Dd101 Tma04

Compare and Contrast the modernist and flexible approaches to the ordering of traffic.

‘I drove down Harehills Avenue, a Vauxhall emerged at speed out of Avenue Hill on my left driving immediately in front of my car. To avoid hitting the side of the Vauxhall I swerved to the right. Because the Vauxhall was driven onto the right lane. Instead of the left, my car hit its back right panel. All the roads are on a two-way system and I had to do some careful driving to prevent a major accident. The woman driving the Vauxhall had a young, tall and strong male companion who came over to me in a threatening manner’   (Silva, 2009, p. 307)

What does this partial quotation show us? It shows a brief account of how traffic systems and social order can be followed or not as the case may be. Whether traffic systems in this particular area is the correct form of practice, or indeed it is down to disorderly behaviour from an individual. Can disorderly behaviour be an effect of the state not policing the ‘street’ design with enough control measures to ensure situations didn’t arise or can Monderman’s Thesis (flexible approach) and Buchanan’s Report (modernist approach) have differing ideas of traffic order, and show ideas and the variables involved to improve social order.

The main question both approaches attempt to answer is to improve on the social aspect of the public using the design or redesign of space. This would be from Buchannan’s perspective a creation of road systems or ‘corridors’ where traffic would flow and be redistributed resulting in less congestion. These isolated areas for the public were referred to as ‘environmental units’ this would then segregate the public and vehicles and in turn reduce congestion in the public areas.
Monderman sought out a redesign of public space where the ‘naked street’ idea (where signage and warnings were to be taken down, traffic lights and central white lines removed and the footpaths made level with the road) would allow a...