Tegenlicht - De Eeuw van de Stad

Prachtige afleveringen over de hedendaagse stad en de toekomst. In de aflevering over Amsterdam wordt Amsterdam vergeleken met steden als New York, Los Angeles en Frankfurt in de politiek-economische en stedenbouwkundige context.

Links:

Amsterdam Make-over 2040
VPRO Tegenlicht

De Eeuw van de Stad

Lobotomie, Automonument, Wolkenkrabber

Rem Koolhaas noemt in het boek Delirious New York het fonomeen lobotomy. Dit is de chirurchische term in een operatie waarbij de zogenaamde ‘hersenkwab’ wordt verwijderd. Dit wordt gedaan om gedachteprocessen te scheiden van emoties om verschillende geestelijke storingen te voorkomen. Dit proces vergelijkt Rem Koolhaas met het scheiden van het interieur en exterieur van wolkenkrabbers: “In this way the Monolith spares the outside World the agonies of the continuous changes raging inside it. It hides everyday life.” (Koolhaas, 1978) Een wolkenkrabber hoeft nu niet de continue veranderende accommodaties uit te drukken in zijn gevel zoals volgens Koolhaas vaak in Westerse Architectuur wordt verlangd.

In hetzelfde hoofdstuk introduceert Koolhaas de term ‘Automonument’. Hij stelt dat een gebouw met de grootte en het volume van een wolkenkrabber automatisch een monument is. Hij gaat daarin verder en stelt dat het Automonument ‘het monument van de 20^e eeuw’ is en zijn puurste vorm de wolkenkrabber. . . “It is a solipsism, celebrating only the fact of its disproportionate existence, the shamelessness of its own process of creation.” (Koolhaas, 1978)

Door architectonische lobotomie kan de wolkenkrabber puur ‘een container van stedelijkheid’ zijn. (Heynen, 2004). De wolkenkrabber perst onsamenhangende stedelijkheid samen als een condensator. Het kan totaal verschillende functies in zich verenigen die op zich niks met elkaar of de wolkenkrabber van doen hebben. De wolkenkrabber is door zijn grootte autoritair genoeg om onveranderlijk de tijd te doorstaan. De schaal is de schaal van de metropool. De wolkenkrabber geeft een monumentaal 20^e eeuws stadsgezicht. De wolkenkrabber is het betekenisvolle antwoord op de stedelijke chaos van de moderniteit.

Heynen, H. (2004). Dat is Architectuur. Rotterdam: 010.

Koolhaas, R. (1978). Delirious New York. New York: The Monacelli Press, Inc. .

Summary of the introduction on Modernity in the book "Architectural Positions" (Part 2)

This article is the second part of my summary from the introduction in the book Architectural Positions. In this part there is a description of the 'public sphere' and the connection with 'public spaces'. As said before: 'public space' is a major part of the 'public sphere' and therefore the public sphere is very interesting while studying cities of today.

The public sphere – Gemeinschaft in absentia

Marshall Berman writes in 1982 a book on modernity: All That is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity. Quote: “To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world – and at the same time threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are.” (Berman, 1982)

Many philosophers refer to the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies who already in 1887 describes the social association Gesellschaft in opposition to Gemeinschaft. In a Gesellschaft people live together without being essentially united as in a Gemeinschaft: “In Gemeinschaft they stay together in spite of everything that separetes them; in Gesellschaft they remain separate in spite of everything that unites them.” (Tönnies, 1887) Further Tönnies states that the association Gemeinschaft is found mainly in rural areas and the association Gesellschaft is found mainly in urban environments. Remarkable detail is that Tönnies addresses the most important means regulation the Gesellschaft are contracts and money. (Tönnies, 1887)

The French socialist Emile Durkheim makes a difference between ‘mechanical solidarity’ and ‘organic solidarity’. Mechanical solidarity exists of a repetition of similar segments with a homogeneous group identity. Organic solidarity is based on the differences between individuals by an increasing process of specialization of social roles, professions and occupations.

