Theology and the Built Environment links

I have been finding the interface of theology and the built environment as an area of preoccupation and enduring concern for me. In pursuing this, I have just today discovered a few web resources which seem helpful, and that I hope to make permanent links to in my sidebar in the not too distant future. They are as follows:

Theology and the Spatial Arts, University of Otago, New Zealand; This site aims to encourage work in the area of theology and the spatial arts, notably the built environment. Some great stuff here; I wish they had more information about upcoming conferences, though. Also, the colloquium on theology and the built environment itself has a website.

Of Kirk and Ale, a weblog (which now appears defunct), which deals with questions of urbanism and theology.

Sidewalks in the Kingdom, a site by Eric Jacobsen for Christian New Urbanists. (Jacobsen, author of Sidewalks in the Kingdom, by Brazos Press, is also a PhD student at Fuller pursuing these important issues in his work - respect!) (By the way, I reviewed his book in Reviews in Religion and Theology - it was great, you should read it!)

Interface

I am a deeply intuitive thinker and I will often pursue disparate topics which seem (to me) deeply connected in some way, but without being able to articulate just how, rather trusting that it will somehow become clear in the pursuit. One such interface of topic for me is theology and architecture (or, urbanism, depending on how you define your terms). Little enough has been done on this (that I have seen), and what has been done isn't always fully satisfactory. I was musing on just this disconnect this morning prior to sitting in on my usual Friday lecture on Architecture and the Practical Imagination. In the moments prior to the lecture, I formulated the following:

What is architecture for? What are buildings for?
What they are for - apart from discrete functions - is the human.
What is man (humanity) for?
This in turn implies a whole host of (theo-)anthropological questions.
If the human is a graced gift of God, and is intended to glorify God to God's glory, and this is expressed ineluctably socially, namely through self-giving love and holiness, then architecture is (in part) the consideration of the space and conditions (physical, social, conventional) in which people may be ready for this glorifying or hindered and discouraged from it.

So far so good, but how to make sense of this in philosophical and architectural-theoretical terms?

And then during the lecture the professor said at one point that 'architecture is about the structure of relatedness.' Suddenly it all fell together for me, and I felt justified my intuitions (or at least as if I will be justified down the road; I haven't sent myself on a fool's errand.). If architecture is, literally but also figuratively, about the structure of relatedness, then it considers both the way that space shapes us as humans, and also the way to shape space for human flourishing. In this way, it becomes a precondition for all genuine human sociality, which is itself created by the Lord and which is intended to glorify the Lord and will be (ultimately) to the glory of the Lord. So architecture ends up being a very elemental consideration in sociality.

In all, a very good day in Cambridge.

The Irony of Cyberspace

Thomas Curwen, travel writer for the LA Times, has written a 'travel shorts' column entitled Travelling Through Time, in which he explores the changing nature of travel and particularly our seemingly spiralling anger and frustration with it. He contrasts this with previous generations' experience of travel; he does not romanticise these previous generations, just the opposite. Compared with them, we have it good. Usually.

He muses that it seems the difficulties of travel have to do with several factors at once: rising expectations of the experience, coupled with a sense of 'needing' or 'deserving' a holiday, along with a growing but unrealistic expectation that it will be cheap. He approvingly quotes Pico Iyer in part of his analysis:

"I think it's more than possible that we are growing more angry these days as we grow more spoiled, more used to having our own way, more masters of our own tiny domain," says traveler and writer Pico Iyer. "Cyberspace, in fact, tempts us to live ever farther from the world at large and ever more within our own ideas and niche interests and selected friends. In that regard, going out into the world, where things can't be controlled, may be a greater shock than ever."

Beyond its service to Curwen's point, I find that a striking quotation, for if Iyer is right (and I suspect he is) then the very thing which hastens globalisation and shrinks the world ever more is also the same thing which distances us from the world, cocoons us off from all but those (like-minded) we allow in. We ensconce ourselves in a fantasy world, an echo chamber in which we do not need to negotiate with others, or even listen to them, only to emerge now and then and find - yikes! - that the world is populated with idiots who don't think like me, and don't do what I want. The irony of Cyberspace.

I thought at first Iyer's use of 'spoiled' was a bit over the top, but on reflection I think it is right on, for if this analysis is correct then this is essentially a matter of childishness on our part.

This dynamic - for now let's call it a fragmentation based on special interests and echo chambers and agree to come up with a better term later - reflects in all sorts of facets of our contemporary world in the West, but I might just mention two.

The church wrestles with this dynamic on at least two fronts. First, the church is increasingly satisfied with niche marketing: this is seen in churches planted to reach 'boomers' or 'xers' or whatever. It is also seen to some extent in its use of marketing techniques in place of evangelism (and the unbalanced and occasionally sick way we do evangelism). And it is seen across denominations as we are increasingly content to either simply 'take care of our own', defined usually by race, class, marital or family status. These are all ways of lining up people who are (more or less) like minded; to put it another way, it is a recipe for a sect rather than a church.

