#04 PAUL BARKER: THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE In 1969, Christopher Booker published The Neopia” his atack onthe pasion for charge which had characterized Britsin from the mid-1950s.[n that same year, New: Socity published a special issue under the heading, ‘Non-Han: An experiment in freedom” (Figures 1.1-1.10) It came too late for inclusion in Booker’ onslaught. Ie would, anyway, have been rather dificult to categorize. On the one hand, it wat cer ‘ainly imbued withthe deste for change (rampane neophili). On the other hand, it argued that what ordinary people wanted - rather than what planners, architects and other aesthetic judges said they ought to want — wat the bert guide (rampant conser= vats of rampant anarchism, depending on your viewpoint Its tone, however, was uundeubtedly that ofthe period: scathing and iconoclastic. Ie was matked, too, by fas ination with the culture ofthe er which, then a now, was sezaby many cleurl cities asa threat to civilization as we know i, ‘The idea of Non-Plan, or at any rate the word, was born one day in 1967. Iwas then the éeputy editor of New Society. This weekly magazine of social inquiry had been founded in 1962. Icwasitselfa sign of the concemporary preoccupation with trying to work out what sor of place Britain relly was and might become. In Too Much: art and sciey inthe sister, 1960-75, his euleual history ofthe 1960s, Robert Hewison sid that New Society was launched ‘asa forum forthe new inteligentsia.” doubt whecher, carlie, the word ‘intelligentsia could accurately have been employed in Britain, The again of he sitesi he 96: gore Naw Si many of nea wis Bt ugh ws aly egress Patan. sought cunt nl proscpeon ef maui copia py Foc, eg afl eta), The andr vata Contec a ‘src sonpay sw she mage sn ee rion af Dine deren of Geng Orval chee whine tonand po ihn Ia eine he his woud noe sped si Sy The Ne Borin EP Thonpon, no und cn hon fa pups avy fm aan dpc oth Sephora dcening view eh eetagceo thhvafor enact enone ncycamp ices Hor tune dee in 8h map wa ced wh pong avn tow pee aan thy me spp ob hn cng wena ones myo cp nes See eee aaa {LE hemp ung yc Unda Min es ase M8 wewsociet 20.Merch 1969 No 338 1564 wooky Robert Holman WRONG POVERTY PROGRAMME John Berger_MAGRITTE RECONSIDERED David Marquand_ EDUCATION BACKLASH. NON-PLAN: rey rerul Barker AN EXPERIMENT IN FREEDOM Peter Hall Cedric Price‘That day in 1967 1 went out fora lunchtime glas of bee and sandwich withthe wban ‘geographer, Peter Hall, at = pub called che "Yorkshire Grey’ on Gray’ Inn Road, near ‘New Society offices. He was then best known for hs book Landon 2000? and he had. become a regular contributor to Naw Socery We were bath disheartened by what urban planning was then producing, Peter Hall, then at che London School of Economics, was always ready t think the unthinkable which being a member ofthe Fabian Society ‘executive comnirtee did not chen rule out. He was strongly influenced by his extensive knowledge ofthe United States of Americ Earlier in 1967 Thad seized gratefully on a book by the Ametican sociologist, Hetbere Gans. The Levizownert: way of life an politics in a new ruburban community showed hhow aspire of community evolved within the mose despised form of American subst ban speculativehousing, Iran long extract from icin New Society as acorrectve to the usual we-know-bestsnabberies about suburbia. Berween us, Peter Hall and I floated chis maverick thought: could things be any worse if there was no planning at all? They might even be somewhat bette, We were espe- ally concerned atthe atempt co impote aizherc choices on people who might have very different choices of their own. Why not, we wondered, suggest an experiment in getting along wchout planning and seeing what emerged? We caled it Non-Plan. The Word was, I thik, mine. Burt evolved afer the usual batting to and fo which arses fon such oceatcns. For other collaborators, the decision seemed obvious: Reyner Banham and Cedric Price. Tewould make a quarter of mavericks: paid-up members of the Awlavard Squad. In 1965, I had persuaded Reyner Banham to become New Society regular design and architecture cic. He was then at University College, London. I was enchanted by the (quality of his writing and is loving observation of everyday object. Hs fist major essay forthe magazine was a review of The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Hake Streamline Baby, by che then-unknown Tom Wolfe, With Peter Hall, he became one of New Societys most characteristic voices. The Non-Plan idea was stron Benham’ extaysin the magazine." influenced by lewas Cedric Pic, the fourth maverick in our quartet, wha had fits suggested to me that Reyner Banham should be writing for New Society (where the range of critics included John Berger, Angela Carcer, Peter Fuller, Albert Hunt, John Lahr and Michael Wood). Price's designs had appeared in che pages of the magazine” His proposal for $e Halland 200 Lda Fb Be 96 SEAT Ste nm of id pl me bh come en: Mn ae The Pegi Ran Bho’ iM Say hppa esos Pa ue rit Landaa 1977 wey ae el St ay Wn ta ua ate rs 277 Sta 1957 ro Wee ws aad on ge i Sig Be Eat erp anc ey eh 9 ay 9h. 7 ee i S70 198.2 what he called a Pop-up parliament’ was one ofthe things Booker objected to in The Neaphiliaes. Booker missed Price’s tony. The proposal ro knock down, and update, the Barty-Pugin masterpiece was one way of crticiing the relationship, or non-ilation- ship, berween Parliament and people. In the mid-1960s, Cediie Price was probably best-known for his long-running batee co build aun palace’ in London. Ie was never built, bu isthe acknowledged intellectual inspiation for the Piano-Rogers Pompidou Cente in Pats (Our scheme for launching Non-Plan involved Hall, Banham and Price each taking @ segment of English countryside and hypothesizing what might happen if Non-Plan were applied chere. We wanted to startle people by offending against the deepest taboos. ‘This would drive our point home. I suggested Constable Countty to Banham, partly because of his East Anglian coots and parcly because i represented the greates ural ‘aboo ofall. (Inthe end, he shied away rom this lide. We kept the ttle powrépater, bbut he moved the focus westwards from Constable's heatlands to Royston-Stansted, here there was no Foster airport yet) Cedric Price chote the hinceland ofthe Solent. ecer Hall chose che eastern edge ofthe Peak District. Ta maintain the fancy nomen- lature, we called these Montagu Country and Laweence Country. The wider polemic would then be bule around these cree case ecules, During 1968 some of the material was written, bu che idea marked time. I became editor of the magazine. Ie was a year of histori eruptions. Other issues took prece- dence. An anti-Communist uprising in Czechoslovakia was put down by Soviet tanks. In Paris, students tioted against President de Gaulle (che protests were strangled by « deal struck between the right-wing government and the Communist trades unions) In England and the USA there were recurrent campus and street protest against the Vieesam Was. ‘The Non-Plan special issue was finally published on 20 March 1969. I had waitten an introduction, tying co eapcure che spirit of the enterprise. Peter Hall and I wrote the closing pages. Buc the issue appeared under all our names. We had al agreed the entire text and every page included thoughts ftom each contributor. Ie was illustrated mainly vith specially raken night-time photographs oflluminaced signs in and around London. for petrol stations, launderetes, supermarkets, burger bars. eis worth noting here that the Venturi et alt Learning From Las iges' was not published unc 1972. Non-Plan produced a mixture of deep outrage and stunned silence. The environmen- talist and anarchist, Colin Ward, wrote later: If I were co choose a single article (codlessly cced by me) which most epitomised everything I believe i, in a particular field, and which was valuable to me just aa legitimation of opini alonein advocating twas... "Non-Plan: an experimencin freedom ns I seemed eo be Bur ar hecime, SPS ert tos recoall the architects, conservationists and socialise I knew were highly offended by it I was pethaps tn year ahead ofits ime, Iie a key ext in the intellectual counteratack against Webbian Fabianim, Later in 1969, Non-Plan was one of the ideas put forward ina pamphlec, Socal Reform in the Centrifugal Sociry on which Peter Halland I col- laboraed with the sociologists, Michael Young and Peter Willmott Non-Ptan had very practical consequences. Peter Hall, s always, carried on thinking. We hal not believed thar our ideas could be applied in London, bur che problem of ‘what co do with derelice docklands changed this argument. In 1977, Hall gave a paper at the annual conference of the Royal Town Planning Institute under the tile “Greenfields and grey area." He suggested ‘enterprise zoned in the run-down parts of| cities, where planning restrictions would be lifted in otder to spur improvement forward. n London, local authorities, including the Greater London Council had been notably unable co come up with any useful strategies when the docks closed, Infighting and shorcsightedness prevaled ‘When ‘Non-Plan’ was frst published, one of che few friendly reactions, atthe time, came fiom an ex-Communist turned Deily elegraph leader-writer, Alfred Sherman. In 1974, herman helped Sir Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher to found the Centre for Political Studies, che purpose of which was to carve out a new way for Conservatism afer Edward Heath’ filed corporatism. The first Thatcher government was elected in 1979 and entesprise zones were introduced asa brief legislative experiment in Non- Plan (le was brief because the Treasury evencslly decided that the associated tax breaks were costing too much) Without enterprise zones, we would not have had the Gateshead MetoCentre, the frst such shopping mall in Britain, or the London Docklands’ lovei-or-hate-ic eademark skyscraper at Canary Wharf, Both were built in encerprise zones. ‘The idea of Non-Plan never went away. Ie continued as a kind of underground iver. Recent ithas resuefaced, Is this because we are once again surrounded by people who think car planning isthe answer to everything and who believe that they alone know the way we should al live? Under guidance issued by John Gummer, a Environment Secretary, planners were once again encouraged eo pay special attention to aesthetics in giving permissions, In other words: they can decide what is beautiful or you Non-Plan was cscntialy a very usable idea: cha ic ie very difficult co decide what is bes for coher people 1 Then Grup fim in the Cf Sry Noe cy png Seen 9 1 Reel Gai and prc gap laced ar ar oy le sl ote Chee 1 ‘oe iS re ear HE Tenor pi rc pen ‘ajo Dorman Wotigtipern 9, a Cla Wl enh op Nowe fess ppc se ese eter pope 1) Ted mel a Pst But what, exactly, did we say? What follows isthe introduction ro‘Non-Plan.* Some oft lke the passage about petrol stations —rurned our wo bea very accurate forecast ‘of what happened, though prediction was not realy our purpose. The language is some- times dated but much of the argument has an all too contemporary cesonanee. Our conclusions, after the three casestudies, were headed ‘Spontanety and space’. We sid thar the British “seem so afraid of freedom. We argued thatthe nation that the planner has che right to say what is righ" is really an extraordinary hang-over from the days of collectivism in left-wing though’. We concluded: ‘Let’ save our breath for genuine problems like the poor who are increasingly with us! ‘Today itis very striking thatthe 1947 nationalization of land development ight is the only nationalization left uncepealed, Bue che dilemmas have not gore avay. ‘We wrote, in our conclusion, hat 'as people become richer chey demand mote spaces and because they become at che same time more mobile, chey will be more able co ‘command it. They will wan this extra space in and around their houses, around their shops, around their offices and factories, and inthe places where they go for recreation, ‘To impose rigid controls, in order ro frustrate people in achieving the space standards they require, represents simply the recived personal or cass judgements ofthe people ‘who ate making the decision.” Non-Plan, however, was never against some kinds of negariveplanning for example: this land shall nor be buile on: the trouble, so often, lay —and lies — with would-be pasiive planning. The British vie is bossines. As T go around Brita in che dying days of the ‘wentieth century." [am unconvinced that our planned towne and cites have delivered the best we could hope for. Nor do I think cha what now passes for wisdom wil neces- sarily cura out robe any wiser than che misplaced confidence of previous generations, But iis time co raise the curtain on 1969: ‘Non-Plan: An experiment in freedom, by (in che alphabetical order we used then) Reynet Banham, Paul Barker, Peter Hall snd Cedric Price. The subside ssid: “Town and country planning has today become an ‘unquestioned shibboleth, Yer very fe of ts procedutes of valle judgements have any sound basis, except delay: Why nochave the courage, where practical 0 let people shape ‘Beit own environment?” red oe i er tn ee ccna cmteincoar Wigs accord ad popes er a weNON=PLAN. A dispute has arisen about a bookex, Dore Building in Rural Area, jus iasued by Doreet (County Council, and aspirin co bea guide ro good design for people building houses in the countryside — our Architecture Contespondent writes.” Most af the examples that it ‘lusteates and recommends as models ace wrterly commonplace, the ror of house to be found in almose any speculative builer' suburban esate. This view is shared by the Wils and Dossee Society of Architects, which, through its president, Me Peter Wakefield asked forthe publication tobe withdrawn, "This new item illustrates che tangle we have got ourselves into. Somehow, everything ‘mus be watched: nothing canbe allowed simply to happen’. No house can be allowed to be commonplace in the way that things just are commonplace: each project must be weighed, planned, approved and only then buil, and only afer that discovered robe com- ‘monplace fer all. Somehow, somevhere, someone wa using the wrong year's model, Once, Rasmussen, in London: The Unigue City (Best published 1934), thought ie worth printing & picture of the entirely commonplace domestic archtecrure buile slong Parkway, Camden Town, inthe early nineteenth century. Iwas architecture that worked; ic provided whac che inhabicantswaaced from it, Now there be souble if you ered ro knock ie down (though the London motorway box will pass close by"). Bur atleast the preservcionsts didn ger in at ground level, as chey do today, in order to try to make sute~ before the event = that something cht is eventually worth preserving is buile, ‘The whole concept of planning (the own-and-country kind, at leas) hat gone cockeyed. ‘What we have roday cepresents a whole cumulation of good intentions. And what chose good intentions ae worth, we have last no way of knowing. To sy it has been with us so Long, physical planning hasbeen emarkably unmonicored; dito architecture itself. As “Malvin Webber hs pointed out leaning isthe only branch of knowledge purporting ro bbesomekind ofscience which regard a plan as being fulfledwhen itis merely completed: ther’ seldom any sort of check on whether the plan actualy doce what i wae meant ro do and whether, fit does something differen, this is for the beter or forthe worse ‘The resul is chat planing tends to lurch from one fashion to another, with sudden revulsion seting in afer equally sudden acceptance. One good recent example, of course, was the fashion for high-rise fats which had been dying fr some time before 15 Tp Rd my eli i soc pues Teel orc Wee 95 ke ete tee ee Toles Cia eee trailor alte Trheelink Sint ttt aae en speed coarse 7 ‘Ronan Foint gave ita tombstone. This fashion had been inaugurated wich bizarre all cof creating ‘vertical sees’, which would somehow, it was hoped, re-create the togeth- termes ofBethnal Green on Saturday morning in (presumably) che lift shaft— his being the only equivalent communication channel inthe structure. [Nor thatone can be too swiftly mocking. We may yet find that for some future evi of social or technological developmen, tall fas are just the ching. This happened with snother fashion ~ that forthe Garden City, as promulgated by Patrick Geddes, Ebenezer Howard and Raymond Unwin. Ies worch remembering tha che garden inthis theory was there specifically for growing food: the acreage was carefully measured outwith this fodder sstio in mind. The houses in (say) Welwyn Garden City or Hamptead Garden Suburb were also scatcered thinly because ofthe width of space allocate (fr reasons of health) (9 the loop and sweep of roads. ‘Welwyn Garden City and Hampstead Garden Suburb were therefore buile~ and then duly mocked for dull docernairism. The layout made public eansport almost impossi- ble; the in and the frozen pack rapidly outdated the vegetable patch. But then the spread of car ownership outdated the mockery those road lived to find a justification; the space around the houses could absorb a garage without coo much troubles and the garden (5, even, in many inner London conversions of Georgian houses) became an Lunexceprionable outdoor room and meeting space for children, away from the lethal presed aeel and rubber hurling around the eee Now ies nice chat a plan should turn out to have reasons for succeeding which the planner himself did no foresee. Ac every stage in che history of planning, we have cause to be graceful for the quiks of time. Ids doubeilifJohn Nath sw how wel his Regent’ Park would serve as an ary but fairly democratic pause on the north edge of London — just righ for football and swings and non-copulating pandas and Sunday-promenad- ing Central Europeans; inhabited not by Regency arists but by film people, lamps of London University and H.M. Government, the American ambassador and high-class tarts" And did Scoee foresee how his Sc Pancras hotel, superbly planned to fc in with departing rains and arriving horse-catiags would survive beinga much-mocked ofice bloc so successfully that ican now be argued for ae a natural home fora sports centre ‘ora uanipore museum or Birkbeck College? [Nor sit just the cities and towns thac have benefied. How many further-education departments” can be duly grateful for minor Georgian country houses or their Victorian imitators 50 apt for giving courees in? How many angling clubs can thank ‘thecanal builders for where they spend their pezceful Sundays? How many Highlands- edd ptedea Ca ey ones walpaper cg ‘ati ea ereny pe Sani Stl i, The winnie aacddiced tourists, even, depend forthe solitude they love on those hatsh men who pre- ferred che glen clear of people and who planned them out ofthe Highlands and into (Canada and Austelia? ‘Yet ie’s hard to see where, in tis, che eredie can goto the planner. That lst example ~ which pushes che concept of planning altogether too far ~is justified in ubbing in che coerciveness oft. Most planning ie aristocratic or oligarcic in method, even today ~ revealing in this its historical origins. The most rigorously planned cities ~ like ‘Haussmann’ and Napoleon IITs Peis ~ have neazly aways been the least democratic. ‘The way chat Haussmann rebuile Pati gladdens the cours; ic was nor such a help, though, forthe poor through whose homer the demolition gangs went to crete those avenues and squares, Similarly, the urban renewal programmes of the American citce tladdened the real exate men; they did not help the Negroes" and poor whites who ‘ere uprooted with litle ro compensate them. In Britain, public housing programmes sladden the housing commitves and the respecable working class they donor help che poorest, the matt file or che most difing families.” ‘The point isto realize how lite planning and the accompanying archiceccure have changed, The whole ethos ie doctinaire; and ifsomething good emerges, i remains abit ‘of bonus. Nor to be expected bur nice if you can ge it~ like culling enough Green ‘Shield stampe” co get a Mini, Arche moment, most planners in Briain are on a tautness jag: Camden’ neacly interlocked equares, Southvrark’s high-density juggernauts of (Cumbernaulds and the Elephant’ sculptural shopping centes. Some of thes look pleas- ant enough now ~ and some do not. Bu che fact is chat, go fa as one can judge, taut arrangement last much better when plenty of money can be spent on their upkeep (Oxbridge colleges, Chelsea squares) chan witen ican no (emember ll those Improved Industral Dwellings puc up inthe late nineteenth eencury by Mr Peabody and other). So its a lease plausible tha some other doctrine than the current one would be righe for everyday housing and building, Ie would be pleasan if ‘doctrine’ were precisely wha i wasn But how are we to know? Planning is being subjected to increasing scepticism. The ‘Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, tdies up some ofthe abuses (especially those which eaused delay in granting permissions); and the Skeffington commiteee is eut- rently trying to decide how people mighe be given more say (participation, in the jargon) in planning. The New City plan for Milton Keynes ees to shy away complecely from planning. Ac universities, research is being done, The one thing that isnot being 21, Th nth assed ge hl nye or pn Ae ie, =e etepn ere cns west done i the harshest test, che most valuable experiment, of all, What would happen if there were no plan? What would people prefer odo, if thee choice were untrammelled? ‘Would maccers be any beter, or any worse, of mech the same? (Mighe planning cura cour tobe rather like Eysenc’s view of paychoanalysit an activity whic, insofar ast gets credit, gesic for benefits that would happen anyway ~ minds can cure themselves, ‘maybe peopl can plan themselves) Buc even if mates ended up mach the ame, in terms of durable successes or disastrous failures, the overall pattern would be sure o be diferent: the lok ofthe experiment would be sure o differ fom what we have now. ‘This is what we'te now proposing: a precise and catfully observed experiment in non- planning. Its hardly an experiment one could arty out aver the entire country. Some knots ~ like London ~ are, by now, far too Gordian for cha, Nor are we suggesting (her) thar other than physical planning shouldbe shelved, ‘The right approach isto take the plunge into hecegencity: ro seize on a Few appropt ste zones ofthe councry, which are subject roa character range of prestures, and use them as launch-pads for Non-Plan. At the leat, one would find ou what people wane; athe most, one might discover the hidden syle of mid awentieth century Brita es hidden! for the same reason that caused any good social democrat to shudder ac the anarchic suggestion of the previous paragraph. Town planning is always in thell to some outmoded rule-of-thumb; as a profession, in fact, planners cend to read the Telegraph and the Expres, rather than the Guardian or the Times" Take a specific example: the filing sation, “Watch the lee filing station’, Frank Lloyd Wright suid, ‘Ie is the agent of decental- ization.’ Like all Focuses of tanspore, the filling sation could be a notable cause of change Self-serviceautomats, dispensing food andother goods, could spring up around ‘the forecourr; maybe smal post offices, too; telephone kiosks; holiday gear shops; eter- ies (noe resturants): all his quite apart from che standard BP Viscostatclcecreamlmap and guidebook shop. (Thus, at Cumbernauld New Town, i's leeady lear that only the ‘most epresive controls can stop the ewo conveniently sce filing stations from replac- ing the inconvenient sted town centte as «shopping focus.) ‘Well, you can watch as long as you like in Briain, but you will see small sign ofthis hap pening. I¢s hard enough to get planning permissior co pur up filling sation in the fist place. (There's sil a feeling ~ dating probably fom che hoo-ha which broke out when ‘he Set Britain Free Tories decided to replace pool pero in the 1950s by commercial brands ~ that cis very easy o have too many’ filling stations) To have anything else on betcha rg ger tn Md sulle chines mtr teen Re eg ra mes egtene Seiya THIS 951 ar rennet Weerthe forecout is almost impossible. Only in the motorway service areas (chemselves damply over-planned) is there anything like this; nd hete che unforeunaely not unique combination of incompetence and non-epontanccy kill the whole ching. ‘And yer there’ no doubs that the popular arts of our time (i.e. those on which every- ‘one thinks he has a valid opinion) are car design and advertising: and chese are doubly symbolized by nich charscersic forecours Figures adic Esso ges othe BP lice man. ‘The great recent roap-opera filme have been Jacques Demy's Les Parapluies de Cherbourg (hero: a filing sation ownes) and Claude Lelouch’ Un Homme et Une Femme (her: a racing car driver) IFyou drive down the French Rhone valley motoe- ‘way ~ not so planned ax ours ~ one of the most memorable sights is a Total petrol station, writing the leters T-O-T-A-L huge across the valley, with a lucer of fags ‘underneath. Stay in Moscow, and you end up yearning co see an Esso sign ‘Aakyourelf why iis chat almost the only time you ever ses flags on any unofficial occa son i.e, nat at an ordained festival or other jamboree and nor on public building — ison filling stations or else on the rear windows of cars. Now che purpose ofthis ie not to write a kind of Elegy in a Country Filling Station. ‘The purpote is o ask: why don't we date crus che choices that would evolve if we le them? Is permissible to ask~ after the drearines of much public re-building and afer the Ronan Poin disaste™ ~ what exactly should we sactifice to fhion? “Here we take a look at three zones where one might make the experiment of succurnb- ing tothe pressures and sesing where i led the East Midlands, ‘Lawrence country’s the area around Nuthamptead, ‘Constable country’; and the Solent, ‘Montagu country’ ‘There are, obviously, other candidates. Anyone ci fil in is own sacred cows or bézes noire, (Imagine, for example, dividing che Lake District so that Coniston and ‘Windermere could satisfy all those MG hordes by becoming a Non-Plan zone: it might help protect che Wastwater chat are worth preserving). The main thing is that the experiment should be tied ~ and tied quickly. Even the frst waves of information ‘would be valuable; if the experiment ran for five yess, ten years, ewenty years, more and more of use would emerge. Legally, ic would nor be too difficult coset up. Ic only requires the will odo it~ and the desire to knows inscead of impose. (Of course, any experiment of dis sore will havea tendency to endure. The megaliths ae ell wich us o is Paddington tation; so is Harlow New Town. Non-Plan would leave an aftermath at lear as interesting a these. But what countshere, for once, is now. Th ce Ru ia slo nn Et Lan bi by ine me cpa 6 May i Na ce en aoe Hated caseatebehen is tgiarpusasg mae “Arica tia” on Se oeaeces Sheree See ee Speeeones Maree NON-PLAN: AN EXPERIMENT IN FREEDOM today become an unquestioned eibboet faglrois haw ey oud bal keep dal raed toot paobi stape tie ant eneimant? ow be teed for ant onal tows for setew Sct 2 et 8rire Ha Hai fee jet Heel | a i sa it = al il ula i; ilies an [nits dh 1 e ra of a ile u ane sie nanan a A itil be ae inp Nh eli He Hi tele mde ae Eee ee ae : iid ti at He enn fa 5 Hi ra Cee Hallanianéntst IE if ita a Hate aust rate i ” 2Non-Plan eyeing sen Sitar On of Cha Ota me Bl eu We stoe so 1 MAR 8 SPONTANEITY AND SPACE it