Thesis

Re-Thinking Architecture

The New Social Space Chris Hazel

2 Architecture has always been defined by and compared against the style of the era. Every era of time and architecture has had some philosophy in which the expected aesthetics of our space are to be determined.

But, as modernism drew to a close, architecture has seemed to move away from the usual all-defining manifesto. This has led to a somewhat disorderly mix of current architecture, styles of ‘post-modernism’ or ‘globalism’ have made their way into the architecture vocabulary, but nothing as determinate or long-lasting as previous styles. While current architects such as Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid constantly strive for a perfection of form, other like Bjarke Ingles or Rem Koolhaas search for an architecture of specific meaning and use. I however propose a new inspiration for design: the human user.

The connection between people and architecture has seemed to become secondary compared to new trends in architecture. Grand ideas are presented in unrealistic aerial views and the human scale becomes often ignored; images of the al-wakrah stadium or other grand architectural proposals display renderings of elaborate schemes presented more as formalistic master plans rather than an architecture meant for human use. In another example, some architecture has lost the image of the human completely in sake for the image of national power. Projects such as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai or China’s proposed ‘SuperTower’ reach scales surpassing all past attempts at ‘tall.’ But reaching un-fathomable heights also serve obvious disadvantages, especially when the cost of building is far too high for the cost of living, and the essential technologies--such as elevators--are held in jeopardy in these structures.1 I propose that this new style of architecture focuses on the human. Modernism experimented with architecture serving as a machine for human use, but there was a merging of engineer and architect that led this thinking. Architecture may have been borne out of a human need for shelter, but as design has shown us, architecture has grown to be also about identity. Along with the physical need for shelter, there is also a human need for architecture where architecture not only provides safety from the environment, it actually defines a new environment. It is able to shape us as humans; it defines how we live and interact with other humans. In this light, it should become obvious that architecture needs to address the needs of humans and actually push those needs.

As part of addressing the needs of humans, architecture must learn how to equally serve the individual and the society. We have created a complex society where we are defined both by our individuality and our plurality--our social relationships. Our shaping environments should address this duality of our identity. Lebbeus Woods, a theoretical architect of the past several decades, identified that justice cannot be 1

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/11/business/uae-burj-khalifa-fees/

3 served if the individual suffers as a result of what is seen as good by the masses.2 But how can architecture work to accommodate both sides of this social spectrum? The only answer that I have now is a responsive architecture, and architecture that re-thinks permanence and that not only allows for change to occur, but actually encourages change to occur, both to the physical form of the architecture and to the social identity of the users. As we move into a more technological era, we are also seeing a more rapid pace of cultural change. As more global links develop across world cultures, the rate at which societies incubate and change undoubtedly increases. Architecture must meet, and maybe even advance, this change.

How can architecture fulfill all of these needs? Maybe the answer is in how humans relate to space; architecture has, in general, remained a stagnate environment that humans live within. Architects are the ones responsible for the shape of environments and the society is expected to merely exist within this space. This is a mistake. It is time for all of the users of a space to take part in designing the space. Architecture can be responsive to human needs on an individual and societal level throughout the constant shift of a dynamic culture only if the users are able to design their own space.

This kind of architecture is beginning to become available, but only at an early stage. The most notable project that I have found is the design proposal for the Pont Jean-Jacques Bosc in Bordeaux, France by the long-lasting architecture firm, the Office of Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) led by designer Rem Koolhaas. The design for this bridge (IMAGE A), which was awarded to OMA in December of 2013, rethinks the function of a bridge. It is no longer purely an item of transportation, but an extension of the land in a collaboration of bridge and park, creating something that is both a passage and a destination, a space of going and of staying. By shifting the focus of the project onto the human user, the result may seem a bit bland, especially compared to the other proposals, but the intended result of this design speaks on a larger level about the current state of architecture and the role of the human user.

The design was not necessarily solely in part to the thinking of OMA, La CommunautÊ Urbaine de Bordeaux--the governmental group of the city that posted the call for designs asked for a re-interpretation of the bridge. While the city explicitly needed a bridge across the river Garonne between the municipalities of Bèlges and Floriac, there was also a request for consideration towards the space of the bridge. The project called for equal opportunity of automobile traffic as well as human traffic; while projects awarded as finalists in the design competition all addressed this requirement, the OMA proposal was the only one that most challenged the possibilities of the bridge. The design not only provides for the human traffic, but pushes the 2

Lebbeus Woods, Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act (1992) page 8

4

Image A - The Pont Jean-Jacques Bosc - Office of Metropolitan Architecture http://www.designboom.com/architecture/oma-wins-bid-to-design-pont-jeanjacques-bosc-in-bourdeaux-12-19-2013/

5 bounds of the human intervention by providing a new public space for the users of the architecture.

As societies continue to evolve, the human will continue to move towards the center of focus. As the world becomes more global and societies begin to merge, architecture is reaching new abilities with regard to technology and reach. Architects must replace the notion of the awe-inspiring architecture that enforces the power of the society (and enforces the ego of the architect) for an architecture of social equality. A humanfocused architecture must explore the basic functions of humans and the social function of space. There must also be a consideration of the extent of the architecture; design should be inclusive and focus should be shifted from the form of the design to the boundary created by the design and the interaction and society that forms as a result of that boundary. And finally, there must be a consideration for the social hierarchy that forms as a result of design. The OMA bridge works to address how architecture shapes the society, not only in defining a formalistic or technological culture, but by giving way to a new kind of social hierarchy and questioning the idea of ownership and control of space.

The Basic Functions of Humans

One obvious characteristic of the OMA bridge that makes it standout from other similar designs is the scale of space for the human. Over half of the bridge is dedicated to human use, and of that, the majority of that space is reserved for human free-space. The large un-defined spaces leaves itself open to human action and intervention (IMAGE B)(IMAGE C). The bridge promotes both a re-interpretation of the space and action and interaction between the people using the space. This simple design strategy begins to facilitate specific needs of the human; namely, dwelling and action.

Two qualities of humans that I will focus on are thought and identity.3 These human capacities are able to be addressed by architecture, at least in some way, by dwelling and action. But, before truly delving into how these functions are addressed by architecture, we should start to uncover what is truly meant by dwelling and action.

The concepts of dwelling and being are handled in Martin Heidegger’s essay “Building, Dwelling, Thinking.� (1951) Though, more importantly, he clarifies that to dwell is not necessarily a physical activity, and is rather a state that accompanies an activity, where a person is able to work, lodge, or play while he is dwelling; 3

As per my definition, thought is the human capacity to judge past instances and to infer future instances.

Identity is the human capacity to form personal mental relationships between himself/herself and the surrounding context (environment, people, objects, etc.)

6

Image B - Diagram of the Bridges of France - Office of Metropolitan Architecture http://www.designboom.com/architecture/oma-wins-bid-to-design-pont-jeanjacques-bosc-in-bourdeaux-12-19-2013/

7

Image C - Section Model - Office of Metropolitan Architecture http://www.designboom.com/architecture/oma-wins-bid-to-design-pont-jeanjacques-bosc-in-bourdeaux-12-19-2013/

8 he does not solely dwell.4 Dwelling is also a way of organizing ourselves in the world (Heidegger refers to the ‘fourfold’).5 In the second part of his essay, Heidegger focuses on the specific purpose of building in a way of adding location to a site. With an example of a bridge, he explains that the site of a river between two banks is entirely different when the bridge is there and when it isn’t. Without the bridge, the river is simply a barrier between two separate masses of land, but once the bridge is introduced to the specific site, it creates a location.

The two landmasses are connected and it becomes possible to move from one side to the other, almost as if they were the same landmass. The bridge also works to define a specific point along the river of which the rest of the site seems to organize around. The bridge creates a boundary, and as Heidegger clarifies, a boundary--from the Greek peras--is not where something stops, but “begins its presencing.”6 The addition of the bridge also adds location, a point from which the user is able to organize himself within the world.7 Dwelling is not purely a physical state, but a mental state, where man is able to visualize and therefore be at a location without physically being there. He provides the example of the door at the lecture hall where “when I go toward the door of the lecture hall, I am already there, and I could not go to it at all if I were not such that I am there. I am never here only, as in encapsulated body; rather I am there, that is, I already pervade the room, and only thus can I go through it.”8 There is a mental connection between the dwelling location and the dweller that allows the dweller to almost remove himself from the location and reflect on himself and his relationship to the rest of the world.9 With this, the OMA bridge is responsible for much more than just creating a crossing between two municipalities, it is about creating a mental organization for the user within the larger context of the city-and even the world. The thing that Heidegger really seems to get at is the individuality of space. It is not enough for a space to provide a function, it must create a place unlike other places, it must give definition to a location and make it unique so that there is reason for it being a place. On the base level, OMA does this by simply make the bridge a destination, as well as a passage. The program of the bridge itself allows for this kind of dwelling to occur, but there is the active component of the bridge with the identity of the bridge.

The OMA bridge is able to form a specific relation with the surrounding city in that it is able to formally and technologically compare to the surrounding architecture, but is also able to stand as its own 4 5 6 7 8 9

Heidegger, page 101.

Heidegger, page 102-3 Heidegger, page 105.

Heidegger, page 104-105.

Heidegger, page 107.

Heidegger, page 106-107.

9 identifiable object. Bordeaux, a port town along the river Garonne, obviously relies on bridges for essential transportation, but the stand-out among the existing bridges is the Pont de Pierre (the stone bridge). This bridge--built in the early 17th century, and the first bridge over the river Garonne--has created something of an identity for the city; a Google image search of the city will undoubtedly result in several images of this bridge (IMAGE D). The Pont de Pierre not only serves as an identity for the city, but it also created a starting point for the design of the OMA bridge (IMAGE E). During the conception of the design, the Pont de Pierre, with its simple arch structure and flat-plate deck, served as a model form for what was identified as ‘a bridge’ in Bordeaux. This form, abstracted to the most simple form, was then introduced with this concept of ‘diversity.’ This use of diversity may actually be slightly mis-leading though; this is not diversity in terms of form, but it seems, diversity in space and use.

