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
No comments:
Post a Comment