Washington Urban Landscape

7/27/2019 Washington Urban Landscape

1/30

The Restless Urban Landscape: Economic and Sociocultural Change and the Transformation ofMetropolitan Washington, DCAuthor(s): Paul L. KnoxSource: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp.181-209Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2563300 .Accessed: 24/08/2013 14:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. andAssociation of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAnnals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2563300?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2563300?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/30

TheRestlessUrbanLandscape:Economic nd Sociocultural hangeand theTransformationfMetropolitanWashington, CPaul L. Knox

DepartmentfUrbanAffairsnd Planning, irginiaolytechnicnstitutendStateUniversity,Blacksburg,A 24061-0113

Abstract. This tudy ddresses ecent hangesinthebuilt nvironmentf U.S. metropolitanareas.Theconfluence frecent conomic ndsocioculturalhangehas ed to theemergenceof number fdistinctiveewurban ettings.This rocess s nterpreteds part f broader,epochal change in thedynamics f contem-poraryapitalism. he particularmplicationsof this ransformationor he supply nd de-mandof elementsof the builtenvironmentinvolve hanges ntheorganizationnd prod-uctmix fdevelopers nd constructionom-panies, n the roles and professionalrienta-tions of architects and planners, and incommodity esthetics nd patterns f con-sumptionmong a "new bourgeoisie." Theimprintf these changeson the builtenvi-ronments illustrated ithreference o theexample f heWashington etropolitanrea.Among he new settingsnd landscapeele-mentsidentifiedhere are privatemaster-planned communities,high-tech orridors,mixed-use evelopments,festival" ettings,gentrifiedeighborhoods, reserved istoricbuildingsnd neighborhoods,nd postmod-ernarchitecture.KeyWords: architecture,uilt nvironment,lex-ible accumulation,ostmodernity,rban and-scape,Washington,C.

HEpurpose fthis tudys toprobetheradical changes that have occurredwithinAmerican itiessincethe mid-1970s s a result ftheinterplayfneweco-nomic, ocial,political nd cultural orces s-sociatedwith he transitionromFordist"n-dustrialapitalismoadvanced apitalism.heAmericanityhasnotonly lost tsneat ocialpatches of the 1950s and ... witnessed a re-sortinghat sreminiscentf heperiod f co-logical ompetitionn thefirstecadesof thiscentury"Kirby 989,16),buthasalso experi-enced a significantransformationf thebuiltenvironmentspart fwhatHarvey1985, 50)has described s the "restless ormationndreformationfgeographicalandscapes."ForHarvey,his estlessnesss obe seenprincipallyas an outcomeof the tensions nd contradic-tions associatedwithcapitalism's erpetualstruggleo createa socialand physicaland-scape "in itsown image"and requisite o itsownneedsata particularoint n time.Yet, sSoja 1989) nsistentlyoints ut, he patialm-print fcapitalisms not a smooth nd auto-matic rocess nwhich he "needs" of capitalare stamped,without esistancer constraint,onto the landscape.Rather,we have to con-tendwith "sociospatial ialectic"Soja 1980)inwhichthe urban andscape s,in Meinig'swords1979), moldandmirror"four econ-omy, ulture ndsociety.Annals ftheAssociationfAmerican eographers,1(2),1991,pp. 181-209i Copyright991byAssociation f American eographers

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:14:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/30

182 KnoxThe centralpremise s thatthe builtenvi-ronmentsboth theproduct f, nd theme-diator etween, ocial relations.t s central othe ociospatial ialectic fhuman eographiesthat re simultaneouslyontingentnd con-

ditioning,utcome nd medium, roduct ndpremise.Harvey1987, 63)has rguedpersua-sively hatthere s an "intimateonnection"between estheticnd culturalmovementsndthe changing ature fthe urban xperience,whileDavid Leyhas shown thaturban and-scapes maybe read nterpretivelys a text,as a productwhich xpresses distinctiveultureof deas nd practices,f often ppositionalocialgroupsand political elationships....A carefulreadingfthe built nvironment ighteveal is-tinctive alues owards eritage,cology,ocial e-lationsnda mass ulture.twouldalso mplicatedistinctiveocial groups nd historicalonditions(Ley1985, 19).

YetZelinsky'sbservations1977,127)remaintrue:"We knowsurprisinglyittle bout theformsnd appearanceof thevastmajorityfthe ities ndtownsnNorth merica.Weknoweven ess boutthemeaningfthesephenom-enaintheculturalcheme fthings."With ewexceptionsLey's wn nterrogationf heFalseCreekneighborhoodsnVancouver,.C. 1987],Soja's 1986,1989]reading fLos Angeles,Ru-bin'sreview1977] fLosAngeles rchitecture,Relph's iscussionfmodern rban andscapes[1987],Whitehand'snalysis1990] f uburbaninfillingnBritish ities, nd Fusch nd Ford's[1983] nalysisf house typesnColumbusndSanDiego),geographers ave generallyailedtocome to termswith heemergencendsig-nificancefnewurban andscapesGoss1988;Knox1987a;Rubin 979).Elsewherenthe artsandsocial ciences here s literaturen urbandesign ndthe built nvironment,ut most fit sdevaluedbythe lack of anygeographicalgroundingndby failure o address he con-stitutive elationshipsetweenclass,culture,andspace. Importantxceptions ere ncludeCrow1990;Davis1990;and Zukin1991.)Thechallengestounderstandrban andscapes spart ftheserelationships.notherwords,weshould avoid abstractingpecificoutcomes,such as historicreservation,entrification,rpostmodern rchitecture,rom he broadersweepof ociospatialhange.This hallenge sespeciallyurgent n the contextof contem-poraryhange,because "newtimes" S. Smith1989) nda "newurban rder" Short 989) re

being forgedunderthe "fourthmoderniza-tion" of capitalismSoja 1989; Harvey 989).Moreover t s challenge hat snot imitedoanyparticularheoretical erspective r sub-disciplinarypecialty.t s nopportunityo inkurbangeographywith conomicand culturalgeography,o linkmorphological ith ocialanalysis,conomicswith esthetics,nd the it-erature n placemaking ith hat n postmo-dernity.uch challenge annot e met noneessay; heobjectiveheremust e to establishsome of he inkagesnd point oothers. seekto contributeo an understandingf thebuiltenvironments part f thesociospatial ialec-tic, s mirrorndmold, irsty exploringur-rent rendsn heproductionndconsumptionofthe built nvironment,nd, second,by at-temptingo readthe newurban andscapes e-sulting rom hesetrends.Economic nd SocioculturalChange

While here s ittle oubt s to theonsetofanepochalchange nthedynamicsfcontem-porary apitalism,here s little onsensus nthe labelsand concepts-let alone the theo-ries-most ppropriateo their nderstanding.Conceptsofadvancedcapitalism,lexible c-cumulation,ost-Fordism,ndpostmodernismare somewhat entativend exploratory,hesubject of active discourse, nd inevitably,therefore,foverstatementndconfusionde-liberate r otherwise).Withoutwishing o bedrawn oo far nto hisdiscourse, consider timportant,everthelesso stake uttheprin-cipaldimensionsfthe trends hat onstitutethe context or heproductionfthe contem-porary uilt nvironment.orpresent urpos-es,this ontexts bestdescribed stheconflu-ence oftwoprocesses fchange.Thefirsttems rom herestructuringftheeconomicworld hathas followed he partial)eclipseof he Fordistconomicregime f massproductionnd mass onsumption.t s char-acterizedby a) the pursuit f economiesofscope ratherhan cale; b)corporate oncen-tration,entralizationndreorganization;c)aninternationalizationnd decentralization fproductive rocesses; d) an increasing lexi-bilityn the organization f production inorder o dealwith ndexploitncreasinglyeg-mentedmarketsndthetime-spaceompres-



4/30

TheRestlessUrbanLandscape 183sion introduced ynew transportnd com-municationsechnologiesnd theglobalizationof onsumermarkets);nd e) an intensificationof therole offinance apital, weakening fthe roleoforganized abor, shiftnoccupa-tionalstructure, nd an increasinglynstru-mentalpartnership etween the public andprivate ectors f the economy Schoenberger1988; Moulaert nd Swyngedouw 989). Theextent nd mportanceftheseneweconomicpracticess a matter fsomedebate, npartic-ularwhether hey mount o an entirely ewregime fcapital ccumulation ith distinc-tive mprintn regional conomies see Aminand Robins1990;Sayer 990). t sclear,how-ever, hatmany ectors f theU.S. economy,includinghedevelopmentndustry,avebeenaffected ythem.The second process nvolves philosophical,cultural nd attitudinalhiftwayfrommod-ernismtowards postmodernism.Whereasmodernismsparadigmatic,niversalistic,ur-posive, hierarchical,ynthetic,elective, ndconcernedwithmaster odes and metanarra-tives,postmodernisms syntagmatic,layful,anarchical,ntithetical,ombinatorial,deolec-tal, ocalistic nd anti-narrativeFoster1985;Hassan 987;R. Hebdige1989).1The most an-gibleexpressions f postmodernityre foundin rt, rchitecture,iterature, usic, esign ndcommodity esthetics. t should be noted,however,hat heculturalxpression fpost-modernity oes not alwaysecho the philo-sophical nderpinningsfpostmodernity.husFoster1985)makes he distinction etweenpostmodernismfresistancewhich eeks todeconstructmodernism nd undermine hestatus uo) and a postmodernismf reaction(which s a more uperficialesponse omod-ernism, eekingmerely o replaceone style,fashion,r system fpracticeswith nother).Postmodernismnarchitecturend urbande-sign soverwhelminglypostmodernismfre-action,nd towes littleo the ntellectual is-course nd cultural ootsof a postmodernismof resistance.Manywriters ave neverthelessuggestedthat ostmodernisman be seen in moregen-eral erms s a product ftheZeitgeist,rspiritof theage Albertsen 988; Harvey 987,1989;Jameson984,1985; Lash nd Urry 987; Lyo-tard 984).There swidespread greement hatthe emergenceof postmodern rchitecture,culture ndphilosophynWestern ociety as

proceeded in tandemwith he emergence fglobalized,moreflexible ormsfcapitalistn-terprise.More specifically,arvey 1987) ar-gues that,while his ransitionnd the critiqueof modernism ad been underwayfor ometime, twas notuntil he nternationalconom-ic crisis f 1973 that herelationshipetweenart nd societywassufficientlyhaken o allowpostmodernismobecome both cceptedandinstitutionalizeds the culturallothing f ad-vanced apitalism.t hould e emphasized hatthis oes not mean hat hemajor art f con-temporaryulturesto be seenaspostmodern.Rather, ostmodernisms an increasinglym-portant artof contemporaryrbanculture,and it articulates ith ertain rends n eco-nomic organizationn generating ew urbanlandscapes. n this context, hese new land-scapes can be seen as theproduct fchangesassociatedwith, n theone hand,patternsfdemand nd consumptionnd,on theother,patterns f supply nd production.

Consumption:CommodityAesthetics nd the NewBourgeoisieOne of hemostmportantreconditionsorthe reation f sufficientudience ndmarketforpostmodern bjectsand settings asbeenthe emergenceof new classfractions nderadvanced capitalism. ourdieu 1984) equatesthisnewaudiencewith he"newbourgeoisie"(members fthe professions,ublic adminis-trators, cientists, nd private-sectorxecu-tives-especially hose nvolvednnon-mate-rial products:financial nalysts, conomists,management onsultants, ersonnel xperts,

designers,marketingxperts, urchasers,tc.)and the newpetite ourgeoisie"junior om-mercialxecutives, ngineers,medical ndso-cial servicepersonnel nd thosedirectlyn-volved in cultural production andorganization-authors,ditors, adioand TVproducers nd presenters,magazine ournal-ists, tc.). In the U.S., such occupations x-panded dramaticallynthe 1970s.Whereas o-tal mploymentn heU.S.grew y 7.5percentbetween 1970 and 1980,the number f ac-countants nd auditorsgrewby 56 percent,lawyers y 83 percent, rchitects 8 percent,and social cientistsnd urban lanners7per-



5/30

184 Knoxcent. Among the new petite bourgeoisie,counselorsgrew in numberby 69 percent,health echnologistsndtechnicians y81 per-cent,therapists y 149 percent, esigners y44 percent, nd publicrelations pecialists y47 percent.2Yet, sNeil mith1987)points ut, he rans-formationf occupational tructuresoes notin itselfstablish heemergence f newclassfractions.t sspending ower nd patterns fconsumption hat,naddition o occupationalstatus, re the definingharacteristicsf thenew bourgeoisie/petiteourgeoisie.Severalfactors eem to be atworkhere.The relativeaffluence fthe newbourgeoisie/petiteour-geoisiecoincidedwith hematuringf a co-hort-the baby oomgeneration,aised nderthe forced emocratizationnd egalitarianismoftaste" Harvey 989,80)of a modernistes-thetic. heir epressed emand or arietyndsymbolicrnamentation,uggests arvey, asan importantreconditionor heblossomingofpostmodernulture. urthermore,his amegeneration,s itcame ofage inthe ate1960s,spawned varietyfantimodernist,ounter-culturalmovementshat edtotheexplorationofself-realizationhroughnew" politics ndiconoclastic abits nmusic, lothing nd life-styles Ehrenreich 989).Manyof these im-pulseswere institutionalized,s Daniel Bellnoted 1978), ypeoplein hebroadcastmedia,cinema, heater, igherducation, ublishing,design ndthemedia-members fBourdieu'snewbourgeoisie nd newpetitebourgeoisie.Subsequentlyhenewclass/cohorts a wholehas come to performn importantocietalfunction s an R&D lab forcommodityes-thetics,hepromoter f a "new" (intensified)consumptionthic, newmodelofconsump-tion nwhich here s heavy mphasis ntasteandaesthetics,nd a new postmodern)ensi-bility,r "structure ffeeling" Harries t al.1988; Poster 1991; Venkatesh1991). The struc-tural reconditionsor uch role an befound,asoutlinedbove, nthe ransitionoadvancedcapitalism; ut the immediate inksbetweenthenewbourgeoisie/petiteourgeoisie, ewsocioculturalractices,ndthesociospatial i-alecticmust e soughtnthedynamicsfma-terial ulture.AsSack 1988)points ut,people'sactions fconsumptionwhether f"heritage" ettings,new homes, automobilesor magazines) reamongthe mostpowerfulnd pervasive ro-

cesses within he sociospatial ialectic.Con-sumption,he argues, molds people's con-sciousness f place, helps them to constructreal places, onnects he realms f nature, o-cial relations nd meaning, nd revealshowgeographical ettings re constitutivef con-temporaryensions nd paradoxes. onsump-tion s lsoepigrammatic,aving s a major olethe transferfmeaning rom he object to theconsumer.t s,moreover, ot nly hematerialobjectsthemselves hat re epigrammatic,utalso thesettingsnwhich hey re purchased."Implicated n [a] purchase, e it of gourmetice cream, nouvelle uisinemeal, r a dancelesson, s the tatus fbeing t that hop nthatneighborhoodndbuyinghat articularrand"(Beauregard 986,44). Merely o be inatten-danceinup-marketetail ettings-"the ourtofcommodities"Shields1989)-is an impor-tant itualnestablishingndividualnd groupidentity.Material ulture nd the consumption at-terns n which t sbasedarenotstatic, ow-ever. nthepresent ontext, hemost ignifi-cant aspect of recentchange has been theincreased mportancefdesign nthematerialculture fthe middle lasses.Thiscan be in-terpretedn large partas a responseto theoverall ncrease n the availabilityf housingandconsumer oodsmadepossible yFordism(Aglietta 979).Now class differentiationsin-creasinglyasedon a refinementfconsump-tion:thestyle fconsumptiontself ecomescrucial o the maintenancef social differen-tiation. huswe move from he"vulgar unc-tionalism" f modernistmass onsumptionothe "aestheticizedommodity"fpostmoder-nity,where secondary onnotations-status,chic,humor,tc.-ratherthan he functionftheobjectitself re importantEagleton 990;Haug 1987;D. Hebdige 1988; Miller 985). u-perimposed n this eneral hifts he o-called"Dideroteffect,"3force hat ncouragesn-dividuals o maintain cultural onsistencyntheir nsemblefmaterialossessions.Beforeyuppies," s McCracken bserves1988, 121),"therewasnocompellingonnection etweenthe Rolexand the BMW." The point s that,once insinuatednto a person's possessionsthroughne or twokey departure" urchas-es,aestheticized ommodities ill endto ex-ert a kindof gravitationalull that, umula-tively, rewrites the inventoryof theirpossessions. t he ggregateevel, heDiderot



6/30

The RestlessUrban Landscape 185effect ill hus endto revise hematerialul-ture f entire ubgroups rclassfractions.Also relevanthere is Bourdieu'snotionofhabitus-thevalues, ognitivetructures,ndorienting racticesf ndividuallassfractions.LikeGiddens 1984),Bourdieus concerned orelatesocial structure o individualhumanagency ndvice versa.Thehabitus fa partic-ularsubgroup s a collectiveperceptual ndevaluativechematahat erives romtsmem-bers'everydayxperience nd operates t asubconsciousevel hroughommonplace ai-lypractices,ress odes,useof anguage,om-portment,nd patterns fconsumption. heresult s a distinctiveatternn which eachdimensionf ifestyleymbolises ith heoth-ers" Bourdieu 984,173).Accordingo Bour-dieu, achclass raction ill eektosustain ndextend tshabitusand each new class frac-tion-the new bourgeoisie nd new petitebourgeoisie,or xample-will eektoestablishitshabitus)hroughhe ppropriationf sym-boliccapital."The lattersdefined s "luxurygoodsattestingo the taste nddistinctionfthe owner." There are clearechoes here ofVeblen's heoryf he eisure lass ndHirsch's(1977) deason "positional oods." But Bour-dieu,though ess elaborate han Veblen andless ystematichanHirsch,rovidesheframe-workfora more dynamic nd sophisticatedanalysis f sociocultural ractices.For Bour-dieu, hestruggleordistinctions continuousbecause hehabitusf dominantlass ractionisalways ubject o devaluation ythepopu-larizationfgoodsandpracticeshatwerefor-merlyxclusive. hefact hat ymbolicapitalis vulnerableo shiftsnavant arde aste nlymakes t ven moreusefuls a measure fdis-tinction. ominant lassfractions ust,here-fore, ontinuallyesist ulgarizationnd sub-ject themselves o the freneticpursuitoforiginality1984,248).In thisprocess, dvertisingascome to as-sumenew evels f mportance.Withinloselyspecifiedargetmarkets,dvertisingsable toexert powerfulffect n thesymbolicon-stitutionfutility. eanwhile,heemphasisnadvertisingtrategiesas hiftedway rom heeffectivenessfproductsndtowardsppealsto the distinctivenessnd attractivenessf"consumptionommunities"ssociatedwiththeproduct:... productsrefreed rom nlybeingutilitarianthings,r bstractepresentationsf ocial alues,

or tiedup with he worldofpersonal nd inter-personal elationships.... tilityymbolizationndpersonalizationremixed nd remixed nder hesignof the group.Products re badgesofgroupmembershipjhally 987, 02).Theneteffectsdescribed yBerman1987,64) as a "seamless estheticizationf everydaylife": condition hathas furthereinforcedthe mportancef ymbolic apitalBaudrillard1981) nd, herefore,einforcedhe ocial on-ditions ympathetico thespread fpostmod-ern culture Lash nd Urry 987). Baudrillard,never nefor nderstatement,as rgued hat,sinceAmerica as no ancestral istory,"hereis a weightlessnesso American ulture hatmakes tparticularlyccommodatingo thehy-brid nd fragmentedymbolismfpostmoder-nity1989, 2). nthis ontext, e can see clear-ly theimportanceo postmodernensibilitiesof historical nd vernacular references: aheightenedenseof rt ndhistory,pace andtime,spart f broader uestfor uthenticityandsocioculturaldentity.hus, or hosewhocanaffordt, heconsumptionnd reproduc-tion of thepastprovides particularlyotentmeans f ignifyingocialdistinction.ll hisnturn asfosteredhe society f he pectacle"(Debord1983,1990) n which heemphasis s

onappearance atherhan nhaving. orBaud-rillard,amesonndothers,he cumulativee-sult s that ocietyhas lostanypossibilityfdepthand has become reducedto merepas-ticheand superficialelf-comment:We areleftwith play n signswhichhasno ultimatereference ointother thanthe commodity"(Jameson984,165).Butthis nterpretationfthe postmodern ondition urelymisses hepoint. ostmodernitysnot generalizedocialcondition o much s theproduct ftheap-propriation/exploitationfparticularenres fmaterial ultureby particularlass fractions,which rethemselvesheproduct f tructuralchanges ndwhose xistence ndcircumstanc-es are served nd exploited, s I will uggest,bya restructurednd repositioned evelop-ment ndustry.Thisbrings s backto the newbourgeoisieand newpetite ourgeoisie,or t s hese roupsthat eem, n theone hand, ohavebeenmostsuccessfullyargeted ythedevelopmentn-dustrynd,on theother, o have been strik-inglyuccessfuln trengtheningndextendingtheir abitus,argelyhroughheirponsorshipof new postmodern)ultural oodsand resi-



7/30

186 Knoxdential ettings. entrification,oft iving,ndtheappropriationf areasof historic reser-vationhave already een shown o be pivotalto the spatialpractices f the "new" middleclassesGoodey1985;Jager986;Mills 988;N.Smith 987;Zukin 988), ndIargue hat omenewsuburban esidentialettingsre also theproductof theirrole within he sociospatialdialectic. n addition,t seems fair o suggestthat he service ndustries hosegrowth asfueled heemergence fthe newbourgeoisieand the new petite bourgeoisiehave them-selves become partoftheaudienceforpost-modern esign nd, nparticular,ostmodernarchitecture.dvertisinggencies, onsultants,lobbyists,inancialervices, edia pecialistsndthe likecan be expectednotonly o seek torent rbuild ettingsppropriateotheir wncorporate mage, ut lsoto seek toattract eyemployees yprovidingettingshatmatch heiraesthetic references.

Production:The DevelopmentIndustryAsVentre1988)hasnoted, hedevelopmentindustryas lways een oriented owards lex-ibleproductionystems. lthough ordistmassproductiontechniquescertainly ound ex-pressionnsuburban evittownsnd in mod-ular, actory-builtnner-urbanenewal rojects,architects,uilders,onstructionngineersnddevelopershave for longtimebeen gearedto small-batch roduction nd a high evelofsubcontracting,eliveringustomizedprod-uctsbasedonspecific serrequirements.ev-ertheless, ew nitiativesnd a newbalanceof

forces re apparentwithin he developmentindustry,argelys a result fbroader conom-ic shiftsnd exigencies.Likemany ther n-dustries,he developmentndustryas con-solidated nthewakeofthesystem-shockfthe 1970sand is now morehighlyntegratedvertically,ith inance apitalhaving ssumedgreater ontrol fboth design nd construc-tion (Healeyand Nabarro 1990; King 1988).Between1985and 1987 thetop25 percent fdiversified.S.developmentompaniesthoseengaged ndeveloping ffices,hopping en-ters, nd hotels) ncreased heirmarketharefrom 4percent o 73 percent"Survey f Di-

versified evelopers"1988).The housebuild-ing industry,raditionallyecentralized withmore than 110,000firms ationally), as alsoexhibited ignificantonsolidation:morethan15 percent ftheresidential arkets now c-counted for by 0.09 percentof the firms(Schwanke 989).Similarly,he realestate n-dustry as come to be dominated ynationalcompanies ikeColdwellBanker.At the sametime, n increased nvolvementn real estateandconstructionn thepart fconglomeratecorporationsnd financialnstitutionsas in-vestment witchednto the secondary ircuitofthebuilt nvironment)asmade nvestmentcapitalmorereadily vailable, articularlyorlarge-scale, ighly isibleprojects Schwanke1987; King 1989).This, nturn, as raised hestakes: typicalmixed-use evelopmentMXD)or multi-use evelopmentMUD)4ofabout1million quarefeetnowrequiresn investmentof bout$200million,pread ver hebestpartoftenyears, efore nyreturn an be made.To fully tilize heskilled aborforce hathasto be assemblednorder ofollowhroughnsuchprojects,many fthe arger evelopmentcompanies avemoved nto sset ndpropertymanagement, inancingnd brokerage, husfurtherccelerating orporate oncentration(Schwanke 990).Another esult f the system-shockf the1970shas been thatfirmshroughouthe de-velopment ndustryave been forced o de-velopstillmore flexible trategiesnordertoexploitmoreeffectivelyhe tastes nd pref-erences of distinctiveub-groups nd, npar-ticular, he affluentmployeesof the morebuoyantdvanced ervices ector:

The freneticursuitftheconsumption ollars ftheaffluentas ed to a much trongermphasison productdifferentiationnderthe regime fflexible ccumulation.roducers ave, s a con-sequence, begunto explore he realms fdiffer-entiated astes nd aesthetic referencesnwaysthatwerenot o necessary nder Fordist egimeofstandardisedccumulation hroughmasspro-ductionHarvey 987, 73-74).In heresidentialector, oth arger irmsndlocal "niche" developers have repositionedthemselveso buildfor hegrowingmove-upmarket, hich ccountedfor woout ofeverythree homesbuilt n 1988 and inwhichthemostmarketable ackages nclude ommunity

amenities, xpensive-lookingmaterials, ra-maticmaster edroom/bathroomuites, nd



8/30

The RestlessUrbanLandscape 187integratedutdistinctiveesignbasedon tra-ditionalndvernaculartylingSuchman 989).Large, rivatelylanned ommunitiesavebe-come increasinglyopular withdevelopersduring he 1980sbecause,as theUrbanLandInstitute's989 review frealestatemarketsputs t:"Theypermit evelopersmoreflexi-bilityndesign ndproduct ype .. [and] n-abledevelopers orespond uicklyochangingmarket emand" Suchman1989, 38). In thecommercialector, pecializationndproductdifferentiationavebeenreflectedn he mer-gence ofso-called power centers": ommu-nity hopping enters ocated near regionalshoppingmalls nddominated y pecialtye-tailers fferingrand-name roducts t dis-countprices.Anotherignificantewproductlineconsists fspecialtyettingsuchas med-icalmalls, esignedto providebusy, ffluentconsumers ith ne-stop hoppingphysicians,counselors, herapists,medical laboratories,outpatientacilities,itnessenters, rug tores,health ood tores ndcafes)n uitablypscalesettingsMartin nd Hughes1989). In hotelconstruction,The industrynswer o over-builtmarketsscontinued egmentation"Be-yard1989,52). Amongthe new products oemergefrom his egmentationre all-suite/limitedervicehotels, uxury/fullerviceho-tels, imitedervice/economyotels, xtend-ed-stayhotels (featuringkitchenettes ndwasher-dryers),nd executive onference e-sorts.Mixed-use ndmulti-useevelopments,themselvesproduct fthe ndustry'sestruc-turing,lso reflect he increasingmportanceofproduct ifferentiationndmanagementn-tegration. he latestgeneration f MXDs issmallerjustover1 millionquare feeton av-erage, ompared o ustunder millionquarefeet nthe1970s) ndmore pecialized,withgreater se ofpostmodernrchitecturendofrenovationfolderstructures,n infusion fresidentialpace,and a morewidespread ro-vision fCAREculture,musement,ecreationandentertainment)ackagesSchwanke 987).Similarly,evelopers fbusiness ndindustrialparksnowcalledplanned orporate nviron-ments nthe language f the trade)have in-creasinglyought to enhancetheattractive-ness ndvalueofprojects y ncludingaycareservices nd facilities,itness rograms ndcenters,ogging rails,estaurants,nd conve-nience retail acilities. . marble nd brass r-chitecturalrimnpublic obbies,ntensiven-

teriorndexteriorandscaping"Beyard 989,45,47).In the course of all thisrepositioningndrestructuring,state fflux as merged n heprofessionalomains ttachedto the devel-opmentndustry.ompetition etween rchi-tects,builders, ngineers, onstructionman-agers,nterioresignersndproject onsultantshasbecomeacute and traditional ivisionsflaborhavebecome blurred. rchitects,ngen-eral, eem tohavebeenthemajorosersnthisprocess.With ew xceptions, hey re no lon-ger ble toassume he raditionaloleofmasterbuilder,with atrons upportingheir reativeactswhile equiringittle irectnvolvementnthedesign rocess.Now,patronage as urnedto clientage:developers mposetight esignspecificationsnarchitects, homustncreas-inglyhustleforwork, nd whentheyget it,must ede more and moreoftheprocesstootherprofessionalsGutman 987,1988).Asaresult, rofessional iscoursewithinrchitec-turehasshifted long wayfrom hevisionarysocial deals nspired yearlymodernistsoanoverwhelmingmphasis n style nd visual f-fect,withno immediateoncern or he socialdimensionsfurbandesign Amendola 989;King1988;Montgomery 989). nthis ontextit sworthnoting hatpostmodern esignhasbeen interpretedn some quarters s havingbeen fosteredwithin rchitectures a meansofprofessionalegitimationnthefaceofcom-petition rom therprofessionalsTzonis ndLefaivre980).Meanwhile, rchitecturalrac-tice shows n increasing egreeof concentra-tion, pecializationndflexibility.arger irmsare increasingheirmarkethare nd are in-creasinglyrganizednterms f n internal i-vision f abor nwhich esign eams rstudiosspecialize n particular inds f projects e.g.hotels,planned communities, ixed-use e-velopments) r project omponentse.g. datacenters,xecutivemeetingreas, itchens)Blau1984).The role ofthe planning rofession asalsochanged ignificantly.avingost good dealof tsmoral uthoritys a result f ts nabilityto deliver he utopiangoods, it has becomeincreasinglyooperativend nstrumentaln tsrelationships ith he developmentndustry.Accordingo Dear 1989), hedominance farhetoric f instrumentalism,egotiation ndperformancessessmentwithin lanninghasled to a commodificationfthe functions f



9/30

188 Knoxplanning, nd this n turnhas facilitatedheprivatizationfurban ife. his sconsistent iththe moregeneralredrawingf relationshipsbetween hestate ndcapital hathascharac-terizedthe confluence f economicand so-cioculturalhangeunder dvanced apitalism.Intheprocess,planning as come to be sus-pended somewhere etween modernistndpostmodernistrientationBeauregard 989,forthcoming;ourassa 989;Dear 1985;Knox1988;Peiser 990;Punter 988;Wentling988).Assuch, t s increasinglyeared to theneedsand wants f pecific roducers ndconsumersratherhan ooverarchingotions frationalityor publicgood. The newemphasis s on plu-ralistic,rganicpproaches imed tproducinga collageof highly ifferentiatedpaces andsettings. sBoyer bserves,

"fragmentedlements f he ity hole replannedorredeveloped sautonomouslements, ith it-tlerelationshipothewhole nd with irect on-cernonlyfor djacent lements. n otherwordsfragmentsfthe city reregulated y pecialdis-trict r contextual oning,Historic reservationControls, DRs TransferfDevelopmentRights]off fhistorictructures,ndeventhedictates fan EIS [EnvironmentalmpactStatement],ll ofwhichpay ttention o theartfulragmentut aynothing boutthe city s a whole" 1987,6, em-phasis dded).One ofthe most mportanthanges nplan-ning practicefrom he pointof viewof thedevelopmentndustryasbeentherelaxationofsingle-purposeoning ndowntown reas.Encouraged ypostmodernrban esign he-orist/practitionersuch sKrier1985),who eesingle-purposeoningas wasteful,monoto-nous ndanti-ecological, ixed-useoninghascome tobeseen as attractiveyplanninggen-cies and planning ommittees ecauseof thepotential ole ofmixed-use nd multi-use e-

velopmentsnenhancing city's axbase, ni-tiatingrban evitalization,nd increasingid-ership n publictransitystemsLassar 989).Increasingly, ixed-usedowntown oning sbeing ombinedwithncentiveystemsnwhichdevelopers re awarded additionalheight rdensity llowances n exchangefor pecifiedbuilding eaturesSeattle, or xample, ffersdensity onusesforornatebuilding ornicesandrooflines)rfacilitiesuch sday arecen-ters, esidentialpace,orspacefor ervices hatmight elprestore arietyndvitalityodown-towndistricts. similar ix fpostmodernri-entationsnd fiscalmercantilismasfostered

radical hanges n suburban oning practice.The keymechanismerehasbeen cluster on-ing nd plannedunit evelopmentPUD) zon-ing, wherebyregulationsre applied to anentire arcelof and incontrast o traditionallot-by-lotegulation). ithPUD zoning, en-sities an be aggregatednd calculatedon aprojectbasis, llowing he clusteringf build-ings o createopen spaces or preserve ttrac-tive itefeatures,nd facilitatingmixture fresidentialnd nonresidentiallements nd amixturefhousing ypes. ordevelopers, UDzoning ffersconomies f caleplus copeforproductdiversitynd flexibilityithin pre-dictableregulatorynvironment. he attrac-tion forplanners nd planning ommitteessthatPUD zoningoffers heprospect fhigh-quality evelopment ith minimumfpublicexpendituren services ndamenities.

