Superimposition

Written on 04-11-2020 as part of a discussion for the MSc Architecture and Built Environent at TU Delft. Research on the role of the architect is done by taking a position and defending it through an essay. The entire booklet, including general introduction and conclsusion, can be read here.

The Production of Space

The definitions and the redefinitions of the relationship between physical space and spatial practices are discussed throughout the history of modern architecture. Continuous efforts have been made to describe the production of space and the role architects have in this process. In his prominent book “La Production de l‘espace, Henri Lefebvre explains that ‘(Social) space is a (social) product’. For Lefebvre space therefore does not exist in itself but is created by human actions and other spatial practices” (Avermaete, Havik & Teerds, 2009, pp. 355). The power relations in everyday utilized spaces become visible through the organization of the physical space and how it is represented (Avermaete et al., 2009). Architecture is established in a process where practices turn into physical (social) products. In the end, the user experiences these physical, social products. Therefore the statement arises: architects should not impose their ideals on the user. In this essay, I evoke the theories of different authors to support several arguments for this statement. To exemplify the arguments, I use images of an architectural analysis of the Monterrey Housing project by Elemental.

Addressing the Gap

The first argument against the imposing of ideals comes partly from the French historian and psychoanalyst Michel de Certeau. He places the power relations in the centre of his work, just as Lefebvre. De Certeau describes how the ‘powerless’ find ways of escaping the power in their daily activities. Those without power are referred to by de Certeau as ‘The Others’, they develop what De Certeau refers to as ‘tactics’ to evade the rule of the governing order. This enables the production of alternative meanings through language, art etc. De Certeau also describes how those in power develop ‘strategies’ to consolidate their power. These tactics are by definition subversive. ‘The Others’ seek other means to create space for themselves out of reach of the governing order (Avermaete, Havik & Teerds, 2009, pp. 355-356). Superstudio adds to these arguments. It started as a countermovement to modernism, which according to Superstudio sold itself as a cure to society’s ills but never delivered (Wallis, 2016). In the essay ‘The Fundamental Acts: Life/Ceremony’ Superstudio states: “Architecture remains at the edge of our lives, and intervenes only at a certain point in the process, usually when the behaviour has already been codified, furnishing answers to rigidly stated problems.” Here Superstudio describes why the systems and logic of the production and consumption of architecture are not relevant (Avermaete, et al., 2009, pp. 355-356). Founder Adolfo Natalini further clarified this in 1971: “if architecture is merely the codifying of a bourgeois model of ownership and society, then we must reject architecture.” (Didero, Snyderman, Rossi & Sudjic, 2017, pp. 1–3). The main critique on the relevance of architecture from Superstudio is the way it serves those in power while leaving out ‘The Others’. With the Half A House concept Elemental introduces a new practice to enable user appropriation. The development first provides Half A House to the user and then leaves the other half of the house, an empty framework, for them to fill in. The users “feel a sense of pride because they attained it with their effort and the help of many people.” (Sam, 2015). In this practice, the architecture does not only intervene after the behaviour has been shaped; the design passively invites different types of uses to be codified in the house. Thus, addressing the gap between the powerless ‘Others’ and the production of space.

Future Use

The second argument against the imposing of ideals on the user comes from Bunschoten. He states that public spaces should have a prototypical character. The spaces should be seen as an instrument to change in society. Furthermore, he states that public spaces are “singular, create identity and stimulate the evolution of all kinds of parts of society” (Avermaete, Havik & Teerds, 2009, pp. 359). Because public spaces are singular, they attract “a variety of people, events, collective expressions, programmes, but the outcome constantly changes…”. According to Bunschoten public spaces proliferate increasingly in the ways that they are used and the ways that they give society form and its dynamic mechanisms (Avermaete, et al., 2009, pp. 359). Due to this increase in different types of use of public space, the physical space should commit room to accommodate these new practices. In private housing projects the user has a choice in which kind of space they want to live. In public housing projects there is often little choice for the inhabitants. Therefore, the practice of leaving room for spaces to evolve for future use is crucial. By applying the practice of incremental housing, Elemental illustrates this philosophy in half of the project.

