Ok, I don’t really have a “Friday links” convention, but thought I’d do one today.<\/p>\n
First, there’s a google video of Reyner<\/a> Banham<\/a> narrating his own Reyner Banham Loves Los Angeles<\/a> film. It’s from 1972, made as a documentary for the BBC. The sound and visual quality is in places quite atrocious, but it’s still worth 51+ minutes of your viewing time if you’re interested in architecture, urbanism, Reyner Banham, LA, cars, and even branding. He has some incredibly prescient things to say here.<\/p>\n Also: check out Strange Harvest<\/a>‘s post on London’s Ugliest Buildings<\/a>. I don’t agree with all of it — some of the buildings look<\/em> good enough, and maybe it’s one of those “you had to be there” moments if you really want to understand why this or that building is “ugly.” But I do find these observations very interesting and useful:<\/p>\n …many London buildings move from ‘ugliness’ to ‘beauty’ through changes in attitude over time. Many of the ugliest buildings are assimilated, becoming part of the cities narrative – just as its population absorbs waves of immigration over hundreds of years enriching London’s grand narrative.<\/p>\n (…)<\/p>\n Ugliness however, isn’t an aesthetic. It’s about a mean-ness, a lack of generosity. In urban planning terms a grabbing of public resource for private gain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Trying “to look nice” (as Strange Harvest<\/em> puts it) sometimes results in the worst ugliness of all. And doesn’t that sound familiar?<\/p>\n Another nugget from that entry<\/a>:<\/p>\n It’s the fact these are monsters that have no idea of their own self. What is more terrible – the idea that developers are trying to hoodwink the entirety of public life? Or the fact that this is honestly an attempt to make sense of contemporary living?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, that’s it, though, innit? Crossroads.<\/p>\n “…thunder, lightning, or rain?”<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Can I point to something I haven’t even read yet, but which comes from an online source whose Vol.2, #4 cover illustration<\/a> absolutely floors me? Mute Magazine<\/a> features an attack dog’s massive tooth gear rearing up behind …well, what? a Soviet woman, or a Nazi one?, blonde, holding a blonde child, her rear flank assuredly safeguarded by red flags of solidarity waving in fascist unison… O dog, my hero? And what does that say about us<\/em>, eh? The article in question is called On the Creativity of the Creative Industries: Some Reflections<\/a>. It intrigues me because the idea of cities depending on “creatives” has been attacked from a traditionalist p.o.v. (Stephen Malanga<\/a> in City Journal) and maybe it’s under fire from the other side, too.<\/p>\n