So this is something that we interact with everyday and not only is becoming even more prevalent by the minute, but we are becoming increasingly apathetic to it. The architecture of fear is also much less architectural than we architects might imagine. While this might be comforting by allowing us to place blame on another its concerning because it means as architects we are ceding control of our built environment bit by bit to interests whose expertise is narrow minded and harmful to our spatial health as a whole.
I encourage you to check out this blog and weigh in on this topic.
“The post 9/11 condition in America has added a frightening realism, even if only subconsciously, to an everyday fear for safety and fear against attack. It is this condition that has been perpetuated by continued foreign policy and other international incidents.
The addition of current technology which has created instantaneous communication, not just to the privileged but to a mass market, also complicates and makes this condition different than previous historical precedents (i.e. the cold war).
What are the current architectural implications of a fearful society combined with instantaneous communication and connectivity? How does the architecture of survival and fear manifest itself in the context we find ourselves in now? Is there a line drawn between architecture and safety?”
my quick initial thought is that what you are speaking of was the cause and not the effect of 9/11. technology has brought about a dichotomy in america; a more open exchange, but inherently a more private society, afraid of our neighbors globally and locally.
I think in a way you're correct. The inundation of overt technology for the purpose of security or communication (also security) has been occuring for years and in different forms.
When I reference 9/11 I use it as the example which has galvanized society's gaze once again on the issue of our own security and the oftentimes insane measure which we accept in that name, not as the creation of this situation. Besides the implemtation of security and fortification as commonplace happens in other locales other than New York and the US reacting to their own specific context of fear.
an architecture of fear seems to follow from a culture of fear. isn't it just demand and supply? if you build an open park people might just put up fences.
instant communication seems to amplify the isolation, why am i right now typing on a computer rather than wandering around on the streets talking to people in person?
I think this all somehow relates to the loss of public space, or a culture of being public in urban america... individualism, loss of community...?
Reading the description it is interesting to see terrorist feel terror and paranoia. But doesn't that illusion of threats propelled by fear and paranoia inject into all of culture as Americans.
South Park did it best, at least in a version of a cartoon satire.
third generation is german and made in the 70's. Americans werent as concerned about terrorism then. unless they worked for a wing of the government that was training deathsquads in central and south america.
Mike Davis touches on the loss of public space as a catalyst for our society of fear in City of Quartz and laments for the Olmsteadian design of public space. He makes a great statement which I think we all might have thought at one point consciously or not:
"...the quality of any urban environment can be measured by whether there are any convenient and comfortable places to sit."
Public space designed today in most cases centers on a "consumer model" as a sublte (not really) means of excluding and barring "undesirables" from these spaces. For example, the preference for a pretty "Main Street USA" shopping area over an open public park.
Ironically, the original idea of public from the greeks was the place where you were free... it was the place owned by all (so long as you could afford to occupy it)... and the private realm was where you were a slave to labour and economy...
Today, the streets aren't really public anymore, they are instead the space of labour and economy... instead of it being the space owned by everybody, it is the space owned by nobody...
The Architecture of Fear
So this is something that we interact with everyday and not only is becoming even more prevalent by the minute, but we are becoming increasingly apathetic to it. The architecture of fear is also much less architectural than we architects might imagine. While this might be comforting by allowing us to place blame on another its concerning because it means as architects we are ceding control of our built environment bit by bit to interests whose expertise is narrow minded and harmful to our spatial health as a whole.
I encourage you to check out this blog and weigh in on this topic.
The Architecture of Fear:
http://the-arch-of-fear.blogspot.com/
An abstract of the blog:
“The post 9/11 condition in America has added a frightening realism, even if only subconsciously, to an everyday fear for safety and fear against attack. It is this condition that has been perpetuated by continued foreign policy and other international incidents.
The addition of current technology which has created instantaneous communication, not just to the privileged but to a mass market, also complicates and makes this condition different than previous historical precedents (i.e. the cold war).
What are the current architectural implications of a fearful society combined with instantaneous communication and connectivity? How does the architecture of survival and fear manifest itself in the context we find ourselves in now? Is there a line drawn between architecture and safety?”
my quick initial thought is that what you are speaking of was the cause and not the effect of 9/11. technology has brought about a dichotomy in america; a more open exchange, but inherently a more private society, afraid of our neighbors globally and locally.
I think in a way you're correct. The inundation of overt technology for the purpose of security or communication (also security) has been occuring for years and in different forms.
When I reference 9/11 I use it as the example which has galvanized society's gaze once again on the issue of our own security and the oftentimes insane measure which we accept in that name, not as the creation of this situation. Besides the implemtation of security and fortification as commonplace happens in other locales other than New York and the US reacting to their own specific context of fear.
some random thoughts...
an architecture of fear seems to follow from a culture of fear. isn't it just demand and supply? if you build an open park people might just put up fences.
instant communication seems to amplify the isolation, why am i right now typing on a computer rather than wandering around on the streets talking to people in person?
I think this all somehow relates to the loss of public space, or a culture of being public in urban america... individualism, loss of community...?
Vado, is "The Third Generation" a good view?
Reading the description it is interesting to see terrorist feel terror and paranoia. But doesn't that illusion of threats propelled by fear and paranoia inject into all of culture as Americans.
South Park did it best, at least in a version of a cartoon satire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnuZ5sg8VIc
More to come....this topic is what my current thesis investigation is trying to handle as well.
"The Architecture of Aftermath" by Terry Smith
History Channel
Hooked : Illegal Drugs
Cocaine was made illegal due to the belief that it caused "Black on White" crime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrd5xtyfjFw
city of quartz, mike davis...
http://www.amazon.com/City-Quartz-Excavating-Future-Angeles/dp/0679738061/sr=8-2/qid=1172394562/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-4010312-1365648?ie=UTF8&s=books
third generation is german and made in the 70's. Americans werent as concerned about terrorism then. unless they worked for a wing of the government that was training deathsquads in central and south america.
Mike Davis touches on the loss of public space as a catalyst for our society of fear in City of Quartz and laments for the Olmsteadian design of public space. He makes a great statement which I think we all might have thought at one point consciously or not:
"...the quality of any urban environment can be measured by whether there are any convenient and comfortable places to sit."
Public space designed today in most cases centers on a "consumer model" as a sublte (not really) means of excluding and barring "undesirables" from these spaces. For example, the preference for a pretty "Main Street USA" shopping area over an open public park.
Ironically, the original idea of public from the greeks was the place where you were free... it was the place owned by all (so long as you could afford to occupy it)... and the private realm was where you were a slave to labour and economy...
Today, the streets aren't really public anymore, they are instead the space of labour and economy... instead of it being the space owned by everybody, it is the space owned by nobody...
interesting book...
hannah arendt. the human condition
a given is this read.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.