The problem with this reality of D.C. is illustrated by several references in the article, most-pointedly the city clinging to the grandiose visions of the 20^th Century as opposed to leading America in a new century of urbanism; and the large, often hot and empty spaces that cannot be utilized easily by the public.

Proponents of changing the mall cite a desire of many Washingtonians for a streetcar system, and for returning the mall to a state of civic usefulness and enjoyment, a “Central Park of Washington.”

The issue of monumentalism presented in the article brings up several interesting facets of human behavior as it relates to architecture and the built environment. The first is the determination to preserve the mall as it is, a “grand and imperial city that overawes tourists.” I cannot explain this, but perhaps a century of collective memory has generated a vast cultural value for the mall. We all know what the capitol looks like and stands for, and perhaps there is the implication that changing the physical structure of the city will change the non-physical status and values of the country and people it represents.

What is also interesting is the idea of postcard D.C. being placed above human D.C. This notion reinforces current trends of our society’s obsession with the image and the belief that the way things look is more important than the way they actually are. As technological development has accelerated, this trend has become more prevalent. The camera is often viewed as an infallible observer, the only device capable of capturing the truth. Further, these images can be transported far greater distances and to greater numbers of people than raw experiences can. Even if one has never been to D.C. or the mall, they are likely to have seen dozens if not hundreds of images of the capitol.

This value placed on digital tools and images over experience and real space extends further into architecture and urbanism. Many new developments are planned from a birds-eye view using aerial images, a position that could not be further removed from the people who walk the streets. Architectural projects are often sold on the merits of the rendered images, 2D graphics of the way something may look, but not how it will actually be for users to occupy.

I suppose what is most interesting about monumentalism is the idea that the value of a city can be contained in, and defined by, images. This absurb, but not impossible, proposition reminds me of Colonel Korn in Catch-22 who is perpetually obsessed with aerial photographs of tight bomb patterns. The photographs, in fact, are far more important that if the bombs even hit the target.

Perhaps preserving the monumentalism of D.C. helps to preserve the grandiose ideals and optimism of the 20^th Century, an attempt to counterbalance the turmoil and schizophrenia of the modern world by seeing a different, and familiar, built reality. What do you think?

Related articles:

• Your Future Morning View Will Make You Vomit [Augmented Reality] (gizmodo.com)
• The New Tower of London (blogs.nybooks.com)
• Silverdale Port Says No to 9/11 Monument (kitsapsun.com)

Image via Wikipedia

But the Danes, and particularly Arkitema, have taken a different approach. With a long record of environmentally sound projects, beginning far before “green” and “sustainable” were buzzwords, Arkitema has moved one step further and has begun to employ anthropologists. Their job is to observe and interview clients and employees to understand their habits and interactions to help determine what programming and spatial arrangement solutions may work best for the client and project in question.

“We aim to reinvent the architect with both aesthetic and social awareness”

- – Holger Dahl

It seems strange that more do not adopt this approach, and that schools so rarely ask students to learn about and question human behavior.  If buildings are not built for the people who use them, then what for? It seems that understanding and studying human behavior is such a fundamental part of being a human that architecture, claiming its position as one of the elevated arts, should be more attuned to those it shelters.

Related articles:

• Comment of the Day: “Buildings that had been drawn by… (curbed.com)
• Smart structures (kottke.org)
• Garden Walls Design Installation Web (slideshare.net)
• NL architects: SOZAWE (designboom.com)

“Then all of these [men] vanish into the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s own mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that the fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality.”

Image via Wikipedia

From the bright flash of youth there are, according to Rand, two paths to take. Reach for fulfillment or slowly give up. The latter of these paths seems to be the one that is far more traveled, but why? What benefits do these men stand to gain by succumbing to the seemingly poor advice of their elders?

From an anthropological point of view, those that give up may be able to increase their reproductive success by fitting in with their social group. Research has shown that conforming to social norms and group identity can increase individual success (see: Conforming to Social Norms). At is simplest, conformity supports group unity and cooperation, giving members a better chance to access resources and find mates. While it seems that they are “giving up” the endless possibilities of their own future, they may in fact be ensuring that they have a future with their social group and access to a mate. There is an inverse relationship between success and what is known as costly signals. Costly signals are behaviors or rituals that have a negative cost to the person in some way. The more costly the signals are the greater the rewards in terms of individual success and the greater degree of stability the group will enjoy. According to these phenomena of human behavior, many people may see that there is much to be gained by giving up one’s mind, values and self-esteem. The costly signals will allow them to reach the American dream, but none of their own.

Conversely, what of those who hold on? What, and how, do they stand to gain in terms of success? Electing to reject the norms of the group and strike out on one’s own could be seen as risky behavior. However, research has shown that risky behavior has its own rewards for individual success. We are a male-bonded society and group status is intricately linked with success. Risky behavior can elevate a person’s group status and give them an edge in intra- and intersexual competition.

Perhaps in this example there is a twinkling of the interaction between genes and memes. The obvious genetic desire for reproductive success comes into contact with the cultural and social route used to attain those desires.

Related articles:

• Primer On Decision Making How Decisions Happen By James G March 5 Star Review (slideshare.net)
• 3 Psychology Secrets of Social Product Launches (conxentric.com)