Thesis Seminar - UC Berkeley College of Environmental...

T h e s i s S e m i n a r

Richard KlajaFall 2014

Advisors: Jill Stoner, Ron Rael

F o r e w o r d

15 Untitled Works in Concrete, Donald Judd, 1980

With their hard boundaries in constant states of change, border areas are places characterized by movement and mobility, as well as fixed order. Geologic forces subtly shift over time, altering the physical limits of boundaries. Additionally, people and information flow through them, turning a place of contact and difference into a zone of exchange. This juxtaposition both undermines and reinforces the idea of the border by amplifying and exploiting difference, while allowing for exchange and interaction. As spaces in perpetual states of flux, it is the process of border making at the intersection of movement and stability that becomes important. How can architecture respond to spaces characterized by both of these forces? How can it operate as part of the system of border making and contribute to a conversation of place in a region with a complicated identity? And lastly, how can the built environment enhance the richness of zones of difference?

This series explores the creation of a static formal vocabulary based on themes of movement. The vocabularies are the product of analyzing various types of movement found along the South Texas border, from New Mexico to Louisiana. The collection carries on a rich tradition of formal work in the landscape, practiced by artists such as Donald Judd, whose site specific formal works are a testament to the power that lies at the intersection of formalism and the landscape. The chosen themes of movement are as follows:

A t t r a c t

C l i m b

C r o s s

E x t r a c t

H i d e

I n t e r a c t

P a t r o l

R i s e

S h i f t

S p e e d

S p l i t

S t o r m

T r a d e

W a l k

W o r k

Borders are everywhere. We navigate more borders in our day-to-day lives than we realize. So what is it about this particular border that necessitates in depth study, analysis, and proposed architectural intervention? Firstly, South Texas has two boundaries. There is the man-made political border between the US and Mexico to the West, and the border along the Gulf Coast on the East. Each side has vastly different characteristics, and the ways in which we interact with either respective side are just as different. Like most boundaries, this zone is where two different things, either two countries, or land and water, meet (fig. 1). There is a moment of exchange, contrast, and difference. In this instance, however, along with exchange and diffusion, there is a simultaneous and equally prominent sense of fortification, blocking, and exclusion. Texas both trades with and fortifies against what lies on the other side, while remaining dependent on its existence. The coastal areas economically depend on the waterfront and all it provides, yet have to go to great lengths to protect themselves against it, or to find new ways of interacting with it. Likewise, trade with Mexico is such a large part of the Texas economy, and yet the wall exists, manned with armed guards and patrol cars at the ready. It is the existence of these types of conditions that make this particular border the appropriate site for such a proposal. What forms, apart from a wall, can architecture take to make a statement at the intersection of culture, nature, and economy? The proposed interventions, placed uniformly every 20 miles along the border, are read as a set, a collection of a new way of imagining a boundary condition. A series that explores both conditions (country to country, and land to water) in the same language begins to expose the ways in which we relate, not only to the idea of difference, but to multiple forms of difference. Just as the boundary line itself exists as an Other, both belonging to and not belonging to each side, the abstract geometric forms of this series sit foreign in the landscape. A visual manifestation of an inscribed line of difference.

But it is not a line. It is a collection, a process. It is a network. Form brings a third dimension to the conversation allowing for new spatial relationships, points of attraction, visual markers, and inhabitable spaces. To re-territorialize the border space with an architecture that is Other is to reinforce the position of a boundary as something that divides, creates difference, or that is part of another system entirely. The architecture belongs here precisely because it is out of place. The result of a process which references the context, but from a distance.

We must be careful in the way that we approach a project along the border. The proposal does not eradicate the existing boundary. Advocating for a borderless world promotes a false sense of sameness, ultimately undermining the richness of cultural and physical difference. Boundaries are territorial, but also cultural. The physical constructed reality of the line is also real. A border of objects in space recognizes and celebrates this difference, inviting exchange and interaction. An opening, not an erasure. In the words of William Zartman, borders “Run over land, but through people” (Zartman, 1) . The line is very real. But the line is also a question. A noncommittal gesture. It is up to us to imagine what the line should be.

