Norge har liksom blitt omgjort til en stor park av tomter, hvor vi alle bor på hver vår tomt i denne "idylliske parken", skapt av General Motors. Merkelig hvordan et stort selskap har maktet å hjernevaske et helt folk så totalt. Selv mennesker som opplagt bor i et tunfellesskap hevder de bor i et tettbebygd strøk, og nekter å innse at de lever i et fellesskap. Nei, de bor på ei tomt. Og tomta er det helligste av det helligste i nordmenns bevissthet. Det finnes intet annet!
Vi som var Europas fremste tunnasjon, med alle våre klyngetun, har forfalt til en gjeng tomtenisser med nisselua langt nedover både øyne og ører. Kun munnen er fri, og fra den kommer kun tomt(e)prat.
Ellers fikk jeg en epost fra Eva Røyrane her om dagen, hvor hun takket for min innsats for å spre det glade budskap om tunfellesskapet. Hun kunne opplyse om at hun er i full gang med praktboka om de norske klyngetunene, som en oppfølger til bestselgeren Norges låver.
Hva som virkelig opprører meg er at denne tomtegalskapen har rasert vår rurale arv ved å partere nær sagt alt av norske gårdsbruk, slik at alle gode nordmenn kan få ha hver sin tomt i kulturlandskaps-parken. Dette er en ugjerning på linje med Maos herjinger under kulturrevolusjonen i Kina.
Med alle disse tomtene ble Norge et tomt land, ribbet for alt av rural og urban kultur. Et tomtenisseland!
************
‘The conceit of the Norwegian suburb is that we’re all in a great park together.’- An odd and completely unnatural institution, why is the front lawn so beloved by Norwegians?
Front lawns are unnatural and generally serve little practical use, and yet they’re a staple of suburban culture, carefully manicured by their owners and so ubiquitous that they’re the largest irrigated crop in the United States. In this brief video, the US food and nature writer Michael Pollan ponders the ‘peculiar institution’ of the American lawn, taken for granted as natural by many Americans when, technically, it’s anything but.
Bear in mind the original suburbanization of America (including Norway) back in the 20th century — along with its accessory automobiles — must be regarded as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. – J.H. Kunstler
 |
| Image: Alan Huett |
Kunstler med nytt storslagent essay om de sub-(ex- og subex-)urbane tomtenisseligheter
- The Infinite Suburb Is an Academic Joke
The elite graduate schools of urban planning have yet another new vision of the future. Lately, they see a new-and-improved suburbia—based on self-driving electric cars, “drone deliveries at your doorstep,” and “teardrop-shaped one-way roads” (otherwise known as cul-de-sacs)—as the coming sure thing. It sounds suspiciously like yesterday’s tomorrow, the George Jetson utopia that has been the stock-in-trade of half-baked futurism for decades. It may be obvious that for some time now we have lived in a reality-optional culture, and it’s vividly on display in the cavalcade of techno-narcissism that passes for thinking these days in academia.
Exhibit A is an essay that appeared last month in The New York Times Magazine titled “The Suburb of the Future is Almost Here,” by Alan M. Berger of the MIT urban design faculty and author of the book Infinite Suburbia—on the face of it a perfectly inane notion. The subtitle of his Times Magazine piece argued that “Millennials want a different kind of suburban development that is smart, efficient, and sustainable.”
Note the trio of clichés at the end, borrowed from the lexicon of the advertising industry. “Smart” is a meaningless anodyne that replaces the worn out tropes “deluxe,” “super,” “limited edition,” and so on. It’s simply meant to tweak the reader’s status consciousness. Who wants to be dumb?
Relatert
Arven etter apartheid er fortsatt levende i Sør-Afrika“It’s a stage for how life unfolds between the public sphere and the private sphere.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.