the re-surfacing of Teddy Cruz

A friend sent me this article on Artkrush, an interview with Teddy Cruz. I wrote about him last year when he was in town and still find his work fascinating; he experiments with and highlights the difference between the uber-planned, government/developer spaces (formal) and the socially determined (informal), and although he doesn't go for the jugular, hints at the corrosion of our democracy reflected in these regulated spaces and the inability of citizens to responsibly make these decisions in modern planning. The current paradigm strikes me as disturbingly contrary to the core values of democracy, and suggests that the inhabitants of the informal might be better in touch with true democracy than those of the formal. I also really enjoy his description of possible 'pixelization' of these mcmansions, possibly the first of many 'pixelizations' and a movement toward a high-resolution built world: designed not for magazines and elevations, but for experiencing up-close. I recommend you read it.

big talk about the formal/informal

There's a lot of talk about the divide between the "formal" (i.e., the planned, the controlled, the centralized) and the "informal" (messy, unplanned life), frequently the formal being associated with the first world, mcmansion, gated-community mentality (although the "first-world" status of gated communities is debatable) and the informal embodied in it's most pure form in Brazilian favellas and the dream worlds of Lebbus Woods.

I'm watching a fantastic video of a GSD lecture by Teddy Cruz (fantastic b/c, in addition to the content, I am in my sweatpants, eating dinner, and able to pause-and-rewind). He is giving a fascinating tour of the Tijuana/San Deigo border and the exchange that is going on there - the clash of the corporation-saturated southern California and the disorder of Mexican Tijuana. Drug dealer's tunnels through earth and buildings, entire houses picked up and transported south to make room for new ones, a double-headed Trojan Horse, built for transparency, straddling the boarder. I could go off on a dozen tangents.

He asserts, as many do, that the formal is ignorant of the informal, which is hard to deny. But isn't the formal just a reaction to the informal? Isn't it a clumsy, ham-fisted reaction to the informal, deriving it's existence from the very thing it seeks to squash?

Isn't it more than that, but actually a product of the failures of the informal?

look at the 'formal' systems around you - they seem to sink into the cracks in our "informal' society, where tight social circles fail and crime sneaks in, the formality of police force oozes in after it. Where private/civic organizations fail to provide comprehensive and open education, public education arises. Where the social contract fails to moderate land use, zoning arrives.

The strength of the organic, freely determined will always overwhelm the hollow and the formal, but can we guide and accelerate this to ensure it is as positive as possible?