Architecture Research Forum: “Still Dreaming? Space After Spectacle and the Indifference of Architecture” Douglas Spencer – 2nd November, Erskine Room, 5th Floor, 13:00-14:00

Douglas Spencer: Still Dreaming? Space After Spectacle and the Indifference of Architecture 

Susan Buck-Morss, in her Dreamworld and Catastrophe, observed that the end of the Cold War was marked by the passing of the dream-forms of modernity — capitalist, socialist and fascist — as sustained through the experience of the built environment. If, following Walter Benjamin, we understand awakening from the dreamworld to be premised on the conscious realisation of its utopian fantasies, then what hope remained now, she asked, in the absence of any dreamworld? This paper takes up this question through an analysis of the seemingly indifferent and post-spectacular spaces of contemporary architecture, offering, in response, an analysis that explores both its historical and its phenomenological implications.

Douglas Spencer teaches at the University of Westminster and the Architectural Association, and is the author of The Architecture of Neoliberalism (Bloomsbury, 2016).

Where: Erskine Room (M/523), Marylebone Campus

When: Thursday 2nd November, 13:00-14:00

Call for Papers: TRANSLOCAL#1 (Trans)Locality & Urban Cultures – Deadline 10th November

CALL FOR PAPERS
TRANSLOCAL #1
(TRANS)LOCALITY & URBAN CULTURES
Deadline for submissions: 10 NOVEMBER 2017

Cosmopolitanism without provincialism is empty, provincialism without cosmopolitanism is blind.
(Ulrich Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision)

Translocality draws attention to multiplying forms of mobility without losing sight of
the importance of localities in peoples’ lives.
(Oakes and Schein, Translocal China, Linkages, Identities and the Reimagining of Space)

TRANSLOCAL Contemporary Local and Urban Cultures seeks to explore and discuss the possibility of the transcendence of the physical and virtual place(s), understood as expanded space(s)/time(s), where local and global arise as implicated dynamic realities. It will analyse, not only the geopolitical, social, historical and cultural processes of local and urban encounter, but also the various forms of artistic expression resulting from these phenomena understanding that, nowadays, it always implies both the development of local identification ties as well as the building of ties that belong to several external networks, located beyond the local.

TRANSLOCAL #1

The inaugural issue of TRANSLOCAL Contemporary Local and Urban Cultures opens the invitation to the publication in the sections of a) Essays, including visual essays and b) Articles.

Proposals for publication should contribute to the reflection on the concepts of (trans) locality and urban cultures, as well as to the critical analysis of geopolitical, social, economic, geophysical, biological, cultural, artistic, psychological and affective dimension that these concepts can refer to, or even to the discussion of the problems that these phenomena and experiences imply. The case studies taken as the object of analysis and discussion may relate to both the city and the urban cultures of Funchal, as well as other cities and other places marked by translocality.
(Trans)locality and urban cultures

Today, to reflect on what is translocal and translocality, on what is the city and the urban (and their cultures), implies putting these concepts, phenomena and experiences in correlation with others that are alternative or complementary to them: On the one hand, local / locality / localism, region/regionality/regionalism, nation/nationality/nationalism, globalization and cosmopolitanism; and, on the other hand, countryside / rural / rurality.

The catastrophic, fragmentary and palimpsest character that Walter Benjamin (2003) identified in the experience of modern temporality, the liquidity that Zygmunt Bauman (2012) diagnosed in late modernity, or the critical reflexivity that Ulrich Beck (1994) also pointed out in contemporary times could no longer coexist, in the late twentieth century, with exclusively linear and progressive conceptions of time, with deterministic and merely material perspectives of space (Lefebvre, 1991; Massey, 2005; Harvey, 2009), or even with tight and static paradigms of phenomena such as frontier or community (Agamben, 1993, Nancy, 2000).

The city and the urban, thought and experienced as expanded and unstable place-times, presented themselves as a physical, social, political, and cultural fabric, fragmentary but dense, contaminated and in turbulent metamorphosis (Crang, 2000). They emerged as organic, tensile, and non-homogeneous units, where the threshold with the rural and with the foreigner dissolved and where various temporalities intersected, in a plot that was permeable to the strange, the difference and the new, but simultaneously would define itself as an autophagic body that nourishes itself from the ruins of the past, in order to reinvent itself in a complex and sometimes chaotic way (Domingues, 2010).

City and urban would configure themselves then (as today) as palimpsests and transboundary archipelagos, marked by dynamics that surpassed the physical place; like rhizomatic systems, whose fluidity found points of anchorage and crystallization that extended beyond the classic physical walls of the city and beyond the norms that, until then, dominated.

Along with this understanding of what was (or is) the city and the urban, in that same period, translocality and translocal emerged also as a conceptual renovation of these other terms that are tangential to them. Subject to the usury of time and the phenomenological, historical and contextual alteration, local / locality / localism, became limiting operative concepts in the reflection on the modern eco sociocultural systems as well as in the construction of answers to the questions and the challenges posed by contemporaneity. On the one hand, the growing wave of human and cultural mobility was intensified with technological development, with the emergence of new media and (with these) renewed modes of communication and interpersonal, intercultural and economic relations, now also marked by Virtuality, cross-border simultaneity and more complex space/time experiences (Beck, 2007; Greenblatt, 2010). On the other hand, the nineteenth-century paradigm of the nation-state (often reproduced, on a smaller scale, in the paradigm of the Region) was exhausted (Sousa Santos, 1999), requiring a re-equating of the processes of political and geocultural identification, identity narratives and community-based relationships (Agamben, 1993, Nancy, 2000). Simultaneously, the hegemonic tendency of globalization, the vertigo of cosmopolitan uprooting, and these new understandings of space/time, brought about a profound destabilization and pulverization of the narratives of identity.

In this way, translocal and translocality questioned and deconstructed the radical and uncritical dichotomization that, not infrequently, was established between what was local and national or between what was local and global or cosmopolitan (Greiner and Sakdapolrak, 2013). They came to refer to cultural, social, political, historical, economic, artistic, or even biological, geophysical, psychological and affective phenomena and experiences implied in more or less transgressive dynamics of transit, fluctuation, transference and metamorphosis, Was of subjects, values, substances and imaginary, whether of goods and products. However, these phenomena and experiences did not, however, stem from an absolute deterritorialization or from a radical uprooting of time that projected them out of a here-now. The prefix trans- inscribed (and still subscribes today) the dynamic, transformative, relational and transgressive character of this contemporary modality of experiencing and thinking the place. Locus, in the etymological root of place, in turn, stressed that this fluctuation or drift, as well as the merging of boundaries resulting therefrom, did not exhaust itself.
In this context, to return to the local, to rethink it critically, now in an articulation of various scales and times that cross in it, emerges as an attempt to respond to those shocks, demanding, however, another conceptualization, that exceeded the confinement of the borders of the local to a static, physical and geographic rooting (Appadurai, 2003: 178).

As Katherine Brickel and Ayone Datta (2011: 3-4) note, following the path of authors such as Appadurai, translocal and translocality designate phenomena and experiences “place-based rather than exclusively mobile, uprooted or ‘travelling.” As expanded places, resulting from the encounter and negotiation between various places-times, the existence of these phenomena and experiences is produced locally (Appadurai, 2003: 178).

Essays and Articles

TRANSLOCAL welcomes, proposals of essays and articles (2500 to 5000 words), written in Portuguese or English, which, dealing with the theme “(Trans)Locality and Urban Cultures”, address (although not exclusively) topics such as:

  • The local, the urban and the city as expanded place-time (spaces), as palimpsests and/or transboundary archipelagos: issues of identity and heritage;
  • Human and cultural mobility: centrifugal and/or centripetal movements, between the vertigo of transit and the pulverization of local rooting;
  • Displacement, conflict, and power;
  • The plasticity of local and urban territories:
  • Processes of spatial co-production processes (top-down and bottom-up dynamics);
  • Ecological sustainability, (de)territorial organization, risks, resilience;
  • Local and urban landscapes as metamorphic phenomena and as hybrid territories: conservation, subversion, (re)creation;
  • The babelic complexity of the contemporary (trans)local and urban: issues of linguistic encounter and variation;
    issues of linguistic, social, cultural and artistic (in)translatability;
  • The (re)imagination of the local and/or the city: narratives: literary and film narratives and representations;
    Contemporary artistic discourses, site-specificity, transgression and (re)creative relocations;
  • Tourism and the reinvention of the local and/or the urban: from the virtual to the empirical experience; processes of touristification

Submissions: All submitted material will be subject to a double-blind peer review process.

Essays and articles proposals must be sent to translocal.revista@mail.uma.pt , by 10 November 2017, and should also include the following elements:

  • A summary of the proposed text submitted in Portuguese and English (up to 250 words);
  • Name of the author (s) and a short curricular note (up to 150 words).
  • Author guidelines

All submissions must follow the predefined author guidelines.

Guidelines for articles are available at http://www4.uma.pt/cierl/?page_id=5070

About TRANSLOCAL

TRANSLOCAL. Contemporary Local and Urban Cultures is a journal oriented to the dissemination and study of contemporary local and urban cultural phenomena. Intending to reach local, national and international heterogeneous public, it is composed: a) an online edition and b) a printed edition, both autonomous, but dialoguing with one another. Both versions own their unique ISSN registration. TRANSLOCAL will assume cultural analysis and dissemination, taking into account not only its local context but also potential translocal and international articulations.

The online edition will be updated quarterly, with contents being published/organised in five different sections: Essays, Articles, Dialogues, Crossed gaze and Reading Suggestions. The digital edition of the journal will give preference to contents that address issues and themes related to the project, or to activities and events that TRANSLOCAL promotes or is associated with as a partner. will not be subject to exclusive themes

The paper edition, with the ISSN 2184-1047, will be published one a year and each number will have a specific theme. Articles submitted for publication will be subject to double-blind peer review, by members of the journal’s Reading Committee and Advisory Board. The first number will be published in Spring 2018.

TRANSLOCAL is a partnership between the Centre for Research in Regional and Local Studies of the University of Madeira (UMa-CIERL) and the Municipality of Funchal (CMF). TRANSLOCAL. Contemporary Local and Urban Cultures will take a particular “topos” of interest Funchal to think (with) other (trans)local and urban cultural realities.

+ info here (PT): http://translocal.cm-funchal.pt/

OPEN2017: The Future of Architecture _ Part 1/2

This blurry shot through the window of our 5th floor studio captured the beginning of the long anticipated OPEN2017; the end to an intense and productive year, and for many the beginning of a new chapter, be it in their professional or academic lives.

Running as a part of London Festival of Architecture, the show opened on June 15th and closed on July 2nd.

Set up across the 4th and 5th floor of our studios in the heart of Marylebone, this year’s exhibition featured work from over 20 diploma studios, both Architecture (BA Hons) and Master of Architecture RIBA Part II (MArch), as well as works of students from Interior Architecture (BA Hons) and Architectural Technology (BSc Hons).

Here are some of the highlights from this year’s opening and the exhibition itself.

 

BA Architecture RIBA Part I

FIRST YEAR studio was divided into six groups (A, B, C, D, E and F). In the first semester they shared the same briefs, beginning with the Lightwall, an exercise in exploring the role of the wall in defining space and manipulating the quality of light. The second brief focused on developing surveying, analysis, drawing and model building skills. The final brief of the term was W.A.Gs. (WikiHouse and Games). In the second semester each group worked on a separate brief, and the themes varied from ‘House for the Apocalypse’, ‘Sculptor Studio and Flat’ and ‘Deptford (art) Market’, to ‘Gallery of the Future’.

 

SECOND YEAR students developed their projects on sites across London; from New River and Peckham Coal Line, to Old Street, Whitechapel and all the way to Highgate in North London.

