Posted: October 16th, 2009 | Author: Claudia | Filed under: Content, Lectures, Meetings, Uncategorized | Tags: lecture, micro urbanism/interventions, neighborhood | No Comments »
Here is a small selection of the roundtable discussion, condensed into Q&A, with Jan Konings and Timo de Rijk on how to effectively transform a functionless public space.
Q: How can you transform public space?
A: If you want to change something you have to change something in the process. Through putting a device with a certain function in public space one creates a program.
Q: How can this device have a lasting impact?
A: The function and impact of an object or space dissipate and is eventually understood. In order for it to be carried on one has to create dynamic change instead of static, through for example involvement.
Q: How can you create dynamic change?
A: Through setting up a set of necessary rules. You have to reintroduce social responsibilities.
Q: What kind of social responsibilities?
A: Through giving a function to a public space. Take for example the skate-board places. Skateboarders take care of this space/place because they use it which in turn makes them feel responsible for it. In order for this to happen a group of people has to decide that this is ‘their’ space and take care of it.
Q: What are social responsibilities connected to?
A: Social responsibilities are connected to certain privileges. Give people privileges but let them do something in return
An example for dynamic change is a project in Haarlem, Reinaldapark, that Jan Konings initiated. The park was built on a former refuse-dump which caused old garbage to resurface. Therefore the municipality wants to clean up the park and is drawing up new development plans. During this transitional period Jan will use the park as an experimental platform to develop new ways of usage. On sight, he will build a working space pavilion where visitors can come to socialize and use building materials to create their own park environment. The municipality has decided to incorporate the most successful results in their master plan.
Community gathering in Reinlandpark
Posted: April 16th, 2009 | Author: shauna | Filed under: Content, Lectures, Media, Meetings, References, Theory | Tags: evolution, microrayon, neighborhood, people, philosophy, tableau rassa, Theory | No Comments »
We started our meeting with a short discussion of our housework (content coming), followed by a presentation by Dimitri on the common line of evolution of Russian urban development: building blocks progressing from the Stalinist quarter to microrayon to larger microrayon to residential rayon.
After Dimitri’s lecture, Leslie Kavanaugh gave a inspiring overview of the development of “collective,” and the individual’s place within the world in philosophical terms (and also an essential reading list for budding philosophers).
POLIS (CITY) = Politics
Leslie started her talk with the thesis that politics is intrinsically linked to “city” (and thus ideas of how we should live together) from its linguistic Greek origins. She continued her presentation by giving an overview of major turning points in philosophical thought that are taken for granted in our modern world. Her final message was that how we organize ourselves economically is how we organize ourselves socially. She left us with the message that it is up to us to explore new ways of living together, that we should not shy away from being “political” as designers, and that there is a whole spectrum between the two extremes of Hypercapitalism and Communism.
Coincidentally, I read something related on John Thackara’s blog, Doors of Perception. He says:
John Michael Greer…suggests that the time may be ripe to change the question. “Oversimplifying reality into two rigid categories is probably the most pervasive source of failed thinking in the modern world”, he writes. “Rather than limit ourselves to a choice between two unpromising alternatives – “capitalism” and “socialism” – why not look at different frameworks, such as distributism.
Distributism. Right. Having paused to find out what distributism is, or was I return to find Greer writing about another novelty: the Druid notion of ternary thinking. “The basic practice is that when you encounter any classification of the world into two and only two sides (we call this a binary), think of a third option that isn’t simply a compromise between them. With practice you get very good at noticing the blind spots that make binary thinking seem to make sense. Yes, you can then go on to look for a fourth, fifth, etc.!”
Finally, we concluded with a mindmapping session. We split up into five small groups to consider the term, “ideal neighborhood.” Some major themes present throughout individual mindmaps turned out to be intangible qualities of neighborhoods that can manifest themselves in tangible ways:
safety, social control/neighborhood watch, responsibility, tolerance, connection, interaction and communication,
as well as good proportions of
diversity/uniformity, structure/chaos, identification, individualism/collectivism
