Mixing Up the Pieces
December 11, 2009 
12 Comments
Tuesday I went through all the rigamarole of signing in for a badge to attend a meeting at City Hall. Wednesday I listened to a fascinating, albeit fanciful, presentation by an architecture student on converting our downtown skywalks into hydroponic juice farms. Today I take these two themes and mash them into one to share with you some of the interesting thought play and images in Evan Verdouin’s thesis:
Police/Youth Department adjacent to a Public Market (see below).
Collage Urbanism:
A New Model for Encouraging Political DiscourseAccording to a recent survey, the residents of Spokane lack engagement with their municipal government. At the national level, the internet has played a significant role in engaging the public in political discourse, however it has not facilitated the equivalent for local municipalities. Spokane’s City Hall is an insular, isolated entity that restricts public participation. By relating entertainment, social networking, and retail activities to the political spectrum, the internet emulates the notion of collage on a metaphysical level.
To engage citizens with local government the notion of collage as understood through the internet is embraced, transforming the way in which we experience the political milieu of Spokane. Three Spokane specific urban morphologies: shopping, automobile dependence, and nature become the means in which Spokane residents not only experience public life but also Spokane’s political spectrum.
Council Chambers (red) in AMC, City Hall as deconstructed green atrium.
Making political discourse more accessible to the public, the creation of ‘situations’ as discussed by Guy Debord and the Situationist International reveal unseen connections, unexpected juxtapositions, and new possible arrangements of City Hall with the adjacent context. By means of the Dérive (a construct of Debord), shopping, the automobile, and nature are identified as unique to the experience of Spokane’s public life and used to create collage like compositions or ‘situations’ within five major nodes of the site to juxtapose, overlap, and challenge preconceived notions with how an individual can participate with local government and their representatives.
Winter/Summer in/out of River Park Square entry.
About the Author
“According to a recent survey, the residents of Spokane lack engagement with their municipal government . . .”
And,
“. . . challenge preconceived notions with how an individual can participate with local government and their representatives.”
Someone is overlooking the obvious. People “lack engagement with local government” because they have no interest in engaging with it. They expect it to provide a few basic services and otherwise stay out of their hair. They do not regard it as a nucleus upon which to build “social solidarity” or as an engine of “social transformation,” in which they also have no interest. Like the sewer system with which it is charged with operating, they expect local government to perform its modest but necessary functions quietly, dependably, and largely out of sight. Indeed, they resent the time and attention they’ve been forced to devote recently to prevent its seizure by zealots intent upon pressing it into the service of their sophomoric crusades. They regard “public life” and “public participation” as similar to trips to the restroom — something they must do from time to time, but not something they look forward to or to which they wish to devote much time.
I love this post. Years ago the old Costco building on Third was floated as a new city hall idea Al French had a hissy and it got a big ha ha from the council. We need a City Hall with parking accessible to all of us that is easy to access. We should sell the current one.
I appreciate the Contrarians point of view. Even though what is proposed is a fancilful idea, I hope that it could at least lead to discussions in which ideas generated in an academic context could actually be transformed into design proposals that could be implemented without undo expense.
The idea that people complain about city policies could be attributed to their lack of desire, but at least they could be given the opportunity and ease of access… and then if no one participated, your post would be more valid. If given more access then you would perhaps see more participation. Anything could be better than a building that stands so imposing that the public are afraid to go inside, or a city council chamber that is located in a basement of all places with meetings on Monday nights! is that what government is about? Who is going to participate in those?! I would be a big proponent of a theater that also hosts City Council meetings… if you are waiting for a movie to start maybe you can eat popcorn and watch a meeting… on a Friday night! At least then you could be given a chance to be exposed to government.
It would suit me better if city council meetings were held at my office for two reasons: I could grossly over charge them for rent and just think of all the advertising!
On a serious note… I will ask the question I have asked several times on this blog. Why the government on this one to? Wasn’t it a public/private partnership that led to the Riverpark Square debacle?
The government provides basic services AT A MINIMUM. Outside of streets/fire/police there are many appropriate arenas in which the government can lend support to efforts to make our city more equitable and desirable to live in. Not to do so would be negligent.
