For any inquisitor, be they an urban planner, architect, or any environmental designer, or be they anarchists from Anarchist Urban Planning any of these fields or any anarchist in general, this book answers numerous fundamental questions, including: & Place Theory - How anarchism theoretically applies to the environmental design fields, especially urban planning - The meaning of “place” within and outside of ownership/capitalist constructs - The true reasons behind why urban planners experience cognitive dissonance - What actually creates the greatest human meaning through physical design - What morality truly is outside of ownership constructs - The role of the planner and designer in an anarchist world The answers to these questions may also prove helpful to anyone involved in any kind of design project, intentional community creation, conflict resolution, or any other individual or collective endeavor. Anti-copyright 2009 by This work was originally copyrighted, but its author has changed it to anti-copyright status. Copy this work and distribute it widely, clip out whatever you want, use it for whatever you want with or without attribute, without limit. Tuer’s Cardboard is the font used on the front cover. www.anarchistplanner.org PREFACE Sitte, Camillo. 1965.City Planning According to Artistic Principles. New York: Random House. Originally written as an academic text, I compiledthis work in a zine form Skeggs, Bev. 2005. “The Making of Class and Genderthrough Visualizing Moral Subject Formation.”Sociology. 39,5:965-982. here for easy and inexpensive distribution within the anarchist community. I wrote the text to address and help solve many core theoretical problems within the field of Soja, Ed. 1997. “Planning in/for Postmodernity.” InSpace and Social Theory: Interpreting specifically urban planning, but for any anarchistin general who might be reading Modernity and Post Modernity, ed. Georges Benko and Ulf Strohmayer. Malden, Mass.: this text, I believe that the concepts herein alsoprovide a groundwork of theory that Blackwell. could be brought into literallyany anarchist project, be it intentional community creation, conflict resolution, design projects, orany kind of advocacy endeavor. Stein, Stanley M. and Thomas L. Harper. 1995. “Outof the postmodern abyss: Preserving the rationale for liberal planning.”Journal of Planning Education and Research. 14:233-44. Working individually or as a collective, the concepts herein concerning morality and meaning creation may help you more fully realize your common values and increase Stein, Stanley M. and Thomas L. Harper. 2003. “Power, Trust, and Planning.”Journal of Planning your effectiveness. Education and Research. 23:125. Also, as this work is so very field specific in nature, be aware that one may come across terms or concepts which may be foreignto the general reader. And Sternberg, Robert J. 1997Pathways to Psychology. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. though extensive definitions and explanations are included within the text, I can only Strathern, Marilyn. 1985. “Kinship and Economy: Constitutive Orders of a Provisional Kind.” imagine that there will still be instances when a field concept here or there might be American Ethnologist. 12,2:191-209. outside the reader’s scope of understanding. In this edition, I include no glossary of any type, nor an index. If a further explanation is needed, I would encourage you to Tagliaventi, Gabriele. 2006. “The European Transect: An Organic Way for Architecture to Develop go online, look in a dictionary, or explore a public library. Towns, Cities, and Metropolises.”Places. 18,1:46-52. The project of this text began during my first year of college. I by happenstance found the bookA Pattern Language (Alexander, et al 1977) on a Taylor, Nigel. 1998.Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. London: Sage Publications. coffee table in a public building. Of everyone I asked, no one claimed it, so I took it Wekerle, Gerda R. and Carolyn Whitzman. 1995.Safe Cities: Guidelines for Planning Design and home and it, very literally, sparked the driving force within me to seek to understand Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. what creates the greatest meaning for human beingsthrough physical design. As I read it, I was captivated by the possibility of creating the most “wonderful,” Ward, Colin. 1990.Talking Houses. London: Freedom Press. “amazing,” and “meaningful” places imaginable, butreading that book also lead me to feel like there was something missing from their analysis. So my search Whyte, William H. 1980.The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation. continued. It has gone on for nearly twelve years now and this text is the culmination of that search. Yiftachel, Oren. 1999. “Planning Theory at a Crossroad: The Third Oxford Conference.”Journal The journey toward the completed realization of this written work has been of Planning Education and Research. 