UBC Graduate Research

Queering Cannabis Obey, Kareem Gabriel 2019-04-26

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Obey_Kareem_ARCH_549_Queering_cannabis_2019.pdf [ 266.87MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0378625.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378625-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378625-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378625-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378625-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378625-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378625-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0378625-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0378625.ris

Full Text

Queering Cannabisby Kareem Gabriel ObeyBachelor of Arts in Economics and Studio Art, The College of William and Mary, 2016.COMMITTEE MEMBERSThena Tak (GP 1 & 2 Chair) M.Arch, B.ArchErin Silver PhD, MA, BFAJoseph Watson PhD, MA, B.ArchWe accept this report as conforming to the required standard________________________________________________Thena Tak________________________________________________Joseph WatsonSubmitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in The Faculty of Applied ScienceUniversity of British Columbia(Vancouver)© Kareem Gabriel Obey, April 2019Queering CannabisTowards a Queer Design AttitudePart 1Defining “Queering Architecture”Part 2Queering CannabisKareem Gabriel Obey______________________________________________________iiiTable of ContentsINTRODUCTIONAbstract                                              iiTable of Contents                                  iiiList of Figures                                 ivAcknowledgments                                                                                                                                      ixDedication                                                                                                                                                   xii                  PART 1: QUEERING ARCHITECTURE                                                                                                                  1Light Up!: A Geo-temporal visualization of Cannabis, AIDS, and Queer Theory                         2Queering Cannabis: An Argument for a Queered Architecture                 450 Shades of Queer: Current Discourse on Queer Space                                                  12PART 2: QUEERING CANNABIS                                                                                                                         26Introduction                                             27Canna(log)                             28Enactment, Loss, Construction                                                                                                                  71Enactment                                72Loss                                 102Construction                                                                                                                                             106Presentation Boards                                                                                                                                     110BIBLIOGRAPHY                                118iiAbstract“Queer demarcates not a positivity but a positionality, vis-à-vis the normative, a positionality that… is in fact available to anyone or thing that is marginalized.” - (Halperin 62) Despite the growing relevance of recreational dispensaries, currently there is a severe lack of architectural inquiry that critically looks at the socio-spatial development of the cannabis storefront. Furthermore, heteronormative discussion of dispensaries willfully ignores or overlooks the queer roots of legal cannabis architecture in the HIV-positive LGBT community of San Francisco. The research phase of this project parallels queer space theory with Everyday Urbanism and offers a new lens to understand the early cannabis dispensary as a queered space.  What is queer space, or rather, what does it mean to queer? Reed bemoans the idea that because queerness is “... an ineffable ideal of oppositional culture, [and] is so fluid and contingent that the idea of a concrete queer space is an oxymoron” (Reed 64). Instead, he along with other queer space theorists, such as Aaron Betsky, layout a series of qualities that can be used to better understand queer space as a process based attitude towards design, something that is actionable, a queering of architecture. Queering Cannabis is an installation-based project informed by the queer roots of legal cannabis architecture. Functionally, the project posits that the queering of architecture offers an actionable design attitude, which works in opposition to the erasure that has taken place through the typification of the cannabis dispensary over time and current policies that stigmatize the consumption of cannabis. Sitting somewhere between performance, tagging, and protest, Queering Cannabis initiates a sequence of enactment, loss, and construction informed by the symbolic queerness of smoke, ash, and residue.  Seattle, Washington, is the primary site of investigation and deployment of this theory. Seattle was chosen for the relatively long period legal cannabis architecture has had to develop, given Washington state legalizing recreational cannabis in 2012 (Reiman 351).vivList of FiguresFig.1 Obey, Kareem. “Light Up!: A Geo-temporal visualization of Cannabis, AIDS, and Queer   Theory from 1930 to 2020”. 2018. 2  Fig.2 Obey, Kareem. Gif X-Ray Isometric drawing of Denis Peron’s SFCBC at 194 Market Street   showing street access and smoke-filled interior. 2019. 6Fig.3 Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2018. 7Fig.4 Obey, Kareem. South Interior Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2018. 8Fig.5 Obey, Kareem. East Interior Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2018. 8Fig.6 Obey, Kareem. Queered Spaces. 2018. 13Fig.7 Obey, Kareem. Queer Space as Event. 2018. 15Fig.8 Cadmus, Paul. Y.M.C.A Locker Room. 1933. 17Fig.9 The Ramble, Central Park. n.d. Gay Beach Collection, National Museum and Archive of   Lesbian Gay History. 17Fig.10 Obey, Kareem. Queer Space as Imminent. 2018. 19Fig.11 Daan, Karin. Homomonument. 1987. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 21Fig.12 Obey, Kareem. Queer Space as Occupation. 2018. 23Fig.13 Gianni, Benjamin and Robbins, Mark. Family Values. 1997. 25Fig.14 Obey, Kareem. Canna(log) Cover. 2019. 29Fig.15 Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2019. 30FIg.16 Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting of SFCBC in San Francisco on Market 124. 2019. 31Fig.17 Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. 32Fig.18 Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. 33Fig.19 Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. 34Fig.20 Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. 35Fig.21 Obey, Kareem. South Elevation drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. 36Fig.22 Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. 37Fig.23 Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of Pot Stop. 2019. 38Fig.24 Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of Pot Stop in Seattle. 2019. 39Fig.25 Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of Pot Stop. 2019. 40Fig.26 Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of Pot Stop. 2019. 41Fig.27 Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of Pot Stop. 2019. 42Fig.28 Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of Pot Stop. 2019. 43Fig.29 Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of Pot Stop. 2019. 44Fig.30 Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of Pot Stop. 2019. 