|Research Versus Personal Viewpoints||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Harry Pasternak (Harry_Pasternaktvo.org)|
|Date: Mon, 19 Jun 95 10:00 CDT|
There appears to be an ongoing process whereby I post researched criteria for developing neighborhoods that promote "social networking" and then someone posts a note saying that from their own personal experiences/viewpoint/beliefs that the criteria I've posted are wrong and then they want to know where the research that I am reporting on is coming from. At the same time, these folks never state what their criteria are for developing neighborhoods that promote "social networking"---nor do they offer any research to back their viewpoint "that I am wrong"; instead, they try to put me down with some kind of childish comment about "Harry's rules" (or some other dreck). In almost every case I tell them that Jan Gehl and others have spent 30 years and more researching this whole field and to contact Gehl for the scoop. But I never get the impression that any of these folk ever contact Gehl. Currently, there is an "discussion" of strawbale wall construction. Several folks posted notes that indicated that strawbale construction saved construction money, was environmentally better than "conventional construction", easy to do, well proven etc. etc. I posted a note suggesting people do some research (beginning by reading an article in Fine Homebuilding Magazine) before they jump on the bandwagon---some folks posted notes saying that there was nothing wrong with strawbale wall construction and if I really wanted to get the right info I should contact the Strawbale Builders Assoc. Unlike others here in this conference who keep objecting to the info I've posted; but, never contact Gehl (as far as I know)--- I did telephone the Assoc. and got the info and posted it in this conference. So---I don't understand why all the nay-sayers haven't contacted Gehl as yet? However, I have learnt some pretty interesting stuff so far: * That it is impossible to scientifically study the design of neighborhoods and the houses within, to see if "social networking" is promoted or denied by the design---I suppose that's news to thousands and thousands of psychologists, anthropologists, social psychologists, sociologists and a host of other scientists who are continually scientifically studying all sorts of human interaction---and have been doing so for a hundred years or more. * That the "built environment" has no impact at all on the level of "social networking" that occurs between people in an neighborhood---again that the environment has no impact on how we humans interact and behave (yikes!). That instead, if you build a "country club" (often called communal facilities) near a bunch of houses and promote the country club's activities to people living in this bunch of houses---that this process will "create community". If that is the case, I don't understand why these folks don't simply move in to a wealthy neighborhood (deliberately designed to keep people away and to isolate the rich) and join the country club. * That effective neighborhoods that promote "social networking" just began the day someone coined and/or copyrighted!?, the word cohousing. That only certain people know how to do "it". Is this what it is all about? That cohousing is becoming a Growth Industry and a "cash cow" for the chosen few? Harry Pasternak Unpaid Volunteer For "Do It Yourselfers" Who Need Proven Information On Designing and Building Affordable, Frugally Operationally, Supportive Neighborhoods With An Abundance of Social Networking Opportunities, who works at: Thousand Islands Institute The Independent Centre For Housing Research & Education (Harry_Pasternak [at] tvo.org) - via BulkRate 2.0
- Research Versus Personal Viewpoints Harry Pasternak, June 19 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.