! ! THE PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC SPACE AND REGULATED INDIVIDUALISM
!
! ! THE END OF PUBLIC SPACE ? Why remaining public spaces, became more and more institutionalized ?
! !
Urban analysis introduction
! ! From Functionalist dystopia to an Open architecture How modern cities could evolved from a dysfunctional rigidity and regained its freedom ?
! !
!
This article propose a critic of modern and post-modernism architecture that shapes cities around the world and especially very young cities like Singapore.
!
Manage to see what architecture became today, as a simple tool first it gain power to manipulate and take leading position to master our environment. We create architecture driven by the idea to keep civilization under control but we failed in this same statement and later on we create a preposterous scenography giving the illusion of remaining freedom but instead we create by naivety an environment where free will, disappear in favor of a functionalist control-behaved civilization. So what would be the next evolution ? And by that avoiding same mistakes of functionalism creating a more open space architecture ?
! ! The theory of dis-functionalism as a dystopia !
The main statement propose to criticize and question nowadays common establishment as architecture can be seen as functionalist and disconnected from its originals purpose. How architecture get transform form utopia to dystopia and why is it still commonly accepted as the unique standard ?
!
As a lot of modern cities in Asia were influence by modernist and after post modernist architectures, creates rapidly a common standard as resolving but also managing with efficiency fast changing as the way of living completely transform. But the idea fist was to respond to the rapid technologic evolution. The modern city place the car as it central pivot making it soon out of scale and relegate people to undergo the city as they lost its control. Streets that were once very vibrant public space transform into roads for cars putting away the link that was so important for interactions and community.
!
However in the sixties, as the city evolve so fast, architects try to adapt common living standards. Both urbanists and hygienists manage to create a solution placing in development again people in the center by reinterpreting such ethic but also for the fist time manage to deal with high density as going from housing to housing units, involving new problems and raising very strong social issues. Also technical evolution like the elevator, air conditioning, drywall abolished the traditional markers of architecture to shape a more continuous and more unstable space taking less human into considerations.
!
Le Corbusier's "Five Points of a New Architecture » along with his works, had also a major effect on new modernist projects as it create rules to follow (sort of modern Vitruvian effect) by creating a common sense by creating criteria that will soon be unquestioned references to make buildings and architectural spaces .
!
The example of Le Plan Voisin for Paris (1925) was one of the key project starting the new era of modern architecture, for the first time since the middle age urbanists, hygienists and architects intend not only to update but reshape, and rebuild from zero the city, as they start a modern era of new urbanism made possible by technologic revolution in materials and technics of the industrial age. In 1933 after the CIAM reunion, LeCorbusier wrote the Charte of Athens which create the very first assumption of « a functional city ». The Charter has 95 points on the planning and construction of cities. Topics include: residential, separation of residential areas and transportation routes as well as the preservation of historic buildings, neighborhoods and other existing towers. The main underlying concept was the creation of separate zones for the four "functions": the life, work, leisure and transport infrastructure. Although very young city as Singapore for example get driven by those very ideas, and manage to completely adopted it as the unique solution to manage rapid expansion.
!
These concepts have been widely adopted by planners in their efforts to rebuild European cities after World War II, for example Firminy Verde which get involved to the construction of a new neighborhood and the construction of a model of social housing in Dresden, Germany . But it was also very criticize for its lacks of flexibility as Team X in 1953 and in 1990, the Charte of Aalborg in order to create more sustainable Cities but also closer to people. In fact the counter Athens group lost the battle as it was not the most profitable solution at the time and especially in fast growing cities such in Asia, but since the late nineties, sustainable development regain strength as public and authorities are now aware that cities have a key role to play in changing lifestyles, production and consumption, and environmental structures and preserve resources and the environment. But real sustainable
architecture need to be not only passive but climate responsive, as developing a none global design as modernism did but a more locally respond to suit local climate and environment .
!
Modern city reshaped themselves, Brasilia, Chandigarh are the perfect example of cities built from the ground up driven by the idea of creation this idyllic of social and urban perfection. Cities like New York with Stuyvesant Town built in 1942 is an example of the idea that soon emerge as the residential precinct. Neimeyer and Lucio Costa, design the Supersquadra that was put into action in Brasilia. The configuration of the residential blocks, commonly referred to as Superquadras (“super blocks”), is a 280m square occupied by long, six-storey slab apartment buildings put into a large open space park. The first floor of these buildings were conceived as being raised in pilotis to promote the integration of landscape and architecture, and to undermine a sense of private ownership. However, building codes have overtime allowed an increased occupation of the ground level. Shops, commerces but also public equipments such as schools are also part of the Squadra as little buildings scattered through the park.
