info
/
as published in INDA Yearbook 2020-2021, p. 101-103
As a point of departure, it is perhaps worth reflecting on the distinction that Ferdinand Tönnies makes between community and society in his seminal work Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Tönnies, 1887). Whilst not outright categories, they do allow us to assess and question how we may frame our current understanding of community pre-, during-, and post-pandemic. Has our appreciation and understanding of community changed, and if so, how? In the way that Tönnies defines community as a group of people who share common beliefs and values, one might then argue that some of these values may come to the fore or be reinforced as a result of, say, a global pandemic. So what we may have considered important in the sense of community pre-pandemic, may now have shifted, be questioned in terms of priority, or taken on a new meaning during- and post-pandemic. One of these could be argued to be that of resilience.
The International Program in Design and Architecture (INDA) at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok (Thailand) offers Third-Year students the chance to design and construct a community project during its annual summer course, Design Construction Projects for Communities. It is a unique opportunity for students to apply their design skills to interact with communities in the provision of design solutions that meet their needs using built projects as an outcome. For many students, this is the first time that they are exposed to all phases of a live project and the multitude of considerations that go hand-in-hand with that.
When countries were one-by-one catapulted into lockdown amid a global pandemic, we were not only tasked in architectural education with the pedagogical and logistical challenges of how to retain a studio culture or some sense of normality in courses via the dreaded Zoom screen, but for a summer course where the community is at the heart of the project and intrinsically linked to reciprocal learning through exposure, we needed to adapt and re-evaluate how we could deliver a meaningful project. Resilience or the ability to adapt and deliver a project come what may become a key driver. It manifested itself through three factors with this particular project: resilient typologies, resilient contexts, and resilient learning.
Resilient typologies. During the development of the project brief, we were inspired to research architectural typologies that could lend themselves to two main factors: a moveable/mobile architecture and an architecture that meets social distancing measures and precautions as set out by the Government. One such typology is that of the Drive-In Theaters or Cinemas, popularised (and first patented) in the 1930s in the USA. Sitting in your car you are isolated from others yet with everything you could need for the duration of the film, whilst participating in a shared leisure activity (watching a movie projected on a large screen), you are part of a community. But we wanted to hybridise this typology: part-drive-in cinema and part-pop-up (another typology that experienced a resurgence in response to a global crisis, in this case, the financial crash of 2007). We also wanted the architecture to encapsulate the resourcefulness that Thai builders and craftsmen often display “to get things done” and respond to the climate of Thailand (being isolated in a car in Bangkok does not conjure up the most pleasant of experiences, unless the air-con is running, of course). What was also of importance was the particular tectonics of Drive-In Cinemas, characterised by billboard structures, the orientation of the screen, and the unobstructed sightlines. As the project developed throughout the design process, students were adamant that their proposal should be lean, nimble, and able to respond to all of the aforementioned criteria.
Resilient contexts. Context concerning this project can be considered two-fold: people (community) and place (site). It thus called for an architecture that is adaptable and able to respond to the needs of different communities and different urban environments. The client was not one person. Nor was it one group of people. The client was a new type of community cutting across a spectrum of demographics, beliefs, background, or any of the other values that usually define us as a community. This was a community brought together by the need to meet when meeting as a group was indeed restricted due to social distancing measures. This exchange could only happen through a collective moment facilitated by an architecture that had these measures ingrained in its design response.
The same can be said for the sites. We were not designing a project for one site. We were designing for multiple sites. Bangkok has no shortage of sites where various communities sit side-by-side or overlap, resulting in a plethora of conditions to respond to. What has become apparent with this project (and many other projects at INDA over the years) is how Bangkok can lend itself to function as a test-bed, in a way that is so different and so much more enriched than one might find in, for instance, European cities. Might this ability to function as a test-bed start to highlight the potential of underused sites? Such is the case certainly for many of the new public realm projects recently built in Bangkok. Their programmatic use has been informed by temporary projects built on them when they were underused, forgotten, or meanwhile sites. We thus know that these contexts are resilient.
