designing inclusive spaces for participation and community

A previous post, "timeless places," touched on the idea that the construction of places within the paradigm of 'modernity' appears to us as natural, as a given. As though the modern city is the inevitable outcome of humanity's progress.

In the TEDxTalks video above, architect Mark Raymond delivers a compelling talk suggesting the contrary. From the practical perspective of 'architecture', which he defines as the "construction of the built environment" (and not as specialised knowledge reserved for experts, setting the stage for his more participatory vision of society), Raymond reflects on the values underpinning the ways that we create and use space within this paradigm of modernity, and the impact these choices have upon society.

Raymond feels that the city planning ethos that saturates government priorities everywhere in their quest for 'modernisation' (high rise developments, shopping malls, highways...) undermines the city's capacity to accommodate broad social interaction:

Those types of buildings, while they work for segments of society, don't work for everybody. They're not equitable.

For Raymond, this lack of equity comes down to a question of access. As he points out, getting jobs in those high-rise developments requires access to a certain level of education and often, by default, to adequate resources, just as access to shopping malls hinges on access to a disposable income. According to Raymond, these urban design choices - far from being the inevitable solution to a sprawling, out-of-control megalopolis - are made to privilege economic profit over social benefit, the latter of which would likely result in more construction of places like schools, parks or pedestrian friendly streets.

As for the impact of these choices, Raymond sees them as leading to the increased polarisation of society, a society divided into isolated pockets of activity, access to which depends on means.

So, if we really are serious about the need for 'places of meeting' which can accommodate everyone, not just segments of society, what role can architecture play in creating spaces that encourage interaction and a sense of community?

Raymond rightly points out that design alone cannot overcome the various forces at play in the increase of this polarisation. Nevertheless, he does see value in using architecture to address the conditions within which people live, whereby the design of places within which all members of society can participate could contribute to the creation of more equitable societies.

Thus as co-creators of the spaces we live in, we should give some thought to determining the kinds of usage that would privilege community building - Raymond suggests spaces for children to play with others, spaces for performance, spaces for people to do things they like to do collectively, or spaces for reflection. We could also add spaces for learning, spaces for worship, spaces for sports activities, or spaces for gardening. In short, places of meeting where people can come together, and advance together.

For Raymond, this implies breaking down barriers - removing the stigma around income levels, race, and where one lives. So that these spaces demonstrate an inclusive society. To do that, people need to feel included - we need to design spaces with everyone in mind. But more than that, we need to design spaces modelled on the types of communities that we want. These are as much questions of design as they are questions about the very nature of community. What kinds of activities would we do together? What would define the nature of our relationships? And what kinds of spaces would promote these fruitful interactions?

These are essentially Raymond's questions, from the perspective of the architecture of our cities. And they are perhaps most powerful because simply asking them implies that we have a choice in the characteristics of our urban spaces, which ultimately reflect how we as a community see ourselves, and what we see ourselves as doing together.