The Laws of Foreign Buildings: Flat Roofs and Minarets - Michael ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 Social & Legal Studies 000(00) place, but to time. This also implies that outdated forms of buildings are not technological enough. The windows are big, not for stylistic reasons, they imply, but for technological ones: they allow seeing the landscape. The result is a relational building code that allows good buildings of any style, as long as they conform to the surroundings. ‘Foreignness’ is relationally redefined as not fitting the environment. If a ‘foreign’ building type becomes a majority in a given location, as happened with the flat roofs, the foreign becomes the local. In the case of minarets theories map in opposite ways: opponents start with a technological theory by assuming that it is the minaret that turns a building into a mosque, rather than mere use as mosque. The proponents, however, react with a materializing move, claiming that buildings are mere tubes on roofs, and that they do not change the already allowed use as mosque. For them, even though they are adamant that their building needs a minaret – this is why they ask for a building permit in the first place – minarets are additions to buildings for mere decorative and stylistic reasons and not related to promoting Islam as a religion or culture. The acceptance of the initiative results in a ban, which gives credence to the technological theory. Unlike in the example of modern architecture, the foreignness of the building type becomes not relational but stays absolute. A debate about what constitutes a ‘good’ or ‘fitting’ minaret is not possible with the outcome so far. What I have shown with these two examples is that rather than just taking fights about building codes and zoning issues as proofs for how municipalities try to ban disliked practices from their land, these can be analyzed as instances of how legal discourse struggles with the quasi-technicality of buildings. Seen from this viewpoint it becomes apparent that the underlying architectural theories are neither stable nor reflected in legal disputes. It is the specific qualities of buildings as quasi-technologies that allow this permanent shifting. But it is the inbuilt proceduralism of the law, and more specifically the relational definition of buildings in building codes as neither proper technologies, nor defined by uses or meaning that makes these shifts possible. The cases help us to get a more nuanced view of how the law relates to buildings. As I have shown, building codes neither regulate just objects, nor do they directly discriminate against groups. Rather, building codes mediate between buildings and social groups by shifting between different theories of architecture. Notes Many thanks to Monika Krause, Ola Söderström, Lynda Schneekloth, participants of a seminar at the CCA Montreal, and two anonymous reviewers. 1. Not only critical scholars claim that these zoning verdicts are forms of indirect regulation. Proponents of such regulation explicitly endorse the indirect approach, see for example the call to use zoning against obesity (Mair et al., 2005) or the wearing of firearms and alcohol consumption (Ashe et al., 2003). 2. The focus on ‘foreign’ buildings leads to quite different insights compared to those of Mariana Valverde, who looks at how building codes and nuisance laws mediate ‘diversity’. In the case of diversity, no explicit distinction is drawn between native and foreign, but a relative distance between ‘normal’ and its aberration is under dispute (Valverde, 2008). 16
Guggenheim 17 3. In architectural theory, the term building type is ambiguous and controversial. Specifically there is disagreement on whether types only refer to forms or to uses, and if so, in which way. The discussion dates back to 19th-century French architectural theories by Quatremère de Quincy and J.N.L Durand. For an introduction to these discussions see Frank and Schneekloth (1994). 4. See the vast sociological literature that champions the user, for example Kurtz (1971) or Ellis and Cuff (1989). 5. My discussion follows the treatment of the case in a contemporary book about architecture in Ascona from 1934 (Keller et al., 2001) and the later historical interpretations by the architectural historian Bruno Maurer (2001). 6. Consequentially, Johnson and Hitchcock renamed modernist architecture as ‘international style’ (Johnson and Hitchcock, 1932). Later, a debate about the ‘regionalist’ roots of this claimed placelessness of modernism arose (Canizaro, 2006). 7. For a comparison with other countries, see the special issue of the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies on Mosque conflicts (Cesari, 2005), for a comparison between the Netherlands and France, see Maussen (2009) and for Germany Beinhauer-Köhler and Leggewie (2009). For mosque building and Muslim spaces in general, a good starting point is the edited volume by Metcalf (1996). 8. For details of the legal background see Jäger (2007). For further literature on the case see Baumann (2009a, 2009b). 9. For a legal assessment of the initiative see Stüssi (2008). References Allenbach B and Sökefeld M (2010) Muslime in der Schweiz. Zürich: Seismo. ami (2006) Keine Probleme trotz Minarett. Der Bau der Mahmud-Moschee in Zürich vor 43 Jahren löste kaum Kritik aus. Available at: http://www.nzz.ch/2006/09/23/zh/articleEHTTK.html Anonymous (2009) Bau Dir Dein eigenes Minarett, Tages-Anzeiger Online, 1. December. Available at: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/digital/wild-wide-web/Bau-Dir-Dein-eigenes-Minarett/ story/16696879 Ashe M, Jernigan D, Kline R and Galaz R (2003) Land use planning and the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fast food restaurants. American Journal of Public Health 93: 1404–1408. Bau- und Planungskommission Wangen bei Olten (2006) Medienmitteilung: Minarett erweist sich als nicht bewilligungsfähig. Available at: http://www.wangenbo.ch/news.html#medienmitteilung Baudirektion des Kantons Zürich (2005) Planungs- und Baugesetz des Kantons Zürich (PBG), Kanton Zürich. Baumann, M (2009a) Anxieties, Banning Minarets and Populist Politics in Switzerland – a Preliminary Analysis’. Available at: http://pluralism.org/files/spotlight/Baumann_Swiss-ban-onminarets_Nov09.pdf Baumann, M (2009b) Temples, Cupolas, minarets: public space as contested terrain in contemporary Switzerland, RELIGIO: Revue pro religionistiku 17: 141–152. Beinhauer-Köhler B and Leggewie C (2009) Moscheen in Deutschland: Religiöse Heimat und gesellschaftliche Herausforderung. Mit einem Foto-essay von Mirkio Krizanovic. München: Beck. Ben-Joseph E (2005) The Code of the City: Standards and the Hidden Language of Place Making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 17
Page 1 and 2: The Laws of Foreign Buildings: Flat
Page 3 and 4: Guggenheim 3 Building types as quas
Page 5 and 6: Guggenheim 5 do so, it is very diff
Page 7 and 8: Guggenheim 7 Figure 1. Photograph o
Page 9 and 10: Guggenheim 9 Germany’ (Keller et
Page 11 and 12: Guggenheim 11 ‘traditional style
Page 13 and 14: Guggenheim 13 question arises: When
Page 15: Guggenheim 15 For the Muslim commun
Page 19 and 20: Guggenheim 19 Kurtz SA (1971) And n

The Laws of Foreign Buildings: Flat Roofs and Minarets - Michael ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?