Improbable Metropolis: Houston's Architectural and Urban History by Barrie Scardino Bradley (review)

Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1353/bdl.2022.0007
Kathryn E. Holliday
{"title":"Improbable Metropolis: Houston's Architectural and Urban History by Barrie Scardino Bradley (review)","authors":"Kathryn E. Holliday","doi":"10.1353/bdl.2022.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"new version of the playground with smaller, linked versions of what originally had been distinct elements. The result, Warsh notes, was harshly criticized, perceived as a loss of integrity from the original, or even a “cartoonish” version of Dattner’s design. Here, as throughout the book, Warsh gives space to criticisms of the conservancy’s work in the park, but ultimately downplays these in concluding that the results ultimately were necessary and effective. Her claim that despite the criticisms of Ancient Playground, children continue to eagerly and joyfully play there, unaware of any loss of its modernist precedent, is an important one. In a space for play, is a “rich and engaging play experience” (10) the ultimate goal of preservation, rather than the specific material and formal qualities of a site? This is a question worth asking. But her defense of these preservation efforts can feel a bit onesided at times, rather than a real engagement with their critics. The book concludes on an intriguing note: while the designers of the adventurestyle playgrounds sought to create safe, protected spaces open to imaginative discovery and creative play, Warsh writes, they also sought to relate and connect playgrounds— and play— to the rest of urban life. In part, this is the motivation behind recent efforts to remove visible barriers between playground and park (as in the 2010 renovation of Heckscher Playground). But Warsh goes farther, calling on children and caregivers to look beyond the playground, “to see that play does not need to be limited to the domain of the playground . . . where there are rocks to climb, sticks to collect, lawns to run across, and no safety standards” (144). It is an interesting conjecture: if the adventurestyle playground seeks to unlock the child’s potential for exploration and limitless play, is the ultimate goal to transcend the playground altogether and return children to the park itself, as playground?","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bdl.2022.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

new version of the playground with smaller, linked versions of what originally had been distinct elements. The result, Warsh notes, was harshly criticized, perceived as a loss of integrity from the original, or even a “cartoonish” version of Dattner’s design. Here, as throughout the book, Warsh gives space to criticisms of the conservancy’s work in the park, but ultimately downplays these in concluding that the results ultimately were necessary and effective. Her claim that despite the criticisms of Ancient Playground, children continue to eagerly and joyfully play there, unaware of any loss of its modernist precedent, is an important one. In a space for play, is a “rich and engaging play experience” (10) the ultimate goal of preservation, rather than the specific material and formal qualities of a site? This is a question worth asking. But her defense of these preservation efforts can feel a bit onesided at times, rather than a real engagement with their critics. The book concludes on an intriguing note: while the designers of the adventurestyle playgrounds sought to create safe, protected spaces open to imaginative discovery and creative play, Warsh writes, they also sought to relate and connect playgrounds— and play— to the rest of urban life. In part, this is the motivation behind recent efforts to remove visible barriers between playground and park (as in the 2010 renovation of Heckscher Playground). But Warsh goes farther, calling on children and caregivers to look beyond the playground, “to see that play does not need to be limited to the domain of the playground . . . where there are rocks to climb, sticks to collect, lawns to run across, and no safety standards” (144). It is an interesting conjecture: if the adventurestyle playground seeks to unlock the child’s potential for exploration and limitless play, is the ultimate goal to transcend the playground altogether and return children to the park itself, as playground?
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
《不可思议的大都市:休斯顿的建筑与城市历史》作者:巴里·斯卡迪诺·布拉德利
新版本的操场与原来不同的元素有着更小的联系。沃什指出,这样做的结果遭到了严厉的批评,认为它失去了原作的完整性,甚至认为它是达特纳设计的“卡通化”版本。在这里,和整本书一样,沃什对保护协会在公园的工作提出了批评,但最终轻描淡写地得出结论,这些结果最终是必要和有效的。她声称,尽管“古代游乐场”受到了批评,但孩子们仍在那里热切而快乐地玩耍,没有意识到它的现代主义先例的任何丧失,这一点很重要。在游戏空间中,保存的最终目标是“丰富而引人入胜的游戏体验”(10),而不是场地的特定材料和正式质量?这是一个值得一问的问题。但她对这些保护努力的辩护有时会让人觉得有点片面,而不是真正与批评者接触。书中总结了一个有趣的地方:沃尔什写道,冒险风格游乐场的设计师们试图创造安全、受保护的空间,让想象力的发现和创造性的游戏开放,同时他们也试图将游乐场和游戏与城市生活的其他部分联系起来。在某种程度上,这是最近努力消除游乐场和公园之间可见障碍的动机(如2010年Heckscher游乐场的翻新)。但沃什走得更远,他呼吁孩子们和看护人把目光投向操场之外,“要看到,玩耍并不需要局限于操场的领域……那里有岩石可以攀爬,有树枝可以收集,有草坪可以奔跑,没有安全标准”(144)。这是一个有趣的猜想:如果冒险风格的游乐场试图释放孩子们探索和无限玩耍的潜力,那么最终目标是完全超越游乐场,让孩子们回到公园本身,作为游乐场吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1