production of trialectic spatiality ucl 2011

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MSc Building and Urban Design in Development Word count: 10,021

Josue Robles Caraballo

Development Planning Unit University College London 5 September 2011

ii The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

iii The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

DPU DISSERTATION REPORT DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND COPYRIGHT FORM

All students MUST complete one copy of this form to cover the MSc dissertation report. Please print, sign and date the form and submit it with your dissertation to the Administration Office in the DPU building. If you fail to submit this statement duly signed and dated, your dissertation cannot be accepted for marking. 1. DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT I confirm that I have read and understood the guidelines on plagiarism produced by DPU and UCL, that I understand the meaning of plagiarism as defined in those guidelines, and that I may be penalised for submitting work that has been plagiarised. Unless not technically possible and with the prior agreement of the Course Director for my MSc programme, the dissertation report must be submitted electronically through TurnitinUK®. I understand that the dissertation cannot be assessed unless both a hard copy and an electronic version of the work are submitted by the deadline stipulated. I declare that all material is entirely my own work except where explicitly, clearly and individually indicated and that all sources used in its preparation and all quotations are clearly cited using a recognised system for referencing and citation. Should this statement prove to be untrue, I recognise the right of the Board of Examiners to recommend disciplinary action in line with UCL's regulations. 2. COPYRIGHT The copyright of the dissertation report remains with me as its author. However, I understand that a copy may be given to my funders (if requested and if appropriate), alongside limited feedback on my academic performance. I also understand that a copy may also be deposited in the UCL E-prints public access repository and copies may be made available to future students for reference. Please write your initials in the box if you DO NOT want this report to be made available publicly either electronically or in hard copy. YOUR NAME: Josue Robles Caraballo MSC PROGRAMME: Building and Urban Design Development SIGNATURE: DATE: 05 September 2011

iv The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

v The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

Content List of Images vii

Abstract: The Production of the Trialectic Spatiality ix

1.0 Introduction: Trialectic Spatiality 1

2.0 Thirdspace and Trialectic Being 5

2.1 The Real and the Imagined 6

2.2 Power and Capacity of Use 7

3.0 Literature Review: Community identity & Collectivism 10

3.1 An Individual Ontology within Communality 10

3.2 Community: Singular Identity within Communality 13

3.3 Production of Thirdspace as a Community Stronghold 14

3.4 Active Collectivism 15

3.5 Community and Entities of Power 16

4.0 Precedence: Rendering the Thirdspace 18

4.1 Precedence and Study Cases 19

4.2 Urban Agriculture Organic Center in Habana 20

4.3 Casa Familiar 21

4.4 Inner City Arts (Not Submitted) 23

4.5 Bangkok Community Networks 25

5.0 Conclusion: Thirdspace as a Comprehensive Approach 29

Bibliography and References 31

vi The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

vii The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

List of Images 1.0 Introduction: Trialectic Spatiality

1.1 Diagram: Trialectics of Being 2

1.2 Diagram: Trialectics of Spatiality 2

2.0 Thirdspace and Trialectic Being

2.1 Photograph: Public space, down in San Francisco's Mission district. 7 2.2 Photograph: Wisconsin, demonstrating against a proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights. 9

3.0 Literature Review: Community identity & Collectivism 3.1 Photograph: Floating Market, Thailand 10

4.0 Precedence: Rendering the Thirdspace

4.1 Photograph: Havana resident transporting bananas 19

4.2 Photograph: Urban agriculture organic center 20

4.3 Photograph: Urban agriculture organic center 20

4.4 Rendering: Casa Familiar, Possible Design Implementation 21

4.5 Rendering: Casa Familiar, Possible Design Implementation 22

4.6 Rendering: Casa Familiar, Community Kitchen 23

4.7 Rendering: Casa Familiar, Design Typologies 23

4.8 Photograph: Inner-City Arts 23

4.9 Photograph: Inner-City Arts, Multipurpose Courtyard 24

4.10 Photograph: Inner-City Arts. Center 24

4.11 Photograph: Inner-City Arts. 24

4.12 Photograph: Development Workshop 25

4.13 Photograph: Development Workshop 26

4.14 Photograph: Bang Poo Community 26

4.15 Photograph: BMP Design Proposal 27

4.16 Photograph: BMP Housing Project 27

5.0 Conclusion: Title

5.1 Photograph: Inner-City Arts, Arts Program 29

viii The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

ix The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

Abstracts The Production of the Trialectic Spatiality

“We are first and always historical-social-spatial beings, actively participating individually and collectively in the construction/ production – the becoming – of histories, geographies, societies” (Soja E. , 1996, p. 73).

The ontology of spatial use is only but a product of the

user’s position within an array of socio-cultural forces. The

state of those forces according to the Lefebvre and Soja lies

within parallel flux of space, history and societal continuum.

This tri-partita condition was referred by Soja as the

thirdspace. Us as trialectic beings are often reduced to the

relationships of History and Societal conditions, and space is

often but a container or a threshold of activities (Soja E. ,

1996). Therefore, neglecting to understand that ones

perspective of history, society and space are in constant

interactive state, continuously sculpting each other. It is

therefore that one’s relationship with any given built spaces

is the reaction to these 3 conditions, not one or the other

but all of them constantly responsive to one another. Within

the continuum of this tri-partita understanding, space can

be engaged in a manner that is more comprehensive of the

user needs and how the users can potentially be affected.

Thus, awakening the need of appropriate delivery of built-

form and preventing potential neglect of particular users or

groups.

With that in mind, this effort will render the

conditions and the forces within the capacity of use of the

built-form through the trialectic spatial scope. Discussing

the allegory of discourses and ideas behind the

understanding and manifestation of the user. Subsequently

this critical depiction, illustrates cases or circumstances that

x The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

render built interventions that correspondingly empower

users at one or many levels. Epitomizing means of

architectural and spatial vehicles that empowerment both

the individual and the collectivity. Generating the thirdspace

as a place of individual/communal or collective resistance.

Providing options while challenging current socio-spatial

oppressions.

1 The Production of Trialectic Spatiality | University College London |Development Planning Unit | Josue Robles Caraballo

Introduction

In 1989 Ray Oldenburg in his book The

Great Good Place, he refer to the thirdspace

as a place that was neither ones home or

place of work, but all those secondary and

supportive spaces within the community that

were complementary and often the means of

communal identity (Oldenburg, The Great

Good Place, 1989). Oldenburg emphasized the

importance of these built spaces of communal

congregation as means to facilitated social

engagement. These informal places of

gathering can allow a continuum in the spatial

engagement. Nonetheless, Oldenburg over

simplify the socio-cultural implication

entwined within the capacity of spatial use.

Along with the socio-cultural genealogy of

space, the experience and relationships

constantly engaged a series external and

internal forces.

In 1996 Edward Soja , departing from

the allegory of ideas from Lefebvre, Bhabha,

Spivak and Hooks, generated a discourse that

presented the thirdspace as a “three-sided

sensibility of spatiality-historicality-sociality”

nature. Unlike Oldenburg, Soja focuses not

only on the built manifestation but in the

parallel perception of the tangible and

intangible forces within space. Thus,

accentuating the user’s individual perception

of the built form as a product of space, history

and society (Soja E. , 1996). “Thirspace: The

space where all places are, capable of being

seen from every angle, each standing clear;

but also secret and conjectured object, filled

with illusions and allusions, a space that is not

common to all of us yet never able to be

completely seen and understood” (Soja E. ,

1996, p. 56). It’s the individual and communal

space of harvesting and generating the ideas

in wish the ideas of fulfillment and resistance

take place.

The thirdspace is the only and actual space.

The threshold of opportunity generated by

the thirdspace its where all forces and societal

implications are concurrently synergized. The

thirdspace its where all conditions both real

and unreal, simultaneously gel into the

individual perspective. Therefore, awakening

the necessity to understand the holistic


complex tissue that renders ones being.

Because only when the complex tissue of the

individual its contextualized a fitting delivery

of space and place can take place. The

thirdspace “it’s a crude picture of the nature

of societal being, of human existence, and

also of the search for practical knowledge and

understanding (Soja E. , 1996, p. 70). The

thirdspace is where ones practical information

of being it’s pragmatized by ones relationship

with Historicality-Spatiality-Sociality (Soja E. ,

1996).

1.1 Diagram: Trialectics of Being. The historicality-spatiality-sociality. By Soja, 1996.

Soja states that the foundation of the

trialectic spatiality lies within the sensorial

core of simultaneous cultural spatial

acknowledgement based on all experiences

that we have lived, perceived and conceived.

The trialectics of spatiality including both real

and imagine conditions and experiences. The

trialectics of spatiality uses the parallelism of

the ream and the imagined to open an spatial

language that rationalizes ones interpretation

of a place. To elaborate in the simultaneous

acknowledgment we can think of Juan Luis

Borges novel, The Aleph, were he personifies

the experience of the real and the imagined

as way to understand the continuum of

spatial cognition. Thus, provoking and

emphasizing the importance of the ones

capacity to relate and experience the space

where all forces exist simultaneously (Borges

& Hurley, 2000). It is therefore, how to built

tangible elements influenced the use as now

tangible elements like social strata, religion or

beliefs. As the individual relative perception

of space expands thorough the intervals of

the non-tangible and the tangible, one most

utilize the perception of space as means to

empowerment users as the space becomes a

societal tool.

1.2 Diagram Trialectics of Spatiality. The lived-perceived-conceived. By Soja,1996.

This perception of empowerment

illustrates the importance of flexible

communal spaces that allow them to conduct

and manifest their aspirations, while engaging

the collective paradigm. Thus, developing the

individual-communal capacity within “a space

of collective resistance” (Soja E. , 1996, p. 35).

The discourse of use and manifestation

generates the question, of how do we identify

and represent space and its relationships

between individual/community, use and


social-cultural imposition. It is therefore, that

the thirdspace’s spatiality-historicality-

sociality sets in motion the trialectics of being.

Nonetheless, the individual as a being can also

take part of a collective effort as ones

conditions might allows. From the standpoint

of an individual or a community, more than

just built-form utilized for congregation it’s

required to be empower or disempowered. As

Soja reiterates, the importance of scale and

its spatial implications, as the collective sum

of individual perspectives that translates into

a communal forces within me experience of

thirspace.

The thirdspace is a user subjective

condition that it’s used as a space of

resistance at many levels and circumstances.

As means to illustrate the complex

manifestation of resistance within thirdspace

one must explore a diverse array of study

cases. This effort will utilize cases that best

showcase the individual and communal

threshold of socio-cultural spatial resistance.

Additional to illustration the particularities of

the socio-cultural resistance, the cases will

illustrates how the capacity within the

threshold of resistance allowed the user to

fulfill their needs, as both an individual and a

community. Depicting, factor such as socio-

cultural of forces, difference in scale, built

form, education and economical strata. The

analysis will use projects in Havana, California

and Bangkok as means to contextualize the

different cultural ethos of the trialectics of

spatiality and more important how theses

conditions created a route of social

betterment for both the individual and the

community. In many cases generating a social

capital that ensures or at the least induces

future generations to have a greater range of

option and faculties of development.

In an effort to render and valuate the

threshold of maneuver within thirspace one

has to allow and create future sensibilities in

the development of socio-spatial

engagement. This effort will illustrate a

number of cases to highlight a common line

within the different levels of resistance

throughout the threshold generated within

the thirdspace. The threshold enables “the

individual to have choices is the best way of

realizing freedom in the contemporary

society” (Kahatt & Leguia, 2011, p. 23).

Reiterating that the production of Trialectic

Spatiality its only but a state of awareness of

the pulsating polyphony of forces and

conditions that are a part of the individual

conditions as a product of past experiences. In

an effort to gain ground, its crucial to identify

how this individual cognition is then the

catalyst to design spaces of empowerment.

The value of this effort grounds itself

on the understanding of the socio-cultural

forces and particularities of any giving

situation, then establishing the current

capacities and obstacle respective to the case

for the betterment within disadvantaged

groups. The method and delivery for the


betterment of ones trialectic spatiality can

only be established by the particularities of

the case at hand and groups being affected.

Thus, not limiting the effort to policy, built

form, and or finances. As Soja states, the

delivery and understanding of an appropriate

engagement its based in a cross-disciplinary

approach (Soja E. , 1996). It is therefore, that

the trialectic spatiality betterment as a

product of the acknowledgement could

encompass more than just a specific

professional discipline. As it can tackle a

number of conditions within an specific

context.

The thirdspace and the trialectic

spatiality opens the discussion of how and the

nature in which one can generate a space to

facilitate the everyday capacity of use. Initially

by acknowledging that the contextualization

ones position and relationship. Moreover, its

only because of the historicality-spatiality-

sociality experiential filters that the delivery

has to be a cross-disciplinary approach that

can best tackle the synergy of the trialectic

beings. “We are first and always historical-

social-spatial beings, actively participating

individually and collectively in the

construction/ production – the becoming – of

histories, geographies, societies” (Soja E. ,

1996, p. 73). Thus, rendering the future

spatial application and how they empower

their users, whether this is thorough

opportunities and choices within policy, space

or knowledge.


Soja’s idea of the thirdspace roots

itself in the experience of place as a

continuous and parallel perception of space,

history and culture, in relationship to past

experiences. However it’s fair to say that you

can not mention Soja’s thirdspace with our

mentioning the individuals that he built this

idea upon, primordially Lefebvre. Sojas idea of

the thirdspace its greatly founded on Lefebvre

idea of spatial thriding. Introduced in mainly

in his book the production of space in 1974

(Lefebvre, 1991). These spatial thriding

provides a more insightful cognition of one’s

capacity to use space. Illustrating the

individual and communal allegory within the

experience of space and the built form. In

other words, the thirdspace encompasses

“every life, every event, every activity we

engage in is usually unquestionably assumed

to have a pertinent and revealing historical

and social development” (Soja E. , 1996, p. 2).

The thirdspace can allow spatial

practitioners to identify disadvantage groups

and how they stand within their socio-cultural

position. The threshold on the different

groups perspective is illustrated by Spivak

discourse on the subalterns as a social group

that the reason the voice of many groups

can’t be heard it’s not the product of lack of

knowledge or will, its due to the socio-cultural

forces that muffle their voices. Thus, one

trialectic’s reality most levels the experiential

plane field as one that everyone can use, one

that constantly transform itself to

accommodate for different users and groups.

Thus, addressing a great number of

professional disciplines.

As the thirdspace or the trialectic

spatiality acknowledges the numerous layers

engaged by the users of space calls for the

need of a “trans-disciplinary scope” (Soja E. ,

1996, p. 3). Acknowledging, that the

production of space it’s not a derivative of

cartographers, urbanists, architects or

exclusive to any other professional discipline,

but a multi disciplinary scope and

denomination. The scope of the thirdspace

focuses on the individual subjective threshold

of social capacity, therefore, engaging several

disciplines. A cross-disciplinary scope that can


appropriately formulate a way of action,

sculpting a spatial threshold for communal

interaction and betterment. This threshold

illustrates the opportunities and capacity

within the use of space. Identifying the

thirdspace, as both a place of resistance and

“social trajectory of development” (Coleman,

1988, p. S95). Thus, the cross-diciplinary

synthesis of delivery of space can produce a

fitted solution to space without neglecting

conditions or opportunities.

2.1 The Real and the Imagined

Considering the levels experienced within

the constituents of everyday spatiality. Socio-

cultural impositions are a language in

avertedly used by ones cognition of spatiality.

Lefebvre believed that the perception and

understanding of space is a product of the

“thirding of his own longstanding interest in

the dialectic of the lived and the conceived,

the ‘real’ and the ‘imagined’, the material

world and our thoughts about it” (Soja E. ,

1996, p. 61). It is therefore, that one has to

draw equal value to the built-form and what

does it imply or relates too. An appropriate

space for one user could manifest something

polar opposite to another. Rendering the

simultaneous cognition of the tangible and

intangible equally important, as they feed

from each other (Soja E. , 1996; Lefebvre,

1991).

The built, the felt and the tangible are

conditions that are engaged by all users of the

built space, and therefore, space is

subjectively interpreted through our

individual subjective scopes, as illustrated by

Borge, previously discussed. “Social space

takes on two different qualities. It serves both

as a separable field, distinguishable from

physical and mental space and also as an

approximation for an all-encompassing made

of spatial thinking” (Soja E. , 1996, p. 62). The

particular instances of self or societal

governed forces are only a product on

continual forces in space and policy. The

empirical methods of individual spatial

cognition rely on the parallel continuum of

one’s ability to manifest and pursue ones

individual and collective objectives. The

dimensions of “social space comes to be scan

entirely as a mental space, an ‘encrypted

reality’ that is decipherable in thoughts and

utterances, speech and writing, in literature

and language, in discourse and text , in logical

and epistemological ideation. Reality is

confined to thoughts and things” (Soja E. ,

1996, p. 63). It is therefore, that one’s

perception of space is a constant

reinterpretation of the physical while

simultaneously assimilating non-tangible

forces, such as past experiences, policies in

use and or social strata.

As the levels of needs are respective to

the scale and the scope of the users within a

community, thus, the trialectic spatiality is to

link and correspond to the respective fields of

resistance. “Everything comes together in


Thirdspace: subjectively and objectivity, the

abstract and the concrete, the abstract and

the concrete, the real and the imagined…

,everyday life and unending history” (Soja E. ,

1996, p. 56). As the imagined along with

physicality becomes a constant perception of

space the imagined or the ideas that one’s has

in regards to space can empower or oppress

the users. Communal empowerment roots

within the particular stronghold that provides

the community and the individual their

identity. An identity heavily lies as a series of

occurrences, time or history. The ethos of

ones identity can also be identified by

acknowledging ones trialectic spatiality.

Identity and space are one of the cultural

elements that conglomerates individual in to

a social group. Many times positioning the

individual within a privileged position. On the

other hand, identity as a product of race,

gender or creed can be the means of social

marginalization (Madanipour, 2006; Hooks,

1984). Thereby, spatial identity is also a social

means of contestation that has to be

considered when designing and producing

space, as means to stand and integration with

the many social groups.

2.2 Power and Capacity of Use

“Power its both a positive and a negative,

it both liberates and oppresses” (Dovey K. ,

2008, p. 10).

Within the individual positioning in the

numerous social ideal stratum, one most

acknowledge the dualism of the individual

and the communal experience as a collective

and continues state of spatial resistance. The

dualism of singular and communal are all too

different in scale, nonetheless, one is a in

fractal product of the other. The composition

and therefore the necessities of each

community are respective and particular to its

own conditions. The faculties of spatial

appropriateness it’s rooted by the users

longing. The appropriation of space is a

construct of relationship of entities of power.

These power entities take place apart from

the resident’s needs, the communal use or

collective of or within communities (Dovey K. ,

2008).

2.1 Photograpg: A public space, down in San Francisco's Mission district. By Robby Virus, 2009.

One cannot talk about societal power

without addressing marginalized groups. As is

within does group that an intent of

empowerment is particularly needed. Hooks,

Mandanipour, Cornel state that marginalized

groups have used whatever space they have


access to exercise their resistance to their

oppression from force. Hooks illustrates how

homes for female african-american become a

sanctuary of personal resistance, as their

capacities to use other spaces are limited.

Thereby, that power contestation of new

spatial development can help leveling the

plain field for marginalized groups. Space

becoming a tool of contestation against forces

for all engaged groups.

In the challenges posed by the great

number of power figures and entities we most

highlight the concern in which this entities

could disempowered and marginalize many

groups and or sector of society (Madanipour,

2006). The agenda of this power forces

translate into the built-form in a great

number of ways. Impositions of power to the

built-form vary from a fence, a wall or

something as simple as a price tag. Forces in

many way are inviting as means to achieve

their agenda but in many cases its only

reflected as a boundary between social

groups, often depriving them from option and

a capacity to achieve their wants and needs

(Putnam, The Prosperous Community, 1993;

Dovey K. , 2008; Cruz, 1999; Madanipour,

Social Exclusion and Space, 2007). It is

therefore, that one most identify the

individual capacity to manifest it needs and

wants with the continuous contestation and

divisions generated by socio-cultural forces.

Within divisions and contestation of will,

the power struggle of social entities can

become a social capital, vehicle of socio

cultural spatial enablement. However, the

individual can also use its community or social

collectives as means to amplify its individual

voice. “Social capital inheres as a form of

supportive trust in social relations or

networks of family, friends, clubs, school,

community and society. It differs from cultural

capital by being collective rather than

individual; if you leave the group you lose the

capital” (Dovey K. , 2008, p. 40). It is

therefore, that the social capital aught to be a

product of public issues, gaining ground by

generating solutions for the communally,

apart from the patronage of power conditions

(Putnam, The Prosperous Community, 1993).

Thus, the individuality or individual fulfillment

can best echo his or her demands and needs

as a member of a community or a collective.

Shifting the segregating or marginalizing

forces from power figures to the communal

subjects (Cruz, 2011; Putnam, The Prosperous

Community, 1993; Madanipour, Social

Exclusion and Space, 2007).

The individual and collective

manifestation is constantly linked with space,

but not only a product of the built form.

“Power is not lodge inertly in built form.

Forces, coercion, manipulation, seduction and

authority are forms of everyday practice

which are inevitably mediated by built form”

(Dovey K. , 2008, p. 17). However, the built

space and its delivery becomes a platform for


old and new socio-cultural constituents of

struggle.

2.2 Photograph: Wisconsin, demonstrating against a proposal to eliminate collective bargaining rights. By Getty Images, 2011.

“Power is specialized in the sense that all

agency is situated in time/space ‘locales’ –

kitchens, board meetings, cities,

neighborhoods, lectures and clubs. Locales

are akin to places inasmuch as they are

meaningful center of everyday life” (Dovey K.

, 2008, p. 20). Thus, spatial powers most

reflect a constant appropriation of the

individual and communal as means to grant

users the capacity to efficiently engage their

endeavors. A continues capacity to engage

and fulfill everyday endeavors can induce a

system of social capital (Putnam, The

Prosperous Community, 1993). As it sets on a

platform that could induce a continues

empowerment even for future users. Users of

both the built-form or the system that take

place within space.

As all the built-form will engage with all

user according to their respective trialectic

beings, the delivery of the space most be

shaped as a socio-cultural enabler. Taking in

consideration the implications and the forces

that it can render for a particular group. This

is while maximizing the amount of

opportunities that it can provide and the

projection of power created. It is therefore,

that the power creates the “links between

space and knowledge, power, and cultural

politics must be seen as both oppressive and

enabling filled not only with authoritarian

perils but also with possibilities for

community, resistance and emancipation”

(Soja E. , 1996, p. 87). The spatial power is

contextualized to the multisidedness of

options required by one and all users.


