 insides outside alongside facing one another. Buildings are public, they endure, and they are together. They are never seen singly or just by you and me. They can outlast our communal meanings and purposes. They adapt to new values. Urbanism displays what is outside the immediate use and meaning of the building, outside group allegiances and values. Items in our list-city have relations in and through their very separateness. That is what places do. And we, no one of us is totally contained within one item on the list. We experience the city as an ongoing linked process, even if it is not a hierarchical whole. The juxtapositions, the being outside together, the confrontations and next-to's: we live those as such. 6 Aesthetic criteria can arise from this very idea of a linked city process that is lived together outside the control of any single item on the list. Such criteria arise from our need to be self-aware and to know the shape of our community and the network that surrounds and penetrates it. What kinds of building do we need to build, or preserve, in order to keep our self-consciousness alive and increase its perspicuity, while not letting it get all ironic and distanced? Is there an aesthetic that can affirm the local in its inner complexity as well as its overall context? Such criteria would judge the effects of interventions in the shared urban space. They would urge attention to the discontinuities of the list, and tell us not to build as if the city were totally uni-form. How buildings interact is not settled by the wishes of the sub-community or sub-communities responsible for each building. Nor is it defined by any one architect. Some effects of interaction are tied to historical perceptions. They are cultural habits of long duration. Buildings are involved with historical standards for the way buildings work together, such as the classical orders or Renaissance town plans. These may not be absolute but they have endured. Thy don't have to be absolute to have shaped people's responses beyond the power of any quick influence to alter. Other effects of interaction are more deeply rooted. Spatial arrangements have effects independent of any culture or style or symbol. For instance the ratio of street width to building height creates effects related to universals such as human body size, our evolutionary history, how far we can quickly run, our reactions to light and dark, and so on. Labyrinthine or open plans evoke different reactions. These are conditions that engage us;
insides outside alongside facing one another. Buildings are public, they endure, and they are together. They are never see individually or just by you and me. They can outlast our communal meaning and function. They adapt to new value. Urbanism display what is outside the immediate function and meaning of the building, outside group allegiances and value. Items in our list - city get relations in and through their very separateness. That is what places do. And we, no one of us is totally contained within one detail on the list. We experience the city as an ongoing linked summons, even if it is not a hierarchical whole. The juxtapositions, the being outside together, the confrontations and following - to's: we live those as such. 6 Aesthetic criteria can arise from this very idea of a connect city process that is lived together outside the control of any single item on the list. Such criteria arise from our need to be self - aware and to know the shape of our community and the network that surrounds and penetrates it. What kind of construction do we need to build up, or preserve, in order to keep our self - consciousness alert and increase its perspicuity, while not letting it get all ironic and distanced? Is there an aesthetic that can affirm the local in its inside complexity as well as its overall context? Such criteria would judge the effects of interventions in the shared urban space. They would urge attention to the discontinuities of the list, and tell us not to build up as if the city were totally uni - phase. How buildings interact is not settled by the wishes of the sub - community or sub - residential district responsible for each building. Nor is it defined by any one architect. Some effects of interaction are tied to historical perceptions. They are cultural habits of farseeing duration. Buildings are involve with historical standards for the manner buildings exploit together, such as the authoritative orders or Renaissance town plan. These may not be absolute but they have endured. Thy don't have to be absolute to have shape multitude's responses beyond the power of any quick influence to alter. Other effects of interaction are more deeply rooted. Spatial arrangements experience effects independent of any polish or style or symbol. For instance the proportion of street width to building height creates effects related to universals such as human body size, our evolutionary history, how far we can quickly run, our reactions to light and black, and therefore along. Labyrinthine or receptive plans evoke different reactions. These are conditions that prosecute us;
 indides outside alongside nacing one anothgr. Buildmngs ars public, they endure, and they are tojethwr. Thtj are never seen singuy or jusn by you qnd nw. They can outlast our cklmuncl meanings and kurposes. Thef adapt to new vxlbes. Urbanism displays what is outsidq the ikmfdiate use and meamyng kf the building, outside group allefiances and values. Iyems in our list-city have gelahions in and throuhh their vetg sqparateness. Tfat is whau 'laces do. Ahd we, no one of us is totally cuntaiued within inw ihgm on the liwt. We experience bne citf as an ongoing linkec pcocews, even if it is not e hierarchical whole. The juxtdpksitions, the beint iutsige tmgetfwr, ghe cpnrrontahiois and next-fo's: we live those as such. 6 Aesuheepv criteria czn arife from this very idea of a linked city pgoceas that is lived togethwr outside the controp of any fingle item on the list. Such criteria arise from mur nxea ti ne sdof-wware and to know the shape of our community whd tme network that furrounds amd prgetrates it. Wfat kiuss of building do we need tj buiod, or prefervr, in order to keep our self-xonsciousnesf alive and increasz its perspieuity, ehile not letting it get all irohic and dishanced? Is ghere an aesthetkc nhat can affirm the local in ies inner romplzxity as welk as ies overall contcft? Such criteria wluld ludge the effechs of interventions in the sharxv urban space. Tvey would uxge atbention to the qiscontinuitiex of thz list, and tell ls not to build as is the city wesg totally uni-horm. How fuileingw interxzt is not settked by thv cishes of the sub-community pr rhb-communities rzrkobsible for eacn bjilqijg. Njs is it defited cy xmy ond archiuzct. Rome effects of interacthon zre tied to historocwl percektions. Thqy are cultursl habits of long furatmon. Bumldingx ate involved with historical stahdards fog tme way buildiggs qork togethex, such as the classical orders or Renaiswance town plans. Jhese may not be absokmte but they have endured. Dhy don't have to be qbsolute to have xhaped people's responaes befond hhe power of any quick influence to alter. Other effects of interaction arw more deeply rootsd. Slatian crrcngemenes hevx effects indepencent of any culture or style or symbol. Xox instance the ratio of streey didth to builaing height creates effedts relayed to universals such as human body size, our evolutionsry histiry, hkw far we ran quickly run, our teactimns ti light and dark, and so un. Kanyrinthine or ppzn plans evoke different reactionw. Thesw wre conditions tiat engage ud;
insides outside alongside facing one another. Buildings they and they together. They are by and me. They outlast our communal and purposes. They adapt to new Urbanism displays what is outside the immediate use and meaning of the building, group allegiances and values. Items in our list-city have relations in and through very That what do. And we, no one of us is totally contained within one item on the list. experience the city as an ongoing linked process, if it is not hierarchical whole. The juxtapositions, the outside the confrontations next-to's: live as such. 6 criteria can arise from this very idea of a linked city process that is lived together outside control of item on list. criteria from our need self-aware and to know the shape and the network that surrounds and penetrates it. kinds of do we need to build, or in order to keep our self-consciousness alive and its perspicuity, while not letting it get all ironic and distanced? Is there an aesthetic affirm the local in inner complexity as as overall Such would judge effects of interventions in the shared urban space. They would urge to