Possession
Possession is 9/10s of the law, except when it comes to space. The politicization of, capitalization of, commercialization of "architecture" seems to be a new idea only a product of modern urbanism, but in reality, architecture has always carried the contexts. As long as money is involved, it will be commercial; as long as people are involved, it will be political; as long as both are there it will be a semi-product of capitalism. I do not believe it is possible to escape these politics either, even in the case of Peter Eisenman work. Not taking a stance, ignoring, or otherwise not caring is still taking a stance on something. With this in mind, the question echos with all it's cliches?, What was architecture before this? Politicizing or commercializing something implies it was something before, what was it?
Possession is 9/10s of the law, except when it comes to space. This really rings a lot of bells when it comes to the space where urban revolt takes place, the space of questioning questioning by Jacobs and Harvey, and the space which binds the urban fabric together, the street. Everything about the street is governed by those who do not occupy the street and with the transportation nature of the street, has even less ownership in those who occupy it often temporarily. Only when the street comes in contact with a permanent use (retail, housing, etc.) will it begin to have a conflict of ownership. There is no question who owns the small street deep in a residential neighborhood or who owns 75/85 barreling through Atlanta, but who owns a street like Peachtree Street Northeast? Is it the business, is it the residents, is it the people traveling, is it the city, is it the workers in the office space? Everyone of those could be answered yes or no. People inevitably take ownership of things, but the governing force has ownership according to themselves, which is granted through political structure of the people who live in places owned by titles granted by the political structure of again the people........
While I could continue that cycle seemingly forever, the question I believe we as designers have to ask ourselves is are we okay with this? It seems our society has become docile until when it comes to their space, and perhaps its up to us to stop the inevitable turn towards bland space for our bland, commercialized, politicized lives.
 |
| Nothing Political Here. |
Possession is 9/10s of the law, except when it comes to space. This really rings a lot of bells when it comes to the space where urban revolt takes place, the space of questioning questioning by Jacobs and Harvey, and the space which binds the urban fabric together, the street. Everything about the street is governed by those who do not occupy the street and with the transportation nature of the street, has even less ownership in those who occupy it often temporarily. Only when the street comes in contact with a permanent use (retail, housing, etc.) will it begin to have a conflict of ownership. There is no question who owns the small street deep in a residential neighborhood or who owns 75/85 barreling through Atlanta, but who owns a street like Peachtree Street Northeast? Is it the business, is it the residents, is it the people traveling, is it the city, is it the workers in the office space? Everyone of those could be answered yes or no. People inevitably take ownership of things, but the governing force has ownership according to themselves, which is granted through political structure of the people who live in places owned by titles granted by the political structure of again the people........
 |
| 4'-0" typical of space I can walk on, oh and a tree! |
While I could continue that cycle seemingly forever, the question I believe we as designers have to ask ourselves is are we okay with this? It seems our society has become docile until when it comes to their space, and perhaps its up to us to stop the inevitable turn towards bland space for our bland, commercialized, politicized lives.
 |
| Add caption. |
Comments
Post a Comment