• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Editors In Chief: Markus Berger Liliane Wong Guest Editor: Nick Heywood Graphic Design Editor: Ernesto Aparicio Int | AR is an annual publication by the editors in chief: Markus Berger + Liliane Wong, and the Department of Interior Architecture, Rhode Island School of Design. Members of the Advisory Board: -Heinrich Hermann, Adjunct Faculty, RISD; Head of the Advisory Board, Co-Founder of Int|AR -Uta Hassler, Chair of Historic Building Research and Conservation, ETH Zurich. -Brian Kernaghan, Professor Emeritus of Interior Architecture, RISD -Niklaus Kohler, Professor Emeritus, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. -Dietrich Neumann, Royce Family Professor for the History of Modern Architecture and Urban Studies at Brown University. -Theodore H M Prudon, Professor of Historic Preservation, Columbia University; President of Docomomo USA. -August Sarnitz, Professor, Akademie der Bildenden Künste, Wien. -Friedrich St. Florian, Professor Emeritus of Architecture, RISD. -Wilfried Wang, O’Neil Ford Centennial Professor in Architecture, University of Texas, Austin; Hoidn Wang Partner, Berlin. Layout + Design_Xin Ma, Xiangyu Liu Editorial + Communications Assistant_Anna Albrecht Cover Design_Ernesto Aparicio, Liliane Wong Cover Photo_Rosa Parks House Project, Berlin, Germany_Photograph by Fabia Mendoza Inner Cover Photos_Markus Berger, Jeffrey Katz, Liliane Wong Copyediting_Amy Doyle, Clara Halston Printed by SYL, Barcelona Distributed by Birkauser Verlag GmbH, Basel P.O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland, Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Int|AR Journal welcomes responses to articles in this issue and submissions of essays or projects for publication in future issues. All submitted materials are subject to editorial review. Please address feedback, inquiries, and other material to the Editors, Int|AR Journal, Department of Interior Architecture, Rhode Island School of Design, Two College Street, Providence, RI 02903 www.intar-journal.edu, email: [email protected] 2 CONTENTS 04 EDITORIAL FARAWAY, SO CLOSE 06 FRAC NORD-PAS DE CALAIS: ON CLONING AND DUPLICATION Stefano Corbo TEMPORARY ACTS 12 THE DECORATORS Kristina Anilane and Luis Sacristan Murga EVERYBODY’S HOUSE 16 THE ROSA PARKS HOUSE PROJECT Ryan & Fabia Mendoza, Diogo Vale, João José Santos TACTICAL URBANISM WHERE IT MATTERS 30 SMALL SCALE INTERVENTIONS IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES Sally Harrison WE ARE NEVER NOT INSIDE 38 DISCRETE OBJECTS AND NESTED INTERIORITIES Clay Odom KLAN KOSOVA 44 RESISTING NEW ORDER Astrit Nixha THE PAST EMBODIED IN ACTION 52 Laura Gioeni FREE SPEECH COMES HOME 62 LA CASA DEL HIJO DEL AHUIZOTE Enrique Silva EMPOWERING ACTIONS 68 THE PARTICIPATORY RENOVATIONS OF A SHELTER Cristian Campagnaro and Nicoló Di Prima BEING ARCHITECTURE AND ACTION 76 FROM DESCARTES TO FOUCAULT Barbara Stehle APPROPRIATING ARCHITECTURE 82 DIGITAL GRAFFITI AS TEMPORARY SPATIAL INTERVENTION Dorothée King THE ELEPHANT REFUGE 90 ‘PRE-USE’ vs ‘RE-USE’ Heinrich Hermann UNDER THE RADAR 96 JOE GARLICK ON REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND EQUITY Elizabeth Debs and Liliane Wong SECOND ACT 102 CONVERSION OF THE MERCADO DE XABREGAS Joāo Santa-Rita 3 MILAN > ITALY EMPOWERING ACTIONS THE PARTICIPATORY RENOVATION OF A SHELTER by CRISTIAN CAMPAGNARO AND NICOLÒ DI PRIMA Action and spatiality What does it mean to act within a space? And acting on a space with the clear intent of transforming it? We should firstly consider that not only subjects act on spaces but, in turn, spaces act on those subjects that traverse and inhabit them. “The meaning of a space lies in its effect on any objects that come into contact with it and which, while trying to alter the space, end up being transformed themselves.” 1 As semiologist Gianfranco Marrone states, spaces and subjects share an indis- solubly reciprocal relationship: space-object connection is always characterized by a need for narrative, meaning that – on the connotation level – both the space and the object may function alternatively as subject and object.2 Thus, a space, far from being static and unchangeable, must in fact be considered an actor, able to control the behaviour of any objects that interact with it. When considering a space, we must think of it not merely as a physical entity, but also – and above all – as a conveyor of meaning. Understanding a space means “rediscov- ering the human intervention behind the objects of the world that has in fact given them sense.” 