For Deviation
Architecture, Control, and the Beurstraverse
M. de Groot (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
R.R.J. van de Pas – Mentor (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
Stavros Kousoulas – Mentor (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Contemporary semi-public spaces – spaces that present themselves as public whilst operating under private logics of investment, regulation, and access – increasingly engineer the body as a consumer. This project examines how the apparatus of control operates spatially in one such space: the Beurstraverse, or Koopgoot, in Rotterdam. Drawing on Michel Foucault's disciplinary society, Gilles Deleuze's control society, ByungChul Han's transparency society, and Roberto Esposito's concept of immunisation, the research develops a theoretical framework through which the spatial techniques of control – surveillance, access regulation, monofunctionality, and the production of a hierarchy of legitimate presence – are identified and analysed. A comparative case study of the Beurstraverse, the Lijnbaan, and the Hoogstraat reveals the Koopgoot as an exaggerated instance of neoliberal urban planning: a space that is itself a deviation from the norms of its context. In response, the project proposes an architectural intervention structured around three spatial strategies: to wander (a park and communal garden replacing the retail surface), to bypass (an elevated walkway offering alternative routes beyond the surveillance apparatus and commercial schedule), and to collide (vertical transitions and furnitures that stage encounters between different bodies, speeds, and intentions). The design does not oppose the existing apparatus; it introduces new instruments alongside it, operating under a different logic of non-profitable productivity. The project argues for designing for deviation – not the production of an alternative, but the production of conditions in which alternatives can emerge.