Peter Trummer discusses the form of the city in the article named as ‘The City as an Object.’ While reading the article, the main objective is somehow a summary of previous approaches to the city. Definition of aggregation of city that is discussed through pages is coming from Alberti’s approach on city. Alberti stated that city is a large house and the house is a small city. Since the building or houses are aggregated objects and since Alberti says that city as a large house that’s why city is also an aggregated object.
After saying ‘object’ to the city, there are 2 subtitles by undermining and overmining the city as an object. The first one explains that when we undermine the objects, their atoms and molecules give us a deeper understanding of that object. Le Corbusier dedicated the city by reducing its elements and representing it as biological cells. Second one is explaining it can be seen as phenomenological approach to city. Aldo Rossi’s approach were given as an example to this approach since he defines the city as artifacts and beyond it such as the memory and so on.
The city as an object can be examined 5 different ways. The city as a circle, a grid, archipelago, a solid and an aggregated object. As I understand, each of the 4 ways are coming together at the part of the city as an aggregated object. City as a circle was the basic model of the city. It is said in the article as an aggregate consist of many buildings. Also, the pictures below can be helpful in order to understand how those for approach can be defined as aggregation.
This week, for Urban Design course we have prepared a presentation about the concept of archipelago and its application on urban design. For dictionary meaning of archipelago, it means group of islands in the sea. But for urban design it used as a metaphor. The approach of archipelago in urban design described by Ungers as city within the city. This approach means that, in a city there are separated islands that works individually. Each of them can describe as island and their integration in common ground can be seen as sea.
For main example of archipelago, we discussed Berlin. Since Berlin was divided into two after the war, and the city had problems about fragmentation. Oswald Mathias Ungers, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Riemann, Hans Kollhoff and Arthur Ovaska suggested a rescue project for Berlin. The main point of this project was seeing the problem as a solution for the same problem. Since the city fragment, they suggested this fragmentation as islands and solve the problems for this sense. We learned that for each city Ungers suggested a concept and represent those concepts with some architectural elements. So that rather than defining certain characters to city, they suggested some elements in order to represent the idea.
As my own interpretation for archipelago, I linked this idea with ‘The Walking City’ by Archigram. It is because they somehow faced with the same approaches. The city divided some cities inside but the utopic approach of Archigram suggested them to walk as well.
After other presentation of this week, we saw there are many interpretations for archipelago in urban design. The one that I wanted to mention is from Rem Koolhaas. Actually, we have mentioned about his approach by mentioning the Captive Globe. So, in that project, Koolhaas described the grids as sea and the plots as islands.
Also, we didn’t mention in our presentation, but the second group mentioned that the high rise building that discussed in the Captive Globe, act as an individual archipelago. What I mean is that those high-rise buildings can be seen as vertical archipelagos. In class, there is a worthy comment on this situation by saying that, while the archipelago of Ungers we can reach each island individually, but Koolhaas situation, we can reach the upper islands by passing at least one of them. So, this was an example of what happens if we applied archipelago in a vertical manner.
I relate his other ideas such as strips with archipelago as well. Especially, in Parc de la Vilette, with the help of diagrams that shows with strips, we can directly see the idea of city within the city in a small scale. So, those strips can be seen as islands.
Another example that we can discuss in the scope of archipelago is Exodus. Actually, it reminds me the Continuous Monument by Superstudio. But it was an actual monument that can be observed only, in the Exodus example however, we can see actual definition of city. We learned in the class that he inspired from both the wall of Berlin and the idea of archipelago and combine these two.
The Continuous Monument – Exodus
Finally, I would like to mention about the comparison that we did at the end of the presentation. One of them is the Collage City by Colin Rowe. Actually, from our research, we learned that Rowe mentioned the archipelago has similar approach with archipelago but Ungers stated that there are no similarities. We discussed that, Collage City is a city in all, but each archipelago described as a city, and combination of them describes another city.
Berlin Archipelago – Collage City
In conclusion, after listening other groups presentation and their relations with archipelago, we observed that the approaches of urban design can be vary in the scope of different designer. So, even though we can say that the theme archipelago of Ungers is the basis of other urban designs that we discussed in this week, their interpretation of this theme made a lot of differences as well.
Urban design is a related discipline with architecture in many years and for many cities, we are observing that they were designed by an architect mostly, since there is no term for city planners and so on. In the article that named ‘The City as the Object of Architecture’, we can get clues about the architects’ desire, ideas and approaches to the city. In this post, I will try to explain my observations and understandings from the article.
The main relation between these two disciplines was established on a shared object, the building as the object of both practices. It is an important point for both disciplines because shaping a building has an impact on the city and changing a city has an impact on the building as well.
For the titles the object and the subject of the urban fantasies, we can observe different scenes for the relation of architecture and urban. Radical changes for urban fantasies such the American city and its gridded plan and the approach to it by European architects, causes for traumatic effects on architecture. In article it is mentioned as ‘urban gaze’ Since there are different gazes for America and European it is not an unexpected event to have trauma on architecture.
Another thing that I would like to mention is clarity, legibility and illegibility of the cities. While reading a city we have a subject that is defied for the city. For Lynch, it is clarity and legibility of the cityscapes. As, we have an idea about Lynch’s approach for the city, I can say that the city has an idea for you to point toward a destination.
According to Rossi, the architects should have a place of viewer for the city if the city and the architectural buildings are seen in terms of production, one is the product of public the other one is for the public. This difference leads us to think about again the relation of the city and architecture, I think. He suggested that reading a city an important subject for the city.
Lastly, I will mention about Venturi and Scott Brown’s approach. Rossi had an idea about switching the city to traditional in order to have a displacement, and Venturi and Scott Brown has the same idea of displacements in another perspective. They impressed by the vanguard culture of 1950-60s. As I understood, Rossi’s approach provides a structural resistance for urban amnesia, Venturi/Scott Brown has an understand for the new observer that in an observation in a motion.
So, we can say that those three ideas are based on the observation and the legibility of the city in different manners.
I think, it was hard to understand this article, so I tried to reflect what I understood from it.
We had a second chance to revise our maps for Arch381 course. From the critiques, I learned some of my mistakes such as the lack of information about the height, how I decided them, I tried to improve my map and add new information. You can see the new version from below. I liked this one much more than the previous one.
Before it finished, I had a chance to go Jansen and Ankara exhibition. The exhibition was about the the old and the new city, before and after Jansen made plans to organize the city’s regulation. There are many drawings, sketches and so on in the exhibition.
So, let’s begin with the explanation about Hermann Jansen. He was a German architect and urban planner who lived between the years 1869-1945. He won the competition for urban design of Madrid and Ankara as well.
I took some photos during the exhibition. The most interesting part for me the original sketches of Jansen. The exhibition has them and it was somehow a good experience to see them.
Also, as a foreigner to Ankara, (I was born in Konya, and come here for university) it was a worthy time to see them. Even though I don’t know many of the designed areas, the one that I know such as Gençlik Parkı, Atatüürk Bulvarı I saw them and impressed by them. I am planning to share a post about urban design of Ankara for years, that’s why I skipped to the photos now.
In ARCH381 course, we assigned to make a creative map on Gaziantep. I tried to do it in a 3D way. I focused on the point of attraction and distribution of people according to that points.