"Sense of place" is so important to me, veen, that I hardly know where to start. When I am lonely for a place, I am lonely for the person I was in that place. The person I was in that place is co-created by the interactions with others in that place. For example, I miss the trails around the bay in the town I came from. I could get there in 5-10 minutes, walk for an hour with a friend, be with the trees, gulls, water, even swans, and be back at my desk in no time. Where I live now, there's water and trails, but they're not mine and it takes longer to get there and back, and friends are fewer and busier. Your questions above on how we influence space and be influenced by it are too big for my Sunday morning. Here's my questions: What do you need in your immediate landscape to make it your own. If it's not there (trees, for example), where do you go to find it? Of course, I have to try and get over my mourning for place, but the restlessness of being in the wrong place never goes away. thenewgreen and anyone else who has moved in the last few years, are you settling in?Place and people are endlessly interacting with each other. We give meaning to a place and places influence us directly. Your hometown feels like home because you gave it that meaning. You interacted with it and it became a place.
When we move to a new location, we have to create meaning in the new location. Suddenly we're adrift with no mooring in sight. Streets run into one another, cafes are all the same.So how do we create places that matter? The problem with spatial identity is that for it to be truly unique, it needs to leave room for freedom, so that its inhabitants can make the space their own.
Of course, if a place, a landscape, a streetscape is clean (enough), if I can breathe there (sorry Beijing), and walk or cycle, I can begin to make it my own (even as a visitor).
I think my "home" will always be Michigan. I have been very fortunate to have made some great friends in North Carolina. My wife, daughter, and soon to be son are here and as such it's my home but I think I'll always feel like its temporary in a way, because we really all belong in Michigan. We shall see where life takes us. But to answer your question, I feel like this place I'm in is as much home as any place that isn't in Michigan ever could be.
I meant something different with that. To create places that matter more, I think we should allow more freedom in the ways people fill in those places. Instead of controlling every aspect of the public realm, a place can be so much more if that tight grip is loosened. One of my earlier drafts focused on New Urbanism, a supposedly more people-centered way of creating places. The problem that I have with it is that it creates overly fake fairytale places. For instance: the town where The Truman Show is shot, Seaside, FL is completely made in the New Urbanism style. It is supposed to be the town of dreams, where everything is perfect, but it just gives me the eerie feeling that it's too perfect. It doesn't feel like a place where people live, because then it couldn't be perfect. That town, just like Disney's Celebration, FL pictured above, is supposed to be the best example of creating sense of place. But I could never find myself living there. They succeeded in creating a perfect place, that's for sure, but it is purely aesthetic. It doesn't factor in the very people who will live there. I find it fitting that Disney of all companies created that town. The similarities to the themepark are striking, both come over to me as fake façadism, fake places that are enjoyable for a day or two, but not as places that I could make my own. The tightly controlled environment that works fine in a themepark should never be applied to a town. Edit: on a side note, mk, do you have any idea why dvh doesn't work?Of course, if a place, a landscape, a streetscape is clean (enough), if I can breathe there (sorry Beijing), and walk or cycle, I can begin to make it my own (even as a visitor).
I have, unfortunately, been to Celebration a number of times, as I used to date a girl whose parents owned a condo there, and she always wanted to go. To me, all Celebration was was proof that charm cannot be created de novo. t was as if a focus group decided what to put where and in what style and colors it all should be done. It's the antithesis of organic. Beauty that is truly only skin deep. When I broke up with her I was relieved for a lot of reasons, and I have to say that never having to go to that hell hole again, while not close to the primary reason, felt really damn good.
Here's the thing: Everything is contrived. Spontaneity and serendipity are some of the great things about life. When one's experience is completely predetermined, then what's the point. Celebration is a reflection of Disney World itself, a ready made experience that is pleasing to everyone. I think that's OK for entertaining a six year old, but as a living experience? No way. Even most suburbs have some organic growth. Did you ever see the movie Pleasantville? It's as if the people who designed Celebration saw that film and came away with the message that the 1950s world was the ideal one, and the modern, color filled world was the evil experience (seriously, there's an Art Deco style Cuban restaurant there that seems to want to recreate the Good Ole' Days of Latin America, when whites were free). It's creepy on so many levels.
I'm suggesting that in order to influence the space around us in any way, we have to feel a sense of ownership for it and belonging to it -- otherwise it is left to the urban planners, whether New Urbanismists or old. I wonder if people in the Netherlands feel more ownership of public spaces country-wide given the size of the country than people in North America.I meant something different with that.
I believe you are asking about individual or community input into creating space. Is that it? If I'm right, that's an interesting question.Instead of controlling every aspect of the public realm, a place can be so much more if that tight grip is loosened.
The tight grip of urban planning protects people from rampant development as well as preventing the re-imagining of spaces.
Yes, that's what I was aiming for! Planning doesn't need to be in extremes: there is something between complete freedom and complete control. Neither the planner nor the individual should be so arrogant to believe they know what's best. There's a different attitude here, which is both good and bad. We're with 17 million people on a small piece of earth, so we don't have much space for everyone. This means that when we come together as a nation such as on Queens Day or with the soccer World Cup, there's a great atmosphere and everyone is much kinder to each other. The downside is that it's quite easy to be in somebody's way, and we can get quite angry when a stranger is in our way. And when your neighbours are always right next to you, nuisance happens often. America on the other hand is so huge that everyone has space enough to be themselves, but it is much harder to reach someone. Both have their advantages and downsides, and one isn't necessarily much better than the other.I believe you are asking about individual or community input into creating space. Is that it? If I'm right, that's an interesting question.
I wonder if people in the Netherlands feel more ownership of public spaces country-wide given the size of the country than people in North America.