|
<< ...back
Subscapes
One of the myths of suburbia is the myth of privacy. That myth is brought to the common notion of the contemporary dwelling. Privacy of the family and the individual is considered as the basic pattern that characterises new developments and that has a dominant influence on the spatial organisation, form and character of the contemporary townscape. Besides the ideology of suburban structures that becomes an ideal of most developers and determines a city building strategy, the design of open space also follows the same course. Contemporary suburban as well as urban areas are conquered by a common ideology of quasi land-art approach.
Compartmentalisation of ownership and domains define the limits of design. The design of a house has nothing to do with the design of a street and vice versa. In the end, through the division and subdivision of spatial elements, functions, domains and design tasks, purity of the structure prevails in place of complexity. Its meaning is well readable with the main messages 'Keep clear!' and 'Keep off!' As a consequence, besides destruction of the meaning of public space in the traditional sense, there is a certain shift towards segregation, social as well as spatial. As M. Davis declares, it culminates in militarisation of the city under the code of 'neighbourhood fortresses'. Security by design is one of the main tasks for architects and urban planners. It has a double role: to secure dwellers and to assure officials that no violent behaviour or public disturbance will take place. Overall in contemporary developments, instead of spatially consistent and socially domesticated townscapes, a 'subscape' notion prevails. It is strongly articulated, without any complex overlapping, visual depth or signs of outdoor life.
The character of new developments is based on consistent functional and juridical fragmentation and compartmentalisation. The results are simplistic jagged spaces devoid of complexity and character. After the isolated location of the suburb itself, this has been considered as the next step towards secured privacy of the inhabitants. Division between owners and especially between private and public domains are of great concern of urban bureaucracy, developers and consumers. Any sign of unresolved spatial claims or possible conflict between different owners, behavioural patterns and domains is considered as a weakness of the design. Such a notion would stand in opposition to the very nature of new mass-culture. A small, from one to three meters deep front garden has no other function than to distance the house from the pavement. In a row, these gardens become expositions of naive gardening art, reflecting the desires and culture of the residents. Still, these mostly naive spatial arrangements bring a glimpse of humanity into the sterile public room.
Also, regarding the house, the privacy myth is consequently applied. In current dwelling culture, the house must be strictly oriented inwards. The private core lies on the block's interior. The back yard is a secure family domain where no stranger can interrupt or take a look. From this fixed common rule the whole plan of the house is designed. Living room and private spaces on the ground level are directly related to the back garden, the services are oriented towards the street. Only rooms on the upper floors, if necessary, are oriented to the street. Through this pattern of the house plan the life in the front of the house, which once had been the landmark of the traditional villages and small towns, is disregarded. In a study about the morphology of the Alamo Square district in San Francisco, Built for change, A.V. Moudon presents an opposed approach. The traditional as well as modern architecture follows the same basic organisational and spatial pattern of the house. A majority of house plans are organised upon the principle of having a living room, with a bay window, on the street side, with all service spaces and private rooms on the backside of the house. Several types of double-decker houses are built upon a setback or encroachment zone between public territory and the house. Based on these common principles, a variety of ordinary architecture and details, between street level, and the main first floor in particular, occurs and it 'increases proportionally to the number of people who participate directly in the design and building decisions'. Inner structure in all types of houses is strongly related to the street. Bay-window on the main facade as well as staircases between street level and main upper floor, are elements which take control over public space, connecting two domains and giving additional perpendicular depth to the street. Therefore, social and spatial ambiguity of the house/street relationship surfaces as a main quality of the whole environment, becoming a keystone in the continuing development of the townscape.
In an attempt to re-establish the social and psychological importance of public space, according to G.C. de Carlo, it is necessary to give special attention to its geometry, equipment and greenery. However, De Carlo does not mention the private/public relationship alone, but puts forward the importance of 'something beyond the visible' from the street as well. For sure, under the suggestion of "signing of invisible" private domain must be also considered as a theme in the relation to the public domain. By creating the chance for a visual and psychological glimpse beyond the boundary between the two domains, purity of functional division can be broken. Inhabitants may get an idea that life exist out the family cluster and beyond property boundary. In that case the road may become more than just a functional connection between territorial parts. At best, it may become signed as an outdoor space that interconnects houses and places where people live. In such a way and under these circumstances the street may appear as an extension of the house, part of the domus.
On the contrary, street facades in contemporary developments are considered as shields which protect private spaces that have nothing to do with public domain. Form and function are driven apart. Living spaces are orientated to the back garden and the streetscape is left without signs of occupancy. Only parked cars in the front of the houses give an idea that the neighbourhood is not really deserted. According to Schumacher, physical planning factors which influence public space use the most are: user density, land-use mix, pedestrian/vehicular interrelation, and configuration of the street and context. In the contemporary developments only the last two - pedestrian/vehicular interrelation and configuration of street and context - are considered. But, those are just criteria to evaluate quality of accessibility and level of separation between different user types: drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. The street should make a balance between automobile and human needs possible. In suburbia, the street is designed entirely for the car and with great concern for pedestrians' safety. It is functional, but not a social element of the neigbourhood. No one meets others there. Just the cars passing each other by.
Indeed, in the suburbs, roads are designed for cars and not people. Their profiles, dimensions, and proportions contribute nothing to codify urban character. In suburbia, there are no streets, just roads. Although they are functioning, other roles of public space cannot emerge because there are no physical conditions that may provide the cues of social contact and urbanity. The whole suburban spatial structure is based upon clear division or even segregation between property, functions, domains and people. Although clear property boundaries are defined, no limit of growth is on the horizon. Protection of ownership and privacy are ideals that disrupt any possibility of urbanity at all. It is cleansed from reality. In the view of residents, it is a Paradise where no conflict might emerge and where demonstrations cannot take place, as Michael Sorkin finds.
Under these circumstances, the majority of lots are about one hundred and twenty square meters, with a lot width of five and a half meters and a depth of twenty-two meters. If the average depth of the house is about eleven meters, another eleven meters remains to be distributed as yard space. This length should be divided in two parts - front- and back garden, although in the new developments, the front garden has no purpose, as we already argued. Life is oriented inwards, towards the backyard. But, under the norm that regulates paved open-space, a general intention to organise parking places on private ground occurs. It is no big deal to organise a drive for the houses of higher classes. They are placed on spacious lots of 300 square meters or more. But, for the prevailing smaller house classes, the front yard should be deepened at least to five meters and, consequently, the back yard and the distance from the adjacent property must be reduced. A six-meter deep backyard seems more like a terrace then a garden and with a back-to-back distance of less than 12 meters between houses, the housing quality becomes endangered. Therefore, most of the resident's cars must be parked on public space. Because of the narrow lots, mainly perpendicular rather than parallel parking is possible along the streets. Without on-site parking, both sides of the street, as well as off-site parking lots must be used. As a direct consequence of the parking demands on both sides of the street, the street needs to be widened by at least ten meters. In a neighbourhood of two-story houses separated by about thirty meters between front facades, the sense of the street room is about to vanish. In the end, the joint forces of development, planning and architectural design deliver the meaningless and increasingly pervasive subscape.
 Private Paradise in the contemporary suburban backyard and the social reality along the street frontage According to Rappoport, people can be located in social space through spatial means - neighbourhood, address, association and perception of the area; the street, house, garden, and other elements all communicate and locate people in social space. But, the spatial clues for the meaning of place and socialisation of the community must be established. But which of the public road, parking lot or a private back yard establishes a suitable meaning? The answer must be none of these. Whenever elements of the built environment are sharply divided - physically, visually and mentally - complex relationships among spaces, activities and people on the scale of community cannot occur.
Although home address and location are still defined on the common scale of geography, people's emotional world is shrinking to the scale of their own house. They consider their direct surroundings as necessity, something that should be avoided as much as possible. People are much more eager to communicate with distant worlds and virtual addresses than with their neighbours. Their social space is not local anymore. It has been defined much more in virtual cyberspace, where they find everything easily and in private, without crossing others, than through their own social environment. Not to forget, on the street unpredictable encounters and conflict can occur. Therefore, under all these circumstances prospects of urbanity seem as an illusory notion.
|
