Vauban, “Learning while Planning.”

 The district of Vauban in Freiburg Germany could be called a model of sustainability when one considers its integrated approach to community planning and concerns for the environment. An array of tactics were envisaged to produce a community whose main goal would be “to implement a city district in a co-operative, participatory way which meets ecological, social, economical and cultural requirements.” (Vauban.de)
 In the early 1990s French troops left their barracks at Vauban, releasing an area 38ha large. Shortly after the departure of the French, the city of Freiburg purchased the parcel of land from the Federal Republic of Germany for 20,000,000€. The initial plan was to develop the district to a high density while also mixing social classes, creating a heterogeneous community. It was planned that some 2,000 housing units would be created to house 5,000 persons while also generating 600 jobs.
 From the beginning Vauban was meant to be a special community. Those involved in its planning did not want to create a simple suburb of homogeneity that would create depressing and isolating conditions, rather they envisioned a community of interaction. To facilitate the attainment of this goal it was necessary that a group be organized to enable dialogues between potential citizens and developers. This group became recognized as Forum Vauban e.V. The group was formed in 1993 and was the legal body of citizen participation in the planning process of Vauban. With approximately 300 members, Forum Vauban e.V. brought together citizens, developers and city council members in such a way that citizens had a direct impact on the planning process through providing input and criticism for the design of their community.
 Forum Vauban e.V. was one of many political bodies organized to attain the realization of the city’s original goals for Vauban. Along with Vauban Forum e.V. there was a specific group on the city council that directly addressed the development of Vauban. S.U.S.I and the Student’s Organization also contributed to the development of Vauban by both retrofitting and building housing units for mixed social classes (students, the elderly) before the city of Freiburg began to redevelop the entire district. The Students’ Organization created 596 dormitory rooms while S.U.S.I. created 45 housing units. Both organizations placed an emphasis on sustainable building practices through use of construction materials, planning and retrofitting.
 S.U.S.I’s building and conservation practices engaged issues of sustainability directly by:
 —preservation of existing buildings, recycling of scrap material left over from construction
 —use of ecologically-sound building material (domestic wood, clay and other things), PVC is not used
 —insulation of exterior walls and roofs using environmentally-sound materials
 —a co-generation plant run with grape oil
 —greening of façades, utilisation of rainwater (Sperling)

 Largely these are characteristic of the entire district as a major emphasis is placed on efficiency and sustainability. These practices are collectively organized and are illustrated well through the Baugruppen. As a significant goal for the development of Vauban had been the integration of mixed social classes a series of issues would need to be overcome, deviating from the traditional method of planning and development of communities. Baugruppen translates as “groups of future building owners” and is a method of planning that relies on intense participation of citizens and clear goals.
 Funding is always an issue and to produce a community that integrates mixed social classes requires innovative practices to ensure the inclusion of those typically excluded. The Baugruppen function to ease the difficulty of cost by gathering a group of persons interested in becoming homeowners and helping them through the planning and developing process. The Baugruppen allow for decreased costs of high quality housing since they bring together a moderately sized group of people who are then able to commission a larger residential unit than the traditional single family home. By increasing the size of the residential structure, there is a significant decrease in costs without loss of quality.
 The Baugruppen then create a multifaceted planning process where interested citizens come together, form a planning and construction collective then implement the construction of their residences. It is not only that a larger residential complex decreases price while maintaining quality, but the process creates a close-knit group of future neighbors. The pre-establishment of communities is one side effect of this intensely time consuming process.
 Collective action and participatory process are common traits throughout much of Vauban’s community engagements. There is not a desire to isolate within this community or create exclusive land uses reserved for an elite. The Baugruppen especially stress the development of communal property/land. Common green and informal spaces are tucked throughout the district, these could include the playground-like paths/roads or the shared offices situated in many of the residential complexes. Features of the residential developments are varied as they are collectively designed and planned, however specific tendencies such as elevators and offices can be found and contribute to the accessibility of these spaces in regards to age and occupation.
 Another specific trait of Vauban is the separation of cars from community. There are only two community parking garages located within the community and car-free households are encouraged through transit incentives and reduced building costs. Vehicles are allowed into the residential ares but for the very limited purposes of pick-up and/or delivery. When they are passing through the community, vehicles are restricted to a walking speed limit, or 5 mph.
 Reduced building costs emphasize the desires of the community to reduce personal vehicle usage. These reduced costs are made possible by the requirement that car-owning households must pay for a parking spot in one of the two community garages. Those households without cars are then relieved of this cost while also receiving transit incentives such as metro passes and reduced train fare. It is also key to mention that Vauban is situated 3km from central Freiburg and there are a number of public transit options. These public transit options include a car sharing service, two bus lines, a tram line and an expected suburban train line. Within the first residential development area, 130 of 280 households are car-free.
 The impact of reduced vehicle usage has been a thoroughly walkable community. It is not entirely uncommon to see children playing in the roads, which are really more paths due to their reduced size, or an array of cyclists. Emphasis has been placed on the walkability of the community both through fewer cars and planning measured by walking distances. Public input was also well received for the design of the residential streets. Requests included that there be many benches and green spaces interspersed throughout the streets. This has turned what in many communities is a repressive threshold into a fluid communal space that encourages interaction among citizens.
 Vauban’s commitment to providing a well-informed, ecologically friendly community takes many forms. The physical environment reflects this dedication through a wide range of sustainable building and energy practices. All new buildings within the Vauban district were required to be low energy houses (65kWH/m2) or passive energy houses (15kWH/m2). Community planning dictated that all façades would face either East or West. There are exceptions made for passive energy homes as their façades must be South facing. In the first wave of development there had been 42 housing units in three passive housing projects. The second wave of building was to contribute to the growth of this quantity and 50 more housing units in passive housing were to be constructed. Also in the first section of development is Europe’s largest solar settlement, as of 2000, containing 150 plus-energy houses; these units produce more energy through solar power than they consume.
 In terms of infrastructural innovation, Vauban has implemented a co-generation plant, rainwater catchment and a vacuum sanitation system. The co-generation plant produces energy through wood chips and natural gas (80/20). Linked to this plant Freiburg’s public utilities are building a short-distance heating grid. The rainwater catchment system is a solution to the nearly impermeable soil in Vauban. Residential gardens act as water catchment systems, redirecting the rainwater into two ditches. Gravel connects the ditches to ground-water strata with layers of soil acting as filtration devices. The vacuum sanitation system redirects human waste through vacuum tubes to a natural gas reactor. The waste is then anaerobically fermented with household waste, creating a biogas that can be used for cooking. The remaining grey water is then filtered through biofilm plants and is ready to be re-enter the water cycle. (Sperling)
 The district contains a series of social and physical innovations. In addition to the facilities described above there are a number of other communal services such as a Kindergarten and Elementary School, a food cooperative, a central marketplace, a mother’s center, childcare centers and a community center. (Vauban.de) The planning process of the district has lightly been described and architectural considerations have been completely ignored in this description. The plethora of residential developments are contained within a wide category, really only excluding single family homes. There is no definitive architectural style within the community however there is a continuous integration of energy initiatives within building which contribute to the abundance of green roofs, solar-cell covered roofs and façades characteristic of their energy consumption; passive energy houses have minute windows on their North faces as part of regulating the thermal cycle.
 It is difficult to critique Vauban as so many of its traits are extremely desirable. Its own website, Vauban.de, notes that there is an unbalanced age distribution as the youth is already requiring further educational facilities as its population is greater than anticipated or planned. My exposure to any demographic data for Vauban is limited however the housing types complicate understanding the community make-up since student dormitory rooms and the S.U.S.I development are nontraditional housing types that include multiple strata of society. The self reflexive criticism noted on the website appears substantial since Vauban was originally envisioned as an aggregate of social classes. Whether this has been accomplished remains unclear.
 Further, the strongest points of Vauban could also be considered its handicap. The level of involvement that was required for many of the residential units to be developed is astounding, especially considering that in many cases physical labor was a required aspect of the Baugruppen or other initiatives. While I believe this is one of its strongest traits, it could easily be critiqued for its level of participation. I think that any substantial argument against this level of involvement is rooted in a misinformed approach to community design that ignores the substantial energy of the public. In truth, my only concerns for Vauban are its integration of social classes as I am a strong supporter of the process and methods that gave rise to Vauban.
 It is especially useful to place emphasis on the city’s mantra of “learning while planning” which guided the development of Vauban. In terms of community, the district is situated with a stable base due to the involvement of those who formed the community. This is remarkably different from planning processes that characterize “traditional” suburban or urban redevelopment where a specific social class is targeted and purchases houses lacking character or personalization. “A house is not a home” has been with us for many years, however in Vauban the district specializes in the creation of homes and a community, not houses in a suburb. Learning through planning was an essential aspect of this community formation as ideology was conveyed to new citizens through energy initiatives, group work and an awareness of their becoming community.
 Vauban does produce a series of questions regarding the feasibility of expansion and contraction as time progresses. While community involvement has been initially high, as the district continues to grow, if it is allowed to, will the increased complexity of political programs diminish community involvement and awareness? As Vauban expands will the model of “learning while planning” remain an option for an increasingly complex site of development? This concern may only be pacified as Vauban is given the chance to expand and contract, demonstrating the ability of participatory planning to meet the demands of higher volumes of development.

 As was mentioned, the strongest points of Vauban can also be considered its serious weaknesses. High levels of involvement in planning and eco-consciousness may be understood as unAmerican and largely a European practice. This thought is highly flawed though and the growing green marketing campaign is now distributing these ideas to the masses when previously they were thought to be fringe, counter-culture movements. Whatever forms isolation took in the planning of early suburbs, whether through physical design or a consumerist approach, are also now beginning to shift into a new mode of participation. With the current political climate that emphasizes “grassroots mobilization” in many aspects of life there is a growing tendency to negate polarizing concepts such as private/public. These situations are contributing to a shift in emphasis that is tangential to historical development, isolated suburbs protecting homogenous social classes could only last for so long. Vauban appears to be a prime example of one form that may rise from these conditions.
 Any anxieties that remain from studying Vauban are purely related to collective integration of social classes and perpetuating ecoideology. While both concepts come under heavy critique and carry with them a plethora of cultural baggage, when divorced from the form of semantics the content of these ideas remain workable and will contribute to new definitions of city and development.

Bibliography
Homes and Community Agency, “Vauban: Community-led Design”, “http://www.urbandesigncompendium.co.uk/vauban” (accessed 10/25/09)

Vauban District-Freiburg Germany, “Introduction”, http://www.vauban.de (accessed 10/15/09)

Sperling, Carsten. “A Journey Through the Model District Vauban”, Forum Vauban e.V., (2000)
try{Typekit.load();}catch(e){}<a

Infrastructure, the Queensboro Corporation and “Garden Apartments”

A few figures
DATE
Early 1910s through early 1950s

ARCHITECT(s)-
Charles Peck, George Wells, Andrew Thomas, Robert Tappan, C.D. and D.E. McAvoy

DEVELOPER
Queensboro Corporation, Edward MacDougall

BOUNDARIES
76th (East), 88th (West), Northern Boulevard (North) and Roosevelt Avenue (South)
-New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee

TYPE
“garden apartments”, “garden homes” and rowhouses

PUBLIC TRANSIT
Subway
E F G R V 7
Bus
Q32 Q33 Q45 Q47 Q49 Q53

DEVELOPMENTS
Municipal: Community United Methodist Church Complex, Saint Joan of Arc RC Church Complex, Public School (PS) 69, Post Office, Queens Borough Public Library, Country Club, Tennis Courts & Golf Course

Residential: Hawthorne Court, Elm Court, Hampton Court, Laburnum Court, The Towers, Hayes Court, Ivy Court, Spanish Gardens, Cambridge Court, Cedar Court, Linden Court, Hamilton Court, The Chateau, The Greystone Apartments, Laurel Court, Colonial Apartments, Plymouth Houses, Roosevelt Terrace, Dunolly Gardens, Oban Court & Penrhyn Court

A concise history
The development of Jackson Heights Queens is largely linked to investment in infrastructure such as the Queensboro Bridge in 1909, the extension of the subway as far as Flushing and the growth of Long Island City as one of the city’s largest manufacturing centers (NYCLPC 10). As transit was developed linking Manhattan with the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens these farmlands became profitable business ventures and expansion continued.

The Queensboro Corporation was formed by a number of Queens businessmen in 1909. Between 1910 and 1914 the corporation purchased 350 acres of undeveloped land in the Trains Meadow section of Newton, Queens. The expansion of the subway is intimately tied to the Queensboro Corporation. Mayor John Purroy Mitchell had served as President of the Board of Aldermen for the Queensboro Corporation, pushing through a number of subway extensions with stops along Queensboro’s tract of land.

While development within Jackson Heights was varied due to financial restraints of the Great Depression and World War II, there are a number of common elements present throughout the neighborhood. These commonalities include:
-planning and design of residential building types using the city block as a base unit
-integration of commercial, institutional, entertainment and transportation facilities with residential units
-plan of cooperative ownership in garden apartment complexes an interior block of undivided landscaped space
-cross ventilation, light and views due to landscaped space

Most early building by the Queensboro Corporation was centered around developing infrastructure for the development of Jackson Heights. In this process the corporation differed from a number of other developers by planning the community in such a way that increased light while also reducing the amount of coverage on each site. Queensboro Corporation actively practiced reduced lot coverage, for example 58% with Plymouth Apartments and Willow Court. This figure was substantially less than the legal seventy percent established by the Tenement House Law of 1901. This reduced lot coverage proved financially successful and attractive to the middle and upper class the corporation was seeking to attract; providing shared open spaces down the center of each block, creating garden views and radically different environments than previous communities. The grid system of Manhattan was continued in Jackson Heights, however the long orientation of blocks was in a North-South orientation rather than East-West as in Manhattan; this orientation allowed for greater light exposure and quality.

The residential units in Jackson Heights were also unique by including a number of contemporary features such as push-button elevators and attached ground floor garages. The first few developments in Jackson Heights, the rowhouses on 82nd street and Laurel Court (see pages 10 & 23), were primarily apartment style housing integrated with municipal and commercial buildings. Queensboro was receptive to the demand of World War II veterans and widened development to include single family and “convertible” two family homes. By the 1920s Queensboro had begun selling parcels of its land to outside developers with the agreement that Queensboro would manage the properties for the first ten years. While the introduction of outside developers clearly changed the continuity of design, the original principles of shared landscaped spaces, cross ventilation, the city block as the planning unit and increased light and views remained frequently pursued.

From the start of development the Queensboro Corporation had in mind the construction of a total community by including religious, social, commercial, educational and recreational buildings in its plans for Jackson Heights. These communities were established through a series of adventurous building projects including a mixed-used development featuring: a 500-room hotel, forty stores and a taxi/bus terminal (see page 21)(NYCPLC 24). As world events led to a changing economic landscape Queensboro began to redirect its energies into producing more affordable apartment buildings and cooperatives with features of the original garden apartments and houses. The first apartment buildings produced by Queensboro were rentals and it was not until 1919 that the corporation followed a track of cooperative ownership (NYCPLC 26).

The process for cooperative ownership consisted of Queensboro Corporation selling the apartment buildings it had erected to corporations of tenant-shareholders. The tenant-shareholder corporation would own full equity of the apartment building and Queensboro Corporation would manage the property for the first ten years. Therefore a buyer would not purchase a property/apartment outright rather they would purchase stock/share in the tenant/shareholder corporation and would be given a proprietary lease to an apartment. “Instead of paying the entire equity price of the apartment prior to occupancy, the buyer made an initial payment of ten to twenty percent of the total equity price, which included the underlying mortgage, and paid the balance monthly on the same basis as rent over a period of eight to twenty years. Half of each monthly payment was applied to the purchase price and the balance was applied to maintenance of the property” (NYCPLC 26). Queensboro Corporation marketed these cooperatives as a way to invest in a safe, stable community while also receiving a profitable return on a tenant’s investment.

The earliest residential units constructed in Jackson Heights consisted of the rowhouses built in 1911 on the west side of 83rd street. These rowhouses consisted of three levels: an upper level, a lower level and a basement. These rowhouses were designed by Charles Peck and are characteristic of rowhouse development in New York during the early 20th century. These serve as an indicator of what Jackson Heights may have looked like had Queensboro Corporation not switched development paths to the “garden apartments” and “garden houses.” A significant shift occurred in development when George H. Wells and Andrew J. Thomas began designing for Queensboro Corporation.

In 1914, 1915 and 1916 along west 82nd street Queensboro Corporation developed its first apartment buildings, designed by George H. Wells. These apartment buildings utilized long tracks of building and the city block as the planning unit. Focus was placed on reducing lot size to allow for greater amounts of light and ventilation however these apartment buildings were only steps towards the “garden apartment” complexes Jackson Heights became known for. They included: Laurel Court, Oban Court and Penrhyn Court, Willow Court, Colonial Apartments and Plymouth Apartments (see pages 24, 28, 25, 26). Plymouth Apartments and Willow Court mark a definite departure from Wells’ earlier work by reducing lot size and moving closer to the “garden apartments” than the other designs. The Greystone Apartments (see page 23)marked the further development of the “garden apartment” block planning. Advances consisted of reduced lot coverage, only 38%, and unified “T-shaped” buildings that join to for “U-shaped” courts that continued to the rear of the lot forming gardens. “Each room opens onto either the tree lined street or the landscaped rear garden” (NYCPLC 30).

Andrew J. Thomas was raised in tenement housing, worked collecting rent in tenement housing and later became a reformer of tenement housing producing what we now recognize as the “garden apartment.” He was a largely untrained, self-taught architect who gained most of his design experience while working for the Emergency Fleet Corporation designing tenement housing (Stern). It was announced by MacDougall, of the Queensboro Corporation, in 1917 that an entire block of garden apartments was being planned for development. The responsibility for this design was given to Thomas since he had recently gained recognition in New York City for his work with the City and Suburban Homes Corporation and the Emergency Fleet Corporation. Thomas’ experience with high-density tenement housing proved fruitful for the development of the garden apartment blocks promised by the Queensboro Corporation.

At Linden Court (see page 20)Thomas’ design consisted of two detached blockfronts framing an interior garden. These blockfronts were formed by identical buildings with punctures periodically, actually driveways, allowing for entrance to the inner garden. “Among the other innovative features of the complex, besides the provision of ground-level garages, was the introduction of the enclosed loggia, “creating not only an aspect of a country house in an apartment house, but the comfort as well.” (NYCPLC 33) The formal design qualities were not only reflected through built structures though, attention was given to landscaped space throughout the design of these garden blocks. “After the streets had been laid out, each block was framed by a continuous grass strip that ran on all four sides between the street curb and the sidewalk” (NYCPLC 35). The apartment buildings themselves were then set back from the building line producing a buffer of green space contributing to the emphasis on garden greenery and creating a dialogue with the interior gardens that ran through the center of the housing block.

The production of a community rather than just another development of apartment complexes was a serious concern for the Queensboro Corporation. This was reflected in MacDougall’s thrust to establish municipal and commercial ventures. Until the 1920s there were no religious structures in Jackson Heights, instead congregations held service in empty storefronts. Queensboro supported the development of these religious institutions by donating land and funds, specifically in the case of the Community United Methodist Church (see page 29). Other religious institutions developed afterwards though with different histories, these include: St. Joan of Arc R.C. Church Complex (see page 30), First Church of Christ-Scientist, the Jewish Center and Young Israel. Municipal buildings continued to be developed from the 20’s through the 40’s and were located on or near the main commercial street of 37th avenue (NYCPLC 41).

Commercial spaces in Jackson Heights maintained the regularity and continuity of the garden block style by utilizing similar architectural style and also incorporating features of adjoining residential buildings. Two commercial thoroughfares exist in the historic district of Jackson Heights, these include the spine of 37th avenue and the intersecting block of 82nd street between Roosevelt Avenue and 37th street (see page 15). The 82nd street block was within close proximity to the elevated train station providing opportunity for commercial ventures. A cluster of commercial buildings were erected at the intersection of 82nd street and 37th avenue, the first being designed/constructed in 1921-1922 followed by a series of other buildings to follow, including the Queensboro’s very own headquarters.

Response to Jackson Heights

Largely the project undertaken by the Queensboro Corporation in developing Jackson Heights Queens introduced a number of innovations into the realm of city planning within the United States in the early twentieth century. These innovations were modelled after contemporary community plans in Europe at the time, informed by a number of suburbs though specifically the German suburb of Charlottenburg.

The Queensboro Corporation proved to be fairly innovative in a number of ways and developed a cohesive model for other urban communities. Unlike much (then) contemporary American development Queensboro Corporation retained a commitment to reducing lot coverage that created a distinct amount of green space. The impetus for this was provided by the Tenement House Law of 1909, a reaction to the atrocious housing conditions of the times. The law reduced legal lot coverage to seventy percent while also increasing the minimum area of courtyards and air vents/shafts. Queensboro was unique in further reducing lot coverage while also maintaining a marketable residential community that was enhanced by a green block down the center of most blocks.

The effect of this lot coverage reduction was two-fold however. It was not only that Queensboro Corporation was innovative by creating more green space for residents by pushing the buildings to the outer edges of the block, it also included the utilization of the physical block as a planning unit. Unlike most developments of the time residential complexes lacked continuity and flow, apparent in the disjointed plans of tenement housing. This created difficulty in organizing space as the production of said space was sporadic at best and introduced a wide array of undesirable results. Through the use of the city block as a planning unit the ability to produce a continuity impacted by a larger vision was enacted.

For Queensboro Corporation this “larger vision” included the integration of mixed-uses within the planning of these residential blocks. If the city block were to be divided in thirds length-wise, Queensboro Corporation aimed to devote at least 1/3 of the space to green land. This plan incorporated a certain amount of flexibility, establishing the opportunity to introduce commercial and municipal spaces within the overall plan for a given block. Due to the inclusion of this central green space down each block center a myriad of benefits were generated. These included but were not limited to desirable views, ventilation, quality of life, dynamic social space and integration within the entire neighborhood.

Jackson Heights was not limited to a single building type such as single family homes with attached garages or the (then) more current rowhouses. The ability to provide an array of choices was both the product of the economic landscape before and during the postwar period and the flexibility of Queensboro Corporation in meeting the demands of the market. I believe this characteristic contributed to the success of Jackson Heights in a number of ways. The homogeneity of many planned communities today introduces a real problem for both planners and residents by limiting variation and difference. From discussion within the seminar we have addressed the issue of different economic strata and the ability to either layer these strata or separate them spatially. Originally Jackson Heights was planned and marketed to the rising middle class within America, introducing three types of residential units: rowhouses, single family and “convertible” two family homes. While the original intent of Jackson Heights clearly excluded those outside the middle class, both the economic landscape of the early twentieth century and the force of time have counteracted that intent through the introduction of cooperative ownership and also the meshing of Queensboro’s total control with outside developers.

There were also a number of municipal amenities provided for the residents of the neighborhood including a school, post office, public library and recreational facilities. As the expansion of the subway line into Flushing spurred the production of Jackson Heights, the neighborhood also provided its residents with a moderate commute to midtown Manhattan and accessible circulation throughout the city. It is also of key importance that an acting board member of the corporation was mayor for a time and heavily impacted the creation of subway stops throughout the Jackson Heights neighborhood.

Then, as now, there was relatively little space planned for automobiles besides the city streets. Some houses introduced a ground-level garage but the street was mainly utilized for parking. As of today there is little to no constructed space for parking. Most land usage is dedicated to multi-family dwellings and public institutions. I believe this lack of parking structures is key in urban development as the automobile is fairly unnecessary for many city dwellers situated in a community such as Jackson Heights, with a plethora of public transit opportunities to circulate throughout the city.

When considering both the initial plan of Jackson Heights and its function today I feel its strongest points are the diversity of residential spaces, integration of planning through the use of the city block and its proximity to public transit. The city block as a planning unit established a set of principles for the Queensboro Corporation that functioned to combat the qualms of earlier tenement housing. Through planned integration of residential, commercial and municipal spaces Jackson Heights was, and remains, a continuous community. Heavy reliance for this continuity is due to the green corridor that runs through the center of most blocks. This corridor is central to the character of Jackson Heights and establishes a number of unequalled opportunities due to its inclusion.

The diversity of residential spaces must be considered a key point of the planning. By providing housing opportunities for a series of combinations rather than a specific array, such as the single family with attached two car garage, I believe Queensboro Corporation demonstrated a planning principle that needs to be repeated to ensure the quality of communities- difference and variation. While it can easily be said that the corporation did not accommodate a diverse enough client base I believe through a range of price points and multiple dwelling types they at least introduced a concept that can be further elaborated.

The impetus for Jackson Heights’ construction was the expansion of public transit into Flushing. This really cannot be stressed enough as a positive point as it mostly eliminates the need for a car and provides residents with easy access to circulation throughout the city. The reliance on public transit and investment in its expansion proved fruitful for Jackson Heights though the city’s accommodations for automobiles interrupted what may have been an even more grand design. Having stated this I believe the corporation produced a wonderful design in terms of the city block however the city grid clearly introduced an obstruction to an even more continuous plan that would have provided an even greater expanse of desired green space. With over ten bus and subway stops in the neighborhood respectively a greater success in terms of planning may have been situated in interrupting the city grid or somehow more dynamically integrating it.

These concerns are mainly involved with increasing the diversity of availability to different social strata and encouraging a further emphasis on the introduction of green corridors in place of pavement based design. None of these concerns are mutually exclusive and I feel that Queensboro’s planning introduced a number of concepts that can be refigured to meet today’s demands. While the corporation introduced fairly progressive standards the community was typically exclusive and did a poor job of integrating different social classes. These suggestions and concerns should also interrogate the function of the green corridors which are a hallmark of the development. As concern for green space and sustainability is largely a contemporary production, the utility of the green corridors appeared largely untapped in the past and is a terrible shortcoming as a number of sustainable practices could have been enacted to benefit the community.

Notes
New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee, “Jackson Heights: Historic District,” (October, 1993) 1-244.

Stern, Robert; Gilmartin, Robert; Mellins, Thomas, New York 1930-Architecture between the two world wars (New York City: Rizzoli, 1987), 479-791

Stern, Robert; Mellins, Thomas; Fisman, David, New York 1960-Architecture and Urbanism between the Second World War and the Bicentennial (New York City: Monacelli Press, 1995), 993-993

Anxious nation, proliferating sites; or the Marx-Engels-Forum in context(s)

The Marx-Engels-Forum in Berlin, Germany occupies a complex site that reflects both upon historical development and envisioned future changes. Located on the Eastern side of the Spree River, near Schinkel’s former Lustgarten, the forum is a somber green space that divides itself from the concrete grid through its interruption by a light belt of trees. Within the Marx-Engels-Forum are a number of public sculptures, the residue of the former German Democratic Republic. These public artworks convey a series of messages both from the former GDR and the contemporary governing body; first through their production and secondly through their preservation. While the memories these sculptures evoke often reinvigorate an East German cultural legacy, the forum itself is a surprising remainder from a regime whose traces are being increasingly removed1 in a program of urban revitalization and through the production of a new German identity.

The process of establishing a coherent system of development for the postwar Berlin with the unstable desires of the GDR proved to be difficult but is illustrated through both the conception and then realization of the Marx-Engels-Forum. Postwar Berlin was concerned both with the construction of new housing and the construction of a new modern socialist identity through the development of its city center. (Diedendorf 191-2) After the second World War a high percentage of Berlin had been destroyed2, including both citizens of the city and the built environment itself. This situation created a tense atmosphere for a newly founded democratic republic but contributed to a prioritization of public housing projects over monumental architecture and republic novelties.
When examining the history of urbanism in Berlin after the war, the GDR’S discplined dedication to public housing over republic monumentality is apparent. There are of course dramatic changes in design and plan of these projects, but these alterations reflect larger political struggles related to national identity and are not so much related to the postponement of housing development. This project is characterized by a dramatic shift in style that illustrates the sobering of political tendencies, a symptom of the ebb and flow of political leaders in office. The Karl-Marx-Allee, formerly the Frankfurter Allee and then the Stalinallee, provides a legible history for understanding the changes within urban planning while also providing the basis for a situated understanding of the Marx-Engels-Forum.

Where will the workers live?
In the 1950s while under the leadership of Walter Ulbricht, an architectural and urban language was provided through the importation of Soviet Neoclassicism3. The common heritage of this language was developed when the GDR sent a group of architects and urbanists to the Soviet Union to learn the current Socialist design methods. The result of this trip was the “Sixteen Principles for the Restructuring of Cities” published by the GDR and devoted to a type of anti-Modernism, refocusing on the city center and the place of the worker within the city. Both the program and language were essentially hegemonic tendencies placed upon the GDR as part of an integration with the USSR. The outcome of these new urbanist guidelines can be read through the semiotics of Karl-Marx-Allee.
The construction and design of Karl-Marx-Allee was captive to at least two goals which included the production of a new modern socialist identity and the provision of much needed housing. To create this new modern socialist identity, the planning and design guidelines of the “Sixteen Planning Principles…” were utilized (Diedendorf). The effect was of a Neoclassic monumentality, reflecting the progress of the East Germans and their new Socialist republic while also breaking from traditional planning by integrating mixed uses throughout the street. This incorporation of housing is key as it pronounces the combination of nationalism with the really existing needs of the republic, providing a German socialist program. It was not only that the GDR planners and administration were creating a public building that would reflect the progress of the GDR and consecrate any claims of national identity, rather Karl-Marx-Allee is a testament of the GDR’s ability to combine nationalist projects with the needs of the republic.

The Marx-Engels-Allee operates in such a way that it defines a period of GDR planning through both its architectural language and designates the desires of a political network. The impact of this is a permanence, one that persists as a remainder of planning linked with inefficiency and totalitarian practice. Largely this persistence is entangled with the memories of Stalin. While the avenue was celebrated, and is still a formal aspect of central Berlin, there is no ability to divest the meaning associated with this simulation of Soviet Neoclassicism. Its inefficiencies are regularly found within the level of detail required by the language of Neoclassicism and materials usage in construction, two traits considered unacceptable for meeting the demands of a housing crisis. Hermann Henselmann, the architect who oversaw the project, would later become involved with a number of major designs for the rebuilding of central Berlin.

The decision to utilize Soviet Neoclassicism carried with it a series of charges against the international design community. As Paul Betts has noted, then GDR leader Walter Ulbricht openly opposed an international style of Modernism, providing that “The arrangement of socialist living quarters should harmonize the inhabitant’s material and cultural daily needs.” (Betts 103) For Ulbricht there was a continued reliance on a grand National past, a tradition that the GDR was the rightful heir of and must continue. Largely this resulted in a rejection of Modernism associated with the Bauhaus or industrialization of designed objects. Beauty was felt to be a trait of this imagined national inheritance and invariably it was chosen that an architectural language such as Classicism was essential for providing the cohesiveness of a new modern Socialist identity. “Furniture manufactured in the Bauhaus style does not correspond to the sensitivity to beauty among the new Germany’s progressive human beings.” (Betts 103)
The aesthetic of beauty relies on unstable terrains and so it should not be unexpected that a firm rejection of Modernism might only be fleeting. Instead there is a manifestation throughout the planning history of the GDR that serves as an aesthetic trace of beauty. Whether this is a beauty achieved through the replication of bourgeoisie conditions through Neoclassicism, such as Garnier’s Opera House in Paris, or a realization of Sant’Elia’s ever changing Futurist city, within this trace is located a propensity towards instability. Nowhere does this become more apparent than in the planning of central Berlin from the 1950s until the end of the GDR in the 1980s, within which the impression of the Marx-Engels-Forum first found a stable base.

