|
|
A recurring theme of Shape of the Future columns has been the
need to evolve a robust and definitive Vocabulary to discuss human settlement patterns. We have explored this issue in prior columns
(“The Foundation of
Babble,” 28 November 2005; “Deconstructing the Tower of
Babel,” 12 December 2005; “Babble
Postscript,” 3 January 2006; and “Words
Matter,” 20 March 2006.) As these columns document, evolving a functional Vocabulary requires defining new words and phrases
and avoiding the use of confusing words. Words suggested
to be avoided in discussion of human settlement patterns back in 2000 when
The Shape of the Future was published include
“city,” “ex-urban,” “local,”
“rural,” “sprawl” and “suburb /
suburban.” (See End Note
One.)
The long-promised Shape of the Future
GLOSSARY
is now posted on Bacon's Rebellion in draft
form, open for review comments and/or
suggestions. The latest updated version will be
included in the anticipated publishing of TRILO-G
in 2008. Since compiling the original GLOSSARY, we have added a new word to avoid:
“family.”
Why remove “family” from the words used to discuss human settlement pattern? Here is the explanation contained in the
draft GLOSSARY:
Family
Since publication of
The Shape of the Future in 2000, the use of the word
“family” has been recognized as a source of misconceptions concerning
human settlement patterns and thus becomes a
Core Confusing Word. In TRILO-G and the
Three-Step Process of HANDBOOK,
“family” has been replaced by “Household.” Avoiding the use of the word
family, unless it is further described or put in context, is suggested.
There have always been a number of uses of the word
“family.” The word family has been overused and caused confusion when discussing
human settlement patterns but recent data indicates that it is time
to recognize the problem in a formal way. The reason
behind avoiding use of the word
“family” at this time is due to the confusion caused by referring to the occupants of a single dwelling
Unit as a family because of the assumptions that
citizens draw from what they assume
“family” to mean.
The general assumption is that a family is a husband, a wife and their children unless the description includes
a modifier such as “extended” as in “extended
family.” Consideration of a typical Dooryard suggests that
“family” is an inappropriate way to describe the occupants of the majority of the dwelling
Units.
The sample Dooryard profiled below is made up of
Single Household Detached (SHD) dwellings with a 2006 assessed value ranging from $525,000 to $625,000. The demographic profile of the occupants is somewhat older but otherwise mirrors the
New Urban Region profile. If the following data applies to what municipal comprehensive plans typically call “a stable single family
neighborhood,” consider the occupant profile of
Units in other contexts.
Here is the data for one 10-Unit Dooryard. In this
Dooryard there are Units with the following occupants:
1. A mother, a father and their young children
2. A mother and father with one minor child plus minor children of the mother from a previous marriage
3. A mother, father and a grandchild
4. A mother, father, an adult child and her daughter (a grandchild)
5. A mother and father and two adult children
6. A father with minor children and a new companion
7. A mother with adult children but none living in the
Unit
8. A mother and father with an adult child but not living in the
Unit
9. Two empty nest couples where both husband and wife have children but no children in common and none living in the
Unit
Out of the 10 Units how many are occupied by a
“family”? One, two, three, seven? All the
Units are occupied by Households and thus the use of the term in discussing
human settlement patterns.
Beyond the complexity of relationships in the Units within a specific
Dooryard, it is well documented that a mother, father and minor children - blended
families or not - make up less than 25% of the
Households in the United States. In spite of this, most houses are designed as if they are going to be occupied by a “traditional
family.”
There is nothing “wrong” with any of these living arrangements, the majority are just not what comes to mind when the word
“family” is used and, as suggested below, skew the discussion of functional
human settlement patterns.
Even more important, the categories into which the 10
Units in this Dooryard can be classified
have changed significantly within a short period of time.
Of the 10
households over the past five years, four have completely changed with a new set of occupants. One
Unit has been home to three separate Households in five years. In five of the other
Units, persons within the Household have changed, thus shifting the
Unit from one of the nine categories listed above to another. The occupants of one
Unit have changed categories seven times in nine years. Over a 5 year period, only one
Household has stayed the same with the same individuals and the same status. Ninety percent turn over in 5 years is a huge rate of change and is far more flux than is usually thought of as “turnover.” Most “turnover” calculations are based on “sale-of-unit” data. That metric, and most other perceptions of the
family, are archaic.
Yes, there are Dooryards, especially ones with
Units that were built recently where a majority of the
Units are occupied by a mother, a father and their children. That will change in time. When the
Units in the profiled Dooryard were sold about 10 years ago five
Units were occupied by a mother, a father and minor children and one
Unit by a mother and minor children.
(See
End Note Two for the definitions of
Dooryard, Household and Unit. Words in boldface type are included in the
GLOSSARY.)
We were shocked when we first saw this data. We discussed it with others familiar with similar “well-to-do”
Dooryards and found comparable profiles in every
Dooryard about which there was relevant data. We would encourage readers to survey a
Dooryard with which they are familiar.
The first problem, as with any survey, may be that
many do not
yet know where their
Dooryard starts and stops or know enough about the residents of the
Dooryard to summarize the data. This in itself says a lot about the
dysfunctional disaggregation of contemporary society. (See the definition of
Dooryard in End Note
Two. For an in-depth discussion of the importance of
Dooryards see The Shape of the Future.)
So why is the disjunction between the stereotype of the
family and its reality a problem? We address this issue in our column
“A Yard Where Johnny Can Run and
Play” (1 December 2003).
The assumption is that Units for
“families” require “big yards” to provide a proper setting to “raise children.” The cumulative impact of big yards is dysfunctional human settlement patterns at the Cluster, Neighborhood, Village and Community scales.
We call this The Big Yard Myth. The column, “A Yard Where Johnny Can Run and
Play,” lists some consensus elements of “a good place to raise a child” and examines how The Big Yard Myth thwarts the existence of most of them due to settlement pattern disaggregation.
One serious downside of disaggregated society is that one might assume, based on the parents of the children’s soccer teammates or the people on their speed-dial
lists, that they are representative of those in their
Dooryard, Cluster or Neighborhood
-- they may not be. Security, safety, happiness and survival depend on cohesive and functional economic, social and physical relationships in the components of
human settlement. Citizens need a clear Vocabulary to achieve those relationships.
The Dooryard data suggests that those who champion the “traditional
family” need to adjust their perspective.
--
July 30, 2007
End
Notes
(1.) LIST
OF CORE CONFUSING WORDS BEST AVOIDED IN
DISCUSSIONS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT
(For further discussion of these words and phrases see
The Shape of the Future, APPENDIX TWO - CORE CONFUSING
WORDS and Section IV. GLOSSARY in HANDBOOK.)
City
City was once the focus of economic activity but has evolved into a word with many meanings. This word is loaded with obsolete and emotionally charged interpretations. The word is still used in the official name of some forms of
municipal
governance but does not represent an organic component of
human settlement pattern. For this reason it is best to avoid its use whenever possible except as part of the name of a specific
municipal entity (such as the
City of Alexandria). See City.
Ex-Urban
Ex-Urban is used to refer to an area of very low
density urban land uses. This is a misleading way to describe a previously
nonurban area that has become
urban through scatterization of urban land uses.
See Ex-urban.
Family
Family has evolved to become a confusing way to describe the occupants of a dwelling
Unit. In TRILO-G the word Household is used rather than
family. See Family.
Local
Use of the word local has been extended far beyond a limited district: “the
local office”, “the local government.”
Considering a
local government can include from 150 to five million
citizens. Depending on the context,
local is used to indicate a proximity or
service radius from Dooryard to continent.
Rural
Rural is used as a catchall substitute for sylvan, bucolic, rustic and pastoral, a reference to a past existence that was close to nature and primitive. These descriptors are often used facetiously.
Rural once applied to sparsely settled agricultural areas as distinguished from settled,
urban areas.
Sprawl
Sprawl or sprawling is overused and misused in describing
dysfunctional human settlement patterns.
Suburb/Suburban
Suburb/Suburban have morphed from adjectives to nouns and verbs and have acquired varied confusing meaning and interpretations.
“Suburban” has been in use in the English Language since the 15th
Century to mean “less than
urban” and was used to describe undesirable persons (pimps, prostitutes, petty thieves, and potential traitors) who could not be trusted to be inside the walls of the “city” at night or during times of danger. The common usage has expanded and is now meaningless. See
Suburb/Suburban.
(2.) Three definitions from Draft
Bacon’s Rebellion “Shape of the Future” GLOSSARY:
Dooryard
Dooryard is an organic component of human settlement
pattern. An Alpha Dooryard is a functional grouping of
Units. The Dooryard has historic roots as housing for an extended
family or an intentional grouping of Households. The
Dooryard is the next larger scale of physical (spacial) orientation and proximity beyond the
Unit.
In contemporary settlement patterns, the Dooryard’s identity and functionality has atrophied while the need for social cohesiveness at this scale has grown. Much of what is attributed to “a great
neighborhood” actually happens at the Dooryard scale. One way to think of a
Dooryard is to consider the front doors a person can see from his or her front steps. Another perspective is that a
Dooryard is comprised of the Units one could easily get to in an emergency. Another image of the
Dooryard is the group of Units that one would first consider going to “borrow a cup of sugar.”
Alpha Clusters are composed of Alpha
Dooryards. Beta Dooryards may evolve into
Alpha Dooryards. Also see Alpha and
Beta as well as Unit and Cluster.
Household
A Household is composed of the occupants of a single dwelling Unit.
Unit
The Unit is a dwelling occupied by a Household.
Units provide shelter for cooking, eating, sleeping, hygiene and recreation of the
Household members. Units may be located in buildings that are
Single Household Detached, Single Household
Attached (duplex, town house, quadraplex) or
Multi-Household.
|
