Architectural discourses related to portable buildings are largely positivistic and focused on structure, materials, and modern technology. Scholars profile small, prefabricated constructions as relocatable, adaptable, and reusable according to the user's contradictions. While romanticizing a unique lifestyle, portable house prototypes open the way for industrial mass production and low-cost housing. Intentionally designed as place-independent units, they can, and often do, remain in one place for a long time. This scenario impacts significantly the social and spatial contexts of a particular locality, as it confronts the territorial claims of special interest groups. What is the role of portable buildings in such a setting? Who are the decision-makers and decision-making agencies'? This thesis focuses on the difference between the declared design intention described in current architectural literature regarding portable houses and the political and social practice of placing them in one of the world's most contested territories — the West Bank.Methodologically, a discourse survey, developed with experimental, self-made portable and temporary dwellings in 2002, gives an overview of relevant categories of portable houses: prototypes, parasites, and developers. A fourth category, transformers, interprets portable buildings within the context of the West Bank. This is followed by a material culture study conducted on site in December 2004/January 2005. Finally, several interviews provide subjective perspectives of portable houses in the West Bank. In addition, the works of the scholars Kronenberg, Kozlovsky, Weizman/Segal, Rotbart, and Foucault provide the basis for much of this analysis.In the extreme case of the West Bank, it was determined that designed as site-independent, portable houses in the West Bank carry significant local and regional meaning. As they are industrially fabricated and quickly deployed in large numbers at various, elevated locations, they become instruments of spatial control (observation, psychological demonstration of Israeli power and intimidation, territorial gain, and presence). Furthermore, portable houses here are appointed a political role by various agencies: defining and extending the national boundaries in a state of political indefiniteness and negotiations. The particular construction technology of `portable house' is used by a culture within a well-considered strategy of war.The reality of transportable buildings outside the architectural discourses is based on mass production, clustered distribution at difficult places with the intention for territorial claim, while maintaining strategic flexibility. Ultimately, portable houses need to be redefined as active instruments--rather than neutral products—that create subjective place attachment and identity, actively influence a territorial conflict, and impact spatial order and control. Thus, it can be argued that portable buildings make a territorial claim permanent. / Department of Architecture
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/188157 |
| Date | January 2006 |
| Creators | Gunes, Tulay |
| Contributors | Janz, Wes |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | 288 leaves : ill. (some col.), col. maps ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
| Coverage | awba--- |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds