According to the minutes from a recent Stirling Council Planning and Development Comittee meeting, the boundary codes, the residential codes for Dianella "require[...] a minimum of 60% open space", in the context of the redevelopment of a Jewish aged care hostel. The R-codes have several abstracts revolving entirely around the concept of open space and attempt to legally ensure its existence.
It seems as if the nature of law and the intricantly subjective details of its conception produce a mulifaceted relationship with the concept of open space and its usage. Local councils have a duty to provide the public with open space for purely altruistic reasons due to their role as government policy application stations. Alternatively, one could view their role as the regulation of population psychology, with open spaces providing greater freedom of thought via freedom of movement. But the strenghtening of their relationship with private investment conflicts with their interests in providing in the public by changing the subject who they are responsible for from citizens to enterprises and corporate entities. This conflict can be viewed as a threat to certain democratic processes by prioritising hierarchial structures over public dialogue. A series of conflicts between public open space and corporate takeovers of public land is a possible subject for later projects
No comments:
Post a Comment