Uncommon Ground: Aether, Body, and Commons

THRESHOLDS 40

S O C

I

O —

JOURNAL OF THE MIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE

Editorial Policy Thresholds, Journal of the MIT Department of Architecture, is an annual, blind peerreviewed publication produced by student editors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Opinions in Thresholds are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, the Department of Architecture, or MIT. Correspondence Thresholds—MIT Architecture 77 Massachusetts Ave, Room 7–337 Cambridge, MA 02139 thresholds@mit.edu http://thresholds.mit.edu

Published by SA+P Press MIT School of Architecture + Planning 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7–231 Cambridge, MA 02139 Copyright © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The individual contributions are copyright their respective authors.

Figures and images are copyright their respective creators, as individually noted.

ISSN 1091-711X ISBN 978-0-9835082-1-2

Book design and cover by Donnie Luu www.donnieluu.com Printed by Puritan Press, Hollis, NH 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Thresholds 40

Socio—

Edited by Jonathan Crisman Cambridge, MA

Contents

5 Editorial: Socio-indemnity and Other Motives

— Jonathan Crisman

67 Tuktoyaktuk: Offshore Oil and a New Arctic Urbanism

— Pamela Ritchot 75 Boundary Line Infrastructure

11 Conjuring Utopia’s Ghost

— Reinhold Martin

— Ronald Rael 83 Dissolving the Grey Periphery

thresholds 40

21 Le Corbusier, the Brise-Soleil, and the Socio-climatic Project of Modern Architecture, 1929-1963

— Daniel A. Barber 33 Move Along!

There Is Nothing to See

— Rania Ghosn 39 Flow’s Socio-spatial Formation

— Nana Last 47 Collective Equipments of Power: The Road and the City

— Simone Brott 55 Collective Form: The Status of Public Architecture

— Dana Cuff

— Neeraj Bhatia and Alexander D’Hooghe 91 Park as Philanthropy: Bow-Wow’s Redevelopment at Miyashita Koen

— Yoshiharu Tsukamoto 99 Mussels in Concrete: A Social Architectural Practice

— Esen Gökçe Özdamar 105 Participation and/or Criticality? Thoughts on an Architectural Practice for Urban Change

— Kenny Cupers and Markus Miessen 113 The Sluipweg and the History of Death

— Mark Jarzombek

Contents

121 Extra Room: What if we lived in a society where our every thought was public?

— Gunnar Green and Bernhard Hopfengärtner 127 Sculpture Field: From the Symbolic to the Tectonic

— Dan Handel 135 On Radiation Burn

— Steve Kurtz

— Christian A. Hedrick 175 Hush

— Steven Beckly and Jonathan D. Katz 189 NORCs in New York

— Interboro Partners 209 Uncommon Ground: Aether, Body, and Commons

— Zissis Kotionis

— Amrita Mahindroo 225 The Prince: Bjarke Ingels’s Social Conspiracy

— Justin Fowler 233 Beyond Doing Good: Civil Disobedience as Design Pedagogy

— Hannah Rose Mendoza 237 Aid, Capital, and the Humanitarian Trap

— Joseph M. Watson 245 The End of Civilization

— Daniel Daou 255 Toward a Lake Ontario City

— Department of Unusual Certainties 263 Sociopaths

— Jimenez Lai

socio—

163 Cairo di sopra in giù: Perspective, Photography, and the “Everyday”

217 Edens, Islands, Rooms

UNCOMMON GROUND: Aether, Body, and Commons Zissis Kotionis

Zissis Kotionis

thresholds 40

Urban Ground

We understand ground as something that sustains and supports human life. With human development, this ground has manifested as concrete slabs, evident in dense, supranational urban networks, as noted by Michel Serres. 1 Given the concrete slab density over the Athens Basin, the extensive constructed surface of the modern city along with the earthly substrata that support it should also be considered integral parts of the city’s “thick ground.” Therefore, the thick ground of Athens encompasses a few tens of meters in the light, to the height of an average apartment building, and a few meters in the dark, to the depth of the earliest human traces. Below the current surface are older ground levels that due to archaeological digs, constant construction, and subsequent re-filling, go down to minus ten meters. Above stands an urban mass that usually does not exceed 20 meters, composed of a few floors of concrete slabs—in cross section, a total of 30 meters. Postulating a “ground fraction,” the constructed urban mass in central Athens would be located above the fraction bar, while archaeological sites would be located below.

they are deterritorialized. However, according to its political definition, deterritorialization means taking away control and order from a land or territory already established and politically organized. In this sense, Athens has already been undergoing a phase of intense deterritorialization due to continuous interventions of the global financial system in the past few years. One might say that the seat of the political system in Athens is being unseated and transferred to global air space, above the city and beyond national borders.

Urban Ground Cross Section

A topological model of the urban ground can be symbolized in a straight line, which separates the world of appearances to an above and a below it the form of a fraction Fig. 1. The topology of above and below

Deterritorialization Fig. 1

Air space between and above the apartment buildings in cross section could be overtaken by dense networks bearing heavy flows of information. Via these networks, language and code-based human activities are transferred to a “space” beyond the ground:

1 Michel Serres, The Natural Contract (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1995).

defines a space of light—the space of terrestrial life—and a dark space beneath, resistant and unapproachable. The space below, along with the ground’s crust, could be called the common, referring to collectively shared surface and subter-ranean resources.

In Athens, the common includes history by means of buried artifacts brought to light by archaeology, and fair weather which allows for extended stays outdoors. As common ground contains both history and knowledge, both ancient culture and modern cultivation, it can be perceived as both a literal and metaphorical 210

UNCOMMON GROUND

cultivation ground. The thickness of the common can be symbolized as “C” and placed in the denominator of the “ground fraction” Fig. 2

C common

Fig. 2

B

A

socio—

In the space above the ground line, the city represents terrestrial activity. Within the city, human bodies and their objects, such as buildings and cars, are in constant interaction. The bodily is inherent in both these human bodies and their objects. We could, therefore, refer to all terrestrial activity taking place above ground as the bodily, symbolized as “B,” placing it in the numerator of the ground fraction Fig. 3. Additionally, common characteristics of its buildings could be used to define a city’s bodily uniqueness.

A polykatoikia (typical apartment building) in Athens, for example, demonstrates a distinctive physicality.

involved in, but also exists above, all human activity. Aether is not only a conveyor of weather but also a vector of communication, potential, language, ideas, and even illness, and as such can be considered an artificial common. It remains, however, the region where cross-territorial power (i.e., global or deterritorialized) is exercised. There is a fundamental distinction between the bodily element of humans and buildings and the fluidity of aether: the bodily is material while aether is not. A line of materiality—like a slab of concrete— vertically separates terrestrial from celestial, bodily from aethereal. The aethereal is defined as hyper-ground and placed in the numerator of the fraction as “A” Fig. 4.

B aethereal / bodily

Fig. 4

Thus, the complex fraction “A/B/C” is proposed where the line of the ground is the fraction bar, the common is the denominator, and the numerator is a fraction with the aethereal as numerator and the bodily as denominator Fig. 5.

A

C

B Fig. 3

bodily / common

C

In an attempt to dissociate the sky from its metaphysical dimension, the term aether will be used for the element that is both

Fig. 5

211

Zissis Kotionis

This complex fraction is used to represent an archaeological cross section of the thick ground of modern-day Athens.

By intersecting the vertical plane of the A/B/C fraction with a horizontal plane representing the people—permanent and temporary residents of the city—or, in other words, by further investigating the bodily, we can there locate a historic transition from the concept of the people to that of the multitude 2 Fig. 6.

buildings, the coincidence of apartment building and family, in terms of the bodily, emerges Fig. 7.

christians

religion

A

greeks

family

B

greece

motherland

C Fig. 7

A B

e

ud

ltit

mu

le

op

thresholds 40

pe

C

aethereal / bodily / common

Fig. 6

This combination of the horizontal flow of multitude with the vertical A/B/C will provide a basis for examination of the thick ground of Athens and its potential reformation.

People, Family, and the Apartment Building

In Athens’s recent history, certain three-word political slogans have been repeatedly used. These political triptychs can be construed through the A/B/C topological triptych. During the years of the military dictatorship (1967-1974), the slogan used by the junta was “Country, Family, Religion.”

The term “country” constitutes the common ground strata (C), the second term “family” involves the “bodily” (B), and the third term “religion” refers to the elusive aether (A). If in terms of location we assume the bodily to represent the thick stratum of apartment

Family is often seen as the social and ideological nucleus of Athens. Single-family units have been the basic social content of the polykatoikia. However, recent findings challenge this notion: in demographic terms, Athens and its extended center are rapidly diverging from the traditional threegeneration nuclear family model. Single senior citizens, students, single parent families, and single immigrant populations are adopting communal residential schemes (i.e., multitudes) that comprise social groupings that differ from the typical family now residing in more privileged environs on the city’s periphery. As a result of this shift, the apartment building is separating from the family at the same time that the people are retreating and giving their place over to the metropolitan multitude. And while the antithesis between the concept of the people and of the multitude is expressed through major disparities in Athens’s interior, building shells and their typologies resist, demonstrating a paradox: while apartment vacancies are increasing, so are homelessness numbers.

Multitude

Following the 1974 political changeover in Greece, the military dictatorship’s slogan 212

UNCOMMON GROUND

“Country, Family, Religion” was replaced with “Bread, Education, Freedom” which has dominated since. In this new triptych, the close association of the common (C) with the country is diminished. The bread as “common,” though it encompasses the territoriality of cultivation, does not establish any type of land possession. Moreover, the term “education” replaces the family as an element of the fraction (B), reminding us that education is the main communal aspiration of the new urban body. Finally, in terms of the aethereal (A), the potential of religion is replaced by enlightenment’s call to freedom Fig. 8.

A

education

B

bread

C

Fig. 9

was “Cops, Pigs, Murderers.” As opposed to “Bread, Education, Freedom” which expresses an aspiration, all constituent parts of this new triptych convey rage and an obsession with the bodily. A three-part topology of the bodily, it coincides with the belly in the previously mentioned cross section of the city (B), Fig. 10.

Fig. 8

In December 2008, the riots in central Athens resulted in significant damage to the city which remained beyond political control for a few hours. Moreover, for the first time, a large number of resident immigrants participated along with the local population.

This conflagration signified a radical transformation of the city’s political subject. In the disposition of power, it was not the native population—as was common until then—that played a leading role but, rather, the multitude.

Toni Negri defines the multitude and its dynamic through references to the body noting, “the multitude is a multitude of bodies; it expresses power not only as a whole but also as singularity.”3 Indeed, in the arrangement of those that took part in the uprising, one can note both the total and the individual action of the singularity as an activation of

cops

B

pigs

B

murderers

B Fig. 10

The multitude’s demonstration constitutes a grounding in the purely corporeal. On the other hand, the frenzied deterritorialization of financial and political sectors is symbolically

2 See Toni Negri, “Pour une définition ontologique de la multitude,” Multitudes, no. 9 (May/June 2002): 36–48.

3 Negri, “Pour une définition ontologique de la multitude,” 36–48.

213

socio—

freedom

the unique body of the demonstrator, in contrast to demonstrations where action is the result of a collective effort and is controlled by the whole Fig. 9. The slogan then coined

Zissis Kotionis

expressed in the tripartite name of its foremost champion, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The international domain of this organization, in combination with the potential of the monetary power it wields, consigns the I-M-F triptych to the domain of the aethereal (A), Fig. 11.

international

A

monetary

A

fund

A

apartment unit can be inset through vertically infilling the slab structure Fig. 12.4

thresholds 40

Fig. 11

The absorption of the multitude’s political expression by the bodily (B) and the subordination of political processes by the aethereal (A) compress urban life into solid wholes that continuously move away from each other. As they become increasingly polarized, “the public” as a fundamental constituent of urban life withdraws into the dark of the earth. The thick ground becomes solid and single-layered. How can this ominous shrinking of the political topology be reversed?

At the same time, withdrawal of the family leaves a void in the city’s space, similar to an apartment being vacated, between individual and society. Which structure in place of the apartment building can host the bipolar singularity-multitude social construct? To answer these questions, we must review and transform the structure of the apartment building to find a suitable tectonic housing model.

Fig. 12

The dwelling, free of internal partitions, is essentially a large room. This single space is able to receive all of the micro-programs from singularities, which can be individuals or evolving cohabitation schemes adopted by the metropolitan mass. As the outline of the housing unit slips from the slab/base, the slab hangs in mid-air among the units, seeking a new role Fig. 13. It finds that role by establishing common or intermediate levels

Multistructure

In the apartment building, equidistant slabs according to the dom-i-no tectonic system define intermediate spaces in which an Fig. 13

214

UNCOMMON GROUND

between the units. These are the levels of the common (C) that hang between units, vertically transposing common ground. In this case, the common, beyond being private or public, can be allotted for urban gardening, outdoor living, or the production of clean energy. Construction of common slabs results in the creation of a hyper-ground, expanding the urban ground and reconstituting it with the bodily and the aethereal.5

And so, an axiom emerges: The more that Athens’s building structure recombines and increases the complexity and co-existence of A, B, and C, the more that the multitude appropriates the city in terms of biopolitical integration Fig. 14.

A B

A

C

C

A

B C

socio—

B

(B), and the aethereal (A). The objective is to multiply fractional relations of A/B/C vertically to produce a complex urban porosity. This porosity refers to the bioclimatic dimension of architecture, as well as to the political dimension of cohabitation. Moreover, the common underground of Athens also falls within its terms of reference. An increase of porosity downward results in expanded archeological digs with simultaneous freeing of the ground: multistructure gains height as it frees up ground, archaeo-logical and otherwise FigS. 15, 16.

B Fig. 14

Conversely, the more that mono-cultivation of the bodily or the aethereal dominates, the more that the multitude’s estrangement increases.

In research regarding a structural formulation for the multitude, a syntactic principle of maximum intermingling for A, B, and C takes primacy. The structure that can maximize intermingling is one able to foster maximum vertical amalgamation of these three factors. A new formulation, multistructure, can reformulate ground relations and is proposed in place of the apartment building formulation. Under the topological terms of the A/B/C urban cross section, this new structure allows intermingling of the common (C), the bodily

Fig. 15

4 Here, if we consider apartment cavity walls wedged between the concrete slabs and observe the cross section up close, we notice a structural motif of alternating structural units (the bricks) and interspaced slabs.

5 For a video demonstration, see http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=EXvUZ1QTn40.

215

thresholds 40

Zissis Kotionis

FIG. 16

*** Dr. Zissis Kotionis is an architect practicing in Greece and is Professor and Head in the Department of Architecture at the University of Thessaly. He has published five books on architectural theory and urban culture, and his projects and buildings have been published and award winning in Greece and abroad. He is also involved in artistic performances and installations in public art practices.

In 2010 he was Commissioner of Greece in the Venice Biennale.

216

THRESHOLDS 40 SOCIO—

Editor Jonathan Crisman Designer Donnie Luu Assistant Editors Ana María León Jennifer Chuong Antonio Furgiuele Irina Chernyakova Advisory Board Mark Jarzombek, Chair Stanford Anderson Dennis Adams Martin Bressani Jean-Louis Cohen Charles Correa Arindam Dutta Diane Ghirardo Ellen Dunham-Jones Robert Haywood Hassan-Uddin Khan Rodolphe el-Khoury Leo Marx Mary McLeod Ikem Okoye Vikram Prakash Kazys Varnelis Cherie Wendelken Gwendolyn Wright J. Meejin Yoon

Opposite: Intergalactic Sculpture, 1994.

Copyright Ezra Orion.

Patrons James Ackerman Imran Ahmed Mark and Elaine Beck Tom Beischer Yung Ho Chang Robert F. Drum Gail Fenske Liminal Projects, Inc. Rod Freebairn-Smith Nancy Stieber Robert A. Gonzales Jorge Otero-Pailos Annie Pedret Vikram Prakash Joseph M. Siry Richard Skendzel Special Thanks To my family, Mark Jarzombek, Sarah Hirschman, Adam Johnson, Donnie Luu, Nader Tehrani, Adèle Santos, Rebecca Chamberlain, Jack Valleli, Anne Deveau, Kate Brearley, Deborah Puleo, Michael Ames, and all of the authors, the editorial team, the advisory board, and the patrons.

This issue would not have been possible without you.

5

SOCIO-INDEMNITY AND OTHER MOTIVES

— JONATHAN CRISMAN 11

CONJURING UTOPIA’S GHOST

— REINHOLD MARTIN 21

LE CORBUSIER, THE BRISE-SOLEIL, AND THE SOCIO-CLIMATIC PROJECT

— DANIEL A. BARBER 33

MOVE ALONG! THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE

— RANIA GHOSN 39

FLOW’S SOCIO-SPATIAL FORMATION

— NANA LAST 47

COLLECTIVE EQUIPMENTS OF POWER

— SIMONE BROTT 55

COLLECTIVE FORM

— DANA CUFF 67

TUKTOYAKTUK

— PAMELA RITCHOT 75

BOUNDARY LINE INFRASTRUCTURE

— RONALD RAEL 83

DISSOLVING THE GREY PERIPHERY

— NEERAJ BHATIA AND ALEXANDER D’HOOGHE 91

PARK AS PHILANTHROPY

— YOSHIHARU TSUKAMOTO 99

MUSSELS IN CONCRETE

— ESEN GÖKÇE ÖZDAMAR 105 PARTICIPATION AND/OR CRITICALITY?

— KENNY CUPERS AND MARKUS MIESSEN 113

THE SLUIPWEG AND THE HISTORY OF DEATH

— MARK JARZOMBEK 121 EXTRA ROOM

— GUNNAR GREEN AND BERNHARD HOPFENGÄRTNER

127 SCULPTURE FIELD

— DAN HANDEL 135 ON RADIATION BURN

— STEVE KURTZ 163 CAIRO DI SOPRA IN GIÙ

— CHRISTIAN A. HEDRICK 175 HUSH

— STEVEN BECKLY AND JONATHAN D. KATZ 189 NORCS IN NEW YORK

— INTERBORO PARTNERS 209 UNCOMMON GROUND

— ZISSIS KOTIONIS 217 EDENS, ISLANDS, ROOMS

— AMRITA MAHINDROO 225 THE PRINCE

— JUSTIN FOWLER 233 BEYOND DOING GOOD

— HANNAH ROSE MENDOZA 237 AID, CAPITAL, AND THE HUMANITARIAN TRAP

— JOSEPH M. WATSON 245 THE END OF CIVILIZATION

— DANIEL DAOU 255 TOWARD A LAKE ONTARIO CITY

— DEPARTMENT OF UNUSUAL CERTAINTIES 263 SOCIOPATHS

— JIMENEZ LAI