Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay - Arkitektur- og designhÃ¸gskolen i ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I A L I N T E R P L A Y P A R T 2is related to the way it contrasts the weary architectural environments of theneighborhood. She ascribes this contrast symbolic meaning related to powerrelations.A focus on more pragmatic issues at FurusetNeither aesthetics nor architectural style is explicitly mentioned in any of theinterviews from Furuset – neither from this layer nor from any of the otherlayers. None of the informants from Furuset that mentioned architecturalqualities (building type, lay out, spatial organization, two ways thru-litapartment, balconies etc.) in relation to their domestic choices did actuallyuse the term “architecture”. Besides, at Furuset, the architectural qualitieswere – without exception – related to prize and size in comparison with otherurban areas in Oslo.“When we moved here from Tøyen three years ago, we wereable to buy a 4-room apartment with two balconies and anelevator for the same amount as we sold our old 2-roomapartment at Tøyen. (…) But the buildings around here are atragedy, too dense and too dark” (#416). ”The size of theapartment and the balconies, the flexible layout, and the factthat the building and the whole satellite town was new wasimportant when we moved here in 1979” (#311). “The size ofthe apartment, the price and the flexible layout were reasonsfor choosing this apartment when we moved from Tøyen someyears ago” (#207).Some also comment upon pragmatic details related to how the architectureaffects everyday social life in an apartment building:“We really appreciate that apartments are better insulated herethan what was the case in the building we lived in at Tøyen:There we could hear our neighbors turning in bed at night,coughing, and even overhear details when they were arguing orteaching their children manners. (…) Too much knowledgeabout each other’s private sphere made it difficult to socializewith neighbors in the backyard, I guess we all preferred to dealwith each other as strangers” (#416 406 )At Furuset internal architectural differences in relation to areas containingdifferent housing types – i.e. the difference between the denser high rise area406 Quote from interviewer’s hand notes to the transcribed interview.282
R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I A L I N T E R P L A Y P A R T 2close to the tube and the Furuset senter, the row-house hamlets and the oldersingle family houses surrounding the satellite town – are mobilized for socialdistinction and also used as symbolic markers of steps in domestic careers:Some of the informants from the row house-hamlets and single family housesdistinguish their neighborhood “we” from the denser housing units in thecenter-area. The denser area is described as “the local problem area” incontrast to their own well-functioning neighborhood. Quite a few of theinformants from this area do not include the denser Furuset senter-area intheir neighbourhood map drawings (#313, #423, #425, #429). On the otherhand, some of the informants from the denser apartment block-area at Furusetsenter described ambitions of moving to the adjacent area of semi-detachedand single family houses (#418, #420, #416, #108, #207).Descriptions of domestic choices and patterns in practices related toarchitectural differences between the three study areasEnvironmental socio-spatial qualities that can be related to how differentarchitectural systems are spatially organized to accommodate for a certainrange of socio-spatial practices and a certain repertoire of encountersituations is addressed by informants from all three study areas – asrec<strong>og</strong>nition and distinction of environmental qualities that support desiredlife conducts or a life style they identify themselves with. The patterns ofdifferences in the description of possibilities and constraints for realization ofdesired socio-spatial practices is different in the three study areas, and so arealso the strategies for dealing with what is described as lacking orproblematic in the neighborhoods: Some local lacks and shortcomings arecompensated by easy access to other destinations within the urban landscape,other local problems or lacks are dealt with in other ways. There are alsopatterns of differences related to how informants that have families describethe effort to balance the different interest of the family members. Informantsfrom all three study areas describe their choice of neighbourhood as a choicerelated to issues of centrality, but the descriptions of in what way thedifferent study areas represent centrality for a chosen way of life vary, both interms of proximity of favored functions and related to communications.Independence from using a private motor car in everyday life is emphasizedas a quality in all three study areas, but in different ways.Grünerløkka - street life, park life and a complete “village” in the cityIn Grünerløkka, informants describe that their domestic choices are related tofeatures such as easy access to public street life and park life, easy access toshopping and entertainment, and the existence of “social diversity” in thearea. Many informants address the quality of dense co-presence and hastynon-confronting encounters with strangers in public space, as well as social283
Page 1 and 2:
CON • TEXTHilde HaslumReading Soc
Page 3:
CON • TEXTTil Mikkel, Nora og Hau
Page 6 and 7:
R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242: R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I
Page 291: R E A D I N G S O C I O - S P A T I
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375:
show all

Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay - Arkitektur- og designhÃ¸gskolen i ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?