239 * Prof. D.Sc. Ph.D. Arch. zbigniew k. zuziak, institute of Cities and regions Design, Faculty of Architecture, Cracow University of Technology. ZBIGNIEW K. ZUZIAK * HOMO LUDENS AND THE NODES OF URBANITY. PLACeS, MAPS, MeTAPHorS HoMo LUDenS i WĘzŁY MieJSkoŚCi. MieJSCA, MAPY, MeTAForY Abstract The author discusses the interrelationships between play and the art of urbanism fo- cusing on the cluster of nodal places called here “nodes of urbanity”. At the back- ground of Huizinga’s theory of Homo ludens as cultural component, the analysis of these foci of urban life seem to have explanatory value for architectural and anthro- pological theories of the “Ludic City”. The main points of this conceptual framework are illustrated with two cases from the city of krakow. Keywords: urbanism, architecture of the city, place, nodal places, nodes of urbanity, urban anthropology Streszczenie Autor prowadzi rozważania na temat wzajemnych związków między grą a sztuką urbanistyczną koncentrując uwagę na skupiskach miejsc węzłowych nazwanych tu „węzłami miejskości”. W świetle teorii Huizinga na temat Homo ludens, i gry jako kluczowego komponentu kultury, analiza tego rodzaju skupisk życia miejskiego wydaje się mieć niemały walor interpretacyjny dla architektonicznych i antropo- logicznych teorii „Miasta Ludycznego”. główne tezy metodologicznych koncepcji tego rodzaju analiz zilustrowano dwoma przykładami z krakowa. Słowa kluczowe: urbanistyka, architektura miasta, miejsce, węzły miejskości, antro- pologia miasta
9
Embed
Homo ludens and the nodes of urbanity. Places, maps, metaphors · homo luDEns anD thE noDEs oF urbanity. PLACeS, MAPS, MeTAPHorS HoMo LUDenS i WĘzŁY MieJSkoŚCi. MieJSCA, MAPY,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
239
* Prof.D.Sc. Ph.D.Arch.zbigniewk.zuziak, institute ofCities andregionsDesign, Faculty ofArchitecture,CracowUniversityofTechnology.
zbigniEw k. zuziak*
homo luDEns anD thE noDEs oF urbanity. PLACeS,MAPS,MeTAPHorS
HoMoLUDenSiWĘzŁYMieJSkoŚCi. MieJSCA,MAPY,MeTAForY
A b s t r a c tTheauthordiscussestheinterrelationshipsbetweenplayandtheartofurbanismfo-cusingontheclusterofnodalplacescalledhere“nodesofurbanity”.At theback-groundofHuizinga’stheoryofHomo ludens asculturalcomponent,theanalysisofthesefociofurbanlifeseemtohaveexplanatoryvalueforarchitecturalandanthro-pologicaltheoriesofthe“LudicCity”.Themainpointsofthisconceptualframeworkareillustratedwithtwocasesfromthecityofkrakow.
Keywords: urbanism, architecture of the city, place, nodal places, nodes of urbanity, urban anthropology
S t r e s z c z e n i eAutorprowadzirozważanianatematwzajemnychzwiązkówmiędzygrąasztukąurbanistycznąkoncentrującuwagęnaskupiskachmiejscwęzłowychnazwanychtu„węzłamimiejskości”.WświetleteoriiHuizinganatematHomo ludens,igryjakokluczowego komponentu kultury, analiza tego rodzaju skupisk życia miejskiegowydaje sięmiećniemaływalor interpretacyjnydla architektonicznych i antropo-logicznychteorii„Miasta Ludycznego”.głównetezymetodologicznychkoncepcjitegorodzajuanalizzilustrowanodwomaprzykładamizkrakowa.
Słowa kluczowe: urbanistyka, architektura miasta, miejsce, węzły miejskości, antro-pologia miasta
tooneofthemostcommondefinitionsofarchitecture.namely–similarlytoarchitecture–wecandefineurbanismastheartof“shaping/forming”thespace”–specifically:urbanspace.Between these twobranchesofcommondisciplines,however, therearesignificantdifferences.Asaresult,thetiesofthis“urbanisticbranch”withartareweakeranditsartisticidentitylessclear.Wearetalkinghereaboutdifferencesin:a)thescaleofdesignedterritoryonwhichdesignsolutionsareexpected,b) the levelofcomplexityofadesignedsystem,c)thedegreeofdependenceonpolitics,d)thescaleofpotentialconflictsgeneratedbythedesignsituation,ande)thecomplexityofadecision-makingsystemresultingfromthelargenumberof“actors” involved in thedecision-makingprocessandcomplicated–andoftennontransparent–relationshipsbetweenthem.itisjustbecauseofthislast–let’scallitthe“urbanisticdecision-makinggame”–thatwereflectontheanthropologicalaspectsof therelationshipsbetweenurbanism,cultureandthegame.