!
Those ideas create a new way to perceiving social mixity and community. Singapore follow those general principles and soon took it for granted even if a decade later experience in Brasilia or Chandigarh shows that the intention of creating strong mixity but actually creating segregation and dysfunctional urbanism. The park soon become a very insecure area, social impermeability emerge, conflicts and problems emerge as interests diverge…etc
!
The idea of the precinct soon emerge as the simple and only solution to manage both fast growing rates and new social identity even if it is not resolving the last part but instead creating a fault line between people. Then idea of the precinct or Squadra was to define and redefine in arbitrary and imaginary boundaries an almost autonomous community by itself. Meaning imposing « softly » for people to enclosed themselves by giving them everything they need in close proximity and encouraging them to stay in the precinct by creating this «imaginary border» between the «inside and outside world». So is it different that the so called gated community ? Not really because yes it is not physically close by a wall or a gate, but the idea is really the same only the way to do it is different. Like that the precinct remain to people and the city remain to the car, the jungle remain to the monkeys, the sea remain to the fishes. It is a way of solving the confrontation between two world. Creating two temporality and scale that were not created and certainly not design to be complementary but only satisfied purpose and need for different protagonists.
A paradoxical rigidity that came to a negative architecture
!
So get closer to the precinct, or this idea to create a very strict , well-sequence , and practical considerations. In a sense you create a strict habitat were only practical functions are allowed and get rid of any «undefined spaces» for aleatory purposes. But in fact undefined spaces create a new dimension, were people can be the main actor and not be manipulate by the architecture. As Le Corbusier said «the house is a machine of living» which mean that modern architecture is automatically produced by the fulfillment of practical needs and never by the will of people, creating the paradox of «building an architecture intended to be used by people but not made for people» (Louis Sullivan).
!
Also very important to remember that in first hand, modern architecture was made absolutely not to accommodate people and but to be use as a commercial and industrial architecture. We only adapt it to suit soon residential and public space in order to face fast growing and shifting society that required new tools that only modern architecture would fulfill. The slogan «form follows function» made its mark into modern architecture history but in fact reverse itself as the function now follow the form. The functional approach took away a sense of reality by saying that the building will not adapt to suit people but people will and need to adapt to it. The building respond then to a panoply of technical needs forgetting its priors purposes. Modern architecture is very about that changment in such a radical time and a radical way due to technological evolution create a very unique state in the architecture evolution where people are not central anymore but became auxiliary as they use the place but never really get to appropriated it. Building has others purpose and became a tool, an artifact for political representation or even symbolism and power (as the Soviet modernism was a tool for embracing and emphasizing power and political domination). Hopefully the precinct don’t get so far into such extreme field as the Soviet era but is in somewhere between accepting the form no matter what and the idea of people will not be tented for subversion meaning putting people in a control environment and disable human behavior to make impossible to overcome the system for the security of the largest number.
!
The fear was to prevent any form of derivation leading to a de-civilized society when human become animal again. It could be seen as very extreme but remember that modernism architecture emerge after the second world war to rebuild a devastated Europe with the hope that it will never happen again. So putting into pandora box human derive was not so hard to understand at this time by making sure uncontrolled behavior would not re-emerge.
!
Modern architecture was design to providing security, rules and control and also by raising standards people will not need to fight again by giving to everyone a real equality and guarantee for higher standards and social mixity (that will failed not because architecture wasn’t good but because of its poor management by authorities). By unclosing people to make sure, they will not generate uncontrollable and random comportment that can make in peril the system. Thus ensuring its sustainability, architecture became not only a tool but an actor able to manipulate people prohibiting every form of deregulations or worst. And the best part is that people would not be aware of it as they still are free of movement, the architecture remain then a common regulator that stay in the background but is everywhere as the guardian of this fragile peace.
!
