Chris Costello
Donna Laquidara
ENG 4102—Critical Writing Workshop
12/5/00

The Impact of Poor Environmental Design
on the Human Psyche (page 3)

How Did We Get Here?
Much of America was, at one time, filled with beautiful and inspiring places. In the early 1800’s, architectural and landscape designs were created to portray, through classic art styles, a sense of dignity, prosperity and optimism. The Greek Revival style of this time, with its columns and porticos, expressed the democratic ideals of ancient Athens and a great deal of public funding was directed toward this movement. Borrowed from Medieval Europe, the Gothic Revival style answered the call for more picturesque buildings just before the Civil War. The prosperity of late 1800’s was celebrated in the playful, story book designs of the Queen Anne or “Victorian” style, rich in lively ornamentation (PaGun, “Architecture”). This evolution of style reflected a public that was concerned with artistic virtue and the message that was communicated through its private and public places.

The nineteenth century landscape architect, Frederick Law Olmstead, set the standard of civic beauty for contemporaries in his field. Charles Eliot Norton said, as he addressed artists of the World’s Colombian Exposition in 1893: “of all American artists, [he] stands first in the production of great works which answer the needs and give expression to the life of our immense and miscellaneous democracy” (qtd. in Olmstead, Kimball 37). D.H. Burnham, during the same address, said Olmstead was “an artist [who] paints with lakes and wooden slopes; with lawns and banks and forest covered hills; with mountainsides and ocean views. He should stand where I do tonight…for what his brain has wrought and his pen has taught for half a century” (qtd. in Olmstead, Kimball 37). Olmstead was a man deeply concerned with tempering man’s impact on the natural environment which is evident in the eloquent descriptions of landscape proposals found in his professional writings. For example, it was his wish to bring “a specimen of God’s handiwork” (qtd. in Olmstead, Kimball 239) to the creation of Central Park in New York City. It was designed to bring the countryside to the city, providing a retreat for the thousands of workers who could not afford a trip to the mountains. His sensitivity to the environment and its impact on people prompted him to create the country’s most beautiful places and made him one of the most highly sought after landscape designers in the country. His associations with high ranking public figures clearly shows the great civic and bureaucratic interest in quality environmental design at that time. His firm, Olmstead & Vaux, was kept busy for decades working on various urban and suburban design projects from Boston to San Francisco, and men at his level of excellence were highly valued. He beautified America with his designs for parks, college campuses and other public places and I believe his spirit and theories need to be emulated by today’s architects and urban planners alike in order to make any significant impact on the current state of our cities.

Another key figure in the evolution of urban design in America was the bold and innovative architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, who also believed in respecting the natural order of our environment. He designed buildings “to signal human presence through sympathetic alliance” with nature rather than through intrusion (DeLong, “exhibits”). Between 1900 and 1910 Wright introduced the “Prairie Style” of architecture which interwove broad, rectangular shapes harmoniously into its surrounds. At that time, he focused primarily on the design of suburban houses and was “firmly convinced that houses profoundly influence the people who live in them. The architect…molded humanity” (Janson 364). This profound statement makes one thing very clear: the architect is held responsible for his creation’s impact on man. Wright’s successful designs for the suburban dwelling was the inspiration for the popular “Ranch” house of the 1950’s and 60’s, the building block of the new American suburb and a perversion of his ideals that will be discussed later.

The circle of thought that had the most widespread impact on the contemporary American landscape was The Bauhaus movement. Conceived by architect, Walter Gropius in 1920’s Germany, it originated as a socialist political statement and reaction to “bourgeois” excess. Its architectural design theories renounced ornamentation of any kind and stressed simple cubic shapes as the design form. With drab colors and use of the most widely available construction materials, buildings of this style were designed purely for purpose and function. These ideas were accepted throughout Europe as it tried to rise from the ashes of the nineteenth century’s imperial order and were appropriate for housing the new industrial working class. However, in 1933, the Bauhaus School was closed when the Nazis came to power and Gropius moved to America to spread his gospel as a professor in Harvard University’s Department of Architecture. Known as The International Style, these enormous concrete, steel and glass boxes became the symbol of capitalism as Americans gleefully embraced his ideas. It is interesting to note that this style was preferred by developers and builders primarily because the design forms were very cheap and easy to construct. What has resulted is the construction of thousands of Bauhaus boxes all over the country with little connection to what the movement originally stood for. The Bauhaus style, as an art form, is not inherently “bad”. In the arena of architectural design, my opinion is that it has its place as a curiosity or a sideshow but should never have become the feature attraction. The thoughtless construction of today’s bland imitations is at a crisis level and a landscape of cold, oversized monoliths is now at hand.

