In a previous post,
I spoke briefly about the writing Jane Jacobs did in her “The Death
and Life of Great American Cities”. This book, published in 1961,
was a critique of urban planning measures of the time and flew
directly in the face of what was then modern dogma (an example:
belief that parks cure social ills.) The book rejects simplification
in favor of an understanding of the need for layered complexity,
which can at times seem like chaos. She identifies four basic
concepts of neighborhoods that must be maximized in order for them to
be thriving, lively places to live, which I will attempt to translate
into terms for an improv team.
1. “The district,
and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more
than one primary function, preferably more than two...”
In city terms, this
is an admonishment against districts too tightly focused on a single
purpose (i.e. warehouse districts) because it means there will be
times when those areas will be empty. (Just think about how many
times the Highlander traded blades with immortals in abandoned
factories and car parks.) Sometimes people see success in one area
(say, banks) and pile a bunch of other things in the same area
(sometimes even the same intersection (hello, Subway and Starbucks))
in an effort to duplicate success. (Same thing happens when TV shows
or movies are successful.) Translate to improv: teams need diversity
of players. Different ideas, candors, tempos, energies, ways of
playing. Everyone is working in different ways, but still towards
the same goal. We never know what solution will be the one that
works in a particular case, so we have to able to pursue all of these
avenues simultaneously. Additionally, teams can't just do one thing;
they have to be able to do many things well to be successful. (One
way to read this is that they must specialize in one type of show,
but one of my favorite teams, The Improvised Shakespeare Company, is
very successful despite doing one very particular show – but if
you've ever seen them, you know that they are dramatic, funny, tell
great stories, inventive, bold, and also can act. It's also done in
the style of Shakespeare, which they also succeed at. It's also
exceptionally well done.)
2. Most blocks must
be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be
frequent.
In a neighborhood,
there must be a variety of ways for residents to interact with each
other, in a complicated and myriad network of contact. Long streets
limit the routes people can take, which minimizes contact and
observation. People on teams cannot be isolated from each other they
must be able to, regularly do, make meaningful contact with each
other. Time spent with each individual person must be (roughly)
equal. I think this is why two person groups are most commonly the
long-term successful ones; easier to maintain contact.
3. “The district
must mingle old buildings that vary in age and condition, including a
good proportion of old ones so that they vary in economic yield they
must produce. This mingling must be fairly closely grained.”
Too many new
buildings makes it too expensive for some businesses to operate, and
they stay empty. A variety of uses (business, living arrangements)
necessitates a variety of places for them to occupy. Variety breeds
success. This holds especially in terms of experience and function.
What each person brings to the group (the funny one, the serious one,
the one who initiates) and how they provide it are critical to its
ability to operate.
4. “There must be
a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes
they may be there...”
This doesn't mean
all groups have to be huge, it means they all have to be close enough
to each other that their interactions are meaningful. The level of
engagement and responsibility everyone has for each other keeps
people needing each other. This isn't a bad thing; we can't forget
that the basic un-written underlying premise of “yes, and...” is
cooperation. Best thing about using the word “need” is the
connotation the word has of being “active” in what we do with and
for each other. Low density neighborhoods feel empty and unoccupied,
the same way that sparsely populated teams do. Teams with high
density feel busy.
I get asked by
people all the time about teams; which they should join, should they
take this person or that, or should they quit this one or that one.
They are equivalent to “should I move?” in terms of cities. Ms.
Jacobs would probably say that moving only furthers the collapse of
neighborhoods; that moving people around only lessens their capacity
and drive. I think its very easy to get distracted by the offer of
new teams as being the offer of better (improv) lives, when those
things are not always mathematically equal. We can't fix things if
we're always just on our way to the next place.
“We expect too
much of new buildings, and too little of ourselves.” - Jane Jacobs