Resilient learning. Where resilience was probably the most evident was in the way that both instructor and students had to adapt, both from a teaching and learning perspective, but also from the challenges set by the design and delivery of a built project. We had limited access to workshops, studio space, and the usual facilities that would normally allow for a much smoother process from project conception to delivery. Early on in the project, we looked at the obvious model of how large architectural practices with multiple offices in various geographical locations might tackle such challenges. Of course, many of these practices already have systems and procedures set up to function efficiently. We had to start from scratch or at least develop some sort of a watered-down version thereof. This combined with the fact that for many students this was their first exposure to not only designing a project that will eventually have to be built, but also to other aspects ranging from project management, technical/construction documentation, cost analysis, negotiating, and collaborating with contractors to project management and event planning. We dealt with this through a systematic approach using consecutive project phases. Each project phase was introduced via lectures explaining key concepts before progressing with the work. Students were divided into teams with a primary and secondary focus/role. The primary focus/role was design, working as three design groups that would each develop a proposal in a mini-competition format, before proceeding with one proposal or one main proposal that took on board aspects of others. The secondary role/focus would allow individuals to take on a specific role in the project, i.e. PR, finance and project schedule, technical drawings, liaising with contractors and suppliers, etc. Whilst challenging, the shift to online learning/teaching also allowed us to test other technologies such as Augmented Reality models to evaluate everything from scale to junction details. Where permitted, we made use of workshops and labs to make physical models and meet in small groups to accelerate the design and decision-making processes. What has probably been the biggest takeaway from this is that we can adapt by referencing methods employed in practice and adapting them to that in education. Not that there is anything particularly novel about this, but what was fascinating is how students were able to take ownership of this process without really ever having had much experience of it. It speaks volumes of the ability to be resilient whilst you are a student and where there is support from the educational institution that facilitates such learning processes and outcomes.
The INDA Community Cinema allowed us to explore all three aspects of resilience. The project consists of two main cinema structures. Designed to be modular and mobile, they can easily be installed, demounted, transported, and reinstalled on different sites throughout Bangkok. We were also adamant that the project should serve different communities (not just in terms of location, but also in terms of what constitutes a community). Three events were earmarked in Bangkok’s event circuit.
INDA Community Cinema premiered (and was tested) where it was conceived; at INDA’s annual Assembly held in the courtyard of Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Architecture building in November 2020. INDA is a design and architecture school, but it is also a community where we are brought together by the values that underwrite a plurality of approaches, fostered by faculty members and students alike. Short films of the other Design Build and Design Construction Projects for Communities by Second and Third-Year students were screened at this event. Little did we know that this was one of the last occasions where we could gather in the same physical space as INDA community before we went into yet another lockdown.
The second event where INDA Community Cinema was installed was at Suan Luang Square Field Flea Market. The event took place over a weekend in December 2020 and formed part of a larger program of craft -, food markets and performances by the local community. The event is organised and managed by Chulalongkorn University.
The Cinema made its final appearance in July 2021 when it was selected to be installed at Bangkok Design Week 2021. The theme of BKKDW2021 was “Resurgence of Possibilities”. Our experience and the values that we were investigating throughout the design of the INDA Community Cinema, in particular the search for resilient typologies, fit this theme very well and offered a discourse about future possibilities of an architecture that could employ similar outcomes. During its week-long tenure, we invited students from INDA to submit short films of their design projects carried out over the academic year to be screened every evening. This allowed for further proliferation of deeply embedded discussions and critiques that were taking place through the briefs and studio tutorials across all four years of the program. Resilience once again manifested itself through a myriad of projects from the students who have endured nearly two years of academic study under lockdown. What a feat!
It is often said that as architects and designers, we are uniquely capable, not exclusively capable, to use our skills in the service of our communities. Whilst there is truth to this, it is apparent that an approach that factors in resilience in how we design, what we design, and who we design it for, will offer new possibilities and the potential for yet unknown hybrid typologies. What is perhaps most crucial and pertinent, is how we frame this in architectural education at the grassroots level, our social and ecological environment, and, dare we say, a more resilient future.
If in the Tönniesian sense resilience through design can add to our values of what defines our communities (gemeinschaft), one might start to be hopeful of how this might bring about a shift in the way we design for an ever-changing society (gesellschaft).
References:
Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, Leipzig: Fues's Verlag.
Copyright: International Program in Design and Architecture (INDA), Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok (Thailand).