I think this article makes some very valid points about our culture today, being that it is a post-industrial consumerist culture. What I find valuable is the discussion on Wal-mart and how their business philosophy exemplifies the nature of our culture. I think it is interesting to look at corporations such as Wal-mart in a variety of perspectives. From a typical finance and business perspective Wal-mart is an extremely successful business. It behaves exactly how a corporation was designed to behave. Divide and conquer. I think that many in the business world tend to be narrow minded in their traditional Adam Smith belief that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When an American corporation grows, expands and becomes profitable, America's economy also grows with it. I just don't believe this to be so, and the article proves that by stating that the introduction of Wal-mart to a small town literally renders that community uneconomical by obliterating any and all other competition, i.e. the death of the small business.
There has been a development in the measure of a countries economic success that is not primarily based on monetary values. The HDI (human development index) is a measure of a countries well-being, that unlike the presently accepted GDP (gross domestic product), considers labor, resources and finances devoted to things like war, securities, etc. a debit to the nation rather than a credit. In other words if a business that sells personal weapons and home security products has a very successfully year financially that is actually bad for the economy as is implies that there are greater issues at steak and a need to defend oneself. I would consider the growth of a company like Wal-mart to be a debit on the countries economy as the result of it profitability means the loss of jobs and financial stability for others.
6 comments:
This reading is a bit out of date - it's a new demographic trend to move back into the city, especially for young If I remember correctly, there are urbanites (of-the-city), cosmopolitans (to the city from the burbs), sub-urbanites (of the burbs), and escapees (to the burbs from the city) - currently the dominant mobile force is the cosmopolitan group, especially among the young, but also among the new elder-boomers. The emerging trend is to densify, not sprawl. But, sprawl is still a problem that we need to address - especially in Calgary - yikes! I'm interested in what people are going to do with the city's fall-apart housing, which has a life-span of about 10 years. As architects do we treat it as an opportunity for future renovations? It is frightening that there is a buzz in the air about architecture as a dying profession; disposable architecture would seem to offer job security. Are we to be excited about architecture as commodity? Is this how we are going to maintain the profession - by buying into the scheme to create things that need to be replenished (renovated) - a sort of Swiffer-architecture? Is this what we will have to do, to fill in the gaps between ‘real’ projects? Is it a moral question or simply one of practical economics – supply and demand, and keeping a firm ‘alive’? I would like to think that I couldn’t bring myself to take on such a project, but even Busby is designing a Walmart. Do we ascribe to the ‘if I don’t do it, someone else will,’ or the ‘if I don’t do it, maybe it will inspire others not to’ mantra? My idealist-inspired belief-structure tells me to lean towards the latter, but it’s impossible to say until that day arrives.
I share Bobbie’s concern with the degradation of our cities, but I am also concerned with the cities that were born decrepit. I herd a statistic the other day in a program on the website TEDtalks this was that approximately 2 million people migrate to a city each day. But, these are not what we, in the developed world would call a city. These cities are shantytowns with no waste removal infrastructure, no permanent or prominent structural organization and no governed rule. But that is just why the people come there; they come for freedom and for a chance to join the blue-collar population. They come for hope. I would say there is more community and genius loci in these cities than in most North American cities. Is it the sturdy brick walls, or divided property lines which divides us here in North America? Or is the homogenization from such corporations like WAL-MART?
Bobbie spoke of her fears for suburban sprawl, and the coinciding development of “throw-away” houses. I also fear the disappearance of the 100 year old home, but what about eh 1000-year-old community? As the Canadian artist Sam Roberts says, “Where have all the good people gone?” Debora and me talked the other night, about the causes of community disappearance and the possible solution. I suggested that it is lack of shared interests, that people no longer talk to their neighbor because the do not share similar values or interests. I know personally at my home in Toronto our neighbors are retired couples, Horticulturists on the east and brain surgeon on the west. We have had polite conversation with them and friendly banter but no in depth discussions. Is this because of our ease of transport due to the combustion engine? Have we lost the preference of living close to those we share values with because of a “sweet condo” or a five minute street car ride to work?
