fllexaQder Visits JQe Ore~oQ ExperimeQt Recently, fatf!S converged upon sleepy Eugene, Oregon to create a fascinating controversy. As a story i;,,,volving participatory democracy and the human-built environment, it's one ofthe most revealing in the latter part ofthe 20th Century. Most Euge~eans, however, don't see it this way. Panic, froth and potent disinformation spilled into the local media, so coloring the story as to obscure the subject. -In the after.math, few have the will to examine what happened. That's unfortunate, because the implications are far-reaching. Christopher Alexander's latest project, with its laudable ecological and social goals, was nearly dismantled by institutional disregard for people. Ironically he addressed that very problem in another inspired program, in this same community, over twenty Y,ears ago. By Greg Bryant Certain places simply feel good. Perhaps it's that lively public square where you meet with friends, or a nook of profound solitude, or the little paradise outside with the bench, the old tree, the warm-colored wall and the perfect sunlight. It doesn't take an expert to know that these spots are just right. So why do architects and planners usually mak;e these judgements for us? Instead, perhaps ordinary people should design their own surroundings. In 1970, the entire·University of Oregon campus became a testing ground for this idea. The·creator of the new plan, Berkeley Professor Christopher Alexander, was an architect himself. But he believed that, given the alienating results <;>f modem construction, normal people must know more about humane habitat than professionals. Passing control to the campus community became known as The Oregon Experiment. The foundation of the plan was the user group. Ale~ander wrote that "al1 decisions about what to build, and how to build it, will be in the hands of the users." This meant, among other things, that students, faculty and staff destined to use a new building Page 14 RAIN Summer 1994 . Volume XIV, Number 4 would design it themselves, with the help of architectfacilitators. The results were excellent: people know a great deal about what they like and need. Many even felt the experience to be, in some way, profound. Soon the Oregon campus became world-renowned as a working model of participatory planning. The user group, however, was only part of the plan. People should decide their own fate, fine, but how do you keep outside forces from messing up the process? To start, Alexander suggested that the planning office keep most projects small, letting the campus g~ow through careful, gradual construction. This way users could work at a human scale, and a human pace, and the administration wouldn't feel so tempted to tamper with all those' little projects. A student-built bus shelter, arts foundry, and other amenities were created to demonstrate the natural, graceful effect of piecemeal growth. To keep users from feeling lost in so much unfamiliar design work, Alexander provided an encyclopedic set of suggestions for sensitive architecture, known as a pattern language. He later publishe~ an absorbing, best-selling
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz