Please read below:
Cities and the Lost space...
Criticism through exploration of Functionalism and Functionalists
Without polemics, Roger Trancik addresses the biggest issue in architecture and urbanism today: how can we regain in our shattered cities a public realm that is made of firmly shaped, coherently linked, humanly meaningful urban spaces?
Twentieth century urban space is closely related to the almost universal acceptance of the Functionalist Program for architecture and Landscape Architecture – a program based on pure forms and unbounded, democratic or flowing space.
The movement started in Germany, Austria, France and The Netherlands during the 1920s and mainly offered fast and economical construction.
In the Modern era, mid 20th century, regionalism and environmental identity were ignored. Architects and Landscape Architects reduced the condition to formal, abstract considerations resulting in exciting designs on paper but yielding segregated urban buildings and spaces. Somehow the ideals of free flowing spaces have evolved in to our present situation of individual buildings isolated in parking lots and access routes and highways. Public spaces merely serve the utilitarian function with little regard for the quality of the trip.
The Bauhaus is the most influential force of the Functionalism. Its aim was to unite art and technology under a purified aesthetic that removed all ornament and articulation from form and stressed the beauty of expressed function.
After the Functionalism suffered from avant-garde movements and overtones of the intellectual elitism the functionalists under the Bauhaus movement made a clear distinction between architecture and building. Landscape Architects made a difference between landscaping and architectural design.
Tom Wolf said that the Bauhaus rejected all things “bourgeois” and functionalism became one of several euphemisms for non bourgeois.
De Stijl, pretty similar to Bauhaus followed the evolution as human self-improvement through art and design as a by-product, which had a profound effect on spatial attitudes of western culture in the 20th century.
Le Corbusier as the third major contributor force in development of 20th century space brought the 3 principles which influenced the modern urban space:
1. The linear and nodal building as a large scale urban element applied to define districts or social units
2. The vertical separation of movement systems – an outcome of Le Corbusier’s fascination with highways and the city of the future
3. The openings up of urban space to allow for free flowing landscape, sun and light.
Together these 3 movements have had a major role in shaping modern urban space. The problem lies in the emphasis of the individual building at the expense of the space around it. The marriage of form and technology has been dramatically reexported to the urban form of developing countries with the sad result that all settlements have begun to look alike with almost every city with its core of lost space.
Recent criticism has clearly documented the impact of Functionalist thinking on the architectural forms. Functionalist thinking has also a great impact on the entire public exterior environment and has contributed to the current problem of urban spaces in which the connectivity between urban spaces and ultimately between buildings has suffered. Of course increase in the vehicle traffic and continuous rising number of cities’ population made this even more obvious making these issues more demanding for change.
A young group of Modernists attempted to redefine the principles and formal expression of urban space. They formed “The Group of Ten” or formally known as “Team 10 Primer” and published documents with the group’s philosophy in which is outlined their attitude about place definition and issues surrounding the design of urban space in response to the rules and disciplines within the context. A key word in their vocabulary was “Humanism”.
Since Team 10 there have been several groups who have examined the assumptions of Functionalism. A reconstructed Functionalism, rationalism promotes a concern for public open space over a preoccupation with the surrounding buildings.
But it’s not only the Functionalist ideology that has produces the lost space in the contemporary city. Ideals of social hygiene through abandonment of the city – the garden city/new town/suburban concepts – also directed attention away from the central city. As manifestations of ideas for social hygiene, the urban renewal projects of the 60s were undertaken with the idea that only by starting from scratch could the ills of the city be resolved. Zoning also destroyed the integrity of urbanism by separating functions that had traditionally been integrated into the total urban way of life. The needs for automobiles created the suburbanisation and increased mobility.
The high rise as an emblem of corporate success, furthermore, has produced cities of competing towers instead of cities of integrated spaces.
As a conclusion, there were many movements within the Functionalism movement since it started in 1920s and improved as it went along the process but the state of many of the existing places are a result of the Functionalist principles.
The main issue that it created is the lack of connectivity between spaces, disorientation of the pedestrians and the priority of the vertical over the horizontal. It is hard to make changes within the spaces created under these principles but the general hope is that many of the segregated open spaces still have potential for connectivity. The building facades can contribute towards the exploration of the open spaces designs giving guidance for colours and materials for better integration, with some of the buildings becoming expandable for the greater good of the city...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete