In our seminar session today, we had a debate on very peculiar essay style questions, some of which was quite difficult and required a lot of thought and consideration. However, other questions appeared to be logical and very straightforward, after deep thought and analysis actually was not. In fact, they proved to be more difficult and surprisingly required much more intellect.
The Questions:
There wasn’t ever a definite answer to these questions especially the last three because they were a matter of opinion informed by reliable sources, facts and supporting statements. Therefore, the conclusions given by each debater could be correct in its own rights, but wrong in others, which was proved by the third debate group.
This group was particularly interactive, enthusiastic and had very strong arguments supporting and opposing whether “streets belong in cars”. The first speaker, Peter, was for the argument explaining how streets aren’t just for cars but for pedestrian movement. Interestingly he had said they also include buildings, which was rather insightful because when thinking about it especially in a densely populated city such as London streets are centred on architecture just as much as architecture is built around the streets.
For example when driving into London via the M4 motorway, as you enter, you see large office buildings such as GlaxoSmithKline. Only then does it become apparent that the road is a flyover road, when you see the rooftops and skyscrapers just emerging up out of the ground. It suggests that this M4 flyover had been built after the construction of these offices, but most likely after much early constructions as the M4 motorway was built in 1961 and opened in 1966 (Highways England, 2016). From this, it could be suggested that rather than architecture being built around streets, streets are built around architecture, therefore disagreeing with the statement that streets aren’t for cars.
Apart from the main argument, what was particularly striking about this debate was how accepting and almost patriarchal we are of our societal norms as well as social norms. This was highlighted when Kevin, the second debater, had said ‘Oxford Street wouldn’t be “Oxford Street”’ without the busy roads, cars and traffic as well as the hustle and bustle of the human population. So it was rather the familiarity, identification and common association with streets and people that makes a street what it is- for distant travelling, congestion but most of all for character and atmosphere.
The Questions:
- “Brutalism is a respectable era of architecture”
- Nature vs Nurture; is good design inspiration or perspiration?
- Streets are for cars, aren’t they?
- “Don’t change things if they still work.”
There wasn’t ever a definite answer to these questions especially the last three because they were a matter of opinion informed by reliable sources, facts and supporting statements. Therefore, the conclusions given by each debater could be correct in its own rights, but wrong in others, which was proved by the third debate group.
This group was particularly interactive, enthusiastic and had very strong arguments supporting and opposing whether “streets belong in cars”. The first speaker, Peter, was for the argument explaining how streets aren’t just for cars but for pedestrian movement. Interestingly he had said they also include buildings, which was rather insightful because when thinking about it especially in a densely populated city such as London streets are centred on architecture just as much as architecture is built around the streets.
For example when driving into London via the M4 motorway, as you enter, you see large office buildings such as GlaxoSmithKline. Only then does it become apparent that the road is a flyover road, when you see the rooftops and skyscrapers just emerging up out of the ground. It suggests that this M4 flyover had been built after the construction of these offices, but most likely after much early constructions as the M4 motorway was built in 1961 and opened in 1966 (Highways England, 2016). From this, it could be suggested that rather than architecture being built around streets, streets are built around architecture, therefore disagreeing with the statement that streets aren’t for cars.
Apart from the main argument, what was particularly striking about this debate was how accepting and almost patriarchal we are of our societal norms as well as social norms. This was highlighted when Kevin, the second debater, had said ‘Oxford Street wouldn’t be “Oxford Street”’ without the busy roads, cars and traffic as well as the hustle and bustle of the human population. So it was rather the familiarity, identification and common association with streets and people that makes a street what it is- for distant travelling, congestion but most of all for character and atmosphere.
M4 Flyover London- Motorway- Highway- Lucozade Building- GSK 04-05-2013, 2013 [video]. daytripdude. [YouTube] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U68H_4oZoLc [Accessed 14 March 2015]