Buchanan And Monderman Essay
Compare and contrast the modernist and flexible approaches to the ordering of traffic.
Public spaces are places which we have to share with others and where people apply shared values. Social order is very important within people’s lives and it is about how people co exist with others and material things around them. ‘Social order is constantly having to be remade’ (Silva, 2009, P. 311) especially as it provides rules, norms and expectations that enable people to go about their daily life.
The road traffic and the design of streets is just one of the examples of social order. Social order is not the same everywhere and is adapted for purpose. With the increase ‘of the motor vehicle, traffic experts emerged and the institutions concerned …show more content…
However both these approaches have some things in common for example both of them wanted to improve social life be re designing space. Both of them wanted to increase security for individuals and create their own authority in the process of authorising social order. Also another common connection between both Buchanan and Monderman is that they ‘used site maps, statistics, photos, reports and interviews’ (Silva, 2009 P. 345) as a basis to create there image of how urban life should be …show more content…
Ideas about the making of social order have been discussed on how they shape public space. Neither of these two approaches are perfect however they are important in their own way. Buchanan’s ideas have been ruling for a long time but Monderman’s offers source of inspiration and practical support. Both approaches are very different but both show ideas of our social imaginary, which is how people, as individuals fit together with each other and also with things which they want to have or use. Goffman and Foucalt also bring a good source of ideas of social order on what society is. Goffman place human interaction at the centre of his study but with Foucalt’s uses ‘fields of knowledge and power’ (Silva, 2009, P. 323) as the central
Public spaces are places which we have to share with others and where people apply shared values. Social order is very important within people’s lives and it is about how people co exist with others and material things around them. ‘Social order is constantly having to be remade’ (Silva, 2009, P. 311) especially as it provides rules, norms and expectations that enable people to go about their daily life.
The road traffic and the design of streets is just one of the examples of social order. Social order is not the same everywhere and is adapted for purpose. With the increase ‘of the motor vehicle, traffic experts emerged and the institutions concerned …show more content…
However both these approaches have some things in common for example both of them wanted to improve social life be re designing space. Both of them wanted to increase security for individuals and create their own authority in the process of authorising social order. Also another common connection between both Buchanan and Monderman is that they ‘used site maps, statistics, photos, reports and interviews’ (Silva, 2009 P. 345) as a basis to create there image of how urban life should be …show more content…
Ideas about the making of social order have been discussed on how they shape public space. Neither of these two approaches are perfect however they are important in their own way. Buchanan’s ideas have been ruling for a long time but Monderman’s offers source of inspiration and practical support. Both approaches are very different but both show ideas of our social imaginary, which is how people, as individuals fit together with each other and also with things which they want to have or use. Goffman and Foucalt also bring a good source of ideas of social order on what society is. Goffman place human interaction at the centre of his study but with Foucalt’s uses ‘fields of knowledge and power’ (Silva, 2009, P. 323) as the central