New Urban Landscapes:TheExampleoftheWashington, CMetropolitanAreaGiven he context rovided y heconjunc-tion f hese rendsn heproductionnd con-

sumption f the builtenvironment,ne canattempto readthe nchoateandscapes fthepostmodern metropolis.The example dis-cussed s heWashington,C metropolitanreawhich, lthough yno meanstypical f largeAmericanmetropolitanreas becauseof therelativebsenceofmanufacturingctivityndthe relativemportancef federal ivilian m-ploymentn its conomic tructure),oes ex-hibit he full mprintfadvanced apitalist r-bandevelopment, ith socialgeographyhathas become an exemplar f the congested,fragmentednd polarizedurbanizationfthepostmodernmetropolisFuller 989;Gale1987;Knox1987b).As n LosAngeles Soja 1989), heinternationalizationf the economy nd theimprintf dvanced apitalism aveprompteda strikingecentralizationf economic ctivitythat has been expressed n a downtownre-naissance nd theemergence f"edge cities"(Garreau 988)within hemetropolitaneriph-ery. t contains population f three millionwhich,n overall erms,sdistinctivelyffluentandwell ducated.Nearlyne-thirdf ll dultsare college graduates, omparedwith roundone-fifthnmetropolitanewYork,Houston



10/30

The Restless Urban Landscape 189Table 1. Income and PurchasingPower in the WashingtonMetropolitan Area

Per-centagePer- annualcentage growth, 1987Purchasingpotentialindex (US = 100)household medianincomes household Department>$75,000 income Apparel Sports goods stores Automobiles Furniture

Districtf Columbia 8.4 6.4 100.2 64.1 102.2 78.2 90.7Arlington 15.4 8.2 109.4 96.0 127.4 89.9 99.6Fairfaxo. 25.1 8.1 112.1 123.0 149.8 113.8 128.7LoudonCo. 14.0 8.3 107.6 132.2 123.1 124.4 128.8PrinceWilliam o. 12.5 8.2 107.8 129.0 131.4 124.2 127.7Charles o. 7.9 7.0 102.3 117.2 106.7 120.8 119.7Montgomeryo. 23.7 7.5 113.3 120.8 146.5 103.0 122.9PrinceGeorge'sCo. 9.2 7.3 105.7 109.7 117.5 112.8 106.4SMSA 15.9 7.7 107.8 104.9 127.4 102.3 111.7Source f data:CACI 1987.

and Los Angeles. n 1985, when the nationalaverage ousehold ncomewas$28,400, he v-erage or heWashington etropolitanreawas$42,000. n uburban ounties, ffluences par-ticularlymarked,with commensuratelyighlevelsof consumer pending ower Table 1).Interms fprojected rowth fmedian ouse-hold incomes, Fairfax ounty,Virginia, ndMontgomery ounty,Maryland, ankhighestin the conterminous .S. Marketing tudieshave hown uburbanWashingtono containdisproportionatelyigh ncidence four rfivetimes henationalverage) f blueblood"and"furs-and-stationwagon" neighborhoods,where, mong ther hings, wnership f Jag-uar and BMW5-series utomobiles, ubscrip-tions to Architecturaligest and Town andCountry agazines,ndsales f mported ines(bythe case) are importantmarketing ard-sticks. hese tudies lso show hat heDistrict,despitets elativelyowoverall evels f pend-ing power Table 1) contains disproportion-ately igh ncidence f money nd brains" nd"bohemianmix"neighborhoods,othdistinc-tive nmarketingerms or heirndulgencenrelatively pscale consumption Weiss 1988).Whilefederal obs accountfor some of thisdistinctiveness,uch f t sattributableo theexpansionof middle- nd upper-middlen-come obs n heprivatedvanced ervicesec-tor.Businessssociations,ducational ervices,legal services, nvestment rusts,mortgagebanking, rofessionalssociations,ervices obuildingsnd real estate easinghave all ex-pandedrapidlyHowland 989); he rea s now

home to a growingnumber f Fortune 00companies, includingMartinMariettaandMarriottnsuburbanMaryland, annett,Mo-bil,Unisys, S Sprint,heNASA pace StationProject ndUSAirn uburban irginia,ndMCIin the District. he Mobil headquartershatmoved romManhattanoFairfaxountyloneaccountsformorethan4000 workers-two-thirdsf whom reinuppermanagemento-sitions-and payroll fmore han 200millionperyear.n1990, heWashington etropolitanarea waslisted y nc.magazine s thesecondmostentrepreneurial etropolitan egion nthe U.S. after asVegas,Nevada, ndaheadofOrlando ndTallahassee, lorida,ndSanJoseCalifornia),s measuredby business tartups,jobgeneration,ndyoung ompanieswith ighgrowth ates Case 1990). The net resulthasbeen a pronouncedgrowthnboth the newbourgeoisie nd the new petitebourgeoisie(Table2).

Theexpansion ftheadvanced ervicesec-torhasnotonlymodified hecomposition fclass ractionsnWashingtonuthas lsofueleda majordevelopmentboom. In downtownWashington,his asbeengeared oofficepaceforthe "FourA's": accountants,nalysts,s-sociationsndattorneys.fthe lmost 00 mil-lionsquare feetofofficepace inthemetro-politanrea, lmost 0percents ocated ntheDistrict'sowntown. n1988more han5 mil-lion quarefeet fofficepacewereadded totheCBD, and it sestimated hat pace underconstruction r plannedwilladd another18millionquarefeetby1992 Boselovic 989). n



11/30

190 KnoxTable 2. Occupational Change (Percent) in the WashingtonMetropolitanArea, 1970-80

Total employed SMSA DC Suburbs29.9 -11.1 46.1

New BourgeoisieAccountants and auditors 44.2 11.2 51.2Architects 53.6 97.6 40.9Elementary nd secondary teachers 28.1 -20.8 145.0Lawyers 200.9 229.4 88.6Scientists 22.0 -4.0 26.5Social scientists nd urbanplanners 54.3 72.1 58.4New petite bourgeoisiePersonnel, training, nd labor relations pecialists 28.9 51.9 24.2Dieticians 225.7 11.4 366.2Therapists 235.0 66.1 264.3Counselors (vocational and educational) 60.3 20.7 84.0Health technologists and technicians 260.6 -19.4 755.1Secretaries, tenographers, nd typists 6.4 -27.1 20.2Writers, rtists, nd entertainers 71.8 44.2 86.2

Designers 333.1 27.6 571.4Painters, raft rtists, tc. 61.2 90.7 54.5Photographers 35.2 71.5 25.7Editors/reporters 34.6 20.4 43.1Public relations pecialists 219.3 122.1 218.2Sourceofdata:U.S. Census fPopulation 984, able217.

addition, or very quare footof officepacebuilt n the Districtn recentyears,herehavebeen twosquarefeetofnewMXDspace.Re-tailing pace has also increased,ncluding heonly ull-sizedree-standingepartmenttore(Hecht's) o be built n a U.S.downtown ince1945. t shouldbe notedthat hisboom has nturnbeen supported y public gencies.TheDistrictfColumbiawasoneof hefirstentralcitiesto relax ingle-purposeoningwhenitestablishedmixed-useoning or heWestEndin1974, longwith ncentivesnd bonusesforresidential,etail nd service pace, pedestrianand cyclingreas, nd the preservationr en-hancement f historic tructures.he Penn-sylvania venueDevelopment orporationasassembled and morethan110 acres) nd es-tablished planning rameworkor numberof arge-scale evelopment rojects,ncludingprominent XDs ikeNational lace,theWil-lard omplex, he Old PostOffice, nd MarketSquare. TheDistrict as alsoenacted an ordi-nancerequiringevelopers n omedowntownareas odevote t east 0percent fthe paceinoffice rojects o retailingnd to conformtodesign tandardsimed t promotingarietyandvitality.Inthe uburbs,fficendMXD projects ach

accountfor bout40 percent f recent on-structionctivity, ith etailingccounting ortheremaining0percent Boselovic 989). er-haps the most trikingingle utcome of thisactivitys he dge cityhat as merged roundTyson'sCorner.The two malls t its center,anchored yNordstrom's,echt's,Woodwardand Lothrop's,Macy's, Saks FifthAvenue,Bloomingdale's,nd NeimanMarcus, ccountfor$1 billion n annualsales; surrounded ymore han 0 millionquarefeet f fficepace,theynowconstitute commercial ore largerthandowntownMiamiDowney1989). imilarbut smaller dge citiesare emerging t Be-thesda,Rosslyn/Ballston,eston, rystal ity/Pentagon ity, airfax/Fairaks,ShadyGrove,Rockville,Merrifield, ulles, Gaithersburg/Germantown, anham/Landover,nd SilverSpringFig. ).Thespatial istributionftheseedge citiesreflects hebroadsocioeconomicstructuref themetropolitanrea;allbutoneare n hree uburbanounties, rlington,air-faxand Montgomery, iththe highest n-comes.More important,rom he present ointofview, s that hecharacter f the boom-bothdowntownnd suburban-hasbeen, s theAr-chitectural ecord states:"qualitative ven more



12/30

The Restless Urban Landscape 191

70 ~~~BALTMORE

g * t. ~~~~~~~~~Columbio*/MONTGOMERY COUNTY Co/ba~~~~~~~~~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ALOU DON C O UNT Y ~

Avenel Sle reblsyn~ (see Fig2) eebet '

66\1/ M eri esd Aleadi IDWellington~ ~ ~ ~~Bllto LonIR jCO oTYmAreic. 7fA*RFAX COUNTYmerica

g High-techorridors |/ /i

Foirf~~~~~~~~~~~

/7/Concentrationsf flex poace' A rio

* MXDs/MUDs / iit ei*lFestivalettingsPort* Master-plannedommunities RF AX 0 N T

Figure . TheWashington etropolitanrea elements f the newurban andscape.

than matter fbuilding pace orconstructiondollars""Washington,C Isa City . ." 1981,100, emphasis dded). The "influencendus-try,"with ts mphasis n theiconographyfprestigeand image, has been particularlyprominentn these changes.As a result, hetransformationfWashington rom federaltownto a majorcontrolpoint foradvancedservices asbeen accompaniedby omestrik-ing hangesn ts uilt nvironment.n ddition

to the suffusionf postmodernrchitecturalstyles hroughoutmuchof the metropolitanarea, there re severalkinds f newsettings.These nclude uildingsnd districtsubject ohistoric preservation, gentrified neigh-borhoods, master-planned communities,mixed-use nd multi-use evelopments, esti-val ettings,nd high-techorridors. hese at-egories re notmutuallyxclusive,nd they renot xhaustive. heydo,however, rovide o-



13/30

192 Knoxgent llustrationsf the newurban andscapesproduced s a result f the confluence fre-centeconomic nd socioculturalhange.

NewLandscapeElementsPerhaps hemost trikinglementn henewlandscape of the postmodernmetropolis spostmodern rchitecturetself. otonly s itcharacteristicfmany f the argeret-piecesofurbandevelopment,t has alsobeen prom-inentmongmanymaller dditions,emodel-ings nd infillingss developers ndfinanciershavesought o ensureproduct ifferentiationand maximize xchangevalue. This s clearly

reflectedn hepagesof rademagazines.hus:Postmodernismascreated passion ncommer-cialarchitecturehathasnotbeen seen since the1920s nd 1930s.... Developersunderstand hatwhile t costs more to design nd build a "veryrich"building,heend result s greater alue ndprofitabilityor hedeveloper "Design:ThePost-modernistra"1985, 5).and

it the ostmodernuilding] ill entmore uickly,andoften t a premium:tprojects herightookformage-consciousenantsNadel 985, 6).Accordingly,he copyfor the HadidDevel-opment ompany'sfficeuildingt 1212NewYorkAvenue eads: Theonly usinessddressinWashingtonesigned ogiveyoutheprom-inenceyou deserve. tsspectacular lass ndcolumned acade peaks fpower ndprofes-sionalism.ts obby, ichwithmportedmarble,wainscottingnd brass, s tastefulnd sophis-ticated... ." At the sametime, heovert ndselfconscioustylishnessfpostmodernrchi-tecturemakes t an importantomponent fcontemporary ommodity esthetics-as acommodityn itself,s theworkingnviron-ment forthe city's tyle-settingew bour-geoisie, nd as residential)ettingsor heir n-sembles f materialoods.But the questionof just what constitutespostmodernrchitecturesbynomeans implyresolved.Postmodern esign s bydefinitionwide-rangingndeclectic, narchicalndcom-binatorial.talso follows hat tsdefiningual-ities ie argelyntheeyeofthebeholder.Thishelps oexplainwhy,ntheworld farchitec-tural heorynd criticism,ne person'spost-modernisms another's ateModernism,till

another's econstructivism.ostmodernismspopulistmiddle-middlelass Venturi 966)orit s patriciannd elitistRossi1985); t s con-servativeKrier 985) r t sprogressiveFramp-ton 1985); t s antiurbanJameson 984;Davis1985) or it is prourbanAlbertsen 988; Krier1985). f t an be twoor more fthese t once,so much hebetter.Double-coding"s entralto High Postmodernism,hichnods towardsthe public t large ndwinks o architecturalspecialistsnd cognoscentiKlotz 988).Hencethe uxtapositionfformsClassic/Modern;a-miliar/unfamiliar),oods (dignified/comic),cultural evels (high/low),tances (straight/ironic), nd orientationsvernacular/cosmo-politan). ostmodernism'sreoccupations ithrichness,decoration,context, and history,meanwhile,llow forthe deployment ftheiconographynd motifsfeverythingrom hebaroque, herococoandtheneoclassical o thepop,the manneristndeventhe nternationalStyle,nwhichModernismtselfs theobjectofpostmodernronyndpastiche. ostmodernarchitecturaltyle,tturns ut, s thestyle fstyles.All this ranslatesnto a built nviron-ment hat s pepperedwith olumns, rches,keystones,emicircularindows, ornices, al-usters, rns, upolas, owers, alleries,tria ndporches;thatis clad withmarble,polishedgranite,rass, xposedbrick nd clapboard; ndthat sdetailedwith arnishedrightwork.The danger here is of being drawn ntoapermissive ategorization hich ncludesal-most nythingndthusmeansnearly othing.How, then,can we discern he postmodernwithin he contemporaryuilt nvironment?Ley (1987) identifiedix postmodern esignthemesn his tudy f FalseCreek,Vancouver:human proportions, edestrianorientation,pluralismof color,materialsnd design), is-torical/regional/vernacularotifs, cknowl-edgment f the local environmentalontext,and picturesqueness. elph 1987), na moregeneral eview f thequalities fpostmoderntownscapes,escribes ive istinctiveeatures:quaintness similaro Ley's picturesqueness),stylishnesscommercialhic),textured/deco-ratedfacades,pedestrian rientation,nd at-tempts oestablish onnectionswith ocalhis-tory r geography. encks1984) deployed30criteria o differentiateostmodernrchitec-turalstylesfromModern and Late-Modernstylesndproceeded 1986) o identifynum-berof tylisticraditionsallof hem learly art



14/30

The RestlessUrbanLandscape 193of a postmodernismf reaction)within ost-modern rchitecture:

historicismallusions o historictyles clecticallymixedwith contemporarymages and refer-ences)straightevivalismaccurate econstructionsfpe-riod tyles)postmodernlassicisma freestylelassicism hatgoes beyond traight evivalismo rework hevocabularyf classicalrchitecture)neovernacularmoreregional nd domestic hanrevivalism)ad hoc urbanismemphasizingheurban ontextandpublicrealm ut pecificallyesigned orparticularituation)metaphor-metaphysicalbuildingsirectly esem-bling unctionsr forms r incorporatingym-bols)postmodernpace/radicalclecticismdrawingna synthesisf otherpostmodernraditions)The Washington metropolitan area is suf-fused with examples of all of these. The olddowntown to the east of the WhiteHouse) thatemerged from he decay and riotsofthe 1960swith revitalized ommercial base, founded onupscale hotels,offices nd retail nvironments,contains a wide range of postmodern urbanelements,from traight evivalisme.g. the ex-tension of the CrestarBuildingat 1445 NewYork Avenue and the reconstructionof theEvening tarBuilding n PennsylvaniaAvenue),postmodern classicism e.g. the Grand HyattHotel; 1201 New York Avenue, Fig. 2A; and717 14thStreet-"The Renaissance ofa ClassicAddress"),and ad hoc urbanism e.g. the NewExecutiveOfficeBuilding,whose upper-leveltwo-storybays echo the Second Empire styleof the Old Executive OfficeBuilding).More-over, the new downtown ofmodernistofficesthatgrew up to the north nd west of the WhiteHouse in the 1960s is now being changed sig-nificantlyn character as postmodern struc-

tures are added (e.g. Republic Place (1776 1Street)and the new World Bank building Fig.2B)on the northeast ornerof18th nd G).Thefederalarea around the Mall has also begun toacquire some prominent postmodern struc-tures, including the new Canadian Chanceryand the new Smithsonianmuseums ofAfricanand Asian Art;while the Georgetown water-frontWashingtonHarbor (Fig. 2C-known inlocaldesigncircles s the MartianEmbassy) ro-videsa prominent xample ofpostmodernrad-ical eclecticism. In the suburbs,the most fre-quent occurrence ofpostmodernarchitecturaldesign is the "decorated shed": shoebox of-

fices, tores nd malls mbellishedwithcol-umns, rches,pediments, ilasters nd atria.There are also some landmark ostmodernstructures,owever, ncludinghe metaphor-metaphysicaltructure t 2070 Chain BridgeRoad Fig. D) nearTysons ornerknown o-cally s thetoilet owlbuilding);heCenter orInnovative echnology Fig.2E) in the Dullescorridor whose developer deconstructiviststylemakes t candidate orJencks'sategoryof ad hoc urbanism);nd Tycon Towers Fig.2F-on thebeltway earTysons orner; nownlocally s the shoppingbag building), airfaxSquare, nd the American cademy fPhysi-cians'AssistantsuildingnAlexandria-allar-iants fpostmodern lassicism.Thehistoric reservation ovement an beinterpreteds drawing eavilyn some of thesociocultural orces escribednthefirst artof his ssay.Historicuildingsnd districtsendbothdistinctivenessnd dentity;hey lsoforman obvious inkagewith hat spect of post-modern ulture hat mphasizes he past, hevernacularnd thedecorative.t hould lso berecognized hathistoric reservation asbol-stered ignificantlyetween1981and 1986 bythe availabilityf taxcredits nd accelerateddepreciation enefits or nvestmentsn his-toricpropertyGleye 1988).Accordingo ar-chitectural istorian incent cully,hepres-ervationmovement asbeen the"singlemostsignificantrchitectural ovement fthe pasttwenty ears"1988, 87-88), aving, efurbish-ing, ndprovidingnew easeon life o down-towndepartmenttores, ffice locks,hotels,governmentuildings,ndwarehouses.n1970fewer han1500propertiesnd districts erelisted nthe National egisterfHistoric lac-es; by1985 herewere37,000 ntries. verthesameperiodthe number fcommunities ithhistoric istrictommissions ithprotectivepowersncreased romround 00 o more han1500 Listokin989). nWashingtonlmost 000structures ave now been designatedunderlocalpreservationaws, ndtwelve reashavebeendesignateds residentialistoricistricts(Gale1989).Apartrom eorgetown,llof hesedatefromheearly omid-1970s.twas at thistime hat hecity's nofficialreservationc-tiongroup,Don't Tear tDown,becamea sig-nificantlement n localpolitics. he group'sinitialictory as hepreventionf hedemoli-tionofa RomanesqueRevival ederal uildingknownocallys theOld PostOffice. hebuild-



15/30

194 Knox

qI-E

Figure 2A-E. A. 1201 New YorkAvenue, a specu-lative ffice uilding yKaempfer o. InvestmentBuildersnthe old downtown. . The newWorldBank uilding,8th nd Gstreets,nthe new down-town. C. Washington arbor, mixed-use evel-opment nthe Potomacnear heWatergate enterand theKennedy enter; rchitect: rthur ottonMoore Associates. . 2070 ChainBridge oad:met-aphor-metaphysicalrchitectureearTysons ornerin the Dullescorridor. . TheCenter or nnovativeTechnology:d hocurbanismntheDulles orridor



16/30

The Restless UrbanLandscape 195

'Q

Figure F-j. F.Tycon owers, suburbanandmarkdesignednthepostmodernlassicismtyle yPhilipJohnsonndJohn urgee.G. The Willard omplexon Pennsylvaniavenue, estored nd extended nthe mid-1980s ydeveloperOliverCarr.H. Facadepreservationn 7thStreet, ld downtown. .RedLionRow: nineteenth-centuryerraceinked othespeculativeffice lockbuilt yGeorgeWashingtonUniversityt 2000 Pennsylvania venue. J. TheSouthernuilding,riginallyuilt yDanielBurnhamin1911,hasbeengiven wo dditionaltories.



17/30

196 KnoxCoNsIDERHEFLT[_JREOFYOURUSINESSFROMANHISTROICALERSPEGIWES the m oft centur1e Avaiwenw dui _ds, _.OCdond ha.. Iq p eie oW ss~tesm tof _Sie7tiWnWsbagm 'sbusinesom- fla a ll An -n-muwty, amse ommwdrd >

a Seebs, NW. sid bwu iOoce spn, histolypeFiForugther -O K. A i ti t

iow-ff -ape Bildig. 1 Lon-estblised gntriicaton iwctwWndwarkas Gorgtow.aMnSiedpan orenle mater013ewtsharulywtaio omuntycetra ilio-olarfoaremainsn*o oit orKetlr Sot'smate-panedcomug~~~shedut;ILL nitnLodonContytVa-0 Prposd egina

"-shoppin mAfofhetureJOD US(sedwthfrmiUSAsion

_^_~~~~~~~~~~~~3

S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~Fgr 2K0 K. Adetsmnor. tholorado..

