Susan Bickford’s 2000 article “Constructing Inequality: City Spaces and the Architecture of Citizenship” raised many thoughts and issues for me while I was reading it. The second time around I was really able to make a connection between the article and many things I have faced both in the professional world and the educational world. To keep this already lengthy blog shorter I will attempt to minimize some of my thoughts.
The first item that came to mind was the common Planning board, Zoning board and Town board encounters I have faced in my many site development projects over the past few years. I believe some of the points that Bickford made regarding imposing self interest and being vulnerable when it comes to change directly relate to the individual municipalities I have faced in my career thus far. Many boards have even directly stated that if they divert from the “Norm” that has been in place and put into place by someone prior to them, that they will create an uprising because the citizens have become accustomed to the “Norms” and do not want to see change in their neighborhoods. This is understandable to some degree however there are situations where I have to disagree with this practice. Many chain businesses have a prototype building that they begin with and I understand local municipalities attempting to change the building slightly in order for it to mesh well with the neighborhood, however, many towns are forcing the representatives of the businesses to completely convert the prototype to “fit” into the town’s standards (the “Norm”). There is a point that this process crosses over the line in my eyes. If I am out of town and am attempting to find a business that I am familiar with and can’t find it because it has now been converted so much to the “local Norm” that I don’t recognize it, I tend to get perturbed. I don’t understand converting everything to look the same, etc. and to not allow diversity into our communities.
A specific project that comes to mind that really discouraged me and turned me against HOAs a few years back was a client of mine was attempting to utilize his land to the capacity allotted by the town zoning ordinance. It was in a commercial district that boarded a residential district. My client had provided an easement across his property to residential property behind his that was now operated by a HOA. This article really made me consider this project even further. My clients were in front of the planning and zoning boards for over a year and the boards finally called our clients while out of session to express to them that they were concerned and would have to turn our project down if the application was not withdrawn. We would have understood if the project was not going to be an asset to the community or even worse would be a detriment to the community, but even according to the Planning Board it was the direct opposite, the greatest asset that had been presented to the board in awhile. However, they said that they had to think about the politics behind it. The fact that the HOA and the gated community it represented contained too many voters for them to go against. This in my opinion is exactly what Bickford was getting at. The HOA had their private and self beliefs that were to be followed and they were then integrated into the community. The article stated “…whose perspective must be taken into account when making political decisions” which is exactly what took place in this situation. The article also stated “The freedom and security of some people is increasingly encroached upon as others attempt to secure it for themselves” which also occurred on this project. The HOA was able to suppress the freedom my client had to increase the value of his property all because they were concerned about the well being of their community. I should probably mention that the property currently contains a bowling alley on it and was stereotyped by the HOA as being a dirty, drug and alcohol infested facility which as the article mentions, forced the two parties to be categorized.
I think that unfortunately we live in a me society where we are not open to change because we are taught that change is uncomfortable. Today’s generation has this concept instilled in them as well as the belief that they are all number one and their self beliefs should be placed above all else. Unfortunately as the article states it is increasingly impacting the way we live in the residential form and as I demonstrated above it is starting to make its mark on the commercial world, AKA public space. I can only hope that one day these beliefs will change and that people will be open to change and most of all to diversity. Until this happens we will continue to be impacted by one another’s self indulgence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Jaclyn, I want to focus on one sentence of your great post. "I think that unfortunately we live in a me society where we are not open to change because we are taught that change is uncomfortable."
Let me pose an opposing interpretation. Things change at an unbelievable rate all around us every day. We've gone (in my lifetime) from 45s to LPs to cassettes to CDs to the iPod. We've gone from three networks and black&white to 300 networks and plasma screens. We've gone from an industrial economy to a service economy, from a high-tax/high-service government to a low-tax/low-service government, from racial segregation to (increased) racial integration, from women as housewives to women as full economic participants, from local stores to WalMart. EVERYTHING has changed. So maybe we want to resist change in those very few areas where we have some control, and which are most tightly bound up with our identities.
Zoning and planning commissions often remind me of elevator music. By attempting to offend nobody, they end up offending everybody, or at least boring us senseless.
There is another extreme however, by having a "familiar business" (Chain), we tend to do the opposite, and make a sameness, not by zoning, but by making every locale an agglomeration of the same nearly universal edifices.
Zoning has good intentions,(I really like that I don't live near a tannery, and that one can't move next door to me) but it doesn't really work too well beyond that. Not as it is usually written.
Instead of focusing on how a building appears aesthetically, zoning should take as its primary focus, the way structures and buildings relate to one another, and how they relate to the street or larger urban / suburban setting.
Change - Yes I do believe that our world is changing especially when it comes to technology and advancing mankind. In fact they are moving so rapidly I find it hard to keep up at times. i.e.: texting. I have found everyone around me utilizing it at a rapid pace and it will take me 3 minutes to send a few words to someone! I believe it is more the attitude of people that I consider a "me society." People tend to believe it is their way or the highway much more easily than I remember in the past. However, maybe it is just that I am beginning to notice these qualities in people now that I am older, married, and a mother. I really began to notice them at the college level when I supervised the residents on my hall. I will have to consider the interpretation you offered b/c I do strongly agree with your statements.
Zoning – I really appreciate your last comment regarding zoning focusing on the buildings relating to others and to the neighborhoods. I noticed on the syllabus that we will be talking about buildings “fitting” into the neighborhood and I am really anxious to discuss it. I believe that buildings can fit into a neighborhood without being a replica of other buildings as some zoning board wish to see. A lot of the members are not familiar with architecture and are unable to visualize things even when presented with illustrations. I hope that this discussion will raise some interesting points of view for me. I’m anxiously awaiting everyone’s opinion on this topic when we get to it in the next few weeks.
I also think these design/zoning boards are boring. But the problem is the people involve on them. Most of the time they are not open-minded and would not welcome change to their comunities. It might be the way they were raised, maybe they didn't get out much. Being able to visit and see different places outside their comunities usually helps.
I remember the first time I went to a town that had strict zoning laws. Park City, Utah requires that everything looks just so. I drove around for half an hour looking for a grocery store before finally realizing I had past two of them. Unfamiliar with the brands, the store fronts looked like small shops with little to offer. I was used to seeing the big store with the big sign out front. I agree with your point that it is taken too far. The McDonalds in town is missing its golden arches. The Taco Bell looks like a log cabin. The idea of a building fitting into the neighborhood is going to be a good discussion. I have seen such extreme views on both ends that I hope we are able to see some success stories.
Post a Comment