Tangentially Pynchon. see today's Google Doodle

[Kai Frederik Lorentzen]

And urban space is not the least theme of Pynchon's two latest novels,
Inherent Vice and Bleeding Edge!

On 09.05.2016 03:32, Mark Kohut wrote:
> even I,  who can walk into walls, believe physical environments have 
> to matter a lot or---who are we? The space to be human in, not the 
> least theme of AGAINST THE DAY, I suggest. And TRP and cities, what say?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 8, 2016, at 3:42 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a designer I obviously don't like #3.  I firmly believe that the 
>> physical environment influences social interaction, which is central 
>> to an urban ecology.  Obviously it is not the only, nor even 
>> predominant factor.
>>
>> Concentrated poverty (ghettos) existed in neighborhoods that were not 
>> catostrophic failures before modernist anti-urban neighborhoods 
>> became war zones.  Ghettos (old-style)  were usually staging grounds 
>> for the newest wave of immagrents on their way up and out.  So 
>> poverty doesn't necessarily create war zones.  Thus I posit that 
>> concentrated poverty plus inhuman design environment seems a likely 
>> culprit to urban war zones.
>>
>> David Morris
>>
>> On Sunday, May 8, 2016, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     I pick #2, and that's what I was trying to say earlier with this:
>>     "Design does matter, as does concentrated poverty.  Money might
>>     trump (is that word still usable?) poor design. But design can
>>     help mitigate the effects of poverty."
>>
>>     I would guess that ST/PCV isn't a place of concentrated
>>     multi-generational poverty.
>>
>>     David Morris
>>
>>     On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Monte Davis
>>     <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>         I don't take anything said as personal attack or criticism.
>>         I'm simply telling you that in my own experience, and in what
>>         I know of that the almost 70 years that ST/PCV has existed,
>>         there has been
>>
>>         NO deterioration or trashing of "indefensible" public spaces
>>         (neither halls, elevators and lobbies nor lawns, walkways and
>>         playgrounds between buildings)... and a consistently very low
>>         crime rate. In 1960, when I was turning 11, I and younger
>>         children were going unescorted between apartments and
>>         playgrounds, roller skating and scootering on the (mostly
>>         vehicle-free) interior drives -- as children were in Sept.
>>         2015, the last time I was there.
>>
>>         NO shortage of multiple, varied forms of social solidarity
>>         and engagement. There are no restaurants, bars, churches, or
>>         athletic fields within ST/PCV. But its population strengthens
>>         (in many cases is the primary support of) scores of them in
>>         the adjacent blocks. Within the apartments were more rather
>>         than fewer poker nights, book clubs, crafts groups, small
>>         potluck suppers etc, per capita than the small-town and
>>         suburban communities I've lived in.
>>
>>         Possibilities (none exclusive):
>>
>>         (1) ST/PCV is a freakish anomaly
>>
>>         (2) demography/socioeconomics and property management
>>         entirely compensate for the destructive effects of modernist
>>         design
>>
>>         (3) those destructive effects are much exaggerated. Maybe
>>         architects and community planners of *all* persuasions --
>>         Jacobites and New Urbanists as well as their Modernist
>>         predecessors -- ascribe much too much influence to their own
>>         work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:16 AM, Keith Davis
>>         <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>             Monte,
>>             I'm not sure I understand your response either. I
>>             certainly didn't intend my comments to be taken as a
>>             personal attack or criticism.
>>
>>             Www.innergroovemusic.com <http://www.innergroovemusic.com>
>>
>>             On May 7, 2016, at 11:53 PM, David Morris
>>             <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>             What?
>>>
>>>             Have you been drinking? Or what?
>>>
>>>             David Morris
>>>
>>>             On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Monte Davis
>>>             <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>                 I assure you I will give due weight to these
>>>                 insights, and due weight to 25 years of my family's
>>>                 (and 25,000 neighbors') experience.
>>>
>>>                 On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:45 PM, David Morris
>>>                 <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>                     Also I forgot to mention another very important
>>>                     aspect of old-urbanism's semi-public spaces
>>>                     where "owners" of the street could be its
>>>                     defenders:  Those stoops, porches and fire
>>>                     escapes naturally resulted in residents
>>>                     interacting with their neighbors, forming
>>>                     community bonds, knowing who on the street lived
>>>                     in their neighborhood, and who didn't. Streets
>>>                     thus had many "mayors" wise to normal street
>>>                     patterns, and they defended their neighbors as
>>>                     well as their streets.
>>>
>>>                     David Morris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160509/db230fe4/attachment.html>