The Eifel Tower became an adored feature of Paris, but after the Montparnasse Tower (right) was built, Parisians decided there must be no more high buildings within the Boulevard Péripherique. What does this tell us about context-sensitive, and context-insensitive, design?
Context theory is “the theory of how environmental design and planning of new development should relate to its context”. Unless we want the world to become less-and-less diverse, it is a subject which should concern all urban planners, designers, architects and landscape architects. Surely, we all want designs which respond sensitively to the cultural, climatic, ecological, geological, hydrological etc context in which they are built. Cars and moble phones can be everywhere the same but design for the built environment should be sensitive to its context. This requires a theory of how additions to the built environment should relate to their context.
In America, the FHWAFederal Highway Administration” fully supports the concepts and principles that make-up Flexibility in Highway Design, now commonly referred to as “Context Sensitive Design” (CSD)”. Even signage design can be context-sensitive and it is an important aspect of urban street design.
Context sensitive design relies on a fundamental understanding of composition. In the images above the eiffel tower expresses a certain elegance – which is still recognisable despite it being ‘old technology’.
Clearly, it dominates the landscape. But why is this visual dominance acceptable when the visual domination of the cityscape by Montparnasse Tower is not?
One would have to ask the Parisians! I guess they would answer that, in addition to the elegance of the Eifel Tower, THERE IS ONLY ONE. If they had allowed more Montparnasse-type towers the Paris skyline would have become a mess, like London’s skyline. See http://www.gardenvisit.com/book/landscape_planning_and_environmental_impact_design:_from_eia_to_eid/chapter_2_landscape_plans_for_public_goods/visual_landscape_plans_skylines
The tourists say:[ http://www.lonelyplanet.com/france/paris/sights/372147 ] Those familiar with Paris say: [ http://www.paris-insider.com/attractions/eiffel-tower-french-affair ]
Don’t really think Parisians should be trying to improve it? [ http://blog.2modern.com/2008/04/the-eiffel-towe.html ] If you want something new…do something new!
Agreed: leave the Eifel Tower, and Central Paris, as they are – and build something new and better elsewhere (eg beyond the Grand Arche)
One of the first questions I ask of a new development is….is it an improvement on what was there before? And if so, why?
Ah, but from whose point of view should the ‘improvement’be judged? The Municipality? The Local Community? Eco-warriors? Other Designers? All of them?
Some would need to say why the proposal is better, some why it is not. All would have valid opinions. So we would then have a list of reasons for and against with which to begin a robust discussion of the merits of the proposal.