To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Alexander Wiley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alexander Wiley
Alexander Wiley.jpg
United States Senator
from Wisconsin
In office
January 3, 1939 – January 3, 1963
Preceded byF. Ryan Duffy
Succeeded byGaylord Nelson
Personal details
Born(1884-05-26)May 26, 1884
Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
DiedOctober 26, 1967(1967-10-26) (aged 83)
Germantown, Pennsylvania
NationalityAmerican
Political partyRepublican
Alma materUniversity of Michigan
OccupationAttorney, Politician

Alexander Wiley (May 26, 1884 – October 26, 1967) was a Republican who served four terms in the United States Senate for the state of Wisconsin from 1939 to 1963. When he left the Senate, he was its most senior Republican member.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    4 581
    546
  • ✪ The Countryside I: Ruralism
  • ✪ Crown Prince Olav and Crown Princess Martha of Norway visit La Crosse, Wisconsin

Transcription

Too many of you know this book called The Country and the City. Has anybody read it? I was asked to ask you. No? I think there are a few people who are nodding their heads. So that's great. So other people will touch a little bit about Raymond Williams, but Raymond Williams was actually professor, scholar who taught at Cambridge. But he also came from this Border Country that he mentioned between Wales and England and wrote many, many different books on a variety of different subjects from technology to communication. But this book, The Country and the City, remains, really, his best-known book which was published in 1973. And as you saw in the video-- which you can see on YouTube, and I recommend. It's a really wonderful-- it's a kind of period piece. It's very comforting to sit there and watch a film like that-- is that he, of course, dealt with this relationship between the city and the country. And I don't know how many of you were there in this room at lunchtime when Chris Lee gave a presentation about his studio from last year. But obviously, this kind of theme of how we now deal with whatever is this phenomenon called the country-- which in many ways is defined very differently in different countries, in different places-- it is an issue that really merits serious scholarship and serious focus. Over the last few years, there have been a number of studios that have somehow touched on this. Last year, we had the studio that was in Basel with Jacques Herzon and Pierre De Meuron that was dealing with this idea of the Swiss landscape and the whole expansion of the Basel territory into the Swiss country or in the suburbs and so on and so forth, and the whole concept of the stopping that process, and so on. And then, of course, we've had the China experiment with the urbanization of the countryside that Chris's studio dealt with. And I suspect, in some way or other, the proposed studio that Rem Koolhaas will offer in Rotterdam in the spring will also, in a way, deal with these issues. I feel that, as a school, it's really important for us to be addressing this. And as I said at lunchtime, it's also the whole way in which the city, or the concept of planning, has been dealing with the regional issue has always been an important part. And recently, we haven't really been discussing it in such an explicit fashion, even though some of our own faculty, like Richard Forman, have always been at the forefront of seeing, for example, the study of cities in the context of a much broader regional setting. So we want to use tonight in order to open up this discussion, this topic. And also, we have some wonderful people who I think will help us analyze the nuances of difference, because this is also no longer just such a pure situation of the dualism between the city and the country and recognizing the interrelationship of the two. I think there are many subtle differences, in terms of how the word itself is used. And so we're using this concept of ruralism as a way to get at something that is not quite the same as the urban in a way, and to see, what are the ways in which we as an institution have to study the topic. We have invited Frederic Bonnet from France to do, in a way, a main lecture for about 30 minutes. Frederic is joint partner in a firm called Obras which is dealing with a great deal with urban issues. But he is really addressing this question of urban design and the management of the territory in the French context-- where the word territory also mean something, really, much bigger than sometimes the way that we use that word-- as well as, of course, teaching in a number of schools in France and in Switzerland. He's also about to come out with a number of publications that, in some form or other, will relate to these topics. After Frederic, we are going to have very brief statements from Anita Berrizbeitia, that you know as our chair of the Department of Landscape Architecture and as someone who's really worked a lot on the whole issue landscape from a theoretical perspective. And it's obvious that she has a great deal to share with us on this topic. After Anita, we'll hear from my Neil Brenner, and you know Neil and all his emphasis on planetary urbanization and thinking about the big picture. So I think it's great that we here a different kind of perspective from Neil. And, as you know, Neil also has it as a lab, which is called the Urban Theory Lab, so I think that this work also relates to some of the work that he's been doing in the lab Chris Lee-- many of you were here, but Chris has a firm that's called Serie and operates in London and in Mumbai, and is also an associate professor in practice here at the GSD where he's been doing three years of studios focusing on different urban conditions in China. And he will be back in the spring with a new format of option studios. So we're also looking forward to that. And finally, we'll hear from Professor John Dixon Hunt, who is also teaching in the Department of Landscape Architecture. John is really one of the foremost thinkers coming from a background in English entering the arena of landscape. He is a former chair of the Department of Landscape Architecture at University of Pennsylvania, but is also extremely knowledgeable on the literary dimension of landscape, and I think also, specifically, in relation to, let's say, the historic condition of the texts like the one of Raymond Williams. I'm sure he will also have some very exciting and interesting thoughts to share with us. So that will be the sequence. So without any further delay, would you please welcome Frederic who will start with his presentation. [applause] Well, thank you so much for this invitation to our important debate. I call this short lecture [? latent ?] [? values ?] of [? hidden villages. ?] You will discover why. I think economical questions is the basis of my scope tonight-- to talk about this rural question, the contrast in economic conditions-- economic in the large extent, I mean, not only the values and financial questions, but also the way people just work together, exchange knowledges, exchange working powers, and transformation processes. I think this is really in the heart of what we're talking about when we talk about rural versus urban. It's just, of course, the architects probably-- I am very glad to be asked to talk about this ruralism, even if the -ism is not. But anyway, during decay, is the architects have been involved, clearly, in metropolitan questions-- megapolis, urban areas. We have many, many exhibitions. This is only one example here in [inaudible] with those maps. You see the comparison of big metropolis in the world. There's no context. There's no sea, no mountain, no natural areas, now background, no [inaudible] land, nothing around. As some big city like New York, or San Paulo, or Beijing could be just analyzed only with these built structure and infrastructure, never thinking about the rest, which is around and [? intricated ?] somehow. So, of course, this -ism-- we were talking just before about context. There is something I was wondering when I came here about the -ism, which is a kind of danger because I'm among the teachers who think that we are now far away from these kind of doctrines, who try to define definitive statements about the reality we as architects are talking about-- I think the [? new merits ?] of context. This morning we had this lecture, very interesting lecture, about China which showed how far can be the context, and how different can be the attitude, and the process [inaudible] we may put in inaction when we start to design or to think about the development of the territory. So I just wanted to mention that-- for example, I will talk about France, not about China, over countries as well but, basically focused in Europe, the context that I know better-- just wanted to mention the fact that there is a deep relationship between economic resources and what we call urban areas. It means the influence areas where people are working through the city every morning. For example, they go to take the car or take the train and go to the city working, even if they live in the landscape which looks like being countryside-like, with fields and forests and something like that. So you have the colored areas, or the urban areas, which means that in the white, we don't have wilderness. It's not like the United States. In France, everything is occupied, inhabited. Europe is very tight and very full of people everywhere. But in the white areas, there are people living with very different conditions. As you can see, this is their income on the right, average income. That fits, more or less. That matches. And if we talk about European context, it also means that what we call rural is a place where you can live with 1,000 euros with the same quality of life, more or less, as what you would have it we're 5,000-- five times more-- in Paris, for example, or in [inaudible]. But it doesn't mean that you're poorer, it only means that the global context you're living in allows you to live with much less money. So the question of value-- financial value-- the difference between financial value is not exactly meaning the level of wealth, in terms on quality of life and lifestyles. Which means that there might be specific processes that allow this low-cost, let's say, lifestyle with different processes that I will commend afterwards. I just add this. If we talk about more eastern Europe where people earn several million dollars a month, or a day, perhaps. We've resources that depict from rural countries. And those people who are, let's say, working with rule resources are exactly the one who can afford the $50 million flat in Manhattan, for example. That's exactly the kind of contrast we have, we think, worldwide, between the poorest areas and the global financial flows, anyway. So country size-- well, I just put the text in case somebody wants afterwards to end up doing to commend the text. First about the ideal-- I want focus on the ideal, which is more about planning, about the conception we may have about the complementarity between territories, between the metropolitan areas and the rural areas, and the fact that they have common resources. And by the way, perhaps, now it is, I think this rural debate has something to do with the ecological challenges we are facing now, because the cities are facing a deep ecological crisis, or they will face a deep ecological crisis in the following years. And they have to take into account food questions, water resources, the question of flood, of risk management, the question no biodiversity, the question of climatic effect that forests and natural surrounding may have on their development. So it means that they have-- the big cities have to take concern of what happens around. And that's probably because of that we are coming back to the this. This is from the late '60s, from [? ian ?] [inaudible]. You probably know, of course, where he had this thinking, for example, to talking about Washington not as only a city, an urban area, but having this Potomac basin concern with the analysis of all the resources it can provide to the city. What we do, for example, in France, we had this experience of risk management large-scale thinking when-- here, this in [inaudible], an inhabited area, of course, where countryside is mixed with urban establishments. And we have this valley which is all agriculture, which is very often flooded by the river. And the idea was to introduce-- the problem with the flood is that the agriculture which is there is not resilient enough to be [? rentable, ?] to be able to survive. We [? want ?] [? the help of ?] some urban added value. It means that the if you consider all the agricultural activity, it is not enough to survive, because it's been destroyed very often by the floods. So the only way to imagine development of this area with better value is to take profit of this difficult condition. This is a risk map-- fire in red, water in blue. It means that you cannot have any city in the blue, neither on the red. And this is [? robert chan's ?], then the problem. If you consider that you can use these agricultural plane not only as a productive area, but also as a urban facility for the people living around it in the white zone, which is not touched by the risk. As leisure-- so this is the other thing that the solidarity implies with the territory is that the people from the city, they use this countryside as leisure area, l which devalues somehow to this. We also work with such kind of things, for example, this metropolitan area of Nantes in Western France where most of the area is rural, like that one. Trying to introduce projects, so it means that this is also a new project for the architects, which are not only the project for the village, but a project for the village which is also helpful, useful for the metropolis at the metropolitan scale. So it means that even the role of the architect becomes different, because you have a small project whose purpose is not only for the people living around in a small circle, but for all the people, the half million or 1 million persons working and living in the 150 kilometers around who are able to use those facilities. So the nature of the commission is changing. And this, I think, changes the world process of the way architects act on the territory. You have a client, but actually, it's the village. But then the use is much wider, which takes into account, let's say, the fact that-- this is an image you probably know from [inaudible]-- the fact that countryside is full of [? overactivities ?] in agriculture. So the idea that this kind of marriage we automatically do between agriculture and countryside is totally false. It's sort of obsolete. I want to make a few comments about Switzerland. There used to be a deep tradition about the interdependence between natural resources and infrastructures and urban areas in Switzerland coming from the '20s, with this [inaudible] who has been a teacher of many well known architects like [? dinner, ?] [? the father of Roger Dinner, ?] pupil of [inaudible] where they had this-- we are in the '20s-- and they already have this focus of thinking the city together with the green areas, with the countryside, with the fields, that are some around, and give value, and gave facilities to the urban life. This tradition has been developed a lot, even if it is full of paradox, like in this famous article [? andre corbeau, ?] the geographer, did about in the magazine, Le Visiteur, which was made by Sebastian Marot, that you probably know. But the Swiss is [? hypercity, ?] a mix between countryside and cities, so [? intricated ?] that finally it works like a huge metropolis. With those phone books of two main cities, Geneva and Zurich, who are very urban, and you can see the covers are fields, which is kind of strange imagination. And the fact that Swiss is precisely a paradoxal example, very contemporary, where the idea of landscape is very present everywhere; where, indeed, most of the land is held and controlled by things who are not urban, or not [inaudible] agricultural; and at the same time, is totally integrated in the most dynamic economical zone in Europe with a lot of flows. Something that you were talking about, this work of [inaudible] Basel studio. The interesting thing is that, probably, their work contributed-- their work, who really focused on the interdependence of the territories and the way this balance is very fragile-- somehow probably contributed to the new law that they just voted two years ago about the fact that [inaudible] has to stop somehow. Just-- let's say, trying to imagine that every part of the territory, from the most empty to the most active, from the center of Zurich station, for example-- very active-- to the top of the mountain is totally [inaudible] as the part of the body. If something disappears, everything collapses somehow. But, of course, this depends on the very sophisticated balance, which is also financial. In Switzerland, this is very important. And this begins-- for example, in France, now I'm working with the government about that. They've put a new [? idea of ?] the contract between territories that metropolitan areas like [inaudible] for example, in Paris, would pay for certain facilities to rural areas, would somehow give them services, because of water, because of nature, because of food, or because of pleasure. So this idea of contract, which is not exactly the same as having the tax collected by the state and then the repartition, which is something very abstract, which is the idea of the traditional republican ideas that the wealth is governed and there is a repartition of wealth everywhere. But the idea is that you take contracts, which means that you assume, somehow, the fact that the countrysides around you, or near you, is giving you some services. Of course, in Switzerland, the mobility question is very important. In Switzerland, this works because the mobility system is extremely urban and metropolitan. It's like to take the metro in the middle of nowhere. And this is the unique condition, why this system is working like that. This is very important to mention. Mobility is strategic. And this is the main program in rural question, how to imagine the [? mobility ?] for the future. Here, just [? apprentice ?] I wanted to mention the fact that [inaudible] which has been critiqued so recently, so strongly. There was this idea clearly explained on the first and fourth and second and third chapter. I don't want to promote [inaudible] but anyway, that's been eight years ago. And it was clearly talking about this interdependence and solidarity between territories, between hinterland and cities. The second focus is, shortly-- I try to be short, sorry-- is the fact that there is a mutual inventive condition about building, about the way to build between countryside and cities. This invention is due of a very different way of working together. You know the carpenter. He's your neighbor. And there is-- this changes everything. And what I want to mention is not the traditional nostalgic idea of craftsmanship, but the very interesting idea about [? hybridization-- ?] [? hybridization ?] between-- as many Swiss architects do, in other cities as well, in other countries as well-- [inaudible] between local resources and [? this ?] metropolitan [inaudible] house. This man, [inaudible] an architect from [inaudible] the Mountain in Switzerland, he works with the local carpenters, with look over sowers, sow mills. You know, each tree is cutting and using in the building. But he also works with [? young ?] [? concept, ?] which is one of the most urban sophisticated engineer in Switzerland working on big infrastructures in cities like Zurich and so on, exactly the kind of engineer that could be in Boston doing [inaudible] stuff, probably. So exactly, I mean, a worldwide metropolitan global engineer, high level of knowledge, nothing to do with the tradition, and he works together with this architect, and they provide new solutions. That's it, both of them working together providing new constructive solutions. Most of the recent experimentation about eco-effecient buildings have been held in such context-- with new materials, with alternative way of mixing this kind of high-level engineering coming from the cities and the traditional craftsmanship of people working with a other kind of sources like earth, wood, and so on. Even here, the [? young ?] [inaudible] in France, the most awarded architect, is precisely in the rural context last year. He won three of the major prizes, and he's just working in villages, which is also in this experimental focus. Myself-- when we also can do [? reverse-- ?] when we had to do with this urban design in the center of a city of 200,000 inhabitants, before designing, we begin to survey 50 kilometers around in the countryside, all the resources available. And it was a aware choice. And we gathered 25 building companies, some of them urban, some of them rural, in this parameter. And we did the project with those people. It was public commission, so it was a kind of trick to do that. But we tried to-- for us, it wasn't a question of being ecologically efficient, or to shorten the journey of material just to lower, and that it wasn't because of that. It was more just an experiment just to say, OK, we have a region. In this region, there are certain know-hows. We are going to do the project with those know-hows, just to know what happens. And most of the companies were working, small companies-- they are in the countryside, by the way-- they were like [inaudible] but also the glass factories or steel factories exactly settled in the middle of the coast. And we always try to maintain in our activity a commission like that, which is very simple, something so modest that it disappears into landscape square for a village, and maintaining at the same time, a big urban project that we do in Paris, or whatever. And the context is, because the mean, the level of possible investment in solar, it implies different way of thinking the design. For example, in many plans for urban design we made villages, we tried to do no infrastructure, just to find the exact place where you can develop new housing, new facilites without creating a street. Not because we don't like streets, but because there's such a lack of money in those areas that the process has to be different. The process really has to be different. And what I guess is that this lets a creative context, where you don't have money, so you have to do a lot with almost nothing. Then it can have also a more urban context to be more [? sober ?] and to find new solutions and new options. Then the third-- so the interaction, it means that the experience you have in poorer rural countryside settlements gives you tools to react to give feedback to the most sophisticated, let's say, metropolitan context. Then last, on the cultural level, I wanted to make a few comments about this relationship-- very intricate relationship-- there is between countryside or landscape-- low [? density ?] situations and more urban situations. Metropolitan architect, like Alvar Aalto, which has been building over, even in Boston-- in Cambridge, sorry. He began to do the very rustic houses, inspired clearly from the countryside surrounding he was born in. He was born in a small village in northern Finland. So that's one of his projects that he hid [? during the years. ?] This is made after his death. During his life, he was hiding this production. Before his Viipuri Library, everything we did was hidden. Then it appeared again after, because of historians. And Villa Mairea, which has been long presented during years and years as a villa in the middle of the forest. Villa Mairea is part of an estate which was the heart of an industrial company with the house of the grandfather, the house of-- the kind of estate which was established in the middle of the countryside as a park-- as a kind of romantic park. Exactly the same phenomenon that happened with Palladian system between Veneto and Venezia, and the urban people having their house in the countryside, and the way it transformed totally to urbanize somehow the places and the sights. So this is always very ambiguous. By the way, Aalto has always been ambiguous. We were talking just before the talk about this word 'nature,' which is somehow very-- Aalto had a very strong influence on many architects, [? what ?] the idea that the object in the middle of the landscape. And you can see here, this is from an article of the magazine [inaudible], and this is just after the building-- the Saynatsalo Town Hall-- was made in the early '50s. And the branch here of tree is held by [inaudible] have a hand. This is a cut. This is totally false. This is false-- just for the picture. Or this, like in Viipuri Library, when in '25, when he made the picture for the press, he had the-- this is [inaudible], one of the most famous architects that was an assistant in Aalto's office there. And he was just with the branch- a young student. And then the photograph-- took the picture with frame, so that the building was in the middle of the [inaudible] somehow. And it's been analyzed. That was totally voluntary. That was a kind of marketing-- incredible marketing made by Aalto and his colleagues about this idea of Finnish architecture and nature-- totally lost in nature, which was half based on, of course, actual knowledge of this natural surrounding that the Fins have, but also something which was voluntarily broadcast all over the world, which has created a kind of typology used by many, many-- so many-- people of the building in a countryside context. Same as for ambiguity-- I think it's OK. In Portugal, the main Portuguese architects, which are very urban, let's say, like Alvaro Siza, [? souto de moura, ?] and so on, they were very inspired by work made in the late '50s, early '60s, by modern architects as well, who were making the survey of countryside architecture, which is Arquitectura Popular em Portugal-- Portuguese Popluar Architecture-- a book in several volumes. You have the traditional farm in the countryside and the project by [? souto de moura. ?] [? souto de moura-- ?] traditional rural architecture. Rural architecture survey made by modern architects-- they were [inaudible] and so on when they did that. Tavora-- Fernando Tavora was one of them and [? souto de moura. ?] Traditional architecture-- Alvaro Siza together with Tavora here. So there was a deep [? intucation ?] between the idea of typologies coming from countryside and the way they were used in an urban context, or, more exactly, not [inaudible], not transferred straight from that context, but let's say [? hybridized ?] somewhat-- transformed, which is going on. For example, when they made this dam in southern Portugal, they made a competition [inaudible] was a mixture between Europe, European Union paying the studies-- a lot of money because of the dam. The rural context-- very, very rural before the dam-- and the fact that they made a completion at the national level in Portugal, where the two young architects were former collaborators of [? souta de moura ?] and Tavora. And they made this building with the local quarry, exactly the same what I was saying-- local quarry in the very poor conditions-- together with the engineers they were working with, when they were working in Tavora's office and Siza's office and [? souta ?] [? de moura's ?] office. So that was exactly this also mixture between some resources picked around with the people living around, and some people brought from another context and that [? makes ?] a kind of hybrid intermediate architecture, which, after, gives feedback to [? other ?] [? situations. ?] That's a kind of permanent creation. When Frampton made the book, the article about modern regionalism, he didn't mention this book made just in the '30s about the [inaudible]. It was a book made by a [? burmese ?] urban architect leaving in [inaudible]. It what was then totally rural. It was [inaudible] before with [inaudible] and so on. It was in the '30s. And explaining the relationship between modern references coming from Berlin in Germany, basically, when modern acts were coming from the cities-- from Berlin, from Munchen, from Zurich, from Berne, experimenting new situation in this totally rural area, which was very poor, by the way, just before the war. It was totally empty of people, apart from some spots which some people coming from Zurich. And the slow [? hybridization ?] of topologies and elements of architecture crossed during the gates to announce [inaudible], for example, which was like the basis of the modern, contemporary more recent architect movement. We know in this area that the [inaudible] front [? end ?] was commanding about like [? bortre's ?] work, which was also dealing with rural typologies. And I will end with this image. This means that most of the work about architecture, even contemporary architecture, even in urban context, may always be a feedback of something which has been experimented in the countryside's context. There's a book, this book about L'hypothese Aldo Rossi, "the hypothesis of Aldo Rossi." Aldo Rossi taught in ETH in Zurich during a few years, the early '70s. And he was the author of [? architettura ?] de la Citta, "the architecture of the town." But at the same time, he had deep influences on people like [inaudible], his lessons, or indirectly to Quintus Miller, which was the pupil of [? fabio ?] [? reynard, ?] [inaudible], were urban architects, by the way, but were pushed forward by Rossi, but who did their first experiment in rural contexts and who still are. And there is this kind of ambiguity and permanent circulation of [inaudible] typologies, and atmospheres and [? stimmung, ?] as Miller says, between those different the contexts. I think this-- and I will end with this-- this idea of rural can be taken also for architectural design as a source, not of inspiration because it is more complex. But as part of the cycle that goes through bigger cities to smaller villages and so on, mixing and merging more exactly the boundaries who shouldn't be so straight, even in our architecture practice between those contexts will finally are more linked than they seem to be. [applause] So Frederic, thank you very much. There's a lot to pick up. I didn't know you were going to bring it so much to architecture, which is actually interesting how you did bring it so directly to questions of practice. So hopefully, we'll ask you some questions soon. But maybe, Anita, I can start with you. We're going to do ask you for just some quick remarks or comments, positions, sure. I think it's on. It's on, yes. So I will begin by actually contextualizing a little bit of Raymond Williams' documentary, which is to say that he is operating just from the material, ecological point of view in [inaudible] [? tense ?] as temperate landscape to a forest condition. So anything that is not forest there is a product of labor, whether human, animal, or mechanized labor of different forms of institutional management. In other words, implied in everything that he's saying, there's a hierarchy of social and economic classes. And Williams, as you saw, also identifies very precisely the moment when the reception of the countryside as an image in a postcard became divested from this knowledge of the countryside as a product of labor-- that is, [? the ?] [? labor ?] of individuals that made their livelihood there. And it seems that from there on, the tendency has been to obscure what he calls a mutually constitutive relationship between city and country, or center and periphery, or metropolis and hinterland, and instead to focus on them as separate identities whose characteristics appear as consequences of some intrinsic attribute. So we tend to really try to understand what is the intrinsic nature of the rural of the country as opposed to the city. So my position is that it is fundamental that this relationship between city and country remain complex and contradictory. And this is something that needs to be constructed. And it needs going to be constructed by us, by imagining new forms of landscape and architecture in the context of a more complex interplay between social, economic, ecologic and urban systems. So instead of focusing on the intrinsic attributes of either the country or the city, we should be thinking about the countryside as a thickened milieu, where its productive aspects are but only one dimension of many, a countryside that is inhabited, sponsored, managed by many institutions and stakeholders that have vested interest in all of its different aspects. This would include a thick substrate of diverse economies that make it socially viable. And it would ideally enable social mobility in the same way that cities do. Another position is that the question of the relationship between city and country needs to be turned around, and ask what can the country give to the city, other than the products of labor and commodities. And in this sense, many of them can be listed and Frederic has already listed some of them-- thermal control, dissipation of flood risks, mitigation of the effects of heat islands produced in adjacent urban areas, absorption of anthropogenic chemicals produced by the city. The mitigation of unknown risks is something that is emerging as a new service, let's say, that the countryside can provide. Unknown risks-- when unexpected conditions arise, such as massive migrations or the displacement of people in earthquakes and things like that. And of course, tourism has been mentioned, the mitigation of genetic erosion. The point of this is that all of these things can be monetized. These are issues that transcend this binary of city and country, but that also potentially can turn around and make the city much more dependent on the country than is readily acknowledged. And so I would like to end with a case of the Swiss landscape again, which is a landscape that, although mostly it is appreciated because of its beauty, it is designed to serve primarily as a landscape of defense against the possibility of invasion. And as John McPhee vividly portrayed in his 1983 book La Place de la Concorde Suisse, the Swiss landscape has been coiffed-- this is his word-- at almost every altitude, producing what is arguably the most beautiful developed landscape in the world. McPhee tells us that there is scarcely a scene in Switzerland that would not sell a calendar, and at the same time be ready to erupt in fire to repel an invasion. In the Swiss landscape, every cow pasture accommodates helicopter landings and other military activities. Every quaint bridge tunnel road is rigged with hidden explosives. Picturesque landforms hide bunkers underneath. And the lines that divide meadow from forest are neat and absolute-- no gradients allowed-- managed by military agronomers and kept by state subsidized fencing. Yet this is not a landscape that operates in a singular way. It is productive, recreational, supports a robust tourism industry. And it is, of course, symbolic and emblematic of the nation. So the point is that the production of the countryside as one type of landscape does not preclude its reception and even its functioning, as many other landscapes. And resisting the tendency to essentialize the countryside is a precondition to redefine new relationships between architecture and landscape, urban and rural, metropolis and region, as well as social and economic hierarchies between the two. Thank you. So a lot is already on the table. We can already open this up. But we're going to obviously keep going. I just want to say I'm really glad we're having this discussion. It's really important to think about the site and the scale at which we design and think about design. So wherever we land in this conversation, and it will obviously continue, I just think it's really important. And it's great to see so many people here for it. So as some of you know, my position on these matters is something like the following. I think we do need to deal with the rural and the countryside. But the way in which I try to deal with such questions, also in collaboration with others, including some of you in the room connected to the urban theory lab, is by embedding those issues within the broader question of urbanization. So for me, urbanization is the starting point through which I confront a variety of different conditions and processes of transformation-- social, infrastructural, and ecological. So Frederic, one of your formulations was everything is occupied. And I think that's actually a very useful starting point for starting to pose questions about spatial transformation and spatial difference. What is it occupied by? What is the role, for example, of capitalism and processes of capitalist development in occupying and transforming different zones of the planet? So those are some of the orientations that underpin the work that I'm doing. And I just want to offer five pretty quick propositions to lay out that orientation in a little more detail. And then hopefully we can get into a broader debate about the many issues on the table. So first proposition-- and this is very much connected to Raymond Williams and his whole approach to the city and the country-- and that is that capitalism constantly produces uneven spatial development, territorial inequality, socioenvironmental inequality at all spatial scales. So there are many forms of spatial difference in the world. They can't all be derived from capitalism. But many of them are connected to the dynamics of capitalist development. In capitalist development, during its entire history for the last four centuries, depending on how you periodize it, produces different formations of patterned, structured spatial difference-- so differentiation of space mediated through the process of capitalist development. That's proposition one. Second proposition, also very much connected to Raymond Williams, is the idea that in everyday life, in cultural formations, we tend to conceive the world in terms of fixed and relatively bounded categories of settlement, such as the notion of the city, the notion of the country, the notion of the urban, and the notion of the rural. There's a whole history behind that. It's also-- and I was very glad that this came out so strongly in Frederic's presentation-- this is mediated very much through state spatial strategies and state territorial strategies. It's a long discussion, but states play a very important role in imposing a certain, apparently fixed and stabilized, order upon spatial arrangements which in turn have a massive impact, at least during the last several centuries, on categories of everyday life and categories of practice, enabling us, or perhaps imposing upon us, certain stable, fixed settlement categories, even amidst constant flux and transformation. So there's a bit of a disjunction. This is where theories of ideology become very important. On the one hand, flow, transformation, creative destruction of space-- on the other hand, institutions and practices that engender the apparent experience of fixity and stability. So that's two. Three is-- and again, this these are big propositions. We got to debate them. But I want to argue that contemporary, global, social, political, economic, environmental transformations are radically destabilizing inherited categories and typologies of settlement space. So it's not to say that those city/country divides or society/nature divides were entirely defensible in some earlier formation. We can have a long debate about their articulation to different phases of urbanization and phases of state formation. But I would want to make the argument that since the long 1980s-- so roughly the period between the '70s, the crisis of Fordist, Keynesian developmentalism through the crisis of communism and state socialism in the early 1990s-- during that juncture and then subsequently, we've seen something like an implosion and explosion of planetary, political, economic, environmental organization. So it's generating a variety of new conditions of landscape, of territory, of urbanization that we have to deal with, and that we don't really know how to deal with. But these are the challenges that it seems to me that we confront. Again, we can have a big discussion about those transformations, just to ground it briefly in terms of the rural. You can talk about the city and how the city's embedded in those transformations. But the rural-- and again, Anita and Frederic have already alluded to this-- historically, it's acquainted with the agrarian. It's acquainted with certain pristine, natural conditions. But increasingly-- and again, we saw this [? in chris' ?] presentation this morning-- the rural is being industrialized, infrastructuralized. Many of the most significant, environmentally destructive impacts of contemporary economic processes in the world, such as those associated with resource extraction, occur within so-called rural spaces. And the list goes on. I mean, we can talk about migration flows, property dispossession, all kinds of dynamics. But the rural increasingly is a zone-- the "rural" in quotation marks-- of major social, spatial, environmental transformation. So the inherited, as it were, lens through which we perceive the rural, is arguably, seriously at odds with the realities that we confront. So quickly, final two propositions-- so the fourth one obviously follows from what I've said so far, which is that we need alternative framings to think about the way space is organized, the way space is being transformed, and the way we might engage in strategic action under those conditions. And what I want to say here is that reasonable, highly intelligent, progressive people can fundamentally disagree about how to reframe it. And in the field I work in, urban social science, there's actually a big debate among many of my colleagues about whether one even needs to re-frame the field. So there are a whole lot of positions where there's radical disagreement about how to reframe the field. But there's also a strong condition of more orthodox or disciplinary responses which say, no, inherited categories still work. So there are many axes of debate. Among those who want to re-frame the field, we may have our disagreements about how to reframe it. But there are also many of those, both in scholarship and in practice, who would want to argue against the types of positions that I've been argument. So final proposition related to the rural, our theme. I've already alluded to some of the ways in which I think the rural is being transformed. So with my friends and students and colleagues in the urban theory lab, we're doing a number of projects related to rethinking urbanization, planetary urbanization. But a big part of our work is to study the rural, the hinterland, the wilderness, the supposedly empty places on the map. And part of what we're trying to explore, just to kind of give you a hint of what we're up to, is the idea that the hinterland or the rural is increasingly being transformed into something like an operational landscape. So different economic sectors-- industrial agriculture, industrial resource extraction, industrial logistics-- are connected to major landscape transformations at a whole range of spatial scales different. They take different patterns in different regions of the world, whether it's Europe or China, Latin America, et cetera. But if you start with sectors like agriculture, extraction, logistics, to choose a few, and look at their impacts through the process of industrialization on the landscape, very quickly, those supposedly empty spots on the map that are the outside, or the rural, or the hinterland, or the non-urban, very rapidly, they fill up with land use intensification, new kinds of infrastructures, logistics, and extraction, in a whole range of environmental and social impacts, which render them not the same as big cities, but it certainly sets those processes of transformation in those zones in a complex relationship to what we used to call the city-country divide. So maybe I'll stop there. [inaudible] I'll try to be brief. I think things instead of perhaps putting forward certain propositions, I think I'll try to attempt to outline and frame certain urgency using a very particular example, and to use and to highlight this urgency so much so that, perhaps, we could begin to galvanize a certain formation of a disciplinary action towards this particular problem that I'll highlight. The example is China. So I would first try to resist the tendency to overgeneralize the question of the ruralism, as I think Neil has already said, and outline here briefly the status of the rural in China today, in a sense neither to support nor to condemn its present manifestation. So rural China today is facing a set of challenges that are peculiar to itself, with the rate of urbanization in China reaching the 51% mark in 2011. The next phase of economic and social development will be focused on urbanization of its rural areas. Last year, Li Keqiang announced that the state's urbanization target of 70%, which will affect 300 million people by 2025, will not come from the expansion of large cities, but will come from the growth of rural towns and small cities throughout China. At present, this form of organization can be divided into three categories. This is the first one. The redevelopment of villages stranded in the city into higher density developments. Second, the destruction of villages to make way for urban developments at the edges of the city. And third, and the most recent one, is a wholesale demolition, amalgamation, and rebuilding of villages into new agriculture towns. Of course, one striking feature of the landscape of the countryside in China is that unlike its Northern American counterpart, where vast farmland is dotted by small farmhouses every one or two miles, is that in China, the rural landscape is fragmented, with blotches of dense villages. This is the result of the collectivization after the communist revolution of 1949, where farmland is owned by collectives and urban land is owned by the state. And of course, after China's economic liberalization in the early '80s, with urbanization as its key economic driver, the migration from rural to urban was the largest the world has ever seen-- 340 million net migration from rural to urban in the last 30 years. The direction of migration, of course, is towards the coastal city of China. However, this rural migration does not have the same status as its counterparts due to Chinese ecosystem. And rural migrants, of course, are denied basic public services in the city. This rural to urban migration have also other consequences. It leaves fields untended in the countryside. And also, children of migrant workers are left behind with their grandparents in villages, as they have no access to public amenities in the city. So currently, the state tries to address this imbalance in development between rural and urban areas. And the current drive, of course, is to safeguard agriculture land and to make them more efficient, to improve the living conditions of rural areas, and, in the sense, to attempt to stem the flow from rural to urban. And of course, the fourth is to increase the GDP of rural areas and to uplift the standard of living in the rural areas. So I would say that at the moment, we do not have a well-formulated discipline of ruralism, that the development of the rural areas still uses the terms and tools of urbanization or the developmental city in China. So I would say that thinking about how we approach and what do we do with the countryside in this particular instance is not only a disciplinary problem, but it might, perhaps, offer an alternative to the narrative of inevitable hyperdensity and the fetishization of the culture of congestion of the recent past. Thanks. I come to this as a historian, not a designer, and as someone, as [inaudible] said, trained in literature. So I'm interested in two things. I'm interested in context, not concept. And I'm very much an empiricist. And I don't like generalizations. One of things I think about Raymond Williams, in his book, he was very personal. You can see from the clip of the movie. But he was also a fundamentally well-researched person. But I'm glad most of you haven't read the book, because it's all about England. And, of course, you don't want to hear about England. But what you do need to do is read his last chapter. Chapter 25 has nothing about England in it. And it's all about concepts relating to what he has seen as the exploration of England. But my worry about the book is he does talk about one landscape and one country only. And one of things from you talking about, and Anita, and above all you were talking about, is we've begun to see there all very different kinds of countries. And within those countries there are infinitely small areas-- of departments in France, for example, countries in England. And what really annoys me as an Englishman in this country for 30 years, people talking about the west coast, the east coast, and the middle. I normally fly over the middle. But in fact, I actually began life in Michigan. There are so many different parts. And it really bugs me. But you talked, I think, beautifully about some of the different locations-- how Saint-Etienne is much better than Nantes, for example, and how you approach it in a totally different way. So I think we've got to have more attention to small-scale things. I think we also have to have-- and when Williams himself, in the final chapter, he said, we need more comparative studies. I want more comparative studies. We have to have them. And right at the end, you talked about Japan. [inaudible] Well, no. You also mentioned Japan right at the end. Yes. And Anita-- come on. I did listen. And Anita talked about Northeastern America. And we have to have these comparisons. And I was saying before we started, I get very annoyed with my students who use the word nature, which somebody did today. We're not talking who it was. But the point is, nature was always invented. Always. From the very first use of the word, nature was an invented term. And it's implied to an invented nature. That interests me. But what also interests me is the nature of invention. How you invent nature. Not that nature was invented, but how that invention came about. That seems to me something we really have to talk about much more. I think I'm a bit worried by the binary opposition of the city and country, because partly, the word binary suggests two things, but doesn't suggest a dialogue. And we're beginning, I think, to hear about a dialogue. But I want the dialogue to come from the country, not city, as opposed from city to country. And in fact, Raymond Williams said all capitalism originated in the country. The country brought capitalism to the city of London. I think that is something. And in fact, if you go into the history of landscape architecture-- which I'm not allowed to do-- people created Versailles out of the land workers who came into Versailles every morning at 6:00 to make that. And the great gardens and parks of Europe have been created by people from the countryside, not by landscape designers. Raymond Williams has, I think, two very interesting thing to say. He worries about country stuff. And by the way, right at the end of the book, he has a one-page appendix on-- Sorry. I keep wanting to hit people with this. That's a problem. He says the word country comes from the word contra, which means over against. And the word was used what is over against the spectator? Only in 1526 was the word countryside developed the meaning we now have. It came out of a sense of in opposition. And it's that opposition, that dialogue, that I think we need to explore, not just the word binary. Then, he talks about two things. And I'll end with that. He talks about the shared consciousness of living in the country. And he does talk about transport. After your talk this morning, people were concerned with transportation. One of things that nobody mentioned-- and, of course, Raymond Williams writing this book in the '70s couldn't begin to think of-- is how about the shared communication, the shared consciousness, of the internet. How does the internet transform our understanding of the rural and the city? And how is it identified? Because Raymond Williams said, either it's a question of identifying as a place of repression or enhancement. And he makes one point, which, as I grew up in the country, it matters a lot to me. He said our idea of the rural-- he's a Welshman. And I'm an Englishman. I don't like to talk about the Welsh very easily. But he's talking about a Welshman in 1971. And he said that the rural conveys the idea of childhood. It is what you think about for your childhood. I want to say something completely different. I think the rural now is a place where old people go. And so my idea of the rural is where I want to live in my next 20 years, not thinking about myself as a child. I think that childhood has reversed entirely from being the place we think of as an atavistic moment to where we want to go in the future. And that, I think, we need to talk about. Great. Well, thank you very much, all of you, for these incredible, very provocative interventions. I think there are lots and lots of things that are being put on the table. I think it would be great if we can engage you to talk amongst yourselves, so to speak, for a little bit. But I do want to pick up on it one issue that's been touched on both by Frederic and by Emil, which is really Emil, when you start talking about the way in which the rural or the countryside is really becoming more and more part of this notion of the operational landscape. And I think when Frederic, you were talking about the comparative equivalence between the white parts of the French landscape, where people might have 1,000 euros a month, versus other parts which are urbanized, where they would be earning 5,000. And you sort of suggested that the quality of life between the 1,000 and the 5,000 might be similar. I want to raise something which is related to this. But it's, I think, the other side of it, which is that despite these imbalances, for example, in a country like the United States, we do know that there are incredibly poor rural areas-- as indeed, there are incredibly poor urban areas. But part of the argument for mass migration has been precisely economically created, because people have come to the city for better kind of condition of life. So I would like to find out what are your thoughts? What are the propositions? The fact is that the operational landscape that you are discussing doesn't necessarily produce a lot of jobs, and doesn't produce a certain kind of equivalence in terms of income. So we face a situation where in the school, for example, we're doing a lot on urbanization, mass urbanization, and so on and so forth, because it's precisely dealing with this inequity. It's dealing with this poverty condition of people moving. So what would be some of your thoughts about the way in which, actually, we can have a different form of operational landscape that produces more equivalence, more democracy, probably a better sense of what life could be? Because I think a lot of our discussions ultimately have to do with some aspect of this economic imbalance that exists. I wonder if anyone has any-- Frederic, you want to--? Yeah. I guess the question, perhaps the most important question for me, I think this question of, let's say, more than typologies, the fact that we assume that there is different potentials means that any place you are, near the place you are, they are over areas who are interdependent with a high difference of potential. Potential means, let's say, the financial capacity, the lifestyles, everything. The process modes, and so on. I think that we take into account the fact that this difference of potential is something very important. You were saying that you want to rise, for example, the GSD, the income. At which level do you want to rise it? At which level is it reasonable to imagine that there is a homogenization of income, of way of interact? I think, by the way, this kind of alternative economic relationship that there is in some areas can be a disaster in some. For example, if you talk about very poor people living in the countryside-- when I'm reading North American literature, it's tremendous, when you see Jim Harrison or Richard Ford, or people like that. That's talking about Montana, Michigan, and Wyoming. It looks terrible. For the [inaudible], at least, the despair of some of those territories. But apart from that, I think that there are resources. And they are a way of dealing together, of managing together, of creating an economy which is an alternative-- a very, very precious alternative-- to the one we know in big metropolitan areas. Because basically, what you said, it was very interesting in what Neil said about the capitalism and the way, for example, cities from the 16th century has been made not only by public king or something, but it has been made by private investment, basically. It means private investment. It means that some people are putting money to get money back, to earn money-- not because they are awful bankers, but just because that's the phenomenon that you invest, and then you've got your money back, somehow. This works. And this has been working in big cities. It still works in big cities. I think a city like Boston has been [inaudible] like that, probably. All big cities have [inaudible] like that. The only problem is that you don't find any investor for a rural country. That's a big difference. There are places where there's no investor. Nobody's going to put money just to risk money, let's say, because the feedback has nothing to do that. And this, all this, has been in Europe. [inaudible] Europe now there's a big crisis, because up to now, this difference of investment capacity has been managed, or has been, let's say, balanced by public authorities. It means that the idea of redistribution was the basis of the difference. So all the poor-- not poor, but territories where there were no investors-- had the capacity of getting money back from the state, basically. The kind of republican, let's say, all Europe, it worked like that. Now, the process is changing, because the ideology, liberal ideology, is totally challenging the reference. And the fact that, finally, the fact that the state is giving money is bad thing, that's moral, let's say, underground statement which is behind the Greece. Everything what happens. It's the same in Finland, in France. I'm waiting for you to tell me what the solution is. And I think the solution is precisely in the resources what already exist and you have to rely on. What I was trying to show, for example, in the Saint-Etienne example, that's militant attitude to say that if a city is doing something, it is doing something together with the territory which is around, and that the money which is put in this city has to take profit somehow. I think the responsibility of the architect is also when I was talking about these differences of potential, the differences of means and financial potentials in the region where you're working in, trying to pick every resource that you can activate in a project just to give value not only to what you're doing, but through what you're doing, try to give value to all the places around. And I think this is-- I'm sorry. My English is not so-- But anyway, I hope that you understand what I mean, that this is a very complex contextualization, which is not only talking about landscape, which is not only talking about the context as the neighbor, urban frame, urban fabric, architectural features, or whatever the idea of the context that we normally have as architect, but the [inaudible] context of the economical potential relationship that you can establish or reestablish or create in the territory you are acting, and giving value, simply, too. I think this is very important task for the architect. I am very involved with that. Because that's the only way. That's the only way to-- the redistribution of money has to be made otherwise that it used to be. So we have to be creative with it. Let's see what Neil thinks. Huge, huge-- I'll just go ahead and say it-- problematique. It So now we've said it. Huge problematique, number one. And a couple of cuts into it, which actually follow directly from what Frederic just said. So first of all, in historical contextual reference from Western Europe after World War II, a project of economic development which is based on spatial redistribution. In some of my earlier work, I referred to it a spatial Keynesianism. So the idea is that not only if you have social inequality, but if you have spatial inequality, both of those conditions at a national scale in that particular moment are economically dysfunctional. So if you have, as it were, rural areas that don't have a lot of jobs or infrastructure, that's viewed as an economic problem. So a massive program. It takes different forms in different parts of Europe. There's a different form in Italy, France, Germany, et cetera. But different forms of regional policy, infrastructure investment, and financial subsidy to promote, basically, industrialization and territorial development precisely in the non-urban areas. And this emerges roughly in the 1950s. And it continues even through the global economic crises of the '70s. So it's a project of egalite dans l'espace, so equality in space. The Germans have their own word for it. But basically, different formulations of that project, which is not just a normative project. It's basically a macroeconomic plan. So industrialize and urbanize the rural. So fast-forward 30 or 40 years. And again, I'm in a certain way covering the same terrain that Frederic just covered via a slightly different vocabulary. You have neoliberalization, so the turn towards market-based approaches to territorial development, a normative abandonment of the idea of territorial equality, and coupled with that-- and this, I think, is very important to the broader discussion we're having today-- explosive expansion of urban agglomerations around the world in ways that hinge upon global hinterlands. So global agriculture, global resource extraction, global logistics systems, which effectively accelerate the enclosure and depopulation of the hinterland. So what I'm suggesting is a kind of double-edged planetary urbanization project based on neoliberalism on the one hand, and based on a project of promoting mega urban nations as the solution to the planet's problems around the world, which, in turn, hinge upon a relatively enclosed and depopulated hinterland. So pretty disturbing in terms of if you're committed to a vision of planetary justice. And I think [? mohsin's ?] question goes to the heart of the matter, because if you're interested in questions about justice and equality on a planetary scale, many of the zones upon which big mega-cities depend are relatively depopulated. They're relatively depopulated. In fact-- so this is now a lead exactly for you, Chris-- in a certain way, this connects us back, if I may, to Chris's lunchtime presentation. Yeah, but the problem with Chris's lunchtime presentation in this regard-- I know, actually, Anita wants to say something-- is that Chris's homeowners, essentially, as he was describing them, were grandparents and the grandchildren, because the wage-earners were not there. They were in the city. And so the countryside was actually not the place of any kind of income production. They were basically sending things via the internet or something to some local bank somewhere. So it was actually a kind of an idea of just housing people, as opposed to really-- that's not what I understand by urbanization. So that type of urbanization has some fundamental flaws, in the sense that it's for a particular sector of society, and it's actually not income-producing. But anyway, Chris and Anita. Yeah. Maybe picking on from what Neil and Frederic is already saying, and as you rightly say, so what do people therefore do, right? What jobs do they do? I think for developed countries, I think do what you're doing now in the city. For instance, with knowledge workers, as Richard Florida would say, if, for instance, I can work in a transit lounge, on a flight, in a train, in Starbucks, so what stops me from doing the same thing that I'm doing in the countryside? In the sense that we begin to think that nature of work is changing. Not all of us have to be in the same place at the same time all the time. And in that sense, telecommunication technology allows us to do that. And immediately, we begin to open up the whole notion about-- or disregarding the notion of-- zoning that actually is so still prevalent today in most of the process of urbanization. So my direct answer is to keep doing what you're doing but somewhere else. Yeah, yeah. I just wanted to say that I think you're right. But at least in England, more and more people who can work in the country can work in the country and do it all by internet. This does not, however, create any large economic uplift for that part of England. And the country bit of that is that more and more agriculture is mechanized. So you're using fewer and fewer people. And those people who don't have any work are going elsewhere, presumably to the town. So you do have people moving to the country. But they're not really taking big money with them. They're taking their own money with them. But they're not actually drawing people into the country and getting funding to follow them, except for themselves personally. Yeah, I think in a sense, that's what I was ending my presentation earlier in lunch today in a sense that we could see that this migration should not be compared with the overall rural migration to the city where it's attracting less [? than ?] 300 million to one place. I think let's say in the question of China, I think we could say that this migration is small migration but to hundreds and thousands of villages. And in that sense, this migration will also have in a sense trickle-down economics. These workers require restaurants to go. They require schools for children to go there, et cetera, et cetera. So there would not be an economy of that scale of the city. But it will be more dispersed, more network. And I think we can really see that happening. Let's say, if I were to extrapolate, let's say, the condition in London right now, most of the housing boom that we see in London right now is not creating housing for Londoners. The young people cannot afford. They cannot even rent. And it doesn't take the leap of imagination to say that, why don't just move out, right? We could continue to do the things that we're doing instead of in the city-- But they're actually not moving to the country. They're moving to other cities. So they're-- Yes. --moving from London to Manchester to Newcastle, to a lot of these places where the price of property is cheaper. [? that's true. ?] But the income level is more or less similar. Anita, sorry. But I think in a way, on the one hand, saying that the internet allows us to work in the countryside anywhere is an easy way out. At the same time, talking about the scales that you talk about, it's not helpful, either. But also, we know that there are many institutions that bring back that resists the scale that you're talking about because the processes that you're talking about tend to maximize the return on the money. So that's the capitalism that you're talking about. But what we need to envision, which is what I was explaining in terms of how the Swiss landscape works, or some actually of the areas outlining, Boston, is where you have agricultural areas that are made to work at many levels. So food security is one issue, and agricultural areas will come back near cities because of food securities. But if those agricultural areas are also used for flood or climate mitigation, they're also used for tourism, they're also used for historic preservation-- in other words, if many other kinds of pressures are acting upon those agricultural areas, then that's the project that we need to find is to find the pressures and then to invent the institutions that will support that. And one of them is, for instance, recreation, as well. I mean, and England has a very well-developed recreation system where private property can be used publicly, as I understand it, through a system of pathways-- Sure. [inaudible]. --which you don't have here. Right here, private property, if you walk on somebody's private property, the gun comes out, right? So those are more finer-grain networks of resistance to this maximization of capital that could support a new form of countryside. So maybe this is the moment to open it up. I mean, one thing that I would like the panel to think about is the phenomenon of distinctions because we talk about this country and the city and the interrelationships. Chris did talk about this polarism and the yin and yang-- the idea of distinctions that are also interrelated. But I suspect part of John's desire to move to the country-- as many, many people feel, I think, in the UK-- is precisely that it also produces or proposes or-- I mean, there's partly a nostalgia but partly that it's different, that it's a different lifestyle. And so the concept of what is different about this place-- this thing-- how it could remain different but at the same time be sustainable is something that I think would be interesting to try and touch on this question of how can one sustain difference? Because I mean, I think, Anita and Frederic, you're talking about different ways in which there could be these relationalities, while Gion Caminada, that he showed the Swiss architect, he's built 18 or 19 or something like that buildings in one village-- one architect. He is the architect of the village. It's like the architect of the state. He's the architect of [? doven-- ?] whatever-- the village that-- [? yeah. ?] So that's a very particular kind of situation in terms of how you preserve. It's actually is a little bit of fundamentalism in a way. So that thing has interesting benefits. But it also gets scary after a while. So I think I would love it if you could touch on this question of the possibilities for distinctions while one recognizes the reality. But maybe we could go there. Let's see if there are any thoughts or comments from you. Well, you do seem ready, I think, here. I can tell. Go for it. Well, one of the things that I found most interesting was your comment about metropolitan know-how being united with local resources. And while that's very compelling-- I'm coming down from New Hampshire this evening, so which isn't too far away. But it doesn't take long to get far from the metropolis of Boston. I'm curious about ways in which other kinds of value can be coming from the countryside and brought to the city and the ways where the concentration of power is not so obviously economic and based on the force of population and the power that that brings with it. And I'm curious what other opportunities there are for not just local building and material resources to be united with metropolitan know-how in the case of engineering, but what other kinds of knowledge and rural products of all different kinds can be leveraged against the inertia of the metropolitan? Should we collect a few just to [inaudible]? Sure. Any other comments? If you have, Ed is there. There's somebody else next to you, Ed, who I can't see. I think this builds on Professor Hunt's comment about the desire for specificity and-- I guess this might be addressed to the dean specifically-- how this discourse will be sustained in the school if, for example, [inaudible] a representative body, very few have engaged in text such as Raymond Williams and would have been familiar with this underlying dichotomy, city and country, which to my mind is constitutive English in nature, as opposed to other formulations of it and how the rural, the rustic, the country, the agricultural, the hinterland, the wilderness, the [non-english] that [inaudible] was talking about that some robust [? and ?] vocabulary have to be formed. And what I was going to say about that is specific. But since you started with the movie Raymond Williams, I couldn't help but thinking of a BBC production 20 years prior which was Nikolaus Pevsner's Englishness of English Art, the Reith lecturers, which is here we have a German-Jewish immigrant in England telling England what's English about England with regard to [? panofsky's ?] ideological antecedents, which was another way of suggesting the industrial subtexture of the English picturesque landscapes. So these translations of migrations of ideas and definitions I think are going to be very important for this dialogue moving forward, especially as we then export it or import it to China, or other regions, depending how you view that. Thank you for your support. Good. Thanks. [laughter] I guess this is a question for Professor Brenner. But it could be for anybody who wants to answer it. Just thinking about a book like Nature's Metropolis, which is obviously a great book and just how the city and countryside have actually been tied together by resources and stuff for ever since the 19th century, if not since the Romans. What's different now? Because I do agree with you that there are definitely some differences now that are really interesting and that are important. But still, I think we could be a little more specific, maybe. Or we're still trying to figure out really what it is. And I mean, obviously, the internet-- but I think we can go a lot further than that to try to unpack this kind of thing and to see it maybe not as like a totally new phenomenon but just as a changing phenomenon. So is that enough? We have New Hampshire and its relationship to the metropolis of Boston. We have Ed's question about sustaining this kind of argument in terms of its multiple varieties. And then-- sorry. Yeah, I mean, responding to Ed's point, [? pepslid ?] did a wonderful job in understanding England, which nobody who lives in England properly understands. And I think with all of these ruralisms-- the poster outside said, ruralisms, with an S. Here, it's just ruralism-- no S. There are many Ss. And I think we need to step outside ruralism to see what we're talking about. You need to come from New Hampshire to Boston to look back to New Hampshire. When I lived in Boston for a while, I went to New Hampshire to get away from Boston. You need to have distance. And that distance is absolutely crucial, I mean intellectually. I don't mean what it's like to live in the country. Intellectually, conceptually, you need to understand that difference, one of the other. You need the two places. In fact, this afternoon I was in the [? houghton. ?] And [inaudible] I read, John [? evening ?] in 1667-- Microphone. --without the idea of-- without the idea of the country, there would never be the court in the city. And I put in my notebook, and vice versa. Without the court in the city, you would never have the country. You've got to have both. And you've got to have, I dare say it, oh, you've got to have a purer ruralism and a better urbanism to make that context really work, which I don't think you have, at least in the United States. [inaudible]? Sure. So before taking the Cronon question, just a loose thread from the earlier exchange that I wanted to pick up on. Part of the argument that I would make about these questions about the hinterland that we're discussing is that actually what we need is a different form of urbanization in order to confront that hinterland or rural question. So in other words, we can pose that question. And I think we need to have a broader collective discussion about that. But in terms of what I was talking about, what about a form of urbanization that doesn't simply create larger and larger, more and more concentrated, more and more environmentally destructive, and more and more socially unequal cities? There are different forms of urbanization around the world. But part of the point of the way I'm trying to reframe some of these questions is that in a way, it's a very Raymond Williams kind of point. You can't really pose these questions about environmental destruction and social dispossession in the countryside except by reconnecting them, both analytically, cartographically, and politically, to questions about the form of urbanization that we have. So that's a long discussion. But for me, that's the point of the moves that I'm making. In terms of the Cronon question-- and I'm not sure how many folks have read that really important book for this conversation, Nature's Metropolis-- just a few threads. So Cronon writes a book, which is about the historical transformation of Chicago during the 19th century and the industrialization of Chicago. And it's basically as much about the construction of the Great West as an industrial landscape as it is about the history of Chicago. So indeed, you're totally right. This is a moment in the historical geography of the, in my terms, urbanization of the hinterland that I'm telling-- that I'm trying to elaborate. So I'm actually wrestling with this question right now in terms of the distinction that I've been making between the hinterland and an operational landscape, which is a much more industrialized and planetary-scaled or large-scaled phenomenon. And in terms of [? cronin's ?] analysis, he frames it as nature's metropolis. And the argument is that the industrialization of Chicago entailed the transformation of a kind of "inherited nature," in quotation marks-- Thank you. --in order to produce various kinds of primary commodities. So you find a kind of, in his terms, first nature. And you convert it into second nature through a process of comodification. Well, I and some of my colleagues are trying to argue with regard to the notion of an operational landscape is it's essentially an historical extension of that process. It's no longer simply inherited relatively uncomodified and unindustrialized natures but grappling with landscapes that have already undergone a process of industrial restructuring, systematically transforming them-- we might say designing them-- in order to serve a new round of whether it's industrialization or, for that matter, the management of the environmental and social consequences of earlier rounds of industrialization. So that's the direction I would go. That's not a complete answer, obviously. I'm very annoyed about this use of the word hinterland. It depresses the center. The hinterland is what's over there. Is there a word to use in New Hampshire about Boston as the hinterland? I mean, we need better language. I think they use the flatlanders, don't they? [laughs] But it is a linguistic problem. And if we don't have the right words and we don't survive with a complex vocabulary, we really won't take this much further. So no more hinterlands, please. [laughter] Just a quick comment about Ed's question because I think, Ed, I was saying at the beginning that the fact that we had the Basel studio and dealing with kind of Basel, if you like and the rural or the countryside and that we've had at lunchtime the kind of China version of that. And now in anticipation of what's going to happen in the spring in Rotterdam, where I could also imagine Europe is facing this incredible migration of half of Syria, now ending up in Germany, there's going to be this issue of where are all these migrants going? And presumably, a lot of them are going to go somewhere that's not in the cities. And so there's going to be a new kind of camp. I mean, it's going to be much nicer than what they had in Syria. But there will be now camps in the countryside. And I assume that part of that is also about the transformation of the German countryside landscape. I'm sure that given the depopulation that is happening in Germany, that's also partly welcomed. But it's partly not. So there are these conflicting ideas about incorporating the migrants but at the same time not wanting the migrants. These are the kinds of questions that I think the school is dealing with. But tonight, I think just also in terms of opening the discussion with something, which is actually it's not exactly English. It's Welsh, as was-- I mean, I think with Raymond Williams, it's partly for me a kind of nostalgia because it's the 1970s. For me, this is like the period of my education, in a way. I mean, it's very much a kind of nostalgia thing. But at the same time, it is very precise in terms of a kind of conversation that starts at a particular moment. And I think the specificity of that conversation is a useful platform. But like John, who wants to go to live in the country, I mean, Raymond Williams, also his last books or book is actually a two-volume thing that he did about the Black Mountain, where he went back, basically, to the whole Welsh roots and started writing very specifically about a particular location. So I also can see that there is some value to be claimed about the idea of specific things or specific places and so on. And I think in the States, we have a very different sense of that. So I mean, like when Frederic starts talking about this interaction between the country or between the villages and the architecture and the typology and the Swiss, I mean, in the US, we've had a version of that. It hasn't turned out very well. I mean, we have this new urbanism business, which is also, in a way, is trying to learn from the idea of the New England town and so on. It's not that different from what Aldo Rossi says. But the results are very different. So I think we also could really look at some of this material with a different eye. And that's why I think that the discussion about comparative methods or comparisons is interesting because if Caminada is able to do something very specific in a location, I don't see why we can't do it in New Hampshire. In a way, it requires a different type of discipline. One of these, I think, for me-- I have another little bracket, which is that I think a lot of the things that Neil wants won't happen without the intervention of the state. And the thing with the Swiss is that the trains that are going there, they're national Swiss trains. In the UK, where there's been privatization, you can't get to half those places anymore. The postal service is different. I mean, there's a lot of stuff that's to do with the very fact that it's not economically feasible to run the trains to those places because of the fact that the population is not there. So part of this whole question is going to be how you can produce income in places that don't have the population that justifies the economy that goes with it. And the Swiss have been able to get round that by actually-- partly, they're smaller. Partly, they have an incredible tourist economy. Partly, they have created sophisticated mechanisms of dealing with the land, which is harder to sustain for places that are extremely dispersed and very big populations. So they are much more technically specialized in a way. But I'm sure there's a lot that one can learn from there. Frederic, you have some-- I just react when you talk about the Caminada, that it's something scary, you said. Yeah. But anyway, if, I think-- I mean, he's fantastic, but also-- Yeah, but at the same time, yeah, that's a kind of ambiguous position. But anyway, if he wasn't acting the way he acts, probably there wouldn't be architect. Or the transformation needed for this territory would have been made otherwise, let's say of a lower quality, probably. And I think that there is a kind of bet of those territories that if they make architecture the way they do with their own resource, with mixing it with this engineering I was talking about gives value. It means that the people not only that they go on coming to this territory to visit it. But they go on purpose to see the new architecture. Most of the tourist in the Swiss, they also come to have these new places-- to see these new places. So it means that the architecture activity is one of the purpose for the extra value, which is brought from the urban areas to those remote-- because this valley is very remote. It's certainly far away. So I think in that, they really use architecture as a mean to provide attractivity-- to make the territory more attractive. I agree. So this strategy is somehow-- and I think it is totally politically assumed. I mean, it's not random. It's really militant. Great. So look, I want to finish. But I want to finish very quickly-- not very long, please. But really, I want to use Ed's question as a prompt. So if the school had to do one thing after this, what would be your recommendation of the one thing we would have to do? Anita, you get to go first. Well, before I do that-- and this may be related to that-- I did want to say to Neil that the white areas in the map are only white, perhaps, for architects and planners. They're certainly never white for landscape architects or for the people that live in those areas. And perhaps this is the way to begin to think about how to think about the differences because we have used the word rural in very loose ways. I have found myself thinking, oh, I have never thought of that as rural when it was being used in different ways by different people here. So yes, I do think that words matter as describing specificities because they also deal with different processes. So for instance, New Hampshire had a massive logging economy that made Bostonians very wealthy. And that economy moved to the Midwest. Now its economy of mining granite has persisted still. I would imagine it will end when the mines close. But it entails a certain kind of process of reinvention by which the regional governments or the state governments have to reinvent themselves continuously as they reinvent their economies in relationship to their own cities or to a larger system of cities, as well. You can think about your answer. I need one-sentence answers, please. Oh, OK. Not very long, elaborate because everybody is now ready to say goodbye to us, yes. [laughter] So my one-sentence answer is that it would be great to see us do research and design studios that explore the challenges-- theoretical and practical-- with trying to envision a different urbanization-- this is a long sentence-- with urbanization understood as both transformations of big metropolitan regions, as well as of whatever we subsume under the non-urban. A seminar in which five different ruralisms in five different countries were explored through the history and the literature and the design remarks upon them-- that is a complete sentence. [laughter] That's what we expect from somebody who was an English major. Come on. Frederic, you have a recommendation? Very brief, please-- one sentence. Yeah. [? chan's ?] paradigm of a presentation, I think most of the problem we have about lexicon comes from the fact that we are still in the map, which is static, when our word is the question of flow. And the question of influences change. Boston and New Hampshire-- I mean, depending on the place you are in Boston, the relationship, it's not the same. This is because everything changes when you move. And our presentation is tremendously, how do you say, clumsy to represent these interactions. We're using a lot of commas in our one-sentence-- Yes. A way we could just go back to Raymond Williams' book Keywords-- Yes. --right, where all of these things are percept. That's one of his least [? good books. ?] That's why I said "in a way." Look at both theoretical challenge but also practical challenge, but never take your eye away from the disciplinary knowledge that the discipline already has. Thank you all very much. This has been a wonderful evening. Thank you for your patience. [applause] So please bring your ideas for the next events. And look forward to seeing the projects that come out of these discussions. Thank you.

Biography

Wiley was born in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. He received his undergraduate education at Augsburg College in Minnesota and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He received his law degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1907 and was also admitted to the bar the same year. He served as the Chippewa County district attorney from 1909 to 1915.[1]

Wiley was the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin in 1936, but his bid failed. Philip La Follette and the new Wisconsin Progressive Party, which split from the Republicans in 1934, won the election. In 1938, Wiley was elected to the U.S. Senate by defeating incumbent F. Ryan Duffy. In 1944, he was challenged by United States Marine Corps Captain Joseph R. McCarthy in the Republican primary. He defeated McCarthy and won the general election. Wiley, then an isolationist in foreign policy, and Governor Walter S. Goodland supported Republican presidential nominee Thomas E. Dewey in the 1944 race over incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Dewey won Wisconsin's electoral votes but fell far short nationally.[2]

Wiley was re-elected two more times in 1950 and 1956. In 1956, he was challenged by U.S. Representative Glenn Robert Davis in the Republican primary, but again prevailed. Wiley voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.[3][4] In 1962, Wiley lost his bid for a fifth term to Governor Gaylord Nelson, a liberal Democrat. Wiley was the last Republican to serve as U.S. Senator from Wisconsin until the election of former 9th district congressman Bob Kasten in 1980 United States Senate elections.

Wiley had a distinguished Senate career that included the chairmanship of both the Foreign Relations and Judiciary committees.

Wiley died in Germantown, Pennsylvania at age 83.[5] He was interred at Forest Hill Cemetery in Chippewa Falls. During his lifetime he was a member of the Freemasons, the Knights Templar, the Elks Club, the Kiwanis, the Knights of Pythias, the Moose International, the Sons of Norway, and Sigma Phi Epsilon.

Notes

  1. ^ Wisconsin Historical Society-Alexander Wiley
  2. ^ David M. Jordan, FDR, Dewey, and the Election of 1944 (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2011), p. 279, ISBN 978-0-253-35683-3
  3. ^ "HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957". GovTrack.us.
  4. ^ "HR. 8601. PASSAGE OF AMENDED BILL".
  5. ^ "Former Sen. Wiley Is Dead at 83". The La Crosse Tribune. October 27, 1967. p. 1. Retrieved April 29, 2016 – via Newspapers.com. open access

External links

U.S. Senate
Preceded by
F. Ryan Duffy
 U.S. Senator (Class 3) from Wisconsin
1939–1963
Served alongside: Robert M. La Follette, Jr., Joseph McCarthy, William Proxmire
Succeeded by
Gaylord A. Nelson
Political offices
Preceded by
Pat McCarran
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
1947–1949
Succeeded by
Pat McCarran
Preceded by
Tom Connally
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
1953–1955
Succeeded by
Walter F. George
This page was last edited on 17 January 2020, at 20:07
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.