After World War II, with the days of “The Great Depression” far behind, victorious Americans grew prosperous and optimistic again. Mass production of war materials ceased and factories began to produce appliances and automobiles in their place. With an increase in personal income, values began to change for many people as there was now an opportunity to spend more money on self. What occurred was a shift in focus from the “public to the private realm” (Kunstler 39), a place where people became apathetic about culture and community and withdrew to create their own private, self serving environments. Trends in urban design and planning keyed off of this phenomenon and architects began to build for function and convenience while ignoring traditional esthetic values. The economic boom of the 1950’s soon led to an overwhelming growth of housing developments around the nation’s major urban areas as the initiatives of the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration made housing affordable to many more people. The real estate market was hot, houses became a commodity and cheap imitations of the Frank Lloyd Wright’s “ranches” were soon built by the thousands all over the country to meet the high demand. As was mentioned earlier, the unfortunate result of these constructions was that the “harmony with nature” concept that Wright professed was completely discarded by developers whose only concern was financial gain. The contemporary ranch house captures very little of the artistic grandeur and purpose of Wright’s original design. It was, cheap, quick and easy to build and was the perfect solution to meet the needs of the new “I want it now” family. In this process, Wright’s call for architects to acknowledge responsibility for the molding of humanity was unfortunately ignored. The end result was the monotonous sprawl of low-cost, low quality housing constructions called the suburb.

The idea of the suburb was not new. By the 1870’s they were already in place around the largest cities. However, their design was approached from an entirely different angle. Concerning the planning of Riverside, Illinois, Frederick Law Olmstead writes: “We should recommend the general adoption, in the design of your roads, of gracefully-curved lines, generous spaces and the absence of sharp corners…The idea being to suggest and imply leisure, contemplativeness and happy tranquillity” (Rybczynski, 293). His vision was to combine the “ruralistic beauty of a loosely built New England village with a certain degree of the material and social advantages of a town” in order to provide people with a pleasant and rewarding living space (Rybczynski, 293). In contrast, contemporary suburbs are sterile and artificial vacuums, economically designed with mind numbing predictability. These places had an adverse affect on a generation of youth bored and disillusioned by living in such a space. In the 1960’s, many young suburbanites turned to drugs and other experimental experiences to overcome an emptiness that was partially caused by their surroundings. Many moved to “funky” urban neighborhoods like Greenwich Village and Haight Ashbury in order to escape the banality of their parents “American Dream”. These places offered an aura of excitement, vitality and community that was missing in the suburbs and brought a new sense of satisfaction. The impact, however, was that there remained two generations very much in conflict. This suburban development practice is still widespread today. Suburban dweller Steven C. Kelly asks “what’s wrong with me? My home is neat and tidy and the neighborhood is tranquil, so why am I so bored? How come my kids seem so aloof (comatose)?…How many Americans have thought this?” (Kelly, “reviews”). It is no doubt that many have thought this way about these environments but are lulled to complaisance by its conveniences.

By the 1970’s, rampant consumerism and greed intoxicated developers and motivated them to further exploit the environment through the over building of cheap commercial structures and environments as well. Their desire to gratify the public’s new thirst for products and services left little concern for public beauty or future impact. The bottom dollar was the main driving force and, once again, the inexpensive Bauhaus solution was implemented. More box buildings were thrown up everywhere to accommodate fast-food chains, autoparts stores, shopping malls and movie theaters which also had to be surrounded by acres of parking lots for all of the automobiles. The resulting backlash that came from all of this convenience was more dissonant and congested places that, today, leave us in a state of frantic confusion. Do we really need all of these things that these places provide?

Small communities of the past originated and thrived on the fact that people needed each other. A village was a close knit group of individuals and families that were united by one purpose—survival. If one family’s barn burned down, the community came together to rebuild it. Currency was scarce so each member of the community provided valuable services to the others and was an essential asset to its survival and growth (DeCock). The cobbler would barter shoes for grain, the shepherd would trade wool for bread, and so on. The harvest festivals united towns in celebrations of cooperative achievement.

Today, we don’t need anybody. Thanks to the internet, for example, we can stock our pantry, buy our clothes, do our banking and even our jobs without coming in contact with a single human being. Or, we can just go to the megaplex, buy what we want and leave. Our interaction with people can be cold, rude or indifferent, but what does it matter—we will never see them again. They are simply obstacles in the way of our quest for instant gratification. The ensuing traffic and congestion of these modern commercial centers, combined with the neurotic pace of life in general, is turning us into a culture of careless, selfish and paranoid individuals. We have lost something very valuable in the process—we have our convenience but have paid with genuine contentment. “For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you will find disorder and every evil practice.” (The Holy Bible, NIV Jas. 3:16) The words of James the Apostle hold true two thousand years later. An environment that encourages and nurtures selfishness will spiral into more disorder and, if allowed to continue, I believe will self-destruct. Only time will tell.

1  2  3  4  5  Sources

©2007 Chris Costello. All rights reserved.