|
|
||
|
|
|
POSSIBLE CITIES (WITH PAUL TREANOR)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 From: Geert Lovink > Who is Paul Treanor? I'm familiar with his site but expect that you know > what is root identity is (where he lives, teaches etc.) We have no idea, perhaps next door, a professional academic, unemployed... he represents the dark side of dutch digital culture sometimes in a good sense as an orginal critical negative thinker most of the time just poorly informed because he is a lonesome cyber jongetje, trying to make the maximum damage as possible. that's how we saw him operating on a couple of lists. Pit and I removed him quickly from nettime, but he still writes for telepolis, for instance. > I tried to call and mail you Sorry but I was in Germany Ciao, Geert (he is not in the amsterdam phone book) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 From: Paul Perry Hi Maurice and Arjen, I've just finished reading a recent paper from Paul Treanor which I believe is extremely relevant to our Amsterdam 2.0 Project. It echoes some of the themes I've introduced in the past: Amsterdam's seccession from the state, Amsterdam franchising itself (see Treanor's questioning why plans for Amsterdam are never published in Minsk--in Portugese) fortification architecture, tribalization etc.). All concepts which facilitate radical divergence rather than convergence. Treanor in his paper absolutely trashes the TVA (Toekomst Verkenningen Amsterdam) Project arguing that the structure and process of such planning limits the future possibilities (and potential) of Amsterdam. An interesting idea: By acting to 'safeguard' the 'viability' of the future are we not in fact 'dictating' our will over others (who we do not know) and limiting their future options? Do we have this 'right'? (And now I'm thinking about my 'banned' nuclear reactor project in Wageningen...) I hope you both can read Treanor's paper before our meeting tomorrow. I see agreement between Treanor's arguments and Arjen's (intuitive) frustration with the quantity of studies and reports published by Amsterdam's administrators and Maurice's radical scenarios of waste and squalor. Treanor, Paul: Limiting Urban Futures http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/few.futures.html -- Paul Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 From: Paul Perry Hi Paul, I've been reading your papers with great interest over the last couple of years. I'm working on a project that addresses 'the future of Amsterdam' and share your concern over the 'limiting factors' inherent in our approach to thinking about the future of cities and society... I wonder whether you might be interested in meeting and discussing this? -- Paul btw: I sent some mail to what I thought was your address: censored@xs4all.nl a while back but did not receive a reply. Recently I was reading a discussion online and came across this address for you. Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 From: Paul Treanor I looked for a website under "perry" at xs4all. but there is none. Do you have a web site with more about the project/texts of yours? Paul Treanor Date: Thurs, 4 June 1998 From: Paul Perry At 21:01 +0200 2/6/98, Paul.Treanor wrote: >I looked for a website under "perry" at xs4all. but there is none. Do you >have a web site with more about the project/texts of yours? No, not at the moment. I've been developing a new private site the last few months (which is not served by xs4all), but there is nothing yet on it concerning this project. The project has a moderately long history. It began about 2 and half years ago--initiated by a woman by the name of Annemiek van Roobeek (who then occupied the 'Wibaut Stoel' from the UVA) and the Mondriaan Stichting. Prof. van Roobeek was running a project called 'Forum Amsterdam' and went to the Mondriaan Stichting looking for 'something cultural' to mark the closure of her Forum. The Mondriaan Stichting put a project team together: Huib Schreurs (publicist, old director of Paradiso), Gerald van der Kaap (photographer, club figure), Maurice Nio (architect, one of the founders of NOX architects) and myself. None of us was very interested in Forum Amsterdam, our assignment was to envision a set of scenarios for the future of Amsterdam. (Not plans mind you, more like dreams.) The initial project lasted 6 months. Maurice Nio took the initiative to continue the project last January and formed a new team: himself, Katy Tedder (landscape architect), Arjen Mulder (publicist, biologist) and myself. We've been meeting and talking since January. I'm interested in diversity. I believe diversity is important and perhaps this is why I'm so interested in your critique of everything that restricts future possibility. My originally proposals for Amsterdam 2.0 leaned heavily on the need for autonomy (that Amsterdam should separate from the rest of Nederland) and its growth by franchise rather than growth in physical size. I'm interested in your 'Forms of State' outline as I'm presently compiling a 'List of Possible Cities and their Laws'. -- Paul Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 From: Paul Treanor This sounds interesting. Some comments. There is already a literature on possible cities: the name of Kevin Lynch is what most planners /urbanists think of, in this context. There is a Dutch inventory of ideal cities by De Klerk. Both are in the literature list in An Urban Ethic of Europa. http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/urban.ethic.html Second, although the planning elites in NL are slow to realise it, the impetus for "future studies" has shifted to the European level. The most important is the official EU proto-plan ESDP, see http://web.inter.NL.net/users/Paul.Treanor/europlan.html But there are other texts and other organisations working on this. All of them, I can safely say, would abhor the idea of mixing state formation and planning, which recurs in my texts. I do not know of any political or academic force for any radical departure from existing urban policy in Europe. Of course architecture and design schools produce a constant flow of projects, where the practical realisability is not a constraint. Although I never see most of these, what I do see is impressive in the negative sense: the students consistently produce conventional ideas, usually corresponding to trends in urban development. As far as Euro-planning is concerned, the initiative is entirely with the planning bureaucracies so far, although there must be some student projects I have not seen any info on them yet. Third, the Forum Amsterdam project was a flop, although it had no clear purpose anyway. That has not stopped alderman Stadig from trying a rerun, no doubt you will have heard of the meetings on his "HUB Amsterdam" text. The real planning for Amsterdam is done, apparently behind his back, by the planning department, and the national planning ministry. Anyway, none of these discussion fora are intended to even consider radical departures from existing cities. --------- Anyway, you must have some texts from the projects you mention, so I would certainly be interested in them. Is there, for instance, a summary of work done? Paul Treanor Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 From: Paul Perry At 14:33 +0200 5/6/98, Paul.Treanor wrote: >Some comments. There is already a literature on possible cities: the name >of Kevin Lynch is what most planners /urbanists think of, in this >context. There is a Dutch inventory of ideal cities by De Klerk. Both are >in the literature list in An Urban Ethic of Europa. Lynch, Kevin: A Theory of Good City Form (1981) De Klerk, L: Op Zoek naar de Ideale Stad (1980) Thank you, I'll look up both. (I've been looking for a copy of 'Wasting Away' from Lynch for some time now--it's out of print). I suspect from the titles however that both books emphasis general 'utopias' or am I wrong? >Anyway, >you must have some texts from the projects you mention, so I would >certainly be interested in them. Is there, for instance , a summary of >work done? There is no summary. The first work period was characterised by many meetings between the project members trying to come to a 'consensus' about what we would 'do'. Individually we did research. (For example, I took the opportunity to explore an interest in 'polycentric law', a radical liberal idea of competing legal systems and franchise law.) At the end of the six month period we made a visual presentation. Happily, the members of our current work group agree a bit more on the basics. After a few of our meetings, Arjen Mulder wrote a summary of our disscussion which I'll enclose. Review Amsterdam 2.0 - Feb. 1998 I'm considering developing my 'Index of Possible Cities and their Laws' online in order to open the project up a bit... -- Paul Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 From: Paul Treanor > Thank you, I'll look up both. (I've been looking for a copy of 'Wasting > Away' from Lynch for some time now--it's out of print). I suspect from the > titles however that both books emphasis general 'utopias' or am I wrong? De Klerk much more so. Lynch's classic is more a plea for humane/convivial/etc cities: it is very much a book of the sixties/seventies, and less of the inventory of possibility that its author thought. I will print the attached text and read it. But do I see a hint of libertarianism here already, a trace of Kevin Kelly? Paul Treanor Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 From: Paul Perry At 17:02 +0200 7/6/98, Paul Treanor wrote: >I will print the attached text and read it. But do I see a hint of >libertarianism here already, a trace of Kevin Kelly? You do. (But I suspect it is more a trace of David Friedman than Kevin Kelly). I admit to showing interest in radical capitalism (specifically anarcho-capitalism) in the past. I guess that is because I believe(d) that such a system would facilitate diversity and change. And yes, I'm aware of your critique of liberalism/interaction. In any case, I'd assume that one of the future's possible cities would be anarcho-capitalist... -- Paul Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 From: Paul Treanor On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, Paul Michael Perry wrote: > In any case, I'd assume that one of the future's possible cities would be > anarcho-capitalist... The first thing they would do is conquer their neighbours, to give them the glorious benefits of their system.... pt Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 From: Paul Treanor I am working on a site on Bosnia, so I am short of time. But here are some comments on the review of Amsterdam 2.0 ...it contains many cliches and metaphors, some of them very well worn ...specifically the organic metaphor. Also the "clusters of information" and "intelligent collections of information" use different