“Architecture
after Modernism, Chapter: Industrial Wastelands” by Diane Ghirardo.
Thames & Hudson, Fall 1996, p. 171 - 193
Bara
Safarova
Introduction:
The
material to be reviewed is the introduction to the Chapter Three of
the Architecture after Modernism book by Diane Ghirardo:
Reconfiguring the Urban Sphere and the first of it's three
parts: Industrial wastelands. The chapter is concerned with
the industrial 'ruins' and social gaps left after the departure of an
industry from a city. The aim of the text is to show different
redevelopment approaches to varied 'industrial wastelands'. Overall
the author concludes that large
leftovers present large
problems.
The
text is insightful, the author shows various examples, categorizes
them by size and industry, explains causes for the obsolescence and
solutions in varying depth. The approaches are described at both
political and architectural levels, which supports the argument.
There are exciting yet slightly diverting moments where the author
discusses the role of architects. The main argument is that small
redevelopments come out as delightful and elegant, and big
redevelopments result in controlled, privately owned, and detached
non-cities.
Objective
part:
Ghirardo
starts by pointing out that in the last hundred years there has been
a shift in what commissions architects take on or disdain: e.g.
industrial buildings or minimalls (previously of no interest to
architects, who criticized the décor of a suburban mall and failed
to recognize the social needs it addressed). Today architects fight
for large
industrial redevelopment commissions.
She
continues by explaining how today's mobile economies allow companies
to move around the globe in search for cheaper labor and taxes
abandoning buildings ('wastelands'). She outlines three main
approaches: refurbishment for consumption, demolition for
entrepreneural set up of light industries which leads to
gentrification, and - the argument of the chapter - that large
re-development sites present big problems.
Examples
in support of the argument follow: Fiat Lingotto, a counter example:
Iba at Emscher Park represents a bottom up approach. Obsolete ports
form another supporting example. The main example describes in
detail London Docklands.
The
chapter continues with examples of urban interventions, and
contrasting medium and small size office buildings, parking
structures, etc. which are not part of this summary. Ghirardo
comments that: “The small, individual projects … are
overwhelmingly distinguished works of architecture, which are
elegantly inserted into their surroundings.” The chapter ends with
her main point about massive
urban interventions: they
result in privately controlled, socially disconnected and
discriminatory spaces.
Critical
part:
The
reviewed part of the text is the introduction and a series of
examples of large redevelopments. This is followed by parts
concerning urban and small redevelopments, which further help support
the main argument: large interventions result in socially
irresponsible corporate non-cities.
It
is helpful for the argument that Ghirardo shows how top down and
bottom up approaches lead to unsatisfactory results. The majority of
examples are top down methods, which perhaps reflects the ratio in
reality, a table showing a list of all examples known would have
supported her point to the dot. She assesses built schemes, which
gives her supporting points validity. She explains the process in
varying depth depending on the complexity of the project. She divides
the cases into categories as follows: redevelopment into a place of
consumption (Fiat), bottom up approach (Iba), the docks. She does not
expand on the category mentioned in the introduction: redevelopments
leading to gentrification, which is a shame.
In
her first example Ghirardo explains how Fiat Lingotto left a large
complex with little infrastructure and a lot of unemployment and how
turning it into a center for consumption excluded the working class,
did not provide much employment and the city ended up paying for the
additional infrastructure after all the years of subsidizing the
firm. In this example Ghirardo makes a very clear point that large
firms take subsidies from cities in exchange for providing
employment, but the moment they leave, there is no law that would
enforce a social responsibility onto them.
Iba
at Emscher Park represents a bottom up approach, where residents were
involved in adapting the industrial complex. Ghirardo comments that:
“These were not ideal and broad-scale programs, but actions that
could be reasonably undertaken in a brief period of time.” This
example makes a weaker point, however it is important to mention that
there are approaches that result in socially responsible projects,
which are not sustainable financially. This point would perhaps
deserve more attention and elaboration, so that the author's position
was clear.
Obsolete
ports form another supporting example. The frequent approach is to
turn them into shopping malls to make up for the loss of taxes and
jobs. The example repeats the Fiat case approach. The repetition of
approaches in different instances re-inforces Ghirardo's argument.
The
main example is the London Docklands, where she unfolds the full
history of the rise and decline of the original industry, spends time
explaining the lengthy political struggles, setting up an agency
responsible for the redevelopment and it's strategy to find an
investor, the investor's strategy to find tenants and finally the
brief role of the architect. By simply describing in detail the
processes and showing the years pass by, the author manages to give
the reader a real sense of how much risk and uncertainty there is in
making big decisions about large areas of cities. The reader gets a
fair sense of the financial rules of this kind of 'monopoly game'.
The point where Ghirardo finds the main argument in the very
developer's press release is a sad moment of realization for the
reader and an excellent way to argue a point: “Signature
architecture serves as an important instrument for two related goals:
marketing office space and focusing criticism on form.” Ghirardo
yet again makes a point about the fact that cities are trying to
re-gain loss of revenue and employment. To do so councils try to
attract large investors, in this instance by creating an 'Enterprise
zones' clear of planning requirements and with tax benefits. This
approach led to unbalanced relationship between the investor and the
city, the enterprise zone became detached from it's 'host city' and
yet again ended up catering mostly for the money-spending layer of
society.
The
main body of the text, where Ghirardo describes examples in support
of her argument is mostly clear and somewhat marches in one specific
direction. The introduction to the chapter, where Ghirardo talks
about the shift (architects now take on mundane commissions and
industrial redevelopment projects) is pointing towards a discussion
about the role of architects. It seems that the author is blaming
architects for participating in these colossal interventions. But it
is not the architects who have the power to make decisions whether to
build bottom up or top down or decide the program of the proposals.
They are, as she find later in the press release, mere puppets in the
hands of huge corporations. The parts concerning the role of
architect slightly dilute otherwise well argued point.
Reading
the article made me aware of the political and institutional level of
decision-making, the time frame and the involvement of architects. It
has yet again contributed to my opinion that architects,
master-planners or other development practitioners should be involved
in earlier – political stages of projects to mediate between the
financial interests and the welfare of the community and the planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment