In this month's Metropolis, Paul Goldberger wonders what our cell phones hath wrought upon us, as they prevent us from experiencing a place. Goldberger writes in his elegant essay:
When you walk along the street and talk on a cell phone, you are not on the street sharing the communal experience of urban life. You are in some other place--someplace at the other end of your phone conversation. You are there, but you are not there. It turns the boulevardier into a sequestered individual, the flaneur into a figure of privacy.Gothamist knows what Goldberger is talking about: There is something to be said to be able to walk around city streets and take in the life. But then you want to share that feeling and that experience with someone, and short of accosting a passerby, you will reach for your cell phone and call a friend. The good and bad of accessibility.
Goldberger also laments the disappearance of telephone exchanges that were defined by neighborhoods. With land lines moving to cells, 212 might be as "placeless" as 917 and 347. [Via Metafilter]
A book Gothamist loves because it that sings with the energy of New York as a place and state of mind: The Colossus of New York by Colson Whitehead.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Right, but what Goldberger misses is that the person you've called on your cell phone wouldn't have even gotten a call from you had cells not existed. You might not have even been friends with this person because before convenient and cheap communications (phones, email, IM, and even blogging to an extent), it may have been impossible to stay in touch.
So, no you're not "sharing the communal experience of urban life", but you probably wouldn't have been able to share it anyway.
I don't buy this argument because cell phones give you more choice without eliminating any that you previously had.
certainly people are not experiencing place as they once were. however, whining about it will not help. rather it is incumbent to those in charge of development to embrace technological change and create places that are as compelling (or moreso) than the caller on the other end of the phone.
moreover, as cellphones allow individuals to be speed-dialed by name rather than a 10-digit number, they have strengthened identity rather than diminishing it. instead of knowing that susie's phone number is 212-123-4567, and therefore she is from new york, because the phone now stores susie's number, i can use the part of my brain that once memorized her number to store the fact that she is from new york, and many other important details as well.
What Wes and Rob said.
Plus, when everyone has a cell phone the world will be even more intimate — instant access to anyone anywhere. Of course that comes with its own problems (for instance, I like the no-phone service zone of the subway), but the benefits will be tremendous. His complaints sound like "I don't like it because it's not how it was!" which isn't much of an argument.
More importantly: I can't wait until the technology evolves past those damned walkie-talkies bleeping, and their users shouting all the time.
Damn, you people keep harping about The Colossus of New York, I finally got me a copy off Amazon. Even though I really shouldn't be spending money. Anyhow, can't wait for it to arrive now....
has anyone written anything, here or anywhere else, about how cell phones have actually KEPT people from talking? example: my boyfriend and I have lived together for over 3 years. in the past year we have given up our land line and now each use our cell as our only number. i never get to chat with "his" friends anymore because i don't pick up his cell phone. i'm not whining exactly, but i do think it's interesting. it's helpful in a way, because i don't have to talk to his mom anymore, but i miss the banter with his friends. . .does anyone else feel this way?
1. Whether actually speaking or not, a person with a cell phone held near his ear has an excellent excuse to stand idly at any odd point in public. With people around him, if he is not speaking, but just pretending to be speaking at the moment, he is wiser to expect the ringtone of an incoming call. 2. My cellphone has freed my mind of the burden of storing tens, if not hundreds of phone numbers. 3. But I still miss the days before the advent of the mobile phone back when everyone on the line was somewhere fixed. 4. I hate the fact that I have consented like a meek sheep to be constantly tracked as to my whereabouts when I became a cellphone owner. My roaming data is available to someone somewhere. It only takes a willing boyfriend or girlfriend inside THE company to construct a complete and minute patterns of my travels, consumer behaviour and may become my alibi, if need be. 5. I believe the subscriber ought to access fully his own data, which must include a breakdown of his movements in time from one base station to another across the network. 6. During the purchase, the subscriber signs a contract defining his legal status. Similarly, the company must sign and hand over to the subscriber the terms of their limitations, including a strict ban on eavesdropping both by the company staff, the regulatory authorities and other government functions. 7. The data we scatter behind us everyday is enormous, and someone dutifully sweeps it after us. The complete convergence of our individual data as well as the aggregate planetwide data in one center is imminent, if not already happening. 8. If the consolidation of personal information by a single hand is expected now or in the future, then it is only fair that each individual fully access all of the information about him for any interval, including the relevant notes regarding the occurences and usage of his data.
That's an interesting point, jamie. I know that I can reach Jake or Karen directly via their cell phones, but sometimes I will call their home land line in hopes of catching both.
Hmm, about Jamie's cell phone comment. If my roommate's not around and I recognize the name of the person on his phone, I might pick it up.
But anyway, I'm convinced that if you'd asked people 100 years ago if they'd prefer to call a location or a person, they'd say a person. The benefits are overwhelming and I think it's mostly nostalgia that makes people complain. I'd even say that calling a person is the more human choice.
Location independence, a more general concept, is really important because it means you're less and less defined by physical limitations. As an example, for all I know Gothamist might be located in California. Gothamist is defined by its content, not the fact that its servers might happen to be in a different state. In contrast, small newspapers are very tied down to a location because of the physical limitations of print (you can't afford to send reporters too far from the printing press).
Regarding stokink's point #4: That's why, anytime you are walking around talking on your cellphone, you should plan the path of your meanderings to spell out nasty messages to the phone company.
Personally, my beef with the cellphone age is not that people are increasingly peripatetic. It's that we have blurred past recognition the distinction between public and private space. When Central Park was built, the (patronizingly paternalistic) attitude of its sponsors was that it would be a civilizing influence on the huddled masses of New York. Families out in public would put on their public faces and refrain from some of the vices and abuses they might commit in private. Nowadays, cellphones have turned the Park (and the streets, shops, busses, and durned near everywhere else) into livingrooms. People feel free to act out every private scenario at top volume over the phone at anyplace they happen to be. People think nothing of yelling about their intimite feelings, lover's quarrels, and medical procedures to all and sundry. Every walk about town is a perambulation through the private lives of those around you. Unless you're too absorbed in your cellphone conversation to notice.
That's f***ing brilliant! It's like that pipe bomb guy in Iowa who wanted to draw a smiley face on the US map. Without the callous disregard for human life, of course.
I just sucked up to Paul Goldberger at the WTC gig and praised his piece, mostly, as perceptive. I'd say it's perceptive but old-fashioned. Anyway, I told him I saw it on Gothamist, since my sub doesn't arrive until Wed. F2F blogrolling.
New research by Dr. Leif Salford indicates that cel phones cause brain cell damage.Use them at your own risk!
I have dumped my cellphone and am much the happier for it, can focus better on the essentials of life!
Dr. Leif's Research(PDFs)
Hello, fascinating. Can anyone point me to a study(s) of consumer behaviour and cell phones, specifically referring to being "impulsive" clickers for information rather than "pro-active" in ordering up or wanting to "see more..." content
snowy -
615 http://www.play-poker-i.com