“Snake Tunnels in Taliban Territory”
Comment
My initial response to this post comes in the form of the irony associated with the world's most technologically advanced military force struggling to cope with the alliance that has formed between a primitive guerrilla military troop and landscape. I do not know which is a more crowning achievement, America developing the technology to create bunker-busting missiles that can be fired and controlled with pinpoint precision, or the Taliban rendering the technology useless through inhabiting their landscape? I find it intriguing how the international fight between capitalism and terrorism has, in Afghanistan, been reduced to a duel between technology and sustainability. It was not tear gas, bombs, armed assault, or food deprivation that forced John Walker Lindh and others to flee from an underground stronghold. Thousands of gallons of water had to be pumped into the caves to have the men flooded out. Nevertheless, the parts of this post that I would like to dig deeper into are the architectural implications affiliated with underground tunnels combating modern technology. What were the basic architectural principles that Attila the Hun followed in his early establishment of mountain caves? More importantly, why were these principles of environmental habitat lost or misunderstood in Western societies’ advancements? In regards to architectural evolution, the caves offer insight on the complex meaning of interior dwelling. Architects have always dealt with spatial projects in terms of interior versus exterior. But what can we architects make of a community existing purely at an interior level? Not only are the Taliban fighters challenging Western democratic thought, but apparently they are now angry at Western architectural principles as well. In the upcoming quest for sustainable development strategies, it is essential for innovative thinkers to consider the obvious advantages to subterranean climates that have been found in Afghanistan.“New Wave Bunkers”
Comment
I find this post especially pertinent in regards to the dynamic characteristics of each type of bunker you describe. The first question I have considers which architectural elements of the original Federal Reserve Communications and Records Center were preserved in the customization that exists today. While I applaud the architect’s willingness to revise an outdated architectural form, I have to scrutinize whether or not this design is technically classified as a full refurbishing rather than an adaptive reuse. The recyclable qualities that are inherently associated with adaptive re-use are not commonly affiliated with recondition. I imagine that the construction elements that make a “nuke proof” bunker actually nuke proof would be extremely large in size and not easily capable of resuscitation. Also, what qualities of the Reserve bunker’s structural pieces are in any way applicable to the programmatic needs of a library? At first glance, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault (see image at right) looks like an unbelievable project. Its simple diagrammatic form is clearly correlated to the function of the system. As the design of the structure is clearly magnificent, I have to scrutinize the practical relevance of a building like this. As you mention yourself, in the even of a global meltdown or catastrophic geothermal collapse, what good is a giant population of plant seedlings going to do? In other words, while the architecture of the vault is effective in its protective qualities, beautiful design, and responsiveness to its surroundings, it is important to question whether the building needs to exist in the first place. An architect is obviously not going to pass up a job opportunity, but it is part of the architect’s role to question the intentions of a job and bring the most out of an assignment. Encompassed in that mindset is the rudimentary architectural understanding that the most critical aspect of any design problem is function. Le Corbusier famously noted, "To create architecture is to put in order. Put what in order? Function of objects". Regarding the Capital Visitor’s Center, I have to wonder whether the underlying reason for subterranean construction is safety related. After looking at the images, I can not imagine the addition providing too much protection from terrorist attack. I see the design choice having more to do with appropriating programmatic elements in relevant spaces without disrupting the function of the adjacent Capital Building. As stated in your post, the reason to construct below ground might have to do with the architect not wanting his building to compete with the primary structure. This is obviously the case. The visitor’s center to the Capital Building is just that, the visitor’s center. Any attempt to contend architecturally, spatially, or figuratively was never an option.
This post was very interesting and shed light on important architectural developments about which I previously knew very little. While maybe evident to others, I had no idea that there have been recent explorations to expand urban dwellings to include the “z-axis” via underground and subterranean dwellings. You effectively brought together two different yet related examples of such initiatives, and were able to capture them well with your title and subtitle. I think it is important, as you mention, that architects looking to develop new spaces consider “some of the most ancient and outdated forms of architecture,” especially those created by the Taliban in Afghanistan which have endured for hundreds of years. While I found that you presented the two blogs you encountered in a scholarly and informational manner, it may be helpful to include links in your opening paragraph to the original blog sites where readers can get more information about the subject (especially for someone like myself who doesn’t know very much about architecture).
ReplyDeleteThrough the comments you posted to the two blogs, I was able to discover more about the pros and cons of such developments while also learning about the concept of underground development. When speaking about the cave dwellings used by the Taliban, I found it very interesting that you brought in the question of what initially sparked “early establishments of mountain caves” and why these types of shelters haven’t been considered by western societies until recently. While certainly western countries may not be content with all aspects of Afghan culture, it doesn’t mean that we should ignore “the insight to the complex meaning of interior space” the Taliban’s cave system offers. In regards to your comment about the “New Wave Bunkers,” I like that you took a more critical approach to such developments, questioning the “practical relevance” of buildings such as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Although in the event of a nuclear attack it is unlikely that such a building would be able to survive the yield of atomic weapons, it is intriguing that certain civilizations are looking to create ways to protect and preserve “the genetic diversity of the world’s food crops.”
these taliban tunnels create a pretty perilous enemy. it is easy to understand why with the help of adept use of their natural setting, the Taliban has proved to be such a resilient enemy fighting force. It is shocking that fighting intensely urban warfare on the streets of baghdad was more easily learned than destroying these vast and heavily fortified natural defense mechanisms.
ReplyDeleteanother interesting use of tunneling is that running from egypt into gaza--an entire network of tunnels that has created a booming underground (literally and figuratively) economy.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteIt is no doubt that you are a very complex and sophisticated thinker. I have to admit that upon first reading this post, I was a little befuddled. However, after rereading it once I began to grasp the concept and I really could appreciate what you were saying. I definitely think your topic is a very interesting and innovative one. It is undoubtedly refreshing to take a moment and a step back away from the sheer modernity of current times, where the constant focus is on technology and where the mantra is the bigger the better. I like that you decide to take your focus underground, because when one thinks of architecture, one rarely imagines what lurks beneath our feet. It is a great quality not to be a predictable writer, and I think you do a good job at that.
Throughout the first post you comment on, your thesis that "indigenous knowledge is often times superior to technological advancements," is very well argued through the content and evidence that you bring forth. It is astonishing that primitive technology can sometimes put our intricate, modern creations to shame. In your second comment, I think you successfully bring a debate to the table, and I like that you pose a lot of questions to the author. The only piece of constructive criticism that I have for you is that, for your everyday reader, you could maybe benefit from simplifying your writing at times (although at the same time I think your sophisticated voice is a very strong aspect of your writing). It may just be good to find a balance between maintaining your voice and further explaining and simplifying terms that someone not familiar with architecture could better understand. Great job!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour article presents an interesting concept in architecture and how there might be a return to the most ancient forms of building and dwelling. I am intrigued with the possibilities of subterranean architecture and the underground infrastructure that will be developed such as water banking, which is new strategy for the storing of water. The last era in building has resulted in a myriad of skyscrapers across the world and now, especially as the global economy slows, a return to taking advantage of the earth might be present. What I see most prevailing in design right now is an adaptive form of underground dwelling which is the use of green roofs, and buildings using natural materials such as walls of earth to combat harsh conditions. I do not think there will be a return to tunnel living but hopefully we can use the same ideas to modify our existing urban fabric. How do you think architects should apply one of the oldest architectural conditions to modern society today?
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Taliban used their underground tunnels to store weapons, prisoners, and remain out of site from their enemies it displays a subtle reaction and harmony with nature that Western societies seem to ignore. While Western culture has the mind set of conquering nature a growing popularity of Zen influence along with the re-use of ancient methods can spark a new global commitment to nature and the environment. Ironically this could begin with a return to architecture with the same “principles that Attila the Hun followed in his early establishment of mountain caves”.