Presentation on theme: "Dr.arch. Peter Bjerrum, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Space and Sociality - notes on the role of social institutions in."— Presentation transcript:
dr.arch. Peter Bjerrum, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Space and Sociality - notes on the role of social institutions in urban development. # 0.0 time-spaces - assemblage of events and things in time and space # 0.1 accessibility–limitations - to manage the diversity of smooth and striated spaces # 1.0 sociality - as essentially self-organizing processes # 1.1 projects of sociality - such as the nation state, the city or the institutions # 1.2 projects of architecture - in the sense of concrete entities such as buildings # 2.0 urbanity - is social and architectural a plurality of superimposed orders # 2.1 globalization - sociality unfolds through a multitude of superimposing webs
#1.2.0 investigation: - dealing with the correlation: program, institution, and building #1.2.01 institutions: - 19th century urban institutions: the theatre, the museum, the library, the department store etc. #1.2.02 modernizations: - reshaping of 19th century building types #1.2.03 conglomerates: - of the urban spatial construction of sociality dr.arch. Peter Bjerrum, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Space and Sociality - notes on the role of social institutions in urban development.
# 1.2.1 studies: - of a heuristic assignment on the urban spatial notion at stake in modernity # 1.2.11 topic a: - extensions of renaissance-baroque schemes to the medieval city # 1.2.12 topic b: - of baroque schemes superimposed on the medieval-renaissance city # 1.2.13 topic c: - transformations of the historic city to the modern metropolis # 1.2.14 topic d: - of conglomerations of the medieval, renaissance, baroque and classical building schemes # 1.2.15 topic e: - of Buenos Aires and Brasilia dr.arch. Peter Bjerrum, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Space and Sociality - notes on the role of social institutions in urban development.
#1.2.21 example a: - from the medieval military institutions to the theatre and the department store #1.2.22 example b: - unfolding the integrated social and architectural sequences as spatial perceptions. #1.2.23 example c: - project for a -scape of a different nature #0.2 space and sociality: - of the endoskeleton of sociality and subsequently the exoskeleton of institutions. #0.2.1, construction of space: - being a corrective to its architectural construction as building. dr.arch. Peter Bjerrum, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture Space and Sociality - notes on the role of social institutions in urban development.
# 0.0 time-spaces: Check-in CPH #0.0 time-spaces: More often the concept of sociality may be considered in terms dealing with time rather than space, such as evolution, change, transformation, mobility etc., meaning that sociality is an ongoing series of events in time, which it truly is. Nevertheless this is far from any thorough conclusion of an ontological primacy of time opposed to space. As pointed out by Marx the capitalist market is constantly struggling to overcome all territorial, i.e. spatial obstacles, while at the same time denying the space through the time*; hence capitalism’s schizophrenia to the necessary assemblage of events and things in time and space**. - the necessary assemblage of events and things in time and space**.
# 0.1 accessibility–limitations: Intersecting highways, LA #0.1 accessibility–limitations: Getting closer to the present subject, this schizophrenia tends to reject the conflicting forces of the market to attain unlimited accessibility, i.e. to strive towards a smooth space, though still depending on inaccessible limitations to increase surplus, i.e. to strive towards a striated space. It’s not simply a question about the state apparatus versus the market. Even if the further is more likely to give raise to institutional limitations, it may just as well be the executioner of those set up by the latter. The market is just as likely as the state apparatus to manage the diversity of smooth and striated spaces*, whether it’s about the nation state, the city or the selfsame institutions that are in the business of regulating the flow of goods, money and people, i.e. constantly reshaping the entities of sociality. So the question is not just about the marginal value, it’s increasingly about reshaping the assemblage of all of the above mentioned entities right down to the level of buildings, embodying all sorts of institutions and theirs topical accessibility and limitations. to manage the diversity of smooth and striated spaces*,
# 1.0 sociality: Retiro, BA #1.0 sociality: Being a sort of meta-concept - like time and space – sociality is a priori to any human experience in the sense that there can be no dealing with human behaviour beyond sociality, including the present subject of the ongoing transformation of cities as essentially self-organizing processes. These are the processes of matter-energy shaping the endoskeleton of sociality, while in the same time forming the exoskeleton of all sort of social entities: cities, institutions and, still more crucial, systems of transportation. Altogether flowing like lavas and magmas* into a mineralization of a different nature, which is the immediate material conditions of social human behaviour and in the same time, being the subject to change, make up the accessibility and limitations of human interventions. Needless to say, considering the term matter-energy, human social interventions cannot be conducted as a straightforward process of means and goals. The accessible rationality is not necessarily doable. Not only the handed over material condition puts up constrains, the preferences and expectations dominating human social behaviour does too; hence the well-known unintended collective consequences of planned interventions**. the ongoing transformation of cities as essentially self-organizing processes.