18:267-270. one of personal self-realization, too, as I found my own life to be a reflection of the larger society. In this journey, while concepts ofreligion, gender, capitalism, and You Can’t Blow Up a Social Relationship: The Anarchist Case Against Terrorism. [1998]. Tucson: morality itself in my personal life fell into critical dissection and analysis, See Sharp Press. simultaneously I could see the core constituents of these subjects to also be alive and well in the fields of planning and architecture ofwhich I had so much passion and care for. I can only hope that as others read this, it will awaken in them self- realizations and inner liberations also. The theories within this text are by no means complete, but perhaps hold some of the keys to a revolution in the fields of urban planning and design. These theories may help planners and designers understand the soup of discontent that they are currently in and to understand how, in theory,to get out. This text is primarily not about application, but about theory. I also hope that as academics and practitioners read, they will understand the path that they must take in our human evolution locally and as a global society, and then make moves to educate others and eventually eliminate the system — for the total liberation of this planet and its people. Furthermore, a word of warning to the reader, in this work I use only gender neutral pronouns, which many people may notbe accustomed to. As gender tends to be very much an oppressive construct, to move toward that world of complete liberation — no male nor female pronouns are used herein. Admittedly, 74 Green and Marc Scholes, 71-83. London: Karnac. this aspect of the text may be difficult to read at first, but every step we can consciously take toward liberation, we very much need to. Marshall, Peter. 1992.Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, 551-53. London: As well, as this text takes an anarchist perspective not often used by urban Fontana Press. Quoted inGuy Debord and the Situationists, 2007. Electronic document, planners and design professionals, this too may greatly challenge how some readers http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Obituary/debord.html, accessed March 5, 2007. think about the world. Some may think this is an “unrealistic perspective.” Unto you I would say to please consider the value of being collectively exhaustive in your Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1972.The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. Tucker, Robert C., ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. search for truth. Urban and regional planning, as well as architecture, are often perceived as Merriam-Webster Inc. 1991.Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Mass.: very much altruistic undertakings. May this work help take that altruism to a new Merriam-Webster Inc. dimension of ultimate meaningfulness, liberty, and equality for all people. Meyers, William. 2000.Nonviolence and Its Violent Consequences. Gualala, Calif.: III Publishing. Morefus, A. 2006. “Deconstructing All Relationships: Beyond Just Fucking and Fighting as December 2009 Revolutionary Agendas.”Green Anarchy. 23:8-11. Moudon, Anne Vernez, ed. 1987.Public Streets for Public Use. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Moudon, Anne Vernez. 2000. “Proof of Goodness: A Substantive Basis for New Urbanism?” Places. 13,2:38-43. Nabhan, Gary Paul and Stephen Trimble. 1994.The Geography of Childhood: Why Children Need Wild Places. Boston: Beacon Press. Norberg-Schulz, Christian. 2003. “The Phenomenon of Place.” InDesigning Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design, ed. Alexander R. Cuthbert, 23-27. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. O’Toole, Randal. 1999. “Dense Thinkers.”Reason. 30,8:44-52. Parkes, Colin Murray and Joan Stevenson-Hinde, ed.1982.The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior. New York: Basic Books. Platt, Rutherford H. 1996.Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington: Island Press. Prieur, Ran. 2005. “Seven Lies About Civilization.”Green Anarchy. 21:16-17,21. Quinn, Arthur. 1982.Figures of speech: 60 ways to turn a phrase. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc. RedWolfReturns. 2004. “‘Now What?’: A Primitivist Strategy Proposal.”Green Anarchy. 18:72 Reeves, Una Gilbert. 1962.Writing Verse as a Hobby. Boston: Christopher Publishing House. Rooum, Donald, ed. 1992.What is Anarchism? An Introduction. London: Freedom Press. Rose, Gillian. 1993.Feminism and Geography: The Limits of GeographicalKnowledge. Cambridge: Polity. Quoted in Cresswell, Tim. 2004.Place: A Short Introduction, 25. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Saarikoski, Heli. 2002. “Naturalized Epistemology and Dilemmas of Planning Practice.”Journal of Planning Education and Research. 22:3-14. 73 CHAPTER I Innes de Neufville, Judith. 1983. Planning Theory and Practice: Bridging the Gap.Journal of Planning Education and Research. 3,1:35-45. INTRODUCTION Jabareen, Yosef Rafeq. 2006. “Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts.”Journal of Planning Education and Research. 26:38-52. We Were Born Into a World Where: Dreams and desires have been locked within the cages of psychotherapeutic Jacobs, Allan B. 1993.Great Streets. Cambridge: MIT Press. interpretations; Revolt has been bound with the fetters of moribundleftist ideologies; Jacobs, Allan and Donald Appleyard. 1987. “Toward a new urban design manifesto.” Journal of Creativity has been enslaved to the sadistic masters, art and literature; the American Planning Association. 53,1:112-120 The marvelous has been handcuffed to the cops of mysticism and mythology; Reality has lost the ability of laugh at itself and its foibles and so suppresses a truly Jacobs, Jane M. 1972.The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. playful spirit; Thought has become a rigidly armored fortress protecting its ideological Kalish, Richard A. 1966.The Psychology of Human Behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth foundations from every criticism; Publishing. Revolution has had its passion organized out of existence leaving only structural rigor mortis where once insurgence breathed and danced. Koehnlein, Bill. 2007. “40th Anniversary Society of the Spectacle: 1967 Text by Guy DeBord Still The world has ceased to bring forth amazing monsters; Defines Capitalist Society.”Fifth Estate. 42,1:23-24. It is no longer a conduit for the marvelous; It has lost touch with the convulsive beauty of love and lust; Kunstler, James Howard. 1994.The Geography of Nowhere. New York: Simon & Schuster. It can no longer give birth to babes with wings; Landstreicher, Wolfi. 2004. “We Were Born Into a World Where.”Green Anarchy. 15:36. It has ceased growing and begun to rot; It has suppressed surreality wherever this marvelous flower has bloomed. Landstreicher, Wolfi. 2007. “A Balanced Account ofthe World: A Critical Look at the Scientific – Wolfi Landstreicher (2004) Worldview.”Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. 24,2:33-39. In the present turmoil of theory, the purpose of this book, is to begin a new Lim, Gill-Chin. 1986. “Toward a Synthesis of Contemporary Planning Theories.”Journal of dialogue about the theoretical construction of “place” — to suggest the possibility of Planning Education and Research. 5:75. new design theory to guide the fields of urban planning and architecture, particularly from a contemporary anarchist perspective. The central concept of these possible Lynch, Kevin. 1960.The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. new theories is that the perception of unique differentiation is theonly factor that Lyndon, Donlyn. 2006. “Caring for Places: Imagining Difference.”Places. 18,1:3. determines meaning in the lives of human beings. This text also draws conclusions about how the concept of morality itself occurs asa function of personal orientation Manek, Hira Ratan. 2007.Solar Living Center: The Official Site of Hira Ratan Manek. Electronic in the world. Herein are deduced these possibilities primarily through an analysis document, http://www.solarhealing.com/, accessed July 22. and interpretation of the theories within the bookThe Image of the City, by Kevin Lynch (1960). Mann, Doug. 2007.Jean Baudrillard: A Very Short Introduction. Electronic document, In the past several hundred years, the promise of creating the most http://publish.uwo.ca/~dmann/baudrillard1.htm, accessed January 14. meaningful environments for people has been a greatly debated topic. From Sitte and Marcus, Clare Cooper and Wendy Sarkissian. 1990.Housing as if People Mattered: Site Design Burnham to Kunstler and Calthorp – social scientists to environmental designers Guidelines for Medium Density Family Housing. Berkeley: University of California influenced by capitalism, Marxism, and the Enlightenment have sought to pick apart Press. what precisely provides people meaning and fulfillment, and what does not. Some of these theorists often focus only on one specific aspect, such as what exactly makes a Marcus, Clare Cooper. 1995.House as a Mirror of Self: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of Home. location inviting to sit at, or what kinds of environmental factors lead people to feel Berkeley: Conari Press. unsafe in a location. Beyond this, some have suggested sweeping theory to explain Marcus, Clare Cooper and Carolyn Francis. 1997.People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban how people may find meaning virtually everywhere—if perhaps a certain format of Open Space. New York: John Wiley & Sons. design is followed. In this work, I present the latter, a broad theory. I have mentioned a few authors thus far. When reading their works and that Marris, Peter. 1982. “Attachment and Society.”The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior, ed. of many others, it occurred to me that very few ofthem were coming to any solid Colin Murray Parkes and Joan Stevenson-Hinde, 185-201. New York: Basic Books. agreement about the creation of meaning, particularly “positive” meaning (which Marris, Peter. 2001. “On Rationality and Democracy.”International Planning Studies. many of them gauge as environments absent of fear,easily accessible, welcoming 6,3:279-284. and nurturing to all people, etc.). Often they seemed to dance together around like problems (crowded, banal urban cores, and “placeless” suburban sprawl, to name the Marris, Peter. 