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o N

t_ _ t ~~~~~~~~~nitynLoudon ounty,a.O. Proposed egionalF~~~~eK N~~~~~~shopping mall tKentlands ). Alfandreo. 1989r + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~(usedith ermission).



18/30

The RestlessUrban Landscape 197

_ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T.

Figure2P-T. P. Georgetown ark hoppingmall.Q. PortAmerica-proposedwaterfrontevelop-ment.R.PortAmerica-proposedesidential evel-opment. .Flex-spacenLoudonCounty earDullesairport. . DullesCorner, mixed-useampusntheDullescorridor.



19/30

198 Knoxing snowrestored nd adaptedto a mixed-useproject hat s a key lementnthe Penn-sylvaniaAvenue DevelopmentPlan. Subse-quently,Don't Tear It Down succeeded inhelping osavetheWillard otel Fig. G)andat leastthe facadesof severalotherhistoricstructuresFig.2H), including he rather o-torious ineteenth-centuryerrace rontingneleven-storyfficelock nRed LionRow 2000Pennsylvania venue-Fig. 21) a practicede-scribed s"fa*odomy"y onservationurists).Althoughoo ate oaffecthemassive estruc-tionand rebuildingnthemodernisttyle ftheSouthwest,oggy ottomndmost f theGolden Triangle,Washington's reservationmovement adbecome a formidableorcebythe timethe renewal of the old (east end)downtownbegan in the mid-1970s.Historicpreservationsnow a salientssue n ocalpol-iticsndhasbecomefirmlynstitutionalized.naddition otheactivitiesfthefederally-sanc-tioned PennsylvaniaAvenue DevelopmentCorporationndtheproliferationfdesignat-ed districtsndstructures,nentire olume fthecurrent omprehensivelan for heDis-trict fColumbiahasestablished reservationasa major trategicbjective. heDistrict'sawprovidingor delay-of-demolitionrderforcertainategoriesf lderbuildingssregardedas one of the moststringentn the nation.Meanwhile, on'tTear tDown,having stab-lished securepowerbase,has nvited evel-opers to serveon itsboard,begunto engagedevelopers na consultativeatherhancon-frontational ode, accepted donations romdevelopers,emonstratedwillingnesso makepragmaticompromisesverpreservations-sues, ndchanged tsname to the DC Preser-vation eague. ntheprivateector, evelopershave been quick to respondto thisnew di-mension. he firmfWilkes, rtis, edrick ndLane,which epresentsmany fthecity's ig-gestdevelopers,mploys full-timerchitec-turalhistoriano advise tsclients; hearchi-tecturalfirm f Hugh Newell Jacobsenhasdevelopeda technique hatCanty1990)callsexpansionby replication,ddingto existingstructuresycloning hem see alsoTheWil-lardHotel xtension,ig. G);while hefirmfShalomBaraneshas made a specialty f ex-panding lder office uildings ygiving hemadded heightnthestyle ftheoriginal truc-ture, s intheSouthern uildingFig. J). hedowntownownscapes now virtualetpiece

of onservationrojects,ncluding allery ow,the NationalBankofWashington,he HotelWashington,heEvening tarBuilding,Wood-ward & Lothrop, he Colorado BuildingFig.2K), heSunBuilding,heMcLachlen ank, heSouthernBuilding, he NationalTheater, heWarner heater, nd theWashingtonuilding.As in nearly very entral ity,he built n-vironmentnWashington, C has also beenstrikinglylteredbythe accelerated preadof"designer neighborhoods" hrough ehabili-tationand gentrification-akind of do-it-yourself ostmodern esign hathasbeen theproduct f theconfluence f andeconomicsand thedesire n thepart f he new" middleclasses o establish hephysical rameworkora distinctivehabitus" Jager 986;Smith ndWilliams 986). n Washington, entrificationdatesback otheNewDeal,whenGeorgetown(Fig. L) wasdiscovered ythe nfluxf youngcollege-educated overnmentmployees. n-otherearly nclaveof gentrificationas theeastern nd ofKingStreet nAlexandria, ir-ginia,whereGeorgian nd Federal esidenceshave long provided an urbane settingforhouseholdswilling o trade pace for ccessi-bility.n theearly 950s, modest mount fadditional entrificationookplace ntheFog-gyBottom eighborhoodimmediatelyouth-east fGeorgetown),heKaloramarianglerea(alongConnecticut venuenorth ftheCBD),and on CapitolHill.As in othercities, t wasnotuntil he late1960sthat hepace ofgen-trificationeganto pick up significantly.n-deed,thegentrificationfGeorgetown asnotcompleteduntil he 1970s,when thewater-frontrea was anchoredby the creation f anational ark longtheChesapeake nd OhioCanal.Fostered ythedesignationf historicdistrictsnd bolsteredby the conversion fapartmentuildingsocondominiumsndco-operatives, entrificationpreadrapidlyo en-compass, y 1987,broadsections f theWestEnd,DupontCircle,Adams-Morgan, ountPleasant, olumbiaHeights, eDroitPark, o-ganCircle, haw,ndCapitalHill.Also hewholearea north fMassachusetts venuebetweenThomasCircle nd UnionStation s ntheger-minal tagesofgentrificationGale 1987).Theresult s a crescent f"reclaimed" nd reha-bilitated esidentialettingshat ncircles heCBD to thenorthFig. ).

Consumerswho want tyle nd distinctive-ness nmore equesteredettingsrethe arget



20/30

The RestlessUrbanLandscape 199

MONTGOMERY /'C O UN T Y /

DistrictofColumbia

.// ~~~~~~~KIorama/ ~~~~~~~Triangle

GeorgetownUnioI~~N:.A A ~~~~StationA~A

- Meu~e u apitoIArlington Mal / /

\. airp t 7z ~~~~~~. . . . ........ational .... ..airport/

PRINCEA MXDs/MUDs GEORGE'S............/ COUNTY

Festival' settings0 1970 Gentrified neighborhoods / l

1987 (after Gale 1987) / p1kFigure . DistrictfColumbia: lements fthenewurban andscape.

marketorprivate,master-planneduburbanand exurban ommunities. he essential ea-turesof these communities re "a definableboundary;consistent,utnotnecessarilyni-form, haracter;verall ontrol uringhe de-velopment rocessby a singledevelopmententity; rivatewnershipfrecreationalmen-ities; nd enforcementf covenants, ondi-tions nd restrictionsya master ommunity

association"Suchman 990, 5). They ypicallyexploit luster rPUD zoning o provide om-prehensivelyesigned nvironmentsnwhichthe amenitiestennis,olf, wimming,tc.), r-chitecturaltylescolonial evival, udor, arg-er-than-lifeotswold,tc.), andscapinglavish,meticulouslyrimmed,nd brimming ith pe-cial featuresike ast ron-and-brassignwork),layout maximizingusticviews and amenity



21/30

200 Knoxfrontage)nd securitysymbolized y gate-houses or imposing ateways nd operation-alized bycard-keyystems) re carefullyar-geted to appeal to the lifestylesnd statusidentities fparticularractionsf themiddle-incomegroup.Suchcommunities ave a dis-tinctmarketingdvantage ver otherkinds fresidentialevelopment,nd ndividualomesin uch ommunitiesavebeen shown o main-tain heir aluebetter han imilar omes lse-where Schwanke 990).In the Washingtonmetropolitanrea, theprecursorsfthesecommunities ereGreen-belt PrinceGeorge'sCounty,Maryland),neof hree reenbeltowns uilt yRexfordug-well'sResettlementdministrationnthemid-dleyears f the NewDeal; ColumbiaHowardCounty,Maryland), uilt ntheearly 960sbyJames ouse developer fBaltimore's arborPlace) as a private-enterpriseew town;andReston Fairfaxounty, irginia),nother 960sprivate-enterpriseewtown,builtbyRobertE. Simon ndsubsequentlyaken verbyGulfOil and thenby MobilOil. Today, hesecom-munities ave populations f 65,000,85,000,and50,000, espectively.oon after olumbiaand Restonwereunderway,Kettler rothersbeganwork n the rea'sfirstlannedunit e-velopment:Montgomeryillage,mmediatelynorthof Gaithersburg,hich now containsmorethan9,000residential nits.The UrbanLand Institute's eal EstateProjectsDatabaselists ome28master-plannedommunitiesex-cludingGreenbelt, olumbia ndReston) cat-teredthroughoutheWashingtonmetropoli-tan rea. ome70percentf hesewere nitiated(interms fconstruction)fter 980.Mostofthem re located nthe outer reachesof themetropolitanegion,hough here redistinctconcentrationsnthe moreaffluent orthernand western ectors n Montgomery ountyandFairfaxounty, espectivelyFig.1).The netresults collageof ntenselyrivateworlds, ach entered hrough rick rtimberportalsn themanner f an Englishandedes-tate and each announcingtselfwith namethatdrawsheavily n a repertoiref historicand distinctivessociations: ing'sForest, heChase,WoodleaManor,Wellington"TheDawnofanOld Era"), ndSully tation"SometimesIt'sBettero Live nthePast").Here reBoyer's"artfulragments"n erial roduction, rovid-ingthefoundationettingsor he aesthetici-zation of everydayifedescribedbyBerman

andothers. hey lso provide heopportunityfor placemaking hroughconsumptionde-scribedby Sack and an alternative hysicalframeworkor hedevelopment f distinctivehabitus or he newbourgeoisie.nthe centralcity here re a fewdevelopmentsikeFoxhallCrescents, hichwinds philloWesley eightsfromheoutskirtsfGeorgetown na siteplanthat features nglish alladian nd AmericanGeorgianmotifshat cho the xclusivityf heRoyalCrescent nBath, nglandKnight 982).It s inthe suburban eriphery,owever, hatthemaster-plannedommunityomes nto tsownas an upper-middlelass vivariumnd asettingor ommodification.venel Fig. M),for xample, rovides woodedsettingf 970acres that ontainsome700single-familye-tached dwellings all of them,reassuringly,"priced well into sixfigures") nd about 150townhousesnd courtyard omes, acedwithbikepaths, ogging railsnd bridlepaths ndfeaturingn equestrian enter nd an 18-holePGAgolf ourse.AtSully tation, 1200acre,3300-home evelopmentdjacent o the Dul-lescorridor,he enterpieces $1millionrickclubhouse/sales enter nwhat s claimedtobe thestyle f a 1930s mall-townnglishail-waystation Fig.2N), completewithwoodenwaiting oom benchesand a stationmaster'sclock.Perhaps he most mbitious fWashing-ton's master-plannedommunities s Kent-lands, urrentlyeingdevelopedona $40mil-lion parcel of farmland ear Gaithersburg,Maryland. entlandssplanned o nclude 600homes amix f ingle-familyetachedhouses,townhouses,partments,eniorhousing,on-dominiums,ndartist/crafttudios), 1.2mil-lionsquare-foothoppingmall Fig.20) andmore han millionquarefeet fofficepace.Specialfeaturesnclude: nineteenth-centurystyletreet rid unctuated y "Main Street"towncenter nd publicsquares;the preser-vation f an 1852farmhousend itsoutbuild-ings; the construction f a brickbarn, mill,firestation,uesthouseand carriage ouse asaccommodation orcultural ctivities; wet-landsenvironment;twelve-acre akewithboathouseand surrounding arkland; longwithchurches, n elementarychool,a postoffice,nd a recreation enter. The kitchengarden fthefarmhouse illbe maintainedya gardenerwho willalso operatea holdingnurseryo sell shrubs nd plantsdeemedap-propriateo Kentlands' esidents.



22/30

The RestlessUrbanLandscape 201Such amenities re central o the marketingstrategies f the large developerswho haveidentified ashington'sapidly-expandingewbourgeoisie ndnewpetitebourgeoisie s themost esirable egment fthe residentialon-

structionmarket. t is not simplyhe amenitypackages hat rethoughto be necessaryormarketinguccess. Design and style re rec-ognizedas crucial ngredientsnd inthisre-spect the dominant heme is neotraditionalplanning, mphasizing ot onlyperiod archi-tecture nd landscaping, utalso a return opedestrian-orientedettingswitha compre-hensivemix f anduses nd amenitiesLecesse1988; Forum" 988).Joseph lfandre,he de-veloper of Kentlands,has contractedwithAndresDuany, esigner fa highlyuccessfulneotraditionalommunityt Seaside, Florida,todesign ll of his ompany'sutureesidentialdevelopmentsn heWashingtonrea.The caleof suchenterprises as requiredboth devel-opers nddesignerso work loselywith ocalgovernments. uany attributesmuchof thesuccessofSeaside to his uthorshipfan en-tirely ewplanning ode, and forKentlands,thecity fGaithersburgad to establish newzoning categoryn orderto facilitateevel-opment.Master-plannedommunitiesrethusnot only highly esignedbut lso a very ar-gainedand managedform f public-privatemetropolitanevelopment.The proliferationf MXDs and MUDs hasgenerated fifthew andscape lement,har-acterizedby conspicuously pulent rchitec-ture, avish nterior esign, upmarket om-mercialnd residentialenantsndhigh-fashionretail utletsthe ikes f AnneKlein, iz Clai-borne,Perry llis, falzgraf,rate& Barrel,n-terspersedwith the occasionalpatisserie rgourmet oodstore).Early xamples fMXDsincludethe Rockefeller enter NewYork-thefirst:tartedn 1931), he CharlesCenter(Baltimore-the irst ajor ublic-privateen-ture: tarted 959), entury ityLosAngeles-the firstuburbanMXD:started 961) nd Wa-tergateCenter (Washington-thefirst re-dominantlyesidential XD:started 962).Ac-cording o theUrbanLand nstitute'sationaldatabase, onstructioneganon less than 25MXDs nthe1960s, 5 inthe1970s, nd nearly200 nthe1980s.The ULI's wnexplanation orthisgrowth ecognizes he influence f re-structuringnd repositioningnthedevelop-ment ndustry:he largeamountsof capital

made available orflagship rojects s a resultof the increased nvolvementf large orpo-rations nd financialnstitutionsnreal estate,the need fordevelopers o buildgreater up-portable alues n the face ofrisingandcosts,and the opportunities rovided yMXDpro-jectsto differentiateroducts or pscalemar-ketswhile preading esign osts overbiggerunits Schwanke 987).As we haveseen,suchprojectshave also been attractiveo publicagencies for several reasons. Indeed, someMXDs-NationalPlace nWashington,ortonPlaza nSan Diego,theEmbarcaderoenter nSanFrancisco,ndWinterquare n Denver-havebeen publicly-initiated.verall, early alfof all MXDs have nvolved ignificanthangesinpublic odes or ordinances,more han ne-third ave nvolved irect ublic nvestmentnsupporting lements, nd more than 15 per-centhave nvolved irect ublic wnershiprsharedriskSchwanke 987).In the Washingtonmetropolitanrea,thereare more han 0 MUDs/MXDs as istedntheULI 1989database) wo-thirdsfwhichhavebeen built ince 1980.Of thetotal, 7 percentreported ublic nterventionntheir ehalfntheform f ignificanthangesnpublic odesorordinances, 2 percent eported irect ub-lic nvestmentn upportinglements,nd morethan 10 percentreporteddirectpublicown-ership r sharedrisk.About one-third ftheoverall otal s located nthe CBD (Figs. , 3).These nclude enovatedtructuresuch s theWillard omplex Fig. G) as well as new,pur-pose-built evelopmentsuch s National lace,Techworld,Metro Center and WashingtonHarborFig. C).The atters one ofthe argestdowntownrojects, omprising75,000 quarefeet fofficepace, 93,000 quarefeet f retailspace,36 luxuryondominiumsndsixrestau-rants,ll et n nelaboratelyonfigured ublicspacewithfountainsnd a waterfrontoard-walk.A further0 percent f the MUDs andMXDs in the metropolitanrea are locatedwithin he central rea ncommercialodes orcorridors.xamples ere ncludeGeorgetownPark Fig.2P-rehabilitatedwarehouse pace),The FlourMill,L'Enfant laza, and ArlingtonCourthouse laza.Most f heremainderabout45 percentof the overall otal) re edge cityprojects.These include Crystal laza, CrystalSquare,BallstonMetroCenter, ethesdaMet-roCenter,DullesTown Center,RestonTownCenter, ndTysonsI.



23/30

202 KnoxIn largermetropolitanreas, extensions fMXD/MUD andscapes re to be found nthefestivalettings roduced bythe "Rousifica-tion"ofdowntown istrictsHall 1988;Martin1985;Sawicki 989).These arge-scale edevel-

opments, suallyheproduct fpublic-privatepartnerships,reatefocal ettingswaterfronts,market reas)for ntegrated ackagesof up-scaleoffices,ouristhops, impulse" etailing,restaurants,otels,offices, oncert halls andgalleries. hey redistinctives new andscapeelementsmerely ecause f heir cale ndtheirconsequent bilityostage-or merelyo be-the spectacular. hey are settings oreventssuch as concerts, utdoor exhibits,treet n-tertainmentndNewYear'sEve festivities,f-ten subsidizedbythedeveloper'sbudgetforpromotion. hey redescribed yHarvey1989,92)asthe"carnivalmask" fcontemporaryr-banization, heirspectacular paces being ameans "to attract apital nd people (of therightort)n period since1973) f ntensifiedinter-urbanompetition nd urban ntrepre-neurialism."Well-known xamplesincludeHarbor lace nBaltimore,iverwalknSan An-tonio,Fisherman's harfincludinghe Can-nery nd Ghirardelliquare) n San Francisco,South treet eaport n NewYork,ndFaneuilHall nBoston.Washington as two majorfocal ettings f"spectaclenddisplay"nAlexandriaOldTownKing treet, heTorpedoFactory)ndGeorge-town GeorgetownWaterfront,he George-townParkMall, hePaperMill, he FlourMill,Dodge Warehouse,the refurbished hesa-peakeandOhio canal, ndCanalSquare)thatprovide ettings orconcentrationsftouristshops ndrestaurants,otels, alleries,ndex-clusive ondominiums.hese reboth organ-ic" festivalettingslike heFisherman's harfarea) hat ave merged hrough iecemeal e-velopment.Washington lso has two largeMXDs with he flavor f festivalettings-theOld PostOffice uildingnd UnionStation-and s n heprocess f cquiring hat romisestobe the argest et-piecedevelopmentnthewholeU.S.for urposes ffestivalnd display:PortAmerica.twill ccommodate 200upper-income housing units, 1000 hotel rooms,400,000 q. ft f pecialtyhops, 00boat lips,parkingor5000 carsand 1.7 millionq. ftofoffice pace in a $1 billion, 80-acreprojectdesignedby John urgee nd PhilipJohnson.Theirdesign sstraightostmodern lassicism,

incorporatingtalianate ffice uildings, eo-classicalwaterfrontavilions,nd townhousesand condominiums odeledon Georgian athand RegencyBrightonFigs. Q, R).Finally,heexpansion f he uburban pace-economyhas producednew commercialand-scapes: high-tech orridorslong limited-ac-cess highways.evelopmentnthese orridorshas typicallyaken form ery ifferentromthe nfilling,ultinucleation,ommercialtrips,bypass tripsnd mixed-use uburban reewaycorridorsf the modernmetropolisBaerwald1978; Hart 1983; Erickson 983; Macdonald1985).The dominant omponentsre set on aframeworkf large ots,usuallyeveral cres,and nclude arge-scaletructures,xtensiven-siteparking,enerous mounts f andscapedparklandincluding aterfalls,agoons, errac-es, gazebos,and sculptures),nd a varietyfservices nd amenities uchas fitness enters,cycling rails,offee hops,flower hopsandday arefacilities.ffice locks, &Dlabs, leanindustriesnd hotels notshops, howrooms,outletsor restaurants)ominate hese corri-dors,while newcomponent f ncreasingm-portances flex pace": sprawling,ingle-storystructureshatook ike fficesnfrontuthaveloading ocks ntherear, ivingccess toR&Dlabs r smallmanufacturingrwarehousingp-erationsFig. S).The Washington etropolitanareaexperienced gain fmore han 6 millionsquarefeetof flex/R&D/warehousepacebe-tween 1978-88,an increase of 174 percent(Birch ndJain989).There re concentrationsofflexpacewithinll of herecent peculativedevelopmenthathas takenplacenearmajorroutewayshatpass throughhemetropolitanfringeFig. ),but he mostmarkedoncentra-tion s tthewestern nd of heDulles orridor,in LoudonCounty, irginia.

IntheWashingtonrea,there re emergenthigh-techorridorslong1-95nFairfaxoun-ty/Prince illiam ounty ndalong1-270 e-tween Bethesda ndGaithersburgFig.1).Theformersdominated ytheadvanced ervicessector,while he atterofficiallyesignatedsthe 1-270 echnology orridor ythe state fMaryland)sdominated ybiotechnologyan-choredby he NationalnstitutesfHealth,heBureau fStandards,heU.S. Agriculturalen-ter, heFoodandDrugAdministration,nd theU.S. Patent nd Trademark ffice). he bio-technologyectornowcontainsmore han 30firms, ith n employmentase projected o



24/30

The Restless Urban Landscape 20315,000 y 1995.Afully-fledgedigh-techor-ridorhas emergedwithin he Dullescorridor,betweenTyson'sCorner nd Sterling. t theheartof the corridor, etween Dulles Inter-national irportnd Reston, re arge usinessparksuch s the280-acre oudonTech Center(anchored by the regional headquarters orBMW and theU.S. headquartersf Saab Air-craft),ulles Corner, attlefieldusiness ark,the Center or nnovativeechnologyFig. E),DullesTechnologyenter, nd Presidentsark.There realso severalargenewMXDs, nclud-ingWorldgate, oodlandPark, ndWestfields.Asthe dvertisingopyforLoudonTechCen-terpoints ut,the Dulles corridorsclose totwo college campusesand a largeregionalshoppingmall,with lentyfhousingnd"riv-erto mountain" ecreation ithinasyreach.In short, it is hot." In similar ein, he copyforDullesCorner, 100-acre ampus djacentto the irportFig. T), eaturesheregionalndnational ccessibilityf thesite, longwith ts"Hyatthotel nd conference enter, cres oflakes, arks,ogging railsnd tennis ourts ..a private itnessenterwith n indoorpool,track nd squashcourts.... Evenretail hopsand a daycare center ... classic architectureand lush andscaping."t is clearthat, ustaswith master-plannedommunities,tyle nddesign re critical lementsndevelopers' t-tempts o rent pace to the high-growthd-vanced services nd high-technologyector.ThesiteplanforDulles Corner sdesigned oecho FrederickawOlmsted's deason formalaxes laid overa free-formandscape,withCentral ark hat eatures ardenpavilions,nentry ergola, olumns f rees, series f sig-nature" culptures,nd a waterscape ystemthat ncludes agoons, seriesofweirs, nd a30-foot eyser Thompson 988).

