The MicroCities of Rockefeller and Exodus
A page from The White Book. Still formulating ideas for the next step. Tomorrow will be a long day putting the re-brief of Rockefeller into a concise strategy.
The microCities of Rockefeller and Exodus
The Rockefeller Center became a punctuator in New York. An entertainment and commercial center that attracted the attention of New Yorkers and the world over in a time of economic depression. Its success to attract the great and good and New Yorkers of all classes there from, did something more. In times of depression, where queues for food are long, contrasts are great.
Hypothesis.
A division occurred between the rich and poor. The Good and the Bad. The greater the center attracted the wealthy the more successful it became. More wealth came. And through this fashion, the center became more successful. An icon to the success of America. But for the poor, the centre was simply an iconic dream. A dream that for many was unattainable. A view from the Deck of the tallest building was described, once build, as resembling an ocean linear. An ocean linear ploughing it's way through a sea of economic turmoil. A microCity of Good in a sea of Bad.
Rem Koolhaas speculated a new microCity metropolis for London. Exodus was theorised in 1972. A new city divided into parts that tapped into the senses of a dismayed generic city of old London. Creating a strip, an attractor that divided the city into a Good Side and a Bad Side.
The strip being an attractor, its success created growth. The Good Side grew. The influence of the centre to act as a punctuator succeeded. In Exodus a wall was built by the Bad Side to stop the mass migration.
For the Rockefeller Center, there was no wall. There is no wall. Instead the success of it as a microCity, also saw the center grow. The Rockefeller Centre has arguably lost its physical identity as an iconic structure in the relentless expanse of the New York skyline. However, the growth of the Rockefeller Center has occurred. Not physically, but influentially. The growth of New York was always on the cards. But the model created by the Rockefeller Centre as an icon has certainly ensured the Good Side has prevailed. The 'Good' of the Rockefeller Center has achieved its incredible ambition to grow.
The microCities of Rockefeller and Exodus
The Rockefeller Center became a punctuator in New York. An entertainment and commercial center that attracted the attention of New Yorkers and the world over in a time of economic depression. Its success to attract the great and good and New Yorkers of all classes there from, did something more. In times of depression, where queues for food are long, contrasts are great.
Hypothesis.
A division occurred between the rich and poor. The Good and the Bad. The greater the center attracted the wealthy the more successful it became. More wealth came. And through this fashion, the center became more successful. An icon to the success of America. But for the poor, the centre was simply an iconic dream. A dream that for many was unattainable. A view from the Deck of the tallest building was described, once build, as resembling an ocean linear. An ocean linear ploughing it's way through a sea of economic turmoil. A microCity of Good in a sea of Bad.
Rem Koolhaas speculated a new microCity metropolis for London. Exodus was theorised in 1972. A new city divided into parts that tapped into the senses of a dismayed generic city of old London. Creating a strip, an attractor that divided the city into a Good Side and a Bad Side.
The strip being an attractor, its success created growth. The Good Side grew. The influence of the centre to act as a punctuator succeeded. In Exodus a wall was built by the Bad Side to stop the mass migration.
For the Rockefeller Center, there was no wall. There is no wall. Instead the success of it as a microCity, also saw the center grow. The Rockefeller Centre has arguably lost its physical identity as an iconic structure in the relentless expanse of the New York skyline. However, the growth of the Rockefeller Center has occurred. Not physically, but influentially. The growth of New York was always on the cards. But the model created by the Rockefeller Centre as an icon has certainly ensured the Good Side has prevailed. The 'Good' of the Rockefeller Center has achieved its incredible ambition to grow.
Note:
Can the Good Side Survive without the Bad Side? Arguably, when the Good side prevails, and there is nobody left to migrate from the Bad Side, by definition, there can no longer be a Good Side or Bad Side. Sides do not exist and the Good Side simply becomes The City. Until some time in the future when the process repeats itself and a new microCity is created and grows.
The Rockefeller Center is different. It has no wall. It cannot physically expand. However, can the center still be an icon in terms of it being an attractor, if there is no Good Side, Bad Side or wall encasing it? Nearly a quarter of a million people are attracted to the center every day. There is a migration. Therefore, the Good Side and Bad Side must still exist. The gap still exists?
Can the Good Side Survive without the Bad Side? Arguably, when the Good side prevails, and there is nobody left to migrate from the Bad Side, by definition, there can no longer be a Good Side or Bad Side. Sides do not exist and the Good Side simply becomes The City. Until some time in the future when the process repeats itself and a new microCity is created and grows.
The Rockefeller Center is different. It has no wall. It cannot physically expand. However, can the center still be an icon in terms of it being an attractor, if there is no Good Side, Bad Side or wall encasing it? Nearly a quarter of a million people are attracted to the center every day. There is a migration. Therefore, the Good Side and Bad Side must still exist. The gap still exists?
Leave a comment