#lecture 17

So this is the final journal entry. It’s a 2-for-1, mainly because I had two exams between Monday and Wednesday’s class so writing an entry for Monday fell through. But I don’t feel like a total hack on grounds we were essentially discussing Rome on Wednesday.

One thought is that Greece and Rome really aren’t separate in people’s minds. Even when we studied them in High School, the unit was straight up “Greece and Rome.” JHP’s course is Ancient Greek and Roman Medicine (though it covers a fair bit more) because those are the two that capture people’s memories. 

People have always hated taxes. My modern connection is that I will have to pay taxes for the first time this year and am dreading how it will screw with my financial aid. We’ve swung heavily towards codified tax laws and tax evasion, but in the past, with the publicans, the issues was over-taxation to line people’s pockets which is profitable in the short-term but eventually turns people against the empire ruling them.

The mythritism thing got me thinking, funnily enough, about a book I read where a character does this. Not much to add but I had a whole tangent in my head thinking about why they would have that word since it takes place in Faerieland. 

Hadrian and Emperor Julian did the same thing just about 5 centuries apart, but Julian was ruthlessly mocked for it. Funny how facial hair is such a political statement.

Thinking on the concept of dual-citizenship with Rome and wherever. I wonder why some countries mandate only one citizenship, i.e. China? I guess for loyalty’s sake. 

Unlike the global standards and guidelines prescribed by the CIAM in the post-World War era, the mark of globalism today is a convergence of desires from all over in a strive for modernity and commerce, accumulating in the form of the ubiquitous skyscraper. 

The skyscraper is not only symbolic of the economic growth and cultural convergence of developing countries, such as China and India, towards that of their Western counterparts. But it seems that, without the skyscraper: no metropolis can be modern and a city would be left at economic disadvantage. 

With the spread of western city types to cities within developing nations, problems arose with the lack of housing for the low wage working population. The result was the formation of shantytowns, in cities like Lucio Costa’s Brasilia. While these shantytowns formed because of inapt zoning, shantytowns also form in wealthier countries during an economic depression. According to a 2009 New York Times article by Jesse McKinley, there was a surprising rise of “tent towns” caused by the increasing unemployment rate in America during that time. McKinley highlighted a Fresno, California tent town that sprung up onto an empty railroad lot. Fresno’s homelessness problem had grown from the recession and these shantytown inhabitants had been previously employed and adequately housed. City planners and government officials must ensure a proper housing system for lower wage workers and homeless shelters and programs to eliminate the need for shantytowns. 

When we discussed the globalization of architecture in between the world wars in lecture, I thought about the repercussions of globalization as a whole.

There is much debate on cultural imperialism- is it wrong if we try to modernize or Americanize countries by introducing them to technologies and American cultural aspects that they had not previously been exposed to?  Was it wrong for European architects like Le Corbusier, Costa and Niemeyer to impose European values of functionalism and the "four zone" city in places like Chandigarh, India and Brasilia, Brazil?  These city prototypes were quite revolutionary, but their flaws were also very apparent.  Was Europe doing them a favor by imposing these new ways of constructing the metropolis, or were they doing damage to the indigenous cultures of those nations?