Making Plans
In the 1950s the newly formed GDR entertained a series of plans for how the development of housing may occur in tandem with the production of a new urban center. One outcome, the Karl-Marx-Allee, represented a merger between the needs of the republic and the GDR’s quest to forge a new central Berlin4. While the larger problem of meeting housing demand persisted for a number of decades, to implement any significant projects a city plan would need to be established. The process was tumultuous as confrontations between East and West Germany manifested themselves in the form of various design competitions5. A significant amount of energy and political determination were expended on these competitions as each part of the split Germany informally and formally approached the topic of reunification through planning. As Ladd notes, “neither side every fully acknowledged the division of the city; the official view in East and West was that Berlin was one city and the other side was responsible for its unfortunate partition.” (Ladd 180)

The proliferation of city plans reflects the shifting desires of the GDR to represent itself in the built form. A major alteration occurred in the GDR’s program when Nikolai Kruschev replaced Stalin as leader of the USSR. The former Soviet Neoclassicism which both the GDR and the USSR had initially chosen as their de facto architectural language was negated by Kruschev6, who ushered in an industrialized, modernist language. The former Soviet Neoclassicism was critiqued for its inefficiency to meet the demands of the nation, both in the USSR and the GDR with Kruschev calling for streamlined production of housing.

While the design competitions for the city of Berlin had produced a series of plans, the inability to implement aspects of these had been rooted in the lack of resources needed to produce monumental architecture. As Kruschev ushered in the modernist aesthetic by championing industrialized construction, the GDR established a series of principles that would define further development by defining a socialist city. Bruno Flierl specifies these characteristics:

-to be the city where the controlling bodies for national politics, state and the economy are located;
-to be a city of science, research and teaching;
-to be a city of electrical engineering and electronics;
-to be a city of intellectual and cultural life
-to be a city of international traffic (Flierl 98)

To produce an urban context that would encapsulate these tendencies it was necessary at some point to condense a number of their functions. This is most apparent when the history of the Palace of the Republic is explicated. The Palace of the Republic was the outcome of a serious deferral stemming from the founding of the GDR. It is also intertwined with the production of the Marx-Engels-Forum, as they were originally to be the same urban project.
In the 1950s when the GDR had first been created there was a decision to tear down the badly damaged royal palace situated in Berlin’s urban core. The new socialist government saw the royal palace as a symbol of Prussian militarism, and like the previous regime of the Third Reich which had censored or destroyed many cultural artifacts, the newly founded government destroyed the royal palace to delineate a clear break from Prussian militarism. (Diedendorf 195) For the emerging republic this left a concrete void in the center of their new urban condition. Schinkel’s Lustgarten had previously shared the landscape with the royal palace but had since been paved over by the Nazis to provide grounds for public displays of military regimentation. With the royal palace destroyed the concrete void was increased, creating an urge to design a monument to Marx and Engels, the fathers of scientific socialism, that would serve as the symbolic center of German socialism while also providing a new palace to serve the functions of the state.

A major component of this production was creating a space where mass gatherings could occur. Not unlike the Nazis the German socialists relied on mass gatherings to reiterate national ideology and create a nationalist sense of unity (Ladd 56). When first envisioned the monument was to be a grand tower, a high-rise, in which the state would be housed while guarded by a monumental sculpture of Marx and Engels. The palace would then become an appendage of state administration intimately tied into the urban core. There would also be an expanse of space conserved for mass gatherings which were a common aspect of socialist lifestyle in the GDR. Schinkel’s Altes museum would remain but much of the previous context of the Museum Island had either been destroyed by war, the Nazis or the GDR. Ideally the situation created an opportunity to remove hindrances of the past in order to produce a socialist future; a pattern not unique to the GDR and continuing today.

The realization of this monument was the pursuit of many architects in competitions ranging throughout the 1950s and 1960s(SEE IMAGE). While there was always a changing emphasis on the development of a new modern socialist nationalism and the priority of housing, it remained unclear what may become of the former palace square. A first draft was submitted in 1951 by the Berlin Planning Party, under the lead of Edmund Collein. The plan was loyal to the central tower concept and also envisaged a series of high-rise blocks surrounding the monument. Following this submission, another proposal from 1953 envisioned the central tower in a narrow, gothic steeple style while also proposing significant changes to the urban tectonics by joining Marx-Engels-Platz, Alexanderplatz and Stalinallee by Karl Liebknecht Strasse rather than by Rathausstrasse. (Flierl 115-6) With the restructuring of the urban streets there was now a more clear architectural context for future development, creating a unified visual and cultural language rather than a disparate sampling. Formerly great attention had been given to the scale of surrounding buildings when Schinkel designed the Lustgarten and Altes Museum on SpreeInsel, or Museum Island. For a contemporary observer this dedication to a homogeneity of scale emphasizes the GDR’s commitment to a national past and enactment of German tradition through a unified plan, or possibly a gesamkunstwerkt.
Sensitivity to tradition was continued as a third plan, by a team under Gerhard Kosel in 1957 (see image), then followed taking cue from the traffic structure of the second plan. The proposal to retain the modified traffic structure was retained, creating a cohesive urban context, but Kosel’s team surrounded the central tower structure by pond like recesses from the River Spree. The first three drafts submitted continued to build upon one another, improving the urban condition first through establishing a central landmark, or node, then following by creating a cohesive urban core of paths. Of the three plans none were implemented though their visions were continued and modified.

The GDR held a design competition in 1958-9 entitled, “International Design Competition for the Socialist Reconstruction of the City Centre of the Capital of the German Democratic Republic.” (Flierl 115-6) Many of the proposals submitted were within the framework established by the GDR authorities. They contained a central tower which would house the bureaucracy of the state while also exhibiting a monumental sculpture of Marx and Engels. Two designs specifically deviated from this plan, that of the Hermann Henselmann Collective and the design by the Naumov Team.

According to Flierl the Henselmann Collective envisioned, “replacing the planned high-rise office block by a television tower as Berlin’s dominating landmark and housing the offices of the People’s Chamber and the Council of Ministers in a relatively low building.” (Flierl 116) The deviation was unique in that it both ignored the request of a high-rise office block while seriously excluding any consideration for a monument to Marx and Engels. Rather the Henselmann Collective included a 320 meter radio tower signaling the transmission of socialism throughout the world. Similarly, the Naumov Team suggested a central building housing a large auditorium rather than a high-rise apartment block and then a 260 meter metal needle that would serve as Berlin’s landmark. Other variations existed within the designs but the greatest deviations were the lack of a central high-rise tower or a monument to Marx and Engels, for these reasons both proposals were rejected by the judges and Kosel’s plan from 1957 still exemplified most closely the desires of the GDR authorities.

In 1961, following the competition, the City Council decided on a reconstruction plan for the city center. The basic framework consisted of a central thoroughfare composed by Unter den Linden and the Berlin Forum around Marx-Engels-Platz up to Alexanderplatz with the Karl-Marx-Allee as a longitudinal axis while Frieidrichstrasse and the Spree Island served as transverse axes. (Flierl 116) Though the design competition had presented the judges with an array of possibilities for the monument to Marx and Engels, or the new palace, it remained unsure of a design and only decided that the palace would be built on the East bank of the River Spree. Eventually it was decided that the plan of the Herman Henselmann collective would be partially pursued for development8, though it violated the original design competition rules. (See attached images) This would not be until nearly a decade after the original competition when according to Ladd, “technological modernity had become the East’s accepted architectural language and a television tower based on Helsemann’s design was in fact built”. (Ladd 190)

Spectres of deferral
Similar to the realization of the Henselmann Collective’s plan for the center of Berlin, the monument to Marx and Engels was deferred while also being deformed. It was not until the 1970s that a plan for the new socialist palace was finally developed under a team led by Heinz Graffunder. Radically unlike the proposals submitted to the original competition, Graffunder’s team designed a building clearly derived from international modernism. The Palace of the Republic was composed of an elongated volume clad in bronze-stained glass and marble. There was a very clear deviation from the original intention of the GDR, when under the influence of Stalin, to design a high-rise tower decorated with a monumental sculpture of Marx and Engels. The reality of the project was a low volume consisting of mixed uses. The Palace of the Republic had been a complex for bureaucratic functions while also serving a series of social needs by providing space for birthday parties, weddings, cafes, bowling alleys and bars.

Just as the 1950s vision for a grand tower to socialism was reinterpreted so was the original monument to Marx and Engels. Finally realized in 1986 the Marx-Engels-Forum was placed behind the Palace of the Republic, East of the Spree River. Now two moderately larger than life-size bronze figures of Marx and Engels occupy a park with ribbon-like sidewalks and gentle plantings. The design of the park itself is fairly unremarkable and its discontinuity with the current urban meshwork has led to recent speculation about its future. It is unclear whether the sculptor Ludwig Engelhardt designed both the central sculpture of Marx and Engels, and the park itself, or whether the design was left to an unrecorded Socialist Unity Party (SED) collective. The Marx and Engels monument is surrounded by a series of sculptures by various artists, all centered around the theme of life under Socialism and the workers’ movement.

The forum occupies a complex space in time and culture. The correlation between a transitional phase in architectural languages between Neoclassicism and Modernism reduced emphasis on monumentality as can be seen both in the former Palace of the Republic and the artistic style of the Marx and Engels monument, including the design of the forum in its entirety. There exists a degree of restraint in the sculpture(s) within the forum, they lack the grandiosity of the Ernst Thällmann monument and others emblematic of Socialist Realism10. Unlike other monumental works of Socialist Realism, the artwork in the Marx-Engels-Forum persists as tangible cultural artifacts, almost uninspiring . Post-unification actions have largely left this forum untouched, unlike many other sites in Berlin which have been subject to erasure and repair in accordance with the current political system.
The forum therefore represents a serious deferral, an almost conservative approach to design. Against the radicalism of the variable housing projects that were meant to inspire and propagate a new modern socialist Germany, the forum can be contrasted by its lengthy propagation. Desired in the 1950s, it took nearly four decades to be realized by an artist collective led by Engelhardt. Shortly after the forum’s production the GDR toppled, and with it many of its urban projects and public art. But the forum continues to persist, as it did for nearly four decades in the imaginations of the GDR officials and citizens.

There may be a close link between the lacking volatility of the public artwork and the curious absence of any ideologically loaded structures on the site that has allowed the Marx-Engels-Forum to remain. As many Socialist Realist monuments have been destroyed since post-unification it is somewhat surprising that Marx and Engels have not followed a similar path. A twice than life-size figure of Marx sits while Engels stands, both men look absently towards the West and the now vacant lot where the former Palace of the Republic once stood. But there are no grand gestures given by either of the revolutionaries, they are not holding an axe and divider nor are their bodies being supported by crushed swastikas underneath their feet; they are only waiting and staring absently.

Witness to change
Until recently the Palace of the Republic stood to the West of the forum. In 2002 and 2003 the German Bundestag decided that the palace should be demolished with great outcry from both Germans and the international community.(Flierl 10)(Von Buttlar) With the palace’s recent demolition to provide space for the Humboldt Forum11, the stability of the Marx-Engels-Forum has been reviewed by the Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung. According to a report issued by the Senate in April of 2002 the Marx-Engels-forum will stay intact, however changes to the design are envisioned to integrate it with the newly forming vision for the urban core. (Bundestag)
According to Beatrix Burtin of the Städtebau und Projekte in Berlin, dialogues have been initiated to address the signification of the forum in a campaign called “Rathausforum” just this year. (Burtin) By 2011 the current concept has the monuments of Marx, Engels and others moving underground. Then within two years a design competition will be initiated for the forum, attempting to integrate the space with the rest of the urban core through a mitigation of history ranging from the founding of Berlin in the 13th century until the present.

Whether the Marx-Engels-Forum will dismiss the immediate demand of integration by the current government, is yet unclear. However, the Humboldt Forum will consist of a partially reconstructed royal palace by the Italian architect Franco Stella integrated with a type of modernism that could be said to reflect the former Palace of the Republic. This urban revitalization program will radically alter the urban context surrounding the Marx-Engels-Forum, once again. According to Thomas Flierl, “The Humboldt Forum was and is a great deal more than just a fortunate inspiration to legimitise the reconstruction of the Schloss.” (Flierl 10)

The Marx-Engels-Forum then persists as a relic of an increasingly erased era. Demonstrating neither grandiose architecture nor monuments, the forum produces a stately quality through its ambiguity. It neither urges nor satiates as it consists only of simple greenery and a few obdurate sculptures. Surrounded by changing street names, vanishing buildings and spectres of the urban meshwork, it is a process of recovery for the core of Berlin. It first enacted this position in the 1950s when it became a stitching point of meaning for the newly formed GDR. The proposal of a monument to Marx and Engels was meant to consolidate the emerging identity of East Germans while also contributing to a spatial definition of modern German socialism. While its realization took decades, its production altered the urban core of Berlin by adding new layers of meaning. With the demise of the GDR the Marx-Engels-Forum is now once again pushed into the abstract of planning, contributing to a new definition of German identity once again while redefining the spatial experience of Berlin and possibly a continuous deferral12.

Please find the bibliography under “resources”

Endnotes
1The erasure of past political systems is a common occurrence in Berlin. For many visitors it is not entirely unlikely that street names have been revised numerous times, nor that familiar landmarks may have seemingly disappeared. (Till)
2According to Paul Betts the most reliable figures estimate that through the 1950s 52 percent of houses had only one to two rooms. Central heating was present in less than three percent of homes and only 30 percent of residences had a toilet, with only 22 percent containing a bath.
3The Stalinist understanding of international modernism was deeply reactionary and situated in a rejection of perceived “formalism” and “cosmopolitanism.”
An uncanny similarity exists between both the GDR and the Third Reich in their negation of modernism as each relied upon a reactionary rhetoric as a tool of nation building.
4Largely the significance of this project is a spatial definition of German Socialism. The Karl-Marx-Allee can be read as a mid-century realization of what the future was to be like.
5The politics of these design competitions are reflected in West German claims to Berlin in its entirety. The competition “Berlin, the capital” of 1957-8 is a prime example. (Flierl 93)
6Gradually modernism became an accepted language after Kruschev denounced “ostentatious monumentality” in December 1954, as he succeeded Stalin. (Ladd, 222)
8It is also important to note that the design by the Henselmann collective was not constructed on Spreeinsel, rather it was pushed North into what is now recognized as Alexanderplatz. While the radio tower has become representative of Berlin’s urban core, the outcome was highly divorced from the original desires of the 1950s and should not be mistaken as the originally envisioned socialist palace.
10It is common to associate grandiose sculpture with Socialist Realism as it was generally a hallmark characteristic. The Soviet sculptor Nikolai Tomsky produced a 63 foot tall statue of Lenin in the Berlin neighborhood of Leninplatz until it was destroyed in 1991. Alongside this public artwork the Ernst Thällman monument may also be considered indicative of this style, reaching 43 feet into the air. (Ladd 202)
The colossal qualities of these sculptures earn them their status as monuments and function to reiterate citizen interpellation through becoming landmarks in an urban context. This may be the reason the fate of such sculptures brings an early demise.
11The Humbolt Forum is to be a cultural center in the core of Berlin. After the demise of the GDR and the destruction of the Palace of the Republic, continuous suggestions were made to rebuild the former royal palace. The Humboldt Forum is to be a response to these and will incorporate the Dahlem museums, parts of the State Museum in Berlin and the Humboldt University.
In an introduction to the project, Thomas Flierl writes that, “with this grand projet Germany is reconnecting with its tradition as a nation of culture and science” (Flierl 10) There is a seeming similarity between this precedent and the past socialist planning precedents.
12In 1950 Aufbaugesetz was a reconstruction act making all land public and available for development. (Flierl 39) The land that is now the Marx-Engels-Forum had previously been privately owned, but with Aufbaugesetz and the confiscation of property from Jews by the Nazis, it was filtered into the control of the state
As reparations are being made to the victims/families of the Holocaust, the stability of plans by the German government for this area may be deemed contestable

A quick update

There have been new materials entered into the “resources” page related to ecology, settlement patterns and a personally influential text re-reading history. My updates have been fairly sparse as my studies are seriously draining my time, however there has also been a further explanation of the Garden Cities seminar under “Projects” as well as an introduction to what may become my thesis and summer research, pertaining to the (im)Material.

My current projects that have not made it onto the blog include a case study of Vauban in Friesburg and an investigation into the Marx-Engels-Forum in Berlin. While the roles and influences of art practice have received relatively sparse coverage on the blog, the dynamic qualities of German art during the Cold War will begin to explore the relationship between art and the urban environment, specifically related to state sanctioned art and the reproduction of nationalism through monumentality and its subversion by the avant garde.

Past Utopia

Some time has lapsed since the creation of material_semiotic and any form of significant update to the blog has been absent. As Fall courses have now started the semester’s projects have become clear and you will begin to notice updates under the “projects” page.

“What would a 21st century utopia look like?”

Addressing this rather difficult prompt from one of my current professors will be a preoccupation of mine for the entirety of this semester. This stems from a course fixated on studying the “garden cities” of yesterday, suburbia, new urbanism and the role of utopia in informing urban design.

Alongside a historical case study I am in the conceptual planning phases for what a 21st century utopia may look like. For the moment my preoccupation remains on establishing certain ideals that may manifest themselves with utopian urbanism while also exploring the issues these ideals must accommodate. These will be further explored in posts specifically addressing these ideals and issues.

Currently I am researching Jackson Heights, Queens, and this will be the first significant post in “projects.” Some may be unconcerned with notions of utopian communities but their persistence in the social fantasy and physical realization throughout the globe prove to be of interest for reasons I hope to elaborate. Jackson Heights is dubbed by some as the “first garden city” in America.

-Following the historical case study of Jackson Heights will be a contemporary case study acting to establish possible ideals for Utopia.

-The course will terminate with my own production of an urban design meant to address the issue of utopia in the 21st century. While I largely remain undecided on what this will come to look like, my goal is to record the development of this design through my research presented on material_semiotic.

welcome

“Technology is not neutral. We’re inside of what we make, and it’s inside of us. We’re living in a world of connections — and it matters which ones get made and unmade.”
Donna Haraway

In starting this blog my hope is to create a resource for others who are interested in exploring the relationships between constructions (read loosely) and their impact. Whether these projects be physically realized, theoretical concerns or fleeting art practices is not so much the matter as is the reception of such ideas and projects.

My academic background has been a steady mixture of studio art, critical theory, design and urban studies. material_semiotic lacks any strict discipline in the sense of only concerning architecture, art practices, infrastructure, etc. Rather it is an attempt to approach these related practices as both an outsider and practitioner- the products of such an attempt retaining the formal goal with varying content.