The thirdspace directly enjoins all

actors and elements involved, displaying a

way to engage development projects by

addressing the specifics and the many entities

of power. Posing the need to identify the

different the levels of individual positioning,

as both a member of a community and as a

member of a collective (Soja E. , 1996;

Carpenter, Daniere, & Takahashi, 2004). The

levels of affluent action within a community

or a collective translate to different option in

the negotiation with power structures. It is

therefore, that as trialectic beings we most

address the power structures and how they

manifest and potential affect the community

and how the collectivity can counterpart

societal forces. With that in hand, one most

also acknowledge the communal and the

collective implications as means of identity,

and what that identity reflects. The socio-

cultural identity is in constant retrofitting of

the individual perception of space. This part

of this the production of the trialectic

spatiality will focus on the dichotomies of the

communal versus the collective and how this

translates to the individual’s notion of

identity.

3.1 An Individual Ontology within Commonality

3.1 Photograph: Floating Market, Thailand. By Russ Bowling, 2004.

“The telling of the individual story and the individual experience cannot but ultimately involve the whole laborious telling of the collectivity itself” (Bhabha H. K., Nation and Narration, 1990, p. 292).

The understanding of becoming of

community is but a conglomeration of

individual perceptions and perspective. The


binaries of singular collectiveness translate

into the particular ethos of any given

community. One “cannot entirely endorse this

insistence on the determinative vigor and full

autonomy…, for practical exigencies will not

allow such endorsement to the privilege

subaltern consciousness. …a definition of the

people (that place of that essence) that can

be only an identity-in-differential” (Spivak,

1988, p. 284). Spivak elaborates onto the

ideas that the spatial flux occurs in relation to

the individual particularities, such as gender,

age and social strata. Thus, situating a shifting

balance between knowledge and the

individual capacity and the nature in which

they disseminate their voice. “perhaps it is no

more than to ask that the subtext of the

palimpsest narrative of be recognized as

‘subjugated knowledge’, ‘a whole set of

knowledge’s that have been disqualified as

inadequate to their task or insufficiently

elaborated: naïve knowledge’s, located low

down on the hierarchy, beneath the required

level of cognition or scientify” (Spivak, 1988,

p. 25). Thus, the willingness of an individual or

a community is not always up to par with its

disposition. For example, Putnam illustrates

how the business and community of the

Tuscan states in Italy have utilized collective

action as a way to achieve their needs in

concord with their civil needs and not market

demands (Putnam, 1993). The voice of the

marginalized groups can be subjugated as well

as well as their capacity. Thus, collective

exercise of power is needed by the individual

and the community to persuade or work

around imposing social obstructions. Thereby,

in the development and creation of thirdspace

the capacity along with will most be equally

earnest.

The notion of the subjugated

knowledge does not suggest that particular

groups are more or less capable, it only states

that the socio-cultural forces within a given

time can muffle particular groups differently

at different historic periods. Spivak states and

“often been taken out of context to mean

that socially and economically subordinate

cannot act or speak because they are

excluded from a cultural and political

representation. Instead of simply repeating

the exclusion of economically and socially

subordinate groups from the dominant

nationalist history“ (Morton, 1997, p. 10). In

her discourse in regarding to the subaltern

Spivak illustrates the how can communal

despotic forces transcend and shape the

individualism. What most be accentuated

within the discourse in relationship to the

trialectic being, its that the individual aught to

be able to have the capacity to have its voice

heard, individually or as a member of a

collective. Individualism also shapes and

transcend into the collective community. With

this token at hand, Spivak generates the

question of, how can one manifest as an

individual within the communal forces?


“Taken as a whole and in the abstract the uneven character of the regional economic and social developments, differed from area to area. The same class or element which was dominant in one area …could be among the dominated in another. This could and did create many ambiguities and contradictions in attitudes and alliances, especially among the lowest strata” (Spivak, 1988, p. 284).

The construct of power and position is

always shifting in relation to the context its

compared. The level of afluency of a group

can change in relationship to the local and

context. In order to address the singular, the

individual, one needs to understand its

relationship to the collective force. Not by

surpassing the communal forces that are in

fact the individuals but allowing for avenues

for the individual to flux within a collective,

while preserving their voice and identity. As

the collective becomes an extension to the

individuals’ capacity.

The singular positioning often dictates

the level and the nature of the participation,

exposure and particularity of the communal

socio-cultural exchange. As the individual and

the community are often empowered

accordingly to the respective level in society

apart from its capabilities. It’s all too often

that space and “place making is inherently

elite practice” (Dovey K. , 2008). For that

reason, marginalizing or subjugated most be

able to utilize space to bridge that level of

afluency and their power demands.

“The exercise of power through

discourse, demands an articulation becomes

crucial if it is held that the body is always

simultaneously (if conflictually) inscribed in

both the economy of pleasure and desire and

the economy of discourse, domination of

power.” (Bhabha H. , 1994, p. 96). Power is

pulsating unfixed allegory that constantly

conditions the spatial manifestation as a

member of a wider community. It is

therefore, “to suggest, however, that there is

a theoretical space and a political place for

such an articulation – in the sense in which

that word itself denies an ‘original’ identity or

a ‘singularity’ to objects of difference”

(Bhabha H. , 1994, p. 96). The transient notion

of singularity catalyzes the inscriptive

dimension of informal socio-spatial capacity.

The political space constrains the behavior of

the built-form and spatiality.

The preconditioning of the communal

dimension of usage and the possible gradients

of formalities in the spatial context affects

both the Individual and communal perception

of identity. “To formulate …the complex

strategies of cultural identification and

discursive address that function in the name

of ‘the people’ on ‘the nation’ and make them

the immanent subjects and objects of a range

of social and literary narratives. My emphasis

on the temporal dimension in the inscription

of these political entities – that are also

potent symbolic and affective source of

cultural identity” (Bhabha H. K., Nation and

Narration, 1990, p. 292). As a practitioner one

most simultaneously consider the individual

idiosyncrasy in parallel the communal


binaries, as both individual and community

experiences are part of the same spatial

aggregate. Thus, surfacing the importance

and the crucial role of how space can be use

in relationship to ones social identity and the

implications of the individual to the social

group.

The spatial aggregate is not but an

idea of individual collectivism as members of

a community. To habituate as a community

space has to capitalize on the diversity and

the demand for the susceptible flexibility.

“This creative spatialization involves more

than wrapping texts in appealing spatial

metaphors. It is vital discursive turn that both

contextualize the new cultural politics and

facilitates its conceptual re-visioning around

the empowerment of multiplicity, the

construction of combinatorial” (Soja E. , 1996,

p. 93). Willingly and constantly the

community and space most morph to

accommodate and induce a bond of

multiplicity as a product of the communal

behavior and best interest. Soja additionally

described the third space utilizing Hook’s

ideas, for example “a powerful revisioning not

only of the cultural politics of differences but

also of our conceptualization of human

geographies, of what we mean by the politics

of location and geohistorically uneven

development, of how we creatively combine

spatial metaphor and spatial materiality in an

assertively spatial praxis” (Soja E. , 1996, p.

97). Soja’s ontological generality situates

space within a context of time and place.

Thus, engaging in the active discourse of

localize approaches and that one size does

not fit all. Space and built-form is a radical

construct of spatiality, historicality and

sociality that forms the human notion nature

of existence.

3.2 Community: Thrialectic Identity within Communality

The human notion of existence

constantly polarizes forces by the collective

scale. Although an individual, a community or

a collective can be engaging a common

condition all would react differently, as the

scale can provide different levels of range.

The dimensions of the socio-cultural

measures that affect a given community are

practically rooted to a given local. However,

members of a community can have different

objectives. Unlike communities, collectives

are an assembly of members or entities with a

common believe or objective. Nonetheless,

the individual cognition is a subjective part of

the community and the collective.

The individual is usually affiliated with

a particular local, but can chose to be a part of

a collective of regard. “A personal project

which is symbolic and related to a collective

project, such as participation in a social

movement, is more likely to be authentic than

the two kinds just described” (Etzioni, 1968, p.

649). The relationship of social forces dictate

and shape the nature of the individual and

communal manifestation. In regards to space


of production, “field of cultural production

are generally structured in a manner which

sustains the authority of those who already

possess it” (Dovey K. , 2008, p. 41). The

correlation of groups of different scale or

interest requires an assessment of

particularities as means to have enough

power to compete with the social forces at

hand. The structured nature of a collective,

takes shape as a consequence of the

collective wants, needs or vision. This

common vision becomes an instrument of

reverberation of the individual voices. As part

of a larger voice within a collective, reaching

where the individual could not.

“The more prescriptive character of

their control processes is evident both in the

more encompassing and more intensive

relations between the state (and the society)

and the individual citizen and in the more

specific control of the collectivities and

organizations by the societal-wide political

over layer” (Etzioni, 1968, p. 443). Collectives

can pin point strategies as the scope and

effort are channeled by similar or a definitive

approach, philosophy or ideology. The

individual and the communal as a member of

a collective conjunction can employ different

means to improve the sustainability and well

being.

“The collectivities as meaningful societal units and exploring the consensus-formation among them; collectivities are the starting point rather than the individual member of society. Moreover, it should be noted that the relations among the collectives are not

completely given: thus, more encompassing units can be formed through society-wide consensus-building process. The collectivities are by virtue of their positions in a stratification structure, related to each other, and this structure limits both the need and the capacity to build consensus. We now explore these more encompassing relations, shifting our frame of reference from that of a collectivity (and its sub-units) to that of a society (and its components)” (Etzioni, 1968, p. 440).

The forces, visions, and needs within

a community are not homogenous, unlike the

common vision of a collective. It is therefore,

that the space and built-form most be able to

constantly shift as means to accommodate to

different particularities. Social spatiality

thirding for both the individual and

communities can operate as machinery with

several moving parts or components as an

active collective. Thus, constantly adapting,

changing in effort, scope or scale. Thus, being

capable to socially adapt to social forces for

the betterment of the individual/community

within a collective.

3.3 Production of Thirdspace as a Community Stronghold

The account of space goes beyond the

utilitarian capacity of use, it’s a place where

the individual can manifest his or her will and

become a member of a community. However,

is within the simple use of space than identity

can take place. Thus, in the reflection of

Spavik, Bhabha and Soja’s perspectives the

collective notion needs to be reflected by the

built-form as “a space of collective resistance”

(Soja E. , 1996, p. 35). “There is a growing


awareness of the simultaneity and interwoven

complexity of the social, the historical, and

the spatial, the inseparability and

interdependence. Soja’s theoretical praxis

directly encompasses a relation to all spatial

related practitioners as it connects and

engages spatial condition at a local level.

The Third-space within a community

is to represent and allow the nature of the

native ethos. In the communal capitalization

of spaces, that the conduciveness and

accessibility of the spatial use most act as a

tool and not as an obstacle for community

members. “Take enablement to mean the

ability or willingness to provide the means

with which to open doors and create

opportunities in order to build livelihood,

reduce vulnerability and sustain development.

With community enablement, to focus clearly

on the people and on building their capacity”

(Hamdi, 2010, p. 147). To reengage with the

ideas that we have previously discussed the

individual enablement is synonymous to the

community itself, It is therefore, that planning

and conveyance of the built-form is not but a

product of the collective delivery.

3.4 Active Collectivism

When depicting the meaning of

community in space, one most depict the

active nature of the current paradigm and

more important how the community wants to

render itself as a solidarian active member of

a collective. “Shifting balance between

constantly competing levels, between the

freedom and rights of individuals and the

order of collective responsibility, between

large-scale organizations and small ones”

(Hamdi, 2001, p. xviii). In the flux of the built

cognition, one can “seek to build architecture

of possibilities in the broadest sense of the

term and give this shape, spatiality and

organizationally” (Hamdi, 2001, p. 73).The

potentiality of the community is directly

intertwined with the spatial capabilities of its

individual’s private spaces in relationship with

communal built-spaces.

The public communal spaces, or lack

off, become an extension of the private space.

Thus, the public spatialness becomes an

active part of the community member’s

individual realm. Communal spaces are of

such that acknowledges the difference with

the community want and still takes place,

allowing the different views and needs to be

fulfilled. The built-environment, is to become

a granting vehicle towards the development

of the community. Thus, space roots itself in

its capacity to morph for constant

reappropriation.

“The density of life and commerce which clusters around places where buses stop. People will gather and wait for substantial periods of time and so, often and in small steps, small shops and coffee houses will open to serve them, shoeshine boys and other street hawkers will appear. At first, a small market emerges: cheaply, spontaneously, incrementally and in response to demand and to circumstance. No-one designed a market place, no-one contrived a center” (Hamdi, 2001, p. 74).


The determination of the third-space

within a community it’s not of value to the

existence space itself, as an object, the value

of communal and public space corresponds to

the possibilities of its collective faculties. The

design and faculties of communal space can

creatively suggest or induce a future

communal vision. For example, “It takes

imagination to plant the seed of an idea of

community around a bus stops and water

points and to craft these creatively, with

reason, as centers of community life.”

(Hamdi, 2001, p. xx). It is therefore, that the

trialectic spatiality most informs the decision

making for a fitting delivery of the built-form.

This is referring to the importance of

communal spaces for the vitality of the

collective well being of the community. The

collective use of communal space should

allow for new and possible adaptation of

individuals eagerness.

In continuation to the previously

stated case, Hamdi illustrates how a member

of the community adapted and developed a

“networking of markets and people, his

entrepreneurship, his source of information

had, in many ways, enabled him to become a

development practitioner in his own way

right. His organization was emerging and

scaling up” (Hamdi, 2001, p. 76). When

thinking of the trialectic spatiality one cannot

detach from the understanding that

communal spaces are a product of spatiality,

historicality and sociality implications. In

planning and development the object of an

intervention has to address and understand

its role, for example a bus stop, but

additionally all the forces, connections and

aspirations that community members need,

apart from its subjective and architectural

particularities.

3.5 Community and Entities of Power

Within the empirical social

conscription, one becomes a compulsory

entity of reaction to history and culture. As

respectively the “rhetoric of social warfare

rather welfare, a more militant rhetoric

backed by a political calculus that demonizes

the poor in a zero-sum game they cannot

possibly win.“ (Soja E. W., 2001, p. 302). Soja’s

illustrated how Los Angeles in the past two

decades has adopted a location and costumes

driven development of the urban delivery.

Generating “movements and coalitions

consciously cross racial, ethnics, class, and

gender boundaries to mobilize an

intercultural politics of space and place that is

significantly different from a rigidly polarized

politics” (Soja E. W., 2001, p. 303).

Nonetheless, the genealogy of planning and

urbanism can sculpt by those with the most

affluence thus tilting the balance of the

capacity of those with less power to achieve

their needs. The spatial imposition of some

groups is expressed as “a relatively affluent

residential communities sealed behind a

crusty perimeter, fenced off or built within


walls” (Soja E. W., 2001, p. 306), while the

poor in public developments “are retrofitted

with street barricades and patrolled by police

garrisoned on-site” (Soja E. W., 2001, p. 306).

Socio-economical barrier within the trialectic

spatiality are one of the most disempowering

forces in space, within both private and public

space (Cruz, 2011). Segregating and

preventing unprivileged groups from

achieving their wants and need. This pressing

condition is constantly taking place in a cross-

cultural manner form California to Bangkok.

Nonetheless, there are many cases and

implementations that question and challenge

this socio-cultural barrier, generating and

developing space to provide capacity and

options within space.


Rendering the Thirdspace

History shows us that communities

that were developed synergizing with both

civic and communal conditions are better

responsive to social forces (Carpenter,

Daniere, & Takahashi, 2004; Putnam, The

Prosperous Community, 1993; Cruz, 2011).

The inherent relation between the original

needs and the delivery of the space are

reflected by the possibilities of communal

capitalization within the paradigm. Bhabha,

Mandanipour, Dovey, Putnam and many

others have displayed the importance of

allowing the individuals to engage and

develop opportunities within their current

local. Nonetheless, they also acknowledge

that often many groups are victims of entities

of power, these entities of power usually

sculpt space and form in concord to their

giving agendas (Bhabha H. , 1994;

Madanipour, 2007; Dovey K. , 2008; Putnam,

1993).

Individuals or unprivileged groups

often don’t have the capacity to voice and

compete with imposition marginalizing forces.

It is therefore, that the potential

developments are vehicles that amplify those

unprivileged groups to compete and achieve

there wants and needs. When selecting the

precedence studies for this effort, the main

goal was to display a number of

developments that have overcome social

forces and provided individual and the

communities with opportunities of

betterment, while securing future capacities

of capitalization.

As mention before, the generation

and development of space has to cognate the

communal elements of diverse scales and

wants, while reassuring ways to cultivate their

respective social longevity. Respectively

addressing the legitimacy of the development

of built-form within its conceptuality, apart

from the use or typology. Generating an

understanding on how to deliver space.

Architectural manifestations such as a house,

a school, a park or a simple fence can directly


generate means of empowerment or the

polar opposite. Thus, we most acknowledge

that the greatest argument it’s not about the

architectural vehicle of delivery but

understanding how those vehicles affect all

potential users (Boonyabancha, 2005).

To make way for such interventions,

the cases selected focused and developed

their solutions in a comprehensive assesment,

considering the historicality, sociality and

spatiality of the engaged interventions. Many

of the cases selected grounded their

intervention as means to challenge the local

forces by providing options within the use and

behavior of space. Thereby all cases share the

advantage of enriching their projects by

working from the ground up (Boonyabancha,

Baan Mankong: going to scale with "slum"

and squatter upgrading in Thailand, 2005).

Created and delivering interventions that act

in response to both local forces and broader

forms of power. Thus, utilizing a cross-

disciplinary method to interplay and empower

the thirdspace.

4.1 Precedence and Study Cases

As Lefebvre and Soja state a trialectic

spatiality entwines social, history and

spatiality. Encompassing culture as a great

influences on the spatial perception. For

example, Cuba has been a product of

paramount changes in this last century. On

both sides of the coin, the political and

cultural transmutation of the individual was

not but a direct connection to the holistic and

communal transformative adaptation. In 1993

marked a new era for the lives of Cubans, as

the lack of a reliable fuel source for their

motorized means of transportation was

identified. “This fuel crisis particularly

affected food production and transformation

all over the island country” (Palleroni, 2004, p.

51). This condition translated itself into a

crucial change of the everyday life of the

individual and the communal. Creating

pressing challenges, such as, transportation

and how one navigates the city. “The prescien

mayor of Havana ordered a million bicycles

from China setting in motion a trend that

would fundamentally changes its citizens’

everyday lives” (Palleroni, 2004, p. 51).

4.1 Havana resident transporting bananas. By Bg Os, 2008.


The change of navigation from a

vehicular to a pedestrian or the use of non-

motorized transportation exposes resident to

a new array of socio-cultural forces. As many

Cubans migrate from collective motorized

means of transportation onto a individualized

driven flux within the city affects the singular

positioning within the community and its

members. As the disruption of habitual

occurrences generates a more local focus as

distance becomes an obstacle in the capacity

to acquire and manifest ones needs. Thereby,

any development created to help the Cuban

people respond to this energy crisis has to

focus not on the energy but on social systems

that the crisis affected.

4.2 Urban Agriculture Organic Center. Habana, Cuba

Expanding on how the effects of

socio-cultural conditions affecting the

experience of Havana’s residents, one can

further analyze the Cuban response to the

1993 fuel crisis. This crisis became the catalyst

for many cooperative initiatives. One of these

initiatives is the Urban Agriculture Organic

Center in Habana (UAOC). The UAOC is a

collaboration of local and international origin,

the root of the initiative was a response to the

lack of accessibility to products as the lack of

motorized transportation pressed in.

“It became apparent to the Cuban

people that their peoples future lay in the

conservation and relocation of their

agricultural resources for the capital city, this

4.2 Urban Agriculture Organic Center. By Author, 2004.

4.3 Urban Agriculture Organic Center. By Author, 2004.

meant creating a close reliable food source”

(Palleroni, 2004, p. 51). The potential capacity

of the UOAC generated a communal space of

empowerment. It empowers the community

with a capacity to respond to the fuel

shortage crisis by allowing community

members to plant and grow a number of

farming produce at the heart of the city. The

production was not enough to suffice the

food needs of the area, nonetheless,

establishes a precedence of action for other

communities. This capacity manifest as a

fractal exercise, as the individuals became a

empowered as a member of the cooperative

and the cooperative becomes an active link

with other communities. Generating not only

immediate means but a cultural capital as

urban farming is widely used in Cuba

(Palleroni, 2004).

In this case in particular, the trialectic

spatiality reflects the dialectics of social forces


that strained the community and the

individual to react to these forces. The

spatiality and the nature of UOAC allowed the

individual and community to use the center as

means to mediate with the fuel shortage

crisis.

4.3 Casa Familiar San Ysidro, California

The UAOC in Havana responded in an

specific matter to the energy crisis, addressing

a selected group within the Havana

communities. Nonetheless, the built form by

itself is not a driver of spatial empowerment,

however, it also constantly entwined in the

perception within the trialectic spatiality. It is

therefore, that the nature and the delivery of

the built form most reflect the nature and the

imposition that will generate upon the

community and individual. The following

study case embodies both a fitting

architectural response and an architecture

studio that utilizes design as means of spatial

contestation.

Teddy Cruz has utilized architecture

as means to resist unjust conditions upon

immigrants in the US Mexico border. Estudio

Tedy Cruz “proposes affecting existing

environments thorough shifts in established

infrastructure and policy” (Lepik, 2010, p. 93).

The engagement of this studio in the

generation of spatiality for communities roots

itself within the ontology of the socio-cultural

needs of the groups it’s been design for, In

this case families of Mexican immigrants in

the united states. The project of the “Casa

Familiar at the San Ysidro, California proposed

a solution for Living rooms at the border and

senior housing with children” (Lepik, 2010, p.

93). This project was challenged by the

particularity related to high flux of immigrants

in the area, while providing housing options

for elderly members of the community with

children. The paramount of this effort for

takes on the responsibility to respond to a

constant changing flow of immigrants and the

permanence of the elderly.

4.4 Casa Familiar, Possible Design Implementation. By Author, 2004

In an effort to create an architectural

conversation of the vocabulary of the built

form, “the Architect and Casa Familiar sought


to invent a system that would resonate with

dense, multiuse, and often illegal

development that has been common in the

area” (Lepik, 2010, p. 93). The production of

trialectic spatiality situates within the

discourse of the individual capacity to

paramount a part of the collective. The spatial

practice “materialized, socially produced,

empirical space is described as perceived

space, directly sensible and open, within

limits, to accurate measurements and

description” (Soja E. , 1996, p. 66). The

dominant pragmatism of the Casa Familiar

echoes the flexibility of communal use by

simple and deliberate moves. “Casa Familiar

orchestrates its many program,

accommodating a wide variety of social,

cultural and commercial functions” (Lepik,

2010, p. 94). Estudio Teddy Cruz utilized

workshops to help and inform the process

development of architectural d responses.

The workshops “discuss and challenge

conception of density, community, communal

spaces and financing with the local residents”

(Lepik, 2010, p. 96). This assisted the delivery

of the Estudio to create and produce an

architectural product and choices for both the

individual and community. The spatial choices

generated by this effort grounded on

information gathered at the participatory

workshops, by the community members

themselves.

“The multisidedness of power and its

relation to a cultural politics of differences

and identity is often simplified into

hegemonic and counter-hegemonic

categories” (Soja E. , 1996, p. 87). The modes

of the socio-cultural figures of imposition, can

engage a communal resistance from the

collective well being. The built form can be a

cultural tool of individual and communal

empowerment and resistance.

4.5 Casa Familiar, Possible Design Implementation. By Author, 2004

The design and planning of the Casa

Familiar utilize parts of the programming,

such as flexible collective kitchens, farmer’s

market, and community living rooms as a

means to enable the respecting individual and

communal activities to occur. “Those who are

territorially subjugated by the working of

hegemonic power have two inherent choices:

either accept their imposed differentiation

and division, making the best of it or mobilize


to resist, drawing upon their putative

positioning, their assigned otherness” (Soja E.

, 1996, p. 87).

4.6 Rendering: Casa Familiar, Community Kitchen. By Author, 2004.

4.7 Casa Familiar, Design Typologies. By Author, 2004.

Cruz mobilizes the collective need by

employing spatial opportunities and

challenges, of this immigrant community. Not

only providing a flexible housing delivery but

using a direct means of communication to

generate a collective solution.

4.4 Inner-City Arts Los Angeles, California

Along with the Urban Agriculture

Organic Center and Casa Familiar effort’s to

allow communities to stand and resist socio-

cultural forces, the inner-City Arts program at

San Ysidro is also allowing resident to resist

thru power of cultural knowledge. The

program it’s hosted by a scheme designed and

built by Michael Maltazan in 2008.

Nonetheless, the program was originated by

Bob Bates and Irwin Jaeger as a response to

the Proposition 13 passed during late 1970s

that virtually eliminated art programs from

the public education system (Lepik, 2010).

4.8 Photograph: Inner-City Arts. By Lepik, 2010.


4.9 Photograph: Inner-City Arts, Multipurpose Courtyard. By Lepik, 2010.

4.10 Photograph: Inner-City Arts, Center. By Lepik, 2010

4.11 Photograph: Inner-City Arts. By Lepik, 2010

Apart from the flexible classrooms,

performance and administrative spaces the

programs greatest asset is its capacity to

bridge cultural knowledge enriching to poor

groups of Los Angeles. Nonetheless, the built-

form of this program has evolved from its

humble beginnings, a storage warehouse. The

program grounded its design and

development as means to flexibly host

different activities, to accommodate the

differences of patrons within the local Los

Angeles community. The effectiveness of its

current built facilities and program is based

on the exponential growth that the program

has taken over time. Growing as a direct

relationship of the communal needs. Thus

sculpting the built-form and program to

accommodate the best implementation to

teach and share art and cultural knowledge

(Lepik, 2010). Thus, acknowledging the local


history, social and spatial elements affecting

the community. The programs organic

approach is a fitting vehicle forms the

development and enrichment of the

communal thialectic spatiality.

This programs stands as Soja would

refer, as a space of resistance (Soja E. , 1996).

The Inner-City Arts acknowledges the state

response to limit the level of arts education

for low income communities, therefore

providing the communities with means to

fulfill the need without compromising their

current condition of lifestyle. Therefore,

fighting and contesting the notion that poor

groups would not receive education at the

level of affluent social groups.

4.5 Bangkok Community Networks Bangkok, Thailand

As the study cases keep respectively

scaling-up, from Havana’s UAOC, to Casa

Familiar, to Inner City Arts, we will showcase

one last scenario that encompasses a system

that addresses the genealogy of the

thirdspace from a local household to a multi-

community network. The socio-cultural

diversity within the city of Bangkok provides a

great opportunity to illustrate conditions of

empowerment throughout the scope within

the trialectic spatiality. Along with several

number of development systems used in the

city, this effort will focus on the synergy of the

Baan Mankong Program.

In 2003 the Thai government created

the Baan Mankong Program (BMP) as means

to channel governmental funds towards the

improvement and the betterment of current

housing conditions of the poorest

communities in the country. The program

paramount’s the importance of a community-

driven development. In doing so, the funds

and energy of the development was focused

on areas that the community saw of higher

urgency. This better informed the programs

delivery as the localize effort was a direct

response to the socio-cultural forces.

Therefore, expanding the threshold of

capacity in the communities within the

generation of the thirdspace.

4.12 Photograph: Development Workshop, Bang Poo Community. By Elian Pena, 2011

The Baan Mankong Program

personified the communities as live organisms

or entities of a particular need and capacities.

Nonetheless, the best way to amplify the

voices of those individual, groups or

communities with little power or capacity it’s

to be a part of a larger collective. Thus,

translating into a collective trialectic spatiality


of possibility, one that was not able to be

heard or empowered without unifying by a

cause or common interest. Thereby, when

space is created for urban poor communities

one most look at city in its entirety.

Acknowledging that they are not isolated

individual settlements, they have friends and

allies in other communities around the city

who struggle with similar difficulties. This is

how communities start to build a larger

platform for collaboration (Boonyabancha,

2005, p. 11).

4.13 Photograph: Development Workshop, Bang Poo Community. By Elian Pena, 2011

We can view the city as a collective of

overlapping neighborhoods. Research on

communities shows how the perception of

the place it’s perceived in correlation to age

gender, class and ethnicity (Madanipour,

2007; Soja E. , 1996; Lefebvre, 1991). The

understanding of the juxtaposition of

similarities and differences within the number

of communities in the program allow the

program to deliver solutions informed from

within.

The program tackles a great number

of issues affecting the communities. Issues

varying from drains, walkways, toilets and

water supply to more complex issues such as

housing upgrading, relocation, flexible credit

and tenure (Boonyabancha, 2005). It is due to

this diversity of issues addressed by the

program that the methodology of

implementation plays a crucial role in

development.

4.14 Photograph: Bang Poo Community. By Parvathi Nair, 2011

The methodology employed by the

BKP displays a comprehensive holistic

approach of identification of the forces at


hand. Boonyabancha states that the first step

is to identify the figures of stakeholders in the

situation at hand to render fitting means of

communication among the stake holders.

Secondly, meetings between the engaged

community and the stakeholders take place to

establish a direct and continues link of

information. As a product of this constant

communication between the communities

and the enabling parties fitting delivery takes

place (Boonyabancha, 2005).

4.15 Photograph: BMP Design Proposal. By Noor Al Ghafari, 2011

This feed of information it’s known to

have a great range of stakeholders and

enables. “Several earlier projects by

communities from local and international

NGOs working in Thailand had also shown the

possibilities for improving housing by low-

income communities and networks of

communities themselves” (Boonyabancha,

2005, p. 3). Many communities of Thailand

have had the benefit international support to

assist their quest, only a product of the

constant flow of information. The constant

communication amongst the player can take

advantage of knowledge and assets beyond

the scope of their locality. Generating a

greater pool of assets for the betterment of

the community at hand.

4.16 Photograph: BMP Housing Project. By Noor Al Ghafari, 2011

Apart from a constant information

feed between community members and

enabling stakeholders, the communities need

to establish connection amongst them in

order to attain the level of social voice needed

to get their particular needs achieved. The

collectivity of communities has behaved as a

societal power core for poor communities in

Thailand, facilitating generating a pool of

negotiating avenues with the different


stakeholders (Carpenter, Daniere, &

Takahashi, 2004; Boonyabancha, 2005). This

community network has had a great level of

success in becoming a strong hold of

resistance for the poor. “The solutions may

be different in each community and region,

but the same culture of collective synthesis

and mutual assistance underlies them all – a

strength which has always existed of necessity

in poor communities, but which the upgrading

process is consciously helping to revive

(Boonyabancha, 2005, p. 12).” The constant

use of collective efforts by the community in

Thailand has set a strong precedence of

success as means resistance and facilitation of

goods in need. Thus, generating a collective

social capital that fosters inter-communal

relationship.


