A regular
reader and frequent correspondent recently sent me a link to an on-line video about urbanism. In the video, MIT Professor Kent Larson displays
some of the cool gadgetry being developed under his oversight in the campus
Media Lab, most of it focused on improving urban life. In the words of Professor Larson, “We look at
how to make creative, vibrant places for people and then the technology
follows.”
Among the innovations
being promoted by the Larson and his lab are room configurations that would adjust
easily between different uses, small footprint cars that would reduce parking needs,
and autonomous electrical bikes that would perform tasks as disparate as
queuing up where users are likely to need them and delivering packages automatically,
which is a far better solution than the overhyped Amazon drones.
After an
introductory sponsorship commercial for JP Morgan Chase, the video runs about
ten minutes. The ten minutes are worth
your time.
But while I
recommend the video, I’m concerned that some may understand its message to be that
cool technology is a necessary pre-condition to urbanism. That’s not the case. The technological innovation being done by
Professor Larson will hopefully make urbanism more comfortable and attractive,
but urbanism has justifications that would be valid regardless of technology.
To take one
example, the reconfiguring room, with a bed, work table, and dining room table
that all slide out from a wall, is a great solution to urban living,
particularly for micro-apartments. But the
reconfiguration is mostly a matter of good design, carpentry, and
hardware. Having the room reconfigure
with a remote control and motors is a gee-whiz touch that’s nice, but not
essential. I’d be nearly as content with
a bed that slid out from the wall using a hand crank.
To reiterate
the primary motivations behind this blog, we need a more urbanist future
because (1) addressing climate change demands it, (2) municipal finances need
it, and (3) there are people who enjoy the urban lifestyle and who are being
denied that opportunity by ill-conceived public policies. If technology can make urban life more
comfortable and productive, that’s great, but not essential.
Ultimately,
Professor Larsons’ comment about technology following urbanism is dead right.
But even with
my curmudgeonly concerns about misinterpretation, the video is well worth your
attention.
In my next
post, I’ll explore the relationship between an urbanist and his car.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment