Pierre von Meiss - A Place for Identity

Pierre von Meiss writes in the book Elements of Architecture about identity. (Meiss, 1998, pp. 161 - 164) One of the things he addresses is the fact that people need to affirm their identity in order to be ‘at peace’ with the universe, with society and with themselves.

* The universe: “identity as a human being, homo sapiens, who is distinct from the physical, mineral, vegetable and animal world;”

* The society: “ identity as a member of a group with which one shares and discusses values”

* Themselves: “identity as an individual who maintains a margin of liberty and personal responsibility, distinct from the group and from all others; each person is unique."

“Architecture” , writes Von Meiss, “ is playing an important role in reducing or strengthening our sense of identity.” He refers to Rapoport when he list two kinds of manifestations of identity (Rapoport, 1981):

A. Private identity. “ the affirmation of identity to oneself and to one’s intimate group. The signs are recognizable by the initiated.

B. Public identity. “ the affirmation of identity to others by establishing a distinction between ‘them’ and ‘us’”. The signs are clear, redundant and popularized.

Important is for the architect to discover the principal means by which this communication of identity can be ensured.

Von Meiss gives three possible strategies to create architecture that reflects the identity of an initiated group (A.):

1. A deep understanding of the essential characteristics of the architectural elements which are crucial to the identity of the group.

2. Make the future users participate in the design of places.

3. A strong ordering structure of ‘hospital’ architecture in which the occupants are able to create their places and symbols of identity.

To create architecture that reflects an identity to the public (B.) there is according to Meiss only one way: create symbols that are comprehensible by everyone. These signs of identity are unique and widely known or they belong to a typology deep rooted in the collective memory of the group. These symbols can be doorways, fountains or staircases, but have in common their ‘history of memorable events.’ As Meiss describes: “ …they root us in time and place.”

Von Meiss also states that a monument has the same aim of communicating a public identity, often by recalling an (forgotten) event or memory of identity. I think the typologies which are deeply rooted in the collective memory can also be called monumental.

In reality design processes often imply both a contribution to public identity and a space for private identity. This is a challenge for the architect. How to treat this double aspect of identity. Von Meiss addresses here the lack of private identity in mass-housing. The real estate market tries to solve this lack of identity by meaningless ‘ready made advertising images’, such as false traditional Swiss houses.

Remarkable is one of the possibilities that Von Meiss mentions: houses should not immediately suggest a precise use. Disadvantages can sometimes provoke ingenious solutions by the owners. ‘Too high’ ceilings, blind spots, or useless empty spaces for example. These conflicting situations gives the occupant the possibility to transform them into advantages so he can imprint his identity. Von Meiss suggests the architect not to create something quite complete. There should be a balance between order and disorder to resolve the double aspect of how “to interpret a collective identity and offer the space to active appropriation by an individual or a small group.”

Von Meiss concludes with a remark that identity next to the condition of utility and construction should be accepted in order to create a decent space for ‘manoeuvre and artistic creativity’.

Meiss, P. v. (1998). Elements of Architecture; Original edition: De la Forme au Lieu 1986, Presses Polytechniques romandes, Lausanne, Switzerland. London: E & FN Spon.

Rapoport, A. (1981). Identity and Environment: a cross-cultural perspective in J.S. Duncan, Housing and Identity: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. London: Croom-Helm.

De Positie van de Kunstenaar

Deze samenvatting is van een artikel geschreven door Els Roelandt en geeft naar mijn inziens een heldere beschrijving van de spanningen in het veld van 'de kunst'. De kunstenaar bevindt zich in een spanningsveld van aan de ene zijde het structurerende beleid en aan de andere zijde zijn kritische autonomie. Wat is de houding van de moderne kunstenaar en wat moet de houding zijn van het instituut? Ik heb het idee dat Roelandt aardig controversieel is en ik stel vraagtekens bij de uitvoerbaarheid van haar oplossingen. Aan de andere kant geeft ze naar mijn idee wel aan waar de kunstenaar behoefte aan heeft.

Deze tekst heb ik gevonden op de site van BAM. BAM is het Vlaamse steunpunt voor Beeldende, Audiovisuele en Mediakunst. Het zegt zelf vanuit een grondige kennis uit de sector en het beleid zich te te situeren tussen sector en beleid. Erg interessant dus gezien het onderwerp van mijn afstuderen. De tekst verscheen oorspronkelijk in ‹H›ART 45 van 26 december 2008.

Links:

Website BAM

De volledige tekst

Samenvatting van de tekst “Een actieve positie voor kunstenaars in een open institutioneel kader” van Els Roelandt

Willem Jan van der Gugten

Een antwoord op de vraag die centraal staat in deze tekst wordt eigenlijk al gegeven in de titel. De vraag is: Wat is de positie van de kunstenaar tegenover het kunstinstituut? Roelandt geeft direct aan dat de ontplooiing van de kunstenaar in de huidige situatie verhinderd lijkt te worden. Het beeld heerst namelijk dat de kunstenaar een autonoom scheppend kunstenaar is - een soort kluizenaar - terwijl de kunstenaar in werkelijkheid actief is vernetwerkt binnen een scène. “Hij reageert met en op anderen en maatschappelijke fenomenen binnen een maatschappelijke en institutionele context”. Hierin worden derden betrokken bij het produceren, voltooien en tonen van werk.

De kwestie is hier of de activiteiten van de kunstenaar moeten worden begrenst tot het produceren van symbolisch kapitaal. Of kan de kunstenaar op institutionele basis een curerende, administratieve of financiële, zelfs commerciële rol vervullen? Roelandt geeft aan de hand van de tekst Cultural Confinement van Robert Smithson aan dat de kunstenaar in de praktijk vaak een marionet is in handen van de curator. Deze tekst werd weliswaar geschreven in de woelige jaren 60 en 70 maar volgens Roelandt is de situatie nauwelijks veranderd. Smithson beschrijft Cultural Confinement (culturele begrenzing) als kunst die wordt geselecteerd: Once the work of art is totally neutralized, ineffective, safe and politically lobotomized it is ready to be consumed by society. (Smithson, 1996, p. 154)

Roelandt pleit voor een meer actieve rol van de kunstenaar binnen het institutionele kader. De kunstenaar moet mede de werking van de organisatie bepalen. Zo kan kunst worden gepresenteerd en omkaderd zoals bedoeld. Daarnaast noemt ze als argument dat de kunstenaar opereert in een financieel, contextueel en educatief netwerk. Financieel is hij afhankelijk van verschillende publieke en private instanties. Contextueel wordt de kunstenaar geconfronteerd met critici binnen met name publieke organisaties. Hierdoor kan de kunstenaar een scherpere articulatie en communicatie ontwikkelen. En tenslotte is de kunstenaar verstrengeld in educatieve en erfgoedstructuren om werk te archiveren, communiceren en te verwerken.

Als hoofdreden voor de bepleitte actieve positie van de kunstenaar noemt Roelandt de rol van de kunstenaar tegenover zijn productie: De kunstenaar is een cultureel producent en geen producent van kunst.

Smithson, R. (1996). The Collected Writings. University of California Press.

LELYSTAD - Joris van Casteren

Het boek Lelystad van Joris van Casteren gaat over zijn jeugd in de toenmalige splinternieuwe stad op het nog maar net drooggelegde Flevoland. Het boek is een autobiografisch verhaal over zijn jeugd onlosmakelijk verbonden aan de stad Lelystad. In mijn idee is het een aanklacht tegen de utopie van Cornelis van Eesteren, de architect van het masterplan.

Erg interessant natuurlijk aangezien dit gaat over de vraag of de stad 'maakbaar' is ja of nee: in welke mate beïnvloed architectuur het leven in de stad en het geluk van de inwoners? Van Casteren lijkt in ieder geval het idee aan te hangen dat architectuur mensen óngelukkig kan maken. Bijzonder is hoe Van Casteren beeldend de fysieke omgeving van het verhaal beschrijft. Het boek gaat over architectuur.

Ik ben net aan het boek begonnen maar dit interview bij Pauw&Witteman en de voorpublicatie zijn zeker een aanrader! Ook heb ik een boekpresentatie over het boek bijgewoond in "De Brakke Grond". (Het cultuurhuis wat onderwerp is van mijn scriptie)

voorpublicatie.pdf

Brakke Grond

This map shows the location of the Brakke Grond. It is close to the Dam-square, in the middle of a block between Rokin, Oudezijds Voorburgwal and the Damstraat. It is somehow hidden for tourists and outsiders. The centre itself is on a little square, a formal monastery at the Nes. The Nes is a street in which allready in the 15th century was a congestion of cultural activities.

Grotere kaart weergeven

Great Spaces

In het artikel Great Spaces - Een architectonische visie op duurzaamheid geven Ruurd Roorda en Bas Kegge een verfrissende visie op het omstreden begrip duurzaamheid. Ze benaderen het niet zozeer op een meetbare energie-technische manier die gebruikelijk is vandaag de dag, maar op een architectonisch-duurzame manier en maken daarmee onderscheid tussen het engelse 'durable' en 'sustainable'. Ze stellen: een technisch volmaakt duurzaam gebouw kan architectonisch falen. Daarmee komen ze bij hun belangrijkste punt: het toppunt van duurzaam bouwen is NIET bouwen. Daarom moeten gebouwen zo lang mogelijk worden gebruikt en daarom is het de taak van de architect om gebouwen te ontwerpen die de proeve van de tijd weten te doorstaan.

Voorbeeld is (nog maar eens) het Pantheon. Doordat het 1800 jaar oud is, is het superduurzaam. 36 keer duurzamer dan een gebouw wat 50 jaar blijft bestaan. Dit gebouw heeft 3 eigenschappen die Roorda en Kegge noemen als reden voor het voortbestaan: Robuustheid, overmaat en de aanwezigheid van een 'Great Space'. Robuustheid om slijtage van gebruik te doorstaan en overmaat om verschillend gebruik mogelijk te maken. "Great Spaces (omschrijven Roorda en Kegge in prachtige bewoordingen): zijn grootse, waardevolle binnenruimtes die overweldigen door hun schoonheid, of door die andere kwaliteit: het sublieme." Het biedt mogelijkheid voor de gedachte: "dit ben ik, dit is de ruimte, dit is de wereld waarin ik leef". Een Great Space is de component waardoor mensen zich aan het gebouw hechten en het eindeloos koesteren, gebruiken en onderhouden. Dat is durability!

Interessant is ook hun visie op de beeldcultuur ontstaan in de 20e eeuw die resulteerde in een architectuur van iconen. De gebouwen die door Roorda en Kegge zijn geanalyseerd kenmerken zich juist door een niet iconografische architectuur: "Ze zijn met hun krachtige interieurs en relatief onbetekenende exterieurs te beschouwen als anti-iconen. Zij vormen een medicijn tegen de uit de hand gelopen nadruk op twee dimenties."

Ik denk dat de visie van de schrijvers niet sluitend is en dat het met name voor het grootste gedeelte van de huidige bouwopgave - de woningbouw - onmogelijk is de aanwijzingen uit dit artikel te volgen. Maar wel moeten dit de uitgangspunten zijn van de architect, zeker wat betreft openbare gebouwen. De Great Spaces zijn in mijn visie monumentale ruimtes. Ruimtes die door dimentie, compositie en materiaalgebruik een schoonheid hebben die, om met de woorden van de schrijvers te spreken, ideologieën overtreffen. Door licht en klimaat wordt een bijna spirituele ervaring oproepen.

De Architect - September 2009 - PODIUM Een architectonische visie op duurzaamheid - Blz. 24 t.m. 27

James Stirling - The Monumentally Informal

Double Coding - I think this article is very interesting because Stirling makes a very nuanced point facing monumentality and modern architecture. He plees for layered architecture which is monumental ánd anti-monumental at the same time. I don't like his buildings so much but I think this aspect of his architecture is very interesting.