# 1.1 projects of sociality: Centre Pompidou, Renzo Piano & Rogers #1.1 projects of sociality: As will be stated below, there may be projects within sociality, but sociality as such is not anybody’s project. Likewise society is not an entity it’s possible to grasp. What can be grasped are entities such as the nation state, the city or the institutions. Embedded within sociality and embodied in cities the latter is being historically and theoretically ever more crucial to urbanity and urbanistics. - entities such as the nation state, the city or the institutions.
#1.2 projects of architecture: The assemblage within sociality of cities and institutions - both in the sense of urban social behaviour and in the sense of concrete entities such as buildings - tends to constrain the synergetic as well as the generic wide ranging effects of any project of architecture. The planned result is turned over to a different nature that does not - even if it may be considered of our own making - respond to applicable teleology; hence the widespread disillusionment with urban reality among modern architects. Albeit the architectural project of the 20th century constituted a breakthrough in spatial and social understanding, it is only just approaching the above mentioned assemblage as a material collectiveness*. It has been realizing the relation between building and body, the conjunction of agent and medium in dealing with space, but not necessarily in a sociality always already given. To some extend it may still be the case that modern architecture is not capable to dissolve such initial opposites as figure/ground, body/building, landscape/city or nature/sociality and grasp the synthetic complexity of cities. It’s not another outcry over unplanned urbanization needed initiating a new overall vision. What’s needed is a strategy of dispersed interventions reintegrating institutions and cities, and this may not necessarily be embodying institutions as buildings. 1.2 projects of architecture: Brasilia, Lúcio Costa - both in the sense of urban social behaviour and in the sense of concrete entities such as buildings -
#2.0 urbanity: The modern city is neither an organic unity like the medieval city, nor does it make up cohesive compositional entities like the renaissance-baroque schemes. It is social and architectural a plurality of superimposed orders. On the one hand the historical contemporaneity of laid down medieval, classical and modern urban structures, on the other hand the interwoven topicality of local and global entities i.e. the presence of national and international laws and institutions. Compared by the consistent magnitude of the architectural projects of 19th century, the projects of modernism are far more dispersed and far less cohesive, whether it’s due to the above mentioned disabilities or to the immensity of previous accumulated material. So, in the frame of reference on hand, it would seem valid to distinguish between the alleged historical city and the modern city in dealing with planned interventions, provided that it’s not accompanied by the endeavour of restoration. The modern city may roughly be distinguishable by a first and a second modernity, modifying any harsh gap between modernism and previous urban history. In urbanistic terms it could be chronologized as a first modernity, the epoch of historicism c. 1840 – c. 1920, which is also the epoch of the Metropolis, and a second modernity, the epoch of modernism c. 1920 – c. 1990. This second modernity is also the epoch of the suburb, dissolving the 19th century urbanization into local suburbanization and preparing the ground for the Mega City. # 2.0 urbanity: Plan Voisin, Le Corbusier is social and architectural a plurality of superimposed orders.
#2.01, globalization: In a globalized world, like that of the 21st century, the given sociality unfolds through a multitude of superimposing webs, causing disruptions between the former balance between its concrete entities: the nation state, the city and the institutions. The importance of the nation state tends to diminish, while that of the city and the institutions tend to increase, i.e. tend to replace the nation state as the frontier of economics and subsequently of urbanistics. It may still not be clear, what will be the impact on the level of planned and build entities, except that their bigness* tends to dissolve the programmatic identity of institution-building into multifunctional conglomerates, -scapes of a different nature. This may be the challenge to modern architecture’s theoretical and practical dealing with space, despite the opposing trends towards architectural haute couture that haunt each one city on the globe. Restoring modernism’s monstrous capacity may not be the adequate response to the apparently lack of architectural identity. It may turn out that the above mentioned capacities of social-spatial understanding were extended to grasp not just solitary buildings, but also the assemblage of more complex institutional entities and their urban integration. On one hand globalized sociality is an infinite field of possibilities, on the other hand it has, in each programmatic case, to be constrained to a certain institutional field, where architecture is confronted by the task of initiating temporal form to a finite social entity in the shape of something build. 2.01, globalization: Euralille, Rem Koolhaas sociality unfolds through a multitude of superimposing webs,
#1.2.1 studies: The studies are carried out partly as historic studies on the European city model, partly as a case study on Buenos Aires and Brasilia, mapping a record of the medieval city, the renaissance-baroque scheme and the metropolis, primarily the cities of London, Paris and Vienna. Buenos Aires and Brasilia are picked as ideal representations of urban models of the first and second modernity respectively. They may in turn be seen as representations of an ideal European city model originating from the epoch of the metropolis and of the above mentioned suburb; hence their suitability as case studies of a heuristic assignment on the urban spatial notion at stake in modernity. The overall assumption is that the founding and urban integration of social institutions* are the main generator, the synergetic feature, of urban development rather than the simple growth of population. # 1.2.1 studies: John Nash: Regent’s Street of a heuristic assignment on the urban spatial notion at stake in modernity.
# 1.2.13 topic c: mapping Regent’s Street and Park, Maya Ussing #1.2.11 topic a: Descriptive mapping of more examples of ideal renaissance plans and extensions of renaissance-baroque schemes to the medieval city... 1.2.12 topic b: of baroque schemes superimposed on the medieval-renaissance city, e.g. London, Christopher Wren … #1.2.13 topic c: of extensions and transformations of the historic city to the modern metropolis, e.g. Regent Street, London, John Nash...
1.2.15 topic e: Plan Voisin; Buenos Aires, Le Corbusier #1.2.15 topic e: The case-studies of Buenos Aires and Brasilia representing respectively the urban social integration of the metropolis and the planned segregation of the modern suburbia.
1.2.15 topic e: a case-study in Buenos Aires, Tomas Skovgaard
#1.2.0 investigation: The analysis, briefly stated above, may well be investigated in the realm of past centuries architectural history, dealing with the correlation: program, institution, and building. This investigation consists of 3 preliminary studies of historical, critical and virtual nature conceived from the point of view of architecture, dealing with space as the medium and sociality as its programme.* #1.2.01 institutions: A study of the 19th century’s development of programmes for a substantial part of urban institutions: the theatre, the museum, the library, the department store etc., and their corresponding building types. - This constitutes the historical dimension of the project. #1.2.21 example a: Chronological mapping of the institutions surrounding Kings New Market, Copenhagen, from the medieval military institutions to the theatre and the department store of the modern city. # 1.2.0 investigation: The Royal Theatre, King’s Market, Wilhelm Dahlerup
1.2.21 example a: King’s New Market, Mai Svanholt, Runa Johanessen
Hans Scharoun: National Library, Berlin #1.2.02 modernizations: A study of the 20th century’s modernizations and, in certain cases, new developments of social programmes for housing, schools, sport stadiums etc., and the corresponding reshaping of 19th century building types. - This constitutes the critical dimension of the project. #1.2.22 example b: Programmatic analysis of The National Library in Berlin, by Hans Scharoun, unfolding - through a phenomenological approach - the integrated social and architectural sequences as spatial perceptions.
1.2.22 example c: The National Library in Berlin, Tomas Skovgaard
1.2.23 topic e: - scape of a different nature, Mauricio Diaz & Niels Andersen #1.2.03 conglomerates: A study of the capacity of 21st century’s globalized sociality to renew social programmes for institutions and buildings, and the equivalent revision of classical and modern building typology, absorbing those into new conglomerates of the urban spatial construction of sociality. - This study constitutes the virtual dimension of the project #1.1.23 example c: conceptual project for a –scape of a different nature, integrating registered function and perceived quality from an urban context. The example illustrates a non-hierarchic - “random”-like, as regards categories - distribution of programmatic information in a series of spatial webs, apt at being interpreted generic in relation to an outlined project for an urban addendum.
# 0.2 space and sociality: Villa Maira, Alvar Aalto #0.2 space and sociality: Space – like Time – is a general form of intuition, Anschauungsform*, by means of which we, as biological and social beings, orient in the world. Space may not be seen as such, but it certainly may be measured. It may be constructed, and as such space is always already real, present and presenting. Indeed, it is this always already presenting presence of Space that defines the necessarily spatial construction of the above mentioned endoskeleton of sociality and subsequently the exoskeleton of institutions. Space, so to speak, is already present in the programme of architecture, as a social construction, before it’s presented in space as an architectural construction, i.e. as a build entity. Space is always already real, present and presenting, at all level of the process, staging the correlation: program, institution and building.** the necessarily spatial construction of the above mentioned endoskeleton of sociality and subsequently the exoskeleton of institutions
# 0.2.1, construction of space: Alvar Aalto: Villa Maira #0.2.1, construction of space: The social construction of space not only theoretically, but historically as well, precedes the architectural construction. Not that the architectural and the social construction of a given époque be identical but in the sense that the social construction of space, as programme, being a corrective to its architectural construction as building. - This corrective is the ethical dimension of architecture.