The German sociologist Georg Simmel writes on individuality and modernity: “the self preservation of certain personalities is bought at the price of devaluating the whole objective world... It drags one’s own personality down into the same worthlessness. “ (Simmel, 1903)

The American urban sociologist Louis Wirth continues: “Modern urban society is the product of a complex interplay of roles”. This makes it possible to participate in different social circles without truly getting to know anyone. Besides that there are very different people living together in a very small area. This means that one is constantly in the company of strangers. (Wirth, 1938)

According to the authors the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman states about modernity: “The promise of liberation from tradition, of individual freedom, and of self realization, a promise which is an inherent part of modernity, comes at a high price. After all, this freedom goes hand in hand with the loss of security, of tacit, shared opinions, and of social ties and shared sentiments, all of which were central to traditional ways of life.”

Public Space: a new mode of social organization

The debate about ‘public space’ is closely related to the debate on the ‘public sphere’ and the ‘public domain’. The term ‘public domain’ is used in the distinction between public and private domain and refers in the text to actual spaces. The ‘public sphere’ refers also to a specific set of practices and is according to the authors often linked to the debate on the development of Western democracy.

Public Sphere

Freitag, Bauman and Habermas agree that the most characteristic element of modernity is the new public sphere. This public sphere is according to Freitag characterized by a new mode of social reproduction. This means that the traditional symbolic and cultural spheres which regulated society are replaced by a debate about the proper organization of society and the proper form of community. This debate takes place in actual public spaces but is also transmitted by new media: newspapers, radio, television and so forth. (And I think the internet is a very important medium nowadays)

Public domain

During the French revolution there was a declaration made defining the modern public sphere for the first time: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, 1798) This document introduces a distinction between public and private domain based on three points:

1. Ownership. The public domain consists of spaces under possession of the government: streets, squares, parks and some public buildings. The private domain consists of private property: land, shops, offices and interior spaces.

2. Accessibility. “The public domain is accessible to all, at every moment of the day.” The private domain is characterized by restrictions.

3. Purpose. The public domain serves the public interest and has a collective purpose. The private domain serves the interests of individuals or a private body like families, businesses and organizations.

But in fact there are many spaces in which the relationship between public and private is more complex.

Berman, M. (1982). All That is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity. New York: Penguin Books.

Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. (1798).

Simmel, G. (1903). Die Grossstädte und das Geistesleben. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44 , 1-24.

De Brakke Grond

www.debrakkegrond.nl

De Brakke Grond is the name of the Flemish Cultural Centre at the Nes in Amsterdam. The Nes is an allay close to Damsquare and Rokin in the historical centre. From the 17th century to the present day the Nes flourish as an accumulation of cultural activities unkown by tourists and visited by a broad, mainly dutch public. The Brakke Grond is topic of my graduation project in which I will reconsider the architecture of this centre, the square, the Nes, and the surrounding historical centre of Amsterdam.

Anthology of Optimism

François Bucher is an Colombian artist, living and working in New York. He was asked by Pieter de Buysser and Jacob Wren to contribute in their 'Anthology of Optimism'. This image is his contribution.

“An Anthology of Optimism is a pre-emptive celebration of a critical optimism we tentatively hope will increase in the twenty-first century.”

This sentence is the opening of the lettre written to Francois Bucher and all kinds of writers, artists, thinkers, scientists, politicians, business people, in which they were asked for a personal reply on the subject: 'critical optimism'. The lettre and the reaction are part of, what they call, an 'Anthology of Optimism' can be found on the website:

www.anthologyofoptimism.com

The show An Anthology of Optimism was also part in short sketches, video and oneliners, of the composed theater performance of the same name at 'De Brakke Grond'. I think they adress the term critical optimism to critic pessimism. They state that pessimism is a defense meganism for humans to not get hurt. The quote someone else in Dutch:

"Optimisme is de rouw van het Pessimisme..."

Summary of the introduction on Modernity in the book "Architectural Positions" (Part 1)

The authors of the book Architectural Positions are Tom Avermaete and Klaske Havik. Tom Avermaete is an architect and researcher with a special interest in the contemporary public realm and the architecture of the city. Klaske Havik is architect and writer and also involved with the section Architecture and Modernity at the TUDelft.

I think the introduction of this book gives a very clear overview of the thoughts about modernity by the most important thinkers on this topic related to the public sphere. Because public space is an major part of the public sphere these theories are very interesting while studying the city of today.

Schiphol

The first alinia the airport Schiphol is being described as a new build city because it offers all kinds of services one could find in a city. The services are being listed: shops, hotels, offices, bars and restaurants; schilphol has its own partition of the Rijksmuseum and a branch of the Salvation Army taking care of the homeless. Besides that there is a Schiphol-police force, a prison and even a mortuary. The centre of the AirportCity is Schiphol Plaza. This space has everything which makes a urban space appealing. It is full of shops, restaurants, bars and hotels. Besides that it is open 24 hours a day and totally sheltered from the weather. It is a space which is always clean and safe by its tight security services and airport police.

The question arises: is this space part of the public domain? Can a space monitored by cameras and mechanisms be a public space? The authors address the following idea about junkies, beggars and rough sleepers: “they hardly dare to enter the modern cathedrals of steel and glass”.

The anthropologist Marc Augé qualifies these new spaces as “non-places”. He writes: “Non-places are spaces of transport and transit that are lacking any historical significance and strong symbolism. If a place can be defined as relational historical and concerned with identity, then a space which cannot be defined as relational historical or concerned with identity will be a non-place.” (Augé, 1995) His statement is that these places does not promote a public experience. They are not capable of bringing people together like cities’ traditional public spaces can!

The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas already stated in 1962 in his work Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit that the public domain is under constant pressure from all sorts of forces and even risks vanishing completely. (Habermas, 1962) The question is addressed: “When a space is defined by restrictions, to what extent are we still free agents?” Following Habermas Michael Sorkin addresses: “The effort to reclaim the city is the struggle of democracy itself. “ (Sorkin, 1992)

They authors address the essential questions on this topic: What influence does architecture have? How can architecture accommodate and represent public life? In order to search for answers one should study the public sphere in the context of modernity. This is for the following reason: “Modernity has affected the way in which architecture approaches the public sphere.”

Modernity

While talking about modernity one should be specific about the difference of the terms ‘modernization’, ‘modernity’ and ‘modernism’. Modernization refers to the process of innovation. Modernity is the experience of modernization, it is the condition arising from technical and socio-economic innovation. Modernism refers to the artistic and intellectual reflection on modernity.

Another important term according modernity is ‘normalization’. Normalization refers to the reorganization of society by new common norms. Modernization caused “a search for a great, new rational world order.” Rational control, structuring, and regulation of life are the keywords.

The authors refer to Michel Foucault if they state that “modern society maintain the illusion of a perfectible world.” Humans who behave unpredictably, irrationally, or in a uncivilized way are being re-educated in specialized institutions: prisons, workhouses and boarding schools. (Foucault, 1963)

Modernity and its stages

According to the Dutch philosopher René Boomkens there are four “historical and philosophical stages of modernity”:

The 1st stage starts in the mid-nineteenth century. This was a time of new inventions, scientific breakthroughs and the rise of industry.

The 2nd stage was the period between the world wars. There was a process of liberation from the past, progress, aim at the future and emancipation. There was a strong utopian believe the perfectibility of society. The reaction on this movement was worried about a return to barbarism.

The 3rd stage was more diffuse. There was a growth of economical prosperity and social mobility but there was also a an increasing process of individualization.

The 4th stage is postmodernity. A claim that modernity brought not only freedom but also alienation and social exclusion. The destructive and volatile aspects of modernity are being enlightened.

- Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. New York: Verso.
- Avermaete, T. en Havik, K. (2009). Architectural Positions - Architecture, Modernity and the Public Sphere: An Everyday Triad. . Amsterdam: SUN publishers.
- Boomkens, R. (1998). Een drempel-wereld. Moderne ervaring en stedelijke openbaarheid.Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
- Foucault, M. (1963). Naissance de la clinique . Paris: PUF.
- Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. . Darmstadt: Luchterhand.
- Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a Theme Park. New York : Hill & Wang.

Samenvatting van het essay 'The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered’ van Louis Sullivan

De samenvatting is gemaakt aan de hand van de ingekorte en vertaalde publicatie in het boek Dat is Architectuur. (Hilde Heynen, 2004) De oorspronkelijke tekst is gepubliceerd in 1896. (Sullivan, 1896)

Sullivan begint met een korte omschrijving van de ‘lagere en wilde hartstochten’ oftewel de materialistische en maatschappelijke situatie waaruit de kantoortoren is ontstaan. Verschillende maatschappelijke functies zouden zich bundelen en de kantoortoren is de oplossing om deze te huisvesten. (Uit het essay wordt niet duidelijk welke maatschappelijke functies Sullivan bedoeld.) Daarnaast is de kantoortoren noodzakelijk voor “business” en de aanhoudende bevolkingsgroei in de grote steden en de daarmee overvol rakende stadscentra. Tevens noemt hij in het kort twee essentiële technische aspecten die de wolkenkrabber mogelijk maakten: de uitvinding van de lift en de innovaties in de staalbouw.

De vraag die Sullivan centraal stelt in het essay is:

Hoe aan de kantoortoren “iets mee te geven van de elegantie van die hogere gevoelens en culturele waarden die door deze lagere en wildere hartstochten gedragen worden?”

In het antwoord op deze vraagt begint Sullivan met de benoeming van de 5 onderdelen van de algemene kantoortoren:

1. Een kelder als machineruimte,

2. een begane grond voor instellingen als winkels en banken,

3. een gemakkelijk toegankelijke eerste verdieping,

4. een onbepaald aantal identieke kantoorverdiepingen,

5. en een zolder als fysiologische afsluiting van het gebouw.

Daarnaast moet er een gemeenschappelijke hoofdingang zijn voor alle bewoners en bezoekers van het gebouw.

In de volgende alinea wordt het exterieur van de kantoortoren omschreven:

1. De begane grond heeft een opvallende hoofdentree en een royale weelderige opzet,

2. de eerste verdieping wordt eveneens royaal opgezet, zei het iets bescheidener,

3. de kantoorverdiepingen hebben gelijke vensters

4. de zolderverdieping is met grote muurvlakken, een imponerend gewicht, de bekroning.

Maar deze regels alleen zo stelt Sullivan, hoeven nog niet per se een oplossing te bieden voor ‘het probleem’. De subvraag is: “wat is het belangrijkste kenmerk van dit kantoorgebouw”. Het antwoord is ongetwijfeld: ‘de hoogte’. Vervolgens omschrijft Sullivan in emotionele, gedragen termen als macht, kracht en trots; glorie, volmaaktheid en verrukking wat de hoogte van het verheven kantoorgebouw zo opwindend maakt voor de kunstenaarsziel. De architect moet als kunstenaar denken en de hoogte volmaakt weergeven.

Om het vraagstuk definitief op te lossen moet het worden verheven tot het niveau van de “serene filosofische beschouwing”. Daar wordt de toren vergeleken met de klassieke zuil en de drie-eenheden in de natuur en de kunst. In deze theorieën komt één gedachte steeds naar voren: “de kantoortoren mag niet misbruikt worden om architectonische kennis, in de encyclopedische zin van het woord, tentoon te spreiden terwijl dit in de praktijk vaan het geval is.

Dit is het moment waarop Sullivan de vinger op de kern van ‘de zaak’ weet te leggen: het antwoord ligt in de natuur! De natuur drukt onveranderlijk het innerlijk uit in het uiterlijk voorkomen. “Onophoudelijk krijgt het wezen der dingen vorm in de materie”. Het leven zoekt zijn vormen in volmaakte harmonie met zijn behoeften. Oftewel: “altijd volgt de vorm de functie, dat is de wet. Als de functie niet verandert, verandert ook de vorm niet”. Dus moeten we als architect een beroep doen op ingeboren intuïtie en gevoel om deze ‘wet’ na te leven. Het gaat om de natuurlijke uitdrukkingswijze die ons op de goede weg brengt, en niet de academies die in staat zijn de ervaring van de natuur in ons ‘te verstikken’.

- Hilde Heynen, A. L. (2004). Dat is Architectuur. Rotterdam: 010.
- Sullivan, L. (1896). The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Lippincott's Magazine , 403-409.