TheLudicCityisbecomingafashionablethemeforinternationalconferencesonurban-ismarchitectureandurbananthropology.Thisurbanisticidea,however,doesnotseemtobeclearenoughforustooperationalizeitonalargerscaleatthemoment.inthefastgrowingliteratureonthissubjectwecanfindattemptstocombineanthropologicalstreamsofurbanresearchwithenvironmentalpsychologystudiesandtheirarchitecturalandurbanisticcon-notationsinitiatedbythefamouskevinLynch’simageoftheCity.Therearealsoexplicitreferences toHuizinga. ina sense, the roleofplay inurbananthropologypointedoutbyHuizinga’stheoryofHomo ludensistakenupbyQuentinStevens.inthesecondchapterofhisbook–“TheLudicCity.exploringthepotentialofpublicspaces”–hediscusses“theanalytical concept of play” [9, p. 27] referring to the theoreticalwritings of such distin-guishedthinkersreflectingondiversefacetsofthephenomenonofplayintheurbanrealmasBenjamin,Lefebvre,Sennett,Bourdieu,andgoffman.Stevensalsoprovidesanextensivecasestudyontheelementsofthe“ludicspaces”intheCBDofMelbourne,Australia.inhisanalysisof“thesocialdimensionsofurbanspace”heusesanalyticalunitsas:“paths”,“inter-sections”,“boundaries”,“thresholds”,“backdrops”,and“props”.referencestotherelation-shipsbetweenmorphologicalthinkingandthementalmappingdiscoveredbykevinLyncharequiteobvious.
Letusconsidernowtheother“commondenominators”ofplay,urbanism,andart.Theseare“urbanisticconstruction”,place,maps,andmetaphors.ourfirststepshouldbeareflec-tiononthrarchitecturalperspectiveofurbanismandtheanthropologicalviewofurbanity. Paradoxicallyenough,thesemanticrelationshipsbetweenurbanityandurbanism,andtheirconsequencesfor theareaof theirrespectiveprofessionalandacademicactivities,arenotobvious.Formanyurbanists,thenotionofurbanityisstillassociatedwithbehaviouralpat-terns,lifestyles,contactsandotherformsofactivitiesaswellastheirenvironmentalsettingsaffectingthequalityoflifeinthepopulatedterritorywhichconformsthecriteriaestablishedin such“canonical”definitionsof thecityas theonegivenbyWeber [12]orWirth [13].Thesesociologicalandanthropologicaldefinitionscorrespondedwiththearchitecturalviewof the city.According to the classical european tradition, dominated by the architecturalperspective,urbanismasanacademicdisciplineisviewedmainlyastheartofbuildingandrebuildingcities(Städtebau)supportedbyrelevanttheoriesborrowedfromscienceandthehumanities.inurbanism,thisconceptofcitybuildingisassociatedwiththecreationofacul-turalmeaningful and functional environment hospitable to inhabitants and other users oftheterritoryorganisedandmanagedwithrespecttotheAncientgreekideaofthepolisandthelaterpoliticalconceptsofurbandemocracyaswellasthenotionofthepublicgood.in
Aswitharchitecture,theconceptualapparatusofurbanismisstructuredaroundsuchba-sictermsasform,function,construction.Thesefundamentalconceptscanbealsoregardedasdesigncriteriaformulatedinprofessionalstandardsvis a visthewidelyrecognizedvaluesandqualitiesoftheurbanenvironment.Fromthisperspective,inametaphoricalsense,theurbanistic ideaof thespatialordercanbeexplainedas thepostulate to regard thecityasalargescalearchitecturalstructure–the“architecture of the city”[8]–madeofinheritedandnewarchitecturalobjectsandlandscapes,withadistinctmorphologyaswellasfunctionalat-tributesandmeaningssatisfyingstandardsofagivenurbanculture.inotherwords,urbanismistheartandscienceofcreatingspatialframeworksfordiverseformsofurbanlifeaccordingtotheprinciplesreflectingvalueshighlyrespectedbythepopulationofagiventerritory.inthecontemporarytheoryofurbanism,however,theabovedefinitionsandapproaches–aswellasclassical ideason thespatialorder–arestronglychallengedby the“actorrelatedapproach”tourbanspace,theideaoffluidspaceinanetworkedsociety[3]aswellasnewarchitecturalconceptsofurbanspatialstructures.
