1 Bernardo Jiminez-Dominguez. ‘Urban Appropriation and Loose Spaces in the Guadalajara Cityscape’ in Karen A Franck and Quentin Stevens, editors. Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life . London & New York: Routledge, 2007. p 40 2 A term coined by Gil Doron (www.gmdoron.com/). I use it here as the user’s provision of elements not provided by the formal ‘designers’ of the wall. 3 Jane Jacobs. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. p 35 4 www.downtownyonge.com/about This ongoing dynamism and looseness is of course tricky to maintain, but not impossible and a valuable contribution by the formal realm to the informal realm’s ability to appropriate the city. To return to Bernardo Jiminez-Dominguez quote, the public’s appropriation of the city and the city’s appropriation of its citizens can only be achieved through such negotiations of space. These appropriations must be inherently small – a negotiation between individuals and the edges of another’s space – but they are of utmost importance in achieving a personal and collective sense of place. When architecture, no matter how small, actively manipulates, denies or completely ignores public participation in this dialogue, we risk relegating the public to a role of spectator or deviant. If we want our cities to be more vibrant urban spaces open to a wide range of publics and uses, we must consider the many voices contributing to an urban dialogue at a variety of scales – even as small as a propped open doorstop. Instead, it is important to think of these urban edges as places to confront, negotiate and appropriate: thickened boundaries which at best can broaden our conception of what it means to actively participate in urban life and contribute to enriching urban dialogue.
no larger than a walk in closet, which leads up to a dentist’s office. During office hours, it is the only means of entry into the offices above. However, from the moment the door is propped open early in the morning until late in the evening, a wide array of informal users are ‘invited’ – or at least tacitly allowed – to use the space as well. Early Saturday mornings, local unsanctioned vendors selling on nearby sidewalks use it as a staging ground and occasional shading in the summer, and huddle around the radiator by the stairs during the winter. Its window ledge holds refreshments while people stand inside or out and chat, and its small single step up is just the right height for a child. This tiny little space is negotiated by all these informal users, while its maintaining its formal purpose. Simultaneously, this corner finds a way of supporting both formal (an entrance and passageway) and a range of informal uses which, creatively, find both micro-times and spaces to appropriate this boundary. As such, this boundary and its adjacent vestibule participate in an active ongoing dialogue in the production of urban space, allowing a richer edge for urban public life to unfold. It remains a negotiable edge – its identity is constantly being challenged – its boundaries being continuously re-drawn. Unlike the intersection at Yonge and College (where formal use is the law), or the blank walls at Chinatown Centre (where informal use has predominantly taken over) the boundary between public and private is blurred by propping open of the door each morning. This simple urban act makes each potential user a participant, based on their needs and the needs of others, in an active, ongoing and dynamic boundary condition.
64
On Site review 23 Small Things
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator