Before anyone stops reading under the assumption that this week's post title is nothing more than an exercise in hyperbole, I should reassure the reader that I am speaking about human perception, not the eradication of real space and time. The topic I wanted to cover in this week's post is how modern development patterns as well as transportation systems (and by that I am mostly referring to the automobile) has affected our awareness and experience of the spaces in which we live and between the origin and destination points when we travel. The destruction of time has been twofold. The past has been eliminated through the removal of people from the places that hold our history. Suburban places have no history and so sever us from any past or worse yet, encase that past in a museum-type preservation that definitively separates it from the living city. The second destruction of time is the future. Longevity. People have a vague idea that when they grow old, they will retire, and that it will probably not be in the place that they have spent the majority of their lives (if they've actually spent their lives in any one particular place), but the problem goes much deeper than that. Even a (nuclear) family that has spent the majority of its years together can expect to see the children leave the community at adulthood, never to return. The parents will likely leave for a retirement community when their working lives are over (no pun intended, really), but even if they opt to stay, their tenure will be up the minute they can no longer drive, maintain their yards, or pay their property taxes. The family will certainly have no lasting connection to the community and the property will simply pass back into the 'musical chairs' version of home ownership that the majority of the country participates in.
Space has been eliminated in urbanized areas through the advent of the automobile (we can also imagine the same thing happening with well developed rail systems, though I know of no legitimate examples). I mean of course, our perception of space. Imagine a suburban family that wants to go to the mall on a weekend. They pile into their car, pull out of the driveway, and see almost nothing between their driveway and the mall parking lot. As the world whizzes by at high speed there is almost no chance they will notice a small business along the highway, wave at a neighbor, or stop at a park. The automobile/highway combination that they are likely to use to get to the mall serves as a virtual tunnel, isolating the family inside the car and away from the outside world, which is subsequently ignored. When that space gets ignored (eliminated in the mind), there is a subsequent degradation of that space due to disuse. Businesses fail, parks get neglected and neighborhoods lose value which creates a 'dead' zone between used areas. Parts of the city or metropolitan area simply die off as a result of the mental elimination of space.
This is, broadly speaking, the result of the 'leapfrogging' style of land development and highway building that drives most contemporary urban policy. When transportation systems are designed to accommodate existing development, there is no need to leapfrog. When development is designed to accommodate transportation systems, the developers build distant from existing developed areas in hopes of minimizing costs. The space between gets eliminated in the minds of the user because it isn't necessary to encounter that space.
"Prophesy now involves a geographical, rather than a historical projection; it is space, not time, that hides consequences from us."
Whoa, Davros! We're jut talking about human perception here, not the actual destruction of reality. Geez.
Space has been eliminated in urbanized areas through the advent of the automobile (we can also imagine the same thing happening with well developed rail systems, though I know of no legitimate examples). I mean of course, our perception of space. Imagine a suburban family that wants to go to the mall on a weekend. They pile into their car, pull out of the driveway, and see almost nothing between their driveway and the mall parking lot. As the world whizzes by at high speed there is almost no chance they will notice a small business along the highway, wave at a neighbor, or stop at a park. The automobile/highway combination that they are likely to use to get to the mall serves as a virtual tunnel, isolating the family inside the car and away from the outside world, which is subsequently ignored. When that space gets ignored (eliminated in the mind), there is a subsequent degradation of that space due to disuse. Businesses fail, parks get neglected and neighborhoods lose value which creates a 'dead' zone between used areas. Parts of the city or metropolitan area simply die off as a result of the mental elimination of space.
This is, broadly speaking, the result of the 'leapfrogging' style of land development and highway building that drives most contemporary urban policy. When transportation systems are designed to accommodate existing development, there is no need to leapfrog. When development is designed to accommodate transportation systems, the developers build distant from existing developed areas in hopes of minimizing costs. The space between gets eliminated in the minds of the user because it isn't necessary to encounter that space.
"Prophesy now involves a geographical, rather than a historical projection; it is space, not time, that hides consequences from us."
-John Berger, (1974) The Look of Things
So what about time? The destruction of time includes two basic elements: Destruction of history and the knowledge of limited tenure. Firstly, the destruction of history is fairly well recognized in terms of the physical destruction of historic buildings as well as buildings that are simply old (not all old buildings are historic). This disrupts continuity of place and serves to detach us from our history, one of the key elements of cultural capital. But there's a more significant aspect. The aforementioned development leapfrogging means that significant portions of the population are living in places that have virtually no history at all. New suburbs have no old buildings to destroy. No parks or monuments that tell of the people's past. For people that live in these areas, history has no tangible meaning at all, and that element of culture is lost. Even if the area is well designed and follows all the necessary checklists to ensure good 'placemaking', the reality is that it cannot build the cultural capital that a place requires to become part of the society's social network. Social networks require time to build. Familiarity and continuity of place are required as well.
The final element is often overlooked as positive way to build community, but is sometimes discussed in urban planning as 'aging in place'. Currently, many Americans' plans for the future include living in an auto-oriented suburb until retirement, at which time they will sell that home and move somewhere that they believe is an appropriate place for retirees to live (Arizona and Florida come to mind). That may be another state, or just another community dubbed a 'retirement community', but in any case it means leaving the place where you've spent your life and moving somewhere new and unfamiliar. A place where you have no ties and where you, in essence, start from scratch. The part of this process that gets overlooked is how this affects people's behavior during their working lives, those decades between coming of age and retirement. It seems reasonable to assume that people's attitudes and behaviors toward the communities they live in would be quite different according to whether they plan to remain in the community or leave upon retirement. For example, a couple that lives in a community where they plan to stay might very well support community projects that will enhance life in the neighborhood. They might support a tax to improve the neighborhood park (even though it will cost them money), lobby to have the city locate a branch of the city library nearby (without substantial effect on property value), or choose to support neighborhood businesses over corporate stores. All of these things improve the neighborhood either physically, politically, or socially. One can easily imagine the affects on a neighborhood where this attitude towards retirement is prevalent. Better schools, more/better local businesses, widespread political participation, and more developed social networks are just a few of the benefits that might come from this change in citizens' thinking. An interesting study might be one that looks at the correlation between citizens' retirement plans and factors such as political participation, success of local businesses, neighborhood amenities, and so on...
All told, we have travelers who ignore the 'dead zones' between developed areas, we have neighborhoods with no connection to the past, and we have resident population whose plans for the future don't include longevity in their communities. Together this creates the constantly shifting metropolitan environment that proves so destructive to communities and so profitable for development companies. In our culture (that being the United States), the desirous neighborhood to get into for the average person is not the most established one, or the one that holds the most emotional and social meaning, but the newest one. As such, families continuously chase the next new development, leading to subdivisions which begin their decline phase 20 yrs or so after they are first built. Strip malls along the highway with unoccupied stores only a few short decades after construction. As soon as a new highway is built or a new region opened for metropolitan expansion (often the same event), those who can afford to do so shift in that direction, untethered in any way to their current neighborhoods and the process of community building (which takes decades if not generations) is reset. And inevitably, some areas of the metro become those 'dead zones', fading out of existence (for most intents and purposes) in the minds of many of the regions' citizens. We don't need to destroy reality. We can simply destroy people's perception of it.
So what about time? The destruction of time includes two basic elements: Destruction of history and the knowledge of limited tenure. Firstly, the destruction of history is fairly well recognized in terms of the physical destruction of historic buildings as well as buildings that are simply old (not all old buildings are historic). This disrupts continuity of place and serves to detach us from our history, one of the key elements of cultural capital. But there's a more significant aspect. The aforementioned development leapfrogging means that significant portions of the population are living in places that have virtually no history at all. New suburbs have no old buildings to destroy. No parks or monuments that tell of the people's past. For people that live in these areas, history has no tangible meaning at all, and that element of culture is lost. Even if the area is well designed and follows all the necessary checklists to ensure good 'placemaking', the reality is that it cannot build the cultural capital that a place requires to become part of the society's social network. Social networks require time to build. Familiarity and continuity of place are required as well.
The final element is often overlooked as positive way to build community, but is sometimes discussed in urban planning as 'aging in place'. Currently, many Americans' plans for the future include living in an auto-oriented suburb until retirement, at which time they will sell that home and move somewhere that they believe is an appropriate place for retirees to live (Arizona and Florida come to mind). That may be another state, or just another community dubbed a 'retirement community', but in any case it means leaving the place where you've spent your life and moving somewhere new and unfamiliar. A place where you have no ties and where you, in essence, start from scratch. The part of this process that gets overlooked is how this affects people's behavior during their working lives, those decades between coming of age and retirement. It seems reasonable to assume that people's attitudes and behaviors toward the communities they live in would be quite different according to whether they plan to remain in the community or leave upon retirement. For example, a couple that lives in a community where they plan to stay might very well support community projects that will enhance life in the neighborhood. They might support a tax to improve the neighborhood park (even though it will cost them money), lobby to have the city locate a branch of the city library nearby (without substantial effect on property value), or choose to support neighborhood businesses over corporate stores. All of these things improve the neighborhood either physically, politically, or socially. One can easily imagine the affects on a neighborhood where this attitude towards retirement is prevalent. Better schools, more/better local businesses, widespread political participation, and more developed social networks are just a few of the benefits that might come from this change in citizens' thinking. An interesting study might be one that looks at the correlation between citizens' retirement plans and factors such as political participation, success of local businesses, neighborhood amenities, and so on...
All told, we have travelers who ignore the 'dead zones' between developed areas, we have neighborhoods with no connection to the past, and we have resident population whose plans for the future don't include longevity in their communities. Together this creates the constantly shifting metropolitan environment that proves so destructive to communities and so profitable for development companies. In our culture (that being the United States), the desirous neighborhood to get into for the average person is not the most established one, or the one that holds the most emotional and social meaning, but the newest one. As such, families continuously chase the next new development, leading to subdivisions which begin their decline phase 20 yrs or so after they are first built. Strip malls along the highway with unoccupied stores only a few short decades after construction. As soon as a new highway is built or a new region opened for metropolitan expansion (often the same event), those who can afford to do so shift in that direction, untethered in any way to their current neighborhoods and the process of community building (which takes decades if not generations) is reset. And inevitably, some areas of the metro become those 'dead zones', fading out of existence (for most intents and purposes) in the minds of many of the regions' citizens. We don't need to destroy reality. We can simply destroy people's perception of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment