The transformation of the urban block in the European City

484

The transformation of the urban block in the European City

Maria Oikonomou Department of Urban Planning and Regional Development, School of Architecture, Aristotle

University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki- GREECE

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The research focuses mainly on the European cities’ urban form and social characteristics by

analyzing the element of the urban block in five historical periods. The aim is not to analyze the whole

history, but to focus on specific periods and case studies that show the metamorphosis of the urban block.

European cities are diverse in several scales but meanwhile they are linked in a common urban

development. By studying examples from the Greek Polis, where the urban blocks are created by

organized city planning focused on the grid, to the urban block of the medieval city, where different built

structures can be seen, to the compact blocks of the industrial Berlin, to the large blocks of

Transvaalbuurt in Amsterdam, where the traditional urban block opens up as well as Le Corbusier’s

modern city and the refusal to the traditional closed block, the reader will be able to understand the

significant vital role of the urban block in the urban tissue. These case studies are examined, analyzed

and, in the end, illustrated in diagrams based on indicators that show spatial and social characteristics of

the blocks. Thus, one can observe urban transformations and social changes of the European cities

always in comparison with the historical framework.

Key Words: urban block, European cities, urban transformation, urban form.

The urban block as one interconnected system of social and spatial relationships

Plots - as the two dimensional space - and buildings - as separate individual component parts -

fit together and create a three dimensional space; the urban block. Groups of urban blocks,

surrounded by streets or public space, create the urban layout. On the other side, what makes the

urban block special is its social-cultural aspect. What is important to realize is that the term

‘urban’ instantly refers to urbanity, to city and not to rural areas, to specialized ways of

production and services, to the urban way of life. Meanwhile ‘block’ refers to the utilized form,

which is perceived rather as a certain three dimensional shape. Given these points the

combination of ‘urban’ and ‘block’ is associated to socio-economical as well as morphological

parameters, defining what the ‘urban block’ is and what it is not. After all being a part of the

city characterizes the distinctive nature of the urban block. These socio-economic features are

the communication language between people and the built environment. Overall, that

exceptional attribute gives to the urban block its social character.

Manuel Castells in his book The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban

Social Movements examines the city as a social output and how history relates to a socio-

cultural context (see Castells, 1983). What is important to stress in this point is his theory

concerning the consistent relationship between spatial and social aspects of urbanity. “Urban is

the social meaning assigned to a particular spatial form by a historically defined society.”

(Castells, 1983:302) Within this thesis Castells achieved to express the complexity of

relationships in cities. The same features can be found in relation to urban block; it is an element

which creates relationships between the user and the built environment.

On the basis of these considerations, a contemporary definition of the urban block is

proposed; it can be defined as one interconnected system of social and spatial relationships.

485

Typologies of european cities and case studies

When people think about european cities, they mostly have in mind cities in Germany, Italy or

Spain, due to the fact that in these countries, the original historical city nucleus (often planned

during medieval years) still exist in their initial urban form. For this reason, it is essential to

point out that this paper attempts to prove that european cities are not only those who were built

during the medieval years.

The special characteristic which connects all of the european cities together is the historically

defined culture related in an inter-mutual european identity. Another issue is that they are linked

in a common urban development, even if they have been effected in different ways, time frames

and circumstances. Nevertheless, european cities are diverse in several scales; geographical,

national, institutional, economical, etc. This diversity is also translated to the urban morphology

but to the social character of the cities as well.

A brief review will be followed for each historical period respectively. Next, the case studies

are examined, analyzed and in the end illustrated in diagrams based on the four layers of the

urban block; the street, the plot, the building/s and the open space. Meanwhile each layer

consists of indicators (see table 1), which serve as parameters and focus points of the analysis.

The case studies were chosen within four criteria; the examples chosen should have been built,

next they should show typical and general rules of planning, they should also be highlights in

history or last, they should have influenced the european city development. But all in all the

examples are accepted as ideal models for each time frame and are already well documented in

the relevant literature, which is the primary source for the investigation.

Last, to avoid any confusion, I need to clarify to the reader four important issues. First, when

valuable information was missing or was vague, there was the necessity to estimate values

based on different input parameters and assumptions in order to obtain a complete image.

Secondly, when it was not possible to estimate, in the end no indication is illustrated. Next, all

the examples are explained in relation to the specific timeframe of the analysis and not to their

present state. Last, all the calculations, such as dimensions and coverage, are fairly accurate but

not exact.

Table 1. The indicators of urban block in relation to the four layers and spatial and social

characteristics

Layers Spatial characteristics Social characteristics

Streets

1. Layout

2. Orientation of the street network (north-

south, east-west)

3. Hierarchy of streets

4. Dimensions

5. Greenery

1. Main orientation/function

(pedestrian, car, mixed, etc.)

2. Accessibility/circulation (to housing,

to commercial, etc.)

3. Use (public space, transitions space,

etc.)

Plots 1. Dimensions

2. Space distribution

1. Land tenure distribution (private or

mixed with public)

Building/s

1. Architectural principles (form, roof)

2. Materials

3. Orientation (north-south, east-west)

4. Floors [FAR; calculated as the building‘s

total floor area (Gross Floor Area, GFA)

divided by the net size area of the plot]

1. Users (social status, age/family

status)

2. Uses (housing, commercial, mixed,

etc.)

3. Time (who, when, for what?)

4. Ownership vs. rent

Open space

1. Dimensions

2. Density [The total open space in the

urban block is measured as Open Area

Coverage (OAC) and the total built area as

Built Area Coverage (BAC)]

3. Greenery

1. Users (public, inhabitants)

2. Activities (recreation, transition

space, etc.)

3. Ownership (public, private)

486

Greek Polis

Each Greek Polis was independent and had its own rules and norms of governance. Only men

had right to land tenure and each one owned the same size plot with the facsimile house as the

others. They were also the only ones who participated in politics. Women were excluded from

the society and slavery was a typical phenomenon of the time.

Hippodamus of Miletus was the most famous ancient urban planner and usually called as the

“inventor of city planning”. The Hippodamian system of the orthogonal rastered layout was his

invention and it is called after his name. He was responsible for planning the city Piraeus (now a

municipality of Athens) and is claimed to have also designed Miletus and Rhodes, due to the

similar orthogonal planning system.

Urban blocks in Greek Polis were settled in the private sector. The use of the orthogonal grid

for housing (oikos – in greek οίκος) was the easiest way to offer everyone the same area of land.

Kevin Lynch observes: “Defense, order, and a rapid and equitable allocation of house site and

access seem to be the principal motives.” (Lynch, 1985:16) Commercial and housing were the

main activities taking place in the block, whereas the open space was used for gatherings and

meetings. On the other side, community and public facilities, like the theater, the gymnasium or

the Agora (Market) were clearly separated from the urban blocks.

The case study selected for this period is Priene, a city in Ancient Ionia. This example fulfills

all the criteria and meanwhile Priene is “the most extensively excavated Hellenistic city in Asia

Minor and an excellent example of Hellenistic architecture”. (FHW, 2012)

Case study: Priene

Priene was built around 370 BC, probably planned by Pytheas, the second most famous greek

architect after Hippodamus. It was located southwest of ancient Ionia on a slope, today at the

province of the district of Aydin in Turkey. Built in four levels, the city had 4.000 inhabitants.

The street network consisted of six horizontal main streets faced east-west and secondary

vertical ones faced north-south, which created the orthogonal urban grid. Plots were equal

(207.60 m2 each) and the built area was equal as well. Each block had 8 orthogonal plots, each

sized at 8x23 meters. Main streets were oriented for transition and trading activities. Inhabitants

accessed their houses from secondary streets.

The urban tissue is a repeated image of urban form and architecture; equal blocks, houses

and streets. The inner courtyard (40 m2 each) is used as an atrium and was only accessible to the

inhabitants for gathering, meeting and leisure purposes. Moreover, it was arranged in the middle

so as to be accessed from all the rooms and served for natural ventilation of the house as well.

