We've Done This Already... Let's Do It Again!

The Architects Farm, by Meredith Tenhoor, briefly references the history of architecture in agriculture. As noted in the text, the engagement is largely undocumented. Architects have in fact toiled with the concept of implementing restructured agricultural practices to improve efficiency, quality, and the overall special quality of the urban environment for hundreds of years. Sustainability is synonymous with architecture today as we face population challenges, environmental concerns, and a looming energy crisis but the high tech vertical agricultural machine envisioned by today’s architects is just another iteration of an idea that has been visited over and over again. My impression is that we will continue to conceptualize and indefinitely redesign until we define humanities relationship to nature, or there is of course the potential that nature rejects human civilization… The self defeating attempt to define the urban and rural, and their relationship to each other will continue until we perceive them both as human civilization, contrasted only by nature. They were born together as explained in Jane Jacob’s, Economy of Cities, and they are growing less indistinguishable by our modern cultural perceptions. The machine dominates the rural environment and the virtual world has brought the modern world into the homes of the countryside. The so-called urban environment must begin to sustain itself as we expect a global population of 9 billion by 2050 of which 80% is projected to live in cities and ‘urban’ areas. Cities will have to grow food further blurring the rural/urban contrast. In the sixties and seventies, Greek architect Constantinos Doxiadus developed a plan to restructure the production of food between two “essential” distinctions: traditional farming and mechanized farming would feed the country. Tenhoor describes the flaw in his thinking simply, “Doxiadis didn’t understand that the two methods were irreconcilable [in function](178).” There is no delineation between rural and urban, together they are called human civilization; the contrast exists between civilization and nature. The consequences of failing to understand that relationship has been under consideration of architects too; “One thing is certain. Mechanism comes to a halt before living substance. A new outlook must prevail if nature is to be mastered rather than degraded (177).” -Siegfried Giedion, architectural historian. If by mastered, he means completely understood, I completely agree.

Rural America Through a Demographic Lens, by David Brown and William Kandel

Rural America: An image, a community, or just a number? Does it have anything to do with Agriculture, or, is the term simply ‘not urban?’ What does this classification really say about the people it attempts to define? ‘Rural America Through a Demographic Lens’ reads like a codebook for rurality. It recognizes social consistencies, outline’s public perceptions, and provides official definition(s) of the term. The original contrast of the dichotomy was based on, “somewhat abstract characteristics considered critical for making such distinctions, using terms such as social solidarity, rationality, and community connectedness.” Early concepts of rural areas were thought to be characterized by stable, integrated, and inflexible economic and social aspects. They were contrasted by “the socially fluid, impersonal, and compartmentalized social relations of urban areas.” That is a pretty vague definition to carry any weight as a description for anything, yet at the date of this publication 80% of America is called just that, Here is a good example from the book on the rural:

How is “rural” defined in U.S. federal statistics? Although different states may construct their own classifications, such as those used for categorizing school districts, highways, and counties, the production of a universal definition of rural is a national responsibility. This is because federal statistical analysis requires comparability across state lines, and universalistic standards are required for program administration and the geographic targeting of federal assistance. Two official definitions predominate currently. The first consists of all nonmetropolitan counties as specified by the Office of Management and Budget (2000). The second consists of rural areas, or the residual territory that follows from the Census Bureau’s delineation of urban areas (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002). Both terms are defined as residual counties or territory left behind after metropolitan counties or urban areas have been defined according to minimum population and geographic thresholds.

So… it really is the, ‘not city part’ of the country.

We wish to emphasize to the reader that throughout this volume, the authors frequently use the terms “nonmetro” or “nonmetropolitan” and “rural” interchangeably.3 However, unless otherwise specified, use of the term “rural” in this volume always refers to OMB-defined nonmetropolitan counties and not to Census-defined rural areas. We apply this convention so that we may have some flexibility with the language.

“The urban/nonmetro dichotomy?” What a joke. There is no urban or rural, no dichotomy; they are the same thing and we call it civilization. There isn’t any philosophical, political, or cultural congruencies among the places classified as rural. The terms are used for land classification by the census bureau. They are otherwise arbitrary classifications.

Stinkin' Linkages

Understanding the Urban-Rural Interface, by Kenneth Lynch, outlines the linkages and flows between the urban and the rural. Outlined are the effects of a bias for one or the other; the ultimate goal always aimed towards economic growth and development. Especially in developing countries, the gap seems to grow the largest. The introduction to this book defines its purpose to promote, “reuniting the urban and the rural areas in the study of development across the world (intro, first sentence).” After reading the article, I would like to encourage reuniting the two in a physical sense rather than just for study purposes. The truth that is emerging about the urban-rural relationship is that; it does not exist except on paper. Much like the democratic and republican parties in politics, they define the left and right sides of a scale yet most people place themselves right in the middle. China is used as an example of how developing countries use the loose classification to extort the agricultural communities. They taxed them in produce (30%!) to gain capital, which they invested in the cities and finance heavy industry, while at the same time confining the so-called rural community to the fields. Basically, an imaginary line was drawn across the land that grouped people into one of two classifications; people on the side called rural received heavy taxes and house arrest. They were stripped of their rights (relative to urban inhabitants) and enslaved by their own government to act as pawns for the industrial development of the country¬. The Urban-Rural relationship is a manufactured method of discrimination and a tool of the government for exploitation.

