The Transcendence of Design Stereotypes

Anthony Papa

Design is a characteristic of life to which humans naturally contribute. Inspiration leads to conceptualization, manipulation, and production, the latter of which has led to the ubiquitous existence of design. Through various new production techniques and practices, new forms and shapes have been easily introduced to the market. This has ushered in design stereotypes of sorts. Forms that were originally disassociated with a use were then linked to specific products. The design of the coffee cup lid is an ideal example. There is an incredible assortment of forms, but they are forms that people generally associate with lids because that is what consumerism has preached to them. Consumerism has formed unfortunate stereotypes in the design realm that taint designs due to rigid association. All stereotypes should be banished since designs can be exceedingly effective in numerous applications.

New technology has granted the possibility to design absurd products that would typically be considered ‘kitsch’ or inappropriate. Although this statement may partially discredit the legitimacy of technologically-driven design, it is more an homage to its contributions. It is wise to note that technology was what prompted consumerist stereotyping, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t also destroy it. An example of a ‘kitsch’ design is a five-spoke ceramic plate. The design is spawned from an automobile wheel, but why should it not be effective as a ceramic? A perfectly functional and aesthetically appropriate design should not be pillaged of its universal potential simply because mass-production and consumerism have labeled it with a specific function. Referring back to the coffee cup lid, Chee Pearlman describes how even though there is a diverse configuration of lid designs, every variety has the same function and base design. (Pearlman, 1) This demonstrates the endless opportunities of design, even for such trivial products. There are countless possibilities within the design sphere, and nothing is (or should be) solely associated with a particular product.

Crossover styling has nearly become a theme of the contemporary design world. Multi-functionality doesn’t solely pertain to use; rather it is also an aesthetic facet—the multi-functionality of style. An example is the bottle-cap floor mat. It is functional, logical, and overall appropriate with small circular metal tabs connected to one another. When described in its essential form, the configuration seems fitting as opposed to being termed a ‘bottle cap mat.’ The unit of the design has been given a name that signifies the stereotype—the ‘bottle cap’ as opposed to the ‘circular metal tab.’ It is easier for the human mind to attribute a common name/function to a design based on its typical employment; however, the recent trend of fashioning products out of things that are atypical of such product types has unintentionally transcended design stereotypes.

It may seem that architecture is neglected from this explanation, but it (along with every field of design) is equally included. Many architectural designs have been considered inappropriate, but why? Is it because they are indeed ineffective, or is it because the association of the design with mass-produced and less sophisticated products taints it? The latter reasoning is undoubtedly the case. The Nagakin Capsule Tower in Japan (1972), designed by Kisho Kurokawa, is an example. Its plug-and-play styling resembles the shape of Lego blocks. Does this association render it any less appropriate? Kurokawa’s concept was to have a core structure with apartment units that could be added or subtracted as necessary. The Lego-like forms both communicate and execute this function effectively. In this case, the very fact that people can make the association to Lego blocks is nearly a compliment to the design because the objective is clear.

As previously described, technology can destroy stereotyping by enabling simple production, but it just as easily has a direct effect on architectural design. Beatriz Colomina outlines the transparent traits in modernist design, making the connection between it and the development of the X-ray. In this analysis, she brings up an interesting point regarding natural design. She states that “if architectural discourse has from its beginning associated building and body, the body that it describes is the medical body, reconstructed by each new theory of health.” (Colomina, 68) The design of the body is immune to stereotyping; its characteristics can be applied to anything without tainting it. This should be an example for all else. In regards to technology, this quotation hints that new developments and technologies (or “theories of health”) influence designs differently. The technological dimension is perpetually expanding and will therefore have an eternal impact on design.

Stereotypical product designs have also been incorporated into artwork for decades. Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, and others of the pop-art movement were active contributors. This surfaces the notion of stereotypes in symbolic two-dimensional imagery, which is also a valid argument, but less pertinent to the tangible design world as is stereotypes in form. It should be understood that design is a universal agent to achieve products (whether architectural or for the consumer) and that an effective design should never be discounted for its use of a popular form. Such criticism (when given serious weight) is ignorant.

A Different Path to Female Equality in Architecture

By Avery James Jr

The feminist movement in architecture has been a highly contested topic in architectural circles for years. There are many different facets to the feminist movement, to name a few there is the women’s role in the home, the female body a symbol in architecture, but most importantly is a woman’s place in a predominately male dominated profession, and the path to equality.

There is a philosophical argument to be made here that the gendering of the issues could be part of the reason that there are not more AIA registered and recognized female architects. When any group takes an issue; which in this case being the recondition of women in architecture; and that group draws a line in sand, saying that there are women on this side of the line and that there are men on that side of the line, there is a social stigmatism created by the group your trying to gain equality from. The subconscious thought that takes route that take seed in the mind is that this group of people is trying to take what I have. It is a battle line that gets drawn into the sand which instinctively puts the dominant group on the defensive. While female equality in the architectural community has gotten better in the last ten years or so, we have still not seen the equality between men and women progress to the level that we would like. The reason for this could possibly be with the approach that has been taken to gain the aforementioned equal standing the purpose of this paper is to propose a new approach that may yield increased results.

It cannot be denied that the female movement towards equality has seen growth in the past decade. Female architects from 2010 to 2011 have risen from fourteen percent to fifteen percent while eighteen percent remain unknown, female associates in architecture firms from 2010 to 2011 have risen from twenty-two percent to thirty percent while twenty-three percent remain unknown. In 2009 women accounted for seventeen percent of principles or partners in firms across the country.[1] The low numbers from the AIA census can perhaps foreshadow the need for a new approach in the fight for feminist equality in architecture. The approach would be to take specific gender out of the argument. Instead of talking about male and female architects simply talk about architects and the work that they produce regardless of their gender.

When an architect is praised or criticized it is done as a result of their work. When looking for a standard bearer of a female architect on top of a male dominated profession one need not look any further than arguably the top female architect in the world Zaha Hadid, a London based architect and winner of the prestigious Pritzker Architecture Prize in 2004. Hadid discusses her work in an article for the journal Feminist Vision.

“In discussing the architectural profession’s gradual embrace of her work, Hadid mentions her belief that she and her ideas were originally marginalized — not because of her gender or her background, but because of her radically distinct way of thinking. The “margin” she inhabited was intellectual, not personal. Her characteristically distorted and multi-layered perspective drawings (using a method she developed during and after the conclusion of her architectural studies at the Architectural Association

in London in the 1970s and during the early years of her practice in the 1980s) were the product of her unique intellectual explorations. The acceptance of these kinds of representational methods in the architectural mainstream signaled expanding design methods, not an acknowledgment of her unusual position as a prominent female designer”[2]

Hadid credits her remarkable success as well as the time it took for her to achieve this level of success and international acclaim to her unique style of design.

In conclusion Hadids’ view of women’s role in architecture is indicative of an approach to equality in the workplace which may yield better results than the current approach of flaunting the fact there are women in architecture and that they want and deserve all the same opportunities and recondition that the males have. The latter approach has worked up so far, it has really opened the door to an equal opportunity workplace and had success; however that approach seems to have stalled out, now yielding only moderate percentage increases across the profession as a whole. Hadid’s begins to set a model to a more humble approach to gaining equality; an approach which takes gender out of the equation and simply relies on the work to speak for itself. There is no guarantee that a different approach will yield any significant results however it cannot be denied that true equality in the profession will only occur when the gender of the architect is no longer even a consideration.

---

[1] Hancook, M. R. (2011). Demographics: AIA Membership. Retrieved 12 14, 2012, from AIA Diversity Histrory: https://sites.google.com/site/aiadiversityhistory/membership-demographics

 

[2] Timmerman, C. (2010). Feminist Visions. Feminist Collections , 31(4), 8-9.

 

A New Division of Space

Bart Ducharme

Impressionist paintings and quilts can be characterized as a coming together of items which may seem disjointed from up close, yet blend seamlessly upon inspection from different angles or distances. Much in the same way as these art forms show us the possibility of continuity through an interweaving of material, a city can provide this same opportunity on a larger scale. The success of a city is based on the coherency of the continuous space that makes up the urban environment; the blending of elements which could exist as individual phenomenon. The city, although inherently striated from its original conception, gains its true essence as an architectural place when these divided sections flow seamlessly. A deep architectural presence can be felt as an emotional underpinning by individuals navigating throughout its striated sections in a smooth, continuous fashion.

The mixture of smooth and striated space is what truly gives the city dweller the emotional presence and definition of a city fabric. Being able to move seamlessly from smooth space, which exists in a broad context, to striated at a more human scale allows the individual to move in and out of public flow, thereby creating various individual experiences. In the urban plan, these striated places are stopping points, acting as private quarters within the broader notion of the city. Gregg Lynn refers to the “smooth transformation” where, “smooth mixtures are made up of deliberate elements which maintain their integrity while being blended within a continuous field of other free elements.” (Lynn, 8) This notion can be directly linked to the combination of smooth and striated spaces that make up a city. Pedestrian movement within the city progresses along a continuous and constant time line. Gilles Deleuze views this time in the same way as can be seen in the movement of space. “For Deleuze, events never happen out of a tabula rasa, but come out of complications, out of the fold; and time occupies a ‘complicated’ rather than a linear or circular space: it lies at the intersection of multiple lines that can never be disentangled in a single transparent plane given to a fixed external eye.” (Rajchman, 62) Much like the overall urban layout of a city, time is also a smooth element with no beginning or end. The emotional underpinning of a city can be forged from a patchwork of smooth and striated time coupled with smooth and striated space.

A smooth city is one which has a natural and continuous flow of architectural elements and pedestrian traffic relative to those elements. Greg Lynn sees the urban environment in this way, as do many others who seek to create a cultural or historical fabric within urban environments. He expresses that, “unity is constructed through one of two strategies: either by reconstructing a continuous architectural language through historical analyses or by identifying local consistencies.” (Lynn, 8) This stance is in opposition to the recent popularity of Deconstructivist architecture, which seeks to create an obvious disconnect through architecture within cities. Now, many contemporary architects are realizing the benefits of a natural juxtaposition of smooth and striated space within an urban fabric. Through historical and semiotic spatial interaction between individual architecture and the city, an emotional reaction is developed; the attitude of the city is expressed.

New York City and Boston can be used to articulate successful combination of striated space blending together to create a feeling of distinct place in different ways. Although New York is a much more striated city in a formal sense, based on its strict grid system, it can also be seen as being more smooth relative to pedestrian use. In this way, the New York grid system shows how, “intensive organizations continually invite external influences within their internal limits so that they might extend their influence through the affiliations they make.” (Lynn, 10) The striated grid of this city seamlessly connects each of its neighborhoods and widely extends pedestrian movement. In this way New York transforms from the clearly striated space to the smooth, which gives it the vibrancy and emotion that make it unique. Boston gains its sense of place more so from historical connection. The smooth flow of its culturally significant architecture connects an otherwise striated city. Both New York and Boston exemplify the power of a constant interface of smooth and striated space and movement to gain an emotional underpinning or sensory creation of place.

The success of a city as a symbol and unique destination can be determined by the success of its seamless communication of space. The interaction between smooth and striated elements within a given city is essential to the development of place creation. Although inherently striated through grids or other urban planning techniques, the emotional sensation of a city is brought together in a powerful way through methods joining its individual parts to a larger urban context or smooth pedestrian system of movement.

Bibliography
Lynn, Gregg. Architectural Curvilinearity: The Folded, the Pliant, and the Supple. In: Architectural Design no. 102 Folding in Architecture. (1993): 8-15.
Rajchman, John. Out of the Fold. In: Architectural Design no. 102 Folding in Architecture. (1993): 60-63.

Structured skateboarding

By Sybil Lamarque

When driving or walking down the streets we have all seen skating boarding parks or remnants of a park, they used to be filled with skateboarders and viewers. Now they are mostly disserted, what happened? The skating phenomenon started with a few individuals trying to simulate surfing, and then escalated into its own entity of body movement and extremely difficult tricks.  Lain Borden claims these skateboarding parks are designed for skaters to help them learn, create, and excel in their skating abilities. He also expresses the damages and frustration of society (building owners, police patrolman, friends and families) caused by skating outside of the parks. I disagree with Borden, skateboarding parks are only helpful for amateur, and they limit the skater’s creations and growth. They’re also a controlled environment and are designed to discourage skating.

Borden’s promotes the use of skateboarding parks, they are safer and don’t create controversy with damaged property.  I do agree with Borden about easing the frustration of property damage with patrolling guards, police, building owner, and families; however these parks are designed for amateurs-not for someone searching to rise to stardom. The designs of these parks are created to discourage skateboarders. Here the skaters learns basic tricks, they are unable to excel to the next level. Most parks are created to keep these kids from learning on the streets; unfortunately the streets are where they learn the demographics and agility of the sport. For example Riverside drive Skater Park was created around 10 years ago, it used to be crowded with youths and spectators until they outgrow the equipment. The half pikes are too small, the jumper rails are too low to ground and there is no variety of equipment for these youths to expand. This is an example of creating a park to discourage skating.

Skaters have an incredible ability to use their environment to create movements, through the use of architecture they are able to excel in new techniques and styles. How can a skater learn these movements with controlled architecture, such as skater parks? Architecture is challenged, not only are we creating structures, but now these structures need to relate to body movements and limitations. “In terms of skateboarding‘s relation to architecture, its production of space is not purely bodily or sensorial; instead the skater’s body produces its space dialectically with the production of architectural space”.”(Borden, page 101) We must study the human body and stretch its ability to create these new types of structure, the skateboarding park. In creating a park that is interchangeable and built to expandable, could resolve the problem of lack of occupants. The type of materials play a huge part in the movement of the human body, if surface is too hard or soft it can affect movements and agility. For instance, most skater parks are made using concrete; this hinders their movements making it more difficult and painful if done incorrect. Concrete has a hard surface making movement quick and hard to time and it is painful to fall on. It is extremely difficult to learn new techniques and body placement on a non-flexible surface.

Controlling the environment of a skateboarding park also control and limits the ability of the skaters. This dictates what tricks they can or can’t work on. A skateboarder no longer has that freedom of making their board an extension of his body and relating the body to the skateboard through different coordinates. The sensation of airborne or ‘hang time’ as skaters call it can’t be reach using basic equipment designed for the basic  introduction for skateboarding. This results in a few dilemmas; the parks becomes disserted, the youths return to street skating, or skaters relocate.

Skateboarding parks are great for the amateur skater, however they hinders the advancement in a skilled skater. Borden claimed these parks are tools to aid the skater, I disagree they stunt the skaters growth potential, discourage skateboarding, and are controlled. The need for secondary uncontrolled structures for skater is increasing, more park are seeing their days of glory fall apart.

Is there such a thing as feminist architecture?

The feminist movement has given women the opportunities, rights, freedom, and equality. In the United States all men and women are supposedly created equal, however in architecture we still see remnants of a male dominated field.  Architecture is very distinctive of its styles and characteristics, except for feminist architecture. For instance Gothic architecture is defined by its flying buttresses, gothic rose, vaulted ceiling, and skeletal skin. There is no definitive definition, which list characteristics explaining what makes architecture feminist. Instead feminist architecture is either architecture designed by women or gender designing for women. This creates great confusion and stereotypes towards female architects.

Female architects are classified under one category, feminist architecture. What is feminist architecture? Is there such a thing? Women have long endured a fight to become architects; in the process of the journey we have been labeled feminist architects and harshly critiqued in our designs. Julia Morgan the first license women Architect in California, she was known for her intricate detailing and designing to accommodate client’s budgets. She designed in the Bay Region Style, stemming from influences from the Renaissance and period of enlightenment, would never be confused with feminist architecture. Julia designed for many women and girls facilities, schools, businesses, and homes, which   merited her in the category of feminist architect.

For example, Eileen Gray a ‘feminist architect’, has been associated with the feminist movement, however when asked about what style she designs—modern architecture in mentioned. It was her ability to create modern architecture in the Tempe à Pailla, which merited her as a pioneer in modern architecture. Modern architecture is not considered feminist architecture; this would insult her male counterparts to be considered in the same category as a female. For instance Gray and Le Corbusier spent much time together; however Le Corbusier was asked if he guided Gray in her designs. This is an insulting critique indicating modernism is created by males alone. This enforces modernism was not considered a feminist form of architecture. Does this make an implication that Gray was a good architect, instead of a feminist architect? There is no evidence of feminist architecture in Gray’s work nor can we find a description of what it consists of. How can a style so widely used not exist in clarification? There is no definition for someone to express an interest or dislikes?

Feminism a powerful movement, which has enabled and empowered women to challenge themselves beyond their capabilities, has also hindered them. The movement brought upon freedom, equality, opportunity, and rights for women, however it created a separation in female and male architecture. It accidently created a new style of architecture without a style. Female architects should not be judge because they are women; instead they should be critique as architects.

“The deception of the shed”

Robert Ventures believed the shed was stemmed from the pop art culture and would bring brought would bring a revelation to architecture. I disagree with venture, instead the shed brought on a stagnant period. This period was caused by a gap in the use of traditional architecture-form follows function and organization, lack of creativity and no architectural value.

Prior to the shed, architecture was vibrant, functional, detail oriented, and traditional values. There was a use of new typologies, ornaments, and transparencies to help create a passion and desire for architecture. It seems as if this flame for creativity was extinguished once the shed was introduced and became popular. For instance Le Corbusier’s Notre Dame du Haut, he plays with form, function, light, movement, and organization to create the space; whereas the shed, is merely a box with signage symbolizing its purpose.

This type of semiotics ‘the shed’ originated from the Pop Art culture there are no new creation, just a re-organization of the existing. Pop Art was similar to mass production, where architecture looked the same with no creativity or vibrancy. For example Levitt’s town New York, is a huge development where every house is identical to the next, no variety or creativity. What is the purpose of post large signage and not incorporating with the architecture? There is known! The shred has no decorative or creative aspect; it lacks variety and a connection to the building. It takes away from the building giving it an uninviting and inexpensive appearance.

The shed has no architectural value; it is a sign with no connection to the building except to represent the buildings function. There is no enhancement of the buildings architectural element incorporated in the design of its appearance. Instead it lacks appearance, typology, and purpose. For instance the Las Vegas strip is loud and obnoxious glitter with sheds, its sole purpose is to catch the attention of drivers. The hope is to lure potential customers to their establishment. The focus is taken away from the architecture and put on the dingy sign; the shed becomes the symbol of Las Vegas.

The shed, which emulated from Pop art – failed to bring a new revelation of architecture. Instead it brought us away from architectures fundamentals, creativity, and value. I believe the shed was a waist of positive energy and created a stagnant stage in architecture.

Machine-Age Enslavement

Anthony Papa

The kitchen is the stereotypical stage for the woman. She cleans, prepares the daily meals, and cleans again. If this is where she feels comfortable, then it (along with the rest of the home) is her rightful domain, but if she is carrying out the daily dues of a stereotype for the sole sake of serving her husband and/or family, then she should be liberated. Le Corbusier outlines the role of the suburban housewife in The Radiant City. He discusses her aforementioned chores and what is generally expected of her, but he elaborates upon a concept that is double natured—the domestic impact of the machine-age. The machine-age was meant to serve humanity, making the toils of life less toilsome. It did achieve that outcome in terms of industry, but its impact on the home and the woman was quite different. Architecture was/is maxed out in terms of its negative effect on female enslavement. It was instead the machine-age that amplified the domestic burden of the woman. Architecture is what could free her.

In addition to his writings on the domestic impact of the machine-age, Le Corbusier touches upon the total impact of it while describing the development of his Radiant City. He developed the thesis that humanity should find a way for mechanical advancement to work for it to enhance individual liberty.[1] Ideally, through mass production and technological developments, humanity would be rewarded with fewer working hours and therefore a greater amount of time to spend with family in the newly redeveloped modern city. The reality was that the machine-age was enslaving humanity with the onset of higher standards and expectations rather than rewarding it. How does this machine-age enslavement relate to feminism in architecture? It does so in the same way it relates to humanity as a whole. Architecture wasn’t necessarily the cause of female enslavement; rather it was the new ‘luxuries’ that were at her disposal. Instead of taking these advancements as relief, additional duties were tacked to the agenda. The belief was that the new “electric servants” would save time for housewives, in turn allowing them to join the labor force. (Diller, 80) This has to do with the evolution of standards as a result of the new amenities. New technology is a product of scientific development, which meant that scientific research in numerous other areas was also being conducted. The necessity for cleanliness and the ousting of microscopic vermin was introduced, which suggested that women also submit to intensified cleansing processes.

In analysis of architecture’s impact on the domestic woman, it reached its maximum potential for negative fallout once it was added to the residential program. Essentially, it was an inclusion that always existed. From then on it was simply elaborated upon with third-party amenities, seeing as the architect does not design them. He or she may specify them, but they have no role in their design. Architecture can have an impact on lessening the domestic oppression of women by detracting the programmatic element of the kitchen. Architects could design a communal kitchen for a whole floor, building, or even block. This is another concept that Le Corbusier sheds light upon. In his city plans, he called for a “house-palace” rather than the standard ‘cottage’ (‘cottage’ in reference to the secluded lifestyle that comes along with it.)[2] The ‘palace’ portion of his idea is most important. It is the idea that the palace would house multiple residences with communal services (e.g. child care and nourishment) for the sake of eliminating social gender roles. Diana Agrest mentions the freedom of the city in the sense that it can (and should) be sculpted to better benefit the woman, seeing that it is composed of “fragments of texts and languages to be read, and in this reading they traverse the subject, in the position of the reader-writer.” (Agrest, 551) In other words, there is freedom for change—the city can be a clean slate for social redevelopment. Agrest’s statement supports the logic of Le Corbusier’s ideal city.

Architecture had already played a role in woman’s oppression since the typical model of a home was developed centuries ago. Further architectural developments (like the “house-palace”) can only offer relief from societal gender stereotypes. The reasoning behind this is that the feminist scope and awareness has expanded in architecture, and it is highly unlikely that any future designs would seek to confine the woman to the home. In a recent interview regarding feminism and architecture in 2012, architect Sonia Sarangi stated the following: “I think 2012 has been particularly interesting in that never before have I seen (in the media anyway) so much discussion about women in architecture.  2012 also marks the return of a female president of the AIA. So I would say 2012 has been very interesting for woman architects.”[3]  These words offer insight to the direction in which architecture is moving for women in the industry. With the rightful expansion of women’s rights in general, society has evolved in such a way that most women are indeed part of the labor force and contributing to dual-income households. Architecture responds to society’s needs and trends and is therefore unlikely to regress.

The overall industrialization of the machine-age is what adversely affected the housewife. Its pursuit for women to become home economists was the foremost restraining agent during the modernist era. Though the machine-age is somewhat omnipresent (seeing that technology is always advancing), the bulk of the impact has already passed along with the modernist movement. This correlation between the machine-age and the modernist era in architecture is what may possibly lead people to believe that architecture played a direct role in restricting female liberties; however, science, technology, design (not only that of architecture), and progression as a whole is what ushered the affliction. Instead, architecture possessed the secret to loosening the nails on the casket.

---

[1] Le Corbusier. The Radiant City; Elements of a Doctrine of Urbanism to be Used as the Basis of Our Machine-Age Civilization. (New York: Orion Press, 1967), 90.

[2] Robert Fishman.Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century : Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982), 232.

[3] Sonia Sarangi, Interviewed by The Red and Black Architect, December 3, 2012.

Feminism in Architecture

Bart Ducharme

Women have made exponential strides in professional design fields since the middle of the twentieth century when discussions concerning feminism and architecture began in the United States. Despite these extensive advancements, women continue their struggle to maintain a sizable professional presence in architectural occupations. Although many hurdles have been cleared for professional advancement of women in architecture, closer inspection may reveal continuing problems, acting as barriers for female designers, as well as possible solutions. An understanding of historical treatment of women in this field, as well as reflection on the rise of female professionals during the more recent feminist movement may allow for some insight into the continuing difficulty of female recruitment and retention in architecture.

The “modern” view in relation to women in architecture during the mid twentieth century was largely carried over from the Renaissance period. Since many contemporary architectural notions of proportion and spatial relations date back hundreds of years, it seems the gender connotations associated with these principles have remained intact. Vitruvius, an essential figure in the history of architecture explained that his principles regarding building proportion had been derived from the geometry of the male body. As Diana Agrest writes, “in the several steps in the operation of symbolic transference from the body to architecture, the first relationship established between man and nature through the notions of natural harmony and perfection. Man is presented as having the attribute of perfect natural proportions.” (Agrest, 144) Other Renaissance theorists related the concept of an architect to the figurative mother of a building. These authors wrote extensively about the nurturing role of an architect. Although knowing full well that women could not rise to the position of architect due to societal policy, typical feminine notions were actually assumed by men to gain inspiration and to achieve success. Men clearly recognized the importance of women’s traditional responsibilities transposed in other vocations in society, yet females were not allowed to assume these positions personally. Some of these issues still remain even today, although proportional principles are less related to gender as visual success. With time, proportional relations to masculine forms will continue to dissipate making professional barriers more passable for women.

Recent growth of female participation in the field of architecture as a whole has been exponential, however, senior roles, as well as high profile positions within the profession are not generally held by women. In fact few women are household names even today for the architectural community. In the1940’s feminine thought related to architecture began to emerge in the form of writings on the subject. Not until the 1970’s, when domestic homes began to be designed around the busy female homemaker, was architecture actually designed with women in mind, outside of the conceptual notion of the birth of a building. During this time, it was recognized that the woman of the household in the suburban family setting could achieve greater levels of efficiency on a day to day basis if design techniques catered to functional goals. Although this design approach only sought to improve women’s efficiency in the household it also gave women time and freedom to begin social lives and interests outside the traditional family dynamic. By 1981, writers like Margaret Kennedy were freely able to express their views. She explains that, “The dichotomies of public/ private, city/ suburb, work/ home were increasingly questioned; women’s diverse needs were reassessed in light of changing realities, and new design strategies emerged.” (Rothschild, 7) Eventually, women would begin to gain acceptance on the periphery of the architectural landscape. Joan Rothschild expresses her reasons why women can be very important in this world in stating, “’the female is more user-oriented than designer-oriented,’ ‘more flexible than fixed,’ ‘more organically ordered than abstractly systematized,’ ‘more holistic than specialized,’ ‘more complex than one-dimensional.” (Rothschild, 14) Although inherently stereotypical, this statement begins to explore possible valuable traits which women may provide to the architectural community. Recognition of these potential assets could help the female population begin to break down the figurative walls of discrimination which surround professional architecture, allowing women to gain esteem for their accomplishments.

Today, women make up nearly half of the architecturally educated population. This statistic marks a vast improvement from the 10% which filled architecture classrooms as recently as 1971. Still, despite enormous growth in the education population, only 24% of professional participants have continued past school. This number is drastically lower than the 47% of women working nationwide in all professional fields. (Stevens) One may wonder if this discrepancy is a product of discrimination at the level of higher education or the interview process, or if the traditional role of women in families has prevented a direct infusion of architecturally educated women into the workforce. In the words of New York Times writer Nicolai Ourousoff, “Recognition and high-profile commissions, if they materialize at all, typically arrive in an architect’s 50s — well past the typical age for starting a family. Not surprisingly, many of the most famous men in architecture today — now in their 60s and 70s — depended heavily on the support of their wives as they rose through the ranks.” (Ourousoff) If this analysis is accurate, one may surmise that the perceived glass ceiling of the architectural profession could be shattered simply as a byproduct of time. After the contemporary pattern of architectural principals who are white males over fifty years of age has run its course over the current generation, many more female architects may be in line for advancement and recognition. At the same time, the current trend of an increasing role of fathers in the family dynamic could begin to level the discrepancy in gender within the architecture community.

Advancement of a female presence in architecture has risen dramatically from the stagnant numbers during the middle of the twentieth century. Through statistical analysis based on data from the National Center for Education Statistics, it becomes clear that in education there has been, “quite a solid steady climb in the proportion of women from 1970 to the early 1980s, but then we see the ratio gently bump into the fabled glass-ceiling. Though the 2000s, the ratio has settled into the 40-44% range.” (Stevens). By simply recognizing that women have been persecuted through continuance of historical architectural dogma, those hurtful connotations may lose influence. Generational turnover will also assist the advancement of women in the field; however, the time and physical demands of professional architecture will continue to deter females considering family life to some extent.