The buildings for trade and storage were one floor high while housing was two floor high, so

that living spaces gained sun exposure due to orientation and to the inclined surface.

The historical reception of Priene shows that the city was always considered as an ideal type

of Greek Polis. Wolfram Höpfner, notes: “The high point of classical urban planning is Priene.

This is the only case where the city can be considered as an enormous work of art.” (Höpfner,

1997:39)

Medieval City

After the fall of Roman Empire, many cities began to be deserted, while others were being

destroyed by barbarians. During that time, Europe faced an urban growth and new urban

settlements were built for trade purposes and craft industries; a polycentric and differentiated

settlement pattern emerged. This pattern was consisted of specialized cities based mostly on

trade. For this reason, the medieval city as we know it today has a relative homogenous image

through the cities of Europe. Some, as Benevolo, consider it to be the base of the so called

487

European CIty (see Benevolo, 1980); following the argumentation of Max Weber, it is the base

of european culture and the western society because of the emergence of rationalism, capitalism

and bureaucracy (see Weber, 1986).

Figure 1. The urban block in Greek Polis. The case of Priene (based on Fischer 1920,

Höpfner and Schwandner 1986, Höpfner 1997 and FHW 2012).

488

The most typical characteristic of the medieval city planning was the clear division between

city and landscape. This division was also made possible because of the surrounding

walls/fortification, which protected the city of future invasions. In many european old city

centers that were not damaged during the wars afterwards, the medieval core is still visible in

the urban layout. Another fundamental element of planning was the central location of

representative places, such as main streets and squares with a cathedral, the dominating

landmark of the city. The square around it became the most important market place, whereas

open space was usually occupied by trade.

Other basic principles of medieval planning were compactness and narrow street network.

The emerging layout was a labyrinth of irregular streets radiated from the central square and

polygonal urban blocks with organic forms. Streets were used as transition and trade space;

therefore, the division of the plots was of a great importance. Plots were small but elongated so

that as many merchants as possible could have a front to the street.

The building forms were also different creating many variations of urban morphology. The

individual plot with the house was the element which finally formed the urban block. “The

irregular building lines of medieval towns testify to the varying status and power of the

individuals involved”. (Saalman, 1968:30) Furthermore, another typical medieval characteristic

is mixed use; not only in the city, but inside the urban block as well. Different activities could

be seen next to each other, inside the block, creating a mixture of working and living. There was

also a social mixture of users such as merchants, craftsmen. bourgeois, and clergymen (see

Hilberseimer, 1955:93).

For the period of medieval times the case study of Sagunto in Spain is chosen. Sagunto

might not be a commonly known example for a medieval city, but it can be compared to other

European cities, because of its convergent development that can be seen in the roman

background, the economical and socio-cultural characteristics and its urban layout.

Case study: Sagunto

Sagunto was founded and walled by Celtiberians around 500 BC. The town prospered because

of the trade relations with Greek colonists and the Roman Empire. In spite of the destruction,

the roman influence can be still seen today at monumental expressions like the ruins of the

roman circus, the reconstructed roman theatre and the castle on top of the hill, around which the

old town is arranged. In 1098 the Moorish occupation caused a re-flourishing of the town

(Ibáñez, 2012). The Moorish dominance was disrupted by the recapture by the Spanish troops

(Reconquista) and was followed by a period of comparatively stagnation in medieval times.

Nevertheless, there was a peaceful coexistence of Jews, Moors and Christians and a diversified

social structure within the borders of the fortifications, which channeled growth enough to cause

that densification typical for medieval towns.

Even though in the 19th and 20th c. warfare resulted in the destruction of the built

environment, the urban tissue stayed persistent. The preserved urban fabric is characterized by a

sequence of small squares, connected by curved streets that form urban blocks, which embed

housing with small courtyards and churches. The aforementioned differentiated social structure

within the medieval city can not only be found in the spatial separation of crafts and services,

but it is also exposed in the built environment. Two different types of parcels, houses and

connected ways of living can be distinguished; the gothic house and the court-house.