Summary (Stirling, 1984)

Stirling adresses the demand of a public building binary: on the one hand it needs to be monumental (because that is a tradition for public buildings) and on the other hand it needs to be informal and populist, hence the anti-monumentalism. I other words: representational and abstract. Stirling claimes that both aspects exists in his buildings.

Tom Avermaete states in the Introduction on the topic Monumentality in his book Architectural Positions that Stirling’s argument ‘recalls the concept of ‘double coding’ of Charles Jencks. This concept concerns layered buildings which appeal to both a public of connoisseurs and to amateurs. There can be introduced a double set of references. One set refers to populist- and commercial- and another to monumental architecture.

Stirlings seems to link monumentality directly with landmarks . Because he states that is it essential to have landmarks in a city and therefore a city needs monumentality. “Without monuments a city would be no place at all”. Jencks probably red texts from Marc Augé. Because a little further in his text he also addresses the term ‘non-place’. This term is used by Marc Augé to explain that a place which cannot be defined as relational, historical and concerned with identity is a ‘non-place’. Stirlings uses the term in a slightly other way but also sees the need for a city to be monumental in some way.

About modern architecture introduced by Bauhaus or the International style ‘call it what you will’, Stirling addresses the notion that this was an utopian revolution which belongs to the past; it was a ‘minority occasion’. We should move forward by looking to the past (as always) and see the Modern Movement as part of the past. Stirling writes: ‘freed from the burden of utopia… we look to a more liberal future producing work perhaps richer in memory and association’.

Stirling, J. (1984). Neue Staatsgalerie Stuttgart. Stuttgart: Finanzministerium Baden-Würtemberg.

Downtown Athletic Club

The Downtown Athletic Club is a skyscraper in New York described by Rem Koolhaas in the book Delirious New York. Its exterior is not quite different from any other skyscraper while its interior stores a health club. Namely it has a golf course on the 7th floor, an swimming pool on the 12th, a garden on the 17th and boxing-, squash-, handbal- and billiardsfascilities on others. Next to that there are restaurants and bedrooms all over the building. Particular is the social compression or congestion as Koolhaas adresses about the Club:

"a social condenser generating and intensifying desirable forms of human intercourse." (Koolhaas, 1978)

Another term Koolhaas adresses in the book is the 'culture of congestion'. The culture of congestion is main topic in the book and it is the status which finds New York itself in. It is congestion of urbanity which makes the skyscraper of all urban instruments the apotheosis of this phenomenon.

This Downtown Athletic Club is an example to explain 'Lobotomy', the phenomenon I named in another post. To be able to build an monument as being a skyscraper and by its serenity totally hiding the - what Koolhaas calls - instability of life in the Metropolis. To seperate the exterior and the interior completely in order to build a monumental city in the chaos of modernity.

Koolhaas, R. (1978). Delirious New York. New York: The Monacelli Press, Inc. .

What Architecture Can Do

Very interesting lecture by Rem Koolhaas talking about urban issues. I didn't watch it completely yet but he seems to explain the role architecture can play by examples of his own designs from the 26th minute on.

Lina Bo Bardi - CESC and MASP

Lina Bo Bardi is was an Italian-Brazilian Architect who made some remarkable buildings in Sao Paol0. I think she managed to build in pure forms really monumental buildings adapted to human size. They relate to the Brazilian urban architecture by there raw, brutalistic appearance but are beautiful in a very subtile way. In the CESC-building she used color in a strategic way to nuance the rawness of concrete. The windows seem to be really sensitive while they have weird forms an seem to be cut out of hard cold concrete.

Doing so I think she managed to use monumentality of forms and material to give the building meaning. People recognize the shape and relate urban activity to its architecture. This is how monumentality should be used nowadays!

This video is a short impression of the CESC. I dont know exactly what this building is for, but there are public sports-fascilities and college rooms or something like that.

Lina Bo Bardi / SESC Pompéia from 0300TV on Vimeo.

This image is of the Sao Paulo Museum of Art (MASP). I don't know anything about the interior or the museum itself but the space she created by a span of 70 meters is a well know public interior in Sao Paolo. This building is by its size and mighty span a monument. It offers a very humble but much used public space.

Tegenlicht - De Eeuw van de Stad

Prachtige afleveringen over de hedendaagse stad en de toekomst. In de aflevering over Amsterdam wordt Amsterdam vergeleken met steden als New York, Los Angeles en Frankfurt in de politiek-economische en stedenbouwkundige context.

Links:

Amsterdam Make-over 2040
VPRO Tegenlicht

De Eeuw van de Stad

Lobotomie, Automonument, Wolkenkrabber

Rem Koolhaas noemt in het boek Delirious New York het fonomeen lobotomy. Dit is de chirurchische term in een operatie waarbij de zogenaamde ‘hersenkwab’ wordt verwijderd. Dit wordt gedaan om gedachteprocessen te scheiden van emoties om verschillende geestelijke storingen te voorkomen. Dit proces vergelijkt Rem Koolhaas met het scheiden van het interieur en exterieur van wolkenkrabbers: “In this way the Monolith spares the outside World the agonies of the continuous changes raging inside it. It hides everyday life.” (Koolhaas, 1978) Een wolkenkrabber hoeft nu niet de continue veranderende accommodaties uit te drukken in zijn gevel zoals volgens Koolhaas vaak in Westerse Architectuur wordt verlangd.

In hetzelfde hoofdstuk introduceert Koolhaas de term ‘Automonument’. Hij stelt dat een gebouw met de grootte en het volume van een wolkenkrabber automatisch een monument is. Hij gaat daarin verder en stelt dat het Automonument ‘het monument van de 20^e eeuw’ is en zijn puurste vorm de wolkenkrabber. . . “It is a solipsism, celebrating only the fact of its disproportionate existence, the shamelessness of its own process of creation.” (Koolhaas, 1978)

Door architectonische lobotomie kan de wolkenkrabber puur ‘een container van stedelijkheid’ zijn. (Heynen, 2004). De wolkenkrabber perst onsamenhangende stedelijkheid samen als een condensator. Het kan totaal verschillende functies in zich verenigen die op zich niks met elkaar of de wolkenkrabber van doen hebben. De wolkenkrabber is door zijn grootte autoritair genoeg om onveranderlijk de tijd te doorstaan. De schaal is de schaal van de metropool. De wolkenkrabber geeft een monumentaal 20^e eeuws stadsgezicht. De wolkenkrabber is het betekenisvolle antwoord op de stedelijke chaos van de moderniteit.

Heynen, H. (2004). Dat is Architectuur. Rotterdam: 010.

Koolhaas, R. (1978). Delirious New York. New York: The Monacelli Press, Inc. .

Summary of the introduction on Modernity in the book "Architectural Positions" (Part 2)

This article is the second part of my summary from the introduction in the book Architectural Positions. In this part there is a description of the 'public sphere' and the connection with 'public spaces'. As said before: 'public space' is a major part of the 'public sphere' and therefore the public sphere is very interesting while studying cities of today.

The public sphere – Gemeinschaft in absentia

Marshall Berman writes in 1982 a book on modernity: All That is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity. Quote: “To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world – and at the same time threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are.” (Berman, 1982)

Many philosophers refer to the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies who already in 1887 describes the social association Gesellschaft in opposition to Gemeinschaft. In a Gesellschaft people live together without being essentially united as in a Gemeinschaft: “In Gemeinschaft they stay together in spite of everything that separetes them; in Gesellschaft they remain separate in spite of everything that unites them.” (Tönnies, 1887) Further Tönnies states that the association Gemeinschaft is found mainly in rural areas and the association Gesellschaft is found mainly in urban environments. Remarkable detail is that Tönnies addresses the most important means regulation the Gesellschaft are contracts and money. (Tönnies, 1887)

The French socialist Emile Durkheim makes a difference between ‘mechanical solidarity’ and ‘organic solidarity’. Mechanical solidarity exists of a repetition of similar segments with a homogeneous group identity. Organic solidarity is based on the differences between individuals by an increasing process of specialization of social roles, professions and occupations.

The German sociologist Georg Simmel writes on individuality and modernity: “the self preservation of certain personalities is bought at the price of devaluating the whole objective world... It drags one’s own personality down into the same worthlessness. “ (Simmel, 1903)

The American urban sociologist Louis Wirth continues: “Modern urban society is the product of a complex interplay of roles”. This makes it possible to participate in different social circles without truly getting to know anyone. Besides that there are very different people living together in a very small area. This means that one is constantly in the company of strangers. (Wirth, 1938)

According to the authors the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman states about modernity: “The promise of liberation from tradition, of individual freedom, and of self realization, a promise which is an inherent part of modernity, comes at a high price. After all, this freedom goes hand in hand with the loss of security, of tacit, shared opinions, and of social ties and shared sentiments, all of which were central to traditional ways of life.”

Public Space: a new mode of social organization

The debate about ‘public space’ is closely related to the debate on the ‘public sphere’ and the ‘public domain’. The term ‘public domain’ is used in the distinction between public and private domain and refers in the text to actual spaces. The ‘public sphere’ refers also to a specific set of practices and is according to the authors often linked to the debate on the development of Western democracy.

Public Sphere

Freitag, Bauman and Habermas agree that the most characteristic element of modernity is the new public sphere. This public sphere is according to Freitag characterized by a new mode of social reproduction. This means that the traditional symbolic and cultural spheres which regulated society are replaced by a debate about the proper organization of society and the proper form of community. This debate takes place in actual public spaces but is also transmitted by new media: newspapers, radio, television and so forth. (And I think the internet is a very important medium nowadays)

Public domain

During the French revolution there was a declaration made defining the modern public sphere for the first time: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, 1798) This document introduces a distinction between public and private domain based on three points:

1. Ownership. The public domain consists of spaces under possession of the government: streets, squares, parks and some public buildings. The private domain consists of private property: land, shops, offices and interior spaces.

2. Accessibility. “The public domain is accessible to all, at every moment of the day.” The private domain is characterized by restrictions.

3. Purpose. The public domain serves the public interest and has a collective purpose. The private domain serves the interests of individuals or a private body like families, businesses and organizations.

But in fact there are many spaces in which the relationship between public and private is more complex.

Berman, M. (1982). All That is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity. New York: Penguin Books.

Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. (1798).

Simmel, G. (1903). Die Grossstädte und das Geistesleben. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44 , 1-24.

De Brakke Grond

www.debrakkegrond.nl

De Brakke Grond is the name of the Flemish Cultural Centre at the Nes in Amsterdam. The Nes is an allay close to Damsquare and Rokin in the historical centre. From the 17th century to the present day the Nes flourish as an accumulation of cultural activities unkown by tourists and visited by a broad, mainly dutch public. The Brakke Grond is topic of my graduation project in which I will reconsider the architecture of this centre, the square, the Nes, and the surrounding historical centre of Amsterdam.

Anthology of Optimism

François Bucher is an Colombian artist, living and working in New York. He was asked by Pieter de Buysser and Jacob Wren to contribute in their 'Anthology of Optimism'. This image is his contribution.

“An Anthology of Optimism is a pre-emptive celebration of a critical optimism we tentatively hope will increase in the twenty-first century.”

This sentence is the opening of the lettre written to Francois Bucher and all kinds of writers, artists, thinkers, scientists, politicians, business people, in which they were asked for a personal reply on the subject: 'critical optimism'. The lettre and the reaction are part of, what they call, an 'Anthology of Optimism' can be found on the website:

www.anthologyofoptimism.com

The show An Anthology of Optimism was also part in short sketches, video and oneliners, of the composed theater performance of the same name at 'De Brakke Grond'. I think they adress the term critical optimism to critic pessimism. They state that pessimism is a defense meganism for humans to not get hurt. The quote someone else in Dutch:

"Optimisme is de rouw van het Pessimisme..."

Summary of the introduction on Modernity in the book "Architectural Positions" (Part 1)

The authors of the book Architectural Positions are Tom Avermaete and Klaske Havik. Tom Avermaete is an architect and researcher with a special interest in the contemporary public realm and the architecture of the city. Klaske Havik is architect and writer and also involved with the section Architecture and Modernity at the TUDelft.

