By Jordan Hughes
Nature in Modernism:
In order to understand the role of impaired monuments in our built environment
we must first understand the human concept of nature and the human concept of
impairment within the designed landscape. Modernism led to the emergence of cities,
infrastructure, and zoning, shaping urban environments where nature was crafted
through the creation of parks and landscapes. The introduction of "nature" into urban
environments by society presents a paradoxical notion. We may view the introduction
of green spaces in our cities as natural; however, it is important to note how these
verdant spaces are merely created and constructed by modern societies, produced
aesthetically for visual representations. The concept of such processes introduces
ideas of human subjecti
vity and its role in disability politics.
Historically, impairments have been viewed as issues that seek solutions.
Progressive technologies have sought to resolve these “issues” through things like
genetic engineering. To seek solutions for natural phenomena poses a paradox; if
nature produces these impairments, then they are natural. Impairments should not be
viewed as weaknesses because they are biological in nature. By understanding nature
as a produced aspect of society, one can rethink the relationship between nature and
human impairment in architecture.
(George Kraus, Old Man and Trees, 1960. Trees that are straight trunked and symmetrical were coined as
the “ideal tree” in urban environments)
Modernization can be seen through the integration of nature into cities for public good, but it can also be seen in the ways we choose to monumentalize events. We view landscapes as a representation of the human notion of beauty and healthiness but we aestheticize this concept into an imagined nonhuman nature. In the same way, we view monuments as historically significant events, but what we choose to memorialize and the way they are represented can become inherently subjective to form an idealized past. “Monuments of architectural, national, and cultural history often confront those of us who are disabled as representations of a past without us.” (Gissen 1). In terms of monuments, preservationists and architects have all-together let down an entire group of people that have historically been denied access to elements that are considered representations of the public. Many monuments or historical sites are preserved under the presumption that all physical abilities and capacities are the same. But this discrimination does not stop at access, the character of these places eliminates the historical concept of impairments as being a central part of history, further alienating this community. We must think about impairment preservation beyond the limitations of access, but as a permeation of history that has been continuously left out. When we analyze the politics of disability, we gain a larger perspective that can be critiqued through material histories that are monumentalized in buildings and landscapes, especially through their aesthetics; only then can we understand the role that impairment disability has in the built environment.
(Acropolis, Athens, Greece. An elevator lift allowing for accessibility is present despite historical accounts of
the site being accessed through ramps)
A Contested Past:
It is important to analyze the power structures that have contributed to these
inequalities so that we can move towards an inclusive future. The first question I
encourage architects and designers to ask themselves is: if disabilities have always
been a natural phenomenon present in our society, then why do we rarely see them in
the built environment? The simple truth is certain groups have succeeded more than
others in imprinting their mark on the urban landscape, leading to the exclusion of
minorities and resulting in a contested past. Classist distinctions have discriminated
against those who were houseless and disabled (infamously targeting veterans after the
first World War) and made it illegal for these groups of people to be seen in public in
the 20th century. Coined “the ugly laws”, these laws would exist until 1990 when
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. We must change the way we
view impairments in our society if we want to repair the mistakes of the past. The most
effective way of doing this is to allow them to imprint their mark on society, disabled
voices need to be put at the forefront of these conversations.
Architecture is more than just creating buildings, we must be the voice of the
people, particularly those who have been historically silenced. It is important to
re-evaluate our roles in the built environment as designers, designing beyond access
and addressing the core of societal issues. Preserving the complete history of a group
that has been largely discriminated against goes beyond just recording their past in
society; it demonstrates to them that amore inclusive and promising future is ahead.
(Luigi Mendicino, Chicago Tribune. Policemen leading a crippled man to a police wagon on July 22, 1954,
from the skid row area in Chicago.)
References:
Gissen, David. The Architecture of Disability: Buildings, Cities, and Landscapes beyond
Access. University of Minnesota Press, 2022.
Hilde Heynen (1999) Petrifying memories: architecture and the construction of identity, The
Journal of Architecture, 4:4, 369-390, DOI: 10.1080/136023699373765
Comments
Post a Comment