By Sam Hewitt

Oil Spaces: the global petroleum scape in the Rotterdam and Hague Area

Summary

This article by Carole Hein explores the history of the petroleum scape as it relates to build spaces. She focuses on the history and background of Oil as a political, ecnonomic and cultural forced and then goes into more depth with two case studies. The first being on the development and proliferation of the oil industry in Rotterdam and The Hague area of Amsterdam. There are several important ideas that hein relates throughout the background information and the case studies. One that she notes early on is the scale and power of the oil industry in shaping the built world. Almost universally the oil industry worked with governmental agencies to build infrastructure that served as a positive feedback loop to further the growth of the oil industry. In this initial step, the main built structures are the facilities such as the refineries, and processing plants. Later, as the industry grows and there is a larger workforce, these companies fund housing, and other community and family recreational facilities for their employees. Another notable development of oil landscapes influence on build structures is the adoption of the industrial oil factory style where buildings aesthetically represent oil refineries. Throughout this article Hein argues that these oil companies and governments have propagated and promoted a positive association between oil based products and joy and adventure such as the use of maps to create an association with cars and freedom and the natural landscape. Hein argues that these Imaginaries, or nattatives about how as citizens we interact with oil products and how aesthetically the oil industry shapes our every day, are initially prompted by oil companies but then the consumers are also complicit in accepting these pro oil narratives. In the conclusion, Hein argues that we should, as designers and artists, use this history to for reference and create new imaginaries, which ultimately means creating new ideas about how to renovate oil structures in the future when they are obsolete. Also, in understanding the large impact of these built structures, their long lifespan, and what they represent, how should we design future spaces of energy production that are greener.

Critique

While I think the general framework of understanding the context and history of oil and how it impacts us culturally and specially, and how they shape the narratives, when designing buildings that are important to this history, I would argue that the designers role is relatively small when creating the narratives of the mainstream. In the examples used by Hein, it was the economic demand for more oil products, initially by the military complex and then by consumers that drove production and the built infrastructure. Similarly, it was the advertising initiatives funded by the oil companies and likely executed by an ad agency that promulgated the pro car and oil narratives. Neither of these are in the domain of the architect. Stylistically, even when architects used their creative liberties to design structures that aesthetically mimicked oil industrial structures, these designs had little sway on the large influence of oil. Maybe it brought up a dialogue such as the pompedu in Paris which was heavily criticized. This is all to say that I think hein overestimates the extent to which designers and architects shaped both the petroleum scape and the narratives of oil.

I do think that the future oriented mindset of imagining and thinking about how to adapt these oil industrial structures is very valuable although there was not any discussion of this in Hein article other than her saying its important to do so. I would rather of her looked at different ways of designing for petroleum scape narratives and looked at their historical basis.Also the author seems to believe that the root of the oil based built structures, infrastructure and products were created for monetary gain by the heads of the oil companies, which is true, and that these powerful oil barons forced these products on us and made the general population believe they were necessary when they were not… while oversimplified this narrative is somewhat implied… this narrative forgets the simple fact that oil products are very useful, convenient and make our life better apart from the negative externalities then incur which is a hyper object so not even recognizable. So this usefulness which drives demand is also a large factor in these narratives, narratives not just derived by the oil companies for their own gain.

One other maybe most important critique is that how does hein suggest we as designers change our designs taking into account the pervasiveness and power of the oil industry in infrastructure and built space. I would argue that while remodeling refieres and future abandoned oil instrustructure is a great and important question, for other buildings I do not think there will be much change in design even with these considerations other than trying to make the building more sustainable and have a lower energy cost. Even then, the built environment overall is one of the most carbon emitting industries for transportation of materials and mining of materials. Understanding that the oil industry is pervasive and powerful is great and I think a lot of us already understand that. Then as a designer or architect what do you d about that. The most sustainable thing to do is to not make a building at all. If you don’t someone else will yet this gets to the root of the issue which is an economic one not a design one. As a culture right now the mainstreamed opposes and detests the oil industry, yet it is still pervasive.

 

Indigenous Modernities

Summary

In This article, Ana Maria Leon and Andrew Herscher argue through various case studies that that modern concept of the grid is largely based in the colonial idea of the grid which is centered on distinguishing patterns of power and ownership. While contrasting the indigenous form of the grid to colonial forms of the grid, Leon and Herscher argue that the two differ in that the colonial framing of the grid is for domination of the world while the indigenous grids were a means to understand their position within the universe.

While many examples are used, the authors are critiquing the root intentionality of the grid and thus critiquing it’s modern uses. In a sense they are arguing that the grid itself and the use of the grid “Authorizes and enables possession.”

In indigenous and colonial grids – the authors delineate the differences between the colonial grid and the indigenous grid. The colonial was based on representations of power while the indigenous was based on open space in communication with the open environment. Tocapu is an example of the indigenous grid relating to cosmology while casts paintings show the grid delineating power.

In mountains and monuments, the authors look more at the colonial writings of Humboldt about indigenous lands, underscoring the colonial frame many colonizers understood and depicted indigenous spaces; for instance the need to use the land as a background in depictions of indigenous structures shows his lack of understanding of the cosmological and social grid used by the Incan empire.

In Settler-colonial Grids, the authors argue that the colonial root of the grid still has a hold in modern architecture. Frank Lloyd wright’s Broadacre city is an example since it was based on the Jeffersonian project of the infinite grid.

Take Aways

• The modern concept of the grid is historically rooted in the idea of power structure and conquest
• There still are other indigenous models and uses of the grid

I mean to Be critical, But

Summary

In this article, Kin Dovey argues critiques the formal critical field of architecture as not being truly critical but passively critical; in other words she argues that the field of critical architecture supports the power structures and precedents that already exists and fail to serve as a change agent. She argues that critical architectural practices can be seen to operate along the dimension of formal construction of meaning and the spatial mediation of everyday life. The formal constructions of meaning being the semantic while the spatial mediation being the physical expressions. While Dover goes into critiques of various critics and architects, her main idea of critical architecture is finding the right balance between the formal semantic theory and the physical. She considers Rem Koolhasas’s projects to exemplify what she believes critical architecture practice should entail. Notably, Dovey notes about Koolhaas’s practice, that “Instead of encoding critical comments or opposing the effects of power his work at times accentuates such effects, rendering architecture more socially transparent.” In this assessment of Koolhaas’s work and in her overall argument there is a push for a more honest form of critique (although she never uses that word). Honest in that it represents the power structures and takes a normative stance. While she praises Koolhaas’s work she criticizes Michael Sorkin’s 9/11 project and other similar projects for being formally open ended it their semantic critiques. Instead Dovey argues critical architecture should “Destabilize the field of architecture, its boundaries, identity, formations and reproductive practices.

Take Aways

• Critical architectural practice for Dovey should balance the formal and physical
• Critical architecture is often doesn’t subvert current power structures and ideologies and is complicit it their continuation

Application:

When applying Dovey’s conception of critical architecture, one example that comes to mind is Centre Pompidou in France by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers. The building itself is posing the semantic and formal critique with the beautiful façade and challenging the idea of classical beauty and asserting industrial aesthetic as beautiful in itself. It is hard to say how Dovey would react to this structure, but I think that she would like the use of boldness and subversion to spark communal and social commentary. I think she would also like the balance between the the semantic/formal and the use of physical structure to convey the critique. Yet, she may critique this building for not subverting or recognizing the power structures that exist and thus be complicit like all of the other practice and theory she critiques.