|
<< ...back
 |
"Between the Edges"
Milos Bobic
introduction
THOTH Publishers, 2004. |
Between the Edges
Street-building transition as urbanity interface
Every aspect of an urban system has several appearances and even more levels of interpretation: spatial, social, cultural, economical and psychological. In an urban setting, a certain equilibrium is achieved with aspects and consequences that are interconnected. In a state of dynamic tension, everything has the potential to impact everything else, and at any given time one subject can be examined from an alternative point of view with a different conclusion being reached. This fact stands as both a challenge and an inspiration that leads scholars to approach the same problem over and over again: to find a more appropriate or precise understanding of the city. Therefore, the book before you presents a familiar theme re-observed in the scope of another. This book is about spatial relationship between public and private domains considered in the scope of the complex phenomenon of urbanity.
It seems strange to marry two seemingly distant aspects of urban life: phenomenon of urbanity, and small-scale demarcation between the house and the city. This marriage had been, above all, inspired by ideas presented by two prominent authors - Nikolaas Habraken and Richard Sennett. Architect Habraken has been analysing the interrelationship between the private and public domains in search of complexity of architectural forms in the urban context. His work culminated in the theory of "common understanding". In Habraken's view, particular architectural typologies and urban forms in traditional cities have been created by common behavioural patterns of the residents. On the other hand, as an historian and anthropologist, Sennett dedicated his study to city public space in the perspective of cultural and social history. His general position represents the idea that an innate and everlasting conflict among citizens is at the very core of Western civility. The apparent conflict between these two approaches, however, is misleading.
The main difference between the two authors concerns their differing view of the urban cultural setting. Habraken's approach is directed from inside the block territory and building structure towards public space, while Sennett considers the problem in the opposite direction. Habraken studies spatial forms as a result of common cultural patterns, while Sennett studies behavioural patterns within the city public space.
However, their studies of one theme from two different points of view - private and public - lead to conclusions that raise the question: Is the urbanity of traditional cities a result of activities of responsible and decent citizens that constructively coped with their living environment, or is it a result of their conflict? Basically, this dilemma occurs from the inherent confrontation of public and private domain, between the house and the street. It is impossible to say which of these two is more influential because public and private domains are, at the same time, involved in permanent and dialectical interrelationship. Because of this, the dilemma seems unable to be resolved. But the dilemma itself became a driving force for an experiment in which spatial demarcation between the public and private domain had been observed as a battlefield of conflict, with conflict itself as one among many agents of urbanity. That is why this study focuses on spatial configurations between these two domains from the standpoint of public space, the realm where urbanity belongs.
Going beyond an analysis of urban limits, this book focuses on the "space in-between" where the superimposition between public and private domains occurs. In part, the effort has resulted in a book with a wide overview of spatial forms of the transition zone between the building and the street - interface, which can be viewed as a small-scale core of urbanity. In a wider scope, it may bring new elements to the discussion about urban practice today or inspiration to those who wish to cope with both the urbanity and the public space.
Introduction
Future inhabitants of the new settlements are eager to resolve the puzzle of their personal dreams and real possibilities. They are dreaming of sustaining a comfortable house - primarily their own house with a garden in a traditional-like, picturesque town such as Hilversum, Bath or Haarlem, while their real financial possibilities deny that dream. In the end, real possibilities always win out, resolving the dilemma of the inhabitants. They turn to the housing market that offers them the house in some new suburban estate for a reasonable price. In the end, the average British consumer buys a house at Thames Gateway or Great Fleete at Barking Reach, while, in The Netherlands, the consumer places his family in Ypenburg, Blixembosch, or Leidsche Rijn. These new Dutch settlements had been developed under the VINEX Programme from the '90s, which estimated over 500.000 houses, within an average density of 35 houses per hectare, close to the edge of the existing cities. The main goal of this political urban planning act has been "urbanisation of the undeveloped, open land". Therefore, these new city extensions turn to hybrid developments, more or less like the American "Middle Land-scape", the footprint in the sand between the city and the countryside (Rowe, 1991).
But after occupying their new homes, although some of them even enjoy a croissant and cappuccino on the terrace as presented in the estate agents' brochures, inhabitants usually begin questioning the location. Of course, it is far from the city centre and public functions and usually there is insufficient public transport. Next to this they complain about a whole range of problems such as building typology and design, small gardens, height of the rooms, insulation and other technical elements, all particularly related to the quality of the house itself. They do not consider the quality of their urban environment at all. This concern, more than anything, reveals their strong willingness to escape from the city, no matter where. The city, viewed as a problem place, the core of criminality and danger, at least an unfriendly place for the family life, is nowadays a cliché. The new householders in The Netherlands, Great Britain or the United States agree on that point.
The housing market acts along the same line. Market eco-nomy nowadays follows the contemporary cultural ideology of personal identity and one's individualism. The overwhelming majority of new developments in the West are suburban ones. It seems that the two parties on the market, developers and consumers, are happily united. The new suburbs are the most popular places to live, where family people escape from the "disastrous city" and come closer to the healthy nature. At the same time, there is no 'placelessness' as suburbia (M. Davis, 1992). And simple as it is: where there is no place, there is no urbanity as well. On the other hand, urban planners and theoreticians have been discussing the lack of urbanity in modern towns and especially in the new suburban developments for decades now. From their point of view, the traditional towns do possess identity and atmosphere of their own, and the new settlements do not. Their common standpoint is that urbanity has a vital economical, cultural and social importance. In their view, urbanity seems to be a necessity. According to A.C. Zijderveld (1992), it is a synonym for urban culture. It is not a sign of nostalgia but a permanent aspiration of civilisation. Because this concept combines economic culture and civic culture, it is the vital matrix of the society upon which the city develops and survives.
That is one of the reasons why, in some societies, urbanity has become one of the hot professional issues and public priorities. The discussion, in search of a definition or redefinition of the phenomenon itself, since the beginning of seventies, resulted in a revival and re-examination of some of the traditional city forms and urban planning principles in the nineties. In the meantime, in the European and American practice, some ideas have come forward in the planning of new settlements. However, there have been no significant breakthroughs and, hence, the search for a modern concept of urbanity continues.
However, urban planning practice seems bound within its own limitations. The main devices in the practice of urban planning are the spatial ones. Whether we speak about densities, floor space-indices, street patterns or building typology we are dealing with spatial design. Even such a complex desire as urbanity should be conditioned by spatial means. All these partial elements of the plan represent an idea of the city. However, the plan is not just a literal presentation of a concept and urban norms, but a reflection of certain developmental processes. Every new development integrates ideas and the needs of the participants involved. Still, it is not possible to reach all interested parties. Individuals and families - in short, the majority of future inhabitants - are not involved.
Because it is impossible to cope with all the aspects of reality in advance, a plan is always more or less distant from the real needs of a living environment. Only social potential, inhabitants and their activities can bring planned urban environment to real life. They give it the character and possibly, over the course of time, develop their specific social and cultural milieu.
But in most of the cases spatial elements are fixed, domains and activities are strictly divided from each other and buildings are inflexibly built or preserved like monuments. Under these circumstances there is little or no chance at all for progress in the development of urbanity. The problems do not emerge just from urban planners' and designers' competence, but also from the framework of the development process. Besides functioning merely as a mechanism for development, the contemporary discipline of urban planning stands mainly as a monument to itself: a monument of the whole inherited structure, methodology and practice of the Modernist urban doctrine. For decades now, urban planning has been a discipline based upon three main ideas: social equality, clear territorial assignment and strictly applied norms. In the scope of contemporary conditions these three fundamentals seem more like obstacles than constructive agents of city development. This is best illustrated in the following five points.
|
1 | 