What Does ‘Space’ Do in Coronavirus Pandemic Era?
Asking about the term ‘space’ in architecture is similar with asking ‘what is politics?’; it is a never-ending concept that can be explained merely in one sentence, or it can be discussed by a thousand-pages book garnished with deep philosophical discourses and perspectives. Beside its complexity and subjectivity of the term itself, it is an important aspect that acts as a main topic (mostly) when one is designing a building, or a city. It is a fluid term, which could be summarised into an imaginative or real volume and/or location that we experience in. It could be imaginative as some architects think that space does not need physical boundaries to function and serve its purpose for the human. It also could be ‘real’ or physical, as in a more technical stage of designing, the purposed space needs a reason or ‘ways’ for it to operate; it is by designing the form that creates it, the physical things that wrap and create the space. It is this discourse that makes architectural practice is more about creating spaces, rather than creating buildings. ‘Space’ always exists in a functional building or structure. But building or structure can be non-existent in a functional space.
The relevancy of space discussion is increasing in this time of coronavirus era, as the virus’ trait to be transmitted easily through person-to-person contact forces people to carefully choose and curate what ‘spaces’ they are allowed and safe to go. This leads the government actions to ask people to avoid crowded space — or in particular, public space — and spend more time in their more-private spaces. Even though high-intensity close contact is still possible on a private and semi-private spaces like a co-house, big family houses, apartments, or even your communal kitchen in your house, the restriction focuses mainly on public space which left the space abandoned and deserted.
Before I throw the question out, it is also important to take a glimpse of our current urban planning culture. As modernism rules many practical culture of architecture right now, so is our current urban city planning where one of the product is the rigid city zoning; industrial, commercial, residential, and other zones in between. This categorization was born by the means to separate industrial pollution and commercial activities with the residential area, while at the same time, to glorify ‘efficiency’ like the modernists always advocate. We could say that it worked out for our contemporary time and technology, because efficiency has provided us with lesser wasted material, increased economy, ‘greener’ city, and so on (even though it possesses major criticism for its ignorement towards social and cultural aspect, but it is on another topic).
Now the question arises. Because let’s say, efficiency is crucial to be considered right now, then what will those avoided spaces do in this time of quarantine? Will those spaces adapt themselves to another ‘form’ to keep on functioning, or will they do nothing? If they do nothing for us, or the city, it can be said that the spaces are turning into useless redundant spaces. That is a ‘bad’ thing if we are talking about efficiency apparently. Those spaces which were generated by the modernist urban planning culture itself may have no capability to serve functions at the moment. It is a no-problemo, if the amount and size are relatively small. But talking about those large and broad parks, basketball courts, neighbourhood soccer fields, public plazas, malls, traditional markets, public transportation, street corridors, corner cafes, you name it. Some would say ‘but the pandemic will be gone in no time’, but what if it is not? Maybe it is the time to take concern about the ‘function sustainability’ of a space and building design.
Maybe it is the time to rethink the current rigid urban planning that segregates various spaces and functions into their own boxes. This pandemic gives us a new topic to discuss, which is the function sustainability that those rigid, fixed function of space may not serve well in particular events like such plague or pandemic. It gives designers, architects, planners, and everyone a problem to be answered. How to create a sustainable space that will not be deserted in almost any kind of tragic phenomena, so that the space can always be functioning. As space that stops functioning can be assumed as a dead space, it could block the opportunity for other proposed spaces to be built because the physical land has been occupied. It gives organic architecture, parametricism architecture, co-design, radical architecture, and other concepts a stage to test their ability in achieving the answer. As Josephine Hart said “We learn from tragedy. Slowly.”, this occurring event opens up possibility for us to seek better innovations and attitudes towards the unpredictable future, that includes the way on how we design our future space.
