"Perceiving the in_between"- Alsira Raxhimi

junior discussant

One of the most recurrent terms you're likely to trip over in contemporary architecture's discourse is Marc Auge' ' s non-place (essay and book of the same title, "Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity",1995). The non-places have no future or past for they become alive only in the present. People transit the non-places but they don't live in. The carefully banalized conglomerate of airport lounges, hotel lobbies, gas stations, coffee bars, etc. that constitutes the nodal portion of the global complex, and in which we seem fated to spend an increasing percentage of our time on this planet. As Auge' tells the non place, they're supposed to lack inherent character, defined precisely and solely by the quality that they afford smooth transition between one place and another.

The definition starts to break down when you realize that the time we spend in these non-places is way more than a transition's place definition suggests. These anonymous and interstitial zones take on texture and resolution of their own and against the intentions, perhaps, of their designers, they acquire unique and indelible character. Everything has texture if you see it often enough. To transfer the non-place to it's architectural meaning would mean to define those transition spaces between elements with strong architectural and social identities given by function, recognizable esthetics and so on. This entity can be named as in-Between for it lays between. But again comparing it to Auge' 's non-space ,the in between is as clear a fact as the word's meaning itself.

The in-between isn't strictly related to a physical dimension. To define an in-between we don't need metrical unities. The in-between is a third element as it lays as a border between self-sufficient architectural categories as can be in-door and out-door ,natural and artificial, open and closed ,private and public and so on. The in-between has no meaning unless it serves these categories. The in-between is strongly related to what it lays in the middle of, for it works as a transition from one situation to the other, from one identity to the next. As previously said it is not a matter of dimension and of space. The in-between is more a moment of passage and moreover to be described as a feeling and perception of the passage from one status onto the next. This is why it would be absurd to have an in-between without the bordering situations. The in between serves the surrounding.

There are two ways of obtaining an architectural in-between. If the in-between space is an entity made up first, in second moment come the edging structures. Therefore, in-between space has a form-giving role in any settlement and is a container of different meaning. This is unvaried also if the in-between derives as a result of un planned left over space among planned structures. This means that in any case, planned or not ,the in-between holds a different meaning and is not strictly related to dimensional definition.

Since this third entity doesn't have a function, frequently it lacks a face as well. Often the in-between appears anonymous and mute, therefore hard to classify as something with a meaning. We don't pay much attention to the "third entity" in our rushing life in which what really matters is the starting point and destination. What lays in the middle has learned to request no caring and attention. The question to be pointed out is : does it make a difference in our day if we pass through anonymous in-between or we recognize and feel this space? I think the difference is quite huge. We don't live in in-betweens, we barely spend minutes on the crossing through ,but what would improve the quality of our life is exactly that feeling an in-between can and should be able to trigger in us. Like an art piece requires only minutes or seconds to impress and trigger emotion ,the in-between could improve the quality of our days, ambitiously of our lives . It's a matter or color, of light, of involving the senses.

In an attempt to pull the in-between out of the plain anonymous state, there have been various interpretations of it's real dimension. From situations in which this entity gets overloaded with a strong function and therefore identity to the ones in which it nearly disappears ,thinner and thinner to an indefinable line. In the first case the tendency in strategy is to create out of this "improperly" used space a "piazza", a gathering point for habitants , a promenade from which maybe you could enjoy the sight-seeing. The in-between in this case is no longer something that limits itself to being a link to bordering realities, it becomes a reality on its own, autonomous and with a strong identity (as for it is self-sufficient).

On the other hand the opposite can happen. In an attempt to advance forward of the elements with a strong identity the in between leaves room to such, disappearing. In this case there is no gradual passage, but a drastic change of situations, a leap from one stage to the other with no transition.

As the in-between has no identity on its own other than a serving space ,it doesn't mean there is no right way of considering it. No identity doesn't mean no dignity, and no space doesn't mean no moment. What this concept means is that not only what classifies as a functional and identity space deserves dignity. Giving dignity to the in-between isn't necessarily enlarging or improving it dimensionally. It could mean giving it color ,giving it sound, giving it light. It could mean relating it to our senses in order to be perceived while flowing through it. As it isn't a matter of physical dimension , it is a matter of moment and perception. And architecture can do this through triggering reactions of the senses with interdisciplinary strategies. This way, in a day we get to experience architecture no longer strictly related to dimension and function, but yet on another level : emotion and recognition. This is where architecture overcomes its own limit and interacts with other disciplines using non-physical dimensions such as art. So giving dignity to the "third entity" isn't related to variations in width, length, height or function, it can be a symbolic act as well as caressing it with devolution to users' senses and feelings.

A very peculiar attempt has been accomplished by Dutch architect Maurice Nio in the Pijnacker under-tunnel. Without any physical alteration of the structure and dimensions of the tunnel, the new face of this in-Between has impressively changed. Adding a plastic red material as the tunnel wears it its own skin ,the final result is a diametrically-opposite perception of what it formerly suggested. The red plastic skin seems to becoming alive when absorbing and reproducing the vibrations of the railway.

As a bottom line architecture has to deal with myriad limit concepts and the in between is quite representative of a wide part of them. Solutions are subjective just as much as questions themselves are. If one doesn't see the problem doesn't seek a solution. Giving dignity to the in-between issue may mean many things : from recognition to individuality. Without pushing it over the edge of dignity it should aim to fill our time unit with amusement and trigger a reaction ,as for what doesn't emotion is anonymous, and what's anonymous isn't there.