Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2183233
Valentin Bourdon
The recent development of an interdisciplinary field of reflection about and around the commons seems to assume a significant distance, in the field of architecture, concerning the disciplinary culture that preceded it. This article invites the protagonists of this emerging domain to explore the intensities and the reasons for such resistance. Based on a cross-reading of the main disciplinary and extra-disciplinary contributions to the subject, it intends to evaluate the controversial gap between architectural values and the renewed paradigm inspired by the commons. This new condition emerging between — or in addition to — the traditional ‘public’ and ‘private’ opposition could be considered as a bundle of alternatives but also as a source of fundamental continuities. By crossing the values of the commons with those of architecture, the aims of the proposal are twofold. First, such correspondence could bring a fertile semantic renewal in architectural language by confronting concepts and words. Second, it also could constitute a useful stage in developing critical views about this recent movement and its propagation in the humanities by clarifying several appropriations, in this case, in the field of architecture. Faced with the vitality of the theme, the attitudes of research identified within the current architectural debate appear as a prerequisite for the development of architectural thinking about what could bring together the commons, taking into account their multidirectional, ambiguous, or even contradictory nature.
{"title":"Introducing the architectural values of the commons","authors":"Valentin Bourdon","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2183233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2183233","url":null,"abstract":"The recent development of an interdisciplinary field of reflection about and around the commons seems to assume a significant distance, in the field of architecture, concerning the disciplinary culture that preceded it. This article invites the protagonists of this emerging domain to explore the intensities and the reasons for such resistance. Based on a cross-reading of the main disciplinary and extra-disciplinary contributions to the subject, it intends to evaluate the controversial gap between architectural values and the renewed paradigm inspired by the commons. This new condition emerging between — or in addition to — the traditional ‘public’ and ‘private’ opposition could be considered as a bundle of alternatives but also as a source of fundamental continuities. By crossing the values of the commons with those of architecture, the aims of the proposal are twofold. First, such correspondence could bring a fertile semantic renewal in architectural language by confronting concepts and words. Second, it also could constitute a useful stage in developing critical views about this recent movement and its propagation in the humanities by clarifying several appropriations, in this case, in the field of architecture. Faced with the vitality of the theme, the attitudes of research identified within the current architectural debate appear as a prerequisite for the development of architectural thinking about what could bring together the commons, taking into account their multidirectional, ambiguous, or even contradictory nature.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76339035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2167101
Joel Robinson
This article explores how architecture festivals might act as sites of commoning when they commission 1:1 scale works that open up public spaces in the city. Informed by a broadly Marxist stance in urban studies and critical geography, it looks at two consecutive ‘live demonstrations’ of urban agriculture, built on disused industrial sites at the 2013 and 2015 editions of Shenzhen's UrbanismArchitecture Bi-City Biennale (UABB). Called Value Farm and Floating Fields, they not only exposed how matters of social justice are inseparable from ecological sustainability but also indicated how the recurring nature of such festivals can beget an ethos of commoning, where commoning is construed as a perennially re-enacted social practice or process, never a fixed or finalised project. Notwithstanding all the faults of large-scale biennials (which sacrifice autonomy in exchange for public or private sector support, and often lead to soft forms of market-oriented regeneration), it is suggested that the architecture festival can call a time-out on unthinkingly habitual and inequitable modes of city-making. This can make space for self-organising, experimental, and creative alternatives, pitting visions of a more collective urbanity against an impoverished paradigm that has capitalist enclosure as its basis.
