It’s well understood that a sense of place is an essential value for people, architecture, and cities. Everyone from designers to planners to city governments speak breathlessly of the power of places to transform cities for the better – but it’s not clear what placemaking really means.
Even more frustratingly, the term is often wielded to defend opposing styles or approaches in architecture. For some, making a place can mean creating an architecture of singular identity; for others, it means understanding and blending into existing context. The power of place is commonly extolled in advertisements for massive private development; it’s proven an equally valuable watchword for local preservation and community efforts. This week’s stories touched on a range of definitions of placemaking. Read on for this week’s review.
The Two Extremes
Robert Stern, founder of RAMSA and former Dean of Yale’s School of Architecture, is known for his portfolio of neo-classical works, works that at first glance seem disconnected from much of contemporary architectural discourse. But, as
But sometimes a little shock value can be a good thing. Dutch architecture firm
Collective Memory, Past and Future
The shortlist for Boston’s MLK memorial
But memorials and installations can be an odd paradox in placemaking. By their definition they aim to harness common identity, but are often built to maximise public visibility. Can something that belongs to everyone belong truly to anyone?
It’s partly this question that designer
Making a Place – then Remaking It
Renovations aren’t out of the ordinary – but changes to ancient ruins aren’t so common. In this tweet thread from 2014, Paul Clements took readers down the
One Not to Miss
An previously unpublished section from