New
Collective Space for the contemporary city
The planning challenge of the semi periphery
of cities examplified from thessaloniki - the west arc/europan competition
1997
By Prof. Bjorn Roe
Department of Town - Regional
Planning NTNU, Norweigian University of Science and Technology, N-7034 Trondheim, Norway
Introduction
The scope of this paper is, by means
of the example of Thessaloniki and the Europan competition “west Arc” to
take part in the discourse on urban design theory and practice related
to semi periphery of cities. This paper will be limited to our experience
and thoughts based on our competition entry (without mention) as well as
other theoretical works.
The “West Arc”, is selected area of
Thessaloniki where the densely built up city meets some open areas, previously
reserved for army purposes, Urban Design as a useful tool, improving the
living conditions for the users of the city, should be understood by the
authorities as well as the population and it ought to be looked upon as
useful by those involved in the production of space. The theoretical foundation
may be of less, importance for the outcome and functioning of UD, however,
there is a need for theoreticians and practitioners to meet in a dialogue.
Hopefully this presentation will make a contribution towards that end.
The purpose of the West Arc/Europan
competition is to improve the deficiency (lack of common public spaces
etc.) by examining the periphery, not “simply in terms of but as composite
urban system incorporating modernisation of the service and traffic networks,
rearticulation of open areas so that they come to be suitable places for
the life of the metropolis, and the ephermeral events typical of city life.”
(D.Rebois, EUROPAN gen.secr.)
The objectives as stated in the competition
programme are :
1. “Call for ideas consistent with
the search for town planning strategies and architectural statements in
the West periphery/outskirts of Thessaloniki.”
EUROPAN is a European association for
programmes of new architecture with experience in planning and carrying
out competitions for international ideas as well as in organising events
and debates related to such competitions. In this competition all competitors
should be young (below 45) professionals involved in urban and architectural
planning in Europe. The teams could in addition use contributors not subject
to the same requirement of age or professional accreditation (like students
or old professors).
2. “It aims at developing, on a European
scale, idea for quality projects on the theme of contemporary collective
areas adapted to the specific context of the modern Greek city.”
3.“The objective of the competition
is to help young European professionals involved in town-and architectural
planning to develop their ideas and communicate them on the European scene.”
4. “The goal is, through the development
of the west periphery of Thessaloniki, to assist the municipalities and
their local agencies in finding innovative answers that may help them create
an integrated urban environment.
5. In this European process of exchanges
of ideas for redefining end upgrading modern cities, how are we to integrate
innovative architectural or public area projects into the existing modern
city in places that already have an indentity but are undergoing process
of social change ?”
Relating West Arc, Thessaloniki to
the general debate
Although each city is unique, there
are several global phenomena one can relate to the general discussion.
The local and highly specific characteristics will be the element making
the necessary distinction when coming to the final choice of procedures
or “design” solutions.
The semi periphery/outer city/city
edge, in between or outside the dense morphology of the traditional city,
will be in focus of interest. These are areas with more space available,
often in connection with highways or other heavy infrastructure (seafron/harbour,
railway etc.). Where there are willingness of investments and buildings
activities are attracted. In such area town planning and urban design seems
to have lost the grip and where discussion is concentrated (ellin:166-168).
West Arc is such part of Thessaloniki, but have several highly unique features
related to local conditions, a specific history and the Greek culture.
The INtERNATIONAl URBAn DESIGN Discourse
The criticism towards city development
based on functionalistic principles has been going on since the 1950s (Alberts
et al 1985, Broadbent 1990, Ellin 1996). The separation of functions into
monofunctional areas, the preference of the movement of the automobile,
the focus on architectural object in free space, the automobile, the focus
on architectural object in free space, the abandonment of the street with
its pavements and the mixed land uses has been main elements in the critique.
Town planning according to modernistic
developed Master Plans based on zoning, where land use and transport (roads
and parking space) were in focus, Morphology and spatial pattern were given
less concern, as many Architects lost professional interest as the traditional
Architectural object, the individual building, disappeared from the plans
were supposed to prepare the ground for decisions on projects and investments
based on synoptic, long range estimations. Planning was often quantitatively
focused (based on population prognoses and other data) and did not necessarily
give good incentments for spatial development. At other instances the plans
gave directions for growth and functioned very well according to the prognotisised
development, but reactions came from those disagreeing with the ‘modern’
way of city development.
Urban design as a notion developed
in the 1960s (Ellin 1996) among else as a response from Architects wanting
to get involved in planning, but not master planning. UD is synonyms with
Architecture on a larger scale, or Physical Planning where emphasis is
on space morphology and three dimensional development. “ The essence of
the urban design approach is that in concentrates more and relations between
objects, more on linkages, contexts and in between places, than the object
themselves (Ellin p.224 from Scott Brown 1990a p.19). In addition to indicating
a globalization of dialogue about architecture and planning the new concern
with urban design and with urbanism also intimate dissatisfaction with
the quality or design theory and the products it was yielding. Ellin p.225)
The responses and critiques took many
directions, but the picture is quite blurred. I think one reason is that
critique may seem to be directed towards the professional ideals and tools,
while they are basically due to disappointment with generally prevailing
paradigms, political situation, dominance of market forces etc. We are
often find professionals having gone through different ideological stages
being trapped meeting their own past. Postmodernism is part of this pattern
of reaction to the rationalism of modernism. It is easier to react towards
the paradigms of ones profession than to stir up, or try to make any changes
in direction of overall development or attempt structural changes ! Thus,
a lot of the post-modern discussion have left few traces outside the closed
circles of each profession. Some buildings are announcing their protest,
but little have influenced city development at large and urban environment.
This may be one reason that so little is written about post-modern building,
urban design or urbanism but so much on post-modern building design (Ellin
1996).
Two main directions with focus on urban
space can be labelled “Progressive” versus “Culturalistic”. (Choay) “New
Urbanism” is the most outspoken version of the latter which also could
be labelled Neo - Traditional. This is a way of conserving elements from
the past, led by professionals like Leon Krier in Europe and supporters
like Prince Charles of wales and his Institute of Architecture. In USA,
Seaside Florida and Walt Disney’s city “Celebration” represent this
nostalgic ways of looking at Architecture pretending to create better and
more humane cities by building and restructuring neighbourhoods and larger
tracts of cities after the model of the small town of the past. They are
moving away from the Metropole to the neighbourhood scale (Ellefsen 1997).
I will not pursue this direction, even if there may be valuable spatial
elements in some of their projects and details around everyday living environment
can make sense in limited infill projects. As a guidance for future city
restructuring and city development, this direction has its obvious limitations.
The other direction, the “progressive”, maintains that we are transforming
the environment as tools for other purposes. The architecture thus becomes
an expression of culture that mirrors social changes and this is expressed
on all levels of the Architecture, from principles of spatial organisation
to expression of “style”. (Ellefsen p.14)
At this point in time, I would advocate
the “progressive” way, however being aware of the traps and weaknesses
of pure functionalistic, rationalistic planning and design, choosing such
a direction one continue the modernism, but with all antennas alert. Urban
designers should consider the forces of development and enter into dialogue
with those actors who are able to actively change the city or parts of
it. As participants they will be able to contribute to the directions of
change. Such strategy cannot be based on nostalgia, nor the “machine” metaphor,
but will utilise technical progress where it is beneficial. The humans
as individuals and collective will be in focus, however within ecological
sound or sustainable environments. Metropolis will have to be taken as
granted, but the seemingly haphazard way it has grown so far is not acceptable.
Due to the strong forces of development and unforeseen future. Only certain
main elements of infrastructure and some points is space can be fixed,
such as important locations for central functions or natural environments
that will have to be protected and incorporated in the future settlement.
There seems to be a kind of consensus that the fragmented city will continue.
We will have to be concerned about each fragment or part and the way the
city is tied together and connected, how the city is read and perceived
by its users, how the collective functions are maintained and how easy
and pleasant it is for each group to utilise and sense their settlements.
How can this be done so that energy
spending will be reduced as well as population ? It is not so much a question
of what the future city will look like as how it will come into being and
how this can be controlled.
Thessolaniki, the west arc and the Europan
competition
Thessaloniki, Cultural, Capital of
Europe in 1997, has in long period since its foundation in 315 BC played
a major role in the region. It was Capital of the Makedonian State and
the later Roman province of Makedonian (148 BC) and after the founding
of Konstantinopel in 330 AD, the join “Queen City” of the Byzantine Empire.
In this era it was the second largest city of Europe with more than one
million inhabitants. At the crosspoint of many nations it attracted people
from many cultures, Greeks, Turks, Slavs, Jews Armenians etc. In early
fifteenth century it was occupied by the Turks and became a part
of the Ottoman Empire and was not liberated until 1912. (Compet. Programme
p.29) At that time the largest group were the Jews, the second the Muslims
and the third were the Greek Orthodox.
Today the population is 850-900 thousands.
The Jewish community was almost extinguished in death camps during the
Second World War. People of Turkish origin were greatly reduced after the
exchange of population between Greece and Turkey in 1923.
However, still Thessaloniki is very
multi ethnic with a heterogeneous population. Political refugees (Greeks)
returning from the countries of Eastern Europe as well as numerous economic
migrants from Albania and other Balkan Countries (CP. P41.). Many of these
have been settling in the western part of the city.
For further details
click here
|
