Public and Private through the Architect’s Eyes
Posted by Joseph Altshuler on 6/21/2011As both an architectural designer and a longtime Steppenwolf patron, I love to think about architecture through the lens of theater and vice versa. At their cores, both are about the same thing: storytelling. Whereas theater tells a story in the traditional sense with characters and a narrative, architecture tells us stories about space.
I’ve delighted in my indulgence of the current “We live in public space. We live in private space…” season. The plays in this series have probed the interactions between the public and the private self. But as an architect, I am equally as interested in what happens when the door between the two literally opens!
What is public? Public is communal, exposed, and inclusive. Public is you—for all to see.
What is private? Private is isolated, concealed, and intimate. Private is me—for no one to see.
The boundary between public and private is perhaps the most theatrical threshold conceivable. Ever since watching (and re-watching) Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window, I’ve thought about how architecture responds to spatial thresholds and urban adjacencies. Observations out my own rear window prompted me to investigate how we relate to our fellow neighbors and how the basic infrastructure of private property can inhibit a more public and social urban experience.
de[FENCING] is a proposal for a public intervention within the confines of private property. What if the fence, the most typical constraint of urban isolation, is catalyzed to provoke social interactions among otherwise apathetic neighbors? By literally inserting playful opportunities into a proverbial boundary, radical adjacencies and social opportunities are created; the boundary is de-delineated. A lexicon of leisure activities would program this new and distinctly urban middle ground. By repurposing the familiar vocabulary of backyard recreation into the fence itself, specific interventions will engage neighbors on both sides. The result is architectural theater.
While the characters in Detroit needed no physical invitation to interact in each other’s backyards, I suspect that typical urban dwellers need a little more push. I created a series of drawings and photomontages to prototype several de[FENCING] installations. The drawings explore storylines of exaggerated realities. Each story begins with a “What If” prompt.
WHAT IF the fence became the site of festive meals and summer barbeques as opposed to the partition that currently separates them? In the closed position, the Lazy Susan Picnic Table remains a functional bench. When the moment is right, neighbors on both sides of the fence can swing the hinged table surface open! The Lazy Susan tray is mobilized into position by simply placing it on its central axel. Neighbors can inscribe menu notes and food labels on its chalkboard surface. By rotating the Lazy Susan, food-sharing can literally straddle property lines and neighborhood boundaries.
![de[FENCING] 2](http://blog.steppenwolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/deFENCING_02_smaller.jpg)
WHAT IF the fence was aborted as a device of economic blockade and was adopted as a marketplace of exchange? Getting tired of that old sweater? The solution lives in your backyard—catalyzed by the fence! The Clothes Swap Mannequin operates as an exquisite corpse game that neighbors can play. Like the Surrealist method, neighbors can exchange garments for feet, legs, torso, or head—each facilitated by a separate mannequin device. Each mannequin rotates on a vertical axis over the property line, ensuring that neighbors on both sides of the fence can give and receive, advertise and browse.
See CARTOGRAM’s website for more public/private architectural instigations!