2004. “Attachment and Social Policy.”Attachment and Human Survival, ed. Marci dominant ones) and to point fingers in similar directions at possible solutions, yet, disparate, they have remained in turmoil with one another. Usually they have seemed 72 very sure of themselves – of what theydo not like and the environmental typologies Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1996. “The Dark Side of Planning:Rationality and ‘Realrationalitat.’” In that they and othersdo like. Unfortunately, caught up in the visions of their Explorations in Planning Theory, edited by S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. wonderment at what they favor and of what they seethat others favor, they have failed to look into the common roots of their typologies, and to see the influence of Flyvbjerg, Bent. 1998.Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of capitalism upon these, their ideals. I chose to useThe Image of the City as my central Chicago Press. text in this theoretical discussion as Lynch’s ideas seem to reach into that fundamental ground more than others. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. “Beyond the Limits of Planning Theory: Response to My Critics.” In the end, after breathing in and mentally processing the literature of International Planning Studies. 6,3:285-292. theory from these design fields, I began looking into fields outside of planning and Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava and Anna Leon-Guerrero. 2002.Social Statistics for a Diverse Society. architecture only to find that much of what I had concluded from our own literature, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. others outside had also deduced, though they had not necessarily applied or studied it in relation to “place” design. One of the primary conclusion of this text, that Friedmann, John. 1982. “Urban Communes, Self Management, and The Reconstruction of the meaning is derived from the perception of unique differentiation, has been Local State.”Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2:37-53. postulated and researched for approximately the past thirty years by attachment theorists in the field of psychology. Gil, David G. 1992.Unravelling Social Policy: Theory, Analysis, and Political Action Towards Social Equality, 5th ed. Rochester, Vermont: Schenkman Books. As mentioned in the Preface and at the start of this introduction, this work takes a considerably anti-capitalist, anarchist perspective. Many, if not nearly all Goodchild, Barry. 1990. Planning and the Modern/Postmodern debate.”TPR. 61,2:119-137. planning theorists work solely within the realms of seeking to mitigate against capitalism while helping to perpetuate it. Some though do believe that planners can Gordon, Peter and Harry W. Richardson. 1997. “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?” and should function in a world without ownership. Capitalism and its related Journal of the American Planning Association. 63,1:95-106. authoritarian powers are based on ownership, and oppositely anarchism is based on Green, Marci and Marc Scholes, ed. 2004.Attachment and Human Survival. London: Karnac. the absence of ownership. This text seeks to conceptualize and present from these perspectives, as if the world were in this state of utopian anarchy or moving toward Gunder, Michael. 2004. “Shaping the Planner’s Ego-Ideal: A Lacanian Interpretation of Planning it. Understandably, this is an unusual stance to take since so many others look Education.”Journal of Planning Education and Research. 23:299-311. through the lens of capitalism regarding urban planning and design theory, but, to understand the situation in new, hopefully more clear ways, one must sometimes Gunder, Michael. 2006. “Sustainability: Planning’sSaving Grace or Road to Perdition?”Journal of keep stepping back from the existing paradigms, and in this case, til finding oneself Planning Education and Research. 26:208-221. looking from outside the authoritarian/capitalist bubble. Arguably, the results of this Habraken, N. J. 1998.The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control inthe Built perspective provide new insights about how “place”functions. Environment. Cambridge: MIT Press. For the presentation of this analysis, this text begins with a review of the current literature, followed by the central chapter of analysis and interpretation of Handy, Susan L. 1992. “Regional Verses Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional Development and its The Image of the City, ending with sections postulating applications and future Implications for Non-work Travel.”Built Environment. 18,4: 253-267. research, and then concludes with a brief chapter touching on hopes and possibilities Harlan, Calvin. 1986.Vision & Invention, An Introduction to Art Fundamentals. Englewood Cliffs, for the future. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Quoted inGestalt, 2007. Electronic document, So as to more clearly understand current planning and design theory, in the http://www.noteaccess.com/RELATIONSHIPS/Gestalt.htm, accessed March 5. literature review are introduced some basic ideas about how both ownership and anarchist systems may function. In the context of that overview, is next a review of Hayden, Dolores. 1995.The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, the current fiery debates about postmodern planning theory, followed by a review of Mass: The MIT Press. the current most-common conceptions about the definition of the word “place” and Healey, Patsy. 