However, you may not use the case study you documented
Write a description and critical account of these projects.
Compare and contrast them in terms of design and cultural, social context.
Situate them relative to forms of urbanism(s). Consider the forms we have discussed in class, as well as
others that you think are relevant
Argue your case in a structed way introduction, observations references, conclusion
All papers should be:
Approx 2,000 words
11 pt, Times New Roman, at 1.5 spacing.
Approx 4 6 images are encouraged with short captions
Endnote sources using conventional Chicago Manual of Style format.
Select a project from the list below:
1. Justus van Effen Complex, Rotterdam, NL Michiel Brinkman 1922
2. Barbican Estate, London, UK Chamberlin, Powell and Bon 1976
3. Borneo-Sporenburg, Amsterdam, NL West 8 1996
4. Lafayette Park, Detroit, USA Ludwig Hilberseimer & Mies van der Rohe 1959
5. Congresso Nacional, Brasilia, BR Oscar Neimeyer 1960
6. Le Monolithe, Lyon, FR MVRDV, et al 2010
7. Monte Carasso, Switzerland Luigi Snozzi 1970
8. Seaside, Seaside, USA DUany Plater Zyberk 1981
9. CiBoGa, Groningen, NL 5333 Architecture 1996
10. Carriere Centrale, Casablanca GAMMA 1952
11. New Gourna Village, Luxor, Egypt Hassan Fathy 1952
12. Hillside Terrace, Tokyo, JP Fumihiko Maki 1970s
13. Byker Wall, Newcastle, UK Ralph Erskine 1970s
14. Quinta da Malagueira, Evora, PT Alvaro Siza 1977
15. Bouça, Porto, PT Alvaro Siza 1975
16. Toulouse-Le Mirail, Toulouse, FR - Candilis Josic Woods 1970s
17. The Lijnbaan, Rotterdam, NL Van den Broek & Bakema 1953
18. Peabody Terrace, Cambridge, USA Sert, Jackson & Gourley 1964
19. El Ruedo, Madrid, SP Francisco Saenz de Oiza 1990
20. Block 10 IBA, Berlin, GR Aldo Rossi 1988
21. Shinonome Canal Court, Tokyo, JP Riken Yamamoto 2003
22. Linked Hybrid, Beijing, CN Steven Holl 2009
23. Superquadra, Brasilia, BR Lucia Costa, et al. 1960s
24. One Santa Fe, Los Angeles, US Michael Maltzan 2015
25. TD Centre, Toronto, CA Mies van der Rohe 1967
26. Quartiere Matteotti, Terni, IT Giancarlo de Carlo 1970
27. Residence du Pont du Jour Fernand Pouillon, Boulogne-Billancourt 1961
28. Euralille, Lille, FR OMA 1994
29. Watergate Complex, Washington DC Luigi Moretti - 1962
30. Potsdamer Platz, Berlin - Renz Piano - 2000
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.ABSTRACT
Mortality rates in the United States fell with a rapidity from the late 19th to early 20th Century since unwitnessed in American history. Along with this decline was an epidemiological transition in urban areas. Coupled with increasing migration from country to city, as well as mass industrialization, America’s cityscapes were experiencing drastic overcrowding. Amidst all the upheaval, it is unsurprising that little empirical evidence is available to pinpoint the exact cause of why America’s mortality increased at around 1% a year from 1900 to 1920; continuing on an upward trend until 1940. This paper thus investigates specifically the causal influence of household improvements to drainage systems on mortality in major cities during the early 20th Century. In an era of rapid growth and technological advancement, the upper classes did much to protect themselves from invading diseases brought in by new migrant populations. The climate bread mistrust and many pundits peddled fear of infection to sell unusual, sometimes contradictory solutions. Thus changing attitudes to public health as well as what it meant to be healthy are scrutinized. We find clean water was responsible for nearly half of the total mortality reduction in major cities, three-quarters of the infant mortality reduction, and nearly two-thirds of the child mortality reduction. To what degree this can be attributed to home DIY systems is detailed.
Mortality rates fell in America by 40% from 1900 to 1940; averaging a decline of about 1% a year. At birth, life expectancy leapt from 47 to 63Invalid source specified.. The so called ‘urban penalty’, named thus for the increased amount of death caused by disease spread in densely packed urban populations, began to disappear by the late 19th century. Seen as part of an ‘epidemiological transition’ (ibid), this decline has since been attributed to reductions in infectious disease. For America now, an insignificant amount of deaths are attributed to such diseases. However, given this era in American history saw mass improvements in large-scale public health innovations – including clean water technologies, sanitation, refuse management, milk pasteurization and meat inspection Invalid source specified. – quantitative records are vague as to which efforts in particular led to this mass improvement in life expectancy.
Accompanying industrialization and immigration was a large scale population shift in the 19th century that led to overcrowding and poorly serviced housing conditions, especially for the working classes. Water supplies and waste-disposal systems were inadequate or nonexistent to service such a large influx of people. These conditions were a breeding ground for water-born disease such as cholera, dysentery, TB, typhoid fever, influenza, yellow fever, and malariaInvalid source specified.. Alarmed by the sudden and repetitive onset of disease, local, state, and federal efforts were mobilized into improving sanitation and hygiene under a collective agenda of "public health" action. Thus by 1900, 40 of the then 45 states had established health departmentsInvalid source specified.. These departments were designed to push an agenda of educating and spurring action at an individual level to reinforce the efforts of large scale sanitation reform. In the post-industrial household, these efforts were focused on three major areas; heating, plumbing and lighting. None were seen as more pertinent to the spread of infectious water-born disease as plumbing....