“Indigenous Modernities: The Tocapu and Other American Grids.”

In this reading, the authors explain the history of grids, tracing them to indigenous spaces, the importance of grids to indigenous people’s architecture, and how grids have been historically used to colonize. In indigenous spaces, grids were a common thread of design as they were used to connect people to cosmology and the sky and lay out the importance of the buildings. The authors dive into how explorers such as Alexander von Humboldt,  while drawing indigenous spaces, tended to separate important buildings from their surroundings, separating them from the grid they were meant to be in. The grid is often a vital aspect of the design of an area and is a part of the story.  Humbolt was telling a story he didn’t have the right to tell as he inaccurately depicted Indigenous spaces meant to have those surrounding areas, unlike his drawings included. “European eyes refused to see them,” as the authors say. We then go on to read about the Jefferson grid, which was a grid system used to diagram property that was to be bought and sold.  “A foundational moment for Indigenous genocide in the United States,” In modern architecture, architects like Frank Lloyd Wright looked at the Jeffersonian grid as inspiration for his designs in a city. The grid has a deep history, initially used for important spiritual connection, but over time, colonialism and modernism changed the meaning of grids, and the use of grids has been used as “an instrument to abstract and appropriate territory.”

‘I Mean to Be Critical, But….’” 

In this reading, the author dives into what it means to be critical in architectural practices. Kim Dovey, the author, explains that architects have different definitions of criticality, and their work shows the differences in what they see as critical architecture. Dovey goes on to tell us that critical architecture should be unsettling to the field and the people visiting those spaces. Often, criticality leads to complicity – architects are trying so hard to create critical architecture that it often leads to the building being reduced to its criticality and does not pose as an effort to lead a better future, which the entire idea of criticality is to be critical of things going on in the world and to expose people to these things in hopes of inspiring change. Critical architecture, created to make a statement and to expose people to ideals and feelings, if often too far removed from social content that it cannot be truly critical in the sense that criticality to Dovey means that at least in some way it makes people want a better future and inspires individuals to fight for that better future.  Dovey leaves off with the fact that architecture is often separated from its consequences, and when speaking about critical architecture, this is the exact opposite of what architects should be doing. Thinking of the consequences is vital to creating this thought-provoking space. However, architects fail to see the actual importance of this type of space and are too wrapped up in making it all about the creative design to tie it back to actual social engagement that leads to change.

“Radically Public Architecture.”

Overall, this reading is about sharing the importance of radically public architecture, how architects play a role in creating a “more just society,” and the impact architects have on creating equitable social spaces. The author explains three main aspects of creating “radically public architecture”: equitable, open-ended, and fresh. Public space should “Actively reject discriminatory practices.” It should invite evolution. It should not “fall into conventional patterns” but instead ask people to think deeply and be present and engaged in the space. The author explains this idea through examples of successful public architecture, such as ArchiAid’s community spaces designed for East Japan after the devastating earthquake. ArchiAid “intended to empower the communities directly impacted by the disaster so that they might have fresh visions of possible futures,” ArchAid stepped in to help because they wanted to uplift and support communities where their feelings and ideas weren’t really being considered since all the efforts were put into building massive walls that would separate homes from the ocean rather than the government also considering how the displaced communities felt and taking into consideration what they wanted from the aftermath of destruction of their homes and communities. ArchiAid looked for ways to unite people and support less listened individuals. Architects must build trust within communities for public architecture to take true form. Public architecture is done in the truest sense of just wanting to create spaces for everyone to enjoy. To do this, you must be aware of implicit biases across all levels, your personal biases, and institutional and societal biases; being aware and acknowledging these factors is incredibly important in architecture and for everyone in everyday life. The author leaves us with the thought that creating this space they are describing is a challenging task, yet one that needs to happen; much in life, progress comes with difficulty, but that is no reason not to try or to give up. This author speaks of great importance in the radically public architectural space, and it calls for awareness, engagement, acknowledgment, education, and so much more for it to happen, but it’s possible and necessary.

Critical Response

My response is to Kim Dovey’s ‘I Mean to Be Critical, But….'” There are a lot of aspects of this reading that I agree with. I agree that architects perhaps become too wrapped up in creating this critical architecture that the whole purpose of it gets lost and can lead to complicity. However, I think these professionals have good intentions and want to contribute meaningfully and inspiringly to society. There is so much pressure to perform and succeed in this industry and to be incredibly creative and thought-provoking in the discourse that while in the midst of actually doing the thing, you lose thought of the project’s actual purpose. This perhaps occurs when creating critical architecture, getting lost in creation. I also agree with Dovey when he mentions that Rem Koolhaas would often design, so a person not in the field wouldn’t really be able to understand the work thoroughly. Architecture is already a challenging discourse to understand and understand by someone not involved in the field. If architects are creating critical architecture that is only understood by architects, then what’s the point?

Application

In the 1960s, the Metabolism movement in Japan was in full force, an architectural movement all about dynamic design. The architects wanted to create a new identity for Japan, and the idea of architecture being ever-evolving, much like a biological system that would be able to change when needed, was an essential factor in the metaplastic ideas. One of the most significant examples of metabolist architecture is Kisho Kurokawa’s Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo, Japan, where, over time, if needed, individual capsules can be added or replaced. This architectural idea that there is no one answer and that designs can evolve is a vital component of the concept of a radically public architectural space. 

Key Take-Aways

• Architects play an important societal role in creating equitable public spaces
• Always keep in mind the consequences of a design, who it affects, what it affects, what story it tells
• Creating radically public spaces takes awareness, acknowledgment, engagement, and education
• There is great meaning behind decision, investigate the meaning, ask yourself, “why?”