The Art of War: World Conflict Informs Urban Intervention

It is the goal of this Blog to put forth regional influences which shape architecture in a constantly evolving world. Since the landscape in which we dwell is always changing, we must be open to the departure of existing systems and preconceived notions of building. This abandonment of common thought should also be applied to our understanding of hierarchy and public space within the urban cityscape. In my previous post, titled “The New Multi-Purpose Room”, I referenced a topic that is deserving of some further discussion. Within the last few decades there have been many political conflicts that have occurred across the globe, but until recently, they have remained distant events in regards to the architecture community. It is this unconventional realm of architectural influence that I raise the issue of conflict urbanism. In this post I will present two ensuing projects that were designed as a response to regional conflicts and hopefully create some dialogue within the discussion.

Conflict urbanism can be described as architectural and urban responses as a result of opposing regions of tension. An example of this can be seen in the Berlin Wall. The project mentioned in my previous post is “Metastructure” by Lebbeus Woods. In this exploration, Woods examines the conflict involving the Serbian and Croatian invasion of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The nature of these attacks was governed by the NATO enforced no-fly zone and thereby forced to be grounded. As a response, Woods proposed to erect an artillery-impenetrable wall that would have to be engaged by foot (rendered at left). The extreme thickness and labyrinth-like spatial quality of the Metastructure would prolong invasions and eventually separate large battalions into smaller groups. These groups of soldiers would ideally become famished and be forced to post stations and form eventual colonies within the confines of the buffer zone. Within these settlements, local economies could emerge as local Bosnian farmers penetrate the spatial wall in order to trade food and water for other goods and services.

Although this response to the Bosnian war is a bit romanticized, it continues to be a worthwhile discussion for the creation of boundaries. Even though this exact scheme probably would not work in the real world, the ideas that are infuses into the design promotes a new use for walls as spatial mechanisms rather than vertical boundaries. In a world full of property lines and retaining walls, where else might this idea be incorporated?

Another area of conflict that has influenced a recent project takes place among the Israelis and the Palestinians. This sensitive situation, if for nothing else, has yielded a particularly interesting architectural intervention in Viktor Ramos’, “The Continuous Enclave: Strategies in Bypass Urbanism”. As a result of the Oslo Accords, modern day Israel is subdivided into communities that form an intertwining network of Palestinian and Israeli settlements. The physical division of these neighborhoods creates a disconnection between each group. The continuous enclave creates a break in the vertical boundaries and bridges the gap between each cluster of Israelis or Palestinians (seen at right). These mega-structures create opportunities for housing, transportation, and even agricultural complexes. While providing a means of traveling safely through Israel, the proposal also provides a means for expansion for each group as the current system of sharing the landscape is simply isolated nodes making up a larger network of cities.

The fantasy of the continuous enclave remains to be just that, fantasy. Realistically, I would like to see the project deal directly with the hostile situation in Israel. Instead, it offers an over-the-top solution that, rather than confronts the issues, ignores them. As seen in the title of the article, the continuous enclave simply “bypasses” the conflict. Inversely, as a theoretical thought, it is basically a literal interpretation of bridging over vertical boundaries. The simple move of elevating the ground plane into a synthetic layer of habitable space has been seen in many theories such as Constant’s New Babylon as well as Yona Friedman’s Ville Spatiale. Unlike this project however, Constant and Friedman’s ideas were projected around half a century ago. The two structures proposed in these theories also happened to be open-trussed, airy solutions that appeared much lighter and sensitive to the existing context. This Ramos’ enclave appears to be a bulkier design that would cast mammoth shadows that would eclipse the land that it passes over, possibly creating further conflict.

Perhaps there is no architectural intervention that could possibly solve a war between nations. To say that good design of an environment can solve issues of this magnitude and complexity is a bit of a stretch, however, these projects can also be described as an idealistic approach to a greater issue. These solutions, at the very least, serve as vehicles to deliver awareness abroad and the theory provided can give a point of departure for the end product that actually produces change.