_______________________
Homelessness
and the nostalgia
for the spontaneous
_______________________
Nelson Mota
Nostalgia
for the spontaneous became one of the most topical issues in contemporary
architectural debate. A recent manifesto on the Spontaneous city testifies to
it. To be sure, this discussion is everything but new. Through the 1960s and
1970s it was pervasive in a disciplinary approach committed with coming to
terms with a challenge on the existing power relations. To a certain extent, both
then and now, spontaneity is seen as a quality per se, and planning or design as mechanisms that hinder the full
potential of human creativity. In this essay I will review past and contemporary
positions on this issue and contribute a reflection that discards the
withdrawal of the design disciplines from the production of space.
Dwelling and Homelessness
In
his famous essay “Bauen Wohnen Denken”, Martin Heidegger distinguishes space (from
the Latin, spatium), which is
connoted with an abstract emptiness, and location (or the Germanic Raum), which is supposedly more
reminiscent of tradition and community, of lived experience [1]. “The spaces through which we go daily”, argues Heidegger, “are provided
by locations; their nature is grounded in things of the type of buildings.” And
goes on asserting “If we pay heed to these locations and spaces, between spaces
and space, we get a clue to help us in thinking of the relation of man and
space” [2]. For Heidegger
building (bauen) means to make a
place out of abstract emptiness and that the nature of building is letting
dwell (wohnen). He further argues that “Man’s relation to locations, and through
locations to spaces, inheres in his dwelling. The relationship between man and
space is none other than dwelling, strictly thought and spoken” [3]. Hilde Heynen stresses Heidegger’s
contribution for a reconceptualization of the presence of the past in dwelling.
She claims for Heidegger “Dwelling is in the first instance associated with
tradition, security, and harmony, with a life situation that guarantees
connectedness and meaningfulness” [4]. Hence, she adds,
"In as far as modernity means change and rupture, it seems to imply,
necessarily, the leaving of home. A metaphorical ‘homelessness’ indeed is often
considered the hallmark of modernity." [5]
Heidegger’s
position, however, cannot be displaced from the context in which it came about.
It was enunciated at a time where the sequels of the world conflict were still sensible
and fostered people and nations to rethink their position in the new social,
political and economical context. In fact, since the aftermath of the World War
II, several appeals to a more humanist approach to the design of the built
environment emerged as a result of a critical assessment to, for example, the
global application of CIAM’s Athens Charter principles. This critique was often
made using the framework of polarisations such as modern/planned/top-down
versus traditional/spontaneous/bottom-up. From the 1960s on, a tendency gained
currency to deem the earlier as an attempt to create the space for the ideal man, while the latter represented
an approach focused on the creation of the place for the real man. In the design disciplines, several trends surfaced
struggling to challenge the established relations of power. Among them,
vernacular references (both rural and urban), users participation in the design
process and the call to foster spontaneity in architecture and urban design,
all have been influential in the post-war debate on the human habitat. However, to what extent is this
appeal to spontaneity and heterogeneity still relevant today? What is the role
of the architect and/or planner in this re-assessment of spontaneity in the
built environment? And, hence, what is the role of the citizen?
To discuss
some of these questions, in this article I will bring together some seminal contributions
to this debate presented in the last five decades. Jane Jacobs’ apology of
diversity in the city will be discussed together with John Turner’s rejection
of paternalist design approaches and the Dutch group Urhahn Urban Design’s claim
for a design supported by reality.
Diversity, Autonomy,
Reality
In
1961, Jane Jacobs argued that the city needs diversity and that it is “natural
to big cities” [6]. This was
an explicit critique on interwar planning principles that advocated zoning as
its basic methodology. Among these, Le Corbusier and CIAM’s Athens Charter
principles were fiercely attacked by Jacobs, who rejected the break with
tradition proposed by it and, instead, suggested the natural diversity of big
cities as reference. Jacobs argued “the diversity, of whatever kind, that is
generated by cities rests on the fact that in cities so many people are so
close together, and among them contain so many different tastes, skills, needs,
supplies, and bees in their bonnets” [7]. To generate city diversity, Jacobs further
contended, four conditions should be observed simultaneously: a) the district
should have several functions; b) the block should be short; c) the buildings
should vary in age and condition; and d) the city should be densely inhabited [8]. Thus, one can argue that for
Jacobs the “Great American City” should preserve the idealized characteristics
of the medieval walled city, which seemingly was the result of a spontaneous
and continuous process of social and economic transformations and evolutions.
