Why Ian McHarg Makes Me Angry

I can recall many images in my life that I have considered beautiful. I have watched the colors of sunrise reflect off of the Hudson River. I have traveled to the Grand Canyon and felt small above the incomprehensibly large expanse. The most striking image I ever saw, however, I observed in New York City. It was one o’clock in the morning, and I was sitting next to a high school friend on a bench in Carl Schurz Park on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The park, which is relatively small in size, contains an esplanade from which one can look down upon the East River, and beyond to Roosevelt Island and further to Astoria, Queens. Interspersed with the areas across the river are the majestic Queensboro and Triborough (now the Robert F. Kennedy) Bridges, the latter rather ironically the work of the man responsible for the highways that separate much of Manhattan from its aquatic surroundings, Robert Moses.  Sitting on this bench with my friend, with the soft light of night lamps shining down on us and the lights of Queens and the Triborough Bridge in front of us, I could not help but feel a profound sense of wonder and pride in being from the New York Metropolitan Area.

So informed by first hand experience of the potential of the urban landscape to intermingle with nature in a manner that transcends the means of its conception, I felt a mix of pity and rage directed towards noted landscape architect Ian McHarg after reading a sampling of his reflections on the “modern city”. A quote from his 1963 essay Man and Environment affords my resentment a tangible source, suggesting that the modern city, “inhibits man as an organism, man as a social being, man as a spiritual being, and that it does not even offer adequate minimum conditions for physiological man… indeed the modern city offers the least humane physical environment known to history.” Considering that the modern city, in its many manifestations, each with their own histories, forms, and relationships with the “natural” environment he champions, is extraordinarily difficult to generalize, McHarg’s dismissal of the modern city as “the least humane physical environment known to history” is much easier to dismiss as ignorant. It is clear the negative impacts of suburban living on the human psyche had not been evident to him at the time.

However, McHarg’s background in landscape architecture, and understanding of historic trends in land use evident in his writing do not beget an ignorance of the potential of the urban form. Rather, it is his distaste for the concept that man can triumph over nature. In this sense, McHarg has a point. Urbanism, as it has taken form since the Industrial Revolution, has frequently emphasized economic and physical growth over consideration of the natural environment, and its place in the city. The aforementioned Robert Moses and his use of land abutting the East River in Manhattan serves as a prime example. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt East River Drive along the eastern coast of Manhattan Island has closed New Yorkers off from the beauty of one of its major waterways since the mid 1930’s (http://www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/historical-signs/listings?id=12179).

The problem with McHarg’s perception of the modern city is his unwillingness to accept that the modern city has produced areas of great beauty, anthropogenic or otherwise. Walking around New York City, and other cities around the country, I have often found myself more inspired by the alternating charms and grand statements of successful urban areas, which necessarily interact with nature at some scale, than by natural wonders that McHarg assumes are more worthwhile. Even blights in the urban form excite me, because they provide further potential for innovation, innovations that may, in time, have solutions create a better harmony between the man made and the natural. McHarg is not incorrect to suggest that the city is a form that could do more to interact synergistically with the environment. It is his pessimism and disgust for the urban form that cause me to pity him for not finding beauty in what man has been able to accomplish through the modern city.

Kunstler and Civic Art

“Does the modern profession called urban planning have anything to do with making good places anymore? Planners no longer employ the vocabulary of civic art, nor do they find the opportunity to practice it- the term civic art itself has nearly vanished in common usage.”

            -J.H. Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere, page 113

Throughout out his book The Geography of Nowhere, James Howard Kunstler does a magnificent job of breaking down and reasoning through American’s addiction to sprawling communities. The history of architectural styles, the love-hate relationship Americans maintain with nature, and debilitating zoning codes are among the many factors Kunstler feels have contributed to the current state of American urbanism. Of the many factors in the state of American urbanism that Kunstler addresses, what he perceives as a distinctly American aversion to civic art is among the most frequently lamented.

Civic art is definable at multiple scales. Viewed from a holistic perspective, the term civic art defines the summation of urban design, architecture, and public monuments, to produce places recognizable as an art form (http://www.civicart.org/aboutus.html). Alternatively, a smaller scale approach to civic art defines it simply as art observable in public space; a use of urban form as flexible canvas from which an artist may gain recognition from a piece as large as a sculpture or as small as a subway station mural. The multiple perspectives from which civic art may be viewed agree on a common goal for the implementation of civic art, the beautification of the urban landscape.

In The Geography of Nowhere, the beautification of the urban landscape is considered paramount to creating urban spaces that Americans can care about and actively care for. Blaming the tendency for American urban land use to be dictated by the treatment of land as a resource to profit from Kunstler laments, “American cities flourished almost solely as centers for business, and they showed it. Americans omitted to build the ceremonial spaces and public structures that these other functions (other than business and profit maximization) might have called for.” (Kunstler, 33) The public structures Kunstler feels are missing from the American urban landscape and the civic art that they attract, are unquestionably influential in developing a sense of place for a city; however, it must be noted that the development of public structures and ceremonial spaces on a grand scale alone is not a panacea for the problems American cities are faced with today.

