Miami Pier-Museum – An Exploration of Public Realm in the Age of Heterodoxy

Steve Shaughnessy – Arch 751 – Professor Arijit Sen, PhD

Extending Miami’s 5th avenue into a pier structure extending some 100 meters into the Atlantic Ocean is both an exercise in construction, and of separation. Both acts have consequences in the physical and social landscapes of Miami, Florida. The project itself is synecdochic; programmatically it is a monument and museum dedicated to the cultures of immigrant nations to the Miami area of Florida. (Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, and Argentina specifically, having the largest numbers of immigrants to Miami) It represents years of social and cultural history of both the source countries and the new residences of these groups of Latin Americans become (United States of) Americans.
When designing public spaces, one must be concerned not only with the bricks and the sticks, but also the inhabitants both permanent and transient, the landscape, context, and culture of the place. Studying the culture of the place and of similar places, similar cultures, and in this case similar structures and how they’ve affected their surroundings both physically and socially can all provide a boon to the creation process itself.

















The landscape onto which the museum-pier will integrate itself exists currently as public beach and ocean in line with Miami’s busy 5th avenue, which tapers into a narrow road with a loop at its end, nearby to a public park, and tourist/resort hotels. It is a bustling commercial area catering primarily to tourists and vacationers coming to enjoy Miami’s hot climate, a nearly endless summer catering to beach-goers. The white-sand beach and the warm Atlantic waters are as much a destination of the place as is the nightlife provided by the many night-time entertainment venues, perhaps a social exploration in their own right. A bar of green slashed with walkways exists as a buffer between the ocean, sandy beaches and the built environment of the city of Miami. This buffer will be penetrated by the installation of the pier-museum as it projects over the water, and extends a small bridge back over the beach to the street-level some five meters or so above the ocean level.
Socially, while nearly 60% of Miami’s 600,000 people are Hispanic, the site is as likely to be patronized by people of any race as another, due to its status as a tourist destination. This multicultural condition is a prime reason for the siting of this project at this location. Through the use of an iconic architectural feature, the Hispanic populace can attend to enjoy relics and relive some of their history along with people of other races who might simply be drawn to the novelty of the building, but become educated by accident. It is through this microsociology that while lacking nuance, a perfunctory glance by a curious tourist might glean him some information he’d not likely have discovered otherwise, through simple exploration of an architectural feature.
Historically, Miami became a refuge of sorts for Cubans after the assumption of power in Cuba by Fidel Castro in 1959. A significant number of Cubans immigrated (as many of these immigrants were not legal or documented, the number can only be estimated, but is fairly accurately assumed to be the range of the low hundred-thousands) illegally or otherwise, primarily during the 1960s and 1980s, along with people from other Latin American countries. The large influx of Cubans and other Middle-Americans caused cultural polarization among themselves as well as the local White and African-American population, they were from then on going to coexist with. This period of time is primarily what the museum’s contents will deal with, and are for the most part, beyond the breadth of this writing. That is not to say that the historical or cultural context of the building aren’t important, only that like Santiago Calatrava designing the expansion to Milwaukee’s Art Museum, the individual works of art aren’t necessarily of his concern.
Culturally speaking, a film by Spike Lee: “Do The Right Thing” was referenced in the class, in terms of the social environment, that may prove valuable in discussing this building and related topics. Through a story exposing racial tension growing in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood involving the African-American residents, an Italian-family-owned pizzeria, and a Korean grocery store. This movie provides an interesting analog, a synechdochal microsociology that can be used to represent the social and racial tensions in greater areas of Brooklyn, New York City, and likewise Miami. As in the movie, there exists in Miami a social tension between Hispanics, Blacks and Whites, not entirely unlike the one dramatized in the film, complete with riots. Between 1960 up through the mid 1990s there existed a tenuous stalemate between the rapidly growing Cuban/Hispanic population and the African-American and White residents. Foucault would term these places heterotopic, such that they have more layers of meaning and relationships to each other than is readily apparent. In this case, one of the many somewhat trite bastardizations of the adage “life imitates art imitates life…” is appropriate. Spike Lee encapsulated racial tensions that could exist anywhere into an artistic format ideal for home viewing.
