On capsularities: Physical and diffuse envelopes between accessibility and representation
Abstract
Envelopes are an important topic in the study of architecture and urbanism and have a profound impact on our daily lives. They form boundaries, edges, enclosures and joints with ecological, territorial and representational functions that have social, cultural, economic, technological, environmental and political significance. Referring to warnings about capsular civilisation, this paper promotes the metaphorically telling concept of capsularity, in order to overcome terminological inconsistency as a characteristic phenomenon that denotes enclosures at different scales. It includes both capsules as small-scale cellular units on an architectural or industrial design scale – referred to as units of individual capsularity – and extended structures and territorial enclosures as manifestations of collective capsularity. Furthermore, a typology of collective capsularity is proposed. While complete and permeable envelopes entail physical spatial demarcation, diffuse envelopes are based on a technological system of control and surveillance. However, diffuse envelopes also complement both complete envelopes and permeable envelopes, forming masked capsular hybrids. After contextualising the proposed typology according to accessibility and its representation, the ambivalences of collective capsularities are considered through the lens of three selected and distinctive co-existing effects: Freedom/Control, Reality/Simulation and Seclusion/Exclusion. These effects present the concept and associated discourse as critical, pertinent and stimulating for imagining, inventing, proposing and implementing democratic, participatory and caring urban(istic) activities. The exposed typology and narratives of antagonisms involved in the operation of capsularities propose further research, policy development and planning directed towards the decapsularisation of contemporary space and promote democratic and caring possibilities for urban living in the future.
References
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supemodernity. London, New York: Verso.
Austin, S., Sharr, A. (2021). The University of Nonstop Society: Campus Planning, Lounge Space, and Incessant Productivity, Architecture and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/20507828.2020.1766300
Avermaete, T. (2001). Capsulair Places Analysis and Therapy of the Public Space, Oase, Vol. 54, pp. 37–49.
Barbera, L. V. (2017). Digital Nolli. 3D Representation (digital model ) of Gianbattista Nolli’s Map of Rome “La Nuova Topografia di Roma” (1748 ), L’ADC L’architettura Delle Città. The Journal of the Scientific Society Ludovico Quaroni, Vol. 11, pp. 71–101.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Beck, U., Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. London: Sage.
Bene, B., Benkő, M. (2022). Borderlands of Housing Neighbourhoods As Residual or Liminal Spaces: Comparative Study of Cases in Budapest, Spatium, No. 47, pp. 11–20. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT220330007B
Blakely, E. J., Snyder, M. G. (1997). Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Boer, F., Dijkstra, C. (2003). Funscapes: The European Leisure Landscape. In R. Broesi, P. Jannink, W. Veldhuis, I. Nio (Eds.), Euroscapes. Amsterdam: Must Publishers, pp. 167–214.
Bottomley, A., Moore, N. (2007). From Walls to Membranes: Fortress Polis and the Governance of Urban Public Space in 21st century Britain, Law and Critique, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-007-9011-9
Buchanan, P. (2006). From Doing to Being: Cultural BuiIdings and the CIty In the Conceptual Age, or why Icons are so Yesterday, Architectural Review, Vol. 10, pp. 44–45.
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed.). Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chung, C. J. (2001). Disney Space. In C. J. Chung, J. Inaba, R. Koolhaas, S. T. Leong (Eds.), Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping. Köln; Cambridge, MA: Taschen;Harvard Design School.
Côté-Boucher, K. (2008). The Diffuse Border: Intelligence-sharing, Control and Confinement along Canada’s Smart Border, Surveillance & Society, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 142–165. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v5i2.3432
De Cauter, L. (2004). The Capsular Civilization: On the City in the Age of Fear. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
Debord, G. (2004). Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control, October, Vol. 59, pp. 3–7.
Dovey, K. (2008). Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form (2nd ed.). Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Filipcevic Cordes, V. (2017). City Sovereignty: Urban Resistance and Rebel Cities Reconsidered, Urban Science, Vol. 1, No. 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci1030022
Foster Associates (1977). Architectural Design, (Sept.-Oct.), pp. 614–621.
Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spaces, Diacritics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 22–27.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Frantz, K. (2000). Gated Communities in the USA - A New Trend in Urban Development, Espace-Populations-Societes, Vol. 1, pp. 101–113. https://doi.org/10.3406/espos.2000.1928
Frichot, H. (2009). Foaming Relations: The Ethico-Aesthetics of Relationality. In Terry Meade, T., Diaz, L., Creed, I. (Eds.), Occupation: Negotiations with Constructed Space, Proceedings of the Conference held at the University of Brighton, July 2009. Brighton University, pp. 1–11. https://research.brighton.ac.uk/en/publications/occupation-negotiations-with-constructed-space
Garrett, B. (2021). Doomsday Preppers and the Architecture of Dread, Geoforum, Vol. 127, pp. 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.03.014
Graham, S. (2005). Software-sorted Geographies, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 562–580. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph568oa
Graham, S., Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism. London: Routledge.
Graham, S., Marvin, S. (2022). Splintering Urbanism at 20 and the “Infrastructural Turn”, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2021.2005934
Guillot, X. (2008). Heteropias in Singapore. In M. Dehaene, L. De Cauter (Eds.), Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Post Civil Society. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 179–188.
Handy, S. (2020). Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come?, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 83, No. 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319
Hodkinson, S. (2012). The new urban enclosures, City, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.709403
Ipswich Centre (1975). Architectural Design, July, pp. 418–419.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Jansson, A., Lagerkvist, A. (2009). The future gaze: City panoramas as politico-emotive geographies, Journal of Visual Culture, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412908100902
Jeffrey, A., McFarlane, C., Vasudevan, A. (2012). Rethinking Enclosure: Space, Subjectivity and the Commons, Antipode, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 1247–1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00954.x
Jerković-Babović, B., Rakonjac, I., Furundžić, D. (2020). Fluid spaces in a contemporary Urban context: Questioning the boundary between architecture and infrastructure, Spatium, No. 43, pp. 35–43. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT2043035J
Ji, H., Ding, W. (2021). Mapping Urban Public Spaces Based on the Nolli Map Method, Frontiers of Architectural Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 540–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.04.001
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism, GeoJournal, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
Klauser, F. (2013). Spatialities of Security and Surveillance: Managing Spaces, Separations and Sirculations at Sport Mega Events, Geoforum, Vol. 49, pp. 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.011
Koolhaas, R. (1995). The Generic City. In J. Siegler (ed.), S, M, L, XL / Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, pp. 1239–1994.
Kurokawa, K. (1977). Metabolism in Architecture. London: Studio Vista.
Landau, R. (1973). Mickey Mouse The Great Dictator (The Disney Game as a Control System). Architectural Design, September, pp. 591–595.
Lee, S., Holzheu, S. (2011). Building Envelope as Surface. In S. Lee (Ed.), Aesthetics of Sustainable Architecture. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, pp. 120–133.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities. E. Kofman, E. Lebas (Eds.). Oxford, Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Leong, S. T. (2001). Captive. In C. J. Chung, J. Inaba, R. Koolhaas, S. T. Leong (eds.), Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping. Köln; Cambridge, MA: Taschen; Harvard Design School, pp. 175-184.
Levine, J. (2020). A century of evolution of the accessibility concept, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 83, No. 102309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102309
Low, S. (2008). The Gated Community as Heterotopia. In M. Dehaene, L. De Cauter (Eds.), Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Post Civil Society (pp. 153–163). Abingdon: Routledge.
March, L., Lehrer, U. (2022). Common Areas, Common Causes: Public Space in High‐Rise Buildings During Covid‐19, Urban Planning, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 352–363. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i4.5610
Marvin, S. (2016). Volumetric Urbanism: Artificial ‘outsides’ reassembled ‘inside’. In O. Coutard, J. Rutherford (Eds.), Beyond the Networked City: Infrastructure Reconfigurations and Urban Change in the North and South. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 227–241.
Marvin, S., Rutherford, J. (2018). Controlled environments: An urban research agenda on microclimatic enclosure, Urban Studies, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 1143–1162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018758909
Mathews, S. (2007). From Agit-Prop to Free Space: The Architecture of Cedric Price. London: Black Dog Publishing.
Mela, A. (2014). Urban public space between fragmentation, control and conflict, City, Territory and Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-014-0015-0
Mörtenböck, P., Mooshammer, H. (Eds.) (2021). Platform Urbanism and Its Discontents. Rotterdam: nai010 publishers.
Murakami Wood, D., Webster, C. W. R. (2009). Living in Surveillance Societies: The Normalisation of Surveillance in Europe and the Threat of Britain’s Bad Example, Journal of Contemporary European Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 259–273.
Murphy, M. (2006). Sick Building Syndrome and the Problem of Uncertainty: Environmental Politics, Technoscience, and Women Workers. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Pinder, D. (2005). Visions of the City: Utopianism, Power and Politics in Twentieth-Century Urbanism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Sadowski, J. (2021). Who owns the future city? Phases of technological urbanism and shifts in sovereignty, Urban Studies, Vol. 58, No. 8, pp. 1732–1744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020913427
Schuilenburg, M. (2008). Citizenship revisited - Denizens and Margizens, Peace Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402650802330238
Schuilenburg, M. (2015). The Securitization of Society: Crime, Risk and Social Order. The Securitization of Society. New York and London: New York Univrsity Press.
Šenk, P. (2011). Koncept kapsularnosti kot fenomen sodobnega prostora. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia).
Šenk, P. (2018). Capsules: Typology of Other Architecture. London, New York: Routledge.
Shannon, K. (2001). Shifting Gears: Western to Asian or Asian to Global?, Oase, Vol. 54, pp. 86–103.
Shaw, I. G. R. (2016). The Urbanization of Drone Warfare: Policing Surplus Populations in the Dronepolis, Geographica Helvetica, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 19–28. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-71-19-2016
Shaw, I. G. R. (2017). The Great War of Enclosure: Securing the Skies, Antipode, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 883–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12309
Sloterdijk, P. (2010). Cell Block, Egospheres, Self-Container: The Apartment as a Co-Isolated Existence, Log, No. 10, pp. 89–108.
Smith, C. (2017). ‘Our changes’? Visions of the future in Nairobi, Urban Planning, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 31–40. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v2i1.834
Sorkin, M. (1992). Introduction: Variations on a Theme Park. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. New York: Hill and Wang, xi-xv.
Trencher, G. (2019). Towards the smart city 2.0: Empirical evidence of using smartness as a tool for tackling social challenges, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 142, No. July, pp. 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.033
Vanolo, A. (2014). Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy, Urban Studies, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013494427
Winkowska, J., Szpilko, D., Pejić, S. (2019). Smart city concept in the light of the literature review, Engineering Management in Production and Services, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 70–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2019-0012
Zaborova, D., Musorina, T. (2022). Environmental and Energy-Efficiency Considerations for Selecting Building Envelopes, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 14. No. 5941. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105914
Zaera-Polo, A. (2008). The Politics of the Envelope, Log, No. 13–14, pp. 193–207.
Zaera-Polo, A. (2009). The Politics of the Envelope, Part II, Log, No. 16, pp. 97–132.
Zaera-Polo, A., Anderson, J. S. (2021). The Ecologies of the Building Envelope: A Meterial History and Theory of Architectural Surfaces. New York, Barcelona: Actar Publishers.