I think the introduction of this book gives a very clear overview of the thoughts about modernity by the most important thinkers on this topic related to the public sphere. Because public space is an major part of the public sphere these theories are very interesting while studying the city of today.

Schiphol

The first alinia the airport Schiphol is being described as a new build city because it offers all kinds of services one could find in a city. The services are being listed: shops, hotels, offices, bars and restaurants; schilphol has its own partition of the Rijksmuseum and a branch of the Salvation Army taking care of the homeless. Besides that there is a Schiphol-police force, a prison and even a mortuary. The centre of the AirportCity is Schiphol Plaza. This space has everything which makes a urban space appealing. It is full of shops, restaurants, bars and hotels. Besides that it is open 24 hours a day and totally sheltered from the weather. It is a space which is always clean and safe by its tight security services and airport police.

The question arises: is this space part of the public domain? Can a space monitored by cameras and mechanisms be a public space? The authors address the following idea about junkies, beggars and rough sleepers: “they hardly dare to enter the modern cathedrals of steel and glass”.

The anthropologist Marc Augé qualifies these new spaces as “non-places”. He writes: “Non-places are spaces of transport and transit that are lacking any historical significance and strong symbolism. If a place can be defined as relational historical and concerned with identity, then a space which cannot be defined as relational historical or concerned with identity will be a non-place.” (Augé, 1995) His statement is that these places does not promote a public experience. They are not capable of bringing people together like cities’ traditional public spaces can!

The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas already stated in 1962 in his work Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit that the public domain is under constant pressure from all sorts of forces and even risks vanishing completely. (Habermas, 1962) The question is addressed: “When a space is defined by restrictions, to what extent are we still free agents?” Following Habermas Michael Sorkin addresses: “The effort to reclaim the city is the struggle of democracy itself. “ (Sorkin, 1992)

They authors address the essential questions on this topic: What influence does architecture have? How can architecture accommodate and represent public life? In order to search for answers one should study the public sphere in the context of modernity. This is for the following reason: “Modernity has affected the way in which architecture approaches the public sphere.”

Modernity

While talking about modernity one should be specific about the difference of the terms ‘modernization’, ‘modernity’ and ‘modernism’. Modernization refers to the process of innovation. Modernity is the experience of modernization, it is the condition arising from technical and socio-economic innovation. Modernism refers to the artistic and intellectual reflection on modernity.

Another important term according modernity is ‘normalization’. Normalization refers to the reorganization of society by new common norms. Modernization caused “a search for a great, new rational world order.” Rational control, structuring, and regulation of life are the keywords.

The authors refer to Michel Foucault if they state that “modern society maintain the illusion of a perfectible world.” Humans who behave unpredictably, irrationally, or in a uncivilized way are being re-educated in specialized institutions: prisons, workhouses and boarding schools. (Foucault, 1963)

Modernity and its stages

According to the Dutch philosopher René Boomkens there are four “historical and philosophical stages of modernity”:

The 1st stage starts in the mid-nineteenth century. This was a time of new inventions, scientific breakthroughs and the rise of industry.

The 2nd stage was the period between the world wars. There was a process of liberation from the past, progress, aim at the future and emancipation. There was a strong utopian believe the perfectibility of society. The reaction on this movement was worried about a return to barbarism.

The 3rd stage was more diffuse. There was a growth of economical prosperity and social mobility but there was also a an increasing process of individualization.

The 4th stage is postmodernity. A claim that modernity brought not only freedom but also alienation and social exclusion. The destructive and volatile aspects of modernity are being enlightened.

- Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. New York: Verso.
- Avermaete, T. en Havik, K. (2009). Architectural Positions - Architecture, Modernity and the Public Sphere: An Everyday Triad. . Amsterdam: SUN publishers.
- Boomkens, R. (1998). Een drempel-wereld. Moderne ervaring en stedelijke openbaarheid.Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
- Foucault, M. (1963). Naissance de la clinique . Paris: PUF.
- Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. . Darmstadt: Luchterhand.
- Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a Theme Park. New York : Hill & Wang.