45Fig.31 Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. 46Fig.32 Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of Dockside Ballard in Seattle. 2019. 47Fig.33 Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of Dockside Ballard. 2019. 48Fig.34 Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. 49Fig.35 Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagra drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. 50Fig.36 Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. 51Fig.37 Obey, Kareem. West Elevation drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. 52Fig.38 Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. 53Fig.39 Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 54Fig.40 Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop in Seattle. 2019. 55Fig.41 Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 56Fig.42 Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 57Fig.43 Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 58Fig.44 Obey, Kareem. West Elevation drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 59Fig.45 Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 60Fig.46 Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 61Fig.47 Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of Dockside Express. 2019. 62Fig.48 Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of Dockside Express in Seattle. 2019. 63Fig.49 Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Plan collage of Dockside Express. 2019. 64Fig.50 Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of Dockside Express. 2019. 65Fig.51 Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of Dockside Express. 2019. 66Fig.52 Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of Dockside Express. 2019. 67Fig.53 Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of Dockside Express. 2019. 68Fig.54 Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of Dockside Express. 2019. 69Fig.55 Obey, Kareem. “Don’t Ask Don’t Smell” Spatial Distribution of Cannabis Purchase and   Cannabis Consumption in Seattle. 2019. 70Fig.56 Obey, Kareem. Enactment Loss and Construction Exploded Isometric drawing. 2019. 71Fig.57 Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Ballard animation still. 2019. 72Fig.58 Obey, Kareem. Enactment in (Lux) Pot Shop animation still. 2019. 72Fig.59 Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Express animation still. 2019. 73Fig.60 Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Ballard gif still. 2019. 74Fig.61 Obey, Kareem. Enactment in (Lux) Pot Shop gif still. 2019. 75Fig.62 Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Express gif still. 2019. 76Fig.63 Obey, Kareem. Resin Cannafessional models photograph. 2019. 77Fig.64 Obey, Kareem. Dockside Ballard Enactment Plan drawing. 2019. 78FIg.65 Obey, Kareem. (Lux) Pot Shop Enactment Plan drawing. 2019. 79Fig.66 Obey, Kareem. Dockside Express Enactment Plan drawing. 2019. 80FIg.67  Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Front Section collage. 2019. 82Fig.68 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Side Section collage. 2019. 83FIg.69 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Front Elevation collage. 2019. 84FIg.70 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Plan collage. 2019. 85Fig.71 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Front Section collage. 2019. 86Fig.72 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Side Section collage. 2019. 87Fig.73 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Front Elevation collage. 2019. 88FIg.74 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Plan collage. 2019. 89FIg.75  Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Front Section collage. 2019. 90Fig.76 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Side Section collage. 2019. 91Fig.77 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Front Elevation collage. 2019. 92Fig.78 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Plan collage. 2019. 93Fig.79 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Front Section collage. 2019. 94Fig.80 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Side Section collage. 2019. 95Fig.81 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Front Elevation collage. 2019. 96FIg.82 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Plan collage. 2019. 97Fig.83 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Front Section collage. 2019. 98Fig.84 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Side Section collage. 2019. 99FIg.85 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Front Elevation collage. 2019. 100Fig.86 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Plan collage. 2019. 101Fig.87 Obey, Kareem. Ash Brick photograph. 2019. 102Fig.88 Obey, Kareem. Dockside Ballard Roof Burn gif stills. 2019. 103FIg.89 Obey, Kareem. (Lux) Pot Shop Roof Burn gif stills. 2019. 104Fig.90 Obey, Kareem. Dockside Express Roof Burn gif stills. 2019. 105Fig.91 Obey, Kareem. Dockside Ballard Ash Brick Wall Construction gif stills. 2019. 107Fig.92 Obey, Kareem. (Lux) Pot Shop Ash Brick Wall Construction gif stills. 2019. 108Fig.93 Obey, Kareem. Dockside Express Ash Brick Wall Construction gif stills. 2019. 109Fig.94 Obey, Kareem. Front Facing Plan Oblique drawing of Presentation Boards. 2019. 110Fig.95 Obey, Kareem. Back Facing Plan Oblique drawing of Presentation Boards. 2019. 111Fig.96 Obey, Kareem. Ash Brick Wall Acetate board overlay for (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. 112Fig.97 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional Acrylic board overlays for (Lux) Pot Shop detail. 2019. 113Fig.98 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Section Model overlay. 2019. 114Fig.99 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Section Model overlay. 2019. 115Fig.100 Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Section Model overlay. 2019. 116vi viiixAcknowledgmentsI would like to recognize the tireless support of my GP chair, Thena Tak, who over the past two semesters has helped me think and draw through my thoughts on these topics. Thena, I appreciate not only these last two semesters, but the last two years and your ability to find and nurture the interests of all your students. Thank you to my committee members Erin Silver and Joseph Watson for the time and support you gave to this project. To Erin, your course “Is Art History Queer?” was instrumental to the construction of the theoretical framework of the project. To Joseph, thank you for the past two semesters of guidance towards the development of the project.Thank you to all the friends from studio who allowed me to talk their ears off about the queer roots of cannabis architecture. And my most sincere gratitude to all who helped contribute to the final push of the project: Dana Salama, David Meiklejohn, Alena Pavan, Ellen Harper, and Emilia Brasdefer.viiixixFor RyanPart 1“Queering Architecture”xiiFigure 1: Obey, Kareem. “Light Up!: A Geo-temporal visualization of Cannabis, AIDS, and Queer Theory from 1930 to 2020”. 2018.2 3Queering Cannabis: An Argument for a Queered Architecture  What is queer space? Is it possible for queerness to be embodied in a building or landscape? Or, as per Brian McGrath’s installation title for the 1994 Queer Space exhibition in New York, is it true that There Is No “Queer Space,” Only Different Points of View (Reed 64). Reed bemoans the idea that because queerness is “... an ineffable ideal of oppositional culture, [and] is so fluid and contingent that the idea of a concrete queer space is an oxymoron” (Reed 64). Instead, leveraging the qualities of queer space described by theorists such as Reed, Betsky, and Ahmed, we can better understand queer space as an attitude toward design, something that is actionable, leaving behind its tracks a queered spaced. This is particularly true when these ideas are inflected by the ideas of Everyday Urbanism as described by Margaret Crawford. These ideas of queer space as an actionable attitude is perhaps well illustrated in the first legal dispensary in North America, the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club (Reiman 343).  Given their similarities, Crawford’s discussion of Everyday Urbanism can be used to concretize contemporary queer space theory, as discussed by Betsky, Ahmed, and Reed. Everyday Urbanism is predicated on the notion that there is a normative every-space between key nodes of the home, institution, and workplace, which is referred to as “everyday space” (Crawford 18). To Crawford, this banal ubiquitous space is the urban framework that their urban attitude works within. In the context of queer space theory, the obvious parallel to everyday space, is the heteronormative landscape, or more broadly heteronormativity. Sarah Ahmed’s definition of heteronormativity functions well to establish this comparison. Through the metaphor of the line she describes heteronormativity as the following:…the requirement to follow a straight line, whereby straightness gets attached to other values including decent, conventional, direct, and honest. The naturalization [and normativity] of heterosexuality involves the presumption that there is a straight line that leads each sex toward the other sex, and that “this line of desire” is “in line” with one’s sex… The line of straight orientation takes the subject toward what it “is not” and what it “is not” then confirms what it “is.” (Ahmed 71)To Ahmed, this straight line then renders heterosexuality as “a background, as that which is behind actions that are repeated over time and with force, and that insofar as it is behind does not come into view” (Ahmed 87). Plainly, this background is the assumption that all participants in society are “middle class, white, child producing, monogamous married couples[s]” (Cottrill 359). Interestingly, Crawford’s everyday space can be similarly understood as a linear vector treading repeatedly between the nods of the home, work, and institution. However, whereas everyday space then becomes the backdrop for Everyday Urbanism to play against, the heteronormative line constructs the landscape on which queer space must negotiate. Implicitly then, buildings like people can either be on or off line.    Crawford goes on to describe how an everyday urban strategy seeks to act opportunistically within everyday space by retrofitting it and working in its nooks and crannies, while favoring smaller accretional interventions (Crawford 19).In parallel, Reed asserts that queer space’s engagement with the heteronormative landscape is typically through renovation (Reed 67). However, queer space does not restore, here “renovation… transforms what the dominant culture [heteronormativity] has abandoned so that old and new are in explicit juxtaposition” (Reed 18). In the eyes of Ahmed, to renovate then is to go off line as this juxtaposition of the space creates the skewing that breaks the space off from the fixity of the hetero-line. Architecturally speaking, a building’s breach from the line can be understood as its deviation from the identity and associations of its typology, much like how the gay night club in the abandoned factory programmatically contrasts with the past function of the space, questioning the fixity and associations of the space’s form and function. Functionally, this play with associations is in conversation with Munoz’s disidentification theory, which describes disidentification as “recycling and rethinking encoded meaning” of the majority culture, or in this case established architectural norms (Munoz 31). The nooks and crannies of Crawford’s everyday space is mirrored in Betsky’s work Queer Space when he describes the typical siting of queer spaces in the “cracks within the [urban]fabric itself, such as dark alleys or unused buildings” (Betsky 147). Ultimately, Everyday Urbanism leads to the refamiliarization of the urban landscape. Through this refamiliarization, everyday space is domesticated and made “more familiar, more like home” (Crawford 25). This subjugation of everyday space to the agency of the public is echoed in Reed’s discussion of queer space as imminent. Reed describes the immanence of queer space as “in the process of, literally taking place, of claiming territory” (Reed 64). In the context of queer space as Everyday Urbanism, or Queered Architecture, this suggests the demarcation of queer space within the heteronormative landscape. However, this demarcation of queer space should not be understood as a complete shift from on line to off line, since this continues the binary of spaces either being totally queer or not queer. Instead the action of queering space, critiquing and questioning the rigidity of the space’s identity or identity(ies) it perpetuates, produces “some spaces [that] are queerer than others” (Reed 64). Queering space blurs the line. The San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club (fig. 3), can serve as a prime example of queered space under a Queered Architecture lens given its history, appropriation of unused heteronormative space, and imminence. Though the act of queering space described above does not imply that the actors must themselves be queer, for instance Halberstam’s queer reading of the “anarchitectural” work Splitting by the straight artist Gordon Matta Clark (Halberstam), the queer historical context of the development of the SFCBC sets the stage for this reading (fig. 1). The North American cannabis dispensary originated in 1990s San Francisco. Following the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the city had an isolated HIV-positive LGBT community (Reiman 343). 4 5Figure 2: Obey, Kareem. Gif X-Ray Isometric drawing of Denis Peron’s SFCBC at 194 Mar-ket Street showing street access and smoke-filled interior. 2019. Figure 3: Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2018.6 7Figure 4 (top): Obey, Kareem. South Interior Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2018.Figure 5 (bottom): Obey, Kareem. East Interior Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2018.Dennis Peron, LGBT visionary for the first legal dispensary, was thrusted into cannabis activism when his HIV positive husband found its effects beneficial for managing his symptoms. Peron then founded the concept of the cannabis club and designed the original space for the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club (194 Market Street) following the passage of his aptly named Proposition P in 1992, which instructed police to lower cannabis infractions to the “lowest arrest priority” (Feldman and Mandel 182). Looking at Peron’s San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club, serves as a clear example of Reed’s notion of renovation, the appropriation of unused heteronormative space. This spatial appropriation it most evident by the SFCBC’s occupation of a “former dime-a-dance hall” above a bar (Mikuriya). Figure 2 illustrates how the interior of the SFCBC created the juxtaposition described by Reed. Through the prevalence of domestic accouterment, hanging lamps, fans, and “walls… covered with local artists’ work” (Mikuriya), the interior space becomes a sharp break from its former use. The “large dining room table… [and] semicircle of sofas” (Mikuriya) seen in figure 3 literally prevents the former function of a dance hall to occur. Moreover, the heterosexuality implicit in such a space is replaced by the homosociality facilitated by the large amount of domestic furniture that facilitated patrons to “gather, relax, and consume their medications [cannabis] in an accepting, friendly, and colorful surrounding.” (Feldman and Mandel 181). Furthermore, a key aspect of renovation and queer space breaking from the line is the play on architectural associations. In turn, this calls attention to the choice of a domestic aesthetic for the original dispensary. This semi-circle of sofas, large dining room table, and bud bar, serves as spatial analogs to the domestic programming of the living room, dining room, and kitchen. In effect this creates a blurring of these spaces’ typical association with the single-family home, and the heteronormative landscapes these structures both symbolize and facilitate. Furthermore, the deployment of domestic aesthetics is in direct contrast with the space’s exterior (fig. 3). Another disassociation is created through the first deployment of the bud-bar as architectural space (fig. 4 and 5). At the bud-bar a performative appropriation of the traditional alcohol bar occurs. In the former use of the space, the bar would have served a myriad of alcoholic drinks for dancers and patrons, now dealers “measure out the cannabis” and “grades, types and prices are posted behind the bar on an erasable board” (Mikuriya). Another aspect of Queered Architecture is the imminence of its spaces. Reed asserts that imminence can manifest itself through the high imageability of contemporary queer space (Reed 66). The San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club falls into earlier trends of queer space having low imageability,primarily due to the stigma surrounding HIV status of its patrons and the precarious legal status of this early dispensary, with its total lack of street presence and location above a offers a singular methodology or singular means by which to measure all possible queer space former bar. Collectively, this created an atmosphere of a “kind of speakeasy” (Feldman and Mandel 181). However, its mere existence as the first cannabis dispensary asserted its imminence. 8 9Additionally, a subtler aspect of the architecture would have declared the imminence of the space. On the upper right side of the south interior elevation was a 15” exhaust fan used to deal with the copious amount of cannabis smoke that clouded the interior (fig. 1 and 5). This meant that during functioning hours both the smell and presence of cannabis smoke would have been a prevalent aspect of the immediate surroundings of the SFCBC. In effect, the smoke and smell would have operated as a signaling device demarcating the realm of the SFCBC. Interestingly, and poignantly, this smoke literally would have blurred interior views from the street into the SFCBC while simultaneously declaring its existence. Queered Architecture offers a lens to not only identify relative queerness of space but also points to possibility of a methodology to design queerly as well. In the context of the development of the cannabis dispensary it helps to illustrate a clear example of queered space in the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club. What is being proposed as Queered Architecture by no means against. What it does give is a useful theory from which we can begin to think more concretely about what a queer(ed) space is and a platform from which more questions can be asked, and spaces made.10 1150 Shades of Queer: Current Discourse on Queer Space “There is no queer space, there are only spaces used by queers or put to queer use.” (Chauncey 224)   Currently, several competing theories exist regarding the form, existence, and possibility of queer space. It is critical to conduct an overview of the three main spheres of thought on the subject. These spheres can be distilled into the following: queer space as any space occupied by queers (queer as occupation), queer space as space temporarily acting as the site of queer sexual acts (queer as event), and queer space as imminently staking out territory (queer as appropriation). Through a series of diagrams followed by case studies illustrating these competing definitions, I hope to better situate my own theory of Queering Architecture, which understands queered space as the process of destabilizing typological and socio-spatial norms, to question the rigidity of a space’s identity or identities it perpetuates to increase the agency of its occupants (queer space as queered space).   Though I periodically contrast my own working concept of Queering Architecture against these theories, I do not claim that my own or any of these models are most ‘correct’ in defining queer space. However, my contrasts and critiques will hopefully better clarify my own thoughts. Additionally, I must reiterate that my own conception of a Queered Architecture is indebted and informed by these models.Figure 6: Obey, Kareem. Queered Spaces. 2019.12 13Betsky: “Queer as Event” The sphere of thought regarding queer space as event based is most clearly articulated by Aaron Betsky, though he very much builds on George Chauncey’s 1996 essay “Privacy Could Only be Had in Public: Gay Uses of the Streets”.  Following the publication of Queer Space: Architecture and Same-Sex Desire in 1997, Aaron Betsky put forth one of the most influential articulations of the queer space. He begins seemingly dismissive of queer space (a trend which remains in vogue with most work on the topic) claiming that “it is a useless, amoral, and sensual space that lives only in and for experience” (Betsky Queer Space 5). However, a through line of his work is the constant reiteration of the contingency of queer space on heteronormative space, or as he puts it the “material world”. For instance, he states that queer space is “a misuse or deformation of a place, an appropriation of the buildings and codes of the city for perverse purposes” (Betsky Queer Space 5). This concept of contingency is further articulated through Betsky’s use of the symbols of the closet and the mirror. Betsky uses the closet a metaphor to describe the interior private realm within which the queer self “can define [itself], constructing an identity... in a space that is free and boundless exactly because it hides in the dark recesses” (Betsky Queer Space 17). He then introduces the mirror as that which affirms this closeted construction as the space where “you appear to yourself… [where] you and your world come back to you in an ordered fashion” (Betsky Queer Space 17). However, Betsky underscores the ephemerality of this describing mirror space as “an alternate world that is unreal” (Betsky 17). He concludes his theorization on queer space with the following:What I am calling queer space is that which appropriates certain aspects of the material world in which we all live, composes them into an unreal or artificial space, and uses this counter construction to create the free space of orgasm that dissolves the material world. (Betsky 18)On one hand this metaphor implies an actionable side of queer space (queering space). On the other hand, it underscores the temporary nature of Betsky’s queer spaces. To be explicit, Betsky suggests that a queer sexual act temporarily reorients (mirrors) a portion of the material world (i.e. a public washroom) into a queer space only for its duration. After which, the fantasy of the mirror, and thus queer space, disappears. Moreover, the emphasis on the darkness of closet Betsky describes points to his later assertions regarding the siting of queer space primarily in the unused, and often literally dark “cracks within the [urban] fabric itself…” where the “rationale of the urban structure fall apart because it is not functional” (Betsky 147).Figure 7: Obey, Kareem. Queer Space as Event. 