Social Capital

-Flickr.

The medicine – which the citizenry itself seems to be administering to Greek society – is the sum of all the bonds of collaboration, trustworthiness, solidarity and mutual aid that are developed during collective (mainly voluntary) initiatives. These bonds enable people to work together, learn from each other and build what is known as social capital. According to Robert Putnam’s widely quoted description, social capital refers to ‘the connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’ and is the fundamental ingredient of a healthy civil society. - Yannis Theocharis

Unfortunately both capitalism and the current form of welfare state sucks the social capital out of people. Still, the worst threat to people's social capital is the current form of city planning and architecture.

Today, 2,400 years later, social research agrees that civic skills advance democratic values: the more knowledgeable citizens are about civic principles, and the more they participate in voluntary and community-based initiatives, the more likely they are to support democratic values – starting with tolerance in others.- Yannis Theocharis

The irony is that the ALL-EMBRACING Norwegian welfare state more and more cripples civil society and hence threatens democratic values.

One of the long-standing findings of social research is the long-term and defining impact of participation in extracurricular and voluntary associations during childhood on civic engagement. Injecting civic education into schools, participating in voluntary associations and engaging in community service programmes that combine community outreach allow children and young adults to develop participatory skills and an interest in and concern about the general welfare. Although civic skills are already part of the school curriculum in Greece (though only once, at 3rd grade), much more can be done on the institutional, community and individual levels, especially when the social fabric is under such strain and the formal institutional structure is highly dysfunctional. - Yannis Theocharis

This can hardly take place within a modernist city, but it can fully unfold in a Village Town!

Å skape byggverk som er på parti med livet

Publisert hos Kulturverk 2. februar 2014.

Eishin Campus, Tokyo.

Foto: Takeshi Kakeda

På podcast-showet Levevei.no har den gresk-australske matematikeren Nikos A. Salingaros (f. 1952) en samtale med J.A. Arnfinsen om økologisk bærekraftige strukturer som resonnerer med menneskets grunnleggende behov. Salingaros er en verdensledende arkitekturteoretiker og pioner innen biofilisk design.

Av Øyvind Holmstad, redaktør av bloggen PermaLiv

Intervjuet starter med en redegjørelse av hvordan Salingaros fattet interesse for arbeidene til Christopher Alexander, hvordan disse to gigantene møttes og hvordan samarbeidet med Alexander etter hvert førte til at Salingaros begynte å utvikle sine egne ideer om arkitektur. Noe i dag har gjort ham til en av verdens fremste arkitekturteoretikere.

Noe jeg selv ikke hadde reflektert over er hvordan modernismen ville vært en umulighet innenfor tidligere sivilisasjoner, simpelthen fordi den bygges opp av elementer som er for tunge til å settes på plass med muskelkraft, samt bruk av materialer som krever mye energi å framstille. Dette er noe av grunnen til at modernismen er hva man kan kalle objektorientert, mens tradisjonell, historisk og klassisk arkitektur er elementorientert [i].

Modernismen er objektorientert til en sånn grad at den må karakteriseres som fundamentalistisk. Hvilket har gitt oss en sivilisasjon preget av geometrisk fundamentalisme (se “Geometric Fundamentalism”, kapittel fra boka A Theory of Architecture, 2006). I samtalen slår Salingaros fast følgende: ”Our society is drunk, it is intoxicated on pursuing novelty, it is pursuing novelty at all costs, even at the cost of civilization itself.”

Nikos Aron Salingaros

Fordi modernistiske typologier aldri tidligere har vært mulig å framstille, og da naturen selv også utfolder seg gjennom en elementstruktur, framstår objektorientert arkitektur som noe nytt, hvilket det også er. Moderne strukturer har aldri tidligere vært sett i jordens historie, hverken før eller etter mennesket entret banen. Men nettopp derfor er disse strukturene totalt løsrevet fra naturen og historien, og hverken en del av oss eller verden. De er rett og slett anti-natur, hverken mer eller mindre.

Arnfinsen kommer i samtalen bl.a. inn på Alexanders “mirror of the self”-test, hvor man sammenligner to objekter av samme slag og størrelse, for å kjenne etter hvilket som sammenfaller best med indre følelser. Alexander har vist at personer som trenes i denne testen, slik at de blir fridd fra forutinntattheter, i 80-90 prosent av tilfellene kommer til samme konklusjon om hvilket av disse to sammenlignbare objektene som har mest liv. Denne testen beviser således empirisk at liv i materien ikke er en subjektiv men en objektiv størrelse.

Arnfinsen og Alexander har en felles attraktor gjennom den japanske kampsporten aikido, hvor man på samme vis vurderer to bevegelser for å bedømme hvilken som responderer best med utøverens indre selv.

Salingaros har videreutviklet Alexanders metode til å eksakt kunne bestemme en bygnings suksess prosentvis ut fra i hvor sterk grad den er bærer av de 15 transformasjonene for helhet, som ligger bak skapelsen av universet og evolusjonen.

Et annet tema er menneskesinnets fraktale dimensjon, som må finne sitt motstykke i omgivelsene. Kafédesignere er eksperter i å utforme fraktale miljøer, noe som gjør dette tredje rommet til et sted mange søker for å få en vitamininnsprøyting, vekk fra sterile kontorlandskap.

Samtalen dreier inn på mange tema, jeg vil på det sterkeste oppfordre til å lytte til denne samtalen, hvor vi treffer en meget engasjert Salingaros i toppform!

Lytt til samtalen i sin helhet her.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Les også relevant utveksling mellom Slavoj Žižek og Nikos Salingaros her.

Gamla stan, Stockholm.

Relevante nettsider

Nikos A. Salingaros – hjemmeside

Biophilia

The Architecture of Life

Biophilic Design

Biophilic Cities: What are they?

Relatert

Tenk langsiktig og lokalt! – intervju med Nikos Salingaros

Tre velmente råd for de nye natursamfunnene

Dei tre skapingstilstandane

Med multikulturalisme eller multipolaritet som framtidig identitet?

Den økologiske estetikken (Bokmelding av Morten Skrivers ”Skønhedens befrielse”)

Seksti år med kjøpesentret

Ser vi Guds finger i Kvartal 42, Kristiansand?

Regjeringsblokka er inkje anna enn monoton repetisjon

Fotnote

[i] ”Ornament is a characteristic of one of two broad categories of design. These categories are elemental and object oriented design.

Elemental architecture is composed of expressed components, arranged according to a convention and with a gravitational logic, and typically these components are human scaled. In classicism, for instance, the elements are the entablature, the column, the cornice, and so on. These elements are arranged with the visually heaviest at the base, the visually lighter above. Arguably, Art Deco is the last dominant instance of elementalism.

Ornament is a component of elemental architecture. It is important in highlighting elements, providing visual coherence and enhancing proportions, providing light and shade to surfaces.

Post war, architectural design has become object oriented. The building is regarded primarily as a three dimensional object, a singular or ‘sculptural’ form, intended to stand in isolation, or to contrast with its setting. The constituent elements of the building are repressed in favour of the coherence of the singular object. Ornament has no part in this form of architecture, because the enhancement of a hierarchical composition is not relevant to this style. Texture is antithetical to object oriented design, large planes of simple materials, ideally with all jointing and evidence of fabrication repressed, is favoured.