Functionalism was first as every architecture revolution and evolution an utopic solution for facing problems, challenging a better future but indeed create a reverse phenomenon. As it became not only dystopic but create a negative architecture that people are subject to it and are not aware of it but create a regression, « as people being before the main actor player ,now poorly remain as passive spectator of their own survival » (Friedrich Nietzsche, the will to power). This idea could be extreme but don’t forget that architecture is deeply connected with technological evolution such as car transform our cities, before the sixties very few people believe that toilets can be part of their apartment as it always was outside (for hygiene) , even the term of apartment or unit was difficult to understand. But technical revolution give possibility to adapt architecture and become better their is no doubt. But where we might failed is that we intend to create on top of that a system that would manage to overcomes every new difficulties those new technologies would create but leaving behind the very basis of giving people the possibility to control their environment. When LeCorbusier said that we create machine of living , you can understand easily that people is not the key factor but become only a part of the equation, as a mechanized architecture can function with or without people autonomously. The industry lead to the Fordism or the first step to a mechanized and standardized world, the very simple evolution would be to extend then the idea to the house that remain mostly unchanged since hundreds of years. The birth of common living as the unit housing soon emerge as the standard.
!
A common living unit define a sequence of used, that can not be change, living room, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, partitioning that are no matter what the common rule. We all accept it but is it however accurate ? Comparing today standards of living and very ancient housing, shows their are differences not because we change, we stay as human being but because we change our environment. As it become more and more complex that we think we shape our
society but indeed, society shape ourselves. The traditional living room as the gathering place for the family not existed before the forties (but everyone think it is something that used to be since the beginning of time), gathering took place generally in the kitchen or mostly around the fire if you go even further in the past. The living room is a invention made only to create an entry for the Television in every home as a central entertainment piece for big companies to get even closer to people. The private sector shape society and with it the architecture itself. So it became even clearer that companies shapes our livings also to target even closer future customers as functionalism became productivist functionalism emphasizing the idea of dystopia. As a result architecture became totally disconnected form human needs but a capitalistic tool that is still in place today.
! ! Reverse the establishment !
Why is it so important to understand it, is because for over sixteen years we lived in a golden jail, the only different with a real jail is the freedom of movement, but as precinct became more and more enclosed, it means that people are conditioned to remain in their close proximity, the city itself became then only transitory point between point A (the house) and B (work place, only thing that remain outside the border). Even you are not confined in a tiny cell you lose your will to explore, derive through the city.
!
The derivation is very important , For the Situationists like Guy DeBord, the derive is the primary technique for exploring an urban landscape's psychogeography and engaging new experiences. But in fact we create a fractal city where we define various impermeable communities, creating less interaction and even more segregation. Also from the same Situationists the fear was that functionalism create increasingly predictable and monotonous experience could therefore manage to create a generation that is not curious anymore, don’t push forward and soon become easily manipulable and controllable (their were right).
!
It became important now to reverse this state of ÂŤimprisonmentÂť by taking back the space, the public space that once belong to people. The logic of re-appropriation and re-interpretation of space take all its sense when you intend to give people possibilities, new possibilities to be part of the city again, the land belong to people and not to the car or even the architecture. As it is difficult to transform what the house become as it is so deeply anchored in our lives now, public space always manage to be more flexible and able to changment facing possibilities. But architecture still take too much importance and need to be take back to his place of
tool control by human being and not the inverse. As a matter of fact, architecture in a way has evolved to be a so called permanent, impermeable and rigid non flexible structure that impose no matter way itself as a proper entity whereas it should be a process and a tool to perform people needs and not the inverse. And by that public space remain one of very few spaces where you can find porosity again.
!
From impermeable to permeable, strict to flexible, create not an architecture but a tool, a system capable of creating one again in the logic, incidences and randomness, the theory of organized chaos where opportunities can happen even in a control environment define the real sense of living. Getting further on the idea is to get away from typical «constructivism» and evolve to a more «flexible» space capable of accommodate people and the community as it always need to be not independent interests. This idea is not indeed crazy, even in the sixties a counter architecture think tank group emerge. The radicals or Avant Garde architects leading by Archizoon, and Supersutdio was a response to those problems as the architecture became more and more « commercial » ,and careless about people. Defined by Robert Ventury, by its simple phrase « i’m a monument » calling for architects to be more receptive to the tastes and values of "common" people and less immodest in their erections of "heroic," self-aggrandizing monuments as a symbol of capitalism (which is very close to Soviet modernism).
!
This statement was made in the seventies but if you compare with today architecture and even closer comparison to the traditional residential precinct, it seems that we not really took Venturi considerations. In fact it is now the standard. of course in such high density cities like Singapore for example their is also the fact of privileging higher density in reason of the lack of land. But do we manage to value people considerations when you incorpore sport facilities, food court, park in the master plans or is it just to make it more attractive and as a matter of fact, generating profits for the contractor by attracting buyers. Well their is a little of both but despite all the good intentions, it is always a matter of interests more than considerations.
!
But all of that saying that people have no control of their own environment, meaning architecture as we discuss on the article. Architecture is still some permeable structure with little possibilities of transformations and evolution. As a result people try to reinvest their bellowing space. Residual space as space of transition but also play the role of a link for the community, became place of random interaction and create various ephemeral re-appropriation of spaces and pop up activities. As the result it gain more visibility and function by itself. People actually taking care of the space even their is no rules for it. The idea of sequencing
and partitioning peoples and activities become irrelevant and some semi-space will emerge, meaning spaces used for not one but various activities. And in top of that restoring a non intrusive or imposed architecture but a very simple and almost invisible tool to give real sophistication to the space , very flexible and keeping it free enough to get a full range of opportunities without driving it and especially leaving full awareness an appropriation of the space for the people as it become a community space.
!
As a matter of fact less boundaries equal more interaction as the space became porous and not clearly define it helps the community to perform its own utilization of space. And because the street feel like a strange world where traffic rule the system and derive make you an unknown in an ocean of unknown. Squares, public plaza, residual spaces gain a position of gathering space as it always been in the past but get emphasize in our time period were people lost control of the land in favor of the machine. Spots where you can meet as a key epicenter for the community to interact, architecture need to fulfill this role of creating this stage and leaving people being the main actor of his life again.
!
To finish by this words, "A thing is defined by its essence. In order to design it so that it functions well – a receptacle, a chair, a house – its essence must first be explored; it should serve its purpose perfectly, that is, fulfill its function practically and be durable, inexpensive and ‘beautiful’." (Walter Gropius, 1925)
!
This was the first step of modernism as the very first, intention to fulfill a dream an utopia that soon get corrupt. And i would add, a thing is defined by his essence, especially architecture and should remain a tool and only a tool to accompanied rather that accomplish people desires. Being the less intrusive possible by keeping architecture the very background and emphasize people considerations rather than it emphasize itself.
!
What would be the next step in evolution ? Going form a impermeable and careless architecture to an open design capable to transform limits into opportunities. Give the city back to people as architecture can be once again the instigator and not the executioner.
! ! !
Urban re-interpretation
! ! ! Maximizing architecture as a power tool for public space re-appropriation Reclaimed Public Space To a more mobil and flexible architecture ?
! ! ! Public space re-interpretation !
Shape to accommodate such a high density model like Hong Kong or Singapore it find his echo around the world where public spaces in modern cities became more and more limited, due to uncontrolled and fast growing development that create a suffocated environment. Public space became then over regulated, constraint by their environment but also rules that limit public space re-appropriation.
!
Parks, squares, plazas are not anymore the common gathering place as it become more and more hostile and don’t have the efficient architecture and design to pursue this path. The public domain is no longer free to use as it become inapt and inappropriable anymore. Square without benches, lawn grass prohibited to use, public gathering banned from public space....Rules and regulations that kills the community.
!
But the street and so called residual spaces sort of transit space still belong to the people and because they are not defined as public spaces but unidentified spaces, rules and regulations are less important and give the opportunity to transform the public domain as new community space. So called remote zones, buffering zones can create a new extension very first space in-between public and private “allowing room for appropriation and re-appropriation by the inhabitants of the space.
!
The mutation is the next big problematic as a value of flexibility, convenience and pragmatism: emblems of modern identity.
!
Give the ability to create your own portable private-public device as it perform a new sense of nomadism that we lose little by little as the city make us more and more sedentary. Re-appropriation that push to be ephemeral but more efficient by suiting the very best needs of people in the instant. Its sense of mobility give also the
possibility to create a modular appropriate space where everyone bring its own piece of the space. It become then a real public incubator that is capable to mutate for even more flexibility. A portable tool like a bag when your in the move that give you the ability to stop everywhere and create in an instant your own private-public space in the heart of the city again.
!
For example The STAG project by Hong Kong based architects Geraldine Borio and Caroline Wuthrichin tend to demonstrate that the city should not be perceived as a limitation of people’s appropriation but rather points out the opportunities that the city offers and encourage the inhabitants to play with it.
! ! Close-scale incubator !
However they also emphasis their work on micro-scale architecture, and it is very important as public facilities will fail inevitably if they are out of scale. Massive plaza or stand of the art public facilities fit with a lots of activities that will encourage community and gathering, will remain empty because people will be feeling like it is design for them. The scale is always a key factor, and spatial occupation will be in fact driven by scale analogy. Meaning architecture and in very first public space need to be feel as it belong to people and create a feeling of an large open field were you lose your marks and emphasize the feeling of loneliness that is that last think to emphasize in a community space right ? So human scale is one of the key value even before defining proper architecture that will suit the site, and by creating much smaller but sophisticated space you will give much more attractiveness for the community.
!
But their is also a need to impulse a dynamic that not only attract people but use to create a real language to the site. Community space could and need to be a platform for expression, a stage for everyone to express his ideas, interact, talk about society, problems, manage to perform. Indeed public space is likely to make a strong and powerful incubator for any form of expression. meaning Art and Culture both always were strongly attached. But then art was move into museum, as art became prohibited in public space as it became a strong force against authorities and the establishment rules. In oder terms, art manage to get people react and question the so called regulations that was intended to avoid any overcomes that art represent. Meaning avoiding art in the street mostly create counter culture, not illegal but playing with this fragile line. Culture also find its own « architectures » and remain mostly far from the street as it became more and more professional and raised a new form of community, an elitist and very closed one. The idea is to give
back to people the public space and with that reinstating art and culture in the as a central tool again. People will now regain not only the use of the public space but the will to use it.
!
Emphasizing minimum intervention giving a full range of possibilities, flexible enough to create a large palette of spaces managing to a combination of simplicity but behind that a powerful tool that became very sophisticated and satisfy every criteria that every type of art and culture involvement is focusing on.
!
Giving almost infinite combinations to accommodate make clear to proceed to a more modular typology and with that the purpose of mobility in such a way that it is nomad. Nomadism or the idea of micro installations that could change, move and transform without heavy changments but simple ways.
! Adaptable furnituring !
Transform, adapt, evolve and react to use, environment and human being. In the sixties radical ideas start to emerge as an avant garde theorization of future society. And what they intend to show is that we will evolve forward a modular environment in such a way that every space from what you what to be, and become a part of a giant puzzle always evolving through people mobility.
!
The Non-Stop City by Superstudio give the example of the free grid completely rid of constraints and open up the space with an addition of modular furnituring give total access and powerful tool to create the space you want, in the way you want, when you want, where you want, with the ability to start over again somewhere else and that is Nomadism architecture.
!
Creating furniture is not only a fairly cheap and simple tool to achieve greater purposes such as creating a full operating system, physically able to be combination of mobility, flexibility, manageability as it clearly is. But it really matter in term of strategy giving the opportunity not only to change but create real an simple architecture uniqueness flexible enough to have tis proper language remaining as a guide in the background.
!
But lastly their is also a last matter meaning well, since we have the tool to create an everywhere Art and Culture « nod », the next question is also what factors comes into consideration and what strategy need to be used ?
! !
Focusing on predefining sites, meaning site that are asleep and waits to be activated. Targeting potentiality (open space, visibility, population, proximity with residential blocks...etc) to manage and give adequacy of factors that will emphasizing the installation itself. Meaning of course the art and culture nod with have deferent needs and constraints depending one with type of art, installation even utilization. Avoiding noisy activities or need to be away from residential Blk and etc...
!
But as the nod is an autonomous entity it could easy move around as an ambulant and nomad art installation that could be seen as a pop up installation spreading around. Authorities could keep a certain control and will able to manage mostly security, hours access, regulations that is always difficult to manage when you have an itinerant installation with no clear rules, role of what or who is in charge, keep the place running but also resolving problems when they occur.
!
Basically piloting the nods in a distance to keep an eye on it, will maintain it but leaves a lots of room for the community as they also will not feel controlled and will involve themselves in a very natural way as, being curious, start to participate and then getting really involved. Less power to the rulers and more implications to the community, give back to people a part of the responsibility.
!
! !
References :
!
_ LeCorbusier (1923), Toward a New Architecture _ Le Corbusier (1933), La Charte d'Athènes _ George Orwell (1949), 1984 _ Guy Debord (1950), Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography _ Superstudio / Piero Frassinelli (1966), Twelve Ideal Cities _ Robert Silverberg (1971), The World Insideest _ Robert Venturi (1972), Learning from Las Vegas _ Rem Koolhaas (2001), Junkspace
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !