Occupy Wall Street Architecture

Occupy Wall Street Architecture
Frederic Levrat – Nov 4 2011

Controlled space

Space is currently defined by a controlling mechanism ofproperty right. Investment companies acquire land through leverage andspeculation, then rent it for a profit to the real user of the space, whiledisenfranchising the community as well as the individual from the most basicright to occupy space.

The main maps we have of the city – such as the Sandbornregister – are black on white definition of property right,only stipulating theowner and its property for insurance purpose on profit on the  increased value of property. There is absolutelyno indication of existence of trees, of community activity, of the density ofhappiness, noise level, social interaction or any human quality. It is a purerepresentation of the controlling power of a few individual over what used tobe public space. Everything is about money and control, about property and the precise/legaldefinition of it.

Questioning these types of boundaries is essential but notentirely a new struggle. The history of the nomads, violently repressed by thesettlers in the North American genocide, the North African Touareg, theaboriginal tribes of Australia is a long history of confrontation between thehoarder of the land for a profit against the actual user of the land. Morerecently, some alternative thinking produced some interesting re-mapping of theurban context, with the French Situationists trying to remap Paris based onsubjective perception of space rather than objective state-issued maps.
We need to rethinkspace in general, and public space in particular.

It is not surprising that the drum circle is the mostcontroversial element of the OWS camp. It challenges the notion of enforceableboundaries. Unlike the physical presence of the occupiers, the sound travelsfree in between the buildings and through the air. The physical bodies areconfronted to metal fences and police forces closing space down at every turn.The police are enforcing every possible law – and many interpretation of it –to claim territory and mostly to deny the freedom of assembly andmovement.  But there are other ways tooccupy the space, to break boundaries, to circumvent the solid edges the powerfuland its legal sub-system has been erecting. An ephemeral occupation of thespace needs to be engineered, with temporary banners, video projection and soundprojection.  We need to rethink our environment, as a flexible and adaptable one, where boundaries are allowingpeople to meet rather than to separate or protect the dominant from the dominated.