One
decade later, in his book Housing by
People, published in 1976, John F. C. Turner challenges the established relations
of power in the Welfare State’s provision of mass housing schemes. He claims
for relative autonomy of the consumers, rejecting the paternalism of the ruling
class, breaking their institutionalized roles, thus becoming producers and administrators.
In order to highlight the latent cynicism of that paternalistic approach,
Turner argues, “even those who can afford to do so seem to prefer places that
were built by master craftsmen, artisans or ordinary folk, according to local
rules and customs.” And he goes on to question, “how many admirers of Brasilia,
for example, stay there longer than necessary to see the principal buildings
and, perhaps, one of the superblocks? And how many designers of such places,
prefer to spend their holidays in places like Mykonos?” [9]. John Turner challenges the
dependency of the ordinary people from experts; instead, he praises the
spontaneous creations of non-professionals. The inevitable consequences of
hierarchical systems, Turner argues, “have been gross misfits and mismatches,
and a growing proportion of homelessness. (…) These hierarchic systems are
collapsing financially, sometimes socially, and even physically. Systems
generated or maintained by network structures, on the other hand, flourish.” [10]. To exemplify the first case,
Turner illustrates with an image of the demolishment of Pruitt-Igoe (designed
in the mid-1950’s by Minoru Yamazaki), and to exemplify the latter, he shows an
image of a street in Chiddinsgstone, Kent, where houses with four centuries
show little changes over their lifetime. This comparison epitomises a rejection
of modernist approaches in favour of traditional ones.
More
recently, the Dutch group Urhahn Urban Design voiced a growing disciplinary
tendency to praise spontaneity with their “Manifesto for the Spontaneous City”
where they contend, “that it is the city user’s time to take control” [11]. They argue that instead of just a
consumer of everyday products, the city user must become a producer, a city
developer. In their manifesto, they present four principles that will make the
Spontaneous City a reality in the future: a) Reducing scale, taking into
account every detail important to the city user’s everyday life; b) Supervising
of open developments to ensure the vitally of the transformations; c) Creation
of collective values, to make possible the development of common
infrastructures; and d) participatory structures focused in the interests of
the user and design tailored to its resources [12].
According to Christian Ernesten, the group’s
manifesto does not aim at searching for the best
solution; instead they are just searching solutions to deal with reality.
“Now more than ever, at the beginning of the twenty-first century”, Ernsten
claims, “Our world is changing so quickly in the economic, social and ecological
sense that the momentum to choose reality as a design and improvement strategy
is upon us” [13]. For the
authors of the manifesto, the current economic crisis is an opportunity for a
paradigm shift in terms of urban design approach. They argue “Instead of just
making cut-backs or reducing costs, we should be focusing on weighting the
value of the urban environment and on mobilising smaller budgets at a larger
scale” [14]. Thus, Urhahn
Urban Design’s approach challenges the typical top-down planning procedures and
the grandiose long-term strategies associated with the utopias of modernity;
instead, they argue in favour of smallness.
Towards heteronomy
beyond binary polarities
The
three positions presented above reflect an approach that challenges the autonomy
of the design disciplines. They argue in favour of bridging the gap between the
author qua producer and the user,
between “high art” and popular taste. This process, however, brings about an
approach that dwells in the boundaries of populism. In fact, according to
Michael Shamiyeh, in the second half of the 20th century, both the
adoption of vernacular references by experts and the exploration of
possibilities to integrate the user in the design process are two dimensions of
populism in architecture [15]. I would thus suggest the nostalgia of the
spontaneous is charged with a deliberate step down of the autonomy of the
design disciplines towards a more heteronomous approach. However, this approach
fosters also the shattering of these disciplines’ critical attitude toward
social reality. As an alternative to it, Theodor Adorno’s “dual character of
art” suggests that art is both socially determined and autonomous. To be sure,
according to Hilde Heynen, in Adorno’s aesthetic theory “Modern art is
radically autonomous in its attitude toward social reality but remains
nevertheless tied to it through its hidden strands of negation and criticism” [16]. Applied arts such as architectural and urban
design are, by definition, even more engaged with social reality and, therefore,
heteronomous. Thus, to react against the proclaimed homelessness of modernity,
the nostalgia of the spontaneous is a powerful appeal. However, following
Adorno’s lead, to overcome populist drives, avoid paternalistic approaches and,
nevertheless keep the design disciplines’ critical attitude toward society,
traditional binary polarities must be challenged.
----------------
1. Martin Heidegger, “Building Dwelling
Thinking,” in Poetry, Language, Thought
(New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 155. This essay was first delivered in 1951
at the Darmstädter Gespräch, and published afterwards in Otto Bartning, ed.
Mensch Und Raum (Darmstadt: Neue Darmstädter Verlagsanstalt, 1952).
2. Martin Heidegger, “Building Dwelling
Thinking,” 156.
3. Martin Heidegger, “Building Dwelling
Thinking,” 157.
4.
Hilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity.
A Critique (Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1999), 18.
5.
Hilde Heynen, “Modernity and Domesticity. Tensions and Contraditions,” in
Negotiating Domesticity. Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture,
ed. Hilde Heynen, and Gulsum Baydar (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 2.
6.
Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great
American Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 143. This book was first
published in 1961 by Random House, New York.
7.
Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great
American Cities, 147.
8.
Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 150-51.
9.
John F. C. Turner, Housing By People.
Towards Autonomy in Building Environments (London: Marion Boyards, 1976),
17-18.
10.
John F. C. Turner, Housing By People. Towards Autonomy in Building Environments, 32-33.
11.
Urhahn Urban Design, The Spontaneous City
(Amsterdam: Bis Publishers, 2010).
12.
Urhahn Urban Design, The Spontaneous City,
14-17.
13.
Urhahn Urban Design, The Spontaneous
City, 9.
14.
Urhahn Urban Design, The Spontaneous
City, 18.
15.
Michael Shamiyeh, “Foreword,” in What
People Want. Populism in Architecture and Design, ed. Michael Shamiyeh
(Basel: Birkhauser, 2005), 25.
16.
Hilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity.
A Critique, 190.
----------------
Nelson Mota
(Mesão-Frio, 1973), graduated in Architecture (1998) and MSc (2006) from the
University of Coimbra, where he lectured in the period 2004/2009. He was the
recipient of the Fernando Távora Prize in 2006 and authored the book A
Arquitectura do Quotidiano (2010), runner-up in the Iberian FAD Prize 2011.
Since 2009, he is based in the Netherlands, where he is currently finishing his
PhD at the TU Delft on the interlocking relation between modernity and the
vernacular in post-war housing design decision-making. He regularly contributes
articles to professional journals, and papers to academic publications.
Currently he is a lecturer and researcher at the TU Delft and guest scholar at
The Berlage Center for Advanced Studies in Architecture and Urban Design. He is
member of the editorial board and production editor of the academic journal Footprint. n.j.a.mota@tudelft.nl
----------------
Captions
1.
1961 Random House advertisement for Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/78175613@N00/5694287441/
2.
Page of the issue of Architectural Design
dedicated to the theme “Dwelling Resources in South America.” Photos © John
Turner. Source: Architectural Design
8, (August 1963): 375
3.
Supervise Open Developments – Second Principle of the “Manifesto for the
Spontaneous City” by Urhahn Urban Design. Source: ,
p.15.
.jpg)
