More than Planning Policy makes up how a City looks or develops.
The ideal is unattainable.
We all have different ideas about society and even the narrowest principle difference can mean a huge difference in lifestyle (relative to what I think is the narrow band of human lifestyles). So, an ideal society would be different in the imagination of us all, or more importantly how we aim to achieve it. Perhaps some people think the society we live within is ideal-they’re wrong.
This is my aim in architecture, a big ask maybe.
An emerging idea in urban change at the moment is change in perception. For instance, in the city do we need guard rails in the middle of the road to stop pedestrians crossing intermittently. Could we slow the cars down or make new, better crossing points? The drivers are speeding because they feel safe, shouldn’t pedestrians and cyclists be helped to feel safe within the law. Should we act within the law to change?
Perception is important. We have seen this in lectures where buildings that come under the categories of good architecturally and bad architecturally have different perceptions again to those who live/work there and those who have no direct interest apart from knowing of the building.
Localism is dangerous-how do we prove this and attack it?
Jumble, jumble, jumble, jumble. Nothing works, can we build anything?
Making good proposals is worthwhile, something often comes of it and that is good.
Perhaps we can set up the SPUD flying-picket, going to planning consultations and arguing a point. Would we be welcome? Could we agree amongst ourselves? Importantly-would it help? Perhaps we could choose a proposal we didn’t like and try and stop/change it, would that be a good exercise…
No comments:
Post a Comment