Elemental architecture is the building block of coherent urban form. It is suitable for creating urban walls. A row of elemental buildings creates a textured and rich urban streetscape with a commonality of proportion and composition. The streetscape becomes more than the sum of its parts. A row of object buildings rarely delivers urban coherence.

I suggest, therefore, that a starting point for recovering a more adaptable and resilient form of architecture may be found in re-evaluation of the point at which the elemental was superceded by the object oriented. We need reinvigorated elementalism.”

– “MJEFFRESON”

Design for en levende planet

Publisert hos Kulturverk 25. februar 2015.

Tagbulo Island - Philippines

Den nyutkomne boka av Nikos A. Salingaros og Michael W. Mehaffy – Design for a Living Planet –legger til grunn den nyeste vitenskapen om hva som skal til for å gjøre vår skakkjørte verden om til en levende planet. Et formidabelt oppdrag, da vår lille klode nå er så herjet at dette nærmest kan sidestilles med å etablere et økosystem på Mars.

Av Øyvind Holmstad, redaktør av bloggen PermaLiv

Kompleksitet vil si at noe aldri gjentar seg selv, den er steds- og tidsspesifikk. Naturen er kompleks, fordi den ikke gjentar seg selv. Det motsatte av kompleksitet er hva økosofen Sigmund K. Setreng kaller for komplikasjon. Vår sivilisasjon er derfor ikke kompleks, men komplisert, fordi den stadig gjentar seg selv.

“Jeg kjenner meg helt igjen i den eksistensielle angsten som du forteller om. Den kommer alltid krypende over meg når jeg ser 99,9 prosent av norsk arkitektur. Det er interessant at jeg ikke er den eneste som føler det slik. Det er egentlig en veldig intens følelse. Noen ganger tenker jeg at dersom folk kunne sett hvor mye fantastisk som er mulig å skape, så vil de slutte å bygge alt dette stygge og sjelløse… men som du sier må vi vel finne en mening med livet og en tilknytning til noe mer hellig, sjelfullt eller spirituelt… noe som gjør at vi strekker oss lenger enn kun det helt grunnleggende for å få livet til å så vidt gå rundt”. - Naviana

-Flickr.

Når jeg er rundt i Norges land blir jeg ofte utmattet av den sjelløsheten som brer seg utover. Det være seg suburbane eneboliger, kraftgater som skjærer nådeløst gjennom skogene, vulgære hytter som har okkupert de fineste teltplassene ved et tjern, blokkleiligheter av corbusiansk ånd, stjernearkitektur ved sjøkanten i vår hovedstad eller kjøpesentre som har tappet bysentrum for liv.

All denne hesligheten er skapt av teknokratiet, profittmotivet og menneskets begjær etter å skinne. Som individ står man overfor to muligheter i møte med et slikt gjennomtrengende overgrep, tap av nasjonal integritet og tilhørighet: man kan overgi sin sjel til det mekaniske verdensbildet, eller man kan bli en drømmer. En som drømmer om en levende verden.

Vår industrielle sivilisasjon går mot sin solnedgang. Vil vi da entre en global mørketid eller kan vi fylle det post-industrielle samfunn med noe nytt? Tidligere har jeg skrevet om InnGruppe-Demokratiet (IGD) som et reelt alternativ for en bærekraftig framtid her på Kulturverk. Med IGD kan vi overskride de tre mekanismene nevnt ovenfor: teknokratiet eller staten oppløses i allmenningheten, profittmotivet opphører og menneskets ego tøyles av inngruppa. Slik ligger veien åpen for en ny design, hvor vi designer oss inn i naturen.

Tar vi ikke denne oppgaven på alvor, vil moder jord snart tippe oss av lasset og gjøre jobben selv. Derfor må vi begynne å samarbeide istedenfor å slåss mot henne. Vi trenger riktignok en helt ny økonomi og et nytt demokrati – hvor økonomi og demokrati forenes i en enhet – for å lykkes.

Skal vi designe en levende planet må den derfor formes gjennom adaptiv morfogenese, en stegvis prosess hvor man har oppgitt en rigid hovedplan. Ved organisk design vet man ikke sluttresultatet, men er prosessen eller algoritmen riktig vil man allikevel nå målet, noe man ikke kan gjennom en mekanisk prosess.

Men selv om oppgaven kan virke uoverkommelig, er boka lett tilgjengelig. Hvert kapittel tar for seg en vitenskap, en ny designkunnskap, presentert enkelt og forståelig. De er ment som en introduksjon, en inspirasjon for å gå videre inn i tematikken gjennom egne studier, samt en oversikt over hva som foregår innen organisk design i dag.

Teknologi betyr i sin essens kunnskapen om å gjøre. På dette området er boka til en viss grad mangelfull. Man får god kjennskap til nye funn fra vitenskapen som kan revolusjonere arkitekturen, men noen bruksanvisning om hvordan å applisere denne kunnskapen i praksis, er ikke boka. Dette kan delvis skyldes at disse funnene er nye, og ikke enda har fått mulighet til å utvikles i det virkelige liv.

Boka har lite skarp polemikk, noe tidligere lesere av Salingaros kanskje vil savne. Formålet er først og fremst å vekke nysgjerrigheten og entusiasmen, ikke å provosere. Forhåpentligvis vil mange la seg inspirere av boka til å utvikle ny designteknologi i praksis. Av temaer kan nevnes designmønstre, fraktaler, biofilia, smidig design og selvorganisering. Hele fem kapitler er viet designpioneren Christopher Alexander, den første som tok fatt i arkitektur som et vitenskapelig begrep.

Kapitlet om kompleksitet ble for meg en vekker. Kompleksitet vil si at noe aldri gjentar seg selv, den er steds- og tidsspesifikk. Naturen er kompleks, fordi den ikke gjentar seg selv. Det motsatte av kompleksitet er hva økosofen Sigmund K. Setreng kaller for komplikasjon. Vår sivilisasjon er derfor ikke kompleks, men komplisert, fordi den stadig gjentar seg selv.

Skal vi designe en levende planet må den derfor formes gjennom adaptiv morfogenese, en stegvis prosess hvor man har oppgitt en rigid hovedplan. Ved organisk design vet man ikke sluttresultatet, men er prosessen eller algoritmen riktig vil man allikevel nå målet, noe man ikke kan gjennom en mekanisk prosess.

Jeg håper mange vil lese denne lettleste boka av Salingaros og Mehaffy. Kanskje har våre etterkommere om 100 år ikke internett, kanskje kan de ikke reise verden rundt, kanskje har de ikke moderne medisin? Kanskje er havene forsuret og polisen smeltet? Kanskje kan de ikke lenger spise fisk for miljøgifter? Men kanskje er de også i gang med å designe en levende planet! Boka kan kjøpes fra Sustasis Press HER, og internasjonal utgave (kommer) fra Vajra Books HER.

Les også Salingaros & Mehaffy sin egen introduksjon til boka:

“Ten New Findings From the Sciences that Will Revolutionize Architecture“

Relatert

Forbi føydalsamfunnet

Vi har kunnskapen som trengs for å redde oss fra oss selv

Å skape byggverk som er på parti med livet

David Bollier og gjenreisingen av allmenningene

Modeller for et post-kapitalistisk scenario?

Inngruppe som paradigmeskifte – en samtale med Terje Bongard

Fra massesamfunn til stammesamfunn? Terje Bongard hos NRKs Verdibørsen

Seksti år med kjøpesentret

Etter privatbilen kan eg knapt tenkje meg noko som har bidrege meir til amerikaniseringa av den norske kulturen enn kjøpesentret. Men desse to er òg uskiljelege. Om ein her skal dra ein parallell med den gamle gåta om kven som kom fyrst, høna eller egget, er svaret enkelt. Privatbilen kom fyrst, kjøpesentret vart gullegget, særleg for dei store kjedebutikkane. Etter kvart som dei vart klekte har dei utvikla seg til store og blodtørstige dinosaurar, som trampar ned og riv i filler alt og alle som kjem i deira veg. Attende ligg eit livlaust øydeland.

Paradokset er at folk søkjer seg til kjøpesentra for å oppleva urbant liv, som nettopp desse har vore med på å utarma. Dei som driv kjøpesentra forsvarar seg med at folk sjølve vel å koma til dei, dei tvinger ingen. Truleg har dei som planlegg desse sentra mykje større kunnskap om folk sine rørslemønster og urbane behov enn dei fleste byråkratar. Men det er ikkje ekte urbant liv dei tilbyd, som so mykje anna i dag er det berre eit substitutt, og kjøpesentret har i so måte mest til felles med eit horehus. Enda meir alvorleg er at kjøpesentret er ein innkapsling av urbant liv, noko som tyder ein innkapsling av sjølve menneskelivet. Kanskje den største forbanninga som har råka det moderne mennesket, er innkapslinga av stendig fleire aspekt av livet.

But there's a problem. We have fractured these urban networks, and rebuilt much more dispersed, “dendritic” systems, connected not by pedestrians, but by automobiles, dispersed suburban campuses and parks, and single-family monocultures, supplemented by telephones and now, computers. The majority of us lives in encapsulated houses, in encapsulated neighborhoods, and travel in encapsulated cars to encapsulated work places, stores and other destinations. - Michael Mehaffy

Og slik lev dei so kalla frie menneska av det tjugefyrste hundreåret liva deira, innkapsla, utan moglegheit til å sjå verda frå perspektivet til ein utsprungen sumarfugl. Vår fridom er berre ein vits!

Det moderne mennesket vert stendig meir innkapsla og segregert.

I Amerika har dei ein eigen evne til å dra parodiane på menneskjelivet inn i det absurde, der dei som ein respons på kjøpesentra sitt dalande rykte har bygd opp kulissar av gamle bymiljø, men der alt er eigd av "senterleiinga", og der alt vert avstengt når shopping-dagen er over. Dette vert sjølvsagt endå kvalmare, då parodien på ekte urbant liv vert endå meir skjerande. Men hjernedaude konsumentar sveltefora på urbane opplevingar er lette å lokka. Ikkje det at eg er noko betre, eg òg kjenner på draginga mot kjøpesentret. Forskjellen er at eg veit at det eg får er ikkje ekte kjærleik.

Landskapskonsumenter (Landscape Consumers)

"Særlig vestlige kulturer har de siste tiårene fjernet menneskene fra sin naturlige bakgrunn. Naturen er blitt kjøps- og utstillingsvare, den er noe man går ut i og betrakter, men ikke er en del av." - Terje Bongard

"Especially Western cultures have removed people from their natural background in recent decades. Nature has become a buying and exhibiting product, it is something you walk into and watch, but not being part of." - Terje Bongard

Chocolate Hills, Bohol, Philippines.

-Wikimedia.

From Industrial to Artisan: Modernism’s Sleight-of-Hand

By Nikos A. Salingaros. Original article here.

I post this as a response to a former post about William Morris and 3D-printing, as I hope new technology combined with the scientific theory developed by Salingaros can help making Morris visions into reality.

Figure 1. On the left, mass-produced Art Nouveau silver jewelry box by P. A. Coon, 1908. On the right, hand-made Machine Aesthetic silver teapot by C. Dresser, 1879. Drawing by Nikos Salingaros.

This figure was published on April 2013 in the article “How Modernism Got Square” co-authored with Michael Mehaffy. It has been reproduced several times when reprinting the original article, and in essays by other authors who discuss our ideas.

And yet, the above figure subsequently re-appears with a new accompanying caption that completely reverses the facts and switches our original message. Well-meaning editors and authors chose the new caption “From Artisan to Industrial” (first here, and then again on ArchDaily), which conforms to the modernist orthodoxy on the evolution of historical design styles. They are in no way pushing modernism (being interested instead in my criticism of modernist design): it’s simply that the dogma is so pervasive in our civilization that the mislabeling becomes automatic, a conditioned response.

Figure 2. Extremely expensive hand-made welded sculpture from the Bauhaus entitled “Nickel-Construction”. László Moholy-Nagy, 1921. No known function. Drawing by Nikos Salingaros.

To see our little joke, please note that the “machine aesthetic” teapot on the right was hand-made in 1879, i.e. about 30 years before the ornamented jewelry box. The Art Nouveau jewelry box, on the other hand, was mass-produced after the teapot. Thus, the canonical progression from artisan to industrial would absurdly seem to have gone backwards in time, and, in addition, the artisan/industrial labels are opposite from what they seem. I conclude that the official story is nothing but sleight-of-hand. In fact, what happened historically is that a substantial and healthy industry of mass-producing ornamented artifacts and utilitarian objects was killed off by a marketing takeover, not by the necessity of industrialization.

Tenk langsiktig og lokalt! – intervju med Nikos Salingaros

Publisert hos Kulturverk 17. april 2013.

Etter at Nikos A. Salingaros ble venn med Christopher Alexander endret dette hans karriere, hvor han i dag er regnet som en av verdens fremste arkitekturteoretikere. Salingaros har en sterkere interesse for sammenhengene mellom energibruk og arkitektur enn Alexander, da han tidligere arbeidet med energispørsmål og var involvert i forskning på fusjonsenergi.

Salingaros mener at moderne by- og samfunnsstruktur er kompleks kun på de høyere nivåene, og ignorerer småskalakompleksitet. Dette er en konsekvens av modernistisk liberalisme, fordi et topptungt styringssystem ikke har mulighet til å skape og opprettholde nødvendig kompleksitet på alle nivåer, samt at de heller ikke ønsker dette for å oppnå kontroll.

Salingaros hevder at modernistisk ideologi går på tvers av alle biologiske systemer, og fordi moderne samfunnssystemer prioriterer storskalakompleksitet er de dømt til å kollapse. Dette gjelder ikke kun for byene, men også for energisystemene, jordbruket, demokratiet etc. Derfor kan vi kun oppnå bærekraft og motstandsdyktighet ved å bryte fundamentalt med modernistisk ideologi og tankegods, noe jeg har forsøkt å gjøre kort rede for i artikkelen "Resilience after Modernism".

Det følgende intervjuet med Salingaros ble utført på fransk av Mumtaz Soogund hos Defimedia, Mauritius, 8. mars 2013. Min oversettelse er basert på en engelsk utgave av intervjuet. Mauritius står ved en korsvei i energipolitikken. Vil de følge resten av verden mot undergangen, eller vil de velge å framstå som et lysende eksempel til etterfølgelse?

MS: Et kullkraftverk ser ut til å bli en massiv investering i det lange løp, og folk snakker mer og mer om fornybare energiressurser. Er de pålitelige og ville de bli like effektive på Mauritius?

NS: Selvsagt er det meget enkelt å bygge et kullkraftverk i dag, fordi teknologien er gjennomprøvd, men vi må tenke langsiktig. Hvor kommer kullet fra? Inkluderer likninga kostnadene med å transportere basismaterialene? Er kullforekomstene og de lave prisene garanterte for årtiene som kommer? Nei. Fordi med en gang beslutningen er tatt er nasjonen lenket til denne energikilden og dens distribusjonsteknologi, og det ville bli altfor dyrt å endre dette i ettertid; og her snakker jeg om kommende generasjoner. Fornybar energi er ikke like utviklet enda, men i det minste binder den ikke landet opp til en løsning som er utdatert og trolig ustabil. Den store fordelen med alternative energikilder er deres skala; teknologien tillater en distribusjon fra flere ”sentrale kraftstasjoner”, små nok til at man ikke kaller en sådan kraftstasjon ”sentral”. Et land kan i dag ta beslutningen om å hoppe over gammel teknologi, slik som kull, for å ankomme direkte til framtidige metoder for å utnytte fornybar energi.

MS: Burde energisektoren omtales separat fra betegnelsen bærekraftig utvikling?

NS: Overhodet ikke! Energi er nært forbundet med bærekraftig utvikling (eller ikke). Uten energi er det ingen mulighet for utvikling, men hvis vi betaler for mye for energien sitter vi i saksa uansett og utviklingen lider, vi blir offer for begrensninger og ustabilitet. Et land må ha en meget klar ide om bærekraftig utvikling, bundet opp mot en plan for produksjon og forbruk av energi. Disse to sammen. Bruker man ”ren” energi til ikke-bærekraftig utvikling har man intet å vinne.

David Bollier og gjenreisingen av allmenningene

Utestengelsen og marginaliseringen av allmenningene har foregått over århundrer. Men det er først i nyere tid, med framveksten av globale korporative strukturer og sammensmeltingen av disse med styresmaktene, at angrepet på de tradisjonelle allmenninger har antatt uhyrlige proporsjoner.

Publisert hos Kulturverk 19. oktober 2014.

James Kalb har gitt dette monsteret navnet “liberalismens tyranni”. David Bollier kaller det for det predatoriske markeds/stats-duopolet. Bollier har valgt å ta opp kampen mot dette uhyret, og slåss på vegne av oss alle. Han betegner dette som en av vår tids største skandaler. Kanskje den største? Og allikevel helt fraværende i den offentlige diskusjonen. Neppe så underlig i et samfunn hvor markeds/stats-duopolet sitter med definisjonsmakten og begge endene. Vi ser det nå aktualisert i forslaget med å privatisere Statsskogs eiendommer. Kanskje kunne disse eiendommene gis til de nye natursamfunnene, som kunne få forvalteransvar for sine områder til vårt felles beste?

Raseringen av allmenningene er enda tydeligere i Afrika. Folk som har livnært seg gjennom enkelt jordbruk i en allmenning i Etiopia, opplever så at jorda blir kjøpt opp av fremmede land og selskaper. De kan da ikke lenger benytte landet som var en allmenning gjennom generasjoner. De blir dermed tvunget til å arbeide i f.eks Shoe City, en gigantisk fabrikkby kineserne har opprettet i Etiopia, hvor de tjener nok til å komme seg over FNs fattigdomsmål. Kan man egentlig si at de har fått det bedre? Jeg tror disse menneskene var langt lykkeligere som ekstremt fattige, men med tilgang til fedrenes jord og som en del av urgamle tradisjoner, enn som lønnsslaver i Shoe City.

Angående tradisjoner er dette et tema som Bollier er opptatt av. Ikke overfladiske gravsteinstradisjoner slik som i Norge, tappet for alt av innhold, men rotekte tradisjoner som et fundament for allmenningene. Tradisjonene har i realiteten vært allmenningenes voktere, uten dem står vi tilbake med hva Garret Hardin feilaktig kaller ”allmenningens tragedie”. I virkeligheten er dette et uregulert tilgjengelighetsregime.

Bollier beskriver det slik: ”But Hardin was not describing a commons. He described a scenario in which there were no boundaries to the grazing land, no rules for managing it, and no community of users. That is not a commons; it is an open-access regime or free-for-all. A commons has boundaries, rules, social norms, and sanctions against ”free riders.” A commons requires that there be a community willing to act as a steward of a resource.

Yet, Hardin’s misrepresentation of actual commons as a failed paradigm – a ”tragedy” – stuck in the public mind and became an article of faith. Economists and conservative pundits saw the story as a useful way to affirm their ideas that private property rights and markets are the best way to manage shared resources.”

David Bollier

Det gleder meg stort å se at Bollier holder fram Christopher Alexanders bok A Pattern Language, som en syntetisering av tradisjonenes visdom. Med den frykt stats/markeds-duopolet kjenner for allmenningheten, er det ikke det minste rart at de forakter, fortier og latterliggjør dette verket.

Michel Bauwens utforsker høyteknologiens verktøy for å bringe allmenningene tilbake til menneskeheten og Terje Bongard gransker de innerste kroker av menneskesinnets atferdstrekk med samme formål. Bollier på sin side, utforsker tradisjonenes betydning for virkelige fellesskap.

Dessverre er allmenningene kun et svakt minne for de fleste moderne mennesker. Vi mangler ord for å beskrive dette paradigmet, som en gang var enerådende. En annen av Bolliers nære samarbeidspartnere, Silke Helfrich, har derfor laget en god oversikt hun har kalt “Commons Way of Life vs. Market Way of Life“.

Intervjuet med David Bollier bygger på hans bok Think Like a Commoner, som gjorde et mektig inntrykk både på undertegnede og intervjuer James Alexander Arnfinsen. Jeg vil derfor på det varmeste oppfordre om å avsette tid til å lytte til samtalen mellom Bollier og Arnfinsen på Levevei.no. Vi trenger slike som David Bollier for å utfordre makten til stats/markeds-duopolet. For hva dette monsteret har røvet og ødelagt tilhører oss, vi er allmenningheten!


Lytt til intervjuet:

- Episode 106: The commons as an approach to governance, sustainable resource management and social wellbeing


Relatert:

Modeller for et post-kapitalistisk scenario?