1992. “A Planner’s Day: Knowledge and Action in Communicative Practice.” out of this is sought the birth of a reasonably clear definition of “place” to work with Journal of the American Planning Association, 58,1:9-20. throughout the remainder of this book. Then the reader is walked through a survey of planning theory from the Industrial Revolution to the present. This gives a Hedman, Richard. 1984.Fundamentals of Urban Design. Washington, D.C.: Planners Press. hopefully clearer understanding of the crisis in planning and design theory today, so as to present a reasonable rationale for using thewritings of Lynch as a foundation Hillier, Jean. 1995. “The Unwritten Law of Planning Theory: Common Sense.”Journal of for deducing new possible base theory for planningand architecture. To conclude Planning Education and Research. 14:292-296. the chapter is a review of some basic concepts of Attachment Theory from the field Hoch, Charles. 2006. “Planning to Keep the Doors Open for Moral Communities.” Planning of Psychology and how they apply to planning and design, so as to better understand Theory. 5:127-145. the Lynchian design theories presented in the chapter to follow it. To summarize the 2 71 Publications. main points made in this literature review: It is argued that ownership causes the social inequalities which planners try to mitigateagainst. Ownership constructs Bowlby, John. 1980.Attachment and Loss, Volume 3: Loss: Sadness and Depression. London: though are so insidiously pervasive in the realms of planning and design theory that Hogarth Press. it blinds the environmental design fields from comprehending any sort of theory beyond its confines. The result is an experience of cognitive dissonance among Campbell, Heather. 2006. “Just Planning: The Art of Situated Ethical Judgment.”Journal of Planning Education and Research. 26:92-106. professionals and thus an unending thirst for new explanatory theory to guide them. The next chapter presents the primary analysis andconclusions. What is Castells, Manuel. 1982. “ Planning and Social Change.”Journal of Planning Education and presented is a detailed examination of the concepts withinThe Image of the City, an Research. 2,1: 3-4. analysis of their foundations in logic and reason,and using this and other existing theory – how these might be utilized to extrapolate new theory for the field. Also in Castells, Manuel. 2003. “The Process of Urban Social Change.” InDesigning Cities: Critical this chapter, additional references are occasionally brought in to help clarify why Readings in Urban Design, ed. Alexander R. Cuthbert, 23-27. Malden, MA: Blackwell. these extrapolations might be correct. As well, there are deliberations concerning Calvino, Italo, trans. by William Weaver. 1974.Invisible Cities. New York: Harcourt Brace what applications and research might be next in the fields of environmental design to Jovanovich. help verify the suggestions of theory herein. Lastly, in the brief concluding chapter are, if found true by others, what such theory might mean to these fields of design, Chakravorty, Sanjoy. 1999. “Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Capability Generation: Toward a and the hope it may offer for the future. To summarize the main points of the Normative Basis for Planning in Developing Nations.”Journal of Planning Education analysis and the concluding chapter: Fundamentally, as deduced from an analysis of and Research. 19:77-85. The Image of the City, outside of ownership constructs, meaning for human beings is Chambers, Clare. 2005. “Masculine Domination, Radical Feminism and Change.”Feminist Theory. found only in the perception of unique difference and the orientation which such 6,3:325-346. differences provide them in this universe. Morality is found only in whether a perception of difference challenges or affirms one’s existing orientation. And Chomsky, Noam. 1995.Anarchism, Marxism, and Hope for the Future. Interview by Red and finally, in an anarchist world, these theories mayhelp planners and designers to Black Revolution. Montreal: Kersplebedeb. maximize the experience of meaningfulness in physical design. Correa, Jaime. 2006. “Counterpoint: Transect Transgressions.”Places 8,1:24-25. Cortina, Jenny Ann. 2006. Interview by author, Fall, Pomona, Calif. Covey, Stephen R., A. Roger Merrill, Rebecca R. Merrill. 1999.First Things First. Excerpts read by author. Simon & Schuster. 31556-0. Compact disk, track 6. Cresswell, Tim. 2004.Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, Mass.:Blackwell. Cross-Nickerson, Jesse. 2007. “On the Neutrality of Technology.”Green Anarchy. 24:28-30. Debord, Guy. 1973.The Society of the Spectacle (film soundtrack), trans. by Ken Knabb, In 2007. Electronic document, http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord.films/spectacle.htm, accessed March 5. Dekker, Karel. 1998. “Open Building Systems: a case study.”Building Research & Information. 26,5:311-318. Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck. 2000.Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press. Dunham-Jones, Ellen. “Suburban Retrofits, Demographics, and Sustainability.”Places. 