Thursday, January 4, 2007

"Constructing Inequality"- My thoughts

Before I get started with my post, I have learned a cool tip that some of
you who are new to blogging, like myself, might find interesting. Thru your
blog settings you can create an email address that will allow you to post
blogs via email. This is especially handy if you are trying to post from a
PDA, some of which don't easily allow you to post. Very nice......plus, this
has the added benefit of allowing you to create your post with your email
program and use things like spell check........very very nice.......

Okay, so where was I......Oh yes, Susan Bickfords "Constructing
Inequality".......forgive me for oversimplifying Ms. Bickford's thesis, but
I have a tendency to do that sometimes.....my conclusion after finishing the
paper, is that the author 1.) has had a bad experience with either a gated
community, or the ghetto, or a downtown somewhere, or all of these, and/or
2.) misunderstands the role that the built environment plays in our
society....... Let me expound upon the latter.

Design is produced by the designer........it is the tangible solution to
some 3-dimensional problem......now there are better solutions, and worse
solutions, judged by a whole host of factors, most importantly how "well"
the problem has been addressed......My point here is that design is a
REFLECTION of society's percieved wants and needs........should I work on
designing a "bum friendly" park bench???? Or maybe a "bag-lady friendly"
enclosure around a restaurant dumpster??? Of course not, (unless it is in
the program, because then I want the bum friendliest bench on the
planet).......I do this so I do not encourage bums to sleep on these benches
or frequent these enclosures.....I design gates around communities because,
like it or not, some people want to live inside a community that is
protected by a gate........does that mean that I think societies treatment
of the homeless is what it should be, or that I want to run out and by a
home in a gated community???....not at all.....what it does mean however is
that I think that author is inaccurate of her portrayal of the space/society
relationship when she states, "space and society are more interactive than
that, more mutually constitutive."........Yes the built environment can
evoke emotions and reactions....you may even say manipulate
behavior.......but the fact is that, just like the presence of mall security
is a reaction to a cause (namely theft), the built environment is a reaction
to a cause (namely, the percieved wants and needs of its
inhabitants)........

Now, all of this being said, bad design is bad design.....plain and
simple.......ever since residential design fell predominately in the hands
of builders and developers post-depression, and suburbia was born post WWII,
a general decline in quality of homes and neighborhoods has been pretty
evident......likewise, without some real effort on the part of the decision
makers, how can anyone really expect low income housing to feel like
anything less than that?? There is always the opportunity for designers to
create better places, and interject more socially responsible solutions as
we are able....but in the end, our solutions are problem driven........and
if people want to live in gated communities, and municipalities want to get
low income housing for as cheap as possible, and town managers don't want to
encourage the homeless to take up residence in their parks, we as the
designers will continue to come up with the best possible solutions for the
problems that they present to us......the authors contentions are societal
problems, brought to light by design, but by no means attributed to it....

Lastly, if the United States can be considered a successful democracy, and
be made up of multiple states, and each state can be made up of multiple
municipalities, why can't each municipality be made up of smaller
communities and neighborhoods of likeminded individuals? Ethnocentricism, as
I understand it, is a normal social condition.........as long as we all
remember that, in a democracy, our allegiance lies with the greater
community as a whole......

And, in the immortal words of Forrest Gump....."That's all I have to say
about that"..................

6 comments:

Herb Childress said...

Hi, Peter.

I'd like to disagree with one thing you said, which is that "Design is produced by the designer........it is the tangible solution to some 3-dimensional problem." I'd like to believe that's not true, that design is the tangible solution to a practical or an economic or social problem. When I come to you and ask you to design a high school, I'm not asking for a big pile of Legos; I'm asking for material help with a set of organizational, financial and interpersonal needs, only some of which I will understand without your help.

Part of the problem I see is that the architectural profession has given away the store with regards to programming. If I understand correctly, programming isn't even part of the standard AIA contract sequence any more, but a special service. So when you say that "unless it is in the program, because then I want the bum friendliest bench on the planet," I think that's a cop-out by the industry to not take responsibility for the impacts of its work. "Hey, they told me to build this toilet seat out of barbed wire, so that's what I did."

The Nuremburg trials laid out the principle that obeying an immoral order is no defense. I think that the architectural profession, while several orders of magnitude removed from this analogy, has no defense in obeying anti-social programming.

E. Swendseid said...

i think that your last paragraph, the analogy of a group of communities to a group of american states creates a very strong base for arguement that communities and those who masterplan these communities cannot, as much as they may wish to, disconnect themselves from the world outside their gate. as much as i believe architecture has a great impact on people, i believe that it is put at fault too many times for social issues. its peoples attitudes that create these "gates". the rich, white guy is always the one to get the boos and hisses about living behind his gate... "its the priviledged few who give society the seperation and discrimination it has". their are countless social groups that blindly throw the burden on these "priviledged" people. but why social groups, why NAACP, is it the rich guys fault and not the idiot hillbilly or the macho gang member who just robbed a house and killed someone? is it more destructive to live behind a gate, or is it worse to create the fear that causes the gate to go up? who now is creating "gates"?

architecture has great power in the world today, and those buildings that are seen as the "masterpieces" are not the masterplanned communities that we all know and love. architecture is deeply intertwined with society, so i believe that untill society gets a clue and starts taking responsibility for its actions, architecture will be nothing more than a "decorated box" to keep society apart from itself.

Peter James DeIuliis said...

Herb,

Excellent points....let me rephrase my comment and say that, "architectural design is the solution to a practical or an economic or social problem, expressed in a 3-dimensional way"...By no means am I trying to trivialize it...and concerning the loss of control/diminished influence on programming, I definitely agree that we should make an effort to have a greater impact in that facet of design...but, I have always referred to myself as an "idealist trapped in a realist's body"....I want to believe that I can change the world, and I have these grand visions of how noble it is to be the person tasked with designing the environment around us, but for now, I have come to grips with the fact that my job is to come up with "solutions"...maybe with some growth and experience I can help to start shaping the "problems"....

P.S. nicely done with the barbed wire toilet seat.....ouch!!!

DCCHomes said...

Test from a first time blogger.

Ken Ballard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken Ballard said...

I think that this essay has hit a chord with all that have read it within the program, as well as others that have found theie way to these blogs and have offered their opinions.
I agree that mall security is in reaction to the theft, and can even apperciate that this service provided by the operators of the mall can make some people feel "bad/uncomfortable", but it is there for a reason. The majority of the patrons mostlikey requested this sense of sceurity as well as many, if not all of the shop operators to DETER shop lifting. Now as all good things start off, there is opportunity for things to go awry, ie, profiling, abuse of power, etc. That doesent mean abandond it or change the design of malls. Malls are designed for several purposes, mainly to make money. Amoung others, the experiance of shopping, people watching, an esacpe from the house, a hang out and oh yeah Shoping.

I am going to shift gears now and talk more about what I personally think this essay is trying to espress and i think we have all gathered this and have mentioned it in one way or the other....

But just for fun, everyone will have to go back to my blog.