Day 10: So Many Posters

On Saturday morning, some of us went to Chatuchak Weekend Market to shopping. I've come to believe that shopping is a regional past time - there seem to be malls everywhere! How these stores sustain themselves is beyond me. Anyway, Chatuchak is huge and somewhat confusing, especially if you go through the narrow aisles, away from the main roads. A few guidelines I find useful when market shopping: 1) It's best to buy when you see something you like because stores tend to disappear once passed; 2) Buy in bulk to cut down the price; 3) Cut the price in half (or more) when you start bargaining and stick to your guns!

The pet area, although filled with cute animals, was mostly sad.

Yummy fresh-squeezed 100% orange juice, perfect for thirst quenching on a hot day.

Our work day officially began in the afternoon at Chulalongkorn University. The day's task was to create and present three posters. The first poster compared the pros and cons of Singapore and Bangkok's anticipated growth strategies. The second poster compared housing types that we saw during our neighborhood visits on the previous day. We were to provide the type name, description, image, housing pattern (an aerial shot of the building footprints), density, and circulation. To introduce the third poster, Professor Goethert said, "We all have our own models." This was a throwback to the first day of the workshop, when we decided if we'd rather live in Singapore or Bangkok depending on individual criteria. Now we had to create a group "City Vision" that ranked four important criteria that reappeared throughout the workshop among students and families we surveyed: 1) Home/ family/ friends/ community; 2) Lifestyle/ culture/ beauty; 3) Organization/ security/ cleanliness; 4) Jobs/ employment/ cost of living. We also had to associate implications with these criteria.

My team voted to figure out priorities on the third poster. We ended up with 1) Employment, 2) Community, 2) Lifestyle (tie), 4) Organization. Toon tied this order together with a small hypothetical scenario: After you come home from work, you want to spend time with your friends and family, and you may therefore go out to experience the citylife. Then we threw in a few of our own: climate, regional location, and prominence.

Poster-making.

In the middle of poster creating, we were kicked out of our air-conditioned room and finished in the cafeteria, where we also presented. Some interesting thoughts came up during the presentation. For example, most people believed that Singapore's planning process was superior to Bangkok's planning process. In Singapore, what you plan is what you get. In Bangkok, this isn't the case and, well, you see what you get instead. Politically instability seemed to be the primary detrimental factor to city development; is politically stability underlying all good development? For me, this brought up another city that we talked about during the class: Dhaka, a city with a weak government but booming textile industry. Also, perhaps the "benevolent dictator" model is the best way to ensure city development - the dictator can get things done, and his benevolence makes sure people are treated well.

We found that Singapore's small size may also have been a huge driver of its effective planning measures. While Bangkok could spread out and start and stop construction as seen fit, Singapore had little land to waste and couldn't mess up. Also, smaller cities are easier to plan and to manage economically. Therefore, if we hypothetically delineate the boundaries of a growing city and force a "compact city" model, would this be a good way to grow?

A huge problem in Bangkok is implementation. The city has plans, but these plans do not manifest. Perhaps, then, planners also need to plan how to get their message across. Communication is key, which is a lesson that I feel has risen many times in this class. A plan includes a way to get the people on the plan's side so that it is implemented (unless you have a dictator...).

For our City Vision poster, my team came up with many physical implications of our priorities. For example, employment's implications included appropriate zoning and mixed-use spaces. Community's implications included open spaces, shared facilities, and communal living. Lifestyle's implications included urban design on a human scale and wide sidewalks (Bangkok's sidewalks impressed me - there's so much street life because the sidewalks are wide enough for outdoor eating and hawking). Organization's implications included an easily understandable street system (a New York City grid?) and landmarks for way finding.

But how much power do physical plans have? Many other groups focused on non-physical implications. If you achieve the non-physical goals first (stable government, strong economy, "smiling society"), then does the physical plan make a difference?

Professor Goethert made another throwback to our first workshop day by having us decide whether each City Vision element is better satisfied by Bangkok or Singapore. A conflict came up about whether Singapore or Bangkok provided more economic prospects. Some thought Singapore because the jobs were obviously better. But a lot of us thought Bangkok because there was a range of jobs, and economic diversity is absolutely vital to a healthy city. For example, a poor immigrant could arrive in Bangkok and immediately pick up a service job. Singapore seems to lack these opportunities. Big cities like Bangkok (and New York) seem to thrive on this labor. And since the economic strata is so varied, a city must figure out how to house everyone.

Professor Goethert encouraging us after a long day.

So many posters.