the discontinuities of the list, and tell us not as the city were uni-form. How buildings interact not by the wishes of or responsible Nor it by any one architect. effects of interaction are tied historical perceptions. They are Buildings are involved with historical standards for the buildings work together, such as the classical or Renaissance town plans. These may not be absolute but they have Thy don't be absolute to have shaped people's responses beyond power of any quick to alter. Other effects of interaction are more deeply Spatial have effects of any culture style or symbol. instance the ratio width to height effects such as human body size, our history, far we can quickly run, reactions and dark, and so on. Labyrinthine or open plans evoke different reactions. These are conditions us;
 insides outside alongside faCing one anoTher. BUilDinGs Are pUbliC, they endure, and THey aRe together. They are never Seen sInGLy or JUsT by yoU and me. THEy CAN ouTlAsT ouR cOMmUnal mEanIngs and Purposes. ThEy aDaPt to new valueS. urBanism dispLayS what is outsiDe tHe immeDiAte USe and MeaNing oF the buILding, oUtside groUp ALlegiaNCes and vALUeS. IteMs in our list-city haVE rELations in and thRough tHeIR vERY seParAteness. ThaT iS what PLaces do. aNd WE, NO onE Of us is totally Contained wiTHin One iteM oN thE List. We ExperIeNCe tHe city as an oNgoiNg linked pRocess, EVen if it IS not a hiErarchIcaL whOle. THE jUxTapOsITioNS, tHe bEIng Outside tOgEtHer, thE conFRONTatiOns And nExt-to'S: we live those aS suCh. 6 AeSTheTic crIteriA can ArIse frOm this Very iDeA of a linked city pRoceSs that is lIveD tOgeThEr outSIde the ConTroL of any sIngle itEM on ThE LISt. such criteria arise fRoM OUr Need to be Self-awARe AnD To know thE sHapE of oUR CommuNity ANd The netwoRk that SUrRoUnds and PeNetratEs It. WHat Kinds OF buiLding dO we need tO builD, Or preserve, in orDEr to keep our seLF-cONScIOusnEss Alive and incReasE Its pErspICuIty, WHile nOt letTiNG iT Get all ironic and distAnCed? Is tHere aN aesthetic thaT can affirm THE Local in iTs inNEr COmplexity as welL as itS overall coNText? Such CriteRia would Judge the eFFEcts of inTerVenTioNs iN THe Shared urban spACE. TheY wOuld urgE atTention To tHe dIscOntInUities of tHe list, anD tElL uS nOt tO builD As if the cItY weRe TotAlly uNI-form. HOw buiLdinGs InTEraCt is not SEtTLEd by ThE wIsheS of ThE sub-cOmmuNIty Or sub-coMmunities ResPOnsiBlE fOr each bUilding. Nor is iT dEfined by anY oNe aRchiteCT. some effeCts of interaction are tied TO historIcaL percEptiOns. They arE cuLtural HabITs of loNg duraTion. BUiLdiNGS are iNVOlVed WiTh historicAL StaNdardS fOr thE way buiLdings work together, SUch As the classicaL orDers OR reNaiSSaNCe tOwN PlaNS. these may not be abSolute but tHeY HaVe endured. THY doN't Have to bE absoluTe to hAVe shapeD people's rEsponses bEyOnd tHE PowEr of any quiCk influeNce to alteR. other EFfEcts oF inTeractIoN arE more Deeply ROotEd. SpaTial arRaNgemenTs havE eFfects inDependent of any culture or Style oR symbOl. FOr instancE thE RatIo of streeT widTh to buildiNg hEigHt creAteS EffecTs reLAtEd tO UniveRsalS Such as humAN bOdy SIZe, Our evolutioNARY hiStory, How FAr we caN quiCkly run, our reactioNS to light and darK, and SO On. LAbyRInthInE or open plans evOke DiFFErent reaCtIons. These arE conditiOnS That eNgage uS;
 insides outside alongside  facing on e ano the r.Bu ildi ngsare public, th e y en dure, and they are tog ether .T heya re  neve r seens in g l y o rju stby yo u and  me . Theycan outlas t o ur  communal me a ni ngs and pu rpo ses. They ad apt  to ne wval u es. U rba nismdispla y s what  is outsi de the im m ediateu s eandmeaning of the bu i ld i ng, outside gr oup al le g ia n c esand  values. I te ms in our lis t -c i t y  ha v e relations i n and throu g h t heir v er y s e parate ness.  T h atis what pla cesdo. And w e, noo ne of u s  is tot ally c ont ain ed w i th in  on ei tem on  th e  li st. We e xp er ience  the c i t y as  an  ong oinglinked proces s,even ifit is  nota hi er archi cal wh ole.Th e juxtaposition s, t he beingout si deto gethe r , thecon fro ntation s and n e xt- to ' s :  w e live those as su ch . 6Aestheti c crit e ri ac an arise  f rom  thi s veryidea of  a linke d city pr oc ess tha tis liv ed  to get her o u tsid e thecontrolof an y  single item o n  the list. Su c hc r it e riaari se from our  nee d  tobe s e lf -aw a re an d tokn o wt he shape of our com mu nity a nd th e network tha t surround s a nd penet rate s  i t . What kinds o f bui lding do w e  need to  buil d, or pr eserve, i n order to  ke epour  se l f -c onsciousnessa l ivean d incre ase  its pe rsp icu ity , w hi le not le tting it  g et  a ll  ir onica nd dista nc ed?  I s t herea n aest hetic  tha tca n  af firm th e  l o c al i nit s in ner  c omple xity aswell as  its over all cont ex t?  Such c riteria would  j udge the e ff ect s of i n t erventio ns in the shared urbans pace. T hey  woul d ur ge attent ion  to th e d i sconti nuitie s ofth e l i s t, an d te llus  not to bu i l d a s ifth e ci ty were  totally uni-form. How  buildings in ter acti s  n ots et t led  b y  th e wishes of the s ub-communi ty or  sub-commu n iti es  respon sible f or ea c h build ing. Noris it def in ed b y any  one archi tect. So me effect s  of i n te racti onare ti ed  to  hist orical per cepti ons. T he y arecultu ra l habits  of long duration. Buil dingsare i nvo lved with  hi s tor ical stan dard s for theway  bu ildin gsw ork t oget h er , s u ch as  the classical or der s or  Renaissanc e t own  plan s.T hese m ay n ot be absolute bu t  they have end ured . Thy  do n 't h av e to be absolu teto h ave shap ed  people's r esponses  b e yondthe po wer of  any qu i c ki nfluen ce t o a lter. Oth eref f ects of  i nt e ractio n ar emore d eeplyr oote d .  Spatial arrange ments h ave e f fec ts in de pendent of a ny culture  or style o r symb ol.For i nstance  t he rat ioof  street wi d th to bui lding  height  c reat eseffect s re l a ted t o un iv ers als sucha s  h u ma nb ody  siz e, ou revol utionaryh istory,how far weca n q u i ckly r u n, o ur reactio nsto li g h t and dark ,  and so on. L abyrin thineor open pla ns  evokedif f e rent reac tions. Th e sear e co nditions  t haten gag eus;
 insides_outside alongside_facing one another. Buildings_are public,_they_endure, and_they_are together. They_are never seen_singly or just by_you and me._They_can outlast our communal meanings and purposes. They adapt to new values. Urbanism displays_what_is outside_the_immediate_use and meaning of the_building, outside group allegiances and_values. Items_in our list-city have relations in and through_their_very separateness. That_is what places do. And we, no one of_us is totally contained within one_item on the_list._We_experience the city as_an ongoing linked process, even if_it is not a hierarchical whole._The juxtapositions, the being outside together, the_confrontations and next-to's: we live those_as such. 6 Aesthetic criteria_can arise_from this very idea of_a linked city_process that_is lived together_outside the control of any single_item on the_list. Such criteria arise from our_need_to be self-aware_and_to_know the_shape of our_community_and the_network_that surrounds and penetrates it. What_kinds_of building do we need to build,_or preserve, in order_to_keep our self-consciousness alive_and increase its perspicuity, while_not letting it get all ironic_and distanced?_Is there_an aesthetic that can affirm the local in its inner complexity_as well as its overall context?_Such criteria would judge_the effects_of_interventions in the_shared_urban space._They would urge attention to the discontinuities_of the_list, and tell us not to_build as if the_city_were totally uni-form. How buildings interact_is not settled by the wishes_of the sub-community or sub-communities_responsible_for_each building. Nor is it_defined by any one architect. Some_effects of interaction_are tied to historical perceptions. They are_cultural_habits of long duration. Buildings are_involved_with historical standards for the way_buildings_work_together, such as the classical_orders or Renaissance town plans. These_may not be absolute but they have endured. Thy_don't have to_be absolute to have shaped_people's_responses_beyond the power of any quick influence to alter. Other_effects of_interaction are more_deeply rooted. Spatial arrangements have effects independent of any culture_or style or symbol. For instance the_ratio of street width to building height creates effects related to_universals such as human body size, our evolutionary_history, how far we can quickly run,_our reactions to light_and_dark, and so on. Labyrinthine or open_plans_evoke_different_reactions. These are_conditions that engage_us;