3 In other words, the sense of a place is not given unequivocally (though it may be foreseen and planned) but rather it is continually ascribed by the very subject or subjects inhabiting it; furthermore, it can also change over time. We can therefore affirm that not only does a subject produce (both physically and semantically) the space – and the physical objects that constitute it – but also that spaces produce subjects. In our everyday lives, this process occurs silently and imperceptibly. Referring to Goffman’s frames theory,4 anthropologist Daniel Miller states that “mate- rial objects are a setting. They make us aware of what 68 The 1st floor hall after the collaborative renovation process 69 is appropriate and inappropriate […] They work most institutional policies and mechanisms that regulate effectively when we don’t actually look at them.” 5 He housing systems as well as stimulating immediate defines this property as the humility of things: their improvement within the contexts of study. They are also silent presence produces a normalising (and normative) a way of understanding if and how such contexts and effect on the context. In this consists the very subjectiv- their inhabitants are able to take on board, or even sus- ising power of the space. Simply by staying in place, its tain, the transformations generated by the interventions. constituting objects produce in individuals a sense of On the conceptual level shelters seem to correspond familiarity with their surroundings, a sense of habitual with those that Michel Foucault defines heterotopias.8 normality which helps the living being to define, deci- The shelter is a heterotopic space as, though in appear- pher and recognise the environment around them. ance it resolves the issue of someone who has lost home This mechanism is generally reassuring and reduces (due to economic, health and/or migratory issues), at the cognitive overload; it produces that feeling of “home” same time it contributes to labelling him as deviant. The which allows individuals to inhabit a space “naturally,” function of the shelter in our society is strongly influ- somewhere they can carry out their activities without enced by the fact that the housing crisis is interpreted feeling continuously out of place. Since the physical as deviant but also as an emergency, leading welfare stability of a space is directly linked to the stability of its institutions to think (and hope) that the situation may be connotation, the “humility of things” also suggests that as temporary as possible. places function the more static and unchangeable Access to these structures is not based on the desire they are. of individuals but is regulated by our welfare system, But when the connotation ascribed to a space by an through strict institutional procedures. Those inhabiting individual is unclear or not shared, he feels out of his these places are, in a certain sense, banned.9 The shelter element, uncomfortable in his surroundings. He feels is, therefore, an “other space,” one that enjoys a marginal excluded from the context, immobilised or perhaps he (and often marginalising) relationship with the “normal- even has a desire to escape. In these cases, the “humble” ity” into which it is inserted, thus generating extreme immobility of spaces partly inhibit the idea of acting on physical and psychological suffering among inhabitants. a space, in order to transform and align it more with the They are places which, despite having a specific raison connotation desired by the individual or the community d’être (to accommodate those in difficulty), produce an inhabiting it. This means that the individual ends up suf- inflexion that may prove destabilising for inhabitants: fering in the space around him. “I’m here (because I have no other choice), but I wish not The humility of objects (and, we could add, of places) to be here.” Inhabited only by ‘guests,’ these are places is therefore concurrently reassuring – in regard to our that generate a sense of perennial exclusion and perma- more habitual daily activities – and inhibiting, compared nent temporariness.10 These factors greatly inhibit the to more transformative actions. individuals’ freedom of action within the space, not only how they use it but – even more so – in that they cannot The shelter: a space with no action make even the slightest alteration to their environment. This theoretical introduction will help us interpret the The space of the shelter, furthermore, produces case study we present herein, referring to a particular exclusion, marginality and a sense of temporariness not type of space in which the freedom of its inhabitants’ only due to its functional systems (rules, curfews, and actions (daily and transformative) is particularly rights of access) but also through its physical character- inhibited. istics. Buildings that host shelters are rarely designed Since 2009 our interdisciplinary research-group, for that function. Generally speaking, they are buildings composed of designers from Polytechnic of Turin and constructed for specific purposes (schools, offices, anthropologists from University

Load more

  16

Copy Link