Walls, Edges, Power, Opposition, Reaction

Let me preface my observations here by stating that I am neither pro or anti anything in the middle east politically, I do think it is an excellent example of what happens when people fail at communication and succeed in misunderstanding a mutual desire to live. That being said, the inherent tensions there have pushed people, policy and the functions of living (and inherently building) to their limit, and thereby highlighted these elements with far more power than they are otherwise accorded in other places. It is these extremes and these actions and reaction, as they happen architecturally that I find fascinating and incredibly unfortunate, simultaneously.

These photos I collected from the AP reports on the situation last week along the Gaza/Egyptian border. Facing a complete closure of access to Israel, the Gaza Strip started to tear down sections of the border fence between Gaza and Egypt which Israel had constructed when they were the arbiters of the region. This is situation represents a most extreme version of events focusing on a wall separating communities from their needs. Granted that is dangerously oversimplifying the ongoing issues, but regardless of the politics in the background, walls such as this are the architectural manifestation of disconnection and control and the destruction or injury to that barrier as an act of need, for survival, is an act of architecture just as potent as building the wall itself.
What we are left with is not just a strong argument against walls and in favor of promoting interconnection of communities, but we also see beyond the mere argument to the actions of the response.

Here we can see the reaction against a 'real' physical barrier, however lines of demarcation are sometimes not as distinct and therefore not as easily identified. It is much more the case that these borders or edges are not at all fixed or perceivable by the unsuspecting observer. Yet the effect of these boundaries on communities is none the less powerful. Consider that as much as the construction and existence of the wall is powerful the act of tearing it down is equally powerful and symbolic. Other photos of the wall indicate that the materials of its construction varies. Perhaps there was a section that was easier to knock down or even sneak through/around/under? The question being why not knock that section down? Maybe the reason is that it is is just as quickly repaired. I would argue instead that breaking the wall at its strongest point is the architectural equivalent of defeating the wall's manifested purpose, instead of nibbling at the edges and weak spots, by reacting against the strongest section the very existence of the wall, and therefore what the wall stands for is challenged and that will not easily go unnoticed.

Boundaries can be reinforced, challenged, sculpted to make a point, perforated or torn down. I fully expect that no single design solution responds to all the unique situations that arise, but they are all something to keep in mind.

As you move forward, all of you, these edge conditions real and perceived are something you should be aware of - racial and economic divides in the Philly and Reading, sacred ground green earth and the temporal qualities of the built in Gettysburg battlefield, the expansiveness of the sea, the grain of the small town community.