humanistic take on temporary contracts
The reading started to make we wonder about how as a species we have used technology/objects to speed up the rate of development. By speeding up the rate of development I am referring to the time it takes to get from point A to point B. We create the automobile, which allows us to cut down on travel by a large percentage. Invent the phone to increase communications; we develop better and better technology to speed up processes-save time. However we do not think about the repercussions of doing this. I am sure with each of these new developments at heart we are thinking of all the time we have saved that we can now use for family, friends, and the environment but why does that not happen? Why instead have we created these temporary contracts? Why has the opposite happened.... why with the intent of saving time we in fact take up more time? Is this the elastic effect to the extreme? What happened to our values? We have so many temporary contracts because we are no longer loyal to anything. We do not owe anyone any time…we just do not have anytime to make time for long-term contracts. This is not the world I want to live in. But how can I make a difference when everything is so fast paced and family, friends, environment, and health are no longer on the priority list by the masses. How do I make it a priority over everything else on a day-to-day basis? I guess the question is what do I value...I definitely do not value temporary strangers. Transactions if you want to call it between individuals should be built on an infrastructure that is long term and without the motto of “getting in and getting out”.
I guess just to throw a question out about neighbors and add to Judith’s comment about "Have we lost the preference of living close to those we share values with because of a “sweet condo” or a five minute street car ride to work?"-Judith I would agree to some extent and disagree. The reasoning is that well my sister, who recently just graduated with her science degree and teaching degree from the university of Manitoba, just purchased a house a block away from my parents place. l have been thinking about why she would do this...really why would you do this? So I started weighing out reasons. I guess the first one would be that her work is actually only 5 minutes away so this definitely played a part in her decision. Positioning of our neighborhood in reference to the rest of the city not so good unless your entire world is found in the radius of the north end. There are a lot of homeowners that have raised family in the neighborhood and have continued to stay. My next-door neighbor across the street is like my grandma we are pretty close but we do not really have much in common now that I think about it. Well actually everyone in my neighborhood keeps to them selves but are friendly to one another and keeps an eye out for one another. There is definitely a network. So I guess that is probably another reason why she likes the neighborhood so much. It is so close to home and all her friends live here. Wow Judith I am glad that you brought that up. Never really thought about my neighborhood as a network before. In addition I feel when one looks for a place in which to live if they have the available funds they look for a place that suites there needs. And well I guess than if you wanted to live in a neighborhood in which you could have in depth conversations with your next-door neighbor you could find one or if you did not want to you could move. Are neighborhoods like cars than? I definitely value the 100-year-old ones too!!! Therefore I know exactly where I would want to live.
In Ellen Dunham-Jones’s article she articulates the value of arch to commemorate events, people etc. What is WAL-MART celebrating? What are the big celebrations of our last large scale architectural developments? How do we celebrate our culture if our culture is commerce? We celebrate it with commercial buildings and commercial networks. It is depressing that our societies obsession with the commodity and consumerism had been so engraved in our culture that it permeates into our permanent tectonic expressions, our architectures. We celebrate our commercial heritage and values with strip malls, cloverleaves, elaborate storefronts, big box stores, giant shopping centers, and large open parking lots. Our legacy will not be of the technological revolution it will be the commercial revolution, where even space becomes a commodity. WAL-MART is like the BORG from Star Trek, resistance is futile. The small business owners in small towns around North America individually protest the introduction of WAL-MART into their local, but collectively they are customers of WAL-MART. They only resist from on a small scale rather than collectively attempting to reject the WAL-MART’s infiltration into their community.
I would like to add as a side note that I do not think we are completely consumed with commerce. I know several examples of cultural celebrations that demonstrate our societies diversity, social accomplishments and heritage tectonically some examples are: elaborate Buddhist temples, Church and Wellesley, and the rehabilitation of old city call in Toronto. These events demonstrate our ability to maintain cultural agendas throughout this commercial revolution, but I think they slowly becoming less frequent. They are being pushed aside for the new the latest and the must have.
I too lament the disappearance of small business, but I am beginning to question why that is - a feeling of nostalgia for what I believed (learned through socialization) to be 'normal'? A romantic notion of what a marketplace 'should' be? In the end, a small business is the same as that of Walmart - to sell goods to consumers. It is sad when people lose there business, yes, but perhaps these people can pursue another line of education / career that will help contribute to society in a field other than commerce - human rights? environmental science/studies? geography? architecture? massage therapy? Join or start a consumer-watchdog group to help regulate and fight against manufacturing-human-rights violations and unsafe child labour? Political science??
Another comment - cities, since the beginning of time, have been based on the trade of goods and services. Without the marketplace, there is no city. This is evidenced in urban morphology history books. What has changed is the style and strategy of marketplaces. I think stripmalls, and hopefully even Walmart, will eventually be passing fancies, once the opinion of the 'general public' catches up with academia. Or maybe that's just left-wing-slanted hopefulness.
Post a Comment