Returning to the reference of the Milwaukee Art Museum allows us to make some socio-cultural parallels regarding this building type, waterfront architecture, iconic architecture, and its effects upon the city and its people. It is also more familiar to those readers of this blog who are from the Midwest. The MAM is a beautiful ‘public but private’ space that will work in a very similar fashion to the proposed Miami-Pier-Museum. Both will incorporate iconic architectural features which may well cause the MPM to become a symbol for Miami as the MAM has for Milwaukee. Both contain architecture features meant to be interesting in their own right, and both are meant to be seen out of, as well as seen. They are both attractions of a sort, implemented in an already busy with social and leisure activities, in locations that will only draw more attention by their presence. This presence will too attempt to control its surroundings.
Through a discussion of ‘architect as God’, within Arijit Sen’s class, I pose that human behavior and activity cannot just be predicted, but controlled subtly, through the mindful creation of architecture. Either immediately or over time, as people become accustomed to a new place specifically, or recognize it as a type, this museum will exert a social influence. Much as libraries implore their patrons to silence, or the opera house gently recommends formal attire upon those entering, cultural centers such as either of these museums provide for a microsociology of their own. In this case, I as the designer would hope that this would be a less formal social climate, inviting not just those who wish to brush up on immigrant history, but also enjoy the café, or the view.
Brenda Yeoh might have a different outlook on the matter, should she be in the neighborhood or the habit of analyzing social-architectural interaction of locations outside Southeast Asia. This museum, as an extension of a street, and by design partly street-like will no doubt produce unpredictable social interactions that may need some minor policing, not the least of which could in fact be vendors of some sort, as tourists are typically targets of such wares-peddling. Navy Pier of Chicago, while at a much larger scale than a 10m by 100m extension into the ocean is a good example of such. Street performers and minor goods-sellers are all but staples of place, unintentional aggregate of society collecting wherever people gather in large numbers. However, being that this Pier-Museum, not unlike the art museum in Milwaukee, or any suburban mall, only has the appearance of being truly public, when in reality, it is not. As a private building, open to the public, it is free to police away ‘undesireables’ to mixed results. While the verandahs of Singapore had the complication of being public by definition, with encroachments of privatization upon grey areas, the laws and enforcement of public versus private, as well as the nature of the Museum and its host beach have something of a different rules-set. The beach may be open all-hours and be a truly public place, however I’m certain there are ordinances, strictly enforced, preventing permanent settlement in the sand. With equal certainty, the museum will enjoy something of a behavior code also well enforced by the same powers-that-be in the police force.
Chronologically, the Miami-Pier Museum is still enigmatic. Ontologically speaking, the museum is difficult or impossible to study, as it does not yet exist. All supposition about the possibility of a structure existing in this location, with this program is very tenuous. It is at once a building encapsulating the past while being designed to be iconic for the future, while existing in the present subject to the rules and conditions of all three. During the day/night cycle it will provide a number of different sensual/architectural experiences given different sun and lighting conditions, as well as patterns of use, patronage, and events. Over longer periods of time its interaction with people and landscape can only be modeled after similar buildings. Once novelty and newness wears off, the longevity of the building’s reception will be tested. After all, by program and design it does interrupt a portion of often used waterfront, making its location both a pro and a con, wrapped into one. Its content is fairly static, as history doesn’t change, and the era commemorated by these contents is for the most part over, barring significant cultural/historical events among the Cuban/Latin American Immigrant community of Miami in the future, before social integration in the region is theoretically complete.
Study of a theoretical project such as this one leads to exploration of similar projects and situations, as well as asking many questions regarding what is, what could be, and moreover, what should be. It is the architect’s job to encapsulate what should be, to briefly play God, and to create something in his image (and the image of his clients). Through socio-cultural study and the adoption of an epistemological position an architect can explore the validity of social assumptions and make his commentary using the medium of the built form. In this case the world as taken for granted is constantly changing, though by definition, those in power support the stasis of the status quo. It is through study and engineering, both social and structural, that we can then shape the status quo into something mutually beneficial, and possibly physically beautiful.

Winsberg, Morton, D. (1983), "Ethnic Competition for Residential Space in Miami, Florida, 1970-80", American Journal of Economics and Sociology 42: 305–314
Stack, John F. Jr. (1999), "The Ethnic Citizen Confronts the Future: Los Angeles and Miami at Century's Turn", The Pacific Historical Review 68: 309–316
Croucher, Sheila, L. (1999), "Ethnic Inventions: Constructing and Deconstructing Miami's Culture Clash", The Pacific Historical Review, 68: 233-251
“Cuban Migration to Miami.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_migration_to_Miami
Foucault, Michel. Diacritics 16. Spring 1986
Yeoh, Brenda. Contesting Space: Power Relations and the Urban Built Environment in Colonial Singapore, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford university press, 1996, p. 243-280, Chapter 7

Creative Dissonance – Public Realm in the Age of Heterodoxy

Steve Shaughnessy – Arch 751 – Professor Arijit Sen, PhD

The concept of ‘public’ seems simple: of the people, for the community, unrestricted, free, open, anti-private; what the word implies, and moreover the evolution of how it has been instituted and governed is much more complex. In such, the notions of Public Space and Public Realm have conjured a dedicated field of research, with as many distinct theoretical, disciplinary, and methodological positions as there are public spaces to weigh them against. To consider and discuss some of these positions, from various sources and noted authors then becomes another way to understand and analyze public space. As each subsequent position further challenges the doxa of the time, a new epistemological position can be developed, especially as each position builds greater dissonance on the topic, one is forced to choose a position, pick a side, and build one’s own beliefs upon the foundation of knowledge built by other researchers.

Creative dissonance is a concept that unlike ‘public’ is much more complicated at first, but builds itself into a much more streamlined idea. Dissonance here can be defined as conflict or incongruity, especially regarding differences between actions and beliefs. This definition then modified by the word creative implies intent or a purposeful break from doxa, the world as taken for granted, the status quo. In and of itself, this becomes a powerful concept. Further refined in a yet unpublished prospectus, Arijit Sen writes: “Creative dissonance is a representational strategy. The term refers to the use of signs, images and symbols that are well understood (and often stereotypical) in order to represent ones identity and culture. Yet their [immigrants] renditions are not entirely accurate. Slight inaccuracies, seemingly unimportant, are of great importance in the production of immigrant worlds.” He shortly follows that statement with: “Creative dissonance is also an experiential and communicative strategy.” For the purpose of this exercise, creative dissonance is an exploration of making a break from doxa for the purpose of accepting outside opinions and forming ideas and building a position as an amalgam of varied sources, as they relate to the public realm.

Nancy Fraser is the first source to explore, and the primary developer of the concept of the public sphere insofar as this writing is concerned. Her “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” is an analysis and critique of Jürgen Habermas exploration of the same concept in his 1962 book, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. The core of her argument is that “the bourgeois conception of the public sphere, as described by Habermas, is not adequate for the critique of the limits of actually existing democracy in late capitalist societies.” (Fraser 77) Public sphere in this case takes on the guise of the state, the official economy of paid employment, and also arenas of public discourse. Primarily the lattermost definition, public sphere is a theater for political deliberation, both in terms of literal public space, and figurative arenas of discussion, more applicable now than on the date of her writing, given the communications advances in the 17 years since the publication of this writing.

Through analyzing and rebutting Habermas’ assumptions, Frasier concludes several things regarding the inadequacies of the concept of the bourgeois public sphere: Bracketing of social difference is not enough, social inequality must be eliminated for politics and social discourse to be held on an even field. A multiplicity of public spheres is superior to singularity. Differences between majority and minority are exacerbated in a single socio-political arena. To reduce arena size and increase their number produces multiple speaking floors upon which smaller voices are more easily heard. Private concerns must be made admissible in public arena. To dismiss them and force a separation between public and private issues is to place power in the hands of the majority, who can more easily decide what they wish to be a public concern and quell other desires. Parliamentary bodies then are a step forward in allowing ‘weak publics’ (those with opinion but no legal force) to become ‘strong publics’ (those with opinion, and ability to enforce their opinion into legality).

These conclusions expose the limitations of democracy currently implemented in capitalist society. Nancy Fraser’s position is about changing the status quo. She wishes to modify the doxa of society regarding its implementation of government. To provide an even more democratic incarnation of western government is to modify some of the most important public spaces humanity has created for itself, those designed with the purpose of allowing public discourse into the direction society will head, the rules and freedoms society is allowed, and those who are allowed to represent the voices of the millions who could not literally fit into these spaces all at once.

“Learning from Looking: Geographic and Other Writing about the American Landscape” delves into the field of cultural geography. Peirce F. Lewis provides a toolbox of sorts for research into the history of cultural geography, as well as some of its most prominent figures. Beyond this he produces a list of ingredients in which one can use to help “identify some major strengths and some considerable gaps in the recent literature about cultural landscapes.” (Lewis 41) The list, upon which he expounds further than is produced here consists first of six items:

1. Physical environment, the raw material.

2. Knowledge and perception of what the environment is like.

3. Ambitions about how the environments should be ordered and improved.

4. Cultural strictures.

5. Tools that humans use to shape their tangible landscape.

6. The cultural landscape. (Lewis 41)

These he refers to as ingredients, both tangible and intangible forces that create a cultural landscape, and allow a logical historical sequence to reveal itself.

Lewis’ listing of four scholars of cultural geography (Carl Ortwin Sauer, Fred B Kniffen, John Kirkland Wright, and J.B. Jackson) and these ingredients are his offering to the future field of cultural geography. While not a direct analysis of public space, spheres, or cultural landscapes, the excerpt is once again, a challenge on the status quo. It offers no answer, but is a desire for progress and change forwarding his belief that the field is in need of a few more scholars in this and related fields in order to maintain the “intellectual health of American cultural geography.” (Lewis 50)

The third source is an analysis of actual public space, its component parts, its inhabitants, its governance, and how the interaction of each of these challenges the concepts of public, doxa, and brings dissonance to the forefront, although not necessarily creatively. Brenda Yeoh documents within chapter 7 of “Contesting Space: Power Relations and the Urban Built Environment in Colonial Singapore” the use of and conflicts centering on the verandahs that flanked the public streets of Singapore around the turn of the 20^th century.

The battle (and it did become a battle) was waged over the very definition of public and private, where the boundaries existed between spaces, and who is allowed to occupy what areas. The verandahs in question, or covered sidewalks, were semi-walled extensions to the street-side architecture in Singapore. The space between the walls of the architecture proper and the end of the verandah/beginning of the street became a grey area, which while technically public property, was often treated as if it was owned privately, even rented to others for a fee, occupied by vendors, and ‘protected’ by local organized crime. The controversy regarding the (mis)usage of this space, inconvenience for passersby and legitimate store-owners caused decades-long fiasco of legislation, and even riots.

The government of Singapore tried to adopt a definition of public space born from British cities, whereby a public space is “one which is ‘designed, however minimally’; where ‘everyone has the rights of access’; where ‘encounters in it between individual users are unplanned and unexceptional’; and where ‘their behaviour towards each other is subjected to rules none other than those of common norms of social civility’.” (Yeoh 244) This definition either didn’t apply or didn’t sit well with the people and spaces it was being applied to, who had their own definition for how space was properly used. When the former tried to forcibly eclipse the latter, through fines and confiscations affecting livelihoods and the way of life of the citizens on those streets, the friction turned to violence.

This situation was never truly resolved, and the issues continued for decades, fines, restructuring, and widening of roads and sidewalks to accommodate the automobile notwithstanding, the single-mindedness of the intention of the space could not resolve itself with the open-mindedness the architecture supposed and the people accepted.

The situation described by Brenda Yeoh embodies the discussion of doxa, creative dissonance, and questions the very nature of the word ‘public’. The argument over the verandahs questioned the status quo when the government decided it wanted to define and enforce its own definition of the word public. When the public, as people, privatized the public, as space, they were making a conscious and social decision about what they culturally wanted to do with the social and architecture features presented to them. They adopted their environment and structured it creatively to suit their needs. This structuring did not benefit all equally, thus the controversy and the imposition by the government, but clearly, having sparked rioting and significant plebian vs. government conflict, the status quo must have represented the masses.

Taking a position then, as it regards these readings, and the grander notion of public space, involve weaving a socio-spatial tapestry. The threads traveling in one direction represent the public, democracy and the structured notion of free-will most westerners enjoy and take for granted. Crossing these threads and holding them tightly together are the assumptions proposed by the authors here, improvements that must be made in governance, further advances in studying our culture and landscape and their interaction, as well as learning from the mistakes and designing spaces that interact positively in intention and practice. The resulting image displays a perspective on lessons in how to improve what exists in the American multicultural public realm, and guidelines for the creation of public and private space that interact harmoniously on social, cultural, and architectural levels. That is to say, when designing public spaces, one must be concerned not only with the bricks and the sticks, but also the inhabitants both permanent and transient, the landscape, context, and culture of the place.

Sen, Arijit. 2008. “Creative Dissonance: The Politics of World Making.” Unpublished
Manuscript

Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 109-142, Edited by Craig Calhoun, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992

Lewis, Peirce F. Ch. 2, “Learning from Looking: Geographic and Other Writing about the American Landscape,” In Thomas J. Schlereth (Editor) Material Culture: A Research Guide, Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1985

Yeoh, Brenda. Contesting Space: Power Relations and the Urban Built Environment in Colonial Singapore, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford university press, 1996, p. 243-280, Chapter 7

Verandah image: http://www.travelstripe.com/images/kampong-glam-singapore12.JPG