|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_eDITORIAL #003: (submitted Nov 03')
ARCHITECTURE AS A WEAPON
by Johann Froeliger
Johann Froeliger (born in France, Vitry le François)
1993 studies of management
1996 working in architecture agency
1998 first project : a house in steel (publication in AMC magazine 2002)
2002 working/studying at the EAS (Ecole d'Architecture de STRASBOURG )
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though architecture can be considered art, its production, as exemplified by most construction, does not methodically stand for artistic work. Nearly all buildings constructed reflect banality, with an emphasis on conventional technical processes, and in turn promote a dull pragmatism imposed by financial rather than artistic considerations. On one hand, while these influences further diminish architecture. On the other - like it or not - all architectural works – inspired or not – reflect the architect’s point of view, and in turn, the point of view of the investors.
This association being a convergence of the desire for architecture as a meaningful artistic work and the reality of architecture as pragmatic functionalism hold the arguments for architecture as a weapon. Architecture can be a defensive weapon of the status – quo, or an offensive weapon of creative destruction and/or creative construction.
Even though the architectural act is individual in its design, it should integrate into a landscape, as an available surface with a desired topography. The building is also a response to particular and unique sets of circumstances and regulations. These parameters grant the architectural design with (high) exigency and sharp competitiveness. In addition, beyond the particular architectural project, there exists kind of “perverse subject matter” regarding the buildings usage and functionality. On one hand, the architect, on behalf of the owner, passes on these considerations, on the other hand, the architect reserves himself the intellectual ownership and cultural rights to his creation.
Conceiving and building, no matter what the artistic qualities of a building are not harmless and banal, but on the contrary, building is a purposeful and aggressive act on the environment. By building, one wants to possess and control in a unilateral manner. The construction of a static object will then radically and with certainty transform not only the space occupied, but it also has an effect on the surroundings as well. The specificity of the architectural medium can be considered as being able to reinforce or to destroy qualities and particularities of both urban and isolated spaces. This is especially true of social characteristics. In fact architecture being a cultural assault – financial and in turn social – its collateral damages can be sensed well beyond the specific site.
In Europe examples such as the Guggenheim Museum of Gehry in Bilbao, and the Pompidou Centre of Piano and Rogers in Paris stimulated the surroundings, as well as radically changed the spaces they occupied. The secular functions, the social structures, and the general typology of the districts of the cities in which they were built underwent irremediable changes. These changes went well beyond the building and its use. It is the Architect, not the investor / owner is who carries the responsibility for these catalytic projects.
The builder being sceptical with respect to the quality of the architecture gives priority to common architectural typologies – especially in private architecture where integration is based on the economic landscape rather than on the physical landscape. Architecture being a tangible link of the economy with the real world, the landscape, and the position of the site do not matter in comparison with these economic components. As examples; one could name the distinguished spaces of Piano for Hermès in Tokyo, and the very common Microsoft offices of Redmond, Washington.
The architect must understand his role and responsibility in the creation of policy with respect to space control and the maintenance of order. Architectural work does not generally have the freedom of creation and the confidence of an artwork. Even though aspects of architectural function and meaning exist beyond the will of the architect. Architecture certainly functions as a powerful tool for stasis or change, and underlines the important role, and potential, that architects along with their facilitators have in the real world.
johann.froeliger@laposte.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_eDITORIAL #002: (submitted July 03')
Art in Service of Detroit’s Totality
by Kirk Muckle
Kirk Muckle was an artist, designer and a writer from Edison, New Jersey. FLAK would like to thank Kirk's family for allowing us to publish his article after his unfortunate passing. -nk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has city space in the 21st Century become less livable? In a Post-911 World, is the term "livable" becoming an outdated concept? These are questions that need to be asked of the community of, architects, urban planners, and other policy-makers assigned to the task of adapting current city space into a more “livable” alternative.
Is the concept of "livable" really understood since it is now possible to “live” almost anywhere, from city, to suburb, from outer space, to deep under the ocean. For our use, let us consider the term “livability” as the optimal spatial aesthetic experience within a particular social and cultural context. Using this concept of “livability” we can consider that the use of public art is not only effective, but, a necessary way for governmental concerns to revitalize the public realm. The aesthetic qualities of public space are then important considerations, along side the standard economic and social criteria, for those institutions charged with the construction and maintenance of our public world.
Livable city space if examined from the position of architectural design and urban planning is often beyond the cognition of the average city dweller. Most of the population of our cities, do not share the concern of the architect and planner for a higher quality of public space. This is primarily due to lack of exposure to positive alternatives. Much of the population of the Detroit area moves through public space as speedily as possible wrapped inside their rolling automotive living rooms. The subsequent social isolation can diminish people’s lives. At the present time, to many, good urban design is finding a parking space close to the Mall. It is the role of the Artist/Architect/Urban Designer to provide a new and more human alternative. This can be accomplished with new design and new aesthetics.
Detroit’s cityscape is a measured response to the spatial dynamics defined by modernism merged with the gamesmanship of political and real estate economies. It is that dynamic that reflects itself in the building projects of the 1970's, to the current year. The Ren Cen, the stadiums, the casinos, the people mover, and Compuware headquarters, all reflect a somewhat traditional and moribund strategy of “rebuild the downtown, and the rest of the city will follow”. Detroit’s implementation of the livable concept appears to be concentrated within the “innercore”, downtown area, to the detriment of the rest of the city. It will soon be apparent if this modernistic “trickle down” focus on the “innercore” will translate to the revitalization of the “outercore” or rest of the city.
The author questions how, and at what point the application of the "livable" framework to the "outercore" of city spaces will reach a measure of the desired renewal. How do we quantify improvement in “livability” and at what point will we be satisfied with our result? The extension of the "livable" design tool by urban planning, real estate and development interests often lends itself to conflicts and contradictions that co-exist between the "livability" of the "innercore" and "outercore" of city spaces. Development capital tends to go only where it can generate the most return. In Detroit that has meant the “innercore”.
In the 21st Century for the city space to be truly “livable”, it needs to be recreated from what now currently exists. The previous experiments with wholesale urban removal and suburban replacement known as “Urban Renewal” as exemplified in Detroit’s Lafayette Park are now determined to be too expensive and counterproductive for our current sensibilities related to urbanism. Any new attempts at revitalization will require creativity and experimentation. Indeed the term “livability” itself must be challenged as to what new and exciting alternatives of livability may be considered.
In Detroit, the arts can be the key to this regenerative process. Abandoned city spaces in its "outercore" could be transformed by the surrounding multi-cultural and ethnic communities by engaging local and regionwide artists in the process of their regeneration. The author hypothesizes that the regenerative process begins with the identification and renaming of prime abandoned "outercore" city spaces. The process of renaming or “re-branding” space, being the first part of its recreation. This tactic might attract the attention of visual artists, designers, and even design/build contractors, who as community activists could utilize non-profit status to access resources available at the regional and national level. Regional art grants, public art funding along with tax exempt corporate support might allow community based ARTS/Development organizations to propose community-based improvement projects that construct prototypes towards the desired "regeneration".
Through this process of collaborative regeneration, the "outercore" of Detroit is seen as a spatial focus of a new kind of artist/worker/developer collective who may become active guardians of the city. The aesthetic character of "regenerative" city spaces in Detroit's "outercore" could serve as a link to the "innercore" of Detroit's livable corporate spaces to reflect a masterplan of "regenerative" urban design that places arts and planning along a parallel course.
It is well known that the condition of Detroit as a post-industrial city is of profound international interest. One way that this process of creative collaboration can be explored in Detroit might be through the sponsorship of international design competitions that can utilize the full creative potential of a global talent base. International design competitions might call for new concepts to address the "creative regeneration" of the "8 Mile Road Corridor" and similar spaces. By involving the global creative community in Detroit’s rebirth, it will start the process of bringing the "outercore" of city up to the level of the “innercore" thereby realizing the full fruit of this city worthy of rebirth. The large corporate interests can have the downtown, give the neighborhoods to the ones who can see their creative potential.
-KM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_eDITORIAL #001: September 2003
In the Dark All You Have Left is Architecture
by Fernando Lara
Fernando Lara is an Associate Professor at the School of Architecture, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. He has lived for 5 years in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and taught for two semesters at Lawrence Technological University, Southfield, Michigan USA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lights are off. And not only the light bulbs are off. There are no cell phones, no computer, no TV, no subway, no gas pumps, no traffic lights. The lights are off and you are left alone with architecture. Suddenly you cannot hide behind a wireless phone nor dive yourself into the Internet. Space is all you have. Space and the Others. And space has been decompressed.
Remember when, a few minutes ago, you had no real idea of distance because you could reach anybody in another continent with your fingers only? Remember when you used time to measure distance: the street was 3 minutes away by elevator, the bookshop was 20 minutes away by subway, home was 50 minutes away by commuter train, London was 6 hours away. No more. Now the street is 25 floors or 400 steps away. The bookshop is 5 miles away and home is 25 miles or at least 7 hours if you insist on measuring it with time. Forget London. Forget Virilio and Baudrillard and the virtual realities, there is no compression of time and space anymore. You are left alone with the dis-virtual reality of space.
You have to deal with space, you must deal with the real dimensions of space. There is nothing to mediate your relationship with the materiality of the built space that surrounds you. Without neons and electronics space becomes what it has always been and you have never perceived. No, that is not true, you were a child once and then you have enjoyed the real spatial dimensions. But that was many years ago and since then space has never affected you much.
Now, with the lights off, not only you have to deal with space and its mighty three dimensions but there are also Others in the same space. Others on the stairway, Others down the street, Others on the way home. Its dark and as a result you start to see more and more Other people. Isn't that amazing? Were where they before? Hiding behind their own instruments or turned invisible by your gadgets. Now you have to deal with them also, and Architecture is all you have around.
Architecture becomes your single protection, the only device left to mediate your relationships with the Others. You need a wall to protect yourself from that nasty colleague walking towards you when all you needed before was a phone call or a computer screen. You need a door to walk through and reach whomever you want to reach. You are suddenly aware of the weight and the materiality of the wall. You are suddenly aware of the air circulation (or absence of it) in your home.
In case you are far from home you need even more architecture to protect you. You need a bridge to cross over the highway or the river and you need it right here. The next bridge might be too far for you. Maybe the only bridge is out of reach of your legs. You might have to rest somewhere on your way home and you need steps to use as a sofa. If home is really so far away that you cannot walk there, you might need to sleep on those steps and you become aware that they are made of stone. And stone is cold and hard, very hard. Your back hurts. Your leg hurts. Your feet hurt. You became aware of distance and aware of the inevitable materiality of the built world in which you live. Architecture pulses in front of you with all its force. Too bad there is no lights to make it glamorous. But then it would ruin everything, wouldn't it?
|
|
