- on support of the subversive
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
Democracy Matters
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?
Kafka increasingly looks tame.
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?
Kafka increasingly looks tame.
Consumption Matters
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.
Urbane Matters
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
‘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
Money Matters
The hope of the following words is to bring some common sense to the strange times in which we find ourselves, ask some straightforward questions, and encourage dialogue about where we are heading and why.
Lately we have seen governments putting unprecedented amounts of money into banks. It was not so long ago that we were hearing that relatively paltry sums in comparison were not available for new hospitals, better schools, decent housing or affordable transport. If these types of companies are at the core of capitalist society, surely they should take the rough with the smooth. If some go under, that’s the way it goes. As long as proper guarantees are in place for people’s savings, would we really miss a few banks?
When a bank does go under though, people’s savings disappear, but not their mortgage debt. This is suspect at best. If a ‘normal’ company goes under, everything disappears: debts, assets, jobs. Why are banks a special case?
Another form of saving is pensions. Many people contribute to a pension in the hope of having a decent quality of life in retirement. So we go without through our working lives to save up all this money, so there is a big nest egg at the end of it. But when we die, it disappears. Shouldn’t there be a way that lets us live from the interest on this sum as a pension, and then our families, rather than the bank, could have the pot when we have gone?
Each generation has a lot more money than the previous, in terms of the actual amount in your pocket (rather than buying power). If you go out for the evening, you may take somewhere in the region of £100, whereas in 1960 the same amount was an annual salary. (You can insert $, £, € as you please – it’s really all the same these days.)
If a house could have been bought for £2000 in the 1960s, but a similar house would now cost in the region of £250,000, then money has devalued 125 times. Similarly for salaries, an average annual salary of £200 in 1960, and a typical annual salary now being around £25,000, again devalued by 125 times.
This broadly tallies with the general consensus of money devaluing by 10 times every 30 years or so through the twentieth century. So if money is devaluing so much, why is the situation usually portrayed that we are better off than the previous generation, and them before that? It seems to be the other way around. If money is in some kind of semi-controlled tail-spin, is the idea of currency itself living on borrowed time?
Whenever economists raise the idea of introducing more money into circulation during economic hard times, as it has been recently, it is usually considered a dangerous move; a short term solution. But we have seen that each generation has more money than the previous, so there is more money around, albeit much devalued. So there must exist a rate by which governments dictate the amount of money in circulation is increased, as a general ongoing thing. Who sets that rate, and why is it never mentioned?
The notion of a bank having a sale, seems odd, and confirms it as a commodity, rather than a service. Without wishing to be too naïve, it should remain, be considered, and be structured and operated, as a service.
Profit has become the sole focus of achievement. This leads to a distortion in our consideration. Instead of operating a business to provide a useful service, and make a reasonable living off that for you and your family – a system of trade that has been working fine for thousands of years - when profits are down we are told it has been a bad year. But if there are profits at all, that means that the salaries have been paid, rent, bills, inward investment to improve the company, all covered. Does not that constitute an achievement. By divorcing profit from running a business, we are shifting our focus away from the really important stuff – how we live our lives, and the means to achieve that.
Pursuing solely profit means we forget about the implications of how that profit is generated. We are witnessing its effects: destabilizing economies and currencies. This has real effects on people’s lives: loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of hope of supporting ourselves and our families to a reasonable level of quality of life. If some people wish to play at investors, shouldn’t it be in a controlled environment, where the effects cannot seep out into the real world?
Basics of subsistence should be protected from profiteering. Nobody denies anyone a reasonable profit, but when the gap between reasonable and unreasonable becomes the sole focus of conducting business, we have descended to a place where we have lost respect for our fellow citizens; local, regional, national and global. Food, local transport, bank services, and utilities are all the necessities of our lives.
I do not want to spend hours comparing rates, searching for better deals, getting calls at all times of the day and night offering me cheaper this, that and the other. We get drawn into a small level of difference, but it is expanded by marketeers to seem like a whole world of difference. For example, unless you are talking about substantial sums of money, like a mortgage, a couple of fractions of difference on the interest rate you get on your savings, or a slightly cheaper insurance quote (that does not make me jump for joy), is not going to have a significant effect on your life. Put a value on your time, it is that that we are short of.
We seem to chase the idea of having more money, almost as a goal in itself, rather than thinking what we actually want it for. Money must remain a means to an end.
We are being drawn away from the things that really matter. Take your kids to the park, meet some friends for lunch, make love to your partner, read a book (and no, not a self help, make more money, live to be 300 years old book. A novel, for pleasure, to learn about something interesting).
Perhaps these sobering times can remind us to think about the quality of our lives; the things, people and ideas that we want to be part of that life.
Yours awaiting condescending platitudes from those we are supposed to trust,
but hoping for something more intelligent,
The Ingenu
‘Disclaimer’
This article is written with no specialist knowledge whatsoever; it’s just drawn from what is going on around us. Take a look for yourself.
It is not advice. If you want to sue me, great. You can have all my debt.
Lately we have seen governments putting unprecedented amounts of money into banks. It was not so long ago that we were hearing that relatively paltry sums in comparison were not available for new hospitals, better schools, decent housing or affordable transport. If these types of companies are at the core of capitalist society, surely they should take the rough with the smooth. If some go under, that’s the way it goes. As long as proper guarantees are in place for people’s savings, would we really miss a few banks?
When a bank does go under though, people’s savings disappear, but not their mortgage debt. This is suspect at best. If a ‘normal’ company goes under, everything disappears: debts, assets, jobs. Why are banks a special case?
Another form of saving is pensions. Many people contribute to a pension in the hope of having a decent quality of life in retirement. So we go without through our working lives to save up all this money, so there is a big nest egg at the end of it. But when we die, it disappears. Shouldn’t there be a way that lets us live from the interest on this sum as a pension, and then our families, rather than the bank, could have the pot when we have gone?
Each generation has a lot more money than the previous, in terms of the actual amount in your pocket (rather than buying power). If you go out for the evening, you may take somewhere in the region of £100, whereas in 1960 the same amount was an annual salary. (You can insert $, £, € as you please – it’s really all the same these days.)
If a house could have been bought for £2000 in the 1960s, but a similar house would now cost in the region of £250,000, then money has devalued 125 times. Similarly for salaries, an average annual salary of £200 in 1960, and a typical annual salary now being around £25,000, again devalued by 125 times.
This broadly tallies with the general consensus of money devaluing by 10 times every 30 years or so through the twentieth century. So if money is devaluing so much, why is the situation usually portrayed that we are better off than the previous generation, and them before that? It seems to be the other way around. If money is in some kind of semi-controlled tail-spin, is the idea of currency itself living on borrowed time?
Whenever economists raise the idea of introducing more money into circulation during economic hard times, as it has been recently, it is usually considered a dangerous move; a short term solution. But we have seen that each generation has more money than the previous, so there is more money around, albeit much devalued. So there must exist a rate by which governments dictate the amount of money in circulation is increased, as a general ongoing thing. Who sets that rate, and why is it never mentioned?
The notion of a bank having a sale, seems odd, and confirms it as a commodity, rather than a service. Without wishing to be too naïve, it should remain, be considered, and be structured and operated, as a service.
Profit has become the sole focus of achievement. This leads to a distortion in our consideration. Instead of operating a business to provide a useful service, and make a reasonable living off that for you and your family – a system of trade that has been working fine for thousands of years - when profits are down we are told it has been a bad year. But if there are profits at all, that means that the salaries have been paid, rent, bills, inward investment to improve the company, all covered. Does not that constitute an achievement. By divorcing profit from running a business, we are shifting our focus away from the really important stuff – how we live our lives, and the means to achieve that.
Pursuing solely profit means we forget about the implications of how that profit is generated. We are witnessing its effects: destabilizing economies and currencies. This has real effects on people’s lives: loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of hope of supporting ourselves and our families to a reasonable level of quality of life. If some people wish to play at investors, shouldn’t it be in a controlled environment, where the effects cannot seep out into the real world?
Basics of subsistence should be protected from profiteering. Nobody denies anyone a reasonable profit, but when the gap between reasonable and unreasonable becomes the sole focus of conducting business, we have descended to a place where we have lost respect for our fellow citizens; local, regional, national and global. Food, local transport, bank services, and utilities are all the necessities of our lives.
I do not want to spend hours comparing rates, searching for better deals, getting calls at all times of the day and night offering me cheaper this, that and the other. We get drawn into a small level of difference, but it is expanded by marketeers to seem like a whole world of difference. For example, unless you are talking about substantial sums of money, like a mortgage, a couple of fractions of difference on the interest rate you get on your savings, or a slightly cheaper insurance quote (that does not make me jump for joy), is not going to have a significant effect on your life. Put a value on your time, it is that that we are short of.
We seem to chase the idea of having more money, almost as a goal in itself, rather than thinking what we actually want it for. Money must remain a means to an end.
We are being drawn away from the things that really matter. Take your kids to the park, meet some friends for lunch, make love to your partner, read a book (and no, not a self help, make more money, live to be 300 years old book. A novel, for pleasure, to learn about something interesting).
Perhaps these sobering times can remind us to think about the quality of our lives; the things, people and ideas that we want to be part of that life.
Yours awaiting condescending platitudes from those we are supposed to trust,
but hoping for something more intelligent,
The Ingenu
‘Disclaimer’
This article is written with no specialist knowledge whatsoever; it’s just drawn from what is going on around us. Take a look for yourself.
It is not advice. If you want to sue me, great. You can have all my debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
