To be completely fair and honest I did not attend Dr. Beatley's lecture at CMNH however I was included in the 2 hour workgroup which occurred before the lecture which was more of a Q&A session with Tim Beatley and others involved in the city. Luckily Erie Wire commented on one of my posts and directed me to a podcast of the lecture so I was able to at least listen to his presentation and mentally compare it to what I had seen in his movie preview clip (The Nature of Cities) as well as what was discussed at the workgroup.
The main concern that seemed to arrive from the discussion was a dire need for policy to support the grassroots involvement brewing to alter how communities and infrastructure are planned and thought of. I admit I was looking for specific case studies to apply to our current condition (in order to fortify policy discussion) which were lacking in the workgroup.
There was discussion of risk aversion and how it affects design. Brought up by the images of a wetland park lacking railings that leads to a park in the inlet which had a hole in the center to watch the tide rise and fall, and of course the clip of the children walking/hopping along larger stones, it was commented upon how a similar situation would be hard pressed to occur in the States due to our litigious nature. Which I have to admit is a damnable shame.
It seems that as a society and more nuanced, as a local community, we withhold ourselves from attempting anything truly innovative or ground breaking, instead we are awfully careful with our development. I believe this stems from a combination of not trusting the intelligence of the general public (hence we are not treated as adults, instead we are fed morsels of safe information about projects like children) and a lack of accountability/transparency. I would suggest that bold initiatives require strong leadership and change carries a risk however if the current situation is not very good the risk/reward ratio should be tilted to accommodate more risk. The difference between "bottom" and "rock bottom" isn't that great when you have no chance of moving above a current situation due to a declining situation (ie. Cleveland's tax supported school system, public transit (as transportation infrastructure) and job base).
However, the case studies were evidently saved for the lecture and not part of the discussion, which means that it is up to us again, looking to ourselves for leadership and solutions because, let's be honest, if we don't do it, no one will.
I don't blame Beatley for not being a savior, he wasn't brought here for that. Instead he offered some glimpses into what could happen if communities were better thought out, designed and were based upon a human scale, or at least a reaction to finding our humanity. Which is a point you don't hear often when words such as "sustainability" or "green" occur. Our humanity includes the natural environment (we are animals after all) and being "green" typically saves money (in operating costs anyway), so the symbiotic nature of our coexistence with ourselves should be a pinnacle purpose of this argument. Health, Safety and Welfare shouldn't be concerned with who can get sued instead HSW needs to develop into how beneficial something is. Designing for bikes instead of cars, building places for people to be outside, children's exposure to nature, natural foods, sunlight, wind, rain, are all glorious things to celebrate. I have even heard that some people even look forward to snow. How often do we design in order to shut this all out instead of incorporating and celebrating it?
Too often.
So I thank Dr. Beatley for coming to our city, for taking the time to answer a barrage of questions, to give a presentation and to work so diligently for his beliefs (as to publish, film, teach and practice extensively). I only hope we can persuade him (and others) to spend a bit more time studying Cleveland in order to better help us formulate stronger policies and procedures.
And I ask our communities to ponder the following points as we look towards how Cleveland can resolve its livability in the future.
- How do we properly educate ourselves so as to not fall into the trap of "popular marketing" and instead spend our time investigating solutions responsibly?
- How can we integrate functional design in lieu of just as a spectacle in order for communities, infrastructure and buildings act not just as passive structures (to be witnessed or experienced) but active objects that interact productively with the community/region/etc.?
- Which case studies can we properly look towards, emulate, adapt and make our own? Which data is imperative and applicable? How do we foster techniques to study and implement this research (ie. where is the funding from, how is it paid for, how is it validated)?
- What differentiation of scale is allowable for interventions to have any affect? How do case studies scale? How are regions and communities studied and through which lens best allows for application (and how does one convince designers and clients to look past the boundaries of their property when designing these solutions)?
No comments:
Post a Comment