Layanan journal yang disediakan oleh Perpustakaan Universitas Gunadarma
| Judul Artikel | : | THE NEW URBAN DESIGN - A SOCIAL THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE |
|---|---|---|
| Judul Terbitan | : | JURNAL LINGKUNGAN BINAAN RUANG SPACE |
| ISSN | : | 2355-5718 |
| Bahasa | : | IND |
| Tempat Terbit | : | DENPASAR |
| Tahun | : | 0000 |
| Volume | : | Vol. 1 Issue 1 0000 |
| Penerbit | : | UNIVERSITAS UDAYANA |
| Frekuensi Penerbitan | : | 1 x 1 tahun |
| Penulis | : | Alexander R. Cuthbert |
| Abstraksi | : | Over the last ten years and 1000 pages of text, I outlined a unified field theory which I refer to as The New Urban Design. Possessing the same structure, the three books can be read in series or in parallel, and may best be described as a matrix of possibilities (Cuthbert 2003, 2006, 2011). In this paper I revisit some of the ideas in these texts that need to be more fully developed. Important among them are the undeniable effects of this new field for architecture and urban planning, and an expanded brief on the use of Marxian modes of production to support social analysis in these disciplines. From this perspective we can at least develop some truth as to the historical progress of urban form. In redefining urban design as an independent field, architecture and urban planning subsequently become different regions of thought from what they had previously entertained, namely during the period when they colonised urban design and shared the spoils between them. Extending this argument even further, it is clear that neither discipline, nor the resulting mainstream urban design (i.e. one produced by architects and planners) - have had resort to a social theory of their own existence. All so called theories of architecture and urban planning, have failed with good reason. Architecture has relied almost exclusively on aesthetics and technology for its self awareness. Despite the fact that social theory began to penetrate planning theory in the 1970arsitektur dan urban planning mendominasi urban design. Melanjutkan argumentasi ini, urban design secara umum (yang didefinisikan oleh para arsitek maupun urban planner) belum memiliki teori-teori sosial yang dibangun berdasarkan keberadaannya. Semua yang disebut dengan teori tentang arsitektur ataupun urban planning telah gagal untuk alasan-alasan tertentu. Arsitektur secara ekslusif bersandar pada estetika dan teknologi untuk kebangkitannya. Meskipun dalam kenyataannya teori-teori sosial telah pada awalnya mempenetrasi teori tentang planning di tahun 1970, ini tidak merubah ide bahwa planning belum memiliki kemampuan untuk membangun teorinya sendiri secara internal. Ini dikarenakan oleh perencanaan sebagai sebuah epiphenomenon dari negara. 1ni bukan faktor independan dalam pertumbuhan sebuah kota, dan sehingga bisa rnemiliki kesadaran dari dirinya sendiri yang melebihi ideologi dalam konteks pemikiran Marxisme. Sebagai kesimpulan paper ini menyarankan bahwa. jika perspektif dari new urban design sangat persuasif, ini memiliki implikasi terhadap pendidikan, praktek dan proses pembangunan pada beragam skala dan operasionalnya. , this did not change the idea that planning can have no internally generated theory other than the trivial, since it is an epiphenomenon of the state. it is not an independent factor in urbanisation, and therefore can have no consciousness of its own that is any more than ideological in the Marxist use of the term. In conclusion, the paper suggests that if the weltanshuung of the New Urban Design is persuasive, this has wide ranging implications for education, practice and the development process at all scales of operation. |
| Kata Kunci | : | perancangan kota; teori sosial; logika; ideologi |
| Lokasi | : | P1 |
| Terakreditasi | : | belum |