- Reaction score
- 11,189
- Points
- 1,160
On a couple of threads discussing expeditionary forces the notion of the "Castle" has been broached. The Castle as a permanent forward operating base, a refuge for troops operating in the area.
This, together with articles about the Superdome and NO Convention Centre as refuges of last resort (that may or may not have been stocked with supplies that may or may not have been actively denied to the denizens as a matter of policy), and a comment about the Moss Park armoury in Toronto to be utilized as "homeless shelter" prompted some ganglia in the grey matter to fire simultaneously.
Castles in our society have gone out of favour. Perhaps because they are associated with military dominance and warlords. Amongst even them they have declined in favour because modern weapons have made them less viable. They still need to be actively defended against military threats.
However Castles have not historically been just military bases. They have also been refuges.
Is there a need to start envisaging our communities not just as a market place surrounded by workers, but perhaps also as refuges sheltering citizens? Is there a need to start thinking in terms of democratic castles?
I started thinking of the value of the Superdome, and the convention centre and the squandered opportunity they presented.
Then I thought of the value of building similar facilities in every city, at tax payer's expense - renting them out to sports teams in the meantime
This lead to the notion of the parade ground as an alternative use for those types of facilities - essentially very large armouries.
That led further to the notion of armouries as refuges, as in the case of Moss Park (by the way a Permanent Homeless Shelter is not compatible with a multi-use public space and refuge).
That led still further to the notion of schools as natural gathering points, both for arriving troops and emergency personnel but also local residents.
That led still further to the notion of designing rights of way to connect schools, armouries, stadia, arenas, police and fire stations to hospitals by "hardened" secure transportation systems to hospitals.
Finally it led to the thought that: Should all our public spaces be built first of all to withstand the most likely natural disasters and permanently stocked with 14 days worth of rations and supplies?
More than an army, navy or air force, more than more teachers per student, more than higher wages for nurses, more than research on the sex life of the tsetse fly in Lower Slobbovia, isn't that a better expenditure of available dollars?
This coming from a capitalist that recognizes the cost and value of monumental public works - like roads, schools, buildings etc. Money spent on such projects is similar to spending time in your own backyard. You may trade favours with your wife and kids to get specific tasks done but they don't actually impact the overall economy of the family. No money need necessarily be spent outside of the community, outside of the family.
This, together with articles about the Superdome and NO Convention Centre as refuges of last resort (that may or may not have been stocked with supplies that may or may not have been actively denied to the denizens as a matter of policy), and a comment about the Moss Park armoury in Toronto to be utilized as "homeless shelter" prompted some ganglia in the grey matter to fire simultaneously.
Castles in our society have gone out of favour. Perhaps because they are associated with military dominance and warlords. Amongst even them they have declined in favour because modern weapons have made them less viable. They still need to be actively defended against military threats.
However Castles have not historically been just military bases. They have also been refuges.
Is there a need to start envisaging our communities not just as a market place surrounded by workers, but perhaps also as refuges sheltering citizens? Is there a need to start thinking in terms of democratic castles?
I started thinking of the value of the Superdome, and the convention centre and the squandered opportunity they presented.
Then I thought of the value of building similar facilities in every city, at tax payer's expense - renting them out to sports teams in the meantime
This lead to the notion of the parade ground as an alternative use for those types of facilities - essentially very large armouries.
That led further to the notion of armouries as refuges, as in the case of Moss Park (by the way a Permanent Homeless Shelter is not compatible with a multi-use public space and refuge).
That led still further to the notion of schools as natural gathering points, both for arriving troops and emergency personnel but also local residents.
That led still further to the notion of designing rights of way to connect schools, armouries, stadia, arenas, police and fire stations to hospitals by "hardened" secure transportation systems to hospitals.
Finally it led to the thought that: Should all our public spaces be built first of all to withstand the most likely natural disasters and permanently stocked with 14 days worth of rations and supplies?
More than an army, navy or air force, more than more teachers per student, more than higher wages for nurses, more than research on the sex life of the tsetse fly in Lower Slobbovia, isn't that a better expenditure of available dollars?
This coming from a capitalist that recognizes the cost and value of monumental public works - like roads, schools, buildings etc. Money spent on such projects is similar to spending time in your own backyard. You may trade favours with your wife and kids to get specific tasks done but they don't actually impact the overall economy of the family. No money need necessarily be spent outside of the community, outside of the family.
