This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: 2013 NAAB Accreditation Review Conference ARC Preparation and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------
I can't ignore an avid reader. It's good to know I have one!
I use the term "city design" to honor a graduate degree professor who promoted this program. His name was Rudolf Frankel and a current professor has written a book about his achievements before, during, and after WWII. His program was my first exposure to the word "conurbation". I understand the distinction you're making with the words "macro scale", since cities have become political lines on a map of sprawl, but we have a hard time explaining ourselves to the public as it is. We need to connect and the words "macro scale" are even less connective than "conurbation", in my opinion.
The word "urban design" has always meant work on city segments or districts to me. In my mind, it's smaller in scale than "city design" and doesn't come close to the settlements whose sprawl threatens our source of life. This shelter must be organized into symbiotic areas for survival. Intensity options and functions must protect our quality of life within these limits. The limits themselves must preserve our source of life. Perhaps the term should be "symbiotic design". The term defines an architectural goal in the public interest, but is also one they must digest.
If you want to attach the word "saturation" to the word "intensity" it makes me fear that I have not gotten my point across. I avoided the term "intensity" originally because it does not presently convey the spectrum of options available. It has a very negative connotation in our culture; while in architecture the intensity of shelter on a two square mile farm is at one end of the spectrum and high-rise buildings are at the other. In this context, combining "saturation" with "intensity" would simply elevate the public fear factor, in my opinion. This has caused me to reconsider my off-hand remark about re-titling my book "Intensity". I don't know that I will totally happy with any title, but I've been most happy with the software title, "Development Capacity Evaluation, v.2". I thought of it long after the book title was set, or would have given both the same name.
I take the use of a word seriously since it conveys a message, and appreciate your comments in this regard. I've had fun considering them since connecting with the public is one of our greatest challenges.
Expecting the architectural practice model to solve all of our problems is like expecting the family doctor to come up with the Salk vaccine -- and share it with his competitors. Words are only a solution, however, when they lead to action.
I have written "Core Issues: Part 2" and posted it on my blog at
www.wmhosack@blogspot.com">
www.wmhosack@blogspot.com along with an edited version of "Core Issues: Part 1". I haven't submitted Part 2 here to avoid excessive posting.
-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------