The second front on which the church is faced with this is in the controversies it faces - and here, of course, I have in mind the Anglican Communion particularly, but it is no different across the board (although of course it takes different forms, with different issues, with different degrees of openness or publicity). The ill-kept secret reflected in the actions of most conservatives and most liberals* is that we are quite eager to split, despite rhetoric to the contrary. If we split then we don't have to deal with those with whom we disagree, we don't need to hear what they have to say, we don't have to acknowledge that they are Christians or that we might be wrong. We will have not only an authoritative Scripture, but also our - my - authoritative intepretation. The fragmentation, distancing, and echo-chambering in this case is obvious; it reflects a lack of maturity and ought to be occasion for shame.

Both of these fronts are temptations to idolatry.

The other facet I had in mind is the disappearance of anything like a public square. I mean that literally, in terms of civic design, but it is also true metaphorically. A public square - unlike its ersatz contemporary form, the shopping mall, which anticipates the narrowing found in internet echo-chambering - is an open, public space in which life unfolds. The best public squares combine commerce, municipal functions, church presence, housing, and flexible space for multiple uses. They are places which are easily accessed by a wide variety of people (including the homeless or those on the margins), and admit of spontaneous 'trial enounters' in differing ways: meeting a new friend, children playing, encountering a stranger, protesting or rallying, or simply spending time in a place which is both ours and not ours. A well-designed public square is the heart of a city and allows for sociality in its many varied forms to unfold with a richness - specifically in terms of people who are different from oneself - that cannot generally be found elsewhere. Their loss (in terms of usage) is deeply unfortunate, but would be less so if it were replaced by some other forum which served the same purpose. In the event, however, we are just poorer for not realising the potential of the public square and settling for that which is far less.



*I specifically mean reflected in our actions, not in what we say; I also don't take 'liberal' and 'conservative' to exhaust the field of options theologically or ecclesiologically.

The Death and Life of a Great Urban Thinker

Some sad news today, Jane Jacobs died. (As reported in the Globe and Mail, and -- surprisingly -- Wikipedia itself. How spooky is it that an encyclopedia updates its entry on the day you die? Ah well, vive l'internet!)

Jane Jacobs was a major, intractable critic of modern urban planning. Her best known book was The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Here's what Wikipedia says about it:

The Death and Life of Great American Cities is her single most influential book, and quite possibly the most influential American book on urban planning. Widely read by both planning professionals and the general public, the book is a strong critique of the urban renewal policies of the 1950s which, she claimed, destroyed communities and created isolated, unnatural urban spaces. Jacobs advocated dense, mixed-use neighborhoods and frequently cited New York City's Greenwich Village as an example of a vibrant urban community.
...
Above and beyond the practical lessons in city design and planning that "Death and The Life" offers, the theoretical underpinnings of the work profoundly challenge the
entire modern mindset. Jane Jacob rigorously adheres to inductive, nearly scientific, reasoning. Moreover, she is open to anecdotal evidence coming to bear on what has been induced from harder data. The paradigm that she embodies and represents is one of common sense, practical realism, and above all induction from fact. This paradigm is new, refreshing and empowering.

(In fact, Jacobs is nothing if not Aristotelian in her approach; very interesting from this perspective, I think.)

It is a book that anyone who loves cities and cares about what happens to them should read; it is also a book for anyone who loves people or society and cares what happens to them, which after all is the same thing. It has been immensely influential, a 'canonical classic' if every there were one, for New Urbanism.

(I have just learned that the UK (rough) equivalent to New Urbanism is Urban Renaissance.)

(I first read about Jacobs' passing on The Gutter, which provides ill-mannered commentary on architecture and architects. I read it every day.)

Street Wise: Suburban Nation

A few quotes from Suburban Nation:

"Given that most time in public is spent driving around in isolation chambers, it is no surprise that social critics are witnessing a decline in the civic arts of conversation, politics, and just simply getting along. There are those who view suburbanization as merely another symptom of this malaise, rather than a cause, but their arguments ignore the degree to which the atomization of our society into suburban clusters was the result of specific government and industry policies rather than of some popular mandate" (62-63)

"It bears repeating: we shape our cities and then our cities shape us. The choice is ours whether we build subdivisions that debase the human spirit or neighborhoods that nurture sociability and bring out the best in our nature. The techniques for achieving the latter are well known, and available to all who wish to make places worth caring about." (83)

"'Whatever happened to a natural diversity?' [some ask, who are uncomfortable with the idea of managed growth and design]. 'Are there any real places left?' The surprising answer to that question is that a lack of management has proven to be the enemy of diversity....Variety is achieved not through natural selection but through careful programming." (169) (This is borne out through examining municipalities who have successfully integrated, and remained that way: in the Chicago area, towns such as Oak Park or Park Forest have been very intentional about integration issues and have actively managed the process. Other areas, such as the South Shore neighborhood of Chicago, which were not managed but experienced block busting by unscrupulous realtors, witnessed almost 100% racial turnover in a very brief time. -ed.)