Dialogues: The City as Archive

Sometimes it seems that architects do not make
architecture for people, but for glossy magazines. Here
photographs depict spectacular masterpieces before
occupation, only allowing a strictly curated set of
elements into the scene. After this, people move in and
‘undo’ architecture: hanging up curtains, lamps and
family photographs on the walls; moving in their outof-
style furniture and oriental rugs; relocating doors
and partitioning walls; leaving traces of their footsteps
on the floors. In the course of time, the space becomes
theirs. Needless to say, architecture is more than simply
two-dimensional images of spectacular shapes and
compositions. First and foremost, it is to be occupied
and used by people. In fact, the unspectacular and
sometimes unregarded spaces (what I define as ‘infraordinary’)
are often far more interesting.
On a daily basis people coexist and interact through
the physical dimension of the city as interface.
Architecture itself instigates dialogues between people
- it is the spatial structure of our collective existence.
People coexist and correlate through deposits over time
and events in real-time. This works in multiple scales
from the collective memory of neighbourhoods, street
names and (extraordinary) monuments to the everyday
(non-)events and encounters through stairways,
partitioning walls, windows, kiosks, bars, dry cleaners,
shop-fronts, bus stops etc. The city is a living archive
of present and past inhabitants and events, constantly
transforming.
As architects we need to engage with both the
physical and the social dimension. In fact, the two
can hardly be separated: the city and its inhabitants
can be considered one organism, constantly shaping
each other in a continuous dialogue. The inhabitants
are co-authors of space. Hence, the definition of
architecture as something superior to the built
environment is debateable – and so is the role of the
architect. In order to enter these dialogues, we need to immerse ourselves in the actual fabric of the city.
We must question the usual tools and techniques of
the architect, often applied while sitting behind a
desk or drawing table. Here artistic and critical spatial
practices can lend themselves to engage directly with
the physical reality, beyond reductive representations.
At times, we need to invent techniques to by-pass the
usual hierarchies and frameworks of perception in
order to see what is ‘worn half-invisible by use’ and
draw out their inherent latent qualities or potentials,
thus making way for spatial invention. These could
take many forms: from intelligent aggregates and
installations to performance and creative writing, but
should all possess a situated agency and site-specific
effect. By deploying these in-situ not only do we pose
questions, we also simultaneously propose new spatiotemporal
potentials and realities. Through using the city
as an active laboratory in the scale of 1:1 we can enact
a critical engagement with the built environment and
its occupants: a dialogue, in which we can alternate
between posing questions and answering back.