Logroño was an old settlement, first of the Romans, under the name of Vareia, a commercial port, and then of the Celts. From the 10th century, possession of Logroño was disputed between the kings of Navarre and those of Castile; the region was finally annexed to Castile. Alfonso VI of Castile granted Logroño in 1095 a charter of rights that served as a model for other Spanish cities. In 1609 and 1610 Logroño was the main seat of the Basque witch trials.
The population of Logroño in 2008 was 153,736 and a metropolitan population of nearly 197,000 inhabitans. The city is a centre of the trade in Rioja wine, for which the area is noted.
Calle del Laurel, known as "the path of the elephants" and Calle San Juan are typical streets where various restaurants and tapas-bars offer the best pinchos and tapas in northern Spain. Calle Portales is the main street in the old town, where people like to walk and sit in the terraces to have a meal or good wine.
The recent Venice Biennale had as a theme "Fare Mondi: Making Worlds", but perhaps a more appropriate sub-theme would be ‘where is art at?’ It is an important point; as I was once told by a guy called Ronnie out of Jersey City: ‘It ain’t where you’re from, it’s where you’re at’, which has always remained good advice.
However, it connotes more than the fact that the Biennale was, inevitably, an eclectic mix of work; it makes salient the key strands of emerging debates and dialogues in art. The Biennale works ranged from the sublimely beautiful to barely developed under-graduate level pieces. So far so good.
FROM SMOCK TO SHOCK
So called ‘shock’ art, most memorably in recent times the ‘Young British Artists’ (YBA), starting almost twenty years ago, gave us the likes of severed animal parts and later un-made beds. No problem with that per se, but over and above the shock value, where is the content? What might the nature of content be? What is its relevance, and consequently, that old conundrum, what is the meaning of art?
This sort of work is a natural progression from Duchamp’s Fountain, one of his ‘readymades’, referring to the urinal he exhibited in 1917. Duchamp described his intent with the piece was to shift the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation. Good point well made, but in many ways it only needed making once.
But if a piece is merely a metaphor or symbol for a personal intellectual process, it becomes esoteric, and fails in it’s primary role to explore, elucidate and reflect.
To hold a mirror up to certain aspects of society, and allow us to reflect on it, regardless of how niche an aspect of society it may be is an important process. Thus the ongoing importance and relevance of art is assured, regardless of trend or style, as long as it continues to fulfil this role. It is the broad eclectic nature of art that means this role is being robustly carried out; no aspect of how we live remains untouched. In this way art, as a whole, is democratic, much more so than elected political representatives whose personal agendas distort democratic mechanisms towards over prescriptive outcomes.
Any debate on where art is at, or where is it going, must test the boundaries of what constitutes art to establish where they are, so some will cross the line, but they still remain relevant as part of the wider debate.
It is not enough to have a good idea or insight into certain aspects of society. It needs to be developed and represented in a manner that can be engaged with and is manifest with some sense of craft or technical skill, which is a more traditional view, but references the earliest notion of art of differentiating people who thought or produced above a subsistence level.
COKE ON A STICK
The ‘object-out-of-context-coke-can-on-a-pedestal’ is perhaps only possibly relevant by a recognised artist that has established body of thought so there is a context. But even that is in many ways a repeat of the Duchamp urinal, which understandably is repeated each generation for the sake of their own affirmation and exploration – experience is a great thing.
It was on this point that the work in Venice was split: works of the type that we have seen so many times before, descended for Duchamp’s urinal, and work that engaged us in some way, rather than rely on a chance connection that a more personal piece may have.
There is an interesting angle, that as we increasingly lose cultural commons, so art pieces will tend to become more esoteric or ‘place’ specific, either way, relating to a smaller audience. There is nothing wrong in someone personally exploring issues through art, indeed a very healthy pursuit, but this must be distinguished from work that offers contemplation of aspects of society and how we live.
Although, far be it for me to counter anything that would encourage the notion of Baudelaire’s flâneur – probably our best chance of responding appropriately to increasingly commercial society with all it’s trappings of shopping as a leisure pursuit and celebrity reverence (at the most trivial end of the spectrum of consideration).
Increasing information overload, dictates we need to be engaged personally for a work to have any sense of meaning to us. Spatial (eg Serra) or narrative or interactive (recent child’s slides in the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern, London) connect with the viewer in this way.
Sense of engagement, whether spatially or through a sense of inherent narrative or being interactive, addresses the issue overload and repetition, and renders a piece of art relevant, albeit to a reduced number of people, but many more groups. Perhaps famous for fifteen people rather than fifteen minutes.
This gives more to relevance to the notion ‘I like it’, but is that enough? But where does that leave ‘I understand it’, or ‘it is relevant to me because...’ So perhaps it actually pushes art more towards entertainment. So the question becomes, can art be entertainment, but still fulfil its role as highlighting certain notions of our society. If something is just beautiful, is that enough? Even that says something about current society: the beautiful is more not only revered, as it always has been, but now increasingly seen as aspirational, with debilitating results on people’s expectations for their own lives.
Making works with a potential for broad relevance at a societal level, as (very) distinct from populist/ lowest common denominator or even ‘nice’ (read hotel corridor pieces), addresses the issue of work being for an elite. By making works esoteric either by being too personal or supported by contrived conceptual theories, it is making art into a divisive weapon, by which sociological stratas are artificially reinforced. (For an interesting take on Meritocracy (US) Vs Class (UK) see Toby Young, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, chapter 27, Forgotten but Not Gone, p 241)
Theory behind (the process of evolving) a piece provides guidance and relevance through its development, and helps keep the final piece true to the initial concept or idea. But, when the concept becomes a crutch by which the piece cannot stand without, then it is on flimsy ground indeed.
MEANING OF ART
The emotional content put into a piece by an artist is surely not there just to evoke the same emotional response by a viewer. It should evoke a response of course, positive or negative - if it is any good - but a response that engages with the emotional baggage that the viewer inevitably brings to the party. If not, the work is a personal and esoteric piece. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes it biographical and thus limits its relevance for public display.
AND FINALLY ...
The British entry in Venice was a typical manifestation of the British mentality: isolated, prickly, unapproachable, and that was just the entrance. Timed entries prevented anybody from meandering in on there way around, and consequently many just passed it by, re-affirming the ivory tower outlook.
