger ambitious project must consider hiring them, or it’s just turn to failure.

Urban sprawl, the revenge of sub urban

Yes, it’s the risk to left behind the suburbs. No one planned it, so it will grow expansively and rapidly as its wish, ‘horizontal’ rather than ‘vertical’, as the building size is large and there still a lot of land area. Paris, Los Angeles, California are the examples. So if you want to buy some food or cloth, you need to drive your car a mile away to ‘nearest’ store or restaurant.

Should we avoid it? Or it is a stigma to sub urban, which people don’t matter about it, but even to like it?

[Show as slideshow]