DS2.1 lead by Elantha Evans and Anthony Povis started the year by exploring the course of the ‘New River’, constructed to bring fresh water into central London from Hertfordshire. The study visit to Madrid, Chinchon, Avila and Toledo in Spain paid particular attention to the ways in which institutional building sits within urban fabric, how it affects public and private space and what presence – literal and symbolic – does it have in the city.

Domestic Sanctuary / everyday moments: semester one brief required a development of a ‘social hub’ on one of the three sites, each having a particular relationship to the New River and linking in with the existing health facilities.

Civic Sanctuary / everyday asylum: semester two proposals for ‘civic cog’ were made on a choice of two liminal sites: one in the former peripheral ‘village’ of Stoke Newington, and the other on a layered, historic site near Aldgate, located next to the former London Wall.

 

DS2.2 lead by Natalie Newey and John Zhang, went back to Peckham this year; where the broad mix of people and built environment provide rich territory to explore the studio’s interest in how design is informed by a meaningful engagement with local communities. The briefs were developed around the relationships which the studio had cultivated with the Coal Line project and local community groups, including John Donne, a local primary school.

A trip to Ahmedabad, India in January was a highlight of the year, organised around a workshop with students at CEPT University. The students investigated local community projects, analysed through sketches local landmark buildings, and explored the urban fabric of this ancient city.

 

DS2.3 lead by Shahed Saleem and Michael Rose focused on the term ‘Interculturalism’ and the question of what kind of architecture is required for an intercultural city. Through their design projects students explored what an intercultural space is and what kind of cultural encounter does it encourage; what sort of contact and relationships can architecture instigate between diverse people and what does meaningful contact mean.

 

DS2.4 lead by Julian Williams and Maria Kramer discussed what it means to live and learn outside, to explore landscape as cultural artefact, an educational resource, and in architectural dimensions. The students tried out Bharat Cornell’s exercises for sharing nature with children, drew the woodland canopy and went on to design two projects for the emerging Forest School movement.

Nature Nook: For St Michael’s School in Highgate, the students examined the funding problems confronting the maintenance of school grounds, and the factors limiting outdoor playing and learning.

Queen’s Wood Retreat: the designs to transform a brownfield site adjacent to Queen’s Wood Highgate into a centre for Forest School practice were developed through discussions and communication with the expert allotment growers, Forest School practitioners and school teachers.

 

DS2.5 lead by Camilla Wilkinson and Emma Perkin took the programme for Polyark 4: Fun Palace Futures, as an opportunity for students to make connections between the brief – communication of scientific research – and the process of experimentation in architectural design.

Indoor Weather: A pavilion for Imperial Festival – a temporary pavilion housing a weather condition that enables scientists to engage the public in their area of scientific research.

Laboratory of Fun, Hackney Wick: A laboratory that spawns ancillary spaces for public use or laboratories that transform into public space.

In May this year, DS2.5 students were invited to exhibit their semester one project ‘Indoor Weather’ at the Imperial College Science Festival, at Imperial Festival 2017, and here are just a few highlights from that weekend, where the pavilion eventually exhibited at the OPEN2017 was first assembled.

 

DS2.6 lead by Stefania Boccaletti and Fiona Zisch set out to investigate how agriculture can be inserted into highly urbanised areas as a small-scale resource-saving systems. In the process of developing their designs, students queried both how urban agriculture has been transforming through the integration of new technologies and how to combine the myriad architectural requirements (e.g. responsive systems linking user and building, environment and building, and user and environment) with the needs, ambitions, and practicalities of 21st century food production.

 

THIRD YEAR studios tackled the political, material and social dimensions of architecture.

DS3.1 lead by Jane Tankard and Alicia Pivaro, believe that anarchy or self-determination has the potential to be central to architectural design and production. Addressing the role of the architect and the representation of modernist ideology in film, the students examined the dichotomy of a utopian ideal versus everyday life. Using the ‘Highgate Bowl’ in North London as their site, the studio delved into local utopias – past and present – to unravel narratives and histories, which would inform individual programmes for a landscape and museum/intervention.

 

DS3.2 lead by Giles Smith and Anthony Engi Meacock took their interest in architecture and economics to the English seaside. This year the studio chose Margate as their site in order to explore the relationship between the coastal capital and coastal culture, and the distinctive architecture they both generate. Working from a highly situated reading of the town, the students developed their projects to question the current policy of culturally-led redevelopment. These propose a series of new models of (creative) industries, ranging from housing for old-age entrepreneurs through to a basketball academy for Margate’s disenfranchised youth.

 

DS3.3 lead by Constance Lau and Alison McLellan, explored Umberto Eco’s idea of the capacity for user intervention to shape the reading of the work, a concept also demonstrated in Walter Benjamin’s The Arcades Project, described as a “blueprint for an unimaginably massive and Labyrinthine architecture”. These ideas inform the studio’s interest in multiple interpretations, and especially the search outside architecture to inspire architectural design. The semester one project Building the Arnolfini was focused on exploring the complex use of signifiers and perspective views of Jan van Eyck through the notion of an architectural montage, where different readings radiate from singular source. This was furthered in semester two’s Artefice and Artefact project, which had lead to a proposal for a new museum typology to address the ensuing shifts in the current disparate landscape of the British Museum’s chronologically, geographically and culturally displaced items.

 

DS3.4 lead by Elly Ward and Johnny Fisher is interested in cultural identity, British-ness and popular contemporary culture. In June 2016, the UK voted to detach both physically and philosophically from the EU with no clear idea how this island nation would continue to operate without collaboration with our European counterparts. In response to this lack of manifesto, DS3.4 has spent a year speculating on how the future of British architecture might look in a post-Brexit Britain. The students explored the concept of A Nation at Sea, the Edge Condition, and how statements such as ‘Taking Back Control’ and ‘Making Britain Great Again’ impact our debate and our cultural frame of reference.

 

DS3.5 lead by Bruce Irwin and Catherine Phillips, investigated two London sites on the Grand Union Canal – in Camden Town at Castlehaven Road and at Corbridge Crescent adjacent to Mare Street and Cambridge Heath Road. The studio is interested in the relationship between urban form, material memory and public space. London development favours a blank slate, a site cleared of all trace of prior occupation, so the question this studio is concerned with is what happens when city loses what it physically was. Is there an alternative?

 

DS3.6 lead by Harry Paticas and Tom Raymont began this academic year in Epping Forest and ended it in the woods of Punkaharju, Finland. Along the way students discovered the forest as complex ecosystem, a regenerative source of building material and a repository of cultural, mythical, and design narratives. In semester one students proposed and intervention into the woodland at The Sustainability Centre in Hampshire that enhanced the habitat for one particular species as well as bringing human beings into closer, more mutualistic relationship with that animal. In semester two students returned to London and turned their Naturalists lenses on to the Doon Street car park site behind the National Theatre. The year ended with a 9-day workshop in Punkaharju Forests of Finland, where the students collectively designed and built a timber shelter with architect Sami Rintala. (read more about the trip here)

 

DS3.7 lead by John Zhang and David Porter, is a joint studio with the Central Academy of Fine Arts in Beijing (CAFA), and it uses Beijing and London as its test beds. The studio seeks to explore how diverse communities of citizens can live together. In semester one students were based in Beijing for a two-month long exchange programme at CAFA, before moving to an ex-industrial site in Fengtai, Beijing. Their experiences and lessons learnt from Beijing were carried over to London and consolidated in semester two through a development of a comprehensive architectural proposal for hybrid housing scheme in Bermondsey.

 

The second part of our report on the OPEN2017, which will featured more info on MArch RIBA Part II, Interior Architecture (BA Hons) and Architectural Technology (BSc Hons) soon to follow.

In the meantime, make sure you visit our Instagram page where the OPEN2017 had been chronicled since the opening night.