3. The nodes of urbanity and the metaphor of mapping
intheurbanisticliterature,anthropological,sociologicalandgeographicalexplanationsofurbanphenomenaarestronglyrelatedtotheresearchontheculturalnatureofthecityandcultural attributesofurbanity.For these reasons, interactionsbetween the formsofurbanplayandthespatialformsofurbanitydeservemoreattention.inparticularly,thispostulatereferstotheplay-elementinthenodesofurbanity:placesclusteredinthenodalpointsofurbannetworks.Supportedby the analytical toolsofurbangeographyandother relevantdisciplines,urbanismhelpsustounderstandwhyurbanlifeismorevibrantincertainplacesthaninothers.Forthispurpose,wehavetocarryoutanumberofcartographicoperations:1)tocomparetheconfigurationoftheseplaceswiththelayersofurbanrealitythatcanbereadfromtherespectivemap/maps,2)toworkoutthemethodofmappingrelevantlayoutsofactivitiesandbehaviouralpatternsofplayingactors, and3) tocompare the resultsof theaboveanalysis.
Theideaofurbanitynodeschangestheanalyticalperspectiveandthefocusoftheresearchonurbancentresborrowingcertainelementsfromtheapproachesadoptedinthenetworkthe-oryofthecityandpayingmoreattentiontotheanthropologicalelementsoftheanalysis.Thenode of urbanitycanbedefinedastheplaceoraclusterofplaceswhich,becauseofits/theirac-cessibilityandotherhighlyappreciatedvalues,havekeysignificanceforurbanlife.Thisdefini-tionimpliesthatthemeaningofthistermcoversamuchbroaderareathansuchbasicurbanisticconceptsas:citycentres,districtcentresandthelike.Fortheurbanplanningmethodologythequestionsariseatthispoint:Whatistheroleofurbannodesintheconstruction/reconstructionofurbanform?Whatistheroleoftheplay-componentinthearchitectureandanthropologyofurbanplaces?Toanswertheseletusgiveakick-starttoourimaginationandlookattheplay-placerelationsfromaperspectivesimilartothosewecanfindinfamousliteraryfictiononthemagicofmappingthecityandmulti-layeredrealitiescodedinmaps.
244
TheBorgesmetaphorofamapor, ifyoulike,Calvino’sdreamoftheperfectmap,aswellasthecartographicdramaturgyplottedbyHouellbecqinhis“La carte et le territoiere”couldbe inspiring for tracinggeometrical regularities between the anthropology of place andthe architecture of play.Twoplacesfromkrakowhavebeenchosenheretoillustratethemainpointsofthispaper.Theseare:theSmallMarketSquareandanewlycreatedpublicplacelinkedwithanarchitecturallandmarkcalledkantor’sCricoteka.inasense,thesetwoexamplesaretheoppositesofthetypologicalspectrumofurbanheritagenodes.Buttheyalsohavesomecommondenominators.Bothcouldbeusedasthethemesfortheinterdisciplinaryresearchprojectscarriedoutfromarchitecturalandanthropologicalperspectiveanddevotedtochangesinpublicplaces–withaparticularreferencetoheritageandtourismaspectsoftheseformsofculturalurbanenvironment.
inthemorningsunthetectonicoftheSmallMarketSquaremayrecalltheCanaletto’spaintings illustrating thebaroquepublicspacesofDresden. in theplaybetween lightsadshadows,aswell as themassesand linear formsdesignating the rhythmsofarchitecturalmodules,wecanreadouttheelementsofartisticexpressionsosignificanttothecomposi-tionalthinkingoftheitalianmaster.Alsohere,thearchitecturallanguageoftheplacecreatesahospitableenvironmentforurbanplay.Thespaceofthemarketisanopeningforactorsandthewholespaceseemstobeexpectingastagedirectorwhowillcreativelyorchestratetheiractions.Thequestionis,however,willtheseforthcomingevents,andtheirmeansofexpres-sion,correspondharmoniouslywiththescenicbackground?