Figure 1:

The image illustrates the space left for users to appropriate in the ground floor of the Monterrey Housing project. It is clear that the space on the left, drawn with furniture in the floor plan, leaves little room for appropriation. This is a contrast to the right side, where all space in the framework is left open.

Intentions

Opponents of the statement suggest that architects should impose their ideals on the user. As discussed earlier from Lefebvre: ‘(Social) space is a (social) product’. Therefore, considering for instance major wealth inequality, gender inequality and growing pollution, there is still a lot to overcome in the built environment. If we want to tackle these issues, we need to change the way we create spaces. In Alternating Practices, Doina Petrescu summarises how we can alter our way of practice. She explains that ‘Alternating practices’ are named after what they do (Petrescu, 2007, pp. 3). Petrescu explains how Francesca Hughes, Jennifer Bloomer and Sadie Plant define ‘alternating practices’. They define them as: “gestures of discursive re-appropriation of theoretical territories and actions that frame our contemporary understanding of space.” By making “collective reconstructions they suppose ways of doing and undoing, ways of making and re-making space according to altered rules and values. These ways are both political and poetic.” (Petrescu, 2007, pp. 4-5). Through this new way of practice we could address the issues mentioned above. However to disqualify this argument that is pro the imposing of ideals, throughout history we have seen architecture produced with unacceptable intentions, such as the work of Albert Speer in Nazi Germany (Visser, 2019). The work of Elemental is designed in good faith with the community. However, by suggesting architects should impose their ideals on the user we take a risk with every project. In the Monterrey project, by attributing the budget differently and involving users in the process (Saieh, 2019), the architects managed to tackle a public housing issue by changing the rules and values traditionally used to create these spaces. The Half A House concept is split, on one half the imposing of an idea and on the other half leaving space for the users to appropriate.

Figure 2:

The group carrying the new part of the house into position shows the participatory aspect of the project, however the architect‘s hand still directs and imposes.

The Position

By analysing different theories about the practice of architecture and analysing the work of Elemental, this essay argues against the imposing of ideals on the user. Firstly, illustrated by the work of De Certeau and Superstudio, the influence of architecture is overestimated. Secondly, spaces produced for the public accommodate uses produced by the public. These change over time, architects should therefore leave room to adapt. Thirdly, we could use architecture to tackle issues in the built environment; however by imposing ideals we also risk that architects with unacceptable intentions produce spaces. Therefore architects should not impose their ideals on the users. The figures show that the work of Elemental imposes an ideal in one half of each of the seventy houses, shown by the hand pointing down in figure 2. By leaving only one half open for the users (the group carrying the house into position in figure 2) to fill in the architects create a superimposition of freedom over their ideals, illustrated in figure 3.

Figure 3:

The black represents the imposing, the red represents the freedom. Both approaches are next to each other in the same project, by blurring and superimposing the colours it represents my analyses of the project.

References

Avermaete, T., Havik, K., & Teerds, H. (2009). Architectural Positions. New York, United States: Macmillan Publishers, p.355

Avermaete, T., Havik, K., & Teerds, H. (2009). Architectural Positions. New York, United States: Macmillan Publishers, p.355-356

Avermaete, T., Havik, K., & Teerds, H. (2009). Architectural Positions. New York, United States: Macmillan Publishers, p.359

Didero, M. C., Snyderman, E., Rossi, C., & Sudjic, D. (2017). Superdesign. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

Petrescu, D. (2007). Altering Practices (1st ed.). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Saieh, N. (2019, October 24). Monterrey Housing / ELEMENTAL. Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/52202/monterrey-housing-elemental?ad_medium=widget&ad_name=recommendation

Sam, M. (2015, April 23). Incremental Housing. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZT4JhaZqAc

Visser, L. (2019, October 20). Albert Speer, Hitler’s huisarchitect. Retrieved from https://historiek.net/albert-speer-hitlers-huisarchitect/57690/

Wallis, S. (2016, April 13). A ’60s Architecture Collective That Made History (but No Buildings). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/t-magazine/design/superstudio-design-architecture-group-italy.html