So here are my strategies for intervention in places where traumatic incidents have happened.
I, as an architect, should:
1. reconcile the difficult memories in the built environment towards a more peaceful future
2. value the traces that are layered in the landscapes and urban territories and visualize the history of the place
3. integrate cultural heritage in local daily life and invite to active engagement in difficult memories
I think that strategy 1 and 3 are somehow similar. And also when looking at these strategies, they might seem a bit out of the scope of what architects do. BUT...maybe if I clarify my tactics, they would be more complete and architectural.
I, as an architect, should:
1. reconcile the difficult memories in the built environment towards a more peaceful future
2. value the traces that are layered in the landscapes and urban territories and visualize the history of the place
3. integrate cultural heritage in local daily life and invite to active engagement in difficult memories
I think that strategy 1 and 3 are somehow similar. And also when looking at these strategies, they might seem a bit out of the scope of what architects do. BUT...maybe if I clarify my tactics, they would be more complete and architectural.
The first response to this application is that it restricts the architectural discussion to a specific condition (i.e. post-traumaticized sites) which potentially runs into the same problems as those students whose thesis statements are locked to a specific typology or site. Essentially, can this condition and response be only applied to a handful of select sites or can it be generally applied to all architecture?
ReplyDeleteThe first strategy implies that architecture can be instrumental in progressing towards "a more peaceful time" but there is a great deal of openness in this statement. Have you look at Lebbaeus Wood's discourses on hard and soft violence? That may help you moving through this topic as he has design work that supports his ideas.
The second strategy is ambiguous as it implies that all "traumatic incidents" have a visual and lasting component that pervades the site through time. Unfortunately this is not necessarily the case in many contexts. For example, there was a recent stabbing outside the MAC (Maple Leaf Gardens) and though the event is quite traumatic, it is difficult to conjecture a tangible architectural response without overt symbolism or demarcation of commemoration.
I would agree that the third strategy is similar if not a significant overlap of the first strategy. To indicate that there is an active engagement with "difficult memories" implies an architectural overture towards programming which is getting a bit beyond the scope of what architects would be responsible. Obviously there are subtle ways to do this but be mindful of delving into designing behaviour and "engagement" over architecture. As with all your strategies, I believe it will be made clearer in the design work and resolution of tactics.