Architecture vs Activism vs revolt
The ‘Guerilla architecture’ video left me conflicted about which side I agree with the most. On one hand - I stand with Santiago and his team. I understand their frustration that leads to their decision to take action. I believe that it is the people’s fundamental right to be/ shaped their environment. As Harvey puts it "far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanization. The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights.” This is why I understand/ agree with their forced approach. The alternative to Santiago using his design brain and hard work is the development of informal architecture which can end up being dangerous. (I also find myself comparing this Guerrilla architecture to participatory architecture especially when he calls it educational. Is this perhaps a different way of getting to De Carlo’s notion of the inclusion of the public in the architectural processes and operations?)
On the other, I disagree with their methods (I need to clarify that I am not siding with the government.) I believe that their actions are political in the fact that as citizens, they are utilizing their rights to be protagonists. However, I almost feel like there is a next step to be taken given that their political act hasn’t yielded results. For example, the government ended up tearing down the collective's structure because it was ‘illegal’. Will this turn into a cycle where people build and the government ends up tearing down? The more practical side of me can’t help but wonder if putting your own agency on the line will be worth it in the end.
But the main question that I keep wrestling with is: What happens when the laws that are supposed to be here for us don’t serve us? In the end, though, I commend Santiago Cirugeda for his fight for a better world and addressing the needs of his community.
Kelly, I agree. I admire Santiago and his ability to risk his own practice to help his community. But at the same time, I think there has to be a better way to maybe involve the government during the process to ensure the safety of the community as well.
ReplyDeleteI had a similar thought while watching the video; if the structures will eventually be torn down, is it worth the time and effort of the agency? Would their time be better spent trying to change the laws? I can easily see how someone (and probably myself) would answer "no" to these questions because the structure/project is almost immediately serving it's community, albeit for only a short period of time. So if I go back to your question, Kelly, "What happens when the laws that are supposed to be here for us don't serve us?" I think that guerrilla architecture is their answer because changing laws clearly wasn't going to work as quickly and efficiently. I'd be interested to see studies/data on this topic - if guerrilla architecture that eventually gets torn down is more beneficial economically than focusing efforts on changing the law/governments ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to have guerrilla architecture to begin with. It sort of sends a message to the people saying "this is needed in this area and it's not here, so we're going to build it." Because things aren't getting done the way they need to in order for people to benefit, guerrilla architecture is almost like a visual voice for those needs to be heard.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to have guerrilla architecture to begin with. It sort of sends a message to the people saying "this is needed in this area and it's not here, so we're going to build it." Because things aren't getting done the way they need to in order for people to benefit, guerrilla architecture is almost like a visual voice for those needs to be heard.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that Santiago and his team's time and resources would probably be put to better use in the long run if they were to try and work with the government to change the current laws that have been thwarting their agency's efforts, I believe in the end their architecture does send a message. It sends a message to the local community that as designers we are actually here to serve the interests of the people, and that their voices are being heard and their concerns are being addressed albeit illegally.
ReplyDelete