More Thoughts on Spaces of Democracy
This morning I happened upon Innovation by Firing People, by Scott Berkun. Not exactly a pick-me-up by title, but the post definitely serves as an intriguing viewpoint of the American corporate structure. Strangely enough, it also managed to direct my thoughts toward spaces of democracy.
[Image: Installation from "Dialogue with Public Space" by Robin Howie. Courtesy of Robin Howie.]
The article itself can be boiled down to the following excerpt…
The most common bottleneck by far to progress in the middle ranks of corporate America is too many people in the room. Especially too many people with the power to veto – lower the number of people with veto power and more change will happen all on its own, especially if you pick risk takers and mavericks as the ones to leave alone. Ever feel your meetings are too slow? Arguments go on for too long? Rethink your invite list.
In an economy that still brings doubt to many employees, this may not be an idea to quell the fears of lower-rung staff. However, I think his point is right on cue, but his method and tag line are slightly off. Perhaps, if he used a little less flashy title – obviously utilized for purposes of blogging – he might have a more effective argument. Might I suggest “Innovation by a Restructuring of Decision-Making,” but this won’t exactly boost your RSS feed.
However, I do not exactly mention this post purely for its content. Per usual, I was struck by something within the post that I began to project onto notions of urbanism. In this case, it was the correlation he poses between conservative psychology and democracy, to which I proceeded to consider in light of spaces of democracy.
While I definitively believe that cities require open, public space that is democratic in nature, there are numerous examples of public spaces that are not successful. For this reason they must be addressed, even if they appear to contradict the role of democracy in public space.
There are many reasons a public space may be unsuccessful. Climate, if the space is too hot or cold; location, if the space is inaccessible to people without a car or in a wheelchair; topography, if the site is too slope or uneven to be appropriated; among many others. Perhaps overlooked as a determinant in this list is level of democracy.
We all understand that if a space is too limited in use, it can be unsuccessful, but what if it can be too democratic. What if a space is too generic or too big to allow for groups to appropriate. What if a space was absent of any notion for division of space, be it through inscribed lines, material changes, or other means?
[Image: Empty public space in downtown San Diego. Courtesy of gasslamp.]
Can a public space be unsuccessful because it is too democratic?
If you liked that post, then try these...
Vacationing Architect's Grab Bag
After a major deadline at work, I get the rare payoff of vacation. Before I take the week off, I wanted...
A Level Playing Field for Cities
Boston's resurrection from the snail's pace construction of the Big Dig, as noted earlier this week,...
Sustainable Architecture and Sustainable Cities
It wasn't necessarily my intention to immediately continue the discussion of sustainable cities and how...
If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Loading ...
I think we misconstrue “democratic” with “free to do anything you want” -which, of course, is not democracy as it is anarchy.
Because democracy is only effective within a framework of participation (”nation of laws, not of men” etc.) -so, too with democratic public spaces -they work best when the framework allows for public participation, a degree of independence and personal safety, and involvement. – so users can choose to be part crowd or to be separate.
Open space, in and of itself, is not democratic. Just as well-designed (and enforced) laws make for a functioning democracy – so too does a well designed open space make for democractic space.
UDC