Moving On Then...

Moving Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy, by Tony Champion and Graeme Hugo, addresses the changing state of our perception and interaction with the world. The introduction reads:

“There is an increasing appreciation in the social senses that context is important in understanding social, economic, cultural, political, and demographic processes. An important element in context is the type of place in which people live and work (intro 1).”

The authors are talking about the existential qualities of our individual environments and how they influence our perceptions and ultimately our actions. Context is important to social sciences because it defines the parameters that have influence in any space. Our personal environments have ultimate influence over our lives. Finnish architect, Johaani Pallasmaa, describes the role of architecture in defining our reality.

The task of buildings is usually seen solely in terms of functional performance, physical comfort and aesthetic values. Yet, the role of architecture extends far beyond the material, physical and measurable conditions, and even aesthetic pleasure, into the mental and existential sphere of life. Buildings do not merely provide physical shelter and protection; they are also a mental mediation between the world and our consciousness; architectural structures essentially structure and articulate existential space. As the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard appropriately states: “[The house] is an instrument with which to confront the cosmos”. -Juhani Pallasmaa, Architect, Professor (Helsinki)

Regional and geographical contexts provide various parameters by which to design, but the context that architecture creates, that experience can be orchestrated to express anything. That has been the power of architecture through the ages. A new environment has been created though, and it threatens to undermine what little connection we still feel with nature.

It began with the Industrial Revolution. Mass production of goods began to remove the unique aspects that give our live contrast to each other. Then mass implementation of ideas, e.g. the assembly line which further blurred our individual experiences. Mass Production of cars gave everyone the same transportation environment, sub developments offered identical houses to live identical lives in. With the rise of the digital age came the Internet; the ultimate tool in streamlining the individual experiences in life to a collective life experience. We see the same exact images, hear the same sounds and songs, we view the same exact videos on near identical screens while we drink identical cups of coffee and munch on the same McDonald’s cheeseburgers. Yes, we have already moved past the urban-rural dichotomy…

The environmental quality (or lack thereof) of the internet is placeless. There is no context; no day or night, wind or weather, seasons, smells, textures. If context is important, what will be the consequences of raising the next generation in a world without it?

Friedrich Engels: The Great Towns

In an except from, The Great Towns, Friedrich Engels expresses his insights about the physical separation of classes in the city. Using Manchester as an example, Engels rips into the aristocracy. He raises the point that members of the of the upper class, who traditionally live in the country and commute into town, "take the shortest roads through the middle of all the laboring districts to their places of business without ever seeing that they are in the midst of the grim and misery that lurks to the right and left." The highways are gilded passageways, like the blinders fitted on racehorses shielding the wealthy from any sense of moral obligation. Further, the businesses and storefronts lining the financial and business districts serve a similar unspoken purpose of, "sufficing to conceal from the eyes of the wealthy men and women of strong stomachs and weak nerves the misery and grime which form the compliment of their wealth." Engels uses no restraint in his use of words like grime, filth, foul, slime, and offal, to describe his experience of what lay behind the buffer of storefronts that conceal the slums that exist in such close proximity for the purpose of serving the wealthy. Engels accuses the aristocracy of maintaining an, 'out of sight, out of mind,' mentality. When the filth and decay of the working-class quarter is exposed, it is quickly concealed under the "cloak of charity." The state of the slums is described as, "impossible for a human being in any degree civilized to live in," the environments is deemed, "injurious to health."  Critisism falls on the aristocracy, for their 'inhumane' neglect of the working class that affords them a padded life; that they are blissfully unaware of the atrocity that exists conveniently out of sight. The excerpt ends abruptly with a lengthy and unsavory description of the conditions of the slums, which left me with the perception, "Okay, so... Manchester sucks? Or at least it did at the time of this publication (over one hundred years ago), so what." The same story is said to exist in similar fashion around the world. I could not help but question whether it was the aristocracy that concealed the poor, or whether the poor too, wished to separate themselves from the aristocracy. Exposure to the wealthy might be degrading and depressing. Another statement I question is Engel's definition of the wealthy as "the happier class." Happiness is not defined by money or social class. Social boundaries of class are not defined by happiness and in fact, I am not opposed to a level of separation between the classes; they function differently and have unique standards of success and failure based on culturally deriven value constraints. I view their separation in the same respect as the segregation of ethnic communities for cultural reasons. The people who live in ethnically defined neiborhoods tend to do so because they feel cultural connection to the community. The main issue that this paper impressed on me is that such a terrible environments exist in the presence of such wealth. It is not in human nature to consciously promote baseless suffering of others by doing nothing. What concerns me is the measures taken by the wealthy, outlined in the excerpt, to conceal the filth thus allowing the wealthy to promote the suffering of the poor unconsciously.