Bibliography
Agrest, Diana I. Architecture From Without, Body, Logic, and Sex. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1993. Nesbit (541,553)
Rothschild, Joan, and Victoria Rosner. Feminisms and Design: Review Essay. In: Design and Feminism: Re-visioning Spaces, Places, and Everyday Things. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, 1999: 7-33. ARC612 Reader.
Stevens, Garry. Women in Architecture. Website: http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/ArchWomen.html, 2001-2002. Accessed on 12/06/2013.
Ouroussoff, Nicolai. Keeping Houses, Not Building Them. The New York Times. 2007. Website: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/arts/design/31woma.html?_r=1& . Accessed on 12/06/2013.

Women in the Domestic Sphere

Melissa Nolan

Consumer culture has perpetuated gender roles in society. Commercial advertisements for domestic products are directed toward women and typically feature female actresses. Although gender roles are not as stringent today as fifty years ago, women still maintain most domestic responsibilities. Joan Ockman writes, “While the old gender stereotypes and dichotomies have eroded, our architecture still reflects the ideologies built into the Levittowns and the consumer culture of the immediate post-World War II period.” (Rothschild and Rosner, 13) Many homes built during the post-war period are still inhabited today, and newer homes preserve similar spatial arrangements (with additional and larger spaces). Due to consumerism and the traditional American domestic model, attempts to free women from domestic confinement through the design of the built environment have thus far been unsuccessful.

In commercial culture, commodification has led to the objectification of women. For example, a commercial may morph the curves of a woman’s body into the curves of a beer bottle to make the product—directed toward men—more appealing. Similarly, as the human body is transformed into objects, objects are given human attributes. In this process, referred to as anthropomorphism, Diana Agrest argues that architecture is assigned attributes of the male body. She claims that Vitruvius and Alberti have “elaborated a system for the transformation (of the male body) into a system of architectural syntactic rules, elements, and meanings.” (Agrest, 541) On the contrary, the male attributes are transformed into female attributes in the conception and production of architecture because the female is associated with reproduction and creativity. The architect—designated as a man— becomes the nurturing mother of the building. The transformation of the male into the female in the production of a building signifies the woman’s domestic role of mother, nurse, and caretaker to her children. Because this scenario occurs in a work environment, the male must transform into the female role. Not only does this accentuate gender roles, it exemplifies the notion that the man goes to work and the woman remains at home.

The attempt to design a more efficient household—in order to speed-up women’s domestic duties and therefore free them from the home to take part in the workforce—did not succeed. Women welcomed technological advancements such as prepared food, which reduced food preparation time significantly. Nineteenth-century reformer Catharine Beecher redesigned kitchens and other domestic spaces to improve organization and efficiency for the user. Although she redesigned spaces, she did not change the role of women in the house. Beecher merely made the woman’s duties easier and faster to accomplish. While the intended outcome was for women to finish domestic duties faster in order to have time to work outside the home, the efficiency of the space simply created more work to be done at home.  In the mid-seventies, the essay “Industrial Revolution in the Home” by Ruth Schwartz Cowan demonstrated that “the mechanization of the home in the early decades of this century, far from being labor saving, brought ‘more work for mother.’” (Rothschild and Rosner, 23) Inevitably, the ability to accomplish more work increased the expectations of household duties. Changes to the architecture of the home, while succeeding in speeding up domestic labor, failed at freeing women from the confines of the domestic sphere.

Jane Jacobs discusses urban planning and architecture in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities in 1961. In a discussion of new city principles, she writes about “the need of cities for a most intricate and close-grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially.” (Rothschild and Rosner, 18) Her critique on city life affected feminists and sparked the notion that the built environment could shift gender roles if the domestic model is redesigned. This redesign would entail an integration of home, work, and family life, which Dolores Hayden explored in her 1984 book, Redesigning the American Dream (Rothschild and Rosner, 19) For example, kitchens and childcare could be shared among neighboring families. The mode of thinking is that women take care of the home. The reality is that women are also a part of the workforce. The objective is for society to be able to manage both work and home while women have equal opportunities in the workforce.

Gender roles are not as rigid today as they were fifty years ago, but the perception of male and female responsibilities remains. Even with television shows featuring stay-at-home fathers, many women still have domestic duties, including taking care of the children and tending to the house. In today’s reality, most women also work. Domestic duties can negatively affect women’s job prospects or household relationships and responsibilities (whichever receives less attention). In the early twentieth century, re-designing domestic spaces to increase efficiency and reduce domestic work was unsuccessful at freeing women of the home. Post-war commodity culture perpetuated the female role of the home economist with product advertisements of dishwashers and other goods directed at women. Re-designing the domestic model of living, for example a kitchen-less house as Charlotte Perkins Gilman suggested, is a radical proposal that could potentially blur gender roles, freeing women of domestic entrapment—it just has yet to be accomplished.

The Un-designable Heterotopia

Anthony Papa

The notion of the heterotopic ‘other’ and ‘placeless’ place seems jocular rather than a concept founded on intelligent hypotheses and reasoning, but it is indeed a reality. When buildings are constructed, their very existence is embodied by not only the space they take up, but also by their purpose. It is the appropriate procedure of the architect to formulate a design plot for a building, but the vast majority of buildings are designed around a specific function. Even if there is no function in mind, there are still processes that the architect subconsciously executes. After all, everything is a product of the human mind and therefore requires any sort of thought. With this considered, a truly ‘other’ or ‘placeless’ place can never be predetermined by design; rather it is in the extra space intertwined between built products (as well as en evolved and aimless identity) that the true heterotopia exists.

Rem Koolhaas brings light to the concept of surrounding area/buildings as junk space. “Identity” has become an afterthought, and to Koolhaas, the junk space is “what remains after modernization has run its course.” (Koolhaas, 175) Buildings and spaces once complete with identity/purpose have become epicenters of aimless activity. Contrary to what the common person would denote, this aimlessness is actually what signifies a true heterotopia. The design of such a space is not a feasible task. Not to say that such places can’tbe designed, but the fact that they were designed for aimlessness deems them unworthy as true heterotopias. In opposition to the theory of aimlessness, a space can be designed as a heterotopia, but it is granted the title in its simple nature, not because the design itself expounds upon heterotopian ideals. It is stated by Michel Foucault that “there are heterotopias of time which accumulate ad infinitum.” (Foucault, 424) Is the library or museum that personifies this timeless notion designed with heterotopian characteristics in mind? No, it simply is a heterotopia by nature.

In regards to the ‘devious’ act of skateboarding, a locus that is designed for the activity deflates the meaning of the sport and is rather inefficient. Skate parks are not heterotopias because they are designed with a predetermined notion of bodily movement throughout a specific space. The predetermined specificity highly detracts meaning because making use of the architecture within an urban setting for a purpose other than what is expected identifies a heterotopic space. It was not originally designed with the activity in mind, and is more in favor of the skater than a park could ever be. “[A]rchitecture, like all other cultural objects, is not made just once, but is made and remade over and over again each time it is represented through another medium, each time its surroundings change, each time different people experience it.” (Borden, 8) The unintended is a stronger existence of the heterotopia because it advances the idea of a placeless place. Not only is it placeless, but it also wasn’t created to be placeless, it simply is. It is hard to escape the idea of architecture being classified as a “theatrical backdrop.” (Borden, 8) As previously mentioned, architects design with an aim—a concept, a purpose. Though this approach is appropriate and selfless in respect to what the client/people desire, it does not accomplish heterotopia in the unforeseen/random sense (and the result is none other than a backdrop.)

It was previously stated that designing a skate park is inefficient. This relates not only to skateboarding, but also to any predetermined design for an evolving activity. Having been designed for the movement of the body and its spatial dynamics, the forms within skate parks evolved and expanded along with new moves and techniques. “The aim of such an urban praxis cannot be to create a really other space… the naïve ambition of the imaginary heterotopic activism, the naiveté of which is laid bare again and again by a symbolic urban activism.”[1] In other words, the task of creating a heterotopia is insurmountable because definition is in constant alteration. This demonstrates how even with thought and prescribed design, the result is not necessarily optimal and complete. It leaves the participator in charge of determining the best terrain within the park to execute the evolved moves, and it is then that the skate park has become a heterotopia. However, the construction for the purpose of the activity is still unworthy of granting the original park a heterotopic identity. Is it not simpler and more effective to leave the decision up to the performer? The idea also applies to other urban activities such as parkour. The predetermined terrain of a park becomes obsolete, but the voids and forms of the built environment are always changing and present new opportunities. The public does not always accept ‘deviant’ actions, but it was a subset of the public that nurtured such activity, so it is just as much their turf as anybody else’s.

The acceptability and fascination of heterotopias lies in their existence as identity-less developments. An architect cannot predetermine them, they just are. When a space is designed to be a heterotopia, it is given an identity and therefore contradicts itself.  The art and nature of activities that can take place within a heterotopia are stunted by prescription. It is the freedom of arbitrariness that allows for expansion. Looking back at the evolution of skate tricks, it is highly unlikely that the new moves were conceived in a designed skate park. Heterotopia is ‘placeless’, it is ‘other,’ it is junk space—it cannot be predetermined by design.

---

[1] BAVO, “It’s About the Heterotopia as a Real Different Space, Stupid! – A Lacanian Reading of the Concept of Heterotopia.” http://www.bavo.biz/texts/view/221?CAKEPHP=348f564c4477641116b9f073cd0c148c