The Liturgy of the City and the Romance of Ruins

[thomryng]

I'd be very interested in what people think of this article. It's a little long, but it's well worth reading. It attempts to answer the question, Exactly why is it that good cities are, in general, such a rarity in America?

I'm particularly interested in what people of various faith backgrounds think (and yes, Corey, that includes you Atheists).

Yes, the article is written from a Catholic viewpoint, but please try to see beyond the specific jargon employed. This article touches on some things I've been thinking about a long time which were crystallized by reading The Way of All Flesh: The Romance of Ruins and by my experiences in Rome.

What makes a place human at all? What, for that matter, makes us truly human?

And where, in today's utilitarian, almost uniformly awful world of economics, real estate development and design, does one find anything that a human being can love? And where, finally, can we get some relief from the one-sided nonsense, promoted ad nauseum by pious capitalists, that the structure of one's surroundings means nothing, and that absolutely everything depends on consumer demand, on the 'individual'?

Comments

[gaelfarce.livejournal.com]

Well I agree that building aren't being built to last anymore and that's been the case for a few hundred years. Some of the assumptions are a bit far-fetched such as the assumption that beauty is liturgical rather than the liturgy being at times beautiful.

[thomryng.livejournal.com]

I think the authors are focusing on "liturgical" rather than a specific liturgy, a process rather than an event.

Touchstone quotes:

Liturgical form, first of all, is embodied. That is, it is a physical thing rather than an abstract idea.

Liturgy is communal. It's something we do for each other, and in the process become "we" instead of "I".

Liturgical time is rhythmic, cyclical and unhurried. It's about connection, rather than profit. The liturgical doesn't exist exclusively within the present moment. Its every 'present moment' is immersed in historical time and pierced by the eternal.

In contrast, Why is the ideology of the unfettered "free market" anti-liturgical? Because it negates gift, denies time, and trivializes (or simply destroys) right form.

[vonjunzt.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting article. I think it's ironic that first, when speaking of New Orleans, the author seems to be talking about cities for people to visit, while the rest of the article seems to be talking about cities for people to live in. There is a big difference.

I think the rootlessness of Americans runs deep, however, and I think property taxes are also to blame. I remember reading a study of nineteenth century demographics, which talked about small towns in New England, I believe. The article showed that the number of inhabitants of any small town even at that date remained largely the same, but if you actually looked at the censuses (censi?) very few of those individuals were the same individuals who had lived in the town just decades before. Neighborhoods seem to change on decadal time scales, and property values have a lot to do with it. I think taxes force people to move more than those who level an entire block and build something new. From what I've seen, gentrification happens piecemeal -- bits and pieces get remodeled, often not destroyed at all, and this raises rents and property taxes until people are forced to move.

I think the author also might make more of one of Jacob's "keys": "Short blocks to encourage weaving patterns of pedestrian use." I think that's largely what America lacks. I remember years ago, when I was taking a course on Islam given by an architect, when I read an article about the Islamic City. At least before motor traffic -- and still in those cities which remain from the Middle Ages -- the cities had winding streets, with mosques frequently breaking up the landscape. Heading to any particular place, you had all sorts of mini-destinations to reach, which also helped create a sense of unity to the city. The mosques also had courtyards, which allowed a casual place where a traveller could rest and meet people. The lack of those mini-destinations and the fact that thoroughfares exist which allow a person to get from one end of a city to another without stopping are what break up communities.

I think the money issue really hits the nail on the head. The "white flight" to the suburbs and the fact that in many cities people don't want to or can't afford to live in the neighborhoods in which they work, probably contribute to the lack of community. Also, the fact that people now change careers (and therefore workplaces) several times in their lives no doubt does this as well.

I imagine the high price of gas will soon lead to something entirely new, though I don't know if it'll mean more inhabitant-friendly cities or not.

Some random thougts

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

There is a book called 'The English' by Jeremy Paxman, which has a fair chunk dedicated to why most English cities are so soulless.

They are never considered as such because people think Brit city = London or Oxford or Cambridge, Edinburgh and Glasgow...but most cities in Britain are (and always were) fairly horrible, born out of huddling lots of people together close to factories, abysmal dirty places where the Church, be it RC or English, never found its heart; and philanthropy was mixed with pity but also a revulsion towards the poor.

