Informal Annexations

Rafael Luna

A critical development occurred during the 19th century in the spatial relationships of our cities when the paradigm shifted from city form to city management. The parcelization of the city by the implementation of grid standards allowed multiple cities to produce a management tool for taxation and property control. It was popularized by the iconic projects of the Commissioners’ Plan of 1811, Haussmann’s plan for Paris in the 1850s, and, most importantly, theorized and published as the “General Theory of Urbanization” by Ildefons Cerda for the expansion of Barcelona. These models were repeated all over the globe as urbanization expanded. Yet parcelization could not have foreseen the informalities of the city in the space that happens between parcels and between buildings. Such is the case in Seoul, in the district of Hongdae where the leftover space between the parcel and the building is appropriated as an interior extension, giving rise to a whole neighborhood economy of illegal marketable space. These spaces are used as shops, restaurants, galleries, through an extension of the ground level. This essay will review how the in-between space has not only produced an interesting neighborhood condition but a variety of interior spaces that have adapted to maximize the residual spaces of parcels.

In the continuing process of urbanization, much emphasis has been placed on the development of city form through the implementation of grid design. The grid has been equated to a method for establishing city form, as well as a political tool for managing the growth of cities. The grid in itself could be studied independently as an urban artifact with its roots as a control tool developed by the Roman Empire during its expansive colonization. The parameters that founded each of these imperial colonies followed two axes; the cardo and decumanus embedded a directional logic onto the system with parallel streets, a system of subdivisions for development and public squares. Aside from providing a geometrical strategy for organizing citizens, the formation of these cities through the grid developed the important distinction between res publica and res privata. These latin terms defined that which is public and that which is private. They politicized the land and the managerial aspect of maintaining such land; that which was maintained by the state would be considered res publica, or public with access to all. This is one of the embedded fundamental aspects that needs to be addressed when discussing the nature of our cities – both as a separation of privacies through the grid and the resulting implications on the efficiency of urban space. The grid, therefore, should be defined not as a direct geometric operation of design that is imposed on a field, but as the primary infrastructural network that shapes the public realm of a city and its parcelized privacies. The space in-between the parcels is arguably the most important factor in defining the city, as it represents the area of discrepancy between the public infrastructure and private buildings. In between the parcels and buildings exists the political, contested space between the public infrastructure and private buildings. In between the parcels and buildings exists the political, contested space between private land and public access—the space for appropriation. It represents a hidden value of urban efficiency, one that unearths the inadequacies of understanding a city as fixed spaces through grids and parcelization.

Understanding urban efficiency through the in-between space created by the parcelization process requires a review of contemporary methodologies for reading a city. Systems like GIS (geographic information system), for example, have been in development since the 1960s. They record what has been legally documented as public infrastructure, the subdivisions of parcels, and the perimeter of buildings inside parcels. Although GIS is the most popular method for visualizing and working with open-source data for mapping, for architects it is mainly used to demonstrate building coverage area and two-dimensional urban forms, such as a Nolli map. Urban efficiency in this scenario could be described through the density of the urban fabric of a city as an indicator of walkability and, therefore, density of amenities for occupancy. In his book Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time, Jeff Speck argues for the need of a health building density that allows for higher usability of the space by its residents.1 The further the separation of the in-between space of buildings, the less efficient the city, as walking distances between buildings are longer and the city more car-oriented. This argument is exemplified by projects such as the “taxonomy of urban fabrics,” generated by the urbanization.org group at the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia.2 The intent of this project is to create a classification of urban fabrics from around the world as an open source to allow for collaborative comparative studies. Although a comparative study of this kind would provide valid information regarding densities, it would not demonstrate the in-between condition that occurs by informal occupations.

The ad-hoc appropriations of public space for private use are common in a dense city like Seoul. In their book Borrowed City, Bruna, Carena, and Kim analyze the condition of appropriation of the public space in Seoul as a social contract among the residents and local government. “Borrowed City can be simply defined as the way private citizens use public space for their own personal benefit… Most of these “negotiated” activities are illegal, but at the same time they are the result of a mutual agreement among citizens, which is a fundamental process in any democracy. For this reason, in a public space debate, informal occupations should be considered more as a resource to exploit than a problem to eradicate.”3 “Borrowed City“ describes the condition in Seoul that exists out of the demarcated limits of a grid. Pop-up shops or tents may happen on the sidewalk, alleys, or between buildings as common occurrences regardless of their legality. Although they are not accounted for as legal building spaces or registered commercial activity, they provide amenities that may not be present inside legal buildings but are ingrained in the daily use of the city.

Another methodology to note is the mapping generated through the visualization of big data. In computation, big data refers to large data sets that could be analyzed to reveal patterns. These data sets have been incrementally increasing through the internet and the process of digitalizing our environments. The Civic Data Design Lab at MIT has been producing such mappings to evaluate the real estate speculative development occurring in China.4 The visualization of data sets form social network apps reveals urban voids. These areas lack amenities and therefore become unsustainable communities, contributing to a phenomenon labeled as Ghost Cities. Urban efficiency is presented as a model of proximity to amenities for local residents.

These methodologies present an understanding of urban efficiency as an expression of density and proximities within legal parameters, be it recorded survey of buildings or licensed business operations. These methodologies operate within the public and private limits demarcated by the grid system. Yet in a dense urban environment, the public boundaries are sometimes blurred through appropriations of the in-between spaces as shown in studies like Borrowed City. These appropriations or occupations uncover the need for an additional understanding of the in-between, not just as a function of space but also of time. In 2002, Groupe e2 formed an international ideas competition to explore the notion of the in-between urban condition. Although the connotation of the “in-between” in the brief may have been preconceived to connote the space between two things, Bernard Tschumi offered a separate observation of the importance of understanding the in-between also as a time reference.5 The in-between can be conceptualized as the progressive layering effect that builds the city over time, implying a new dimension; the lack of this dimension in the Nolli plan methodology explains its failure to capture the city in its totality, one including ad-hoc occupancies and temporal events.

The inadequacies of understanding a city through its grid and parcelization as fixed spaces rather than its in-between spaces are further studied by Solomon, Wong, and Frampton in their book Cities Without Ground: A Guide to Hong Kong’s Elevated Walkways,6 a demonstration of the endless three-dimensional connections that occur in Hong Kong’s pedestrian networks. The in-between space is completely blurred through the appropriation of public infrastructure for private commercial use. The space between buildings becomes irrelevant as a two-dimensional ground condition because public infrastructure is extended into the private interior spaces, offering a continuous urban experience instead of a compartmentalized parcelization of two-dimensional space.

In both scenarios of appropriations, Seoul and Hong Kong, the need for space has led to an understanding of urban efficiencies beyond the political implication of the grid. The grid still represents the bundled, sunken investment of a city with an intrinsic path-dependency and limited possibilities of change to its formal structure. This implies that once a grid is laid out, variation can only come from its subdivisions and the evolution of the architecture, currently seen occurring in dense Asian cities through informal occupations.

The city of Seoul, for example, experienced a period of rapid urbanization in its postwar of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, which generated a milieu of urban fabrics within the city. The development of the different housing types was a direct response to the rapid incoming and growing population. This led to the production of a quantity of buildings regardless of the quality of urban space. As the city stabilized its growth in becoming a 21st century post-industrial cultural city, there has been a growing emphasis on the quality of urban space. In Seoul, this can only be produced through the appropriation of void spaces in the given variety of existing grids.

One specific case study is the dense commercial neighborhood of Hongdae, where the in-between has evolved beyond the parcelization of the grid system to appropriate the setback spaces of buildings as extensions of the interior commercial spaces. Although setback areas are legally owned by the property owner, their purpose is to serve as easements for safe passage in case of emergencies, to separate buildings in case of fire or earthquakes, and to provide natural ventilation and lighting. Setbacks are technically private property but serve a public safety function, making them an ambiguous semi-private space. Bypassing the legality of building within the setbacks, many of the buildings on the main streets of Hongdae extend their volume as commercial shed using temporal and light materials that afford them a dubious legality.