Conclusions:New UrbanLandscapes nd a NewUrbanGeographyI have rgued hat series f distinctiveewurbanandscapessemergingrom sociospa-tialdialectic ominated y the effects f thereconfigurationf economic nd culturalife.I havealsoattemptedo show that heemer-genceofthesenewurban andscapes rovidesa richource f onceptual nd empiricalssues

that inkurbangeography ith conomic, o-cial and cultural eography.he particularp-proach adopted here clearly ends itself o atheoretical rameworkooted n historical a-terialism,nwhich hebuilt nvironments eenas partof the superstructurehat s not onlyproducedbybut lso helps o sustainhedom-inant elationsf production. ostmodern e-sign, longwithpostmodern ulture nd phi-losophy, husbecomes the latest, ncipient,dialecticalxpressionf he ransformationromrationalist/Modernist/Fordistapitalism o anemergent,globalizing, dvanced capitalism.Accordingo this erspective,he new ettingsdescribed ere an be interpretedssustainingthe ransformationf apitalismecauseof heircapacityo legitimize ew social,professional,commercial nd financial litesand their a-pacity o enhance the circulation nd accu-mulationfcapitalwithin n emergent lobalpolitical conomy.Morespecifically,hey anbe heldto reflecthe ideology nd valuesofelements f henew ocialformationshat aveemergedwith his ransformationnd be im-plicated n someof the consequenttensionsand conflictsetween hem. imilarly,hey anbe interpretedsreflectingnd reinforcinghebroader ragmentationndpolarizationf ur-banspace.AsBoyer uts t,we can take he currentecyclingf nner ityneighborhoods,he ise f esignednvironmentsfrom estaurantso city tructures,hepleasuresofsophisticatedood aste-in hort he wholerealm f estheticonsumptionromown ousesto sundriedomatoes-as ulturaleinforcementofurbanpatialtructures:hose f ragmentationandhierarchicalizationtthe ocal evel,s well shomogenizationt the transurbanevel 1987, 1).

The examinationfnewurbanandscapesntheWashingtonmetropolitanrea lendssup-port o thenotion fa newurbangeography,with radicallyifferentormnd ecology romthatofthe classicAmerican itydepicted byfactorialcologies ndexplained,with aryingdegrees f uccess, ybid-rentheory,heoriesofresidentialmobility, eberian heory,ndneomarxist heories see, forexample,Cad-wallader 988;Cooke 1990b;Davis 1990).Thespatialpatternsssociatedwith he landscapeelements escribedn his ssay o notfit om-fortably ithin he sectors, ones or mosaicpatternshathave beenthefocus facademicdebatesurroundinghe classicAmericanity.Fragmentation,ultinodality,luidity,lurali-



25/30

204 Knoxty, nd diffusionre more in evidence thanhomogeneity,odalitynd hierarchyGottdie-ner nd Gephart 991).Vancerecognizedhesequalitiesome ime go nhis urveyfBayAreaurbanization1972,205), suggestinghat Wearewitnessinghe birth f a newcomplexur-banismnwhich hespecialized ocialdistrictshave begunto replacea synoptic atternoflandrent)n hapinghemorphologyf ettle-ment."PeirceLewis oined theterm galacticmetropolis"o capture new urban eographyin which "The residential ubdivision,heshopping enters, he ndustrialarks eemtofloat n space; seen together, heyresemblegalaxy f stars nd planets,held together ymutual ravitationalttraction,ut with argeemptyreasbetween lusters"1983,35).Thisnew urban geography, s some geographershave pointedout Fonseca 1976;Wood 1988),is characterized y landscapes hat re semi-urban: andscapes fmixeddensitiesnd un-expected uxtapositionsfformsndfunctions.Allthis houldnot imply, fcourse, hat he"old" urbangeography asbeen completelyoverwrittenr that he restlessnessfthebuiltenvironments somehow inked o an attenu-ation fpolarizationnd segregation ithinhecity. ather, e have ocontendwith eweco-nomic and sociocultural rends, changingframeworkormetropolitanrowth,hangingurbanandscapes nd, probably,hanging at-terns feconomic, ocial, nd cultural iffer-entiation.Most ofthis, learly, asyetto bemappedoutandset withinppropriate heo-retical frameworks.t remains to be seenwhether he newurban andscapes escribedinthis ssaywillbecome paradigmaticf thenew urban eography:he ymbolicandscapesofthepostmodern,in e sikcleAmericanme-tropolis,he uccessors oMeinig's 1979)MainStreet nd Hummon's1990)Commonplaces.The examinationf newurbanandscapesnthis ssayhasbeen largely escriptive,xplor-atory nd subjective: ause-and-effectemainto be verified nd detailed.The Washingtonexperience waits omparison ith hat foth-ermetropolitanreas.Weneedtoknowmuchmore boutthestyles ndfashionshat eopleadopt and the symbolic ignificancef theirhomes ndworkplaces. eneedto knowmuchmore boutthedynamicsf thedevelopmentindustrynd the intentions, otivationsndbehavior f developers, rchitectsnd plan-ners. See VanDyne 1987 for n excellent c-

countof thehistoryfdevelopmentnWash-ington,ncluding review fthecontributionsofmajordevelopers.) hese issuespointto afull esearchgendathatmight estbe devel-oped alongfour ronts.irst,omparativeval-uations f theemergent rban andscapes fother argemetropolitanreas.As Lewis1983,43) has emphasized, We should tartwith e-scription.am permanentlyurprisedt howlittle ood description here s of the galacticmetropolisn he cademic iterature."econd,systematicurveysfthe perceptions nd at-titudes fthe consumers ndusers f new ur-bansettingsfthesortdescribednthis ssay;surveyshatwouldbe aimedat exploringhehabitus of particular lass fractions nd atroundingut theculturalnthropologyfnewresidentialettings. hird, xplorationsf themotivationsnd professional ractices f thedevelopers,rchitectsndplannersnvolvednproducing hese environments;xplorationsthatwould be aimed tunderstandinghe rel-ativemportancefdevelopers' nterpretationsof market emand,of designers' rtisticndprofessionalmpulses see, forexample,Cuff1989;Buckley 990),ndofplanners' bilityndwillingness o represent he public interest.And,fourth,nalyses fthepolitical conomyof the contemporary evelopmentprocess:analyseshatwould showwhatgroups ontrolthe aesthetics f the builtenvironment;hatwould aybarethepolitics fthegrowth o-alitionsurroundingigh-techorridors,XDsand festivalettings;hatwould demonstratethe consequences forurbanpoliticsof theemergence fgentrifiednclaves ndmaster-planned xclaves fpowerfulocialgroups; ndthatwouldrelatenewsettingsf the sortde-scribedheretothebroader uestion fsocialreproductionWolch ndLaw1989) ndtotheorganic otalityf a sociospatial ialectic hathas lsogenerated landscapesfdespair"DearandWolch1987) ndanunderclass hosehab-itus s confinedwithin n "impactedghetto"(Hughes1990).

AcknowledgmentsA number fpeople, including ob Beauregard,Michael ear,DerekGregory,nthonying, n-

drewKirby, avidLey,NeilSmith, d Soja, GerardToal and Francis entre, ave read earlier rafts fthis ssay. amgratefulor heir upport nd advice



26/30

The Restless Urban Landscape 205andfor hecommentsftheeditor ndtheanon-ymous eferees.

Notes1. The potential elevance f postmodernhiloso-phy o theoryn human eographyasbeen elab-oratedby severalwriters,ncluding ear (1988),Graham1987), regory1987a, ), oja 1986,1987,1989), nd Cooke 1987, 988, 990a).Among heattractionsfpostmodern hilosophynthis on-text s tsrejection f the Modernistearch orunified iscourse n society:tsrefusal,notherwords, o recognize privilegedosition or nysingleheoreticaliewpoint.ostmodernismoesnot im oresolve he ontradictionsnd conflictsbetween, or xample,Marxist, eberian,ultur-

al, ndbehavioralheorynfavorf single randtheory.nstead it deliberately aintainshe cre-ative ensions etween heories,n thebelief hatacceleratednsights ikelyo derive rom iffer-ent nterpretations,evealed nconsistenciesndrelaxed ssumptions"Dear 1988, 68).Anothert-tractive eature, or ome geographers,s post-modernism'sensitivityo differentiation,o theuniqueand the singulars well as the general.(These erms re used here n he ense uggestedby Johnston1984).Generalrefers o somethingthat s universallypplicablewithin hedomain owhichtrefers; niquerefersosomethinghat sdistinctiveecausethere s no other nstance fit,butwhosedistinctivenessan be accounted orby particularombinationfgeneral rocessesand individualesponses; ingularefers o phe-nomena hat re distinctivend entirelyemark-able becausenogeneral tatementsanbe madeinreferenceo them.) heway t eeks o addressthetime-space ompressionfmodern ocial ifeand itsmethodologicalbilityodecode and de-construct hetext fa region, cologyor land-scapeare otherpostmoderneatures. heexplo-ration fpostmodern hilosophy,owever,s inits arly tages, hile ts tilityasbeenchallengedbothwithin eographyLovering989) nd nthearts ndsocial ciences ngeneralDavis 985;Ha-bermas 985).2. "New," as distinct rom he established our-geoisie, ntellectualsnd industrialnd commer-cialemployers,nd the established etitebour-geoisie,craftspersons,mall hopkeepers, fficeworkers,tc.3. The term sderived rom enisDiderot,neigh-teenth-centuryhilosopherwho described heway nwhich hegiftf finenewdressing ownforcedhimto replaceold possessionsnd fur-nishingsnorder hat verythingnhis ife on-formedo theelegant one of hisnewgown.4. Amixed-useevelopmentdentifieshree r moresignificantevenue-producingses e.g. retail,f-fice, esidential,otel/motel,ntertainment/rec-reation)n projects hat re mutuallyupportingand that nvolve ome ntegrationfproject om-ponents nder coherent lan.Multi-use evel-

opments rethosewhere roject omponentsrenot ntegrated nder uch a plan or whereonlytwo uses are involved.

ReferencesAglietta,M. 1979. A theoryf capitalistegulation.London:New Left ooks.Albertsen,,. 1988. Postmode

Documents

Washington Urban Landscape