This month we look at change: opportunities for it, attitude towards it, and implications of denying it. But first:
We have recently been witnessing the signs of a return to ‘normal’ with regard to banks and financial institutions. The talk over the last six months of the chance to ‘learn lessons’, and how it can ‘never go back to how it was’, has turned out to be empty rhetoric.
There had been a real chance to trammel banking to a more equitable course, but that door is now firmly closed - an insult to the thousands whose lives have been deeply affected by the events of the last year.
But to dwell on this will get us nowhere. If there had of been change, what would the nature of it have been; what changes do we need to make to make our society less polarised and more sustainable across social, environmental and economic means?
MYOPIC EXPERIENCE
The recently missed chance by the UK Government to re-trammel banks when they were on their knees could have sent a clear message with a couple of de-capitations. Now they are back on their feet, we are seeing a return to the bad old days of inappropriate bonuses, and business as usual. But bonuses are not the worst; merely the most salient aspect of a much deeper cycle of bondage which has resulted in the ongoing suffering of 1000’s of people led into severe debt, now trapped into a dark corner, as well as the collapse of 100’s of ‘real’ companies, further adding to the unemployment. So, as unbelievable as it may seem, we are heading for a situation even worse than we have been experiencing, as such an extreme swing of a pendulum will inevitably swing very far the other way.
BACK ON TRACK
If we accept that our global operating practices have been increasingly un-sustainable, there is therefore a need think outside existing mechanisms; to at least de-structure and re-configure. If so, what are the objectives and focus of restructuring?
Focus solely on growth and profit is divorced from how we live – it encourages blinkered thinking. If a company pays its rent, salaries, research, insurances, etc, then it is a viable company. So when we hear of profits 'plummeting' by X%, we are misled; any profit at all means a company is still a going concern, yet falling profits throw us into a panic with real consequences because we only focus on that aspect of the business due to shareholder priorities.
How can we draw back together the key strands of society, and what has changed in the meantime? How can we limit knock on effects of ‘investment' activity, and re-trammel un-sustainable practices?
Perhaps if we focus on activities and industries that relate to subsistence, not in a Neanderthal survival way, but to the quality of life that is right and appropriate to now, and should be shared by all. This way we move towards modes of living that relate more directly to how we live, and systems may become more circular, rather than linear, so it will be harder to ignore problems and implications of how we live. This would hopefully lead us to a more sustainable existence, and we would be less susceptible and be able to mitigate better against the extremes of vicissitude we are currently experiencing.
OUT OF SIGHT
Perhaps the lack of appetite for change is, at least partly, because we do not look far enough ahead to see the possible benefits of change, we only see the short term costs.
The period of time by which we tend to think ahead, and consequently implement measures accordingly, has been gradually reducing since around the mid-twentieth century. And this trend is accompanied by a shift to a more purely commercial outlook.
We passed the four year mark some time ago (political cycle), and even the financial cycle (one year), and have now reached the point where political will looks no further ahead than the next peak or trough of the media circus – sometimes as little as a few days.
This affects thinking and policies in a fundamental way by not considering the longer term and skewing the shorter term with knee-jerk reactive decisions, but, unfortunately, with long term consequences.
TRANSIENCY
One of the effects of ongoing political short term thinking and being increasingly commercially minded is fractured neighbourhoods and impoverished communities.
One of the most salient causes is oft quoted as small flats - too small for a decent quality of life. Both as built and also when operated as private rental accommodation means people have less sense of connection to it or the place in which it is situated. But it is easy to project problems on to physical receptors; there are some much deeper reasons: we increasingly live, commute, and socialise in different places, further disconnecting us from a sense of connection to one place or a cohesive realm of existence.
Affordable housing is now substantially delivered by the private sector, under duress, as part of private developments. Governments and councils are pushing for 40 – 50% affordable housing, with developers resisting through a whole range of excuses and hurdles. But does this just create parallel worlds? Is it actually cruel to place someone with significantly less means – not just financial, but in terms of opportunities and actual wherewithawal – cheek by jowl with very wealthy homes in some cases? These people will never mix in any meaningful sense, and so does it just create two parallel existences, with the worst off probably not able to shop in many of the local facilities, further highlighting the differences? There are only ever degrees of difference; it is by no means black and white.
This polarised situation can be seen in the extreme with some of the council built estates from the 60s and 70s in ‘better’ parts of London, for example, although many of these now are presumably fully private. However, places such as Sao Paulo, Brazil or certain parts of China take this difference to another level entirely – shanty towns next to shiny new apartment towers.
London has a large degree of distinction of the physical fabric, so the difference is very obvious, compared to somewhere like, say, Madrid. Madrid has its different neighbourhoods, the same as anywhere, but because the typical typology is the apartment block the difference is much less marked.
This is not an argument for ghettoes, but an enquiry in to how we actually live now, and how this situation can be integrally catered for the general benefit of all. To get beyond the notion of ‘pepperpotting’ social homes, and making it tenure blind. All this achieves is that people cannot tell, so all looks well, but we have smoothed over the more significant underlying sociological issues.
Maybe this overlaying of larger and wider personal networks that further divorces us from a small number of physical places is how we live now. Maybe we should just accept it, and work with that in terms of how to improve quality of life for all, rather than hanker for the idealised urban that does not, nor probably ever did, exist. What are the nature of links in this kind of world? How do we connect with people in such an environment?
COLOUR BY NUMBERS
Perhaps better run cities, towns and villages would have less stark differences; a smoother transition from types of place or even people. This is dangerous territory. Is it always a good thing to be confronted by different people from ourselves, to broaden our horizons, decrease our ignorance? But when does too much difference build up and overspill into hate and even violence?
We all make unconscious judgments of people, be it by where they live, colour of their skin, or sexual leanings. It is human nature. With ever more information overload this is further exacerbated, so we forget that using such markers are only guides, not actually how people are.
AND FINALLY ...
Time often brings experience, but sometimes people demand respect simply because they have been around for a long time, but there are many that merely repeat the same year over and over, and have not gained significant experience as such or perceptive insights from them, although they may have logged a lot of facts of things that have occurred over a life time, but really have only consumed other’s experience from the armchair of their life.
Change is not something we can stem. Even if we stand still metaphorically, things around us will shift, so our relative position has moved, so the people’s perspective of us will have changed, so we just become more anachronistic unless we derive learning from our previous experiences and give them relevance. The only certainty is change.
Asturias lies in the North West of Spain. It is a region of mountains, forests and beautiful coast - one of the most un-spoilt in Spain. (The provincial government is actively removing illegal buildings within 500m of the coast.) The local cuisine includes goats cheese, cloudy cider, and cheesecake.
- Fort England Vs ‘Europe’ and other people from 'abroad'
MERRYE ENGLAND
The media lead us to believe that we are mono-faceted in terms of who we are culturally; It sells more papers, as it can outrage us, or play to our emotions, if we are more polarised. A regular, and one of the most salient examples, is newspapers exploiting the idea of being ‘English’ – to be accused of such is a reductive accusation. I feel I can be English, British and European all at the same time.
The human is a seething mass of contradictions and complexity, whether we like it or not. It is a useful and necessary guide to designate certain characteristics on people, but it is not actual; merely an adumbrate representation of one aspect of our personality as it outwardly appears – an impression only. If it were really the case, such a designation would be an impoverishment of the human spirit.
Although, a constant battering can weaken a spirit until, to all intents and purposes, a person becomes an accumulation of that reduced mode of thought. I am of course thinking of that neo-fascist rag, the ‘Daily Mail’ – a most pernicious publication.
MID-WEEK EPIPHANY
There is an apparent difference between the English (as opposed to British – the Welsh and Scottish have a more defined endemic sense of culture) and our continental (sic) counterparts. It is much referred to both positively and negatively. The ‘Mediterranean’ lifestyle is much envied, more so because it is an idealised and non-existent; easier to idealise because it is non-existent.
Despite the innumerable number of examples of quotable differences between them, to pare down the essence of what the difference is between ‘English’ and ‘European’ however, is quite a different thing.
I have been pondering this issue for many years with no clear outcome - until recently. Earlier this month I went to the Theatre Royal Haymarket, London (great theatre) to see ‘Waiting for Godot’ (excellent play) with the protagonists being Ian McKellen and Patrick Stuart (superb actors – McKellen being better for being less ‘theatrical’). None of this however was having much bearing on me at all: The theatre was stiflingly warm; the ‘glass’ of wine in my hand was undrinkable; and, the ‘glass’ was a white polystyrene cup – the kind children might drink from at birthday party.
What struck me most clearly was how everyone else in the audience (my partner excepted thankfully – although she is ‘European’) seemed oblivious to all of these debilitations. It was at this point that the realisation of the essential nature of the English is: we can take the constituent elements of any situation and isolate them, thus allowing us to focus on just one. Being able to ignore the worst and latch onto the best, or least bad, of them all, and blinker out the rest – a ‘fractured’ endemic psyche.
This explains so much of the English mind-set: It allows us to admire the excellent decor of a restaurant while the food is mediocre and wine overpriced; It allowed us two hundred years ago to sit on a terrace in humid colonial India drinking tea whilst oblivious to everything else - it is essentially a survival technique for bad environments. In contrast to mainland Europeans, it is the lack of an integrated experience.
[Digression: But not integrated in a technological sense. Apple has acknowledged recently that i-Phones have a discrete ‘kill’ switch, which allows them to access and delete applications they deem inappropriate. Where is the sense of ownership, personal control and rights as a citizen?
Also, recently it has emerged that Amazon is able to, and has, deleted e-books from peoples e-readers, downloaded from other service providers. They claim rather than ownership it is more about a relationship with a service provider. And the book they were deleting? 1984; how ‘1984’ is that.]
CHICKENS IN THE ROOST
It is though, a double edged sword (sword of Damacles?). It means there is a great flexibility to change to new circumstances, which means we can be successful commercially, linguistically and financially, but that is because there are few deep cultural roots, so it is a diminished mode of existence, leading to an ever increasing pace, as we seek and need more and more imagery to consume and entertain us. This leaves the lowest sectors of society feeling it most keenly, as the gap between expectation and reality widens.
The notion of the double edged sword, both allowing the English to be quantitatively ‘successful’ but also left qualitatively impoverished, touches on the ironic implications of what, or who, are the ‘English’. The English colonisers of the final quarter of the last millennium, predominantly in India and the Caribbean (following in the footsteps of our mainland European counterparts in the middle of the last millennium in the Southern Americas), created an idealised notion in the minds of the colonised of the ‘homeland’. This may have been as a result of people simply being homesick, and idealising what they no longer had, as we are all wont to do. Perhaps also seeding the early manifestations of this ‘fractured’ endemic psyche, by dealing with new surroundings by ignoring the unfamiliar aspects of them.
England has regularly experienced immigration, or at least for most of the last millennium, so the notion that being ‘English’ is a monolithic thing is not only non-sensical, but simply not true. It is this regular stream of people that has enriched us culturally and socially, which we would benefit more from if we would be more accepting and positive about it.
This idealised notion of homeland more recently manifests as ‘illegal’ immigration, as many ‘English’ try to ignore the tacit responsibility for previous actions, and forget that we colonised and forever fundamentally changed many parts of the world. Is the desire for people wanting to come to the ‘home’ country of their former colonisers the ultimate conclusion of having pressed onto the colonised, through ignorant behaviour, that the oppressor’s way of life was somehow better? If we had been more integrating instead of dominating, as we were initially in India, we would perhaps be on a different path now. But this attitude is premised on seeing immigration as necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I feel my life enriched for the variety of people I see on the street.
CIVILLY HARMONIOUS
Chinese (living in traditional housing arranged along informal alleys - Lungs) treat semi-public space as semi-private, whilst English treat semi-private space as semi-public. Chinese neighbourhoods have manned gateways, but the gates are never closed, while the spaces between houses are used for all manner of domestic activities – semi-private activities in a semi-public place. In contrast, the English in the common stair (semi-private) of a block of flats, for example, will only give an awkward and begrudged ‘morning’ to people who we know to be our neighbours. This pushes (English) behaviour to the extremes of the public; semi-public; semi-private; private sequence of the spatial and psychological spectrum, which in turn leads to erosion of any sense of community; it is the two central parts of the chain (semi-public and semi-private) that cultivate the subtle bonds that constitute community.
In this regard, the distinction between British and English is highlighted by the healthy Scottish tradition and appetite for housing blocks with communal gardens in the centre. The English love of terraced houses (or semi’s now we are all middle class) should perhaps be embraced if it is endemically difficult to achieve a proper sense of community; better to acknowledge something’s true nature and go with that, than to see it as admitting defeat, or worse continue to foist inappropriate ‘European’ housing models on an unappreciative English public.
This polarised sense of altruism is at least partially rooted in the English lack of (non-formal) social skills or emotional collateral, which tends towards us behaving stiffly, which is often interpreted as arrogant. Over time, there is a compound effect between this ‘stiff upper lip’ and the ‘fractured’ endemic psyche, that leads to behaviours such as typical English not considering it necessary to learn a ‘foreign’ language when travelling ‘abroad’ – further exacerbating people’s perception of us, and fuelling the continuation of our ‘superior’ attitude, even if it does just stem from social awkwardness. This awkwardness is evidenced by the odd phenomenon of avoiding work colleagues on the commute to work. Again, not because we don’t like them or want to talk to them, but a mortal fear that we may not be able to think of anything to say, or simply ‘not want to bother them’. In a social situation it manifests as an overtly gregarious behaviour pattern.
Most deeply felt is the lack of sense of the civic; we do not feel affinity to the streets or places around us as part of our mental space. They are something we navigate to get to other places – from one ‘castle’ to another. This compounds the lack of integration of strands of society that can meld to spiral positively, so the whole is more than the sum of the parts – as in mainland Europe, although that is not without it’s issues. But what ‘Europe’ retains is a core, and essence if you like, of a decent (genuine) quality of life, comprised of simple things, that can be enjoyed by all.
The loss and current lack of significant endemic culture (not art, theatre, etc – culture in a national sense) has led to the diminishment of cultural festivals (again, not literary or music type of festivals – but the ‘fiestas’ of Spain, for example, which we envy so, drawing from long forgotten, but deeply embedded cultural patterns). The implications of this are the loss of certain times of year when everyone comes together in a community to revel: celebration, release and perhaps a little drunken debauchery. Even our beloved ancient Greeks based their culture on dream and rapture. This release fulfilled a need in society to escape the pressures and repetitive drudgery of the rest of the year. Although it was a way to keep the masses tame from an aristocratic perspective, it re-connected us to nature when held on auspicious dates such as solstice, maintained the memory of the past and reinforced community bonds. With festivals now so scooped out of meaning, the need is fulfilled by the likes of hen and stag parties, where an isolated group causes disruption to others, so further isolates us from our fellow citizens – at least in a proper festival everyone is drunk together.
THE POLITICS BIT
Over a long period of time, the ‘fractured’ endemic psyche has been a contributing factor to the inherent short term thinking that has led England to be the disjointed and dysfunctional place that it is today. Whether you consider transport, health, education, housing, or employment – lack of ongoing investment over many decades has left these key aspects of society impoverished and without any sense of cohesivity or integration.
And yet we cling on to the idea that they are the ‘best in the world’ – most laughably our every-day cuisine. Whilst great cuisine and design, for example, exists, it is produced and consumed by a small tier of people; the majority have a reduced quality of life.
After any disaster or weakness has been exposed we always hear how there will be an inquiry so it will never happen again and our [insert latest embarrassing government failure] will be the best in the world. It doesn’t need to be the best in the world, it just needs to work properly. It is a sad indictment that we try to live on the laurels of a (very questionable) past – a touch of the emperor’s new clothes syndrome, but the facade is fast crumbling.
The unholy trinity of media, politicians and (dis-informed) raw public opinion de-rails a proper democratic process: discussion pulled from pillar to post, with certain topics brought forward inappropriately due to public pressure arbitrarily swayed by media playing to polarised opinion and beliefs previously primed by earlier cant. A further strand seems to be marketing pressures; advertisers demand a certain minimum number of units shifted, so a publishers primary goal becomes that, rather than reporting on events of significance and relevance that have recently occurred. The media is a contributory factor to society, not a benign observer, with growing influence. For example, whilst not an actual cause, we have seen it hugely exacerbate the economic meltdown of recent months. Recently the Eighties are back in fashion, but most worryingly it is 1984 that seems to be the year we are approaching most keenly.
Conflict, rather than dialogue and process, comes about when leaders fail to fulfil their responsibilities. In some ways, we are all leaders. Not accepting proper responsibility, is to be irresponsible.
... AND FINALLY
The recent spate (well two) of high profile gem raids has interesting resonances with broader societal shifts. As we are increasingly led to desire and expect more things, and ever more rapidly, and that the lives of vacuous entertainers are pushed ever higher as models of aspiration, so we further diverge from reasonable possibilities of achievement for the populus. It is no coincidence that these raids were for gems: the highest symbols of status and wealth. That gems are an embodiment of these skewed aspirations in miniature (as well as being really glittery), we can only expect more such raids in the future, and hope it is a release valve for increasing revolutionary verve (?)
TROUBLE AND STRIFE Things change. Cities expand, technology develops, climate alters, people die. As such, we need people who can engage with the implications. Those who can explore and navigate, and project on how things will be. Regulations of society and habits of people become fixed, or change very slowly, in contrast to aspects of society which can change very rapidly. The consequent rift is at best a missed opportunity, and at worst a threat to society, so who will recognise when the context changes that originally brought about those regulations and habits?
The rich palimpsest of society becomes unstable if the accretions of those layers are not bonded together. The ‘subversive’ is the basis for the main ingredient which becomes the glue that holds, and links, subsequent layers together. Those who are often held to be ‘rebellious’ or ‘subversive’ elements, have aspects of their personality that question the way things are.
If this critical rejection of convention matures into a well considered idea of how an aspect of how we live will change or can be improved, then we have something that is of great value, which should be supported, even earlier on when that tendency may still manifest as ‘toublesome’. But not everyone will develop the skills and wherewithal to pursue and achieve such ends. Usually as we become older, most conform to the norms of the social environment around us.
So how can we distinguish what may become something interesting, and what is just teenage angst? We cannot. But, we can provide opportunities and environments where such behaviour is less abrasive, and where these tendencies can be explored for their underlying impetus and given space to evolve.
IN YA’ FACE INTERFACE Whilst ultimately integral, societal interface explored as distinct from inner frustration, would allow separate tendencies to be temporarily isolated to see them more clearly. Young people should be given better opportunities to explore their interface with society, in different arenas and at different scales – people, family, neighbours, strangers, authority. This can operate alongside their ‘own’ development, which is more about exploring inner frustrations, with parameters rather than limits (in most quarters). This perception of inner and outer self is of early Christian origin, so very deeply embedded in our cultural psyche, as distinct from the ancient Greek notions of sophrosyne and poiesis which enabled a well integrated society, with a refined sense of civic and community; something mostly lost to us.
In this way we may see more positive manifestation rather than negative outpouring, with development of latent skills and discovery and refinement of natural tendencies. We are seeing the results of not giving young people appropriate outlets, particularly young men. As such, we are losing out on the full range of diverse individuals, as well as, more bureaucratically, less taxes from people not fulfilling their potential.
A bridge could be established by acknowledging that people need to recognise and consider changes in our society, and linking it to a mentoring system, that can create and establish these environments where early frustrations can be refined into something more tangible.
As I have said before, young people seem more often talked about, rather than to. Such programmes as outlined above would acknowledge this lack, and also address the need to complement the reduction of the sense of civic, with it’s concomitant reduction in public investment, as private interests come to the fore and increasingly dominate thinking.
SAMSARA Vs MOKSHA The path of life can take many forms, but human nature, understandably, tends to default to non-action, so many paths go untrodden.
Change is precipitated in life by a fork in the road of the path our life travels; it can be passed by and ignored, but in a sense to pass a fork is to choose. It is not always a clear fork: sometimes we travel a path too quickly, and miss paths that are more hidden, off to the side; or at a busy crossroads, with many people to distract us and prevent us from seeing clearly.
The influence of others is something to be engaged with; we perhaps only really control half of what we do. We should be open to the influence of what that other half may bring. When things do not work out exactly as we had hoped, it is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on our outlook and attitude to change.
It is not about choosing the path we are on, but understanding why we are on that path. If we do, when a fork in the road approaches, we naturally tend the right way.
When we are at ease in our life; familiar with the situation of our family and community; unthinking about the routine that has established, the ‘weight’ that we feel is light. As some things become abandoned, or they sit outside our recognisable environs - the parameters of our conscious existence, so the ‘weight’ increases. The discovery of new or abandoned things can be both interesting and rewarding. Sometimes we chance across such things, but a concerted search for such things will take us into unfamiliar territory, and many people from the world behind will reciprocate when we turn our back on them to walk away.
PERSPECTIVE SHIFT We can be different things, even at the same time, and we can change; it is not true that a leopard doesn’t change their spots: The context of our life can have a significant influence on how we act and what we say – essentially who we are, as far as how we are perceived.
As we mature, we are perceived from a different context, but also from a perspective that context has less of an influence on us as we continuously explore ourselves through interactions and exchanges, and come to know what we do not believe, what we do not like, what we are not good at – this being part of realising what we do believe, like or are good at.
Some embrace change, others cling to the status quo, and only change when it is forced upon them. A balance between the two would be less polarised. Sometimes major change is forced upon us – do we resist or do we embrace? It depends; surely we should consider the implications of our actions and test our thoughts against our own beliefs and opinions, and of those we love and those who are worthy of respect.
FINAL THOUGHTS Sometimes the price of change can be too high. Whilst I would advocate change as a default or at least an active mode of thought to counter continuation of the status quo without questioning evolving context, change is not always good. North America has been, both recently (although more recently Obama is changing the present – he seems intelligent, considered, and thoughtful) and consistently through the last century, a de-stabilising influence across the world: from the effects of greed through commercial endeavours, to the acts of war and clandestine terrorism committed in pursuit of those ends – if you are looking for the world’s number one terrorist, ‘Dr’ Henry Kissinger has to be your man.
‘From each according to their ability; to each according to their need.’ - Marx
Interest in democracy is waning (Obama notwithstanding). Interest in religion is fading (Islam notwithstanding). And understandably so. We feel that matters are not relevant to us; that we have no real say in their outcome. Young people feel more talked about, than talked to.
The essence of democracy is to make decisions. What to do as a society, what are our beliefs, what are our problems, and who do we trust to decide those things and how do we choose them? If less and less people turn out to vote, at what point is it no longer a democracy?
COMMITMENT Vs QUALITY Once a decision is made to do something, a threshold is passed. Whether it is going to a restaurant, or committing to a multi-million project. Once over the line, decisions over budgetary factors, for example, are secondary. If you go to a restaurant, but then do not choose the dish you really want, because it is a little more expensive, then the experience is cheapened. You could have not gone; you could have gone to a different kind of restaurant. To not make the most of an experience is to waste it. Quality decisions beget quality outcomes, and vice versa.
RED TAPE With ever increasing complexity of modern life, there is a natural tendency to create ever more regulations, rather than rationalising and seeking deeper patterns of behaviour. However, as regulations increase they reach such a level that processes actually related to doing, become increasingly held up. So quality outcomes are reduced.
As such, a process gets to a point where it can only progress through a labyrinth of decisions, it is then effectively held to ‘ransom’, delayed and controlled, and it becomes more likely that (often well intentioned) personal agendas come to the fore, and processes become skewed from their original purpose; satisfying criteria of process, rather than actually achieving objectives – the process becomes the objective. There is no wrong and right; everything is relative.
CONSENSUS By adopting a consensual mode of agreement, which would have to be considered more in line with human nature, processes can be freed up, rather than become more hindered. It is much easier to decide who an appropriate group of people for any given situation would be, than continually passing the buck, because nobody wants to take responsibility in case they are sued, or do not hit their targets. Through a consensual process, the default becomes action, rather than in-action; less focus on tick-box criteria. Progress by common sense; a process of evolution and refinement, with relevant and experienced people commenting at appropriate points. If something seems right, it probably is.
WHEN IS A LAW NOT A LAW If we tend to defer to guidance, it effectively becomes law. But this means we operate to the lowest common denominator, and skulk in dark corners, throwing out easy platitudes from our cosy armchairs.
If we encourage people to experiment, to try new ideas, rather than always conform and tick all the boxes or chastise when something does not work out, we may actually make some progress. There will be ‘failures’ and set backs, but how can we learn if we do not make mistakes; if we do not listen, observe, and respect those around us; acknowledge how the world is, rather than maintain it is how we would want it to be?
