RECOLLECTIONS Memory in Architecture A thesis submitted to the Graduate school of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Architecture in the School of Architecture and Interior Design of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, Planning by Andrew Vichosky B.S. in Architecture and Environmental Design, Kent State University, 2012 Advisors: Udo Greinacher Edson Cabalfin Ph. D ii Abstract Although architecture experiences the wear and impact of history, it is very rare that architecture is used as a tool to remember or forget collective memories. This thesis through the investigation of memory both in terms of psychology and related to our contextual environmental and through case studies that examine reused and new constructed environments have created a recollective approach to memory in design. Specifically, this investigation will explore multiple sites within the river basin region of New Orleans to expose the engineering marvels that have erased and act in constant conflict with the geography. iii Abstract iv Preface Everything in our contextual environment is grounded in a perspective of memory. Often memory is thought of as a residue or as an afterthought, however it is a driver for the orientation in which we live. In the development of this thesis, its roots began in the interest of the reuse of buildings and the unique material juxtaposition that occurs as these spaces can be adapted to express memory, place, and the continuum of time. Because of this interest many of the typologies throughout this thesis run in the same vein as adaptive reuse. However, in the process of researching reuse as the primary focus, it became clear that this approach would only be surface deep since many of these spaces already have the embedded charm of age. Clearing away the existing beauty and starting with a blank slate, or forgotten site, a deeper question began to present itself on how can we remember what seems to be lost; moreover, what role does the built environment, particularly materiality, play in influencing and spurring memories of the past, while engaging the present and the future so that we can find memory and cultural significance in what is not conspicuously there. v Preface Table of Contents ii Abstract iv Preface vi Illustrations 01 Chapter 1: Memory 11 Chapter 2: Remembering the Forgotten 27 Chapter 3: Investigation 43 Chapter 4: Prospective Memory 47 Bibliography vi ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Andrew Vichosky, Forget-Me-Not, 2015. Pen and Ink. Figure 2: Andrew Vichosky, Windows of Memory, 2015. Pen and Ink. Figure 3. Andrew Vichosky, Castlevecchio, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 4. Andrew Vichosky, Passages, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 5. Andrew Vichosky, Grafted Branch, 2015. Pen and Ink. Figure 6. Andrew Vichosky, Ningbo, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 7. Andrew Vichosky, Material Memories, 2015. Pen and Ink. Figure 8. Andrew Vichosky, Castlevecchio, 2015. Digital Collage Figure 9. Cube Design and Research.“Authenticity: Scarpa’s Castelvecchio.” Accessed on March 20, 2015. http://cubedesignresearch.com/2009/08/authenticity- scarpas-castelvecchio/ Figure 10. Andrew Vichosky, Prada Foundation, 2015. Digital Collage Figure 11. Fondazione Prada, accessed August 30, 2015, http://www.fondazioneprada.org/visit/visit- milan/?lang=en Figure 12. Andrew Vichosky, Champollion Museum, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 13. Musee Champollion, accessed Sept. 19, 2015, http://www.musee-champollion.fr/decouvrir-le- musee/les-ecritures-du-monde/ Figure 14. Andrew Vichosky, Passages, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 15. Walter Benjamin In Portbou, accessed Dec. 4th, 2015, http://walterbenjaminportbou.cat/ en/content/lobra Figure 16. Andrew Vichosky, Steilneset Memorial, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 17. Steilneset Memorial, accessed February 12, 2016, http://www.archdaily.com/213222/ steilneset-memorial-peter-zumthor-and- louise-bourgeois-photographed- by-andrew-meredith Figure 18. Andrew Vichosky, Ningbo, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 19. Ningbo History Museum, accessed January 15, 2016. http://www.domusweb.it/en/from-the- archive/2012/03/03/ningbo-history-museum.html vii Figure 20. Map of the Ancient Mississippi, accessed November 10, 2015. http://earthobservatory.nasa. gov/blogs/elegantfigures/2011/05/11/ map-of-the-ancient-mississippi/ Figure 21. Andrew Vichosky, Collective Layers, 2015. Plaster, Paper, and Concrete, 5”x5”x5”. Figure 22. Andrew Vichosky, Subtraction and Residue, 2015. Plaster and Burned Foam, 5”x5”x5”. Figure 23. Andrew Vichosky, Casting and Assemblage, 2015. Plaster and Metal, 5”x5”x5”. Figure 24. Andrew Vichosky, Erasor, 2015. Plaster and Burned Woodchips, 5”x5”x5”. Figure 25. Andrew Vichosky, Delta River Basin, 2016. Digital Media. Figure 26. Andrew Vichosky, Spillway, 2016. Digital Media. Figure 27. Andrew Vichosky, Surge Barrier, 2016. Digital Media. Figure 28. Andrew Vichosky, Batture, 2016. Digital Media Figure 29. Andrew Vichosky, Industrial Canal, 2016. Digital Media. Figure 30. Ignace Francois Broutin. Elevation of Ursuline Convent, 1733. Etching. Figure 31. Andrew Vichosky, Industrial Canal Timeline, 2015. Digital Collage. Figure 32. Andrew Vichosky, Levees and New Orleans Geography, 2015. Digital Collage. Stamen Maps. “Stamen.” Accessed March 10, 2015. http://maps.stamencom/#toner/12/37.7706/-122.3782 Figure 33. Andrew Vichosky, Levee Wall, 2015. Digital Media. Figure 34. Andrew Vichosky, Pavilion Panoramic, 2015. Digital Media Figure 35: Andrew Vichosky, Rotating Wall, 2015. Digital Media Figure 36: Andrew Vichosky, Reflections, 2015. Digital Media Figure 37: Andrew Vichosky, Overlooking Stair, 2015. Digital Media Figure 38: Andrew Vichosky, Ground Plan, 2015. Digital Media Figure 39. Andrew Vichosky, Roof Plan, 2015. Digital Media. CHAPTER 1 2 Memory Traces of memory surround us. Look around and there are sure to be a multitude of objects to augment the necessity of memory. There are books, bookmarks, sticky- notes, branding, calenders, and most recently our “smart” GET TRASHED phones to help recall things that would have otherwise been unremembered. We forget where we placed our wallet, keys, or purse and often, in order to recall where they’re left, GET TRANSFORMED claim markers within our physical environment. The reality of forgetting is especially evident in the act of remembering people’s names; Often, instead of trusting our memory we associate their name with something to recall it - for instance, “Brittany wearing blue”. Self-assuring phrases such ARE SHUFFLED as “I had a senior moment”, or “I just misplaced it” try to cover this, but the reality is in fact glaringly apparent - we forget. Memory is an interesting aspect to the brain; It IN HIDING seems we tend to only remember the important things while mentally tossing anything not seen as critical at the moment for long-term memory. Of those collections remembered, ARE DISORGANIZED these seemingly small events, like reading these very words, get condensed to neuron signals to the hypo-campus of the brain, only to be remembered when our brains receive an appropriate trigger. Additionally, if something is unrecognizable it is less likely to be registered and may be INCORRECTLY RECALLED overlooked altogether. Memories are not purely visual but Figure 1. The reality of involve an additional layer of knowledge in order to stay memories , and the ability and inability to forget and 1 intact. remember. The same issue of forgetting is present in the built environment. Often, in the built environment recognizable memory and the traces of it are cleared away. These traces can be as simple as worn surfaces or in other cases be entire neighborhoods wiped away. Furthermore, certain spaces hold collective memory of cultural meaning or significance. Maurice Halbwachs, a French philosopher and sociologist who is best known for developing the concept of collective 1 Rita Carter, The Human Brain (New York: Penguin, 2014) 3 memory suggests that memory is always anchored in spatial frameworks.2 Hornstein expands on this and claims places themselves are capable of generating memories. The place may not hold particular meaning initially but through the built environment a memory of place can be grafted in. Yet within most of our built environment this recognition of memory and its significance for the future is not evident even in cultural spaces that are supposed to encapsulate and cultivate a sense of culture and locality. This notion of grafting in memory, particularly of responding and corresponding to history, are typically dealt in such a way that the history becomes a singular plaque memorializing a building or recreating an artifact of a building or space such as the National Register of Historic Places. This can be seen in many historically marked buildings that give a concise narrative to the significance of a place, such as a district or landscape; however, even here it is primarily seen as a metal plaque on a historically significant building. Walk through any portion of a “historic district” and these plaques will not be in short supply, while most of the new construction is simply a facade which stylistically blends with the snapshot of time and memory the district is hoping to evoke. Although it is important to understand these previous approaches of validating memory it is also consequential to recognize that the depth of these approaches are only surface deep and are only a fragment Figure 2. Standard approaches to memory in the built of the opportunities available in addressing memory.