Spatial Necessity for Innovation

Innovation depends on some prerequisites. I am not here to debate the utility of a scientific method and experimentation, or the nature of man and his intrinsic need of doing. I proffer a firm belief that the process of innovation is supported by the free use of some land or space, however small it may be, on which the scientific experiment may be done. The technology of spatial freedom and access, I seek to prove an essential element of innovation and the betterment of society. This may appear at first to represent common sense, come off as underwhelming, or oversimplified, but through observations of our general condition within the physical and regulatory fabric of society will reveal a lack of access to the free use of space for experimentation. This lack of access is a cause of accelerated decay in technology, while also an inhibition to innovation and the process of innovation. I concede that enormous innovation has been achieved within less than ideal spatial conditions, and we are of course rapidly advancing. I propose that much greater achievement and innovation is stuck in the gate of the human mind, with limited access to an outlet in the physical realm. The realization of public spaces for the conduct of experimentation must come to pass in supplication to expanded innovative capacity. We begin with some observations.

Consider the landscape experienced by generations responsible for innovative technologies that took society from its era of agrarian dominance onward through the period of rapid industrialization from which many nations are beginning to emerge. The period began with a complete and free potential resource of individual experimentation upon the land. All material and space that an individual may’ve needed to take for his work was available at arms reach. In essence, the aspiring citizen scientist was his own guide and provider in a world of untapped potential. Of course, many people were already accumulated into crowded cities, but these cities were very near to abundant wilderness only a short walk or horse-ride away. It should be recognized as well that the cities, as they existed, were almost invariably smaller in geographic extent than the typical American neighborhood tract development of the period beginning after World War II, when mile upon mile of new road and detached homes were erected upon previously open land. Before that time, one would have easily reached wilderness upon passing the town walls and adjacent hinterlands utilized for crop production, grazing, and timber collection.

My scope, at this time will not consider the various restrictions on mobility no doubt employed by governing bodies in various states and empires throughout history. I will primarily focus on the conditions exhibited in the United States, as I have come to understand them. The choice of singular focus is suitable owing to the relative freedom of mobility upon the land enjoyed in American history and the accompanying success of invention which has persisted during the same period. The contemporary lack of spatial innovation owes its tenacity to the condition of decreasing access to land for experimentation, and the lack of regulatory framework which would support free use of the land in its capacity as testbed.

A short and non-exhaustive list of the large scale experiments I’ve found to illustrate and well represent (though not always to the betterment of our condition and overall well being)the period of innovation via exceptionally free use of the land are these:

A_ Nuclear testing sites
B_ Munitions firing ranges
C_ Original large scale industry (Henry Ford auto assembly plant, etc.)
D_ The Federal Interstate Highway System
E_ Early railroad construction, the Trans-Continental Railroad
F_ General condition of American southwestern desert areas in their role as proving/testing grounds
G_ Early Chemical Production Plants
H_ Early founding of new towns and their unchecked expansion through the Homestead     Act of 1862, Land Act of 1804, Land Ordinance of 1785, and numerous other individual use promoting legal devices.

I reiterate a sentiment that the free use of land by the owners/users does not guarantee good outcomes, general welfare, or even a conditionally ideal legal standing. A better legal structure for the use of land may rest in the realm of free use within constraints of environmental and public health/sanitation safeguards against malicious or ignorant acts upon the land. As several of the examples listed above have come to prove that absolute liberty of use can result in dangerous effects upon the public health and general welfare. The free use of land must be considered in a context of liability upon the occasion of damage to bystanders and non-participants in the landed experiment.

An illustration of the free use of land is represented by the individual land owner having a right to construct any structure upon the site and engage in any activity that cannot by its nature and method of implementation cause harm to the senses of touch, smell, hearing, taste, or sight. A condition being those which would damage the health, safety, morals, or welfare of one subjected to the stimulus. The land owner should not be held to aesthetic tenets, or building volume constraints apart from those made concrete by the boundary of his property and the quantitative studies conducted as precursor to well established building codes... The discourse will continue in installments.