2018.14 15Betsky Precedents Architectural examples of Betsky’s temporal, sexually derived, queer spaces are those typically associated with the cruising of homosexual men. These include public washrooms, gyms of public schools and universities, public parks, and beaches (Betsky Queer Space 154). Or, in the view of Chauncey just about anywhere in the modern city fallen out disuse enough or ensures some measure of temporary privacy (Chauncey 224). Chauncey points out the Central Park was “renowned within the gay world... as a cruising ground” impart due to its “vast stretches of unsupervised, wooded land” (Chauncey 227). To the unindoctrinated, cruising can be understood as “continual appropriation…and sexing of public spaces” (Betsky Queer Space 141). Interestingly Betsky points out that cruising spots illustrate “that you don’t have to make spaces to contain and encourage relations between people, because they will just appear…” (Betsky Queer Space 141). Yet, this also illustrates the relative irrelevance of active design measures under Betsky’s queer space model and underscores his fixation with queer sex as a fundamental factor in all queer space. Furthermore, they also point to his assertion of the low public imageability of queer space. Insisting that these cruising spots and gay bars “wear a mask that only fellow wearers can read” (Betsky Queer Space 159). Betsky Reflection My critique of Betsky’s model is that it is too tied to the programing of a space (intentional or otherwise) in that it fetishizes the “pure programing” of male cruising. This is especially apparent when he argues how more permanent designs like gay bars and baths which aim to formalize cruising into something more permanent “threaten to lose the lonely beauty of such spaces into something much more commercial, useful, and thus rather limiting” (Betsky 156). Moreover, Betsky and I view queer space in a way that is fundamentally different. By orienting his definition around the programming of space Betsky implies that queerness is less a political or social act, and more as an indicator only of same sex sexual encounters. The danger of this is illustrated in Betsky’s interview in “The End of Queer Space”, published twenty years after his book Queer Space, where in the light of mobile applications like GRINDR he concludes that “queerness and architecture don’t intersect anymore” due to the “atomization of public space” created by these mobile hook-up services (Kolb and Betsky 88).  This is in distinct contrast to my own theorization of Queered Architecture, which employs queer’s more theoretical connotations of questioning and critiquing identity, and in turn the identities perpetuated through architecture and typologies. Effectively, when it comes to queer space I agree with Jean-Ulrick Desert in that “the definition of queer space by erotic program would be as limiting as the word homosexual” (Desert 20). Figure 8 (top): Cadmus, Paul. Y.M.C.A Locker Room. 1933. Figure 9 (bottom): The Ramble, Central Park. n.d. Gay Beach Collection, National Muse-um and Archive of Lesbian Gay History16 17Reed: “Queer As Imminent”In his work “Imminent Domain” Reed offers a more active fo for queer space. Unlike Betsky, he proposes that queer space is “space in process of, literally, taking place, or claiming territory” (Reed 64). To elaborate, he parallels queer space with imminence and it connotations of looming over, threatening, and poised to claim space (Reed 64). He fleshes out this concept of imminence with ideas of imageability, and appropriation. Reed marks the high imageability, or strong orientation towards the street, of contemporary queer space, citing the “high density of storefront and house front display” found in queer neighborhoods (Reed 66). However, he does note that this is a sharp break from the low imageability of early queer spaces denoted by their masked street facades, labyrinthine entries and often intimidating signage (Reed 66). Yet, he does contextualize this shift, suggesting that the early anti-look of queer spaces was a cloaking mechanism which responded to the relative safety the queer community in its context. Where Betsky describes queer appropriation as temporary and sexual, Reed describes appropriation as “transform[ing] what the dominant culture has abandoned so that old and new are in explicit juxtaposition” (Reed 68). It is helpful here to tease out the queerness of Reed’s renovation through Munoz’s theory of disidentification:“Disidentification is about recycling and rethinking encoded meaning. The process of disidentification scrambles and reconstructs the encoded message of a cultural context in a fashion that both exposes the encoded message’s universalizing and exclusionary machinations and recircuits its workings to account for, include, and empower minority identities and identifications. This disidentification is a step further than cracking open the code of the majority, it proceeds to use this code as raw material for representing a disempowered politics or positionality that has been rendered unthinkable by the dominant culture.” (Munoz 31)With Munoz we can understand Reed’s idea of renovation as a subversive means through which space can be queered, given that it plays against the “encoded” meaning or “cultural context” of the built space it appropriates. In the eyes of Munoz, Reed’s renovation uses the tools of architecture, designing and construction, to both offer space for minority subjects while critiquing the original exclusionary traits of the space. The most banal, yet explicit example of queering a space through renovation is “taking place often by opening smaller spaces into larger ones, whether on the scale of the room, the pocket park or the plaza” (Reed 67). This opening of space however small, critiques the previous space by literally blowing up its original scale, fundamentally changing the potential function and social relations facilitated by the space.Fig. 10: Obey, Kareem. Queer Space as Imminent. 2018.18 19Reed Precedent Reed gives us Karin Daan’s 1987 work “Homomunment” as an example of imminent queer space (Reed 65). Munoz’s disidentification theory can be read into the use of three pink granite triangles that form the monument. By appropriating the symbol of Nazi persecution of homosexuals to instead honor the lost LGBT lives, the monument produces a disidentification. Moreover, the arrangement of the elements at a distance from each other at once appropriates the entirety of the plaza they occupy while simultaneously potentially falling away from total view. In effect this allows the monument to embody Reed’s idea of imminence. The structure also questions the necessity for a monument to be instantly perceivable, with its scale rendering it both massive and hidden (Reed 65). Reed Reflection Queer space as imminent, is more closely aligned with my ideas of Queering Architecture, given the centrality of action in Reed’s definition of imminence. Unlike Betsky’s theory, the concept of imminence begins to divorce queer space away from explicit sexual action. He also suggests that queering can in fact be a verb with spatial implications, when he claims that “no space is totally queer or completely unqueerable” (Reed 64). However, without the addition of Munoz’s disidentification theory, Reed’s theory of imminence remains vague around the intent of the “juxtaposition” between the old and the new caused by renovation.Figure 11 (above): Daan, Karin. Homomonument. 1987. Amsterdam, Netherlands.20 21Désert: Queer as Occupation Other discussions of queer space, describe queer space simply as space occupied by queer identifying individuals. This includes the discussion of “gay/queer zones” in Jean-Ulrick Desert’s work “Queer Space” (Désert 21). Désert describes these zones as “an activated zone made proprietary by the occupant [a queer individual] … that is at once private and public” (Désert 21). He goes on to suggest that “our cities, or neighborhoods, our homes are loosely defined territories inscribed not merely by the laws of proprietary ownership but by implicit and shifting inflections of presence, conspicuous or otherwise” (Désert 21). In effect, this leads to the reading of spaces with a critical mass of queer presence as a queer space, such as Greenwich Village in New York City, Castro and Market Streets in San Francisco, or the West End in Vancouver. This concept supposes that queer space is occupant activated and less so designed, suggesting that the “occupant is the catalyst that facilitates this shift from implicit programming to the explicit space of queer living” (Désert 23). This takes the form of the reinterpretation of a space’s use like the queer home’s inflection on the characteristics of the single-family home, “reinterpret[ing] and often (re)appropriate[ting] them, constructing new spaces as the occupants redefine the parameters for domesticity” (Désert 22). Figure 12: Obey, Kareem. Queer Space as Occupation. 2018.22 23Désert PrecedentThis idea of queer as occupation, manifests itself through studies of gay neighborhoods such as Anne-Marie Bouthillette’s “Queer and Gendered Housing: A Tale of Two Neighborhoods In Vancouver,” or any other queer space labeled as such by function of its occupants. Another project that falls into this category is Robbins and Gianni’s imagery for their work “Family Values (Honey I’m Home)” (Gianni and Robbins 217). For this project Gianni and Robbins placed ads in the “gay newspapers” of Ottawa and Columbus, asking for friends and acquaintances to document their homes. Their subscription to this model of queer space is evident in the aim of the project: We sought to conjure and image of the private, ordinary realm of the everyday lives of purportedly extraordinary people: homosexuals. This data might support or dispel stereotypes, providing a glimpse of who we are and what we have in common, and suggest whether sexual orientation has a sensibility, whether gay lives have a style, whether homosexuality can be recognized, characterized, categorized, carried out. (Gianni and Robbins 217)Like Désert, the project plays on the concept that queer occupation catalyzes the shift from the everyday to queer space. Suggesting that queer occupation of domestic leads to an accumulated aesthetic that requires “defag[ing]… in anticipation of parental visits” (Gianni and Robbins 217). However, the mimicry of the “real estate throwaway” advertisement for their catalog suggests the absurdity of finding an essential or consistent queer aesthetic in this project. Instead they claim the “neutrality of the presentation subverts assumptions; as such, the data reveals as much about the viewer as the subjects it depicts….” (Gianni and Robbins 218). Interestingly, this echoes Désert’s discussions on the complicit nature of his queer zones, where “queer space is in large part the function of wishful thinking or desires that become solidified: a seduction of the reading of space where queerness, at a few brief points and for some fleeting moments, dominates....” (Désert 21).Désert ReflectionDésert’s model of queer space is intimately related to queer users of space. Though less explicitly actionable, this model does suggest that some reorientation of the use of space does occur. However, if Reed’s appropriation of spaces where more spatial, Désert’s model feels more at the scale of applique, with the arrogate accumulations of decisions queers make on space ultimately leading to it becoming read as queer (flags, signs, Victorian sofas, etc…). Moreover, this also implies the temporary nature of queer space, where if queer people cease to occupy a queer space, the spaces reverts back into its pre-queered state. This juxtaposes my idea of Queering Architecture, since I suggest queering space does not necessarily have to be carried out by queer identified individuals.Figure 13: Gianni, Benjamin and Robbins, Mark. Family Values. 1997.24 25Part 2“Queering Cannabis”Introduction Queering Cannabis is an installation-based project informed by the queer roots of legal cannabis architecture. Functionally, the project posits that the queering of architecture (or space at large) offers an actionable design attitude, which works in opposition to the erasure that has taken place through the typification of the cannabis dispensary over time and current policies that stigmatize the consumption of cannabis. Sitting somewhere between performance, tagging, and protest, Queering Cannabis initiates a sequence of enactment, loss, and construction informed by the symbolic queerness of smoke, ash, and residue. Specifically inspired by the smoke-filled interior of the first cannabis dispensary, the SFCBC, this project specifically explores the transfigurative quality of smoke, ash, and residue to both mark and create space. DefinitionsQueering Architecture: the process of destabilizing typological and socio-spatial norms, to question the rigidity of a space’s identity or identities it perpetuates to increase the agency of its occupants.Queering architecture transfigures an original into a new state that reveals aspects of the original.Queering architecture appropriates space, form, and associations to juxtapose, call out, and alter what the dominant culture has abandoned. 27The Canna(log) According to Désert “queer culture [or space] would not be queer if there were no other culture [or space] from which to establish its difference.” (Désert 19). In effect, the relative queerness or queering of a space would be most easily identified through its contrast with other spaces. Therefore, to illustrate Queering Architecture as an actionable design attitude through the recreational cannabis dispensary, the proposed cannabis catalog, or Canna(log), establishes a set of traits and trends which I intend to queerxz. To elicit the developing unique characteristics of the dispensary, cataloging and indexing focused on the Pacific Northwest’s existing urban dispensary stalk.  Design centric cataloging methods, such as mapping, drawing, photography, and collages were used to elicit the traits of the recreational dispensary. Specifically, Seattle’s urban dispensaries served as the main source of investigation due to their relatively long status as ‘legal’ recreational cannabis dispensaries. To illustrate the gradual typification, or straightening , of the recreational dispensary, current trends are contextualized with the inclusion of the first and most explicitly queered dispensary, the San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club, along with the oldest dispensary in Seattle, the Seattle Medical Marijuana Association (currently Pot Stop).Canna(log)Figure 14: Obey, Kareem. Canna(log) Cover. 2019.28 29San Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club1992Figure 15: Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of the SFCBC. 2019. Figure 16: Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting of SFCBC in San Francisco on Market 124. 2019.30 31Figure 17: Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. Figure 18: Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019.32 33Social Space77%CannabisBud Bar ParaphernaliaThresholds4Front/Back of House77%East Elevation (entry)Glazing to Facade Ratio: 4%Figure 19: Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. Figure 20: Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019.34 35South ElevationGlazing to Facade Ratio: 8.5% Bud BarCannabisCannabisFigure 21: Obey, Kareem. South Elevation drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019. Figure 22: Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of SFCBC on Market 124. 2019.36 37Pot Stop2011Figure 23: Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of Pot Stop. 2019. Figure 24: Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of Pot Stop in Seattle. 2019.38 39Figure 25: Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of Pot Stop. 2019. Figure 26: Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of Pot Stop. 2019.40 41Front/Back of House38%Threshold Holds2ParaphernaliaBud BarCannabisSocial SpaceNorth Elevation (entry)Glazing to Facade Ratio: 0%Figure 27: Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of Pot Stop. 2019. Figure 28: Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of Pot Stop. 2019.42 43East ElevationGlazing to Facade Ratio: 0%Bud BarCannabisFigure 29: Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of Pot Stop. 2019. Figure 30: Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of Pot Stop. 2019.44 45Dockside Cannabis, Ballard2018Figure 31: Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. Figure 32: Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of Dockside Ballard in Seattle. 2019.46 47Figure 33: Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of Dockside Ballard. 2019. Figure 34: Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019.48 49Front/Back of House73%Social Space14.5%Thresholds2Bud barCannabis Cannabis ParaphernaliaNorth Elevation (entry)Glazing to Facade Ratio: 16.8%Figure 35: Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagra drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. Figure 36: Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019.50 51West Elevation (sidewalk)Glazing to Facade Ratio: 18.12%Bud BarCannabisFigure 37: Obey, Kareem. West Elevation drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019. Figure 38: Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of Dockside Ballard. 2019.52 53(Lux) Pot Shop2015Figure 39: Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. Figure 40: Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop in Seattle. 2019.54 55Figure 41: Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Context collage of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. Figure 42: Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019.56 57Front/Back of House63%Public Space19%Thresholds2Cannabis ParaphernaliaBud barWest Elevation (entry)Glazing to Facade Ratio: 19.2%Figure 43: Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. Figure 44: Obey, Kareem. West Elevation drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019.58 59North ElevationGlazing to Facade Ratio: 0%!!Bud BarCannabisFigure 45: Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. Figure 46: Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019.60 61docksidecannabis 21+ExpressDockside Cannabis Express, 85th2018Figure 47: Obey, Kareem. Entry Elevation drawing of Dockside Express. 2019. Figure 48: Obey, Kareem. Urban Siting drawing of Dockside Express in Seattle. 2019.62 63Figure 49: Obey, Kareem. Neighborhood Plan collage of Dockside Express. 2019. Figure 50: Obey, Kareem. Circulation Plan drawing of Dockside Express. 2019.64 65Front/Back of House7%Social Space0%Thresholds2Cannabis ParaphernaliaBud Bardocksidecannabis 21+ExpressEast Elevation (entry)Glazing to Facade Ratio: 26%Figure 51: Obey, Kareem. Plan Diagram drawings of Dockside Express. 2019. Figure 52: Obey, Kareem. East Elevation drawing of Dockside Express. 2019.66 67docksidecannabis 21+ExpressNorth ElevationGlazing to Facade Ratio: 7%Bud BarCannabisFigure 53: Obey, Kareem. North Elevation drawing of Dockside Express. 2019. Figure 54: Obey, Kareem. Bud Bar Isometric drawing of Dockside Express. 2019.68 69LOSS(roof burn)ENACTMENT(cannafessional)LOSS(cannabis ash)CONSTRUCTION(ash brick)CONSTRUCTION(ash brick wall)cannabis purchasecannabis consumptionFigure 55: Obey, Kareem. “Don’t Ask Don’t Smell” Spatial Distribution of Cannabis Purchase and Cannabis Consumption in Seattle. 2019. Figure 56: Obey, Kareem. Enactment Loss and Construction Exploded Isometric drawing. 2019.70 71Enactment (smoke)The space of existing recreational dispensaries is appropriated and have their efficient circulation disrupted by Cannafessionals, transfigured found confessionals that have been caste out of cannabis ash infused resin. The formal appropriation of the confessional calls out existing public policy which suggests that the use of cannabis is a taboo. While the resin materiality up-ends the status-quo of hiding cannabis from occupants, here the cannabis cloaks the occupants with its obscuring materiality creating public privates for them. Moreover, the interior social relation of the confessionals are queered such that negotiable levels of sociality are created between the cavities of the Cannafessionals. In the Cannafessionals occupants can confess their skills and share in conversation collectively and in doing so, they unknowingly enact the embedded programmatic memory of the SFCBC. The cannabis smoke generated by this enactment parallels that of the SFCBC and fills the cavities of the Cannafessionals obscuring on-lookers view into them, while the residual staining and residue build up serves as a barometer of use that says, yes others have smoked hereFigure 57 (above): Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Ballard animation still. 2019.Figure 58 (opposite top): Obey, Kareem. Enactment in (Lux) Pot Shop animation still. 2019.Figure 59 (opposite bottom): Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Express animation still. 2019.72 73Figure 60: Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Ballard gif still. 2019. Figure 61: Obey, Kareem. Enactment in (Lux) Pot Shop gif still. 2019.74 75Figure 62: Obey, Kareem. Enactment in Dockside Express gif still. 2019. Figure 63: Obey, Kareem. Resin Cannafessional models photograph. 2019.76 77Figure 64: Obey, Kareem. Dockside Ballard Enactment Plan drawing. 2019. Figure 65: Obey, Kareem. (Lux) Pot Shop Enactment Plan drawing. 2019.78 79Figure 66: Obey, Kareem. Dockside Express Enactment Plan drawing. 2019.21+docksidecannabisExpress80 81Figure 67: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Front Section collage. 2019. Figure 68: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Side Section collage. 2019.82 83Figure 69: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Front Elevation collage. 2019. Figure 70: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Plan collage. 2019.84 85Figure 71: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Front Section collage. 2019. Figure 72: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Side Section collage. 2019.86 87Figure 73: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Front Elevation collage. 2019. Figure 74: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 2 Plan collage. 2019.88 89Figure 75: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Front Section collage. 2019. Figure 76: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Side Section collage. 2019.90 91Figure 77: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Front Elevation collage. 2019. Figure 78: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Plan collage. 2019.92 93Figure 79: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Front Section collage. 2019. Figure 80: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Side Section collage. 2019.94 95Figure 81: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Front Elevation collage. 2019. Figure 82: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 4 Plan collage. 2019.96 97Figure 83: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Front Section collage. 2019. Figure 84: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Side Section collage. 2019.98 99Figure 85: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Front Elevation collage. 2019. Figure 86: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Plan collage. 2019.100 101LossThe Enactment of the smoke generates vertically aligned loss with the duel residues of ash and smoke stains. With chimneys on the enclosed Cannafessionals shy of the dispensary’s ceilings, the smoke slowly soils, stains and ultimately transfiguring the ceiling to reveal the deployed pattern of the Cannfessionals across the space. Within the Cannafessionals, occupants are encouraged to discard their ashes on the floor. Made of a metal grate, the floor acts as a large ash tray and debris collection trough, harvesting and storing the lost physical remnants of the sociality above. Once the Cannfessionals are removed, the ash accumulated in each is collected. The active portion of Queering Cannabis castes these ashes into resin bricks. At one time stabilizing their memory, they metaphorically preserve the homosocial acts of the SFCBC and it’s re-enactment in the Cannafessionals, transforming queering acts into physical construction materials. A queer brick perhaps. Figure 87: Obey, Kareem. Ash Brick photograph. 2019. Figure 88: Obey, Kareem. Dockside Ballard Roof Burn gif stills. 2019.102 103Figure 89: Obey, Kareem. (Lux) Pot Shop Roof Burn gif stills. 2019. Figure 90: Obey, Kareem. Dockside Express Roof Burn gif stills. 2019.104 105ConstructionWith the Cannfessional removed, the conspicuous ceiling marks and smell of their deployment are initially only evident once inside the formerly occupied dispensaries. The bricks, which serve as relics of the installation, are then used to replaced the front facing glazing of the occupied dispensaries. Transgressing current policy which legislates the invisibility of cannabis from public view, the weed bricks sit queerly as not quite literally holding useable cannabis. Instead, they show USED cannabis which communicates to the public “YES PEOPLE PUFF”. However, with the number of dispensaries in Seattle constantly on the rise this sequence can be serialized and deployed on the urban scale creating a constellation of marked dispensaries. However, with one’s inability to perceive this constellation simultaneously, they form an intervention of the urban scale that is at once invisible and massive. Figure 91: Obey, Kareem. Dockside Ballard Ash Brick Wall Construction gif stills. 2019.106 107Figure 92: Obey, Kareem. (Lux) Pot Shop Ash Brick Wall Construction gif stills. 2019. Figure 93: Obey, Kareem. Dockside Express Ash Brick Wall Construction gif stills. 2019.108 109Presentation BoardsFigure 94: Obey, Kareem. Front Facing Plan Oblique drawing of Presentation Boards. 2019. Figure 95: Obey, Kareem. Back Facing Plan Oblique drawing of Presentation Boards. 2019.110 111Figure 96: Obey, Kareem. Ash Brick Wall Acetate board overlay for (Lux) Pot Shop. 2019. Figure 97: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional Acrylic board overlays for (Lux) Pot Shop detail. 2019.112 113Figure 98: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 5 Section Model overlay. 2019. Figure 99: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 3 Section Model overlay. 2019.114 115Figure 100: Obey, Kareem. Cannafessional 1 Section Model overlay. 2019.116 117BibliographyBetsky, Aaron. Queer Space: Architecture and Same-Sex Desire. William Morrow & Co,    New York, 1997.Chauncey, George. “Privacy Could Only be Had in Public: Gay Uses of the Streets.” Stud: Architectures of Masculinity. New York City: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. 224-267. Print.Cottrill, J M. “Queering Architecture: Possibilities of Space(s).” 2006. Print.Désert, Jean-Ulrick. “Queer Space.” Queers in Space: Communities, Public Places, Sites of Resistance. Ed. Gordon B. Ingram, Anne-Marie Bouthillette, and Yolanda Retter. Seattle: Bay Press, 1997. 17-26.Feldman, Harvey W., and Jerry Mandel. “Providing Medical Marijuana: The Importance of Cannabis Clubs.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, vol. 30, no. 2, 1998, pp. 179-186,     http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.1998.10399688, doi:10.1080/02791072.1998.103   99688.Gianni, Benjamin and Robbins, Mark. “Family Values (Honey, I’m Home).” Architecture of the Everyday. Ed. Steven Harris and Deborah Berke. New York City: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. 217-221. Print.Halberstam, Jack. “Unbuilding Gender: Jack Halberstam on Trans* Anarchitecture.” Places Journal, Places Journal, 1 Oct. 2018, placesjournal.org/article/unbuilding-gender/?cn-reloaded=1.Halperin, David M. Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford University Press,    New York, 1995.Harris, Dianne S. “Built-Ins and Closets.” Little White Houses: How the Postwar Home Constructed Race in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013. 185–227. Print.Katz, Jonathan D. “Committing the Perfect Crime”: Sexuality, Assemblage, and the Postmodern Turn in American Art.” Art Journal, vol. 67, no. 1, 2008, pp. 38-53.Davidson. New York City: Anyone Corporation, 2017. 85-88. Print.Katz, Jonathan D. “The Senators Were Revolted: Homophobia and the Culture Wars,” in     A Companion to Contemporary Art since 1945, ed. Amelia Jones (Malden, MA:     Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006),  231-48.Kolb, Jaffer and Betsky, Aaron. “The End of Queer Space?.” Log 41. Ed. Cynthia Mikuriya, Tod. “Cannabis Medicinal Users at a “Buyers” Club.”, 1995, http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/sfbc1.htm.Muñoz, José E. Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics. vol. 2.;2;,   University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1999.Morton, Pat. “A Visit to Womenhouse.” Architecture of the Everyday. Ed. Steven Harris and Deborah Berke. New York City: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. 166-179. Print.Rand, Erin J., and Project Muse University Press eBooks. Reclaiming Queer: Activist &  Academic Rhetorics of Resistance. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 2014.Reed, Christopher. “Imminent Domain: Queer Space in the Built Environment.” Art   Journal, vol. 55, no. 4, 1996, pp. 64–70. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.orgstable/777657.“Reefer Madness.” , directed by Louis Gasnier, and Videomatica collection.Reiman, Amanda. “Chapter 18: Cannabis Distribution: Coffee Shops to Dispensaries.”  Handbook of Cannabis. Oxford University Press, New York, New York,      2014, http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/view/10.1093/    acprof:oso/9780199662685.001.0001/acprof-9780199662685-miscMatter-1.Richard Goldstein, “It’s Here! It’s Queer! It’s Too Hot for Yale! Gay Studies Spawns a    Radical Theory of Desire,” The Village Voice, Vol. 42, Iss. 30 (July 29, 1997), 38-41.Sara Ahmed, “Sexual Orientation,” in Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others (Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2006), 65-107..ubc.ca/avery/docview/1815347889/14E4BE8E81954621PQ/3?accountid=14656.Thanhauser and Esterson. “Definitions Fitness Center #2.” Stud: Architectures of Masculinity. New York City: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. 206-209. Print.118 119Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. Learning from Las Vegas. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1972.120

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0378625/manifest

Comment

Related Items