Sustainable Implications of "Non-Design"
Learning from Transient Intervention and Community Centered Evolution
The past Venice Biennale featured an exhibit focusing on the Torre David in Caracas, Venezuela by Urban Think Tank, Justin McGuirk, and Iwan Baan. The tower never finished construction and in 2007 was inhabited by roughly 2500 transient people. The residents created an informal organization to how they live in the tower, creating shops, gyms, restaurants, and even a voluntary code of conduct that was adopted by its residents. While many consider the tower and the residents to be a blight on the city and its image, its habitation and use can inspire many new ideas in design, how places are programmed, community development, and ultimately sustainable development.
The example of Torre David shows the flexibility that communities are able to use to create a space that works towards their needs. The ambiguity of how a space will be used can often be at odds with how planners and architects intend it to be used. The development of a community with its own unique set of values contrasts with the results of the modernist experiments that often led to lost values and characteristics of the community. The success of the Torre David as a developmental experiment lies in part with the degree of freedom that its residents maintain in fostering these values and in some respect serves as an example of sustainable development not only due to the reuse of the structure but to the improvement in the lives of the residents.
Going one step further, the redevelopment of the Quinta Monroy area of Iquique, Chile by the firm Elemental takes the existing slums of the region and, at the request of the government, redevelop the existing land for the current population. Using only $7500 per dwelling, the firm was able to create units for each family with a kitchen, bath, open space, and a portion for residents to buy and expand to once they could afford it. The open space was then allowed to be divided up by the tenants, who had an understanding of construction as they had built the previously existing slums. The project proved to be incredibly successful, with the homes now worth roughly $20,000, turning around the local economy.
So how can these projects help inform designers and planners how to best create communities and rethink spaces? The approach used by planners in designing the master plan for these areas often dictates the use and designation of all locations. This top-down approach often fails as many places become unused or undesirable. In a similar manner as the Torre David and Quinta Monroy, a basic framework is often what a community needs to begin and thrive and additional development can occur later according to the needs and values of the community. The framework allows the community to develop or retain its own identity and with this identity comes the greater appreciation and stewardship of the whole community. This type of community based development and active engagement of residents could be promising in furthering ideas of sustainability. By integrating those living in the community directly into to the planning and growth of where they live, local residents are able to understand important issues facing their community as well as making the community a more cherished part of their lives. Excess or unneeded development can ideally be avoided as only the necessary and desired functions and spaces are created and avoiding waste. Top-down approaches often import the model of a city into a new context, erasing the previous history as the modernist examples have done. Instead, these local initiatives can help define new sustainable strategies that are context-appropriate and maintained at a local level in residential, commercial, and public spheres.
This post really describes the randomness and unpredictability of people. Designers often have a set thing in mind in how they want people to interact in spaces, but more often than not this wont happen. Architecture and design cannot "force" people to act in a way, but merely encourage to act in a particular manner. The more designers and planners accept this and build with increased flexibility of program, the project will often be far more successful.
ReplyDeleteIt is always interesting to see what other countries can get away with and to think about how realistic phenomenon like this might be in America. On one hand, one thinks that our laws and regulations would not allow for "squatters" to simply organize and inhabit an unfinished building such as in your example in Venezuela (there are safety and human rights issues as well as property and trespassing issues at play). On the other hand we saw similar action taken in America during the housing crisis. With millions of families facing homelessness there were grass roots organizations, such as in Miami, that began to inspect and redistribute foreclosed homes for families to squat in. This was during a crisis, however, and such behavior would typically not be allowed in the states. It would be interesting to know exactly how the organization that took over that building was able to convince local government and authority to allow its operation, and what actions were taken to guarantee safety.
ReplyDeleteIn America it is housing projects, I believe, that we use to address such issues. Ironically, these too are wildly unpredictable and one never knows if they will transform into successful booming communities, or crime-ridden slums.
I agree with Enrique's thoughts on this particular issue, especially in regards to being able to achieve a project like Elemental's in Chile. Although building codes and laws surrounding the built environment within the states were engaged to protect us, they can often stifle creative ideas that could offer some unique and successful alternatives to a system that obviously is not working (ie. housing projects). While I believe that architecture can go a long way to influence and change social patterns and define sustainable strategies; I do not believe that it is a singular solution, and to some degree I feel like this is why so many social and urban strategies have previously failed.
ReplyDeleteBefore I came to grad school I worked for Habitat for Humanity for 2 years, and while they don't always tackle social or sustainable problems within housing from an exceptionally creative strategy like the examples seen above, they do have a high rate of success in regards to social change through the built environment. This is largely due to mandatory homeowner classes and education that help develop, foster, and plant the skills needed to maintain successful homes and communities at a local level. These classes, while not always fail proof, force neighbors to become invested in one another's futures and families, which gives meaning to those communities and homes and life to the architecture that surrounds them.