|
Posted by on April 5, 2007, 1:57 am
>
> IMO? It's a three-pronged situation:
> (1) the lack of privacy, or rather, a lack of understanding and/or the
> effort required to do a few things to enhance balcony privacy;
> (2) blaconies that are too small to be sueful and/or to have priovacy
> adaptations made to them. A combination of potted plants and screening
> materials can be used to create an area which is not completely open to
> the stares of strangers, but first, the balcony (or patio) has to be
> large enough to accomidate both those materials, and a modest seating
> arrangement - and second, it takes a bit of knowledge about design and
> about the plants and materials themselves;
> (3) poeple increasingly are focused upon *lifestyle* as opposed to
> *living*. They envy people who *live* yet are not willing to adjust
> their own attitudes (and activities) in order to do so. In the end,
> although most people will get a wistful expression, and make wistful
> sounds, with regards to something like sitting outside to have their
> mornign coffee, with some greenery around to give a bit of privacy, and
> yet some views of the city and its activities, the fact is that most
> don't want to put the time, money, or effort into creating such a space,
> and evenif they wanted to pay someone else to create the space, most
> don't want to get out of bed five or ten minutes earlier so as to
> actually sit down and have some coffee or tea and a bit of breakfast. In
> short, that sort of thing is not seen as a "value producing" activity -
> it's personal, and provate, so you don't gain any social status from it;
> and it's "non-productive", i.e. does not involve making money, or making
> contacts with other people whom one thinks will lead to money-making
> connections. This is related to people having "trophy/lifestyle kids" -
> i.e., the "requisite" one or two kids, whom they then proceed to foist
> off onto nannies and daycare, and otherwise ignore. It they were more
> intrested in *living*, they'd take time to enjoy the kids as they
> developed and learned to explore the world - IOW, the kids would be a
> *part of their lives*, rather than mere window-dressing, i.e. *part of
> their lifestyle*.
>
> Building designers understand thse things, at least on a subconscious
> level, so balconies are not designed for *living*. They'r more like the
> "requisite" pathetic little fireplace inserts that get shoved into so
> many homes and condos, and usually just end up making the wallspace
> useless (because fires are pretty messy affairs, so many, and from what
> I've seen most, people seldom bother with them). IOW, it's a geegaw
> that's become expected as part of a certain class of "lifestyle", yet has
> very little to do with how people actually *live*.
>
> At least, that's my personal take on it.
Thanks, KMK.
That sounds exactly right. Lifestyle image vs life.
The fireplace comparison is perfect.
Got it.
Jim Heath
viacorp.com
>
> > I'd be glad for any clues, or contact details for anyone
> > who may have insights into it.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > My latest web publication, which branches a little
> > in architecture: "Tips on choosing a suburb in Perth."
> >http://www.viacorp.com/perth-suburbs-compared.html
> > Looking at a lot of houses when I was researching this,
> > I suddenly "saw" the empty balconies.
>
> > Jim Heath
> > viacorp.com
> > Perth
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap