THE HIDDEN LANDSCAPES OF CONFLICT： UNDERGROUND MILITARY SHELTERS AND THE COLLECTIVE MEMORY

WEIRAN ZHANG

Both World War II and the subsequent Cold War changed the subterranean urban landscape worldwide, especially with the emergence of numerous underground military infrastructures.1 As the main space for emergency response in wartime, underground military shelters protect the citizens’ lives and national assets. While the possibility of re-emerging armed conflict still exists, these hidden infrasructures have been reused to other ends over the years. In light of the reconfiguration of the national defense model, a large number of military spaces have been abandoned or decommissioned. As creations of human civilization, they constitute an important legacy that need to be preserved and reintroduced into “civil use.” The reuse of underground military spaces does not necessarily mean that their history is discarded or forgotten. Underground military heritage is a unique cultural resource that contributes to individual and collective identity and reflection on history.2 At the same time, continuous urban expansion and environmental degradation have brought attention to underutilized and abandoned spaces within the city. In this context, underground military infrastructure is an urban space with hidden opportunities.

The study begins with a global perspective on the value of underground military infrastructure, the challenges, and opportunities for reuse.3 It explores underground military legacy redevelopment trends with global cases studies and examines the transfer of property, and the impact of ownership on redevelopment. In particular, the study focuses on the underground shelter system in the Chinese city of Chongqing and explores the current reuse of shelters from the perspective of historical, spatial, economical, environmental, and social characteristics.4 Last, the research explores how these spaces representing war violence can be integrated into the contemporary urban fabric from the perspective of conflict and everyday urbanism theories.5 Then discusses the roles of government, designers, and citizens in the projects, how it responds to conflict and collective memory, and opportunities for replicability in other territories.

Keywords

Underground Military Shelter, Collective Memory, Reuse, Conflict Urbanism, Everyday Urbanism.

Urbanisms

Conflict Urbanism, Everyday Urbanism.

Notes

1. Yun, Jieheerah. “Bunkers as Difficult Heritage: Imagining Future for Underground Spaces in Seoul.” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13467581.2021.1941980.

2. Paola Gatti, Maria. “Military Buildings: From Being Abandoned to Reuse.” Accessed February 9, 2022. https://www.witpress.com/Secure/ elibrary/papers/DSHF14/DSHF14002FU1.pdf.

3. Bowles, Kasey Ryan. “Obstacles in the Reuse of Closed ... University of Georgia.” Accessed March 30, 2022. https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/ bowles_kasey_r_201208_mepd.pdf.

4. Wu, Hao. “Mountainous Shelter Space Versatile Utilization Study” Master Diss. Chongqing University, 2013

5. Lei, Lei. “Research on Urban Spontaneous Renewal Space-A Case Study in Chongqing” Master Diss. Chongqing University, 2010

WENYUAN ZHANG

Singapore was a nation island under colonial rule until 1965, when it became an independent and sovereign nation. In less than sixty years, the process of rapid and efficient urbanization has been nothing short of a miracle. The birth of the Republic of Singapore faced similar urbanization challenges than developing regions are facing today: overcrowding, slums, traffic congestion, environmental pollution, flooding, and water scarcity.1 Nevertheless, with effective governance and visionary integrated planning, Singapore has achieved a stable long-term dynamic balance between economic, social, and environmental goals in its urban-national territory.2

What has been the role of the government in Singapore’s outstanding urbanization? How are citizens, businesses, and other organizations involved in the making of a cleaner, smarter, and more sustainable city? This paper discusses these questions through a case study approach. In the Four National Water Taps, I use the lens of infrastructure urbanism, to shed light on how the government acted as initiator, investor, and mediator to address the problem of freshwater scarcity in Singapore by combining the technological capacity of private enterprises and social organizations with national policies and public-private partnerships. In the Garden City Vision, I use landscape urbanism lens to assess the role of the government as decision-maker, legislator, and supervisor in the green urban movement, and to explore how pragmatism is manifested through the three milestones. Lastly, I use the smart city urbanism lens to discuss the way in which the government plays as the instructor, builder, and operator of a smart nation in the digital transformation of Singapore. Open-source databases provide a platform for creative initiatives for businesses and citizens, while also allowing for brainstorming and full social participation in smart cities. Besides the formal urbanization, the Singapore government also plays as the supporter, protector, and manager to make contributions to the regeneration and redevelopment of informal settlements by advancing the Public Housing.

Singapore’s visionary government is committed to long-term thinking and efficient implementation in partnership with the market and citizens to brainstorm solutions to urban challenges. But highly centralized, vocal governments also risk leading to authoritarianism. In the case of garden cities, environmental authoritarianism may exclude social and environmental organizations from the urban green movement. And in the case of smart cities, the government may impose digital technologies despite residents’ concerns about digital divide and data insecurity. Urban design is a means of mediating between government policy and concrete implementation, seeking to protect the interests of all parties. In Singapore, due to limited and state-owned land and other natural resources, urban design is highly controlled by the government, but urban designers such as Grant Associates still created an extraordinary balance among landscape design, smart technologies and sustainable development sought by the national general plan.

Keywords

Formal, Infrastructure, Sustainability, Smart, Informal.

Urbanisms

Infrastructure Urbanism, Landscape Urbanism, Smart Urbanism.

Notes

1. TAY, JAMES. “Leveraging Singapore’s Urban Development Success.” World Bank Blogs. Accessed April 25, 2022. https://blogs. worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/leveragingsingapores-urban-development-success.

2. “Voluntary National Review Sustainable Development Goals Progress Report at the High Level Political Forum / Singapore.” United Nations. United Nations. Accessed April 25, 2022. https://digitallibrary.un.org/ record/3866731.

INCLUSIVITY OF HUMAN-BUILDING INTERACTION IN URBAN DESIGN

YIRU ZHANG

Our world is increasingly filled with interactive, digitized devices in buildings and urban spaces. [1] Their presence impacts our experience of the built environment and shapes our daily life. [2] When cities turn to technology to build more livable environments, a digital divide emerges between different population segments, which might unintentionally leave some communities behind. The assimilation of buildings and urban spaces as interactive objects has become a new research domain, HumanBuilding Interaction (HBI), a domain within Human-Computer Interaction that specifically studies its relation to Architecture and Urban Design.[3] It is characterized in terms of dimensions representing the interaction space and modalities that can be invoked to enhance interactions.[4] Lim and Rogers’s study concludes that interactive technologies in public spaces effectively impact people’s emotions.[5] Yet the impact of both physical space and social context on how people engage with a public interactive display has rarely been studied.[6] Although interaction design brings people convenience, the transformation of the built under the impact of digital devices indeed excludes some public. Digital placemaking connects people with place. It is the augmentation of physical places with location-specific digital services, products, or experiences to create more meaningful destinations for all. Digital placemaking can be used to support citizens to shape public spaces, develop urban spaces, etc.

The interaction between physical objects and outdoor public spaces is a big focus of this research project since social activities are an integral part of the interplay.[7] How can urban designers bring more inclusive interactive environments? Methodologically, I will review literature related to past HBI experiences and summarize three main aspects that neglected a certain group of people during the urban evolution. Then, I will learn from two cases to demonstrate how these principles are being considered or applied. Finally, this study reflects the design principles and strategies for better inclusivity of the HBI in urban design, thus meeting people’s needs in the digital environment. The more seamless integration of environment and technology can ease human interaction.

Keywords

Human-Building Interaction (HBI), Urban Space, Inclusivity, Design For All, User Experience, Digital PlaceMaking

URBANISMS

Digital Urbanism, Smart Urbanism.

Notes

1. Nembrini and Lalanne, “Human-Building Interaction.”

2. “Future of Human-Building Interaction Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.”

3. Alavi et al., “Introduction to Human-Building Interaction (HBI).”

4. Nembrini and Lalanne.

5. “Designing to Distract: Can Interactive Technologies Reduce Visitor Anxiety in a Children’s Hospital Setting?: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction: Vol 26, No 2.”

6. “Exploring the Effects of Space and Place on Engagement with an Interactive Installation Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.”

7. Gehl, Life Between Buildings.