{"title":"Biennial commoning: opening, reusing and sharing the city at the architecture festival","authors":"Joel Robinson","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2167101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2167101","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how architecture festivals might act as sites of commoning when they commission 1:1 scale works that open up public spaces in the city. Informed by a broadly Marxist stance in urban studies and critical geography, it looks at two consecutive ‘live demonstrations’ of urban agriculture, built on disused industrial sites at the 2013 and 2015 editions of Shenzhen's UrbanismArchitecture Bi-City Biennale (UABB). Called Value Farm and Floating Fields, they not only exposed how matters of social justice are inseparable from ecological sustainability but also indicated how the recurring nature of such festivals can beget an ethos of commoning, where commoning is construed as a perennially re-enacted social practice or process, never a fixed or finalised project. Notwithstanding all the faults of large-scale biennials (which sacrifice autonomy in exchange for public or private sector support, and often lead to soft forms of market-oriented regeneration), it is suggested that the architecture festival can call a time-out on unthinkingly habitual and inequitable modes of city-making. This can make space for self-organising, experimental, and creative alternatives, pitting visions of a more collective urbanity against an impoverished paradigm that has capitalist enclosure as its basis.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91370663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2189382
I. Delsante, Alessandro Zambelli
Discourse on and around the commons has in recent decades gained renewed attention thanks largely to Elinor Ostrom’s foundational work on ‘common pool resource management’ (1990), ending a period in which the commons had, in the wake of Garrett Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968), been all but forgotten. Although, more recently, accounts of commons as historically and spatially situated creative practices have emerged as forms of architectural agency, they are as yet undeveloped. This special issue seeks to shift the centre of commons discourse to these neglected positions of time, place, and acts of architectural making. Notions of commons and enclosure have undergone a near reversal in meaning in commons discourse. In feudal Europe, the commons were part of a political system which tied landholders and their tenants together; commoners worked the land and had rights over it despite the ownership of that land by others. This only became nationally contentious— sometimes violently so — with the advent, and centuries-drawn-out progression, of enclosure; the commons in this understanding were never ‘free’ nor ‘free-for-all’. Although the commons have since then been places of contestation, we would argue for an account of the commons as spaces and practices of hope — not as lost utopias to be regained, but instead as places and practices of relational and architectural co-production. For some, this co-production overtly seeks to topple or invert structurally unequal top-down hierarchies, whereas others would seek an accommodation with them. All, though, demand or imply a new commoning agency. This focus on commons as places where commoners, through creative and spatial practices of co-production, are able to express their agency was pivotal for the ‘City as a Commons’ symposium in Pavia, Italy, in 2019, organised by the special issue co-editor Ioanni Delsante. A number of strands of thought and practice which emerged from the symposium are reflected in the structure of this subsequent special issue. More historically or theoretically inclined papers are followed by a pair of contributions by Stavros Stavrides and by Doina Petrescu and Constantin Petcou that serve as manifestoes or provocations. The issue culminates with papers that tend to employ tactics of architectural precedent and case study. In that sense, the commons and the common
近几十年来，由于埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆(Elinor Ostrom)在“公共资源管理”(common pool resource management, 1990)方面的基础性工作，有关公地及其周围的论述重新引起了人们的关注，结束了在加勒特·哈丁(Garrett Hardin)的《公地悲剧》(the Tragedy of the commons, 1968)之后，公地几乎被遗忘的时期。虽然，最近，公地作为历史和空间上的创造性实践已经作为建筑代理的形式出现，但它们还没有得到发展。本期特刊试图将公共话语的中心转移到这些被忽视的时间、地点和建筑行为上。在公地话语中，公地和圈地的概念在意义上几乎发生了逆转。在封建的欧洲，公地是将土地所有者和佃户联系在一起的政治制度的一部分;尽管土地的所有权属于他人，但平民耕种土地并对其拥有权利。只是随着圈地运动的出现和几个世纪的发展，这一问题才在全国范围内引起了争论——有时甚至是激烈的争论;在这种理解中，公地从来不是“自由的”，也不是“人人免费的”。尽管从那时起，公共场所就成为了争论的场所，但我们认为公共场所是希望的空间和实践，而不是失去的乌托邦，而是关系和建筑共同生产的场所和实践。对一些人来说，这种联合生产公然寻求推翻或扭转结构上不平等的自上而下的等级制度，而另一些人则会寻求与之和解。然而，所有这些都要求或暗示着一个新的共同机构。2019年，特刊联合编辑Ioanni Delsante在意大利帕维亚举办了“城市作为公共场所”研讨会，关注公共场所是平民通过共同生产的创造性和空间实践能够表达其能动性的地方。专题讨论会产生的若干思想和做法反映在本期后续特刊的结构中。更多的历史或理论倾向的论文之后是Stavros Stavrides和Doina Petrescu和Constantin Petcou的两篇文章，作为宣言或挑衅。这个问题在论文中达到高潮，这些论文倾向于采用建筑先例和案例研究的策略。从这个意义上说，是公地和公地
{"title":"Architectural agency and the commons","authors":"I. Delsante, Alessandro Zambelli","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2189382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2189382","url":null,"abstract":"Discourse on and around the commons has in recent decades gained renewed attention thanks largely to Elinor Ostrom’s foundational work on ‘common pool resource management’ (1990), ending a period in which the commons had, in the wake of Garrett Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968), been all but forgotten. Although, more recently, accounts of commons as historically and spatially situated creative practices have emerged as forms of architectural agency, they are as yet undeveloped. This special issue seeks to shift the centre of commons discourse to these neglected positions of time, place, and acts of architectural making. Notions of commons and enclosure have undergone a near reversal in meaning in commons discourse. In feudal Europe, the commons were part of a political system which tied landholders and their tenants together; commoners worked the land and had rights over it despite the ownership of that land by others. This only became nationally contentious— sometimes violently so — with the advent, and centuries-drawn-out progression, of enclosure; the commons in this understanding were never ‘free’ nor ‘free-for-all’. Although the commons have since then been places of contestation, we would argue for an account of the commons as spaces and practices of hope — not as lost utopias to be regained, but instead as places and practices of relational and architectural co-production. For some, this co-production overtly seeks to topple or invert structurally unequal top-down hierarchies, whereas others would seek an accommodation with them. All, though, demand or imply a new commoning agency. This focus on commons as places where commoners, through creative and spatial practices of co-production, are able to express their agency was pivotal for the ‘City as a Commons’ symposium in Pavia, Italy, in 2019, organised by the special issue co-editor Ioanni Delsante. A number of strands of thought and practice which emerged from the symposium are reflected in the structure of this subsequent special issue. More historically or theoretically inclined papers are followed by a pair of contributions by Stavros Stavrides and by Doina Petrescu and Constantin Petcou that serve as manifestoes or provocations. The issue culminates with papers that tend to employ tactics of architectural precedent and case study. In that sense, the commons and the common","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79581430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2179097
S. Stavrides
Reclaiming the right to the city means reclaiming the city as commons. In such a prospect, the city becomes both the scope of urban commoning practices as well as one of the most crucial factors that shape them. In order to proceed in this direction, we need to reclaim the power of collective creativity as well as the sharing of expert knowledge. In today’s neoliberal capitalist societies, different actors as well as deviant professionals are envisaging, proposing, and performing spaces that depart from the necessities and priorities of the prevailing logic. Can we talk about dissident architectural performances? And could such performances contribute to the production of common spaces, spaces that corroborate citizen participation and forms of self-governance? Using examples from Europe and Latin America studied through extensive field research, this paper explores urban commoning as a potentially emancipatory process.
{"title":"Common space creation: can architecture help? (Towards a provisional manifesto)","authors":"S. Stavrides","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2179097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2179097","url":null,"abstract":"Reclaiming the right to the city means reclaiming the city as commons. In such a prospect, the city becomes both the scope of urban commoning practices as well as one of the most crucial factors that shape them. In order to proceed in this direction, we need to reclaim the power of collective creativity as well as the sharing of expert knowledge. In today’s neoliberal capitalist societies, different actors as well as deviant professionals are envisaging, proposing, and performing spaces that depart from the necessities and priorities of the prevailing logic. Can we talk about dissident architectural performances? And could such performances contribute to the production of common spaces, spaces that corroborate citizen participation and forms of self-governance? Using examples from Europe and Latin America studied through extensive field research, this paper explores urban commoning as a potentially emancipatory process.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88648063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2183619
D. Petrescu, Constantin Petcou
This paper addresses aspects concerning the emergence of urban commons in mass housing estates in France. At a critical moment of societal crisis due to resources depletion and planetary Climate Change, urban commons can contribute and offer solutions to the complex process of transition towards more resilient forms of governance at different scales. In the context of mass housing estates built five decades ago, enabling the emergence of commons can be a resilient alternative to the current urban regeneration approaches. This process needs agencies and actors, and architects can play an important role. In order to provide an example in this sense, we take the case of R-Urban, a project initiated by atelier d'architecture autogérée as a commons-based network of civic resilience implemented in Parisian suburbs. The network consists of resilience hubs located in mass housing estates, which are collectively managed by inhabitants. The hubs function as forms of urban commons, constituting an alternative to the publicly funded équipments collectifs of the Grand Ensembles, the major mass housing program of a welfare government that started in the late 1950s and 1960s. As opposed to these équipments, the R-Urban hubs are self-managed, being run and funded mainly with civic contribution. The architects are not anymore top-down experts commissioned by the State, but have successively acted as initiators, designers, and co-managers of the project, sustaining the emergence of those urban commons through diverse local alliances. However, in a political context in which the welfare principles have been replaced by market principles (often sustained by the State), keeping this role for architects is a challenge.
{"title":"The role of architects in initiating, sustaining and defending urban commons in mass housing estates: R-Urban in Grand Ensembles","authors":"D. Petrescu, Constantin Petcou","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2183619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2183619","url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses aspects concerning the emergence of urban commons in mass housing estates in France. At a critical moment of societal crisis due to resources depletion and planetary Climate Change, urban commons can contribute and offer solutions to the complex process of transition towards more resilient forms of governance at different scales. In the context of mass housing estates built five decades ago, enabling the emergence of commons can be a resilient alternative to the current urban regeneration approaches. This process needs agencies and actors, and architects can play an important role. In order to provide an example in this sense, we take the case of R-Urban, a project initiated by atelier d'architecture autogérée as a commons-based network of civic resilience implemented in Parisian suburbs. The network consists of resilience hubs located in mass housing estates, which are collectively managed by inhabitants. The hubs function as forms of urban commons, constituting an alternative to the publicly funded équipments collectifs of the Grand Ensembles, the major mass housing program of a welfare government that started in the late 1950s and 1960s. As opposed to these équipments, the R-Urban hubs are self-managed, being run and funded mainly with civic contribution. The architects are not anymore top-down experts commissioned by the State, but have successively acted as initiators, designers, and co-managers of the project, sustaining the emergence of those urban commons through diverse local alliances. However, in a political context in which the welfare principles have been replaced by market principles (often sustained by the State), keeping this role for architects is a challenge.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80704036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2182815
A. Djalali
Urban commoning projects, seen as part of those practices referred to as ‘spatial agency’, deal with the production of space focusing on the construction of relations and processes rather than on the production of objects, buildings, or images. The refusal of architectural formalism is seen as a way to bypass commercialism and the superficiality of traditional architectural practices. However, architect-led urban commoning activities still cannot avoid the production of very recognisable images, reinforcing a more or less involuntary aesthetics of the commons. This article posits that the production of images is too important to be left to commercial architectural practice, and that it should be considered as an integral part of spatial agency. Rather than privileging a return to a depoliticised and formalist architectural practice, this article argues that commoning practices, if seen from the point of view of the theory of the common in the singular, have an intrinsic capacity to produce a new political and aesthetic strategy. Some projects from DOGMA and Aristide Antonas are presented as practices that take the production of the common as a theme while at the same time problematising the role of image- and form-making, providing new formulations of the role of the project of architecture in contemporary production.
{"title":"What does the common look like?","authors":"A. Djalali","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2182815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2182815","url":null,"abstract":"Urban commoning projects, seen as part of those practices referred to as ‘spatial agency’, deal with the production of space focusing on the construction of relations and processes rather than on the production of objects, buildings, or images. The refusal of architectural formalism is seen as a way to bypass commercialism and the superficiality of traditional architectural practices. However, architect-led urban commoning activities still cannot avoid the production of very recognisable images, reinforcing a more or less involuntary aesthetics of the commons. This article posits that the production of images is too important to be left to commercial architectural practice, and that it should be considered as an integral part of spatial agency. Rather than privileging a return to a depoliticised and formalist architectural practice, this article argues that commoning practices, if seen from the point of view of the theory of the common in the singular, have an intrinsic capacity to produce a new political and aesthetic strategy. Some projects from DOGMA and Aristide Antonas are presented as practices that take the production of the common as a theme while at the same time problematising the role of image- and form-making, providing new formulations of the role of the project of architecture in contemporary production.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91224830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2169323
Jacqui Alexander
Digital platforms are rapidly and surreptitiously transforming the built environment. This paper begins by revealing the ways that platform capitalism is amplifying the financialisation of housing and economic asymmetries in global cities. However, it argues that with creativity, the same tools could be reformulated around the commons to develop an effective ‘counter-power' against these practices and to work towards a future city that is fairer and more sustainable. Through a series of creative works by contemporary architects including Dogma, Open Systems Lab, and Alexander & Sheridan Architecture, this paper seeks to demonstrate Vasilis Kostakis and Michel Bauwens' assertion that ‘the commons' is not an abstract concept, but a logical extension of practices and technologies that have become the everyday conditions of society from working to living. It exposes the potential for platform technologies to redistribute land and housing infrastructure, transform architectural, construction labour, and development practices, and redefine a role for the architect within the post-digital city. Ultimately, I argue that the politics of the platform is a matter of design. Through an expanded approach to architectural practice — which confronts the digital forces at play in the contemporary city — there is potential for architects to re-politicise the term ‘disruption’ towards housing equity and systemic change.
数字平台正在迅速而隐秘地改变着建筑环境。本文首先揭示了平台资本主义放大全球城市住房金融化和经济不对称的方式。然而，它认为，有了创造力，同样的工具可以围绕公地重新制定，以开发一种有效的“反制力量”来反对这些做法，并努力建设一个更公平、更可持续的未来城市。通过Dogma、Open Systems Lab和Alexander & Sheridan Architecture等当代建筑师的一系列创造性作品，本文试图证明Vasilis Kostakis和Michel Bauwens的断言，即“公地”不是一个抽象的概念，而是实践和技术的逻辑延伸，从工作到生活已经成为社会的日常条件。它揭示了平台技术的潜力，可以重新分配土地和住房基础设施，改变建筑、施工劳动力和开发实践，并重新定义建筑师在后数字城市中的角色。最后，我认为平台的政治是一个设计问题。通过扩大建筑实践的方法，面对当代城市中发挥作用的数字力量，建筑师有可能将“破坏”一词重新政治化，以实现住房公平和系统变化。
{"title":"Creative commoning: design experiments exploring ways for platform technology to democratise architectural practice and production","authors":"Jacqui Alexander","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2169323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2169323","url":null,"abstract":"Digital platforms are rapidly and surreptitiously transforming the built environment. This paper begins by revealing the ways that platform capitalism is amplifying the financialisation of housing and economic asymmetries in global cities. However, it argues that with creativity, the same tools could be reformulated around the commons to develop an effective ‘counter-power' against these practices and to work towards a future city that is fairer and more sustainable. Through a series of creative works by contemporary architects including Dogma, Open Systems Lab, and Alexander & Sheridan Architecture, this paper seeks to demonstrate Vasilis Kostakis and Michel Bauwens' assertion that ‘the commons' is not an abstract concept, but a logical extension of practices and technologies that have become the everyday conditions of society from working to living. It exposes the potential for platform technologies to redistribute land and housing infrastructure, transform architectural, construction labour, and development practices, and redefine a role for the architect within the post-digital city. Ultimately, I argue that the politics of the platform is a matter of design. Through an expanded approach to architectural practice — which confronts the digital forces at play in the contemporary city — there is potential for architects to re-politicise the term ‘disruption’ towards housing equity and systemic change.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84670992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2170446
Charalampos Tsavdaroglou, K. Lalenis
In the five years spanning from 2015 to 2020, in Greece and particularly in Athens and Thessaloniki, several state-run refugee camps were created at the peripheries of the cities, away from the urban fabric, but at the same time, numerous refugees’ self-organised housing projects were organised in the city centres. These different accommodation structures could be conceptualised through the lens of housing commons versus spatial enclosures. The paper is based on an extensive three-year fieldwork, spatial analysis, and ethnographic research in refugee camps and refugee housing projects in Athens and Thessaloniki. Drawing on post-democracy literature and urban commons theories, the paper critically approaches state-run refugee camps as places of law exception that follow a post-democratic top-down model of governance and contrast these to refugee housing commons as threshold places of direct democracy, self-organisation, and co-habitation.
{"title":"Post-democratic governance in refugee camps versus newcomers’ architectural housing commons in Athens and Thessaloniki","authors":"Charalampos Tsavdaroglou, K. Lalenis","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2170446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2170446","url":null,"abstract":"In the five years spanning from 2015 to 2020, in Greece and particularly in Athens and Thessaloniki, several state-run refugee camps were created at the peripheries of the cities, away from the urban fabric, but at the same time, numerous refugees’ self-organised housing projects were organised in the city centres. These different accommodation structures could be conceptualised through the lens of housing commons versus spatial enclosures. The paper is based on an extensive three-year fieldwork, spatial analysis, and ethnographic research in refugee camps and refugee housing projects in Athens and Thessaloniki. Drawing on post-democracy literature and urban commons theories, the paper critically approaches state-run refugee camps as places of law exception that follow a post-democratic top-down model of governance and contrast these to refugee housing commons as threshold places of direct democracy, self-organisation, and co-habitation.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89779425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2023.2183234
Alessandro Zambelli
In 2011, on a peri-urban plot in Surrey in the UK, a then newly built house, Ravenridge, was put on sale for £14,750,000. Above the house, whose architecture was described by the Mail on Sunday as ‘an unthreatening kind of bloated Georgian’, and inaccessible to outsiders since the gating of St. George's Hill on which it stands, hulk the eroded ramparts of an Iron Age hillfort. Ravenridge also happens to occupy part of the likely site of the first ‘Digger’ community established in 1649 by a group of local men and women led by Gerard Winstanley and William Everard on what was then the common land of Walton-on-Thames. Co-present on the Hill, three ostensibly unlike dwelling types — the visible yet inaccessible gated mansion, the ruined and hidden hillfort, and the only guessed-at squatter's hut — ‘stand’, spatially united, but uncoupled in time. The temporal slippage of this gated landscape of architectural co-presence — between the ruin and the commons, and between the Iron Age and the ‘age of surveillance’ — offers an opportunity for and provides a reflection of an elusive yet critical notion of architectural ‘commons’. A commons which, at its heart, is nothing less than a manifestation of spatial justice.
2011年，在英国萨里郡(Surrey)的一个近郊地块上，一栋当时刚刚建成的房屋Ravenridge以1475万英镑的价格出售。这所房子的建筑被《星期日邮报》(the Mail on Sunday)描述为“一种不具威胁性的臃肿的格鲁吉亚风格”，由于它所在的圣乔治山(St. George’s Hill)的大门，外人无法进入，它的上方是铁器时代山丘上被侵蚀的城墙。拉文里奇也恰好占据了第一个“挖掘者”社区的一部分，该社区于1649年由Gerard Winstanley和William Everard领导的一群当地男女在当时的泰晤士河畔沃尔顿的公共土地上建立。在山上，三种表面上不同的住宅类型共同呈现——可见但难以接近的大门大厦，被毁坏和隐藏的小山堡，以及唯一被猜测为寮屋的小屋——“站立”，空间上统一，但在时间上不耦合。在废墟和公地之间，在铁器时代和“监视时代”之间，这种建筑共同存在的封闭景观的时间滑动为建筑“公地”提供了一个机会，并提供了一个难以捉摸的批判性概念的反映。一个公地，其核心是空间正义的体现。
{"title":"‘Period property in sought-after area’: 2,500 years of Digging and building at St George’s Hill","authors":"Alessandro Zambelli","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2183234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2183234","url":null,"abstract":"In 2011, on a peri-urban plot in Surrey in the UK, a then newly built house, Ravenridge, was put on sale for £14,750,000. Above the house, whose architecture was described by the Mail on Sunday as ‘an unthreatening kind of bloated Georgian’, and inaccessible to outsiders since the gating of St. George's Hill on which it stands, hulk the eroded ramparts of an Iron Age hillfort. Ravenridge also happens to occupy part of the likely site of the first ‘Digger’ community established in 1649 by a group of local men and women led by Gerard Winstanley and William Everard on what was then the common land of Walton-on-Thames. Co-present on the Hill, three ostensibly unlike dwelling types — the visible yet inaccessible gated mansion, the ruined and hidden hillfort, and the only guessed-at squatter's hut — ‘stand’, spatially united, but uncoupled in time. The temporal slippage of this gated landscape of architectural co-presence — between the ruin and the commons, and between the Iron Age and the ‘age of surveillance’ — offers an opportunity for and provides a reflection of an elusive yet critical notion of architectural ‘commons’. A commons which, at its heart, is nothing less than a manifestation of spatial justice.","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89940488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.4305/metu.jfa.2022.2.9
M. Keskin
{"title":"ATİK SİNAN: MİTLER VE GERÇEKLER ARASINDA BİR OSMANLI MİMARI","authors":"M. Keskin","doi":"10.4305/metu.jfa.2022.2.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4305/metu.jfa.2022.2.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44236,"journal":{"name":"METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77682864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：