Did you like how we did? Rate your experience!

Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars by our customers 561

Video instructions and help with filling out and completing Why 8850 Form Urban

Instructions and Help about Why 8850 Form Urban

The following content is provided under a Creative Commons license your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue to offer high quality educational resources for free to make a donation or view additional materials from hundreds of MIT courses visit MIT opencourseware at ocw.mit.edu this class has been taught continuously since 1930s record I ever to his 1956 when Kevin Lynch probably taught it for the first time I've now this is the 34th year in which I'm teaching the class I overlapped with Lynch for two years and this is the last time I'm teaching this class so I'm going to go through a lot of small things details plus some general idea about in 1956 Kevin Lynch called this class the visual form of the city between 56 and 76 he changed the title to theory of city form I have kept the title as the same as it was originally well the 1976 title I think the theory he gives the impression that we have significant theories as in first or when Ian science we don't our bases are paper in first row logical basis is somewhat vague we're somewhere between an science and an art in the Media Lab they now have a group called City science I want to know what City science he is we said you know what city art is if numerous new miracle consequence is the basis of city science we will prove we will deal with that in the appropriate manner we will also deal with very difficult things such as the human experience of good form which is not a scientific phenomenon at all in fact for those of you interested to have a background in philosophy is a new book called cosmos and mind by Thomas Nagel to Professor New York University who argues that the Winnie and science has led us in the wrong direction that we know any in science we can't explain concepts such as consciousness or mind that we needed new teleological approach to science which would embrace these now difficult to achieve responses I'm not a philosopher nor historian this is not a class in history although we will use a lot of information from the past as examples to give us a better idea of the present not that you shouldn't know history if you're going to take this class I would recommend this couple of books there is now superb urban history if they were Harvard or MIT would teach it it is bizarre that these two great universities don't eat urban history it's difficult to explain partly it's explained by the traditions of history in architecture architecture can you cannot study in the arts without knowing history it's difficult to achieve a degree in music without knowing the Mozart Wars but it's part it's very difficult to achieve a good agree in architecture without knowing or Palladio wars but you can achieve a degree in science without knowing who Copernicus was it's difficult to avoid Copernicus but you may be able to there's no teaching at MIT in these enough there's no choir teaching in achieving an engineering or science degree in the history of science there's no architecture program that I know anywhere in the world that doesn't have a requirement that you the history of architecture some pretty taut of course I will assume any of you architects by background or dance have anybody done urban history has anybody in those cars taken a formal subject in urban history okay if you have give me answer the following question what theory would you assume for the genesis of cities why did cities exist oh no no you haven't answered my question you tell me what you studied or at will return to this question because we'll talk about the conflicting theories about the genesis of cities Windy City's first occur timewise baby I asked you I give me a time a date about yeah it's business I would claim Jericho to be the older city probably about 10,000 BC but if you say to Satta Luke or some place else paleontology is very vague motor most of our understanding of cities comes from archaeology there is no theory which explains the origin of language there multiple theories cities occur very late in the humanoid evolution the first tool that is dated at 2.6 million years ago in the Olduvai Gorge in Kenya found by Louis Leakey save cities date from 10,000 years BC we have enormous period of time from former 4 million years before Christ to 10,000 BC during that period of time a great deal of paleontology is Phoenix one of the transformations of the humanoid to the human erectus deals with nutrition until you have a tool which can make food possible other than veget vegetables you have a capacity to take in nutritional substances into the body which theoretically include the creation of a larger brain so the brain size of Australopithecus which is about 4 million years old a post - animal has a brain of about 400 cubic centimeter you have brains of about 1,200 to 1,400 cubic centimeters depending how big you are now smart you're attending smartness there's any connection to size of brain but I'm throwing in just one other thought here around the idea of the Genesis I'll go into this more dear carefully with you on Thursday he's a British paleontologist psychologist called Robin Dunbar who studied the increase in human brain size and argues that human brains increased more significantly in communities of 150 people then when people were stayed on their own or didn't partake in rituals of 150 people this theory is called the gossip theory and argues that people children need to be indoctrinated into the rules of this settlement and it takes about 150 people to make sure that these rules are properly disseminated how this was done nobody knows if you.

If you believe that this page should be taken down, please follow our DMCA take down process here.