go home
Face-to-Face v. Wired:
community life @Meadowmont and
Meadowmont.org
± conclusion
A New Urbanist view
The connection between physical design and community is complicated.
Chief concerns include social homogeneity and exclusion (Silver, 1985). The
notion of socially engineering particular types of "balanced" communities,
therefore, has been roundly criticized (Banerjee and Baer, 1984). Property values
and perceived threats to those values can become the defining "community"
bond at Meadowmont and proscribed communities like it. Watching activity and
communication on Meadowmont's intranet for this thread could be insightful.
The physical definition
of Meadowmont and the surveillance and monitoring online at least make these
questions worthy of asking. Does this mean Meadowmont is a bad idea? Of course
not. It does mean that finding empirical evidence linking the physical
and online realms in terms of community-building is worthwhile. Attachment
to place and sense of community, after all, are positive social goals. The
question for Meadowmont is whether they can be linked to specific physical designs
and online interfaces and infrastructures.
East-West Partners is more concerned with the economic consequences of
Meadowmont than with the social consequence, at least that is my perception.
It is a part of E-W's brand. This is not good or bad. But the economic primacy
underlines the importance of studying the social effects and consequences of
Meadowmont and "communities" like it, particularly their potential
harms.
|
go home |