The Mediating Modernities conference which took place on 24th
and 25th Jan’12 brought together various cultural practitioners to
discuss how modernity is discussed in the 21st century. It was a
valuable experience given the range of speakers who attended it, from artists
to sociologists to film-makers. I particularly found Dr. Asu Aksoy’s
presentation very relevant to what my interest’s area.
Asu Aksoy is doing research into the urban and cultural
formation dealing with migration, globalization and social change in Istanbul,
Turkey. She presented an intriguing article on how the abodes of the
slum-dwellers are being extinguished in Istanbul and how the concept of
informal urbanization is changing.
‘…Informal housing is
about change. It is not about fixavity. It depends on the location, available
resource, skills and the socio-economic context…What dominates informal housing
is all about play, attack and projecting all kinds of negativity and situating
informality as a pre-modern kind of transitory phase…’
The rise of globalization has led to the simultaneous eradication
of the informal housing like road-side shacks, slums et al. It is very similar
to what I observe in an Indian city as well. Following are the points that
emerged out of her presentation:
·
Poor utilization of local resources as the new
buildings are mostly built with the desires of creating a space that will
replicate international living; they seldom use local resources and heavily
rely on materials that are transported from distant areas.
·
DIY architecture where the owner builds with the
help of the community is seen as a chaos by the city planners.
·
Similar to India there is a rather negative
public discourse. So what Asu is attempting is to create a new discourse that
would say something different about the meaning of modernity.
·
She cited similar argument by Anaya Roy that
informal housing is not pre-modern but it is a system of housing that is in
fact embedded in the modern relation of market, state regulation and legality,
and city culture. The art of this kind of housing arose out of need to
accommodate the changing needs of the residents, their respective function and
flexibility.
·
Asu pointed out few interesting aspects from the
case study of Adil.
Ø
Adil’s shack, as she found out, is not just a
social construction or a means for livelihood but it also has an emotional
recall. This is in complete contrast to the view endorsed by corporate and
governments who find these settings pre-modern. So they do rather eradicate
these settings and invest on manufactured spaces like gated communities. The
result of which is a complete loss of the social connectivity that led to the
formation of the slums in the first place. Thus making the people impoverished
and incapacitated. Slums are social enterprises, so it points to the self-worth
and self assuredness of the subject.
Ø
The other interesting point is about navigation.
Borrowing the philosophy of dérive by the Situationists, she points out how
Adil used walking as a tool for engaging with his surroundings though a playful
constructive behaviour and awareness of psycho-geographical effects.
Ø
The other thing is to understand the motive
behind the creation of the space. It was not build as a dwelling place. The
physical structure is not rooted and has no foundation. So it is perishable and
that is a very modern attitude. It is transitory by nature. But as it is a
dwelling, it uses all the cultural and social capital (what is borrowed from
his neighbours). So it is a community
effort and these are social constructions, not individual construction; hence,
they are part of social networks.
Asu pointed out that there is new interest in preserving the
old Ottoman buildings and with the help of the museums; they are creating a
space where the public can engage in constructive debates and discussions. The
point to note here is that history is not just about the historical building
but it also consists of the informal building like the street side shack. So the
question is if we are can really doing justice of preserving our architecture
by selecting only specific build spaces? Also how much of documentation do we
have of the informal sectors that arise overnight and are bulldozed as soon? Talking
about biennale, the question arises on the kind of audience we addressing and
how is it going to be approached. These are few things which need to be
attempted if we need the community to participate.
A similar philosophy is carried out by Urbz. I will briefly
describe a project which was based on the urban village of Khirkee at New
Delhi. The problem was much more acute. The problems of migrants along with
strong market forces had led the village to dissolve into a informal city that
is undergoing tremendous resource crunch to fulfil the needs of a much larger
population than it can handle. The concept of urban villages is interesting in
the sense that they were villages which were self-sufficient. New state
policies led to the inclusion of these villages with the specific state boundaries.
Old indigenously built houses are now giving into malls and offices and
residential complexes. Making it worse is the outpour of migrants. As they are
seen as ‘disorder spaces’, the cost of basic needs are much lower. But due to
lack of engagement with the original residents, there is no one to negotiate
with the market forces, making the place vulnerable to external influences.
Part of the solution might lie in bringing participation based on common
interests.
Part of the problem of tagging such dwellings ‘disorder’
could be that we tend to look from as the outsider. But these places are
actually utilizing public space and they do have order and coherence, just that
it is not visible to the outsiders. The question being asked here is how could
we change the prevailing discourse of a slum/ build environment as rural and
raw in the presence of strong market forces? The current trend is creating
conflicts between those who are changing the environment and those facing
regeneration. The distribution of profits between the residents and the
corporate that are inclined to do regeneration projects has become a major
issue now. So maybe what is required is a new political intervention that will
introduce a new discourse that will liberate people from the market.
Christian Pagh, who
shared his project called PeeBetter brought new perspectives on creating
community participation. PeeBetter consists of public urinals which are enables people to participate, comment and
share ideas, involving the users in creating solution that make life easier for
people at festival, outdoor parties and events. The urinals are aesthetically
designed, easy to install and are hygienic. But the best part is the location.
It is meant for festivals and large gathering. By positioning the urinals
centrally, it is encouraging the public to rethink if something as basic as a
urinal needs to seen as an eyesore. Through the sharing of ideas and
experiences, the design becomes more participatory and has the scope of
evolving into something more personal.
A recurring theme in his projects is the question of time
and ownership in cities. How are groups or individuals allowed to influence and
alter their physical surroundings in public space? How can the atmospheric,
social and cultural qualities of older neighbourhoods be considered and integrated
in new urban contexts?
He points out to the lack of proper utilization of public
spaces in evolving cities and emphasis the need for the users to engage by
providing them the means to create their own spaces. The PeeBetter project was one such attempt to
understand how positive public experience can lead to a change in notions
related to urinals.
To conclude, I will quote Asu,
‘… So to conclude, if
modernism is a tension between the desire and the momentum for freedom on one
hand and the kind of desire and need for order and contentment (freedom), then
the forces of order and controlling are minimal and the individuals drive for
creativity to make his environment capacitated…’
No comments:
Post a Comment