In Materiality in the Garden Privatised Delights
by Lucy Swift
The interest around architectural space in what is publicly owned versus private land is becoming an increasing concern in today’s society. Particularly in a time when social distancing implements into the architectural landscape; space within city topography becomes something of a rare commodity, highly sought after and desired. Most recently, this discussion was held by Sto Werkstatt and The British Council, ‘In Materiality in the garden of privatised delights’ exploring themes of the British Pavilion at the Venice Biennale. Here, British Council’s Architecture Design Director Sevra Davis chaired the discussion with Founder and Author of Why Material Matters, Seetal Solanki along with Manijeh Verghese, Madeline Kessler and Anna Mansfield to discuss what constitutes privatised public space and what the role of materiality is in this space. To those of you within built-up city environments, it is only but a close memory of travelling on busy tubes during rush-hour, to joining the crowd bundled along the street corner outside the pubs of Soho. Spaces such as these may well be privatised however the public use of such a space creates this blurred discourse.
Transformation of a Square in Mallabia | Cubierta Mallabia by BEAR Photo by Luis Diaz Diaz | via ArchDaily
In this discussion, Sto Werkstatt and The British Council take us on a journey of how public privatised space is governed and how space is at risk publicly. With a focus on the role of materiality and immateriality in governing the design and reclaimed use of privatised public spaces, we gain an insight into the importance materials play in designing for complex built environments. What role do architects have when rethinking and planning the use of privatised public space? What tools can they provide the public with to navigate issues surrounding ownership, access rights and planning permission? Issues around public space in architectural surroundings whether that be in city environments or the countryside is but a commodity we are all aware of and subject to in daily life.
Seetal Solanki raises a very valid point in the discussion, that “materials become signals and signifiers in spaces”. Using the examples of a marble temple, the use of such a material evokes feelings of cleanliness and a state of calm in a spiritual setting, versus the natural environment built up of air, water and land there lies an abstract nature to the materials used. The trees, bark, leaves and water can be seen just as much of a material to consider as within those used in urban landscapes. Seetal states there is a “material intelligence” to consider; our surrounding spaces such as trees form communication networks within nature providing oxygen and shade when required. These spaces can form a place to retreat to, but also act on a material level in a very intelligent way.
In this time of lockdown and the gradual release of this social structure, we have a newfound appreciation of public space. Flocking to parks and open spaces to be amongst nature and the outdoors as a form of release from the internal space of our homes. Anna Mansfield states “there has been an increased awareness of understanding spatial language with the implementation of 2 metre distancing”. Spatial language is an aspect now of how the public use space and its centering around concerns for health. Small businesses and cafes however may not have the capacity to cope with this distancing in place, so how we re-design and rebalance these spaces for the future is crucial. There is an “opportunity in how we don’t forget, how do we really want these spaces to look?”. How we protect and treat these public spaces is fundamental for the future in how the public interact with the environment. People are now exploring their local neighbourhoods for the first time, a ‘calling’ so to speak to surround oneself within natural environments.
Looking towards the events sector, as social distancing is implemented in the running of such events, we are “constrained to being outside, the question is, how can this take place if the weather does not permit it?” Manijeh Verghese states. It is important to consider “how to make outside space a longevity” as we think more meaningfully about the activities and interactions that are safe for the long term. Observing spaces such as the Yorkshire Sculpture Park, YSP in how such a large open space may require a structured system in how the public enter and use this space. Sites fortunate enough to have such space will have an ease in implementing these changes, however those in built city spaces face greater challenges.
We live in a material landscape, so as social structures are in flux, it is important to realise the role materials play in shaping our surroundings. Seetal touches on the point that language needs to be reframed in humanising materials, making it something inclusive to understand. To reframe the language used for materials “I am cold, soft, cuddly” describes materials with emotional qualities. Such terms could be applied to describe glass as a cold material, metal as shiny and sponges as cuddly for example. In applying alternate words in relation to materials, Seetal states that it “decolonises materials, so as to be more inclusive without imposed structures on how the material should behave” allowing the material and immaterial aspects to coexist together. As built up environments will attend to many physical changes in the landscape we see today, our relationships with materials and how we engage with it comes of increasing importance. Manijeh Verghese raises that the discourse of what changes are required to cope with social distancing should become a conversation not just for landowners and architects, but open for public conversation. To “construct architecture as an immersive experience that the public can interact with”, test at what capacity the public have within public spaces to alter its use and function within social constructs.
Stewart Semples - Hostile Design Campaign
Stewart Semples - Hostile Design Campaign
Madeline Kessler also touches on the importance language holds in understanding the use of public space. Within supermarkets and parks, physical markers are placed to decipher places for social distancing. She calls upon the example of Stuart Semple’s anti hostile design campaign which raises awareness of inhumane, anti-human designs in public spaces as a form of “design crime”. Stating that these “small interventions start a conversation in a contemporary way of using materials” becomes something of a “campaign through physical space” that should not be overlooked. Such shakers in the design community can assist in the changing of attitudes, it’s challenging, yes, but a fantastic example of how creativity within social design can assist in forming a compassionate design future.
The conversation drifts to aspects of how ‘play’ is an accepted use of space, it’s legitimate and should be more socially accepted in the community. Madeline here stated that “when children don’t feel welcome that's when you know the space isn’t working” highlighting the aspects of space being welcoming and accessible for all ages.
A very interesting question was raised in the discussion by Robert Fiehn, a member of the zoom audience asking “What borderlands are there between public private space and privatised space and what views are there on the boundaries here?”. The problem here lies when space is made less accessible, the closing of streets on private land and even in the street corners of the local pub, there is an enjoyable moment in congressing here. Golden Square in Soho was used as an example of publicly privatised land that becomes an almost ‘grey area’ in ownership used by the public like a clock, as you look from above people move in tandem around the space according to the sunlight however it is being privately owned. There needs to become a negotiation between the public and the private use of land in these two spaces particularly when it comes to accessibility and who has ‘ownership’ of certain spaces. Just as materials are used for particular uses and functions there should be a place for “material rights” with “the material having ownership over spaces” Seetal states. What's interesting here, is that Seetal opens the dialogue towards other species having ownership to claim a space. That in our sense of ‘ownership’ of space we should consider both human and animal rights, but can materials have ownership here? Once a material is relatable, it becomes more inclusive.
Golden Square via Wikipedia
The question is, who really owns this privatised public space? Even through the Occupy London Protest, how does one protest when all the land is privately owned? Manijeh here states that there needs to be a level of tracing to understand where land comes from and who it’s owned by. There should be an intensive need to open up streets to allow spaces for ‘play’ to occur through resident associations and local authorities to take the pressure off the overcrowded parks.
To conclude, issues surrounding publicly privatised space is but a complex conversation largely governed by the authorities and those in power. In this discourse, conversations should open up towards the public, raising awareness of land that is privatised versus public space. Here, the conversation opens towards materials, and the rights of ownership they hold in how a space is used and how this has the potential for a more positive use of spaces in the future. The language needs to be reframed to provide a greater care and respect for our surrounding environment. As Seetal states, “If a material was antibacterial, would greater care be applied here?”, certainly interesting to consider. Nothing truly works in isolation, everything needs to become more harmonised is key within social engagement and use of public space. As such, materials then are used to its full potential rather than generic use. It is these matters, whereby materiality and immateriality exist beyond the human and towards other species. What other living things live in this space to encourage biodiversity? This becomes something not binary, but connected between systems of material ecology. To understand these connections we increase visibility both for material understanding and application in the built environment ensuring it is fit for purpose and with meaningful ecological intention. With aspects of “design crime” in projects such as Stuart Semple’s anti hostile design campaign, there is an element of ‘drama’ where it is through people coming together through physical actions with design ‘interventions’ to redefine how space is used and shared. Those of us lucky enough to have access to green space, take pleasure in this and think about how we can come together as one communal voice for the future in spatial accessibility and understanding. Materials both hold intelligence and rights allowing us to think about aspects of life in more holistic and interconnected ways as we move towards a more democratic and matriarchal way to connect with the spaces around us. Engaging citizens in the conversation allows for a break down in barriers to build awareness through community understanding. I look forward to exploring how the British Pavilion at the Venice Biennale unfolds in displaying this topic and what the future holds as our space alters through this challenging time.
Thank you for reading,
Lucy Swift