Fig. 1: Santa Fe bridge connecting Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, TX (left), and the Texas Gulf Coast (right)

A t t r a c t

1.1: Attract collage1.2: Attract diagram

1.1

1.2

1.3: Attract wire model, Top view

1.4: Attract wire model, Oblique view

C l i m b

2.1: Climb collage2.2: Climb diagram

2.1

2.2

2.3: Climb wire model, Top view

2.4: Climb wire model, Oblique view

C r o s s

3.1: Cross collage3.2: Cross diagram

3.1

3.2

3.3: Cross wire model, Top view

3.4: Cross wire model, Oblique view

E x t r a c t

4.1: Extract collage4.2: Extract diagram

4.1

4.2

4.3: Extract wire model, Top view

4.4: Extract wire model, Oblique view

H i d e

5.1: Hide collage5.2: Hide diagram

5.1

5.2

5.3: Hide wire model, Top view

5.4: Hide wire model, Oblique view

I n t e r a c t

6.1: Interact collage6.2: Interact diagram

6.1

6.2

6.3: Interact wire model, Top view

6.4: Interact wire model, Oblique view

P a t r o l

7.1: Patrol collage7.2: Patrol diagram

7.1

7.2

7.3: Patrol wire model, Top view

7.4: Patrol wire model, Oblique view

R i s e

8.1: Rise collage8.2: Rise diagram

8.1

8.2

8.3: Rise wire model, Top view

8.4: Rise wire model, Oblique view

S h i f t

9.1: Shift collage9.2: Shift diagram

9.1

9.2

9.3: Shift wire model, Top view

9.4: Shift wire model, Oblique view

S p e e d

10.1: Speed collage10.2: Speed diagram

10.1

10.2

10.3: Speed wire model, Top view

10.4: Speed wire model, Oblique view

S p l i t

11.1: Split collage11.2: Split diagram

11.1

11.2

11.3: Split wire model, Top view

11.4: Split wire model, Oblique view

S t o r m

12.1: Storm collage12.2: Storm diagram

12.1

12.2

12.3: Storm wire model, Top view

12.4: Storm wire model, Oblique view

T r a d e

13.1: Trade collage13.2: Trade diagram

13.1

13.2

13.3: Trade wire model, Top view

13.4: Trade wire model, Oblique view

W a l k

14.1: Walk collage14.2: Walk diagram

14.1

14.2

14.3: Walk wire model, Top view

14.4: Walk wire model, Oblique view

W o r k

15.1: Work collage15.2: Work diagram

15.1

15.2

15.3: Work wire model, Top view

15.4: Work wire model, Oblique view

E n d o f F a l l S e m e s t e r :O n L a n d A r t a n d L o o k i n g F o r w a r d

Double Negative, Michael Heizer, 1969

Monumental Land Art in the US, rising to particular popularity in the late 1960’s, is of great interest to this project. Examples include Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, Michael Heizer’s Double Negative, Walter De Maria’s Lightning Field, or to a less monumental degree, Donald Judd’s works in concrete. Often using the desert landscape as a canvas of sorts, these interventions are usually simple and formal, using nature as a key dynamic element. They respond directly to site conditions and re-orients participants to see a place in a new way. I envision the completed proposal to exist somewhere in the murky waters between architecture and formal monumental land art.

As a starting point, each of the sites will begin the same way. A predetermined simple formal constant will be employed, giving something to react to and alter based on each site. The moves will be subtle and simple, but each form will be unique. Along with the form, each piece will be sited in a way that is responsive to the surrounding conditions. Lakes, coastlines, desert, hilltops, and riverbanks all provide different opportunities, as well as varying contextual environments.

One of the main ideas behind the proposal is that the sum of all of the separate parts is to be read as a whole, a collection. Each piece is part of a network. However, being so distant from eachother, the only way to see the whole set would be from the air. This means that there will be two distinct experiences of the project. At the human scale you would find personal interaction. Scale, texture and material, modifications to the formal constant, and immediate contextual relationships become the most important things. The existence of the other nodes depends on the knowledge of the viewer. It cannot be seen by the naked eye. It must stand on its own.

The second reading would be distant and from above. From here, small details give way to altitude. Each node becomes exactly that, simply a marker along a line. A 1600 mile connect-the-dot map. From here, the lack of detail and nuance creates the opposite effect. They cannot stand alone, and gather their strength in numbers. They relate to eachother as much as the surrounding landscape. Most importantly, they promote a sense of similarity and uniformity that binds. It takes the difference, and the “Other” that describes the place below and projects it skyward.

The challenge to come is to find out what exactly each of the two readings will convey. What will they consist of? How does one interact in each vantage point? What do the works communicate? And lastly, what effect could they have in this complicated place?

The research semester brought many ideas and new ways of thinking about the border space. The visual work centered around abstracting ideas of movement into physical form. While this exercise was a useful endeavor, it wasn’t getting me the results that I needed, and wasn’t reading as clearly as I had hoped. The Spring semester began with looking more closely at the physical characteristics of the site and how to take another language of abstraction to engage the border.

S p r i n g S e m e s t e r

To attempt a project of this scale, one must make an attempt to understand the site. This drawing was used as a way to visually encompass the entirety of the border by selecting equal swaths of land from each site and situating them adjacent to eachother. The drawing tries to compress or collapse the entire site into one visual composition, allowing the viewer to see the wide range of physical features at once.

S i t e D r a w i n g

16208335.50

172040117.24

182288174.98

191802138.96

202459113.00

21203476.00

221520104.84

23154058.00

24144163.00

25118779.00

26111149.00

27104068.00

2891619.20

2977735.68

3077741.66

317757.00

3273212.00

3370319.81

3460336.63

3546731.89

36453355.00

3742237.30

383800.00

3939817.95

402865.74

4123547.24

4216362.90

4313963.37

4410547.78

457282.78

464039.00

473105.00

480180.00

490188.42

500196.19

510191.16

138000.00

SITE NO.ELEVATIONANGLE OF ROTATION

2364926.75

3360141.76

4348842.63

5345418.06

6347875.39

7341581.00

8406520.40

9357543.81

10280542.00

112678351.00

12275253.50

13275835.30

14251464.80

15225110.80

0

1000

2000

3000

4000ELEVATION[FEET]

520171.41

530155.07

540145.00

550138.81

560107.66

570125.33

580118.93

590115.93

600120.71

610134.45

620128.23

630116.24

640117.55

650110.66

66093.87

This model, inspired by the ideas of collapsing and expanding space from the site drawing, explores these themes in relation to the site interventions themselves. Sixty-six identical pieces, cut from the same extruded form are deployed across the border. Together they are a single, solid mass from either side, and pulling them apart creates a more porous network of border points. Each one consists of a void cut in the ground, and a tall wall-like element made from the displaced earth.

C o n c e p t u a l M o d e l

Seeing each piece in visual adjacency makes for a comprehensive understanding of the various parts, and their role in the larger system. In real space, however, the pieces would be experienced one at a time. Once the major elements are placed into their respective sites, the forms are bent to reference the previous and next node in the sequence. Bending the form of the tall structure accomplished two things. First, it acts as a formal cue that there are more parts in the system, as it reaches out to the next piece. Second, it makes a strong reference to the geographical shape of the border itself as it snakes along the riverbed.

F o r m a l M o d i f i c a t i o n s

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

4243

44 45

46

All of the modified pieces back together in one drawing illustrates the result of the modifications across the entire border network. There is a clear language of formal reference between each piece in the sequence. The border line has now been widened into a spatial zone, rather than a line.

S i t e P l a n

SCALE:1” = 50’-0”

47.9˚ 9.5˚

-6.9˚-.8˚

MEXICO UNITED STATES

36

SCALE:1” = 50’-0”

-32.8˚ -27.5˚

-.8˚

-1.8˚


37

SCALE:1” = 650’-0”

9.2˚ 30.9˚

-1.8˚ -2.2˚


38

A border is two dimensional place. Space that is collapsed, becoming both formless and heavy. These lines are inscribed from above, removed from the physical realities of a landscape they are projected upon. And all at once, space becomes place, land is divided, you are either here or there, but the physical landscape remains unchanged.

This is a thesis about expansion. Expanding a line into space, and exploring the opportunities this new space creates to expand a narrative of place. Through architecture, we can unpack and spatialize a line into something that can be understood and interacted with.

The site for this investigation traces the entire South Texas border, encompassing both the political land border and the Gulf Coast border, a total of roughly 1600 miles. The border landscape features are laden with meaning. On one level, the line exists as part of a larger system, one of ordering and dividing. On another level, the line is on the ground with personal narratives, connections, and implications. How can a border become a tool for understanding, rather than a system of dividing? Can it work to demarcate difference, as well as explore the difference it creates?

A F i n a l T h e s i s S t a t e m e n t

A line is difficult to measure. Easily calculated in one direction, and instantaneous in another. The first step toward expansion is to turn the abstract continuous dimension of a line into a series of spatial instances. The proposed interventions are placed uniformly every 20 miles along the site. A total of 66 nodes, the border becomes a fragmented network of spatial definition.

Each piece is formally a series of simple repetitive operations. A void in the ground and a tower made of the displaced Earth creates a mirrored positive negative effect across the line. The two pieces, one on each side of the line, are then modified based on their distance from eachother, their rotated angle relative to the border, and the angle necessary to turn and face the next piece in the sequence. The border is now a framework, built to signify the larger ordering system while carving out a space for narratives to exist, stories to be told, and physical features to be appropriated. By design, the moments are without prescribed purpose. 66 blank pages along the line make room for new conversations about cultures and difference.

More than objects, these structures are lighthouses, signals; a neutral marker of an existing line. The lights call out to the next piece in the sequence, taking the knowledge of boundary’s existence and projecting it into the air, suspended in a predictable, steady rhythm.

Almost infinite possibilities exist to populate the new thickened border. A pair that become a two branch international library sharing books about language and culture. A pair of post offices that exchange messages with eachother. An art gallery. A weather station. Wildlife habitat. Farmer’s market. Scoreboard. Photographic pilgrimage. Or that big ugly thing in my backyard. The story goes on, but it is not written by me. I made the book.

B i b l i o g r a p h y

Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. On the Line. New York, NY: Semiotext(e), 1983. Print.

Diehl, Jody. “Beach with no name on the Bolivar Peninsula, Texas Gulf Coast.” Photograph. Beach Treasures and Treasure Beaches. 9-21-2012. Web. 12-19-2014.

Judd, Donald. Donald Judd: Architektur. Munster: Westfalischer Kunstverein, 1989. Print.

Massey, Doreen B. For Space. London: SAGE, 2005. Print.

Meneghini, Alexandre. “An aerial view of the Santa Fe bridge that links the Mexican city of Ciudad Juarez, bottom, with the U.S. city of El Paso, Texas, on February 16, 2010.” Photograph. On The Border. Wadumedia. 2-16-2010. Web. 12-19-2014.

Popescu, Gabriel. Bordering and Ordering the Twenty-first Century: Understanding Borders. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012. Print.

Zartman, I. William. Understanding Life in the Borderlands: Boundaries in Depth and in Motion. Athens, GA: U of Georgia, 2010. Print.

Thesis Seminar - UC Berkeley College of Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of Thesis Seminar - UC Berkeley College of Environmental...