The main question I wish to raise is in regards to the possibility of humans fundamentally shaping, or changing, the society in which we live. In order to do this I feel that we must determine to what extent capitalism and politics are called into question. Looking closely at politics, what role do politics actually play in formal building practices? For example, some common causes for a building's physical design include: varying building codes and design restrictions, public policy for individual cities or towns, mass standardization in the housing industry, the ability to acquire funding, etc. Finally, does design act in direct response to political stipulations or agendas? Maybe it is possible for design itself to inspire an entirely new agenda. Imagine starting a progressive reform movement intended to better society at large through simple acts of design. It could start with something as small as a park bench and spiral progressively forwards from there, gaining momentum and support.
Keller Easterling argues that building a single well-designed building in the heart of doldrum suburbia will change nothing at all. This is because of the monster that is suburbia - a system that roots itself in isolation and disconnectedness. While I don't necessarily agree with this theory, I think it raises a good point - its the roots of the system that are corrupt. Desiging one house is an act of hacking away at the braches and leaves, when its the roots that need to draw our fire. How this is done...? Anyone care to discuss?
ReplyDeleteThat is actually a very valid point. I am honestly not sure if one well-designed structure (building, park, etc.) would make a large enough impact to fundamentally change core values. Though, I do not agree with Easterling's belief that nothing at all would be changed. Take for example the Divine Lorraine. If we were to completely renovate the entire building, a few wealthy individuals would benefit from extremely comfortable living conditions. This would not make any impact on the lives of the majority of Philadelphians except for the one hundred or so new tenants occupying the structure, but a change was still experienced to a small extent. Now imagine if the Divine Lorraine was left in its dilapidated state, but converted into a communal vertical garden or vertical farm. With this one building we could possibly provide food for the community to eat, jobs for citizens in the surrounding neighborhoods, and a center of activity for people to visit. In a sense you could even call this building the first step towards a sustainable city.
ReplyDeleteIt is not about a well designed building, it is about a good design. A design can begin to question existing conditions, pointing out where they fail, and propose something new.
ReplyDeleteIf you build a halfway house in a suburb, or a prison, it definitely changes the entire area, people move elsewhere. If you build a store or cafe, it creates some activity which may draw more businesses. Or if you want to get cheeky you could build your farmer's market right in the wall of the gated community so it becomes a new public path in and out.
Interventions can question, they can't change everything, all at once.
See what DAAR does with the suburban typology:
http://www.decolonizing.ps/site/unhoming/
They look at suburban houses of Israeli occupiers, which are not only isolating but strip the occupied land of its previous identity. Then they propose as a way of subverting this condition, transforming the houses via connecting the rooftops to create a community space. This is a possible way that the Palestinians might reclaim this particular suburbia and imagine a new identity for the place.
It is not a solution but it questions, it speculates.