Thirdspace as a Comprehensive Approach

Every single individual in the planet

perceives space and built-form differently.

Our perspective in regards to space is part of

a three part consciousness, that addresses all

that it tangibles and intangibles. A spatial

conciseness, which is simultaneously

interpreting ones spatial, social and historical

association to space. The thirdspace is a

“three-sided sensibility of spatiality-

historicality-sociality it is not only bringing

about profound change in the ways we think

about space, it is also the beginning to lead to

major revisions in how we study history and

society” (Soja E. , 1996, p. 3) and therefore

the production of space. One cannot generate

the thirdspace, as the notion of the thirdspace

is a comprehensible asset. Thus the

thirdspace it’s an active vehicle that

dramatizes ones relationship to space

generating a pragmatic language that can be

use to design and shape development.

Thereby, assisting in the development

of built and symbolic means within society.

The acknowledgment of spatial users as

thrialectic beings can help design greatly

informed and fitting development. As the

thrialectic spatiality makes the conditions that

affect space tangible, displaying the

professional disciplines required to participate

and how they need to engage with each other

in the design process. (Soja E. , 1996).

Securing betterment and prosperous avenues

for future while addressing the immediate

issues.

To the precise circumstance of our

present movement. It relocates us not in the

past or in the tacitly built environment of the

city, but in the marginality and the

overlapping psychological, social, and cultural

borderlands of contemporary lived space

(Soja E. , 1996, p. 111).


5.1 Photograph: Inner-City Arts, Arts Program. By Getti Images, 2011

By the cases revised we have

observed as developers have to go further

than just addressing the situation at hand. We

have seen how the projects that were

developed in consultation with the

communities can grow to be community

identity icon. As the project grew from the

community’s disposition and accord.

There could be similarities and that

identify us with other groups that share the

same conditioning. These similarities can also

pose as social barriers from others social

groups or entities of power. As many agenda

driven projects have shown us, one cannot

generalize or identify user in to single groups

as is convenient for some institutions of

power (Madanipour, 2007). One has to

acknowledge the rich complexity of the

trialectic beings to deliver a place of individual

and communal resistance. It is therefore,

space has to address and accommodate the

number of different groups within the

community without disadvantaging any.

Thereby, Formalize and unformalize

regulation and barrier for the betterment of

the individual, the community and the

collective.

Looking forward, in this effort we

have highlighted the elements and social

particularizes that influence ones relationship

to space. To gain ground, we must ensure that

a holistic assessment, such as spatial view of

the 3rd space is use to inform future

development engagement. As Soja stated, the

thridspace illustrates the great number of

forces that presses upon spatial use (Soja E. ,

1996). Therefore, displaying and demystifying

for engagement of separate professional

spatial disciplines. Thereby, accentuating the

need of a cross-disciplinary approach that

could generate spatial responses that are at

the same level as potential individuals-

communities using them.


Referenced Work

Bhabha, H. K. (1990). Nation and Narration. London: Routledge.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.

Boonyabancha, S. (2005). Baan Mankong: going to scale with "slum" and squatter upgrading in

Thailand. Environment and Urbanization , 17-21.

Boonyabancha, S. (2005). New Frontiers of Social Policy. Arusha Conference (pp. 1-15). Bangkok:

Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI).

Borges, J. L., & Hurley, A. (2000). The aleph: including the prose fictions from The maker. London:

Penguin.

Carpenter, J. P., Daniere, A. G., & Takahashi, L. M. (2004). Cooperation, trust, and social capital in

Southeast Asian urban slums. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 533–551.

Carpenter, J. P., Daniere, A. G., & Takahashi, L. M. (2004). Social Capital and Trust in South-east Asian

Cities. Urban Studies , 852-874.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human CapitalAuthor. American Journal of

Sociology, Vol. 94 , S95-S120.

Cruz, T. (2011). Latin America Meander: In Search of a New Civic Imagination. Architectural Design:

Latin America at the Crossroads , 110-118.

Cruz, T. (1999). The Tijuana Workshop. In A. Boddington, & T. Cruz, Architecture of the Borderlands

(pp. 42-47). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dovey, K. (2008). Framing Places, Mediating Power in Built Form. London: Routledge.

Etzioni, A. (1968). The Active Society. New York: The Free Press.

Hamdi, N. (2001). Small Change. London: Earthscan.

Hamdi, N. (2010). The Placemaker's Guide to Building Community. London: Earthscan.

Hooks, B. (1984). Feminist Theory: From Marging to Center. Boston: South End Press.

Kahatt, S. S., & Leguia, M. (2011). PREVI-Lima’s Time: Positioning Proyecto Experimental de Vivienda

in Peru’s Modern Project. Latin America at the Crossroads , 22-25.


Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lepik, A. (2010). Small Scale Big Change. New York: The Museum of Modern Arts.

Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and Challenges of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design , 173-193.

Madanipour, A. (2007). Social Exclusion and Space. In R. LeGates, & F. Stout, The City Reader (pp.

158-165). London: Routledge.

Morton, S. (1997). Gayatri Spivak: ethics, subalternity and the critique of postcolonial reason.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe & Company.

Palleroni, S. (2004). Studio at Large: Architecture in Service of Global Community. Seattle: University

of Washington Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). The Prosperous Community. The American Prospectus , 1-11.

Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace. Journey to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.

Soja, E. W., & Hooper, B. (1993). The Space That Differences Makes. In M. Keith, & S. Pile, In Place

and the Politics of Identity (pp. 183-205).

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture .

Additional Bibliography

Bell, B., & Wakeford, K. (2008). Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism. Metropolis Books .

Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Cultures In-Between. In S. Hall, & P. du Gay, Questions of Cultural Identity (pp.

53-60). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Brenner, N., & Elden, S. (2004). Henri Lefebvre on State, Space, Territory. International Political

Sociology , 353-377.

Dovey, K. (2002). The Silence Complicity of Architecture. In J. Hillier, & E. Roobsky, Habitus: A Sense

of Place (pp. 283-296). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

Hooks, B. (1994). Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. New York: Routledge.

Hooks, B. (1990). Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press.


Hubbard, P. (1993). The Value of Conservation: A Critical Review of Behavioural Research. The Town

Planning Review , 359-373.

Mannheim, K. (1964). Planning for Freedom. In A. Etzioni, & E. Etzioni, Social Change (pp. 463-471).

London: Basic Books Inc.

Martin-Moreno, E. (2011). Organising Communities for Interdependent Growth. Architectural Design

, 128-133.

Oldenburg, R. (2001). Celebrating the Third Place: Inspiring Stories About the "Great Good Places" at

the Heart of Our Communities. New York: Marlowe & Company.

Oldenburg, R. (2010). The Character Of Third Place. In A. M. Orum, & Z. P. Neal, Common Ground?:

Readings and Reflections on Public Space. 2010: Routledge.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Rapoport, A. (1983). Development, Culture Change and Supportive Design. Habitat International ,

249-268.

Routledge, P. (1996). The Third Space as Critical Engagemt. Antipode 28 , 399-419.

Smith, C. E. (2007). Design for the Other 90%. Smithsonian Cooper-Hewitt.

Soja, E. W. (2001). Post Metropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Spivak, G. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: toward a history of the vanishing present.

London: Harvard University Press.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). In other worlds: essays in cultural politics. London: Routledge.

Stohr, K., & Sinclair, C. (2006). Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to

Humanitarian Crises. Los Angeles: Metropolis Books.

West, C. (1990). The New Cultural Politics of Difference. In R. Ferguson, & M. Gever, Marginalization

and Contemporary Cultures (pp. 19-38). 1990: MIT Press.

production of trialectic spatiality ucl 2011

Documents