The presence of these occupations relates to the grid implementation of the neighborhood, which appears on city survey maps during the 1970s. The area is flanked by Hongik University, which was established in 1946, and hints at informal dense settlements that occurred before the development of the parcels. This parcelization process of defining informal settlements within legal parcels resulted in buildings that are separated through setbacks ranging in average from two to four meteres. This leaves spaces of one to two meters for each neigbor’s side. The area is typologically characterized by low-rise buildings three to four stories high. As the neighborhood continued to densify due to its appeal as an arts and music scene anchored by Hongik University, there was a need for buildings to expand into the only remaining void spaces: the in-between setbacks. Bounded also by the subway Line 2, commuter train Gyeongui-Jungang Line, and the Airport Line to Seoul station, the area thrives with a constant inflow of tourists and a younger population of students, making the area one of the most active commercial areas in Seoul. In order to benefit the most from this retail context, stores use every available space to capitalize on the display and vending of their merchandise. The mapping of the in-between spaces reveals five typologies of appropriation: retail extension, entrance extension, green space, car-oriented spaces, and miscellaneous storage.

The first appropriation type, retail extension, derives from the adaptation of garage spaces and the extension of the ground-level storefront. These are the most interesting examples among the five typologies, as the interior volume makes use of the additional setback space for an interior effect. Garages of buildings that are raised on pilotis for ground level parking are transformed into boutique retail spaces. The one-meter setback in this example becomes a highlighted rack space, naturally lit through a polycarbonate roof that encloses the setback. This is a typical scenario that technically maintains a legal use. Some of the storefront extensions hide the legal border of the building by constructing a decorated façade, using the additional area to give the appearance of a larger store. Inside, these tend to be covered with polycarbonate roofing to maintain the feel of a naturally lit sliver. Some shed-like setbacks that have more than two meters build an enclosure with aluminum panels or light construction as if it were a temporary construction without insulation.

The second appropriation type is the use of the setback as an entrance to the building. Exterior stairs do not count in the calculation of legal FAR (floor area ration), and by moving the entrance to the second or third floor on the side setback, the ground floor can gain extra square meters of inter retail space.

The third appropriation, type includes a social agenda, as the setbacks are used as green space. Because the width of the setbacks would not allow for a proper private garden, the notion of using these spaces as a green space has a larger social role that benefits the neighborhood more than the individual. In the previously mentioned competition form 2002 by Groupe e2, a Japanese entry proposed using these one-meter setbacks as a way of creating a perimeter ring of green around Tokyo. As a semi-private space, these slivers, vertical gardens between buildings, could play a larger infrastructural role as green lungs for the city, especially in large cities like Seoul that suffer from pollution and bad air quality.

The fourth adaptation is that of driveways transformed as advertisement entrances instead of for car parking. Due to parcelization, some buildings occupy the middle of the block without any street front other than a narrow driveway. These driveways are highlighted as apart of an entrance sequence to commercial spaces in the back. They extend the interior experience to the street.

Lastly , the miscellaneous spaces are used for extra storage or just left empty. The use of light materials like polycarbonate roofing allows inventory to be kept outside of the building. Laundromats, for example, will extend their operations into these spaces, using them for drying racks.

Although this phenomenon seems unique to Hongdae with its retail density, this condition is repeated in other neighborhoods like Itaewon or Sinsa-dong, which have similar urban fabric makeup of low-rise buildings separated by two to five meters of shared setbacks. Analysis of the actual usage of setback space among the selected case study blocks in Hongdae indicates about a 10 percent increase in usability. This is a higher efficiency of use than that recorded by traditional methods, and it relies on the ingenuity of interior design to work within the legal parameters. This case study also suggests a potential need for understanding the spacing that generates an unplanned urbanity.

In order to compare the condition of the unplanned appropriation of the in-between in relation to grid types, 15 grid types within a 0.25km2 boundary are compared based on building coverage ratios. These 15 types of grids represent a cross-section of time in the development of Seoul. The grids closer to the inner core have been in transformation since the inception of Seoul in 1392. The original streams in the inner core formed informal urban fabrics that remain today. The grids further from the inner core represent areas that experience rapid development during the decades of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. These grids were laid out on empty land as a tabula rasa condition in a “western development” style of regular grids. The variation in distance between buildings among the various grids showcases an interpretation of urban efficiency through appropriation. Areas that already have 50 percent area coverage leave little room for intervention. Yet areas that have very low coverage rations, below 20percent, as in Apgujeong, Yeouido, or Jamsil, have separations between buildings that exceed 50 meters. These are areas made up of high-rise apartment complexes inside megablock infrastructure with no clear demarcation of parcelization. These developments resemble socialist blocks such as the Superquadra in Brasilia, where the privatized in-between is completely lost. In his essay on Brasilia in the Typological Urbanism issue of AD,7 Tarttara explains Lucio Costa’s intention of generating a socialist space through the displacement of linear housing blocks, raised on pilotis, in order to democratize the ground as public space. The amenities found on these superquadras follow social infrastructural agendas like public schools, daycare centers, community centers, or athletic facilities, rather than privately developed commercial retail spaces like cafes or restaurants. The relationship of res publica and res privata is flipped vertically as the entire ground is intended for public use, and private development is lifted to allow unobstructed views and free pedestrian flow throughout the entire block.

The 15 different grids allow for a conceptualization of the in-between space as a political space based on the distance of separation between buildings. Conceptually, the further away the buildings are from each other, as in Jamsil, Yeouido or Apgujeong, the more the parcelization process is lost. These developments are scaled to the size of the megablock and built as individual projects. This type democratizes the land and makes appropriations more difficult, while tighter urban fabrics privatize the ground and the subdivisions take on a more important role allowing for free market appropriations.

As discussed by Pier Vittorio Aureli in his description of the grid in the [re]Form: New Investigations in Urban Form symposium at Harvard, it is the subdivisions of the grid8 that become the most important part of shaping the urban form, an idea consistent with gridded development in history. Aureli offers the possibility of escaping the dependency of subdivisions through “island” urban occupations such as the acampada in Madrid. These informal settlements, like the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movements, created urbanities of the in-between informal settlements in urban voids. In cities like Seoul, where informal occupations are not rare, as previously discussed in Borrowed City, the island development effect can take place in the large in-between grounds a second layer of informal amenities.

As a speculative scenario, new smart infrastructures may allow the customization of the urban space. Large open grounds between buildings could potentially allow for informal occupations controlled through digital technologies. Antoine Picon discusses the discrepancy that is occurring between the notion of “smart city” or “smart infrastructure” and the actual urban makeup.9 Our cities still maintain a known form based on a grid logic that no longer reflects the advances in technology shaping our daily lives. As previous mentioned, the path dependency of the grid will not allow much of a spatial transformation, but the in-between space of appropriation can quickly become the adaptable space for these new tendencies enabled by the technology of mass customization. The larger in-between spaces could be regulated for other activities, operating as temporal islands, as smart devices allow for multiplicity of use for the same setting. Smaller spaces, such as the ones in Hongdae or Sinsa, can also become integrated as virtual commercial spaces. Spaces of one meter to two meters in width can offer the virtual platforms for shopping while the interior displays physical goods. The hidden values of the unaccounted-for setback space of the in-between offers a whole new field of operations as an independent layer of the future city.

Notes

1 Speck, Jeff. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. New York: North Point Press, 2013. P10.

2 http://urbanization.org/project.html?project=5

3 Bruno, Marco, Simone Carena, and Minji Kim. Borrowed City: Private Use of Public Space in Seoul. Seoul: Damdi Publishing, 2015. P15.

4 http://civicdatadesignlab.mit.edu/#projects/GHOST%20CITIES%20-%20BEYOND%20THE%20IMAGE.

5 Perrault, Dominique, Bernard Tschumi, Michel Desvigne, and Nasrine Seraji-Bozorgzad. E2: Exploring the Urban Condition. Paris: Group E2, 2002

6 Frampton, Adam, Jonathan D. Solomon, and Clara Wong. Cities without Ground: A Hong Kong Guidebook. Berkley: Oro Editions, 2015.

7 Martino Tarttara, Brasilia’s Prototypical Design in Architectural Design, January/February 2011, Volume 209. P.46-55

8 https://youtu.be/0L7Anlsu2A4

9 Picon, Antoine. Smart Cities: A Spatialised Intelligence. Chichester: Wiley, 2015. P11-14