Here is a brief clip from an interview with Erik Swyngedouw. I am exceedingly interested in connecting architectural practices with the evolving field of critical geography.
Below is the abstract and film preview from my masters thesis. I will try to put a few dozen interviews online soon with links to films that I am developing that analyze variations in Berlin's collective housing: between privately owned (Baugruppen), demands for resocialization (Kotti & Co), and commons models of cooperative duel ownership (Mietshäuser Syndikat).
- - -
CRITIQUE OF ARCHITECTURE – ARCHITECTURE AS CRITIQUE
Towards a conceptualization of critical urban praxis (theory/proposition/physical activity) as a strategy of architectural commoning analyzed through the Baugruppe and Mietshäuser Syndikat in Berlin
This project develops a critique of architecture and suggests that local architectural strategies can forge alliances with social movements to produce material critique of society. First, the critique of architecture can reveal contradictions in how we conceptualize architecture in order to suggest a balance between critical proximity and critical distance – the actor-network assemblage and the forces of planetary urbanization. Second, I ask specific questions regarding new collective housing strategies in Berlin, whether material form or economic contracts adequately accommodate various visions of a collective society. Third, I will extrapolate upon a critical urban praxis, which identifies three parts: (1) theory/research, (2) propositions/models, and (3) physical activity/embodied action, each of which must retain the three fundamentals of critical theory (1) reflexivity, (2) critique of instrumental reason, (3) illuminate pathways from the actual to the possible. Fourth, the project is then localized in Berlin by analyzing the cycles of history, divided city, restructuring of the post-1989 economy and scales of neoliberal urbanization. The state has rolled back state programs, such as social housing, while rolling out new incentives for private housing (such as giving tax refunds for Baugruppen projects). Fifth, the comparison between Baugruppe and Mietshäuser Syndikat illustrates similarities in material form, and differences in ownership: the Baugruppe have private individual and the Mietshäuser Syndikat have dual ownership. The positive narrative inaccurately deceives the professional architecture community and the broader public of the community value of new social architectural models, while tenant resistance continues and housing is needed for those without capital.