The life in the gothic house is organized along a vector going from the street to the inside of

the block (see Figure 3). The first floor is meant for manufacturing purposes and main living

room, while the second floor has secondary rooms for example for servants. On the contrary the

life in the court-house is organized circularly around an inner court (see figure 3). The first floor

is an entrance floor with stables, but it is not generally meant for living. It is a representative

floor, which could be accessed through a main staircase located next to the inner court. No

manufacturing function is found in the building, but some trade or commercial activities may be

489

present. In comparison the gothic house, it appears to be a more simple building for the working

middle class that allowed for manufacturing and could be gradually expanded inside the block

for needed additions. Meanwhile, the court house is a representative building for the upper

class, with better living conditions. It uses the full plot size at once and incremental expansions

for subsidiary buildings are not possible or needed like in the gothic house (de Armiño, 2012).

The chosen urban block is centrally located, its urban context is characterized by curved

streets, main squares and churches and it contains the ‘puerta de la judería’, the gate to the

Jewish district as well. It has a representative scale and combines both types of the described

houses.

Figure 2. The urban block in Medieval City. The case of Sagunto (based on de Armiño

2012 and field study).

490

Figure 3. The gothic house (left) and the court-house (right).

Industrial city

Industrial revolution became the reason of the first mass rural migration in the history of

urbanization because of the many work opportunities offered by factories and big companies

inside the cities. The medieval city at that time had limited – if any – space for new housing

and, in parallel, there was a remarkable population increase. Lack of housing was the main issue

of that time and therefore city planning aimed to create adequate housing in the cities. As a

result, cities grew up rapidly beyond the walls in order to accommodate the industrial workers

and their families.

The unpredictable increase of the population led to compact cities where the car became

dominant in the streets. Problems like the lack of water supply, bad quality of living and

pollution due to industry in cities caused the negative aspects of the industrial city, i.e. spread of

diseases, unhealthy environments and poverty. Concerning the housing planning issue, cities

conformed with the return of the grid. The use of gridiron planning goes along with the

rationalism of modern time and the increasing influences of scientific theories. Orthogonal

planning of streets and blocks was, at that time, the easy and quick solution. The city layout

became regular and strictly organized once more, with almost equal plot division. Kostof notes

that this era projected the “modern metropolis as a limitless, gridded city extension of

stringently regulated private development”. (Kostof, 1991:151)

The urban blocks were closed with a rectangular or squared perimeter whereas inside there

were courtyards. The buildings were similar in type and form, relatively high (four to six

stories), compact and mixed-use at the ground floor. It is essential to point out that one can

observe a repeated image of the urban tissue outside the inner medieval city.

The case study chosen for the industrial city is Berlin; a typical example in the relevant

literature and a historical urban extension in Europe. Berlin’s present urban layout is the result

of the industrial era.

Case Study: Berlin

Berlin was the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia during the industrial revolution with a high

population and economic growth at the time. Berlin became the center of Germany and a

concentration magnet for new settlers from rural Germany.

In 1862 the Land Use Plan of the Environments of Berlin (Bebauungsplan der Umgebungen

Berlins) is proposed by James Hobrecht, the chief of the urban planning police (Baupolizei).

Hobrecht was an advocator of social mixture and through his plan he offered “a foundation for

the development of both working-class as well as bourgeois districts.” (Bodenschatz, 2010:20)

The plan proposed a circulation network with wide streets (25-39 m), radial streets which led to

the centre, and a ring road. The streets surrounded big urban blocks with rectangular or

orthogonal shape. The urban planning police issued in 1853 building regulations

(Baupolizeiordnung) concerning the construction of housing in the blocks. These regulations

regarded an authorization of up to six floor apartment buildings with a maximal height of 22m

491

and a minimum courtyard area of 5,34 m x 5,34 m.

Tenements were generally built by large landowners or private companies known as

Terraingesellschaften, the forerunners of housing associations (Wohnungsbaugesellschaften) or

today’s real estate developers, which “used the building grounds to the greatest possible extent”

(Sonne, 2009:6). As a result the urban blocks were built extremely compact with small

courtyards, creating the phenomenon called as Mietkaserne (tenements); „the perfect matrix of

slum landlords and abusive congestion” (Kostof, 1991:152).

The urban planning police in 1897 issued building regulations which were by far a better

version of those in 1853. The example selected here illustrates these kinds of blocks. Berlin

Block is a typical example of compactness and high density with open spaces that had no

greenery often used for meeting places for the inhabitants or for crafts and workshops.

Figure 4. The urban block in Industrial City. The case of Berlin (based on Stübben 1907,

Hegemann 1988 and Reitzig 2005).

492

Modern City, early years of 20th. century

During the early years of 20th. c. began a systematic criticism of the industrial city, under the

pressure of a radical immediate action that seemed to be of need after the first World War.

Hence, the modern city appeared as the medicine of the unhealthy city. The goal was to improve

the quality of living away from the industries and propose plans which promote the symbiosis of

living and working in nature.

Ebenezer Howard was the founder of the movement of Garden Cities, also called satellite

towns or “self-reliant communities” (Kostof, 1991:76). Closed and perimeter urban blocks were

disintegrated. The plans of Garden Cities show an irregular city planning, where greenery seems

to be the most important urban element. Few main roads, sprawled housing buildings facing cul-

de-sacs and a parkway, which separated the commercial activities were the basic principles of

the urban tissue.

Meanwhile, in the rest of Europe many extension plans were designed because of the

ongoing rapid urban growth and new transportation technology. Centres were overcrowded and

there was a mass need of housing. The solution was to expand quickly in the periphery.

Hausmann’s monumental “modernization” of Paris during 1853 and 1870 influenced later

extensions plans in other countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, etc., where one observes

wide streets, big urban blocks and similar facades on the buildings.

In late of 19th c. the evolution of social housing occurred in Vienna. “Vienna was again the

first city to establish a competition for workers’ housing as reformed urban blocks.” (Sonne,

2009:74) The perimeter closed urban block with greenery in the inner open space (Hof) was the

typical characteristic of low-cost housing for the working class. Later, the same planning

principle was adopted to all the new structures for social housing, the so-called Gemeindebauten

(municipality social housing complexes), and a new housing model occured, the so-called

socialist „socialist neighbourhoods“ (Sonne, 2009:78).

The case study selected for the urban block of early years of 20th. c. is the superblock of

Transvaalbuurt, in Amsterdam. This example illustrates the first intension of modern planning

to propose open blocks in the city’s layout (see Panerai, 2004); a revolution, which influenced

many social housing projects in Europe.

Case study: Transvaalbuurt, Amsterdam

After the approval of the Housing Act in 1902, which proposed loans to housing associations

and supported the development of controlled housing production, the city of Amsterdam started

to realize subsidized housing developments. Susanne Komossa observes that “the notion of

‘public housing’ as a social ideal and a task for social reform was born” (Komossa, 2010:63).

The largest public project was the extension of the south part of the city by Hendrik Petrus

Berlage. Berlage made an initial plan in 1905 but in the end it was not implemented. Finally, his

plan Plan Zuid (Plan South) in 1917 was accepted by the city of Amsterdam, which consisted of

a new ring railway, orthogonal regular grid, wide streets and mostly long perimeter superblocks

(50mx200m) for social housing. What we have already examined in the urban extension plans

of industrial city, can also be observed in the case of Berlage; “a clear structure of the new

quarters, a clear-cut separation from the old development and a station opposed to the old city”

(Panerai et al, 2004:70).

The selected urban block is the superblock Transvaalbuurt designed by Hendrik Petrus

Berlage, Jan Gratama and G. Versteeg. Transvaalburt is a social housing complex built between

1903 until 1931.

The layout of the buildings shows the tendency to split the superblock into smaller urban

blocks. In this case, the superblock has been divided in six smaller perimeter blocks which are

connected with secondary streets and open spaces. „This hybrid urban form was transformed

into urban standard in the south of Amsterdam” (Sonne, 2009:91). The block has turned from a

large elongated closed superblock to a combination of smaller open blocks. Green spaces

493

located inside the blocks were accessed by the public community. As Komossa notes: “the

public realm became the collective realm” (Komossa, 2010:66).

Figure 5. The urban block in early years of 20th. century. The case of Transvaalbuurt

(based on Sonne 2009 and Komossa 2010).

The buildings which face the main streets are higher, whereas the lower buildings are located

at secondary streets and along the canal. These continuing facades was a typical characteristic of

early modern planning, showcasing the important of the street walls. Komossa explains: “The

composition of the façades emphasized the continuity of the street walls and the urban space

rather than the volume of the actual block, and this was accentuated by having façades that were

494

identical in height.” (Komossa, 2010:71)

At first glance Transvaalburt seems to be a large housing complex with a modern urban

layout. Although the inner area of the neighborhood had more of a village character, by

observing the dimensions of the united buildings one can conclude that the urban set is the city.

Transvaalbuurt is like a small city, a combination of metropolis and town (see Sonne, 2009:88-

91). To sum up, this kind of blocks are the highlight of early modern planning due to the fact

that they integrate spatial and social characteristics in a great balance.

Modern City, middle years of 20th. century

This period refers to clear division of activities and to the contradiction against the traditional

compact - mixed use city. Buildings were sprawled in the open space but in the same time they

were highly dense in height. Green spaces were located through the buildings and streets

dominated the city layout as the car became the essential transportation means of mobility.

Ernst May together with other architects at that time e.g. Walter Gropius, Bruno Taut, Otto

Haesler, etc., were representatives of the so called Neues Bauen (New Building) movement.

Ernst May’s new plan of New Frankfurt for social housing in 1925-1930 is a typical example of

modern urban planning in Germany. “May created a synthesis between the environment of the

garden cities and the vocabulary of modern architecture” (Panerai et al., 2004:108). Housing

was constructed in rows which were repeated, so as to be built fast and to form a continuous

image of the urban blocks. New residential districts (Siedlungen) show the homogeneity and the

functionalism of the new urban blocks, whereas an obvious denial to compact mixed-use closed

perimeter block. The modern model of housing proposed a new urban development based on

healthy sprawled identical housing and “on the affirmation of an internal logic, independent of

the contextual conditions of the site.” (Panerai et al., 2004:110).

During the same period in 1924, Le Corbusier, the pioneer of modern movement, wrote the

book Urbanisme, a contentious manifesto about city planning. He expresses his disagreements

concerning traditional cities, which represent disorder, chaos and danger (see Le corbusier,

1971). He proposes plans for the contemporary city, where linearity, street network, open space

and mass housing are the main planning principles. (see Le Corbusier, 1971). Some years later

in 1943 The Charta of Athens was published and until today it remains one of the most

controversial documents of the modern movement concerning the functions of modern cities.

The suggested model of urbanism is quite a contrast to the importance of the historical city, and

promotes architecture instead of urban morphology. The core idea of the document splits the

city into zones and four basic functions i.e. dwelling, recreation, work and transportation.

Unité d‘Habitation has been chosen for the last typology of the urban block for one essential

reason. It is the perfect example of decomposition of the traditional perimeter block and a

newborn type of urban from.

Case study: Unité d‘Habitation 1947-1952

By studying on the example of Unité d‘Habitation one can not refer anymore to a composition

of several elements but only to a predominant characteristic: the building or the solitaire.

Scholars like Panerai describe that Le Corbusier’s planning represents the “negation of the city”

or “the death of the urban block”. (see Panerai et al, 2004:121) Le Corbusier believed that the

materials of urbanism are the technical possibilities of the machinist era and the nature,

especially the 24-hour solar cycle. Moreover, he accredited the primary role to the architect-

urban planner, who is the regulator of the new modern city.

In his book Urbanisme, he notes the planning principles based on which he built Unité

d‘Habitation: “It is a simple matter to build urban dwellings away from streets, without small

internal courtyards and with the windows looking on to large parks; and this whether our

housing schemes are of the type with “set-backs” or built on the “cellular” principle”. (Le

495

Corbusier, 1971:163)

Unité d‘Habitation was designed to house 1600 residents in 337 units in 18 floors with an

accessible public roof terrace; 165 m long, 24 m deep and 56 m height (see Fondation Le

Corbusier). It is a monolithic high built unit, set-back in the middle of the plot, west-east

oriented and based on pillars which form a pilotis. Open space is full of trees, greenery and

walking paths, whereas parking areas dominate the urban environment.

Figure 6. The urban block in middle years of 20th. century. The case of Unité d‘Habitation

(based on Panerai et al 2004, Janson and Krohn 2007 and Fondation Le Corbusier).

The urban block is totally opened; it has lost its traditional urban form and its interconnected

social characteristics. The building is a part of a large urban block, where solitaires are seemed

to be accidentally arranged in the plot. Spatial characteristics and social qualities are packed into

a solitaire, into “a building that is a town” (Krohn in Janson and Krohn, 2007:7). Panerai and his

colleagues observe another interpretation of Unité d‘Habitation; the vertical urban block. “The

traditional elements of the block are cut up, rethought, reorganized in that new unit, which

appears to us as a vertical urban block, where all relationships are inverted and contradicted”

496

(Panerai et al, 2004:117-118). Public facilities like kindergarten and nursery are incorporated in

the building as a mixed-use functional structure. Other facilities like commercial, post office or

gym are located inside the unit as well. This small dense city, hidden inside a concrete mega-

silhouette, is like a secret place, which only the inhabitants know about it.

Conclusions

The first impression revealed by the comparison of the analyzed case studies is clearly the

obvious difference in size. While greek polis and medieval city are still defined by a

comprehensible dimension for the human observer, from then onwards the urban block has

grown to an object of the implemented plan. Step by step the human scale was replaced by a

hardly at once perceptible, a rather elusive urban element.

Additionally, the remarkable change in terms of density can be emphasized after comparing

the diagrams of built and open space. The formerly clearly prevailing build-up area decreased in

a gradual manner, while the open space became a larger and better useable part of the urban

block - firstly within the block, and in modern times as a surrounding of the solitaires. This

effect was accompanied by an increase of plot size, the improvement of techniques and

materials as well as the resulting enhancement of the building typologies and the expansion of

the urban block itself.

What is essential to point out is the transformation of the morphology of the blocks. Until the

timeframe of the industrial city, urban blocks were formed by a closed perimeter space

subdivided in plots. In the early modern city, the block is formed by a large collective unity of

elongated buildings or smaller open blocks, where the inside of the block “becomes a passing

place, accessible from outside” (Panerai, 2004:130). Until this point in history, urbanism was

defined by the adjustment of the buildings inside the urban block as the main element of the

urban fabric. This process of space production was replaced by the free standing solitaire in later

modern city; the block is dissolved. The building, as a product of an architectural model, stands

in an undefined space with no contact to the streetscape by setting back.

The historical comparison shows the persistence of mixed uses within the block until the

separation of working and living since the late industrial revolution and the rise of social

housing. This went along with a decrease of the importance and liveliness of residential areas by

their functional separation. However living conditions were improved, although through

focusing on the middle class, even the urban poor gained. Additionally the change of

transportation systems caused an increase of quality of life. In contrary, this led to the

emergence of transition spaces within a build environment that was not planned as a socio-

cultural space of interacting individuals.

All in all, spatial aspects are based on the limits of the environment, the technical

possibilities and the social, cultural, political and economical conditions. In a continuous change

the interaction of requirements and opportunities promote the transformation of the build

environment. Due to this belief, social and spatial characteristics are perceived as

complementing and interacting to one another.

Although the examples of Priene, Sagunto, Berlin, Transvaalbuurt and Unité d‘Habitation

represent a long timeframe of the history, the research shows straightaway that urban forms

have not transformed in the way that social relationships have changed. The metamorphosis of

the forms of the blocks follows a relative normal process, whereas the alterations of social

characteristics are always consequences of other complex relationships and systems in the city

(e.g. economical aspects). In the final analysis, the five case studies showed that european cities

have similarities, but also differences, in both their morphological and social character.

497

References Armiño, L.A. de (2012) ‚Historic City Form: Structure, Elements and References’, Studies on Urban

Form 2012-13 (Polytechnic University of Valencia). Benevolo, L. (1980) The History of the City (MIT Press). Bodenschatz, H. (2010) Berlin Urban Design: A Brief History (DOM publishers, Berlin) Fischer, T. (1920) Sechs Vorträge über Stadtbaukunst. (R. Oldenbourg, München und Berlin) Foundation of the Hellenic World (FHW) (2012) A Walk Through Ancient Priene

(http://www.tholos254.gr/projects/priene/en/index.html) accessed 10 March 2013. Fondation Le Corbusier (No date) Unité d‘habitation, Marseille, France, 1945 (www.fondationlecorbusier.fr/corbuweb/morpheus.aspx?sysId=13&IrisObjectId=5234&sysLanguage=e

n-en&itemPos=58&itemCount=78&sysParentId=64&sysParentName=home) accessed 15 October 2013.

Hegemann, W. (1988), first published (1930) Das steinerne Berlin, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 4th edition, Bauwelt Fundamente 3.

Hilberseimer, L. (1944) The new city (P.Theobald, Chicago). Hilberseimer, L. (1955) The nature of cities. Origin, growth, and decline, pattern and form, planning

problems (P.Theobald, Chicago). Hoepfner, W. and Schwandner, E.-L. (1986) Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, (Dt.

Kunstverl, München). Höpfner, W. (1997) ‘ Η Πολεοδομία της κλασσικής περιόδου (The Urbanism of the classical period)’, Αρχαιολογία & Τέχνες (Archaeology & Arts) 63, 25- 39.

Ibáñez, C.F. (2012) Sagunto (Anton van der Wyngaerde, 1563) (http://sites.cardenalcisneros.es/ciudadarte/2012/05/09/sagunto-wyngaerde-1563/) accessed 13 November 2013.

Janson, A. and Krohn, C. (2007) Le Corbusier Unité d'Habitation. Marseille (Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart/London)

Komossa S. (2010) The Dutch urban block and the public realm: Models, rules, ideals (Vantilt Publishers, Nijmegen)

Kostof S. (1991) The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings through history , (Thames & Hudson Ltd, London).

Panerai, P., Castex, J. and Depaule, J.-C. (2004) Urban forms: The death and life of the urban block (Architectural Press, Oxford)

Reitzig, M. (2005) Berlin-Wedding in der Zeit der Hochindustrialisierung (1885-1914), Eine gegenwartsbezogene Stadtteilanalyse (PhD Thesis), Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Geschichtswissenschaften (http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/reitzig-markus-2006-02-10/HTML/chapter3.html) accessed 13 August 2013.

Rossi, A. (1984) The Architecture of the City (MIT Press). Saalman, H. (1968) Medieval Cities: Planning and Cities (George Braziller, New York). Sonne, W. (2009) ‘Dwelling in the metropolis: Reformed urban blocks 1890 –1940 as a model for the

sustainable compact city’, Progress in Planning 72, 53–149. Stübben, J. (1907) Der Städtebau (A. Kröner) Weber, M. (1986) The City (The Free Press)

The research is being funded by IKY Fellowship of Excellence for Postgraduate Studies in Greece - SiemensProgram.