The “bare bones” world the Contrarian advocates is very bleak indeed. I’m happy to pay my fair share to help make sure that the homeless don’t freeze to death in the winter time, to coordinate efforts to reduce our drop-out rate, and to be good stewards of our local natural resources, etc. It is doubtful that the private sector would step in if the City were to abandon the services it now provides. I don’t know what you are smoking if you think the private sector will somehow self-regulate to protect the interest of generations yet to come. No, they are beholden by the quarter to their shareholders, nothing less, nothing more.
You can take your anti-civil society curmudgeonliness and go home with it. In no way can you claim to represent the majority who don’t vote. What a philosophical ego maniac you are.
Tina wrote,
“The ‘bare bones’ world the Contrarian advocates is very bleak indeed. I’m happy to pay my fair share to help make sure that the homeless don’t freeze to death in the winter time, to coordinate efforts to reduce our drop-out rate, and to be good stewards of our local natural resources, etc. ”
Nothing prevents you from doing any of those things, Tina. You’re certainly free to devote as much of your own time, efforts, and money to pursuing any Utopian goals which appeal to you. But when you seek to enlist city government in their pursuit you engage in hypocrisy — you are trying to use government force to foist the costs of your chosen goals onto others. You seek to impose your goals upon them, and deny them the use of their own resources for pursuing their own goals, which you no doubt dismiss as trivial.
The ideal of a free society — one in which each person is free to live the lifestyle she chooses and devote her justly acquired resources to pursuit of whatever goals she finds compelling — has always seemed “bleak” to Utopians, who have never hesitated to inflict their fantasies on others via State power.
I would like say one thing: that this project does not have ANY partisan slant. The idea that we can elect officials, left or right leaning, and they can do as they please without answering to their electorate is a problem. I’m sure all of you are often aware (made possible by the internet) of our house representatives or senators and their actions, and we can keep them accountable. Often we are not as aware of current policy debate at the local level… did any of you know that yesterday the City Council voted to ban all surface parking lots in downtown (I know the average citizen did not)? Issue aside… how many people really knew about the opportunity for public debate on the issue? What if this DID occur in Riverpark Square? What if the public forum was to be held where Spokane residents actually are? This proposal attempts to give ACCESS to government whether you are a liberal or a conservative. This is not a “government take-over” but a new way to think about gaining access to those that work for US. On a side note, if anything this would probably be in the favor of the Contrarian, instead of the passivity that characterize conservatives… and has led to the subsequent takeover of Democrats (at the national level), a more visible platform is given to all residents for their chance to form, or prevent, policy decisions i.e. expansion of government or whatever the case may be.
Can someone please explain what is so “utopian” about reducing our drop out rate? Seems like good common business sense to me. The costs of a poorly educated workforce are devastating to everyone, not to mention the social costs of negative behaviors when young people become disengaged.
Seems to me like it is fine for a majority of people to come together and solicit local government as a partner in this goal. I want to be free to do this and I don’t want Contrarian’s limited agenda to be imposed upon my ability to collaborate with elected officials and what our tax dollars support. If you don’t agree with the agenda of your neighbors then you are perfectly free to get in there and participate to lobby against as is anyone else. I say stop whining about “freedom” and act on your values as you see fit.
Benjamin wrote,
“Seems to me like it is fine for a majority of people to come together and solicit local government as a partner in this goal.”
Well, Benjamin, while it is fine for a majority, or any other number, of people to come together to pursue any goal they find compelling, when they “solicit local government” to join their crusade they do so in order to impose that goal on others who do not share it, and in the process prevent them from pursuing their own goals. Nothing in my “agenda” precludes your pursuit of any goals you choose. It only precludes you from imposing them on others. It thus allows each person to pursue the goals important to him, to whatever extent his own energy and resources allow, rather than allow the faction which can assemble the most guns to impose their goals on everyone.
Dear Tina and Benjamin,
I am so happy to see such fine citizens espousing the benefits of higher taxes to be spent on the public good. Unfortunately there are people like the Contrarian who continue to organize and prevent me from raising taxes on all citizens. So if you wouldn’t mind participating in my government tithing program and just adding a little extra when you pay your property taxes next time, I promise it will go to reducing drop out rates, or whatever is the cause celeb at that moment.
See you at the voting booth!