Friday 7 October 2011
Possession is nine-tenths of the law.
During the August riots in London and around England the police response was particularly closely monitored by news agencies and the public. In Hackney, East London, from where I am writing this piece, the disturbances were at their worst on the second day of disquiet. The police presence rapidly evolved, ominous from the equipment used: the fluorescent jackets of community policing to full riot gear.
With the officers well protected, seemingly a tactic of passive containment was put into motion; officers moving forward during lulls in action of the protestors and making partial retreats when challenged more severely. This, however, allowed those taking part in the disturbances much legroom for opportunistic theft, causing damage to shops and homes alike.
The tactics seemed to quell the will of the mob, perhaps leaving them with spoils and/or proud of making a point to the rest of the nation.
Many of the marginalised in society have very real grievances, yet this argument is not the one we are dealing with here. Why leave property to be taken or damaged in a society that would not normally tolerate such actions in plain view?
In Libya, the Rebels now to be known as the new government have in a Mad Max type manner been re-configuring complex weapons systems, abandoned by the Gaddafi government to suit their less technical expertise. By the time of writing they control most of Libya, a testament to their individual and collective ambition more than technical know-how.
These two instances generate questions of the fundamental principles of possession under a society where the rule of law is not invulnerable.
What are the implications for architecture?
How is a buildings program relevant to or sullied by the society in which it sits, and where do the design team ‘draw a line’ and decide that a building is not in the interests of a wider audience.
Where is the flexibility? A simple example from a friend of mine was a study this year of streetscapes in Soho, Central London, where outdoor seating were always laid within their allotted spaces outside café’s, pubs and restaurants. Yet, sandwich boards, banned in the area on conservation grounds were widely prevalent and dashed across the pavement at many different locations.
With designers often scrambling to be able to build a project it is easy and questionably initially necessary to plumb for projects, which may not have the strictest moral purpose. Do we have the means to contest this; should we care?
Possession is nine tenths of architecture.
With the officers well protected, seemingly a tactic of passive containment was put into motion; officers moving forward during lulls in action of the protestors and making partial retreats when challenged more severely. This, however, allowed those taking part in the disturbances much legroom for opportunistic theft, causing damage to shops and homes alike.
The tactics seemed to quell the will of the mob, perhaps leaving them with spoils and/or proud of making a point to the rest of the nation.
Many of the marginalised in society have very real grievances, yet this argument is not the one we are dealing with here. Why leave property to be taken or damaged in a society that would not normally tolerate such actions in plain view?
In Libya, the Rebels now to be known as the new government have in a Mad Max type manner been re-configuring complex weapons systems, abandoned by the Gaddafi government to suit their less technical expertise. By the time of writing they control most of Libya, a testament to their individual and collective ambition more than technical know-how.
These two instances generate questions of the fundamental principles of possession under a society where the rule of law is not invulnerable.
What are the implications for architecture?
How is a buildings program relevant to or sullied by the society in which it sits, and where do the design team ‘draw a line’ and decide that a building is not in the interests of a wider audience.
Where is the flexibility? A simple example from a friend of mine was a study this year of streetscapes in Soho, Central London, where outdoor seating were always laid within their allotted spaces outside café’s, pubs and restaurants. Yet, sandwich boards, banned in the area on conservation grounds were widely prevalent and dashed across the pavement at many different locations.
With designers often scrambling to be able to build a project it is easy and questionably initially necessary to plumb for projects, which may not have the strictest moral purpose. Do we have the means to contest this; should we care?
Possession is nine tenths of architecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)