We can navigate complex situations, and start to draw together strands that start to link and spiral positively, rather than negatively, as when we stick to our tried and tested, lowest common denominator way of thinking. Often, convention just persists out of lack of objective reflection. But what if the situation and context of when a law, for example, was brought in has changed dramatically, and nobody noticed? This is then open to abuse, as it is out of kilter with how we live today. Sometimes, one step back, allows us to go two steps forward.
WHAT’S NORMAL Consideration should coincide with most people, most of the time, under ‘normal’ circumstances. Although, this needs to take on board the extreme situation - those at the periphery. A shift of focus to majority, rather than being held up by considerations of extremes.
A diverse society is a rich society, and genuinely acknowledging that is necessary, but not easy.But this is not to deny the importance of those outside the mainstream; the opposite of normal is not necessarily abnormal.
YA’ GOTTA HAVE FAITH Faith and ritual form fundamental strands of society, nothing necessarily to do with religion. Can we not have faith that we can live more sustainably; that the planet can get it’s environment back on an even keel, even in the light of overwhelming evidence against it – is this not hope itself? Do we not want to stand side-by-side with our partner in front of friends, family, loved ones, and declare that we want to spend the rest of our lives with them, through thick and thin – is this not a rite worth striving for?
Faith and ritual have been monopolised by religions for so long, that as religion wanes, so too do the fulfilment of faith and ritual. They do not disappear though; they are hard wired into how we live. This leaves us searching for other anchors; other safe harbours. What do we see replacing them: shopping, celebrity reverence – surely such things will only guide us into treacherous waters?
ODE TO BANKS Where now, all that flowed so free to the Banks, No relief for the ill, no abode for the wandering, No locomotion for the distant, no learning for the young, So tight lipped now, the gaping beak; sated, moved on, with less than a thanks.
AND FINALLY … This month we have seen police officers dramatically abusing their powers at the G20 gathering. This adds to a growing list of incidents. Are anti-terrorism laws, already questionable in themselves, being abused through media-fed paranoia?
One particular activity seems to be a favourite of theirs – intimidating people taking photographs in the street, aggressively accosting them with demands to show and delete pictures, and even to hand over the camera. None of this is legal. If an officer approaches you, they are legally obliged to explain why, and to identify themselves.
The question of identification is an important one. Do police officers forget that they are not the law; they only represent it on behalf of the citizens?
SHIFTS IN ASPECTS OF CONSUMERISM; FROM CONTENT LED TO MARKETING LED An increasing oversupply of products and services tends towards marketeers employing tactics of encouraging over-consumption as a by-product of enticing people to change products and services necessitated because they are in over-supply. A pernicious circle that quietly but continuously reduces genuine quality of life.
This results in a shift from the content - the product or nature of a service itself - to focussing on effects or the belief in what possessing or experiencing such a thing will do for us, in terms of our perceived sense of happiness or life satisfaction.
As such, differences between what is on offer, tends to reduce and become stratified into consumption bands. Eg, cars: family, sports, off-road, city. The designs become very similar and differences within one type are there to distinguish them for marketing purposes, not as anything relevant to actual design or function; design as distinct from styling and image.
The actual consumer, ironically, drops out of the loop in any meaningful sense, apart from generic demographic profiling and overall marketing statistics.
Control of the supply becomes key, but with consequences on those actually producing the goods. They become subject to narrowing bands of options, combined with inconsistent demand, or fluctuating price paid for the supply of their product. This has the direst consequences on those most vulnerable, such as small-scale farmers. Supermarkets gaining too control over supply of food to the point where they can dictate the narrow range of genuine choice requires a sleight of hand in marketing terms, to make us believe we are purchasing from within a range that has been especially selected to bring us only the best.
Becoming more focussed on a tightening circle of interest means we become increasingly divorced from the implications of our actions, choices and exchanges.
One of the results of the narrowing of choice and supply, and something that is used as a marketing strand in itself, is things becoming cheaper, but often too cheap. Sometimes something can seem too cheap for what it is, if you consider how it is made and what it is made of. As the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. There has to be consequences, such as inappropriate and un-sustainable use of resources.
CONSEQUENCES This narrowing of choice needs to be disguised and leads to a shift or distortion of the overall situation, stretching what is not really so important, and squashing that which is; heightening awareness of something relatively insignificant, keeping something banal more in our minds than the topic warrants; raising something of relatively minor importance above its subsistence or administration level, and getting us thinking about it more than is appropriate.
Narrowing, or telescoping, the field of consideration exacerbates relatively minor differences, which takes our focus off the bigger picture. Each notion tends to be small, not enough in themselves to cause great concern, but together more significant, although difficult to appreciate that way, which makes it more subversive.
This process tends to go hand in hand with a shift from providing a service or product with a reasonable profit, to maximising profits, in tandem with increasing desire for things we want (rather than things we really need), such as the replacement of latest model, as part of being ‘up-to-date’, despite nothing being wrong with that already owned, and being considered inferior by not having the latest. This consequently also shifts focus from content/quality of product to more subjective notions of possession, as well as sales based on strength of marketing, rather than the product or service itself.
EXAMPLES OF SHIFTS IN NATURE OF PROVISION OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 1. Increasingly: - More difficult to alter agreements and easier to sign up, and a focus on signing up initially, often involving a direct debit, and often complemented by less follow up service. Eg, utilities, who are then in a position to raise direct debits without notification, again relying on many people not picking up on it straight away, or being bothered to lower it again. - More difficult to contact (usually service provision) businesses, including phone messages with endless and circular options, and web-sites with no e-mails (becomes like TV: one way) – which puts people off. Also, access to actual products. By buying something without trying it because of difficult access, such as on-line or out-of-stock, we pay up-front, and then receive it at a later date, when it becomes a hassle to return it, so tend to be content with it. - Obtaining payment in a lump sum early on, such as 0% on credit cards, but with an ‘administration’ fee. Dividing the fee down into interest that would be paid, quickly deduces if the 0% period is worth it overall. But if not, the money has been paid in a lump sum up front, earning interest for the provider. Not at a huge loss to the ‘consumer’, but accumulatively of much benefit to the provider.
2. Advertising portraying simple or tedious matters as warranting an emotional response (eg, Norwich Union’s quote-me-happy; Confused.com’s easier to use web-site). It also draws us into spending disproportionate time on issues such as personal administration. These two work complementarily, and subtly shifts our framing and relative balance of which issues are important, and their nature (which issues have emotional content).
3. Product or service shifting. Eg, clothes washing product: from powder to liquid to tablet to powder again. When did train users become customers rather than passengers?
4. Arbitrary parameters decided more towards a provider’s favour, than what is required by consumers. Eg mortgages at less than 100%. What is really required for a mortgage (first time buyers) is over 100%, to cover capital for the property, fees, and setting up home (this has knock on effects of people buying items for the home on credit – good for providers). Although, people have to wait longer to purchase their first home, which is good in the sense of having to think about it and not rush in, although often it means many people simply cannot buy an appropriate home (size, location, etc). In light of financial crises over late 2008/ early 2009, the matter of being able to borrow over 100%, needs to be distinguished from people being lent too much money due to over-heated markets.
5. Use of generic language to mislead. Eg, customer service stated to have been ‘improved’, when clearly it is subjective. Improved in what sense? Actually better for the customer, or really just more cost effective for provider?
6. Production of confusing information in the guise of legal documentation, inhibiting the clear understanding of that which is being sold. Eg, mortgage offers: figures not appearing in a clear spreadsheet, but spread out amongst documents in different formats, making it difficult to make like for like comparisons.
7. The aforementioned narrowing of the field of consideration, which takes our focus off the bigger picture. Eg, investment percentage returns, generally being within a few points of each other, and therefore, unless considering larger sums than many of us have, makes very little real difference. Such as, introduction of paying interest on cheques from the day it is paid in (Lloyds TSB), which makes little difference in terms of actual cash, but makes us customers feel better; but merely a ploy to gain more customers. This plays on people’s sense of ‘revenge’, and believe they are ‘getting back’ at financial institutions, but really no more than smoke and mirrors, shifting focus from genuine issues. Why do financial transfers take any time at all if transferred electronically, with mutual agreements between providers to return sums if a mistake is made?
8. Development of products beyond significant difference. Eg, razors, stereo, toothbrushes, and particularly, hair and beauty products. No doubt that each subsequent model is ‘better’ than the previous, but if that improvement is beyond the realm of significant difference, then this questions relevance of those improvements.
9. Fees for applications/ administration. When the level is set at a certain amount, not enough to refuse (if that’s an option, but often not, such as mortgage application or survey), but just enough to annoy, but we still tend to proceed. Accumulatively, these are very significant for receiver, but based on many small amounts not significant to each person. Eg, restaurants adding 12.5% ‘service charge’ as part of main bill. Also, the hassle/ embarrassment prevents most from taking it off. Budget airlines are apparent masters at charging for a whole array of things, but results in annoying people, when overall, the final price is still good.
10. Default of maximising profits as un-questioned. Eg, banks stating that re-introduction of account charges as ‘inevitable’ as profits are squeezed in other areas.
11. Too much choice of an apparent large range, but with little genuine difference between them, drawing too much time to something that does not warrant it. Eg, choosing toothpaste in a supermarket.
Overall, the result is to actually reduce genuine choice and aspects of quality of life, whether that is too much time spent on something relatively insignificant, or loss of choice, such as rarer types of apples. Also, by limiting time to consider fuller range of what may be available. Eg, a family eating ready-meals because they (have been led to) believe that they have very little time, and quick food gains them more time and choice. But in reality, while each at one sitting may have a different meal, in longer term, a very limited range of ‘dishes’ for each person, and a reduced sense of communal eating, reducing it to more of a subsistence experience to give the body energy.
One of the main losses is that we consider less the worth of an experience in itself. Time spent in the evening preparing and cooking a meal from fresh ingredients, whilst chatting with friends and lovers, is of great value, as is going to the park for a walk not to anywhere in particular, but not to marketeers. Subsistence will keep us alive, but sustenance is the stuff of life.
WELCOME TO THE ‘HOOD ‘City-centre’ living, tellingly perceived as a new phenomena, has been welcomed as a fundamental part of the regeneration of towns and cities. Whilst the image of the urbane couple living the vibrant city lifestyle is seductive, it does not necessarily represent an holistic regeneration, despite the physical improvements to these areas.
Whether an area remains a run-down ‘inner-city’ neighbourhood lacking inward investment and community adoption or has been regenerated (often displacing the former), without a mixture of social sectors and household types with the appropriate infrastructure (not just physical) and amenities in place, neither can be deemed to be sustainable. To be sustainable it would need to be an integrated neighbourhood, which would include, or have access to, homes, jobs, schools, post offices, buses, parks, shops, cafes, libraries - places of social exchange and interaction.
‘If the city's resurgence is to be more than just a fad, cities will have to look to the everyday creativity of the way people live, rather than top-down policy making and master plans. Self-build cities looks to how street level intelligence can improve enterprise, governance and public life in our towns and cities.’ - (a)
The reasons cities came into existence are still valid, even if they are evolving. Denser living, an inevitability of urban environments, may not yet be endemically hard wired in the UK, as perhaps it is with mainland European counterparts, and does not suit sensibilities across all sectors of society. However, it is undeniable that Britain is a relatively mixed culture, and if we are to capitalise on that strength, we need to provide dwellings and neighbourhoods that fully acknowledge and celebrate that diversity.
PACKING THEM IN Merely providing higher density developments, with none of the concomitant notions that go with integrated living environments, constitutes a sanitised take on urban design.
' “In Merton we are getting applications for much higher density than planning policy demands because developers need to pack them in to make a return because of the cost of land.” Paul Garrett, the borough’s urban designer… “If this progression continues it will create a new class of people trapped in housing that they don’t want to live in.” ' Neil Johnson RICS Parliamentary Policy Officer’ - (b)
Many new housing schemes are not providing an appropriate balance of accommodation. Core to this is a lack of provision of a full range of size and type of dwellings.
‘The ideal often cited by designers would be to build Continental style three and four bedroom family sized flats in the same blocks as one and two bedroom properties and ensure there is a wide range of local amenities nearby. But they acknowledge that in the UK the idea is not as simple as it sounds in many areas. Planning authorities are unable to demand it, and housebuilders are often better rewarded by building smaller homes.’ - (b)
To be holistically sustainable, a regenerated area must draw life from the capital funding of the initial regeneration. An integrated, successful ‘living’ neighbourhood, with ‘critical mass’ achieved, must include and fully cater for a good range of evolving household types. This goes beyond a relatively short-lived trend, and achieves a genuinely successful and sustainable area with a balanced integration of people and cultures.
