Ambiguous City: Accepting the Indeterminacy of Planning Justin Konicek ARCH 311w
Regardless of the amount of planning put forth into the design of an urban
setting, there always exists the undeniable presence of an uncontrollable element: the people. Despite attempts to control social behavior with varying extents of planning, it is becoming more widely accepted that the city’s inhabitants are the cause and result of unpredictability. It is with informal approaches to urbanism that the citizens are able to create narratives and, therefore, their own cities. With a disregard for utopian ideals, the practice of Everyday Urbanism provides this freedom. Antiutopian planning
During the fourth meeting of the Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture
Moderne (CIAM) in 1933, architects Le Corbusier, Sigfried Gideon, and Cornelius van Eesteren proposed the theme of the “Functional City.” By applying their modern architecture methods to the planning of cities, the CIAM attendees hoped to create a rational approach with which to solve the problems of the city. With the successful execution of this means of planning, the “Functional City” would potentially solve the existing social problems inherent to cities. As a result, urban planning would “transform an unwanted present by means of an imagined future,” (Holston, 38) as defined by the council. However, some members at the time saw this utopian process defining and solving the problems as inhumane. The CIAM’s Functional City model suggests that solving extant problems prevents future problems. It success is