Vi har kunnskapen som trengs for å redde oss fra oss selv

Andelslandbruk – mat som viser bondens ansikt

Inngruppe som paradigmeskifte – en samtale med Terje Bongard

Åtte praksiser som undergraver skapelsen av levende nabolag

Spøkelsesby gjenoppstått som vitalt økosamfunn

Reisebrev fra Europas midte: Verden gjennom nåløyet

BHUTAN VISER VEI – verdens første heløkologiske land

Russlands økologiske mirakel

Salingaros on Kahn

There are four great American architects carrying the name Kahn, one of them a master of Art Deco, the other of traditional architecture, another on classical architecture and our Kahn on contemporary Modernism. Louis Kahn seems to be one of very few modernists we can actually learn something from.

The Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, TX from southwest of the museum.

Salingaros on Kahn

by Nikos A. Salingaros, original post here.

1. Which Kahn?
First let’s get the architect’s identity straight. There are three Kahns in American architecture: Albert Kahn; Ely Jacques Kahn; and Louis Isadore Kahn. The first was a great Classical architect — a contemporary of Julia Morgan and Stanford White who also built some plain industrial buildings, but not for human habitation. Albert Kahn made the mistake of pointing out that the industrial style is inappropriate for most buildings, and claiming that modernism is not real architecture, so you don’t hear much about him nowadays.

The second Kahn was a master of Art Deco, who helped to define what New York ought to have become were it not for the modernists. Ely Kahn built some of the more attractive modest skyscrapers, which were replaced by the faceless monstrosities of today. When archaeologists of the future define New York culture by its artistic style, it will probably be the Art Deco style of 1930, just as Paris is indelibly associated with the Art Nouveau style of the 1900 Metro station entrances. Nevertheless, both New York and Paris have done their best to erase their identifying symbols, like the ex-convict Jean Valjean trying to hide all traces of his true identity.

The third Kahn was the champion of modernism that we know so well — the Kahn of “what does a brick want to become?” It is de rigueur for young architects to refer to him casually as “Lou” so as to imply a nonexistent familiarity.

Even though Kahn was born in Estonia, he grew up in the USA, and is thus considered more American than the numerous European modernist architects who immigrated as adults. The “official” histories of architecture are written so as to imply that genuinely homegrown American innovation in architecture really took off with Louis Kahn and Philip Johnson. To think this way is ridiculous, but it represents modernist dogma and is not meant to be supported by either reality or facts. To criticize Kahn’s work amounts to criticizing the spirit of American Architecture. Louis Kahn is an American Icon, and I respect that.

Christopher Alexander and I were talking about famous modernist architects, and Louis Kahn’s name came up. Christopher said: “I cannot bring it in my heart to criticize the guy, since he always went out of his way to be nice to me when I was a young man. He really liked me, and amazingly, he sounded just like I do when he talked. Very philosophical; emotional; conceptual; overwhelming; inspiring. Pity his buildings don’t do the same thing. I could never tell him that I didn’t like his buildings.”

2. The Yale University Art Gallery Extension, 1953
I had visited Yale as a graduate student and remember seeing the Art Gallery. I didn’t know anything then about its architect, but the discontinuity of the side facade struck a very negative chord. Why did Kahn willfully refuse to connect to the original building in any way? Perhaps he had to uphold the dogma if he wanted to play the role of “Great Modernist Architect”, so he could not connect stylistically; yet he still needed to physically connect to the older building. Coming with a sheer dead wall right up to the older living structure reminds me of a prosthesis — like Jonathan Small’s wooden leg, which replaced the one bitten off by a crocodile while he was swimming in the Ganges. When absolutely necessary, two contrasting materials have to connect very carefully via a linking boundary, but that’s precisely what Kahn avoids here.

This was Kahn’s first grand project, a combination of lucky break and initiation trial, and he proved himself worthy of the modernist credo. The discontinuous effect is deliberate. He violated the aesthetic integrity of the old art gallery, and I don’t like that, but I don’t see any other way to do it and remain within modernism.

3. The Salk Institute, 1959
In a largely forgotten paper I published in 1997, I computed the index of architectural “life” of famous buildings, according to a mathematical model. Unsurprisingly to me, the Salk Institute came down very low on the list, with an overall estimate of only 6%. Perhaps because of this result (and similar results for the icons of the Modernist movement such as Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe), my model has not caught on in architecture, but has instead become well-known in computer science, where it is now used to compute indices for the usability of computer-human interfaces.

Anyone can read the original paper online, available from my website: just look for “Life and Complexity in Architecture from a Thermodynamic Analogy”. I ought to mention that my friend Christopher likes this paper so much that he included an extended discussion of it in Appendix 6 of his new book: “The Phenomenon of Life: The Nature of Order, Volume 1″.

There’s a story that Kahn wanted to fill in the Salk Institute’s central plaza with trees, just like the copse in front of the Kimbell Museum, but that Luis Barragán told him not to. Instead, Barragán advised using just plain stone — keeping the plaza stark and empty: “Don’t put one leaf, nor plant, nor one flower, nor dirt. Absolutely nothing“. Barragán was right, since that dramatic view to the sea does represent the essence of what modernism is about, and it put the Salk Institute on the architectural map. I would have preferred the trees, however. They would have provided a pleasant place for the scientists to eat a sandwich.

Not related, but a point nevertheless, is that I happen to have a Salk coauthorship number of 2. This indicates that I wrote a paper with Bruce J. West, who wrote a paper with Jonas Salk. The smaller the number, the closer you are linked to the great man. (This system of “coauthorship number” was developed to classify the degree of closeness to the mathematician Paul Erdös).

4. The First Unitarian Church, 1969
I’m tempted to relate a story from when I spent a year in Rochester with my wife some years ago. We went to a chamber music concert held in the First Unitarian Church. I had never been there before, but had the address. For some reason, I drove by it three or four times before I checked the street number and drove in. This was such a disconcerting experience that it left me worried throughout the time we waited for the concert to begin. How could I have missed this building, standing apart and so clearly indicated?

I had to draw this very disturbing conclusion by re-playing my memory of what really occurred on the numerous drive-bys. The reason I did not see the building is that I was expecting to see a church, and this building looked like a maximum-security prison. My mind could not possibly reconcile the actual object in front of me with my previous expectation.

I of course looked around once inside, and discovered that it was designed by Louis Kahn. I did not know this beforehand, and at that time was not yet taken up by architectural questions.

The interior was so disturbing in its raw concrete slab form that I could not pay attention to the concert — the surfaces ruined what would have been a lovely performance of the Brahms Horn trio. I’m talking about visual effects and not acoustics. I asked my wife to leave at the intermission.

Looking at pictures years afterwards helps to explain my reactions. The ceiling slopes down along the mid line, like a V, the opposite of what a ceiling ought to do to define a concave space for human beings; and the light comes in eerily from the sides. The walls are raw concrete blocks. All of this gray creates an ominous feeling.

Just to emphasize that it’s indeed possible to design a church that is alive but does not resemble a traditional church, look at Frank Lloyd Wright’s Unity Temple. It’s an architectural masterpiece, even though one cannot celebrate a Christian Mass inside it because of the geometry. I’m not an uncritical fan of Wright, and I am focussing on this building for its own qualities.

5. The Kimbell Art Museum, 1972
My wife and I lived in Dallas for three years, and we went to the Kimbell museum often. Its cafeteria was a nice place to have Saturday brunch. The art collection itself is first-rate, and the museum kept bringing in excellent visiting exhibits. But the main interest here is about the building. I liked it, and spent a lot of time analyzing why I liked it despite the fact that it violates hierarchical scaling and connectivity at the joins. (Details of these measures may be found in my papers and in Christopher’s “The Phenomenon of Life: The Nature of Order, Volume 1″). Inevitably, however, the same thing always happened. After about an hour of being there, I grew uneasy and wanted to leave. The place got to me in a negative way. This was in spite of the interesting and warm travertine surfaces on the interior (which is what I experienced most of the time). The only thing obviously depressing was the massive steel bathroom doors, but you didn’t have to see them or touch them except once per visit. I could not fault the overall geometry, but the disruption between forms — the walls meeting the roof — eventually bothered me and overrode the positive effects.

The glare from the ceiling (especially at the vault ends) was something that could have been fixed with cheap mockups during preliminary design, such as Christopher does for his buildings, but I suspect that Kahn never thought of doing that. I get the feeling that pure geometry and obligatory modernist edges took priority over any possible glare.

Outside it’s a very nice building. Attractive and friendly with its repeating arches, but some of the best effects such as the reflecting pools are lost because of the misjudged path circulation. A beautiful sunken lawn on the side is never used. Couldn’t Kahn foresee that visitors would inevitably approach the museum from the back, which is industrial and totally uninspiring, like the truck loading ramp behind a supermarket, and would never use his orchestrated pedestrian front entrance through a copse of trees? It’s a pity, since the unused pedestrian entrance is lovely. (I read that Kahn didn’t drive, and he never believed that all visitors would be arriving by car.) The Kimbell remains the one building by Kahn that appeals to me, in contrast to his other buildings.

Christopher likes the Kimbell very much. He told me that this is the only one of Kahn’s buildings that he really likes — that it represents something apart from the rest of Kahn’soeuvre.

Michael Benedikt, a friend of mine and a very intelligent man, wrote a book about the Kimbell entitled “Deconstructing the Kimbell”. It was extremely successful among the deconstructivist crowd. I read it, but cannot agree that Kahn thought anything about deconstruction in designing the Kimbell. When I was visiting Michael one day, we talked about Kahn, and his assistant cornered me: “Of course, you agree that the Kimbell is the greatest building in the USA?” I answered that I’m willing to concede it could be the greatest MODERNIST building in the USA, but by far not the GREATEST building. And that I consider Thomas Jefferson, Henry Richardson, Louis Sullivan, Bernard Maybeck, Stanford White, and others to have built far greater buildings — as measured on an absolute scale of having “life”. He didn’t like this. I in turn didn’t like seeing the world through magic glasses that show only modernist buildings.

But why didn’t Kahn make the Kimbell the greatest building in the USA? It is already part-way there; all it needed was some more push in the direction he was already going with the design. Here is the irony. Established and famous, he evidently felt free enough to abandon some of the unnatural qualities of his earlier buildings and adopt a clean, light, and well-proportioned structure. But to do the rest, it would have been necessary to renounce the modernist principles for which he stood. I have read between-the-lines criticisms of the Kimbell by “authoritative” architectural critics — that it is too influenced by folkloristic elements; that it is too sweet; and by implication it is not as good as those buildings, such as the First Unitarian Church, which stick to the basic minimalist principles. I can imagine these nasty, narrow-minded persons ready to pounce on Kahn for becoming an apostate.

6. The “feminine touch”
Someone told me that the reason why the Kimbell is Kahn’s greatest building is that it was designed in part by Kahn’s girlfriend, Anne Tyng. She had written a thesis on proportional ratios, and could have contributed a sound geometry to the Kimbell’s internal and external spaces.

Checking this out, the story fell apart. It is well known that Tyng did indeed influence Kahn’s appreciation of geometry when they worked together twenty years earlier, but apparently their collaboration (and liaison) had ended well before the Kimbell. Since their interaction was long-lasting, however, and Kahn was obsessed with formal problems in geometry, her geometrical influence must be felt in most of his buildings. And yet, the Kimbell has that special quality. In my opinion, it is due to the individual creative genius of Louis Kahn.

Even though this story is untrue, it did lead to an interesting discussion. I raised the point with Christopher, who said that even if Anne Tyng were involved in the Kimbell, the building’s positive qualities could simply be due to the “feminine touch”, and not to any special geometry. This is to say that female architects are more sensitive to the emotional response from a building than most male architects are. (Dare I mention the forbidden great architect Julia Morgan?) Christopher tells me that his female students have a much easier time grasping concepts of connectivity and feedback than male students, who are caught up in images of power and self-expression.

7. Louis Kahn’s role in the New Architecture
I’m not an architectural historian; my goal is to provide the theoretical foundations of a new, humane architecture for the new millennium. Why, therefore, study the work of Louis Kahn, especially as he is not my favorite architect? I had a lengthy discussion with my friend and colleague Kenneth Masden, and we reached the following conclusions:

• Louis Kahn had an unswerving integrity in his ideas. He pursued a formal approach to design that stripped out all other elements. I don’t agree with that method, but he was honest about it, and did not do it for his ego. Geometrical themes recur throughout his oeuvre, and he constantly improved upon ways of expressing them. 
• If only for his intellectual honesty, Louis Kahn is worth studying. He provides a marked contrast with opportunistic and self-aggrandizing architects of much lesser talent. Integrity is not so common among contemporary American architects, and it’s the fault of our society of spectacle that promotes them. 
• Kahn’s formalism derived from abstracting classical geometry. The advantage of this is that geometry is raised to a supreme level of concern. The disadvantage is that human beings are irrelevant. And yet, formal geometry is needed in any building, and the larger the structure, the more one needs to be concerned with problems of formal geometry. Contemporary architects have abandoned geometry and ordering, without replacing them with anything else. 
• When contemporary architecture eventually tires of its destructive games, students are more likely to turn first to American Icons like Louis Kahn, and only then to other architects for inspiration. For this reason, it is important to outline what is good and what is not good in his work. Kahn’s work is most significant in academic architectural memory. 
• As we move forward into the New Architecture, we have to decide which modernist architects are worth learning from. Of all the immense number of currently idolized architects, the handful that has something to offer includes Louis Kahn, Erich Mendelsohn, and the very few others whose work identifies the limits of modernism. 

From what I gather, Louis Kahn was the Frank Gehry of his generation. After spending an entire career designing nondescript commercial buildings and housing projects, he got a lucky break and it catapulted him to the top of the architectural profession. He had something to express and explore, and he was already in his 50′s. There is something very touching about his assistants having to convince clients that this strange and intense mad poet was indeed the celebrated — and eminently practical — architect. And he just loved playing the guru to admiring architecture students. Of course, he wasn’t going to compromise his key to success, and this explains why he was so uncompromisingly modernist. While I don’t like the tectonic qualities of many of his buildings, I cannot really blame him for what he built, since it has its own justification.

Modernism & Disconnection from Life

Norway is said to be a social democratic country, which means a 50 – 50 percent mixture of socialism and capitalism. The catch is that in the end there is no difference between these two ideologies. It is like mixing water with water — no matter how well you blend them, or in what ratio, the finished product is modernism. A separation of function (and people) is one of, or maybe even the most important dogma of, modernism, with devastating consequences for human life. This separation was common in the former USSR, and is common in today's USA.

Here we can see the radical nature of Berry's vision. Our entire economy, our very culture of work, leisure, and home is constructed around the idea of easy mobility and the disintegration of various aspects of our lives. We live in one place, work in another, shop in another, worship in another, and take our leisure somewhere else. According to Berry, an integrated life, a life of integrity, is one characterized by membership in a community in which one lives, works, worships, and conducts the vast majority of other human activities. The choice is stark: “If we do not live where we work, and when we work, we are wasting our lives, and our work too.” - Wendell Berry and the New Urbanism: Agrarian Remedies, Urban Prospects

The artificial separation of houses and work creates intolerable rifts in people's inner lives. - Christopher Alexander

Isolation Street.

The Most Important Entities

By Christopher Alexander. Original post here. Published at P2P-Foundation on 10th April 2015.

Use the following list of “entities” as a model for making your own first rudimentary list for the neighborhood — just to get started. Once again, the exotic nature of this list is intended to encourage you to allow free reign to your imagination at this early stage.

A vivid example,
originally written for
Samarkand city center,
Uzbekistan, 1994

This was the second list I wrote for the project. After trying to understand the system of patterns as a whole, and as we worked on it, the list was then transformed as a whole to modify the global feeling and content of what this place was going to be — as it matured in our under­standing. We kept on thinking of the whole way of life which would be created by these patterns, and then changed the patterns, intensified them, improved them, made the centers more explicit, as our understanding of this whole increased. We kept on working at it until the living whole revealed itself, as fully as we could manage, in the list of centers. After much more work, the list — or pattern language — for the project ended up with the following centers: Note, the earlier statements are written in the active form, in italics, which sketches the content of each possible center. The second, longer list which follows is given in small capital letters, to indicate that by this stage the ideas had materialized and solidified as centers— as potentially solid objects which were reliable and recognizable as entities.

the main bridge

the forbidden city

massive surrounding wall

the festival promenade

view to registan

the observatory

the orchard of peach trees

main terrace

outdoor theater

craft school and bazaar

the inner city

small hotels

walled path

music school

inner city gate

five small walled gardens

chaikhanas

main street from the registan

fountains and streams

exhibition hall

covered bazaar

the library

the manuscript museum

arched bridge

soccer and games

wall of arches

gates in the outer wall

the hospice or kulliye

inner part of the forbidden city

blue-tiled walks

the mosque

The above photograph shows the model we made for the project, on the basis of this pattern language.

This example gives an idea of the vital role which generic centers can play in creating a whole. In this example these centers, the list alone, creates an almost magical atmosphere. As soon as we name them, just from naming them, we begin to feel the aura of the place. The patterns are evoca­tive. It doesn’t even matter in what order we take the centers. The mere list, itself, already conveys a profound atmosphere, and defines, in great de­gree the atmosphere of the place which will be made up of these centers. It creates the atmo­sphere right away. It is these centers which play the defining role. In Book 3, chapter 4, I show a drawing I made with my apprentices to show the physical character of this system of centers when they are realized.

SUMMARY OF TASKS FOR THIS UNFOLDING:

• Compose a list of key entities (like the above list for Samarkand) for your own new, imagined neighborhood. Allow yourself free reign, free imagination, and make it poetically whole. Choose the entities so that the group of entities, taken as a whole, successfully capture the spirit of the very best, and most serious that this new neighborhood can be. 
• If possible, pin the list of entities you have written, on the wall where partners and colleagues can see it. Listen to what they say.

The Fight of the Century

Article by Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow-in-Residence of the Post Carbon Institute. Original article to be found at Post Carbon Institute here, and at Energy Bulletin here. First posted on February 16, 2012. Therms for republishing here.

Download printable PDF version here (PDF, 143 KB)

As economies contract, a global popular uprising confronts power elites over access to the essentials of human existence. What are the underlying dynamics of the conflict, and how is it likely to play out?

1. Prologue
As the world economy crashes against debt and resource limits, more and more countries are responding by attempting to salvage what are actually their most expendable features—corrupt, insolvent banks and bloated militaries—while leaving the majority of their people to languish in “austerity.” The result, predictably, is a global uprising. This current set of conditions and responses will lead, sooner or later, to social as well as economic upheaval—and a collapse of the support infrastructure on which billions depend for their very survival.

Image Credit: Frayed Knot firemind/flickr

Nations could, in principle, forestall social collapse by providing the basics of existence (food, water, housing, medical care, family planning, education, employment for those able to work, and public safety) universally and in a way that could be sustained for some time, while paying for this by deliberately shrinking other features of society—starting with military and financial sectors—and by taxing the wealthy. The cost of covering the basics for everyone is within the means of most nations. Providing human necessities would not remove all fundamental problems now converging (climate change, resource depletion, and the need for fundamental economic reforms), but it would provide a platform of social stability and equity to give the world time to grapple with deeper, existential challenges.

Unfortunately, many governments are averse to this course of action. In fact, they will most likely continue to do what they are doing now—cannibalizing the resources of society at large in order to prop up megabanks and military establishments.

Even if they do provide universal safety nets, ongoing economic contraction may still likely result in conflict, though in this instance it would arise from groups opposed to the perceived failures of “big government.”

In either instance, it will increasingly be up to households and communities to provide the basics for themselves while reducing their dependence upon, and vulnerability to, centralized systems of financial and governmental power. This is a strategy that will require sustained effort and one that will in many cases be discouraged and even criminalized by national authorities.

The decentralization of food, finance, education, and other basic societal support systems has been advocated for decades by theorists on the far left and far right of the political spectrum. Some efforts toward decentralization (such as the local food movement) have resulted in the development of niche markets. However, here we are describing not just the incremental growth of social movements or marginal industries, but what may become the signal economic and social trend for the remainder of the 21st century—a trend that is currently ignored and resisted by governmental, economic, and media elites who can’t imagine an alternative beyond the dichotomies of free enterprise versus planned economy, or Keynesian stimulus versus austerity.

The decentralized provision of basic necessities is not likely to flow from a utopian vision of a perfect or even improved society (as have some social movements of the past). It will emerge instead from iterative human responses to a daunting and worsening set of environmental and economic problems, and it will in many instances be impeded and opposed by politicians, bankers, and industrialists. It is this contest between traditional power elites on one hand, and growing masses of disenfranchised poor and formerly middle-class people attempting to provide the necessities of life for themselves in the context of a shrinking economy, that is shaping up to be the fight of the century.

CREATING HUMAN COMMUNITY

By Christopher Alexander. Original text here. Published at P2P-Foundation on 4th April 2015.

IF ONE THING, MORE THAN ANY OTHER, distinguishes a real neighborhood from the corporate machine-architecture of the 20th-century developer, it is the fact that real people have — together — conceived it, planned it, and built it. It is this human reality which makes it worth living in, pleasant to be there, and valuable.

Själagårdsgatan Street at Gamla stan in Stockholm.

-Flickr.

This means that the entire adventure of building a neighborhood – whether rebuilding an existing one, or building an entirely new one from scratch – can only be done successfully by reversing the usual process. The corporate procedure is to build the houses first, and then fill them with people later. Those houses inevitably remain box-like because they were mass produced without human engagement. It is building a human community and the physical buildings gradually and, above all together, that produces a living neighborhood. As the buildings are thought of, planned, and built, so the involvement of the people who are going to inhabit them and use them – the community – is also thought of, and planned, and built. They are delicately and sensitively allowed to grow, so that buildings and people – or people and buildings – grow together.

We can only build thriving neighborhoods by first building the human community that will create them with inspiration, heart and passion. When people know that they will live in the physical environment they are making together, and it is being made to support their way of living, they invest themselves in a remarkable way, and the place they create becomes one of belonging. There is no shortcut to achieving this outcome. The process cannot be faked.

THE BENEFIT OF TAKING TIME

The capacity to generate life in a neighborhood, comes in part, from slowness. People need a chance to adapt to one another’s actions. This does not mean that it takes 100 years to build a neighborhood. We have done it effectively in two or three years, and in our experience that can allow enough time for some mutual adaptation to occur step by step.

But it does mean that it is important not to be obsessed by speed. The desire to build at once comes from issues of banking, interest rates, and the desire for profit. Surely these matters can be brought under control, so that they no longer interfere with the birth of community — a more significant issue.

PLANNING AND BUILDING TOGETHER AS A SOURCE OF FRIENDSHIP AND LIFE-ENHANCING COOPERATION

Our emotions are deeply rooted in our surroundings. Our social and personal connections to one another are connected to the shape and character of our environment and our individual relationships with the environment. When we create the physical substance of our environment, as a personal matter, we then become rooted in that world that we create, and in doing so we then become joined together with the fellows, friends, family and colleagues with whom we do it.

Thus, the environment cannot be regarded merely as an object. It is the manifestation of our love for the earth, of our desires, of our affection for one another, and of our understanding of the universe. Of course an abstract, developer-built neighborhood cannot do this for us. And indeed, we are now surrounded by buildings which cannot do it – and so, small wonder – the bond to the universe and to our fellows has been weakened.

To allow this inner essence of the world, to be reborn, we must both create the world, and do it together with our fellows.

When partners in a community engage in making a generative code, planning, and building together, they embrace a living process that brings with it the deepest kind of community building. They create both a social structure and a physical structure that holds the community together because, along with the contributions of all the people in various roles, the deeply held values and culture of the neighborhood are built into the physical form. The outcome – the physical form – serves to reinforce on a daily basis an appreciation for what can be built out of shared vision and commitment, an appreciation for one another, and the restoration of mental and emotional health in the inhabitants as well as the physical surroundings.

KEY FEATURES OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE VIBRANT AND ALIVE

By Christopher Alexander. Original article here.

Published at P2P-Foundation on 9th December 2014.

CORE

There are so many different kinds of neighborhoods. A neighborhood may be small or large. It may be dense and urban, it may be village-like, it may be on the prairie or the tundra. It may be rural in spirit, or based on heavy manufacturing; it may be more oriented toward old people, or it may be filled with children; it may be a cultural enclave, or it may be rich in the variety of people and cultures who live there. So there is immense variety among neighborhoods in different parts of the world.

However, at the same time, there are central structural features which appear to greater or lesser degree in any lively and coherent, living neighborhood. In spite of the variation, there is a core which remains constant.

SPECIFIC GEOMETRIC CHARACTER OF BUILDINGS AND LAYOUT

• The core of the neighborhood is a beautiful place which has been chosen for its inspiring character when you stand there. 
• The heart of the neighborhood and 2/3 of its land surface, is a pedestrian world. 
• Traffic interacts and comes in, only to the degree absolutely necessary: cars are not much in evidence. 
• Density is sometimes as high as can be reached by high-rise apartments, but all buildings are two and three stories high. 
• There are gardens everywhere — the space of the neighborhood is made of positively shaped gardens, public and private. 
• Buildings are rather simple, but always personal, with aspects that identify them by the people who made them. 
• Work is intermixed with living quarters: this applies both to small workshops and to larger offices or studio space. 
• Roads for cars are narrow and discourage speed. 
• Towards the outside of the neighborhood, there may be roads which carry faster traffic around town. 
• Windows are beautiful and large. 
• Houses are long and narrow, so that every room has good light. 
• All entrances to apartments come direct to the ground, never to shared corridors. 
• Some outdoor areas are furnished — seats, low walls, tables — and partly enclosed. There are cafes, shops and other amenities nearby.

A HUMAN STRUCTURAL QUALITY WHICH IS GENERATED BY UNFOLDING FROM REALITY, NOT PLANNED ON PAPER

Above all, the neighborhood is understood as a human and living system, where people feel like human beings. The mechanical quality of 20th-century housing developments is altogether replaced by a more friendly and biological character, where each thing has its place, and is shaped by human impulses, not by corporate decisions.

The neighborhood has a profound feeling of organic growth over time.

• Its resulting form is complex, efficient and interesting, and does not follow a rigid “master-planned” logic.
• It is designed to be continually adaptive, and therefore it can be enduring and “sustainable”.

The neighborhood has a profound sense of freedom.

• It offers multiple pathways and multiple points of connection to people’s daily needs, and to each other. 
• It is not just a branching hierarchy. 

The neighborhood feels like a beautiful part of nature. It builds on the underlying environmental structure, protects it, and connects people to it.

The neighborhood puts pedestrians first. The outdoor space is shaped for the primary goal of the experience of human beings, their interaction and exchange. Cars and other transport systems fit into this primary structure, and do not damage it. Buildings primarily shape and support this realm and enhance it, and object buildings and expressions are secondary.

All of the details of the neighborhood, to the finest scales, support and reinforce the human experience. The materials and details are carefully selected and shaped, combining local adaptation with efficient technology.

The basic structure of the city is the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a physical system that provides for the daily needs of its residents – providing markets, gathering places, parks and gardens, sacred places, raingutters for children to play in.

It is a place which brings the desire to live and to taste life, out in each person who lives there. This is not a casual comment, but a fundamental yardstick which is to be used, throughout, to measure the way each decision is made, each garden laid out, each doorway shaped with loving care by the people who live there. We mean it seriously, and we hope that you will mean it seriously, too, and will take the steps to make it happen.

This brilliant illustration shows how much public space we’ve surrendered to cars. To minimize the influence of cars is a key factor for a successful neighborhood.

Image: Karl Jilg/Swedish Road Administration.