Shawn Swisher | WORK

INTRO

Building and Making

WORKS

Two Sculptures in Light Interface/Exchange/Integrate Pre-Screening Room at Kitaguchi Train Station (DIS)CONNECTED A New Institution Gestalt Pavilion

WORDS

The Lines We Draw: Invisible Walls, Implied Boundaries

BUILDING AND MAKING The architect has to be many things at once: problem solver, sociologist, historian, visionary. Ultimately, though, the architect is a builder, a maker. A building exists, in context, with a site, structure, culture, program, and message. It must be constructed and it must create a new space. When a building is created, it becomes a part of the real world and makes a place.

But architecture is also a collaborative art form, requiring insight into many disciplines.

As our world becomes increasingly more global and complex, the common ground we share across cultures and geography is architecture. For these reasons, architecture has a unique position in the world to transform our existence in new ways. It holds a power for real change that no other form of expression can claim.

Space, light, material, form, place – these are things that define our lives. Architecture can take these essentials and give life to the abstraction of our imagination and inspire us.

Architecture can change the way we perceive our world, our selves.

Architecture is meant to move us.

INTRO

WORKS

TWO SCULPTURES IN LIGHT What inherent characteristics of materials allow them to move?

An exploration in materiality and expression, two materials are manipulated using a different method for each: a 4-foot pane of black acrylic heated and bent into form; and a single strand of aluminum wire, wrapped around a void and secured to the ceiling.

The acrylic displays motion through the contrast of its typical form with its unexpected new shape.

Smooth curves complement quick movements, while the translucency of the material allows the viewer to follow the dynamic motion from any perspective.

The wire uses light to capture motion within the void and its shape causes the object to rotate. Light seemingly courses through the wire, constantly emphasized by the inner void.

A SINGLE WIRE FORMS A VOID, CAPTURING LIGHT IN ITS REFLECTIVITY

LIGHT COURSES THROUGH THE WIRE AS IT ROTATES, EMPHASIZING ITS MOTION

THE SMOKED ACRYLIC TAKES AN UNEXPECTED NEW SHAPE

MOTION IS ABSTRACTED THROUGH THE TRANSLUCENCY OF THE MATERIAL

INTERFACE/EXCHANGE/INTEGRATE

ACKNOWLEDGING SAINTES HISTORY THROUGH VIEWS AND PUBLIC SPACES

In this strategy, a relationship of the artificial versus the natural is produced: the built being hyper-rational, tectonic, and confined within boundaries; the natural being the public open space along the cliffside, free in order and view. Therefore, two pathways connect public spaces across the site - one which is built, and one which is landscape.

ION ICAT

MUN

IT Y

MU N N CATIO E DU

S VIEW

S L NE S W EL

S

GR A T IO N

R EC

TÉ SAN

VIEW

INTE

REAT

ION

C OM

C OM

GE HAN E XC

MED IA D MIXE

Program for the project is derived from the lack of a social forum in Saintes. Focused on characteristics of healthy French standards of living and community, there are three main programmatic elements: Community Forum - a social and civic space for the reconnection of the community; Media Center - promoting the education of media, technology, information exchange, and worldwide communication; Centre de Santé - providing services for the health of the body and mind.

INTE

The design for the community center is organized by two grids and an axis: one grid which lines up with the historical context of Saintes’ Roman and Medieval roots (“figure”); another reflecting the new context of the city (“field”); and an axis of circulation disrupting both grids, but clearly connecting public spaces across the site. The intersections of forms, as well as flexible program spaces, generate a sense of interconnectivity throughout the site.

RFAC E C OM MER CE

Saintes is rich in historical and cultural significance, so it is imperative to emphasize its socially important places from the site's centralized location. Through both visual and physical reconnection across the site, the fabric of the old city and the new will be better sewn together.

THE CITY OF SAINTES, FRANCE, WITH LANDSCAPE SPACES (GREEN) AND IMPORTANT HISTORICAL/SOCIAL SITES (MAGENTA)









   

 

 





 



 



 



     

1. RETAIL (HOUSING ABOVE) 2. MEDIA EXHIBITION 3. INTERNET CAFE 4. AUDITORIUM  5. LOBBY    6. TECHNOLOGY LIBRARY   7. CLASSROOMS   8. SERVICE 9. ADMINISTRATION 10. COMPUTER LAB 11. GYMNASIUM /MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM 12. GENERAL /GROUP EXERCISE ROOM 13. LOCKER ROOM 14. COMMUNITY POOL 15. ART EXHIBITION 16. THERMAL BATHS 17. COMMUNITY FORUM 18. BANQUET HALL 19. EXHIBITION ROOM

B 







1







5 6

3

8 19

2

10

4

18 5 17

7

A

1

9



13

12 15

11

14









  

    





  





16



 GROUND FLOOR SITE PLAN | CONNECTING THE URBAN SPACES

DETAIL PLAN - 1ST FLOOR | PROGRAMS COLLIDE

VIEWING THE PATHWAY, CONNECTING ACROSS PUBLIC SPACES

DETAIL PLAN - 2ND FLOOR | OCCUPIABLE GREEN ROOFS INCREASE PUBLIC SPACE

THE MATERIALS OF THE BUILDINGS REFLECT THOSE OF THE CITY

SECTION B | PROGRAMS INTERSECT, CREATING NEW CONNECTIONS

CONNECTING SAINTES' HISTORY WITH ITS FUTURE

SECTION A | THE PATHWAY THROUGH THE COMMUNITY CENTER

THE CENTER SITS IN THE HEART OF SAINTES AND RECONNECTS THE HISTORICAL SITE WITH THE COMMUNITY

PERCHED ON THE CLIFFSIDE, THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER CONNECTS VISUALLY WITH THE CITY

PRE-SCREENING ROOM AT KITAGUCHI TRAIN STATION A screening room is set to be built at a train station in Kitaguchi, Japan. The film studio, not far from the station, wants to use the pre-screening room as a teaser for what lies ahead. Similarly, the built form of the pre-screening room celebrates the motion and journey of its visitors rather than the destination.

A narrative is created through the movement of the visitors arriving at the station. As visitors arrive, the intervention sits at the end of the platforms, drawing their curiosity. Once there, three interventions of movement take place: a landscape pathway, which rises above the tracks and houses outdoor art exhibitions; an underground pathway to the prescreening room and bar; and a temporary pathway, constantly created and disassembled by pneumatic platforms, which cuts through both along a straight line. The datum of the temporary pathway and the light boxes connect the pathways in an experiential and observable way.

A metal mesh material wraps the form, blurring the delineation between inside and outside and abstracting the motion of visitors that pass through the train station. By subtly intervening on the train station, the pre-screening room urges people to acknowledge the path they took to arrive and reflect upon their journey.

THE TRAIN STATION IN THE HEART OF KITAGUCHI, NISHINOMIYA, JAPAN

THE TEMPORARY PATHWAY, CUTTING THROUGH THE LANDSCAPE PATH AND REDEFINING THE MOVEMENT OF THE VISITORS

PLATFORM 4

ART EXHIBITION SPACE ART EXHIBITION SPACE

PLATFORM 3

PLATFORM 2

P L AT F O

TEMPORARY PATHWAY

THREE PATHWAYS, CUTTING THROUGH THE SITE, CONNECTING VISITORS AND FLANEURS

ART EXHIBITION SPACE

RM 1

+5.00 M | THE LANDSCAPE PATH FLOATING ABOVE THE TRACKS

+1.00 M | THE TEMPORARY PATH TO CROSS THE TRACKS

SECTION | THE THREE PATHWAYS: LANDSCAPE, TEMPORARY, AND UNDERGROUND

LOBBY

ART EXHIBITION SPACE PRE-SCREENING ROOM

BAR

-4.00 M | THE UNDERGROUND PATH THROUGH THE PRE-SCREENING ROOM

OVERLAPPING NARRATIVES

(DIS)CONNECTED The project endeavors to redefine the relationship between the United States and Mexico by instigating a program that links the two countries and, on a more local scale, the communities that are segregated by the political boundary. A hybrid program of educational and technology manufacturing, combined with supplemental residential and commercial program, is to be introduced at the site. The project’s programmatic strategy could be replicated and its urban strategy adapted to multiple sites along the border.

The need for security and the desire for permeability made a conceptual valve system necessary for access onto the site. Filtering from entry points on each side of the site, connecting to the public spaces, and filtering back out again. This system created an evolutionary urban design structure, in which the urban fabric of the site would be determined over time but guided by the principles of the networking infrastructure.

Design research began by investigating the nature of programming the tabula rasa site.

The program distribution would correlate directly to how the urban spaces interconnect.

These strategies could clearly connect across the site and integrate each of the communities programmatically and infrastructurally.

This research is a small portion of what was completed for an independent degree project proposal and was a collaborative effort with Ryan Ramirez.

THE SITE | CROSSING THE BORDER FROM EL PASO, TEXAS, TO CIUDAD JUĂ REZ, MEXICO, OVER THE RIO GRANDE

5.38 5.49 4.89 4.45 4.12 24% 37% 47%

CHIHUAHUA BORDER REGION 43% 58%

60% 59% 66% 5.55 5.18 4.89 4.43 3.89

5.24 5.48 4.99 4.52 4.08 31% 47% 46% 61%

TAMAULIPAS BORDER REGION 59% 69% 73%

75% 82% 1.3 M

SA S NO ABE GA , A LE Z S, AZ

LE

VIL

3.0 M (1994) 3.8 M (1996) 3.2 M (2002)

2.0 M (2002)

110,00 (2000) 78,000 (2002)

5.9 M (2000)

38,000 (1994) 33,000 (2002)

250,000

682,000 (2000) 650,000 (2002)

72,000 (2002)

92,000 (2000)

80,000

4.6 M (2002)

270,000 (1996) 170,000 (2002) 920,000 (2000) 691,000 (2002)

34,000

Z

,A

MB US SA ,N NT M AT ER E EL SA, FA PAS NM BE O, NS TX , TX

LU

N DO ACO UG , A LA Z S, AZ

495,000 (2000) 242,000 (2002)

80% 1.7 M

5.9 M

2.9 M

9.3 M

8.5 M (1998) 6.9 M (2002)

64%

130,000

63%

MEXICO BORDER REGION RO

S,

EP AS

GL

, TX

DO

RE

LA

GR MA, AN TX DE HID CITY ,T A PR LGO, X O T BR GRES X OW O, NS TX VIL LE , TX

RIO

EA

79%

DE

50% 48% 49%

68%

LR EP IO, AS TX S, TX

GL

41%

EA

NUEVO LEON BORDER REGION , TX

34% 42% 61%

CO

COAHUILA BORDER REGION

IDIO

5.21 5.50 4.96 4.56 4.17 34% 52%

GR MA, AN TX DE HID CITY ,T A PR LGO, X O T BR GRES X OW O, NS TX VIL LE , TX

SONORA BORDER REGION 77% 47%

, TX

DO

LA RE

39% 71%

RO

28% 54%

ES

43% 42%

RIO

5.40 5.41 5.03 4.58 4.12

BAJA BORDER REGION 12%

MEXICO

KE

1.7 M

UNITED STATES BORDER REGION

PR

4.60 4.84 4.16 4.47 3.63 6%

26%

LU

440,000

7.9 M

2% 1% 1%

6%

SA OT N YS TEC AY M IDRO ATE ESA , CA , C , CA LE A XIC AN O, C SA DRA A N L DE UIS , CA ,A Z

2% 1% 1%

CA

UNITED STATES

72%

RESEARCHING THE BORDER THROUGH POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND TRAFFIC CROSSING THE BORDER

TX

IO,

LR

DE

TX

, TX

IDIO

ES

PR

1.9 M (2000) 1.8 M (2002)

4.7 M (2000) 3.5 M (2002)

3.0 M (2002) 3.3 M (2000)

2.6 M

MB US SA ,N NT M AT ER E EL SA, FA PAS NM BE O, NS TX , TX

LU

CO

N DO ACO UG , A LA Z S, AZ

SA S NO ABE GA , A LE Z S, AZ

Z

,A

LE

VIL

KE

LU

SA OT N YS TEC AY M IDRO ATE ESA , CA , C , CA LE A XIC AN O, C SA DRA A N L DE UIS , CA ,A Z CA

9.2 M

5.9 M (2000) 4.7 M (2002)

2.1 M (2000) 1.7 M (2002)

771,000

1.4 M (2000) 915,000 (2002)

928,000

110,000

1.3 M

1.8 M (2000)

2.4 M (2002)

19.7 M (2000)

15.9 M (2002)

24.9 M (1998) 17.6 M (2002)

18.8 M (1998)

26.3 M (2002)

11.5 M (2000)

12.1 M (2002)

10.7 M (2000) 9.1 M (2002)

8.9 M (2002)

7.9 M

15.8 M (2002)

7.8 M

3.4 M (2000)

48.4 M (2000)

20.7 M (2000)

36.2 M

SECURITY, ACCESS, AND PUBLIC SPACE

URBAN MORPHOLOGIES: LOS ANGELES, WASHINGTON, D.C., PARIS, AND NEW YORK

CORDOVA POINT OF ENTRY

FREIGHT YARD

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION NODES

ACCESS POINTS ARE TIED TO CENTRAL PUBLIC SPACES; URBAN CIRCULATION IS THE RESULT

DERIVED FROM THE ITERATIVE MODEL, CIRCULATION ROUTES ARE DEFINED IN PHASES WITH MULTIPLE OPTIONS BASED ON GROWTH

PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS - FRAGMENTED DISTRIBUTION

STRIPED DISTRIBUTION

INTERLOCKED DISTRIBUTION

FIGURE-FIELD DISTRIBUTION

INTERTWINED DISTRIBUTION URBAN

PARKING EDUCATION

INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL

LANDSCAPE

PROPOSED EVOLUTION

REPROGRAMMING AND REDEFINING THE SITE

ZONED DISTRIBUTION

URBAN

PARKING EDUCATION

INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL

LANDSCAPE

PROPOSED EVOLUTION

PROGRAMMING STRATEGIES DEFINE HOW THE SITE IS USED, CIRCULATION PATHS AND ACCESS DEFINE MOVEMENT; THE RELATIONSHIP OF BOTH CREATES THE URBAN STRATEGY

A NEW INSTITUTION In order to represent the new institution to be created on the site at El Paso-Juรกrez, a prototype of the industrial/academic program must be formed.

This new institution stands as a physical manifestation of the social engagement that is desired on both sides of the border. Two large walls, which separate two sides of the programs, are also that which connects: they form the social condenser pathway and hold the interstitial, informal gathering spaces for the converging academic and industrial programs.

Other new programs are also introduced - a practical theater, training spaces, and the informal gathering spaces - which reconnect the users across all program types and begin to deteriorate the perceived social barriers across socioeconomic classes.

The form is neither cultural nor stagnant, but instead is reminiscent of the surrounding desert landscape, and the shared region of El Paso-Juรกrez.

THE DESIGN PROCESS LED TO A SOLUTION OF INTERCONNECTION AND A RETHINKING OF TRADITIONAL ACADEMIC AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES

IAL SOC

INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRIA INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRIINADUSTRIA INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA

IAL SOC

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA INDUSTRIINADUSTRIA INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA NDUSTRI INDUSTRINIADUSTRI I INDUSTRIA A A

IAL SOC IAL SOC

IAL IAL SOCSOC IAL SOC

INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRIA INDUSTRIINADUSTRIA INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA AC

AC AC

L L

AC AC

L

AC

MIC ADE

MIC ADE

AC

AC

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRIINDUSTRI

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRIA

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRINIADUSTRI A

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRINIADUSTRIA

AC

INDUSTRIA INDUSTRI

IAL IAL SOC SOC

IAL SOC

INDUSTRIA

IAL SOC

IAL SOC

IAL SOC IAL SOC L

MIC MIC ADE ADEMIC MIC E ADE AD

L

IAL IAL SOCSOC IAL SOC

INDUSTRIA

L L

IAL SOC

L

MIC ADEMIC MIC ADE ADE

AC

L

MIC MIC ADE ADEMIC ADE

L

AC AC

MIC ADE

L L

AC AC

AC

AC

L

L

AC

L

IAL IAL SOC SOC IAL SOC

IAL SOC

L

AC

IAL IAL SOCSOC

AC

L

AC

INDUSTRI

MIC EMIC ADE AD

L

MIC MIC ADE ADEMIC MIC ADE ADE

IAL SOC IAL IAL SOC SOC

INDUSTRIA

IAL SOC L

MIC MIC ADE ADE

AC

L L

AC

MIC ADE

L

L

MIC ADE IC MIC M E ADE AD

AC AC

MIC ADEMIC MIC ADE ADE

L L

L

IAL SOC IAL IAL SOC SOC

IAL SOC

IAL SOC

IAL IAL SOC SOC

IAL SOC

AC

AC AC

L IAL SOC IAL SOC

IAL SOC

IAL SOC MIC ADE

L

AC

L L

L L

INDUSTRI

MIC MIC ADE ADEMIC ADE

AC

L

AC AC

L

IAL SOC IAL SOC

AC

L L

C

IAL SOC

L

IAL IAL SOCSOC IAL SOC

AC AC

PROPOSED PROGRAM RELATIONSHIPS | CURRENT PROGRAM RELATIONSHIPS A A

L

MIC MIC ADE ADEMIC ADE

L

MIC ADE

PROGRAM TYPES HAD TO BE REDEFINED, AND NEW PROGRAMS INTRODUCED, TO CREATE THE DESIRED INTERACTION AMONG USERS

L

MIC ADE

MIC ADE

AC

L L

MIC ADEMIC MIC ADE ADE

AC

MIC ADE

AC

AC

MIC ADE

MIC ADE

L

MIC ADE

L

MIC ADE

L

L

AC

AL

AL

L

AC L

C

AC AC

AC L

AC

L

CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM

SOUTH ELEVATION | THE BUILDING REFLECTS THE SHARED ENVIRONMENT OF THE SISTER CITIES

SECTION A | THE ACADEMIC PROGRAMS CONNECTING THE INDUSTRIAL SPACES

THE SOCIAL CONDENSER, A PATHWAY TO CONNECT THE PEOPLE OF THE NEW COMMUNITY WEST ELEVATION | A REGIONAL AESTHETIC SECTION B | THE SOCIAL CONDENSER SLOWS DOWN CIRCULATION

B

+2.00 M - INDUSTRIAL FLOOR / TRAINING – SETTLING INTO THE SITE

LOADING DOCK

A

PRODUCTION FLOOR DISTRIBUTION

STORAGE

TRAINING ROOMS

PRACTICAL THEATER STAGE

INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICE CONTROL

+12.00 M - ACADEMIC FLOOR – IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH NEW TYPES OF EDUCATION B

B

+6.00 M - PRACTICAL THEATER / LABS – IMPLANTING NEW PROGRAMS TO DISRUPT

TORIES LABORA

A

A

ACADEMIC LABS CLASSROOMS

PRACTICAL THEATER

THE SOCIAL CONDENSER THAT CONNECTS THE PROGRAMS AND THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

GESTALT PAVILION The Gestalt Pavilion exists only through the assembly of dozens of unique parts to define a solid and a void.

Externally, the pavilion is perceived as a simple rectangular box, sheathed in a smoky acrylic that hides its interior and distorts the view of its structure. On each side, a single cut begins to puncture the solid box, until a volume has been completely dissected from the mass.

HINGED SECTION

Internally, the void is defined through the oscillation of the structural aluminum ribs. Confined to the envelope of the box and sliced away by the removed volume, these ribs delineate the nature of the interior space – clearly enclosed, but abstractly constructed.

The pavilion plays with the idea of human sensation of materiality, space, and light, and the underlying relationship between phenomenology and gestalt perception.

This was a collaborative exploration project with Ryan Ramirez.

HINGED PLAN

A SINGLE CUT OUT OF EACH FACE OF THE BOX

CONSTRUCTION OF THE FORM, CARVED FROM A SOLID BOX

ROOF PLAN

NORTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

xx

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION xx

THE SMOKED ACRYLIC ALLUDES TO THE BOX AND ABSTRACTS THE STRUCTURE

THE STRUCTURAL RIBS DEFINE THE SPACE AND ALLOW FOR MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE SITE

THE STRUCTURAL RIBS CREATE THE SPACE AND AN OCULUS ABOVE

SC[01]

SC[02]

SC[03]

SC[04]

SC[05]

SC[06]

SC[07]

SC[08]

SC[09]

SC[10]

SC[11]

SC[12]

SC[13]

SC[14]

SC[15]

SC[16]

SC[17]

SC[18]

SC[19]

SC[20]

SC[21]

SC[22]

SC[23]

SC[24]

SC[ALL]

A CONSTANTLY CHANGING SECTION, CREATED BY STRUCTURAL RIBS AND A BOUNDING BOX, THAT INVOKES CURIOSITY

WORDS

THE LINES WE DRAW: INVISIBLE WALLS, IMPLIED BOUNDARIES Distinction between here and there is tied closely to our overall understanding of space, and the architectural expression of that distinction (or lack thereof) is integral to the relationship between spaces. Deconstructing the forms of boundary and their inherent meaning begins to illuminate on a socio-psychological power structure.

The lines we draw to organize our universe – the line, the threshold, the zone, and the wall – are not as stable as we have come to know them, but instead are continuously penetrable, permeable, evolving, and shifting.

This paper was submitted as the final B. Arch degree project research paper and accompanies the research performed in the projects (DIS)CONNECTED and A New Institution.

INTRODUCTION Whether real or implied, permanent or ephemeral, the idea of boundary is archetypal to the human collective consciousness. From the first moment humans began to occupy and inhabit space, the concept of inside and out, and of inclusion and exclusion, emerged.

Then, once man developed the ability to structure space and command his own realm, the allegory of boundary became distinctively human. When Martin Heidegger discusses the division between man and space, he explicates that it is man’s definition of each, and only that semantic position in the realm of man, that keeps them perceivably separate.1 Yet, the implication is that it is the power man perceives he has over space, and its consequent subdivision, that keeps them detached.

The relationship of man and space is mutually, inherently inclusive – existence could not be without either – but the ability to define it, delineate it, connect it, or separate it is one locked in the deepest parts of human logic.

Indisputably, the difference between here and there is tied closely to our overall comprehension of space, and the architectural expression of that distinction (or lack thereof) is integral to the relationship between spaces. However, 1 Heidegger, Martin. “Building, Dwelling, Thinking.” Poetry, Language, Thought. trans. Albert Hofstadter. (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-161.

the expression is varied and, at times, ambiguous. In order to more clearly understand the nature of spatial separation, the various boundary manifestations must be articulated in their inherent meaning, utility, and psychological effects. These forms – described here as line, threshold, zone, and wall – tier into a discernible hierarchy, from the most banal and inconsequential to the most authoritative. Through a discussion of the different forms of boundary and their symbolic, gestural meaning, a socio-psychological power structure unfolds through this manmade condition of boundary. Recognition of these conditions and the resulting power hierarchy presents an existential phenomenon: power for these boundary types is vague relative to its origin in either the physical or the psychological. Though the physicality of boundaries is undeniable, the lines we draw to grasp our world’s indefiniteness lie in the ether of our own minds.

BOUNDARY AS LINE Countless philosophers and psychologists, including Plato2 , Immanuel Kant 3 , and Jean Piaget4 , have discussed the mind’s basic log2 Ross, W.. Plato’s Theory of Ideas. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1976.

3 Kant, Immanuel et.al. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

4 Piaget, Jean. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Ballantine Books, 1971.

ical organization as a system based, in one form or another, on the idea of schemas; explicitly, that cognitive development is contingent on the mental clustering of related ideas. 5 This notion relates to the human understanding of boundary through the psychological ability to create definitions, to draw lines and separate the like from the unlike. At its most primitive level, boundary-making is the parting of two schemas – the creation of a line, distinguishing one space from another. Simply put, the line empowers through an ability of “inclusion or exclusion, a simple binary data form.”6 Man’s first impression upon the earth was an attempt at breaking down the vastness of space into discernible, comprehensible spaces for him to inhabit. Through the logic of the human mind, visualization of any boundary must have come before its actual creation.

In this way, the line is our most basic tool in understanding and organizing space.

The disconnection between here and there begins at the creation of the line, determining which place is noted by which word - the essence of the line is to “connect, divide, or surround.”7 Because of its ability to symbol5 The concept of schemas is discussed extensively, and the given examples of theorists are necessary in the understanding and justification of schema principles. Still, their works are only a small percentage of the vast amount of discourse on the subject.

6 Amedeo, Douglas et.al. Person-Environment-Behavior Research. (New York: The Guilford Press, 2008), 76.

7 Ibid.

ize an immeasurable thinness, to separate without displacement, the line is used to distinguish between lands or spaces, most distinctively in cartography. In mapping out the borders of a nation or state, the line is used in an abstract fashion to delineate the lands of one country from another. Border models of nations correlate to their boundaries in two ways, the oldest of which is the core-periphery model. 8 Here, the relational nature of shared borders is ignored and focus is on the border as a “barrier delimiting clearly a territory” and the nation as centrally oriented.9 The other, the interface model, instead identifies a nation’s borders as an opportunity to connect to surrounding countries, creating a network of societies.10 These models describe completely the ability of the line to denote here from there; as the clearest, most abundant example, national boundaries can either divide from its neighbors or use their intimate proximity to aggregate into a unified collective. Either way, the line signifies a distinction.

BOUNDARY AS THRESHOLD Boundary marks not only the differentiation between two places, but also marks a special event in the passage or entry between the two.

8 Strihan, Annemarie. “Border Models.” MONU Urbanism.

(Feb. 2008): 101.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.: 102.

While the line marks no such importance, the threshold welcomes and even celebrates the connection created. Similar to the line, threshold holds a human understanding of the condition of inside and outside, but also public and private, service and served, and available and unavailable. As an example of its archetypal properties, threshold represented such an important part of society in ancient Rome that their mythology held a deity – Janus – for gateways, beginnings, and endings. This god was used to symbolize the transition from one condition to another, and was depicted in sculpture and art as having two faces oriented in opposing directions.11 Discernibly, ancient Romans saw the ability to cross the threshold as a sanctified experience, one in which a person crosses from one world to the next in an instant. Further analysis of Janus’s depictions reveals a specific logic of thresholds developed by one of the earliest civilizations: by emphasizing the interface of two spaces, symbolized in Janus through opposing faces, it was acknowledged that the boundary between the two was unimportant. Rather, the gateway marked a sacred connection between the distinguished spaces that otherwise did not exist.

This same celebration of the passage is seen in the architectural expression of the threshold, such as the “arc de triomphe” or the trium11 Lendering, Jona. “Janus.” Livius.org. <http://www.livius. org/ja-jn/janus/janus.html>.

1. Depiction of Janus

phal arch. Paul Virilio, the French architectural theorist, wrote about the modern city and new forms of boundary in “The Overexposed City,” in which he describes the arch as the figural icon of the ancient gateway into the city.12 From ancient times up through the medieval period, the city was fortified, and could only be entered through certain points along its exterior. That portal into the city marked an event that could only occur there, and, such as in the case of the triumphal arch, became a monumental symbol for the return or departure of heralded citizens, specifically soldiers.

12 Virilio, Paul. “The Overexposed City.” Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. Ed. Neil Leach.

(London: Routledge, 1997), 382.

Allegorically speaking, the cognitive association to pass through one space to another is essential to man’s bond with the gateway. The rite of passage, or the “anthropological ritual of passing through,” is integral to the human psychological relationship of spaces that are connected through a threshold.13 As in the example of the triumphal arch, a free-standing metaphorical piece, the sacred portal vaults overhead and constricts in the passage from one side to another – a visage integral to its representation of transfer control and reminiscent of the human birth canal. Innately manmade, the narrative of the passage, the ability to pass, and the recognition of spatial integration make the gateway possible.

Georg Simmel furthers the impression of boundary as connector through archetypal metaphors.14 He uses the “bridge” as the symbol for a union across detached spaces, and the “door” as the separation of joined spaces.

These models could not be without each other, because of the nature of space that man tends to ignore; the bridge exists because the concept of connected spaces exists, and doors because the concept of disjointed space exists. To elaborate, Simmel characterized the human psyche as the “connecting creature 13 Borden, Iain. “Thick Edge: Architectural Boundaries and Spatial Flows.” Architectural Design 66.11-12 (1996): 87.

14 Simmel, Georg. “Bridge and Door.” trans. Mark Ritter, Theory, Culture & Society 11.1 (1994): 5.

2. The Arc de Triomphe in Paris

who must always separate and cannot connect without separating.” The riverbanks that the bridge joins are indifferent to the manmade artifact that is placed upon it, but are subject to it nonetheless. The spaces that are woven together and then segregated by the door were together even before man’s attention to it, and whose anxious anticipation made the conception possible. To the most primal depths of the mind, space is conceived as either unified or disconnected, but it is the intellectual desire to connect or separate that is undoubtedly human.

BOUNDARY AS ZONE Rather than a line of infinite thinness or an expression of the joining of two sides, the zone is its own space which transitions from one side to another – a virtual “no man’s land.” If the threshold cherishes the portal from place to

the other, the zone opposes it fundamentally. Creation of the zone between two spaces is the detachment of one from the other, recognition that there must be an interval between them for their existence. Iain Borden presents a clear sociological example of the kind of effects a zoned boundary can have.15 In the London office development of Broadgate, the visage of prominence and wealth is maintained to an extent of a spatial severance of the business elite in the city from the service workers of the same development, who are forced to the underground access tunnels.16 A boundary of separation is indiscernible in the sense of a line, as the two groups do not interface except for the chance (and certainly mistaken) meeting in the hallway or street.

The zone is dictated through a thought out system of avoidance, designed with the comfort of the consumer in mind. Interestingly enough, this boundary doesn’t present itself in tangible means through a region drawn upon the ground or separated explicitly by walls. It is transient and temporary, constantly in motion between the two inhabitants.

On a more global scale, one of the most notorious and distinct examples of the boundary as zone is the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) which separates North and South Korea. This region, 15 Borden, 84-87.

16 Ibid., 85.

created at the end of World War II, is established through a 2.5 mile-wide buffer zone littered with land mines and dividing the two countries.17 More than just a boundary, the DMZ represents such a divergence of political opinion that it has become the most fortified, militarized border in the world. The DMZ exists as a space where the encroachment of either military would launch the region into war, and so it has become a land rife with tension but wholly inactive. Most importantly, the region between North and South Korea belongs to neither side, but instead is a symbol of the departure of civility between the two and the constant potential for conflict. The militarized zone is not unique to the DMZ, however; the Berlin Wall was actually a series of zones, segregated by security fences and bracketed by monumental concrete barriers and the US – Mexico Border, though varied along its nearly 2,000 mile length, at times follows this same form.18 In any case, it marks a condition where the conflicting spaces interface with a buffer space as boundary, and are released from direct interaction.

Borden analyzes another zone condition at the church of the Holy Trinity in London.19 Now in use as a post office, authorities constructed 17 Romero, Fernando & LAR. Hyperborder: The Contemporary U.S.-Mexico Border and its Future. (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008), 26.

18 Ibid., 26-36.

19 Borden, 84-85.

sion removed some occupiable space, and entirely displaced it. Dislocation of space is the definitive function of the boundary as zone, as it appropriates space for the lone purpose of it being a non-space – it exists in perception, but not in sensation or experience. Boundary zones insinuate a tension solely in the sense of a recognized space that is non-occupiable.

Architecturally, it may be expressed by surrounding an area and cutting it off or, as in the blue plane, by a component which exudes its power to the immediate space. No matter its form, the zone dislodges space from the experiential realm of man, charging the zone through the denial of inhabitation and the entailing immanent supremacy over those who desire to occupy or cross.

3. Diagram of the Berlin Wall and its zones

a strikingly bright blue, 3 meter tall plane to deter the homeless from dwelling in its once public portico. The boundary was built specifically to be completely non-ergonomic, so precise in its proportions and form so as be clear in its social message. Yet, even though its materialization is a single plane, it leaves a “thick edge, a five meter deep in-between zone” in which the spatial relationship is controlled architecturally. 20 A single element, placed in the interstitial space of a building, has by exten20 Ibid., 85.

BOUNDARY AS WALL As subject to the laws of physics and gravity, man’s ability to traverse the earth relies on a lack of impedance across its surface, or the capacity to overcome that which stands in the way. The vertical extrusion of a boundary – the wall – marks a clear intention of disconnection. Walls exist for the sole reason of retention and preservation, and it is this binary emphasis that gives the wall its significance.

When a boundary is created through an expression of a wall, it entails an understanding of inside and outside – or, more specifically, inclusion and exclusion, just like the line. Yet,

dissimilar from the line, which can only delineate, the wall separates completely – visually, physically, and psychologically.

At the top of the hierarchy of material expressions of boundary, the wall most corporeally relates to an incapacitation of the human body.

Though the scale may shift depending on the utility, it is the only form which can inherently inhibit motion and force away those who are unwelcome. Walls most directly are an “assertion of control, of order” in the schemas of boundary that have been created here. 21 Most often they are used to encapsulate space, to sector it off for an individual use, but in the instance of the boundary it divides rather than creates anew. They can screen, protect, blockade, separate, and secure, and for these reasons the wall is one of the most ubiquitous instances of boundary. From the humble fences of the typical American suburban home to the mammoth Israeli-Palestinian wall, these boundaries institute security purely by keeping others from invading. Some earlier examples of boundaries, specifically the Berlin Wall and the US – Mexico Border, employ the wall in this way, but via a sense of dominance.

Rather than simply protecting, the wall also oppresses.

Construction of the wall and its power is tied 21 Unwin, Simon. An Architecture Notebook. (New York: Routledge, 2000), 14.

to the constructor of the wall – that is, whoever imposes the barrier holds the hegemony over the other. By simply removing the freedom of spatial flow and having a single entity enforce that impediment, the wall creates a relationship of the desired and the undesired. Moreover, this boundary condition can only exist when it is reinforced through the presence of an authority. As a structure, it is built with an intention – to detach – and a design – with materiality and dimensions to reflect its use. The authority which conceives and fabricates the design determines its use, and that which uses it overlords over the subjected. Without this reinforcement, there can be no consequence to the consecrated act of crossing the boundary, and it is the implication of such a consequence that gives the wall, and all forms of boundary, its power. From the higher ground of the crest of a wall, the authority has an advantage that is real as well as symbolic.

BOUNDARY AS EMPOWERMENT Ultimately, these complimentary definitions of boundary build towards a hierarchy of power and control. From the simple line to the surveyed wall, boundaries have an explicit impact on the spaces it connects or separates. The classic example of control manifested in architectural form is Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon model, and its subsequent analysis by French

4. A watchtower along the Israeli-Palestinian security barrier

philosopher Michel Foucault. 22 This panoptic prison, in which inmates’ cells are arrayed around the central observation tower, conveys a sentiment of omnipresence that is both disabling and subtle.

22 Zieleniec, Andrzej. Space and Social Theory. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Pub, 2007), 125-145.

As Foucault analyzes:

er manifested in physical form is mostly illusory. A photograph from the early preparations of the Berlin Wall reads, “The process by which a city is divided begins with a man painting a line on the ground...”26 Even this wall, pieces of which still stand in Berlin as a reminder of the oppressive nature of its being, began modestly as a line. The truth to the empowerment of boundary is the authority which upholds the barrier or grants the gateway, not the material object.

“There is no need for arms, physical violence, material constraints. Just a gaze. An inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual under its weight will end by interiorizing to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over and against himself.”23 Similar to Jean-Paul Sartre’s phenomenological “other’s look”24 , the power of the panopticon is found in the minds of its inmates, not in the strength of its construction. Since the central tower can see out in all directions and no line of sight from the perimeter can penetrate it, the individual prisoner is dominated by the prospect of punishment coming from an invisible oppressor.

Equally, Borden represents this same element of psychological power through a seemingly more common boundary control in the Broadgate precedent. Designed by artist Alan Evans, the “Go-Between Screens” act as gates into the Broadgate Arena, open during the day and closed at night. However, the true boundary is never sealed, as one can still walk through the nearly 2–meter gap which is left behind. These gates, rather than physically impede, instead psychologically challenge the visitor’s sense of social conduct – the vis23 Zieleniec, 133.

24 Sartre, Jean-Paul et.al. Being and Nothingness. (New York: Routledge, 2003).

5. Work by the artist Banksy on the Israeli-Palestinian border

itor must question their right to pass through a gate that is perceptively closed. As Borden notes, the screens mirrored materiality reinforces the visitor’s confrontation with themselves, to test their ability to maintain the social contract by which they must abide or risk being ostracized. Visitors must obey “the same code as others” within the schema of the closed gateway, or the threshold which is unavailable. 25 Therefore, the boundary as a mere object is reductive in nature; the screens create a barrier in the mind more than the tangible world.

In the deconstruction of the terms wall or boundary, and subsequently the authorities which respectively empower them, it is apparent that this perception of fundamental pow25 Borden, 87.

BOUNDARY AS ILLUSION Elements of boundary can each be distilled down to two factors: the concrete materialization, which is tied to the inherent conditions of existence (i.e., gravity) and the proportioning of the human body; and the mental schematic, ultimately a notion of social conditioning and psychological preconceptions.

The question of which holds the authority in prescience surfaces in this instance, namely whether it is a single entity or the combination which empowers the boundary. Yet, a deeper, more concerning issue has evolved within the discourse of boundary in a relatively short time, in that the basic characteristics of connection or separation have slowly dissipated in the wake of major technological advancement and modern urbanization.

26 Balfour, Alan. Berlin: The Politics of Order 1737-1989. (New York: Rizzoli, 1990), 186.

the possibilities of flight.”27 Whereas the old model of the city, with a core and periphery fortified, was centripetal, the new city is centrifugal; to summarize Virilio’s words, the airport resembles the new fort in a world of constant transition. The argument of the wall as a barrier loses its zeal when man is able to detach from the earth and rise above its diminished scale. Here, the airport terminals and security gates become the final boundary interface with the boundary-crosser.

6. Map of the Regio TriRhena

Since the invention of the train, and more clearly since the invention of the consumer airline industry, the definition of boundary has become particularly flawed as it relates to the condition of place. In a relatively short time, the airport has replaced the city walls as the final gateway into the city. As noted earlier, Virilio’s example of the arc de triomphe symbolizing the city’s connection to the outside world was once a defining image and a lasting metaphor; now, with the ability to fly to the center of the city and then disperse, the metropolitan city boundary has no objective existence. Borders became lines scratched into the earth’s surface and the illusion about “’natural’ borders were duly ‘snuffed out’ by

Furthermore, Virilio’s claim of colloquial evolution resounding real world change is significant; the phrases he compares, the older “to go to town” versus the relatively new “to go into town”, indicate a disjunction in the definition of the city. 28 The former presents a clear boundary which delineates the city and is crossed consciously, while the latter implies that the city line is uncertain and that one dwells within its realm regardless. The urban city wall, for so long an icon of stability and security, has been “breached by an infinitude of openings and ruptured enclosures.”29 In the metaphor of the airport as the new frontier, the only semblance left of a security barrier is the electronic surveillance system and computer databases that screen every passenger 27 Andreu, Paul. “Borders and Borderers.” Architecture of the Borderlands. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1999), 57.

28 Virilio, 384.

29 Ibid.

as they enter or leave. This relates back to the discussion of boundary as power, as the hegemony of space is nevertheless overseen. Still, in this example the boundary exists not in a physical manifestation of a wall, but rather an all-seeing eye that subliminally and invisibly reinforces.

Air travel deconstructs the meaning of boundary completely, even as a visual delineator, as one passes over many boundaries, constantly, without regard. In Europe, with transportation systems that are wholly interconnected, boundary disappears as a singular line or even a zone. For example, the EuroAirport BaselMulhouse-Freiburg lies near the tri-national borders of Switzerland, France, and Germany, and acts as an international hub for all three countries, most specifically their shared region of the Regio TriRhena. 30 The airport is operated by officials from all three countries, and is regulated by international law; more pragmatically, public transportation from each country can also circulate freely throughout the region. Seemingly, though no longer material, the last form of boundary remains at the customs counter and computer screens, where visas are checked and permission must be granted to enter. Much of this cooperation subsists because of the unique capabilities the European 30 Romero, 33.

Union has developed and the flexibility of international law, but there still exists a dematerialization of these nations’ borders by a single intervention. The implementation of this single programmatic piece, still, has created a region (the Regio TriRhena) all its own through its power in recreating boundaries – the union of three has created another through its eminence.

On a more existential level, innovation in telecommunication technology also reinforces the dematerialization of separating boundaries, and is a main reason for the state of urbanization the Virilio discussed so cautiously. Since the formation of the Internet and mobile phones as universal communication tools, social barriers between people, communities, and nations have been and continue to be crossed endlessly. Simultaneity of realities, which lives in the endless potential of interconnection, releases much of the power of boundary to act as barriers. Where does the impediment begin if one can be anywhere at any time, or exist in Virilio’s “technological space-time” that is instantaneous?31 The capability of social connection has surpassed any accounts that even Virilio foresaw in his analysis, and the speed to which such connections are generated further eliminate the concept of tangible distance or obstacle.

31 Virilio, 384.

CONCLUSION Boundary is a spatial tool to understand different interfacing conditions, but the beliefs in boundaries as concrete objects, or as inherent separators or connectors, are misconceptions.

They are based on our own cognitive mapping systems, grouping similar and reorganizing the dissimilar, but it is precisely within these organizational cues that the human understanding of boundary endures. Simon Unwin recognizes this sentiment when he writes, “Walls are products of our minds, and they incarcerate us.”32 The metaphor in Unwin’s statement is key; as the creation of our human perception and imagination, the purely sociosomatic definition of boundary has become a constrictive box that limits adaptability in realization. As true as the wall exists and stands as a barrier, it is not the wall itself, its material existence, which holds people from crossing it.

The lines we draw to organize our universe – the line, the threshold, the zone, and the wall – are continuously penetrable, permeable, evolving, and shifting. Paul Virilio’s words resound this new understanding, as boundary is now the “radical separation, the necessary crossing, the transit of a constant activity, the activity of incessant exchanges, the transfer between two environments and two sub32 Unwin, 13.

stances… an osmotic membrane.”33 If the mind is released from the preconceived notions that are tied to the schemas described, boundary becomes the visible manifestation of an unsubstantiated idea. In that moment a detachment from these understood definitions would grant a deeper understanding of the physical implications of boundary, and allow for the sensorial to take precedence.

33 Virilio, 387.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Amedeo, Douglas et.al. Person-EnvironmentBehavior Research. New York: The Guilford Press, 2008.

Andreu, Paul. “Borders and Borderers.”

Architecture of the Borderlands. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1999.

57-61.

Balfour, Alan. Berlin: The Politics of Order 17371989. New York: Rizzoli, 1990.

Borden, Iain. “Thick Edge: Architectural Boundaries and Spatial Flows.”

Architectural Design 66.11-12 (1996): 84-87.

Heidegger, Martin. “Building, Dwelling, Thinking.” Poetry, Language, Thought. trans. Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. 143-161.

Kant, Immanuel et.al. Critique of Pure Reason.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Lendering, Jona. “Janus.” Livius.org. <http:// www.livius.org/ja-jn/janus/janus.html> (accessed November 16, 2009).

Piaget, Jean. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Ballantine Books, 1971.

Romero, Fernando & LAR. Hyperborder: The Contemporary U.S.-Mexico Border and its Future. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.

Ross, Sir William David. Plato’s Theory of Ideas.

Westport: Greenwood Press, 1976.

Simmel, Georg. “Bridge and Door.” trans.

Mark Ritter, Theory, Culture & Society 11.1 (1994): 5-10.

Strihan, Annemarie. “Border Models.” MONU Urbanism. (Feb. 2008): 100-103.

Unwin, Simon. An Architecture Notebook. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Virilio, Paul. “The Overexposed City.”

Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. Ed. Neil Leach.

London: Routledge, 1997. 381-390.

Zieleniec, Andrzej. Space and Social Theory.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Pub, 2007.

IMAGE SOURCES 1. “Janus Films.” Online image. FEST21. com. December 8, 2009. <http:// www.fest21.com/files/images/ JanusFilms_icon_550_0.jpg>.

2. “France - Paris - L’Arc de Triomphe de l’Étoile; variety of horse-drawn vehicles on Champs-Élysées circa 1900.”

Online Image. Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedia. December 8, 2009. <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Paris_Arc_ de_Triomphe_3a47493.jpg>.

3. Blake, Brian. “Diagram of the Berlin Wall and all of its stages of development.” Online image. June 28, 2006.

Presidential Timeline. George Bush Presidential Library. December 8, 2009. <http://www.presidentialtimeline.org/html/record. php?id=553>.

4. McIntosh, Justin. “Watchtower in the Israeli West Bank barrier.” Online image. August 2004. Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia. December 8, 2009. <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/ Israeli_West_Bank_barrier_watchtower.jpg>.

5. Banksy. Wall and Piece. London, England: Century, 2006.

6. Romero, Fernando & LAR. Hyperborder: The Contemporary U.S.-Mexico Border and its Future. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008, 33.