As part of the design process, OMA experimented with several typologies, which resulted in a wide variation in design, but all of which were ultimately let go in favor of the simplest typology (IMAGE F). In contrasting the other short-listed design schemes for the Pont Jean-Jacques Bosc, it is clear that this simplicity in form was a strong consideration in criterion for the selected design. All five designs utilize (IMAGES G-J), for the most part, a simplistic design with either a cantilever or cable-stay support system. Further, the two designs selected as finalists-the OMA bridge and the Dietmar Feightinger bridge--both use a cantilever support system (the support system used by the Pont de Pierre).

While never explicitly requested in the design, this sense of connection between the new and the existing seems to serve a crucial role in the decision process. All of the designs created a space that, at least in an abstracted way, made some kind of connection to the existing structure of the city and the existing bridges across the river. But each design offered something new; there was no duplication of Pont de Pierre.

In a Heideggerian sense, each bridge was able to create a location that fit in Bordeaux, yet was also able to be defined as its own space. The thing that separated the OMA bridge from the Dietmar Feightinger bridge, however, was the acceptance of action on the bridge. The space allowed for human action and intervention was more prominent and more pronounced on the OMA bridge than the Feightinger bridge, and this allowance for action is certainly a necessity in a human focused design.

Arendt explains that, as humans, we are fundamentally conditioned beings, in that everything we come into contact with becomes a condition of our existence as a way of creating memory or history of our life. She elaborates that since our existence is conditional, human existence itself would be impossible without things; the things we interact with give us meaning/existence and we, therefore, produce meaning for

10

Image D - The Pont Pierre http://www.worldalldetails.com/Pictureview/1983-Bordeaux_France_Pont_de_Pierre_bridge.html

Image D - The Pont Jean-Jacques Bosc http://www.20minutes.fr/bordeaux/1263277-20131213-larchitecte-pont-jean-jacques-bosc-designe

11

Image E - Diversity Diagram http://www.designboom.com/architecture/oma-wins-bid-to-design-pont-jean-jacques-bosc-inbourdeaux-12-19-2013/

12 those things through the relation that we form with those things.10 Action (including speech) is the function that Arendt believes makes us most ‘human,’ a “twofold character of equality and distinction.”11 This idea of human stems from the postulate that humans are similar to each other and require basic needs that other humans are able to understand and fulfill, but we are also able to differentiate ourselves from each other.12 According to Arendt, humans need to insert themselves into the human world as a way of a “second birth.”13 This is done solely through action; we are able to confirm our existence and essentially compare ourselves to others as a way of validating our own existence. Finally, Arendt associates action as being a bridge towards power. This means that a group is capable of forming power through the plurality (that there are multiple people within the group) and the action of the group. A stipulation of power is that it is not certain; plurality and action only allow for the potential of power, they are not indicators that power is truly had. Arendt clarifies that strength is able to be controlled by a single person and is able to be stored over time, power is only able to be held by a group, and it changes, and sometimes even diminishes, over time. In Arendt’s view, power is able to make extraordinary things happen, where men without strength are able to come together to create real power, but it also is built in with checks so that a single person is not able to rise above the group.

In Arendt’s view, action is a way of creating groups in order to form power, but there is also a sense of identity that is able to be associated with action. Plurality is the necessary social state for action, but it is also able to give a person definition, primarily from the complex network that forms as a result of the differing social groups a person may be a part of. From this, a person’s identity is able to form, both by the social groups that he is a part of and the ones that he distances himself from. As a result, a complex being is organized and identity is created.

The OMA bridge allows for this kind of action through its ability of re-interpretation of space. With most of the bridge reserved for human use as ‘free-space,’ action is essentially requested by the architecture.

One major design characteristic of this project that was the flexibility of the space. Unlike the other designs, the OMA bridge made it the paramount point to be un-defined and open to human use and interpretation. In a sense, the OMA bridge is physically defined by human action. The flexibility of the space is touted as being 10 11 12

13

Arendt, page 9.

Arendt, page 175.

Arendt compares this difference with the difference between using basic sounds and gestures for communication and using words and language. People are able to understand implications of sounds and visual language since we are all humans who share similar basic needs, but words are needed to communicate more complex ideas, ideas that make a person distinctly that person.(Arendt, 175-6) Arendt, page 176.

13

Image F - Typology Diagram http://www.designboom.com/architecture/oma-wins-bid-to-design-pont-jean-jacques-bosc-inbourdeaux-12-19-2013/

14

Image G - Setec TPI/Marc Barani Proposal http://happypontist.blogspot.com/2013/07/pont-jean-jacques-bosc-bridge-design.html

Image H - Marc Mimram Engineering Proposal http://happypontist.blogspot.com/2013/07/pont-jean-jacques-bosc-bridge-design.html

15

Image I - RFR/BET Proposal http://happypontist.blogspot.com/2013/07/pont-jean-jacques-bosc-bridge-design.html

Image J - Dietmar Feichtinger/Schlaich Bergermann und Partner Proposal http://happypontist.blogspot.com/2013/07/pont-jean-jacques-bosc-bridge-design.html

16 able to accommodate a wide range of events held by the city, but the flexibility also creates a space that is able to be designed by the users, and this simple gesture might actually promote a sense of ownership over the bridge that is shared by all of the users.

This sense of action now starts to give way to a kind of identity. The people are able to identify with the bridge because they have an influence on the form that it takes. This identity starts to connect Arendt’s idea of action and with Heidegger’s idea of dwelling and thought. Part of being able to dwell is the ability to organize and compare one’s self within the world; identity is a similar function where it gives name to the surroundings as a way of creating organization. However, one limitation of the possibility for individual identity with the OMA bridge is that the society is required in order to make the defining changes to the design.

While there is a design of flexibility within the bridge, it is only designed in a way that the society of the City of Bordeaux is required if the full flexibility of the bridge is to be achieved.14

The Social Function of Space

The flexibility of the physical space has been discussed, but the even more flexible (and possibly even more important) social space of the bridge has been, so far, untouched. Before getting too far, maybe we should clear up what exactly is meant by the difference between physical and social space. In the most fundamental sense, the physical sense is what the space is--in this case, the bridge is a physical object that allows a person to move, with some ease, from the municipalities of Bèlges to Floriac by crossing the river Garonne. This physical definition of the bridge does not change; the physical space, as we have already found, is able to be changed and reinterpreted, but the definition of the bridge in terms of its specific program never changes. The social space is how a space is perceived. Unlike what a space is, how the space is perceived can vary between cultures, times, and even individual people. The perception of a space will lead to how a space is used, and while most architecture actively works to define the social space, the OMA bridge leaves the social space completely open for interpretation by the user.

One striking diagram provided by OMA for the design of the bridge is one illustrating the vast flexibility of the space (IMAGE K). The single diagram shows a series of scenarios possible on the bridge.

City events such as movie screenings, farmers markets, a concert, and even the Tour de France are shown as possible occurrences on the bridge. Each scenario requires slight physical changes to the bridge (such as the 14

http://oma.com/news/2013/oma-wins-competition-to-design-pont-jean-jacques-bosc-in-bordeaux

17

Image K - Flexibility Diagram http://afasiaarq.blogspot.com/2013/12/oma_19.html

18 addition of the movie screen or the concert stage) but, more so, requires a change in the social perception of the space.

The bridge appears to challenge the hierarchy of the physical and the social space. The initial requirement of the design was for a bridge--a thing that moves you from point A to point B--but this OMA bridge (and its ability to seamlessly transform the use of the space) actually shows the possibility that this bridge will not even be used as a bridge. In scenarios like a farmers market or a concert, it is impossible for automobiles to move across the bridge. So what does this really say about the function of the bridge? Well, a bridge does not even have to fulfill its initial function as a bridge in order to be a successful--or at least, awarded the commission in an international bridge competition.

Theodore Adorno examines social function of objects writing that people identify with the objects in their environment. Adorno argues that the forms of ‘purpose-free’ objects serve the purpose of defining our surroundings, and the human being, as a “mimetic impulse” equates himself to his surroundings, as in he finds his identity (at least in part) by the definition of his surroundings.15 The use of the bridge is meant to be manipulated by the users to form a space for varying functions.

The users are able to form identity with the space by physically changing the space. Many of the scenarios shown by OMA require city support--a single person is not necessarily able to create a concert stage, but this city-wide action links to Arendt’s definition, involving plurality and resulting in a kind of power. The ability of change the bridge births a specific society and social interaction is able to occur. This social interaction may actually become the thing that is the social space. People are able to identify with the space because they were, in part, responsible for the design of the space.

David Summers, in his book Real Spaces states that any creation of a place results in the creation of a social space, in his view, a space that draws people together and therefore creates social interaction.16 If this is true, then the result of the social interactions that come out of a place is indeed far more important than any kind of design detail, and the design detail should really work to inform the interaction. The social space of architecture is dissected by the writer Umberto Eco in his essay, “Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture.”

Eco states that cultural phenomena are communicative and designed to be communicative and understood by people so that a culture is able to spread, but feels that architecture has not been designed to 15 16

Adorno, page 10.

David Summers, Real Space: World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism, page 117.

19 necessarily be communicative. Eco feels that objects should be read as a type of semiotics so that they can communicate their function and be interpreted by the user with the hope that user will actually better define the function.17 The communicative quality of the object is different than the function in that it is able to communicate its use even while not being used.

Eco defines two types of communication pertaining to objects: denotation and connotation. These definitions follow closely with our definitions of physical space and social space. Denotative communication informs the user about the “primary, utilitarian function.”18 This function is the basis for why such an object was made and is reliant on past codes of denotative communication to be understood and used, as in, a window is understood and used as a window because it draws communicative elements from previous windows, and any new window designed would have to share qualities of past windows that could at least communicate its desired function as a window.19 The connotative communication of an object, similar to our definition of social space, refers to the perception of the object and the functions and meanings read by the user. Returning to the window, it could be designed using a round arch or a pointed arch or no arch at all; each window serves the same denotative function, to let in light, but each design connotes a different meaning of the window. The use of an arch provides that the mass around the window is possibly bearing a structural load while the absence of an arch means that the wall is not structural. Further, the type of arch speaks about the style of the window, a fully round arch communicates a Roman style of architecture while the pointed arch communicates a more Gothic style. In some cases, the connotative communication of an object is more important than the actual denotative function; in the case of a emperor’s throne, the denotative function of the object is simply a seat, but the connotative meaning of that particular object is that it is the seat of the ruler. Here, the actual function of the object is second to the importance of the meaning of the object.

This denotative and connotative communication is seen throughout the entirety of the OMA bridge.

In examining the benches of the bridge (IMAGE L); it might be understood that the primary function of these undefined blocks is for sitting; that can be understood by the relation to past denotative codes of benches, but the undefined design of the block opens up the connotative meaning of the bench. It is understood that these blocks are designed and meant to be used, but it is left open as to how exactly they are meant to be used. (IMAGE M) The bridge itself denotes its primary function as a bridge, but it connotes that 17 18 19

Umberto Eco, “Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture” page 182.

Eco, page 185 Eco, page 186

20

Image L - Public Promenade http://www.designboom.com/architecture/oma-wins-bid-to-design-pont-jean-jacques-bosc-inbourdeaux-12-19-2013/

Typical Bench

OMA Bench

Image M - Use of the Bench

21 the space is able to be manipulated and conform to the users of the space. With this, the denotative function of the bridge is actually able to change depending on the users. As a bridge, it functions as a bridge, but the design allows it to be changed into something like a concert venue or a farmer’s market, in which case, the denotation of the bridge changes to be that of a concert venue or a farmer’s market.

Boundary and Interaction

The space of the OMA bridge does not begin or end at any specific spot. As part of the design, the bridge does not ‘announce’ itself or differentiate itself from the rest of the city. The design is meant to be nothing more than an extension of the ground from bank to bank with just enough of a curve to allow for river traffic to continue.20 This design avoids the use of any physical border or differentiated condition to define the space. The space is able to seamlessly fit into the space of the city, but still define itself as its own entity. Above that, the cultural identity of the architecture is open and fits in with our ever globalized world.

As we have seen, the bridge has made design connections to the existing structures of the city, but these connections do not limit the design, nor do they limit the understanding of the design. This kind of design begins to resemble the architectural design styling called for by Columbia University architecture professor, Kenneth Frampton.

In “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance,” Kenneth Frampton argues for an architectural style that is critically defining of a region, yet is understood by all cultures. He surmises that the only sustainable future architecture must distance itself from both the “Enlightenment myth of progress” and an “unrealistic...return to architectonic forms of the preindustrial past.”21 He insists upon an architecture that synthesizes his ideals of Civilization and Culture.

In order to create this type of cultural regionalism, Frampton argues between the ‘Visual’ and the ‘Tactile.’ In this, Frampton expresses the importance of the tactility of architecture. He hones in on the importance of kinesthesia and the difference between experience and information, where information simply refers to a visual understanding of an architectural form or style, but experience is a tactile understanding and curiosity of architecture. Through experience, the resident of the architecture becomes engaged with the architecture and that creates the relationship between resident and architecture and therefore creates an 20 21

http://www.dezeen.com/2013/12/20/oma-wins-bordeaux-bridge-competition/ Kenneth Frampton, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” (1983), page 20.

22 Architectural Regionalism. This resultant regionalism is what defines the boundary.22 We may recall Heidegger and Arendt. Heidegger expressed the importance of boundary in relation to being. Frampton leads us to Arendt who relates plurality to power. Frampton adds that boundary in necessary for plurality. However, since the time of Frampton’s writing, there has grown a new kind of global culture where ideas and styles are able to travel across the world and influence the other side almost immediately. Lebbeus Woods addresses this new global culture in his book, Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act where he propose a new architectural style that extends boundaries beyond physical capabilities.

This kind of global culture is beginning to occur, so it must be addressed by our future architecture since the designs happen across the world are no longer limited to that culture. As we become more mobile and active in global issues, the infrastructure must become open to all cultures without becoming a bland culture-less architecture. The result of this kind of architecture is the blurs the boundary, there is still a boundary created, but where that boundary extends to is able to change. This actually begins to form a social place rather than merely defining a social space (IMAGE N). Cultural density and interaction is still created by the architecture and power is able to form, but people do not have to be within any defined space in order for this interaction to occur, they only need to be participating in the action occurring on the bridge. In the case of the OMA bridge, there is not a defined point of transition between the existing city bank and the bridge, so it is really the amount of people occupying the space that determines where the boundary is; the users of the bridge define the boundary (IMAGE O).

This blurring of boundaries becomes quite significant when defining the distinction between the boundary and the border. In this sense, the boundary is formed through the creation of a regional culture; it is without the need of any physical barrier, or border. The border excludes people, while the boundary keeps people within an area.23 Both Frampton and Woods seem to call for the dismantling of these formal (political, ethnic, etc.) borders and the formation of cultural and individual boundaries. These boundaries would act to bring people together through common thought or identity rather than politics, ethnicity, or even geography.

The devastating impact of the use of the physical border instead of the boundary can be seen between the crossing of Mexico and the United States.

In his article “Re_Urbanism: Transforming Capitals,� Teddy Cruz discusses the detrimental effect of the financially taxing border between Mexico and the United States and specifically the wall that was 22 23

Frampton, page 28-29.

Heidegger cites a similar definition of the term boundary used by the Greeks; peras (boundary) was meant as a point at which something began, not where it stopped.

23

Space-Creation of Boundary and Exclusion

Place - Absence of Boundary

Image O - Space vs Place

Image O - Site Model http://www.dezeen.com/2013/06/15/stripped-down-bridge-by-oma-in-final-round-of-bordeauxcompetition/

24 created there between Kevin Lynch’s original idea for the area in 1974 and today’s hyper-vigilant barrier for surveillance. Cruz, a Guatemalan immigrant, discusses the non-physical impacts of the barrier in terms of fear. Cruz calls the border between Mexico and the United States another “casualty of 9/11” where the fear of terrorism has engulfed us and turned into a fear of all outsiders.24 Cruz believes that strengthening the wall has an adverse effect where people actually become more fearful of outsiders as the border thickens.25 Cruz recalls Kevin Lynch’s ‘regional vision plan’ of 1974 for the area between San Diego and Tijuana. Instead of using walls and surveillance, Lynch worked with the natural landscape to mark a ‘semiregional’ area between the two nations. Obviously, Lynch’s “Temporary Paradise” was never seen, and a near opposite was enforced.26 In Lynch’s scenario, a separate region would have been formed, and people would have been able to move throughout, but his landscaping and planning could have made the region act as a buffer between the two nations. The end result, however, was not a planned region creating a boundary between the two nations; instead it became a physical barrier excluding people rather than containing them, preventing the freedom and mobility of people. The bridge, on a programmatic level, erases the border between the two municipalities, but it is careful not to create a border between land and bridge. The simple design and the prevalence of human free-space allows for everyone to participate in the architecture.

The Social Hierarchy

Until this point, we have discussed the basic functions of humans, the social function of space, and how those two points merge to create boundary and interaction, but all of this has a much higher result: the creation of social hierarchy within a space. Returning to David Summers, creating place results in the creation of social space. All space creates some kind of social hierarchy where someone is on top and others are at the bottom. But how can this be changed so that people are able to become more equal27 within a space?

Bataille gives a treacherous review of architectural styling and societal impact in his short 1929 essay simply titled, “Architecture.” Bataille begins with, “Architecture is the expression of the very being of societies...[i]t is obvious, actually, that monuments inspire socially acceptable behaviour, and often a very real 24 25 26 27

Teddy Cruz, “Re_Urbanism: Transforming Capitals,” Perspecta 39 (2007), page 152.

Cruz, page 151.

Cruz, page 153.

Equality is obviously a very connotative term. With respect to this writing, the aim is for an equality of control over a space. This is possibly the most that can be realistically asked for with the hope that equality of control of a space can lead to equality in other area.

25 fear.”28 Bataille writes mostly about religious and governmental architecture, but states that the forms of architecture are derived from natural and biological forms so architecture is really an embodiment of man, and an attack on architecture is really an attack on man. Because of this, architecture has assumed the role of symbolic power, and therefore, since political power (religious or governmental) is meant to keep people in order, architecture is actually meant purely as a means of maintaining order throughout the masses.29 While some of Bataille’s thoughts, seen in this essay and several others he wrote, obviously seem slightly extreme--enough for people to actually question his sanity--they may hold some merit.30 A survey of architecture occurring throughout the world in the past decade alone will show an interest in architecture as a way of brandishing the power of a particular nation. Whether it is a developing country like China that creates grand towers only to leave them empty31 or nations competing for the world’s largest tower only to struggle with occupancy because of the high cost of operation,32 nations have used architecture as a way of enforcing power, politically and economically. However, since the time of Bataille’s writings, architecture on this level has taken a more global view, so the use of this kind of architectural attention is less about the control of the society as it is about a global competition for power and control. Just as humans identify with their environmental surroundings, the power of nations is identified by the power of the architecture.

While some nations like UAE and Saudi Arabia33 are only looking up for future building, Bordeaux and the OMA bridge actually bring building back down to the pedestrian level. Both the scale of the architecture and the technology of the architecture is meant to be, in a sense, under-whelming. But this design is quite deliberate as the architect in charge of the OMA France office, Clement Blanchet, describes that the “bridge itself is not the ‘event’ in the city, but a platform that can accommodate all the events of the city.”34 In this, the architecture is not meant to serve as a symbol or identification of power, it is meant to serve, firstly, as a responsive function object for the people and the society, and secondly (if at all) as a symbol of action and of the people of the society. Instead of displaying power, the OMA bridge produces power.

The two finalist designs were actually the least technical.35 In both the OMA and the Feichtinger 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Georges Bataille, “Architecture” (1928) page 21.

Bataille, page 21.

Neil Leach, Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, page 20. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005231/Chinas-ghost-towns-New-satellite-pictures-massiveskyscraper-cities-STILL-completely-empty.html http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/11/business/uae-burj-khalifa-fees/ In 2010, UAE opened the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest tower. Despite growing problems with the Burj Khalifa, Saudi Arabia has recently broken ground on an even taller tower, the Kingdom Tower. http://oma.com/news/2013/oma-wins-competition-to-design-pont-jean-jacques-bosc-in-bordeaux http://happypontist.blogspot.com/2013/07/pont-jean-jacques-bosc-bridge-design.html

26 designs, the focus is purely on the users of the bridge. But the noticeable difference between these two designs is the hierarchy of the transportation. The Dietmar Feichtinger design creates depth in the design and actually lowers the human traffic to the bottom level, placing the automotive traffic above the pedestrian traffic. The OMA bridge makes human traffic and automotive traffic on the same level. Not only this, but the human traffic is given the most area; more of an emphasis is placed on the human user than the automotive user. This distribution of space actually changes how the bridge can be used and therefore the perception of the bridge. Such flexibility would not be possible with the Feichtinger design, and the bridge may have remained purely a bridge for transportation. The openness of the OMA bridge gives way to an openness in use; the freedom of space gives way to a freedom in action.

Michel Foucault, in his essay “Of Other Space: Utopias and Heterotopias,” examines space by the actions that occur there. For Foucault, a heterotopia is a space that is simultaneously real and unreal; he uses the example of the mirror to, abstractly, explain his term, for the mirror reflects a space, but the space is in contradiction with itself. The reflection is of a space that is occupiable, the viewer is occupying the space as he gazes into the mirror, but the reflected space is not occupiable, it is merely a reflection, and to occupy the space would be to move ‘through’ the mirror. With this, Foucault explains heterotopias as spaces that are not bound by geological coordinates, they exist, but they do not necessarily mark a location but rather an event or action. The mirror is a heterotopia because the space generated by the reflection of the mirror is not depended on the geological coordinates of the mirror, it is determined by the room in which the mirror exists. As long as that mirror is in that room, the same reflected space will exist; the capsule of the mirror (the room) can move anywhere in the world, but the heterotopia will always be the same.36 A heterotopia is not a marked location, but a physical space marked by a mental understanding. This definition of space seems to follow Martin Heidegger in that a space--and being within a space is equally a physical and mental act. Simply standing in a room does not mean that a person in being within the room, he must exist in the room physically and mentally, by understanding how he relates to the room. In all of his examples, Foucault creates a relationship between the space and user, where the space is undefined or unreal until the user of the space gives it meaning. Foucault believes that how we judge and understand space is through the relationships a space forms with other spaces. Therefore, a heterotopia is a space where the relationships it forms with adjacent space is such that the rules of normalcy (as seen by Foucault’s examples of heterotopias, these rules include political, physical, and mental rules) become suspended, neutralized, or 36

Michel Foucault, “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias,” (1967) page 350-52

27 even reversed in a heterotopia.37 So does the OMA bridge really become a heterotopia in Foucault’s sense? While the bridge is certainly not a cemetery or a garden or a honeymoon suite it does create a space that is governed by certain rules, and those rules may actually differ from the space off of the bridge. Although, the rules of the bridge are actually able to be changed. The rules of the bridge may, and most likely will, differ from the rules of the concert venue, and those rules will differ from the farmer’s market. However, all of these are still occupying the same geographic location. The intended way to act in the space is dependent on the specific social space, this being said, the social rules are still governed by the people who hold power in the space, but the people who hold power in the space are, in some ways, the users of the space. So, the users act in the space in accordance with the expected social rules, but the people acting in the space are able to actually set the social rules. This kind of social space begins to create something that is very accommodating to Arendt’s ideal of space that is able to give birth to power.

A result of this freedom of power is the possibility of a kind of civil disobedience. As people have been able to more easily organize, they have been able to form power more easily and disrupt the expected social systems. This can of course be questioned as to whether it is truly a civil disobedience or really an act for freedom, but in either scenario, the possibility for the people to organize and interact allows for the possibility of power, social disruption, and change. Simply look around to find these kinds of political and economic protest that seem to have become common place as people have had the ability to organize against what they see as unfair or unjust social hierarchies. One potentially crucial item for the birth of these events is the environment in which they are borne. Whether in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt against then-president Hosni Mubarak, or in Zucotti Park in New York City against bankers of Wall St and corrupt politics, or even today in Independence Square against a destructive political regime in Kiev, Ukraine; all of these protests have begun in a park, a fully social space that is able to be controlled by the people.

These parks, acting almost as free-space zones where people are able to easily organize and form power, give birth to national (and sometimes international) protests that have the potential to change years of social hierarchy. And now Bordeaux is actually combining a park--a fairly un-programed and un-functioned space--with a bridge--a place that is built purely for function. Now, obviously Bordeaux is dissimilar to Kiev or Cairo, but it is not too dissimilar to New York City or some of the other US cities that took part in the ‘#occupy’ movement. And the importance of this is that now the people are able to simultaneously organize 37

Foucault, page 352

28 in an open public space and take control of a vital function space. Whether La Communauté Urbaine de Bordeaux, sees the OMA bridge being used in this fashion is unclear, but the potential is there nonetheless.

This kind of shifting control of power is described as the only way for freedom by architectural writer Lebbeus Woods. His conception for ‘mobile units of habitation’ and ‘free-space zones’ centered around an idea of social freedom and equality by way of a constant shift in power. Woods makes harsh connections between the form and structure of present architecture and political power. He focuses much on Zagreb, an area that, at the time of Wood’s writing, was seceding from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

He issues concern over the correlation between politically designed architecture and control over the residents from that political power. In order to break from this political control of architecture and people, Woods proclaims that we need to design using an “inconsistent pattern.”38 And with this pattern, there must be an introduction of “Freespace zones” where formal authority vanishes, heterarchy is formed, and experimentation in thought takes place. 39 40 Woods notes that in order for his idea to work to his planned extent, there would have to be a “constantly shifting pattern and network” created by the freespace structures.41 Woods believed that this constant shift would create a heterarchical authority rather than a hierarchical one. This heterarchy would allow for consistent shifts in power within the freespace zone and therefore would allow for a “culturally dynamic contemporary urban society” where the region is controlled by the individual people who live there instead of any political rule.42 People would gain power of the area as a self-governing rule rather than any established authoritarian.

Cruz presents a similar proposal for un-planned housing as a solution to the immigration rate for the cities of the US. He discusses the informal patterning of the ‘mid-city’ areas where immigrants, who are unable to afford downtown apartments or sprawling McMansions, are forced to live. He becomes enamored with this kind of informal development where the cultural identity is created and shared within the region.

Planning does not come from a downtown office unfamiliar to the region, it is created organically through the people and for the people. He connects this to how formal city planning should be completed. Instead of

38 39 40 41 42

Lebbeus Woods, Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act (1992), page 8.

These ‘free-space’ zones would be populated with Woods’ ‘mobile units of habitation’ where no single person would have absolute control over a unit and the unit would be connected to communicate with other units.

Therefore, whoever is using the unit would have near unlimited access to the rest of the world. (Woods, 14) Woods, page 8.

Woods, page 14.

Woods, page 14.

29 creating zones of use through adjacency, he suggests a plan of juxtaposition, where a ‘3-Dimensional map’ is created and density is not measured by inhabitants or units per area, but rather by social interactions.43 This leads us back to Lebbeus Woods and the idea of architecture being created by the individual and not by politics. Both authors call for a community that is considered ‘informal,’ but still works for the people that it serves. In this scenario, these regions become dense with culture and interaction between people, and, according to Kenneth Frampton and Hannah Arendt, power is created in these bounded areas of interaction.44 Through this power, change is able to occur throughout the urban region and the architecture is able to grow as needed by the people. The OMA bridge is designed to be free to change by the people. By changing the architecture, they change their environment. And, returning one final time to David Summers, a change in place must mean a change in social space and the social hierarchy of that space.

Why We Need a Free-Space Architecture: Architecture (f)or Revolution

Mixing architecture with the images of Egypt, Wall St, or Ukraine seems like a call for social revolution; that is far from the truth. This is a call for an architecture of social equality and social peace.

Similar to Le Corbusier’s manifesto of Modern design, this a call for a re-thinking of architecture, but this is not a call for a change in architectural aesthetic; rather, a change in architectural thinking.

Architects hold the greatest power of designing environments for people to function in, to organize themselves within, identify with, and grow from. With the new era of global architecture, architects are able to design magnificent buildings in nations across the world, but this also means designing something that the architect will, in all likelihood, never inhabit. With this motivation, it is easy to see how the concerns of the user can fall behind the motivation of creating something grand and awe-inspiring, but this has to change.

If architecture is really about pushing the perceived boundaries of an era, we must first catch up with our current era. Our current tools of connectivity allow everyone to have a voice, our architecture must allow everyone to act. Architecture must incite change.

43 44

Cruz, page 156-157.

Frampton, page 25.

30 David Summers, Real Spaces: World Art History and the Rise of Western Modernism (Phaidon Press Limited, 2003) edition.cnn.com/2014/02/11/business/uae-burj-khalifa-fees/ Georges Bataille, “Architecture” (1928) Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, Ed. Neil Leach, New York: Routledge, 2006.

Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, (The University of Chicago Press, 1958). happypontist.blogspot.com/2013/07/pont-jean-jacques-bosc-bridge-design.html Kenneth Frampton, “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance” (1983) Lebbeus Woods, Anarchitecture: Architecture is a Political Act (London: Academy Editions/New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992) Martin Heidegger, “Building, Dwelling, Thinking” (1951) Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, Ed. Neil Leach, New York: Routledge, 2006.

Michel Foucault, “Of Other Space: Utopias and Heterotopias” (1951) Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, Ed. Neil Leach, New York: Routledge, 2006. oma.com/news/2013/oma-wins-competition-to-design-pont-jean-jacques-bosc-in-bordeaux Teddy Cruz, “Re_Urbanism: Transforming Capitals,” Perspecta 39 (2007) Theodore Adorno, “Functionalism Today” (1965) Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, Ed. Neil Leach, New York: Routledge, 2006.

Umberto Eco, “Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture” (1997) Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, Ed. Neil Leach, New York: Routledge, 2006. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005231/Chinas-ghost-towns-New-satellite-pictures-massive-skyscrapercities-STILL-completely-empty.html www.dezeen.com/2013/12/20/oma-wins-bordeaux-bridge-competition/