where paths converge

Thinking about the characteristics of these so-called "places of meeting" - places in our communities where people from all backgrounds and strata of society can come together purposefully, as equals - I thought that some of the views expressed by geographer Fi-Yu Tuan in his book, Space and Place: the Perspective of Experience, were worth reflecting on.

Tuan shares some interesting thoughts on how the way we use and design space reflects the way we conceive of society. In a chapter on architectural space and awareness, he traces how the progressively increasing fragmentation of society is reflected in the way we use space today. In past times, he notes, the social, economic and religious aspects of our lives tended to be integrated. Both the meaning and functionality of space reflected this. Those spaces which were accorded a high social value usually also had a strong religious significance. Naturally, our built environment reflected the harmony between these elements.

Tuan goes on to note how our modern world has become more compartmentalised. Not only has the economy been divorced form society, but both have been separated from religion. And just as these elements go on co-existing in different spheres, so too do the places we create reinforce this disconnection. Our sky-scrapers and business centres belong to one part of the city - fast-moving, devoid of nature, reserved for one segment of the population. While our temples, churches and mosques exist in other localities, as do our schools and hospitals. Different roads, different directions for the different compartments of our lives.

So perhaps one characteristic of these places of meeting is that we will see houses of worship side by side with local centres for education and health, with local trading, with performance spaces and the arts. So that we don't forget the interconnectedness of these aspects of our collective lives, nor the coherent nature of our identity whether we are at work, with our families, or in a place of worship. Perhaps this way of conceiving space, of conceiving our lives, will help these places to reflect the sacred nature of all these activities, and the coherence between who we are, and what we do.

Tuan also discusses society's transition from believing in an all-explaining "cosmos" to possessing "splintered beliefs and conflicting ideologies." Symptoms, we could say, of a post-modern world trying to come to terms with the challenge of breaking with the oppressive meta-narratives of the past, without having yet agreed on a contemporary source of unity and common understanding.

For Tuan, humanity's divided sentimental reaction to the sky-scraper embodies this splintered belief system. He notes how individuals can hold opposing views of the sky-scraper - for some it represents a symbol of human progress and accomplishment, for others a threat or sign of greed - this in spite of the fact that the high-rise "is the product of an age to which we all belong." As Tuan notes, there is no consensus on the meaning of the artefacts of modern culture.

But before taking this view too far, perhaps it's important to underscore that individual human sensibilities and interpretive frameworks will naturally take away different meanings from like objects and events. For centuries, the diverse palette of expression that a unique image can evoke has been the stuff poetry is made of. But going beyond these more artistic or romantic sensibilities, perhaps it could be argued that such places also stand as symbols for the institutions they are housing - whether that be the family, the government, the banks or religion. Would it be fair to say that humanity is approaching - and desires - a common understanding of the nature of these institutions and the roles they ought to play in our life? To this extent, does Tuan's perceived societal polarisation over the meaning of the skyscraper reflect a deeper discord over the character and ideology of the business world it represents? For a "place of meeting" to truly welcome all, can we expect that some agreement on these questions would be necessary?

Finally, Tuan also touches on the point of community participation in the construction of places. The last post featured a video of a talk by architect Mark Raymond, where he evoked the idea of moving towards a broader definition of architecture as the "construction of the built environment" (as opposed to the exclusive work of experts). This may seem like a new concept, but until recent times this did indeed reflect the building process, which was literally all hands on deck in the physical construction of buildings. This included sites of worship, for which construction itself was regarded as a sacred act. Naturally, going back to this approach would probably be a bit counter-productive. But this doesn't rule out a space in architecture for active participation. It's one thing for people to no longer build their own houses. But, as Tuan points out, "nor do they participate even in a token manner in the construction of public monuments."

And herein lies our problem. To be "inclusive," places of meeting need to reflect the viewpoints of those who are to use them. And though it might be helpful to come up with some over-arching principles for such places (some of the ideas mentioned here include reintegrating the different aspects of society into one place or site; seeking out common understanding as to the nature and functions of our institutions for which our buildings are constructed to house; and ensuring that planning takes place through a participatory process), ultimately the construction of these places should be undertaken in accordance with the needs and ideas of those who are going to use them. So that all have a stake in building the communities of the future, and in fashioning the environments in which such communities will flourish.