I agree that we, citizens, have essentially settled into an acceptance of the economic inequalities of our society. If this is the case how does one begin to argue against revitalizing our cities? Would the eventual abandonment of these places help balance the scales? When books are being authored over the concern for our Shrinking Cities how do we begin to suggest feasible solutions? It is certainly a heated topic of debate.
I do understand the author’s concern, however as a tax payer and aspiring architect I must argue at what cost do we provide inclusiveness? Should I believe architecture is responsible for the gentleman in the wheelchair collecting spare change at my street’s intersection? Do I blame architecture for the grown men who sleep and hang out on the neighborhood playground? Would you take your kids there to play? And how do you explain to your kids why they can’t play there? Consider these questions while you drive miles away for a playground you will allow your children to play in.
I do believe the forms of our cities shape our notion of city and city life. Our experience within the city is a directly linked to our comfort. Comfort is a concern; if there are numerous dark streets with strangers most of us will not feel safe. Another given is that regardless of the argument presented no one would want stop their car to play in a playground with their children that is filled with individuals who appear homeless. I would not endanger myself or my child in order to prove a point against social prejudice.
As for outside versus the inside; this is an entirely personal perception of space. Someone once told me that resident gates only keep out the honest. This struck me as a sad truth. Does the gate that is specified for the community or building development feed the misconceptions of what is believed to be safe? I believe our misconceptions to be a result of other convincing factors. Why doesn’t my auto insurance company play into the debate? The insurance company prefers a community to be gated or that I keep my car in a secure parking garage. The location of my residence is a statistic that factors into my premium.
I believe the deconstruction of equality in civic life to be the result of a complex piecemeal. The media strikes as a predominate force in our perceptions or misconceptions. Its reach is great, as it is filtered into our daily commute by radio, in print, or on our office computer screens. The media is a factor in our cities, whether it is reporting on the demolition of a building or on a neighborhood eye sore. I find the local news to carry the highest guilt when it comes to feeding our fears; it is a guarantee in television ratings. Nightly news is the bearer of the good, the bad and the ugly. The article cites’ Sennett as saying, “The way our cities look reflects a great, unreckoned fear of exposure.” I agree but I must ask how much should one be exposed? I am relieved to escape the daily media exposure. I choose to disregard television in my home in order to create a haven without all the hard truths. And in reality how much am I truly missing? I promise not much. The internet is a very informative tool in my daily life.
The contrast of our modern life to those who lived in cities past is greatly different. Aside from print media, how far would the information reach into the home or work place? Our experience is certainly on overload. I find the success of reality television interesting. It is considered to be entertaining to tune into a show that brings into the home arrests of individuals we would hesitate to sit next to in a doctor’s office much less pass while walking on our cities sidewalks. In history, wars were lost and won without either side the wiser for months, and yet I remember jogging in the gym while watching bombing LIVE on CNN.
Perhaps I have broadened the scope of discussion, although I wonder how civic this would be if all possible elements were not scrutinized. We are all formed and informed. The moments that determine this formation are the results of numerous collected experiences, the fact that I have had my share of good experiences of living in the city is the reason I choose to make a home for myself and my daughter in the city. This of course is a personal decision; in fairness for discussion I admit I live in an area that would be considered gentrified. However, I do believe it would be quite difficult to find an area in this city that is not being revitalized or undergoing substantial real estate re-investment; the trends are driving the market. I personally enjoy living near my workplace, and I also consider my daughter’s elementary school location to be an amenity. I find our freedom of choice to be an admirable right in our democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Kara, I agree with the sad truth that gates only keep out the honest. Working for a firm that does many public buildings, I am constantly trying to find ways to keep petty vandals at bay. Be it a bricks resistant to paint, corner protection, or, by providing screws that can't be removed except with a special tool.
At the end of the day I usually wind up with the conclusion that if someone is determined, they will find their way around anything. Just like squirrels.
Your discussion of Technology, is an interesting one. Technology, which has been much lauded with the power to unify society, also has the ability to separate and isolate. Television in particular has the power to separate us from the events of real space and real time.
I agree that technology separates. It is one of the biggest culprits of separation if not used correctly or if one takes advantage of it. Here, it has semi brought all of us from across the nation together, however it is still very inpersonable and we can all feel "safe" because we are able to hide behind the computer. Some will probably be more likely to enter a discussion with someone online rather than if we all first met at BAC. Not just for the reasons of who we are but for the simple fact that some may be out of their comfort zone when forced to speak in front of an entire class. So in this situation I will give technology a plus.
Technology has a negative impact on today's young generation in my opinion. Even while I was in school I had hallmates that were IMing instead of walking down the hall to talk to someone. Even Roommates who would never talk felt comfortable IMing or e-mailing. I have never in my life been so discouraged by technology as I am with texting! How impersonal can one get? It seems as if it is the only form of communication for some of the teenagers today. There was even a school in the news that was attempting to classify "texting" as another language. One people would take in school or have the option to use while taking essay exams!
My latest encounter with it was yesterday while I was visiting an old advisor at the Univ. of Arkansas. When I went to her office, the secretary IMd her to let her know she had an old student there to see her. What happened to just picking up the phone?
Great insight from you both and for that I thank you.
I have to admit, I am initially quiet when it comes to first time encounters and once I settle into a comfort zone then I truly let myself be. So I will try to remind myself daily that when we are all in Boston together I need to skip the preemptive quiet observer role.
As far as the reluctance for most to become socially involved with a stranger and the acceptance via the means of a computer, this is interesting to me since so many of my friends have found love online. I am not passing judgment; I just wonder how architecture can keep up with the pace of society that is all too comfortable to cast off "real time" and "real space" for a social encounter. Will there be consequences? Will we start to dwell in nondescript buildings in order to allow our computers housed inside to describe where we are once we have logged on?
I have a good friend that I used to have daily contact with in college who I now probably will only have social interactions by phone or instant messaging. On the flipside; a long friendship of over fourteen years has ended. There is no contact, by phone or computer. It is an interesting phenomenon. I find the social interaction online must stem from an online activity in order for it to be successful. My long time friendship was based on growing up together in real time and space. We were coffee shop friends and once someone left then the place ceased to exist. This all part of a necessary growth pattern from adolescence into adulthood.
So I begin to wonder about the children today who are IMing friends instead of meeting up at the coffee shop. What sort of decay, if any, is occurring to society as a social animal? How will this affect the children who grow up socializing more online than in school? We all remember how difficult it is to be an adolescent in school. The computer social network is an accepting place because there are no visible differences to perceive. You can be anyone on the computer. Will this help children to grow into better citizens? How will the development of problem solving skills be learned much less the acceptance of fellow society? How will the child that grows up online become personally defined?
Great post Kara, especially the pointing out of the fact that while everyone can espouse open communities, who wants to share with the more threatening aspects of the populace? It raises an interesting question: Is the difference in who we can be on the internet and who we are just a variation of fact of human nature that one says one thing and does another?
(This is where one would quote from Nick in The Great Gatsby, "Everyone suspects himself of at least one of the cardinal virtues, and this is mine: I am one of the few honest people that I have ever known.")
Yet, my prime reservation is the downplaying of a person's ability to choose. Because I can send an IM, does that inhibit my ability to walk across the office and deliver a message? Am I instantly locked into a mindless lockstep of technological slavery? Of course not. I believe that architects as do a number of many other professions believe people to be innocent sheep or children; that people are incapable of action or decision on their own, and thus must have the professional elite make their decisions. (Which leads into the messianic perception of architecture- and the rise of the starchitect, but that's another topic for another comment.) I think a more refreshing view of technology can be found in Japanese perceptions of technology as friendly tools than in the Western adversarial tradition defined by the myth of the Golem. Even Bill Gates says that the book will never be replaced by the computer. Ubiquitous technology is not all bad; text is technology (albeit old technology.)
Post a Comment