JOINING THE DOTS The delivery of sustainable communities seems stymied by a vicious circle between planners, housebuilders and house buyers. Planning authorities claim lack of power to enforce better quality schemes, and lack proper resources, including attracting better staff. Housebuilders tend to build less than high quality schemes when proposals go unchallenged. People, generally, have little basis on which to be able to demand better homes, politically, culturally or economically, so planners and developers are given little impetus for improvement.
‘What is clear is that developers are perfectly able to produce better-quality schemes when these are required of them, but will revert to poorer quality and standardised schemes where design expectations are seen to be lower. Equally, it would seem that local authorities are prepared to accept poor-quality design in some locations that they would not be prepared to accept in others.’ - (c)
Recent years have seen governmental thinking becoming increasingly short-term and significantly more commercial, which seems to have become synonymous with efficiency, which may not be an appropriate objective across the board.
‘By contrast, the stronger planning powers and control over services, such as transport, that Continental authorities enjoy mean that flats in European developments are often designed to be places families aspire to live.’ - (b)
Continuing regeneration with government encouragement, but without their full engagement in terms of integrated investment, can only lead to a divergence between actual developments and objectives that have been set out to achieve. This not only results in neighbourhoods that are not sustainable, it is also storing up further problems for the future.
ITS GOOD TO TALK Commercial developers are often held to be substantially responsible for inappropriate development. Whilst there is no shortage of examples that could be considered in this light, market forces left un-trammelled will, understandably, tend to spiral in an uncontrolled manner. It should remain the responsibility of governments to put in place appropriate parameters (not necessarily limits), guidance and regulation backed by provision of proper resources and leadership, to ensure that fully resourced sustainable communities are delivered, to the benefit of all citizens.
‘Increasing density’ as a mantra is too blunt a tool; varying and mixed densities appropriate to an area can be achieved as part of a process involving local partners and stakeholders to ascertain what each area wants and needs. This is more likely to ensure that developments are appropriate for their proposed area. Even well worked out schemes in the wrong location cannot be expected to integrate well. Whilst guidance can prove useful as reference, there are no generic solutions.
There are two distinct sustainability issues: higher environmental standards for individual homes, and more holistic sustainability considerations for neighbourhoods. The former can reduce emissions and deliver personal advantages such as lower bills. The latter can integrate social and cultural issues within neighbourhoods, as well as achieve practical requirements such as easier access to transport and amenities. Only by addressing both aspects of sustainability can the overall quality of life of all residents be raised, and genuinely integrated communities achieved.
ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU A number of possibilities to address these issues have emerged:
- Development frameworks produced by pro-active planning authorities in conjunction with stakeholders. Evolving planning systems show that this is possible, although planning authorities need to genuinely engage. There are examples of authorities (Ashford Borough Council and Essex County Council in the UK) that have shown what is possible even within current policies. Although, this shows that it is not just a question of good policies or well organised programmes, it is as much about peoples attitude and commitment to achieve better integrated schemes and implementation processes.
‘Andy von Bradsky, director of PRP Architects singled out the Hammarby Sjostad development near Stockholm, where 9,000 new homes are being built on former industrial land, as an example of how new high density developments should be designed. Notable lessons for the UK included the very consensual approach which was taken towards design with architects, developers, housing associations and government working closely together to ensure that the place will meet the requirements of residents and be commercially practical. Design codes were then policed by the local authority.’ - (b)
- Engaging with volume housebuilders, whom we have to accept build significant parts of our towns and cities. Through two way dialogue, within a broader framework of consensus, there can be a better understanding of the different stakeholders' perspectives. Voluntary codes have shown that they will not cause greater uptake of building higher quality schemes.
‘The reality must surely be that the effectiveness of the levels and standards set out in the code become increasingly diminished if the code itself can be largely ignored by the private sector, the sector directly responsible for the vast majority of new builds in England, because it is voluntary.’ - (d)
- Fiscal incentives for sustainably developing brownfield sites and dis-incentives for developing greenfield sites. Measures such as funding for land reclamation and implementing policies through mechanisms such as lowering tax on brownfield and renovation developments, and taxing value uplift on greenfield development. Also, to encourage the public to buy more appropriate and better quality homes through education and incentives.
‘Fiscal measures which offer either real savings or significant penalties have to be introduced… [such as] reducing Stamp Duty and Council Tax for those homes built to high environmental standards’. - (d)
- Ensuring that as first phase housing developments become completed or established areas gain new in-fill housing developments, they are accompanied by necessary infrastructure and amenities, so that the new balance of residents is properly catered for.
‘What we find reprehensible is the clear signal from Government that it really does not matter that these homes are going to be built before supporting infrastructure is in place. And we reject the implication that the people for whom these new communities are intended will be so grateful to have a home that they will be prepared to put up with substandard communities rather than sustainable communities.’ - (d)
THAT’S ALL FOLKS Whilst clear objectives, key criteria and risk assessment has become a major part of implementation processes, we are increasingly seeing something akin to statistical self-fulfilment, where the focus is on satisfying the monitoring criteria itself, rather than the actual considerations.
Our tacit responsibilities as designers: considering the broader impact and implications of what we design and specify and their effect on the cultural and social exchanges that will take place in those spaces, should empower us to address this 'risk aversion'. We should be prepared to more confidently manage our risk, so as not to tend towards the lowest common denominator with all sense of diversity and joy removed. This extends to continual delivery of appropriate places and buildings, programmed for a changing living and working environment. This can only be possible from within a framework of appropriate protections of stakeholders and broad investment from government, in line with properly implementing those objectives so visibly laid out.
It is already apparent that well integrated communities that achieve social inclusiveness and continue to prosper without further capital regeneration funding will not be possible if higher density residential developments are not well designed and reflect the profile of existing and emerging household types, which are complemented with proper infrastructure and amenities at local, city and regional scales. It is inappropriate to assume the private sector will achieve this of its own accord.
References a) - Demos initiative: Self-build cities; putting people first in urban renewal b) - James Dark on the recent Rudi-sponsored Building for 21st Century Living conference c) - CABE housing audit: Assessing the design quality of new homes in the North East, North West and Yorkshire & Humber, 2005 d) - House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee: Sustainable housing, a follow-up report, 21 March 2006