Then came bombs and no money to rebuild - and finally when rebuilding happened, it was at minimum cost; so we have generic high streets, uniform housing estates and banal town planning.

Spirituality can make a place beautiful, but equally a beautiful place can inspire people; we stopped building like that a long time ago, if we ever did build intentional beauty - those streets we find so charming now were filled with offal and excrement in their day.

There is the argument that the Church's work is where desperation and need are at their height; where people seek god because they can't hope for anything else. But spirituality born out of a need to escape an ugly world surely is Marx's 'Opium of the masses'.

What is needed is imagination, an empathy with people's needs, and money dedicated to those principles as opposed to creating profit. Social improvement doesn't require religion; but may create conditions in which the soul can aspire.

a voice from the smog

[black-felt-hat.livejournal.com]

In Los Angeles, almost the entire city population lives without roots. Our family lived for about eleven years in an apartment (we were it's longest residing family). Our neighbors changed every month, only one family in that time bought a home. Homes here are just too expensive for anyone living on an average income, even condos are out of the question. I am a big fan of co-housing communities, (one day I hope to live in one) but co-housing, even with it's humanity and wisdom, has little impact on the problems of creating income.

In LA, people work when and where they can and move when they must. The bus system is comical in it's inefficiency; people must drive to get to work. Two and three hour commutes are commonplace. Outside this house, the street is so congested with traffic it rivals most freeways in other states.

It is not considered necessary for the poor to be allowed to be human.

There are three light rail systems in LA, but their placement makes them useless for anyone not employed as a day worker or domestic. They do not connect suburbs to urban centers, they connect ghettos to the back doors of the wealthy. Even their origin is cruel: they were built by a Japanese firm, while unemployed American auto workers watched from their tent cities.

If I understand the article correctly, it's view is that the problems of the city start with our hearts. I agree. This is the view of Nichiren Buddhism too; that the problems in our enviornment can be solved by transforming our inner selves first.

One of my heros in this life is a math professor and former Mayor of Bogota, Prof. Mockus:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/03.11/01-mockus.html Mayor Mockus said that the problems of the modern city can only be addressed by artists. He saw the artist as teacher, using humor and humanity to change the focus of the population from greed to good manners.

I like this discussion. I think it's very cool that you started it. The article makes some very good points and asks some very good questions. For a non-Catholic though (and an ex-Catholic at that), staying on topic got a little difficult due not so much to the perspective, but the language. This was not made easier by the flashing banner on the side of the screen.

[zator.livejournal.com]

I think it comes down to peoples own perception of beauty. Why, in Lacey, there are thousands of of brand new homes on postage stamp lots going for over $400,000 while 20 minutes away there are better built homes being buillt on acre-and-a-half lots going for $250,000. Where do you think people are buying houses?

In America, we have always had a hard time dealing with history because we weren't in it. Here, we celebrate builldings like the one that I work in that is 100 years old. In cities like Paris, that would be considered very young indeed.

Couple that with the idea that the things we build *must* be "sexy" now. Those $400,000 homes are being sold because they look sexy. They may fall apart in 30 to 50 years, but now, hoo boy.

In a free enterprise market, things are consumer driven. You must either a) provide what the consumer wants, or b) try to convince the consumer that they want your product. While lately option b has become very effective because of the number of resources that can be thrown to it, option a has historically been the easiest way to go. And America wants instant satisfaction. They care not for longevity, nor do they care how much money they spend on sexy items. Hence, developers develop with that in mind - beauty before function. Building longevity costs. Building in a liturgical way costs. And if the general consumer doesnt care about it, why shrink your profit margin?

Generally, we don't care about longevity. Once in a while, we will consider our retirement, but the thoughts flee as we buy our iPods, or razor phones, or laptops, or broadband internet service, or clothes, or cars, or anything else. And we buy it on credit, because we cant be bothered to save.

We are sliding toward destiny - and this article just makes that point.

blah blah blah

[sistermeg.livejournal.com]

I suppose I agree, but I find it a little heavy handed - in the Reign of God we won't need liturgy because all will be "liturgical" so to speak. And yeah, it would be great if some of the principles of liturgy were applied to urban planning, but I'm not sure I'm sold on the presentation.