Making Public Interventions in Today's Massive Cities

After reading Saskia Sassen's article, I began to think about examples of modest interventions in public spaces. I came across Tactical Urbanism, which states that they take short term actions that cause long term chance. Tactical is defined as retaining to small-scale actions serving larger purpose or adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose. Tactical Urbanism is an approach that features five characteristics; a deliberate, phased approach to instigating change, the offering of local solutions for local planning challenges, short-term commitment and realistic expectations, low-risks with a possibility of high reward and the development of social capital between citizens.

One of the group's interventions include Park(ing) Day, where people reclaim space devoted to automobiles and increase the vitality of street life. This event in now world wide and cities like Paris, Tehran, and Hangzhou, China have participated in this event.

Another intervention is called pavement to plazas. The purpose of this intervention is to reclaim underutilized and inefficiently used asphalt as public space without a large outlay of capital. One such example is the Times Square Pedestrian Plaza. Following the implementation of the new Times Square Pedestrian Plaza, injuries to motorists and their passengers declines by 63%. Similarly, pedestrian injuries decreased 35%, even while pedestrian traffic increased.

One last intervention is called Guerrilla Gardening, which was developed to increase more greenery and gardening into the urban environment and is now an international movement. Guerilla Gardening is the act of gardening on public or private land without permission. Typically the sites chosen are vacant or underutilized properties in urban areas. The movement first began in 1973 when New York City activists threw condoms with local seeds, water and fertilizer into vacant lots.

Making Public Interventions in Today's Massive Cities

Saskia Sassen

Sassen discusses how public space is created in the urban environment and how outside factors like politics can shape the meaning of the public space. One of the first things she talks states is how European cities still have very lively public space that are constantly used for a variety of purposes. Within the city are not only large public spaces, but also left over public spaces that shape the city. What Sassen does not discuss is how the culture is an important factor to the utilization of public space. In the American society where our culture is to work all day, we don’t spend much time outside. The other argument is we don’t go outside because there are no inviting public spaces.

Uninviting spaces could be due to our new way of making public space. Sassen states how many public spaces have become private. These private spaces typically come with restrictions, surveillance, and power over the space. The greatest impacts according to Sassen is the economic factor, high income areas versus low income areas leading to public spaces being very displaced making the spaces not very “public.” Could be reason why public spaces aren’t developed more.

Another factor that Sassen discusses is how politics have a large role in the shaping of public space. Public space is a place for non-formal political activities which engage the public and the media. Activities in public spaces can be linked to the internet and other global networks that spread the word. Without these public spaces, where would people go for public activism?

What is very different about Sassen’s article is that she links public space to digital media. All types of people can use public space in different ways and share it with the world. Space is being shared through a network versus physically experiencing the space.

Sassen engages the reader through the ability to link digital and political world with the public space, but it does not discusses physical elements that shape the urban public seating. This was less about the architecture of public space as it was the new meaning of public space.

Making Public Interventions...

Saskia Sassen discusses the condition of urban in her article “Making Public Interventions in Today’s Massive Cities.” What begins as an interesting questioning into displacement of people and utilization of under-used spaces, which she calls “terrains vagues,” develops into a rather theoretical discourse of several conditions existing in modern cities. All viable observations of modernist cities, the discussions of privatization, frontiers, locality, and digitization are a departure from her introducing paragraphs. These paragraphs, to me, create the framework for a more interesting discussion.

The New Urbanist movement, among others, has taken a look at the leftover, trash spaces of existing cities and has begun to development. Inter-city development of vacant lots, condemned buildings, contaminated land, and other such spaces has brought a new face to many local areas in San Diego, as well as to other cities. The development of these under-used spaces has spurred a return to urban conditions from the suburban fringe. In truth the inter-city developments seek to stop the sprawl that exists in all major cities, thus decreasing the periphery green zones, nature habitats, or farmland. But, Saskia suggests, what if these unused areas are important in terms of keeping a sense of openness? Should these leftover spaces be turned into public amenities with artists playing active roles to rejuvenate them? Some of this has already occurred (I’m thinking specifically of the Freemont Troll in Seattle under the Aurora Bridge). These kinds of artistic interventions have helped greatly increase the livelihood and quality of life in specific urban cores by using spaces under bridges, or in meridians, or in otherwise un-buildable areas.

I agree it is desirable to maintain some level of openness in cities, but on the other hand one of the draws to the city is its density, the sense that every piece of usable land is used to the greatest efficiency, none is leftover or wasted. The open spaces must be useful, purposeful, and enhance the overall city experience.

Freemont Troll (undergrad Arch class field trip):


and.......

Cheerios "Sculpture". I'm calling it: Did You Know There Were So Many Kinds of Cheerios??

Response to "Virtual Space"

Suzanne Langer in her article "Virtual Space" describes the different perceptions of space that we conceive when creating paintings, sculptures or architecture. While the two dimensions of a painting are trying to create a three dimensional scene, an object [ a sculpture] that its already three dimensional creates a sense of space. This is the "kinetic domain" in relation to the user, while buildings, as she describes, are the "ethnic domain." These create an illusion where the relation goes beyond just the visual connection between the user and the object, into a more tangible and sensible one.

In the reading Langer concludes that the relationship with sculpture and architecture is inevitable. She then states, "the two art forms [sculpture and architecture] are, in fact, each other complements: whichever we start with, the others is its background . . . "

I believe that architecture should follow this idea, where by creating a sculpture/building becomes an ethnic domain to the inhabitant and therefore produces a kinetic relationship to the external observer. Maybe this is the line where these two practices meet, and the function to inhabit the building is not enough to differentiate these. The most important characteristic of a building or a sculpture doesn't rely on if it blends or contrasts to the space that surrounds it; once it is erected it transforms the space creating a new way of perceiving the environments.

__ nadia nunez

Mi photo for next week

Visual Space

Virtual Space

This article touches on many topics, not just sculpture, but architecture, culture, and painting, but what I pulled out from this article was a greater understanding of sculpture. Sculpture embodies volume, place, kinetic volume, scene, and materiality. All those aspects connect us to the sculpture through touch and vision. One of things I have always been fascinated by is how a sculptor can create a sculpture that is very much alive, possible holding in their very last breath through a material such as stone, a very hard material. It is the sculptures that contain the kinetic volume and motion that people should want to touch. I would like to disagree with the author that sculpture does not make people want to “handle every figure.” Most sculptures give off the presence that it shouldn’t be touched. Sculpture figures depending on their placement is directly connected to people wanting to touch it. A sculpture in the middle of a grass lawn simply asks not to be touched. A sculpture on the street immediately invites the viewers to look and touch. If sculptures were made to touch, why can’t we ever touch sculptures in museums? I have always wondered that.

The other interesting part of this article is the concept of creating space in architecture. What designers create may not be what is experienced. The intentioned is missed because we see it for its purpose and therefore the architecture if design is purely art because it does not relate to function. Where as in the case of a monument it is thought of less as a shelter and can be seen for what it is and its meaning. This simply makes me think of my own design. Is the design simply four walls or am I really designing something more? Simply by believing the space is a great multi-purpose space does not mean it will be used like the intended design. My thesis is using movable architecture to allow for a building to be multi-functional. Even though my project is very much hypothetical, how do I make a space used specifically the way I want to? And the only answer I have come up with is that it will require understanding the users and how they adapt to those uses. Anything that is too difficult or if there is one option that is more liked then the design may not become multifunctional. As much as I would like to sculpt my project for people to see, if it were to be built the building may not be used desired. Like sculpture if we simply look at it and see it as a piece of stone that is in the shape of a figure the desired intention may not be seen. Both sculpture and architecture require the users to understand the meaning and purpose to truly appreciate their creation.

Response to Suzanne Langer "Virtual Space"

In this excerpt from Suzanne Langer, the author discusses the different virtual spaces that sculpture and architecture create. Architecture is so close to us; it is so much a part of our everyday life that we grow quite unconscious of it. We are conscious perhaps of an especially tall building, or of a particularly big building, but they move us in no special wonder- wonder, in the sense that we should like to know how they came to be there or that they are a product of the human imagination. But, despite the ignorance of the principles of architectural design or the processes of design, they are the same principles and processes in any other art. Architecture is very much a three-dimensional art. Mass and proportion, heights and widths, walls and openings, mouldings and ornament, are the simple elements of the language of architecture, capable of infinite modulation and variety.

In sculpture, you are also dealing with ponderable substances; with three dimensions; with mass; with the play of light and shade which modulates the forms and transitions from form to form; with an actual rather than an apparent balance, such as the way a statue stands well poised on its feet; with rhythm, harmony, beauty, and always a general design. In many of its qualities it is closely allied with architecture, and in some with painting. In good sculpture one in not conscious of arms and legs, because they are arranged in such a way that they contribute the unity of the piece.

While when have seen that in architecture and sculpture, even painting, the materials, means, and modes of expression appropriate to each vary widely, the same principles and qualities are common to all- design, proportion, balance or symmetry, rhythm, pattern, harmony, contrast, style. These link them in an essential unity.

-Jessica Potts

Response to "Virtual Space"

In Suzanne Langer’s article “Virtual Space,” she discusses sculpture as a three-dimensional art that focuses on the self. This is opposed to her description of Architecture, which focuses on the “ethnic domain,” which is the environment created by self. In this regard, Architecture and sculpture are the complete antithesis of one another. Let us explore these ideas further.

Sculpture is the frozen moment in time of a kinetic form. No longer moving, this perception of movement is part of our understanding of what sculpture is. Unlike painting or other flat art, where a sense of space is perceived to be in existence though is in essence only represented in a flat plane, sculpture in its 3-dimensionality has the ability to morph and change based upon our vantage point, the levels of light, time of day/year/atmospheric conditions, and many other factors. This ability to be viewed, visually, in many different ways, is part of the draw for the viewer. Another interesting aspect of sculpture is how the negative space in and around the sculpture become a part of the sculpture. In the author’s argument, these negative spaces are what help anchor sculpture into the realm of self awareness. We are concerned with sculpture on a personal basis, especially when it is anthropomorphic. The sensory aspects of movement, touch, sight, and even smell of a sculpture are experienced on a personal level, for the self, to be viewed and appreciated by oneself.

Unlike the “scene” of pictorial art, or the “kinetic volume,” Architecture is “an ethnic domain.” Although the author first discusses Architecture as being vernacular in the most basic form, an argument that she seems to forget in her further argument, the ethnic domain, or public environment of Architecture is its main definitive difference from sculpture. No debate here on form or function or built or occupy-able ability, Architecture is whittled down to the environment around us. It is, in essence, the symbol of humanity created by a culmination of culture, technology, and materials accessible. This is an interesting concept to me. Though I don’t necessarily believe in the duality of Architecture and sculpture feeding off each other as a personal vs. public phenomenon, as I consider Architecture to often be very personal in nature as well, I do appreciate the observation that while Sculpture focuses inward, occupying an Architectural work has the viewer focusing outward.

-Rachel Dentel

Does this photo work for tomorrow?