Architectural critic and professor of urbanism Witold Rybczynski, who is referenced several times in Kunstler’s text, addresses the relationship between grand architectures and vibrant communities in his book Makeshift Metropolis. Using the example of the Frank Gehry designed Bilbao extension of the Guggenheim Museum, Rybczynski attempts to answer the following question: Can an “architectural icon” act as a catalyst for urban renewal (separate from the planning trend of the mid-20^th century) (Rybczynski, 134)? The answers, Rybczynski found, were mixed. The opening of the Bilbao Guggenheim, a strikingly original structure of oddly shaped metal forms coincided with a massive upturn in the fortunes of the city of Bilbao, Spain. Long dwarfed by the larger Spanish cities of Barcelona and Madrid, the Guggenheim has aided considerably in attracting 4 million visitors since its opening, improving Bilbao’s economy, widening its tax base, and transforming it into a regional destination (Rybczynski, 134). However, the erection of the Bilbao Guggenheim did not occur in a vacuum. As Rybczynski notes, the city benefited greatly from infrastructural improvements, chiefly to the city’s subway system, and the construction of a new airport.  

The perceived success of the Bilbao Guggenheim in revitalizing a city inspired several similar efforts around the world. The majority of these efforts were failures. A pertinent example is found in the Experience Music Project (now the ESP museum). Commissioned by Microsoft executive Paul Allen, designed by Frank Gehry (again), and aiming to take advantage of Seattle’s deep association with rock and roll (Jimmy Hendrix and Nirvana are two of the most recognizable bands from the area), the rock and roll museum seemed guaranteed for success similar to that of the Bilbao Guggenheim. Alas, the project failed miserably. The building’s form was unpopular with locals and the museum struggled to maintain patronage. The situation became so dire that the museum had to lease half of the facility to a science fiction museum. Similar failures are evident in Steven Holl’s Bellevue Arts Museum and Rafael Vinoly’s Kimmel Center, where Vinoly was sued for making an insufficiently remarkable building (Rybczynski, 139).

Figure 1: Abandoned Bronx Borough Courthouse in New York City (http://www.policeny.com/bui/Abandoned%20Bronx%20Borough%20Court%202%20JJJVM.jpg)

The link between the failures of grand architecture to revive decaying neighborhoods is the absence of accompanying infrastructural investment. In each case, a big name architect was chosen to create a building of significance, a public space citizens and visitors alike could identify with, care for, and care about. Despite differences in Architectural taste, the buildings discussed represent a modern manifestation of the grand buildings Kunstler suggests are missing from the civic art starved metropolises of America. Yet, all but the Bilbao Guggenheim, where infrastructural improvement was emphasized, failed to create public places residents cared about. 

There is an argument that architectural styles may have contributed to the failure of the public places described above. Gehry’s structures aside, the Kimmel Center and Bellevue Arts Center both exhibit the post-modern architectural forms that Kunstler pans for their ignorance of street life and uninviting appearance. However, the failure of the visually impressive Experience Music Project and the sustained vacancy of more classically inspired buildings such as the old Bronx Borough Courthouse in New York City suggest grand architecture and civic art go only so far in the creation of neighborhoods and cities that people care for and about. Rather, if the example of Bilbao is to be heeded, consideration of public infrastructure, particularly related to transportation, is far more important to the formation of creation of neighborhoods that people care for and about. Kunstler reflects in The Geography of Nowhere that “Human beings love focal points.” (Kunstler, 127) In creating neighborhoods and cities that people care about, focal points are a logical necessity. They define a place for visitors and act as a source of pride for residents. However, they do not become places worth caring about by themselves. An analysis of any great place, in any city in the world will likely find that these focal points are supported by public infrastructure that makes access to these spaces not only viable, but also convenient to frequent.

Framing a Climate Policy Statement

As of the year 2012, the discourse of public policy documents related to the reversal of climate change has focused on legitimizing scientific findings that support action to reduce climate change, but provide minimal guidance describing how the process of reversing climate change should be conducted. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2009 Report Summer for Policy Makers does not provide a single recommendation, nor a discernable deliverable for policy makers around the globe to implement. Written by a similar cast of climate change scientists, the United States’ Presidential Climate Action Project Report (PCAP) of 2008, provides more detail for United States policy makers by proposing emission reductions in a variety of sectors, but neglects to provide insight on how exactly these standards might be met.

The generality and statistical focus of the aforementioned documents is understandable. The introduction of climate change and sustainability efforts in to the American political discourse owes itself to the tireless promotion of statistical information. Without aggressive promotion of the dangers mankind faces from the threat of climate change, dangers backed up by extensive scientific evidence, it is likely that less action to combat climate change would have occurred.

However, these documents were made, and they did provide evidence in support of climate change and the dangers it has and will continue to cause the global population. The push for reducing climate change survived the bevy of negative articles deriding many of the climate scientists that produced the IPCC report after the details of emails suggestive of manipulated figures on climate change became public. Though natural gas has proven a significant deterrent of progress on the reversal of climate change, climate change remains a major political issue.

The simple fact is that the process of informing politicians and the general populace of the fact that the world is getting warmer and that the world getting warmer is bad has reached a saturation point. Those that believe climate change is occurring have read similar statistics change little over the years, with more exact measurements allowed by investment in the advancement of technologies that indicate climate change exciting scientists more than the policy makers and general population that have more of a say in reversing what they are observing. Those that continue to deny the impacts of climate change are unlikely to reverse their opinions without observing its impacts first hand. Beating either side of the climate change argument over the head with new numbers every couple of years provides fodder for politians running for office and nothing else.

In order to evolve the political discourse on climate change past the release of statistics and into substantial change, the next generation of climate change policy documents will need to focus on three things:

1. Developing a standardized the risk-benefit analysis of the implementation of potentially climate change halting technologies.
2. Providing incentives and financial power to the agencies and corporations able to develop technologies deemed to have more benefit than risk.
3. Educate policy makers and the American populace about the technologies that can be implemented successfully.

In fulfilling these three tasks, future climate change policy documents will detail specific policy guidelines that could be implemented by policy makers with less than expert knowledge of the subject matter, provide logical reasoning for the implementation of the policies in question, and promote the benefits of such policy changes to the American populace, whose dollars will need to fund and support technologies and policies related to those outlined in future policy documents. The need for continued research on the extent of climate change persists. Monitoring of glacial ice caps provides invaluable information on the rate at which climate change is occurring, and the rate at which preparations for its effects need to be considered. Correlation analysis and hypothesis testing of the connection between meteorological phenomena and climate change will aid in the targeting of funds to mitigate climate change related natural disasters. But the statistics that result from this research do not provide policy makers with enough information to develop solutions to the climate change problem.

The Ultimate Irrelevancy of Climategate

           

            Some observers have treated the public release of privileged messages between prominent promoters of climate change as a significant blow to the public’s perception of climate change. Has it? Arguable. Should it? No.

            Those who feel that “climategate”, as the message release has been termed, legitimizes arguments for eliminating the climate dilemma from the political discourse and the discontinuation of governmental spending on measures to curtail climate change ignore an important question: What improvement to America’s various infrastructural systems, public health, global relations, and economy is mutually exclusive from spending on sustainable infrastructure?

            Energy policy, and its impacts on the environment and climate change, has and continues to be at the forefront of political debate precisely because it is, in some way, related to both all political considerations and the functionality of the government itself. The implementation of any physical infrastructure requires the input of energy and has an effect on the various feedback cycles that interact to form the environment we live in. The land uses this infrastructure supports, and its effects on the environment have a significant impact on the health of the American people. Much of the global resentment aimed towards the United States relates to attempts to exploit foreign oil reserves.  Americans are employed by and utilize services from corporations and government entities that all depend on some form of energy to perform tasks. Even the cultivation of energy sources requires energy. The examples above illustrate the fact that the nation’s energy policy, and its treatment of the emissions that are attributed to climate change, are intrinsically linked to virtually all problems the nation is facing currently and likely to face in the future. As such, the manner in which we handle the nation’s needs outside of the energy sector will both define and be defined by energy policy.

            Critics of climate change that look to climategate as a stimulus for further governmental spending in other sectors, or as a reason to resist changes in the American way of life fail to understand the synergistic relationship between America’s problems and continue to ignore the exponentially fragile state dependence on limited energy sources puts the country in as a whole. In order to compete with countries like Brazil, where swift transition to alternative fuels, the infrastructure needed to promote their use, and innovations in transportation systems have prepared the country for a future in which oil and natural gas reserves will dry up, the United States will need to take actions that will impact climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/may/21/brazil.theobserver1). Much has been made of the recession the United States finds itself in today. Infrastructural improvements have been shelved. Natural gas extraction processes are toxifying water supplies in cities like Pittsburgh (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?pagewanted=all). For the first time in more than a century, the United States has peers in global importance, particularly China, that are challenging its status as the prime world power. Brazil has understood the connection between managing climate change boosting their growing economy by providing jobs in transportation and the alternative energy sector, and taking measures to promote the health of its populace. For the United States to follow a similar path, and maintain its place as a global power, more coordination amongst government agencies will be needed to organize and fund projects that will halt climate change, promote the health of its populace, and support the economy regardless of potential inaccuracies in climate change statistics.