Thursday, 22 September 2011

Towards an urbanism

The  purpose of this blog  is to find an approach to urbanism appropriate to the British Context. If that is it’s purpose then  it seems to me the following question must be answered; is urban design theory applicable to all cities or is an approach to urban design appropriate for one city irrelevant to other cities? Does a British city entail a specific cultural condition? For instance, the “Urban Renaissance” applied to British Cities during the premiership of Tony Blair seemed to often consist of building high-density housing in almost every available site in the country. Is this approach to urban design appropriate for a British Context?

If I had to choose one architectural theorist who understood regional architectural cultures I would choose Christian Norberg-Schulz. No-one more clearly perceived the difference between cities in the North and South of Europe. Norburg-Schulz believed that there are basically two types of architectural culture that exist in Europe, one of the North and one of the South or, as he would put it, Nordic and Mediterranean Europe. He argued that in an urban condition, the ceiling is effectively the sky but it’s appearance is conditioned by the upper termination of the buildings. In the North, the sky is the result of “variable atmospheric conditions;” in the South, the sky is perceived as “a distant and stable background.” Hence, these two conditions can be seen to giving rise to what might be taken as two typologies, two forms which capture the essence of their respective architectural cultures: the gable in the North and the dome in the South.

 The difference between Nordic and Mediterranean architecture could also be understood by looking at the predominant materials used, timber in the North of Europe and Stone in the South,  in what might be taken as the formative period in these civilizations which would be the Medieval period in Northern Europe and Classical period in Southern Europe. There are of course exceptions to this rule but, in the case of Northern Europe, timber can be taken as a defining “image.” Norberg-Schulz states that

 “These images may be related to the fact that in the North vegetation forms the continuous “ground” on which rocks and mountains appear. In the arid South, instead, the topographical configurations constitute the background, whereas trees and groves are perceived as relatively isolated “figures.” Existentially it is therefore justifiable to talk about wood and stone cultures.”

From this we can deduce that the two types of architectural culture in Europe, one of the North and one of the South or as Norburg-Schulz would say, the Nordic and the Mediterranean, do not follow from tradition but rather they follow from nature. It also follows that there are two types of city. We can examine these two types of city to develop an appropriate idea about architectural strategy, using the idea that a strategies gestalt is generated from the interaction of figure and ground.  Norberg-Schulz argues that, in a Mediterranean city the ground, on which the figure appears, consists of “ topographical configurations” which often mean mountains and stone. The figure will consist of urban spaces and buildings, often themselves of stone. Mediterranean people, drawing on their experience of nature, already expect a stone environment and do not need a large amount of greenery in a city. Hence there will be little in the way of parks and gardens. In a Northern environment the “ground” consisits of trees and greenery.  A large amount  of land used as parks and gardens will not be perceived as wasteful use of space but simply a “ground” on which figures appear usually in the form of buildings or urban planning exercises. Hence strategic ideas appropriate to a Mediterranean city cannot be simply transposed to a British city and be found to work.

So am I advocating a return to suburbanism?

In order to answer that, firstly it is necessary to define what is meant by suburbanism. Many people use that word, thinking they defined something with a great deal of precision. They have not. When many people use that word, they often mean houses with gardens. Hence, if you are trying to create  an urban design proposal, the word suburbanism is essentially useless. Urban design proposals deal with all the functions of a town or city, not just one i.e. housing. Le Corbusier, when he drew up some of his famous city plans, at times definitely indulged in megalomania. But he did assign four functions to his city plans not one.

There is another way of defining suburbia as opposed to a truly urban condition. In an urban condition  buildings are brought  up to back of pavement. In a suburban condition buildings are set back allowing front gardens. But there are plenty of exceptions to this. This definition can be broken down.

So what kind of urbanism am I advocating?

The aim of this blog is an attempt to answer that question.

( Quotation of  Christian Norberg-Schulz from  “Architecture: Meaning and Place-“Timber buildings in Europe”“     
Rizzoli, New York, 1988.)


Anonymous said...

Thank you for the attention you bring to urban design. Current failure in this area must be tackled.

Slater McGurk

dirtycowgirl said...

I was in Barcelona in August, my son lives there, the thing that most impressed me was the architecture of the place - especially gaudi. This post got me thinking, you are right, pretty much all of it is made of stone.

Kieran Gallagher said...

Thank you for your comment on Barcelona. I intend to have a posting covering this very subject, the city of Barcelona.
Of course, stone buildings have their place in British architectural culture.
I am just trying to evolve an idea of what a regional British architectural and urban design culture would consist of.

Anonymous said...

Can our urban centres be brightened by making use of the boarded up shops spoiling so many town centres? Could artists and crafts people be permitted to use them when they remain unlet?