4 - Learning to Provoke
SUMMARY
PODIUM PRESENTATIONS
Henk Ovink
Henk Ovink began his presentation by acknowledging the distinction in the Netherlands between the political structure and funding context for projects and their legal and policy context. He showed a slide of Cornelius Van Eesteren at work in which he is wearing a white lab coat, noting that urban design was considered an empirical science in the 1930s. A slide showing Woody Allen on the red carpet was accompanied by the suggestion that nostalgia can set a conceptual trap. He stressed the need to look forward, particularly given that the world is predicted to soon be 75% urban, with 90% of global income generated on just 3% of the world’s surface. He asserted that the EU requires the vision to lead, to take the next step, that we need to create new projects, new collective myths. Finally, he cited the example of the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics when the central government said no so the city undertook the project alone through innovative alliances such as that with a gas workers union that resulted in the Olympic flame as we know it today.
Christopher Dell
Christopher Dell of the Institute for Improvisation Technology began his presentation with an etymological analysis of the word ‘provoke’ explaining that it comes from the Latin ‘to call for’ in the context of politics – it came into use around 300BC and originally described what how one could call upon the people when mistreated by the civil authorities. He further outlined how its use was later restricted to citizens and thus raised the question of who had the right to appeal to the law for assistance. Later, he explained, it fell out of use but returned in the context of the French Revolution with the term ‘agent provocateur’ to describe agents of the state tasked with infiltrating dissident groups to inspire illegal acts which in turn could be used to justify harsh reprisals by the authorities. He noted that Jacopa Mulder only had the right to speak when she wore the white coat of the expert, that there is often an aesthetic element to this discussion. He asserted that architecture is still taught in isolation from politics even though space is thought of as performative rather than just a neutral container. He noted that there is a growing hybrid interaction between space, objects and people and proposed that it was a fundamental right of the public to demand a fairer reconfiguration of space.
Theo Deutinger
Theo Deutinger, founding partner of TD Architects, began his presentation with the idea that design is acknowledged as such only when it represents the exception. He explained that modernism was concerned with standards in an attempt to create universals but that standards and universals make design disappear. He stated that while design is against standards, politics is all about establishing standards. He outlined the political design process as a transition from the prototype to the reproducible standard. He showed a slide of the demolition of the Pruitt Igoe housing development to illustrate the point that demolition is the ultimate act of political design, describing the evolution of design from modernism to postmodernism as the process from design to standard to non-design. He contradicted Rem Koolhaas and asserted that architecture is only form and too little content – that there is too much form and too few systems which have the potential for wider application, the potential to have political impact. He proposed that design only provokes twice – once when it works and once when it doesn’t work anymore. He concluded with the challenge that designers need to know not just what people want and need but to imagine, to anticipate what people don’t yet know they want and need.
Marcus Fernhout
Marcus Fernhout, co-founder and -owner of CODUM Activistic Real Estate Development since 2008, his activist development company as an example of how political design works as a way to set the boundaries for political design. He explained that he began as consultant for cities and building owners to learn how to bring about transformation with minimum money. He related the anecdote of how in the course of trying to find 20m2 of office space he came to take up the rent of a 5400m2 office building and described how CODUM came to take three weeks to gather creative companies to fill the building, two months to complete renovations and open a fully-occupied building. He then described the Het Schieblock project in which CODUM took an office block that had been vacant for 20 years that was slated for demolition and redevelopment and was able to demonstrate that it could be profitable for the owner to rather renovate and rent it out – a shift from the current urban model to a temporary city model without the risk associated with demolition and reconstruction in property development. He asserted that the work of CODUM is about the creation of value in existing buildings and described how the Het Schieblock project will form part of the upcoming Rotterdam Biennale. He concluded with the proposal that political design should set the boundaries and facilitate radicalism within these boundaries but shouldn’t require the stakeholders [designers, etc.] to take on excessive financial risk – design must engage with real economy rather than the speculative, leveraged economy.
Wouter Vanstiphout
Wouter Vanstiphout, Art Historian and Professor of Design and Politics at TU Delft, began his presentation with the observation that in the Netherlands the Calvanist sermon with hell fire, punishment and morality is the most effective communication model. He lamented the fact that throughout the western world government now takes pride in what it does not do, in the institutions abolished, the amount public spending is reduced. This form of government views the public sector as an obstacle and favours the self-service idea of citizen engagement. In this context he questioned the role for planning which he categorised as once the most visible manifestation of the public sector. He posited moral commitment to public space, zoning and the public facilities of the city as the incarnation of democracy, liberal economic policy and social emancipation. He contrasted this with a future as illustrated in architectural magazines which currently plot a general trend towards post-architecture [e.g. bottom-up, urban acupuncture, temporary architecture, events spaces, etc.], a future with Berlin as its spiritual capital. He defined the architecture of today as the meeting of the non-conformist left wing that forms the ideological basis for the spontaneous school of urbanism and the neo-liberal Thatcher-ite, Milton Friedman-ite right wing. He offered the Het Schieblock as a prime example of this trend in which the squatting-inspired ideals of its designers and instigators are in concert with the mega-development ideals of the building owner. As a further example he cited the plan for the building to host a project affiliated with the Rotterdam Biennale in which the a crowd-funded pedestrian bridge will sail above the dirty street and connect the Het Schieblock to a creative mini-mall in an adjacent former station. He condemned this initiative – though interesting and important – for by-passing all that is public to connect privatised and specialised urban interiors, as a perfect case of spontaneous urbanism serving the needs of individuals and groups with no illusions about, or connection to, public space or institutions. He reflected upon this strange contract between activism-inspired design and a brutal agenda of de-regulation and commercial project development and cited several recent guidance publications promoting similar initiatives. He expressed his admiration for the enthusiasm, ingenuity and virtuosity of the new activist designers and developers but categorised them as the by-product of the disappearing of politics from the profession of design and the withering of the idea of the public. And he noted the irony that the resulting unfairness and inequality is the very last thing these new designers and developers would want as most are socialists, anarchists or even communists. He asked how we got to this state where left-wing activism confirms the neo-liberal ideal that government is part of the problem and even the planning profession has lost faith in the idea that government is something that belongs to its citizens. He stated the belief that giving up on politics, on the public sector, on public institutions, and on public space represents the end of urban planning. As a result, he asserted that the re-imagination of the public is an absolutely necessary and dangerously underestimated responsibility for the urban planner, urban designer and architect. Now that government is retreating, public funds are drying up, economies are slowing down, and regions are shrinking, he insisted that how and where we invest the public means have become increasingly urgent and important choices. He observed that the city itself is fragmenting into high- and low-income islands pitting immigrants vs. ethnic nationals, educated vs. low educated, etc. and pointed out that these gaps are getting wider and more entrenched spatially. He concluded his sermon with a call for designers to re-imagine wholeness, to make connections and promote public space as a means of bringing people together. He urged the design professions to engage with politics in order to take the next step beyond the creative class ghetto or risk becoming just another island in the archipelago.
Petra Wesseler
Petra Wesseler, Head of Urban Development Projects for the City of Chemnitz, began her presentation with the opinion that the architect is not merely a designer but a professional with a wider responsibility for the built environment. She offered two primary tasks for political design: the representation of democracy such as the parliament buildings in Bonn and social housing. She stressed that in each of these cases the framework, rules and goals must be discussed and agreed early in the commissioning process. She cited a real-world example from her practice in Chemnitz in which a city centre masterplan was adopted in 2000 and used to prevent the implementation of a poor-quality developer proposal in 2004 – she asserted that in this instance the reality of good public space was achieved through an informed ‘no.’ She questioned whether the designer needs to provoke and expressed the opinion that the world is more complicated than this. She concluded with a quotation from Candilis to the effect that ‘the man in the street is the real town builder and the planner must interpret his ideas’ and stressed that we need to learn to communicate and provoke with a smile.
DISCUSSION SUMMARY
There were three primary threads to the discussions that followed the podium presentations:
- regarding the appropriate content and context for effective provocation – there was agreement on the importance of discussion to identify and articulate specific issues and goals with the widest possible currency in order to engage public enthusiasm and to attract the support and sanction of public funding
- regarding public funding in the context of austerity – it was agreed that design can help politics to make strategic decisions regarding the distribution of scare economic resources by [a] supplying compelling visions of how specific initiatives can contribute to a positive whole and [b] supplying the analysis to back up these visions and educate politics and the public
- regarding a new form and vision the masterplan – there was discussion concerning the need for a diversity of masterplan types and scales to replace the conventional zoning plan-based model; the need for mechanisms to give the masterplan the flexibility to acknowledge and react to rapidly changing social, economic and physical conditions in the real world; and the need to relate the masterplan to a compelling narrative vision for change that the public can support [e.g. perhaps something to learn from the pragmatism and real-world experimentation of the IBA model]
PODIUM DISCUSSION
Henk Ovink began the discussion by asking Christopher Dell for his views on the other presentations. Christopher Dell responded with the assertion that the discussion risked an overemphasis on informalism – in his opinion the architectural debate must always be about form – and explained that the meaning of provocation is dependent on context and changes over time. Wouter Vanstiphout then expressed the opinion that ideas that would once have been seen as perverse are now co-opted and drained of impact by a ‘marketplace of ideas.’ Petra Wesseler asserted that real provocation shouldn’t be about crazy ideas and images but rather a more pragmatic approach – asking the right questions and proposing solutions to real problems. She continued to describe how she led eight discussion sessions in Chemnitz to identify and articulate the real problems.
Marcus Fernhout then warned against over-using the terms ‘provoke’ and ‘provocation’ lest they become meaningless ‘marketing-speak’ like ‘sustainability.’ He asserted that innovation must have an urgency provided by real needs that can be aligned with the real needs of others. Wouter Vanstiphout added that what is required is to take one’s own problem and make it bigger until it can have wider currency and collective force behind it – we must also take on the problems of others. Petra Wesseler identified the question of how to learn the problems of others as the primary challenge and recommended that this requires a process of direct dialogue between city authorities and citizens. Theo Deutinger agreed with this focus on process and was critical of the conventional focus within the architectural profession on the physical object.
Henk Ovink then raised the issue of public funding in the current climate of austerity and asked for input regarding how strategic funding decisions should be made. Marcus Fernhout suggested that the current economic situation demands a new breed of design professional while Wouter Vanstiphout insisted that architects should use their skills as storytellers to bend political will to support projects that benefit the collective good. Theo Deutinger agreed and added that architects should use their ability to see the larger picture of the city in order to resist the tendency of politics to think only in terms of narrow problem solving.
When Henk Ovink then asked how architecture and politics can collaborate Petra Wesseler insisted that urban professionals should occupy positions of political responsibility so that public funds can be distributed strategically and effectively. Marcus Fernhout suggested that architects can influence political opinion through raising awareness and initiating projects without public money. Wouter Vanstiphout then cautioned against using a lack of public funding to recommend or assess the value of urban initiatives and suggested that perhaps an absence of public funding might rather be indicative of the fact that public authorities are unconvinced regarding the public value of a project. He expressed the opinion that public investment might usefully signify recognition of an initiative’s quality, as a stamp of public support. Marcus Fernhout replied that increased education of politicians and the public might be required to inform better decisions regarding the distribution of public funding.
Petra Wesseler then asked about the framework or rules or criteria that must be applied to adjudicate upon ‘quality’ and cited the example from Chemnitz in which the masterplan provided the framework for the city to reject a development proposal. Wouter Vanstiphout then observed that architects have almost a genetic predisposition to saying yes. Henk Ovink asked him how he would say no to the bridge project of which he was critical and Wouter Vanstiphout proposed that a simple argument could be made to say no to a pedestrian bridge that bypasses public space even if he can support it as a physical design prototype allied with an innovative funding model. He added that he feels nostalgic for a time in which decisions regarding the city were made on the basis of an idea of wholeness and the collective good rather than isolated specific criteria. Petra Wesseler then explained that there were several steps and layers involved in the Chemnitz example – that first the public and politicians had to say ‘yes’ to the masterplan which could then be used for the sake of the collective good as a basis for saying ‘no’ to private interests. Wouter Vanstiphout asserted that, after saying ‘no’, the challenge is to further employ the masterplan to re-engage and guide the energy of the proposal rather than allow it to dissipate.
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM INVITED PEERS AND THE AUDIENCE
Matthew Griffin of Deadline Office for Architectural Services expressed an interest in further discussion of the interaction between the masterplan and specific instances of practitioners and their clients attempting to realise a project and wondered what it takes for the alignment of collective and individual interests.
ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION
Henk Ovink began the round table discussion with reference to the masterplan as the conventional provider of criteria for evaluating development but asked: How can the masterplan adapt? How does the masterplan react to the unplanned? Don’t most large-scale masterplans fail when confronted with reality? Juergen Patzak-Poor of BARarchitekten questioned whether we all really do agree that the masterplan is an effective model and expressed the opinion that perhaps a new or revised model is required that can be more focused and strategic. Theo Deutinger asserted that the potential for diversity already exists within the masterplan model – he mentioned city branding as a type of masterplan – but that generally only the map- and zoning-fixated version of the masterplan is formulated. He also suggested the need for patience in allowing the city to develop in the framework of a relaxed or simple version of the masterplan. Petra Wesseler also questioned whether we need the traditional masterplan or wider range of plan types more specific to their context and scale of should be implemented. On the other hand, she agreed that clear goals are necessary – some physical and others more in the line of principles. She suggested that the type of masterplan must be based on what one needs the masterplan to do. Regula Luscher, Permanent Secretary for Urban Development in the Berlin Senate Department of Urban Development, asserted that a discussion of the masterplan depends on scale and reiterated that what was required was a flexibility and diversity of masterplan types tailored to various scales and contexts. She also confirmed her belief that the masterplan can be a useful for providing reference points to guide decision-making processes. Wouter Vanstiphout insisted that the masterplan is both a policy document and a social act and cited the example of the Greater London Plan of the 1940s as a document that focused public energy to create a common story for the city. He cautioned against focusing too much on the technical aspects of the masterplan as a document and asserted that the masterplan as a collective cultural act is more important, to the extent that it represents a declaration of faith in the collective. Matthew Griffin agreed that this perspective on the masterplan – as an expression of a collective aspiration for the city – is critical.
Doris Kleilein, founding partner of Bromsky Architecture, then expressed the opinion that western society has lost the idea of shared values and that in the absence of these the city has lost its bearings in terms of what to do and what initiatives to support. She contrasted this current situation with that which prevailed the 1960s when the support for the collective could be clearly translated into support for social housing.
The discussion then shifted to the process of making the masterplan and Regula Luscher asserted that a common-sense collective process is actually more important than the masterplan at the end result. Theo Deutinger agreed that the process was critical to get to a point at which the masterplan represents a narrative in which all citizens can believe. Wouter Vanstiphout warned against the bankruptcy of the masterplan when the result is too mixed up with the process and noted that it can be fatal if the masterplan becomes just a reflection of the complexity of its making. He advocated for a dialectical relationship between the plan and the process and asserted that the plan itself is critical.
Doris Kleilein then highlighted the extent to which the idea of the masterplan is a given in Germany and similar western European countries and this prompted Christopher Dell to express the opinion that this naturalisation of the masterplan, treating it as if its form is fixed, is a critical barrier to its necessary reinvention.
Henk Ovink then asked if it is possible in this context to reinvent the masterplan itself as well as the process behind it. Wouter Vanstiphout offered the IBA as an alternative or an initiative that might influence the reinvention of the masterplan. He characterised the IBA as a non-masterplan masterplan and made positive reference to the prominent role played by a narrative of change in such initiatives. He recommended the IBA as a way to sidestep the technical and process-based shortcomings of the masterplan and emphasise the content. He then made reference to interesting approaches to planning in South American cities and cited the example of Medellin in Colombia which has successfully integrated politics, narrative and design in a climate of great urgency. He called for a diversity of mechanisms to replace the existing masterplan form and suggested that these new mechanisms – possibly to be developed by architects – must include the potential to make, admit and learn from mistakes.
Henk Ovink asked how, in the context of all the problems with the process and the product, all the balancing of actions and interests required, we can break through as practitioners and as the public collective. Michelle Howard of CONSTRUCTCONCEPT cited the 1991 Temple Bar Architectural Framework Plan in Dublin, Ireland as a positive example in which architects came together in to create a plan and a project to knit the city together that actually came to be built. Regula Luscher commented that there are top-down and grassroots modes of planning and there are various instruments – IBA, masterplan, local projects – and scales at which these can be effective. She observed that planners are always jumping between these modes and instruments and scales.
Wouter Vanstiphout then insisted that there must be some principles that ground all these practices and provide goals and criteria against which to evaluate things. Ulrich Beckefeld of the Office for Subversive Architecture asserted that things have to be clear in each moment rather than cast in stone and stated that he has a problem with masterplan because the plan only provides a solution and in doing so loses the question, which could be useful to guide the evolution of the plan during its life.
Henk Ovink then noted that engagement with the city is difficult and that politics finds it difficult to engage with grassroots initiatives – not from any unwillingness but rather out of fear of complex and possibly open-ended processes that lack a frame to limit engagement and mechanisms to integrate the results with existing plans. He observed that there is a gap between what is happening on the ground and top-down politics. In response, Aine Ryan of Aedes/ANCB recalled the ‘sessions’ mentioned by Petra Wesseler and asked if perhaps new instruments for discussion and debate are required. Michelle Howard asserted that it is important for politics to see what is already happening and to support what is already making a positive difference. She cited the example of arts funding that was, in her opinion, wasted in the Based in Berlin exhibition when it could have been used more meaningfully to support the existing arts initiatives in the city.
Wouter Vanstiphout stated his interest in the masterplan as a metaphor for how we can recognise what is valuable in what is already there, in how it can provide a portrait of the city as well as a blueprint for its future. The discussion then returned to the process of making the masterplan and Wouter Vanstiphout expressed the opinion that even a plan as a perfect representation of its process isn’t any more likely to succeed as a built plan. He also asserted his doubt regarding a flexible model for the plan because of the assumption in this that all the unknowns can be accounted for and accommodated and designed into the perfect plan. Regula Luscher agreed and stated that it is critical to keep in mind that we are ‘trying to plan the future,’ not ‘planning the future’ with absolute certainty.
To conclude the discussion, Henk Ovink observed that we will continue to make mistakes but hopefully to engage with these mistakes and learn from them. He acknowledged that we will also continue to make plans in various forms because this is our job, but reminded us that perhaps most importantly we need to listen more in the process. He then thanked the participants for their input and brought the discussion to a close.