language but repeat the organic metaphor ... een stromenmodel is al uitgeprobeerd bij de Rijksplanologische Dienst, maar ik heb de indruk dat het uit de mode is ...diversity is seen almost exclusivlely in multi-cultural terms, the "embassy" metaphor is exactly one of the reasons I gave against multiculturalism, namely that it leads to a world of 185 nation states each composed of a federation of immigrants from the other 184 - and I don't see the value of this symmetry ...the use of the term "tribes" seems dated. How long ago is it since the famous TIME cover "Tribes of Britain"? ...the most fundamental differences are not those visible in "tribal" differences. Often they relate to hypothetical situations, the kind of extremes used to illustrate ethics textbooks. Paul Treanor Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 From: Paul Perry At 17:05 +0200 8/6/98, Paul Treanor wrote: >The first thing they would do is conquer their neighbours, to give them >the glorious benefits of their system.... If they did they would not be anarcho-capitalists would they? (Assuming that anarcho-capitalists *are* defined by their non-coercion credo...) But let's say they are not 'true' anarcho-capitalists and they do attempt to invade and conquer their neighbours... do you have any ideas as to how their neighbours might ensure their autonomy and defend themselves against external aggression? In other words how do your 'possible states' survive? -- Paul Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 From: Paul Perry Paul, Thank you for your comments on the Review of Amsterdam 2.0. At 14:41 +0200 9/6/98, you wrote: >...it contains many cliches and metaphors, some of them very well worn I assume that this comment means that you have not discovered anything *new* or enlightening in the review... >...diversity is seen almost exclusively in multi-cultural terms, the >"embassy" metaphor is exactly one of the reasons I gave against >multiculturalism, namely that it leads to a world of 185 nation states >each composed of a federation of immigrants from the other 184 - and I >don't see the value of this symmetry I agree. I see multi-culturalism (esp. how the term is used here in the Netherlands to describe a mixed society of Europeans and 'medelanders') as a bagatellisation of difference. I'm especially sensitive to this--not only did I grew up in melting pot land (Canada), but both my parents are the product of mixed marriages (anglo-indian). Question: What's the difference between cultural autonomy and racial autonomy? Between cultural purity and racial purity? btw: Not all embassies/enclaves achieve 'symmetry'. The Hong Kong Chinese that have colonized Vancouver (my home city) over the last years will never become WASP Canadians (instead the WASP Canadians are working hard to learn Cantonese...) >...the use of the term "tribes" seems dated. How long ago is it since the >famous TIME cover "Tribes of Britain"? So what's wrong with old terms and metaphors? Perhaps they survive in our imaginations because they still have something useful to convey? >...the most fundamental differences are not those visible in "tribal" >differences. Often they relate to hypothetical situations, the kind of >extremes used to illustrate ethics textbooks. I'd be grateful for some examples. -- Paul Perry Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 From: Paul Treanor > In other words how do your 'possible states' survive? that was never the intention of the list, but the answer is simple: no political, geopolitical, or territorial order can reconcile competing universalisms. It is absolutely central to liberal thought that a liberal system can somehow do this, but the peace of liberal societies is obtained by the suppression of their own enemies as liberal societies. They themselves can not resolve the conflict liberal versus principal anti-liberal. So again, and in general: no guarantees are on offer, no guarantees are possible, even if I were in a position to impose them. Any attempt to introduce a plurality on non-nation states in Europe means a bloody civil war. I have a text on the war, I must put it online, but previous experience is that no-one is interested in the issue. Paul Treanor Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 From: Paul Treanor > >...the most fundamental differences are not those visible in "tribal" > >differences. Often they relate to hypothetical situations, the kind of > >extremes used to illustrate ethics textbooks. > > I'd be grateful for some examples. Altruism is one, Good Samaritan laws are a related example. Does a legal requirement to pull drowning people out of the canal destroy moral autonomy? In the strict sense, no, going to jail does not constitute a loss of moral judgement. However, I think the principle wrong in itself, grounded on a false equation of life maximalisation with morality. The Hippocratic oath has a similar basis. The truth is there are some people who deserve to drown, and Good Samaritan laws are explicitly motivated by a denial of this, but you will not find the discussion outside of ethics departments. Yet it is also emotional, the kind of issue which could split a community...and that is where the possible states come in. Paul Treanor Sorry for the hasty short replies, but the Bosnia site is much work. It is full of possible states as well, like the curious Nazi Bosnia proposal.
Please report errors to --> errors@alamut.com
|
|