activities initiatedasacombinationofurbanmarketing tools, instrumentsofculturalandeducationalpolicyaswellasactivities,likee.g.:beerfestivals,areprobablythoughtofsim-ply to repair thecity’sbudget.Throughout theseason, theSmallMarketchanges its facealmosteveryday.Apparently,tradefairs,particularlyfoodmarkets(ill.1),aretoberegardedaseventscorrespondingwiththehistoricaltraditionoftheplace.Thepointis,however,thatsomeoftheseeventsarearrangedinastylewhichdoesn’tseemappropriateforsuchapres-tigiousplacein“ThekingsCityofkrakow”.Fortunately, themajorityofthehappeningsplayedonTheSmallMarketcanberegardedastheexamplesoftheeffectiveandaccurateimage building techniques.Among themost successful cultural events are: jazz concerts(ill.2),streettheatrespectacles(ill.3),streetballets,andlessonsofcommonsingingandthelike.Wealsohaveinnovativeexperimentsperformedhere.oneoftheseinterestingeventswastheMicroparkexhibitedat theSmallMarketSquarelastMay(ill.4).TheprototypeofthismodulararrangementwascommissionedbythekrakowTechnologyParkandmadeundertheframeworkoftheprojectnamed“SmartkoM“.
As in other historic places, the cultural identity ofThe SmallMarket Square is rich,diversifiedandmultilayered.Apart fromthespecialeventsprogrammedhereby the localgovernment,thetimeofthisplace2hastobereadoutbystillother,andprobablyevenmoresignificant, “anthropological layers”.oneof these iscomposedof smaller scaleactivitieswhichcouldalsobestudiedasinterestingpatternsofplayandjoyinducedbythearchitec-turalenvironmentandstimulatedbyitscommercialside.Forobviousreasons,thisenviron-mentofplayisdominatedbythebehaviourofindividualvisitorsandtouristgroups:flockedalongthetwolinesofoutdoorbistrosandpubsandspreadoutonthefloorofthesquare.observedfromtheanthropologicalpointofview,theirinteractionsrevealthe“othersideoftheform-functionrelations”.Lookingmoredeeplyintothecommuniquéofthesepatternswecanrealizethattheirambivalenceescapesfromtherigidevaluativecriteriaandterminologi-calapparatususedintheroutinepracticeofurbandesignandplanning.
Thenodeofurbanitychosenasasecondexampleisalsolocatedinahistoricpartoftheinnercityofkrakow.itistheareawherewecanobserve,experienceandenjoy,aclusterofplacesgivinganewlifetothepartoftheVistulariverfrontsituatedbetweenPilsudskiBridgeandSilesianinsurgents’Bridge.Thisnewconstellationofspotsforleisureandcultureactivitiesbelongstothecollectionofthemostfashionablesitesinthecity.Hereyoucanfindthosewho,tiredofthehistoriccoreovercrowdedbynoisytouristsandalmostDisney-likeatmosphereoftheareaaroundBroadStreet,flocktothespotswheretheycanenjoythepleas-ureofsocialcontactscoupledwiththemagicoftheformerindustrialsitesandpicturesquepanoramasoftwohistoricdistricts:kazimierzandoldPodgórze.Amongthesemagicspots,theareaaroundtheCricotekaoccupiesaspecialposition.Thisdistinctivearchitecturalformcouldberegardedasaniconicbuildingcreatinganewandattractiveimageforthepublicspaceswhicharenewlyemergingas a resultof theurbanpolicy to revitalize theVistulariverfront.Undoubtedly,thisisanoutcomeofasuccessfularchitecturedesignstrategytoadapttheoldindustrialbuildingintoamuseumandperformingartcentredevotedtothecrea-tivelegacyofTadeuszkantor.
2 ThisisthereferencetothebookofkevinLynchtitled:“What time is this place”.
246
usevalue,mostlyduetoitsaccessibilityandculturalprogramme.ApartfromtheCricoteka,thisnodeincludesanewclusterof livelyplacesofoldPodgórzeand–ontheothersideoftheVistulariver–placesalongMostowaStreet,uptoWolnicaSquare,andMuseumofUrbanengineeringinkazimierz.Thelivelinessofthisarearesultsalsofromauniquelyat-tractivelocationandthespillovereffectofarelativelynewconstructionofthefootbridgecalled“Bernatka”.ThepositiveimpactofthispedestrianbridgeonthesurroundingareaissosignificantthatwecanevenrecognizetheplacesgroupedaroundthisconstructionasnewnodeofurbanityinthehistoriccentreoftheCityofkrakow.Lookingonthekazimierzsidefromtheterracesmartlyarrangedbelowthe“CricotekaBridge”wecanfacetheambiguityofunspokenquestions.Likeinthe“The Death Class”,wecansensetheplaybetweenthepast,identifiedwiththehistoriccomponentsofkazimierzpanorama,andtheunknownfutureexemplifiedbytheformerindustrialsitesstillqueuingforredevelopment.
Themethodologicalconceptoutlinedhere,called“nodes of urbanity”by theauthor,hasbothstructuralandanthropologicalconnotations.itreferstothenetworktheoryofthecitybecausethesecluster-placesareregardedasthenodesofurbannetworks.emphasizingarchitecturalandurbanisticperspectivewecanregardthe“nodes of urbanity”assignifi-cantplacesinthe“urbanistic construction”oftheareadesignatedforagivendevelopmentprojectoraplanningdocument.Semantically, the term“urbanistic construction”seemsevenmoreappropriatebecauseitalsobearsthesuggestionthatinthetimeofthepolarizedand“deconstructed city”theurbanisticprofessionshouldplayamoreprofoundroleintheintegrationoffragmentedspaces.This,inturn,mayalsoimplythaturbanistsandarchitectsshouldfocusontheseplaceswhich–intermsofthelifestyleandbehaviouralsettings–aremoreattractivethanothers,andtherefore,havestrongerintegrativepotentials.Tofulfilthismission,however,architectsandurbanistsshouldopentheirprofessionalsensitivitytothenewsocialphenomenacharacteristicofthe“physiology”,“anatomy”and“physiognomy”ofurbanplaces.
r e f e r e n c e s
[1] Alexander Ch., Generative Codes: the Path to Building Welcoming, Beautiful, Sustainable Neighborhood, [in:] HaasTigran,(ed.),2008,New Urbanism and Beyond. Designing Cities for the Future, rizzoli,newYork,2008.
[2] Borges, J. L., “Museum, on Exactitude in Science”, [in:]Collected Fictions (trans.A.Hurley),grovePress,newYork1998,325–327.
[3] Castells M., The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age. Blackwell,CambridgeMA,oxfordUk,1996(Polishedition:Społeczeństwo sieci.WydawnictwonaukowePWn,Warszawa,2007).
247
[4] HannerzU.,Exploring the City. Inquires Toward an Urban Anthropology.ColombiaUniversityPress,1980 (Polishedition:Odkrywanie miasta. Antropologia obszarów miejskich. WydawnictwoUniwersytetuJagiellońskiego,kraków,2006).
[5] Homo Ludens 2.0: Play, Media and Identity,ValerieFrissen, JosdeMulandJoostraessens.
[6] Huizinga J., A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. routledge and kegan Paul,London,1980(reprint;firstpublishedbyroutledgein1949;firstpublishedingermeninSwitzerland).
[7] MonestiroliA.,Tryglif i metopa. Dziewięć wykładów o architekturze, Politechnikakrakowskaim.Tadeuszakościuszki,kraków,2009.
[8] rossi a. The Architecture of the City,MiTPress.Cambridge,MA.,1984.[9] StevensQ.,The Ludic City. Exploring the Potentials of Public Spaces, routledge,
Taylor&Francisgroup,London,newYork,2007.[10] Turchi,P.,Maps of the Imagination, The Writer as Cartographer,TrinityUniversity
Press,2007.[11] Vrbančić,M.,A Dream of the Perfect Map – Calvino’s Invisible Cities,Thezoneand
zones–radicalSpatialityinourTimes,no.2–Year2,06/2012–LC.4.[12] WeberM.,The City, 1958(original:1921).[13] WirthL.,Urbanism As A Way of Life.in:AJS(AmericanJournalofSociology),44,
p.1–24,1938.[14] zuziakz.k.,Zmiany strukturalne w miastach polskich na początku XXI w. Między
sztuką budowania miast a polityką przestrzenną. (Structural Changes in the Polish Cities at the Beginning of the21-st Century. Between the Art of Building Cities and the Spatial Policy) [in:]HalickaA.(ed.),Budownictwo na obszarach zurbanizowanych. Nauka, praktyka, perspektywy,PolitechnikaLubelska;s.165–176.Lublin,2014.
[15] zuziakz.k.,O tożsamości urbanistyki. (On the Identity of Urbanism).WydawnictwoPolitechnikikrakowskiejim.Tadeuszakościuszki,kraków,2008.