17,2:8-19. Ewing, Reid. 1997. “Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?”Journal of the American Planning Association. 61,1:107-126. Feral Forager.Feral Forager: A Guide to Living off Nature’s Bounty in Urban, Rural and Wilderness Areas. Asheville, No. Carolina: Wild Roots. 70 3 REFERENCE LIST CHAPTER II A!. 2004. “What is Left?: Nihilism vs. Socialism.”Green Anarchy. 17:50-51,53. HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY THEORY Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, Max Jacobson, Ingrid Fiksdahl-King, As one considers formulating new theory for the fields of environmental and Shlomo Angel. 1977.A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New design, one sees many dialogues occurring. But in which realm would theory York: Oxford University Press. development have the greatest benefit to all and what might such new theory look Allmendinger, Philip. 2001.Planning in Postmodern Times. London: Routledge. like? In this literature review I examine these many dialogues, and seek to understand precisely what and why people are taking these positions, and where one An Anonymous Nihilist. 2004. “What I Wish I Had Said September 12, 2001.”Green Anarchy. might go based on those stances to formulate new theory. This examination is made 16:5. in the context of the belief that an anarchist existence, free of ownership, is the best hope for a world of the greatest fulfillment and meaning, and the truest morality and Anglin, Gary J., Hossein Vaez, and Kathryn L. Cunningham. 2007.Visual Representation and equality of people in which planning can and should occur. Learning: The Role of Static and Animated Graphics. Electronic document, http://www.aect.org/edtech/33.pdf, accessed March 5 Understanding the idea of how “ownership” functions may help one to understand planning and design theory much more fully. In this book,ownership is Anti-Mass: Methods of Organization for Collectives. Montreal: Kersplebedeb. defined as the claiming of the right to exclusively control a person, place, or thing; capitalism is the systematic application of the ownership construct; andauthority is Appleyard, Donald. 1981.Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of California Press. the forced application of ownership. This work also takes the position that — as ownership forms the basis of all authoritarian power, it deeply affects almost every Arnheim, Rudolf. 1954. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley: University of California Press. realm of planning theory. Thus, I begin with two sections introducing how ownership functions, what its general affects are,and how an anarchist world Arnheim, Rudolf. 1969. Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press. without any ownership might function. These explanations are followed by sections revealing how ownership affects postmodern theory,place-design theory, and Arnheim, Rudolf. 1982. The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts. normative land-use planning theory. The chapter ends by suggesting that new Berkeley: University of California Press. planning theories need to be formulated which willfunction outside of the construct Baudrillard, Jean, trans. by Sheila Faria Glaser. 1995.Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: of ownership and that some of Kevin Lynch’s theories may provide us with some University of Michigan Press. useful stepping stones into such new realms of thought. Baudrillard, Jean, trans. by Chris Turner. 1998.The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. An Introduction to Ownership Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. From my examination of planning and design theory literature at present, Bernard, H. Russell. 2000.Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. almost all of the literature appears to revolve around the nature of ownership and its moralities. To more clearly understand what is occurring, it seems essential to Black, Bob. 2004. “Theses on Anarchism After Post-Modernism.”Green Anarchy. 16:6-7. present a basic overview of Marxist and anarchist conceptualizations of how power and morality occur due to ownership. Bohl, Charles C. and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 2006. “Building Community across the Rural-to- One way to perhaps conceptualize current planning and design theories is Urban Transect.”Places 18,1:4-17. to think of them politically in a circuitous manner. See figure 1, the circle of Bonanno, Alfredo M. 1977.Armed Joy. Fortitude Valley, Australia: Beating Heart Press. ownership and anarchy. At the top of the diagram is the political center. As one travels to the right, private ownership and individual rights increase, while to the Bookchin, Murray. 1995.Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. left, public/government ownership and authority precipitously increase. When they Edinburgh: AK Press. meet at the bottom, they cancel out each other’s ownership and the system of Bornstein, Kate. 2006.Hello Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide forTeens, Freaks, and ownership, capitalism, ceases, and at this bottom point of anarchy is the realm in Other Outlaws. New York: Seven Stories Press. which, without any ownership, postmodernism might fully exist and where normative theory transforms into a proliferation of endless diverse differentiations. I Boulding, Kenneth E. 1956.The Image. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan. base this diagram in part on the explanations of anarchists Donald Rooum (1992, Bowlby, John. 1969.Attachment and Loss, Volume 1: Attachment. London: Hogarth Press. 10) and Noam Chomsky (1995). Upon closer examination of this sphere of beginnings, endings, and Bowlby, John. 1973.Attachment and Loss, Volume 2: Separation: Anxietyand Anger. London: fusions, the concept of ownership is fundamental and, as will be explained, most Hogarth Press. Bowlby, John. 1979. Making and Breaking of Affectionate Bonds. London: Travistock 4 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION At first glance, the ideas of Lynch prompt one to try to make cities more visually legible — to enhance way finding and meaning. Clearly a great many other deductions and postulations based on theoretical analysis are possible. This may be just the beginning. Generally we find some relatively simple concepts inThe Image of the City, but as one pulls those concepts apart and considers their applications and theoretical reasoning, individually and as a whole, the implications are radically vast. The theories I postulate herein perhaps take us toa new precipice of understanding how “place” and its accompanying meanings function for all human beings, not only within capitalist realms, but farbeyond them as well. In this analysis we find that perception of image-difference, in whatever its Fig. 1. The circle of ownership and anarchy form, is the key to all meaning creation. And in that single unique value rests all of our orientation and morality. current field theories are based on the tension between the right and the left, and also Following these postulations to their logical conclusion would mean the the tension between the anarchist and non-anarchist realms. In relation to this end of environmental design, and especially ownership-based urban planning as we diagram, the debates in postmodern planning theory, place/community design know it. It would mean planning not for oppressionin any form, but for a world with theory, and in normative planning and design theory are deeply affected. the ultimate in social and personal liberation; for the ultimate experience of personal Examining this breadth of debates surprisingly appears to reveal a and collective meaning; it would mean to see the world with new eyes—eyes that spectrum of immense theoretical desperation in thefields of planning and design create difference for orientation’s sake, to fearlessly know and find one’s way in life, theory, primarily due to the social construction of ownership. Contemporary because that is the only value which matters. planning itself fits in this diagram in that, while planners are in an ownership In this thesis I take the unconventional approach of looking at capacity themselves, and driven by visions of a non-ownership based world of environmental design from an anarchist perspective. I went to great lengths to complete equality of people, they act to try to mitigate against the exploitation, convey from the literature how and why I might take this perspective. Others alienation, and dehumanization which ownership causes, particularly that which contemporarily who engage in writing may stay withconventional ownership-based private capitalism causes. perspectives which rest heavy in shared social assumptions. As this thesis aims at Manual Castells has written, “The planning idea, in its modern expression, definition and clarity, I can only hope that this endeavor will aid in future research in came out from the movement of social reform aimed at mitigating the human cost of the fields of planning and design to help provide an added voice of challenge to capitalist industrialization” (1982, 3). This quote reveals perhaps a great truth that conventional assumptions and their ambiguity, thatsuch a challenge to their morals planners may not always understand, that their jobis about mitigating capitalism – would help them to find a stronger, more grounded orientation. but they may also not understand what the “human cost” of capitalism is, nor how it When I think of the horizon in the distance, the city of total liberation—of is caused. And not revealed by Castells here is that like the private capitalists, they monstrous surreal dreams and living free of any forms of ownership and slavery, I too (planners), as authoritarian owners, are participating in the “human cost.” In the see a new life for the planner and the designer, Isee their motion and movement same article, Castells describes generally some ofthe human divisions and rushing to be more real and true to their moral selves than ever before. Gone will be destabilizing influences of capitalism and said ofthe field, “Planning ... could be a the days of ownership-driven arbitrary and capricious planning to mitigate, and risen truly innovative field in our epoch of crisis” (4). These are strong words, “epoch of from the slain beast of oppression will be the living arbitrary of one’s own soul — crisis,” and, as will be argued, thiscrisis is caused by ownership. the sole desire to know, without definitions, justto know difference, and to know it This is imperative to understand as the job of a planner today as set forth in without limits, to know life without limits. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company (1926) 71 L.Ed. 303 is to uphold the “health, safety, morals, and general welfare” of the people — that is, while simultaneously preserving and enhancing capital investments. So, the planner acts as a mitigator against the ills of dehumanization, exploitation and societal divisions that capitalism brings, while simultaneously helping tofacilitate the spreading and strengthening of that capitalist exploitation. This is a cause of much grief and cognitive dissonance for the planner, that they are trying to do several contradictory things at once, mitigate exploitation while allowing it to occur, and in this way and 68 5 other ways they are participating in and perpetuating the exploitation and social As well, as it is a universal principle that all meaning is a function of inequalities themselves. Much current planning literature discusses this very thin line unique differentiation, this single idea has the potential to transcend these fields of that the practicing planner walks (Innes de Neufville 1983, Lim 1986, Healey 1992, environmental design, and be applicable to all forms of living. Its interdisciplinary Hillier 1995, Campbell 2006, Hoch 2006), but very few appear to debate, discuss, or nature may have far reaching effects that as planners and designers, we ought to be bring into question ownership itself, nor its children, capitalism and government aware of. Certainly if one understands how meaningis created for people, one can (Ward 1990). Among postmodern planning theorists has appeared discussion logically draw inferences into creating multitudesof meaningful possibilities in concerning the ills of capitalism and government, but no discussion is present of other realms of application too. how we might move toward their abandonment even toward anarchy, what that day Remarkably, there are so many ways of increasing the uniqueness of a might look like, and what theory might guide us then. This will be discussed in more location or anything to increase its perceptual meaning. Surely one could come up detail later, but some do appear to see postmodernism as a door leading to this with endless combinations of unique perceptions — all heightening meaning all the anarchy, but few, if any, speak of crossing that threshold. Such is a symptom of more. being in an ocean of ownership, drowning beneath the waves, and failing to ————— recognize that one should swim, and even fly free. So, where instincts are failing, to help aid in filling this great void with The Image of the City proposes many ideas, I believe this analysis sheds a dialogue, and to help understand how this circle of ownership versus anarchy fresh light on the vista of planning and Lynchian place theory. It helps expand the functions, the theories of Karl Marx and FriedrichEngels during the nineteenth constituents of Lynch’s image to a new level, to understand it as being applicable to century and Marxist thinkers to present may additionally help one to understand postmodernism, anarchy, attachment theory, and to current planning practices, but planning and design theory today and the “crisis” of our times. Capitalism itself most cumulatively it brings clarification to how orientation occurs and how the value systematically allows things to beowned as private property. Marxist theory reveals of human meaning morally springs out of that orientation. how human exploitation and societal divisions occur as a function of capitalism, as a function of implemented ownership. ————— In Capitalism, everything, including human beings,is owned and thus everything carries an exchange value. These constructs ofownership and its facilitator,quantified exchange, create a shockwave affecting nearly every part of how people behave in and how they think about themselves and the world. Ownership also resultantly affects us by dividing society, alienating us into unequal economic classes, genders, ethnicities, and religions. Of these unequal divisions, planners and other environmental designers are given the task of mitigating against them. Below is explainedhow ownership causes these inequalities. In the following quote, Marx and Engels speak of how human beings are de-humanized by boiling their existence down to a cold, heartless exchange value. [Capitalism] has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies [of life] ... in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefensible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. (Marx and Engels 1972, 475) In capitalism, human beings become exchangeable commodities. They are bought and sold and exploited as “wage slaves” unto thosewho own (205). Their lives are stretched thin, working long hours for little pay,and when they return to their dwellings, they must pay other owners to dwell. Thus, in this world of exchange, society becomes divided into classes of owners and non-owners, who, caught up in the divisive, unequal quantification of their lives, develop other perspectives on their existence which further divide them: 6 67